Streamlined Life Cyle Assessment (LCA) of BlazeMaster ... · BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler system...

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

Streamlined Life Cyle Assessment (LCA) of BlazeMaster® Fire Sprinkler System in Comparison to PPR and Steel Systems FINAL REPORT July 2010

Environmental Resources Management Limited Incorporated in the United Kingdom with registration number 1014622 Registered Office: 2nd Floor, Exchequer Court, 33 St Mary Axe, London, EC3A 8AA

The Lubrizol Corporation

Streamlined Life Cyle Assessment (LCA) of BlazeMaster® Fire Sprinkler System in Comparison to PPR and Steel Systems FINAL REPORT July 2010

Prepared by: Simon Aumônier, Michael Collins, Bryan Hartlin and Tom Penny

This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the trading name of Environmental Resources Management Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

For and on behalf of Environmental Resources Management Approved by: Simon Aumônier

Signed: Position: Partner Date: 16th July 2010

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 PURPOSE 1 1.2 SCOPE 1 1.3 FUNCTIONAL UNIT 2 1.4 SYSTEM BOUNDARIES 2 1.5 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) DATA 3

2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol) commissioned Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) to perform a streamlined ‘cradle to grave’ life cycle assessment (LCA) to benchmark the potential environmental impact profiles of three different piping systems used for fire sprinkler applications in commercial and residential buildings. This study builds on the full peer reviewed LCA undertaken by Lubrizol of its BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler system (1).

SCOPE

This assessment benchmarks three different piping applications using a streamlined LCA approach.

Table 1 Products assessed

Product Description

BlazeMaster® SDR 13.5 Iron Pipe Size (IPS) CPVC pipe

PPR pipe SDR 7.4 fiberglass-composite PP-R (flame-retardant polypropylene) pipe

Steel pipe Schedule 10 IPS carbon steel pipe

The benchmarking is achieved through the use of the peer reviewed LCA of BlazeMaster® and the use of published data relating to the other materials. The results of the streamlined study, although not a detailed LCA, inform Lubrizol as to the likely relative performance of its BlazeMaster® product compared with two alternate sprinkler systems. The study provides a clear understanding of their associated environmental benefits and burdens.

(1) Lubrizol (2010) Life Cycle Assessment of BlazeMaster® CPVC Fire Sprinkler System Prepared by Environmental Resources Management


II

FUNCTIONAL UNIT AND SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

The functional unit of the study was 1000 feet (304.8 meters) of piping installed and used in a high rise multi-residential dwelling in the United States (US) for a 50 year time period. The following environmental impact categories have been included in the study:

• resource depletion (metal and fossil depletion);

• acidification;

• eutrophication;

• climate change (Global Warming Potential over 100 years [GWP 100]);

• ozone layer depletion;

• human toxicity;

• fresh water ecotoxicity;

• terrestrial ecotoxicity;

• photo-oxidant formation;

• water depletion; and

• energy consumption. The product systems have been appraised through all life cycle stages from cradle to grave as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 System boundaries

Production of resin/steel

Distribution & wholesale

Installation & use

Raw materials

Conversion to pipe

Removal & disposal


III

RESULTS

The cradle to grave results for the three systems are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Cradle to grave results*

*The results have been normalized to allow for comparison of all impacts on the same chart regardless of the units of measurement. The key messages that can be taken from the cradle to grave results are noted below.

• BlazeMaster® performs better than the steel system for all environmental impacts, with the exception of ozone depletion. The ozone impact is associated with the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in the production of PVC.

• The impact from the conversion process for PPR is significantly greater than that for BlazeMaster® and steel.

• The impacts related to wholesale, installation, use, removal, transport and packaging are not significant for any of the systems.

• Steel has the highest fossil depletion impact due to the use of coke in steel production and the significantly higher weight of material required in steel piping when compared to BlazeMaster® and PPR.

