R.
NISTIR 6916
BEES 3.0
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
Technical Manual and User Guide
Barbara C. Lippiatt
With Support From:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
MIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
-------
-------
NISTIR 6916
BEES® 3.0
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
Technical Manual and User Guide
Barbara C. Lippiatt
Office of Applied Economics
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603
October 2002
With Support From:
xvlEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
William H. Sanders, III, Director
/
\
U.S. Department Of Commerce
Donald L. Evans, Secretary
Technology Administration
Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology
National Institute Of Standards And
Technology
Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
-------
Abstract
The BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) version 3.0 software
implements a rational, systematic technique for selecting environmentally-friendly, cost-
effective building products. The technique is based on consensus standards and designed to be
practical, flexible, and transparent. The Windows-based decision support software, aimed at
designers, builders, and product manufacturers, includes actual environmental and economic
performance data for nearly 200 building products across a range of functional applications.
BEES measures the environmental performance of building products using the environmental
life-cycle assessment approach specified in ISO 14040 standards. All stages in the life of a
product are analyzed: raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation, installation, use, and
waste management. Economic performance is measured using the ASTM International standard
life-cycle cost method (E 917), which covers the costs of initial investment, replacement,
operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. Environmental and economic performance are
combined into an overall performance measure using the ASTM standard for Multiattribute
Decision Analysis (E 1765). For the entire BEES analysis, building products are defined and
classified based on the ASTM standard classification for building elements known as
UMFORMAT H (E 1557).
Key words: Building products, economic performance, environmental performance, green
buildings, life cycle assessment, life-cycle costing, multiattribute decision analysis, sustainable
development
Disclaimer
Certain trade names and company products are mentioned throughout the text. In no case does
such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the product is the best available for the
purpose. " y' -••
-------
Acknowledgments
The BEES tool could not have been completed without the help of others. Thanks are due the
NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) for its support of this work from its
inception. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pollution Prevention Division also
deserves thanks for its continued support. Thanks are due the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service for supporting development of
BEES results for transformer oils. Deserving special thanks is the BEES environmental data
contracting team of Environmental Strategies and Solutions and PricewaterhouseCoopers for its
superb data development, documentation, and technical support. The author is grateful to the
BEES 2.0 Peer Review Team, led by Mary Ann Curran of the EPA Sustainable Technology
Division, for recommending methodology improvements that have been incorporated into BEES
3.0. Jane Bare, of the EPA Sustainable Technology Division, and her TRACI team (particularly
Greg Norris of Sylvatica, Inc., Edgar Hertwich of Austria's International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, Tom McKone of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Alina Martin
of SAIC, Inc.) were instrumental in developing the methodological improvements incorporated
into BEES 3.0, and went out of their way to help the author adapt these improvements to the
practicalities of BEES. Thanks are also due Sarah Bretz and her colleagues from Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory for providing the Energy Star "Cool Roof data used to analyze
BEES roof covering alternatives. The author is particularly grateful for the key cooperation and
support offered by a wide variety of industry associations and manufacturers with products
represented in BEES. Their cooperation exceeded all expectations, and led to a significant
expansion and refinement of the underlying BEES performance data. The comments of NIST
BFRL colleagues Laura Schultz, Stuart Dols, and Walter Rossiter inspired many improvements.
Special thanks are due Amy Rushing for patiently adding over 100 products to BEES 3.0 and
helping test, document, and review the tool. Thanks are also due J'aime Maynard for her outstanding
secretarial support.
- / - - Copyright Information , ' '- *< '"','„,
"-", '( .- -' " " ~.' > ' '. i *• ,--,'*
This software was developed at the National Institute^of Standards, arid,Technology by
employees of the Federal Government in the course of their official duties. Pursuant to title 17
Section 105 of the/United States Code this software is not'subject to copyright protection and
is'in the public domain. 1", , ' * ' -, ,
' ,J> ~ a, 'f , " ~,', -' ' . - "' „ " K"?H* " " 'C ' f "'„ ,f ' //r'
We would appreciate acknowledgement if the software issused. . ,' '•- " „
111
-------
IV
-------
Getting Started
System Requirements
BEES 3.0 runs on Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT, and XP personal computers with a 486 or higher
microprocessor, 32 Mb or more of RAM, and at least 110 Mb of available disk space. At least
one printer must be installed.
Unmstalling BEES 2.0
While uninstalling BEES 2.0 is not necessary to run BEES 3.0, you may choose to do so. All
BEES 2.0 files are contained in the folder in which you installed BEES 2.0 (usually
C:\BEES20b). Thus, the entire BEES 2.0 program may be uninstalled by simply deleting that
folder. If you choose to leave BEES 2.0 on your system, do not install BEES 3.0 to its folder.
Installing BEES 3.0
From Download Site. Once you've completed the BEES registration form, click Submit, and
then click bees30zip.exe to download the self-extracting file. If prompted during the download,
choose to save the file to disk. Once downloaded, from Windows Explorer double click on the
file to begin the self-extraction process. Choose to unzip the file to a new folder. Once
unzipped, from Windows Explorer double click on the file SETUP.EXE in your new folder to
begin the self-explanatory BEES 3.0 installation process. During installation, you will need to
choose a folder in which to install BEES 3.0; you must choose a folder different from the one
that contains the setup file (SETUP.EXE). Once installation is complete, you are ready to run
BEES 3.0 by selecting Start-^Programs->BEES^BEES 3.0.
From CD-ROM. Install BEES by inserting the compact disc into your CD-ROM drive and
running the BEES setup program, SETUP.EXE. Follow on-screen installation instructions. Once
installation is complete, you are ready to run BEES 3.0 by selecting
Start-^Programs->BEES~>BEES 3.0.
Running BEES
First time BEES users may find it useful to read the BEES Tutorial, found in section 4 of this
report. The BEES Tutorial is a printed version of the BEES on-line help system, with step-by-
step instructions for running the software. The tutorial also includes illustrations of the screen
displays. Alternatively, first-time users may choose to double-click on the help icon installed in
the BEES program group at installation for an electronic version of the help system.
While running the BEES software, context-sensitive help is often available from the BEES Main
Menu. Context-sensitive help is also available through Help buttons on many of the BEES
windows.
Technical Support
For questions regarding the BEES model or software, contact blippiatt@nist.gov.
-------
Contents
Abstract ii
Acknowledgments iii
Getting Started v
Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xii
1. Background and Introduction 1
2. The BEES Model 3
2.1 Environmental Performance 4 4
2.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition 4
2.1.2 Inventory Analysis 7
2.1.3 Impact Assessment 8
2.1.3.1 Impact Assessment Methods , 8
2.1.3.2 Assessing Impacts in BEES 11
2.1.3.3 Normalizing Impacts in BEES 23
2.1.4 Interpretation 25
2.1.4.1 EPA Science Advisory Board study 25
2.1.4.2 Harvard University Study....; 27
2.2 Economic Performance 29
2.3 Overall Performance 32
2.4 Limitations 32
3. BEES Product Data 37
3.1 Concrete Slabs, Walls, Beams, and Columns (BEES Codes A1030, A2020, B1011, B1012) and
Cement Kiln Dust (G1030) 37
3.1.1 Generic Portland Cement Products (A1030: A-I, O; A2020: A-I; B1011: A-R; B1012: A-R; G1030B)37
3.1.2 Lafarge North America Products (A1030: J, L-N, P; A2020: J, L-P; B1011: J, L-P, B1012: S, U-X, AA-
DD; G1030A; G2022G) 44
3.1.3 ISO Resources Concrete Products (A1030K, A2020K, B1011T, B1011Y, B1012T, B1012Y, B2011:G-
I,G2022F) 47
3.2 Roof and Wall Sheathing Alternatives (B1020, B2015) 50
3.2.1 Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing (B1020A, B2015A) 50
3.2.2 Generic Plywood Sheathing (B1020B, B2015B) 53
3.3 Exterior Wall Finish Alternatives (B2011) 56
3.3.1 Generic Brick and Mortar (B2011A) 56
3.3.2 Generic Stucco (B201 IB) 58
3.3.3 Generic Aluminum Siding (B2011C) 61
3.3.4 Generic Cedar Siding (B201 ID) 62
3.3.5 Generic Vinyl Siding (B2011E) 64
3.3.6 TrespaMeteon(B2011F) 66
3.4 Wall and Ceiling Insulation Alternatives (B2012, B3012) 66
3.4.1 Generic Blown Cellulose Insulation (B2012A, B3012A) 66
3.4.2 Generic Fiberglass Batt Insulation (B2012B, B2012C, B2012E, B3012B) 69
vi
-------
3.4.3 Generic Blown Fiberglass Insulation (B3012D) 72
3.4.4 Generic Blown-Mineral Wool Insulation (B2012D, B3012C) 74
3.5 Framing Alternatives ( B2013) 77
3.5.1 Generic Steel Framing (B2013A) 77
3.5.2 Generic Wood Framing (B2013B, B2013C) 79
3.6 Roof Covering Alternatives (B3011) 81
3.6.1 Generic Asphalt Shingles (B3011A) 81
3.6.2 Generic Clay Tile(B301 IB) 84
3.6.3 Generic Fiber Cement Shingles (B3011C) 87
3.7 Partitions (C1011)... 89
3.7.1 Generic Drywall(C1011A) 89
3.7.2 TrespaVirtuon and Athlon (C101 IB, C1011C) 91
3.8 Fabricated Toilet Partitions, Lockers, Ceiling Finishes, Fixed Casework, Table Tops/Counter
Tops/Shelving (C1031, C1032, C3030, E2010, E2021) 91
3.8.1 Trespa Composite Panels 91
3.9 Interior Finishes (C3012) 94
• 3.9.1 Paints-General Information 94
3.9.2 Generic Virgin Latex Interior Paint (C3012A) 95
3.9.3 Generic Recycled Latex Interior Paint (C3012B) 97
3.10 Floor Covering Alternatives (C3020) ; 98
3.10.1 Generic Ceramic Tile with Recycled Windshield Glass (C3020A)... ....98
3.10.2 Generic Linoleum Flooring (C3020B) 100
3.10.3 Generic Vinyl Composition Tile (C3020C) 103
3.10.4 Generic Composite Marble Tile (C3020D) 105
3.10.5 Generic Terrazzo (C3020E) 107
3.10.6 Carpeting —General Information 109
3.10.7 Generic Wool Carpet (C3020G,C3020J,C3020M,C3020P) Ill
3.10.8 Generic Nylon Carpet (C3020F,C3020I,C3020L,C3020O) 115
3.10.9 Generic Recycled Polyester Carpet (C3020H,C3020K,C3020N,C3020Q) 117
3.10.10 Shaw Industries EcoWorx Carpet Tile (C3020S) 120
3.10.11 Universal Textile Technologies Urethane-Backed Nylon Broadloom Carpets (C3020T, C3020U) 124
3.10.12CoUins&AikmanER3CarpetTile(C3020X) 127
3.10.13 Interface Hyperion, Mercator, Prairie School, Sabi, and Transformation Carpets (C3020Y, C3020Z,
C3020AA, C3020BB, C3020CC) , 129
3.10.14 J&J Industries Broadloom Carpets (C3020DD, C3020EE) 133
3.10.15 Mohawk Regents Row and Meritage Broadloom Carpets (C3020FF, C3020GG) 136
3.10.16 Natural Cork Parquet Tile and Floating Floor Plank (C3020HH, C3020H) 139
3.10.17 Forbo Industries Marmoleum Linoleum (C3020R, C3020NN) 142
3.11 Office Chair Alternatives (E2020) 144
3.11.1 Herman Miller Aeron Office Chair (E2020A) 144
3.11.2 Herman Miller Ambi and Generic Office Chairs (E2020B) 146
3.12 Parking Lot Paving Alternatives (G2022) 148
3.12.1 Generic Concrete Paving (G2022A, G2022B, G2022C) 148
3.12.2 Asphalt Parking Lot Paving with GSB88 Asphalt Emulsion Maintenance (G2022D) 150
3.12.3 Generic Asphalt Parking Lot Paving with Asphalt Cement Maintenance (G2022E) 152
3.13 Transformer Oil Alternatives (G4010) 154
3.13.1 Generic Mineral Oil-Based Transformer Oil (G4010A) 154
3.13.2 BioTrans Transformer Oil (G4010B) 159
3.13.3 Generic Silicone-Based Transformer Fluid (G4010C) 161
Vll
-------
4. BEES Tutorial , 165
4.1 Setting Parameters 165
4.2 Defining Alternatives 168
4.3 Viewing Results 170
4.4 Browsing Environmental and Economic Performance Data 173
5. Future Directions 183
Appendix A. BEES Computational Algorithms 185
A.I Environmental Performance „ 185
A.2 Economic Performance 186
A.3 Overall Performance 186
References 187
Vlll
.
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1 BEES Global Warming Potential Characterization Factors 12
Table 2.2 BEES Acidification Potential Characterization Factors 13
Table 2.3 BEES Eutrophication Potential Characterization Factors 14
Table 2.4 BEES Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential Characterization Factors 15
Table 2.5 BEES Habitat Alteration Potential Characterization Factors 17
Table 2.6 BEES Criteria Air Pollutant Characterization Factors 18
Table 2.7 Sampling of BEES Human Health Characterization Factors '. 20
Table 2.8 Sampling of BEES Smog Characterization Factors 21
Table 2.9 BEES Ozone Depletion Potential Characterization Factors 22
Table 2.10 Sampling of BEES Ecological Toxicity Potential Characterization Factors 25
Table 2.11 BEES Normalization Values . 24
Table 2.12 Pairwise Comparison Values for Deriving Impact Category Importance Weights. 27
Table 2.13 Relative Importance Weights based on Science Advisory Board Study 27
Table 2.14 U.S. Rankings for Current and Future Consequences by Impact Category 28
Table 2.15 Relative Importance Weights based on Harvard University study. 29
Table 3.1 Concrete Constituent Quantities by Cement Blend and Compressive Strength of
Concrete • -•• 40
Table 3.2 Energy Requirements for Portland Cement Manufacturing. 42
Table 3.3 Concrete Form and Reinforcing Requirements . 43
Table 3.4 Lafarge North America Concrete Products 45
Table 3.5 Lafarge Product Constituents 45
Table 3.6 ISO Resources Concrete Products 48
Table 3.7 ISO Resources Product Constituents 49
Table 3.8 Oriented Strand Board Sheathing Constituents 51
Table 3.9 Oriented Strand Board Manufacturing Emissions 52
Table 3.10 Plywood Constituents 54
Table 3.11 Plywood Manufacturing Emissions 55
Table 3.12 Energy Requirements for Brick Manufacturing 57
Table 3.13 Masonry Cement Constituents 58
Table 3.14 Stucco Constituents 60
Table 3.15 Energy Requirements for Masonry Cement Manufacturing. 60
Table 3.16 Density of Stucco by Type.. . 60
Table 3.17 Aluminum Siding Constituents 62
Table 3.18 Energy Requirements for Cedar Siding Manufacture 63
Table 3.19 Hogfuel Emissions 64
Table 3.20 Vinyl Siding Constituents - 65
Table 3.21 Blown Cellulose Mass by Application 67
Table 3.22 Blown Cellulose Insulation Constituents 67
Table 3.23 Fiberglass Batt Mass by Application 70
Table 3.24 Fiberglass Batt Constituents . 71
Table 3.25 Energy Requirements for Fiberglass Batt Insulation Manufacturing 71
Table 3.26 Blown Fiberglass Mass 73
Table 3.27 Blown Fiber glass Constituents 73
IX
-------
Table 3.28 Energy Requirements for Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing 74
Table 3.29 Blown Mineral Wool Constituents 75
Table 3.30 Energy Requirements for Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturing 76
Table 3.31 Energy Requirements for Lumber Manufacture 80
Table 3.32 Hogfuel Emissions 81
Table 3.33 Asphalt Shingle Constituents 82
Table 3.34 Type-15 Roofing Felt Constituents 83
Table 3.35 Type-30 Roofing Felt Constituents 85
Table 3.36 Fiber Cement Shingle Constituents 87
Table 3.37 Gypsum Board Constituents 90
Table 3.38 Energy Requirements for Gypsum Board Manufacturing 90
Table 3.39 Trespa Composite Panel Constituents by Mass Fraction 92
Table 3.40 Density of Trespa Composite Panels 93
Table 3.41 Characteristics of BEES Paints and Primer 95
Table 3.42 Virgin Latex Paint and Primer Constituents 96
Table 3.43 Market Shares of Resins 96
Table 3.44 Components of Paint Resins 96
Table 3.45 Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass Constituents 98
Table 3.46 Energy Requirements for Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass Manufacturing. 99
Table 3.47 Linoleum Constituents 100
Table 3.48 Energy Requirements for Cork Flour Production 102
Table 3.49 Energy Requirements for Linoleum Manufacturing 102
Table 3.50 Linoleum Raw Materials Transportation 103
Table 3.51 Vinyl Composition Tile Constituents 104
Table 3.52 Energy Requirements for Vinyl Composition Tile Manufacturing 104
Table 3.53 Composite Marble Tile Constituents 105
Table 3.54 Energy Requirements for Composite Marble Tile Manufacturing 106
Table 3.55 Terrazzo Constituents 107
Table 3.56 Energy Requirements for Carpet Manufacturing Ill
Table 3.57 Carpet Installation Parameters , Ill
Table 3.58 Wool Carpet Constituents 112
Table 3.59 Ra\v Wool Material Flows 113
Table B.60 Raw Wool Constituents : 113
Table 3.61 Wool Yarn Production Requirements 114
Table 3.62 Wool Transportation 114
Table 3.63 Nylon Carpet Constituents 115
Table 3.64 Nylon Yarn Production Requirements 116
Table 3.65 Recycled Polyester Carpet Constituents 118
Table 3.66 Recycled PET Yarn Production Requirements 119
Table 3.67Nylon Yarn Production Requirements 122
Table 3.68 UTT Urethane-Backed Carpet Constituents by Mass Fraction 125
Table 3.69 C&A Carpet Tile Constituents 727
Table 3.70 C&AER3 Carpet Tile Mass and Density 129
Table 3.71 Interface Carpet Constituents by Mass Fraction 130
Table 3.72 Interface Carpet Density 132
73 J&JBroadloom Carpet Constituents 755
Table 3.
-------
Table 3.74 J&JBroadloom Carpet Density 135
Table 3.75 MohawkBroadloom Carpet Constituents by,Mas^ Fraction 136
Table 3.76 Mohawk Carpet Density !.....: 138
Table 3.77 Natural Cork Floor Tile Constituents by Mass Fraction 139
Table 3.78 Natural Cork Floor Tile Density 141
Table 3.79 Linoleum Constituents 143
Table 3.80 Herman Miller Aeron Chair Constituents 145
Table 3.81 Herman Miller Ambi Chair Constituents 147
Table 3.82 Raw Materials for Asphalt Base Layer 151
Table 3.83 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Paving with GSB88 Emulsion Maintenance.... 152
Table 3.84 Raw Materials for Asphalt ,Cement Maintenance 153
Table 3.85 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Cement Maintenance 154
Table 3.86 Extraction of Crude Oil by Technology and Origin .755
Table 3.87 U.S. Average Refinery Energy Use 158
Table 3.88 BioTrans Transformer Oil Constituents 160
Table 3.89 Energy Requirements for BioTrans Transformer Oil Production ' 160
Table 4.1 BEES Products Keyed to Environmental and Economic Performance Data Codes 178
XI
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Decision Criteria for Setting Product System Boundaries 5
Figure 2.2 BEES Inventory Data Categories 7
Figure 2.3 BEES Study Periods For Measuring Building Product Environmental And Economic
Performance 37
Figure 2.4 Deriving the BEES Overall Performance Score 33
Figure 3.1 Concrete Without Blended Cements Flow Chart 39
Figure 3.2 Concrete -with Blended Cements Flaw Chart. 40
Figure 3.3 Oriented Strand Board Flow Chart 57
Figure 3.4 Plynvood Sheathing Flow Chart 54
Figure 3.5 Brick and Mortar Flowchart 56
Figure 3.6Stucco (Type C) Flow Chart , 59
Figure 3.7Stucco (Type MS) Flow Chart. 59
Figure 3.8 Aluminum Siding Flow Chart 61
Figure 3.9 Cedar Siding Flow Chart 63
Figure 3.10 Vinyl Siding Flow Chart '. 65
Figure 3.11 Blown Cellulose Insulation Flow Chart 67
Figure 3.12 Fiberglass Batt Insulation Flow Chart 70
Figure 3.13 Blown Fiberglass Insulation Flow Chart 73
Figure 3.14 Blown Mineral Wool Insulation Flow Chart 75
Figure 3.15 Steel Framing Flow Chart 78
Figure 3.16 Wood Framing Flow Chart 80
Figure 3.17 Asphalt Shingles Flow Chart 82
Figure 3.18 Clay Tile Flow Chart 85
Figure 3.19 Fiber Cement Shingles Flow Chart 87
Figure 3.20 Gypsum Board Flow Chart 90
Figure 3.21 Trespa Composite Panel Raw Material Production Flow Chart 92
Figure 3.22 Trespa Composite Panel Manufacturing Flow Chart 93
Figure 3.23 Virgin Latex Interior Paint Flow Chart 95
Figure 3.24 Recycled Latex Interior Paint Flow Chart. 97
Figure 3.25 Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass Flow Chart. 99
Figure 3.26 Linoleum Flow Chart 707
Figure 3.27 Vinyl Composition Tile Flow Chart 104
Figure 3.28 Composite Marble Tile Flow Chart 106
Figure 3.29 Epoxy Terrazzo Flow Chart 108
Figure 3.30 Wool Carpet Flow Chart 772
Figure 3.31 Wool Fiber Production 773
Figure 3.32 Nylon Carpet Flow Chart 775
Figure 3.33 Recycled Polyester Carpet Flow Chart 118
Figure 3.34 Handling and Reclamation of PET 77P
Figure 3.35 Shaw EcoWorx Carpet Tile Flow Chart 720
Figure 3.36 Shaw Eco Worx Backing Flow Chart 727
Figure 3.37 Shaw Nylon Yarn Flow Chart 722
Figure 3.38 Shaw Precoat Compound Flow Chart 723
Figure 3.39 Sha\v Adhesive Flow Chart. 124
Figure 3.40 UTT Urethane Carpet Raw Materials Production Flow Chart 725
xu
-------
Figure 3.41 UTTUrethane Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart 126
Figure 3.42 C&A ER3 Tile Raw Materials Production Flowchart 128
Figure 3.43 C&A Carpet Tile Manufacturing Flow Chart.... 128
Figure 3.44 Interface Hyperion and Mercator Raw Materials Production Flow Chart. 131
Figure 3.45 Interface Prairie School, Sabi, and Transformation Raw Materials Production Flow
Chart 131
Figure 3.46 Interface Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart 132
Figure 3.47 J&J Carpet Raw Materials Production Flow Chart. 134
Figure 3.48 J&J Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart 735
Figure 3.49 Mohawk Regents Row Raw Materials Production Flow Chart 137
Figure 3.50 MohawkMeritage Raw Materials Production Flow Chart 737
Figure 3.51 Mohawk Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart 138
Figure 3.52 Natural Cork Raw Materials Production Flow Chart 140
Figure 3.53 Natural Cork Manufacturing Flow Chart. 141
Figure 354 Marmolewn Flow Chart 142
Figure 3.55 Herman Miller Aeron Flow Chart 144
Figure 3.56 Her man Miller Ambi Flow Chart 147
Figure 3.57 Concrete Paving Flow Chart 149
Figure 3.58 Asphalt with GSB88 Emulsion Maintenance Flow Chart. 151
Figure 3.59 Asphalt with Asphalt Cement Maintenance Flow Chart. 153
Figure 3.60 Mineral Oil-Based Transformer Oil Flow Chart. 755
Figure 3.61 Crude Oil Transportation for U.S. Petroleum Administration Defense District II
(PADDIJ) . 757
Figure 3.62 BioTrans Transformer Oil Flow Chart 160
Figure 3.63 Silicone-FluidFlow Chart. 162
Figure 4.1 Setting Analysis Parameters 166
Figure 4.2 Viewing Impact Category Weights 166
Figure 4.3 Entering User-Defined Weights 767
Figure 4.4 Selecting Building Element for BEES Analysis 168
Figure 4.5 Selecting Building Product Alternatives 169
Figure 4.6 Setting Transportation Parameters 169
Figure 4.7 Selecting BEES Reports 777
Figure 4.8 Viewing BEES Overall Performance Results 772
Figure 4.9 Viewing BEES Environmental Performance Results 772
Figure 4.10 Viewing BEES Economic Performance Results 773
Figure 4.11 Viewing BEES Summary Table 775
Figure 4.12 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by Life-Cycle
Stage 176
Figure 4.13 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by Flow.. 176
Figure 4.14 Viewing BEES Embodied Energy Results... 777
Figure 4.15 A Sampling of BEES "All Tables In One "Display 777
Xlll
-------
XIV
-------
1. Background and Introduction
Buildings significantly alter the environment. According to Worldwatch Institute,1 building
construction consumes 40 % of the raw stone, gravel, and sand used globally each year, and
25 % of the virgin wood. Buildings also account for 40 % of the energy and 16 % of the water
used annually worldwide, In the United States, about as much construction and demolition waste
is produced as municipal garbage. Unhealthy indoor air is found in 30 % of new and renovated
buildings worldwide.
Negative environmental impacts arise from building construction and renovation. For example,
raw materials extraction can lead to resource depletion and biological diversity losses. Building
product manufacture and transport consumes energy, generating emissions linked to global
warming, acid rain, and smog. Landfill problems may arise from waste generation. Poor indoor
air quality may lower worker productivity and adversely affect human health.
Selecting environmentally preferable building products is one way to reduce these negative
environmental impacts. However, while 93 % of U.S. consumers worry about their home's
environmental impact, only 18 % are willing to pay more to reduce the impact, according to a
survey of 3 600 consumers in 9 U.S. metropolitan areas.2 Thus, environmental performance
must be balanced against economic performance. Even the most environmentally conscious
building product manufacturer or designer will ultimately weigh environmental benefits against
economic costs. To satisfy their customers, manufacturers and designers need to develop and
select building products with an attractive balance of environmental and economic performance.
Identifying environmentally and economically balanced building products is not an easy task.
Today, the green building decisionmaking process is based on little structure and even less
credible, scientific data. There is a great deal of interesting green building information available,
so that in many respects we know what to say about green buildings. However, we still do not
know how to synthesize the available information so that we know what to do ma way that is
transparent, defensible, and environmentally sound.
In this spirit, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (MIST) Healthy and
Sustainable Buildings Program began the Building for Environmental and Economic
Sustainability (BEES) project in 1994. The purpose of BEES is to develop and implement a
systematic methodology for selecting building products that achieve the most appropriate
balance between environmental and economic performance based on the decision maker's
values. The methodology is based on consensus standards and is designed to be practical,
flexible, and transparent. The BEES model is implemented in publicly available decision-support
software, complete with actual environmental and economic performance data for a number of
1 D.M. Roodman and N. Lenssen, A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming
Construction, Worldwatch Paper 124, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, March 1995.
2 1995 Home Shoppers survey cited in Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/16/96, p H4 (article by JimBuchta).
According to another survey, Japanese consumers are willing to pay up to 25 % more for environmentally friendly
products (Maurice Strong, Chairman, Earth Council Institute, "Closing Day Keynote Address," Engineering and
Construction for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Washington, DC, February 4-8,1996, p 54)
-------
building products. The intended result is a cost-effective reduction in building-related
contributions to environmental problems.
In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing (EPP) Program also began supporting the development of BEES. The EPP program
is charged with carrying out Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, which directs Executive agencies to reduce the
environmental burdens associated with the $200 x 109 in products and services they purchase
each year, including building products. BEES is being further developed as a tool to assist the
Federal procurement community in carrying out the mandate of Executive Order 13101.
-------
2. The BEES Model
The BEES methodology takes a multidimensional, life-cycle approach. That is, it considers
multiple environmental and economic impacts over the entire life of the building product.
Considering multiple impacts and life-cycle stages is necessary because product selection
decisions based on single impacts or stages could obscure others that might cause equal or
greater damage. In other words, a multidimensional, life-cycle approach is necessary for a
comprehensive, balanced analysis.
It is relatively straightforward to select products based on minimum life-cycle economic impacts
because building products are bought and sold in the marketplace. But how do we include life-
cycle environmental impacts in our purchase decisions? Environmental impacts such as global
warming, water pollution, and resource depletion are for the most part economic externalities.
That is, their costs are not reflected in the market prices of the products that generated the
impacts. Moreover, even if there were a mandate today to include environmental "costs" in
market prices, it would be nearly impossible to do so due to difficulties in assessing these
impacts in economic terms. How do you put a price on clean air and clean water? What is the
value of human life? Economists have debated these questions for decades, and consensus does
not appear likely.
While environmental performance cannot be measured on a monetary scale, it can be quantified
using the evolving, multi-disciplinary approach known as environmental life-cycle assessment
(LCA). The BEES methodology measures environmental performance using an LCA approach,
following guidance in the International Standards Organization 14040 series of standards for
LCA.3 Economic performance is separately measured using the ASTM International standard
life-cycle cost (LCC) approach. These two performance measures are then synthesized into an
overall performance measure using the ASTM standard for Multiattribute Decision Analysis.4
For the entire BEES analysis, building products are defined and classified based on
UNIFORMAT n, the ASTM standard classification for building elements.5
3 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management—Life-Cycle Assessment-
Principles and Frame\vork, International Standard 14040,1997; ISO, Environmental Management—Life-Cycle
Assessment—Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis, International Standard 14041,1998; ISO,
Environmental Management—Life-Cycle Assessment—Life Cycle Impact Assessment, International Standard 14042,
2000; and International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management—Life-Cycle
Interpretation—Life Cycle Impact Assessment, International Standard 14043,2000.
4 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Multiattribute Decision
Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM Designation E 1765-98, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1998.
5 ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building, Elements and Related Sitework-UNIFORMAT H,
ASTM Designation E 1557-97, West Conshohocken, PA, September 1997.
-------
2.1 Environmental Performance
Environmental life-cycle assessment is a "cradle-to-grave," systems approach for measuring
environmental performance. The approach is based on the belief that all stages in the life of a
product generate environmental impacts and must therefore be analyzed, including raw materials
acquisition, product manufacture, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and
ultimately recycling and waste management. An analysis that excludes any of these stages is
limited because it ignores the full range of upstream and downstream impacts of stage-specific
processes.
The strength of environmental life-cycle assessment is its comprehensive, multi-dimensional
scope. Many green building claims and strategies are now based on a single life-cycle stage or a
single environmental impact. A product is claimed to be green simply because it has recycled
content, or accused of not being green because it emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
during its installation and use. These single-attribute claims may be misleading because they
ignore the possibility that other life-cycle stages, or other environmental impacts, may yield
offsetting impacts. For example, the recycled content product may have a high embodied energy
content, leading to resource depletion, global warming, and acid rain impacts during the raw
materials acquisition, manufacturing, and transportation life-cycle stages. LCA thus broadens the
environmental discussion by accounting for shifts of environmental problems from one life-cycle
stage to another, or one environmental medium (land, air, water) to another. The benefit of the
LCA approach is in implementing a trade-off analysis to achieve a genuine reduction in overall
environmental impact, rather than a simple shift of impact.
The general LCA methodology involves four steps.6 The goal and scope definition step spells
out the purpose of the study and its breadth and depth. The inventory analysis step identifies and
quantifies the environmental inputs and outputs associated with a product over its entire life
cycle. Environmental inputs include water, energy, land, and other resources; outputs include
releases to air, land, and water. However, it is not these inputs and outputs, or inventory flows,
that are of primary interest. We are more interested in their consequences, or impacts on the
environment. Thus, the next LCA step, impact assessment, characterizes these inventory flows in
relation to a set of environmental impacts. For example, the impact assessment step might relate
carbon dioxide emissions, a/low, to global warming, an impact. Finally, the interpretation step
combines the environmental impacts in accordance with the goals of the LCA study.
2.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition
The goal of the BEES LCA is to generate environmental performance scores for building
product alternatives sold in the United States. These will be combined with economic
performance scores to help the building community select cost-effective, environmentally-
friendly building products.
6 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management—Life-Cycle Assessment-
Principles and Framework, International Standard 14040,1997.
-------
The scoping phase of any LCA involves defining the boundaries of the product system under
study. The manufacture of any product involves a number of unit processes (e.g., ethylene
production for input to the manufacture of the styrene-butadiene bonding agent for stucco walls).
Each unit process involves many inventory flows, some of which themselves involve other,
subsidiary unit processes. The first product system boundary determines which unit processes
are included in the LCA. In the BEES system, the boundary-setting rule consists of a set of three
decision criteria. For each candidate unit process, mass and energy contributions to the product
system are the primary decision criteria. In some cases, cost contribution is used as a third
criterion.7 Together, these criteria provide a robust screening process, as illustrated in Figure 2.1,
showing how five ancillary materials (e.g., limestone used in portland cement manufacturing) are
selected from a list of nine candidate materials for inclusion in the LCA. A material must have a
large contribution to at least one decision criterion to be selected. The weight criterion selects
materials A, B, and C; the energy criterion adds material E; and cost flags material I. As a result,
the unit processes for producing ancillary materials A, B, C, E, and I are included in the system
boundaries.
Ancillary
Material
Weight
Energy
Cost
(as a flag
when
necessary)
Included in
system
boundaries
Yes
Yes
Yes
negligible
contribution
small
contribution
large
contribution
Figure 2.1 Decision Criteria for Setting Product System Boundaries
The second product system boundary determines which inventory flows are tracked for in-
bounds unit processes. Quantification of all inventory flows is not practical for the following
reasons:
7 While a large cost contribution does not directly indicate a significant environmental impact, it may indicate
scarce natural resources or numerous subsidiary unit processes potentially involving high energy consumption.
-------
• An ever-expanding number of inventory flows can be tracked. For instance, including the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data would result in
tracking approximately 200 inventory flows arising from polypropylene production alone.
Similarly, including radionucleide emissions generated from electricity production would
result in tracking more than 150 flows. Managing such large inventory flow lists adds to the
complexity, and thus the cost, of carrying out and interpreting the LCA.
• Attention should be given in the inventory analysis step to collecting data that will be useful
in the next LCA step, impact assessment. By restricting the inventory data collection to the
flows actually needed in the subsequent impact assessment, a more focused, higher quality
LCA can be carried out.
Therefore, in the BEES model, a focused, cost-effective set of inventory flows is tracked,
reflecting flows that the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development has deemed important in
the subsequent impact assessment step.8
Defining the unit of comparison is another important task in the goal and scoping phase of LCA.
The basis for all units of comparison is tins functional unit, defined so that the products compared
are true substitutes for one another. In the BEES model, the functional unit for most building
products is 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of product service for 50 years.9 For example, the functional unit for
the BEES floor covering alternatives is covering 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of floor surface for 50 years. For
two building elements—roof coverings and wall insulation—it was necessary to further specify
functional units to account for important factors affecting their influence on building heating and
cooling loads (e.g., local climate, fuel type). Otherwise, all product alternatives are assumed to
meet minimum technical performance requirements (e.g., acoustic and fire performance). The
functional unit provides the critical reference point to which all inventory flows are scaled.
Scoping also involves setting data requirements. Data requirements for the BEES study include:
• Geographic coverage: The data are U.S. average data.
• Time period covered: The data are a combination of data collected specifically for BEES
within the last 8 years, and data from the widely-used DEAM LCA database created in
1990.10 Most of the DEAM data are updated annually. No data older than 1990 are used.
• Technology covered: For generic products, the most representative technology is studied.
Where data for the most representative technology are not available, an aggregated result is
used based on the U.S. average technology for that industry.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACT): User's Guide and System Documentation, EPA/600/R.-02/052, U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, August 2002.
9 The functional unit for concrete beams and columns is 0.76 cubic meters (1 cubic yard) of product service for
50 years, for chairs is office seating for 1 person for 50 years, for soil treatment is 1 kilogram of soil improver over
50 years, and for transformer oil is cooling for one 1000 kilovolt-ampere transformer for 30 years.
10 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), DEAM: Data for Environmental Analysis and Management, developed by
Ecobilan (a member company of PwC), 2001.
_
-------
2.1.2 Inventory Analysis
Inventory analysis entails quantifying the inventory flows for a product system. Inventory flows
include inputs of water, energy, and raw materials, and releases to air, land, and water. Data
categories are used to group inventory flows in LCAs. For example, in the BEES model, flows
such as aldehydes, ammonia, and sulfur oxides are grouped under the air emissions data
category. Figure 2.2 shows the categories under which data are grouped in the BEES system.
Refer to the BEES environmental performance data files, accessible through the BEES software,
for a detailed listing of approximately 400 inventory flow items included hi BEES.
-Energy-
-Water-
Raw Materials
;•
Unit
Process
Air Emissions
-Water Effluents -
-Releases to Land-
—Other Releases—
Intermediate Material
or Final Product
Figure 2.2 BEES Inventory Data Categories
A number of approaches may be used to collect inventory data for LCAs. These range from:11
• Unit process- and facility-specific: collect data from a particular process within a given
facility that are not combined in any way
• Composite: collect data from the same process combined across locations
• Aggregated: collect data combining more than one process
• Industry-average: collect data derived from a representative sample of locations believed to
statistically describe the typical process across technologies
• Descriptive: collect data whose representatives may be unknown but which are qualitatively
descriptive of a process
Since the goal of the BEES LCA is to generate U.S. average results, generic product data are
primarily collected using the industry-average approach. Manufacturer-specific product data are
primarily collected using the unit process- and facility-specific approach, then aggregated to
preserve manufacturer confidentiality. Data collection is done under contract with
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Life Cycle Assessment:
Inventory Guidelines and Przwezp/es, EPA/600/R-92/245, February 1993.
-------
Environmental Strategies and Solutions (ESS) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), using the
PwC DEAM database covering more than 6 000 industrial processes gathered from actual site
and literature searches from more than 15 countries. These data represent the closest
approximations currently available of the burdens associated with the production, use, and
disposal of BEES products. Where necessary, the data are adjusted to be representative of U.S.
operations and conditions. Approximately 90 % of the data come directly from industry sources,
with about 10 % coming from descriptive literature and published reports. The descriptive data
include inventory flows for electricity production from the average United States grid, and for
selected raw material mining operations (e.g., limestone, sand, and clay mining operations). In
addition, ESS and PwC gathered additional LCA data to fill data gaps for the BEES products.
For generic products, assumptions regarding the associated unit processes were verified through
experts in the appropriate industries to assure the data are correctly incorporated in BEES. For
manufacturer-specific products, a U.S. Office of Management and Budget-approved BEES
Please Questionnaire is completed by manufacturers to collect inventory data from their
manufacturing plant(s); these data are validated by ESS and PwC, then associated upstream and
downstream data added to yield cradle-to grave inventories. For more information about the
BEES Please program, visit http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/please/bees__please.html.
2.1.3 Impact Assessment
The impact assessment step of LCA quantifies the potential contribution of a product's inventory
flows to a range of environmental impacts. There are several well-known LCA impact
assessment approaches.
2.1.3.1 Impact Assessment Methods
Direct Use of Inventories. In the most straightforward approach to LCA, the impact assessment
step is skipped, and the life cycle inventory results are used as-is in the final interpretation step
to help identify opportunities for pollution prevention or increases in material and energy
efficiency for processes within the life cycle. However, this approach in effect gives the same
weight to all inventory flows (e.g., to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and to the
reduction of lead emissions). For most impacts, equal weighting of flows is unrealistic.
Critical Volumes (Switzerland). The "weighted loads" approach, better known as the Swiss
Critical Volume approach, was the first method proposed for aggregating inventory flow data.12
The critical volume for a substance is a function of its load and its legal limit. Its load is the total
quantity of the flow per unit of the product. Critical volumes can be defined for air and water,
and in principle also for soil and groundwater, providing there are legal limit values available.
This approach has the advantage that long lists of inventory flows, especially for air and water,
can be aggregated by summing the critical volumes for the individual flows within the medium
12 K. Habersatter, Ecobdlance of Packaging Materials - State of 1990, Swiss Federal Office of Environment,
Forests, and Landscape, Bern, Switzerland, February 1991, and Bundesamt fur Umweltschutz, Oekobilanzen von
Packstoffen, Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz 24, Bern, Switzerland, 1984.
8
-------
being considered-air, water, or soil. However, the Critical Volume approach has been
abandoned for the following reasons: -, > i
• Fate and exposure are not considered.
• The underlying assumption that the residual risk at threshold levels is the same for all
substances does not hold.13
• Legal limit values are available only for certain chemicals and pollutants. Long-term global
effects such as global warming are excluded since there are no legal limits for the chemicals
involved.
Ecological Scarcity (Switzerland). A more general approach has been developed by the Swiss
Federal Office of Environment, Forests, and Landscape and applied to Switzerland, Sweden,
Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany.14 With this approach, "Eco-Points" are calculated for a
product, using the "Eco-Factor" determined for each inventory flow. Eco-Factors are based on
current annual flows relative to target maximum annual flows for the geographic area
considered. The Eco-Points for all inventory flows are added together to give one single, final
measure of impact.
The concept used in this approach is appealing but has the following difficulties:
• It is valid only in a specific geographical area.
• Estimating target flows can be a difficult and time-consuming exercise.
• The underlying assumption that the residual risk at target levels is the same for all substances
does not hold.15
• The scientific calculation of environmental impacts is combined with political and subjective
judgment, or valuation. The preferred approach is to separate the science from the valuation.
Environmental Priorities System (Sweden). The Environmental Priority Strategies in Product
Development System, the EPS System, was developed by the Swedish Environmental Research
Institute.16 It takes an economic approach to assessing environmental impacts. The basis for the
evaluation is the Environmental Load Unit, which corresponds to the willingness to pay 1
European Currency Unit The final result of the EPS system is a single number summarizing all
environmental impacts, based on:
• Society's judgment of the importance of each environmental impact.
• The intensity and frequency of the impact.
• Location and timing of the impact.
• The contribution of each flow to the impact in question.
13 M.A. Curran et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report,
NISTIR 6865, Washington, DC, 2002.
14 BUWAL, Methode der okologischen, Knappheit - Okofaktoren 1997, Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr.297,
OBU/BUWAL,Bern, Switzerland, 1998.
15 M.A. Curran et al, 2002.
16 B. Steen, A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS). Version
2000, CPM Report 1999:4 and 5, CPM, Chalmers University, G6teborg 1999.
-------
• The cost of decreasing each inventory flow by one weight unit.
