EPA/600/R-01/101
November 2001
Life Cycle Engineering Guidelines
by
Joyce Smith Cooper and Bruce Vigon
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
CR822956
Project Officer
Kenneth R. Stone
Sustainable Technology Division
Systems Analysis Branch
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Notice
This publication has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this
document are solely those of Battelle Columbus Laboratories and EPA does not endorse
any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.
-------
Foreword
This publication has been produced as part of the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) strategic long-term research plan. SERDP was established in
order to sponsor cooperative research, development, and demonstration activities for
environmental risk reduction. Funded with U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) resources,
SERDP is an interagency initiative involving the DoD, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SERDP seeks to develop environmental solutions
that improve mission readiness for Federal activities. The Life-Cycle Engineering and Design
Program (LCED) is a product of the SERDP effort coordinated by the EPA to provide a
technical and economic basis for the effective application of life cycle principles to product and
process design and materials selection. In addition, it is expected that many techniques
developed will have applications across both the public and private sectors.
This document has been published and is made available by EPA's Office of Research and
Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients. This
document is preceded and is partially based on previous reports in this series where the
application of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and total cost assessment (TCA) methodologies to
research and demonstration projects under support from the SERDP are summarized and several
lessons learned are documented.
-------
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 WHAT Is LIFE CYCLE ENGINEERING? 2
1.2 BENEFITS OF LIFE CYCLE ENGINEERING 6
1.3 INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS 7
2. A LIFE CYCLE ENGINEERING FRAMEWORK 7
2.1 TARGETING THE ASSESSMENT 7
2.7._/ Establishing the Function being Provided 7
2.1.2 Naming an Evaluation Team 9
2.1.3 Developing Requirements and Goals 9
2.1.4 Proposing Engineering Technologies and Options 11
2.2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 12
2.2.1 Defining the Technology Life Cycles 12
2.2.2 Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals 14
2.2.3 Linking Options to Requirements and Goals 14
2.3 DETAILED ASSESSMENT 14
2.3.1 Retargeting the Assessment 14
2.3.2 Re defining the Technology Life Cycles 15
2.3.3 Reassessing Requirements and Goals 18
2.3.4 Identifying Key Technologies 19
2.4 DEVELOPING SPECIFICATIONS 20
3. MAINTENANCE 21
3.1 PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS 21
3.2 PROCESSES AND FACILITIES 21
3.3 LCE CASE STUDY: CHEMICAL AGENT RESISTANT COATINGS 21
3.3.1 Targeting the Evaluation 21
3.3.2 Preliminary Assessment 25
3.3.3 Detailed Assessment 34
3.3.4 Specification Development 44
4. UPGRADES 45
4.1 PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS 45
4.2 PROCESSES AND FACILITIES 45
4.3 LCE CASE STUDY: PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE DEVELOPMENT 46
4.3.1 Targeting the Evaluation 46
4.3.2 Preliminary Assessment 47
4.3.2 Preliminary and Detailed Assessments 49
4.3.4 SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT 49
5.1 PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS 50
5.2 PROCESSES AND FACILITIES 50
5.3 LCE CASE STUDY: EDO PROCESS DEVELOPMENT 50
5.3.1 Targeting the Evaluation 51
5.3.2 Preliminary Assessment 52
5.3.3 Detailed Assessment 56
6. DECOMMISSIONING. 67
6.1 PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS 67
6.2 PROCESSES AND FACILITIES 67
6.3 LCE CASE STUDY: PANTEX FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING 67
6.3.1 Targeting the Assessment 68
IV
-------
6.3.2 Preliminary Assessment 68
6.3.3 Detailed Assessment 69
6.4 LCE CASE STUDY: GBU-24 WEAPON SYSTEM DECOMMISSIONING 69
6.4.1 Targeting the Assessment 69
6.4.2 Preliminary Assessment 70
6.4.3 Detailed Assessment 70
6.4.4 Developing Specifications 71
1. REFERENCES AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 72
8. WORKSHEET TEMPLATES 73
ATTACHMENT A: MAINTENANCE WORKSHEETS 73
ATTACHMENTB: UPGRADES WORKSHEETS 78
ATTACHMENT C: NEW DESIGN WORKSHEETS 83
ATTACHMENT D: DECOMMISSIONING WORKSHEETS 88
-------
1. Introduction
To meet the needs of today's market place, product, process, and facility engineering is a
concurrent effort involving engineers, business planners, marketing staff, and environmental
professionals who function as integrated teams. Consideration of cost and mechanical, electrical,
and chemical performance requirements has long been a part of product, system, process, and
facility engineering decisions. However, integration of a broader set of factors into these
decisions, such as environmental implications, is a fairly recent phenomenon.
This guide was prepared under the cooperating programs of both the Department of Defense
(DoD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Among_the shared objectives of the
cooperators is demonstrating the effectiveness
of analytical tools and environmental
techniques to reduce environmental impacts
and costs of operations while maintaining
performance standards. This project was
sponsored by the DoD's Strategic
ng the shared objectives of the
SERDP
Strategic Environmental Reseaieh
and Development Program
Improving Mission Readiness Through
Environmental Research
Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP) and conducted by the
EPA's Life Cycle Assessment Research Team
at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory. It builds upon prior research sponsored
under the Program and conducted by EPA.
SERDP was established in order to sponsor cooperative research development and demonstration
activities for environmental risk reduction. Funded with DoD resources, SERDP is an
interagency initiative among DoD, the Department of Energy (DOE), and EPA. SERDP seeks to
develop environmental solutions that improve mission readiness for Federal activities. In
addition, it is expected that many of the techniques developed will have application across the
public and private sectors.
Within the context of this engineering guide, environmental implications are beneficial or
adverse effects on human health and the environment with respect to material and energy use and
waste in the context of industrial operations. Environmental implications occur throughout the
stages of the product, process, or facility life cycle—that is, from the acquisition and processing
of materials, through production or construction, use, maintenance, and retirement. A reliable
and comprehensive characterization of a product, system, process, or facility reflects
environmental implications throughout the life cycle stages in conjunction with cost and
mechanical, electrical, or chemical performance requirements.
Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) uses such a characterization in product, system, process, and
facility engineering decisions. The LCE process is an ongoing, comprehensive examination with
the goal of minimizing adverse environmental implications throughout the life cycle. LCE
provides a means to:
• communicate the relationship between environmental implications and
engineering requirements and specifications,
-------
• assess the environmental implications of alternatives, and
• identify improvement opportunities throughout the life cycle.
LCE depends on understanding performance, cost, and environmental implications and
translating them into engineering requirements, goals, and specifications. Related decisions are
iterative in nature. As the engineering process proceeds from the conceptual to defined, the LCE
evaluation will reevaluate earlier decisions and expand or contract the coverage to ensure that the
broadest set of improvement opportunities are considered, substantial environmental implications
are not missed, and consequences are not inadvertently shifted from one life cycle stage to
another. Through repeated application, engineers, managers, and other technical experts become
progressively more proficient in using LCE.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for the implementation of LCE concepts,
information, and techniques in engineering products, systems, processes, and facilities. To make
this document as practical and useable as possible, a unifying LCE framework is presented.
Subsequent topics are organized according to a classification scheme that reflects the generic
types of engineering decisions that are candidate to include environmental implications in
conjunction with cost and performance requirements. This organization is summarized and
shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 LCE Decisions
Product
New
Original
Improvement
System
Section 3.1
Process Facility
Section 3.2
Upgrade
Section 4.1
Section 4.2
Maintenance
Routine
Unanticipated
Section 5.1
Section 5.2
Decommissioning
Section 6.1
Section 6.2
1.1 What Is Life Cycle Engineering?
Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) is a process to develop specifications to meet a set of
performance, cost, and environmental requirements and goals that span the product, system,
process, or facility life cycle. The life cycle embodies material and energy
use and waste throughout four conceptual stages:
Stage 1. Material Production. Material production includes material
acquisition and processing. Material acquisition includes activities
related to the acquisition of natural resources. This includes mining
non-renewable material and harvesting biomass. Material processing
involves processing of natural resources by reaction, separation,
purification, and alteration steps in preparation for the manufacturing
stage.
-------
Stage 2. Manufacturing and Construction. Manufacturing and construction
involves the creation of parts and their assembly into the products.
StageS. Use, Support and Maintenance. Products, systems, processes, and
facilities are used, maintained, and repaired.
Stage 4 Decommissioning and Material Recovery and Disposal Retirement
and disposal of products, systems, processes, and facilities includes the
decommissioning, disassembly, the recovery of usable components,
materials and energy, and the treatment and disposal of residual
materials.
Figure 1.1 portrays these four life cycle stages. Materials and energy flow into and between each
life cycle stage, are recovered, and wasted. Recovery includes the reuse of components and
materials, the remanufacture of components, and the recycling of components and materials.
Recycling includes both closed-loop, in which materials are reused within the same product life
cycle, and open-loop, in which materials are used in other products and processes.
Figure 1.1 Life Cycle Stages
Materials —
and Energy
Materials —
and Energy
Materials —
and Energy
Materials —
and Energy
MATERIAL
PRODUCTION
closed-loop recycling
MANUFACTURING
AND CONSTRUCTION
USE, SUPPORT, AND
MAINTENANCE
DECOMMISSIONING
AND MATERIAL
RECOVERY AND
DISPOSAL
Like pollution prevention, LCE can be considered as the judicious use of resources through
source reduction, energy efficiency, and material recovery. Unlike pollution prevention, LCE
considers environmental implications beyond facility gates, or beyond what applies "in-house,"
such that environmental implications are not transferred to another facility within the life cycle.
Thus, as illustrated in Figure 1.2, LCE offers a platform to apply improvement strategies and
identify engineering activities in a manner more comprehensive than pollution prevention with
respect to the life cycle.
-------
Figure 1.2 Life Cycle Engineering and Pollution Prevention
Improvement
Example Activities
o
Q.
O
O
D)
2!
u
Life Cycle Engineering
•Life Cycle Source Reduction
•Life Cycle Recovery
•Life Cycle Treatment
•Life Cycle Disposal
•Use of renewable resources
•Supplier partnerships
•Upstream, in-house, and
downstream hazard
reduction
•Minimization of
maintenance materials
•Minimization of fuel
consumption
•Upstream, in-house, and
downstream waste
reduction and recovery
Pollution Prevention
•In-House Source Reduction
•In-House Recovery
•In-House Treatment
•In-House Disposal
•Waste source elimination
•In-house reuse and
reclamation
•Apply best available
technology
•Pretreat discharges to
water
•Disposal at a permitted
facility
There are six categories of engineering activities that can be used in LCE as applied to product
and system engineering and process and facilities engineering:
1. material selection/ changes,
2. equipment selection/ changes
3. improved purchasing choices,
4. improved operating practices,
5. disposition practices, and
6. improved logistics.
Material and equipment selection/ changes produce improvements through the definition of
resource flows and operations within the life cycle. The latter four categories, improved
purchasing, operating, and disposition practices, and improved logistics, are dictated within LCE
by carefully crafted engineering specifications as a complement to material and technology
changes. These categories and example activities are listed in Figure 1.3.
-------
Figure 1.3 Life Cycle Engineering Activity Categories
Life Cycle Engineering
Product and System Engineering
OPTION DEFINITION
Material Selection/ Changes
•material life extension
•substitution of less-hazardous materials
•reduced material intensiveness/ weight
reduction
•use of local materials
Equipment Selection/ Changes
•improved equipment
•new technology
•energy efficiency
SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT
Improved Purchasing Practices
•supplier screening
•supplier partnerships
Improved Operating Practices
•energy efficiency
•operating and maintenance procedures
Improved Disposition Practices
•reuse and recycling
•manager screening
•safe treatment and disposal
Improved Logistics
•packaging reduction
•transport distance reduction
•transport mode changes
•use of local materials
Process and Facility Engineering
OPTION DEFINITION
Material Selection/ Changes
•material life extension
•substitution of less-hazardous materials
•reduced material intensiveness
•use of local materials
Equipment Selection/ Changes
•improved equipment
•new technology
•energy efficiency
SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT
Improved Purchasing Practices
•supplier screening
•supplier partnerships
Improved Operating Practices
•energy efficiency
•pollution prevention
Improved Disposition Practices
•reuse and recycling
•manager screening
•safe treatment and disposal
Improved Logistics
•process material packaging reduction
•transport distance reduction
•transport mode changes
•use of local materials
Considering environmental implications beyond what applies in-house is a concept that promises
to help engineers expand the scope of requirements and specifications. As illustrated in Figure
1.4, identifying and choosing specific activities can be a daunting task. LCE seeks to provide a
systematic framework to identify and select among activities given a life cycle perspective.
LCE provides a comprehensive evaluation of how engineering decisions and specifications affect
not only your company but also your suppliers, customers, and waste managers throughout the
associated life cycle. Therefore, LCE is often broader in scope when compared to engineering
decisions you currently make.
-------
Figure 1.4 Which Activity is Best from a Life Cycle Perspective?
RECOVERY
OPTIONS
Material
Production
Manufacturing
and Construction
SUPPLIER
PARTNERSHIPS;
USE OF
RENEWABLE
RESOURCES
Use, Support,
and Maintenance
MINIMIZATION
OF
MAINTENANCE
MATERIALS
MINIMIZATION
OF FUEL USE;
MINIMIZATION
OF HAZARDS;
TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL
Decommissioning,
Material Recovery and
Disposal
1.2 Benefits of Life Cycle Engineering
Life Cycle Engineering provides benefits in a number of areas. These include tangible benefits
in the form of reduced environmental burdens at the location where the primary activity takes
place. However, by understanding the whole life cycle, the engineering team can often identify
and realize additional benefits upstream in the supply chain and downstream in customer
organizations or during end-of-life management. Many times these situations are positive both
within the decision-making organization and outside of it.
Many practitioners of LCE find that environmental impact reduction and cost savings are not
mutually exclusive. Even when the benefits occur in supplier or customer organizations, it is
possible to negotiate shared savings in the form of price reductions for raw materials or waste
handling, as an example. The key to providing incentives for the LCE team is finding ways to
recognize and reward their efforts to realize the benefits of LCE regardless of where they occur.
In order to do this, it may be necessary to catalog the external benefits using measures other than
monetary indicators.
-------
1.3 Institutional Barriers
As with any other new program, general resistance to change within your company may
arise. These can result from many factors, such as lack of awareness of corporate goals and
objectives, individual or organizational resistance to change, lack of commitment, poor
internal communication, or an inflexible organizational structure.
Analyze these barriers from different perspectives in order to understand the concerns.
Engineers are concerned with chemical, mechanical, and thermal performance; production,
support, and maintenance costs; process efficiency; and in-house environmental management.
They are typically not concerned with how these things are managed by up and downstream
companies. Educational and outreach programs can overcome such institutional obstacles.
-------
2. A Life Cycle Engineering Framework
The Life Cycle Engineering Framework (LCEF), presented in Figure 2.1, is intended to provide
a systematic means of considering life cycle environmental implications during engineering
decision-making. The steps shown are described in the sections of this chapter. Subsequent
chapters describe and illustrate the application of the framework to specific engineering
decisions: new designs, upgrades, maintenance, and decommissioning. Worksheets, provided in
the Attachments, are used to facilitate assessments within the LCEF.
The first two steps in the LCEF, Option Definition, relate to technology selection and changes
and support the development of the technical order. During these steps, the function being
provided is identified, an evaluation team is formed, requirements and goals are established, and
preliminary assessments apply a graded approach to identify a set of preferred engineering
options. It is at this time that key decisions concerning the use of materials and equipment are
made.
The latter two steps in the LCEF, Specification Development, relate to specification development
and support the development of the process order. It is during these steps that more detailed
information about the life cycle is used to refine preferred engineering options. Areas for
improvement are addressed to the extent possible.
2.1 Targeting the Assessment
2.1.1 Establishing the Function being Provided
Perhaps the most important aspect of LCE is the characterization of the function being provided.
The function is a conceptual formulation of an engineering task, independent of a specific
solution. Truly understanding the function being provided,
• allows the evaluation to determine if an engineering solution meets the
identified need,
• enables the most comprehensive set of improvement activities being
identified, and
-------
• allows options being compared on a standard basis, called the functional unit.
One approach to establishing the function being provided is to answer a series of simple what
and why questions. For example:
• What needs to be accomplished?
• Why does it need to be done?
• When does it need to be done?
• What conditions must be considered?
Figure 2.1 Life Cycle Engineering Process
Step 1 :Target the Assessment
• Establish Function being
Provided
• Name an Evaluation Team
• Develop Requirements and
Goals
• Propose Engineering
Technologies and Options
Step 2: Preliminary Assessment
• Define the Technology life
cycles
• Link Technologies and
Options to Requirements and
Goals
Preferred Engineering Options
Step 3: Detailed Assessment
• Retarget the Assessment
• Redefine the Technology Life
Cycles
• Reassess Requirements and
Goals
• Identify Key Technologies
Step 4: Specification Development
As an example, suppose the evaluation are asked to paint a particular part. To understand the
function being provided, the team might ask, "what is being enhanced or enabled by painting this
part?" Responses could range from improving aesthetics to protecting the part from wear or
corrosion. Understanding what conditions the part must withstand helps in the identification of
important engineering team members and the development of requirements and goals.
-------
2.1.2 Naming an Evaluation Team
People who will participate in the LCE process should be selected carefully. They have the
responsibility for developing and collecting information for LCE assessments. Their capabilities
and attitudes towards the effort will determine how successful the effort will be.