A comparison between the three systems is shown in further detail in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for climate change and for fossil depletion.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%M

etal

dep

letio

n

Foss

il de

plet

ion

Terre

stria

lac

idifi

catio

n

Fres

hwat

ereu

troph

icat

ion

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Ozo

ne d

eple

tion

Hum

an to

xici

ty

Fres

hwat

erec

otox

icity

Terre

stria

lec

otox

icity

Pho

toch

emic

alox

idan

t for

mat

ion

Wat

er d

eple

tion

Ene

rgy

use

(non

-re

new

able

)

Ene

rgy

use

(rene

wab

le)

BlazeMaster system PPR piping system Steel piping system


IV

Figure 3 Climate change comparison of pipe systems (kg CO2 eq)

Figure 4 Fossil depletion comparison of pipe systems (kg oil eq)

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

BlazeMaster® PPR Steel

Clim

ate

chan

ge (k

g C

O2 e

q)

Raw material production Manufacturing Wholesale/distributionInstallation Use RemovalDisposal Transport Packaging

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800


Foss

il de

plet

ion

(kg

oil e

q)



V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Comparison of the three systems

• The streamlined LCA clearly suggests that BlazeMaster® performs better than the steel system for all impact categories, except for ozone depletion.

• Although both BlazeMaster® and PPR are produced from fossil resources, the impact of raw material use for the steel system has a higher fossil depletion impact.

• Whilst the raw material production life cycle stage is the most critical for all systems, it should be noted that the high energy use needed for the conversion of PPR contributes to making the manufacturing life cycle stage equally important for this system. The impacts related to wholesale, installation, use, removal, transport and packaging are not significant for any of the systems.

• The increased installation and removal time required for the steel pipe does increase the importance of this category slightly, but not enough to consider the life cycle stage to be a main contributor.

• Steel is the only system that is currently recycled at end of life and therefore its environmental profile benefits from this. The other systems have the potential to be recycled and significant benefits can be gained from recycling plastic materials.

Main sources of impact

• Working with suppliers to identify areas where efficiency can be improved is fundamental to lowering the overall life cycle impacts of all systems. For BlazeMaster®, only a small proportion of the impacts arise at Lubrizol’s own facility. Therefore, the focus should be on improvements at raw material suppliers and on ensuring best practices are in place with the pipe and fittings conversion facility.

• Improvement opportunities do exist at end of life, if recycling were to be implemented – this is further discussed below.

Climate change and carbon footprinting

• Efforts to reduce the impacts on climate change should focus on the selection of raw materials with lower embedded carbon and increasing efficiency in manufacturing processes.

• The transport of raw materials does not have a significant impact on the global warming results. However, choosing suppliers who manufacture


VI

locally, if possible, is under a manufacturer’s direct control and has a marginal benefit.

Greatest potential for environmental improvement

• Beyond improvements in the supply chain, analyzing life cycles and reuse/recycle possibilities offers potential to reduce environmental impacts.

• Although not included in this assessment, research into the inclusion of recyclate in the production processes may offer further reduction opportunities.


1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol) commissioned Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) to perform a streamlined ‘cradle to grave’ life cycle assessment (LCA) to benchmark the potential environmental impact profiles of three different piping systems used for fire sprinkler applications in commercial and residential buildings. This study builds on the full peer-reviewed LCA undertaken by Lubrizol of its BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler system (1).

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to provide an assessment of Lubrizol’s BlazeMaster® post-chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) fire sprinkler system and two competing products to better understand their associated environmental benefits and burdens. The results will be used to support environmental innovation and the communication of the environmental attributes of Lubrizol’s BlazeMaster® products. The study will also aid decision making when considering the environmental costs of producing and installing fire sprinkler systems.

1.2 SCOPE

This assessment benchmarks three different piping applications using a streamlined LCA approach. These are detailed in Table 1.1. The benchmarking is achieved through the use of the peer-reviewed LCA of BlazeMaster® and published data relating to the other materials.

