Eco-indicator 95 reports

The Eco-indicator 95Weighting method for environmental effects that damage ecosystemsor human health on a European scale.Contains 100 indicators for important materials and processes.Final ReportEffectCOSOPbGreenhouse effectOzone layer depl.EutrophicationWinter smogCFCHealthFatalitiesEcosystemImpactHeavy metalsPesticidesCarcinogenicsSummer smogimpairmentimpairmentAcidificationValuationSubjectiveassessmentDamagedamagePAHDDTVOCNODustCdPEco-indicatorvalueResult22xOn the initiative of:• Nederlandse Philips bedrijven BV• Océ Nederland BV• Netherlands Car BV• Machinefabriek Fred A. Schuurink BVWith the cooperation of:• University of Leiden (CML)• University of Amsterdam (IDES, Environmental Research)• Technical University of Delft (Industrial Design Engineering)• Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology Delft• TNO Product Centre• Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM)Author:Mark Goedkoop of PRé ConsultantsThe Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportiiColophonContract number: 353194 / 1711The Eco-indicator 95, Final ReportThis project was carried out and financed under the auspices of the National Reuse of WasteResearch Programme (NOH). Management and co-ordination of the NOH programme arethe responsibility of:Novem Netherlands agency for energy and the environmentSt. Jacobssstraat 61 P. O. Box 82423503 RE Utrecht the NetherlandsTelephone: +31 (0)30-363444 Project managers: Ms. J. Hoekstra, J. v.d. VeldeRIVM National Institute of Public Health and Environmental ProtectionAntonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9 P. O. Box 13720 BA Bilthoven the NetherlandsTelephone: +31 (0)30-749111 Project manager: G. L. DuvoortThe NOH does not guarantee the correctness and/or completeness of data, designs,constructions, products or production processes included or described in this report or theirsuitability for any specific application.The project was carried out by:• PRé Consultants• DUIJF Consultancy BV1In addition to this final report a manual for designers and an appendix are available. Themanual describes the practical application of the Eco-indicators. The appendix, which isonly available in Dutch, describes the full contribution of the cooperating institutes and thefull impact tables. Additional copies of this report, the manual for designers and theappendix are available from:PRé ConsultantsBergstraat 6 3811 NH Amersfoort the NetherlandsTelephone: +31 (0)33 611046 (as from October 1st +31 (0)33 4611046)Telefax: +31 (0)33 652853 (as from October 1st +31 (0)33 4652853)e-mail: pre@sara.nlNOH report 9523 The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report Dfl. 45.00NOH report 9524 The Eco-indicator 95, Manual for Designers Dfl. 25.00NOH report 9514 A De Eco-indicator 95, bijlagerapport (only in Dutch) Dfl. 55.00The reports 9523 and 9524 are also available in Dutch at the same cost. For shipment abroadFl 20,- postage and packaging costs will be charged extra. The NOH has made it possible togive a discount off the price of reports used for educational purposes.ISBN 90-72130-80-4 1 At 25.1.1995 Duijf Consultancy BV went out of business.The Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportiiiContentsPreface 1Summary 31. Introduction 51.1. Life cycle assessment 51.2. Aim of the project 51.3. Environmentally-aware design 51.4. Project working method 61.5. Project team and supervisory group 71.6. Government policy during this project 82. Life cycle assessment method 102.1. Qualitative methods 102.1.1. Red flag methods 102.1.2. MET matrix 102.2. Scientific basis of life cycle assessment 112.3. Weighting principles 122.3.1. EPS system 122.3.2. Prevention costs of emissions 142.3.3. Energy consumption needed to prevent emissions 142.3.4. Energy consumption as a measure of total environmental pollution 152.3.5. Evaluation by experts (panel method) 162.3.6. Ecopoints 162.4. Requirements for an Eco-indicator weighting method 172.4.1. Goal 172.4.2. Requirements and wishes 172.4.3. Selection of the weighting principle 183. Eco-indicator weighting method 193.1. Weighting according to Distance-to-Target 193.1.1. Policy or science 203.1.1.1. Politically determined target values 213.1.1.2. Scientifically determined target values 213.1.2. Definition of the term "environment" 213.1.2.1. Physical ecosystem degradation 223.1.2.2. Raw materials depletion 223.1.2.3. Space requirement for final waste 233.1.2.4. Toxicity 233.1.3. Definition of the effect scores 243.1.4. Target level and damage 243.1.5. Subjectivity in the weighting 253.2. Development of the weighting principle 273.2.1. Damage-effect correlation 273.2.2. Damage-effect correlation for multiple effects 293.2.3. Damage weighting 313.2.4. Choice of the subjective damage weighting factor w 313.2.5. Conclusion on the weighting method 313.3. Classification and characterisation 313.3.1. Effect score for airborne heavy metals 323.3.2. Effect score for waterborne heavy metals 323.3.3. Carcinogenic substances 333.3.4. Winter smog 333.3.5. Pesticides 333.3.6. Uncertainty 343.3.7. Conclusion 34The Eco-indicator 95 Final Reportiv3.4. Normalisation 343.4.1. European normalisation values 353.4.2. Data sources 353.4.3. Extrapolation of missing impacts 353.4.4. Uncertainty 363.5. Target values 363.5.1. Greenhouse effect 373.5.2. Ozone layer depletion 373.5.3. Acidification 373.5.4. Eutrophication 383.5.5. Summer smog 383.5.6. Heavy metals 383.5.7. Winter smog 393.5.8. Carcinogenic substances 393.5.9. Pesticides 403.5.10. Uncertainty 403.5.11. Summary of the weighting factors 40Conclusion 414. Calculation of the Eco-indicators 434.1. Definition of the objective 434.1.1. Functional unit 434.1.2. Working with average figures 444.2. Description of the inventory phase 454.2.1. System boundaries 454.2.1.1. Material production 464.2.1.2. Energy generation 464.2.1.3. Transport 464.2.1.4. Production processes 464.2.1.5. Waste processes 464.2.2. Geographical distribution and type of technology 484.2.3. Allocation of multiple output processes 494.2.4. Data quality and completeness 494.2.5. Documentation of the data 494.2.6. Uncertainty 495. Use of Eco-indicators 505.1. Test workshop 505.2. List of Eco-indicators 515.3. Assessment form 516. Conclusions 586.1. Weighting method 586.2. The 100 Eco-indicators 586.3. General 58Literature 59Abbreviations 61Annexe 1: Calculation of 100 Eco-indicators 63Annexe 2: Calculation of normalisation values 73Annexe 3: Characterisation values 80Annexe 4: Data sources for inventories. 83The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report1PrefaceEnvironmental care behind the drawing board has been a familiar concept for some years inthe attempt to achieve more environmentally-sound products. But what is the environment,and how do you bring it behind the drawing board? Until now there is no unambiguousmeasure for environmental impacts of products, which makes it difficult to developenvironmentally sound products. For Philips, NedCar, Océ and Schuurink, this prompted therequest to the NOH to start the Eco-indicator project.Our work within the Eco-indicator project as a multidisciplinary team of representativesfrom industry, science and government was to give fundamental and in-depth considerationto the question of what the environment actually is and how we should evaluate theconsequences of impairment of the environment. Do we evaluate this on the basis ofmeasurable damage to ecosystems or on the basis of impairment of human health? Is rawmaterials depletion an environmental problem or is it a different problem? And what shouldbe done with local and transient effects?The outcome of our work is a carefully considered method. It is not a perfect method and itwill certainly be possible to improve it. Within the limitations of our knowledge ofenvironmental problems we have attempted to develop the best method feasible at this time.No more, no less.In addition to the method, which is described in the current report, a list of 100 indicatorsfor commonly used materials and processes has been produced. This list is included it thisreport and in the Manual for Designers, which is a separate publication from this project.This manual describes the application of the Eco-indicators in the design process, thelimitations and the possibilities.In its "Product and the Environment" paper the Dutch Government announced that it wouldbe developing a method in conjunction with organisations from the community to enable theseriousness of environmental effects to be weighted for the purposes of product policy. InSeptember 1994 VROM, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and theEnvironment submitted a proposal for such a weighting method to the Raad voor hetMilieubeheer [Council for Environmental Management]. In November 1994 the Councilresponded positively to this proposal. It recommended though that experiments should becarried out initially before definitively specifying the method. Since the Eco-indicatorcontains all the important features of the VROM proposal this means that the Eco-indicatordovetails perfectly with government policy. It will be possible to specify a definitiveproposal in 1995 on the basis, among other things, of experiments with the Eco-indicator.Sincere thanks are extended to the NOH who had the courage and vision to instigate thisproject at the request of a number of companies. Many thanks are also due to Mr. Sondern.Without his enthusiastic chairmanship this project would probably never have got off theground. The very constructive role of our scientific representatives, Messrs. Sas, Heijungs,Lindeijer and Remmerswaal also merits special mention.Mark GoedkoopThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report2The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report3SummaryLife cycle assessment (LCA) is the most suitable method for determining the environmentalimpacts resulting from a product. However, product developers have two complaints aboutthe use of LCAs:• LCAs are too time-consuming and complex.• The result of an LCA is a number of discrete effect scores that are difficult to interpret.This was what caused Philips, NedCar, Schuurink and Océ to request the NOH to instigatethe Eco-indicator project. These problems were resolved as explained below in close co-operation with a number of independent scientific advisors.• Life cycle assessment was expanded to include an extra weighting step, as a result ofwhich it is now quite possible to obtain a clear result (an indicator value).• About a hundred life cycle assessments were carried out with commonly used materialsand processes, and the results (indicators) listed. The designer can use these indicatorshimself to analyse a product quickly.In the Setac Code of Practice [34] and in the NOH manual for life cycle assessment [22] aweighting procedure is described but not fully developed. The Eco-indicator project hasturned this procedure in to a fully operational evaluation method. The following choiceswere made:• Only effects that damage human health and ecosystems on a European scale areassessed. This means that raw materials depletion, the space requirements for waste andlocal effects are not evaluated. Emissions from raw materials extraction and use andemissions from waste processing are included. The physical impairment of landscapescould not be included for practical reasons.• The toxicity scores were redefined. Not all the effects defined in the NOH LCA manual[22] lend themselves to weighting. Winter smog, pesticides, carcinogens and heavymetals have replaced human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Chemicals that cause problems inthe workplace but not outside were not included.• The weighting is based on the distance-to-target principle, i.e. the distance between thecurrent and target values for an effect. The greater the distance, the more serious theeffect. The target value is based on an analysis of the damage caused by an effect on aEuropean scale. The weighting principle was analysed and considerably improvedduring the project. The data for determining the weighting factors were largely based ondata from the RIVM[33], OECD [28], WHO [2&38] and Eurostat[11]. The selection ofthe weighting method was preceded by an extensive analysis of existing weightingmethods[18].The table below summarises the weighting factors.Effect Classification Weightingfactor1. Greenhouse effect NOH LCA manual (IPCC) 2.52. Ozone layer depletion NOH LCA manual (IPCC) 1003. Acidification NOH LCA manual 104. Eutrophication NOH LCA manual 55. Summer smog NOH LCA manual 2.56. Winter smog WHO Air Quality Guidelines 57. Pesticides Active ingredient 258. Heavy metals WHO Air Quality Guidelines;Quality Guidelines for Drinking Water59. Carcinogenic substances WHO Air Quality Guidelines 10Around one hundred LCAs were carried out in order to calculate the indicators, inaccordance with quality criteria defined in advance. The choice of materials and processesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report4was partly based on the requirements of the companies, and partly on the basis of theavailability of data. The data were largely taken from public-domain literature. LCAsoftware was used for the calculations themselves.A manual was written to enable designers to use the indicators. This manual, which isavailable as a separate publication[17], also indicates the possibilities and limitationsoffered by the Eco-indicators. The companies worked with the indicators for themselvesduring a workshop. This showed that designers were able to carry out reliable analyses oftheir own products. The Eco-indicator really brings the environment behind the drawingboard.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report51. Introduction1.1. Life cycle assessmentIn order to determine the interaction between a product and the environment it is necessaryto understand the environmental aspects of products throughout the product life cycle. Themethod for environmentally-oriented life cycle assessment (LCA) of products wasdeveloped to provide this understanding.An LCA starts with a systematic inventory of all emissions and all raw materialsconsumptions during a product's entire life cycle. The result of this inventory is a list ofemissions and consumed raw materials that is termed the impact table. The impacts aresorted by the effect (classification), and the degree to which they contribute to the effect isexpressed in a weighting factor (characterisation). How the effects should be weightedrelative to each other, however, was not clear to date. It was frequently the case that theresults of an LCA could not be unambiguously interpreted.Conducting an LCA is generally a very time-consuming affair. This is not so much becauseof the method as because of the interaction between a product life cycle and the environmentin all its aspects is, by definition, a complex matter.1.2. Aim of the projectThe aim of the project is to develop an easy-to-use instrument with which environmentaspects can be integrated into the design process, particularly the idea, concept and detaildesign phases. The designer will use the instrument himself as part of the normal productdevelopment methodology.The Eco-indicator is not intended for use in public comparisons of the environmental-friendliness of competing products and the conducting of environmental marketing, nor formaking environmental labelling. Other instruments such as more extensive LCAs arepreferred for such applications.The Dutch Government has stated clearly in its "Product and the Environment" policy paper,that a single indicator is not to be used for public policy making, setting standards ordeveloping regulations.The sole application of the Eco-indicator should be the development of better and cleanerproducts. It is an instrument for internal use in companies.1.3. Environmentally-aware designDesigner creativity enjoys a central role in product development. Creativity is part of asearch process that is always carried out in a cyclical manner:1. Get an idea...................2. Analyse the possible consequences of the implementation of this idea.3. Check how desirable these consequences are.4. Take a decision on this idea.5. Get a new idea...........Selection of an idea is only possible if:• the designer can analyse the consequences of an idea quickly and effectively.• the designer has established clear selection criteria for an idea.The environmental aspect is only one of the evaluation criteria in addition to cost, aspects ofuse, styling, ergonomics and standards/legislation.The cyclical character of the design process makes it a difficult process to control. For thisreason the design process is broken down into a number of phases. Each phase requiresinstruments to integrate the environmental aspects into the design process. Table 1.1 givesan overview of the design process and the instruments required.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report6Phase Activity InstrumentProduct planning The idea for a new product isborn in this phase.General rules, experience, policyparameters and legislation.OrientationphaseThe analytical phase. A largeamount of information iscollected on the designproblem. The information istranslated into a task definitionand a large number ofrequirements and wishes, onthe basis of which ideas can beselected.Life cycle assessments of comparableproducts. These enable rules-of-thumbto be developed for this type of productand reveal what priorities have to be set.Any Eco-indicators that are unavailable,but might prove to be necessary, can becalculated now.IdeadevelopmentThis is the creative phase, inwhich the described cycle isrun repeatedly.Selection of materials and workingprinciples based on the Eco-indicatorConceptdevelopmentIn this phase the best ideas aredeveloped into a number ofconcepts.Rapid analyses of the conceptsdeveloped to date with the aid of theEco-indicator.Detail design The best concept is developedin detail.Detail choices with the Eco-indicator.Table 1.1 Integration of environmental aspects into the design processThe LCA method must be adapted in two ways to make it usable by a designer:• An LCA must produce a clear result rather than a number of, frequently contradictory,effect scores that cannot be interpreted by a designer (nor by many environmentalexperts).• The speed with which LCA data can be generated must be dramatically increased. Bydefinition, however, LCAs are extensive, and it seems unrealistic to assume that newmethodologies will enable greater speeds to be achieved. For this reason a large numberof LCAs were carried out in this project for commonly occurring materials andprocesses. The product developer can even make up combinations from these "pre-defined" LCAs.These two developments form the core of this Eco-indicator project.1.4. Project working methodDevelopment of the method and tools was carried out in collaboration with Philips, NedCar,Océ and Machinefabriek Schuurink alongside current product development projects.The approach outlined below was followed:1. Several meetings were held with the companies to discuss the requirements that the Eco-indicator method must meet in order to be accepted as a decision support tool during theproduct development process.2. A comparison was made of the methods currently available in Europe in order toachieve a quick evaluation of the environmental effects of a product based on an LCA.The result of this inventory and evaluation of methods was included in the report onphase 1 of this project [18]. A few important sections are repeated in this report.3. In a number of rounds a provisional list of almost 80 materials2 and processes wasdrawn up for which an Eco-indicator value was wanted by the relevant companies. Laterthis was expanded to 100 because the waste scenarios were specified in more detail.4. Impact tables3 were drawn up for these materials and processes which were thenconverted to a single score with the aid of the methodology developed. 2 A material can also be included as a process, i.e. the process that is necessary to make the material.80 processes are therefore involved.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report75. Parallel to this, Philips CFT carried out a very extensive inventory of the environmentaleffects of electronic components and printed circuit boards.6. An evaluation method for LCA data was developed in close consultation with theadvisors involved in this project.7. An extensive search for data on the seriousness of emissions resulted in the drafting ofweighting factors.8. A manual for designers was written based on a number of discussions with variouspeople involved.9. The usefulness of the manual and the list of indicators was tested by a number ofdesigners at the relevant companies.10. A description of the methodology was drafted for this report.1.5. Project team and supervisory groupFor the purposes of the project a consultative and collaborative structure was established. Aplatform was created which included both industrial and scientific representatives. Theplatform convened ten times during the project to discuss the results and choices. Inaddition, a number of smaller-scale meetings were held to discuss certain specialisedsubjects. The platform was chaired by Mr. A. Sondern of Philips.The scientific representatives had a completely independent role in this project. With such aproject it goes without saying there was not unanimity on answers to all the methodologicalquestions. There is, however, broad agreement with the results. It is felt that this method isthe best possible for this application, given the limited state of our knowledge or, as R.Heijungs put it: "the restrictions have been used in a creative way".Views relating to the project content were also exchanged during the project withrepresentatives of organisations from other countries. Three joint workshops were organisedwith the Nordic NEP project (B. Steen, O. J. Hanssen et al.). Discussions also took placewith H. Wenzel of the Danish EDIP project and with P. Hofstetter of the University ofZurich (ETH).Collaboration among members of the platform was remarkably good. Very intensive talkswere held, particularly between the industrial and scientific representatives who workedtogether to find a compromise between usability and the scientific integrity of the weightingmethods. We are extremely grateful to the participants in this project for their critical butalways constructive contributions to discussions.Table 1.2 lists the contributors to this project and the most important contribution. 3 List of emissions and raw materials consumed.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report8Name4 Employer Contribution to this projectMr. (Ir.) A. Sondern Philips Consumer Electronics (BGTV) ChairmanMrs. (Ir.) M. Meuffels Philips CEEO SecretaryMr. (Ing.) A.A.P. Ram Philips CFT Process data electronicsMr. (Ir.) M. Peters Netherlands Car BV Industrial representativeMr. (Ir.) T. Geerken Océ Nederland BV Industrial representativeMr. (Ing.) P. Bals Machinefabriek Fred A. Schuurink BV Industrial representativeMr. (Ir.) T. van der Horst TNO Product Centre Ecodesign expertMrs. (Ing.) J. Hoekstra NOH / Novem BV Principal from phase 2Mr. (Ing) J.v.d. Velde NOH / Novem BV Principal up to phase 2Mr. (Mr.) G.L. Duvoort NOH / RIVM PrincipalMr. (Ir.) H. Wijnen VROM / IBPC Government representativeMr. (Dr.Ir.) H. Remmerswaal Technical University of Delft(Industrial Design Engineering)Process data +methodological advisorMr. (Drs.) R. Heijungs University of Leiden (CML) Methodological advisorMr. (Drs.) E. Lindeyer University of Amsterdam (IDES) Methodological advisorMr. (Drs.) H. Sas Centre for Energy Conservation andEnvironmental Technology, DelftMethodological advisorImplementationMr. (Drs.) G.A.P. Duijf DUIJF Consultancy BV Project co-ordinatorMrs. H. v. Nuenen DUIJF Consultancy BV SecretariatMr. (Drs.) T. v.d. Hurk DUIJF Consultancy BV Production process dataMr. (Ir.) M. Wielemaker DUIJF Consultancy BV Manual for designersMr. (Ir.) M.J. Goedkoop PRé Consultants Methodology development,data collection, manual fordesignersMrs. (Ir.) I.V. de Keijser PRé Consultants Development up to phase 1Mrs. (Ir.) M. Demmers PRé Consultants Manual for designersMr. (Drs). P. Cnubben PRé Consultants Normalisation and processdata collectionTable 1.2 Overview of those involved in the project1.6. Government policy during this projectIn the "Product and the Environment" policy paper it was announced that the DutchGovernment would develop a system of weighting factors (and methods) in 1994 inconjunction with organisations from the community which would enable the relativeweighting of the environmental aspects of products to be indicated more objectively.In September 1994 the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment[7] published a proposal for such a weighting method for the purposes of product policy .This proposal contained the following elements:• The seriousness of an environmental effect is derived from the exceeding of a referencelevel (distance-to-target principle).