Advertisement

Role of LCA in the design of research and development (R&D) of novel processes subject to IPPC and BAT

  • John R. Barton
  • Andreas Schneider
  • Johannes Jager
LCA methodology

Abstract

Establishing BAT (Best Available Techniques) for processes subject to IPPC is a new barrier and one that processes in the development stage need to be aware of. For multi-functional processes, the sectorial approach adopted under IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) increases the potential problems. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an established tool to assist establishing BAT but is difficult to apply in its full form at the Research and Development (R&D) stage. A review of LCA in the context of a case study, the Trefoil kiln process, concludes that it has the flexibility to cope with multi-functionality and that use of key environmental issues and key indicators could overcome the informational gaps. Environmental burdens can be presented appropriately provided the research identifies appropriate allocation methods. The use of LCA thinking provided useful insight on the content of the research programme.

Keywords

Allocation BAT Best Available Techniques (BAT) flexible system boundaries goal and scoping stage Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) IPPC key environmental indicators LCA Life Cycle Assessment multi-functionality novel processes producing synthetic aggregates sectorial BAT waste recycling 

References

  1. [1]
    ENDS (1997): Guidance for IPPC process gets under way. Report Series 268. Environmental Data Services Ltd., Bowling Green Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    ENDS (1999): Draft IPPC regulations. Report Series 295. Environmental Data Services Ltd., Bowling Green Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Geldermann J, Jahn C, Spengler T, Rentz O. (1999): Proposal for an integrated approach for the assessment of cross-media aspects relevant for the determination of ‘Best Available Techniques’ BAT in the European Union. Int J LCA 4 (2) 94–106Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Consoli F et al. (eds) (1993): Guidelines for life cycle assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. SETAC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    CEN—European Committee for Standardization (EN ISO 14040: 1997), (EN ISO 14041: 1998), (prEN ISO/FDIS 14042: Jul 1999), (prEN ISO/DIS 14043: December 1998)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Udo De Haes HA, Wrisberg N (eds) (1997): LCANET: European network for strategic life cycle assessment research and development. LCA Documents Vol 1, Kloepffer W, Hutzinger O (eds) Eco-Informa Press, Bayreuth, Germany and ecomed publishers, Landsberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Weitz K, Todd JA, Curran MA, Malkin MJ (1996): Streamlining life cycle assessment — Considerations and a report on the State of Practice. Int J LCA 1 (2) 79–85Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Weitz K, Sharma A, Vigon B, Price E, Norris G, Eagan P, Oens W, Veroutis A (1999): Streamlined life cycle assessment: A Final Report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, SETAC North AmericaGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    SEATC Europe (eds), (May 1997): Streamlining LCA: Just a cut? — Final report of SETAC Europe. LCA Screening and Streamlining Working Group, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Wainright PJ, Barton JR (1998): Utilising innovative rotary kiln technology to recycle waste into synthetic aggregate. Proceedings of the 1998 EU Contractors’ Workshop on Heavy Metals Removal from Liquid Effluents, Waste Incineration and Generic Technologies for Recycling, TRAWMAR Vol 1, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wainwright PJ, Barton JR, Cresswell DJF (2000): The Long Term performance of untreated Bottom Ash, and the Production and use of a lightweight synthetic aggregate from the Bottom Ash fine fraction. In: Use of incinerator ash. Dhir RK, Dyer TD, Paine KA (eds) Thomas Telford Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Parks LF, Sherwen RG (1986): The Use of New Materials in an Improved Design of Rotary Kiln. Materials & Design 7 (5) 252–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Udo De Haes HA, Benshahal JF, Clift R, Fussier C, Griesshammer R, Jenson AA (1994): Guidelines for application of life cycle assessment in the EU ecolabelling programme. Final report of the first phase, Groupe des Sages, Commission of the European Union, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Barton JR et al. (1996): Life cycle assessment for waste management. Waste Management16 (1–3) 35–50, Elsevier Science Ltd, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    DETR (2000): Waste strategy 2000: England and Wales (Parti and 2). Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Heyde M, Kremer M (1999): Recycling and recovery of plastics from packagings in domestic waste. LCA Documents Vol 5, Kloepffer W, Hutzinger O (eds) Eco-Informa Press, Bayreuth, Germany and ecomed publishers, Landsberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    White PR, Franke M, Hindle P (1995): Integrated solid waste management — A life cycle inventory. Blackie Academic & ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (1998): A special view on the nature of the allocation problem. Int J LCA 3 (5) 321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    SETAC (1994): Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. Leiden University, The Netherlands, 24–25 February 1994Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Kremer M, Gldhan G, Heyde M (1998): Waste treatment in product specific life cycle inventories — Part I: Incineration. Int J LCA 3 (1) 47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Azapagic A, Clift R (1999): Allocation of environmental burdens in multiple-function systems. J Cleaner Prod 7 (2) 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Ekvall T, Tillman AM (1997): Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J LCA 2 (3) 155–162Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Kloepffer W (1996): Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment — A Review. Int J LCA 1(1) 27–31Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Seum S (1998): The HoVe assessment method: Principal structure and pilot application. Int J LCA 3 (4) 191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Tukker A (1999): Life cycle assessment for waste, Part I. Int J LCA 4 (5) 275–281Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Wainwright P et al (2000): Utilising innovative rotary kiln technology to recycle waste into synthetic aggregate. First and second interim report (unpublished)Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Sherwood PT (1995): Alternative materials in road construction. Thomas Telford Services Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Smith SR (1996): Agricultural recycling of sewage sludge and the environment. CAB International Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    OECD (1997): Up-dated environmental data compendium 1997. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris 1997Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    EEA (1999): European topic centre for waste. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Nicholas MJ, Clift R, Azapagic A, Walker FC, Porter DE (2000): Determination of ‘Best Available Techniques’ for integrated pollution prevention and control — A life cycle approach. Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, May 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Barton
    • 1
  • Andreas Schneider
    • 1
  • Johannes Jager
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering, University of LeedsLeeds
  2. 2.Darmstadt University of Technology, Institut WARDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations