WIRE RND CRBLE IN5ULRTION
RND JRCKETINC: LIFE-CYCLE
RSSESSIVIENTS FOR SELECTED
RPPLICRTIONS
U.S. EPA
-------
-------
EPA 744-R-08-001
May 2008
WIRE AND CABLE INSULATION AND JACKETING:
LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENTS
FOR SELECTED APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Maria Leet Socolof
Jay Smith
David Cooper
Shanika Amarakoon
U.S. EPA
Prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. under contract to USEPA Design for the Environment Program
(Contract No. EP-W-08-010, Work Assignment No. 1-08)
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Disclaimer
This document has not been through a formal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) external peer
review process and does not necessarily reflect all of the most recent policies of the U.S. EPA, in
particular those now under development. The use of specific trade names or the identification of specific
products or processes in this document is not intended to represent an endorsement by EPA or the U.S.
Government. Discussion of environmental statutes is intended for informational purposes only; this is not
an official guidance document and should not be relied upon to determine applicable regulatory
requirements.
For More Information
To learn more about the Design for the Environment (DfE) Wire and Cable Partnership or the DfE
Program, please visit the DfE Program web site at: www.epa.gov/dfe.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Acknowledgements
Abt Associates, Inc. prepared this life-cycle assessment (LCA) under contract to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Design for the Environment (DfE) Program in the Economics, Exposure, and
Technology Division (EETD) of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
This document was produced as part of the DfE Wire and Cable Partnership, under the direction of the
project's Core Group members, including: Kathy Hart, DfE Project Co-Chair, U.S. EPA OPPT, DfE
Branch; Liz Harriman, Project Co-Chair, Toxics Use Reduction Institute; Maria Leet Socolof, David
Cooper, Jay Smith, Shanika Amarakoon, Christopher Guyol, and Brian Segal, Abt Associates, Inc.;
Susan Landry, Albemarle Corporation; Dave Kiddoo, Gary Nedelman, and Troy Brantley, AlphaGary
Corporation; Charlie Glew, Cable Components Group, LLC; Joe Daversa, Chemson, Inc.; Rob
Wessels, CommScope; Ralph Werling and Gary Stanitis, Daikin America, Inc.; Stacy Cashin and
James Hoover, DuPont; Fred Dawson, DuPont Canada; Brenda Hollo and Paul Kroushl, Ferro
Corporation; Dr. Henry Harris, Georgia Gulf; Akshay Trivedi, Judd Wire; Richard Shine, Manitoba
Corporation; Richard H. LaLumondier, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA); Tim
Greiner, Pure Strategies, Inc.; J. Brian McDonald, SGS-US Testing-CTS; Melissa Hockstad, Society
of the Plastics Industry (SPI); Paul Sims, Southwire Company; Stefan Richter, Sud-Chemie, Inc; Dr.
Jim Tyler, Superior Essex; Mike Patel, Chuck Hoover, and David Yopak, Teknor Apex Company;
Scott MacLeod and Steve Galan, Underwriters Laboratories; HJ (Bud) Hall and Frank Borrelli, Vinyl
Institute of the American Plastics Council.
The authors thank Vince Nabholz and James Murphy of EPA's Risk Assessment Division, OPPT, for
their assistance in reviewing and providing health and environmental toxicity information for the project.
The authors would like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of the Abt Associates staff who
assisted the authors, including: Alice Tome for her technical quality review; Van Smith, Emily Connor,
Kavita Macleod, and Sue Greco for their technical support; Suzanne Erfurth for editorial assistance;
and Stefanie Falzone, who assisted with document production.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page intentionally left blank
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table of Contents
Abstract i
Executive Summary iii
CHAPTER 1. SCOPE AND BOUNDARIES 1
1.1 Purpose and Goals 1
1.1.1 Background 1
1.1.2 Purpose 2
1.1.3 Previous research 2
1.1.4 Market trends 5
1.1.5 Need for the project 6
1.1.6 Targeted audience and use of the study 7
1.2 Product Systems 8
1.2.1 Functional unit 8
1.2.2 Cable systems and alternatives 9
1.3 Assessment Boundaries 11
1.3.1 Life-cycle assessment (LCA) 11
1.3.2 Life-cycle stages and unit processes 13
1.3.3 Spatial and temporal boundaries 14
1.3.4 General exclusions 14
1.3.5 Impact categories 15
1.4 Data Collection Scope 15
1.4.1 Data categories 15
1.4.2 Decision rules 17
1.4.3 Data collection and data sources 17
1.4.4 Allocation procedures 18
1.4.5 Data management and analysis software 18
1.4.6 Data quality 19
1.4.7 Critical review 19
CHAPTER 2 LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY 21
2.1 Upstream Materials Extraction & Processing Life-Cycle Stages 21
2.1.1 Materials selection 21
2.1.2 Data collection 27
2.1.2.1 Resin manufacturing 27
2.1.2.2 Plasticizer manufacturing 29
2.1.2.3 Flame-retardant manufacturing 30
2.1.2.4 Heat stabilizer manufacturing 31
2.1.2.5 Fillers 32
2.1.2.6 Fuels and process materials 32
2.1.3 Limitations and uncertainties 32
2.2 Manufacturing Life-Cycle Stage 34
2.2.1 Data collection 34
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2.2.2 Telecommunications cables 35
2.2.2.1 Compounding 36
2.2.2.2 Crossweb manufacturing 37
2.2.2.3 Cable manufacturing 37
2.2.3 Low-voltage power cables 38
2.2.3.1 Compounding 39
2.2.3.2 Cable manufacturing 40
2.2.4 Data collection summary 41
2.2.5 Limitations and uncertainties 41
2.3 Use Life-Cycle Stage 42
2.3.1 Installation 42
2.3.2 Use, maintenance, and repair 42
2.3.3 Reuse 43
2.3.4 Limitations and uncertainties 43
2.4 End-Of-Life 43
2.4.1 Background 43
2.4.2 Materials Recovery 44
2.4.2.1 Copper 44
2.4.2.2 Polymer fraction 44
2.4.3 Regulations covering EOL communications and building cables 46
2.4.3.1 Abandoned cable provision of National Electrical Code (NEC) 46
2.4.3.2 Basel Convention 47
2.4.3.3 Landfill restrictions 47
2.4.4 EOL disposition options 47
2.4.4.1 Recycling 48
2.4.4.2 Waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration 51
2.4.4.3 Landfilling 52
2.4.4.4 Fire scenario 52
2.4.5 LCI Methodology 52
2.4.5.1 Distribution Estimates of EOL 52
2.4.5.2 EOL Inventory for Disposition Options 55
2.4.5.3 Limitations and Uncertainties 56
2.5 LCI Summary 57
2.5.1 CMRLCIs 57
2.5.2 CMPLCIs 64
2.5.3 NM-BLCIs 69
Chapter 3 LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 75
3.1 Methodology 75
3.1.1 Classification 76
3.1.2 Characterization 79
3.2 CHARACTERIZATION AND RESULTS 80
3.2.1 Non-renewable Resource Use 81
3.2.1.1 Characterization 81
3.2.1.2 CMR results 81
3.2.1.3 CMP results 83
3.2.1.4 NM-B results 85
3.2.1.5 Limitations and uncertainties 86
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.2 Energy Use 87
3.2.2.1 Characterization 87
3.2.2.2 CMR results 88
3.2.2.3 CMP results 89
3.2.2.4 NM-B results 91
3.2.2.5 Limitations and uncertainties 92
3.2.3 Landfill Space Use Impacts 93
3.2.3.1 Characterization 93
3.2.3.2 CMR results 94
3.2.3.3 CMP results 95
3.2.3.4 NM-B results 97
3.2.3.5 Limitations and uncertainties 98
3.2.4 Global Warming Impacts 99
3.2.4.1 Characterization 99
3.2.4.2 CMR results 99
3.2.4.3 CMP results 101
3.2.4.4 NM-B results 103
3.2.4.5 Limitations and uncertainties 104
3.2.5 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts 104
3.2.5.1 Characterization 104
3.2.5.2 CMR results 105
3.2.5.3 CMP results 106
3.2.5.4 NM-B results 108
3.2.5.5 Limitations and uncertainties 110
3.2.6 Photochemical Smog Impacts 110
3.2.6.1 Characterization 110
3.2.6.2 CMR results 111
3.2.6.3 CMP results 113
3.2.6.4 NM-B results 114
3.2.6.5 Limitations and uncertainties 116
3.2.7 Acidification Impacts 116
3.2.7.1 Characterization 116
3.2.7.2 CMR results 117
3.2.7.3 CMP results 118
3.2.7.4 NM-B results 120
3.2.7.5 Limitations and uncertainties 122
3.2.8 Air Particulate Impacts 122
3.2.8.1 Characterization 122
3.2.8.2 CMR results 123
3.2.8.3 CMP results 124
3.2.8.4 NM-B results 126
3.2.8.5 Limitations and uncertainties 128
3.2.9 Water Quality (Eutrophication) Impacts 128
3.2.9.1 Characterization 128
3.2.9.2 CMR results 129
3.2.9.3 CMP results 130
3.2.9.4 NM-B results 132
3.2.9.5 Limitations and uncertainties 133
3.2.10 Occupational Toxicity Impacts 133
3.2.10.1 Characterization 134
3.2.10.2 CMR results 137
in
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.10.3 CMP results 140
3.2.10.4 NM-B results 144
3.2.10.5 Limitations and uncertainties 147
3.2.11 Public Toxicity Impacts 149
3.2.11.1 Characterization 149
3.2.11.2 CMR results 150
3.2.11.3 CMP results 154
3.2.11.4 NM-B results 157
3.2.11.5 Limitations and uncertainties 161
3.2.12 Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts 162
3.2.12.1 Characterization 162
3.2.12.2 CMR results 164
3.2.12.3 CMP results 165
3.2.12.4 NM-B results 167
3.2.12.5 Limitations and uncertainties 169
3.3 Summary of Life-Cycle Impact Analysis Characterization 169
3.3.1 Impact Score Equations 170
3.3.2 LCIA Data Sources and Data Quality 172
3.3.3 General LCIA methodology limitations and uncertainties 173
3.4 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses 174
3.4.1 Uncertainty Analysis 174
3.4.1.1 Methodology 174
3.4.1.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results 175
3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis 178
CHAPTER 4 SUM MARY OF RESULTS 179
4.1 CMR Results Summary 179
4.2 CMP Results Summary 182
4.4 NM-B Results Summary 185
CHAPTERS CONCLUSIONS 187
5.1 General Conclusions 187
5.1.1 Materials 187
5.1.2 Energy Sources 189
5.1.3 EOL 190
5.2 Opportunities for Improvement 190
5.2.1 Materials 191
5.2.2 Energy Sources 192
5.2.3 EOL 192
5.3 Limitations and Uncertainties 192
5.4 Recommendations for Further Research 193
Appendix A: Data Forms (Manufacturing and EOL) 203
Appendix B: Fire Scenario: Estimation of Frequency of Structure Fires in Buildings
Containing CMR / CMP Cables and NM-B Cables 221
IV
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix C: Waste Densities 225
Appendix D: Equivalency Factors 229
Appendix E: Supporting Toxicity Data for the Wire and Cable Partnership 243
Appendix E-1: Toxicity Data Collection 243
Appendix E-2: Toxicity Data Used in Hazard Value Calculations 249
Appendix E-3: Geometric Means Used in Hazard Value Calculations 275
Appendix E-4: Example Toxicity Calculation 277
APPENDIX F: Review Statement 281
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACC American Chemistry Council
AP acidification potentials
APME Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (now PlasticsEurope)
ATH Aluminum trihydrate
ATO antimony trioxide
AWG American Wire Gauge
BIR Bureau of International Recycling
BOD biological oxygen demand
BOM bills of materials
BUWAL Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape
C&D construction and demolition
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CEREMAP Center for Research into Plastic Materials
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CHAMP Chain Management of Materials and Products
CHEMS-1 Chemical Hazard Evaluation Management Strategies
CMP plenum-rated communication wire
CMR riser-rated communication wire
DEHP di-2-ethylhexylphthalate
DfE Design for the Environment
DFIHS Department of Health and Human Services
DIDP diisodecyl phthalate
DINP diisononyl phthalate
OOP dioctylphthalate
DQI data quality indicators
EOL end-of-life
EP eutrophication potential
EVA ethylene vinyl acetate
FCM Farrell Continuous Mixer
FEP fluorinated ethylene propylene
FRPE flame retardant polyethylene
GWP global warming potential
HAZMAT hazardous materials
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HFP hexafluoropropylene
HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank
HV hazard value
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICEA Insulated Cable Engineers Association
TIA/EIA Telecommunications Industry Association/Electronics Industry Alliance
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
VI
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LC limited combustible
LCA life-cycle assessment
LCI life-cycle inventory
LCIA life-cycle impact analysis
LNG liquefied natural gas
LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level
LSF low smoke and flame
ME&P material extraction and processing
MITI Ministry of International Trade and Industry
MJ megajoule
MSW municipal solid waste
NEC National Electrical Code
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NM-B non-metallic sheathed low-voltage power cable
NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level
NOEC no-observed-effect concentration
NOEL no-observed-effect level
NRR non-renewable resource
OD ozone depletion
ODP ozone depletion potential
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
PAN phthalic anhydride
PCB printed circuit board
PE polyethylene
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFP Perfluoropolymer
PM particulate matter
POCP Photochemical oxidant creation potential
POP persistent organic pollutants
POTW publicly-owned treatment works
Prop65 California Proposition 65
PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene
PVC polyvinyl chloride
PVDF polyvinylidene fluoride
QSAR quantitative structure-activity relationship
RAIS Risk Assessment Information System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances
RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
SAR structure-activity relationship
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SF slope factor
vn
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
TFE
TRI
TSP
TSS
TURI
UL
UTP
VOC
WCP
WOE
WTE
tetrafluoroethylene
Toxics Release Inventory
total suspended participates
total suspended solids
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
unshielded twisted pair
volatile organic compounds
Wire and Cable Project
weight of evidence
Waste-to-energy
Vlll
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Abstract
This report presents comparative environmental life-cycle assessment (LCA) results, pursuant to
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040, for resin systems with alternative heat
stabilizer formulations used in Category 6, riser-rated communication cable (CMR); Category 6, plenum-
rated communication cable (CMP); and non-metallic-sheathed low-voltage cable (NM-B). Based on
primary and secondary data that span the wire and cable life-cycle stages from upstream material
extraction and processing to the product end-of-life (EOL), this report presents impact results for 14
environmental and human health categories. Monte Carlo-based uncertainty analyses, which attempt to
model the major sources of uncertainty in the wire and cable life cycle, are presented, along with
sensitivity analyses that investigate the proportion of impact category uncertainty attributable to each
source.
For all three classes of cable, upstream material production and use, generation of electricity, and
the recycling or disposal of used cable at the EOL (the last only being applicable to CMR and CMP) play
important roles in overall environmental burden. Energy use during cable manufacturing and the leaching
of lead from landfills are the most important sources of uncertainty in impact results and, in combination
with the production of insulation and jacketing resins, are the top contributors to nearly all of the impact
categories. Though this analysis does not attempt to present comparative assertions per ISO 14040,
opportunities for improvement of environmental performance in wire and cable products are discussed,
focusing primarily on energy-efficiency and upstream material production.
Due to the presence of lead in the baseline communication cables, the potential public noncancer
and aquatic ecotoxicity impact categories showed the greatest difference in environmental burden
between the baseline and alternative cable constructions. These differences were driven by the EOL
disposition of the cables, particularly landfilling, because a fraction of the lead was assumed to leach from
the landfill into groundwater. Encouraging further recycling of chopped cable resin could potentially
reduce the environmental burden of the baseline cable; however, there are other tradeoffs that would then
need to be considered (e.g., the energy required for the cable chopping process). These conclusions only
apply to communication cables (CMR and CMP), for which EOL was included in the full life-cycle
analysis.
When identifying opportunities for improvement, particularly with respect to communication
cable materials, conclusions must be understood in the context of the comparison defined within the
boundaries of this analysis. For example, the same gauge copper was used in the baseline and alternatives
within a cable type and was thus excluded from the analysis. As energy use is a driver for many of the
impact results, increasing energy efficiency in all parts of the wire and cable life cycles could reduce
many impacts. The sensitivity of impact results is primarily due to producing the energy needed for CMR
and CMP cable extrusion, thus reducing energy inputs during extrusion could lessen the environmental
impacts for all cable types substantially. Cable materials that tend to contribute largely to impacts (in
decreasing order of environmental burden) include lead stabilizers, jacket and insulation resins,
phthalates, and filler materials (e.g., calcined clay, limestone).
Opportunities for improvement also exist in the reduction of the quantities of lead entering the
landfills (while recognizing potential tradeoffs if alternatives are needed to replace the reduced amounts
of lead) or management of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition landfills, by ensuring
that permeation of lead-containing landfill leachate is minimized. EOL disposition choices for wire and
cable products are complicated by the trade-offs inherent in the processes themselves. As mentioned in
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
the preceding paragraph, the sequestration of wire and cable waste by landfilling is not without its source
of hazards; and incineration, while advantageous from a landfill space use perspective, creates airborne
lead emissions, which are problematic from a public health standpoint. Thermoplastic recycling is
energy-intensive and creates new waste streams, which must be landfilled. Thus, the choices are not
straightforward, and depend, among other things, on economic incentives and the value placed on
different environmental burdens.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Design for the Environment (DfE) Program,
the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and wire and cable
industry stakeholders formed a partnership to identify and investigate the environmental impacts of
selected products, processes, and technologies in the wire and cable industry. This EPA-funded Wire and
Cable Project (WCP) is a voluntary, cooperative partnership consisting of individual wire and cable
manufacturers, supply chain members (e.g., additive and resin suppliers), and trade association members.
The wire and cable industry manufactures a wide range of products that support a multitude of
applications. Key functional components of traditional wire and cable insulation and jacketing include
polymer systems, heat stabilizers that may contain lead, and flame retardants. These materials and other
ingredients impart electrical insulation, physical stability, and fire performance properties, but have been
identified as materials of potential environmental concern or as materials for which industry stakeholders
have expressed a desire to identify and evaluate alternatives.
The partnership set out to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of the current standard
material formulations and alternative formulations for heat stabilizers, flame retardants, and polymer
systems for selected wire and cable products. The project partners selected the following different
product types (with defined functionality and specifications) for investigation:
• Category 6, riser-rated communication cable (CMR);
• Category 6, plenum-rated communication cable (CMP); and
• Non-metallic sheathed low-voltage power cable, as used in building wire (NM-B).
The project partners chose these products because together they (1) contain materials common to
many wire and cable applications, (2) typically contain materials for which alternatives are being sought,
and (3) represent a significant share of the wire and cable market.
This report focuses primarily on the comparison of lead-stabilized and lead-free cable
constructions. The CMR and CMP analyses include the full life cycle of the cables. Zero-halogen
constructions of lead-free CMR cables and NM-B cables were analyzed in the WCP project; however, the
data were only sufficient to carry out cradle-to-gate analyses (i.e., life-cycle stages from material
extraction and processing to jacketing and, in the case of NM-B cable, insulation compounding). As there
were no differences identified among flame retardants used within a product type, the comparative
analyses in this project do not include a comparison of alternative flame retardants. The general
constructions of each alternative are presented in Table 1. Note that the comparative analyses conducted
in this study are within a cable type and not among cable types, because CMR, CMP, and NM-B cables
serve different functions and should not be compared in this context.
in
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 1
Insulation and Jacketing Resins of Each Cable Alternative
Cable
Construction
Insulation resin
Jacketing base
resin
Jacketing base
stabilizer materials)
CMRa
Leaded
HDPEC
PVCd
Lead
Lead-free
HDPEC
PVCd
Calcium/
zinc
Zero-halogen
HDPEC
non-PVCf
non-Pbf
Leaded
FEPe
PVCd
Lead
CMPa
Lead-free
FEPe
PVCd
Calcium/
zinc
NM-Bb
Leaded
PVCd
PVCd
Lead
Lead-free
PVCd
PVCd
Calcium/
zinc
Wire conductors are unshielded twisted pairs, 8 conductors in 4 pairs of equal gauge bare copper.
b Wire conductors are 12-gauge, 2-conductor copper with ground wire.
c High-density polyethylene.
d Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is compounded with various additives, including heat stabilizers and flame retardants.
e Fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), a perfluoropolymer, is a copolymer of tetrafluoro-ethylene (TFE) and
hexafluoro-propylene. The most commonly used perfluoropolymer insulators in CMP cable are FEP and MFA (a
copolymer of TFE and perfluoro-methylvinyl-ether); however, the research in this study is based on FEP-insulated
cables only.
Proprietary.
2. Previous Research
Major resins used in CMR, CMP, and NM-B cables include polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-
density polyethylene (HDPE), and fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP). Substantial research has been
conducted on PVC and its life-cycle impacts; however, very little of the work has focused specifically on
the use of PVC in wire and cable applications. The European Union recently completed a study that
presents an overview of the publicly available information on PVC LCAs. Although the study found that
detailed information does exist concerning the PVC life cycle from raw material extraction to PVC
production, it concluded that a potentially relevant gap exists for the wire and cable compounding, use,
and end-of-life (EOL) phases (Baitz et al, 2004). Another LCA was conducted on two cable types:
PVC-insulated and -jacketed cable and polyethylene-insulated and -jacketed cable (Simonson et al.,
2001). This LCA is not specific to the same Category 6 cable constructions types identified for the WCP
analysis; however, some relevant information was gleaned for this study. Finally, although information is
available for the production of polyethylene, no studies detailing its life cycle in wire and cable have been
performed, and little to no life-cycle information is publicly available for FEP.
Lead-based heat stabilizers are added to PVC for wire and cable applications because they
provide long-term thermal stability and electrical resistance, with low water absorption. Without heat
stabilizers, PVC resins begin to degrade by dehydrochlorination at temperatures of 160°C, which is below
the PVC processing temperature (Mizuno et al., 1999). Although lead additives to PVC are cost- and
performance-competitive, they have potential adverse health and environmental effects. In looking at the
life cycle of the lead compounds, releases of lead into the ambient or workplace environment may occur
from the mining or processing of lead, or from recycling or disposing of products containing lead. Lead
is a heavy metal that has been linked to developmental abnormalities in fetuses and children that ingest or
absorb lead, primarily from paints or emissions from leaded gasoline. Small amounts of lead cause
hypertension in adults and permanent mental dysfunction, and the Department of Health and Human
iv
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Services has determined that lead acetate and lead phosphate may reasonably be anticipated to be
carcinogens, based on animal studies. Further, lead is a toxic chemical that persists and bioaccumulates
in the environment (DHHS, 1999). The toxic nature of lead has resulted in efforts around the globe to
reduce its use.
In a study by DuPont, copper wire was found to be the largest single contributor to most
environmental impact categories for CMR and CMP cables (Krieger et al., 2007). However, the amount
of copper wire is constant across the alternatives analyzed (e.g., the mass of copper in a length of CMR
baseline cable is the same as in the CMR lead-free alternative). Because the WCP partnership focuses on
materials and processes that might be substantially different among cable alternatives, copper wire was
not included in the assessments, and the Krieger et al. results are not germane to the analyses in the WCP
study.
Comprehensive information about life-cycle impacts and risks of both the standard (lead-based)
and alternative materials used in functionally equivalent cable alternatives is needed to assist the wire and
cable industry in identifying formulations that have the least impact on health and the environment, while
still meeting cost and performance goals (cost and performance testing were not included in this study;
however, alternatives were compared on functionally equivalent bases).
3. Methodology
The analysis in this report was conducted consistent with the ISO 14040 series, which stipulates
four phases of an LCA: goal definition and scoping, life-cycle inventory (LCI), life-cycle impact
assessment (LCIA), and interpretation. This study conducts the first three phases and part of the
interpretation phase. Interpretation includes analyses of major contributions, sensitivity analyses, and
uncertainty analyses, as necessary to determine if the goals and scope are met. However, conclusions as
to selecting an alternative or making recommendations are left to users as such conclusions can depend on
subjective methods of interpreting the data. Further, no comparative assertions as defined in ISO 14040
are made about the superiority or equivalence of one product versus another. The scope and methods for
the LCI, LCIA, multivariate uncertainty analysis, and sensitivity analysis are summarized below.
3.1 Scope
In a comparative LCA, product systems are evaluated on a functionally equivalent basis. The
functional unit normalizes data based on equivalent use to provide a reference for relating process inputs
and outputs to the inventory and impact assessment across alternatives. The product systems evaluated in
this project are standard lead-based, lead-free, and zero-halogen (in the case of CMR) alternative wire
insulation and cable jacketing formulations, as used in telecommunication installations in the United
States. Each of the cable types is evaluated in separate analyses, because each type serves a different
function. The functional unit for each cable type is the insulation and jacketing used in a linear length of
cable (one kilometer), which would be used to transmit a signal that meets common Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) performance requirements and fire safety specifications for the product types listed in
Table 1. Most telecommunications network cables are expected to achieve a minimum service life of 10
to 15 years; NM-B cables have a service life of 25 to 40 years.
The analyses in this LCA attempt to model industry averages, with a focus on the comparison of
similarly functioning cables. Thus, materials or activities that are similar across alternatives have been
excluded. For example the copper conductor, which is the same gauge wire for both the leaded and lead-
free alternatives within a cable type, is excluded. Also, transportation is assumed to be similar across
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
alternatives, and is also excluded. The geographic focus of the manufacturing data is the United States;
however remaining life-cycle processes cover a global geographic region, as appropriate.
3.2 Life-Cycle Inventory
The LCI tallies the material and energy inputs and the environmental releases throughout the
products' life cycles. LCI data were collected for the following life-cycle stages: materials extraction
and processing ("upstream"), manufacturing, and EOL. Each is described in the following subsections.
The processes included in the life cycle are presented in Figure 1, and the number of primary data sets
collected is presented in Table 2. The LCI data were compiled into the GaBi4 LCA software tool (PE & IKP,
2003) to assist with data organization and LCA analyses.
3.2.1 Upstream
The extraction and processing of the major materials used in manufacturing CMR, CMP, and
NM-B cables are collectively labeled the "upstream" life-cycle stage. The upstream materials that were
included were determined by compiling the bills of materials for each cable alternative from compounders
of jacketing resins and cable extruders/manufacturers (where insulation extrusion, twinning, cabling, and
jacketing extrusion is conducted). Decision rules were employed to select which upstream materials
should be included as processes modeled in the life cycle. Materials that constituted greater than 5
percent by mass were given priority. Materials that constituted between 1 percent and 5 percent were
targeted for inclusion; however, they were given less priority if there was difficulty in obtaining upstream
process data. In addition to these mass decision rules, materials of known or potential environmental
concern were included, as were materials that are unique to a cable and are the basis of the comparison.
For example, the lead-based stabilizers are of environmental concern due to the presence of lead and were
selected for inclusion. In addition, the calcium/zinc-based stabilizers used in the lead-free alternatives
were also included as they are the substitute heat stabilizer material.
Primary or secondary data were collected for most of the materials identified for inclusion using
the decision rules. However, data for a few materials, such as some flame retardants and other fillers in
the compounded PVC jacketing resin were not found. For the CMR baseline cable, 94 percent of the
cable mass is accounted for in the upstream processes, 90 percent for the CMR lead-free alternative, and 7
percent for the CMR zero-halogen alternative. For CMP, 92 percent of the baseline cable construction,
and 92 percent in the lead-free alternative; and for NM-B, 88 percent of the baseline, and 85 percent of
the lead-free alternative were included. FEP and Ca/Zn stabilizers were the only upstream processes
where primary data were collected. Otherwise, secondary data were collected for each of the other
upstream processes indicated in Figure 1.
A variety of secondary data sources were used, including PlasticsEurope for PVC and HDPE data
(Boustead, 2005a; Boustead, 2005b); Ecobilan for phthalate plasticizer data (Ecobilan, 2001); Andersson
et al. for aluminum trihydrate data (Andersson et a/., 2005); and GaBi4 databases (PE & IKP, 2003) for
limestone and calcium fillers, electricity generation, natural gas, light fuel oil, and heavy fuel oil.
Although some data are several years old, they represent materials that have been processed for many
years and thus we assume they are produced using mature technologies that are expected to be
representative of current processes.
Using a high-medium-low scale, the overall inventory for the upstream life-cycle stage was given
a subjective data quality measure of "medium to low" due to the extensive use of secondary data and the
absence of some of the upstream data.
VI
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction and processing
Manufac turing
Ins tallatio n/us e
End-of-Hfe
Materials and energy*
P o lyvmylchloride
Phthalate plasticrzers
Aluminum hydroxide
Calcined clay
Tribasic leadsulfate
Limestone
High density polyethylene
Dibasic leadphthalate
Ca/Zn s tabilize r
P o lyo le fin
Fluorinated ethylene propylene
Electricity
Light fuel oil (#2)
Heavy fuel oil (#6)
Natural gas
Nitrogen
Low dens itypo lyethylene
Antim o ny trio xide
Ins ulatio n/jac ke t
c o mpo unding**
Ins ulatio n &
jac keting
e xtrus io n
Cro s s we b
e xtrus io n
""Specific mate rial and energy pro ces s es vary depending on cable alternative and which downstream proces s they feed into. Listed here
are a 11 the materials for all alternative cable constructions (CMR, CMP , andNM-B).
**Insulation compounding only applicable to NM-B cables in this study.
B o Id proces s es indicate primary data collected.
Figure 1. Generic process flows for all alternatives
Table 2
Number of Primary Data Sets Collected
Process
Upstream:
Insulation resin
Heat stabilizer
Manufacturing:
Crossweb
Compounding
Cable mfg
End-of-life:
Cable chopping
Thermoplastics
recycling
Leaded
0
0
1
3
1
1
1
CMR
Lead-free
0
2
1
2
2
1
1
Zero-halogen
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Leaded
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
CMP
Lead-free
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
Leaded
0
0
N/A
3
1
1
1
NM-B
Lead-free
0
2
N/A
2
0
1
1
Vll
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.2 Manufacturing
Primary data were collected for 3 product/component manufacturing processes: 1) jacketing resin
compounding, 2) crossweb manufacturing, and 3) cable manufacturing, which includes insulation
extrusion, twinning, cabling, and jacketing extrusion. Data from multiple companies were averaged
together for similarly functioning materials or products. In the case of the cable manufacturing process, a
major discrepancy was identified, leading to a large amount of uncertainty, particularly in the energy
requirements for cable manufacturing. Discrepancies in the extrusion energy of leaded versus lead-free
cable were the result of asymmetric cable manufacturer data. The extrusion process for leaded cable
relied on data from only one company, while the process for lead-free manufacturing relied on two data
sets, one of which showed substantially higher energy use. A parameter was included in an uncertainty
analysis that corrected for this discrepancy. Otherwise, where multiple datasets were available, no other
major discrepancies were observed in the data. The analysis of the NM-B life cycle included
compounding processes for jacketing and insulation, while excluding cable extrusion and use. The
analysis of the zero-halogen CMR cable with the two alternatives mentioned above included the cable
jacketing process, while excluding cable extrusion and use.
The inventory data collected included input and output flows. Inputs included materials (primary
product materials and process materials), electricity, fuel and water input flows. Outputs included
products, co-products, air emissions, water emissions, and solid and hazardous waste output flows. Data
for a process were compiled per unit of the material being produced. For example, an input of electricity
to make the crossweb would be reported as a number of megajoules (MJ) per kilogram of crossweb.
When the individual process data are incorporated into the full life-cycle model, the data are all scaled to
the functional unit of one kilometer of cable length. Thus, in the above example, the MJ of energy per
functional unit are scaled by the amount of crossweb needed to produce one kilometer of finished cable.
Manufacturing data were limited because multiple datasets were obtained for only a few
processes, as shown in Table 2. Nonetheless, there are not a large number of manufacturers of these
cables in the United States and those that supplied data likely represent a large market share. The overall
inventory for the manufacturing life-cycle stage was given a subjective data quality measure of
"medium."
After manufacturing, the cables are installed and used for their intended purpose. In this study,
the installation/use phase was not modeled, except to scale the functional unit of cable. No other
materials or activities in the installation/use phase were expected to vary significantly among alternatives
and therefore this phase was not modeled further.
3.2.3 End-of-life
After installation, a cable can reach its EOL either by being consumed in a structure fire,
recycled, landfilled, or incinerated. Probabilities are given to each EOL disposition to model the
possibility of any one of these dispositions occurring. Estimated probabilities of occurrence are not
readily available in the literature for all dispositions. Reliable data were used when available; however, in
the absence of sound data, we employed best professional judgment or simply made midpoint
assumptions within reasonable ranges of data and varied the assumptions in the uncertainty analysis (see
Section 3.4). EOL stages were not included in the formulation of the CMR zero-halogen or NM-B life-
cycle models.
The percentage of cables consumed in a building fire was not easily ascertained. Therefore, we
first calculated the percentage of structures expected to have CMR or CMP cables that are involved in
viii
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
fires based on U.S. Fire Administration data from 2000 and 2005 (USFA, 2000a; USFA, 2000b; USFA,
2005). Since there is not sufficient quantitative information regarding the percent of cable burned in a
fire, in our base analysis we used a default estimate that 10 percent of the cables are actually consumed in
the fire, and varied this estimate in the uncertainty analysis, assuming substantial uncertainty (see Section
3.4). We chose 10 percent as a central estimate because fire protection methods would skew actual burn
percentages toward the lower end. In addition, it should be noted that the percent of CMP cables burned
would likely be lower than the percent of CMR cables burned due to different fire safety standards;
however, they would both be in the range of the uncertainty analysis and, because the CMR is not being
compared to the CMP, it does not affect the analyses in this report.
In our EOL model, the cables that do not end in a fire are consequently recycled, incinerated, or
landfilled. The Bureau of International Recycling estimated that 95 percent of cables are recycled, due to
the high economic value of the copper (Bartley, 2006). For the remaining cables not burned in a fire or
sent to recycling, we assumed they are either landfilled or incinerated. The percentage to landfilling or
incineration was assumed to be the same as the percent of municipal solid waste (MSW) sent to
incineration (19 percent) and landfilling (81 percent) (USEPA, 2005c). Therefore, of all cables not
burned (i.e., removed at EOL), 95 percent would be sent to recycling, 4 percent directly to landfills, and 1
percent directly to incineration. We assumed that cables sent to recycling were chopped, which is the
most common cable recycling technique in the United States. Primary data were collected from one
chopping facility. Once the cables are chopped, copper is sent to a copper smelter for recovery (which is
beyond the scope of this analysis), and the remaining resins are recycled, landfilled, or incinerated. The
percent of chopped resin that is recycled is highly uncertain. A European Commission study completed
in 2000 (Plinke et al., 2000) provides an upper estimate that 20 percent of resin in cables sent for
recycling is sent to thermoplastic recycling.: Our base analysis assumed a mostly arbitrary point of 10
percent of the resins going to thermoplastic recycling. This parameter was then varied in the uncertainty
analysis. We assume that the remainder of the chopped resin is incinerated or landfilled (in the same
MSW proportions described above).
Process data (input and output flows) for the fire, landfilling, and incineration processes were
derived from the inventory data for the PVC cables in the Simonson et al. study (2001), because both the
CMR and CMP cables in this study are PVC-jacketed. Therefore, the HDPE and FEP insulations are not
included; however, for each cable type, the mass of HDPE or FEP insulation used is similar across the
lead and lead-free alternatives, eliminating this as an important limitation. The major differences between
the alternative cable constructions are the lead and lead-free stabilizers. Thus, for the lead-stabilized
alternatives, these inventories were supplemented with estimates on lead outputs, which were absent from
the existing data. Chopping and post-chopping thermoplastic recycling data were collected from primary
data sources.
For the landfilling process, data were lacking on the leachability of lead; however, based on
communication with an expert in leachability testing, we assumed that the percentage of lead leached
from chopped cable is 10 percent, and 1.5 percent for un-chopped leaded cable (which is directly
landfilled after use) (Townsend, 2007). Using these estimates as direct outputs to water from the
landfilling process would assume complete failure of any landfill leachate system. Based on the
uncertainty of the leachate estimate and the unknown failure rate of landfill linings, the leachate estimate
1 Note that this estimate is from a historical point in time (2000) and other factors such as different recycling rates,
international shipping of wires and cables, and the introduction of new technologies since the study was done could
affect the accuracy of this bounding estimate.
IX
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
for the base calculations is assumed to be 50 percent of the above estimated leachate percentages, and this
50 percent estimate is varied in the uncertainty analysis.
The major limitations of the EOL LCI are the use of secondary inventory data for the fire,
landfilling, and incineration processes, which are based on PVC cables, and the uncertainty in the
percentage estimates of EOL cables going to the various EOL dispositions. Thus, the disposition
percentage estimates are included in the uncertainty analysis; and the overall EOL inventory is given a
subjective data quality measure of "low."
3.3 Life-Cycle Impact Assessment
The mandatory elements of an LCIA, as outlined in ISO 14042 and incorporated into this study,
include selecting impact categories, classifying the inventory into appropriate impact categories, and
characterizing the impacts of each category (i.e., calculation of category indicator results). This LCIA
presents comparative impacts of alternative cable constructions for 14 impact categories. Three
categories are direct loading measures of the inventory: non-renewable resource use, energy use, and
particulate matter impacts. One impact category converts the inventory mass of waste to be landfilled
into the volume of landfill space used (note this excludes materials such as mining overburden and
tailings, which are not deposited into landfills, yet do occupy land space). Five impact categories use
equivalency factors to translate relevant inventory flows into impacts: global warming, stratospheric
ozone depletion, photochemical smog, air acidification, and water eutrophication. There are five toxicity
categories that use hazard values as relative scoring of the inherent toxicity of a material. We included
four human health toxicity categories, which consider occupational and public receptors and are
calculated for both cancer and chronic non-cancer impacts. The fifth toxicity category is aquatic
ecotoxicity. The units for each category are presented with the results in Section 4 of this Executive
Summary.
The equivalency factors used for calculating impacts come from a variety of published sources
(Geibig and Socolof, 2005). Hazard values (HV) are calculated for the toxicity categories based on the
methods developed for and reviewed by EPA for a previous DfE LCA (Geibig and Socolof, 2005). These
methods are arevised version of earlier methods (Swanson etal., 1997; Socolof et al., 2001; Socolof et al.,
2000).
The HV method is based on developing relative scores for potentially toxic materials. First, toxicity
data are collected for the chemicals of interest for specific endpoints, depending on the impact category. For
cancer impacts, the toxicity data are either slope factors that provide the probabilities of cancer risks or weight
of evidence measures that give qualitative categories of potential carcinogenesis. For chronic non-cancer
impacts, the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) or the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL)
is used to calculate relative toxicity. The aquatic ecotoxicity category is based on chronic and acute fish
toxicity data (no observed effect concentration [NOEC] and lethal doses to 50 percent of the exposed
population [LC50]). For all materials that cannot be excluded as non-toxic, and for which there are existing
toxicity data, the toxicity value for a chemical or chemical compound is compared to the geometric mean of all
available toxicity values. This provides a relative "hazard value" for each chemical. When chemical toxicity
data are lacking, the chemical is assigned the geometric mean value as a default such that chemicals lacking
data are not ignored. An example of the equation used for chronic non-cancer public toxicity is as follows:
-------
HV =
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
IILOAEL (chemical i)
l/LOAEL (geo mean)
where HV is the hazard value of chemical /' for non-cancer effects.
Since a low LOAEL value indicates high toxicity, the hazard value takes the reciprocal of the LOAEL for
a chemical divided by the reciprocal of the geometric mean of all the collected LOAELs. Thus, the
greater the HV, the greater is the potential toxicity. The HV is then multiplied by the inventory amount
for a chemical classified for a toxicity category, and the indicator results are presented as kilograms of
toxic equivalents. Thus, these categories are consistent with other categories for which increasing
indicator values represent increasing impacts (i.e., environmental burdens).
The public cancer and non-cancer impact categories use output inventory data as surrogates for
exposure, and then apply the hazard value to calculate the indictor. Due to the complexity of the cable
life cycles and the multitude of chemicals in the inventory of the cables, this is a screening-level approach
designed to incorporate as many chemicals as possible. As such, this method does not specifically
incorporate fate and transport of chemicals through the environment. If toxicity impacts are of particular
concern to a stakeholder, further investigation can be targeted based on the initial impact results to help
identify potential relative risks.
Occupational impacts are often not included in LCAs because environmental output data do not
lend themselves well to modeling occupational exposures. However, in order to approximate potential
occupational exposures, we used material inputs as the potential exposure parameter, which are then
multiplied by the appropriate hazard value to calculate the indicator results. The major limitation to this
approach is that the inputs depend on the upstream boundaries of the datasets used to build the LCA (i.e.,
which inputs are included), making asymmetric dataset comparisons problematic. Accordingly, we have
tried to minimize the impact of asymmetric datasets by excluding certain material flows from this impact
category. Despite its weaknesses, the information gleaned from the occupational toxicity impact
categories outweighs the potential drawbacks of the method, and users of the results from this LCA have
been alerted to the low data quality of the occupational toxicity impact categories.
Final LCIA results for each impact category are the sum of all indicators for all materials in
each life-cycle process that are classified into the appropriate impact category. Indicator results are
then compared across functionally equivalent alternatives of a cable type (e.g., CMR leaded versus
CMR lead-free cable).
3.4 Monte Carlo-Based Uncertainty Analysis
Monte Carlo methods were used to examine the contribution of uncertainty in various life-cycle
processes to each impact category result. A built-in Monte Carlo function found in the GaBi4 software
package (PE & IKP, 2003) was used to generate probabilistic impact category results. Four parameters
within the life-cycle processes were chosen as highly uncertain and were modeled as uniform
distributions. Uniform distributions were chosen in this case because they allow parameters to assume
extreme bounds without presuming any more knowledge about the actual parameter distribution. The
majority of the parameters selected as highly uncertain came from EOL processes.
The parameter representing the percentage of cable consumed in fire was selected as highly
uncertain due to the lack of information about building cable burned in fire. As mentioned before, the
frequency of fires in buildings containing the cables of interest was known, thus the natural extreme
bounds were that anywhere from 0 percent to 100 percent of the cable contained in these buildings would
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
burn in the fire (equivalent to 0-1.1 percent of all cable installed). However, we chose 10 percent as a
central estimate because fire protection methods would skew actual burn percentages toward the lower
end, and bounded the distribution at 0 and 20 percent. The percentage of cable resins going to recycling
was another source of substantial uncertainty in the end-of-life. Using the European-based upper
estimate, the expected extreme bounds of 0 percent and 20 percent of the chopped cable resins being
recycled were chosen. As described earlier, the parameter representing the percentage of lead leached
into the ground assumed that 0-100 percent of the leachate would ultimately escape any landfill lining and
leachate collection system (equivalent to 0-1.5 percent of total lead escaping for cable directly landfilled
or equivalent to 0-10 percent of total lead escaping for cable resins landfilled after chopping). The final
uncertainty distribution represented a data discrepancy for extruding energy data. Inconsistent and highly
divergent energy values led to high uncertainty for the extruding data. Thus, the range of the data sets
collected as primary data for the lead-free cable were used to set the bounds of the uncertainty analysis,
given that none of the data could be identified as anomalous. Because the leaded cable pulled energy use
values from only one data set, a proxy data set that produced an equivalent uncertainty range in extrusion
energy use was incorporated. A uniform distribution was used to bound the energy used in the leaded and
lead-free cable extrusion inventories.
In the Monte Carlo analysis, the variables described above were run simultaneously, to observe
the distribution of the total LCIA indicator results given the ranges of uncertainties. Five thousand
simulations were run to generate a mean of the LCIA indicator results and various percentile ranges
around the mean.
3.5 Sensitivity Analysis
The range of results from the Monte Carlo analysis comes from the concurrent variation of four
parameters (percent of cables burned in fire, percent of plastics recycled, lead leachability, and extrusion
energy use). Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was necessary to assess the magnitude of each parameter's
contribution. A built-in sensitivity analysis function from the GaBi4 software was used to determine the
amount of variance in each impact category attributable to each of the dynamic parameters.
4. Results
4.1 CMR
The LCIA indicator results for the CMR leaded and lead-free cables are given in Table 3. Impact
point estimates from the modeled life cycles are given, along with a descriptive statistic describing
distribution overlap generated from the Monte Carlo-based uncertainty analysis. The point estimates are
generated using the most probable values of all model inputs, or a midpoint default value when adequate
information was lacking to determine the most probable value of a particular parameter.
The results given in Table 3 are intended to show the relative difference between alternatives for
each impact category, but are not intended to compare the significance of impact categories to one
another. Simply because one impact category has a greater difference between alternatives does not
indicate that its impacts are greater or more significant than those of another impact category. Likewise, a
large difference in impacts within a particular category does not indicate significance of the impacts.
Indicator results would need to be normalized to some reference point to determine if the relative
difference shown in the graph represents some type of significance.
Xll
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 3
CMR LCIA Results - Full life-cycle: Baseline and Lead-free.
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. noncancer
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Baseline
Impact
Indicator
142
2070
0.0166
90.3
5.91 E-06
0.125
0.731
0.0782
0.00902
71.8
3.53
1460
0.834
17.5
Pb-free
Impact Percent
Indicator Change
121
1970
0.0181
83.5
4.95E-06
0.134
0.678
0.0815
0.00756
77.6
3.69
279
0.837
0.113
-1 5%
-5%
9%
-8%
-16%
7%
-7%
4%
-16%
8%
5%
-81%
0.3%
-99%
Quality
Rating
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M-L
M
M-L
M
Possible
Signif.
Diff.a
Y
Y
Y
Y
"Y" indicates the alternatives were significantly different at 80 percent confidence (this confidence interval was used
as it was part of a built-in program in GaBi4).
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; equiv. =
equivalents; Signif. Diff. = significant difference.
The point estimates from the deterministic impact analyses give a mix of results. The leaded
cable has lower impact indicators than the lead-free (see Table 3) in landfill space use, photochemical
smog formation, particulate matter emissions, potential occupational non-cancer and cancer toxicity, and
potential public cancer toxicity. The lead-free cable has lower impact indicators in non-renewable
resource use, energy use, global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, air acidification,
eutrophication potential, potential public non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity.
However, comparing the probabilistic impact results of the leaded and lead-free CMR cables, it is
clear that many of the lO^-QO* percentile ranges overlap. This is the case for all of the impact categories
except potential public non-cancer toxicity and aquatic toxicity for which the lead-free cable generates
lower impact indicators, and potential occupational cancer and non-cancer for which the leaded cable
generates lower impact indicators. The overlap of a number of impact results emphasizes that accurately
specified parameter uncertainty should play a significant role in the interpretation of life-cycle impact
analyses.
The results from the uncertainty analysis show substantial variability in a number of the impact
categories (not reported in Table 3). For the leaded cable results, the categories with high variability were
non-renewable resource use, public chronic non-cancer toxicity, aquatic ecotoxicity, ozone depletion
potential, and eutrophication potential, whose standard deviations were 22 percent, 35 percent, 47 percent,
29 percent, and 27 percent of their means, respectively. For the lead-free cables, the results also show
substantial variability in a number of impacts: non-renewable resources (standard deviation = 20
xni
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
percent), aquatic ecotoxicity (standard deviation = 22 percent), ozone depletion potential (standard
deviation = 27 percent), and eutrophication potential (standard deviation = 25 percent).
When interpreting the results, it is also important to consider the underlying data quality. Overall
subjective data quality measures are given to each impact category based on the inventory data (e.g.,
primary versus secondary data), and impact characterization methods (e.g., availability of toxicity data).
For CMR cables, a "medium" data quality measure is assigned to the following impact categories: non-
renewable resources, energy, landfill space, public global warming, photochemical smog, air
acidification, particulate matter, water eutrophication, potential occupational chronic non-cancer toxicity,
and potential aquatic ecotoxicity. Potential public and occupational cancer toxicity are given a "medium
to low" rating, given that most inventory flows contributing to potential cancer toxicity did not have
cancer toxicity data and were thus based on default hazard values. Ozone depletion is given a "low"
rating based on the lack of upstream data regarding brominated ozone depleting compounds likely
generated during the production of brominated phthalate materials.
As shown in Table 4, the top contributing process for half of all impact category results for the
CMR cable alternatives was the generation of electricity (needed to power the cable extrusion process in
the cable manufacturing life-cycle stage). Electricity generation was the top process in the baseline cable
case for 6 categories: non-renewable resource use, energy use, global warming, ozone depletion, air
acidification, and eutrophication. For the lead-free cable alternative, the generation of electricity for cable
extrusion was the top contributing process for the same 6 impact categories, plus the potential public non-
cancer toxicity and potential aquatic toxicity impact categories. Jacketing resin production was the top
contributing process for photochemical smog formation, air particulates, and potential public cancer
toxicity for both cable alternatives. Municipal solid waste landfilling was the top contributing process to
potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity in the baseline case. Lead from
landfilling was the top flow contributing to potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic
ecotoxicity. Finally, the compounding of the jacketing was the top contributing process to the potential
occupational non-cancer and cancer toxicity impact categories for both cable alternatives. This helps
identify potential areas of environmental improvement; however, it must be noted that these results are in
the context of the comparison of resin systems and their additives, so focusing on top contributors
identified here does not provide the complete impacts from the entire cable (e.g., the copper conductor is
excluded).
The partial life-cycle comparison of CMR zero-halogen cable to the two other alternatives
presented above is not presented in detail here, as only very limited data were available on both the
upstream and manufacturing stages. The point estimates from the deterministic impact analyses show
that the cradle-to-gate life cycle of the zero-halogen alternative yields greater impacts in all categories
except for occupational non-cancer than the baseline and lead-free cases. This is due to its far greater use
of energy during the compounding of the cable jacketing.
xiv
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 4
CMR Summary of Top Contributors to LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-
free.
Impact
Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone
depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancer
Pot. occ.
cancer
Pot. public
noncancer
Pot. public
cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Baseline
Top Process
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
MSW landfill
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
MSW landfill
Jacketing resin
production
MSW landfill
Top Flow
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC waste
Carbon dioxide
CFC11
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR #2 (non-
halogen)3
Phthalatesb
Lead (water)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Lead
Pb-free
Top Process
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
MSW landfill
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Top flow
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC waste
Carbon dioxide
CFC11
VOC
(unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR #2 (non-
halogen)3
Phthalatesb
Sulfur dioxide
(air)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Chlorine
(dissolved)
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; PVC =
polyvinyl chloride; MSW= municipal solid waste; CFC = chlorofluorocarbon; VOC = volatile organic compound; FR =
flame retardant.
a Proprietary.
b To calculate impact results, these flows were given default toxicity hazard values due to lack of toxicological data.
4.2 CMP
The LCIA results for the CMP leaded and non-leaded cables are given in Table 5. Impact point
estimates from the modeled life cycles are given, along with a descriptive statistic describing distribution
overlap generated from the Monte Carlo-based uncertainty analysis. The point estimates are generated
using the most probable values of all model inputs, or a midpoint default value where adequate
information was lacking to determine the most probable value of a particular parameter.
xv
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 5
CMP LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-free
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. noncancerb
Pot. occ. cancer b
Pot. public noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Baseline
Impact
Indicator
237
3770
0.0132
181
0.00116
0.0886
0.877
0.0746
0.0125
49.2
2.16
952
0.735
8.64
Pb-free
Impact
Indicator
219
3570
0.0144
171
0.00110
0.0868
0.819
0.0726
0.0114
46.8
2.22
358
0.701
0.151
Percent
Change
^8%
^5%
9%
-5%
^5%
-2%
-7%
^3%
-9%
-5%
3%
-62%
^5%
^98%
Quality
Rating
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M-L
M
M-L
M
Possible
Signif.
Diff.a
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
a "Y" indicates the alternatives were significantly different at 80 percent confidence (this confidence interval was used
as it was part of a built-in program in GaBi4).
b FEP production, which came from 2 primary datasets, was modeled with 2 industrial precursor chemicals functioning
as inputs; production of PVC, the other major resin used in CMP cables, and which came from a secondary dataset,
was modeled as if all of the materials came from ground (mining of inert or low-toxicity inputs), and did not explicitly
include industrial precursor chemicals. In order to be more consistent across resins, the contributions from industrial
precursor chemicals in the FEP supply chain were removed prior to calculation of the potential occupational toxicity
results.
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; equiv. =
equivalents; Signif. Diff = significant difference.
Comparison of the point estimates from the CMP leaded and lead-free deterministic impact
analyses yielded slightly different results to those found in the CMR analysis (Table 4). According to the
point estimates, the lead-free cable had lower impact indicators (i.e., less environmental burden) in all of the
categories except for the use of landfill space and potential occupational cancer toxicity.
Similar to the CMR results, only a few impact categories did not have overlapping 10th-90th
percentile ranges: ozone depletion, potential occupational non-cancer and cancer toxicity, potential
public chronic non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity. This suggests greater certainty that
observed differences between the alternatives are real for those five categories. Non-renewable resource
use, energy use, landfill space use, global warming potential, photochemical smog potential, air
acidification potential, eutrophication potential, particulate matter emissions, and potential public cancer
toxicity all exhibit overlap. Thus, there is less certainty that the lead-free cable is substantially different
from the leaded cable for these impact categories.
The CMP leaded cable results show less relative variability (i.e., standard deviation normalized
by the mean value) than those of the CMR leaded cable overall (not shown in Table 4). However, the
potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity indicators still display
xvi
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
substantial variability (standard deviations are 27 percent and 47 percent of their means, respectively).
For the CMP lead-free cable, results show substantially less relative variability than those of the CMR
lead-free cable, with no impact indicators' standard deviations exceeding 20 percent of their mean.
As described for CMR results, a "medium" data quality measure for CMP results is assigned to
the following impact categories: non-renewable resources, energy, landfill space, public global warming,
photochemical smog, air acidification, particulate matter, water eutrophication, potential occupational
chronic non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity. Potential public and occupational cancer
toxicity are given a "medium to low" rating, given that most inventory flows contributing to potential
cancer toxicity did not have cancer toxicity data, and were thus based on default hazard values. Ozone
depletion is given a "low" rating based on the lack of upstream data regarding brominated ozone-depleting
compounds likely generated during the production of brominated phthalate materials.
Table 6 shows the generation of electricity was the top contributor to the following five impact
categories for the lead-free cable: non-renewable resources, air acidification, and eutrophication,
potential public non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity impact categories. For the baseline
cable, electricity generation was top contributor to three impact categories: non-renewable resources, air
acidification, and eutrophication. For both CMP cable alternatives, the production of insulation resin
(FEP) and jacketing resin (PVC), were each top contributors to three impact categories. FEP production
was top contributor for both alternatives in energy use, global warming, and ozone depletion. PVC
production was top contributor for both alternatives in photochemical smog, particulate matter, and
potential public cancer toxicity. For the baseline CMP cable, the top contributing process to potential
public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity was municipal solid waste landfilling. For
both of these categories, the top material flow contributor was lead assumed to leach from the landfill into
groundwater. For both cable alternatives, the municipal solid waste landfilling process also dominated
the landfill space use impact category. This information helps identify potential areas of environmental
improvement; however, it must be noted that these results are in the context of the comparison of resin
systems and their additives, so focusing on top contributors identified here does not provide the complete
impacts from the entire cable (e.g., the copper conductor is excluded).
4.3 NM-B
The LCIA results for the NM-B leaded and non-leaded cables are given in Table 7. The statistic
indicating overlap of the 10th to 90th percentile range is not shown, as no uncertainty analysis was deemed
necessary for the NM-B cable.
Comparison of the point estimates from the leaded and lead-free deterministic impact analyses for
NM-B cable yielded similar results to those of CMP. According to the point estimates, the lead-free cable
had lower impact indicators (i.e., less environmental burden) in all of the categories except for
occupational non-cancer toxicity and photochemical smog. The latter had no change.
XVII
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 6
CMP Summary of Top Contributors to LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-
free.
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Particulate matter
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancerc
Pot. occ. cancer0
Pot. public
noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Baseline
Top process Top flow
Electricity generation
Insulation resin
production
MSW landfill
Insulation resin
production
Insulation resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Natural gas
production
Jacketing
compounding
MSW landfill
Jacketing resin
production
MSW landfill
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC Waste
Carbon dioxide
Refrigerant #5a
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
Natural gasb
Flame retardant #3b
Lead (water)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Lead
Pb-free
Top Process Top flow
Electricity generation
Insulation resin
production
MSW landfill
Insulation resin
production
Insulation resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Natural gas
production
Jacketing
compounding
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC Waste
Carbon dioxide
Refrigerant #5a
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
Natural gasb
Flame retardant #3b
Sulfur dioxide (air)
Nitrogen oxides (air)b
Chlorine (dissolved)
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; PVC =
polyvinyl chloride; MSW= municipal solid waste; HCFC = hydrochlorofluorocarbon; VOC = volatile organic
compound.
a Proprietary.
b To calculate impact results, these flows were given default toxicity hazard values due to lack of toxicological data.
c FEP production, which came from 2 primary datasets, was modeled with 2 industrial precursor chemicals functioning
as inputs; production of PVC, the other major resin used in CMP cables, and which came from a secondary dataset,
was modeled as if all of the materials came from ground (mining of inert or low-toxicity inputs), and did not explicitly
include industrial precursor chemicals. In order to be more consistent across resins, the contributions from industrial
precursor chemicals in the FEP supply chain were removed prior to calculation of the potential occupational toxicity
results.
xvin
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 7
NM-B Results - Partial life cycle: Baseline and Lead-Free
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. noncancer
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Baseline
Impact
Indicator
70.6
1530
0.00251
52.2
9.79E-07
0.119
0.479
0.0862
0.00169
20.0
8.23
189
0.828
0.0894
Pb-free
Impact
Indicator
59.7
1440
0.00221
48.3
6.61 E-07
0.119
0.449
0.0759
0.00135
26.7
7.08
171
0.798
0.0626
Percent Quality
Change Rating
1^"> M
•'?'•••• M
ij-v, M-L
•!'•'••• M
~"j^ L
•:>•<-• M
•'?'•••• M
-\2 *, M
lu-v. M
33% M
i H-, M-L
~i^v- M
- '•'••• M-L
M
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity.
As in the CMR and CMP results, a "medium" data quality measure for NM-B results is assigned
to the following impact categories: non-renewable resources, energy, landfill space, public global
warming, photochemical smog, air acidification, particulate matter, water eutrophication, potential
occupational chronic non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity. Potential public and
occupational cancer toxicity are given a "medium to low" rating, given that most inventory flows
contributing to potential cancer toxicity did not have cancer toxicity data, and were thus based on default
hazard values. Ozone depletion is given a "low" rating based on the lack of upstream data regarding
brominated ozone-depleting compounds likely generated during the production of brominated phthalate
materials.
In the NM-B analysis, which excludes the extrusion process and subsequent downstream
processes, the production of the jacketing resin, PVC, more often dominated impacts (8 impact
categories), followed by electricity generation from compounding (2 impact categories), then limestone
production (1 category), insulation compounding (1 category), jacketing compounding (1 category), and
phthalate production (1 category) (see Table 8). These results identify processes that could be the focus
of environmental improvement opportunities. However, it must be noted that these results are in the
context of the comparison of resin systems and their additives, so focusing on top contributors identified
here does not provide the complete impacts from the entire cable (e.g., the copper conductor is excluded
from the analysis).
xix
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 8
NM-B Summary of Top Contributors to LCIA Results - Partial life cycle: Baseline and
Lead-free.
Baseline
Pb-free
Impact Category Top process
NRR Jacketing resin
production
Energy Jacketing resin
production
Top flow
Inert rock
Natural gas
Top Process
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Top flow
Natural gas
Natural gas
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Treatment
Limestone production residue (mineral)
Jacketing resin
production Carbon dioxide
Electricity generation CFC-11
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
VOC
(unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Pot. occ.
noncancer
Pot. occ. cancer
Dust
Chemical oxygen
Electricity generation demand
FR #2 (non-
halogen)3
Insulation
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
Pot. public Jacketing resin
noncancer production
Pot. public cancer Jacketing resin
production
Pot. aq. ecotox Phthalate production
Plasticizer#2ab
Sulfur dioxide
(air)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Copper (+1, +2)
Limestone production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Insulation
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Phthalate production
Treatment residue
(mineral)
Carbon dioxide
CFC-11
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR #2 (non-halogen)3
Phthalate plasticizer
#5
a,b
Sulfur dioxide (air)
VOC (unspecified)
(air)b
Copper (+1, +2)
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; CFC =
chlorofluorocarbon; VOC = volatile organic compound; FR = flame retardant.
a Proprietary.
b To calculate impact results, these flows were given default toxicity hazard values due to lack of toxicological data.
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis was used to probe the contributions of each stochastic parameter to
overall impact uncertainty. Results of the analyses for the CMR/CMP baseline versus lead-free
comparisons, shown in Table 9, give the largest contributing parameter along with the percent variance in
the impact result attributable to this dominant parameter.
It is evident from Table 9 that one parameter is responsible for most of the variation in impacts
for each cable type: the energy used for cable extrusion. However, for the CMR and CMP leaded cables,
the uncertainty in the potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity and the potential aquatic ecotoxicity
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
categories are dominated by the landfill leachate parameter, and for all cables, thermoplastic recycling
dominates the landfill space use indicators.
Table 9
Sensitivity Analysis3'13
Impact Category
Non-renewable resources
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air participates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. non-cancer toxicity
Pot. occ. cancer toxicity
Pot. public non-cancer toxicity
Pot. public cancer toxicity
Pot. aq ecotox
CMR
Leaded
E(98)
E (>50)c
TR (63)
E(98)
E(98)
E(99)
E(94)
E(98)
E(98)
E(97)
E(98)
L(83)
E(86)
L(90)
Lead-free
E(98)
E (>50)c
TR (65)
E(97)
E(98)
E(99)
E(92)
E(98)
E(98)
E(96)
E(97)
E(98)
E(96)
E(98)
Leaded
E(98)
E (>50)c
TR (88)
E(99)
E(98)
E(99)
E(92)
E(98)
E(98)
E(96)
E(97)
L(78)
E(90)
L(90)
CMP
Lead-free
E(97)
E (>50)c
TR (86)
E(98)
E(98)
E(99)
E(92)
E(98)
E(98)
E(95)
E(97)
E(97)
E(96)
E(98)
a Results are reported as the dominant parameter (percentage of the overall impact result variance for which it is
responsible).
3 Pot. = poten
J Actual percentage withheld to protect confidentiality.
Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; TR = thermoplastics recycling; L = lead lost from landfill; E = extrusion energy.
5. Summary
Life-cycle impact indicators were calculated for 14 impact categories to compare leaded and lead-
free cable resin constructions for Category 6 CMR, Category 6 CMP, and NM-B cables. Point estimate
results were calculated using aggregated industry data from both primary and secondary data sources,
along with documented estimates or default values for the disposition of cables at their end-of-life. For
estimates with the greatest uncertainty, a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis was conducted to identify the
likelihood that observed differences were real.
The point estimate results from the CMR impact assessment showed mixed results for both leaded and
lead-free cable types, though the disparities between the cable alternative impact scores for most impact
categories were minimal. In eight impact categories, the lead-free cable construction had less environmental
burden; however, six of those categories generated inconclusive results due to the large uncertainty. In other
words, overlap of the 10th and 90th percentiles eliminates the possibility of statistically significant differences.
The following two categories that had less environmental burden for the lead-free cable did not have
overlapping uncertainty ranges: potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity.
Of the six categories that showed lower burden for the leaded cable, only two did not have overlapping results
due to uncertainty: potential occupational cancer and non-cancer toxicity. The point-estimate results from the
cradle-to-gate comparison of the baseline, the lead-free, and the zero-halogen CMR alternatives showed that
the zero-halogen cable had far greater environmental burden in all of the categories except for potential
occupational non-cancer toxicity.
xxi
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The point estimates from the CMP cable comparisons showed all categories except for landfill
space use and occupational cancer toxicity had fewer impacts for the lead-free compared to the leaded
cables. However, only five categories did not have overlapping 10th and 90th uncertainty ranges: potential
occupational cancer and non-cancer toxicity, potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity, potential aquatic
ecotoxicity, and ozone depletion, suggesting greater confidence in these results.
The point estimates from the NM-B cradle-to-gate cable comparisons showed all categories except
for potential occupational non-cancer toxicity had fewer impacts for the lead-free compared to the leaded
cables. No uncertainty or sensitivity analyses were deemed necessary for this comparison.
6. Conclusions
The major material and process contributors to overall environmental burden for all cable types can
be broken down into three principal categories:
• upstream material production and use,
• energy sources and use, and
• end-of-life disposition.
The upstream production and use of certain materials in wire and cable formulations has a
significant effect on many of the overall life-cycle impact category results. The materials that contribute
to cable-associated environmental burden are, in order of decreasing impact, lead heat stabilizers,
jacketing and insulation resins, phthalate plasticizers, and filler materials (e.g., calcined clay and
limestone).
Aside from the use of leaded and lead-free heat stabilizers, the life-cycle inventories of the
various wire and cable products examined in this study did not show large material differences in
formulation between leaded and lead-free alternatives. However, in a number of instances, small
formulation differences yielded impact result discrepancies. Upon further investigation of this issue,
including consultation with a number of primary data contributors, it remained unclear whether these
slight material differences arise as artifacts of asymmetrical upstream datasets for the leaded and lead-free
products or are indicative of actual "global" differences between alternatives (i.e., industry-wide
differences in cable formulations). As this is the case, the leaded and lead-free heat stabilizers are the
only materials that differentiate the alternatives with a high degree of certainty. This is not to say that the
other material differences found in this study should be ignored. It is possible that asymmetry in the
markets for both leaded and lead-free products (i.e., companies that provide one product but do not
provide the alternative), or actual intra-company formulation differences lead to a "global" difference in
the material formulations. However, given the lack of information about the proportion of market share
modeled, we cannot determine such a "global" difference with certainty. Consequently, companies that
are looking for ways to reduce impacts through material formulation are encouraged to examine the
difference in impacts due to choice of stabilizer, as this represents the most certain result of formulation
differences. The environmental impacts resulting from the use of lead heat stabilizers are seen primarily
at the product EOL, and therefore are discussed below.
The production and use of a number of other upstream materials results in substantial
environmental burden. The production of jacketing and insulation resins contribute substantially to a
number of impact categories in both CMR and CMP cable, including energy use and non-renewable
resources, potential public cancer toxicity (NOX and VOC production), air acidification, air particulate
production, and photochemical smog production. Additionally, phthalate plasticizers were major
xxii
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
contributors to the potential occupational cancer toxicity impacts, especially in the case of CMR cable
where they represented a far higher fraction of the overall cable mass than in CMP cable.
Energy sources throughout the wire and cable life cycle, particularly electricity generation for use
in upstream material production and cable extrusion, played an enormous role in the overall
environmental burden of wire and cable products analyzed here. For the CMR cable alternatives, the
generation of electricity for cable extrusion was the top contributing process in 6 and 8 impact categories
for the baseline and lead-free cables, respectively. For the CMP cable alternatives, the generation of
electricity for cable extrusion was the top contributing process in 3 and 5 impact categories for the
baseline and lead-free cables, respectively. For the NM-B cable alternatives, the generation of electricity
for cable extrusion was the top contributing process in 3 and 5 impact categories for the baseline and lead-
free cables, respectively. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis (Table 7) revealed that the large impact
uncertainty ranges for both the CMR and CMP cable were mostly attributable to the uncertainty in the
energy needed for cable extrusion. This was the case for all categories except potential public non-cancer
toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity, where leachate uncertainty dominated in the baseline cable, and
landfill space use, where the percent of resins recycled after chopping had a greater effect on the results
for both cable alternatives. The range of extrusion energy, modeled using a uniform uncertainty
distribution, was quite large (>50 percent of the aggregated value in both directions), so the resulting
sensitivity of the model results to this parameter was not entirely surprising. However, the fact that the
uncertainty associated with the use of energy during cable extrusion is based on actual inter-company
variability is a reminder that the sample size of the primary/secondary datasets used, and the product or
material market share represented by these datasets is important in determining the accuracy of the life-
cycle modeling effort. These findings suggest that identifying opportunities for reducing energy inputs
would likely have a large effect on the overall environmental burden of wire and cable products.
This study found that the end-of-life stage generates the most sizeable impact differences between
baseline leaded cable and lead-free cable. For both CMR and CMP, the difference between the two cables
was most pronounced in the potential public chronic non-cancer (CMR: 1,460 versus 279; CMP: 952
versus 358 kg noncancertox-equivalent) and potential aquatic ecotoxicity impacts (CMR: 17.5 versus
0.113; CMP: 8.64 versus 0.151 kg aqtox-equivalent), with the lead-free cables displaying much lower
impacts in these categories. The sensitivity analysis showed that the lead leachability assumptions are
responsible for the majority of the variability in these impact results. Therefore, given that the LCIA
methodology is a screening-level assessment of potential toxicity effects, the results of this study indicate
that further investigation into the leachability of lead from cables disposed of in landfills is warranted, as
well as a more targeted evaluation on the potential toxicity and health risks.
EOL disposition choices for wire and cable products are complicated by the trade-offs inherent to
the processes themselves. The sequestration of wire and cable waste by landfilling is not without its
source of hazards. The release of methane from landfilled resins impacts global warming potential, and
the PVC waste could become, over long periods of time, a source of other halogenated emissions.
Incineration, while advantageous from a landfill space use perspective, results in airborne lead emissions,
which are problematic from a public health standpoint. Thermoplastic recycling is energy-intensive and
creates new waste streams, which must then be landfilled. Thus, the choices are not straightforward, and
depend, among other things, on regulatory standards, economic incentives, and the value placed on
different environmental burdens.
The uncertainty analysis revealed that several impact categories are sensitive to the variabilities
defined here. Further refinement of the inventory data and EOL assumptions that are the subject of the
xxm
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
uncertainty analyses would help reduce uncertainties and lead to more reliable study results. In addition,
LCA results such as those presented here provide a type of screening analysis where differences across
alternatives in various impact categories are shown in the context of uncertainty. In some instances
discernable differences cannot be inferred; however, where more significant differences are likely (e.g.,
potential public non-cancer and potential aquatic ecotoxicity), further refinement is warranted, such as
using health risk assessment techniques to begin to identify human and ecological health risks.
xxiv
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
CHAPTER 1. SCOPE AND BOUNDARIES
1.1 Purpose and Goals
1.1.1 Background
The Wire and Cable Project (WCP) is a voluntary, cooperative partnership among the following:
the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell, individual wire and cable manufacturers, supply chain members
(e.g., additive suppliers), and trade association members. OPPT established the DfE Program in 1992 to
encourage businesses to incorporate environmental concerns into their business decisions. The EPA DfE
Program promotes risk reduction, pollution prevention, energy efficiency, and other resource conserving
measures through process choices at a facility level. DfE industry projects are cooperative, joint efforts
that assist businesses in specific industries to identify and evaluate more environmentally sound products,
processes, and technologies. The direction and focus of this project are determined by the project
partners, while taking into consideration OPPT's goals.
The WCP partnership first developed partial life-cycle inventories (cradle-to-gate) of standard
and alternative insulation and jacketing formulations for three selected cable products (Phase I):
1. Category 6, riser-rated communication wire (CMR)
2. Category 6, plenum-rated communication wire (CMP)
3. Non-metallic sheathed low-voltage power cable (NM-B)
These cable products have defined functionality and specifications, as described in Section 1.2.1.
The partnership then set out to objectively assess the complete environmental life-cycle impacts,
including end-of-life (EOL) of the standard and alternative formulations for one or more of those three
cable product types (Phase II).
The three product types were chosen because they 1) contain materials common to many cable
applications; 2) contain materials of potential environmental concern, or materials for which stakeholders
have expressed a desire to identify and evaluate alternatives; and 3) are believed to represent a significant
amount of the wire and cable market. The project set out to evaluate alternative compositions that might
meet, for example, lead-free, heavy metal-free, and/or zero-halogen specifications.2'3 The goal is to
determine whether the alternative products present environmentally preferable options.
The DfE WCP uses life-cycle assessment (LCA) as an environmental evaluation tool, which can
be used to evaluate the environmental effects of a product, process, or activity. LCA is a comprehensive
method for evaluating the full life cycle of the product system, from materials acquisition to
manufacturing, use, and final disposition. As outlined in the ISO 14040 series, an LCA study has four
major components: goal definition and scoping, life-cycle inventory (LCI), impact assessment, and
These terms are used generically to describe categories of alternative cable constructions. For example, they are
not linked with specific definitions that may delineate trace quantities of the materials intended to be absent.
3 The initial goal was also to include decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and decaBDE-free cables; however, the
cable types selected did not use decaBDE in the standard formulation, and therefore this was not included in the
scope.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
interpretation of results. The remainder of Chapter 1 represents the goal definition and scope, which
includes the purpose of the WCP, background information on the need for the project, descriptions of the
product systems being evaluated, and the boundaries the study used. Chapter 1 incorporates scoping as it
is recommended in the LCA process (e.g., ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b; Curran, 1996; Fava et a/., 1991).
1.1.2 Purpose
The DfE/TURI Wire and Cable Partnership set out to select and analyze three types of cable
products for which alternatives to lead and other substances of concern could be considered. The goal
was to evaluate the standard and alternative cable insulation and jacketing formulations for three product
types from a life-cycle perspective in order to understand their environmental impacts. Specifically, this
project aimed to compare the life-cycle impacts of the alternative resins, heat stabilizers, flame retardants,
and plasticizers used in the baseline and alternative cables. It was understood that the results may show
any of the substances or their alternatives to be preferable from certain perspectives. The results
primarily will be useful in identifying the materials that have significant environmental impacts when
compared to those with the alternative constructions, so that industry can make informed, balanced
formulation decisions based on fire safety, electrical performance, and environmental impact.
The purpose of Phase I of this study was to collect materials extraction and manufacturing data
for the standard and alternative compositions for all three of the cable types. During this phase, the life-
cycle inventory data associated with the extraction/processing and the manufacturing of these materials
was compiled. Under Phase II, the life-cycle inventory was developed, as appropriate, for the use and
EOL stages of a selected cable type or types, and a life-cycle impact assessment was conducted for all
life-cycle stages. The purpose of Phase II was to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of the
selected traditional and alternative cable formulations using LCA methodologies.
1.1.3 Previous research
The major resins used in CMR, CMP, and NM-B cables include polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
polyethylene (PE), and perfluoropolymers (PFPs). Substantial research has been conducted on PVC and
its life-cycle impacts; however, very little of the work has focused specifically on the use of PVC in wire
and cable applications. The European Union recently completed a study that presents an overview of the
publicly available information on PVC LCAs. Although the study found that detailed information does
exist concerning the PVC life cycle from raw material extraction to PVC production, it concluded that a
potentially relevant gap exists for the wire and cable compounding, use, and end-of-life phases. Williams
et al., (2000) used the Chain Management of Materials and Products (CHAMP) methodology, which is
based on life-cycle assessment, to compare the environmental impacts and options for recovery and
recycling of Category 5 cables sheathed with PVC (assumed to be 100 percent pure) versus a low smoke
zero halogen (LSZH) composition (50-67 percent aluminum trihydrate, 30-35 percent ethylene vinyl
acetate copolymer, or EVA, 1 percent antioxidant). The study concluded that the copper conductor is the
main contributor to the environmental impact of the systems studied. When the polymer sheaths alone
are compared, PVC has slightly higher first-use environmental impacts, but it is slightly cheaper and has
greater potential for recycling than the LSZH composition. This study, however, evaluated only cable
formulations that meet European Category 5 standards, and did not account for additives in the PVC. It
also did not evaluate the cable formulations that are required to meet the stricter U.S. standards for flame
retardancy in plenum and riser applications. In addition, although information is available for the
production of PE, no studies detailing its life cycle in wire and cable have been performed, and little to no
life-cycle information is publicly available for PFPs, or fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), which is
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
currently the most common PFP used in CMP cables. Monofluoroacetic acid (MFA), another PFP, can
also be used as cable insulation. However, a current lack of adequate information regarding the
production and use of MFA in the cable types examined prevents the WCP project from including it in
this life-cycle assessment. EPA encourages further study of MFA so that it can be included in future
assessments.
In a current study being done by DuPont (Krieger et al., 2007), plenum cable installations with
either CMP cable or CMR cable in a steel conduit were compared. Based on their scope and assumptions,
they found the required steel had the highest energy use and greenhouse gas emissions while the copper
wire had the highest human toxicity impacts. The copper wire was shown to be a large contributor to
most environmental impacts evaluated in their study. The study concludes that when comparing plenum
space CMP and CMR/steel conduit alternatives, cabling material choices should be evaluated on whether
they can reduce the use of copper or steel, thereby improving environmental performance of the cable
installation. The Krieger study focused only on lead-free options for both CMP and CMR cables and did
not focus on the comparisons of alternative constructions of similar cable installations (e.g., lead versus
lead-free CMR in riser installations).
Aside from LCA studies, there is substantial information on PVC, which is inherently flame
retardant, durable, tough, and relatively heat resistant, thus making it a suitable material for wire and
cable insulation and jacketing (Vinyl Inst, 2003). However, vinyl chloride, the monomer that is
polymerized to form PVC, is classified by the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) as a known human carcinogen. Acute exposure can occur in workers who make or use vinyl
chloride and is linked to vascular disturbances and central nervous system effects, including dizziness,
drowsiness, and headaches (SRC, 2006). Advances in the PVC industry have been reported to reduce
worker exposure to the monomer, but PVC's life-cycle impacts in wire and cable applications still
warrant further evaluation, because dioxin and hydrogen chloride can form when PVC is heated above
250° C (e.g., incineration or accidental fires). Hydrogen chloride is a corrosive, toxic gas that can cause
skin burns and severe respiratory damage. Dioxin has received significant attention because of its
carcinogenicity.
Lead-based heat stabilizers are added to PVC for wire and cable applications because they
provide long-term thermal stability and electrical resistance with low water absorption. Without heat
stabilizers, PVC resins begin to degrade by dehydrochlorination at temperatures of 160°C, which is below
the PVC processing temperature (Mizuno et al., 1999). Although lead additives to PVC are cost- and
performance-competitive, they have potential adverse health and environmental effects due to the known
toxicity of lead. In looking at the life cycle of the lead compounds, releases of lead into the ambient or
workplace environment may occur from the mining or processing of lead, or from recycling or disposing
of products containing lead. Lead is a heavy metal that has been linked to developmental abnormalities in
fetuses and children that ingest or absorb lead, primarily from paints or emissions from leaded gasoline.
Small amounts of lead cause hypertension in adults and permanent mental dysfunction, and the
Department of Health and Human Services has determined that lead acetate and lead phosphate may
reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens, based on animal studies. Further, lead is atoxic chemical
that persists and bioaccumulates in the environment (DHHS, 1999). The toxic nature of lead has resulted
in efforts around the globe to reduce its use.
Plasticizers are also added to PVC in order to make it flexible enough for use as cable jacketing.
Phthalate compounds are the most commonly used plasticizers for PVC. These compounds have come
under scrutiny because their chemical composition mimics natural hormones in humans and other
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
animals. They have been shown to cause fetal death, malformations, and reproductive toxicity in
laboratory animals (Shea, 2003; Wilson, 2004).
High density PE (HDPE) is used in CMR cable and does not require additives. It is unclear
whether HDPE presents health and safety concerns during its production and use, though it is approved
for use in food containers such as milk cartons and water bottles. When burned, HDPE releases the toxic
gas carbon monoxide. In addition, the inherent fuel value of HDPE may encourage fire spread.
Fluoropolymers (polymers with atoms of fluorine) are used to insulate individual conductors
(such as copper wire). The three primary fluoropolymers used for wire and cable insulation are FEP,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). FEP is a common resin used to
insulate wires in CMP cables because of its exceptional dielectric properties, flame and heat resistance,
chemical inertness, durability, and flexibility. The polymer is also easily recycled at end of life.
However, although FEP does not burn easily, it can emit toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride (Wilson,
2004).
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which is sometimes used as a polymerization aid in the
production of FEP, also poses concerns. PFOA is a fully fluorinated organic compound produced
synthetically or through the degradation or metabolism of other fluorochemical products. While PFOA
may be used to manufacture FEP, it has not been detected in finished FEP products such as CMP cable
(U.S. EPA, 2005a). Occupational exposure to PFOA as well as environmental release and fate, however,
remain concerns. PFOA is present in low levels in the blood of the general U.S. population and in the
environment, is highly persistent in the human body and in the environment, and has been found to cause
developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals (U.S. EPA, 2005b). EPA released a
preliminary risk assessment of potential developmental toxicity effects of PFOA in April 2003 and a draft
risk assessment in January 2005 (U.S. EPA, 2005b). The draft risk assessment suggested that PFOA may
be carcinogenic in male rats; however, EPA also identified uncertainty in the document and the need for
further research.4
While EPA has obtained data on PFOA serum levels in workers and the general public, the
pathways of human and environmental exposure to PFOA and the concentrations of PFOA in the
environment are not well understood. Therefore, EPA has yet to determine whether PFOA poses an
unreasonable risk to the public. Through its data gathering agreements with industry and other
stakeholders, EPA continues to assess the potential risks posed by PFOA in order to determine what risk
management steps may be appropriate, however, due to voluntary efforts on the part of industry
stakeholders, it is less likely that further risk management steps will be necessary.5
4 Specifically, EPA stated in the 2005 draft risk assessment of PFOA (U.S. EPA, 2005b), "PFOA may be best
described as 'suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential'
under the draft 1999 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment." In 2006, three quarters of a Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB) panel, whose role was to comment on the draft risk assessment, "judged that the weight-of-
evidence conclusion for the potential of PFOA to cause cancer in humans was more aligned and consistent with the
hazard descriptor of 'likely to be carcinogenic' as described in the Agency's cancer guidelines (i.e., 2003 EPA
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment)."
5 For example, in 2006 EPA created the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program. The participants include 8 major
manufacturers of flouropolymers and telomers, who have committed to reduce facility emissions and product
content of PFOA and related chemicals by 95 percent by 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA emissions and
product content by 2015. Companies participating in the Stewardship Program are 3M/Dyneon, Arkema, Inc., AGC
Chemicals/Asahi Glass, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Clariant Corporation, Daikin, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company, and Solvay Solexis. As noted on the PFOA Stewardship Program website
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1.1.4 Market trends
Currently, the U.S. electronics industry is facing significant legislative and market pressures to
phase out heavy metals and other hazardous materials from use in electrical and electronic equipment.
This applies to some wire and cable products. These pressures include initiatives in Europe and Japan
that mandate the elimination of lead from electronic products, or that request manufacturers to eliminate
these voluntarily. In Europe, effective July 2006, the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)
Directive effectively banned the use of lead and other selected toxic chemicals in most electrical and
electronic equipment.6 In Japan, following take back (recycling) legislation effective as of 2001, the
Japan EPA and MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) currently suggest the reduced use of
lead to take place along with increased recycling. California Proposition 65 (Prop65), the Safe Drinking
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires the governor to publish an annual list of chemicals
known by the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Businesses
are then required to notify Californians about significant amounts of these chemicals found in products
they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released to the environment. A 2002 settlement
between the wire and cable industry, which was represented by the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA), and the state of California required only "frequently handled" electrical cords with
a lead content by weight of 0.03 percent (300 ppm) to be labeled by September 2003. An exemption was
made for cords that are infrequently handled, such as building cable, plenum cable, and telecom power
cable (NEMA, 2002). Consumer demand for lead-free products may also increase as the general public
becomes increasingly aware of lead issues, in part due to EPA's successful efforts to eliminate exposures
to lead in gasoline, paint, and dust/soil. These drivers are all helping to move the U.S. market toward
lead-free products.
A growing number of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), particularly in the electronics
and automobile industries, have introduced supplier materials declarations. These declarations, composed
of lists of materials the OEMs want to restrict in their products, typically include materials found in wire
and cable products, such as lead, cadmium, brominated flame retardants, and hexavalent chromium. Wire
and cable components, however, have not been the initial target of materials declarations and restrictions
by the OEMs. Several OEMs, including those in the High Packaging User Group (Dell, Hewlett-Packard,
IBM, and Nokia), are even conducting tests to verify supplier compliance. In addition, Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. (UL) and other testing houses have introduced compliance programs to assist all the
channel partners with declarations. Because multinational OEMs want to make a class of products that
can be sold anywhere in the world, rather than different products that comply with the requirements of
various countries, they base their policies on the most restrictive worldwide standards. Many Japanese
OEMs have been the most aggressive in restricting materials, in part to gain marketing advantage for the
sale of their products (Harriman et al., 2003). A number of the leading electronics manufacturers in
Japan-Sony-Europe, Sharp, Electrolux, and Ricoh of Japan-have PVC phaseout policies. Many auto
manufacturers, including Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, also have goals to replace PVC with polyolefins7 in
order to increase the recyclability of plastic parts in vehicles at their end of life (Rossi et al., 2005).
(http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/piibs/pfoastewardship.htni), many of these companies have already exceeded their
2010 goals and have moved on the 2015 goal of elimination of PFOA emissions and product content.
6 RoHS does allow de minimis levels of lead (maximum concentrations of up to 0. l%.of lead in electrical and
electronic equipment); however, lead stabilizers in the cables being analyzed are used in amounts greater than 0.1%.
7 Polyolefins are a family of polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene, which are made from olefin
monomers. Olefin is the common name for the class of compounds known as alkenes, which contain double bonded
carbons and include unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbons, among which are ethylene, propylene, and butylene.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
In addition to the OEM requirements, several European Eco-labels, such as the German Blue
Angel and the Nordic Swan, act as market drivers. These labels prohibit the use of lead, hexavalent
chromium, cadmium, and certain brominated flame retardants. In addition, some government and non-
governmental organizations (e.g., Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Healthy Building Network) promote
the purchase of products free of hazardous substances (Harriman et a/., 2003).
Communications network cables in the U.S. have had to meet stringent NFPA (National Fire
Protection Association) National Electrical Code® (NEC) fire performance requirements for the past 30
years. Network cables installed in vertical shafts (CMR) are highly flame retardant. Network cables
installed in horizontal plenum spaces (CMP) must both be highly flame retardant and meet requirements
for low smoke generation. An effort is also currently underway to further raise the standards for fire
safety, requiring cables installed in concealed spaces to be "limited combustible" (LC). LC cables would
be required to have higher flame retardancy and less smoke production than CMP cables. Fluoropolymer
compounds would be one of the few jacketing materials currently available that would meet LC
performance requirements. For the latest revision of the NEC in 2008, the decision was made not to
include the LC designation.
Primarily as a consequence of distinct fire performance hierarchies, communication network
cable markets differ considerably between the U.S. and Europe. Approximately 75 percent of the U.S.
communications network cable market is CMP-rated cable (-6.0B ft/yr), and 15 percent is CMR-rated
cable (-1.2B ft/yr). The U.S. market has changed substantially in recent years, as several cable
manufacturers have introduced lead-free cables that meet Cat 6 CMR and Cat 6 CMP standards. In
Europe, where cable fire performance standards are not as stringent as the U.S. NFPA NEC standards, 95
percent of the network cables (~5 .OB ft/yr) currently meet the criteria for lower than CMR/Riser fire
performance (CRU, 2002). (Typically, these European network cables are jacketed with either PVC or
halogen-free compounds [e.g., polyolefins] and insulated with PE.)
The annual market for NM-B-rated cable is estimated at 800 million to 1 billion pounds (6.6 to
8.3 billion feet).8 While some companies are converting to lead-free PVC insulation and jacketing,
currently a relatively low percentage of the total annual market consists of alternative compositions, such
as lead-free, heavy metal-free, and/or zero-halogen (Sims, 2007).
It should be noted that for many applications, alternatives do not always exist to the materials of
potential concern that will satisfy performance requirements. For example, no commercial zero-halogen
alternatives are available for CMP applications.
1.1.5 Need for the project
The wire and cable industry manufactures a wide range of products that support a multitude of
applications. Many wire insulation and cable jacketing compositions contain materials, such as lead,
halogenated compounds, and other ingredients, that impart electrical insulation and fire performance
properties, but that have been identified as materials of potential environmental concern or as materials
for which industry stakeholders have expressed a desire to identify and evaluate alternatives. In some
applications, lead and other heavy metals have been removed from cable constructions, whereas other
applications continue to use such materials. For example, European legislation has driven these changes
for electronics and automotive applications; however, such changes have not been made for other
* Using an average net weight of 83 lbs/1,000 ft (0.083 Ibs per foot for 12-gauge 2-conductor copper NM-B with
ground wire).
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
applications (e.g., low-voltage power cable) where such drivers are not present. Alternative constructions
such as halogen-free jacketing (e.g., polyolefm-based polymer system) are available for some applications
(i.e., subway systems and other locations where acid emissions from halogenated compounds are
unacceptable). However, they have not been widely used, primarily due to their higher relative cost, the
lack of market drivers, and their inability to meet all the requirements of the more demanding applications
(Wilson, 2004).
Products that pose fewer environmental impacts are of interest to many wire and cable companies
and their customers, if performance and cost requirements can be met. The DfE/TURI Partnership has
generated information on the environmental impacts of traditional and alternative cable constructions in
order to help companies make environmentally sound product and material choices. While some changes
have been made in certain wire and cable sectors, the WCP believes that developing and providing sound
environmental data using a life-cycle assessment approach could assist those and other sectors to pursue
environmentally preferable alternatives. Because of the large quantity of cable put into commerce every
year, choosing environmentally preferable materials could have a broad impact on public health and the
environment.
Quantitative environmental life-cycle analysis of the traditional and alternative formulations is
needed, given the current interest in lead-free cables in the United States and halogen-free cable materials
in certain overseas markets, the potential environmental concerns that lead- and halogen-containing
additives pose, and the fact that the relative life-cycle environmental impacts of alternative formulations
have not yet been determined. This project offers the opportunity to mitigate current and future risks by
assisting the wire and cable industry in identifying cable jacketing and wire insulation formulations that
are less toxic and that pose fewer risks over their life cycles.
1.1.6 Targeted audience and use of the study
The wire and cable industry is expected to be the primary user of the study results. The study is
intended to provide the industry with an objective analysis that evaluates the life-cycle environmental
impacts of selected cable products. Scientific verification of the relative environmental impacts will
allow industry to consider environmental concerns along with traditionally evaluated parameters of
safety, cost, and performance, and to potentially enhance efforts to manufacture products and design
processes that reduce the environmental footprint, including energy consumption, releases of hazardous
chemicals, and risks to health and the environment. Given the results, the industry can then evaluate
material or process improvements based on the comparison of the alternative insulation and jacketing
formulations. This study is designed to provide the wire and cable industry with information needed to
identify the origin of impacts, throughout the life cycle, of both the traditional and alternative insulation
and jacketing formulations. This information could lead to improvement in the cables' environmental
attributes. The study results will also enable the wire and cable industry to make environmentally
informed choices about alternatives when assessing and implementing improvements, such as changes in
product, process, and activity design; raw material use; industrial processing; consumer use; and waste
management.
Identification of impacts from the cables' life cycle can also encourage industry to implement
pollution prevention options, such as development and demonstration projects, and technical assistance
and training. The wire and cable industry can use the tools and data in this study to evaluate the health,
environmental, and energy implications of the technologies. With this evaluation, the U.S. wire and cable
industry may be more prepared to meet the demands of extended product responsibility that are growing
in popularity in the global marketplace, to help guide public policy towards informed solutions that are
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
environmentally preferable based on scientific study, and to be better able to meet the competitive
challenges of the world market. In addition, the inventory data, results, and model in this study provide
baseline data upon which other alternative cable formulations can potentially be evaluated. This allows
for more expedited LCA studies, which are growing in popularity by industry and may be demanded by
OEMs or international organizations.
We expect that the wire and cable industry will use the information generated in this study of the
life-cycle environmental impacts of the standard insulation and jacketing formulations, and the alternative
formulations, to select the formulations that meet the safety and transmission performance requirements
of the end-use application, that pose fewer risks to public health, and that have the least impact on the
environment.
1.2 Product Systems
1.2.1 Functional unit
In an LCA, product systems are evaluated on a functionally equivalent basis. The functional unit
normalizes data based on equivalent use to provide a reference for relating process inputs and outputs to
the inventory and impact assessment across alternatives. The product systems evaluated in Phase I of this
project are standard and alternative (i.e., lead-free and zero-halogen) wire insulation and cable jacketing
formulations, as used in telecommunication and low-voltage power cable installations in the United
States. Each of the three cable types is evaluated in separate analyses, as each type has a different
functionality. The functional unit for each cable type is the insulation and jacketing used in one kilometer
of linear length of cable, which would be used to transmit a signal that meets certain UL performance
requirements and fire safety specifications for the product types listed in Table 1-1. Most
telecommunications network cables are expected to achieve a minimum service life of 10 to 15 years.
NM-B cables are generally replaced after 25 to 40 years of service, depending on the installation
conditions. During remodeling, NM-B cables are typically replaced only if they are disturbed.
Table 1-1
Wire & Cable Products Selected for Separate Analyses of Alternative Insulation and Jacketing
Constructions
Wire and Cable Product Application type Specifications (standards)b
Riser communication cable (CMR) Telecommunication UL-444, Article 800 NEC,
(Category 6)a TIA-568-B.2-1, and ICEA S-80-576
Telecommunication UL-444, Article 800 NEC,
Plenum communication cable (CMP) (Cgtegory 6)a TIA-568-B.2-1, and ICEA S-80-576
Non-metallic-sheathed cable (NM-B) Low-voltage power cable UL-719, Article 334 NEC
Telecommunications Industry Association/Electronic Industries Alliance (TIA/EIA) (specifies data transmission
performance category).
UL=Underwriters Laboratories; NEC=National Electrical Code® (addresses flammability performance); ICEA =
Insulated Cable Engineers Association (specifies physical, mechanical performance of insulation/jacket/finished
product).
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1.2.2 Cable systems and alternatives
A cable product generally consists of a wire conductor covered by insulation, and a jacket that
encases the insulated wire(s). The insulation of NM-B and the jacketing of CMR, CMP, and NM-B
cables are compounded with other materials, such as heat stabilizers and flame retardants, to meet
performance specifications. Figure 1-1 shows the general process flow of manufacturing a cable.
conductor material
(e.g., copper) —»
Wire drawing
1
: pelle
Insulating
(extruding)
ts
Twinning (twisting
wires to form a pair)
1. 1- ,
r'
Cabling (bunching or
stranding)
_••
i
•
Jacketing (extrusion)
Cable Product
Certifications
Packaging
Figure 1-1. General Manufacturing Process Diagram for Cable
Project partners assisted in identifying alternative constructions to the cable products for inclusion
in Phase I. We set out to evaluate as many lead-free and halogen-free alternatives for each cable type as
possible. Given the data that were provided, Table 1-2 lists the general characteristics and makeup of
each alternative included in Phase I this analysis.
The general makeup of each cable type is summarized in the pie charts in Figures 1-2, through 1-
6. These constructions are from primary input data provided by the cable manufacturers and cable resin
compounders that participated in this partnership. For CMR and CMP cable, the weight percentages for
the baseline and lead-free constructions are only slightly different (Figures 1-2 through 1-5). Data
received on the entire cable construction for the halogen-free CMR cables were not adequate to depict in
a pie chart. Similarly, for NM-B cables, adequate data were not received for the lead-free cable to
determine the component breakdown; however, industry partners of the WCP estimated the general
makeup of baseline (Figure 1-6) and lead-free cables to be approximately the same. In each case, the
cables were defined as having equivalent copper gauge wires, however, averaging primary copper input
data from multiple companies resulted in the values being slightly different. This could be partially a
function of different material efficiencies within different facilities. Thus, the cables as defined by the
functional unit, are assumed to have the same amount of copper for each alternative within a cable type,
and thus are excluded from the comparative analysis.
For all cable types, the conductor makes up between 52 and 70 percent of the weight of the cable
for a given linear length of the cable. The percent mass that is insulation ranges from 10 to 21 percent of
the cables, and jacketing ranges from 19 to 34 percent. Separators (also referred to as spacers or
crosswebs) or other components constitute between 2 and 4 percent.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 1-2
Wire & Cable Product Alternatives
Alternative
Insulation
Jacketing
Functional Unit
(kg/km cable)"
CMR baseline HOPE
CMR lead-
free3
HOPE
CMR zero-
halogen3
HOPE
CMP baseline3 FEP
CMP lead-
free3
NM-B
baseline0
NM-B lead-
free0
FEP
Compounded PVC (lead-
based heat stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (non-
lead heat stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (lead-based
heat stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (non-lead heat
stabilizer)
Non-PVCb (non-lead heat
stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (lead-based
heat stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (non-lead heat
stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (lead-based
heat stabilizer)
Compounded PVC (non-lead heat
stabilizer)
20.1
21.8
64.5
22.8
22.9
Conductors are unshielded twisted pairs, 8 conductors in 4 pairs; 23-gauge bare copper.
Proprietary.
Conductors are 12-gauge, 2-conductor copper with ground wire.
Functional unit conversions are based on primary data received for insulation and jacketing (see in Chapter 2).
Q
NM-B leaded and lead-free cables have approximately the same mass per length; the values are not reported
to protect confidentiality.
Note: CMR = riser-rate communication cable; CMP = plenum-rated communication cable; HOPE = high density
polyethylene; FEP = fluorinated ethylene propylene; PVC = polyvinyl chloride.
CMR(baseline)
weight %
CMR(Pb-free)
weight %
2%
34%
11%
Figure 1-2. CMR Baseline Cable Component
Breakdown
Figure 1-3. CMR Pb-free Cable Component
Breakdown
10
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
CMP (baseline)
weight %
23%
4%
51%
22%
CMP(Pb-free)
weight0/.
25%
50%
Figure 1-4. CMP Baseline Cable Component
Breakdown
Fig 1-5. CMP lead-free Cable
Component Breakdown
NMB (baseline)
Figure 1-6. NM-B Cable Component Breakdown
(percentages not shown; proprietary)
The focus of the comparative LCAs in this report is on the insulation, jacketing, and separator/
crossweb resins, as well as any compounded materials contained within the resins. Each cable type uses
equivalent amounts of copper conductor per unit length of cable, and thus the conductor is excluded from
the comparison of alternatives within each cable type.
1.3 Assessment Boundaries
1.3.1
stages:
Life-cycle assessment (LCA)
LCAs evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts from each of the following major life-cycle
• Raw materials extraction/acquisition
• Materials processing
• Product manufacture
• Product use
• Final disposition/end-of-life
Figure 1-7 briefly describes each of these stages for a wire and cable product system. The inputs (e.g.,
resources and energy) and outputs (e.g., product and waste) within each life-cycle stage, as well as the
11
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
interaction between each stage (e.g., transportation), are evaluated to determine the environmental
impacts.
INPUTS
Materials
Energy
Resources
LIFE-CYCLE STAGES
RAW MATERIALS EXTRACTION /ACQUISITION
Activities related to the acquisition of natural resources, including mining
non-renewable material, harvesting biomass, and transporting raw
materials to processing facilities.
MATERIALS PROCESSING
Processing natural resources by reaction, separation, purification, and
alteration steps in preparation for the manufacturing stage; and
transporting processed materials to product manufacturing facilities.
PRODUCT MANUFACTURE
Processing materials to compound and extrude wire and cable.
PRODUCT USE, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR
Use of wire and cable in buildings and telecommunication applications.
FINAL DISPOSITION / END-OF-LIFE
At the end of their useful life, the wire and cables are retired individually
or as part of other equipment or products. If the wire and cable can
feasibly be reused and recycled, the cable can be transported to an
appropriate facility where the conductor can be separated from the
insulation for materials recovery. Materials that are not recoverable are
transported to appropriate facilities and treated (if required or necessary)
and/or disposed of.
Product System Boundary
OUTPUTS
Wastes
Products
Figure 1-7. Life-cycle Stages of Wire and Cable Alternatives
As defined by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the four major
components of an LCA are (1) goal definition and scoping, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment,
and (4) improvement assessment. More recently, the international standard ISO 14040: Environmental
Management—Lifecycle Assessment—Principles and Framework has defined the four major components
of an LCA as (1) goal and scope, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment, and (4) interpretation of
results. The SETAC and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) frameworks are essentially
synonymous with respect to the first three components, but differ somewhat with respect to the fourth
component: improvement assessment or life-cycle interpretation. Improvement assessment is the
systematic evaluation of opportunities for reducing the environmental impacts of a product, process, or
activity. Interpretation is the phase of LCA in which the findings from the inventory analyses and the
impact assessment are combined, consistent with the defined goal and scope, in order to reach
conclusions and recommendations.
The goals and scope of this LCA for wire and cable insulation and jacketing are the subject of
Chapter 1. The inventory analysis and impact assessment are included in Chapters 2 and 3, respectively.
Chapter 4 summarizes the results; however, much of the life-cycle interpretation, which is the last step of
an LCA as recommended in ISO 14040, is left to the wire and cable industry. The life-cycle inventory
(LCI) and life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) strategies are briefly described below.
12
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The LCI involves quantifying raw material and fuel inputs, and solid, liquid, and gaseous
emissions and effluents. The approach to the LCI in this study involved defining product materials,
developing bills of materials (BOM) for the products, and obtaining inventory data for major processes
within each life-cycle stage. Section 1.4 provides additional details of the LCI data-gathering activities.
The LCI A involves translating the environmental burdens identified in the LCI into
environmental impacts. LCIA is typically a quantitative process involving characterizing burdens and
assessing their effects on human and ecological health, as well as other effects, such as smog formation
and global warming. Further details of the LCIA impact categories appear in Section 1.3.5. This project
used an LCIA methodology that was used in the most recent DfE LCA, entitled Lead-Free Solders: A
Life-cycle Assessment (Geibig and Socolof, 2005), which was based on the methodology used in DfE's
Computer Display Project (Socolof et al., 2001).
1.3.2 Life-cycle stages and unit processes
In a comprehensive cradle-to-grave analysis, the product system includes five life-cycle stages:
(1) raw materials extraction/acquisition; (2) materials processing; (3) product manufacture; (4) product
use, maintenance, and repair; and (5) final disposition/end-of-life (EOL). Also included are the activities
that are required to affect movement between the stages (e.g., transportation). The first two stages
(materials extraction and materials processing) are represented as one "upstream" life-cycle stage
throughout this report, as available data are aggregated as such.
Figure 1-8 depicts the major processes within the life cycles of the cables that are modeled in this
study. Each of these unit processes has its own inventory of inputs and outputs. In the upstream stages,
resins and additive materials for the insulation and jacketing are included. The extent to which additive
materials are included depends on decision rules, which are discussed in Section 1.4.2. Because each
cable alternative uses the same type and quantity of conductor material, this LCA does not include
upstream stages of the copper conductors. The differences between the cable alternatives are in the
insulation or jacketing, and thus those components of the wire and cable products are the focus of this
comparative LCA.
Materials
INPUTS
Energy
Resources
Materials Extraction and
Processing (Upstream)
Extraction and processing
of resins
of resin additives
Extraction and processing
of fuels
i
^-i S
f
Product Manufacture
| Resin compounding
.
Insulation extrusion
Twinning
Cabling
Jacketing extrusion
Packaging
3L
Installation and
Product Use
End-of-Life
Recycling
Incineration
Landfilling
Fire
Products
OUTPUTS
Emissions
Wastes
Figure 1-8. Wire and Cable Life-cycle Conceptual Model
13
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The manufacturing stage includes compounding and extrusion processes, and any assembly
processes associated with manufacturing a cable (see Figure 1-1). The installation and use of the cables is
consistent between alternatives, and thus does not need to be included in a comparative analysis. If
service lifetimes during use of the cables differ between alternatives, then the amount of cable produced
would be scaled so that each alternative would have equivalent functional units. However, lifetimes for
cables being compared were consistent.
Transportation of wire and cable materials for alternative constructions is expected to be the same
for all plastic pellets and cables, and does not have any regional or global differences. Therefore,
transportation was not included in this comparative analysis for transport between compounding facilities,
cable manufacturing facilities, installation sites, and EOL disposition. Transportation is included when
secondary data sets used for materials extraction and processing already have transportation aggregated
into the data set.
1.3.3 Spatial and temporal boundaries
Geographic boundaries are used in an LCA to show where impacts are likely to occur for each
life-cycle stage. This is important for assessing the impacts of things such as transportation impacts
between life-cycle stages. Raw materials acquisition and material processing for materials used in the
manufacture of the cables are conducted throughout the world. Product manufacturing also occurs
worldwide. CMR-rated cable products are sold in numerous markets around the world, whereas the
CMP-rated cable products and low-voltage power cables are more limited to the North American market.
This study, however, focused on the use of these cables for telecommunications and low-voltage power
cable applications in the United States. The EOL evaluation also focused on cables that reach the ends of
their lives in the United States. However, due to limited data availability, data from other countries were
used when available.
While the geographic boundaries show where impacts might occur for various life-cycle stages,
traditional LCAs do not provide actual spatial relationships of impacts. That is, particular impacts cannot
be attributed to a specific location. Rather, impacts are generally presented on a regional or global scale.
This study addresses impacts from cables that were manufactured between the years 2005 and
2006. Installation and use of the cables would occur shortly thereafter; however, EOL disposition would
occur after the 10- to 15-year-service life for CMP and CMR cables, and after the 25- to 40- year NM-B
service life. Given the lack of temporal specificity in an LCA, EOL impacts are assumed to be based on
current EOL technologies and conditions, despite the potential changes that might occur during the
product's service life. Thus, we assumed that any parameters that may change with time (e.g., availability
of landfill space, recycling rates, recycling technologies) would be similar to current conditions, and
would remain constant throughout the lifespan of the product system. Note that the inherent uncertainty
in this assumption is greater when the product lifespan is longer.
1.3.4 General exclusions
Impacts from the infrastructure needed to support the manufacturing facilities are beyond the
scope of this study (e.g., general maintenance of manufacturing plants). Given that the copper wire is
equivalent, by definition, across alternatives, the mining and production of copper and the copper drawing
process were not evaluated in the study.
14
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1.3.5 Impact categories
In the LCIA phase of an LCA, several different impact categories can be evaluated among the
alternatives. This study evaluates the following:
• Non-renewable materials use/depletion
• energy use
• landfill space use
• global warming (global climate change)
• stratospheric ozone depletion
• photochemical smog
• air acidification
• air particulates
• water eutrophication (nutrient enrichment)
• potential chronic non-cancer human toxicity - occupational
• potential cancer human toxicity - occupational
• potential chronic non-cancer toxicity - public
• potential cancer human toxicity - public
• potential aquatic ecotoxicity
The methodologies for each category are based on those used in previous DfE LCAs and are common to
many LCAs. The toxicity-based categories use a methodology developed for DfE in a previous LCA (for
computer displays), and has also been used in the DfE solder LCA. All the methodologies are detailed in
Chapters.
1.4 Data Collection Scope
This section describes the data categories that were evaluated in the WCP LCI, the decision rules
used to determine which materials would be eliminated from consideration, and data collection methods.
It also describes procedures for allocating inputs and outputs from a process to the product of interest (i.e.,
a cable) when the process is used in the manufacture, recycle, or disposal of more than one product type
at the same facility. Finally, it describes the data management and analysis software used for the project,
and methods for maintaining overall data quality and critical review.
1.4.1 Data categories
Table 1-3 describes the data categories for which inventory data were collected, including
material and energy inputs; and emissions, wastes, and product outputs. In general, inventory data are
normalized to either (1) the mass of an input or output per functional unit, or (2) energy input (e.g.,
megajoules, MJ) per functional unit. As discussed in Section 1.2, the functional unit is a unit length of a
particular cable for a given service life.
Data that reflect production for one year of continuous processes are scaled to one functional unit.
Thus, excessive material or energy associated with startups, shutdowns, and changeovers are assumed to
be distributed over time. Consequently, any environmental and exposure modeling associated with the
impact assessment reflects continuous emissions such that equilibrium concentrations may be assumed.
If the reporting year was given as less than one year for any inventory item, the analysis was adjusted as
appropriate to the functional unit. Data were also collected on the final disposition of emissions outputs,
15
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
such as whether outputs are recycled, treated, and/or disposed of. This information was used to help
determine which impacts are calculated for a particular inventory item.
Table 1-3
LCI Data Categories
Data Category Description
Inputs: Material and resource flows (kg per functional unit)
Primary material flows Actual materials that make up the final product for a particular process.
Ancillary (process) Materials that are used in the processing of a product for a particular process.
material flows May be renewable or non-renewable resources.
Natural resource flows Materials extracted from the ground that are non-renewable (i.e., stock,
resources such as coal), or renewable (i.e., flow resources such as water or
limestone).
Inputs: Energy flows (MJ per functional unit)
Energy flows Process energy, pre-combustion energy (i.e., energy expended to extract,
process, refine, and deliver a usable fuel for combustion), and when available,
transportation energy are included. Energy can be renewable or non-renewable.
The energy flows modeled in this analysis are generally from non-renewable
sources.
Outputs: Emissions, wastes (kg per functional unit)
Emissions to air Mass of a product or material that is considered a pollutant within each life-cycle
stage. Air outputs represent actual gaseous or particulate releases to the
environment from a point or diffuse source, after passing through emission
control devices, if applicable.
Emissions to water Mass of a product or material that is considered a pollutant within each life-cycle
stage. Water outputs represent actual discharges to either surface or
groundwater from point or diffuse sources, after passing through any water
treatment devices.
Emissions to soil Mass of chemical constituents that are considered pollutants and emitted to soil
within each life-cycle stage. Soil emissions represent actual or modeled
discharges to soil from point or diffuse sources.
Wastes/deposited goods Mass of a solid or hazardous waste landfill or deep well. Could include
hazardous, non-hazardous, and radioactive wastes. Represents solid or liquid
outputs that are deposited in a landfill or sent for treatment (e.g., incineration,
composting), recovery, or recycling processes.
Outputs: Products (kg or number of components per functional unit)
Primary products Material or component outputs from a process that are received as inputs by a
subsequent unit process within the product life cycle.
Co-products Material outputs from a process that can be used, either with or without further
processing, and that are not used as part of the final functional unit product.
16
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1.4.2 Decision rules
Given the enormous amount of data involved in inventorying all of the input and output flows for
a product system, LCA practitioners typically employ decision rules to make the data collection
manageable and representative of the product system and its impacts.
In this project, decision rules were used to determine which upstream processes to include. In
considering upstream materials, a combination of several factors were considered, including availability
of existing data and manufacturers' willingness to participate. Decision rules are also used to determine
whether material flows are excluded from a particular process. This was determined once all the
inventory data were collected for each process in the product systems.
The decision rule process began by assessing the materials used in cable production for the
following attributes:
1. The mass contribution of each material. With a greater mass of materials and resources
consumed, the potential for a material to have a significant environmental impact increases.
2. Materials that are of known or suspected environmental significance (e.g., toxic). To the
extent feasible, the process considers materials or components known or suspected to exhibit
an environmental hazard.
3. Materials known or suspected to have a large contribution to the system's energy
requirements. Because many environmental impacts can be associated with energy
consumption, priorities were given to including materials or processes that are known or
suspected to consume large amounts of energy.
4. Materials that are physically or functionally unique to one alternative over another. The
physical or functional uniqueness of a material or component could be identified by chemical
makeup or by size.
Materials that are greater than one percent of the total mass of material required to manufacture
the product were considered for inclusion in the scope. Attempts were made to include all materials
greater than five percent by weight. Materials between one percent and five percent by mass were subject
to inclusion based on other decision rules or data availability (as approved by the WCP Core Group,
described in Section 1.4.7). Materials of known or suspected environmental or energy significance were
also included, regardless of their mass contribution. Materials that are physically or functionally unique
to a cable product alternative over the baseline construction, as determined by the Core Group, are also
considered if they would have otherwise been eliminated based on the mass cutoff.
1.4.3 Data collection and data sources
Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data are directly
accessible, plant-specific, measured, modeled, or estimated data generated for the particular project at
hand. Secondary data are from literature sources, LCI databases, or other LCAs, but may not be specific
to the product of interest. Table 1-4 lists the types of data (primary or secondary) collected for each life-
cycle stage in the WCP LCI. If both primary and secondary data are lacking, various assumptions and
modeling serve as defaults.
17
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 1-4
Data Types by Life-cycle Stage
Life-cycle stage Data types Scope
Upstream (materials extraction Secondary data; possibly primary
and processing) data greater empnasis
Product manufacturing Primary data or secondarV data Greater emphasis
M for industry averages K
Installation and use None Excluded since it is equivalent
among alternatives
data Moderate emPhasis
Packaging, transportation, M Excluded because it is assumed
.. 4 .. 4. K ' None to be equivaent among
distribution ., ;1 M
aternatives
1.4.4 Allocation procedures
An allocation procedure is required when a process within a system shares a common
management structure with other products produced. In the WCP LCI, allocation procedures may be
required when processes or services associated with the functional unit are used in more than one product
line at the same facility. Inputs and outputs are allocated among the product lines to avoid overestimating
the environmental burdens associated with the product under evaluation.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recommends that wherever possible,
allocation should be avoided or minimized. This may be achieved by subdividing the unit process into
two or more subprocesses, some of which can be excluded from the system under study. For example, if
a manufacturer produces only one type of cable, no allocation would be necessary from that
manufacturer. However, if the manufacturer produces multiple cables products, the flows would need to
be allocated to the one cable of interest. As suggested by ISO, if sub-processes within the facility can be
identified that distinguish between the cables being manufactured, the sub-processes manufacturing the
cables that are not of interest can be eliminated from the analysis, thus reducing allocation procedures.
Where disaggregation into subprocesses was not possible, inventory data for utilities and services
common to several processes were allocated to reflect the relative use of the service. For example, fuel
inputs and emission outputs from electric utility generation were allocated to a cable according to the
actual or estimated electricity consumed during the applicable process.
1.4.5 Data management and analysis software
The data collected in this study were obtained either from data forms developed for this project,
from existing databases, or from primary or secondary data collected by Abt Associates, Inc. All data
were then transferred to spreadsheets, which were then imported into a commercially available LCA tool:
GaBi4-The Software System for Life Cycle Engineering [PE Europe GmbH and IKP University of
Stuttgart, 2003]. This software tool stores and organizes life-cycle inventory data and calculates life-
cycle impacts for a product profile. It is designed to allow flexibility in conducting life-cycle design and
life-cycle assessment functions, and provides the means to organize inventory data, investigate alternative
scenarios, evaluate impacts, and assess data quality. Impact methods developed by the University of
18
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Tennessee under grants from DfE were also incorporated into the GaBi4 tool as appropriate for this
project.
1.4.6 Data quality
LCI data quality can be evaluated based on the following data quality indicators (DQIs): (1) the
source type (i.e., primary or secondary data sources), (2) the method in which the data were obtained (i.e.,
measured, calculated, estimated), and (3) the time period for which the data are representative. LCI DQIs
are discussed further in Life-Cycle Assessment Data Quality: A Conceptual Framework (SETAC, 1994).
Data quality for each life-cycle stage is summarized below.
For the primary data collected in this project, we asked participating companies to report the
method in which their data were obtained and the time period for which the data are representative. Data
from 2005-2006 were sought. The time period of secondary data and methods in which the data were
originally obtained were also recorded, where available. Secondary data were expected to be from earlier
time periods.
Anomalies and missing data are common hurdles in any data collecting exercise. Anomalies are
extreme values within a given data set. Any anomaly identified during the course of this project that is
germane to project results was highlighted for the project team and investigated to determine its source
(e.g., mis-reported values). If the anomaly could be traced to an event inherently related to the process, it
was left in the data set. If, however, the anomaly could not be accounted for, it was removed from the
data set.
We attempted to account for missing data by replacing it hierarchically. That is, if specific
primary data were missing, secondary data were used. Where neither primary nor secondary data were
available, we made assumptions, and in cases where there was potentially large uncertainty with an
assumption, we conducted an uncertainty analysis based on those assumptions. In the cases where no
data were found or reasonable assumptions could be made, these deficiencies were reported. Any
proprietary information required for the assessment is subject to confidentiality agreements between Abt
Associates, Inc. and the participating company. Proprietary data are presented as aggregated data from a
minimum of three companies to avoid revealing the source of the data.
1.4.7 Critical review
Critical review is a technique used to verify whether an LCA has met the requirements of the
study for methodology, data, and reporting, as defined in the goal definition and scoping phase. A critical
review process was maintained in the WCP LCA to help ensure that the following criteria were met:
• The methods used to carry out assessments are consistent with the EPA, SETAC, and ISO
assessment guidelines.
• The methods used to carry out assessments are scientifically and technically valid within the
LCA framework.
• The data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goals of the study.
• The interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goals of the study.
• The study results are transparent and consistent.
This review process conforms to the recommendations in ISO 14040.
19
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
A project Core Group of representatives from industry, academia, and government provided
critical reviews of the project assessments. The Core Group served as the project Steering Committee,
and was responsible for approving all major scoping assumptions and decisions. It provided technical
guidance and reviews of all major project deliverables including the final LCA report. In addition to Core
Group review, the report was also reviewed by several EPA staff, including those with LCA and risk
assessment expertise.
Comments on the review drafts were collected, logged into a comment-response log, and shared
with all reviewers. Meetings to discuss and/or resolve comments were conducted and the final responses
and actions taken were entered into the comment-response long and provided to the reviewers with the
final report. An independent LCA expert was identified within EPA, who was tasked with conducting a
review of the methods and findings of this study. Supplied with this document, in accordance with
Section 7.3.2 of ISO 14040, is a review statement from the authors of the study, comments of the expert
LCA practitioner, and responses to the recommendations made by this practitioner.
20
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
CHAPTER 2 LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY
The process of quantifying the inputs (e.g., materials, utilities) and outputs (e.g., emissions,
wastes) of a product system is the life-cycle inventory (LCI) phase of a life-cycle assessment (LCA). A
product system is made up of the multiple processes that help produce, use, or dispose of the product.
Each process has an inventory that consists of input and output flows for that process, and an LCI of a
product system consists of several inventories for processes throughout the life cycle of the product. This
chapter presents the data collection methodology for each life-cycle stage, in Sections 2.1 through 2.4,
followed by the LCI results in Section 2.5.
2.1 Upstream Materials Extraction & Processing Life-Cycle Stages
This section addresses the LCIs related to two major life-cycle stages—materials extraction and
materials processing (ME&P)—which together will be referred to as the life-cycle stages that are
"upstream" of the product manufacturing (i.e., compounding and extruding) stage.
The purpose of this section is to present the approach used to obtain process-specific inventory
data, from primary and secondary sources, related to extraction and processing of the materials needed to
produce wire and cable insulation and jacketing compounds. Numerous materials and upstream processes
are used to produce wire and cable insulation and jacketing compounds. Therefore, decision rules were
used to limit which materials to include in the scope of the LCA. Existing data from secondary sources
were used where available. For inventories related to materials extraction and materials processing,
various databases with input and output LCI data exist for materials commonly used in the wire and cable
industry (i.e., PVC, HDPE, and certain fillers). However, data do not exist for most of the flame
retardants, heat stabilizers, plasticizers, and other resins (e.g., FEP) used in the insulation and jacketing
compounds. Because of the lack of available secondary LCI data, the WCP sought to collect primary data
for these materials.
This section of the report first identifies materials considered for inclusion in the ME&P life-
cycle stage. The remainder of the section presents the methodology for collecting upstream data,
including data sources, and the limitations to using the upstream data for the WCP.
2.1.1 Materials selection
This section describes the decision process for including materials in the WCP upstream LCI
data. The first step in collecting upstream data was to identify those materials that are used in producing
the cables, both primary materials and ancillary materials (i.e., fuels and process materials). Bills of
materials for the cables in this study are presented in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, respectively. (Note that the
WCP excluded the conductor from the analysis because the same gauge copper and number of conductors
are used in each of the cable alternatives within a given cable type.) The tables present the mass per unit
length of each component material in each of the cable alternatives, and their percent mass contribution of
the cable with and without the copper conductor. The quantities are based on primary data collected from
compounders and manufacturers under confidentiality agreements. The tables show the averages from a
total of six different companies.
For each of the three cable types in this study, the bills of materials of lead-stabilized cable
(baseline) and the non-leaded alternatives are presented in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. A complete bill of
materials for CMR zero-halogen cables was not obtained; thus, only limited analyses with these cables are
possible. Upstream data selection for the CMR zero-halogen cable alternative is based on general
21
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
descriptions of the cables provided by participating companies and limited data provided under
confidentiality agreements (Table 2-4).
Table 2-1
Average CMR Cable Construction Bills of Materials3
Material Name [CASRNf
Copper(Su)[7440250-8]
Polyvinylchlor1de(PVC)[9p02-86-2]
High density polyethylene (HOPE)
[9002-88-4]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PJitha]atej3as^djDlastjcjzer^^^^_
Non-halogenated flame retardant #1
Ppjypjefin
Trimellitate plasticizer
Brominated phthalate
Non-halogen FR#2
Tribasic lead sulfate [12202-17-4]
Dibasic lead phthalate [17976-43-1]
Calcium-Zinc-based stabilizers
[various]^^^^^^^_
r ' ° u s 1
Calcium carbonate (CaCOS)
PoJy^ethyJ^n^JejBpJiWT^te (PET)
#1
Proprietary lubricant #2
Printing Ink
Proprietary material #1
TOTAL CABLE WEIGHT
Function
Conductor8
Jacket resin
Insulation resin
Jac^ej_pjasticize£_
Jacket flame
retardant
§2PJS^L____
Jacket flame
retardant
Jacket flame
retardant
Jacket filler
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Insulation colorant
Jacket filler
BiE££[^______
Jacket lubricant
U£Mjt£bJ]Eer__
Jacket lubricant
Ink
Other
E
Co
Mass
(kg/km)c
23.3
7.47
4.55
2.25
proprietary
p_rop_rietary
proprietary
proprietary^
0.466
proprietary
0.351
proprietary
Baseline
nstructio
Weight
%of
cable
with Cu
54%
17%
11%
5.2%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
"^ \ /O
0.81 %
<1%
n
Weight
%of
cable
without
Cu
N/A
23%
1-5%
1^5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1.8%
<1%
N/A
proprietary
proprietary
0.0538
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
43.3e
<1%
<1%
<1%
0.12%
<1%
*C \ /Q
N/A
1-5%
<1%
<1 %
0.27%
<1%
:;:
Pb-fre
Co
Mass
24.2
8.92
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
prpjpjnetajy
e Alterna
istruction
Weight
%of
cable
with Cu
53%
19%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
N/A
1-5%
£roprieta ry | < 1 %
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
N/A
N/A
1-5%
1-5%
:ive
Weight
%of
cable
without
Cu
N/A
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
proprietary [ <1% <1%
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
46. Of
<1%
*C 1 /Q
Zero-halogen not included as complete cable construction data were not provided.
Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number.
Metric to English unit conversion: 1 kg/km cable = 0.673 lb/1000 ft cable.
Conductor is unshielded twisted pair, 8 conductors in 4 pairs; 23-gauge bare copper. The mass of copper is slightly
different due to averaging data from different companies, all of whom did not provide data for both alternatives. Thus,
although within a company, the amount of copper was consistent across alternatives, averaging a different number of
data sets for each alternative resulted in slightly different mass averages of copper.
94 wt% of the total CMR baseline cable insulation and jacketing is modeled in this analysis (see Table 2-5 for which
upstream datasets were not obtained).
90 wt% of the total CMR lead-free cable insulation and jacketing is modeled in this analysis (see Table 2-5 for which
upstream datasets were not obtained).
Note: Percentages without copper that meet the > 1 percent mass cutoff are in bold. Percentages without copper that
meet the > 5 percent mass cutoff are in bold and shaded.
22
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 2-2
Average CMP Cable Construction Bills of Materials
Material Name [CASRNf
^ffii^^
Fluorinated ethylene propylene
[FEP)_[25067;11:2]^^^^^^
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Aluminum trihydrate (ATM)
[21645;51:2]
Fluorop_olyjper
Proprietary FR#3
Ammonium octamolybdate
[12411-64-2]
Brominated phthalate [various]
Calcium carbonate (CaCOS)
_[471;34:1]^^^^^^^^^_
^I2£I!^^I1^1^^E^1^——————,
Lead-based stabilizer #1
Lead-based stabilizer #2
Calcium-Zinc-based stabilizers
[various]^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
^I1^^^^^2^I^L————————
^Il^^^^^S^I^L————————,
Proprietary FR#4
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Lead-based stabilizer #3
Zinc borate
Stearic acid [57-11-4]
Proprietary light stabilizer #1
Proprietary material #2
Barium stearate [6865-35-6]
Printing Ink
TOTAL CABLE WEIGHT
Function
Conductor0
Resin (insulation /
se£a£ato£2JijJ£[]___
Jacket resin
Jacket flame
retard ant
Separator
Jacket flame
retardant and/or
E!sMi£E£L_____
Jacket flame
retardant and/or
Pjasticizei^^^^_
Jacket filler
Jacket flame
retardant and/or
EJSMlHiS^L—————
Jacket filler
Jacketi£JastJdz^r__
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Insulation colorant
j£ck^tjn££pjpjant__
Jacket flame
retardant
RJ£cord_
Jacket heat
stabilizer
Jacket flame
retardant
Jacket lubricant
Lkjht_stabilizer
Unknown
Jacket lubricant
Ink
E
Co
Mass
23.7
EI2£I!®!SIY-
prop_rietary_
proprietary
pro£rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
p_ro£rietary_
p_ro£rietary_
pj2£rietary_
p_ro£riet^ry_
p_ro£rietary_
Baseline
nstructig
Weight
%of
cable
with Cu
51%
>5%
>5%
>5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
n
Weight
%of
cable
without
Cu
N/A
>5%
>5%
>5%
EMIII
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
<1%
<1%
<1%
N/A
p_ro£rieta_rY_
pj2£rietary_
prop_rietary_
proprietary
P[opj]etary_
prop_rietary_
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
46.5e
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
N/A
5%
>5%
>5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
<1%
<1%
>5%
>5%
>5%
1^5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
N/A
N/A
p_rop_rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1-5%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
N/A
p_rop_rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
p_rop_rietary_
proprietary^
proprietary
proprietary
45.4f
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
data sets for each alternative resulted in slightly different mass averages of copper.
92 wt% of the total CMP baseline cable insulation and jacketing is modeled in this analysis (see Table 2-5 for which
upstream datasets were not obtained).
92 wt% of the total CMP lead-free cable insulation and jacketing is modeled in this analysis (see Table 2-5 for which
upstream datasets were not obtained).
Note: Percentages without copper that meet the > 1 percent mass cutoff are in bold. Percentages without copper that
meet the > 5 percent mass cutoff are in bold and shaded.
Table 2-3
Average NM-B Cable Construction Bills of Materials
Material Name [CASRN]3
Copper (CulI7440-50-81
Polyvinyl chloride (pvcj
[9002-86-2]
Proprietary plasticizer#2
Pa£er/bind^^^^_
Calcium carbonate (CaCOS)
[JISJJMSS^^
Nylon [63428-83-1]
Function
Conducted
Resin
Plasticizer
Filler
Filler
Conductor jacketing
resin
Norvpjrthalate plasticizer #1 |Plasticizer
Pro£rietary_plasticizer #3
Calcined clay [66402-68-4]
Ca/Zn based stabilizer
Omya£arb F Bags
LJnsp_ecified lubricants
Lead-based heat stabilizer #2
Unsgecified^ colorants [various]
Phthalate_pjasticizer #4
PhthaJatejDjasticizer #5
Lead-based heat stabilizer #1
Plasticizer
Filler
Stabilizer
Unknown
Lubricant
Heat stabilizer
Colorant
Plasticizer
Plasticizer
Heat stabilizer
Antjmonyjrioxidejl 309-64-4] |Flame retardant
Stearicacid [57-11-4]
Lubricant #2
link
^^^^^^^.^^
Lubricant
Lubricant
link
Baseline
Construction
Mass
proprietary
14.4
proprietary
proprietary
7.2
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
0.600
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
proprietary
0.085
0.070
proprietary
124s
Weight
%of
cable
with Cu
>5%
12%
>5%
l"-5%
5.8%
1-5%
5%
>i%^^
20%
>5%
1^5%
1-5%
1.7%
5%
N/A
i_-"s%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
N/A
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Weight
%of
cable
without
Cu
N/A
>5%
>nzz
>5%
>5%
>i%n.
1-5%
1-5%
<1%
<1%
N/A
<1% j<1%
""N/A
>5%" j>5'%"
N/A
1 percent mass cutoff are in bold. Percentages without copper that
meet the > 5 percent mass cutoff are in bold and shaded.
24
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 2-4
CMR Zero-Halogen Material Breakdown
Material Name Weight % of Cable Without Copper3
Resins ,- 0/
__FR^J^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^_^^_
___^
Heat stabilizer
Lubricants < 1 %
Other
' Materials modeled in this analysis constitute 7 wt% of cable insulation and jacketing.
Decision rules were then applied to the bills of materials in order to determine which materials to
focus on during the upstream data collection process. In considering the inclusion of production
processes for upstream materials, several factors were considered, including availability of existing data
and manufacturers' willingness to participate. Including all of the upstream processes in the scope of the
project can unnecessarily lengthen the project period and expend project resources on materials that are
unlikely to influence the impact results. The upstream processes included in this analysis were limited to
materials contained within the materials found in the final cable constructions. Production processes for
materials contained within those cable materials were not included (e.g., production of fluorspar used in
FEP production was not considered for inclusion).
The decision criteria provided in Section 1.4.2 were used to assess which upstream processes the
scope should include. As per the decision rules, those materials constituting more than 5 percent were
given priority, and materials comprising between 1 and 5 percent were evaluated for whether or not
upstream inventories were required. Inclusion of materials falling into the 1 to 5 percent range was based
on the other decision rule criteria, as well as data availability. Materials of known or suspected
environmental or energy significance were included, regardless of their mass contribution. Additionally,
materials that were physically unique or functionally significant to a cable alternative (e.g., a Ca/Zn-based
stabilizer), as determined by the Core Group, were included to the extent possible if they would have been
otherwise eliminated based on the mass cutoff. Because the LCA is comparative in nature, greater
emphasis was placed on materials that are physically unique to a cable formulation. In cases where we
set out to collect data for a material that met our decision rules and were unsuccessful, in Section 2.1.3 we
explain the limitations.
Table 2-5 shows the specific materials for which upstream LCI data were sought, the rationale for
their inclusion, and the type of inventory data included in the LCIs. Resins and plasticizers were included
because they comprise more than 5 percent of the cable insulation and jacketing compounds by mass.
The weight percent of flame retardants ranged from less than 1 percent to greater than 5 percent for the
different cable types and alternatives. Any flame retardant comprising greater than 5 percent was
included for upstream process data (i.e., ATH), those between 1 and 5 percent were included if secondary
data were readily available, and those less than 1 percent were included only if they were greater than 1
percent for a different cable alternative. The lead-based heat stabilizers, which comprise either less than 1
percent or 1 to 5 percent of the insulation and jacketing by mass were included because they are of
potential environmental significance. The Ca/Zn-based heat stabilizers were included because they are
between 1 and 5 percent and they are physically unique to the alternative formulations compared to the
25
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Pb-based baseline. The fillers and separators were included based on mass. Details about the data are
contained in the following sections.
As shown in Table 2-5, primary or secondary data were collected for most of the materials
identified using the decision rules. However, data for a few materials, such as some of the flame
retardants and other fillers in the compounded jacketing resin (PVC) were not obtained. For the CMR
cables, 94 percent of the cable mass is accounted for in the upstream processes for the baseline cable and
90 percent for the lead-free alternative. The zero-halogen CMR cable only accounted for 7 percent of the
cable mass. For the CMP cables, 92 percent of the mass is accounted for in both the CMP baseline and
lead-free alternative. Finally, 88 percent of cable mass of the NM-B baseline cable is accounted for, and
85 percent of the lead-free NM-B cable. Details of what was and was not included are provided in
Section 2.1.2.
Table 2-5
Upstream Materials Selected for Inclusion in LCIs
Component
Insulation and
jacketing resin
Plasticizer
Flame retardant
Heat stabilizer
Filler
Separator
Material name
Fluorinated ethylene
propylene (FEP)a
High density polyethylene
(HOPE)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Nylon
Phthalate-based
Non-phthalate-based
Aluminum trihydrate (ATH)
Ammonium octamolybdate
(AOM)
Antimony trioxide
Brominated phthalate
Pb-based
Ca/Zn-based
Calcined clay
Calcium carbonate
Polypropylene
Polyethylene
Fluoropolymer
Decision
criteria meta
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Environmental
significance
Physical uniqueness
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Mass cutoff
Upstream process
data included
Primary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data combined
for multiple phthalates
No data obtained
Secondary data
No data obtained
No data obtained
No data obtained
Secondary data
Primary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Used primary data of FEP
FEP production, which came from primary datasets, was modeled with 2 industrial precursor chemicals functioning
as inputs; PVC and HOPE, both of which came from secondary datasets, were modeled as if all of the materials
came from ground (mining of inert or low-toxicity inputs), and did not explicitly include industrial precursor chemicals.
Fuels and electricity are used in various processes in each life-cycle stage. All fuels and
electricity contributing greater than 1 percent of total energy sources for each process are included in the
LCI. Production inventory data were collected for the following:
26
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• natural gas,
• light or distillate fuel oil (fuel oil #2),
• heavy fuel oil (fuel oil #6), and
• electricity generation.
No ancillary (process) materials meeting the decision rules outlined in Section 1.4.2 were
identified for the compounding or extruding processes; therefore, no upstream data were collected for
ancillary materials. For materials that do not meet the decision rules for inclusion as upstream production
processes, the materials themselves are still included in the LCI for a cable alternative and are used to
calculate impacts as appropriate for each impact category (see Chapter 3).
2.1.2 Data collection
Upstream LCI data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data are
directly accessible, plant-specific, measured, modeled, or estimated data generated for the particular
project at hand. Secondary data are from literature sources or other LCAs, but are specific to a product,
material, or process used in the manufacture of the product of interest. Where both primary and
secondary data were lacking, modeled data or assumptions served as defaults.
Based on input from the Core Group members, a number of companies (many of which
participated in the Core Group) were identified as potential sources of primary data for the production of
FEP, plasticizers, flame retardants, and heat stabilizers. These included three manufacturers of FEP, five
plasticizer manufacturers, two flame retardant manufacturers, and four manufacturers of heat stabilizers.
Only a subset of these companies provided data. Primary data for upstream processes were ultimately
obtained for FEP resin and Ca/Zn stabilizer production. Any proprietary information collected from
primary sources was subject to confidentiality agreements between Abt Associates, Inc. and the
participating company. When multiple data sets were collected from the companies for a single process,
data were aggregated to generate a single value for each inventory flow. If aggregation was insufficient
to protect the confidentiality of the data, then the data were not reported at a process-specific level.
Where primary data for upstream materials were lacking, secondary data were pursued. In
addition, data for the fuels and electricity used in the life-cycle processes were obtained from secondary
data sources.
Secondary data were collected for manufacturing PVC, HDPE, phthalate plasticizers, selected
flame retardants, and filler material. Neither primary nor secondary data were available for lead-based
stabilizer manufacturing, but secondary data were collected for lead manufacturing. The following
sections detail the primary and secondary data collected for these materials.
2.1.2.1 Resin manufacturing
The resin is the principal component of cable insulation and jacketing. PVC, FEP, and HDPE are
the three main resins used in the cables of interest to the WCP. Secondary data were collected for PVC
and HDPE, as well as nylon, another resin used in NM-B cables.
Two databases were identified as potential sources of secondary LCI data for PVC, HDPE, and
nylon manufacturing:
27
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• PlasticsEurope (formerly the Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe, APME) is an
industry body that has published inventory data on HDPE and PVC resin (PlasticsEurope,
2007). These data sets are European-based, of moderate quality, and available free.
• BUWAL is the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (PRe, 2004). This
agency has several published reports on LCA. BUWAL 250 is an English version of the
agency's LCI database of several common industrial materials. It is a relatively inexpensive
database that uses European data collected from secondary sources; therefore, the data quality
is marginal.
Secondary LCI data from PlasticsEurope (formerly APME) for the production of suspension-
polymerized PVC were used in this study. Originally collected by APME in 1992-1993, this LCI data set
was last updated in March 2005 (Boustead, 2005b). Ten separate European PVC plants, which produced
a combined 1,730,000 metric tons of PVC in 1993, supplied data for the APME study. The PVC data set
begins with the raw materials (i.e., crude oil, natural gas, rock salt, and brine) and includes all operations
up to the production of the PVC resin; it does not include the compounding process. For detailed
information about PVC manufacturing, see Boustead (2005b).
The WCP chose to use the PlasticsEurope secondary data because the data are publicly available
and the data collection process is well documented.9 A major shortfall of the PlasticsEurope PVC data is
the fact that it ignores the generation of intermediate products such as ethylene dichloride and vinyl
chloride. This gap in the data is expected to potentially understate the occupational health impacts
inherent in the production of these chlorinated organics. Secondary LCI data from PlasticsEurope also
were used for HDPE production. PlasticsEurope collected production data, representing 1999 production,
from 24 plants in Western Europe, which produced a total of 3.87 million metric tons (accounting for 89.7
percent of Western European production) of HDPE in 1999 (Boustead, 2005a). The HDPE data set
begins with the raw materials (i.e., crude oil and natural gas) and includes all process steps through to the
production of HDPE by polymerizing ethylene. For detailed information about HDPE manufacturing, see
Boustead (2005).
Primary LCI data for FEP manufacturing were collected for the WCP. Primary data, representing
2005 production, were collected from two of three major manufacturers contacted.
FEP is synthesized from hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) via emulsion
polymerization. A 68:32 molar percent HFP:TFE vapor mixture is fed to a heated reactor containing a
surfactant, a perfluoropolyether, and deionized water. A free radical initiator solution starts the
polymerization, and additional HFP, TFE, and initiator solution are added as the polymerization proceeds.
LCI data included in the WCP cover the synthesis of FEP from fluorspar, sulfuric acid, methane, and
chlorine. Figure 2-1 shows the steps in the synthesis of TFE, HFP, and FEP (Ring et al., 2002):
9 A report prepared for the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) includes newly developed
LCI data for several plastics, including HDPE, PVC and polypropylene (Franklin and Associates, 2007). The report,
however, was not available in time for this study. The ACC study described differences between their data and the
PlasticsEurope database. They found that the energy impacts of HDPE, PVC and polypropylene based on the ACC
database were 9%, 10%, and 13% less than the PlasticsEurope data, respectively. The differences were due to the
differences between the North American and European means of forming, transporting, and disposing materials.
Thus, the use of PlasticsEurope data could overestimate energy impacts by the percentages noted; and could
potentially overestimate other impact categories by unknown amounts. Note: another data source (Ecolnvent) was
not available for review.
28
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
HF preparation:
CaF2 (fluorspar) + H2SO4 -> 2HF + CaSO4
^^^
Chloroform preparation (CHCI3):
CH4 + 3CI2 -> CHCI3 + 3HCIO
^^^
Chlorodifluoromethane preparation (CHCIF2):
CHCI3 + 2HF -> CHCIF2 + HCI (SbF3 catalyst)
TFE synthesis (C2F4):
2CHCIF2 -> CF2 -> C2F4 + 2HCI (pyrolysis)
'
HFP Synthesis: (CF3CF = CF2):
TFE -> HFP (pyrolysis)
i
Synthesis of FEP:
HFP + TFE->FEP
™1
Figure 2-1. Fluorinated Ethylene-Propylene Synthesis
This study included upstream production of major materials in the cables (e.g., FEP) as defined
by decision rules described earlier; however, it did not include in its scope upstream production of major
materials used to produce the upstream materials (e.g., production of fluorspar, which is used in FEP
production, is not included as an upstream process; however, these materials are included in the cable
inventories and any impacts associated with those flows are included). However, as a result of secondary
dataset boundaries, PVC and HDPE were modeled as coming from ground (i.e., all inputs were mined,
bulk precursors). This discrepancy limits the utility of comparisons between FEP and the other resins,
especially in impact categories that utilize inputs rather than outputs.
Polypropylene and polyethylene are two resins used in the CMR separators (crosswebs) that meet
the mass cutoff decision rules. Secondary data for HDPE described above is used, as well as secondary
data available in GaBi 4 for polypropylene. The polypropylene data within GaBi was secondary LCI data
derived from the Eco Inventories of the European Polymer Industry (PlasticsEurope). The GaBi 4
documentation does not note the sample size, location, and total mass output of the representative plants.
Polypropylene constitutes less than 5 percent of the mass of the cables without copper.
2.1.2.2 Plasticizer manufacturing
The wire and cable industry incorporates plasticizers into PVC in order to make it flexible and
workable. The wire and cable industry uses many different plasticizers, most commonly, phthalate esters
and trimellitates. For CMR cables, plasticizers represent between 12 and 16 percent by weight of the
cable without the copper; for NM-B, between 10 and 40 percent; and for CMP, less than 7 percent.
Phthalate esters are the most commonly used type of plasticizers. The wire and cable industry uses many
different phthalate esters in PVC compounds. This report does not list the specific phthalate esters that
the study partners use, because the compounds' formulations are proprietary. The WCP was unable to
collect primary data for plasticizer manufacturing; therefore, secondary LCI data from Ecobilan for the
29
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
production of the three major phthalate esters—dioctylphthalate or di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DOP or
DEHP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP)—were used as a surrogates in this
study (Ecobilan, 2001). Eight companies, representing 15 European production plants, provided data for
the Ecobilan study, which refer to 1998 phthalate ester production, with the exception of some 1999 data.
Phthalate esters are manufactured by reacting phthalic anhydride (PA) with two moles of oxo
alcohols to produce the ester (Kattas et al., 2000; Ecobilan, 2001). The length and nature of the oxo
alcohols (Cl to C13) used to make the esters affects their properties. DEHP is produced from 2-
ethylhexanol, DINP is produced from isononyl alcohol, and DIDP is produced from isodecyl alcohol
(Ecobilan, 2001). The Ecobilan study collected primary data for the production of DEHP, DINP, and
DIDP; and the main intermediates: phthalate anhydride (PAN), C8 and C9 olefins, synthesis gas, n-
butyraldehyde, 2-ethylhexanol, isononyl alcohol, and isodecyl alcohol.
Since the Ecobilan data are general to three major phthalate esters, they are used to represent all
the phthalate plasticizers in this project. This approach was chosen over excluding upstream data for the
plasticizers, which are greater than 10 percent by mass of CMR and NM-B cables.
Trimellitate esters are used as plasticizers in wire and cable compounds in conjunction with
phthalate esters. The WCP was unsuccessful in its attempts to collect primary data for the manufacture of
trimellitate esters, and no sources of secondary data were identified; therefore, this LCA does not include
an LCI dataset for the manufacture of trimellitate esters. However, trimellitate plasticizers represent less
than 5 weight percent of the insulation and jacketing for the CMR baseline and less than 7 weight percent
for the CMR lead-free alternative. This omission will therefore have a greater effect on the lead-free
alternative results than the baseline.
2.1.2.3 Flame-retardant manufacturing
Flame retardants are added to PVC in order to slow the spread of fire, reduce the amount of heat
and smoke emitted during a fire, and cause a fire to self-extinguish. Aluminum trihydrate (ATH,
aluminum hydroxide) is the most commonly used flame retardant in U.S. wire and cable, comprising 73
percent of the market in 1998 (TURI, 2002). Antimony trioxide/oxide (ATO), ammonium
octamolybdate, and brominated phthalates are also used as flame retardants in the cables that the WCP is
evaluating.
The WCP was unsuccessful in its attempts to collect primary data for the manufacture of these
four flame retardants. Secondary LCI data were available for ATH production, while no secondary data
sets were available for ATO, ammonium octamolybdate, or brominated phthalates. ATH represents the
majority (by weight) of all flame retardants used in the CMR and CMP alternatives this study is
evaluating. The flame retardant in NM-B cables comprises less than 1 percent by weight, and therefore
no upstream flame retardant data are included.
A secondary data set for the production of ATH was used in this study, from the SP Swedish
National Testing and Research Institute (Andersson et al., 2005). ATH is a heat-absorbing flame
retardant that removes heat by using it to evaporate water from its structure (Kattas et al., 2000). It is
typically used in flexible PVC formulations in the 20 to 50 phr (parts per hundred parts resin) range
(Kroushl, 2004). ATH is typically manufactured from the mineral bauxite, which contains 40 to 60
percent alumina, silica (silicon oxide), iron oxide, and titanium dioxide. In the Bayer process for alumina
production, the alumina is dissolved in hot sodium hydroxide solution, and the iron oxide and other
oxides are removed as insoluble "red mud." The solution is then purified, and aluminum trihydrate is
precipitated by cooling the purified solution and seeding with aluminum trihydrate crystals (Beck, 2001).
30
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Antimony trioxide (ATO) is a flame retardant synergist that acts to enhance the flame retarding
properties of bromine- or chlorine-based flame retardants (Kattas et al., 2000). It is used in PVC-based
compounds in the 2 to 3 phr range (Kroushl, 2004). ATO is produced from stibnite ores (antimony
trisulfide) or as a by-product of lead smelting and production (IARC, 1989). The manufacture of ATO
involves a sublimation reaction of antimony metal with oxygen. Commercial ATO generally contains a
maximum up to 0.25 percent of lead and up to 0.1 percent of arsenic contaminants on a weight basis
(EFRA, 2006). In cables (in this study) that use ATO, the ATO is less than 3 percent by mass of a length
of cable.
2.1.2.4 Heat stabilizer manufacturing
Heat stabilizers are added to PVC in order to prevent its thermal degradation during periods of
exposure to elevated temperatures, such as during processing (i.e., extrusion) and during the useful life of
the cable (Kattas et al., 2000). The cables the WCP is studying use either lead-based heat stabilizers or
mixed metal-based heat stabilizers. Lead-based heat stabilizers have been the predominant heat
stabilizers used in wire and cable applications because they have provided cost-effective stabilization
while offering excellent electrical insulation properties. However, lead-based heat stabilizers are being
replaced by mixed metal-based heat stabilizers because of concerns about the toxicity of lead (Kattas et
al, 2000).
The WCP was unsuccessful in its attempts to collect primary data for the manufacture of lead-
based heat stabilizers, but a secondary data set for lead manufacturing was available (Primary lead mix,
1997). Because lead-based heat stabilizers are predominantly composed of lead, the lead data set was
used as a surrogate for lead-based heat stabilizer manufacturing, by applying the percentage of lead in the
lead-based heat stabilizer to the lead data set. Lead sulfates (e.g., tribasic lead sulfate) are inorganic-
based stabilizers that are manufactured by reacting lead oxides with sulfuric acid or a sulfate solution
(Baitz et al., 2004). Dibasic lead phthalate, an organic-based heat stabilizer, contains 76 percent lead;
tribasic lead sulfate contains 83.5 percent lead (Associated Additives, 2007). Since the lead-based
stabilizers are included for the potential environmental significance of lead, and comprise only small
percentages of the non-copper portion of the cables, the remaining non-lead portion of the heat stabilizers,
which constitute even smaller percentages of the cables, are not included as upstream data.
Primary data for calcium/zinc-based heat stabilizer manufacturing were provided by two different
companies. Calcium/zinc-based heat stabilizers are simple physical blends; no chemical reactions occur.
The stabilizers are manufactured by mixing the components in an electrically powered ribbon blender.
Table 2-6 shows a typical formulation for a Ca/Zn based stabilizer.
Table 2-6
Ca/Zn-Based Heat Stabilizer Formulation
Material Weight
hydrotalcite/zeolite 0.56 kg/kg
calcium stearate 0.18 kg/kg
zinc stearate 0.17 kg/kg
proprietary additives 0.09 kg/kg
31
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2.1.2.5 Fillers
The primary fillers used in the manufacture of wire and cable are limestone (CaCO3) and calcined
clay. The inventory for the production of both minerals was obtained from secondary data contained
within GaBi. The inventory for limestone was based on studies from 1995, 1997, and 1999 documented
in German. The source of the inventory for calcined clay, or kaolin, was from 1995 data.
2.1.2.6 Fuels and process materials
The fuel and power inventories were obtained from secondary data sources. The GaBi database
inventories of natural gas, fuel oils, and electricity generation were used, and they contain the following
processes:
• Electricity generation - Assumes a grid of 52.3 percent hard coal, 22.7 percent nuclear power,
12.4 percent natural gas, 4.2 percent crude oil, 3.5 percent lignite, 3.4 percent hydro, and 1.5
percent other. This process includes the extraction of individual fuels from the ground (e.g.,
coal, lignite, uranium) and the energy required to extract those fuels. Steam and cogenerated
electricity were not modeled as products of the grid, but rather as a burden-less byproduct of
using natural gas to generate heat during other processes.
• Natural gas - Exploration, extraction, processing, and distribution (via pipeline or liquefied
natural gas [LNG] tanker) to the end customer.
• Light fuel oil (#2) - Crude oil extraction, pipeline and tanker transport, crude oil
desalinization, atmospheric distillation, desulphurization (i.e., medium distillates to
hydrofmer), medium distillates mix plant that produces light fuel oil.
• Heavy fuel oil (#6) - Crude oil extraction, pipeline and tanker transport, crude oil
desalinization, atmospheric distillation, residue to fuel mix plant that produces heavy fuel oil.
Table 2-7 summarizes the data sources and data quality information for the secondary fuel and power
source inventories used in this study.
2.1.3 Limitations and uncertainties
Upstream data for the primary materials used in wire and cable compounds are not readily
available. Primary and/or secondary data sets were collected for 12 of the 16 materials identified for
inclusion in the upstream data collection process. Primary data were collected for two of the materials:
FEP and Ca/Zn-based heat stabilizers. Secondary data were collected for the remainder (see Table 2-5).
For the lead-based stabilizers, while data was unavailable on the compounds themselves, the majority of
the compounds are lead, and thus the production process of lead was included and scaled to the amount of
lead in the stabilizer compounds. Secondary data sets were also collected for all of the fuels and
electricity used in the compounding and extruding processes that met the decision rules.
The limitations and uncertainties associated with the ME&P stage inventories are primarily due to
the fact that some of these inventories were unobtainable and others were derived from secondary sources
and are not tailored to the specific goals and boundaries of the WCP. Because the secondary data may be
based on a limited number of facilities and have different geographic and temporal boundaries, they do
not necessarily represent current industry practices in the geographic and temporal boundaries defined for
the WCP (see Chapter 1). These limitations and uncertainties are common to LCA, which strives to
evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of entire product systems and is, therefore, limited by
32
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
resource constraints that do not allow the collection of original, measured data for every unit process
within a product life cycle.
Table 2-7
Data Sources and Data Quality for Fuel and Power Inventories Used In Various Life-Cycle Stages
Materials
Natural gas
Light fuel oil
(#2)
Heavy fuel oil
(#6)
Electricity
generation
Year
of
data
1995
1994
1994
1995
Geographic boundaries
Extraction
Canada, Mexico,
United States,
Algeria
Unclear (various
country-based data
sources cited)
Unclear (various
country-based data
sources cited)
Multiple countries,
fuel dependent
Processing
United
States
Germany
Germany
United
States
Primary
data
sources3
b, c
d, e
d, e
Not
available
Data quality description
GaBi4 states the data quality is
"...good. The important flows are
considered. Natural gas supply is
representative."
GaBi4 describes the data quality as
"good." It is average industrial data
from 1994.
GaBi4 describes the data quality as
"good." It is average industrial data
from 1994.
GaBi describes the data quality as
"good," claiming to use consistent
statistics and a comparable
information basis for every state.
All primary data sources are available within the GaBi4 database (PE&IKP, 2003).
b ETH Zuerich. oekoinventare Energiesysteme. Schweiz, 1996 (in PE&IKP, 2003).
c U. Fritsche et al. Gesamt- Emissions- Modell Integrierter Systeme (GEMIS) Version2. Darmstadt, 1992 (in PE&IKP, 2003).
ETH Zuerich. oekoinventare Energiesysteme. Schweiz, 1996 (in PE&IKP, 2003).
Q
K. Weissermehl; H.J. Arpe. Industrielle Organische Chemie. 5. vollst. ueberarb. Auflage. Weinheim, 1998 (in PE&IKP,
2003).
Specific to the secondary PVC and HDPE inventories, a major assumption is that European-based
data for production of these resins is similar to U.S.-based process data. For PVC, chlorinated
intermediate materials such as ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride were not provided in the inventory,
which will affect occupational inputs (see Chapter 3). For the lead-based heat stabilizer inventory, a
major assumption is that the production of lead adequately represents the upstream impacts associated
with lead-based stabilizer manufacturing. Specific to the electric grid inventory, uncertainties exist in the
weighting values applied to the various fuel sources from which the power is generated for the U.S.
electric grid. The factors were based on a reference year of 1995, and, thus, may vary given the volatility
of the oil supply and the current U.S. energy policy.
Other, specific limitations include the following:
• For the primary data sets (i.e., FEP and Ca/Zn production), 2 companies provided data for
each process. While a greater number of companies would have been preferred, those
providing data likely represent a large market share of the products.
• Data for phthalate esters were not directly available; thus the Ecobilan data, which combines
the production of several phthalate esters into one data set, was used to represent all phthalate
plasticizers identified for the cables being studied in this project. It is unknown what the
33
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
implications of this limitation would be on the results; however, those alternatives using a
smaller amount of plasticizers will have less uncertainty associated with this limitation.
• Upstream process data for trimellitate plasticizers (used for CMR and NM-B cables) were not
included in the LCIs for this study; however, these plasticizers are used in lower amounts
than the phthalate plasticizers.
• Upstream data for some flame retardants were not available; however, those for which data
were lacking only constitute small amounts of the cable insulation and jacketing by mass.
• FEP production data does not include extraction and processing of fluorspar and many other
post-mining precursors, in contrast to PVC and HDPE. However, this only affects the results
to the extent there are differences in the amount of FEP used in the lead versus the lead-free
alternatives (the baseline uses under 10 percent more FEP by weight).
• Secondary data are not all US-specific; however, it is unknown how this affects the results,
except that it contributes to uncertainty.
In general, although some upstream data have been excluded from the LCIs despite meeting the mass
cutoff, what is most important about how they affect the results is how different the quantities are for the
alternatives being compared. For example, if CMP, lead-stabilized cables use nearly the same amount of
a certain material, there will be less impact on the results.
2.2 Manufacturing Life-Cycle Stage
This section addresses the LCIs related to the product manufacturing life-cycle stage of cables.
The cable manufacturing life-cycle stage includes two distinct processes: the compounding of the
insulation and jacketing resins, where applicable, and cable manufacturing, which includes extrusion of
insulation and jacketing.
The purpose of this section is to present the approach for obtaining process-specific inventory
data related to the manufacturing stage (i.e., compounding, crossweb manufacturing, and extruding) of
three cable types: Category 6 CMR- and CMP-rated telecommunications cables, and low-voltage power
(i.e., NM-B) cables. LCI inputs for the manufacturing stage of the WCP include primary materials used
in the insulation and jacketing compounds and in the cable extrusion process, ancillary materials used to
manufacture the compounds and extrude the cables, and energy and other resources consumed in the
manufacturing of the compounds and extrusion of the cables. LCI process output flows include primary
products; co-products; and releases to air, water, and land.
2.2.1 Data collection
Primary data were collected through site visits or through the distribution of data collection forms
for all of the processes associated with the manufacturing life-cycle stage. Site visits were conducted at
four facilities, representing two compounders, two extruders, and one crossweb manufacturer (one facility
performs both compounding and extruding).
Data collection forms were developed by the Abt Associates, Inc. research team and approved by
the Core Group to most efficiently collect and organize inventory data needed for the LCA (Appendix A).
Data forms were completed during site visits or directly by companies when site visits were not possible.
Collected data included brief process descriptions; primary and ancillary material inputs; utility inputs
(e.g., electricity, fuels, water); air, water, and waste outputs; and product outputs. Quantities of inputs and
34
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
outputs provided by companies were converted to mass per unit of product produced, which was later
scaled to the mass per one kilometer of cable length to conduct the analyses on a common functional unit
basis. Transport of materials to and from the manufacturing facility was excluded from the data
collection process for this study, because it was assumed that impacts from transportation would be
similar for all alternatives within each product type.
During each site visit, Abt Associates, Inc. researchers and company personnel completed a data
collection form similar to those completed by facilities that were not visited. Each site visit took
approximately half a day and included an extensive tour of the processes, interviews with process
personnel, and a period of time spent completing and reviewing the data on the collection form for
accuracy. Data either had been previously measured or collected by the facility, or were estimated with
the assistance of process personnel with appropriate experience and process knowledge. Data were
collected, when possible, on a per mass of compound or cable produced basis.
Data collected from the processes were then scaled to represent the mass of the material required
per functional unit, which for the WCP is one kilometer (3,281 feet) of cable. Process data collected
based on volume were converted to mass using the product's density. In cases where data collected
covered the processing of more than one type of compound or cable (e.g., monthly energy consumption
for a process producing multiple compounds or cable types), data were allocated to the various compound
or cable types based on the mass of product produced. Other data were allocated to the compounds or
cables using appropriate conversions, where applicable. Multiple data sets collected for a single process
were aggregated before being used for analyses in the study. Data were aggregated to generate a single
value for each inventory item, to represent an industry average and to protect the confidentiality of
individual data points. The one variation to this approach (for CMR/CMP extrusion energy data) is
described in Section 2.2.4.
2.2.2 Telecommunications cables
The WCP is evaluating two types of telecommunications cables: Category 6 riser-rated cable
(CMR) and Category 6 plenum-rated cable (CMP). These cables consist of four pairs of insulated copper
conductors that are separated by a crossweb and encased in a plastic jacket. Primary data for the
manufacturing life-cycle stage were collected from compounders, crossweb manufacturers, and extruders
through a series of facility site visits and through the distribution of data collection forms. Data were
collected for the standard (i.e., baseline) and alternative formulations for both cable types (see Section
2.1.1). Although these processes vary slightly by manufacturer and cable type, the overall process for
manufacturing telecom cables follows a similar series of process steps. Figure 2-2 displays a flow
diagram for both CMR and CMP cable manufacturing. The diagram depicts the primary process steps for
which manufacturing LCI data were collected. (Note that the wire drawing process was excluded from
this study.)
35
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Wire drawing
(not modeled)
.,i; » t
Crossweb
Manufacturing
Jacketing
compounding
.,i; t> t
1
1
|
Cable Manufacturing
Insulating K
(extrusion) 1
•,-'?,."',, SiV4"'-£flH
1
?. -c t-
Twinning
(twisting wires
to form a pair)
,-,-^::i'l:::,it"ia
1
Cab
(bunc
or stra
i
,'>: p ':
ling
;hing
nding)
•f
I
,1-
} Packaging j—
Jacketing
(extrusion)
:,-•:•;.
?. -c t-
i Cable product 1
| certifications p
Cable use
Figure 2-2. Manufacturing Process Diagram for CMR- and CMP-rated Telecommunications Cables
Compounding, a preliminary step in the manufacturing stage, involves the blending of the base
jacketing resin (PVC) with various additives in order to impart desired characteristics (e.g., flame
retardancy, flexibility) in the resin. Within the wire and cable industry, compounding is conducted either
by custom compounders or by the cable manufacturers themselves. Crosswebs, which typically consist of
only the base insulation resin (i.e., HDPE or FEP), are manufactured by extrusion. Cable manufacturing
is a multi-step process that involves extruding insulation onto the conductors, twinning two insulated
conductors to form a pair, bunching or stranding multiple twisted pairs (cabling), extruding a jacket over
the bunched pairs, and packaging the cable for sale.
Primary data were collected for the three processes—compounding, crossweb manufacturing, and
extruding—that comprise the manufacturing life-cycle stage for telecom cables. The following
subsections describe these processes and the associated data collected for them.
2.2.2.1 Compounding
PVC, which is used as a jacketing for CMR and CMP cables, is given its desired properties (e.g.,
flexibility, resistance to thermal degradation, flame retardancy) by compounding the base PVC resin with
a variety of additives—plasticizers, heat stabilizers, and flame retardants—at an elevated temperature.
Although each individual PVC compounder uses its own proprietary mix of additives, they all employ a
similar PVC compounding process.
PVC compounds are prepared in a batch process using blenders that allow precise temperature
control. The compounding process involves high-intensity blending of resin and additives to form a dry
blend powder, which is then compounded using compounding equipment, such as a Farrell Continuous
Mixer (FCM), a Buss Kneader, or twin screw and other machines. The compounded mixture is then
36
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
palletized. The pellets are spherical or cylindrical, with diameters averaging 1 to 5 mm (Barry and
Orroth, 2000).
Electricity is the main energy source used in the compounding process; it is used to power the
blenders and roll mills. The compounding process also uses fuel oil or natural gas to produce steam,
which provides heat to the blenders.
Primary data for manufacturing the baseline and alternative CMR and CMP jacketing compounds
of interest to the WCP were collected directly from the compounders participating in the project. A total
of six primary datasets were received for compounding CMR jackets: three for lead-stabilized
compounding, two for Ca/Zn-stabilized compounding, and one for halogen-free CMR jacket
compounding. Four primary datasets were received for compounding CMP jackets: two for lead-
stabilized compounding and two for Ca/Zn-stabilized compounding.
2.2.2.2 Crossweb manufacturing
The Category 6-rated CMR and CMP unshielded twisted pair (UTP) telecom cables of interest to
this study contain a crossweb or pair separator. Crosswebs provide physical and electrical separation of
the twisted conductor pairs, which improves the cable's crosstalk performance. (Crosstalk is the
unwanted interference signal that comes from coupling between one conductor pair and another; see
d'Allmen, 2000.) Although the specific design of the crossweb varies by manufacturer, the material used
in the crossweb is typically chosen so that it mimics the insulation material used in the cable as closely as
possible. The crosswebs used in the cables of interest to this study generally consist of virgin or
postindustrial recycled PE (for CMR cables) or FEP (for CMP cables). Postindustrial sources of FRPE
and FEP include resin that does not meet specification, and bleeder scrap (i.e., the plastic that cable
manufacturers generate during the start-up of their extrusion lines). Postconsumer cable scrap (i.e.,
plastic collected from cable chopping operations) is currently not usable as a feedstock for crosswebs
because the plastic contains an unacceptable level of copper fines.
Crosswebs are manufactured by a basic extrusion process. The extruder line consists of a hopper
to hold the resin, a screw extruder, a cooling bath, a puller (to pull the crossweb through the process), and
a reel for winding the final product. Electricity, which is used to heat the extruder, is the main energy
source used during the crossweb manufacturing process. FEP-based crosswebs require more energy to
extrude than PE-based crosswebs because FEP has a higher melting temperature than PE; therefore, a
higher temperature is required in the extruder.
Primary data for CMR and CMP crossweb manufacturing were collected directly by one
crossweb manufacturer participating in the project.
2.2.2.3 Cable manufacturing
Cable manufacturing is a multistep process. The conductor material (e.g., copper wire) is first
drawn to the specified diameter. The bare wire is then transferred to the wire coating line, where
electrical insulation material (HDPE for CMR cables, FEP for CMP cables) is extruded onto the
conductor using a single-screw extruder. The wire coating line typically consists of an unwinding roll for
the wire followed by a tension controlled input capstan, possibly a wire straightener, and a wire preheater,
which improves the adhesion of the plastic to the conductor. The wire proceeds from the preheater to the
extruder's crosshead die, where the melted plastic insulation is applied. Processing temperatures in the
die average 400° F (204° C) for HDPE and 650 to 700° F (343 - 371° C) for FEP. The coated wire
continues through a water bath and/or air-cooling system, spark tester, gauge controller, tension output
37
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
capstan, and tension controller, and is then wound onto a bobbin or reel. Output rates for extruding the
wire insulation average approximately 550 m/min (1,800 ft/min) for FEP and 1,500 m/min (5,000 ft/min)
for HOPE (Tyler, 2007).
After the insulation has been applied, two conductors are twisted together (paired) in a process
called twinning. The number of twists per foot is precisely controlled during the twinning process, and
each of the four pairs is twisted differently (i.e., different number of twists per foot) in order to limit
crosstalk between pairs in the final cable. Twinning lines use two motors: one to feed insulated wire to
the process and one to take up the twisted conductor pairs. The next step is cabling, in which four of the
twisted pairs are bunched or stranded together with a crossweb separating the twisted pairs. A jacket,
which protects the conductors from mechanical damage and provides fire retardancy, is then extruded
over the core using a process similar to the one used to apply the wire insulation. Any markings are
printed onto the cable jacketing during this step. Jacketing proceeds at an average speed of 400 to 500
feet per minute (120-150 m/min); temperatures in the die average 320 to 350° F (160 - 177° C). Both the
CMR and CMP cables use compounded PVC for the jacketing. The final cable product is tested for
adherence to electrical parameters and then packaged into customer-desired lengths.
The primary wastes from the cable manufacturing process (excluding waste from the copper
drawing process) are scrap cable, and insulation and jacketing resins. Any insulation or jacketing that is
bled from the extruding lines during start-up or shut-down is collected and recycled to the process.
Preconsumer PVC waste is relatively easy for PVC compounders and cable extruders to recycle and reuse
as an equivalent for virgin PVC, because the composition is known. Scrap cable from the process is sent
to cable chopping operations for recycling (see Section 2.4).
One dataset was collected for CMR Pb-stabilized cable manufacturing, two datasets were
received for CMR Ca/Zn-based cable manufacturing, and no datasets were received for halogen-free
CMR cable manufacturing. For CMP cable manufacturing, one dataset was received for Pb-stabilized
CMP cables and two datasets were received for Ca/Zn-stabilized CMP cables.
2.2.3 Low-voltage power cables
The WCP is evaluating one type of low-voltage power cable—nonmetallic-sheathed cable (NM-
B)—that is primarily used in residential wiring as branch circuits for outlets, switches, and other loads.
There are numerous types of NM-B cables available because both the conductor gauge and number of
conductors can be varied. The WCP chose to focus on 12-2 NM-B cables because they are the most
commonly used NM-B cables. 12-2 NM-B cables consist of two insulated copper conductors and a
paper-wrapped ground wire, all of which have a diameter of 12 AWG (American Wire Gauge). The
entire assembly is wrapped with a paper filler, then encased in a plastic jacket.
Primary data for the manufacturing life-cycle stage were collected from compounders and
extruders through facility site visits and through the distribution of data collection forms. Data were
collected for baseline and alternative formulations for 12-2 NM-B cables. Although the compounding
and extruding processes vary slightly by manufacturer, the overall process for manufacturing low-voltage
power cables follows a similar series of process steps. Figure 2-3 displays a flow diagram for the
manufacture of NM-B cables. The diagram depicts the primary process steps for which manufacturing
LCI data were collected. (Note that the wire drawing process was excluded from this study.)
38
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Wire drawing
(not modeled)
'»;' a,:;,1;
Compounding
ayi-BS^^mi'SMisis,";
i
i
1
~*~ Cable use
Figure 2-3. Manufacturing Process Diagram for Nonmetallic-sheathed Low-voltage
Power Cable
Similar to the communication cables, compounding is the first step in the manufacturing life-
cycle stage. Compounding involves the blending of a base resin (i.e., PVC) with various additives in
order to impart desired characteristics (e.g., flame retardancy, flexibility) to the resin. Within the wire
and cable industry, compounding is conducted either by custom compounders or by the cable
manufacturers themselves. Cable manufacturing (primarily involving extruding) is a multi-step process
that involves extruding insulation onto the conductors, applying the paper filler to the ground wire,
wrapping the entire construction with a paper filler, extruding a jacket over the three wire assembly, and
then packaging the cable for sale.
Primary data were collected for compounding and extruding of low-voltage power cables, which
are described in the following subsections.
2.2.3.1 Compounding
PVC is used as insulation and jacketing for NM-B cables, is given its desired properties (e.g.,
flexibility, resistance to thermal degradation, flame retardancy) by compounding the base PVC resin with
a variety of additives—plasticizers, heat stabilizers, and flame retardants—at an elevated temperature.
Although each individual PVC compounder uses its own proprietary mix of additives, all employ a
similar PVC compounding process.
As described above in Section 2.2.2.1, which discusses CMR and CMP cables, PVC compounds
are prepared in a batch process using blenders that allow precise temperature control. The compounding
process involves high-intensity blending of resin and additives to form a dry blend powder, which is then
compounded using compounding equipment, such as a Farrell Continuous Mixer (FCM), a Buss Kneader,
39
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
or Werner-Pfleiderer PK-400 machines. The compounded mixture is then pelletized using a twin-screw
extruder. The pellets are spherical or cylindrical with diameters averaging 1 to 5 mm (Barry and Orroth,
2000).
Electricity is the main energy source used in the compounding process; it is used to power the
blenders and compounders. The compounding process uses fuel oil, natural gas, and propane to produce
steam, which provides heat to the blenders.
Three primary datasets were received forNM-B Pb-stabilized insulation compounding; only one
dataset was received for compounding the Pb-stabilized jacket. For the Ca/Zn-stabilized compounds, two
datasets were received for the insulation and one was received for the jacketing.
2.2.3.2 Cable manufacturing
Cable manufacturing (primarily involving extruding) is a multistep process. The copper
conductors and ground wire are first drawn to the specified diameter. The conductors are then transferred
to the wire coating line, where the electrical insulation is extruded onto the conductors using a tandem
extruder. The tandem extruder first extrudes the PVC-based electrical insulation compound onto the bare
wire and then immediately extrudes a nylon jacket onto the PVC. Color concentrates are added to the
PVC in the extruder. The wire coating line typically consists of an unwinding roll for the wire followed
by a tension-controlled input capstan, possibly a wire straightener, and a wire preheater, which improves
the adhesion of the plastic to the conductor. The wire proceeds from the preheater to the extruder's
crosshead die, where the melted plastic insulation is applied. Processing temperatures in the die average
320 to 350 °F (160 - 177 °C). If required by the customer, the specifications are then printed on the
conductor. The coated wire continues through a water bath and/or air-cooling system, spark tester, gauge
controller, tension output capstan, and tension controller, and is then wound onto a roll. Output rates for
extruding the wire insulation average 4,000 feet per minute (1,300 m/min) (Barry and Oroth, 2000;
Rosato, 1998).
Spools of the insulated conductors and uncoated ground wire are mounted at the beginning of the
jacketing line. Two spools of paper, which are approximately one to two inches wide, are also mounted
at the beginning of the jacketing line. The ground wire is first wrapped with paper, rather than being
insulated with plastic, because paper is less expensive than plastic. The insulated conductors and paper-
wrapped ground wire are then laid parallel, with the ground wire between the conductors, and the entire
assembly is wrapped with a paper filler. A PVC-based jacket, which protects the conductors from
mechanical damage and provides fire retardancy, is then extruded onto the cable using a process similar
to the one used to apply the wire insulation. Jacketing proceeds at an average speed of 400 to 500 feet per
minute (120-150 m/min); temperatures in the die average 320 to 350 °F (160 - 177 °C). An inkjet printer
prints the specifications onto the jacketing before the cable is cooled in a water bath. The finished cable
is then coiled, spooled, or reeled, depending upon the customers' needs, and packaged for delivery.
Electricity is the main energy source used during the cable manufacturing process. It is used for
wire drawing, to melt the plastic in the extruder, and to drive machinery that moves the wire around the
facility.
The primary wastes from the cable manufacturing process (excluding waste from the copper
drawing process) are PVC and nylon. These materials are primarily generated as bleeder scrap (i.e.,
insulation and jacketing that is bled from the extruding lines during startup). A majority of the bleeder
scrap is repelletized and reused in the process, but that which is not recyclable is sent to landfills. Scrap
40
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
cable is sent to cable chopping operations for recycling. (See Section 2.4 for more information about the
cable chopping process.)
One primary dataset was received for NM-B Pb-stabilized cable manufacturing; no datasets were
received for Ca/Zn-stabilized cable manufacturing.
2.2.4 Data collection summary
Table 2-9 shows the number of primary datasets received for the major processes associated with
the cable manufacturing life-cycle stage. Primary data were collected for the major processes associated
with the manufacturing life-cycle stage for telecom and low-voltage power cables. These data were
collected directly from eight cable compounders and manufacturers through site visits and through the
distribution of data collection forms. These data represent a total of 30 data sets for the manufacturing
life-cycle stage of the three cable types.
Table 2-9
Total Primary Datasets Received for the Cable Manufacturing Life-cycle Stage
Cable type/alternative
"CMR Pb-stabilized
CMR Ca/Zn-stabilized
CMR halogen-free
CMP Pb-stabilized
CMP Ca/Zn-stabilized
NM-B Pb-stabilized
NM-B Ca/Zn stabilized
Crossweb
manufacturing
1
1
0
1
1
n/a
n/a
Compoi
Insulation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3
2
inding
Jacketing
_
2
1
2
2
2
2
Cable
manufacturing
1
2
0
1
2
1
0
Total
5
5
1
4
5
6
4
Multiple data sets for a process were averaged to represent the industry average. In one case, a
large discrepancy existed, and the simple averaging approach was modified as necessary. That is, for
CMR and CMP cables, electricity is the main energy source used during the cable manufacturing process.
It is used for wire drawing, to melt the plastic in the extruder, and to drive machinery that moves the wire
around the facility. The modeling of the extrusion of lead-free CMR/CMP cable drew upon data sets
from two companies. Utilities information from these data sets suggested that the use of electricity during
the extrusion process varies highly from company to company. The modeling of the extrusion of the
baseline CMR/CMP cable drew on data from only one of these companies. Consequently, the aggregated
lead-free value from the two companies was divergent from what would be expected as an aggregated
value for the baseline (as verified by the companies supplying the data). In light of this, a proxy energy
value for the baseline CMR/CMP cable was created. The proxy value was generated by applying the ratio
of the extrusion energy of the lead-free extrusion energy data points to the leaded case. Thus,
ipb-free,2/ Epb-free,l)'Ebase,l
2.2.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Limitations and uncertainties related to the data collection process include the fact that companies
were self-selected, which could lead to selection bias (i.e., those companies that are more advanced in
41
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
terms of environmental protection might be more willing to supply data than those that are less
progressive). Companies providing data also may have a vested interest in the project outcome, which
could result in biased data being provided. Where possible, multiple sets of data were obtained for this
project to develop life-cycle processes. The peer review process and employment of the Core Group as
reviewers in this project is intended to help identify and reduce any such bias. Additional limitations to
the manufacturing stage inventory are related to the data themselves. Specific data with the greatest
uncertainty include the utility data for multiple processes that were scaled to the specific process or
processes of interest to the WCP. The greatest source of variability in the data was the CMR/CMP cable
extrusion energy, described in the preceding section.
2.3 Use Life-Cycle Stage
The use stage encompasses installation, use, maintenance, repair, and reuse of the standard and
alternative cables. During these activities any input flows such as materials, fuels, and electricity are
assumed to be the same for each alternative within a cable type, and therefore do not affect the
comparative analyses in this study. Further, no direct outputs would be anticipated. While installers
could be exposed to dust recirculated within an existing installation site from aging cable insulation and
jacketing, these exposures are expected to be the same regardless of the alternative and therefore also
would not affect the study's comparative analyses.
2.3.1 Installation
For installation during new construction, CMP communications cable is placed within the plenum
space, typically using a J-hook or a tray to secure it. The cable is mechanically connected and left in
place for use. The ceiling acoustic tiles are then secured. When additional cable is installed, a few ceiling
tiles are removed and new cable is added (Dawson, 2007). CMR communications cable is placed in
conduits or secured to existing structures with ties during installation. The cable is left in place for use
after being mechanically connected.
NM-B cable is used primarily in residential wiring as branch circuits for outlets, switches, and
other loads. The cable is typically installed during residential construction through holes drilled into
studs where the cable is pulled through. If additional cable is added, holes are drilled in the wall and the
cable inserted (Sims, 2007).
Within each cable type, installation procedures are the same for each cable alternative, which
supports the scoping decision to exclude the use stage from the LCI.
Although concern has been raised about the existence of lead dust during installation of new
cables (Wilson, 2004), any existing dust would be the same for any alternative, provided installation
occurs at the same time for each alternative. For example, if lead-free CMP cable is compared to lead-
stabilized CMP cable, installation would occur at the same time and installers would have the same
exposure to existing dust, regardless of the resin cable being installed. Differences would occur at EOL
when cables are removed and dust is generated from either the leaded or lead-free alternative.
2.3.2 Use, maintenance, and repair
Communications cable and electrical cable are used in temperature-controlled environments
where the temperatures are well below those known to release chemicals of concerns from cable
insulation or jackets under normal conditions. (Catastrophic events such as fires are addressed in the end-
of-life, Section 2.4). Communications cable has built-in redundancy; therefore, there is no planned
42
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
maintenance and repair during cable life, and the cable's technical obsolescence is the usual driver for
replacement (Dawson, 2007). NM-B electrical cable has a 25 to 40 year useful life with typically no
maintenance or repair. The cable installed at construction is usually used throughout the building life
(Sims, 2007). For this analysis, there is no difference among the standard and alternative cable types for
use, maintenance, and repair.
2.3.3 Reuse
Communications cable is typically replaced when it is obsolete (Dawson, 2007) and there is little
domestic market for reuse. Any reuse in developing world markets is outside the scope of this analysis.
Electrical cable, with a life span of 25 to 40 years, is not reused either, often due to electrical codes (Sims,
2007). However, the copper conductor in both types of cable is likely to be recovered (as discussed in
Section 2.4).
2.3.4 Limitations and uncertainties
The use stage has not been included in the WCP LCIs. Since the focus of the analyses in this
project is comparing functionally equivalent alternatives, and no differences among alternatives are
anticipated during the use stage, no limitations are foreseen. Potential exposure to workers removing
cables is discussed in Section 2.4, although the WCP does not quantify such exposures. Because this life-
cycle stage is excluded, care must be taken not to interpret results as the full life cycle of an individual
alternative, but rather as a comparison of differences among alternatives.
2.4 End-Of-Life
EOL issues are of growing interest to cable manufacturers, building owners, and building tenants,
due to the National Electrical Code's requirement that all accessible abandoned copper and fiber optic
cabling be removed from buildings. It is important to note that although the copper conductor material is
an essential component of cable wire and contributes to life-cycle impacts, this project focuses on the
insulation and jacketing resins, and follows disposition of these materials through the end of life.
This section describes the issues associated with EOL cables (i.e., cables that have been used for
their initial, intended purpose and are no longer intended to be used), and the approach used to evaluate
the EOL life-cycle stages of CMR, CMP, and NM-B cables for the WCP. This approach includes
developing scenarios to represent reasonable EOL alternatives, and collecting LCI data for the EOL
alternatives.
2.4.1 Background
Based on 2002 data, U.S. sales of CMR-rated cables average approximately 1.2 billion ft/yr and
account for 15 percent of the total U.S. communications network cable market. CMP-rated cable sales
total approximately 6.0 billion ft/yr, accounting for approximately 75 percent of the U.S. communications
network cable market (CRU, 2002). Category 6 cables held approximately a 45 percent share of the
unshielded twisted pair (UTP) market in 2005, with rapidly increasing growth (Glew, 2005). An
estimated 2.7 billion ft/yr of Cat 6 CMP-rated cable, and 0.54 billion ft/yr of Cat 6 CMR-rated cable, is
installed annually in the U.S.10
10 This assumes that the breakdown of CMP- and CMR-rated cables (75% and 15%, respectively) holds true for Cat
6 cables: 6.0B ft/yr*0.45 = 2.7B ft/yr of Cat 6 CMP cable, and 1.2B ft/yr*0.45 = 0.54B ft/yr of Cat 6 CMR cable.
43
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
In 2005, the annual U.S. market for NM-B rated cable was estimated at 800 million to 1 billion
pounds (7.3 to 9.2 billion feet)11 (Sims, 2005). Information on projected sales of communications and
low-voltage power cables or on amount of cable installed (current and projected) was not available.
Cables are long-life products; therefore, there is a considerable time lag between when the cables
are manufactured and installed and when they reach end-of-life. For example, communications cables
have an expected lifetime of 10 to 15 years, due to obsolescence resulting from technological
advancements. In addition, low-voltage power cables have a useful life of approximately 25 to 40 years.
As a result of this time lag, current EOL generation patterns of cables are not correlated with their
contemporary production (Mersiowsky, 2002). A large quantity of PVC waste is not expected to hit the
market until 2010 because PVC did not achieve significant market shares until the 1970s (Plinke et al.,
2000).
The removal of abandoned cabling is expected to generate in excess of 300 million pounds of
plastic waste over the "next several years" (Realcomm Advisory, 2006). EOL cables are generated in
small quantities from disperse sources. This may change over time as more EOL cable becomes available
due to stricter regulations, such as the Abandoned Cable Provision of the National Electrical Code
(Realcomm Advisory, 2006).
Projected amounts of EOL cable in the U.S. were not found (e.g., the amount of communications
EOL cable in 10 and 15 years; and the amount of low-voltage power EOL cable in 25 and 40 years).
2.4.2 Materials Recovery
2.4.2.1 Copper
End-of-life communications and low-voltage power cables are valuable because they consist of
approximately 50 percent copper by weight, which sold for $4,800 to $7,400/ton in the last year (June
2006 to June 2007) (COMEX, 2007). According to the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), this
historically high price of copper ensures that an estimated 95 percent of EOL cable and wire is recycled
(Bartley, 2006). EOL cables are highly sought after by copper consumers in North America and overseas,
and overseas competition, especially from China, is often cited as a source for changes that have greatly
affected the wire and cable recycling sector in recent years. Foremost among the changes has been a
willingness among export brokers representing consuming companies in China to pay more for copper-
bearing wire and cable scrap than many North American consumers will pay (Taylor, 2005). China's
seemingly insatiable demand resulted in a shortage of copper cable for U.S. scrap cable processors in
2003 (Taylor and Toto, 2003); however, in 2004, customs, trade, and environmental regulations in China
slowed down the pace of EOL cable sales to China and helped to re-establish the U.S. wire chopping
market (Taylor, 2004).
2.4.2.2 Polymer fraction
Traditionally the polymer fraction (i.e., insulation, jacketing, and crossweb) of EOL cables has
been landfilled because it is regarded as a waste product with little value; however, it does have value and
can be recycled (Hagstrom et al., 2006). The types of products the polymer fraction can be used for are
typically limited because it consists of a mix of plastics (i.e., compounded PVC, HDPE, and FEP),
whereas plastics extruders typically require a pure feedstock. Because these polymers are all
11 Using an average net weight of 109 lbs/1,000 ft (0.109 Ibs per foot for 12-gauge 3-conductor copper NM-B with
ground wire, i.e., typical Romex building wire).
44
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
thermoplastics, they can be remelted during recycling and used as a substitute for virgin materials in
general plastic products (e.g., industrial flooring, car floor mats and mud flaps, shoe soles, sound barriers,
and garden hoses), concrete products (e.g., parking blocks, speed bumps, and large planters), and/or wood
products (Plinke etal, 2000).
The potential to collect and recycle installation wastes (i.e., cut-offs from installing cables) also
exists; however, this cable waste is often mixed with other construction waste and would have to be
separated prior to recycling (Plinke etal, 2000).
Fluorinated ethylene propylene
While the high cost of virgin fluoropolymers provides a greater incentive to recycle the FEP from
EOL cables, the small volumes that are available and the difficulty of separation make the recycling of
FEP from EOL cables problematic (Ring etal, 2002). However, several companies are developing
technologies to effectively recycle fluoropolymer cable. For example, DuPont, Inc. has implemented a
copper cable recycling program to develop new cable products containing recycled plastics. The program
recycles the plastics from EOL communications cables into separate streams for each plastic material.
DuPont notes that an average Category 6 enhanced plenum cable could contain over 3 Ibs per 1,000 foot-
box of recycled fluoropolymer (DuPont, 2006). In addition, some manufacturers of cable recover 100
percent of their waste FEP to manufacture pair separators used in Category 6 plenum cables (Uniprise,
2006).
Polyvinyl chloride
The amount of EOL PVC insulation and jacketing that is recycled is limited due to technical,
economic, and logistical constraints (UNEP, 2002). Plinke et al. (2000) identify two primary technical
constraints:
• PVC is a compounded material; an average cable jacket consists of a mixture of 50 percent
plasticizers, heat stabilizers (often lead-based), flame retardants, and other additives, and 50
percent PVC resin.
• Different cable applications (i.e., CMR, CMP, and NM-B) use different PVC-based
compounds, including different plasticizers, stabilizers, and flame retardants. Furthermore,
different cable manufactures use their own unique compounds, so even within the same cable
type, the compounds differ. These formulations also change over time, which can cause
additional problems for a long-life product such as cable.
Because the overall PVC industry is large, many potential markets exist for the recovery of PVC
materials. If the recycled PVC is to be used to produce new PVC products, its composition must meet the
specifications of the new product, which may be achieved through additives to gain or enhance the
needed properties (Bennett, 1990). However, the technical constraints noted above make it difficult to
identify the composition of the post-consumer EOL PVC insulation and jacketing, and, for post-consumer
PVC waste, to make a one-to-one substitution of recycled PVC for virgin PVC (Plinke et al., 2000).
Based on a European source (Plinke et al, 2000), EOL cables are collected primarily to recover
the valuable copper conductor. Therefore, from an economic standpoint, the recycling of the PVC
fraction starts at the cable recycler and does not include the collection and treatment of the cables. As
with other waste streams, the decision to recycle the plastic fraction is based on whether the cost to
transport and recycle the material, minus any revenue for the recovered plastic, is less than the costs of
landfilling or incineration. In addition, the profitability and demand of PVC recycling depends on the
45
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
fluctuating cost of virgin PVC (Plinke et al., 2000). As of 2000, PVC recovered from EOL cables was
considered the only post-consumer PVC waste for which recycling is profitable (Plinke et al., 2000).
Logistical constraints are largely related to the fact that EOL cables are generated in small
quantities from dispersed sources, making collection less efficient. This may change over time as more
EOL cable becomes available due to stricter regulations, such as the Abandoned Cable Provision of the
National Electrical Code.
The presence of heavy metals, such as lead, and other potentially toxic substances in PVC is of
potential concern because these materials will be dispersed into the variety of products that are made from
the recycled PVC. However, because these toxic materials are fixed in the PVC matrix, the risk of
exposure to humans and the environment is often considered low (Plinke et al., 2000). According to
Wilson (2004), there is, however, some concern that removing abandoned cables could result in lead
exposure because, as the plasticizer leaches out of the compound overtime, the PVC becomes brittle and
the lead could potentially migrate to the surface, leaving behind dust with a high lead content. Lead dust
in the plenum space, for example, could reach building occupants or workers removing the abandoned
cables. However, studies have shown that the aged PVC cables perform extremely well in regards to
physical properties, precluding embrittlement from occurring (Dini, Fabian, and Chaplin, 2006).
In 1997, 0.2 million kilograms (0.5 million pounds) of PVC were recovered from EOL wire and
cable and recycled (Principia Partners, 1999). However, we do not have the breakdown of how much is
pre- and post-consumer waste.
Polyethylene
Polyethylene (PE), when used as the insulation for CMR cables, is typically not compounded
(i.e., the insulation consists of 100 percent PE). Therefore, PE could potentially be recovered and reused.
In many mechanical recycling operations, however, it is difficult to obtain the clean streams of recycled
PE that are required for it to replace virgin PE (Hagstrom, et al., 2006). BASF, on a pilot scale, has tested
a thermolysis process (in which PE is decomposed into ethylene using heat) for chemically recycling PE;
however, the cost of the recovered ethylene from thermolysis was higher than the cost of virgin ethylene
produced from fossil fuel (Hagstrom et al., 2006).
2.4.3 Regulations covering EOL communications and building cables
2.4.3.1 Abandoned cable provision of National Electrical Code (NEC)
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that there are approximately 60
billion feet of communications cables installed in the United States, many of which are abandoned
(Network Cabling, 2005). Section 800.2 of the NEC defines abandoned cable as "installed
communications cable that is not terminated at both ends at a connector or other equipment and not
identified 'For Future Use' with a tag." Abandoned cabling poses a substantial risk to health and safety
because it increases the amount of combustible material in concealed spaces (i.e., risers and plenum
spaces), may generate toxic fumes when subjected to fire, can affect air flow in ceiling plenums, and
generates a significant amount of smoke (Fishman, 2006; DuPont, 2007). In order to address the growing
concern over abandoned cable, the NFPA added a new provision to the NEC in 2002 that mandates the
removal of all accessible abandoned copper and fiber optic cabling from buildings. (The 2005 NEC also
contains this abandoned cable provision.) Although the NEC itself is not codified as law, any jurisdiction
that has adopted the 2002 or the updated 2005 NEC (which incorporates the 2002 NEC) into its building
code can enforce the abandoned cable provision (BOMA, 2006).
46
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2.4.3.2 Basel Convention
The Basel Convention addresses the production, management, and international transport of
certain hazardous wastes, including metal cables with plastic insulation containing lead stabilizers. The
convention states that regulated wastes are not exportable without the consent of the government of the
receiving country. These wastes include "waste metal cables coated or insulated with plastics containing
or contaminated with coal tar, PCB, lead, cadmium, other organohalogen compounds" or other
constituents regulated by the convention (Annex VIII, Basel Convention, 1992).
Waste metal cables using plastics that do not contain coal tar, PCB, lead, cadmium, or other toxic
components are not regulated by the convention as long as they are disposed of via operations "which do
not lead to the possibility of resource recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses";
or "operations involving, at any stage, uncontrolled thermal processes, such as open burning" (Basel
Convention, 1992). FEP is listed in the convention as a substance that is unregulated in its pure form, but
PVC and PE are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the treaty (Annex IX, Basel Convention, 1992).
The convention issued technical guidance regarding plastic coated cables in 2002, stating that
"open burning is not an environmentally acceptable solution for any kind of waste" and that it "must not
be applied to processing of cable scrap" (UNEP, 2002). Cable chopping and stripping are recommended
as the most economical and environmental methods of recycling cable scrap, especially if the cable is pre-
sorted so that the separated plastic insulation will be relatively pure. The guidance goes on to recommend
incineration in state-of-the-art furnaces as the only environmentally responsible method of burning cable
waste, and that energy should be recovered whenever possible (ENS, 2002).
Though the United States is a party to the convention, which took effect in 1992, the U.S. Senate
has not yet ratified it. An amendment that bans the export of hazardous waste from developed to
developing countries for purposes of final disposal or recycling was adopted in 1995, but has not been
ratified by a sufficient number of countries to come into force.
2.4.3.3 Landfill restrictions
The NEC does not address the disposal of abandoned cabling that has been removed from
buildings. Given the likely presence of lead stabilizers in PVC jacketing in the abandoned cable, some
municipalities may be concerned about its disposal in construction and demolition (C&D) landfills or
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. After reviewing the types of hazardous materials (HAZMAT)
that are in the waste stream for landfills, some municipalities are beginning to route the heavy metal
wastes from the unlined C&D landfills to the lined HAZMAT waste facilities. This may in turn increase
the costs of disposal for abandoned cable (Bisbee, undated).
2.4.4 EOL disposition options
The major EOL dispositions for cables that are removed from the structure in which they were
installed include recycling, incineration, and landfilling. In addition to the EOL dispositions that would
occur when a cable is physically removed, a fire could cause a cable to reach its end of life. The WCP
considers reuse to be part of the use stage, so reuse is not discussed here. Also, while post-industrial
cable scrap generated by manufacturers could follow the same dispositions as EOL cables, this is not
included under the EOL discussion. The following sub-sections qualitatively examine the EOL options
for communications cables and low-voltage power cables.
47
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2.4.4.1 Recycling
Recycling of copper cables is motivated by the high value of copper. The first step of recycling is
to separate the conductor from the insulation and jacketing. The copper is then sent to a copper smelter
for reprocessing. The remaining resins are either disposed of or also reprocessed. As the focus of the
WCP is on the resin systems, we do not describe the copper smelting process.
Separation
BIR (2006) reports that there are two primary, economically viable and environmentally sound
methods for separating the plastic insulation and jacketing from the metal conductor of EOL cable:
chopping and stripping. According to UNEP (2002), these methods have been able to prevail worldwide
due to the development of pre-sorting techniques and the expanded chopping capacity, plus the
concurrent development of a better technique for separating tailings. Developed countries primarily
recover the metal from cable scrap using automated cable chopping operations. Developing countries
typically use cable stripping machines, which are less expensive than cable chopping operations, but have
a much lower throughput (BIR, 2006). One advantage of cable stripping over cable chopping is the
improved purity of the recovered jacketing and insulation materials. According to UNEP (2002), the
recovered materials are claimed to be completely free of conducting metal, and with careful segregation
of the cable scrap prior to processing, the recovered materials can consist of one type of polymer. Cable
stripping often results in a waste plastic stream that is more than 99.5 percent pure, which facilitates
recycling of the plastic waste. In contrast, a cable chopping operation that uses a pre-segregated
feedstock of EOL cable and an electrostatic process to remove all residual metal from the plastic fraction
produces a plastic stream that is 90 to 95 percent pure. Both metal and polymer tailings, therefore, are
more easily recyclable using cable stripping (UNEP, 2002).
Cable chopping
In North America, an estimated 55 facilities (51 in the United States) were operating one or more
cable chopping lines in 2003 (Taylor and Toto, 2003). Systems vary in size from 225 to 680 kg/hr (496
to 1499 Ib/hr) to 4,770 to 5,455 kg/hr (10,516 to 12,026 Ib/hr), and costs (based on 1997 prices) vary from
$150,000 for small chopping machinery to $1.8 million for larger machines. U.S. cable choppers
typically operate lines with capacities reaching at least 5.5 tons/hr (5 metric tons/hr). Cable chopping
typically involves the following steps (BIR, 2006; Finlay, 2004; UNEP, 2002):
• Pre-sorting involves the separation of long cable sections by type of insulation and jacketing
(e.g., PVC, FEP, or PE), by conductor diameter, or as plated or unplated conductor; the
separation of densely baled cables; and the separation of pieces of ferrous and non-ferrous
metal, which can be fed directly into a metal shredder, from loose cable. One of the most
important functions of pre-sorting is the separation of copper cable from aluminum cable.
Pre-sorting is the most important step in the cable chopping process, because it allows
maximum value to be obtained for the recovered metal scrap and it makes further separation
of plastics easier. Long cable sections are sheared into lengths of about one yard so that they
can be fed into a granulator, whereas densely baled cable is broken up into loose streams.
Material not well-suited to such automated systems (e.g., superfine wire and grease or tar-
filled cables that can obstruct the system) can be separated out manually beforehand.
• Cable chopping is used to reduce long cable sections into an acceptable size for the
granulator. It is commonly performed in large operations but is optional at smaller facilities.
48
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• Granulation uses primary and secondary granulators to strip the plastic insulation and
jacketing from the metal conductor. These machines process cables from about three inches
diameter to thin cable of about 26-gauge (0.016 in). A secondary granulator reduces the
cable lengths to about 0.6 cm (0.24 in.), which typically liberates most of the metal from the
plastic; however, small amounts of metal will remain imbedded in the plastic fraction.
• Screening is often used in cable chopping operations to enhance the recovery of metal by
yielding the desired chop size. Smaller chop sizes allow for more-efficient removal of the
metal. Oversize material can be reprocessed in the granulator. Fines, which contain metal,
plastics, fibers, and dirt, drop through the bottom of the screen. Metal particles are recovered
from the fines by removing lighter, non-metallic particles and dust using an aspirator.
• Separation techniques, such as gravity or air density tables, washing systems, and fluidized
bed separators, are used to separate the metal fraction from the plastic residue. The metal
content of residue streams can vary from less than 1 percent to more than 15 percent,
depending on the separation technique employed. Some cable processors have installed dry
electrostatic systems, which can reduce the metal content of tailings to less than 0.1 percent,
thereby increasing the value of the recovered plastic.
Cable stripping
Cable stripping is a less expensive method for recovering the copper from EOL cable, but it has
much lower throughput than cable chopping. Cable stripping equipment is designed to handle only single
strands of cable waste at rates up to 60 m/min (197 ft/min) or 1,100 kg/hr (2425 Ib/hr) with cable as thin
as 1.6 mm (0.06 in.) or as thick as 150 mm (5.9 in.). Based on 1997 prices, machines that operate at 24
m/min (78.7 ft/min) sell for about $5,000, whereas small tabletop machines that operate at rates of only 8
m/min (26.2 ft/min) sell for as little as $1,800 in the United States and Europe (BIR, 2006). Developing
countries typically prefer cable stripping machines rather than the more expensive cable chopping
machines; cable stripping machines are also used in most developed countries by utilities, cable
manufacturers, cable chopping companies, and metal scrap dealers.
Separation by incineration
Cable scrap can be incinerated to obtain the conductor metal using authorized controlled
atmosphere furnaces that seek to prevent the formation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Only a
few such furnaces have been authorized in the world. Plans to build new incinerators or to expand the
capacities of existing facilities are often met with public resistance, often due to concerns about PVC
incineration, which generates a large amount of hydrogen chloride and potentially forms dioxins and
furans (Braun, 2002). Recovery of the metal fraction of EOL cable using incineration is less preferable
than chopping or stripping because burning can oxidize the metal, thus decreasing its value. State-of-the-
art furnaces, however, are belter able to control the combustion conditions and avoid oxidizing the metal
(UNEP, 2002).
Other separation methods
Cables are often exported to developing countries for reuse or recycling. According to UNEP
(2002) about 30 percent of the total amount of EOL cables is reused rather than recycled. For cables
exported annually from the United States, Japan, and Europe to developing countries, and which are not
reused, the copper (and aluminum) conductors have a sale value to smelter operators, but the PVC or PE
49
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
insulation and jacketing is frequently disposed of, often by open burning (Lemieux etal, 2004; Recycling
Today, 2002).12
Polymer recycling
Due to its high value, the copper in cables is often recovered and recycled; however, only in some
cases is the plastic material recycled. In order to increase their value and expand their reuse options,
mixed plastic tailings from both cable chopping and cable stripping operations are often further separated
into a clean PE fraction and a clean PVC fraction using either sink and float (hydrogravimetric) or
cryogenic processing (UNEP, 2002). Sink and float processing, which employs a liquid medium,
separates lower density plastics (i.e., PE), which float on the liquid, from higher density plastics (i.e.,
PVC), which sink (Hagstrom et al, 2006). Cryogenic processing uses liquid nitrogen to freeze the mixed
plastic tailings. At liquid nitrogen temperatures, PVC shatters into small particles when it is impacted;
polyethylene and some other plastics do not. The relatively small PVC particles are then screened from
the other larger plastics to produce a purer PVC fraction (UNEP, 2002).
The separated polymers can then be recycled using either mechanical or chemical processes.
Currently four different chemical processes—cracking, gasification, hydrogenation, and pyrolysis—are
being considered for chemical recycling, which is the conversion of polymers back into short-chain
chemicals for reuse in polymerization or other chemical processes (Braun, 2002). Mechanical recycling
processes use mills and extruders to convert the separated plastic fractions into re-granulates of a defined
size and composition (Plinke etal., 2000).
PVC recycling
One method of reprocessing the PVC fraction of cable waste is the The Solvay Vinyloop®
process. According to a representative at Vinyloop® in Ferrara, Italy, the primary feedstock to the
Vinyloop® process from the wire and cable industry is end-of-life PVC-based cable insulation that is
generated by copper reclaiming operations. More than 90 percent of the PVC-based insulation that the
Vinyloop® process recycles is from EOL building cables; less than 10 percent of the cable scrap is from
EOL communications cables (Leitner, 2006). According to Hagstrom et al. (2006), however, the
Vinyloop® process is better suited to the recycling of pre-consumer production scrap because the input
material conforms to today's environmental requirements. EOL cables, in contrast, are likely to contain
additives that were permitted some years ago, but may not be so freely used today, thus contaminating the
final recycled PVC product. For economic reasons, the Vinyloop® plant in Ferrara, Italy, is designed for
processing waste with an average minimum PVC content of 85 percent. Plastic scrap with a PVC content
of 50 to 60 percent requires a triboelectric step, which separates other polymers and makes a waste
containing at least 85 percent PVC (Hagstrom etal., 2006; Scheirs, 2003).
The Vinyloop® process selectively dissolves the PVC in a solvent, such as tetrahydrofuran or
methylethylketone; separates the PVC from insoluble or secondary materials, including polyethylene,
copper, and other elastomers; and then precipitates the regenerated PVC compound, including all
components of the original formulation (i.e., heat stabilizers, plasticizers, flame retardants, and colorants),
as microgranules for resale. The regenerated PVC can be reprocessed by extrusion, injection, or
calendaring (continuous extrusion between a pair of cylinders). The solvent is fully recovered and
12 The Recycling Today article did not specify the type of burning (e.g., controlled or uncontrolled), or who burns
the waste insulation and jacketing; while Lemieu et al. specified that open burning occurs. (See Smouldering of
tables'. htlp://www.pops.inl/docunienls/nieelings/bal_bep/2nd_session/egb2_foilowup/'draflguide/6LCopperCablesDRAFT.pdf.)
50
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
recycled within the process. A study by PE Europe did not detect dioxin formation when the Vinyloop®
process was used to recycle scrap PVC cables (Kreissig et a/., 2003). Solvay has a demonstration plant
operating in Ferrara, Italy, and opened a commercial-scale facility in Chiba, Japan, in May 2006 (Glew
and Grune, 2004; Vinyloop, 2006).
The Stigsnses Plant in Denmark also has a process for recycling PVC waste. The plant, owned by
RGS 90, uses a two-step chemical process to recycle all types of PVC waste. First, PVC is hydrolyzed to
an inorganic (chlorine) fraction and an organic (hydrocarbon) fraction. Then the organic fraction is post-
heated. Salt (NaCl), a fluent oil fraction, and a sandblasting material are the products from the process.
The capacity of the plant is approximately 50,000 metric tons per year, and the gate fee is in the range of
$200 to $300 per metric ton (Hagstrom et a/., 2006). As of 2005, RGS 90 has been forced to stop
accepting PVC waste while they consider other options for the plant. Technical difficulties and an
inability to compete with other options, especially landfills, on price led to the suspension of operations
(Vinyl 2010, 2006). Currently, a feasibility study is underway to build a Vinyloop® facility in the United
States (Vinyloop, 2007).
FEP recycled into cross web
Since FEP does not have the additives that PVC has, it can more easily be reprocessed into
product. Thus, FEP is sometimes reprocessed as crossweb for CMP communications cables by extruding
the scrap FEP. However, the small volumes and difficulty of separation makes the recycling of FEP from
EOL cables problematic (Ring et al, 2002). As noted previously, some cable manufacturers recover 100
percent of their pre-consumer waste FEP to manufacture pair separators used in Category 6 plenum cables
(Uniprise, 2006).
Other recycling methods
There are other methods that are mentioned here only briefly, as they are not believed to
constitute common practices. However, if they become more prevalent in the future, they may be
applicable to the EOL disposition of the cables studied in this project once they finally reach their end of
life. These methods include:
• Low Smoke-PVC from plenum jacketing recycled and blended with virgin PVC for new riser
jackets (Glew & Grune 2004).
• Center for Research into Plastic Materials (CEREMAP) is a plastics recycling company
based in France. CEREMAP recovers mixed plastic material into "low-value" products that
are adapted for regional markets (e.g., palettes, boxes, outdoor furniture, building materials,
etc.) (Ecolink, 2003).
• Japanese microwave radiation technique to assist in the separation of the wire and insulation
materials (Glew & Grune 2004).
2.4.4.2 Waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration
Incineration with energy recovery is a viable option for treating the polymer fraction of EOL
cables because of the high energy content that is liberated upon combustion of polymers. Polyethylene
has a heat of combustion of 46 MJ/kg and generates only water and carbon dioxide upon combustion at
temperatures typical of WTE incineration (1,000°C). PVC, which has a heat of combustion of 18 MJ/kg,
consists of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine, and generates hydrochloric acid upon combustion. The PVC
and PE fractions are typically separated prior to incineration because the hydrochloric acid formed by
51
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
burning PVC requires special measures (Hagstrom et al, 2006). FEP, on the other hand, generates very
little energy: its heat of combustion is 5.1 MJ/kg (Plastech, 2007). Although FEP does not burn easily, it
emits hydrogen fluoride, a highly toxic gas (Wilson, 2004). Comparatively, the heat of combustion for
automotive gasoline is about 44 MJ/kg (DOE, 1997).
2.4.4.3 Landfilling
According to Scheirs (2003), landfilling is the predominant means for disposing of PVC waste
throughout the world. There is a concern that, over time, the PVC matrix will break down under landfill
conditions, allowing the additives to leach from the PVC. Mersiowsky et al. (2001) found that, after 28
months under simulated landfill conditions, a lead-stabilized PVC cable lost around 40 percent of its
original content of a secondary phthalate-based plasticizer; the content of the primary plasticizer, di-
isodecyl phthalate (DIDP), did not change. This study also found that none of the PVC samples
underwent changes in molecular weight distribution, nor was vinyl chloride detectable in the biogas of the
sample vessels (Mersiowsky et al, 2001).
Lead stabilizers are primarily immobilized in the PVC matrix, which ensures that leachability into
the environment is extremely low; however, the increased surface area of finely divided PVC waste from
cable chopping operations might facilitate extraction under certain landfill conditions (e.g., acidic
leachate conditions; see Scheirs, 2003). Leachate rates for lead from CMR cables are estimated to be
between 1 to 2 percent if the cable has not been chopped/stripped significantly, and approximately 10
percent for smaller, chopped cable particles (personal communication with Dr. Townsend, University of
Florida, 2007). These leachate rates would apply to a 100-year lifetime of a landfill.
According to Hagstrom et al. (2006), combustion as a high-grade fuel is the only technical,
economical, and environmentally acceptable method currently available for dealing with the PE fraction
of the polymer waste from EOL cable.
According to Scheirs (2003), "On the basis of the available research and evidence, the landfilling
of end-of-life PVC seems to be environmentally acceptable when mechanical recycling and thermal
treatment processes are not possible. The overall conclusion of the most recent studies is that PVC
products do not constitute a substantial impact on toxicity of landfill leachate and gas."
2.4.4.4 Fire scenario
A building fire could cause a cable to reach the end of its life prematurely. While CMR and CMP
cables are primarily installed in commercial and educational buildings, NM-B cable is found in the vast
majority of buildings, including residential, agricultural, and industrial structures. Further discussion on
frequency estimates are provided below in section 2.4.5.1.
2.4.5 LCI Methodology
Modeling the EOL stage required two key steps: (1) estimating the EOL distribution among the
disposition options (i.e., recovery, incineration, and landfilling), and (2) estimating the inventory flows
for each disposition option. These steps are described in detail below.
2.4.5.1 Distribution Estimates of EOL
Figure 2-4 presents the major disposition options for EOL cable. The schematic shows that a
certain fraction of the resins can end up in a variety of final dispositions, including recovery, landfilling,
and incineration. As noted previously, although most cable reaches the EOL stage after the end of its
52
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
useful life, some may reach this stage prematurely through a building fire. A conservative upper-bound
estimate for the annual frequency of fires in buildings is about 1.1 percent for those buildings that have
CMR and CMP cabling and approximately 0.5 percent for buildings with NM-B cabling (however, due to
the lack of complete life-cycle data the NM-B analysis did not ultimately use include the EOL scenarios).
Appendix B provides the methodology for making these assumptions, which used National Fire
Protection Association Data and U.S. census data.
There was not, however, sufficient quantitative information regarding the percent of cable burned
in a fire to empirically determine a central estimate. Thus, we applied a default estimate: 10 percent of
the cables contained in a building where a fire has occurred are assumed to have been consumed in the
fire (based on best professional judgment, which considered the fact that cable fires occur but are
expected to occur at relatively low frequencies). This estimate was varied in the uncertainty analysis,
assuming complete uncertainty for this parameter (see Section 3.4). The default estimate recognizes that
fire protection methods would skew actual burn percentages toward the lower end. In addition, it should
be noted that the percent of CMP cables burned would likely be lower than the percent of CMR cables
burned, due to different fire safety standards; however, either percent would be in the range of the
uncertainty analysis. Further, the CMR is not being compared to the CMP, precluding any effect on the
analyses in this LCA. Based on the above considerations, the point estimate calculations conducted in
this LCA used a value of 0.11 percent of CMR and CMP cables that reach the EOL stage through fires.
Estimates for the distribution of cable after its useful life were not readily available; however,
wire and cable recycling for copper recovery is currently estimated at 95 percent (Bartley, 2006). We
assume that this includes the proportion that is sent overseas, and that the estimate recognizes that a
proportion of what is sent for recycling is sometimes first re-used. However, we still assume that the
ultimate disposition (after it is reused) is to recycle the cables for the copper content. Provided the value
of copper continues to remain high, we expect recycling to continue to be prevalent at the time when the
cables produced now reach their end-of-life (e.g., 10 or 15 years for communications cables, and 25 or 40
years for the low-voltage power cables).
The cables sent for recycling could either undergo wire chopping, wire stripping, or burning to
separate the copper from the plastic material. Data is limited, however, on the distribution of recovered
cable amount associated with these separation options. Although cable chopping may be more prevalent
in North America, as stated earlier, there may be a large amount of EOL cables going to developing
countries where stripping and burning might be more established. However, as noted above, the UNEP
Basel Convention has restricted the shipment of plastic insulated cables for uncontrolled burning (Basel
Convention, 1992). For the analysis in this study, we assumed 100 percent of the recovered cable
undergoes chopping, given the lack of LCI data on the other separation options.
Once the copper and plastics fraction are separated, the copper is sent to a copper smelter and the
plastics fraction is either recycled or disposed. Because the copper smelting process is beyond the scope
of this study, our analysis focuses on the plastics fraction that is sent for recycling versus disposal. The
percent of chopped resin that is recycled is very uncertain. A European Commission study completed in
2000 (Plinke, 2000) provides an upper estimate that 20 percent of resin in cables sent for recycling is sent to
thermoplastic recycling.13 We assumed an arbitrary midpoint of 10 percent of the resins going to
thermoplastic recycling. This parameter was then varied in the uncertainty analysis presented in Section 3.4.
13 Note that this estimate is from a historical point in time and other factors such as different recycling rates, international
shipping of wires and cables, and the introduction of new technologies since the study was done could affect the accuracy
of this bounding estimate.
53
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The remainder of the chopped resin is assumed to be incinerated or landfilled (at the same MSW percentage
split described below). Any conclusions regarding recycling rates should be understood in the context of
probable future progress in the area of recovery technology (e.g., Vinyl2010, 2006).
As illustrated in Figure 2-4, EOL cables that are not recycled are landfilled or incinerated. Given
the limited data on the distribution of EOL cable, our analysis assumes that the plastics content disposed
follows the same distribution as U.S. municipal solid waste to landfills (81 percent) and incinerators (19
percent) (U.S. EPA, 2005). Accordingly, we estimate that of the 5 percent of EOL cables not recovered,
approximately 4 percent is disposed in a C&D landfill and 1 percent is incinerated. After chopping for
recovery of copper, of the estimated 90 percent of plastics disposed (i.e., not sent for thermoplastic
recycling), 17 percent would be incinerated and 73 percent would be sent to a MSW landfill.
Finally, in addition to identifying the percentage distribution for the EOL cable, distinguishing
among the alternatives at the EOL stage is of particular interest for the LCA. For example, since we are
comparing alternatives within a cable type, we assume transportation is equivalent and therefore do not
incorporate these inventory flows in the analysis. In addition, given the limited information available, we
assume that the distributions among the cable types are alike. However, there are differences in the
amount of NM-B cable that are disposed as a result of a larger percentage assumed to end in a fire. The
EOL analysis in this study did not include unregulated or uncontrolled burning.
Recycled into new product
* Burning within recovery process to segregate cable could include open burning (under an "unregulated"
recycling scenario) or incineration to separate conductor from resin system.
** These estimates are not well documented and are used as defaults based on available data and best
Professional judgment, which are varied in a multivariats uncertainty analysis.
Shaded boxes illustrate EOL distribution options modeled in this analysis.
Figures may not sum due to rounding.
Figure 2-4. Illustration of EOL Distribution Options: Baseline and Lead-free Alternative
54
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2.4.5.2 EOL Inventory for Disposition Options
To model the EOL LCI, the analysis relied on primary data for cable chopping and thermoplastic
recycling and secondary data (Simonson et al. 2001) to identify the emissions and inventory flows for
landfilling, incineration, and structure fires.
Simonson, et al. (2001) conducted an LCA to compare the impacts resulting from cable fires of
two cable constructions: (a) PVC jacketing over PVC insulation, and (b) PE jacketing over PE insulation.
Fire tests were performed on both cable constructions using two temperatures (350° C and 650° C) and
two oxygen concentrations (5 percent and 21 percent), and the emissions were analyzed. Accordingly,
the outputs for the study are primarily based on the PVC plastics, PE plastics, and the copper conductor.
Because our analysis does not include the copper component, and the cable types we are addressing in
this analysis include PVC jacketing, we used inventory data for the PVC plastics from the Simonson et al.
study. However, the cable types in the WCP also include other materials (e.g., FEP) and other
compounds and resins, thus the EOL inventory flows from these materials are not captured. An earlier
study conducted by DuPont (Leung and Kasprzak, 1999) looked at the combustion products likely to be
emitted during the burning of cable at temperatures expected to be reached during building fires (350 to
450° C). This study was not used to identify combustion products due to lack of clarity about the
jacketing and insulation formulations, but will potentially be used to inform further study of the wire and
cable fire EOL disposition.
The Simonson et al. assessment studied the outputs resulting from both ventilated and vitiated
PVC cable fires, where no spreading of the fire beyond the cable occurs. We chose to use the vitiated fire
data as it better represents a secondary fire (i.e., one that originates away from the cables), which is the
only type expected given the placement of fire retardancy features of the cables.
The Simonson et al. study also provided emissions data on a per kilometer of cable basis for
landfilling and incineration. Since their data did not have lead emissions from the PVC cable emissions
associated with the baseline alternative were incorporated from other sources. For example, based on
estimates provided by the University of Florida, discussed above (Section 2.4.4.3), we assume a leachate
rate of 1.5 percent for removed cable disposed in a C&D landfill. For the incineration and the fire
scenarios, we assumed 98.5 percent of the lead content is disposed of with the ash to a landfill and 1.5
percent is released to the air (Chang-Hwan, no date, and Abanades, 2002, cited in Geibig and Socolof,
2005). Of the lead assumed to be disposed of in a MSW landfill, we assumed the higher leachate rate of
10 percent, given that the cable is disposed of in smaller, chopped pieces. Given the uncertainty in these
estimates, the leachate rates were varied in the multivariate uncertainty analysis (Section 3.4).
Primary data were collected for two cable recycling facilities: cable separation (i.e., chopping)
and PVC recycling (i.e., Vinyloop® process). Only one facility for each process supplied inventory data.
Following are key assumptions for each disposition option based on available primary and secondary
data:
• Landfill: Emission data for landfilling lead-free cables are based on a time period of 100
years. The analysis assumes that a "minor" part of the emissions will be released during this
period, whereas the majority of materials will remain in the landfill and will be broken down
over time. Accordingly, the model assumes that only 3 percent of the original polymer
materials will be broken down during the first 100 years. However, it assumes that 80
percent of the plasticizers in the PVC cable will decompose (Simonson et al., 2001, page
114). These data were supplemented with lead leachate data for the baseline cables.
55
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• Incineration: The study assumes that incineration occurs in "standard waste incinerators with
a relatively high degree of flue gas cleaning" (Simonson et al., 2001, page 117). Typically,
cables are only part of the total waste flow to the incinerator. Therefore, where possible,
emissions outputs are calculated directly from the material content (e.g., carbon dioxide and
hydrochloric acid). However, emissions related to combustion conditions in a typical
incinerator are allocated to the cable material. For example, carbon monoxide emissions are
allocated based on the carbon content of the materials in the cable (Simonson et al., 2001).
These data were supplemented with assumptions about the lead releases to air and to landfill
as ash.
• Recycling (Separation): As noted previously, the inventory data for the separation stage is
based on a small cable recycling facility employing a mechanical, cable chopping operation.
Although the recycler primarily accepts cable to extract the valuable copper component, it
also recycles much of the plastic component of the cable.
• Recycling (Thermoplastics): As noted previously, more than 90 percent of the PVC-based
insulation recycled is from EOL building cables (e.g., low-voltage power cables); and less
than 10 percent of the cable scrap is from EOL communications cables (Leitner, 2006).
However, our analysis assumes the energy and material input and output flows to be the same
per unit of PVC recycled for power cable and telecom cables.
• Fire: Simonson et al. (2001) included fire inventory data for both ventilated and vitiated
fires. The latter represents an oxygen deficient fire, which they assume represents a
secondary fire (i.e., are not started with the cable but capable of consuming the cable and not
spreading beyond the cable). Our analysis includes data for only vitiated fires, which
represent the most probable scenario for CMR/CMP cable fires. In addition, the analysis uses
a default of 10 percent of the cables are burnt during the fire.
2.4.5.3 Limitations and Uncertainties
Assumptions about the disposition percentages may not truly represent the actual dispositions.
For example, our analysis currently assumes that the dispositions of the EOL cables (after any fires) for
all three cable types will be the same once the cable is removed. However, it is likely that each cable has
different percentages of the plastic component that are recovered. In addition, estimates of the
distribution between landfilling and incineration were based on processing MSW rather than specifically
on processing cable. Sensitivity analyses, which vary these assumptions, can be conducted if results
show enough impacts at EOL to warrant further analysis.
Furthermore, the analysis does not give credit for open loop recycling of mixed plastics into other
non-recyclable material/products. That is, this analysis does not account for environmental savings from
the recycled content of materials/products created from the recycled plastics from the cables. In addition,
although the recovery of FEP follows more of a closed-loop process, the LCA only accounts for this in
the data received by crossweb manufacturers whose data incorporated recycled FEP in their process
estimates.
With respect to the LCI data for the GaBi analysis, as noted above, our analysis primarily relied
on secondary data from the Simonson et al. (2001) study. Although this study was useful in providing
estimates of emission outputs for PVC for the EOL disposition options, it did not include data to account
for the other material in the cable wire we assessed (e.g., FEP, PE, plasticizers, resins). Therefore,
differences in the outputs for each cable type were primarily based on the amount of PVC per unit length
56
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
for each cable type. In addition, the Simonson et al. study did not include estimates for emissions
resulting from lead content. Thus, lead outputs from landfilling were estimated based on leachate rates
for the metal. In addition, although the recovery of plastics using the Vinyloop® process was based on
primary data, our analysis does not account for the triboelectric step, which is necessary to separate
plastic scrap with a PVC content of 50 to 60 percent (Hagstrom et al., 2006; Scheirs, 2003).
2.5 LCI Summary
The LCIs of each cable alternative are the combinations of the upstream, manufacturing, and
EOL data described in the preceding sections. Presented under each subsection below are figures
showing all the processes modeled for each cable alternative, followed by the total inventories. The total
input and output mass inventory data are summarized by general categories of flows (e.g., emissions to
air, emissions to water). When possible, given proprietary restrictions, more detailed breakdowns of the
inventory are also provided, such as the top contributing processes to the total inventory, and the top
contributing inventory flows associated with the modeled life cycle of each cable alternative.
This section presents only the mass flows. Energy inputs are presented in Chapter 3 under the
energy impact category (Section 3.2.2). For the remaining impact categories included in the WCP
analyses, the mass inventory data are then used as the basis of the other impact assessment calculations in
Chapter 3.
2.5.1 CMRLCIs
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 show the processes modeled for the CMR baseline (lead-stabilized) and CMR
lead-free cables from materials extraction through to the end of life. Figure 2-7 shows the processes
modeled for the zero-halogen CMR cables. Incomplete data on the zero-halogen extrusion process
resulted in only a cradle-to-gate analysis comparing the lead and lead-free CMR cables to the zero-
halogen cables in Chapter 3.
In the flow charts below, the "cable installation/use" process is shaded in gray, showing that
inventory data were not included for this stage, except to set the functional unit to 1 kilometer of linear
length of cable. Processes in bold represent those for which primary data were collected. For the zero-
halogen alternative, the jacketing and insulation extrusion process is in hash marks to show it is a mostly
incomplete dataset. The processes noted in parentheses next to each upstream (ME&P) process indicates
the process to which the upstream process feeds. For example, "electricity (cmpdg)" indicates the
inventory from the generation of electricity that is needed for the compounding process. This notation is
used so that subsequent figures showing top contributing processes can be identified with the linked
downstream process. When confidentiality agreement restrictions prohibited the presentation of an
individual process contribution, some processes have been combined as needed.
57
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cmpdg)
Light fuel oil (#2) (cmpdg)
Heavy fuel oil (#6) (cmpdg)
| ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™
Materials:
PVC (cmpdg)
Phthalate plasticizer (cmpdg)
Al hydroxide (ATM) (cmpdg)
Calcined clay (cmpdg)
Tribasic lead sulfate (cmpdg)
Limestone (cmpdg)
Dibasic lead phthalate (cmpdg)
Electricity (extrusion)
Materials:
HOPE (extrusion)
i = ~~ = S SS S
Electricity (crossweb)
i _ __ _**_ _ ^
Materials:
HOPE (crossweb)
Other polyolefin (crossweb)
i = =-= — — =-= =-
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cable recovery)
Natural gas (cable recovery)
i __=, _ ___ __
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (PVC recycling)
Natural gas (PVC recycling)
i==== — - — —
Manufacturing Installation/ Use
\
^ Jac
comp
f invim
i
keting fc
ounding 1
/
Insulation & Cable I
• b 1 b b
" " jacketing • " installation/use | "
/. • P^ W~
extrusion m r v -•• ^ % y
^
•;- \ \
^\ Crossweb i \
extrusion i \
* 1 \
/- i "«
_,
End -of -Life
Building fire |
Regulated |
incineration 1
Landfilling p
(C&D) 1
Landfilling 1
(MSW) 1
1!
Cable |
(chopping) *
i
i '
PVC |
recycling 1
>::^'^:*r>\*^liiiiili^:'fn-:l.^:i
Figure 2-5. CMR Baseline (Lead-Stabilized): Processes Modeled for the WCP Comparative LCA
Note: Shaded boxes indicate no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
58
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Manufacturing Installation/ Use End-of-Life
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cmpdg)
Light fuel oil (#2) (cmpdg)
Heavy fuel oil (#6) (cmpdg)
Materials:
PVC (cmpdg)
Phthalate plasticizer (cmpdg)
Al hydroxide (ATM) (cmpdg)
Limestone (cmpdg)
Calcined clay (cmpdg)
Ca/Zn stabilizer (extrusion),
rial™ ' '
Jacketing
compounding
Electricity (Ca/Zn stabilizer)
Electricity (extrusion)
Materials:
HOPE (extrusion)
Electricity (crossweb)
Materials:
HOPE (crossweb)
Polyolefin (proprietary) (crossweb)
Insulation &
jacketing
extrusion
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cable recovery)
Natural gas (cable recovery)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (PVC recycling)
Natural gas (PVC recycling)
Cable
installation/use
Structure fire
Regulated
incineration
Landfilling
(C&D)
Landfilling
(MSW)
Cable
recovery
(chopping)
PVC
recycling
Figure 2-6. CMR Lead-Free Cables: Processes Modeled for the WCP Comparative LCA
Note: Shaded boxes indicate no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
59
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Manufacturing Installation/ Use End-of-Life
Energy/fuels:
Electricity generation (cmpdg)
Proprietary fuel (cmpdg)
Proprietary resin (extrusion)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cable recovery)
Natural gas (cable recovery)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (PVC recycling)
Natural gas (PVC recycling)
Figure 2-7. CMR Zero-Halogen Cables: Processes Modeled for the WCP Comparative LCA
Note: Shaded boxes indicate no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
Figures 2-8 through 2-10 compare the mass inputs for the baseline and the lead-free CMR
alternatives. Figure 2-8 presents the total mass inputs and Figures 2-9 and 2-10 provide a breakdown of
the processes and individual flows that contribute greater than 1 percent to the total mass inputs. The
total mass inputs for CMR are 19 percent greater for the baseline than the lead-free alternative (3,156
kg/km cable and 2,641 kg/km cable, respectively). For both alternatives, water is 88 percent of the total
inputs, and the process that contributes greatest to each alternative's mass inputs is electricity production
used for cable extrusion (69 percent for the baseline and 65 percent for the lead-free alternative) (Figures
2-9 and 2-10). To protect confidentiality, Figure 2-9 combines the mass inputs from all upstream
electricity generation.
60
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3,500 -,
^ nnn
(u 9 c;nn
.Q
to 9 nnn
£ 1 Rnn
5* 1 nnn
cnn
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
Figure 2-8. CMR Total Mass Inputs
3,500 -,
3,000 -
2500 -
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The mass outputs are presented in Figures 2-11 through 2-13. Outputs include: deposited goods,
which include consumer waste, hazardous waste and stockpile goods (e.g., overburden14); production
residues, which include hazardous and non-hazardous waste for disposal; and substances such as
intermediate products (e.g., PVC). Note also, emissions to water include the total mass of wastewater
itself, as well as pollutants contained therein. Since data for the zero-halogen alternative were
incomplete, similar comparative inventory results are not shown. The mass outputs are 23 percent greater
for the baseline compared to the lead-free cable (2,542 and 2,073 kg/km cable, respectively). The mass
outputs are mostly releases to fresh water (79 percent for both leaded and lead-free cables). 86 percent
and 83 percent of the mass outputs are from the production of electricity needed for the cable extrusion
and compounding processes for the lead and lead-free alternatives, respectively. To protect
confidentiality, Figure 2-12 combines the mass outputs from all upstream electricity generation. The
figures indicate that water from electricity generation contributes the most to the mass inputs and outputs
for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
3,000 -,
9 c;nn
CD
CO
o
1 'snn
^
"™ 1 nnn
.*
Rnn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 2-11. CMR Total Mass Outputs
3,000 -i
z,buu
.S3 2,000
.a
us
Q
1 Rnn
j£
01 1 nnn
Rnn
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-free
D Other
• Jacketing resin
production
D Cable extrusion
• Bectricity
generation
Figure 2-12. CMR Mass Outputs - Top Contributing Processes
14
Surface soil that must be moved away to access coal seams and mineral deposits.
62
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3,000 -i
2500
„. 9 nnn
.a
ro
1 ^nn
j*:
5^ 1 nnn
cnn
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
D Other
D Carbon dioxide
Q Overburden
• Steam
Q Exhaust
B Waste w ater
Figure 2-13. CMR Mass Outputs - Top Contributing Flows
The halogen-free alternative did not have complete data to compare the full life cycles of the
alternatives. The only comparison that could be made for the zero-halogen (X-free) alternative is
comparing the compounding process and the production of electricity and fuels associated with
compounding. This comparison found that the zero-halogen process had greater mass inputs and outputs
compared to the baseline (leaded) (Figures 2-14 and 2-15). This does not account for any differences in
the production processes of the additives in the compounded resin.
2500 -i
9nnn
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3000 -i
2500
o
-s onnn
ro
° i^nn
^
—• innn
j^
Rnn
n
i ( | |
Base Pb-free
Cable type
X-free
Figure 2-15. CMR 3-way Cradle-to-gate Mass Outputs
The primary explanation for the discrepancy in the halogen-free cable cradle-to-gate mass inputs
and outputs compared to the baseline and lead-free alternatives is the difference in energy use as well as
the mass of cable jacket per unit length, which is far higher than the two other types of cable (see Table 1-
2).
2.5.2 CMP LCIs
Figures 2-16 and 2-17 show the processes modeled for the CMP baseline (lead-stabilized) and
CMP lead-free cables from materials extraction through to the end of life. As in the CMR flow charts, the
inventory data for the "cable installation/use" process were not included, the functional unit is set to 1
kilometer of linear length of cable, and processes in bold represent those for which primary data were
collected.
Figures 2-18 through 2-20 compare the mass inputs for the baseline and the lead-free CMP
alternatives. Figure 2-18 presents the total mass inputs while Figures 2-19 and 2-20 provide a breakdown
of the processes that contribute greater than 5 percent to the total mass inputs and the individual flows that
contribute greater than 1 percent to the total mass inputs, respectively. The total mass inputs for CMP are
9 percent greater for the baseline than the lead-free alternative (4,480 kg/km cable and 4,123 kg/km cable,
respectively). The top contributing process for both alternatives is the generation of electricity for use in
the cable extrusion process (Figure 2-19). To protect confidentiality, Figure 2-19 combines the mass
input from all upstream electricity generation. Water is the greatest individual flow contributing to the
mass input for both alternatives (Figure 2-20). Figure 2-19 includes the processes that contribute >5
percent of the total impacts, which represent 93 and 87 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and
lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 2-20 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to
the total impacts and represents 95 percent of the total input mass for both the baseline and lead-free
alternatives. The overall differences in mass input between the cables are primarily a function of the
differences in energy use, as electricity generation uses substantial amounts of water. Energy inputs are
presented in Section 3.2.2 under Energy Impacts.
64
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Manufacturing Installation/ Use End-of-Life
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cmpdg)
Light fuel oil (#2) (cmpdg)
Heavy fuel oil (#6) (cmpdg)
Materials:
PVC (cmpdg)
Al hydroxide (ATM) (cmpdg)
Calcined clay (cmpdg)
Limestone (cmpdg)
Proprietary phthalates (cmpdg)
Dibasic lead phthalates (cmpdg)
Proprietary stabilizer (cmpdg)
Tribasic lead sulfate (cmpdg)
Electricity (extrusion)
Jacketing
compounding
FEP (extrusion)
Structure fire
Insulation &
jacketing
extrusion
Cable
installation/use
Regulated
incineration
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (FEP)
Natural gas (FpP)}
Electricity (crossweb)
EPJcrossweb)
Crossweb
extrusion
Landfilling
(C&D)
Landfilling
(MSW)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (FEP crossweb)
Natural gas (FEP crossweb)
(
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cable recovery)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (PVC recycling)
Natural gas (PVC recycling)
Cable
recovery
(chopping)
PVC
recycling
Figure 2-16. CMP Baseline (Lead-Stabilized): Processes Modeled for the WCP Comparative LCA
Note: Shaded boxes indicate no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
65
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Manufacturing Installation/ Use End-of-Life
Electricity (cmpdg)
Light fuel oil (#2) (cmpdg)
Heavy fuel oil (#6) (cmpdg)
PVC (cmpdg)
Al hydroxide (ATM) (cmpdg)
Calcined clay (cmpdg)
Limestone (cmpdg)
Proprietary phthalates (cmpdg)
Ca/Zn stabilizer (cmpdg)
Electricity (Ca/Zn)
Electricity (extrusion)
HOPE (extrusion)
FEP (extrusion)
1
Electricity (FEP)
Natural gas (FEP)
Electricity (crossweb)
FEP (crossweb)
Electricity (FEP crossweb)
Natural gas (FEP crossweb)
Electricity (cable recovery)
Electricity (PVC recycling)
Natural gas (PVC recycling)
Jacketing
compounding
Insulation &
jacketing
extrusion
Cable
installation/use
i *
B
Regulated
incineration
Figure 2-17. CMP Lead-Free Cables: Processes Modeled for the WCP Comparative LCA
Note: Shaded boxes indicate no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
66
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
5000 -i
4UUU
«
n
m ^nnn
o
5 onnn
I1
mnn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 2-18. CMP Total Mass Inputs
5000 -i
4000
_O
.Q onnn
g 3000-
E
•^ onnn
O)
j^
mnn
n
Baseline Pb-free
Cable type
D Other
0 Insulation resin
production
• Electricity
generation
Figure 2-19. CMP Mass Inputs -Top Contributing Processes
5000 -,
4000
_o
& ^nnn
o
E
^ onnn
^
mnn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
O Inert rock
D Air
• Water
Figure 2-20. CMP Mass Inputs - Top Contributing Flows
67
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Similar to the inputs, the mass outputs are presented in Figures 2-21 through 2-23. The baseline
cable generates 10 percent more mass output than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 2-
21. The top contributing process for both alternatives is the generation of electricity for use in the cable
extrusion process (Figure 2-22). To protect confidentiality, Figure 2-22 combines the mass output from
all upstream electricity generation. Wastewater is the greatest individual flow contributing to the mass
output for both alternatives (Figure 2-23). Figure 2-22 includes the processes that contribute >3 percent
of the total mass output, which represent 98 and 97 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-
free alternatives, respectively. Figure 2-23 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the
total impacts, and represents 98 percent of the total output mass for both the baseline and lead-free
alternatives. The overall differences in mass output between the cables are primarily a function of the
differences in energy use, as electricity generation generates substantial amounts of wastewater.
The total water outputs are tallied separately from individual constituents in the water that might
be considered hazardous or toxic. The impacts associated with those are translated into appropriate
impact categories as presented in Chapter 3.
The inventory is used to generate impact results, as described in Chapter 3. Further details, such
as the inventories for specific processes are not provided for reasons of confidentiality.
4000 -i
^nnn
aj ouuu
5
ro
o
9nnn
j^
0)
•^ mnn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 2-21. CMP Total Mass Outputs
4000 ->
onnn
«
.a
us
Q
onnn
j^
"3)
.*
1 nnn
n
Baseline Pb-free
Cable type
D Other
Q Insulation resin
production
• Bectricity
generation
Figure 2-22. CMP Mass Outputs - Top Contributing Processes
68
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
4000 -,
3000 -
«
.a
us
Q
onnn
.*
0)
j^
innn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Carbon dioxide
0 Overburden
• Steam
Q Exhaust
• Waste w ater
Figure 2-23. CMP Mass Outputs - Top Contributing Flows
2.5.3 NM-B LCIs
Figures 2-24 and 2-25 show the processes modeled for the NM-B baseline (lead-stabilized) and
NM-B lead-free cables from materials extraction through to the end of life. Note that the lead-free
alternative only represents materials extraction up to compounding, while the baseline includes materials
extraction through EOL (thus in the LCIA results in Chapter 3, the NM-B comparisons are only based on
the upstream through compounding processes). As in the CMR and CMP flow charts, the inventory data
for the shaded process boxes (e.g., "cable installation/use") are not included in the inventory, the
functional unit is set to 1 kilometer of linear length of cable, and processes in bold represent those for
which primary data were obtained.
Figures 2-26 through 2-28 compare the cradle-to-gate mass inputs for the baseline and the lead-
free NM-B alternatives. Energy inputs are presented in Section 3.2.2 under Energy Impacts. Figure 2-26
presents the total cradle-to-gate mass inputs, while Figures 2-27 and 2-28 provide a breakdown of the
processes that contribute greater than 5 percent to the total cradle-to-gate mass inputs and the individual
flows that contribute greater than 1 percent to the total cradle-to-gate mass inputs, respectively. The total
cradle-to-gate mass inputs for NM-B are 11 percent greater for the baseline than the lead-free alternative
(1,836 kg/km cable and 1,657 kg/km cable, respectively). For both alternatives, the production of
plasticizers is the greatest contributing process (59 percent of the total inputs for the baseline and 63
percent for the lead-free alternative) and the top contributing input flow is water, which contributes 93
percent of the total inputs for the baseline and 94 percent for the lead-free alternative. To protect
confidentiality, Figure 2-27 combines the cradle-to-gate mass input from all upstream electricity
generation.
69
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Manufacturing Installation/ Use End-of-Life
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (insul cmpdg)
Natural gas (insul cmpdg)
Light fuel oil (#2) (insul cmpdg)
Materials:
PVC (insul cmpdg)
Phthalate plasticizer (insul cmpdg)
Calcined clay (insul cmpdg)
Limestone (insul cmpdg)
Dibasic lead phthalate (insul cmpdg)
Phthalate plasticizer (insul cmpdg)
Insulation
compounding
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (extrusion)
Natural gas (extrusion)
Light fuel oil (extrusion)
Nylon (extrusion)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (jacket cmpdg)
Natural gas (jacket cmpdg)
Cable
installation/use
Materials:
PVC (jacket cmpdg)
Limestone (jacket cmpdg)
Lead stabilizer (jacket cmpdg)
Jacketing
compounding
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (cable recovery)
Natural gas (cable recovery)
Energy/fuels:
Electricity (PVC recycling)
Natural gas (PVC recycling)
Figure 2-24. NM-B Baseline (Lead-Stabilized): Processes Modeled for the NM-B LCI
Note: Shaded boxes indicate no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
70
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Materials extraction
and processing
Electricity (insul cmpdg)
Materials:
PVC (insul cmpdg)
Ca/Zn stabilizer (insul cmpdg)
Flame retardant (insul cmpdg)
Electricity (jacket cmpdg)
Materials:
PVC (jacket cmpdg)
Limestone (jacket cmpdg)
Lead stabilizer (jacket cmpdg)
Manufacturing Installation/ Use End-of-Life
Insulation
compounding
Insulation &
jacketing
extrusion
Jacketing
compounding
Figure 2-25. NM-B Lead-Free Cables: Processes Modeled for the WCP Comparative LCA
Note: Shaded boxes indicates no inventory data included for that process. Bold text indicates primary data
collection for that process.
71
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2000 -i
^7s^^\
1 ^nn
0)
"S 19RD
ro
° mnn
^ 7RD
O)
•* mn
9RD
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 2-26. NM-B Total Mass Inputs - Partial Life Cycle
2000 -,
1750 -
1 ^nn
"S 1 oc;n
nj
o
c 1000 -
* 750
O) '3U -
J£
"^nn
9c;n
n
I n Electricity generation
I • Rasticizer production
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 2-27. NM-B Mass Inputs - Top Contributing Processes - Partial Life Cycle
2000 -i
1750
•^ 1250
(0
o
mnn
j^
"5*i TRn
j*:
'snn
9RO
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
O Nonrenew able
resources
Q Air
• Water
Figure 2-28. NM-B Mass Inputs - Top Contributing Flows - Partial Life Cycle
72
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The baseline NM-B cable generates 35 percent more cradle-to-gate mass output than the lead-free
alternative, which is shown in Figure 2-29. The top contributing process for both alternatives is the
generation of electricity for use in the compounding of cable insulation and jacketing (Figure 2-30). To
protect confidentiality, Figure 2-30 combines the cradle-to-gate mass output from all upstream electricity
generation. Wastewater is the greatest individual flow contributing to the cradle-to-gate mass output for
both alternatives (Figure 2-31). Figure 2-30 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total
mass output, which represent 94 and 96 percent of the total cradle-to-gate mass output baseline and lead-
free alternatives, respectively. Figure 2-31 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the
total impacts, and represents 101 and 108 percent of the total cradle-to-gate output mass for both the
baseline and lead-free alternatives (the fact that they account for greater than 100 percent is due to the
aggregation of mass inputs and outputs in the calculation of totals). The overall differences in cradle-to-
gate mass output between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy use, as
electricity generation generates substantial amounts of wastewater.
500 -,
400
o
5 onn
mn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 2-29. NM-B Total Mass Outputs - Partial Life Cycle
500 -i
450
4UU
350
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
500 -i
Af^Ci
400
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chapter 3 LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Within LCA, the LCI is a well-established methodology; however, LCIA methods are less well-
defined and continue to evolve (Barnthouse etal, 1997; Fava etal., 1993). For LCIA toxicity impacts in
particular, some of the methods commonly being applied include toxicity potential, critical volume, and
direct valuation (Guinee et al, 1996; ILSI, 1996; Curran, 1996). There is currently no general consensus
among the LCA community concerning which, if any, of these methods are preferable, however. Efforts
are under way to determine the appropriate level of analytical sophistication in LCIA for various types of
decision-making requirements and for adequately addressing toxicity impacts (Bare, 1999).
Section 3.1 of this chapter presents the general LCIA methodology used in this WCP study,
which takes a more detailed approach to chemical toxicity impacts than some of the methods currently
being used. This section also describes the data management and analysis software used to calculate
LCIA results. Section 3.2 presents the detailed characterization methodologies for each impact category,
as well as the LCIA results for each cable type. This section also discusses data sources, data quality, and
the limitations and uncertainties in this LCIA methodology, as well as in the LCIA results.
Our LCIA methodology calculates life-cycle impact category indicators using established
calculation methods for a number of traditional impact categories, such as global warming, stratospheric
ozone depletion, photochemical smog, and energy consumption. In addition, this method calculates
relative category indicators for potential impacts on human health and aquatic ecotoxicity, impacts not
always considered in traditional LCIA methodology. The toxicity impact method is based on work for
Saturn Corporation and the EPA Office of Research and Development by the University of Tennessee
Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies and used in the DfE Computer Display Project's LCA
study (Socolof et al., 2001), and updated in the LCA conducted by the DfE Lead-Free Solder Project
(Geibig and Socolof, 2005).
The LCIAs conducted in this study are done to compare the baseline cables (i.e., lead-stabilized)
to alternatively constructed cables (i.e., lead-free or zero-halogen). The comparative impacts presented in
this section are based on LCI data described in Chapter 2. The baseline and lead-free comparisons for
both the CMR and CMP cables use the inventories from upstream through EOL. For the CMR zero-
halogen alternative and the NM-B lead-free alternative, cable manufacturing (i.e., insulation and jacketing
extrusion) data were not obtained; thus in order to compare these cables to the respective alternatives for
the appropriate cable type, only comparable processes are included, as appropriate.
3.1 Methodology
In its simplest form, LCIA is the evaluation of potential impacts to any system as a result of some
action. LCIAs generally classify the consumption and loading data from the inventory stage to various
impact categories. Characterization methods are used to quantify the magnitude of the contribution that
loading or consumption could have in producing the associated impact. LCIA does not seek to determine
actual impacts, but rather to link the data gathered from the LCI to impact categories and to quantify the
relative magnitude of contribution to the impact category (Fava et al., 1993; Barnthouse et al., 1997).
Further, impacts in different impact categories are generally calculated based on differing scales and,
therefore, cannot be directly compared.
Conceptually, there are three major phases of LCIA, as defined by the SETAC (Fava et al,
1993):
75
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• Classification - The process of assignment and initial aggregation of data from inventory
studies to impact categories (i.e., greenhouse gases or ozone depletion compounds).
• Characterization - The analyses and estimation of the magnitude of potential impacts for
each impact category, derived through the application of specific impact assessment tools.
(In the WCP, impact scores are calculated for inventory items that have been classified into
various impact categories and then aggregated into life-cycle impact category indicators.)
• Valuation - The assignment of relative values or weights to different impacts, and their
integration across impact categories to allow decision makers to assimilate and consider the
full range of relevant impact scores across impact categories.
The international standard for life-cycle impact assessment, ISO 14042, considers classification and
characterization to be mandatory elements of LCIA; valuation ("weighting") is an optional element to be
included depending on the goals and scope of the study. Both the classification and characterization steps
are completed in the WCP, while the valuation step is left to industry or other interested stakeholders.
The methodologies for life-cycle impact classification and characterization are described in Sections 3.1.1
and 3.1.2, respectively.
3.1.1 Classification
In the first step of classification, impact categories of interest are identified in the scoping phase of the
LCA. The categories included in the WCP LCIA are listed below:
• non-renewable materials use/depletion
• energy use
• landfill space use
• global warming (global climate change)
• stratospheric ozone depletion
• photochemical smog
• air acidification
• air quality (particulate matter loading)
• water eutrophication (nutrient enrichment)
• chronic cancer human health effects - occupational
• chronic cancer human health effects - public
• chronic non-cancer human health effects - occupational
• chronic non-cancer human health effects - public
• aquatic ecotoxicity
Radioactivity and radioactive landfill waste are not included as impact categories because they
are simply proportional to the use of electricity across all alternatives. Terrestrial ecotoxicity is not
included as a separate impact category because the method for calculating chronic non-cancer public
health impacts would be the same as for terrestrial ecotoxicity.
The second step of classification is assigning inventory flows to applicable impact categories.
Classification includes whether the inventory item is an input or output, the disposition of the output, and,
in some cases, the material properties for a particular inventory item. Figure 3-1 shows a conceptual
model of classification for the WCP. Table 3-1 presents the inventory types and material properties used
to define which impact category is applicable to an inventory item. One inventory item may have
76
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
>s
1
C
f
O
General impact
Chemical
*
(0
d (e.g., green
Water Landfill Product Treatment
1
F
i '
No impact
score given
i ' ^
Water Ecotoxicity 0Landfi"
resources Space use
irties indicate wh
louse gases will
' r i
Occupational
non-cancer
Occupational
- • > cancer
Public
non-cancer
Public
cancer
:h specific imp act categories w II be
ave a global warming impact siore)
'
^^^^^^^^^J ^^^^^
Global
warming Eutrophication
ozone depl.
Photochem.
Air
acidifica
Air
particulE
Aquatic
ecotoxocity
lion
1 * f
ates Landfill space
use
quations for calculating impact scores for each impact category are provided in Section 3.1.2,
Figure 3-1. Impact Classification Conceptual Model
77
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 3-1
Inventory Types and Properties for Classifying Inventory Items Into Impact Categories
Inventory Type
Input Output
Chemical/Material Properties
Impact Category
Natural Resource Impacts
Material, fuel
Electricity, fuel
N/A
N/A
N/A
waste to landfill
Non-renewable
Energy
I Solid, hazardous, and radioactive
J waste
Abiotic Ecosystem Impacts
Non-renewable resource
use/depletion
Energy use
Landfill space use (volume)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Water
I Global warming gases
I Ozone depleting substances
I Substances that can be
Jphotochemically oxidized
I Substances that react to form
I hydrogen ions (H+)
Air particulates (PM10, TSP)a
I Substances that contain available
J nitrogen or phosphorus
Human Health and Ecotoxicity
Global warming
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Photochemical smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Water eutrophication (nutrient
enrichment)
Material
N/A
Material
N/A
N/A
N/A
:; Toxic material (carcinogenic)
Air, soil, water (TO>dC material (carcin°9enic)
ii Toxic material (non-carcinogenic)
N/A
ii Toxic material (non-carcinogenic)
Air, soil, water ii
!
Water Toxic material
Carcinogenic human health
effects occupational
Carcinogenic human health
effects public
Chronic, non-carcinogenic
human health effects
occupational
Chronic, non-carcinogenic
human health effects public
(and terrestrial ecotoxicity)
Aquatic ecotoxicity
Acronyms: participate matter with average aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM10); total
suspended particulates (TSP); biological oxygen demand (BOD); total suspended solids (TSS).
N/A=not applicable.
multiple properties and, therefore, would have multiple impacts. For example, methane is a global
warming gas and has the potential to create photochemical oxidants (to form smog).
Output inventory items from a process may have such varying dispositions as direct release (to
air, water, or land), treatment, or recycle/reuse. Outputs with direct release dispositions were classified
into impact categories for which impacts were calculated in the characterization phase of the LCIA.
Outputs sent to treatment are considered inputs to a treatment process and impacts were not calculated
until direct releases from that process occur. Similarly, outputs to recycle/reuse were considered inputs to
previous processes and impacts were not directly calculated for outputs that go to recycle/reuse. Figure 3-
1 graphically depicts the relationships between inventory type, dispositions, and impact categories. Note
78
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
that a product is also an output of a process; however, product outputs were not used to calculate any
impacts. Once impact categories for each inventory item were classified, life-cycle impact category
indicators were quantitatively estimated through the characterization step.
3.1.2 Characterization
The characterization step of LCIA includes the conversion and aggregation of LCI results to common
units within an impact category. Different assessment tools are used to quantify the magnitude of
potential impacts, depending on the impact category. Three types of approaches are used in the
characterization method for the WCP:
• Loading - An impact score is based on the inventory amount.
• Equivalency - An impact score is based on the inventory amount weighed by a certain
effect, equivalent to a reference chemical.
Full equivalency - all substances are addressed in a unified, technical model.
Partial equivalency - a subset of substances can be converted into equivalency factors.
• Scoring of inherent properties - An impact score is based on the inventory amount weighed
by a score representing a certain effect for a specific material (e.g., toxicity impacts are
weighed using a toxicity scoring method).
Table 3-2 lists the characterization approach used with each impact category. The loading
approach either uses the direct inventory amount to represent the impact or slightly modifies the inventory
amount to change the units into a meaningful loading estimate, such as characterizing the impact of either
non-renewable resource depletion or landfill use. Use of nonrenewable resources is directly estimated as
the mass loading (input amount) of that material consumed; use of landfill space applies the mass loading
(output amount) of hazardous, non-hazardous, or radioactive waste, and converts that loading into a
volume to estimate the landfill space consumed.
The equivalency method uses equivalency factors in certain impact categories to convert
inventory amounts to common units relative to a reference chemical. Equivalency factors are values that
provide a measure (weighting) to relate the impact of an inventory amount of a given chemical to the
effect of the same amount of the reference chemical. For example, for the impact category "global
warming potential (GWP)," the equivalency factor is an estimate of a chemical's atmospheric lifetime and
radiative forcing that may contribute to global climate change compared to the reference chemical carbon
dioxide (CO2); therefore, GWPs are given in units of CO2 equivalents.
Scoring of inherent properties is applied to impact categories that may have different effects for
the same amount of various chemicals, but for which equivalency factors do not exist or are not widely
accepted. The scores are meant to normalize the inventory data to provide measures of potential impacts.
Scoring methods are employed for the human and ecological toxicity impact categories, based on the
Chemical Hazard Evaluation Management Strategies (CHEMS-1) method described by Swanson etal.
(1997) and presented below. The scoring method provides a relative score, or hazard value, for each
potentially toxic material that is then multiplied by the inventory amount to calculate the toxicity impact
score.
Using the various approaches, the WCP LCIA method calculates impact scores for each inventory
item for each applicable impact category. These impact scores are based on either a direct measure of the
inventory amount or some modification (e.g., equivalency or scoring) of that amount based on the
79
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
potential effect the inventory item may have on a particular impact category. Impact scores are then
aggregated within each impact category to calculate the various life-cycle impact category indicators.
Inventory amounts are identified on a functional unit basis and used to calculate impact scores.
For each inventory item, an individual score is calculated for each applicable impact category. The
detailed characterization equations for each impact category are presented in Sections 3.2.1 through
3.2.12 and summarized in Section 3.3. The equations presented in those subsections calculate impacts for
individual inventory items that could later be aggregated as defined by the user. Impact scores represent
relative and incremental changes rather than absolute effects or threshold levels.
Table 3-2
LCIA Characterization Approaches for the WCP
_ Impact category _ Characterization approach
Natural Resource Impacts
Non-renewable materials use/depletion Loading
Energy use Loading
Loading
Abiotic Ecosystem Impacts
Global warming Equivalency (full)
Stratospheric ozone depletion Equivalency (full)
Photochemical smog Equivalency (partial)
Acidification Equivalency (full)
Air particulates Loading
Human Health and Ecotoxicity
Cancer human health effects occupational Scoring of inherent properties
Cancer human health effects public Scoring of inherent properties
Chronic non-cancer human health effects occupational Scoring of inherent properties
Chronic non-cancer human health effects public Scoring of inherent properties
Aquatic ecotoxicity _ Scoring of inherent properties
3.2 CHARACTERIZATION AND RESULTS
This section presents the impact assessment characterization methods and the impact results by
impact category. Within each impact category subsection (3.2.1 through 3.2.12), the characterization
equations are presented, followed by the results for each cable type. The full life-cycle results for CMR
and CMP, and the NM-B cradle-to-gate analyses are presented (the CMR 3-way analysis is presented in
Chapter 4 since limited data prevented the presentation of detailed results). Finally, a discussion of the
limitations and uncertainties associated with that impact category concludes each section. The LCIA
results are based on the boundaries outlined in Chapter 1 and the inventory described in Chapter 2.
Within the results subsections of Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.12, the impacts are presented as total impacts,
followed by top contributing processes and top contributing flows. Section 3.3 briefly summarizes the
characterization methods and the overall life-cycle impact category indicators for the 14 impact categories
for each cable type. A summary of the limitations and uncertainties also is provided in Section 3.3.
Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses are presented in Section 3.4.
80
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
It should be reiterated that the LCIA results presented throughout this section are indicators of the
relative potential impacts of the baseline (lead-based) and the alternative cables in various impact
categories and are not a measure of actual or specific impacts. The LCIA is intended to provide a
screening level evaluation of impacts and in no way provides absolute values or measures actual effects.
Results herein are referred to as impact category indicators (representing the total impact score of a cable
alternative in an impact category), impact results, impact scores, or simply impacts. Each of these terms
refers to relative potential impacts and should not be confused with an assessment of actual impacts.
3.2.1 Non-renewable Resource Use
3.2.1.1 Characterization
Natural resources are materials that are found in nature in their basic form, rather than being
manufactured. Non-renewable ("stock") natural resources are typically abiotic, such as mineral ore or
fossil fuels. Renewable ("flow") natural resources are those that can be regenerated, typically biotic
resources, such as forest products or other plants, animal products, and water. Consumption impacts from
non-renewable resources (NRRs) are calculated using direct consumption values (e.g., material mass)
from the inventory. Renewable resource use is not included in the impact assessment.
For the non-renewable materials use/depletion category, depletion of materials results from the
extraction of non-renewable resources. Non-renewable resource impact scores are based on the amount
of material inputs (which can be product or process materials), water, and fuel inputs of non-renewable
materials. To calculate the loading-based impact scores, the following equation is used:
where:
ISNRR equals the impact score for use of non-renewable resource / (kg) per functional unit;
Amtfmx equals the inventory input amount of non-renewable resource /' (kg) per functional unit;
and
RC equals the fraction recycled content (post-industrial and post-consumer) of resource /'.
Accounting for the data collection limitations in the inventory and the characterization method, we have
assigned a "medium" data quality measure for the NRR impact category results. The following
subsections describe the impacts for each cable type.
3.2.1.2 CMR results
The baseline (leaded) CMR cable uses 17 percent more non-renewable resources than the lead-
free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-2. The top contributing process is electricity production for
cable extrusion for both alternatives (Figure 3-3) and inert rock is the greatest individual flow
contributing to the impacts for both alternatives (Figure 3-4). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-3
combines the non-renewable resource inputs from all upstream electricity generation. Figure 3-3 includes
the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 90 and 92 percent of the
total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-4 includes individual flows
81
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and represents 99 percent of the total NRR impacts for both
the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are mostly a function of the differences in extrusion
energy. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the non-
renewable resource impact category (see Section 3.4). However, of potentially greater interest to
manufactures is that when comparing insulation and jacketing of CMR cables, electricity production is
the largest contributor to non-renewable resource depletion.
160 -,
i^n
19D
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
160 -i
140
120
2 percent of the total impacts, which represent 90 and 89 percent of the
total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-7 includes individual flows
that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and represents 99 percent of the total NRR impacts for both
the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the non-
renewable resource impact category (see Section 3.4). However, of potentially greater interest to
manufactures is that when comparing insulation and jacketing of CMP cables, electricity production is the
largest contributor to non-renewable resource depletion.
83
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
250 -i
9DD
Pb-Free
!
D Other
a Sodium chloride
•
D Lignite
— (-\ j -i
Q Fluorspar
Q Natural gas
• Inert rock
Figure 3-7. Top Contributing Flows to NRR Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
84
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.1.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable uses 18 percent more non-
renewable resources than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-8. The top contributing
process is production of the jacketing resin, PVC, for both alternatives (Figure 3-9). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-9 combines the non-renewable resource inputs from all upstream electricity
generation. The greatest individual flow is inert rock for the baseline cable and natural gas for the lead-
free alternative (Figure 3-10). Figure 3-3 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total
impacts, which represent 92 and 99 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively. Figure 3-4 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and
represent 99 and >99 percent of the total NRR impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Understanding that jacketing resin production contributes greatest to NRR depletion for both
alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts by reducing the amount of jacketing
resin used. However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs in the other
impact categories.
80 -,
7P1
fin
o Du
•Q ^n
ro ou
0 40
E 4°
•^ "3D
O)
•* ?0
m
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-8. Total NRR Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
80 -i
7D
60
% 50
ro
0 /in
E 4°
^
"3> 30
^
9n
m
n
i l i l i l i i i i
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and Jacketing Type
D Other
H Rasticizer production
• Limestone production
D Electricity generation
• Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-9. Top Contributing Processes to NRR Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
85
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
80 -i
70
60
5 50
E 4°
J^
"?r» 30 -
^
on
m
n
1 sl sl YT j s j s i
1 i
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and Jacketing Type
D Other
• Soil
D Lignite
B Lead - zinc ore (4.6%-
0.6%)
Q Hard coal
D Limestone
D Sodium chloride
• Crude oil
Q Natural gas
• Inert rock
Figure 3-10. Top Contributing Flows to NRR Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
3.2.1.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. A limitation to the LCIA methodology for the NRR use
category is that the results are based on the mass of a material consumed. Depletion of NRRs occurs from
the extraction of these NRRs; however, the impact indicators do not relate consumption rates to the
Earth's ability to sustain that consumption.
For all cable types, the inventory data was limited in the number of primary data sets collected for
each process. Primary data were collected for each process from between 1 and 3 companies; where
primary data were not available, secondary data were used, or in some cases, materials meeting decision
rule criteria were not included.
The major uncertainty in the CMR and CMP inventory data that contribute to the NRR impacts is
electricity for extrusion during cable manufacturing. This is explained in Section 2.2.4 and included in
the uncertainty analysis in Section 3.4.1 and also discussed further in the sensitivity analysis (Section
3.4.2).
While the primary extrusion energy varied greatly among companies, another source of
uncertainty is that the electricity generation process used in this study is from secondary data provided in
the GaBi4 database. Data quality of the electricity generation inventory, as determined by GaBi4, is
considered "good." In addition, an average U.S. electric grid mix was selected for use in the study to
conform to the data collected from the manufacturing process, which were all in the United States, and
which are within the geographic boundaries of this study. As a result, use of a secondary data set for
electricity generation is not expected to be a large source of uncertainty.
The complete life-cycle of the NM-B cables was not available, and thus only limited cradle-to-
gate analysis was conducted. As stated earlier, the NRR impact category is given an overall relative data
quality rating of "medium" for all cable types.
86
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.2 Energy Use
3.2.2.1 Characterization
Energy consumption is used as an indicator of potential environmental impacts from the entire
energy generation cycle. Energy use impact scores are based on both fuel and electricity flows. The
impact category indicator is the sum of electrical energy inputs and fuel energy inputs. Fuel inputs are
converted from mass to energy units using the fuel's heat value (H) and the density (D), presented in
Table 3-3 below.
Table 3-3
Fuel Conversion Factors
Heat Value (H) Density (D)
Reference (k9/
Heavy fuel oil #6 (residual) 38.579 (1) 0.944 (2)
Light fuel oil #2 (distillate) 36.739 (1) 0.843 (2)
Natural Gas 0.034 (3) 7.58x10"4 (4)
1. Davis, S.C. 1999. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 19. 1999. Center for Transportation Analysis,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL 6958, Appendix B, Table B1 . Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September.
2. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 1999. International Energy Annual 1997. U.S. Department of
Energy. DOE/EIA 0219 (97), Washington, DC. April.
3. Based on: Wang, M. 1999. The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation (GREET) Model, Version 1.5. Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago.
4. Calculated from: Perry, R.H. and D. Green (Eds.) 1984. Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 6th
Edition, page 9-15, Table 9-13, and p. 9-16, Table 9-14. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
The impact score is calculated by:
(ISs) t = (Amts) t or [AmtFx (H/D)J,
where:
ISE equals the impact score for energy use (MJ) per functional unit;
AmtE equals the inventory input amount of electrical energy used (MJ) per functional unit;
Amtp equals the inventory input amount of fuel used (kg) per functional unit;
H equals the heat value of fuel /' (MJ/L); and
D equals the density of fuel / (kg/L).
This category addresses energy use only. The emissions from energy production are outputs from the
energy production process and are classified to applicable impact categories, depending on the disposition
and chemical properties of the outputs (see Classification Section 3.1.1).
Accounting for the data collection limitations in the inventory and the characterization method,
we have assigned a "medium" data quality measure for the energy use impact category results.
87
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.2.2 CMR results
The baseline (leaded) CMR cable uses 5 percent more energy than the lead-free alternative,
which is shown in Figure 3-11. The top contributing process for both alternatives is electricity generation
for the cable extrusion process. To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-12 combines the energy impacts from
all upstream electricity generation. For both alternatives (Figure 3-13), the top contributing flows such as
natural gas and crude oil are primarily from resin production processes; those such as hard coal and
uranium are primarily resources used to fuel electricity. Figure 3-12 includes the processes that
contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 92 and 93 percent of the total impacts for the
baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-13 includes individual flows that contribute >1
percent to the total impacts, which represent 99 percent of the total energy impacts for both alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are largely a function of the differences in energy
associated with the extrusion process, which is slightly offset by a slightly greater amount of the jacketing
resin, PVC, used in the lead-free alternative. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy
inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying
the extrusion energy across the range of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not
greatly distinguishable for the energy use impact category (see Section 3.4). However, of potentially
greater interest to manufacturers is that energy generation for cable extruding is the largest contributor to
energy impacts for both alternatives. As a result, reductions in extrusion energy could lead to larger
reductions in energy impacts relative to other processes.
2200 -,
2000
iftnn
ifinn
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2200 -,
2000
ifinn
® i4nn
a i^uu -
nj
01 9nn
-!* mnn
->
^ 800 -
4nn
9nn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Rasticizer production
Q Cable extrusion
• Insulation resin
production
H Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity generation
Figure 3-12. Top Contributing Processes to Energy Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
2200 -i
1800
1600
,. 1 /inn
5
8i9nn
E 1 nnn
3 ftnn
600 -
./inn
onn
n
I
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
Q Lignite
D Electricity
D Uranium
• Crude oil
Q Hard coal
• Natural gas
Figure 3-13. Top Contributing Flows to Energy Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
3.2.2.3 CMP results
The baseline (leaded) cable uses 6 percent more energy than the lead-free alternative, which is
shown in Figure 3-14. The top contributing process for both alternatives is the generation of electricity
for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-15). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-15 combines the energy
impacts from all upstream electricity generation and natural gas production. For both alternatives (Figure
3-16), the top contributing flows such as natural gas and crude oil are primarily from resin production
processes; those such as hard coal and uranium are primarily resources used to fuel electricity. Figure 3-
89
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
15 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represents 89 percent of
the total impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-16 includes
individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which represent 99 percent of the total
energy impacts for both alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are mostly a function of the differences in energy
associated with cable extrusion and the FEP insulation resin production processes. Due to the uncertainty
associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an uncertainty analysis was
conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range of primary data obtained,
the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the energy use impact category (see
Section 3.4). However, of potentially greater interest to manufacturers is that generation of electricity for
cable extrusion is the largest contributor to energy impacts for both alternatives, followed by natural gas
production, and FEP resin production.
4000 -,
^nnn
aj ouuu
-Q oc;nn
nj ^ouu
o
_ onnn
^£ 1RDD
^ innn
Rnn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-14. Total Energy Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
4000 -,
3000 -
0
•= 9Rnn
co
o
_ onnn
j^
^ 1 ^nn
mnn
Rnn
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-free
D Other
B Jacketing resin
production
O Insulation resin
production
H Natural gas production
• Electricity generation
Figure 3-15. Top Contributing Processes to Energy Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
90
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
4000 -i
3500
3000
o oc;nn
ro
_ onnn
j^
^ -iRnn
innn
"^nn
Baseline
Cable type
^
1 ' r"r ' ' '
Pb-Free
D Other
D Crude oil
B Bectricity
• Uranium
D Hard coal
• Natural gas
Figure 3-16. Top Contributing Flows to Energy Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
3.2.2.4 NM-B results
The baseline cable uses 6 percent more energy than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in
Figure 3-17. The top contributing process for both alternatives is the production of the cable jacketing
resin, PVC (Figure 3-18). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-18 combines the energy impacts from all
upstream electricity generation. For both alternatives (Figure 3-19), the top contributing flows such as
natural gas and crude oil are primarily from resin production processes; those such as hard coal and
uranium are primarily resources used to generate electricity. Figure 3-18 includes the processes that
contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 90 and 98 percent of the total impacts for the
baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-19 includes individual flows that contribute >1
percent to the total impacts, which represent 98 and 99 percent of the total energy impacts for the baseline
and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Understanding that jacketing resin production contributes greatest to energy use impacts for
both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts by reducing the amount of
jacketing resin used. However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs in the
other impact categories.
1600 -i
... 1 onn
"9 mnn
o
ftnn
•^ finn
^ /inn
9nn
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-17. Total Energy Use Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
91
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1600 -,
1400
19DD
0
75 1 nnn
8
_ onn
j*:
^ finn
Ann
onn
n
Baseline Pb-free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
• Electricity generation
D Rasticizer production
• Jacketing resin
Figure 3-18. Top Contributing Processes to Energy Use Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
1600 -i
1400
lonn
mnn
E
•^ onn
4nn
200
n
rh-h-M-H-H-
I |
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
D Electricity
H Hard coal
• Uranium
D Crude oil
• Natural gas
Figure 3-19. Top Contributing Flows to Energy Use Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
3.2.2.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. The LCIA methodology for the Energy Use category is a
direct measure of the net calorific value of energy inputs,15 and is not associated with great uncertainty.
The calorific value of a fuel (or other substance, e.g., food) is the amount of heat released during the combustion
of a specified amount of the substance. The gross calorific value is the heat evolved when all products of
combustion are cooled to atmospheric temperature and pressure, and therefore includes the latent heat of
vaporization and the sensible heat of water in the combustion products. This is the maximum energy that can be
derived from a fuel. The net calorific value is the heat evolved when the products of combustion are cooled so that
92
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The LCI contributes greater to the Energy Use category uncertainty. For the telecommunication
cables, cable extruding, resin production, and electricity production contributed to most of the energy
impacts. The extrusion and FEP production processes were each based on two primary data sets. As
discussed in Section 2.2.4, extrusion data were highly variable, leading to sufficient uncertainty to be
included in the uncertainty analysis is Section 3.4. The PVC and HDPE production processes, largely
contributing as well, were from secondary data (described in Section 2.1.2.1).
The complete life cycle of the NM-B cables was not available, and thus only a limited cradle-to-
gate analysis was conducted. Within the processes modeled, PVC production and phthalate plasticizer
production were top contributing processes. PVC is discussed above, and phthalate production data were
also from secondary data, and represent s a mix of various phthalate plasticizers in one process, as
opposed to being specific to the plasticizers identified by the manufacturers. However, the most prevalent
compounds are represented in the dataset used in this analysis. As stated earlier, based on the LCIA
methodology and the LCI data, the Energy Use impact category is given an overall relative data quality
rating of "medium" for all cable types.
3.2.3 Landfill Space Use Impacts
3.2.3.1 Characterization
Landfill impacts are calculated using solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste flows to land as the
volume of landfill space is consumed. For solid waste landfill use, this category pertains to the use of
suitable and designated landfill space as a natural resource where municipal waste or construction debris
is accepted. For hazardous waste landfill use, this category pertains to the use of suitable and designated
landfill space as a natural resource where hazardous waste, as designated and regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), is accepted. Similarly, radioactive wastes are
included. For non-U.S. activities, equivalent hazardous or special waste landfills are considered for this
impact category. Impact scores are characterized from solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste outputs
with a disposition of landfill. The only radioactive waste outputs in the inventory of cables are from the
portion of electricity produced using nuclear fuel. Impact characterization is based on the volume of
waste, determined from the inventory mass amount of waste and material density of each specific
hazardous waste type:
= (Amtw/D)t
where:
ISL equals the impact score for landfill (L) use for waste / cubic meters (m3) per functional
unit;
Amtw equals the inventory output amount of solid waste /' (kg) per functional unit; and
D equals density of waste / (kg/m3) (see Appendix C).
the water remains as a gas. It is equal to the gross calorific value minus the sensible heat and latent heat of
vaporization of water. This study uses net calorific energy value as the measure of energy impacts.
93
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data quality
measure for the landfill space use impact category results.
3.2.3.2 CMR results
The lead-free alternative cable uses 9 percent more landfill space than the baseline cable (Figure
3-20). The top contributing process for the baseline cable and lead-free alternative is the landfilling of
chopped cable (<0.014 m3/km cable, Figure 3-21), and PVC waste and other industrial wastes are the
greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives (Figure 3-22). Figure 3-21
includes the processes that contribute >3 percent of the total impacts, which represent 94 percent of the
total impacts for both alternatives. Figure 3-22 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the
total impacts, which represent 99.5 and 99.2 percent of the total landfill space use impacts for the baseline
and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
The overall difference between the cables is mostly due to the greater amount of cable sent to
EOL, which is a function of the functional unit difference (i.e., there was greater resin mass in the lead-
free cable as compared to the leaded cables to meet the same function. The uncertainty analysis described
in Section 3.4 revealed that the landfill space use impacts are sensitive to the energy and EOL uncertainty
parameters that were varied; thus, the difference between the baseline and lead-free alternative is not
expected to be greatly distinguishable.
0.02 1
° 0 018
.Q
n m A
-^ n ni9
S2 001
5 u.ui
*•• n nnR
E n nnfi
•° n nn4
D n nn9
o u-uu^
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-20. Total Landfill Space Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
94
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.02 -I
n niR
| 0.016
o 0.014
j=
5 n ni9
2 001
flj U-UI "
*5
5 percent of the
total impacts, which represent 81 and 82 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively. Figure 3-25 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and
represents 98 percent of the total landfill space use for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in cable
composition and cable recycling. Due to the uncertainty associated with the cable recycling at end-of-life (see
Section 2.4.5.1), an uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the proportion of the
resins recycled after cable chopping from 0 to 20 percent of the cable, the differences between the cables was
not greatly distinguishable for the landfill space use category (see Section 3.4).
95
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.015 n
_o
•9 n ni 9R
o
E n m
_^ u.ui -
t/)
fc_ n nnyc;
5 u.uu/o -
ID
E n rin^
o
!5 n nn?^
3
0 o
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-23. Total Landfill Space Use Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
0.015 -,
(i) n ni 9c>
.Q
us
0 001
j^
"2 n 0075
n nn9ci
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
O Other
D Radioactive tailings
Q Scrap polymer and
packaging
O Ash
Q Sludge
D Scrap plastic
D Industrial w aste
EPVC Waste
Figure 3-25. Top Contributing Flows to Landfill Space Impacts - CMP Full Life Cycle
96
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.3.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 13 percent greater
landfill space use impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-26. The top
contributing process is the production of the limestone filler for both alternatives (Figure 3-27), and
mineral treatment residue is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives
(Figure 3-28). Figure 3-27 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which
represent 93 and 97 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
Figure 3-28 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represent 99
percent of the total landfill space use impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
Of note is that the impacts for both the leaded and lead-free constructions are driven by the
limestone production process, the top contributing flow was copper ions, and the volume of waste is
much smaller than the CMR and CMP results, which included EOL. When EOL was included, the leaded
telecommunication cables had much greater burdens due to impact of lead during the EOL stage.
Therefore, it is likely that if the full life cycle were considered for NM-B, these results would be driven
by other processes and materials. Because we expect EOL to be a large driver of impacts for this
category, the landfill space category for NM-B is given a "medium-to-low" quality rating (ratings are
summarized in Chapter 4, Table 4-6).
Therefore, care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full
life-cycle impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated
upstream processes for NM-B cables, understanding that limestone production contributes greatest to
landfill space use for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts by reducing
the amount of limestone. However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs in
the other impact categories.
0 0.003 -i
.Q
03 n nn?^
5 n nn9
Ui
«""* n nm ^
o>
En nm
o
•Q n nnn11;
O
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-26. Total Landfill Space Use Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
97
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.003 -i
»_ n nm ^
4-1
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
For LCI-based uncertainties, the CMR/CMP results showed landfill volume impacts deriving
mostly from the landfilling of the PVC waste after chopping. The chopping data were from one primary
data source.
The complete life cycle of the NM-B cables was not available, and thus only a limited cradle-to-
gate analysis was conducted. Within the processes modeled, limestone and PVC production were top
contributing processes. Secondary PVC and phthalate production data are discussed above under Energy
Impacts (Section 3.2.2.5). As stated earlier, based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI data, the
Landfill Space Use impact category is given an overall relative data quality rating of "medium" for all
cable types.
3.2.4 Global Warming Impacts
3.2.4.1 Characterization
The build up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may generate
a "greenhouse effect" of rising temperature and climate change. Global warming potential (GWP) refers
to the warming, relative to CO2, that chemicals contribute to this effect by trapping the Earth's heat. The
impact scores for the effects of global warming and climate change are calculated using the mass of a
global warming gas released to air, modified by a GWP equivalency factor. The GWP equivalency factor
is an estimate of a chemical's atmospheric lifetime and radiative forcing that may contribute to global
climate change compared to the reference chemical CO2; therefore, GWPs are in units of CO2 equivalents.
GWPs have been published for known global warming chemicals within differing time horizons. The
LCIA methodology employed in the WCP uses GWPs having effects in the 100 year time horizon.
Although LCA does not necessarily include a temporal component of the inventory, impacts from
releases during the life cycle of cables are expected to be within the 100 year time frame. Appendix D
presents the GWPs of global warming gases in the cable inventories. The equation to calculate the impact
score for an individual chemical is as follows:
(ISow)i = (EFGWP x AmtGG)i
where:
ISOW equals the global warming impact score for greenhouse gas chemical / (kg CO2
equivalents) per functional unit;
EFGWP equals the GWP equivalency factor for greenhouse gas chemical i (CO2 equivalents,
100-year time horizon); and
Amt00 equals the inventory amount of greenhouse gas chemical / released to air (kg) per
functional unit.
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data quality
measure for the global warming impact category results.
3.2.4.2 CMR results
The baseline cable has an 8 percent greater global warming potential than the lead-free
alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-29. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and lead-
free alternative is the generation of electricity for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-30). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-30 combines the global warming potential from all upstream electricity
99
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is carbon dioxide
(Figure 3-31). Figure 3-30 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which
represent 93 and 95 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
Figure 3-31 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 99
percent of the total global warming potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the global
warming potential impact category (see Section 3.4). The generation of electricity for cable extrusion is
the greatest contributor to global warming impacts. As a result, reductions in extrusion energy could lead
to larger reductions in global warming impact relative to other processes.
100 ->
- 90
o ou "
<- 7D
E 'u "
•* RO
•- 50
3 OU -
°" 40
CM T)
9, ?0
n» m
£' IU "
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
Figure 3-29. Total Global Warming Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
100 -,
on
•5 80-
(0
.1 60 -
> 50
o-
O^n
o
ra 9D
in
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Rasticizer production
D Insulation resin
production
0 MSW landfill
D Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity generation
Figure 3-30. Top Contributing Processes to Global Warming Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
100
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
100 -,
QD
5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 92 and 91
percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-34 includes
individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 99 percent of the total
global warming potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the global
warming potential impact category (see Section 3.4). However, of potentially greater interest to
manufacturers is that the production of insulation resin is the largest individual contributor to global
warming for both alternatives.
101
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
200 -,
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.4.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 8 percent higher global
warming potential impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-35. The top
contributing process is the PVC jacketing resin production for both alternatives (Figure 3-36). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-36 combines the energy impacts from all upstream electricity generation.
Carbon dioxide is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives (Figure 3-
37). Figure 3-36 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 95
and 98 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-37
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which represents >99 percent of
the total global warming potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that PVC jacketing resin production contributes greatest to
global warming impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts.
However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs in the other impact categories.
Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the greatest extent would be to focus on reducing the greatest
contributing flow (i.e., reduce carbon dioxide emissions).
60 -,
0)
ro
0 40
E 40
=? 30
'5
°" 9n
S 10
o
D)
^ n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-35. Total Global Warming Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
60 -i
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
60 -,
o 50
3
us
0 40
E 4°
.*
> on
tr
0)
rS1 90
o
O)
•^ m
n
I D Utnei
j n Methane
| H VOC (unspecified)
i • Carbon dioxide
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-37. Top Contributing Flows to Global Warming Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
3.2.4.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. The LCIA methodology for the global warming category is
based on equivalency factors for chemicals with global warming potentials, which are commonly used in
LCA and are considered reliable data, to the extent that science is able to predict the radiative forcing of
chemicals.
The LCI-based uncertainty is similar to that discussed under the Energy impact category (Section
3.2.2.5), as similar processes drive the global warming impacts. As stated earlier, based on the LCIA
methodology and the LCI data, the Energy Use impact category is given an overall relative data quality
rating of "medium" for all cable types.