• The reference levels chosen are the European sustainability levels.• Only quantifiable environmental effects are included, such as an increase in thegreenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, diffusion of toxic substances, acidification,eutrophication and smog.• If quantifiable, the following environmental effects should be included: drought,depletion of biotic raw materials, direct physical impairment of ecosystems and thermalpollution.• The following environmental effects will not be included: odour, noise, workingconditions, direct victims and depletion of abiotic raw materials.This proposal was submitted to the Raad voor het Milieubeheer [Council for EnvironmentalManagement] for consultation. In its recommendation [32] dated 24 November 1994 the 4 The titels are abbreviated between brackets in Dutch.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report9Council responded positively to the weighting principle chosen. However, the Councilforesaw some problems in its development and urgently recommended a trial period beforedefinitively specifying the weighting method. It criticised the omission of abiotic rawmaterials. It finds the reduction in the degree of depletion an important element in achievingsustainability.In 1995 the proposal for weighting of environmental effects will be further developed.Consultation with community organisations will take place, but sustainability levels willalso have to be specified. Then experiments will be carried out. A definitive proposal willthen be submitted before the end of 1995 or in early 1996 based on these and otherexperiments.The Eco-indicator has been developed in the same period that the initial VROM proposalemerged. As a result of intensive contacts and mutual cross-over the main elements of thetwo methods are identical. It would be wrong, therefore, to talk of two methods; instead thetwo starting points should be referred to as one basic method which has already resulted inpractical weighting factors in the Eco-indicator project. Practical interpretation of thesustainability levels has been made in the Eco-indicator project.Working with Eco-indicators should be viewed as experimentation with the method. Theresults of these experiments will then also be used to definitively specify an updatedweighting method.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report102. Life cycle assessment methodVarious methods are in use to assess the environmental effects of products. Almost allmethods operate on the assumption that a product's entire life cycle should be analysed. Themain differences between the methods are:• the comprehensiveness of the analysis• the type of effect that is included• the degree of quantification of the result• the interpretation (weighting) method of the environmental impacts identifiedA brief overview of these methods is given below. This overview is an excerpt from thereport on phase 1 of the Eco-indicator project [18].2.1. Qualitative methodsEven without working systematically with weighting factors and classifications it is oftenpossible to comment on the seriousness of the impacts on the basis of the impact table. Theexpertise and sometimes the intuition of the expert carrying out the evaluation often plays animportant role. Designers and other non-experts in environmental matters cannot generallyoffer such comments.Although a lot of variants on this subject are possible we will look at just two methods here.2.1.1. Red flag methodsA number of companies, including Philips, work with "red flags". If an emission of CFCs orpriority substances occurs in the impact table it is red-flagged. The product or processshould then not actually be used.A major problem is that red flags occur in this way in almost every impact table and that avery small emission is treated in just the same way as a large one. This approach is not verysuitable for providing a qualified evaluation.2.1.2. MET matrixThe Dutch Ecodesign programme uses the MET matrix. MET stands for Material, Energyand Toxicity. MET analysis is an experimental approach that is intended to identify theenvironmental problems of a particular product, and to enable designers to improve theenvironmental aspects of their products. This can be divided into five stages:1. A discussion of the social relevance of the product's functions.2. Determination of the life cycle of the product to be analysed.3. Intuitive completion of the MET matrix, based on existing knowledge by inexperiencedpeople who in this way will quickly familiarise themselves with the method. The variousprocesses from the life cycle are entered in the matrix in order of harmfulness for theindicators material, energy and toxicity.4. Careful completion of the MET matrix, with the aid of environmental experts.5. Establishment of outline solutions for the environmental problems identified.The method is intended to identify the environmental problems of one product and presentthem clearly. A feature of the Ecodesign approach is the presence of an environmentalexpert in the design team who analyses the design decisions. The Eco-indicator is beingdeveloped precisely to enable design decisions to be taken without external expertise. TheMET matrix is not an indicator because it does not quantify and because it uses not one butthree criteria. An MET indicator has now been developed at the Delft University ofTechnology that broadly follows the principles of the Eco-indicator.[31]The disadvantage of these qualitative methods is their poor reproducibility (every expert canarrive at different judgements) and the lack of scientific basis.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report112.2. Scientific basis of life cycle assessmentMuch attention has been given in recent years to the standardisation and scientific basis ofthe life cycle assessment method. The most important stages of an LCA have beendescribed, as part of the NOH programme, in a manual by the Centre for EnvironmentalScience (CML) of the University of Leiden [22], referred to below as the NOH manual. Thismanual was used for reference in the development of the Eco-indicator. Internationally themost important developments in the LCA field have been brought together by the SETAC,the professional association for toxicologists. In its Code of Practice [34] this organisationdescribes a method that is closely related to and largely based on the work of the CML.The environmentally-oriented life cycle assessment system (LCA) aims to produce asystematic analysis of all the environmental effects at every phase of a product's lifetime. Asit is a method that describes a complex problem it can also as a rule be rather complex itself.Both a product life cycle and the term "environment" are difficult to define.It is assumed that this methodology is broadly known, but it is outlined briefly below. Inshort, this method can be divided into the following stages:1. Goal definition of the analysis. The application, depth and subject of the study aredefined. The functional unit is specified in this stage.2. Inventory of the environmental impacts throughout the life cycle. This is the stagewhen all emissions and all raw material consumption in every process of the entire lifecycle are identified. The result is a (frequently long) list of emissions and raw materials,known as the impact table. These impacts generally result in very different types ofenvironmental effect.3. Classification, Characterisation and Normalisation of the impacts by environmentaleffect. Here the impacts are aggregated to a number of environmental effect scores. Thisoccurs in two stages:• Sorting of the impacts by the effects they cause.Example: the substances CO2 and methane are both placed in the greenhouse effectclass. Mercury emissions are placed in the toxic substance class. This is theclassification stage.• Characterisation of the impacts according to the degree to which they contribute toan effect. Example: the greenhouse effect of the emission of 1 kg methane is 11times higher than that of carbon dioxide. For this reason the amount of methane isfirst multiplied by 11. The result in this case is a greenhouse effect score, expressedin carbon dioxide equivalents. The same is possible for other environmental effects.This is termed the characterisation stage in the SETAC Code of Practice5.The effect scores can then be normalised. This can be done in various ways, but theessential feature is that the effects are compared with reference values (or normalisedvalues). As a rule, the average effect in a particular area, for example Europe, is taken.By means of normalisation, therefore, the contribution of the effect to the total effect isdetermined.The result is an environmental profile with standardised (and dimensionless) effectscores.4. Evaluation. During this stage the different environmental effects are weighted andtotalled to form an environmental index in NOH terminology. An indication is thusgiven of how many times more serious the greenhouse effect is than the toxicity.In principle, therefore, it ought to be possible to calculate a single Eco-indicator on the basisof the NOH manual. Unfortunately, the manual, nor the Code of Practice does describeshow to carry out stage 4. The description of stage 3 is also not complete. Although the 5 The NOH manual includes the characterisation stage under classification. However, the Code ofPractice distinguishes between classification and characterisation. We have used the latterterminology.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report12normalisation stage is described, it cannot be carried out because of a lack of the relevantdata. In practice, therefore, it is not possible to calculate a single score with the manual.2.3. Weighting principlesVarious methods have been developed in the meantime to aggregate the results of an LCA toa single score. These involve weighting on the basis of the impact table based on effectscores. A normalisation stage does not always take place. An overview is given in thisparagraph.In addition to scientific influences, the weighting will also be determined by subjective andpolitical views. The arguments used in the weighting will reflect social values andpreferences. Six categories can be specified, with the weighting factor for a particular typeof environmental pollution depending on the following:1. The social evaluation (expressed in financial terms) of damage to the environment. Theimpairment of human health, for example, is based on the costs that a society is preparedto pay for healthcare. This principle is used in the EPS system (see below).2. The prevention costs for preventing or combating the relevant environmental impact bytechnical means. The higher the prevention costs, the higher the rating given to theseriousness of the impact.3. The energy consumption that is necessary to prevent or combat the environmentalimpact by technical means. The greater the energy consumption, the higher the ratinggiven to the seriousness of this impact.4. Avoiding the use of weighting factors by using only one environmental effect, in thiscase energy consumption, as a measure of the total environmental pollution.5. The evaluation of experts (for example, a group of respondents in a panel) who expressthe relative seriousness of an effect by assigning a weight to the effect or impact.6. The degree by which a target level is exceeded. The greater the gap between the currentenvironmental impact and a target level, the higher the rating given to the seriousness ofthe impact. This method has become known as the Ecopoints method.The Eco-indicator is mainly based on this last principle. Some elements from the so-calledEPS system are also used in the Eco-indicator methodology.The principles mentioned are outlined briefly below. The weighting principles are testedagainst a list of requirements, and the Eco-indicator weighting principle is defined.2.3.1. EPS systemThe IVL6 in Sweden developed a method for Volvo that results in one score. This is acomplex method known as EPS (Environmental Priority Strategy)[35] that is based on thepremise that it is not the effect itself that has to be evaluated but the consequences of thateffect. It is assumed that society places a certain value on a number of matters that aretermed safeguard subjects:1. Resources, or the depletion of resources;2. Human health, or the loss of health and the number of extra deaths as a result of theenvironmental effects;3. Production, or the economic damage of the environmental effects (particularly inagriculture);4. Biodiversity, or the disappearance of plant or animal species;5. Aesthetic values, the perception of natural beauty.In this method the effects are first determined, in theory approximately as in the NOHmanual. In practice a very limited number of impacts are currently being used, and so it ishardly possible to refer to any classification. 6 IVL: Swedish Environmental Research Institute, approximately comparable to the RIVM.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report13By contrast with the NOH manual, a number of correction factors are used, in addition tothe potential effect (for example, toxicity), such as:• exposure; for example, the number of people who actually come into contact with thesubstance or phenomenon (the populations of the Netherlands and Bangladesh areexposed to the danger of flooding in the event of a rise in the level of the sea).• frequency; the number of times that an effect occurs or the probability that it will do so(for example, a flood caused by a rise in the level of the sea).• period; the time for which an effect occurs, including the speed with which a substancedegrades.Although it is right scientifically to apply this correction it substantially increases thecomplexity.Using the safeguard subjects mentioned, the damage is determined on the basis of thesecorrected effects. This damage is then expressed in financial terms. The valuation is basedon three different principles:• Raw materials depletion is valuated by looking at the future extraction costs for rawmaterials. These are the costs that must be expended in order to extract the "last" rawmaterials resources. For oil and coal the costs of alternative fuels is used. Oil isvaluated using the price of rapeseed oil production, while the price of wood is used tovaluate coal. Strangely, in the case of minerals, no attempt is made to use alternativeminerals (many applications of copper could also use aluminium or glass fibre whichare much less scarce ).• The production losses are measured directly from the estimated reduction inagricultural yields and industrial damage (for instance: corrosion).• The other three safeguard subjects are valuated in terms of the willingness-to-payprinciple. The sums that a society is prepared to pay for ill health or the death of itscitizens, the extinction of plants and animals and impairment of natural beauty areexamined.It is implicitly assumed that these three value judgements are interchangeable. The result ofthe method is found by totalling up the financial sums calculated. The method's usabilitydepends greatly on the availability and reliability of the large number of weighting factors.Unfortunately, the system is not very clearly described and documented.OilZincCOIn:Out:SOPbCFCsImpactsValuein ECUResultSafeguardSubjectsResourcesHealthProductionBiodiversityAestheticsWillingnessValuationto payFuturecostsDirectlosses22Fig. 2.1 Schematic representation of the EPS system. The result is also a measure of the possible social costs asa result of the environmental impacts.In conjunction with Volvo Sweden a prototype of a software program was developed withthe particular ability to carry out a sensitivity analysis of both the data and the weightingfactors. The researchers specified a standard deviation for each weighting factor orcorrection factor. The data from the inventory phase also have a standard deviation. It is notalways clear on what the standard deviation is based. This sensitivity analysis enables theThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report14user to examine how sure it is possible to be that product A is better than product B or viceversa and what the reason for this is.Volvo's own designers use the EPS system themselves in practice, even though the softwareis rather complicated and time-consuming to use, particularly because of the sensitivityanalyses. The system has been intensively used for a number of technology choice studies,for various automotive components and for the Environmental Concept Car. At the momenta Nordic project (Scandinavia) is beginning in which the EPS system is being furtherdeveloped.In the Eco-indicator project we have used a financial evaluation of effects to assess differenttypes of damage caused by these effects (see para. 3.1.5).2.3.2. Prevention costs of emissionsTME 7 and several other institutes are working on a system that assesses the emissions noton their effect nor on the threat to ecosystems, but on the basis of the costs that would haveto be expended to prevent an emission, insofar that this is at least possible.The costs to prevent an emission depend in practice on a large number of technologicalfactors which can differ greatly from country to country and process to process. This makesthe method well suited for the optimisation of a specific process, but less suited for generalassessment of impacts.Furthermore it is not clear to what extent an emission must be prevented, or whichconcentration or which absolute amount is still acceptable. To allow prevention costs to becalculated it is therefore necessary to know the required reduction. The question thus recursof what is an acceptable (persistence) level for each emission. Before this method can beused, therefore, such levels first have to be defined.OilZincCOIn:Out:SOPbCFCsImpacts ResultValuationPreventioncostsPreventioncostsPreventioncostsTotalprevention costs22Fig. 2.2 Schematic representation of weighting based on prevention costsThis line of thought contains interesting elements because working with costs has itsattractive sides, particularly with reference to the optimisation of production processes. Foran Eco-indicator that is not location- or process-specific the method is less interesting.2.3.3. Energy consumption needed to prevent emissionsIn a study of the "Theory and practice of integral chain management" [8] a provisionalmethod is developed in which three time-independent variables for environmental pollutionare aggregated to one score. These variables are energy consumption, carbon dioxideemissions and water consumption. These three evaluation variables are converted to a single 7 Bureau voor Toegepaste Milieu Economie [Office for Applied Environmental Economics], TheHague.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report15score, energy. The total energy input is equal to the total input estimated to be needed toprevent the emissions.Just as with the prevention costs the energy consumption to prevent emissions depends inpractice on a large number of process engineering factors and on the question of the degreeto which an impact has to be counteracted. In principle there is little difference from themethod described above, except that calculations here are based not on money but onenergy.OilZincCOIn:Out:SOPbCFCsImpacts ResultValuationEnergy forTotalScorepurif. processActual energyconsumptionWaterEnergy forpurif. process Totalenergy score22Fig. 2.3 Schematic representation based on prevention energy.2.3.4. Energy consumption as a measure of total environmental pollutionBecause many emissions are linked to the conversion of energy from fossil fuels, energyconsumption is sometimes used as an evaluation criterion. The energy consumption can beviewed as an indicator for:1. Combustion emissions from fossil fuels2. The depletion of energy sourcesNo weighting is in fact applied with these methods because only one parameter is taken intoaccount.1. Energy consumption as an indicator for combustion emissionsBecause of their dominance energy conversion processes are good predictors of the mostimportant emissions from the impact table. If the energy conversion processes (type of fuel,combustion method) are known, it is possible to estimate reasonably well what thecombustion emissions will be. The combustion energy is thus a measure of the combustionemissions. The impact table only has to have specific process emissions entered. It is not anideal method, but it can be useful to estimate the most important emissions in this way.However, the problem of interpreting the specific process emissions (heavy metals, CFCsetc.) is not resolved with this method.2. Energy consumption as an indicator for the depletion of energy resourcesIt is assumed for the sake of convenience that all conversion processes have the sameemissions (a gross simplification) and aggregate all energy conversions. The product withthe most energy conversions is the least environmentally friendly. All kinds of specificprocess emissions are difficult to include in this method.The evaluation and the collation of the impact table overlap in this method. Very largedistortions can occur, particularly because serious environmental problems such as ozonelayer depletion, heavy metals and such like are completely ignored.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report162.3.5. Evaluation by experts (panel method)Attempts have been made in England (Bryan Jones)8 and in the Netherlands (CE/IDES [25]and PRé [27]) to develop a weighting method with the assistance of experts.In Bryan Jones' approach a list of emissions was forwarded to a number of experts. Theemission of 1 kg mercury was set at 100. The experts were requested to scale the otheremissions relative to mercury. The results were unsatisfactory. CO2, for example, was givena scale value of 16. In practice, emissions of CO2 are greater than those of mercury by afactor of 10,000 (in kg). Consequently CO2 would dominate all other impacts in mostLCAs. The introduction of a preceding normalisation stage would enable the results to besomewhat better.In the CE/IDES panel method 20 respondents were asked to place six environmental effectsin order and to assign weightings to them on a scale of 0 to 100. The experiment revealedthat there were major variations in the results from the different respondents because therewas a very large variation in the arguments used to define something as serious or notserious. In our view the disadvantage of a panel method is that the arguments are frequentlybased on a personal conviction or on a particular political trend which uses environmentalarguments that are not scientifically underpinned. Such an intuitive approach is difficult touse for a generally applicable Eco-indicator.With the P-method a weighting based on a single expert was used [27]9. The effect scores ofall processes and materials were determined (based on Buwal report 132 [20]). The effectscores were compared with those for the production of 1 kWh European electricity. Thiselectricity was thus the normalisation basis and was assigned the value P=1. The effectscores were scaled as accurately as possible with reference to this normal. If the effectscores for steel production were approximately 6 times higher steel was assigned the valueP=6. Because effect scores by no means always occur in the same mutual proportions anintuitive judgement was frequently necessary. Consequently, the P-values cannot be wellunderpinned. In the Milion project it turned out afterwards that the P-method led to the sameresults as the LCA method.As will be seen, weightings that are subjective to a greater or lesser extent are also necessaryin the Eco-indicator method. However, the subjectivity has greater restrictions placed on itthan the completely subjective methods described here.2.3.6. EcopointsThe Ecopoints method was developed back in 1990 as a commission by BUWAL [1] (theSwiss Environment Ministry). This is the oldest system working on the Distance-to-Targetprinciple, by which is meant that an effect's seriousness is evaluated in terms of the distancebetween the current level of this effect and a target level.In the Swiss system it is not the effects but the individual emissions, as well as energyconsumption and waste that are evaluated. The target value set is the national policyobjectives. At present, as far as we are aware, Ecopoints systems based on Swiss,Norwegian and Dutch policy targets are available.As a result of the use of policy targets the result of this method is rather distorted bypolitical priorities. Thus the reduction target for CO2 is 3% in the Netherlands. This is muchless than could be expected if a judgement on the seriousness of CO2 had to be made onpurely scientific grounds. 8 Personal communication, September 1993, report is not available.9 This report describes the use of the P method; the P figures themselves have never been published.