The EPS system combines indices of ecological, sociological, and economic effects to give a
total effect index for each flow. The total effect index is multiplied by the amount of the flow to
give the "environmental load unit." Although this methodology is popular in Sweden, its use is
criticized due to its lack of transparency and the quantity and quality of the model's underlying
assumptions.
Eco-Indicator 99. The Eco-indicator 99 method is a "damage-oriented" approach to life cycle
impact assessment that has been developed in The Netherlands by Pre Consultants/7 It is
appealing for its emphasis on simplifying the subsequent life cycle assessment step, namely,
weighting of the relative importance of environmental impacts. To this end, a very limited
number of environmental damage categories, or "endpoints," are evaluated: Human Health,
Ecosystem Quality, and Resources. Damage models are used to'evaluate products in relation to
these three impact categories. While the Eco-indicator 99 method offers promise for the future, it
has been criticized to date due to the many assessment gaps in the underlying damage models. In
addition, the approach has a European focus at present.
Environmental Problems. The Environmental Problems approach to impact assessment was
developed within the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). It
involves a two-step process:18'19'20"21
• Classification of inventory flows that contribute to specific environmental impacts. For
example, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are classified
as contributing to global warming.
• Characterization of the potential contribution of each classified inventory flow to the
corresponding environmental impact. This results in a set of indices, one for each impact,
that is obtained by weighting each classified inventory flow by its relative contribution to the
impact. For instance, the Global Warming Potential index is derived by expressing each
contributing inventory flow in terms of its equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.
The Environmental Problems approach does not offer the same degree of relevance for all
environmental impacts. For global and regional effects (e.g., global warming and acidification)
the method may result in an accurate description of the potential impact. For impacts dependent
upon local conditions (e.g., smog, ecological toxicity, and human health) it may result in an
oversimplification of the actual impacts because the indices are not tailored to localities. Another
drawback of this method is the unclear environmental importance of the impacts, making the
subsequent weighting step difficult.
17 M. Goedkoop and R. Spriensma, The Eco-indicator '99: A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact
Assessment, VROM Zoetermeer, Nr. 1999/36A/B, 2nd edition, April 2000.
18 CML, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Background, Leiden, The Netherlands, October
1992.
19 SETAC-Europe, Life Cycle Assessment, B. DeSmet, et al. (eds), 1992.
20 SETAC, A Conceptual Frameworkfor Life Cycle Impact Assessment, J. Fava, et al. (eds), 1993.
21 SETAC, Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A "Code of Practice," F. Consoli, et al. (eds), 1993.
10
-------
2.1.3.2 Assessing Impacts in BEES
The BEES model uses the Environmental Problems approach where possible because it enjoys
some general consensus among LCA practitioners and scientists.22 The U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development has recently completed development of TRACT (Tool for the
Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts), a set of state-of-the-
art, peer-reviewed U.S. life cycle impact assessment methods that has been adopted in BEES
3.O.23 Ten of the 11 TRACI impacts follow the Environmental Problems approach: Global
Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential, Fossil Fuel Depletion,
Habitat Alteration, Criteria Air Pollutants, Human Health, Smog, Ozone Depletion, and
Ecological Toxicity. Water Intake, the eleventh impact, is assessed in TRACI using the Direct
Use of Inventories Approach. BEES also assesses Indoor Air Quality, an impact not included in
TRACI because it is unique to the building industry. Indoor Air Quality is assessed using the
Direct Use of Inventories approach, for a total of 12 impacts for most BEES products.24 Note
that some flows characterized by TRACI did not have exact matches in the DEAM database used
to develop life cycle inventories for BEES. Where discrepancies were found, a significance
analysis was conducted to assess the relevance of the mismatched flows. Proxy flows or
alternative characterization factors were developed for those mismatched flows found to be
relevant, and validated with TRACI developers.
If the BEES user has important knowledge about other potential environmental impacts, it
should be brought into the interpretation of the BEES results. The twelve BEES impacts are
discussed below.
^ <
Global Warming Potential. The Earth absorbs radiation from the Sun, mainly at the surface.
This energy is then redistributed by the atmosphere and ocean and re-radiated to space at longer
wavelengths. Some of the thermal radiation is absorbed by "greenhouse" gases in the
atmosphere, principally water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, the chlorofluorocarbons,
and ozone. The absorbed energy is re-radiated in all directions, downwards as well as upwards,
such that the radiation that is eventually lost to space is from higher, colder levels in the
atmosphere. The result is that the surface loses less heat to space than it would in the absence of
the greenhouse gases and consequently stays warmer than it would be otherwise. This
phenomenon, which acts rather like a 'blanket' around the Earth, is known as the greenhouse
effect.
22 SETAC, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art, J. Owens, et al. (eds), 1997.
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI): User's Guide and System Documentation, EPA/600/R-02/052, U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, August 2002. For a detailed discussion of the TRACI methods, see
J.C.Bare et al, "TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental
Impacts," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002.
24 There are a limited number of BEES products for which Smog, Ecological Toxicity, Human Toxicity, and
Ozone Depletion are excluded from the evaluation due to resource contraints. Refer to table 4.1 for a listing of the
number of impacts evaluated for each product.
11
-------
The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon. The environmental issue is the increase in the
greenhouse effect due to emissions generated by humankind. The resulting general increase in
temperature can alter atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, which can potentially lead to
alteration of circulation and weather patterns. A rise in sea level is also predicted due to thermal
expansion of the oceans and melting of polar ice sheets.
Global Warming Potentials, or GWPs, have been developed to characterize the increase in the
greenhouse effect due to emissions generated by humankind. LCAs commonly use those GWPs
representing a 100-year time horizon. GWPs permit computation of a single index, expressed in
grams of carbon dioxide per functional unit of product, that measures the quantity of carbon
dioxide with the same potential for global warming over a 100-year period:
global warming index =
x GWPi, where
mi= mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and
GWPi = grams of carbon dioxide with the same heat trapping potential over 100 years as
one gram of inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.1.2S
Table 2.1 BEES Global Warming Potential Characterization Factors
Flow(i)
(CO2-
equivalents)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fossil)
Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF4)
CFC 12 (CC12F2)
Chloroform (CHC13, HC-20)
Halon 1301 (CF3Br)
HCFC 22 (CHF2C1)
Methane (CH*)
Methyl Bromide (CH3Br)
Methyl Chloride (CH3C1)
Methylene Chloride (CH2C12, HC-130)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Trichloroethane (1,1,1-CH3CC13)
1
5700
10600
30
6900
1700
23
5
16
10
296
140
Acidification Potential. Acidifying compounds may in a gaseous state either dissolve in water
or fix on solid particles. They reach ecosystems through dissolution in rain or wet deposition.
Acidification affects trees, soil, buildings, animals, and humans. The two compounds
principally involved in acidification are sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Their principal human
source is fossil fuel and biomass combustion. Other compounds released by human sources,
such as hydrogen chloride and ammonia, also contribute to acidification.
25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2002.
12
-------
Characterization factors for potential acid deposition onto the soil and in water have been
developed like those for the global warming potential, with hydrogen ions as the reference
substance. These factors permit computation of a single index for potential acidification (in
grams of hydrogen ions per functional unit of product), representing the quantity of hydrogen
ion emissions with the same potential acidifying effect:
acidification index = EI mi * APi, where
i = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and
i = millimoles of hydrogen ions with the same potential acidifying effect as one gram
of inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.2.2
Table 2.2 BEES Acidification Potential Characterization Factors
Flow(i)
(Hydrogen-Ion
Equivalents)
Ammonia
Hydrogen Chloride (HC1)
Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX as NO2)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX as SO2)
Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)
95.49
44.70
60.40
81.26
95.90
40.04
50.79
33.30
Eutrophication Potential. Eutrophication is the addition of mineral nutrients to the soil or water.
In both media, the addition of large quantities of mineral nutrients, such as nitrogen and
phosphorous, results in generally undesirable shifts in the number of species in ecosystems and a
reduction in ecological diversity. In water, it tends to increase algae growth, which can lead to
lack of oxygen and therefore death of species like fish.
Characterization factors for potential eutrophication have been developed like those for the
global warming potential, with nitrogen as the reference substance. These factors permit
computation of a single index for potential eutrophication (in grams of nitrogen per functional
unit of product), representing the quantity of nitrogen with the same potential nullifying effect:
eutrophication index = Zj mi x EPi, where
i = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and
26 .
ibid.
13
-------
EPj = grams of nitrogen with the same potential nutrifying effect as one gram of
inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.3. 27
Table 2.3 BEES Eutrophication Potential Characterization Factors
Flow (i)
(nitrogen-
equivalents)
Ammonia
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX as NO2)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Phosphorus to air (P)
Ammonia (NEk*, NH3, as N)
BODS (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
Nitrate (NO3")
Nitrite (NO2")
Nitrogenous Matter (unspecified, as N)
Phosphates (PO43", HPO42', H2PO4~,
H3PO4, as P)
Phosphorus to water (P)
0.12
0.04
0.09
1.12
0.99
0.05
0.05
0.24
0.32
0.99
7.29
7.29
Fossil Fuel Depletion. Some experts believe fossil fuel depletion is fully accounted for in
market prices. That is, market price mechanisms are believed to take care of the scarcity issue,
price being a measure of the level of depletion of a resource and the value society places on that
depletion. However, price is influenced by many factors other than resource supply, such as
resource demand and non-perfect markets (e.g., monopolies and subsidies). Furthermore, fossil
fuel depletion is at the heart of the sustainability debate.
Fossil fuel depletion is included in the TRACI set of impact assessment methods adopted by
BEES 3.0. It is important to recognize that this impact addresses only the depletion aspect of
fossil fuel extraction, not the fact that the extraction itself may generate impacts. Extraction
impacts, such as methane emissions from coal mining, are addressed in other impacts, such as
global warming.
To assess fossil fuel depletion, TRACI follows the approach developed for the Ecolndicator 99
method, which measures how the amount of energy required to extract a unit of energy for
consumption changes over time. Characterization factors have been developed permitting
computation of a single index for potential fossil fuel depletion—in surplus megajoules (MJ) per
functional unit of product—and assess the surplus energy requirements from the consumption of
fossil fuels:
fossil fuel depletion index = Si Ci x FPi, where
27
ibid.
14
-------
Cf = consumption (in kg) of fossil fogl i, and
FPj = MJ input requirement increase per kilogram of consumption of fossil fuel i, as
listed in Table 2.4.28
Table 2.4 BEES Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential Characterization Factors
Flow (i)
(surplus MJ/kg)
Coal (in ground)
Natural Gas (in ground)
Oil (in ground)
0.25
7.80
6.12
While uranium is a major source of energy in the United States, it is not, at present, included in
the TRACT assessment of the depletion of nonrenewable fuel resources. As impact assessment
science continues to evolve over time, it is hoped that uranium will become part of that
assessment. Future versions of BEES will incorporate improved impact assessment methods as
they become available.
Indoor Air Quality. Indoor air quality impacts are not included in traditional life-cycle impact
assessments. Most LCAs conducted to date have been applied to relatively short-lived, non-
building products (e.g., paper and plastic bags), for which indoor air quality impacts are not an
important issue. However, the indoor air performance of building products is of particular
concern to the building community and should be explicitly considered in any building product
LCA.
Ideally, characterization factors would be available for indoor air pollutants as they are for other
flows such as global warming gases. However, there is little scientific consensus about the
relative contributions of pollutants to indoor air performance. In the absence of reliable
characterization factors, a product's total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are often
used as a measure of its indoor air performance. Note that a total VOC measure equally weights
the contributions of the individual compounds that make up the measure. Further, reliance on
VOC emissions alone may be misleading if other indoor air contaminants, such as particulates
and aerosols, are also present.
Indoor air quality is assessed for the following building elements currently covered in BEES:
floor coverings, interior wall finishes, and chairs. Recognizing the inherent limitations in using
total VOCs to assess indoor air quality performance, estimates of total VOC emissions are used
as a proxy measure. The total VOC emissions over an initial number of hours (e.g., for floor
coverings, combined product and adhesive emissions over the first 72 h) is multiplied by the
number of times over the 50-year use period those "initial hours" will occur (to account for
product replacements), to yield an estimate of total VOC emissions per functional unit of
28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2002.
15
-------
product. The result is entered into the life cycle inventory for the product, and used directly to
assess the indoor air quality impact. The rationale for this particular approach is that VOC
emissions are at issue for a limited period of tune after installation. The more installations
required then, the greater the indoor air quality impact.
Indoor air quality is discussed in the context of sheathing and insulation products. Sheathing
products are often made of wood, which is of concern for its formaldehyde emissions.
Formaldehyde is thought to affect human health, especially for people with chemical sensitivity.
Composite wood products using urea-formaldehyde adhesives have higher formaldehyde
emissions than those using phenol-formaldehyde adhesives, and different composite wood
products have different levels of emissions. Composite wood products include oriented strand
board (OSB) and softwood plywood, both included as sheathing products in BEES. Most OSB is
now made using a methylene diphenylisocyanate (MDI) binder, and is modeled as such in
BEES. OSB using an MDI binder emits no formaldehyde other than the insignificant amount
naturally occurring in the wood itself.29 Softwood plywood also has extremely low formaldehyde
emissions because it uses phenol-formaldehyde binders and because it is used primarily on the
exterior shell of buildings.30 Thus, assuming formaldehyde emission is the only significant
indoor air concern for wood products, neither of the two composite wood products as modeled in
BEES are thought to significantly affect indoor air quality.
Indoor air quality is also an issue for insulation products. The main issues are the health impacts
of fibers, hazardous chemicals, and particles released from some insulation products. These
releases are the only insulation-related indoor air issues addressed in BEES. As a result of its
listing by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a "possible carcinogen," fiberglass
products are now required to have cancer warning labels. The fiberglass industry has responded
by developing fiberglass products that reduce the amount of loose fibers escaping into the air.
For cellulose products, there are claims that fire retardant chemicals and respirable particles are
hazardous to human health. Mineral wool is sometimes claimed to emit fibers and chemicals that
could be health irritants. For all these products, however, there should be little or no health risks
to building occupants if they are installed in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations.
Assuming proper installation, then, none of these products as modeled in BEES are thought to
significantly affect indoor air quality.31
All other BEES building elements are primarily exterior elements, or interior elements made of
inert materials, for which indoor air quality is not an issue.
Note that due to limitations in indoor air science, the BEES indoor air performance scores
are based on heuristics. If the BEES user has better knowledge about indoor air performance, it
should be brought into the interpretation of the results.
29 Alex Wilson and Nadav Malin, "The IAQ Challenge: Protecting the Indoor Environment," Environmental
Building Ne\vs, Vol. 5, No. 3, May/June 1996, p 15.
30 American Institute of Architects, Environmental Resource Guide, Plywood Material Report, May 1996.
31 Alex Wilson, "Insulation Materials: Environmental Comparisons," Environmental Building News, Vol. 4, No.
1, pp.15-16
16
-------
Habitat Alteration. The habitat alteration irnpact measures the potential for land use by humans
to lead to damage of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species. In TRACI, the set of U.S.
impact assessment methods adopted in BEES, the density of T&E Species is used as a proxy for
the degree to which the use of land may lead to undesirable changes hi habitats. Note that this
approach does not consider the original condition of the land, the extent to which human activity
changes the land, or the length of time required to restore the land to its original condition. As
impact assessment science continues to evolve, it is hoped that these potentially important
factors will become part of the habitat alteration assessment. Future versions of BEES will
incorporate improved habitat alteration assessment methods as they become available.
Inventory data are not readily available for habitat alteration assessment across all life cycle
stages; the use and end-of-life stages offer the only reliable inventory data for this impact to date.
These two stages, though, may be the most important life cycle stages for habitat alteration
assessment due to their contributions to landfills. Indeed, an informal evaluation of two interior
wall products found that post-consumer landfill use accounted for more than 80 % of the total
habitat alteration impact for both products. In BEES, habitat alteration is assessed at the use and
end of life stages only, based on the landfilled waste (adjusted for current recycling practices)
from product installation, replacement, and end of life. Future versions of BEES will incorporate
more life cycle stages as consistent inventory data become available.
Characterization factors have been developed permitting computation of a single index for
potential habitat alteration, expressed in T&E Species count per functional unit of product:
habitat alteration index = I* ai x TED, where
ai = surface area (in m2 disrupted) of land use flow i, and
TED = U.S. T&E Species density (in T&E Species count per m2), as listed in Table 2.5.
32
Table 2.5 BEES Habitat Alteration Potential Characterization Factors
Flow (i)
•"• TED -
(T&E count/m2)
Land Use (Installation Waste)
Land Use (Replacement Waste)
Land Use (End-of-Period Waste)
6.06E-10
6.06E-10
6.06E-10
32,
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2002.
17
-------
Water Intake. Water resource depletion has not been routinely assessed in LCAs to date, but
researchers are beginning to address this issue to account for areas where water is scarce, such as
the Western United States. It is important to recognize that this impact addresses only the
depletion aspect of water intake, not the fact that activities such as agricultural production and
product manufacture may generate water pollution. Water pollution impacts, such as nitrogen
runoff from agricultural production, are addressed in other impacts, such as eutrophication.
In TRACI, the set of U.S. impact assessment methods adopted in BEES, the Direct Use of
Inventories approach is used to assess water resource depletion. Water intake from cradle to
grave is recorded in the BEES life cycle inventory for each product (in liters per functional unit),
and is used directly to assess this impact.
Criteria Air Pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are solid and liquid particles commonly found in
the air. They arise from many activities including combustion, vehicle operation, power
generation, materials handling, and crushing and grinding operations. They include coarse
particles known to aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma, and fine particles that can
lead to more serious respiratory symptoms and disease.33
Disability-adjusted life years, or DALYs, have been developed to measure health losses from air
pollution. They account for years of life lost and years lived with disability, adjusted for the
severity of the associated unfavorable health conditions. TRACI characterization factors permit
computation of a single index for criteria air pollutants, with disability-adjusted life years
(DALYs) as the common metric:
criteria air pollutants index = 2, m; x CPi, where
mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and
= microDALYs per gram of inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.6.34
Table 2.6 BEES Criteria Air Pollutant Characterization Factors
Flow(i)
(microDALYs/g)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX as NO2)
Participates (>PM10)
Particulates (<=PM 10)
Particulates (unspecified)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX as SO2)
0.002
0.046
0.083
0.046
0.014
Human Health.
There are many potential human health effects from exposure to industrial and natural
substances, ranging from transient irritation to permanent disability and even death. Some
substances have a wide range of different effects, and different individuals have widely varying
33ibid.
34 ibid.
18
-------
tolerances to different substances. BEES adopts and extends the TRACI approach to evaluating
human health impacts. Note that this approach does not include occupational health effects.
TRACI has developed Toxicity Equivalency Potentials (TEPs), which are characterization
factors measuring the relative health concern associated with various chemicals from the
perspective of a generic individual in the United States. For cancer effects, the TRACI system's
TEPs are expressed in terms of benzene equivalents, while for noncancer health effects, they are
denominated in toluene equivalents. In order to synthesize all environmental impacts in the next
LCA step (interpretation), however, BEES requires a combined measure of cancer and
noncancer health effects because default impact importance weights are available only at the
combined level. The BEES 2.0 Peer Review Team suggested that to address this need, threshold
levels for toluene and benzene be obtained from the developers of the TRACI TEPs and be given
equal importance in combining cancer and noncancer health effects.35 Threshold levels were thus
obtained and used to develop a ratio converting benzene equivalents to toluene equivalents
(21 100 kg/kg)."
36
The "extended" TRACI characterization factors permit computation of a single index for
potential human health effects (in grams of toluene per functional unit of product), representing
the quantity of toluene with the same potential human health effects:
human health index = Si mi x HPj, where
i = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and
i = grams of toluene with the same potential human health effects as one gram of
inventory flow i.
There are more than 200 flows included in the BEES human health impact assessment. A
sampling of the most important of these flows and their characterization factors are reported in
Table 2.7, sorted in descending order of toluene equivalents.37 Flows to air are preceded with the
designation "(a)" and flows to water with the designation "(w)." To browse the entire list of
human health flows and factors, open the file EQUTV12.DBF under the File/Open menu item in
the BEES software.
35 M.A. Curran et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report,
2002.
36Personal correspondence with Edgar Hertwich, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
Laxenburg, Austria, 6/20/2002.
37
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2002. As discussed, TRACI benzene equivalents have been
converted to toluene equivalents.
19
-------
Table 2.7 Sampling of BEES Human Health Characterization Factors
Flow
(toluene-
equivalents)
Cancer~(a) Dioxins (unspecified)
Noncaacer~(a) Dioxins (unspecified)
Cancer~(a) Diethanol Amine
Cancer~(a) Arsenic (As)
Cancer~(a) BenzoCancer~(a)pyrene (CioHii)
Noncancer--(a) Mercury (Hg)
Noncancer~(w) Mercury (Hg+, Hg"")
Cancer~(a) Carbon Tetrachloride (CCU)
Cancer~(w) Arsenic (As3"1", As5+)
Cancer«(w) Carbon Tetrachloride (CCU)
Cancer--(a) Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Cancer~(w) Hexachloroethane (CiCle)
Cancer--(w) Phenol (CeHsOH)
Noncancer~(a) Cadmium (Cd)
Cancer~(a) Trichloropropane (1,2,3-C2H5C13)
Cancer--(a) Chromiuni (Cr HI, Cr VI)
Cancer-(a) Dimethyl Sulfate (C2H6O4S)
Cancer--(a) Cadmium (Cd)
Cancer--(a) Indeno (l,2,3,c,d) Pyrene
Noncancer~(a) Lead (Pb)
Cancer~(a) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Cancer~(a) Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cancer~(a) Benzo(bjk)fluoranthene
Cancer~(a) Lead (Pb)
Cancer-(a) Ethylene Oxide
38 292 661 685 580
2286396218965
2 532 000 000
69 948 708
34 210 977
19 255 160
18917511
17 344 285
17210446.
16 483 833
12 333 565
8 415 642
8 018 000
4 950 421
3 587 000
3530974
2 976 375
1 759 294
1 730 811
1 501 293
1419586
1 356 632
1 356 632
748316
650 701
Smog Formation Potential. Under certain climatic conditions, air emissions from industry and
transportation can be trapped at ground level, where they react with sunlight to produce
photochemical smog. One of the components of smog is ozone, which is not emitted directly,
but rather produced through the interactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX). Smog leads to harmful impacts on human health and vegetation. In BEES, the
smog impact does not account for indoor VOCs that make their way outdoors. Rather, indoor
VOCs are evaluated under the BEES Indoor Air Quality impact.
Characterization factors for potential smog formation have been developed for the TRACI set of
U.S. impact assessment methods, with nitrogen oxides as the reference substance. These factors
permit computation of a single index for potential smog formation (in grams of nitrogen oxides
per functional unit of product), representing the quantity of nitrogen oxides with the same
potential for smog formation:
smog index = - 2j mi x SPi, where
20
-------
i = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and ;
Pi = grams of nitrogen oxides with the same potential for smog formation as one gram
of inventory flow i.
There are more than 100 flows included in the BEES smog assessment. A sampling of the most
important of these flows and their characterization factors are reported in Table 2.8, sorted in
descending order of nitrogen oxides equivalents.38 To browse the entire list of smog flows and
factors, open the file EQUTV12.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Table 2.8 Sampling of BEES Smog Characterization Factors
Flow (i)
(nitrogen oxides-
equivalents)
Furan (C
Butadiene (1,3-CH2CHCHCH2)
Propylene (CH3CH2CH3)
Xylene (m-CsH^CE^)
Butene (1-CH3CH2CHCH2)
Crotonaldehyde (C^O)
Formaldehyde (CH2O)
Propionaldehyde (CH3CH2CHO)
Acrolein (CH2CHCHO)
Xylene (o-C6H4(CH3)2)
Xylene (C6H4(CH3)2)
Trimethyl Benzene (1,2,4-C6H3(CH3)3)
Acetaldehyde (CH3CHO)
Aldehyde (unspecified)
Butyraldehyde (CH3CH2CH2CHO)
Isobutyraldehyde ((CH3)2CHCHO)
Ethylene Glycol (HOCH2CH2OH)
Acenaphthene (Ci2Hio)
Acenaphthylene (Ci2Hs)
Hexanal (CeHnO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2)
Glycol Ether (unspecified)
Methyl Naphthalene (2-CnHi0)
Xylene
Toluene
3.54
3.23
3.07
2.73
2.66
2.49
2.25
2.05
1.99
1.93
1.92
1.85
1.79
1.79
1.74
1.74
1.40
1.30
1.30
1.25
1.24
1.11
1.10
1.09
1.03
Ozone Depletion Potential. The ozone layer is present hi the stratosphere and acts as a filter
absorbing harmful short wave ultraviolet light while allowing longer wavelengths to pass
through. A thinning of the ozone layer allows more harmful short wave radiation to reach the
38
Ibid.
21
-------
Earth's surface, potentially causing changes to ecosystems as flora and fauna have varying
abilities to cope with it. There may also be adverse effects on agricultural productivity. Effects
on man can include increased skin cancer rates (particularly fatal melanomas) and eye cataracts,
as well as suppression of the immune system. Another problem is the uncertain effect on the
climate.
Characterization factors for potential ozone depletion are included hi the TRACI set of U.S.
impact assessment methods, with CFC-11 as the reference substance. These factors permit
computation of a single index for potential ozone depletion (in grams of CFC-11 per functional
unit of product), representing the quantity of CFC-11 with the same potential for ozone
depletion:
ozone depletion index = Ej nij x OPi, where
£ = mass (in g) of inventory flow i, and
i = grams of CFC-1 1 with the same ozone depletion potential as one gram of inventory
flow i, as listed in Table 2.9.39
Table 2.9 BEES Ozone Depletion Potential Characterization Factors
Flow (i)
Carbon Tetrachloride (CCw)
CFC 12 (CC12F2)
Halon 1301 (CF3Br)
HCFC 22 (CHF2C1)
Methyl Bromide (CH3Br)
Trichloroethane (1,1,1-CH3CC13
(CFC-11
equivalents)
1.10
1.00
10.00
0.06
0.60
) 0.10
Ecological Toxicity. The ecological toxicity impact measures the potential of a chemical released
into the environment to harm terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. An assessment method for this
impact was developed for the TRACI set of U.S. impact assessment methods and adopted in
BEES. The method involves measuring pollutant concentrations from industrial sources as well
as the potential of these pollutants to harm ecosystems.
TRACI characterization factors for potential ecological toxicity use 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic
acid (2,4-D) as the reference substance. These factors permit computation of a single index for
potential ecological toxicity (in grams of 2,4-D per functional unit of product), representing the
quantity of 2,4-D with the same potential for ecological toxicity:
ecological toxicity index = Ei mi x EPj, where
i = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and
39
ibid.
22
-------
EPi = grams of 2,4-D with the same ecological toxicity potential as one gram of inventory
flowi. :
There are more than 150 flows included in the BEES ecological toxicity assessment. A sampling
of the most important of these flows and their characterization factors are reported in Table 2.10,
sorted in descending order of 2,4-D equivalents.40 Flows to air are preceded with the designation
"(a)" and flows to water with the designation "(w)." To browse the entire list of ecological
toxicity flows and factors, open the file EQUTV12.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the
BEES software.
Table 2.10 Sampling of BEES Ecological Toxicity Potential Characterization Factors
Flow (i)
(2,4-D equivalents)
(a) Dioxins (unspecified)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (C22Hi2)
(a) Cadmium (Cd)
(a) Benzo(a)anthracene
(a) Chromium (Cr VI)
(w) Naphthalene (Ci0H8)
(a) Vanadium (V)
(a) Benzo(a)pyrene (C2oHi2)
(a) Beryllium (Be)
(a) Arsenic (As)
(a) Copper (Cu)
(w) Vanadium (V3+, V5+)
(a) Nickel (Ni)
(w) Mercury (Hg+, Kg"")
(a) Cobalt (Co)
(a) Selenium (Se)
(a) Fluoranthene
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cii")
(a) Chromium (Cr ffl, Cr VI)
(w) Cadmium (Cd**)
(w) Formaldehyde (CH2O)
(a) Zinc (Zn)
(w) BeryUium (Be)
(a) Lead (Pb)
2 486 822.73
118758.09
4948.81
689.74
412.83
203.67
179.80
130.37
109.99
106.56
101.32
89.46
81.82
64.34
58.82
49.45
35.07
29.47
26.93
24.54
22.79
22.62
18.89
16.55
12.32
2.1.3.3 Normalizing Impacts in BEES
Once impacts have been assessed, the resulting impact category performance measures are
expressed in noncommensurate units. Global warming is expressed in carbon dioxide
equivalents, acidification in hydrogen ion equivalents, eutropbication in nitrogen equivalents,
40
Ibid.
23
-------
and so on. In order to assist in the next LCA step, interpretation, performance measures are often
placed on the same scale through normalization.
The U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development has recently developed normalization data
corresponding to its TRACI set of impact assessment methods.41 These data are used in BEES to
place its impact assessment results on the same scale. The data, reported in table 2.11, estimate
for each impact its performance at the U.S. level. Specifically, inventory flows contributing to
each impact have been quantified and characterized in terms of U.S. flows per year per capita.42
Summing all characterized flows for each impact then yields, in effect, impact category
performance measures for the United States. As such, they represent a new "U.S. impact
yardstick" against which to evaluate the significance of product-specific impacts. Normalization
is accomplished by dividing BEES product-specific impacts by the fixed U.S.-scale impacts,
yielding an impact category performance measure that has been placed in the context of all U.S.
activity contributing to that impact. By placing each product-specific impact measure in the
context of its associated U.S. impact measure, the measures are all reduced to the same scale,
allowing comparison across impacts.
Table 2.11 BEES Normalization Values
Impact
Normalization Value
Global Warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Fossil Fuel Depletion
Indoor Air Quality
Habitat Alteration
Water Intake
Criteria Air Pollutants
Smog
Ecological Toxicity
Ozone Depletion
Human Health
25 582 640.09 g CO2 equivalents/year/capita
7 800 200 000.00 millimoles H+ equivalents/year/capita
19 214.20 g N equivalents/year/capita
35 309.00 MJ surplus energy/year/capita
35 108.09 g TVOCs/year/capita
0.00335 T&E count/acre/capitaa
529 957.75 liters of water/year/capita
19 200.00 microDALYs/year/capita
151 500.03 g NOx equivalents/year/capita
81 646.72 g 2,4-D equivalents/year/capita
340.19 g CFC-11 equivalents/year/capita
158 768 677.00 g C7H7 equivalents/year/capita
"One acre is equivalent to 0.40 hectares.
Normalized BEES impact scores now have powerful implications. For the first time, the
significance of impact scores is evaluated, meaning that scores no longer need be compared to
one another without reference to their importance in a larger context. As a result, for example, an
41J.C. Bare et al, U.S. Normalisation Database and Methodology for Use within Life Cycle Impact Assessment,
submitted to the Journal of Industrial Ecology. Note that while a normalization value is not reported for the Indoor
Air Quality impact, a figure for U.S. VOC emissions/year/capita is reported. To approximate the Indoor Air Quality
normalization value, 30 % of this reported value is taken, based on a U.S. EPA Fact Sheet citing that 30 % of annual
U.S. VOC emissions flow from consumer products such as surface coatings, personal care products, and household
cleaning products (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Final Air Regulations for Consumer
Products, 1998).
42Habitat alteration flows have been quantified and characterized in terms of U.S. flows per 0.40 hectares (per acre)
per capita.
24
-------
impact to which a product contributes little will not appear important when, by comparison,
competing products contribute even less to that impact.;
Second, while selecting among building products continues to make sense only with reference to
the same building element, like floor covering, normalized impact scores can now be compared
across building elements if they are first scaled to reflect the product quantities to be used in the
building under analysis over the same time period. Take the example of global warming scores
for roof coverings and chairs. If these scores are each first multiplied by the quantity of their
functional units to be used in a particular building (roof area to be covered and seating
requirements, respectively), they may then be compared. Comparing across elements can provide
insights into which building elements lead to the larger environmental impacts, and thus warrant
the most attention.
2.1.4 Interpretation
At the LCA interpretation step, the normalized impact assessment results are evaluated. Few
products are likely to dominate competing products in all BEES impact categories. Rather, one
product may out-perform the competition relative to fossil fuel depletion and habitat alteration,
fall short relative to global warming and acidification, and fall somewhere in the middle relative
to indoor air quality and eutrophication. To compare the overall environmental performance of
competing products, the performance scores for all impact categories may be synthesized. Note
that in BEES, synthesis of impact scores is optional.
Impact scores may be synthesized by weighting each impact category by its relative importance
to overall environmental performance, then computing the weighted average impact score. In the
BEES software, the set of importance weights is selected by the user. Several derived, alternative
weight sets are provided as guidance, and may either be used directly or as a starting point for
developing user-defined weights. The alternative weights sets are based on an EPA Science
Advisory Board study, a Harvard University study, and a set of equal weights, representing a
spectrum of ways in which people value diverse aspects of the environment.
Refer to Appendix A for the BEES environmental performance computational algorithms.
2.1.4.1 EPA Science Advisory Board study
In 1990 and again in 2000, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) developed lists of the relative
importance of various environmental impacts to help EPA best allocate its resources.43 The
following criteria were used to develop the lists:
• The spatial scale of the impact
• The severity of the hazard
• The degree of exposure
43 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Toward Integrated Environmental
Decision-Making, EPA-SAB-EC-00-011, Washington, D.C., August 2000 and United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection, SAB-EC-90-021, Washington, D.C., September 1990, pp 13-14. .-
25
-------
• The penalty for being wrong
Ten of the twelve BEES impact categories were included in the SAB lists of relative importance:
• Highest-Risk Problems: global warming, habitat alteration
• High-Risk Problems: indoor air quality, ecological toxicity, human health
• Medium-Risk Problems: ozone depletion, smog, acidification, eutrophication, criteria air
pollutants
The SAB did not explicitly consider fossil fuel depletion or water intake as impacts. For this
exercise, fossil fuel depletion and water intake are assumed to be relatively medium-risk and
low-risk problems, respectively, based on other relative importance lists.44
Verbal importance rankings, such as "highest risk," may be translated into numerical importance
weights by following guidance provided by a Multiattribute Decision Analysis method known as
the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).45 The AHP methodology suggests the following
numerical comparison scale:
1 Two impacts contribute equally to the objective (in this case environmental performance)
3 Experience and judgment slightly favor one impact over another
5 Experience and judgment strongly favor one impact over another
7 One impact is favored very strongly over another, its dominance demonstrated in practice
9 The evidence favoring one impact over another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
2,4,6,8 When compromise between values of 1,3, 5, 7, and 9, is needed.
Through an AHP process known as pairwise comparison, numerical comparison values are
assigned to each possible pair of environmental impacts. Relative importance weights can then
be derived by computing the normalized eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue of the matrix of
pairwise comparison values. Tables 2.12 and 2.13 list the pairwise comparison values assigned
to the verbal importance rankings, and the resulting SAB importance weights computed for the
BEES impacts, respectively. Note that the pairwise comparison values were assigned through an
iterative process based on NIST's background and experience in applying the AHP technique.
44 See, for example, Hal Levin, "Best Sustainable Indoor Air Quality Practices in Commercial Buildings," Third
International Green Building Conference andExposition-1996, NIST Special Publication 908, Gaithersburg, MD,
November 1996, p 148.
Thomas L. Saaty, MultiCriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process—Planning, Priority Setting,
Resource Allocation, University of Pittssburgh, 1988.
26
-------
Table 2.12 Pairwise Comparison Values for Deriving Impact CategoryImportance Weights
Verbal Importance Comparison Pairrtise Comparison Value
Highest vs. Low 6
Highest vs. Medium 3
Highest vs. High 1.5
High vs. Low 4
High vs. Medium 2
Medium vs. Low 2
Table 2.13 Relative Importance Weights bjisejl^on Science AdvisoryBoard Study
Impact Category
Global Warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Fossil Fuel Depletion
Indoor Air Quality
Habitat Alteration
Water Intake
Criteria Air Pollutants
Smog
Ecological Toxicity
Ozone Depletion
Human Health
Relative Importance
Weight (%)
8 Impacts'1 12 Impacts
24
8
8
8
16
24
4
8
16
5
5
5
11
16
3
6
6
11
5
11
"This set of reduced impacts is assessed for a limited number of BEES products, as identified in Table 4.1.
2.1.4.2 Harvard University Study
In 1992, an extensive study was conducted at Harvard University to establish the relative
importance of environmental impacts.46 The study developed separate assessments for the United
States, The Netherlands, India, and Kenya. In addition, separate assessments were made for
"current consequences" and "future consequences" in each country. For current consequences,
more importance is placed on impacts of prime concern today. Future consequences places more
importance on impacts that are expected to become significantly worse in the next 25 years.
Eleven of the 12 BEES impact categories were among the studied impacts. Table 2.14 shows the
current and future consequence rankings assigned to these impacts in the United States. The
study did not explicitly consider fossil fuel depletion as an impact. For this exercise, fossil fuel
depletion is assumed to rank in the medium range for both current and future consequences,
based on other relative importance lists.47
46 Vicki Norberg-Bohm et al, International Comparisons of Environmental Hazards: Development and
Evaluation of a Method for Linking Environmental Data -with the Strategic Debate Management Priorities for Risk
Management, Center for Science & International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, October 1992.
47 See, for example, Hal Levin, "Best Sustainable Indoor Air Quality Practices in Commercial Buildings," p 148.
27
-------
Verbal importance rankings from the Harvard study are translated into numerical, relative
importance weights using the same, AHP-based numerical comparison scale and pairwise
comparison process described above for the SAB study. Sets of relative importance weights are
derived for current and future consequences, and then combined by weighing future
consequences as twice as important as current consequences.48
Table 2.14 U.S. Rankings for Current and Future
Impact Category
Global Warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Fossil Fuel Depletion
Indoor Air Quality
Habitat Alteration
Water Intake
Criteria Air Pollutants
Smog
Ecological Toxicity
Ozone Depletion
Human Health
Current Consequences
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Med
High
High
Medium-Low
Low
Medium-Low
Future Consequences
High
Medium-Low
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
High
Medium-Low
Table 2.15 lists the resulting importance weights for the twelve BEES impacts. The combined
importance weight set is offered as an option in the BEES software. However the BEES user is
free to use the current or future consequence weight sets by entering these weights under the
user-defined software option.
48 The Harvard study ranks impacts "high" in future consequences if the current level of impact is expected to
double in severity over the next 25 years based on a "business as usual" scenario. Vicki Norberg-Bohm,
International Comparisons of Environmental Hazards, pp 11-12.
28
-------
Table 2.15 Relative Importance Weights based on Harvard University study
3v Relative Importance Weight Sef
Current
Impact Category
Global Warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Fossil Fuel Depletion
Indoor Air Quality
Habitat Alteration
Water Intake
Criteria Air Pollutants
Smog
Ecological Toxiciry
Ozone Depletion
Human Health
8"
6
22
11
11
11
6
11
22
12
4
15
8
8
8
4
8
15
14
6
4
6
Future
8"
22
8
16
11
8
8
16
11
12
15
6
10
7
6
6
10
7
6
6
15
6
Combined
8"
17
13
14
11
9
7
14
15
/2
11
9
9
7
7
6
9
10
9
6
11
6
aSo that each weight set would appropriately sum to 100, some individual weights have been rounded up or down.
bThis set of reduced impacts is assessed for a limited number of BEES products, as identified in table 4.1.
2.2 Economic Performance
Measuring the economic performance of building products is more straightforward than
measuring environmental performance. Published economic performance data are readily
available, and there are well-established ASTM standard methods for conducting economic
performance evaluations. First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. The most appropriate method for measuring the economic
performance of building products is the life-cycle cost (LCC) method. BEES follows the ASTM
standard method for life-cycle costing of building-related investments.49
It is important to distinguish between the time periods used to measure environmental
performance and economic performance. These time periods are different. Recall that in
environmental LCA, the tune period begins with raw material acquisition and ends with product
end-of-life. Economic performance, on the other hand, is evaluated over a fixed period (known
as the study period) that begins with the purchase and installation of the product, and ends at
some point in the future that does not necessarily correspond with product end-of-life.
Economic performance is evaluated beginning at product purchase and installation because this
is when out-of-pocket costs begin to be incurred, and investment decisions are made based upon
out-of-pocket costs. The study period ends at a fixed date in the future. For a private investor, its
length is set at the period of product or facility ownership. For society as a whole, the study
49ASTM International, Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems,
ASTM Designation E 917-99, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
29
-------
period length is often set at the useful life of the longest-lived product alternative. However,
when alternatives have very long lives, (e.g., more than 50 years), a shorter study period may be
selected for three reasons:
• Technological obsolescence becomes an issue
• Data become too uncertain
• The farther in the future, the less important the costs
In the BEES model, economic performance is measured over a 50-year study period, as shown in
Figure 2.3. This study period is selected to reflect a reasonable period of time over which to
evaluate economic performance for society as a whole. The same 50-year period is used to
evaluate all products, even if they have different useful lives. This is one of the strengths of the
LCC method. It accounts for the fact that different products have different useful lives by
evaluating them over the same study period.
For consistency, the BEES model evaluates the use stage of environmental performance over the
same 50-year study period. Product replacements over this 50-year period are accounted for in
the environmental performance score, and inventory flows are prorated to year 50 for products
with lives longer than the 50-year study period.
The LCC method sums over the study period all relevant costs associated with a product.
Alternative products for the same function, say floor covering, can then be compared on the basis
of their LCCs to determine which is the least cost means of fulfilling that function over the study
period. Categories of cost typically include costs for purchase, installation, maintenance, repak,
and replacement. A negative cost item is the residual value. The residual value is the product
value remaining at the end of the study period. In the BEES model, the residual value is
computed by prorating the purchase and installation cost over the product life remaining beyond
the 50-year period.50
50 For example, a product with a 40 year life that costs $111/m2 (SlO/ft^.to install would have a residual value of
$7.50 in year 50, considering replacement in year 40.
30
-------
Site Selection
and
Preparation
F
^
:ACILITY LIFE CYCLE
Construction
and Outfitting
*
i
Product
Manufacture
A
k
Raw
Materials
Acquisition
[
fe
ECONOMIC STUDY PERIOD
Operation
and Use
Renovation
or Demolition
Cf\ X/^,-.*. I 1^.^ O4-«-%s*^ 1
ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDY PERIOD
Figure 2.3 BEES Study Periods For Measuring Building Product Environmental And
Economic Performance
The LCC method accounts for the time value of money by using a discount rate to convert all
future costs to their equivalent present value. Refer to Appendix A for the BEES economic
performance computational algorithm showing the discounting technique.