3.2.5 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts
3.2.5.1 Characterization
The stratospheric ozone layer filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Chemicals
such as chlorofluorocarbons, if released to the atmosphere, may result in ozone-destroying chemical
reactions. Stratospheric ozone depletion refers to the release of chemicals that may contribute to this
effect. Impact scores are based on the identity and amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released to air.
Currently identified ozone-depleting chemicals are those with an ozone depletion potential (ODP), which
is a measure of the change in the ozone column in the equilibrium state of a substance compared to the
reference chemical chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), CFC 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) (Heijungs etal., 1992;
CAAA, 1990). The ODPs of chemicals in the cable inventories are provided in Appendix D. The
individual chemical impact score for stratospheric ozone depletion is based on the ODP and inventory
amount of the chemical:
(ISOD)i = (EFODP x Amt,
ODCj
where:
104
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
IS,
'OD
Amtooc
equals the ozone depletion (OD) impact score for chemical / (kg CFC-11 equivalents) per
functional unit;
equals the ODP equivalency factor for chemical / (CFC-11 equivalents); and
equals the amount of ozone depleting chemical / released to air (kg) per functional unit.
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "low" data quality
measure for the stratospheric ozone depletion impact category results. The low rating is due to the
absence of upstream data on brominated phthalates and the generally high ozone depletion potentials of
brominated compounds (see Section 3.2.5.5).
3.2.5.2 CMR results
The baseline cable has a 19 percent greater potential to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer than
the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-38. The top contributing process for the baseline
cable and lead-free alternative is the generation of electricity for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-
39). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-39 combines the ozone depletion potential from all upstream
electricity production. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is CFC-
11 (Figure 3-40). Figure 3-39 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts,
which represent 99 and >99 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively. Figure 3-40 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and
represents >99 percent of the total stratospheric ozone depletion impacts for both the baseline and lead-
free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2 A), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the ozone
depletion impact category (see Section 3.4). Given that complete upstream data were not included in the
model for this analysis, electricity for extrusion was the greatest contributor. Increasing the energy
efficiency of life cycle processes (particularly extrusion energy) would thus reduce the ozone depletion
impacts.
E 7.00E-06 -,
a 6 OOE-06
c
— 5 OOE-06
>
'^ o A nnp nfi
o- .a
Qi ft •} nOF Dfi
Ti 9 nnF Dfi
LL
O 1 nnp nfi
O)
•^ n nnp+nn
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-38. Total Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
105
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
7.00E-06 -.
w 6 OOE-06
ro
" 5.00E-06
j^
"> 4 nnp OR
D
O-
Q) o nnp OR
^
^
• "~> nnp nfi
o
5* 1 OOE-06
n nnp+nn
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
• Heavy fuel oil
production
Q Light fuel oil
production
• Electricity
generation
Figure 3-39. Top Contributing Processes to Ozone Depletion Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
7.00E-06 -,
w R nnp nfi
0 5 OOE-06
j£
"> 4 OOE-06
D
CT
^ o nnp nfi
M 9 nnp nfi
O
n nnp+nn
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
D Other
Q Refrigerant #4
• Refrigerant #2
H HCFC #3
• CFC 1 1
Figure 3-40. Top Contributing Flows to Ozone Depletion Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
3.2.5.3 CMP results
The baseline cable has a 5 percent greater impact on the stratospheric ozone depletion potential
than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-41. The top contributing process for the
baseline cable and lead-free alternative is the production of the insulation resin, FEP (Figure 3-42). The
top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is Refrigerant #5 (Figure 3-43).
Figure 3-42 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 99
percent of the total impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-43 includes
individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 99 percent of the total
stratospheric ozone depletion potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in the
amount of FEP used in the cable. As the uncertainty analysis did not take into consideration differences
in product formulation, it was not expected to impact this finding. The uncertainty analysis showed that
despite the variance of multiple model parameters, the differences between the cables remained for the
106
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
ozone depletion potential impact category (see Section 3.4). In light of incomplete upstream data in the
model for this analysis, production of insulation resin was the greatest contributor to impacts.
0.0012 1
"9 n nm
o
E n nnnft
•— n nnnfi
O"
n nnn4
^
^
££ n nnn9
D)
•* n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
Figure 3-41. Total Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
0.0012 -i
.Q
(0
o
n nnnft
.^ n nnnfi
cr
o
T- n nnn4
o:
nj
V n nnn9
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
Q Crossweb resin
production
• Insulation resin
production
Figure 3-42. Top Contributing Processes to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts - CMP Full Life
Cycle
107
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.0012 -i
o 0 001
.a
ro
o
n nnns
j£
.S n nnnR
o-
0
T- n nnn/i
a:
5* n nnn9
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
D Other
\ a HCFC #1
Figure 3-43. Top Contributing Flows to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
3.2.5.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 48 percent higher
ozone depletion potential impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-44. The top
contributing process is the generation of electricity for cable jacket compounding for both alternatives
(Figure 3-45). CFC-11 is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives,
followed closely by an HCFC (Figure 3-46). Figure 3-45 includes the processes that contribute >5
percent of the total impacts, which represents 99 percent of the total impacts for both the baseline and
lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-46 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total
impacts, and represent >99 percent of the total ozone depletion potential impacts for both the baseline and
lead-free alternatives.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that electricity production contributes greatest to stratospheric
ozone depletion impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts.
Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the greatest extent would be to focus on reducing the greatest
contributing flow (i.e., CFC-11).
108
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
« 1.20E-06-,
.a
o 1 OOE-06
E
•^ H nnF m
>
^ R nnr ny
0)
^ R nnr ny
o
TT A nnp ny
LL
O
O) 2 OOE-07
n nnF+nn
Baseline Pb-free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
• Lead stabilizer
production
H Limestone
production
B Electricity
generation
Figure 3-45. Top Contributing Processes to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts - NM-B Partial life
cycle
1 .20E-06 -,
w
-° 1 OOE-06
o
E Q nnp nv
S- R nnp ny
0)
LL
**. 9 nnp ny
^
n nnp+nn
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
B Refrigerant #4
O Refrigerant #2
D HCFC #3
• CFC-1 1
Figure 3-46. Top Contributing Flows to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
109
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.5.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. The LCIA methodology is based on ozone depletion potential
equivalency factors, which are commonly used in LCA and are considered reliable data.
For the CMR results, the LCI-based uncertainty is similar to that discussed under the Energy
impacts (Section 3.2.2.5) and Global Warming impacts (Section 3.2.4.5), as electricity generation drives
impacts for each of these categories. The partial life-cycle results for NM-B were also driven by
electricity generation, but since there were no extrusion data in the NM-B model, the uncertainty is
related to limitations of the process of electricity generation (discussed in Section 3.2.1.5, NRR impacts),
recognizing also that the scope of the NM-B analysis is limited to cradle-to-gate processes. For the CMP
results, FEP production was a greater contributor to stratospheric ozone impacts, and the production data
were derived from 2 companies.
Further limitations to all cable types are related to missing upstream data. For example, the
production process of brominated phthalates was not available, and small brominated hydrocarbons,
expected to be among the byproducts of brominated phthalate production, typically have large ozone
depleting potentials. Thus, these impacts may be underestimated, and cables with greater quantities of
brominated phthalates would be even more underestimated. Based on the bill of materials from primary
data collected, the leaded CMR used brominated compounds, while the lead-free ones did not. For CMP,
both alternatives used brominated compounds; however, the lead-free cables used about 13 percent more
than the leaded cables. Therefore, the CMR results might show a greater difference between the baseline
and lead-free cable constructions, potentially resulting in a significant difference between alternatives.
For the CMR results, the point estimate results showed the baseline cable construction to yield only 5
percent greater ozone depletion impacts than the lead-free. Given that 13 percent more of the brominated
compound is used in the lead-free, this could reverse the results, which would likely remain
indistinguishable, given energy uncertainty, as mentioned above in Section 3.2.4.5 and included in the
uncertainty analysis (Section 3.4). Neither NM-B alternative used brominated compounds in the
construction, and thus the limitations from brominated compounds are not expected to affect the NM-B
results.
Based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI data, the Stratospheric Ozone Depletion impact
category is given an overall relative data quality rating of "low" for all cable types.
3.2.6 Photochemical Smog Impacts
3.2.6.1 Characterization
Photochemical oxidants are produced in the atmosphere from sunlight reacting with hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides. At higher concentrations they may cause or aggravate health problems, plant
toxicity, and deterioration of certain materials. Photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP) refers to
the release of chemicals that contribute to this effect. The POCP is based on simulated trajectories of
tropospheric ozone production both with and without volatile organic carbons (VOCs) present. The
POCP is a measure of a specific chemical compared to the reference chemical ethene (Heijungs et al.,
1992). The list of chemicals with POCPs used in this methodology is presented in Appendix D. As
shown in Table 3-2, photochemical smog impacts are based on partial equivalency, because some
chemicals cannot be converted into POCP equivalency factors. For example, nitrogen oxides do not have
a POCP; however, VOCs are assumed to be the limiting factor, and if VOCs are present, there is a
110
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
potential impact. Impact scores are based on the identity and amount of chemicals with POCP
equivalency factors released to the air and the chemical specific equivalency factor:
where:
ISpocp equals the photochemical smog (POCP) impact score for chemical / (kg ethane
equivalents) per functional unit;
EFp0cp equals the POCP equivalency factor for chemical (ethene equivalents); and
Amtpoc equals the amount of photochemical smog -creating oxidant / released to the air (kg) per
functional unit.
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data quality
measure for the photochemical smog impact category results.
3.2.6.2 CMR results
The lead-free alternative has a 7 percent greater potential to form photochemical smog than the
baseline cable, which is shown in Figure 3-47. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and
lead-free alternative is the production of the jacketing resin, PVC (Figure 3-48). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-48 combines the photochemical smog formation potential from all upstream
electricity generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is
unspecified volatile organic compounds (Figure 3-49). Figure 3-48 includes the processes that contribute
>5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 89 and 90 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and
lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-49 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to
the total impacts, and represents 99 and >99 percent of the total photochemical smog formation potential
impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
The overall differences between the cables are a function of a number of different parameters, one
of which is highly uncertain: energy use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy
inventory data (see Section 2.2 A), an uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying
the extrusion energy across the range of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not
greatly distinguishable for the photochemical smog formation potential impact category (see Section 3.4).
However, the results do indicate that production of jacketing resin is the major contributor to smog
formation potential.
111
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
o 0.16 -|
•9 0 14
nj u- IH
o
« 01
.>
^ n n,°,
m 0 OR
c
<" n n4
4-1
<" n n9
O)
•* 0
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-47. Total Photochemical Smog Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
0.16 -,
o 014
.a
RJ n -i 9
O U.lz
E
^ n 1
>
3 n DR
Sf
° DDR
O
£ n n4
o u.ut
^ n 09
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
D Other
O FJectricity generation
D Insulation resin
i i-
H Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-48. Top Contributing Processes to Photochemical Smog Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
0.16 -,
o 0 14
.a
ro n 19
•* 01
>
5- n ns
o
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.6.3 CMP results
The baseline cable has a 2 percent greater potential to form photochemical smog than the lead-
free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-50. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and
lead-free alternative is the production of the jacketing resin, PVC (Figure 3-51). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-51 combines the photochemical smog formation potential impacts from all
upstream electricity generation and natural gas production. The top contributing flow for both the
baseline and lead-free alternatives is unspecified volatile organic compounds (Figure 3-52). Figure 3-51
includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 94 percent of the
total impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-52 includes individual flows that
contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 98 percent of the total photochemical smog
formation potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use offset slightly by the lead-free alternative's use of more PVC resin. Due to the uncertainty associated
with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an uncertainty analysis was conducted,
which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range of primary data obtained, the
differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the photochemical smog formation
potential impact category (see Section 3.4). However, the results do indicate that production of jacketing
resin is the major contributors to photochemical smog formation potential.
« 0.1 -,
•9 009
O n no
C r\ r\-7
"5 n DR
3 n rvs
® nnA
U.U4 -
C n rn
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.1 -i
009
«
-° 0 08
ro u'uo
c 007
E
^£ n DR
S. n DR
0)
fl) 0 04 -
2 om
0 nn?
0) U'U^
^
n m
0
i j i j i j i ! !
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Insulation resin
production
• Natural gas
production
H Electricity
generation
• Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-51. Top Contributing Processes to Photochemical Smog Impacts - CMP Full Life Cycle
0.1 -,
009
"" 0.08
.a
8 n D7
c
5 n DR
>
'5 n nc;
Si 004
c
a) n rn
<>> nn?
D)
"^ n m
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
D Other
D Propane
B Bhane
Q Methane
D Carbon monoxide
B Hhylene glycol
• Nitrogen oxides
B Sulfur dioxide
• VOC (unspecified)
Figure 3-52. Top Contributing Flows to Photochemical Smog Impacts - CMP Full Life Cycle
3.2.6.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 0.2 percent higher
photochemical oxidant potential impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-53.
The top contributing process is the PVC jacketing resin production for both alternatives (Figure 3-54).
Unspecified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the greatest individual flow contributing to the
impacts for both alternatives (Figure 3-55). Figure 3-54 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent
of the total impacts, which represent 97 and 98 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free
alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-55 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total
impacts, which represents >99 percent of the total photochemical oxidant potential impacts for both the
baseline and lead-free alternatives.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
114
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that PVC production contributes greatest to photochemical
smog impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts if PVC
jacketing resin is reduced. However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs in
the other impact categories. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the greatest extent would be to
focus on reducing the greatest contributing flow (i.e., reduce VOC emissions).
« 0.14 -i
.a
JB 012-
E ni
.> n OR
CT
« n OR
n nft
3
CT
o n nfi
o
S nna
4-*
0)
_§* 0 02
n
Baseline Pb-free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
D Rasticizer
production
• Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-54. Top Contributing Processes to Photochemical Smog Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
115
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.14 -,
0 012-
ja u. i^
ro
0 01
1 "
"> n nft
3
CT
*" n ns
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
where:
ISAP
EFAP
AmtAC
equals the impact score for acidification for chemical /' (kg SO2 equivalents) per
functional unit;
equals the AP equivalency factor for chemical / (SO2 equivalents); and
equals the amount of acidification chemical /' released to the air (kg) per functional unit.
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data quality
measure for the acidification impact category results.
3.2.7.2 CMR results
The baseline cable has an 8 percent greater acidification potential impact than the lead-free
alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-56. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and lead-
free alternative is the generation of electricity for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-57). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-57 combines the acidification potential from all upstream electricity generation.
The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is sulfur dioxide (Figure 3-58).
Figure 3-57 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 88 and
90 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-58
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 99 percent of the
total acidification potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use, offset somewhat by greater impacts from PVC jacketing resin production for the lead-free cables.
Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2 A), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
acidification potential impact category (see Section 3.4). However, results do indicate that generation of
electricity for the cable extrusion process is the major contributor to air acidification.
0.8 1
o
5 07 -
ro
o n R
5 n R
> 04
D U.4 -
CT
« n ^
0 02
V)
i-n n 1
.*
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-56. Total Air Acidification Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
117
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.8 -i
n 7
01
.a 0.6
ro
o
En ^
zc
> n4
5 °-4
"03
tM U--3
O
OT no
j?
n 1
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
O Insulation resin
production
H Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity generation
Figure 3-57. Top Contributing Processes to Acidification Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
0.8 -,
n 7
Ol
"5 n R
ro
o
En R
J£
^ r\A
•- 0.4
® m
tM U-3
o
w n 9
O)
,2£
0.1
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
O Hydrogen chloride
Q Nitrogen oxides
• Sulfur dioxide
Figure 3-58. Top Contributing Flows to Acidification Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
3.2.7.3 CMP results
The baseline cable has a 7 percent greater potential to cause air acidification than the lead-free
alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-59. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and lead-
free alternative is the generation of electricity for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-60). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-60 combines the acidification potential impacts from all upstream electricity
generation and natural gas production. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free
alternatives is sulfur dioxide (Figure 3-61). Figure 3-60 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent
of the total impacts, which represents 91 percent of the total impact for both the baseline and lead-free
alternatives. Figure 3-61 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and
represents 98 percent of the total acidification potential impacts for both the baseline and lead-free
alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
118
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
acidification potential impact category (see Section 3.4). However, energy efficiency in the extrusion
process could reduce impacts for both alternatives, and slightly more so for the baseline alternative.
0.9 i
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.9 i
n R
0 07
ja u-'
re
O n fi
E
^ 05
> °'b
rr n 4
o
?l 03
CO
o n 9
01
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Ammonia
B Hydrogen sulfide
• Hydrogen chloride
D Nitrogen oxides
• Sulfur dioxide
Figure 3-61. Top Contributing Flows to Air Acidification Impacts - CMP Full Life Cycle
3.2.7.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 7 percent higher
acidification potential impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-3-62. The top
contributing process is the PVC jacketing resin production for both alternatives (Figure 3-63). Sulfur
dioxide is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives, followed closely
by nitrogen oxides (NOX) (Figure 3-64). Figure 3-63 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of
the total impacts, which represent 96 and >99 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free
alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-64 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total
impacts, which represent 99 percent of the total acidification potential impacts for both alternatives.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that PVC jacketing resin production contributes greatest to
photochemical smog impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts
if jacketing resin is reduced. However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs
in the other impact categories. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the greatest extent would be
to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flows (i.e., reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions).
120
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.5 -i
n &F*
n 4
> u-^
•— n TI
°" n-3
r\i n 9E;
O 02
w u-^
i-n n IR
•* 01
n n^
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-62. Total Air Acidification Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
0.5 -i
n 4R
° 04
.Q 0.4
re
o 035
S n ^
.S n oc
CT
« n 9
0 015
V)
9-n ft 1
j£
n n*i
Baseline Pb-free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
O Electricity
generation
D Rasticizer
production
• Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-63. Top Contributing Processes to Air Acidification Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
0.5 -|
045
0 04
.Q U'^
m
M n ^R
^ n ^
•^ n 9C;
D"
On 9
CM
On 1 ^
w
ra n 1
_2' u. i -
n n^
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-64. Top Contributing Flows to Air Acidification Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
121
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.7.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. The LCIA methodology characterizes acidification impact as
a function of the mass of an acid-forming chemical emitted to air and the acidification potential (AP)
equivalency factor for that chemical. The AP equivalency factor is the number of hydrogen ions that can
theoretically be formed per unit mass of the pollutant being released, compared to sulfur dioxide. This is
a full equivalency approach to impact characterization, where all substances are addressed in a unified,
technical model that lends more certainty to the characterization results than partial equivalency factors
discussed with regard to photochemical smog (Section 3.2.6). The AP equivalency factors are commonly
used in LCA and are considered reliable data.
For the CMR and CMP cable types, results were driven by electricity generation (as used to fuel
the manufacturing and/or upstream processes), with PVC production as the second greatest contributor,
contributing to a greater extent to the CMR alternatives. The NM-B results are highly impacted by the
PVC production process. As mentioned in the NRR, Energy, and Smog impact sections (3.2.1.5, 3.2.2.5,
and 3.2.6.5, respectively), limitations to the PVC and electricity production processes are that they were
from secondary data (described in Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.6). Based on the LCIA methodology and the
LCI data, the Acidification impact category is given an overall relative data quality rating of "medium"
for all cable types.
3.2.8 Air Participate Impacts
3.2.8.1 Characterization
Air particulate impacts refer to the release and build up of particulate matter primarily from
combustion processes. Impact scores are based on releases to the air of particulate matter with average
aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers (PMi0), the size of particulate matter that is most
damaging to the respiratory system. Impact characterization is simply based on the inventory amount of
particulates released to air. This loading impact score is calculated by:
ISpM = AmtpM
where:
ISpM equals the impact score for particulate (kg PMi0) per functional unit; and
AmtpM equals the inventory amount of particulate release (PMi0) to the air (kg) per functional
unit.
In this equation, PMi0 is used to estimate impacts; however, if only TSP data are available, these
data are used. Using TSP data is an overestimation of PMi0, which only refers to the fraction of
particulates in the size range below 10 micrometers. A common conversion factor (TSP to PMi0) is not
available because the fraction of PMi0 varies depending on the type of particulates. The particulate matter
impact category not only serves to represent potential health effects associated with particulates (e.g.,
respiratory impacts), but also winter smog, which consists partially of suspended particulate matter or fine
dust and soot particles. Winter smog is distinguished from summer smog (e.g., photochemical smog,
which is the build up of tropospheric ozone concentrations due to VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the
presence of sunlight). Winter smog is a problem that occurs mainly in Eastern Europe and has been the
cause of health related deaths in the past (Goedkoop, 1995).
122
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data
quality measure for the acidification impact category results.
3.2.8.2 CMR results
The lead-free alternative has a 4 percent greater impact on particulate matter production than the
baseline cable, which is shown in Figure 3-65. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and
lead-free alternative is the production of the jacketing resin, PVC (Figure 3-66). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-66 combines the particulate matter production from all upstream electricity
generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is dust (Figure 3-
67). Figure 3-66 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 94
and 95 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-67
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents all of the total
particulate matter production impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are a function of a number of different parameters, one
of which is highly uncertain: energy use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy
inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying
the extrusion energy across the range of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not
greatly distinguishable for the particulate matter production impact category (see Section 3.4). However,
energy efficiency in the production of jacketing resin could reduce impacts for both alternatives, but more
so for the lead-free alternative. In addition, any reduction in PVC use, which would be replaced with
another material to reduce these impacts, would need to be evaluated for tradeoff effects in other impact
categories.
0.09 i
n np
n r\?
o u.u/ -
Sn nfi
m
n n n^
En n4
^
^ n rn
0) U'UJ "
•^ n ro
n m
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-65. Total Air Particulate Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
123
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
009-i
008
007
/i, n ns
3
<" n OR
y U.UO
£ n rvi
5* 003
n D9
n m
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Jacketing
compounding
D Calcined clay
production
• Insulation resin
production
Q Electricity generation
B Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-66. Top Contributing Processes to Air Particulate Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
0.09 ^
0 08 -
n nv
.a
<" n n^
£ n r\A
1* 003 -
n D9
n m
I D Particulate matter
i • Dust
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-67. Top Contributing Flows to Air Particulate Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
3.2.8.3 CMP results
The baseline cable has a 3 percent greater impact on participate matter production than the lead-
free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-68. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and
lead-free alternative is the production of the PVC jacketing resin (Figure 3-69). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-69 combines the particulate matter production impacts from all upstream
electricity generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is dust
(Figure 3-70). Figure 3-69 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which
represents 96 percent of the total impact for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-70
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents all of the total
particulate matter production impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2 A), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
124
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
participate matter production impact category (see Section 3.4). However, energy efficiency in the
production of jacketing resin could reduce impacts for both alternatives.
0.08 i
0.07
n DR
A
z£ n m
O)
•* n D9
n ni
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-68. Total Air Particulate Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
0.08 -^
0.07 -
0.06 -
o
~x n DR
ro
o
n D4
~s, n m
^
n ro
n ni
n
1
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
O Insulation resin
production
D Jacketing
compounding
• Calcined clay
production
Q Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity
generation
Figure 3-69. Top Contributing Processes to Air Particulate Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
125
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.08 -i
0.07
n DR
^ 005
ro
0 004
^
"™ n m
^
n n9
n ni
n
i n Rarticulate matter
(PM-10)
I Dust (unspecified)
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-70. Top Contributing Flows to Air Particulate Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
3.2.8.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 14 percent more
particulate matter than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-71. The top contributing
process is the PVC jacketing resin production for both alternatives (Figure 3-72). Dust is the greatest
individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives (Figure 3-73). Figure 3-72 includes the
processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 94 and 96 percent of the total
impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-73 includes individual flows
that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which represents all particulate matter generation impacts
for both alternatives.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that PVC jacketing resin production contributes greatest to the
particulate matter impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these impacts if
jacketing resin is reduced. However, any substituted material would need to be examined for tradeoffs in
the other impact categories. Another opportunity for reducing impacts would be to focus on reducing
dust and particulate matter emissions.
126
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.09 -,
n DR
n ny
o
— n nfi
!?, n ITS
En n4
"s* n rn
^
n n9
n m
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-71. Total Air Particulate Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
0.09 -i
n DR
007
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.8.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. The LCIA methodology is based on the mass loading of
particulate matter, which is a direct measure of the inventory; thus, few limitations to the LCIA
methodology are anticipated. However, the impact characterization is intended to be based on PMi0 that
is in the respirable range and considered more damaging to the respiratory system than larger particles,
when considering the effects of particulate matter on human health. Because most of the inventory for
this category is catalogued as unspecified "dust," it is not known if these are PMi0 particles. If the dust
includes a broader class of particulate emissions, it is likely that the results are somewhat overstated if
they are to represent PMi0 only. However, similar amounts of dust impacts were found for both the
baseline and lead-free alternatives, resulting in an equivalent overestimate across alternatives; thus, no
great effect on the comparative results is expected.
For all three cable types, results were driven primarily by PVC manufacturing and/or electricity
generation (as used to fuel the manufacturing and upstream processes). As mentioned above in several
impact category limitation discussions (e.g., Photochemical Smog), limitations to the PVC and electricity
production processes are that they were from secondary data (described in Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.6).
Based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI data, the Air Particulate impact category is given an overall
relative data quality rating of "medium" for all cable types.
3.2.9 Water Quality (Eutrophication) Impacts
3.2.9.1 Characterization
Eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) impacts to water are based on the identity and
concentrations of eutrophication chemicals released to surface water after treatment. Equivalency factors
for eutrophication have been developed assuming nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the two major
limiting nutrients. Therefore, the partial equivalencies are based on the ratio of N to P in the average
composition of algae ((C106H263O110N16P) compared to the reference compound phosphate (PO43~)
(Heijungs etal, 1992; Lindfors et al, 1995). If the wastewater stream is first sent to a publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW), treatment is considered as a separate process, and the impact score would be
based on releases from the POTW to surface waters. Impact characterization is based on eutrophication
potentials (EP) (Appendix D) and the inventory amount:
(!SEUTR)I = (EFEP x AmtEc),
where:
ISsuTR equals the impact score for regional water quality impacts from chemical /' (kg phosphate
equivalents) per functional unit;
EFEP equals the EP equivalency factor for chemical / (phosphate equivalents); and
AmtEC equals the inventory mass (kg) of chemical /' per functional unit of eutrophication
chemical in a wastewater stream released to surface water after any treatment, if
applicable.
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data
quality measure for the water eutrophication impact category results.
128
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.9.2 CMR results
The baseline cable has a 19 percent greater impact in terms of eutrophication potential than the
lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-74. The top contributing process for the baseline cable
and lead-free alternative is the generation of electricity for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-75). To
protect confidentiality, Figure 3-75 combines the eutrophication potential from all upstream electricity
generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is chemical oxygen
demand (Figure 3-76). Figure 3-75 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts,
which represents 99 percent of the total impact for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-
75 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 99 percent of
the total eutrophication potential impact for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
eutrophication potential impact category (see Section 3.4). However, energy efficiency in the extrusion
process could reduce impacts for both alternatives, and more so for the baseline.
0.01 -i
En nnQ
*c
"£• n nnft
D n nny
o- u.uu/ -
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.01 -,
® n nnQ
m
o n nnft
_£ o 007
.S n nnp;
O"
On DDR
o
•s n nn4
^
o. n nm
o
.£ n nn9
Q.
o n nm
n
I I
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
0 Ripcord resin
production
• Jacketing resin
production
D Insulation resin
production
• Electricity
generation
Figure 3-75. Top Contributing Processes to Eutrophication Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
0.01 -,
25 0 009
ro
o n DDR
5 n nnv
.S n nnp
D"
On rin^
0
+2 n nn/i
^
Q. n nn^
|J U.UUJ -
? n nn9
Q.
n» n nm
H
^_^^^
D Other
D Inorganic emissions
Q Total dissolved
organic carbon
O Total organic
bounded carbon
0 Hydrocarbons
• Chemical oxygen
demand
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-76. Top Contributing Flows to Eutrophication Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
3.2.9.3 CMP results
The baseline cable has 10 percent greater eutrophication potential impacts than the lead-free
alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-77. The top contributing process for the baseline cable and lead-
free alternative is the generation of electricity for the cable extrusion process (Figure 3-78). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-78 combines the eutrophication potential impacts from all upstream electricity
generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is chemical oxygen
demand (Figure 3-79). Figure 3-78 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts,
which represents 98 percent of the total impact for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-
79 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, and represents 99 percent of
the total eutrophication potential impact for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2.4), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted, which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
130
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
eutrophication potential impact category (see Section 3.4). However, energy efficiency during the cable
extrusion process could offer the greatest potential to reduce impacts for both alternatives.
0.014 -i
£ n ni9
">
•= n m
tr
°
'3 n nnR
CT
0)
o n DDR
re
Q- n nn4
^
o. n nn9
D)
^L
n
=
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
«. .
• Rpcord resin
production
0 Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity
Figure 3-78. Top Contributing Processes to Water Eutrophication Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
0.014 -i
9)
-° n ni9
ro u-u|^
o
E n m
">
'3 n nns
CT
o
o n nnR
re
^
Q- n nn/i
^
o. n nn9
5
I I i
|
D Other
D Biological oxygen
demand
• Total organic
bounded carbon
D Inorganic emissions
to fresh water
• Chemical oxygen
demand
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-79. Top Contributing Flows to Water Eutrophication Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
131
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.9.4 NM-B results
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 25 percent higher
eutrophication potential impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-80. The top
contributing process is the generation of electricity for cable compounding for both alternatives (Figure 3-
81). Chemical oxygen demand is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both
alternatives (Figure 3-82). Figure 3-81 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total
impacts, which represent 95 and 96 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively. Figure 3-82 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which
represent 96 percent of the total eutrophication potential impacts for both alternatives.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that electricity production from compounding contributes
greatest to eutrophication impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these
impacts if electricity use is reduced. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the greatest extent
would be to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flows (i.e., reduce chemical oxygen demand
emissions).
0.0018 -,
E n nm R
"> 0 001 4
3 n nni 9
o n nni
_o u.uui
*•• .Q n nnnR
ro ro u-uuu°
•Son nnnfi
/? n nnn4
•£ n nnn9
o) n
* U H
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-80. Total Water Eutrophication Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
0.0018 ,
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.0018 -,
2 0 001 6
ro
o n nni A
E
=S 0.0012
3 n nni
0
On nnnR
co
•c n nnnfi
o n nnn4
Q.
m n nnn9
.*
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
D Nitrogen
D Biological oxygen
demand
O Hydrocarbons
0 Oil
• Chemical oxygen
demand
Figure 3-82. Top Contributing Flows to Water Eutrophication Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
3.2.9.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Overall limitations and uncertainties for any impact category are related to both the LCIA
methodology and the underlying LCI data. The LCIA methodology calculates impacts from the mass of a
chemical released directly to surface water, and the chemical's eutrophication potential (EP) equivalency
factor. The EP is a partial equivalency factor derived from the ratio of nitrogen and phosphorus in the
average composition of algae compared to the reference compound phosphate. As a partial equivalency
approach, only a subset of substances can be converted into equivalency factors, which is a limitation of
this LCIA methodology. The methodology, however, does take into account nitrogen and phosphorus,
which are two major limiting nutrients of importance to eutrophication, and the EPs are commonly used
in LCA and are considered reliable data.
For all three cable types, results were driven primarily by electricity generation (as used to fuel
the manufacturing processes). For the NM-B cables, the cradle-to-gate analysis also showed PVC to be a
large contributor. As mentioned above in several impact category limitation discussions (e.g.,
Photochemical Smog), limitations to the electricity and PVC production processes are that they were from
secondary data (described in Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.6). Based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI
data, the Water Eutrophication impact category is given an overall relative data quality rating of
"medium" for all cable types.
3.2.10 Occupational Toxicity Impacts
This section presents the LCIA characterization methodology and the LCIA results for the
occupational human health impact category; however, some of the discussions relate to all of the toxicity
impact categories in general (e.g., occupational human health, public human health, and ecotoxicity). The
occupational human health impact results presented in this section include two impact categories:
occupational non-cancer impacts and occupational cancer impacts. The results for these categories are
provided within each of the subsections below.
133
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.10.1 Characterization
Potential Human Health Impacts
Human health impacts are defined in the context of life-cycle assessment as relative measures of
potential adverse health effects to humans. Human health impact categories included in the scope of this
WCP LCA are chronic (repeated dose) effects, including non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects.
Chronic human health effects to both workers and the public are considered. This section presents the
potential occupational health impacts, and Section 3.2.11 presents the potential public health impacts.
The chemical characteristic that classifies inventory items to the human health effects (and
ecotoxicity) categories is toxicity. Toxic chemicals were identified by searching lists of toxic chemicals
(e.g., Toxic Release Inventory [TRI]) and, if needed, toxicity databases (e.g., Hazardous Substances Data
Bank [HSDB]), and Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), and other literature (see
Appendix E). The review was done by the DfE Workgroup for the DfE Computer Display Project
(Socolof et a/., 2001), and remains applicable to the WCP. Materials in the WCP inventory were
excluded from the toxic list if they were generally accepted as non-toxic (e.g., nitrogen, calcium). The
EPA DfE Workgroup also reviewed the list of chemicals that were included in this project as potentially
toxic. The final list of potentially toxic chemicals in the WCP is provided in Appendix E.
Human (and ecological) toxicity impact scores are calculated based on a chemical scoring method
modified from the CHEMS-1 that is found in Swanson et al. (1997). To calculate impact scores,
chemical-specific inventory data are required. Any chemical that is assumed to be potentially toxic is
given a toxicity impact score. This involves collecting toxicity data (described in Appendix E). If
toxicity data are unavailable for a chemical, a mean default toxicity score is given. This is described in
detail below. Ecological toxicity is presented in Section 3.2.12.
Chronic human health effects are potential human health effects occurring from repeated
exposure to toxic agents over a relatively long period of time (i.e., years). These effects could include
carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental effects, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, behavioral
effects, sensitization, radiation effects, and chronic effects to other specific organs or body systems (e.g.,
blood, cardiovascular, respiratory, kidney and liver effects). Impact categories for chronic health effects
are divided into cancer and non-cancer effects for both worker and public impacts. Occupational impact
scores are based on inventory inputs; public impact scores are based on inventory outputs.
This section addresses chronic occupational health effects, which refer to potential health effects
to workers, including cancer, from long-term repeated exposure to toxic or carcinogenic agents in an
occupational setting. For possible occupational impacts, the identity and amounts of
materials/constituents as input to a process are used. The inputs represent potential exposures. It could
be assumed that a worker would continue to work at a facility and incur exposures over time. However,
the inventory is based on manufacturing one unit length of cable and does not truly represent chronic
exposure; therefore, the chronic health effects impact score is more of a ranking of the potential of a
chemical to cause chronic effects than a prediction of actual effects. Also, the fact that the inputs of the
model are dependent on the boundaries of the various datasets, and that chemical intermediates that might
be synthesized at a plant and consumed in subsequent reactions were unavailable from secondary data
sets, limit the robustness of this impact category.
Chronic occupational health effects scores are based on the identity of toxic chemicals (or
chemical ingredients) found in inputs from all of the life-cycle stages. The distinction between pure
134
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
chemicals and mixtures is made, if possible, by specifying component ingredients of mixtures in the
inventory.
The chronic human health impact scores are calculated using hazard values (HVs) for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. Calculation of the occupational non-cancer and cancer HVs
are described below, and the public non-cancer and cancer HV calculations are described in Section
3.2.11.1. Appendix E provides example calculations of toxicity impacts for two sample chemicals.
Potential Occupational Toxicity Impact Characterization: Non-Cancer
The non-carcinogen HV is based on either no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) or
lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs). The non-carcinogen HV is the greater of the oral and
inhalation HV:
• , , ,• ,TTrr > l/(mhal NOAELj
inhalation:
oral: (HVNCorJt =
l/(inhal NOAELmean)
l/(oral NOAELt)
l/(oral NOAELmean)
where:
HVNC orai equals the non-carcinogen oral hazard value for chemical / (unitless);
oral NOAEL t equals the oral NOAEL for chemical /' (mg/kg-day);
oral NOAEL mean equals the geometric mean oral NOAEL of all available oral NOAELs (mg/kg-
day) (Appendix E);
HVNC inhalation equals the non-carcinogen inhalation hazard value for chemical /' (unitless);
inhal NOAEL t equals the inhalation NOAEL for chemical /' (mg/m3); and
inhal NOAEL mean equals the geometric mean inhalation NOAEL of all available inhalation
NOAELs (mg/m3) (Appendix E).
The oral and inhalation NOAEL mean values are the geometric means of a set of chemical data
presented in Appendix E. If LOAEL data are available, instead of NOAEL data, the LOAEL, divided by
10, is used to substitute for the NOAEL. The most sensitive endpoint is used if there are multiple data for
one chemical.
The non-carcinogen HVs for a particular chemical are multiplied by the applicable inventory
input to calculate the impact score for non-cancer effects:
(ISCHO-Nc)i = (HVNC X AmtTCmput)i
where:
IScHo-Nc equals the impact score for chronic occupational non-cancer health effects for chemical /
(kg noncancer-toxequivalent) per functional unit;
HVNC equals the hazard value for chronic non-cancer effects for chemical /'; and
AmtTC input equals the amount of toxic inventory input (kg) per functional unit for chemical /'.
135
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Potential Occupational Toxicity Impact Characterization: Cancer
The cancer HV uses cancer slope factors or cancer weight of evidence (WOE) classifications
assigned by EPA or the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). If both an oral and
inhalation slope factor exist, the slope factor representing the larger hazard is chosen; thus, given that
there is a cancer slope factor (SF) for a chemical, the cancer HV for chronic occupational health effects is
the greater of the following:
where:
oral.
(HV
inhalation :
(HV
CAaral
CAinhdation
oral SF,
Oml SFmean
inhalation SFt
inhalation SFmei
HVCA oral
oral SF,
oral SFmean
inhalation SFt
inhalation SFme,
equals the cancer oral hazard value for chemical /' (unitless);
equals the cancer oral slope factor for chemical / (mg/kg-day)"1;
equals the geometric mean cancer slope factor of all available slope factors
(mg/kg-day)"1 (Appendix E);
equals the cancer inhalation hazard value for chemical / (unitless);
equals the cancer inhalation slope factor for chemical /' (mg/kg-day)"1; and
equals the geometric mean cancer inhalation slope factor of all available
inhalation slope factors (mg/kg-day)"1 (Appendix E).
The oral and inhalation slope factor mean values are the geometric means of a set of chemical
data presented in Appendix E.
Where no slope factor is available for a chemical, but there is a WOE classification, the WOE is
used to designate default hazard values as follows: EPA WOE Groups D (not classifiable) and E (non-
carcinogen) and IARC Groups 3 (not classifiable) and 4 (probably not carcinogenic) are given a hazard
value of zero. All other WOE classifications (known, probable, and possible human carcinogen) are
given a default HV of 1 (representative of a mean slope factor) (Table 3-72). Similarly, materials for
which no cancer data exist, but are designated as potentially toxic, are also given a default value of 1.
Table 3-72
Hazard values for carcinogenicity WOE if no slope factor is available
EPA
classification
Group A
Group B1
Group B2
Group C
Group D
Group E
IARC
classification
Group 1
Group 2A
N/A
Group 2B
Group 3
Group 4
Description
Known human carcinogen
Probable human carcinogen (limited human data)
Probable human carcinogen (from animal data)
Possible human carcinogen
Not classifiable
Non-carcinogenic or probably not carcinogenic
Hazard
value
1
1
1
1
0
0
N/A=not applicable
136
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The cancer HV for a particular chemical, whether it is from a slope factor or WOE, is then
multiplied by the applicable inventory amount to calculate the impact score for cancer effects:
(IScHo-cAJi = (HVCAxAmtTCmput),
where:
IScHo-cA equals the impact score for chronic occupational cancer health effects for
chemical /' ( kg cancertox-equivalents) per functional unit;
HVCA equals the hazard value for carcinogenicity for chemical /'; and
AmtTC input equals the amount of toxic inventory input (kg) per functional unit for chemical /'.
Accounting for the inventory and characterization methodology and data, the occupational chronic non-
cancer toxicity impact category is given a "medium" data quality measure. Occupational cancer toxicity
is given a "medium to low" rating, given that most inventory flows contributing to potential cancer
toxicity did not have cancer toxicity data, and were thus based on default hazard values.
3.2.10.2 CMR results
Potential Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMR)
The lead-free alternative has an 8 percent greater impact on potential occupational non-cancer
toxicity than the baseline cable, which is shown in Figure 3-83. The top contributing process for the
baseline cable and lead-free alternative is the cable jacketing compounding process (Figure 3-84). To
protect confidentiality, Figure 3-84 combines the occupational non-cancer toxicity impact from all
upstream electricity generation. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives
is a non-halogen flame retardant (Figure 3-85). Figure 3-84 includes the processes that contribute >3
percent of the total impacts, which represent 96 and 97 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and
lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-85 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to
the total impacts, and represents 99 percent of the total potential occupational non-cancer toxicity impacts
for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. As noted in figure 3-85, some material flow has been
given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in the
amount of the non-halogen flame retardant used in the cable jacketing. As the uncertainty analysis did
not take into consideration differences in product formulation, it was not expected to impact this finding.
The uncertainty analysis showed that despite the variance of multiple model parameters, the differences
between the cables remained for the potential occupational non-cancer toxicity impact category (see
Section 3.4).
137
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
80 -i
0 ° 60
•£ ja bu
O ™ cjn
y O OU -
m E 4n
0 ^
C "> -3Q
o = JU
f. o-2n
1 n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-83. Total Potential Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
80 -,
0)
ro 70
o
£ fin
">
RD
o-
0)
x 4n
o ^u "
+i
cr
o
* An
1
ai ^n
o
c
J8 20
§ 10
O)
•^ o
D Other
0 Natural aas*
• FR #2 (non-halogen)
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-85. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full
life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
138
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMR)
The lead-free alternative has a 5 percent greater impact on potential occupational cancer toxicity
than the baseline cable, which is shown in Figure 3-86. The top contributing process for the baseline
cable and lead-free alternative is the cable jacketing compounding process (Figure 3-87). The top
contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is phthalates (Figure 3-88). Figure 3-87
includes the processes that contribute >3 percent of the total impacts, which represent 99 percent of the
total impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-88 includes individual flows that
contribute >3 percent to the total impacts, and represents 97 and 94 percent of the total potential
occupational cancer toxicity impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. As noted in
figure 3-88, some material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in jacketing
compounding and non-lead stabilizer production. An uncertainty analysis was conducted to address the
uncertainty in extrusion and EOL data (Section 3.4). As that analysis did not take into consideration
differences in jacket compounding or product formulation, it was not expected to impact this finding. The
uncertainty analysis showed that despite the variance of multiple model parameters, the relatively small
differences between the cables remained for the potential occupational cancer toxicity impact category
(see Section 3.4). Modifications to the jacket compounding process could have the largest potential to
reduce impacts for both alternatives.
4 -i
E _,-
^ o.o
> 3
3 °
Sf 25
x °
n .Q 9
•u (0
S ° 1 5
o
c 1
ro '
° 05
o, u.S
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-86. Total Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
139
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
4 i
•^ 35
ro
0 -3
E 3
j^
"^ 9 R
.> ^-°
D
Sf ?
X
o 15
i. !-° •
O
C 1
re
o
rn n R
.*
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Cable extrusion
D Non-lead stabilizer
production
0 Jacketing compounding
Figure 3-87. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR
Full life cycle
41
^ ~
o 2
X
r 15
o
1 1
O
O)
v n c;
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
O Other
• Zinc stearate*
O Heavy fuel oil*
H Light fuel oil*
O Pb-stabilizer #2*
Q Color chips*
0 FR #2 (non-halogen)*
• Phthalates*
Figure 3-88. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life
cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of lexicological data
3.2.10.3 CMP results
Potential Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMP)
The baseline cable has a 5 percent greater impact on potential occupational non-cancer toxicity
than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-89. The top contributing process for the
baseline cable and lead-free alternative is the production of natural gas (Figure 3-90). To protect
confidentiality, Figure 3-90 combines the potential occupational non-cancer toxicity impacts from all
upstream natural gas production. The top contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free
alternatives is natural gas (Figure 3-91). Figure 3-90 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of
the total impacts, which represent 89 and 90 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free
140
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-91 includes individual flows that contribute >0.5 percent to the total
impacts, and represents 98 percent of the total potential occupational non-cancer toxicity impacts for both
the baseline and lead-free alternatives. As noted in Figure 3-91, natural gas was given a default hazard
value due to lack of toxicological data.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in insulation
(FEP) production and natural gas production. As the uncertainty analysis did not take into consideration
uncertainties in these processes, it was not expected to impact this finding. The uncertainty analysis
showed that despite the variance of multiple model parameters, the relatively small differences between
the cables remained for the potential occupational non-cancer toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
60 -i
_ "^n
g «
•t! -O
g g 40
m E ^n
o ^ JU
c >
O '= 9D
£ = 20
^ ° 10
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-89. Total Potential Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
0 601
.a
ro
° 50
^
!> 40
1
*r ^n
5
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
o 601
.a
us
° 50
E
j£
> 4D
D
O"
x ^n
o
+J
ai
o 9n
c ^u
RJ
O
= 10
c
O)
•* o
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
n Other
O Aluminum
• Natural gas*
Figure 3-91. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity - CMP full life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMP)
The lead-free cable has a 3 percent greater impact on potential occupational cancer toxicity than
the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-92. The top contributing process for the baseline
cable and lead-free alternative is the compounding of the cable jacketing (Figure 3-93). The top
contributing flow for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives is fire retardant #3 (Figure 3-94). Figure
3-93 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represents 96 and 91
percent of the total impact for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-94 includes
individual flows that contribute >5 percent to the total impacts, and represents 89 and 81 percent of the
total potential occupational cancer toxicity impact for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
As noted in figure 3-94, all of the material flows have been given a default hazard value due to lack of
toxicological data.
The greatest contributor to occupational cancer toxicity impacts is jacketing compounding. An
uncertainty analysis was conducted to address the uncertainty in extrusion and EOL data (Section 3.4).
As that analysis did not take into consideration differences in jacket compounding, it was not expected to
impact this finding. The uncertainty analysis showed that despite the variance of multiple model
parameters, the relatively small differences between the cables remained distinguishable for the potential
occupational cancer toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4). Modifications to the jacket compounding
process could have the largest potential to reduce impacts for both alternatives.
142
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2.5 -,
E
j^
"^ 9
tr
fl) -1 C
g 2
« 8 1
1 c
= l.o
cr
o
X
O 1
•c
o
^
ro n ^
o u-°
O)
j£
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
D Cable extrusion
• Jacketing
compounding
Figure 3-93. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMP Full
life cycle
o ^
o
£1
ro ?
o ^
^
"> 1 K
•5 15
cr
o
§ 1
*1 '
o
o
™ 0.5
o
^
0 -I
' ' ' ' ' ' ''
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
1
D Other
D Material #2*
D Crude oil products*
D Colorant*
S Rasticizer #1*
D Lead stabilizers*
Q Material #3*
Figure 3-94. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity - CMP Full life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of lexicological data
143
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.10.4 NM-B results
Occupational Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts (NM-B)
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the lead-free alternative generates 33 percent greater
occupational non-cancer toxicity impacts than the baseline (leaded) cable, which is shown in Figure 3-95.
The top contributing process is cable insulation compounding for both alternatives (Figure 3-96). Non-
halogenated fire retardant #2 is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both
alternatives (Figure 3-97). Figure 3-96 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total
impacts, which represent 93 and 98 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively. Figure 3-97 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which
represent 99 and 98 percent of the total occupational non-cancer impacts for the baseline and lead-free
alternatives, respectively.
The flow primarily responsible for causing the lead-free cable to have greater impacts than the
baseline cable is a phthalate plasticizer. In addition, the greater amount of the non-halogenated flame
retardant #2 (name withheld to protect confidentiality) contributed to greater burden on occupational
toxicity for the lead-free cable. As noted in figure 3-97, some material flow has been given a default
hazard value due to lack of toxicological data.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that insulation compounding contributes greatest to
occupational non-cancer toxicity impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce
these impacts if insulation and plasticizers are reduced. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the
greatest extent would be to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flows (i.e., non-halogenated flame
retardants).
30 -,
„, OC
0 «
•C -Q
m TO 90
8 S^U
£ E -15
o £1b
0 •£ in
0 g10-
* ° 5
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-95. Total Potential Occupational Non-Cancer Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
144
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
20
D
tr
0)
x 15 -
1
ft 10
c
ro
= 5
0 b
g) n
.-. .-. .-. .; .-.
D Other
0 Phthalate plasticizer #5*
D Rasticizer #2*
B Lead stabilizers*
• Rasticizer #3*
D Natural gas*
• FR #2 (non-halogen)
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-97. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Occupational Non-Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B
Partial life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts (NM-B)
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 16 percent higher
potential occupational cancer toxicity impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-
98. The top contributing process is cable jacketing compounding for both alternatives (Figure 3-99). The
top contributing flow for the baseline cable is plasticizer #2, and for the lead-free alternative it is phthalate
plasticizer #5 (Figure 3-100). Figure 3-99 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total
impacts, which represent >99 and 97 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free
alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-100 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total
impacts, which represent >99 and 98 percent of the total potential occupational cancer impacts for the
145
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. As noted in figure 3-100, some material flow has been
given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data.
Care should be taken when interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that jacketing compounding contributes greatest to potential
occupational cancer toxicity impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these
impacts if electricity use is reduced. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to the greatest extent
would be to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flows (i.e., plasticizers).
9 -i
£ R
^
"> 7
D
D" fi
x « 5
o -Q
4* (Q A
« ° :
c
ra 0
o ^
_ -1
5 I
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-98. Total Potential Occupational Cancer Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
9 -,
% 8
J2 0
cu
0 7
-* R
>
3 c
o- °
O
a A
1 4
*- T
O -J
O
C 0
ro ^
o
i-n 1
J£
n
—
•
i
1
i n Other
I • Insulation compounding
| • Jacketing compounding
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and cable type
Figure 3-99. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B
Partial life cycle
146
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
re
0
f
9 i
7
6
0)
I4
5 3
o
o
O) 1
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
D Zinc stearate*
a Calcium stearate*
• Phthalate plasticizer #5*
Q Lubricants*
D Fire retardant #2
ED Rasticizer #4*
D Pb-stabilizer #2*
D Pb-stabilizer #1*
D Rasticizer #3*
B Rasticizer #2*
Figure 3-100. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Occupational Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B
Partial life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of lexicological data
3.2.10.5 Limitations and uncertainties
Most of the limitations and uncertainties associated with the chronic human health results
presented here and in Section 3.2.12 can be grouped into three categories:
1. Structural or modeling limitations and uncertainties associated with the accuracy of the toxic
chemical classification method and the chemical scoring approach used to characterize human
health effects.
2. Toxicity data limitations and uncertainties associated with the availability and accuracy of
toxicity data to represent potential human health effects.
3. LCI data limitations and uncertainties associated with the accuracy and
representativeness of the inventory data.
Each of these is discussed below:
Structural or modeling limitations and uncertainties. The chemical scoring method used in the
human health effects impact characterization is a screening tool to identify chemicals of potential
concern, not to predict actual effects or characterize risk. A major limitation in the method is that it only
measures relative toxicity combined with inventory amount. It does not take chemical fate,
transportation, or degradation into account. In addition, it uses a simple surrogate value (e.g., inventory
amount) to evaluate the potential for exposure, when actual exposure potential involves many more
factors, some of which are chemical-specific. The LCIA method for toxicity impacts also takes the most
toxic endpoint to calculate a hazard value, regardless of the route of exposure (e.g., inhalation or
ingestion); therefore, this approach does not model true potential exposures, but rather the relative toxicity
as compared to other chemicals, to compare life-cycle results among alloys. This is addressed further in
Section 3.2.11.5 with respect to public health impacts.
147
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Other sources of uncertainty include possible omissions by the WCP researchers in the impact
classification process (e.g., potentially toxic chemicals not classified as such) or misrepresentation of
chemicals in the impact characterization method itself (e.g., misrepresenting a chemical as a small
contributor to total impacts, because of missing or inaccurate toxicity data). Some of these limitations
and uncertainties also may be considered limits in the toxicity data which are discussed further below.
It should be noted, however, that because LCA involves analyzing many processes over the entire
life cycle of a product, a comprehensive, quantitative risk assessment of each chemical input or output
cannot be done. Rather, LCA develops relative impacts that often lack temporal or spatial specificity, but
can be used to identify materials for more detailed evaluation.
Toxicitv data limitations and uncertainties. Major uncertainties in the impact assessment for
potentially toxic chemicals result from missing toxicity data and from limitations of the available toxicity
data. Uncertainties in the human health hazard data (as typically encountered in a hazard assessment)
include the following:
Using dose-response data from laboratory animals to represent potential effects in humans.
• Using data from homogenous populations of laboratory animals or healthy human populations to
represent the potential effects on the general human populations with a wide range of
sensitivities.
• Using dose-response data from high dose toxicity studies to represent potential effects that may
occur at low levels.
Using data from short-term studies to represent the potential effects of long-term exposures.
• Assuming a linear dose-response relationship.
Possibly increased or decreased toxicity resulting from chemical interactions.
Uncertainty is associated with using a default HV (i.e., assuming average toxicity for that
measure when a chemical could be either more or less toxic than average) for missing toxicity data;
however, the use of neutral default values for missing data reduces the bias that typically favors chemicals
with little available information. Use of a data-neutral default value to fill data gaps is consistent with
principles for chemical ranking and scoring (Swanson and Socha, 1997). Of the top contributing flows to
the occupational non-cancer toxicity impacts, only a few chemicals had toxicity data (flame retardant #2,
chlorine, aluminum, and plasticizer #2). All the others used the default HV of unity to represent potential
relative toxicity. For the occupational cancer toxicity impacts, all top contributing flows represented in
previous figures were based on default hazard values where no toxicity data were available (e.g., WOE
classification or slope factor). Therefore, none of the top material contributors to the occupational cancer
impacts that are known or suspected human carcinogens have slope factors. The occupational cancer
impacts, therefore, are largely distributed among the material inputs used in the greatest quantity in the
cable life cycles, but the relative carcinogenicity of these materials is uncertain.
LCI data limitations and uncertainties. For the CMR results, jacketing compounding followed by
electricity generation (as used to fuel the manufacturing processes) were the major contributing processes
to both non-cancer and cancer toxicity. The compounding process for the baseline CMR cables had the
largest number of primary data sets (i.e., 3) and is believed to be of good quality. The compounding
process for the lead-free CMR cables were averaged from 2 primary datasets, which are believed to be of
good quality, but somewhat more limited by the smaller sample size. Any limitations resulting from
selection bias (e.g., companies choosing to provide data might represent more progressive health and
148
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
environmental protection activities) would be consistent across alternatives being compared; therefore,
this is not considered a large limitation.
The CMP results were mostly affected by the FEP production process, which was derived from 2
companies providing data, and are also believed to be of good quality, however, are limited by the small
sample size and the fact that the dataset had different boundaries than other modeled resins. As a result of
secondary dataset boundaries, PVC and HDPE were modeled as coming from ground (i.e., all inputs were
mined, bulk precursors), whereas FEP was modeled with industrial chemical intermediates as inputs.
This discrepancy may limit the utility of comparisons between the impacts of FEP and the other resins,
especially in impact categories that utilize inputs rather than outputs (e.g., energy use). Natural gas
production and electricity production (used in manufacturing processes) were the second and third
greatest contributors to CMP results and used secondary data (see Section 2.1.2.6).
NM-B results were highly impacted by the compounding process and to a lesser degree the
plasticizer production process. Compounding of insulation and jacketing for NM-B was based on 2 or 3
data sets (refer to Table 2-9), and are expected to be of good quality, again limited by the small sample
size. The plasticizer production process was based on secondary data, which were averaged data for
several plasticizers, introducing a limitation to these data.
Based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI data, the occupational non-cancer toxicity category
is given an overall relative data quality rating of "medium" for all cable types, and the cancer toxicity
category is given a "medium to low" since the results are primarily based on chemicals without toxicity
data (and were thus given default values).
3.2.11 Public Toxicity Impacts
This section presents the LCIA characterization methodology and the LCIA results for the public
human health impact category. General information that is common to all the toxicity impact categories
(i.e., occupational human health, public human health, and ecological toxicity) was presented in Section
3.2.10 and is applicable to this section. For chronic public health effects, the impact scores represent
surrogates for potential health effects to residents living near a facility from long-term repeated exposure
to toxic or carcinogenic agents. Impact scores are calculated for both cancer and non-cancer effects, and
are based on the identity and amount of toxic chemical outputs with dispositions to air, soil and water.16
As stated previously, inventory items do not truly represent long-term exposure, instead impacts are
relative toxicity weightings of the inventory.
The scores for impacts to the public differ from occupational impacts in that inventory outputs are
used as opposed to inventory inputs. This basic screening level scoring does not incorporate the fate and
transport of the chemicals. The public human health impact results presented in this section include two
impact categories: public non-cancer impacts and public cancer impacts.
3.2.11.1 Characterization
Section 3.2.10.1 (Potential Human Health Impacts) provides a general discussion of the human
health characterization approach in this LCIA. Below are the specific equations used to calculate impact
scores for potential public non-cancer and cancer impacts.
16 Disposition to soil includes direct, uncontained releases to soil as could occur from unregulated disposal. It does
not include solid or hazardous waste disposal in a regulated landfill. Disposition to water, however, could include
groundwater if a landfill model shows releases to groundwater, for example.
149
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Potential Public Toxicity Impact Characterization: Non-cancer
The chronic public health effects impact score for non-cancer effects is calculated by:
(IScHP-Nc)i = (HVuc X AmtfCoutput)i
where:
IScHp-Nc equals the impact score for chronic non-cancer effects to the public for chemical / (kg
non-cancertox-equivalent) per functional unit;
HVNC equals the hazard value for chronic non-cancer effects for chemical / (based on either
inhalation or oral toxicity, see Section 3.2.10.1); and
Amt^ output equals the amount of toxic inventory output of chemical /' to air, water, and soil (kg) per
functional unit.
More detail on the HVNC is provided in Section 3.2.10.1. Accounting for the inventory and
characterization methodology and data, the potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity impact category
is given a "medium" data quality measure.
Potential Public Toxicity Impact Characterization: Cancer
The chronic public health effects impact score for cancer effects is calculated as follows:
(!SCHP-CA)I = (HVCA x AmtTCoutput),
where:
IScHp-cA equals the impact score for chronic cancer health effects to the public for chemical /' (kg
cancertox-equivalent) per functional unit;
HVCA equals the hazard value for carcinogenicity for chemical / (based on either inhalation or
oral carcinogenicity, see Section 3.2.10.1); and
AmtTCoutput equals the amount of toxic inventory output of chemical /' to air, water, and soil (kg) per
functional unit.
Potential public cancer toxicity is given a "medium to low" rating, given that most inventory flows
contributing to potential cancer toxicity did not have cancer toxicity data, and were thus based on default
hazard values.
3.2.11.2 CMR results
Potential Public Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMR)
The baseline cable has a five-fold greater impact on the potential public chronic non-cancer
toxicity than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-101. The top contributing process for
the baseline cable is the landfilling of chopped waste cable, and for the lead-free alternative it is the
electricity used during cable extrusion (Figure 3-102). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-102 combines
the public non-cancer toxicity impact from all upstream electricity generation. The top contributing flow
for the baseline cable is leached lead, and for the lead-free alternative it is sulfur dioxide (Figure 3-103).
Figure 3-102 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 97
and 93 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-103
150
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and represents >99 and 99 percent
of the total potential public non-cancer toxicity impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in
composition: The use of lead in the baseline cable potentially increases the public non-cancer risk
substantially. Due to the uncertainty associated with the leaching of lead from landfills (see Section
2.4.5.2), an uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the proportion of leachate
released into the environment, the differences between the cables was still substantial for the potential
public non-cancer toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
1600-,
1 /inn
x ...
o <" i?nn
•a ja i^uu
0 ?3 1 nnn
c c
m c onn
0 ^ BUU
£ > finn
0 .5 600
**. " Ann
9nn
n
Baseline
^SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS^ I
I
Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-101. Total Potential Public Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
1600 n
9)
nj 1400
o
£ i9nn
_2 '^uu
•— 1 nnn
cr
0 RDD
|
"- Rnn
o
S Ann
o
O 200
O)
•* 0
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
D Other
D Insulation resin
production
H Jacketing resin
production
O FJectricity generation
a Incineration
B MSW landfill
Figure 3-102. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Public Non-Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full
life cycle
151
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
o 1600 1
5
ro 1400 -
§ 19DD
>
3 innn
CT
0)
X Qflfl
o BUU "
4-1
Ofinn
c
ro 4nn
o 4UU "
° 200
O)
•* o
Baseline
!
i n Other
1 o Lead (air)
| H Sulfur dioxide (air)
1 • Lead (w ater)
Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-103. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Public Non-Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life
cycle
Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMR)
The lead-free alternative has a 1 percent greater impact on the potential public cancer toxicity
than the baseline cable, which is shown in Figure 3-104. The top contributing process for the baseline
cable is the landfilling of chopped waste cable, and for the lead-free alternative it is the production of
jacketing resin (Figure 3-105). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-105 combines the public cancer
toxicity impact from all upstream electricity generation. The top contributing flow for the baseline cable
and the lead-free alternative is methane (Figure 3-106). Figure 3-105 includes the processes that
contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 92 and 93 percent of the total impacts for the
baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-106 includes individual flows that contribute
>1 percent to the total impacts and represents 97 percent of the total potential public cancer toxicity
impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. As noted in figure 3-106, some material flow has
been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data.
The overall differences between the cables are a result of a number of factors including energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2 A), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
potential public cancer toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
152
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.9 -i
E n A
"> n 7
rr n fi
3 n^
o- u-°
o
i< n A
2
Jr n ^
S o^
O
D) n i
n
I
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
P Rasticizer production
• Insulation resin
production
0 Electricity generation
B Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-105. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life
cycle
0.9 ->
° 08 -
ja u'°
8 07-
E
J£ OR
.>
3 n ^
o- u-° "
o
** n A
o
ir n T
o
E n 9
nj u.z -
o
o n 1
n
Baseline
Cable type
Pb-Free
B Group NMVOC (air)*
D Lead (water)*
B Dust (unspecified) (air)*
O Carbon monoxide (air)*
QVOC (unspecified) (air)*
• Nitrogen oxides (air)*
Figure 3-106. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
153
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.11.3 CMP results
Potential Public Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts (CMP)
The baseline cable has an approximately 2.5-fold greater impact on the potential public chronic
non-cancer toxicity as the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-107. The top contributing
process for the baseline cable is the landfilling of chopped waste cable, and for the lead-free alternative it
is the electricity used during cable extrusion (Figure 3-108). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-108
combines the public non-cancer toxicity from all upstream electricity generation and natural gas
production. The top contributing flow for the baseline cable is leached lead, and for the lead-free
alternative it is sulfur dioxide (Figure 3-109). Figure 3-108 includes the processes that contribute >5
percent of the total impacts, which represents 97 percent of the total impact for both the baseline and lead-
free alternatives. Figure 3-109 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts
and represents >99 and 99 percent of the total potential public non-cancer toxicity impacts for the
baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in
composition. The use of lead in the baseline cable potentially increases the public non-cancer risk
substantially. Due to the uncertainty associated with the leaching of lead from landfills (see Section
2.4.5.2), an uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the proportion of leachate
released into the environment, the differences between the cables was still substantial for the potential
public non-cancer toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
1000-,
onn
x fl» &nn
"C -Q ynn
5 cu /uu "
o o finn
n£ Rnn
£ =1 400
2 D ^nn
c g. ^uu -
1 nn
n
Baseline
Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-107. Total Potential Public Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
154
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
700
O" 600
dnn
5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 85
percent of the total impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-112 includes
individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and represents 93 and 94 percent of the
total potential public cancer toxicity impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. As
noted in figure 3-112, some material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of
toxicological data.
155
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in energy
use. Due to the uncertainty associated with the extrusion energy inventory data (see Section 2.2 A), an
uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the extrusion energy across the range
of primary data obtained, the differences between the cables was not greatly distinguishable for the
potential public cancer toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
0.8 -,
E 07
.•* n R
= U.b
ST n^
aj u.o
^ ^
a n n A
2 ro u'4
5 o 03
o
E n 9
™ 01
J^
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-110. Total Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
0.8 -,
- 07
ro
° 06
.*
> u.b
'D
Sf na
X
2 03 -
0)
o
C n 9
nj
o
-_ n 1
j^
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
O Insulation resin
production
H Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity generation
Figure 3-111. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMP Full life
cycle
156
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.8 i
0 07
.a
ro
" 0.6
E
^ nc
^ 0.5
'D
tr n .
o 0.4
•C u.o
0)
o
c n 9
ro u'^
o
O) o 1
_^ U. 1
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
B Halogenated organics (air)*
D Carbon monoxide (air)*
Q Dust (unspecified) (air)*
• NMVOC (unspecified) (air)*
Q VOC (unspecified) (air)*
• Nitrogen oxides (air)*
Figure 3-112. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - CMP Full life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of lexicological data
3.2.11.4 NM-B results
Potential Public Non-cancer Toxicity Impacts (NM-B)
In the NM-B cradle-to-gate analysis, the baseline (leaded) cable generates 11 percent higher
potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity impacts than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in
Figure 3-113. The top contributing process is jacketing resin production for both alternatives (Figure 3-
114) and sulfur dioxide is the greatest individual flow contributing to the impacts for both alternatives
(Figure 3-115). Figure 3-114 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which
represent 92 and 99 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively.
Figure 3-115 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which represent 98
and 99 percent of the total potential public non-cancer impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives,
respectively.
Of note is that the impacts for both the leaded and lead-free constructions are driven by sulfur
dioxide, which is in contrast to the CMR and CMP results, which included EOL. When EOL was
included, the leaded cables had much greater burdens due to lead released to the environment primarily at
the EOL stage. Therefore, it is likely that if the full life cycle were considered for NM-B these results
would be driven by other processes and chemicals. Since we expect EOL to be a large driver of impacts
to this category, the potential public non-cancer toxicity category for NM-B is given a "medium-to-low"
quality rating (ratings are summarized in Chapter 4, Table 4-6).
As alluded to, care should be taken in interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full
life-cycle impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated
upstream processes for NM-B cables, understanding that PVC jacketing resin production contributes
greatest to potential public non-cancer toxicity impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity
to reduce these impacts by reducing the amount of PVC used. However, any substituted material would
need to be examined for tradeoffs in the other impact categories. Another opportunity for reducing
157
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
impacts to this category to the greatest extent would be to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flow
(i.e., reduce sulfur dioxide emissions).
200 -,
175
0 « 150
5 ™ 19C
m E -inn
8 * 1UU
C ^ ye
0 | 75
°" 50
O) O ou
^ 25
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-113. Total Potential Public Non-Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
O"
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
5
percent of the total impacts, which represent 96 percent of the total impacts for both the baseline and lead-
free alternatives. Figure 3-118 includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts,
which represent 96 and 98 percent of the total potential public cancer impacts for the baseline and lead-
free alternatives, respectively. As noted in figure 3-118, some material flow has been given a default
hazard value due to lack of toxicological data.
Care should be taken in interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full life-cycle
impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated upstream
processes for NM-B cables, understanding that PVC jacketing resin production contributes greatest to
potential public cancer toxicity impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these
impacts by reducing the amount of PVC used. However, any substituted material would need to be
examined for tradeoffs in the other impact categories. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to this
category to the greatest extent would be to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flow (i.e., reduce
nitrogen oxide emissions). It should also be noted that the output flows contributing to the potential
public cancer toxicity category are not any known carcinogens. Chemicals lacking data on
carcinogenicity remain in the analysis as potential carcinogens.
159
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
0.9 1
"> 07
3 °'7 "
ty n R
o u'b "
Z ° n^
g -a ab "
•S nj n A
>- n u-^ "
8 03
£ o?
° 01
O) U. I -
•* 0
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
Figure 3-116. Total Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
0.9 -,
3 n £,
o- u-°
0)
i< n A
2
In n ^
o
m 02
O
o) n 1
J* U. I -
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
D Rasticizer
production
• Jacketing resin
production
Figure 3-117. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B Partial
life cycle
0.9 -i
o
5 08
re
o nv
E °7
i£ OR
5 0=;
o
v O 4
O
"£ 03
o w-^
o
c n 9
ro u-^
° 01
O) u- '
.*
n
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
D Hydrocarbons
(unspecified) (air)*
D Dust (unspecified)
(air)*
O Carbon monoxide (air)*
OVOC (unspecified)
(air)*
B Nitrogen oxides (air)*
Figure 3-118. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Public Cancer Toxicity Impacts - NM-B Partial life
cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
160
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.11.5 Limitations and uncertainties
This section summarizes the limitations and uncertainties associated with public non-cancer and
cancer health impacts. The public health LCIA limitations and uncertainties that address (1) structural or
modeling limitations and (2) toxicity data limitations, are identical to those for occupational health
impacts. For a detailed discussion, refer to Section 3.2.10.5. For example, much of the public cancer
impact results are driven by a lack of toxicity data, rather than known carcinogenic hazards. Of the top
contributing flows to the public non-cancer toxicity impacts presented in preceding figures, all the
chemicals had HVs based on available toxicity data. For the occupational cancer toxicity impacts, all top
contributing flows except for lead (in CMR public cancer toxicity results) were based on default hazard
values where no toxicity data were available (e.g., WOE classification or slope factor). Therefore, most
of the public cancer impacts are based on materials that lack data on their carcinogenicity, and similar to
the occupational impact results, the public cancer impacts are largely distributed among the material
inputs used in the greatest quantity in the cable life cycles, but the relative carcinogenicity of these
materials is uncertain.
