Scope of Work – Draft 1€¦ · Web viewThe recommended Scope Of Work for a forthcoming LCA is detailed in this report. ISO Guidelines for LCA LCA is a tool for the systematic evaluation

LIFECYCLE BALANCE OF COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGING LEFTOVER PAINT

SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

The Paint Product Stewardship Initiative

Acknowledgement:

This work was funded by The National Paint and Coatings Association

Prepared and Submitted Jointly By:

Team F2

Franklin Associates,A Division of ERGPrairie Village, KS

First Environment, Inc.Washington, DC and

Portland, OR

November 1, 2005

1 INTRODUCTION

A large quantity1 of leftover consumer paint is generated annually in the United States, with municipalities spending an average of $8 per gallon to manage the resulting leftover paint.2

Thus, leftover paint and associated packaging has become a top priority for the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), a national non-profit membership-based organization that works with state and local government agencies to partner with key stakeholders, such as manufacturers, retailers, environmental groups, and federal agencies, to reduce the health and environmental impacts of consumer products.

PSI launched the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative (PPSI) and, since December 2003, has facilitated a national dialogue to reduce the generation of leftover paint, identify cost-effective and environmentally sound methods for managing leftover paint, and establish markets for reusing and recycling leftover paint. PPSI participants, including PSI and a multi-stakeholder steering committee, developed a portfolio of 11 projects that collectively aim to help the development of a nationally coordinated leftover paint management system.

The “Lifecycle Balance of Costs and Benefits” project (Lifecycle project) will use two complementary tools, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), to evaluate different methods for managing leftover paint in terms of the environmental and economic costs and benefits. These studies have been initiated to answer the questions:

1. What are the costs and benefits of the various methods for managing leftover paint?2. What are the environmental impacts associated with employing each method for

managing leftover paint?

Team F2 (a collaborative effort between Franklin Associates and First Environment, Inc.) has worked with the PSI and the PPSI LCA Workgroup to understand the goals of the PPSI, understand current methods for managing leftover paint, and define the goals and scope of an LCA that will help PPSI evaluate the environmental impacts of the different methods for managing leftover paint. The recommended Scope Of Work for a forthcoming LCA is detailed in this report.

2 ISO GUIDELINES FOR LCALCA is a tool for the systematic evaluation of the environmental impacts of a product through all stages of its life cycle, which include extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, transport and use of products, and end-of-life management (e.g., reuse, recycling and/or disposal). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed a set of guidelines for conducting LCA.3 The four main parts of an LCA according to the ISO 14040 series of guidelines include:1 The PPSI Background Report estimated that 34 million gallons of leftover consumer paint is generated annually in the United States. That estimate was later refined in an EPA analysis conducted in support of the PPSI Dialogue, yielding a preliminary estimate of 57-136 million gallons generated annually. The EPA estimate is being further refined and a final estimate is expected shortly.2 http://www.productstewardship.us/prod_paint.html

SCOPE OF WORK – LEFTOVER PAINT LCA 2

1. Goal and Scope definition: specifying the reason for conducting the study, intended use of study results, intended audience, system boundaries, data requirements, and study limitations

2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI): collecting, validating and aggregating input and output data to quantify material use, energy use, environmental discharges, and waste associated with each life cycle stage.

3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): using impact categories, category indicators, characterization models, equivalency factors, and weighting values to translate an inventory into potential impact on human health and the environment.

4. Interpretation: assessing whether results are inline with project goals, providing an unbiased summary of results, defining significant impacts, and recommending methods for reducing material use and environmental burdens.

To ensure technical credibility and acceptance of the LCA results and interpretations, the leftover paint management LCA will adhere to ISO 14040 guidelines. When multiple approaches satisfy ISO provisions, an approach that is accurate, practical, provides consistency between LCAs of leftover paint management methods, and helps decision makers identify which choices are better for the environment will be selected. In addition, the final report will clearly summarize the approaches implemented so that the study, results, and interpretations are transparent to the PPSI.

3 GOAL OF THE LCA STUDY

Reasons for Carrying Out the StudyThe primary objective of the LCA study is to perform an environmental life cycle assessment of six different methods for managing leftover latex paint. The PPSI will use the results of this LCA study and the complementary CBA study to weigh the environmental and economic benefits and impacts of alternate methods for managing leftover latex paint. Ten other PPSI projects complement the Lifecycle Balance of Costs and Benefits project. The other projects focus on educating consumers and the public, developing markets for reused and recycled paint, developing an efficient and effective national infrastructure for managing leftover paint, and identifying the financial requirements for creating such an infrastructure. The combined results of these projects will help the PPSI develop a nationally coordinated paint management system that is cost-effective and environmentally sound, technically and economically feasible, and successful. The LCA study will aid in selecting specific leftover paint management methods that minimize overall environmental impact.

3 ISO 14040:1997, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework; ISO 14041:1998, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis; ISO 14042:2000, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Life cycle impact assessment; ISO 14043:2000, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Life cycle interpretation, ISO 14044: Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines (Draft version, which is a revision of ISO 14040, ISO 14041, ISO 14042, and ISO 14043, final to be released early 2006), ISO 14049:2000, Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis.


