Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Life Cycle Decision Support in the US EPA’s Office of Research and Development
Briana Niblick, David E. Meyer, and Jane C. Bare
for International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST)
Buffalo, NYJune 26, 2018
Office of Research and DevelopmentNational Risk Management Research Laboratory
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development collaborated in the research described here. It has not been subject to Agency review and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. No official endorsement should be inferred.
Overview
• Life Cycle Decision Support at US EPA
• Updating TRACI
• Building materials
• Consumer products
• International Involvement
Life cycle decision support at the US EPA
• Collaborating with the private sector to improve methods.
– Procter & Gamble paper towel study.
• Assisting Regional staff with data and methods to utilize LC perspective.
– Tool Development
• (SEFA) for footprinting remediation activities (R9).
• Economic input-output development for sustainable purchasing (R4).
– Outreach
• Webinar series (All 10 Regions).
• Developing data and methods to support Program Office exposure modeling along chemical life cycle.
– Review and input to development of Problem Formulation documents.
– Assist in development of Generic Scenario documents.
– Provide input to tool development.
– Continued impact assessment research.
• Supporting global working groups and other international efforts.
– ISO 14000 series development.
– UNEP SETAC LC Initiative.
Updating TRACI
• Originally released in 2003.
• Individual impact categories are evaluated and vetted within the Agency to see if advances in research should be adopted and/or if additional development is needed.
• US EPA researchers are involved in international working groups to learn about other state-of-art advancements.
• Regionalized characterization factors expected for selected impact categories.
TRACITool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and
other environmental Impacts
Ozone DepletionGlobal Warming
Human Health Cancer
Inventory of Stressors
Chemical Emissions
Fossil Fuel Use
Land Use
Water Use
Impact Categories
Ozone Depletion
Global Warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Smog Formation
Human Health
Criteria
Cancer
Noncancer
Ecotoxicity
Fossil Fuel Use
Land Use
Water Use
…….
Characterization (e.g.Cancer)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Product A Product B Product C
End of Life
Use
Processing
Transportation to Manufacturing Site
Raw Material Acquisition
• Bare, J.C., Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental
Impacts (TRACI), Software Name and Version Number: TRACI Version 2.1, User’s Manual,
US EPA, 2012.
• Bare, J.C., “TRACI 2.0: the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other
environmental Impacts 2.0,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 13(5), 2011.
• Bare, J.C., G.A. Norris, D.W. Pennington, and T. McKone, “TRACI – The Tool for the
Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts,” Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 6(3), 2003.
Updating TRACI.
•Criteria for evaluation and development of methodologies include:
–Consistency with existing US EPA regulatory guidance.
–Consistency with previous modeling assumptions (especially within the US EPA).
–Applicability to US geographical boundaries.
–Minimization of assumptions and value choices, and
–Modularity, portability, and ease of use.
MORE CONSENSUS LESS CONSENSUS
MORE CERTAIN LESS CERTAIN
Impact assessment varies in level of certainty and consensus
Figure adapted from: Bare, J. , “Development of impact assessment methodologies for environmental sustainability,” Clean Technology for Environmental Policy, 2014, 16:681-690.
LOCALLY SITE SPECIFIC
Water Use
Human Health Far-Field
ExposuresGlobal
Climate Change
Ozone Depletion
Eutrophication
Human Health Occupational
Smog Formation
Fossil Fuel Use
Acidification
Ecotoxicity
Rare Earth / Mineral Use
Human Health Near-Field Exposures
SITE SPECIFIC
POPULATION
SPECIFIC
Characterization Modeling
Land Use
Near-Field Releases from Consumer Products
Adding human exposures that were not traditionally characterized.
Looking at potential exposures to substances that were not previously included.
Integrating this work to help the Program Offices and others.
Shown:
Conceptual framework integrating near field exposures and high throughput toxicity data.
Black and magenta text indicate current LC practice and proposed revisions to incorporate new sources, exposures, and toxicity data.
Outputs for Near–Field Exposures
• Estimates of the doses from • The assessed product.
• Background exposures of
chemical from other products.
• Aggregate (total) near-field
exposures.
• Exposure information available for
life cycle perspective.
Functional Unit
Ch
em
ica
l
Pro
du
ct
Cate
go
ry
General product use -adult General product use - childMass of chemical released
by general public useProfessional product use-
adultMass of chemical released
during professional use
Weight
Fraction
of
Chemic
al in
Product
Grams
of
Product
Used
over a
Year
Product intake
Fraction (PIF)Grams
of
Product
Used
over a
Year
Product intake
Fraction (PIF) Grams of chemical Grams
of
Product
Used
over a
Year
Product intake
Fraction (PIF) Grams of chemical
Ora
l
Derm
al
Inh
ala
tio
n
Ora
l
Derm
al
Inh
ala
tio
n
Air
Wate
r
La
nd
(w
ith
dis
po
sa
l
de
tails
)
Ora
l
Derm
al
Inh
ala
tio
n
Air
Wate
r
La
nd
(w
ith
dis
po
sa
l
de
tails
)
Methyl Paraben
Hand lotion
0.1% 1344 0 0.2 0 672 0 0.2 0 0 0.94 0.13 13440 0 0.1 0 0 10.75 1.34
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Frac
tio
n o
f th
e p
op
ula
tio
n (
use
rs)
Dose (mg/kg/d)
Distribution of doses from one consumer product, other near -field sources, and aggregate near-field exposures
Other near-field
One consumerproductAggregate near-field
Near-Field Releases from Building Materials
• Huang, L., N. Anastas, P. Egeghy, D. Vallero, O. Jolliet, J. Bare, “Integrating the Use Phase Impacts of Building Materials into Near-Field LCA Characterization,” submitted to the International Journal of LCA.
• Builds on framework of Fantke et al, 2016 with Product intake Fractions from Jolliet et al.
Characterization Factor = Product Intake Fraction x Effect Factor.
• Includes exposure assessment of formaldehyde and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate(MDI) in particleboard.
Exposure Potential = PiF * Chemical Mass in Product.
• Most of formaldehyde (VOC) released within the first 50 days. Nearly all released in 15 years. Inhalation was dominant pathway.
• 75% of MDI (SVOC) released with more constant rate over 15 year period. Approximately 65% adsorbed onto other surfaces and not available for exposure.
• Pathways of concern included dermal contact, gaseous dermal contact, inhalation, and dust ingestion.
Future Research for Building Materials
• Need for additional content databases for building materials. Currently using Pharos, but contents can range from 0 to 100%.
• Check assumptions (e.g., exposure within the first 50 days, impact of cleaning practices on exposure pathways, childhood exposures related to variability in behaviors).
• Models are currently not well developed for encapsulated products (e.g., insulation behind wallboard, wallboard underneath paint, carpet padding underneath carpets).
• More involved modeling may be necessary to capture occupational exposures to building materials.
• Future need for better toxicity data and integration into models.
Global Influence
• Methodology Development
– LCA framework - Midpoint/Endpoint contribution.
– International workshops on key LCA issues.
• LCIA Sophistication, Midpoints vs. Endpoints, Taxonomy, Shonan Guidance Principles.
– ISO 14040 series.
• Standards update.
• Development and resolution of weighting.
– Guidance for Product Category Rule Development.
– UNEP SETAC working groups including human toxicity and eutrophication.
• International Collaborations
– UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative since inception.
– SETAC North America LCA Advisory Group Chair (former).
– American Center for LCA.
Selected Publications• Huang, L., N. Anastas, P. Egeghy, D. Vallero, O. Jolliet, J. Bare, “Integrating the Use
Phase Impacts of Building Materials into Near-Field LCA Characterization,” submitted to the International Journal of LCA.
• P. Fantke, L. Aylward, J. Bare, R. Brown, W.A. Chiu, R. Dodson, R. Dwyer, A. Ernstoff, B. Howard, M. Jantunen, O. Jolliet, R. Judson, N. Kirchhübel, D. Li, A. Miller, G. Paoli, P. Price, L. Rhomberg, B. Shen, H.-M. Shin, J. Teeguarden, D. Vallero, J. Wambaugh, B.A. Wetmore, R. Zaleski, T.E. McKone, “Advancements in human exposure and toxicity characterization for life cycle assessment,” to be submitted to the IJLCA.
• Morelli, B., H. Golden, B. Niblick, D. Bless, T. Hawkins, J. Bare, “Critical Review of eutrophication models for life cycle assessment,” submitted to Environmental Science and Technology.
• Csiszar, S.A., D.E. Meyer, K. Dionisio, P. Egeghy, P.S. Price, K.A. Scanlon, Y-M Tan, K. Thomas, D. Vallero, J.C. Bare, “A conceptual framework to enhance life cycle assessment using near-field human exposure modeling and high-throughput tools,” Environmental Science & Technology, 50(21), 2016.
• Ingwersen, W., M. Ceja, A.V. Weisbrod, H. Cabezas, B. Demeke, T. Eason, R. Smith, D. Sengupta, E. Zanoli, M. Gausman, S-J Lee, X. Ma, B. Weber, M. Alvarez, J.C. Bare, J. Abraham, G.J. Ruiz-Mercado M.A. Gonzalez, “Evaluating consumer product life cycle sustainability with integrated metrics: A paper towel case study,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 55(12), 2016.
Selected Publications.
• Ingwersen, W., M. Gausman, A.V. Weisbrod, D. Sengupta, S-J Lee, J.C. Bare, E. Zanoli, G.S. Bhander, M. Ceja, “Detailed Life Cycle Assessment of Bounty Paper Towel Operations in the United States,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 131(10), 2016.
• Frischknecht, P. Fantke, L. Tshumperlin, M. Niero, A. Anton, J. Bare, A.-M. Boulay, F. Cherubini, M.Z. Hauschild, A. Henderson, A. Levasseur, T.E. McKone, O. Michelsen, L. Mila I Canals, S. Pfister, B. Ridoutt, R.K. Rosenbaum, F. Verones, B. Vigon, O. Jolliet, “Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: progress and case study,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(3), 2016.
• Ridoutt, B.G., S. Pfister, A. Manzardo, J.C. Bare, A.-M. Boulay, F. Cherubini, P. Fantke, R. Frischknecht, M. Hauschild, A.D. Henderson, O. Jolliet, A. Levasseur, M. Margni, T.E. McKone, O. Michelsen, L. Mila i Canals, G. Page, R. Pant, M. Raugei, S. Sala, F. Verones, “Area of concern: a new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(2), 2016.
• Ridoutt, B.G., P. Fantke, S. Pfister, J.C. Bare, A.-M. Boulay, F. Cherubini, R. Frischknecht, M. Hauschild, S. Hellweg, A.D. Henderson, O. Jolliet, A. Levasseur, M. Margni, T.E. McKone, O. Michelsen, L. Mila i Canals, G. Page, R. Pant, M. Raugei, S. Sala, E. Saouter, F. Verones, T.O. Wiedmann, “Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators,” Environmental Science & Technology, 49(5), 2015.