First, the evaluation team should be representative of engineering development—that is, the
team should include anyone who will be involved in the development of an engineering solution
to the function being provided. This would include engineers involved in the development or
application of materials, equipment, or facilities. Second, the team should be representative of
the life cycle—that is, the team should include representatives with responsibility for or an
understanding of:
• material production (e.g., someone from purchasing and materials engineering);
• manufacturing or construction (e.g., someone from materials management,
manufacturing or construction operations, and waste management); and
• use, support, maintenance and decommissioning (e.g., someone from marketing,
program management, or others representing the customers present and future needs).
Evaluation team members will have varying levels of participation in the LCE effort. The full
team should be engaged in goal setting, brainstorming, and review activities. It may, however,
be practical to leave information collection, management, and assessment to a subset of the team.
2.1.3 Developing Requirements and Goals
The evaluation team needs to (1) understand mechanical, physical, and chemical performance
and cost requirements and goals and (2) develop environmental requirements and goals.
Requirements can be thought of as things the team must have, and goals can be thought of as
things that would be nice to have. Well-defined requirements and goals will focus the
identification of engineering options as well as information collection and assessment throughout
the LCE process. Requirement and goal-setting activities should involve all team members and
incorporate the needs and concerns of all members.
Environmental requirements and goals should be consistent with company policies and customer
program needs and concerns. The evaluation may even choose to engage environmental groups,
local throughout the life cycle or groups with broader interests, or other stakeholders. One way to
develop environmental requirements and goals is to identify categories of environmental
policies, needs, and concerns and then develop specific requirements and goals within each
category. Table 2.1 lists example categories of environmental concerns as linked to qualitative
requirements and goals. Quantitative requirements and goals use metrics to measure the
attainment of goals either in absolute terms or relative terms as an improvement from a baseline.
The first worksheet in each of the attachments, Developing Requirements and Goals, provides a
template to facilitate the identification of performance, cost, and environmental requirements and
goals within an example set of environmental policy, needs, and concern categories. The
worksheet also allows for the identification of the life cycle stage to which the requirement or
goal applies and the identification of technology designations. This should help the evaluation
identify goals with a larger scope: considering the full life cycle of performance, cost, and
environmental implications.
-------
Table 2.1 Example Environmental Requirements or Goals
Categories
Example Environmental Requirements or Goals
Facility
Use and waste of
regulated
materials
Energy
consumption
Reduce or eliminate the use and waste of toxic materials
throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the use and waste of flammable and explosive
materials throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the need to store and discharge hazardous
materials throughout the life cycle.
Meet or exceed all regulatory requirements .
Reduce the consumption of energy throughout the life cycle.
Local
Contribution to
photochemical
smog
Contribution to
water pollution
Contribution to
toxic materials
in the
environment
Contribution to
landfill space
Contribution to
oil spills
Reduce or eliminate the use and waste of chemicals linked to smog
formation throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water and disposal
potentially linked to water pollution throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the use and waste of process toxics throughout
the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate toxic emissions from products and systems.
Reduce or eliminate solid waste generation throughout the life
cycle .
Reduce the use of oil throughout the life cycle.
Regional
Contribution to
surface water
chemistry changes
Contribution to
soil degradation
Contribution to
precipitation
acidity
Contribution to
visibility
problems
Reduce or eliminate the purchase of materials from processes or
facilities with acidic or alkaline water discharges throughout the
life cycle.
Minimize or eliminate activities that disperse heavy metals or
persistent, bioaccumulative toxic materials into the atmosphere.
Minimize soil disturbance and overuse.
Minimize or eliminate activities, such as fuel combustion, that
disperse oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.
Improve logistics (products, systems, and packaging) to minimize
transportation requirements throughout the life cycle.
Global
Contribution to
climate change
Contribution to
loss of habitat
and reductions in
biodiversity
Conservation of
resources
Reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals linked to global warming
and ozone depletion throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the contribution to climate change throughout
the life cycle.
Do not create a need for new industrial facilities anywhere in the
life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the use of materials from virgin forests and
protected regions throughout the life cycle.
Maximize the use of recovered materials and energy throughout the
life cycle.
Maximize recovery of components and materials throughout the life
cycle .
Reduce or eliminate from use scarce materials throughout the life
cycle .
Maximize the use of non- fossil fuel energy sources throughout the
life cycle.
10
-------
2.1.4 Proposing Engineering Technologies and Options
Once the evaluation team has identified requirements and goals, the team should
identify technologies that combine to form different options to provide the desired function.
Within this context, technologies include materials and equipment that together provide a
solutions including how the function has been provided in the past. Changes from this baseline
result from the addition of performance, cost, and environmental requirements and goals. Thus,
these additional requirements and goals can be used to identify additional technologies and
options and areas for innovation.
Traditional techniques for identifying engineering technologies and options include
brainstorming, cause/effect diagrams, and benchmarking the best practices and technologies of
the public and private industrial sectors. A useful technique to incorporate these activities into
the LCE process is to identify desirable types of materials and equipment based on the
improvement strategies presented in Figure 1.2. Table 2.2 provides example technology types as
linked to improvement strategies.
Table 2.2 Identifying Desired Technologies
Technology Category
Materials
Equipment
Desired
Technology
Types
non
regulated/
contributory1
non- energy
intensive
non-water
intensive
recoverable
treatable as
waste
material
efficient
energy
efficient
material
recovery
energy
recovery
treatable
wastes
LCE Improvement Strategy
Source
Reduction
X
X
X
X
X
Recovery
X
X
X
Treatable
X
X
Desired and other technologies combine into options that together provide the function.
Different technologies may be used in different amounts to achieve the same functional unit. For
example, if the functional unit is person-miles traveled, the amount of fuel required to power by
motorcycle is different than that of an automobile.
1 For example, not contributing to global warming, smog formation, etc.
11
-------
In addition to understanding the quantitative mix of technologies, how materials and equipment
are combined is called the configuration status as shown in Table 2.3. The configuration status is
intended to help the team understand how complicated it will be to:
• recover components and materials and
• maintain and upgrade products and equipment.
Table 2.3 Technology Configuration Status
Configuration
Status
simplified
accessible
modular
joining status
Abbreviation
SIMP
ACC
MOD
JS
Technology
Category
materials
equipment
materials
equipment
equipment
materials
Description
The number of different materials and components have
been minimized.
The number of production or maintenance steps have been
minimized.
Recoverable materials can be accessed during maintenance
and during decommissioning.
Equipment use, support, and maintenance is facilitated by
accessibility of equipment parts.
Equipment is made up of parts that can be upgraded or
replaced when warn or damaged.
Incompatible materials are not permanently joined (welded
or otherwise physically or chemically adhered).
Worksheet 2 in each of the attachments, Proposing Technologies and Options provides a
template to identify material and equipment technologies and to quantify the relationship
between technologies and the functional unit. Evaluation team participation is crucial for
success. Identifying associated desirable technology types and configuration statuses should
facilitate innovation among team members.
2.2 Preliminary Assessment
2.2.1 Defining the Technology Life Cycles
Defining the life cycle is very similar to defining processes within a process flow diagram. Using
the stages of the life cycle as a guide, individual processes are linked by the flow of materials
and energy. The diagram should be extended far enough upstream to capture material production
and far enough downstream to capture decommissioning. The cycle is created when recovery
opportunities, either within the life cycle or within other life cycles are realized. The total life
cycle should provide a single functional unit or a quantity of functional units equal to anticipated
use or production levels.
In the preliminary assessment, defining the technology life cycles is intended to help the
evaluation better understand the environmental implications of in-house, up- and down-stream
processes. In-house processes are within the direct influence of the team. This includes
operations within your organization or within organizations that operate to specifications put
12
-------
forth by the team. Up-stream processes provide inputs to the team's organization. Down-stream
processes provide or manage outputs from the team's organization.
In defining the life cycle, begin by identifying in-house processes and associated material and
energy consumed and wasted by each process. It may be appropriate to designate types of
materials, such as solvents, as opposed to specific material types, such as xylene, for each
process. This will still allow the team to identify desired technologies such as water-based
solvents. Then, the evaluation should move up- and down-stream by answering three questions:
• What specific company or operation or type of company or operation produces the
material and energy consumed?
• Is the product used in the general marketplace? Or, if not, what specific person, company,
or operation uses the product?
• Other than the product flowing to another life cycle process, are materials and energy
output from the process generally recoverable or treatable?
Such questions will help the evaluation (1) identify up- and down-stream processes and (2)
determine who is involved and whether specific or more general processes are relevant within
each life cycle stage. As each up- and down-stream process is identified, the questions should be
repeated. As the process proceeds, the team should note:
• the transition between life cycle stages,
• the desired and undesirable technology types, and
• any materials that are obviously linked to specific requirements or goals.
Such a collection of processes and associated inputs and outputs is called an inventory.
Inventory information about specific processes can often be found in facility process and
environmental engineering records, purchasing and waste management records, and other
information and assessment systems. More general information can be found in engineering,
scientific, and industry literature to represent (1) general marketplaces and (2) specific
companies, operations, or locations when information is not readily available2. General reference
books include Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology or the Encyclopedia of
Processing and Design. These sources provide process descriptions, raw material consumption,
and utility requirements generally in the form of industry averages for a wide range of industrial
and recovery processes. Within the preliminary assessment, these information sources should be
scanned with the purpose of capturing desirable and non-desirable technology types within each
life cycle stage.
Worksheets: Defining the Technology Life Cycles m each of the attachments provides a template
to present life cycle processes for the preliminary assessment. Arrows designating product and
process feeds should link the processes, depicted in boxes. Additional detail such as regulated
and recoverable materials, energy consumption, and prominent wastes may be included if readily
available. Such a worksheet is completed for each option being considered.
2 For example, when such information is not routinely collected, neatly maintained, or is
considered proprietary.
13
-------
2.2.2 Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals
Once the life cycle of each technology has been defined, each should be assessed with respect to
the requirements and goals. In this way, technologies that do not meet requirements and other
clearly inferior can be eliminated.
Worksheet 4 in each of the attachments, Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals,
provides a systematic method to screen technologies. The first step in completing this worksheet
is to list possible technologies and associated categories and desirable technology types
prominent throughout the life cycle. Next and referring to each technology inventory, the status
of achievement for technologies for each requirement or goal should be determined as follows:
+ if the technology meets each requirement or goal
if the technology does not meet each requirement or goal
? if more information is needed to determine if the technology meets or does
not meet each requirement or goal
The team may also decide to obtain additional information for technologies that appear
promising as required to complete the matrix.
2.2.3 Linking Options to Requirements and Goals
The degree to which each option lends to the achievement of requirements and goals should be
assessed. Worksheet 5: Linking Options to Requirements and Goals provides a template to assess
life cycle options as to their achievement of requirements and goals. The degree of achievement
of options are rated as follows:
E Option considerably EXCEEDS the requirement or goal.
M Option MEETS the requirement or goal without considerably exceeding it.
FS Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a SLIGHT margin.
FC Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a CONSIDERABLE margin.
? More information is needed to determine if the achievement of the option.
Options that do not meet requirements and other clearly inferior options should be eliminated.
Preferred Engineering Options (PEOs), those that meet requirements at a minimum and meet
several goals at best, should be retained for further assessment. The evaluation may also decide
to obtain additional information for options that appear promising as required to complete the
matrix.
2.3 Detailed Assessment
To this point, the PEOs have been defined through requirements and goals aimed environmental
implications at the facility, local, regional, and global levels. The evaluation has been guided by
improvement strategies ranging from source reduction, recovery, and treatment throughout the
life cycle.
2.3.1 Retargeting the Assessment
The evaluation now must refine their concepts and take the PEOs from concept through
implementation. The intended use of the information is the development of engineering
14
-------
specifications that refine PEOs. This entails creating a record that stipulates how to configure,
produce, purchase and manage materials, operate, and distribute, and how to facilitate preferable
disposition practices.
The purpose of the detailed assessment can be defined by revisiting the environmental
requirements and goals. Table 2.4 illustrates how requirements and goals can be linked to
impacts, and undesirable and desirable technologies through a Requirement-Impact-Technology
Network.
Table 2.4 Requirement-Impact-Technology Networks
Requirement or Goal
Minimize or eliminate the use and waste
of toxic materials throughout the life
cycle.
Maximize the recovery of materials
throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals
linked to global warming throughout the
life cycle.
Impact
illness or death
resource depletion
global warming
Undesirable
Technologies
• heavy metals
• toxic acids
• PBTs
• etc.
• thermosets
• unrecoverable solvents
• unrecoverable metals
• etc.
• energy inefficient
equipment
• CFCs
• HCFCs
• VOCs
• etc.
Desirable Technologies
• non-toxic materials
• thermoplastics
• recoverable solvents
• recoverable metals
• etc.
• energy efficient
equipment
• materials of low energy
content
• etc.
The evaluation should recognize that a complete set of life cycle information for the inventory or
any requirement-impact-technology network, including all material and energy input and output
from all life cycle processes and how each input and output contributes to impacts to human
health and the environment, is not readily available and varies in quality. Furthermore, the
information that is available can be difficult to manage and appropriately allocate to processes
within the life cycle.
A detailed LCE assessment includes (1) refining the inventory of life cycle processes and related
information, (2) assessing impacts through requirements and goals linked to each technology
inventory, and (3) identifying and addressing the sources of any concerns. The evaluation can
employ available Life Cycle Assessment and/ or Design for Environment software and other
tools as listed in Section 7.3 or use a simple set of spreadsheets to manage detailed assessment
information, through a series of interconnected spreadsheets, as illustrated in Figure 2.2 and
described below.
2.3.2 Redefining the Technology Life Cycles
Defining desirable and undesirable technologies should help guide the redefinition of each
technology life cycle. Broadly-defined processes within the life cycle should be subdivided if
15
-------
(1) specific desirable or undesirable technologies will be better understood by doing so or (2) if
the broadly-defined process is not well understood.
Again general references such as Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology or the
Encyclopedia of Processing and Design can be used to obtain inventory information. Additional
information may be found in subject-specific resources such as the Handbook for Petrochemical
Processes, The USEPA's Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use, or the
Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook. Again information is provided as industry
averages or averages from a number of monitored plants. Searches for reports, articles, or other
sources can be used to fill the remaining information gaps. These searches can include USEPA
reports and industry or trade magazines. Additional resources are listed in Section 7.1.
As illustrated in Figure 2.2 and described in Table 2.5, a spreadsheet may be used to capture each
technology inventory with the inventory components in each row and the life cycle stages and
processes as the column designations. Then, a technology inventory summary can be used to
combine processes over the life cycle of each technology with the inventory components in each
row and the technologies as the column designations. Then, technologies can be combined, by
calculating the functional equivalent of each technology for each option, in an option inventory.
16
-------
Figure 2.2 The Detailed Assessment Process
Technology Inventory
A
1 Technotoqv 1:
2
3 LCI Components
4 Resource and Energy Co
5 Elei tricity
6 Neural Gas
8 v -,!er
9 Crude Oil
10 :
is :
19 Air Emissions
20 firbon Monoxide
21 P Articulate Matter
22 nNtsle Organic Compou
23 :
31 :
32 Wastewater Emissions
33 Atonic
34 Benzene
36 I
44 :
45 Solid Wastes
46 Fl i M.sh
47 Bnttom Ash
46 F-. ^ymij
49 :
H~« » HI\Tech 1 Inventory^
IB C D
E F G . H . 1 i J T
Technnluijv f ^tpiprj iM or E)- Functional Unit" — -
Manufacturing and Use, Support, and Decommissioning, Material
Material Production Construction Maintenance Recovery, and Disposal
BTU/fu j , '/;'/' "',,; / ," ,
BTU/fu ," ;; '* * ,,'''/' /,'', ' ' /
Ib. fu '/ ' ',/' /'-.,' '' >" / } '-,
ib fu r/ •' , ' '/ f, ' ; '', / ,/» , '
it- fu '> ',-,'"'. *>;'/>/ / •'
IL fu , '' "' '' ',-. • / ' "-^
Ib / fu -> ''JJT A '' /J['? '
Ib tU ' f ^ •;'/:' ,// / f> ' /:
Ib/fU ' ,''''', '/' ', ' ' - '' •• '•,'
ib/fu '" 'S.:'. ' .; ,. /'', "' -
Ib/fu '/ ,,' , ' /',' ,, ' / , ,
/',','•':', _,' / ,'
Tech 3 Biverdory jf Tech, Inventwy Sunma1^ £ i
;^-r:U-x&-K^%-vS;Si;;-
A B C j D : E
2 Technology Category - M or E
3 Functional Unit fu „; / /; „;,-' ;;-" /' -S ,„,/ J-
4 Resource and Energy Consumption
^J^^™^S^^^_ BTU/fU ' ,'// ,',' -' '.'' /?' j,>' ,„'/ /''' ':
W ^team^^^V BTU/fu / ' /,• ' / '* • '/ ' '• /,' '/ ,"•'
s vv-rter ^^V ib./fu .;•' •'/ ,/ ./ -;• :." %' ,,/ .;;
9 i rude Oil ^^^L Ib/fu ,' r// -;f ,/' ,','/'//' '•'" #' /,''
19 Air Emissions ^O^
20 Carbon Monoxide i^Llb./fu //' •'/ • /•' ^X >''* ,. ^ #' ,>,'?
21 Peculate Matter ^»/fu '' > /" //'''// /•'/ / " ,' ' y' ' •
,23 : X '^' ,f" /"' s'' 2'" .-'*/? /'•/*
31 : :\'>"- :' "'*'-^'' ^ '-r''-'"^ ••'.'
32 Wastewater Emissions Jfli
33 Ar-enic lb-/fu TJKL«^w^«_^JiI-_-;f ^'''' '-' ' -A
34 1 Benzene Ib/fu ^^Z^^IBHBHBi ' '"'
qfi Clr.HiMm th/fi, t*RTfA*"Wa"^^^«^^T' /''' '-/' ' /'
CBdcs / ,. Characlr.-ClimCring /
Option Characterization
36 :
44 :
45 Solid Wastes
46 Fly Ash
47 Bottom Ash
48 packaging
49 :
1 LCI Components
2 Option Descriptio
4 Resource and Energy C
5 Eleiinciiy
6 Natural Gas
7 Stewi
M ^ >• W\ Tedi Ilnventov / ...Tech, BIrwentarv / Tech Imentaiy Sutmary / Opton Inventory '/ CharactJ-Toxlcs"i,...Charact.- Clrm Chng /
17
-------
Table 2.5 Detailed Assessment Spreadsheets
Redefinition
Process Step
Technology
Inventory
Technology
Inventory Summary
Option Inventory
Option
Characterization
Row
Designations
inventory
components
inventory
components
inventory
components
inventory
components
Column
Designations
processes by life
cycle stage
technologies
options
options
Sheet Contents
process-specific
inputs and outputs
technology-specific
inputs and outputs
option-specific
inputs and outputs
contribution of
options to impacts
Spreadsheet
Coverage
one per technology
one for all
technologies
one for all options
one per impact
2.3.3 Reassessing Requirements and Goals
Detailed performance and cost assessments should be performed in a manner that applies sound
engineering and economic principles, is compatible with company policies, and explicitly links
to associated requirements and goals. For environmental requirements and goals, impact-specific
equivalency factors can be applied to each inventory component in an impact-specific option
characterization worksheet as shown in Figure 2.2. Impact specific equivalency factors, as listed
in Table 2.6, provide a relative measure to assess the potential contribution of specific
technologies to specific impacts. Additional information concerning equivalency factors can be
found in the resources listed in Section 7.2.
Table 2.6 Assessing the Potential Contribution of Inventory Components to
Specific Impacts
Requirement or Goal
Minimize or eliminate the use and waste of toxic materials
throughout the life cycle.
Maximize the recovery of materials throughout the life cycle.
Reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals linked to global
warming throughout the life cycle.
Impact
illness or death
resource depletion
global warming
Example Equivalency Factors
• mass or volume of toxic materials
• toxicity hazard values
• critical volumes
• percent recovered mass
• percent recoverable mass
• global warming potentials
• ozone depletion potentials
18
-------
2.3.4 Identifying Key Technologies
For performance, cost, and environmental requirements, backtracking through well-structured
and documented assessments will aid in the identification of key contributing technologies.
Figure 2.3 illustrates backtracking using the detailed environmental assessment spreadsheets.
The resulting set of key technologies can be desirable, in which case the evaluation may seek to
increase their use. Alternatively, key technologies might be undesirable, in which case the team
may seek to eliminate or reduce their use.
Figure 2.3 Environmental Assessment Process Backtracking
Characterization: Toxics
The highest toxicity
score within option 1 is
associated with
benzene wastewater
emissions.
Technology Inventory Summary
The highest option 1
benzene wastewater
emissions are from
technology 1.
...; .,
Technology 1 Inventory
The highest technology
1 benzene wastewater
emissions are from
manufacturing and
construction process 1.
19
-------
2.4 Developing Specifications
Using the set of LCE activity categories presented in Figure 1.3 as a guide, the evaluation team
can assess the applicability of activities to each key technology. At this point in the engineering
process, it will be more difficult, but not always impossible, to change the materials or
equipment that made it through the preliminary assessment. Team efforts might focus on
identifying opportunities to specify more efficient processes/pollution prevention opportunities
throughout the life cycle. For example, an innovative elimination or recovery technology used in
manufacturing might also be useful in material production or maintenance activities and could be
specified through (1) procurement activities and (2) maintenance procedures.
In cases where the evaluation team must and cannot easily prioritize activities, they may seek to
include a valuation step. Valuation is the process of assigning values or relative weights to the
various impacts or requirements and goals. Valuation methods are described in several of the
resources in Section 7.3.
In the following sections a number of case studies are presented to illustrate the application of
the LCE framework and process. Because the studies themselves were conducted prior to the
LCE procedure being developed and in many cases without specifically considering all of the
elements of LCE, there will be some information gaps.
20
-------
3. Maintenance
This section describes the consideration of life cycle environmental factors in the routine,
scheduled, and unanticipated maintenance of existing systems, processes, or facilities.
3.1 Products and Systems
For many products and systems that are durable in nature, the activities associated with their
maintenance and upkeep can produce a larger environmental footprint than the operations
associated with their original production. Understanding the differential contributions of the
maintenance portion of the product or system life cycle relative to the production activity is often
key in making engineering decisions associated with durability, serviceability, and ownership
cost. For new products or systems, the LCE process applicable to the maintenance stage is
discussed in Section 5. For existing products or systems, within the maintenance stage itself,
decisions made regarding the procedures, technologies, and materials still have life cycle
implications. Careful consideration of improvements at this point can lead to substantial
improvements in the product or system life cycle profile.
3.2 Processes and Facilities
Maintenance processes comprise a set of activities designed to support products after placing
them in use, permitting them to function at a high level of performance for an extended period.
Maintenance activities are also embedded in the operations associated with manufacturing and
service facilities. Because maintenance is such a frequent activity, the environmental burdens
from these activities can be substantial. In some instances redesign of maintenance processes
and facilities can be as beneficial in reducing impacts as product redesign.
3.3 LCE Case Study: Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings
Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC) are specialized barrier materials applied to various
pieces of military equipment including combat and ground support vehicles used by the U.S.
Army. Historically, CARC has consisted of a specific type of paint, applied to the vehicle with a
spray gun in a paint spray booth. The LCE CARC Project (USEPA, 1996) comprised a life cycle
assessment-oriented project to assess the potential environmental benefits of an alternative
CARC system, to be used during vehicle maintenance operations, together with performance and
cost analysis components.
3.3.1 Targeting the Evaluation
Establishing the Function being Provided
The function of CARC, as the name implies, is to minimize the surface adhesion and cross-
contamination caused by enemy deployment of chemicals on the battlefield. If inhaled or
ingested by soldiers or maintenance personnel these could be incapacitating or fatal. CARC acts
as a barrier between the chemical and the metal or polymeric components of the vehicle to
permit the rapid and complete removal of any chemical agent from the surface.
21
-------
Naming an Evaluation Team
The evaluation team for this effort consisted of several distinct groups. Members of the team
included:
• U.S. Army maintenance facility staff and supervisory personnel at the Army's Transportation
Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia who were thoroughly familiar with the operational and
performance aspects of CARC use and disposition.
• Environmental specialists whose responsibility was to identify the characteristics of the
CARC system that had the potential to create adverse environmental impacts and to analyze
various alternatives
• Coatings engineers whose function was to identify the available alternative materials and to
set up tests to establish their relative performance against a set of well-defined criteria and to
analyze the costs of the various options
• Life cycle process engineers who were responsible for establishing the system boundaries,
identifying and collecting process information on the upstream materials production, and
characterizing the waste management aspects of the coatings operation.
These groups interacted on a number of occasions during the course of the analysis, but could
not function as an entirely integrated team due to geographic and resource limitations. The latter
three groups formed the primary LCE team.
Developing Requirements and Goals
Requirements for the process upgrade with respect to the coating materials themselves - primer
and thinner primarily - were influenced by a number of factors. Some inherent constraints were
imposed by the certification status of the CARC materials (i.e. MIL-STD compliance) and some
were associated with the time frame for the project, i.e. short term implementation of new but
commercial technology versus a long term R, D & D effort. Details on these requirements and
goals may be found in Table 3.1 which is an excerpt of Routine and Unanticipated Maintenance
Worksheet 1. Additional requirements (R) and goals (G), consisting of a mix of performance,
cost, and environmental aspects, were identified as well. Although the performance and cost
aspects are generally confined to the life cycle stage where the system is used and maintained,
the environmental requirements and goals are associated with benefits and impacts that accrue
over the upstream and downstream stages as well as the in-house activities.
22
-------
Table 3.1 CARC Requirements and Goals
Category
Performance
Chemical (compatibility)
Mechanical
Mechanical
Physical
Thermal
Cost
Materials
Materials
Equipment
Waste management
Environmental - Facility
Hazmat management and waste
Energy consumption
Environmental - Local
Photochemical smog production
Water pollution
Toxic materials in the
environment
Landfill space
Environmental - Regional
Visibility impairment
Environmental- Global
Resource conservation
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q.
X
X
X
X
a
X
X
X
X
co
z>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
X
X
X
X
X
Requirements and Goals
Must not cause corrosion of vehicle surface or spray gun
Acceptable surface quality as defined by performance test
Improved transfer efficiency
Stainless steel application equipment to prevent corrosion
No or minimal temperature or humidity effects on cure rate
Lower cost for topcoat, primer and thinner
Reduced labor costs compared with baseline
Lower costs for spray guns
Reduced costs for waste disposal
Reduce or eliminate generation of waste
sol vents /sol vent -containing paint
Less than baseline
Reduce VOC emissions
Less solvent and pigment discharges to sewer
Reduce solvent and metal -bearing pigment
releases
Decreased solid waste generation
Reduce the amount of particulates released
Reduced fuels consumption
Requirement
(R) or Goal
(G)
R
R
G
R
R
G
G
G
G
R
G
R
G
R
G
G
G
Typically, the set of requirements and goals should be the minimum set necessary to realize the
optimal combination of system attributes. Constraints may be added to this minimum set but
unless these are requirements set by regulatory or other low discretion drivers, the added criteria
may simply serve to complicate the assessment.
Proposing Engineering Technologies and Options
Given the identified set of requirements and goals, the evaluation team was able to specify seven
different technologies: 2 primers, 2 thinners, 2 types of application equipment, and a bath
recovery system. These are listed in Table 3.2, an excerpt from Routine and Unanticipated
Maintenance Worksheet 2.
23
-------
Table 3.2 CARC Technology Information
Technology Name
1. MIL-P53022
2. MIL-P53030
3. MIL-T81772
4. AA-857-B
5. Std. spray gun
6. Alt. spray gun
7. Alt. gun bath
Description
solvent-based epoxy primer
water-thinable epoxy primer
standard thinner
alternative thinner
high-pressure, low-volume standard (conversion zone)
spray gun
high-volume, low pressure turbine spray gun (Can-Am)
spray gun bath with recycling feature
Technology
Category*
M
M
M
M
E
E
E
Desirable
Technology
Types"
NREG
NREG
T
T
TW
ME, TW
ME, TW
"Technology Categories
• material (M)
• equipment (E)
"Desirable Technology Types:
materials: non-regulated (NREG), non-contributory (NC), non-energy intensive (NEI), non-water intensive
(NWI), recoverable (REC), treatable as waste (T)
equipment:: material efficient (ME), energy efficient (EE), water efficient (WE), material recovery (MR),
energy recovery (ER), treatable wastes (TW)
The primer technologies include a water-thinable primer in lieu of the solvent-based material
currently used. The thinner technologies include an alternative paint thinner substitute for the
current baseline thinner. The equipment technologies represent modifications - a substitution of
a different spray gun for the currently used item and the acquisition of a new bath for cleaning of
the spray guns on a daily basis with recovery and reuse of the bath solvent. Additional aspects,
including spray booth configuration, filtration systems, and material storage, were not considered
as separate alternatives due to issues of site-specificity. Similarly, the current blast media and
depainting technology were deemed cost-effective and environmentally acceptable and therefore
were not subject to evaluation.
Options considered to be potentially attractive included various combinations of CARC topcoat,
primer, and application technologies (spray guns) that increase materials use efficiency and
decrease the time involved in painting operations. To create a functional CARC coating system,
various combinations of technologies were assembled as shown in Table 3.3, an excerpt from
Routine and Unanticipated Maintenance Worksheet 2. The first five system options consist of
assemblies of alternative primer, thinner, and spray gun while the last option is potentially
useable in combination with any of the other options. Each option was evaluated as to the degree
to which it was estimated to achieve or fail to achieve the requirements and goals across the life
cycle. Also, the alternative spray gun was noted to be slightly easier to maintain, as indicated by
the "simplified" configuration status. Obviously, the assessments at this point were based on
limited information and should be considered valid only for screening purposes.
24
-------
Table 3.3 CARC Inclusion of Technologies
Option Name
UNITS
1. Alternative primer; std. gun, topcoat and thinner
2. Can-Am turbine HVLP spray gun; standard topcoat, thinner and
primer
3. Alternative primer; std. topcoat and thinner; alternative gun
4. Alternative thinner; standard topcoat, primer and spray gun.
5. Alternative primer and thinner; standard topcoat and spray gun
6. Alternative spray gun bath
CONFIGURATION STATUS
simplified (SIMP), accessible (ACC), modular (MOD), joining status (JS)
>*. ™
f s
0 LT>
.c °-
» 5=
gal
1.81
1.81
f I
0 S
0) —
K 5
gal
2.50
1.81
1.81
>*, ™
cn £;
o 5
£ 1—
» ;=
gal
1.63
1.63
1.63
1 m
0 ^>
0 <
1- <
gal
1.63
1.63
LTJ ^
>-, cn
cn >,
0 CO
o h.
^ *"
S B
pc
1
1
1
to i=
§5 °i
o g.
g S.
s -
1- <
pc
1
1
SIMP
g1 S
g 1
S -
H <
pc
1
g
8-
I—
gal
5.00
3.66
3.66
5.00
5.00
NA
3.3.2 Preliminary Assessment
Defining the Technology Life Cycles
Figures 3.1 a - f, which are from Routine and Unanticipated Maintenance Worksheet 3, shows
the life cycle activities and material/energy flows associated with each of the technologies.
Because several of the environmental and one of the cost criteria span more than the use and
maintenance life cycle stage, the LCE framework requires the description and consideration of
the whole life cycle.
25
-------
Figure 3.1a CARC Technology 1: MIL-P53022 Primer
Technology
Technology 1: MIL-P53022 primer
Additional material and
equipment requirements
• Topcoat
• MIL-T81772 OR AA-857-B Thinner
Standard HVLP spray gun with associated compressor/air supply and spray booth with
applicable air quality control equipment; equipment manufacturing, building and site
requirements were included in costs only. OR Turbine HVLP spray gun with associated
compressor/ air supply (72 hp.) and spray booth with applicable air quality control equipment;
equipment manufacturing, building and site requirements were included in costs only.
Maintenance procedures
In accordance with standard Army protocols and technical orders and manufacturer's
MSDS and other applicable literature.
Material Production
MIL-P53022 primer consists of two technologies - a resin and a curing agent. The materials
production stage modules are depicted in the attached process flow sheets.
Technology Manufacturing
Not applicable to this technology.
Maintenance Activity
Blast media,
protectant
materials
Depainting
^
Primer & CARC
Application
Airborne VOC &
particulates, wastewater,
solid and hazwaste
Spent media
Coatings,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Spent
media, \
solvent
and paint
Solid
waste
Sludaes
Hazmat mgt.
Industrial landfill
Off-site met.
26
-------
Figure 3.1 b CARC Technology 2: MIL-P53030 Primer
Technology
Technology 2: MIL-P53030 primer
Additional material and
equipment requirements
• Topcoat
• MIL-T81772 OR AA-857-B Thinner
Standard HVLP spray gun with associated compressor/air supply and spray booth with
applicable air quality control equipment; equipment manufacturing, building and site
requirements were included in costs only. OR Turbine HVLP spray gun with associated
compressor/ air supply (72 hp.) and spray booth with applicable air quality control equipment;
equipment manufacturing, building and site requirements were included in costs only.
Maintenance procedures
In accordance with standard Army protocols and technical orders and manufacturer's MSDS and
other applicable literature.
Material Production
MIL-P53030 primer consists of two technologies - a resin and a curing agent. The materials
production stage modules are depicted in the attached process flow sheets.
Technology Manufacturing
Not applicable to this technology.
Maintenance Activity
Blast media,
protectant
materials
Depainting
^
Primer & CARC
Application
Airborne VOC &
particulates, wastewater,
solid and hazwaste
Soent media
Coatings,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Spent
media, \
solvent
and paint
Solid
waste
Sludaes
Hazmat mgt.
Industrial landfill
Off-site mgt.
27
-------
Figure 3.1 c CARC Technology 3: MIL-T81772 Thinner
Technology
Technology 3: MIL-T81772 Thinner
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Topcoat
MIL-P53022 OR MIL-53030 primer
Standard HVLP spray gun with associated compressor/air supply and spray booth with
applicable air quality control equipment; equipment manufacturing, building and site
requirements were included in costs only. OR Turbine HVLP spray gun with associated
compressor/ air supply (72 hp.) and spray booth with applicable air quality control equipment;
equipment manufacturing, building and site requirements were included in costs only.
Maintenance procedures
In accordance with standard Army protocols and technical orders and manufacturer's
MSDS and other applicable literature.
Material Production
The materials production stage modules are depicted in the attached process flow sheets.
Technology Manufacturing
Not applicable to this technology.
Maintenance Activity
Blast media,
protectant
materials
Depainting
h,
w
Primer & CARC
Application
Airborne VOC &
particulates, wastewater,
solid and hazwaste
Soent media
Coatings,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Spent
media, \
solvent
and paint
Solid
waste
Sludges
Hazmat mgt.
Industrial landfill
Off-site met.