Future costs must be expressed in terms consistent with the discount rate used. There are two
approaches. First, a real discount rate may be used with constant-dollar (e.g., 2002) costs. Real
discount rates reflect that portion of the tune value of money attributable to the real earning
power of money over time and not to general price inflation. Even if all future costs are
expressed in constant 2002 dollars, they must be discounted to reflect this portion of the time-
value of money. Second, a market discount rate may be used with current-dollar amounts (e.g.,
actual future prices). Market discount rates reflect the time value of money stemming from both
inflation and the real earning power of money over time. When applied properly, both
approaches yield the same LCC results. The BEES model computes LCCs using constant 2002
dollars and a real discount rate.51 As a default, the BEES tool offers a real rate of 3.9 %, the 2002
rate mandated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for most Federal projects.52
51Any year 2000 costs were converted to year 2002 dollars using a 0.994 inflation factor developed from
producer price indices for new construction reported in U.S. Department of Labor, Producer Price Indices: New
Construction, Series PCUBNEW#, Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, July 8,2002.
52 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-
Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, October 27,1992 and OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C,
Washington, DC, 2002.
31
-------
2.3 Overall Performance
The BEES overall performance measure synthesizes the environmental and economic results into
a single score, as illustrated in Figure 2.4. Yet the environmental and economic performance
scores are denominated in different units. How can these diverse measures of performance be
combined into a meaningful measure of overall performance? The most appropriate technique is
Multiattribute Decision Analysis (MADA). MADA problems are characterized by tradeoffs
between apples and oranges, as is the case with the BEES environmental and economic
performance results. The BEES system follows the ASTM standard for conducting MADA
evaluations of building-related investments.53
Before combining the environmental and economic performance scores, each is placed on a
common scale by dividing by the sum of corresponding scores across all alternatives under
analysis. In effect, then, each performance score is rescaled in terms of its share of all scores, and
is placed on the same, relative scale from 0 to 100. Then the two scores are combined into an
overall score by weighting environmental and economic performance by their relative
importance and taking a weighted average. The BEES user specifies the relative importance
weights used to combine environmental and economic performance scores and should test the
sensitivity of the overall scores to different sets of relative importance weights. Refer to
Appendix A for the BEES overall performance computational algorithm.
2.4 Limitations
Properly interpreting the BEES scores requires placing them in perspective. There are inherent
limits to applying U.S. average LCA and LCC results and in comparing building products
outside the design context.
The BEES LCA and LCC approaches produce U.S. average performance results for generic and
manufacturer-specific product alternatives. The BEES results do not apply to products sold in
other countries where manufacturing and agricultural practices, fuel mixes, environmental
regulations, transportation distances, and labor and material markets may differ.54 Furthermore,
all products in a generic product group, such as vinyl composition tile floor covering, are not
created equal. Product composition, manufacturing methods, fuel mixes, transportation
practices, useful lives, and cost can all vary for individual products in a generic product group.
The BEES results for the generic product group do not necessarily represent the performance of
an individual product.
53 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Multiattribute
Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM Designation E 1765-98, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1998.
54 BEES does apply to products manufactured in other countries and sold in the United States. These results,
however, do not apply to those same products as sold in other countries because transport to the United States is
built into their BEES life cycle inventory data.
32
-------
1
i
=2
I
o
I
*
IP
en
m
-------
The BEES LCAs use selected inventory flows converted to selected local, regional, and global
environmental impacts to assess environmental performance. Those inventory flows which
currently do not have scientifically proven or quantifiable impacts on the environment are
excluded, such as mineral extraction and wood harvesting which are qualitatively thought to lead
to loss of habitat and an accompanying loss of biodiversity. If the BEES user has important
knowledge about these issues, it should be brought into the interpretation of the BEES results.
Life cycle impact assessment is a rapidly evolving science. Assessment methods unheard of
several years ago have since been developed and are now being used routinely in LCAs. While
BEES 3.0 incorporates state-of-the-art impact assessment methods, the science will continue to
evolve and methods in use today—particularly those for fossil fuel depletion, habitat alteration,
and indoor air quality—are likely to change and improve over time. Future versions of BEES
will incorporate these improved methods as they become available.
During the interpretation step of the BEES LCAs5 environmental impacts are optionally
combined into a single environmental performance score using relative importance weights.
These weights necessarily incorporate values and subjectivity. BEES users should routinely test
the effects on the environmental performance scores of changes in the set of importance weights.
The BEES LCAs do not incorporate uncertainty analysis as required by ISO 14043.55 At
present, incorporating uncertainty analysis is problematic due to a lack of underlying uncertainty
data. The BEES 2.0 Peer Review Team discussed this issue and advised NIST not to incorporate
uncertainly analysis into BEES hi the short run.56 In the long run, however, one aspect of
uncertainty may be addressed: the representativeness of generic products. That is, once BEES is
extensively populated with manufacturer-specific data, the variation in manufacturer-specific
products around their generic representations will become available.
The BEES overall performance scores do not represent absolute performance. Rather, they
represent proportional differences in performance, or relative performance, among competing
alternatives. Consequently, the overall performance score for a given product alternative can
change if one or more competing alternatives are added to or removed from the set of
alternatives under consideration. In rare instances, rank reversal, or a reordering of scores, is
possible. Finally, since they are relative performance scores, no conclusions may be drawn by
comparing overall scores across building elements. For example, if exterior wall finish Product
A has an overall performance score of 30, and roof covering Product D has an overall
performance score of 20, Product D does not necessarily perform better than Product A (keeping
in mind that lower performance scores are better). This limitation does not apply to comparing
environmental performance scores across building elements, as discussed in section 2.1.3.2.
There are inherent limits to comparing product alternatives without reference to the whole
building design context. Such comparisons may overlook important environmental and cost
interactions among building elements. For example, the useful life of one building element (e.g.,
55 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management—Life-Cycle
Interpretation—Life Cycle Impact Assessment, International Standard 14043,2000.
56 Curran, M.A. et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Stistainability: Peer Review Report,
NISTffi. 6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2002.
34
-------
floor coverings), which influences both its environmental and economic performance scores,
may depend on the selection of related building elements (e.g., subflooring). There is no
substitute for good building design.
Environmental and economic performance are but two attributes of building product
performance. The BEES model assumes that competing product alternatives all meet minimum
technical performance requirements.57 However, there may be significant differences in technical
performance, such as acoustic or fire performance, which may outweigh environmental and
economic considerations.
57 BEES environmental and economic performance results for wall insulation and roof coverings do consider one
important technical performance difference. For these building elements, BEES accounts for differential heating
and cooling energy consumption.
35
-------
36
-------
3. BEES Product Data
The BEES model uses the ASTM standard classification system, UNIFORMAT BE,58 to organize
comparable building products into groups. The ASTM standard classifies building components
into a three-level hierarchy: major group elements (e.g., substructure, shell, interiors), group
elements (e.g., foundations, roofing, interior finishes), and individual elements (e.g., slab on
grade, roof coverings, floor finishes). Elements are defined such that each performs a given
function, regardless of design specifications or materials used. The UNIFORMAT n
classification system is well suited to the BEES environmental and economic performance
methodologies, which define comparable products as those that fulfill the same basic function.
The BEES model uses the UNIFORMAT H classification of individual elements, the third level
of the hierarchy, as the point of departure for selecting functional applications for BEES product
comparisons.
3.1 Concrete Slabs, Walls, Beams, and Columns (BEES Codes A1030, A2020, B1011,
B1012) and Cement Kiln Dust (G1030)
3.1.1 Generic Portland Cement Products (A1030: A-I, O; A2020: A-I; B1011: A-R; B1012:
A-R;G1030B)
Portland cement concrete, typically referred to as "concrete," is a mixture of portland cement (a
fine powder), water, fine aggregate such as sand or finely crushed rock, and coarse aggregate
such as gravel or crushed rock. The mixture creates a semi-fluid material that forms a rock-like
material when it hardens. Note that the terms "cement" and "concrete" are often used
interchangeably, yet cement is actually only one of several concrete constituents.
Concrete is specified for different building elements by its compressive strength measured 28
days after casting. Concretes with greater compressive strengths generally contain more cement.
While the compressive strength of concrete mixtures can range from 0.69 MFa to 138 MPa
(100 lb/in2 to 20 000 lb/in2), concrete for residential slabs and basement walls often has a
compressive strength of 21 MPa (3 000 .lb/in2) or less, and concrete for structural applications
such as beams and columns often has compressive strengths of 28 MPa or 34 MPa (4 000 lb/in2
or 5 000 lb/in2). Thus, concrete mixes modeled in the BEES software are limited to compressive
strengths of 21 MPa, 28 MPa, and 34 MPa (3 000 lb/in2, 4 000 lb/in2, and 5 000 lb/in2).
To reduce cost, heat generation, and the environmental burden of concrete, ground granulated
blast furnace slag (referred to as GGBFS or "slag"), fly ash, or limestone may be substituted for
a portion of the portland cement in the concrete mix. Fly ash is a waste material that results from
burning coal to produce electricity, slag is a waste material that is a result of steel production,
and limestone is an abundant natural resource. When used in concrete, slag, fly ash, and
limestone are cementitious materials that can act in a similar manner as cement by facilitating
58 American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related
Sitework-UNIFORMATH, ASTM Designation E 1557-96, West Conshohocken, PA, 1996.
37
-------
compressive strength development.
BEES performance data apply to four concrete building elements: 21 MPa(3 000 lb/in2) Slabs on
Grade and Basement Walls; and 28 MPa or 34 MPa (4 000 lb/in2 or 5 000 lb/in2) Beams and
Columns. For each building element, concrete alternatives with 100 % cement (no fly ash, slag,
or limestone); 15 % and 20 % fly ash content; 20 %, 35 %, and 50 % slag content; and 5 %,
10 %, and 20 % limestone content, all by mass fraction of cement, may be compared. A 35 % fly
ash content concrete is also included for the slab on grade building element only. In addition,
BEES includes a portland cement product used to enhance or stabilize soil. The detailed
environmental performance data for all these products may be viewed by opening their
corresponding files, as identified in Table 4.1, under the File/Open menu item in the BEES
software.
BEES manufacturing data for concrete products are from the Portland Cement Association LCA
database. This subsection incorporates extensive documentation provided by the Portland
Cement Association for incorporating their LCA data into BEES.59 The LCA dataset was
completed by BEES contractors Environmental Strategies and Solutions (ESS) and
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) by adding environmental flows for raw material acquisition,
transportation from the ready-mix plant to the building site, installation (including formwork and
reinforcing steel), use, and end of life.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the elements of concrete production with and without blended cements
(i.e., cements with fly ash, slag, or limestone).
Raw Materials. Table 3.1 shows quantities of concrete constituents for the three compressive
strengths modeled. Other materials that are sometimes added, such as silica fume and chemical
admixtures, are not considered. Typically, fly ash and slag are equal replacements for cement.
The same is true for a 5 % limestone blended cement, but at the 10 % and 20 % blend levels,
Table 3.1 shows that more blended cement is needed in the concrete to achieve equivalent
strength as mixes with no limestone replacements. Quantities of constituent materials used in an
actual project may vary.
Portland Cement. Cement plants are located throughout North America at locations with
adequate supplies of raw materials. Major raw materials for cement manufacture include
limestone, cement rock/marl, shale, and clay. These raw materials contain various proportions of
calcium oxide, silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, with oxide content varying
widely across North America. Since portland cement must contain the appropriate proportion of
59 Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc, Completed BEES Site Questionnaire for Portland Cement, CTL
Project No. 312006, June 2002; Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc, Theoretical Concrete Mix Designs for
Cement with Limestone as a Partial Replacement for Portland Cement, CTL Project 312006, June 2002; Portland
Cement Association, Data Transmittalfor Incorporation of Slag Containing Concrete Mixes into Version 2.0 of the
BEES Sofovare, PCA R&D Serial No. 2168a, PCA Project 94-04, prepared by Construction Technology
Laboratories, Inc. and JAN Consultants, May 2000; and Portland Cement Association, Concrete Products Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data Set for Incorporation into the NIST BEES Model, PCA R&D Serial No. 2168, PCA
Project 94-04a, prepared by Michael Nisbet, JAN Consultants, 1998.
38
-------
Portland
Cement
Production
Coarse
Aggregate
Production
Figure 3.1 Concrete Without Blended Cements Flow Chart
these oxides, the mixture of the major raw materials and minor ingredients (as required) varies
among cement plants. BEES data for cement manufacture is based on the average raw material
mix and oxide content for all U.S. cement plants for an ASTM C150 Type I/n cement, the most
commonly used cement in North America. The average raw materials for U.S. cement include
limestone, cement rock/marl, shale, clay, bottom ash, fly ash, foundry sand, sand, and iron/iron
ore.
In the manufacturing process, major raw materials are blended with minor ingredients, as
required, and processed at high temperatures in a cement kiln to form an intermediate material
known as clinker. Gypsum is interground with clinker to form portland cement. Gypsum content
is assumed to be added at 5.15 % (by mass fraction) of portland cement.
Aggregate, Aggregate is a general term that describes a filler material in concrete. Aggregate
generally provides 60 % to 75 % of the concrete volume. Typically, aggregate consists of a
mixture of coarse and fine rocks. Aggregate is either mined or manufactured. Sand and gravel
are examples of mined aggregate. These materials are dug or dredged from a pit, river bottom,
or lake bottom and require little or no processing. Crushed rock is an example of manufactured
aggregate. Crushed rock is produced by crushing and screening quarry rock, boulders, or large-
sized gravel. Approximately half of the coarse aggregate used in the United States is crushed
rock.
Fly Ash. Fly ash is a waste material that results from burning coal to produce electricity. In LCA
terms, fly ash is an environmental outflow of coal combustion, and an environmental inflow of
concrete production. As in most LCAs, this waste product is assumed to be an environmentally
39
-------
Portland
Cement
Production
Functional Unit
of Concrete with
Fly Ash or Slag
Material
Transportation
Fly Ash, Slag
or Limestone
Production
Fine
Aggregate
Production
Coarse
Aggregate
Production
Figure 3.2 Concrete with Blended Cements Flow Chart
Table 3.1 Concrete Constituent Quantities by Cement Blend and Compressive Strength of
Concrete
Concrete
Constituent
Cement and Fly Ash,
Slag, or 5 %
Limestone
Coarse Aggregate
Fine Aggregate
Water
Cement and 10 %
Limestone
Coarse Aggregate
Fine Aggregate
Water
Cement and 20 %
Limestone
Coarse Aggregate
Fine Aggregate
Water
Constituent Density
in kg/m3
flb/yd3)
21MPa
(3000lb/in2)
223 (376)
1 127 (1 900)
831 (1 400)
141 (237)
236 (397)
1 127 (1 900)
831 (1 400)
148 (250)
265 (447)
1 127(1900)
831 (1 400)
167(281)
28MPa
(4000lb/in2)
279 (470)
1 187(2000)
771 (1 300)
141 (237)
294 (496)
1 187 (2 000)
771 (1 300)
147 (248)
331 (558)
1 127 (1 900)
771(1300)
166 (279)
34MPa
(5 000 lb/in2)
335 (564)
1 187 (2 000)
712 (1 200)
141 (237)
353 (595)
1 187 (2 000)
712 (1 200)
148 (250)
397 (670)
1 187 (2 000)
653 (1 100)
167 (281)
40
-------
"free" input material.60 However, transport of the fly ash to the ready mix plant is included.
Slag. Slag is a waste material that is a result of the production of steel. Similar to fly ash, slag is
an environmental outflow of steel production and an environmental inflow of concrete
production. Therefore, slag is considered to be an environmentally "free" input material. Unlike
fly ash, slag must be processed prior to inclusion in concrete. Processing consists of quenching
and granulating at the steel mill, transport to the grinding facility, and finish grinding.
Transportation to the ready mix plant is included.
Limestone. Limestone is an abundant resource that may be used as a partial replacement for
Portland cement. While not common practice in the United States, limestone is used as a partial
replacement for portland cement in some European countries. The concrete mix designs used in
BEES are estimates based on available literature and have not been tested in the laboratory.
Mixes at the higher limestone replacement levels are based on limited data.
Energy Requirements: Portland Cement. Portland cement is manufactured using one of four
processes: wet process, dry process, preheater, or precalciner. The wet process is the oldest and
uses the most energy due to the energy required to evaporate the water. New cement
manufacturing plants are being constructed, and older plants converted, to use the more energy
efficient preheater or precalciner processes. As of 1999, the mix of production processes was
21 % wet, 18 % dry, 20 % preheater, and 41 % precalciner. Table 3.2 presents U.S. industry-
average energy use by process and fuel type, and, for all processes combined, average energy use
weighted by the 1996 process mix. Note that the production of waste fuels is assumed to be free
of any environmental burdens to portland cement production (LCA dictates that waste fuel
production burdens be allocated to the product whose manufacture generated the waste fuels).
Aggregate. In BEES, coarse and fine aggregate are assumed to be crushed rock, which tends to
slightly overestimate the energy use of aggregate production. Production energy for both coarse
and fine aggregate is assumed to be 155 kJ/kg of aggregate (66.8 Btu/lb).
Fly Ash. Fly ash is a waste material with no production energy burdens.
60 The environmental burdens associated with waste products are typically allocated to the products generating
the waste.
41
-------
Fuel Use
Coal
Petroleum Coke
Natural Gas
Liquid Fuels**
Wastes
Electricity
All Fuels:
Total Energy in
kJ/kg of cement
(Btu/lb)
Wet
50
16
4
1
21
8
100
6570
(2 820)
Cement Manufacturing
Long Dry
55
27
5
1
3
9
100
6060
(2 610)
Preheater
71
9
5
1
2
12
100
4900
(2 100)
'Process*
Precalciner
63
10
10
1
4
12
100
4520
(1940)
Weighted
Average
59
15
7
1
8
10
100
5320
(2 280)
* Cement constitutes 10 % to 15 % by mass fraction of the total mass of concrete.
** Liquid fuels include gasoline, middle distillated, residual oil, and light petroleum gas
Slag. Similar to fly ash, slag is a waste material and therefore does not include energy burdens
associated with steel production. Because slag requires processing prior to incorporation into
concrete, the energy use for granulation and grinding are included. Production energy is
assumed to be 465 kJ/kg of slag (200 Btu/lb).
Limestone. Energy burdens for limestone production are included.
Round-trip distances for transport of concrete raw materials to the ready mix plant are assumed
to be 97 km (60 mi) for portland cement and fly ash, 216 km (134 mi) for slag, and 80km
(50 mi) for aggregate. The method of transport is truck, consuming 1.18kJ/kg»km
(0.818 Btu/lb»mi).
/•
Concrete. In BEES, concrete is assumed to be produced in a central ready-mix operation.
Energy use in the batch plant includes electricity and fuel used for heating and mobile
equipment. Average energy use is assumed to be 247 MJ/m3 of concrete (0.179 MBtu/yd3), or
about 0.10 MJ/kg (45 Btu/lb) of concrete.
Emissions. Emissions for concrete raw materials are from the Portland Cement Association
cement LCA database. Emissions include particulate matter, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), total hydrocarbons, and hydrogen
chloride (HC1). Emissions vary for the different combinations of compressive strength and
blended cements as shown in the concrete environmental performance data files.
42
-------
Installation and Use. Installing each of the BEES concrete applications requires different
quantities of plywood forms and steel reinforcement as shown in Table 3.3. The quantities used
are drawn from the R.S. Means publication, 1997 Building Construction Cost Data (p. 488).
Table 3.3 Concrete Form and Reinforcint
Building^
Element
Slabs
Basement
Walls
Columns
Beams
Compressive
Strength
MPa (lb/in2)
21 (3 000)
21 (3 000)
28 (4 000)
34 (5 000)
28 (4 000)
34 (5 000)
Plywood
Forms
(SFCA/functi
onal unit)
1.03
0
65
65
54
54
Steel
Reinforcing
(Ib/fPfor
slabs, Ib/yd3
for rest)
3.88
44
290
290
145
145
? Requirements
Comment
For 7.62 m (25 ft) span
For 0.20 m (8 hi) thick, 2.44 m
(8 ft) high walls. Plywood wall
forms are reused over 75 times
and steel wall forms over 300
times; hence those elements are
not taken into account.
For 0.51 m x 0.51 m (20 in x 20
in) columns with a 7.62 m (25
ft) span. The steel value is
twice the amount for beams.
The steel amounts af e between
90 kg/m3 and 645 kg/m3
(150 Ib/yd3 and 1 080 Ib/yd3).
Values for forms and
reinforcement provided for 28
MPa (4 000 lb/in2) columns are
used for 34 MPa (5 000 lb/in2)
columns.
For 7.62 m (25 ft) span beams.
Values for forms and
reinforcement provided for 21
MPa (3 000 lb/in2) beams are
used For 28 Mpa (4 000 lb/in2)
and 34 MPa (5 000 lb/in2)
beams.
Notes: 1. Plywood is reused 4 times, each time with a 10 % loss. Plywood forms are!2.7 mm (0.5 in) thick and
their surface density is 5.88 kg/m2 (1.17 Ib/ft2). Plywood production impacts are the same as those
reported for the BEES Plywood Wall Sheathing product.
2. SFCA=0.09 m2 (1 ft2) contact area.
3. Steel reinforcing is made from 100 % recycled steel.
Beams, columns, basement walls, and slabs are all assumed to have 75-year lifetimes. Portland
cement is assumed to be used once for soil treatment over a 50-year period.
43
-------
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for these products may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Life-cycle cost data
include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency
of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and
repair). Costs are listed under the products' BEES codes as listed in Table 4.1. First cost data are
collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future
cost data are based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building
Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data
have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.1.2 Lafarge North America Products (A1030: J, L-N, P; A2020: J, L-P; B1011: J, L-P,
B1012: S, U-X, AA-DD; G1030A; G2022G)
Lafarge North America, part of the Lafarge Group, is a large, diversified supplier of cement,
aggregates and concrete, and other materials for residential, commercial, institutional, and public
works construction in the United States and Canada. Five Lafarge products are included hi
BEES; their environmental performance data may be browsed in the BEES software by opening
their corresponding environmental data files as given in table 4.1:
• Silica Fume Cement (SFC). A mixture of portland cement (90 %) and silica fume (10 %)
• Ne\vCem Slag Cement. Ground granulated blast furnace slag used as a partial replacement for
portland cement
• BlockSet. A blend of cement kiln dust, fly ash, and cement used to make concrete blocks for
basement walls
• Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) Soil Enhancer. A coproduct of cement production used as a soil
enhancer
• Portland Type I Cement.
BEES data for Silica Fume Cement, BlockSet, and CKD Soil Enhancer products come from the
Lafarge plant in Paulding, Ohio, with an annual production of 436 810 metrip tons (481 500
short tons) of SFC, Type I, and masonry cement. The Lafarge South Chicago location
manufactures a total of 816 466 metric tons (900 000 short tons) of slag products. While most
data reflect 2001 production results, some emissions date from 1996. Data for the Portland Type
I Cement product come from the Lafarge plant in Alpena, Michigan, with an annual production
of 2 059 310 metric tons (2 270 000 short tons). The Portland Cement manufactured in Alpena
is shipped by lake vessels to terminals around the Great Lakes. Data predominantly reflect 2001
production results, with some raw material consumption data dating to 1999. These cenientitious
products are incorporated in different concrete products in BEES as shown in Table 3.4.
44
-------
Table 3.4 Lafarge North America Concrete Products
BEES Building Element
Concrete for Slabs, Basement Walls,
Beams and Columns
Concrete for Slabs, Basement Walls,
Beams and Columns
Concrete for Slabs, Basement Walls,
Beams and Columns
Concrete for Basement Walls
Soil Treatment
Parking Lot Paving
Lafarge
Product
Silica
Fume
Cement
Slag
Cement
Alpena
Portland
Type I
BlockSet
Cement
Kiln
Dust
Alpena
Portland
Type I
Specifications
1 kg of SFC is equivalent to 1 kg of generic
Portland cement. Fully 100 % of the portland
cement is replaced by SFC.
1 kg of slag cement is equivalent to 1 kg of
generic portland cement. The following
substitution ratios of slag cement for portland
cement are used: 20 %, 35 %, 50 %.
1 kg of Alpena portland Type I cement is
equivalent to 1 kg of generic portland cement
1 kg of BlockSet is equivalent to 1 kg of
generic portland cement. Forty percent (40 %)
of the portland cement is replaced by
BlockSet.
1 kg of CKD replaces 1 kg of portland cement
1 kg Alpena portland Type I cement is
equivalent to 1 kg of generic portland cement
used in the concrete layer of paving.
Raw Materials. The five Lafarge products are comprised of the raw materials given in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Lafarge Product Constituents
Constituent
Limestone
Clay
Silica Fume
Sand
Gypsum
Slag
Fly Ash
Iron source
Silica
Fume
Cement
72%
16%
5%
3%
3%
—
<0.01 %
1%
Slag
Cement
—
'—
—
—
—
100 %
. __
—
BlockSet
76%
16%
—
3%
3%
--
O.01 %
1%
Cement
Kiln Dust
76%
16%
—
3%
3%
—
O.01 %
1%
Alpena
Portland Type
I
91%
—
—
3%
—
—
5%
1%
Energy consumption and air emissions data for clay and limestone production were provided by
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. These data take into account fuel combustion,
quarry operations, and haul roads (1.61 km, or 1 mile, to the Paulding cement plant and 3.22 km,
or 2 miles, to the Alpena site).
45
-------
Silica fume is a by-product of the metallurgical processes used in the production of silicon
metals. It is called "fume" because it is an extremely fine smoke-like participate material.
Because it is both pozzolanic and extremely fine (about 100 times finer than cement particles),
silica fume may be used to considerable advantage as a supplementary cementitious material in
Portland cement concrete. Silica fume has been used in the North American cement and
concrete industry for over 20 years and can be used in concretes to withstand aggressive
exposure conditions. Silica fume is transported to the Paulding plant by truck 241 km (150 mi).
Sand production takes into account energy combustion, waste production, and air emissions from
fuel combustion and quarry operations. Sand is transported to the Paulding and Alpena plants by
truck (80 km, or 50 mi, and 16 km, or 10 mi, respectively).
Gypsum production takes into account electricity and diesel fuel consumption used in surface
mining and processing, as well as air emissions and waste production. Gypsum is transported to
the Paulding plant by truck (97 km, or 60 mi)
Slag is a waste material from the blast furnace during the production of pig iron. Blast furnaces,
which produce iron from iron ore in the presence of limestone or dolomite fluxes, produce a
molten slag. This slag is tapped off the furnace separately from the iron. Slag is transported to
the South Chicago location by truck (32 km, or 20 mi).
The iron source for the Paulding site is mill scale, a by-product from hot rolling steel. It is
transported to the Paulding plant by truck (32 km, or 20 mi).
Fly ash production takes into account transportation from the production site (322 km, or 200 mi,
by rail). Fly ash is the fine ash resulting from burning coal in electric utility plants.
Manufacturing. The Paulding site uses electricity, petroleum coke, diesel oil and fuel-quality
waste (primarily solvents) as energy sources to produce silica fume cement, BlockSet, and
cement dust. Fuel-quality waste is the largest source of energy for the plant. Material and
energy consumption are allocated on a mass basis to the different coproducts of the plant (SFC,
class I masonry cements, BlockSet and CKD), except for silica fume, which is entirely allocated
to the SFC product.
To prepare for use in concrete, slag is quenched with water and ground. Since the water
evaporates, there is no effluent run off. Water, electricity, and natural gas consumption are taken
into account.
The Alpena site uses electricity, coke, coal, diesel oil, fuel oil, and gasoline as energy sources to
produce portland Type I cement. Coke and coal are the largest energy sources for the site.
Material and energy consumption are allocated on a mass basis to the different coproducts of the
plant (Type I/H cement, Type m cement, mortar cement and CKD).
46
-------
Use. Beams, columns, basement walls, and slabs are all assumed to have 75-year lifetimes.
Cement kiln dust is assumed to be used once for soil treatment over a 50-year period. Concrete
parking lot paving is assumed to last 30 years.
Transportation. Transportation of finished products to the building site is evaluated based on the
same parameters given for the generic counterparts to Lafarge products. All products are shipped
by diesel truck. Emissions from transportation allocated to each product depend on the overall
weight of the product.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for Lafarge products may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed under the
Lafarge BEES codes as listed in Table 4.1. First cost data include purchase and installation costs.
Purchase costs were provided by Lafarge and installation costs were collected from the R.S.
Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Future cost data are based on data
published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost
Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002
dollars.
3.1.3 ISG Resources Concrete Products (A1030K, A2020K, B1011T, B1011Y, B1012T,
B1012Y, B2011:G-I, G2022F)
Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, ISG Resources supplies materials to products as diverse
as ready-mix concrete, precast concrete, roofing, carpeting, mortar, and stucco. Five ISG
products are included in BEES; their environmental performance data may be browsed hi the
BEES software by opening their corresponding environmental data files as given in table 4.1:
• Masonry Cement Type N. Meets ASTM C-91 Type N standard for masonry cement.
• Masonry Cement Type S. Meets ASTM C-91 Type S standard for masonry cement.
• Mason's Portland. Meets ASTM C-595 Type IP standard for blended hydraulic cement.
Used as a replacement for ASTM C-150 Type 1 portland cement.
• Scratch & Brown Stucco Cement. Meets ASTM C-1328 Type S standard for plastic (Stucco)
cement. Used as a replacement for job-site-mixed stuccos (usually portland and lime or
portland and masonry cement) under ASTM C-926.
• One-Coat Stucco. Produced and sold under ICBO Evaluation Report No. 4776 and NES
Evaluation Report 459. At this time there are no ASTM standards for this class of products.
These five products are sold under the following brand names:
• Best
• Hill Country
• Magna Wall
BEES data for these products are based on 2001 data from the manufacturer's San Antonio,
Texas plant, with an annual production of 14 000 tons. These cementitious products are
incorporated hi different concrete products in BEES as shown in Table 3.6.
47
-------
Table 3.6 ISG Resources Concrete Products
BEES Building Element
ISG Resources
Product
Specifications
Concrete for Slabs,
Basement Walls, Beams and
Columns
Mason's Portland
(Type IP)
1 kg of Mason's Portland is equivalent to
1 kg of generic Portland Cement. Fully
100 % of the Portland Cement is replaced
by Mason's Portland Cement.
Exterior Wall Finishes
3-coat Stucco
Masonry Cement
Type S or Scratch
& Brown Stucco
Cement
Scratch & Brown
Stucco Cement
TypeS
1-coat Stucco
One-Coat Stucco
Brick and Mortar
Masonry Cement
TypeN
Masonry Cement
TypeS
1 kg of Masonry Cement Type S
produced by ISG Resources or 1 kg of
Scratch & Brown Stucco Cement
produced by ISG Resources replaces 1
kg of traditional Masonry Cement Type
S used in generic stucco. Fully 100 % of
the traditional cement is replaced by
ISO's Masonry Cement.
1 kg of Scratch & Brown Stucco Cement
Type S produced by ISG Resources
replaces 1 kg of traditional Masonry
Cement Type S used in generic stucco.
Fully 100 % of the traditional cement is
replaced by ISO's Scratch and Brown
Stucco Cement.
1 kg of One-Coat Stucco produced by
ISG Resources replaces 2 kg of
traditional Masonry Cement. Fully
100 % of the traditional cement is
replaced by ISO's One-Coat Stucco. The
metallic lath weighs either 0.95 kg/m2
(1.75 lbs/yd2) or 1.36 kg/rn2 (2.50 Ibs/
yd2). The lighter-weight lath is used in
60 % of the applications.
1 kg of Masonry Cement type N
produced by ISG Resources replaces 1
kg of traditional Masonry Cement Type
N used in the mortar. Fully 100 % of the
traditional cement is replaced by ISO's
Masonry Cement.
1 kg of Masonry Cement Type S
produced by ISG Resources replaces 1
kg of traditional Masonry Cement Type
S used in the mortar. Fully 100 % of the
traditional cement is replaced by ISO's
Masonry Cement.
48
-------
Raw Materials. The five ISG Resources products are comprised of the raw materials given in
Table 3.7.
Table 3.7 ISG Resources Product Constituents
Constituent
Fly Ash (class F)
Portland Cement (gray, type
I)
Hydrated Lime (type S)
Polypropylene Fibers
Masonry
Cement
typeN
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Masonry
Cement
typeS
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Mason's
Portland
Yes
Yes
No
No
Scratch &
Brown
Stucco
Cement
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
One-Coat
Stucco
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The BEES generic portland cement data are used for the portland cement constituent. Portland
cement is transported by truck over 48 km (30 mi).
t -\
Fly Ash production takes into account transportation from the production site (660 km, or
410 mi, by truck). Fly ash comes from coal-fired, electricity-generating power plants. These
power plants grind coal to a powder fineness before it is burned. Fly ash — the mineral residue
produced by burning coal — is captured from the power plant's exhaust gases and collected for
use. Fly ash particles are nearly spherical in shape, allowing them to flow and blend freely in
mixtures, one of the properties making fly ash a desirable admixture for concrete.
Hydrated Lime Production takes into account limestone extraction, crushing and calcination, and
quick lime hydration. Half the yield from limestone crushing (by mass) consists of small pieces
that are sold for other purposes. An allocation rule for limestone crushing was therefore
required, and assigned half the crushing electricity consumption to hydrated lime production.
Hydrated lime is transported by truck over 51 km (32 mi).
Manufacturing. Raw materials are brought to the plant in 18-wheel tankers and blown into silos.
Material drops from the silos to a weigh-batcher, a blender, and a bagger. Only one product is
produced at a time for at least a full day before changing products. Since all gray (fly ash
containing) products are related, changing products consists of tapping the system down and
bagging the last of the product in the system. Allocation of the resources is based on the number
of bags of each product produced. Energy consumed on site is mostly electricity (87 %) and
diesel fuel oil. The site produces solid waste (1 % to 2 % of production) and emits particulates.
Transportation. Transportation of finished products to the building site is evaluated based on the
same parameters given for the generic counterparts to ISG Resources products. All products are
shipped by diesel truck. Emissions from transportation allocated to each product depend on the
overall weight of the product.
Use. Beams, columns, basement walls, and slabs are all assumed to have 75-year lifetimes, and
exterior wall finishes 100-year lifetimes. Concrete parking lot paving is assumed to last 30 years.
49
-------
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for ISG Resources products may be viewed by opening the
file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed under
the ISG Resources BEES codes as listed in Table 4.1. First cost data include purchase and
installation costs. Purchase costs were provided by ISG Resources and installation costs were
collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Future cost
data are based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building
Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data
have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.2 Roof and Wall Sheathing Alternatives (B1020, B2015)
3.2.1 Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing (B1020A, B2015A)
Oriented strand board (OSB) is made from strands of low density wood. A wax, primarily a
petroleum-based wax, is used to bind the strands. Resins, mainly phenolic resin with some
Methylene Diphenyl Isocyanate (MDI) resin, are also used as a binder material in making most
OSB. For the BEES system, 1.1 cm (7/16 in) thick OSB boards are studied. The flow diagram in
Figure 3.3 shows the major elements of oriented strand board production.
BEES performance data are provided for both roof and wall sheathing. Life-cycle costs differ for
the two applications, while the environmental performance data are assumed to be the same. The
detailed environmental performance data for OSB roof and wall sheathing may be viewed by
opening the file B1020A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials. Energy use for timber production is based on studies by Forintek and Procter &
Gamble.61 The average energy use reported is 0.22 MJ/kg (95 Btu/lb) of greenwood produced,
assumed to be in the form of diesel fuel for tractors. Tailpipe emissions from tractors and
emissions associated with production of diesel fuel are included based on the DEAM database.
BEES also accounts for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees. The "uptake" of carbon
dioxide during the growth of timber is assumed to be 1.74 kg of carbon dioxide per kg of
greenwood harvested. The volume of wood harvested is based on an average density of
500 kg/m3 (31 lb/ft3), with aspen at 450 kg/m3 (28 lb/ft3) and Southern yellow pine at 550 kg/m3
(341b/ft3).
Transportation of Raw Materials to Manufacturing Plant. For transportation of raw materials
to the manufacturing plant, BEES assumes truck transportation of 161 km (100 mi) for wood
timber and truck transportation of 322 km (200 mi) for both the resins and the wax. The tailpipe
61 Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development — Raw Material
Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, March. 1993;
Ash, Knoblock, and Peters, Energy Analysis of Energy from the Forest Options, ENFOR Project P-59,1990; B. N.
Johnson, "Inventory of Land Management Inputs for Producing Absorbent Fiber for Diapers: A Comparison of
Cotton and Softwood Land Management," Forest Products Journal, vol 44, no. 6,1994.
50
-------
Timber
Production
*
'
Transportation
(track)
161 km (100 mi)
Resin Production
i
Transportation T
(truck)
322 km (200 mi) 32
| ,
Electricity
Production
, |
cturing
Transportation
(50% rail/50% truck)
161-805-1609 km sensitivity
(100-500-1000 mi)
i
r
Installation — Waste-»
i
I
Petroleum
Wax
Production
1 r
ransportation
(truck)
2 km (200 mi)
>
Figure 3.3 Oriented Strand Board Flow Chart
emissions from the trucks and the emissions from producing the fuel used in the trucks are taken
into account based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Manufacturing. The components and energy requirements for OSB manufacturing are based on
a study performed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).62 Table 3.8 shows
the constituents of OSB production.
Table 3.8 Oriented Strand Board Sheathing Constituents
Component
Wood
Resin
Wax
Total:
Input
(kg/kg product)
1.365
0.023
0.010
1.398
In Final Product
(kg/kg)
• 0.967
0.023
0.010
1
In Final
Product (%)
96.7
2.3
1.0
100
There is no waste from the OSB manufacturing process. All the input resin (mainly phenolic
resin with some Methylene Diphenyl Isocyanate (MDI) resin) and the wax are assumed to go
into
62Spelter H, Wang R, and Lice P, Economic Feasibility of Products from Inland West Small-Diameter Timber,
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ( May 1996).
51
-------
the final product and the excess wood material is assumed to be burned on site for fuel.
The energy for the OSB manufacturing process is generated from burning the wood waste and
from purchased electricity. The amount of electricity used is assumed to be 612 MJ/kg
(263.2 Btu/lb) of OSB produced.
The emissions from the OSB manufacturing process are based on a Forintek Canada Corporation
Study, as reported in Table 3.9.63 Since these emissions are assumed to be from combustion of
the wood residue and any volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from drying the OSB, the
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are all assumed to be biomass-based. VOC emissions are
reduced by 30% to account for process improvements over time. Electricity production
emissions are based on a standard US electricity grid.
Table 3.9 Oriented Strand Board Manufacturing Emissions
Value
Emission (per oven dry tonne of OSB)
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxides
Sulfur Dioxide
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Particulates
uviz,ii my iisririiz tfj \
488 kg (1 076 Ib)
91 g (3.2 oz)
43g(1.5oz)
685 g (24.2 oz)
159g(5.6oz)
161 g (5.7 oz)
502 g (17.7 oz)
The resin used in OSB production is assumed to be 80 % phenolic resin and 20 % Methylene
Diphenyl Isocyanate. Data representing the production of both resins are derived from the
PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
The wax used in the production of OSB is assumed to be petroleum wax. Production of the
petroleum wax is based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database and includes the extraction,
transportation, and refining of crude oil into petroleum wax.
Transportation from Manufacturing to Use. Transportation of OSB to the building site is
modeled as a variable of the BEES system, with equal portions by truck and rail. Emissions
associated with the combustion of fuel in the train and truck engines are included as are the
emissions associated with producing the fuel, both based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers
database.
Installation and Use. Installation waste with a mass fraction of 0.015 is assumed. The product is
assumed to have a useful life of 50 years.
63-
Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development: Raw Material
Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, Marcli 1993, p
27.
52
-------
Cost. Installation costs for OSB sheathing yary by application. The detailed life-cycle cost data
for this product may be viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu
item hi the BEES software. Its costs are listed under the following codes:
• B1020,AO—Oriented Strand Board Roof Sheathing
• B2015,AO—Oriented Strand Board Wall Sheathing
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.2.2 Generic Plywood Sheathing (B1020B, B2015B)
Plywood sheathing is made from lower density wood. Phenol formaldehyde is used in the
manufacturing process. For the BEES system, 1.3 cm (1/2 in) thick plywood boards are studied.
The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.4 shows the major elements of plywood sheathing
production.
BEES performance data are provided for both roof and wall sheathing. Life-cycle costs differ for
the two applications, while the environmental performance data are assumed to be the same. The
detailed environmental performance data for plywood roof and wall sheathing may be viewed by
opening the file B 1020B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials. BEES accounts for energy use during timber production. Energy use was based
on studies by Forintek and Procter & Gamble.64 The average energy use reported was
0.22 MJ/kg (95 Btu/lb) of greenwood produced, assumed to be in the form of diesel fuel for
tractors. Tailpipe emissions from tractors and emissions associated with production of diesel fuel
are included based on the DEAM database.
BEES also accounts for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees. The "uptake" of carbon
dioxide during the growth of timber is assumed to be 1.74 kg of carbon dioxide per kilogram of
greenwood harvested. The volume of wood harvested is based on an average density of
600kg/m3(37.51b/ft3).
64 Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development - Raw Material
Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, March 1993;
Ash, Knoblock, and Peters, Energy Analysis of Energy from the Forest Options, ENFOR Project P-59,1990; B. N.
Johnson, "Inventory of Land Management Inputs for Producing Absorbent Fiber for Diapers: A Comparison of
Cotton and Softwood Land Management," Forest Products Journal, vol 44, no. 6,1994.
53
-------
Transportation of Raw Materials to Manufacturing Plant. For transportation of raw materials
to the manufacturing plant, BEES assumes truck transportation of 161 km (100 mi) for wood
timber and truck transportation of 322 km (200 mi) for the resin. The tailpipe emissions from
the trucks and the emissions from producing the fuel used in the trucks are taken into account
based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Transportation
(truck)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
322 km (200 mi)
Electricity
Production
Manufacturing
' Transportation
(50% rail/50% truck)
161-805-1609 km sensitivity
(100-500-1000 mi)
Waste>
Figure 3.4 Plywood Sheathing Flow Chart
Manufacturing. The components and energy requirements for plywood manufacturing are based
on a Forintek Canada Corporation study . Table 3.10 shows the constituents of plywood
production.
Table 3.10 Plywood Constituents
Constituent
Wood
Resin
Total:
Input
(kg/kg product)
1.51
0.101
1.611
In Final Product
(kg/kg)
0.899
0.101
1
In Final
Product (%)
89.9
10.1
100
There is no waste from the plywood manufacturing process. All the input resin, phenol
formaldehyde, is assumed to go into the final product and the residual wood material in the form
of bark and wasted veneers is assumed to be burned on site for fuel (except for some waste
veneer's cores, which are normally sold for landscaping timber or converted into chips for pulp).
65 Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development: Raw Material
Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, March 1993, pp
20-24.
54
-------
The energy for the plywood manufacturing process is generated from burning the wood waste
and from purchased electricity. The amount of electricity used is based on the Forintek study
and is assumed to be 351 MJ/t (151 Btu/lb) of oven dry plywood produced. Electricity
production emissions are based on a standard U.S. electricity grid. The emissions from the
plywood manufacturing process are based on the Forintek Canada Corporation study, as reported
in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Plywood Manufacturing Emissions
Emission
Amount
(per oven dry tonne of plywood)
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxides
Sulfur Dioxide
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Particulates
500 kg (1102.3 Ib)
112g(3.95oz)
35g(1.2oz)
668 g (23.6 oz)
30g(l.loz)
408 g (14.4 oz)
699 g (24.7 oz)
Since emissions are assumed to be from combustion of the wood residue and any VOC
emissions from drying the plywood, CO2 emissions are all assumed to be biomass-based.
The glue used in bonding plywood consists of phenolic resin in liquid form combined with
extender (dry fibers) assumed to be caustic soda. Data for the production of this glue are based
on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Transportation from Manufacturing to Use. Transportation of plywood to the building site is
modeled as a variable of the BEES system, with equal portions by truck and rail. Emissions
associated with the combustion of fuel in the train and truck engines are included as are the
emissions associated with producing the fuel, both based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers
database.
Installation and Use. Installation waste with a mass fraction of 0.015 is assumed. The product
is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years.
Cost. Installation costs for plywood vary by application. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this
product may be viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in
the BEES software. Its costs are listed under the following codes:
• B1020,BO—Plywood Roof Sheathing
• B2015,BO—Plywood Wall Sheathing
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
55
-------
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.3 Exterior Wall Finish Alternatives (B2011)
3.3.1 Generic Brick and Mortar (B2011A)
Brick is a masonry unit of clay or shale, formed into a rectangular shape while plastic, then
burned or fired in a kiln. Mortar is used to bond the bricks into a single unit. Facing brick is used
on exterior walls for an attractive appearance.
For the BEES system, solid, fired clay facing brick (10 cm x 6.8 cm x 20 cm, or 4 in x 22/3 in x
8 in) and Type N mortar are studied. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.5 shows the major
elements of clay facing brick and mortar production. The detailed environmental performance
data for this product may be viewed by opening the file B2011A.DBF under the File/Open menu
item in the BEES software.
Brick and Mortar
Natural
Gas
Production
Clay Mining
. T
Electricity
Production
Coal
Production
Diesel Fuel
Production
Sawdust
Production
j
Electricity
Production
Fuel Oil
Production
Figure 3.5 Brick and Mortar Flow Chart
56
-------
Raw Materials. Production of the raw materials for brick and mortar are based on the DEAM
database. Type N mortar consists of 1 part (volume fraction) masonry cement, 3 parts sand,66 and
6.3 L (1.67 gal) of water. Masonry cement is modeled based on the assumptions outlined below
for stucco exterior walls.
Energy Required. The energy requirements for brick production are listed in Table 3.12. These
figures include the drying and firing production steps only, based on an industry report stating
that these are the most important steps in terms of energy use. The production of the. different
types of fuel is based on the DEAM database.
Table 3.12 Energy Requirements for Brick Manufacturing
Fuel Use
Manufacturing Energy
Total Fossil Fuel
% Coal
% Natural Gas*
% Fuel Oil
% Wood
2.88 MJ/kg (1 238 Bru/lb)
9.6 %
71.9 %
7.8 %
10.8 %
* Includes Propane
The mix of brick manufacturing technologies is 73 % tunnel kiln technology and 27 % periodic
kiln technology.
The mortar is assumed to be mixed in a 5.9 kW (8 hp), gasoline powered mixer with a mortar
flow rate of 0.25 m3/h (9 ft3/h), running for 5 min.
Emissions. Emissions are based on AP-4267 data for emissions from brick manufacturing for
each manufacturing technology and type of fuel burned.
Transportation. Transportation of the raw materials to the brick manufacturing facility is not
taken into account (often manufacturing facilities are located close to mines). However,
transportation to the building site is modeled as a variable. Bricks are assumed to be transported
by truck and train (86 % and 14 %, respectively) to the building site. The BEES user can select
from among three travel distances.
Use. The density of brick is assumed to be 2.95 kg (6.5 Ib) per brick. The density of the Type N
mortar is assumed to be 2 002 kg/m3 (125 lb/ft3). A brick wall is assumed to be 80 % brick and
20 % mortar by surface area.
End-Of-Life. The brick wall is assumed to have a useful life of 100 years. Seventy-five percent
(75 %) of the bricks are assumed to be recycled after the 100-year use.
66 Based on ASTM Specification C 270-96.
67 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors, Version
6.0, EPA 454/C-98-005, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, October 1998.
57
-------
Cost The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B2011, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.3.2 Generic Stucco (TB2011B)
Stucco is cement plaster used to cover exterior wall surfaces. For the BEES system, three coats
of stucco (two base coats and one finish coat) are studied. A layer of bonding agent, polyvinyl
acetate, is assumed to be applied between the wall and the first layer of base coat stucco.
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show the elements of stucco production from both portland cement (for a
base coat Type C plaster, finish coat Type F plaster) and masonry cement (for a base coat Type
MS plaster, finish coat Type F plaster). Since both cements are commonly used for stucco
exterior walls, LCA data for both portland cement and masonry cement stucco were collected
and then averaged for use in the BEES system.
The detailed, environmental performance data for stucco exterior walls may be viewed by
opening the file B2011B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials. The raw material consumption for masonry cement is based on Type N masonry
cement as shown in Table 3.13.
Table 3.13 Masonry Cement Constituents
Masonry Cement Constituent Mass Fraction
Portland Cement Clinker
Limestone
Gypsum
50
47.5
2.4
Production of these raw materials is based on the DEAM database.
Stucco consists of the raw materials listed in Table 3.14.68
The coat of bonding agent is assumed to be 0.15 mm (0.006 in) thick. The bonding agent is
polyvinyl acetate. Production of sand, lime, and polyvinyl acetate is based on the
PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
68
Based on ASTM Specification C 926-94.
58
-------
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for masonry cement production are shown in
Table 3.15.
Stucco
Figure 3.6 Stucco (Type C) Flow Chart
Stucco
Functional Unit of
Stucco
/
Exterior Wall
Bonding Agent Stucco (Type MS) Trlr^ort
Production Production — (£™ }
'
\
End-of-U'fe
Ethylene Acetic acid Oxygen ramart Sand Gasoline
Production Production Production production M'n'n9 Production
4 . j >
sn£=F>-,rr,,
' L
Masonry
Cement
Production
Hectricity Electricity Electricity
Production Production Production
Sand Gasoline
Mining Production
Electricity
Production
Figure3.7Stucco (TypeMS) Flow Chart
59
-------
Table 3.14 Stucco Constituents
Type of Stucco
Cementitious Materials (volume fraction)
Portland Masonry Lime
Cement Cement
Sand
(volume fraction
of cementitious
material)
Base Coat C
Finish Coat F
Base Coat MS
Finish Coat FMS
1
1
1
1
0.5
1.125
3.75
2.25
3.75
2.25
Table 3.15 Energy Requirements for Masonry Cement Manufacturing
Fuel Use
Manufacturing Energy
Total Fossil Fuel
% Coal
% Natural Gas
% Fuel Oil
% Wastes
Total Electricity
2.72 MJ/kg(l 169 Btu/lb)
84
7
1
8
0.30 MJ/kg (129 Btu/lb)
These percentages are based on average fuel use in portland cement manufacturing.
Stucco is assumed to be mixed in a 5.9 kW (8 hp), gasoline powered mixer with a stucco flow
rate of 0.25 m3/h (9 ft3/h), running for 5 min.
Emissions. Emissions for masonry cement production are based on AP-42 data for controlled
emissions from cement manufacturing. Clinker is assumed to be produced in a wet process kiln.
Transportation. Transportation distance to the building site is modeled as a variable.
Use. The thickness of the three layers of stucco is assumed to be 1.6 cm (5/8 in) each. The
densities of the different types of stucco are shown in Table 3.16. A lath made of 100 % recycled
steel is assumed to be used when applying stucco. The product is assumed to have a useful life of
100 years.
Table 3.16 Density of Stucco by Type
Density
Type of Stucco kg/m3(lb/ft3)
Base Coat C
Finish Coat F
Base Coat MS
Finish Coat FMS
1830(114.18)
1 971 (122.97)
1907(118.98)
2 175 (135.69)
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B2011, product code BO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
60
-------
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.3.3 Generic Aluminum Siding (B2011C)
Aluminum siding is a commonly-used exterior wall cladding. It is very attractive for its weight
and durability, weighing less and lasting longer than traditional wood and vinyl siding. The
manufacture of any aluminum product consists of many steps — crude oil production, distillation
and desalting, hydrotreating of crude oil, salt mining, caustic soda manufacturing, limestone
mining., lime manufacture, bauxite mining, alumina production, coal mining, coke production,
aluminum smelting, and ingot casting. These manufacturing steps, however, are not assigned to
aluminum siding in BEES for two reasons: (1) aluminum is one of the few commodities for
which a mature recycling market exists, and (2) aluminum can be recycled into the same
products over and over again without loss of technical performance. In other words, aluminum
for siding is assumed to be produced through a closed loop recycling system. For the BEES
system, 0.061 cm (0.024 in) thick, 20 cm (8 in) wide horizontal siding is studied. The aluminum
siding is assumed to be fastened with aluminum nails 41 cm (16 in) on center. The flow diagram
in Figure 3.8 shows the major elements of aluminum siding production.
Functional Unit of
Aluminum Siding
Aluminum Siding
Production
Aluminum Sheet
Production
(Closed Loop)
Figure 3.8 Aluminum Siding Flow Chart
Raw Materials. There are a number of aluminum siding products on the market, each with
different proprietary ingredients. The product studied for the BEES system is manufactured as an
aluminum sheet with a Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) thermoset topcoat. Table 3.17 presents the
major constituents of aluminum siding. Production requirements for these constituents are based
61
-------
on the DEAM database.
Table 3.17 Aluminum Siding Constituents
Constituent
Mass Fraction (%.
Aluminum Sheet
PVC Topcoat
99
1
Transportation. Transport of PVC from its production site to the aluminum siding
manufacturing plant is taken into account. Transportation of manufactured aluminum siding by
heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. Emissions
associated with the combustion of fuel in the truck engines are included, as are the emissions
associated with fuel production, both based on the DEAM database.
Use. Installation waste with a mass fraction of 0.05 is assumed. The product is assumed to have a
useful life of 80 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B2011, product code CO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.3.4 Generic Cedar Siding (B2011D)
Cedar wood is ideal for exterior siding because it is a lightweight, low-density material that
provides adequate weatherproofing. It also provides an attractive exterior wall finish. As with
most wood products, cedar siding production consist of three major steps. First, roundwood is
harvested from logging camps. Second, logs are sent to sawmills and planing mills where the
logs are washed, debarked, and sawed into planks. The planks are edged, trimmed, and dried in a
kiln. The dried planks are then planed and the lumber sent to a final trimming operation. Third,
lumber from the sawmill is shaped into fabricated, milled wood products.
For the BEES system, beveled cedar siding 1.3 cm QA in) thick and 15 cm (6 in) wide is studied.
Cedar siding is assumed to be installed with galvanized nails 41 cm (16 in) on center and
finished with one coat of primer and two coats of stain. Stain is reapplied every 10 years. The
flow diagram in Figure 3.9 shows the major elements of cedar siding production.
62
-------
Functional Unit of
Cedar Siding
Wood Primer
Production
Wood Stain
Production
Cedar Wood
Siding Production
Figure 3.9 Cedar Siding Flow Chart
Raw Materials. Production data for cedar wood is derived from the BEAM database. These data
account for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for cedar siding manufacture are approximately
5.6 MJ/kg (2 413 Btu/lb) of cedar siding produced.69 Table 3.18 shows the breakdown by fuel
type. BEES data for production and combustion of the natural gas, heavy fuel oil, and liquid
petroleum fuels used for cedar siding production are based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers
database.
Table 3.18 Energy Requirements for Cedar Siding Manufacture
Fuel Use70 Manufacturing Energy
Total Fossil Fuel
% Natural Gas
% Heavy Fuel Oil
% Liquid Petroleum Gas
% Hogfuel
5.6 MJ/kg (2 413 Btu/lb)
39.8
4.1
4.1
52
Emissions. The hogfuel emissions from the cedar sawmill are listed in Table 3.19.
69 Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development - Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and
Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, March 1993.
70
Excluding electricity
63
-------
Table 3.19 Hogfuel Emissions
71
Emission
Amount
g/MJwood burned (oz/kWh)
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Methane (CBLt)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Particulates
81.5 (10.35)
0.011 (0.0014)
0.008 (0.001)
0.110(0.014)
0.0002 (0.000025)
0.039 (0.005)
0.708 (0.09)
Transportation. Since sawmills are typically located close to the forested area, transportation of
raw materials to the sawmill is not taken into account. Transport of primer and stain to the
manufacturing plant is included. Transport of cedar siding by track to the building site is
modeled as a variable of BEES. Emissions associated with the combustion of fuel in the truck
engine are included, as are the emissions associated with producing the fuel. Both sets of
emissions data are based "on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Use. The density of cedar siding at 12 % moisture content is assumed to be 449 kg/m3
(28 lb/ft3). At installation, 5 % waste is assumed. The product is assumed to have a useful life of
40 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B2011, product code DO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
33.5 Generic Vinyl Siding (B2011E)
Vinyl siding is attractive for its low maintenance, and cost. Durability under exposure to a wide
variety of weather conditions is another key attraction. Like all plastic materials, vinyl results
from a series of processing steps that convert hydrocarbon-based raw materials (petroleum,
natural gas, or coal) into polymers. The vinyl polymer is based in part on hydrocarbon
feedstocks: ethylene obtained by processing natural gas or petroleum. The other part of the vinyl
polymer is based on the natural element chlorine. Inherent in the vinyl manufacturing process is
the ability to formulate products of virtually any color with any number of performance
71 Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development - Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and
Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, op cit.
64
-------
qualities—including ultraviolet light stabilization, impact resistance, and flexibility—in virtually
any size, shape, or thickness.
Vinyl siding is manufactured in a wide variety of profiles, colors, and thickness' to meet
different market applications. For the BEES system, 0.11 cm (0.0428 in) thick, 23 cm (9 in) wide
horizontal vinyl siding'installed with galvanized nail fasteners is studied. The fasteners are
assumed to be placed 41 cm (16 in) on center. Figure 3.10 shows the major steps for vinyl siding
production.
Functional Unit of
PVC Siding
Galvanized Nail
Production
PVC Siding
Production
Figure 3.10 Vinyl Siding Flow Chart
Raw Materials. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is the main component in the manufacture of vinyl
siding. Titanium dioxide (TiOz) is a chemical additive that is used in the siding as a pigment or
bleaching agent. Table 3.20 presents the proportions of PVC and titanium dioxide in the siding
studied. Data representing the production of raw materials for vinyl siding are based on the
PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Table 3.20 Vinyl Siding Constituents
Constituent
Mass Fraction (%.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Titanium Dioxide (TiO2)
80
20
Transportation. Transportation of raw materials to the manufacturing plant is taken into account.
Transportation of the manufactured siding to the building site by heavy-duty truck is modeled as
a variable of BEES. Emissions associated with the combustion of fuel in the truck engine are
included, as are emissions associated with fuel production. Emissions data are derived from the
PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
65
-------
Use. At installation, 5 % of the product is lost to waste. The product is assumed to have a useful
life of 40 years.
Cost The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B2011, product code EO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.3.6 Trespa Meteon (B2011F)
For documentation on this product, see section 3.8.1.
3.4 Wall and Ceiling Insulation Alternatives (B2012, B3012)
3.4.1 Generic Blown Cellulose Insulation (B2012A, B3012A)
Blown cellulose insulation is produced primarily from post-consumer wood pulp (newspapers),
typically accounting for roughly 80 % of the insulation by weight. Cellulose insulation is treated
with fire retardant. Ammonium sulfate, borates, and boric acid are used most commonly and
account for the other 20 % of the cellulose insulation by weight. The flow diagram shown in
Figure 3.11 shows the elements of blown cellulose insulation production.
BEES performance data are provided for thermal resistance values of R-13 for a wall application
and R-30 for a ceiling application. The amount of cellulose insulation material used per
functional unit is shown in Table 3.21, based on information from the Cellulose Insulation
Manufacturers Association (CIMA).
The detailed environmental performance data files for this product may be viewed by opening
the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• B2012A.DBF—R-13 Blown Cellulose Wall Insulation
• B3012A.DBF—R-30 Blown Cellulose Ceiling Insulation
Transportation of Raw Materials to Manufacturing. Transport of raw materials to the
manufacturing plant is taken into account, assuming truck transportation of 161 km (100 mi) for
wastepaper and truck transportation of 322 km (200 mi) for both the ammonium sulfate and the
boric acid. The tailpipe emissions from the trucks and the emissions from producing the fuel
used in the trucks are based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Manufacturing. The constituents for cellulose insulation manufacture are based on information
from CIMA, as shown in Table 3.22.
66
-------
Ammonium Sulfate
Production
Transportation
(truck)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(track)
322 km (200 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
322 km (200 mi)
80-322-483 km sensitivity
—Waste-*-
Figure 3.11 Blown Cellulose Insulation Flow Chart
Table 3.21 Blown Cellulose Mass by Application
Application
Wall (R-13)
Ceiling (R-30)
Thickness
cm (in)
8.9 (3.5)
20.6(8.1)
Density Mass per Functional Unit
kg/m3 (Ib/f?) kg/m2 (oz/ff)
25.6 (1.6)
25.6 (1.6)
2.26 (7.41)
5.27 (17.28)
Table 3.22 Blown Cellulose Insulation Constituents
Constituent
Wastepaper
Ammonium Sulfate
Boric Acid
Total:
Input
(kg/kg product)
0.80
0.155
0.045
1.0
In Final Product ( %)
80
15.5
4.5
. 100
There are no wastes or water effluents from the manufacturing process. Manufacturing energy is
assumed to come from purchased electricity. The amount of electricity used is based on CIMA
data and a requirement of 0.35 MJ/kg (150 Bru/lb) of cellulose insulation produced. Electricity
production emissions are based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database and a standard U.S.
electricity grid.
67
-------
The only burdens for production of wastepaper are those associated with collection and
transportation of wastepaper to the manufacturing facility.
Ammonium sulfate is assumed to be produced as a co-product of caprolactam production. The
materials and energy used by the process are based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
The boric acid used in the manufacture of cellulose insulation is assumed to be produced from
borax. Production of boric acid is based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Transportation front Manufacturing to Use. Transport of cellulose insulation to the building
site by truck is modeled as a variable of BEES, based on a range of likely distances (80 km,
322 km, and 483 km, or 50 mi, 200 mi, and 300 mi) provided by CIMA. Emissions associated
with combustion of fuel in the truck engine are included as are the emissions associated with
producing the fuel. Emissions data are derived from the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Since it is assumed that all three insulation materials studied (cellulose, fiberglass, and mineral
wool) have similar packaging requirements, no packaging burdens are taken into account.
Installation. At installation, 5 % of the product is lost to waste. The energy required for blowing
the insulation is included, assuming the insulation is blown at a rate of 1 134 kg/h (2 500 Ib/h)
using energy provided by a diesel truck. BEES accounts for emissions associated with burning
diesel fuel in a reciprocating engine, as well as emissions associated with producing the diesel
fuel.
Use. It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental
and economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects
building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and
building energy costs over the 50-year use stage. Since alternatives for ceiling insulation all have
R-30 thermal resistance values, thermal performance differences are at issue only for the wall
insulation alternatives.
For wall insulation, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 14 U.S. cities
spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, and
natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall
insulation alternatives for analysis, the BEES user selects the U.S. city closest to the building
location and the building heating fuel type, so that thermal performance differences may be
customized to these important contributors to building energy use. A NIST study of the
economic efficiency of energy conservation measures (including insulation), tailored to these
cities and fuel types, is used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling requirements per functional
unit of insulation.72 BEES environmental performance results account for the energy-related
inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements. To account for the 50-year energy
72 Stephen R. Petersen, Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family Housing,
NBSIR 81-2380, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1981.
68
-------
requirements in BEES economic performance results, 1997 fuel prices by State73 and U.S.
Department of Energy fuel price projections over the next 30 years74 are used to compute the
present value cost of operational energy per functional unit for each alternative R-value.
The product is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years.
Cost Installation costs for blown cellulose insulation vary by application. The detailed life-cycle
cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under the following codes:
• B2012,AO—R-13 Blown Cellulose Wall Insulation
• B3012,AO—R-30 Blown Cellulose Ceiling Insulation
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). Operational energy costs for wall insulation (discussed above under
"Use") are found in the file USEECON.DBF. All other future cost data are based on data
published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost
Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. First cost data are collected from the R.S.
Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year
2002 dollars.
3.4.2 Generic Fiberglass Batt Insulation (B2012B, B2012C, B2012E, B3012B)
Fiberglass batt insulation is made by forming spun-glass fibers into batts. Using a rotary process,
molten glass is poured into a rapidly spinning disc that has thousands of fine holes in its rim.
Centrifugal force extrudes.the molten glass through the holes, creating the glass fibers. The
fibers are made thinner by jets, air, or steam and are immediately coated with a binder and/or de-
dusting agent. The material is then cured in ovens and formed into batts. The flow diagram in
Figure 3.12 shows the elements of fiberglass batt insulation production.
BEES performance data are provided for thermal resistance values of R-l 1, R-13, and R-15 for a
wall application, and R-30 for a ceiling application. The amount of fiberglass insulation material
used per functional unit is shown in Table 3.23. The detailed environmental performance data
for this product may be viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in
the BEES software:
73 Therese K. Stovall, Supporting Documentation for the 1997 Revision to the DOE Insulation Fact Sheet,
OKNL-6907, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1997.
74 Sieglinde K. Fuller, Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—April 1997,
NISTIR 85-3273-12, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1997. The year 30 DoE cost esclation factor
is assumed to hold for years 31-50.
69
-------
Sand
Production
Borax
Production
Limestone
Production
Phenol
Formaldehyde
Production
Transportation
(truck)
402 km (250 mi)
T
Transportation
(truck)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(train)
805 km (500 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
322 km (200 mi)
Figure 3.12 Fiberglass Batt Insulation Flow Chart
B2012B.DBF—R-l 1 Fiberglass Batt Wall Insulation
B2012E.DBF—R-13 Fiberglass Batt Wall Insulation
B2012C.DBF—R-15 Fiberglass Batt Wall Insulation
B3012B.DBF—R-30 Fiberglass Batt Ceiling Insulation
Table 3.23 Fiberglass Batt Mass by Application
Application
Wall-R-11
Wall--R-13
Wall-R-15
Ceiling-R-30
Thickness
cm (in)
8.9 (3.5)
8.9 (3.5)
8.9 (3.5)
22.9 (9.0)
Density Mass per Functional Unit
kg/m3 (Ib/ff) kg/m2 (oz/ft2)
8.0 (0.5)
12.8 (0.8)
24.0 (1.5)
8.0 (0.5)
0.71 (2.33)
1.18(3.88)
2.15 (7.05)
1.83 (6.0)
Raw Materials. Fiberglass batts are composed of the materials listed in Table 3.24. Production
requirements for these materials are based on the DEAM database.
70
-------
Table 3.24 Fiberglass Batt Constituents
Constituent
Mass Fraction (%)
Borax
Glass Cullet -
Limestone
Phenol Formaldehyde
Sand
6.9
6.2
50
5.9
31
Fiberglass batt production involves the energy requirements as listed in Table 3.25.
Table 3.25 Energy Requirements for Fiberglass Batt Insulation Manufacturing
Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy
Electricity 0.13 MJ/kg fiberglass (56 Btu/lb)
Natural Gas 6 MJ/kg fiberglass (2580 Btu/lb)
Emissions. Emissions associated with fiberglass batt insulation manufacture are based on AP-42
data for the glass fiber manufacturing industry.
Use. It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental
and economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects
building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and
building energy costs over the 50-year use stage. Since alternatives for ceiling insulation all have
R-30 R-values, thermal performance differences are at issue only for the wall insulation
alternatives.
For wall insulation, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 14 U.S. cities
spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, and
natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall
insulation alternatives for analysis, the BEES user selects the U.S. city closest to the building
location and the building heating fuel type, so that thermal performance differences may be
customized to these important contributors to building energy use. A NIST study of the
economic efficiency of energy conservation measures (including insulation), tailored to these
cities and fuel types, is used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling requirements per functional
unit of insulation.75 BEES environmental performance results account for the energy-related
inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements. To account for the 50-year energy
requirements in BEES economic performance results, 1997 fuel prices by State76 and U.S.
Department of Energy fuel price projections over the next 30 years77 are used to compute the
present value cost of operational energy per functional unit for each R-value.
75 Stephen R. Petersen, Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family Housing,
NBS1R 81-2380, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, B.C., 1981.
76 Therese K. Stovall, Supporting Documentation for the 1997 Revision to the DOE Insulation Fact Sheet,
ORNL-6907, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1997.
77 Sieglinde EL Fuller, Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—April 1997,
NISTIR 85-3273-12, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1997. The year 30 DoE cost esclation factor
is assumed to hold for years 31-50.
71
-------
When installing fiberglass batt insulation, approximately 2 % of the product is lost to waste. The
product is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years. Although fiberglass insulation reuse or
recycling is feasible, very little occurs now. Most fiberglass insulation waste is currently
disposed of in landfills.
Cost. Purchase and installation costs for fiberglass batt insulation vary by R-value and
application. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
the following codes:
• B2012,BO—R-ll Fiberglass Batt Wall Insulation
• B2012JBO—R-13 Fiberglass Batt Wall Insulation
• B2012,CO—R-15 Fiberglass Batt Wall Insulation
• B3012,BO—R-30 Fiberglass Batt Ceiling Insulation
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). Operational energy costs for wall insulation (discussed above under
"Use") are found in the file USEECON.DBF. All other future cost data are based on data
published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost
Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. First cost data are collected from the R.S.
Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year
2002 dollars.
3.4.3 Generic Blown Fiberglass Insulation (B3012D)
Blown fiberglass insulation is made by forming spun-glass fibers using the same method as for
batts but leaving the insulation loose. Using a rotary process, molten glass is poured into a
rapidly spinning disc that has thousands of fine holes in its rim. Centrifugal force extrudes the
molten glass through the holes, creating the glass fibers. The fibers are made thinner by jets, air,
or steam and are immediately coated with a binder and/or de-dusting agent
The flow diagram in Figure 3.13 shows the elements of blown fiberglass insulation production.
BEES performance data are provided for a thermal resistance value of R-30 for a ceiling
application. The amount of fiberglass insulation material used per functional unit is shown in
Table 3.26. The detailed environmental performance data for blown fiberglass insulation may be
viewed by opening the file B3012D.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
72
-------
Sand
Production
T
Borax
Production
Limestone
Production
Phenol
Formaldehyde
Production
Transportation
-""(truck)
402 fan (250 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(train)
805 km (500 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
322 km (200 mi)
Diesel Fuel
Production &
Use in Installation
-Waste>
Figure 3.13 Blown Fiberglass Insulation Flow Chart
Table 3.26 Blown Fiberglass Mass
Application
Ceiling (R-30)
Thickness
cm (in)
22.9 (9.0)
Density Mass per Functional Unit
kg/m3 (Ib/f?) • hg/m2 (oz/ft2)
12.0 (0.75)
2.8 (9.17)
Raw Materials. Blown fiberglass is composed of the materials listed in Table 3.27.
Table 3.27 Blown Fiberglass Constituents
Constituent Mass Fraction (%)
Borax
Glass Gullet
Limestone
Phenol Formaldehyde
Sand
6.9
6.2
50
5.9
31
Production requirements for fiberglass insulation constituents are based on the DEAM database.
Fiberglass production involves the energy requirements as listed in Table 3.28.
73
-------
Table 3.28 Energy Requirements for Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing
Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy
Electricity 0.13 MJ/kg fiberglass (56 Btu/lb)
Natural Gas 6 MJ/kg fiberglass (2 580 Btu/lb)
Emissions. Emissions associated with fiberglass insulation manufacture are based on AJP-42 data
for the glass fiber manufacturing industry.
Use. It is important to recognize thermal performance differences when assessing environmental
and economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects
building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and
building energy costs over the 50-year use stage. However, since alternatives for ceiling
insulation all have R-30 R-values, there are no thermal performance differences for this
application.
When installing blown fiberglass insulation, approximately 5 % of the product is lost to waste.
The product is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years. Although fiberglass insulation reuse or
recycling is feasible, very little occurs now. Most fiberglass insulation waste is currently
disposed of in landfills. Energy for blowing the insulation is included, based on a 18 kW (25 hp)
diesel engine blowing 1 134 kg (2 500 Ib) of fiberglass insulation per hour.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B3012,DO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation
costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data
are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). All other future cost data are based on data
published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost
Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. First cost data are collected from the R.S.
Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year
2002 dollars.
3.4.4 Generic Blown Mineral Wool Insulation (B2012D, B3012C)
Blown mineral wool insulation is made by spinning fibers from natural rock (rock wool) or iron
ore blast furnace slag (slag wool). Rock wool and slag wool are manufactured by melting the
constituent raw materials hi a cupola. A molten stream is created and poured onto a rapidly
spinning wheel or wheels. The viscous molten material adheres to the wheels and the centrifugal
force throws droplets of melt away from the wheels, forming fibers. The fibers are then
collected and cleaned to remove non-fibrous material. During the process a phenol
formaldehyde binder and/or a de-dusting agent are applied to reduce free, airborne wool during
application. The flow diagram in Figure 3.14 shows the elements of blown mineral wool
insulation production.
74
-------
Transportation
(track)
161 km (100 mi)
Transpbrtation
(track)
161 km (100 mi)
Transportation
(track)
322 km (200 mi)
Transportation
(truck)
80-322-483 km sensitivity
(50-200-300 mi)
Diesel Fuel
Production &
Use in Installation
»
Installation
!
—Waste-*-
Figure 3.14 Blown Mineral Wool Insulation Flow Chart
BEES performance data are provided for a thermal resistance value of R-12 for a wall
application, and R-30 for a ceiling application. The detailed environmental performance data for
blown mineral wool insulation may be viewed by opening the following files under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• B2012D.DBF—R-12 Blown Mineral Wool Wall Insulation
• B3012C.DBF—R-30 Blown Mineral Wool Ceiling Insulation
Raw Materials. Mineral wool insulation is composed of the materials listed in Table 3.29.
Production requirements for the mineral wool constituents are based on the DEAM database.
Table 3.29 Blown Mineral Wool Constituents
Mineral Wool Constituents
Mass Fraction (%
Phenol Formaldehyde
Iron-ore slag (North American)
Diabase/basalt
2.5
78
20
Mineral wool production involves the energy requirements listed in Table 3.30.
Emissions. Emissions associated with mineral wool insulation production are based on AP-42
data for the mineral wool manufacturing industry.
75
-------
Table 3.30 Energy Requirements for Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturing
Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy
Electricity 1.0 MJ/kg (430 Btu/lb)
Coke 6.38 MJ7kg (2 743 Btu/lb)
Use. It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental
and economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects
building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and
building energy costs over the 50-year use stage. Since alternatives for ceiling insulation all have
R.-30 R-values, thermal performance differences are at issue only for wall insulation alternatives.
For wall insulation, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 14 U.S. cities
spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, and
natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall
insulation alternatives for analysis, the BEES user selects the U.S. city closest to the building
location and the building heating fuel type, so that thermal performance differences may be
customized to these important contributors to building energy use. A NIST study of the
economic efficiency of energy conservation measures (including insulation), tailored to these
cities and fuel types, is used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling requirements per functional
unit of insulation.78 BEES environmental performance results account for the energy-related
inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements. To account for the 50-year energy
requirements in BEES economic performance results, 1997 fuel prices by State79 and U.S.
Department of Energy fuel price projections over the next 30 years80 are used to compute the
present value cost of operational energy per functional unit for each R-value.
Mineral wool insulation is typically blown into place. It is assumed to be blown at a rate of
1 134 kg/h (2 500 Ib/h) with a 19 kW (25 hp) diesel engine. During installation, 5 % of the
product is lost to waste. The product is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years.
Cost. Purchase and installation costs for blown mineral wool insulation vary by application. The
detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF
under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under the following
codes:
• B2012,DO—R-12 Blown Mineral Wool Wall Insulation
• B3012,CO—R-30 Blown Mineral Wool Ceiling Insulation
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
78 Stephen R. Petersen, Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family Housing,
NBSIR 81-2380, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1981.
79 Therese K. Stovall, Supporting Documentation for the 1997 Revision to the DOE Insulation Fact Sheet,
ORNL-6907, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1997.
80 Sieglinde K. Fuller, Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—April 1997,
NISHR 85-3273-12, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1997. The year 30 DoE cost escalation factor
is assumed to hold for years 31-50.
76
-------
maintenance, and repair). Operational eHerigy costs for wall insulation (discussed above under
"Use") are found in the file USEECON.DBF. All other future cost data are based on data
published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost
Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. First cost data are collected from the R.S.
Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year
2002 dollars.
3.5 Framing Alternatives ( B2013)
3.5.1 Generic Steel Framing (B2013A)
Steel is an important construction framing material. Steel is made from iron, which in turn is
made from iron ore, coal, and limestone in the presence of oxygen. The steel-making process
includes the processing of iron ore, coal, and limestone prior to a blast furnace operation, which
makes the raw material, iron. Other materials used in steel manufacturing processes include
nickel, manganese, chromium, and zinc, as well as various lubricating oils, cleaning solvents,
acids, and alkalines.
Cold-formed steel framing is manufactured from blanks sheared from sheets that are cut from
coils or plates, or by roll-forming cold or hot-rolled coils or sheets. Both these forming
operations are done at ambient temperatures. Light-gauge steel shapes are formed from flat-
rolled 12- to 20-gauge carbon steel as either single bent shapes or bent shapes welded together.
Two basic types of steel framing, nailable and nonnailable, are available in both punched and
solid forms. Zinc chromate primer, galvanized, and painted finishes are available. Steel stud and
joist systems have been adopted as an alternative to wood and masonry systems in most types of
construction. Steel framing is also used extensively for interior partitions because it is fire-
resistant, easy to erect, and makes installation of utilities more convenient. Light-gauge steel
framing can be installed directly at the construction site or it can be prefabricated off- or on-site.
The assembly process relies on a number of accessories usually made of steel, such as bridging,
bolts, nuts, screws, and anchors, as well as devices for fastening units together, such as clips and
nails.
In recent years, structural steel has increasingly been used for framing systems due to its fire
resistance and high strength-to-weight ratio. For the BEES system, 18-gauge (1.1 mm, or 0.0428
in thick) steel studs and tracks are evaluated. Tracks are sized to fit the studs. Self-tapping steel
screws, used as fasteners for the steel studs, are included. Figure 3.15 shows the elements of steel
framing production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be
viewed by opening the file B2013A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
Raw Materials. Production of the raw materials necessary for steel stud manufacture is based on
data from the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Four North American steel companies
provided primary data for the production of hot-rolled coil, while data for cold-rolled steel and
77
-------
Functional Unit of
Steel Framing
Figure 3.15 Steel Framing Flow Chart
hot dip galvanized steel came from three sites. Further primary data was collected for some
upstream processes, such as iron ore mining and lime production. Secondary data were obtained
from LCA databases and literature. The steel is assumed to be made of steel produced from the
Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) process, which includes roughly 20 % recycled material.
Fasteners are produced largely from recycled material, and are produced primarily in Electric
Arc Furnaces (EAF). European data are used for the production of steel fasteners81.
*
Energy Requirements. Energy requirements for producing steel are based on the European data
source listed above, combined with upstream U.S. energy production models in the DEAM
database.
Emissions. Emissions for steel stud and self-tapping screw production are based on the DEAM
database.
Transportation. Transport of steel raw materials to the manufacturing plant is included.
Transport of steel framing by heavy-duty truck to the building site is a variable of the BEES
model. Emissions associated with the combustion of fuel in the truck engine and with production
of the fuel are included, based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Use. Use of steel framing for exterior walls without a thermal break such as rigid foam may
increase thermal insulation requirements or otherwise adversely affect building thermal
performance. While this interdependency of building elements is not accounted for in BEES 2.0,
it will be considered in the future as the BEES system moves beyond building products to
building systems and components. The product is assumed to have a useful life of 75 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B2013, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
81
250.
Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape (FOEFL or BUWAL), Environmental Series No.
78
-------
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.5.2 Generic Wood Framing (B2013B, B2013C)
Wood framing is the most common structural system used for non-load-bearing and load-bearing
interior walls, and includes lumber, constructed truss products, and specific applications of
treated lumber. Floor framing consists of a system of sills, girders, subflooring, and joists or
floor trusses that provide support for floor loads and walls. There are two types of interior
partitions: bearing partitions, which support floors, ceilings, or roofs, and nonbearing partitions,
which carry only their own weight. The sole plate and the top plate frame the wall structure of
vertical studs, and sheathing or diagonal bracing ensures lateral stability. In general, dimensions
for framing lumber are given in nominal inches (i.e., 2x4). Framing lumber must be properly
grade-marked to be acceptable under the major building codes. Such grade marks identify the
grade, species or species group, seasoning condition at time of manufacture, producing mill, and
the grading rules-writing agency.
Wood studs are produced in a sawmill, where harvested wood is debarked and sawn into specific
dimensions. The lumber is then dried in a controlled environment until the desired moisture
content (between 12 % and 19 %) is reached. It is possible to treat framing lumber with
preservatives in order to guard against insect attack, or to shield against surface moisture which
might cause fungal decay. Treated lumber is used for framing in places with serious termite
problems such as Hawaii and the Virgin Islands. Both treated and untreated wood framing are
included in BEES.
The functional unit of comparison for BEES framing alternatives is 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of load
bearing wall framing for 50 years. Both untreated and preservative-treated pine wood studs,
5.08 cm x 10.16 cm (2 in x 4 in), with a moisture content of 19 %, are studied. For the treated
alternative, the preservative is assumed to be Type C Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA), a
common water-borne preservative used in the treatment of wood products. Galvanized nails
used to fasten the studs together to form the wall framing are also studied. The flow diagram
shown in Figure 3.16 shows the major elements of wood stud production. The detailed
environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the following
files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
B2013B.DBF-
B2013C.DBF-
-Preservative-Treated Wood Framing
-Untreated Wood Framing
Raw Materials. For BEES, data were collected for the harvested trees used to produce the
lumber necessary for framing load-bearing walls. These data account for the absorption of
carbon dioxide by trees. Production of the other raw materials—steel for nails and chromated
copper arsenate for the preservative-treated product—is based on data from the DEAM database.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for lumber manufacture are shown in Table
79
-------
3.31. These requirements are based on Canadian growing conditions, recovery factors, and
proportions of old growth, second growth, and tree plantations. The energy is assumed to come
primarily from burning wood waste. Other fuel sources, including natural gas and petroleum, are
also used.
Functional Unit of
Framing
Wood Stud
Production
NaturdGas
Production
Uqud
Petroleum Gas
ProducBon
Galvanized Nail
Production
Heauy Fuel Oil
Production
Hogfue)
Production
Timber
Harvesting
Preservative
Production
[Treated Option)
Figure 3.16 Wood Framing Flow Chart
Table 3.31 Energy Requirements for Lumber Manufacture82
Manufacturing Energy
Fuel Use" MJ/kg (BtuAb)
Total Fossil FueP
% Natural Gas
% Heavy Fuel Oil
% Liquid Petroleum Gas
% Hogfuel
5.6 (2 413)
39.8'
4.1
4.1
52
"Excluding electricity.
bTotal fossil fuel value is a gross figure including production of both lumber and its coproducts.
Emissions. The emissions from the lumber manufacturing process are shown in Table 3.32.
Transportation. Since sawmills are often located close to tree harvesting areas, the
transportation of round wood to the sawmill is not taken into account. However, truck
transportation of 322 km (200 mi) is assumed for transport of the preservative for the
preservative- treated option. The tailpipe emissions from the truck engine and the emissions that
82 Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development - Raw Material
Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for Structural Wood Products, March 1993.
80
-------
Table 3.32 Hogfuel Emissions'
83
Emission
Amount
g/MJ Wood burned (oz/kWh)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Methane (CHt)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Particulates
81.5 (10.35)
0.011 (0.0014)
0.008 (0.001)
0.110(0.014)
0.0002 (0.000025)
0.039 (0.005)
0.708(0.09)
result from the production of the fuel used in the truck are taken into account based on the
PricewaterhouseCoopers database. Transportation of framing lumber by heavy-duty truck to the
construction site is a variable of the BEES model.
Use. The density of pine at 19 % moisture content (seasoned wood) is assumed to be 449 kg/m3
(28 lb/ft3). For the preservative-treated option, retention of CCA in lumber is assumed to be
6.4 kg/m3 (0.40 lb/ft3). It is assumed that wood studs are placed 41 cm (16 in) on center and are
fastened with galvanized steel nails. At installation, 5 % of the product is lost to waste. The
product is assumed to have a useful life of 75 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for these products may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed under
BEES code B2013, product code BO for preservative-treated wood framing; and under BEES
code B2013, product code CO for untreated wood framing. Life-cycle cost data include first cost
data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement,
and where appropriate and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost
data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and
future cost data are based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building
Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data
have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.6 Roof Covering Alternatives (B3011)
3.6.1 Generic Asphalt Shingles (B3011A)
Asphalt shingles are commonly made from fiberglass mats filled with asphalt, then coated on the
exposed side with mineral granules for both a decorative finish and a wearing layer. Asphalt
shingles are nailed over roofing felt onto sheathing.
For BEES, a roof covering of asphalt shingles with a 20-year life, roofing felt, and galvanized
nails is analyzed. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.17 shows the elements of asphalt shingle
production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by
83 Forintek Canada Corporation, op cit, Appendix A.
81
-------
opening the file B3011A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Filler is assumed to be 50 % dolomite and 50 % limestone. Granules production is modeled as
rock mining and grinding. Production requirements for the asphalt shingle constituents are based
on the DEAM database.
Type-15 felt consists of asphalt and organic felt as listed in Table 3.34. The organic felt is
assumed to consist of 50 % recycled cardboard and 50 % wood chips. The production of these
materials, and the asphalt, is based on the DEAM database.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirement for asphalt shingle production is assumed to be
Figure 3.17 Asphalt Shingles Flow Chart
33 MJ/m2 of natural gas (2843 Btu/ft2) of shingles.
Raw Materials. Asphalt shingles are composed of the materials listed in Table 3.33.
Table 3.33 Asphalt Shingle Constituents
Asphalt Shingle Constituents
Physical Weight
Asphalt
Filler
Fiberglass
Granules
1.9 kg/m2 (40 lb/squarea)
4.2 kg/ m2 (86 Ib/square)
0.2 kg/ m2 (4 Ib/square)
3.7 kg/ m2 (75 Ib/square)
aOne square is equivalent to 9.29 m2 (100 ft2)
_
82
-------
Table 3.34 Type 15 Roofing Felt Constituents
Type 15
Felt Constituents Physical Weight
Asphalt
Organic Felt
Total:
0.5 kg/m2(9.6 Ib/square)
0.3 kg/m2(5.4 Ib/square)
0.8kg/m2(151b/square)
Emissions. Emissions associated with manufacturing asphalt shingles and roofing felt are taken
into account based on AP-42 data for asphalt shingle and saturated felt processing.
Transportation. Transport of the asphalt shingle raw materials is taken into account. The
distance transported is assumed to be 402 km (250 mi) for all of the components. Asphalt is
assumed to be transported by truck, train, and pipeline in equal proportions. Dolomite, limestone,
and granules are assumed to be transported by truck and train in equal proportions. Fiberglass is
assumed to be transported by truck.
Transport of the raw materials for roofing felt is also taken into account. The distance
transported is assumed to be 402 km (250 mi) for all of the components. Asphalt is assumed to
be transported by truck, train, and pipeline in equal proportions, while the cardboard and wood
chips are assumed to be transported by truck.
Transport of the shingles, roofing felt, and nails to the building site is a variable of the BEES
system.
Use. It is important to consider solar reflectivity differences among roof coverings of different
materials and colors when assessing the environmental and economic performance of roof
covering alternatives. "Cool" roofs reflect and emit solar radiation well, and thus stay cooler in
the sun than less reflective, less emissive materials. The cool temperature results in building-
scale cooling energy savings ranging from 2 % to 60 %.84 A much less significant rise in
building heating energy costs also occurs. BEES accounts for solar reflectivity performance in
computing energy-related LCA inventory flows and building energy costs over the 50-year use
stage for roof covering products.
For roof coverings, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 16 U.S. cities
spread across a range of Sunbelt climate and fuel cost zones. When selecting roof covering
alternatives for use in Sunbelt climates,85 the BEES user chooses 1) the roof covering material
and color, 2) the U.S. Sunbelt climate city closest to the building location, 3) the building type
(new or existing), 4) its heating and cooling system (electric air-source heat pump or gas
furnace/central air conditioning heating and cooling systems), and 5) its duct placement
(uninsulated attic ducts or ducts in the conditioned space), so that thermal performance
differences may be customized to these important contributors to building energy use. Energy
84 Memorandum from Sarah. Bretz/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to Barbara Lippiatt/National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 12/18/98.
85 In cold climates, the amount of roof insulation is more important to thermal performance than the color of the
roof covering.
83
-------
use data provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (and which LBL developed for the U.S. EPA Energy Star Roof Products
program), tailored to these five parameters, are used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling
requirements per functional unit of roof covering.86 BEES environmental performance results
account for the energy-related inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements (stored
in USEFLOWS.DBF), and BEES economic performance results account for the present value
cost resulting from these energy requirements (stored in USEECON.DBF).
Asphalt shingle and roofing felt installation is assumed to require 47 nails per m2 (440 nails per
square). Installation waste from scrap is estimated at 5 % of the installed weight. At 20 years,
new shingles are installed over the existing shingles. At 40 years, both layers of roof covering
are removed before installing replacement shingles.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B3011, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). Operational energy costs for roof
coverings in U.S. Sunbelt climates (discussed above under "Use") are found in the file
USEECON.DBF. First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building
Construction Cost Data, and other future cost data are based on data published by Whitestone
Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.6.2 Generic Clay Tile (B3011B)
Clay tiles are made by shaping and firing clay. The most commonly used clay tile is the red
Spanish tile. For the BEES system, a roof covering of 70 year red Spanish clay tiles, roofing felt,
and nails is studied. Due to the weight of the tile and its relatively long useful life, Type-30 felt
and copper nails are used. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.18 shows the elements of clay
tile production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by
opening the file B3011B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials. The weight of the clay tile studied is 381 kg (840 Ib) per square, requiring 171
pieces of tile. Production of the clay is based on the DEAM database.
Type-30 felt consists of asphalt and organic felt as listed in Table 3.35. The organic felt is
assumed to consist of 50 % recycled cardboard and 50 % wood chips. The production of these
materials, and the asphalt, is based on the DEAM database.
86 LBL data were developed for BEES by LBL's Sarah Bretz, based on Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated Impact
of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in Single-
Family Ne\v Residential Buildings, LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1998,
and on Parker et al., "Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential
ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104,1998, p. 1.
84
-------
Table 3.35 Type-30 Roofing Felt Constituents
Felt Constituents Mass per Applied Area
Asphalt
Organic Felt
Total:
0.9 kg/m2 (19.2 Ib/square)
0.5 kg/ m2 (10.8 Ib/square)
1.4 kg/m2 (30 Ib/square)
Qay Hies
Truck
TraosportatiGCL
(RawMtetials)
Train
Traospoctz&Qn
(RawlVfeterials)
Figure 3.18 Clay Tile Flow Chart
Energy Requirements. The energy required to fire clay tile is 6.3 MJ/kg (2708 Btu/lb) of clay
tile. The fuel type is natural gas.
Emissions. Emissions associated with natural gas combustion are based on AP-42 emission
factors.
Transportation. Transport of the clay raw material is taken into account. The distance
transported is assumed to be 402 km (250 mi) for the clay by train and truck. Transport of the
raw materials for roofing felt is also taken into account. The distance transported is assumed to
be 402 km (250 mi) for all of the components. Asphalt is assumed to be transported by truck,
train, and pipeline in equal proportions, while the cardboard and wood chips are assumed to be
transported by truck. Transport of the tiles to the building site is a variable of the BEES model.
Use. It is important to consider solar reflectivity differences among roof coverings of different
materials and colors when assessing the environmental and economic performance of roof
covering alternatives. "Cool" roofs reflect and emit solar radiation well, and thus stay cooler in
the sun than less reflective, less emissive materials. The cool temperature results in building-
85
-------
scale cooling energy savings ranging from 2 % to 60 %.87 A much less significant rise in
building heating energy costs also occurs. BEES accounts for solar reflectivity performance in
computing energy-related LCA inventory flows and building energy costs over the 50-year use
stage for roof covering products.
For roof coverings, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 16 U.S. cities
spread across a range of Sunbelt climate and fuel cost zones. When selecting roof covering
alternatives for use in Sunbelt climates,88 the BEES user chooses 1) the roof covering material
and color, 2) the U.S. Sunbelt climate city closest to the building location, 3) the building type
(new or existing), 4) its heating and cooling system (electric air-source heat pump or gas
furnace/central air conditioning heating and cooling systems), and 5) its duct placement
(uninsulated attic ducts or ducts in the conditioned space), so that thermal performance
differences may be customized to these important contributors to building energy use. Energy
use data provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (and which LBL developed for the U.S. EPA Energy Star Roof Products
program), tailored to these five parameters, are used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling
requirements per functional unit of roof covering.89 BEES environmental performance results
account for the energy-related inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements (stored
in USEFLOWS.DBF), and BEES economic performance results account for the present value
cost resulting from these energy requirements (stored in USEECON.DBF).
Clay tile roofing is assumed to require two layers of Type-30 roofing felt, 13 galvanized nails
per m2 (120/square) for underlayment, and 37 copper nails per m2 (342/square) for the tile (2
copper nails/tile). Installation waste from scrap is estimated at 5 % of the installed weight. One-
fourth of the tiles are replaced after 20 years, and another one-fourth at 40 years. All tiles are
replaced at 70 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B3011, product code BO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). Operational energy costs for roof
coverings in U.S. Sunbelt climates (discussed above under "Use") are found in the file
USEECON.DBF. First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building
Construction Cost Data, and other future cost data are based on data published by Whitestone
Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
87 Memorandum from Sarah Bretz/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to Barbara Lippiatt/National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 12/18/98.
In cold climates, the amount of roof insulation is more important to thermal performance than the color of the
roof covering.
89 LBL data were developed for BEES by LBL's Sarah Bretz, based on Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated Impact
of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in Single-
Family New Residential Buildings, LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1998,
and on Parker et al., "Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential
Building," ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104,1998, p. 1.
86
-------
3.6.3 Generic Fiber Cement Shingles (B3011C)
In the past, fiber cement shingles were manufactured using asbestos fibers. Now asbestos fibers
have been replaced with cellulose fibers. For the BEES study, a 45-year fiber cement shingle
consisting of cement, sand, and cellulose fibers is studied. Roofing felt and galvanized nails are
used for installation. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.19 shows the elements of fiber cement
shingle production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed
by opening the file B3011C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. •
Raw Materials. Fiber cement shingles are composed of the materials listed in Table 3.36. The
filler is sand, and the organic fiber is wood chips. The mass of fiber cement shingles per applied
area is assumed to be 16 kg/m2 (325 Ib/square), based on 36 cm x 76 cm x 0.4 cm (14 in x 30 in
x 5/32 in) size shingles.
Functional Unit
of Fiber Cement
Shingles
Truck
Transportation
,(Raw Materials)
Figure 3.19 Fiber Cement Shingles Flow Chart
Table 3.36 Fiber Cement Shingle Constituents
Fiber Cement Shingle
Constituents Mass Fraction
(%)
Portland Cement
Filler
Organic Fiber
90
5
5
Portland cement production requirements are identical to those noted above for a stucco exterior
wall finish. Type-30 roofing felt is modeled as noted above for clay tile roofing.
Production requirements for the raw materials is based on the DEAM database.
87
-------
Energy Requirements. The energy requkements for fiber cement shingle production are
assumed to be 33 MJ/m2 of natural gas and 11 MJ/m2 of electricity (2843 Btu/ft2 of natural gas
and 948 Btu/ft2 of electricity) of shingle.
Transportation. Transport of the raw materials is taken into account The distance over which
all materials are transported is assumed to be 402 km (250 mi). Shingle materials are assumed to
be transported by truck. For roofing felt, asphalt is assumed to be transported by truck, train, and
pipeline in equal proportions, while the cardboard and wood chips are assumed to be transported
by truck.
Transport of the shingles to the building site is a variable of the BEES model.
Use. It is important to consider solar reflectivity differences among roof coverings of different
materials and colors when assessing the environmental and economic performance of roof
covering alternatives. "Cool" roofs reflect and emit solar radiation well, and thus stay cooler in
the sun than less reflective, less emissive materials. The cool temperature results in building-
scale cooling energy savings ranging from 2 % to 60 %.90 A much less significant rise in
building heating energy costs also occurs. BEES accounts for solar reflectivity performance in
computing energy-related LCA inventory flows and building energy costs over the 50-year use
stage for roof covering products.
For roof coverings, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 16 U.S. cities
spread across a range of Sunbelt climate and fuel cost zones. When selecting-roof covering
alternatives for use in Sunbelt climates,91 the BEES user chooses 1) the roof covering material
and color, 2) the U.S. Sunbelt climate city closest to the building location, 3) the building type
(new or existing), 4) its heating and cooling system (electric air-source heat pump or gas
furnace/central air conditioning heating and cooling systems), and 5) its duct placement
(uninsulated attic ducts or ducts in the conditioned space), so that thermal performance
differences may be customized to these important contributors to building energy use. Energy
use data provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (and which LBL developed for the U.S. EPA Energy Star Roof Products
program), tailored to these five parameters, are used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling
requkements per functional unit of roof covering.92 BEES environmental performance results
account for the energy-related inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements (stored
in USEFLOWS.DBF), and BEES economic performance results account for the present value
cost resulting from these energy requirements (stored in USEECON.DBF).
90 Memorandum from Sarah Bretz/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to Barbara Lippiatl/National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 12/18/98.
91 In cold climates, the amount of roof insulation is more important to thermal performance than the color of the
roof covering.
92 LBL data were developed for BEES by LBL's Sarah Bretz, based on Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated Impact
of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in Single-
Family New Residential Buildings, LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1998,
and on Parker et al., 'Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential
Building," ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104,1998, p. 1.
88
-------
n
Fiber cement shingle roofing requires one layer of Type-30 felt underlayment, 13 nails per m
(120 nails per square) for the underlayment, and 32 nails per m2 (300 nails/square) for the
shingles. Installation waste from scrap is estimated at 5 % of the installed weight. Fiber cement
roofing is assumed to have a useful life of 45 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code B3011, product code CO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). Operational energy costs for roof
coverings in U.S. Sunbelt climates (discussed above under "Use") are found in the file
USEECON.DBF. First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building
Construction Cost Data, and other future cost data are based on data published by Whitestone
Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.7 Partitions (C1011)
3.7.1 Generic Drywall (C1011A)
Gypsum board, or drywall, consists of a core of gypsum surrounded by kraft paper facings.
Several types of drywall are produced, each with a modification to the gypsum core or facings.
These include moisture-resistant drywall (green board), Type-X drywall with glass fibers and
improved fire resistance, and foil-backed drywall.
Gypsum board is installed using joint tape and compound, and is typically applied to wood
framing with nails, screws, or adhesives. It can also be applied to metal framing with screws.
Joints between gypsum boards are covered with paper or glass-fiber joint tape embedded in joint
compound. Joint compound is usually a vinyl-based, ready-to-use product that contains
limestone or gypsum to provide body. Clay, mica, talc, or perlite is often used as a filler.
Ethylene glycol is used as an extender, and antibacterial and antifungal agents are also applied.
Other types of joint compounds which set when mixed with chemical hardeners are also used on
a more limited basis.
For the BEES system, 13 mm (¥2. in) gypsum wallboard, joint tape, joint compound, and
wallboard nails are studied. Gypsum wallboard is assumed to be nailed to wood studs, 41 cm
(16 in) on center. Joints are assumed to be treated with 52 mm-thick (2-1/16 in-thick) paper
joint tape and ready mix, all-purpose joint compound.
Wallboard is produced using partially dehydrated or calcinated gypsum, also called "stucco."
Stucco is fed into a mixer where it is combined with water and other ingredients to make a slurry
or paste. The slurry is spread on a moving stream of paper and then covered with top paper, or
"gray back," to form wallboard. It is cut into specific lengths and then sent to kilns to dry. After
drying, the wallboard is sent to bundling areas where it is trimmed to exact lengths. The
wallboard is then moved to warehouses for shipment to the building site. Figure 3.20 shows the
89
-------
major elements of gypsum wallboard production. The detailed environmental performance data
for this product may be viewed by opening the file C1011A.DBF under the File/Open menu item
in the BEES software.
Figure 3.20 Gypsum Board Flow Chart
Raw Materials. The production of raw materials for drywall is based on the DEAM database.
Table 3.37 lists the constituents of drywall and their proportions by weight.
Table 3.37 Gypsum Board Constituents
Constituent
Physical Weight (%)
Gypsum
Paper
Sand
Starch
85%
10%
3%
2%
Energy Requirements. Energy requirements data are from primary sources (gypsum
manufacturing plants) and the DEAM database, and are given in Table 3.3 8.
Table 3.38 Energy Requirements for Gypsum Board Manufacturing
Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy
Natural Gas 19.02 MJ/kg (8 196 Btu/lb)
The production of the natural gas used in gypsum processing is based on the DEAM database.
Emissions. Emissions are based on AP-42 emissions factors for gypsum processing.
Transportation. Transport of raw materials to the manufacturing site is not accounted for.
However, transportation by truck to the building site is modeled as a variable in the BEES
90
-------
system. Both emissions associated with the combustion of fuel in the truck engine and emissions
associated with production of the fuel are included.
Use. The product is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C1011, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.7.2 Tirespa Virtuon and Athlon (C1011B, C1011C)
For documentation on these products, see section 3.8.1.
3.8 Fabricated Toilet Partitions, Lockers, Ceiling Finishes, Fixed Casework, Table
Tops/Counter Tops/Shelving (C1031, C1032, C3030, E2010, E2021)
3.8.1 Trespa Composite Panels
Based in The Netherlands, Trespa is the world's largest manufacturer of solid composite panels.
Trespa entered the U.S. market in 1991, and now produces millions of square feet of sheet
material annually. Trespa products offer an alternative to thin laminate and epoxy-resin products.
Each of Trespa's four composite panel lines has been designed for a particular use:
1. Athlon, a panel developed for durable interior fittings;
2. Meteon, a panel developed for exterior applications such as cladding or soffits;
3. TopLab Plus, a panel designed for lab work surface areas; and
4. Virtuon, an interior panel system that is impact, moisture and stain resistant.
The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the
following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• C3030B.DBF—Athlon
• B2011F.DBF—Meteon
• E2021A.DBF—TopLab Plus
• C3030A.DBF—Virtuon
Raw Materials. All Trespa panels are made in the same way — with an interior core material and
a layer of decorative facing on both sides. The core and facing materials come from different
91
-------
sources for different applications, so the overall mix of raw material inputs is different for each
product as shown in Table 3.39.
Table 3.39 Trespa Composite Panel Constituents by Mass Fraction
Constituent
Kraft Paper
Wood
Bisphenol-A-Tar
Formaldehyde
Other Materials
Athlon
52%
0%
18 %
28%
2%
Meteon
17%
38%
17%
28%
0%
TopLab
17%
38%
17%
28%
0%
Virtuon
44%
0%
15%
24%
18%
The kraft paper used in the panels is recycled, so no raw material inputs are required. Wood
production data represent site data for the production of pine chips.
Bisphenol-A-Tar is used as a binder in the panels. Tar is a co-product of Bisphenol A
production, so a portion of the upstream burdens from Bisphenol A production are allocated to
the production of the tar. Formaldehyde is also used as a binder in the panels, and is assigned
the same upstream production data as that for other BEES products with formaldehyde.
Data for the transport of raw materials from the supplier to the 'manufacturer was provided by
Trespa, with diesel truck as the mode of transportation. Figure 3.21 shows the elements of
Trespa composite panel raw material production.
Trespa Panel Raw Material Production
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
Figure 3.21 Trespa Composite Panel Raw Material Production Flow Chart
Manufacturing. Trespa composite panel manufacturing consists of bonding the core panel and
the two decorative panels. The manufacturing process requires natural gas, diesel oil, and
electricity as energy inputs. To produce one square meter of panel, Trespa uses 9.4 MJ (2.6 Wh)
of electricity, 84.4 MJ of natural gas and 0.6 MJ of diesel oil. Trespa uses PET and Kraft paper
to package its products; these inputs are included in the life cycle inventories. Figure 3.22 shows
92
-------
the elements of Trespa composite panel manufacturing.
Trespa Panel Manufacturing Process
Trespa Raw Materials
Natural Gas
Electricity
Diesel Oil
PET Film and Kraft
Paper
Manufacturing
Process
Figure 3.22 Trespa Composite Panel Manufacturing Flow Chart
Transportation. Trespa panels are shipped from the production facility in The Netherlands to a
U.S. port — a distance that was modeled as 10 000 km by sea. The transportation emissions
allocated to each of the four Trespa panel products depends on the overall mass of the product,
as given in Table 3.40. Transportation from the U.S. port of entry to the building site, by diesel
truck, is modeled as a variable in BEES.
Table 3.40 Density of Trespa Composite Panels
Mass per Applied Area
Product
Density (kg/nt3)
All products (10 mm thickness)
14
1400
Installation. Trespa panels are installed using stainless steel bolts. On average, 0.025 kg of
stainless steel bolts are required to install 1 m2 of composite panel. Approximately 3 % of the
panel is lost as waste during the installation process, due to cutting of the panels to fit the
installation area.
End of Life. Trespa panels are assumed to have a lifetime of 50 years. After year 50, the panels
are removed and about 50 % of the waste is reused in other products, while the remaining 50 %
is sent to a landfill.
Cost. Detailed life cycle cost data for Trespa composite panels may be viewed by opening the
file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Their costs are listed
under the following codes:
• B2011 ,FO—Meteon Exterior Wall Finish
• C1031,AO-Virtuon Fabricated Toilet Partitions
93
-------
• C1031,BO—Athlon Fabricated Toilet Partitions
• C1032, AO—Virtuon Lockers
• C1032,BO—Athlon Lockers
• C3030,AO—Virtuon Ceiling Finish
• C3030,BO—Athlon Getting Finish
• E2010,AO—Virtuon Fixed Casework :
• E2010,BO—Athlon Fixed Casework
• E2021 ,AO--TopLab Plus Table Tops/Counter Tops/Shelving
• E2021,BO—Athlon Table Tops/Counter Tops/Shelving
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement) provided by Trespa.
3.9 Interior Finishes (C3012)
3.9.1 Paints — General Information
f
Conventional paints are generally classified into two basic categories: water-based (in which the
solvent is water) and oil-based (in which the solvent is an organic liquid, usually derived from
petrochemicals). Oil-based paints are sometimes referred to as solvent-based. Paints essentially
consist of a resin or binder, pigments, and a carrier in which these are dissolved or suspended.
Once the paint is applied to a surface, the carrier evaporates, leaving behind a solid coating. In
oil-based paints the carrier is a solvent consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which
can adversely affect indoor air quality and the environment. As a result, government regulations
and consumer demand are forcing continuing changes in paint formulations. These changes
have led to formulations containing more paint solids and less solvent, and a shift away from oil-
based paints to waterborne or latex paints.
Paint manufacture essentially consists of combining the ingredients, less some of the solvent, in
a steel mixing vessel. In some cases the mixing is followed by a grinding operation to break up
the dry ingredients, which tend to clump during mixing. Finally, additional solvents or other
liquids are added to achieve final viscosity, and supplemental tinting is added. The paint is then
strained, put into cans, and packaged for shipping.
Because they do not use solvents as the primary carrier, latex paints emit far fewer volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) upon application. They also do not require solvents for cleaning of
the tools and equipment. Water with a coalescing agent is the carrier for latex paints. The
coalescing agent is typically a glycol or glycol ether. The binder is synthetic latex made from
polyvinyl acetate and/or acrylic polymers and copolymers. Titanium dioxide is the primary
pigment used to impart hiding properties in white or light-colored paints. A range of pigment
extenders may be added. Other additives include surfactants, defoamers, preservatives, and
fungicides.
BEES considers two latex-based paint alternatives, virgin latex paint and latex paint wilii a 35 %
recycled content. The two alternatives are applied the same way. The surface to be painted is
94
-------
first primed and then painted with two coats of paint. One coat of paint is then applied every 4
years. The characteristics of both the paint and the primer are displayed in Table 3.41.
Table 3.41 Characteristics of BEES Paints and Primer
Characteristic
Spread rate of the coat m2/L (iVVgal)
Density of product kg/L (Ib/gal)
Primer
7.4 (300)
1.26 (10.5)
Paint (recycled or virgin)
8.6 (350)
1.28 (10.7)
3.9.2 Generic Virgin Latex Interior Paint (C3012A)
Major virgin latex paint constituents are resins (binder), titanium dioxide (pigment), limestone
(extender), and water (thinner), which are mixed together until they form an emulsion. Figure
3.23 displays the system under study for virgin latex paint.
Functional Unit of
Virgin Latex Interior Paint
Figure 3.23 Virgin Latex Interior Paint Flow Chart
Raw Materials. The average composition of the virgin latex paint/primer system modeled in
BEES is listed in Table 3.42.
95
-------
Table 3.42 Virgin Latex Paint and Primer Constituents
Constituent
Resin
Titanium dioxide
Limestone
Water
Paint (Mass
Fraction %)
25
12.5
12.5
50
Primer
(Mass
Fraction %)
25
7.5
7.5
60
Table 3.43 displays the market shares for the resins used for interior latex paint and primer.
Table 3.43 Market Shares of Resins
Resin type
Market share
Vinyl Acrylic
Polyvinyl Acetate
Styrene Acrylic
40
40
20
Table 3.44 shows the components of the three types of resin as modeled in BEES. The
production of the monomers used in the resins is based on the DEAM database.
Table 3.44 Components of Paint Resins
Resin Type Components
(Mass Fraction)
Vinyl Acrylic
Polyvinyl Acetate
Styrene Acrylic
Vinyl acetate (50 %)
Butyl acrylate (50 %)
Vinyl acetate (100 %)
Styrene (50 %)
Butyl acrylate (50 %)
Emissions. Emissions associated with paint manufacturing, such as particulates to the air, are
based on AP-42 emission factors.
Transportation. Truck transportation of raw materials to the paint manufacturing site is assumed
to average 402 km (250 mi) for titanium dioxide and limestone, and 801cm (50 mi) for the resins.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3012, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research hi The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
96
-------
3.9.3 Generic Recycled Latex Interior Paint (C3012B)
Figure 3.24 displays the BEES flow chart for recycled latex paint.
Truck Transport
Functional Unit of
Recycled Latex Interior Paint
Recycled Latex
Interior Paint Mfg
Truck Transport
(Raw Mail's)
Primer Mfg
Transport
of recycled
paint
Virgin Latex
Interior Paint Mfg
Resin Mfg
Truck Transpor
(Raw Mall's)
Resin Mfg
Truck Transpor
(Raw Mail's)
Titanium
Oxide Mfg
Limestone
Quarrying
Titanium
Oxide Mfg
Limestone
Quarrying
Figure 3.24 Recycled Latex Interior Paint Flow Chart
Raw Materials. The latex paint under study has a 65 % recycled content, or a 35 % content of
virgin materials. The recycled content of the paint consists of leftover paint that is collected.
After being pre-sorted at the collection site, recycled paints are sorted again at the "re-
manufacturing" site. It is assumed that 10 % of the collected paint imported to the "re-
manufacturing" site must be discarded (paint contaminated with texture material such as sand).
The recycled paint is environmentally "free", but its transportation to the paint manufacturing
site is taken into account. The virgin materials in the recycled paint consist of either virgin paint
ingredients (resin, titanium dioxide, and limestone) or virgin paint as a whole.
Transportation. Transport of collected paint from the collection point to the re-manufacturing
site is assumed to average 80 km (50 mi) by truck.
97
-------
Emissions. Emissions associated with paint manufacturing, such as particulates to the air, are
based on AP-42 emission factors.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3012, product code BO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based On data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.10 Floor Covering Alternatives (C3020)
3.10.1 Generic Ceramic Tile with Recycled Windshield Glass (C3020A)
Ceramic tile flooring consists of clay, or a mixture of clay and other ceramic materials, which is
baked in a kiln to a permanent hardness. To improve environmental performance, recycled
windshield glass can be added to the ceramic mix. For the BEES system, 50-year ceramic tile
with 75 % recycled windshield glass content, installed using a latex-cement mortar, is studied.
The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.25 shows the elements of ceramic tile with recycled glass
production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by
opening the file C3020A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials. For a 15 cm x 15 cm x 1.3 cm (6 in x 6 in x 1A in) ceramic tile with 75 %
recycled glass content, clay and glass are found in the quantities listed in Table 3.45.
Table 3.45 Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass Constituents
Ceramic Tile w/ Recycled
Glass Constituents
Recycled Glass
Clay
Total:
Mass
475.5 g (17 oz)
156.9 g (6 oz)
632.4 g (23 oz)
98
-------
Ceramic Tile w/ Recycled Glass
Truck
Functional Unit of
Ceramic Tile w/
Recycled Glass
Flooring
Truck
Transport
Recycled
Glass
Natural
Production
Production
Figure 3.25 Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass Flow Chart
Production requirements for clay are based on the DEAM database. The recycled windshield
glass material is environmentally "free." Burdens associated with glass production should be
allocated to the product with the first use of the glass (vehicle windshields). The transportation
of the glass to the tile facility and the processing of the glass are taken into account.
The production of mortar (1 part portland cement, 5 parts sand) and styrene-butadiene are based
on the DEAM database.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for the drying and firing processes of ceramic
tile production are listed in Table 3.46.
Table 3.46 Energy Requirements for Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Fuel Use Energy
Total Fossil Fuel
% Coal
% Natural Gas*
% Fuel Oil
% Wood
4.19 MJ/kg (1 801 Btu/Lb)
9.6
71.9
7.8
10.8
* Includes Propane
Emissions. Emissions associated with fuel combustion for tile manufacturing are based on AP-
42 emission factors.
Use. Installation of ceramic tile is assumed to require a layer of latex-mortar approximately
1.3 cm (1/2 in) thick. The relatively small amount of latex-mortar between tiles is not included.
Ceramic tile with recycled glass is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years.
99
-------
Refer to section 2.1.3 for indoor air performance assumptions for this product.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.2 Generic Linoleum Flooring (C3020B)
Linoleum is a resilient, organic-based floor covering consisting of a backing covered with a thick
wearing surface. For the BEES system, a 2.5 mm (0.098 hi) sheet linoleum, manufactured in
Europe, and with a jute backing and an acrylic lacquer finish coat is studied. A styrene-butadiene
adhesive is included for installation. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.26 shows the elements
of linoleum flooring production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product
may be viewed by opening the file C3020B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES
software.
Raw Materials. Table 3.47 lists the constituents of 2.5 mm (98 mil) linoleum and then-
proportions.
Table 3.47 Linoleum Constituents
Constituent
linseed oil
pine rosin
limestone
wood flour
cork flour
pigment
backing (jute)
acrylic lacquer
Total:
Mass Fraction (%)*
23.3
7.8
17.7
30.5
5.0
4.4
10.9
0.35
100.0
Mass per Applied Area
670g/m2(2.2oz/ft2)
224 g/m2 (0.7 oz/ft2)
509 g/m2 (1.7 oz/ft2)
877 g/m2 (2.9 oz/ft2)
. 144 g/m2 (0.5 oz/ft2)
127 g/m2 (0.4 oz/ft2)
3 13 g/m2 (1.0 oz/ft2)
10 g/m2 (0.03 oz/ft2)
2 874 g/m2 (9.4 oz/ft2)
Jonsson Asa, Anne-Marie Tillman, and Torbjorn Svensson, Life-Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials,
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 1995.
100
-------
Linoleum
Figure 3.26 Linoleum Flow Chart
The cultivation of linseed is based on a United States agricultural model which estimates soil
erosion and fertilizer run-off,93 with the following inputs:94
• Fertilizer: 0.0035 kg/m2 (31 Ib/acre) nitrogen fertilizer, 17 kg/ha (15 Ib/acre) phosphorous
fertilizer, and 0.0014 kg/m2 (12 Ib/acre) potassium fertilizer
• Pesticides: 0.5 kg/ha (0.4 Ib/acre) active compounds, with 20 % lost to air
• Diesel farm tractor: 0.65 MJ/kg (279 BtuAb) linseed
• Linseed yield: 0.06 kg/m2 (536 Ib/acre)
The production of the fertilizers and pesticides is based on the DEAM database. The cultivation
of pine trees for pine rosin is based on DEAM data for cultivated forestry, with inventory flows
allocated between pine rosin and its coproduct, turpentine. The production of limestone is based
on PricewaterhouseCoopers data for open pit limestone quarrying and processing. Wood flour is
sawdust produced as a coproduct of wood processing. Its production is based on the DEAM
database. Cork flour is a coproduct of wine cork production. Cork tree cultivation is not included
but the processing of the cork is included as shown below. Heavy metal pigments are used in
linoleum production. Production of these pigments are modeled based on the production of
titanium dioxide pigment. Jute used in linoleum manufacturing is mostly grown in India and
Bangladesh. Its production is based on the DEAM database. The production of acrylic lacquer is
based on the DEAM database.
93 Ecobalance, Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus,
NKEL/SR-580-24089, prepared for USDA and U.S DoE, May 1998.
94Jose Potting and Kornelis Blok, "Life-cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering," Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 3, No. 4,1995, pp. 201-213.
101
-------
Energy Requirements. Energy requirements for linseed oil production include fuel oil and
steam, and are allocated on a mass basis between linseed oil (34 %) and linseed cake (66 %).
Allocation is necessary because linseed cake is a co-product of linseed oil production whose
energy requirements should not be included in the BEES data.
Cork Flour production involves the energy requirements as listed in Table 3.48.
Table 3.48 Energy Requirements for Cork Flour Production
Cork Product Electricity Use
Cork Bark
Ground Cork
0.06 MJ/kg (26 Btu/lb)
L62 MJ/kg (696 Btu/lb)
Linoleum production involves the energy requirements as listed in Table 3.49.
Table 3.49 Energy Requirements for Linoleum Manufacturing
Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
2.3 MJ/kg (989 Btu/lb)
5.2 MJ/kg (2 235 Btu/lb)
Emissions. Tractor emissions for linseed cultivation are based on the DEAM database. The
emissions associated with Unseed oil production are allocated on a mass basis between oil
(34%) and cake (66%).
Since most linoleum manufacturing takes place in Europe, it is assumed to be a European
product in the BEES model. European linoleum manufacturing results in the following air
emissions in addition to those from the energy use:
• Volatile Organic Compounds: 1.6 g/kg (0.025 oz/lb)
• Solvents: 0.94 g/kg (0.015 oz/lb)
• Particulates: 0.23 g/kg (0.004 oz/lb)
Transportation. Transport of linoleum raw materials from point of origin to a European
manufacturing location is shown in Table 3.50.95
95 Life-Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials, Jonsson Asa, Anne-Marie Tillman, & Torbjorn Svensson,
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 1995.
102
-------
Table 3.50 Linoleum Raw Materials Transportation
Raw Material
Distance
Mode of Transport
linseed oil
pine rosin
Limestone
wood flour
cork flour
Pigment
backing (jute)
acrylic lacquer
4 350 km (2,703 mi)
1500 km (932 mi)
2 000 km (1,243 mi)
800 km (497 mi)
600 km (373 mi)
2 000 km (1,243 mi)
500 km (311 mi)
10 000 km (6,214 mi)
500 km (311 mi)
Ocean Freighter
Train
Ocean Freighter
Train
Train
Ocean Freighter
Diesel Truck
Ocean Freighter
Diesel Truck
Transport of the finished product from Europe to the United States is included. Transport of the
finished product from the point of U.S. entry to the building site is a variable of the BEES model.
Use. The installation of linoleum requires a styrene-butadiene adhesive. Linoleum flooring has a
useful life of 18 years.
Refer to section 2.1.3 for indoor air performance assumptions for this product.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code BO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars. •
3.10.3 Generic Vinyl Composition Tile (C3020C)
Vinyl composition tile is a resilient floor covering. Relative to the other types of vinyl flooring
(vinyl sheet flooring and vinyl tile), vinyl composition tile contains a high proportion of
inorganic filler. For the BEES study, vinyl composition tile is modeled with a composition of
limestone, plasticizer, and a copolymer of vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate. A layer of styrene-
butadiene adhesive is used during installation. Figure 3.27 shows the elements of vinyl
composition tile production. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may
be viewed by opening the file C3020C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES
software.
Raw Materials. Table 3.51 lists the constituents of 30 cm x 30 cm x 0.3 cm (12 in x 12 in x
1/8 in) vinyl composition tile and their proportions. A finish coat of acrylic latex is applied to the
vinyl composition tile at manufacture. The thickness of the finish coat is assumed to be
0.025 mm (0.98 mils). The production of these raw materials, and the styrene-butadiene
103
-------
adhesive, is based on the DEAM database.
Vinyl Composition Tile
Figure 3.27 Vinyl Composition Tile Flow Chart
Table 3.51 Vinyl Composition Tile Constituents
Constituent
Mass Fraction ( %)
Limestone
Vinyl resins:
10 % vinyl acetate / 90 % vinyl
chloride
Plasticizer: bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
84
12
Energy Requirements. Energy requirements for the manufacturing process (mixing,
folding/calendaring, finish coating, and die cutting) are listed in Table 3.52.
Table 3.52 Energy Requirements for Vinyl Composition Tile Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Fuel Use Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
1.36 MJ/kg (585 Btu/lb)
0.85 MJ/kg (365 Btu/lb)
Emissions. Emissions associated with the manufacturing process arise from the combustion of
fuel oil and are based on AP-42 emission factors.
104
-------
Use. Installing vinyl composition tile requires a layer of styrene-butadiene adhesive 0.0025 mm
(0.10 mils) thick. The life of the flooring is assumed to be 18 years.
Refer to section 2.1.3 for indoor air performance assumptions for this product.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code CO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.4 Generic Composite Marble Tile (C3020D)
Composite marble tile is a type of composition flooring. It is a mixture of polyester resin and
matrix filler that is colored for marble effect and poured into a mold. The mold is then vibrated
to release air and level the matrix. After curing and shrinkage the part is removed from the
mold, trimmed, and polished if necessary. For the BEES system, a 30 cm x 30 cm x 0.95 cm (12
in x 12 in x 3/8 in) tile, installed using a latex-cement mortar, is studied. The flow diagram in
Figure 3.28 shows the elements of composite marble tile production. The detailed environmental
performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file C3020D.DBF under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials Table 3.53 gives the constituents involved in the production of the marble matrix
and their proportions. It is assumed there is no loss of weight during casting.
Table 3.53 Composite Marble Tile Constituents
Constituent Mass Fraction
Resin
Filler
Catalyst (MEKP)
Pigment (TiO2)
23.1
75.2
0.2
1.5
The resin percentage is an average based on data from four sources ranging from 19 % to 26 %
resin content. The remainder of the matrix is composed of filler, catalyst, and pigment. The
filler is the largest portion of the matrix. Since calcium carbonate is the typical filler used for
U.S. composite marble tile production, it is the assumed filler material in the BEES model. The
filler is composed of coarse and fine particles with a ratio of two parts coarse to one part fine.
Filler production involves the mining and grinding of calcium carbonate.
105
-------
Composite Marble Tile
Figure 3.28 Composite Marble Tile Flow Chart
Resin is the second-most important ingredient used for the marble matrix. It is an unsaturated
polyester resin cross-linked with styrene monomer. The styrene content is assumed to range
from 35% to 55%.
The main catalyst used in the United States for the marble matrix is Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Peroxide (MEKP). This catalyst is used as a solvent in the mixture of resin and filler, so is
consumed in the process. Its amount is assumed to be about 1 % of the resin content, or 0.235 %
of the total marble matrix.
A colorant may be used if necessary. The quantity depends on the color required. The colorant
is usually added to the mixture before all the filler has been mixed. For the BEES study,
titanium dioxide at 1 % to 2 % is assumed.
Energy Requirements. Electricity is the only energy consumed in producing and casting the
resin-filler mixture for composite marble tile. Table 3.54 shows electricity use for composite
marble tile manufacturing.
Table 3.54 Energy Requirements for Composite Marble Tile Manufacturing
Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy
Electricity
0.047 MJ/kg (20.25 Bru/lb)
106
-------
Emissions. The chief emission from composite marble tile manufacturing is fugitive styrene,
which arises from the resin constituent and is assumed to be 2 % of the resin input. There could
be some emissions from the solvent, but most manufacturers now use water-based solvents,
which do not release any pollutants.
Use. Installing composite marble tile requires a sub-floor of a compatible type, such as concrete.
A layer of mortar is used at 25.11 kg/m2 (4.98 lb/ft2), assuming a 1.3 cm (1/2 in) thick layer. It is
assumed that composite marble tile has a useful life of 75 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code DO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.5 Generic Terrazzo (C3020E)
Epoxy terrazzo is a type of composition flooring. It contains a high proportion of inorganic filler
(principally marble dust and chips), a pigment for aesthetic purposes, and epoxy resin. The
materials are mixed and installed directly on site and, when dry, are carefully polished. Figure
3.29 shows the elements of terrazzo flooring production. The detailed environmental
performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file C3020E.DBF under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials Table 3.55 lists the constituents of epoxy terrazzo and their proportions.
Table 3.55 Terrazzo Constituents
Terrazzo Constituents
Mass Fraction (%,
marble dust
epoxy resin
pigment (titanium dioxide)
22
77
1
The finished floor is assumed to be 9.5 mm (3/8 in) thick. Typical amounts of raw materials
used are as follows: 1.5 kg (3.3 Ib) of marble dust and 0.23 kg (0.5 Ib) of marble chips per
0.09 m2 (1 ft2), 3.8 L (1 gal) of epoxy resin to cover 0.8 m2 (8.5 ft2) of surface, and depending on
customer selection, from 1 % to 15 % of the total content is pigment.
The production of these raw materials, including the quarrying of marble, is based on the DEAM
database. Note that because marble dust is assumed to be a coproduct rather than a waste
byproduct of marble production, a portion of the burdens of marble quarrying is allocated to
marble dust production.
107
-------
Terrazzo
Functional Unit of Epoxy Terrazzo
-Energy—
—Energy-
Energy—
Figure 3.29 Epoxy Terrazzo Flow Chart
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for the on-site "manufacturing" process involve
mixing in a 5.97 kW (8 hp) gasoline-powered mixer (a 0.25 m3, or 9 ft3, mixer running for
5min).
Emissions. Emissions associated with the mixing process arise from the combustion of gasoline
and are based on AP-42 emission factors.
Use. Installing epoxy terrazzo requires a sub-floor of a compatible type, such as concrete. It is
assumed that epoxy terrazzo flooring has a useful life of 75 years.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code EO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
108
-------
to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.6 Carpeting — General Information
Carpets are composed of a facing and a backing, which are attached during manufacture. Before
assembly, most carpets fibers are dyed. Adhesives are typically used for commercial
installations. Each of these components is discussed in turn, followed by a discussion of the
manufacturing process.
Carpet facing. Carpets are manufactured from a variety of fibers, usually nylon, polyester,
olefin, or wool.
Carpet dyes. Dyes are applied to textile fibers in a number of ways, depending on the properties
of the fiber, the dye, and the final product. The types of dyes used include inorganic, moralized
organic, acid, dispersed, premetallized, and chrome dyes.
Carpet backing.
'• Primary backing - usually made of woven slit-film polypropylene, synthetic polyester,
nonwoven polypropylene, polyester/nylon, or jute. These are "yarn carrier" materials holding
yarn that has been punched through them.
• Secondary backing — usually a woven or nonwoven fabric reinforcement laminated to the
back of tufted carpeting to enhance dimensional stability, strength, stretch resistance, lie-flat
stiffness, and handling. Examples of secondary backings are woven jute, polyester, and
nonwoven polypropylene. Because secondary backing is visible in finished carpeting (while.
primary backing is concealed under the pile yarn), most dealers and installers refer to the
secondary backing simply as "backing".