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report17OilZincCOIn:Out:SOPbCFCsImpactsEco-pointsResultValuationDistancetoTarget22Fig. 2.4: Schematic representation of the Ecopoints method2.4. Requirements for an Eco-indicator weighting methodBased on the information gained from the existing methods much attention was given in theproject to defining the requirements that the indicator weighting method must meet. Thegoal definition together with a number of principal requirements and wishes are givenbelow.2.4.1. GoalIn product development there is a need for a figure that accurately represents theenvironmental pollution of a process or material. Within this project this need was limited toa list of 100 materials and processes.The methods described above to produce such a figure have clear shortcomings. Thus amethod will first have to be developed. Since there is no correct or reference methodavailable, it is unclear how the correctness of this new method can be tested.For the participating companies it is of great importance that a product that is developedwith the aid of the Eco-indicator is well evaluated in a full life cycle assessment. It istherefore important that the Eco-indicator calculation method follows the LCA methodclosely.From this principal requirement it follows that the results of an analysis with the aid of Eco-indicators must comply with the results that would be achieved with an extensive analysis inaccordance with the Dutch LCA manual.For this reason the Eco-indicator method is based on the presently applicable LCA method;it is an extension of the method, not a simplification2.4.2. Requirements and wishesWith this starting point a number of other requirements and wishes can be formulated:• Acceptance: The environmental pollution expressed by the indicator must preferably fitin with public perceptions of environmental pollution. The weighting factors used and(subjective) choices must be communicable and justifiable. Acceptance will depend inpart on the method's understandability and transparency.•••• Stability: If an organisation is choosing a method on the basis of which designdecisions will be taken in the future, a certain stability is desired. The chance thatdecisions taken today would be very different in the future, as a result of changingweighting factors, must be avoided as much as possible. The stability of the weightingfactors depends among other things on changing scientific insights or shifts in politicalpriorities. Methods that are very controversial amongst scientists, the public orpoliticians will be less stable.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report18• Accuracy: The result of an Eco-indicator calculation must offer a sufficient degree ofaccuracy. A distinction must be made between two types of inaccuracy:• Inaccuracy in the impact table (the table of emissions and raw materials consumed)• Inaccuracy in the weighting factors and the weighting procedureInaccuracy in the impact table is a general problem in every environmental analysis. Inthe choice of an evaluation method only the second factor is of importance.2.4.3. Selection of the weighting principleBased on these requirements it was decided in phase 1 of this project to develop a methodwith the following features:• The Eco-indicator method is not a simplification of the LCA method, but a furtherdevelopment of the framework outlined in the NOH manual. Phases 3 and 4 (see para.2.2) will be made operational. Only in this way is it possible to ensure that the methodcomplies well with current environmental analysis practice. This starting point seems tocontradict the objective, i.e. a fast and easy to use instrument for designers. Time isgained, however, by the prior generation of standard Eco-indicator values.• The distance-to-target principle seems the most suitable for expansion into a credibleweighting method that is relatively simple to communicate.• In line with the international character of the companies, the Eco-indicator must apply tothe whole of Europe.• Target values must be based on the scientific data and not on policy targets.Based on the experiences of the EPS and Ecopoints systems it was decided to weight effectsrather than impacts. This means that the impacts first have to be classified and characterised.The major advantage of this is that many more impacts can be included in the indicatormethod.OilZincCOIn:Out:SOPbCFCsImpactsEco-indicatorResultEvaluationeffect 1effect 2effect 3effect 4EffectsDistanceTargetto22Fig. 2.5 Weighting principle of the Eco-indicator method, as seen at the end of phase 1 based on the choicesoutlined in this chapter.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report193. Eco-indicator weighting methodIn chapter 2 it was stated that the NOH manual in principle indicates how the results of anLCA can be weighted in two stages but that it does not define how this can take place. It isfurthermore stated that the Eco-indicator method must fit in with current LCA practice. Thismeans that the Eco-indicator method in fact amounts to completing the last stages, i.e.normalisation and weighting. The Eco-indicator method is therefore an extension of thecurrent LCA method according to the NOH manual and thus also according to the SETACCode of Practice.This chapter develops these stages. The fundamental aspects of the weighting stage are firstexamined, after which the required weighting factors and normalisation data are gathered. Itwill be shown that some points of the classification stage also need adjustment.3.1. Weighting according to Distance-to-TargetIn phase 1 of this project it was decided to take the Distance-to-Target as the starting pointfor the weighting. This means that the seriousness of an effect is related to the differencebetween the current and target values.An example will illustrate this principle.Let us assume that current acidification levels in Europe are higher than desired by a factorof 10 and that the greenhouse effect is higher by a factor of 2.5. According to the distance-to-target principle this means that the weighting factor for acidification is equal to 10 andfor the greenhouse effect 2.5. It will be clear that the choice of the target value is crucial.Much thought has also been given to the choice and development of the target values.In this project advice was sought from the Centre for Environmental Science (CML) of theUniversity of Leiden, IDES of the University of Amsterdam and the Centre for EnergyConservation and Environmental Technology. Furthermore, detailed consultation took placewith representatives of the Nordic NEP project, the Danish EDIP project and with PatrickHofstetter of the University of Zurich (ETH). The full text of these contributions is onlyavailable in Dutch in the annexe report [14].It became apparent from this advice that the procedure outlined below has to be followed inorder to achieve a weighting:1. Determine the relevant effects that are caused by a process or product (which effects areinvolved is determined later).2. Determine the extent of the effect in Europe. This is the normalisation value. Divide theeffect that the product or process causes by the normalisation value. This stepdetermines the contribution of the product to the total effect. This is done because theeffect itself is not so relevant but rather the degree to which the effect contributes to thetotal problem. An important advantage of the normalisation stage is that all thecontributions are dimensionless.103. Multiply the result by the ratio between the current effect and a target value for thateffect. The ratio, also termed the reduction factor, may be seen as a measure of theseriousness of the effect.4. Multiply the effect by a so-called subjective weighting factor. This factor is usedbecause other factors in addition to the distance-to-target can also determine theseriousness of an effect. 10 In the Swiss Ecopoints method it is not the current value but the target value that is used as thenormalisation value. The result is the contribution to an effect level that will (it is hoped) beachieved in the future. We find that less logical. The SETAC Code of Practice also recommendsnormalisation on the basis of the current value.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report20The procedure can be expressed in the following equation. I WENNTWETiii iiiiii i= =* * * ......(1)where:I indicator valueNi current extent of the European effect i, or the normalisation valueTi target value for effect iEi contribution of a product life cycle to an effect iWi subjective weighting factor which expresses the seriousness of effect iThe subjective weighting factor is entered in this phase to make corrections in the event thatthe distance-to-target principle does not sufficiently represent the seriousness of an effect.When this factor is introduced the distance-to-target principle seems to lose much of itsvalue because there is an unlimited degree of subjectivity. The weighting begins to resemblea panel method. Closer analysis of this problem shows that it is not the effect that has to besubjectively evaluated but the damage caused by the effect. An effect should only beevaluated if the damage it causes is known. This subject is examined in greater detail inpara. 3.2.It will be noted that the normalisation value N is omitted from this equation. This is a moreor less coincidental effect that is more to do with the formulation of the different terms. Theterm N/T, for example, can be written as a reduction factor F. The reduction factor is equalto the weighting factor, as can be seen from the above. In that case the equation becomes: I WENNTWENFiiiiiiiiiii= =* * * * ......... (2)This means either that the target value must be known (for equation 1) or the current leveland the reduction factor (for equation 2). During the project it became apparent that it ismuch easier to determine the reduction factor plus the current value than the target level.The reduction factor can be directly seen as a weighting factor. The use of equation 2 makesthe weighting much clearer because, in accordance with the SETAC method, the effect ofthe normalisation stage must first be apparent and then the effect of the weighting. This hasresulted in a great deal of attention having to be paid to the retrieval of current values.Before developing the method further it is important to answer the following questions:• What is the basis for defining the target level?• What effects are evaluated, and how are these defined?• How can effects that cause different types of damage be assigned an equivalent targetvalue?3.1.1. Policy or scienceIt is apparent that there are different approaches to selecting target levels. In the SwissEcopoints system target levels are taken from Government policy objectives. An alternativeis to use scientifically determined target levels.3.1.1.1. Politically determined target valuesBoth the EU [12] and a number of European countries have formulated objectives forenvironmental pollution reductions. In general the objectives are a compromise betweenscientific, economic and social considerations. This can result in values being chosen thatare very different from the scientifically defined value. An indicator that is based onpolitically determined target values refers not so much to environmental pollution as toconformity with policy decisions. That was not the aim of this method.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report213.1.1.2. Scientifically determined target valuesIf the decision is taken to use a scientific approach, a number of alternatives are available:• Zero as the target value for the effect. A problem then arises when using the equationderived above.• No effect level. This is a low value in which no demonstrable damage to theenvironment occurs. The problem is that such a level cannot be clearly defined. Takenliterally, it means that at that level no single organism suffers even the slightest damage.Ecosystems are so complex that it is impossible to check this in practice.• A low damage level. This is a level where demonstrable but limited damage occurs. Forexample, impairment to the level of a few percent of a particular ecosystem or the deathof a number of people per million inhabitants.The third option was chosen for practical reasons. In itself the choice is not as important ifthe damage levels per effect are well comparable. If all target values are doubled all thereduction factors, thus all the weighting factors, will be halved. This has no relevance to themutual correlations of the weighting factors.3.1.2. Definition of the term "environment"In formulating the project's outlines it is assumed that they should keep as close as possibleto the NOH manual and the SETAC guidelines. The following effects are defined in theNOH manual.1. Greenhouse effect2. Ozone layer depletion3. Human toxicity (air)4. Human toxicity (water)5. Human toxicity (soil)6. Ecotoxicity (water)7. Ecotoxicity (soil)8. Smog9. Acidification10. Eutrophication11. Odour12. Depletion of biotic raw materials13. Depletion of abiotic raw materials14. Noise15. Physical ecosystem degradation16. Direct victimsThese effects are not all defined with uniform clarity, and for some effects there is nocharacterisation. Furthermore, the question arises of whether it is so sensible to include allthese effects in the weighting or whether other effects should perhaps also be included.Up till now "Eco-indicator" has been used as if it is clear what the term "Eco" or"environment" means. It is apparent, however, that a very large number of problems have tobe specified that can be included under the term "environmental problem".It is clear that there is no point in developing an indicator without defining the term"environment" and restricting it to some extent. Two considerations are involved:• It is desirable as far as possible to include all effects in the indicator in order to preventthe situation where the designer does not note important environmental effects whenusing the indicator.• It is desirable to keep the weighting well-structured and sound by only including effectsthat result in a comparable type of environmental damage.A compromise must therefore be achieved between these wishes.Based on these considerations it was decided only to include environmental effects which:• result in damage to ecosystems on a European scaleThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report22• result in damage of human health on a European scale.This choice means that no account is taken of:• local environmental problems such as odour, noise and light• raw material depletion• production of final waste• a number of toxic effectsFurthermore, it unfortunately proved impossible to incorporate the direct physical ecosystemdegradation caused by land use into the weighting. The score for direct victims is irrelevantfor weighting because victims only occur in disasters. These are outside the scope of mostLCAs.These exclusions are discussed further below.3.1.2.1. Physical ecosystem degradationPhysical ecosystem degradation is a major environmental problem to which only littleattention has been given in LCA methodology development. The problem lies particularly inthe unclear definition of the term "degradation". In a recently published extensive LCA ofenergy systems ecosystem degradation is quantified as follows [13]11. Four quality classesfor ecosystems were defined. The highest quality class is a richly varied and unimpairedsystem, while the lowest is a completely ravaged system such as a road or industrial area.Between these extremes lie two types of landscape with a particular ecological quality.The LCAs record for each process what areas transfer from one quality class to another,over a certain period. This approach offers an initial impetus towards developing aquantification of the term "ecosystem degradation". Unfortunately this principle has not yetbeen developed further.This approach is of great interest for the Eco-indicator project because here too the principleof ecosystem damage plays a decisive role in determining the target value. The Eco-indicator method would greatly benefit from a good definition of the term "degradation"because it would be possible to quantify the damage to ecosystems better. If that happens itwill be easier in relative terms to include physical ecosystem degradation too; the effect canbe directly translated into damage. There still then remains the problem that most life cycleassessments to date have taken no account of this aspect and that a lot of work still remainsto be done to collate these data for the list of 100 indicators.3.1.2.2. Raw materials depletionThe omission of depletions can be argued in two ways:• Raw materials depletion does not result in damage to ecosystems or human health. It istrue that towards the time when the raw material becomes more difficult to find moreecosystems will perhaps be impaired by exploration and extraction work. These effectscan be incorporated into the indicator. The depletion of a raw material will causeeconomic and social problems in particular. As a rule environmental pollution willdecrease if the raw material is actually exhausted. Copper extraction is associated withlarge quantities of emissions. Once the world's copper resources have been depleted itis expected that these emissions will be reduced and that greater emphasis will be givento recycling.• Depletion is difficult to quantify because alternatives are available for most materials.For instance copper is already being replaced on a fairly large scale by glass-fibre(communications) and aluminium (electricity conduction). For energy too there aregood prospects for substitution if the market is prepared to pay more for energy. In factthe problem with energy is not depletion of the fossil fuel but the environmental effectsof combustion. These are explicitly incorporated in the indicator. In other words, it 11 Such a line of thought is also followed in the NOH manual [22].The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report23would be a disaster for all currently known oil reserves to be actually used. The use offossil fuels is not limited by stocks but by emissions from combustion.The use of raw materials is evaluated on the basis of emissions during extraction and use.The fact that the raw materials can be depleted could be better expressed in a separatedepletion indicator.3.1.2.3. Space requirement for final wasteThe same applies to waste as to raw materials, i.e. no-one is killed and only very smallsections of ecosystems are threatened by the space taken up by waste (apart from fly-tippedwaste). However, the emissions from incineration and the decomposition of waste, and theleaching of, for example, heavy metals do represent a significant problem. These emissionsare specified in process data for the indicators. Waste is thus evaluated in terms ofemissions.If ecosystem degradation could be included in the weighting process it would be possible toinclude the space taken up by waste. Waste is also not an effect score in the NOH manual.3.1.2.4. ToxicityWith regard to toxicity this definition of the environment also has a number of far-reachingconsequences. A closer analysis of the environmental problems in Europe (see para. 3.5)reveals that there are only a limited number of toxic substances that cause problems in theoutdoor environment. Many toxic substances cause a problem particularly in the workplaceand its direct vicinity. This means that not all toxic substances can be weighted.Substances that cause health problems in production processes do not necessarily createenvironmental problems outside the workplace. Most substances are regarded as not harmfulprovided their concentration remains below a certain level. This is also the background tothe MACs (maximum acceptable concentrations) defined in occupational hygiene.Any analysis of environmental problems must take account of the scale of the problem. On avery small scale, e.g. in the direct vicinity of a factory, the concentrations of manysubstances can be high and thus cause genuine problems. On a somewhat larger scaleconcentrations of many substances have been reduced to such an extent that they can nolonger be regarded as harmful. This does not apply to a number of substances which, evenon a larger scale, occur in concentrations that are harmful. This refers in particular tosubstances that:• degrade only very slowly or not at all and thus gradually accumulate; good examples ofthis are the heavy metals and sulphur;• are produced in very large quantities so that problems still occur, despite fairly highdecomposition rates; examples of this are pesticides, dust (winter smog), hydrocarbons(summer smog) and most carcinogenic substances.The consequence of these choices is that a large number of substances that are veryimportant in occupational hygiene are not included in the Eco-indicator. That means that inaddition to the use of the Eco-indicator separate account must also be taken of occupationalhygiene. Examples of substances not included are: carbon monoxide, aldehydes, cyanides,chlorinated hydrocarbons and other solvents, though hydrocarbons are evaluated in thesummer smog score.In addition to these substances that are knowingly not evaluated there are a number of othersthat we would have liked to include, such as dioxin and PCBs. It proved not to be possible toobtain sufficient clear effect descriptions and reduction targets.The toxicity scores were specified on the basis of the above-mentioned analysis in terms of anumber of toxic effects that are a problem on a wide scale:The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report24New effect definition Current NOH definitionCarcinogenic substances Human toxicityWinter smog12 Human toxicityAirborne heavy metals Human toxicityWaterborne heavy metals Human and ecotoxicityPesticides in groundwater and surface water EcotoxicityTable 3.1 Specification of the NOH effect definitions for toxicityThe choice for these definitions is closely linked to the description of the environmentalproblems in Europe, such as was used in drawing up the weighting factors. Theclassification must tie in with the weighting factor.3.1.3. Definition of the effect scoresThe following effect scores will be used in the weighting. The second column indicateswhich characterisation will be used. See also para 3.3Effect Characterisation1. Greenhouse effect NOH (IPCC)2. Ozone layer depletion NOH (IPCC)3. Acidification NOH4. Eutrophication NOH5. Summer smog NOH6. Winter smog Air Quality Guidelines (WHO)7. Pesticides Active ingredient8. Airborne heavy metals Air Quality Guidelines (WHO)9. Waterborne heavy metals Quality Guidelines for Drinking Water (WHO)10. Carcinogenic substances Air Quality Guidelines (WHO)Table 3.2 The effects weighted in the Eco-indicator methodIn total therefore there are 10 scores. Because the scores for heavy metals are later combined9 scores ultimately remain.3.1.4. Target level and damageThe choice of basing target values on a certain measurable damage makes it necessary todefine this damage. A high damage level results in a higher target value. Only if all damagelevels are equal is it possible to formulate mutually comparable target values and thusreduction objectives.If all effects were to cause the same type of damage (e.g. a number of deaths each year) itwould be relatively easy to define a target value. Unfortunately that is not the case. Based onthe choice of effects we have to deal with two types of damage:• Damage to health and human fatalities• Damage to (disruption of) ecosystemsIn the table below the defined effects are correlated with the type of damage that they cause.It should be borne in mind that an effect frequently causes several types of damage. We haveonly taken account of the most dominant damage. 12 In fact summer smog belongs to the toxicity score; it has already been specified as such in theNOH manual.