Intended ApplicationsThe PPSI is concerned with the management of both oil-based and latex paints. While there are significant concerns about the hazardous nature of oil-based paints, there was agreement early in the dialogue that oil-based paints should be specially collected and managed as hazardous waste. In addition, sales of oil-based paints are decreasing. Furthermore, uses for leftover oil-based paint are limited to fuel blending and possibly recycling and/or reuse via paint exchanges. As a result, there are a limited number of methods for managing leftover oil-based paint. There are important environmental impacts associated with improperly disposing of oil-based paints – making proper disposal an important issue for the PPSI. Since oil-based paint must already be managed due to its hazardous nature, and there are a limited number of methods for managing leftover oil-based paint, an LCA will provide little help in developing a nationally coordinated paint management system for oil-based paint. Therefore, this LCA will not focus on oil-based paint.

In contrast, sales of latex paint are increasing, and several methods are currently employed to reuse and recycle leftover latex paint. Further, an increasing number of government agencies are recommending that citizens dry and dispose of latex paint owing to a lack of funds to manage all environmental priorities. This LCA study will evaluate the relative merits of different methods for managing unwanted leftover latex paint.

Paint management methods can be grouped under two general scenarios: consumer-based and collection-based.

1. Consumer-based scenario: requires consumers to manage leftover latex paint 2. Collection-based scenario: provides an infrastructure for collecting and managing

leftover latex paint.

Under the two management scenarios, there are six management methods that may be employed in combination to manage leftover paint, as follows:

1. Consumer-based Scenario (at an individual dwelling unit)i. Dry /stabilize and dispose method

ii. User-to-user reuse method2. Collection-based Scenario (at a central collection facility)

i. Dry/stabilize and dispose method ii. Reuse method

iii. Recycle via consolidation methodiv. Recycle via reprocessing method

Individual methods are the building blocks under the two management scenarios. The LCA will evaluate individual methods but not scenarios consisting of combinations of methods. In particular, the following management methods will be evaluated using environmental life cycle assessment:

1 and 2. Dry/Stabilize and dispose method (Consumer and Collection Scenarios): drying or stabilizing leftover latex paint and disposing of it as solid waste. This method is different for


the consumer-based and collection-based scenarios. In the consumer-based scenario, consumers generally would dry/stabilize the paint prior to disposal. As a result, containers are generally disposed with the dried paint inside. Consumer-based drying/stabilization may or may not use a solidification agent (e.g., cat litter).

The collection-based scenario has a collection and consolidation element, typically with bulk containers being disposed along with the paint, but with the individual containers being recycled (if steel). However, if the collection facility knows that the paint will be incinerated, paint may not be dried/stabilized or consolidated into bulk containers. In this case, the individual container would be incinerated along with the paint and the container (if steel) often recycled prior to, or after, the incineration process. Consolidated bulk drying probably will use an agent (e.g., Portland cement).

3. and 4. Reuse method (Consumer and Collection Scenarios): storing leftover latex paint properly and distributing it to other parties who use the leftover paint. Under the consumer scenario, the consumer might drive to a location (e.g., local school) to reuse the paint or donate to a friend. Under the collection scenario, a central facility (e.g., Habitat for Humanity, municipality) would have a system for consumer reuse.

5. Recycling via consolidation method (Collection Scenario): storing leftover latex paint properly, transporting it to recyclers who sort, possibly filter, consolidate, and repackage it for use. This is also called batch and blend or low-tech recycling. Leftover steel containers are generally recycled.

6. Recycling via reprocessing method (Collection Scenario) storing leftover latex paint properly, transporting it to recyclers who sort, filter, consolidate, reprocess, and test it. This requires the addition of virgin material components and is also called high-tech recycling. Leftover steel containers are generally recycled.

Several different approaches can be employed within each of the methods defined above. For example, paint can be air dried or stabilized with a drying agent. In addition, the method that a consumer intends to employ may be different than the actual method that is used. For example, a consumer may intend to recycle paint. However, upon inspection, the recycler may deem the paint unsuitable for recycling due to contamination or another problem and, instead, dry/stabilize the paint and dispose of it. To capture the variation in each method and the potential disparity between the intended and actual method employed, several leftover paint management pathways have been defined. These are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Dashed lines in the figures indicate a path from the intended management method to a management method that is different from intended. A description of each pathway illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 is provided in Appendix One.

While both figures include storage of leftover paint by consumers, storage is a temporary postponement of leftover paint management, not a management method. As such, storage at home will not be evaluated in the LCA study. However, since storage may impact the costs and benefits of a nationally coordinated leftover paint management system, it will be included in an


interactive model for evaluating various combinations of the six methods listed above. In addition, Figure 2 illustrates crossover between methods that may occur if paint is unsuitable for collection-based reuse. This crossover will not be considered in the detailed LCA study. However, as with storage of leftover paint, method crossover will be included in the interactive model. The interactive model is discussed in Section 7. It should also be noted that, in the collection-based scenario, if a collection facility knows that leftover paint will be incinerated, paint may not be dried/stabilized prior to incineration.

