EPA/600/R-01/058D
Life Cycle Design of
In-Mold Surfacing Film
Krishnendu Kar, Gregory A. Keoleian, David V. Spitzley, Kathy Malone, Scott Whitney
Gregory A. Keoleian, Project Director
National Pollution Prevention CenterD
School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentD
University of Michigan D
Dana Bldg. 430 E. UniversityD
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1115D
3M Demonstration Project
Project LeadersD
Ed Price D
Mick SawkaD
Thomas ZoselD
3M Corporation
St. Paul, Minnesota
Assistance Agreement # CR 822998-01-On
Project OfficerD
Kenneth StoneD
National Risk Management Research Laboratory D
Office of Research and DevelopmentD
US Environmental Protection Agency D
Cincinnati, OH 45268D
-------
1. Notice
This publication was developed under Cooperative Agreement No. 822998-01-0 awarded by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA made comments and suggestions on the document
intended to improve the scientific analysis and technical accuracy of the document. However, the
views expressed in this document are those of the University of Michigan and EPA does not
endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.
-------
II. Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
abilities of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. The National Risk Management
Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and management
approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the
Laboratory's research program is on the methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land,
water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of
contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this
research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective
environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support
regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure
effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This work was sponsored by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Since 1990, NRMRL has been at the forefront of development
of Life Cycle Assessment as a methodology for environmental assessment. In 1994, NRMRL established
an LCA team to organize individual efforts into a comprehensive research program. In addition to
project reports, the LCA team has published guidance manuals, including "Life Cycle Assessment:
Inventory Guidelines and Principles (EPA/600/R-92/245)" and "Life Cycle Design Framework and
Demonstration Projects (EPA/600/R-95/107)."
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director D
National Risk Management Research Laboratory D
-------
III. Abstract
This life cycle design project was a collaborative effort between the Center for Sustainable Systems
(formerly National Pollution Prevention Center) at the University of Michigan, 3M Corporation, and the
National Risk Management Research Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
primary objective of this project was to apply life cycle design tools to a new product introduced by 3M.
In-mold surfacing film (ISF) is an alternative color-coating system to the traditional paint coating
process. It has been tested for application on body side molded (BSM) plastic parts on automobiles. In
contrast to painting processes, ISF is manufactured at 3M and is shipped to tier 1 (relative to Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), i.e. automobile manufacturers) suppliers for application into BSM
parts. ISF is a layered product consisting of clear coat, color coat, adhesive, and a Thermoplastic
Polyolefin (TPO) backing. A Polyethylene Terepthalate (PET) liner is used during manufacturing, but is
removed before the film is die. The analysis is performed for 12.2 g of die cut ISF film applied to a BSM
part of surface area of 399 cm2. The material production inventories of Poly Vinylidene Fluoride
(PVDF), acrylic, PET, and TPO, which constitute the ISF, were evaluated as part of the analysis.
The scope of the LCD study encompasses manufacturing, application, use and retirement stages. In
contrast to painting operations, where the majority of environmental burdens are concentrated in the
paint shops of tier 1 suppliers or at the OEM facility, the environmental burdens for ISF application are
shifted upstream from tier 1 suppliers to 3M. The overall material efficiency based on solids and coating
solvents as input material from manufacturing to application is 19%. The total life cycle energy
requirement for the paint film was determined to be 11.8 MMSF and the total life cycle solid waste
generated per ISF was 62 g. The use phase results in a majority of the life cycle environmental burden in
terms of energy (54%) and CO2 emissions (63%); however, the use phase contributes only 29% of the
total life cycle solid waste. The majority of life cycle cost occurs during manufacturing (81%). Based on
the results of this life cycle environmental and cost inventory, metrics for design analysis are proposed.
Different life cycle performance metrics required to meet the OEM specifications are also presented
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement number CR822998-01-0 by
the National Pollution Prevention Center at the University of Michigan under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This work covers a period from November 10, 1994 to March 30,
1996.
-------
IV. Contents
1. Project Description 1D
1.1 Introduction 1 D
1.2 Project Origin /Team 1 D
1.3 Product Selection 2D
1.4 Product Significance 2D
1.5 Objectives 2D
2. Systems Analysis 3D
2.1 Product Composition 3D
2.2 Scope 4D
2.3 Boundaries and Assumptions 4D
2.3 ISF System Description 5D
3. Data Collection and Analysis 7D
3.1 Methodology 7D
3.2 Environmental Data 7D
3.2.1 Material Production 7D
3.2.2 Manufacturing 8D
3.2.3 Application 12D
3.2.4 Use 12D
3.2.5 Retirement 14D
3.3 Cost Data 14D
3.3.1 Manufacturing 14D
3.3.2 Application 15D
3.3.3 Use 15D
3.3.4 Retirement 15D
3.4 Performance Data 15D
3.4.1 Manufacturing 15D
3.4.2 Application 16D
3.4.3 Use 16D
4. [Results and Discussion 19D
4.1 Environmental Metrics 19D
4.1.1 Energy 19D
4.1.2 Solid waste 20D
4.1.3 Material Efficiency 21D
4.1.4 Air Emissions 21D
4.1.5 Water Effluents 22D
4.2 Cost Metrics 22D
5. Design Evaluation and Conclusions 24
Reference List 26D
Appendix A: Acronyms Table A.1 D
Appendix B: Environmental & Cost Inventory Data B.1 D
Appendix C: Unit Operations C.1 D
Appendix D: Life Cycle Design Framework D.1D
Appendix E: Life Cycle Design Reports E.1D
-------
V. Acknowledgment
We wish to thank 3M and members of the 3M life cycle design project team for collaborating with
the National Pollution Prevention Center. Thomas Zosel played a key role in initiating this project.
Mick Sawka served as project leader and was very instrumental in gathering data for the environmental,
cost, and performance analyses. In particular, he provided a very detailed manufacturing process flow
diagram and data set. Gary Crecelius provided management support and critical feedback on the life
cycle design approach. Ed Price participated in discussions of technical issues relating to the streamlined
life cycle inventory analysis. Wing-Wah Yeung helped in selecting the specific 3M automotive film for
this investigation. We also wish to acknowledge Jonathan Bulkley and Sabrina Spatari, of NPPC, for
review and technical editing of this document.
-------
1. Project Description
1.1 Introduction
Integration of environmental considerations into the design process represents a complex challenge
to designers, managers and environmental professionals. A logical framework including definitions,
objectives, principles and tools is essential to guide the development of more ecologically and
economically sustainable product systems. In 1991, the US. Environmental Protection Agency
collaborated with the University of Michigan to develop the life cycle design framework (Keoleian and
Menerey 1993; Keoleian and Menerey 1994; Keoleian, Koch, and Menerey 1995; Koch and Keoleian
1995). This framework is documented in two publications: Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual
(Keoleian and Menerey 1993) and the Life Cycle Design Framework and Demonstration Projects
(Keoleian, Koch, and Menerey 1995).
Two demonstration projects evaluating the practical application of this framework have been
conducted with AlliedSignal and AT&T. AT&T applied the life cycle design framework to a business
phone (Keoleian, Glantschnig, and McCann 1994) and AlliedSignal investigated heavy duty truck oil
filters (Keoleian 1995). In these projects environmental, performance, cost, and legal criteria were
specified and used to investigate design alternatives. A series of new demonstration projects with Dow
Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, United Solar and 3M
Corporation have been initiated with Cleaner Products through Life Cycle Design Research Cooperative
Agreement CR822998-01-0. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing tools are applied in these
demonstration projects in addition to establishing key design requirements and metrics. This report
provides a description of the 3M project that investigated the life cycle design of in-mold surfacing films.
An overview of the life cycle design framework is provided in Appendix D of this document.
1.2 Project Origin / Team
The life cycle design project with 3M was launched in November of 1994. Initial meetings with the
3M group focused on defining project objectives and scope as well as picking a specific 3M film product
for a life cycle design (LCD) study. After several meetings with 3M, a paint film designed to be applied
to exterior plastic automobile parts was targeted for this study. 3M was interested in studying how the
LCD framework and tools could be applied to its ongoing pollution prevention program. Members of the
3M group participating in this study are indicated Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. 3M Core Team Members for the Life Cycle Design Project
Division Team Member
Paint Replacement and Coating Supervisor Gary Crecelius
Senior Product Development Engineer Mick Sawka
Senior Environmental Scientist Ed Price
Pollution Prevention Manager Thomas Zosel
Market Development Wing-Wan Yeung
-------
1.3 Product Selection
In-mold surfacing film (ISF), also referred to as injection molded paint film, was selected by 3M for
this life cycle design study. The other candidate products were thermoformed paint film and
blackout/colorout film. Injection molded paint film was chosen for the following reasons:
D 3M is striving to reduce the environmental burden of its products through its Pollution Prevention
Pays program
D 3M can use this demonstration project to test LCD as a decision making tool for future cleaner
product design
D Since production of the paint film has not begun, LCD results can potentially be used to improve
stages of the production process which result in significant environmental burden
D 3M envisions that paint film potentially has a large market due to durability (peel off, cracking, and
chipping) problems associated with paint applied to plastic parts
1.4 Product Significance
3M is targeting paint film for application on injection molded plastic parts. Presently 3M is pursuing
orders for in-mold surfacing films for external automotive applications and is preparing to begin full-
scale production. The potential paint film market for North American automobiles is approximately
$300 million (3M 1995). Sales of paint film for body side molded (BSM) parts could potentially amount
to $50 million. Currently about 12 million individual BSM parts are produced each year in North
America.
1.5 Objectives
The objectives of this project are to develop a set of tools that can be used by 3M product and
process engineers to more effectively integrate environmental requirements into product system design
and analysis. Current design techniques are often limited by lack of an organized methodology to
evaluate environmental burdens throughout the life cycle of a product. This project sought to address
such limitations by developing practical metrics for evaluating life cycle environmental, cost and
performance criteria. Specific objectives were:
D Evaluating primary energy and waste for material production, manufacturing, application, use and
retirement stages
Estimating cost at different life cycle stages
Identifying process improvements which will reduce environmental burden
-------
2. Systems Analysis
2.1 Product Composition
In-mold surfacing film (ISF) is a 3M product that is shipped to tier 1 suppliers in die-cut form for
application on automotive body side molded (BSM) parts. ISF is a layered product consisting of clear
coat, color coat, adhesive and TPO. A PET liner is used during manufacturing for film application but is
removed before the film is die cut. The film is cut into an appropriate size for each BSM part and excess
film is trimmed off. In this study, all data were gathered and evaluated for a prototype BSM part with a
surface area of 399 cm2. Taking into account trimming and yield losses of about 37%, the die-cut ISF for
this application has a surface area of 637 cm2 (5.7 cm x 111.7 cm).
The mass of die-cut ISF for one prototype BSM part was calculated with a model that assumed
50,000 four-door vehicles with 200,000 prototype molded parts requiring 207,254 die-cut pieces of ISF
having a mass of 4017 kg. Thus, 19.4 g of die-cut ISF is required for each prototype BSM part. Figure
2-1 is a diagram of the layers in ISF.
PET Liner (51 urn)
Clear Coat (5Vm)
Color Coat (38|xm)
Adhesive (8|xm)
TPO Film (152|xm)
Figure 2-1. Cross-section of 3M ISF (PET Liner is removed prior to application)
Table 2-1 provides the mass of applied ISF on one prototype BSM part. Many of the film
constituents are applied as liquid materials, however, only final solid composition is shown here.
Table 2-1. Composition and Mass
Film Layer
PET liner
Clear coat
Color coat
Adhesive
TPO film
Thickness (mm)
51
51
38
8
152
of ISF Molded on
Constituents
PET
PVDF
Acrylic
PVDF
Acrylic
Pigment
Adhesive resin
TPO
One Prototype BSM Part
Mass (g / film)
2.7T
2.5
0.8
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
5.5
Total
12.2T
TThe PET liner is removed prior to application, therefore, the mass of the
liner is not included in the total presented here.
The mass of ISF on one prototype BSM part was also calculated by taking into account trimming and
applications losses of 37%. This means that an initial mass of 19.4 g, prior to molding, is required for the
final 12.2 g on each BSM part. It is important to note that the PET liner (2.7 g), which is stripped from
the film prior to die cutting, is not included in these values.
-------
2.2 Scope
The initial scope of the project was to perform a comparative assessment of ISF and paint applied on
external plastic automobile parts. Some of the typical applications considered were BSM parts, fascia,
bumpers, grill panels and mirror holders. The scope of the study was subsequently narrowed to ISF
applied on a prototype BSM part because of the difficulties in gathering energy and waste data from paint
manufacturing and application facilities.
2.3 Boundaries and Assumptions
The boundary for this project includes material production, manufacturing, application, use and
retirement as explained in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Boundary and Assumptions of the In-Mold Surfacing Film (ISF) System
LC Stage
Boundary and assumptions
Material The material production inventory was calculated using confidential data sources and (Boustead
production 1993),(Boustead 1994),(Boustead 1995).
Material production energy did not include pigment production energy.
Data for PVC production (Boustead 1994) was used as a surrogate for PVDF production.
ManufacturingD Process energy and waste for unit operations were obtained from 3M's engineering model (3M 1995; 3M
1996), which were assumed to reasonably represent actual operating conditions. Die-cutting energy was not
available; however, 3M sources have indicated that these are on the same order of magnitude as stripping and
slitting operations.
Environmental data were provided by 3M for 207,254 pieces of die cut ISF which have a total mass of 4017
kg. Therefore, environmental data per film was obtained by dividing data from individual unit operations by
4017kg.
The manufacturing stage consists of manufacturing and lamination unit operations for clear coat, color coat,
adhesive and TPO film.
It was assumed that the PET liner was disposed of after one use.
Environmental data for the production of a mineral spirit coating solvent were estimated by using the
environmental data for the production of refined petroleum products (Franklin Associates 1992). In this study, it
is assumed that 50% of the energy contained in coating solvent emissions is recaptured for another use during
thermal oxidation and 50% is lost. Thus only 50% of combustion energy for the coating solvents is allocated to
the ISF system.