Table 1.1 Products assessed

Product Description

BlazeMaster® SDR 13.5 Iron Pipe Size (IPS) CPVC pipe

PPR pipe SDR 7.4 fiberglass-composite PP-R (flame-retardant polypropylene) pipe

Steel pipe Schedule 10 IPS carbon steel pipe

(1) Lubrizol (2010) Life Cycle Assessment of BlazeMaster® CPVC Fire Sprinkler System Prepared by Environmental Resources Management


2

The product systems have been appraised through all life cycle stages from cradle to grave, as shown in Figure 1.1. The results of the streamlined study, although not a detailed LCA, inform Lubrizol as to the likely relative performance of its BlazeMaster® product compared with two alternate sprinkler systems. The study will provide a clear understanding of their associated environmental benefits and burdens.

1.3 FUNCTIONAL UNIT

The functional unit of the study was 1000 feet (304.8 meters) of piping installed and used in a high rise multi-residential dwelling in the United States (US) for a 50 year time period. BlazeMaster® is guaranteed for a 50 years (with a safety factor of two). This same life expectancy can be considered appropriate for the PPR system. Although steel systems can last 50 years, this is largely dependent on local climatic conditions and maintenance and would be considered an optimistic life time. For the purposes of this study, no further burden was attributed to steel, and it was assumed to have the same lifetime as the other two systems.

1.4 SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

The following environmental impact categories have been included in the study:

• resource depletion (metal and fossil depletion);

• acidification;

• eutrophication;

• climate change (Global Warming Potential over 100 years [GWP 100]);

• ozone layer depletion;

• human toxicity;

• fresh water ecotoxicity;

• terrestrial ecotoxicity;

• photo-oxidant formation;

• water depletion; and

• energy consumption. The impact assessment method used in this study is the problem oriented approach developed by CML (Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden


3

University), updated this year as ReCiPe, and incorporated into the SimaPro LCA software tool. ReCiPe was developed to provide a single impact assessment method that combines both mid-point and end-point analysis. It is named as such as it is intended to provide a recipe to calculate life cycle impact category indicators. The capitalized letters represent the major contributors to the project, being RIVM and Radboud University, CML, and PRé. This method was employed because it:

• offers a consistent and scientifically accepted set of characterization methods for the breadth of environmental impacts;

• has a track record of development and use by the LCA community and governments globally;

• is justified by peer reviewed publications and detailed scientific supporting material; and

• conforms to the ISO standards for LCA. The study makes no attempt to judge the significance of one impact category over another. There are normalization and weighting steps that can be employed to achieve this step. However, these are subjective and are not advocated by the ISO 14040 standard for this reason. The system boundaries employed in this study are outlined in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 System boundaries

1.5 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) DATA

BlazeMaster®

Data for the BlazeMaster® system were sourced from the peer-reviewed LCA on BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler systems published by Lubrizol. Data for the PPR

Production of resin/steel

Distribution & wholesale

Installation & use

Raw materials

Conversion to pipe

Removal & disposal


4

and steel piping were sourced from published literature and information provided from industry. PPR

Data for the production of polypropylene (PP) granules were taken from the US Department of Energy (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) life cycle database. Assumptions for the production of fittings and brackets, all transport distances and additional life cycle stages are based on the data used in BlazeMaster® LCA. The components included in the PPR system, their mass and relative contribution by mass are outlined below.

Table 1.2 Mass of PPR system components

Component Mass (kg)

Percentage contribution (%)

PPR pipe 179.7 79.7% PPR fittings 19.2 8.5% Hangers and screws 26.7 11.8% Total 225.6 100%

The PPR pipe is composed of three separate PP layers, a standard PP inner layer, a middle reinforced layer and an outer fire retardant layer. These have been modeled as outlined in Table 1.3, based upon industry data and approximations made by ERM.

Table 1.3 Raw materials included in reinforced PPR pipe (per 1000 ft of pipe)

Material input Quantity Unit Inner PPR layer PP resin 59.9 kg Middle PPR layer PP resin 53.9 kg Fiber-glass reinforcement 6.0 kg Outer PPR layer PP resin 55.1 kg Bromine (Br) additive 4.8 kg Total 179.7 kg

The use of electrical tools for installation has been excluded from the study. This includes the fusing of PPR pipes.


5

Steel

Data for the production of steel was taken from Ecoinvent life cycle database and the electricity was modified to represent US production. Where packaging and transport distances were not known for the steel pipe, assumptions were made based upon similar processes used in the BlazeMaster® system. The brackets used to hold the steel system in place have been modeled using the same inputs as for the CPVC pipe and scaled according to weight of the steel system. Fittings are assumed to be steel and produced from the same grade as the pipe. Variations in installation, removal and end of life were determined after detailed communication with Lubrizol. An environmental benefit for the steel system at end of life has been awarded as it is the only system that is currently recycled when removed from buildings. The components included in the steel system are outlined in Table 1.4 below.

Table 1.4 Mass of steel system components

Component Mass (kg)

Percentage contribution (%)

Steel pipe 763.6 87.7% Fittings 52.3 6.0% Hangers and screws 54.5 6.3% Total 870.4 100%


6

2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The cradle to grave results for the three systems are presented in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 and further discussed below.

Figure 2.1 Cradle to grave results*

*The results have been normalized to allow for comparison of all impacts on the same chart regardless of the units of measurement.

Table 2.1 Summary results for 1000 ft of pipe per piping application

Unit BlazeMaster®

system PPR piping

system

Steel piping system

Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1,780 16.9 4,090 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 314 510 459 Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 4.61 4.59 8.96 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 0.0109 0.0062 0.214 Climate change kg CO2 eq 874 965 1,790 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.74E-04 3.32E-05 1.26E-04 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 109 139 624 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.42 13.5 34.1 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0.0844 0.0466 0.405 Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 2.88 3.14 7.82 Water depletion m3 8.14 2.14 16 Energy use (non-renewable) MJ 15,600 24,000 22,600 Energy use (renewable) MJ 712 358 1,060

* Numbers rounded to three significant figures.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Met

al d

eple

tion

Foss

il de

plet

ion

Terre

stria

lac

idifi

catio

n

Fres

hwat

ereu

troph

icat

ion

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Ozo

ne d

eple

tion

Hum

an to

xici

ty

Fres

hwat

erec

otox

icity

Terre

stria

lec

otox

icity

Pho

toch

emic

alox

idan

t for

mat

ion

Wat

er d

eple

tion

Ene

rgy

use

(non

-re

new

able

)

Ene

rgy

use

(rene

wab

le)

BlazeMaster system PPR piping system Steel piping system


7

The key messages that can be taken from the cradle to grave results are noted below.

• BlazeMaster® performs better than the steel system for all environmental impacts, with the exception of ozone depletion. The ozone impact occurs as a result of the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in the production of PVC.

• The impact from the conversion process for PPR is significantly greater than that for BlazeMaster® and steel.

• The impacts related to wholesale, installation, use, removal, transport and packaging are not significant for any of the systems.

• Steel has the highest fossil depletion impact due to the use of coke in steel production and the significantly higher weight of material required in steel piping when compared to BlazeMaster® and PPR.

BlazeMaster®

• Raw material production is the most significant contributor to all impact categories, with the exception of freshwater ecotoxicity.

• Manufacturing is the second most significant contributor, accounting for up to 29% of the total impact.

• Disposal of PVC in landfill is a significant contributor to the human and aquatic toxicity impacts.

• The impact of wholesale, transport and packaging is very low. PPR

• Raw material production and manufacture are equally important contributors to the overall environmental impact. The conversion process for PPR requires more electricity than the process for BlazeMaster®.

• No literature was found to indicate that the Br-based flame retardant would volatilize during installation (ie fusing) of the fire sprinkler system.

• The disposal (ie landfill) of PPR is the main contributor to human and freshwater toxicity.

Steel

• The heavier weight of steel, in relation to BlazeMaster® and PPR, is the main contributor to the system’s poor environmental performance.

• Steel is recycled at end of life and therefore is the only system that has environmental benefit for this life cycle stage.


8

Figure 2.2 to Figure 2.4 show the relative impact of each life cycle stage for BlazeMaster®, PPR and steel.

Figure 2.2 BlazeMaster® results for 1000 ft of pipe per life cycle stage

Figure 2.3 PPR results for 1000 ft of pipe per life cycle stage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Metal d

eplet

ion

Fossil

deple

tion

Terres

trial a

cidific

ation

Freshwate

r eutr

ophic

ation

Climate

chang

e

Ozone

deple

tion

Human tox

icity

Freshwate

r eco

toxicity

Terres

trial e

cotox

icity

Photoc

hemica

l oxid

ant fo

rmati

on

Water dep

letion

Energy

use (

non-re

newable

)

Energy

use (

renew

able)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Metal d

eplet

ion

Fossil

deple

tion

Terres

trial a

cidific

ation

Freshwate

r eutr

ophic

ation

Climate

chang

e

Ozone

deple

tion

Human tox

icity

Freshwate

r eco

toxicity

Terres

trial e

cotox

icity

Photoc

hemica

l oxid

ant fo

rmati

on

Water dep

letion

Energy

use (

non-re

newable

)

Energy

use (

renew

able)



9

Figure 2.4 Steel results for 1000 ft of pipe per life cycle stage

The absolute numbers for each life cycle stage for the three systems can be found in Table 2.2 to Table 2.4.

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Metal d

eplet

ion

Fossil

deple

tion

Terres

trial a

cidific

ation

Freshwate

r eutr

ophic

ation

Climate

chang

e

Ozone

deple

tion

Human tox

icity

Freshwate

r eco

toxicity

Terres

trial e

cotox

icity

Photoc

hemica

l oxid

ant fo

rmati

on

Water dep

letion

Energy

use (

non-re

newable

)

Energy

use (

renew

able)


Table 2.2 BlazeMaster® results for 1000 ft of pipe per life cycle stage

Unit Raw

mat

eria

l pr

oduc

tion

Man

ufac

turi

ng

Who

lesa

le/d

istr

ibut

ion

Inst

alla

tion

Use

Rem

oval

Dis

posa

l

Tran

spor

t

Pack

agin

g

Tota

l

Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1,780 1.58 0.013 2.80E-05 0 0 4.29E-04 1.44E-03 0.0839 1,780 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 236 58.9 3.03 0.0105 0 0 0.222 10.9 4.82 314 Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 2.97 1.33 0.0684 2.37E-04 0 0 5.27E-03 0.198 0.035 4.61 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 7.71E-03 2.84E-03 0.0000762 0.000000166 0 0 0.000000893 0.00000527 0.000272 0.0109 Climate change kg CO2 eq 601 211 10.9 0.35 0 0 8.16 31.8 11 874 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.63E-04 5.85E-06 2.95E-07 3.89E-09 0 0 8.22E-08 4.84E-06 3.80E-07 1.74E-04 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 57.3 13.9 0.693 1.43 0.0277 0 33.6 0.437 1.54 109 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.21 0.626 0.0294 0.0973 3.40E-06 0 2.29 0.0152 0.153 4.42 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0.0603 0.0141 7.15E-04 2.63E-04 5.62E-06 0 6.18E-03 2.17E-03 5.84E-04 0.0844 Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 1.83 0.515 0.0261 4.90E-04 0.148 0 0.0111 0.319 0.0328 2.88 Water depletion m3 6.16 1.87 0.0294 1.18E-04 0 0 1.61E-03 0.0291 0.046 8.14 Energy use (non-renewable) MJ 11,300 3,370 174 0.542 0 0 11 461 236 15,600 Energy use (renewable) MJ 560 118 6.05 0.0221 0 0 0.352 0.663 27.8 712 * Numbers rounded to three significant figures.

Table 2.3 PPR results for 1000 ft of pipe per life cycle stage

Unit Raw

mat

eria

l pr

oduc

tion

Man

ufac

turi

ng

Who

lesa

le/d

istr

ibut

ion

Inst

alla

tion

Use

Rem

oval

Dis

posa

l

Tran

spor

t

Pack

agin

g

Tota

l

Metal depletion kg Fe eq 14.9 1.89 0.013 2.82E-05 0 0 6.27E-04 2.49E-03 0.0173 16.9 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 353 130 3.03 0.0136 0 0 0.312 18.8 5.33 510 Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 1.23 2.92 0.0684 3.15E-04 0 0 0.00722 0.333 0.028 4.59 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 2.41E-03 3.54E-03 7.62E-05 5.54E-08 0 0 1.26E-06 9.12E-06 1.65E-04 6.20E-03 Climate change kg CO2 eq 407 465 10.9 0.8 0 0 17.7 55 9.57 965 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.15E-05 1.27E-05 2.95E-07 5.04E-09 0 0 1.15E-07 8.38E-06 1.88E-07 3.32E-05 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 33.2 30 0.693 3.14 0 0 69.5 0.753 1.49 139 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0.435 1.31 0.0294 0.497 0.00E+00 0 11 0.0263 0.186 13.5 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0.0101 0.0305 7.15E-04 4.42E-05 0.00E+00 0 9.80E-04 3.78E-03 4.50E-04 0.0466 Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 1.39 1.12 0.0261 7.73E-04 0 0 0.0175 0.553 0.0326 3.14 Water depletion m3 0.751 1.27 0.0294 1.04E-04 0 0 2.34E-03 0.0504 0.0367 2.14 Energy use (non-renewable) MJ 15,300 7430 174 0.681 0 0 15.5 799 254 24,000 Energy use (renewable) MJ 73.1 258 6.05 0.0232 0 0 0.515 1.15 19.5 358 * Numbers rounded to three significant figures.

Table 2.4 Steel results for 1000 ft of pipe per life cycle stage

Unit Raw

mat

eria

l pr

oduc

tion

Man

ufac

turi

ng

Who

lesa

le/d

istr

ibut

ion

Inst

alla

tion

Use

Rem

oval

Dis

posa

l

Tran

spor

t

Pack

agin

g

Tota

l

Metal depletion kg Fe eq 4,580 119 0.0152 40.4 0 0 -654 0.0114 9.40E-03 4,080 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 506 103 3.53 17.9 0 0 -262 86.1 1.92 456 Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 6.88 1.53 0.0797 0.118 0 0 -2.53 2.83 0.0141 8.93 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 0.163 0.0489 8.88E-05 3.61E-03 0 0 -1.69E-03 4.29E-05 2.51E-04 0.214 Climate change kg CO2 eq 1590 431 12.7 40.1 0 0 -755 250 7.38 1580 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 6.09E-05 3.37E-05 3.44E-07 5.32E-06 0 0 -1.20E-05 3.62E-05 2.98E-07 1.25E-04 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 678 58.8 0.808 7.78 0 0 -58.8 3.84 0.889 691 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 29.6 7.19 0.0342 0.361 0 0 -0.19 0.119 0.0525 37.2 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0.193 0.21 8.33E-04 2.64E-03 0 0 -0.0139 0.0143 7.82E-04 0.408 Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 6.1 0.924 0.0304 0.157 0 0 -2.54 3.11 0.0164 7.8 Water depletion m3 17.5 3.59 0.0342 0.728 0 0 -6.2 0.227 0.0578 16 Energy use (non-renewable) MJ 23,800 5,260 203 814 0 0 -11300 3,650 91.6 22,500 Energy use (renewable) MJ 828 254 7.05 13.2 0 0 -64.2 5.11 32.4 1,080 * Numbers rounded to three significant figures.


13

A comparison of the three systems is shown in further detail in Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 for climate change and fossil depletion.

