Page 276 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

260 4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

According to the authors this was done without great difficulty in all three studies.
The site-dependent characterisation factors were those of EDIP 2003. 248) The RAINS
(IIASA, Laxenburg) indicator model was chosen, geographical system boundary
was EU15 + Switzerland, Norway. All further emissions outside the geographical
system boundary or with unknown origin listed in the inventory have been assigned
to a site-generic average characterisation factor. This also applies for non-European
emissions. An analysis of the inventory and the used generic data required the
maximum time.
The analysis of the linoleum LCA showed that the introduction of the site-specific
characterisation factors implied no changes to the original statements of the study.
For the rock wool LCA, which was not completely comprehensible because of
some data being confidential, conditions were favourable since the regarded emis-
sions with the exception of NO mostly originated from a single known production
x
site. Thus regional assignment was accomplished with little difficulty. A comparison
of site-specific (predominantly Denmark) to site-generic characterisation resulted
in twice as high values for the former. Since the rock wool LCA was done without
comparative analysis concerning comparator product systems it is impossible to
say whether conclusions would have differed. However, a reduction of emissions
at the production site seems to be among the first of possible improvements.
As the sole system among the systems of water pipes investigated by means of an
LCA, the traditional copper pipe system was studied in detail. Here the difference
between site-dependent and site-generic characterisation did not amount to more
than 10%. The enrolment within the systems did not change, but the relative
contribution of single unit processes to the total result did.
Sepp¨ al¨ a et al. (2006, loc. cit.) proposed country specific characterisation factors
on the basis of an accumulated exceedance of limit values. 249) This indicator
was suggested as an alternative to an ‘unprotected ecosystems surface’ and was
originally developed to calculate the reduction of burdens due to acidification
and terrestrial eutrophication (next section) in Europe caused by reduction of the
most important emissions (SO ,NO and NH ) into the air. An investigation to
2 x 3
find how much a specific reduction in one or many countries contributes to the
reduction of the overall load in Europe was conducted. Only the exceeding of critical
regional loads was considered. 250) The calculation of characterisation factors was
accomplished according to an ‘exact model’ (see above). 251) Factors for 35 European
countries and 5 oceanic areas calculated for the year 2002 and estimated for 2010
are provided in a table. A comparison of results with an alternative model based
on the indicator ‘unprotected ecosystems surface’ and calculated with RAINS (see
above) is yet to be accomplished.

248) Hauschild et al. (2006); EDIP2003, Guidelines from the Danish EPA, to be published.
249) Sepp¨ al¨ a et al.; see above and Hettelingh et al. (2005).
250) This concept implies that almost unspoiled areas – existing so far in Europe – may be ‘filled’ to
the limit value without a negative impact in the calculations. In LCA jargon this is called only
above, see also Hogan et al. (1996) and Sepp¨ al¨ a et al. (2006); for the use of limit values in the
impact assessment see also Sections 4.5.3.2 and 4.5.3.3.
251) The model is based on the EMEP model of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe.