EPA/600/R-16/176 ] August 2016 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
v>EPA
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data -
Treatment Chemicals,
Materials, Transportation,
Equipment, and Othe
Use in Spreadsheets
Environmental Footpr
(SEFA)
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-16/176
August 2016
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data-Treatment
Chemicals, Construction Materials,
Transportation, On-site Equipment, and Other
Processes for Use in Spreadsheets for
Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA)
Submitted Under
Approved QA ID #S-20578-QP-1-0
Prepared by
Paul Randall, David Meyer, Wesley Ingwersen, Donald Vineyard,
Matthew Bergmann, Scott Linger, and Michael Gonzalez
Sustainable Technology Division
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Task Leader
Paul Randall
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Sustainable Technology Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
i
-------
Notice
The research has been subject to the Agency's review and has been approved for publication as a
US EPA document. Use of the methods or data presented here does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation.
The appropriate citation for this report is:
Randall, P., Meyer, D., Ingwersen, W., Vineyard, D., Bergmann, M., Unger, S., and Gonzalez,
M., 2016. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data- Treatment Chemicals, Construction Materials,
Transportation, On-site Equipment, and Other Processes for Use in Spreadsheets for
Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA Report #
-------
Abstract
This report estimates environmental emission factors (ErnF) for key chemicals, construction and
treatment materials, transportation/on-site equipment, and other processes used at remediation
sites. The basis for chemical, construction, and treatment material ErnFs is life cycle inventory
(LCI) data extracted from secondary data sources and compiled using the openLCA software
package. The US EPA MOVES 2014 model was used to derive ErnFs from combustion profiles
for a number of transportation and on-site equipment processes. The ErnFs were calculated for use
in US EPA's Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA). ErnFs are reported for
cumulative energy demand (CED), global warming potential (GWP), criteria pollutants (e.g. NOx,
SOx, and PMio), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and water use.
iii
-------
Foreword
Congress charges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate,
EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental
problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological
resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments, and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by US EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist
the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Abstract iii
Foreword iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms x
Acknowledgements xiii
1.0 Study Overview and Objectives 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Study Objectives 3
1.3 Intended Audi ence 4
2.0 Material LCI Modeling and Emission Factor Results 4
2.1 Methodology 4
2.2 Corn Ethanol, (95% in H2O or 99.7% Dehydrated) 8
2.2.1 Introduction 8
2.2.2 LCI Modeling 8
2.2.3 Emission Factors 9
2.3 Petroleum Ethanol, 99.7% 10
2.3.1 Introducti on 10
2.3.2 LCI Modeling 11
2.3.3 Emission Factors 12
2.4 Potassium Permanganate (KMn04) 12
2.4.1 Introduction 12
2.4.2 LCI Modeling 13
2.4.3 Emission Factors 13
2.5 Lime, Hydrated and Packed 14
2.5.1 Introducti on 14
2.5.2 LCI Modeling 14
2.5.3 Emission Factors 14
2.6 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), 50% in Water 15
2.6.1 Introducti on 15
2.6.2 LCI Modeling 15
2.6.3 Emission Factors 16
2.7 Hydrogen peroxide, 50% in Water 16
2.7.1 Introducti on 16
2.7.2 LCI Modeling 17
2.7.3 Emission Factors 18
2.8 Phosphoric Acid, 70% in Water 19
2.8.1 Introducti on 19
2.8.2 LCI Modeling 19
v
-------
2.8,3 Emission Factors 20
2.9 Iron (II) Sulfate, Hydrated 20
2.9.1 Introduction 20
2.9.2 LCI Modeling 21
2.9.3 Emission Factors 21
2.10 Asphalt, Mastic-type and Pavement Grade 21
2.10.1 Introducti on 21
2.10.2 LCI Modeling - Mastic Asphalt 22
2.10.3 LCI Modeling - Pavement-grade Asphalt 23
2.10.4 Emission Factors 23
2.11 Aluminum, Rolled Sheet 23
2.11.1 Introduction 23
2.11.2 LCI Modeling 24
2.11.3 Emission Factors 25
2.12 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), Primary and Regenerated 25
2.12.1 Introducti on 25
2.12.2 LCI Modeling 26
2.12.3 Emission Factors 26
2.13 Portland Cement 27
2.13.1 Introduction 27
2.13.2 LCI Modeling 27
2.13.3 Emission Factors 28
2.14 Ready Mixed Concrete (20 MPa-3000psi) 28
2.14.1 Introducti on 28
2.14.2 LCI Modeling 29
2.14.3 Emission Factors 29
2.15 Gravel and Sand Mix, 65% Gravel 29
2.15.1 Introduction 29
2.15.2 LCI Modeling 30
2.15.3 Emission Factors 31
2.16 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 31
2.16.1 Introducti on 31
2.16.2 LCI Modeling 31
2.16.3 Emission Factors 32
2.17 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 33
2.17.1 Introducti on 33
2.17.2 LCI Modeling 33
2.17.3 Emission Factors 34
2.18 Hazardous Waste Incineration 35
2.18.1 Introducti on 35
2.18.2 LCI Modeling 35
2.18.3 Emission Factors 36
2.19 SEFA Material Emission Factor Update Summary 36
3.0 Transportation and Onsite Equipment 38
3.1 Methodol ogy 38
3.1.1 Fuel Production and Distribution Data 38
vi
-------
3.1.2 MOVES Model Runs for On-site Equipment and Transport Data 39
3.1.3 Additional Calculations for On-site Equipment and On-road
Vehicles 40
3.2 Modeling in the Federal LCI Data Template and openLCA 41
3.3 Emission Factor Results for Vehicles and Equipment 42
3.3.1 DatasetFile 42
3.3.2 Supporting Data 42
3.4 SEFA Vehicle and Equipment Emission Factory Summary 43
4.0 Conclusions 45
5.0 References 45
6.0 Appendix 1 - Hazardous Air Pollutants included in openLCA 51
vii
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Chemicals and Materials for Emission Factor Development 5
Table 2. SEFA Emission Factors for Corn Ethanol 10
Table 3. SEFA Emission Factors for Petroleum Ethanol 12
Table 4. SEFA Emission Factors for KMnC>4 13
Table 5. SEFA Emission Factors for Hydrated Lime 15
Table 6. SEFA Emission Factors for Sodium Hydroxide 16
Table 7. SEFA Emission Factors for Hydrogen Peroxide 18
Table 8. SEFA Emission Factors for Phosphoric Acid 20
Table 9. SEFA Emission Factors for Hydrated Iron (II) Sulfate 21
Table 10. SEFA Emission Factors for Mastic and Paving-Grade Asphalt 23
Table 11. SEFA Emission Factors for Rolled Aluminum 25
Table 12. SEFA Emission Factors for Primary and Regenerated Granular Activated Carbon.... 27
Table 13. SEFA Emission Factors for Portland cement 28
Table 14. SEFA Emission Factors for Ready Mixed Concrete 29
Table 15. SEFA Emission Factors for a Gravel, Sand, or a Gravel/Sand Mix 31
Table 16. SEFA Emission Factors for High Density Polyethylene 32
Table 17. SEFA Emission Factors for Polyvinyl Chloride 34
Table 18. SEFA Emission Factors for Hazardous Waste Incineration 36
Table 19. A Summary of Emission Factors Derived for the SEFA Material Update 37
Table 20. Summary of SEFA Emission Factors for Vehicle and Equipment Operations 43
viii
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. The steps of an environmental footprint analysis (ASTM 2013b) 2
Figure 2. Cradle to grave, cradle to gate and gate to gate data sets as parts of the complete life
cycle (EC 2011) 5
Figure 3. Production of 99.7% corn ethanol as presented by (Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al., 2007) 9
Figure 4. Production of ethylene as reported by (Ghanta, Fahey et al., 2014) 11
Figure 5. Production of anhydrous petroleum ethanol as reported by (Sutter, 2007) 12
Figure 6. Production of KMnC>4 as reported by (Classen, Althaus et al., 2007) 13
Figure 7. Production of hydrated lime as presented in (Kellenberger, Althaus et al., 2007) 14
Figure 8. Production of average mix sodium hydroxide as shown in (Althaus, Chudacoff et al.,
2007) 16
Figure 9. Production of hydrogen peroxide as shown in (Althaus, Chudacoff et al., 2007) 18
Figure 10. Production of phosphoric acid as shown in (Althaus, Chudacoff et al., 2007) 20
Figure 11. Production of iron (II) sulfate as shown in (EIPPCB, 2001) 21
Figure 12. Production of mastic asphalt as shown in (Kellenberger, Althaus et al., 2007) 22
Figure 13. Bitumen production at a complex refinery as presented in (Eurobitume, 2012) 23
Figure 14. System Boundary-Production of Aluminum as adapted by (EAA, 2013) and (Classen,
Althaus et al., 2007) 24
Figure 15. System boundary for primary GAC as adapted from (Gabarrell, Font et al., 2012)... 26
Figure 16. System boundary for regenerated GAC as adapted from (Gabarrell, Font et al., 2012)
26
Figure 17. Production of Portland cement as reported by (Marceau, Nisbet et al., 2006) 28
Figure 18. Production of ready mixed concrete as reported by (Nisbet, 2000) 29
Figure 19. Typical production of sand and gravel as reported by (USEPA, 1995a) 30
Figure 20. Production of High Density Polyethylene as reported by (PlasticsEurope, 2014) 32
Figure 21. Flow Diagram for the Cradle to Gate Production of PVC as reported by (Hischier,
2007) 34
Figure 22. Simplified Diagram of Hazardous Waste Incineration as reported by (BCC Research,
2015) 36
Figure 23. Workflow for SEFA emission and activity factor calculations 38
ix
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AFCEE U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment
ARB California Air Resources Board
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BMP Best management practice
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
BSFC MOVES output for fuel consumption
BTS U. S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Btu British thermal unit
CAH chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CED Cumulative Energy Demand
CF Characterization Factor
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFLt methane
cm centimeter
CNG compressed natural gas
CO2 carbon dioxide
C02e carbon dioxide equivalents of global warming potential
COC contaminant of concern
COD chemical oxygen demand
CSTR continuous stirred tank reactor
CtG Cradle to gate
CVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound
cy cubic yards
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EERE U.S. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EIPPCB European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau
ELCD European Reference Life Cycle Database
EmF emission factor
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
ET evapotranspiration
ETSC U.S EPA Engineering Technical Support Center
FBR fluidized bed reactor
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
x
-------
FML
flexible membrane liner
FS
feasibility study
ft
feet
FU
functional unit
GAC
granular activated carbon
gal
gallon
GHG
greenhouse gas
GWP
global warming potential
gpm
gallons per minute
GR
green remediation
HAP
hazardous air pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act
HDPE
high density polyethylene
hp
horsepower
HWI
hazardous waste incinerator
IMAA
International Mastic Asphalt Association
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISCO
in-situ chemical oxidation
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
ITRC
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council
kg
kilogram
kW
kilowatt
kWh
kilowatt-hour
lbs
pounds
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
LCI
Life Cycle Inventory
LHD
light heavy duty engine
LPG
liquefied petroleum gas
LSD
low-sulfur diesel
MA
mastic asphalt
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MHD
medium heavy duty engine
MJ
mega joule
MMBtu
million British thermal units
MOVES
EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
mpg
mile per gallon
mph
miles per hour
MT
metric ton(s)
MW
megawatt
MWh
megawatt-hour
NETL
U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory
xi
-------
N2O nitrous oxide
NOx nitrogen oxides (e.g., nitrogen dioxide)
NONROAD a term used by regulators to classify engines in order to control their emissions
NPL National Priorities List
NREL U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRMRL U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M operations and maintenance
OPC ordinary Portland cement
ORD U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
OSRTI U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PM10 particulate matter (particles 10 |im or less in diameter)
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 |im in diameter
POTW publicly owned treatment works
psi pounds per square inch
PV photovoltaic
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
RER code used by ecoinvent for Europe
RI remedial investigation
RMC ready mixed concrete
SEFA Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis
SOx sulfur oxides (e.g., sulfur dioxide)
S-PVC polyvinyl chloride, suspension process
SQL Structured Query Language
STD U.S. EPA Sustainable Technology Division
THC total gaseous hydrocarbons
Tonne metric ton(s)
TRACI Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other
Environmental Impacts
TRI EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
ULSD ultra-low sulfur diesel
US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USLCI U.S. Life Cycle Inventory
VCM vinyl chloride monomer
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WPPA wet-process phosphoric acid
wt weight
yr year
xii
-------
Acknowledgements
An EPA project team coordinated its efforts to produce this report. Personnel from EPA's Region
IX (San Francisco, CA) and from the Life Cycle Assessment Research Center within the National
Risk Management Research Laboratory (Cincinnati, OH) worked on this report. Our thanks and
appreciation is extended to all these participants as well as the project team members:
Jane Bare
Matthew Bergmann
Michael Gill
Michael Gonzalez
Wesley Ingwersen
John McKernan
Joseph McDonald
David Meyer
Paul Randall
Karen Scheuermann
Scott Unger
Donald Vineyard
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Student Services Contractor, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, San Francisco, CA
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, Cincinnati, OH
EPA, San Francisco, CA
Federal Postdoc, Cincinnati, OH
ORISE Researcher, Cincinnati, OH
We appreciate the effort of peer reviewers who greatly improved the report: Briana Niblick (EPA,
Cincinnati, OH) and Gurbakhash Bhander (EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC).
Inquiries concerning the information contained in this report should be directed to: Paul M.
Randall, EPA, Cincinnati, OH 45268; Randall.paul@epa.gov.
xiii
-------
1.0 Study Overview and Objectives
1.1 Introduction
For remedial activities, chemicals, construction and treatment materials, nonroad vehicles, on-site
diesel generators and other equipment are used to improve environmental and public health
conditions. Cleanup activities use energy, water, and natural resources and create an environmental
footprint based on their life cycles. To minimize the environmental footprints of remediation sites,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages "green remediation" practices that
consider all environmental effects of remedy implementation and incorporate strategies to
minimize them. The term green remediation is documented in a 2008 report entitled "Green
Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of
Contaminated Sites" (USEPA, 2008b). The EPA defines "green remediation" as the practice of
considering all the environmental effects of implementing a remedy, and incorporating options to
minimize the environmental footprint of cleanup actions. This definition is a departure from the
term "sustainable remediation" because green remediation focuses on the environmental aspect of
a project, whereas sustainable remediation addresses environmental, social, and economic aspects
of the cleanup activities actions (green remediation is sometimes used interchangeably with
greener cleanups). Green remediation strategies may include a detailed analysis in which the
remedy is closely examined and large contributions to the footprint are identified. Steps, therefore,
may be taken to reduce the footprint while meeting regulatory requirements driving the cleanup
(USEPA, 2012a).