A seventh method within the consumer-based scenario – alternate disposal method – was considered during the scoping process. This includes instances in which liquid latex paint is disposed of as mixed municipal solid waste or in a sewer. At this time, it is not clear whether there is adequate data for conducting a life cycle assessment of the alternate methods for disposing of leftover paint. Prior to conducting the LCA, a literature review will be conducted to determine whether data concerning the public health and environmental impacts of the alternate methods for disposing of leftover latex paint is available. If no data is found, the life cycle assessment will not consider the alternate disposal method. Likewise, if data is found and indicates that the benefits of avoiding these methods are relatively minor, the life cycle assessment will again not consider the alternate disposal method. However, if the literature review yields data suggesting that the benefits of avoiding the alternate methods for disposing of leftover paint are substantial and could potentially affect the outcome of the life cycle assessment, PPSI may decide to include the seventh method in the LCA. While the literature review is included in the Scope of Work, an LCA of the alternate disposal method is not included.


Leftover Paint Supply

Landfill

Actual Method Used to Manage Leftover Latex Paint

Incinerate Reuse

Intended Method for Managing Leftover Latex Paint

Disposal Reuse

Consumer air dry Consumer air dry with cat litter

User-to-user reuse

Mixed wastepick-up

Storage of leftover paint by

consumer

Consumerself-haul

Figure 1. Leftover Latex Paint Pathways for the Consumer-based Scenario


Figure 2. Leftover Latex Paint Pathways for the Collection-based Scenario


A stand-alone LCA of each of the six methods, assuming that 100% of the leftover latex paint is managed as intended, will be conducted. These are referred to as pure methods and include:

Pure Method 1: Consumer-based dry/stabilize and disposal (assumes all leftover latex paint is disposed of, considers the percentages of municipal solid waste that is landfilled and incinerated based on current municipal solid waste statistics)

Pure Method 2: Consumer-based user-to-user reuse (assumes all leftover latex paint is reused via a user-to-user exchange)

Pure Method 3: Collection-based dry/stabilize and disposal (assumes all waste is disposed of, considers the percentages of leftover latex paint set out with separated waste for collection and self-hauled to central facility, considers the percentages of waste that is landfilled and incinerated based on current municipal solid waste statistics)

Pure Method 4: Collection-based reuse (assumes all leftover latex paint is suitable for reuse, considers the percentages of leftover latex paint set out with separated waste for collection and self-hauled to central facility)

Pure Method 5: Collection-based recycling via consolidation (assumes all leftover latex paint is suitable for consolidation, considers the percentages of leftover latex paint set out with separated waste for collection and self-hauled to central facility,)

Pure Method 6: Collection-based recycling via reprocessing (assumes all leftover latex paint is suitable for reprocessing, considers the percentages of leftover latex paint set out with separated waste for collection and self-hauled to central facility)

Sensitivity analysis of each pure method will consider variations within the method, as well as other key factors identified from the LCA results. For example, a sensitivity analysis of method 1 would include use of cat litter as a drying agent and differences in relative percentages of landfilling/incineration, as well as other key factors identified from the LCA results.

An example of the pure method for collection-based reuse is:

Pure Method 4: Collection-based reuse

In reality, the national average leftover latex paint supply is not entirely suitable for reuse or recycling. Thus, pure methods for paint management by reuse and recycling will be adapted to modified pure methods in order to account for the percentage of the national average leftover paint supply that is unsuitable by management by that method. This will approximate actual management of leftover paint intended for each management method and provide a common basis for comparing the six methods (i.e., management of a specified amount of the national average leftover paint supply). In order to keep the modified methods as pure as possible (no crossover to other methods), the percentage of the national average supply that is unsuitable for management by each reuse or recycling method will be modeled as managed by dry/stabilize and dispose. An example of the modified method for collection-based reuse is:


Modified Method 4: Collection-based reuse of leftover latex paint

The results of the pure methods will be presented and used to evaluate the impacts associated with the six different methods for disposing of, reusing, and recycling leftover latex paint that is suitable for each method. The results of the modified methods will be presented and used to evaluate each of the six methods on a common basis, i.e., based on the national average composition and quality of leftover latex paint and the extent to which that paint is suitable for reuse and recycling.

Intended AudienceThe primary audience of the LCA study will be the members of the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative (PPSI), who will use the results of the LCA and CBA studies to understand and weigh the environmental and economic benefits and impacts of alternate methods for managing leftover latex paint. The PPSI will use the LCA-CBA results along with the finding of the other ten PPSI projects as the basis for a dialogue with interested stakeholders regarding the development of a nationally coordinated paint management system.

The PPSI includes several key stakeholder groups, all of whom have been actively involved in the project scoping. The PPSI was initiated by and is facilitated by the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI). Paint is one of PSI’s nine priority product categories. PSI’s key objective in the paint project is to develop leftover paint management solutions that are both financially and environmentally sustainable. The success of the LCA-CBA project, as well as the success of the other ten paint projects, is required for meeting this objective. The National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), which represents over 90 percent of paint and coatings manufacturers in the United States, is funding four of the PPSI projects, including the LCA-CBA of managing leftover paint. This support demonstrates NPCA’s commitment to environmental responsibility and its interest in identifying solutions for managing leftover paint that are both economically and environmentally sound. In addition to financial support, the NPCA and its members will provide some of the data used in the LCA. Many other stakeholder groups, involved with collecting and/or managing leftover paint, are interested in leftover paint management solutions that are both financially and environmentally sustainable. Key stakeholder groups are represented on the PPSI. These groups as well as the individuals representing them on the PPSI are part of the LCA audience. Key stakeholders include: federal, state and local governments, virgin paint manufacturers, retailers, paint recyclers, paint contractors, environmental/consumer advocates, and others. The primary objective of this study is to conduct a comprehensive LCA, as detailed below, and provide results that can support the development of a nationally coordinated paint management program by the PPSI. However, the broader audience should be kept in mind when describing study details and communicating LCA results.

Intended Use of LCA ResultsThe LCA results will be used to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of different methods for managing leftover latex paint. A seamless integration with the complementary CBA


study is required so that the PPSI can weigh the life cycle balance of costs and benefits. LCA and CBA results will be used in conjunction with the findings of the other ten paint projects to aide PPSI in developing a nationally coordinated paint management program. To provide for an easy evaluation of life cycle inventory results, the inventory will be aggregated into U.S. specific life cycle impact categories. The results for each impact category will be reported for each latex paint management method.

4 SCOPE OF THE LCA STUDY

Function, functional unit and reference flowISO guidelines for LCA require that systems be compared on the basis of the same function.4

Once this function is defined, a functional unit that is common to all systems is chosen so that the systems can be compared on the same quantitative basis. This provides for a fair comparison between different alternatives. For example, the comparison of virgin paint life cycles would be made on the function that each product serves, i.e, covering surfaces. This function would be quantified based on the same functional unit, e.g., covering a 1,000 ft2 wall with a minimum of 98% opacity for ten years. Once the functional unit is defined, the relevant flows necessary to fulfill the function for each alternative are quantified. These are known as reference flows and provide equivalence between the alternate systems in a comparative study. Within the LCA study, the inputs and outputs of each system are quantified relative to the system’s reference flow. The function, functional unit, and example reference flows for an LCA of virgin paint production and use are provided in Table 2. The function and functional unit are the same for both types of paint; however, reference flows (amount of paint needed) depend on the characteristics and performance of each type of paint. While the function of covering surfaces makes sense for an LCA of paint life cycles, it does not necessarily make sense for an LCA of methods for managing leftover paint.

4 ISO 14041:1998(E), the International Standard of the International Standardization Organization, Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis.


Table 1. Function, Functional Unit and Reference Flows for Hypothetical Paint LCA

Type of paint Function

Functionalunit

SpreadRate

(ft2/gallon)

Number of coats

required for 98% opacity

Paint durability

(years)

Reference flow

(gallons)

Paint ACover

surfaces

Cover 1,000 ft2 wall with a minimum of 98% opacity for 10

years

500 2 10 4

Paint B 400 1 5 5

Whereas the example above would evaluate the life cycle impacts associated with each paint product, the overall goal of this LCA is to evaluate the service of managing leftover paint. All of the management methods provide the primary function (or service) of managing leftover latex paint. However, they result in different types of outputs with different final uses. For example, coverage of surfaces is a secondary function of reuse and recycle methods. In contrast, dry/stabilize and dispose methods do not provide this same secondary function. The only common function for all management methods is the management of leftover latex paint and associated containers. Furthermore, this function is the most meaningful for comparing leftover paint management strategies. This function can be quantified in terms of the amount of leftover paint managed. Since paint is typically quantified in gallons in the United States, the functional unit will be defined as the management of 1,000 gallons of the national leftover paint supply and associated containers. Management is defined as getting leftover paint out of consumers’ homes via one (or more) of the six methods. For each management method, the reference flow necessary to fulfill the function is 1,000 gallons of leftover paint.

Table 2. Function, Functional Unit and Reference Flows for Leftover Paint LCAManagemen

t scenarioManagement method

FunctionFunctional

unitReference

flowConsumer-

basedReuse

Management of leftover latex

paint and associated containers

Management of 1,000 gallons of

leftover latex paint and associated containers

1,000 gallons of leftover latex

paint

Dry/stabilize and dispose

Collection-based

ReuseRecycle into consolidated paintRecycle into reprocessed paintDry/stabilize and dispose

Prior to conducting the LCA study, the functional unit must be further defined to represent the average composition of leftover paint (and associated containers) in the national leftover paint supply. In particular, the detailed functional unit must clearly define:

Profile of paint containers (e.g., steel or plastic) associated with 1,000 gallons of leftover latex paint;

Volume of leftover paint per container; Age of leftover paint; and Fraction of paint unsuitable for reuse or recycling.


The detailed functional unit will be based on information about market share of paint sales, current leftover paint collection programs, and municipal solid waste programs. For the remainder of the Scope of Work, the terms “leftover paint” and “leftover latex paint” include leftover latex paint and the associated containers.

System BoundariesThe management of leftover latex paint function is a subcomponent of the total paint life cycle. The different methods for managing leftover paint result in different types of outputs with different final uses, i.e., solid waste, reusable paint, or recycled paint. While the system boundaries must account for the burdens associated with collecting and processing leftover latex paint, they must also include credit for avoided virgin paint production. For this study, it will be assumed that reused or recycled latex paint will be substituted on a one-to-one basis for an equivalent grade and type of virgin paint.