• Laminate/Foam Coating - includes polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), styrene
butadiene (SBR) latex, and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). These "semi" liquids are applied to
the back of the primary backing by various methods (e.g., knife over a roll, knife over a
blade) and cooled, or heated and cooled, depending upon the component used. The functions
of these components are to "lock in" or retain the yarn punched through the primary backing
(precoat layer), and to provide stability, comfort under foot, and serve as a "glue" to bond the
secondary backing to the carpet (finish coat layer).
Carpet adhesives. Two types of carpet adhesive comprise most of the commercial market -
latex and pressure sensitive adhesives. Low-VOC styrene butadiene latex adhesives are thought
to be an environmentally-friendly adhesive alternative.
Carpet manufacture and fabrication. Carpet manufacture consists of a number of steps,
including formation of the synthetic fibers; dyeing of the fibers; and construction, treatment, and
finishing of the carpet.
• Forming synthetic fibers — nylon, olefin, and polyester are all thermoplastic, melt-spun
109
-------
synthetic fibers. Synthetic fibers are extruded and solidity as they cool. Post-treatments
generally enhance the physical properties of the fiber. The bundle of fibers is then put
through a crimping or texturizing process, after which it is either chopped into staple fiber or
wound into bulk continuous filament yarn. The yarn may be heat-set to improve its ability to
withstand the stresses of dyeing, finishing, and traffic wear. Heat-setting is performed either
by the autoclave method, in which batches of the yarn are treated with pressurized steam, or
the continuous method, in which the yarn is heat-set in an ongoing manner.
• Dyeing fibers—polymer, fiber, or yarn can be dyed before carpet is manufactured by
applying the color through one of several processes:
1. Solution dyeing - involves adding color pigments to the molten polymer prior to
extrusion;
2. Stock dyeing - cut staple fiber is packed into a large kettle after which dye liquid is
forced through the fibers continuously as the temperature is increased. This process
is often used to dye wool fiber;
3. Package dyeing — yarn is wound onto a special perforated cone; or
4. Space dyeing - involves knitting plain circular-knit tubing, which is then printed with
dyestuffs in a multicolored pattern, steamed, washed, extracted, dried, and then
unraveled and rewound into cones.
• Construction, treatment and finishing techniques - several different techniques are used to
attach yarn to the carpet backing. Tufting is by far the most widespread, with weaving,
knitting, fusion bonding, and custom tufting also in use.
1. Tufting — the yarn is stitched through a fabric backing, creating a loop called a tuft;
2. Weaving — carpet looms weave colored pile yarns and backing yarns into a carpet,
which then gets a back coating, usually of latex, for stability;
3. Knitting - carpet knitting machines produce facing and backing simultaneously, with
three sets of needles to loop pile yarn, backing yarn, and stitching yarn together;
4. Fusion bonding - the yarn is embedded between two parallel sheets of adhesive-
coated backing, and the sheets are slit, forming two pieces of cut pile carpet; and
5. Custom tufting — special designs are created using motorized hand tools called single-
handed tufters and pass machines.
Commercial-grade carpet for medium traffic is evaluated for the BEES system. Two applications
are studied: broadloom and carpet tile. The tufting manufacturing process is assumed for all
carpet alternatives. Three face fiber materials are studied: wool, nylon, and recycled polyester
(from soft drink PET bottles). The primary backing for all carpets is comprised of a plastic
compound into which the face yarn is inserted by tufting needles. Also, a coating is applied to
the back of the carpet to secure the face yarns to the primary backing. As carpet manufacturing
and installation are assumed to be similar for the three face fiber options, the corresponding
modeling is displayed only once in this general carpet information section.
Energy Requirements. Table 3.56 displays the energy requirements for tufting carpet.
96
96 J. Potting and K. Blok, Life Cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands, 1994.
110
-------
Table 3.56 Energy Requirements for Carpet Manufacturing
Fuel Type Manufacturing Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
1.80 MJ/m2 (0.046 kW»h/ft2)
8.2 MJ/m2 (0.21 kW-h /ft2)
Emissions. Emissions associated with fuel combustion for carpet manufacture are based on AP-
42 emission factors.
Use. Glue is typically used for commercial carpet installations. Two glue alternatives are
evaluated: traditional latex glue and low-VOC latex glue. Details on these carpet installation
parameters are given in Table 3.57.
Table 3.57 Carpet Installation Parameters '
Parameter
Broadloom
Tile97
Glue application
(applies to both
traditional and low-
VOC glues)
Cutting waste
2 layers:98
• one full layer of glue, spread rate
ofl.77m2/L(8yd2/gal)
• spots of glue (10 % of full spread
of glue with spread rate of
4.42 m2/L, or 20 yd2/gal)
5.7%
1 layer at 8.8 m2/L
(40 yd2/gal)
2'%
Data for production of the traditional and low-VOC glues are based on the DEAM database.
3.10.7 Generic Wool Carpet (C3020G,C3020J,C3020M,C3020P)
A 1.13 kg (40 oz) wool carpet with a 25-year life is included in BEES. Figure 3.30 displays the
system under study for wool carpet manufacture. The detailed environmental performance data
for this product may be viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in
the BEES software:
• C3020G.DBF —
• C3020J.DBF —
• C3020M.DBF —
• C3020P.DBF —
Wool Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue
Wool Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue
Wool Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue
Wool Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue
97 Note that wool carpet tile is not currently manufactured on industrial lines.
98 Spread rates for glue as recommended by the Carpet and Rug Institute.
Ill
-------
Truck Transport
Funcfional Urit of
Wool Carpet
Wtod Carpet
Wad Fiber
Ufa
Truck Transport
(Raw Wall's)
Primary
Mfg
(PPor
PVC)
Coating
Mfg
Figure 3.30 Wool Carpet Flow Chart
Raw materials. Table 3.58 lists the constituents of wool carpet and their amounts.
Table 3.58 Wool Carpet Constituents
Amount
Constituent
Material
Face fiber
Backing
1 400 (4.59)
130 (0.43)
Wool
Polypropylene for
broadloom,
PVC for tile
Styrene butadiene latex 950 (3.11), including 710 g
(25.04 oz) of limestone as a
filler
The production of the plastic compound for backing, either polypropylene or PVC, and the
production of the styrene butadiene latex are based on the DEAM database.
The wool fiber is produced in New Zealand, following the major production steps displayed in
Figure 3.31.
112
-------
Fertilizer
Production
i
Food
Production
Sheep
Raising
and
Shearing
V\fooi
Scouring
h
Wool
Drying,
Dyeing,
Blending
b
Wool
Carding
and
Spinning
Figure 3.31 Wool Fiber Production
The material flows included for the production of raw wool are displayed hi Table 3.59."
Table 3.59 Raw Wool Material Flows
Flow
Amount
Inputs:
- Nitrogen supply (ammonium nitrate)
- Phosphate supply (PiOs)
Outputs:
- Raw wool
- Methane emissions (enteric
fermentation)
29 g/kg nitrogen to raw wool (0.46 oz/lb)
770 g/kg P2O5 to raw wool (12.32 oz/lb)
8.25 kg/year (18.20 Ib/year) of raw wool
8.8 kg (19.4 lb)/head/year
"Average of data reported in two sources: International Panel on Climate Change for methane, 1993, reports 9.62
kg/head/year and AP-42, Table 14-4-2, gives 8 kg/head/year.
The fertilizer inputs correspond to the production of food for the sheep. Fertilizer production is
based on the DEAM database.
Raw wool is greasy and carries debris that needs to be washed off in a process called "scouring."
The amount of washed wool per kg of raw wool is 80 %, as shown in Table 3.60 along with
other raw wool constituents.
Table 3.60 Raw Wool Constituents
Constituent
Mass Fraction
Clean fiber (ready to be carded and spun)
Grease
Suint salts
Dirt
80
6
6
8
Grease is recovered at an average recovery rate of 40 %.100 The scoured fiber is then dried,
carded, and spun. Table 3.61 lists the main inflows and outflows for the production of wool yarn
from raw wool.101 The data for raw wool processing are from the Wool Research Organisation
of New Zealand (WRONZ).
99 J.Potring and K.Blok, Life Cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands, 1994.
100 The non-recovered grease exits the system (e.g., as sludge from water effluent treatment).
101 These requirements also include processes such as dyeing and blending which take place at this stage.
113
-------
Flow
Table 3.61 Wool Yarn Production Requirements
Amount
Input:
- Natural Gas
- Electricity
- Lubricant
-Water
Output:
- Wool yarn (taking into account material
losses through drying, carding, and
spinning)
-Water emissions corresponding to scouring:
BOD
COD
4.3 MJ/kg (1849 Btu/lb)
0.56 MJ/kg (241 Btu/lb)
0.05 kg/kg (0.05 oz/oz)
30 L/kg (3.59 gal/lb)
0.75 kg/kg (0.75 oz/oz)
3.3 g/kg (0.053 oz/lb)
9.3g/kg(0.15oz/lb)
Most of the required energy is used at the scouring step. As grease is a co-product of the
scouring process, a mass-based allocation is used to determine how much of the energy entering
this process is actually due to the production of washed wool alone.102 One-fourth of the required
energy (about 1MJ, or 948 Btu) is used for drying.103 Energy requirements with regard to wool
carding and spinning are negligible. Water consumption is assumed to be 20 L/kg to 40 L/kg
(2.4 gal/lb to 4.8 gal/lb) of greasy wool. Lubricant is added for blending, carding, and spinning.
Some lubricant is incorporated into the wool.
Transportation. Backing and coating raw materials are assumed to travel 402 km (250 mi) to the
carpet manufacturing plant. Wool yarn comes from New Zealand. Table 3.62 displays the
transportation modes and distances the wool travels before being used in the tufting process.
Table 3.62 Wool Transportation
Mode of Transportation
Distance
Sea Freighter
Truck
11 112 km (6000 nautical miles)
805 km (500 mi)
Use. Refer to section 2.1.3 for indoor air performance assumptions for this product.
Cost Purchase and installation costs for wool carpet vary by application (broadlopm or tile) and
glue type (traditional or low-VOC). The detailed life-cycle cost data may be viewed by opening
the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. .Costs are listed
under the following codes
• C3020, GO—Wool Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue
• C3020, JO—Wool Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue
102 This allocation is also applied to the non-energy flows for this process.
103 Including dyeing and blending.
114
-------
• C3020, MO—Wool Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue
• C3020, PO—Wool Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOG Glue
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.8 Generic Nylon Carpet (C3020F,C3020I,C3020L,C3020O)
A 0.68 kg (24 oz) nylon carpet with an 11-year life (broadloom) or 15-year life (tile) is included
in BEES. Figure 3.32 displays the system under study for nylon carpet manufacture. The detailed
environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the following files
under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• C3020F.DBF—Nylon Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue
• C3020I.DBF—Nylon Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue
• C3020L.DBF—-Nylon Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue
• C3020O.DBF—Nylon Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue
Raw Materials. Table 3.63 lists the constituents of nylon carpet and their amounts.
Table 3.63 Nylon Carpet Constituents
Constituent
Amount
Material
Broadloom
Face fiber
Backing
Nylon 6,6
Polypropylene
Styrene butadiene latex
(SBL)
810 (2.65)
130 (0.43)
930 (3.05), including 710 g
(25.04 oz) of limestone as a filler
TUe
Face fiber
Primary Backing
Precoat
Fiberglass
Backing
Nylon 6,6
Polypropylene
EVA latex
(including CaCO3 filler)
Fiberglass
Virgin PVC
810 (2.65)
130 (0.43)
930 (3.06)
incl. filler: 654 (2.14)
68 (0.22)
3052 (10)
115
-------
The production of plastic compound for backing (polypropylene and/or PVC), fiberglass,
ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) latex, styrene butadiene latex (SBL), and nylon fiber are based on
the DEAM database.
The spinning of nylon fiber is based on melt extrusion, for which the Association of Plastic
Manufacturers in Europe (APME) is the data source for energy requirements and AP-42 the data
source for emissions. The inputs and outputs of the nylon yarn manufacturing process are
displayed in Table 3.64.
Truck Transport
Functional Unit of
Nylon Carpet
Nylon Caipet
Manufacturing
NykxiHbor
M(B
Truck Transport
(Raw Mall's)
Primary
Backing
Mfg
(PPor
PVC)
Coating
Mfg
Flow
Figure 3.32 Nylon Carpet Flow Chart
Table 3.64Nylon Yarn Production Requirements
Amount
Input:
- Electricity
-Fuel Oil
- Natural gas
Output (emissions to the air):
- Hydrocarbons except methane
- Participates
1.8 MJ/kg (774 Btu/lb)
0.7 MJ/kg (301 Btu/lb)
0.2 MJ/kg (86 Btu/lb)
2.3 g/kg (0.037 oz/lb)
0.6 g/kg (0.0096 oz/lb)
116
-------
Transportation. Transport of raw materials to the carpet manufacturing plant is assumed to
require 402 km (250 mi) by truck.
Use. Refer to section 2.1.3 for indoor air performance assumptions for this product.
Cost. Purchase and installation costs for nylon carpet vary by application (broadloom or tile) and
glue type (traditional or low-VOC). The detailed life-cycle cost data may be viewed by opening
the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed
under the following codes:
• C3020,FO—Nylon Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue
• C3020,IO—Nylon Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue
• C3020JLO—Nylon Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue
• C3020,OO—Nylon Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.9 Generic Recycled Polyester Carpet (C3020H,C3020K,C3020N,C3020Q)
A 0.68 kg (24 oz) carpet with polyester fiber recycled from soft drink bottles (PET) and with an
8 year life is included in BEES. Figure 3.33 displays the system under study for recycled
polyester carpet manufacture. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may
be viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• C3020H.DBF—Recycled Polyester Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue
• C3020K.DBF— Recycled Polyester Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue
• C3020N.DBF—Recycled Polyester Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue
• C3020Q.DBF—Recycled Polyester Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue
Raw materials. Table 3.65 lists the constituents of recycled polyester carpet and their amounts.
117
-------
Table 3.65 Recycled Polyester Carpet Constituents
Constituent
Face fiber
Backing
Material
Recycled PET
Polypropylene for
broadloom,
PVC for tile
Styrene butadiene
latex
Amount
Z/m^oz/ft2)
810 (2.65)
130 (0.43)
930 (3.05), including 710 g
(25.04 oz) of limestone as a
filler
The production of the plastic compound for backing (either polypropylene or PVC), the styrene
butadiene latex, and the recycled PET fiber are based on the DEAM database. The recycling of
PET is modeled as shown in Figure 3.34.
Truck Transport
Function^ Urit of
Recycled PET Carpet
Recycled PET
Carpet
Manufacturing
Recycled
PET
Fiber Mg
Truck Transport
(RawMatfs)
Primary
Backing
MTg
(PPor
PVC)
Coating
Mfg
Figure 3.33 Recycled Polyester Carpet Flow Chart
_
118
-------
collected PET bottles -^
PET Sorting
and Baling
PET Shredding
Truck
Transport
—recycled PET>-
Figure 3.34 Handling and Reclamation of PET
The spinning of the PET fiber is based on melt extrusion, for which the Association of Plastic
Manufacturers in Europe (APME) is the data source for energy requirements and AP-42 the data
source for emissions. The inputs and outputs of the recycled PET yarn manufacturing process are
displayed in Table 3.66.
Table 3.66 Recycled PET Yarn Production Requirements
Flow
Amount
Input:
- Electricity
- Fuel Oil
- Natural Gas
Output (emissions to the air):
- Hydrocarbons except methane
- Particulates
1.8MJ/kg(774Btu/lb)
0.7 MJ/kg (301 Btu/lb)
0.2MJ/kg(86Btu/lb)
0.05 g/kg (0.0008 oz/lb)
0.03 g/kg (0.00048 oz/lb)
Transportation. Transport of raw materials to the carpet manufacturing plant is assumed to
require 402 km (250 mi) by truck. Another 274 km (170 mi) is added for transport of the
recycled PET from the materials recovery facility to the recycled yarn processing site.
Use. Refer to section 2.1.3 for indoor air performance assumptions for this product.
Cost. Purchase and installation costs for recycled PET carpet vary by application (broadloom or
tile) and glue type (traditional or low-VOC). The detailed life-cycle cost data may be viewed by
opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs
are listed under the following codes:
• C3020,HO—Recycled Polyester Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue
• C3020,KO— Recycled Polyester Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue
• C3020,NO—Recycled Polyester Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue
• C3020,QO—Recycled Polyester Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
119
-------
3.10.10 Shaw Industries EcoWorx Carpet Tile (C3020S)
A subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and headquartered in Dalton, Georgia, Shaw Industries
sells floor covering and rugs for residential and commercial applications in the United States and
abroad. Shaw's manufacturing facilities encompass every aspect of carpet and rug production,
firom basic chemicals and raw materials to advanced tufting, weaving, and finishing.
For commercial applications, Shaw offers carpet tiles of EcoSolution Q solution-dyed nylon
fiber with EcoWorx backing substrate. In BEES, this product is referred to as Shaw EcoWorx
carpet tile. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by
opening the file C3020S under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials and Manufacturing. Figure 3.35 displays the elements of Shaw EcoWorx carpet
tile production. Production details for the four major elements, EcoWorx backing, nylon yarn,
precoat compound, and adhesive, are shown in Figures 3.36 through 3.39, respectively.
Ecoworx Carpet Manufacturing
Figure 3.35 Shaw EcoWorx Carpet Tile Flow Chart
1
r
Installation and
Use
120
-------
Ecoworx Backing Production
Ecoworx Backing
Production
TO Raw Materials
Production System
Figure 3.36 Shaw EcoWorx Backing Flow Chart
121
-------
Nylon Yarn Production
TO Raw Materials
Production System
j
Figure 3.37Shaw Nylon Tarn Flow Chart
Data representing the production of nylon yarn involve the following assumptions:
• For nylon yarn recycling, it is assumed that no raw materials are consumed during the
recycling process and that the efficiency of the recycling process is 90 %. Electricity use
for the recycling process is an average of 'yarn/backing separation' electricity use and
'contract recycling' electricity use.
• Transport for all raw materials to the manufacturing plant is set at 402 km (250 miles).
• The data for energy use for yarn spinning is based on site data. Twenty five percent
(25 %) of the yarn is assumed to consist of recycled yarn.
Table 3.67 gives the production requirements for nylon yarn based on these assumptions.
Table 3.67Nylon Yarn Production Requirements
Flow Name
Electricity
Natural Gas (used as fuel)
Polyamide (PA 6)
Recycled Polyamide (PA 6)
Units
MJ
MJ
kg
kg
Quantity/kg
yarn
9.8
0.13
0.75
0.25
122
-------
Precoat Production
Precoat Compound
Production
TO Raw Materials
Production System
Figure 3.38 Shaw Precoat Compound Flow Chart
The amounts of aluminum hydroxide and EVA used to produce the precoat compound were
provided by Shaw. The production of the rest of the precoat fillers was ignored because they
contributed to less than 1 % of the total mass of the precoat compound.
The pressure-sensitive adhesive was modeled as an even blend of butyl acrylate, 2-
ethylhexalacrylate (2-EHA), and methyl acrylate. Surrogate production data were used to
represent these raw materials.
The mix of constituents, by mass, in 1 m2 (1 yd2) of carpet is 0.88 kg (1.63 Ibs) of latex precoat,
0.89 kg (1.65 Ibs) of yarn, and 0.14 kg (0.25 Ibs) of backing.
Installation and Use. The lifetime of the carpet tile is assumed to be 15 years. While 5 % of the
adhesive is wasted during installation, no carpet tiles are wasted.
123
-------
Adhesive Production
TO Installation and Use
Figure 3.39 Shaw Adhesive Flow Chart
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code SO. First cost data include purchase and installation costs.
Purchase costs were provided by Shaw and installation costs were collected from the R.S. Means
publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002
dollars.
3.10.11 Universal Textile Technologies Urethane-Backed Nylon Broadlooim Carpets
(C3020T, C3020U)
Universal Textile Technologies (UTT) is a carpet manufacturer based in Dalton, GA. UTT is
working with Dow Chemical Company on the introduction of Dow's new product, Biobalance, a
soybean-based material that can replace a portion of the inputs required to make polyurethane
carpet backing. Biobalance is the result of research funded by soybean fanners to assist in
developing a soy-derived polyol. The soy polyol can be used in a variety of other applications,
including spray-on insulation and truck bed liners.
BEES includes two UTT nylon carpet products with different backing systems: a soy urethane
backing precoat and a petroleum urethane backing precoat. The detailed environmental
performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the following files under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
124
-------
• C3020T.DBF—UTT, Petroleum Backed Nylon Carpet
• C3020U.DBF— UTT, Soy Backed Nylon Carpet
Raw Materials. A flow diagram for UTT carpet raw materials production is given in Figure 3.40.
The two carpets are both made with nylon but have different additives. The mixture of
constituents for each of the two products, by mass, is listed in Table 3.68.
Table 3.68 UTT Urethane-Backed Carpet Constituents by Mass Fraction
Carpet with Soy
Carpet with Petroleum
Constituent
Soy Polyol
Petroleum Polyol
Foam Backing
Nylon Yarn
Isocyanate
Other Additives and Fillers
Urethane Backing
2%
7%
31%
30 %
5%
25%
Urethane Backing
9%
31 %
30%
6%
24%
The yarn for both carpets consists of Nylon 6,6, the data for which was taken from public data
provided by the plastics industry and that are consistent with the data used to represent Nylon 6,6
in the BEES generic nylon carpet products. Data for the production of polyether polyol and
isocyanate are aggregate site data provided by the plastics industry and consistent with data used
in the BEES generic carpet products. Soy polyol production is represented by life, cycle soybean
oil production data developed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), updated to reflect
a newer manufacturing process for the oil. Data for all other fillers and additives are taken from
public data.
*
Data for the transport of raw materials from the suppliers to the manufacturer was modeled using
a diesel truck as the mode of transportation.
Carpet Raw Material Production
Nylon 6,6 Petroleum Polyol produrtto^Soy Isocyanat
Production Production Tackfngonw" P'0
-------
Manufacturing. The manufacturing process for both carpets consists of forming the
polyurethane backing, curing the backing, and adhering the backing to the nylon facing. Site
data are used to quantify the energy inputs to the production process, which consist of purchased
electricity and natural gas. The energy input for both backing materials ranges from 0.44 MJ/m2
to 7.78 MJ/m2 of carpet. The manufacturing flow diagram is given in Figure 3.41.
Carpet Manufacturing Process
Carpet Raw Materials
Natural Gas
i
Electricity
r
Manufacturing
Process
\
r
Figure 3.41 UTTUrethane Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart
Transportation to Building Site. The transportation distance from the manufacturing plant in
Dalton, Georgia to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. Both products are shipped
by diesel truck and have the same mass per applied area and density: 3.11 kg/m2 and 242 kg/m3,
respectively (or 0.28 kg/ft2 and 7.27 kg/ft3, respectively).
Installation and Use. The installation adhesive for the UTT carpet products was assumed to be
the same traditional contact adhesive used to install the generic BEES carpet products. The
average application was assumed to require 0.33 kg/m2 (0.07 lb/ft2) adhesive to carpet, again
consistent with the generic BEES carpet products. No carpet waste is generated during the
installation of the carpet, but 5 % of the adhesive is wasted. '
End of Life. Given lifetimes of 11 years, both UTT carpet products are replaced 4 times (after
the initial installation) over the 50-year BEES study period. At each replacement, it is assumed
that 5 % of the carpet waste is recycled, with the remaining 95 % going to a landfill.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for the UTT products may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product code TO for petroleum urethane-backed carpet and BEES code
C3020, product code UO for soy urethane-backed carpet. First cost data include purchase and
installation costs. Purchase costs were provided by UTT and installation costs were collected
from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been
adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
126
-------
3.10.12 Collins & Aiknian ER3 Carpet TMe (C3020X)
Collins and Aikman Floorcoverings (C&A) is an international manufacturer and supplier of
commercial carpeting for the corporate, healthcare, education, government, and retail sectors.
C&A is a leading producer of modular carpet tile and roll carpet. A commercial carpet tile
product manufactured by C&A is included in BEES: style Habitat, Powerbond RS ER3 Modular
carpet tile. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by
opening the file C3020X.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
Raw Materials. C&A carpet tile products use C&A's ER3 100 % recycled-content secondary
backing as shown in Table 3.69.
Table 3.69 C&A Carpet Tile Constituents
Constituent
Mass Fraction
Nylon 6,6 Yarn (min. 82 % post-industrial
content)
Polyester/Nylon primary backing
ER3 recycled vinyl secondary backing
Other Additives (precoat, fillers, etc.)
15%
2%
36%
47%
The yarn for the ER3 carpet tile consists primarily of post-industrial Nylon 6,6. Data for the
production of Nylon 6,6 and for yarn spinning were taken from public data provided by the
plastics industry; these data are consistent with the data used for the other BEES nylon carpet
products.
The primary backing for the ER3 carpet tile consists of a polyester core with a Nylon 6 sheath.
The data for these polymers are gathered from public data provided by the plastics industry;
these data are consistent with the data used for other BEES carpet products.
For the secondary backing, modular tile products use C&A's proprietary ER3 backing system,
which contains a rninimum of 25 % post consumer carpet. The remaining 75 % of the mass
consists of post-industrial waste generated during carpet manufacturing (50 %) and industrial
waste from the automotive industry (25 %).
The most significant raw materials in terms of mass are included and are quantified using the
DEAM database.
Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to the
manufacturing plant were provided by C&A. Both diesel truck and rail transportation were
involved, depending on the raw material. Figure 3.42 shows the elements of raw materials
production for ER3 carpet tile.
127
-------
Habitat Raw Material Production
Nylon 6,6 Yam F
Recycling P
olyester ?***«
•oduction Materials
Recycling
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
N*°n6 SS
Production p^n
"l
Figure 3.42 C&A ER3 Tile Raw Materials Production Flow Chart
Manufacturing. The manufacturing process for carpet tile consists of tufting the nylon yarn,
applying the precoat compound, and joining the yarn to the backing materials. C&A provided
information on the energy inputs and air and water emissions from the manufacturing process, as
shown in Figure 3.43. Natural gas comprises 76.5 % of the energy associated with production
and electricity accounts for the remaining 23.5 %. Any waste generated during the manufacturing
process is recycled back into other carpet products.
Carpet Tile Nbnufacturing Process
Carpet Tile Raw
Materials
Electricity
Natural Gas
Manufacturing
Process
Figure 3.43 C&A Carpet Tile Manufacturing Flow Chart
128
-------
Transportation to Building Site. The transportation distance from the C&A manufacturing plant
in Dalton, Georgia to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. The product is shipped
by diesel truck. The quantity of transportation emissions allocated depends on the overall mass
of the product, as given in Table 3.70.
Table 3.70 C&A ER3 Carpet Tile Mass and Density
Massper Applied Area in Density in kg/m3 (Ib/ff)
kg/m2 (Ib/ft2)
4.44 (0.88)
626 (41)
Installation and Use. C&A carpet tiles are installed with a pressure-sensitive adhesive that is
applied to the back of the tiles at the manufacturing facility. According to C&A, very little
carpet waste is generated during installation, and scraps are typically kept at the building site for
future repairs. • .
End of Life. As for all BEES nylon carpet tile products, the lifetime of ER3 is set at 15 years. At
end of life, 100 % of the product is recycled.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for C&A ER3 carpet tile may be viewed by opening the
file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed
under BEES code C3020, product code XO. First cost data includes purchase and installation
costs. Purchase costs were provided by C&A and installation costs were collected from the R.S.
Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data. Costs have been updated to year
2002 dollars.
3.10.13 Interface Hyperion, Mercator, Prairie School, Sabi, and Transformation Carpets
(C3020Y, C3020Z, C3020AA, C3020BB, C3020CC)
Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Interface is a leader in the worldwide commercial interiors market,
offering modular and broadloom carpets, fabrics, interior architectural products, and specialty
chemicals. Five Interface carpet products are included in BEES. They are listed below, together
with the names of the BEES files containing their detailed environmental performance data:
1. Bentley Prince Street, Hyperion recycled nylon broadloom carpet (C3020Y)
2. Bentley Prince Street, Mercator recycled nylon broadloom carpet (C3020Z)
3. Interface Flooring Systems, Prairie School recycled nylon and vinyl carpet tile
(C3020AA)
4. Interface Flooring Systems, Sabi recycled nylon and vinyl carpet tile (C3020BB)
5. Interface Flooring Systems, Transformation recycled nylon and vinyl carpet tile
(C3020CC)
The BEES environmental performance data files for these products may be viewed by opening
them under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Raw Materials. Interface's Hyperion and Mercator broadloom carpets are produced from a
129
-------
similar mix of materials, as are its Prairie School, Sabi, and Transformation carpet tiles. The mix
of constituents, by mass, for each of these products is listed in Table 3.71.
Table 3.71 Interface Carpet Constituents by Mass Fraction
Constituent
Recycled Nylon 6,6
(77 % post-industrial)
Recycled Nylon 6,6
(93 % post-industrial)
Recycled vinyl (100%
post-consumer)
Polypropylene
Styrene Butadiene Latex
(SBL)
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
(EVA) adhesive
Other Additives
Hyperion
38%
—
~
12%
11%
~
39%
Mercator
42 %
—
—
11%
10 %
-
__
37 %
Prairie
School
—
11%
43%
—
—
5%
41%
Sabi
9%
—
43%
--
—
5%
43 %
Transformation
11%
,
'
43 %
—
:
5%
41 %
The Nylon 6,6 and vinyl used hi these carpet products have significant recycled content. The
recycled content nylon and vinyl carry no environmental burdens from the production of the
virgin materials. However, the electricity used to grind the material down to a useable size is
assigned to the products. While the recycled Nylon 6,6 comes from recycled polymer and
recycled dyes, data limitations required analysis based on average U.S. data for the grinding of
plastic scrap: 163 MJ of energy required to grind 907 kg, or 1 ton, of plastic. For the recycling of
post-consumer vinyl, electricity data were provided by Interface. While the Nylon 6,6 virgin
material comes from virgin dyes, oils, and additives, data limitations dictated that it be assessed
using public data from the plastics industry for producing and spinning virgin Nylon 6,6,
consistent with data used in the BEES generic carpet model.
Environmental burdens from producing the polypropylene used for backing in the Mercator and
Hyperion carpets are taken from public data provided by the plastics industry. Burdens for the
other polymer additives in the carpets, such as the virgin vinyl, are also taken from plastics
industry data; these data are consistent with those used for other BEES carpet products.
Since the Mercator and Hyperion carpets are broadloom applications, the nylon yarn is back-
coated with Styrene Butadiene latex (SBL) to provide stability. For the Prairie School, Sabi and
Transformation carpet tiles, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) is used to bind the nylon to the
primary substrate. Life cycle inventory data for both materials come from public and site-
specific data in the DEAM database. Data for the phthalates used in the three carpets containing
vinyl comes from a recent study carried out for the European Council for Plasticizers and
Intermediates.
The manufacturer provided transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the
suppliers to the Interface plants; transportation is by diesel truck. Figures 3.44 and 3.45 show the
elements of raw materials production for the Interface broadloom and tile products, respectively.
130
-------
Hyperion and Mercator Raw Material Production
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
Figure 3.44 Interface Hyperion and Mercator Raw Materials Production Flow Chart
Prairie School, Sabi and Transformation Raw Material Production
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
Figure 3.45 Interface Prairie School, Sabi, and Transformation Raw Materials Production
Flow Chart
Manufacturing. The manufacturing process for the two broadloom carpets essentially consists
of weaving the nylon yarn, applying the precoat compound, and joining the yarn to the backing.
This process requires both purchased electricity and natural gas. The production of each unit of
Hyperion and Mercator carpet (0.09 m2 or 1 ft2) requires approximately 0.1 MJ (0.03 kWh) of
electricity and 0.36 MJ from natural gas.
131
-------
The manufacturing process for the three carpet tile products consists of tufting the nylon yarn,
applying the EVA adhesive, then joining the yarn to the backing. Producing 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of
each of these carpet tiles requires approximately 0.1 MJ (0.03 kWh) of electricity and 0.46 MJ
(436 Btu) from natural gas.
The manufacturing flow diagram for all five Interface products is given in Figure 3.46.
Carpet Manufacturing Process
Carpet Raw Materials
Natural Gas
i
Electricity
r
Manufacturing
Process
Figure 3.46 Interface Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart
Transportation to Building Site. The transportation distance from the Interface manufacturing
plant in Georgia or California to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. All products
are shipped by diesel truck. The quantity of transportation emissions allocated to each product
depends on the overall mass of the product, as given in Table 3.72.
Table 3.72 Interface Carpet Density
Product
Massper Applied Area
in kg/at2 flb/ft2)
Density in kg/m3
Hyperion
Mercator
Prairie School
Sabi
Transformation
2.00 (0.40)
2.11(0.42)
5.44 (1.08)
5.33 (1.06)
5.44 (1.08)
356.67 (23.59)
383.33 (25.36)
696.67 (46.08)
870.00 (57.55)
673.33 (44.54)
Installation and Use. The five Interface carpet products are installed using a contact adhesive.
The following installation waste percentages are used: Hyperion - 4 %, Mercator - 2.25 %,
Prairie School - 2 %, Sabi - 2 %, and Transformation - 1 %. Five percent of the adhesive is lost
during installation.
End of Life. With lifetimes of 15 years, the Prairie School, Sabi, and Transformation carpet tiles
are replaced three times during the 50-year BEES study period. The broadloom carpets,
132
-------
Hyperion and Mercator, have 11-year lives, requiring 4 replacements over the study period. As
with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are included
in the inventory data.
Cost. The detailed life cycle cost data for Interface carpet products may be viewed by opening
the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed
under the following BEES codes:
• C3020, YO—Hyperion
• C3020, ZO—Mercator
• C3020, AAO—Prairie School
• C3020, BBO—Sabi
• C3020, CCO—Transformation
First cost data include purchase and installation costs. Purchase costs were provided by Interface
and installation costs were collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building
Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.14 J&J Industries Broadloom Carpets (C3020DD, C3020EE)
J&J Industries is a privately-held manufacturer of commercial carpet, primarily for corporate
interiors but also for healthcare, retail, educational, and governmental facilities. The company
provided data on two 28 oz. Products: Certificate with SBR backing, and Certificate with
LIFESPAN MG backing. The detailed environmental performance data for these products may
be viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• C3020DD.DBF—J&J Certificate with SBR Backing
• C3020EE.DBF— J&J Certificate with LIFESPAN* MG Backing
Raw Materials. The two J&J broadloom carpets are both made with nylon but have different
additives, fillers, and backing materials. The mixture of constituents, by mass, for each product
is listed in Table 3.73.
Table 3.73 J&J Broadloom Carpet Constituents
Constituent
Yarn (Nylon 6)
Polyurethane
Styrene Butadiene Resin
(SBR)
Other Additives
Carpet with SBR
Backing
39%
9%
52 %
Carpet with
LIFESPAN
Backing
29%
19 %
52%
The yam for both carpets consists of Nylon 6, which is produced from the polymerization of
133
-------
caprolactam. Data for Nylon 6 production and for spinning into yarn were taken from public
data provided by the plastics industry; these data are consistent with those used in BEES for the
generic nylon carpets.
Data for production of the polyurethane used in the carpet with LIFESPAN Backing are taken
from public data released by the plastics industry. For the Styrene Butadiene Resin (SBR) used
in the SBR-backed carpet, life cycle inventory data were taken from both public and site-specific
data contained in the DEAM database.
Average transportation distances for shipment of raw materials from the suppliers to the J&J
plant were used; transportation is by diesel truck. Figure 3.47 shows the elements of raw
materials production for the two J&J carpet products.
Carpet Raw Material Production
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
Figure 3.47 J&J Carpet Raw Materials Production Flow Chart
Manufacturing. The manufacturing process for both carpets consists of tufting the nylon yarn
and joining the yarn to the backing. This process uses purchased electricity, natural gas, and
other fossil fuels. For carpet with SBF Backing, the production of one unit of carpet (0.09 m2 or
1 ft2) requires 1.2 MJ (0.34 kWh) of electricity, 1.58 MJ of natural gas, and less than 0.03 MJ of
other fossil fuels. J&J carpet with LIFESPAN Backing requires 1.3 MJ (0.35 kWh) of electricity,
1.8 MJ of natural gas, and less than 0.03 MJ of other fossil fuels per unit. The manufacturing
flow diagram for both J&J carpet products is given in Figure 3.48.
134
-------
Carpet Manufacturing Process
Carpet Raw Materials
Natural Gas
Electricity
Other Fossil Fuels
(Diesel, Fuel Oil, etc.)
Manufacturing
Process
Figure 3.48 J&J Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart
Transportation to Building Site. The transportation distance from the J&J manufacturing plant
in Dalton, Georgia to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. Both products are
shipped by diesel truck. The quantity of transportation emissions allocated to each product
depends on the overall mass of the product, as given in Table 3.74.
Table 3.74 J&J Broadloom Carpet Density
Product
Mass per Applied
Area in kg/m2 (Ib/ff)
Density in kg/m3
Carpet with SBR Backing
Carpet with LIFETIME Backing
2.41 (0.48)
3.16 (0.63)
346.67 (22.93)
453.33 (29.99)
Installation and Use. The J&J broadloom carpets are assumed to be installed using a low VOC
adhesive. The average application is assumed to require 0.03 kg (0.07 Ib) of adhesive per unit of
carpet (0.09 m2 or 1 ft2), consistent with other BEES carpet products. On average, 7 % of the
carpet and 5 % of the adhesive are lost during installation.
End of Life. With lifetimes of 11 years, both carpets are replaced 4 times over the 50-year BEES
study period. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these
replacements are included in the inventory data.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for these two J&J broadloom carpet products may be
viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES
software. Costs are listed under the following BEES codes:
• C3020,DDO—J&J Broadloom Carpet with SBR Backing
• C3020,EEO—J&J Broadloom Carpet with LIFETIME Backing
135
-------
First cost data include purchase and installation costs. Purchase costs were provided by J&J and
installation costs were collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction
Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.15 Mohawk Regents Row and Meritage Broadloom Carpets (C3020FF, C3020GG)
Mohawk Industries is the second-largest manufacturer of commercial and residential carpets and
rugs in the United States, and one of the largest carpet manufacturers in the world. Mohawk is
involved in all aspects of carpet and rug production, from raw materials to advanced tufting,
weaving, and finishing. The company provided data on two broadloom carpets: Regents Row, a
woven commercial carpet; and Meritage, a tufted commercial carpet. The detailed environmental
performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the following files under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• C3020FF.DBF—Mohawk Regents Row
• C3020GG.DBF—Mohawk Meritage
Raw Materials. The two Mohawk carpets are produced from different materials and have
different ratios of backing to yarn. The mixture of the main constituents of each carpet is listed
in Table 3.75.
Table 3.75 Mohawk Broadloom Carpet Constituents by Mass Fraction
Constituent
Yarn (Nylon 6)
Yarn (Nylon 6,6)
Backing
Other Additives (back
coating, adhesives, etc.)
Regents Row
,
51%
16%
33%
Meritage
48%
—
9%
43%
The yarn for Regents Row carpet consists of woven Nylon 6,6. Data for Nylon 6,6 production
and for spinning into yarn are taken from public data provided by the plastics industry; these data
are consistent with those used in BEES for the generic nylon carpets. The yarn for Meritage
carpet is Nylon 6, which is produced from the polymerization of caprolactam. As with the
Regents Row carpet, the data for Nylon 6 production and for extruding into yarn are taken from
public data provided by the plastics industry and are consistent with those for similar BEES
products.
The backing for the Regents Row carpet is a 50/50 mix of polypropylene and polyester fibers.
The Meritage carpet only uses polypropylene for the backing material. Data for the backing
materials are taken from public data provided by the plastics industry.
Since the Regents Row carpet is woven, the nylon yarn is back-coated with Styrene Butadiene
latex to provide stability. For the Meritage carpet, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) is used to
adhere the backing to the tufted nylon. Life cycle inventory data for both materials are taken
from public and site-specific data in the DEAM database.
136
-------
Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to the Mohawk
plants were provided by Mohawk; transportation is by diesel truck. Figures 3.49 and 3.50 show
the elements of raw materials production for the Mohawk Regents Row and Meritage carpets,
respectively.
Regents Row Raw Material Production
Nylon 6,6 P°'^
Production
propylene Polyester
(am Yarn
oduction Production
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
Styrene Filler and
Butadiene Latex Mdme
Production Production
Figure 3.49 Mohawk Regents Row Raw Materials Production Flow Chart
Meritage Raw Material
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturer
Figure 3.50 Mohawk Meritage Raw Materials Production Flow Chart
Manufacturing. The manufacturing process for Mohawk Regents Row carpet consists of
interlacing face yarns with backing yarns which are then coated with finish chemicals. This
process requires both purchased electricity and natural gas. The production of each unit of
Regents Row carpet (0.09 in2 or 1 ft2) requires 0.4 MJ (0.1 kWh) of electricity and 0.73 MJ
(0.20 kWh) of natural gas. The manufacturing process for Mohawk Meritage carpet consists of
137
-------
tufting the nylon yarn into the backing foundation and coating the fabric with an EVA chemical
system. This process requires 0.6 MJ (0.18 kWh) of electricity and 0.71 MJ of natural gas per
unit. The manufacturing flow diagram for both Mohawk carpets is given in Figure 3.51.
Regents Row and Meritage Manufacturing Process
Carpet Raw Materials
Natural Gas
i
Electricity
r
Carpet Manufacturing
Figure 3.51 Mohawk Carpet Manufacturing Flow Chart
Transportation to Building Site. The transportation distance from the Mohawk manufacturing
plant in South Carolina or Georgia to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. Both
products are shipped by diesel truck. The quantity of transportation emissions allocated to each
product depends on the overall mass of the product, as given in Table 3.76.
Table 3.76 Mohawk Carpet Density
Product
Regents Row
Meritage
Mass in kg/m? (lb/tf)
2.34 (0.47)
2.41 (0.48)
Density in kg/tn3
(lb/tf)
336.67 (22.27)
346.67 (22.93) ,
Installation and Use. Both Mohawk carpets are installed using a low-VOC adhesive given the
Green Seal by the Carpet Research Institute. The average application requires about 0.04 kg of
adhesive per unit of carpet (0.09 m2 or 1 ft2). For the two carpets, approximately 5 % of both the
carpet and the adhesive is wasted during installation.