28
-------
Figure 3.1d CARC Technology 4: AA-857B Thinner
Technology
Technology 4: AA-857B Thinner
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Topcoat
MIL-P53022 OR MIL-53030 primer
Standard HVLP spray gun with associated compressor/air supply and spray booth with
applicable air quality control equipment; equipment manufacturing, building and site
requirements were included in costs only. OR Turbine HVLP spray gun with associated
compressor/ air supply (72 hp.) and spray booth with applicable air quality control equipment;
equipment manufacturing, building and site requirements were included in costs only.
Maintenance procedures
In accordance with standard Army protocols and technical orders and manufacturer's
MSDS and other applicable literature.
Material Production
The materials production stage modules are depicted in the attached process flow sheets.
Technology Manufacturing
Not applicable to this technology.
Maintenance Activity
Blast media,
protectant
materials
Depainting
^
Primer & CARC
Application
Airborne VOC &
particulates, wastewater,
solid and hazwaste
Spent media
Coatings,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Spent
media, \
solvent
and paint
Solid
waste
Sludaes
Hazmat mgt.
Industrial landfill
Off-site mgt.
29
-------
Figure 3.1 e CARC Technology 5: Standard HVLP spray gun
Technology
Technology 5: Standard HVLP spray gun with associated compressor/air supply and spray booth
with applicable air quality control equipment; equipment manufacturing, building and site
requirements were included in costs only.
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Topcoat
MIL-T81772 OR AA-857B Thinner
MIL-P53022 OR MIL-53030 primer
Maintenance procedures
In accordance with standard Army protocols and technical orders and manufacturer's
MSDS and other applicable literature.
Material Production
Not applicable to this technology.
Technology Manufacturing
In accordance with accepted LCA practice, this technology excludes the upstream burdens
associated with manufacturing the alternative spray gun and associated equipment.
Differences between the manufacturing of the standard HVLP gun and the alternative are
insignificant.
Maintenance Activity
Blast media,
protectant
materials
Depainting
^
w
Primer & CARC
Application
Airborne VOC &
particulates, wastewater,
solid and hazwaste
Soent media
Coatings,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Spent
media, \
solvent
and paint
Solid
waste
Sludaes
Hazmat mgt.
Industrial landfill
Off-site met.
30
-------
Figure 3.1f CARC Technology 6: Turbine HVLP spray gun
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Maintenance procedures
Technology 6: Turbine HVLP spray gun with associated compressor/ air supply (72 hp.) and
spray booth with applicable air quality control equipment; equipment manufacturing, building and
site requirements were included in costs only.
• Topcoat
• MIL-T81 772 OR AA-857B Thinner
• MIL-P53022 OR MIL-53030 primer
In accordance with standard Army protocols and technical orders and manufacturer's
MSDS and other applicable literature.
Material Production
Not applicable to this technology.
Technology Manufacturing
In accordance with accepted LCA practice, this technology excludes the upstream burdens
associated with manufacturing the alternative spray gun and associated equipment.
Differences between the manufacturing of the standard HVLP gun and the alternative are
insignificant.
Maintenance Activity
Blast media,
protectant
materials
Depainting
^
w
Primer & CARC
Application
Airborne VOC &
particulates, wastewater,
solid and hazwaste
Soent media
Coatings,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Spent
media, \
solvent
and paint
Solid
waste
Sludaes
Hazmat mgt.
Industrial landfill
Off-site met.
31
-------
Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals
Table 3.4, which is from Routine and Unanticipated Maintenance Worksheet 4, shows the status
of achievement each of the technologies with respect to the requirements and goals. Each of the
technologies was individually evaluated against the criteria using the readily available
information and the knowledge of the evaluation team. The purpose of this initial analysis was to
qualify technologies for further assessment and focus attention on those with the greatest
potential for attaining the requirements and goals. Based on the initial review the alternative
primer, thinner, and spray gun technologies (Technologies 2, 4, and 6) all looked relatively
attractive for configuring system options.
Table 3.4 CARC Technologies Status of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
PI . Must not cause corrosion of vehicle or
spray gun
P2. Acceptable surface quality as determined
by test
P3. Improved transfer efficiency
P4. Stainless steel materials of construction
P5. No or minimal humidity effects on cure
rate
Cost
Cl . Lower topcoat, primer and thinner cost
C2. Reduced cost of labor
C3. Lower costs for spray guns
C4. Reduced waste disposal cost
Environmental - Facility
EF1 . Reduce or eliminate solvent emissions
EF2. Reduce energy consumption
Environmental -Local
ELI. Reduce VOC emissions
EL2. Less solvent and pigment discharges to
sewer
ELS. Reduce solvent/metal-bearing pigment
releases
EL4. Decreased solid waste generation
Environmental - Regional
ER1 . Reduce the amount of particulates
released
Environmental - Global
EG1 . Reduced fuels consumption
COUNT + REQUIREMENTS / GOALS
COUNT - REQUIREMENTS /GOALS
Req't
(R)or
Goal
(G)
R
R
G
R
R
G
G
G
G
G
G
R
G
R
G
G
G
Technology 1
MIL-P53022
+
+
7
NA
+
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3/1
2/9
Technology 2
MIL-P53030
+
+
7
NA
+
+
+
NA
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
5/6
0/3
Technology 3
MIL-T81772
+
+
7
NA
+
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3/0
2/9
Technology 4
AA-857-B
+
+
7
NA
+
-
-
NA
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
5/4
0/5
Technology 5
Std. spray
gun
+
+
-
7
NA
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3/0
2/9
Technology 6
Alt. spray
gun
+
+
+
+
NA
+
?
_
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
+
6/9
0/1
Technology 7
Alt. gun bath
?
-
-
7
NA
NA
?
_
+
?
+
-
+
-
?
•?
•?
0/4
4/2
COUNT +/-
5/0
5/1
1/2
1/0
4/0
3/4
1/4
1/3
2/5
3/3
4/3
3/4
4/3
3/4
0/5
1/5
3/3
32
-------
Linking Options to Requirements and Goals
Table 3.5, which is from Routine and Unanticipated Maintenance Worksheet 4, shows the degree
of achievement of each of the option with respect to the requirements and goals. At this juncture
the two CARC technology options that appeared most attractive were the following:
• The alternative spray gun (Option 2) based on meeting 5 of the 6 requirements and 4
of the 11 goals.
• The alternative spray gun and primer combination (Option 3) based on meeting or
exceeding 5 of the 6 requirements and meeting 4 of the 8 goals.
• The other technology options (1, 4, and 5) were retained for further consideration, but
at a lower priority.
The cleaning bath option (Option 6) was dropped from further consideration due to a low
performance potential and a significant gap in information.
Table 3.5 CARC Options Degree of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
PL Must not cause corrosion of
vehicle/spray gun
P2. Acceptable surface quality (by test)
P3. Improved transfer efficiency
P4. Stainless steel materials of
construction
P5. No or minimal humidity effects on
cure rate
Cost
Cl. Lower topcoat, primer and thinner
cost
C2. Reduced cost of labor
C3. Lower costs for spray guns
C4. Reduced waste disposal cost
Environmental - Facility
EF1. Reduce or eliminate solvent
emissions
EF2. Reduce energy consumption
Environmental - Local
ELL Reduce VOC emissions
EL2. Less solvent and pigment discharges
to sewer
ELS. Reduce solvent/metal-bearing
pigment releases
EL4. Decreased solid waste generation
Environmental - Regional
Req't
(R)
or
Goal
(G)
R
R
G
R
R
G
G
G
G
G
G
R
G
R
G
Option 1
Alternative primer;
std. gun, topcoat
and thinner
M
M
FS
?
M
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
E
FS
FS
FS
Option 2
Can-Am turbine
HVLP spray gun;
standard topcoat,
thinner and primer
M
M
E
M
M
FS
FS
FC
?
FS
E
FS
FS
M
?
Option 3
Alternative primer;
std. topcoat and
thinner; alternative
qun
M
M
E
M
M
M
?
FC
E
M
E
E
E
M
?
Option 4
Alternative thinner;
standard topcoat,
primer and spray
qun.
M
M
?
?
M
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
Option 5
Alternative primer
and thinner;
standard topcoat
and spray gun
M
M
?
?
M
FS
FS
FS
FS
M
M
E
E
M
FS
Option 6
Alternative spray
gun bath
?
NA
NA
?
NA
NA
?
FS
M
?
M
FS
M
M
?
33
-------
Requirements and Goals
ER1. Reduce the amount of particulates
released
Environmental - Global
EG1. Reduced fuels consumption
COUNT E REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT M REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FS REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FC REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
Req't
(R)
or
Goal
(G)
G
G
„
I 8
r- .1 B 1
g S II
O < ui ro
FS
FS
1/0
3/0
1/11
0/0
- ~ *J- 0)
1 ^|l
a 2*2 iz
< Q_ _g 0
O G I «;£
FS
?
0/1
5/4
1/5
0/1
s S
'E.™ E
g £ fsf
S. S -d = |
O < ui £ a
M
M
1/3
5/4
0/0
0/1
*-->,
0) 2 -a
g S| s
= d> = E d
O < «i 0.0
FS
FS
0/0
3/0
2/10
0/0
^
E g c
'S. S.S
a. S 2 °
"> -5 § -a ro
§ro ^ ro Q
'§. S ^ ! ^
O ^
0 c S
'S. 2 c
O < 01
?
?
0/0
1/3
1/1
0/0
Key:
M
Option considerably EXCEEDS the
requirement or goal.
Option MEETS the requirement or goal without
considerably exceeding it.
FS Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
SLIGHT margin.
FC Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
CONSIDERABLE margin.
? More information is needed to determine the
achievement status of the option.
3.3.3 Detailed Assessment
Retargeting the Assessment
The detailed assessment stage consisted of performance, cost, and environmental aspects.
Performance characteristics were addressed through a set of scored criteria. The economic
analyses were based on costs in dollars for depainting and painting one functional unit at Ft.
Eustis, Virginia.
Environmental requirements and goals were analyzed using a Life Cycle Impact Assessment
directed at resource and energy consumption, environmental burdens and waste generation. The
environmental evaluation of the selected options consisted of performing a life cycle assessment
(LCA) on each of the options considered to provide potential improvements. Each option's
analysis consisted of a life cycle inventory to measure the energy and materials flows for the
topcoat, primer, and thinner manufacturing, use, and final disposition. The manufacturing of the
capital equipment (buildings, spray guns and compressors, etc.) was not included in this analysis
in keeping with standard LCA practice. Exclusion of the energy, materials, and wastes associated
with manufacturing the equipment and the associated materials of construction is usually
justified by the small amount of each item's lifetime consumed in delivering the functional unit
specified, in this case 1000 ft2 of coated surface.
The CARC Requirement-Impact-Technology Networks are shown in Table 3.6. Based on the
relationships identified, the life cycle inventory and impact assessment effort could be focused
on collecting appropriate information for a limited number of options.
34
-------
Table 3.6 CARC Requirement-Impact-Technology Networks
Environmental
Requirement or Goal
Environmental- Facility
EF1. Reduced generation
of waste solvents and
paints (improved hazardous
material management)
EF2. Reduced energy
consumption
Environmental- Local
ELI. Reduced VOC
emissions
EL2. Reduced solvent and
pigment discharges to
sewer
EL3. Reduced solvent and
metal-bearing pigment
releases
EL4. Decreased solid waste
generation
Environmental- Regional
ER1. Reduced particulate
releases
Environmental- Global
EG1. Reduced fuels
consumption (resource
conservation)
Impact
Human and terrestrial
and aquatic fauna
illness or death
fuel resource
depletion; impacts
related to emissions
Smog formation
Aquatic species illness
or death
Human and terrestrial
and aquatic fauna
illness or death
loss of habitats
Human and terrestrial
fauna illness
Resource depletion,
acid precipitation,
climate change
Undesirable Technologies
Ammonia
Benzene
carbon monoxide
chlorine
fluorine
formaldehyde
heavy metals
energy inefficient equipment
• acetaldehyde
• toluene
• benzene
• ammonia
• benzene
• heavy metals
• ammonia
• benzene
• carbon monoxide
• chlorine
• fluorine
• formaldehyde
• heavy metals
• bottom ash
• FGD solids
• fly ash
• hazardous and solid wastes
• ammonia
• fluorine
• xylene
• chlorine
• carbon dioxide
• carbon tetrachloride
• trichloroethane
• sulfur oxides
• nitrogen oxides
• ammonia
• hydrochloric acid
• coal use
hydrochloric acid
hydrogen cyanide
phenol
sulfuric acid
vinyl chloride
xylene
etc.
etc.
• n-butane
• n-octane
• n-butyl acetate chloroform
• etc.
• hydrochloric acid
• phenol
• sulfuric acid
• etc.
• hydrochloric acid
• hydrogen cyanide
• phenol
• sulfuric acid
• vinyl chloride
• xylene
• etc.
• plutonium
• slag
• uranium
• etc.
• vinyl chloride
• phenol
• carbon monoxide
• etc.
• iron ore use
• magnesium ore use
• petroleum use
• thallium use
• titanium use
• water use
• zinc use
• etc.
Redefine the Technology Life Cycles
Reassessment of Performance, Cost, and Environmental Requirements and Goals
Several elements of performance were considered for each technology - application equipment
surface quality and transfer efficiency; primer adhesion sensitivity due to surface cleanliness,
temperature/humidity effects and cure rate, and thinner effectiveness and film characteristics.
Details of the criteria and test procedures used for each criterion are described in the associated
35
-------
LCA report (EPA, 1996). Performance criteria were not considered equivalent but were
weighted by the evaluation team based on their relative importance within a given subcategory,
e.g. surface quality.
The annualized costs analyzed in this assessment are those directly associated with the Army's
internal operations. Both direct and indirect costs were included. Less well-defined costs, such
as those associated with foregoing the best possible use of a resource, were excluded due to the
difficulty in defining their magnitude. Cost analyses included both capital and operating costs
for the selected options. A factored estimating approach was used that is expected to assess
capital costs within +/- 40% and operating costs within +/- 30%. Additional details on the cost-
related goals and requirements may be found in the CARC LCA report (EPA, 1996).
Results of the detailed annualized cost analysis (per 1000 ft2) are summarized below; values in
parentheses are the percentage of the total current baseline system cost:
Option 1: $2,966(99.5%)
Option 2: $2,225 (67.9%)
OptionS: $2,611(87.6%)
Option 4: $2,979 (99.9%)
OptionS: $2,963(99.4%).
Based on this overall assessment, Options 2 and 3 appear to best meet the cost goals. Note that
none of the options fully met the goal to reduce the cost of the spray guns.
The life cycle environmental assessment involved a life cycle inventory followed by a life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA). In an LCIA the inventory information is converted into a number of
indices of potential environmental impact.
Identification of Key Technologies
The primary technologies identified as key in identification of CARC system improvements are
those materials manufacturing, use, and disposal operations associated with the primer and the
use and disposal stage aspects of the alternative spray gun. If the options screening assessment
had not fully identified the contributory technologies driving the environmental differences
among the options, then the life cycle inventory data could have been used to prepare a
technology inventory summary (Table 3.7). The summary highlights the relative contributing
materials to the life cycle inventory and identifies points where alternative materials or processes
may be beneficial for the team to consider.
In this study the life cycle inventory data were used to profile the options as combinations of
material and equipment technologies. Since the performance and cost analysis favored Options 2
and 3, only those profiles are summarized (Table 3.8). If the engineering team is attempting to
target specific materials with the project, then the option profile provides a comprehensive and
quick way to assess the relative environmental performance of the available choices. For
example, the team may have specified Class I Ozone Depleting Substances associated with
cleaning, carbon dioxide emissions from process heating, or cadmium from electrical connector
plating, for elimination or minimization. In the CARC system, CO2 emissions from the two
options are relatively similar (219 vs. 198 Ib per functional unit coated), indicating that these
technologies would not be especially contributory towards meeting that goal.
36
-------
Table 3. 7 Technology
Inventory Summary
Technology category
Functional Unit (FU)
LCI Components
MorE
Ib/lb
Resource and Energy Consumption
butyl acetate
epoxy resin
butyl alcohol
zinc phosphate
methyl isobutyl ketone
proprietary ingredients
titanium dioxide
pigment extenders
additives
toluene
propyl acetate
MPK
methyl ethyl ketone
electricity
natural gas
steam
•
Air Emissions
SOx
•
:
Technology 2
Alternative Primer
M
0
0.24
0.11
0
0
0
0.34
0.28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
Technology 4
Technology n . . .
Alternative Thinner
M
0.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0
0
0.12
0
0
0
0.0039
37
-------
Table 3.8 Option
Inventory
Functional Unit (FU)
LCI Components
ftA2
Units
Option 2
1000
Quantity
Resource and Energy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Water
Fuel
Crude oil
Bauxite
.
•
Air Emissions
C02
SOx
VOC
PM
NOx
Hydrocarbons
CO
Chlorine
MIAK
Isobutyraldehyde
•
:
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
605433.01
10464119.78
462896.19
31785.09
28242.48
2007.55
83.96
218.99
20.99
10.89
4.42
4.42
2.42
1.01
0.42
0.29
0.26
Option 3
Quantity
555534.63
9296247.95
425150.96
46271.34
29269.17
1778.95
83.96
197.62
20.71
10.08
4.39
4.26
2.15
0.58
0.42
0.29
0.26
38
-------
Wastewater Emissions
Wastewater
WWReinj'd
WW Discharg.
Mobile ions
WW Injected
Sodium
Chloride
Oil and Grease
Titanium dioxide
.
.
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
U238
Fly Ash
FGD Solids
Bottom Ash
Slag
•
:
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
2432.41
117.92
52.15
25.44
17.10
10.51
8.30
0.26
0.09
80.16
52.65
3.92E-09
1.48E-09
5.71E-10
4.14E-10
1.58E-10
2137.95
104.49
46.21
22.54
15.15
9.31
7.35
0.23
0.15
79.19
52.52
3.59E-09
1.36E-09
5.24E-10
3.80E-10
1.45E-10
Alternatively, the team may wish to use the issues identified in the screening stage to compare
the impact potentials of the available options. If the intent of the life cycle engineering effort is
more broadly to improve the overall environmental performance or to address general
environmental issue areas, then the options characterization profile, possibly in conjunction with
the option inventory, may be the more effective technique for the detailed analysis. Table 3.9
shows the characterization profile for the CARC System Options 2 and 3.
39
-------
Table 3.9 Life Cycle Assessment Characterization Profile
for the CARC System Options 2 and 3
Environmental Impac
Requirement or Goal
EF1. Reduced Humar
generation of waste health
solvents and paints inhalat
toxicit1
t
Contributory Materials
\
ion
f Aggregated Score:
ACETALDEHYDE
ALUMINUM
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTANOL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CUMENE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
NITRIC ACID
NITROPROPANE
PHENOL
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Option 2
Impact
Potential
13.205
0.493
0
0.674
0.017
0.014
9.180
0.002
0.026
0.005
0.041
0.296
0.014
0.146
0.478
0.055
1.151
0.033
0
0
0.349
0.201
0.009
0.019
Option 3
Impact
Potential
11.004
0.234
9.336E-05
0
0.021
0
9.324
0
0.022
0.010
0
0
0.021
0.147
0.478
0.022
0.205
0
0.000
0.006
0.333
0.180
0
0
40
-------
XYLENE 0.067
Aquati
fauna i
or deal
EF2. Reduced energy Fuel
consumption resoun
depleti
ELI. Reduced VOC Smog
emissions format
EL2. Reduced solvent Aquati
and pigment discharges species
to sewer illness
death
c
llness
h
Aggregated Score:
CHLORINE
COPPER COMPOUNDS
LEAD
ZINC
'es Aggregated Score:
COAL
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
Aggregated Score:
ion
ACETALDEHYDE
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
(C8-C10)
BUTYL ACETATE(n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
METHANOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE
XYLENE
c SeeEFl.
or
0.670
0.6362
0.0009
0.0320
0.0006
9789.524
0.632
1758.676
8030.216
0.276
0.0349
0.0092
0.0257
0.0035
2.027E-05
0.0009
0.0021
0
0.0187
0.0938
0.0047
0.0553
3.472E-05
0.0272
0.065
2.024
1.9686
0.0015
0.0524
0.0010
8678.207
0.000
1562.395
7115.812
0.139
0.0166
0.0151
0
0.0043
0
0.0019
0.0004
1.683E-06
0.0076
0.0167
0
0.0498
0
0.0263
41
-------
ELS . Reduced solvent
and metal-bearing
pigment releases to
land
EL4. Decreased solid
waste generation
Human
health -
inhalation
toxicity
Aquatic
species
illness or
death
Terrestrial
species
illness or
death
Habitat
loss/land use
SeeEFl.
SeeEFl.
Aggregated Score:
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONITRILE
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
NITRIC ACID
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
Aggregated Score:
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SOLID WASTE
ER1. Reduced
particulate releases
Human
health -
inhalation
toxicity
SeeEFl.
1.746
0.216
0.000
0.110
0.003
0.006
0.000
0.052
0.000
0.005
0.146
0.478
0.074
0.590
0.040
0.000
0.008
0.017
239.297
160.33
78.97
1.074
0.103
0.002
0.134
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.044
0.001
0.008
0.147
0.478
0.030
0.105
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.016
237.170
158.39
78.78
42
-------
Terrestrial
species
illness or
death
See ELS.
EG1. Reduced fuels
and resource
consumption
Resource
depletion
Aggregated Score:
10233.633
9105.511
BAUXITE
CHROME OXIDE
COAL
COBALT OXIDE
IRON ORE
LIMESTONE
MAGNESIUM ORE
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
TITANIUM
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
ZINC
Acid
precipitation
Aggregated Score:
AMMONIA
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
NOX
SOX
Climate change
Aggregated Score:
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CO2
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHANE
335.857
6.575
0.632
2.173
2.776
4.653
1.624
1758.676
8030.216
4.532
31.106
9.861
2.624
18.220
0.000
24.108
24.080
0.00084
3.093
20.986
221.802
2.645
218.992
0.165
335.857
6.575
2.173
2.905
4.653
1.624
1562.395
7115.812
31.384
9.658
2.624
29.851
0.000
0.000
20.714
0.00123
20.713
207.522
4.258
197.618
5.646
43
-------
Based on the aggregate impact potential scores, Option 3 appears to be the environmentally
preferred system when developing specifications for a replacement CARC maintenance
procedure. With the exception of aquatic toxicity impact potential, the combination of
alternative primer and alternative spray gun technologies affords the best environmental
performance relative to the option of the alternative gun alone. However, relative to the current
practice both options represent reductions in impact potential for all nine impact issue areas.
3.3.4 Specification Development
Information developed by the evaluation team on the environmental, cost, and performance
aspects of alternative CARC system options has indicated that a technical order modification
involving the substitution of the water thinable primer and the turbine HVLP should be prepared.
However, in order to implement the change in specifications, there may be several additional
issues to be dealt with. These issues include a lack of demonstrated experience with the
technologies in actual production settings, considerations relating to procurement practices, and
incremental training of operators in the use and proper disposal of these new materials and
application technologies.
Performance demonstration refers to the actual painting of vehicles using the alternative system.
Although the conditions established during the life cycle engineering effort should be sufficient
to modify the specifications and ensure a reasonable level of confidence in the new technologies,
it will likely be necessary to further demonstrate their effectiveness over a broader range of
environmental and vehicle surface conditions.
Procurement considerations include two aspects - conditions relating to justification of capital
items acquisition, particularly as related to items that are more expensive than the original
equipment, and better understanding of who must approve of the purchase of alternative
materials. Based on preliminary information, the acceptance of alternative materials should
require no approvals beyond that of the item managers. This should be a formality once the
performance verification is completed.
Each environmental requirement or goal, together with the associated indicator or indicators, is
listed, along with the impact scores for the contributing materials to each impact category. The
methodology for deriving the impact score values from the inventory data is described in detail
in the CARC LCA report (EPA, 1996). The team can identify which option provides the best mix
of characteristics in one of two ways - by inspection of the individual material contributions or
by comparison of the aggregated scores within each impact indicatory category. Because the
methodology used to generate the scores provides a consistent set of impact units, the aggregate
score is simply the arithmetic sum of the individual contributions. Note that combining impact
potentials across issues is not permissible. Unless a formal approach to specifying the relative
importance of the issue areas is employed, the team will simply apply its judgement to arrive at a
decision. One such formal method is presented in the CARC LCA report (EPA, 1996). Others
are discussed in the LCA literature (SET AC, 1997; Baumann, 1995, and SET AC-Europe, 1994).
Incremental training requirements are expected to be minimal. Nevertheless, safety and related
procedural considerations should be included in the guidance for the alternative spray gun. Any
changes in the application techniques or recoating times for the alternative materials should be
44
-------
included in the revised technical orders. Additional recommendations on proper handling and
disposal should also be part of the application and use specification.
-------
4. Upgrades
This section describes the consideration of life-cycle environmental factors when introducing
incremental and routine improvements in the performance of existing products, systems,
processes, or facilities3.
4.1 Products and Systems
Product and system upgrades are often introduced when an item currently being sold or already
placed in service is not performing at a desired level or when it is felt that a greater market share
may be achievable with a better performing product. Customer feedback through the
maintenance, technical support, marketing, or customer service channels may trigger a need to
modify components, to re-engineer certain assemblies for better service or replacement access, or
a myriad of other performance considerations. A desire to improve the manufacturability of a
product or system may also create an opportunity for upgrades. Under most circumstances the
environmental performance of the product or system will not be the primary reason for
undertaking an engineering effort to upgrade. Nevertheless, life cycle engineering offers the
potential for consideration of possible improvements in the environmental aspects of a product or
system at the same time that performance- or cost-drivers are creating a need to improve its
technical or cost envelope.
4.2 Processes and Facilities
Process and facility upgrades may be either consequential to a product or system upgrade or
independent. Oftentimes, changing requirements for production of the components or assemblies
comprising a product will initiate an assessment of the operational efficiency, throughput rates,
or manufacturing quality procedures. In turn, once the evaluation team has a charter to modify
the process or facility, life cycle engineering can be employed to ensure that environmental
aspects are considered along with productivity and cost. More than this, the LCE framework
encourages the team to select processes and facility upgrade elements that avoid the transfer of
impacts to supplier organizations.
Even in the absence of product-driven initiatives to upgrade, process and facility improvements
can be justified on the basis of improved life cycle costs for the operations, improved quality of
products, debottlenecking of production, or other non-environmental considerations. However,
with regard to processes and facilities upgrades, environmental factors can be an important driver
apart from production costs. Life cycle engineering offers the capability for an evaluation team
to simultaneously consider process changes that reduce environmental compliance costs, reduce
overall facility environmental burdens, and beneficially impact productivity and profitability.
3 When upgrading is non-routine and significant, rather than incremental, the decision falls in the
"New" type.
45
-------
4.3 LCE Case Study: Photovoltaic Module Development
Photovoltaic modules (PV) are devices that convert solar energy into electricity. The UPM-880
tandem junction power generation module, a PV produced by United Solar, uses thin film
amorphous silicon as the photovoltaic material and contains two identical semiconductor
junctions. The UPM-880 is 119.4X34.3X3.8 centimeters in size and weighs 3.6 kilograms.
4.3.1 Targeting the Evaluation
Establishing the Function being Provided
The function of the UPM -880 is to convert sunlight to energy. It has a rated output power of 22
watts, which represents a stabilized conversion efficiency of 5%. The UPM-880 has a 10-year
warranty.
Naming an Evaluation Team
The evaluation team for this effort consisted of management and technical functions. Members
of the team included:
• National Pollution Prevention Center staff who are experts in Life Cycle Design,
• A Vice President of Research and Technology at United Solar, and
• A Senior Research Scientist at United Solar.
These groups interacted on a number of occasions. The Research scientist was responsible for
data collection and analysis of energy module manufacturing. The Vice President of Research
and Technology helped to initiate and define the scope of the project.
Developing Requirements and Goals
The requirement of the design activity was to guide the next generation design of the UPM-880
by improving upon four metrics:
• Energy payback time- the length of time required for a module to generate energy equal to
the amount required to produce it from raw materials.
• Electricity production efficiency- the ratio of the total energy produced by a generating
system over its lifetime to the sum of energy inputs required for the system's manufacture,
operation and maintenance (including fuel), and end-of-life management to the amount of
radiant energy as sunlight incident on the generating system over its lifetime. The metric can
be used to compare all types of renewable fossil fuel-based generating technologies.
• Life cycle conversion efficiency - the ratio of the energy produced over a generating
system's lifetime minus energy inputs required for the system's manufacture, operation and
maintenance (including fuel), and end-of-life management to the amount of radiant energy as
sunlight incident on the generating system over its lifetime. This metric is most useful for
comparing solar-fueled generating systems to each other, as opposed to fossil fuel systems.
• Life cycle cost - the total acquisition, operation and maintenance, and retirement costs for a
generating system divided by the total amount of energy generated over its lifetime. The
metric can be used to compare all electricity generating systems.
46
-------
Table 4.1 provides an assessment of requirements and goals based on these metrics. Production
efficiency and life cycle cost were considered as requirements.
Table 4.1 UPM-880 Assessment Requirements and Goals
Category
Performance
Electrical
Electrical
Electrical
Cost
Equipment, and installation
End-of-Life Management
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q_
5
X
O
X
X
X
co
z>
X
X
X
Q
X
X
X
Requirements and Goals
Decrease payback time.
Increase production efficiency
Increase life cycle conversion efficiency.
Reduce cost.
Reduce life cycle cost
Requirement (R) or Goal (G)
G
R
G
R
G
Proposing Engineering Technologies and Options
Design strategies were found to depend on many factors such as useful life of the module,
opportunities for reusing modules in less demanding applications, and efficiencies associated
with improved technology at the time of retirement. PV technology development focuses on
increasing conversion efficiency and reducing costs. Electricity production efficiency, energy
payback time, and life cycle cost add valuable new perspectives in guiding technology
development. These metrics illuminate material and process choices, and help utility companies,
policymakers, and the public make accurate comparisons between technologies.
Design strategies for end-of-life management phase were explored. The analysis was conducted
for standard and frameless versions of the UPM-880 module.
4.3.2 Preliminary Assessment
Defining the Technology Life Cycles
Over 26 materials are used in the production of the UPM-880, 20 of which are actually
incorporated into the finished product. Several processes used for cleaning, etching, and short
passivation are not incorporated into the module, although they were included in the analysis of
embodied energy. Incorporated materials include gases, liquids, and solids, both metals and
plastics. The consituents products were listed and sorted by mass to highlight their continued
attension in the assessment. The highest contribution to the mass was the anodized aluminum
extruded frame (38%), the EVA encapsulation (25%), the galvanized mild steel backing plate
(25%), and the stainless steel substrate (11%).
47
-------
Figure 4.1 Defining the Technology Life Cycle
Material Production
limestone
copper ore
iron ore
V I 1
coal
copper
' -1 ' vv t
Steel
1 r
Manufacturing
Troy, Michigan: substrate
wash, back reflector
deposition, amorphous Si
ally deposition, TCO
deposition, module slabbing
and QA/ QC, TCO scribing,
short passivation, grid
pattern screen print, cell
cutting, pack and ship
chromium Natural g£
nickel petrole
V ir
EVA
^ Stainless
steel
V
Tijuana, Mexico: cell
interconnection, module
laminating, final assembly,
final test, pack and ship
Use and Maintenance
Installation
Use: power generation
Recovery and Disposal
reuse of the
entire module
reuse of part of the
module through
disassembly or
recycling (shredding
and separation)
is bauxite
um Recycled
.aluminum
1 1 '
T T
aluminum
V
MG
silicon
V
silane
V
San Diego, California:
warehouse, transport to use
— ^ site (Detroit, MI; Boulder,
CO; Phoenix, AZ
i r
Maintenance
disposal
(possibly with
energy recover
by incineration
/
48
-------
The phases of the product investigated included material production, manufacturing, use, and
end-of-life management. As shown in Figure 4.1, it was beyond the scope to examine raw
material extraction and processing operations in depth for all materials used in the production of
the UPM-880. The manufacturing phase is composed of a large number of components that are
carried out in the United States and Mexico. The use phase of a UPM-880 module has
installation, use (power generation), and maintenance. Because there are limited documented
examples of what happens to PV modules at the end-of-life, the end-of-life management phase
was addressed in terms of three possible scenarios: (1) reuse of the entire module, (2) reuse of
part of the module through disassembly or recycling (shredding and separation), or (3) disposal
(possibly with energy recovery by incineration.
Upon examination, the team found the aluminum frame an obvious candidate for reuse.
4.3.2 Preliminary and Detailed Assessments
The preliminary and detailed assessments were combined to include the quantification of the set
of metrics linked to the requirements and goals. Material energy requirements were calculated
for each of eight components of UPM-880. For each component a low case and a high case
energy requirement were developed. The totals for the high and low cases were 831.4 MJ and
25.5 MJ, respectively. The energy requirements for the nine major steps of manufacturing were
also calculated as equivalent primary energy. These data were collected by measuring electrical
consumption of each machine for the amount of time necessary to process one module of UPM-
880. The total energy requirement was 201.2 MJ.
Conversion efficiency metrics were calculated for three locations: Detroit, MI; Boulder, CO; and
Phoenix, AZ. Energy payback time in years was calculated as module production energy (in
kWh) divided by energy generated per year. These calculations were made for conversion
efficiency factors ranging from 5% to 9%. The calculated payback periods for the three locations
and five different conversion factors ranged from 1.3 to 13.4 years. Energy production efficiency
was calculated summing the energy produced by a generating system over its life time, and
dividing it by the sum of the energy inputs required to manufacture and transport, install, operate
and maintain, and disposal or reclaiming of the system at the end of its life time. Conversion
efficiency was defined and calculated as energy produced over a generating system's lifetime
minus energy inputs required to manufacture and transport, install, operate and maintain, and
dispose or reclaim that system divided by the amount of radiant energy as sunlight incident on
the generating system over its lifetime. Electricity production efficiency and conversion
efficiency metrics were calculated for 10, 15, 25, and 25 year assumed lifetime.
A life cycle cost analysis was conducted to estimate the total cost of electricity production from
the UPM-880 module. Initial purchase price, installation, maintenance, and retirement costs were
included in this analysis. The estimates were made for 10, 15, 20, and 25 year lifetimes for the
same three geographic locations that were cited earlier. These estimates ranged from $0.24 per
kWhto$1.23perkWh.
4.3.4 Specification Development
Two components of the UPM-880 were illustrated as major opportunities for design
improvement: the aluminum frame and the EVA encapsulant. The energy invested in the
aluminum frame consists of material production energy and energy required to extrude and
49
-------
anodize the frame parts. Material production energy can be reduced by using a higher proportion
of secondary material or by using a different, less energy intense material. Also, the aluminum
frame is a good candidate for reuse.
The useful life was recognized as a primary design parameter. Early design failures illustrated
that moisture intrusion is a sure cause of module failure. EVA encapsulant, which is not
completely impermeable to moisture, has been a factor in the determination of useful life. EVA
also requires high energy for lamination.
-------
5. New Design
This section describes the consideration of life-cycle environmental factors in the development,
and testing of original/first-time products, systems, processes, or facilities. A chemical
manufacturing case study example is included to illustrate how the elements of the life cycle
engineering framework apply to these types of decisions.
