Feasibility study to implement resource dissipation in LCA

The assessment of potential impacts associated to resource use in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a highly debated topic. At present, there is neither a consensus on the safeguard subject of the natural resource Area of Protection (AoP), nor on the approach to use for modeling the impacts in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) step. This technical report focuses on the aspects related to dissipative use of resources and explores the feasibility of its implementation for the assessment of abiotic resources. One of the critical aspects of abiotic resource modelling is related to the concept of depletion. Depletion is currently one of the most common aspects taken into account among existing LCIA models addressing resources, assuming that once a resource is extracted from the Earth’s crust, it is considered depleted. However, abiotic resources may remain in the anthropogenic system and may be available for further use for a long time after they have been extracted from the Earth’s crust. When assessing the dissipative use of resources, it is relevant to focus both on the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): LCIs will require to be modified compared to current practise, in order to exploit the advantages that this new approach may provide. Initial results form this study indicate that a dissipation approach is feasible and can have several advantages, e.g providing more detailed results for several life cycle stages, but also has some drawbacks, e.g. a higher data demand on the life cycle inventory side. Both, advantages and drawbacks of the dissipation modelling will have to be further explored.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Life Cycle Data Network: Handbook for data developers and providers

After its debut in the European Commission’s Integrated Product Policy (COM (2003)302) as the “best framework for assessing the potential environmental impacts of products”, Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Assessment (LCA) has become increasingly used in support of community policies and business. Focus has been primarily on establishing agreed methods, both within Europe and internationally. The EC’s European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (EPLCA) has continued to address the equally essential issue of data availability, coherence, and quality assurance. LCA has become an important approach to boost smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU. As an example, in the context of the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative “A Resource Efficient Europe” , and the “Single Market for Green Products Communication” and related European Commission Recommendation for the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide and the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guides . These methodologies reflect a vital milestone in the aim to increase coherence and quality in the assessment of environmental performance of products and organisations. Other prominent applications include in support of the Waste Framework Directive, the Eco-design Directive, EU Ecolabel and EU GPP, the Raw Materials Initiative, the bio economy strategy, as well as providing a more advanced basis for indicators and targets accounting for the burdens of EU imports and exports to help focus policies and research funding. Life Cycle Thinking is essential in modern decision making in business and policy. Commonly implemented through Life Cycle Assessment, it is increasingly necessary to quantify the benefits and burdens associated with products, both goods and services, that occur in their supply chains, during use, as well as at the end-of-their lives. This helps to avoid the shifting of burdens between different geographic regions, generations and impacts. Within this framework, the EPLCA, developed by the JRC, together with DG-Environment, represents the reference point for data and methods essential to implementing Life Cycle based approaches. The EPLCA promotes the availability of data and information, with a focus on coherence and quality assurance. Although methodology development is advancing fast, the availability of coherent, quality-assured life cycle data and studies still represents a major challenge to mainstream the use of LCA and associated environmental footprint methods in business and in policy. To date, the EPLCA has facilitated several notable developments: - The Life Cycle Data Network (LCDN); launched in early 2014, aims at providing a globally usable infrastructure for consistent and quality assured life cycle data. - The European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD); comprises of Life Cycle emissions and resource consumption Inventory (LCI) data from front-running EU-level business associations and other sources for key materials, energy carriers, transport, and waste management, to be used as source for secondary data. - The Resource Directory (RD); provides a structured repository for several types of life cycle-based documents and studies, as well as a world-wide list of life cycle support software packages and databases from suppliers/developers, and service providers. - The Reviewer Registry (RR): provides a list of potential reviewers for different LCA schemes, and automatically assess the eligibility of single reviewers and reviewers’ teams, according to different levels of compliance. This guide provides comprehensive instructions on how to utilize the Life Cycle Data Network (LCDN) for publishing LCA data. It summarizes how to orchestrate the various tools in order to guide the data developers through the entire process from generation of a dataset to publication on the LCDN. Further and more detailed documentation for the individual steps can be found in the annexes to this technical report. In principle, the following steps are required in order to publish data on the LCDN and therefore covered in this document: 1. Prepare data (export from an LCA modelling tool) 2. Technical validation of the data 3. Set up a node for participation in the LCDN. 4. Upload of the data to the node 5. Publication of the data on the LCDN Beyond that, a detailed guidance on how document different ILCD-EL aspects, in three commonly used LCA software in Europe (Namely: GaBi , OpenLCA and SimaPro ), is also provided in this document. This document is providing some examples, taking into account some the above mentioned LCA software, because are the most commonly used and widespread in Europe, this does NOT imply any recommendation or endorsement from the JRC or the European Commission. An exemplary dataset was used to provide an overview and understanding of how to address some compliance issues, in different software. Some general guiding principles that apply to all of the software are summarized, along with a short review of discrepancies found when exporting the dataset in ILCD format using the individual LCA software. The editable compliance elements are explained individually, showing some screenshots of different software tools. Finally a set of slides, resuming the content of this guide, is provided in annex II.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Suggestions for updating the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) method

The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) based method to quantify the environmental impacts of organisations: this includes companies, public administrative entities and other bodies. The OEF method builds on existing approaches and international standards. OEF information is produced for the overarching purpose of seeking to reduce the environmental impacts of organisations taking into account supply chain activities (from extraction of raw materials, through production and use, to final waste management). This purpose is achieved through the provision of detailed requirements for modelling the environmental impacts of the flows of materials and energy, and the emissions and waste streams associated with the product portfolio of an organisation, throughout its life cycle. The OEF is complementary to other assessments and instruments, such as site-specific environmental impact assessments or chemical risk assessments. At organisational level, the importance of the environmental impacts occurring in the supply chain is increasingly recognised. Standards and methods were created, such as the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and its sectoral guidance or Global Reporting Initiative indicators. At EU level, the EMAS Sectoral Reference Documents include guidance on indirect impacts, highlighting also the use of LCA-methods for evaluation of the respective product portfolio (PP). The rules provided in the OEF method enable to conduct OEF studies that are more reproducible, comparable and verifiable, compared to existing alternative approaches. However, comparability is an option only if the results are based on the same Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules (OEFSR) and if the performance is normalized against a reference system (e.g. yearly turnover with reference to the product portfolio). The development of OEFSRs complements and further specifies the requirements for OEF studies.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Microstructural Study of the Intermetallic Bonding Between Al Foam and Low Carbon Steel

Bonding between a metal foam core and a metallic skin is a pre requisite for the technological application of aluminum foam as filling reinforcement material to improve energy absorption and vibration damping of hollow components. This work is a preliminary study for the microstructural characterization of the interface layer formed between a commercial powder metallurgy (PM) precursor and a steel mould during foaming. The microstructure of the intermetallic layer was characterized by scanning electron microscopy, electron probe microanalysis and nanohardness measurements on the cross section. X-ray diffraction measurements, performed on the foam/substrate surface after stepwise material removal, allow the identification of the intermetallic phases. Two intermetallic layers, identified as Fe2Al5 and FeAl3, characterize the low Si foam/substrate while the AlSi10 foam/substrate interface evidences the presence of three Fe(Si, Al) intermetallic layers with different composition. Two and three different phases of increasing hardness could be distinguished going from the foam to the steel substrate for AlMg1Si0.6 and AlSi10 precursors respectively. The results suggest the importance of elemental diffusion from steel substrate in the molten aluminum matrix (foam). The possibility to control and tailor the microstructural properties of the interface between foam and steel skin is of fundamental importance in the technological process of foam filled structures manufacturing

Consumer Footprint. Basket of Products indicator on Mobility

The EU Consumer Footprint aims at assessing the environmental impacts of consumption. The methodology for assessing the impacts is based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of products (or services) purchased and used in one year by an EU citizen. This report is about the subset indicator of the consumer footprint of the basket of product (BoP) on mobility. The baseline model of the BoP mobility is built using statistics about European fleet composition and intensity of use of transport means by European citizens, i.e. the number of kilometers travelled by road, rail and air transport. These data are then allocated to 27 representative products, including 16 types of passenger cars, 3 types of 2-wheelers, 3 types of bus transport, 2 types of rail transport and 3 types of air transport. The resulting baseline inventory model, referring to the year 2010, has been assessed for 15 different impact categories, using the ILCD life cycle impact assessment method. A sensitivity analysis has been run for some impact categories, with a selection of recent impact assessment models and factors. Results allows a wide array of considerations, as this study reports overall impact in Europe due to mobility, average impact per citizen, share of impact due to each transport mode and type of vehicle. The results highlight that road transport is by far the mode of transport contributing the most to the impact of EU citizens’ mobility. Within this macro-category, the product groups that can be considered hotspots for the European mobility are passenger cars, and especially diesel cars. In terms of impact categories, resource depletion is the most important one, especially for road transport (due to the materials used to build the vehicles and the fossil fuels used in the use stage). The contribution of life cycle stages to the overall impact of the BoP mobility varies among impact categories: vehicle usage, fuel production and vehicle production are the most relevant stages for almost all the impact categories considered. To assess potential benefits stemming from selected ecoinnovations applied to the mobility sector, the Consumer Footprint BoP mobility baseline has been assessed against five scenarios. The scenarios developed for the BoP mobility regard the use of eco-driving measures (including technical and behavioural changes), an increased use of biofuels in substitution of the current blend of diesel, and the evolution of hybrid and electric mobility (as the share of hybrid and electric vehicles in the European fleet and of the expected increase in efficiency of the batteries). In addition, one scenario is directly related to changes in the lifestyle of European citizens, namely the shift of a portion of their mobility habits from private cars to public transport, for what concern the mobility in urban areas. The amount of km travelled yearly by European citizens plays a relevant role in the assessment of the scenarios representing possible improvement options for the sector. Indeed, the number of person*km (pkm) travelled yearly by an average European citizen is constantly growing over time. This is reflected in the larger impact (over all the impact categories considered) of the baseline for the reference year 2015 over the baseline 2010 and of scenario 1 (expected situation in 2030) over the baselines 2015 and 2010. The increase of the pkm travelled offsets the reduction of the impact per km travelled achieved through the introduction of cars compliant to the new emission standards (Euro 6) and through the increase of electric and hybrid vehicles. The expected improvements related to electric and hybrid cars, and especially on the batteries, could lead to a reduction of the impact of these type of vehicles up to 40% (e.g. impact of improved electrical vehicle on freshwater eutrophication, compared to the current performance of electrical vehicle). However, the relevance of these improvements on the overall impact of the BoP (i.e. of the mobility of EU citizens) is strongly dependent on the share of vehicles in the fleet. In general, the impact reduction expected from the single solutions tested in the scenarios has a limited effect on the overall impact of the BoP (i.e. of the consumption area of mobility) if they are considered one by one and it is the combination of several measures that may help to maximize the benefits. Specifically for the mobility sector, a reduction of the total kms travelled by road, rail or air means of transport (e.g. by increasing the kms travelled by bicycle or by walking, when possible), is needed, to avoid that the reduction of impact achieved through technological improvements is offset by the continuous increase in the amount of pkm over time.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Supporting a transition towards sustainable circular economy: sensitivity analysis for the interpretation of LCA for the recovery of electric and electronic waste

Purpose: The interpretation is a fundamental phase of life cycle assessment (LCA). It ensures the robustness and the reliability of the overall study. Moving towards more circular economy requires that different waste management options are systematically scrutinized to assess the environmental impacts and benefits associated to them. The present work aims at illustrating how a sensitivity analysis could be applied to the impact assessment step supporting the interpretation of a LCA study applied to a waste management system that includes material recovering. The focus is on toxicity-related and resource-related potential impacts as they are considered among the most critical ones, which may affect the way the final benefit from material recovery is evaluated. Methods: Possible alternatives in terms of impact assessment assumptions and modelling are tested by performing a sensitivity analysis on a case study on electric and electronic waste. For the toxicity-related impact categories, first, a sensitivity analysis is performed using different sets of characterization factors for metals aiming at identifying how they are affecting the final results. Then, an analysis of the relative contribution of long-term emissions in upstream processes is carried out aiming at unveiling critical issues associated to their inclusion or exclusion. For the resource depletion impact category, a sensitivity analysis has been performed, adopting different sets of characterization factors based on existing models for minerals and metals as well as recently proposed sets accounting for critical raw materials. Results and discussion: The indicator of the ecotoxicity impact category obtained by applying the updated characterization factors is about three times higher than the corresponding obtained by the USEtox model. The long-term emission result is responsible for the major part of all the toxicity impact indicators. Moreover, for the ecotoxicity indicator, excluding the long-term emissions changes the total results from being negative into positive. The sensitivity analysis for the resource depletion impact category shows that all the models applied result in a total avoided impact. A quantitative comparison among all the results is not possible as the different models use different units of measure. Conclusions: The application of LCA is crucial for assessing avoided impacts and uncovers potential impacts due to recycling. However, contrasting results may stem from the application of different assumptions and models for characterization. A robust interpretation of the results should be based on systematic assessment of the differences highlighted by the sensitivity, as guidance for delving into further analysis of the drivers of impacts and/or to steer ecoinnovation to reduce those impacts

Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: New methods and differences with ILCD

In 2013, the Environmental Footprint methodology has been established with a specific Recommendation (2013/179/EU), within the framework of the “Single Market for Green Products” communication (COM/2013/0196). The International Life Cycle Data system, developed since 2007, released in 2010 and continuously maintained by JRC, has been adopted in the EF framework. ILCD format and nomenclature were adopted as requirements for EF. Given the different needs and goals of the EF, some methods for the Life Cycle Impact Assessment have been changed compared to ILCD (and therefore the elementary flows have been adapted accordingly, and to some extent, the format has been expanded). The the LCIA methods are developed within the database as ILCD-formatted xml files to allow electronic import into LCA software; The LCIA methods are implemented as separate data sets which contain all the descriptive metadata documentation and the characterisation factors assigned to different elementary flows (that are also xml files within the DB). This document provide a view on the changes occurred within the methods for the mid-point impact assessment (the EF is considering for now only impacts at the level of potential changes, not at the potential damage level, which was captured in ILCD scheme for the methods at the end-point level). The changes and adaptations occurred within the ILCD scheme, that led to the creation of the current EF set of methods and a new package, based on ILCD format, containing new files for LCIA methods, can be summarized as follows: • 6 methods are completely new, or updated according to the newest releases of the old methods adopted in ILCD. • The elementary flow list has been fixed and expanded according to the needs of the new methods • Within the new methods several flows have been spatially differentiated (in ILCD format the location attribute is resolved at the method level, not at the elementary flow level) • For several flows that were not characterized (both in newly added methods and in the pre-existing ones that were not modified), a CF has been adopted, where a direct proxy for a specific substance/compartment was available. • Specific exceptions, integrations or corrections have been implemented in different methods. All these aspects are detailed within the document. Furthermore, additional files have been released, containing an exhaustive view of all the changes occurred in the transition phase between the ILCD and the EF scheme (see annex2). Additional updates will be released through the website of the European Platform on LCA (http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). Other methods (e.g. those related to toxicity aspects) are under development, during the editing of this document; therefore an updated version will be released as soon as the new recommended methods are defined.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Guide on Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data generation for the Environmental Footprint