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report25Type of damage Effect contributing to this damageNumber of fatalities as a consequence of theeffectOzone layer depletionAirborne heavy metalsPesticidesCarcinogenic substancesNuisance and number of non-fatal casualties as aresult of the occurrence of smog periodsWinter smogSummer smogDamage to parts of the ecosystem Greenhouse effectAcidificationEutrophicationWaterborne heavy metalsPesticidesTable 3.3 Relation between effects and damage types3.1.5. Subjectivity in the weightingFor an Eco-indicator it is absolutely essential to compare the different types of damage wellwith one another. The use of unequal damage levels has direct consequences for theweighting. In the project we have decided to regard the following damage levels asequivalent:• One extra death per million inhabitants per year,• Health complaints as a result of smog periods,• Five percent ecosystem impairment (in the longer term).This choice is subjective and in a certain sense the method's Achilles heel. If a differentlevel were to be chosen for one of the damage levels the weighting would give differentresults.13 However, this weakness is also its strength because the subjectivity is explicitlyformulated, unlike the completely subjective methods, such as the panel methods.The choice is based in part on the way in which environmental problems are described in theliterature consulted. Here too these criteria are often used.In specifying this choice a number of examples were worked through for the purposes ofdiscussions in the Eco-indicator platform. These examples help to clarify the ratherabstractly formulated damage levels. However, they prove nothing.Example 1: Dutch scale5% impairment of the ecosystem represents in the Netherlands something like harm to thewoods on the Veluwe, after which it is perhaps possible that only grass and bird-cherry willcontinue growing. This is seen by many ecologists as an impoverishment. It can also meanthe poisoning of a piece of ground in the North-East Polder, which does not have a veryinteresting ecosystem. It is therefore not entirely clear how seriously such a level ofimpairment should be evaluated.The norm for deaths means that 14 people will die each year. That is only 2% of the numberof road deaths and is roughly equivalent to the risk of death from a rare disease. The numberof people who suffer serious problems during periods of smog falls in the range of severaltens to several hundreds in the Netherlands. In this comparison it must be borne in mind thatimpairment of the ecosystem occurs in the course of several years whereas there will be 14deaths every year. The impairment of the ecosystem on the Veluwe must thus be set againsta much larger number of deaths.Example 2: European scaleWith an average population density of 140 inhabitants per km2 16 million people will endup living in an "impaired" ecosystem in the event of 5% impairment of the ecosystems. Thiswould have to be weighed against 352 extra deaths per year. 13 If ten percent ecosystem impairment were to be taken as a damage level instead of five percent allthe effects that lead to this type of damage would be rated only half as seriously.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report26Example 3: EPS approachThe question of to what extent the criteria match is very similar to the treatment of the"safeguard subjects" in the EPS system (see para. 2.3.1). We can use a number of thefinancial valuations developed in this system:• The damage resulting from deaths is estimated at 1 million ECU per person. Accordingto this criterion 352 deaths per year would occur in the EU. Using this approach theresulting social costs would have to be set at 352 million ECU per year.• The damage as a result of production losses (agriculture) are directly accounted for. Ifthe 5% ecosystem impairment relates entirely to agricultural land it could be estimatedthat EU agricultural yields would be 5% or 8,900 million ECU lower. Here too,however, it is unclear what damage to ecosystems means in precise terms foragricultural systems. Acidification can be fairly easily compensated for by using lime,and this measure is relatively inexpensive.• The damage resulting from nuisance is set at 100 ECU per person using a not entirelytransparent system. Consequently, damage resulting from ecosystem impairment isvalued at approx. 1,600 million ECU.It seems therefore that the "costs of human fatalities" are somewhat on the low sidecompared with the other items for damage. When, however, it is borne in mind thatecosystem impairment occurs in the course of a number of years, the damage per year can beestimated at a substantially lower rate. In that case the damage caused by ecosystemimpairment and human fatalities do not show any major difference.The three examples have only been presented to give a little more feeling for thecorrelations. They do not prove anything; at best they demonstrate that the damage could becomparable.These examples show that the criterion of ecosystem impairment must be given a time scale(such as is also indicated in the NOH manual). If the amount of ecosystem lost per year wereknown it would be easier to compare this with the number of deaths per year; unfortunatelythis is not the case.The assumption that the three damage levels are comparable is the most importantsubjective factor in the method. The method has the advantage that the subjectivity can beclearly specified. This is in contrast to very subjective methods such as panel methods.The assumption must always be explicitly stated because the choice of target levels and thusthe whole weighting factor is directly determined by this.The whole weighting method is shown schematically in the figure below:EffectCOSOPbGreenhouse effectOzone layer depl.EutrophicationWinter smogCFCHealthFatalitiesEcosystemImpactHeavy metalsPesticidesCarcinogenicsSummer smogimpairmentimpairmentAcidificationValuationSubjectiveassessmentDamagedamagePAHDDTVOCNODustCdPEco-indicatorvalueResult22xFig. 3.1 Schematic representation of the Eco-indicator weighting methodThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report273.2. Development of the weighting principleIn the following paragraphs the perceptions developed here are formalised and generalised.The result is an adapted weighting equation and a substantial reinforcement of the workingof the weighting procedure.3.2.1. Damage-effect correlationThe graph below shows a possible correlation between the size of the environmental effectand the extent of the damage. This correlation is a sigmoid curve that is often used as amodel in toxicology. No damage is expected with a low effect. There then follows a more orless linear increase, after which a damage level is reached that cannot rise. Little is known,however, about the exact shape of this curve.damageeffectTDkiGraph 3.1 Simple correlation between damage and effect. There is no damage at a very low effect. If the extentof the effect increases, the damage also increases. Above a certain effect the damage does not increase furtherbecause everything is already damaged.where:Ti target level of effect iDk critical damage at target level TiThe target level T is directly linked to the choice of the damage level Dk. If a differentdamage level is chosen a different target level must also be defined.In addition to the target value, the following graph also gives the current value N of theeffect and the damage D at the current value. It also shows what will happen if the currentvalue is increased by a value E. E can represent the result of an LCA of a new product. Inpractice E will be very small in relative terms compared with N.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report28damageeffectNTDDD´N` Ekiii i iiGraph 3.2 Damage-effect functionwhere:Ni current extent of an effect iTi target value for this effect iEi contribution of a product life cycle to an effect iDk critical damage at target level TiDi damage at current extent NiIf the current level rises from N to N', the damage will increase from D to D'. Thecorrelation between the increase in an effect and the damage is thus equal to the directioncoefficient of the function at N. This direction coefficient is thus the weighting factor thatwe need in order to translate an effect into damage.The direction coefficient of a line can be determined if two points on a line can be defined.dcD DN Tii ki i=-- ......(3)where dci= direction coefficientThe contribution of effect score Ei to the indicator value I is thus: I D D dc ED DN TEi i i i ii ki ii= ' - = =--* * ........(4)This equation has a different shape from that of the distance-to-target equations (1) derivedabove. It shows agreement with the equation proposed by Heijungs in his contribution tothis project. It enables us to establish a direct correlation between effect and damage, if twopoints on the damage-effect line are known and if it is assumed that this line between thetwo points can be regarded as a straight line.In the distance-to-target equation only one point, rather than two, is defined on the curve,namely the damage at the target level. The height (damage) of the other point on the curve atthe current effect level is not determined. No direction coefficient can be defined on thebasis of a single point; for this reason this equation cannot be used as it currently stands toindicate a correlation between effect and damage.It proves possible to use the distance-to-target equation if we make an additionalassumption, namely that the effect curves pass through the origin. Such a simplified versionof the damage-effect function is shown below.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report29damageeffectNTDDD´N` Ekiii i iiGraph 3.3 Simplified damage-effect function that passes through the originIn this case the direction coefficient is equal to D/T. The contribution of effect i to theindicator can thus be written as:IDTE DETikii kii= =* * .......(5)This equation is very similar to the Eco-indicator equation derived above (see 1), except thatthe subjective weighting factor W is now substituted by D. The indicator is thus directlyproportional to the damage at the target level. The indicator also has the same dimension asthe type of "damage". This is also the correct dimension.During the project we discovered that the distance-to-target method according to the chosenequation meant that we were working in accordance with the simplified model shown ingraph 3.3. None of those involved had realised this.Relatively little is known to date on the position of the curve, and it has therefore beendifficult to identify the error that occurs as a result of the assumption that the lines passthrough the origin.3.2.2. Damage-effect correlation for multiple effectsTo date we have always used one curve for one effect i in a graph. It would be desirable, inorder to gain an overview, to plot all the effects in a single graph. Two measures must beimplemented for this:• It is not possible to plot the different effects along a single horizontal axis. However, itis possible to plot the normalised effects along the same axis. The axis then comes tosignify a relative contribution.• A single type of damage is entered on the vertical axis, in this example the number ofdeaths per million per year. This means that only effects relating to human fatalities canbe plotted on the graph.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report30Damage (Number of excess deaths per milion per year)Relative contribution to an effect012510k12DT3N3T2N2T1N1NiNi3DDDE3N3E2N2E1N1=1Graph 3.4 Three damage-effect functions in a single graph. The horizontal axis plots the normalised effects. Thevertical axis contains in this case the damage expressed in numbers of deaths. A graph of this type could also beplotted for other types of damage, such as the percentage impairment of an ecosystem.Thanks to normalisation it is possible to plot all the effects on a single axis. All the currentvalues are then superimposed on each other with a value of 1. The target values lie on thepoint Ti/Ni 14. The target values have all been chosen such that the effect under study resultsin one death per million per year.If, as a result of a product, an extra effect E1, E2 and E3 arises, the values N1, N2 and N3are increased, just as in the graph above. This means that the values D1, D2 and D3 will alsoincrease. The total damage is the sum of the D values. In more general terms, the effect of anumber of impacts can be written as:I dcENDTNENDNTENDETiiiikiiiiikiiiiikiii= = = =* * * * * .... (6)This is a generalisation of formula 515. The indicator value is determined by the product ofDk and the sum of the proportions E/T. This means the critical damage Dk is the scale factorfor the combined effects. This factor also determines the dimension of I since E/T isdimensionless.This reasoning applies to the effects that all cause the same type of damage. The othereffects can also be plotted on this graph, however, if the damage levels are weighted relativeto each other. The damage weighting factor developed above is therefore an integral part ofthe weighting equation. 14 It is also possible, however, to plot this graph by normalising the target value. All the damage-effect curves then coincide. The position of the factor N/T then also determines the damage.15 If it is assumed that the lines do not pass through the origin the formula is:ID DTNEND DEN Ti kiiiiii kii ii=--= --1* ( ) *The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report313.2.3. Damage weightingIn order to process the differences in damage level in the equation for weighting a damageweighting factor must be introduced. This factor expresses the relative seriousness of thedamage. In equation form:w D w D w Ddeath per million per year1 2 3* * *_ _ _ _ _1 5%_ecosystem_impairment smog_periods= = .... (7)The w here represents a weighting factor for the seriousness of the damage.If the indicator now has to be calculated for effects causing different types of damage thefollowing equation results:I w DETjjkiii j=FHGIKJ* * ......(8)This equation can be read as follows:• Aggregate the ratio E/T for the effects i resulting in damage type j• Multiply this sum by the product of Dk and the damage weighting factor• Repeat this for all types of damage and aggregate the values found3.2.4. Choice of the subjective damage weighting factor wBecause we have considered all damage levels to be equal (see para 3.1.5) all damageweighting factors can be set at 1. The equation can thus be written simply as:I DETkiii= * ....(9)In this Dk can mean both 1 death per million inhabitants per year and the impairment of 5%of the ecosystem.3.2.5. Conclusion on the weighting methodThis analysis has demonstrated that the formula used in the distance-to-target is more thanan abstract principle. It offers a means of establishing a direct correlation between effect anddamage. This is a fundamental breakthrough in our thinking on the weighting of effects. Theability to translate the effects into damage means that a rather abstract and very subjectiveintereffect factor does not have to be used. The subjectivity is replaced by evaluation of thedamage itself.Seen retrospectively we have perhaps not made the optimum choice in the equation fordistance-to-target used; this is because our equation can only be used if it is assumed that thedamage-effect curve passes through zero as we only define one point on the line. In arefinement of the Eco-indicator better use can perhaps be made of a method in which twopoints are chosen on the damage-effect line. Determination of the direction coefficient thenbecomes somewhat more accurate.3.3. Classification and characterisationA characterisation stage has to be developed to obtain new effect scores for the differenttypes of toxicity. This requires weighting factors that can convert the relative harm of animpact into an effect score. To determine the other scores you are referred to the NOHmanual.We have used the Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) and the Quality Guidelines for DrinkingWater (QGDW) of the WHO as a starting point. These guidelines describe the effect ofsubstances based on long-term, low-level exposure.3.3.1. Effect score for airborne heavy metalsThis effect score relates particularly to heavy metals because they represent significanthealth risks in the event of long-term, low-level exposure. The risks that are related mainlyThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report32to the nervous system and liver can be evaluated in terms of toxicity to humans and toxicityto ecosystems. It is generally assumed (Globe, AQG) that human toxicity is the mostimportant limiting factor.The AQG defines the following acceptable airborne concentrations for exposure to man inthe course of a year:Maximumconcentration µg/m3Weightingfactorm3/µgDominant health effectCadmium 0.02 50 KidneysLead 1 1 Blood biosynthesis, nervous system and bloodpressureManganese 1 1 Lungs and nervous system (deficiency causesdermatological conditions)Mercury 1 1 Brain: sensory and co-ordination functionsTable 3.4 Characterisation values for airborne heavy metalsChromium and nickel are included with the carcinogenic substances because the risk ofcancer is greater than other toxicological effects.Based on this concentration a weighting factor can be determined that is equal to the inverseof the acceptable concentration. This fits with the critical volume approach such as waspreviously used with the MAC value. We have expressed the effect score as a lead-equivalent.3.3.2. Effect score for waterborne heavy metalsThe WHO 'Quality Guidelines for Drinking Water' specify a number of values for persistentsubstances based on long-term, low-level exposure. These criteria were established toevaluate drinking water, based on identified health effects. The table below contains aselection of substances that are persistent to a greater or lesser extent and thus accumulate inthe environment.Substance Norm(mg/litre)Weightingfactor(litre/mg)EffectAntimony 0.005 2 Glucose and cholesterol in bloodArsenic 0.01 1 6*10-4 chance of skin cancerBarium 0.07 0.14 Blood pressure and blood vesselsBoron 0.3 0.03 FertilityCadmium 0.003 3 KidneysChromium (all) 0.05 0.2 Mutagenic (carcinogenic only if inhaled)Copper 2 0.005 No problem as a rule, sometimes liver disordersLead 0.01 1 Blood biosynthesis, nervous system and bloodpressureManganese 0.5 0.02 Nervous systemMercury 0.001 10 Kidneys, nervous system (methylmercury)Molybdenum 0.07 0.14 No clear descriptionNickel 0.02 0.5 Weight loss, great uncertaintyTable 3.5 Characterisation values for waterborne heavy metalsWith this effect score too the weighting factor was determined in order to be able tocalculate a lead-equivalent. It was later decided to combine the scores for waterborne andairborne heavy metals. A lead-equivalent for water was then made the same as a lead-equivalent for air.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report333.3.3. Carcinogenic substancesThe 'AQG' does not provide any acceptable levels but calculates the probability of cancer ata level of 1 µg/m3. In the table below this probability is expressed as the number of peoplefrom a group of 1 million who will contract cancer at this exposure level.Probability ofcancer at1 µg/m3Weightingfactor forPAHequivalentType of cancerArsenic 0.004 0.044 General, also mutagenic effectsBenzene 0.000001 1.1 * 10-5 LeukaemiaNickel 0.04 0.44 Lung and larynxChromium 6 0.04 0.44 Various incl. lung, also mutageniceffectsPAH(Benzo[a]pyrene)0.09 1 Lung cancer, but also other formsTable 3.6 Characterisation values for carcinogenic substancesThe PAH group contains a large number of substances. Benzo[a]pyrene has been chosen asa representative. An improvement in this score would be possible if account could be takenof a substance's persistence. This applies in particular to the group of PAHs.The inclusion of asbestos can also be considered. The difficulty here is that asbestosemissions cannot be expressed sensibly in a unit of weight. The number and type of fibres isof decisive importance.3.3.4. Winter smogOnly dust and SO2 play a role with this effect. The 'Air Quality Guidelines' specify a levelof 50 µg/m³ for both substances. The weighting factors are equal; we have chosen 1. Animprovement is possible by taking account of the average persistence time of thecomponents. There was a lack of data on this. The definition of the term could also beimproved.3.3.5. PesticidesPesticides cause a number of problems, including:• Groundwater becomes too toxic for human consumption.• Biological activity in the soil is impaired, resulting in damage to vegetation.This means that account must be taken of both ecotoxicity and human toxicity in the effectscore weighting. A distinction must be drawn between: disinfectants, fungicides, herbicidesand insecticides.The NOH classification provides an extensive list of weighting factors for pesticides basedon their ecotoxic effect. We considered using these, but it proved not to be possible becauseno adequate normalisation data were available for these substances. The normalisation dataare based on an aggregate of the amount of active ingredient without further weighting ofthe toxicity itself.A further improvement in this effect score is possible by weighting the substances for theirpersistence. Some pesticides remain active for years, while others have almost disappearedafter one day.3.3.6. UncertaintyIn the WHO publications estimates of the uncertainties are made in a number of places. As arule the greatest uncertainty arises from extrapolation of animal experiments to humans(generally one order of magnitude). Other uncertainties arise because the exposure and theThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report34resulting consequences are only measured in a small number of test subjects and alwaysretrospectively. Here too the error can easily be one order of magnitude.3.3.7. ConclusionThe NOH classification remains the basis for the Eco-indicator; only the term "toxicity" isdefined in greater detail. These new classifications fit much better with the description ofthe environmental problems in Europe. This makes it possible to carry out a weighting foreach type of toxicity.3.4. NormalisationStrictly speaking, normalisation values are unnecessary in a distance-to-target evaluationbecause they are omitted from the weighting equation (1). However, it is seen to beimportant for two reasons to continue to include these values.• Normalisation greatly increases our understanding of the weighting. Normalisation isa more or less objective step that illustrates what effects are relatively stronglyrepresented in the effect scores.• In much of the literature objectives are specified as reduction factors. In other words,the factor by which an effect must be reduced is specified, without stating whichabsolute value must be achieved.It was intended at the outset of the project to use the normalisation values from the recentCML publication by Guinée [19]. The report is specially intended to calculate normalisationvalues that fit the NOH effect definition. The figures are based on recordings of emissions(fourth round) based on 1988. This list contains the total emissions in the Netherlands in1988. A conversion factor was applied to translate these values into world effect values. Todo this, all the figures were multiplied by 100 because the Dutch economy representsapproximately 1% of world-wide GNP. An exception was made for greenhouse gases andozone-layer-depleting substances, for which actual international figures were used (derivedfrom the IPPC16). This raised a number of difficulties:• The Dutch economy is certainly not a reflection of the world economy. In theNetherlands there is a relatively large amount of base chemical processes andtransportation, but relatively little consumer goods production. The emissions pattern isspecific to our economy, and it is dangerous to scale this pattern up to a world level.• The publication of emissions recordings indicates itself that it is incomplete. Sectorssuch as agriculture are insufficiently covered.• The Eco-indicator is based on a European scale.We also investigated to what extent the characterisation of effects agrees with thedescriptions of the most important environmental problems. It might be expected that asubstance that makes a major contribution to a world effect score would also have to bedescribed in other literature sources as an importance cause of this effect.17The result of this analysis cannot always be explained. It turns out that substances that makea major contribution to the NOH effect score actually scarcely appear in the specialistenvironmental literature on impairment of health and ecosystems. 16 IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change17 It is therefore seen that when applying the NOH classification to the overall total of Europeanemissions phenol emissions must be regarded as the most significant European human toxicityproblem. Cobalt remains very dominant in terms of ecotoxicity. This result does not fit with thedescription of environmental problems in Europe. In most of the literature carcinogenesis, heavymetals such as cadmium, mercury, lead etc. are noted as major problems. Phenol almost cannotbecome a major problem because it has a half life of 6 weeks and therefore can hardly accumulatein the environment.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report353.4.1. European normalisation valuesWhen defining target values use was made of data that refer to the whole of Europe, apartfrom the former USSR. We searched for data for this area in various publications. Thecountries studied can be divided into two groups:Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany18, Greece, Iceland,Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,UK.Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia19, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia203.4.2. Data sourcesThe data were taken from various sources. They refer to anthropogenic emissions. Thisimplies that emissions from natural sources are not included. The table below lists thesources used in determining the normalisation values.Source Title and publisher1 The Environment in Europe and North-America, Annotated Statistics 1992,Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations Publication [37]2 Corinair 1990 , provisional results [6]3 Environmental Statistics 1991, Eurostat, [11]4 The Environment in Europe: a Global Perspective, RIVM. [33]5 General Environmental Statistics 1992], CBS (NL), [5]6 Industrial emissions in the Netherlands No. 14, September 1993, [23]7 CFC commission, a collaborative project by Government and industryAnnual report 1993, [4]Table 3.7 Data sources for normalisation valuesSources 1, 2, 3 and 4 provide information relating to a large area, mostly on a regional basis.Sources 5, 6 and 7 on the other hand are specific to the Dutch situation.With regard to source 2 it may be noted that the data are not yet complete. The final versionwill be published in spring 1995.3.4.3. Extrapolation of missing impactsWhere data were missing for one or several countries a total emission was extrapolated.This extrapolation is based on a country's energy consumption. It is anticipated that acountry's energy consumption will best reflect the country's industrial structure and thus theemissions pattern. Because Eastern and Western Europe have a completely differentinfrastructure these areas have been calculated separately and later re-combined. Aspreadsheet that is included as Appendix 2 was used for the calculations.The table below lists the normalisation values. The data per European head of population(497 million inhabitants) are given in the penultimate column. 18 Data for West and East Germany combined.19 Data refer to the former Czechoslovakia as a whole; no division into the Czech Republic andSlovakia.20 Data specified for the area of the former Yugoslavia; no sub-division by separate republics.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report36Unit WesternEuropeEasternEuropeTotal Per headof thepopulationUncer-taintyGreenhouse effect GWP kg 4.8E+12 1.7E+12 6.5E+12 1.31E+04 smallOzone layer depletion ODP kg 3.7E+08 9.4E+07 4.6E+08 9.26E-01 largeAcidification AP kg 3.5E+10 2.1E+10 5.6E+10 1.13E+02 smallEutrophication NP kg 1.4E+10 5.1E+09 1.9E+10 3.82E+01 mod.Heavy metals Pb equiv. kg 2.1E+07 5.9E+06 2.7E+07 5.43E-02 largeCarcinogens PAH equiv. kg 4.3E+06 1.1E+06 5.4E+06 1.09E-02 largeWinter smog SO2 equiv. kg 2.3E+10 2.3E+10 4.7E+10 9.46E+01 smallSummer smog POCP kg 7.0E+09 1.9E+09 8.9E+09 1.79E+01 largePesticides active ingr. kg 3.8E+08 9.8E+07 4.8E+08 9.66E-01 largeTable 3.8 Normalisation values.3.4.4. UncertaintyA number of figures are based on only small data sets. The uncertainty relating to theseeffects is therefore fairly large. Determining the degree of uncertainty is not a simple matter.There are various error sources:• Errors in the statistics. It seems not improbable that errors of 10% have occurred in thereported figures. This is sometimes apparent from differences between sources relatingto the same country and year.• Errors arising from extrapolation. Some figures are computed mainly from Dutchfigures. Distortions to the order of several tens of percents can occur.• Incomplete emissions list per effect. The statistics do not contain all the substances thatcontribute to an effect. We have ensured that all important substances are included,insofar that it is clear which are the relevant substances. The error resulting from this isestimated to be 10-20% in some cases.It is difficult to underpin the percentage estimations given above. There is thereforeuncertainty about the uncertainty.The subjects to which this relates are:• Ozone layer depletion. The score is based to an extent of 43% on Dutch data. These dataare in themselves already unreliable because the use of CFCs is falling rapidly. Thereference date thus plays an important role. We chose 1990. We estimate that the marginof uncertainty may be of the order of 100%.• Heavy metals and carcinogens. Dutch figures have been used almost entirely for this. Itis anticipated that it is precisely these emissions that will be relatively high in EasternEurope because of the use of leaded petrol and coal. With reference to carcinogens thePAH group represents an important problem. Many sources do not indicate whichsubstances should be included. The margin of uncertainty may be ±100%.• Pesticides. These data are based on average Western European values and then scaledup to Eastern Europe. The uncertainty could be of the order of 50%.The other effects are based on a relatively large number of data. We expect the uncertaintyhere to be of the order of ±10%. However, these uncertainties cannot be backed up in anyway at all. They are based solely on estimates.3.5. Target valuesThe target values were mainly taken from an extensive scenario study carried out by theRIVM for the GLOBE Europe organisation. We will refer to this as the Globe report [33].The report describes the damage caused by each effect, using a large number of maps.Furthermore, it describes what the effects would be of a couple of scenarios. We have notused these scenarios themselves, but the underlying data. Although extensive reference listsare provided it is unfortunately not always clear on what statements in the report areThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report37founded and what the uncertainties are. A request for clarification of a number of points wasmade during discussions with the editor of the report, Mr. J.P. Hetteling.To aid comprehension of the following survey it is urgently recommended that this paper beconsulted. We will only deal here with the conclusions that we have drawn from the report.In addition to the Globe report we also used the Air Quality Guidelines [2] and the QualityGuidelines for Drinking Water [38] that have been developed by a large team of expertsunder commission from the WHO. We used this to supplement the Globe report in a fewareas.3.5.1. Greenhouse effectAt the moment temperatures are rising by 0.2°C per decade. Under current policies thisincrease will rise to 0.3°C per decade. The consequence is a significant temperature changeby 2050. In Northern and Eastern Europe the winters will be more than 5°C warmer, and inSouthern Europe the summers will be 4°C warmer. Those areas in particular that have noother systems in their vicinity that can exist in such a climate will suffer serious damage.This will affect approx. 20% of Europe.The Globe report provides sufficient information to estimate that less than 5% of theecosystems will be impaired if the greenhouse effect is reduced by a factor of 2.5.3.5.2. Ozone layer depletionIn accordance with the Montreal Protocol and its London amendment all CFC emissionsmust be reduced to zero by the year 2000. For the less persistent HCFCs it has been agreedthat the contribution may not exceed 2.6% of the total adverse effect of CFCs in 1989. Theuse of these substances too is to be phased out by 2015.If this happens, the annual total of fatalities per million inhabitants in Europe will first risefrom approximately 1 to 2 and then fall to 1 death per year per million. It does not yet seemdirectly necessary to reduce all HCFC emissions to zero because the norm (2 ppbv) will beachieved, even if after 2100. For these gases the target reduction is linked to the greenhouseeffect21.Based on this reduction for greenhouse gases, we therefore provisionally assume that areduction target of 60% applies to HCFCs. On the premise that HCFCs are currentlyresponsible for 2.6% of ozone layer depletion it can be estimated that this reduction willcause ozone layer depletion to fall to 1% of its present level. The reduction factor istherefore 100. There is a great deal of uncertainty about this figure.3.5.3. AcidificationThere is a great variety in Europe in the ability of ecosystems to withstand acid loads. InScandinavia, for example, problems can occur with deposits of as little as 100 eq/ha.yr,while in some places in the Netherlands and Germany the soil can be subjected to depositsof more than 2000 eq/ha.yr. The actual deposit reaches its highest level, however, in CentralEurope, particularly as a result of the use of lignite. If the deposit and capacity are comparedwith each other there prove to be major problems particularly in England, the Beneluxcountries, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia [9].A provisional estimate based on the information available reveals that the reduction must beof the order of a factor of 10 to keep ecosystem impairment below 5%. A value of 10 wasultimately chosen. 21 Conversely, a marked reduction in the greenhouse effect will also be achieved by the elimination ofCFCs since CFCs are responsible for 24% of this effect. Elimination of CFCs will therefore yield a24% reduction in the greenhouse effect.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report38Fig. 3.2 Example of an acidification map from the RAINS program [30]3.5.4. EutrophicationEutrophication is seen in the Globe report primarily as the problem of excessive use offertilisers by agriculture as a result of which nitrates leach out and poison groundwatersupplies. The problem is at its greatest in the Benelux countries, North-Rhine Westphaliaand the Po valley region (approx. 200 kg P-eq/ha.yr).The NOH manual refers mainly to eutrophication via air and water emissions. These rarelycontribute more than 10% of the amount of fertiliser applied by farmers. In uncultivatedbiotopes, however, this eutrophication can have a serious adverse effect on biodiversity.In describing the level of eutrophication in rivers and lakes it is assumed that the criticalvalue for phosphates is 0.15 mg/l and for nitrates 2.2 mg/l. At these values no problems ofeutrophication occur. In the rivers Rhine, Schelde, Elbe, Mersey and Ebro, however, thesevalues are exceeded more than 5 times. This means that the emissions must be reduced by afactor of 5.3.5.5. Summer smogA hundred years ago the ozone concentration, averaged over the whole year, was approx.10 ppb. At present it is 25 ppb. This is approximately the maximum acceptable level. Above30 ppb, for example, crop damage can occur.The major problem is not determined by the average figures but by the summer peaks whichcan reach more than 300 ppb. To reduce the occurrence of this type of dangerous peaks by90% it is necessary to reduce VOCs and NOx by 60-70%. A reduction factor of 2.5 isappropriate.3.5.6. Heavy metalsLead concentrations in Central Europe are very high, particularly in the soil and water. Intowns and cities the airborne concentration is also high, particularly because of the use ofleaded petrol. For adults the Air Quality Guidelines specify a limit of 0.5-1 µg/m3 in the air.According to Globe this value is frequently exceeded several times over. Globe notes inpassing (without reference) that average lead concentrations in Poland are 20 µg/m3.Eating locally grown vegetables would result in a blood lead level that is ten times too high.Lead levels in blood of 150-400 µg/l have been found in children. Such readings alsooccurred 30 years ago in the West, but not any more. Now the values are 5 to 10 timeslower. There is thought not to be a no-effect-level for exposure for children. Above 100 µg/lclear reductions in learning ability can be measured.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report39Thus although it is plausible that this pollution has a clearly measurable effect on humanhealth it is not easy to calculate a general reduction percentage for lead. The best estimate isa reduction by a factor of 5-10. We have taken a figure of 5 for heavy metal emissions to air.Agriculture (fertiliser) is the major source of cadmium deposition. The average depositionrate is 0.6-0.67 g/ha.yr on grassland and 3.4-6.8 g/ha.yr on arable land. The SouthernNetherlands holds the record with a deposit of 7.5-8.5 g/ha.yr. Furthermore, approx. 14% isdistributed via the air (see "3.5.7 Winter smog" below).This leaching is calculated in the Globe report for the Rhine. A detailed calculation makes aconvincing case for the necessity to reduce cadmium emissions by 80-85%. In some otherrivers such as the Elbe, cadmium contamination is substantially greater, and the requiredtarget will perhaps have to be set even higher. For the moment we are continuing with atarget reduction by a factor of 5 for heavy metals in water and air.3.5.7. Winter smogThe most important sources of this problem which occurs mainly in Eastern Europe are SO2and SPM (suspended particle matter, or fine dust and soot particles). NOx, organicsubstances and CO are also involved to a lesser extent. The dust particles can also containheavy metals.This form of smog achieved notoriety in 1952 when it caused an estimated 4000 deaths inLondon. The SO2 and SPM concentrations reached values of 5000 µg/m3. In SouthernPoland and Eastern Germany average readings of 200 µg/m3 still occur. The Air QualityGuidelines specify a limit of 50 µg/m3 for long-term exposure to both SPM and SO2. Basedon this, a reduction of 75% would be necessary.Globe estimates that a reduction in SO2 emissions of more than 80% is necessary toeliminate by and large the occurrence of occasional smog periods. No target is proposed forSPM because it is not well defined or well measured22. A factor of 5 is taken as a reductiontarget.3.5.8. Carcinogenic substancesGlobe also provides some data on the distribution of carcinogenic substances. The mainsubstances involved are polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), of which benzo[a]pyrene inparticular is an important example. This occurs, among other places, in coke furnaces and in(diesel) engines. In fact the problem is only relevant in urban areas.Globe specifies a value of 0.8-5 ng/m3 voor Northern European towns and cities. The AirQuality Guidelines specify a value of 1 ng/m3 in American cities without coke furnaces inthe vicinity and 1-5 ng/m3 in cities with coke furnaces. In European towns and cities in the60s when open coal fires were still very widely used, the average concentrations were inexcess of 100 ng/m3. In Eastern Europe the values are still high because of the use of coal-fired heating systems. As a point of comparison, a room in which a lot of people aresmoking can contain 20 ng/m3.The Air Quality Guidelines specify a threshold concentration van 0.01 ng/m3 at which 1cancer case per million inhabitants per year will still occur. This criterion cannot becompared straightforwardly with the criterion for ozone layer depletion because not all thecancer cases are terminal. In addition, only about 1/3 of the population of Europe lives intowns or cities23. If we assume that one in every three cancer cases is terminal and if we takeonly the urban population the risk of death is about ten times lower. Based on theseconsiderations there would be one death per year per million inhabitants at a concentrationof 0.1 ng/m3. 22 In the NOH manual there is no weighting factor for SPM in characterising human toxicity.23 Eurostat [11], estimate based on data for 6 EU member statesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report40Assuming a background concentration of 1 ng/m3 in towns and cities without coke furnaces(Western European towns and cities in particular) a reduction by a factor of 10 could beestimated.3.5.9. PesticidesLeaching of pesticides threatens groundwater sources throughout the EU. In 65% of the EUthe groundwater is contaminated above the EU norm (0.5 µg/litre). The norm is exceededtenfold in 25% of the EU. This occurs in 20% of the land area of Eastern Europe. Areduction by a factor of 25 is necessary to ensure that the norm is exceeded in less than 10%of Europe.3.5.10. UncertaintyThere is uncertainty about every single value cited. A number of factors have an importantrole to play in this:• The degree to which the criterion fits with the effect definition. This problem is reduced,but not entirely resolved, by redefining the effects. The uncertainty associated with thispoint cannot be quantified.• The uncertainty over the occurrence of the effect24. These uncertainties are difficult toquantify.• Uncertainty in the exposure of ecosystems and people. All kinds of local circumstancesand human behaviour can result in substantial variations in the actual exposure to asubstance .• Intereffect combinations. It is known that some substances when in combinationreinforce each other or work against each other25.• The derivation of the target values themselves. In various places in the abovedescription it has been stated that there are uncertainties.It is difficult to determine the magnitude of the uncertainty. In toxicological studies it isquite normal to work with uncertainties of several orders of magnitude. Nevertheless datawith such uncertainties are used in order to establish standards and regulations.In general we believe that the uncertainties in the reduction factors are of the order ofseveral tens in percentage terms, but we are unable to back this estimate up.3.5.11. Summary of the weighting factorsThe table below summarises the figures and the values used in determining them. 24 Example: with the greenhouse effect a marked rise in temperature is expected. Recent calculations,however, predict a temperature reduction in Europe as a result of the disappearance of the warmGulf Stream because of higher temperatures at the North Pole.25 Examples: nickel in combination with cigarette smoke is much more dangerous than nickel inisolation. Because of SO2 clouds become whiter and their reflecting capacity is increased; theoutcome is that it gets colder on Earth.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report41Character-isationReductionfactorCriterionGreenhouseeffectNOH(IPCC)2.5 0.1° per decade, 5% ecosystem impairmentOzone layerdepletionNOH(IPCC)100 Probability of 1 death per year per million peopleAcidification NOH 10 5% ecosystem impairmentEutrophication NOH 5 Rivers and lakes, impairment of an unknown numberof aquatic ecosystems? (5% ecosystem impairment?)Summer smog NOH 2.5 Occurrence of smog periods, health complaints,particularly among asthma patients and old people.Occurrence of agricultural damageWinter smog Air QualityGuidelines5 Occurrence of smog periods, health complaints,particularly among asthma patients and old peoplePesticides Activeingredient25 5% ecosystem impairmentHeavy metalsin airAir QualityGuidelines5 Lead level in children's blood, limited lifeexpectancy and learning ability in an unknownnumber of peopleHeavy metalsin waterQualityGuidelinesfor Water5 Cadmium content in rivers, ultimately also effect onpeople (see air)CarcinogenicsubstancesAir QualityGuidelines10 Probability of 1 death per year per million people.Table 3.9 Summary of the weighting factorsThe last column indicates the criterion on which the target value is based. The damage typesdefined previously are recognisable here.ConclusionThe Eco-indicator weighting method is a refinement of the LCA method using publishedguidelines, the NOH manual and the SETAC Code of Practice. The evaluation stage is basedon the distance-to-target principle, and the normalisation stage is based on European data(excluding the former Soviet Union). The decision in favour of this principle was made inphase 1 after a detailed evaluation of other principles. During the project is became clearthat this principle leaves a lot of room for interpretation and that improvements in theprinciple are possible in the event of future developments.A number of conclusions can be drawn with regard to the methodology:• An Eco-indicator cannot be developed without clearly defining and demarcating theterm "environment" or "eco". Such a definition and demarcation were developed duringthis project. The Eco-indicator applies only to environmental affects that damageecosystems or human health on a European scale. Other effects are not covered.• In evaluating environmental effects the damage caused by the effect is a determiningfactor for the seriousness of an effect. It is inevitable that the damage-effect relation willbe used when developing a weighting method. The direction coefficient of the damageeffect function is in principle the weighting factor.• Distance-to-target as a weighting principle does establish a link between damage andeffect, but this effect is not ideal in its present form because it only defines one point onthe damage-effect function. This means it is not possible to determine the slope of thisfunction directly. In the future it seems that it will be possible to improve the weightingprinciple by defining two points on the damage-effect function. Such a method requiresdouble the quantity of data.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report42• There are various types of environmental damage. For this reason it is necessary toweight different types of damage. Subjectivity is inevitable with such a weighting. Inrelative terms, however, it is much easier to weight damage subjectively than effects.• The Eco-indicator is based on the subjective assumption that the 5% ecosystemimpairment is equivalent to the death of one person per million per year. Differentassumptions would result directly in different weighting factors.• The difference of view that seemed so important in the first phase of this project as towhether the current or the target value should be normalised has proved to be much lessrelevant than first thought.• Raw materials depletion and the space required for final waste cannot be correlated witha form of environmental damage. After all, no ecosystems are impaired and no-one diesas a result of such depletions. This means that it is not easy to weight the seriousness ofraw materials depletion. The extraction of raw materials and the generation of waste areevaluated, however, in that the impacts as a result of the extraction of raw materials andthe processing of waste are completely evaluated. It ought to be possible to develop aseparate indicator for evaluating raw materials depletion.• The uncertainties in the results of the weighting method are still large. This applies bothto normalisation and to weighting. It could even be that the normalisation values containeven more uncertainties than the weighting factors. It seems to be very sensible to drawup a new inventory of the available normalisation data after some time.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report434. Calculation of the Eco-indicatorsThe development of 100 Eco-indicators for materials and processes ultimately required 100LCAs to be carried out. This means that the inventory phase was run 100 times.The NOH manual and the SETAC Code of Practice state in general terms the requirementswith which an inventory phase has to comply. The most important requirement is that thechoices, the system boundaries and the allocation principles must all be clearly stated. Thereis no straightforward receipt for the inventory stage. The researcher has to make a largenumber of choices when searching for and interpreting data. These choices can greatlyinfluence the result.Both manuals rightly assume that the way in which the inventory phase is carried outdepends among other things on the objective. Before the inventory phase can be carried outthe objective must be carefully defined. Based on this objective certain methodologicalchoices can be formulated. Explicitly stating these choices in advance will prevent theresearcher from making different assumptions ad hoc for various processes or will preventhim, even worse, from working towards a result.4.1. Definition of the objectiveThe Eco-indicators (the 100 figures) are intended for use within companies, particularly as adecision-making support tool for product design or management decisions. It is primarily ameans of taking account of environmental aspects in a decision if there is little time to carryout detailed analyses.The Eco-indicator is intended to take generic decisions on materials, working principles andlife cycles. The indicators are not intended for use in controlling the purchase of materials(selection between two aluminium suppliers) or in taking important investment decisions.This means that the user does not know where the impacts will occur.The users in this project are companies operating on the international market. This meansthat the indicator must also be relevant outside the Netherlands. Europe is an acceptablescale for the companies involved.This objective has a number of other important consequences:• The data must be generally applicable. The figure for aluminium, for example, must bebased on the average emissions in the production of aluminium.• The data must be gathered such that it is possible to compare the indicators well witheach other. Mutual comparability of the figures is more important than the absolutevalue. All data must therefore be gathered in the same way.• The inventory method must fit as well as possible with the current working method usedby LCA researchers.The consequences of these statements are explained in greater detail below.4.1.1. Functional unitFor an LCA it is of great importance to define precisely which product is actually beingstudied. Particularly when comparing two products it is important to ensure that the productsare actually equivalent and perform the same task.In the Eco-indicator project the functional unit is somewhat less visible because no productsare analysed over their entire life cycle. The aim is only to produce the building blocks foranalysing product life cycles. The designer can establish his own functional unit and carryout an LCA with the indicators. What is required, therefore, is to develop an LCA kit ofcompatible LCA modules, each with its own indicator value. The are five types of LCAmodules:1. Material production2. Material processing3. Energy conversion or generation4. Transport5. Waste processingThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report44Most product life cycles can be accurately described with these blocks.Fig. 4.1 shows an example of a coffee machine. The blocks always represent an LCAmodule for which an indicator has to be developed. The designer himself determines whatthe entire life cycle will look like, what the functional unit is and which material and processquantities are required.assemblypolystyreneinjectionaluminiumextrusion+ transportdisposalmunicipalwasteelectricitydisposalusepaperfiltersproductionsheet steelpressingglassformingfilters and coffee beantransport+ roastingpackagingwatermouldingcoffee Fig. 4.1. Example of a life cycle for a coffee machine. The use phase, determines the overall functional unit ofthe product.It will be obvious that the blocks must fit together well and that it is clear to the designerwhat is included in a block and what is not. The Manual for Designers [17] describes theprocess inputs and outputs.4.1.2. Working with average figuresWorking with average figures gives rise to two problems26:1. The impact table in an LCA is strongly influenced by the location of a process. Afactory in Sweden uses much "cleaner" electricity than the equivalent factory inGermany. A truck in Northern Europe produces much lower sulphur emissions than onein Southern Europe because the regulations for fuels are different.2. The evaluation of the seriousness of an impact depends on the degree to which anecosystem is contaminated. Eutrophication impacts are of concern for the Netherlandswhile for Central Spain they represent a blessing.The user (the designer) of the Eco-indicator is not generally able to influence the choice ofthe region in which the process is taking place. This is sometimes the case to a certain extentfor purchasing staff, but the Eco-indicator has not been developed for this purpose.4.2. Description of the inventory phaseDuring the so-called inventory phase the emissions and raw materials consumption ofprocesses are identified. The inventory phase is the most complex and labour-intensivephase in an LCA. During this phase estimates and allocations have to be made in a largenumber of cases. To prevent the Eco-indicators becoming impossible to compare with eachother it is important to define in advance how these allocations are to be carried out. We 26 It is explicitly not the intention of the project to resolve in passing all the methodological problemsthat occur during the inventory phase. We will have to live with the same problems faced by allother LCA experts too.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report45have made a description of the way in which the inventory phase must be conducted inadvance.The description below of the working method during the inventory phase represents theideal. The picture is determined by the objectives described above. In practice we had todeviate from this ideal, because there were simply no reliable data available. In some caseswe dispensed with the calculation of an indicator. This description can also serve as a guideif new indicators have to be determined.A large number of problems in the inventory phase are described in the LCA literature.However, almost all the problems can be grouped under a number of headings:SystemboundariesproblemsNo single product forms a completely isolated product system, independentof other products. Capital goods and auxiliary products are almost alwaysrequired to manufacture, transport, use and dispose of a product. Because itis impossible in practice to take account of all these interactions, boundariesmust be set for the product system.AllocationproblemsMany processes result in by-products in addition to a main product.Furthermore, in the case of recycling, the same material is used in severalproduct cycles. In these cases the environmental impacts of a process orcycle must be allocated to these products.Choice ofTechnologyParticularly with an Eco-indicator it is important to assume the same state ofthe technology for all the processes.Time andspaceThe location where a process takes place has a marked influence not only onthe impact table but also on the evaluation of the seriousness of the effects.With durable products there is also the problem that use and disposalprocesses will not take place now but over an extended period. It is notknown what the state of the art will then be.Table 4.1 Summary of complications in the inventory phase.4.2.1. System boundariesA number of rules apply for all types of data, while others apply specifically to materialproduction, transport etc.In principle all processes are included from raw material extraction to the final process,which results in the outcome described in the material and process definition. However, thefollowing are exceptions to this:• Production, maintenance and disposal of capital goods. Capital goods are defined toinclude fixed installations, transport systems and such like that are seen as investmentgoods in an economic sense. Dies are also included. Maintenance primarily coversmajor inspections and repairs. Emissions of consumed auxiliary materials such as fuels,lubricants, quick-wearing parts and such like are included in the system.• Human labour, transport of people etc. Heating and lighting of the production processes,however, are not included because they can often not be distinguished from the otherprocesses in a factory.• Risks and emissions resulting from accidents and major malfunctions. In addition to these general rules, a number of specific rules apply.4.2.1.1. Material productionThe starting point is the extraction of raw materials. The finishing point is the process thatproduces the material in the quality and form for supply as described in the material andprocess definition.The process tree incorporates all transport for the material and auxiliary items, including theindustrial packaging. Mining processes are fully included, even if they take place outsideEurope.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report464.2.1.2. Energy generationAll raw material extraction, distribution and manufacturing processes must be included upto the moment that the fuel is ready for sale in Europe.4.2.1.3. TransportAn important problem is the question of to what extent the transport means are used to theirfull load- or volume-carrying capacity, and also the question of to what extent transportmeans return empty. In the list of indicators transport is given both per kilo and per volume,for an average degree of loading; this takes account of transporters returning empty.4.2.1.4. Production processesThe description of the production processes specifies the input and output of the process.The system boundaries must be based on this.4.2.1.5. Waste processesThe materials and processes list also contains a number of waste processing and recyclingprocesses. By this we mean the processes that are necessary to collect and process wastematerials or to separate and purify the materials until they are more or less pure rawmaterials. Almost no experience is available with regard to carrying out LCAs for wasteprocessing. This will change though when the Afval Overleg Orgaan [AOO - WasteDisposal Authority] publishes its environmental effect report on waste processing in theNetherlands. Based on personal communications and certain draft outlines we have alreadyincluded some of these data and methodological choices in this project.Within the Eco-indicator project there has been a great deal of information exchanged on theallocation of useful waste processing by-products, such as heat (electricity) and reclaimedmaterials (paper, scrap metal, glass etc.)27.An important fact is that recycling may only be used in the analysis if a material is actuallygoing to be recycled. The fact that a product is recyclable is irrelevant. Only if the materialis actually recycled does it produce an environmental benefit. This benefit can be specifiedas follows.• If heat from incineration is collected and used for electricity production, less electricityhas to be generated elsewhere. For this reason the impacts that would arise if electricitywere generated in a different way are often deducted in an LCA. This only applies, ofcourse, to electricity that is actually supplied to the grid. The impacts arising from theincineration process are taken into account.• If scrap metal is collected and used for steel production less pig iron has to bemanufactured. The impacts that would have been necessary to manufacture this pig ironcan be deducted from the impacts arising from the collection and separation of the steel.The same applies to aluminium.• If waste paper is collected and used for paper production there are savings in pulpproduction.• If plastics that are sufficiently pure are collected they can be melted down and turnedinto pellets that can be used for products that would otherwise be manufactured out ofnew material.• Waste glass can be used to replace new glass. Only the inputs for collection and energyfor the melting process are taken into account.As a result of this deduction of avoided emissions some indicators for recycling andcombustion processes are negative, meaning that the emissions from the recycling processare lower than the emissions avoided. This would mean that the environment is cleaner innet terms as a result of a process. In fact this is not so because every process causes 27 The critical contributions and major input by Hein Sas of the CE in this field have been veryvaluable, although his view has not been completely adopted.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report47contamination. The negative score for the recycling process represents the fact that thelosses from a recycling process are smaller than the benefits.In extreme cases the indicator for the material's entire life cycle (apart from production,transport and use processes) can be negative. Taken literally, this would mean that theenvironment would become cleaner, the more products were manufactured. This seemsnonsensical. Nevertheless it was decided to accept this "error" provisionally because theindicator's absolute value for its entire life cycle is less relevant. The main requirement is forthe designer to be able to compare various options well with each other. For this it is moreimportant that the differences between the indicators are determined consistently than thatthe absolute value tallies. If the designer sees a negative indicator for a particular wasteprocessing method in the list he will be able to see that in this case the benefits of theprocess are greater than the losses.This all proves still to be a theoretical problem at present. With the current indicator valuessuch situations cannot occur28.In addition to the allocation of useful by-products a number of other allocation problemshave a role to play in the analysis of waste processing systems.• A number of emissions are material-specific (heavy metals, CO2, SOx and NOx)• A number of emissions are process-specific (e.g. CO and dioxin)• The emissions are filtered with varying efficienciesThe material-specific emissions are relatively easy to assign. The amount of carbondetermines the CO2 production. The proportion of heavy metals is based on average figuresfor each waste fraction.Process-specific emissions are assigned to materials on the basis of the amount ofcombustion gases produced. A substance that produces a lot of flue gas on incineration isalso assigned a lot of process-specific emissions. Examples with incineration are: dioxin,carbon monoxide and trichloroethane. 28 This problem can be illustrated by means of a greatly simplified example. Let's assume that adesigner can only choose between the following extremes.1. A product can be made of primary or secondary materials. Let's assume that the indicator forprimary material is 20 and for secondary material 2.2. A product can be recycled or dumped. Let's assume that the indicator for disposal is 3 and forcollection and reprocessing 2.The choice of secondary material as the basic material is immediately rewarded with a differenceof 18 points. If the material is dumped a further 3 points are added to this. So far the problem isstraightforward.If the material is recycled 2 points are added. However, material is also released. Because newmaterial is released that is actually used, less primary material needs to be manufactured elsewhere.The saving is therefore 20 points.If the product is made from primary material the net score is:Primary production 20Collection and reprocessing 2Material avoided -20The total score is therefore 2. This result seems logical because after use the material is returned.Only the emissions from collecting and reprocessing are taken into account.If the material was already secondary material a total negative score of -16 points can arise. This isbecause relatively clean material is used (only 2 points) which, after recycling, avoids theproduction of new material. After all, if secondary material is also recycled the demand for primarymaterial falls in principle. The environment would thus apparently be cleaner if this material wereused. This rather unfortunate distortion is difficult to avoid if we wish to reward the designer bothfor his sensible material choice and his choice of waste process.An alternative arises if we agree only to reward the recycling of secondary material by deductingsecondary material. (As a rule this is the same as the recycling process itselfzelf, as a result ofwhich the total score for recycling plus benefit is, by definition, zero). In that case a designer whorecycles previously new material receives as many points as a designer who recycles what wasalready secondary material. The use of secondary material as an input is therefore not rewarded.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report48As far as filtration is concerned we have assumed that modern installations are used.Landfill sites are assumed to be equipped with a reliable waste water purification system(90% efficient). These landfill sites are covered after several tens of years in operation as aresult of which no further contaminated percolation water is released. The collection oflandfill gas is not assumed. A distinction is drawn between short and long carbon cycles29.Waste incineration plants are assumed to be equipped with a modern incineration furnaceand modern flue-gas treatment system. The slag is assumed to be used as road-surfacingmaterials. The leaching of heavy metals from this was derived from trials.It is assumed that the filter residues and fly ash are treated as chemical waste. No allowanceis made for leaching.The end of the life cycle is a certain quantity of final waste. This is inert waste that does notneed further digestion; leaching from this can be ignored.The waste processing figures for these parameters are on the optimistic side. They areparticularly intended for application to future situations, i.e. for products with a longlifetime. Considerably less favourable values can apply to landfill sites that are not coveredand for less modern waste incineration furnaces.4.2.2. Geographical distribution and type of technologyWhen defining the objective the necessity of using general figures was emphasised. By"general" we mean particularly European. This means that as far as possible the averageEuropean electricity figures are used and the other production processes are averaged out forEurope as much as possible. In practice this will not be easy because little is known aboutprocesses in Southern Europe.The other problem, namely regional differences in evaluation for an impact, is simpler as aresult. If it is not known, by definition, where an impact takes place there is also no point incontinuing with weightings on a regional basis. When defining target values andnormalisation values we will have to work with Europe as one homogeneous region.For processes that mainly occur outside Europe, such as mining and shipping, this meansthat the evaluation of the emissions is carried out on the basis of European problems; this isnot correct, but it is practical.We have assumed technology such as has been used on average in the last 10 years inWestern Europe. This specification leaves much room for interpretation, but there seems tobe no better definition available. With regard to waste processing we have taken very up-to-date and, in some cases, future figures. This is logical because many products will only bedisposed of in many years. Unfortunately, only Dutch figures where available in sufficientdetail and quality.4.2.3. Allocation of multiple output processesIn the case of processes that result in more than one product the impacts must be allocated tothese different products. There are various ways of doing this. Attempts must be made toachieve the following:1 Allocation on the basis of the products' economic value. This means that a product thatprovides 60% of the revenue is also assigned 60% of the impacts. The thought behindthis is that economic considerations determine whether a process takes place. Oneadvantage of this approach is that a distinction is automatically made between waste andby-products 29 In the case of products made of organic material that have extracted CO2 from the air in the courseof the preceding decennia the CO2 and CH4 emissions are not included (CH4 arises from thenatural decomposition of organic material). With regard to the incineration of plastics for whichthe CO2 extraction took place millions of years ago the CO2 emissions resulting from incinerationare assigned as appropriate.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report492 Subtraction of avoided emissions. This is particularly applicable in allocation usefulenergy. This approach is also used with the waste processes.Only if these processes are not adequate or if the data found cannot be changed canallocation take place in accordance with the mass ratio.4.2.4. Data quality and completenessA number of general rules apply for the evaluation of data quality:• The mass balance must be checked for material processing systems.• The results must be compared with at least one other more or less comparable processes.Any large variations must be explained.Account was taken, of the effect definitions from the Eco-indicator method. Where datawere clearly missing estimates were made.4.2.5. Documentation of the dataThe following data at least must be recorded for each material and process.1. Definition of the material or process2. Sources used3. Type of technology, region and period, where known4. Graphic representation of the process tree, with the system boundaries clearly shown5. Complete impact table, with impacts divided by:• use of raw materials (in connection with mass balance checks)• emissions to the air• emissions to water and soil• final waste (in connection with mass balance checks)6. List of variations from the ideal model described above. In every case the results of thequality tests described above must be given:• mass balance• origin of the data• comparison with other data7. Brief discussion of the consequences of these variations for the result8. Calculated indicator and the three most important contributors to the indicator score.Appendix 4 in the current report gives a specification of the data sources used. The fulldescription of the data, according to this definition is available in the Annexe report [14].The titles, sources and comments are in Dutch; the inventory tables are in English4.2.6. UncertaintyDespite all the precautionary measures taken there is a fairly large degree of uncertainty inthe impact tables. These uncertainties are very difficult to quantify. Nothing is in fact knownabout the distribution, but it is probably not stochastic. This makes it almost impossible touse an uncertainty analysis. It does not seem impossible for the Eco-indicator to beerroneous by a factor of 2 in some cases because of uncertainties in the impact table. Thisestimate cannot, however, be backed up.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report505. Use of Eco-indicatorsThe Eco-indicators can be used in two ways:1. The analysis of products or ideas, with the aim of finding the most important causes ofthe environmental pollution and finding opportunities for improvement.2. The comparison of products, semi-finished products or design concepts, after which theleast environmentally polluting components can then be chosen.The analysis of products is of particular importance at the beginning of the design processwhen comparable products (reference products) are analysed. In general this analysisprovides good insight into the dominant environmental aspects for this particular type ofproduct. This can direct the problem definition and the list of requirements at the start of thedesign process.Specific rules-of-thumb can sometimes be developed for a type of product. In the conceptphase too, once the contours of the new design have begun to take shape, it is useful to carryout an analysis to examine which factors are dominant and in which direction to look forpossible optimisations.The comparison of products is of particular importance during the creative phase and in theselection of concepts. During the creative phase there is sometimes a need for very simplecomparisons, for example between two materials. As the design progresses, so thecomparisons, become more complex.During the project we looked at how these two functions could be supported with anoperating manual and a number of special assessment forms. Various designers at thecompanies involved were interviewed regarding a number of proposals for forms andsupporting texts. It was found that the designers saw little use in extensive support orintricate forms. There was a clear preference for a simple list of factors and a simpleassessment-form. Based on these conclusions a specifications list was formulated and a firstversion of the form was drawn up.5.1. Test workshopThe first version of the form and the list of Eco-indicators was tested during a workshop atPhilips CFT on 14 December 1994. During the workshop designers from the four companiesinvolved carried out a number of analyses themselves, without further instruction inadvance. During the morning session an overhead projector was analysed by four subgroups,based on previously distributed data on the material composition and consumption of energyand sheets. In the afternoon each of the companies involved worked on a product of its own.At the end the results were evaluated.The following conclusions emerged from the workshop:• When four different groups analyse the same product they reach the same conclusions,independently from each other. There proved to be differences on a few points:• The missing indicator for zinc was estimated differently by the various groups.• Very different processes (injection moulding, foil blowing and extrusion blowing)were chosen for the production of overhead sheets. This had a fairly large effect onthe outcome, although there was agreement on the main conclusion, namely thatsheets play a dominant role. It is obviously very important for the processes to beclearly defined. The designers' lack of familiarity with the product plays animportant role here. A designer who designs overhead projectors will know whichprocess is used. In the afternoon session this problem did not occur.• Not all designers are equally good in adding numbers. In some cases the decimalpoint was wrongly positioned in the result.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report51• Despite the prior warning it was easy to slip into concentrating on details of theproduction phase. In the example of the overhead projector this plays only a minor role.Once the morning session had been completed, however, most realised that the principalneed was to analyse the main features.• Some found the manual too long, others too short. We concluded from this that weshould separate a short introduction on using the list and the form from a somewhatmore extensive description of the backgrounds and applications. Quite a number ofcomments were made about the manual's style. For this reason it has now been re-written.The most noticeable fact was the ease with which the design teams analysed their ownproducts in the afternoon session. Each group was able to name the dominant factorscausing their own product to pollute the environment. These conclusions proved to fit wellwith the earlier product assessments.5.2. List of Eco-indicatorsThe list of indicators is reproduced on the following pages. The figures have been computedwith the computer program SimaPro 3.0. The figures are in fact milli-indicators. In otherwords, the result of the weighting has been divided by 1000 to give figures that are easier tohandle. The unit in the following tables is thus mPt (milli Eco-indicator point). Appendix 1shows how the indicators are composed, using a number of graphs.A few materials that were included in the original list have since been deleted because theinventory stage was unsatisfactory and did not meet the minimum requirements. Theseinclude:• A number of non-ferrous metals; no reliable data proved to be available.• Magnetic material; data on non-ferrous metals are needed for this.• Waste processing for aluminium. Only data on the non-ferrous fraction are known. Thisfraction also contains large quantities of harmful materials such as lead. The impactsresulting from the processing of this fraction are therefore very high; this cannot,however, be assigned to aluminium.• Processing of chemical waste. The impacts from this were determined too much by thespecific composition and physical form of the material to allow a general figure to bederived.5.3. Assessment formTwo forms have been designed to carry out the calculations by the designer. Form 1 isprimarily intended for comparing products or analysing simple products; Form 2 is intendedfor analysing more complex products.The Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportEco-indicator values from: The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report, 17 July 1995 (NOH report 9523 and 9524) page 52Production of metals (in millipoints per kg)Indicator DescriptionSecondary aluminium 1,8 made completely of secondary materialAluminium 18 containing average 20% secondary materialCopper, primary 85 primary electrolytic copper from relatively modern American factoriesCopper, 60% primary 60 normal proportion secondary and primary copperSecondary copper 23 100% secondary copper, relatively high score through heavy metal emissionsOther non-ferrous metals 50-200 estimate for zinc, brass, chromium, nickel etc.; lack of dataStainless steel 17 sheet material, grade 18-8Secondary steel 1,3 block material made of 100% scrapSteel 4,1 block material with average 20 % scrapSheet steel 4,3 cold-rolled sheet with average 20% scrapProcessing of steel (in millipoints)Indicator DescriptionBending steel 0,0021 one sheet of 1 mm over width of 1 metre; straight angleBending stainless steel 0,0029 one sheet of 1 mm over width of 1 metre; straight angleCutting steel 0,0015 one sheet of 1 mm over width of 1 metreCutting stainless steel 0,0022 one sheet of 1 mm over width of 1 metrePressing and deep-drawing 0,58 per kilo deformed steel, do not include non-deformed partsRolling (cold) 0,46 per pass, per m2Spot-welding 0,0074 per weld of 7 mm diameter, sheet thickness 2 mmMachining 0,42 per kilo machined material (turning, milling, boring)Machining 0,0033 per cm3 machined material (turning, milling, boring)Hot-galvanising 17 per m2, 10 micrometres, double-sided; data fairly unreliableElectrolytic galvanising 22 per m2, 2.5 micrometres, double-sided; data fairly unreliableElectroplating (chrome) 70 per m2, 1 micrometre thick; double-sided; data fairly unreliableProcessing of aluminium (in millipoints)Indicator DescriptionBlanking and cutting 0,00092 one sheet of 1 mm over width of 1 metreBending 0,0012 one sheet of 1 mm over width of 1 metreRolling (cold) 0,28 per pass, per m2Spot-welding 0,068 per weld of 7 mm diameter, sheet thickness 2 mm.Machining 0,12 per kilo machined material (turning, milling, boring)Machining 0,00033 per cm3 machined material (turning, milling, boring)Extrusion 2,0 per kilogramThe Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportEco-indicator values from: The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report, 17 July 1995 (NOH report 9523 and 9524) page 53Production of plastic granulate (in millipoints per kg)Indicator Description and explanation of scoreABS 9,3 high energy input for production, therefore high emission outputHDPE 2,9 relatively simple production processLDPE 3,8 score possibly flattered by lack of CFC emissionNatural rubber 15 ozone-layer-depleting solvents used during productionPA 13 high energy input for production, therefore high emission outputPC 13 high energy input for production, therefore high emission outputPET 7,1 high energy input for production, therefore high emission outputPP 3,3 relatively simple production processPPE/PS 5,8 A commonly used blend, identical to PPO/PSPS rigid foam 13 block of foam with pentane as blowing agent (causes smog)PS high impact (HIPS) 8,3 high-impact polystyrenePUR 14 ozone-layer-depleting solvents used during productionPVC 4,2 calculated as pure PVC, without addition of stabilisersProcessing of plastics (in millipoints)Indicator DescriptionInjection mould. in general 0,53 per kilo material, this figure may also be used as estimate for extrusionInject. mould. PVC & PC 1,1 per kilo material, this figure may also be used as estimate for extrusionRIM, PUR 0,30 per kilo materialExtrusion blowing PE 0,72 per kilo, for bottles and such likeVacuum forming 0,23 per kiloVacuum pressure forming 0,16 per kiloCalandering of PVC 0,43 per kiloFoil blowing PE 0,030 per m2, thin foil (for bags)Ultrasonic welding 0,0025 per metre weld lengthMachining 0,00016 per cm3 machined materialProduction of other materials (in millipoints per kg)Indicator DescriptionGlass 2,1 57% secondary glassGlass wool and glass fibre 2,1 for isolation and reinforcementRockwool 4,3 score is largely determined by carcinogenic substancesCeramics 0,47 simple applications, e.g. sanitary fittings etc.Cellulose board 3,4 this material is particularly used in dashboardsPaper 3,3 chlorine-free bleaching, normal qualityRecycled paper 1,5 unbleached, 100% waste paperWood 0,74 wood from Europe, sawn into planks, without preservativesCardboard 1,4 corrugated cardboard made of 75% waste paper.The Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportEco-indicator values from: The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report, 17 July 1995 (NOH report 9523 and 9524) page 54Production of energy (in millipoints)Indicator DescriptionElectricity high voltage 0,57 per kWh, for industrial useElectricity low voltage 0,67 per kWh, for consumer use (230V)Heat from gas (MJ) 0,063 per MJ heatHeat from oil (MJ) 0,15 per MJ heatMechanical (diesel, MJ) 0,17 per MJ mechanical energy from a diesel engineTransport (in millipoints)Indicator DescriptionTruck (28 ton) 0,34 per ton kilometre, 60% loading, European averageTruck (75m3) 0,13 per m3 km, 60% loading, European averageTrain 0,043 per ton kilometre, European average for diesel and electric tractionContainer ship 0,056 per ton kilometre, fast ship, with relatively high fuel consumptionAircraft 10 per kg , with continental flights the distance is not relevantSelf-made indicators for components (in millipoints)Indicator DescriptionThe Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportEco-indicator values from: The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report, 17 July 1995 (NOH report 9523 and 9524) page 55Waste processing and recycling (in millipoints per kg)Fraction Indicator NotesIncineration (in modern waste incinerator with heat recovery and flue-gas treatment)Glass 0,89 almost inert material on incinerationCeramics 0,020 almost inert material on incinerationPlastics (excluding PVC) 1,8 plastics contain heavy metals, but also have a high energy yieldPVC 6,9 PVC contains heavy metals and it has a relatively low energy yieldPaper and cardboard 0,56 heavy metals (ink) are dominant, energy yield is relatively highSteel and iron 1,8 70% is recovered from slag, particularly larger piecesLandfill (in modern landfill site with percolation water treatment and dense base)Glass 0 almost inert material on a landfillCeramics 0,027 almost inert material on a landfillPlastics (excluding PVC) 0,035 0.1 % of all heavy metals releasedPVC 0,077 0.1 % of all heavy metals releasedPaper and cardboard 0,16 10% of all heavy metals (mainly in ink) releasedSteel and iron 0,80 small proportion (ca. 1%) of heavy metals releasedRecycling (note: these values cannot be used for recycling of secondary material)Glass -1,5 less glass has to be manufactured because of glass recyclingCeramics n.a. cannot be sensibly recycledPlastics (PP en PE) -0,46 less plastic has to be manufactured because of plastic recyclingEngineering plastics -0,5 - -5,0 the higher the indicator for production, the higher the "profit"PVC -1,6 less PVC has to be manufactured because of PVC recyclingPaper and cardboard -1,8 less paper has to be manufactured because of paper recyclingSteel and iron -2,9 less pig iron has to be manufactured because of steel recyclingMunicipal waste (Processing of waste by average Dutch municipality)Glass 0,35 37% incinerated, 63% landfilledCeramics 0,041 37% incinerated, 63% landfilledPlastics (excluding PVC) 0,69 37% incinerated, 63% landfilledPVC 2,6 37% incinerated, 63% landfilledPaper and cardboard 0,33 37% incinerated, 63% landfilledSteel and iron 1,2 37% incinerated, from which 70% is recovered, 63% landfilled,Household waste (Same, but with average separation by consumer (e.g. glass and paper containers))Glass -0,80 61% separated and recycled, rest is municipal waste (see above)Ceramics 0,041 almost all processed as municipal wastePlastics (excluding PVC) 0,66 2% separated and recycled, rest is municipal waste (see above)PVC 2,5 2% separated and recycled, rest is municipal waste (see above)Paper and cardboard -0,43 35% separated and recycled, rest is municipal waste (see above)Steel and iron -0,28 36% separated and recycled, rest is municipal waste (see above)The Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportEco-indicator assessment form 1; The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report, 17 July 1995 (NOH report 9523 and 9524); page 56Product or component ProjectDate: AuthorNotes and conclusionsProductionMaterials, processing, transport and extra energymaterial or process amount indicator resultTotalUseTransport, energy and any auxiliary materialsprocess amount indicator resultTotalDisposalDisposal processes per type of materialmaterial and type of processing amount indicator resultTotalTOTAL (all phases)Product or component: ProjectDate: AuthorNotes and conclusionsProductionMaterials, processing, transport and extra energymaterial or process amount indicator resultTotalUseTransport, energy and any auxiliary materialsprocess amount indicator resultTotalDisposalDisposal processes per type of materialmaterial and type of processing amount indicator resultTotalTOTAL (all phases)The Eco-indicator 95 Final ReportEco-indicator assessment form 2; The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report, 17 July 1995 (NOH report 9523 and 9524) page 57Product or component ProjectDate: AuthorNotes and conclusionsProductionMaterials, processing, transport and extra energymaterial or process amount indicator resultTotalUseTransport, energy and any auxiliary materialsprocess amount indicator resultTotalDisposalDisposal processes per type of materialmaterial and type of processing amount indicator resultTotalTOTAL (all phases)The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report586. ConclusionsTwo sub-projects have been running in parallel within the Eco-indicator project:• The development of the weighting method• The calculation of 100 indicatorsThe conclusions for each sub-project are presented below.6.1. Weighting methodAt the end of chapter 3 a large number of conclusions were drawn about the weighting itself.The following general conclusion is central to these.An Eco-indicator cannot be developed without clearly defining and demarcating the term"environment" or "eco". Such a definition and demarcation were developed during theproject. The Eco-indicator only applies to environmental effects that damage ecosystems orhuman health on a European scale. Other effects have not been covered.6.2. The 100 Eco-indicatorsThe 100 Eco-indicator values have been the most noticeable result of this project. Thereliability of these figures is determined, except for by the weighting method, by theinventory phase of the underlying LCAs.A reliable indicator can only be achieved if the other stages in the life cycle assessment arealso good. The methodologically weak sides of the inventory phase proved to be wellhighlighted during the development of an indicator.The weakness in the methodological description of the inventory phase is a general LCAproblem and must be viewed in isolation from the development of a weighting method.However, these problems have made themselves felt in the 100 Eco-indicator values. It isclear that much attention still needs to be given to the further development andstandardisation of the inventory phase of the LCA, in addition to the weighting method.6.3. GeneralThe Eco-indicator method that has now been developed is a first step in the development ofa well underpinned method of weighting environmental effects based on the damage thatthey cause. Many methodological issues have been resolved during development, and a largeamount of data has been collected. It is to be expected that our understanding in terms of themethodology and the available amount of data will increase. It therefore seems not unlikelythat there will be revisions of the method and the data used.The open working method with a platform on which both industry and science wererepresented was very fruitful. Views were exchanged intensively and openly, and a largedegree of consensus quickly emerged on the possibilities and limitations of the weightingmethod. The foreign contacts also had an important stimulating effect.Initial tests with designers confirm the appeal of the concept of the indicators. The Eco-indicator will bring life cycle assessment within the reach of the designer.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report59Literature1. Ahbe S. et al. Methodik für Oekobilanzen, Buwal, publication 133, October 1990, Bern,Switzerland.2. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 1987. (A newedition is expected in 1995).3. Baumann, H; Rydberg, T; Product life cycle assesment; Appendix: A comparison of threemethods for impact asessment and valuation4. CFC commission, Een samenwerkingsprojekt van overheden en bedrijfsleven. Jaarraportage 1993[A collaborative project by Government and industry. Annual report 1993]5. CBS; General Environmental Statistics 1992, CBS , The Hague, ISBN 90 35714458 6. Corinair 90 programme: Atmosferische emissie inventarisatie voor Europa [An inventory ofatmospheric emissions for Europe].7. Corten, F.G.P. et al. Weging van milieu-effecten voor het produktbeleid, verslag fase 1,[Weighting of environmental effects for product policy, report on phase 1] 6 September 1994,Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology, Delft.8. Cramer, Prof. Dr. J., et al.; Theorie en Praktijk van Integraal Ketenbeheer [Theory and practiceof integral chain management], 23 September 1993, NOH report 9309, published by: TNOApeldoorn. .9. Downing, R.J; Hetteling, J.P.; de Smet, P.A.M.; Calculation and mapping of critical loads inEurope, Status report 1993, RIVM Report 259101003. ISBN 90 6960 047 110. Energy in Europe; European Commission; DG17; Brussels, August 1992; ISBM 92 826 3665 811. Environmental Statistics 1991, Eurostat, ISBN 92-826-4666-1.12. European Community; Publication 93/C 138, Towards sustainability; a European Communityprogramme of policy action in relation to the environment and sustainable development.13. Frischknecht, R.; Hofstetter, P.; Knoepfel, I.; Ökoinventare für Energy Systeme [Environmentalinventories for energy systems]; ETH Zurich, March 1994.14. Goedkoop M.J.; Cnubben P; De Eco-indicator 95, bijlage rapport (annexe report); NOH report9514 A; PRé consultants; Amersfoort (NL); juli 1995, ISBN 90-72130-76-6 (only available inDutch)15. Goedkoop M.J.; De Eco-indicator 95, Eindrapportage (final report, identical to this, but inDutch); NOH report 9514; PRé consultants; Amersfoort (NL); juli 1995; ISBN 90-72130-77-416. Goedkoop M.J.; Demmers M.; Collignon M.X.; De Eco-indicator 95, Handleiding voorontwerpers (Manual for designers in Dutch); NOH report 9510; PRé consultants; Amersfoort(NL); juli 1995; ISBN 90-72130-78-217. Goedkoop M.J.; Demmers M.; Collignon M.X.; The Eco-indicator 95, Manual for designers (inEnglish); NOH report 9524; PRé consultants; Amersfoort (NL); juli 1995.18. Goedkoop M.J.; Duijf G.A.P.; Keijser I.V.; Ecoindicator project phase one: Methodology, NOHreport 9407; PRé consultants; Amersfoort (NL); November 199319. Guinée, J; Data for the normalisation step within life cycle assessment of products, Leiden Dec.1993 (revised version), CML publication 14.20. Habesatter et al. Oekobilanz von Packstoffen Stand 1990 [Environmental audit of packagingmaterials, as at 1990], ETH Zurich, Buwal publication 132, 1991, Bern, Switzerland.21. Hanssen, O.J.;Førde, J.S.; Thoresen, J.: Environmental indicators and Index systems. An overviewand test of different aprroaches; a pilot study for Statoil; STØ, Frederikstad, Norway, april 1994.22. Heijungs R. et al.; Milieugerichtelevenscyclusanalyses van produkten, handleiding[Environmental life cycle assessments, a manual], October 1992; Leiden; 1992; commissioned bythe National Programme for Research into Waste Recycling (NOH), in collaboration with CML,TNO and B&G.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report6023. Industriële emissions in Nederland, Nr. 14, September 1993, Publikatiereeks Emissionregistratie[Industrial emissions in the Netherlands], VROM, DGM24. Kortman, J.G.M.; Lindeijer, E.W.; Sas, H.; Sprengers, M.; Towards a single indicator foremissions, an exercise in aggregating environmental effects, December 1994, Ministry of VROM(environment), report 1994/2, order: 10317/14625. Lindeijer et al., An environmental indicator for emissions, Centre for Energy Conservation andEnvironmental Technology (CE) and the Interdisciplinary Department of Environmental Science(IDES) of the University of Amsterdam, 1993.26. Meijs, E et al.. MER reportage afval verwerking [MER report on waste processing]. Shortly to bepublished by AOO in Utrecht.27. Milion, projectmilieubewuste produkt ontwikkeling. Reportage methodiekontwikkeling en pilotprojecten [Milion, project for environmentally-aware product development. Report onmethodological development and pilot projects], NOH Report 9227, Published by EDCEindhoven.28. OECD Environmental data, Compendium 1993, Paris, 1993; ISBN 92 64 03882 529. Official Journal of the European Communities. 93/C 138, Towards sustainability; a EuropeanCommunity programme of policy action in relation to the environment and sustainabledevelopment.30. Rains, Regional acidification and simulation model, Version 6.0, IIASA, A-2361Laxemburg/Austria, August 199231. Remmerswaal, H; The MET indicator, poster for the 1994 Brussels SETAC conference.32. Request for advise to the Council for Environmental Policy IBP 26894002, letter 94/29933. RIVM, The Environment in Europe: a Global Perspective, report nr. 481505001.34. SETAC, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Guidelines for Life-CycleAssessment, a "Code of Practice", Brussels, Belgium, 1993.35. Steen, Bengt, Ryding Sven Olof;The EPS enviro-accounting method, IVL, B1080 Gothenburg1992.36. Thalmann, W.R. Ökobilanz für Verpackungen verschiedenen Aufbaus und unterschiedlicherAnwendungen aus dem deutschen Markt. Zusammenfassung, [Environmental audit for packagingmaterials of different structures and for different application from the German market.Summary],February 1992, ETH37. The Environment in Europe and North-America, Annonated Statistics 1992, EconomicCommision for Europe, United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.92.II.E.14, ISBN 92-1-116537-738. Water Quality Guidelines for Europe, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.39. Wenzel, H et al.; Environmental tools in Product Development; The Life Cycle Center (EDIPprogramme); Lyngby, Thenmark, Submitted for the 1994 IEEE Symposium40. World resources 1994-1995; World Resources Institute & United Nations; Oxford UniversityPress 1994; ISBN 019 521044-1The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report61AbbreviationsABS Acrilonitrile-butadiene-styreneAOO Afval Overleg Orgaan, Waste Coordination BodyAP Acidification potentialAQG Air Quality GuidelinesBUWAL Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft [Swiss Federal Ministry for Environment,Forestry and Agriculture]CE Centrum voor energiebesparing [Centre for Energy Conservation and EnvironmentalTechnology]CFC Chlorine- Fluor HydrocarbonsCML Centrum voor Milieukunde [Centre of Environmental Science]CO Carbon monoxideCO2 Carbon dioxideCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandCH4 MethaneECU European Currency UnitEDIP Environmental Design of Industrial ProductsELU Environmental Load UnitEPS Environmental Priority Strategyeq. EquivalentETH Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Zürich)HCFC Hydro Chlorine- Fluor CarbonsIBPC Directie Industrie, Bouw, Produkten en Consumenten [Directorate for Industry,Building, Products and Consumers]IDES Interdisciplinary Department of Environmental ScienceIVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, approximately comparable with the RIVM.LCA Life cycle assessmentMAC Maximum acceptable concentration in the workplace. Established by the LabourInspectorateMET matrix Materials Energy Toxicity matrixVROM (Ministerie van) Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer [(Ministry of)Housing, Spacial Planning and the Environment]NOH Nationaal Onderzoeksprogramma Hergebruik van Afvalstoffen [National Reuse ofWaste Research Programme]Novem Nederlandse Onderneming voor Energie en Milieu bv. [Netherlands Agency for Energyand the Environment Ltd.]NOx Nitrogen oxideNP Nutriphication PotentialODP Ozone depletion PotentialOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPAH Polycyclical Aromatic HydrocarbonsPC PolycarbonatePCB PolychlorobifenylPOCP Photochemical Ozone Creation PotentialPOM PolyoxymethylenePP Polypropyleneppb Parts per billionppbv Parts per bilion by volumePPO Polyphenylene oxidePS PolystyrenePUR PolyurethanePWMI Plastic Waste Management InstituteQGDW Quality Guidelines for Drinking WaterRIM Reaction Injection MouldingRIVM Rijks Instituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiëne [National Institute for PublicHealth and Environmental Protection]SANEL Scientifically Available No Effect LevelsSETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and ChemistrySO2 Sulphor dioxideSPM Small Particle MatterThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report62TME Bureau voor Toegepaste Milieu Economie [Office for Applied EnvironmentalEconomics]TNO Dutch organisation for applied researchVOS Volatile Organic SubstancesWHO World Health OrganisationThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report63Annexe 1: Calculation of 100 Eco-indicatorsThis annexe contains a set of graphs that specifies which effects contribute to an Eco-indicator. The graphs are generated in the LCA computer program SimaPro 3.0. The namesof the materials and processes sometimes differ from the names in the report.The graphs show some important trends. In general it seems the contribution of theacidification and to some extend the Winter smog is quite important. This means the SO2emissions, which contribute to both effects is significant.Heavy metals and ozone depletion are sometimes responsible for quite high indicator values.From this it is clear that much attention should be given to emissions that contribute to theseeffects. We have the impression this is not always done in a proper manner, especially inolder LCA literature. Such omissions can cause rather significant deviations.MaterialsThe first group of indicators specify the production of 1 kg material.Ferro metalsThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report64Non-Ferro metalsHeavy metal emissions are dominating the copper and zinc figures. Also the SO2 emissionis important for copper production. Copper ore (and most other non ferro metal ores) isusually a sulphite. The sulphur is partly released as SO2.Building materialsThe high figure for carcinogenisis is remarkable for rockwool.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report65Paper and BoardPlastics 1In polymer production most emissions are directly related to the energy requirements.Especially the SO2 emissions, from burning oil are significant. The high SO2 figure forpolystyrene is difficult to explain, but is taken directly from the PWMI.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report66Plastics 2The high ozone depletion in natural rubber production is due to a tri-chloroethane emissionin the moulding process. In the PUR production the ozone depletion is to be ascribed to acooling system. In polyamide production the greenhouse effect is large, due to the highenergy requirements.EnergyIn energy conversion the SO2 emissions are dominant.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report67TransportThe emission of heavy metals for air transport is due to a lead emission.Production processesThe following graphs show the calculation of the production processes. In most cases theelectricity use is dominant. The graphs should not be compared among each other, since thefunctional units differ.Processing of steel 1The surface treatment processes are characterised by a relatively high heavy metal emission.The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report68Processing of steel 2Processing of aluminiumThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report69Processing of plastics 1Processing of plastics 2The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report70Waste treatmentThe graphs show the combined positive and negative effects from waste treatment. Thenegative values are subtracted for each effect; the resulting values are plotted in the graph.IncinerationThe negative value for incineration of steel can be explained from the high efficiency ofmagnetic separation of scrap in modern incinerators.LandfillThe values are completely defined by the leaching of heavy metals (modern landfill site)The Eco-indicator 95 Final Report71RecyclingIn most cases the avoided emissions are higher than the emissions from the recyclingprocess. The plastic recycling process is here shown for polyethylene.Municipal wasteThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report72Household wasteThe Eco-indicator 95 Final Report73Annexe 2: Calculation of normalisation valuesThe normalisation values are calculated in the large spreadsheet on the following pages. Thestructure of the spreadsheet is described below.The emissions are listed in the top row. Row 2 indicates whether this emission is to air or towater. Row 3, contains the year of measurement and row 4 and 5 contain information aboutthe source. The sources are listed below.Source Title publisher1 The Environment in Europe and North-America, Annotated Statistics 1992,Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations Publication [37]2 Corinair 1990 , provisional results [6]3 Environmental Statistics 1991, Eurostat, [11]4 The Environment in Europe: a Global Perspective, RIVM. [33]5 General Environmental Statistics 1992], CBS (NL), [5]6 Industrial emissions in the Netherlands No. 14, September 1993, [23]7 CFC commission, a collaborative project by Government and industryAnnual report 1993, [4]The countries of Europe are listed twice in column A. In the upper part (row 7 to 33), theemissions are listed per county, as far as data was available. The sums of the knownemissions are listed in row 26 for Western Europe and in row 34 for Eastern Europe.In order to calculate the values for the countries with no data, an extrapolation was madebased on the energy consumption per country. The energy consumption was chosen, since itseems to reflect the infrastructure and industry of a country. Since there are big differencesin industrial structure in Eastern and Western Europe, we have made the extrapolation forboth areas separately.In cell B38 to B63, the energy use per country is listed. The spreadsheet is programmed insuch a way that, if an emission is known for a certain country, the energy use is copied tothe appropriate column. For instance, The CO2 emission for Germany is known (cell D13),but the CO2 emission for Greece is not known (cell D14). This means that cell D43 doescontain the German energy consumption, whereas cell D44 remains empty.Row 56 contains the total energy consumption in counties with known emissions forWestern Europe (Row 64 for Eastern Europe). These figures allow for the calculation of theaverage emission per MJ energy use. Multiplication of this figure with the total energy useprovides the extrapolated total emission.known emissionemission = total energy use x -------------------------------------------------------energy use in countries with known emissionsThe result can be found in row 67 and 68 for Western and Eastern Europe. For a numberemissions there was no data from eastern Europe available at all. In these cases the EasternEuropean data was directly extrapolated form Western European data. The result of thisextrapolation can be found in row 69. The final result is listed in row 70, together with theunit in row 71.The normalisation values for individual emissions are converted into normalisation valuesfor effects, using the characterisation values is annexe 3.The Eco-indicator 95 Final report74A B C D E1 CO2 CH42 COMPARTMENT AIR AIR3 YEAR 1990 19904 SOURCE 1 25 table I-2.1.66 COUNTRY UNIT --> Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes7 EC8 AUSTRIA 565009 BELGIUM 35510 DENMARK 5790011 FINLAND 5200012 FRANCE 279200 388213 GERMANY 107000014 GREECE15 ICELAND16 IRELAND 85017 ITALY18 LUXEMBURG19 THE NETHERLANDS 148000 104020 NORWAY 34500 28221 PORTUGAL 37800 33022 SPAIN23 SWEDEN 63000 210624 SWITSERLAND 4340025 UNITED KINGDOM 584800 428826 Total known emissions in Western Europe 2427100 131332728 CSSR29 HUNGARY 8780030 POLAND 440000 606631 ROMANIA 12710032 BULGARIA33 EX-YUGOSLAVIA34 Total known emissions in Eastern Europe 654900 60663536 EXTRAPOLATION ENERGY-USE37 1988, source 1, table I 1.5.438 AUSTRIA 1209.6 PJ 1209.639 BELGIUM 1927.8 PJ 1927.840 DENMARK 798 PJ 79841 FINLAND 1239 PJ 123942 FRANCE 8773.8 PJ 8773.8 8773.843 GERMANY 15573.6 PJ 15573.644 GREECE 861 PJ45 ICELAND 71.4 PJ46 IRELAND 407.4 PJ 407.447 ITALY 6371.4 PJ48 LUXEMBURG 142.8 PJ49 THE NETHERLANDS 2709 PJ 2709 270950 NORWAY 1176 PJ 1176 117651 PORTUGAL 5359.2 PJ 5359.2 5359.252 SPAIN 3553.2 PJ53 SWEDEN 2360.4 PJ 2360.4 2360.454 SWITSERLAND 1180.2 PJ 1180.255 UNITED KINGDOM 8757 PJ 8757 875756 Total energy use of countries with known emissions in Western Europe 62470.8 49135.8 31470.657 PJ58 CSSR 3183.6 PJ59 HUNGARY 1260 PJ 126060 POLAND 5359.2 PJ 5359.2 5359.261 ROMANIA 3007.2 PJ 3007.262 BULGARIA 1310.4 PJ63 EX-YUGOSLAVIA 1961.4 PJ64 Total energy use of countries with known emissions in Eastern Europe 16081.8 PJ 9626.4 5359.26566 RESULTS CO2 CH467 Total Western Europe (extrapolated from West Europ. counties) 3.09E+06 2.61E+0468 Total Eastern Europe (extrapolated from East. Europ. countries) 1.09E+06 1.82E+0469 Total Eastern Europe (extrapolated from western Eur.)70 Total emissions East and West Europe 4.18E+06 4.43E+0471 UNIT --> Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-TonnesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report75F G H I J K L M N O1 N2O CFC-11&12 CFC-13 CFC-113 CFC-114 CFC-115 Halon-1211 Halon-1301 CCl4 1,1,1-TCE2 AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR3 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 19904 2 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 75 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table pp186 Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes7 20990089 26101112 21013141516 45171819 25 3 1197 99 105 212 170 777 554020 1621 492223 332425 17526 579 3 1197 99 105 212 170 777 554027282930 15531323334 1553536373839 1927.8404142 8773.843444546 407.4474849 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270950 117651 5359.25253 2360.45455 875756 31470.6 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270957585960 5359.261626364 5359.26566 N2O CFC-11&12 CFC-13 CFC-113 CFC-114 CFC-115 Halon-1211 Halon-1301 CCl4 1,1,1-TCE67 1.15E+03 2.10E+05 6.92E+01 2.76E+04 2.28E+03 2.42E+03 4.89E+03 3.92E+03 1.79E+04 1.28E+0568 4.65E+0269 5.40E+04 1.78E+01 7.11E+03 5.88E+02 6.23E+02 1.26E+03 1.01E+03 4.61E+03 3.29E+0470 1.61E+03 2.64E+05 8.70E+01 3.47E+04 2.87E+03 3.04E+03 6.15E+03 4.93E+03 2.25E+04 1.61E+0571 Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes TonnesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report76P Q R S T U V W X1 HCFK-22 HCFK 141b HCFK 142b CH3Br Total S SO2 NOx NH3 PHOSPHATES2 AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR3 1990 1991 1990 1991 1988 1988 1988 1988 19884 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 15 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table pp18 table I-2.1.2 table I-2.1.2 table I-2.1.4 table I-2.1.5 table II-3.2.7b6 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes78 61 121.878 213 81 775289 207 413.586 312 94 8030010 121 241.758 249 125 9200011 151 301.698 276 14057012 607 1212.786 1656 841 145990013 3270 6533.46 3490 99231214 112 17642015 3 588916 74 147.852 122 139 16071817 1205 2407.59 1705 426 71545918 6 670019 2120 25 1023 89 139 277.722 559 254 8625720 33 65.934 225 41 1737621 102 203.796 122 55 8910022 273 46221323 107 213.786 396 62 6820024 61 3900025 1907 3810.186 2642 478 43300026 2120 25 1023 89 7984 15952.032 11967 3051 51029422728 1402 2801.196 965 200 46009229 609 1216.782 259 151 34721630 2067 4129.866 1551 55 94370831 2400 4795.2 21 9 32929632 1562 3120.876 388 10 25815233 800 1598.4 480 61 26140834 8840 17662.32 3664 486 259987235363738 1209.6 1209.6 1209.6 1209.6 1209.639 1927.8 1927.8 1927.8 1927.8 1927.840 798 798 798 798 79841 1239 1239 1239 123942 8773.8 8773.8 8773.8 8773.8 8773.843 15573.6 15573.6 15573.6 15573.644 861 86145 71.4 71.446 407.4 407.4 407.4 407.4 407.447 6371.4 6371.4 6371.4 6371.4 6371.448 142.8 142.849 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270950 1176 1176 1176 1176 117651 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.252 3553.2 3553.253 2360.4 2360.4 2360.4 2360.4 2360.454 1180.2 1180.255 8757 8757 8757 8757 875756 2709 2709 2709 2709 56662.2 56662.2 56662.2 45658.2 62470.85758 3183.6 3183.6 3183.6 3183.6 3183.659 1260 1260 1260 1260 126060 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.261 3007.2 3007.2 3007.2 3007.2 3007.262 1310.4 1310.4 1310.4 1310.4 1310.463 1961.4 1961.4 1961.4 1961.4 1961.464 16081.8 16081.8 16081.8 16081.8 16081.86566 HCFK-22 HCFK 141b HCFK 142b CH3Br Total S SO2 NOx NH3 PHOSPHATES67 4.89E+04 5.77E+02 2.36E+04 2.05E+03 8.80E+03 1.76E+04 1.32E+04 4.17E+03 5.10E+0668 8.84E+03 1.77E+04 3.66E+03 4.86E+02 2.60E+0669 1.26E+04 1.48E+02 6.07E+03 5.28E+0270 6.15E+04 7.25E+02 2.97E+04 2.58E+03 1.76E+04 3.52E+04 1.69E+04 4.66E+03 7.70E+0671 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes TonnesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report77Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG1 NITRATES NMVOC VOC SPM Disinfectants Fungicides Herbicides Insecticides Cd2 AIR AIR AIR AIR WATER WATER WATER WATER AIR3 1988 1990 1988 1988 1990 1990 1990 1990 19904 1 2 1 1 4 4 4 4 55 table II-3.2.7b table I-2.1.6 table I-2.1.5 table 8.016 Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes78 139550 466 399 180600 386 900 2160 4770 30610 377000 76 1555 4506 28911 199449912 2603700 2856 284 4807 49775 36075 665713 2413118 3150 2730 10151 14756 455814 409216 640 10384 3411 281815 1145416 349025 197 13617 924912 827 452 27934 9234 294118 1640019 455650 460 487 93 9830 4063 3271 1554 2.420 110100 270 248 2121 665240 649 156 21288 1055 58722 976023 4518 33496 6360 264323 209700 722 46024 71500 2225 1462000 2690 2013 533 76 5522 19625 69026 13369687 8230 7943 4174 20847 166328 103063 23043 2.42728 636207 313 124529 65094330 1520618 1411 1000 161531 662400 78532 427495 24 80833 50298434 4400647 1411 1337 445335363738 1209.6 1209.6 1209.639 1927.8 1927.8 1927.8 1927.8 1927.8 1927.840 798 798 798 798 79841 123942 8773.8 8773.8 8773.8 8773.8 8773.8 8773.8 8773.843 15573.6 15573.6 15573.6 15573.6 15573.6 15573.644 861 861 861 861 86145 71.446 407.4 407.4 407.447 6371.4 6371.4 6371.4 6371.4 6371.4 6371.448 142.849 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270950 1176 1176 1176 117651 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.252 3553.2 3553.2 3553.2 3553.2 3553.253 2360.4 2360.4 2360.454 1180.2 1180.255 8757 8757 8757 8757 8757 8757 8757 875756 62470.8 31470.6 43923.6 45750.6 27379.8 54684 54684 54684 27095758 3183.6 3183.6 3183.659 126060 5359.2 5359.2 5359.2 5359.261 3007.2 3007.262 1310.4 1310.4 1310.463 1961.464 16081.8 5359.2 9853.2 12860.46566 NITRATES NMVOC VOC SPM Disinfectants Fungicides Herbicides Insecticides Cd67 1.34E+07 1.63E+04 1.13E+04 5.70E+03 4.76E+04 1.90E+05 1.18E+05 2.63E+04 5.53E+0168 4.40E+06 4.23E+03 2.18E+03 5.57E+0369 1.22E+04 4.89E+04 3.03E+04 6.78E+03 1.42E+0170 1.78E+07 2.06E+04 1.35E+04 1.13E+04 5.98E+04 2.39E+05 1.48E+05 3.31E+04 6.96E+0171 Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes TonnesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report78AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR1 Pb Mn Hg C6H6 PAH Sb As Ba B Cd Cr(III&VI)2 AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR WATER AIR WATER WATER WATER WATER3 1988 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1987 1990 1990 1990 19904 1 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 65 table I-2.1.6 table 4.1a table 4.1a table 4.1a table 4.1a table 4.2 table 8.03 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.26 Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes78 0.25891011 0.451213 3141516171819 0.45 22.38 2.82 737.54 183.58 0.64 1.3 1.03 31.4 3.98 16.0720 0.282122232425 3.126 7.538 22.38 2.82 737.54 183.58 0.64 1.3 1.03 31.4 3.98 16.0727282930 1.631 0.832 0.23334 2.635363738 1209.6394041 12394243 15573.6444546474849 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270950 11765152535455 875756 30664.2 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270957585960 5359.261 3007.262 1310.46364 9676.86566 Pb Mn Hg C6H6 PAH Sb As Ba B Cd Cr(III&VI)67 1.54E+01 5.16E+02 6.50E+01 1.70E+04 4.23E+03 1.48E+01 3.00E+01 2.38E+01 7.24E+02 9.18E+01 3.71E+0268 4.32E+0069 1.33E+02 1.67E+01 4.38E+03 1.09E+03 3.80E+00 7.72E+00 6.11E+00 1.86E+02 2.36E+01 9.54E+0170 1.97E+01 6.49E+02 8.18E+01 2.14E+04 5.32E+03 1.86E+01 3.77E+01 2.99E+01 9.11E+02 1.15E+02 4.66E+0271 Kilo-Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes TonnesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report79AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB1 Cu Pb Mn Hg Mo Ni Ni As ENERGY-USE WASTE2 WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER AIR WATER3 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1987 1988 19884 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 1 15 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.2 table 4.1a table 8.0.3 table I-1.5.4 table I-2.3.36 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes TJ Kilo tonnes78 1209.6 24499 1927.8 90010 79811 1239 128512 8773.8 1550013 15573.6 3162314 86115 71.4 9316 407.4 127017 6371.4 1730018 142.8 17019 17.23 17.24 500.9 0.39 2.14 20.01 4.26 56.2 2709 650020 1176 200021 5359.2 267822 3553.2 1060023 2360.4 265024 1180.2 285025 8757 2000026 17.23 17.24 500.9 0.39 2.14 20.01 4.26 56.2 62470.8 1178682728 3183.6 872.229 1260 700030 5359.2 4641831 3007.232 1310.433 1961.434 16081.8 54290.235363738 1209.6 1209.639 1927.8 1927.840 79841 1239 123942 8773.8 8773.843 15573.6 15573.644 86145 71.4 71.446 407.4 407.447 6371.4 6371.448 142.8 142.849 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 270950 1176 117651 5359.2 5359.252 3553.2 3553.253 2360.4 2360.454 1180.2 1180.255 8757 875756 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 2709 62470.8 60811.85758 3183.6 3183.659 1260 126060 5359.2 5359.261 3007.262 1310.463 1961.464 16081.8 9802.86566 Cu Pb Mn Hg Mo Ni Ni As ENERGY-USE WASTE67 3.97E+02 3.98E+02 1.16E+04 8.99E+00 4.93E+01 4.61E+02 9.82E+01 1.30E+03 6.25E+04 1.21E+0568 1.61E+04 8.91E+0469 1.02E+02 1.02E+02 2.97E+03 2.32E+00 1.27E+01 1.19E+02 2.53E+01 3.34E+0270 5.00E+02 5.00E+02 1.45E+04 1.13E+01 6.21E+01 5.80E+02 1.24E+02 1.63E+03 7.86E+04 2.10E+0571 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes TJ Kilo tonnesThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report80Annexe 3: Characterisation valuesThis annexe contains the characterisation values, that are used in the calculation of theindicator values and the normalisation values.Cat. Substance Weight factor UnitClass: greenhouse effect, Unit GWPAir 1,1,1-trichloroethane 100 kgAir CFC (hard) 7100 kgAir CFC (soft) 1600 kgAir CFC-11 3400 kgAir CFC-113 4500 kgAir CFC-114 7000 kgAir CFC-115 7000 kgAir CFC-12 7100 kgAir CFC-13 13000 kgAir CO2 1 kgAir dichloromethane 15 kgAir HALON-1211 4900 kgAir HALON-1301 4900 kgAir HCFC-123 90 kgAir HCFC-124 440 kgAir HCFC-141b 580 kgAir HCFC-142b 1800 kgAir HCFC-22 1600 kgAir HFC-125 3400 kgAir HFC-134a 1200 kgAir HFC-143a 3800 kgAir HFC-152a 150 kgAir methane 11 kgAir N2O 270 kgAir tetrachloromethane 1300 kgAir trichloromethane 25 kgClass: ozone depletion. Unit: ODPAir 1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.12 kgAir CFC (hard) 1 kgAir CFC (soft) 0.055 kgAir CFC-11 1 kgAir CFC-113 1.07 kgAir CFC-114 0.8 kgAir CFC-115 0.5 kgAir CFC-12 1 kgAir CFC-13 1 kgAir HALON-1201 1.4 kgAir HALON-1202 1.25 kgAir HALON-1211 4 kgAir HALON-1301 16 kgAir HALON-2311 0.14 kgAir HALON-2401 0.25 kgAir HALON-2402 7 kgAir HCFC-123 0.02 kgAir HCFC-124 0.022 kgAir HCFC-141b 0.11 kgAir HCFC-142b 0.065 kgAir HCFC-22 0.055 kgAir HCFC-225ca 0.025 kgAir HCFC-225cb 0.033 kgAir methyl bromide 0.6 kgThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report81Air tetrachloromethane 1.08 kgClass: acidification, Unit: APAir ammonia 1.88 kgAir HCl 0.88 kgAir HF 1.6 kgAir NO 1.07 kgAir NO2 0.7 kgAir NOx 0.7 kgAir SO2 1 kgAir SOx 1 kgClass: Nutriphication, Unit: NPAir ammonia 0.33 kgAir nitrates 0.42 kgAir NO 0.2 kgAir NO2 0.13 kgAir NOx 0.13 kgAir phosphate 1 kgWater COD 0.022 kgWater NH3 0.33 kgWater NH4+ 0.33 kgWater Ntot 0.42 kgWater phosphate 1 kgWater Ptot 3.06 kgClass: heavy metals, Unit: Pb equivalentAir cadmium oxyde 50 kgAir Cd 50 kgAir heavy metals 1 kgAir Hg 1 kgAir Mn 1 kgAir Pb 1 kgWater As 1 kgWater B 0.03 kgWater Ba 0.14 kgWater Cd 3 kgWater Cr 0.2 kgWater Cu 0.005 kgWater Hg 10 kgWater Mn 0.02 kgWater Mo 0.14 kgWater Ni 0.5 kgWater Pb 1 kgWater Sb 2 kgClass: carcinogenesis, Unit: PAH equivalentAir As 0.044 kgAir benzene 0.000011 kgAir benzo[a]pyrene 1 kgAir Cr (6+) 0.44 kgAir CxHy aromatic 0.000011 kgAir ethylbenzene 0.000011 kgAir fluoranthene 1 kgAir Ni 0.44 kgAir PAH 1 kgAir tar 0.000011 kgThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report82Class: winter smog, Unit: SO2 equivalentAir dust (SPM) 1 kgAir SO2 1 kgAir Soot 1 kgClass: summer smog, Unit: PCOPAir 1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.021 kgAir 1,2-dichloroethane 0.021 kgAir acetone 0.178 kgAir acetylene 0.168 kgAir alcohols 0.196 kgAir aldehydes 0.443 kgAir benzene 0.189 kgAir caprolactam 0.761 kgAir chlorophenols 0.761 kgAir crude oil 0.398 kgAir CxHy 0.398 kgAir CxHy aliphatic 0.398 kgAir CxHy aromatic 0.761 kgAir CxHy chloro 0.021 kgAir dichloromethane 0.021 kgAir diethyl ether 0.398 kgAir diphenyl 0.761 kgAir ethanol 0.268 kgAir ethene 1 kgAir ethylene glycol 0.196 kgAir ethylene oxide 0.377 kgAir formaldehyde 0.421 kgAir hexachlorobiphenyl 0.761 kgAir hydroxy compounds 0.377 kgAir isopropanol 0.196 kgAir ketones 0.326 kgAir methane 0.007 kgAir methyl ethyl ketone 0.473 kgAir methyl mercaptane 0.377 kgAir naphthalene 0.761 kgAir non methane VOC 0.416 kgAir PAH 0.761 kgAir pentane 0.408 kgAir petrol 0.398 kgAir phenol 0.761 kgAir phthalic acid anhydride 0.761 kgAir propane 0.42 kgAir propene 1.03 kgAir propionaldehyde (propanal) 0.603 kgAir styrene 0.761 kgAir terpentine 0.377 kgAir tetrachloromethane 0.021 kgAir toluene 0.563 kgAir trichloroethene 0.066 kgAir vinylacetate 0.223 kgAir vinylchloride 0.021 kgAir VOC 0.398 kgAir xylene 0.85 kgClass: pesticides Unit: Active substanceWater desinfectants 1 kgWater fungicides 1 kgWater herbicides 1 kgWater insecticides 1 kgThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report83Annexe 4: Data sources for inventories.The annexe report 9510A contains a full specification of the impact tables used to calculate the Eco-indicators. Since this version is only available in Dutch, we included a short list with data references inthis report. The following tables contain a code in the second column representing the data sourceused. The third column contains some additional specification or a source that is only used once ortwice. Sources printed in italics refer to commercial companies. The codes used in the second columnshould be read as:B Habesatter et al. Oekobilanz von Packstoffen Stand 1990 [Environmental audit of packagingmaterials, as at 1990], ETH Zurich, Buwal publication 132, 1991, Bern, Switzerland.bj Bergh en Jurgens, Milieueffecten van Verpakkingsmaterialen [Environmental Impacts ofPackaging Materials]; Rotterdam; August 1990E Frischknecht, R.; Hofstetter, P.; Knoepfel, I.; Ökoinventare für Energy Systeme [Environmentalinventories for energy systems]; ETH Zurich, March 1994.S SPIN project: a series of publications. The authors are indicated in the tables below. Information:RIVM LAE, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.v H van Heijningen, R.J.J.; Castro de, J.F.M.; Meer energiekentallen in relatie tot preventie enhergebruik van afvalstromen; NOH 1992HE Reijnders, Handbook of emission factors, Government Publishing house, The Hague 1993K Kemna, R.B.J.; Energiebewust ontwerpen, TU Delft, 1981, herdruk 1992P PWMI, Ecoprofiles on the European Plastics Industry, PWMI 1993-95Production of metalsSource SpecificationSecondary aluminium bjAluminium BCopper, primary ECopper, 60% primary interpolationSecondary copper EOther non-ferrous metals estimateStainless steel S+E + World resources [40]+ Metals and Minerals 1992Secondary steel BSteel BSheet steel BProcessing of steelSource SpecificationBending steel K+S Spin: Roos, B; Metaalbewerking; RIVMBending stainless steel K+S Spin: Roos, B; Metaalbewerking; RIVMCutting steel KCutting stainless steel KPressing and deep-drawing KRolling (cold) K+S Spin: Huizinga, K.; Non ferro walserijen; RIVM; 1992Spot-welding KMachining KMachining (per volume) CalculatedHot-galvanising S Meijer, R.P.B.; Thermisch verzinken; RIVM; 1992Electrolytic galvanising K + Mortier, J.W.; Galvanische processen, 1992Electroplating (chrome) K + Mortier, J.W.; Galvanische processen, 1992The Eco-indicator 95 Final report84Processing of aluminiumSource SpecificationBlanking and cutting KBending K+S Spin: Roos, B; Metaalbewerking; RIVMRolling (cold) K+S Spin: Huizinga, K.; Non ferro walserijen; RIVM; 1992Spot-welding KMachining KMachining (per volume) CalculatedExtrusion KProduction of plastic granulateSource SpecificationABS vH+HEHDPE PLDPE PNatural rubber based on "Emmissie registratie" compiled byRemmerswaal; TU DelftPA bjPC no source extrapolated using the energy requirements as basisPET PPP PPPE/PS based on "Emissieregistratie", compiled by Remmerswaal;TU DelftPS rigid foam PPS high impact (HIPS) PPUR E + Chemiewinkel, University of Amsterdam, 1994PVC PProcessing of plasticsSource SpecificationInjection mould. in general Mulder, S; Energiebesparing spuitgietmachines; Kunststofen Rubber 9; 1994Inject. mould. PVC & PC Mulder, S; Energiebesparing spuitgietmachines; Kunststofen Rubber 9; 1994RIM, PUR RecticelExtrusion blowing PE internal Procter and Gamble LCI spreadsheet, 1994Vacuum forming Nelipak Venray B.V.Vacuum pressure forming Nelipak Venray B.V.Calandering of PVC KFoil blowing PE internal Procter and Gamble LCI spreadsheet, 1994Ultrasonic welding Philips CFTMachining KProduction of other materials Source SpecificationGlass BGlass wool and glass fibre S Loos; De productie van glas en glaswol; RIVM; April1992.Rockwool S Kaskens, H.J.M et al; Produktie van steenwol; RIVM;Januari 1992Ceramics S Huizinga, K; Fijnkeramische industrie; RIVM; July 1992Cellulose board BPaper BRecycled paper BWood H. Boorsma; Houtvademecum; Centrum Hout; Almere1990Cardboard BThe Eco-indicator 95 Final report85Production of energy Source DescriptionElectricity high voltage EElectricity low voltage EHeat from gas (MJ) BHeat from oil (MJ) BMechanical (diesel, MJ) BTransport Source SpecificationTruck (28 ton) ETruck (75m3) calculatedTrain EContainer ship EAircraft Emissieregistratie 1990, compiled by Remmerswaal; TUDelft; + Fuel consumption and emissions of air traffic1990; Olivier, J.;Inventory of Aircraft emissions; RIVM1991.Waste processing and recycling Source SpecificationAll data on waste taken form SimaPro 3.0; based on data from the AOO[Waste Consulting Body in the Netherlands]