End of Life. All BEES nylon broadloom carpets are assumed to have lifetimes of 11 years. Thus,
both Mohawk broadloom carpets are assumed to be replaced four times over the 50-year BEES
study period. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these
replacements are included in the inventory data.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for Mohawk broadloom carpet products may be viewed by
opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs
are listed under the following BEES codes:
138
-------
• C3020, FFO—Mohawk Regents Row
• C3020, GGO—Mohawk Heritage
First cost data include purchase and installation costs. Purchase costs were provided by Mohawk
and installation costs were collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building
Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.16 Natural Cork Parquet TUe and Floating Floor Plank (C3020HH, C3020IT)
Natural Cork is a U.S. supplier of cork flooring and wall coverings. It distributes products
manufactured by Granorte, a Portuguese company that recycles cork waste from the production
of cork bottle stoppers. The energy used to produce the cork tiles comes mainly from waste cork
powder. Natural Cork provided data on two of its products: cork parquet tile and cork floating
floor plank. The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by
opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• C3020HH.DBF—Natural Cork Parquet Floor Tile
• C3020II.DBF—-Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank
Raw Materials. Both Natural Cork floor tile products use a cork sheet made from a combination
of recycled cork waste and urethane binder. The floating floor plank also includes a layer of
High Density Fiberboard (HDF) cut into a tongue-and-groove pattern. The mixture of the main
constituents of each floor tile is listed in Table 3.77.
Table 3.77 Natural Cork Floor Tile Constituents by Mass Fraction
Cork Parquet Cork Floating
Constituent Floor Tile Floor Plank
Recycled Cork Waste 93 %
Binder 7 %
High Density Fiberboard (HDF) -
58%
3%
39%
Since the cork constituent is a waste product, the environmental burdens from virgin production
of the cork are not included. The energy used to grind the cork, however, is included as
manufacturing energy. High Density Fiberboard (HDF) burdens are based on data from a public
study on particleboard and fiberboard production. HDF is produced mostly from recovered
wood waste - only 14 % of the wood going into HDF is harvested directly. Manufacturing one
unit of HDF (0.09 m2 or 1 ft2) requires 2.2 MJ (0.6 kWh) of fuel energy and 1.3 MJ (0.36 kWh)
of electricity. Most of the fuel energy conies from the combustion of wood waste generated from
the production line.
The binder for Natural Cork flooring is a moisture-cured urethane, produced from a reaction
between polyisocyanate and moisture present in the atmosphere. Polyisocyanate production data
are based on publicly available plastics industry data.
139
-------
Average distances for transport of the raw materials from the suppliers to the manufacturing
facility were used, with diesel truck as the mode of transportation. Figure 3.52 shows the
elements of raw materials production for both Natural Cork floor products.
Raw Material Production
High Density
Fiberboard (HDF)
Production (floating
floor tile only)
Binder
i
Recycle Cork Waste ,
(no burdens)
f
r
Transport of Raw
Materials to
Manufacturing Plant
1
r
Figure 3.52 Natural Cork Raw Materials Production Flow Chart
Manufacturing. The manufacturing processes for the two cork floor products are essentially the
same. Cork waste is ground and blended with the urethane binder, then cured. For the floating
floor plank, the HDF is sandwiched between two layers of cork sheet and then cured.
Electricity and an on-site boiler are used to blend and cure both products. The boiler uses cork
powder generated during the production process to produce steam and electricity. Manufacturing
the parquet flooring requires about 0.8 MJ of both thermal and electrical energy per unit
produced (0.09 m2 or 1 ff); the floating floor plank requires about 1 MJ of electricity and 0.9 MJ
of thermal energy per unit. Water is also used in the production process, but it is recycled and
recovered by the plant. Producing each unit of product generates about 1 kg of waste, 94 % of
which is used to produce energy and 3 % of which is recycled. The recycled material is
accounted for in the BEES life cycle inventory. The manufacturing flow diagram for both
Natural Cork floor products is given in Figure 3.53.
140
-------
Natural Cork Manufacturing Process
Natural Cork Raw
Materials
Electricity
^
Waste Cork
Combustion
r
Manufacturing
Process
Figure 3.53 Natural Cork Manufacturing Flow Chart
Transportation to Building Site. The finished cork products are shipped first from the
manufacturing facility in Portugal to the Natural Cork warehouse in Georgia-a distance of about
6437 km (4000 mi). Environmental burdens from this leg of the journey are built into the
manufacturing portion of the BEES life-cycle inventory and are evaluated based on transport by
ocean tanker using fuel oil. The transportation distance from the Natural Cork warehouse in
Augusta, Georgia to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. Both products are
shipped from Augusta by diesel truck; the quantity of transportation emissions allocated to each
product depends on the overall mass of the product, as given in Table 3.78.
Table 3.78 Natural Cork Floor Tile Density
Product
Cork Parquet Tile
Cork Floating Floor
Massper Applied Area
in kg/m2 (Ib/tf)
2.56(0.51)
7.44 (1.48)
Density in kg/m3
flb/tf)
516.67(34.18)
563.33(37.26)
Installation and Use. Natural Cork parquet tile is installed using a water-based contact adhesive.
The average application requires about 0.009 kg of adhesive per unit of flooring (0.09 m2 or
1 ft2). The Natural Cork floating floor requires only a minimal amount of tongue-and-groove
adhesive to bond the individual planks together. On average, 5 % of the adhesive is wasted
during installation, but none of the flooring is lost.
End of Life. Based on information from Natural Cork, its flooring does not require replacement
over the 50-year BEES study period. At year 50, all of the waste is sent to a landfill, since
according to the manufacturer none is currently being recycled.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for Natural Cork Parquet and Floating Floor may be
viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES
software. Costs are listed under the following BEES codes:
• C3020, HHO—rNatural Cork Parquet Floor Tile
141
-------
• C3020, no—Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank
First cost data include purchase and installation costs. Purchase costs were provided by Natural
Cork and installation costs were collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building
Construction Cost Data. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.10.17 Forbo Industries Marmoleum Linoleum (C3020R, C3020NN)
Linoleum is a resilient, organic-based floor covering consisting of a backing covered with a thick
wearing surface. Oxidized Unseed oil and rosin are mixed with the other natural ingredients to
form linoleum granules. These granules are then calendared onto a jute backing, making a
continuous long sheet. The sheets are hung in drying rooms to allow the naturally occurring
process to continue until the product reaches the required flexibility and resilience. The sheets
are then removed from the drying rooms, cut into rolls, and prepared for shipment.
Forbo Marmoleum may be installed using either a styrene-butadiene or a low-VOC adhesive.
Both installation options are included in BEES. The detailed environmental performance data for
these products may be viewed by opening the files C3020R. DBF (styrene-butadiene adhesive)
and C3020NN.DBF (no-VOC adhesive) under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Figure 3.54 shows the elements of Forbo Marmoleum production.
Figure 354 Marmoleum Flow Chart
Raw Materials. Table 3.79 lists the constituents of 2.5 mm (0.10 in) linoleum and their
142
-------
proportions.
Table 3.79 Linoleum Constituents
Linoleum Constituents
linseed oil
tall oil
pine rosin
limestone
wood flour
pigment
backing (jute)
acrylic lacquer
Total:
Mass Fraction (%)104
25
17 ,
3
26
39
4
10
1
100
Mass per Applied Area in
g/m2(lb/ff)
588 (0.12)
398(0.08)
76 (0.02)
592 (0.12)
901(0.18)
101 (0.02)
233(0.05)
12 (0.00)
2 901 (0.59)
The cultivation of linseed (in Canada) is based on supplier data provided by Forbo. Data on
inputs to the cultivation of linseed and production of pesticides are not available. The
production of fertilizer is based on data from a Chalmers University Study.105
Pine rosin production is assumed to have no burdens, since the harvesting of raw pine rosin is
done mainly by hand, according to Forbo.
The production of limestone is based on supplier data for limestone quarrying and grinding.
The burdens for tall oil production were allocated from the production of paper based on
economic value. The production of tall oil is assumed to produce 1 % of the value of the paper
production system.
Wood flour is sawdust produced as a coproduct of wood processing; its burdens are based on
data from Forbo suppliers. Fifteen percent (15 %) of the burdens for wood processing are
allocated to the production of sawdust, based on the economic value of sawdust.
Heavy metal pigments are used in linoleum production. Production of these pigments in BEES is
based on the production of titanium dioxide pigment.
Jute used in linoleum manufacturing is mostly grown in India and Bangladesh. Data representing
its production are based on supplier data provided by Forbo.
Data for the production of acrylic lacquer are based on supplier data.
Use. The installation of linoleum may be done using either a sryrene-butadiene or a low-VOC
104 Marieke Goree, Jeroen Guinee, Gjalt Huppes, Lauran van Oers, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of
Linoleum, Leiden University, Netherlands, 2000. 1
105 J. Davis and C. Haglund, SIK Report No. 654: Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of Fertilizer Production, Chalmers
University of Technology, Sweden, 1999
143
-------
adhesive. Both options are available in BEES.
Forbo Marmoleum flooring is assumed to have a useful life of 18 years.
Cost The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code C3020, product codes RO (styrene-butadiene installation adhesive) and TWO (no-
VOC adhesive). Cost data were provided by Forbo.
3.11 Office Chair Alternatives (E2020)
3.11.1 Herman Miller Aeron Office Chair (E2020A)
The Herman Miller Aeron chair consists of more than 50 different components and
subassemblies from more than 15 direct suppliers. These components and subassemblies are
constructed from four major materials: plastics, aluminum, steel, and foams/fabrics. The detailed
environmental performance data for this product can be viewed by opening the file E2020A.DBF
under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. The flow diagram in Figure 3.55 shows
the elements involved in the production of the Herman Miller Aeron chair.
Figure 3.55 Herman Miller Aeron Flow Chart
144
-------
Raw Materials. Of the Aeron chak materials that come from nonrenewable sources
(petrochemicals and metals), over twOLthirds are made from recycled materials and can be
further recycled. The Aeron chair contains approximately 60 % mass fraction recycled content,
including steel, polypropylene, glass-filled nylon, 30 % glass-filled PET, and aluminum. The
mixture of constituents, by mass fraction, is given in Table 3.80.
Table 3.80 Herman Miller Aeron Chair Constituents
Constituent
Description
Plastics (polypropylene, ABS,
PET, nylon, glass-filled nylons
Aluminum
Steel
Foam/fabric (arm rests, lumbar
supports)
Composite subassemblies
27 % for all plastics (24 % for seat & back frame
assemblies, 9 % for knobs, levers, bushings, covers)
35 % for aluminum base, swing arms, seat links, arm
yokes
23.5 % for tilt assembly, 2 % for nuts, bolts, other
components
Less than 4 %; Pellicle seat & back suspension system
is a combination of synthetic fibers & elastomers
3 % for 5 casters; 6.7 % for pneumatic cylinder; 6.2 %
for moving components of tilt assembly
Plastics. The main plastics used in the Aeron chair include polypropylene, ABS, PET, nylon,
and glass-filled nylons. Roughly one-fourth (27 %) of the chak, by mass fraction, is made with
plastic materials. The seat and back frame assemblies make up 23.6 % of the chair's weight. The
seat and back frames are made of glass-filled PET, which contains two-thirds post-industrial
recycled materials. The Pellicle suspension system (approximately 2 % of the chair weight) can
be removed for replacement or for recycling of the seat and back frames. The remaining plastic
components are various knobs, levers, bushings, and covers.
Aluminum. Roughly 35 % of the Aeron chak is made from aluminum. Major components include
the base, swing arms, seat links, and arm yokes. All these components are made from 100 %
post-consumer recycled aluminum. In the manufacture of these aluminum die cast components,
there is no waste. All trim flash and defect materials are recycled within the manufacturing
process. Aluminum components from a finished Aeron chak can be segregated and entered back
into the recycling stream to be made into the same or other components at the end of thek useful
life. A material that can be recycled repeatedly (typically into the same product) is considered
part of a closed-loop recycling system.
Steel. The tilt assembly, approximately 23.5 % of the chak's weight, is largely made up of steel
stampings and screw-machined components. These steel components represent 74 % of the tilt
by mass fraction or 17.3 % of the mass of the chak. The steel components in the tilt are made
from 7 % to 50 % recycled materials. The remaining steel materials (less than 2 % of the chak)
are nuts, bolts, and other components that requke the high strength properties of steel.
Foam/Fabric. The armrests and lumbar supports are the only Aeron chak components made
from foams or fabrics. The Pellicle seat and back suspension system is a combination of
synthetic fibers and elastomers. These materials comprise a small percentage of the chak. Fabric
scraps from Herman Miller's production facilities are recycled into automobile headliners and
145
-------
other similar components. Foam scraps are recycled into carpet padding.
Composite Subassemblies. The Aeron chair has three composite subassemblies of multiple
material types. They consist of the five casters, the pneumatic cylinder, arid the moving
components of the tilt assembly. The pneumatic cylinder can be returned to the manufacturer for
disassembly and recycling.
Installation and Use. Packaging materials for the Herman Miller Aeron chair include
corrugated paper and a polyethylene plastic bag to protect the product from soiling and dust.
Each of these materials is part of a closed-loop recycling system. On larger shipments within
North America, disposable packaging can be eliminated through use of reusable shipping
blankets.
End-of-Life. The Herman Miller Aeron chair is designed to last at least 12.5 years under normal
use conditions. Thus, the chair is replaced three times over the 50-year BEES study period. As
with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are included
in the inventory data.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for the Herman Miller Aeron chair may be viewed by
opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs
are listed under BEES code E2020, product code AO. First cost data include purchase and
installation costs provided by Herman Miller.
3.11.2 Herman Miller Ambi and Generic Office Chairs (E2020B)
A typical chair for office use is a compilation of many different components and subassemblies
from multiple suppliers. The Herman Miller Arnbi chair is typical of the industry average office
chair, and is used in BEES to represent a generic office chair. The detailed environmental
performance data for this product can be viewed by opening the file E2020B.DBF under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software. The flow diagram hi Figure 3.56 shows the elements
involved in the production of the Herman Miller Ambi chair.
Raw Materials. The Herman Miller Ambi chair consists of more than 50 different components
and subassemblies from more than 15 direct suppliers. The components and subassemblies are
constructed from three major materials: plastics, steel, and foams/fabrics. Of the materials
produced from nonrenewable sources (petrochemicals and metals), over two-thirds are made
from recycled materials and can be further recycled. The Ambi chair contains approximately
20% recycled content by weight, including steel, polypropylene, nylon, glass-filled nylon,
polystyrene, foam, and fabric. The mixture of constituents, by mass fraction, is given hi Table
3.81.
146
-------
Figure 3.56 Herman Miller Ambi Flow Chart
Table 3.81 Herman Miller Ambi Chair Constituents
Constituent
Description
Plastics (polypropylene, PVC,
nylon, glass-filled nylons)
Steel
Foams/fabrics
Composite subassemblies
33 % for all plastics (24 % for seat shells, 9 % for
knobs, levers, bushings, covers)
63 % for tilt assembly and base; 2 % for nuts, bolts,
other components
Less than 4 %; included in open-loop recycling
systems
3 % for five casters; 6.7 % for pneumatic cylinder;
6.3 % for moving components of tilt assembly
Plastics. The main plastics used in the Herman Miller Ambi chair include polypropylene, PVC,
nylon, and glass-filled nylons. Roughly one-third of the chair, by weight, is made with plastic
materials. The seat shells make up 24 % of the chair's weight The seat shells are made of
polypropylene, which contains 10 % post-industrial recycled materials. The remaining plastic
components are various knobs, levers, bushings, and covers. These single-material plastic
components used in the Ambi chair are identified with ISO recycling symbols and ASTM
material designations to help channel them back into the recycling stream.
Steel. The tilt assembly and base, constituting approximately 63 % of the chair's weight, are
largely made of steel stampings and screw-machined components. These steel components are
74 % of the tilt assembly by weight or 50 % of the weight of the chair. The steel components in
the tilt assembly are made from 28 % to 50 % recycled-content materials. The remaining steel
materials (less than 2 % of the chair's mass) are nuts, bolts, and other components that require
147
-------
the high-strength properties of steel. The steel components of the Ambi chair can be segregated
and entered back into the recycling stream.
Foam/Fabric. These materials are part of an open-loop system; they can be transformed into
other products. Fabric scraps from Herman Miller's current production facilities are made into
automobile headliners and other similar components. Foam scraps are used in carpet padding.
Composite Subassemblies. There are three composite subassemblies of multiple material types.
They are the five casters (3 % of the chair mass), the pneumatic cylinder (6.7 % of the chair
mass), and the moving components of the tilt assembly (6.3 % of the chair mass). The pneumatic
cylinder can be returned to the manufacturer for disassembly and recycling.
Installation and Use. Packaging materials for the Herman Miller Ambi chair include corrugated
paper and a polyethylene plastic bag to protect the product from soiling and dust. Each of these
materials is part of a closed-loop recycling system. On larger shipments within North America,
disposable packaging can be eliminated through use of reusable shipping blankets.
End-of-Life. The Herman Miller Ambi chair is designed to last at least 12.5 years under normal
use conditions. Thus, the chair is replaced three times over the 50-year BEES study period. As
with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are included
in the inventory data.
Cost The detailed life-cycle cost data for the Herman Miller Ambi and generic office chairs may
be viewed by opening the file LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES
software. Costs are listed under BEES code E2020, product code BO. First cost data include
purchase and installation costs provided by Herman Miller.
3.12 Parking Lot Paving Alternatives (G2022)
3.12.1 Generic Concrete Paving (G2022A, G2022B, G2022C)
For the BEES system, concrete paving consists of a 15 cm (6 in) layer of concrete poured over a
20 cm (8 in) base layer of crushed stone. The three concrete paving alternatives have varying
degrees of fly ash in the portland cement (0 %, 15 %, and 20 % fly ash). Section 3.1 describes
the production of concrete. For the paving alternatives, a compressive strength of 21 MPa
(3 000 lb/in2) is used. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.57 shows the elements of concrete
paving. The detailed environmental performance data for concrete paving may be viewed by
opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software:
• G2022A.DBF—0 % Fly Ash Content Concrete
• G2022B.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Content Concrete
• G2022C.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Content Concrete
148
-------
Coarse Eine ' . ,. PC
Aggregate Aggregate Transport C
Production Production Pro
T V V V
/-, . Stone
Concrete produ
1
Transportation
(truck)
80-322-483 km sensitivity
(50-200-300 mi)
^ r
Installation — Wa
i.
rtland
sment
duction
Base
ction
f
ste>-
Figure 3.57 Concrete Paving Flow Chart
Raw Materials. The materials required to produce concrete are given in Section 3.1.
The amount of material used per functional unit (0.09 m2, or 1 ft2 of paving for 50 years) is
32.9 kg (72.5 Ib) of concrete and 33.3 kg (73.3 Ib) of crushed stone.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for concrete production are outlined in Section
3.1. The energy required for site preparation and placement of crushed stone is 0.7 MJ7 ft2 of
paving, and the energy required for concrete placement is included in transportation to the site.
Emissions. Emissions associated with the manufacture of concrete are based on primary data
from title portland cement industry as described in Section -3.1. In addition, for the concrete
paving option, upstream emissions data for the production of fuels and electricity are added to
the industry emissions data.
Transportation. Transport of raw materials is taken into account. Transport of the concrete to
the building site is a variable of the BEES model.
Use. A light-colored paving material, such as concrete, will contribute less to the "urban heat
island" effect than a dark-colored paving material, such as asphalt. These differences are not
accounted for in BEES, but should be factored into interpretation of the results.
Concrete paving is assumed to last 30 years.
149
-------
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for concrete paving may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Costs are listed under the
following codes:
• G2022,AO—0% Fly Ash Content Concrete Parking Lot Paving
• G2022,BO—15 % Fly Ash Content Concrete Parking Lot Paving
• G2022,CO—20 % Fly Ash Content Concrete Parking Lot Paving
Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and installation costs) and future cost data
(cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate and data are available, of operation,
maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2000
Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are based on data published by
Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars.
3.12.2 Asphalt Parking Lot Paving with GSB88 Asphalt Emulsion Maintenance (G2022D)
For the BEES system, asphalt parking lot paving consists of a 22 cm (8.75 in) thick layer of
asphalt (a 6 cm, or 2.5 in, wearing course over a 16 cm, or 6.25 in, binder course) over a 20 cm
(8 hi) layer of crushed stone with maintenance over 50 years.106 The GSB88 Emulsified Sealer-
Binder produced by Asphalt Systems, Inc. of Salt Lake City, Utah is one of two maintenance
alternatives studied. GSB88 Emulsifier Sealer-Binder is a high-resin-content emulsifier made
from naturally occurring asphalt. This maintenance product is applied to the base asphalt every
four years to prevent oxidation and cracking. The flow diagram in Figure 3.58 shows the
elements of asphalt paving with GSB88 emulsion maintenance. The detailed environmental
performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file G2022D.DBF under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software. :
Raw Materials. The materials required to produce the asphalt layer are shown iin Table 3.82.
The production of the raw materials required for the pavement and the emulsifier is based on the
PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
The amount of material used per functional unit (0.09 m2, or 1 ft2 of paving for 50 years) is 48 kg
(106 Ib) of asphalt, 33.3 kg (73.3 Ib) of crushed stone, and 12 instalhnents of the GSB88
emulsion maintenance at 0.374 kg (0.82 Ib) each (for a total of 4.48 kg, or 9.8 Ib of GSB88
asphalt emulsion maintenance over 50 years).
106 While the combined asphalt binder and wearing course is thicker lhan commonly used, BEES asphalt paving
specifications are structurally equivalent to those for BEES concrete paving to which it is compared. Equivalent
thicknesses provided by Scott Tarr, Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., May 2000 and based on American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design equations.
150
-------
Transportation
(truck)
80-322-483 km sensitivity
(50-200-300 mi)
Diesel Fuel
Production &
Use in Installation.
Installation
Figure 3.58 Asphalt with GSB88 Emulsion Maintenance Flow Chart
Table 3.82 Raw Materials for Asphalt Base Layer
Base Layer Component
(mass (mass
Constituent fraction %) fraction %)
- Hot Mix Asphalt (binder course) 71.4
- Gravel
- Asphalt
- Hot Mix Asphalt (wearing course) 28.5
- Gravel
- Asphalt
-Tack Coat 0.1
- Asphalt
- Water
- Emulsifier
-HC1
95
5
94
6
66
33
1.1
0.2
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for producing the base layer's hot mix asphalt,
for installing the base layer, and for applying the GSB88 emulsion maintenance are listed in
Table 3.83.
151
-------
Table 3.83 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Paving with GSB88 Emulsion Maintenance
Fuel Use Energy Use
Hot Mix Asphalt Production:
- Diesel
- Natural Gas
Site Prep, and Stone Base Placement
- Diesel
Asphalt (binder course) Installation:
- Diesel
Asphalt (wearing course)
Installation:
- Diesel
Emulsion Maintenance:
- Diesel
0.017 MJ/kg (7.3 Btuflb)
0.29 MJ/kg (124.7 Btu/lb)
0.7 MJ/ft2
0.96 Ml/ft2
0.48 MJ/ft2
0.000945 MJ/ft2
Emissions. Emissions associated with the manufacture of hot mix asphalt are Abased on U.S.
EPA AP-42 emission factors. Emissions from the production of the upstream materials and
energy carriers are from the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Transportation. Transport of the raw materials is taken into account. Transport of asphalt to the
building site is a variable of the BEES model.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code G2022, product code DO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.12.3 Generic Asphalt Parking Lot Paving with Asphalt Cement Maintenance (G2022E)
For the BEES system, asphalt parking lot paving consists of a 22 cm (8.75 in) thick layer of
asphalt (a 6 cm or 2.5 in, wearing course over a 16 cm, or 6.25 in, binder course) over a 20 cm (8
in) layer of crushed stone with maintenance over 50 years.107 Asphalt cement maintenance is one
of two maintenance alternatives studied. Asphalt cement maintenance involves milling the
existing 6 cm (2.5 in) asphalt wearing course then topping with a fresh 6 cm (2.5 in) layer of
asphalt cement every 8 years. The flow diagram shown in Figure 3.59 shows the elements of
107 While the combined asphalt binder and wearing course is thicker than commonly used, BEES asphalt paving
specifications are structurally equivalent to those for BEES concrete paving to which it is compared. Equivalent
thicknesses provided by Scott Tarr, Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., May 2000 and based on American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design equations.
152
-------
asphalt paving with asphalt cement maintenance. The detailed environmental performance data
for this product may be viewed by opening the file G2022E.DBF under the File/Open menu item
in the BEES software.
HCI Asphalt Emulsifier
Production Production Production
na
Production
Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Gravel
1 1
Diesel Fuel ' 1 1 ' Diesel Fuel
Production ~1 T T 1 ' ' ' ^ ' Prndiirfion
aOlJMlX ^ ^
Asphalt
Natural Gas | I Natural Gas
BaseLayer
i
i |
-i i r
Hot Mix
Asphalt
1
Aspl
Cem
i
Transportation
(tiuck)
80-322-483 km sensitivity
(50-200-300 mi)
Diesel Fuel
Use in Installation
1
Asphalt Emulsifier
Production Production
Tack Coat
f >
lalt Stone Base
ent Production
Figure 3.59 Asphalt with Asphalt Cement Maintenance Flow Chart
Raw Materials. The materials required to produce the asphalt base layer are identical to those
given in the previous section. The materials required to produce the asphalt cement maintenance
product are shown in Table 3.84.
The production of the raw materials required for both the pavement and its maintenance is based
on the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Table 3.84 Raw Materials for Asphalt Cement Maintenance
Base Layer Component
(mass (mass
Constituent fraction %) fraction %)
Asphalt Cement:
- Hot Mix Asphalt
- Gravel
-Asphalt
- Tack Coat
- Asphalt
- Water
- Emulsifier
-HC1
99.4
0.6
95
5
66
33
1.1
0.2
153
-------
The amount of material used per functional unit (0.09 m2, or 1 ft2 of paving for 50 years) is 48 kg
(106 Ib) of asphalt, 33.3 kg (73.3 Ib) of crushed stone, and 6 installments of the asphalt cement
maintenance at 13.7 kg (30.3 Ib) each (for a total of 82.4 kg, or 181.8 Ib of asphalt cement
maintenance over 50 years).
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for producing and installing the original layer
of hot mix asphalt over a crushed stone base are shown in Table 3.82. The energy requirements
for the asphalt cement maintenance are listed in Table 3.85.
Table 3.85 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Cement Maintenance
Fuel Use
Diesel
Energy
0.72 MJ/ ft2
Emissions. Emissions associated with the manufacture of hot mix asphalt are based on U.S.
EPA AP-42 emission factors. Emissions from the production of the upstream materials and
energy carriers are from the PricewaterhouseCoopers database.
Transportation. Transport of the raw materials is taken into account. Transport of asphalt to the
building site is a variable of the BEES model. i
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code G2022, product code EO. Life-cycle cost data include first cost data (purchase and
installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of replacement, and where appropriate
and data are available, of operation, maintenance, and repair). First cost data are collected from
the R.S. Means publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, and future cost data are
based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestom Building Maintenance and
Repair Cost Reference 1999, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted
to year 2002 dollars.
3.13 Transformer Oil Alternatives (G4010)
i
3.13.1 Generic Mineral Oil-Based Transformer Oil (G4010A)
Mineral oil-based transformer oil can be made from either naphtha or paraffin. Since the
naphthenic-based mineral oil carries a larger market share, it is used as the mineral oil-base for
BEES.108 The production of naphthenic-based transformer oil consists of four main components:
extraction of crude oil, crude oil transport to refinery, crude oil refining and refining into
transformer oil, and transportation to the transformer for use. Figure 3.60 shows the elements of
mineral oil-based transformer oil production. The detailed environmental performance data for
this product may be viewed by opening the file G4010A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in
the BEES software. Requirements for the four components of mineral oil-based transformer oil
are based on the DEAM database, as detailed below.
108
2001 telephone conversation with United Power Services, an independent transformer oil testing laboratory.
154
-------
Mineral Oil-Based
Transformer Oil
Figure 3.60 Mineral Oil-Based Transformer Oil Flow Chart
Crude Oil Extraction. This production component includes the process flows associated with
the extraction of crude oil from the ground. Three separate technologies for crude oil extraction
are modeled: conventional onshore recovery, conventional offshore recovery, and advanced
onshore recovery, the latter entailing the underground injection of steam (produced by natural
gas boilers) or carbon dioxide to enhance the extraction of crude oil. Percentages of total crude
oil extraction by technology for domestic and foreign production are given in Table 3.86.109
Table 3.86 Extraction of Crude Oil by Technology and Origin
Technology
Domestic Crude
Oil Extraction
Foreign Crude Oil
Extraction
Conventional Onshore Recovery
Conventional Offshore Recovery
Advanced Onshore Recovery
69 %
20 %
11%
77%
20 %
3%
Natural gas is produced as a coproduct of crude oil extraction. The energy use and emissions
associated with extraction are allocated between crude oil and natural gas on a mass basis.
Crude Oil Transport to Refinery. Crude oil transport to the refinery is regionalized by the five
109 Shares of each technology are based on 1994 data in Oil & Gas Journal Database. Note that the advanced
recovery category includes all advanced crude oil extraction techniques except water flooding. It is assumed that
steam flooding and carbon dioxide injection represent the largest portion of the advanced recovery category.
155
-------
U.S. Petroleum Administration Defense Districts (PADDs). Transportation distances are
specified and allocated for the different modes for transport of crude oil. Figure 3.61 illustrates
this procedure by showing the results for PADD District II.
Crude Oil Refining. Crude oil refining involves raw materials and energy use as well as
emissions. Crude oil refining is based on an average U.S. refinery as opposed to a PADD-
specific refinery. It is assumed that the material required by the refinery includes crude oil and
other petroleum-based feedstocks, purchased energy inputs, and process catalysts.
Crude oil refineries draw most of their energy requirements from the crude oil stream in the form
of still gas and catalyst coke as shown in Table 3.87. Additional energy requirements and
process needs are fulfilled by the other inputs shown in Table 3.87.110
The emissions and energy requirements associated with the production of these fuels are
accounted for. Emissions are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AP-42
emission factors.
Crude oil refineries produce a number of different petroleum products from crude oil. The
method for allocating total refinery energy use and total refinery emissions to the production of
naphtha is complicated by the fact that the refinery product mix is variable, bom among
refineries and even with time for a given integrated refinery. The following method is used to
allocate refinery flows to naphtha production:
110 Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 1994, Report No. DOE/EIA-0340(94)/1, May
1995.
156
-------
Domestic Crude Oil Production
*
Foreign Crude Oil Production
j
Onshore
Recovery
Offshore
Recovery
Advanced
Onshore
Recovery
69%
11%
Onshore
Recovery
Offshore
Recovery
Advanced
Onshore
Recovery
3%
Average
Domestic
and
Foreign
4 4
Domestic
Tanker
Average
Distance
3800km
0
%
i
Domestic
Barge
Average
Distance
200km
0.1
i
>%
Domestic
Rail
Average
Distance
1100km
0
Co
.1
Domestic
Truck
Average
Distance
250km
Z9
Domestic
Pipeine
Average
Distance
1300km
i%
I
96.i
T
i
w
Domestic
Pipeline
Average
Distance
1300km
48.1
r ,
9%
Canadian
Pipeine
Average
Distance
1300km
1
0
4
Domestic
Barge
Average
Distance
200km
% 0°
1 1
i
8.
15 "/o
T
%
Foreign
Tanker
Average
Distance-
8400km
Foreign
Pipeine
Average
Distance
1300km
|
Foreign
Tanker
Average
Distance
8400km
1
\ \
Domestic
Rail
Average
Distance
1100km
0
Domestic
Truck
Average
Distance
250km
/, 0
i
K
Nati
Ave
Disfc
4
Domestic
Pipeine
Average
Distance
1300km
7
i
j
onat
rage
mces
Note: percentages given are
based on PADD n data.
PADD Specific
Mode of
Transportation &
Source of Crude Oil
Generic US Refinery
Located in PADD n
Figure 3.61 Crude Oil Transportation for U.S. Petroleum Administration Defense District II
(PADD II)
157
-------
Table 3.87 U.S. Average Refinery Energy Use
Flow
Still Gas
Catalyst Coke
Natural Gas
Coal
Steam
Electricity
Propane (C3H8, kg)
Diesel Oil (kg)
Heavy Fuel Oil
Coke
Other
Units
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
Annual Quantity
1.52E+12
5.14E+11
7.66E+11
3.27E+09
3.8E+10
1.43E+11
6.21E+10
3.16E+09
6.13E+10
1.77E+10
8.8E+09
1. Calculate the percentage of total refinery energy use by refinery process.
2. Calculate naphtha's share of each process's energy consumption.
3. For each refinery process, multiply the corresponding results from steps 1 and 2 to get the
percentage of total refinery energy use allocated to naphtha refinery energy allocated to
naphtha production (from step 3 above).
After producing naphtha, pour-point depressives and other additives are added to enhance the
transformer oil. Data are not available on these additives since for many transformer oil
producers, these data are proprietary. Thus, flows associated with additives \ could not be
estimated.
Transportation. Truck transportation is used to represent transportation from the transformer oil
production plant to the transformer to be filled at the point of use. The transportation distance is
modeled as a variable of the BEES system. Only the truck is modeled—and not, for example,
pipeline transportation—since transformer oil is a specialty petroleum product with a tiny market
as compared to other petroleum products.
Use. The amount of oil used in a transformer depends on the size of the transformer. A
relatively small-sized (1 000 kV'A) transformer is assumed, which requires about 1.89 m3 (500
gal) of fluid to cool. It is assumed that the use phase of the transformer oil lasts the lifetime of
the transformer, approximately 30 years. The functional unit for all BEES transformer oil data is
"cooling for one 1 000 kilovolt-ampere transformer for 30 years." Included in the modeling is
the electricity required to recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests indicate the need.
Reconditioning is assumed to occur every five years.111
111 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER)
website's Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document,
hrtp:/A\ww.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist3-30. Energy information on reconditioning was provided during telephone
conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001.
_
158
-------
There is a tiny (5 % of 1 %, or 0.05 %) chance of an abnormal or catastrophic event in which
transformer oil spills disastrously and impacts the surrounding ecosystem and human health. The
BEES life-cycle data account for the possibility of such oil spill impacts, though with significant
limitations. Oil spills have little impact on the BEES results for transformer oils.
End of Life. After the 30-year life of the transformer, mineral oil-based transformer fluid is
often in good enough condition to be reconditioned and used in another transformer. The mineral
oil is assumed to be reconditioned and reused in another transformer 75 % of the time.
Transformer oil may also be incinerated, with and without energy recovery. For this study, it is
assumed that half of the remaining 25 % of mineral oil that is too contaminated to be reprocessed
to an effective state is incinerated without energy recovery and half is incinerated with energy
recovery. The credit gained for energy recovery—producing energy in an industrial boiler—is
accounted for. The end-of-life options for transformer oil do not include disposable waste, as it
is generally a well-maintained product andean be used in other applications. Therefore, none of
the product is assumed to be landfilled.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code G4010, product code AO. Life-cycle cost data for mineral-based transformer oil
include first cost data (excluding installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of
oil reconditioning). First cost data are collected from Waverly Light & Power and future cost
data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
3.13.2 BioTrans Transformer Oil (G4010B)
BioTrans Transformer oil is a soy-based oil relatively new on the market. Results of
independent tests on the performance for BioTrans Transformer oil are comparable to results for
other Transformer oils (such as the mineral-based and silicone-based fluids discussed above).
BioTrans Transformer oil is produced from soybean feedstock. The flow diagram in Figure 3.62
shows the elements of BioTrans Transformer oil production. The detailed environmental
performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file G4010B.DBF under the
File/Open menu item in the BEES software.
Production. BioTrans Transformer oil is composed of the materials listed in Table 3.88.
After producing soy-based oil, pour-point depressives and other additives are added to enhance
the oil. No data are available on these additives since this data is proprietary for many
Transformer oil producers.
159
-------
Bio-Based
Transformer Oil
Train
Transport
(Bio Oil)
Ship
Transport
(Bio Oil)
Figure 3.62 BioTrans Transformer Oil Flow Chart
Table 3.88 BioTrans Transformer Oil Constituents
BioTrans Oil Constituents
Mass (kg/kg oil)
Soybeans (dry)
Hexane
Water
Additives and pour-point depressives
0.90
0.002
0.0035
The energy requirements for BioTrans Transformer oil production are listed in Table 3.89.
Table 3.89 Energy Requirements for BioTrans Transformer Oil Production
Production Energy
Fuel Use (per kg oil)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Steam
0.27 MJ
1.2 MJ
0.38 kg
Emissions from BioTrans Transformer oil production consist of fugitive hexane emissions as
well as emissions arising from energy production.
Transportation. Truck Transportation is used to represent Transportation from the Transformer
oil production plant to the Transformer to be filled at the point of use. The Transportation
distance is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. Only the truck is modeled—and not, for
160
-------
example, pipeline Transportation—since Transformer oil is a specialty petroleum product with a
tiny market as compared to other petroleum products •
Use. The amount of oil used in a Transformer depends on the size of the Transformer. A
relatively small-sized (1 000 kV'A) transformer is assumed, which requires about 1.89 m3
(500 gal) of fluid to cool. It is assumed that the use phase of the Transformer oil lasts the lifetime
of the Transformer, approximately 30 years. The functional unit for all BEES Transformer oil
data is "cooling for one 1 000 kilovolt-ampere Transformer for 30 years." Included in the
modeling is the electricity required to recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests
indicate the need. Reconditioning is assumed to occur every five years.112
There is a tiny (5 % of 1 %, or 0.05 %) chance of an abnormal or catastrophic event in which
Transformer oil spills disastrously and impacts the surrounding ecosystem and human health.
The BEES life-cycle data account for the possibility of such oil spill impacts, though with
significant limitations. Oil spills have little impact on the BEES results for Transformer oils.
End of Life. BioTrans oil has not been in use long enough to assess its fate after 30 years. It is
assumed to be treated the same as mineral oil. Thus, after the 30-year life of the Transformer, it
is assumed to be reconditioned and reused in another Transformer 75 % of the time. Using the
same modeling assumptions as for mineral-based oil, half of the remaining 25 % of the BioTrans
oil that is too contaminated to be reprocessed to an effective state is incinerated without energy
recovery and half is incinerated with energy recovery. The credit gained for energy recovery--
producing energy in an industrial boiler—is accounted for. The end-of-life options for
Transformer oil do not include disposable waste, as it is generally a well-maintained product and
can be used in other applications. Therefore, none of the product is assumed to be landfilled.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code G4010, product code BO. Life-cycle cost data for BioTrans Transformer oil include
first cost data (excluding installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of oil
reconditioning). First cost data are collected from Waverly Light & Power and future cost data
from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
3.13.3 Generic Silicone-Based Transformer Fluid (G4010C)
Silicone-based transformer fluid is a synthetic transformer oil composed primarily of
dimethylsiloxane polymers, and following a very different series of production steps than that
described above for mineral oil-based transformer oil production. Figure 3.63 shows the
elements of silicone fluid production. The detailed environmental performance data for this
product may be viewed by opening the file G4010C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the
BEES software.
112 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER)
website's Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document,
Iittp://\vww.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist3-30. Energy information on reconditioning was provided during telephone
.conversations with S.D. Myers, a Transformer and Transformer fluid contractor, November 2001.
161
-------
Truck
Transport
Tr
Silicone-Bas
ansformer ]
Functional Unit
of Silicons-
Based Fluid
J L
Silicons
Transformer
Fluid Prod.
A L
Dimethyl-
siloxane
Production
JL
Energy
Production
ed
?luid
Figure 3.63 Silicone-Fluid Flow Chart
Production. While silicone-based fluid is produced in the United States and abroad, the only
publicly-available data are European. Thus, European data are used to model the main
component, cyclical siloxane, as described below113.
The production of demethylsiloxane starts with the production of dimethylchlorosilane using
chloromethane and silicon. Dimethylchlorosilane undergoes hydrolysis reactions to produce
dimethylsilanediol, which undergoes another series of hydrolysis reactions to condense into
cyclical siloxane. No data are available to model production of the dimethylsiloxane polymer
from the cyclical siloxane, or the final stages required to produce the transformer fluid. Thus,
only production flows for the main component, cyclical siloxane,'are included in the BEES data.
Transportation. Truck transportation is used to represent transportation from the transformer oil
production plant to the transformer to be filled at the point of use. The transportation distance is
modeled as a variable of the BEES system. ;
Use. The amount of oil used in a transformer depends on the size of the transformer. A
relatively small-sized (1 000 kV'A) transformer is assumed, which requires about 1.89 m3 (500
gal) of fluid to cool. It is assumed that the use phase of the transformer oil lasts the lifetime of
the transformer, approximately 30 years. The functional unit for all BEES transformer oil data is
"cooling for one 1 000 kilovolt-ampere transformer for 30 years." Included in the modeling is
the electricity required to recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests indicate the need.
113 Silicon production: JL Vignes, Donnees Industrielles, economiques, geographiques sur des produits
chimiques (mineraux et organiques) Metaux et Materiaux, pp. 134, ed. 1994, Union des Physiciens;
Dimethylchlorosilane production: "Silicones", Rhone-Poulenc departement silicones, Techno-Nathan edition,
Nouvelle Librairie, 1988; Dimethylsilanediol and cyclic siloxane production: Carette, Pouchol (RP Silicones),
Techniques de I'ingenieur, vol. A 3475, p.3.
162
-------
114
Reconditioning is assumed to occur every five years.
There is a tiny (5 % of 1 %, or 0.05 %) chance of an abnormal or catastrophic event in which
transformer oil spills disastrously and impacts the surrounding ecosystem and human health. The
BEES life-cycle data account for the possibility of such oil spill impacts, though with significant
limitations. Oil spills have little impact on the BEES results for transformer oils.
End of Life. Silicone fluid is well maintained during the life of the transformer due to its
sensitive-area uses and its higher cost115. It is assumed therefore that 90 % of the time it is
suitable for reconditioning and reuse at the end of the 30 year life of the transformer. Of the
remaining 10%, half is incinerated with energy recovery, with credit given for energy
production in an industrial boiler. The other half is sent back to the manufacturer for
restructuring for production into other silicone-based products116. The end-of-life options for
transformer oil do not include disposable waste, as it is generally a well-maintained product and
can be used in other applications. Therefore, none of the product is assumed to be landfilled.
Cost. The detailed life-cycle cost data for this product may be viewed by opening the file
LCCOSTS.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. Its costs are listed under
BEES code G4010, product code CO. Life-cycle cost data for silicone-based transformer fluid
include first cost data (excluding installation costs) and future cost data (cost and frequency of
oil reconditioning). First cost data are collected from Waverly Light & Power and future cost
data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
114 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER)
website's Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document,
http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist3-30. Energy information on reconditioning was provided during telephone
conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001.