Figure 2.5 Climate change comparison of pipe systems (kg CO2 eq)

Figure 2.6 Fossil depletion comparison of pipe systems (kg oil eq)

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500


Clim

ate

chan

ge (k

g C

O2 e

q)


-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800


Foss

il de

plet

ion

(kg

oil e

q)



14

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this streamlined study is to inform Lubrizol of the likely environmental profile and performance of the BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler system in comparison to two main alternative systems, namely PPR and steel. The results can be used as a foundation for more detailed future analyses that may explore design changes and applications. Comparison of the three systems

The streamlined LCA clearly suggests that BlazeMaster® performs better than the steel system for all impact categories, except for ozone depletion. The greater quantity of raw materials consumed is the main driver of the steel product’s higher impact contributions. The use of CFCs in the production of PVC resin is the main source of the ozone depletion impact category for BlazeMaster®. Although both BlazeMaster® and PPR are produced from fossil resources, the impact of raw material use for the steel system has a higher fossil depletion impact. This is due to the significant weight increase of the steel system over BlazeMaster® and PPR and the use of coke in the manufacture of steel. Whilst the raw material production life cycle stage is the most critical for all systems, it should be noted that the high energy use needed for the conversion of PPR contributes to making the manufacturing life cycle stage equally important for this system. Improvements that increase efficiency and reduce overall energy use could reduce the overall environmental impact of PPR. The impacts related to wholesale, installation, use, removal, transport and packaging are not significant for any of the systems. The increased installation and removal time required for the steel pipe does increase the importance of this category slightly, but not enough to consider the life cycle stage to be a main contributor. As can be expected, the impact from transport increases with steel due to the heavier weight. Steel is the only system that is currently recycled at end of life. Therefore, its environmental profile benefits from this. The other systems have the potential to be recycled and, as with the full LCA, significant benefits can be gained from recycling plastic materials. Main sources of impact

Working with suppliers to identify areas where efficiency can be improved is fundamental to lowering the overall life cycle impacts of the systems. For BlazeMaster®, only a small proportion of the impacts arise at Lubrizol’s own


15

facility. Therefore, the focus should be on improvements related to raw material suppliers and ensuring best practices are in place at the pipe and fittings conversion facility. The impact from the manufacturing of PPR is more significant and efficiency improvements should be explored. There is little in way of improvements that can be made in the wholesale, installation, use, maintenance and removal stages for the systems, as these stages of the life cycle have little impact on the overall results. Further efforts to reduce waste during installation would be commended, but these would have little influence on the environmental impacts. Improvement opportunities do exist at end of life, if recycling were to be implemented – this is further discussed below. Climate change and carbon footprinting

Using alternative sources of energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are key challenges for industry. Efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change should focus on the selection of raw materials with lower embedded carbon and on increasing efficiency in manufacturing processes. One method of selecting products with a lower carbon footprint would be to consider the use of recycled products, such as recyclate or by-products from other processes. The transport of raw materials does not have a significant impact on the global warming results. However, choosing suppliers who manufacture locally, if possible, is under a manufacturer’s direct control and will have a marginal benefit. Greatest potential for environmental improvement

Beyond improvements in the supply chain, analyzing life cycles and reuse/recycle possibilities offers the potential to reduce environmental impacts. Exploring State-level initiatives to recycle construction and demolition waste (for BlazeMaster® and PPR) and promoting the inclusion of CPVC and PPR in these programs could open up opportunities to reduce impacts at end of life. Although not included in this assessment, research into the inclusion of recyclate in the production processes may also offer reduction opportunities.

ERM consulting services worldwide www.erm.com

ERM has 145 offices across the following countries worldwide Argentina The Netherlands Australia New Zealand Belgium Panama Brazil Peru Canada Poland Chile Portugal China Puerto Rico Colombia Romania France Russia Germany Singapore Hong Kong South Africa Hungary Spain India Sweden Indonesia Taiwan Ireland Thailand Italy United Arab Emirates Japan UK Kazakhstan US Korea Venezuela Malaysia Vietnam Mexico ERM’s London Office 2nd Floor, Exchequer Court 33 St Mary Axe London EC3A 8AA www.erm.com T: +44 (0) 203 206 5200 F: +44 (0) 203 206 5440 www.erm.com

Streamlined Life Cyle Assessment (LCA) of BlazeMaster ... · BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler system...

Documents

Transcript of Streamlined Life Cyle Assessment (LCA) of BlazeMaster ... · BlazeMaster® fire sprinkler system...