In the last few years, the EPA has implemented several case studies which highlight the net
environmental gains as well as the challenges to minimize environmental footprints in cleanup
actions (ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2011; USEPA, 2008a, 2010a,
2010b, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014a; USEPA Region 7, 2015). Besides the EPA efforts,
other federal and state cleanup programs (McDonough, Woodward et al., 2013) have begun to
consider how remedial actions could lower their environmental footprint. In addition, there has
been a substantial industry effort and a DOD effort to determine how green remediation should be
defined and implemented. As of 2015, the following tools/spreadsheets are the most prominent for
estimating the potential environmental burdens of remediation projects:
• Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) - developed by EPA in 2012
(Version 1) updated in 2013 (Version 2) and most recently updated in August 2014 (Version
3).
• SiteWise - developed by Battelle, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 2010 (Version 1), 2012 (Version 2), and 2013 (Version
3).
• Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT™) - developed by the U.S. Air Force Center for
Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) in 2009 (Version 1) and 2011 (Version 2) -
Currently unavailable as of January 29, 2016.
• SimaPro® and GaBi®, two commercial life cycle assessment (LCA) tools with extensive
databases.
1
-------
The EPA developed the Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) to estimate
energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
SEFA was originally developed for internal use by EPA staff and contractors. It was used in earlier
formats within EPA, and was made publicly available in its current format in 2012 for the benefit
of other users. It was last updated in August 2014. SEFA is based on life cycle thinking and
designed to be compatible with EPA's report: "Greener Cleanups Methodology for Understanding
and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint" (USEPA, 2012a). An overview of the general
steps in performing an environmental footprint analyses is shown in Figure 1.
Step 7
Documentation
User summarizes all results and recommends actions for
reducingthe environmental footprint of the cleanup
Step 2
Boundary Definition
User determines the activity, geographic, and temporal
boundaries of the study
Step 3
Core Elements and Contributors to the Core Elements
User identifies core elements and contributors to the
core elements to be evaluated
Step 4
Collection and Organization of Information
User collects information related to the cleanup
activities to be evaluated
Step 5
Calculations for Quantitative Evaluation
User evaluates the data using either a footprint analysis
or LCA
Step 6
Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses
User conducts sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on
results of the quantification evaluation
Step 1
Goal and Scope Definition
User identifies scope and questionsto be answered
Figure 1. The steps of an environmental footprint analysis (ASTM 2013b)
Reducing a project's environmental footprint is based on life cycle thinking. EPA's 2006
document, "Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice," provides an overview of life cycle
assessment (LCA) and describes the general uses and major components of LCA. Life cycle
assessment may be a cradle to grave, cradle to gate, or a gate to gate approach for assessing
industrial systems and/or activities. Cradle to grave begins with the gathering of raw materials
2
-------
from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the
earth. LC A evaluates all stages of a product's life from the perspective that they are interdependent,
meaning that one operation leads to the next. LCA enables the estimation of the cumulative
environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts
not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation,
ultimate product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA
provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more
accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection (USEPA,
2006).
At the core of the LCA process is the life cycle inventory (LCI). An LCI quantifies all energy and
raw material requirements, atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other
releases for the entire life cycle of a product, process, or activity. The level of accuracy and detail
of the data collected will determine the accuracy and reliability of the subsequent impact
assessment results. The inventory can be separated by life cycle stage, by media (air, water, and
land), by specific processes, by materials, or any combination thereof.
EPA's 1993 document, "Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles," and the
1995 document, "Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life Cycle Inventory Analysis," provide
a framework for performing an inventory analysis and assessing the quality of the data used for an
LCA (USEPA, 1993c, 1995b). In addition, ASTM's E2893 standard "Standard Guide for Greener
Cleanups" provides more details on the steps required for a quantitative evaluation in identifying
opportunities to reduce the environmental footprint of a selected remedy. Shown in Figure 1, steps
may include: 1. Goal and Scope Definition; 2. Boundary Definition; 3. Core Elements and
Contributors to the Core Elements; 4. Collection and Organization of Information; 5. Calculations
for Quantitative Evaluation; 6. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses; and 7. Documentation
(ASTM, 2013b).
1.2 Study Objectives
The study objectives are as follows:
• Collect secondary data to model LCI for remediation chemicals, materials, and processes
specified by US EPA's Region 9 Office.
• Develop life cycle inventories for the specified chemicals and materials using OpenLCA and
the collected secondary data.
• Perform motor vehicle emissions simulations to model operation of vehicles and equipment
associated with remediation sites.
• Develop life cycle inventories for the vehicles and equipment using OpenLCA and the
emissions simulation data.
• Create and apply a footprint methodology in OpenLCA to quantify environmental emission
factors (EmFs) for use in SEFA
• Document the methodology and calculations used to derive the reported material, chemical, and
process EmFs.
• Document the methodology used to model use of vehicles and equipment.
3
-------
1.3 Intended Audience
The primary intent of the report is to document and communicate the methodology used to derive
the chemical, material, and process ErnFs and support their use by EPA's Region 9 as input to
SEFA. Once the ErnFs are input into the SEFA method, it will assist federal, state, and local
government officials, industry, EPA site contractors, and NGOs with evaluating and implementing
activities to reduce the potential footprint of environmental cleanups. The EPA Region 9
Superfund and RCRA staff requested the information through EPA's Engineering Technical
Support Center (ETSC). The Sustainable Technology Division (STD) within the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) performed this project. The underlying inventory
models described in this report may be useful to LCA practitioners and anyone else working in the
area of chemical and material sustainability. Chemical, material, and process LCIs developed from
publically available secondary data are included in the report for transparency. Proprietary LCIs
obtained from ecoinvent have been excluded in accordance with copyright laws and only the
applicable ecoinvent process name is reported.
2.0 Material LCI Modeling and Emission Factor Results
2.1 Methodology
Although there are specific calculation procedures for performing LCI analysis by hand, these
procedures can be made more efficient and automated by using computer software. In this study,
the preferred method was to use open-source computer software coupled with a commercially
available inventory database to promote consistency between material models. The LCA software
selected for this study is OpenLCA version 1.4, as created and maintained by GreenDelta. The
database selected for this study is the proprietary ecoinvent version 2.2 database developed by the
Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories beginnings in the 1990s and containing over two thousand
unit process inventories. Although the unit process LCIs in ecoinvent are proprietary, it is
permissible to release system-level ErnFs calculated for this project using ecoinvent data because
the aggregated nature of the footprint categories at the system (i.e., cradle-to-gate) level
sufficiently mask the copyrighted data. For some materials included in this study, either no unit
process LCI existed in ecoinvent or more relevant and preferable data from other secondary
sources was identified. Additional secondary data sources can include government data (e.g.
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)), industry reports, engineering estimates based on
estimated parameters, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Ullmann's
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, journal articles, and other computer databases (e.g. US
LCI). When applicable, new LCIs were created for the materials in OpenLCA using the best
available secondary data.
This study examines cradle to gate (CtG) LCIs for the production of chemical and materials
specified by US EPA's Region 9 Office. The LCIs developed in this study were constructed in
accordance with ISO 14040 International standard documents on life cycle thinking (ISO, 1998,
2000,2006a, 2006b) as well as the ASTM standard documents on greener and sustainable cleanups
(ASTM, 2013a, 2013b). System boundaries for a CtG LCI include everything from the cradle
(excavation of the raw materials and resources from the ground) to the end of the production
process, or facility gate (Figure 2). For each material of interest, OpenLCA was used to model the
4
-------
material life cycle and construct the corresponding CtG LCI. Such a dataset can involve numerous
individual unit processes throughout the supply chain (e.g., the extraction of raw resources, various
primary and secondary production processes, transportation, etc.) and account for all resource
inputs and process outputs associated with a chemical or material. Resource inputs include raw
materials and energy use, while process outputs include manufactured products and environmental
emissions to land, air, and water. The cradle to gate LCI models stop at the gate of the production
process and therefore, do not include downstream and/or onsite cleanup activities such as onsite
construction, implementation, monitoring, and decommissioning. All flows to and from the
environment are defined as elementary flows in LCA while flows between unit processes are
termed technosphere flows. The inputs and outputs are expressed in terms of a reference flow, or
functional unit, for the chemical or material of interest. The chemicals and materials selected by
Region 9 for inclusion in this study are listed in Table 1.
Material and
End-of-life
management
Extraction
part
production
Assembly
Retail
Use
Company B
Company A
Company C
Gate to gate
Cradle to gate (B)
Cradle to grave
Figure 2. Cradle to grave, cradle to gate and gate to gate data sets as parts of the complete
life cycle (EC 2011)
Table 1. Selected Chemicals and Materials for Emission Factor Development
Aluminum, Rolled Sheet
Lime, Hydrated, Packed
Primary Activated Carbon
Corn Ethanol, 95%
Mastic Asphalt
Ready Mixed Concrete
Corn Ethanol, 99.7%
Paving Asphalt
Regenerated Activated Carbon
Gravel/Sand Mix, 65% gravel
Petroleum Ethanol, 99.7%
Round Gravel
Hazardous Waste Incineration
Phosphoric Acid, 70% in water
Sand
High Density Polyethylene
Polyvinyl Chloride
Sodium Hydroxide, 50% in water
Hydrogen Peroxide, 50% in water
Portland Cement
Iron (II) Sulfate, Hydrated
Potassium Permanganate
Inventory analysis for this study involved the sorting and aggregation of relevant elementary flows
into the environmental footprint categories considered in SEFA. These categories include
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED, MMBtu); Global Warming Potential on a 100-year time frame
(GWP, lb. CO2 equivalents); the EPA criteria pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOx, lb.), sulfur
dioxides (SOx, lb.), particulate matter < 10 |im (PM10, lb.); hazardous air pollutants as defined by
the EPA (HAPs, lb.) (USEPA, 2014b); and water use (gals). While the meanings of NOx, SOx,
PM10, and HAPs are straightforward, explanations of CED, GWP, and Water Use are presented
5
-------
here for the benefit of the reader. The current list of HAPs as defined by US EPA is provided in
Appendix 1.
The Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) of an activity represents the direct and indirect energy use
in units of MJ throughout the life cycle, including the energy consumed during the extraction,
manufacturing, and disposal of the raw and auxiliary materials. The total CED is composed of the
fossil cumulative energy demand (i.e., from hard coal, lignite, peat, natural gas, and crude oil) and
the CED of nuclear, biomass, water, wind, and solar energy in the life cycle. Typical upper heating
values for the primary energy resources required in the CED calculations were used in the
ecoinvent datasets (Huijbregts, Hellweg et al., 2010).
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is based on the commonly accepted carbon dioxide (CO2)
equivalency factors published in the IPCC (2007) report. GWP is calculated to express the global
warming impacts of a given gas relative to a similar mass of CO2. Similarly, GWP is calculated
for a process by taking the masses of the gaseous emissions of the process multiplied by their
respective GWPs and summed to arrive at the total GWP. The GWPs of various greenhouse gases
are compared to determine which will cause the greatest integrated radiative forcing (i.e. energy
absorbed) over the time horizon of interest (i.e. 100 years). Carbon dioxide, by definition, has a
GWP of 1, regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference.
Besides CO2, other GWP gases include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The complete list
of species of gases and their GWPs values for time horizons of 20, 100 and 500 years are in table
2.14 of the IPCC 2007 report(Solomon, 2007).
Given the concerns regarding the depletion of water resources, the importance of tracking Water
Use has grown significantly in recent years. For SEFA, this is performed by calculating the net
freshwater use (water withdrawal - water discharge) for a system to determine the potential impact
on water scarcity. Therefore, Water Use calculations in OpenLCA account for all elementary
freshwater input and output flows to a chemical or material LCI from river, lake, and well water
sources. In some cases, unspecified water sources were included in secondary data sources and
were tracked.
The sorting and aggregation of the inventory into the appropriate footprint categories was
performed in openLCA. Sorting and categorical aggregation for footprinting is analogous to
impact assessment in LCA. However, footprinting differs from impact assessment because the
characterization factors (CF) used to translate the elementary flow values to appropriate category
values typically have a value of one and result in EmFs as opposed to impact scores. This leads to
a simple summation of all like elementary flows (F) from the CtG LCI into an EmF for each
desired footprint category:
where, z, denotes the unit process, m is the maximum number of unit process represented in the
LCI, j is an individual flow that contributes to a footprint indicator, and zz is the maximum number
of flows included in the footprint indicator. For example, the HAPs value for the production of
ethanol would be the summation of the masses of all HAP substances emitted from growing the
m n
i=1j=l
6
-------
corn, transporting and processing it into ethanol, and distilling the ethanol to high purity. The
exceptions to this approach are the categories of CED and GWP where inventory flows are
converted to energy (MMBtu) and carbon dioxide equivalents (CChe), respectively. In these cases,
the characterization factors have values other than one as defined in each methodology's
documentation. Although CED is still a footprinting category because it makes no evaluation of
the impact of energy demand, GWP does consider the potency of substances for inducing global
warming when converting to carbon dioxide equivalents and is therefore more like an impact
indicator.
The material emission factors developed for each of the footprint categories are intended for
implementation in EPA's SEFA workbooks. For example, in-situ oxidants such as potassium
permanganate or hydrogen peroxide may be used in a cleanup. The emission factors for the
oxidants will be stored as default values in SEFA. A user for a site involving in-situ oxidation can
then specify how much potassium permanganate or hydrogen peroxide is used as part of the site's
remediation activities and the SEFA method will incorporate the material's production footprint
(e.g., CED (MMBtu/lbs. of material produced) or GWP (lbs. of CChe per lb. of material produced))
into the life cycle environmental footprint for the remediation site.
As with any model of the real world, there is some uncertainty in the calculated EmFs. LCI quality
issues have been broadly discussed since the 1990's (USEPA, 1995b). More recently, ecoinvent
has discussed the basic structure of the database and data quality(Weidema, Bauer et al., 2013).
The data quality is affected by certain variables such as the dependence on data from different
countries, different unit operations, and different sources. At the LCI level, data uncertainty may
be introduced due to data inaccuracy, data gaps, lack of representative inventory data, model
uncertainty (i.e. static vs dynamic, linear vs non-linear modeling), spatial and temporal variability
(USEPA, 2012b). Quantification of the uncertainty of the reported EmFs was not performed as
part of this work based on the lack of ample data describing potential value distributions for the
various data contained within the material LCIs.
Qualitatively, use of the reported EmFs for decision making should only be done with
acknowledgement of the assumptions employed for this study, which may affect the accuracy and
certainty of the factors. This study assumed that LCI datasets developed with ecoinvent data for
chemical processes in Europe are transferable to the U.S. In general, the chemistry, mass balances,
and energy balances are similar but there may be slight differences. For example, electricity grid
mixes for Europe are different from the U.S., which may be significant to the calculated EmFs if
electricity production is a dominant part of the material life cycle. Similarly, transportation
modeling can differ between Europe and the U.S., both in terms of distance and mode of transport.
Finally, waste management has not been included in the material LCIs because there are large data
gaps for this part of the life cycle in life cycle inventory modeling in general, especially for waste
processing in the United States.
It is important to note the EmFs reported for this study should not be confused with characterization
factors for life cycle impact assessment. Except for GWP, they do not attempt to determine the
fate and transport of the total emissions nor do they attempt to determine the risk to humans or the
environment arising from these emissions. Similarly, they infer no judgments regarding the
impacts of obtaining and using natural resources.
7
-------
2.2 Corn Ethanol, (95% in H2O or 99.7% Dehydrated)
2.2.1 Introduction
In general, ethanol or ethyl alcohol (CH3CH2OH) is an organic chemical with many applications
(e.g. transportation, alcoholic beverages beer and spirits; solvent; raw material in chemical
synthesis; fuel; environmental remediation). For environmental cleanups, ethanol is used for
enhanced in-situ anaerobic bioremediation of groundwater. Enhanced in situ anaerobic
bioremediation has emerged in recent years as a remediation strategy for chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons (CAHs) in groundwater. Advantages include complete mineralization of the
contaminants in-situ with little impact on infrastructure and relatively low cost compared to more
active engineered remedial systems (e.g., groundwater extraction, permeable reactive iron barriers,
or chemical oxidation). Regulatory acceptance of enhanced anaerobic bioremediation has evolved
over the last several years under various federal programs, including the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Leeson, Beevar et al., 2004)
Ethanol can be produced as a biofuel from sugars in sugar cane or sugar beet, or from starch
hydrolyzed into sugars derived from crops such as maize, wheat or cassava (Worldwatch Institute,
2007). Most ethanol production in the US uses grains (i.e. corn or "maize') as the feedstock.
Production of corn-based ethanol has grown from less than 2 billion gallons in 1999 to over 14
billion gallons in 2014 (RFA, 2015).
Ecoinvent data indicate that 1 kg of 95% corn ethanol has a number of processes that are associated
with varying quantities of kg CO2 eq emitted. However, the production of corn outweighs these
values, where corn production sequesters a greater value of kg CO2 eq than the summed processes
associated with varying quantities of kg CO2 eq emitted.
2.2.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kg of ethanol (either 95% or 99.1% after molecular sieve dehydration)
• System boundaries: The main processes for corn ethanol are the cultivation and production of
corn and subsequent fermentation and distillation of ethanol as shown in Figure 3. An
additional molecular sieve process is required after distillation if a 99.7 % dehydrated ethanol
product is desired.
8
-------
System Boundary
Dried Distillers Grain,
Byproduct
Ethanol, 99.7% in H20
Fertilizer
N,r K, P
Fuel Oil for Mi
Thermal Energy
Natural Gas, Water
Electricity, Steam
Fermentation and
Distillation
Ethanol from Com, ISO
Proof
Planting Crops and Soil
Tilling
Figure 3. Production of 99.7% corn ethanol as presented by (Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al.,
2007)
• Inventory data: "ethanol, 95% in H2O, from corn, at distillery - US"; "ethanol, 99.7%, in H2O,
from biomass, at distillery - US"; ecoinvent v2.2; (Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al., 2007).
2.2.3 Emission Factors
• Unit conversion calculations were necessary to convert from SI units (OpenLCA results) to
English units (SEFA factors). These calculations are shown here for 95% Corn Ethanol, but
are the same for all chemicals and materials covered in this report. The only exception is ready
mixed concrete because it is reported on a volume basis instead of mass.
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
. MJ I . MMBtu\ 11 kq \ _ MMBtu
(7.39 x 101 —-) x 9.48 x 1(T4 x = 3.18 x 1(T2 —
v kgJ \ MJ J V2.2 lb) lb
Global Warming Potential (GWP 100)
( nka CO? eq\ (2.2 lb\ 11 kq \ nlb CO? eq
-1.99 x 10~2 ^ 2 ^ x x —= -1.99 x 1(T2
V kg J V1 kg J \2.2 lb) lb
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
9
-------
( Kkg HAPs\ (2.2 lb\ ( 1 kg \ HAPs
(8.46 x 10" ——- x —— x (—£-1 = 8.46 x 10-5——
V kg ) V1 kg) \2.2 lb) lb
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
( Qkg NOx \ /2.2 lb\ ( 1 kg \ _ lb NOx
4.25 x 10-3^- x x = 4.25 x 1(T3
V kg J \ lkg J \2.2lb) lb
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
( Qkg SOx \ (2.2 lb\ ( 1 kg \ Qlb SOx
3.03 x 10~3—7 x ——J x —£-) = 3.03 x 1(T3
V kg ) V 1 kg) \2.2 lb J lb
Particulate Matter (PMio)
( A kg PM10\ (2.2 lb\ ( 1 kg \ A lb PMIO
4.69 x lO"4^- x ——J x (—£-) = 4.69 x 10~4
V kg J \ lkg J \2.2lb) lb
Water Use
( ~m3 H20\ /1000L\ ( gal\ (1 kg \ gal H20
3.60 X 10~2 7 X —) X 0.2642——) X hrrr^- = 4.32^ „
\ kg J \ lm3 J \ LI \2.2lbl lb
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 2. SEFA Emission Factors for Corn Ethanol
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Corn Ethanol, 95%
3.18E-02
-1.99E-02
8.46E-05
4.25E-03
4.69E-04
3.03E-03
4.32E+00
Corn Ethanol, 99.7%
3.24E-02
5.91E-02
8.70E-05
4.31E-03
4.72E-04
3.10E-03
4.35E+00
2.3 Petroleum Ethanol, 99.7%
2.3.1 Introduction
As an alternative ethanol is produced from extracting crude oil and making ethylene. Ethylene can
be produced from either crude oil or natural gas recovered from conventional wells or shale rock,
but we have based this scenario on crude oil from conventional wells only. With ethylene from
crude, the life cycle begins with the extraction of petroleum crude oil from conventional wells into
crude oil storage tanks. From the crude oil storage tanks, the crude oil is transported (i.e. ocean
freighter, pipelines) to the oil refinery where it is refined into naphtha. In the production of naphtha
from crude oil, depending on the crude oil composition, the proportion of the individual fractions
can vary greatly and can produce LPG, paraffinic naphtha, heavy naphtha, kerosene, diesel, and
residual oil. Naphthas, which are the most important feedstock for ethylene production, are
mixtures of hydrocarbons in the boiling range of 30-200 °C. Processing of light naphthas (boiling
10
-------
range 30-90 °C), full range naphthas (30-200 °C) and special cuts (C6-C8 raffinates) as feedstock
is typical for naphtha crackers (Hischier, 2007).
The production of ethanol from ethylene is due to the catalytic hydration of ethylene to ethanol. In
direct catalytic hydration, ethanol is produced by the vapor-phase reaction of ethylene and water
over a catalyst impregnated with phosphoric acid. For more details on the direct catalytic hydration
process, see (Sutter, 2007).
2.3.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kg of petroleum-based ethanol, 99.7% (anhydrous)
• System boundaries: The main processes for petroleum ethanol are the refinement and
processing of crude to produce ethylene (Figure 4), which is then hydrated to make ethanol
(Figure 5).
System Boundary
Natural Gas
Electricity from Natural Gas
Pipeline
Sodium Hydroxide
Natural Gas, Combusted in
Industrial Boiler
Transport, Ocean Freighter,
Average Fuel Mix
Natural Gas, Combusted in
Industrial Boiler
Crude Oil at Production
Crude Oil
Atmospheric Distillation
Naphtha
Steam Cracker
Crude Oil In Refinery
Refinery Gas, Lubricants &
Waxes, LPG, Gasoline
(RON>91), Aromatics
Electricity from Natural Gas
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Combusted In Industrial Boiler
Electricity from Natural Gas
Water
Emissions
Waste Water
Hydrogen
Kerosene, Diesel Fuel Oil, Sulfur
Heavy Fuel Oil, Coke
Ethylene
Propylene
Butadience
Refinery Gas
Pyrolysls Gas
Hydrogen
L
Figure 4. Production of ethylene as reported by (Ghanta, Fahey et al., 2014)
11
-------
System Boundary
Ethylene,
average
Chemical
plant input,
unspecific
Diethyl
Ether at
plant
HCI 30% in
water
NaOH 50%
in water
Ethanol at
plant, 99.7%
Air
Emissions
Electricity,
Medium
voltage
Deionised
Water
Water
Emissions
Phosphoric
Acid, 85% in
water
Heat Energy
(Steam) to
chemical
plant
Water
Cooling
Ethanol
Production
Direct
Hydration
Figure 5. Production of anhydrous petroleum ethanol as reported by (Sutter, 2007)
• Inventory data: "ethanol from ethylene, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent v2.2; (Sutter, 2007).
2.3.3 Emission Factors
Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 3. SEFA Emission Factors for Petroleum E
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Petroleum Ethanol, 99.7%
2.05E-02
1.25E+00
5.89E-05
1.99E-03
2.77E-04
2.14E-03
4.16E+00
Hanoi
2.4 Potassium Permanganate (KMn04)
2.4.1 Introduction
Potassium permanganate (KMnCU) is industrially very important and an indispensable oxidant. It
is used principally as an oxidizing agent in the following applications: municipal water treatment,
wastewater treatment, chemical manufacturing and processing, aquaculture (fish farming), metal
processing, and air and gas purification. In addition, potassium permanganate is used as a
decoloring and bleaching agent in the textile and tanning industries, as an oxidizer in the
decontamination of radioactive wastes, as an aid in the flotation processes used in mining, and in
cleaning printed circuit boards (Pisarczyk, 2005; Reidies, 2000; USEPA, 2015b; USITC, 2010).
For environmental applications, a concentrated KMnC>4 solution (typically 1-5 % where it is its
optimal solubility) is generated on-site using dry potassium permanganate.
World production capacity for potassium permanganate is estimated to be 43 000-51 000 tons/yr.,
although actual demand is less than 30 000 tons/yr.(Reidies, 2000). Carus Corporation was the
only commercial producer of KMnC>4 in the US in 2009. KMnC>4 may be manufactured by a one-
step electrolytic conversion of ferromanganese to permanganate, or by a two-step process
involving the thermal oxidation of manganese (IV) dioxide to potassium manganate (VI), followed
12
-------
by electrolytic oxidation to permanganate. Carus markets permanganates under various trade
names (AQUOX®, CAIROX®, LIQUOX®, ECONOX®, CARUSOL® and RemOx®) (Carus
Corporation, 2009). Three grades of KMnC>4 are produced (i.e. free-flowing, technical,
pharmaceutical). The free-flowing grade is produced by adding an anti-caking agent to the
technical grade, preventing the particles from sticking together when in contact with moisture. The
pharmaceutical grade must be at least 99% KMnC>4 by weight and involves additional
recrystallization to remove impurities or to meet customer specifications. The three grades of
KMnC>4 are generally interchangeable in their various applications, except for pharmaceutical
applications.
2.4.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kgofKMnC>4
• System boundaries: The main processes for KMnC>4 are the mining and beneficiation of
manganese ore, oxidation to manganese dioxide, and further oxidation to the final product
(Figure 6).
System Boundary
Waste
Mining
Hydrogen
Manganese Dioxide Oxidation
Air
Unreacted Mangai
disposal
Carbon Dioxide
Wastes Emissions
Infrastructure
Air, Water, Wastes Emissions
Overburden, disposed
Effluents, mining
Tailings, disposal
Effluents, beneficiation
Cooling Water
Electricity
Transport
Infrastructure and land use
Potassium Hydroxide
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
Manganese In ground
Diesel fuel (energy)
Explosives
Exploration, Infrastructure, conveyer belts
Infrastructure of mining underground
Infrastructure of surface mining
Land transformation from nature
Land transformation to mine
Land use for mining
Figure 6. Production of KMnO-t as reported by (Classen, Althaus et al., 2007)
• Inventory data: "potassium permanganate, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent v2.2; (Sutter, 2007).
2.4.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 4. SEFA Emission Factors for KMnO-t
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Potassium Permanganate
9.81E-03
1.16E+00
1.22E-04
2.34E-03
4.22E-04
3.20E-03
7.45E+00
13
-------
2.5 Lime, Hydrated and Packed
2.5.1 Introduction
Hydrated lime refers to a dry calcium hydroxide powder produced from the calcination of limestone,
a naturally occurring mineral that consists principally of calcium carbonate but may contain
magnesium carbonate as a secondary component. Hydrated lime is widely used in aqueous systems
as a low-cost alkaline chemical.
2.5.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kg of hydrated lime, packed
• System boundaries: The main processes involved with the production of hydrated lime are
limestone mining, crushing, washing, calcination, and milling as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Production of hydrated lime as presented in (Kellenberger, Althaus et al., 2007)
• Inventory data: "lime, hydrated, packed, at plant - CH"; ecoinvent v2.2; (Kellenberger,
Althaus et al., 2007).
2,5.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
14
-------
Table 5. SEFA Emission Factors for Hydrated Lime
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Lime, Hydrated, Packed
2.06E-03
7.62E-01
6.57E-06
5.13E-04
1.30E-04
3.58E-04
2.94E-01
2.6 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), 50% in Water
2.6.1 Introduction
Sodium hydroxide often referred to as caustic soda or just caustic, is a strong base. It is typically
produced as a coproduct with chlorine through the electrolytic decomposition of sodium chloride
solutions (brines). According to the Chlorine Institute, in 2010, the U.S. chlor-alkali industry
produced 11.6 million short tons of chlorine and 12.2 million short tons of caustic soda
(sodium hydroxide) (American Chemistry Council, 2015).
Three basic processes (diaphragm, mercury, and membrane) account for almost all total world
chlorine capacity. Up to the end of the 20th century, the mercury cell technique dominated in
Europe, while the diaphragm cell technique dominated in the United States and the membrane cell
technique in Japan. Recently, new plants worldwide are based on the membrane cell technique.
Generally, most producers operate their plants to make chlorine since it is hard to store and is used
for derivatives like ethylene dichloride, phosgene, and epichlorohydrin. Caustic soda is generally
sold on the merchant market and consumed in a myriad of uses (Linak & Inui, 2002). Due to
customers' requirements, sodium hydroxide is produced commercially in two forms: as a 50 wt.-
% solution (most common) and less frequently in the solid state as prills, flakes, or cast shapes.
2.6.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kg of sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O
• System boundaries: The data set considers a production mix of sodium hydroxide with 23.5%
produced by diaphragm cell, 55.1% produced by mercury cell, and 21.4% produced by
membrane cell. As shown in Figure 8, the same basic flow of primary materials applies to all
three pathways.