115 Contact at S.D. Myers company, November 2001.
116 Information from Dow Corning, http://www.dowcorning.com, "Reuse, recycle, or disposal of transformer
fluid", 2001.
163
-------
164
-------
4. BEES Tutorial
To select environmentally-friendly, cost-effective building products, follow three main steps:
1. Set your study parameters to customize key assumptions
2. Define the alternative building products for comparison. BEES results may be
computed once alternatives are defined.
3. View the BEES results to compare the overall, environmental, and economic
performance scores for your alternatives.
4.1 Setting Parameters
Select Analysis/Set Parameters from the BEES Main Menu to set your study parameters. A
window listing these parameters appears, as shown in Figure 4.1. Move around this window by
pressing the Tab key.
BEES uses importance weights to combine environmental and economic performance measures
into a single performance score. If you prefer not to weight the environmental and economic
performance measures, select the "no weighting" option. In this case, BEES will compute and
display only disaggregated performance results.
Assuming you have chosen to weight BEES results, you are asked to enter your relative
importance weights for environmental versus economic performance. These values must sum to
100. Enter a value between 0 and 100 for environmental performance reflecting your percentage
weighting. For example, if environmental performance is all-important, enter a value of 100. The
corresponding economic importance weight is automatically computed. Next you are asked to
select your relative importance weights for the environmental impact categories included in the
BEES environmental performance score: Global Warming, Acidification, Eutrophication, Fossil
Fuel Depletion, Indoor Air Quality, Habitat Alteration, Water Intake, Criteria Air Pollutants,
Smog, Ecological Toxicity, Ozone Depletion, and Human Health. (There are a limited number of
BEES products for which Smog, Ecological Toxicity, Human Toxicity, and Ozone Depletion are
excluded from the evaluation due to resource constraints. Whenever any of these products are
selected, all products under analysis are automatically evaluated with respect to the reduced
impact set. Refer to table 4.1 for a listing of the number of impacts evaluated for each product.)
You are presented with four sets of alternative weights. You may choose to define your own set
of weights or to select a built-in weight set derived from an EPA Science Advisory Board study,
a Harvard University study, or a set of equal weights.117 Press View Weights to display the
impact category weights for all four weight sets, as shown in Figure 4.2. If you select the user-
defined weight set, you will be asked to enter weights for all impacts under analysis, as shown in
117 So that the set of equal weights would appropriately sum to 100, individual weights have been rounded up or
down. These arbitrary settings may be changed by using the user-defined weighting option.
165
-------
Weighting =•'
Environmental vs Economic
Environmental
Performance |%1
* Ecpnomie'Perr' orrnance
¥iew weights
',/f, 7;' ^Hgfc''
" m
Figure 4.1 Setting Analysis Parameters
Figure 4.3. These weights must sum to 100.
§rt, „. -„- - ^ _»*-
.~"_.v/«Mswsiii
UsecDeTned
EPA Science Advi;oiy BM
Haivaid University Sludy-b
Equjl Weights
Globaf,vam
9
18
11
9
AcicSfcatn
9
5
9
9
"V ^
Eutraphctn
9
5
9
9
•V, * " , — ^ , / , s £ *" ( / / , /fi (' f " f^
UaHeatepn'
9
5
7
9
ifflwstJSf
8
11
7
S
HabiL*)
8
16
6
8
Vatejjntk:
8
5
9
8
CriLACP'
8
5
10
8
sl»a
8
5
9
8
ScofoaffS
8
11
e
8
0zdneJ>B|5[
8
5
11
8
•taroarLHMi!
8
11
6
8
Figure 4.2 Viewing Impact Category Weights
166
-------
Mow ArgMa!^ Jig"™ i j^
L "Ij--* -S -S -. i™^*w*** t-* TIT—
^~W ji^ "$''"* T^-SWS. -4wg | 8
--*"'- -~ ^ -T- __£. ^ j8«^«ini.^ ^ ^~ ^-aij.-^^^ 'u_-wE s^ * -WMCT:-~ j |4fti _ffi ?a,5 _j. f ^ i&aMrS*
t$f*z *-"«• ^"^sea*- *' f*¥"-s %r» 7"t *~ " -•*
-"^ * •--'S^-^;?S^C. ft** v^,""-- ^ —i-^r^ '^p*'***"-:
"^:?—^.ri^iL-
- ,<-_ -_-_ ttejs I
Figure 4.3 Entering User-Defined Weights
Finally, enter the real (excluding inflation) discount rate for converting future building product
costs to their equivalent present value. All future costs are converted to their equivalent present
values when computing life-cycle costs. Life-cycle costs form the basis of the economic
performance scores. The higher the discount rate, the less important to you are future building
product costs such as repair and replacement costs. The maximum value allowed is 20 %. A
discount rate of 20 % would value each dollar spent 50 years hence as only $0.0001 in present
value terms. The 2002 rate mandated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for most
Federal projects, 3.9 %, is provided as a default value.118
118 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-
Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, October 27,1992 and OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C,
Washington, DC, 2002.
167
-------
Fr=
Major Group Element
Shell
Group Element
1 Exterior Enclosure
Individual Element -
I Exterior Wall Finishes
Figure 4.4 Selecting Building Element for BEES Analysis
4.2 Defining Alternatives
Select Analysis/Define Alternatives from the Main Menu to choose the building products you
want to compare. A window appears as in Figure 4.4. Selecting alternatives; is a two-step
process.
1. Select the specific building element for which you want to compare
alternatives. Building elements are organized using the hierarchical structure
of the ASTM standard UNIFORMAT H classification system: by Major
Group Element, Group Element, and Individual Element.119 Click on the
down arrows to display the complete lists of available choices at each level of
the hierarchy.
BEES 3.0 contains environmental and economic performance data for nearly
200 products across 23 building elements including beams, columns, roof
sheathing, exterior wall finishes, wall insulation, framing, roof coverings,
partitions, ceiling finishes, interior wall finishes, floor coverings, chairs, and
parking lot paving. Press Ok to select the choice in view.
119 ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework-UNIFORMAT H,
ASTM Designation E 1557-97, West Conshohocken, PA, 1997. i
168
-------
<~B~$gj^ &ff
Generic Aluminum Siding
Generic Brick & Mortar
Generic Cedar Siding
Generic Stucco
G eneric Vinyl S iding
ISG 1-coat Stucco with Fly Ash
ISG 3-coat Stucco with Fly Ash
ISG Brick & F|y Ash Mortar
Trespa Meteon
Figure 4.5 Selecting Building Product Alternatives
---o ~*-t 2
-•^USE. ^ijij^.-v* j|>~^
StJ3sijeiicAtufjWjrjaSJ€og .*,"! .U
C^'*WB*»3ai*W|'. ~ ^r-^"*,- 'f""? ' -TT-11/-
FT/ansportat»n Distance (nan Mjnufacture-to Use-*=;
Figure 4.6 Setting Transportation Parameters
169
-------
2. Once you have selected the building element, you are presented with a
window of product alternatives available for BEES scoring, such as in Figure
4.5. Select an alternative with a mouse click. After selecting each alternative,
you will be presented with a window, such as in Figure 4.6, asking for the
distance required to transport the product from the manufacturing plant to
your building site.120 If the product is exclusively manufactured in another
country (e.g., linoleum flooring), this setting should reflect the transportation
distance from the U.S. distribution facility to your building site (transport to
the distribution facility has already been built into the BEES data).
If you have already set your study parameters, press Compute BEES Results to compute and
display the BEES environmental and economic performance results.
4.3 Viewing Results
Once you have set your study parameters, defined your product alternatives, and computed
BEES results, BEES displays the window for selecting BEES reports illustrated in Figure 4.7.
By default, the three summary graphs shown in Figures 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 are selected for display
or printing. Press Display to view the three graphs. For all BEES graphs, the larger the value,
the worse the performance. Also, all BEES graphs are stacked bar graphs, meaning the height of
each bar represents a summary performance score consisting of contributing scores represented
as its stacked bars.
1. The Overall Performance Results graph displays the weighted environmental
and economic performance scores and their sum, the overall performance
score. If you chose not to weight, this graph is not available.
2. The Environmental Performance Results graph displays the weighted
environmental impact category scores and their sum, the environmental
performance score. Because this graph displays scores for unit quantities of
individual building products that have been normalized (i.e., placed on a
common scale) by reference to total U.S. impacts, they appear as very small
numbers. If you chose not to weight, this graph is not available.
3. The Economic Performance Results graph displays the first cost, discounted
future costs and their sum, the life-cycle cost.
120 If you have chosen the wall insulation element, you will first be asked for parameter values so that heating
and cooling energy use over the 50-year study period can be properly estimated. If you have chosen roof coverings
and installation will be in a U.S. Sunbelt climate, you will be asked for parameter values that will permit accounting
for 50-year heating and cooling energy use based on roof covering color.
170
-------
, -
Overall Peftornfjahcex "
'
_
KBts PerfoErqph"
•fyu-jf , _, .
>" ;3K SEc'onomic Performance-
^-^•^TS"-*. ->t?-fL . s, 'S3' »: ~j.?*J^;:££.':
:_*_ j $1
\f*&, „ * *»• ™ -sS
jSjobal Warming
"""
oa armng ^^,-,, »,„"
""^"t 4f"~ -*^-*--.
}Fossii Fuel Depletion-
A
'5C"5 ^^IP^ 4." ~ *-* $r^ ^^
6|?$sr,5N » —^^ * aw ^t ift^^.** ^^%Jf£"Vi"*^l""?R! T" ~ "9S*v '«*f^"v" ""£S£-~ -C-^"~ j^SES-C •*' J^'*9? /** " fh ^ *»S ^S. "^*«'Sg't «S'
:?
F «--*=».. J.-j-^
'*" i*
c •«»!* JJIT' " ~=SK^ v^•*£* ' r^ ^ " C" " N ' " ^'"u~*
f^f^r^^:^- -> ^I"4 *.'-, ??llr'«•"?"• %^,Tl T^i;;
I§BJ(
* * 1
?5!P'w5Srfw*--r5waRC _- ^
«.taa&«^& ^^Jtj.a.-.^g.-.-.i'.^v.v.v^jBSi.-.
Figure 4.7 Selecting BEES Reports
171
-------
Overall Performance
Brick&Mortar Aluminum Siding
Stucco
Alternatives
Note Lower ua lues a re better
Categoiy
Economic Perfbrm.-50%
Environ. Petform.-S0%
Sun
Brick
2ao
25.6
sae
Stucco
11.2
11.9
23.1
Aluminum
10.9
126
23.5
Figure 4.8 Viewing BEES Overall Performance Results
Environmental Performance
bl
Note: Lower ualuesare better
Calcgoiy
AdcHcdion~9%
Crit.AirPdlutfrpts-8%
Ecolog. Toxte8y-8%
EUropWcalicn-9%
Fossil Fuel Depl.-a%
Globd Warming-S%
Hrtiitat «teration~8%
Brick
O.OOCQ
0.0031
0.0001
O.OOW
0.0015
0.0011
0.0000
Stucco
0.0000
0.0018
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0X1006
0.0000
Aluirinun
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0000
Press PageDown for mo re results..
Figure 4.9 Viewing BEES Environmental Performance Results
172
-------
Economic Performance
-2.00
Bricfe&Mortar Aluminum Siding
Stucco
Alternatives
Categoiy
First Cost
Future Cost- 3.9%
Sun
Brick
7.13
-053
6.60
Stucco
2.27
0.36
2.63
Aluminum
2.71
-0.1 S
2.56
Figure 4.10 Viewing BEES Economic Performance Results
BEES results are derived by using the BEES model to combine environmental and economic
performance data using your study parameters. The method is described in section 2. The
detailed BEES environmental and economic performance data, documented in section 3, may be
browsed by selecting File/Open from the Main Menu. ;
From the window for selecting BEES reports, you may choose to display a summary table
showing the derivation of summary scores, graphs depicting results by life-cycle stage and by
contributing flow for each environmental impact category, graphs depicting embodied energy
performance, and an All Tables in One report giving all the detailed results in a single tabular
report. Figures 4.11 through 4.15 illustrate each of these options. ;
Once you have displayed any BEES report, you may select additional reports for display by
selecting Tools/Select Reports from the menu. To compare BEES results based on different
parameter settings, either select Tools/Change Parameters from the menu, or if the Summary
Table is in focus, press the Change Parameters button. Change your parameters, and press Ok.
You may now display reports based on your new parameters. Then you may find it convenient to
view reports with different parameter settings side-by-side by selecting Window/Tile from the
menu. Note that parameter settings are displayed on the table corresponding to each graph.
4.4 Browsing Environmental and Economic Performance Data
The BEES environmental and economic performance data may be browsed by selecting
File/Open from the Main Menu. Environmental data files are specific to products, while there is
1 This feature is not available from the menu displayed with the BEES Summary Table.
173
-------
a single economic data file, LCCOSTS.DBF, with cost data for all products. As noted in section
3, some environmental data files map to a product in more than one application, while the
economic data typically vary for each application. Table 4.1 lists the products by environmental
data file name (all with the .DBF extension) and by code number within the economic
performance data file LCCOSTS.DBF. Table 4.1 also indicates the number of environmental
impacts available for scoring for each product.
The environmental performance data files are similarly structured, with 3 simulations in each.
The first column in all these files, XPORT, shows the assumed transportation distance from
manufacture to use (in miles). All files contain 3 sets of inventory data corresponding to the 3
simulations. For each simulation, the environmental performance data file lists a number of
environmental flows. Flows marked "(r)" are raw materials inputs, "(a)" air emissions, "(ar)"
radioactive air emissions, "(s)" releases to soil, "(w)" water effluents, "(wr)" radioactive water
effluents, and "E" energy usage. All quantities are expressed in terms of the product's functional
units, typically 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of product service for 50 years.122 The column labeled "Total" is
the primary data column, giving total cradle-to-grave flow amounts. Next are columns giving
flow amounts for each product component, followed by columns giving flow amounts for each
life-cycle stage. The product component columns roughly sum to the total column, as do the life-
cycle stage columns. The lATNDEX column is for internal BEES use.
The economic performance data file LCCOSTS.DBF lists for each cost the year of occurrence
(counting from year 0) and amount (in constant 2002 dollars) per functional unit.
Warning: If you change any of the data in the environmental or economic performance data files,
you will need to reinstall BEES to restore the original BEES data.
122 The functional unit for concrete beams and columns is 0.76 cubic meters (1 cubic yard) of product service for
50 years, for chairs is office seating for 1 person for 50 years, for soil treatment is 1 kilogram of soil improver over
50 years, and for transformer oil is cooling for one 1000 kilovolt-ampere transformer for 30 years.
174
-------
iCSr, *TL- '-* * -
Normalized Results i
tt \juwuufc ij;|uwvw.£
sjf - *??-&-•:•£-*
0034 JOOOM 1
0«V 1 4834 rrg260"l i 01«!
ooPe JploKM*,, F3
DOT jogooo^»joo«%> L ue »vJ__j
, 106000' r™ j*r]z, t-f-j'-^p ~" ti
*- TO- -*i S:"- '«r« " " J- -tiinan ; Sfz-,^** ''i.
"-"»• -/-_ ., PotenhalB*8tauhnjjact
Figure 4.11 Viewing BEES Summary Table
175
-------
Global Warming by Life-Cycle Stage
Brick&Mortar Aluminum Siding
Stucco
Alternatives
11 etc: Lower values a re better
Categoiy
1 . RawMaterials
2. Manufacturing
3. Transporteion
4. Use
5. End of Life
Sun
Brick
1216
1332
639
0
0
3247
Stucco
1311
4
311
0
0
1626
Alummun
821
0
12
0
0
833
Figure 4.12 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by Life-
Cycle Stage
Acidification by Flow
Brick&Mortir ' Aluminum Siding
Stucco
Alternatives
Hate: Lower traluesare better
Categoiy
(a) Ammoria (MH3)
(a) Hydrogen CHorite iHCI)
(a) Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)
(aj Hydrogen Fluonde (J1F)
(a) Hydrogen SUIde (H2S)
(a) Nitrogen O>ides (NOx as NO2
(a) SuHur Oxides (SOx as SO2)
(a)SUt»icAcid(H2S04)
Brick
2^4
5.43
0.00
0.31
0^0
709S9
461.45
0.00
Stucco
056
4.35
0.00
0.33
0.08
195.16
218.42
0.00
Aluirinun
023
5.67
DOT
128
OB3
114.30
153.93
0.00
Press PageDown for more results..
Figure 4.13 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by Flow
176
-------
Embodied Energy by Fuel Usage
MJfunlt
i
ID
£
Brick&Mortar Aluminum Siding
Sfcicco
Alternatives
Category
Feedstock Energy
Fuel Energy
Sun
Brick
2.70 .
45.69
48.39
Stucco
0.81
11.49
12.30
Aluminum
123
10.80
1208
Figure 4.14 Viewing BEES Embodied Energy Results
^JSJial^-Mlt^i! ' HJMST
', •**, <-»^' "~ '»" ~ ^" " "*^ i ^ - , * •**,,- ' . S~lrW
«,i«j«»&,, > -v &. , ' «, -«S«adS|,
^3=" ^*~ * " "-^~ ~t " £t£[, * * "^ ™ ^
Criteria Air Pollutants by Flow (micro disability-adjusted life years/unit)
Category Brick Stucco Aluminum
(a) Nitragen oxides (NOx as WO2
(a) Patticulates (greater than
(a) Partteulates (PM 10)
(a) Participates (unspecifeci)
(a) Sultir Oxides CSOx as SO2)
U.U4
0.00
0.00
7.19
0.13
U.U1
0.00
0.00
4.36
0.06
U.U1
0.00
OBO
0.13
0.04
Sum 7.3S 4.43 0.18
%
Criteria Air Pollutants by Life-Cycle Stage (micro disability-adjusted life years/unit)
Category Brick Stucco Aluminum '
1 . KawMaterials
2. Manufacturing
3. Transportation
4. Use
S. End of Lib
Sum
B.U/
1.22
0.07
O.OD
0.00
7.36
4."jy
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
4.43
U.lb
0.00
0.00
0.00
OJO
0.18
a-
1
fl
""\
/A
^
Figure 4.15 A Sampling of BEES "All Tables In One" Display
177
-------
Table 4.1 BEES Products Keyed to Environmental and Economic Performance Data Codes
Individual
Element
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Slab on Grade
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Basement Walls
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
<;
-
BEES Product
Generic 100 % Portland Cement
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement
Generic 20 % Slag Cement
Generic 35 % Slag Cement
Generic 50 % Slag Cement
Generic 5 % Limestone Cement
Generic 10 % Limestone Cement
Generic 20 % Limestone Cement
Lafarge Silica Fume Cement
ISG IP Cement
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (20 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (35 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (50 %)
Generic 35 % Fly Ash Cement
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement
Generic 100 % Portland Cement
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement
Generic 20 % Slag Cement
Generic 35 % Slag Cement
Generic 50 % Slag Cement
Generic 5 % Limestone Cement
Generic 10 % Limestone Cement
Generic 20 % Limestone Cement
Lafarge Silica Fume Cement
ISG IP Cement
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (20 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (35 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (50 %)
Lafarge BlockSet
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement
Generic 100 % Portland Cement 4KSI
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI
Generic 20 % Slag Cement 4KSI
Generic 35 % Slag Cement 4KSI
Generic 50 % Slag Cement 4KSI
Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 4KSI
Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 4KSI
Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 4KSI
Generic 100 % Portland Cement 5KSI
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI
•§
i,
^
*
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
,'-.
Environ-
f mental
Data File
Name
A1030A
A1030B
A1030C
A1030D
A1030E
A1030F
A1030G
A1030H
A1030I
A1030J
A1030K
A1030L
A1030M
A1030N
A1030O
A1030P
A2020A
A2020B
A2020C
A2020D
A2020E
A2020F
A2020G
A2020H
A2020I
A2020J
A2020K
A2020L
A2020M
A2020N
A2020O
A2020P
B1011A
B1011B
B1011C
B1011D
B1011E
B1011F
B1011G
B1011H
B1011I
B1011J
B1011K
'
'
Economic
Data
Code
A1030.AO
A1 03030
A1030.CO
A1030,DO
A1030.EO
A1030.FO
A1030.GO
A1030,HO
A1 030,10
A1030.JO
A1030,KO
A1030,LO
A1030.MO
A1030,NO
A1030.OO
A1030.PO
A2020.AO
A2020.BO
A2020.CO
A2020.DO
A2020.EO
A2020.FO
A2020.GO
A2020.HO
A2020.IO
A2020.JO
A2020,KO
A2020.LO
A2020.MO
A2020.NO
A2020.OO
A2020.PO
B1011.AO
B1011.BO
B1011.CO
B1011.DO
B1011,EO
B1011.FO
B1011.GO
B1011.HO
61011,10
61 011, JO
B1011.KO
_
178
-------
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Beams
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Columns
Roof Sheathing
Roof Sheathing
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI
Generic 20 % Slag Cement 5KSI
Generic 35 % Slag Cement 5KSI
Generic 50 % Slag Cement 5KS1
Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 5KSI
Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 5KSI
Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 5KSI
Lafarge Silica Fume Cement (4KSI)
ISG IP Cement 4KS1
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (20 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (35 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (50 %)
Lafarge Silica Fume Cement (5KSI)
ISG IP Cement 5KSI
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (20 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (35 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (50 %)
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 4KSJ
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 5KSI
Generic 100 % Portland Cement 4KSI
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI
Generic 20 % Slag Cement
Generic 35 % Slag Cement 4KSI
Generic 50 % Slag Cement 4KSI
Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 4KSI
Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 4KSI
Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 4KSI
Generic 100 % Portland Cement 5KSI
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI
Generic 20 % Slag Cement 5KSI
Generic 35 % Slag Cement 5KSI
Generic 50 % Slag Cement 5KS1
Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 5KSI
Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 5KSI
Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 5KSI
Lafarge Silica Fume Cement (4KSI)
ISG IP Cement 4KSI
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KS1 (20 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (35 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (50 %)
Lafarge Silica Fume Cement (5KSI)
ISG IP Cement 5KSI
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (20 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KS1 (35 %)
Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (50 %)
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 4KSI
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 5KSI
Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing
Generic Plywood Sheathing
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
8
B1011L
B1011M
B1011N
B1011O
B1011P
B1011Q
B1011R
B1011S
B1011T
B1011U
B1011V
B1011W
B1011X
B1011Y
B1011Z
B1011AA
B1011BB
B1011CC
B1011DD
B1012A
B1012B
B1012C
B1012D
B1012E
B1012F
B1012G
B1012H
B1012I
B1012J
B1012K
B1012L
B1012M
B1012N
B1012O
B1012P
B1012Q
B1012R
B1012S
B1012T
B1012U
B1012V
B1012W
B1012X
B1012Y
B1012Z
B1012AA
B1012BB
B1012CC
B1012DD
B1020A
B1020B
8101 1,LO
81 011, MO
8101 1,NO
61011,00
B1011,PO
6101 1,QO
B1011.RO
61011,50
81 011, TO
6101 1,UO
81011.VO
B1011,WO
B1011.XO
B1011.YO
B1 011,20
B1011.AAO
61011,660
B1 011, CCO
B1011,DDO
B1012.AO
B1 012,60
B1012.CO
B1012.DO
81012.EO
B1012.FO
61012.GO
B1012.HO
61012,10
61012.JO
61012.KO
61012.LO
61012.MO
61012.NO
B1012.OO
B1012.PO
61012.QO
61012,RO
61012,50
81012.TO
B:1012,UO
B1012.VO
61 01 2, WO
61012.XO
61012.YO
B1012.ZO
B1012.AAO
61012,660
B1012.CCO
B1012,DDO
B1020.AO
61020,60
179
-------
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Exterior Wall Finishes
Wall Insulation
Wall Insulation
Wall Insulation
Wall Insulation
Wall Insulation
Framing
Framing
Framing
Wall Sheathing
Wall Sheathing
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Roof Coverings
Ceiling Insulation
Ceiling Insulation
Ceiling Insulation
Ceiling Insulation
Partitions
Partitions
Partitions
Fabricated Toilet
3artitions
Fabricated Toilet
Partitions
_ockers
Lockers
Wall Finishes to
Interior Walls
Wall Finishes to
Generic Brick & Mortar
Generic Stucco
Generic Aluminum Siding
Generic Cedar Siding
Generic Vinyl Siding
Trespa Meteon
ISG Brick & Fly Ash Mortar
ISG 3-coat Stucco with Fly Ash
ISG 1-coat Stucco with Fly Ash
Generic R-13 Blown Cellulose
Generic R-1 1 Fiberglass Batt
Generic R-1 5 Fiberglass Batt
Generic R-1 2 Blown Mineral Wool
Generic R-13 Fiberglass Batt
Generic Steel Framing
Generic Wood Framing-Treated
Generic Wood Framing— Untreated
Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing
Generic Plywood Sheathing
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Black
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Coral
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Dk Brown
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Dk Gray
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Green
Generic Asphalt Shingles— Lt Brown
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Lt Gray
Generic Asphalt Shingles-Tan
Generic Asphalt Shingles-White
Generic Asphalt Shingles
Generic Clay Tile
Generic Clay Tile-Red
Generic Fiber Cement-Lt Gray/Lt Brown
Generic Fiber Cement Shingles
Generic Fiber Cement-Dk Color
Generic Fiber Cement-Med Color
Generic R-30 Blown Cellulose Insulation
Generic R-30 Fiberglass Batt Insulation
Generic R-30 Blown Mineral Wool Insulation
Generic R-30 Blown Fiberglass Insulation
Generic Drywall
Trespa Virtuon
Trespa Athlon
Trespa Virtuon
Trespa Athlon
Trespa Virtuon
Trespa Athlon
Generic Virgin Latex Paint
Generic Recycled Latex Paint
12
12
12
8
8
12
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
8
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
.12
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
8
B2011A
B2011B
B2011C
B2011D
B2011E
B2011F
B2011G
B2011H
B2011I
B2012A
B2012B
B2012C
B2012D
B2012E
B2013A
B2013B
B2013C
B1020A
B1020B
B3011A
B301 1A
B301 1A
B3011A
B3011A
B3011A
B3011A
B3011A
B3011A
B3011A
B3011B
B3011B
B3011C
B3011C
B3011C
B3011C
B3012A
B3012B
B3012C
B3012D
C1011A
C3030A
C3030B
C3030A
C3030B
C3030A
C3030B
C3012A
C3012B
B2011.A.O
B2011.BO
B2011.CO
B2011.DO
B2011.EO
B2011.FO
B2011.GO
B2011.HIO
82011,10
B2012.AO
B2012.BO
B2012.CO
B2012.DO
B2012.EO
B2013.AO
B2013.BO
B2013.CO
B2015.A.O
B2015.BO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.AO
B3011.BO
B3011.BO
B3011.CO
B3011.CO
B3011.CO
B3011,CO
B3012.AO
B3012,BO
B3012.CO
B3012.DO
C1011,A.O
C1011.BO
C1011.CO
C1031,AD
C1031.BO
C1030,A,0
C1 030,80
C3012.AO
C3012,BO
_
180
-------
Interior Walls
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Floor Coverings
Ceiling Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Fixed Casework
Fixed Casework
Chairs
Chairs
Chairs
Table Tops, Counter
Tops, Shelving
Table Tops, Counter
Tops, Shelving
Soil Treatment
Soil Treatment
Parking Lot Paving
Parking Lot Paving
Generic Ceramic Tile w/ Recycled Glass
Generic Linoleum
Generic Vinyl Composition Tile
Generic Composite Marble Tile
Generic Terrazzo
Generic Nylon Carpet
Generic Wool Carpet
Generic Recycled PET Carpet
Generic Nylon Carpet Tile/Low-VOC Glue
Generic Wool Carpet Tile/Low-VOC Glue
Generic Recycled PET Carpet Tile/Low-VOC
Generic Nylon Carpet Broadloom/Std.Glue
Generic Wool Carpet Broadloom/Std.Glue
Generic Recycled PET Carpet Brdlm/Std.GI
Generic Nylon Carpet Broadloom/Low-VOC
Generic Wool Carpet Broadloom/Low-VOC
Generic Recycled PET Carpet
Brdlm/LowVOC
Forbo Linoleum/Std Glue
Shaw Ecoworx Carpet Tile
Universal Textile Tech Petrol Backed Carpet
Universal Textile Tech Soy Backed Carpet
C&A Floorcoverings, ER3 Carpet Tile
Bentley Prince Street, Hyperion
Bentley Prince Street, Mercator
Interface Flooring Systems, Prairie School
Interface Flooring Systems, Sabi
Interface Flooring Systems, Transformation
J&J Industries, Certificate- SBR Latex
J&J Industries, Certificate- LIFESPAN*MG
Mohawk Regents Row
Mohawk Meritage
Natural Cork Parquet Tile
Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank
Forbo Linoleum/No-VOC Glue
Trespa Virtuon
Trespa Athlon
Trespa Virtuon
Trespa Athlon
Herman Miller Aeron Office Chair
Herman Miller Ambi Office Chair
Generic Office Chair
Trespa Toplab Plus
Trespa Athlon
Lafarge CKD Soil Enhancer
Generic Portland Cement
Generic 100 % Portland Cement
Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
C3020A
C3020B
C3020C
C3020D
C3020E
C3020F
C3020G
C3020H
C3020I
C3020J
C3020K
C3020L
C3020M
C3020N
C3020O
C3020P
"-
C3020Q
C3020R
C3020S
C3020T
C3020U
C3020X
C3020Y
C3020Z
C3020AA
C3020BB
C3020CC
C3020DD
C3020EE
C3020FF
C3020GG
C3020HH
C3020II
C3020NN
C3030A
C3030B
C3030A
C3030B
E2020A
E2020B
E2020B
E2021A
C3030B
G1030A
G1030B
G2022A
G2022B
C3020.AO
C3020,BO
C3020.CO
C3020.DO
C3020.EO
C3020.FO
C3020.GO
C3020.HO
C3020.IO
C3020.JO
C3020.KO
C3020.LO
C3020.MO
C3020.NO
C3020.OO
C3020,PO
C3020.QO
C3020.RO
C3020.SO
C3020.TO
C3020.UO
C3020.XO
C3020.YO
C3020.ZO
C3020,AAO
C3020.BBO
C3020.CCO
C3020.DDO
C3020.EEO
C3020.FFO
C3020,GGO
C3020,HHO
C3020.IIO
C3020,NNO
C3030,AO
C3030.BO
E2010.AO
E2010.BO
E2020.AO
E2020.BO
E2020.BO
E2021.AO
E2021.BO
G;1030,AO
G1 030,60
G2022.AO
G2022.BO
181
-------
Parking Lot Paving
Parking Lot Paving
Parking Lot Paving
Parking Lot Paving
Parking Lot Paving
Transformer Oil
Transformer Oil
Transformer Oil
Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement
Asphalt with GSB88 Seal-Bind Maintenance
Asphalt with Cement Maintenance
ISG 100% IP Cement
Lafarge Portland Type I Cement
BioTrans Transformer Oil
Generic Mineral Oil Based Transformer Oil
Generic Silicone Based Transformer Oil
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
G2022C
G2022D
G2022E
G2022F
G2022G
G4010A
G4010B
G4010C
G2022,CO
G2022.DO
G2022.EO
G2022.FO
G2022.GO
G4010.AO
G4010.BO
G4010,CO
182
-------
5. Future Directions
Development of the BEES tool does not end with the release of version 3.0. Plans to expand and
refine BEES include releasing updates every 18 months to 24 months with model and software
enhancements as well as expanded product coverage. Listed below are a number of directions for
future research that have been proposed in response to obvious needs, feedback from BEES 2.0
users, and peer review comments:
123
Proposed Model Enhancements
• Combine building products to permit comparative analyses of entire building components,
assemblies, and ultimately entire buildings
• Conduct and apply research leading to the refinement of indoor air assessment and to the
expansion of habitat alteration assessment to include all life cycle stages
• Characterize uncertainty in the underlying environmental and cost data, and reflect this
uncertainty in BEES performance scores
• Update the BEES LCA methodology in line with future advances in the evolving LCA field
Proposed Data Enhancements
• Continue to solicit cooperation from industry to include more manufacturer-specific building
products in future versions of BEES (this effort is known as the BEES Please program)
• Refine all data to permit U.S. region-specific BEES analyses. This enhancement would yield
BEES results tailored to regional fuel mixes and labor and material markets, and would
permit more accurate assessment of local environmental impacts such as locally scarce
resources (e.g., water)
• Permit flexibility in study period length and in product specifications such as useful lives
• Every 5 years, revisit products included, in previous BEES releases for updates to their
environmental and cost data
• Evaluate biobased products using BEES to assist the Federal procurement community in
carrying out the biobased purchasing mandate of the 2002 Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act (Public Law 107-171)
Proposed Software Enhancements
• Make streamlined BEES results available on a web-based platform
• Add feature soliciting product quantities from the BEES user to automate the process of
comparing BEES scores across building elements
• Add feature permitting import and export of life cycle inventories
• Add feature permitting integrated sensitivity analysis so that the effect on BEES results of
changes in parameter settings may be displayed on a single graph
123 P. Hofstetter et al., User Preferences for Life-Cycle Decision Support Tools: Evaluation of a Survey of BEES
Users, NISTIR 6874, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, July 2002; and M.A.
Curran et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report, NISTIR
6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2002.
183
-------
184
-------
Appendix A. BEES Computational Algorithms
A.1 Environmental Performance
BEES environmental performance scores are derived as follows.
p
EnvScorCj = ^lAScore^, where
k=l
EnvScorej= environmental performance score for building product alternative j;
p = number of environmental impact categories;
lAScorejk = characterized, normalized and weighted score for alternative j with
respect to environmental impact k:
lAScore.-,, =——
IA *IVwt,,
-*100, where
IVwtk = impact category importance weight for impact k;
Normk = normalization value for impact k (see section 2.1.3.3);
lAjt = characterized score for alternative j with respect to impact k:
n
IAjk = Lj * lAfactoc, where
i = inventory flow;
n = number of inventory flows in impact category k;
lij = inventory flow quantity for alternative j with respect to
flow i, from BEES environmental performance data file (See section 4.4.);
lAfactorj = impact assessment characterization factor for inventory flow i
The BEES life-cycle stage scores, LCScoreSj, which are displayed on the environmental
performance by life-cycle stage graph, are derived as follows:
LCScoresj =
^ *n>ercentij * LCPercent^ , where
LCScoreSj = life cycle stage score for alternative j with respect to stage s;
L, *IAfactori
=- - =-
= —^—, where
s=l
185
-------
Isij = inventory flow quantity for alternative j with respect to flow i for life
cycle stage s;
r = number of life cycle stages
A.2 Economic Performance
BEES measures economic performance by computing the product life-cycle cost as follows:
*—-, where
•j\t '
LCC.. =
LCCj == total life-cycle cost in present value dollars for alternative j;
Q = sum of all relevant costs, less any positive cash flows, occurring in year t;
N = number of years in the study period;
d = discount rate used to adjust cash flows to present value
A.3 Overall Performance
The overall performance scores are derived as follows:
(EnvWt*-
EnvScore-
LCC
*100, where
Scorej = overall performance score for alternative j;
EnvWt, EconWt = environmental and economic performance weights, respectively
(EnvWt + EconWt = 1);
n = number of alternatives;
EnvScore,-= (see section A. 1);
LCCj = (see section A.2)
186
-------
References
American Institute of Architects, Environmental Resource Guide, 1996.
ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—
UNIFORMATII, ASTM Designation E 1557-97, West Conshohocken, PA, 1997
ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to
Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems,
ASTM Designation E 1765-98, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998.
ASTM International, Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and
Building Systems, ASTM Designation E 917-99, West Conshohocken, PA, March 1999.
Ash, Kiioblock, and Peters, Energy Analysis of Energy from the Forest Options, ENFOR Project
P-59,1990.
Bare, J.C., Norris, G.A., Pennington, D.W. and McKone, T., "TRACI: The Tool for the
Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts," Journal of Industrial
Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002.
Braunschweig, Ahbe S., and Muller-Wenk, R, Methodik fur Oekobilanzen auf der bases
Okologischer Optimierung, Schriftenreihn Umwelt 133, Swiss Federal Office of Environment,
Forests, and Landscape, October 1990.
Bundesamt fur Umweltschutz, Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen, Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz 24,
Bern, Switzerland, 1984.
BUWAL, Methode der okologischen, Knappheit - Okofaktoreri 1997, Schriftenreihe Umwelt
Nr.297, OBU/BUWAL, Bern, Switzerland, 1998
Carter, William P., "Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic Compounds",
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 44, July 1994, pp. 881-899
CML, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Background, Leiden, The Netherlands,
October 1992.
Curran, M.A. et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer
Review Report, NISTIR 6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC,
2002.
Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development -
Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for
Structural Wood Products, Match 1993.
187
-------
Fuller, Sieglinde K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—
April 1997, NIST1R 85-3273-12, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1997.
Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., The Eco-indicator'99: A damage oriented method for Life
Cycle Impact Assessment, VROM Zoetermeer, Nr. 1999/36A/B, 2nd edition, April 2000.
Habersatter K., Ecobalance of Packaging Materials - State of 1990, Swiss Federal Office of
Environment, Forests, and Landscape, Bern, Switzerland, February 1991.
Hofstetter, P. et al., User Preferences for Life-Cycle Decision Support Tools: Evaluation of a
Survey of BEES Users, NISTTR 6874, National Institute' of Standards and Technology,
Washington, DC, July 2002.
International Panel on Climate Change (TPCQ, IPCC Second Assessment—Climate Change
1995: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management-Life-Cycle
Assessment—Principles and Framework, International Standard 14040,1997.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management-Life-Cycle
Assessment—Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis, International Standard 14041,
1998.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management—Life-Cycle
Assessment—Life Cycle Impact Assessment, International Standard 14042,2000.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management—Life-Cycle
Interpretation—Life Cycle Impact Assessment, International Standard 14043, 2000.
Johnson, B.N., "Inventory of Land Management Inputs for Producing Absorbent Fiber for
Diapers: A Comparison of Cotton and Softwood Land Management," Forest Products Journal,
vol 44, no. 6,1994. '. '
Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated Impact of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct
Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in Single-Family New Residential Buildings,
LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1998.
Levin, Hal, "Best Sustainable Indoor Air Quality Practices in Commercial Buildings," Third
International Green Building Conference and Exposition—1996, NIST Special Publication 908,
Gaithersburg, MD, November 1996, p 148.
Life-Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials, Jonsson Asa, Anne-Marie Tillman, & Torbjorn
Svensson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 1995. :
Norberg-Bohm, Vicki, et al, International Comparisons of Environmental Hazards:
Development and Evaluation of a Method for Linking Environmental Data with the Strategic
Debate Management Priorities for Risk Management, Center for Science & International
188
-------
Affairs, JohnF. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, October 1992.
Parker et al., "Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in
Residential Building," ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104, 1998, p. 1.
Petersen, Stephen R., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family
Housing, NBSIR 81-2380, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 198L
Portland Cement Association, Concrete Products Life Cycle Inventory (LCI); Data Set for
Incorporation into the NIST BEES Model, PCA R&D Serial No. 2168, PCA Project 94-04a,
prepared by Michael Nisbet, JAN Consultants, 1998.
Potting., Jose and Blok, Kornelis, "Life-cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 3, No. 4,1995, pp. 201-213.
Potting, Jose and Kornelis, Blok, Life-cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering,
Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 1994.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), DEAM: Data for Environmental Analysis and Management,
developed by Ecobilan (a member company of PwC), 2001.
RS. Means Company, Inc., 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, on CD-ROM of Means 2000
CostWorks, Kingston, MA, 1999.
Research Triangle Institute. A Multimedia Waste Reduction Management System for the State of
North Carolina, Final Report. Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Health,
Environment, and Natural Resources, Pollution Prevention Program, April, 1993.
Roodman, D.M., and Lenssen, N., A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns
are Transforming Construction, Worldwatch Paper 124, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC,
March 1995.
Saaty, Thomas L., MultiCriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process—Planning,
Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, University of Pittssburgh, 1988.
SETAC, A Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, J. Fava, et al. (eds), 1993.
SETAC, Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A "Code of Practice," F. Consoli, et al. (eds),
1993.
SETAC-Europe, Life Cycle Assessment, B. DeSmet, et al. (eds), 1992.
SETAC, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art, J. Owens, et al. (eds), 1997.
Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban
Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089, prepared for USDA and U.S DoE, May 1998.
189
-------
Spelter H, Wang R, and Ince P, Economic Feasibility of Products from Inland West Small-
Diameter Timber, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ( May 1996).
Steen B., A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development
(EPS). Version 2000, CPM Report 1999:4 and 5, CPM, Chalmers University, Goteborg 1999.
Stovall, Theresa K., Supporting Documentation for the 1997 Revision to the DOE Insulation
Fact Sheet, ORNL-6907, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1997.
Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape, Environmental Series No. 250.
U.S. Department of Labor, Producer Price Indices: New Construction, Series PCUBNEW#,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, July 8,2002.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summary, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management
Strategies, A Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and
Environmental Impacts, EPA/600/R-94/177, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC., 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors,
Version 6.0, EPA 454/C-98-005, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, October 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Framework for Responsible Environmental
Decisionmaking (FRED): Using Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate Preferability of Products, by
Science Applications International Corporation, Research Triangle Institute, and EcoSense, Inc,
EPA 600/R-00/095,2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Life Cycle
Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles, EPA/600/R-92/245, February 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Toward Integrated
Environmental Decision-Making, EPA-SAB-EC-00-011, Washington, D.C., August 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting
Priorities and Stretegies for Environmental Protection, SAB-EC-90-021, Washington, D.C.,
September 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Background Document to Support
Rulemaking Pursuant to the Clean Air Act - Section 112(g), Ranking of Pollutants with Respect
to Hazard to Human Health. EPA-450/3-92-010, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and
190
-------
Other Environmental Impacts (TRACT): User's Guide and System Documentation, EPA/600/R-
02/052, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, August 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool. Beta Test
Version 1.0. User's Guide and System Documentation, EPA 530-R-97-019, Draft, Office of
Solid Waste, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC, 1997.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, October 27, 1992.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs: Appendix C, Washington, DC, 2002.
Whitestone Research, The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999,
5th Annual Edition, Seattle, WA, 1999. • . . .
Wilson, Alex and Malin, Nadav, "The IAQ Challenge: Protecting the Indoor Environment,"
Environmental Building News, Vol. 5, No. 3, May/June 1996, p 15.
Wilson, Alex, "Insulation Materials: Environmental Comparisons," Environmental Building
News, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.15-16
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific assessment of ozone depletion, 1991.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998,
Report 44 (Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project).
191
-------
------- |