The system boundaries for the LCA study are illustrated in Figure 3 and 4. The system boundaries include all transportation required to complete the activities included within the system boundaries. For each of the six methods identified for managing leftover latex paint, the following impacts will be quantified:

1. Management of leftover latex paint: includes, for example, emissions from drying leftover paint, disposing of leftover paint, and transporting leftover paint to processing facilities, landfills, or incinerators.

2. Reprocessing, distribution, and use of leftover latex paint: includes, for example, impacts from producing, distributing, and using reused or recycled paint.

3. Avoidance of virgin latex paint production and use: includes, for example, impacts that would have been realized from producing, distributing, and using virgin latex paint if the consumer would have selected virgin paint rather than recycled or reused paint.

A consumer that chooses to use reused or recycled paint may paint regardless of paint availability, i.e., using virgin paint if reused or recycled paint is not available. By contrast, a consumer may decide to paint a surface only because reused or recycled paint is available for free or at a very low cost. In the former scenario, the production and use of virgin paint is avoided. In the later scenario, it is not avoided since reused/recycled paint is substituted for not painting at all. To capture this range in the decision-making process, all methods for managing leftover paint that result in a useful paint product will be evaluated using (a) no avoided virgin paint credit; and (b) a full avoided virgin paint credit.


Management of leftover paintDistribution and use of reused paint

Leftoverpaint is

transferred to disposal

site

Dry / stabilize

leftover paint

Leftoverpaint mgmt

option

Distribute leftover paint

for reuse

Extract raw materials

Process materials

Manufacture virgin paint

Purchase and apply virgin paint

Apply reused paint

Avoidance of virgin paint production and useImpacts from managing, processing, and using leftover latex paint

Credits from avoided production and use of virgin latex paint

Landfill dried / stabilized

leftover paint

Incinerate dried /

stabilized leftover paint

Figure 3. System Boundaries for Leftover Paint Management LCA (Consumer-based Scenario)


Process, distribute, and use reused/recycled paintManage leftover paint


Process materials

Route to disposal

Set leftover paint out for

curbside pickup

Transport leftover paint to collection

facility

Leftoverpaint mgmt

option

Sort and handle

leftover paint

Distribute leftover paint

for reuse

Recycle leftover paint

into consolidated

paint

Recycle leftover paint

into reprocessed

paint


Process materials

Manufacture virgin paint

Purchase and apply virgin paint

Apply reused or recycled

paint

Avoidance of virgin paint production and useImpacts from managing, processing,and using leftover latex paint

Credits from avoided productionand use of virgin latex paint

Landfill leftover paint

Incinerate leftover paint

Figure 4. System Boundaries for Leftover Paint Management LCA (Collection-based Scenario)


5 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS

Data Sources Since this is a nationwide study, data must be representative of all latex paints being manufactured in the United States. Several LCA databases and software tools have been developed to compile the results of nationally-based LCA studies. The following data sources have been deemed appropriate for this study:

1. Data from the United States life cycle inventory (US LCI) database5 will be used where possible. The High Performance Buildings Initiative at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is leading a project to develop a national life cycle inventory database. The objective of this project is to develop a publicly available LCI database that will “allow users to objectively review and compare data based on similar data collection and analysis methods.” The US LCI database currently contains data sets on fuel production, energy use, transportation, and primary materials such as wood, and iron. It will soon contain data sets on plastics resins. This database is being used by all of the major LCA practitioners on U.S. products. Furthermore, use of the US LCI database maintains consistency of data in all aspects of the study.

2. BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) data on latex virgin and recycled paint is preliminarily recommended as the data source for the production of latex virgin and recycled paint. BEES was developed by The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and is publicly available software, which contains generic LCI data for materials and products, produced in the U.S. The generic products in BEES, including virgin and recycled latex paints, are being updated for the 2006 rollout of BEES version 4.0. As part of this update, the LCA consultants are collecting updated data from all relevant trade organizations (including NPCA); are ensuring the life cycle descriptions are more transparent than the previous versions; and are implementing the US LCI database, ensuring consistent and high quality, US upstream data.

3. Several current and future PPSI reports include data that will be used in the LCA. Examples include the PPSI infrastructure report (Project 4) from the PPSI Infrastructure Workgroup and the recycled paint certification report (Project 8) from the Markets Workgroup.

4. Other paint production LCAs that meet the study’s data quality goals described below can be used as needed.

5. Questionnaires should be sent out to paint recycling facilities and other operations in the value chain where the available LCA data and/or assumptions on energy and materials use will not be adequate for the reliability of the study.

6. If the US LCI database does not contain data for the production of other materials, such as inputs to paints, additives, or auxiliary materials used for recycling, etc., European databases may be utilized as long as they contain data that meets the data quality requirements defined below (i.e., good technological representation and are reasonably current).

5 http://www.nrel.gov/lci/


Data Quality RequirementsTo ensure consistency and reliability of the data so that readers and users of the LCA study can readily evaluate the results, the data quality requirements set forth by the ISO 14040 series of standards on LCA will be adhered to. For example, the following data quality requirements must be addressed in the LCI:

1. Representativeness: qualitative assessment of the degree to which the data set reflects the true population of interest, is comprised of the following: Time/temporal coverage: describes the age of data and the minimum length of time

(e.g. one year) over which data should be collected; Geographical coverage: describes the geographical area from which data for unit

processes are collected to satisfy the goal of the study; and Technological coverage, or the technology mix: includes weighted average of the

actual process mix, best available technology, or worst operating unit.2. Consistency: qualitative assessment of how uniformly the study methodology is applied

to the various components of the analysis. 3. Reproducibility: qualitative assessment of the extent to which information about the

methodology and data values allows an independent practitioner to reproduce the results reported in the study.

4. Precision: measure of the variability of the data values for each data category expressed (e.g. variance).

5. Completeness: percentage of locations reporting primary data from the potential number in existence for each data category in a unit process.

While setting out goals for data quality is an important step in goal and scope definition of an LCA (e.g., must have data from within a 5-year time period; must use U.S. data), to strictly define such requirements prior to reviewing the data that is available sets up the LCA for failure. A table or matrix producing qualitative information on the data quality lays out the information needed for the user to understand the overall quality in the study. Furthermore, this matrix approach has been used in many externally peer-reviewed LCA studies and is accepted as an adequate way to convey the data quality in the study. The data quality matrix will present qualitative information on each of the data quality requirements listed above for each life cycle stage of the LCA study. In addition, it should summarize all data substitutions and any surrogate data used in the study.

6 LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

Impact Assessment6

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is used to characterize the potential impacts on human health and the environment that are associated with the environmental burdens for a system. For example, the life cycle inventory of a product system would identify and quantify the emissions of various greenhouse gases, waterborne emissions of various substances, etc. over the life cycle

6 Much of the background discussion on LCIA is based on material developed under Work Group B of the U.S. Green Building Council LCA into LEED effort and from the TRACI User’s Guide, available at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r02052/600R02052.pdf.


of the product system. LCIA then attempts to classify and characterize the potential impacts of these releases on human health and the environment, e.g., the amount of global warming that may result from the releases of various greenhouse gases, or the eutrophication potential based on inventory releases of waterborne emissions that contribute to this problem. Impact potentials of various substances in a given impact category are generally expressed on a common basis of their impact relative to the impacts of a selected reference substance. For example, global warming potentials of various greenhouse gases are expressed on the basis of carbon dioxide equivalents, ozone depletion potential is commonly expressed in CFC-11 equivalents, etc.

To make more fully informed decisions, it is important for an LCA user to understand the potential tradeoffs between different paint management methods (e.g., one option may have lower potential for climate change but another may have lower potential impacts on human health). Interpretation typically involves summarizing the environmental results for each system (e.g., total energy use, fossil fuel use, global warming potential, etc.) and drawing conclusions or making recommendations about the relative merits of the product systems, in this case different methods for managing leftover latex paint. Several approaches have been used to interpret LCIA results and compare different product life cycles. For example, normalization is sometimes used to calculate the magnitude of life cycle results relative to reference information. Some LCA users prefer to evaluate impact categories individually, while others prefer a single aggregated “score”, arrived at by using some value system to assign different weights to the results for different impact categories. The weighting process is necessarily subjective.

For the forthcoming LCA study, the TRACI7 methodology, developed by the United States EPA, will be used to characterize the following potential impacts based on the results of the life cycle inventory:

1. Ozone depletion;2. Global warming;3. Acidification;4. Eutrophication;5. Photochemical smog;6. Human health cancer;7. Human health noncancer;8. Human health criteria;9. Ecotoxicity;10. Fossil fuel use;11. Land use; and 12. Water use.

Since mineral extraction, which is not considered in TRACI, is important in the paint life cycle, the mineral extraction flows quantified in the life cycle inventory will be reported as a thirteenth environmental impact category. The potential impact from extracting minerals will be quantified using a life cycle assessment method (e.g., Eco-Indicator 99) that translates mineral extraction into an impact potential. LCIA results will be reported individually for each impact category – producing thirteen results for each leftover paint management method.

7 http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/traci/index.html


7 INTERPRETATION REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Final ReportA final report will be prepared. It will provide a quantitative summary and evaluation of LCA results, assessment of tradeoffs between leftover paint management methods, and a sensitivity analysis of the most important contributors to the overall results. Each of these are discussed in more detail below.

Summary and Evaluation of LCA ResultsThe LCA study will provide a summary and quantitative evaluation of the LCA results for each of the leftover latex paint management methods. The report will also present a set of LCI tables (energy results, solid waste results, atmospheric emissions, and waterborne emissions) for each method modeled. The LCI results will serve as documentation of the underlying data from which the impact assessment results are developed. Stand-alone results will be presented for both the pure methods and the modified methods, which will approximate actual management of leftover latex paint for each method.

Assessment of TradeoffsTo make more fully informed decisions, it is important to understand the potential tradeoffs between different leftover paint management methods (e.g., one method may have lower potential for climate change but another may have lower potential impacts on human health). The quantitative results of the LCA study will be accompanied by a qualitative discussion of the most important tradeoffs associated with each leftover paint management method.

Sensitivity AnalysisFor each leftover paint management method, the sensitivity of the LCA results to key assumptions and parameter data will be evaluated. The sensitivity analysis will identify decisions made during the scoping process and parameters that have a large impact on the results. For each of the six methods, the five assumptions or parameters that the LCA results are most sensitive to will be identified. The sensitivity of the overall LCA results to each of these assumptions/parameters will be presented in the final report.