95% reclamation of cleaning solvents was assumed in the manufacturing plant. Environmental burden for the
production of cleaning solvents was not considered in this analysis due to lack of data. The mass of cleaning
solvents reclaimed per mass of coating solvents used is about 0.009. Therefore, neglecting the cleaning
solvents in the inventory analysis will not result in a significant error in this analysis.
Environmental burden for transportation between material production and manufacturing facility was not
considered.
Application The contribution of ISF to the cycle time of BSM molding was assumed to be 10 seconds.
Injection molding energy for the BSM part was assumed to be 75 kW/kg (3M 1993).
The 3M model (3M 1995) was assumed to reasonably represent the scrap generated from edge trim and yield
loss.
An average 800-mile distance was assumed from the manufacturing plant to the application plant.
Transportation energy using diesel trucks was obtained from (Franklin Associates 1992).
Use Use phase environmental data for ISF was evaluated from fuel consumption and washing data.
The ISF part was modeled over the eight-year service life of the vehicle.
A 6.6% rule for correlating weight reduction to fuel consumption reduction was used to determine fuel
consumed.
ISF contribution to vehicle emissions was obtained by assuming that emissions were proportional to vehicle
mass; the allocation rule is accurate for CC>2 but for other gases the relationship is nonlinear.
A cleaning schedule of 1 mechanical wash every four months was assumed for the first eight years of the
film's life with no washing thereafter.
Energy and cost required to clean the surface area of a BSM film was assumed to be proportional to the
external surface area of the entire car.
The energy required for touch up paint operation during paint application is neglected.
Retirement Two different scenarios were considered :
- ISF disposed to landfills (shredding, separation, transportation and landfill disposal energy, and waste
included)
- ISF recovered as part of a BSM part and recycled (dismantling, regrinding, transportation energy, waste, and
cost included)
Efficiency of recycling ISF into BSM regrind was assumed to be 95%.
-------
2.3 ISF System Description
The life cycle product system for ISF consists of product, process and distribution subsystems for the
following life cycle stages: material production, manufacturing, application, use and retirement as shown
in Figure 2-2.
Material Production
Manufacturing
Application
Use
Retirement
PRODUCT
PROCESS
ISF molded
(19.4 g)
*
ISF on auto
(12.2g)
I
Distillation
Cracking
Pyrolysis
Polymerization
(36.6 g)
(Driving | [-Shredding |
U Washing/waxing J U Disposal J
TPO film extrusion (14.96 g)
Mix/mill clear coat (19.48 g)
Clear coating (25.9 g)
Mix/mill color coat (16.5 g)
Color coating (30 g)
Adhesive mixing (4.9 g)
Adhesive coating (23.7 g)
Lamination (30.4 g)
Strip/slit/inspect (28.9 g)
Die cutting (21.5g)
'
Figure 2-2. Flow Diagram for ISF
The product component for the film in the manufacturing stage consists of a clear top coat, color
coat, adhesive layer, and a TPO backing sheet as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The ISF manufacturing
process consists mainly of coating these layers, one on top of the other, onto a PET casting liner and then
die cutting the film to fit the particular part. Details of the manufacturing process are shown in Figure 2-
3 to illustrate different unit operations.
The clear coat is the first to be applied. Clear coat solution is made of PVDF and acrylic resin
dispersed in mineral spirits. This solution is coated directly onto a roll of PET casting liner by passing
the PET liner through a series of rollers. The wet, clear-coated PET liner then passes through a drier.
Solvents are combusted in a thermal oxidizer.
Next, the color coat solution is applied on the clear-coated PET liner by passing it through a series of
rollers as described above. Color coat solution consists of PVDF, acrylic resin and pigment dispersed in
mineral spirits. The wet clear/color coat layer is then passed through a drier.
Next, a solution of adhesive resin and mineral spirit is applied over the color coat and dried. The
final layer is TPO, which is extruded.
At this point, the film is in roll form and ready for trimming and inspecting. In the
stripping/slitting/inspection step, the PET liner is removed and the edges of the rolls are trimmed to
eliminate parts of the film that weren't sufficiently covered. In this step, any film with imperfections not
previously detected is removed. Acceptable film is now ready to be die cut for specific applications.
This cut film is sent to tier 1 suppliers who apply the film during injection molding of parts.
Energy is required for every step of this process, and waste is also produced at each step. In terms of
waste, some amount of coating solution is always lost due to spillage and other reasons. The mixing
stage also requires cleaning solvents to clear old solution from the equipment. Solid waste results from
product that doesn't meet specifications at each stage, edge trimming and yield loss, and trimming during
die cutting. Drying each layer involves blowing off solvents which produces gaseous waste. These
VOCs are burned in a thermal oxidizer that returns some energy to the process. Solid waste is handled
by either selling it to power companies to burn for producing electricity or disposing it in landfills.
-------
ISF, consisting of a clear coat, color coat, adhesive layer and TPO layer, is applied by placing it in an
injection molding die with the clear coat layer facing the die. Molten resin for the BSM part is injected
into the die and bonds with the TPO layer of the ISF. Upon cooling, the film is securely attached to the
BSM part.
The prototype BSM part used in this study would ultimately be attached to a vehicle. The use
process for ISF involves driving the vehicle, cleaning, washing and waxing. In retirement, film is either
disposed to landfills or recovered along with BSM parts and reground for recycling into new BSM parts
or other applications.
l.laE l.lbE l.lcE l.ldE
.
i <, TiTviTr^T) k. 1.2bPPVDF Resin p .
1.2aPPVDF Resin p . T 1.2cP Adhesive , ^.m-^ »
L^ la 1.3bP Acrylic Resin ^ Ib Resin ^ lc 1.2dP TPO Resin 1
1.3aP Acrylic Resin P> Mix/Mill 1 4bP* Solvent ^ Mix/Mill Adhesive 1 3dP Recycled
1.4aP* Solvent » Clear Coat 1. 5bP Pigment > Color Coat 1-3<=P* Solvent -> Mixing Edge Trim >
1.5aP*LWCS "^ '
2. IP Clear Coat Solution
2.2P PET Casting Liner
V i
2. 4 Recycled E ^ Cl
2.5P* Coating^ Coa
2.6P*SWPET Liner <4
2.7PSW Clear Coated PET -4
2.8P*LWCS-^
Key
P* Process Materia
SW Solid Waste
LW Liquid Waste
GW Gaseous Waste
1.6bP*LWCS "^ '
3. IP Color Coat Solution
3.3E
;.
1.4cP*LWCS ^
4. IP Adhesive Solution
r i
Id
TPO Film
^ Extrusion
1.4dPSW TPO Film "^
5. IP TPO Film
4.3 E 5.3 E
,1 i,
5.2P Clear/Color Film
3. 2P Clear Coat Film ^ 3, 4.2P Color/Clear Film ^ ,,,4. w/ Adhesive ^
tins . . ^ in- k. Coatins . Coating
* 3.4 Recycled E ^ * 4.4 Recycled E *> *
. ,^ . , ^
3.6PSW Clear Coat Film ^
3. 7PSW Color/Clear Film ^
3.8P*LWCS ^~
1
1
8.2E
4.5P*Coatrne^
Solvents
4.6PSW Color/Clear Film ^
4.7PSW Color/Clear Film ^
w/ Adhesive ^
4.8P*LWCS ^
7.2 E
CS Cleaning Solvent
. _. ^ o 8. IP Die Cut Film 7
M°ld"S " Cuttrng
8. 3P Edge Trim -^ 7.3PSW Yield Loss -^
5 4 TPO Film -*
r
5
Lamination
*
5.5PSW Color/Clear Film ^
w/ Adhesive
5.6PSW Laminated Film ^ '
6. IP Laminated Film
(Roll)
T,
7. IP Trimmed Laminated
Film (Roll)
^
^
r
6
Strip/Slit/
Inspect
6.2P*SWPET Liner -^
6.3PSW Slitting/Edge Trim -^
6.4PSW Off-spec Film ^
Figure 2-3. ISF Manufacturing and Application Process
-------
3. Data Collection and Analysis
3.1 Methodology
In this chapter, environmental, cost and performance data are evaluated for different stages of the life
cycle of ISF. A spreadsheet describing details of the data analysis and methodology is presented in
Appendix B. Environmental data in the material production stage were calculated using the best
available life cycle inventory data for TPO, PVDF, PET, and Acrylic. These four materials comprise
94% of the total mass of ISF raw materials. The remaining 6% is made up of pigments and adhesive; no
data was available for these materials. Film manufacturing data were supplied by 3M (3M 1996; 3M
1995; 3M 1993). The University of Michigan core team members obtained primary data from 3M core
team members, who in turn collected data from other divisions within 3M and their suppliers. Most
environmental data provided by 3M were based on numerical models of specific processes.
Environmental data in the use phase were obtained from fuel economy and emissions data for an average
light duty passenger car (US EPA 1995) and car washing data obtained from (Lighthouse Car Wash
1995). In the retirement stage, shredding and transportation energy and waste were evaluated from
(McGlotholin 1995; APC 1994; Franklin Associates 1992).
Manufacturing, application, use and retirement costs were also evaluated. Manufacturing and
application costs were provided by (3M 1993). In the use phase, fuel cost (Lockhart 1995) and washing
cost (Lighthouse Car Wash 1995) were evaluated. Retirement cost was estimated from the retirement
spreadsheet model of APC (APC 1994) and data obtained from NSWMA (NSWMA 1995).
Performance metrics evaluated in the manufacturing and application phase were material throughput
and cycle time (3M 1996). In the use phase, performance metrics consisted of OEM specifications for
the ISF.
3.2 Environmental Data
A streamlined inventory analysis for material production, manufacturing, application, use and
retirement are described in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Material Production
Table 3-1 shows the mass of film materials processed for manufacturing ISF film for one prototype
BSM part.
Table 3-1. Mass of Material Inputs for One Prototype BSM Part
Material Inputs
TPO resin
PVDF resin
PET liner
Acrylic resin
Pigments
Adhesive resin
Total Product Materials
Coating solvents
Total Process Materials
Total
Mass (g)
15.0D
9.6D
6.4D
3.2D
1.7D
0.7D
36.6D
25.8
25.8
62.4
-------
Only the product materials listed in Table 3-1 constitute the final ISF. For this reason the production
of the coating solvents was not included as part of the material production analysis, however, production
of these materials was included in the manufacturing analysis.
The Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology defines TPO as "a simple blend of a-olefin
rubber in a crystalline polyolefin resin" (Ullmann 1985). Many commercially available polymers fit this
definition of TPO. For the purposes of this study it was assumed that the TPO used in ISF consisted of
EPDM rubber (53%) in PP (43%) (Ullmann 1985). In order to estimate the life cycle inventory for TPO
production environmental data for EPDM and PP were averaged according to their relative weights in
this mixture. Environmental data for EPDM production was taken from a confidential source and data
for PP production was obtained from (Boustead 1993). No data was available for PVDF manufacturing,
PVC manufacturing is believed to provide a reasonable approximation of the material production
inventory for PVDF (Kroschwitz 1990). Material production data for PVC was taken from (Boustead
1994). Life cycle inventory data for PET production was taken from (Boustead 1995). The source of the
inventory data for acrylic is confidential. These environmental data were combined according to mass to
determine the inventory profile for ISF material production. No data were available on the pigment or
adhesive used in the ISF. The burdens for production of these materials were neglected.
3.2.2 Manufacturing
Environmental burden for manufacturing ISF was estimated using a 3M model that is based on the
process variables indicated in Tables 3-2 to 3-4. Table 3-2 shows that clear coat and color coat solution
both use about 40% solids in mineral spirits and require similar sized ovens for drying. Adhesive coating
is 15% solids in mineral spirits and uses a drying oven that is approximately 3.7 times smaller in length
than the oven for clear/color coating. Drying temperature is 149° C for all these processes. Overall
power consumption includes power required to heat the dilution air, evaporate solvent, heat the base
layer to the desired temperature and heat the solid film layer. Power required for skin loss is also
included. Power required to heat the dilution air is about 88 to 93% of the total power consumed for
clear, color and adhesive coating operations and is therefore the most important energy metric in the
manufacturing stage.
-------
Table 3-2. Clear, Color and Adhesive Coating Process Variables for ISF to Coat 207,254 BSM parts
Process Variables
Top coating solution (% solids in mineral spirits)
Caliper of dry top coat layer (|xm)
Caliper of dry base coat liner (|xm)
Density of solid top coat layer (kg / m3)
Density of solid base coat liner (kg / m3)
Top coat layer coverage (kg / cm2)
Mineral spirits coverage (kg / cm2)
Oven length (m)
Length of oven walls (m)
Drying time (min)
Line speed/rate (m/s)
Coating width (m)
Rate of solvent evaporation (kg / s)
Assumed overall oven exhaust solvent concentration (%
lower flammability limit, LFL)
Drying temperature (°C)
LFL (% v/v)
Vapor density for mineral spirits (kg / m3)
Exhaust flow rate (m3 / s)
Ambient air temperature (°C)
Power required to heat dilution air (kW)
Heat of vaporization for mineral spirits (MJ / kg)
Power required to evaporate solvent (kW)
Power required to heat the base coat (kVV)
Power required to heat solid top coat layer (kW)
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C)
Skin temperature (°C)
Plant air temperature (°C)
Power required due to skin loss (kW)
Total power (kW)
Top Coat Layer
Clear coat1
40
51
51
1630
1340
830
1220
55
1.8
3
0.3
1.29
0.049
20
149
0.8
4.6
6.6
10
1109
0.36
18
6.2; 249 C
7.5
4.7
49
21
96.5
1237
Metrics
Color coat2
40
38
102
1970
1480
730
1120
55
1.8
3
0.3
1.27
0.043
20
149
0.8
4.6
5.9
10
986
0.36
16
13.4; 249 C
6.7
4.7
49
21
96.5
1118
Adhesive coat3
15
8
138
1150
1620
1000
490
15
1.8
0.27
0.9
1.27
0.056
20
149
0.8
4.6
7.6
10
1268
0.36
20
41 ; 1 49 C
1.6
4.7
49
21
27
1358
1 Corresponding base coat is PET linern
2 Corresponding base coat is PET liner + clear coatn
Corresponding base coat is PET liner + clear coat + color coatn
Table 3-3. Process Variables for Mixing and Milling Coating Solution
Process Variables Top Coat Layer Metrics
Clear coat Color coat Adhesive coat
Power required for mixing kettle (kW) 22 22 22
Mixing time (min) 60 60 60
Tables 3-3 and 3-4 show that the mixing and run time for clear, color and adhesive mix/mill
operations is 1 hour and has an electrical power requirement of 22 kW. The line speed for clear coating
and color coating operations is 60 fpm, whereas the line speed for adhesive coating is 175 fpm.
-------
Table 3-4. Process Variables for Different Unit Operations
Unit operations
1 .1a Mix/mill clear coat (electricity)
1 .1 b Mix/mill color coat (electricity)
1 .1 c Adhesive mixing (electricity)
1 .1d TPO film extrusion (electricity)
2.3 Clear coating (gas oven)
3.3 Color coating (gas oven)
4.3 Adhesive coating (gas oven)
5.3 Lamination (electricity)
6.5 Strip/slit/inspect (electricity)
Cycle time1
(hr)
1
1
1
21.7
13.8
13.1
4.3
9.7
13.9
Line Speed
(m/s)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.23
0.30
0.30
0.89
0.38
0.25
Power2
(kW)
22
22
22
26
1237
1118
1358
11
11
Total
Energy (MJ)
79.2
79.2
79.2
2031.1
61454.2
52724.9
21021.8
384.1
550.4
Input Mass
(kg)
4037
3424
1011
3102
5369
6223
4919
6306
5991
Energy
density
kg)
19.6
23.1
78.3
654.8
11446.1
8472.6
4273.6
60.9
91.9
(kJ/
1 Cycle time for processes indicated by 1.1 a, 1.1 b and 1.1 c includes mixing time only, for all other processes the cycle time
includes running time only
2 Interpreted as power delivered in energy used per seconds
Overall energy for film manufacturing includes energy for different unit operations. Electricity is
used for mixing/milling clear and color coat, adhesive mixing, TPO film extrusion, lamination,
stripping/slitting/inspecting and die cutting. Among the various unit operations, mixing/milling requires
the lowest energy, while clear and color coating together account for about 83% of total processing
energy. Adhesive coating accounts for another 15% of the total processing energy.
Electricity energy consumed for manufacturing ISF for one prototype BSM part was calculated to be
0.0156 MJ per ISF. Clear coating, color coating and adhesive coating operations use natural gas as a fuel
for the drying oven. Together, these three operations use about 0.65 MJ of natural gas energy per die cut
film.
The manufacturing energy calculation also includes energy for the production of coating solvents.
About 25.8 g of coating solvents are used per ISF. Coating solvents used are mineral spirits that are
generally accepted to be simple petroleum distillate products. For this reason, Franklin Associates data
for the production of refined petroleum products was used to provide the environmental data for mineral
spirits (Franklin Associates 1992). Refined petroleum products have an average precombustion energy
of 7.14 MJ/1 and combustion energy of 34.87 MJ/1. Coating solvents are combusted in thermal oxidizers.
3M stated that the energy recovered from combustion of solvents is used in another application, but the
amount recovered is unknown.
In this analysis it was assumed that 50% of solvent energy is recovered and credited to the ISF
system during manufacturing. Using this allocation rule, material production energy for the mineral
spirits used in the production of ISF was 24.6 MJ/1. Assuming a density of 0.74 g/1 for mineral spirits
(based on the density of gasoline), the total primary energy for solvent production per ISF was evaluated
to be 0.86 MJ.
About 85 mg of cleaning solvents are used for the production of one ISF. The cleaning solvents are
reclaimed in the plant. The amount of solvents reclaimed is not known. 95% reclamation of cleaning
solvents was assumed in this analysis. With this assumption, only 5% cleaning solvents will end up as
water effluents. Hence, 5% (0.05 mg) of new input cleaning solvent was required. The environmental
burden for the production of 5% virgin cleaning solvents was not evaluated in this analysis.
The equivalent primary energy for electricity and natural gas usage was evaluated by incorporating
appropriate efficiency factors (0.89 for natural gas and 0.32 for electricity). The primary energy
equivalent for electricity consumption was 2.1 MJ and for natural gas consumption, the primary energy
was calculated to be 0.73 MJ per ISF die cut film. Thus the total primary manufacturing energy,
including solvent production, is 1.64 MJ per ISF die cut film.
Waste and emissions from manufacturing processes include product, process and energy production
waste. Product waste involves scrap loss for different manufacturing unit operations. The percentage
scrap loss for different unit operations is shown in Table 3-5.
10
-------
Table 3-5. Percentage Scrap Loss from Different Manufacturing Operations
Unit Operations
TPO film extrusion
Clear coating
Color coating
Adhesive coating
Lamination
Strip/slit/inspect
Die cutting
Scrap Type
TPO film
Clear coated PET
Color coated film
Color/ clear coated film
Color/clear film with adhesive
Laminated film
PET liner
Slitting/edge trim
Quality waste
Film weed
% Scrap by T}
25.0
2.7
0.9
3.3
1.7
5.0
18.3
3.1
4.1
10.0
/pe % Scrap per Unit Operations
25.0
2.7
4.2
1.7
5.0
25.5
10.0
About 47% of input solid materials for film manufacturing end up as scrap. Taking into account
solvents, 69% of input materials end up as waste consisting of 59% solids and 41% solvents. The
strip/slit/inspect and film extrusion operations each generate about 25% scrap; they are the major sources
of manufacturing scrap.
The final destination of scrap materials generated during manufacturing was not considered in this
analysis. It is believed that much of the scrap generated at the manufacturing facility is incinerated off-
site, however, the environmental burdens for transportation and incineration of scrap were not included
in the analysis. All scrap generated during manufacturing is treated as solid waste.
Air emissions in the manufacturing stage include emissions from thermal oxidizers and emissions
related to natural gas and electricity production. Thermal oxidizers are used to oxidize solvent emissions
in clear, color and adhesive coating operations. About 1.33 kg of coating solvents (mostly hydrocarbons)
are used per kg of film. This results in 0.026 kg of solvent use per ISF die cut film. The mass of air
emissions was calculated from inlet and outlet conditions of air in thermal oxidizers as shown in Table 3-
6.
The mass flow rate of hydrocarbon at the inlet is 223 g/s and the mass flow rate at the outlet is 3 g/s.
Therefore, this thermal oxidizer is believed to have a destruction efficiency of 98.4%. The volume flow
rate of air at the outlet is 81 m3 /s. Assuming the density of air to be 1.013 kg /m3, the mass flow rate of
air at the outlet was calculated to be 82 kg/s.
Table 3-6. Inlet and Outlet Conditions of Air in Thermal Oxidizers
Gases
Moisture
02
C02
Inlet concentration (%)
2.7
20.7
0.2
Outlet concentration (%)
3.2
19.7
0.8
Table 3-6 shows that CO2 concentration in air increases by 0.6% at the outlet of a thermal oxidizer,
which can be attributed to the oxidation of the hydrocarbons present in the coating solvent. Based on the
mass flow rate of air, calculated above, the mass flow rate of CO2 produced during oxidation is
calculated to be 0.49 kg/s. This value is in reasonable agreement with the value that can be calculated
assuming the hydrocarbons combusted are decane. Stoichiometric combustion of decane would yield
0.67 kg/s of CO2 from the outlet of the thermal oxidizer.
The total cycle time for all coating operations is 31.2 hr., so the mass of CO2 emitted from thermal
oxidizers was calculated to be 921 kg. The mass of hydrocarbon at the inlets of thermal oxidizers was
found to be 25,049 kg and the mass of hydrocarbon at the outlets of thermal oxidizers was calculated to
be 344 kg.
CO2 and HC emissions were calculated based on 25.7 kg of coating solvents entering oxidizer inlets
per ISF. Table 3-7 shows emissions from thermal oxidizers.
11
-------
Table 3-7. Emissions from Thermal Oxidizers
Gases
C02
HC
Emissions
g / kg HC at inlet
36.76
13.73
g/ISF
0.95
0.35
3.2.3 Application
ISF is applied to BSM parts by placing die cut films in molds with the clear coat facing the mold
surface. Resin for the BSM part is injected into the mold where it securely bonds with the TPO layer in
the film. The energy for film application was evaluated from 3M's internal sources (3M 1996). Power
required for injection molding the 399 cm2 prototype BSM part used in this analysis is 75 kW/kg (3M
1996). Cycle time for molding this BSM part with ISF was estimated by 3M to be 30 seconds. An
internal 3M study showed that the cycle time for molding a different, 450 cm2 surface area, BSM part
without ISF is 45 seconds and the cycle time for molding the same BSM part with ISF is 55 seconds. For
this reason, it was assumed that the ISF under study contributes 10 seconds to cycle time during
application.
The electrical energy for film application was obtained as the product of power density (kW/kg),
cycle time (seconds) and mass (kg) of the film. Overall energy for film application includes the
electricity for molding and diesel energy required to transport the film from a 3M facility to tier 1
suppliers. An energy density of 2.05 MJ/ton-mile (Franklin Associates 1992) and an average distance of
800 miles was assumed in this analysis. The primary energy equivalents of electricity and diesel energy
were evaluated by incorporating appropriate efficiency factors (0.32 for electricity and 0.84 for diesel).
Both emissions and waste in film application include product and energy waste. Product waste
involves solid waste from edge trimming and yield loss. Per 1000 g of film, about 363 g of scrap are
generated due to edge trimming and 35 g of scrap are generated due to yield loss. Thus about 39.8% of
film material is lost as scrap during film application. The environmental burden for incinerating film
scrap was not included in this analysis.
3.2.4 Use
Use phase environmental burden includes vehicle fuel consumption and emissions attributable to the
weight of the film, cleaning associated with the film and waste associated with vehicle fuel production.
The contribution of the film to vehicle fuel consumption was calculated from data shown in Table 3-8 for
an average vehicle.
Table 3-8. Weight and Fuel Economy Data for an Average Road Vehicle
Parameter Metrics
Test weight 3200 Ib or 1451 kgD
Fuel economy 21.6 mpg or 10.89 1/100 kmn
Weight to fuel economy 10% weight reduction X 6.6% fueln
correlation consumption reductionD
Life of film 100,000 miles or 160,900 km
source: (US EPA 1995)
12
-------
The contribution of the film to vehicle fuel consumption (F(1)) was obtained using the following
correlation:
Fm = M,SF x L x 51 x (3.1)
(l) ISF L Mv J AM ^ '
where, D
F(|) = fuel (liters) used over the life of ISF (L)D
M|SF = mass of the ISF (0.0122kg)
Mv = test weight (mass) of vehicle (1451 kg)
Af
= fuel consumption correlation with mass (0.66)
AM
FC(|) = fuel consumption for the vehicle under study (0.1089 liters/km)
L = life of ISF (160,900km)
Using equation 3.1 the contribution of ISF to an average vehicle's lifetime (160,900 km) fuel
consumption was calculated to be about 0.097 liter (0.026 gal). One liter of gasoline contains 42 MJ of
primary energy comprised of 34.87 MJ of combustion energy and 7.16 MJ of precombustion energy
(Franklin Associates 1992). The fuel energy use attributed to the film over the assumed vehicle lifetime
of 160,900 km was found to be 4.1 MJ.
Air emissions and waste were evaluated as the sum of combustion and precombustion emissions and
waste. Combustion emissions for an average road vehicle are shown in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9. Emissions Data for Average On-Road Vehicle
Air emissions g / mile
CO2 363.0
CO 23.0
HC 3.1
NOY 1.6
Based on standard EPA emission models which assume an average properly maintained
car on the road in 1995 operating on typical gasoline in normal summer weather
source: (US EPA 1995)
The mass of air emissions over the life of ISF for one prototype BSM part was obtained from the
mass of air emissions per vehicle miles traveled using EQ (3.2).
me = me. x FE(ga|} x F(ga|} (3.2)
where, D
me = mass (kg) of air emissions over the life of ISFD
me' = mass of air emissions per mile (kg / mile - see Table 3-9) D
FE(gai) = fuel economy in miles per gallon (21.6 mpg)D
F(gai) = fuel (gallons) used over the life of ISF (0.026 gal)D
Precombustion wastes (air emissions, waterborne waste and solid waste) per 1000 gallons of gasoline
were obtained from the Franklin database (Franklin Associates 1992). The Franklin waste data were
multiplied by gasoline used in gallons per ISF to obtain waste in kg per ISF. Total use phase waste was
obtained by summing precombustion and combustion waste.
13
-------
Environmental data for cleaning assumes that vehicles are washed every four months during the first
eight years of their life. Data were calculated, per ISF, by assuming that energy and waste are
proportional to the surface area cleaned. The surface area for an average car is 16.25 m2 and the surface
area of the film covering the BSM part is 399 cm2. Thus energy and waste per film were obtained by
multiplying per car data by 0.00245. Energy for car washing was evaluated from the following data
obtained from (Lighthouse Car Wash 1995) and Detroit Edison (electricity cost in July 1995).
Number of car wash per year = 100,000
Electricity bill per year = $35,000
Electricity rate = $0.0995 / kWh
The energy per car wash was calculated as 3.5 kWh. All data were converted to primary energy by
incorporating appropriate efficiency factors. Overall waste and emissions in the use phase were
evaluated as the sum of waste due to cleaning (washing waste and waste associated with electricity
production) and combustion and precombustion emissions for fuel use attributable to the film.
3.2.5 Retirement
Warranty information about ISF damaged due to weathering or accident is not available because this
ISF is not yet used on an actual vehicle. Therefore, in this analysis, the ISF was assumed to be retired
when the car is retired.
The retirement stage assumes no BSM part recovery at dismantlers or during shredding. In this case,
ISF is transported along with the vehicle hulk from dismantlers to the shredders, where it becomes part of
automotive shredder residue (ASR) and is disposed of in a landfill. An average distance of 100 miles
was assumed between dismantlers and shredders (APC 1994). The average distance from shredders to
landfills was assumed to be 200 miles (APC 1994). Transportation is by diesel tractor-trailer and the
average energy for transportation was assumed to be 2.05 MJ/ton-mile (Franklin Associates 1992).
Shredding energy of 0.097 MJ / kg (42 BTU/lb) (McGlotholin 1995) was used in this analysis. Waste
factors for electricity and diesel fuel use were obtained from Franklin (Franklin Associates 1992).
3.3 Cost Data
Costs were evaluated for 3M and other life cycle stakeholders including tier 1 suppliers, users and
end-of-life managers.
3.3.1 Manufacturing
The manufacturing cost for different unit operations could not be obtained directly from 3M. The
cost of a similar processed film was obtained from an unpublished 3M study (Neidermair 1993) which
used a base cost of $21.50 per m2 of film. This cost includes both material and manufacturing cost of the
film. Therefore, the cost for 637 cm2 of film was $1.37.
14
-------
3.3.2 Application
Film application cost includes costs for molding equipment, tooling, machining and labor. Various
individual application costs were obtained from 3M's internal study. The overall application cost per ISF
film was estimated to be 20 cents.
3.3.3 Use
Use cost is the sum of fuel cost and cleaning cost. Fuel cost was evaluated for 0.026 gallon of
lifetime fuel use at $1.17/gallon and was found to be 3 cents. An average cleaning cost of $3 per car
wash for every four months was assumed in this analysis. For a total 24 washes over an 8-year period
(no further washes were assumed after 8 years), total car washing cost is $72. The total washing cost for
the lifetime of the film was obtained as the ratio of the surface area of the film to the surface area of the
car; it was calculated as 17.6 cents. The overall cost in the use phase associated with the film was
therefore 20.6 cents. This analysis indicates that for a small exterior part such as ISF, washing cost is
about 6 times higher than fuel cost.
3.3.4 Retirement
Retirement cost was obtained by evaluating transportation and shredding cost. Transportation cost
used in this analysis is $0.12/ton-mile (APC 1994). The total distance transported was assumed to be 200
miles (100 miles each from dismantlers to shredders and shredders to landfills) (APC 1994). Therefore
the total transportation cost was 0.03 cent per film. Shredder processing cost was estimated to be
$33.50/hulk and the weight of a hulk is 1425 kg (Kar and Keoleian 1996). Therefore, shredder
processing cost was calculated to be 0.03 cent per film. An average landfill tipping fee is $30.25/ton
(NSWMA 1995). This results in a total landfill disposal cost of 0.04 cents per film. The overall
retirement cost for film was calculated to be 0.1 cent per film.
3.4 Performance Data
3.4.1 Manufacturing
Performance parameters in the manufacturing stage are process throughput, cycle time and
equipment life related to different unit operations. Process throughput represents input and output of
product material for a particular unit operation. Performance data for ISF manufacture are presented in
Table 3-10. These data are evaluated from the detailed material balance model presented in Appendix C.
15
-------
Table 3-10. Performance Data for ISF Manufacturing
Unit Operations
TPO film extrusion
Mix / mill clear coat
Clear coating
Mix/ mill color coat
Color coating
Adhesive mixing
Adhesive coating
Lamination
Strip / slit / inspect
Die cutting
TOTAL
Process Throughput
Input
Type
TPO resin
PVDF resin
Acrylic resin
Coating solvent
Clear coat solution
PET casting liner
PVDF resin
Acrylic resin
Pigment
Coating solvent
Clear coat film
Color coat solution
Adhesive resin
Coating solvent
Color/ clear film
Adhesive solution
TPO film
Color /clear film w
adhesive
In mold surfacing film
ISF film (roll)
Output
Qty (kg)
3102.12
1211.09
403.70
2422.63
4037.42
1331.75
770.20
256.73
343.46
2054.32
2799.12
3423.71
151.50
859.56
3908.15
1011.05
2326.93
3978.91
5991 .04
4463.35
44846.74
Type
TPO film
Clear coat solution
Clear coat film
Color coat solution
Color /clear film
Adhesive solution
Color/ clear film w
adhesive
ISF film (jumbo)
ISF film (roll)
ISF die cut parts
Qty (kg)
2326.93
4037.42
2799.12
3423.71
3908.15
1011.05
3978.91
5990.14
4463.35
4017.01
35955.79
Cycle time
Material (hours)
Efficiency
(%)
75
100
52
100
63
100
81
95
75
90
80
21.7
1.0
13.8
1.0
13.8
1.0
4.3
9.7
13.9
N/A
Mixing and milling operations for the clear coat, color coat, and adhesive has a material efficiency
close to 100% because these operations involve combining input materials. Film lamination also has a
very high material efficiency (95%) followed by die cutting (90%) and adhesive coating (81%).
Extrusion and strip/slit/inspect stage operations each have a material efficiency of 75%. Clear coating
has the lowest material efficiency (52%), while color coating has a material efficiency of 63%. These
low efficiencies are the result of solvent loss in drying.
3.4.2 Application
Performance in the application phase encompasses material throughput, cycle time, equipment life
and adhesion efficiency. A total of 207,254 die cut ISF pieces are required for 200,000 BSM parts. This
results in an application efficiency of 96.5%. In going from die cutting to molding, each ISF component
is reduced from 19.4 g to 12.2 g. This step has the lowest materials efficiency (37%) in the entire
process. The cycle time is approximated from a 3M internal study on a similar BSM part of surface area
450 cm2 (3M 1993). For this part, the cycle times with and without ISF are, 55 and 45 seconds.
Therefore, the contribution of ISF to the cycle time is 10 seconds. The cycle time for the BSM part
molding with ISF of surface area 639 cm2 was reported to be 30 seconds (3M 1995). The cycle time data
for the BSM part without this ISF was not available. A set up time of 2 hours and depreciation time of 4
years was obtained from a 3M internal study (3M 1993).
3.4.3 Use
In the use phase, performance is associated with the ability of ISF to remain functional in extreme
operating environments as well as aesthetically appealing throughout the vehicle's operating life. Use
16
-------
phase performance data were determined by OEM performance specifications. Table 3-11 illustrates the
performance specifications of Chrysler, Ford and GM.
17D
-------
Table 3-11. OEM Performance Specifications of ISF During Use
Category
OEM
Test name
Performance Requirements
Weather
resistance
Chrysler 463PB-34-01
Ford
GM
463PB-22-01
SAE J1545FLIM
Bl 160-01 SAE J
1960
GM9163PD
No peeling, cracking, loss of adhesion, discoloration or other detrimental effect for
the following conditions: QUV-1000 hrs, weatherometer-240 hrs, fadeometer - 240
hrs; no cracking, checking or film failure when exposed in Florida 5 degree south
for 3 months and then subjected to 10 test cycles.
After the following exposures the part must meet the requirements: 24 months
Florida, 5 deg south, Xenon arc weatherometer, 2500 kJ / m2
No indication of deterioration, embrittlement, delamination, objectionable
shrinkage, blistering, haziness or color or gloss change.
2% or less shrinkage following Florida and Arizona exposure, materials should be
exposed to 300000 langleys exposure oriented 45 deg facing south in Arizona and
5 deg facing south in Florida; exposure to cycle A
Humidity
resistance
Chemical
resistance
Heat resist.
Impact
resistance
Hardness
Polishing
Overspray
blistering
Chip resist.
Appearance
Adhesion
Chrysler
Chrysler
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Ford
Chrysler
Ford
Chrysler
Ford
Chrysler
Chrysler
Ford
ChryslerD
Fordn
GM
Chrysler
Ford
GM
463PB-9-01 D
463PB-6-01 , 7-0,
and 8-01
FLIMBI 155-01
FLIMBI 113-01
GM 9501 P
463PB-36-01
463PB-19-01
FLIMB0151-01
463PB-37-01
463PB-34-01 D
463PB-9-01
SAE J400
463PB-38-01, 11-
01 & 12-01
FLIM Bl 109-01
FLIMBI 110-01
GM 9220P
463PB-15-01
FLIMBI 106-01
PSTC 1
There shall be no blistering, whitening or loss of adhesion between strata which is
greater than 0.8 mm from the scribed lines
Acid , solvent and water and soap resistance
Resistance to waxing and dewaxing; water, soap, underbody coating spotting,
brake fluid (1 hr.), 1 0% H2SC>4 by weight (4 hr.), albumin in Dl water, honey,
0.75% CaSO4, transmission fluid, motor oil and grease, windshield washer fluid,
cleaners, removers and fuel
Gasoline, windshield washer solvent and detergent resistance
Discoloration less than specified level
No change in appearance (warpage, deformation, cracks, delamination or other
failure) when subjected to an oven maintained at 80 +/- 2° C for 7 days; evaluate
after conditioning at 23 +/- 2° C
No loss of adhesion, flaking, or chipping on initial impact; adhesion loss on aged
impact shall be less than 0.8 mm and on cold impact to 2.3 mm
No shattering or breaking for drop ball method 2
Hardness standards for standard baked enamel, acid catalyst enamel and double
baked enamel
Subject the material to a temperature of -40 +1-2° C for 15 minutes and 70 +/- 2° C
for 5 minutes; evaluate after conditioning at 23 +/- 2° C
Satisfactory polishing performance such as ease of sanding, freedom from
scaling, ease of removing sand scratches and minimal color change after polishing
No blistering, lifting, dulling, or loss of adhesion in the oversprayed area
Stone shot resistance
Distinctness of image (DOI) - no significant detrimental effect on DOI after 10
days of aging; gloss; no fogging for the coating
Color, gloss and surface finish
Color, pattern and gloss
No adhesion loss between paint strata > 0.8 mm from scribed lines
Flaking less than 5%
Minimum bond strength of 350 N / m
18
-------
4. Results and Discussion
In this chapter, the methodology described in Chapter 3 is used to evaluate environmental and cost
metrics for the 3M in-mold surfacing film. Only environmental and cost results are discussed in detail
here because the film must meet all performance parameters described in Chapter 3 prior to production.
4.1 Environmental Metrics
Results of the streamlined life cycle inventory analysis are summarized in Table 4-1, and discussed in
the following sections.
Table 4-1. Total life cycle inventory results for ISF on a BSM part
Energy Consumption 11.8 MJ
Solid Waste
0.06 kg
Airborne EmissionsD
C02D
COD
HCD
NOxD
ParticulatesD
SOxD
Waterborne EmissionsD
BODD
CODD
Suspended SolidsD
Dissolved SolidsD
MetalsD
553 g
12.9 g
4.1 g
3.3 g
0.8 g
2.5 g
0.02 g
0.08 g
0.07 g
1.9g
0.04 g
4.1.1 Energy
Figure 4-1 shows life cycle primary energy for ISF applied to one prototype BSM part. The use
phase accounts for about 57% of total life cycle energy, followed by material production (27%),
manufacturing (14.5%) and application (1.5%). Cleaning energy comprised of about 36% of the use
phase energy, the remaining 64% can be attributed to fuel energy consumption for transportation of the
ISF over the vehicle life (160,900 km). Retirement energy is negligible compared to other life cycle
stages. Production of the coating solvent results in about 52% of the manufacturing energy.
12.00 ^
10.00
0)
CO
0)
LU
Matl.
Prod.
Manf.
Appl.
Use
Total
Figure 4-1. ISF life cycle energy by stage
19
-------
As Figure 4-2 shows, the material production stage is dominated (56% of the total material
production energy) by TPO, which constitutes 41% of the mass of materials processed in that stage. A
majority of the energy required for ISF manufacturing goes into the color (31%) and clear (35%) coating
processes.
2.00 y-
1.80
1.60 -
1.40 -
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Material Production
D Manufacturing
PET Liner Clear Coat Color Coat Adhesive
TPO
Figure 4-2. Material production and manufacturing energy for each coating layer of ISF (None of the energy consumed in the
manufacture of ISF is attributed to the PET liner; Material production energy use for the adhesive is not known, and is assumed
to be negligible).
4.1.2 Solid waste
Figure 4-3 illustrates the life cycle solid waste associated with ISF. A total of 62 g of solid waste is
generated per ISF for one prototype BSM part. No single stage produces a majority of the life cycle solid
waste. The manufacturing and use phases account for 31% and 29% of the waste, respectively. A
majority of the use phase solid waste comes from the generation of electricity for washing the surface of
the ISF. This analysis assumed that ISF is disposed of in a landfill at the end of its useful life. Solid
waste from the disposal of the end-of-life film contributes 19% of the total life cycle solid waste.
0.070
0.060
Ret.
Figure 4-3. Life cycle solid waste by stage for ISF
Total
20
-------
4.1.3 Material Efficiency
A considerable amount of scrap is generated during manufacturing and application of ISF. During
manufacturing, about 47% of input solid material is lost as scrap. During application, about 40% of the
film is lost as trimming and yield loss. Material efficiency of the ISF is defined as follows:
= Overall material efficiency =
Mass of molded ISF output
Mass of material input
= 1m
where,
= Application efficiency = Mass of molded ISF output
Mass of ISF die cut
and
r/m = Manufacturing efficiency =
Mass of ISF die cut
Mass of material input
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
Considering solid resins as input materials, r\a = 0.6 and r\m = 0.53, the overall material efficiency
(r|0) of the ISF is calculated to be 32%. If coating solvents are included in the input materials, the
manufacturing efficiency (r|m) is 31% and the overall material efficiency is 19%.
4.1.4 Air Emissions
Air emissions evaluated over the life cycle are CO2, CO, HC, NOX, Particulates and SO2. Figure 4-4
shows that 581 g of airborne CO2 emissions are produced over the life cycle of the ISF. A majority
(66%) of life cycle CO2 emissions occur during the use phase, 61% of these result from the contribution
of the ISF to the fuel consumption of the vehicle. The remaining 39% of CO2 emissions in the use phase
result from the generation of electricity used for washing. The manufacturing phase contributes
approximately 10% of the life cycle CO2 emissions. Most of the manufacturing emissions result from the
oxidation of solvents in the thermal oxidizers during coating operations. Thermal oxidizers have a
destruction efficiency of 98% for hydrocarbons.
600
Use
Ret.
Total
Figure 4-4. ISF life cycle CO2 emissions by stage
Figure 4-5 illustrates the life cycle emissions of non CO2 pollutants. Air emissions result from the
material production, manufacturing, use and retirement stages. In the manufacturing stage, air emissions
include emissions from thermal oxidizers and emissions from energy use. Use phase air emissions
21
-------
comprise both combustion and precombustion gasoline wastes and electricity production emissions
related to car washing. Hydrocarbon emissions from the manufacturing phase (33% of which come from
thermal oxidizer emissions) comprise 26% of the total life cycle hydrocarbon emissions. In comparison,
the use phase contributes 59% of the total life cycle hydrocarbon emissions. In the retirement stage, only
energy production emissions were evaluated.
CO HC NOx Particulates SOx
Figure 4-5. Airborne Emissions for the ISF total life cycle
4.1.5 Water Effluents
Life cycle water effluents of ISF are shown in Figure 4-6. Dissolved solids are the major (1.911
g/ISF) water effluents. The dominance of dissolved solids is due to the high levels released during
petroleum processing (80.9 Ib./lOOO gal processed (Franklin Associates 1992)). Petroleum processing
and other energy systems are the major source for all life cycle waterborne effluents.
0.000
BOD
Diss.
Solids
Metals
Figure 4-6. ISF total life cycle water effluents.
4.2 Cost Metrics
Figure 4-7 shows that the life cycle cost for ISF on one prototype BSM part is $1.68. This cost is
distributed differently over the life cycle stages. Material costs were accounted for as part of the
manufacturing costs and are not shown in Figure 4-7. Manufacturing cost, which comprises 82% of total
life cycle cost, was estimated from 3M's internal source (3M 1996). Application cost per ISF is about 10
22
-------
cents and the use cost per ISF is about 21 cents. The cost for ISF retirement was estimated to be less than
one cent. This life cycle cost analysis did not address external costs not reflected in the market system or
hidden costs not accurately allocated by 3M's internal accounting system. A total cost assessment
(White, Becker, and Goldstein 1992) of the ISF was not conducted.
Manf. Appl. Use Ret.
Figure 4-7. ISF Life Cycle Cost
Total
23
-------
5. Design Evaluation and Conclusions
The life cycle design framework was applied to in-mold surfacing film (ISF) applied on body side
molded (BSM) parts. The methodology and results presented in Chapters 3 and 4 highlighted some key
implications of ISF use. These are summarized in this chapter. These conclusions can be used for design
evaluation and decision making related to the 3M ISF.
It is clear that a change from traditional painting methods to ISF results in a shift in environmental
burdens. The major environmental burden for the ISF occurs during manufacturing, while environmental
burdens for painting are concentrated in the application stage. In the case of BSM parts, this means that
the film manufacturer (3M) is responsible for managing burdens previously generated by the tier one
supplier.
The life cycle environmental burden of ISF may be overstated, because the TPO layer in the film is
essentially integrated into the BSM part. A proportional reduction in the thickness of the BSM mold
would result in a painted BSM part and an ISF coated BSM part having essentially the same weight and
dimension. To optimize the system, different molds must be used for BSM parts that are to be painted
and BSM parts that receive in-mold film. This will reduce the amount of BSM raw material required for
a finished part, which would in turn reduce the burdens associated with ISF coated parts relative to
painted parts
Drying ovens for clear, color and adhesive coating operations account for 94% of primary
manufacturing energy. The heating of dilution air accounts for 91% of the total drying oven energy use.
Increasing the efficiency of the drying process will reduce ISF life cycle energy use, but gains are limited
because manufacturing accounts for only 14% of the total life cycle energy.
Disposal of the PET liner, during manufacturing, accounts for 10% of the total life cycle solid waste
(35% of manufacturing solid waste) for ISF. Reusing the PET liner is one potential method of reducing
the total life cycle solid waste of ISF. For example, if the PET liner were reused once, the ISF life cycle
solid waste would be reduced by 5%; correspondingly, if the liner were reused twice, the total solid
waste would be reduced by an additional 2%. This implies that the greatest proportional benefit is
realized in the first reuse of the PET liner. Using the PET liner more than once presents a tradeoff in
terms of solid waste reduction in manufacturing. The reason behind this is that frictional, tensile, and
normal stresses during rolling operations, as well as tensile and compressive forces during wetting and
drying operations degrade the surface properties of the PET liner with repeated reuses. Therefore, as the
PET liner is reused more and more, the number of off-spec film parts is likely to increase, causing more
material loss from rejected parts. Therefore, this research study indicates that the greatest reduction in
solid waste is gained when the PET liner is reused once, unless its surface properties can be maintained
with repeated reuses.
Die cutting, yield, and trimming losses combined account for 16% of the ISF life cycle solid waste.
At the time of this study ISF was still in its infancy and production had not yet begun. It is believed that
once in production experience will lead to increased manufacturing efficiency and a reduction in the total
life cycle solid waste.
The overall material efficiency of the ISF (as calculated using equation 4.1), assuming only solid
resins are considered input materials, is 32%. If both solids and coating solvents are included as input
materials the overall material efficiency is 19%. In both cases the application material efficiency
(equation 4.2) is 60%. It would be noteworthy to compare this data with transfer efficiency for paint.
Transfer efficiency is defined as the ratio of the mass of solid coating deposited to the mass of solid
coating used (Joseph 1993). Typical transfer efficiency for airless spray used in automotive painting is
40% (Joseph 1993). However, the transfer efficiency can vary from less than 20% for small parts to over
80% for very large parts. In the application stage, the film has higher transfer efficiency than paint.
However, it is expected that manufacturing material efficiency for paint would be substantially higher
than film because film manufacturing requires PET liner and die cut trimming waste. A holistic
comparison of the material efficiencies of ISF and paint is not possible without more detailed study of the
traditional paint life cycle.
24
-------
The life cycle cost analysis indicated that manufacturing accounts for 82% of the ISF total life cycle
cost. This leads to a relatively high product cost for ISF. The product cost of the film will probably be
higher than that of paint, but application cost is expected to be lower. Thus to make a fair comparison,
the total product and application cost must be taken into considerations for both film and paint. Film
may not be competitive with paint when only the initial costs are considered, however, lower application
costs could mean that total coated part costs for the two systems are comparable.
The most critical metric for paint film design is material efficiency in manufacturing and application.
An increase in efficiency in these two stages will reduce life cycle energy, solid waste, air emissions, and
water effluents. The most obvious way to increase material efficiency is to reuse the PET liner at least
once. Additional gains can be achieved by optimizing die cut pieces to the mold dimensions.
Another potential method for reducing the life cycle burdens associated with ISF is the use of water
based clear coat and color coat solutions. The current mineral spirit based system accounts for
approximately 52% of the manufacturing energy use, most of which can be attributed to the embodied
energy in the petroleum derived solvents. A water based coating system would require minimal energy
for solvent production. However, water based clear coat and color coats may result in increased energy
use by the drying ovens.
This study contributed to the project team's understanding of the total life cycle environmental
burdens related to in-mold surfacing film. The sources of the major burdens were also identified and
opportunities for environmental improvement were discussed. This project represents an initiative taken
by an automotive supplier to improve vehicle design and performance through innovation in a single
vehicle part. This effort will hopefully lead to the application of life cycle systems thinking to other parts
and components, as well as higher level vehicle systems (e.g. vehicle body subsystem) in the future.
25
-------
Reference Listn
3M. 1993. Cost and Performance Data for 3MPaint Film.
St. Paul, MN: 3M.
1995. Composition and Environmental Data for
Manufacturing and Application ofln-Mold
Surfacing Film , 3M, St. Paul, MN.
. 1996. Summary ofTest Results from 3M Thermal
Oxidizer. St. Paul, MN: 3M.
APC. 1994. Economics of Recovery and Recycling,
American Plastics Council.
Boustead, Ian. 1993. Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics
Industry -Polyethylene and Polypropylene:
Report 3, The European Centre for Plastics in the
Environment, Brussels.
. 1994. Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics
Industry, Report 6: Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC),
The European Centre for Plastics in the
Environment, Brussels.
. 1995. Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics
Industry, Report 8: Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET), Association of Plastic Manufacturers in
Europe Technical and Environmental Centre,
Brussels.
Franklin Associates. \992.AppendixA: Energy
Requirements and Environmental Emissions for
Fuel Consumption, Franklin Associates, Prairie
Village, KS.
Joseph, Ron. 1993. Overview of effective strategies for
pollution prevention in paints and coatings
facilities. Berkeley Pollution Prevention Program
Saratoga, CA: Ron Joseph & Associates, Inc.
Kar, K., and G. A. Keoleian. 1996. Application of life cycle
design to aluminum intake manifolds. SAE
International Congress and Exposition
Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers.
Keoleian, Gregory A. 1995. Pollution prevention through
life cycle design. Pollution Prevention
Handbook, ed. Harry M. Freeman, 253-92. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Keoleian, Gregory A., Werner J. Glantschnig, and William
McCann. 1994. Life cycle design: AT&T
demonstration project. IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment
Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers .
Keoleian, Gregory A., Jonathan Koch, and Dan Menerey.
1995. Life Cycle Design Framework and
Demonstration Projects: Profiles of AT&T and
AlliedSignal, EPA/600/R-95/107. US
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Keoleian, Gregory A., and Dan Menerey. 1993. Life Cycle
Design Guidance Manual: Environmental
Requirements and the Product System, US EPA,
Office of Research and Development, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
. 1994. Sustainable development by design: Review
of life cycle design and related approaches.
Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association 44, no. 5: 645-68.
Koch, Jonathan, and Gregory Keoleian. 1995. Evaluating
Environmental Performance: A Case Study in the
Flat-Panel Display Industry. IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics & the Environment
IEEE.
Kroschwitz, Jacqueline L. 1990. Concise Encyclopedia of
Polymer Science and Engineering. New York:
Wiley.
Lighthouse Car Wash. 1995. personal communication.
Lockhart, Jim. 1995. American Petroleum Association.
Personal communication.
McGlotholin, Scott. 1995. Texas Shredder, personal
communication.
Neidermair. 1993. Unpublished Report. 3M.
NSWMA. 1995. National Solid Waste Management
Association, personal communication.
Ullmann, Fritz. 1985. Uttmann'sEncyclopedia of
Industrial Chemistry. Deerfield Beach, FL.
US EPA. 1995. Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption
for an Average Passenger Car, US
Environmental Protection Agency, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, Ann
Arbor, MI.
White, Allen L., Monica Becker, and James Goldstein.
1992. Total Cost Assessment: Accelerating
Industrial Pollution Prevention Through
Innovative Project Financial Analysis, US EPA,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Washington, DC.
26
-------
Appendix An
Acronyms Table
APC American Plastics Council D
APME Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe D
ASR Automotive Shredder Residue D
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand D
BSM Body Side MoldedD
CO Carbon Monoxide D
CO2 Carbon Dioxide D
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand D
EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene MonomerD
HC Hydrocarbon D
HOPE High Density Polyethylene D
ISF In-Mold Surfacing Film D
LCD Life Cycle DesignD
NOX Nitrogen Oxides D
NSWMA National Solid Waste Management Association D
OEM Original Equipment ManufacturerD
PET Polyethylene Terepthalate D
PVDF Poly (Vinylidene Fluoride) D
TPO Thermoplastic PolyolefinD
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency D
VOC Volatile Organic Compound D
A.1
-------
Appendix B
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX: PRODUCTION OF ISF MATERIAL
Mass of materials processed
Energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
TPO resin
PVDF resin
Acrylic resin
PET liner
Adhesive resin
Pigment
TOTAL resin
(primary energy)
CO2
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Participates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Ib/TDCP
6.84E+03
4.37E+03
1.46E+03
2.94E+03
3.34E+02
7.55E+02
MJ/kg
kg/kg
kg/ISF
0.0150
0.0096
0.0032
0.0064
0.0007
0.0017
0.0349
MJ/ISF
3.57E+00
kg/ISF
1.21E-01
1.87E-04
6.23E-04
6.01 E-04
1.72E-04
6.37E-04
5.00E-04
1.00E-05
4.40E-05
5.70E-05
2.60E-05
8.00E-06
TDCP = Total number of die cut parts
=207254
Material production energy
does not include pigment production
energy and solvent production energy.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX : FILM MANUFACTURING
Energy
Unit ope ration
- TPO film extrusion
- mix /mill clear coat
-clear coating
- mix /mill color coat
-color coating
- adhesive mixing
- adhesive coating
- lamination
- strip / slit / inspect
Type
1.1 dE, electricity
1.1 aE, electricity
2.3E, gas oven
1.1 bE, electricity
3.3E, gas oven
1 .1cE, electricity
4.3E, gas oven
5.3E, electricity
6.5E, electricity
TOTAL energy, electricity
TOTAL energy, gas oven
Primary energy, electricity
Primary energy, natl. gas
Primary energy equivalent
MJ/kg
6.57E-01
2.00E-02
1.14E+01
2.35E-02
8.47E+00
7.97E-02
4.27E+00
6.20E-02
9.34E-02
MJ / ISF
9.83E-03
3.89E-04
2.97E-01
3.89E-04
2.54E-01
3.89E-04
1.01E-01
1.89E-03
2.70E-03
1.56E-02
6.52E-01
4.87E-02
7.33E-01
7.82E-01
Data Source and Methodology
Proprietary data, 3M
Energy in MJ / kg of film is calculated by
normalizing the energy of unit operations
by the total mass of ISF die cut film,
i.e. 8856 Ib or 401 7 kg
Energy per ISF die cut film is obtained by
multiplying the energy density (MJ / kg) by the
mass of ISF die cut film
The mass of ISF die cut film is obtained
by dividing the total mass of film (8856 Ib)
by the number of die cut parts (207254)
The total mass of one die cut film is
0.04273 Ib or 0.01 938 kg
B.1
-------
Appendix B
Process waste
Air emissions
Unit ope ration
-clear coating
-color coating
- adhesive coating
Film waste
Unit operation
- TPO film extrusion
-clear coating
- color coating
- adhesive coating
- lamination
- strip / slit / inspect
-die cutting
Water effluents
Unit ope ration
- mix / mill clear coat
-clear coating
- mix / mill color coat
-color coating
- adhesive mixing
- adhesive coating
Energy waste
Unit ope rations
Air emissions
Solid waste
Inlet oxidizer
2.5P*, coating solvents
3.5P*, color coating
4.5P*, coating solvents
TOTAL air emissions
Outlet oxidizer
CO2
HC
Type
1.4dPSW, TPO film
2.6P*SW, PET liner
2.7PSW, clear coated PET
3.6PSW, clear coat film
3.7PSW, color /clear film
4.6PSW, color /clear film
4.7PSW, color /clear film w/
adhesive
5.4PSW, TPO film
5.5PSW, color /clear film
w/adhesive
5.6PSW, laminated film
6.2P*SW, PET liner
6.3PSW, slitting/edge trim
6.4PSW, off-spec, film
7.4PSW, cutting scrap
7.3PSW, yield loss
TOTAL film waste
Type
1.5aP*LW, cleaning solvents
2.8P*LW, cleaning solvents
1.6bP*LW, cleaning solvents
3.8P*LW, cleaning solvents
1.4cP*LW, cleaning solvents
4.8P*LW, cleaning solvents
TOTAL cleaning solvents
TOTAL water effluents
Type
Electricity
CO2
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Particulates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
kg /kg
4.51E-01
3.30E-01
1.75E-01
9.56E-01
kg /kg
2.50E-01
2.75E-02
8.82E-03
3.30E-02
1.65E-02
5.00E-02
1.83E-01
3.10E-02
4.08E-02
1.00E-01
7.41E-01
kg /kg
7.53E-03
1.10E-03
8.88E-03
9.48E-04
3.01E-02
1.20E-03
4.97E-02
2.49E-03
IbMOOkWh
1.53E+02
1.58E-01
1.41E-01
9.00E-04
6.99E-01
5.02E-01
1.32E+00
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.84E+01
kg / ISF
1.17E-02
9.91 E-03
4.15E-03
2.57E-02
9.50E-04
3.52E-04
kg / ISF
3.74E-03
7.11E-04
2.65E-04
9.91 E-04
3.92E-04
1.52E-03
5.29E-03
8.97E-04
1.18E-03
2.15E-03
1.71E-02
kg / ISF
1.47E-04
2.85E-05
1.47E-04
2.85E-05
5.83E-04
2.85E-05
9.61 E-04
4.81 E-05
kg / ISF
3.01 E-03
3.09E-06
2.77E-06
1.77E-08
1.37E-05
9.86E-06
2.59E-05
1.96E-09
1.96E-09
1.96E-09
3.60E-04
Proprietary data, 3M
Obtained using similar methodology as
explained above
Proprietary data, 3M
kg of waste / kg of film is calculated by
normalizing the waste of unit operations
by the total mass of ISF die cut film,
i.e. 8856 Ib or 401 7 kg
Waste per ISF die cut film is obtained by
multiplying the kg of waste/kg of film
by the mass opf the film
Proprietary data, 3M
Obtained using similar methodology as
explained above
95% reclamation of cleaning solvents
were assumed.
Data Source and Methodology
Obtained from [Franklin, 1992]
B.2
-------
Appendix B
Water effluents
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Mass of solvents
Energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
Natural gas
CO2
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Particulates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
Solvents
Mineral spirit
Gasoline
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Methane
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Solid waste
1.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
4.65E-02
2.75E-02
1.00E-04
1.10E-01
8.24E-02
kg/MJ
5.27E-02
1.41E-04
6.33E-04
8.19E-04
3.72E-06
4.84E-06
5.58E-04
7.44E-04
kg /kg
MJ/I
2.46E+01
lb/1000 gal
2.49E+03
1.13E+01
5.43E+01
3.47E+01
4.20E+00
3.17E+01
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.60E+01
1.96E-09
5.89E-09
3.93E-09
9.13E-07
5.40E-07
1.96E-09
2.16E-06
1.62E-06
kg / ISF
3.86E-02
1.03E-04
4.64E-04
6.00E-04
2.73E-06
3.55E-06
4.09E-04
5.45E-04
kg /ISF
2.58E-02
I /ISF
0.0349
MJ/ISF
8.57E-01
kg /ISF
1.04E-02
4.72E-05
2.27E-04
1.45E-04
1.75E-05
1.32E-04
1.67E-06
1.67E-06
1.25E-08
1.50E-04
Data Source and Methodology
Obtained from [Franklin, 1992]
Assume that 50% of energy from burning
mineral spirits is recovered
Thus energy for mineral spirit includes
precombustion energy and 50% of the
combustion energy
B.3
-------
Appendix B
Water effluents
BOD
COD
Suspeneded solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
4.00E-01
1.10E+00
6.00E-01
8.09E+01
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.67E-06
4.60E-06
2.51 E-06
3.38E-04
4.18E-07
8.36E-07
4.18E-07
4.18E-07
8.36E-07
TOTAL FILM INVENTORY: MANUFACTURING
Energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Energy (primary)
Type
CO2
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Particulates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
Cleaning solvents
MJ / ISF
1.64E+00
kg / ISF
5.30E-02
1.54E-04
1.05E-03
1.77E-08
O.OOE-t-00
7.59E-04
3.01 E-05
1.62E-04
1.67E-06
1.67E-06
1.25E-08
1.96E-09
1.81E-02
1.67E-06
4.60E-06
2.51 E-06
8.84E-04
9.58E-07
8.37E-07
4.18E-07
4.18E-07
2.99E-06
1.62E-06
4.81 E-05
Data source and methodology
Obtained as the sum of process and
energy burden
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX : FILM APPLICATION
Energy
Unit operation
- molding, electricity
- transportation
Process waste
Solid waste
Unit operation
- molding
Type
8.2E
Primary energy equivalent
diesel
primary energy equivalent
TOTAL primary energy
Type
W25, edge trim
W26, yield loss
TOTAL solid waste
kW/kg
Neidermair
7.50E+01
kg /kg
3.63E-01
3.50E-02
MJ / ISF
3M
4.36E-02
1.36E-01
4.38E-02
5.21 E-02
1.88E-01
kg / ISF
7.03E-03
6.78E-04
7.71 E-03
Data Source and Methodology
Energy value from [Neidermair, 1 993] is used
Cycle time for 3M film = 30 sec
1000 mile distance manufacture->application
Energy consumption for diesel trucks
= 2.05 MJ/ton-mile
Proprietary data, 3M
B.4
-------
Appendix B
Energy waste
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Electricity
C02
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Participates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
Diesel
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspeneded solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
1.53E+02
1.58E-01
1.41E-01
9.00E-04
6.99E-01
5.02E-01
1.32E+00
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.84E+01
1.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
4.65E-02
2.75E-02
1.00E-04
1.10E-01
8.24E-02
kg/MJ
6.62E-02
5.75E-04
2.41E-04
6.40E-04
8.89E-05
1.78E-04
1.54E-05
1.05E-06
7.85E-09
3.05E-04
9.41E-05
1.05E-06
2.88E-06
1.57E-06
2.12E-04
2.62E-07
5.23E-07
2.62E-07
2.62E-07
8.43E-03
8.65E-06
7.74E-06
4.94E-08
3.84E-05
2.76E-05
7.25E-05
5.49E-09
5.49E-09
5.49E-09
1.01E-03
5.49E-09
1.65E-08
1.10E-08
2.55E-06
1.51E-06
5.49E-09
6.04E-06
4.53E-06
kg / ISF
3.45E-03
3.00E-05
1.26E-05
3.34E-05
4.63E-06
9.28E-06
8.03E-07
5.47E-08
4.09E-10
1.59E-05
4.91 E-06
5.47E-08
1.50E-07
8.19E-08
1.11 E-05
1.37E-08
2.73E-08
1.37E-08
1.37E-08
Electricity waste are obtained
from [Franklin, 1994]
Diesel wastes are obtained
from [Franklin, 1992]
B.5
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL FILM INVENTORY: APPLICATION
Energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Energy (primary)
Type
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Methane
Kerosene
Nitrogen oxide
Participates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspeneded solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
MJ / ISF
1.88E-01
kg / ISF
1.19E-02
3.86E-05
2.03E-05
4.94E-08
O.OOE+00
7.18E-05
3.22E-05
8.18E-05
8.08E-07
6.02E-08
4.09E-10
1.59E-05
8.72E-03
6.02E-08
1.67E-07
9.28E-08
1.36E-05
1.52E-06
3.28E-08
1.37E-08
1.37E-08
6.04E-06
4.53E-06
Data source and methodology
Total waste is the sum of process and energy
waste
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX : FILM USE
Mechanical washing
Metrics
Energy
Water used
Air emissions
Solid waste
Type
Electricity
Primary energy equivalent
Soap water solution
Electricity
CO2
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Particulates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
kWh / car
3.50
gallons / car
75.00
1.53E+02
1.58E-01
1.41E-01
9.00E-04
6.99E-01
5.02E-01
1.32E+00
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.84E+01
MJ / ISF
7.42E-01
2.32
kg /film
283.91
1.43E-01
1.47E-04
1.32E-04
8.41 E-07
6.53E-04
4.69E-04
1.23E-03
9.34E-08
9.34E-08
9.34E-08
1.71E-02
Data Source and Methodology
$35,000 electricity bill for 100,000 cars
washed yearly
Thus, $0.35 electricity per car
Electricity rate $0.0995 / kWh
Thus, energy per car wash = 3.5 kWh
Energy/film=(energy/car)x(SA film/SA car)
SAcar- 175 ft2
SAfilm = 61.8 in2
[Light House washing, 1995]
75 gallons of soap water used per car
[Light House washing, 1995]
Electricity wastes are obtained from
[Franklin, 1994]
B.6
-------
Appendix B
Water effluents
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
Driving: fuel consumption
Metrics
Energy
Combustion waste
Air emissions
Precombustion waste
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Type
Gasoline
(primary energy)
CO2
CO
HC
NOx
Gasoline
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Methane
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspeneded solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
1.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
4.65E-02
2.75E-02
1.00E-04
1.10E-01
8.24E-02
volu me/IS F
lit/ISF
0.10
gal/ISF
0.03
lb/1000 gal
2.49E+03
1.13E+01
5.43E+01
3.47E+01
4.20E+00
3.17E+01
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.60E+01
4.00E-01
1.10E+00
6.00E-01
8.09E+01
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
9.34E-08
2.80E-07
1.87E-07
4.34E-05
2.57E-05
9.34E-08
1.03E-04
7.70E-05
MJ / ISF
4.09
kg / ISF
1.94E-01
1.23E-02
1.65E-03
8.54E-04
kg / ISF
2.90E-02
1.32E-04
6.32E-04
4.04E-04
4.89E-05
3.69E-04
4.66E-06
4.66E-06
3.49E-08
4.19E-04
4.66E-06
1.28E-05
6.99E-06
9.42E-04
1.16E-06
2.33E-06
1.16E-06
1.16E-06
2.33E-06
Data Source and Methodology
Contribution of film to vehicle weight
Assume average 1995 vehicle
Test weight of vehicle = 3200 Ib
Life of film on vehicle = 100,000 miles
Fuel economy = 21.6 mpg=10.89 I / 100 km
10% weight reduction =
6.6% fuel consumption reduction
1 I gasoline = 42.03 MJ (comb+precomb)
Combustion tail pipe emissions data:
CO2 = 362.87 g/ mile
CO=23 g / mile
HC=3.1 g/mile
NOx=1.6 g/ mile
[US EPA, 1995][AAMA, 1995]
Emissions data are obtained from
following correlation: E, kg / ISF =
(E, lb/1000 gal)*(0. 45359/1 OOOfgallons
B.7
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL FILM USE INVENTORY : USE PHASE
Energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Energy (primary)
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Methane
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspeneded solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
MJ / ISF
6.40
kg / ISF
3.66E-01
1.25E-02
2.42E-03
8.41 E-07
1.91E-03
5.18E-04
1.60E-03
4.75E-06
4.75E-06
3.49E-08
1.76E-02
4.75E-06
1.31E-05
7.18E-06
9.86E-04
2.69E-05
2.42E-06
1.16E-06
1.16E-06
1.05E-04
Data source and methodology
Total waste is the sum of process and
energy waste
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX : FILM RETIREMENT
Energy
Unit operation
Shredding
TOTAL
Type
electricity
electricity
Primary energy, electricity
- Transportation
Primary energy, diesel
TOTAL primary energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
diesel
electric ity+diesel
Electricity
CO2
CO
NMHC
CH4
Kerosene
NOx
Particulates
SO2
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
Acids
Iron
MJ/kg
9.70E-02
9.70E-02
4.52E-01
1.53E+02
1.58E-01
1.41E-01
9.00E-04
6.99E-01
5.02E-01
1.32E+00
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.84E+01
1.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
4.65E-02
2.75E-02
1.00E-04
1.10E-01
8.24E-02
MJ / ISF
1.18E-03
1.18E-03
3.70E-03
5.51 E-03
6.56E-03
1.03E-02
2.29E-04
2.35E-07
2.10E-07
1.34E-09
1.04E-06
7.49E-07
1.97E-06
1.49E-10
1.49E-10
1.49E-10
2.74E-05
1.49E-10
4.47E-10
2.98E-10
6.93E-08
4.10E-08
1.49E-10
1.64E-07
1.23E-07
Data Source and Methodology
Shredding energy = 0.097 MJ/kg
[Texas Shredder, 1995]
Shredder to Separator = 100 miles
Separator to landfill = 100 miles
Total transportation distance = 200 miles
[Franklin, 1992]
Electricity wastes are obtained from
[Franklin, 1992]
B.8
-------
Appendix B
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX : FILM RETIREMENT
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Diesel
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
kg/MJ
6.62E-02
5.75E-04
2.41E-04
6.40E-04
8.89E-05
1.78E-04
1.54E-05
1.05E-06
7.85E-09
3.05E-04
9.41E-05
1.05E-06
2.88E-06
1.57E-06
2.12E-04
2.62E-07
5.23E-07
2.62E-07
2.62E-07
kg /film
4.35E-04
3.77E-06
1.58E-06
4.20E-06
5.84E-07
1.17E-06
1.01E-07
6.89E-09
5.15E-11
2.00E-06
6.18E-07
6.89E-09
1.89E-08
1.03E-08
1.39E-06
1.72E-09
3.43E-09
1.72E-09
1.72E-09
Diesel wastes are obtained from
[Franklin, 1992]
TOTAL FILM INVENTORY: RETIREMENT-LANDFILL DISPOSAL
Energy
Air emissions
Solid waste
Water effluents
Energy (primary)
(electricity+diesel)
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Methane
Kerosene
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Lead
Other
Solid waste
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Metal ion
Oil
Phenolic compounds
Sulfides
MJ/ISF
1.03E-02
kg/ISF
6.63E-04
4.01 E-06
1.79E-06
1.34E-09
O.OOE-t-00
5.24E-06
1.33E-06
3.14E-06
1.01E-07
7.04E-09
5.15E-11
2.00E-06
1.22E-02
7.04E-09
1.94E-08
1.06E-08
1.46E-06
4.27E-08
3.58E-09
1.72E-09
1.72E-09
Data source and methodology
Total environmental burden is the
sum of process and energy related burden
B.9
-------
Appendix B
COST MATRIX
COST MATRIX : STAKEHOLDER TIER 1, Application
Process
- Tooling Cost
- Machine Cost
- Labor Cost
- credit for selling
TOTAL tier 1 cost
Metric
Cost
Paint Film Data
$/f1lm
$ /film
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.10
Data Source and Methodology
Assumption:
Molding cost is proportional to cycle time
Cycle time = 10 sec
Total solid waste =
Edge trimming waste + yield loss waste
COST MATRIX : STAKEHOLDER USER
Process
BSM washing cost
- Car washing
- Car washing
-Car washing
-Car washing
Fuel cost for driving
TOTAL use cost
Metric
Cost
Electricity cost
Water cost
Soap cost
Labor cost
Paint Film Data
$ /film
1.76E-01
2.63E+01
2.25E+01
1.05E+01
1.31E+01
3.00E-02
2.06E-01
Data Source and Methodology
3 times per year -8 years at 3$ a wash
Yearly electricity $35000,100000 cars/year,
Surface area of the car 1 75 ftA2
Water cost 30cents/car
$14000 Soap/year
Wage $7 dollar/hour
Wash cycle1.5 minutes forl 60 feet tunnel
Typical tunnel varies 100 to 160 feet
Data obtained from [Lighthouse car wash, 1995]
Fuelcost = $1.17/gallon
COST MATRIX : END OF LIFE MANAGERS
Process
- Transportation cost
$0.12/ton-mile
- Shredder processing
cost$33.5/hulk
- Landfill cost $30.25/ton
TOTAL retirment cost
Metric
Cost
Transportation
Shredding
Tipping Landfill
Paint Film Data
$ /film
3.23E-04
2.87E-04
4.07E-04
1.02E-03
Data Source and Methodology
200 mile transport
Retirement costs are from [APC, 1 994]
[NSWMA, 1995] Natl. average cost
CUMULATIVE LIFE CYCLE COST
Manufacturing
Application
Use
Retirement
TOTAL
3M
Tier!
User
ELV manager
$1.37
$0.10
$0.21
$0.00
$1.67
B.10
-------
Appendix CD
(8) UNIT OPERATION - MOLDING
Length of BSM part (in.)
Assumption 1: 50, 000 4-door vehicles
(9. 1P)ISF molded parts
Covered surface area of BSM (sq. in.)
Assumption 2: Use widest dimension of BSM of
Assumption 3: Allow 0.25" per side and 0.5" per
43
200,000
61.8
1 .75" as basis for rectangular die cut parts
end excess material for molding of rectangular die cut part
Surface area (sq. in.) of die cut parts (2.25" x 44")
Assumption 4: Molding yield (%) of die cut parts
(8.1P) Number of ISF die cut parts
(8.3P) Edge trim (sq. in.)
(8. 4P) Yield loss (sq. in.)
99
96.5
207,254
7,440,000
718,135
(7) UNIT OPERATION - DIE CUTTING
Assumption 5: Film weed (%) (nesting)
(8.1P) ISF die cut parts (cu.in.)
ISF, converted roll (cu.in.)
(7.3PSW) Film weed (cu.in.)
(7.4PSW) Yield loss
(6) UNIT OPERATION
90
201,078
223,420
22,342
negligible
-STRIP/SLIT/INSPECT
(7.1P) ISF, converted roll (cu.in.)
- (7.1P) ISF, converted roll (sq. yds.)
- (7.1P) ISF, converted roll (lyds)
Assumption 6: 95% process yield + edge trim
- Input film width (in.)
- Output film width (in.)
(6.1P) ISF, jumbo (cu.in.)
-(6.1P) ISF, jumbo (sq.yds.)
-(6.1P) ISF, jumbo (lyds)
(6.2P*SW) PET casting liner (lyds)
(6.3PSW) Slitting/edge trim (cu.in.)
(6.4PSW) Quality waste, 5% yield loss (cu.in.)
223,420
17,591
13,193(x48")
50
48
244,978
19,288
1 3,888 (x 50")
1 3888 (x 50")
9,309
12,249
(5) UNIT OPERATION - LAMINATION
(6.1 P) ISF, jumbo (lyds)
Assumption 7: 95% process yield
(5.1 P)TPO film (lyds)
(5.2P) Color/clear film w/adhesive (lyds)
(5.4PSW) TPO film
(5.5PSW) Color/clear film w/adhesive
(5.6PSW) Laminated film (lyds)
(1d) UNIT OPERATION
1 3,988 (x 50")
14,619 (x 50")
14,619 (x 50")
negligible
negligible
731 (x 50")
-TPO FILM EXTRUSION
(5.1 P) TPO film (cu.in.)
- (5. 1P) TPO film (lyds)
Assumption 8: 75% resin and film yield
(1.2dP) TPO resin (cu.in.)
(1.4dPSW) TPO film (cu.in.)
(4) UNIT OPERATION
157,880
14,619 (x 50")
210,507
52,627
-ADHESIVE COATING
(5.2P) Color/clear film w/adhesive (lyds)
14,619 (x 50")
C.1
-------
Appendix CD
Assumption 9: 98% film and solution yield
(4.2P) Color/clear film (lyds)
(4.7PSW) Color/clear film w/adhesive (lyds)
(4.8P*LW) Cleaning solvents, MEK (gallons)
- (4.8P*LW) Cleaning solvents, MEK (Ibs)
(4.6PSW) Color/clear film
Assumption 10: Coating solution, 15% solids
Material required for solid adhesive layer (cu.in.)
- Material required for solid adhesive layer (Ibs)
(4.1P) Adhesive solution (Ibs)
Mineral spirits required (Ibs)
14,917 (x 50")
298 (x 50")
2
13
negligible
8,055
334
2,229
1,895
(1c) UNIT OPERATION -ADHESIVE MIXING
(4.1P) Adhesive solution (Ibs)
(1.2cP) Adhesive resin (Ibs)
(1.3cP*) Solvent, mineral spirits (Ibs)
(1.4cP*LW) Cleaning solvents, MEK (gallons)
- (1.4cP*LW) Cleaning solvents, MEK (Ibs)
2,229
334
1,895
10
67
(3) UNIT OPERATION - COLOR COATING
(4.2P) Color/clear film (lyds)
Assumption 1 1 : 95% film and solution yield
Assumption 12: Clear coat film is 51" wide, coated width of the color coat is 50"
(3.2P) Clear coat film (lyds)
(3.6PSW) Clear coat film
(3.7PSW) Color/clear film (lyds)
(3.8P*LW) Cleaning solvents, MEK (gallons)
- (3.8P*LW) Cleaning solvents, MEK (Ibs)
Assumption 13: Color solution 40% solids
Material required for solid color layer (Ibs)
(3.1P) Color coat solution (Ibs)
Mineral spirit required (Ibs)
14,917 (x 50")
1 5,702 (x 51")
1 5,702 (xT)
785
2
13
3,019
7,548
4,529
(2) UNIT OPERATION -CLEAR COATING
Clear coat film (lyds)
Assumption 14: 95% film and solution yield
(2.2P) PET casting liner (lyds)
(2.8P*LW) Cleaning solvents (gallons)
- (2.8P*LW) cleaning solvents (Ibs)
(2.7PSW) Clear coated PET (lyds)
(2.6P*SW) PET casting liner
Assumption 15: Clear solution 40% solids
Material required for solid clear layer (%)
(2.1P) Clear coat solution (Ibs)
Mineral spirits required
1 5702 (x 51")
16,528 (x 51")
2
13
826 (x 51")
negligible
3,560
8,901
5,341
(1a) UNIT OPERATION - MIX/MILL CLEAR COAT
(2.1P) Clear coat solution (Ibs)
(1.4aP*) Solvent (Ibs)
(1.3aP) Acrylic resin (Ibs)
(1.2aP)PVDF resin (Ibs)
(1.5aP*LW) Cleaning solvents (gallons)
8,901
5,341
890
2,670
10
C.2
-------
Appendix CD
- (1.5aP*LW) Cleaning solvents (Ibs)
67
(1 b) UNIT OPERATION - MIX/MILL COLOR COAT
(3.1P) Color coat solution (Ibs)
(1.4bP*) Solvent (Ibs)
(1.5bP) Pigment (Ibs)
(1.3bP) Acrylic resin (Ibs)
(1.2bP)PVDF resin (Ibs)
(1.6bP*LW) Cleaning solvents (gallons)
- (1.6bP*LW) Cleaning solvents (Ibs)
7,548
4,529
755
566
1,698
10
67
C.3
-------
Appendix D. Life Cycle Design Framework
Primary elements of the life cycle design framework are (Keoleian, Koch, and Menerey 1995):
Product life cycle system
Goals
Principles
Life cycle management
Development process
Product Life Cycle System
Life cycle design and management requires an accurate definition of the product system, including
both spatial and temporal boundaries. The product system can be organized by life cycle stages and product
system components. Life cycle stages include materials production, manufacturing and assembly, use and
service, and end-of-life management as shown in Figure D-l.
Material Production
i r
Manufacturing
Use
ir
End-of-Life Management
Figure D-1. Product Life Cycle System
Product, process and distribution components further characterize the product system for each life
cycle stage as shown in Figures D-2 and D-3. This organization in contrast to LCA convention can better
accommodate product and process design functions. The time frame for a design project ranges between a
short term horizon that may emphasize incremental improvements in the product system or a long range view
that explores next generation designs.
D.1
-------
Process Materials
Open loop
Recycle
Remanufacture
Reuse
Closed
loop
Labor
Energy
Product Materials
Closed
loop
Open loop
Recycle
Remanufacture
Reuse
By-product
Primary Product
Waste
Waste
(gaseous, liquid, solid)
Figure D-2. Flow Diagram Template for Life Cycle Subsystem
Process Materials
Process Materials
Product
Materials
retired vehicle
materials & waste from
energy for operation
operation
Figure D-3. Distribution Component Flow Diagram
Goals
The broad goal of life cycle design is to design and management products that are ecologically and
economically sustainable. Necessary conditions for sustainability include: sustainable resource use (conserve
resources, minimize depletion of non-renewable resources, use sustainable practices for managing renewable
resources), pollution prevention, maintenance of ecosystem structure and function, and environmental equity.
All of these conditions are interrelated and highly complementary. Economic sustainability requires that the
product system meet basic cost, performance, legal and cultural criteria.
The specific environmental goal of life cycle design is to minimize the aggregate life cycle
environmental burdens and impacts associated with a product system. Environmental burden include resource
inputs and waste outputs which can be classified into impact categories according to life cycle impact
D.2
-------
assessment methods. (Guinee et al. 1993; SETAC 1993a; Weitz and Warren 1993) General impact categories
include resource depletion and ecological and human health effects. No universally accepted method for
aggregating impacts is available.
Principles
There are three main themes for guiding environmental improvement of product systems in life cycle
design: systems analysis of the product life cycle; multicriteria analysis of environmental, performance, cost,
and legal requirements and issues (see specification of requirements section); and multistakeholder
participation and cross-functional teamwork throughout the design process. The following principles relating
to each of these themes have been derived from our empirical research. Many of these principles of life cycle
design are already considered best design practice.
Systems Analysis
Systems analysis focuses on understanding the behavior of individual components of a system and the
relationships between the collection of components that constitute the entire system. In addition the
relationships between the system under study and higher order/larger scale systems should be analyzed. Both
time and space dimensions must be addressed.
1. D The product life cycle is a logical system for product management and design because it encompasses the
total physical flow of product materials through the economy.
2. D Successful design initiatives should establish clear system boundaries for analysis. The scope of a design
activity can be restricted to smaller system boundaries such as individual life cycle stages or process
steps, but this will inherently limit the opportunities for improvement.
3. D Studying the relationship between product materials and related process/distribution components -
systems that transform/transport the product material along the life cycle - is critical towards improving
the product system design.
4. D The breadth of system boundaries depends on the vision of the organization; less responsible firms do not
address environmental issues much beyond the manufacturing domain whereas more ecologically
responsible corporations will address the full product life cycle. The broader perspective may not yield
immediate economic benefits but should lead to long term success.
Multiobjective Analysis
A successful design will satisfy multiple objectives including performance, cost, legal and
environmental requirements. Many design requirements will overlap and reinforce each other while others
conflict and limit design possibilities.
1. D Specifying design requirements for both guiding improvement and evaluating alternatives is a critical to
efficient product design and management. Clearly defined requirements that are both internal and
external to an organization reduce uncertainty in decision making.
2. D Under standing the interactions and conflicts between performance, cost, legal, and environmental
requirements serves to highlight opportunities as well as vulnerabilities. In some cases, environmentally
preferable designs may not be adopted because they do not show a direct cost advantage to the
manufacturer, are not supported by regulations, or do not demonstrate performance advantages.
3. DUnless more specific guidance can be offered through well-established corporate environmental policies
and goals or national environmental policies or goals design teams must rely on. their personal knowledge
and experience to make complex tradeoffs. Tradeoffs often exist among environmental criteria, such as
minimizing waste, energy and emissions as well as between environmental, cost, performance and legal
criteria. Judgment is ultimately required to weight and rank criteria.
D.3
-------
Multistakeholder Participation
The stakeholders that control the life cycle of a product can be considered part of a virtual
organization. Some stakeholders share a common goal for enhancing the overall economic success of the
product, while maximizing their own individual profit. Minimizing life cycle burdens, however, may not be a
priority. Identifying the actors that control the life cycle of a product and their interests is a first step in
achieving better life cycle management of a product.
1. D Harmonizing the often diverse interests of stakeholders (suppliers, manufacturers, customers, waste
managers, regulators, investors) into a product design that is technically, economically, socially and
ecologically feasible/optimal is a fundamental challenge of design.
2. D Partnerships are helpful in implementing changes that affect more than one stage or activity in the life
cycle.
3. D Initiatives to reduce life cycle environmental burdens will be limited in their effectiveness by the degree
to which stakeholders recognize this a common goal for product design and management.
Life Cycle Management
Life cycle management includes all decisions and actions taken by multiple stakeholders which
ultimately determine the environmental profile and sustainability of the product system. Key stakeholders are
users and the public, policy makers/regulators, material and waste processors, suppliers, manufacturers,
investors/shareholders, the service industry, and insurers. The design and management decisions made by the
manufacturer of the end-use product may have the greatest influence over the life cycle environmental profile
of a product system. It is useful to distinguish between environmental management by internal and external
stakeholders. A major challenge for product manufacturers is responding to the diverse interests of external
stakeholder groups.
The environmental management system (EMS) within a corporation is the organizations structure of
responsibilities, policies, practices, and resources for addressing environmental issues. Several voluntary
EMS standards and guidelines have been developed (BS7750, ISO 14,001, GEMI). Although EMS activities
have emphasized proactive measures in addition to regulatory compliance, traditionally these systems have
only addressed the manufacturing domain of the corporation (Marguglio 1991) and did not cover end-of-life
management or material acquisition processing stages.
Life Cycle Development Process
The product development process varies widely depending on the type of product and company and
the design management organization within a company. In general, however, most development processes
incorporate the key activities shown in Figure D-4. For life cycle design this process takes place within the
context of sustainable development and life cycle management.
Sustainable Development
Feedback for next
generation design
improvement and
strategic planning
Life Cycle Management
J
NeedsAnalysis
t
Requirements
:
Design Solutions
$
Implementation
t
Consequences
social welfare
resource depletion
ecosystem & human
health effects
Evaluation occurs
throughout the
development process
Figure D-4. Life Cycle Development Process
D.4
-------
The life cycle design framework emphasizes three important design activities: specifying
requirements to guide design improvements, selecting strategies for reducing environmental burden, and
evaluating design alternatives.
The specification of requirements to guide design and management decisions is a fundamental activity
for any design initiative (Gause and Weinberg 1989). Techniques for assisting development teams in
establishing environmental design criteria have not been widely implemented. A multilayer requirements
matrix has been developed as a tool to identify, organize, and evaluate environmental, cost, performance, legal
and cultural design criteria (Keoleian and Menerey 1993; Keoleian and Menerey 1994; Keoleian, Koch, and
Menerey 1995). DFX or Design for X strategies (Gatenby and Foo 1990) such as design for recyclability,
disassembly, and remanufacturability have been more widely promoted. Life cycle assessment tools for
evaluating product systems (Vigon et al. 1993; Heijungs et al. 1992; Guinee, de Haes, and Huppes 1993;
SETAC 1993b; SETAC 1991) have probably received the most attention in the last two decades. The
practical application of LCA tools by product development engineers, however, is limited (Keoleian and
Menerey 1994; White and Shapiro 1993). It is the refinement and application of these three types of design
and analysis tools that will lead to the most effective implementation of life cycle design and DFE.
Specification of Requirements
Specification of requirements is one of the most critical design functions. Requirements guide
designers in translating needs and environmental objectives into successful designs. Environmental
requirements should focus on minimizing natural resource consumption, energy consumption, waste
generation, and human health risks as well as promoting the sustainability of ecosystems. A primary tool of
life cycle design is the multicriteria matrices for specifying requirements shown in Figure D-5. Other tools for
guiding designers include design checklists and guidelines.
The matrices shown in Figure D-5 allow product development teams to study the interactions and
tradeoffs between environmental, cost, performance and legal requirements. Each matrix is organized by life
cycle stages and product system components. Elements can then be described and tracked in as much detail as
necessary. Requirements can include qualitative criteria as well as quantitative metrics.
( Legal ^
r~^ 1 Cost
Product
OUTPUTS
Process
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
Distribution
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
Material
Production
1 Environmental \~\
Manufacture
& Assembly
Use&
Service
End-of-Life
Managemen'
Figure D-5. Multicriteria Requirements Matrix
Design Strategies
Selecting and synthesizing design strategies for meeting the full spectrum of requirements is a major
challenge of life cycle design and management. General strategies for fulfilling environmental requirements
are product oriented (product life extension, remanufacturability, adaptability, serviceability, and reusability);
material oriented (recycling, substitution, dematerialization); process oriented; and distribution oriented
(optimize transportation and packaging). An explanation of each strategy is provided in the Life Cycle Design
Guidance Manual (Keoleian and Menerey 1993).
D.5
-------
Design Evaluation
Analysis and evaluation are required throughout the product development process as well as during
strategic planning by management. Approaches for design evaluation range from comprehensive analysis
tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) to the use of single environmental metrics. LCA tools can be
broadly classified as SETAC related methodologies (Vigon et al. 1993; Heijungs et al. 1992; SETAC 1993b),
semi-quantitative matrix evaluation tools (Graedel, Allenby, and Comrie 1995; Allenby 1991), and other
techniques such as the Environmental Priority Strategies (EPS) system (FSI 1993). If environmental
requirements for the product system are well specified, design alternatives can be checked directly against
these requirements. Several tools for environmental accounting and cost analysis are also emerging (US EPA
1989) (White, Becker, and Goldstein 1992) (US EPA 1995) (SNL 1993). Cost analysis for product
development is often the most influential tool guiding decision making. Key issues of environmental
accounting are: measuring environmental costs, allocating environmental costs to specific cost centers, and
internalizing environmental costs.
In principle, LCA represents the most accurate tool for design evaluation in life cycle design and
DFE. Many methodological problems, however, currently limit LCA's applicability to design (Keoleian
1994). Costs to conduct a LCA can be prohibitive, especially to small firms, and time requirements may not
be compatible with short development cycles (Sullivan and Ehrenfeld 1992) (White and Shapiro 1993).
Although significant progress has been made towards standardizing life cycle inventory analysis, (SETAC
1991) (Heijungs et al. 1992) (Vigon et al. 1993) (SETAC 1993b) results can still vary significantly (Svensson
1992) (Curran 1993). Such discrepancies can be attributed to differences in system boundaries, rules for
allocation of inputs and outputs between product systems, and data availability and quality issues.
Incommensurable data presents another major challenge to LCA and other environmental analysis
tools. A large complex set of inventory data can be overwhelming to designers and managers who often lack
environmental training and expertise. The problem of evaluating environmental data remains inherently
complicated when impacts are expressed in different measuring units (e.g., kilojoules, cancer risks, or
kilograms of solid waste). Furthermore, impact assessment models vary widely in complexity and
uncertainty.
Even if much better assessment tools existed, LCA has inherent limitations in design and
management, because the complete set of environmental effects associated with a product system can not be
evaluated until a design has been specified in detail (Keoleian 1994). This limitation indicates the importance
for requirements matrices, checklists and design guidelines which can be implemented during conceptual
design phases.
D.6
-------
References
Allenby, Braden R. 1991. Design for environment: A
tool whose time has come. SSA Journal, no.
September: 6-9.
Curran, Mary Ann. 1993. Broad-based environmental
life cycle assessment. Environmental
Science and Technology 27, no. 3: 430-436.
FSI. 1993. The Product Ecology Report:
Environmentally-Sound Product
Development Based on the EPS System,
Federation of Swedish Industries,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Gatenby, David A., and George Foo. 1990. Design
for X (DFX): Key to Competitive,
Profitable Products. AT&T Technical
Journal 69, no. 3:2-11.
Gause, Donald G., and Gerald M. Weinberg. 1989.
Requirements: Quality Before Design. New
York: Dorset House.
Graedel, T. E., B. R. Allenby, and P. R. Conine.
1995. Matrix approaches to abridged life
cycle assessment. Environmental Science
and Technology 29,-no. 3: 134-39.
Guinee, J. B., H. A. Udo de Haes, and G. Huppes.
1993. Quantitative life cycle assessment of
products 1: Goal definition and inventory.
Journal of Cleaner Production l,no. 1: 3-
13.
Guinee, Jeroen. B., Reinout Heijungs, Helias. A. Udo
de Haes, and Gjalt. Huppes. 1993.
Quantitative life cycle assessment of
products 2: Classification, valuation and
improvement analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production 1, no. 2: 81-91.
Heijungs, R., J. B. Guinee, G. Huppes, R. M.
Lankreijer, H. A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener
Sleeswijk, A. M. M. Ansems, P. G. Eggels,
R. van Dum, and H. P. de Goede. 1992.
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of
Products - Guide, Center of Environmental
Science, Leiden, Netherlands.
Keoleian, Gregory A. 1994. The application of life
cycle assessment to design. Journal of
Cleaner Production l,no. 3-4: 143-49.
Keoleian, Gregory A., Jonathan Koch, and Dan
Menerey. 1995. Life Cycle Design
Framework and Demonstration Projects:
Profiles ofAT&TandAlliedSignal,
EPA/600/R-95/107. US Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Keoleian, Gregory A., and Dan Menerey. 1993. Life
Cycle Design Guidance Manual:
Environmental Requirements and the
Product System, US EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
1994. Sustainable development by design:
Review of life cycle design and related
approaches. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association 44, no. 5: 645-68.
Marguglio, B. W. 1991. Environmental Management
Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.
SETAC. 1991. Workshop Report-A Technical
Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment
Washington, DC: Society of Environmental
Toxicologists and Chemists.
-. 1993 a. Workshop Report - A Conceptual
Framework for Life-Cycle Impact
Assessment Pensacola, FL: Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
D.7
-------
. 1993b. Workshop Report - Guidelines for
Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice
Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry.
SNL. 1993. Life Cycle Cost Assessment: Integrating
Cost Information into LCA, Project
Summary, Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM.
Sullivan, Michael S., and John R. Ehrenfeld. 1992.
Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts:
An industry survey of emerging tools and
programs. Total Quality Environmental
Management 2, no. 2: 143-57.
Svensson, Goran. 1992. Experience from the
inventory phase of LCA studies. First NOH
European Conference: Design for the
Environment, 1.1.1, 1-8.
US EPA. 1989. Environmental Audit Program
Design Guidelines for Federal Agencies,
EPA/130/4-89/001. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Federal
Activities, Washington, DC.
. 1995. An Introduction to Environmental
Accounting as a Business Management
Tool: Key Concepts and Terms, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Washington, DC.
Vigon, B. W., D. A. Tolle, B. W. Cornary, H. C.
Latham, C. L. Harrison, T. L. Bouguski, R.
G. Hunt, and J. D. Sellers. 1993. Life Cycle
Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and
Principles , EPA/600/R-92/245. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Weitz, Keith A., and John L Warren. 1993. Life Cycle
Impact Assessment: Framework Issues,
Draft, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
White, Allen L., Monica Becker, and James
Goldstein. 1992. Total Cost Assessment:
Accelerating Industrial Pollution Prevention
Through Innovative Project Financial
Analysis, US EPA, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
White, Allen L., and Karen Shapiro. 1993. Life cycle
assessment: A second opinion.
Environmental Science & Technology 27,
no. 6: 1016-17.
D.8
-------
Appendix E
Life Cycle Design Reports
The following list provides reference information for other LCD reports available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS: www.ntis.gov or 800-553-6847) or the EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/ncepi or 800-490-9198).
Report Title
Report Number
Available From
Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual: Environmental
Requirements and the Product System
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design Framework and Demonstration Projects:
Profiles of AT&T and AlliedSignal
full report
Life Cycle Design of Amorphous Silicon Photovoltaic
Modules
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design of Milk and Juice Packaging Systems
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design of a Fuel Tank
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design of Air Intake Manifolds:
Phase I: 2.0 L Ford Contour Air Intake Manifold
Life Cycle Design of Air Intake Manifoldsn
Phase II:.Lower Plenum of the 5.4 L F-250 Airlntaken
Manifold, Including Recycling Scenariosn
full report
EPA/600/R-92/226
PB93-164507AS
EPA/600/SR-92/226
EPA/600/R-95/107
PB 97-193106
EPA600/SR-97/081
PB 98-100423
EPA600/SR-97/082
PB 98-4478561NZ
EPA600/SR-97/118
full report EPA 600/R-99/023
EPA600/R-01/059
EPA
NTIS
EPA
EPA
NTIS
EPA
NTIS
EPA
NTIS
EPA
EPA
EPA
Additional Information
Additional information on life cycle design publications and research can be found on our
website (http://css.snre.umich.edu) under the heading Research.
E.1
------- |