15
-------
System Boundary
-*¦ Salt brine (NaCI solution)
Chlorine (Cl2) — gaseous
-*¦ Chlorine (Clz) — liquid
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
Hydrogen (H2|
Hydrogen, liquid,
mercury cell
Hydrogen, liquid,
(average, chloride
electrolysis)
Hydrogen, liquid,
membrane cell
Chlorine, gaseous,
mercury cell
Chlorine, liquid,
(average)
Chlorine, gaseous,
diaphragm cell
Chlorine, gaseous,
membrane cell
Sodium hydroxide,
mercury cell
Sodium hydroxide,
diaphragm cell
Sodium hydroxide,
membrane cell
1 kg Chlorine, 1 kg Sodium
liquid, at plant hydroxide, 50% in
(RER) Hz0, at plant (RER)
Figure 8. Production of average mix sodium hydroxide as shown in (Althaus, Chudacoff et
al., 2007)
• Inventory data: "sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent
v2.2; (Althaus, Chudacoff et al., 2007).
2.6.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 6. SEFA Emission Factors for Sodium Hydroxide
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Sodium Hydroxide, 50% in water
9.77E-03
1.09E+00
1.29E-04
1.94E-03
4.03E-04
3.52E-03
1.39E+01
2.7 Hydrogen peroxide, 50% in Water
2.7.1 Introduction
Hydrogen peroxide is ubiquitous in the environment. In surface water, photochemical
processes generally produce H202. In the atmosphere H2O2 is generated by photolysis of
O3 (Wayne, 1988) or aldehydes (Calvert & Stockwell, 1983). FhChis a weakly acidic, nearly
colorless clear liquid that is miscible with water in all proportions. In addition, H2O2 is a
strong oxidizing agent commercially available in aqueous solution over a wide range of
concentrations. Aqueous H2O2 is sold in concentrations ranging from 3 to 86 wt. %, most
often containing 35, 50, and 70 wt. %
16
-------
H2O2 is used in various industrial and environmental applications. Due to its characteristics as a
strong oxidizing agent, H2O2 is widely used as a bleaching agent in the paper and the textile
industry. Further important uses are disinfection applications, hydrometallurgical processes, or
wastewater treatment. In dilute solutions, H2O2 acts as a very efficient antiseptic. With regard to
SEFA, H2O2 is used as an in-situ chemical oxidant for remediation. In situ chemical oxidation
(ISCO), a form of advanced oxidation process is an environmental remediation technique used
for soil and/or groundwater remediation to reduce the concentrations of targeted environmental
contaminants to acceptable levels. ISCO is accomplished by injecting or otherwise introducing
strong chemical oxidizers directly into the contaminated medium (soil or groundwater) to
destroy chemical contaminants in place. It can be used to remediate a variety of organic
compounds, including some that are resistant to natural degradation.
2.7.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kg of hydrogen peroxide, in H2O at plant
• System boundaries: The production of 50% hydrogen peroxide involves bubbling oxygen
through anthracene as shown in Figure 9.
17
-------
System Boundary
Anthracene
Water (process)
Water (cooling)
Sulfuric acid, 48%
Sodium dichromate, 20%
Napthalene, xylene, butadiene
Sodium hydroxide, 50%
Hydrogen, liquid at plant
Aluminum oxide
Benzene
Solvent, unspecified
Nitrogen, liquid
Oxygen, liquid
Chemicals inorganic
Chemical plant, organics
Transport, freight rail
Transport, lorry 32 t
Energy:
Electricity
Heat, heavy fuel oil at furnace, 1 MW
Heat natural gas, furnace >100kW
Steam for chemical purposes
Anthraquinone and
Hydrogen Peroxide
Production Inputs/Outputs
Hydrogen Peroxide, 50% in
water, at plant
Air Emissions:
Heat
Waste
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
NMVOC-non methane
VOC
Residual Hydrogen
Water Emissions:
BOD
COD
TOC
Suspended solids
Nitrate
Phosphate
Chlorides
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Residual hydrogen peroxide
Wastes:
Residue from cooling tower,
30% water
Disposal of aluminum waste
to landfill
Municipal solid waste, 22%
water to incinerator
Figure 9. Production of hydrogen peroxide as shown in (Althaus, Chudacoff et al., 2007).
• Inventory data: "hydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Althaus,
Chudacoff et al., 2007).
2.7.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 7. SEFA Emission Factors for Hydrogen Peroxide
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NGx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Hydrogen Peroxide, 50% in water
9.79E-03
1.19E+00
6.29E-05
1.42E-03
3.08E-04
2.4QE-03
2.35E+01
18
-------
2.8 Phosphoric Acid, 70% in Water
2.8.1 Introduction
Pure, anhydrous phosphoric acid, H3PO4, is a colorless, crystalline compound that is readily soluble
in water. After sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid is the most important mineral acid in terms of
volume and value. This is mainly due to the enormous demand for wet phosphoric acid for
further processing to fertilizers (Schrodter, Bettermann et al., 2000).
Phosphoric acid is produced by either a wet process or thermal process. The majority of phosphoric
acid, approximately 96 %, is produced using the wet-process phosphoric acid (WPPA) method
(USEPA, 1993a). The thermal process uses a high amount of energy and produces strong
phosphoric acid liquid (of about 85 wt. % of H3P04) which is required for high grade chemical
production. Most of the WPP A produced world-wide is made with the dihydrate process (Althaus,
Chudacoff et al., 2007; Gard, 2005; Schrodter, Bettermann et al., 2000; USEPA, 1993b).
Phosphoric acid plays a critical role in the restoration of environmental sites contaminated with
heavy metals. Phosphoric acid forms insoluble complexes with metal ions typically found in
contaminated soils, which occurs over a wide range of pH values and conditions. Once complexed,
the metal ions are immobilized and are unable to leach out beyond the phosphoric acid-treated soil.
Heavy metal contaminants that are capable of phosphoric acid immobilization include: lead,
strontium, zinc, cadmium, iron, chromium, and selenium. The use of this technology has been
successful at various industrial sites, including metal mining, waste, ammunition, scrap metal, paint,
and battery industries.
2.8.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 kg of phosphoric acid, fertilizer grade, 70% in H2O
• System boundaries: The production of phosphoric acid includes the mining and digestion of
phosphate rock in sulfuric acid followed by filtration and concentration of the product (Althaus,
Chudacoff et al., 2007).
19
-------
Process Fuel Process Water Cooling Water Electricity
Steam
Phosphate Rock
as P2Os
Fluorine Scrubbing
Quicklime, CaO
CaS04 Sludge
Emissions to Air
Waste Heat
Waste Water
Concentration
Neutralization
Filters, Thickener
Digester
Figure 10. Production of phosphoric acid as shown in (Althaus, Chudacoff et al., 2007).
• Inventory data: "phosphoric acid, fertilizer grade, 70% in H2O, at plant - US"; ecoinvent 2.2;
(Althaus, Chudacoff et al., 2007).
2.8.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 8. SEFA Emission Factors for Phosphoric Acid
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Phosphoric Acid, 70% in water
6.70E-03
8.82E-01
1.63E-04
2.82E-03
1.71E-03
2.94E-02
1.61E+01
2.9 Iron (II) Sulfate, Hydrated
2.9.1 Introduction
Iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate, ferrous sulfate, FeSC>4 • 7H2O, crystallizes from an aqueous iron solu-
tion as green, monoclinic crystals that are readily soluble in water (Stolzenberg, 2000; Wildermuth,
Stark et al., 2000). Most iron (II) sulfate is a by-product of the steel industry. Prior to tinning,
galvanizing, electroplating, or enameling, steel surfaces are dipped in sulfuric acid for
cleaning (pickling). The resulting pickle liquor contains ca 15% iron (II) sulfate and 2-7%
acid. Scrap iron is added to reduce the acid concentration to ca 0.03%. The solution is fil-
tered, concentrated at 70 °C to a specific gravity of 1.4, and is allowed to cool to room
temperature, which results in crystallization of the heptahydrate. Industry produces on the
order of 106 tons/yr. of the iron sulfate. Because supply exceeds demand, the pickling liquor
presents a serious waste disposal problem. Iron(II) sulfate has a large variety of uses
including iron oxide pigments and salts, fertilizer production, food and feed supplements,
inks and dyes, reducing agents, polymerization catalysts, and water treatment. In water
treatment, iron (II) sulfate is commonly used for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
as coagulants or flocculants, for odor control to minimize hydrogen sulfide release, for phosphorus
removal, and as a sludge thickening, conditioning and dewatering agent.
20
-------
2.9.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of Iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate
• System boundaries: The production of iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate involves the dissolution
of iron scrap in dilute sulfuric acid (Figure 11).
System Boundary
Exhaust Gas
Fresh Water
Pickling Loss
Iron Scale
Fe,0, + Fe
Drag Out
Drag Out
Rinsing
Waste
Water
Fresh Acid
Lime
Ca(OH)j
FeSO„ + HjSO, + HjO
Waste Acid
HjSOa + FeSOJ + 2Ca(OH); -»
Fe{OH)z +¦ 2CaSO, + 4H30
Iron Sulfate
Air
o2 + h2o
Cooling Water
Cooling Water
Exhaust Gas
Condenser
Neutralisation
Rinsing Section
Pickling Section
Regeneration
Oxidation
Precipitation
Ca2*, SO,2', H20
1
Cleaned Water
Figure 11. Production of iron (II) sulfate as shown in (EIPPCB, 2001).
• Inventory data: "iron sulphate, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al.,
2007).
2.9.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 9. SEFA Emission Factors for Hydrated Iron (II) Sulfate
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Iron (II) Sulfate, Hydrated
1.47E-03
1.67E-01
2.30E-05
3.16E-04
1.03E-04
5.89E-04
7.44E-01
2.10 Asphalt, Mastic-type and Pavement Grade
2.10.1 Introduction
Bitumen is a generic class of amorphous, dark colored, cementitious substances, natural or
manufactured, composed principally of high molecular mass hydrocarbons, soluble in carbon
disulfide (ASTM, 2013c). Asphalt is defined as a cementitious material in which the predominating
21
-------
constituents are bitumens. The terms bituminous and asphaltic then refer to materials that contain
or are treated with bitumen or asphalt. Thus, some confusion exists, but in this report, asphalt and
bitumen are used interchangeably.
Since the early 1900's most of the asphalts produced from the refining of petroleum have been
used primarily in paving and roofing applications. Mastic asphalt has been used in some industrial
applications. According to the International Mastic Asphalt Association(IMAA), mastic asphalt
(MA) is a dense massmass composed on suitably graded mineral matter and/or sand, and /or
limestone fine aggregate, and/or crushed limestone powderpowder and bitumen, which may
contain additives (for example polymers, waxes). The mixture is designed to be of low void
content. The binder content is so adjusted that the voids are completely filled and that even a slight
excess of binder may occur. .
In environmental applications, asphalt can be used as a barrier material. Prior to the mid-
1960s, asphalt barriers were primarily used to control water seepage from facilities such as
impoundments and earth dams (Creegan & Monismith, 1996). For these applications,
asphalt was applied as hot-sprayed asphalt membranes or as asphalt concrete for barrier
layers. The petroleum shortage of the 1970's, along with the establishment of rules for
hazardous and solid waste landfill designs, focused the industry toward composite liners
consisting of geomembranes and compacted soil. However, in the mid-1980's, resurgence
into the use of asphalt for waste isolation was initiated by the US Department of Energy
(DOE) in their quest for very-long-term hydraulic barriers (1000+ years) for radioactive and
mixed waste sites (Gee & Wing, 1993).
2,10,2 LCI Modeling - Mastic Asphalt
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of mastic asphalt
• System boundaries: The production of mastic involves the following inputs: bitumen,
limestone powder, sand, infrastructure, and transport. Producing mastic outputs VOCs,
benzopyrene, and waste heat (Figure 12).
System Boundary
Bitumen
VOC emissions
Benzopyrene emissions
Waste heat
Crude Oil Extraction
Mastic asphalt, product
Petroleum Refinery Operations
Mastic Asphalt Production inputs/Outputs
Energy:
Electricity
Diesel in building, machine
Limestone Powder
Sand/grit
Infrastructure, mixing equipment
infrastructure, conveyer bett
Transport, freight rail
Transport raw materials
Figure 12. Production of mastic asphalt as shown in (Kellenberger, Althaus et al., 2007)
22
-------
• Inventory data: "mastic asphalt, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Kellenberger 2007); Process
was modified by using the Eurobitume bitumen inventory in place of the ecoinvent bitumen
inventory.
2,10.3 LCI Modeling - Pavement-grade Asphalt
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of pavement grade asphalt
• System boundaries: Producing pavement grade asphalt requires crude oil, which is transported,
then refined and stored at a complex refinery (Figure 13).
Other products
Complex refinery
System Boundary
Crude oil storage,
de-salting and
other shared units
such as flare,
waste water
treatment, sulphur
recovery, etc.
Furnace
De-salting
Bitumen storage
Vacuum
distillation
Other process units
Atmospheric
distillation
Bitumen
Figure 13. Bitumen production at a complex refinery as presented in (Eurobitume, 2012)
2.10.4 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 10. SEFA Emission Fact
ors for Mastic and
'aving-l
Srade Asphalt
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Mastic Asphalt
4.12E-02
8.50E-01
1.07E-03
2.71E-03
7.66E-04
7.98E-03
5.46E-01
Paving Asphalt
5.00E-01
8.58E+00
1.33E-02
2.99E-02
9.10E-03
9.69E-02
3.88E+00
2.11 Aluminum, Rolled Sheet
2.11.1 Introduction
Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust and is usually combined
with silicon and oxygen in rock. When aluminum silicate minerals are subjected to tropical
weathering, aluminum hydroxide may be formed. Rock that contains high concentrations of
aluminum hydroxide minerals is called bauxite (Frank, Haupin et al., 2000; Sanders, 2012).
23
-------
Although bauxite is, with rare exception, the starting material for the production of
aluminum, the industry generally refers to metallurgical grade alumina, AI2O3, extracted
from bauxite by the Bayer Process, as the ore. It takes roughly 4-7 tons of bauxite to produce
2 tons of alumina, which again yield 1 ton of aluminum (Norsk Hydro, 2012). Aluminum is
obtained by electrolysis of this purified ore. The production of aluminum in the US is
forecasted to total 7.1 million metric tons in 2017 (The Freedonia Group, 2013). According
to the USGS, world production in 2013 was 47.3 million metric tons (USGS, 2014).
Aluminum is a common piling material, where piling is a method of horizontal sealing to
prevent the movement of groundwater. Aluminum pile enclosures minimize or eliminate the
need for contaminant plume control by groundwater pumping and/or water treatment.
Contaminants are prevented from moving off site, while site control activities (e.g., source
removal, plume remediation) are carried out in the isolated subsurface environment inside
the piled enclosure.
2.11.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of rolled aluminum
• System boundaries: Figure 14 is the system boundary for the extraction of bauxite to the
production of primary A1 ingots to A1 sheets. Several processes lead to the production of
primary aluminum, including bauxite mining, alumina extraction, production of other raw
materials, and anode fabrication. Following primary aluminum production, the aluminum is
sawed, scalped, rolled, and then heat treated. Once heat treated, the aluminum is finished,
packaged, used, collected, sorted, and then recycled with associated metal losses.
System Boundary
Other raw material
production
Bauxite mining
NaOH
Alumina extraction
A. wo. .J.*
Anooe raoTicaiion
production {electrolysis
and cast house)
Aluminum Ingots
r
Sawing, scalping
Rolling (hot and cold}
Solution heat treatment
Finishing and packaging
Figure 14. System Boundary-Production of Aluminum as adapted by (
(Classen, Althaus et al., 2007)
Aluminum rolling sheet
:AA, 2013) and
24
-------
• Inventory data: "aluminum, primary, at plant - RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Althaus, Chudacoff et
al., 2007); "anodizing, aluminum sheet - RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Classen, Althaus et al.,
2007); "sheet rolling, aluminum - RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Werner, Althaus et al., 2007).
2.11.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 11. SEFA Emission Factors for Rol
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Aluminum, Rolled Sheet
6.33E-02
9.15E+00
1.02E-03
1.48E-02
8.80E-03
2.83E-02
2.78E+01
ed Aluminum
2.12 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), Primary and Regenerated
2.12.1 Introduction
Granular activated carbon (GAC) is a carbonaceous material used to remove various contaminants
through adsorption from either liquid or gas streams. The most common precursor materials for
GAC are bituminous coal, lignite coal, coconut shells, and wood.
Commercial activated carbon production is a two-step process involving carbonization of a
precursor material followed by activation. In the pyrolytic carbonization process, the temperature
of the raw material is raised to the range of 500 to 800 °C in the absence of oxygen. Volatile
organic matter of the raw material is thermally released, and the carbon atoms realign to form a
crystalline structure. The carbonized product at this point in the process is heavily influenced by
the raw materials used. For activated carbon products used in water treatment, a thermal or physical
activation process follows in which the temperature of the carbonized product is increased to the
range of 850 to 1,000 °C in the presence of an oxidizing agent, typically steam or carbon dioxide.
Activation increases the pore sizes and creates a continuous pore structure, which increases the
micropore volume (pore width < 2 nm) and the internal surface area where most of the adsorption
occurs. The activation step can involve either a direct activation process in which the raw material
is crushed and then activated, or in a reagglomeration process in which the raw material is crushed,
reagglomerated, crushed again, and then activated.
Reactivation of spent activated carbon is the destruction of contaminants and the reactivation of
useful carbon. Contaminants are desorbed and destroyed at high temperatures (typically exceeding
1500 °F) in a reactivation furnace. Furnaces can either be rotary kilns or multiple hearths, and can
be heated by either natural gas, electricity, or fuel oil. Off-site carbon reactivation manufacturers
reactivate anywhere from 5 to 60 tons of spent carbon on a daily basis. While larger-capacity
furnaces are not typically cost-effective for a single hazardous waste site, smaller furnaces are
more cost-effective for on-site use at a single site. Reactivation furnaces output reactivated carbon,
air emissions, and some carbon fines. Reactivation furnaces do not produce organic wastes.
25
-------
2.12.2 LCI Modeling
Functional unit: 1 lb. of granular activated carbon (primary or regenerated)
System boundaries: For primary GAC, the modeled process includes the extraction and
conversion of coal using pyrolytic carbonization and thermal activation (Figure 15).
Regenerated GAC includes the thermal desorption and reactivation of captured contaminants
(Figure 16). Data describing emission profiles during regeneration could not be identified.
System Boundary
Hard coal
Electricity
Matural gas
Steam
GAC production
Emissions
W<
a genwnt
Transport
Figure 15. System boundary for primary GAC as adapted from (Gabarrell, Font et al.,
2012)
System Boundary
Transport
Natural gas
Waste management
Electricity
Steam
Figure 16. System boundary for regenerated GAC as adapted from (Gabarrell, Font et al.,
2012)
The inventories from (USEPA, 2010a) and (He, 2012) were created separately in openLCA and
analyzed using the footprint method. The resulting EmFs were arithmetically averaged to create
the reported EmFs in Section 2.12.3.
2,12,3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
26
-------
Table 12. SEFA Emission Factors for Primary and Regenerated Granular Activated
Carbon
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Primary Activated Carbon
3.56E-02
4.82E+00
6.57E-04
7.93E-02
9.87E-04
1.28E-01
1.53E+00
Regenerated Activated Carbon
8.73E-03
1.70E+00
6.71E-04
7.33E-03
8.86E-04
1.29E-02
1.20E+00
2.13 Portland Cement
2.13.1 Introduction
Portland cement is the most common type of cement used globally. It is the hydraulic binder in
concrete and mortar. Portland cement is made by heating limestone (i.e., calcium carbonate) with
other materials (e.g., clay) in a 1450 °C kiln. This process is known as calcination, where a
molecule of CO2 is liberated from the calcium carbonate to form calcium oxide, which is then
mixed with the other materials to form calcium silicates and other cementitious compounds. The
resulting hard substance, clinker, is then ground with gypsum into a powder to make ordinary
Portland cement (OPC).
Cement is primarily used as a constituent of concrete, and concrete has a number of remediation
site applications. The most common concrete application at remediation sites is in the form of
buildings and foundations. Not limited to remediation sites, concrete is extensively used to form
building walls, foundations, and other elements within a building.
2.13.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of Portland cement.
• System boundaries: The production of Portland includes rock quarrying and crushing; raw
meal preparation through grinding and blending; calcination of rock and mix components to
form clinker, and final grinding and bagging (Figure 17).
27
-------
System Boundary
Clinker
Portland cement
Transportation
Raw materials
Quarry and crush
Real meal preparation
Transportation
Fuels and electricity
Gypsum
Transportation
Pyro process
Finish grind
Shipment to concrete
ready-mix plant
Figure 17. Production of Portland cement as reported by (Marceau, Nisbet et al., 2006)
2.13.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 13. SEFA Emission Factors for Portland cement
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Portland Cement
1.39E-02
1.34E+00
9.70E-04
6.54E-03
3.78E-03
1.04E-02
7.73E-01
2.14 Ready Mixed Concrete (20 MPa-3000psi)
2.14.1 Introduction
Concrete is a high-volume, low-cost building material produced by mixing cement, water, and
aggregates. The use of concrete is nearly universal in modern construction, where it is an essential
component of high rise buildings, pavement, bridges, dams, buildings, and other staples of the
developed landscape. There are thousands of possible ready mixed concrete (RMC) products
(a.k.a. mix designs, mixes, mixture compositions or mixtures), which ultimately balance the cost
and performance of concrete for a wide variety of applications. There are many factors that can
influence the way concrete is manufactured, designed, built, used, and recycled that ultimately
affect the environmental footprint of concrete and the structures built with concrete. Several factors
that can affect the environmental performance of concrete and concrete structures include: design
28
-------
loads, structural efficiency, durability, constructability, energy efficiency, aesthetics, and concrete
mixtures.
2.14.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 cubic foot of ready-mixed concrete
• System boundaries: The production of ready-mixed concrete includes the preparation of
Portland cement (Section 2.13) and its mixing with aggregates and water to form concrete
(Figure 18).
System Boundary
Cement manufacture
Concrete production
Transportation and
energy
Transportation and
energy
Transportation and _
energy
Transportation and
energy
Transportation and
energy
Use
Finish grinding
Real meal
preparation
Solid fuels
Purchased raw
materials
Gypsum and
cementitious
materials
Pyroprocessing
Load out, molding,
etc.
Quarry
Quarry
Mixing
Figure 18. Production of ready mixed concrete as reported by (Nisbet, 2000)
2.14.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 14. SI
CFA Emission Factors for Ready Mixed
Concrete
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/ft3)
GWP100
(lb C02e/ft3)
HAPs
(lb/ft3)
NOx
(lb/ft3)
PM10
(lb/ft3)
SOx
(lb/ft3)
Water
Use
(gals/ft3)
Ready Mixed Concrete
2.17E-01
1.95E+01
1.41E-02
9.75E-02
5.70E-02
1.54E-01
3.32E+01
2.15 Gravel and Sand Mix, 65% Gravel
2.15.1 Introduction
Construction aggregates find use in a wide range of applications including road base and coverings,
hydraulic concrete, asphaltic concrete, foundation fill, railroad ballast, roofing granules and snow
29
-------
and ice control. The primary function for road base and subbase aggregates is to provide a solid,
sturdy foundation for driving surfaces. A wide range of items (including natural aggregates and
alternative, secondary, and recycled materials) comprises the segment and product specifications
are generally less restrictive than other applications. Natural aggregates consist of crushed stone,
sand, and gravel obtained from quarries. Natural aggregates are among the most abundant natural
resources and a major basic raw material used by construction, agriculture, and industries
employing complex chemical and metallurgical processes. Gravel and sand are used at remediation
sites through several applications. Crushed stone (i.e., gravel) can be used in temporary roads at
remediation sites. Temporary gravel roads provide periodic access points for remediation site
employees, and are able to be removed and disposed once their useful lifetime is reached (USEPA,
1996). Gravel and sand are important constituents in geomembranes used as vertical barriers to
prevent the spread of contaminated groundwater. A 1994 study by Burnette and Schmednect
focused on a geomembrane cutoff wall that encompassed a Great Lakes chemical plant, which
consisted of layers of sand, gravel, and cobbles (Brunette & Schmednecht, 1994).
2,15.2 LCI Modeling
Note: Round gravel and sand are produced simultaneously in a quarry. As such, they are modeled
as co-products of the same unit process in ecoinvent. The mixture here represents a typical blend
for construction use and is modeled as 65% gravel 35% sand. The same process description and
boundaries apply for the sand, gravel, and mixture processes. No allocation is applied to the
ecoinvent process and both products receive identical impacts. Therefore, the emission factors
reported in Table 15 apply to 1 lb. of sand by itself, 1 lb. of round gravel by itself, or 1 lb. of a
gravel/sand mix as listed in the table. The consequence of this approach is that the impacts for the
mixture are not a function of the composition.
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of a sand/gravel mix
• System boundaries: The system boundary for producing a gravel and sand mix includes
processes related to the extraction of round gravel and sand (i.e., no crushed gravel) at a
quarry, internal processes (i.e., transport, etc.), and infrastructure for the operation (i.e.,
machinery) (Figure 19).
System Bound»ry
Raw material transport
and storage
Siring screening
Washing/scrubbing
i 1 i
Figure 19. Typical production of sand and gravel as reported by (USEPA, 1995a)
• Inventory data: 0.65 lbs. of "gravel, round, at mine - CH", ecoinvent 2.2, (Kellenberger,
Althaus et al., 2007); 0.35 lbs. of "sand, at mine - CH", ecoinvent 2.2, (Kellenberger,
Althaus et al., 2007).
30
-------
2.15.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 15. SEFA Emission Factors for a Gravel, Sand, or a Gravel/Sand Mix
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Gravel, Sand, or Gravel/Sand Mix
2.48E-05
2.40E-03
3.08E-07
1.80E-05
2.61E-06
4.52E-06
1.71E-01
2.16 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
2.16.1 Introduction
Because of this versatility, HDPE is one of the most popular plastics in use today, with a projected
global market of almost $70 billion by 2019 (Plastic News, 2013). HDPE resin is used in many
applications, including industrial wrappings and films, crates, boxes, caps and closures, bottles and
containers for food products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, household and industrial chemicals,
toys, fuel tanks and other automotive parts, and pipes for gas and water distribution.
HDPE can be used as panels constituting vertical barrier systems in order to remediate polluted
groundwater systems. For example, a 1997 case study focused on using HDPE panels as a
remediation technique for a waterway seeping dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). The
study found that advantages of using HDPE vertical barrier systems include: flexibility, low
permeability rates (e.g., 2.7><10"13cm/s), resistant to a variety of chemicals, long service life, quick
installation, and low economic costs (Burson, Baker et al., 1997). HDPE has been shown to be a
suitable flexible membrane liner (FML) at landfill sites. HDPE geomembranes are extremely
resistant to leachates, which is a primary factor influencing the use of HDPE in FMLs (Eithe &
Koerner, 1997).
HDPE is a polyolefin produced from the polymerization of ethylene. The polymer properties can
be controlled and varied by adding co-monomers such as butene or hexene to the blend. The
manufacturing of HDPE starts with applying heat to petroleum (i.e., cracking), which produces
ethylene gas. Under controlled conditions the ethylene gas molecules link together to form long
chains (or polymers), thus producing polyethylene. The reaction occurs in a large loop reactor with
the mixture being constantly stirred. Upon opening a valve, the product is released with the solvent
evaporated leaving the polymer and catalyst. Water vapor and nitrogen are then reacted with the
polymer to cease catalytic activity. Residues of the catalyst, which are typically titanium (IV) and
aluminum oxides, remain mixed in the polymer. The HDPE powder produced from the reactor is
then separated from the diluent or solvent (if used) and is extruded and cut up into granules.
2.16.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of high density polyethylene, granulate type
• System boundaries: The production of HDPE includes the upstream extraction and processing
of crude oil to make ethylene; the blending of ethylene with co-monomers, solvents, and
31
-------
additives; catalyzed polymerization of the mixture to form HDPE; and finishing producing
HDPE resin (Figure 20). The impacts of the downstream processing of HDPE resin to form
product(s) used at remediation sites is assumed to be negligible compared to the included
processes.
Solar and Fossil and mineral
wind energy resources
System Boundary
Steam
Electricity
Raw material production
Polymerization
» Propene
Ethene
Feedstock
Additive
Polymeriza-
tion
Processing
Finishing
Polymer
Steam
cracking
Co
Catalyst
Solvent
On-site energy
production
Grid electricity
production
Extraction/Processing
of fossil and mineral
Figure 20. Production of High Density Polyethylene as reported by (PlasticsEurope, 2014)
• Inventory data: "polyethylene, HDPE, granulate, at plant- RER"; ecoinvent 2.2; (Hischier,
2007).
2,16.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 16. SEFA Emission
^actors for
ligh Density Polyethylene
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
High Density Polyethylene
3.32E-02
1.94E+00
6.41E-05
3.25E-03
4.39E-04
4.09E-03
3.88E+00
32
-------
2.17 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
2.17.1 Introduction
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is, by volume, the third-largest thermoplastic that is manufactured in the
world. PVC is a key product of the chemical industry and, along with polypropylene and
polyethylene, one of the most widely produced plastics. PVC use is highly dependent on the
construction market, as about 70% of its world consumption is for pipe, fittings, siding, windows,
fencing, electrical and other applications. At remediation sites, PVC is used for well casings,
piping, cutoff walls, geomembranes, liners, and cap (USEPA, 2012a).
There are three main processes used for the commercial production of PVC: Suspension (providing
80% of world production), emulsion (12%) and mass, called bulk (8%) (Fischer, Schmitt et al.,
2014). The first step of suspension PVC manufacturing is feeding vinyl chloride monomer (VCM)
into a polymerization reactor with water and suspending agents. High-speed agitation forms small
droplets of VCM, which are then introduced to a catalyst. PVC is then obtained by way of the
catalyst, pressure, and temperatures ranging from 40 to 60°C. The slurry discharged from the
polymerization reactor is then stripped of un-reacted VCM, and then dried by centrifugation. The
result is PVC in the form of white powder, or resin. Emulsion polymerization is a far less common
technology to manufacture PVC. Emulsion polymerization produces finer resin grades with much
smaller particles, which are required by certain applications. Emulsion polymerization takes place
in pressurized vessels under the influence of heat and catalysts. Polymerization occurs within the
dispersed VCM droplets and with an initiator highly soluble in VCM, (that is not water). The
product is then transferred to a blow-down vessel, where the unreacted monomer is extracted,
recovered, and recycled back to the polymerization reactor. The polymer particles are then dried.
2.17.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of polyvinyl chloride
• System boundaries: Typical production of PVC includes the upstream production of ethylene
from crude oil and chlorine from brine and rock salt; the chlorination of ethylene to yield vinyl
chloride; the polymerization of vinyl chloride to make PVC resin; and the transport of the resin
to a regional storehouse for distribution and downstream use (Figure 21). As with HDPE, the
further processing of resin to products for use onsite during remediation is assumed negligible.
33
-------
System Boundary
naphtha
natural gas
chlorine
ethylene
ethylene
dichloroethane
HCl
vinyl
chloride
dichloroethane
PVC
Rock salt
mining and
purification
Oxy-
chlorination
PVC production
Brine pumping
and
purification
Cracking for
ethylene
Vinyl chloride
production
Natural gas
production and
delivery
Crude oil
production and
delivery
Oil refining for
naphtha
Gas processing
and storage
Electrolysis for
chlorine
Direct
chlorination
Figure 21. Flow Diagram for the Cradle to Gate Production of PVC as reported by
(Hischier, 2007)
• Inventory data: "polyvinylchloride, at regional storehouse - RER", ecoinvent 2.2, (Hischier,
2007); The cited process assumes 87% resin production from the suspension method and
13% from the emulsion method.
2.17.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 17. SEFA Emission Factors for Polyvinyl Chloride
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Polyvinyl Chloride
2.62E-02
2.02E+00
3.75E-04
4.00E-03
3.72E-04
2.74E-03
5.79E+01
34
-------
2.18 Hazardous Waste Incineration
2.18.1 Introduction
The global hazardous waste management market reached $23.8 billion in 2013 and $25.9 billion
in 2014 and will continue to grow steadily and reach $33.9 billion by the end of 2019 (BCC
Research, 2015). Over the last five years, the quantities of hazardous waste generated in North
America varied between a low of 150.0 million metric tons and a high of 170.0 million metric tons
in 2012. Hazardous waste is expected to increase consistently in the years to come mainly due to
increasing industrial productivity.
Incineration is the most commonly used method for thermal treatment of organic liquids, and solids
and sludge contaminated with toxic organics. During incineration, high temperatures between
871°C and 1204°C (1600°F and 2200°F) are used to combust (in the presence of oxygen) the
organic constituents in hazardous wastes. Incinerators are usually classified by the type of
combustion unit, with rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared units being those
most commonly used for hazardous wastes. Existing industrial boilers and kilns, especially cement
kilns, are sometimes used for thermal treatment of hazardous wastes.
2.18.2 LCI Modeling
• Functional unit: 1 lb. of incinerated hazardous waste
• System boundaries: Hazardous waste incineration involves the following steps: (1) hazardous
waste processing (which includes screening, size reduction, and waste mixing); (2)
combustion; (3) air pollution control (measurement to collect or treat products of incomplete
combustion, particulate emissions, and acid gases); and (4) solids removal and disposal (Figure
22).
35
-------
System Boundary
Exhaust to
Atmosphere
Auxiliary Fuel
Combustion Air
Disposal
Waste
Processing
Waste Feeding
Particulate
Removal
Gas
Conditioning
Ash Disposal
(Landfill)
Ash Removal
Incineration
Unit
Acid Gas
Control
Waste
Processing
Figure 22. Simplified Diagram of Hazardous Waste Incineration as reported by (BCC
Research, 2015)
• Inventory data: "disposal, hazardous waste, 25% water, to hazardous waste incineration -
CH", ecoinvent 2.2, (Doka, 2009).
2.18.3 Emission Factors
• Emission Factor Calculation Results
Table 18. SEFA Emission Factors for Hazardous Waste Incineration
Che mical/Mate rial
CED
(MMBtu/lb)
GWP100
(lb C02e/lb)
HAPs
(lb/lb)
NOx
(lb/lb)
PM10
(lb/lb)
SOx
(lb/lb)
Water
Use
(gals/lb)
Hazardous Waste Incineration
6.09E-03
2.43E+00
8.70E-05
1.60E-03
2.09E-04
1.67E-03
3.77E+00
2.19 SEFA Material Emission Factor Update Summary
36
-------
Tab
e 19. A Summary
of Emission Fac
tors Derived for the S
CFA Material Update
Energy
GHGs
HAPs
NOx
PM10
SOx
Water
Used
Emitted
Emitted
Emitted
Emitted
Emitted
Used
Chemical/Material/Process
Unit
MMBtu
lb C02e
lb
lb
lb
lb
gals
Source(s)
Aluminum, Rolled Sheet
lb
6.33E-02
9.15E+00
1.02E-03
1.48E-02
8.80E-03
2.83E-02
2.78E+01
(Classen, Althaus et al. 2009)
Asphalt, mastic
lb
4.12E-02
8.50E-01
1.07E-03
2.71E-03
7.66E-04
7.98E-03
5.46E-01
(Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al. 2007)
Asphalt, paving-grade
lb
5.00E-01
8.58E+00
1.33E-02
2.99E-02
9.10E-03
9.69E-02
3.88E+00
(Jungbluth, Chudacoff et al. 2007)
Ethanol, Corn, 95%
lb
3.18E-02
-1.99E-02
8.46E-05
4.25E-03
4.69E-04
3.03E-03
4.32E+00
(Kellenberger, Althaus et al. 2007)
Ethanol, Corn, 99.7%
lb
3.24E-02
5.91E-02
8.70E-05
4.31E-03
4.72E-04
3.10E-03
4.35E+00
(Doka 2009)
Ethanol, Petroleum, 99.7%
lb
2.05E-02
1.25E+00
5.89E-05
1.99E-03
2.77E-04
2.14E-03
4.16E+00
(Hischier 2007; PlasticsEurope 2014)
Granular activated carbon, primary
lb
3.56E-02
4.82E+00
6.57E-04
7.93E-02
9.87E-04
1.28E-01
1.53E+00
(USEPA 2010)
Granular activated carbon, regenerated
lb
8.73E-03
1.70E+00
6.71E-04
7.33E-03
8.86E-04
1.29E-02
1.20E+00
(USEPA 2010; He 2012)
Gravel/Sand Mix, 65% Gravel
lb
2.48E-05
2.40E-03
3.08E-07
1.80E-05
2.61E-06
4.52E-06
1.71E-01
(Kellenberger, Althaus etal.2007)
Hazardous Waste Incineration
lb
6.09E-03
2.43E+00
8.70E-05
1.60E-03
2.09E-04
1.67E-03
3.77E+00
(Kellenberger, Althaus etal.2007)
High Density Polyethylene
lb
3.32E-02
1.94E+00
6.41E-05
3.25E-03
4.39E-04
4.09E-03
3.88E+00
(Eurobitume 2012; Athena 2005)
Hydrogen Peroxide, 50% in H20
lb
9.79E-03
1.19E+00
6.29E-05
1.42E-03
3.08E-04
2.40E-03
2.35E+01
(Sutter 2007)
Iron (II) Sulfate
lb
1.47E-03
1.67E-01
2.30E-05
3.16E-04
1.03E-04
5.89E-04
7.44E-01
(Althaus, Chudacoff et al. 2007)
Lime, Hydrated, Packed
lb
2.06E-03
7.62E-01
6.57E-06
5.13E-04
1.30E-04
3.58E-04
2.94E-01
(Hischier 2007; PlasticsEurope 2015)
Phosphoric Acid, 70% in H20
lb
6.70E-03
8.82E-01
1.63E-04
2.82E-03
1.71E-03
2.94E-02
1.61E+01
(Marceau, Nisbet et al. 2006)
Polyvinyl Chloride
lb
2.62E-02
2.02E+00
3.75E-04
4.00E-03
3.72E-04
2.74E-03
5.79E+01
(Classen, Althaus et al. 2009)
Portland cement, US average
lb
1.39E-02
1.34E+00
9.70E-04
6.54E-03
3.78E-03
1.04E-02
7.73E-01
(Bhargava and Sirabian 2013; He 2012; USEPA 2010)
Potassium Permanganate
lb
9.81E-03
1.16E+00
1.22E-04
2.34E-03
4.22E-04
3.20E-03
7.45E+00
(Marceau, Nisbet et al. 2006)
Ready-mixed concrete, 20 MPa
ft3
2.17E-01
1.95E+01
1.41E-02
9.75E-02
5.70E-02
1.54E-01
3.32E+01
(Bhargava and Sirabian 2013; He 2012; USEPA 2010)
Round Gravel
lb
2.48E-05
2.40E-03
3.08E-07
1.80E-05
2.61E-06
4.52E-06
1.71E-01
(Kellenberger,Althaus etal.2007)
Sand
lb
2.48E-05
2.40E-03
3.08E-07
1.80E-05
2.61E-06
4.52E-06
1.71E-01
(Kellenberger,Althaus etal.2007)
Sodium Hydroxide, 50% in H20
lb
9.77E-03
1.09E+00
1.29E-04
1.94E-03
4.03E-04
3.52E-03
1.39E+01
(Althaus, Chudacoff et al. 2007)
37
-------
3.0 Transportation and Onsite Equipment
3.1 Methodology
Emissions and activity factors were created by developing life cycle models that combined data from a variety of
sources. Emission factors are in the form of emissions or energy use per gallon fuel consumed. The activity factors
are used to relate fuel consumption to equipment or vehicle activity, and are in the form of activity per gallon fuel
(e.g., hp-hr./gallon for on-site equipment). The designation of equipment and vehicle classes for which factors
are provided was specified by the SEFA project team in Region 9 and OSWER.
The overall workflow for the calculation of the emission and activity factors is summarized in Figure 23. The
details are described in the following sections.
vac
IHC
BIS and FHWA
NMIM
MOVES 2014
Fuel
production tCi
FED LCI unit
process
template
Figure 23. Workflow for SEFA emission and activity factor calculations.
3,1,1 Fuel Production and Distribution Data
A petroleum refinery and distribution model developed within EPA ORD's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory and described in a peer-reviewed manuscript (Sengupta, Hawkins et al., 2015) was used as the primary
source of data for developing emissions factors for conventional diesel, gasoline, and liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG), which are all petroleum refinery co-products. This model includes a unique petroleum refinery process
model based on national average emissions data. Original US data for distribution to a storage terminal and final
dispensing station are included. These data are supplemented by upstream processes from the USLCI (NREL,
2008) for crude oil extraction and processes for other materials and infrastructure from the Ecoinvent 2.2
(Weidema & Hischier, 2012) databases. Electricity used at the refinery is based on another NRMRL LCI model
described in Ingwersen et al (Ingwersen, Gausman et al., 2016). For compressed natural gas (CNG) fuels, which
are not sourced from petroleum, we used USLCI natural gas processes to describe natural gas production and
refining and estimated electricity consumption required to compress the gas. CNG compression energy was
assumed to be 2% of the inherent energy content of the fuel and electricity was assumed to be the energy source
(Sinor, 1992). The CNG and LPG processes do not include transportation processes between the manufacturer
and the point-of-sale, but based on analysis of petroleum life cycles these stages are not expected to play a
38
-------
significant role in life cycle emissions (Vineyard & Ingwersen, 2015), so the expected effects on results are
negligible.
3,1.2 MOVES Model Runs for On-site Equipment and Transport Data
Data for creating the on-site equipment and transportation data were derived primarily from the Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator model (USEPA, 2014c), a model constructed and maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. MOVES runs were performed to
gather data on projected emissions for the average fleet performance for 2015, both in onroad and nonroad (on-
site) applications. A MOVES RunSpec was set up to specify application type (onroad/nonroad), vehicle class
(vehicle weight and fuel type) for onroad or engine specifications (equipment category, fuel type, horsepower,
number of strokes) for nonroad, calculation type (inventory/emission rate), geographic scale, time scale, source
use, data aggregation options (see Supporting Data). The onroad runs were all set to aggregate emissions
quantities annually on a national scale for the year 2015. Nonroad runs in MOVES 2014 are based on the
incorporation of a limited version of the EPA NONROAD 2008 model that only calculates emissions on a per
day basis. For onroad, personal transport vehicles were captured in one run, which included all passenger cars
and passenger trucks using gasoline or diesel fuel. Light commercial trucks were in a separate run, but were used
to represent the LHD and MHD diesel pickup trucks used for personal transport. Additionally, there were runs
for heavy duty trucks (combination, and single-units trucks). The nonroad emissions were generated using a single
MOVES NONROAD run for typical equipment in the Construction and Industrial categories.
The output tables for MOVES simulations were generated as MySQL databases, from which the specific data
desired was extracted using MySQL queries. The MOVES output contained emission data described with a series
of identification codes for such things as pollutant type, equipment classification, day of the week, and month of
the year. As part of the querying process, identification coding data from a run output table were used to extract
corresponding descriptors from the default MOVES2014 input tables so that a custom output table could be
created that displayed quantities and names instead of ID numbers. The output of the queries were saved as CSV
files and imported into a spreadsheet where they were further processed and aggregated.
Given the nonroad runs generated emissions in terms of a typical weekday or weekend within each month of the
year, annual emission quantities were obtained by first calculating the emissions for an average day within a
month by multiplying the weekday value by 5/7 and the weekend value by 2/7 and summing the two values
together. Each average daily value for a month was then multiplied by the number of days reported for that month
in the MOVES NONROAD input tables to obtain the average monthly emissions. Finally, the average monthly
emissions were summed across a year to obtain the annual emission rate. This method was based on instructions
from the EPA MOVES team (E.E. Glover, personal communication, September 2, 2015).
For the returned nonroad results generated by MOVES, an additional carbon (C) mass balance check and filtering
of records was performed after it was noted that C balance was not preserved in all cases. The fuel C content is
reported in the MOVES database for each fuel type. It was assumed the total C in the emissions was made up of
>99% from CO2 and CO. Thus, the total C contained in CO2 and CO should sum approximately to the fuel C
(mass balance constraint). Based on this assumption, the total mass of carbon in the emissions per kg of fuel
consumed was calculated for the various horsepower ranges and compared to the C in the fuels based using the
following equations.
39
-------
„ ,. n , Cemissions /Fuel Ratio
C Mass Balance = — ————;—
Cexpected /Fuel Ratio
[1]
= [C°2] X (44 kgC02) + [C0] X (28 kg CO) fcflf C
Lemissions [BSFC] kg Fuel L J
( kg C \
C"»""¦> = ^"Content {MJ of Fuel Energy)
(MJ of Fuel Energy\ kg C [31
x enerqyContent :—-— = -—-—-
V kg Fuel J kg Fuel
where, BSFC is the MOVES output for fuel consumption in kg.
The C mass balance ratio was found to deviate >20% from the expected value of one for a number of equipment
classes. Due to these discrepancies, only the equipment classes that met mass balance criteria were factored into
the calculation of emission and activity factors reported here. For diesel, 4-stroke gasoline, and compressed
natural gas engines, the only equipment classes with C mass balance within 5% of the expected values were used.
For 2-stroke gasoline engines, this had to be expanded to values within 10% to capture any equipment, and for
liquefied petroleum gas equipment it was expanded to values within 15%. A weighted average by hp-hr. was then
performed for the average emission and activity factors for each equipment class.
3.1.3 Additional Calculations for On-site Equipment and On-road Vehicles
MOVES reports total PM2.5 and PM10. Since PMioemission quantities include particles < 2.5 [j,m (PM2.5), the
quantity of just PM10 was included in the PM factors developed to avoid double counting.
For nonroad processes, only nine emissions are reported by MOVES, and these do not include the specific volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), some of which are EPA hazardous air pollutants. The Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons
(THC) reported in MOVES was used to calculate the emission factors for specific volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) using specific VOC/THC factors (e.g., xylene/THC) from the National Mobile Emissions Model
(USEPA, 2015a).
40
-------
Locomotive emissions factors for PM, THC, and NOx were derived from a 2009 EPA report "Emission factors
for locomotive engines" (USEPA, 2009). Factors for other emissions including CO2, SO2, and HAP were adapted
from the emission factors developed for the largest diesel engine class (>1200 hp) in the nonroad model.
The truck activity factors in ton-miles cargo transported/gallon were estimated from national statistics and the
MOVES fuel economy values as described below.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported total truck ton-miles and fuel consumption for 2011, but these
statistics were not provided specifically for combination trucks (class 8) and single-unit trucks (class 6-7).
Combination truck and single-unit truck ton-mile/gal factors were then estimated as proportional to the gross
weights (tons carried plus vehicle weights) and total miles traveled that were reported from an earlier date (2002).
The following equations were used to make these calculations:
' tmg
CT
0 1 gtmg
ST
u 1 gtmg
J ~ P ST tmg
[4]
gtmg
[5]
CTgt * CTvmt
[6]
CT gal
STgt * STvmt
[7]
ST gal
CTtmg = Combination truck ton-mile/gallon
STtmg = Single unit truck ton-mile/gallon
p = Combination truck gross ton-mile/gall on/short ton-mile gallon
Ttmg = Total truck ton-miles/gallon.
CTgtmg = Combination truck gross ton-mile/gallon
STgtmg = Single unit truck gross ton-mile/gallon
CTgt = Combination truck gross tons
STgt = Single unit truck gross tons
CTwt = Combination truck vehicle miles traveled
STvmt = Single unit truck vehicle miles traveled
CTgai = Combination truck gallons consumed
STgai = Single unit truck gallons consumed
Ttmg was provided by the combination of BTS (ton-miles) andFHWA(gallons) (BTS, 2015; FHWA, 2015). Gross
weights and vehicle miles traveled for the two trucks types were provided for combination and short trucks by
the BTS (BTS, 2015). The same sources provided the ton-mile/gallon ratio for freight, but no breakdown of into
subtypes was necessary.
3.2 Modeling in the Federal LCI Data Template and openLCA
Data from the above sources were compiled into life cycle inventory (LCI) unit processes using the current EPA
version of the Federal LCI unit process template. All chemical emission names, categories and units were
41
-------
harmonized using the Beta 1 version of the LCA Harmonization Tool (Ingwersen, Transue et al.). The Excel® to
OLCA program was then used to import the unit processes into an openLCA 1.4.2 database. Models were
compiled and managed in the open-source life cycle assessment software OpenLCA 1.4.2 (GreenDelta, 2015).
An openLCA "product system" was made from each unit process model. The product systems were further
imported into their respective openLCA "Projects" from which results were calculated by creating project reports.
Report results were copied into the final master dataset spreadsheet file.
3.3 Emission Factor Results for Vehicles and Equipment
3.3.1 Dataset File
The full dataset is available upon request in the file "Fuel, Equipment and Transport Emission and Activity Factors
for SEFA.xlsx" The resulting factors are summarized in Section 1.1.
3.3.2 Supporting Data
The following files are available as supporting data to the dataset and are available upon request. These include
File name
Description
SEF Afuel eq uiptransportfactors. zol ca
openLCA database
SEFAfuelequiptransportfactors templates.zip
The Federal LCI unit process templates
SEFAfuelequiptransportfactors MOVESrunspecs.zip
MOVES 2014 run file
SEFAfuelequiptransportfactors MOVESsqlresults.zip
SQL queries for MOVES output databases
SEFAfuelequiptransportfactors_supportingExcel.zip
Results of SQL queries and emissions data
processing for Fed LCI template incorporation
42
-------
3.4 SEFA Vehicle and Equipment Emission Factory Summary
Table 20. Summary of SEFA Emission Factors for Vehicle and Equipment Operations
Emission Factors
Activity Factors
Energy
Used
GHG
Emitted
NOx
Emitted
SOx
Emitted
PM
Emitte
d
HAPs
Emitted
Factor
Value
Item or Activity Fuel
Unit
MMBtu
lbs C02e
lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
FuelS Upstream1' ^ept where noted
Fuel production and distribution to retail Diesel
Fuel production and distribution to retail Gasoline
gal
0.156
3.02
0.0051
0.0062
0.0017
0.0011
NA
gal
0.157
2.80
0.0046
0.0050
0.0015
0.0010
NA
Liquefied Petroleum
Fuel production and distribution to retail Gas
gal
0.088
1.47
0.0016
0.0024
0.0007
0.0003
NA
Compressed Natural
Fuel production and distribution to retail Gas2
ccf
19.983
343.92
0.4732
2.1651
0.1846
0.2895
NA
On-site equipment use3
equipment operation, < 25 hp Diesel
gal
NA
22.20
0.170
0.00015
0.016
0.00004
hp-hr./gal
16.4
equipment operation, > 25 hp and < 75 hp Diesel
gal
NA
22.22
0.143
0.00014
0.013
0.00004
hp-hr./gal
16.3
equipment operation, > 75 hp and < 750 hp Diesel
gal
NA
22.24
0.101
0.00013
0.009
0.00004
hp-hr./gal
18.2
equipment operation, > 750 hp and < 1200 hp Diesel
gal
NA
22.24
0.157
0.00013
0.006
0.00004
hp-hr./gal
18.8
equipment operation, > 1200 hp Diesel
gal
NA
22.24
0.141
0.00013
0.006
0.00004
hp-hr./gal
18.8
equipment operation, < 25 hp Gasoline
gal
NA
17.48
0.037
0.00025
0.165
0.00008
hp-hr./gal
0.0002
equipment operation, > 25 hp and < 75 hp Gasoline
gal
NA
19.93
0.032
0.00029
0.002
0.00009
hp-hr./gal
12.9
equipment operation, > 75 hp and < 750 hp Gasoline
gal
NA
19.93
0.032
0.00029
0.002
0.00009
hp-hr./gal
12.9
Liquefied Petroleum
equipment operation, > 25 hp and < 75 hp Gas
gal
NA
12.69
0.021
0.00013
0.001
0
hp-hr./gal
10.4
Liquefied Petroleum
equipment operation, > 75 hp and < 750 hp _
Gas
gal
NA
12.69
0.021
0.00013
0.001
0
hp-hr./gal
10.4
43
-------
Emission Factors
Activity Factors
Energy
GHG
NOx
SOx
PM
Emitte
HAPs
Factor
Value
Used
Emitted
Emitted
Emitted
d
Emitted
Item or Activity
| Fuel
Unit
MMBtu
lbs C02e
lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
Compressed Natural
equipment operation, > 25 hp and < 75 hp
Gas
ccf
NA
1953.25
16.153
0.02299
0.281
0
hp-hr./ccf
2031.0
Compressed Natural
equipment operation, > 75 hp and < 750 hp
Gas
ccf
NA
1962.42
15.912
0.02310
0.274
0
hp-hr./ccf
2031.0
Personal Transport3
passenger car, gasoline
Gasoline
gal
NA
19.77
0.027
0.00036
0.003
0.00670
miles/gal
25.0
passenger car, diesel
Diesel
gal
NA
22.57
0.015
0.00020
0.003
0.00252
miles/gal
28.4
passenger car, fleet average
Gasoline/diesel mix
gal
NA
19.79
0.027
0.00036
0.003
0.00668
miles/gal
25.0
passenger truck, gasoline
Gasoline
gal
NA
19.79
0.035
0.00036
0.003
0.00661
miles/gal
18.9
passenger truck, diesel
Diesel
gal
NA
22.54
0.055
0.00020
0.006
0.00244
miles/gal
15.1
passenger truck, fleet average
gasoline/diesel mix
gal
NA
19.85
0.036
0.00036
0.003
0.00655
miles/gal
18.8
work truck, LHD and MHD
Diesel
gal
NA
22.55
0.062
0.00020
0.008
0.00277
miles/gal
15.7
Transport of Goods and Services3 except where noted
combination truck
Diesel
gal
NA
22.53
0.122
0.00020
0.011
0.00205
ton-
mile/gal
65.24,5
single-unit truck
Diesel
gal
NA
22.52
0.088
0.00020
0.012
0.00196
ton-
mile/gal
31.04'5
freight train
Diesel
gal
NA
25.26
0.307s
0.00634
0.009s
0.00444s
ton-
mile/gal
465.14'5
Notes. LHD = Light-heavy duty; MHD = Medium-heavy duty; NA = not applicable.
The number of decimal places presented is for presentation purposes but the precise number of significant figures could not be determined due to the use of numerous data
sources where these were not reported.
Sources: (1) Sengupta et al. 2014 (2) NREL 2008 (3) USEPA 2014c (4) BTS 2015 (5) FHWA 2015 (6) EPA 2009
44
-------
4.0 Conclusions
The material and chemical emission factors developed in this report provide a reasonable estimate
for conducting site-based environmental footprint analyses that account for upstream emissions.
The ErnFs were derived from currently available life cycle inventory datasets developed for
commercial databases, industry trade associations, and scholarly publications. The advantage of
such sources is they provide datasets that have undergone more review to increase their reliability.
Although the datasets are suitable for current use, future work should focus on replacing EmFs
based on European datasets with data more consistent with US conditions. This may include the
need to include global datasets to reflect importation of materials.
The vehicle and equipment emission factors constitute a significant contribution to improving the
performance of SEFA. For the first time, numerous vehicle and equipment options have been
modeled using a consistent approach based on emission profile simulations using US EPA's
MOVES model. The approach presented in this report is easily reproducible and will make future
updates to the factors much more feasible and manageable. The resulting EmFs provide adequate
coverage for most vehicle and equipment options associated with remediation sites. Further
enhancement of SEFA based on these factors can be made during future updates to the workbooks
by increasing the number of factors maintained and aggregating vehicles and equipment at finer
resolutions. Uncertainty related to engine power could be reduced by further refining the
horsepower category ranges and/or associated cutoff values.
5.0 References
Althaus, H., Chudacoff, M., Hischier, R., Jungbluth, N., Osses, M., & Primas, A. (2007). Life
Cycle Inventories of Chemicals Ecoinvent report No. 8, v2.0. In Swiss Centre for Life
Cycle Inventories (Ed.). Diibendorf, Switzerland.
American Chemistry Council. (2015). Chlorine Production. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
http://chlorine.americanchemistrv.eom/FAOs/Chlorine-Production
ASTM. (2013a). ASTM E2876-13, Standard Guide for Integrating Sustainable Objectives into
Cleanup. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM. (2013b). ASTM E2893-13el, Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM. (2013c). Standard Terminology Relating to Materials for Roads and Pavements, ASTM
Designation D8-13b Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
BCC Research. (2015). Hazardous Waste Management: Technologies, Services And Global
Markets. Wellesley, MA: BCC Research.
Brunette, P., & Schmednecht, E. (1994). Vibrating beam, curtain wall and jet grouting used to
form a vertical barrier wall. Ground Eng.
BTS. (2015). National transportation statistics. Table 1-50: U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight. . from
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national transportation
statistics/html/table 01 50.html
45
-------
Burson, B., Baker, A., Jones, B., & Shailer, J. (1997). Development and installation of an
innovative verticle containment system: Industrial Fabrics Association International, St.
Paul, MN (United States).
Calvert, J.G., & Stockwell, W.R. (1983). Acid generation in the troposphere by gas-phase
chemistry. Environmental Science & Technology, 17(9), 428A-443A. doi:
10.1021/es00115a727
Carus Corporation. (2009). Product Safety Summary-Sodium And Potassium Permanganates.
Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
http://vvvvvv.caruscorporation.eom/resources/content/5/l/documents/safetvsummarvperma
imanateJune09.pdf
Classen, M., Althaus, H., Blaser, S., Scharnhorst, W., Tuchschmid, M., Jungbluth, N., &
Emmenegger, M.F. (2007). Life cycle inventories of metals. Final report ecoinvent data
v2. 0(10), 1945.
Creegan, P.J., & Monismith, C.L. (1996). Asphalt-concrete water barriers for embankment
dams. New York: ASCE Press.
Doka, G. (2009). Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services ecoinvent report No. 13. .
In Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (Ed.). St. Gallen, Switzerland.
EAA. (2013). Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry- Life Cycle
Inventory data for aluminium production and transformation processes in Europe. In E.
A. Association (Ed.).
EIPPCB. (2001). Best Available Techniques Reference Document -Ferrous Metals Processing
Industry. Seville, Spain: European Commission Joint Research Centre.
Eithe, A.W., & Koerner, G.R. (1997). Assessment of HDPE geomembrane performance in a
municipal waste landfill double liner system after eight years of service. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 75(4), 277-287.
Eurobitume. (2012). Life Cycle Inventory: Bitumen.
FHWA. (2015). Freight Facts and Figures 2013. Table 5-7. Fuel Consumption by Transportation
Mode: 2007-2011. .
Fischer, I., Schmitt, W.F., Porth, H.C., Allsopp, M.W., & Vianello, G. (2014). Poly(Vinyl
Chloride) Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &
Co. KGaA.
Frank, W.B., Haupin, W.E., Vogt, H., Bruno, M., Thonstad, J., Dawless, R.K., Kvande, H., &
Taiwo, O.A. (2000). Aluminum Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-
VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Gabarrell, X., Font, M., Vicent, T., Caminal, G., Sarra, M., & Blanquez, P. (2012). A
comparative life cycle assessment of two treatment technologies for the Grey Lanaset G
textile dye: biodegradation by Trametes versicolor and granular activated carbon
adsorption. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 77(5), 613-624.
Gard, D.R. (2005). Phosphoric Acids and Phosphates Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gee, G.W., & Wing, N.R. (1993). The Development of Permanent Isolation Surface Barriers
HanfordSite, Richland, Washington. Washington, D.C.
46
-------
Ghanta, M., Fahey, D., & Subramaniam, B. (2014). Environmental impacts of ethylene
production from diverse feedstocks and energy sources. Applied Petrochemical Research,
4(2), 167-179. doi: 10.1007/sl3203-013-0029-7
Green Delta. (2015). OpenLCA 1.4.2. http://www.openlca.org
He, K. (2012). A Calculation of the Environmental Footprint of a Granular Activated Carbon
Regeneration Facility. (Environmental Science Senior Thesis), University of California
at Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Hischier, R. (2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Packaging and Graphical Papers. Ecoinvent-
ReportNo. 11, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Diibendorf, Switzerland.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hendriks, H.W.M., Hungerbiihler, K., &
Hendriks, A.J. (2010). Cumulative Energy Demand As Predictor for the Environmental
Burden of Commodity Production. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(6), 2189-
2196. doi: 10.1021/es902870s
Ingwersen, W., Gausman, M., Weisbrod, A.V., Sengupta, D., Lee, S.-J., Bare, J.C., Zanoli, E.,
Bhander, G.S., & Ceja, M. (2016). Detailed Life Cycle Assessment of Bounty® Paper
Towel Operations in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149
Ingwersen, W., Transue, T., Howard, T., Fowler, C., Meyer, D.E., Kahn, E., & Arbuckle, P.
(2015). The LCA Harmonization Tool. Paper presented at the LCA XV, Vancouver,
British Columbia, CA.
IPCC. (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Retrieved June 1, 2015,
from http://unfccc.int/ghg data/items/3825.php
ISO. (1998). ISO 14041:1998 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Goal and
scope definition and inventory analysis: International Standards Organization.
ISO. (2000). ISO 14043:2000 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle
interpretation: International Standards Organization.
ISO. (2006a). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles
and framework: International Standards Organization.
ISO. (2006b). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment —
Requirements and guidelines: International Standards Organization.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). (2011). Green and Sustainable
Remediation: State of the Science and Practice GSR-1. Washington D.C.
Jungbluth, N., Chudacoff, M., Dauriat, A., Dinkel, F., Doka, G., Faist Emmenegger, M.,
Gnansounou, E., Kljun, N., Schleiss, K., Spielmann, M., Stettler, C., & Sutter, J. (2007).
Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy ecoinvent report No. 17. Duebendorf and St. Gallen,
Switzerland: Ecoinvent Centre- Swiss Centre of Life Cycle Inventories.
Kellenberger, D., Althaus, H., Jungbluth, N., Kunniger, T., Lehmann, M., & Thalmann, P.
(2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Building Products. Final Report Ecoinvent Data v2.0
No. 7 (Vol. 22). Duebendorf, Switzerland: Ecoinvent Centre- Swiss Centre of Life Cycle
Inventories.
Leeson, A., Beevar, E., Henry, B., Fortenberry, J., & Coyle, C. (2004). Principles and Practices
of Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. Defense Technical
Information Center.
47
-------
Linak, E., & Inui, Y. (2002). CEH Marketing Research Report-Chlorine/Sodium Hydroxide
Chemical Economics Handbook. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute,.
Marceau, M., Nisbet, M.A., & Van Geem, M.G. (2006). Life cycle inventory of portland cement
manufacture: Portland Cement Association Skokie, IL.
McDonough, S.T., Woodward, D.S., Doherty, M.J., & Underhill, S.A. (2013). NYSDEC's DER-
31/Green Remediation Policy Influences Tool Development and Global Program.
Remediation Journal, 23(2), 121-125. doi: 10.1002/rem.21352
Nisbet, M.A. (2000). Environmental life cycle inventory of portland cement concrete: Portland
Cement Association Skokie.
Norsk Hydro. (2012). Aluminum, Environment, and Society. Oslo, Norway.
NREL. (2008). U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database, version 1.6.0. Golden, CO, USA: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Pisarczyk, K. (2005). Manganese Compounds Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Plastic News. (2013). Global HDPE market to reach $70 billion by 2019. Retrieved June 15,
2015, from http://vvvvvv.plasticsnevvs.com/article/201303 12/NEWS/1303 19979/global-
hdpe-market-to-reach-70-billion-bv-2019
PlasticsEurope. (2014). Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European
Plastics Manufacturers-High-density Polyethylene (HDPE), Low-density Polyethylene
(LDPE), Linear Low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE).
Reidies, A.H. (2000). Manganese Compounds Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
RFA. (2015). Renewable Fuels Assocation: Data Statistics. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics
Sanders, R.E. (2012). Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schrodter, K., Bettermann, G., Staffel, T., Wahl, F., Klein, T., & Hofmann, T. (2000).
Phosphoric Acid and Phosphates Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Sengupta, D., Hawkins, T.R., & Smith, R.L. (2015). Using national inventories for estimating
environmental impacts of products from industrial sectors: a case study of ethanol and
gasoline. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(5), 597-607.
Sinor, J. (1992). Comparison of CNG and LNG technologies for transportation applications.
Final subcontract report, June 1991—December 1991: National Renewable Energy Lab.,
Golden, CO (United States); Sinor (JE) Consultants, Inc., Niwot, CO (United States).
Solomon, S. (2007). Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I
contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4): Cambridge University
Press.
Stolzenberg, A.M. (2000). Iron Compounds Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sutter, J. (2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Petrochemical Solvents, ecoinvent report No. 22.
Duebendorf and St. Gallen, Switzerland: Ecoinvent Centre- Swiss Centre of Life Cycle
Inventories.
48
-------
The Freedonia Group. (2013). World Aluminum: Industry Study with Forecasts for 2017 &
2022. Study #3070. Cleveland, OH.
USEPA. (1993a). Background Report for AP-42 Section 8.9, Phosphoric AcidAP 42, Fifth
Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: Prepared by Pacific Environmental Services for
USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/index.html.
USEPA. (1993b). Background Report for AP-42 Section 11.21, Phosphate Rock ProcessingAP
42, Fifth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/index.html.
USEPA. (1993c). Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles, EPA/600/R-
92/245. In Office of Research and Development (Ed.). Washington DC.
USEPA. (1995a). Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.19.1 Sand and Gravel
Processing. Research Triangle Park, NC: Prepared by Midwest Research Inistitute for
USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Retrieved from
http://vvvvvv.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/index.html.
USEPA. (1995b). Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis,
EPA530-R-95-010. In Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Ed.).
Washington DC.
USEPA. (1996). Proposed Plan for Remedial Action Fields Brook Superfund Site
Floodplain/Wetland Area. Chicago, Illinois: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. (2006). Life Cycle Assessment:Principles And Practice, EPA/600/R-06/060. Cincinnati,
OH.
USEPA. (2008a). Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Superfund Cleanups -
Draft report. In Prepared by Environmental Management Support for the USEPA (Ed.).
USEPA. (2008b). Green Remediation Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into
Remediation of Contaminated Sites.EPA 542-R-08-002, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. (2009). Emission Factors for Locomotives.
USEPA. (2010a). Environmental Footprint Analysis of Three Potential Remedies BP Wood
River Wood River, Illinois. Retrieved from
https://vvvvvv.cluin.org/greenremediation/bpvvoodriver/docs/final BP report 111510.pdf.
USEPA. (2010b). Environmental Footprint Analysis Of Three Potential Remedies Former Romic
Environmental Technologies Corporation Facility East Palo Alto, California In Prepared
by GeoTrans and Tetratech for the USEPA (Ed.).
USEPA. (2010c). U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory, 2010.
USEPA. (2011). Environmental Footprint Analysis Of Four Potential Remedies Site Dp039,
Travis Air Force Base Fairfield, California. In Prepared by Tetra Tech GEO for the
USEPA (Ed ).
USEPA. (2012a). Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental
Footprint. (EPA 542-R-12-002). Retrieved from
www.cluin.org/greenremediation/methodology.
USEPA. (2012b). Second report to Congress : highlights of the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Program. Washington DC: Retrieved from
http://nepis.epa.gov/E\e/ZvPURL.cgi?Dockev=P 100GDJC.txt.
49
-------
USEPA. (2013a). Comparison Of Footprint Quantification Tools Relative To Each Other And
The EPA Footprint Methodology. Alameda Point OU-2B, California.
USEPA. (2013b). Evaluation of the Environmental Footprint of the Record of Decision Remedy-
Comparison of Four Different Tools Grants- Chlorinated Solvents Plume Site Grants
Cibola County New Mexico.
USEPA. (2013c). Green and Sustainable Remediation Strategies Environmental Footprint Pilot
Study. Retrieved from https://clu-
in.org/greenremediation/docs/FINAL GSR MOU Report (Dec 18 2013).pdf.
USEPA. (2014a). Environmental Footprint Analysis Of Steam Enhanced Extraction Remedy
Former Williams Air Force Base Site St012 Mesa Az Report No EPA 542-R-14-004,. In
Prepared by Tetratech for the USEPA (Ed.).
USEPA. (2014b). Modifications To The 112b Hazardous Air Pollutants. Retrieved December 5,
2014, from http://www.epa.gov/ttnatwO 1 /pollutants/atwsmod.html
USEPA. (2014c). Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) 2014 version.
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/
USEPA. (2015a). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants.
USEPA. (2015b). Potassium permanganate, from
http://vvvvvv.epa.gov/ogvvdvv/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt 5.pdf
USEPA Region 7. (2015). EPA Region 7 Green Cleanup Policy, from https://clu-
in.org/greenretnediation/docs/R.7 GR Policy April2015.pdf
USGS. (2014). Mineral Commodity Summaries - 2014-Aluminum. Retrieved from
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/lime/.
USITC. (2010). Potassium Permanganate from China; Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Third
Review). Washington DC.
Vineyard, D., & Ingwersen, W. (2015). Comparison of petroleum life cycle models. Paper
presented at the LCA XV, Vancouver, British Columbia, CA.
Wayne, R.S. (1988). The Photochemistry of Ozone. In O. Hutzinger (Ed.), The Handbook of
Environmental Chemistry, 2nd ed., Reactions and Processes. Berlin: Springer.
Weidema, B., & Hischier, R. (2012). ecoinvent data v2.2.
Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., Vadenbo, C.O., &
Wernet, G. (2013). Overview and Methodology- Data Quality Guideline for the
ecoinvent database version 3 (final) ecoinvent report No. I(v3), St. Gallen, May 6 2013.
St. Gallen, Switzerland: The ecoinvent Centre.
Werner, F., Althaus, H., Kiinniger, T., Richter, K., & Jungbluth, N. (2007). Life cycle
inventories of wood as fuel and construction material. Ecoinvent report, 9.
Wildermuth, E., Stark, H., Friedrich, G., Ebenhoch, F.L., Kiihborth, B., Silver, J., & Rituper, R.
(2000). Iron Compounds Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Worldwatch Institute. (2007). Renewables 2007 Global Status Report.
50
-------
6.0 Appendix 1
openLCA
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,2,4-trichlorob enzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dioxane
2,4,5 -trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2-chloro-1 -phenylethanone
3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine
4-aminobiphenyl
4-methyl-2-pentanone
4-nitrophenol
acetaldehyde
acetamide
acetonitrile
acetophenone
acrolein
acrylic acid
acrylonitrile
aniline
antimony (III)
antimony and antimony compounds
aresenic (V)
arsenic (III)
arsenic and arsenic compounds
arsine
asbestos
benzene
benzidine
benzyl chloride
beryllium
beryllium (II)
biphenyl
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
bromoform
bromomethane
butadiene
cadmium
cadmium (II)
carbon disulfide
catechol
cesium-137
chlorine
chloroacetic acid
Hazardous Air Pollutants included in
chlorobenzene
chloroethene
chloroform
chromium (III)
chromium (VI)
chromium and chromium compounds
cobalt (II)
cobalt and cobalt compunds
cobalt-60
cresol
cumene
cyanide and cyanide compounds
dibenzofuran
dibutylphthalate
dichlorobenzene
dichloromethane
diethanolamine
dimethyl formamide
dimethyl sulfate
dimethylphthalate
dioxins (as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
dioxins and furans, unspecified
epichlorohydrin
ethyl acrylate
ethylbenzene
ethylene glycol
ethylene oxide
formaldehyde
hexachlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
hexane
hydrazine
hydrogen chloride
hydrogen fluoride
hydroquinone
iodine-129
iodine-131
iodine-133
iodine-135
lead (II)
lead and lead compounds
manganese and manganese compounds
mercury (II)
mercury and mercury compounds
methanol
methyl methacrylate
methylhydrazine
monochloroethane
m-xylene
naphthalene
nickel (II)
nickel and nickel compounds
nitrobenzene
o-anisidine
o-cresol
o-toluidine
o-xylene
PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB-1
PCB-155
PCB-77 (3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl)
p-cresol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
phosphine
phosphorus
plutonium-23 8
plutonium-alpha
polychlorinated biphenyls
propanal
propylene oxide
p-xylene
radium-226
radium-228
radon-220
radon-222
selenium
selenium (IV)
styrene
t-butyl methyl ether
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloromethane
thorium-228
thorium-230
thorium-232
thorium-234
toluene
trichloroethene
triethyl amine
trifluralin
uranium
uranium-234
uranium-235
uranium-238
uranium-alpha
vinyl acetate
xylene
51
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Offal Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |