Submission for Verification of Eco-efficiency Analysis Under NSF Protocol P352, Part B

Transcription

1 - Helping Make Products Better TM Submission for Verification of Eco-efficiency Analysis Under NSF Protocol P352, Part B Green Sense Concrete Eco-Efficiency Analysis Final Report April 2013 Submitted by: BASF Corporation Product Stewardship 100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ, Prepared by: David Green, Sustainability Specialist Mark Bury, Product Manager Brad Violetta, Marketing Manager

2 Table of Contents 1. Purpose and Intent of this Submission Content of this Submission BASF' Eco-efficiency Methodoloy Overview Preconditions Environmental Burden Metrics Economic Metrics Work Flow Study Goals, Decision Criteria and Target Audience Study Goals Design Criteria Target Audience Customer Benefit, Alternatives, System Boundaries and Scenarios Customer Benefit Alternatives System Boundaries Scenario Analyses 9 6. Input Parameters and Assumptions Input Parameters and Data Sources Costs Assumptions Data Sources Environmental Amounts and Costs Eco-efficiency Analysis Results and Discussion Environmental Impact Results Primary energy consumption Raw material consumption Air Emissions Global Warming Potential (GWP) Photochemical ozone creation potential (smog) Ozone depletion potential (ODP) Acidification potential (AP) Water emissions Solid waste generation Land use Toxicity potential Risk potential Environmental fingerprint Economic Cost Results Eco-Efficiency Analysis Portfolio Scenario Analyses Data Quality Assessment Data Quality Statement Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis Sensitivity and Uncertainty Considerations

3 10.2. Critical Uncertainties Limitations of EEA Study Results Limitations References

4 1. Purpose and Intent of this Submission 1.1. The purpose of this submission is to provide a written report of the methods and findings of BASF Corporation s Green Sense Concrete Eco-efficiency Analysis, with the intent of having it verified under the requirements of NSF Protocol P352, Part B: Verification of Eco-Efficiency Analysis Studies The Green Sense Concrete Eco-efficiency Analysis was performed by BASF according to the methodology validated by NSF International under the requirements of Protocol P352. More information on BASF s methodology and the NSF validation can be obtained at 2. Content of this Submission 2.1. This submission outlines the study goals, procedures, and results for the Green Sense Concrete Eco-efficiency Analysis (EEA) study, which was conducted in accordance with BASF Corporation s EEA (BASF EEA) methodology. This submission will provide a discussion of the basis of the eco-analysis preparation and verification work As required under NSF P352 Part B, along with this document, BASF is submitting the final computerized model programmed in Microsoft Excel. The computerized model, together with this document, will aid in the final review and ensure that the data and critical review findings have been satisfactorily addressed. 3. BASF s EEA Methodology 3.1. Overview: BASF EEA involves measuring the life cycle environmental impacts and life cycle costs for product alternatives for a defined level of output. At a minimum, BASF EEA evaluates the environmental impact of the production, use, and disposal of a product or process in the areas of energy and resource consumption, emissions, toxicity and risk potential, and land use. The EEA also evaluates the life cycle costs associated with the product or process by calculating the costs related to, at a minimum, materials, labor, manufacturing, waste disposal, and energy. This study is used to characterize the material ready-mix concrete. Due to the number of application opportunities for concrete, the use and end of life phases are considered to have similar outcomes for all analyses are therefore not included in the final calculations and do not impact the end results of the study Preconditions: The basic preconditions of this eco-efficiency analysis are that all alternatives that are being evaluated are being compared against a common functional unit or Customer Benefit (CB). This allows for an objective comparison between the various alternatives. The scoping and definition of the Customer Benefit are aligned with the goals and objectives of the study. Data gathering and constructing of the system boundaries are consistent with the CB and consider both the environmental and economic impacts of each alternative over their life cycle in order to achieve the 3

5 specified cradle to gate CB. An overview of the scope of the environmental and economic assessment carried out is defined below Environmental Burden Metrics: For BASF EEA environmental burden is characterized using eleven categories, at a minimum, including: primary energy consumption, raw material consumption, global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), acidification potential (AP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), water emissions, solid waste emissions, toxicity potential, risk potential, and land use. These are shown below in Figure 1. Metrics shown in yellow represent the six main categories of environmental burden that are used to construct the environmental fingerprint, burdens in light blue represent all elements of the emissions category, and green show air emissions Economic Metrics: Figure 1: Environmental Burdens It is the intent of the BASF EEA methodology to assess the economics of products or processes over their life cycle and to determine an overall total cost of ownership for the defined customer benefit ($/CB). The approaches for calculating costs vary from study to study. When chemical products of manufacturing are being compared, the sale price paid by the customer is predominately used followed by any subsequent costs incurred by its use and disposal. When different production methods are compared, the relevant costs include the purchase and installation of 4

6 3.3 Work Flow: capital equipment, depreciation, and operating costs. The costs incurred are summed and combined in appropriate units (e.g. dollar or EURO) without additional weighting of individual financial amounts. This analysis uses the producer cost for materials as the overall cost of ownership for the targeted environmental and economic life cycle phases. The BASF EEA methodology will incorporate: the real costs that occur in the process of creating and delivering the product to the consumer; the subsequent costs which may occur in the future (due to tax policy changes, for example) with appropriate consideration for the time value of money; and Costs having an ecological aspect, such as the costs involved to treat wastewater generated during the manufacturing process. A representative flowchart of the overall process steps and calculations conducted for this eco-efficiency analysis is summarized in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Generalized work flow diagram of EEA Methodology 4. Study Goals, Context and Target Audience 4.1. Study Goals: The specific goal defined for the Green Sense Concrete Eco-efficiency Analysis is to quantify the differences in life cycle environmental impacts and total life cycle costs of ready-mix, precast, or manufactured concrete products over the targeted environmental and economic life cycle phases. Green Sense Concrete is a mix optimization service in which supplementary cementitious materials and non-cementitious fillers are used with BASF chemical admixtures to meet or exceed performance targets. The study specifically compares a reference concrete mix to different concrete mix designs using chosen supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) and BASF concrete admixtures. The study is a dynamic model and therefore is capable of 5

7 analyzing numerous different mix designs. All background data remains consistent for all studies completed to ensure consistency. The major factors influencing the environmental and cost impact of the concrete mixes are the quantity of cement in a concrete blend, transportation mode and distance to deliver material to the producer site and the costs associated with the SCMs relative to cement costs. The mix design information and associated costs are provided by the ready-mix producers for each analysis. Various different powder SCMs are available in the analysis however, most mix alternatives only use one of the choices. All mixes are lab evaluated to ensure that the properties and specifications meet the design requirements. The EEA is completed after the mixes have been evaluated. BASF Admixtures are an integral component for delivering the properties necessary to meet the design specifications and are therefore included in the study even though the amount of admixture in a standard concrete mix is less than 1% by mass. The admixtures provide the necessary chemistry to produce a concrete product with performance characteristics equal to or better than a concrete mix containing in many cases higher levels of cement. The optimum Green Sense concrete mix design generally provides an equal or better specified product with a preferable environmental fingerprint based on the reduction in cement content. Different combinations of admixtures may be selected based upon the raw materials chosen and the corresponding concrete mix requirements. Study results will be used as the basis to guide further product development and support/promote marketing strategies for more eco-efficient concrete products. The results also provide the necessary information to allow a clear comparison between the environmental life cycle and total cost impacts and benefits of producing a Green Sense concrete solution. It will also facilitate the clear communications of these results to key stakeholders in the construction industry who are challenged with evaluating and making strategic decisions related to the environmental and total cost trade-offs associated with the production of concrete. 4.2 Design Criteria: The context of this EEA study compared the life cycle environmental and cost impacts for the production of 1 cubic yard of concrete (the study is also customizable to accept data for a customer benefit in cubic meters). The Green Sense study used regional data from the Boustead 2 data base for cement, aggregates, water, admixtures, supplementary cementitious materials and transportation. The environmental impacts from materials which may be considered waste products (fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash, and ground granulated blast furnace slag) were allocated based on mass. The study generally relied on BASF internal information, MSDS and technical documents. Where applicable and available, non-basf supplier information was used. The study was technology driven and goals, target audience, and context for decision criteria used in this study are displayed in Figure 3. 6

8 Geography Drivers global regional technology regulator competitve step change i incremental Scenario and Horizon (years) gap closure local consumer emerging survival SC internal consumer 1 product 1 market Engagement supplier/customer NGO/ external Life Cycle postfull life cycle all products/markets Innovation Economy Product/Material 4.3. Target Audience: Figure 3: Context of Green Sense Concrete Eco-efficiency Analysis The target audience for the study has been defined as concrete producers, architects, engineers, specifiers, owners, government agencies and trade associations within North America, focusing on concrete production. It is planned to communicate study results in internal correspondence, marketing materials, trade conferences, seminars and papers. 5. Customer Benefit, Alternatives and System Boundaries 5.1. Customer Benefit: The Customer benefit applied to all alternatives for the base case analysis is the evaluation of the inputs required to produce 1 cubic yard of similar compressive strength Portland cement concrete with equal or better performance characteristics including durability (service life), [Note: The study is customizable to accept data for a CB (customer benefit) in cubic meters as well]. This study specifically evaluates different concrete mix configurations to a reference mix for comparative purposes. The cubic yard customer benefit was chosen as this is the standard unit of measure used by ready mix and precast concrete producers in North America 1. The overall study is a dynamic model and has the capability of evaluating an unlimited number of different mix designs with similar design and performance characteristics however each individual analysis is limited to one reference mix and up to four alternative mixes. As BASF does not produce the concrete but services hundreds of different concrete producers with some having thousands of different mix designs, a single study would not be valued in the marketplace. The dynamic nature provides producers with the opportunity to evaluate their specific mixes and choose the most 7

9 eco-efficient result for their product submission. The eco-efficiency analysis is conducted only on mixes that have similar design characteristics and have been evaluated to ensure compliance with mix design requirements. Due to the significant number of application possibilities for ready-mixed concrete, the use and end of life phase are considered equal and therefore not specifically included in this analysis. The analysis can only be conducted by an approved BASF eco-efficiency practitioner and all background data remains consistent. Any updates to background information (updated profiles for example) will be communicated to the customer through the BASF Sales representative in the event they are using data generated in significantly different time intervals, i.e. years Alternatives: The product alternatives compared under this EEA study are a reference concrete mix and up to four additional mixes using different quantities and/or types of raw materials for the mix design. Admixtures are used to promote the necessary material reactions for developing proper concrete properties, characteristics and/or application requirements System Boundaries: The system boundaries define the specific elements of the production phases that are considered as part of the analysis. The system boundary for the analysis evaluated in this study is shown in Figure 4. The use and disposal phases were excluded from the analysis as the actual application and placement of the concrete mixes can vary between foundations, slabs-on-grade, sidewalks, driveways, roadways, bridge decks, or structural elements for example. With the various application options, the service life/design life will vary with the application adding to the complexity of evaluating the product mixes. Therefore, this aspect of the life cycle is considered equivalent for all analyses and not included as part of the study. The elements included in the boundary are the major impact categories for the production of concrete including material content, cost, and transportation. Although concrete production plants differ in their equipment, processing, and energy management, these components are considered identical for the study to keep the focus on the product. Other programs and certifications are available to concrete producers for managing their operating efficiencies. 8

10 Figure 4: System boundaries Green Sense Concrete 5.4 Scenario Analyses: In addition to the base case analysis, three additional scenarios were evaluated to determine the sensitivity of the studies final conclusions and results to key input parameters. Scenario#1 demonstrates the impact of the results based on a significant price impact in the marketplace where the cost of supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash increase beyond cement costs. Scenario #2 and #3 demonstrate the impact of transportation mode and distance for the delivered materials Scenario #1: 200% higher price for SCMs than cement for the identical concrete mix. The price increase assumption is based on the unknown future regulations for fly ash which could significantly impact future availability Scenario #2: The transportation distances for the raw materials are equivalent for all mix designs Scenario #3: SCMs delivered from an overseas supplier and then delivered to the producer site via truck transportation. An example could be a west coast producer purchasing an SCM from China based on economics and then having it delivered from the local port via truck. 6. Input Parameters and Assumptions 6.1. Input Parameters: A list of relevant materials for input and operational requirements is included in this study although not all materials and/or operational considerations will be used in the specific results provided. The generic data and information sources included BASF s 9

11 Admixture Systems business, National Ready Mix Concrete Association, Portland Cement Association, and The International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering.. The input values from this data are based on mix design evaluations to ensure that the proper specifications and performance characteristics are achieved. The Green Sense concrete study evaluates the production of the Customer Benefit (CB), one cubic yard of similar strength Portland cement concrete. Ready mix, precast and manufactured concrete products (MCP) are all comprised of cement and/or supplementary cementitious materials, fine and course aggregates, water, and generally admixtures. Additional materials may be added to concrete to improve strength (fibers) or change the aesthetic appearance (color) however all mix designs in the analysis must then include these additions unless the design specifications and performance characteristics can be attained without the addition. Additional information on the benefits of chemical admixtures developed by BASF can be found at: The input table developed for this analysis is shown in table 1. Information for the input table is provided by each producer prior to the requested analysis and submitted on the document shown in Figure 5. The values presented are for this submission however, since this is a dynamic model, each producer will have different mixes representing their specific portfolio and therefore the input table will change with each analysis. 10

12 Table 1: Material input data for Green Sense concrete. 11

13 Figure 5: Green Sense concrete producer information form 12

14 Costs 6.2 User Costs Producer costs are evaluated for each alternative. Producer costs are based on the production of one (1) cubic yard (cubic meter) of concrete. The difference between the alternatives in the analysis are based on materials chosen for the concrete products however, all mixes must meet the design and performance characteristics through lab testing. Costs vary from producer to producer and these costs generally are not provided to anyone other than the customer requesting the analysis for confidentiality reasons. The complete list with examples of input data costs for cement, supplementary cementitious materials, aggregates, water, and admixtures are shown below in Table 2. In addition, transportation mode and distance are entered in this table for each of the raw materials used in the various mix designs. 6.3 Assumptions Materials and Transportation: Cement content, transportation mode and distance, and aggregate quantity carry the greatest environmental impact for the mixes evaluated in the analysis. Although these are variable inputs to the analyses based on the producer s specific mix, these three inputs will likely continue to be the main contributors to the environmental burden categories for GWP, Raw Material Consumption, and Land Use. Transportation impacts will not have a significant impact for producers located adjacent to or in close proximity to the raw material sources including cement and the various supplementary cementitious materials but will have a more significant impact when materials are sourced from locations in different regions of the United States or from different countries. The Use and Disposal phases for the study were considered equivalent for the purposes of the study and therefore not included in the final calculation. This assumption is based on the multitude of different applications for Green Sense concrete including driveways, sidewalks, slabs-on-grade, bridge decks, pavers, columns, etc. which would require separate analyses for each application and include numerous additional variables for the placement and use phases. Additional analyses can be developed utilizing the Green Sense Concrete results in combination with unique applications to develop a full life-cycle analysis based on final structure. Risk potential is established using quantitative government and industry data (e.g. working accidents and occupational disease using industry related data) as well as expert judgment. The risk assessments generally follow these steps: a) definition of the possible hazards of all alternatives; b) itemizing the possible hazards into production, use and recycling modules; c) determination of the extent of the hazard and the probability of its occurrence and comparison of alternatives. This is not a quantitative risk analysis but rather a semiquantitative assessment based on potential risks. For this analysis, the available 13

15 data though not specific to the United States was deemed appropriate for this study. For the eco-efficiency analysis, the toxicity potential is assessed not only for the final products, but for the entire pre-chain of chemicals used to manufacture the products as well. The quantities of each substance to be included in the analysis must be inventoried in order to calculate toxicity potential. The result is an assessment of life cycle toxicity potential that includes not only the final products but also the reactants needed in its manufacture. In addition, the toxicity potential is also quantified for the use and disposal stages of the life cycle. The general framework for performing the analysis of toxicity potential is described by Landsliedel and Saling (6) and is based upon the Hazardous Materials Regulations (R-phrases) outlined in Directive 67/546/EEC. This method was chosen because in order to score the toxicity of a substance, the consideration of all possible effects is needed. 14

16 Table 2: General cost and transportation input data for Green Sense concrete. 15

17 7. Data Sources 7.1. Environmental: The environmental impacts for the production of the alternatives were calculated from eco-profiles (a.k.a. life cycle inventories) for the individual components including if necessary the delivery portion of the raw materials. Life cycle inventory data for these eco-profiles were from several data sources, including BASF specific manufacturing data, MSDS sheets, and customer supplied data. Overall, the quality of the data was considered medium-high to high. None of the eco-profile data was considered to be of low data quality. Although the Boustead database does include numerous unit processes with the original package, the data base is set up to add additional eco-profiles and LCI information. BASF has developed numerous additional eco-profiles within Boustead that would not be included in the Boustead public document list. Since this data and associated eco-profiles are confidential to BASF, full disclosure was provided to NSF for verification. A summary of the ecoprofiles is provided in Table 3. Although some of the data sources are in excess of ten years old, the data is relevant to the basis of the study and was the best available at the time of the study. Table 3: Summary of eco-profiles used for the Eco-efficiency analysis Eco-Profile Source, Year Comments Cement 2010 Boustead database 2 Fly Ash US Avg., 2009 Boustead database 2 Slag GB Avg., 1996 Boustead database 2 Granite Powder GB Avg., 1996 Boustead database 2 Limestone Powder GB Avg., 1996 Boustead database 2 Cement Kiln Dust US Avg., 2012 Boustead database 2 Silica Fume US Avg., 2012 Boustead database 2 Metakaolin US avg., 2008 Boustead database 2 Rice Husk Ash US Avg., 2003 Boustead database 2,3 Fine Aggregate #1, #2, #3 US Avg., 2003 Boustead database 2 Course Aggregate #1, #2, #3 US Avg., 2003 Boustead database 2 Crushed Recycled Concrete US Avg., 2003 Boustead database 2 Recycled Aggregate US Avg., 2003 Boustead database 2, 8 Water US Avg., 2000 Boustead database 2 Recycled Water GB Avg., 1996 Boustead database 2 Water Reducer US Avg., 2012 Boustead database 2,4 Mid-range Water Reducer US Avg., 2012 Boustead database 2,4 High Range Water Reducer US Avg., 2012 Boustead database 2,4 Accelerator US Avg., 2011 Boustead database 2 Retarder US Avg., 2012 Boustead database 2,4 Air Entrainer Germany Avg., 2006 Boustead database 2,4 Plasticizer Germany Avg., 2006 Boustead database 2,4 Color Germany Avg., 1998 Boustead database 2,4 Steel Fiber Avg., 2013 Boustead database 2 Synthetic Fiber US, 2011 Boustead database 2 Transportation - Truck US Avg., 2010 Boustead database 2 Transportation - Rail US Avg., 1996 Boustead database 2 Transportation - Ocean GB Avg., 1996 Boustead database 2 16

18 BASF data sources are internal data, while the others are external to BASF. Internal data is confidential to BASF; however, full disclosure was provided to NSF International for verification purposes Amounts and Costs: The data sources for the amounts and costs of the individual components were obtained from concrete producing customers. Examples are shown in Table Eco-efficiency Analysis Results and Discussion 8.1. Environmental Impact Results: The environmental impact results for the Green Sense concrete EEA are generated as defined in Section 6 of the BASF EEA methodology. The results discussed in Section through 8.3 (depicted in Figures 6 through 23) are for the Base Case only and are extrapolations from data obtained from the Base case Primary Energy Consumption: The energy consumption is primarily impacted by the cement content, aggregate content, and mode/distance for the transportation of the raw materials to the producer site. Based on most mix designs, the aggregate quantities will not change significantly between alternative mixes as much as the cement content and cement replacement material. As cement content is replaced, the energy consumption for transporting the replacement materials may have a greater impact. Figure 6 shows the results for the analysis based on the inputs in Table 1. Figure 6: Primary energy consumption Raw Material Consumption: Figure 7 shows that the key driver for the raw material consumption is dominated by the production of cement and aggregates. One ton of packaged cement generally requires 1.6 to 1.7 tons of raw materials which supports the results of high raw material consumption per yd 3 of concrete produced. The transportation component for cement and powders also has high raw material consumption results however this result 17

19 can change significantly for the same mix based on mode and distance. Transportation is an important component in the analysis and must be addressed accordingly for each mix option. In the example for this analysis, it is noted that there was an increase in the mix water required for Mix B and Mix D when compared to the Reference Mix. There are numerous reasons for the change in mix water requirements including but not limited to the amount of cement, type and quantity of supplementary cementitious materials, type of water reducing admixture, and contractor placement and finishing requirements. Water is an important resource and has different impacts in different regions. The overall volume of the concrete produced may dictate a need to select a mix alternative with less mix water. Per the BASF EEA Methodology, individual raw materials are weighted according to their available reserves and current consumption profile. These weighting factors are appropriate considering the context of this study. As shown in Figure 8, sand and lime are the main resources that dominate raw material consumption (apart from energy carriers like coal, lignite, oil and gas) and this would be expected as lime and silica generally comprise 85% of the mass of cement and aggregates are the largest mass contributors to concrete. Figure 7: Raw material consumption by module. 18

20 Figure 8: Individual Raw Material consumption by type Air Emissions: Global Warming Potential (GWP): The highest global warming potential (carbon footprint) occurred in the Reference mix and generates 194 kg of CO 2 equivalents per customer benefit. Reducing cement content in the alternative mixes by adding materials produced with a smaller carbon footprint naturally reduces the overall global warming potential of these alternative mixes. Cement production is clearly the dominant factor. Figure 9 shows the overall GHG emission for production of a reference yd 3 of concrete and four alternative mixes with similar characteristics. Mix D, the Green Sense concrete mix has the lowest overall GHG emissions. 19

21 Figure 9: Global Warming Potential Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP, smog): Emissions with Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential for this analysis are dominated by transportation of the cement and powders to the production site. The Green Sense mix alternative reductions in ground level ozone creation potential are based on the overall reduction in the distance travelled and/or the mode of transportation available. The results are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Photochemical ozone creation potential Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP): Overall, the ODP emissions are small but dominated by the production of cement. This environmental category is also the least relevant air emission within the total environmental impact. The results are shown in Figure

22 Figure 11: Ozone depletion potential Acidification Potential (AP): Figure 12 reveals that the transportation mode and distance have the largest impact on the overall results for this analysis in each of the mix alternatives. In Mix A, Mix B, Mix C, and Mix D, an increase in AP over the Reference mix is attributed to the type of cement replacement material/powder used. Mix A, Mix B, and Mix D also reveal an increased AP result based on the type of water reducing admixture selected. The AP category is heavily impacted by the transportation and/or cement replacement material. Figure 12: Acidification potential. Figure 13 below, shows the relative impacts of the four air emissions: GWP, AP, POCP and ODP. These values are normalized and weighted based on the calculation factors (see Figure 27 for the calculation factor percentage). The 21

23 calculation factor is a calculation of the relative environmental factors and the social weighting factors Water Emissions: Figure 13: Overall Air Emissions Figure 14 displays that water emissions are impacted most by cement production with Mix D (the Green Sense mix) resulting in the lowest overall impact based on the reduced cement content in the mix. The cooling process in cement manufacturing generally creates the greatest amount of potential water emissions with chlorides and sulfates as main contributors. The Green Sense concrete mix results have a lower impact score by over 10,000 liters of grey water equivalents when compared to the Reference mix. Figure 14: Water emissions. 22

24 8.1.5 Solid Waste Generation: Solid waste emissions for each of the concrete mix alternatives are shown in Figure 15. The majority of solid waste is generated in the mining and quarrying processes for aggregates. The waste values include municipal, hazardous, construction and mining waste. Figure 15: Solid waste generation Land Use: Figure 16 provides the results for the use of land as an environmental component for the eco-efficiency analysis. The standard assessment is based on the Hemeroby index which is a European approach of measuring the total effects of human activities on the past and current land use. Different types of land transformation are weighted differently according to how much change is required from untouched land. The BASF process evaluates land use as pasture, fallow, bio-agriculture, conventional agriculture, sealed land, roads, tracks, and canals 6. Most ready mix plants have material sources within a reasonable distance. In these scenarios, the results will show that the acquisition of aggregates through mining and quarrying will carry the greatest impact on land use. However, based on the type of transportation and distance that materials are delivered to the producer, transportation may have a larger if not more significant impact. In this analysis, the transportation mode (truck) and distance for delivery (250 miles for cement and 135 miles for fly ash) have a greater land use impact than the mining and quarrying of aggregates. Transportation of materials is a variable that can be managed differently in many cases. This chart will provide transportation decision makers with information to assist in making better selections for moving materials to reduce land use impact. 23

25 Figure 16: Land use standard assessment Toxicity Potential: The toxicity potential for the various concrete mix alternatives was analyzed for the production phase of their respective life cycles. The use phase for the concrete can vary significantly based on the specific application of the concrete. As the mix design has potential use in driveways, highways, foundations, slabs, decks, etc. the complexity of including the use component for this analysis was too high. Therefore, the analysis assumes that the use phase and disposal phase for each of the mix alternatives is consistent and therefore will not impact the results of the intended analysis. For the production phase, not only were the final products considered but the entire pre-chain of chemicals required to manufacture the products was considered as well. The use of nanoparticles was not evaluated in the chemical inputs for any of the alternatives. Inventories of all relevant materials were quantified for the life cycle stage of production. Consistent with BASF s EEA methodology approach for assessing the human health impact of these materials (ref. Section 6.8 of Part A submittal), 7 a detailed scoring table was developed for each alternative broken down per life cycle stage. This scoring table with all relevant material quantities considered as well as their R-phrase and pre-chain toxicity potential scores 6 was provided to NSF International as part of the EEA model submitted as part of this verification. Figure 17 shows the human toxicity potential results for the Reference mix and four alternatives. The results are the scores based on R-phrase assessments and show that the slight increase in toxicity potential from the use of supplementary cementitious materials is offset by the larger reduction in toxicity potential from the reduction in cement content. 24

26 Figure 17: Human Toxicity Potential Risk Potential (Occupational Illnesses and Accidents potential): All the materials and activities accounted for in the various life cycle stages were assigned specific NACE codes 9. NACE (Nomenclature des Activities Economiques) is a European nomenclature which is very similar to the NAICS codes in North America. The NACE codes (similar to NAICS codes) are utilized in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the business economy and is broken down by specific industries. Specific to this impact category, the NACE codes track, among other metrics, the number of working accidents, fatalities and illnesses and diseases associated with certain industries (e.g. chemical manufacturing, petroleum refinery, inorganics etc.) per defined unit of output. By applying these incident rates to the amount of materials required for each alternative, a quantitative assessment of risk is achieved. The NACE codes and related statistical data used for evaluating the occupational illness and accident potential for the processes associated with this analysis are considered to be relevant for use in this study. In Figure 18, the greatest Occupational Illness and Accident potential occurs in the acquisition of aggregates and the production of cement. In Figure 19, occupational diseases had a higher relevant risk association for each alternative. No unique risk categories were identified for this study therefore standard weighting between working accidents and occupational diseases was maintained. 25

27 Figure 18: Risk Potential per Impact Category Figure 19: Risk Potential per Module Environmental Fingerprint: Following the normalization of the different environmental impact categories or normalization and weighting with regard to emissions categories, the relative impact for each alternative is shown in the environmental fingerprint (Figure 20). A value of 1 represents the alternative with the highest impact in the specific category. The remaining alternatives for that specific environmental impact are then calculated in relation to 1. 26

28 The Reference mix for concrete has the highest environmental impact in all but one of the six categories, due to the highest level of cement in the concrete mix. Mix D, the Green Sense concrete mix, has the lowest environmental impact in 5 of the 6 categories. A slightly higher emission result is due to the significantly increased level of supplementary cementitious material for the mix compared to Mix C. The emission impact is the level of acidification potential as detailed in Figure 12. The Green Sense mix will have performance characteristics equivalent to or better than all of the alternative mixes based on lab analyses. This mix clearly shows the lowest overall environmental impact between the mixes evaluated in this study. Figure 20: Environmental fingerprint. 8.2 Economic Cost Results: The life cycle cost data for the Green Sense concrete EEA are generated as defined in Section 7 of the BASF EEA methodology and described in section 6.2 above. The results of the life cycle cost analysis found that Mix D, the Green Sense Concrete mix alternative, has the lowest life cycle costs. For this analysis, the supplementary cementitious material had a lower cost than the cement material but, this may not always be the case. Based on percent replacement and transportation, the cost may actually increase as in the Mix A alternative relative to the Reference mix. The impact of the costs when balanced with the environmental burdens will provide the most eco-efficient solution. For this analysis, the economic component may not be the driving force behind the most eco-efficient solution. Further details on this result will be provided in Section

29 The cost analysis is based on input data from producer customers. This will change based from producer to producer and mix to mix. Therefore, each analysis must be individually reviewed to determine the cost impact on the overall results. Figure 21: Life cycle costs 8.3 Eco-Efficiency Analysis Portfolio: The Eco-efficiency analysis portfolio for Green Sense Concrete has been generated as defined in Section 9.5 of the BASF EEA methodology. Utilizing relevance and calculation factors, the relative importance of each of the individual environmental impact categories is used to determine and translate the fingerprint results to the position on the environmental axis for each alternative shown. For a clearer understanding of how weighting and normalization is determined and applied please reference Section 8 of BASF s Part A submittal to P-352. Specific to this study, the worksheets Relevance and Evaluation in the EEA model provided to NSF as part of this verification process should be consulted to see the specific values utilized and how they were applied to determine the appropriate calculation factors. Specific to the choice of environmental relevance factors and social weighting factors applied to this study, factors for the USA (national average) were utilized. The environmental relevance values utilized were last reviewed in 2009 and the social weighting factors were recently updated in 2009 by an external, qualified 3 rd party organization 10. Figure 22 displays the eco-efficiency portfolio for the base case analysis and shows the results when all six individual environmental categories are combined into a single relative environmental impact and then combined with the life cycle cost impact. Since environmental impact and cost are equally important, the most ecoefficient alterative is the one with the largest perpendicular distance above the diagonal line and the results from this study find that Mix D, the Green Sense 28

30 concrete mix, is the most eco-efficient alternative due to its combination of lowest environmental burden and low life cycle cost. Figure 22: Eco-efficiency Portfolio Green Sense Concrete 8.4 Scenario Analysis: Two additional scenarios were evaluated to determine the sensitivity of the studies final conclusions and results to key input parameters. The first scenario demonstrates the impact of the results based on a significant price impact in the marketplace for supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash. The price point is increased by approximately 200% to significantly exceed the price of cement. (Table 4). The Eco-efficiency portfolio in Figure 23 shows that the price change has an impact on the reference mix and although environmentally the results are the same, the reference mix is now the low cost alternative. 29

31 Table 4: Input table with significant price increase in fly ash Scenario #1 30

32 Figure 23: Scenario #1 Raw material cost increase for SCM s Scenario #2 demonstrates the impact of the transportation mode and distance for the delivered SCMs. Two scenarios were chosen to evaluate this impact. The first case equalizes the transportation distance for all powder materials at 25 miles. In this scenario, mix D, the Green Sense alternative is still the most eco-efficient solution however the disparity between alternatives is much closer. See figure

33 Table 5: Input table with equil transportation distances Scenario #2 32

34 Figure 24: Scenario #2 Equal transportation for powders An additional transportation scenario was chosen for producers that may purchase a supplementary cementitious material for design and cost purposes but not have local access to the material. In this case, the fly ash is acquired from a location 2,000 miles from the producer and is delivered via train and then transported 5 miles by truck. The results shown in Figure 25 reveal that a balance between supplementary cementitious materials and cement can still develop a more eco-efficient solution. Mix D remains the lowest cost alternative however, mix C is the most eco-efficient based on the amount of SCM s used in the mix. The value in this analysis is the ability to compare numerous alternatives for materials and transportation to determine the most eco-efficient solution. 33

35 Table 6: Input table for transportation mode and distance change Scenario #3 34

36 Figure 25: Scenario #3 Long distance transport of SCM 9. Data Quality Assessment 9.1. Data Quality Statement: The data used for parameterization of the EEA was sufficient with most parameters of high data quality. Moderate data is where industry average values or assumptions pre-dominate the value. No critical uncertainties were identified within the parameters and assumptions that could have a significant effect on the results and conclusions. Table 4 provides a summary of the data quality for the EEA. Parameter Table 4: Data quality evaluation for EEA parameters Quality Statement Comments Material Inputs Admixtures High Based on known formulations from BASF. Eco-profiles developed for this study are based on current technologies Cement High Updated data from eco-invent Fly Ash Moderate Updated Boustead data in 2009 Slag Moderate High Updated Boustead data Granite Powder Moderate Boustead data 35

37 Costs Limestone Powder Moderate Boustead data Cement Kiln Dust Moderate High Updated calculations from US EPA Aggregates Moderate Boustead data Water High Updated Boustead data Cement and Powders High All costs provided by Producer. Updated for each analysis. Aggregates High All costs provided by Producer. Updated for each analysis. Water High All costs provided by Producer. Updated for each analysis. Admixtures High All costs provided by Producer. Updated for each analysis. 10. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis Sensitivity and Uncertainty Considerations: A sensitivity analysis of the final results indicates that the environmental impacts were more influential or relevant in determining the final relative eco-efficiency positions of the alternatives. This conclusion is supported by reviewing the BIP Relevance (or GDP-Relevance) factor calculated for the study. The BIP Relevance indicates for each individual study whether the environmental impacts or the economic impacts were more influential in determining the final results. For this study, the BIP Relevance indicated that the environmental impacts were significantly more influential in impacting the results than the economic impacts (reference the Evaluation worksheet in the Excel model for the BIP Relevance calculation). The main assumptions and data related to environmental impacts were: Cement content Transportation mode and distance Aggregate volume As the data quality related to these main contributors was of high to moderate high quality, this strengthened the confidence in the final conclusions indicated by the study. A closer look at the analysis (see Figure 26) indicates that the impact with the highest environmental relevance was emissions, followed by toxicity and risk potential. This is to be expected, as the study dealt with the production of concrete a material containing cement which during calcination and grinding generates a large amount of CO 2 emissions. In the emissions category, air emissions were the most relevant with further detail showing that acidification potential clearly had the greatest impact. The calculation factors (Figure 27), which consider both the social weighting factors and the environmental relevance factors, indicate which environmental impact categories have the largest effect on the final outcome. Calculation factors are utilized in converting the environmental fingerprint results (Figure 22) into the final, single environmental score as reflected in the portfolio (Figure 23). The impacts with the highest calculation factors were similar to the environmental relevance factors, with regards to the six main impact categories. The emissions factor was the highest followed by toxicity and risk potential. The input parameters that were related to these impact categories have sufficient data 36

38 quality to support a conclusion that this study has a low uncertainty. The social weighting factors considered for this study had some influence on the emissions and air emissions sub-categories but not large enough to change any results. The input parameters for this study were obtained from ready-mix producers and would be considered highly credible. The production of concrete is a batch by batch operation. In this study, the evaluation was done for one cubic yard through the production operation. As there are so many application opportunities for concrete in the construction sector, the complexity of the use phase will be evaluated in a future analysis. Figure 26: Environmental Relevance factors that are used in the sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. 37

39 Figure 27: Calculation factors that are used in the sensitivity and uncertainty analyses Critical Uncertainties: There were no significant critical uncertainties from this study that would limit the findings or interpretations of this study. The data quality, relevance and sensitivity of the study support the use of the input parameters and assumptions as appropriate and justified. 11 Limitations of EEA Study Results Limitations: These Eco-efficiency analysis results and conclusions are based on the specific comparison of the production, for the described customer benefit, alternatives and system boundaries. Transfer of these results and conclusions to other production methods or products is expressly prohibited. In particular, partial results may not be communicated so as to alter the meaning, nor may arbitrary generalizations be made regarding the results and conclusions. 38

40 12. References National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; Boustead Consulting Ltd UK, The Boustead Model LCA database. Chungsangunsit T, Gheewala, S, Patsumawad, S.: Emission Assessment of Rice Husk Combustion for Power Production, International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2: BASF Corporation, Product Regulatory Review, Version 3.0, Revision December, Saling, P., A. Kicherer, B. Dittrich-Kraemer, R. Willtinger, W. Zombik, I. Schmidt, W. Schrott, and S. Schmidt. 2002, Eco-efficiency Analysis by BASF: The Method, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 7 (4): 203. Landsiedel R, Saling P: Assessment of toxicological Risks for Life Cycle Assessment and Eco- Efficiency Analysis, Int J LCA 7(5) , European Commission, eurostat ation_of_economic_activities_in_the_european_community_(nace) Concrete Technology: Recycled Aggregates, Portland Cement Association, 2011, TNS Infratest Landsberger Strasse 338 Munich Germany