Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment Other titles from the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Life-Cycle Management Hunkeler, Saur, Rebitzer, Finkbeiner, Schmidt, Jensen, Stranddorf, Christiansen 2004 Scenarios in Life-Cycle Assessment Rebitzer and Ekvall, editors 2004 Life-Cycle Assessment o f Metals Dubreuil, editor 2004 Life-Cycle Assessment and SETAC: 1991—1999 15 LCA publications on CD-ROM 2003 Code o f Life-Cycle Inventory Practice de Beaufort-Langeveld, Bretz, van Hoof, Hischier, Jean, Tanner, Huijbregts, editors 2003 Life-Cycle Assessment in Building and Construction Kotaji, Edwards, Shuurmans, editors 2003 Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice Udo de Haes, Finnveden, Goedkoop, Hauschild, Hertwich, Hofstetter, Jolliet, Klopffer, Krewitt, Lindeijer, Miiller-Wenk, Olsen, Pennington, Potting, Steen, editors 2002
For information about SETAC publications, including SETAC’s international journals, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, contact the SETAC Administrative Office nearest you: SETAC Office SETAC Office 1010 North 12th Avenue Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67 Pensacola, FL 32501-3367 USA B-1060 Brussels, Belgium T 850 469 1500 F 850 469 9778 T 32 2 772 72 81 F 32 2 770 53 86 E [email protected] E [email protected]
www.setac.org
Environmental Quality Through Science® Working environment in I ife-cycle assessment
EDITED BY PIA BRUNN POULSEN ALLAN ASTRUP JENSEN
COORDINATING EDITOR OF SETAC BOOKS Andrew Green INTERNATIONAL LEAD ZINC RESEARCH ORGANIZATION RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, USA
PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY (SETAC)
seta£ press Cover by Kerri Charlton
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Working environment in life-cycle assessment / edited by Pia Brunn Poulsen, Allan Astrup Jensen, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-880611-68-6 1. Product life cycle—environmental aspects. 2. New products— environmental aspects. 3. Industrial ecology. I. Poulsen, Pia Brunn, 1970- II. Jensen, Allan A.
TS170.5W67 2004 658.57—dc22 2004049142
Information in this book was obtained from individual experts and highly regarded sources. It is the publishers intent to print accurate and reliable information, and numerous references are cited; however, the authors, editors, and publisher cannot be responsible for the validity of all information presented here or for the consequences of its use. Information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Mention of commercial or noncommercial products and services does not imply endorsement or affiliation by the author or SETAC. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or internal use of specific clients, may be granted by SETAC, provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA (telephone 978-750-8400). Before photocopying items for educational classroom use, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center (http://www.copyright.com). SETAC s consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from SETAC for such copying. Direct inquiries to the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 1010 North 12th Avenue, Pensacola, FL 32501-3367, USA.
© 2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) SETAC Press is an imprint of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. No claim is made to original U.S. Government works. International Standard Book Number 1-880611- 68-6 Printed in the United States of America 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 109 8 7 6 5432 1
@The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Reference Listing: Poulsen PB, Astrup AA. 2004. Working environment in life-cycle assessment. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 112 p. SETAC Publications Books published by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) provide in-depth reviews and critical appraisals on scientific subjects relevant to understanding the impacts of chemicals and technology on the environment. The books explore topics reviewed and recommended by the Publications Advisory Council and approved by the SETAC North America, Latin America, or Asia/Pacific Board of Directors; the SETAC Europe Council; or the SETAC World Council for their importance, timeliness, and contribution to multidisciplinary approaches to solving environmental problems. The diversity and breadth of subjects covered in the series reflect the wide range of disciplines encompassed by environmental toxicology, environmental chemistry, and hazard and risk assessment, and life-cycle assessment. SETAC books attempt to present the reader with authoritative coverage of the literature, as well as paradigms, methodologies, and controversies; research needs; and new developments specific to the featured topics. The books are generally peer reviewed for SETAC by acknowledged experts. SETAC publications, which include Technical Issue Papers (TIPs), workshop summaries, newsletter (SETAC Globe), and journals (Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management), are useful to environmental scientists in research, research management, chemical manufacturing and regulation, risk assessment, and education, as well as to students considering or preparing for careers in these areas. The publications provide information for keeping abreast of recent developments in familiar subject areas and for rapid introduction to principles and approaches in new subject areas. SETAC recognizes and thanks the past SETAC books editors: C.G. Ingersoll, Midwest Science Center US Geological Survey, Columbia, Missouri, USA T.W. La Point, Institute of Applied Sciences University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA B.T. Walton, US Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA C.H. Ward, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA x 7 3 3 5 9 9 9 3 ix ix xv 10 11 12 12 xiii 1 ...... Option Theexternal 1: pure WE-LCA (excludingenvironment)the Option 2: exclusionTotal ofworking environmental impacts from LCA...Option 10 3: LCA includingexternal and working environment List of Figures Summary 2.2 LCA and WE-LCA 2.3 integrate Why WE-LCA in LCA? 2.4 References ODDMUND BREKKE List ofTables Preface 2.1 The ‘complete’ LCA 3.2 Relationship to LCA3.3 applications Conclusions3.4 References 3.1 Possible options ANN-BETH ANTONSSON AND ATIE H. VERSCHOOR Aboutthe Authors ALLAN ASTRUP JENSEN AND PLA BRUNN POULSEN Chapter 3: WE-LCA: When and How Detailed Chapter 2: General Purpose of WE-LCA Chapter 1: Introduction
. Contents . Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment Chapter 4: The Experience with WE-LCA ...... 15
ANDERS SCHMIDT AND PIA BRUNN POULSEN 4.1 Definition of the different types of WE-LCA...... 15 vii 4.2 A description of the existing methods for WE-LCA...... 17 Chemiewinkel screening method...... 18
MUP chemical screening method...... 18 Assessment Life-Cycle in Environment Working ST0 chemical screening method...... 18 euroMat screening method...... 19 IVL sector method...... 19 New EDIP sector method...... 20 EDIP screening, sector, and process methods...... 21 IVF process method...... 22 4.3 Evaluation: Overall methodical differences...... 23 Screening methods...... 23 Sector methods...... 24 Process methods...... 25 Discussion of the methodologies...... 25 4.4 References...... 27
Chapter 5: Evaluation...... 29
GUNNAR BENGTSSON AND MATS KARLING 5.1 Strengths and weaknesses of existing methods...... 29 Methodological requirements...... 30 Working environmental aspects...... 32 Practicability...... 34 Data issu e s...... 34 Summary of the basic characteristics of the methods...... 36 5.2 What are the results used for?...... 36 LCA with a holistic view...... 37 Identify hot spots...... 37 Product and process development...... 37 Avoid sub-optimisations...... 38 Data for occupational safety and health management system s...... 38 5.3 Swedish survey of opinions of LCA u sers...... 39 5.4 Remarks and conclusions from a Danish workshop...... 39 5.5 References...... 40
Chapter 6: Relation to Other Tools for the Working Environment ....41
ANN-BETH ANTONSSON 6.1 Main differences between WE-LCA and other tools for the working environment...... 41 6.2 Comparisons of WE-LCA and some specific tools...... 43 Labelling of products that relate to working environment...... 43 WE-LCA and workplace assessm ent...... 44 WE-LCA and working environmental management systems...... 44 WE-LCA and environmental management system s...... 45 WE-LCA and life-cycle management...... 45 6.3 The use of information from other tools in WE-LCA...... 46 6.4 The use of data from WE-LCA in other tools...... 46 6.5 Database developments 46 6.6 References ...... 47 73 77 66 80 88 51 52 53 52 61 63 65 50 50 58 59 49 49 ...... 55 ...... PIA BRUNN POULSEN AND ANDERS SCHMIDT ANN-BETH ANTONSSON PLA BRUNN POULSEN AND ANDERS SCHMIDT waterta n k MATS KARLING AND GONNAR BENGTSSON for bus drivingcompared to environmentally classified fordiesel bus driving JORG BECKER E. E. Workingenvironmental assessment ofan aircraft drinking D. D. The new EDIP method used on thecase IVF ofsanitary fittings B. B. study IVL on ethanol produced from sorted household waste C. study of IVF chromium or paint on sanitaryfittings A: A: The new methodEDIP used on an office ch a ir 1: 1: List ofWorking Group members and attendance 7.2 ST0 chemical screening method 7.5EDIP method 7.7 process IVF method 7.3euroMat screening method 7.4 sector IVL method 7 .6 New sectorEDIP method 8.1 Recommendations 3: Description theof euroMat4: Method Case Studies 2: Members ofthe Working Group on LCA and the Working Environment JORG BECKER Chapter 8: Conclusions Appendixes Chapter 7: Relation between WE-LCA and Ordinary LCA
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment Viii 7.1MUP screening method List of Figures Figure 2-1 Interlinkage between the company activities, the environment, and the working environment...... 4 Figure 2-2 A holistic view...... 5
Figure A -l Relative contribution of materials and processes to the overall impacts from the office chair...... 68 Figure A-2 Contribution of single materials to the overall number of accidents in the life cycle of an office chair...... 69 Figure A-3 Normalised effects potential for the office chair...... 71 Figure A-4 Normalised values for accidents in the life cycle of the office chair...... 72 Figure A-5 Working environmental impacts for the whole life cycle for different alternatives...... 79 Figure A-6 Relative contribution of materials and processes to the overall impacts from the nickel-chromium-treated sanitary fitting...... 83 Figure A-7 Contribution of single materials and processes to the overall number of accidents in the life cycle of a nickel-chromium-treated sanitary fitting...... 84 Figure A-8 Differences between the powder painted and the nickel-chromium-treated fitting 84 Figure A-9 Normalised effect potentials for the nickel-chromium-treated fitting...... 85 Figure A-10 Aircraft drinking water tank, made of carbon fibre-reinforced epoxide...... 89 Figure A - ll Evaluation of the life-cycle phases raw material extraction and material production ... 90 Figure A-12 Evaluation of the life-cycle phase manufacturing, using different technologies...... 91 Figure A-13 Evaluation of the life-cycle phase recycling using different technologies...... 92 Figure A-14 Evaluation of the life cycle of the water tank with uncertainty ranges...... 92 Figure A-15 euroMat evaluation of the aircraft drinking water tank, comparing different reinforced epoxide compounds with steel...... 93
List of Tables Table 3-1 Two approaches to distinguishing separate application areas in LCA...... 12
Table 4-1 The existing methods for working environmental LC A ...... 16 Table 4-2 Basic characteristics of methods for impact assessment of the working environment...... 24
Table 5-1 The impact categories used in the different methods for WE-LCA...... 33 Table 5-2 Basic characteristics of methods for assessment of the working environment 36
Table A -l Results of IVL’s WE-LCA study for ethanol derived from household waste compared to diesel...... 75 Table A-2 Materials assessed in the case study...... 89 from the start. pres is He
InternationalJournal o LCA f PhD, Technical Vice President, FORCE MSc (eng), Project Manager, FORCE and authors the editors
1998, she has beenworking & at dk-TEKEJlTCENERGY
(LCANET), and CEC Groupe des Sages on Ecolabelling and LCA. Hewas a mem About and LCA since 1989. In 1991, he was a founding memberofthe SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee and its chairman from 1995 to 1997. He was involved in SETAC ment (LCM), and LCAand theWorking Environment. Allan chaired the organization committees for the 6th SETAC Europe Congress in Copenhagen in 1995 and LCM2001for in Copenhagen in 2001. He chaired the development theof member theof Board Societyof for Promotion LCAof Development (SPOLD), ber ofISO/TC207/SC5/WG4, who developed the ISO 14042 Life Cycle Impact the Technicalthe University Denmarkof as a research assistant purposes. In 1997, workedshe at a local OHS centre. Since ENVIRONMEhjT (now FORCETechnology)''!)! the areas she has been secretary ofthe SETAC Working Group on LCA and theWorking and in 1999 was the co-writer purchasingof guidance documents concerning the Pia Brunn Poulsen, ently chairman of the UNEP/SETAC Task Force on Development of a LCM a Handbook. of Development on Force Task UNEP/SETAC the of chairman ently Technology, has worked with work environment since 1982 European Network for Strategic Life-CycleAssessment Research and Development ofthe Editor Committee for Technology, graduated in 1996 from Technicalthe University ofDenmark in environmental chemistry and occupational health and safety (OHS). In 1996 and 1997, workedshe at on a European research project on substitution oforganic sol vents with fatty acids vegetableof oils for industrial cleaning ofLCA, environment, environm&rrt,-working and product assessment. From 1998, Environment. She workedhas with working environmentally friendlyprocurement Working Groups on ImpactAssessment, Life-Cycle Manage web-based LCA Guide for the European EnvironmentAgency. He has been a working environmental aspects purchasingof office furniture. AllanAstrup Jensen, Assessment standard, and co-editor theof Danish version. He has been a member
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment Ann-Beth Antonsson, PhD, is manager for the department for work environment and environmental management at IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm. She earned an MSc in Chemical Engineering in 1979 and a PhD in Work Science in 1991. Ann-Beth has worked at IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute since 1980, is a member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and ICOH. Her research focuses especially on management systems for the work environment and integrated management systems for OHS, environment and quality, integration of work environment and the environment, chemical health hazards, control strategies for improving the chemical work environment, and work environment in small companies. Jorg Becker was born in Cottbus (East Germany), studied at Dresden University of Technology, and finished in 1975 as engineer in the field of ergonomics and OSH. He earned a doctorate in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Moscow, Russia, after which he worked again in Dresden and Cottbus at the universities. Jorg’s special interest include the field of protection of people (workers and the general public) from environmental impacts. He has been involved in the euroMat project in the part of work environment as a criterion for materials selection. Gunnar Bengtsson is a mechanical engineer from Chalmers Technical University. He is now working at AB Volvo as director Environmental affairs for the group of companies within Volvo. Gunnar was previously employed by IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation, where he stayed for 20 years. Gunnar has been a project leader for a large number of both environment and work environment projects. He worked for several years with life cycle assessments and on to incorporate work environment in LCA. He has also been involved in the development of different ISO 14000 standards. Oddmund Brekke was born in Norway and studied medi cine for a few years before changing to biology. He took his MSc in plant physiology in Trondheim in 1987. Since 1998, he has worked with environmental research at Ostfold Re search Foundation in Fredrikstad, largely with LCA studies. Currently, he is working with a PhD project at Leiden Uni versity, The Netherlands.
WEST: theWEST: Environment Work (Swedish 2002). PhD, is scientific coordinator at FORCE did her MSc in chemistry at the Univer is is a mechanical engineer with a university 1988, he worked at the National Institute for Occupational in in LCA. Recently, washe project leader in a project for the Danish regarding EPA &Trauma atWork. He has been a project leaderwithin intervention study. He is one theof authors of ies ies at the UniversityAmsterdam, of where her was thesis titled ‘Beyond compliance; Environmental management mus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and at Stan mental management and toxics. ENVIRONMENT). He graduated in 1986 from the Uni Health in Denmark (AMI) and since 1989 has worked withall aspects LCAof at Danish technological service institutes. He has participated in several SETAC working groups on the national level, he has been a major frontrunner in de in the Danish EDIP methodology. theFor Danish Labour Inspectorate, he has developed tools workingfor a environmental purchasing policy, including tools for sityUtrecht, of the Netherlands. She did her PhD stud and toxics reduction in practice’. She did research at Eras ford University, California, USA. theFor last 10 years, she has been the directorEnvironmental of Consultancy & Management. She published several articles and executed manyprojects in the field health,of safety, and environ IVF IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation. Mats ais member theof board theof Swedish Association for Occupational Safety and Health inwest Sweden and the International Network on the Prevention Accidentsof production, organizational development, and work environment. He is currentlyworking with Enterprises safety and production by applying risk analysis in manufacturing companies: An development LCAof methodology and databases, and on development a ofnew method workingfor environmental LCA to be integrated assessment suppliersof wellas as specific products. degree in Occupational Safety and Health Engineering. He Screening ToolSeries Mats Mats Karling with a sustainable work life situation: Ademonstration project and Support of Technology (until recently, dk-TEKNIK & ENERGY versity ofCopenhagen in zoophysiology. From 1986 to velopment simplifiedof methods LCAfor and integration occupationalof health Atie Verschoor Atie Anders Schmidt,
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment XM XM presentlyworks aas Project Leader in thework life area at Preface ALLAN ASTRUP JENSEN AND
PIA BRUNN POULSEN, Assessment Life-Cycle in Environment Working
FORCE Technology
This report is the main result of a SETAC Europe working group on integration of Working Environment in life-cycle assessment (LCA) established by SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee in 1997 with a three-year mandate. The purpose of the working group was to review the existing methods for working environmental LCA (WE-LCA) and produce suggestions for a common framework for integration of working environment in LCA. The starting point of the work was the result of the previous EU Concerted Action, LCANET (Potting et al. 1997). The working group has had 6 meetings: 1) Bordeaux, France, 17 April 1998 2) Copenhagen, Denmark, 10 June 1998 3) Brussels, Belgium, 3 December 1998 4) Gothenburg, Sweden, 27 August 1999 5) Berlin, Germany, 18-19 January 2000 6) Copenhagen, Denmark, 6 June 2000 Thirteen different participants have attended the meetings. The participation is illustrated in Appendix 1. The full addresses of the presently active members are listed in Appendix 2. Several other interested persons have received agendas and other written materials during the process. Editors of the Final Report are Pia Brunn Poulsen and Allan Astrup Jensen. In the following, the main authors of the various chapters are listed. Preface Allan Astrup Jensen and Pia Brunn Poulsen, FORCE Technology (formerly dk-TEKNIK ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT) Chapter 1 Pia Brunn Poulsen and Allan Astrup Jensen, FORCE Technology Chapter 2 Ann-Beth Antonsson, Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) and Atie H. Verschoor, Environmental Consultancy and Management (ECM) Chapter 3 Oddmund Brekke, Ostfold Research Foundation (ST0) Chapter 4 Pia Brunn Poulsen and Anders Schmidt, FORCE Technology 1997;1:149-180. (IVL) Production Engineering Research (IVF) LCANET- European Network for Strategic Life-CycleAssessment Documents ResearchLCA and Development. Chapter 5 Gunnar Bengtsson and Mats Karling,Chapter The Swedish6 Institute of Ann-BethAntonsson, Swedish Environmental Research Institute References Chapter 7 Case studies are presented mostfor ofthe described methods. Jorg Becker, BrandenburgTechnical University Cottbusof PottingJ, Moller Jensen BT, AA. 1997. Work wnvironment and LCA. LCANETTheme Report.