This document provides additional guidance, in addition to the ILCD entry-level requirements (JRC 2012), in order to develop process data sets, compliant with the Environmental Footprint (EF) requirements. EF compliant Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data sets shall be compliant with: • EF ELEMENTARY flows: the nomenclature shall be aligned with the most recent version of the EF reference package available on the EF developer’s page at the following link http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/developerEF.xhtml. Details to fulfil this aspect are available in the “ILCD Handbook – Nomenclature and other conventions” (JRC 2010a) • For the PROCESS data sets and PRODUCT flow, the nomenclature shall be compliant with “ILCD Handbook – Nomenclature and other conventions” (JRC 2010a) This document provides further details on more specific aspects and procedures related to EF compliant data sets, and is divided in five sections: 1. The definition of the different process data set types allowed in the ILCD Format. 2. The procedure for EF data sets and data stocks updates, describing how to update and document changes in the future releases of EF data sets, replacing older versions with new ones. 3. Harmonization of level – 1 disaggregated data sets, including the intended level of disaggregation for the EF requirements, and the additional documentation needed. 4. Requirements for meta-data information of EF data sets, describing where and how to include the documentation information to fulfil the EF requirements. 5. Reviewer’s requirements and review report, including the minimum level of expertise for a reviewer (or a team), in order to be eligible for the EF data set’s review, and the review report template, with explanations on how to fill in the different fields.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Guide for EF compliant data sets

This document provides additional guidance, in addition to the ILCD entry-level requirements (JRC 2012), in order to develop process data sets, compliant with the Environmental Footprint (EF) requirements. This document provides further details on more specific aspects and procedures related to EF compliant data sets, and is divided in different sections: 1. The definition of the different process data set types allowed in the ILCD Format. 2. EF Reference packages released (description and where to find them) 3. How to structure and document data stocks 4. The procedure for EF data sets and data stocks updates, describing how to update and document changes in the future releases of EF data sets, replacing older versions with new ones. 5. Harmonization of level – 1 disaggregated data sets, including the level of disaggregation for the EF requirements, and the additional documentation needed. 6. Requirements for meta-data information of EF data sets, describing where and how to include the documentation. 7. Modelling requirements, specific for EF framework 8. Reviewer’s requirements and review report, including the minimum level of expertise for a reviewer (or a team), in order to be eligible for the EF data set’s review, and the review report template, with explanations on how to fill in the different fields. 9. Intellectual property rights with definitions of IPR transfer to the commission, to the final user and the harmonised EULA in the EF frameworkJRC.D.1-Bio-econom

JRC Ispra site Environmental Footprint (OEF): Application of the Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU and of the OEFSR Guidance v.6.3- Reporting year 2015 -

This report represents the summary of a work carried out over the last few years involving different Units of the Joint Research Centre and a team of external consultants and reviewers. The OEF method (Organisation Environmental Footprint), together with the PEF method (Product Environmental Footprint), was developed by the JRC Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Team (now in the Land Resources Unit, D3). Both methods were published in annex to the Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. The JRC Ispra is the 3rd largest site of the European Commission. The site is a combination of scientific activities and a broad set of supporting operations, ranging from power generation to water supply and wastewater treatment up to nuclear decommissioning. The site applies EMAS (the EU Environmental Management and Audit Scheme) to continuously improve its environmental performance and communicate it to the public. The application of the OEF, started in 2012 and reiterated over time, was a natural process and turned out to be quite beneficial for both tools. EMAS, in fact, has been getting complementary life cycle based information from the OEF while the latter has been gaining hands-on experience from EMAS in view of testing and possibly improving its methodological foundations. The JRC is therefore a unique field of play, a sort of “living-lab” where research and administration cooperate in a “win-win” perspective. This third version of the OEF study was submitted to an external review panel of distinguished experts in the domain of environmental footprinting. We are happy to present the report to the external public and hope to encourage other organisations to follow our path towards sustainability.JRC.D.3-Land Resource