Interactive ModelUsing the LCA results, an interactive model will be developed that allows a user to evaluate various combinations of the pure methods and pathways illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 by assigning percentages to the flows into and out of the various processes. In addition, the user will be able to define the amount of latex paint to be managed. The user will also be able to vary the avoided virgin paint production credit, to reflect the relative percentages of consumers who use reused/recycled paint in place of virgin paint and those who use reused/recycled paint in place of not painting.

The interactive model will allow the user to evaluate scenarios with various combinations of methods and pathways for managing leftover latex paint. Using this model, a user could scale the LCA results according to the current volume of leftover latex paint managed in the United States and develop a snapshot of the current leftover paint situation based on information about the


national leftover paint supply and current management practices. In addition, the user could analyze alternative national leftover paint management scenarios. The stand-alone results for each leftover paint management method and the combined results from the interactive model will help PPSI quantify the environmental impact of current leftover paint management practices and identify leftover paint management methods that minimize overall environmental impact. Combined with the results of the cost-benefit analysis, it will help PPSI develop a nationally coordinated paint management system that is cost-effective and environmentally sound, technically and economically feasible, and successful.

The interactive model will be developed in a widely available software package (e.g., EXCEL) and constructed with a user-friendly interface so that PPSI can change the values and percentages listed above; and view the change in results for each of the thirteen life cycle impact categories.

Study LimitationsThe goals and scope of the leftover paint management LCA study have been developed to provide a well-defined study that can be completed within the PPSI defined schedule (October 2005 through June 2006) and budget, quantify the most important environmental impacts of a foreseeable nationally coordinated paint management system, and provide for a fair comparison of different leftover paint management methods. The study scope has several important limitations:

1. The management of leftover oil-based paint will not be considered. While the harmful nature of oil-based paint has been a key driver for establishing a national initiative to manage leftover paint, sales have been decreasing, and there are only a few methods for managing leftover oil-based paint. Rather than conduct an extensive study on the life cycle implications of a small part of the market with very few options, the PPSI will focus its efforts on ensuring proper disposal of leftover oil-based paint and conducting an extensive evaluation of the net life cycle implications of the most important methods for managing leftover latex paint.

2. Alternate disposal methods for managing leftover latex paint will not be considered unless data quantifying associated environmental damage can be found. A summary of the literature review of the public health and environmental impacts alternate methods for disposing of leftover latex paint will be provided to PPSI within a few months after initiating the project. This includes instances in which liquid latex paint is disposed of as mixed municipal solid waste or in a sewer. If no data is found, the life cycle assessment will not consider the alternate methods for disposing of leftover latex paint. Likewise, if data is found and indicates that the benefits of avoiding these methods are relatively minor, the life cycle assessment will again not consider them. However, if the literature review yields data suggesting that the benefits of avoiding the alternate disposal method are substantial and could potentially affect the outcome of the life cycle assessment, PPSI may decide to include the seventh method it in the LCA. While the literature review is included in the Scope of Work, an LCA of the alternate disposal method is not included. The literature review will occur immediately after the project is initiated and will be conducted concurrent to initial LCA work. The results of the literature review will be reported to PPSI within two months after the project is initiated.


3. LCA results will not represent the current overall national paint management scenario. LCA results will be provided for the management of a specified functional unit (1,000 gallons of leftover latex paint and the associated containers) for each management method. Use of a consistent functional unit for all methods allows for an easy and transparent evaluation of each management method and is in accordance to ISO guidelines for LCA. To evaluate the environmental impacts of current leftover paint management programs, the LCA results can be scaled according to the current volume of leftover latex paint managed and mix of management methods used. A functional unit of 1,000 gallons was selected because it can be easily scaled to reflect leftover latex paint management at a local, regional, or national scale.

4. The LCA will not evaluate alternative nationally coordinated leftover paint management systems. The functional unit of 1,000 gallons of leftover latex paint and the interactive model will enable the PPSI to quickly scale LCA results to evaluate the environmental impacts of different nationally coordinated systems for managing leftover latex paint using different combinations of methods. In addition, the LCA results can be easily scaled to evaluate systems for managing leftover latex paint at local and regional levels as well. However, LCA results will be based on the current infrastructure. Scaling the LCA results assumes that the infrastructure remains the same. Therefore, the extent to which a nationally coordinated system would differ from the current infrastructure (e.g., by having more drop-off points that are closer to consumers’ homes or by improved recycling technologies) will not be captured by the interactive model.

Critical ReviewTwo types of external reviews can be used to review an LCA study. A formal external review is required by ISO if an entity intends to make a comparative assertion on its product, i.e., a public claim that its product performs environmentally better or the same as another product performing the same function. A less formal review may be achieved by hiring an expert in the LCA community to perform an independent review of the study’s goal and scope, modeling, assumptions, and data quality. Since the goal of the LCA study is to help develop a national strategy for managing leftover paint rather than to compare different types of paint systems, PPSI will hire an independent external peer review expert to conduct a less formal review of the draft LCA study to verify the following:

· The methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with the International Standards for LCA;

· The methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid;· The data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study;· The interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study; and· The study report is transparent and consistent.

The party conducting the LCA will respond to the reviewer’s comments. Findings of the peer review and the response of the LCA practitioners will be included in the final LCA report.


8 INTEGRATION OF LCA WITH COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

While the primary objective of the LCA study is to develop and conduct a comprehensive LCA of different methods for managing leftover latex paint, the LCA study and results must be effectively integrated with the cost-benefit analysis. The LCA team must coordinate closely with and communicate regularly with the CBA team to ensure that the combined LCA-CBA results will provide the PPSI with the information needed for developing a nationally coordinated paint management system that is cost-effective and environmentally sound. The LCA and CBA have been scoped concurrently and share the same functional unit and system boundaries. Likewise the actual LCA and CBA will be conducted concurrently and the consultants performing each study will work together to develop and report complete balance of costs and benefits for each of the six leftover latex paint management methods. As discussed above, the LCIA results will not be combined into a single score. Likewise, the results of the LCA and CBA will not be combined into a single performance score. This would require the use of weighting factors, which are always subjective to some degree and reflect the value judgments defined by a specific group of individuals at a specific point in time. Furthermore, a single score would disguise any tradeoffs between environmental impact and cost.

9 ROLE OF AND COORDINATION WITH THE PPSI LIFECYCLE WORKGROUP

The LCA project will require periodic teleconferences with the PPSI Lifecycle Workgroup. In addition, one to two face-to-face meetings with the PPSI Lifecycle Workgroup will be required while the LCA and CBA are being carried out. The LCA and CBA contractors are responsible for coordinating with each other and communicating with the PPSI Lifecycle Workgroup.


APPENDIX ONE. PATHWAYS FOR MANAGING LEFTOVER LATEX PAINT

# Scenario Method Pathways1

Consumer-based

User-to-user reuse Consumer delivers paint to another user leftover paint is reused

2

Dry /stabilize and dispose

Consumer air dry mixed waste pickup landfilled3 Consumer air dry mixed waste pickup incinerated4 Consumer air dry consumer self-haul to landfill landfilled5 Consumer air dry consumer self-haul to incinerator incinerated6 Consumer stabilize with cat litter mixed waste pickup landfilled7 Consumer stabilize with cat litter mixed waste pickup incinerated8 Consumer stabilize with cat litter consumer self-haul to landfill landfilled9 Consumer stabilize with cat litter consumer self-haul to incinerator incinerated

10

Collection-based Reuse

Set out with separated waste routed for reuse reused11 Set out with separated waste routed for reuse deemed unsuitable air dried landfilled12 Set out with separated waste routed for reuse deemed unsuitable air dried incinerated13 Set out with separated waste routed for reuse deemed unsuitable stabilized with PC landfilled14 Set out with separated waste routed for reuse deemed unsuitable stabilized with PC incinerated15 Set out with separated waste routed for reuse deemed unsuitable recycled via consolidation16 Set out with separated waste routed for reuse deemed unsuitable recycled via reprocessing17 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse reused18 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse deemed unsuitable air dried landfilled19 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse deemed unsuitable air dried incinerated20 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse deemed unsuitable stabilized with PC landfilled21 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse deemed unsuitable stabilized with PC incinerated22 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse deemed unsuitable recycled via consolidation23 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reuse deemed unsuitable recycled via reprocessing


24

Collection-based

(continued)

Recycled via paint

consolidation

Set out with separated waste routed for consolidation recycled via consolidation25 Set out with separated waste routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable air dried landfilled26 Set out with separated waste routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable air dried incinerated27 Set out with separated waste routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement landfilled28 Set out with separated waste routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement incinerated29 Self-hauled to central facility routed for consolidation recycled via consolidation30 Self-hauled to central facility routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable air dried landfilled31 Self-hauled to central facility routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable air dried incinerated32 Self-hauled to central facility routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement landfilled33 Self-hauled to central facility routed for consolidation deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement incinerated34

Recycled via paint

reprocessing

Set out with separated waste routed for reprocessing recycled via reprocessing35 Set out with separated waste routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable air dried landfilled36 Set out with separated waste routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable air dried incinerated37 Set out with separated waste routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement landfilled38 Set out with separated waste routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement incinerated39 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reprocessing recycled via reprocessing40 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable air dried landfilled41 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable air dried incinerated42 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement landfilled43 Self-hauled to central facility routed for reprocessing deemed unsuitable stabilized with portland

cement incinerated


44

Collection-based

(continued)

Dry/stabilize and dispose

Set out with separated waste collected air dried landfilled45 Set out with separated waste collected air dried incinerated46 Set out with separated waste collected stabilized with portland cement landfilled47 Set out with separated waste collected stabilized with portland cement incinerated48 Self-hauled to central facility collected air dried landfilled49 Self-hauled to central facility collected air dried incinerated48 Self-hauled to central facility collected stabilized with portland cement landfilled49 Self-hauled to central facility collected stabilized with portland cement incinerated


Documents

Scope of Work – Draft 1€¦ · Web viewThe recommended Scope Of Work for a forthcoming LCA is detailed in this report. ISO Guidelines for LCA LCA is a tool for the systematic evaluation