The LCI data limitations for public health impacts in many cases are similar to those described in
Section 3.2.10.5. LCI data limitations pertinent to public health impacts are summarized below.
For the CMR and CMP results, the baseline results were driven by landfilling (e.g., lead leaching
from the landfill), followed by incineration and then electricity production (for manufacturing processes).
The impacts from the lead-free alternative, however, were driven by the electricity production. There is
uncertainty in the leachate estimate used in the analysis, which was therefore varied in the multivariate
uncertainty analysis (Section 3.4). As the uncertainty analysis revealed, a significant difference between
the alternatives is likely, even given the defined range of uncertainty (see Section 3.4). Since the landfill
leachate data were an important aspect of the public toxicity impacts, further refinement of the potential
exposure, through more sophisticated exposure analysis and fate and transport analysis, as well as
leachability studies, are warranted. In addition to lead output uncertainties, there are EOL uncertainties
related to the assumptions about EOL dispositions (e.g., 4 percent of cables go directly to landfilling, and
73 percent go to landfilling after chopping for copper recovery). This is discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 2. For incineration, secondary literature was used to estimate outputs and additional secondary
sources were reviewed to make assumptions about lead releases and partitioning to various environmental
media, which introduces uncertainty into the incineration outputs.
The NM-B analysis, which did not include EOL modeling were driven by PVC production for
both non-cancer and cancer toxicity impacts. As explained in previous sections, PVC production data are
secondary data. It is also important to note that the secondary data set that was used for this process does
not include any vinyl chloride monomer inputs or outputs. As discussed in Chapter 1, vinyl chloride is a
known carcinogen. Given that there is potential occupational exposure to the vinyl chloride monomer
during production, and potential public exposure from any environmental releases of the monomer, the
cancer impact results are further limited. Therefore, the differences in PVC use across alternatives could
drive cancer impacts in the same direction. Because PVC production was a large contributor to NM-B
results, the M-B results would likely be affected to the greatest extent. However, CMR and CMP results
would also be affected as PVC is used in both of these cables as well.
As lead released to water (via landfill leaching) is a large proportion of impacts, further
investigation into the hazard and exposure to lead from landfills is warranted. And although lead-free
161
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
constructions are gaining market share, further investigation into the exposure and risk from landfill
disposal is important to address existing leaded-cables that have not yet reached their end-of-life
dispositions.
Based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI data, the public non-cancer toxicity category is
given an overall relative data quality rating of "medium" for all cable types, and the cancer toxicity
category is given a "medium to low" rating since the results are primarily based on chemicals without
toxicity data (and were thus given default values), and there is no consideration for vinyl chloride in the
PVC production process.
3.2.12 Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts
3.2.12.1 Characterization
Ecotoxicity refers to effects of chemical outputs on non-human living organisms. Impact
categories could include both ecotoxicity impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The method for
calculating terrestrial toxicity, however, would be the same as for the chronic, non-cancer public toxicity
impacts described above, which is based on mammalian toxicity data. As the relative ranking approach of
the LCIA toxicity method does not modify the toxicity data for different species or for fate and transport,
both human and terrestrial LCIA impacts are the same; therefore, only aquatic toxicity, which uses a
different methodology, is presented below.
Toxicity measures for fish are used to represent potential adverse effects to organisms living in
the aquatic environment from exposure to a toxic chemical. Impact scores are based on the identity and
amount of toxic chemicals as outputs to surface water. Impact characterization is based on CHEMS-1
acute and chronic hazard values for fish (Swanson et a/., 1997) combined with the inventory amount.
Both acute and chronic impacts comprise the aquatic ecotoxicity term. The HVs for acute and chronic
toxicity are based on LC50 (the lethal concentration to 50 percent of the exposed fish population) and
NOEL (no-observed-effect level) (or NOEC [no-observed-effect concentration]) toxicity data,
respectively, mostly from toxicity tests in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (Swanson et a/.,
1997). The acute fish HV is calculated by:
(HV,,),-
'( LC so )mean
where:
HVFA equals the hazard value for acute fish toxicity for chemical / (unitless);
LC50 equals the lethal concentration to 50 percent of the exposed fish population for
chemical /; and
LC50mean equals the geometric mean LC50 of available fish LC50 values in Appendix E (mg/L).
The chronic fish HV is calculated by:
(HVf€)i .
l/NOELmean
where:
162
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
HVFC equals the hazard value for chronic fish toxicity for chemical /';
NOEL equals the no-observed-effect level for fish for chemical /'; and
NOEL mean equals the geometric mean NOEL of available fish NOEL values in Appendix E (mg/L).
For chemicals that do not have chronic fish toxicity data available, but do have LC50 data, the
LC50 and the log Kow of the chemical are used to estimate the NOEL. Based on studies comparing the
LC50 to the NOEL (Kenega, 1982; Jones and Schultz, 1995, and Call etal, 1985) as reported in Swanson
et al. (1997), NOEL values for organic chemicals within a certain range of log Kow values are calculated
using the following continuous linear function:
For organics with 2 # log Kow < 5:
NOEL = LC50/(5.3 x log Kow - 6.6)
Organic chemicals with high log Kow values (i.e., greater than 5) are generally more toxic to fish
and are not expected to follow a continuous linear function with Kow, thus, they are estimated directly
from the LC50. In addition, inorganic chemicals are poorly fat soluble and their fish toxicity does not
correlate to log Kow. The NOEL values of the inorganic chemicals were, therefore, also based on the fish
LC50 values.
For inorganics or organics with log Kow 35:
NOEL = 0.05 x (LC50)
For organics with log Kow<2, which are poorly fat soluble but assumed to have a higher NOEL
value than those with higher Kow values or than inorganics, the NOEL is estimated as follows:
For organics with log Kow <2:
NOEL = 0.25 x (LC50)
Once the FTVs are calculated, whether from NOEL data or estimated from the LC50 and the KQW,
the aquatic toxicity impact score is calculated as follows:
(ISAQ), = [(HVFA + HVFC)
Accounting for the inventory and the characterization method, we have assigned a "medium" data quality
measure for the aquatic ecotoxicity impact category results.
163
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.2.12.2
CMR results
The baseline cable has an approximately 150-fold greater impact on the potential aquatic toxicity
than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-119. The top contributing process for the
baseline cable is the landfilling of chopped cable, and for the lead-free alternative it is the generation of
electricity for cable extrusion (Figure 3-120). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-120 combines the
aquatic toxicity impact from all upstream electricity generation. The top contributing flow for the
baseline cable is leached lead, and for the lead-free alternative it is dissolved chlorine (Figure 3-121).
Figure 3-120 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 99
and 91 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-121
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and represents >99 and 97 percent
of the total potential aquatic toxicity impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. As
noted in figure 3-121, some material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of
toxicological data.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in
composition. The use of lead in the baseline cable potentially increases the aquatic toxicity impact
substantially. Due to the uncertainty associated with the leaching of lead from landfills (see Section
2.4.5.2), an uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the proportion of leachate
released into the environment, the differences between the cables was still substantial for the potential
aquatic toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
18 -,
1R
>
:** a! 14
0 S
3—19
9 (0 l^ -
O rj
** m
o E 1U "
*•• -^ R
§ > I'
ro u- .
O) <" 4
•* 2
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
Figure 3-119. Total Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
164
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
18 -i
£ 16
•^ 14
3 '^
O"
o 12
£.
'y O 10
'x -°
0 o 8
= 6
ro °
O" 4
ro 4
O) ~
0 -
^^^™
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable Type
D Other
Q Rasticizer
production
O Electricity generation
D Incineration
• MSW landfill
Figure 3-120. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
O IB
s
ro -|R
O lb
E 14
J* 14 '
!> 19
= ^
tr
o in
>
4-1
'7T R
.y °
8 e
o
S 4
ro 4
O" 9
ro ^
5* 0
Baseline Pb-Free
Cable type
D Other
B Cadmium
D Hydrocarbons
(unspecified)*
D Fluoride*
B Metals (unspecified)*
• Copper (+1 ,+2)
D Chlorine (dissolved)
• Lead
Figure 3-121. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts - CMR Full life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of lexicological data
3.2.12.3 CMP results
The baseline cable has an approximately 5 5-fold greater impact on the potential aquatic toxicity
than the lead-free alternative, which is shown in Figure 3-122. The top contributing process for the
baseline cable is the landfilling of chopped cable, and for the lead-free alternative it is the generation of
electricity for cable extrusion (Figure 3-123). To protect confidentiality, Figure 3-123 combines the
aquatic toxicity impacts from all upstream electricity generation. The top contributing flow for the
baseline cable is leached lead, and for the lead-free alternative it is dissolved chlorine (Figure 3-124).
Figure 2-123 includes the processes that contribute >5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 99
and 94 percent of the total impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. Figure 3-124
includes individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts and represents >99 and 96 percent
of the total potential aquatic toxicity impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. As
165
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
noted in figure 3-124, some material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of
toxicological data.
The overall differences between the cables are primarily a function of the differences in
composition. The use of lead in the baseline cable potentially increases the aquatic toxicity impact
substantially. Due to the uncertainty associated with the leaching of lead from landfills (see Section
2.4.5.2), an uncertainty analysis was conducted which showed that by varying the proportion of leachate
released into the environment, the differences between the cables was still substantial for the potential
aquatic toxicity impact category (see Section 3.4).
5 I]
% 7
3 '
CT fi
°
= 5
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
9 -i
D
'= 5
5 percent of the total impacts, which represent 96
percent of the total impacts for both the baseline and lead-free alternatives. Figure 3-127 includes
individual flows that contribute >1 percent to the total impacts, which represent 99 and 98 percent of the
total potential aquatic toxicity impacts for the baseline and lead-free alternatives, respectively. As noted
in Figure 3-127, some material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological
data.
Of note is that the impacts for both the leaded and lead-free constructions are driven by plasticizer
production process, and the top contributing flow was copper ions. This is in contrast to the CMR and
CMP results, which included EOL. When EOL was included, the leaded telecommunication cables had
much greater burdens due to lead released to the environment primarily at the EOL stage. Therefore, it is
likely that if the full life cycle were considered for NM-B these results would be driven by other processes
and chemicals. Since we expect EOL to be a large driver of impacts to this category, the potential aquatic
ecotoxicity category for NM-B is given a "medium-to-low" quality rating (ratings are summarized in
Chapter 4, Table 4-6).
As alluded to, care should be taken in interpreting these results, as they do not represent the full
life-cycle impacts. Nonetheless, when focusing on insulation and jacket compounding and the associated
upstream processes for NM-B cables, understanding that phthalate production contributes greatest to
potential aquatic ecotoxicity impacts for both alternatives could provide the opportunity to reduce these
impacts by reducing the amount of phthalates used. However, any substituted material would need to be
examined for tradeoffs in the other impact categories. Another opportunity for reducing impacts to this
167
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
category to the greatest extent would be to focus on reducing the greatest contributing flow (i.e., reduce
copper emissions).
0.1 -i
0 09
•B" n DR
•- S nn?
* ro uu/
O M n nfi
o E nn^
~ ^ u.uo -
ro "£: n n4
3 .> UlLKf "
O" D n n^
(0 0- U-UJ "
m 0.1 -,
.a
g 009
U.Uo
j£
"> n nv
3
sr 006
-*1 n DR
'o
•— n C\A
X U.LKt
o
•" n m
o u-u-:i
"m n 09
3
°" n ni
ro u-ul
g) 0
Baseline Pb-free
Insulation and jacketing type
D Other
B Jacketing resin
production
• Electricity
generation
Q Lead stabilizer
production
• Rasticizer
production
Figure 3-126. Top Contributing Processes to Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts - NM-B Partial life
cycle
« 0.1 -,
.Q
o 009
E 008
"> n D7
3
°" 0 06
.B1 005
'o
•- - n rtA
x u.ut
•" r\m
o u-U-:i
"m 0 09
3
o~ n m
ro u-u|
O) n
.* u H
Baseline Pb-Free
Insulation and jacketing type
D other
D Hydrocarbons
(unspecified)*
B Copper
Q Lead
D Cadmium
B Zinc
O Metals (unspecified)*
Q Chlorine (dissolved)
B Copper (+1 , +2)
168
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Figure 3-127. Top Contributing Flows to Potential Aquatic Ecotoxicity Impacts - NM-B Partial life cycle
* Material flow has been given a default hazard value due to lack of toxicological data
3.2.12.5 Limitations and uncertainties
The LCIA methodology for potential aquatic ecotoxicity impacts is subject to the same structural
or modeling limitations and toxicity data limitations discussed previously for the occupational and public
health impact categories. For a detailed discussion, refer to the Structural or modeling limitations and
uncertainties subsection of Section 3.2.10.5. One important distinction is that more toxicity data tend to
be available for aquatic effects than for human carcinogenic effects. Specifically, toxicity data were
available for lead outputs, which drive the aquatic ecotoxicity differences between CMR and CMP
alternatives. For NM-B, the top contributing flows differed from the CMR/CMP results; however,
ecotoxicity data were also available for those chemicals.
The LCI data limitations also are similar to those described in preceding sections. For the CMR
and CMP results, the baseline results were driven by landfilling (e.g., lead leaching from the landfill),
followed primarily by incineration and then electricity production (for manufacturing processes). The
impacts from the lead-free alternative, however, were driven by the electricity production. There is
uncertainty in the leachate estimate used in the analysis, and this estimate was varied in the multivariate
uncertainty analysis (Section 3.4). As the uncertainty analysis revealed, a significant difference between
the alternatives is likely, even given the defined range of uncertainty (see Section 3.4). Since the landfill
leachate data were an important aspect of the public toxicity impacts, further refinement of the potential
exposure, through more sophisticated exposure analysis and fate and transport analysis are warranted.
The NM-B analysis, which did not include EOL modeling was driven by phthalate plasticizer
production, which used secondary data. Based on the LCIA methodology and the LCI data, the aquatic
ecotoxicity category is given an overall relative data quality rating of "medium" for all cable types.
3.3 Summary of Life-Cycle Impact Analysis Characterization
This section presents an overview of the characterization methods and the life-cycle impact
results for the different cable types. Section 3.3.1 provides the equations for each impact category that are
used to calculate impact scores; Section 3.3.2 describes the LCIA data sources and data quality; and
Section 3.3.3 provides the limitations and uncertainties associated with the LCIA methodology.
The WCP LCIA methodology does not perform the optional LCIA steps of normalization
(calculating the magnitude of category indicator results relative to a reference value), grouping (scoring
and possibly ranking of indicators across categories), or weighting (converting indicator results based on
importance and possibly aggregating them across impact categories). Grouping and weighting, in
particular, are subjective steps that depend on the values of different individuals, organizations, or
societies performing the analysis. Since the WCP involves a variety of stakeholders from different
geographic regions and with different values, these more subjective steps were intentionally excluded
from the WCP LCIA methodology. Normalization also was intentionally not included as there are not
universally accepted normalization reference values for all the impact categories included in this study.
Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of this research is to identify the relative differences in the
potential impacts among cable alternatives, and normalization within impact categories would not affect
the relative differences among alternatives within the impact categories.
169
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.3.1 Impact Score Equations
Table 3-112 summarizes the impact categories, associated impact score equations, and the input
or output data required for calculating natural resource impacts. Each of these characterization equations
is a loading estimate. For a more detailed discussion of loading estimates, refer to Section 3.1.2.
Table 3-112
Summary of natural resources impact scoring
Impact category
Impact score approach
Data required from inventory
(per functional unit)
Inputs Outputs
Use/depletion of ISNRR = AmtNRR x (1 - RC)
non-renewable
resources
Energy use, general ISE = AmtE or (AmtF x H/D)
energy consumption
Landfill space use ISL = Amtw / D
Material mass (kg) None
Energy (MJ)
(electricity, fuel)
None
None
Mass of waste (hazardous
and solid waste combined)
(kg) and density (e.g.,
volume, m3)
Abbreviations: RC=recycled content; H=heat value of fuel i; D=density of fuel i.
The term abiotic ecosystem refers to the nonliving environment that supports living systems.
Table 3-113 presents the impact categories, impact score equations, and inventory data requirements for
abiotic environmental impacts to atmospheric resources.
Table 3-1 13
Summary of atmospheric resource impact scoring
Data required from inventory
(per functional unit)
Impact category
Global warming
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
Photochemical smog
Acidification
Air quality (particulate
matter)
Impact score approach
ISGw = EFGwp x AmtGG
IS0D = EFoop x AmtoDc
ISpocp =EFpocp x Amtpoc
ISAP = EFAP x AmtAC
ISpM = AmtpM
Inputs
None
None
None
None
None
Outputs
Amount of each greenhouse gas
chemical released to air
Amount of each ozone depleting
chemical released to air
Amount of each smog-creating
chemical released to air
Amount of each acidification
chemical released to air
Amount of particulates: PM10or
TSP released to air a
Assumes PM-io and TSP are equal; however, using TSP will overestimate
Table 3-114 presents the impact categories, impact score equations, and required inventory data for
abiotic environmental impacts to water resources.
170
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 3-114
Summary of water resource impact scoring
Impact category Impact score approach
Data required from inventory
(per functional unit)
Inputs Outputs
Water eutrophication ISEUTR = EFEp x AmtEc
None
Amount of each eutrophication chemical
released to water
Table 3-115 summarizes the human health and ecotoxicity impact scoring approaches. The
impact categories, impact score equations, the type of inventory data, and the chemical properties
required to calculate impact scores are presented. The human health effects and ecotoxicity impact scores
are based on the scoring of inherent properties approach to characterization. For a more detailed
discussion of characterization methods, refer to Section 3.1.2.
Table 3-115
Summary of human health and ecotoxicity impact scoring
Data required from inventory
(per functional unit)
Impact category
Chronic human
health effectsc
occupational,
cancer
Chronic human
health effectsc
occupational,
noncancer
Chronic human
health effectsc
public, cancer
Chronic human
health effectsc
public,
noncancer
Aquatic
ecotoxicity
Impact score equations
IScHO-CA = HVcA X
Amtjcinput
IScHO-NC = HV[\|C X
Amtjcinput
IScHP-CA = HVcA X
Amtjcoutput
IScHP-NC = HV[\|C X
Amtjcoutput
ISAQ = (HVFA + HVFC) x
Amtjcoutput.water
Inputs
Mass of each
primary and
ancillary toxic
chemical
Mass of each
primary and
ancillary toxic
chemical
None
None
None
Outputs
None
None
Mass of each toxic
chemical released to
air and surface water
Mass of each toxic
chemical released to
air and surface water
Mass of each toxic
chemical released to
surface water
Chemical
properties
data required
WOE or SF
Mammal NOAEL
or LOAEL
WOE or SF
Mammal NOAEL
or LOAEL
Fish LC50 and/or
fish NOEL
Individual impact scores are calculated for inventory items for a certain impact category and can
be aggregated by inventory item (e.g., a certain chemical), process, life-cycle stage, or entire product
profile. For example, global warming impacts can be calculated for one inventory item (e.g., CO2
releases), for one process that could include contributions from several inventory items (e.g., electricity
generation), for a life-cycle stage that may consist of several process steps (e.g., product manufacturing),
or for an entire profile (e.g., a functional unit of a cable).
171
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3.3.2 LCIA Data Sources and Data Quality
Data that are used to calculate impacts come from: (1) equivalency factors or other parameters
used to identify hazard values; and (2) LCI items. Equivalency factors and data used to develop hazard
values presented in this methodology include GWP, ODP, POCP, AP, EP, WOE, SF, mammalian
LOAEL/NOAEL, fish LC50, and fish NOEL. Published lists of the chemical-specific parameter values
exist for GWP, ODP, POCP, AP, and EP (see Appendix D). The other parameters may exist for a large
number of chemicals, and several data sources must be searched to identify the appropriate parameter
values. Priority is given to peer-reviewed databases (e.g., Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
[HEAST], Integrated Risk Information System [IRIS], Hazardous Substances Data Bank [HSDB]), next
other databases (e.g., Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]), then other studies or
literature, and finally estimation methods (e.g., structure-activity relationships [SARs] or quantitative
structure-activity relationships [QSARs]). More details are provided in Appendix E.
The sources of each parameter presented in this report and the basis for their values are presented
in Table 3-116. Data quality is affected by the data source itself, the type of data source (e.g., primary
versus secondary data), the currency of the data, and the accuracy and precision of the data. The sources
and quality of the LCI data used to calculate impact scores were discussed in Chapter 2. Data sources and
data quality for each impact category are discussed further in Section 3.2, LCIA Results.
Table 3-116
Data sources for equivalency factors and hazard values
Parameter
Basis of parameter values
Source
Global warming potential
Ozone depletion potential
Photochemical oxidant
creation potential
Acidification potential
Nutrient
enrich ment/eutrophication
potential
Weight-of-evidence
Slope factor
Mammalian: LOAEL/NOAEL
Atmospheric lifetimes and radiative
forcing compared to CO2
The change in the ozone column in
the equilibrium state of a substance
compared to CFC-11
Simulated trajectories of ozone
production with and without VOCs
present compared to ethene
Number of hydrogen ions that can
theoretically be formed per mass
unit of the pollutant being released
compared to SO2
Ratio of N to P in the average
composition of algae
(Cio6H263OiioN16P) compared to
phosphate (PO43~)
Classification of carcinogenicity by
EPA or IARC based on human
and/or animal toxicity data
Measure of an individuals excess
risk or increased likelihood of
developing cancer if exposed to a
chemical, based on dose-response
data
Mammalian (primarily rodent)
toxicity studies
IPCC, 2001 (see Appendix D)
UNEP, 2003; WMO 1999 (see
Appendix D)
Heijungsef a/., 1992;
El, 1999 (see Appendix D)
Heijungsef a/., 1992;
Hauschild and Wenzel, 1997 (see
Appendix D)
Heijungsef a/., 1992;
Lindfors et a/., 1995 (see Appendix
D)
EPA, 1999; IARC, 1998 (see
Appendix E)
IRIS and HEAST as cited in RAIS
online database (see Appendix E)
IRIS, HEAST and various literature
sources (see Appendix E)
172
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 3-116
Data sources for equivalency factors and hazard values
Parameter Basis of parameter values Source
Fish lethal concentration to Fish (primarily fathead minnow) Various literature sources and
50 percent of the exposed toxicity studies Ecotox database (see Appendix E)
population (LC50)
Fish NOEL Fish (primarily fathead minnow) Literature sources and Ecotox
toxicity studies database (see Appendix E)
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System; HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables; RAIS = Risk Assessment
Information System.
3.3.3 General LCIA methodology limitations and uncertainties
This section summarizes some of the limitations and uncertainties in the LCIA methodology in
general. Specific limitations and uncertainties in each impact category are discussed in Sections 3.2.2
through 3.2.12 with the LCIA results for the WCP.
The purpose of an LCIA is to evaluate the relative potential impacts of a product system for
various impact categories. There is no intent to measure the actual impacts or to provide spatial or
temporal relationships linking the inventory to specific impacts. The LCIA is intended to provide a
screening-level evaluation of impacts.
In addition to lacking temporal or spatial relationships and providing only relative impacts, LCA
also is limited by the availability and quality of the inventory data. Data collection can be time-
consuming and expensive, and confidentiality issues may inhibit the availability of primary data.
Uncertainties are inherent in each parameter described in Table 3-112 through 3-115. For
example, toxicity data require extrapolations from animals to humans and from high to low doses (for
chronic effects), resulting in a high degree of uncertainty. Sources for each type of data should be
consulted for more information on uncertainties specific to each parameter.
Uncertainties exist in chemical ranking and scoring systems, such as the scoring of inherent
properties approach used for human health and ecotoxicity effects. In particular, systems that do not
consider the fate and transport of chemicals in the environment can contribute to misclassifications of
chemicals with respect to risk. Uncertainty is introduced where it was assumed that all chronic endpoints
are equivalent, which is likely not the case. In addition, when LOAELs were not available but NOAELs
were, a factor often was applied to the NOAEL to estimate the LOAEL, thus introducing uncertainty.
The human health and ecotoxicity impact characterization methods presented in the WCP LCIA are
screening tools that cannot substitute for more detailed risk characterization methods; however, the
methodology is an attempt to consider chemical toxicity at a screening level for potentially toxic materials
in the inventory.
Uncertainty in the inventory data depends on the responses to the data collection questionnaires
and other limitations identified during inventory data collection. These uncertainties are carried into the
impact assessment. Uncertainties in the inventory data include, but are not limited to, the following:
• missing individual inventory items;
• missing processes or sets of data;
• measurement uncertainty;
173
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• estimation uncertainty;
• allocation uncertainty/working with aggregated data; and
• unspeciated chemical data.
The goal definition and scoping process helped reduce the uncertainty from missing data,
although it is assured that some missing data still exist. The remaining uncertainties were reduced
primarily through quality assurance/quality control measures (e.g., performing systematic double-checks
of all calculations on manipulated data). The limitations and uncertainties in the inventory data were
discussed further in Chapter 2.
3.4 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses
As was stated in Section 3.3.3, uncertainty is inherent in all of the parameters involved in the
calculation of product life-cycle impacts. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis were both used to examine
the effect that parameter uncertainty had on the impact category results. Uncertainty analysis addressed
the magnitude of the sum of parameter uncertainty, and sensitivity analysis was used to address each
parameter's contribution to the overall uncertainty. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis were performed
on the CMR and CMP full life-cycle comparisons, and not on the CMR three-way (baseline/lead-
free/halogen-free) andNM-B cradle-to-gate comparisons.
3.4.1 Uncertainty Analysis
3.4.1.1 Methodology
Monte Carlo statistical methods were used to examine the contribution of uncertainty in various
life-cycle processes to each impact category result. Monte Carlo methods describe the generation of a
distribution of model results based on the specification of one or more distributions to represent model
parameters. As values are iteratively chosen from uncertain model parameters, a distribution of outcomes
is created that represents the effect of this uncertainty. A built-in Monte Carlo function found in the
GaBi4 software package (PE & IKP, 2003), which provides two built-in distributions, Gaussian and
uniform, was used to generate probabilistic impact results.
Four parameters within the life-cycle processes were chosen as highly uncertain and given
uniform distributions representing the degree of uncertainty surrounding them. The majority of the
parameters selected as highly uncertain came from end-of-life processes. Uniform distributions were
chosen to represent these parameters as they allow parameters to assume extreme bounds without
presuming any more knowledge about the actual parameter distribution. Choosing a Gaussian
distribution to represent the parameter uncertainty would have expressed the highest confidence in values
surrounding the mean, something justifiable only in the presence of a larger number of parameter data
points.
The parameter representing the percentage of cable consumed in fire was selected as highly
uncertain due to the lack of information about building cable burned in fire. As mentioned before, the
frequency of fires in buildings containing the cables of interest was known, thus the natural extreme
bounds were that anywhere from 0 percent to 100 percent of the cable contained in these buildings would
burn in the fire (equivalent to 0-1.1 percent of all cable installed in the case of CMP and CMR). A
number of factors complicate this picture. Communication cables are contained behind fire resistant walls
and are protected by sprinkler systems. They are formulated using effective flame retardants. Finally, out
of all of the fires reported in the U.S., it is likely that a high proportion are minor and do not cause
174
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
extensive damage to the whole structure. Thus, the extreme values stated above do not reflect an accurate
bounding of the likely value of the percentage of cable consumed in fire. The bounding values chosen
were 0 percent and 20 percent of the cable contained in buildings that have fires being burned. These
values were chosen as somewhat arbitrary reductions of the natural extreme bounds in response to the
recognition that fire protection methods would skew actual burn percentages toward the lower end.
The percentage of cable resins going to recycling was another source of substantial uncertainty in
the end-of-life. As noted previously, a report for the European Commission stated that 20 percent of
thermoplastics going to recycling was a justifiable high-end estimate. Using this European estimate as a
surrogate for U.S.-specific data, the expected extreme bounds of 0 percent and 20 percent of the chopped
cable resins being recycled were chosen.
As described earlier, the parameter representing the percentage of lead leached into the ground
assumed that 0-100 percent of the leachate would ultimately escape any landfill lining and leachate
collection system (equivalent to 0-1.5 percent of total lead escaping for cable directly landfilled or
equivalent to 0-10 percent of total lead escaping for cable resins landfilled after chopping). As there was
no other information to narrow the uncertainty bounds, the natural extreme bounds were used to model
parameter uncertainty.
The final uncertainty distribution represented a data discrepancy for extruding energy data for the
CMR and CMP cables. Inconsistent and highly divergent energy values used in the cable extrusion
process led to high uncertainty for the extruding data. Large inter-company variation in extrusion energy
combined with small numbers of data sets for each cable type resulted in a need to create proxy values for
the energy of extrusion of the CMR and CMP baseline cable types, which both had only one contributing
data point. Thus, the range of the data sets collected as primary data, or, in cases where there was only
one data point, the range spanning the data point and the proxy data point, was used to set the bounds of
the uncertainty analysis, given that none of the data could be identified as anomalous. A uniform
distribution was used to bound the energy used in the leaded and lead-free cable extrusion inventories.
In the Monte Carlo analysis, the parameters described above were varied simultaneously, to
observe the distribution of the LCIA indicator results given the ranges of uncertainties in all four
parameters. The parameters varied were only applicable to the CMR and CMP full life-cycle analyses.
Five thousand simulations were run (i.e., five thousand combinations of uncertain parameter values were
chosen) to generate a distribution of the LCIA indicator results represented as the mean and various
percentile ranges around the mean.
3.4.1.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results
Tables 3-117 through 3-120 present the uncertainty analysis results for the CMR and CMP lead
and lead-free cable alternative analyses. Results are presented as means and 10th/90th percentiles of the
impact distribution (i.e., the values below which 10 percent and 90 percent of the Monte Carlo iterative
results fell). These results give a sense of the magnitude of uncertainty in the impact categories resulting
from model parameter uncertainty. The majority of the impact categories' 10th and 90th percentile
ranges overlap for both the CMP and CMR lead versus lead-free comparisons, revealing few major
differences between the alternatives. An example of this can be seen in the non-renewable resources
impact category from the CMR comparison. The baseline cable 10th-90th percentile range is 98.6-185 kg
of non-renewable resources used/km of cable, which overlaps the lead-free range of 87.1-155 kg of non-
renewable resources used/km of cable. The overlap implies that, given the lack of precision in the
175
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
uncertain parameters, it cannot definitively be stated that the lead-free cable alternative uses less non-
renewable resources. Chapter 4 summarizes these results in terms of the overall LCA results.
Table 3-117
CMR Baseline LCIA Uncertainty Analysis Results
LCIA Results
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air participates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. non-ca
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public non-ca
Pot. public cancer
Pot. Aq. ecotox
NRR = non-renewable
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
resource use; Pot. = potential; occ.
Mean
141
2410
0.0166
90.1
5.89E-06
0.125
0.730
0.0781
0.00899
71.8
3.53
1470
0.832
17.7
= occupational; aq.
10tn Percentile
98.6
2020
0.0163
69.3
3.55E-06
0.117
0.563
0.0682
0.00564
70.8
3.52
770
0.741
6.44
ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity
90tn Percentile
185
2820
0.0168
111
8.26E-06
0.133
0.899
0.0881
0.0124
72.8
3.54
2170
0.923
28.7
Table 3-118
CMR Lead-free LCIA Uncertainty Analysis Results
LCIA Results
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. non-ca
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public non-ca
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
NRR = non-renewable
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
resource use; Pot. = potential; occ.
Mean
121
2360
0.0181
83.7
4.98E-06
0.134
0.680
0.0816
0.00760
77.6
3.69
280
0.836
0.113
= occupational; aq.
10tn Percentile 90tn
87.1
2050
0.0179
67.3
3.11E-06 6,
0.127
0.547
0.0737
0.00492
76.9
3.69
216
0.765
0.0786
ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity
Percentile
155
2680
0.0183
100
.81E-06
0.140
0.810
0.0893
0.0102
78.4
3.70
343
0.908
0.148
The results from the uncertainty analysis for the CMR baseline and lead-free cable alternatives
display substantial variability in a number of the impact categories. For the leaded cable results, the
categories with high variability were non-renewable resource use, potential public chronic non-cancer
toxicity, potential aquatic ecotoxicity, ozone depletion potential, and eutrophication potential, whose
176
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
standard deviations were 22 percent, 35 percent, 47 percent, 29 percent, and 27 percent of their means,
respectively (not reported in Tables 3-117 and 3-118). For the lead-free cables, the results also show
substantial variability in a number of impacts: non-renewable resources, potential aquatic ecotoxicity,
ozone depletion potential, and eutrophication potential, whose standard deviations were 20 percent, 22
percent, 27 percent, and 25 percent of their means, respectively.
Table 3-119
CMP Baseline LCIA Uncertainty Analysis Results
LCIA Results
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. non-ca
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public non-ca
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Mean
237
3940
0.0132
181
1.16E-03
0.0885
0.877
0.0746
0.0125
49.2
2.16
951
0.736
8.63
10tn Percentile
200
3600
0.0124
163
1.16E-03
0.0814
0.732
0.0660
0.00961
48.3
2.15
606
0.658
3.22
90tn Percentile
273
4280
0.0140
198
1.16E-03
0.0956
1.02
0.0830
0.0154
50.0
2.17
1300
0.813
14.1
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity
Table 3-120
CMP Lead-free LCIA Uncertainty Analysis Results
LCIA Results
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. non-ca
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public non-ca
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
NRR = non-renewable
Units per km Cable
Kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
Kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
resource use; Pot. = Potential; occ.
Mean
219
3740
0.0144
171
0.00110
0.0869
0.819
0.0726
0.0114
46.8
2.22
358
0.702
0.151
= occupational; aq.
10tn Percentile
187
3440
0.0137
155
0.00110
0.0807
0.693
0.0651
0.00890
46.0
2.21
297
0.633
0.118
ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity
90tn Percentile
252
4050
0.0150
187
0.00111
0.0932
0.947
0.0802
0.0140
47.5
2.23
420
0.771
0.185
177
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The CMP baseline and lead-free cable alternatives display less relative variability (measured as
standard deviation normalized by the mean) than those of the CMR cable alternatives overall. However,
the potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity indicators still display
substantial variability in the baseline case (standard deviations are 27 percent and 47 percent of their
means, respectively; not shown in Tables 3-119 and 3-120). The lead-free cable results show
substantially less relative variability than those of the baseline cable, with no impact indicators' standard
deviations exceeding 20 percent of their mean.
3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis
The variance of results from the Monte Carlo analysis emanated from the concurrent variation of
four parameters. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was necessary to assess the magnitude of each
parameter's contribution. A built-in sensitivity analysis function from the GaBi4 software was used to
determine the amount of variance in each impact category attributable to each of the dynamic parameters.
The sensitivity analysis was used to probe the contributions to overall impact uncertainty from each
of the stochastic parameters. Results of the analysis, shown in Table 3-121, give the largest contributing
parameter along with the percent variance in the impact result attributable to this dominant parameter.
It is evident from Table 3-121 that one parameter is responsible for most of the variation in impacts
for each cable type: the energy used for cable extrusion. However, for the CMR and CMP leaded cables,
the uncertainty in the public chronic non-cancer toxicity and the aquatic ecotoxicity categories are
dominated by the landfill leachate parameter, and for all cables, thermoplastic recycling dominates the
landfill space use indicators.
Table 3-1 21
LCIA Sensitivity Analysis
Impact Category
Results a'b
CMR
Baseline
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. non-ca
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public non-ca
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
E(98)
E (>50)c
TR (63)
E(98)
E(98)
E(99)
E(94)
E(98)
E(98)
E(97)
E(98)
L(83)
E(86)
L(90)
Lead-free
E(98)
E (>50)c
TR (65)
E(97)
E(98)
E(99)
E(92)
E(98)
E(98)
E(96)
E(97)
E(98)
E(96)
E(98)
Baseline
E(98)
E (>50)c
TR (88)
E(99)
E(98)
E(99)
E(92)
E(98)
E(98)
E(96)
E(97)
L(78)
E(90)
L(90)
CMP
Lead-free
E(97)
E (>50)c
TR (86)
E(98)
E(98)
E(99)
E(92)
E(98)
E(98)
E(95)
E(97)
E(97)
E(96)
E(98)
3 Results are reported as the dominant parameter (percentage of the overall impact result variance for which it is
responsible).
bTR = Percentage of cable going to thermoplastics recycling; L = percentage of lead lost from landfill; E = Variance
of extrusion energy; NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic
ecotoxicity
c Actual percentage withheld to protect confidentiality.
178
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Life-cycle impact indicators were calculated for 14 impact categories to compare leaded and lead-
free cable resin constructions for Category 6 CMR, CMP, and NM-B cables. Point estimate results were
calculated using aggregated industry data from both primary and secondary data sources, along with
documented estimates or default values for the disposition of cables at their end-of-life. For model
parameters that possessed a large degree of uncertainty, a Monte Carlo-based uncertainty analysis was
conducted to identify the likelihood that observed differences are real. For NM-B cables, extrusion data
were not obtained and therefore, only a cradle-to-gate analysis (materials extraction to resin
compounding) was conducted. Similarly, complete extrusion data were not obtained for the CMR zero-
halogen alternative. Therefore, to conduct a comparable analysis, only the compounding process and the
production of fuels and electricity needed to power the compounding process were included in the 3-way
CMR analysis of leaded, lead-free, and zero-halogen cables.
Within this chapter, CMR, CMP, and NM-B results are presented in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3,
respectively. Summary tables in each section list the total impact indicators for each impact category for
the baseline and alternative cables, followed by the percent change for each category. The differences in
the indicator scores within an impact category simply represent relative differences between the
alternatives. The scores are not normalized to determine if they present a significant environmental
impact. The scores for one category have no bearing on scores for another, which is evidenced by the
differing units used in each category. Further, the percent change in one category is independent of the
percent change in another category, and any difference does not indicate that one category is of greater or
lesser concern than another category.
The summary results tables also provide relative quality ratings for each impact category. These
are based on the quality of data used to quantify the LCI and LCIA, and the models used for each LCIA
methodology. The basis for these ratings, as well as overall limitations and uncertainties are described in
Chapter 5 (Section 5.3). Finally, the summary results tables in Section 4.1 and 4.2 indicate which impact
categories have likely significant differences between the lead and lead-free alternative. These are only
relevant to the CMR and CMP full life-cycle comparisons for which uncertainty analyses were conducted.
Additional summary tables are also presented in the following sections (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3), which
indicate the process and individual flow responsible for the greatest percent of the total impact indicator.
This information is provided to assist in identifying potential improvement opportunities, and should be
used in conjunction with the information given in Section 5.2 ("Opportunities for Improvement").
4.1 CMR Results Summary
The full life-cycle comparative analysis of leaded (baseline) and lead-free cables are summarized
in Table 4-1. The point estimate results from the CMR impact assessment showed mixed results for both
leaded and lead-free cable types, though the disparities for most impact categories were minimal. In eight
impact categories, the lead-free cable construction had less environmental impacts; however, six of those
categories generated inconclusive results due to the large uncertainty (i.e., the 10th and 90th percentiles of
the two alternatives overlap, which eliminates the possibility of statistically significant differences). The
remaining two categories that had less environmental burden and that were significantly different (at 80
percent confidence) were potential public chronic non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity.
Both categories had a medium data quality rating.
179
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 4-1
CMR LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-free.
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ. noncancer
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Baseline
Impact
Indicator
142
2070
0.0166
90.3
5.91 E-06
0.125
0.731
0.0782
0.00902
71.8
3.53
1460
0.834
17.5
Pb-free
Impact Percent
Indicator Change
121
1970
0.0181
83.5
4.95E-06
0.134
0.678
0.0815
0.00756
77.6
3.69
279
0.837
0.113
-1 5%
-5%
9%
-8%
-16%
7%
-7%
4%
-16%
8%
5%
-81%
0.3%
-99%
Quality
Rating
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M-L
M
M-L
M
Possible
Signif.
Diff.a
Y
Y
Y
Y
3 "Y" indicates the alternatives were significantly different at 80% confidence (this confidence interval was used as it was
part of a built-in program in GaBi4).
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = Potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity;
equiv. = equivalents; Signif. Diff. = significant difference.
Of the six categories that showed lower burden for the leaded cable, three displayed potential
statistical significance (i.e., did not have overlapping 10th and 90th percentile results due to model
parameter uncertainty): landfill space use, potential occupational non-cancer toxicity, and potential
occupational cancer toxicity. Potential occupational non-cancer and landfill space use were assigned a
medium quality rating, while potential occupational cancer toxicity was assigned a medium-low quality
rating due to the scarcity of quantitative toxicity data (i.e., cancer slope factors).
The sensitivity analysis results (Section 3.4.2) revealed that the large uncertainty ranges were
mostly attributable to the uncertainty in the energy needed for cable extrusion. For the leaded cable, this
was the case for all categories except potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic
ecotoxicity, where leachate uncertainty dominated, and landfill space use, where the percent of resins
recycled after chopping had more effect on the results. For the lead-free cable, the uncertainty in all
impact result categories was driven by extrusion energy, except for the landfill space use, which was most
sensitive to the percent of resins recycled after chopping. These results indicate that the highly uncertain
EOL parameters (e.g., percent of cables burned in a fire) did not greatly affect most of the overall
comparative life-cycle CMR results.
As shown in Table 4-2, the top contributing process for several impact categories was the
generation of electricity (needed to power the cable extrusion process in the cable manufacturing life-
cycle stage). Electricity generation was the top process in the baseline cable case for 6 categories: non-
renewable resource use, energy use, global warming, ozone depletion, air acidification, and
eutrophication. For the lead-free cable alternative, the generation of electricity for cable extrusion was
180
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
the top contributing process for the same 6 impact categories, plus the potential public non-cancer toxicity
and potential aquatic toxicity impact categories. Jacketing resin production was the top contributing
process for photochemical smog formation, air particulates, and potential public cancer toxicity for both
cable alternatives. Municipal solid waste landfilling was the top contributing process to potential public
non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity in the baseline case. Lead from landfilling was the
top flow contributing to potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity. Finally,
the compounding of the jacketing was the top contributing process to the potential occupational non-
cancer and cancer toxicity impact categories for both cable alternatives. This helps identify potential
areas of environmental improvement; however, it must be noted that these results are in the context of the
comparison of resin systems and their additives, so focusing on top contributors identified here does not
provide the complete impacts from the entire cable (e.g., the copper conductor is excluded).
Table 4-2
CMR Summary of Top Contributors to LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-
free.
Impact
Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone
depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancer
Pot. occ.
cancer
Pot. public
noncancer
Pot. public
cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Baseline
Top Process
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
MSW landfill
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
MSW landfill
Jacketing resin
production
MSW landfill
Top Flow
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC waste
Carbon dioxide
CFC11
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR #2 (non-
halogen)3
Phthalatesb
Lead (water)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Lead
Pb-free
Top Process
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
MSW landfill
Electricity
generation
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
Electricity
generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity
generation
Top flow
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC waste
Carbon dioxide
CFC11
VOC
(unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR #2 (non-
halogen)3
Phthalatesb
Sulfur dioxide
(air)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Chlorine
(dissolved)
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; PVC =
polyvinyl chloride; MSW= municipal solid waste; CFC = chlorofluorocarbon; VOC = volatile organic compound; FR =
flame retardant.
a Proprietary
b Flows given default toxicity hazard values due to lack of toxicological data
181
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
The 3-way CMR analysis (leaded versus lead-free versus zero-halogen) showed that for the
cradle-to-gate analysis, the zero-halogen alternative required greater energy. This was a function of more
energy required per mass of compounded resin produced, as well as the halogen-free cable having a
higher mass-to-length ratio. Thus, on a functional unit basis, the total energy requirement was much
larger (quantities withheld for proprietary considerations). In the CMR 3-way results, the production of
electricity drove most impact categories, except for landfill space use and potential occupational non-
cancer and cancer toxicity, for which the jacketing process was the top contributor. For air particulate
production, the lead and lead-free cables were driven by jacketing compounding, but the zero-halogen
was driven by electricity production. Note that the robustness of these data is limited, as the zero-halogen
data are only based on one company's data. Further, this does not provide full life-cycle information and
should not be construed to represent a full life-cycle analysis.
These results also demonstrate that only looking at one manufacturing process, even on a
functionally equivalent basis, does not adequately estimate impacts over the full life cycle. This is
evidenced by comparing the full life-cycle analysis with the partial life-cycle analysis, which only takes
into consideration jacketing compounding and associated energy. In the full life-cycle analysis, the lead-
free cable had lower impact indicators than the baseline in 8 impact categories; however for the partial
analysis, only 1 category had lower impacts for the lead-free cable. Of the 5 categories in the full life-
cycle analysis that had the greatest likelihood of statistically significant differences, 3 had results reversed
in the partial life cycle (i.e., significantly less burden in the full life cycle versus more burden in the
partial life cycle or vice versa): potential occupational cancer toxicity, potential public non-cancer
toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity.
4.2 CMP Results Summary
The full life-cycle comparative analysis of leaded (baseline) and lead-free cables are summarized
in Table 4-3. The point estimates from the CMP cable comparisons showed all categories except for
landfill space use had fewer impacts for the lead-free compared to the leaded cables. However, only five
categories did not have overlapping 10th and 90th uncertainty ranges: ozone depletion, potential
occupational non-cancer toxicity, potential occupational cancer toxicity, potential public chronic non-
cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity, suggesting greater confidence in these results.
The sensitivity analysis results (Section 3.4.2) revealed that, as was the case with the CMR cable
alternatives, the large uncertainty ranges were mostly attributable to the uncertainty in the extrusion
energy. For the leaded cable, this was the case for all categories except potential public non-cancer
toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity, where leachate uncertainty dominated, and landfill space use,
where the percent of resins recycled after chopping had more effect on the results. For the lead-free
cable, the uncertainty in all impact result categories was driven by extrusion energy, except for the landfill
space use, which was most sensitive to the percent of resins recycled after chopping. These results
indicate that the highly uncertain EOL parameters (e.g., percent of cables burned in a fire) did not greatly
affect most of the overall comparative life-cycle CMP results.
182
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table 4-3
CMP LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-free
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancerb
Pot. occ. cancerb
Pot. public
noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Baseline
Impact
Indicator
237
3770
0.0132
181
0.00116
0.0886
0.877
0.0746
0.0125
49.2
2.16
952
0.735
8.64
Pb-free
Impact
Indicator
219
3570
0.0144
171
0.00110
0.0868
0.819
0.0726
0.0114
46.8
2.22
358
0.701
0.151
Percent
Change
^8%
-5%
9%
^5%
^5%
-2%
-7%
^3%
-9%
-5%
3%
-62%
Quality
Rating
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M-L
M
M-L
M
Possible
Signif.
Diff.a
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
a "Y" indicates the alternatives were significantly different at 80% confidence (this confidence interval was used as it
was part of a built-in program in GaBi4).
b FEP production, which came from 2 primary datasets, was modeled with 2 industrial precursor chemicals
functioning as inputs; production of PVC, the other major resin used in CMP cables, and which came from a
secondary dataset, was modeled as if all of the materials came from ground (mining of inert or low-toxicity inputs),
and did not explicitly include industrial precursor chemicals. In order to be more consistent across resins, the
contributions from industrial precursor chemicals in the FEP supply chain were removed prior to calculation of the
potential occupational toxicity results.
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = Potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity;
equiv. = equivalents; Signif. Diff. = significant difference.
Table 4-4 shows the generation of electricity was the top contributor to the following five impact
categories for the lead-free cable: non-renewable resources, air acidification, and eutrophication,
potential public non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity impact categories. For the baseline
cable, electricity generation was top contributor to three impact categories: non-renewable resources, air
acidification, and eutrophication. For both CMP cable alternatives, the production of insulation resin
(FEP) and jacketing resin (PVC), were each top contributors to three impact categories. FEP production
was top contributor for both alternatives in energy use, global warming, and ozone depletion. PVC
production was top contributor for both alternatives in photochemical smog, particulate matter, and
potential public cancer toxicity. For the baseline CMP cable, the top contributing process to potential
public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity was municipal solid waste landfilling. For
both of these categories, the top material flow contributor was lead assumed to leach from the landfill into
groundwater. For both cable alternatives, the landfill space use impact category was also dominated by
the municipal solid waste landfilling process. This information helps identify potential areas of
environmental improvement; however, it must be noted that these results are in the context of the
183
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
comparison of resin systems and their additives, so focusing on top contributors identified here does not
provide the complete impacts from the entire cable (e.g., the copper conductor is excluded).
Table 4-4
CMP Summary of Top Contributors to LCIA Results - Full life cycle: Baseline and Lead-
free.
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Particulate matter
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancerc
Pot. occ. cancerc
Pot. public
noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Baseline
Top process Top flow
Electricity generation
Insulation resin
production
MSW landfill
Insulation resin
production
Insulation resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Natural gas
production
Jacketing
compounding
MSW landfill
Jacketing resin
production
MSW landfill
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC Waste
Carbon dioxide
Refrigerant #5a
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
Natural gasb
Flame retardant #3b
Lead (water)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Lead
Pb-free
Top Process Top flow
Electricity generation
Insulation resin
production
MSW landfill
Insulation resin
production
Insulation resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Natural gas
production
Jacketing
compounding
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Inert rock
Natural gas
PVC Waste
Carbon dioxide
Refrigerant #5a
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
Natural gasb
Flame retardant #3b
Sulfur dioxide (air)
Nitrogen oxides (air)b
Chlorine (dissolved)
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; PVC =
polyvinyl chloride; MSW= municipal solid waste; HCFC = hydrochlorofluorocarbon; VOC = volatile organic compound
3 Proprietary
b Flows given default toxicity hazard values due to lack of toxicological data
c FEP production, which came from 2 primary datasets, was modeled with 2 industrial precursor chemicals functioning
as inputs; production of PVC, the other major resin used in CMP cables, and which came from a secondary dataset,
was modeled as if all of the materials came from ground (mining of inert or low-toxicity inputs), and did not explicitly
include industrial precursor chemicals. In order to be more consistent across resins, the contributions from industrial
precursor chemicals in the FEP supply chain were removed prior to calculation of the potential occupational toxicity
results.
184
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
4.4 NM-B Results Summary
The NM-B results are based on cradle-to-gate data and therefore life-cycle conclusions cannot be
made. The processes modeled are presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2.5.3). For the NM-B cradle-to-gate
results, all categories had reduced environmental burdens for lead-free cables compared to the baseline,
except potential occupational non-cancer toxicity. Since CMR and CMP full life-cycle analyses showed
little impact from EOL (except landfill space use, potential public non-cancer toxicity, and potential
aquatic ecotoxicity), those relevant impact categories may also not appreciably change if the entire life
cycle were considered. However, impact categories with more impact from EOL processes are more
likely to have differing outcomes than determined by the cradle-to-gate analysis. Therefore, landfill space
use, potential public non-cancer toxicity, and potential aquatic ecotoxicity are given a lower quality rating
for the NM-B partial life-cycle analysis. No uncertainty or sensitivity analyses were run for this
comparison as cable extrusion, use, and end-of-life processes were excluded from the analysis.
Table 4-5
NM-B Results - Partial life cycle: Baseline and Lead-Free
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air particulates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancer
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public
noncancer
Pot. public cancer
Pot. aq. ecotox
Units per km Cable
kg
MJ
m3
kg CO2-equiv.
kg CFC 11-equiv.
kg ethene-equiv.
kg SO2-equiv.
kg
kg phosphate-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg noncancertox-equiv.
kg cancertox-equiv.
kg aqtox-equiv.
Baseline
Impact
Indicator
70.6
1530
0.00251
52.2
9.79E-07
0.119
0.479
0.0862
0.00169
20.0
8.23
189
0.828
0.0894
Pb-free
Impact Percent
Indicator Change
59.7
1440 -•;••:.
0.00221 -i .; '••:-.
48.3 -7v.,
6.61 E-07 i:-,,
0.119 C ;
0.449 -•;••:.
0.0759 i : '•„
0.00135 :C ;
26.7 33%
7.08 urv,
171 -i')-;.
0.798 4v,,
0.0626 3C ;
Quality
Rating
M
M
M-L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M-L
M
M-L
M
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = Potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity;
equiv. = equivalents.
In the NM-B analysis, which excludes the extrusion process and subsequent downstream
processes, the production of the jacketing resin, PVC, more often dominated impacts (8 impact
categories), followed by electricity generation from compounding (2 impact categories), then limestone
production (1 category), insulation compounding (1 category) jacketing compounding (1 category) and
phthalate production (1 category) (see Table 4-6). These results identify processes that could be the focus
of environmental improvement opportunities. However, it must be noted that these results are in the
185
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
context of the comparison of resin systems and their additives, so focusing on top contributors identified
here does not provide the complete impacts from the entire cable (e.g., the copper conductor is excluded
from the analysis).
Table 4-6
NM-B Summary of Top Contributors to LCIA Results - Partial life cycle: Baseline and
Lead-free.
Baseline
Impact Category
NRR
Energy
Landfill space
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Smog
Acidification
Air participates
Eutrophication
Pot. occ.
noncancer
Pot. occ. cancer
Pot. public
noncancer
Top process
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Limestone production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Insulation
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing resin
production
Pot. public cancer Jacketing resin
Pot. aq. ecotox
production
Phthalate production
Top flow
Inert rock
Natural gas
Treatment
residue (mineral)
Carbon dioxide
CFC-11
VOC
(unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR #2 (non-
halogen)3
Plasticizer#2ab
Sulfur dioxide
(air)
Nitrogen oxides
(air)b
Copper (+1, +2)
Pb-free
Top Process
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Limestone production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Electricity generation
Insulation
compounding
Jacketing
compounding
Jacketing resin
production
Jacketing resin
production
Phthalate production
Top flow
Natural gas
Natural gas
Treatment residue
(mineral)
Carbon dioxide
CFC-11
VOC (unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide
Dust
Chemical oxygen
demand
FR#2 (non-halogen)3
Phthalate plasticizer
#5a'b
Sulfur dioxide (air)
VOC (unspecified)
(air)b
Copper (+1 , +2)
NRR = non-renewable resource use; Pot. = potential; occ. = occupational; aq. ecotox = aquatic ecotoxicity; CFC =
chlorofluorocarbon; VOC = volatile organic compound; FR = flame retardant.
a Proprietary
b Flows given default toxicity hazard values due to lack of toxicological data
186
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
The general conclusions (Section 5.1) of this chapter have been divided into three sub-sections:
upstream materials and their production processes; energy sources; and end-of-life disposition. Section
5.2 details the opportunities for improvement, and is divided in the same manner in order to maximize the
efficiency of use by interested parties in the wire and cable industry. Section 5.3 details the limitations
and uncertainties of the LCIA results. Finally, Section 5.4 lists potential areas for future research, both to
enhance future LCIs and LCIAs, and to conduct more exhaustive and targeted investigations into material
flows, processes, or impacts of concern.
5.1 General Conclusions
Across all cable types examined in this study, the lead-free cable formulations had lower
environmental impacts for the majority of impact categories. In the CMR cable alternatives, the lead-free
formulation had lower mean impacts in 8 out of 14 impact categories. In the CMP cable alternatives, the
difference was even more substantial, as the lead-free formulation showed lower average environmental
burden in 12 of the 14 impact categories. The results from the NM-B cable were similar, with the lead-
free formulation showing less environmental burden in all categories except for potential occupational
non-cancer toxicity. However, results for CMR and CMP cable were complicated by parameter
uncertainty. After factoring in parameter uncertainty, CMR lead-free cable only showed significantly
reduced burden in 2 impact categories instead of 8, and baseline CMR cable showed significantly reduced
burden in 3 impact categories instead of 6. Similarly, CMP lead-free cable only showed significantly
reduced burden in 3 impact categories instead of 12 after factoring in parameter uncertainty; and
significantly increased burden in one category. Thus, for most impacts, overall disparities between cable
alternatives after the factoring in of parameter uncertainty were small to minimal.
The uncertainty analysis shows that several impact categories are sensitive to the variation of
model parameters described earlier. Further refinement of the inventory data and EOL assumptions that
are the subject of the uncertainty analyses would help reduce uncertainties and lead to more reliable study
results. In addition, LCA results such as those presented here provide a type of screening analysis where
differences across alternatives in various impact categories are shown in the context of uncertainty. In
some instances discernable differences can not be inferred; however, where more significant differences
are likely (e.g., potential public non-cancer and potential aquatic ecotoxicity) further refinement is
warranted, such as using health risk assessment techniques to begin to identify human and ecological
health risks.
5.1.1 Materials
The upstream production and use of certain materials in wire and cable formulations has a
significant effect on many of the overall life-cycle impact category results. The materials that contribute
to cable-associated environmental burdens are, in order of decreasing impact, lead heat stabilizers,
jacketing and insulation resins, phthalate plasticizers, and filler materials (e.g., calcined clay and
limestone). The various burdens due to material choices and production processes are detailed below.
Aside from the use of leaded and lead-free heat stabilizers, the life cycle inventories of the
various wire and cable products examined in this study did not show large material differences in
formulation between leaded and lead-free alternatives. However, in a number of instances, small
formulation differences resulted in impact result discrepancies. Upon further investigation of this issue,
187
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
including consultation with a number of primary data contributors, it remained unclear whether these
slight material differences arise as artifacts of asymmetrical upstream datasets for the leaded and lead-free
products or are indicative of actual "global" differences. As this is the case, the leaded and lead-free heat
stabilizers are the only materials that differentiate the alternatives with a high degree of certainty. This is
not to say that the other material differences found in this study should be ignored. It is possible that
asymmetry in the markets for both leaded and lead-free products (i.e., companies that provide one product
and do not provide the alternative), or actual intra-company formulation differences lead to a "global"
difference in the material formulations. However, given the lack of information about the proportion of
market share modeled, we cannot determine such a "global" difference with certainty. Consequently,
companies that are looking for ways to reduce impacts through material formulation are encouraged to
examine the difference in impacts due to choice of stabilizer, as this represents the most certain result of
formulation differences. The environmental impacts resulting from the use of lead heat stabilizers are
seen primarily at the product EOL, and, therefore are discussed in Section 5.1.3 ("EOL").
The production and use of a number of other upstream materials results in substantial
environmental burden. Resins used in jacketing and insulation make up not only in a large proportion of
the cable mass but also use a large proportion of the energy input. When combined, the energy inputs for
jacketing and insulation resin production are approximately equivalent to the energy inputs required for
all grid electricity generation (the top contributor to energy use) for both CMR and CMP cables.
Insulation and especially jacketing resin production processes also represent many of the top
contributors for potential public cancer toxicity for CMR, CMP, and NM-B alternatives. The
toxicological burden is primarily a result of NOx and unspecified VOC air emissions during resin
production, with a small contribution from particulate matter. Though these compounds have all been
given default cancer hazard values, the potential for human health impacts warrants further inspection.
NOx emissions from resin production also contribute considerably to the air acidification impact
category, and particulate matter emissions contribute to air particulate production.
There are a number of hazardous chemicals that appear in the cable jacketing and supply chain
during the production of CMP cable. Natural gas is the top contributor to the potential occupational non-
cancer toxicity impact category. It is not clear if there is any potential for worker exposure during their
upstream process use; however, as this is a screening-level assessment, their use may warrant further
inspection. Due to the fact that the other major resin used in the production of CMP cable (PVC) was
modeled as starting with mined inputs (low-toxicity precursors) rather than industrial precursor
chemicals, we removed the industrial precursor chemicals from the insulation resin production to produce
a more consistent occupational toxicity comparison across resin types. This does not, however, obviate
the fact that industrial precursor chemicals are present during the manufacture of both resin types, and
that possible additional occupational toxicity impacts contributed by these precursor chemicals are not
included in these results. The potential occupational non-cancer toxicity for the CMR and NM-B cable
alternatives is dominated by fire retardant #2, a proprietary chemical to which a default non-cancer hazard
value was applied. Though the toxicity of this chemical has not been unequivocally confirmed, the
degree to which it dominates other contributors to this impact category may indicate the usefulness of
further inquiry.
Another interesting finding was that within the CMR cable alternatives, the lead-free cable has
more potential occupational non-cancer toxicity burden than the baseline cable, while within the CMP
cable alternatives the opposite is true. This is due, in the case of CMR cable, to the use of more
compounded jacketing in the lead-free cable; and, in the case of CMP cable, to the use of less insulation
188
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
resin. These material use differences had no uncertainty applied to them, as it was unclear how to
implement this in the life-cycle model, while reflecting the current wire and cable market. It is possible,
however, that the significant findings are an artifact of the small primary/secondary data sample size
and/or asymmetric upstream data.
In all cable types, carbon dioxide was found to be the biggest contributor to global warming;
however, other emissions were determined to contribute substantially to this impact, as well. In the CMP
cable alternatives, HCFCs produced primarily during insulation and jacketing resin production were
found to be a sizeable contributor (>40 percent) to the overall burden. These compounds are also
implicated as top contributors to photochemical smog formation.
Within the jacketing compounding processes of both the baseline and lead-free CMR cable
alternatives, phthalate plasticizers constitute a sizeable material input. Phthalates also represent greater
than 60 percent of the potential occupational cancer toxicity impact for the overall life cycle. As is the
case with most of the top contributors to the cancer toxicity impact categories, this material received a
default cancer toxicity hazard value. Like fire retardant #2, the toxicity of this suite of chemicals has not
been unequivocally confirmed, though the degree to which it dominates this impact category potentially
warrants further inquiry into issues of chronic toxicity in workers.
5.1.2 Energy Sources
Energy sources throughout the wire and cable life cycle, particularly the generation of electricity
for use in upstream material production and cable extrusion, played an enormous role in the overall
environmental burden of wire and cable products analyzed here. For the CMR cable alternatives, the
generation of electricity for cable extrusion was the top contributing process in 6 and 8 impact categories
for the baseline and lead-free cables, respectively. For the CMP cable alternatives, the generation of
electricity for cable extrusion was the top contributing process in 3 and 5 impact categories for the
baseline and lead-free cables, respectively. For the NM-B cable alternatives, the generation of electricity
for cable extrusion was the top contributing process in 3 and 5 impact categories for the baseline and lead-
free cables, respectively. Other energy sources such as natural gas showed up as top contributing flows in
two CMR impact categories, but played a far more minor role in overall environmental burden than that
of electricity generation.
The sensitivity analysis results (Table 3-121) revealed that the large impact uncertainty ranges in
both the CMR and CMP cable were mostly attributable to the uncertainty in the energy needed for cable
extrusion. This was the case for all categories except potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential
aquatic ecotoxicity, where leachate uncertainty dominated in the baseline cable, and landfill space use,
where the percent of resins recycled after chopping had a greater effect on the results for both cable
alternatives. The range of extrusion energy modeled using a uniform uncertainty distribution was quite
large (>50 percent of the aggregated value in both directions), so the resulting sensitivity of the model
results to this parameter was not entirely surprising. However, the fact that the uncertainty associated
with the use of energy during cable extrusion is based on actual inter-company variability is a compelling
reminder that the sample size of the primary/secondary datasets used, and the product or material market
share represented by these datasets are important in determining the accuracy of the life-cycle modeling
effort.
189
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
5.1.3 EOL
This study demonstrated that the EOL stage generates the most sizeable impact differences
between baseline leaded cable and lead-free cable. For both the CMR and CMP cable types, the
difference between the two cables was most pronounced in the potential public chronic non-cancer
(CMR: 1,459 versus 279; CMP: 952 versus 358 kg noncancertox-equivalent) and potential aquatic
ecotoxicity impacts (CMR: 17 versus 0.11; CMP: 8.6 versus 0.15 kg aqtox-equivalent), with the lead-free
cables displaying much lower impacts in these categories. The other factors affecting these impacts, most
of which were present in both cable alternatives, were dwarfed by the contribution of lead from the end-
of-life disposition of baseline cable to landfilling and incineration. The sensitivity analysis showed that
the lead leachability assumptions are responsible for the majority of the uncertainty in these impact
results. However, even with the parameter representing the proportion of lead leachate escaping the
landfill subject to a high degree of uncertainty, the cable alternative impact differences were significant.
Cable incineration is another major contributor to the potential public non-cancer toxicity and
potential aquatic ecotoxicity impact categories, due to both landfilled lead-containing byproducts and lead
air emissions. The contribution of landfilled lead-containing waste to both toxicity categories is highly
uncertain, as has been mentioned throughout this report. The contributions from lead air emissions, on
the other hand, are less uncertain, and human exposure through inhalation or other pathways is clearly
possible.
In all cable types, carbon dioxide was found to be the biggest contributor to global warming;
however, other emissions were determined to contribute substantially to this impact, as well. In the CMR
cable alternatives, methane produced primarily in the landfill was found to be a sizeable contributor (~10
percent) to the overall burden. The production of methane during landfilling functions as a reminder that
sequestration of waste can have unintended adverse environmental consequences.
The top contributing material flow to landfill space use was found to be PVC waste. Over long
periods of time, or under more extreme environmental conditions, the degradation of PVC waste might
result in emissions of deleterious compounds. This is a reminder that the results of the study should be
understood in the context of geographic, temporal, and material boundaries. Another finding related to
the landfilling of cable scrap was that the thermoplastics recycling process modeled in this study
produced a substantial amount of landfilled waste (second largest contributor to landfill space use in both
CMR and CMP cable alternatives).
5.2 Opportunities for Improvement
Conclusions about opportunities for improvement throughout the wire and cable life cycle should
be understood solely within the context of the study boundaries. A prime example of this is the role of
copper conductor in the cable and its associated environmental burden. Copper was excluded from this
study in order to focus on materials and processes where the cables might be substantially different. This
being the case, it is important to keep in mind that copper represents a large part of the cable mass and,
had it been included, copper and the processes associated with its production and drawing would likely be
counted among the top contributing processes and flows for a number of impact categories if only one
cable were being evaluated in isolation (Krieger et a/., 2007).
One general opportunity for improvement relates to the gathering of data from different life-cycle
stages. The EOL disposition is difficult to model, given the scarcity of data and the rapidly fluctuating
markets for recycled materials. The feasibility of new recycling technologies, along with market
incentives such as the growth of secondary Asian markets, is changing the economics of wire and cable
190
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
scrap. Interestingly, the EOL disposition seems to drive far fewer impacts than processes on the upstream
side (e.g., electricity generation and resin production). This is probably due to the high combustion
efficiency of incinerators, the sequestration of hazardous waste byproducts in landfills, and the fairly low
rate of energy-intensive polymer recycling. This suggests that refining the upstream data, which could be
available via company participation, might be more valuable than refining EOL scenarios, where data are
currently difficult to obtain.
5.2.1 Materials
The lead byproducts that originate in the baseline cable heat-stabilizers are responsible for much
of the potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic ecotoxicity burdens for both CMR and
CMP baseline cable. This is the most substantive difference between the baseline and lead-free cable
with regards to any of the impact categories. The results are highly uncertain and dependent on
parameters which have not been well studied, such as the proportion of lead that leaches out of landfilled
resins and landfill failure rates, but the potential for human and ecological risk is not negligible. It is
important to attempt understand the potential hazards inherent in the use of lead stabilizers; however, this
study cannot provide definitive findings about actual risk or relative risk between cable alternatives due to
differences in stabilizer formulation.
This study has identified a number of areas where potential improvements could be made in resin
production. As indicated in Section 5.1.1, the overall proportion of energy used by the jacketing and
insulation resin production processes is high. Increasing energy efficiency in the resin production
processes, or using resins that require less energy input but meet all other specifications, would therefore
lead to substantial reductions in energy use overall, and decrease other environmental impacts. Resin
production might also be improved through the minimization of NOx, VOC, HCFC, and particulate
matter emissions, or through the use of resins that produce fewer emissions during production.
Substantial reduction of VOC emissions would not only reduce the potential human health burden, but
would also reduce the potential for photochemical smog formation, and reduction of NOx emissions
would reduce both the potential human health and air acidification burden. The generation of HCFCs
during resin production is implicated in both global warming potential and photochemical smog
formation impacts. The reduction of these emissions, therefore, would substantially reduce the burden in
these impact categories for both baseline and lead-free cable. Reductions in particulate matter emissions
would also have a multi-impact effect by reducing the potential public cancer toxicity and air particulate
emissions burdens. The use of toxic chemicals, such as hydrofluoric acid and chlorine gas in the CMP
cable jacketing and supply chain, and likely use of similar industrial precursors in the production of
other resins, calls attention to potential issues of plant safety and worker health, especially with regards
to the use of closed systems and consistent monitoring of indoor air quality.
The jacketing compounding processes of the baseline and lead-free CMR cable alternatives
contribute substantial burden in the potential occupational cancer toxicity impact category through the use
of fairly large quantities of phthalates (>10 percent). Due to phthalates' high affinity for lipids, exposure
in workers could potentially result in bioaccumulation over time. Though the issue of whether certain
phthalates function as carcinogens has not been entirely resolved, the monitoring of worker cohorts for
phthalate body burden and the minimization of direct contact with this suite of chemicals may be
advantageous.