5.1 Products and Systems
New products and systems have one characteristic that distinguishes them from upgrades or
maintenance - degree of evaluation team knowledge of the product or system attributes.
Whereas most upgrades or maintenance procedure decisions involve an assessment of how
commercial technologies will best be suited for improving existing products and system,
knowledge of the environmental, cost, and performance characteristics of new products and
systems will be by definition limited. New products and systems are by nature subject to greater
uncertainty in their life cycle engineering characterization. This higher degree of uncertainty
needs to be acknowledged and accounted for by the evaluation team.
5.2 Processes and Facilities
The development of new processes shares much of the uncertainties associated with new
products and systems development. The lack of a full understanding of the performance, cost,
and environmental characteristics means that the team will need to return to the analysis
periodically and reevaluate their conclusions as data about the process become better known.
One way to address this uncertainty would be to delay completion of the detailed step of the
assessment until later in the development process realizing that the flexibility to modify the
process may be more constrained. New facility development has fewer uncertainties associated
with the physical structure since even in the case of novel features, such as lighting, power, and
space conditioning, much of the technology will be choosing among commercialized options.
However, new facilities development also brings in elements associated with environmental
assessment of siting alternatives and the related issue of due diligence in assuring environmental
sensitivity of the site development process.
5.3 LCE Case Study: BDO Process Development
1,4-Butanediol (BDO) is a widely used chemical building block for numerous commercial
chemical and polymeric compounds. Conventional processes for the synthesis of BDO use
petrochemical feedstocks for their starting materials. About 90% of 1995 domestic production
50
-------
used the Reppe process in which acetylene and formaldehyde are reacted to produce 1,4-
butenediol. This intermediate is then hydrogenated to produce EDO. An alternative process was
sought to produce EDO via a route not dependent on traditional feedstocks.
5.3.1 Targeting the Evaluation
Establishing the Function being Provided
The function of the new process is to produce a unit quantity of EDO using non-conventional
feedstocks at a cost below the current production cost of EDO produced by conventional
synthesis routes. Note that the functional specifications for the process do not dictate a purity
level for the produced EDO. Rather, the downstream use of the material will determine how
much impurity is tolerable and how the primary manufacturing process needs to accommodate
the required purity levels.
Naming an Evaluation Team
The evaluation team for this effort consisted of several distinct groups. Members of the team
included:
• U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Feedstocks Program staff who oversaw the
development team and provided an integration perspective on balancing of environmental
versus other goals.
• Environmental specialists whose responsibility was to identify the characteristics of the
conventional EDO manufacturing system that had the potential to create adverse
environmental impacts and to analyze the impact potential profile of an alternative process.
• Process chemistry and engineering developers who were involved in laboratory and pilot
scale process design experiments against a set of well-defined criteria.
• Process cost analysts who were responsible for estimating the costs of the operations
involved in the alternative process.
• Life cycle process engineers who were responsible for establishing the system boundaries,
identifying and collecting process information on the upstream materials production, and
characterizing the waste management aspects of the coatings operation. This group also had
the task of making recommendations back to the process engineering team to incorporate
improvements into the next generation design.
These groups interacted on a number of occasions, but could not function as an entirely
integrated team. The latter four groups formed the primary LCE team.
Developing Requirements and Goals
Initial requirements for the new process consisted of a combination of performance, cost, and
renewable feedstock attributes. Details on these requirements (R) and goals (G) may be found in
Table 5.1, which is an excerpt of Routine and Unanticipated Maintenance Worksheet 1. The
initial set of aspects were largely confined to the manufacturing life cycle stage, although
parameters such as feedstock cost and availability are associated the upstream stages as well as
the in-house activities. These initial requirements were not developed with a life cycle
engineering framework in place.
51
-------
Table 5.1 New BDO Process Requirements and Goals
Category
Performance
Chemical
Chemical
Cost
Materials
Materials and Equipment
Materials
Environmental - Facility
Hazmat management and waste
Energy consumption
Environmental - Local
Photochemical smog production
Water pollution
Toxic materials in the
environment
Landfill space
Environmental - Regional
Visibility impairment
Environmental- Global
Resource conservation
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q_
5
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
co
z>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
X
X
X
X
Requirements and Goals
Fermentation step yields must meet targets for purification stage
Acceptable product quality as defined by purchaser specifications
Lower cost for feedstock and process chemicals
Production cost substantially below current estimated cost
Reduced labor costs compared with baseline
Reduce or eliminate generation of waste
solvents and sludges
Less than baseline
Reduce emissions compared with conventional
process
Minimize solvent and nutrient discharges to
surface or groundwater
Minimize solvent and biosolids releases
Decrease solid waste generation
Reduce the amount of particulates released
Reduce fuels consumption and use renewable
resources
Requirement
(R) or Goal
(G)
R
R
R
R
G
G
R
R
G
R
G
G
R
Proposing Engineering Technologies and Options
During the course of developing the process flowsheet that was ultimately used for the
environmental assessment, the engineering team assessed and modified the technologies for
synthesizing and purifying the product of the alternative synthesis route several times. These
technology options included alternative fermentation reactor configurations, several sets of
purification process steps and multiple options for co-product and waste processing prior to
recycling or disposal. In all instances these options were rejected on the grounds that they failed
to meet the performance and cost targets and therefore any environmental requirement or goal
assessment was moot. However, in an ideal deployment of the LCE approach, those initial
options would have at least had some preliminary assessment for their environmental attributes
to complement the performance and cost analyses.
5.3.2 Preliminary Assessment
Defining the Technology Life Cycles
Figure 5.la through c shows the life cycle activities and material/energy flows associated with
each of the technologies. This analysis boundary is similar to that shown previously for the
CARC example. In this case the downstream boundary for the new process analysis is the
52
-------
manufacturing of a unit quantity of EDO. Because the requirements included a statement that
the purity be acceptable for the intended use (implying that the alternative process cannot
produce inferior product relative to that derived from the conventional technology), the analysis
can be streamlined through exclusion of the stages involving the use and disposition of the
product. Also, because the criteria span more than the process operation and maintenance life
cycle stage, the LCE framework requires the description and consideration of the whole process
life cycle.
Figure 5.1 a BDO Technology 1: Glucose Fermentation to Succinic Acid
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Operational and maintenance
procedures
Technology 1 : Glucose Fermentation to Succinic Acid (SA)
• Minor nutrients (HCI, Tryptophan, Cysteine) and process control chemicals (NaOH
• Dewatering and biosolids recovery and pre-processing (dewatering) equipment
• Fermentation reactor and associated feed and control systems
and CO2)
In accordance with manufacturer's literature and product recipe.
Material Production
Succinic acid is produced through the mediation of bio-engineered microbes. The reactor feed consists of corn-
derived glucose and corn steep liquor along with certain micro-nutrients required for the continued viability of the
biomass. In addition to the carbon source production steps, material production activities for process control
chemicals are included. Excluded are the upstream materials production operations for minor nutrients since
these comprise only 2.3% of the total input mass.
Technology Manufacturing
In keeping with typical LCA practice and the streamlined nature of this assessment, the environmental aspects of
manufacture of the fermenter and related equipment were not included.
Manufacturing Activity
Energy
Glucose/steep
liquor, pH control
materials, minor
nutrients
-
Fermentation
*
biosoli^s
VOC and Paniculate
Removal
w
r*
Dewa
equipi
Biosolids
dewatering
tering additives,
nent
Airborne VOC (aldehydes
and acids) & particulates,
wastewater, solid and
hazwaste
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Solid
Industrial landfill
53
-------
Figure 5.1b BDO Technology 2: Succinic Acid Purification (Electrodialysis)
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Operational and maintenance
procedures
Technology 2: Succinic Acid Purification
• Electrolytes and process control chemicals
• Coproduct recovery equipment
• Electrodialysis cell and associated feed and control systems
In accordance with manufacturer's literature and product recipe.
Material Production
Succinic acid produced in the previous step is not pure. It is a co-product along with several other compounds
that need to be separated in order for the SA material to be useable for BDO production. One technology for
effecting this separation is electrodialysis in which a mixture of materials are placed in a chamber with a semi-
permeable membrane forming one of the interior surfaces. Application of an electric field forces certain
components of the liquid through the membrane where they are concentrated relative to the original solution.
Excluded are the upstream materials production operations for some of the membrane maintenance chemicals
since these comprise a small percentage of the total input mass.
Technology Manufacturing
In keeping with typical LCA practice and the streamlined nature of this assessment, the environmental aspects of
manufacture of the electrodialysis cell and the membranes were not included.
Manufacturing Activity
Energy _
Crude fermentation -
product mixture
Electrodialysis
separation
Airborne VOCs,
wastewater. solid waste
Purified co-
product storage
Airborne
VOCs
Membrane cleaning
and replacement
Cleaning additives,
equipment
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Solid
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Industrial landfill
54
-------
Figure 5.1c BDO Technology 3: Catalytic SA Reduction to BDO
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Operational and maintenance
procedures
Technology 3: Catalytic SA Reduction to BDO
• Catalyst
• Hydrogen
• Reactor and associated eguipment
In accordance with manufacturer's literature
and product recipe.
Material Production
The production of hydrogen was included as part of the upstream stages associated with wet milling of corn.
Because hydrogenation of oils forms a basic part of the corn processing for many products, it was recommended
that the evaluation team not create a stand-alone hydrogenation step as part of the BDO facility. Upstream
production of the components of the aluminum oxide catalyst was included.
Technology Manufacturing
In keeping with typical LCA practice and the streamlined nature of this assessment, the environmental aspects of
manufacture of the reactor and the associated equipment were not included.
Manufacturing Activity
Energy
SA product,
catalyst
Catalytic
reduction
+
Airborne VOCs,
wastewater, solid waste
Purified product
storage
Airborne
VOCs
Catalyst regeneration
and replacement
Cleaning additives,
equipment
Material Recovery
And Disposal
Solid
Wastewater
and
chemicals
Industrial landfill
In this evaluation the choice of technologies was pre-positioned to effect the best current
economics of BDO production while satisfying the criterion of using an alternative (non-fossil)
feedstock. Therefore, alternative technologies were not identified and a series of preliminary
assessments of the degree of achievement of requirements and goals was not prepared, as was the
case for CARC. (see Section 3.3.2).
55
-------
5.3.3 Detailed Assessment
Retargeting the Assessment
The detailed assessment stage consisted of cost and environmental aspects. Performance
characteristics were addressed by requiring the product EDO to meet purity levels for use in
downstream stages and by the impacts on the production costs of additional separation and
purification steps. The economic analyses were based on costs in then current year dollars for
firm fixed contract materials procurement from commercial sources. The analysis assumed co-
location of the EDO facility at a corn wet mill where the glucose feedstock could be provided
with no additional off-site transportation costs. The LCA was based on a functional unit
produced at a hypothetical location in the Midwest (Iowa or Illinois).
Environmental requirements and goals were analyzed using a Life Cycle Impact Assessment
directed at resource and energy consumption, environmental burdens and waste generation. The
environmental evaluation of the selected options consisted of performing a life cycle assessment
(LCA) on the technologies outlined above that comprise the alternative production sequence
flowsheet in comparison with those associated with the conventional EDO production using the
Reppe process. Each analysis consisted of a life cycle inventory to measure the energy and
materials flows for the production of selected precursors and EDO. The manufacturing of the
capital equipment was not included in this analysis in keeping with standard LCA practice. The
downstream boundary was purified EDO ready to ship to customers. Although technology-
specific data were available for each of the three steps in the alternative process based on
detailed flowsheet modeling using a commercial simulation package, the LCI data were
aggregated so as not to disclose certain proprietary pieces of information about the alternative
technologies.
Within the primary manufacturing portions of the bio-based EDO life cycle, the data in Table 5.2
indicate that the burden contributions from separation and purification of the crude succinic acid
product are significant. In addition, if power is purchased from off-site generation, the
contribution to the life cycle profile from electric power generation is dominant. When the
overall impacts of the two technologies are compared (Tables 5.3 and 5.4), the intuitive sense
that the system based on renewable crop resources is environmentally preferable is seen to be
incorrect. The conventional system based on natural gas is the preferred system for 9 of the
impact categories. At least in its original design configuration the corn-based system is
preferable only on the aspects of resource depletion and carcinogenicity.
LCE results of this type for new systems are appropriately used to develop more refined designs.
Based on the analysis of the contributing operations, a number of modifications can be identified
(Figure 5.2). For the agricultural portions of the life cycle, use of conservation tillage to reduce
soil losses and increase carbon retention will improve the global warming and eutrophication
impact scores. Recycling of the fermentation media back to the farm also will improve
productivity and may reduce the need for fertilizers slightly. Within the EDO production
operations, three improvements were identified. Use of hydrogen produced at the corn wet mill
will avoid the cost and environmental burdens associated with building and operating a separate
hydrogen plant. Incremental improvements in the electrodialysis system will reduce power
56
-------
consumption and the associated emissions as well as provide a higher purity (and therefore less
waste generating) feedstock for the EDO production step.
In addition to improving the environmental profile of the system the LCE analysis identified the
potential to better integrate the EDO plant into the surrounding agricultural production activities.
Finally, the changes will save a couple of pennies per pound in production costs. This may not
seem like very much but, at the projected production scale of 100 million pounds per year, the
annual savings amount to more than 2 million dollars.
Figure 5.2 Design Improvements Identified through LCE Process
CORN
PRODUCTION
CORN WET
MILLING
SUCCINIC
ACID VIA
FERMENTATION
ALTERNATIVE
EDO
PRODUCTION
CONSERVATION
TILLAGE
FERMENTATION
MEDIA
RECYCLE
• HYDROGEN SHARING/RECYCLE
INCREMENT ELECTRODIALYSIS
EFFICIENCY
• ON SITE BIOMASS BASED
CO GENERATION
57
-------
Table 5.2
Production of 1,4-Butanediol
Summary LCI
Emissions and Consumption (Ib/lb BDO)
Conventional Process
Trunk BDO
Component Processes Energy
Nox 1.93E-04 5.85E-04
PM-10 3.82E-06
CO 7.60E-05 1.31E-04
CO2 2.59E-02 0.11
Organic Compounds
Non-Methane VOC's 1.79E-06
Methane 2.43E-05
N20
MEA
Total Particulate 7.75E-06 6.53E-05
HCL
Ammonia 5.96E-06 1.58E-08
Chlorine
Sulfuric Acid 1 .84E-09
Sox 3.30E-06 1.08E-03
Process Energy
Total
Air Emissions
7.11E-03 7.89E-03
5.80E-05
2.17E-03 8.92E-04
0.34 2.82
1.29E-03
2.85E-05
3.39E-05
1.38E-05
1.47E-04
2.29E-08
7.93E-06 1.57E-03
6
3
1
3
5
2
6
0.
1
2
.18E-05
.27E-03
3.29
.29E-03
.03E-05
.82E-05
0
0
.20E-04
0
.OOE-06
OOE+00
.84E-09
.65E-03
Trunk
Processes
3.
1
3
1
7
4
9
1
4
1
7
4
60E-04
11E-02
61E-04
0.06
85E-04
33E-04
0
84E-04
29E-03
12E-05
49E-04
23E-06
57E-07
62E-04
Alternative Process
BDO
Energy Process
3.
1
6
1
8
6
4
1
2
3
92E-03
01E-03
13E-03
0.84
61E-06
45E-06
65E-06
21E-04
53E-03
0
66E-08
0
0
63E-03
0
0
5.34E-03
-0.74
3.16E-03
0
0
0
3.38E-05
8.36E-07
1.95E-05
Energy
1.47E-02
1.80E-03
5.10E-03
3.13
4.66E-05
8.27E-06
7.29E-04
1.35E-03
3.29E-07
2.52E-02
Total
1.90E-02
1
1
3
7
1
1
3
1
1
4
2
7
2
39E-02
69E-02
3.30
35E-03
88E-04
49E-05
63E-03
38E-05
22E-02
12E-05
49E-04
06E-06
57E-07
93E-02
58
-------
Hydrocarbons
Aldehydes
Organic Acids
NO
Nitric Acid
Fluoride
Acid Mist
Alachlor
Atrazine
Metalachlor
Cyanazine
Fonofos
Turbufos
Chlorpyrifos
Lead
Mercury
Acetylene
Kerosene
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Copper
Nickel
Rhodium
Butyl alcohol
2.93E-04 3.51E-05 5.08E-05 3.79E-04
1.70E-06 1.58E-08 2.29E-08 1.74E-06
2.17E-06 2.17E-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.10E-07 3.04E-07 5.14E-07
0
4.61E-05 4.61E-05
1.62E-07 2.35E-07 3.97E-07
1.54E-05 5.70E-05 7.24E-05
O.OOE+00 0
3.14E-02 3.14E-02
2.65E-08 2.26E-06 2.28E-06
2.65E-08 1.11E-08 3.76E-08
O.OOE+00 0
1.38E-09 3.10E-05 3.10E-05
1.34E-05
1.48E-05
3.92E-04 7.29E-04 1.13E-03
2.13E-06 3.29E-07 1.72E-05
1.34E-06 1.34E-06
2.26E-03
6.21E-06
5.64E-07
3.18E-05
3.17E-05
5.85E-05
3.88E-05
3.03E-05
4.69E-06
1.24E-05
8.07E-06
2.26E-03
0 6.21E-06
0 5.64E-07
0 3.18E-05
3.17E-05
5.85E-05
3.88E-05
3.03E-05
4.69E-06
1.24E-05
8.07E-06
3.53E-07 4.36E-06 4.71E-06
1.07E-07 1.07E-07
0
2.73E-07 3.37E-06 3.64E-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
-------
Propionaldehyde
Acetone
Toluene
Methanol
Zinc
SO2
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
C-7 cycloparaffins
C-8 cycloparaffins
Pentane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
iso-Butane
Benzene
Wastewater
BODS
Total Suspended Solids
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Choride
7.37E-07
5.81E-05
2.65E-08
2.28E-05
5.87E-06
7.56E-06
5.05E-06
1.06E-06
3.89E-07
3.66E-06
4.19E-06
6.57E-06
5.20E-06
2.59E-07
6.49E-08
5.79E-01
1.58E-08
3.45E-08
1.27E-03
6.54E-06 6.54E-06
2.69E-05 2.76E-05
8.06E-05 8.06E-05
5.81E-05
2.65E-08
2.28E-05
5.87E-06
7.56E-06
5.05E-06
1.06E-06
3.89E-07
3.66E-06
4.19E-06
6.57E-06
5.20E-06
2.59E-07
6.49E-08
Wastewater Emission
8.36E-01 1.42E+00
2.29E-08 3.88E-08
4.98E-08 8.43E-08
0
0
1.27E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
7.87E+00 3.07E+01 3.86E+01
6.29E-04 2.66E-08 1.04E-03 3.29E-07 1.67E-03
7.86E-04 5.79E-08 1.50E-03 7.15E-07 2.29E-03
1.23E-04 1.23E-04
5.10E-04 5.10E-04
1.10E-02 1.10E-02
1.98E-02 1.98E-02
60
-------
Chlorine
Ammonia
Alachlor
Atrazine
Metalachlor
Cyanazine
Fonofos
Turbufos
Chlorpyrifos
Nitrates (as nitrogen)
SulfuricAcid 1.02E-04
Iron 3.20E-04
Dissolved Solids 6.05E-08 1.68E-05
COD 7.11E-08
Phenol 5.29E-09
Sulfide 5.29E-09
Oil and Grease 3.13E-05 1.06E-08
Acid 1.06E-08
Metals 5.29E-09
Formaldehyde
Acetylene
Copper 1.70E-09
Nickel 2.12E-09
Butyl alcohol
Zinc 3.03E-09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.48E-04 2.50E-04
4.63E-04 7.84E-04
2.43E-05 4.12E-05
1.03E-07 1.74E-07
7.65E-09 1.29E-08
7.65E-09 1.29E-08
1.53E-08 3.13E-05
1.53E-08 2.59E-08
7.65E-09 1.29E-08
2.98E-05 2.98E-05
1.81E-05 1.81E-05
1.34E-06 1.34E-06
7.70E-07 7.72E-07
1.10E-05 1.10E-05
3.03E-09
5.04E-08 5.04E-08
8.81E-06 8.81E-06
2.77E-07 2.77E-07
3.00E-06 3.00E-06
1.22E-06 1.22E-06
1.69E-06 1.69E-06
8.09E-08 8.09E-08
2.14E-07 2.14E-07
2.31E-07 2.31E-07
1.94E-03 1.94E-03
1.72E-04 2.12E-03 2.30E-03
5.38E-04 6.65E-03 7.19E-03
2.83E-05 3.49E-04 3.77E-04
1.19E-07 1.48E-06 1.59E-06
8.88E-09 1.10E-07 1.19E-07
8.88E-09 1.10E-07 1.19E-07
1.78E-08 2.20E-07 2.37E-07
1.78E-08 2.20E-07 2.37E-07
8.88E-09 1.10E-07 1.19E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
-------
Wastewater 2. 06 E +00
Reinjected
Wastewater Injected 2. 98 E -01
Arsenic 2.61E-09
Benzene 6.28E-08
Boron 1.34E-06
Chloride 1.00E-03
Mobile Ions 3.07E-03
Cadmium 2.14E-08
Chromium 1.94E-09
Mercury 4.88E-10
Thallium 4.61E-10
Resins and membranes
Sludge
HCL
Ammonia
Coal Ash
Fly Ash 3.08E-03
Bottom Ash 9.18E-04
Slag 4.02E-04
FGD Solids 1.31E-03
Depleted Uranium 2.30E-04
Mining Residues 4.54E-07 1.46E-02
U238 9.61E-07
U236 6.35E-10
2.06E+00
2.98E-01
2.61E-09
6.28E-08
1.34E-06
1.00E-03
3.07E-03
2.14E-08
1.94E-09
4.88E-10
4.61E-10
Solid Wastes
0
0
0
0
0
4.46E-03 7.54E-03
1.33E-03 2.25E-03
5.82E-04 9.84E-04
1.90E-03 3.21E-03
3.33E-04 5.63E-04
2.12E-02 3.58E-02
1.39E-06 2.35E-06
9.18E-10 1.55E-09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00E-03 1.00E-03
2.75E-01 2.75E-01
1.73E-07 1.73E-07
2.83E-07 2.83E-07
2.01 E-02 2.01 E-02
5.18E-03 6.40E-02 6.92E-02
1.54E-03 1.91 E-02 2.06E-02
6.75E-04 8.35E-03 9.02E-03
2.21E-03 2.73E-02 2.95E-02
3.86E-04 4.78E-03 5.16E-03
2.46E-02 3.04E-01 3.28E-01
1.61E-06 1.99E-05 2.16E-05
1.07E-09 1.32E-08 1.42E-08
62
-------
U235 8.09E-09
Pu (fissile) 6.58E-09
Pu (nonfissile) 2.53E-09
Fission Products 4.60E-09
Acetylene
Formaldehyde
Copper 1.33E-08
Nickel
Butyl alcohol
Cupriene polymers
Propionaldehyde
Acetone
Toluene
3-hydroxy-2-methylpropional
4-hydroxybutyrate
Methanol 1.33E-08
Coal 4.95E-02
Natural Gas 7.10E-01 7.57E-02
LPG
Petroleum 7.46E-03 2.81E-04
Electricity 7.27E-08
Sulfur
Phosphate Rock
Potassium Chloride
1.17E-08 1.98E-08
9.51E-09 1.61E-08
3.66E-09 6.19E-09
6.65E-09 1.13E-08
3.16E-04 3.16E-04
7.41E-04 7.41E-04
1.15E-05 1.15E-05
1.21E-06 1.21E-06
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
8.91E-04 8.91E-04
2.31E-05 2.31E-05
6.49E-05 6.49E-05
1.32E-02 1.32E-02
5.24E-05 5.24E-05
1.09E-04 1.09E-04
1.33E-08
Resource Consumptio
7.15E-02 1.21E-01
1.68E-01 7.22E-01 1.68E+00
0
4.06E-04 8.15E-03
1.05E-07 1.78E-07
0
0
0
1.36E-08 1.68E-07 1.82E-07
1.10E-08 1.36E-07 1.48E-07
4.25E-09 5.25E-08 5.67E-08
7.73E-09 9.55E-08 1.03E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
2.21E-01 1.25E+00 1.47E+00
8.82E-02 4.54E-01 5.42E-01
7.41E-03 7.41E-03
3.59E-02 5.48E-03 4.14E-02
1.22E-07 1.51E-06 1.63E-06
1.37E-02 1.37E-02
3.94E-02 3.94E-02
1.15E-02 1.15E-02
63
-------
Soil
Water 8.38E-02
Uranium 7.38E-07
Hydropotential 2.72
Hydrogen
Propylene oxide
CO
Copper
Nickel
Toluene
n-Methylpyrolidinone 3.32E-04
Land Use 6.31E-07
Coal 594
Natural Gas 16,730 1,786
LPG
Uranium 154
Hydroelectric 51
Petroleum 1 43 5
Geothermal 5
Total 16,873 2,594
0
49.64 49.73
1.07E-06 1.80E-06
3.93 6.65
4.89E-02 4.89E-02
7.58E-02 7.58E-02
3.41E-02 3.41E-02
2.04E-04 2.04E-04
2.14E-04 2.14E-04
1.33E-02 1.33E-02
3.32E-04
6.31E-07
Energy Consumptior
858 1,452
4,150 17,032 39,698
0
223 377
74 125
8 156
7 11
4,150 18,201 41,818
3.03
11.51 71.92
1.24E-06 1.53E-05
4.57 56.45
1.20E-01
3.03
83.43
1.65E-05
61.01
1.20E-01
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.30E-04
2,435 13,770
2,184 0 11,250
812
259 3,196
86 1,060
688 105
8 93
6,471 29,474
1.30E-04
16,205
13,434
812
3,454
1,145
793
101
35,945
64
-------
Table 5.3. Comparison of Raw (Unweighted) Impact Scores by
Criteria for the Convention versus Alternative Feedstock BDO
Process(a)
Impact Category
Ozone Depletion
Global Warming
Resource Depletion
Acid Rain
Smog
Water Use
PM10
Human Inhalation
Toxicity
Carcinogenicity
Solid Waste
Disposal/Land Use
Resource
Extraction/Production
Land Use
Terrestrial (wildlife)
Toxicity
Aquatic (fish) Toxicity
Eutrophication
CF Process
0
3.29
607
1.3E-02
2.1E-03
49.73
6.2E-05
1.4E-01
4.3E-04
8.1E-06
6.3E-07
1.2E-02
5.6E-03
1.7E-02
AF Process
0
3.30(b)
293
2.7E-01
3.1E-03
83.43
1.4E-02
5.0E-01
2.7E-07
4.3E-04
1.3E-04
1.6E-02
3.7E-02
2.0E-02
(a)Bold score values indicate the preferred option.
(b) Scores differing by less than 25% are not significantly different.
65
-------
Table 5.4 Summary Results of Detailed LCA for BDO Process Development
Option
Conventional Route
Alternative Route
Environmental Characteristics
* Coal is the resource material most heavily used in the conventional process life cycle.
* Energy requirements for the life cycle are met by fuels using electricity generation,
steam generation for motive power and process heating, and transportation.
* Methanol and formaldehyde are the largest hazardous airborne releases from the
processes preceding BDO manufacturing. Butyl alcohol and acetone are the largest
releases from the BDO manufacturing step.
* The carcinogenicity and resource depletion environmental impact categories have
greater normalized impact scores than those for the alternative process.
* The conventional and alternative processes are indistinguishable with regard to their
global warming potential contributions.
* Natural gas is the resource material most heavily used in the alternative process life
cycle.
* Energy requirements for the life cycle are met by fuels using electricity generation,
steam generation for motive power and process heating, and transportation.
• The acid rain, smog, water use, pmlO, human inhalation toxicity, solid waste
disposal/land use, resource extraction/production land use, and aquatic (fish) toxicity
impacts scores for the alternative process are greater than those for the conventional
process.
66
-------
6. Decommissioning
This section describes the consideration of life-cycle environmental factors in the
discontinuation, disassembly, decontamination, storage, and disposal of systems, processes, and
facilities4.
6.1 Products and Systems
Most life cycle engineering efforts will be directed at the development or modification of
products and systems at the beginning of their life cycle. However, there are numerous systems
in place that could benefit from application of an LCE perspective during their retirement and
final disposition. In many cases the process and consequences of decommissioning were not
considered during the original design engineering effort. LCE of the recovery, disassembly,
materials and component recycling activities under these circumstances is less than optimal, but
still potentially benefits from application of life cycle thinking.
6.2 Processes and Facilities5
Decommissioning of processes and facilities involves a series of steps that can include
investigation of technology applicability, pilot or preliminary-scale demonstrations, and
application of the technology. The latter includes the life cycle aspects of input materials for
cleaning, dismantlement, and final disposition or recycling along with the associated
environmental burdens of each activity. An additional source of guidance on the application of
LCE for site remediation may be found in Diamond et al. (1999) and Page et al. (1999).
6.3 LCE Case Study: Pantex Facility Decommissioning
The Department of Energy's Pantex Plant is currently in the process of decontaminating
structures no longer needed to support its new mission. These structures may include
production, administrative or testing facilities. Decommissioning of production and test facilities
has the complication of the possibility of mixed - hazardous and radioactive - contamination.
Pantex desires to reduce the radioactive decontamination levels of such facilities to de minimis
levels, which allows for a much larger number of disposal or recycling options. Further, Pantex
personnel wish to promote and use more environmentally benign decontamination methods
whenever possible. This led to testing of two competing technologies for decontamination of
surfaces — Steel Grit Blasting and Crushed Safety Glass Blasting.
4 This type of decision is separate and distinct from the end-of-life stage that is considered as one
of the life cycle stages of products, systems, processes, and facilities.
5 Facility decommissioning may also extend to site remediation that likewise involves a series of
decisions regarding materials and resources use and efficiency, costs, and technical performance.
67
-------
6.3.1 Targeting the Assessment
Establishing the Function Being Provided
The basis of performance comparison between the two decontamination technology systems was
removal of one [iCi-sq.ft. (There are 2.22xl06 dpm per [id, and 0.0000929 ft2 per 100 cm2.)
Naming the Evaluation Team
The evaluation team for these competing technologies consisted of:
Battelle Life Cycle Management personnel who provided expert LCA skills,
Pantex Plant E, H & S personnel, and
The Team Leader from the technology demonstration contractor who provided expert knowledge
on the practices and operation of the technologies.
Developing Requirements and Goals
The purpose of the technology demonstration was to evaluate the potential for either or both of
the technologies to satisfactorily decontaminate a radioactively contaminated surface so that the
materials could be disposed of or recycled via the standard solid waste management system. The
LCA was performed to provide additional information over and above simple performance, and
was to supplement the projected cost and performance data collected on site with estimates of
overall life cycle environmental burdens. These burdens included a number of standard
environmental impacts such as resource consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and release of
toxicants to air, water and solid waste streams.
Proposing Engineering Technology Options
Two alternative technologies were evaluated.
Both technologies make use of materials reclaimed from the waste stream. Each is a media
blasting technology, similar to sand blasting, and as such, are optimal for the removal of surface
contamination. The prime difference between the systems lies in the blasting media. The
Crushed Safety Glass Blasting makes use of safety glass reclaimed from automobiles, trucks, and
other sources. The glass is crushed and sorted to size. The steel grit used is slag, a by-product of
steel manufacture. The steel grit is also crushed and sorted by size.
The technology in general consists of a large air supply, a hopper that contains blasting media,
and a handheld delivery device. In order to minimize wind drift of the spent media and removed
material, a small rectangular enclosure measuring about 18 inches on each side was built around
the handheld unit. To this unit a vacuum hose was attached. A constant vacuum was applied to
the enclosure to capture as much of the fine paniculate matter removed material as possible. This
stream was passed through a HEPA filter, which served to capture the fine particulate matter,
prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
6.3.2 Preliminary Assessment
Defining the Life Cycle
The life cycle for the competing technologies was defined to include all activities from collection
of geologic resources, production of virgin materials, collection and processing of the reclaimed
or recycled materials, application during the demonstration, through clean up and disposal of
68
-------
residual materials. Transportation of materials was included where required, as was the
manufacture, use and disposal of personal protective equipment.
6.3.3 Detailed Assessment
The LCI showed that glass media blasting technology was far superior to the steel grit blast
technology from an environmental standpoint. The assessment showed an almost across the
board factor of 5.7 times less environmental burdens for the glass media blasting compared to the
same criteria for steel grit blasting. Examination of the results by life cycle stage showed that the
factor could be directly attributed to the difference in energy consumption in production of the
materials required to effect an equivalent radiation removal.
At the same time that the environmental profile clearly identified the glass media blast
technology as the preferred alternative, the performance assessment data were less than
satisfactory. Given the objective to remove the contamination to a level that would allow the
disposal as solid waste, neither technology proved adequate. This finding points out the need in
most LCE evaluations for at least one of the alternatives to meet the performance objectives.
Upon realizing that the blasting options would not work a third option to cut up the contaminated
surfaces into smaller pieces that could be handled as radioactive waste was implemented.
6.4 LCE Case Study: GBU-24 Weapon System Decommissioning
The LCED Energetic Materials Project includes a LCA, which also considers cost and
performance, on two DoD weapon systems which use cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine Research
Development Explosive (RDX): the GBU-24 earth penetrator and the M-900 projectile. The
GBU-24 is a one-ton earth penetrator conventional explosive bomb used by both the US Navy
and Air Force. The assembled bomb includes a BLU-109 bomb body filled with PBXN-109
energetic material, an FMU-143 fuse, and a guidance system. PBXN-109 contains RDX in the
form of Coated Explosive Material Number 7 (CXM-7), aluminum powder, and various binders
and additives. The M-900 is an APFSDS-T cartridge used for the 105 mm gun employed on the
Ml Abrams tank. The cartridge is equipped with a depleted uranium penetrator section designed
for a muzzle velocity of 1,500 meters per second. The M-900 is made up of a steel case and
savoy, depleted uranium penetrator rod, M43 propellant, and a fuse.
6.4.1 Targeting the Assessment
Establishing the Function Being Provided
The functional unit for the assessment was one GBU-24 unit. Each is designed to penetrate up to
6 feet in reinforced concrete.
Naming the Evaluation Team
The evaluation team for this effort consisted of management and technical functions. Members
of the team included:
• Battelle Memorial Institute Life Cycle Management staff who are experts in Life Cycle
Assessment, and
• Operations personnel at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Holston Army Ammunition
Plant.
These groups interacted on a number of occasions. Operations personnel provided inventory data
in the form of reports. Battelle assembled the inventory data and provided the impact assessment.
69
-------
Developing Requirements and Goals
The requirement of the design activity was to guide the improvement of the UPM-880 by
improving upon eleven impact metrics relating inventory inputs and outputs to: photochemical
smog formation, ozone depletion, acid rain, global warming, eutrophication, carcinogenicity,
human inhalation toxicity, wildlife toxicity, fish toxicity, land use, and resource depletion.
Requirements were differentiated from goals using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a
group exercise by Battelle staff to reflect DoD policy and local site perspective. The team was
asked to reach consensus on weighting factors grouped into global, regional and local
applicability.
Proposing Engineering Technology Options
Initially, assessments focused on two energetic product streams:
* PBNX-109 explosive in the GBU-24 earth penetrator bomb, and
* M43 propellant in the M-900 armor-penetrating fin-stabilized desheathing savoy.
6.4.2 Preliminary Assessment
Defining the Life Cycle
Modules included in the inventory included:
• geologic and biotic resource extraction (bauxite, coal, iron ore, limestone, natural gas,
petroleum),
• Intermediate materials manufacturing (acetic acid, acetone, ammonia, binders,
cyclohexanone, dioctyladipate, formaldehyde, hexamine, propyl acetate, trichloroethane, and
triphenyl phosphate),
• PBNX-109 synthesis performed at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP) in
Kingsport, Tennessee,
• Load, assemble, and pack operations for the GBU-24 performed at the McAlester Army
Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) in McAlester, Oklahoma,
• The M43 propellant production at the Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian
Head, Maryland (the focus of a separate LCA),
• Demilitarization, and
• Transportation and electricity generation.
6.4.3 Detailed Assessment
Table 6.1 presents the results of the detailed assessment of the GBU. Inventory data were not
available to support the determination of contribution to ozone depletion, water use, resource
extraction, or land use.
70
-------
Table 6.1 Detailed Assessment Results
Option
PBNX-109
Explosive
M43 propellant
Environmental Characteristics
* Coal is the resource material most heavily used in the life cycle.
* Energy requirements for the life cycle are met by fuels using electricity generation,
steam generation for motive power and process heating, and transportation.
* Trichloroethane, a hazardous liquid, used for solvent soak operations in DEMIL is the
largest DoD facility waste followed by solid residuals from coal-based steam
generation plants. Airborne releases are largest for sulfur dioxides, acetic acid, and
nitrogen oxides.
* The carcinogenicity environmental impact category shows the greatest normalized
impact score when all impacts assessed are assigned equal importance. The
carcinogenicity and terrestrial toxicity impact categories contribute 46% and 41%
respectively of the total normalized impact scores.
* For a national "policy focused" perspective, carcinogenicity contributes 46% and
terrestrial toxicity contributes 38% of the total weighted impact scores. For a "local
focused" perspective, carcinogenicity contributes 47% and terrestrial toxicity
contributes 39% of the total weighted impact scores.
* Major sources of waste from M43 production include isopropyl shipping fluids,
working solvents used in propellant processing, and to a lesser extent, waste
propellant.
6.4.4 Developing Specifications
Since the carcinogenicity and terrestrial toxicity impact categories contribute the most to the total
impact of the baseline process, the emissions in these categories were considered as a place to
focus improvement activities. It was found that the assessment of potential impacts suggested a
different plan of action than a "less-is-better" evaluation of the inventory information.
71
-------
7. References and Additional Resources
1. EPA, 1996. Life Cycle Assessment for Chemical Agent Resistant Coating., EPA/600/R-
96/104, September 1996, various pagination.
2. SET AC, 1997. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The State of the Art, report of the LCA Impact
Assessment Workgroup, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, PensacolaFL,
Chapter 3, pages 77-82 and Appendix 2.
3. Baumann, H., 1995. Decision Making and Life Cycle Assessment, Licentiate Thesis,
Technical Environmental Planning Report 1995:4, Swedish Waste Research Council APR
Report 77, Appendix Section 1, page 15-18.
4. SET AC-Europe, 1994. Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA, Proceedings of the LCA
Symposium held at the Fourth SETAC-Europe Congress, Brussels Belgium, Chapter 4
Valuation Methods, pages 105-160.
5. Lewis, G. and G.A. Keoleian, undated. Life Cycle Design of Amorphous Silicon Photovoltaic
Modules, prepared for USEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, CR822998-
01-0, prepared by National Pollution Prevention Center, University of Michigan.
6. Diamond, M.L., C.A. Page, M. Campbell, S. McKenna, and R. Lall, 1999. Life Cycle
Framework for Assessment of Site Remediation Options: Method and Generic Survey,
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(4), 788-800.
7. Page, C.A., M.L. Diamond, M. Campbell, and S. McKenna, 1999. . Life Cycle Framework
for Assessment of Site Remediation Options: Case Study, Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 18(4), 801-810.
72
-------
8. Worksheet Templates
Attachment A: Maintenance Worksheets
ITEM BEING MAINTAINED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
MAINTENANCE OPERATION
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
ROUTINE AND
UNANTICIPATED
MAINTENANCE
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 1: Developing Requirements and Goals
General Information
Maintenance activity
Frequency of routine maintenance
Situation resulting in unanticipated maintenance and
preventative measures
FUNCTIONAL UNIT
Description
Category
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental- Global
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q.
a
co
z>
Q
Requirements and Goals
Requirement
(R) or Goal
(G)
73
-------
ITEM BEING MAINTAINED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
MAINTENANCE OPERATION
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
ROUTINE AND
UNANTICIPATED
MAINTENANCE
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 2: Proposing Technologies and Options
Technology Information
Technology Name
Description
Technology
Category*
Desirable
Technology
Types"
"Technology Categories
• material (M)
• equipment (E)
"Desirable Technology Types:
materials: non-regulated (NREG), non-contributory (NC), non-energy intensive (NEI), non-water intensive
(NWI), recoverable (REC), treatable as waste (T)
equipment:: material efficient (ME), energy efficient (EE), water efficient (WE), material recovery (MR),
energy recovery (ER), treatable wastes (TW)
Inclusion of Technologies (Enter quantity per functional unit)
Option Name
UNITS
CONFIGURATION STATUS
simplified (SIMP), accessible (ACC), modular (MOD), joining status (JS)
Technology 1
r^
>,
81
0
1
>,
81
0
1
Technology 4
>,
81
0
1
CO
>,
81
0
1
Technology 7
74
-------
ITEM BEING MAINTAINED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
MAINTENANCE OPERATION
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
ROUTINE AND
UNANTICIPATED
MAINTENANCE
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 3: Defining the Technology Life Cycle
Technology Description
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Maintenance procedures
Material Production
Technology Manufacturing
Maintenance Activity
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Key:
Process feed
Waste
75
-------
ITEM BEING MAINTAINED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
MAINTENANCE OPERATION
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
ROUTINE AND
UNANTICIPATED
MAINTENANCE
Project No.
Prepared by :
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 4: Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals
Status of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental -Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT + REQUIREMENTS / GOALS
COUNT - REQUIREMENTS /GOALS
Req't
(R)or
Goal
(G)
Technology 1
/
/
Technology 2
/
/
Technology 3
/
/
Technology 4
/
/
Technology 5
/
/
Technology 6
/
/
Technology 7
/
/
COUNT +/-
Key:
Technology meets the requirement or goal. ?
Technology does not meet the requirement or goal. NA
More information is needed.
Not Applicable to requirement or goal.
76
-------
ITEM BEING MAINTAINED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
MAINTENANCE OPERATION
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
ROUTINE AND
UNANTICIPATED
MAINTENANCE
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 5: Linking Options to Requirements and Goals
Degree of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT E REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT M REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FS REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FC REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
Req't
(R)
or
Goal
(G)
Option 1
/
/
/
/
Option 2
/
/
/
/
Option 3
/
/
/
/
^
i
s.
o
/
/
/
/
un
i
s.
o
/
/
/
/
CD
i
s.
o
/
/
/
/
Key:
Option considerably EXCEEDS the
requirement or goal.
M Option MEETS the requirement or goal without
considerably exceeding it.
FS Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
SLIGHT margin.
FC Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
CONSIDERABLE margin.
? More information is needed to determine the
achievement status of the option.
77
-------
Attachment B: Upgrades Worksheets
ITEM BEING UPGRADED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
MANUFACTURING/URM/
DISPOSAL OPERATION
BOUNDARY:
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
UPGRADING
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 1: Developing Requirements and Goals
General Information
Activities or operations being upgraded
Frequency of upgrade
Reason for examining upgrade measures
FUNCTIONAL UNIT
Description
Category
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental- Global
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q_
5
O
CO
z>
Q
Requirements and Goals
Requirement
(R) or Goal
(G)
78
-------
ITEM BEING UPGRADED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
UPGRADING
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 2: Proposing Technologies and Options
Technology Information
Technology Name
Description
Technology
Category*
Desirable
Technology
Types"
"Technology Categories
• material (M)
• equipment (E)
"Desirable Technology Types:
materials: non-regulated (NREG), non-contributory (NC), non-energy intensive (NEI), non-water intensive
(NWI), recoverable (REC), treatable as waste (T)
equipment:: material efficient (ME), energy efficient (EE), water efficient (WE), material recovery (MR),
energy recovery (ER), treatable wastes (TW)
Inclusion of Technologies (Enter quantity per functional unit)
Option Name
UNITS
CONFIGURATION STATUS
Simplified (SIMP), accessible (ACC), modular (MOD), joining status (JS)
Technology 1
r^
>,
81
0
1
>,
81
0
1
Technology 4
>,
81
0
1
CO
>,
81
0
1
Technology 7
79
-------
ITEM BEING UPGRADED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
UPGRADING
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 3: Defining the Technology Life Cycle
Technology Description
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Manufacturing and
operational support
procedures
Material Production
Technology Manufacturing
Maintenance Activity
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Key:
Process feed
Process feed
Waste
80
-------
ITEM BEING UPGRADED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
UPGRADES
Project No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 4: Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals
Status of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental -Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT + REQUIREMENTS / GOALS
COUNT - REQUIREMENTS /GOALS
Req't
(R)or
Goal
(G)
Technology 1
/
/
Technology 2
/
/
Technology 3
/
/
Technology 4
/
/
Technology 5
/
/
Technology 6
/
/
Technology 7
/
/
COUNT +/-
Key:
Technology meets the requirement or goal. ?
Technology does not meet the requirement or goal. NA
More information is needed.
Not Applicable to requirement or goal.
81
-------
ITEM BEING UPGRADED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
UPGRADES
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 5: Linking Options to Requirements and Goals
Degree of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT E REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT M REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FS REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FC REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
Req't
(R)
or
Goal
(G)
Option 1
/
/
/
/
Option 2
/
/
/
/
Option 3
/
/
/
/
1
S.
o
/
/
/
/
un
§
s.
o
/
/
/
/
(£
§
S.
o
/
/
/
/
Key:
Option considerably EXCEEDS the
requirement or goal.
M Option MEETS the requirement or goal without
considerably exceeding it.
FS Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
SLIGHT margin.
FC Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
CONSIDERABLE margin.
? More information is needed to determine the
achievement status of the option.
82
-------
Attachment C: New Design Worksheets
ITEM BEING DEVELOPED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
OPERATION OR ACTIVITY
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
NEW PRODUCT, SYSTEM,
PROCESS OR FACILITY
DESIGN
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 1: Developing Requirements and Goals
General Information
Activities or operations involved
Item or service being replaced or enhanced
Reason for new design
FUNCTIONAL UNIT
Description
Category
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental- Global
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q_
5
O
CO
z>
Q
Requirements and Goals
Requirement
(R) or Goal
(G)
83
-------
ITEM BEING DEVELOPED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
NEW PRODUCT, SYSTEM,
PROCESS, OR FACILITY
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 2: Proposing Technologies and Options
Technology Information
Technology Name
Description
Technology
Category*
Desirable
Technology
Types"
"Technology Categories
• material (M)
• equipment (E)
"Desirable Technology Types:
materials: non-regulated (NREG), non-contributory (NC), non-energy intensive (NEI), non-water intensive
(NWI), recoverable (REC), treatable as waste (T)
equipment:: material efficient (ME), energy efficient (EE), water efficient (WE), material recovery (MR),
energy recovery (ER), treatable wastes (TW)
Inclusion of Technologies (Enter quantity per functional unit)
Option Name
UNITS
CONFIGURATION STATUS
simplified (SIMP), accessible (ACC), modular (MOD), joining status (JS)
Technology 1
MIL-P53022
r^
ll
0 LT>
.c °-
I I
s-, ~
g1 £
o 5
!i
Technology 4
AA-857-B
Technology 5
Std. spray gun
Technology 6
Alt. spray gun
Technology 7
Alt. gun bath
1
8-
84
-------
ITEM BEING DEVELOPED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
NEW PRODUCT, SYSTEM,
PROCESS, OR FACILITY
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 3: Defining the Technology Life Cycle
Technology Description
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Maintenance and operational
procedures
Material Production
Technology Manufacturing
Maintenance Activity
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Key:
Process feed
Process feed
Waste
85
-------
ITEM BEING DEVELOPED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
NEW PRODUCT, SYSTEM,
PROCESS, OR FACILITY
Project No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 4: Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals
Status of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental -Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT + REQUIREMENTS / GOALS
COUNT - REQUIREMENTS /GOALS
Req't
(R)or
Goal
(G)
Technology 1
/
/
Technology 2
/
/
Technology 3
/
/
Technology 4
/
/
Technology 5
/
/
Technology 6
/
/
Technology 7
/
/
COUNT +/-
Key:
Technology meets the requirement or goal. ?
Technology does not meet the requirement or goal. NA
More information is needed.
Not Applicable to requirement or goal.
86
-------
ITEM BEING DEVELOPED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
NEW PRODUCT, SYSTEM,
PROCESS, OR FACILITY
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 5: Linking Options to Requirements and Goals
Degree of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT E REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT M REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FS REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FC REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
Req't
(R)
or
Goal
(G)
Option 1
/
/
/
/
Option 2
/
/
/
/
Option 3
/
/
/
/
1
S.
o
/
/
/
/
un
§
s.
o
/
/
/
/
(£
§
S.
o
/
/
/
/
Key:
Option considerably EXCEEDS the
requirement or goal.
M Option MEETS the requirement or goal without
considerably exceeding it.
FS Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
SLIGHT margin.
FC Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
CONSIDERABLE margin.
? More information is needed to determine the
achievement status of the option.
87
-------
Attachment D: Decommissioning Worksheets
ITEM BEING DECOMMISSIONED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY:
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
DECOMMISSIONING
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 1: Developing Requirements and Goals
General Information
Activities or operations associated with decommissioning
Reason for decommissioning
FUNCTIONAL UNIT
Description
Category
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental- Global
Applicable Life
Cycle Staqe
Q_
5
O
CO
Z>
Q
Requirements and Goals
Requirement
(R) or Goal
(G)
88
-------
ITEM BEING DECOMMISSIONED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
DECOMMISSIONING
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 2: Proposing Technologies and Options
Technology Information
Technology Name
Description
Technology
Category*
Desirable
Technology
Types"
"Technology Categories
• material (M)
• equipment (E)
"Desirable Technology Types:
materials: non-regulated (NREG), non-contributory (NC), non-energy intensive (NEI), non-water intensive
(NWI), recoverable (REC), treatable as waste (T)
equipment:: material efficient (ME), energy efficient (EE), water efficient (WE), material recovery (MR),
energy recovery (ER), treatable wastes (TW)
Inclusion of Technologies (Enter quantity per functional unit)
Option Name
UNITS
CONFIGURATION STATUS
Simplified (SIMP), accessible (ACC), modular (MOD), joining status (JS)
Technology 1
r^
>,
81
0
1
>,
81
0
1
Technology 4
>,
81
0
1
CO
>,
81
0
1
Technology 7
89
-------
ITEM BEING DECOMMISSIONED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
DECOMMISSIONING
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 3: Defining the Technology Life Cycle
Technology Description
Technology
Additional material and
equipment requirements
Manufacturing and
operational support
procedures
Material Production
Technology Manufacturing
Maintenance Activity
Material Recovery
and Disposal
Key:
Process feed
Process feed
Waste
90
-------
ITEM BEING DECOMMISSIONED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
DECOMMISSIONING
Project No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 4: Linking Technologies to Requirements and Goals
Status of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental -Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT + REQUIREMENTS / GOALS
COUNT - REQUIREMENTS /GOALS
Req't
(R)or
Goal
(G)
Technology 1
/
/
Technology 2
/
/
Technology 3
/
/
Technology 4
/
/
Technology 5
/
/
Technology 6
/
/
Technology 7
/
/
COUNT +/-
Key:
Technology meets the requirement or goal. ?
Technology does not meet the requirement or goal. NA
More information is needed.
Not Applicable to requirement or goal.
91
-------
ITEM BEING DECOMMISSIONED
(name of product, system, process, or facility)
Life Cycle Engineering
Assessment
DECOMMISSIONED
Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date:
Sheet of
WORKSHEET 5: Linking Options to Requirements and Goals
Degree of Achievement
Requirements and Goals
Performance
Cost
Environmental - Facility
Environmental - Local
Environmental - Regional
Environmental - Global
COUNT E REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT M REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FS REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
COUNT FC REQUIREMENTS/GOALS
Req't
(R)
or
Goal
(G)
Option 1
/
/
/
/
Option 2
/
/
/
/
Option 3
/
/
/
/
1
S.
o
/
/
/
/
un
§
s.
o
/
/
/
/
(£
§
S.
o
/
/
/
/
Key:
Option considerably EXCEEDS the
requirement or goal.
M Option MEETS the requirement or goal without
considerably exceeding it.
FS Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
SLIGHT margin.
FC Option FAILS to meet the requirement or goal by a
CONSIDERABLE margin.
? More information is needed to determine the
achievement status of the option.
92
------- |