PURPOSE: This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similari... more PURPOSE: This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similarities and differences between the REACH and life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and how can synergies between these two approaches be exploited to achieve environmental improvements in a holistic perspective? METHODS: The Innochem project (Hanssen 2010) has been the vehicle for examining two different approaches for product improvement: REACH and LCA. Product LCAs and REACH assessments were performed on several products from each of the two main company participants, i.e. Jotun and HA G. These companies are downstream users, according to the REACH definition: Jotun producing mixtures and HA G manufacturing articles. Knowledge of the REACH and LCA aspects associated with these two types of products existed in the project team and was used in the project period (2006â2011) to compare the two approaches. RESULTS: This paper presents similarities and differences between REACH and LCA ap...
Life cycle assessment of the collection, transport and recycling of various types of waste electr... more Life cycle assessment of the collection, transport and recycling of various types of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Norway shows that small amounts of critical materials (refrigerants, precious/trace metals) are vital for the overall environmental accounts of the value chains. High-quality recycling ensures that materials and energy are effectively recovered from WEEE. This recovery means that responsible waste handling confers net environmental benefits in terms of global warming potential (GWP), for all types of WEEE analysed. For refrigeration equipment, the potential reduction of GWP by high-quality recycling is so large as to be of national significance. For all waste types, the magnitude of the net benefit from recovering materials and energy exceeds the negative consequences of irresponsible disposal. One outcome of this may be widespread misunderstanding of the need for recycling. Furthermore, framing public communication on recycling in terms of avoidin...
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2003
Aim, Scope and Background When materials are recycled they are made available for use for severa... more Aim, Scope and Background When materials are recycled they are made available for use for several future life cycles and can therefore replace virgin material more than just once. In order to analyse the optimal waste management system for a given material, the authors have analysed the material flows in a life cycle perspective. It is important to distinguish this approach for material flow analysis for a given material from life cycle analysis of products. A product life cycle analysis analyses the product system from cradle to grave, but uses some form of allocation in order to separate the life cycle of one product from another in cases where component materials are recycled. This paper does not address allocation of burdens between different product systems, but rather focuses on methodology for decision making for waste management systems where the optimal waste management system for a given material is analysed. The focus here is the flow of the given material from cradle (raw material extraction) to grave (the material, or its inherent energy, is no longer available for use). The limitation on the number of times materials can be recycled is set by either the recycling rate, or the technical properties of the recycled material. Main Features This article describes a mathematical geometric progression approach that can be used to expand the system boundaries and allow for recycling a given number of times. Case studies for polyethylene and paperboard are used to illustrate the importance of including these aspects when part of the Goal and Scope for the LCA study is to identify which waste management treatment options are best for a given material. The results and discussion examine the different conclusions that can be reached about which waste management option is most environmentally beneficial when the higher burdens and benefits of recycling several times are taken into account. Results In order to assess the complete picture of the burdens and benefits arising from recycling the system boundaries must be expanded to allow for recycling many times. A mathematical geometric progression approach manages to take into account the higher burdens and benefits arising from recycling several times. If one compares different waste management systems, e.g. energy recovery with recycling, without expanding the system to include the complete effects of material recycling one can reach a different conclusion about which waste management option is preferred. Conclusions When the purpose of the study is to compare different waste management options, it is important that the system boundaries are expanded in order to include several recycling loops where this is a physical reality. The equations given in this article can be used to include these recycling loops. The error introduced by not expanding the system boundaries can be significant. This error can be large enough to change the conclusions of a comparative study, such that material recycling followed by incineration is a much better option than waste incineration directly. Recommendations and Outlook When comparing waste management solutions, where material recycling is a feasible option, it is important to include the relevant number of recycling loops to ensure that the benefits of material recycling are not underestimated. The methodology presented in this article should be used in future comparative studies for strategic decision-making for waste management. The approach should not be used for LCAs for product systems without due care, as this could lead to double counting of the benefits of recycling (depending on the goal and scope of the analysis). For materials where the material cycle is more of a closed loop and one cannot truly say that recycled materials replace virgin materials, a more sophisticated approach will be required, taking into account the fact that recycled materials will only replace a certain proportion of virgin materials.
... [4] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG). 2006. ... Material Systems. Chalmers Univ... more ... [4] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG). 2006. ... Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning. CPM report 1999:4. [10] Steen, B. (1999) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). ...
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2011
Purpose The purpose of this study is to document and assess the environmental impacts associated... more Purpose The purpose of this study is to document and assess the environmental impacts associated with two competing powder coating solutions using current life cycle assessment (LCA) methods and available data and to check whether there is a conflict between environmental performance and occupational health issues. Materials and methods Data have been gathered for the manufacture and application of the two different
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012
ABSTRACT
Purpose
This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are th... more ABSTRACT
Purpose
This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similarities and differences between the REACH and life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and how can synergies between these two approaches be exploited to achieve environmental improvements in a holistic perspective?
Methods
The Innochem project (Hanssen 2010) has been the vehicle for examining two different approaches for product improvement: REACH and LCA. Product LCAs and REACH assessments were performed on several products from each of the two main company participants, i.e. Jotun and HÅG. These companies are downstream users, according to the REACH definition: Jotun producing mixtures and HÅG manufacturing articles. Knowledge of the REACH and LCA aspects associated with these two types of products existed in the project team and was used in the project period (2006–2011) to compare the two approaches.
Results
This paper presents similarities and differences between REACH and LCA approaches as related to reducing impacts on the environment. As an illustrative example, the REACH registration dossier is compared to USEtox data for benzene.
Conclusions
Combining aspects of LCA with REACH can give companies a competitive edge and benefit society. The greater availability of toxicity data that will result from REACH can strenghten LCA toxicity assessments and methods. The functional life cycle approach and potential synergies from LCA are important when implementing REACH in companies in order to avoid suboptimal solutions and exploit the potential for achieving innovative improvements. Many companies will use both approaches, which may lead to results pointing in the same direction, or contradictory results. Using both approaches and exploiting concurrence and synergies between them will ensure that decision makers are aware of potential conflicts during the product development process and can thus be able to seek solutions that will avoid these conflicts of interest.
PURPOSE: This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similari... more PURPOSE: This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similarities and differences between the REACH and life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and how can synergies between these two approaches be exploited to achieve environmental improvements in a holistic perspective? METHODS: The Innochem project (Hanssen 2010) has been the vehicle for examining two different approaches for product improvement: REACH and LCA. Product LCAs and REACH assessments were performed on several products from each of the two main company participants, i.e. Jotun and HA G. These companies are downstream users, according to the REACH definition: Jotun producing mixtures and HA G manufacturing articles. Knowledge of the REACH and LCA aspects associated with these two types of products existed in the project team and was used in the project period (2006â2011) to compare the two approaches. RESULTS: This paper presents similarities and differences between REACH and LCA ap...
Life cycle assessment of the collection, transport and recycling of various types of waste electr... more Life cycle assessment of the collection, transport and recycling of various types of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Norway shows that small amounts of critical materials (refrigerants, precious/trace metals) are vital for the overall environmental accounts of the value chains. High-quality recycling ensures that materials and energy are effectively recovered from WEEE. This recovery means that responsible waste handling confers net environmental benefits in terms of global warming potential (GWP), for all types of WEEE analysed. For refrigeration equipment, the potential reduction of GWP by high-quality recycling is so large as to be of national significance. For all waste types, the magnitude of the net benefit from recovering materials and energy exceeds the negative consequences of irresponsible disposal. One outcome of this may be widespread misunderstanding of the need for recycling. Furthermore, framing public communication on recycling in terms of avoidin...
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2003
Aim, Scope and Background When materials are recycled they are made available for use for severa... more Aim, Scope and Background When materials are recycled they are made available for use for several future life cycles and can therefore replace virgin material more than just once. In order to analyse the optimal waste management system for a given material, the authors have analysed the material flows in a life cycle perspective. It is important to distinguish this approach for material flow analysis for a given material from life cycle analysis of products. A product life cycle analysis analyses the product system from cradle to grave, but uses some form of allocation in order to separate the life cycle of one product from another in cases where component materials are recycled. This paper does not address allocation of burdens between different product systems, but rather focuses on methodology for decision making for waste management systems where the optimal waste management system for a given material is analysed. The focus here is the flow of the given material from cradle (raw material extraction) to grave (the material, or its inherent energy, is no longer available for use). The limitation on the number of times materials can be recycled is set by either the recycling rate, or the technical properties of the recycled material. Main Features This article describes a mathematical geometric progression approach that can be used to expand the system boundaries and allow for recycling a given number of times. Case studies for polyethylene and paperboard are used to illustrate the importance of including these aspects when part of the Goal and Scope for the LCA study is to identify which waste management treatment options are best for a given material. The results and discussion examine the different conclusions that can be reached about which waste management option is most environmentally beneficial when the higher burdens and benefits of recycling several times are taken into account. Results In order to assess the complete picture of the burdens and benefits arising from recycling the system boundaries must be expanded to allow for recycling many times. A mathematical geometric progression approach manages to take into account the higher burdens and benefits arising from recycling several times. If one compares different waste management systems, e.g. energy recovery with recycling, without expanding the system to include the complete effects of material recycling one can reach a different conclusion about which waste management option is preferred. Conclusions When the purpose of the study is to compare different waste management options, it is important that the system boundaries are expanded in order to include several recycling loops where this is a physical reality. The equations given in this article can be used to include these recycling loops. The error introduced by not expanding the system boundaries can be significant. This error can be large enough to change the conclusions of a comparative study, such that material recycling followed by incineration is a much better option than waste incineration directly. Recommendations and Outlook When comparing waste management solutions, where material recycling is a feasible option, it is important to include the relevant number of recycling loops to ensure that the benefits of material recycling are not underestimated. The methodology presented in this article should be used in future comparative studies for strategic decision-making for waste management. The approach should not be used for LCAs for product systems without due care, as this could lead to double counting of the benefits of recycling (depending on the goal and scope of the analysis). For materials where the material cycle is more of a closed loop and one cannot truly say that recycled materials replace virgin materials, a more sophisticated approach will be required, taking into account the fact that recycled materials will only replace a certain proportion of virgin materials.
... [4] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG). 2006. ... Material Systems. Chalmers Univ... more ... [4] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG). 2006. ... Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning. CPM report 1999:4. [10] Steen, B. (1999) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). ...
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2011
Purpose The purpose of this study is to document and assess the environmental impacts associated... more Purpose The purpose of this study is to document and assess the environmental impacts associated with two competing powder coating solutions using current life cycle assessment (LCA) methods and available data and to check whether there is a conflict between environmental performance and occupational health issues. Materials and methods Data have been gathered for the manufacture and application of the two different
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012
ABSTRACT
Purpose
This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are th... more ABSTRACT
Purpose
This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similarities and differences between the REACH and life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and how can synergies between these two approaches be exploited to achieve environmental improvements in a holistic perspective?
Methods
The Innochem project (Hanssen 2010) has been the vehicle for examining two different approaches for product improvement: REACH and LCA. Product LCAs and REACH assessments were performed on several products from each of the two main company participants, i.e. Jotun and HÅG. These companies are downstream users, according to the REACH definition: Jotun producing mixtures and HÅG manufacturing articles. Knowledge of the REACH and LCA aspects associated with these two types of products existed in the project team and was used in the project period (2006–2011) to compare the two approaches.
Results
This paper presents similarities and differences between REACH and LCA approaches as related to reducing impacts on the environment. As an illustrative example, the REACH registration dossier is compared to USEtox data for benzene.
Conclusions
Combining aspects of LCA with REACH can give companies a competitive edge and benefit society. The greater availability of toxicity data that will result from REACH can strenghten LCA toxicity assessments and methods. The functional life cycle approach and potential synergies from LCA are important when implementing REACH in companies in order to avoid suboptimal solutions and exploit the potential for achieving innovative improvements. Many companies will use both approaches, which may lead to results pointing in the same direction, or contradictory results. Using both approaches and exploiting concurrence and synergies between them will ensure that decision makers are aware of potential conflicts during the product development process and can thus be able to seek solutions that will avoid these conflicts of interest.
Uploads
Papers by Cecilia Askham
Purpose
This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similarities and differences between the REACH and life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and how can synergies between these two approaches be exploited to achieve environmental improvements in a holistic perspective?
Methods
The Innochem project (Hanssen 2010) has been the vehicle for examining two different approaches for product improvement: REACH and LCA. Product LCAs and REACH assessments were performed on several products from each of the two main company participants, i.e. Jotun and HÅG. These companies are downstream users, according to the REACH definition: Jotun producing mixtures and HÅG manufacturing articles. Knowledge of the REACH and LCA aspects associated with these two types of products existed in the project team and was used in the project period (2006–2011) to compare the two approaches.
Results
This paper presents similarities and differences between REACH and LCA approaches as related to reducing impacts on the environment. As an illustrative example, the REACH registration dossier is compared to USEtox data for benzene.
Conclusions
Combining aspects of LCA with REACH can give companies a competitive edge and benefit society. The greater availability of toxicity data that will result from REACH can strenghten LCA toxicity assessments and methods. The functional life cycle approach and potential synergies from LCA are important when implementing REACH in companies in order to avoid suboptimal solutions and exploit the potential for achieving innovative improvements. Many companies will use both approaches, which may lead to results pointing in the same direction, or contradictory results. Using both approaches and exploiting concurrence and synergies between them will ensure that decision makers are aware of potential conflicts during the product development process and can thus be able to seek solutions that will avoid these conflicts of interest.
Purpose
This paper discusses issues associated with the research question: What are the similarities and differences between the REACH and life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and how can synergies between these two approaches be exploited to achieve environmental improvements in a holistic perspective?
Methods
The Innochem project (Hanssen 2010) has been the vehicle for examining two different approaches for product improvement: REACH and LCA. Product LCAs and REACH assessments were performed on several products from each of the two main company participants, i.e. Jotun and HÅG. These companies are downstream users, according to the REACH definition: Jotun producing mixtures and HÅG manufacturing articles. Knowledge of the REACH and LCA aspects associated with these two types of products existed in the project team and was used in the project period (2006–2011) to compare the two approaches.
Results
This paper presents similarities and differences between REACH and LCA approaches as related to reducing impacts on the environment. As an illustrative example, the REACH registration dossier is compared to USEtox data for benzene.
Conclusions
Combining aspects of LCA with REACH can give companies a competitive edge and benefit society. The greater availability of toxicity data that will result from REACH can strenghten LCA toxicity assessments and methods. The functional life cycle approach and potential synergies from LCA are important when implementing REACH in companies in order to avoid suboptimal solutions and exploit the potential for achieving innovative improvements. Many companies will use both approaches, which may lead to results pointing in the same direction, or contradictory results. Using both approaches and exploiting concurrence and synergies between them will ensure that decision makers are aware of potential conflicts during the product development process and can thus be able to seek solutions that will avoid these conflicts of interest.