191
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
5.2.2 Energy Sources
This study indicates that the life-cycle results are sensitive to changes in extrusion energy, which
varied greatly across different manufacturers. Therefore, identifying opportunities for reducing extrusion
energy inputs would likely have a notable effect on the results. Note that the CMR results were slightly
more sensitive to the extrusion energy uncertainty than the CMP data, since the extrusion energy
contributes a larger percent to the total life-cycle energy for CMR than for CMP. Other sources of energy
throughout the wire and cable life cycle, especially electricity generation for use in a number of upstream
and EOL processes, were top contributors to many of the impact categories. This reflects the importance
of focusing on energy efficiency in all stages of the wire and cable life cycle to reduce overall
environmental burden.
5.2.3 EOL
The results of this study suggest that potential public non-cancer toxicity and potential aquatic
ecotoxicity impact results are extremely sensitive to the ability of lead to leach out of cable jacketing and
then escape landfills linings and drainage systems. The implication is that if lead is contained in
impermeable landfills, it will not cause harm; however, any potential for landfill failure means a non-
negligible human health and ecotoxicity risk. Opportunities for improvement exist, therefore, in the
reduction of the quantities of lead entering the landfills (while recognizing potential tradeoffs if
alternatives are needed to replace the reduced amounts of lead) or management of municipal solid waste
and construction and demolition landfills, by ensuring that permeation of lead-containing landfill leachate
is minimized. As indicated in Section 5.1.3, although it is highly uncertain whether landfilled lead
residue is a public health and ecotoxicity hazard, airborne lead from baseline cable incineration that
escapes collection is a sure hazard. Ensuring that incineration facilities deal properly with air emissions
during cable burning would also reduce the potential human health and ecological burdens from such
processes.
EOL disposition choices for wire and cable products are complicated by the trade-offs inherent in
the processes themselves. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the sequestration of wire and cable
waste by landfilling is not without its source of hazards; and incineration, while advantageous from a
landfill space use perspective, creates airborne lead emissions, which are problematic from a public health
standpoint. Thermoplastic recycling is energy-intensive and creates new waste streams, which must be
landfilled. Thus, the choices are not straightforward, and depend, among other things, on economic
incentives and the value placed on different environmental burdens.
5.3 Limitations and Uncertainties
Limitations and uncertainties in the WCP LCIA results are due to limitations and uncertainties
inherent in LCIA methodology itself, as well as limitations and uncertainties in the project LCI data.
General limitations and uncertainties in the LCIA methodology were discussed in Section 3.3.3, and
limitations and uncertainties in the project inventory were discussed in Chapter 2 (Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.5,
2.3.4, and 2.4.5.3). In addition, particular limitations and uncertainties as they pertain to individual
impact category results are presented in Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.12.
The overall limitations and uncertainties associated with the results of each impact category are
summarized in Tables 4-1, 4-3, and 4-5 as relative data quality ratings. The data quality ratings are
qualitative indicators representing a high (H), medium (M), or low (L) level of overall quality, or some
combination thereof.
192
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
In general, the number of data sets available for the upstream and manufacturing primary data
was quite limited (Table 2-9). The greatest number of data sets collected for a particular process was 3
(e.g., CMR jacketing compounding). Where primary data could not be obtained, secondary data were
used for some of the upstream processes. In the case where a small number of samples possess majority
market share for a specific product, this limitation would not be highly influential on the accuracy of life-
cycle impact results. Data suppliers indicated this is likely the case with the wire and cable product
manufacturing and associated upstream processes, although we cannot quantitatively confirm this given
proprietary concerns of participating companies. Further investigation into the proportion of the market
modeled in this LCA is necessary to understand the potential magnitude of the uncertainty in the material
and energy inputs derived from the primary and secondary data used in this study.
EOL data relied on limited primary and secondary data, and was also modeled based on
assumptions or default values where data were not available to make representative assumptions. Given
the high uncertainty in EOL assumptions, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were conducted. The
sensitivity analysis results showed that most impact categories were not greatly affected by the EOL
assumptions. For example, varying the percent of cables burned from zero to a maximum upper bound
did not appreciably affect any of the CMR or CMP results. Leachate rate assumptions were the cause of
most of the variability for the potential public and aquatic toxicity for the leaded baseline cables, and the
percent of plastics going to thermoplastic recycling contributing highly to the uncertainty in the landfill
space use impact category. Otherwise, most of the uncertainty in the CMR and CMP full life-cycle
analyses was due to the variation of extrusion energy.
In the NM-B analysis, the full life cycle was not included due to lack of data. The same
limitations to the upstream and manufacturing stages apply to the NM-B as described above for the CMR
and CMP analyses. Lacking the full life-cycle analysis for this cable type, it is difficult to predict how the
partial life-cycle impacts would compare to a full life cycle. The partial life-cycle results can, however,
inform decisions about material and energy use during the cable insulation and jacketing compounding
processes.
Due to the limitations in the LCI data, no category was given a "high" relative quality rating (see
Tables 4-1, 4-3, and 4-5). In addition to LCI uncertainty, LCIA uncertainty contributes to the overall
limitations. The categories with greater model and data uncertainty in the LCIA were given "medium" to
"low" ratings. For example, the cancer impact category results were mostly based on materials that lack
data on carcinogenicity rather than being based on known carcinogens (see methodology in Chapter 3,
Section 3.2.10.1). As specific gaps in data contributing to stratospheric ozone depletion were identified,
this category was given a "low" rating. This was due to the lack of information on the generation and
emission of brominated hydrocarbons during brominated phthalate production. In addition, the toxicity-
based impact categories use inputs or outputs as surrogates for exposure and do not model fate and
transport and actual exposure. This could be the subject of further analysis, such as a targeted risk
assessment. Finally, the occupational toxicity categories are dependent on the boundaries of the various
datasets, and chemical intermediates that might be synthesized at a plant and consumed in subsequent
reactions were unavailable from secondary data sets, limiting the robustness of this impact category.
5.4 Recommendations for Further Research
Below are recommendations for further research that serve to address some of the limitations and
uncertainties of the Wire and Cable Project LCA described above. The research prescribed by these
193
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
recommendations would build on the work of this report by focusing on areas where a lack of data or the
need for tools that are more targeted than LCA restricted the present analysis.
The limitations of the WCP LCI (see Chapter 2) highlight the need for refinement of wire and
cable inventory data, with a focus on those processes that drive impacts. Some examples of material and
energy flows or processes that would benefit from inventory data refinement, due to magnitude of impact
and uncertainty, are:
• Extrusion energy
• Resin production, including FEP, MFA, HD PE, and PVC data
• Plasticizer production
• Brominated phthalate production
Many of the comparisons in this report were constrained by limitations in or a complete absence
of data describing particular life-cycle stages. Expanding the cradle-to-gate life-cycle models discussed
in this report to include all life-cycle stages would allow for more comprehensive and valuable
comparisons, as would refining assumptions in life-cycle stage where data were limited (e.g., EOL). The
following list identifies areas where expansion of model boundaries or data refinement would improve
LCA comparisons substantially:
• For zero-halogen CMR and NM-B lead and lead-free alternatives, adding extrusion data
would allow for a more complete LCA (or manufacturers could supplement the information
here with their own data to make a more complete assessment).
• Further refinement of EOL assumptions (e.g., percent of plastics to recycling after chopping).
• Landfill lining failure rates
• Rate of lead leaching out of cable jacketing
• Capture of lead air emissions by incinerator baghouses
• Detailing specific VOCs emitted during resin production
• Incorporate a scenario addressing uncontrolled burning (e.g., increase assumption of the
percent of cable burned); also develop data that would better model releases in fires from
each of the cable types (currently the fire data was based on PVC cables).
• Gather information on international trade in recycled cable and its constituent materials
This report presents screening-level results that explore the environmental burden of wire and
cable products. However, to accurately estimate a products' true burden in context-specific impact
categories such as human and ecological toxicity, it is necessary to conduct more targeted, rigorous
analyses of the product system. These analyses include investigations of chemical fate and transport,
human and ecological exposure assessment, refinement of toxicological information, and risk assessment
(e.g., fate and transport of lead out of a landfill, refinement of the lead hazard value, and potential for
exposure).
194
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
References
Abanades, S. G. Flamant, B. Gagnepain, and D. Gauthier. 2002 "Fat of Heavy Metals During Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration." Waste Management and Research. 20:55-68.
Andersson, P.; Simonson, M.; Resell, L.; Blomqvist, P.; Stripple, H. Fire-LCA Model: Cables Case
Study II-NHXMH and NHMH cable. SP Report 2005:45.
http://www.sp.se/fire/Sv/PDF_reports/SP%20rapport%202005_45.pdf (accessed Oct 2006).
Associated Additives, http://www.almstab.co.za/products.htm (accessed Jan 2007).
Baitz, M. et al. Life Cycle Assessment of PVC and of Principal Competing Materials. Commissioned by
European Commission. July 2004. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/sustdev/pvc-
final_report_lca.pdf (accessed Sept 2006).
Barry, C. M. F.; Orroth, S. A. Processing of Thermoplastics. In Modern Plastics Handbook; Harper, C.
A., Ed.; McGraw-Hill, 2000; pp 5.1-5.125.
Bartley, R. Bureau of International Recycling, Brussels, Belgium. Personal communication, 2006.
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.
http://www.basel.int/text/con-e-rev.pdf (accessed June 2007).
Beck, T. R. Electrolytic Production of Aluminum. In Electrochemistry Encyclopedia, 2001.
http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-a01-al-prod.htm (accessed Oct 2006).
Bennett, R. End Use Markets for Recycled Polyvinyl Chloride. University of Toledo College of
Engineering, July 1990.
Bisbee, Frank, "Limited Combustible Cable" is 100% Recyclable?, Heard on the Street Column,
www.wireville.com, undated, http://www.wireville.com/news/Hype%20Hype%20Hooray.pdf
BOMA International Abandoned Cable http://www.boma.org/Advocacy/
Boustead, I. Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: High Density Polyethylene (HOPE).
PlasticsEurope (previously Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe, APME), 2005a.
Boustead, I. Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) (Suspension
Polymerization). PlasticsEurope (previously Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe,
APME), 2005b.
Braun, D. Recycling of PVC. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2002, 27, 2171-2195.
Bureau of International Recycling (BIR). Plastic Coated Cable Scrap.
http://www.bir.org/aboutrecycling/cable/index.asp (accessed May 2006).
COMEX (NY Commodities Exchange) http: http://www.nymex.com/cop_pre_agree.aspx Downloaded
July, 2007.
CRU International Limited. The Market for Fire Performance Cables. May 2002.
http://www.crugroup.com
CRU International Limited. May 2002. The Market for Fire Performance Cables.
http://www.crugroup.com.
Curran, M.A. 1996. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
195
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
d'Allmen, E. The Next Generation of Cable Technology. NORDX/CDT, 2000.
http://www.nordx.com/public/htmen/pdf/4800LXWP.pdf (accessed March 2007).
Dawson, Fred 2007. Personal communication between Fred Dawson, E. I. DuPont Canada Company,
and Alice E. Tome, Abt Associates Inc., June 5.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Energy Annual, 1997.
DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Lead. Public
Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, prepared by Research
Triangle Institute, July.
Dini, D., T. Z. Fabian, J. T. Chapin. 2006. An Analytical Study of Some Physical Properties of Wire and
Cable Samples Collected from Older Homes. Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
DuPont Cabling Solutions. Abandoned Cables—A Hidden Danger.
http://www.dupont.com/cablingsolutions/abandoned_cable/hidden_danger.html (accessed June
2007).
DuPont Cabling Solutions, Cable Recycling Program, Communications Copper Cable Recycling
Program, 2006.
Ecobilan Eco-profile of High Volume Commodity Phthalate Esters (DEHP/DINP/DIDP). Prepared for
The European Council for Plasticizers and Intermediates. January 2001.
http://www.ecpi.org/upload/documents/document31 .pdf (accessed Oct 2006).
Ecolink, Ecocenters as a Tool for Local Sustainable Development and for Environmental Research
Implementation, ProjectN-EVG-2002-00509, 2003
(http://www.folkecenter.dk/en/publications/ECOLINK%20BROCHURE%20NOV%202003.pdf,
accessed June 2007).
Economics Handbook—SRI International, 2002.
egb2_followup/draftguide/6LCopperCablesDRAFT.doc (accessed May 2006).
Environmental News Service, Plastic Disposal Waste Guidelines Adopted, January 23, 2002,
(http: //www .ban. org/ban_news/plastic_waste .html).
European Flame Retardants Association (EFRA) Flame Retardant Fact Sheet: Antimony Trioxide
(Sb2O3). Jan 2006. http://www.cefic-efra.Org/Objects/2/Files/ATOFactsheet.pdf (accessed Oct
2006).
Fava, J., R. Denison, R. Jones, B. Curran, M. Vigon, B. Selke, S. & J.A. Barnum. 1991. Technical
Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry &
SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc. Washington, DC.
FederalLegislativeRegulatorylssues/Telecomm/AbandonedCablelssueSummary.htm (accessed April
2006).
Finlay, P. Draft Guidelines On Best Available Techniques (BAT) for Smouldering of Copper Cables.
April 2004. http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/bat_bep/2nd_session/
Fishman, M. Abandoned Cabling, The Big Disconnect: Who's Responsible for Abandoned Cabling in
Your Building? http://www.wireville.com/news/Abandoned Cabling The Big Disconnect.html
(accessed May 2006).
196
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Franklin and Associates, 2007. Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Inventory of Nine Plastic Resins and Two
Polyurethane Precursors. Prepared for the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council.
Geibig, J. and Socolof, M.L. Lead-Free Solders: A Life-Cycle Assessment. EPA 744-R-05-001.
Washington, DC. 2005.
Glew, C. Cable Components Group, LLC, Pawcatuck, RI. Personal communication, July 2005.
Glew, C. A.; Grune, G. L. The Fire Safety & Recycling Implications of Abandoned Communications
Cable in Buildings; Addressing and Defining Solutions. Presented at International Wire & Cable
Symposium, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 2004.
Hagstrom, B.; Hampton, R. N.; Helmesjo, B.; Hjertberg, T. Disposal of Cables at the "End of Life," Some
of the Environmental Considerations. IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine 2006, 22(2),
21-30.
Harriman, E.; Greiner, T.; Veleva, V. Environmental challenges and materials restrictions in coated wire
and cable. Presented at NFPA Research Symposium, July 10, 2003.
http://www.turi.org/business/NFPA_Symposium_Paper-FINALl.pdf (accessed Jan 2004).
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Antimony Trioxide and Antimony Trisulfide. Vol
47, p 291, 1989. http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol47/47-l 1.html (accessed Oct 2006).
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006a. ISO 14040, Environmental Management-
Life-Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. International Standards Organization, Paris.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006b. ISO 14041, Environmental Management-
Life-Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. International Standards Organization, Paris.
Jung Chang-Hwan. No date. "Metal Flows in Thermal Treatment Systems of MSW in Japan."
Candidate's Degree of Master.
Kattas, L.; Gastrock, F.; Levin, I.; Cacciatore, A.. Plastic Additives. In Modern Plastics Handbook;
Harper, C. A., Ed.; McGraw-Hill, 2000; pp 4.1-4.69.
Kreissig, J.; Baitz, M.; Schmid, J.; Kleine-Mollhoff, P.; Mersiowsky, I. PVC Recovery Options: Concept
for Environmental and Economic System Analysis. PE Europe GmbH. April 2003.
http://www.ecvm.org/img/db/PE_Recovery_Options_fmal_140503.pdf (accessed June 2006).
Krieger, T., S. Barr, J. Hoover, F. Dawson. 2007. New Fire Hazard and Environmental Burden
Evaluations of Electrical Cable Installations Utilizing ISO 14040 Environmental Methodologies.
DuPont.
Kroushl, P. The Flame Retarding and Smoke Suppression of Flexible PVC. Vinyl Formulators Division
15th Annual Compounding Conference. Orlando, FL, July 2004.
Leitner, H. Vinyloop® Ferrar. Personal communication, Nov 2006.
Lemieux, P. M.; Lutes, C. C.; Santoianni, D. A. Emissions of Organic Air Toxics from Open Burning: A
Comprehensive Review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2004, 30, 1-32.
Leung, L.; Kasprzak, D. Determination of Acrolein, Formaldehyde and Other Volatile Components from
Combustion of Flame Retarded Polyolefin Coated Communication Cables. Inteflam 8th Annual
Conference. Edinburgh, U.K., June 1999.
Lovstof/mech_recycle.pdf (accessed June 2006).
197
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Mersiowsky, I. Long-Term Fate of PVC Products and Their Additives in Landfills. Prog. Polym. Sci.
2002,27, 2221-2211.
Mersiowsky, I.; Weller, M.; Ejlertsson, J. Fate of Plasticised PVC Products Under Landfill Conditions: A
Laboratory-Scale Landfill Simulation Reactor Study. Wat. Res. 2001, 35(13), 3063-3070.
Mizuno, K., Hirukawa, H., Kawasaki, O., Noguchi, H., and Suzuki, O., 'Development of non-lead
stabilized PVC compounds for insulated wires and cables', Furukawa Review, No. 18, 1999,
pp.111-118.
NEMA California Proposition 65: Information for wire and cable manufacturers, 2002.
http://bwcecom.belden.com/sales/Quality/Prop65QA_NEMA.pdf (accessed Nov 2003).
Network Cabling. A Matter of Life and Death, 2005.
http://www.networkcablingmag.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=534&Itemid
=2 (accessed June 2007).
PE & IKP (PE Europe GmbH and IKP University of Stuttgart), 2003. GaBi4-The Software System for
Life Cycle Engineering. Stuttgart, Germany.
Plastech Coatings. Teflon Properties, http://www.plastechcoatings.com/teflonjroperties.html (accessed
June 2007).
PlasticsEurope Life Cycle & Eco-profiles.
http://www.plasticseurope.org/content/default.asp?PageID=392# (accessed Feb 2007).
Plinke, E.; Wenk, N.; Wolff, G.; Castiglione, D.; Palmark, M. Mechanical Recycling of PVC Wastes;
Study for DG XI of the European Commission, Jan 2000. http://www.pvc.dk/billeder/
PRe (Product Ecology Consultants) SimaPro Database Manual: The BUWAL 250 Library. 2004.
http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualBUWAL250.pdf (accessed Feb 2007).
Primary lead mix. In Ullmann 's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 5th Edition. Wiley-VCH:
Weinheim, 1997.
Principia Partners Post-Industrial and Post-Consumer Vinyl Reclaim: Material Flow and Uses in North
America. Chlor-Vinyl Steering Group, July 1999.
Realcomm Advisory. The Abandoned Cable Problem: State-of-the-Industry and Smart Solutions. Feb 22,
2006, 5(8). http://www.realcomm.com/advisory.asp?aid=199 (accessed April 2006).
Ring, K.-L.; Kalin, T.; Kishi, A. Fluoropolymers. CEH Marketing Research Report. Chemical Economics
Handbook—SRI International, April 2002.
Ring, K.-L.; Kalin, T.; Kishi, A. CEH Marketing Research Report: Fluoropolymers. Chemical Rossi,
M.; Griffith, C.; Gearhart, J.; Juska, C. Moving Towards Sustainable Plastics: A Report Card on
the Six Leading Automakers. Ecology Center, Feb 2005.
http://www.ecocenter.org/auto_plastics_report.pdf (accessed May 2005).
Rosato. D. V. Wire and Cable. In Extruding Plastics - A Practical Processing Handbook; Springer -
Verlag, 1998.
Scheirs, J. End-of-Life Environmental Issues with PVC in Australia. ExcelPlas Polymer Technology
(EPT), 2003. http://deh.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/pvc/pubs/pvc-final-report.pdf
(accessed July 2006).
198
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry). 1994. Life-Cycle Assessment Data
Quality: A Conceptual Framework. SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental
Education, Inc., Washington, DC.
Shea, K. M. Pediatric Exposure and Potential Toxicity of Phthalate Plasticizers. Pediatrics, 2003, 111(6),
1467-1474.
Simonson, Andersson, Resell, Emanuelsson, Stripple, Fire-LCA Model: Cables Case Study, Brandforsk
Project 703-991, SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, 2001.
Sims, Paul, Personal Correspondence, February 10, 2005.
Sims, P. Corporate Environmental Manager, Southwire Company. Personal Communication with Maria
Leet Socolof, Senior Research Associate, Abt Associates, June 4, 2007.-
Sims, Paul 2007. Personal communication between Paul Sims, Southwire Company, and Alice E. Tome,
Abt Associates Inc., June 5.
Socolof, M. L., et al. Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment, Volume 1. EPA744-R-01-
004a. Washington, DC. December, 2001.
Socolof, M.L., J. G. Overly, L.E. Kincaid, D. Singh, and K. Hart. "Preliminary Life-Cycle Assessment
Results for the Design for the Environment Computer Display Project," 2000 IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, p. 290-297. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, May, 2000.
SRC (Syracuse Research Corporation). July, 2006. Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Contract No. 200-2004-09793.
Swanson, M.B., G.A. Davis, L.E. Kincaid, T.W. Schultz, J.E. Baroness, et al. 1991. "A Screening Method for
Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and Environmental Impacts,"
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 372-383, SETAC Press.
Taylor, B. Higher Voltage: Wire Recyclers in the U.S. are Ramping Up Their Systems to Welcome the
Return of Abundant Material Streams. Recycling Today [Online], Oct 2004.
http://fmdarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOKWH/is_10_42/ai_n6276845 (accessed Aug 2006).
Taylor, B. Investors Only. Recycling Today [Online], Oct 14, 2005.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/articles/article.asp?ID=5841&AdKeyword=cable+recycle
(accessed Apr 2006).
Taylor, B.; Toto, D. Fraying at the Edges: The Condition of Domestic Wire Chopping Has Some
Processors on Edge -Wire Chopping List." Recycling Today, Oct 1, 2003. FindArticles.com
http://fjndMJde^^ (accessed September,
2007).
Townsend, T. University of Florida. Personal communication. May, 2007.
TURI Environmental Health and Safety Issues in the Coated Wire and Cable Industry. Massachusetts
Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI). University of Massachusetts Lowell, April 2002.
Tyler, J. Superior Essex. Personal Communication, July, 2007.
199
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Uniprise, CommScope, Inc., CommScope's Top 10 Differentiators, February 2006
(http://www.uniprisesolutions.com/docs/CommScope_Top_10.pdf).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Consideration of the Implementation of the Basel
Convention. Technical Guidelines for the Identification and Environmentally Sound Management
of Plastic Wastes and for their Disposal. Aug 23, 2002. UNEP/CHW.6/1.
http://www.basel.int/meetings/cop/cop6/cop6_2 le.pdf (accessed April 2006).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a. Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory
Board, Memorandum, U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Perfluorooctanoic Acid Risk
Assessment (PFOA) Review Panel, January 13, 2005, available at
pa,goWs^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005b. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk
Assessment Division, "Draft Risk Assessment of Potential Human Health Effects Associated with
Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Its Salts," January 4, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005c. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2005,
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/resources/msw-2005 .pdf (accessed June 2007).
USFA (U.S. Fire Administration) /National Fire Data Center "Non-Residential Structure Fires in 2000."
2000a.
USFA (U.S. Fire Administration) / National Fire Data Center "All Structure Fires in 2000"
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v3i8.pdf 2000b.
USFA (U.S. Fire Administration )/ National Fire Data Center "All Structure Fires" 2005
http://www.usfa. dhs.gov/statistics/national/all_structures.shtm.
Vinyl Inst (The Vinyl Institute), 2003.
http://www.vinylinfo.org/materialvinyl/servingmoretour/lmakingdifference.html (accessed Nov
2003).
Vinyloop®. http://www.vinyloop.com/ (accessed June 2007).
Vinyl 2010 Progress Report 2007. http://\\7w\v.vinyl2010.org/Honie/Check_our_progress/2()07_report/.
(accessed Jan 2007).
Williams, E.; Mellor, W.; Stevens, G.; Azapagic, A.; Clift, R. Material and Process Selection
Methodology: A Data Cable Case Study. Presented at Tenth Annual Meeting SETAC-Europe,
Brighton, May 2000. http://www.surrey.ac.uk/CHAMP/documents/Brightonl.pdf (accessed
March 2005).
Wilson, A. Getting Down to the Wire. Architectural Record (online). Dec 2004.
http://archrecord.construction.com/features/digital/archives/0412feature-l.asp (accessed Jan
2007).
Wilson, A. Getting Down to the Wire. Architectural Record (online). Dec 2004.
http://archrecord.construction.com/features/digital/archives/0412feature-l.asp (accessed Jan
2007).
200
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Wilson, A. Getting Down to the Wire. Architectural Record (online). Dec 2004.
http://archrecord.construction.com/features/digital/archives/0412feature-l.asp (accessed June
2007).
Wire recycling gets global attention. Recycling Today [Online], Feb 18, 2002.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/articles/article.asp?Id=4288&SubCatID=21&CatID=9 (accessed
June 2006).
201
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
202
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix A: Data Forms (Manufacturing and EOL)
203
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
204
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
TOXICS USE REDUCTION INSTITUTE
WIRE & CABLE PROJECT
Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data
U.S.EPA
to
o
Introduction
In March 2004, the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) and the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell formed a partnership to help the Wire and
Cable industry assess the life-cycle environmental impacts of standard and alternative wire and cable formulations. The DfE Program conducts
comparative analyses of alternative products or processes to provide businesses with data to make environmentally informed choices about product or
Program has no regulatory or enforcement agenda and was established to act as a partner with industry to promote pollution prevention. TURI helps
industries, institutions, and communities implement toxics use reduction as a means of achieving both a cleaner environment and a healthy economy.
This environmental life-cycle assessment will address human and environmental impacts (e.g., energy, natural resource use, global warming, chronic
toxicity) of various wire and cable formulations. Abt Associates Inc. is conducting the life-cycle inventory (LCI), which is the data collection phase of a
life-cycle assessment, with technical assistance from the industry partners.
Boundaries
A life-cycle assessment considers impacts from materials acquisition, material manufacturing, product manufacturing, use, and final disposition of a
product. The LCI data are intended to be used to evaluate relative environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of a product. In this project, the
product is a cable. Therefore, data associated with the materials and processes used directly in the manufacturing, use, and disposition of the product
are relevant to the LCI and requested in the following tables. You will not need to include materials or energy not directly used in the production of the
cable (e.g., general building heating and air conditioning).
INPUTS:
Primary materials
Utilities
Manufacturing
Process
OUTPUTS;
"•* Products
-> Air emissions
-> to land
=> Water effluent
Product focus
This project will evaluate standard and alternative formulations for
three product types:
1. Category 6, riser-rated communication wire (CMR)
2. Category 6, plenum-rated communication wire (CMP)
3. Non-metallic sheathed cable as used in building wire (NM-B)
Most recent (or projected) production data are desired.
Fig. I. Manufacturing prurc-ss tn%etiti»rv «rtii%ejiHial template
Inventory data
We are asking for data on one or multiple "product(s) of interest," or the components of the product(s), that you manufacture, which may be one as
defined above under Product Focus. The inputs and outputs data (Fig. 1) that you provide will be aggregated in the LCI to quantify the overall inputs
and outputs of a wire and cable formulation over its life cycle. A separate set of forms should be completed for each cable of interest.
p. i
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Data sources
Much of the requested information can be drawn from existing sources, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Purchase and production records 5. Audit and analysis results (e.g., wastewater discharge analyses)
2. Bills and invoices 6. Local, state, and federal reporting forms (e.g., hazardous waste manifests)
3. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) 7. Local, state, and federal permits
4. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) forms 8. Monthly utility billing records
How the data will be used
Abt Associates will collect inventory data and tally the inputs and outputs for the different wire and cable formulations. Information gathered in these
forms will be used to develop environmental profiles based on inputs and outputs for the manufacturin
to
o
Results of project
The results are intended to provide industry with an analysis of the life-cycle environmental impacts of standard and alternative wire and cable
formulations. Results will help identify areas for product and process improvement as related to risk and env
For any questions, please contact Maria Leet Socolofat 301.347.5344, or David Cooper at 865.591.8966,
at Abt Associates Inc., 4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite #600, Bethesda, MD 20814. Fax: 301.652.753
For more project details, see < http://www.epa.gov/dfe > and/or the Draft Final Goal Definition and Scoping Document.
p. 11
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
INSTRUCTIONS
to
o
1. Please be sure to read the introductory text on each page before filling out the tables.
2. The data you supply in the tables should represent inputs and outputs associated only with the "product of interest" (i.e., a wire and cable product or component as defined in the introduction
under Product Focus, and what you specify in Table 2a, #1). If quantities provided are not specific to the "product of interest," please explain how they differ
in the comments section at the bottom of the appropriate table. The ultimate goal is to quantify the amount of inputs and outputs per unit (e.g., ft) of cable manufactured.
3. Where supporting information is available as independent documents, reports, or calculations, please provide them as attachments with reference to the associated
table(s).
4. If you have more than one product of interest to this project, please duplicate the forms and fill out one set of forms for each product.
5. If there is not adequate room on a page to supply your data (including comments), please copy the appropriate page and attach it to this packet.
6. The ensuing pages refer to the following indices to detail specifics about the data. Additional information is provided below as required.
Data Quality Indicators Index: These indicators will be used to assess the level of data quality provided in the tables. Please report a DQI for the numerical value
requested in each table on the following pages. The first category, Measured, pertains to a value that is a directly measured quantity. The second category,
Calculated, refers to a value that required one or more calculation(s) to obtain. The third category, Estimated, refers to a value that required a knowledgable employee's
professional judgement to estimate. Lastly, the fourth category, Assumed, should be used only when a number had to be speculatively estimated.
Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste Management Methods Index: These methods are applicable to both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes (Tables 7a and 7b).
Please give the appropriate abbreviation in the Management Method column on p. 7 where requested. Depending on whether the management method is on or offsite,
please indicate by specifying "on" or "off in the appropriate column on p. 7.
For Tables 3-6:
Data Quality Indicators Index
M - Measured
C -Calculated
E - Estimated
A - Assumed
For Tables 6a and 6b:
For Tables 7a and 7b (also provided on page 10):
Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Methods Index
A - Direct discharge to surface water
B - Discharge to offsite wastewater treatment facility
C - Underground inj ection
D - Surface impoundment (e.g., settling pond)
E - Direct discharge to land
F - Other (please specify in comments section)
Waste Management Methods Index
RU - Reused
R - Recycled
L - Landfilled
S - Solidified/stabilized
Iv - Incinerated - volume reduction
le - Incinerated - energy conversion
D - Deep well injected
O - Other (please specify in comments section)
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT EITHER:
Maria L. Socolof:
Phone: 301.347.5344
Email: maria socolof(a)abtassoc.com
OR
David Cooper: Phone: 865.591.8966
Email: david cooper(5)abtassoc.com
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1. FACILITY & CONTACT INFORMATION
to
o
oo
Table 1. Facility Information Contact Information
1. Company name: 4a. Prepared by: Date:
2. Facility name: 4b. Title:
3. Facility address (location): 4c. Phone number: Ext.:
4d. Fax number:
4e. Email address:
5. Major products manufactured onsite and their % of your total production (by weight or volume—and please specify):
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2. PRODUCT OF INTEREST INFORMATION
NOTE: The product of interest is the product that you manufacture that is of interest to this project (e.g., cable, compounded pellets, heat stabilizer) for which the following forms should be completed
Table 2a.
1. Wire and cable product (please check the cable type that you manufacture, compound, or supply a component for).
| | CMR(Cat6) | | CMP (Cat 6) | | NM-B
2. Which product alternatives do you manufacture or supply to? (See Tables 2b, 2c, and 2d for descriptions of these alternatives.)
CMR CMP NM-B
| | Lead-stabilized cable (baseline) | | Lead-stabilized cable (baseline) | | Lead-stablized cable (baseline) | | Other (specify):
| | Lead-free cable | | Lead-free cable | | Alternate lead-stabilized cable (alt plasticizer)
| | Other (specify): | | Other (specify): e.g., deca-BDE-free \ | Lead-free cable
| | Halogen-free cable
Note, for each alternative, please complete a separate set of forms (Tables 2-7) and specify at the top of each table which alternative the data represent.
3. Resin and additive suppliers: Please check the type of component and list the specific material you manufacture (see Tables 2b, 2c, and 2d for examples of the materials we are interested in receiving data for).
| | Resin | | Flame retardant | | Plasticizer | | Processing Aid
| | Filler | | Heat stabilizer | | Other | | N/A
4. Resin and additive suppliers: Please check the component for which you supply materials or products.
| | Conductor insulation | | Cable jacketing
| | Conductor jacketing | | Other (specify):
5. Please specify the product of interest for which the remainder of the forms will be completed (e.g., compounded pellets of PVC with additives used for CMP cable jacketing; lead-stabilized,
6. Please provide a brief description of the main operations/subprocesses (e.g., compounding, extrusion) required to manufacture the product of interest:
baseline alternative):
7. Annual production (past, current, or projected) of product of interest (e.g., units of linear cable, kg of dibasic lead phthlate):
8. Year (or period of time) for which data are 9. Facility's percent global market share
supplied (past, current, or projected): for product of interest (optional):
10. What % of the product of interest is recycled from your manufacturing process? If recycled, (please check): | | ON-SITE | | OFF-SITE
a. If recycled on-site, how?
b. If recycled off-site, where? (please provide facility name and location if possible):
11. Do you have any information about post-consumer recycling of the product of interest? (We will collect more detailed information in Phase II of the study.): | | YES |_
| NO
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
THE FOLLOWING DATA ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ITEM SPECIFIED IN TABLE 2a, #5
3. PRIMARY & ANCILLARY INPUTS
1. Primary & Ancillary Materials: Primary materials are defined as those materials that become part of the final product. Ancillary materials are those material inputs that assist production,
yet do not become part of the final product (e.g., cleaning materials). Please include the trade name and the generic name of each material where applicable.
2. CAS # orMSDS: Please include either the CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) number of each material (fill in the blank with the number) or state "MSDS" and append a copy to this document.
3. Annual quantity/units & Density/units: Please specify the annual amount of material consumed in the year of interest (as specified in Table 2a). Please use the units of mass-per-year
(e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr). If you specify units of volume in lieu of mass, please provide the density. If annual quantities are not available, provide applicable units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
4. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. iii for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantity value given.
5. Recycled content: Please specify the recycled content of each material identified. For example, 60/40/0 would represent a material that has 60% virgin material, 40% pre-consumer
recycled and 0% post-consumer recycled content. Enter N/A (not applicable) for all components that are assemblies.
Table 3a.
Primary Materials
EXAMPLE: GRTX resin (polypropylene resin)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Primary material comments:
Table 3b.
Ancillary Materials
EXAMPLE: Petroleum naphtha (cleaning solvent)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ancillary material comments :
CAS#
or MSDS2
MSDS
Annual
Quantity
450,000
Units
kg/yr
Density
Units
DQI4
M
Recycled
Content5
60/40/0
Country of origin
of material (if known)
USA
CAS#
or MSDS2
8032-32-4
Annual
Quantity
920
Units
liters/yr
Density
0.96
Units
kg/liter
DQI4
C
Recycled
Content
100/0/0
Country of origin
of material (if known)
USA
to
o
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
4. UTILITY INPUTS
1. Annual quantity/units: Please specify the amount of the utility consumed in year of interest (as sepcified in Table 2a). If possible, please exclude nonprocess-related consumf
If this is not possible, please include a comment that nonprocess-related consumption is included, jf annual quantities are not available, provide applicable units
(e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
2. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. iii for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantity value given.
3. Individual Utility Notes:
Electricity:
The quantity of electricity should reflect only that used toward manufacturing the product of interest (identified on p. 2). One approach would be to start with your facility's tc
electrical energy consumption, remove nonprocess-related consumption, then estimate what portion of the remaining consumption is related to the specific operations of intere
Please include consumption in all systems that use electricity for process-related purposes. Some examples include compressed air, chilled water, water deionization, and HV.
consumption where clean or controlled environments are utilized.
Natural gas and LNG:
Please exclude all use for space heating or other nonprocess-related uses. If you choose to use units other than MCF (thousand cubic feet), please utilize only units of energy
content or volume (e.g., mmBTU, therm, CCF).
Fuel oils:
Please use units of either volume or energy content (e.g., liters, mmBTU, MJ). Additionally, if the fuel oil is not delivered by underground pipeline, please include the associf
transportation information.
All waters (e.g., DI, city):
Please include all waters received onsite. Please indicate consumption in units of mass or volume.
Table 4.
Utilities3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Electricity
Natural gas
Liquified natural gas (LNG)
Fuel oil - type #2 (includes distillate and diesel)
Fuel oil - type #4
Fuel oil - type #6 (includes residual)
Other petroleum-based fuel
Water
Utility comments:
Annual
Quantity1
Units
e.g., MJ
e.g., MCF
e.g., MCF
e.g., liters
e.g., liters
e.g., liters
e.g., liters
e.g., liters
DQI2
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
5. AIR EMISSIONS
1. Air emissions: The emissions listed in the table below are some of the more common ones found in air release inventories; if you have information on other specific emissions, please
provide them in the space provided. If you have any reporting forms or other air emission records for applicable year, please attach copies to this questionnaire. Also, if you have
information on stack as well as fugitive emissions, please copy this page and place each set of emissions on a different page. The energy consumed in any equipment used onsite to treat
air emissions should be included in the utilities values on p. 7.
2. Annual quantity/units: Please specify the amount of air emissions generated and released to the environment in the year of interest (as specified in Table 2a). If the emissions data
are for a different year, please specify the year in the comments section below. Please use units of mass-per-year (e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr). If annual quantities are not available, provide applicable
units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
3. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. iii for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantity value given.
Table 5.
Air Emissions
Total particulates
Particulates < 10 microns (PM-10)
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Total nonmethane VOCs
Other speciated hydrocarbon emissions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
CAS
number
630-08-0
124-38-9
74-82-8
71-43-2
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-20-3
Annual
Quantity2
Units
DQI3
Table 5 (continued).
Air Emissions
Ammonia
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Other emissions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Air emission comments:
CAS
number
7664-41-7
7440-38-2
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
Annual
Quantity2
Units
DQI3
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
6. WASTEWATER RELEASES & CONSTITUENTS
1. Annual quantity/units: Please specify the amount of wastewater(s) generated in the year of interest (as specified in Table 2a). Please use units of mass-per-year (e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr).
If multiple streams exist, please copy this page and fill it out for each stream, jf annual quantities are not available, provide applicable units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
2. Wastewater treatment/disposal method: See the Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Methods Index on p. iii for method abbreviations.
3. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. iii for abbreviations. Please include one DQI for the annual Wastewater stream quantity value supplied, and one DQI
for the Wastewater constituents information supplied. If more than one DQI is applicable to the Wastewater constituents data, please clarify this in the comment section.
4. Wastewater constituents: Please let us know what type of values you are supplying (e.g., daily maximums, monthly averages, annual averages). Additionally, if you have any reporting
forms of other Wastewater constituent records for the year of interest, please attach them to this questionnaire. The energy consumed in any equipment used onsite to treat Wastewater
releases should be included in the utilities values on p. 7.
5. Concentration/units: Please specify the concentration of Wastewater constituents generated in the year of interest. Please use units of mass-per-volume (e.g., mg/liter, Ib/gal).
Table 6a.
Wastewater Stream
Annual
Quantity
Units
Treatment/Disposal
Method2
DQI for
Annual Quantity
DQI for
Constituents below
Table 6b.
Wastewater Constituents
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (COD)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Oil & grease
Hydrochloric acid
Sulfuric acid
Other acids (please specify):
1.
2.
Phosphorus
Phosphates
Sulfates
Fluorides
Cyanide
Chloride
Chromium
Aluminum
Nickel
CAS
number
7647-01-0
7664-93-9
Concentration
Units
Table 6b (continued).
Wastewater Constituents
Mercury
Lead
Nitrogen
Zinc
Tin
Ferrous sulfate
Ammonia
Nitrates
Pesticides
Other speciated constituents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Wastewater comments:
CAS
number
7439-98-7
7439-92-1
7664-41-7
Concentration
Units
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
7. HAZARDOUS & NONHAZARDOUS WASTES
1. Hazardous wastes and EPA hazardous waste numbers: Please list your waste streams that are considered hazardous by the U.S. EPA. Include the hazardous waste codes for any
hazardous waste you include. Nonhazardous wastes can include by-products and co-products that are reused, reintroduced, or recycled back into the product.
2. Annual quantity/units & Density/units: Please specify the amount of waste generated in the year of interest (as specified in Table 2a). Use units of mass-per-year (e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr).
Please also provide the density for each waste. If annual quantities are not available, provide applicable units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
3. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. iii for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantity value given.
4. Management method: See key to right of tables for Management Methods Index. If none are applicable, please indicate other and use the comments section to expound.
Table 7a.
Hazardous Wastes
EXAMPLE: Spent solvent (toluene)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Hazardous waste comments:
EPA Haz.
Waste #*
FOOS
Annual
Quantity2
20,000
Units
kg/yr
Density
0.9
Units
kg/liter
DQI3
M
Mgmt.
method
le
On or
offsite?
off
Table 7b.
Nonhazardous Wastes1
EXAMPLE: Waste metal chips
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Nonhazardous waste comments:
Annual
Quantity2
22,000
Units
kg/yr
Density
1,000
Units
kg/m3
DQI3
C
Mgmt.
method
R
On or
offsite?
off
Management Methods Index
RU Reused
R Recycled
L Landfilled
S Solidified/stabilized
Iv Incinerated-volume reduction
le Incinerated-energy conversion
D Deep well injected
O Other (specify in comments)
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
INSTRUCTIONS
1. We are looking to identify inputs and outputs associated with the recycling of cables at your facility.
2. Please be sure to read all the notes on each page when filling out the questionnaire.
3. Where supporting information is available as independent documents, reports, or calculations, please provide them as attachments with reference to the associated
table(s) in this questionnaire.
4. The following indices refer to information requested in the ensuing pages:
For Tables 2- 5:
Data Quality Indicators Index
M - Measured
C - Calculated
E - Estimated
A - Assumed
Data Quality Indicators Index: These indicators will be used to assess the level of data quality provided in the tables. Please report
a DQI for the numerical value requested in each table on the following pages. The first category, Measured, pertains to a value
that is a directly measured quantity. The second category, Calculated, refers to a value that required one or more calculation(s) to
obtain. The third category, Estimated, refers to a value that required a knowledgeable employee's professional judgment to
estimate. Lastly, the fourth category, Assumed, should be used only when a number had to be speculatively estimated.
For Tables 4a and 4b:
Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Methods Index
A - Direct discharge to surface water
B - Discharge to offsite wastewater treatment facility
C - Underground injection
D - Surface impoundment (e.g., settling pond)
E - Direct discharge to land
F - Other (please specify in comments section)
For Table 5:
Waste Management Methods Index
RU -Reused
R - Recycled
L - Landfilled
S - Solidified/stabilized
Iv - Incinerated - volume reduction
le - Incinerated - energy conversion
D - Deep well injected
O - Other (please specify in comments section)
Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste Management Methods Index: These methods are applicable to both
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes (Table 5). Please give the appropriate abbreviation in the
Management Method column on p. 5 where requested. Depending on whether the management method is
on or offsite, please indicate by specifying "on" or "off in the appropriate column on p. 5.
Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated.
For any questions, please contact Maria Leet Socolof at 301.347.5344, or David Cooper at 865.824.3362,
at Abt Associates Inc., 4800Montgomery Lane, Suite #600, Bethesda, MD 20814. Fax: 301.652.7530.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1. FACILITY & PROCESS INFORMATION
Table la.
1. Company/Facility name:
2. Facility address (location):
Facility Information
Contact Information
3a. Prepared by:
3b. Title:
3c. Phone number:
3d. Fax number:
3e. Email address:
Date:
Ext.:
Table Ib. Process Information
1. Briefly describe the main operations you use to recycle cable scrap
2a How much cable scrap does your facility recycle annually?
2b Can you estimate the % of total worldwide or U.S. scrap cables that you recycle:
2c How much scrap cable do you expect to recycle
(mass/y)
(% of worldwide scrap)
5 years?
10 years?
25 years?
40 years?
3. What % of the cable scrap you recycle is telecom cable?
4. What % of the cable scrap you recycle is building cable?
5. What % of your cable recycling operations are from:
post industrial waste (e.g., out-of-spec cables):
post consumer waste (e.g., end-of-life cables):
6. Do you generate air emissions from recycling cables?
(mass/y or % of all worldwide cables)
(mass/y or % of all worldwide cables)
(mass/y or % of all worldwide cables)
(mass/y or % of all worldwide cables)
_(% of U.S. scrap)
(mass/yr or % of U.S. scrap)
(mass/yr or % of U.S. scrap)
(mass/yr or % of U.S. scrap)
(mass/yr or % of U.S. scrap)
7. Does your cable recycling involve any wet processes that generate wastewater effluents?_
8. What do you do with the recovered plastic fraction?
9. What do you do with the recovered conductor?
If so, complete Table 3.
If so, complete Tables 4a and 4b.
10. What is the year (or period of time) of the data you are supplying (in the following tables)?
11. Facility's percent global market share for recycling cables (optional):
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
2. MATERIAL AND UTILITY INPUTS
Please provide the inputs associated with cable recycling
Table 2a.
Input Streams & Materials
EXAMPLE: Cable scrap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Material input comments:
Primary or
ancillary2
P
CAS#
or MSDS3
NA
Annual
Quantity4
450,000
Units
kg/yr
Density
^needed only if\
Units
olume given)
DQI5
M
Table 2b.
Utility Inputs1
EXAMPLE: Fuel oil #6 (includes residual)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Electricity
Fuel (specify type):
Water
other fuels:
Utility input comments:
Annual
Quantity
100
Units
MJ
DQI5
C
NOTES:
1. Input Streams & Materials and Utility Inputs: Enter material inputs to the cable recycling operations (e.g., cable scrap) in Table 2a and utility inputs (e.g., electricity, fuel,
water) in Table 2b.
2. Primary or Ancillary: Primary materials are defined as those materials that become part of the final product output. Ancillary materials are those material inputs that assist operations (e.g., lubricants).
3. CAS # or MSDS: For chemical compounds, please include either the CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) number of the material, or enter "MSDS" and append a copy of the MSDS.
4. Annual quantity/units & Density/units: Please specify the annual amount of material consumed (preferably in mass for Table 2a and either mass or energy for Table 2b).
If you specify units of volume, please provide the density. If annual quantities are not available, provide applicable units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
5. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. i for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantity value given.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
3. AIR EMISSIONS
If you generate air emissions from your processes associated with cable recycling, please complete the following table.
Table 3.
Air Emissions
Total participates
Particulates < 10 microns (PM-10)
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Total nonmethane VOCs
Other speciated hydrocarbon emissions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CAS
number
630-08-0
124-38-9
74-82-8
71-43-2
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-20-3
Annual
Quantity2
Units
DQI3
Table 3 (continued).
Air Emissions
Ammonia
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Other emissions:
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
Air emission comments:
CAS
number
7664-41-7
7440-38-2
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
Annual
Quantity2
Units
DQI3
NOTES:
1. Air emissions: The emissions listed in the table above are some of the more common ones found in air release inventories; if you have information on other specific emissions, pi
provide them in the space provided. If you have any reporting forms or other air emission records for the applicable year, please attach copies to this questionnaire. Also, if you 1
information on stack as well as fugitive emissions, please copy this page and place each set of emissions on a different page. The energy consumed in any equipment used onsite
air emissions should be included in the utilities values in Table 2b.
2. Annual quantity/units: Please specify the amount of air emissions generated and released to the environment in the year of interest (as specified in Table Ib). If the emissions dat
are for a different year, please specify the year in the comments section below. Please use units of mass-per-year (e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr). If annual quantities are not available, provic
units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
3. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. i for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantify value given.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
4. WASTEWATER RELEASES & CONSTITUENTS
If you generate wastewater releases and constituents from your processes associated with cable recycling, please complete these tables.
Table 4a.
Wastewater Stream
Annual
Quantity
Units
Treatment/Disposal
Method2
DQI for
Annual Quantity
DQI for
Constituents below
Table 4b.
4
Wastewater Constituents
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (COD)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Oil & grease
Hydrochloric acid
Sulfuric acid
Other acids (please specify):
1.
2
Phosphorus
Phosphates
Sulfates
Fluorides
Cyanide
Chloride
Chromium
Aluminum
Nickel
CAS
number
7647-01-0
7664-93-9
Concentration
Units
Table 4b (continued).
Wastewater Constituents
Mercury
Lead
Nitrogen
Zinc
Tin
Ferrous sulfate
Ammonia
Nitrates
Pesticides
Other speciated constituents:
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
Wastewater comments :
CAS
number
7439-98-7
7439-92-1
7664-41-7
Concentration
Units
NOTES:
1. Annual quantity/units: Please specify the amount of wastewater(s) generated in the year of interest (as specified in Table Ib). Please use units of mass-per-year (e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr).
If multiple streams exist, please copy this page and fill it out for each stream. If annual quantities are not available, provide applicable units (e.g., kg/1000 kg of product).
2. Wastewater treatment/disposal method: See the Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Methods Index on p. i for method abbreviations.
3. Data quality indicators: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. i for abbreviations. Please include one DQI for the annual wastewater stream quantity value supplied, and one DQI
for the wastewater constituents information supplied. If more than one DQI is applicable to the wastewater constituents data, please clarify this in the comment section.
4. Wastewater constituents: Please let us know what type of values you are supplying (e.g., daily maximums, monthly averages, annual averages). Additionally, if you have any reporting
forms of other wastewater constituent records for the year of interest, please attach them to this questionnaire. The energy consumed in any equipment used onsite to treat wastewater
releases should be included in the utilities values in Table 2b.
5. Concentration/units: Please specify the concentration of wastewater constituents generated in the year of interest. Please use units of mass-per-volume (e.g., mg/liter, Ib/gal).
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
to
to
o
5. OUTPUTS - PRODUCTS AND SOLID WASTE
Please list the product and solid waste streams generated by your processes associated with cable recycling.
Table 5.
Output Streams1
EXAMPLE 1: Copper conductor
EXAMPLE 2: Lubricant
1.
2.
-\
j.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Waste comments:
Annual
Production
100
1,000
Units
kg/y
kg/yr
DQI3
C
M
Density
'needed only if I
0.9
Units
andfilled;
kg/liter
Management
Method5
Sm*
L
On or
Offsite?
off
off
Hazardous
Waste?6
N
N
NOTES:
1. Output Streams: This includes "product outputs that are sent for further processing or recycling as well as solid wastes (nonhazardous or EPA hazardous waste) that are
treated or disposed of.
2. Annual Production & units: Please specify the amount of the output stream generated in the year of interest. Use units of mass-per-year (e.g., kg/yr, Ib/yr).
3. Data Quality Indicator: See the Data Quality Indicators Index on p. i for abbreviations. Please supply the DQI for the annual quantity value given.
4. Density: Please provide the approximate bulk density for any waste that is landfilled (this will be used to calculate volume of landspace used).
5. Management Method: Please supply the follow-up processing method or the treatment/disposal method for each output stream . See the Waste Management Methods Index on
abbreviations. If none are applicable, please indicate "other" and explain in the comments section.
6. Hazardous Waste?: If the output is a solid waste stream, is it an EPA Subtitle C hazardous waste? Indicate Yes or No.
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix B: Fire Scenario: Estimation of Frequency of
Structure Fires in Buildings Containing
CMR / CMP Cables and NM-B Cables
The EOL distribution of pathways for wire and cable characterizes a portion of wire and
cable as prematurely reaching the end of its life due to building fires. The annual quantity of wire
and cable reaching it end-of-life state in this way may be calculated given data on the total
amount of wire and cable installed in buildings, the annual frequency of fires in buildings
containing cable, and the average damage caused by those fires.
Only data regarding the existing amount of wire and cable were readily available. This
appendix describes a calculation made to estimate the annual frequency of structure fire
containing CMR, CMP, and NM-B cables (calculated to be 1.1 percent of buildings containing
CMR / CMP cables and 0.5 percent of cables containing NM-B cables). The third factor, the
average cable loss per building fire is discussed in Section 2.4.5.1 of this report.
Methodology
The annual frequency of fires in buildings containing CMR / CMP / NM-B cables is
estimated using the following formulas:
Annual frequency of fires in buildings with CMR = # of fires each year in buildings
containing CMR/ # of buildings containing CMR
Annual frequency of fires in buildings with CMP = # of fires each year in buildings
containing CMP / # of buildings containing CMP
Annual frequency of fires in buildings with NM-B = # of fires each year in buildings
containing NM-B / # of buildings containing NM-B
Universe of Buildings
The universes of buildings used in the denominators of these equations were compiled
from various sources of data and are listed in Tables B-l through B-4 below. CMR and CMP
cables were assumed to be found in only certain commercial buildings. Table B-5 displays a
summary of the total universe of buildings and the number of buildings estimated to have CMR,
CMP, and NM-B cables.
B-221
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table B-l Universe of Residential Buildings
Type of
Housing Unit
Single, detached
Single, attached
2
3 or 4
5to9
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 or more
Mobile Home
Boat, RV, van, etc.
Total
Estimated Number
of Housing Units1
76,112,065
7,063,608
5,029,858
5,723,743
6,179,145
5,594,120
4,252,727
5,734,117
8,737,428
95,075
124,521,886
Assumed Number
of Housing Units
per Building
1
1
2
3.5
7
15
30
100
1
1
Calculated Number
of Buildings
76,112,065
7,063,608
2,514,929
1,635,355
882,735
372,941
141,758
57,341
8,737,428
95,075
97,613,235
!Data taken from 2005 American Community Survey, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTT able?_bm=y&-
geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_GOO_&-SubjectID=14573966&-redoLog=true&-
mt name=ACS 2005 EST G2000 B25024&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt
Table B-2 Universe of Commercial Buildings1
Principal
Building Use
Education
Food Sales
Food Service
Health Care - Inpatient
Health Care - Outpatient
Lodging
Mercantile - Retail (Other than Mall)
Mercantile - Enclosed and Strip Malls
Office
Public Assembly
Public Order and Safety
Religious Worship
Service
Warehouse and Storage
Other
Vacant
Total
Number of
Buildings
386,000
226,000
297,000
8000
121000
142,000
443000
213000
824,000
277,000
71,000
370,000
622,000
597,000
79,000
182,000
4,859,000
Number of Buildings
with CMR / CMP
386,000
226,000
297,000
8000
121000
142,000
443000
213000
824,000
71,000
622,000
79,000
182,000
3,615,000
Data taken from 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003setl/2003pdf/al.pdf.
B-222
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table B-3 Universe of Industrial Buildings1
-, , - Assumed Number of Calculated
Number or „ .,.. ,T , -
„ , ,. , Buildings per Number or
Establishments ° ^ ^
Establishment Buildings
US Manufacturing g l g
Establishments
Total 350,728 350,728
Data are from "Table 1: Statistics for all Manufacturing Establishments: 2005 and Earlier Years", from
"Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2005"; Annual Survey of Manufactures, and are for the year 2002.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/am0531gsl.pdf.
Table B-4 Universe of Agricultural Buildings1
- T , , Assumed Number of Calculated
Number of „ .,,. -T , -
„ ,,. , Buildings per Number or
Establishments _ .,. , _ .,,.
Establishment Buildings
Total Farms 2,128,982 1 2,128,982
Total 2,128,982 2,128,982
'Data are from Agriculture Census of the United States, 2002, NASS, Table 50 - Selected Characteristics of
Farms by North American Industry Classification System: 2002.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volumel/us/st99_l_050_050.pdf
Table B-5 Universe of Buildings with CMR, CMP, and NM-B
Building Type
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Total
Number of
Buildings in
Universe
97,613,235
4,859,000
350,728
2,128,982
104,951,945
CMR
0
3,615,000
0
0
3,615,000
CMP
0
3,615,000
0
0
3,615,000
NM-B
97,613,235
4,859,000
350,728
2,128,982
104,951,945
B-223
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Universe of Structure Fires
Structure fires
Table B-6 Universe of Structure Fires and Number involving Buildings with CMR,
% of Structure Fires
Building Type Non-
Residential1 Residential2 Total1
Residential - l-/2-Family 72%
Residential - Multifamily 25%
Residential - Other 4%
Non-Residential - Storage
Non-Residential - Business
Non-Residential - Assembly
Non-Residential - Manufacturing
Non-Residential - Special
53.9%
18.6%
2.9%
30.9% 7.6%
19.8% 4.9%
14.1% 3.5%
9.9% 2.4%
CMP, and NM-B
Number of Structure Fires
CMR/
Total CMP NM-B
275,575
94,920
14,799
38,843
24,890
17,725
12,445
275,575
94,920
14,799
38,843
24,890 24,890
17,725
12,445
Property
Non-Residential - Health Care,
Detention
Non-Residential - Educational
Non-Residential - Industrial
Total
100%
9.0% 2.2% 11,314
6.6% 1.6% 8,297
6.6% 1.6% 8,297
2.9% 0.7% 3,645
100.0
99.8% % 511,0003
8,297
8,297
11,314
8,297
8,297
3,645
41,483 511,000
Data are from U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center, "All Structure Fires in 2000," Figure 2.
Data are from U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center, "Non-Residential Structure Fires in 2000," Figure
2. http://ww.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v3i.10.pdf.
Data are from U.S. Fire Administration, "Structure Fires," 2005 value.
htip://www.iisfa.dhs.gov/siatistics/national/all siructurcs.shtm.
Table B-7 Calculation of Annual Frequency of Fires in Buildings Containing CMR, CMP, and
NM-B Cables
Cable Type
CMR
CMP
NM-B
Number of Buildings
Containing Cable
3,615,000
3,615,000
104,951,945
Number of Structure
Fires in Buildings
Containing Cable
41,483
41,483
511,000
Annual
Frequency of Fires
1.1%
1.1%
0.5%
Note, the WCP assumes 10% of the cables in afire are burned (see Section 2.4.5.1 of main report).
B-224
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix C: Waste Densities
Table C-l. Waste Densities for Landfill Space Use Impact Category
Flow
Density (D)
(kg/m3)
Reference
Note
Consumer Waste
Industrial waste for municipal
disposal
Inert chemical waste
Liquid waste
Mineral waste
Municipal waste
Packaging waste (metal)
Packaging waste (plastic)
Paper (unspecified)
PVC Waste
Unspecified industrial waste
Waste (unspecified)
800
445
1000
2560
445
267
192
472
601
800
445
(7)
\ /
(4)
N/A
(7)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(7)
(4)
N/A
N/A
Assumed the same density as water
Average of miscellaneous materials
densities
N/A
Combined values for steel and
aluminum packaging waste, weighted
by the percentage each contributed to
the packaging waste total.
Used value for total plastics
packaging
Used landfill density of paper and
paperboard packaging
Average of PVC chips and resin
Used value for Industrial waste for
municipal disposal
N/A
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous waste (unspec.)
Hazardous waste incineration
products (25% water)
Inert chemical waste
Liquid hazardous waste
Regulated chemicals
Slag
Slags and ash
Sludge
445
584
445
1000
445
3000
1900
1000
(4)
(4)
(4)
N/A
(4)
(9)
(7) and (9)
(7)
N/A
Assumed the value was equal to 75%
of that for hazardous waste density,
plus 25% of that for water
N/A
Assumed the same density as water
Used value for inert chemical waste
N/A
Used average of values for slag and
ash
N/A
Radioactive Waste
CaF2 (low radioactivity)
Highly radioactive waste
Highly-active fission product
solution
3180
449
1000
(3)
(4)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Assumed the same density as water
C-225
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table C-l. Waste Densities for Landfill Space Use Impact Category
Flow
Jacket and body material
Low to mid level radioactive
waste
Medium and low radioactive
liquid waste
Medium and low radioactive
wastes
Plutonium as residual product
Radioactive tailings
Uranium depleted
Uranium spent as residue
Volatile fission products (inert
gases;iodine;C14)
Waste radioactive
Density (D)
(kg/m3)
449
449
1000
449
19800
449
19300
19000
11300
449
Reference
(4)
(4)
N/A
(4)
(5)
(4)
(6)
(5)
(5)
(4)
Note
N/A
Used value of medium and low
radioactive wastes
Used density of water
N/A
Assumed elemental density
Used "mining waste" value
N/A
Assumed elemental density
Used the density of iodine gas
Used "mining waste" value
Stockpile Goods
Ash
Demolition waste
Overburden
Tailings
Treatment residue (mineral)
800
1900
449
449
449
(7)
(7) and (9)
(4)
(4)
(4)
N/A
Used average of values for slag and
ash
Used "mining waste" value
Used "mining waste" value
Used "mining waste" value
Hazardous waste for disposal
Hazardous waste to landfill
Hazardous waste (misc.)
Toxic chemicals (unspecified)
445
445
445
(4)
(4)
(4)
Used value for Hazardous waste
(unspec.)
Used value for Hazardous waste
(unspec.)
Used value for
inert chemical waste
Waste for disposal
IWP Sludge to landfill
Misc trash to landfill
Nylon waste to landfill
Other waste to landfill
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) waste
to landfill (PVC)
Scrap plastic to landfill
Scrap polymer pellets and
packaging to landfill (FEP)
1000
800
465
800
601
220
849
(7)
(7)
(2)
(7)
(2)
(1)
(8)
\^/
Used value for Sludge
Used value for Industrial waste for
municipal disposal
Average of values for nylon fibers,
flakes, pellets and powder
Used value for Industrial waste for
municipal disposal
Average of PVC chips and resin
Used landfill density of plastics
Found FEP waste density through
reference to the ratio of nylon waste
C-226
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table C-l. Waste Densities for Landfill Space Use Impact Category
Flow D"fifylD) Reference Note
(kg/m )
density to nylon density, noted above,
compared to FEP density.
WWTP sludge 1000 (7) Used value for Sludge
Sources:
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999. "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste
in the United States: 1998 Update." Office of Solid Waste, Municipal Waste Division, Report No.
EPA530-R-98-007. Prepared by Franklin Associates. July 1999. Tables B-9 andB-10.
(2) Machine and Process Design, Inc. Material Bulk Density Reference Chart, http://www.mpd-
inc.com/material.htm, (accessed Feb 2008).
(3) Chemfinder.com. Calcium Fluoride [7789-75-5]. http://chenifinder.canibridgesoft.com. (accessed
Feb 2008).
(4) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998. "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste
in the United States: 1997 Update." Office of Solid Waste, Municipal Waste Division, Report No.
EPA530-R-98-007. Prepared by Franklin Associates. May 1998.
(5) Lide, D; Ed. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 74th Ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
1993.
(6) Australian Uranium Association. Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #53: Uranium and Depleted
Uranium. hltp://www.uic.com.au/nip53.hlm. August 2007. (accessed Feb 2008).
(7) Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Perry, R.; Green, D., Eds.; 6th Edition; McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 1984.
(8) Tech Brief: Fluorinated Ethylene-Propylene - FEP.
http://www.a/om.com/dctails.asp?ArticlcID=414. (accessed Feb, 2008).
(9) Marewski, U. and Abraham, P.C. NCB Seminar 96-Part 1: Operating Experience of Vertical
Roller Mill for Slag Grinding. hUp://www.locschcindia.com/ncb96 l.hlml. (accessed Feb 25,
2008).
C-227
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
C-228
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix D: Equivalency Factors
Tables D-l through D-5 present equivalency factors for impact categories used in the impact
assessment. These are comprehensive lists that exceed the number of chemicals found in the
Wire and Cable Partnership life-cycle inventory.
Table D-l. Global warming potentials
Table D-2. Stratospheric ozone depletion equivalency factors
Table D-3. Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potentials (Photochemical smog)
Table D-4. Acidification potentials
Table D-5. Eutrophication potentials
D-229
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table D-l. Global Warming Potentials
Flow
Global warming potential
equivalents)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Carbon dioxide [Renewable resources]
Carbon dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air]
Carbon dioxide (biotic) [Air]
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Chlorodifluoromethane (R22) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Dichloromonofluoromethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Halon (1211) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Halon (1301) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Methane [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]
Methane (biotic) [Air]
Methyl bromide [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) [Inorganic emissions to air]
Perfluorobutane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluorocyclobutane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluorohexane [Organic intermediate products]
Perfluorohexane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluoropentane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluoropropane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 113 (trichlorofluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 115 (chloropentafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 116 (hexafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to freshwater]
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to sea water]
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 123 (dichlorotrifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 124 (chlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 125 (pentafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 13 (chlorotrifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 134 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
140
1
1
1
1800
1700
16
10
210
1300
6900
23
23
5
296
8600
8700
9000
9000
8900
8600
4600
6000
9800
7200
11905
10604
10604
10604
120
620
3400
14006
1100
D-230
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Flow
Global warming potential
(CO2 equivalents)
R 134a (tetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 141b (dichloro-1-fluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 142b (chlorodifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 143 (trifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 143a (trifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 152a (difluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 22 (chlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 225ca (dichloropentafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 225cb (dichloropentafluoropentane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 227ea (septifluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 23 (trifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 236fa (hexafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 245ca (pentafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 32 (trifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 41 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 43-10 (decafluoropentane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Sulphur hexafluoride [Inorganic emissions to air]
Tetrafluoromethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Trichloromethane (chloroform) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
VOC [Organic emissions to sea water]
VOC [Organic emissions to fresh water]
VOC (unspecified) [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]
1300
700
2400
330
4300
120
1700
180
620
3500
12005
9400
640
550
97
1500
22200
5700
30
16.1
16.1
16.1
Sources:
• Albritton, D.L. and Meira Filho, L.G. Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report. In: Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change; Houghton, J.T; Ding, Y; Griggs, D. J.; Noguer, M; van der Linden, P; Dai, X; Maskell, K; and Johnson,
C.A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2002.
MtB://wwwipc^ (accessed Feb 2008).
• Goedkoop M. J. PRe Consultants. The Eco-Indicator 95 - Final Report. 1995. The National Reuse of Waste Programme
(NOH), the Netherlands. li|M;/A^^Ji:gJl^^ (accessed Feb 2008).
• WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1999. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring project - Report no. 44. Geneva. In Handbook on life cycle assessment - Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards, Guinee, J.B., Ed.; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002. 100-yr horizon.
• Handbook on life cycle assessment - Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, Guinee, J.B., Ed.; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002.
• IPCC's 1995 GWP estimates, 100-year horizon. InRevised 1996IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories.', Houghton, J.T.; Meira Filho, L.G.; Lim, B.; Treanton, K.; Mamaty, I.; Bonduki, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Callender,
B.A., Eds.; IPCC/OECD/IEA. UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell, 1996.
D-231
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• Table D-2. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Equivalency Factors
Ozone depletion potential
(CFC-11 equivalents)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.11
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 1.10
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
Halon (1211) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 3
Halon (1301) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 10
Halon (2404) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 6
HBFC-1201 (Halon-1201) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 1.40
HBFC-1202 (Halon-1202) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 1.25
HBFC-2311 (Halon-2311) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.14
HBFC-2401 (Halon-2401) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.25
HBFC-2402 (Halon-2402) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 7
Methyl bromide [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.60
R 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 1
R 113 (trichlorofluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.90
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.85
R 115 (chloropentafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.40
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to fresh water] 0.82
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to sea water] 0.82
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.82
R 123 (dichlorotrifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.01
R 124 (chlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.03
R 141b (dichloro-1-fluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.09
R 142b (chlorodifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.04
R 22 (chlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.03
R 225ca (dichloropentafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
R 225cb (dichloropentafluoropentane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
Sources:
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
www.unep.org/ozone/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf. (accessed Feb 2008).
• WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1999. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring project - Report no. 44. Geneva. In Handbook on life cycle assessment - Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards, Guinee, J.B., Ed.; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002.
• WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1992. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1991. Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project - Report no. 25. Geneva. In Handbook on life cycle assessment - Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards, Guinee, J.B., Ed.; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002.
D-232
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Solomon, S. and Wuebbles, D.J., 1995. Ozone Depletion Potentials, Global Wanning Potentials and Future
Chlorine/Bromine Loading. In Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 (Assessment Co-Chairs D.L. Albritton,
R.T. Watson and P. J. Aucamp), World Meteorological Organisation, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project,
Report No. 37, World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva.
Heijungs, R., J. Guinee, g. Huppes, R.M. Lankreijer, HA. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A.M.M. Ansems, P.G.
Eggels, R. Van Duin en H.P. de Goede. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide and background (ISBN 90-
5191-064-9). Leiden (the Netherlands), Centre of Environmental Science of Leiden Univerisity, 1992.
Goedkoop M. J. PRe Consultants. The Eco-Indicator 95 - Final Report. 1995. The National Reuse of Waste Programme
(NOH), the Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl/download/EI95FinalReport.pdf. (accessed Feb 2008).
Hauschild, M., and Wenzel, H. 1998, Stratospheric ozone depletion as a criterion in the environmental assessment of
products. In Environmental assessment of products. Volume 2: Scientific background; Hauschild M and Wenzel H., Eds.;
Chapman & Hall, London, 1998, and Goedkoop, M.J., Spriensma, R.S.; The Eco-indicator 99, Methodology report. A
damage orientedLCIA Method; VROM, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1999.
Solomon, S. and Albritton, D.L. (1992) Time-Dependent Ozone Depletion Potentials for Short and Long-Term Forecasts.
Nature, 357, 33-37.
D-233
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table D-3. Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potentials (Photochemical Smog)
Photochemical oxidant
Flow potential (ethene
equivalents)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.01
1,2-Dichloroethylene [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.42
1-Butoxypropanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.46
1 -Butylene (Vinylacetylene) [Group NMVOC to air] 1.08
l-Methoxy-2-propanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.36
1-Propanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.56
1-Propylbenzene [Group NMVOC to air] 0.64
2,2-Dimethylbutane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.24
2-Butoxy-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.48
2-Ethoxy-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.39
2-Methoxy-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.31
2-Methylbutan-l-ol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.41
2-Methylbutan-2-ol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.14
2-Methylhexane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.41
2-Methylnonane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.40
3,5-Diethyltoluene [Group NMVOC to air] 1.30
3-Methylbutan-l-ol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.41
3-Methylbutan-2-ol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.37
3-Methylhexane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.36
Acetic acid [Group NMVOC to air] 0.10
Acetone (dimethylcetone) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.18
Alcohols (unspec.) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.20
Alkane (unspecified) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.40
Benzaldehyde [Group NMVOC to air] -0.09
Benzene [Group NMVOC to air] 0.19
Butane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.35
Butane (n-butane) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.41
Butanol (n-Butanol) [Organic intermediate products] 0.40
Butanol (tertiary butanol) [Organic intermediate products] 0.11
Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.37
Butylene glycol (butane diol) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.20
Butyraldehyde [Group NMVOC to air] 0.80
Carbon monoxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.04
D-234
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Photochemical oxidant
Flow potential (ethene
equivalents)
Carbon monoxide (biotic) [Air] 0.03
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
Chlorobenzene [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.01
cis-Dichloroethene [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.45
Crude oil [Crude oil (resource)] 0.40
Cyclohexanone [Group NMVOC to air] 0.30
Decane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.38
Diacetone alcohol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.31
Dichlorobenzene (o-DCB; 1,2-dichlorobenzene) [Halogenated organic emissions
to air] 0.02
Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB; 1,4-dichlorobenzene) [Halogenated organic emissions
to fresh water] 0.02
Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
Dichloroethane (isomers) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.07
Diisopropylether [Group NMVOC to air] 0.40
Dimethoxy methane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.16
Dimethyl carbonate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.03
Dimethyl ether [Group NMVOC to air] 0.19
Dodecane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.36
Ethane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.12
Ethanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.40
Ethene (ethylene) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.09
Ethylene acetate (ethyl acetate) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.21
Ethylene glycol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.37
Ethylene oxide [Group NMVOC to air] 0.38
Ethyl-trans-butyl ether [Group NMVOC to air] 0.24
Formic acid (methane acid) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.03
Furfuryl alcohol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.20
Gasoline (regular) [Crude oil products] 0.40
iso-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.40
iso-Butyraldehyde [Group NMVOC to air] 0.51
iso-Pentane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.41
meta-Ethyltoluene [Group NMVOC to air] 1.02
D-235
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Photochemical oxidant
Flow potential (ethene
equivalents)
Methane [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)] 0.01
Methane (biotic) [Air] 0.01
Methanol [Group NMVOC to air] 0.14
Methyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.06
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK, 78-93-3) [Emissions to air] 0.37
Methyl formate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.03
Methyl isopropylketone [Group NMVOC to air] 0.36
Methyl tert-butylether [Group NMVOC to air] 0.18
Methyl tert-butylketone [Group NMVOC to air] 0.32
Methylpentanone [Group NMVOC to air] 0.49
n-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.27
Neopentane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.17
Nitrogen dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.03
Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.03
Pentanaldehyde [Group NMVOC to air] 0.77
Pentane (n-pentane) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.40
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB unspecified) [Halogenated organic emissions to
air] 0.02
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (2,3,7,8 - TCDD) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air] 0.02
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (2,3,7,8 - TCDD) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air] 0.02
Propane [Group NMVOC to air] 0.18
Propanol (iso-propanol; isopropanol) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.19
Propionaldehyde [Group NMVOC to air] 0.80
Propionic acid (propane acid) [Group NMVOC to air] 0.15
Propyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.22
sec-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.28
Styrene [Group NMVOC to air] 0.14
Sulphur dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.05
tertiary-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air] 0.05
Tetrachloroethene (perchloroethylene) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.03
Tetrafluoromethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
trans-2-Butene [Group NMVOC to air] 1.13
trans-2-Pentene [Group NMVOC to air] 1.12
D-236
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Photochemical oxidant
Flow potential (ethene
equivalents)
trans-Dichloroethene [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.39
Trichloroethene (isomers) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.33
Trichloromethane (chloroform) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
TrimethyIbenzene [Group NMVOC to air] 1.38
Vinyl acetate (108-05-4) [Emissions to air] 0.22
Vinyl chloride (VCM; chloroethene) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.02
VOC (unspecified) [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)] 0.34
Xylene (para-Xylene; 1,4-Dimethylbenzene) [Group NMVOC to air] 1.01
Sources:
(a) LCA Handbook: Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders & MJ. Piling, 1998. Photochemical Ozone Creation
Potentials for Organic Compounds in Northwest Europe Calculated with a Master Chemical Mechanism. Atmos. Environ. 32
(14-15): 2429-2441.
(b) Jenkin, M.E. & G.D. Hayman, 1999. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials for Oxygenated Volatile Organic
Compounds: Sensitivity to Variations in Kinetic and Mechanistic Parameters. Atmos. Environ. 33 (8): 1275-1293.
(c) Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin & S.M. Saunders, 1996. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials for a Large Number of
Reactive Hydrocarbons under European Conditions. Atmos. Environ. 30 (2): 181-199.
(d) Goedkoop, M. J., Spriensma, R.S.; The Eco-indicator 99, Methodology report. A damage oriented'LCIA Method', VROM,
The Hague, The Netherlands, 1999.
(e) Goedkoop M.J. PRe Consultants. The Eco-indicator 95 - Final Report. 1995. The National Reuse of Waste Programme
(NOH), the Netherlands, http://www.pre.nl/download/EI951''inalReport.pdf. (accessed Feb 2008).
(f) Low NO x: Wenzel and Hauschild: Anderson- Skold, Y., Grennfelt, P. and Pleijel, K, 1992. Photochemical Ozone
Creation Potentials: A Study of Different Concepts. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 42(9): 1152-1158.
(g) High NO x: Wenzel and Hauschild: Anderson- Skold, Y., Grennfelt, P. and Pleijel, K., 1992. Photochemical Ozone
Creation Potentials: A Study of Different Concepts. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 42(9): 1152-1158.
D-237
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table D-4. Acidification Potentials
Acidification potential (SO2
equivalents)
Ammonia [Inorganic emissions to air] 1.88
Ammonium [Inorganic emissions to air] 3.76
Ammonium nitrate [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.85
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.83
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.63
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.74
Hydrochloric acid (100%) [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.88
Hydrogen bromine (hydrobromic acid) [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.40
Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions to agricultural soil] 0.88
Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.88
Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.88
Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.88
Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions to industrial soil] 0.88
Hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid) [Inorganic emissions to air] 1.60
Hydrogen fluoride [Inorganic emissions to air] 1.60
Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid) [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 1.60
Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid) [Inorganic emissions to agricultural soil] 1.60
Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid) [Inorganic emissions to industrial soil] 1.60
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions to agricultural soil] 1.88
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions to air] 1.88
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions to industrial soil] 1.88
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 1.88
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 1.88
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.51
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.51
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.51
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to industrial soil] 0.51
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to agricultural soil] 0.51
Nitrogen dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.70
Nitrogen monoxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 1.07
Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.70
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to agricultural soil] 0.98
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.98
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.98
D-238
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Acidification potential (SOj
equivalents)
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.98
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to industrial soil] 0.98
Sulphur dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 1
Sulphur trioxid [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.80
Sulphuric acid [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.65
Sulphuric acid [Inorganic emissions to agricultural soil] 0.65
Sulphuric acid [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.65
Sulphuric acid [Inorganic emissions to industrial soil] 0.65
Sulphuric acid [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.65
Sulphuric acid aerosol [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.65
Tetrachloroethene (perchloroethylene) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.19
Trichloroethene (isomers) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.72
Trichloromethane (chloroform) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.80
Vinyl chloride (VCM; chloroethene) [Halogenated organic emissions to air] 0.63
Sources:
(a) 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 Duin, and H.P. de Goede. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products. Vol. I: Guide, and Vol II:
Backgrounds. Leiden: CML Center for Environmental Studies, Leiden University. 1992.
(b) Hauschilld, M.Z. and Wenzel, H. Acidification as Assessment Criterion in the Environmental Assessment of Products. In
Scientific Background for Environmental Assessment of Products', M. Hauschild and H. Wenzel, Eds.; Chapman & Hall, London,
1997.
(c) Goedkoop M.J. PRe Consultants. The Eco-Indicator 95 - Final Report. 1995. The National Reuse of Waste Programme
(NOH), the Netherlands. hflBi/fewwjiejilMoTOilgM (accessed Feb 2008).
D-239
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table D-5. Eutrophication Potentials3
,_, Eutrophication potential
F|OW ,!.!.<. • • * »
(phosphate equivalents)
Acetic acid [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.02
Acetic acid [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.02
Ammonia [Waste to POTW] 0.35
Ammonium / ammonia [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.33
Ammonium / ammonia [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.33
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) [Analytical measures to sea water] 0.02
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) [Analytical measures to fresh water] 0.02
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) [Waste to POTW] 0.02
Calcium nitrate (Ca(NO3)2) [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.08
Calcium nitrate (Ca(NO3)2) [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.08
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) [Analytical measures to sea water] 0.02
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) [Analytical measures to fresh water] 0.02
Ethanol [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.04
Ethanol [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.04
Heptane [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.08
Heptane [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.08
Hexane (isomers) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.08
Hexane (isomers) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.08
Hydrocarbons (unspecified) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.08
Hydrocarbons (unspecified) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.08
Methanol [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.03
Methanol [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.03
Nitrate [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.10
Nitrate [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.10
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.10
Nitric acid [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.10
Nitrite [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.10
Nitrite [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.10
Nitrogen [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.42
Nitrogen [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.42
Nitrogen monoxide [Inorganic emissions to air] 0.13
Nitrogen organic bounded [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.42
Nitrogen organic bounded [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.42
Octane [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.08
D-240
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
_. Eutrophication potential
(phosphate equivalents)
Octane [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.08
Oil (unspecified) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.08
Oil (unspecified) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.08
Organic compounds (dissolved) [Organic emissions to fresh water] 0.02
Organic compounds (dissolved) [Organic emissions to sea water] 0.03
Organic compounds (unspecified) [Organic emissions to sea water] 0.03
Organic compounds (unspecified) [Organic emissions to fresh water] 0.02
Phosphate [Waste to POTW] 1
Phosphate [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 1
Phosphate [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 1
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.97
Phosphoric acid [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.97
Phosphoruos-pent-oxide [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 1.34
Phosphoruos-pent-oxide [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 1.34
Phosphorus [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 3.06
Phosphorus [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 3.06
Sodium nitrate (NaNOS) [Inorganic emissions to sea water] 0.07
Sodium nitrate (NaNOS) [Inorganic emissions to fresh water] 0.07
Total dissolved organic bounded carbon [Analytical measures to fresh water] 0.06
Total dissolved organic bounded carbon [Analytical measures to sea water] 0.06
Total organic bounded carbon [Analytical measures to sea water] 0.06
Total organic bounded carbon [Analytical measures to fresh water] 0.06
Xylene (isomers; dimethyl benzene) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.07
Xylene (isomers; dimethyl benzene) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.07
Xylene (meta-Xylene; 1,3-Dimethylbenzene) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.07
Xylene (meta-Xylene; 1,3-Dimethylbenzene) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.07
Xylene (ortho-Xylene; 1,2-Dimethylbenzene) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.07
Xylene (ortho-Xylene; 1,2-Dimethylbenzene) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.07
Xylene (para-Xylene; 1,4-Dimethylbenzene) [Hydrocarbons to sea water] 0.07
Xylene (para-Xylene; 1,4-Dimethylbenzene) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water] 0.07
a Only includes water emissions.
Sources:
(a) Handbook on life cycle assessment - Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, Guinee, J.B., Ed.; Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002, and
Heijungs, R., J. Guinee, g. Huppes, R.M. Lankreijer, H.A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A.M.M. Ansems, P.G. Eggels, R. Van
Duin en H.P. de Goede. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide and background (ISBN 90-5191-064-9). Leiden (the
Netherlands), Centre of Environmental Science of Leiden Univerisity, 1992.
D-241
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
D-242
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix E: Supporting Toxicity Data for the Wire and
Cable Partnership
Appendix E-1: Toxicity Data Collection
Background:
In the Wire and Cable Partnership (WCP), human and ecological toxicity impacts of
chemicals found in the life-cycle inventory of selected cable resins are calculated by using a
chemical ranking method. This method was originally developed for a life-cycle assessment
(LCA) done with support from the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Saturn
Corporation. It was updated for the EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program Computer
Display Project (CDP) in consultation with ORD. The final CDP method was reviewed by ORD
as well as EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Risk Assessment Division (RAD)
prior to publication (Socolof et al., 2001). The methodology was subsequently used for the DfE
Lead Free Solder Project (LFSP) (Geibig and Socolof, 2005), when other minor updates were
made which included (1) separating chronic heath impacts into cancer impacts and chronic non-
cancer impacts (for both public and occupational impacts) and (2) removing the presentation of
the terrestrial ecotoxicity impact category.
Separating the chronic human impacts into two separate categories was done because the
hazard values (HVs) calculated for each of these two impact categories are calculated based on
geometric means for different endpoints. For cancer impacts, the HV is based on the geometric
mean of cancer slope factors. The geometric mean for cancer slope factors are largely influenced
by the slope factors for dioxins, which are very high. Thus the associated hazard values of most
cancer impacts have numerically small HVs (since the HV is calculated by dividing the chemical
specific slope factor by the geometric mean). Compared to the non-cancer HVs, the cancer HVs
are generally much smaller numbers. Therefore, combining the two impact scores into one
impact category causes the non-cancer impacts to overshadow the cancer impacts. Therefore, to
observe any real resolution in the cancer impact category, the cancer and non-cancer impact
categories were separated for the LFSP, as will also be done for the WCP.
The other change from the CDP was to remove the terrestrial toxicity impact category as
being presented independently because the chronic non-cancer impacts presented alone are
calculated the same way as the terrestrial ecotoxicity impacts. Thus, the terrestrial ecotoxicity
impacts are represented by the non-cancer impacts and thus were not presented separately in the
LFSP. The WCP LCA will use the methodology as it was used in the LFSP.
In the LCA, there is no intent to conduct a full risk assessment or even a screening level
risk assessment, given that there are no real spatial or temporal boundaries to this global,
industry-wide LCA. In order to provide some weighting of the inventory data to represent
potential toxicity, basic toxicity data (e.g., a NOAEL for chronic, non-carcinogenic effects) are
used. The intent is to modify the inventory data by the inherent toxicity of the material to provide
a relative toxicity measure.
Toxicity data are being collected for potentially toxic chemicals in the WCP inventory.
To save project resources, toxicity data that have been collected for previous DfE projects will be
E-243
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
used in the WCP. Toxicity data used prior to this project were collected by Syracuse Research
Corporation (SRC) (under contract with EPA) and EPA's RAD for the CDP, and by the Toxicity
and Hazard Assessment Group in the Life Sciences Division at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) for the LFSP. ORNL conducted their search in April, 2003 and the data
were subsequently reviewed and/or supplemented by EPA's RAD. The description below
presents the method to be used to collect the WCP toxicity data.
Data Collection Approach:
Once inventory data are collected for the project, the inventory flows are checked to
determine if they are potentially toxic. The lists of potentially toxic and non-toxic chemicals will
be reviewed by EPA. Those excluded from the toxicity list are assumed to be non-toxic. The
chemicals then deemed potentially toxic are assembled for toxicity data collection. The data are
first checked for correct chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number
and the associated inventory disposition (e.g., release to water) is identified to help determine
classification into different toxicity impact categories. Classification helps determine what
toxicity data need to be collected. For example, if an inventory flow is released to water, it will
require aquatic toxicity data.
For chemicals identified in the inventory of the life cycle of the wire and cable
alternatives, for which toxicity data were collected for previous projects, data from the previous
projects will be used. For new chemicals identified in this LCA, chronic human toxicity
endpoints and both acute and chronic aquatic toxicity endpoints are being searched. The
following specific endpoints will be used for calculating human toxicity scores:
• inhalation or oral NOAEL (or inhalation or oral LOAEL),
• cancer slope factors, and
• cancer weight of evidence (WOE).
For ecological toxicity, the following endpoints are used for calculating aquatic toxicity:
• fish LCso and
• fish NOEL.
EPA's RAD provided guidance for collecting toxicity data for DfE Cleaner Technology
Substitutes Assessments. This served as the basis for data collection for this LCA; however, it
was modified as applicable to an LCA. As stated in the RAD guidance, when searching for the
toxicity endpoints, the first sources to be reviewed will be:
• EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
(http://www.epa.gov/iris/)—reference dose, reference concentration, cancer
slope factor, unit risk, and weight-of-evidence classification.
• AT SDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry)—a federal
public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
provides trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases
related to toxic substances.
E-244
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
• EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge robust summaries and
supporting documents contain information on physical properties,
environmental fate and transport, toxicity, and ecotoxicity data submitted by
Industry to the HPV Challenge Program, and
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's)
Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) robust summaries and supporting
documents.
If endpoints from these sources are found, and do not conflict with other sources from
this list, those data are chosen. If more than one value is found for an endpoint, decisions of what
data to use will be presented to EPA by Abt Associates with any final decisions made by EPA.
If endpoints are not found from the above sources, the following databases would be
searched:
• STN (CAS-Online)—provides information on chemical identity and chemical
use. TOXLINE "special" database plus BIOSIS was searched in conjunction
with MEDLINE.
• TSCATS (Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions)-the EPA database
that holds data submitted to the Agency under TSCA sections 4 and 8).
Although data in TSCATS may be unpublished and, therefore, not subjected
to peer review by the editors of a journal, the data may provide useful
information on particular chemicals and can be considered for preparation of
robust summaries if the TSCATS data meet Agency standards for data
quality/data adequacy.
• IUCLID (International Uniform ChemicaL Information Database) -
maintained under the responsibility of the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB)
within the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) of the Joint
Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission, and is distributed free of
charge; includes, for example, chemical substances composition,
physical/chemical properties, toxicological properties, and eco-toxicological
properties.
Other databases have also served as sources (e.g., Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables [HEAST], Hazardous Substances Data Bank [HSDB], Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances [RTECS]). In general, priority is given to peer-reviewed databases such as
IRIS, HEAST, HDSB, then other databases (e.g., RTECS), then other studies or literature, and
finally estimation methods (e.g., structure-activity relationships [SARs] or quantitative structure-
activity relationships [QSARs]).
In cases where there is more than one data point, we will select a data point based on the
applicability of the study to the endpoint of interest and the robustness of the study (as best could
be determined from the available data). If the original sources are not reviewed, information
from secondary sources (e.g., EPA's ECOTOXicology Data Base System, version 4 [U.S. EPA,
2007]) on the test type and duration will be considered. The following hierarchy offish studies,
based on Swanson et al. 1997, will be employed to choose LC50 ecotoxicity data in order of
preference:
E-245
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
(1) fathead minnow 96-h flow-through test
(2) 96-h flow-through test for another freshwater fish, excluding trout
(3) fathead minnow 96-h static test
(4) 96-h static test for another freshwater fish, excluding trout
If the only adequate data are for trout, they will also be used. In cases where multiple
data points (with equivalent quality, test type, and species type) are available, an average of those
data will be taken as the data point of interest. This is preferred over taking the most toxic
response as these data are used in relative ranking of chemicals and not to serve as protective
exposure limits.
Other aquatic species (e.g., daphnia, algae) were not used in the original methodology
used to develop the LCIA toxicity method used in this study (i.e., CHEMS-1, Swanson et a/.,
1997); however, this does not preclude future versions of this methodology from using other
species besides fish, which would represent lower trophic levels (e.g., daphnia or algae).
Toxicity Data:
The toxicity data required for the LCIA, and to be collected are as follows:
• Cancer (mammalian toxicity)
o oral SF
o inhalation SF
o WOE
• Noncancer (mammalian toxicity)
o oral NOAEL (or LO AEL)
o inhalation NOAEL (or LOAEL)
• Aquatic ecotoxicity
o
o NOELorNOEC
In the cases where chronic ecotoxicity (i.e., NOEL or NOEC) data are not available, the
log Kow and the LC50 can be used to predict the NOEL (described in Geibig and Socolof, 2005,
Volume 1, Section 3.1.2.13). The log Kow values will be determined using a
LOGKOW/KOWWIN Program (http://www.syrros.com/csc/cstjkowdcmo.htm).. provided the
appropriate Simplified Molecular Input line Entry System (SMILES) notation is determined.
When other data related to the toxicity of a chemical are readily available, such data will also be
reported as "other" toxicity values. For the WCP, new data were searched for approximately 30
chemicals for which we did not already have existing data.
E-246
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
REFERENCES
Geibig, J.R. and M.L. Socolof. 2005. Solder in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Design for the Environment Program, EPA 744-
R-05-001. Washington DC. August. Available at:
Socolof, M.L. J.G. Overly, L.E. Kincaid, J.R. Geibig. 2001. Desktop Computer Displays: A
Life-Cycle Assessment, Volumes 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 744-R-
01-004a,b, 2001. Available at: http://www.cpa.gov/oppt/dfc/pubs/comp-dic/lca/.
Swanson, M.B., GA. Davis, L.E. Kincaid, T.W. Schultz, J.E. Bareness, etal. 1997. "A
Screening Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and
Environmental Impacts," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 372-383,
SETAC Press.
U.S. EPA. 2007. ECOTOXicology Database System, version 4.
http://cfpub.cpa.gov/ccotox/quick_qucry.httn. Latest update: March 12, 2007.
GLOSSARY OF TOXICITY COMPARISON TERMS
LD50 (Lethal Dose 50)
A calculated dose of a substance which is expected to cause the death of 50 percent of a defined
experimental animal population.
LC50 (Lethal Concentration 50)
A calculated concentration of a substance in air or water, which is expected to cause the death of
50 percent of a defined experimental animal population.
LOAEL (Lowest observable adverse effect level)
Lowest concentration or amount of a substance, found by experiment or observation, which
causes an adverse alteration of morphology, functional capacity, growth, development, or life
span of a target organism distinguishable from normal (control) organisms of the same species
and strain under defined conditions of exposure.
NOAEL (No observable adverse effect level)
No-observed-adverse-effect level. Greatest concentration or amount of a substance, found by
experiment or observation, which causes no detectable adverse alteration of morphology,
functional capacity, growth, development, or life span of the target organism under defined
conditions.
WOE (Weight of evidence)
Classification of relevance and quality of studies used to make a determination of carcinogenicity.
E-247
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
E-248
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix E-2: Toxicity Data Used in Hazard Value Calculations
The toxicity data presented in the following tables are for the master list of chemicals
used to calculate endpoint-specific geometric means, which are then used to develop hazard
values (HVs) for the chemicals in the WCP inventory. The HVs are a relative ranking of
potentially toxic materials used in the occupational, public, and ecotoxicity impact categories.
Details of the methodology are described in Chapter 3. Note that the chemicals listed for oral and
inhalation NOAELs only include those with NOAEL values in the literature. Chemicals for
which we used LOAELs to estimate NOAELs were not included in the calculation of the NOAEL
geometric means. Further, the chemicals in the WCP inventory are a subset of the chemicals used
to generate the geometric means presented in the following tables:
Table E-l. Slope Factors
Table E-2. Oral NOAELs
Table E-3. Inhalation NOAELs
Table E-4. Fish LCSOs
Table E-5. FishNOELs
E-249
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table E-1. Slope Factors3
Chemical
Acephate
Acetaldehyde
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Alachlor
Aldrin
Aniline
Aramite
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Aroclor 1260
Arsenic, Inorganic
Atrazine
Azobenzene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl Chloride
Beryllium and compounds
Bis(2-chloro- 1 -methylethyl)ether (Technical)
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Butadiene, 1,3-
Cadmium (Diet)
CAS#
30560-19-1
75-07-0
79-06-1
107-13-1
15972-60-8
309-00-2
62-53-3
140-57-8
12674-11-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
11096-82-5
7440-38-2
1912-24-9
103-33-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
207-08-9
98-07-7
100-44-7
7440-41-7
108-60-1
111-44-4
117-81-7
542-88-1
75-27-4
75-25-2
106-99-0
7440-43-9
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
8.70E-03
4.50E+00
5.40E-01
8E-02
1.70E+01
5.70E-03
2.50E-02
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
4E-01
2E+00
1.50E+00
2.22E-01
1.10E-01
7.30E-01
5.50E-02
2.30E+02
7.30E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E-02
1.30E+01
1.70E-01
4.30E+00
7E-02
1.10E+00
1.40E-02
2.20E+02
6.20E-02
7.90E-03
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
7.70E-03
4.50E+00
2.40E-01
1.70E+01
2.50E-02
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
4E-01
2E+00
5E+01
1.10E-01
3.10E-01
2.90E-02
2.30E+02
3.10E+00
3.10E-01
3.10E-02
8.40E+00
3.50E-02
1.10E+00
2.20E+02
3.90E-03
1.80E+00
6.10E+00
E-250
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Cadmium (Water)
Captafol
Captan
Carbazole
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloranil
Chlordane
Chloro-2-methylaniline HC1, 4-
Chloro-2-methylaniline, 4-
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromoethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloronitrobenzene, o-
Chloronitrobenzene, p-
Chlorothalonil
Chromium VI (chromic acid mists)
Chromium VI (paniculate s)
Chrysene
Coke Oven Emissions
Crotonaldehyde, trans-
Cyanazine
Cyclohexane, l,2,3,4,5-pentabromo-6-chloro-
DDD
DDE
DDT
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate
Diallate
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromoethane, 1,2-
Dichloro-2-butene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, 1,3-
Dichlorvos
Dieldrin
Diethylstilbesterol
Dimethoxybenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethylaniline HC1, 2,4-
CAS#
7440-43-9
2425-06-1
133-06-2
86-74-8
56-23-5
118-75-2
057-74-9
3165-93-3
95-69-2
510-15-6
73506-94-2
67-66-3
74-87-3
88-73-3
121-73-3
1897-45-6
18540-29-9
18540-29-9
218-01-9
8007-45-2
123-73-9
21725-46-2
87-84-3
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
103-23-1
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
124-48-1
106-93-4
764-41-0
106-46-7
91-94-1
107-06-2
75-35-4
78-87-5
542-75-6
62-73-7
60-57-1
56-53-1
119-90-4
21436-96-4
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
8.60E-03
3.50E-03
2E-02
1.30E-01
4.03E-01
3.50E-01
4.60E-01
5.80E-01
2.70E-01
8.40E-02
6.10E-03
1.30E-02
2.50E-02
1.80E-02
1.10E-02
7.30E-03
1.90E+00
8.40E-01
2.30E-02
2.40E-01
3.40E-01
3.40E-01
1.20E-03
6.10E-02
7.30E+00
1.40E+00
8.40E-02
8.50E+01
2.40E-02
4.50E-01
9.10E-02
6E-01
6.80E-02
1E-01
2.90E-01
1.60E+01
4.70E+03
1.40E-02
5.80E-01
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
6.10E+00
5.30E-02
1.30E+00
2.70E-01
8.10E-02
6.30E-03
4.10E+01
4.10E+01
3.10E-03
2.20E+00
3.40E-01
3.10E+00
2.40E-03
7.60E-01
9.30E+00
9.10E-02
1.20E+00
1.40E-02
1.60E+01
4.90E+02
E-251
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Dimethylaniline, 2,4-
Dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethylhydrazine, 1,1-
Dinitrotoluene Mixture, 2,4/2,6-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
Dioxane, 1,4-
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
DirectBlack38
Direct Blue 6
Direct Brown 95
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl Aery late
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene Thiourea
Folpet
Fomesafen
Formaldehyde
Furazolidone
Furium
Furmecyclox
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Gamma-
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Technical
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Mixture
Hexachloroethane
Hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine(RDX)
HpCDD, 2,3,7,8-
HpCDF, 2,3,7,8-
HxCDD, 2,3,7,8-
HxCDF, 2,3,7,8-
Hydrazine
Hydrazine Sulfate
Indeno [ 1 ,2,3 -cd]pyrene
Isophorone
Methoxy-5-nitroaniline, 2-
Methyl Hydrazine
Methyl-5-Nitroaniline, 2-
CAS#
095-68-1
119-93-7
57-14-7
25321-14-6
121-14-2
606-20-2
123-91-1
122-66-7
1937-37-7
2602-46-2
16071-86-6
106-89-8
140-88-5
100-41-4
75-21-8
96-45-7
133-07-3
72178-02-0
50-00-0
67-45-8
531-82-8
60568-05-0
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
319-84-6
319-85-7
58-89-9
608-73-1
19408-74-3
67-72-1
121-82-4
37871-00-4
38998-75-3
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
302-01-2
10034-93-2
193-39-5
78-59-1
99-59-2
60-34-4
99-55-8
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
7.50E-01
9.20E+00
3E+00
6.80E-01
6.80E-01
6.80E-01
1.10E-02
8E-01
8.60E+00
8.10E+00
9.30E+00
9.90E-03
4.80E-02
1.02E+00
1.10E-01
3.50E-03
1.90E-01
3.80E+00
5E+01
3E-02
4.50E+00
9.10E+00
1.60E+00
7.80E-02
6.30E+00
1.80E+00
1.30E+00
1.80E+00
6.20E+03
1.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.50E+03
1.50E+03
1.50E+04
1.50E+04
3E+00
3E+00
7.30E-01
9.50E-04
4.60E-02
3E+00
3.30E-02
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
1.72E+01
8E-01
4.20E-03
3.85E-03
3.50E-01
4.50E-02
4.50E+00
9.10E+00
1.60E+00
7.80E-02
6.30E+00
1.80E+00
1.80E+00
4.55E+03
1.40E-02
.50E+03
.50E+03
.50E+04
.50E+04
.70E+01
.70E+01
3.10E-01
1.72E+01
E-252
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Methylaniline Hydrochloride, 2-
Methylene Chloride
Methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline), 4,4'-
Methylene-bis(N,N-dimethyl) Aniline, 4,4'-
Methylenebisbenzenamine, 4,4'-
Mirex
Nickel Refinery Dust
Nickel Subsulfide
Nitrofurazone
Nitropropane, 2-
Nitrosodiethanolamine, N-
Nitrosodiethylamine, N-
Nitrosodimethylamine, N-
Nitroso-di-N-butylamine, N-
Nitroso-di-N-propylamine, N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine, N-
Nitroso-N-ethylurea, N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine, N-
OCDD
OCDF
PeCDD, 2,3,7,8-
PeCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-
PeCDF, 2,3,4,7,8-
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenylenediamine, o-
Phenylphenol, 2-
Polybrominated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (low risk)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (lowest risk)
Prochloraz
Propylene Oxide
Quinoline
Simazine
Sodium Diethyldithiocarbamate
Stirofos (Tetrachlorovinphos)
TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
TCDF, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorotoluene, p- alpha, alpha, alpha-
CAS#
636-21-5
75-09-2
101-14-4
101-61-1
101-77-9
2385-85-5
NA
12035-72-2
59-87-0
79-46-9
1116-54-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
759-73-9
930-55-2
3268-87-9
39001-02-0
36088-22-9
57117-41-6
57117-31-4
82-68-8
87-86-5
95-54-5
90-43-7
59536-65-1
1336-36-3
1336-36-3
1336-36-3
67747-09-5
75-56-9
91-22-5
122-34-9
148-18-5
961-11-5
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
5216-25-1
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
1.80E-01
7.50E-03
1.30E-01
4.60E-02
2.50E-01
1.80E+00
1.50E+00
9.50E+00
2.80E+00
1.50E+02
5.10E+01
5.40E+00
7E+00
4.90E-03
2.20E+01
1.40E+02
2.10E+00
1.50E+02
1.50E+02
7.50E+04
7.50E+04
7.50E+03
2.60E-01
1.20E-01
4.70E-02
1.94E-03
8.90E+00
2E+00
4E-01
7E-02
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
1.20E+01
1.20E-01
2.70E-01
2.40E-02
1.50E+05
1.50E+04
2.60E-02
2E-01
5.20E-02
2E+01
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
1.65E-03
1.30E-01
8.40E-01
1.70E+00
9.40E+00
1.50E+02
5.10E+01
5.40E+00
2.10E+00
1.50E+02
1.50E+02
7.50E+04
7.50E+04
7.50E+03
2E+00
4E-01
1.30E-02
1.50E+05
1.50E+04
2.60E-02
2E-01
2E-03
E-253
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Toluene-2,4-diamine
Toluidine, o- (Methylaniline, 2-)
Toluidine, p-
Toxaphene
Trichloroaniline HC1, 2,4,6-
Trichloroaniline, 2,4,6-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Trifluralin
Trimethyl Phosphate
Trinitrotoluene, 2,4,6-
Vinyl Bromide
Vinyl Chloride
CAS#
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
33663-50-2
634-93-5
79-00-5
79-01-6
88-06-2
96-18-4
1582-09-8
512-56-1
118-96-7
593-60-2
75-01-4
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
3.20E+00
2.40E-01
1.90E-01
1.10E+00
2.90E-02
3.40E-02
5.70E-02
1.10E-02
1.10E-02
7E+00
7.70E-03
3.70E-02
3E-02
1.40E+00
Inhalation Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
1.10E+00
5.70E-02
6E-03
1E-02
1.10E-01
3.08E-02
aThe hazard value for each chemical was derived by dividing the toxicity values shown here by the
applicable geometric mean presented in Appendix E-3
E-254
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table E-2. Oral NOAELs3
Chemical
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2,4-Benzenetricarboxylic Acid, Tris(2-Ethylhexyl)
Ester
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, 3,4,5,6-Tetrabromo-,
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Ester (9ci)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-ethanol acetate
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,4-D
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-ethoxyethanol
2-methoxyethanol
4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Alachlor
Aluminum (elemental)
Aluminum hydroxide
Ammonia
Ammonium bifluoride
Anthracene
Antioxida
Arsenic
Atrazine
Barium
Barium carbonate
Barium cmpds
CAS#
71-55-6
79-00-5
3319-31-1
120-82-1
26040-51-7
95-50-1
107-06-2
78-87-5
76-14-2
542-75-6
106-46-7
124-17-4
1746-01-6
94-75-7
121-14-2
110-80-5
109-86-4
80-05-7
101-77-9
100-02-7
83-32-9
75-07-0
64-19-7
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
15972-60-8
7429-90-5
21645-51-2
7664-41-7
1341-49-7
120-12-7
2082-79-3
7440-38-2
1912-24-9
7440-39-3
513-77-9
20-02-0
Oral
NOAEL
250
3.9
100
7.8
223.4
18.8
18
250
273
0.125
10
1000
9E-08
15
0.2
250
50
500
3.2
70
175
125
195
100
50
423
0.1
83
1
1
60
23
34
0.05
1000
30
008
3.5
0.21
0.21
0.21
unit
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
E-255
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Barium sulfate
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Biphenyl
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) adipate
Bismuth
Boric acid
Boron
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Butyl acrylate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butylate
Butyraldehyde
Cadmium cmpds
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorine
Chlorobenzene
Chlorophenols [o]
Chloropyrifos
Chlorothalonil
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Chromium trioxide
Coolant
Copper
Crude oil
Cumene
Cyanazine
Cyanide (-1)
Decabromodiphenyl oxide
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di propylene glycol butyl ether
Dibutyl phthalate
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Diethanolamine
Diethyl ether
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylene glycol
Diisoundecyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Dioctyl sebacate
CAS#
7727-43-7
100-52-7
71-43-2
92-52-4
103-23-1
7440-69-9
11113-50-1
7440-42-8
75-25-2
74-83-9
141-32-2
85-68-7
2008-41-5
123-72-8
20-04-2
133-06-2
63-25-2
56-23-5
7782-50-5
108-90-7
20-05-3
2921-88-2
1897-45-6
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
1333-82-0
not available
7440-50-8
8002-05-9
98-82-8
21725-46-2
57-12-5
1163-19-5
117-81-7
29911-28-2
84-74-2
75-71-8
75-09-2
111-42-2
60-29-7
84-66-2
111-46-6
85507-79-5
131-11-3
122-62-3
Oral
NOAEL
0.21
143
1
50
610
3243
67
8.8
17.9
0.4
84
151
5
75
05
12.5
9.6
1
14
12.5
50
0.03
1.5
1468
2.5
1468
71
0.53
893
154
0.625
10.8
1
50
450
125
15
155
75
500
150
1250
790
1000
200
unit
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
E-256
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Erucamide
Ethanol amine
Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluorine
Fluorspar (Fluorite) (Calcium fluoride)
Formaldehyde
Freon 113
Glycol ethers
Glyphosate
Heptane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydroquinone
Hydrotalcite/zeolite
Antioxidant
Isophorone
Isopropyl alcohol
m, p-xylene
Maleic anhydride
Maneb
Manganese
Manganese oxide
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Metolachlor
m-xylene
N,N-dimethylaniline
Naphthalene
N-butyl alcohol
Nickel
Nickel chloride
Nickel cmpds
CAS#
112-84-5
141-43-5
759-94-4
100-41-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
206-44-0
86-73-7
7782-41-4
7789-75-5
50-00-0
76-13-1
111-76-2
1071-83-6
142-82-5
87-68-3
118-74-1
67-72-1
74-90-8
7783-06-4
123-31-9
12304-65-3;
1318-02-1
32687-78-8
78-59-1
67-63-0
1330-20-7
108-31-6
12427-38-2
7439.96-5
1313-13-9
67-56-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
51218-45-2
108-38-3
121-69-7
91-20-3
71-36-3
7440-02-0
7718-54-9
20-14-4
Oral
NOAEL
7500
320
2.5
136
71
30
125
125
0.06
47.5
15
273
203
800
1000
0.2
0.5
1
10.8
3.1
5
5000
25
150
230
179
10
25
0.14
05
500
125
50
7.5
2.5
100
300
250
32
71
125
5
5
100
unit
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
E-257
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Nitrate
Nitrates/nitrites
Nitrites
Nitrobenzene
Orthoboric acid
o-xylene
P-cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phosphate ester
Phosphine
Phosphorus (yellow or white)
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polyethylene mono (nonylphenyl) ether glycol
Polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP)
Propylene oxide
p-xylene
Pyrene
Pyridine
Santicizer2148
Selenium
Sodium hypochlorite
Stabilizer
Strontium
Strontium carbonate
Styrene
Terbufos
Terephthalic acid
Tert-butyl alcohol
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trifluralin
Uranium
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Zinc (elemental)
Zirconium
CAS#
14797.55-8
14797-65-0
98-95-3
10043-35-3
95-47-6
106-44-5
87-86-5
108-95-2
57583-54-7
7803-51-2
7723-14-0
1336-36-3
9016-45-9
9003-39-8
75-56-9
106-42-3
129-00-0
110-86-1
29761-21-5
7782-49-2
7681-52-9
1843-05-6
7440-24-6
1633-05-2
100-42-5
13071-79-9
100-21-0
75-65-0
127-18-4
109-99-9
108-88-3
79-01-6
1582-09-8
7440-61-6
7440-62-2
108-05-4
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
7440-67-7
Oral
NOAEL
1.6
1.6
1
0.46
67
179
50
o
J
60
1000
0.026
0.015
07
1000
550
200
1000
75
1
235
0.015
2.1
41
190
190
100
025
500
1599
14
782
100
24
0.75
0.2
03
100
179
0.9
3494
unit
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
aThe hazard value for each chemical was derived by dividing the toxicity values shown here by the
applicable geometric mean presented in Appendix E-3.
E-258
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table E-3. Inhalation NOAEL Data3
Chemical
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,2,4-Benzenetricarboxylic Acid, Tris(2-Ethylhexyl)
Ester
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3 -Butadiene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
l-Methoxy-2-propanol
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-Methoxyethanol
4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylic acid
Allyl chloride
Ammonia
Ammonium nitrate (solution)
Aniline
Antimony trioxide
Benzene
Bromomethane
Butyl acrylate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyraldehyde
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Coolant
Cumene
Cumene hydroperoxide
Cyclohexane
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dichlorobenzene (mixed isomers)
Dichloromethane
Diethanolamine
Diisoundecyl phthalate
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl chloride
CAS#
71-55-6
3319-31-1
120-82-1
107-06-2
78-87-5
106-99-0
542-75-6
106-46-7
123-91-1
107-98-2
110-80-5
109-86-4
80-05-7
100-02-7
75-07-0
75-05-8
79-10-7
107-05-1
7664-41-7
6484-52-2
62-53-3
1309-64-4
71-43-2
74-83-9
141-32-2
85-68-7
123-72-8
75-15-0
630-08-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
not available
98-82-8
80-15-9
110-82-7
117-81-7
25321-22-6
75-09-2
111-42-2
85507-79-5
106-89-8
75-00-3
Inhalation
NOAEL
1214.9
260
24.3
221
710
2800
49.6
75
360
658
7480
93.3
10
30
300
91.5
74
68.3
40
185
19
0.51
1.15
4.3
120
144
3200
10
114.5
34.3
377
10
537
31
1500
50
610.4
796
0.27
180
20.7
3600
unit
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
E-259
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde
Glycol ethers
HCFC-22
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Hexafluoropropylene (HFP)
HFC-125
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrotalcite/zeolite
Isopropyl alcohol
Ligroine
Maneb
Mercury
Methanol
Methyl chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Metyl tert-butyl ether
N,N-Dimethylaniline
N-butyl alcohol
Nitrobenzene
p-cresol
Phosphine
Phosphoric acid
Propionaldehyde
Propylene
Propylene glycol
Propylene oxide
p-xylene
Sec -butyl alcohol
Styrene
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid
Terephthalic acid
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Titanium
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene
Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate
CAS#
100-41-4
74-85-1
107-21-1
75-21-8
50-00-0
111-76-2
75-45-6
87-68-3
116-15-4
354-33-6
7647-01-0
12304-65-3;
1318-02-1
67-63-0
8032-32-4
12427-38-2
7439.97-6
67-56-1
74-87-3
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
121-69-7
71-36-3
98-95-3
106-44-5
7803-51-2
7664-38-2
123-38-6
115-07-1
57-55-6
75-56-9
106-42-3
78-92-2
100-42-5
7446-09-5
7664-93-9
100-21-0
127-18-4
109-99-9
7440-32-6
7550-45-0
108-88-3
584-84-9
Inhalation
NOAEL
2370
11600
10
18
0.6
121
5260
58.2
67
245000
15
20
268.3
14560
10
06
130
1138.4
8047
224
111.7
2880
06
0.1
27.5
10
0.25
50
200
9375
170
237
5812.6
8270
565
0.104
0.1
3
740.2
0.2
0.8
09
411.1
0.03
unit
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
E-260
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
CAS#
79-01-6
108-05-4
75-01-4
75-35-4
Inhalation
NOAEL
586.6
176
69754.5
120
unit
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
aThe hazard value for each chemical was derived by dividing the toxicity values shown here by the
applicable geometric mean presented in Appendix E-3.
E-261
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table E-4. Fish LC50 Data3
Chemical
,1,1 -Trichloroethane
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,2-Dichloroethane
,2-Dichloropropane
,3 -Butadiene
,3-Dichloropropene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
,4-Dioxane
-Methylphenanthrene
2,2-Dimethylolpropionic acid
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-D
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-Methoxyethanol
2-Nitropropane
3 ,4-Dinitrotoluene
4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
4-Nitrophenol
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Alachlor
Allyl chloride
Aluminum
Aluminum (+3)
Aluminum Hydroxide
Ammonia
Ammonium nitrate (solution)
Ammonium sulfate (solution)
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
CAS#
71-55-6
79-00-5
634-90-2
120-82-1
95-63-6
95-50-1
107-06-2
78-87-5
106-99-0
542-75-6
106-46-7
123-91-1
832-69-9
4767-03-7
6639-30-1
88-06-2
94-75-7
51-28-5
121-14-2
110-80-5
109-86-4
79-46-9
610-39-9
80-05-7
101-77-9
100-02-7
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
15972-60-8
107-05-1
7429-90-5
21645-51-2
7664-41-7
6484-52-2
7783-20-2
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
Fish LC50
48
82
4
o
J
8
1
136
127
4
0.24
34
9850
1
1000
1
o
J
71
11
24
16305
22655
5
2
5
45
41
34
7200
1640
109
186
10
5
72
11
3.6
32
2
800
4000
108
0.01
14.4
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-262
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Antimony cmpds
Antioxidant
Arsenic
Arsenic cmpds
Atrazine
Barium
Barium cmpds
Bentonite
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoyl chloride
Beryllium
Beta diketone
Beta terpineol
Biphenyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
Bismuth
Boron
Boron (B III)
Bromomethane
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butylate
Butyraldehyde
Cadmium
Cadmium cmpds
Caffeine
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Catechol
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chlorophenols [o]
Chloroprene
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Chromium cmpds
CAS#
20-00-8
32687-78-8
7440-38-2
20-01-9
1912-24-9
7440-39-3
20-02-0
1302-78-9
100-52-7
71-43-2
207-08-9
98-88-4
7440-90-5
138-87-4
92-52-4
103-23-1
7440-69-9
7440-42-8
74-83-9
85-68-7
2008-41-5
123-72-8
7440-43-9
20-04-2
58-08-2
133-06-2
63-25-2
79-15-0
56-23-5
463-58-1
120-80-9
7782-50-5
10049-04-4
108-90-7
67-66-3
20-05-3
126-99-8
1897-45-6
2921-88-2
7440-47-3
18540-29-9
20-06-4
Fish LC50
833
100
14.4
32
16
580
200
1000
27
19
1000
35
2
140
5.4
2
0.35
5
113
113
11
43
7
32
01
0.1
151
0.2
8
694
41
2685
9
0.34
0.17
17
71
19
2
0.05
2.4
52
22.6
33
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-263
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Chromium III
Cobalt cmpds
Coolant
Copper
Copper (+1 & +2)
Copper cmpds
Cresol (mixed isomers)
Crude Oil
Cumene
Cumene hydroperoxide
Cyanazine
Cyanide (-1)
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexylamine
Decabromodiphenyl oxide
Di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di propylene glycol butyl ether
Diaminotoluene (mixed isomers)
Dibutyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzene (mixed isomers)
Dichloromethane
Diethanolamine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Edetic acid (EDTA)
Epichlorohydrin
Ethoduomeen
Ethyl chloride
Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Fluorine
Fluoroboric acid
Fluorosilicic acid
Fluorspar
Formaldeyde
Freon 113
Glycol ethers
Glyphosate
Heavy fuel oil
CAS#
16065-83-1
20-07-5
7440-50-8
20-08-6
1319-77-3
8002-05-9
98-82-8
80-15-9
21725-46-2
57-12-5
110-82-7
108-94-1
108-91-8
1163-19-5
117-81-7
29911-28-2
25376-45-8
84-74-2
25321-22-6
75-09-2
111-42-2
84-66-2
131-11-3
117-84-0
60-00-4
106-89-8
53127-17-6
75-00-3
759-94-4
100-41-4
74-85-1
107-21-1
75-21-8
7782-49-2
16872-11-0
16961-83-4
7789-75-5
50-00-0
76-13-1
111-76-2
1071-83-6
64741-62-4
Fish LC50
3.3
0.38
227634
0.014
0.014
0.33
13
7.1
6
62
18
56
5
630
222
0.06
1
930
37
1
1
330
4710
32
121
1
473
35
0.5
16
27
11
14
227634
84
100
1000
100
100
24
290
1490
600
316
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-264
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexafluoropropylene
Hexane
Hydrazine
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydroquinone
Hydrotalcite/zeolite
Iron pyrite
Isobutyraldehyde
Isopropyl alcohol
Lead
Lead cmpds
Lead sulfate cake
Limestone flour
Lithium salts
M,p-xylene
Malathion
Maleic anhydride
Maneb
Manganese cmpds
Mercury
Mercury cmpds
Metam sodium
Methanol
Methl mercury
Methyl chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Methylenebis (phenylisocyanate)
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Molybdenum
Molybdenum (Mo II, Mo III, Mo IV, Mo V, Mo VI)
Molybdenum trioxide
Monochlorohexafluoropropane (HCFC-226)
m-xylene
CAS#
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
67-72-1
116-15-4
110-54-3
302-01-2
7647-01-0
7664-39-3
74-90-8
123-31-9
12304-65-3
1309-36-0
78-84-2
67-63-0
7439-92-1
20-11-1
7446-14-2
471-34-1
121-75-5
108-31-6
12427-38-2
20-12-2
7439.97-6
137-42-8
67-56-1
115-09-3
74-87-3
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
101-68-8
51218-45-2
21087-64-9
7439-98-7
1313-27-5
431-87-8
108-38-3
Fish LC50
0.09
22
07
1
245
2.5
4.83
19
265
1385
141
2900
1000
41
8623
31.5
5
60.8
100
2600
13
0.1
2963
2
150
0.155
0.155
0.39
29400
0.09
550
3220
572
259
9
786
1
15
80
157
157
370
23
16
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
3.09
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-265
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
N, N-Demethylaniline
Naphthalene
N-butyl alcohol
Nickel
Nickel cmpds
Nitrate
Nitrates/nitrites
Nitric acid
Nitrites
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen dioxide
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
o-xylene
p-cresol
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
Phenol
Phosphoric acid
Phosphorus (yellow or white)
Phthalic anhydride
Picric acid
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Potassium bicarbonate
Propionaldehyde
Propylene
Propylene oxide
p-xylene
Pyridine
Sec -butyl alcohol
Selenium
Silver
Silver cmpds
Silvex
Sodium Hypochlorite
Strontium
Styrene
Sulfuric acid
Terbufos
Terephthalic acid
Tert-butyl alcohol
Tetrachloroethylene
Tin
Tin (Sn++, Sn4+)
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene
CAS#
121-69-7
91-20-3
71-36-3
7440-02-0
20-14-4
14797.55-8
7697-37-2
14797-65-0
98-95-3
10102-44-0
86-30-6
95-47-6
106-44-5
335-67-1
108-95-2
7664-38-2
7723-14-0
85-44-9
88-89-1
1336-36-3
298-14-6
123-38-6
115-07-1
75-56-9
106-42-3
110-86-1
78-92-2
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
93-72-1
7681-52-9
7440-24-6
100-42-5
7664-93-9
13071-79-9
100-21-0
75-65-0
127-18-4
7440-31-5
7550-45-0
108-88-3
Fish LC50
65
6
1860
2.48
27
2213
2213
26
225
119
196
16
25
455
34
70
0.02
364
170
o
6
305
44
5
306
2
100
3670
4.9
04
12
13
0.53
210
4
31
0.01
29
1954
17
626
626
25
34
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-266
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate
Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
Tri propylene glycol butyl ether
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Triethylene glycol
Trifluralin
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Zinc (+2)
Zinc (elemental)
Zinc borate
Zinc cmpds
Zinc sulfate
CAS#
584-84-9
156-60-5
55934-93-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
112-27-6
1582-09-8
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
75-35-4
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
1332-07-6
20-19-9
7733-02-0
Fish LC50
53
45
900
44
114
88100
0.11
4
100
143
108
13
0.09
0.09
409
17
14
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
aThe hazard value for each chemical was derived by dividing the toxicity values shown here by the
applicable geometric mean presented in Appendix E-3.
E-267
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Table E-5. Fish NOEL Data3
Chemical
,1,1 -Trichloroethane
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,2-Dichloroethane
,2-Dichloropropane
,3 -Butadiene
,3-Dichloropropene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
,4-Dioxane
-Methylphenanthrene
2,2-Dimethylolpropionic acid
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-D
2 , 4 -D initrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-Methoxyethanol
2-Nitropropane
3 ,4-Dinitrotoluene
4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
4-Nitrophenol
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Alachlor
Allyl chloride
Aluminum
Aluminum (+3)
Aluminum Hydroxide
Ammonia
Ammonium nitrate (solution)
Ammonium sulfate (solution)
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Antimony cmpds
Arsenic
CAS#
71-55-6
79-00-5
634-90-2
120-82-1
95-63-6
95-50-1
107-06-2
78-87-5
106-99-0
542-75-6
106-46-7
123-91-1
832-69-9
4767-03-7
6639-30-1
88-06-2
94-75-7
51-28-5
121-14-2
110-80-5
109-86-4
79-46-9
610-39-9
80-05-7
101-77-9
100-02-7
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
15972-60-8
107-05-1
7429-90-5
21645-51-2
7664-41-7
6484-52-2
7783-20-2
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
20-00-8
7440-38-2
Fish NOEL
48
82
4
3
8
1
136
127
4
0.24
34
9850
1
1000
1
3
71
11
24
16305
22655
5
2
5
45
41
34
7200
1640
109
186
10
5
72
11
3.6
32
2
800
4000
108
0.01
14.4
833
14.4
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-268
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Arsenic cmpds
Atrazine
Barium
Barium cmpds
Bentonite
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoyl chloride
Beryllium
Beta diketone
Beta terpineol
Biphenyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
Bismuth
Boron
Boron (B III)
Bromomethane
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butylate
Butyraldehyde
Cadmium
Cadmium cmpds
Caffeine
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Catechol
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chlorophenols [o]
Chloroprene
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Chromium cmpds
Chromium III
Cobalt cmpds
Coolant
Copper
Copper (+1 & +2)
CAS#
20-01-9
1912-24-9
7440-39-3
20-02-0
1302-78-9
100-52-7
71-43-2
207-08-9
98-88-4
7440-90-5
138-87-4
92-52-4
103-23-1
7440-69-9
7440-42-8
74-83-9
85-68-7
2008-41-5
123-72-8
7440-43-9
20-04-2
58-08-2
133-06-2
63-25-2
79-15-0
56-23-5
463-58-1
120-80-9
7782-50-5
10049-04-4
108-90-7
67-66-3
20-05-3
126-99-8
1897-45-6
2921-88-2
7440-47-3
18540-29-9
20-06-4
16065-83-1
20-07-5
7440-50-8
Fish NOEL
32
16
580
200
1000
27
19
1000
35
2
140
5.4
2
0.35
5
113
113
11
43
7
32
01
0.1
151
0.2
8
694
41
2685
9
0.34
0.17
17
71
19
2
0.05
2.4
52
22.6
33
3.3
0.38
227634
0.014
0.014
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-269
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Copper cmpds
Cresol (mixed isomers)
Crude Oil
Cumene
Cumene hydroperoxide
Cyanazine
Cyanide (-1)
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexylamine
Decabromodiphenyl oxide
Di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di propylene glycol butyl ether
Diaminotoluene (mixed isomers)
Dibutyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzene (mixed isomers)
Dichloromethane
Diethanolamine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Edetic acid (EDTA)
Epichlorohydrin
Ethoduomeen
Ethyl chloride
Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Fluorine
Fluoroboric acid
Fluorosilicic acid
Fluorspar
Formaldeyde
Freon 113
Glycol ethers
Glyphosate
Heavy fuel oil
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexafluoropropylene
Hexane
Hydrazine
CAS#
20-08-6
1319-77-3
8002-05-9
98-82-8
80-15-9
21725-46-2
57-12-5
110-82-7
108-94-1
108-91-8
1163-19-5
117-81-7
29911-28-2
25376-45-8
84-74-2
25321-22-6
75-09-2
111-42-2
84-66-2
131-11-3
117-84-0
60-00-4
106-89-8
53127-17-6
75-00-3
759-94-4
100-41-4
74-85-1
107-21-1
75-21-8
7782-49-2
16872-11-0
16961-83-4
7789-75-5
50-00-0
76-13-1
111-76-2
1071-83-6
64741-62-4
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
67-72-1
116-15-4
110-54-3
302-01-2
Fish NOEL
0.33
13
7.1
6
62
18
56
5
630
222
0.06
1
930
37
1
1
330
4710
32
121
1
473
35
0.5
16
27
11
14
227634
84
100
1000
100
100
24
290
1490
600
316
0.09
22
07
1
245
2.5
4.83
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-270
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydroquinone
Hydrotalcite/zeolite
IrganoxMD1024
Iron pyrite
Isobutyraldehyde
Isopropyl alcohol
Lead
Lead cmpds
Lead sulfate cake
Limestone flour
Lithium salts
M,p-xylene
Malathion
Maleic anhydride
Maneb
Manganese cmpds
Mercury
Mercury cmpds
Metam sodium
Methanol
Methl mercury
Methyl chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Methylenebis (phenylisocyanate)
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Molybdenum
Molybdenum (Mo II, Mo III, Mo IV, Mo V, Mo VI)
Molybdenum trioxide
Monochlorohexafluoropropane (HCFC-226)
m-xylene
N, N-Demethylaniline
Naphthalene
N-butyl alcohol
Nickel
Nickel cmpds
Nitrate
Nitrates/nitrites
Nitric acid
CAS#
7647-01-0
7664-39-3
74-90-8
123-31-9
12304-65-3
32687-78-8
1309-36-0
78-84-2
67-63-0
7439-92-1
20-11-1
7446-14-2
471-34-1
121-75-5
108-31-6
12427-38-2
20-12-2
7439.97-6
137-42-8
67-56-1
115-09-3
74-87-3
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
101-68-8
51218-45-2
21087-64-9
7439-98-7
1313-27-5
431-87-8
108-38-3
121-69-7
91-20-3
71-36-3
7440-02-0
20-14-4
14797-55-8
7697-37-2
Fish NOEL
19
265
1385
141
2900
100
1000
41
8623
31.5
5
60.8
100
2600
13
0.1
2963
2
150
0.155
0.155
0.39
29400
0.09
550
3220
572
259
9
786
1
15
80
157
157
370
23
16
65
6
1860
2.48
27
2213
2213
26
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-271
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Nitrites
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen dioxide
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
o-xylene
p-cresol
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
Phenol
Phosphoric acid
Phosphorus (yellow or white)
Phthalic anhydride
Picric acid
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Potassium bicarbonate
Propionaldehyde
Propylene
Propylene oxide
p-xylene
Pyridine
Sec -butyl alcohol
Selenium
Silver
Silver cmpds
Silvex
Sodium Hypochlorite
Strontium
Styrene
Sulfuric acid
Terbufos
Terephthalic acid
Tert-butyl alcohol
Tetrachloroethylene
Tin
Tin (Sn++, Sn4+)
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene
Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate
Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
Tri propylene glycol butyl ether
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Triethylene glycol
Trifluralin
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
CAS#
14797-65-0
98-95-3
10102-44-0
86-30-6
95-47-6
106-44-5
335-67-1
108-95-2
7664-38-2
7723-14-0
85-44-9
88-89-1
1336-36-3
298-14-6
123-38-6
115-07-1
75-56-9
106-42-3
110-86-1
78-92-2
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
93-72-1
7681-52-9
7440-24-6
100-42-5
7664-93-9
13071-79-9
100-21-0
75-65-0
127-18-4
7440-31-5
7550-45-0
108-88-3
584-84-9
156-60-5
55934-93-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
112-27-6
1582-09-8
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
Fish NOEL
225
119
196
16
25
455
34
70
0.02
364
170
3
305
44
5
306
2
100
3670
4.9
04
12
13
0.53
210
4
31
0.01
29
1954
17
626
626
25
34
53
45
900
44
114
88100
0.11
4
100
143
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
E-272
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Chemical
Vinylidene chloride
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Zinc (+2)
Zinc (elemental)
Zinc borate
Zinc cmpds
Zinc sulfate
CAS#
75-35-4
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
1332-07-6
20-19-9
7733-02-0
Fish NOEL
108
13
0.09
0.09
409
17
14
unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
aThe hazard value for each chemical was derived by dividing the toxicity values shown here by the
applicable geometric mean presented in Appendix E-3.
E-273
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
E-274
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix E-3: Geometric Means Used in Hazard Value Calculations
Table E-6. Geometric Means Used to Calculate Toxicity Hazard Values
Parameter
Oral SF
Inhalation SF
Oral NOAEL
Inhalation NOAEL
Fish LC50
Fish NOEL
n
175
105
171
90
235
213
min
0.00095
0.00165
9E-08
0.006
0.001
0.001
max Geometric mean
150000
150000
7500
245000
227634
56909
0.707
1.70
16.8
69.8
27.4
4.07
a The chemical data used to generate the geometric means are listed in
Appendix E-2.
E-275
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
This page left intentionally blank
E-276
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Appendix E-4: Example Toxicity Calculation
The following example illustrates how toxicity impacts are calculated. Please refer to
Section 3.2.11 of the main body of this report for descriptions of the methodologies for
calculating these impacts.
If two toxic chemicals (e.g., toluene and benzo(a)pyrene) are included in a waterborne
release to surface water from Process A, impact scores would be calculated for the following
impact categories (based on the classification shown in Table 3-1 of the main report):
• Chronic public health effects, cancer and non-cancer; and,
• Aquatic ecotoxicity.
Despite the output types being waterborne releases, the water eutrophication and water
quality impact categories are not applicable here because the chemical properties criteria in Table
3-1 are not met. That is, these chemicals do not contain nitrogen or phosphorus and are not
themselves wastewater streams.
Using chronic public health effects as an example, impact scores are then calculated for
each chemical as follows:
Cancer effects:
IScHP-CA:toluene = HVcA:toluene X AmtjCoutputitoluene
loCHP-CA:benzo(a)pyrene = rl VcA:benzo(a)pyrene X AmiTCoutput:benzo(a)pyrene
Non-cancer effects:
IScHP-NC:toluene = HV|MC:toluene X AmtjCoutputitoluene
loCHP-NC:benzo(a)pyrene = rl V|MC:benzo(a)pyrene X AmiTCoutput:benzo(a)pyrene
Table E-7 presents toxicity data for the example chemicals. The hazard values and
impact scores are calculated as follows:
Table E-7. Toxicity Data Used in Example Calculations
Chemical
Toluene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cancer Chronic non-cancer effects
Slope factor
Weight of (SF) Oral Inhalation
evidence (mg/kg-day)"1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/m3)
D, 3 None 100 (NOAEL)
B2, 2A 7.3 (oral) No data
3.1 (inhalation)
4 11.1 (NOAEL)
No data
E-277
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
Cancer effects:
The cancer HV for benzo(a)pyrene is calculated as follows:
oral
oral: (HVCAorJ,=
oral SFmean
HVCAorai:benzo(a)pyrene = 7.3 (mg/kg-day)'1) 0.71 (mg/kg-day)'
= 10.3
. , , . , . inhalation SFi
inhalation : (HVCA ) =
'"* ' inhalation SFmea»
HVCAinhaiation:benzo(a)pyrene = 3.1 (mg/kg-day)'1) 1.7 (mg/kg-day)'1
= 1.82
Thus, the cancer HV is 10.3, the greater of the two values. The cancer HV for toluene is zero
since it has no slope factor and a WOE classification of D (EPA) and 3 (IARC).
Given a hypothetical waterborne release amount of 0.1 kg of benzo(a)pyrene per
functional unit, the impact score for benzo(a)pyrene cancer effects is given by:
IScHP-CA,W:benzo(a)pyrene - 10.3x0.1
= 1.03 kg cancertox-equivalents of benzo(a)pyrene
per functional unit
Toluene=s impact score for cancer is zero since its HV is zero.
Non-cancer effects:
Since no data are available for non-cancer effects of benzo(a)pyrene, a default HV of one
is assigned, representative of mean toxicity.
The non-cancer HV for toluene is calculated as follows:
oral: «™>
l/(oral NOAELmean)
E-278
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
1/100 mg/kg-day) 1/14.0 mg/kg-day
0.140
. , , . x > l/(inhal NOAEL,)
inhalation: (HVNr ) = JVLAI^,/
\ 11 r NCinhalation /I 1 //'
l/(inhal NOAELSUBmean)
= 1/411.1 mg/m3) 1/68.7 mg/m3
= 0.167
Thus, the non-cancer HV for toluene is 0.167, the greater of the two values.
Given the following hypothetical output amounts:
AmtTc-o:TOLUENE = 1.3 kg of toluene per functional unit
AmtTc-o:BENzo(A)pYRENE =0.1 kg of benzo(a)pyrene per functional unit
The resulting non-cancer impact scores are as follows:
IScHP-NC,W:TOLUENE = 0.167 X 1.3
= 0.22 kg non-cancer-equivalents of toluene per
functional unit
IScHP-NC,W:BENZO(A)PYRENE = 1 X0.1
= 0.1 kg non-cancer-equivalents of benzo(a)pyrene
per functional unit
If these were the only outputs from Process A relevant to chronic public health effects,
the total non-cancer impact score for this impact category for Process A would be:
IScHP-NC:PROCESS_A ~ IScHP-NC-W:TOLUENE + IScHP-NC-W:BENZO(A)PYRENE
= 0.22 + 0.1
= 0.23 nkg non-cancertox-equivalents per functional unit
for Process A.
E-279
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
If the product system Y contained three processes altogether (Processes A, B, and C), and
the non-cancer impact scores for Process B and C were 0.5 and 1.0, respectively, impact scores
would be added together to yield a total impact score for the product system relevant to chronic
public non-cancer health effects:
IScHP-NC:PROFILE_Y = IScHP-NC:PROCESS_A + IScHP-NC:PROCESS_B + IScHP-NC:PROCESS_C
= 0.23 + 0.5+ 1.0
= 1.73 kg non-cancertox-equivalents per functional unit for
Profile Y.
An environmental profile would then be the sum of all the processes within that profile
for each impact category.
E-280
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
APPENDIX F: Review Statement
The LCA was extensively reviewed by the Core Group. Over 100 comments were
addressed prior to the preparation of the final report. Below are the comments received by the
EPA LCA expert and how they were addressed. The reviewer found the responses acceptable.
Comments from EPA LCA expert, Mary Ann Curran, Office of Research and Development:
COMMENT: RESPONSE:
Overall the contractors did a very nice job with the
study. I did not delve into the data so I can't
speak to their accuracy but I did take a look at the
LCA methodology that was used. I really don't see
much wrong in what they did.
2. The goal of the study is clearly stated, they
followed ISO methodology, clearly state all
assumptions and data sources, and use a multi-
media/multi-impact approach. They have
obviously done LCAs before. The only weakness I
can see is the use of an "energy use" category.
Typically, accounting for energy use doesn't allow
for identification of impacts such as fossil fuel
depletion (that is, not all energy is the same). But
if for this industry and product type, the energy is
being sourced basically from the same place
(such as the national grid), then you can get a way
with the energy use comparison. The report
touches on this a bit in the conclusion section.
3. Also, the data are obviously not the best. I am
glad to see this mentioned in the section on
recommended improvements. In many places the
data are pretty old. (There should be some
indication of how age was handled - can it be
assumed that the industry didn't change much in
certain so that older data is acceptable?) and in
other places only limited sources were used to
average data. These are very limiting to the
robustness of the study, but I think the authors did
a good job of identifying these weaknesses and
did the best with what they could get. I would just
like to see this addressed a little better (more?) in
the executive summary, without being too
apologetic.
For clarification, our "energy use" category is the
quantity of energy (electrical or fuel energy) used
throughout the life cycle, measured in megajoules
per functional unit. It includes electric energy from
the national grid (which accounts for energy
produced by various fuel types-coal, natural gas,
nuclear, etc.), as well as energy used directly from
fuels in industrial processes (e.g., natural gas or
fuel oil #2). Our energy use category does not
account for fossil fuel depletion directly (as you
say), and it is only intended to reflect energy use,
knowing that some of that energy is from different
sources; however we have an impact category for
"non-renewable resource use impacts" where
fossil fuel depletion is accounted for, along with
any other non-renewables.
RESPONSE: We have attached an excerpt from
the Executive Summary with a suggested
sentence to "beef up" the discussion on the data
age issue.
Excerpt: Last 2 paragraphs of section 3.2.1 of
Executive Summary (suggested addition in ALL
CAPS): "A variety of secondary data sources
were used, including PlasticsEurope for PVC and
HOPE data (Boustead, 2005a; Boustead, 2005b);
Ecobilan for phthalate plasticizer data (Ecobilan,
2001); Andersson et al. for aluminum trihydrate
data (Andersson et al., 2005); and GaBi4
database (PE & IKP, 2003) for limestone and
calcium fillers, electricity generation, natural gas,
light fuel oil, and heavy fuel oil. ALTHOUGH
SOME DATA ARE SEVERAL YEARS OLD; THEY
REPRESENT MATERIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN
PROCESSED FOR MANY YEARS AND THUS
WE ASSUME THEY ARE PRODUCED USING
MATURE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE
EXPECTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF
CURRENT PROCESSES. Using a high-medium-
F-281
-------
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: May 29, 2008
COMMENT: RESPONSE:
low scale, the overall inventory for the upstream
life-cycle stage was given a subjective data quality
measure of "medium to low" due to the extensive
use of secondary data and the absence of some
of the upstream data."
4. I only found one typo: Check the last reference for Typo fixed.
Lovstof/mech_recylce.pdf (I assume this should
be recycle)
F-282
------- |