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment Summary okn Evrnet n ieCce Assessment Life-Cycle in Environment Working
Life-cycle thinking is a new approach within the occupational area. Previously, the working environment was an issue only within the boundaries of the companies. However, nowadays many companies do understand that their activities may influence the working conditions in all parts of the life cycle. Some companies have shown interest in methods that allow inclusion of the working environment in life cycle assessment (LCA). Our aim with this report is to show the options available today for inclusion of the working environment in LCA. We do not argue that the working environment should always be included in LCA. In fact, in some cases the working environment is best handled outside LCA. However, there are situations where it is an advantage to have the option to include the working environment in LCA. With this report, we want to document that there are in fact methods available that can be used in parallel with conventional LCA methods. It is possible carry out working environmental LCA (WE-LCA) parallel to an LCA for the external environment using the same goal, scope, and basic data of the life cycle. The results are presented in a form similar to LCA results, relating to a functional unit and allowing identification of hot spots. The main limitation is availability of data, but this problem seems to decrease as methods and databases are developed. Several methods for WE-LCA have already been developed (screening methods, sector methods, and process methods), and the results of the first experiences of application of these methods are now available. Furthermore, some of the methods mentioned in this report are continuously updated and further developed. The methods described and discussed in this report are • Screening methods: Used to pinpoint the important areas in the life cycle of a product, primarily to identify whether additional study is needed: -Chemiewinkel -Danish Technology Materials Programme (MUP) -0stfold Research Foundation (ST0) -EuroMat -Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP) (combined screening, sector, and process method) Environmental Screening Tool [WEST] method) -EDIP (combined screening, sector, and process method) -Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) -EDIP (combined screening, sector, and process method) -New EDIP -Swedish Institute ofProduction Engineering Research (IVF) Work (the line businessof (typically industrial sectors). Assessment is based mostly on line with LCA for the external environment: statistical information from national sources: • • Sector methods: Based on working environmental impacts in a specific • • methods: Process Based on company- or process-specific information, in ased on the sector method can be carried out quite easily and quickly, especially Case studies have shown that it is possible to performWE-LCA on regular consumer products and to get some valuable information about the potentialimpact in the working environment during the life cycle. The show case thatstudies italso is possible to perform WE-LCAwith a reasonable effort. WE-LCA b method applied on the same case, you will find that they are identical concerning different life-cycle phases. ifa database is established and theWE-LCA is carried out alongwith LCAan ordinarythe of external environment. the most important inprocesses the life-cycle theof product. The methods complement each othervery well, because the sector method gives more detailed information about the differences between the various materials, and because the methodprocess gives detailed information about the specific production process. Use ofthe sector and process methods makes it possible to perform WE-LCAa and they can be related to the impacts theof external environment. Allocation is possible based on working time, economic value or amount theof product. When comparing the results from a process method with the results from a sector with a complete coverage theof life cycle. Furthermore, the impacts related to the Working time per functional unit can be used as an indicator ofthe importance of working environment can be aggregated theover entire life cycle theof products,
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment Introduction 1
ALLAN ASTRUP JENSEN AND PIA
BRUNN POULSEN, FORCE Technology
During the last few years, the integration of working methods and to produce environment in environmental management tools suggestions for a common has been gaining ground, including the integration framework for WE-LCA. of working environmental issues in LCA, and several In this report, WE-LCA working environmental LCA methods (WE-LCA) is reviewed and discussed. have been developed and practised. First, the purpose of WE- Life-cycle thinking is a new approach within the LCA is described, and working environmental area. Previously, the working when to use WE-LCAs environment was an issue only within the boundaries is discussed. Second, the of the companies. However, nowadays many compa experiences with exist nies do understand that their activities may influence ing WE-LCA methods the working conditions in all parts of the life cycle. are described and the “Responsible care” and life-cycle management (LCM) usability of the methods should also include responsibility to the employees in is evaluated. Several case other companies during the life cycle. studies are included in The integration of working environment in LCA has this report to exemplify been a demand from certain companies (mostly in the and inform about the existing methods. Finally, Scandinavian countries) in recent years, and WE-LCA both the relation between is likely to gain even more ground in the future, also WE-LCA and ordinary outside the Scandinavian countries. LCA and a framework for Several methods for WE-LCA have already been WE-LCA are discussed. developed, and the results of the first experiences In this report, the fol of application of these methods are now available. Therefore, there has been a need for a review of the lowing definition of WE- LCA is used. The defini existing methods in order to assess results and us ability of the methods. The purpose of the Society of tion is equivalent to the Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) definition of LCA for the external environment. Working Group on LCA and the Working Environ ment has thus been to review the existing WE-LCA
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. l ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 be be obtained ifboth the external and the working environment are includedin assessed the LCA. andWE-LCAa If is done alongwith an ordinary LCA (for theternal ex environment), performing the WE-LCA may be a question simplyof adding environment. It is possible to perform onlyWE-LCA, a depending on thescope the ofgoal LCA andcourse. of However, the most useful outcome ofthe LCA will one or more impact categories to the LCA—all depending on the goal andthe scope LCA. of In this report, the term “working environment” deals with every impactwork ofas long as it work-related.is This means that non-industrial workincluded in principle in WE-LCAthe is methods, even though one theofWE-LCA methodsthis stage atdevelopment of is restricted to assessing industrial workplaces because of a restriction in the developed database. This is, however, a question for further de WE-LCA ais compilation and evaluation ofthe inputs, outputs,working and environmentalpotential impacts on humans a productof system throughout its life WE-LCAwill not necessarily be performed along with an LCA for the external velopment ofthe database ofthis method.
2 cycle. CHAPTER I -h General ANN-BETH ANTONSSON,
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL purpose RESEARCH INSTITUTE (iVL), AND of WE-LCA ATIE H. VERSCHOOR, ECM
2.1 The ‘complete’ LCA around the facility. Pro cesses are, however, part According to ISO 14040, the general categories of of a production-con- environmental impacts include resource consump sumption chain, and they tion, human health, and ecological consequence (ISO are interlinked through 14040, 1997). It is a very ambitious goal to cover all suppliers and customers. these aspects in a reasonable way, but it should be a Every stage of the produc motivating power for the methodological develop tion and the consump ment of LCA. tion has an impact on the Usually the working environment is not included in general environment. an LCA, even if it is certain that the working environ The same holds for the ment affects human health. Therefore, in order to per working environment, form a ‘complete’ LCA fulfilling the ideal goal, inclu because the work of the sion of the working environment has to be considered. employees is seen as a However, the ‘complete’ LCA is probably an illusion resource during the whole at the current state of development. Therefore, one production—consumption has to deal with limitations in what to include in any chain, a resource which LCA study, based on both data gaps and availability impacts differently on the of methods. Also, limitations based on the goal and employees. The impacts scope of a specific study have to be dealt with. on the employees during the production activi ties are obvious, but this 2.2 LCA and WE-LCA holds true also for the For environmental improvement, it is important for a consumption and dis company to understand and reduce the environmental posal parts because many impact of its products, processes, and services. Pollu products are used in the tion prevention and cleaner production are important working life. LCA is an approaches to reduce the environmental impact. In approach to consider a commonly executed pollution prevention assess the entire impact on the ment, the system boundaries are drawn very narrowly environment of products
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 ards ards in all environmental media along the production chain en compassing not only environmen tal releases but also occupational exposures and product Thisuse’. corresponds to a broad definition of cleaner production, whichof LCA is often a part. The increased interest in cleaner production and LCA also increased the need afor holistic ap proach because measures undertaken to reduce environmental load today activities in away that will also af fect the working environment. the raw materials, and other materi for the impact on the environment The production in a company, in cluding the production processes, als and chemicals used, is the basis very often intervenewith company 1999). (Adapted fromAntonsson 1996) tions aimed0 at changing the products produced and the processes, chemicals, and as wellas as on theworking environment. During the last decade, an increasingest in reducing inter the environmental impact has occurred. The strategyfrom has the changedend-of-pipe solutions in the 1960s and the 1970s to more integrated solu materials used. The result is a focus on changes in the production and relatedpany com activities, which also will induce changes in theworking mayeffects environment. be beneficial These thefor working environment, but they mayalso result in between the environment and theworking environment cannot be isolated in this ing environment, including noise and ergonomics. In this perspective, environment from ‘cradle to grave’ but also environmentalfor impact reduction et (Verschoor al. ing environment can be described by Figure 2-1 (Antonsson 1996). activitiesAll companywill influence the environmentwell as as theworking environment.Sometimes company activities are initiated to reduce the environmentalsometimes load,to improve the working environment, and sometimes for other reasons. Figure 2-1 Interlinkage between the companyties, activithe environment, and the working environment trying to treat them as two sides theof same coin. perspective to chemicals Theonly. relationship validis for all aspects theof work and working environment are fundamentallyinterdependent. for applyingThis is also a reason a holisticview and not separating them from each other but instead The interlinkages between the company activities, the environment, and the work working environmental problems (Antonsson 1995). Additionally, the relationship As As defined by Gottlieb (1995), ‘pollution prevention is seeking to eliminate haz
CHAPTER | cn 2.3 Why integrate WE-LCA in LCA? There are arguments both for and against including working environment in LCA. LCAs are used for strategic decisions about products and processes because differ ent alternatives have different impacts on the environment. The different alterna tives also affect the working environment in the life cycle, as shown in Figure 2-1. WE-LCA of purpose General Thus, the basic concept of LCA is applicable also to the working environment. Including working environment in LCA is a way of applying a holistic view on products and processes in order to identify alternatives that will give the best overall result (see Figure 2-2). Without the holistic view, there is a risk that the environ ment will improve at the expense of the working environment.
A chair which is developed not to impair the environment in any part of its life cycle should of course also be good for sitting and should not contain textiles which have been produced by children or using pesticides that are harmful to the environment or the workers.
Figure 2-2 A holistic view
The objective of an LCA is to assess all aspects of the effects on human health over a long-term perspective. Work plays an important part in this, and the working environment is presumably as important for the individual as the external envi ronment. An emission in the working environment, for example, in the form of a chemical, will typically have a substantial effect on a few persons, while a cor responding emission in the external environment will have a small effect on many persons. Furthermore, the process tree describing the processes and inputs and outputs in the life cycle is identical for WE-LCA and ordinary LCA. A parallel data collection may therefore be convenient. Arguments raised against including the working environment might include the following: • If the working environment is included, one should also include social as pects, economy, etc. It is better to reduce LCA only to deal with the external environment instead of expanding LCA to cover everything. If LCA covers many different aspects, it will be too complicated. Comment: The ofscope an LCA can be decided in each case, and no general pacts pacts in the working environment, and therefore they should not be treatedtogether in LCA. it similaris to comparisons differentof environmental impacts, for example, ing environmental impact factors are very different therefore does not seem ronment in LCA, because newaspects lead to the inclusion oneof or several new impact categories. Comment: However, this may to a certain extent be related to the needmethod for development. ficient to follow laws and regulations regarding the working environment. Comment: There are regulations for the environment well, as but no uses that one as an argument not to conduct LCA. Additionally, the working en limits but still cause illness. limitations have to be decided beforehand. Comment: However, the problem is inherent in all LCA methodologies and global warming and ecotoxicity. The fact that the environmental and work to be avalid argument for their exclusion in the LCA. The interpretationphase will course of be more challengingwith more impact categories in cluded. gued to conflictwith including more aspects, for example, the working envi vironment maycontain exposures differentof kinds that are below exposure • • There is no need for including theworking environment in LCA; it is suf • • is It difficult to compare aspects as different as environmental loads and im • • The requirement simplicityof often encountered in LCA sometimesis ar Herebywe are not saying that the working environment always should LCA. be a partLCA ofa is framework that can be adapted to different needs. LCA can include or exclude the working environment depending on the goal and scope theof LCA. LCA (andWE-LCA). However, when LCA performed,is there are situations in the LCA. increases, which probably also increases the interest in WE-LCA and other holistic increase. In this context, the developmentWE-LCA of methods suitable for differ problems connected to the changes in the future will focus attention on the ingwork environment. The interest in management systems and holistic approaches tools. Thus, it is likely that the interest not only in LCA but also in WE-LCAwill ent needs is essential. We believe that in some thecases working environment is best handled outside which it is an advantage to have the option to include the working environment in There is a trend that the changingworking life and the working environmental
CHAPTER | cn 2.4 References Antonsson A-B. 1996. On the relationship between the working environment and the external environment. Stockholm: Joint Industrial Safety Council. Antonsson A-B. 1995. Substitution of dangerous chemicals - The solution to problems with
chemical health hazards in the work environment? Am Ind HygAss J 56:394-397. WE-LCA of purpose General Gottlieb R, editor. 1995. Reducing toxics. A new approach to policy and industrial decision making. Washington DC: Island Press, p 58-94. [ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 1997. 14040 Environmental Management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. Geneva: ISO. Verschoor AH, Reijnders L. 1999. The use of life cycle methods by seven major companies. J Cleaner Prod 7:375-382.
WE-LCA: ODDMUND BREKKE, 0STFOLD When and RESEARCH FOUNDATION (ST0) how detailed?
3.1 Possible options ening from the traditional production unit—oriented As discussed Chapter 2, there are arguments both for approach to a more ho and against including working environment in LCA. Some impact categories, including those reflecting listic view on working working environmental impacts, may be excluded be environmental impacts, cause of data gaps or limited availability of sufficiently similar to what has been developed methods. The importance of possible data seen for the external envi gaps should be evaluated in the interpretation of the ronment. results. The availability of methods for working envi A pure WE-LCA would ronmental impacts will be a prerequisite in the follow not, of course, exclude ing discussion. Different methods for WE-LCA are the possibility to perform discussed and explained in Chapter 4. an LCA on the external Even when methods are available and data possible to environment too. The retrieve, it may be decided to exclude certain impact advantages of keeping the categories based on the scope of a specific study. This two kinds of LCAs apart can also be the case for all or some of the impacts may be that you do not mediated through the working environment. Which mix different scientific impact categories should be included in a specific disciplines too much, LCA depend on the scope of the specific study. Some and it might be easier to options are discussed in the following sections. include all aspects of the Option 1: The pure WE-LCA (excluding the working environment. external environment) However, it would be The traditional LCA has focused on the external en more difficult to use one vironment and resources. The intention has been to tool, for example, prod obtain a holistic view on impacts to the external envi uct development, in two ronment. In a similar manner, this may be an option ‘sets’ of LCAs. for the working environment. Seen in the working environmental perspective, this would mean a broad
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 Option 2: Total exclusion of working environmental impacts from LCA This option may be seen as a parallel to the first option, and it represents the most common practice today. If the scope of a study is to assess impacts that are impor tant for global long-term sustainable development, it is probably not necessary to include the working environment. In this case, the conclusions will probably not differ whether or not the working environment is included. In such studies, specific local, short-term impacts on human health are normally not included either.
Option 3: LCA including external and working environment If the purpose of an LCA is to document the total impact on the environment and human health, it should be considered whether working environmental impacts should be included. The decision should be based on an assessment of how severe the working environmental impact might be, compared to impacts on human health through the external environment. It is important to evaluate the extent to which the external and the working environmental impact on human health is covered, in order to draw balanced conclusions on the impact on human health as a total (if this is the goal). The external and the working environment may be divided into different subcat egories that may or may not be included, according to the scope of a study. Some specific options relating to the working environment will be mentioned here: a) Inclusion of toxic impacts from the working environment Considering that the focus of LCA for the external environment often is put on impacts resulting from emissions of chemical substances, such a focus may also be applied to the working environment. In this case, one should be careful not to conclude the total working environment because other ef fects in the working environment may be more important than the chemi cal. When human toxicity is included as an impact category for the external environment, human toxicity impacts from the working environment might also be included in this category, as proposed by the Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC Europe (Udo de Haes et al. 1999). In this way, one would achieve a more complete coverage of rhe cat egory ‘human toxicity’, and one would also avoid using the term ‘working environment’ for coverage of only one factor. According to this proposal, other aspects of the working environment could be covered by the ‘working environment’ category. In some cases, toxic effects from the working envi ronment may be of a higher magnitude than the effects on the external envi ronment. In these cases, this proposal would be very relevant. (A European research project OMNITOX [Operational Models and Infor mation Tools for Industrial Applications of Eco/Toxicological impact assess ments] funded by the EC aims to find consensus regarding assessment of eco/toxicity within LCIA and to point out similarities and differences be tween LCLA and environmental risk assessment [ERA]. No results have been available from the project during the writing of this report. The OMNITOX project does not include working environmental-related effects, but the tox icity and ecotoxicity of discharges to the external environment. However, the result may be relevant to incorporate in the future work of development of WE-LCA methods for chemical emissions.)
b) Inclusion of all process-related working environment impacts
Of all the aspects that constitute the working environment, some are more closely related to the kind of production than others. For example, psychoso cial aspects are often more influenced by company management than by the kind of product produced. Of course, company management can influence any working environmental factor, but it still seems that the differences are major. For example, the risk of accidents or the exposure to chemicals will be closely related to the type of processes used and thereby to the product produced. However, the company management will also influence these as pects, for example, by the standard of accident prevention or by the choice of exhaustion methods. It is not obvious what to include exactly in such a perspective. One option could be to include human toxicity, noise, risk of accidents, and repetitive work (risk of physiological disorders), as is the case in the EDIP method (Hauschild et al. 1998). All these factors may be con sidered as ‘value neutral’, that is, they refer to potential objective bodily dam age. Other factors, like work content, flexibility, and other psychosocial fac tors, are certainly of great importance to health, but they are still very much influenced by social values and may be less related to the kind of product produced.
c) Inclusion of all working environment factors
This option could be seen as the ultimate goal for WE-LCA, but this is de batable. It is not obvious that the factors mostly linked to social values and management options should be included. Probably it is relevant as an option mainly in studies where all the activities in the product tree are located in the same geographical region and in projects where the main purpose is to investigate the working environment specifically (see Option 1). The results of such studies may have limited geographical and temporal validity.
3.2 Relationship to LCA applications
Different suggestions have been made to distinguish separate application areas of LCA. Two of these are listed in Table 3-1.
Within all of these application areas, the three main options described above may apply. For example, for societal action plans (public policy-making), external or working environment or both may be included, depending on the policy area in Marketing Supplier requirements Wenzel 1998 Scientific background. London: Chapman & Hall. Chapman London: background. Scientific ISO ISO 14040 (1997) Marketing Eco-labelling, criteria setting Strategic planningProduct development and improvementPublic policy makingOther Product development Societal action plans and legislation Production technology assessment question. productFor development and marketing, different options may be cho depend on the need for site-specific information. example,For for public policymaking, site-specific information will normally be considered as irrelevant.application In this area, only factors that can be considered productas or process related data. Determiningwhich factors are product related must probably in be each assessed case or industrial sector. In the further development, a discussion aboutwhat to include workingas environmental parameters within each application area and Hauschild M, Wenzel H. 1998. Environmental assessment of products, Volume 2: Volume products, of assessment H. Environmental 1998. M, Wenzel Hauschild sen sen for different products or sectors based on different focus areas. When it comes to which working environmental factors to include, it may partly should therefore be included. Other willfactors be difficult to handle genericas sector is probably needed. 3.3 Conclusions Most important for decidingwhether to include or exclude working is the environmentgoal and togetherscope with the system boundaries theof LCA. This also applies to the decision on which factors (impact categories) to include. tiontheIf inten a ofstudy is to conclude on working environmental impacts incycle, a productsat least workingthose life environmental impacts that are most relatedproduction to the shouldprocesses be included. These might be the impacts that potentially result in bodily damage, like toxic chemicals, noise, studyor riskaccidents. of intends to cover a allIf human toxicity impacts, one should also considerer humanwheth toxicity from the working environment is a relevant factor, even ifother specificIfworking environmental factors are excluded because ofdata gaps or for other practical reasons, the importance suchof exclusions should be evaluated. This could be done by qualitative evaluations whichof kind impactsof are the concernofdifferent at life-cycle stages. 3.4 References working environmental impacts are not included. Table 3-1 Two approaches to distinguishing separate application areas in LCA
CHAPTER|m [ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 1997. 14040. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. Geneva: ISO. Udo de Haes HA, et al 1999. Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle assessment. Int J LCA 4:167—174 Wenzel H. 1998. Application dependency of LCA methodology: Key variables and their mode of influencing the method. Int J LCA 3:281—288.
The experience with ANDERS SCHMIDT AND PIA BRUNN POULSEN, WE-LCA FORCE Technology
The experiences with WE-LCA are mostly A screening method is Scandinavian. Methods for WE-LCA are developed a method that literally in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, but Dutch and is used to separate large German methods also exist. In Table 4-1, the existing things from small things methods for WE-LCA are listed. (as a screen). This means that the purpose of a Especially the methods developed by the Swedish screening is to pinpoint Environmental Research Institute (IVL) and the the important areas Swedish Institute of Production Engineering Research in the life cycle of a (IVF) are continuously being further developed. product. When these Further development of the working environmental methods are based on part of the Environmental Design of Industrial company- or process- Products (EDIP) method has resulted in the ‘new specific information, they EDIP’ method. All methods are described in more might also be considered detail below. as qualitative or semi- quantitative process methods. 4.1 Definition of the different types of WE-LCA The screening methods should not be mistaken In Table 4-1, the different methods are categorised as for a ‘streamlined LCA’ • screening methods or chemical screening or a ‘simplified LCA’. methods, The SETAC North • sector methods, and America Working Group on Streamlined LCA • process methods. defines a streamlined In this report, the following definitions of screening, LCA as ‘identification of sector, and process methods are used. These elements of an LCA that definitions are commonly accepted by this SETAC can be omitted or where working group but are not necessarily accepted surrogate or generic data definitions in all forums. can be used without
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) .ISBN 1 -880611 -68-6 Rpnning et al. 1995 Hauschild and Wenzel 1998 Becker etal. 1999 German)(in Fleischerand Schmidt 1997; Fleischeret Schmidtet al. 2004 Broberg and Rassmussen 1996 (in Danish) Bengtsson et al. 1995 Swedish)(in Bengtsson and Berglund 1997 (in Swedish) al. 1998 Antonsson and Nillson 1999 (in Swedish) (Iterative) sector method, process method Chemical screening Schmidt et al. 1994 (in Danish) Type ofmethod Type Reference Norway Chemical screening Rpnning and Mpller 1993 (in Norwegian) the final result), where generic data can be used without significantly affecting the accuracy of 1) 1) screening (identification elementsof theof LCA that can be omitted or 2) simplifying, 3) assessing reliability (Christiansen et al. 1997). IVL New EDIPEDIP Sweden DenmarkIVF Sector method Sector Denmark method Chemical screening, Antonsson and Carlsson 1995b Sweden (in English) Process method MUP Denmark Method Country ST0 Chemiewinkel Netherlands Screening method Terwoert 1994a (in Dutch) euroMat Germany Screening method Table 4-1 The existing methods for working environmental LCA DanishTechnology Materials Programme (MUP), and EDIP, euroMat screeningmethods. significantly affecting the accuracythe of results’ (Todd et al. 1999).the Accordingworking to group, streamlining to refers ‘the design LCA,of where screening on the other hand to refers the use or application LCAof results, primarily to identify simplified LCA procedureas ‘a to reduce the complexity ofan LCA and reduceso the cost, time and effort required to run if. The working thatsteps group are involvedidentifies in threea simplified LCA: methods with only one impact included (e.g.,MUP EDIP, or 0stfoldFoundation [ST0] Research chemical screening methods) methodsto muchwith more several complicatedimpacts included, as is the case for the euroMat screening method. The euroMat method consists five screeningof steps (including an iterative screening LCA andWE-LCA), collecting more and more detailed composed several ofscreening elements, example,for screeningdifferent of environmental and working environmental parameters, which is the case in the whether additional study is needed’ (Todd et al. 1999). The SETAC workingEurope group on LCA screening and streamlining defines The working environmental screening methods can range from verysimple Ascreening method is not necessarilyvery simple. Screening methods can be
CHAPTER | information about the evaluated material. However, it is not necessary to carry out all five iteration steps if the ‘best’ material can be identified earlier, for example, after the third or fourth step. A chemical screening method is a screening method where only the chemical impacts in the life cycle of the product are examined. Because many different WE-LCA with experienceThe chemicals can be used in the life cycle of a product, the chemical screening methods have been developed with the purpose to pinpoint the most important chemicals in a working environmental perspective. The EDIP and S T 0 screenings are both chemical screening methods. The MUP method is a screening method that includes several impacts, but only chemical impacts when assessing the working environment. In general, the screening methods usually do not follow the ISO standards for LCA (ISO 14040, 14042) because the classification, characterisation, and weighting are carried out in one step by using the matrices developed for the screening. A sector method is a method that is based on working environmental impacts in a specific line of business (typically industrial sectors). The assessment is based mostly on statistical information from national sources, for example, the Danish Directorate of the Working Environmental Service. This applies for all the sector methods mentioned in this report (IVL, EDIP, and new EDIP sector methods). Sector methods measure the impacts in category endpoint, that is, the inventory analysis and the impact assessment are carried out in one single step. However, normalisation and weighting can be carried out as described in ISO 14042. A process method is a method that is based on company- or process-specific information. As for an LCA on the external environment, the information is not necessarily from the involved companies in the life cycle, but it can represent average levels for similar types of companies. In contrast to sector methods, the inventory in process methods is based on working environmental exposure, which is converted to working environmental impacts. This conversion is in the EDIP method carried out in the normalisation step. In the Work Environmental Screening Tool (WEST) method, the conversion to environmental impacts is automatically carried out by the use of an assessment scheme. For both methods, the normalisation is used differently compared to ISO 14042.
4.2 A description of the existing methods for WE-LCA The existing methods for WE-LCA have been reviewed within the follow-up project to the former EDIP project, The Danish LCA-Consensus Project (Schmidt et al. 2004). In this report, the methods MUP, EDIP, IVF, and IVL are reviewed and discussed. The euroMat method is, however, not discussed in this report. Neither are the methods from Chemiewinkel and STO, because only an abstract paper describing the Chemiewinkel method exists in English and because the STO method is described only in confidential reports. qualitative screening method) and accidents). • • the working hours, • the degree ofexposure, and • the amount exposed ofmaterial. • • Use ofraw material • Use energyof • Expected lifetime theof product • Waste and recycling. • Potential environmental effects • Potential health effects • Risks accidents.of • • Information on process characteristics andwork practices (to be used in a • Quantitative information on exposure to substances (measurements) • Registration of (includingeffects’ figures on sickleave, occupational diseases, MUP chemical screening method chemical screening method that calculates an exposure factor for each chemical and phase theof life cycle by multiplying throughout the life cycle ofa product and includes the working environment as health is effects carried out by making a matrix in which the chemicals a score for are bothgiven potential andeffects exposure. These are scores multiplied to give the total Thescore. total for each score chemical can subsequently be ranked to establish an order priority.of health is effects included as one parameters.seven of The are used quantitativefollowingas four parameters or semiquantitative parameters in the screening method: suggests suggests using the following information in combination. In the following, the existing methods WE-LCA for are described briefly. For further details, Schmidtsee et al. (2004), where most ofthe methods listed in Table ST0 chemical screening method The method is described briefly in Running et al. (1995). The S T 0 method is a The screening potentialfor health is effects based on the chemicals used MUP is a screening method for LCAwhere the chemical screening potential^ for Chemiewinkel screening method The method is described briefly in English in Terwoert (1994b). The method 4-1 are described. well potentialas local, regional, and global Theeffects. screening for the potential The last three parameters by are assessed the use ofa scoring system:
CHAPTER|-=t The chemicals are divided into five groups by effect (ranking from ‘not harmful’ to ‘very harmful’), and the chemical exposure is assessed for the potential for skin contact and inhalation of airborne emissions.
EuroMat screening method EuroMat is a method that has been developed for material selection in product development (Fleischer et al. 2000). The euroMat method is called an iterative screening LCA (not only regarding environmental issues) because the method consists of five screening steps. Materials for a given purpose (part of a product) are selected top-down by systematically restricting the searching area, beginning with the totality of all material groups. For each step, the materials (in lower iteration steps ‘material groups’, ‘material clusters’, and so on) are ranked into several groups, and the ‘best’ materials are then assessed further in the next step. The final step is a detailed assessment of the identified best specific materials on the important areas pinpointed during the earlier screening steps. The working environmental module includes the impacts • Dangerous substances • Noise • Vibrations • Heat • Dynamic work load. The evaluation is based on the classification of dangerous substances and on exposure data at workplaces. The hazards and exposure data are converted into score points, which are added over the life cycle. Depending on the seriousness of possible damages, the maximum score points are different for the five impacts, meaning that a normalisation step is not necessary for the relative comparison t between the different materials. Thus, the euroMat method gives a relative comparison of different choices. The LCA module for the external environment and the WE-LCA module are relatively separate modules within the euroMat method, using partly the same information basis. Their use without the context of euroMat is not intended. A more detailed description of the euroMat method can be found in Appendix 3. The method is applied in Appendix 4: Case E ‘Working environmental assessment of an aircraft drinking water tank’.
IVL sector method The IVL method is a sector method, which is based on official statistics from different sectors or individual companies for work-related injuries and diseases. The method can be used in combination with LCA for the external environment. At the beginning, the method included five quantitative impact categories. The last one can, however, be used only at company level. • Deaths due to work-related accidents (fatal accidents) • Workdays lost due to work-related accidents and diseases • Hearing damages • Allergy, eczema, and similar diseases • Workdays lost due to illness (exceeding normal). Two semi-quantitative impact categories were also included on a screening level: • Cancer • Reproductive (teratogenic) effects. By including the impact category ‘workdays lost due to work-related accidents and diseases’, an indirect graduation of the impacts is included, because the seriousness of the disease or accident is taken into account. In the development of the method and the present work with construction of a database, the semiquantitative impact categories have been excluded as well as the fifth quantitative one. Instead, new impact categories will be available for use in the database. The impacts (work-related accidents and diseases) are allocated within the sectors by comparing the weight of the product or the economic value in the entire sector with the weight or economic value of the product or substance in question. The impacts are normalised according to the average impact in Sweden (e.g., average reported work-related accidents and diseases per 1000 employees) or according to a selection of sectors relevant for LCA (production sectors). The normalisation procedure is in accordance with ISO 14042. The method is applied in Appendix 4: Case B ‘Study on ethanol for bus-driving produced from sorted household waste compared to environmentally classified diesel for bus-driving’. Another case study has also been published in Stromberg and Antonsson (2001), comparing working environmental impacts from paying with bills and coins compared to cards.
New EDIP sector method In the Danish LCA-Consensus Project, a new EDIP method has been developed. The method is a sector method that calculates the reported accidents and diseases per kilo of produced goods for different sectors (economic activities). The new EDIP method includes more impact categories than the existing EDIP method. The impacts included are as follows: • Fatal accidents • Accidents • Cancer • Psychosocial damages • Central nervous system (CNS) function disorder • Hearing damages • Airway diseases (non-allergic) • Airway diseases (allergic) ^ • Skin diseases • Musculoskeletal diseases. h eprec wt WE-LCA with experienceThe Danish statistics on reported work-related accidents and diseases and statistics on the amount of produced goods within the sectors have been used to produce a database with about 80 unit processes. For sectors where the amount of produced goods are not reported in kilos for all products (some products are reported in meters, pieces, etc.), foreign trade statistics are used to estimate the total amount of goods in kilos for that sector. The impacts are normalised according to the total workforce in Denmark and the total population in Denmark (‘person equivalents’). The normalisation procedure is in accordance with ISO 14042. The method is applied in Appendix 4: Case A ‘The new EDIP method used on an office chair’ and Case D ‘The new EDIP method used on the IVF case on sanitary fittings’.
EDIP screening, sector, and process methods The EDIP method consists of a chemical screening method and a sector and process method. The chemicals can be screened as a preliminary step with a screening method with similarities to MUP. The sector and process methods are used in combination: The process method is used for the processes at company level (the core processes), and the sector method is used for other activities in the life cycle of the product. The process and sector method includes the following impact categories: • Cancer • Reproduction damages • Allergy • Damages to the nervous system • Musculoskeletal damages (due to monotonous repetitive work) • Hearing damages • Body damages due to accidents. In the process method, the time for which the employees are exposed above a so- called exposure threshold (e.g., 80 dB for noise) is added over the entire life cycle for each type of exposure. This time is called the ‘exposure time’. The sector method compares statistics on reported work injuries within the sectors with the produced amount in the sectors. The outcome of the process and sector method is exposure time per functional unit and injuries per functional unit, respectively. In order to add up these impacts, an algorithm is used to convert the impacts from the sector method (injuries per functional unit) to exposure time per functional units, even though the outcome of the sector method is directly given as effects (injuries per functional unit). The algorithm includes parameters as the total working time within the sectors and the frequency of exposure among the Danish population. The resulting exposure times from using the process and the sector method are added to give the total exposure time. The total exposure time for each type of exposure is then normalised with respect to the average annual exposure time of a Danish worker (‘person equivalents’) for the different exposures. Furthermore, the normalised values are weighted, whereby the normalised exposure time is converted to numbers of potential effects (expected reported accidents and diseases).
IVF process method The IVF method (WEST) is a process method that includes both physical and psychosocial impact categories. The following impact categories are included: • Risk of accidents • Physical work load • Noise • Chemical health hazards • Vibrations • General physical environment • Social relations • Work content • Freedom to act. The working environment for each process is assessed according to a form (work place assessment form) for each of the nine impact categories. Guidelines and ranges for the scoring of each of the impact categories are given. The scoring points given can be either positive or negative, depending on the type and severity of the exposure. The points, reflecting the level of exposure, are multiplied with the working time to produce the final impact score. The IVF method can be used in combination with the Environmental Priority Strategies (EPS) method for the external environment, which is based on economical principles (‘willingness to pay’). The IVF method is based on the actual or assumed costs for a number of work-related parameters. The cost includes expenses for the company, compensation payments, expenses for the society, the willingness to pay for interaction with other people, etc. The costs are translated into (negative) points, where one point is equal to the costs and suffering for the society, company, and individual caused by an average accident in the manufacturing industry per one million working hours. The normalisation and weighting is automatically carried out in the IVF method because these steps are incorporated in the inventory by the points given by the workplace assessment form. The normalisation and weighting are therefore not completely in conformity with ISO 14042. The method is applied in Appendix 4: Case C ‘IVF study: Chromium or paint on sanitary fittings’. The WEST method is currently being further developed to increase the WE-LCA with experienceThe transparency, to make it more user friendly, and to be able to predict the effects on human health in monetary terms.
4.3 Evaluation: Overall methodical differences
As described in Section 4.1, methods for WE-LCA can be divided into three groups with different approaches: Group 1: Screening methods where most of them are chemical screening methods (MUP, EDIP, ST0) in which the main substance flows in the processes throughout the life cycle are examined with respect to their potential health impacts. The euroMat screening method differs from the other screening methods by being much more comprehensive and thorough. The euroMat screening method is designed to find out which material and which life cycle (e.g., different manufacturing or recycling technologies) have less working environmental impact. It is intended to be used within product development processes. In context with other properties (technical suitability, costs, environmental impacts, risks) the euroMat method makes it possible to identify the best-suited material. Group 2: Sector methods (IVL, EDIP, and new EDIP) in which the average impact on the working environment in different economic sectors is examined by the use of already available statistical information. Group 3: Process methods (IVF and EDIP) in which the single processes in the life cycle are examined with respect to the exposure of the working force. The pros and cons of each of these approaches are discussed in Schmidt et al. (2004). Some basic characteristics of the three groups are shown in Table 4-2.
Screening methods As indicated in Table 4-2, chemical screening methods are fairly quick and easy to include, provided the practitioner has a good knowledge of the classification of chemicals. Chemical screening methods can thus be used as a preliminary step in the product development to assess whether a change in processes may have an unwanted chemical impact on the working environment. The chemical screening is also useful when pinpointing the processes that should be included in an in-depth LCA. The chemical screening, however, cannot be used Table 4-2 Basic characteristics of methods for impact assessment of the working environment
Required Nr impact Possible level Aggregation Data Required Method time categories of precision possibility availability8 competence Screening Low Low Low Low Medium High (chemical) Screening Medium/ Medium/ Low/ Low Medium High (iterative) High High Medium Sector Low Medium/ Medium High High Low/ assessment High Medium Process High Medium/ Medium/ High Low High assessment High High a Data availability expresses how easily the data can be obtained (how accessible the data are), when sitting at your desk performing the LCA. as the sole method for assessing the working environment in the life cycle because only the chemical working environment is addressed. Furthermore, the chemical screenings do not offer the possibility of aggregating the impacts over the entire life cycle in a consistent manner because it is the scores that are added and not the amounts used. However, screening methods that include a broader range of working environmental factors, such as the euroMat method, are of course much better tools for decision making already at the screening level. They can be used to decide which material is best (or their individual ranking) from a working environmental point of view.
Sector methods The sector methods have their main advantages in a broad selection of impact categories combined with a relatively easy access to the basic data. As indicated in Table 4-2, the sector methods are also fairly quick to use, and a common feature is that they aggregate a large number of processes into one assessment by relatively simple means. Another advantage of the sector methods is that they are easy to use also for those parts of the life cycle that are not the core processes. The use of the sector methods, however, is best suited for an assessment of large and uniform productions, and the methods cannot distinguish between different products within the same economic sectors by means other than their weight. The sector methods in general are associated with some uncertainty because average data for the whole sector often are used for sectors that are heterogeneous with respect to outputs. This uncertainty may, however, not be larger than the uncertainty of the data used for external LCAs. The data collection for the sector methods is hampered by the fact that statistics on work-related injuries and diseases in different countries can be based on different traditions, and they may be of varying quality, which makes them difficult to compare. The aggregation of data from different countries may therefore be associated with some uncertainty. IVL has proposed a method where this limitation is overcome by calculating data in relation to a standard country. However, more research in this field is needed. The sector methods can be used to identify the largest impacts in the life cycle of the product and their magnitude as well. Furthermore, the impacts can be compared to the impacts in the external environment (either by use of the ‘person equivalent’ or by economic values). Thus, the sector methods provide the possibility of comparing the impacts of different alternatives in the life cycle of the products.
Process methods The process methods can give an assessment of the impacts from actual working environmental exposure over the entire life cycle of the products. The impacts can be aggregated over the entire life cycle, and they can be compared to the impacts in the external environment like they can with the sector methods. The process methods may be based on evaluation of the working environment at the specific work places included in the life cycle of the products. Thus, the process methods may give a more precise assessment than the other methods because the assessment is based on the actual working environmental impacts where company-specific data are used. It is therefore possible to use the process method to distinguish between different producers or different production methods, within the same sector and even for very similar products. The disadvantage of the process method is that it demands considerable resources for product life cycles, including many process steps, when it is necessary to evaluate each process by visiting the companies. However, if databases are developed, these visits are not necessarily required.
Discussion of the methodologies Chemical screening methods can be used to pinpoint the processes that should be included in an in-depth LCA due to the potential severity of the chemical impacts. The euroMat screening method can even pinpoint important processes for several working environmental impacts. Thus, the euroMat screening method can be used as a preliminary step in product development to assess whether a change in processes may have unwanted impacts on the working environment. The sector methods have a more complete coverage of the working environmental impacts in comparison with the chemical screening methods. Because of the possibility of aggregating the working environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of the product, the sector methods can be used to show where the most important impacts are in the life cycle, and their magnitude as well. The sector methods are based on statistical data, which is why the sector assessment is a fairly quick method when a database is available. The sector method can thus quickly show the differences between various alternatives (if they are not too similar). The process methods may have a more precise description of the working environment because the methods can be based on evaluations of the involved companies and processes. As for the sector methods, the impacts can be aggregated over the entire life cycle and compared to the external environment. The process methods are, however, more time-consuming because visits to the companies may be necessary for several processes. WE-LCA is a relatively new area (new methodology); therefore, some of the developed methodologies or databases are at a stage of development where they cannot be called fully developed concepts. That is, the EDIP sector and process method normalise according to the average annual exposure time for Danish workers, and the new EDIP sector method has developed a database exclusively by use of Danish statistics. However, this does not mean that the methods cannot be used or can be used only for products with the entire life cycle within the borders of, in this case, Denmark. The methodologies may easily be used for all processes in all countries, but performing the WE-LCA may take more time in the beginning because all data have to be obtained until broader databases have been developed. Both sector and process methods have the ‘beginner’ drawback: It may take time to gather the relevant data about working environmental accidents and diseases or the working conditions, especially in countries where working environmental statistics are not well developed or in countries far away (if visits are needed for evaluating the working conditions by use of the process methods). These problems can, however, easily be overcome by development of databases. Furthermore, IVL has, as described, proposed a method that will make it easier to aggregate data from different countries (to the sector method), and for the evaluation of the working conditions when using the process methods, visits can be reduced to an absolute minimum if they are performed by personnel highly experienced in working conditions for the sectors and countries in question. Seen in a broad perspective, the combined results of the methods seem to give the most useful results. A chemical screening can quickly identify the chemical hot spots in the life cycle, whereas the sector and/or process methods are useful in making a quantitative assessment of a broad range of impacts. The process method, which can distinguish between similar products, can be used at the core processes in the life cycle, and the fairly quick sector method can be used at the other activities in the life cycle. The ideal future method could thus be a combination of the methods. This is, however, not possible at the moment with the existing methods because they are not directly compatible. Further development in this area is therefore needed. 4.4 References Antonsson A-B, Carlsson H. 1995a. En metod for att integrera arbetsmiljo i livscykelanalyser. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL). In Swedish.
Antonsson A-B, Carlsson H, 1995b. The basis for a method to integrate work environment WE-LCA with experienceThe in life cycle assessments. J Cleaner Prod 3(4):215—220. Antonsson A-B, Nilsson M. 1999. Arbetsmiljo-LCA — viderautvecling av en kvantitativ metod. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL). IVL-report B. In Swedish. English summary available on www.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1320.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2004. Becker J, Dobberkau J, Haupt HJ. 1999. Assessment of work environment conditions within materials selection process. Brandenburg: Brandenburg Technical Univ Cottbus (BTU). In German. Bengtsson G, Berglund R. 1997. WEST (Work Environmental Screening Tool) - En metod att mata arbetsmiljo. Molndal: Swedish Institute of Production Engineering Research (IVF). In Swedish. Bengtsson G, Maupoix M, Steen B. 1995. Life cycle assessments including the working environment - Description of the method. Stockholm and Molndal: Swedish Institute of Production Engineering Research (IVF), Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL). In Swedish. Broberg O, Rasmussen E. 1996. Arbejdsmiljo fra vugge til grav. Kobenhavn: Arbejdsmiljofondet. In Danish. Christiansen K, de Beaufort-Langeveld A, van den Berg N, Haydock R, ten Houten M, Kotaji S, Oerlemans E, Schmidt WP, Stranddorf HK, Weidenhaupt A, White PR. 1997. Simplifying LCA: Just a cut? Final report from SETAC Europe LCA Screening and Streamlining Working Group. Brussels: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Fleischer G, Becker J, Braunmiller U, Klocke F, Klopffer W, Michaeli W. 2000. Eco-design: Effiziente Entwicklung nachhaltiger Produkte mit euroMat. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3- 450-6514-9. Fleischer G, Kunst H, Rebitzer G. 1998. Life cycle assessment of complex products - Introducing an efficient and reliable method. Technical University Berlin. Society of Automotive Engineers, Total Life Cycle Conference Proceedings; December 1998; Graz, p 367—371. Fleischer G, Schmidt WP. 1997. Iterative screening LCA in an eco-design tool. SETAC Europe Meeting: LCA - selected papers. Int J LCA 2(1):20—24. Hauschild M, Wenzel H. 1998. Environmental assessment of products. Volume 2: Scientific background. 1 st English ed. Lyngby: Institute for Product Development (IPU), Technical Univf Denmark. Ronning A, Hansen OJ, Moller H. 1995. Environmentally sound product development of offshore coatings. Halden, N: 0stfold Research Foundation (ST0). Ronning A, Moller H. 1993. “Livslopsvurdering av referansesystem offshoremaling. Halden, N: 0stfold Research Foundation (ST0). Schmidt A, Christensen K, Pommer K. 1994. Life Cycle Model for assessment of new materials: Methods, basis for assessment and procedures. Kobenhavn: The Danish Materials Technology Programme (MUP). In Danish. Schmidt A, Poulsen PB, Poulsen KE, Floe T, Andreasen J. 2004. LCA and the working environment. Kobenhavn: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental project nr 907. Stromberg A, Antonsson A-B. 2001. Jamforelse av arbets-miljobelastning fran betalning med kontanter resp. kort - en arbetsmiljo-LCA (Comparison of working environment impact from payment with cash and cards respectively — a working environment LCA). Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL). IVL-report B 1449. English summary available on http://www.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1449.pdf. Terwoert J. 1994a. Occupational health from cradle to grave. Amsterdam: Chemiewinkel, Univ Amsterdam. Terwoert ]. 1994b. Basic principles of a realistic and workable assessment of occupational health within a pLCA. Workshop paper - workshop LCA and the working environment. Amsterdam: Chemiewinkel, Univ Amsterdam. Todd JA, Curran MA, Weitz K, Sharma A, Vignon B, Price E, Norris G, Eagan P, Owens W, Veroutis A. 1999. Streamlined life-cycle assessment: A final report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup. Brussels: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Evaluation GUNNAR BENGTSSON AND
MATS KARLING, THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH (iVF)
The experience with existing methods shows that WE- 5.1 Strengths and LCA today is at a level where it is possible to carry weaknesses of out WE-LCA and obtain very useful results (see the existing methods description of the cases of WE-LCA in Appendix 4). Furthermore, it is possible to perform WE-LCA in The strengths and weak connection with LCA for the external environment. nesses of the existing methods are described Methods have been developed in connection with below for WE-LCA: the EDIP method based on person equivalents (both MUP, IVL, IVF, EDIP, sector and process methods), in connection with the new EDIP, and euroMat. EPS system based on economic values, and relating to The methods from ST 0 ISO 14040. and Chemiewinkel are Some of the developed methods have certain built- not discussed in this in limitations. For example, the database of the report because very little new EDIP sector method contains only data for information on these two Danish industrial workplaces. These limitations are, methods is available. however, only a question of further development of It is important to stress the databases. The methodologies may easily be used that the weaknesses for all processes in all countries. Overall, WE-LCA described are not is at a stage in which several methods are developed necessarily weaknesses for and in which quite a few experiences also exist for WE-LCA only. Many of the different methods. However, as for LCA for the weaknesses also exist the external environment, there is always room for to a considerable extent improvement of the methodologies. For that purpose for LCA for the external the methods have to be evaluated. This chapter will environment. address this matter from a wide spectrum of aspects, from strengths and weaknesses of the existing methods to what the results can be used for, and finally from the conclusions of a workshop at which future development in this field was discussed.
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 The following points are addressed: 2q • Methodical requirements -Applicability in different life-cycle phases -Aggregation -Relation to a functional unit oX -Allocation > TJ — I • Working environmental aspects mx -Impact categories or coverage of working environmental issues ~ 5 • Practicability -To carry out a WE-LCA -Time needed to carry out the LCA • Data issues -Reliability and accessibility -Transparency and reliability -Time aspect
Methodological requirements All methods are theoretically applicable in all phases of the life cycle. However, the sector methods have in common the fact that in some cases it is difficult to include the use phase, for example, if the use phase is represented by a sector in which the reported accidents and diseases are difficult to allocate to the examined products, such as a personal computer in an office. Instead, process methods can be applied in the use phase. The advantage of the sector and process method is that the impacts can be aggregated over the entire life cycle of the product and hence can produce the total impact for each impact category. As for ordinary LCA, the aggregation is carried out by relating the working environmental impacts to a functional unit. The aggregation in WE-LCA often is carried out by use of working time. For most of the screening methods, it is impossible to perform this aggregation because they do not relate to a functional unit or because it does not make sense to add the given scores for each process. (^Jf. One common aspect of all WE-LCA methods is that they of course focus on impacts from work. This means that if there is no work, there is no impact. This is a simple truism, but it also means that all methods will give better ratings to life cycles which not only are safe but also include a minimum of work. Thus, highly q automated processes will in general give less working environmental impact than manual processes. (F~ In the different methods, this relation to working time is reflected in different ways. The process methods often use the working time for each part of the life cycle. This parameter may be easily accessible in some trades, like the engineering industry, but difficult to access, for example, in a chemical process industry. In the two process methods (IVF and EDIP), the working time is a central parameter in adding the impacts, because the general assumption is that most working environmental impacts depend on the working time. The IVF method always includes a level of exposure and multiplies this exposure with the working time, whereas the EDIP method adds only the different exposure times, when the exposures exceed a certain exposure threshold. The sector methods do not have to go into detail and study the working time needed for each step in the life cycle. The allocation of impacts to a specific amount of material can be made by using economic values or the amount of product. These figures are indirectly related to working time; it is a general assumption that the longer the working time, the larger the produced amount or value. As for ordinary LCA, allocation may sometimes be problematic. With regard to the working environment, workers may be exposed to, for example, a material \ \ 5L or noise not related to their specific work or to the product which is included ' ^ in the LCA. This can, however, be solved as for ordinary LCA by expanding the . system boundaries, or through allocation by use of economic value or by amount of product. Furthermore, the WE-LCAs give the possibility to allocate by use of working time. This is also in line with the general fact of WE-LCA that shorter working time means lower impacts. In general, the screening methods do not include normalisation or weighting, although a scoring for each phase of the life cycle is carried out. The euroMat method is, however, an exception because this screening method includes weighting between the environmental factors in the working environmental module (3rd and higher iteration steps). The weighting factors are based on German statistics of professional diseases (average loss of ability to work in percent, caused by diseases related to the five working environmental factors). As for the other screening methods, there is no weighting between the modules (the different environmental and working environmental factors), which means that the users of the method can make their own individual weighting. In this way, the users can select the materials that should be evaluated in the next iteration step or choose the best material for the given task if they think that no further iteration steps are necessary. All the sector and process methods include a normalisation step and a weighting step (or it is possible to include a weighting step). In the normalisation step, the IVL sector method compares the impacts with the average reported work-related accidents per 1000 employees in Sweden. Almost the same type of normalisation is carried out in the EDIP and new EDIP methods. Here the impacts are converted to “person equivalents” by comparing the impacts to the total reported work-related accidents and diseases in Denmark. In contrast, the normalisation and weighting are automatically carried out in the IVF process method, where these steps are incorporated in the inventory by the points given on the workplace assessment form. reported yearly in Denmark. In In conclusion, it can be said that the use ofthe sector and methodsprocess makes possibleis to perform WE-LCA a with a complete coverage theof life cycle. chemicals theas onlyimpact. The euroMat also includes other aspects such as noise, vibrations, heatwork, and dynamic musclework. methods. Monotonous repetitive work, hearing damages, and accidents are included in addition to chemical aspects. In the new EDIP method, psychosocialaspects, airway diseases, and skin diseases also are included because these aspects are as causing sick Thus leaves. the seriousness ofthe disease or accident is taken into account. because the psychosocial, chemical, and physical working environments are covered by the method. As general thefor process methods, the IVF method includes an assessment ofthe severity the of exposures. However, this detailed graduation the of exposures does not exist in anythe of other process methods. Instead, the EDIP methodprocess a uses over exposures certain exposure threshold in the assessment. different methods WE-LCA.for Please notice that onlyworking environmental impact categories are included in the table. theFor methods MUP, whicheuroMat, EDIP, also include and impact categories thefor external environment, these impact categories are not mentioned. sector methods assume that the exposures todayof will result in the same picture of as today, effects when the finally effects This show. introduces the problem that the ineffects some extreme maycases be caused by exposures up to 40 years ago (e.g., cancer).for accidents,For however, this is not a problem. In general, the methodsprocess are based on exposures, which are converted to ineffects the normalisation Thisstep. reflects the general problem in LCA, that an exposure-effect relationship is assumed even though the exact relationship is uncertain or unknown in mostAdditionally, cases. exposures mayvary over life cycle theof products and can be comparedwith the impacts theof external environment. Allocation possibleis by use oftheworking time, the economic an indicator theof importance differentof life-cycle phases. Working environmental aspects MUP, ST 0, and EDIP screening methods thecover use and occurrence of process ands sectorEDIP methods include more aspects than the screening The IVF method has the most detailed coverage ofthe working environment Table 5-1 summarises the working environmental impact categories used in the The sector methods are based directly on reflectedeffects in the statistics. The value, and the amount ofproduct. Working time per functional unit can be used as The IVL method all covers work-related accidents and diseases that are reported Furthermore, theworking environmental impacts can be aggregated theover entire CHAPTER | in 32 Table 5-1 The impact categories used in the different methods for WE-LCA
EDIP MUP S T 0 euroMat IVL New EDIP Sec. & IVF Scr. Scr. EDIP Scr. Scr. Sector Sector pro. Process Chemi- Chemical Chemical Danger Allergies and Cancer Cancer Chemi cal health health haz- ous sub Eczema a Airway dis Repro cal Evaluation health hazards ards stances eases (al ductive health hazards lergic + non damage hazards allergic) Allergies Skin dis Damage eases to the CN S func nervous tion disor system der Fatal acci Fatal dents Accidents Workdays Accidents Work Acci lost due to accidents dents accidents and diseases3 Dynamic (Included in Muscolo- Musculo Physical work workdays sceletal skeletal work load lost)3 diseases system load damage Noise Hearing Hearing Hearing Noise dam ages3 damages impair ment Vibra (Included in Vibra tions workdays tion lost)3 Heat (Included in work workdays lost)1 (Included in General workdays physical lost)3 environ ment (Included in Psycho Work workdays social dam atmos lost)3 ages phere (Included in Work workdays content lost)3 (Included in Free workdays dom of lost)3 action
3° These accidents and diseases are included in workdays lost, if they cause a sick leave that is reported as caused by work.
time and between exposed people, why the estimated or measured exposure is an approximation of the real exposure. Practicability new EDIP method is even simpler because the impacts per functional unit already Because it is necessary to visit and evaluate each ofthe involved companies, the Overall, this means that the sector and process methods in general have a complete by most theof sector and process methods. The IVF method differs from the other process methods because the method includes a more detailed graduation the ofexposures. In general, the sector methods are the most practicable and simple ones to carryout because they are based on statistics. With the use statisticsof on both work-related accidents and diseases, together with statistics on production volumes, it is to possible calculate the impacts for the different phases ofthe life cycle theof product. The are given in the database. this (At stage, however, the database is developed only for Danish industrial workplaces). but they require the LCApractitioner to have some kind chemicalof knowledge. environment because these methods require an examination and evaluation theof environmental experts, while the sector methods do not necessarily require expert knowledge. and the sector methods require little time to Theuse. low time consumptionto the available is due statistical data needed for the sector methods: No long data is search needed because the data are already available. process methods require more time. The EDIP method accounts for this drawback theof process methods by combining the process methodwith the sector method. method is used for the other in processes the life cycle theof product. Reduced time consumption also reduces the accuracy because process methods are replaced by average sector methods. It is, generallyhowever, true for all methods that the development databasesof Data issues coverage ofthe working environmental aspects. (However, some methods cover The chemical screening methods are also fairly simple and practical to carry out, The two process methods, IVF andrequire EDIP, knowledge about the working The methodsprocess are therefore methods that should be used byworking The EDIP process method is used for the processes, core and the EDIP sector databases and software tools will make the methods more user friendly. specific data. The assessment is, however, only a chemical assessment in most working environments in the life cycle. will lower the time carryingfor out the LCA considerably. Furthermore, existing The screening methods have fairly reliable data because the methods rely on process As As indicated inTable 5-2, both the screening methods (the chemical screenings)
CHAPTER | lo 24 more aspects than others). the Even psychosocial working environment is covered cases. Both data accessibility and availability are indicated as medium in Table 5-2 because they depend on the processes. Because the process methods often are based mainly on visits to the companies involved and on evaluation of the working environment, the data reliability is high for the exposure part. It should, however, be noted that exposures focus on those workers closest to the processes and that other persons (e.g., those concerned with maintenance) are not usually included. The data accessibility, however, is relatively low: The data are accessible, but it may be necessary to visit or interview companies in order to obtain the data. For the exposure—effect relationship, data are less reliable and available. The situation is reversed with the sector methods. The data are easily accessed, but the data reliability is low because the methods are based on average data for the products of the entire sector. The average data used may not necessarily be representative for the specific, examined process in the life cycle. Hence, it is not possible to distinguish between products within the same sector. All sector methods have in common that the results are most reliable only if processes from the same country are included in the assessment. Comparing the statistics on work-related accidents and diseases within different countries is a general problem because the statistics both differ in “volume” and in definitions in the different countries. Some countries report only work-related accidents, not work-related diseases. IVL has developed a method for calculating statistical information for any country based on statistics for a “standard country” and calculations based on fatal accidents in the target country in relation to the standard country. The standard country should be a country with reliable statistics. This way of calculating working environmental impacts makes differences in reliability less important. Usually, reliability is considered to be highest for statistics on fatal accidents (Nystrom 2000). When process methods are used, databases with generic data (to use when company-specific data are missing) may not be valid for the more “soft” elements of the working environment, such as psychosocial factors. Thus, for the process methods, for practical reasons as well, these kinds of categories may be limited to those used in the EDIP method or similar. In the sector methods, similar considerations may apply when different countries are involved, for example, for the category “work days lost”. The differences in sick leave compensation and culture between countries will easily affect the results in this category. Because the data used in the existing process methods may be based on company- specific information, the process methods can form a picture of the present exposure conditions at the examined companies. The process methods can be used to analyse the effects of working environmental improvements or of new processes in the life cycle if the improvements are not known or tested earlier. High High High Low/ Low/ tence compe Medium Medium Required High Medium Medium Data ac cessibility Low Medium Data avail ability Medium MediumMedium High MediumMedium High Medium Medium Medium Low Low High High High High High Low/ Medium Medium possibility Aggregation Low High High Low / / Low level of Medium Medium Medium High Possible Medium/ precision ries Low Low Low Low High catego Number of impact Medium 3 Medium Low High time High/ Medium Medium Medium Medium Required environment and the working environment, and to provide a more solidground decisionfor making environment are most wheresevere; are the “hot-spots” • • As part anof LCA, to get a holistic view, which bothcovers the external • • analyse To where in the production chain the impacts on the working Method IVL New EDIP IVF MUP (chem. Screening)S T 0 Low (chem. EDIP (chem. Screening) Low (sector)(sector) Low (screening) EDIP (sec Screening) Low Low Low euroMat ess) (process) High tor & proc Overall, it can be said that the sector methods are the most transparent methods In Table In 5-2, the basic characteristics theofWE-LCA methods are summarised. be be based on eachassessments of process in the life cycle. because the data collection veryis simple. The process methods are transparentless Summary of the basic characteristics of the methods 5.2 5.2 What are the results used for? The WE-LCAresults of can be used for several different purposes: Table Table 5-2 Basic characteristics of methods forassessment ofthe working environment a The databasea presently underdevelopment will containoriginal moremethod. impact categories than the
CHAPTER | lo 36 but more detailed, and in some cases, they maybe more reliable because they can • In product and process development, to identify the change of impact due to the product or process changes • For integration of the external and the working environment, to avoid sub-optimisations when taking measures to reduce effects on the external environment • As data for performance measurement and monitoring in occupational health and safety management systems. The above stated are examples of the usability of results from existing methods. When a study is designed, the appropriate method must be chosen on the basis of the study’s purpose. In the following section, the different ways to use the methods will be described, and some examples will be given.
LCA with a holistic view The objective of an LCA is to assess all aspects of the impacts on human health over a long-term perspective. Work plays an important part in the health issue, and the working environment is as important for the individual as the external environment. From this holistic point of view, it would be hard to argue why an LCA should exclude the working environment. An ordinary LCA considers only the effects of pollutants on persons outside the factory, although the same substance can effect those who work inside. An emission of a substance to the external environment will typically have a small potential effect on many persons, while a corresponding emission within the working environment can have a substantial effect on a few people. If these facts are not taken into consideration it will simply be an inferior ground for decision making.
Identify hot spots It has been shown that, with a relatively small amount of extra work, an ordinary LCA can be completed with a WE-LCA and thereby give valuable information on where in the production chain the hot spots are. An example of this is given in a case study performed by IVL (see Appendix 4B). The study followed a former LCA on ethanol compared with diesel fuel for city busses. The study used the same system boundaries and functional unit as the ordinary LCA. From the results, it was possible to identify the parts of the life cycle that contained severe risks and the parts that gave the main contribution to ill health in the entire life cycle.
Product and process development When LCA is used for product and process development, there is a risk that the changes will have unwanted effects within the working environment. To control this risk, there is a need for some type of WE-LCA. An example of this use of WE- LCA is given in the case study of sanitary fittings with different surface treatments performed by IVF (see Appendix 4). The impact assessment in the study is based on the methods EPS and Eco-indicator 95, completed with the IVF WEST method for the working environment. Avoid sub-optimisations When a company takes action to improve the external environment, it is most likely that the changes will have an impact on the working environment too. An obvious example of this is the efforts to replace the widespread use of chlorinated hydrocarbons for degreasing in the production industry. x The personnel who work with well-maintained cleaning equipment with n chlorinated hydrocarbons have a very low exposure to these substances. From a — working environmental point of view, there are no strong reasons to change the 5 cleaning method or process. On the other hand, from the external environmental point of view, there are reasons to phase out the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Due to the facts last stated, a large number of projects have aimed to replace these chemicals with other products. In most of the projects, the single target has been improvement of the external environment. In many cases, this has led to negative consequences in the working environment. The products that have been chosen as replacements have brought new risks into the working environment, for example, allergies and corrosive damages to skin and eyes. In some cases, when changes have been made to other organic hydrocarbons, the risk of fire and explosions was overlooked and explosions in the cleaning equipment occurred, with deaths and severe damage to people and production facilities as a consequence. By using WE-LCA, this type of sub-optimisation can be avoided, and the effort that is made may benefit both the external environment and the working environment. However, the use of sector methods may not be able to avoid these sub-optimisations because average sector data are used.
Data for occupational safety and health management systems The area of occupational safety and health management systems is developing rapidly. It has evolved from being mainly of national interest to aiming for international standards. The systems are based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, and they are meant to continuously improve the working environment. Some of the most recently published results are the new standards OHSAS 18001 and OHSAS 18002 (Occupational health and safety assessment series published by British Standards Institution [BSI]). So far, they have been adopted by more than ten countries. The standards have demands for hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control that cover all aspects of the working environment. They also have demands for communication of occupational health and safety (OH&S) information to all interested parties. At least some of the WE-LCA methods will meet those demands. 5.3 Swedish survey of opinions of LCA users
A Swedish survey has been made in order to find out what persons using LCA think of including the working environment in ordinary LCA (Nystrom 2000). Of fourteen interviewed persons, no one integrated working environment into the LCA, but six were interested in the option. Four had no opinion, and four were not interested. Arguments against it reflected the opinion that WE-LCA is complex and time consuming. The conclusions from the interviews were these: • WE-LCA should be simple to use. • The number of impact categories should be kept low in order to simplify the WE-LCA and the interpretation of it. • Methods for WE-LCA should primarily facilitate the inventory, which requires a lot of time and resources when an LCA is being conducted.
5.4 Remarks and conclusions from a Danish workshop
In order to discuss the WE-LCA methods and their future, a workshop was held in Copenhagen in 1998. About 60 persons primarily from Scandinavia attended the workshop. The workshop was arranged in connection with the Danish LCA consensus project (and the development of the new EDIP method). The workshop showed that there is great interest in integrating the working environment into general LCA. The workshop, however, also showed that working environmental professionals are somewhat sceptical about the methods available. Their main concerns were as follows: • The methods are not precise. • The methods include only a limited number of working environmental parameters. • The methods are rather demanding in terms of time and resources. • Other tools are better suited for improvements of the working environment. This scepticism has previously been voiced with respect to the general concept of LCA, but the criticism has decreased significantly as a result of the development of a standardised framework. Only a fraction of the resources used in the development of LCA has been devoted to the working environment. A Scandinavian-European co-ordination (through the SETAC working group publishing this report) of the future developments is expected to increase the usefulness and the credibility of the methods. The workshop also indicated that the chance of succeeding with WE-LCA is connected to the organization of the work with improving the environmental and working environmental conditions of the company and its products. Product developers and environmental managers (or other responsible persons) often use LCA. Flowever, it is difficult to integrate WE-LCA into a general LCA because it is often other parts of the organisation that handle working environmental issues, i olika lander (Database for life cycle assessment - working environment. Need Need -environment. working assessment cycle life for (Database lander olika i Swedish Stockholm: countries). different in on available injurystatistics abstract occupational and English B 1397. (IVL)-rapport 2004. Institute Apr 10 Resesarch Accessed Environmental http://www.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/bl397.pdf. Nystrom B. 2000. Databas for livscykelanalys — arbetsmiljo. Behov och arbetsskadestatistik arbetsskadestatistik och Behov arbetsmiljo. — livscykelanalys for 2000. B. Databas Nystrom number parameters,of however, has to be broader than currently available in the needs potentialof users. Manythe of users are active in industry and use simpleLCA methods, which require littleas time and resources as possible. Methods developed for this target group have to be fast and easy to use, yet must still provide results goodof quality. 5.5 References realistic at present. The objective for the Labour Inspectorate is to improve the than products. However, the life-cycle perspective in assessing theof working environment should be included in official purchasing policy and some form perhapsdeclaration ofin theof working environmental impacts ofproducts. The WE-LCA EDIP methodology. LCA. In order to facilitate the WE-LCA,use of it is important to understand the The rational conclusions with regard to the different pro and con argumentsworking for environment in LCAare to have working environment as an option in for for example, the production planner, the safety organisation, and the occupationalhealth service centres. working conditions individuals,for and therefore they focus on ratherprocesses The Danish Labour Inspectorate does notview the WE-LCAuse of as being
CHAPTER I in Relation to other tools ANN-BETH ANTONSSON, ^ a n SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL T fig lr V II f l RESEARCH INSTITUTE (iVL) working environment
6.1 Main differences between WE- common point of discus LCA and other tools for the working sion. Thus, a WE-LCA environment that relates the working environment to a product Conventional tools for the working environment, or functional unit may especially the physical and chemical working envi be hard to understand for ronment, mainly focus on factors and exposures in people who are experts in order to reduce the exposure, and thus also the risks. the field of working envi The basis for making a decision is first how high the ronment. exposure is and second the duration of the exposure. The reason for this may Thus, most conventional working environmental tools be that conventional tools focus on the exposure to different kinds of physical or for assessing the working chemical factors and the duration of the exposure. Ba environment are lim sed on this information, decisions are made on control ited within the company measures. boundaries (if not within An LCA describes the environmental effects in rela single workplaces). The tion to a product, a functional unit. Working environ life-cycle perspective of mental exposures or effects usually are not related to the WE-LCA requires a functional units because workers may be exposed to, new thinking, especially for example, a material or noise not related to their when some measures that specific work, which can make an allocation of the improve the working impacts to a specific product or functional unit prob conditions at their ‘own’ lematic. Allocation is, however, not necessarily more workplaces result in worse problematic than for ordinary LCA, and it can be working conditions in performed in the same ways as for ordinary LCA (see other companies in the Chapter 5, section 5.1). Of course, there is an inter life cycle. If, for instance, est in discussing how the working environment may a material that avoids the be affected by different choices, for example, what use of solvents or adhe kind of products have the least negative impact on the sives is chosen, the pro working environment. So far, however, this is not a duction or the recycling
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 processes of this material may be connected with much higher exposures of workers in other companies.
From a working environmental point of view, the life-cycle perspective may be more successful in the future because the interest in the working environment at the subcontractors’ level has increased.
One of the main purposes of the WE-LCA is to identify those parts of the life cycle that may cause the largest amounts of work-related ill health. In this perspective, four factors are of major interest: 1) exposure, 2) exposure-effect relationship, 3) exposure time, and 4) exposed population. In a WE-LCA, the exposed popula tion in combination with exposure time (often reflected in amount of material or resource used in the life cycle) may increase or decrease the potential impact so that high exposures may give rise to low potential impacts and vice versa. Thus, the po tential effects on the working environment in the entire life cycle have to be sum marised, and data must be used and presented in a way that makes it possible to analyse which parts of the life cycle contribute the most to the potential ill health.
In the working environmental perspective, there is another major difference be tween WE-LCA and traditional tools. Traditionally, tools for the working environ ment focus on the (potential) impact on single individuals, but the WE-LCA fo cuses on potential impacts on populations. The WE-LCA ‘population perspective’ relates naturally to the environmental perspective, where the entire emission from parts of the life cycles naturally is in focus, and where individuals hardly ever are in focus. Instead, the environmental impact usually relates to an exposed population.
In conventional research on OH&S, there is a lot of information that might be used in WE-LCAs. The information, however, is gathered in a way that is not intended for use in WE-LCAs. One of the main problems is that an LCA reflects potential impacts. In OH&S research, the impact of exposures is described by ex- posure-effect curves. The impacts as described by these effect or impact curves are not easily compared and summarised because the impacts they reflect (e.g., cancer, neurotoxicity, irritation, chemical burns, hearing damages) may vary a lot, depend ing on the impact from the exposure in question.
During the last few years, issues like child labour, race issues, and other social as pects have gained more focus, and the concept ‘sustainable workplace’ is being dis cussed. A number of companies have extended their social responsibility through the production chain or the life cycle. Therefore, it is obvious to discuss the incor poration of these aspects in LCA or WE-LCA as well. This is, however, a fairly new area, and methods need to be developed. The issue will not be discussed further in this report. 6.2 Comparisons of WE-LCA and some specific tools
Labelling of products that relate to working environment To the best of our knowledge, there are no labelling systems available today for
products that relate only to the working environment. There are, however, some environment working the for tools other to Relation aspects relating to the working environment that are included in some labels of dif ferent kinds. The different eco-labels are sometimes believed to include working environment. A Swedish study (Cerne 2000) has examined in detail how working environment is included in the eco-labels in Sweden. The results show that working environment might be included in these labels in three different ways: 1) As a requirement relating to the fair trade concept and social responsibility 2) As a general requirement of fulfilling laws and regulations of the working en vironment 3) As more precise demands mainly focusing on specific chemicals or chemicals with specific properties that are not allowed in products with the eco-labels. The European environmental labelling schemes (EU’s ‘Flower’, the Nordic ‘Swan’, and the German ‘Blue Angel’) often contain criteria regarding working environ mental issues. Where possible, the criteria are based on regulations and standards, but in some cases, the criteria are established following measurements of different technological solutions. The criteria in all schemes are established using life-cycle considerations, but an actual LCA—without inclusion of the working environment—has been conducted in only a very few cases. A common feature for many product groups is that they contain criteria regarding the use of chemical substances. Such criteria influence the working environment in both the production and the use of the products. First, workers producing the products are not exposed to hazardous chemicals that are limited or prohibited for use by the eco-label, and second, professional users of the products also avoid exposure. For the working environment, however, the use phase is most often in focus. This is exemplified by criteria for electronic office equipment like personal computers and photocopiers. For photocopiers, criteria regarding emissions of noise, ozone, dust, and heat, for example, aim directly at the working environmental conditions for the users. For personal computers, criteria regarding the video display unit ensure that the users do not strain their eyes in order to read the display. Other types of criteria have the external environment as their primary target, but at the same time they aim indirectly at working environmental conditions. Examples of this are criteria regarding the content of hazardous substances in toner cartridges and criteria for easy separation of materials in a recycling process. There is a growing interest in ‘fair trade’, which often includes social aspects relat ing to import from the third world. Fair trade includes aspects that relate to work ing environment, such as child labour. Other aspects, for example, the physical working environment, usually are not included. To conclude, even though eco-labels often include some kind of life-cycle perspec tive, they do not at the moment include working environment in a way that makes the working environment considered as a part of the eco-labelling system. For the future, however, there is a possibility to expand the eco-labelling in order to cover also the working environment. This can be done in several different ways. One way is to use WE-LCA; another way is to identify the highest exposure, duration, and exposed population in order to include specified criteria regarding specific parts of the life cycle and exposures in the criteria for the eco-label. The fair trade labels today are poorly related to the working environment. Thus, today there are no relations between WE-LCA and fair trade labelling.
WE-LCA and workplace assessment According to the EU Directive 89/391/E0F of 12 June 1989, employers are obliged to assess the risks of their employees’ health and safety. In Denmark, re quirements of workplace assessment (WPA) are introduced to comply with this directive. The workplace assessment has to be fulfilled by all enterprises as well as by the public sector, and it has to be in writing. The workplace assessment is a continuous process that comprises the following four steps: 1) identification and mapping, 2) description and assessment, 3) prioritisation and plan of action, and 4) follow-up on the plan of action. The choice of method for WPA is optional. WPAs focus on the working environment in one enterprise or organisation and do not include a life-cycle perspective. WE-LCA tools are therefore not suitable for carrying out WPAs. A WPA does, on the other hand, produce information on working environmental exposures and impacts that may be usable as input data for WE-LCA. But because the choice of method is optional, the information from dif ferent companies is not necessarily uniform.
WE-LCA and working environmental management systems In many countries, there is an increasing interest in management systems for the working environment. Sweden and Norway have compulsory management sys tems, so-called ‘internal control’. In other countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Austria, there is an interest in different kinds of volun tary management systems, and different sectors have developed systems of their own. The British standard BS 8800 is increasingly popular not only in Great Brit ain, and other standards are emerging, for example, OHSAS MS 18001. There is no direct relation between the management systems for the working envi ronment and the WE-LCA. Of course, there are no specific requirements on WE- LCA in the management systems. There is, however, no contradiction between WE-LCA and the management systems. For enterprises and organisations that want to widen their perspective on the working environment, it is possible to use WE-LCA in order to get a good basis for making decisions when the working envi ronment in life cycles is considered.
WE-LCA and environmental management systems The use of environmental management systems (EMSs) has increased rapidly dur ing the last decade, both by use of the international standard for EMS, ISO 14001, or by use of the European eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) regulation (EC 2001). EMAS (especially the new EMAS II) emphasizes employee involve ment in the process of continually improving the organisation’s environmental performance. The new EMAS II puts emphasis on indirect environmental aspects; however, common for both management systems is that they focus on the external environment. Even though EMSs focus on the environment, it is quite common that companies have integrated or want to integrate working environment as well as quality into these management systems. Because LCA is a tool for the environment, it is plau sible that this integration will lead to an increased interest in similar methods for environment and working environment, resulting in an increased interest also in WE-LCA.
WE-LCA and life-cycle management Life cycle management (LCM) is a new concept of integrated product management system in a life-cycle perspective or supply chain perspective. LCM is a practical ap proach aimed to improve environmental decision-making concerning products and services and to minimise the environmental burdens associated with a product or service over its entire lifetime. LCM will be useful in ensuring eco-efficiency and sustainable development in companies, organisations, and society and in implementing Integrated Product Policy (IPP). LCM is a way of linking environmental improvements with economic efficiency and product stewardship in order to create marketing advantages and save money. LCM systems implemented in modern companies may differ in structure and con tent between the companies. Some companies integrate into their product manage ment system working environmental impacts, ethical issues, and social responsibil ity, besides the potential environmental impacts. A parallel SETAC Workgroup on LCM is working on further development of the concept. Their results will be published in the SETAC publication Life-cycle Man agem ent (Hunkeler et al. 2004). including such data in eco-labelling will probably increase, even though a market ing environment. The knowledge is usually derived from different kinds and oftools sources. tistics in different countries are prerequisites WE-LCAsfor that are based on the sector method. a Ifmethodprocess usedis WE-LCA,for a several information sources regarding exposures, exposure times and exposed populations,relation and exposure—effect ships will give input to theWE-LCA. In some cases, it might be possible to informationuse the directly. In other cases, the information will probably not but be sufficientwill as a guideserve to the focus in theWE-LCA. One important part of WE-LCAthe is the identification hotof spots, data,analysis andof evaluation whichof underlying factors cause the outcome: theIfWE-LCA the hot spots. is madewith the sector method, available information from ferent difsources (such as OH&S management systems differentfor enterprises or organisations WPAs) or can give an input to what actual working environmental 6.4 The use of data from WE-LCA in other tools Data WE-LCAfrom can be used wheneverworking environment in a life-cycle perspective is in Today, focus. the life-cycle perspective is not common when work ing environment discussed.is The use ofdifferent kinds ofmanagement systems, and especially the mutual relationship between environmental managementtems and working sys environmental management systems, will probablyinterest increasefor the life-cyclethe perspective whenalso it comes to working environment. dataIf from WE-LCAs are easily available and cheap to obtain, the interest of 6.3 The use of information from other tools in WE-LCA The sector methodWE-LCA for is based on existing statistics. Thus, existing sta problems have caused, for example, the hot spots in the LCA. pressure also has to be present to actually get theworking environment includedthe eco-labelling. in 6.5 Database developments In order to facilitate the use theof sector and methodsprocess WE-LCA,for databases are essential. Good databases will facilitate thework with WE-LCAand probably reduce the time spent on an additionalWE-LCA, when all tionbasic anfor informa LCA is available, to thanless one day and perhaps to a fewhours. Databases are to some extent available or under development. Databases are essen tial for theWE-LCA because databases make it possible to integrateWE-LCA in
g TheWE-LCA cannot be conductedwithout to access knowledge about the work CHAPTER | to 4 LCA using similar methods and structures. In Denmark, FORCE Technology has developed a database from Danish statistics for about 75 economical sectors (Schmidt et al. 2004). The database contains infor mation on ten different work-related accidents and diseases for the listed industrial
sectors. The data are given as the number of work-related accidents and diseases per environment working the for tools other to Relation ton material produced within the specific sectors. In Sweden at IVL, a database has been developed. This database contains detailed data from one country, with translation figures in order to give the possibility to generate comparable data for other countries. In order to allow those who are in terested in other impact categories to use the database, there will be more impact categories included in the Swedish database than in the IVL sector method. A euroMat database is under development (as a part of the euroMat software tool). For further development of the databases, there are five questions of major concern. The database should • be reliable, • provide data in a format that applies to LCA (that is related to the produc tion unit), • be able to reflect working environment in different countries, • be possible to use for all sectors (even those not available in the database country), and • include the impact categories the users want or need.
6.6 References
Cerne O. 2000. Marks arbetsmiljon? — en forstudie om arbetsmiljo i miljomarkning. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Research Institute, IVL-report B1355. Hunkeler D, et al. 2004. Life-cycle management. Pensacola, FL, USA: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). EC [European Commission]. 2001. Regulation No. 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). O ffJ European Communities 114:1—29. Schmidt A, Poulsen PB, Andreasen J, Floe T, Poulsen KE. 2004. LCA and the working environment. Kobenhavn: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental project nr 907.
Relation ■ L f i f r t M Wtfstec : JORG BECKER, BRANDENBU1 IB ni ■ pigSm H H t e c h n i c a l u n i v e r s i t y o f W n tF BB W W ■ ■ COTTBUS WE-LCA and ordinary LCA
The WE-LCA methods presented in this report are 7.1 MUP in general developed to be performed with an LCA screening method for the external environment. For example, most of The MUP method is a the screening methods (MUP, EDIP, and euroMat) screening method for either include environmental aspects or are to be used performing an ordinary with other methods (the EDIP screening is to be LCA. As described, seven used in connection with the EDIP process and sector parameters are included method). in the screening method Furthermore, the sector and process methods are de as quantitative or semi- veloped in a way that makes them closely related to quantitative parameters. the terminology used in ordinary LCAs for the exter One of the parameters is nal environment. The same functional unit is used for a screening for potential the WE-LCA as for the LCA of the external environ health effects. An assess ment. For the sector and process methods, methods ment of chemicals used for normalisation and sensitivity analysis have been in the working environ developed. For example, all the EDIP sector and ment, and also locally, process methods are developed to be normalised in regionally, and globally, is person equivalents (PEs), and the IVF process method performed. is developed to be used together with methods for The MUP method is, weighting with the use of economical values, for ex thus, a method that cov ample, environmental load units (ELUs) used in the ers both the external envi EPS system. ronment and the chemi cal working environment. Other similarities between the LCA and the sector It is therefore possible and process WE-LCA are that the same data on re to use the MUP method sources in each part of the life cycle are used, and that alone as a screening of the results can be presented similarly. the external environment Below, the relation between ordinary LCAs and the and the chemical working different WE-LCAs is elaborated. environment.
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 1) 1) Technical suitability • • Noise • Vibrations • Heat • Dynamicworkload • • Dangerous substances 5) 5) Working environmental factors (WE-LCA) 3) Costs (life-cycle costing) 6) Risks (potential accidents) 7) Development time. 2) Recycling quality 4) Environmental consequences (LCA) calculate the working environmental strains ofthe workers is not directlycon nected to the methods used in the other modules. However, there are some close informational and methodological interrelations between the modules. A ‘data de- TheWE-LCA in euroMat is done in a separate module. The method used to rate use singleof modules is not intended. Seven modules are used the to materials:assess 7.3 7.3 euroMat screening method 7.2 7.2 STO chemical screening method The working environmental module includes these impacts: and the WE-LCA. When a material selection is process carried out, it pulsoryis not com to use every module, but some are essential. Ofcourse, it is not possible to select a material without proofing the technical suitabilitywithout or knowing tal module provides information about the life cycle, which is also used in modulesother theas costs, the risks, and the working environmental modules. The sepa also also covering the external environment, each theof impact categories—includingthe chemical working environment—was evaluated separately. Because MUP is a screening method, the classification, characterisation, and standards. The euroMat method includes several modules, among them the environmental which technologies can be used manufacturingfor and recycling. The environmen This method has been developed to cover only the chemical working environment with no normalisation weightingor applied Thus, far. so in the context ofan LCA weighting are carried out in one step by using the developed matrices for the
CHAPTER 11- 50 screening. The method does not, therefore, follow the ISO 14040 or ISO 14042 livery sheet’ handles the information interchange between the modules. Wherever possible or useful, the same or similar methods are used in different modules, for example, the ranking method considering the uncertainty is the same in the envi ronmental, the working environmental, and the risks modules (3rd or higher itera tion step). eain ewe W-C ad riay LCA ordinary and WE-LCA between Relation The environmental and the working environmental burdens are not compared. As mentioned in the euroMat description, the results of the modules are left separate. A ‘spider web diagram’ is used to show the results of all modules, where the axes are the rankings of the different modules. The most outward points of the axis belong to the ‘best’ materials within the module, and thus the bigger the area included by the diagram, the better the material should be. But at this step, there is a scope for individual preferences as to which module is the most meaningful for the euroMat user who will have to decide which materials are the most interesting for him. When one finds a material with very good results in most modules but with poor properties in one or two other modules, it may be interesting to look for improve ment of these properties by further research and development. Because the euroMat method is a screening method, the method in general does not follow the steps in ISO 14040 or ISO 14042 because the classification, charac terisation, and weighting are carried out in one step.
7.4 IVL sector method
This method has been developed in a way so it follows the methodology for LCA as described by the ISO 14040 standard. However, because the sector method is based directly on statistical information on working environmental impacts (cat egory endpoints), the inventory and the impact assessments are carried out in one single step. The method is a sector method, based on the use of available Swedish statistics on work-related accidents and diseases in different sectors. Potential effects from the working environment are calculated to an impact related to some kind of produc tion volume in each trade, using available statistics on production or products in the sectors. The allocation is made according to value or weight (or km of transport or MWh). The normalisation is made in relation to the expected impact on average Swedish employees or on average Swedish employees in the sectors usually present in the products’ life cycles. The impact categories presently used are these: • Fatal accidents • Workdays lost due to accidents and diseases • Allergies and eczemas • Hearing damages. Other impact categories have been discussed but have proved difficult to use in practice. Such categories are as follows: • Workdays lost due to illness, exceeding normal for Swedish companies • Semiquantitative estimation of cancer • Semiquantitative estimation of reproductive damages. The similarities between LCA and the IVL WE-LCA method are these: • The same functional unit is used. • The same data on resources in each part of the life cycle are used. • The WE-LCA results can be presented similarly to those of the LCA. The additional work for the WE-LCA is collection of data, which are hereafter pro cessed similarly to other LCA data in each case.
7.5 EDIP method
The total EDIP method (screening, sector, and process method) for the working environment was developed along with the EDIP method for the external environ ment. The EDIP sector and process methods are therefore integrated in the EDIP method for the external environment (ordinary LCA). The screening method, how ever, is not connected to the method for the external environment. The purpose of the chemical screening method is to use it merely as a screening of the chemical working environment, in order to find out which processes should be further as sessed when the EDIP process method is used. The screening is also useful as a quick indication of the working environmental properties of a given material or product. The working environmental sector and process methods are connected to the EDIP method for the external environment by use of the PEs. Both environmental and working environmental effects are normalised according to the total effects in Den mark (e.g., work-related accidents, acidification, and nutrient enrichment) or in the world (e.g., COz equivalents), and they are comparable. Given that the combined EDIP method consists of three different parts (screen ing, sector, and process method) the method differs slightly from the ISO 14040 methodology. The sector method measures directly in category endpoint, whereas the process method follows the methodology. Combining the methods, however, causes some differences in the normalisation and weighting step.
7.6 New EDIP sector method
The development of the new EDIP sector method makes possible the integration with the existing terminology of the EDIP method for the external environment. This means that the effects (the work-related accidents and diseases) are also con- verted to PEs in the normalisation step, as they are for the original EDIP WE-LCA methods. The new EDIP method is developed according to the methodology for LCA as described by the ISO 14040 standard. However, because the sector method is based
directly on statistical information on working environmental impacts (category LCA ordinary and WE-LCA between Relation endpoints), the inventory and the impact assessments are carried out in one single step.
7.7 IVF process method
The WEST method can be used to perform WE-LCA studies following the steps described in ISO 14040 for ordinary LCAs. The functional unit is the same for both the external and the internal environment. Different system boundaries should be considered. In some cases, activities that are normally not included in an ordinary LCA, for example, building the plant, can make important contributions to the results. In the case studies that have been car ried out so far, the same system boundaries have been used for both the ordinary LCA and the WE-LCA. Brief calculations show that in some of these studies, other system boundaries should have been used. An LCA performed with the WEST method differs from an ordinary LCA in the impact assessment step. The characterisation and the valuation are made at the same time when an LCA is performed with the WEST method. The normalisation is furthermore automatically carried out in the WEST method, because these steps are incorporated in the inventory by the points given by the WPA form. The largest difference between ordinary LCAs and WE-LCAs performed with the WEST method is that it is often necessary to visit the plants. The experiences from case studies have shown that these visits have also made important contributions to the inventory studies for the external environment because of the possibilities to get better quality data from these plants.
Conclusions
Life-cycle thinking is a new approach within the scope of the LCA. Most working environmental area; nevertheless, many com important for deciding panies are beginning to understand that their activities whether to include or may influence the working conditions in all parts of exclude the working en the life cycle. Some companies have already shown in vironment are the scope terest in LCA methods that can incorporate the work and boundaries of the ing environment in the assessment. LCA. This also applies to the decision on which We do not argue that the working environment always factors to include. If the should be included in an LCA. In some cases, the intention of a study is working environment is best handled outside LCA to conclude on working and WE-LCA. However, when LCA is performed, environmental impacts there are situations in which it is advantageous to have in a product’s life cycle, the option to include working environment in LCA. at least the working envi Depending on the goal and scope of the LCA, the ronmental impacts most practitioner must decide whether or not to include related to the production WE-LCA. processes should be in This report shows that today there are in fact WE- cluded. LCA methods available that can easily be used in par If specific working en allel with conventional LCA methods for the external vironmental factors are environment, using the same goal, scope, and basic excluded because of data data of the life cycle. The results are presented in a gaps or other practical form similar to LCA results, relating to a functional reasons, the importance unit and allowing identification of hot spots. The of such exclusions should main limitation is the availability of data, but this be evaluated. This could problem seems to decrease as methods and databases be done by qualitative are developed. evaluations of which kind The WE-LCA will not necessarily be performed to of impacts are of concern gether with an LCA for the external environment. A at the different life-cycle WE-LCA can stand alone, depending on the goal and stages.
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 Several methods for WE-LCAs have already been developed (screening methods, sector methods, and process methods), and the first experiences of the methods are now available. Furthermore, some of the methods mentioned in this report are continuously updated and further developed. Case studies have shown that it is possible to perform WE-LCAs on regular con sumer products, and also to get valuable information about the working environ mental burdens during the life cycle. The case studies also show that it is possible to perform a WE-LCA with a reasonable effort. A WE-LCA based on the sector method can be carried out quite easily and quickly, especially if a database is estab lished and the WE-LCA is carried out along with an LCA of the external environ ment. When applying both process and sector methods on the same case (see Appendix 4), both methods give the same results concerning the most important processes in the life cycle of the product. The methods may supplement each other very well be cause the sector method provides more detailed information about the differences between the different materials, and the process method provides detailed informa tion about the specific production process. The chemical screening may be used to pinpoint the processes that should be included in an in-depth LCA. However, screening methods that include a more broad range of working environmental factors, such as the euroMat method, are of course a better tool for decision making at the screening level. A common feature of the sector methods is that, by relatively simple means, they aggregate a large number of processes into one assessment. Another advantage is that they are easy to use for those parts of the life cycle that are not the core pro cesses. The use of the sector methods, however, is best suited for an assessment of large and uniform productions, and they cannot distinguish between different products within the same economic sectors. This is also illustrated by cases C and D in Appendix 4. The sector methods can be used to identify where the highest impacts in the life cycle of the product are and also to identify the size of the impacts. Furthermore, the impacts can be compared to the impacts in the external environment (either by use of the PE or by economical values). Thus, the sector methods provide the possibility of comparing the impacts of different alternatives in the life cycle of the products. For the process and sector methods, the impacts can be aggregated over the entire life cycle. For some process and sector methods, the impacts can also be compared to the impacts on the external environment. The process method can be based on an evaluation of the working environment at the specific work places included in the life cycle of the products. Thus, the process method can give a more precise as sessment than the other methods. The process method can be used to distinguish between different producers or different production methods, also within the same sector, and even for very similar products. The process method can also be used for new processes. In general, the framework of the sector and process WE-LCA follows the ISO framework for LCA for the external environment. However, the described frame work is carried out in fewer steps in the WE-LCA. Because the sector methods are based directly on working environmental impacts (the category endpoints), the in ventory and impact assessments are carried out in one step. The normalisation and weighting procedures are in accordance with ISO 14042. In the two process methods, the normalisation and weighting are used slightly dif ferently than the framework. When the assessment form is used, the normalisation is automatically incorporated in the inventory for the WEST method. In order to be able to combine both the EDIP sector and EDIP process method, the normali sation and weighting are used differently in the EDIP method. The result of the EDIP method, however, is the same as the result of the EDIP method for the exter nal environment: impacts measured in PEs. In conclusion, it can be said that use of the sector and process methods makes it possible to perform a WE-LCA with a complete coverage of the life cycle. Fur thermore, the working environmental impacts can be aggregated over the entire life cycle of the products and can be compared with the impacts of the external environment. Allocation can be performed as for ordinary LCA, either by expand ing the system boundaries or through allocation by use of economic value or the amount of product. Furthermore, case studies show that allocation is possible by use of working time. One indication of the importance of different life-cycle phases could be the working hours per functional unit. Seen in a broader perspective, a combination of the methods seems to give the most useful results. Chemical screening quickly identifies the chemical hot spots in the life cycle, while the sector and/or process methods can be used to make a quantitative assessment of a broad range of impacts. The process method, which is the best when it comes to distinguishing between similar products, can be used for the core processes in the life cycle, and the fairly quick sector method can be used for the other activities in the life cycle. The ideal could thus be a merging of the methods. This, however, is not possible at the moment because of incompatibility between the different methods (from the different countries). If WE-LCA is used in contexts with higher demands on quality, detailed informa tion, and reliability, for example, in research and public decision-making, more elaborate methods must be available. This is in accordance with the Danish work shop on WE-LCA. One theof conclusions from this report is that the combination ofthe process used to distinguish between closely related products and butprocesses can be rather time-consuming. The possibilities combiningof different methods should be further therefore investigated. define the number ofimpact categories that can bybe assessed both methods and to create some science-based algorithms that are able to convert the results into the accidents and diseases is necessary. Different countries report the statistics differ ently, though, and therefore the possibilitycomparing of statistics from different countries should be more carefully examined. IVL has developed a method for calculating statistical information for any country based on statisticscountry’ for a ‘standardand calculations based on fatal accidents in the target country to the standardin relationcountry. However, further development in this area is needed. and sector methods seems to give the most useful results. The sector methods are fairly easy and quick to use but cannot distinguish between closely related products 8.1 Recommendations that it is possible to perform WE-LCA on regular consumer products. However, all methods are relatively new, and some theof methods have been used in only a few Thecases. experiences usingof the methods in different types shouldcases of there be fore further examined. In addition, more studiescase should be conducted in order to identifystrengths the and limitations ofthe different methods. Experiences from more case studies can also give additional information on the typeWE-LCA of methodshould thatbe used specificfor purposes. Companies and authorities should therefore be included in more studiescase and in the further development ofthe methods. same unit, the PE. sessments between countries and—perhaps more difficult—to establish a method ology in which the (best) elements in all methods are utilised. within the same sector ofindustry. The process methods, on the other hand, can be with a process method should be reconsidered. The main tasks in this are process to When the sector method is used, statistical information on working environmental The same possibility should be examined at the Swedish and internationalThe main levels. factors are to establish a common framework for exchange sectorof as At the Danish national level, the possibilitycombining of the new sector method
CHAPTER | oo gg Case studies performed with the abovementioned methods WE-LCA for show Appendix
List of Working Group members and attendance
Meeting participation Berlin, Bordeaux, Copenhagen, Brussels, Gothenburg, Germany, Copenhagen, Working Group France, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, 18-19 Jan Denmark, Authors of member 17 Apr 1998 10Jun 1998 3 Dec 1998 27 Aug 1999 2 0 0 0 6 Jun 2000 final report
Ann-Beth Antonsson y A AYYYYYA AA A IVL, Sweden Malin Nilsson AAYY IVL, Sweden Jorg Becker X X XX TU-Cottbus, Germany
Gerald Rebitzer y A X TU-Berlin Gunnar Bengtsson IVF, Sweden X X X X X (Secretary) Mats Karling XXXX IVF, Sweden
Goran Brohammer x IVF, Sweden
Carl Henrik Borchsenius y A ST0, Norway
Elin 0kstad x x ST0, Norway
Oddmund Brekke x x x ST0, Norway Allan Astrup Jensen FORCE Technology X X X X XXX (Chairman) Pia Brunn Poulsen FORCE Technology X X X X XX (Secretary) Anders Schmidt X X X XXX FORCE Technology
Atie Verschoor x x x ECM, the Netherlands
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6
Appendix Members of the SETAC Working Group on LCA and tne Working Environment The following list of people represents the presently active members of the SETAC Working Group on LCA and the Working Environment.
Ann-Beth Antonsson Swedish Environmental Research Institute, IVL Halsingegatan 43 Box 21060 SE-100 31 Stockholm T: +46 8 598 563 47 F: +46 8 598 563 90 [email protected]
Jorg Becker Brandenburg Technical University of Cottbus Postfach 101344 D-03013 Cottbus, Brandenburg Germany T: +49 355 69 4174 F: +49 355 69 4172 becker@tu-cottbus. de
Gunnar Bengtsson The Swedish Institute of Engineering Research, IVE (Secretary) Argongatan 30 SE-431 53 Molndal Sweden T: +46 31 706 6000 F: +46 31 706 6020 [email protected]
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 (Secretary) Hjortekasrsvej Hjortekasrsvej 99 Denmark F: 72+45 15 77 01 [email protected] Pia Poulsen Brunn Pia FORCETechnology 2800 Kgs. Lyngby F: +45 F: 72+45 15 77 01 T: 72+45 15 77 00 Hjortekasrsvej Hjortekasrsvej 99 2800 LyngbyKgs. [email protected] FORCETechnology Denmark T: +45 T: 72+45 15 77 00 Anders Anders Schmidt F: +45 F: 72 +45 77 15 01 (Chairman) Denmark [email protected] FORCETechnology Hjorteksersvej 99 2800 LyngbyKgs. T: +45 T: 72 +45 15 77 00 F: +31 F: 31 +31 731 3510 [email protected] ECM Narcislaan 7 6866 DX Fieelsum the Netherlands T: 31 +31 731 0110 F: F: 69 +47 34 24 94 [email protected] Allan Astrup Jensen Astrup Allan Oddmund Brekke Oddmund Ostfold Research Foundation, ST 0 PO Box 276 N-1601 Fredrikstad Norway T: 69 +47 35 11 62 SE-431 53 Molndal Sweden F: 31 +46 706 6020 [email protected] Atie H. Verschoor Atie H. Mats Karling Mats T: 31 +46 706 6000 The Swedish Institute Engineeringof Argongatan 30
APPENDIX | csi 62 Research, IVF Appendix Description of the euroMat method
This appendix contains a description of the working environmental module in eu roMat. In the assessment, the life cycle is first divided into “working areas”, where working conditions are nearly homogeneous. S' ' ir- 1st iteration step ^ A quantitative valuation of dangerous substances is performed. The substances are given the ranking A+, A, B, or C according to a set of criteria. Only the most dangerous substance in every working area counts. The lower the average valuation (calculated by a special formula) of the working areas within the life cycle, the more preferable is the material group from the viewpoint of WE-LCA.
2nd iteration step /z. In addition to the first iteratipn step, the frequency or duration of the contact wi the dangerous substances is considered. The substances are given the ranking X, or Z according to a set of criteria. The scores of the working areas are added, bt only for the same number of working areas within the life cycle.
3rd iteration step
Within every working area, every working environmental factor is scored or seven-step scale, depending on the dangerous properties of substances or oi emission levels (e.g., noise level) of the other four factors (noise, vibrations dynamic workload). With respect to dangerous substances, the intensity c ity of contact is also considered (by vapour pressure, protection measures nology). These five scores of the five environmemol factors are weighted for every working area. The weighting factors have been defined w ith re,1
Working Environment in Lifi-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A. A. Jtnsen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETKC). ISBN 1-880611-68 6 seriousness of occupational diseases caused by these factors, using related statistics. Finally, the sum of the scores of all working areas of the life cycle is calculated. This sum, of course, contains some uncertainty. The materials are divided into five ranks by this sum in such a way that materials in non-neighbourhood ranks are signifi cantly better or worse.
4th iteration step
In addition to the 3rd iteration step, the amount of the processed material is now taken into consideration by using a mass factor, which is multiplied with the score of every working area. This is done because, for example, in plastics and metal manufacturing processes, only a part of the processed material is relevant for the functional unit, and therefore only a part of the exposure should be counted.
5th iteration step
To refine the calculated exposures, now the number of exposed workers per work ing area must be multiplied with the related strain score. In addition to the described methodological differences between the iteration steps, in higher iterations, the life cycles are taken into account in more detail by tighten ing the cut-off rules. Appendix Description of the euroMat method
This appendix contains a description of the working environmental module in eu roMat. In the assessment, the life cycle is first divided into “working areas”, where working conditions are nearly homogeneous.
. £ 1st iteration step ^ A quantitative valuation of dangerous substances is performed. The substances are given the ranking A+, A, B, or C according to a set of criteria. Only the most dangerous substance in every working area counts. The lower the average valuation (calculated by a special formula) of the working areas within the life cycle, the more preferable is the material group from the viewpoint of WE-LCA.
2nd iteration step 'L. In addition to the first iteration step, the frequency or duration of the contact with the dangerous substances is considered. The substances are given the ranking X, Y, or Z according to a set of criteria. The scores of the working areas are added, but only for the same number of working areas within the life cycle.
3rd iteration step Within every working area, every working environmental factor is scored on a seven-step scale, depending on the dangerous properties of substances or on the emission levels (e.g., noise level) of the other four factors (noise, vibrations, heat, dynamic workload). With respect to dangerous substances, the intensity or possibil ity of contact is also considered (by vapour pressure, protection measures, and tech nology). These five scores of the five environmental factors are weighted and added for every working area. The weighting factors have been defined with respect to the
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1 -880611 -68-6 seriousness of occupational diseases caused by these factors, using related statistics. Finally, the sum of the scores of all working areas of the life cycle is calculated. This sum, of course, contains some uncertainty. The materials are divided into five ranks by this sum in such a way that materials in non-neighbourhood ranks are signifi cantly better or worse.
4th iteration step
In addition to the 3rd iteration step, the amount of the processed material is now taken into consideration by using a mass factor, which is multiplied with the score of every working area. This is done because, for example, in plastics and metal manufacturing processes, only a part of the processed material is relevant for the functional unit, and therefore only a part of the exposure should be counted.
5th iteration step
To refine the calculated exposures, now the number of exposed workers per work ing area must be multiplied with the related strain score. In addition to the described methodological differences between the iteration steps, in higher iterations, the life cycles are taken into account in more detail by tighten ing the cut-off rules. Appendix Case Studies
On the following pages, case studies from the different methods are described.
Case A: The new EDIP method used on an office chair
Case B: IVL study on ethanol produced from sorted household waste com pared to environmentally classified diesel for bus driving
Case C: IVF study of chromium or paint sanitary firtings
Case D: The new EDIP method applied to the IVF case on sanitary fittings
Case E: Working environmental assessment of an aircraft drinking water tank
Working Environment in Life-Cycle Assessment. P.B. Poulsen, A.A. Jensen, editors. ©2004 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-68-6 PIA BRUNN POULSEN AND ANDERS SCHMIDT Case A: The new methodEDIP used on an office chair Method used Goal and scope The newgoal EDIP. was therefore what to see kind ofinformation the method Duration of the study the basic information necessary for performing the WE-LCA already existed from an LCA performed on the environmental impacts ofthe office chair. took only about one week in total to carry out. Reasons for performing the case study method that was developed in a project thefor Danish Environmental Protection Because some ofthe basic information alreadywas available for this office chair, the amountwork ofwas therefore reduced. Publications and presentations in “LCA and theWorking Environment”, a project for the Danish Environmental LCA that was held in Copenhagen, 11 May 1999. projectThe for workshopthe DanishThe was part EPA. studycase ofthe was also presented in the SETAC Eu rope working group on working environment in LCA at the meetingburg, in 27GothenAugust 1999. Later in 1999, both the case study and the methodwere could provide about the working environmental burdens in the life fice chair. cycle theof of The method used was the newly developed EDIP sector method, new EDIP. Conducted by The studycase was performed over perioda ofabout one month because some of The primary reason for performing this case studywas to test the new EDIP sector on a consumer productwith a relativelylarge number materialsof and processes. The studycase is presented together with the methodology (new EDIP) presented The studycase was presented at a Danish workshop on working environment and The purpose thisof studycase was to test the recently developed sector method, The studycase was conducted by Pia Brunn Poulsen andAnders Schmidt,Technology, FORCEandJakob MunchAndreasen, Carl Bro, during the spring of 1999. Agency (Schmidt et al. 2004). After the development ofthe database for the new EDIP method, the studycase Agency (Schmidt et al. 2004). Furthermore, the purpose was to test the method
APPENDIX | presented at a joint Danish and Dutch workshop about LCA in Leiden, 16—17 September.
Relation to ordinary LCA An LCA on the external environment was already performed for the same office chair. However, no comparison between the LCA on the external environment and the WE-LCA was performed because the primary purpose was to test the WE-LCA method.
Functional unit and system boundaries The functional unit is an office chair specified with a certain list of parts. The office chair is a typical one with five wheels, adjustable height, and cushioned seat. In the calculations, it is assumed that the seat and back of the office chair will be replaced three times in the lifetime of the chair. The additional consumption of materials for this is included in the inventory. Some activities could not be included in the calculations because of missing infor mation: forestry, sheep farming, textile production, surface treatment, use of the office chair, and disposal. These activities were not included because the developed database does not contain data on these processes.
Data sources The primary data source for this case study is the database developed in the project for the Danish EPA. The database is developed by use of production volume sta tistics from Danish sectors combined with statistics on work-related accidents and diseases reported in Danish sectors.
Impact categories The impact categories used in the case study are fatal accidents, accidents, cancer, psychosocial damages, CNS function disorder, hearing damages, airway diseases (non allergic), air way diseases (allergic), skin diseases, and muscoloskeletal diseases.
Results and discussion of the results An overview of the relative contribution from materials or processes to the total im pacts from the product—the expected accidents and damages—is presented for the office chair in Figure A-1. As can be seen from Figure A -l, the assembly process is the most important process for many of the impact categories considered by the method. However, both plas tics and steel also have a large impact in some categories, for example, plastics as a whole cause more airway diseases than both the assembly process and steel produc tion. It can also be seen from the figure that transportation makes a significant contribu tion to only one impact category, accounting for about 10% of the expected fatal I XIONHddV 00
Fatal Accidents Cancer Psycho- CNS Hearing Airway Airway Skin Musculo- accidents 'J' social function damages diseases disases diseases skeletal damages disorder (non-allergic) (allergic) diseases
□ Production of steel H Production of aluminium □ Production of zinc □ Production of plastics EH Production of rubber □ Production of textiles H Production of paper/cardboard □ Production of glue/grease □ Assembling □ Transport ■ Energy total
Figure A -l Relative contribution of materials and processes to the overall impacts from the office chair accidents. For all other impact categories, transportation contributes only an insig nificant part. For energy production, the contribution cannot be observed in the illustration. It should, however, be remembered that the database for production of electricity, especially extraction of coal, is of poor quality. Looking at the absolute contribution to the single impacts from each of the materi als and processes can create another type of overview. An example is shown in Fig ure A-2, where the number of expected accidents per million office chairs is allo cated to each of the materials and processes. This overview is often valuable because the database for accidents is the most complete, that is, comparable information has been collected for all processes. It can be seen from Figure A-2 that the assembly process is the most important pro cess with respect to the risk of accidents. It can also be seen that steel is more im portant than plastics. This is not the case for other impact categories, as indicated in Figure A-l. The materials rubber, glue, and grease account for only a minor contribution, pri marily because of their low weight. Energy production and transportation are also of minor importance. The results from the impact assessment can subsequently be normalised in order to gain knowledge on which effects are most affected by the activities in the life cycle of a product. The normalisation is done by relating the expected number of accidents and damages to the average reporting frequency for an average Danish citizen. In practise, this is done by dividing the number of accidents and damages from the product by the normalisation references (see Schmidt et al. 2004). With this calculation, the impacts can be stated in PEs, that is, the same unit that is used for other impact categories in the EDIP method (1 PE = 1000 milli person equiva lents = 1000 mPE).
60,0
w S 50,0 o O0 0c 40,0 1 <5 OTQ-30,0 0C 'o-g to 20,0 o <5 -Q 110,0 2
0,0
Figure A-2 Contribution of single materials to the overall number of accidents in the life cycle of an office chair 170 chairs. With respect to the steel used in the chair, the average annual impact nents. ries- Figure A-3Figure shows the normalised impacts from the chair.office It can be seen that annual impact on an jcaused average citizetfTs y the production anof office chair. average impact is reached, while skinfor diseases, 77 chairs can be produced. An obvious choice will therefore be to emphasise the need to avoid organic solvents because these are well-knowna cause theof dominating effect, CNS function order. dis impact assessment. In FigureA-4 is shown how the single activities contribute to the expected accidents. canIt be seen that the average annual impact from ac cidents in the assembly is process reachedwhen each worker has assembled about is is reachedwhen steel for 370 chairs has been produced and processed into compo Conclusions consumer product (an office chair) and to get some interesting informationthe workingabout environmental burdens during the life cycle theof office chair. for production theof office chair. This is one ofthe inherent limitations theof sec tor method because statistics on production volume do not differentiate between the types plasticsof produced. The sector method, however, is capable showingof ronmental problems should be focused on in which life-cycle processes. the life-cycle activities have the most significant effect on CNS function damage, The effect potential measured in mPI^sjsjmexpression howof large a part the of With respect to CNS function damage, only 25 chairs can be produced before the The normalised results can be further detailed in the same way was as done in the This studycase has shown that it is possible to perform WE-LCAa on a “regular” The sector method used does not differentiate between the types plasticsof used point Theview. of method is also capable showingof which specific working envi the reported muscoloskeletal diseases or other diseases in the service sector cannot be allocated to the chair. office This problem is, however, a general problem for all which life-cycle are theprocesses most important from a working environmental sector and methods.process A limitation theof method is that it is not possible to include the use phase because
APPENDIX | 70 with an impact that amounts to about twice muchas as the other impact catego- Figure A-3 Normalised effects potential for the office chair office the for potential effects Normalised A-3 Figure mPE 40.0 45.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 0.0 5.0 HTransport ■ Energy total Energy ■ of textiles □ Production of zinc Production 0 rubber of Assembling □ aluminium of Production 0 Production E glue/grease of Production 0 HTransport paper/cardboard of Production ■ plastics of Production □ steel of Production H accidents Fatal ciet Cancer Accidents aae dsre (o-legc (allergic) (non-allergic) disorder damages sco C Haig iwy Airway Airway Hearing S CN Psycho- oil ucin aae dsae disases diseases damages function social saipnjs aseg saipnjs iess skeletal diseases kn Muscolo- Skin diseases "j 6,0
5.0
4.0
2,0
1.0
0,0
4
Figure A-4 Normalised values for accidents in the life cycle of the office chair
References
Schmidt A, Poulsen PB, Poulsen KE, Floe T, Andreasen J. 2004. LCA and the working environment. Kobenhavn: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental project nr 907. Case B: IVL study on ethanol produced from sorted household waste for bus driving compared to environmentally classified diesel for bus driving
ANN-BETH ANTONSSON
Goal and scope The goal of this case study was to make a WE-LCA parallel to a previous LCA. The case study aimed at determining whether basic ideas of the methods previously developed for WE-LCA could be used in a case study parallel to LCA. It also aimed at developing the methods further in order to make WE-LCA and LCA more com patible. Another aim was to achieve a better understanding of the potentials and limitations of the method for WE-LCA.
Method used The method used had previously been developed and published by IVL (Antons son et al. 1995). The method is a sector method based on Swedish statistics for dif ferent sectors in combination with statistics on production volume in the sectors. Normalisation was included in the method, and normalisation was made through subtraction of the medium values for each impact category and part of the life cycle. Thus, normalisation showed if there was an increased impact in comparison to medium impact in Sweden. Two different medium values were used: one reflect ing reported work-related accidents and diseases in the entire Swedish workforce and the other reflecting the workforce in trades argued to be more relevant for life cycles. Sensitivity analysis was made by controlling the effects on the result with the as sumption that each part of the life cycle and impact category had a ten times higher value than that calculated from statistics. Allocation was basically done using this value, but also according to weight and transport distance.
Conducted by Malin Nilsson and Ann-Beth Antonsson at IVL conducted the study during 1998.
Duration of the study The work with the study took part during 1998. Because the work included devel oping the method and identifying the relevant data sources, effective time is esti mated at two months. This time could, however, be reduced significantly in future studies because methods now have been developed. The time needed is dependent on whether data are easily accessible. transport, and depositwaste; of and contain reported cases (reported by the injured or the company); waste by municipalities. • • statistics on production differentof types goodsof from Statistics • Sweden; the SwedishAssociation on Waste Managements' statistics on collection, • the Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency statistics on collection of • • the Swedish national statistics on work-related accidents and diseases, which 1999). 10 10 000 000 km bus ofdriving in combination with the handling a specificof method applies better to LCA that compares alternatives from different sectors than to LCA that compares within processes the same sectors. Publication and presentation Reasons for the case study for choosing this was case thatwe searched afor case where an LCAhad already been conducted in order to use available data about the life cycle as input theWE-LCA.data for In this specific case, an LCAhad earlier been conducted at IVL, thus andnecessary datawere easily accessible. One reason for choosing this specific LCA for the studycase was that the life cycles theof two alternatives included different sectors. was It presumed that the sector CouncilWork for Life Research. ing group on working environment in LCA in December 1998. Relation to LCA lel with the LCA. The results are presented in relation to the same functionaland normalisationunit, and sensitivity analysis have been conducted. Functional unit The goal and theofscope study are described Theabove. goal and scope are not This studycase is part a ofresearch project WE-LCA on funded by the Swedish The results have been published in Swedish in a report from IVL (Antonsson et al. The results from this studywere also presented at a meeting with SETAC's work The studycase is based on data from an LCA and is conducted very much in paral used in the LCA thatwas the basis for this WE-LCA. The functional unitwas amount householdof waste, industrial waste, and supplya ofcertain amount of Data sources The functional unit used in this case studywas identical to the functional unit electricity and hotwater for district heating. The data sources used were, apart from the previous LCA,
APPENDIX | ^ related to the choice ethanolof versus environmentally classified diesel. The reason Impact categories The impact categories used were • fatalities from work-related accidents • workdays lost due to work-related accidents and diseases (This impact cate gory reflects many different kinds of impacts from the working environment and, to some extent, the severity of the impacts.) • hearing damages • allergies and eczema. Other impact categories had been proposed earlier but proved to be difficult to include because the kind of statistics needed was not accessible. These excluded im pact categories are workdays lost exceeding normal (not related to reported cases of work-related injuries and diseases) and the semiquantitative categories cancer and reproductive damage.
Results In Table A -l, the results of the case study are summarised.
Table A -l Results of IVL’s WE-LCA study for ethanol derived from household waste compared to diesel. The results show the calculated number of cases/workdays lost if buses are driven for 10 000 000 km using ethanol or diesel as fuel. The standard deviation reflects the variation between the three years for which the WE-LCA is calculated, 1994-1996.
Impact category Production of ethanol Production of diesel
Hearing damages 0,113 ± 0,039 0,098 ± 0,034 Allergies and eczema 0,020 ± 0,018 0,018 ± 0,017 Fatal accidents 0,0003 ± 0,0003 0 Workdays lost 185 ± 33 163 ± 29
Conclusions The boundaries used were the same as in the LCA study that preceded the WE- LCA study. The results show that some parts of the life cycle have a large effect on the result. These parts concern collection and deposit of waste. This result is valid also after normalisation and sensitivity analysis. Understanding of the causes for the impacts requires a more thorough analysis. The impact categories included in the LCA are limited, which usually but not al ways is a requirement. In order to get a better understanding of the causes of hot spots, other impact categories could be included in the analysis (e.g., the impact category workdays lost due to work-related accidents and diseases can be broken down in several different exposures and causes; statistics for these are available in the statistical databases used). JCleaner Prod ?>(A)-.2l5-220. in life cycle assessments. metod. Stockholm: IVL. IVL-publikation B1320. livscykelanalyser. Stockholm: IVL. IVL-publikation B 1184. ing damage is considered to be a serious Theeffect. same validis for allergies and Data on work-related accidents and werediseases available for only three years, It couldIt be argued that the impact categories should be reduced to fatal accidents other than Statistics Sweden. These other sources do not relate to the NACE codes for different sectors, which makes it more difficult to relate production volume in method is based on national statistical data and should be developed further, es For most For parts theof life cycle, statistics on work-related accidents and diseases as eczema, though in a smaller fraction theof cases. even though it was desirable to use data for a longer period in order to get mean comparable data were accessible only from 1994. In this study, case there are some data gaps, example,for for those parts theof life cycle that do not take part in Sweden, such extractionas oil.of In this datacase, these gaps were andfew, data were available for most parts ofthe life cycle. One specific data gap concerned such processes as the“new” production process and workdays lost. This reduction, wouldhowever, result in informationofloss such as transports and handlingwaste, of data have to be collected from sources these work-relatedsectors to accidents and diseases. )NACE is a common basis for statistical classifications economicof activities within the European Community.) pecially to allow inclusion parts ofofth elife cycle which for there are no nationaldata or parts that take part outside the nation. Additionally, the shouldimpact be discussed further categories in order to develop a set ofimpact categories that could be used in different ways according to the purpose. References values years. five over Because the basis for statistics has changed theover years, well statisticsas on production are easily available. otherFor parts ofthe life cycle This method seems to be suitable for conductingWE-LCA parallel to LCA. The where ethanol is made from waste. Antonsson A-B, Carlsson H. 1995. En metod for att integrera arbetsmiljo i Antonsson A-B, Nilsson M. 1999. Arbetsmiljo-LCA - vidareutveckling av en kvantitativ Antonsson A-B, Carlsson H. 1995. The basis for a method to integrate work environment
APPENDIX | 76 because hearing damages in many cases do not cause sick leave, even though hear Case C: IVF study of chromium or paint on sanitary fittings
MATS KARLING AND GUNNAR BENGTSSON
Goal and scope What is the best for the environment: chromium or powder coated sanitary fit tings? An LCA was made to compare these two alternatives. The working environ ment also was assessed to give a complete picture of the impact of the environment.
Method used The Swedish WEST method, which is a process method, was used.
Year of conduction The case study was conducted in November 1998.
Duration of the study The case study was made over a two-week period. This very short time was possible because only 3 companies had to be visited. From other case studies, we already had the rest of the data that were needed (data collected at 2 other companies).
Reasons for performing the case study Five manufacturers of sanitary fittings wanted to show their customers which type of surface treatment is the best from an environmental point of view. Powder coat ing is a better process than chromium plating but gives a shorter lifetime for the product. Because the results would be communicated to customers, the manufac turers wanted as much information as possible about the two alternatives. There fore, it was decided to perform an LCA study also for the working environment.
Publications and presentations The results from the project are presented in the report “Chromium or paint? Life cycle assessment of sanitary fittings with different surface treatment” (Bengtsson et al. 1999).
Relation to ordinary LCA No direct comparisons with the results from the ordinary LCA were made. The same functional unit and system boundaries were used.
Functional unit and system boundaries The same functional unit was used both for the working environment study and for the external environment: one kilo of sanitary fitting. Almost all external envi ronmental impact could be related to the weight of the product. For the working facturing ofnickel and chromium and the use nickelof and chromium forms other than inmetallic could, however, imply an increased risk cancer. of In modern surface treatment plants, the risks are small. long periods, cause nickel allergy. Sanitary fittings have aprotective chromium coating theabove nickel coating. Chromium in allergenic.metallic form is not and the listsubstances, of which are to be kept according to the Nordsjo • • Objects that emit nickel can, ifthey are used in contact with skin during • • There is no riskcancer of in the use chromium-platedof objects. The manu • • Nickel and chromium are on “The limitation list”, “The observation list”, Data sources Results and discussion of the results ronment in the production sanitaryof fittings. Impact Impact categories See the description theofWEST method (the IVF method; Chaptersee 4, section environment, one piece productof could have been more suitable; however, there The same system boundaries were also used. No calculation was made to verify plant both give about the same total consequences for the work environment. Theydo create a high physical load on the This staff. is due to the part ofthe process in conveyer, which is used to hold the details during the powder-paintingmium or chro Thisprocess. is a high-strain, repetitive manual formwork. of FigureA-5 below shows the working environment impact for the different steps in the life cycle. The results are weighted with the working time spent to functionalproduce one unit. The data for brass has been removed because they are confidential. important resultswere these: formation about the impact from different parts theof life cycle. Theynow good have knowledge a about what actions should be taken to improve the working envi assessment is the polishingcomponents of made ofbrass. 4.2, p 22). contribute much,so we used data from other case studies. which the workers have to lift a high number detailsof to hang them on a rack or The “working environment” for the user ofthe product was also studied. The most TheWE-LCA was successful insofar as the results gave the companies valuable in The working operation with the largest consequences on the working environment was no problem with the interpretation ofthe results. whether this was correct or not. A modern chromium plating plant and a somewhat old-fashioned powder painting All important data are site specific in this study. partsFor theof LCA that do not
APPENDIX | ^ 8,0
Processing Brass Chromium Powder Detail prod raw materials production plating coating
0 Accidents HD Chemicals 0 Relations S3 Physical load E3 Vibration E3 Work content H Noise EB General environment Cl Freedom of action
Figure A-5 Working environmental impacts for the whole life cycle for different alternatives
conference. Chromium is also on “The 40 list”. Lead and copper are ex amples of substances in building materials pointed out to be able to poison nature’s own natural cycle. Several of the ingredients in paint and lacquer are also pointed out as poisonous.
References
Bengtsson G, Janson G, Knapp L, Ramberg C. 1999. Life cycle assessment of sanitary fittings with different surface treatments. Molndal: Swedish Institute of Production Engineering Research. IVF report 99801.
PIA BRUNN POULSEN AND ANDERS SCHMIDT Pia Brunn Poulsen and Anders Schmidt, FORCETechnology, conducted the case Reasons for the case study Group on Working Environment in LCA. Duration of the study Given that an LCA andWE-LCA alreadywere carried out by IVF in existing 1999, data were theused directlyfor this study.case The duration theof study was to to a previously performedWE-LCA using aprocess method. The purpose thisof In this way, it possibleis to thesee strengths andweaknesses theof two types of methods, and how the two methods can supplement each other. Another aim therefore, is, to achieve a better understandingthe of potentials and limitationsmethods WE-LCA.for theof Method used od). The method is a sector method based on Danish statistics on work-related ac Normalisation was carried out according to the Danish population. sanitary fittings Case The new methodD: EDIP used on the caseIVF of achieved by two differentWE-LCA methods used on the same Thiscase. case was performed especiallyfor thework carried out in this SETAC Working Europe Publications and presentations therefore very short, about two weeks in all. cidents and diseases for different sectors, in combination with Danish statistics productionon volumes theof sectors. Conducted by study in the spring 2000.of Goal and scope The main reason for carrying out this studywas to be able to compare the results was to thesee difference in the results, if any, when two different methods are used. The method used is the newly developed EDIP sector method (new EDIP meth The goal thisof case studywas to make WE-LCAa using a sector method parallel The results have at the moment not been published and have only been presentedwithin the SETAC WorkingEurope Group on Working Environment and LCA.
APPENDIX | * 8 0 Relation to LCA The case study is based on data from an LCA using the EPS and Eco-indicator 95 system. The results are presented in relation to the same functional unit.
Functional unit The functional unit used in this case study was identical to the functional unit used in the LCA that was the basis for this WE-LCA. The functional unit is a Nordic average of the frequently used one-grip sanitary fitting produced in 1997. The sanitary fittings are either surface treated with a nickel-chromium treatment or a powder paint layer. Otherwise the two sanitary fittings are identical. The expected average lifetime of the two products is 10 years for the powder-paint ed sanitary fitting and 15 years for the nickel-chromium-treated one.
Data sources The data sources used were, apart from the previous LCA, the database developed for the new EDIP method (Schmidt et al. 2004). The database is developed by use of production volume statistics from Danish sectors, combined with statistics on work-related accidents and diseases reported in Danish sectors.
Impact categories The impact categories used in the case study are fatal accidents, accidents, cancer, psychosocial damages, CNS function disorder, hearing damages, airway diseases (nonallergic), airway diseases (allergic), skin diseases, and muscoloskeletal diseases.
Results and discussion of the results Data from the existing WE-LCA have been used for this case study. This means in principle that the same limitations are valid. However, production of silver and production of chromium (for the nickel-chromium treatments) are not included in this case study, because these processes are not available in the database developed for the method. This will not influence the results because silver makes up less than 1% of the total weight of the sanitary fitting and because chromium accounts for only about 4% of the nickel-chromium layer. Energy consumption is included in this case study only for the production of fit tings. Energy consumption for transportation is not included because no data are reported in the existing study. However, no difference between the two alternatives is expected. Brass is calculated as 65% copper and 35% zinc. Production of additives such as lead and aluminium is not included in the calculations. The process “surface treatment” is not included in this case study because these data are not available in the database (it was not possible to produce this set of data for the database). The two alternatives are almost identical. The same materials are used for both sanitary fittings. The minor differences between the two alternatives are these: • The surface treatment (powder painted or nickel-chromium treated). This process is, however, not included in this case. • Production of either powder painting or nickel and chromium for the sur face treatment. • Energy consumption for the production of the sanitary fittings. The dif ference is due to the different energy consumption for the different surface treatments. Figure A-6 shows the relative contribution of the materials and processes to the overall impacts of the nickel—chromium-treated sanitary fitting. Because the two al ternatives are almost identical, only the results for the nickel-chromium fitting are shown. The only major difference is that the production of powder paint does not ontribute to fatal accidents as the production of chromium does. Figure A-6 shows that the production of the sanitary fitting is the process that contributes most to the total impacts. For most impacts, the production of the fittings is responsible for more than half of the impacts. Otherwise, production of brass and production of ceramics are the primary contributors. Production of ceramics has the largest contributions for the impacts cancer and airway diseases (nonallergic). For fatal accidents, however, transportation, energy production, and production of chromium are the only contributors. (For the powder-painted alter native, only energy [20%] and transportation [80%] are contributing to the fatal accidents). The fact that production of the sanitary fitting and production of brass are the larg est contributors to the total impacts of the fitting is also shown in Figure A-7. In this figure, the accidents shown are only for the different processes or materials for the nickel-chromium-treated fitting. The figure also shows that one accident will happen in the production of the sanitary fittings for every 107.000 fittings pro duced, and one accident in the production of brass for every 135.000 fittings. In Figure A-8, the differences between the powder-painted and the nickel-chro mium-treated fitting are shown. For both energy production and production of the powder paint or nickel, the powder-painted fitting is the best alternative. Flowever, for the figures shown, the lifetime of the product has not been taken into account. Because the lifetime of the nickel-chromium fitting is 50% longer than the pow der-painted fitting, the impacts will of course be 50% lower compared to the pow der-painted fitting. The nickel-chromium-treated fitting will therefore overall be the best working environmental alternative. This conclusion is, however, not valid if the fittings are replaced before the end of their lifetime, for example, because of a change in style and taste. 0% Fatal Accidents Cancer Psycho- CNS Hearing Airway Airway Skin Musculo- accidents social function damages diseases disases diseases skeletal damages disorder (non- (allergic) diseases allergic)
■ Production of steel □ Production of brass (copper and zinc) H Production of copper □ Production of plastics 0 Production of ceramics □ Production of nickel/chromium for surface treatment □ Production of the sanitary fitting □ Transport E Energy total (nickel/chromium) Figure A-6 Relative contribution of materials and processes to the overall impacts from the nickel-chromium-treated sanitary fitting
saipnjs aseo Figure A-7 Contribution of single materials to the overall number of accidents in the life cycle of a nickel-chromium-treated sanitary fitting
□ Powder paint Q Nickel/chromium
Production of powder paint or nickel/chromium Energy total for surface treatment Figure A-8 Differences between the powder painted and the nickel-chromium-treated fitting. The dif ference in lifetime is not included.
In Figure A-9, the impacts during the life cycle of the nickel-chromium-treated fit ting are normalised. (Only minor differences exist for the powder-painted fitting, which is why this figure is not shown). Figure A-8 shows how the single activities contribute to the expected accidents and diseases. It can be seen that the life-cycle activities have the most significant effect on skin diseases. Figure A-9 Normalised effect potentials for the nickel-chromium-treated fitting nickel-chromium-treated the for potentials effect Normalised A-9Figure Accidents (mPE) per sanitary fitting 3.50 50 .5 2 0 3.0 2.00 50 .5 0 0.00 .50 1 1.00 aa ciet Accidents accidents Fatal H Production of copper copper of H Production steel of Production ■ ED(nickel/chromium) total Energy B Transport ceramics of Production 0 Cancer Psycho-social CNS function CNS Psycho-social aae disorder damages 0 Production of plastics of Production 0 zinc) and (copper brass of Production □ B B fitting sanitary the of Production □ Production of nickel/chromium for surface treatment surface for nickel/chromium of Production aae (o-legc (legc diseases (allergic) (non-allergic) damages Hearing Airway diseases Airway disases Skin diseases Musculo-skeletal Musculo-skeletal diseases Skin disases Airway diseases Airway Hearing pnj 0SBQ jS n jp O S cji 00 individual processes. annual impact on an average citizen is caused by the production oneof sanitary before before the average impact is reached, while CNSfor function disorder about 475 CNS function disorder. However, a more in-depth analysis ofthe working environ From this study,case it can be concluded that the powder-painted sanitary fitting is than years. 10 On the other hand, ifthe sanitary fitting is expected to last longer, made without the knowledge about the working environmental impacts during the favourable alternative compared to nickel-chromium surface treatment. The best the sector method than with the process method. This may be due to the fact that treatment whereprocess, use ofthe sector method is not possible. The potentialeffect measured in mPEs anis expression howof large a part theof fittings can be produced. is It therefore obvious to emphasise the need to avoid al lergy-causing agents and organic solvents because these can cause skin diseases and mentshould be carried out in order to find the reasons for the higher impacts skinof diseases. Conclusions the workingbest environmental alternative ifthe fitting is expected to last no more the nickel-chromium-treated fittingwill be the best alternative. This conclusion is theof process surface treatment because this process could not be included in this case (no data could be calculated on surface treatment for the database). aofmethod, process surface treatmentwith powder painting seems to be a more pected lifetime theof fitting. Comparison of the process WE-LCA and this sector WE-LCA od is used on the same case, it can be seen that both methods show that the process producingof the sanitary fittings is responsible for the largest impacts in the cycle.life However, the production ofseems brass to give relativelyhigher impacts with the sector method on focuses the amount materialsof (brass is 76%the of w/w fitting), where the methodprocess morefocuses on the working time used thefor ods can, though, supplement each other verywell because the sector method can give more detailed information about the differences between the different materi als and because the methodprocess can give detailed information about the surface When comparing Case C and this Case D, where both a process and a sector meth working environmental alternative will therefore be highly dependent on the ex According to Case C, the WE-LCAofthe sanitary fittings carried out by the use As can be seen from the two cases, both methods give the same results. The meth
APPENDIX | * 86 fitting. With respect to skin diseases, about 345 sanitaryfittings can be produced References
Schmidt A, Poulsen PB, Andreasen J, Floe T, Poulsen KE. 2004. LCA and the working environment. Kobenhavn: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental project nr 907. Case E: Working environmental assessment of an aircraft drinking water tank
JORG BECKER
Goal and scope The purpose of this case study was to test the working environment module of the euroMat method. It was the first application test of the developed 3rd iteration step. The test led to minor changes in the methodology.
Method used The method used was the euroMat working environment module, 3rd iteration. It was conducted as a part of the whole euroMat method.
Conducted by The case study was conducted by Jorg Becker, Brandenburg Technical University of Cottbus, during the spring of 2000.
Duration of the study The case study was performed over a period of about one month. It was carried out manually because the euroMat database was still under development. Only a minor part of the necessary information was available from the case studies carried out be fore. Therefore, the main part of the time used was in data collection.
Reasons for performing the case study Besides testing the newly developed method, the purpose of the case study was to find out if the currently used material (carbon fibre-reinforced PE) is really the best for the given purpose and which changes in the working environment would occur when other suitable materials and technologies were used.
Publications and presentations The case study is not yet presented. It was included in the interim report 6/2000 of the euroMat project.
Relation to ordinary LCA Together with the WE-LCA, an ordinary LCA (screening LCA in accordance with the euroMat method) was performed. The most meaningful environmental impact of the water tank was the fuel consumption of the aircraft during the use phase. The fuel consumption is determined by the weight of the tank. The production of the different materials, the manufacturing, and the recycling technologies have a relatively small influence on the environmental characteristics. Functional unit and system boundaries The functional unit is a drinking water tank for a passenger aircraft. The materials assessed (chosen by the 2nd iteration step) are shown in Table A-2.
Table A-2 Materials assessed in the case study
Matrix Reinforced by Abbreviation
Epoxide Carbon fibre EP-CF (currently used) Epoxide Polyethylene EP-PEF Epoxide Boron fibre EP-BF Polycarbonate Carbon fibre PC-CF Polycarbonate Boron fibre PC-BF Polyethylenterephtalate Carbon fibre PET-CF Polyethylenterephtalate Boron fibre PET-BF Liquid crystal polymers Carbon fibre LCP-CF Liquid crystal polymers Boron fibre LCP-BF Polyetheretherketone Carbon fibre PEEK-CF Polyetheretherketone Boron fibre PEEK-BF Polyhexametylenadipinamide Carbon fibre PA66-CF Polyhexametylenadipinamide Boron fibre PA66-BF Steel (alloy)
The tank (see Figure A-10) consists of a middle part with nearly hemispheric ends.
Figure A-10 Aircraft drinking water tank, made of carbon fibre-reinforced epoxide The technologies for manufacturing in the case study were considered: filament winding (removing the model by cutting the tank or by dissolving the model), res- 90 in injection moulding (resin transfer moulding [RTM]), compression moulding of the hemispheres and filament winding of the central part, and casting (steel only). The technologies for recycling regarded pyrolysis, extrusion, injection moulding, T3 steel recycling, and boron fibre recycling (matrix burned). m o Besides the lightweight construction, the material must have some specific char- — acteristics (as described by the profile of requirements). The most important char acteristics are stiffness (with respect to the barometric pressure conditions in the water system and in the aircraft), conservation of drinking water quality, tightness, and fire resistance (described as smoke emergence, toxicity, heat development). The expected lifetime is 20 years or 80 000 flying hours.
Data sources Data sources used are different databases (about hazardous substances, noise data bases), research reports, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) guidelines, books (for details, see References). The data are now integrated in the euroMat database for future calculations.
Impact categories The impact categories used in the case study are (according to the euroMat meth od, the working environment module) hazardous substances, noise, vibration, dy namic muscle work, and heat work.
Results and discussion of the results According to the euroMat method, strain scores were calculated for the different materials within the life-cycle phases and over the whole life cycle (Figure A-l 1). In
Figure A - ll Evaluation of the life-cycle phases raw material extraction and material production the manufacturing and in the recycling phase, different technologies were consid ered for each material. In the raw material extraction and material production phase, mainly chemical hazards were considered. The lowest working environmental burdens among the polymer materials are connected with the boron fibre-reinforced LCP, PET, PA66, and PC. The burdens of carbon-reinforced polymers are generally higher. In the manufacturing phase (see Figure A-12), the highest working environmen tal burdens arise from technologies, where monomer-containing components or hazardous additives are handled or could be emitted from the melted polymers. The lowest working environmental burdens are connected with the combined manufacturing of the tank (compression moulding of the hemispheres and filament winding of the cylindrical part). Generally, hazardous substances dominate the cal culated scores, followed by noise.
no. of technology
2000
O§1500 □ noise C. Sooo □ chem CO
123456789
Figure A-12 Evaluation of the life-cycle phase manufacturing, using different technologies (Factors not contributing to the strain are not shown.)
In Figure A-12, the numbers 1 to 9 refer to
Nr Technology Material 1 Resin injection moulding thermoplastics Compression moulding of the hemispheres and filament 2 winding of the central part thermoplastics 3 Filament winding thermoplastics 4 Filament winding with dissolving the model thermoplastics 5 Resin injection moulding duroplastics Compression moulding of the hemispheres and filament 6 winding of the central part duroplastics 7 Filament winding duroplastics 8 Filament winding with dissolving the model duroplastics 9 Casting steel
■ heat ■ noise m chem □ Extrusion Duroplastics Steel m m Thermoplastics Injection mouldingInjection Casting IIIIM11 Thermo- recycling Boron fibre fibre Boron or duroplastics or Thermo- Thermo- Pyrolysis or duroplasticsor 0 800 600 200 4 0 0 1600 1 400 1 200 1 000 o (/) c Figure Figure A-14 Evaluation theof life cycle theof water tank with uncertainty ranges '«5 w Figure Figure A-13 Evaluation theof life-cycle phase recycling usingdifferent technologies (Factors not FigureA-14 shows the working environmental burden theof life cycle for each material or compound material. Because the result depends on the technology for manufacturing used and for recycling, two values for each material are shown: calculatedscore 1) the for the technology”“best with the lowest score (marked as “bT”) and 2) the average allof considered technologies. contributingto the strain are not shown.) considered to be the best from workinga environmental point Theview. of recy cling rawof materials (pyrolysis) has the highest becausescore appearanceof of carcinogenic substances (aromates, naphta, pyrolytic coke). Chromiumcause the andchemical nickel hazards recyclingof steel ofby casting. Among the recycling technologies Figure(see A-13), the reuse theof material is
APPENDIX | * 9 2 The best results (lowest WE burdens) are connected with boron-reinforced LCP, PET, PA66, PC, and EP. The worst values have the carbon fibre and polyethylene fibre-reinforced materials. The ranking of the materials in Figure A-14 is shown below:
Rank Material 1 LCP-BF (bT), PET-BF (bT), PA66-BF (bT), PC-BF (bT), EP-BF (bT) 2 LCP-CF (bT), PET-CF (bT), PEEK-BF (bT), steel, PA66-CF (bT), PC-CF (bT) 3 EP-PEF (bT), PEEK-CF (bT), EP-CF (bT) 4 LCP-BF, PET-BF, EP-BF, PA66-BF, PC-BF 5 PEEK-BF, LCP-CF, PET-CF, PA66-CF, PC-CF, EP-PEF, EP-CF, PEEK-CF
Considering the uncertainty of the scores, it is not evident that one rank in differ ence means that one material is better than another. Only materials in non-neigh bourhood ranks are surely better or worse. The results of all euroMat modules are shown in a spider diagram in Figure A-15 (only selected materials). A large area in the spider diagram is better than a small area.
Figure A-15 euroMat evaluation of the aircraft drinking water tank, comparing different reinforced epoxide compounds with steel
From the viewpoint of suitability for intended use, the carbon-reinforced com pounds are the best. Boron-reinforced systems are generally not preferred. Rein forced thermoplastics are better for recycling than are reinforced duromers. This is also true for the risk module, except for the boron-reinforced compounds, which have the highest risk. Steel has very different scores. While steel is preferred in the recycling, risk, and work environmental modules, it is the worst alternative in the manufacturing mod ule (currently, no technologies are available for manufacturing a tank with very thin walls). In the environment module, the fuel consumption in the use phase has the greatest influence on the result. So, the materials that lead to the lowest weight of the tank are best for the environment.
Conclusions
The case study shows the ability of the euroMat WE-LCA module to point out the most serious work environmental burdens over the life cycle of a product. In this case study, the dominating hazards are connected with the handling of chemical substances. The flame retardant used in filament winding has an especially great influence on the result. This led the manufacturer to change it to a less harmful al ternative as a result of the investigations. The case study also shows that within one material or material combination (com pound) there is a considerable variety of scores, depending on the manufacturing and recycling technologies used. One conclusion of the case study is that it should be considered in the future devel opment of euroMat to include the use phase also in the WE-LCA module. Greater weight of the tank leads to higher fuel consumption of the aircraft, so that working conditions in the fuel production can influence the WE-LCA scores of the different materials. The euroMat method is now realised as demonstration software. In the database, at least the necessary data of all calculated case studies are included. A commercial version is planned.
References
AUERDATA. 1998. Berlin: Auergesellschaft GmbH. Windows Version 1.90. Auffarth J, Hager J. 1989. Herstellung von Losemittelklebstoffen. Schriftenreihe der BAuA, GA 30, Bremerhaven: NW-Wirtschaftsverlag. Bekanntmachung der Liste der gefahrlichen Stoffe und Zubereitungen nach § 4a der Gefahrstoffverordnung. 1997. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. Windows-Version 8/97. Belastungs-Dokumentations-System (Version 2.51). 1996/97. Wuppertal: Institut fur Arbeitsmedizin, Sicherheitstechnik und Ergonomie. BIA-Report 1/98. Gefahrstoffliste 1998. St. Augustin: Eigenverlag HVBG. Bottcher R, Steppuhn D, Stehle P. 1985. Arbeitssicherheit - Indikationsliste fur arbeitsmedizinische Tauglichkeits- und Uberwachungsuntersuchungen der Berufe und Tatigkeiten im Bauwesen. Berlin: Bauakademie der DDR. Domininghaus H. 1998. Die Kunststoffe und ihre Eigenschaften. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Eisenach R, Geiger U, Gutewort I, Kleiner M, Voitel U. 1981. Arbeitssicherheit - Ergebnisse ergonomischer und arbeitshygienischer Forschung im Bauwesen. Berlin: Bauakademie der DDR. Gefahrstoffdatenbank der Lander. 1999. LanderausschuB fur Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitssicherheit. Version 14, Stand 27.5. [GISBAU] Gefahrstoffinformationssystem der Berufsgenossenschaften des Bauwesen. 1998. Frankfurt. Windows-Version 1.90. IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, polynuclear aromatic compounds, Part 3, industrial exposures in aluminium production, coal gasification, coke production and iron and steel founding, Bd. 34, Lyon. Menges G. et al. 1986. Unfallverhiitung und Humanisierung des Arbeitsplatzes in SpritzgieBbetrieben. Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen. BMFT Forschungsbericht HA 86- 026. Mitteilung der DFG-Senatskommission zur Prufung gesundheitsschadlicher Arbeitsstoffe der DFG. MAK-und BAT-Werteliste. 1998. Weinheim: VCH. Muller B, Peters H, Hettinger TH. 1990. Ubersichtstabellen zur Belastungssituation am Arbeitsplatz. Eisen- und Stahlindustrie. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW. Noise Database. 1999. Hamilton (ON): CCOHS. Regelwerk Rw 5. TRGS 900 Luftgrenzwerte. TRGS 905 CMR-Stoffe. 1998. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. Windows-Version 4/98. SchenkT, Firma ALBA Berlin, Recycling Berlin, ZiegrastraBe [oral information], 1997. VDI-Richtlinie 3742, Blatt 6. Emissionskennwerte technischer Schallquellen. Spanende werkzeugmaschinen. Bohrmaschinen. 1983. Diisseldorf: VDI-Verlag. Worm Th. 1999. Stoffbilanzierung von Faserverbunden im Rahmen eines Oko-Audits. Diplomarbeit an der Fachhochschule Rosenheim. Ziilch G. 1991. Arbeitsgestaltung bei der Verarbeitung faserverstarkter Kunststoffe. Schriftenreihe Humanisierung des Arbeitslebens, Bd. 101. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. SETAC
A Professional Society for Environmental Scientists and Engineers and Related Disciplines Concerned with Environmental Quality The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), with offices currently in North America and Europe, is a nonprofit, professional society established to provide a forum for individu als and institutions engaged in the study of environmental problems, management and regulation of natural resources, education, research and development, and manufacturing and distribution. Specific goals of the society are: • Promote research, education, and training in the environmental sciences. • Promote the systematic application of all relevant scientific disciplines to the evaluation of chemical hazards. • Participate in the scientific interpretation of issues concerned with hazard assessment and risk analysis. • Support the development of ecologically acceptable practices and principles. • Provide a forum (meetings and publications) for communication among professionals in gov ernment, business, academia, and other segments of society involved in the use, protection, and management of our environment. These goals are pursued through the conduct of numerous activities, which include: • Hold annual meetings with study and workshop sessions, platform and poster papers, and achievement and merit awards. • Sponsor a monthly scientific journal, a newsletter, and special technical publications. • Provide funds for education and training through the SETAC Scholarship/Fellowship Pro gram. • Organize and sponsor chapters to provide a forum for the presentation of scientific data and for the interchange and study of information about local concerns. • Provide advice and counsel to technical and nontechnical persons through a number of stand ing and ad hoc committees. SETAC membership currently is composed of more than 5,000 individuals from government, aca demia, business, and public-interest groups with technical backgrounds in chemistry, toxicology, biol ogy, ecology, atmospheric sciences, health sciences, earth sciences, and engineering. If you have training in these or related disciplines and are engaged in the study, use, or management of environmental resources, SETAC can fulfill your professional affiliation needs. All members receive a newsletter highlighting environmental topics and SETAC activities, and re duced fees for the Annual Meeting and SETAC special publications. All members except Students and Senior Active Members receive monthly issues of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM), peer-reviewed journals of the Society. Students and Senior Active Members may subscribe to the jour nals. Members may hold office and, with the Emeritus Members, constitute the voting membership. If you desire further information, contact the appropriate SETAC Office. SETAC Office SETAC Office 1010 North 12th Avenue Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67 Pensacola, Florida 32501-3367 USA B-1060 Brussels, Belgium T 850 469 1500 F 850 469 9778 T 32 2 772 72 81 F 32 2 770 53 83 E [email protected] E [email protected]
www.setac.org Environmental Quality Through Science®