Electronic Supplementary Material 2
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice
Alexis Laurent • Stig Irving Olsen • Michael Zwicky Hauschild
A. Laurent () • S. I. Olsen • M. Z. Hauschild
Section for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment (QSA),Department of Management Engineering,TechnicalUniversity of Denmark (DTU),Produktionstorvet 426,2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
e-mail:
() Corresponding author:
Alexis Laurent
e-mail:
This Supporting Information contains inventory details and assumptions for calculation of the normalization factors for 2004 for the EDIP methodology (EDIP97/EDIP2003). Scope of this inventory is limited to Europe and refers to the base year 2004.
Content
1.Non-toxic impact categories
1.1.Global warming
1.2.Ozone depletion
1.3.Acidification
1.4.Photochemical ozone formation
1.5.Eutrophication
2.Toxic impact categories
2.1.Heavy metals in wastewater
2.2.Organic compounds in wastewater
2.3.Oil discharges
2.4.Organotin compounds
2.5.Atmospheric depositions
2.6.Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)
2.7.Particulate matters (direct emissions)
2.8.Pesticides
2.9.Sewage sludge applied to agriculture
3.Resource depletion
4.References
5.Appendices
1
1.Non-toxic impact categories
Data collection and treatment are reported for each impact category separately. Two geographical scales characterize the inventory depending on the scope of the impacts for each category. Global data are required for assessing global warming and ozone depletion, while regional data – European in this study – are needed for acidification, eutrophication and photochemical ozone formation. In regards to the EDIP 2003 regional impacts, specifications for each European country are required in order to apply a spatial differentiation when calculating the normalization references (Hauschild and Potting, 2005).
1.1.Global warming
Table 1. Assessed substances, with associated data sources for global warming
Assessed substances / Data sourcesCO2, CH4, N2O / -UNFCCC for officially reported emissions (Annex I)
-Marland et al. (2008) (CDIAC) for estimates of CO2 emissions
-Houghton (2008) (CDIAC) for LULUCF
CO, SF6 / IPCC (2000)
CFCs, HCFCs, halons, HFCs, PFCs / IPCC (2005)
CCl4, CCl3CH3 / UNEP Ozone secretariat
Characterization factors / IPCC (2007)
Emission data for CO2, CH4 and N2O, excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), were extracted from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)database for Annex I countries. With respect to non-Annex I countries, the latest emissions reported by the UNFCCC referred to the year 1994 (apart from exceptions). Therefore, estimates of CO2 emissions in 2004 were extracted from Marland et al. (CDIAC, 2008), which accounts for emissions from consumption of solid, liquid and gas fuels, cement production, and gas flaring. For N2O and CH4, extrapolations were performed for the main eight non-Annex I contributors, namely China, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. Based on emissions in 1994 (exceptions for Mexico and Republic of Korea, which provided figures for emissions in 2002 and 2001, respectively), these extrapolations were carried out to get the same reference year (2004), using the “Gross Domestic Products” (GDP) as key parameter (United Nations database; see equation (1)). In addition, it was assumed that, apart from the eight countries mentioned above, all non-Annex I countries had negligible changes in their emissions of CH4 and N2O between 1994 and 2004.
(1)
WithEi,jEmissions of the substance i (N2O, CH4) in the year j for a given country
GDPiGDP of the corresponding country in the year i (GDP at market prices, current US$ (UN database))
Emissions arising from LULUCF were extracted from Houghton (CDIAC 2008), who estimates in 2004 1,53 Gt-C (5,6 Gt-CO2eq). This number is in a good agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007), which reports an estimate of ca. 1,6 Gt-C.
Emission information for CO and SF6 refer to the Special Report on Emission Scenario (IPCC 2000). In the SRES, different models were set up to describe possible emission trends for GHG in the 21st century. With the common starting point in 1990, those models provide very close estimates for CO and SF6in the year 2000, year from which the emission data were extracted.
1
1.2.Ozone depletion
No emission data are available for ozone depleting substances. Production figures were considered instead. Most emissions occurring in 2004 are likely to result from products, which were manufactured in earlier years and which had not been destroyed at that time. With respect to the effective phasing out of ODS (controlled by the Montreal Protocol), emissions have however been far from being steady during the 90s and the early 2000s. Large discrepancies are thus expected to lie between production and emission figures in the year 2004. Nevertheless, production figures are the best estimates available for ozone depleting substances and thus those considered here.
Data were extracted from the Ozone secretariat of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which reports annual production of ozone depleting compounds.Data used to calculate the normalization references are based on production information from the Annexes A, B, C and E to the Montreal Protocol, which report “ozone depletion potentials” (ODP) of groups of substances according to their chemical classes.
1.3.Acidification
The EMEP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP) was used as the main data source. It provides emissions reviewed, when necessary, according to a gap-filling methodology (involving the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections (TFEIP), the European Environmental Agency (EEA), the Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP), and the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC ACC)). The present set of emission data (NOX, SOX and NH3) thus refers to the Inventory Review 2006 (Vestreng et al., 2006).The non-anthropogenic part of these gas emissions is reported to account for less than 1% of the total (Stranddorf et al., 2005) and was therefore not removed.
1.4.Photochemical ozone formation
Table 2. Assessed substances, with associated data sources for photochemical ozone formation
Assessed substances / Data sourcesNOX, NMVOC, CO / -EMEP/CEIP (Vestreng et al., 2006)
CH4 / -UNFCCC, UNSD
Emission data for CH4 were extracted from UNFCCC database for the Annex I countries and from the United Nation Statistics Division (UNSD) database for the remaining countries (no data were found for Bosnia/Herzegovina and the Russian regions). Emission data for NOX, NMVOC and CO were extracted from the EMEP/CEIP Centre (cf. Section 1.3. Acidification; Vestreng et al., 2006); theemissions of NMVOCwere apportioned according to their source sectors (SNAP97 activity nomenclatures).
1.5.Eutrophication
Table 3. Assessed substances, with associated data sources for eutrophication
Assessed substances / Data sourcesNtot, Ptot (water-borne emissions) / -HELCOM (2007) for the Baltic Sea
-OSPAR (2006) for the North Sea/Atlantic Ocean
-EEA (2005) for the Black Sea
-Stranddorf et al. (2005) for the Mediterranean Sea
NOX, NH3 (air-borne emissions) / -EMEP/CEIP (Vestreng et al., 2006)
Air emissions of NOX and NH3 were simply extracted from the EMEP/CEIP Centre (Vestreng et al., 2006). Air emissions of phosphate were assumed to be negligible(Potting and Hauschild, 2005; Stranddorf et al., 2005).
1
With respect to waterborne emissions, most European sea areas were accounted for with different degrees of uncertainties in the available data: the OSPAR Convention area (mainly constituted by the Atlantic Ocean (North-East)) and the North Sea), the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea.Nutrient waterborne emission data are usually reported as loadings into marine ecosystems (split into riverine inputs and direct emissions). Therefore, the part of nutrients removed when carried to the marine environment, because of denitrification in lakes or watercourses and uptakes by plants, is not included in the assessment (no exposure factor is thus considered for characterizing waterborne emissions).In order to only assess man-made emissions of nutrients into aquatic environment,allocation factors were used to describe the anthropogenic part of the riverine inputs to marine areas (direct emissions are not affected). Based on the Danish situation, the natural background loading proportion for all European countries was set at 12% for nitrogen inputs and 16% for phosphorus inputs to the seas (Larsen et al., 1995).
To meet the requirements of spatial differentiation imposed by the EDIP2003 methodology,a specification of the emission data for each European country isrequired. Assumptions were therefore needed when inventorizing the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, which are poorly monitored. The European Environmental Agency provided general data for nutrient loadings to the Black Sea (EEA, 2005) coming from inland countries (emissions from coastline countries are each detailed separately). Allocation of nutrient emissions to each ‘inland country’ was performed based on two major assumptions: the Danube was considered the only nutrient carrier to the Black Sea for the concerned countries, and the nutrient inputs were indexed proportionally to the catchment areas in each country. No consistent data on nutrient releases to the Mediterranean Sea existed at the time the inventory was conducted; therefore, estimates carried out for the year 1999 were extracted from Stranddorf et al. (2005), and no change in nutrient loadings between 1999 and 2004 was assumed.
2.Toxic impact categories
Emission data were gathered based on the framework of previous assessments carried out by Stranddorf et al. (2005) for the EDIP-methodology. Those data are distinguished into several categories presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Assessed substances associated with their data sources
Assessed groups of substances / Data sourcesHeavy metals in WW (wastewater)
(Hg, Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn) / -OSPAR (2006) for the North Sea/Atlantic Ocean
-HELCOM (2007) for the Baltic Sea
Organics in WW(wastewater) / -Van der Auweraert et al. (1996) (extrapolated)
Oil compounds
(off-shore plants and refineries) / -OSPAR (2006) and CONCAWE (2004) (EEA (2007))
-Fingas et al.(2004) and TPH CWG (1998) for speciation
TBT compounds (antifouling paints…) / -DEPA (1997); extrapolations using sea areas from Wikipedia for sea areas (accessed on 24/01/2009)
Atmospheric depositions
(heavy metals, PAH, dioxins, HCB, PCB) / -EMEP/CEIP (Gusev et al., 2008; Ilyn et al., 2008) for emissions
Pesticides / -DEPA (2006) for active ingredient specification in Denmark
-FERA (2009) for active ingredient specification in Great Britain (Northern Ireland is not included)
-PAN Pesticide database (2009) for active ingredients (AI) properties
-EUROSTAT (2008) for consumptions; OECD (2008) and EEA (2004) for sales.
-EUROSTAT (2007) for pesticide use (support of extrapolations)
-Exposure factor from Hauschild et al. (1998) and Birkved et al. (2006)
Sludge / -EUROSTAT, OECD (2008) for emissions.
-Compositions from Tørsløv et al. (1997)
Opposite to the approach taken by Sleeswijk et al. (2008), it was decided not to basethe extrapolations on inventories from regions outside Europe (e.g. Canada, Japan, USA). Industrial activities and applicable environmental regulations potentially vary much between these geographical areas (e.g. the extent and regulation of mining), leading to discrepancies in the types and magnitudes of the corresponding emissions. Instead, extrapolation within Europe was performed, and where needed for a given substance, reported emission data for one or several European countrieswere extrapolated to the whole Europe, using scaling parameters. In most cases, gross domestic product (GDP) was used as scaling parameter between countries, e.g. to fill gaps for heavy metal emissions. For pesticide emission inventories this was supplemented by statistics on the national pesticide consumptions per pesticide class in order to derive European emissions of active ingredients –see section 2.8.
2.1.Heavy metals in wastewater
Overall, northern countries can be credited of having a relatively efficient monitoring system, ensuring a fair representativeness in the data provided, while southern and central European countries are characterized by a prominent lack of reliable data, necessitating therefore extrapolations. Data collection for heavy metals thus mainly consisted of the combination of two sources, OSPAR (2006) and HELCOM (2007), which cover altogether the marine areas of the Atlantic Ocean (North-Eastern part) and of all the northern seas (North Sea, Baltic Sea…). Only five heavy metals are consistently reported, i.e. copper, cadmium, mercury, lead, and zinc. Only data regarding inputs to the seas were reported in a relatively comprehensive way at the time this study was conducted. Therefore, a number of extrapolations were also required in order to get a clear cut between emissions to freshwater and discharges to marine environments (so that to assess ecotoxicity in freshwater ecosystems). As illustrated in Figure 1, three points of releases were defined:
Point 1: Discharges to freshwater
No data were available to quantify the direct emissions to freshwater ecosystemsconsistently. Therefore, these data were derived from the riverine inputs to the seas (point 2), reported by OSPAR (2006) and HELCOM (2007), by adding the removal occurring in the river (loss in the metal bioavailability due to e.g. sedimentation), when the metals are carried to the coastal areas, to the official reports. This removal part was assumed to be governed by a first-order differential equation, with a time of 40 days to reach the coasts after release and considering the half-lives of each of the concerned heavy metals, i.e. 100 days for Cd, 80 days for Pb, and 20 days for Cu, Zn, and Hg (Larsen et al., 2008; see equation (2)).
(2)
WithEi,freshDirect emissions of the substance i to freshwater ecosystems
Ei,riv.Riverine inputs of the substance i to the seas
TcConveying time of the substance to reach the seas once emitted to fresh water.
τ1/2iHalf-time of the substance i
1
Point 2: Riverine input to the seas
Riverine input to seas consist of the discharges to freshwater (point 1) with deduction of the part of metals degraded when conveyed in the river. In practice, they constitute the major part of the raw data provided by OSPAR (2006) and HELCOM (2007). As those data do not encompass all European countries, extrapolations by use of gross domestic products (GDP) were performed to obtain discharges of heavy metals for all European countries (cf. further details below).
Point 3: Direct discharges to the seas
Part of wastewater is directly released to the seas when the wastewater treatment plants are located nearby the coasts. OSPAR (2006) and HELCOM (2007) report those specific emissions for some European countries. Extrapolations using coastal gross domestic products (coastal GDP) were carried out to fill gaps in the coastline countries (cf. below).
The main extrapolations to fill gaps in the data for some European countries stem from the fact that:
Reported riverine input to the seas from OSPAR (2006) and HELCOM (2007) only concerns northern countries (and part of Spain). Therefore, discharges of heavy metals from European countries ending up in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea are missing. Based on the reported data for the northern countries, extrapolations to get riverine input for each southern and central European country were performed using gross domestic products for 2004 (UN Database, 2009; see equation (3)).
Direct discharges to the seas are missing for some countries. Coastal gross domestic products (coastal GDP) were calculated, based on coastal gross domestic products per capita and coastal population densities for the concerned countries (EUROSTAT, 2009). Those coastal GDP were used to extrapolate from the basis of reported countries to all coastal European countries (see equation (3)).
(3)
WithEi,cEmissions of the substance i in the country c
GDPcGDP (coastal or total) of the country c in 2004 (GDP at market prices, current US$ (UN database, 2009))
GDPavail.GDP (coastal or total) of the countries c in 2004, for which emission data are available (GDP at market prices, current US$ (UN database, 2009))
2.2.Organic compounds in wastewater
It was not possible to find reports on organic inputs to aquatic ecosystems for the year 2004. A large study performed in the Netherlands (Van der Auweraert et al., 1996) was used instead, assuming no change over time (no delocalization or closure of concerned industries and no change in the emission loadings).
The same procedure as for discharges of heavy metals via wastewater was used to estimate the emissions of organics for all three points of inputs (cf. Figure 1):Direct emissions and riverine inputs to the seas were apportioned by use of the ratio between the coastal GDP and the overall GDP of the Netherlands (cf. Table 5).
Table 5. Gross domestic product (GDP) apportionment for the Netherlands (year 2004)
2004 / GDP (€) / % / SourceGDP coastal / 8,75E+10 / 18% / EUROSTAT (2009)
GDP inland / 4,04E+11 / 82%
GDP overall / 4,91E+11 / 100% / EUROSTAT (2004)
Direct input to the seas (point 3 on figure 1) was then extrapolated to all coastal European countries, using the coastal GDP (cf. equation (3)). Releases in freshwater environment (point 1 on figure 1) for all European countries were also derived from the Dutch ones, using the overall GDP this time. From those discharges in freshwater environment, the inputs to the seas (point 2 on figure 1) were calculated, considering, as for the heavy metals, a first order degradation with a time of 40 days to reach the seas (Larsen et al., 2008) and specific freshwater half-lives for each concerned organics (Rosenbaum et al., 2008; cf. Table 6 and equation (2)).
Table 6. Freshwater half-lives (DT50) for organic substances included in the assessment 1
Substances / DT50 (days)Benzene / 7,1
benz(a)pyrene / 70,8
Ethylbenzene / 22,9
Fluoranthene / 70,8
Isopropylbenzene / 22,9
Toluene / 22,9
Xylenes / 15,0
1,2-dichloroethane / 70,8
Hexachlorbutadiene / 180,0
Hexachlorcyclohexane / 180,0
tetrachlorethylene / 70,8
tetrachlormethane / 120,0
1,1,1-trichloroethane / 120,0
trichloroethene / 70,8
trichloromethane / 70,8
Vinyl Chloride / 22,9
Chlorobenzene / 70,8
Hexachlorobenzene / 2291,7
PCB / 180,0
Pentachlorophenol / 22,9
Trichlorobenzene / 120,0
1 Based on Rosenbaum et al. (2008)
2.3.Oil discharges
Oil discharges were documented for two emission sources: refineries and off-shore plants. Data for refineries refer to the year 2000, but small differences are expected with 2004. Spills occurring at off-shore stations (data for 2004) constitute the major part of the total discharges (> 90%). Only emissions occurring in the North Sea are covered in the inventory, as it was not possible to find relevant data sources for other European marine areas. No extrapolation was further performed.