No.10&11

Life-Cycle Assessment Society of Japan

Introduction
For Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Including Assessment ofEnvironmental Impacts on Biodiversity and Water
LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2) has beendeveloped based on the result of the second national LCA project (the LCA Project). LIME2
is an upgraded version of the Japanese version of LIME that can carry out LCIA (Life Cycle
Impact Assessment) on 15 impact categories and 1,000 substances while taking into accountthe Japanese environmental conditions. Global warming or urban air pollution coefficientsin the major areas of impact will continue to be updated even after the LCA Project, andobtained data will be included in the guidebook and published in 2010.
In addition to LCA, LIME2 can be used in a wide variety of environmental assessments suchas environmental performance assessment, environmental efficiency assessment, factor
assessment, and environmental accounting. Within the LIME2 Working Group (WG) part 1
established in 2007, corporate LCA administrators and LIME developers studied caseexamples and confirmed that new LIME2 features such as indoor air pollution assessment anduncertainty analysis were usable.
While public concern about global warming has been increasing as the concept of a carbon
footprint has been disseminated, global environmental problems have been diversified. Alarge number of quantified assessments on biodiversity, such as the TEEB Report and theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), have been carried out, and the results will beincorporated into international environmental measures. Due to the worsening of water
issues in developing countries, international water footprint standardization has begun.
Resource issues involving rare metals or fossil fuels have been causing multi-country
conflicts. Therefore, the necessity to carry out environmental assessment from acomprehensive perspective has increased.
In 2010, the Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA) established the WG part 2
consisting of corporate LCA administrators and LIME developers to discuss how LCIA
should be implemented. As a result, inventory data prepared in advance by participatingcompanies was applied to LIME2, and the group members worked together to interpret theassessment results. Concerns were particularly strong for the environmental impact on waterand biodiversity, and therefore, companies that had implemented processes or chose products
to reduce such impacts actively participated in this WG to use LIME2.
This report provides information on LIME2 usability and issues to be resolved in the futurefrom the user perspective. It would be a great pleasure for us if the readers of this reportwere those who wish to use LCA or related methods to comprehensively view and assess awide variety of environmental impacts on global warming, water, biodiversity, and resources
such that they can incorporate the assessment results in environmental management.

Norihiro Itsubo
Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City University
Chairman, LIME2 Use Review WG, Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA)

- Contents -Case Study - digest - ................................................................................................ 1

Case Study - report -.............................................................................................. 19[Working Group Part 1 2007-2008]
Report on Steel Beverage Can 'TULC' Assessment .............................................. 19
Report on Power Generation Business Assessment ............................................. 30
Report on Environmental Impact Comparison of Toilet Care using an Automatic
Urine Collector ....................................................................................................... 46
Report on Environmental Impact Comparison between Synthetic and Natural
Adhesives for Wood-Based Materials .................................................................... 61
Report on Environmental Impact Comparison of "Metal-Enclosed Switchgear(High Voltage Panel)" and "Low Voltage Motor Control Center" Switchboards .. 73
Report on Environmental Impacts Before and After Installation of a Document
Digitization Solution .............................................................................................. 92
Report on Environmental Impact Study of LCD Projector ................................. 104
Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Air Conditioner ... 118
Report on Environmental Impact Analysis of Indoor Air Quality Improvement
through the Use of a High-Function Building Material ..................................... 129

[Working Group Part 2 2010-2011]

Report on Sustainable Forest Management and Environmental Impact
Assessment in Relation to Base Paper for Paper Cups ...................................... 143
Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of Ethanol Production Using Rice
Straw as a Raw Material ..................................................................................... 160
Report on the Method of Filling a PET Bottle Using

Lower

Water

Consumption ........................................................................................................ 171
Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of a Professional Golf
Tournament ......................................................................................................... 187
Report on Comparison of Environmental Impact of Substations ....................... 199
Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of HYDROTECT Coating.......... 210
Report on Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Various Types ofContainers ............................................................................................................ 223
Report on Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Business Activities ... 233
Report on Comparison of the Environmental Impact between a Traditional Adult
Diaper and the Humany Automatic Urine Suction System ............................... 245

Assessment of a Steel Beverage Can ‘TULC’
Assessor: Atsuo Masaki, Environmental Department, TOYO SEIKAN KAISHA

Purpose of assessment and characteristics
of productFunctional unit and system boundary Functional unit: provision of 200 ml low acid beverage to consumers

 Environmental impact assessment of a steel beveragecontainer ‘TULC’ System boundary: material, manufacturing, transportation, use,
disposal, and recycling Comparison with a welded can or a decorated can Steel can for holding coffee or tea
 200 ml
 Lighter than a welded can by 2 g (approximately 6%)
 Reduction of as much carbon dioxide emission as
possible during can production

Disposal
RecycleUse

Transportation

ProductionRawmaterial Assessment of environmental impact of waste

Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: in-house measurement data Background data: basic unit used in the EcoLeaf program<Impact analysis>
 LIME2

Assessment result[Consolidated result (by life cycle substance)]
1.40E+00

 J200WN2Q-S-2

1.20E+00

 J200TF2-S-2

1.00E+00

 J200TF2-SL-2

8.00E-01

 J200TFS-SL-88

Weighting result [JPY/kg]

Welded can (control)
TULC (regular printed can)Labeled TULC (can with a gravure printing film label)
Labeled TULC with an environmental impact of waste

6.00E-01

 J200TFS-SL-50
Labeled TULC with an environmental impact of waste and alsowith the recycling rate lowered from 88% to 50%

4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
J200WN2Q-S- J200TF2-S-2 J200TF2-SL-2 J200TF2-SL- J200TF2-SL2
88
50

CO2
PM10
Coal
Alminium

SO2
Crude oil
N2O
Molten slag

General waste
Nox
Natural gas
Iron CO2 emission greatly influences the environmental impact
 Molten slag as a waste material is also considerable
 The recycling rate also greatly influences the environmental impact
 Effective use of resources results in reduction of environmental loads

Reduction of the environmental impact by reducing carbon dioxide emission
Limitations of this assessment: environmental impacts other than energy-based environmental impacts, such as productivity,
efficiency, and human impacts, are not included in the assessment.

Power Generation Business Assessment (Environmental Impact
Assessment of Power Generation)
Assessors: Yasunori Kato, Environmental Department, CHUBU Electric Power, Takeshi Toramaru, JAPAN NUS


Purpose of assessment
Assessment of the environmental impact of power
generation (fuel procurement, fossil fuel consumption,
and waste generation) from the following perspectives:

Functional unit and system boundary
Functional unit:

electricity at a power distribution terminal of a power
plant (1 kWh)
System boundary: fuel procurement, facility construction, power
generation, use, and disposal

 Assessment of the environmental impact reducing
effect of improvement of power generation efficiency
 Comparison of environmental impacts among various
power generation modes

System boundary

Manufacturing
Facility construction
Power plant
construction

Fuel procurement
Fuel, material,
production, andtransportation

Operation

Power generation

Distribution

Power plantdismantling

Recycle100%

 LNG thermal power(1100ºC level CC)
 LNG thermal power(1300ºC level CC) Coal thermal power Oil thermal power Nuclear power CC: combined cycle

8%
8%

80%
45%

60%

Assessment



Oil

40%
24%
20%

15%
0%

Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: measurement data

LNG

Energy production
ratio(FY2006)



Hydropower Background data: JEMAI-LCA pro data and the Central ResearchInstitute of Electric Power Industry Study Report(Y99009 and Y01006) *Coal

Nuclearpower<Impact analysis>
 LIME2* Hiroki Hondo, Yoji Uchiyama, and Yoshie Moriizumi: ”Power Generation Technology Assessment based on Life Cycle CO 2 Emission,” Y99009, Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Study Report (2000).
Hiroki Hondo: “Nuclear Power Generation Technology Assessment based on Life Cycle CO 2 Emission,” Y01006, Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry Study Report (2001).

[Weighting result (by substance)][Weighting result (by life cycle stage)]

5.0

4.5

Disposal

4.0

Use

3.5

Power generation

2.5

4.5
4.0

0.10

facility construction

0.08

Fuel procurement

0.06
0.04

2.0

0.02

1.5

0.00

1.0

原子力
nuclear

0.5
0.0
LNG
LNG
(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)

Coal

Oil

Nuclear Improvement of power generation efficiency (1100ºC 
1300ºC LNG thermal power) reduces the environmental
impact by approximately 20% (18% in this example).
 Thermal power generation causes high social costs.

Weighting result[JPY/kWh]

Weighting result[JPY/kWh]

5.0

3.0

Use

Disposal

3.5
3.0
2.5

Other
Uranium
Coal
SO2
Crude oilmetaneNox
Natural gas
CO2

Coal
0.10

SOx

CO2 - 18%

2.0
1.5

0.08

Crude
oil

0.06
0.04
0.02

CO2

1.0
0.5

SOx

CO2
CO2

CO2

LNG
(1100℃CC)

LNG(1300℃CC)

0.00
原子力
nuclear

0.0
Coal

Oil

Nuclear Coal and oil thermal power have higher environmental impacts than LNG thermal
power.
 CO2 emission caused by power generation has the highest environmental impact.
 The environmental impact of nuclear power generation is extremely low.

It has been confirmed that improvement of power generation efficiency leads to reduction of the environmental impact (mainly
reduction of CO2 emissions).
The environmental impact of various modes of power generation has been compared and assessed.
Limitations of this assessment: environmental impact of the power generation facility is a reference value, and the environmental impact ofradioactive waste processing (nuclear power) has not been assessed.

Environmental Impact Comparison of Toilet Care using Automatic
Urine Collector
Assessor: Nobuaki Kosugi, Environmental Promotion Office, CSR Department, Unicharm Corporation


Purpose of assessment and characteristics ofproductFunctional unit:
System boundary: Determination of the environmental performance of
toilet care using automatic urine collector
 Extraction of processes important for the improvementof environmental impacts

 By combining the use of tape fastening-type diapers andautomatic urine collector in toilet care, the number ofdiaper changes needed can be reduced as urine iscollected with the suction pump of the urine collector
instead of being absorbed by a diaper, preventing
diapers from becoming wet frequently
 Urine is disposed of into a toilet once a day For each day of toilet care,
Conventional method (2 diapers / 6 pads) *Automatic urine collector (2 diapers / 2 pads) *are used respectively* Company dataAssessment result<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: interview survey
 Background data: data provided by Prof. Muroyama and others
at Kansai University, LCA Japan Forum, andJemai-LCA
 <Impact analysis>
 LIME2

1.60E+01
1.40E+01

1.60E+01

1.20E+01

Disposal

ＮOx

-39%

Crude oilSOx

1.00E+01

Use
8.00E+00

1.00E+01

Waste

6.00E+00

8.00E+00
6.00E+00

Study method

1.80E+01

1.80E+01

1.20E+01

toilet care for a one-day period
includes the raw material production, use, anddisposal stages[Weightingresult (by substance)][Weighting result (by life cycle stage)]

1.40E+01

Functional unit and system boundary

Material
production

4.00E+00
2.00E+00

4.00E+00
2.00E+00

CO2

0.00E+00
Conventional
従来排泄ケアcare

0.00E+00
Conventional
Urine collector 採尿機(高度処理)
Urine collector
従来排泄ケア
採尿機排泄ケアcare(advanced treatment) The majority of environmental impacts occur during the raw
material production and disposal stages
 The impact during the use stage of the automatic urine
collector is small

Urine collector
Urine collector
採尿機排泄ケア
採尿機(高度処理)(advanced treatment)

二酸化炭素
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
二酸化硫黄
原油
窒素酸化物
粒子状物質(PM10)
石炭天然ガス
CODthe major causes of CO2, SOx,その他汚泥
waste and crude oil are
全窒素
impacts for全リン
all systems

 Significant reduction of environmental impacts is achieved
as the result of reduced waste

The reduction of impacts during raw material production and the reduction of waste after the product use
contribute to mitigating overall environmental impacts
Limitations of this assessment: the assessment does not include data on the product production and transportation stages. While theimpacts associated with these stages are estimated to be small, their inclusion in the assessment needs
to be considered.

Environmental Impact Comparison of Recycled Wood-Based Building
Materials using Natural Adhesive
Assessor: Koshiro Nakajima, Kyoto Research & Development Laboratory, Urban Infrastructure andEnvironmental Products Company, Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd.


Purpose of assessment and characteristics ofproduct

Functional unit and system boundary
Functional unit: having bending strength that meets the requirement forclass 1 structural plywood under JAS Determination of the environmental performance of
natural (tannin) adhesive Extraction of processes important for the improvementof environmental impacts
 Utilization of the assessment result for environmentallyconscious designing and productivity improvement

Conventional

Aqueous polymer isocyanate(API) adhesive

Trade name:EcoValue Wood

Demolition

System boundary:from the resource extraction
stage through the production
stage

Use

EVW

DisposalTannin adhesive
Plantation


Demolition/sorting Shredded
Adhesive application
wood chips
and steam pressing/shredding(☆ Received Nikkei Global Environmental
Technology Award in 2006)
 Demolition wood waste is reprocessed as structural materials
 Achieved the quality of performance that had not been possible
with conventional wood materials
Stable quality / high strength + rigid / large cross section /utilization of lumber from forest thinning Newly-developed adhesive produced from mimosa bark extract(tannin)

System boundary
New productStudy method<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: collected at the company plants or obtained fromexisting literature (research paper) Yukinobu Sawada, Keisuke Ando, Nobuaki Hattori, Yasuo Tamura:Inventory Analysis of Adhesives Used for Wood Based Materials, Journalof the Japan Wood Research Society, vol. 52, No. 4, p 235-240, 2006
 Background data: JEMAI-Pro + data pack<Impact analysis>
 LIME2

Assessment result[Weighting result (yen/kg)] Comparison between 1 kg ofconventional product (petroleum-derived: API adhesive) and 1 kg of
newly-developed natural (tannin) adhesive[Weighting result - global warming] Comparison between 1 ton eachof two recycled wood-based building materials using different types ofadhesives
1.00E+03

4.00E+00

9.00E+02
Disposal

3.50E+00

8.00E+02

Use
3.00E+00

7.00E+02
Distribution

2.50E+00

Mimosa bark istransported from theplantation to the local
plant and produced
into powdered tannin

2.00E+00
1.50E+00

6.00E+02

Methane5.00E+02

N2 O

Production
Raw material

CO2

4.00E+02
3.00E+02

1.00E+00
2.00E+02
5.00E-01
1.00E+02
0.00E+00
ＡＰＩ adhesive

Tannin adhesive The impact of API was calculated using data provided in theabove research paper. Natural adhesive has less than half the
impact of API. The impact occurring in the production stage ofnatural adhesive is especially smaller.

0.00E+00
EVW production (API)EVW production (tannin) Due to a larger amount of adhesive used in the natural adhesive-based
building material for strength development, the impacts of both building
materials are virtually of the same level. The reduction of impacts
through the entire production process will be considered in the future.

Environmental impacts are reduced through the production of adhesive from natural raw materials
Limitations of this assessment: impacts occurring in the stage of overseas transportation were excluded from the scope of thisassessment for the reason that LIME2 is intended for application within Japan.

Environmental Impact Comparison between Conventional and
New Switchboard Products
Assessor: Masahiko Masuda, Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd. and Takashi Kuwabara, Fuji Electric Advanced Technology Co., Ltd.

Purpose of assessment and characteristics ofproductFunctional unit and system boundary Determination of the environmental performance of
conventional and new products Extraction of processes important for the improvement ofenvironmental impacts
 Utilization of the assessment result for environmentallyconscious designing Assessment subjects: high voltage panels and control
centers

 Functional unit: high voltage panel) 2 functional units, main circuit
rated current 300A
Load factor 35%, 24 hours/day, 360 days/year, for 15 years
Control center) 10 functional units, total control capacity 150 kW
Load factor 70%, 4 hours/day, 360 days/year, for 15 years
 System boundary: includes the raw material, production,transportation, use, disposal/recycling stages<System boundary>High voltage panel
Conventional product / newproduct
7.2 kV panel / SLIMEC-V6
Ecoleaf registration number
BW-06-002/BW-07-003
Energy conservation: 16%
Weight reduction:  57%

Control center
Conventional product / newproduct
SM1200/SM3000
Ecoleaf registration number
BG-04-001/BG-05-002
Energy conservation: 36%
Weight reduction:  22%

Raw material

Use

Distribution

Production

Disposal /recycling

Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: actual measurement (partially research) data Background data: Ecoleaf environmental label common intensities<Impact analysis>
 LIME2

Assessment result[Weighting result for high voltage panel (by process)][Weighting result for control center (by substance)]

4.50E+04

3.00E+04▲20％

4.00E+04

3.00E+04
2.50E+04
2.00E+04

Use

1.50E+04
1.00E+04

Raw
mater
ial

5.00E+03
0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

2.00E+04
1.50E+04

Ag

1.00E+04

SO2

5.00E+03

CO2

0.00E+00
SM1200SLIMEC-V6-5.00E+03
Raw material

2.50E+04
Weighting result[JPY/f.u.]▲40％

3.50E+04

Weighting result[JPY/f.u.]Production

 Significant reduction in environmental impacts is achieved in
the raw material stage as the result of the reduced productweight The proportions of the environmental impacts associated withthe use stage and raw material stage are almost equal

CO2
SO2
Crude oil
Molten slag
Nox

SM3000General waste
Scu
Coal
Zn
Ag

 Significant reduction in CO2 and SO2 emissions is achieved as theresult of energy conservation
 The consumption of silver has a large environmental impact

Environmental impacts associated with the raw material and use stages are reduced through energy
conservation and product weight reduction
Limitations of this assessment: because switchboards are build-to-order products, this assessment result does not universally apply to all switchboard products.

Environmental Impacts Before and After Installation of a Document
Digitization Solution
Assessor: Shigeharu Suzuki, Environmental Engineering Laboratories, Fujitsu Laboratories Limited



Purpose of assessment and characteristics
of product An ICT solution to digitize documents
 To product users, quantitative presentation ofenvironmental improvements comparing before andafter the product installation

Functional unit and system boundary
Functional unit:

System boundary:

updating of 1,300 types of instruction manuals to behandled in a year when distributing them to 1,500
divisionsuse and disposal stages

Viewing
Accumulation

WriterPublication

Planning and datacollection

Edit/Check

Collection
and disposal

Creation of
documents

html

Use
(operation)

Manual
改定 DB

Shipment anddistribution

Document life cycle

AdministratorRetrieval, editing, and checking

Procurement

Revision ofexisting
documents

Design,development,
andmanufacturing＜System boundary＞
Electronic instruction
manualContent
ViewermanagerContent check, revision orders, and approval Viewing and search

Environmental impacts of paper consumption, object transportation/relocation, efficiency,
storage space, and ICT device power consumption during the operation and disposal stages
were assessed.

 Update status, history, and details of a document canbe checked on a browser
 A document can be automatically published on a
specified date
 Instruction manuals are managed in the xml format andpublished in the html format on a web server
 Existing Word files can be used to improve document
creation efficiency<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: solution operation measurement data obtained
through customer interviews
 Background data: in-house database based on the 2000 inter-industry
relations table and EcoLeaf data (for biomass paper incineration)<Impact analysis>
 LIME2

Assessment result[Weighting result (resource energy consumption)][Weighting result (by substance)]
5.00E+07

7.00E+07
Natural gas
6.00E+07

Coal
Crude oil

5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.00E+07

4.50E+07
Weighting result (yen/f.u.)Characterization result (yen/f.u.)Study method

4.00E+07
3.50E+07
3.00E+07
2.50E+07

COD
Natural gas
Total nitrogen
Coal
Total phosphorous
Nitrogen oxide
Crude oilSulfur dioxide
Carbon dioxide

2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
5.00E+06

0.00E+00

0.00E+00
Before installation After installation

 Installation of the subject solution led to a dramatic decreaseof the environmental impact through reduction of paper
consumption, reduction of transportation due to viewing of
websites, and reduction of energy consumption (crude oil andcoal) due to improved efficiency.

Before installation After installation
 CO2 and SO2 had large environmental impacts. Reduction of
paper consumption and reduction of energy consumption
through efficiency improvement would contribute to reduction of
the overall environmental impact.

Installation of the subject solution resulted in a dramatic decrease in the environmental impact caused byresource energy consumption.
Limitations of this assessment: the assessment was conducted only with paper consumption and power consumption caused by theuse of ICT devices such as servers and PCs during the solution operation and disposal stages, anddevice materials and the manufacturing stage were not included in the scope of assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment of Lead-Free Solder used in LCD Projector
Assessor: Ayano Nishiguchi, Production Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd.

Functional unit and system boundary

DisposalUse

Rawmaterial

Transportation(distribution)

 Functional unit: used for 3.5 hours/day, 100 days/year, for 5 years
 System boundary: includes raw material, assembly (production),transportation (distribution), use, and disposal stages

Assess the environmental impact of a liquid crystal projector(LCD projector) that uses lead-free solder for the assembly of
its printed circuit board (hereinafter referred to as "thisproduct"). The same LCD projector, on the assumption thatlead solder is used instead for its printed circuit board
assembly (hereinafter referred to as a "lead solder-based
product"), is referred to for comparison purposes.

Assembly(production)

Purpose of assessment

 Assessment criteria: Ecoleaf PSC for data projector (PSC ID: AG-03)
published by the Japan Environmental Management Association for
Industry (JEMAI)

Survey method
Source: Wooo World LCD projector, Hitachi, Ltd.

http://av.hitachi.co.jp/homeproj/index.html

Characteristics of product Lead-free solder is used for printed circuit board
assembly Mechanical parts are completely free of polyvinyl
chloride Non-halogen flame retardant is used in the housing Transmissive 3LCD shutter projection system / digital
high-definition capable / maximal brightness 1200 lm

 Solder composition ratio: Lead-free solder: SnAgCu = 96.3:3:0.5
 Lead solder: SnPb = 37:63
 Assuming a scenario that the entire amount of lead contained in thesolder used in the solder-based product is released into the soil upon the
product's disposal<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: actual measurement taken at the company plants
 Background data: Ecoleaf
 Assessment of lead emissions: chemical substance emission calculation
sheet<Impact analysis>
 LIME2

Assessment result[Weighting result (by substance)]
Tin

5000

錫
粒子状物質(PM10)

4500

4000

溶融スラグ

4000

3000

銅

Tin
Lead

窒素酸化物

2500

石炭

2000

原油
一般廃棄物(不明・一
律)
二酸化硫黄

1500
1000

二酸化炭素

500

鉛

0
Leadsolder-based
鉛はんだ製品productThis
product
本製品

 By using lead-free solder, the total environmental impact can be
reduced to 1/3.

LIME Weighting result
LIME統合結果

4500

3500

LIME統合結果

LIME Weighting result

5000[Weighting result (by category)]
Ecotoxicity (soil)

3500
3000

Human toxicity (soil)

2500
2000
1500

廃棄物
生態毒性(土壌)人間毒性(土壌)
都市域大気汚染光化学オキシダント
酸性化
地球温暖化
非生物系資源1000
500
0
Leadsolder-based productThis product
鉛はんだ製品
本製品
 By using lead-free solder, the environmental impact of "ecotoxicity(39%)" and "human toxicity (22%)" in soil will be 0 (zero).

Environmental impact on humans and ecosystems will be reduced
by using lead-free solder
Limitations of this assessment: data on part of the assembly (production) processes that are outsourced or components manufactured
externally, such as purchased parts, are not covered in the assessment; the impact assessment of the releaseof lead into the soil is based on the assumption of long-term impact

Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Air Conditioner
Assessor: Yoshiyuki Hondo, Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation


Purpose of assessment and characteristics ofproduct
 Conduct a LIME2 assessment on “Daiseikai SDR Series” RAS402SDR (released in 2006), a household air conditioner modelwith an environmentally conscious design. Make a comparative
assessment with RAS-406YDR (released in 2000).

Functional unit and system boundary

Functional unit:

assume the use of a household air conditioner for
one life cycle of 10 years.
System boundary: includes raw material, assembly (production),transportation (distribution), use, disposal, andrecycling stages

Recycling

Disposal

Production

Use

Household air
conditioner"Daiseikai SDR
Series"RAS-402SDR(released in
December 2006)

Raw material
procurement

FactorDistribution

 Confirm the reduction of environmental impact and calculate thefactor T.

System Boundary* The use conditions are set according to the calculation criteria forannual performance factor (APF)
Comparison
product

Study method A combination of built-in high-performance compressor andhigh-efficiency inverter enhances energy conservation.

<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: design data Background data: Easy-LCA

 Automatic cleaning function self-cleans the inside of the unit
and maintains the efficiency of the air conditioner.

<Impact analysis>
 LIME2

Assessment result[Weigting result (by substance)][Weigting result (by life cycle stage)]
60,000Raw material procurement

Production

Distribution

Use

Disposal

Recycling

60,00050,00050,00040,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000Benchmark productSubject product-10,000

 The environmental impact at the use stage is reduced by 23% (throughenergy-saving design) The environmental impact of raw materials (at the raw material
procurement stage) increased slightly (8%) (due to changes made to
the composition of parts)

Monetary value of damage［yen/ u ］

Monetary value of damage［yen/f.u.］

22％reduction
Coal
30,000SOX
20,000CO2
10,0000Benchmark productSubject product The emissions of substances such as CO2 and SOx attributable tothe electricity consumption during product use have large
environmental impacts

Environmental impact over the product's life cycle is reduced by 22% as the result of an energy-saving design
Limitations of this assessment: data used for the disposal and recycling stages were referenced from existing literature

Environmental Impact Analysis of Indoor Air Quality Improvement throughthe Use of a High-Function Building Material
Assessor: Hiroyuki Oba, Environmental Office, TOSTEM CORPORATION
Functional unit and system boundary
Functional unit:

8-year use of 6 pieces of 910 x 1820 x 9.5 mm

Use

Disposal

System boundary: material, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal

Material

 Environmental impact assessment of each life stage ofan interior material
 Assessment of adsorption and decomposition offormaldehyde (CO2 emission)
 Effectiveness and possibility of recyclingDistribution

Purpose of assessment and characteristics
of product

Manufacturing* Construction is not included as a study subject.

<Inventory analysis>

Interior material ‘MOISS’ Humidity adjustment and deodorant functions like soil
walls or trees
 Adsorption and decomposition of toxic substances byvermiculite No adhesive is required because wallpaper is
unnecessary to finish walls
 Recyclable because of the use of natural materials as
main ingredients

Assessment result

 Foreground data: data from interviews and industrial associations
 Background data: data from JEMAI-LCA Pro,LCA Japan Forum database, industrial
associations<Impact analysis>
 LIME2[Weighting result (by category)][Weighting result (by life cycle stage)]
3.50E+03
3.00E+03

Study method

3.50E+03
3.00E+03

Disposal
Distribution
Material

Use
Manufacturing

2.50E+03

2.50E+03
2.00E+03

2.00E+03
1.50E+03

1.50E+03

1.00E+03

1.00E+03

5.00E+02

5.00E+02

0.00E+00
MOISSver.2

Regular wall ver. 2

 Environmental impact is high in the use stage.
 After the use stage, the disposal, manufacturing, material,and distribution stages follow in this order.

Non-living resources

Global warming

Ozone depletion

Acidification

Eutrophication

Photochemical oxidant

Air pollution in urban areas

Human toxicity (air)Human toxicity (water)

Human toxicity (soil)

Ecotoxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (water)

Ecotoxicity (soil)

Waste

Indoor air quality pollution

0.00E+00
MOISSver.2

Regular wall ver. 2

 Improvement of indoor air quality has a strong influence on theenvironmental impact.
 Waste, air pollution in urban areas, and global warming have highenvironmental impacts.

The formaldehyde adsorption and decomposition effect of MOISS has a strong effect on reduction of theenvironmental impact.
Waste has a high environmental impact; therefore, recycling is expected to reduce the environmental impact.
Limitations of this assessment: the effectiveness of formaldehyde adsorption and decomposition was based on the performance test value, thematerial process for by-product gypsum was excluded from the assessment, and the walls were disassembled andtreated as industrial waste.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts between a Recycled Copy Machine(RC Machine) and a Copy Machine
Assessor: Makiko Hirai, Environmental Division, Ricoh Company, Ltd.


Purpose of assessment and characteristics ofproductFunctional unit:
copy machines to be used for 10 years
System boundary: material, manufacturing, transportation, use, recycling,
and disposal stages

 Assessment of the environmental impact of a recycled
copy machine (RC machine) Assessment of the effectiveness of recycling of parts
 Use of the evaluation result to create eco-friendly designs Comparison between “2 new machines x 5 years of use”
and “new and RC machines for 10 years of use (5 years ofuse for each)” Copy speed: 45 sheets/minute More than 80% of a unit consists of recycled parts (massratio)

Assessment result

Functional unit and system boundary

Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Foreground data: corporate data Background data: basic unit used in the EcoLeaf program<Impact analysis>
 LIME2[Weighting result (by substance)][Weighting result (by life cycle stage)] Use of an RC machine has a smaller environmental impact
 High environmental loads are observed in the product use
stage For both types of machines, crude oil consumption, and CO2 and SOx
emission are the major determinants of the level of environmental
impact An RC machine emits less CO2 than a new machine.

Reuse of parts can reduce the environmental impact of the overall copy machine materials
Limitations of this assessment: the yield ratio in remaking a new machine into an RC machine has not been taken into account.
Also, it is necessary to examine how the concept of recycling should be expressed.

Sustainable Forest Management and Environmental Impact with Relation toBase Paper for Paper Cups
Evaluator: Paper Cup Working Group, Printers Association of Japan(Toshihiko Arima, Alpha Research Institute) Objective and product characteristics

 Functional unit and system boundary A paper cup is made of wood.
 Environmental impacts on primary production andbiodiversity depend on where the wood is from andwhether the wood is from a natural forest or aplanted forest.
 Assessment is carried out to examine how
differences in material influence Weightingresults.

Functional unit:
One paper cup
System boundary: Manufacturing, shipment, incineration, andrecycling
Use

System boundary
Packing
material

Base paper

Product
manufacturing

LDPE

Shipment

Recycled
pulp

Ink
Recycled
pulp

Incineration

Incineration

 Study method The maximum capacity of the subject paper cup is
275 ml.
 It is usually used to hold approximately 200 ml ofbeverage.
 Used cups are usually incinerated.
 Some are collected for material recycling.

 Result

Scenario 1: Calculate environmental loads using data on countries of origin of paper in general, and theratio between trees from natural forests and trees from planted forests.
Scenario 2: Calculate environmental loads based on the assumption that sustainable forest management
has been achieved so that neither primary production nor biodiversity is affected.

[Weighting result (breakdown by substance)]
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

<Inventory analysis>
 Priority data: data obtained in interviews
 Background data: database of the Life Cycle
Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA), JEMAI-LCA Pro,and the container packaging LCA survey report<Impact assessment> LIME2

CarbondioxideWood
Sulf urdioxideScenario 1

Scenario 2

 In Scenario 1, wood accounts for most of theenvironmental impact.
 In Scenario 2, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide accountfor approximately 80% of the environmental impact.

[Weighting result (real number for each substance)]
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

3.51

Wood,
3.42
0.09
Scenario 1

Scenario 2

 Social costs are 3.51 yen in Scenario 1 and 0.09
yen in Scenario 2. In Scenario 1, wood accounts
for 3.42 yen out of 3.51 yen.
 Scenario 2 can greatly reduce environmental loads.

Environmental loads can be reduced by using wood obtained from forests that are under sustainable management.
Limitations of this assessment result: data on countries of origin of base paper for paper cups as well as the ratio between
trees from natural forests and trees from planted forests has not been obtained.

Environmental Impact Assessment of Ethanol Production Using
Rice Straw as a Raw Material
Evaluators: Masaharu Motoshita and Cuifen Yang, Research Institute of Science for Safety andSustainability, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

 System boundary Objective and product characteristics

System boundary: from raw material collection to ethanol
production and transportation

 To Identify important processes in ethanol
production from rice straw in the aspect ofenvironmental impacts
 To quantify the reduction of environmental
impacts achieved by utilizing byproducts Raw material : unutilizedor low utilized rice straw
 Production method: hydrolysis with concentrated
sulfuric acid
 Options: Utilization of byproduct (lignin) as aboiler fuel in the fermentation, distillation, anddehydration processes

Paddy-riceproduction
Rice
Rice straw

Collection andtransportation

Ethanoltransportation

Crushing
Acid hydrolysis andglycation

Bale grab

Fermentation, distillation,and dehydration

Transportation bytank trucks

Lignin boiler

Transportation
by trucks

 Functional unit
Functional unit:

Ethanol production

Roll baler

Figure 1

production of 1GJ of ethanol from rice
straw

Waste water treatment

System boundary of Scenario 1(with a lignin-fueledboiler)Paddy-riceproduction
Rice Study method

Rice straw

Collection andtransportation<Inventory analysis>

Ethanol production

Roll baler

 Unit process data: literature (Yang, et al, 2009)
 Background data: AIST-LCA ver. 4

Ethanoltransportation

Crushing
Acid hydrolysis andglycation

Bale grab
Fermentation,
distillation, anddehydration<Impact assessment>

Transportation bytank trucks

Transportation
by trucks

 LIME2
Figure 2

System boundary of Scenario 2 (without a lignin-fueledboiler) Result[Weighting result (life stages)][Weighting result (substances)]

1800

1800

1600

1600

NMVOC

1400
1200

Logistics

1000

Production
800

Material

600
400
200
0

Environmental impact (yen/f.u.)

Environmental impact (yen/f.u.)

MethaneNatural gas

Nitrous oxide

1400

Nitrogen oxide

1200

Particle matter (PM10)

1000

Lead
Slag

800

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

600

Sulfur dioxide
Crude oil

400

PM10 (non-point source)

200

Zinc
Copper0

witha lignin-fueled boiler

without
a lignin-fueled boiler

 Production process (mainly, due to energy consumption for
fermentation, distillation, and dehydration, and waste landfill)dominate large part of total environmental impact.

witha lignin-fueled boiler

without
a lignin-fueled boiler

SludgeCarbon dioxide

 Significant improvement effect can be found in emissionsof CO2 and PM10, and sludge landfill, by utilizing lignin
for boiler fuel.

The utilization of the byproduct (lignin) as a fuel can hold the environmental impact to 1/10.
Limitations: The environmental load of raw material (raw straw) production is not included in the study. In case of considering it, energy andmaterials used in rice cropping should be allocated to rice and chaff, respectively.

Method of Filling a PET Bottle Using Lower Water Consumption
Evaluators: Ayumi Shibata and Asako Fujimori, Packaging Operations, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.

 Objective and product characteristics

 Functional unit and system boundary

For an aseptic PET bottle filling system,compare the conventional and new filling
methods with water being used as the subjectof assessment.

Functional unit:

One-hour production (36,000 pet bottles) bya system that adds 500 ml of tea to a PET
bottleSystem boundary: From preform molding to content
sterilization, bottle molding, filling, labeling,
and product disposal
Content

Molding
machineBottleBottle New method
This is the advanced version of the conventional
method. With the blow-molding device being
directly connected to the aseptic filling device,energy efficiency has been improved and water
consumption has been reduced.

 Result

Cap
Cap

Aseptic fillingmachine

Label
Label

Labeling
machine(sterilizing,(sterilizing,filling,filling,
andandcapping)capping)

Image of an aseptic bottle filling system
Conventional method
This is Dai Nippon Printing's original sterilizing andfilling method in which high-temperature hydrogen
peroxide mists are blown into a bottle. This methodvery effectively sterilizes a bottle within a very shortperiod of time.

Sterilizing
machinePreform
Preform

System boundary
Performanceassessment

Product

Waste water disposal Study method

Product disposal, recycling,
and recovery<Inventory analysis>

 Priority data: interviews
 Background data: JEMAI-LCA Pro, JEMAI-LCA Option Datapack,and the PET Bottle LCI Analysis Report<Impact assessment> LIME2 and water consumption-induced health damage coefficients[Weighting result (by substance)]
9.00E+03[Inventory result (water)]
Consolidated result (in yen)Amount of water used (in tons)

8.00E+03

50
40
30
20
10

7.00E+03

Total
mercury

6.00E+03

Crude
oil

5.00E+03
4.00E+03

SO2

3.00E+03
2.00E+03

CO2
1.00E+03

0
New method
Conventional method
Filling method
Water for sterilization and cleaning
Water for hydropow er generation

0.00E+00

New method

Conventional method

Carbon dioxide

Sulfur dioxide

Crude oil

Total mercury
Natural gas

Coal
Nitrous oxide

Nitrogen oxide
PM10 (non-point source)

NickelWater consumption can be greatly reduced with the new
method.

The environmental impact caused by CO2 and SO2 in particular canbe reduced with the new method. In Japan, water resource
consumption has almost no environmental impact.

With the new method, it is possible to greatly reduce the amount of water used and also the damage
caused by CO2 and SO2.
Limitations of this assessment result: A basic unit appropriate for each type of water has not been selected. Water resource consumptioninduced health damage coefficients have not been established.

Environmental Impact Assessment of a Professional Golf Tournament
Evaluators: Masato Hiruma, Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Dentsu Inc.
Hiroshi Yamaguchi, Tokyo City University

 Functional unit and system boundary Objective and the characteristics
of study subject

Functional unit: Understanding of the overview of theenvironmental impact associated with aprofessional golf tournament
 Review of issues regarding development of amethod to carry out environmental impact
assessment on sports events, and examination of
the method to administer the assessment

amount of environmental loads generated
by a person (spectators, player, or
tournament official) during the life cycle of aprofessional golf tournament.
System boundary: travel by people, hosting of the tournament,
and waste disposal
Golf course
Means of travel

Waste

Host
Food and drink
CO2

Golf matches

Durationand place

Players

Duration: one week (two days for practiceand four days for the tournament)
Place: venue not within walking distancefrom the nearest station (in the northern
Kanto area)

Participants

125 professional players, 100 amateur
players, 20,180 spectators, 445 volunteers,and 260 tournament officials

Scope ofassessment

All processes before, during, and after the
tournament (details will be described
below)

Distributed
Spectators

Environmental

materials

load reduction
scenario Study method<Inventory analysis>

 Priority data: tournament budget list and tournament manual Background data: environmental load data based on input-output tables(3EID, database created by Tokyo City University, and database created by
the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology), andstatistical data on travel created by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism and the Ministry of the Environment<Impact assessment> LIME2

 Result[Damage assessment result (by major elements
involved in a tournament)][Weighting result (by major elements involved in atournament)]
200.0

100%
180.0
160.0

80%
140.0
120.0

60%

Golf course management

Golf course management

100.0

Waste
TravelWaste
Travel40%

Distributed materials
Public relations
Hosting of the tournament

80.0

Distributed materials
Public relations

60.0

Hosting of the tournament
40.0

20%
20.0

0.0
175.2

0%
Primary production

Biodiversity

Social assets

Human health-20% The damage caused by hosting of the tournament is high relative toother elements.
 The damage caused by travel and public relations is relatively highwithin the category of damage to human health.

Consolidated result by major element, per person (in yen)

 According to the Weightingresult, the damage caused by one person
is calculated to be approximately 175 yen (approximately 3.7 million
yen for the entire tournament).
 The damage of hosting of the tournament is 91 yen (1.92 million yen
for the entire tournament) and travel is 74 yen (1.56 million yen for
the entire tournament)

The damage from public relations (printing) could be reduced. It may be difficult to reduce the impact from hostingof the tournament and travel.
Limitations of this assessment result: The objective of this assessment is to grasp the overall environmental impact. To improve assessment accuracy, it is necessary to improve thequality of data and databases. It will also be necessary to examine the relationships among consumption or emission-induced environmental loads.

Comparison of Environmental Impact between Substations Using an SF6
Gas Insulated Switchgear and an Air Insulated Switchgear
Evaluator: Hideki Noda, Power and Industrial Systems R&D Center, Toshiba Corporation

 Objective and product characteristics
Assuming that an outdoor substation will be built ina mountain area, compare an SF6 gas insulated
switchgear (GIS) and an old-type air insulated
switchgear (AIS) to clarify the trade-off relationshipbetween SF6 gas leakage and the effect of
substation floor area reduction to the environment
due to GIS installation.

 Functional unit and system boundary
Functional unit:

30 years of use (load factor: 50%) of a 145-kV
switchgear (4 lines and Bus Section)
System boundary: foundation building, manufacturing, current
loss, SF6 gas leakage, and disposal
EnergySystem boundary
Material

Foundation building

Old AISSF6
leakage

Manufacturing
Material

GIS

EnergyParts
manufacturing

Assembly

Use

Disposal

Recycling(material, forexample)Current
loss

Comparison image
Characteristics of a GIS
 The total mass is 35% of the old-type AIS.
 The amount of concrete used to build thefoundation is 6.7% of what is required for the oldtype AIS.
 The substation area is 3.3% of the old-type AIS.
 It is assumed that there will be SF6 gas leakage(0.05%/year during operation, and 1% at the timeof system removal)

 Result

 Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Priority data: interviews
 Background data: input-output data (EasyLCA data)<Impact assessment> LIME2[Weighting result](by inventory)[Weighting result] (by process)

3.0E+07

Foundation disposal
Equipment disposal

Foundation disposal

Land use
SF6100%

Equipment disposal

PFC
2.5E+072.5E+07

HFC

Foundation
disposal

Current loss

Dust

Foundation
disposal

Material (w ood)

Land use

2.0E+07
Equipment
disposal

1.5E+07
Current loss

AIS-electric wire / GIS-Bg

Frame
VT

Land use

19%

SF6 gas leakage

CT
LINE-DS/ES

CB

0.0E+00

BUS-DS/ES

Substation w ith
the old-type AIS

Substation w ith
the GIS

Limestone
2.0E+07

Foundation

LA

1.0E+07
5.0E+06

HFC23

SF6 gas leakage

CB The old-type AIS had a larger environmental impact thanthe GIS in terms of land use, current loss, and disposal(foundation and equipment), but it had a smaller
environmental load in terms of SF6 gas leakage.

 A large part of theenvironmental
impact of the oldtype AIS is theresult of disposal(foundation andequipment), landuse, CO2 emission,and SOx emission.
 For the GIS, theenvironmental
impact of SOx andSF6 emission isprominent.

Amount of damage (yen/f.u.)

Amount of damage (yen/f.u.)

3.0E+07

100%

Gravel and quarrying
Crushed stone
NickelEquipment
disposal

ChromeManganese

1.5E+07

Aluminum
Zinc

Land use

Lead
CopperIron
1.0E+07
Foundation
disposal

Natural gas
Coal
Crude oil fuelEquipment
disposal

Crude oil raw material
T-P

19%
5.0E+06

T-N
COD
SOx

SF6

NOX
SOX

CO2

CO2

0.0E+00
Substation w ith the old-type
AIS

Substation w ith the GIS

Reduction of substation area can reduce the environmental impact of land use and disposal.
Limitations of this assessment result: data on the foundation is used as background data, and the recycling process is not included as
the subject of assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment of HYDROTECT Coating
Evaluators: Junji Kameshima, Technical Development Section, Green Building Materials Division, TOTO LTD.
Toshihiro Takagi, Research and Planning G, Research Laboratory, TOTO LTD

 Objective and product characteristics

 Functional unit and system boundary
use of a 1,000 m2 coated surface for 20years Understanding of environmental performance of
HYDROTECT coating

Functional unit: Identification of processes that are important in
reduction of the environmental impact

Systemboundary:<Systemboundary>material production, manufacturing,transportation, application, and use

Material
production

HYDROTECT
coating(photocatalytic
reaction)

Manufacturing

Transportation

Application

Use

Disposal Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Priority data: survey by TOTO Background data: data from JEMAI “LCA pro” and the Life
Cycle Assessment Society of Japan(JLCA)

 Photocatalytic reaction of HYDROTECT
coating removes NOx to purify the air.
 Highly durable HYDROTECT coating candouble the life of an ordinary coating.

<Impact assessment> LIME2

 Results[Weighting result (by life stage)]

2.00E+04
1.00E+04
Use

0.00E+00
Application-1.00E+04

Transportation-2.00E+04

Reducedenvironmental impact
through photocatalytic
reactions-3.00E+04-4.00E+04-5.00E+04

Manufacturing
Material production

Consolidation result [YEN/f.u.]

Consolidation result [YEN/f.u.]

3.00E+04[Weighting result (by category)]

Halved frequency of
repainting due to theextension of the service life

3.00E+04

Waste

2.00E+04

Ecotoxicity (water)

1.00E+04

Ecotoxicity (air)0.00E+00

Human toxicity (water)-1.00E+04-4.00E+04

HYDROTECT coating

Ordinary coating HYDROTECT coating purifies the air by means ofphotocatalytic reactions and has a positive effect on theenvironment during the use phase.
 Lengthening of coating life can lead to reduction of its
environmental impact.

Human toxicity (air)Urban air pollution
Photochemical oxidant-3.00E+04

Reduction of oxidation

Eutrophication
Acidification-5.00E+04-6.00E+04-6.00E+04

Consumption of
abiotic resources-2.00E+04

Urban air pollution
HYDROTECT
coating

Ordinary coating

Global warming
Abiotic resources

 Most of the positive environmental effect is attributed toconsumption of abiotic resources.
 HYDROTECT coating can reduce the environmental impactof urban air pollution and acidification; therefore, the bar
extends to the negative side of the graph.

Lengthening of coating life can lead to reduction of its environmental impact.
HYDROTECT coating purifies the air by means of photocatalytic reactions and has a positive effect on theenvironment during the use phase.
Limitations of this assessment result: The inventory for photocatalytic titanium dioxide was based on white pigment data. The amount ofNOx removal was obtained by converting performance test results (JIS-certified test).

Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Various Types of Containers
Evaluator: Yumi Yoshimura
Environment Department, Material Purchase and Environment Division, Toyo Seikan Kaisha, Ltd.

 Objective and product characteristics

 Functional unit and system boundary

 Environmental impact assessment of 350-ml
containers: two aluminum cans (DWI can and an
aTULC), a PET bottle, and a stand-up pouch
 Understanding of differences in the environmental
impact among different containers
 Use of the assessment result to reduce theenvironmental impact

Functional unit:

System boundary:

one container to be filled with 350 ml ofcontents, protected, and provided to a
consumerfrom material production to productmanufacturing, logistics, use, disposal,
and recycling
Content production[DWI can]System boundary conventional aluminum can Requires application of a lubricant
and a coating on the inner surface

Material
production[aTULC]

Product
manufacturing

Logistics

 Stands for Aluminum Toyo Ultimate Can Does not require application of alubricant or a coating on the inner surface[PET bottle]
 A heat-resistant bottle that can be filledwith tea (a 350-ml bottle for carbonateddrinks was not available)

Disposal
andrecyclingUse Study method[Stand-up pouch] A pouch containing detergent refill (a350-ml pouch for drinks was notavailable)<Inventory analysis>
 Priority data: in-house measurement data Background data: EcoLeaf basic unit
<Impact assessment> LIME2

 Result[Weighting result (by area of impact)]

Waste

Consolidation result [yen]1.00E+00

Photochemical oxidant

8.00E-01

6.00E-01

Global warming

4.00E-01

2.00E-01

0.00E+00
Aluminium can(DWI can)Abiotic resources
Acidification
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (soil)

Aluminium can(aTULC)

Global w arming
Eutrophication
Human toxicity (air)otoxicity (air)
Waste

PET
bottleStand-uppouch

Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant
Human toxicity (w ater)
Ecotoxicity (w ater)
Indoor air pollution

 The total value is about the same for all types ofcontainers.
 All containers had a significant effect on global warming.
 Compared to other types of containers, the aluminumcans had a large impact on waste.
 Compared to other types of containers, the stand-up
pouch had high photochemical oxidant emissions.

Different containers have different areas of impact.
It is necessary to establish different environmental impact reduction measures for different types of containers.
Limitations of this assessment result: Containers with different functions and characteristics were compared while the same filling process data
was applied to all types of containers.

Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Business Activities
Evaluator: Shigeharu Suzuki, Environmental Technology Lab. Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

 Objective and product characteristics

 Functional unit and system boundary Understanding of the environmental impact ofbusiness activities
 Focus on the phases up to the manufacturingphase of leading products
 Examination of chronological changes in theenvironmental impact and provision of information
as tips to reduce the environmental impact

Functional unit:

the life cycle of the leading products
manufactured and shipped in each subject
fiscal year

System boundary:from the raw material procurement (material)
phase to the manufacturing and logistics
phasesSystem boundary

Manufacturing

Material

Logistics

Use

Disposal(Development, designing, procurement,
manufacturing) Study method

 Manufacturing of leading products* in the businessactivities of FY2007 and FY2008* Leading products: 15 types of product such as PCs,
mobile phones, and servers

 Result<Inventory analysis>
 Priority data: in-house survey results and sustainability
reports
 Background data: in-house database<Impact assessment> LIME2[Weighting result (by substance)]
1.60E+10[Damage assessment (social assets)]
7.00E+09

1.40E+10

1.20E+10

Consolidation (yen/f.u.)

Damage: social assets (yen/f.u.)

6.00E+09

5.00E+09

4.00E+09

3.00E+09
Coal
Sulfur dioxide
Natural gas
Nitrogen oxide
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorous
CopperCrude oil
Carbon dioxide
Gold2.00E+09

1.00E+09

0.00E+00
FY2007

FY2008

The gold accounted for more than half of the damage,followed by carbon dioxide, crude oil, and copper inthat order.

1.00E+10

8.00E+09

6.00E+09

Natural gas
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorous
Nitrogen oxide
Coal
Crude oil
CopperSulfur dioxide
Carbon dioxide
Gold4.00E+09

2.00E+09

0.00E+00
FY2007

FY2008

 Major constituents of the weighting damage are: gold
consumption that has a large impact on social assets; andcarbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions that have a large
impact on human health and social assets.

Consumption of resources such as gold and crude oil has the largest environmental impact, and emission ofcarbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide has the second largest environmental impact of the subject products.
Limitations of this assessment result: The scope of assessment includes the material, manufacturing, and logistics phases, and excludes
the use and disposal phases. Chemical substances are not the subjects of the assessment.

Comparison of the Environmental Impact between a Traditional Adult Diaper
and the Humany Urine Suction System
Evaluator: Nobuaki Kosugi, Environment Enhancement Office, CSR Division, Unicharm Humancare Corporation

 Objective and product characteristics

 Functional unit and system boundary Understanding of the environmental efficiency of
Humany Identification of important processes and elementsof the environmental impact in order to reduce

Functional unit:
urine suction and collection for a day
System boundary: from the manufacturing to use and then disposal
phases.
Note that, manufacturing and transportation of
the Humany machine are not included.

Machine partsprocurement

Material

Raw material
production

Material

Humany machine
manufacturing

Paper diaper manufacturing(including urine collectionpad) Study method<Inventory analysis>
 Priority data: in-house research data Background data: database created by the Life Cycle
Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA), and JEMAI-LCA<Impact assessment> LIME2[Weighting result (by substance)]
Comparison between the scenarios in which: all disposed
products are subject to landfilling; and unmanaged forests
used for pulp raw materials.
30

Consolidation result [yen]Consolidation result [yen]

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Disposal

System boundary Humany machine: mass of 2 kg, power
consumption of 10 W during suction, and power
consumption of 1 W while in stand-by mode
 Tank capacity: 1 liter (must be emptied out into
the toilet once a day) Medium-sized adult diaper with side tapes:
product mass of approximately 110 g (1 diaper
per day) Humany pad: product mass of approximately 40 g
(1 pad per day) The sensor on the pad detects urine to trigger
suction by the machine[Weighting result (by substance)]

Use

Sewer
systemEnergy Result

Tap water

Disposal
Use
Product manufacturing
Material production

HumanyTraditional
diaper

25
20
15

Wood

10
5

CO2

Landfill

0Regulardisposalscenario

Sending all
the waste tolandfills

Uncontrolledforests

 Use of Humany resulted in a significant reduction of
the environmental loads.
 The environmental damage in the regular mode of disposal, which was incineration, was The material production and disposal phases
mostly attributed to CO2. In an attempt to reduce CO2 emission, we replaced incinerationaccounted for a large part of the consolidation result.
with sending the waste to landfills, but this resulted in an increase of environmental loads.

 Environmental loads significantly increased when pulp from unmanaged forests was used.

Although CO2 emission could be reduced by reducing the amount of resources used, by reducing environmental loads, or by using
landfills as a disposal method, the overall damage increased. Management of forests for pulp production was the most importantenvironmental impact-related issue.
Limitations of this assessment result: Since the data on product manufacturing was not used in the assessment and the raw material data was
obtained from other companies, the data quality may not be consistent throughout the assessment.

Report on
Steel Beverage Can 'TULC' Assessment

May 2008
TOYO SEIKAN KAISHA, LTD.

19116

1. General Information
1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

Environmental Department, Material and Environment Division, TOYO SEIKANKAISHA
Atsuo Masaki
atsuo_masaki@toyo-seikan.co.jp

Report preparation date

May 30, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

This study was conducted using the environmental impact assessment method called LIME2 to assess theenvironmental impact and understand environmental efficiency of a TULC whose environmental impact
has been reduced compared to a conventional can through development of forming technologies, complete
simplification of production equipment, and eliminating the use of water. A TULC with decoration calleda labeled can was also assessed for an understanding of its environmental impact.

2.2

Application of study result

In this study, the study result was used to check the validity of the environmental impact assessment
method. One of the most focused on parameters in deciding the validity of the method conventionally
was manifestation of reduction of CO2 emission, but in this study, LIME2 was used to comprehensively
assess the environmental impact including the environmental impact of waste that LC-CO2 could notassess.

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

The subjects of the study were a welded can and TULC, steel beverage cansmanufactured, used, and disposed of in Japan. Each can holds 200 ml andweighs as follows:
Welded can (control): 33.7 g
TULC:
31.7 gLabeled TULC:
32.0 gFigure 3.1-1 shows the external view of TULC.
Figure 3.1-1 External view of a TULC

20

3.2

Functions and functional unit

The function of the product is limited to a basic container function, which is "to be filled with 200 ml of
low acid beverage (coffee, tea, and so on), protected, and provided to consumers."

3.3

System boundary

Disposal
RecycleUse

TransportationRawmaterial

Production

The system boundary included stages from material production, to filling, use, disposal, and recycling.
Note that the content of cans was not included in the assessment. Also, because LIME2 does not have an
independent parameter for which the recycling effect could be inputted, the disposal and recycling processloads and the recycling effect were added in the assessment (Figure 3.3-1)

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary of a steel beverage can

3.4

Special notes (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

Assessment is based on the EcoLeaf Guideline, but this does not require assessment of the environmental
impact of waste in the disposal and recycling stages. In order to include assessment of the environmental
impact of waste in this study, waste that was incinerated and disposed of in landfills was added as molten
slag. Also, in this study, the influence of changes in the recycling rate on the amount of waste or on theoverall environmental impact assessment result was studied. The recycling rate at the time of assessment
was set to 88% (FY2004), and for comparison, the recycling rate in 1991, which was 50%, was also used.

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

Data of materials, resources, and energy used in the can body and can lid manufacturing process was basedon the measurement data obtained in FY2004 at a TOYO SEIKAN KAISHA factory.

4.2

Background data

Assuming that the material production, transportation, product use, and recycling were all EcoLeaf
compliant, the EcoLeaf basic unit was used as background data. However, can molds that have not been
EcoLeaf certified or cans with changed recycling rates were also specially used in this study.

21

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Tables 4.3-1 through 4.3-5 show the subjects and results of inventory analysis for containers used in thisstudy.
Table 4.3-1 Welded can (model: J200WN2Q-S) LCU analysis result (unit: kg/can)I/O Type
SelectionIN
ENERGY Crude oil
IN
ENERGY CoalIN
ENERGY Natural gas
IN
MATERIAL Uranium
IN
MATERIAL Iron
IN
MATERIAL Aluminum
IN
MATERIAL Nickel
IN
MATERIAL Chrome
IN
MATERIAL Manganese
IN
MATERIAL Mountain gravel
IN
MATERIAL Limestone
OUT Air
Carbon dioxide
OUT Air
Sulfur dioxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen oxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen monoxide
OUT Air
Methane
OUT AirNMVOC
OUT Air
PM10
OUT Water
COD
OUT Water
Total phosphorus
OUT Water
Total nitrogen
OUT General
General waste
OUT General
Molten slag
OUT Industrial Other sludge

Material
Manufacturing Distribution Use
Disposal
3.52E-02 6.43E-03 1.75E-03 4.02E-03 -2.53E-02
2.42E-02 1.75E-03 1.87E-07 4.39E-04 -9.68E-03
4.60E-03 7.81E-03 2.71E-05 2.74E-04 -2.23E-04
1.68E-07 1.18E-07 1.27E-11 2.97E-08 -1.25E-08
3.00E-02-2.51E-02
1.93E-03

1.40E-03
7.01E-02
7.24E-05
8.76E-05
3.89E-07
1.23E-08
2.40E-08
4.58E-05
2.47E-06
9.88E-08
1.07E-06
2.42E-03
1.59E-04

22

4.54E-02
1.38E-05
9.54E-05
2.40E-05
3.16E-07
6.20E-07
3.39E-06

9.80E-06

5.64E-03
6.93E-06
8.66E-05
1.02E-07
3.39E-11
6.66E-11
6.93E-06

1.46E-02
3.66E-06
2.68E-05
6.04E-07
7.97E-08
1.56E-07
3.91E-07

8.43E-05-2.45E-02-2.21E-05-2.69E-05
1.95E-07-1.35E-07-2.64E-07-1.71E-07-3.18E-07-9.09E-09-2.95E-07

2.05E-04-3.42E-05

Table 4.3-2 TULC (model: J200TF2-S) LCU analysis result (unit: kg/can)I/O Type
SelectionIN
ENERGY Crude oil
IN
ENERGY CoalIN
ENERGY Natural gas
IN
MATERIAL Uranium
IN
MATERIAL Iron
IN
MATERIAL Aluminum
IN
MATERIAL Nickel
IN
MATERIAL Chrome
IN
MATERIAL Manganese
IN
MATERIAL Mountain gravel
IN
MATERIAL Limestone
OUT Air
Carbon dioxide
OUT Air
Sulfur dioxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen oxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen monoxide
OUT Air
Methane
OUT AirNMVOC
OUT Air
PM10
OUT Water
COD
OUT Water
Total phosphorus
OUT Water
Total nitrogen
OUT General
General waste
OUT General
Molten slag
OUT Industrial Other sludge

Material
Manufacturing Distribution Use
Disposal
3.82E-02 5.00E-03 1.75E-03 4.02E-03 -2.82E-02
2.55E-02 1.06E-03 1.87E-07 4.39E-04 -1.07E-02
4.63E-03 1.67E-03 2.71E-05 2.74E-04 -2.06E-04
1.73E-07 7.20E-08 1.27E-11 2.97E-08 -7.92E-09
3.29E-02-2.80E-02
1.93E-03

1.46E-03
7.37E-02
7.69E-05
9.18E-05
1.82E-07
7.19E-09
1.41E-08
4.56E-05
2.52E-06
1.01E-07
4.09E-06
2.37E-03
1.70E-04

23

2.31E-02
9.48E-06
6.71E-05
4.00E-06
1.93E-07
3.77E-07
3.15E-06

9.80E-06

5.64E-03
6.93E-06
8.66E-05
1.02E-07
3.39E-11
6.66E-11
6.93E-06

1.46E-02
3.66E-06
2.68E-05
6.04E-07
7.97E-08
1.56E-07
3.91E-07

9.41E-05-2.69E-02-2.42E-05-2.98E-05
1.82E-07-1.34E-07-2.63E-07-1.72E-07-3.56E-07-1.02E-08-3.29E-07

2.05E-04-3.82E-05

Table 4.3-3 Labeled TULC (model: J200TF2-SL) LCU analysis result (unit: kg/can)I/O Type
SelectionIN
ENERGY Crude oil
IN
ENERGY CoalIN
ENERGY Natural gas
IN
MATERIAL Uranium
IN
MATERIAL Iron
IN
MATERIAL Aluminum
IN
MATERIAL Nickel
IN
MATERIAL Chrome
IN
MATERIAL Manganese
IN
MATERIAL Mountain gravel
IN
MATERIAL Limestone
OUT Air
Carbon dioxide
OUT Air
Sulfur dioxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen oxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen monoxide
OUT Air
Methane
OUT AirNMVOC
OUT Air
PM10
OUT Water
COD
OUT Water
Total phosphorus
OUT Water
Total nitrogen
OUT General
General waste
OUT General
Molten slag
OUT Industrial Other sludge

Material
Manufacturing Distribution Use
Disposal
3.89E-02 5.40E-03 1.75E-03 4.02E-03 -2.89E-02
2.57E-02 1.35E-03 1.87E-07 4.39E-04 -1.10E-02
4.68E-03 2.47E-03 2.71E-05 2.74E-04 -2.04E-04
1.78E-07 9.12E-08 1.27E-11 2.97E-08 -7.15E-09
3.33E-02-2.88E-02
1.93E-03
5.14E-12
9.38E-11
1.34E-09
2.97E-09
1.47E-03
9.65E-05
7.53E-02 2.72E-02 5.64E-03 1.46E-02 -2.75E-02
7.86E-05 1.12E-05 6.93E-06 3.66E-06 -2.47E-05
9.43E-05 7.15E-05 8.66E-05 2.68E-05 -3.05E-05
2.95E-07 6.30E-06 1.02E-07 6.04E-07 1.85E-07
8.58E-09 2.44E-07 3.39E-11 7.97E-08 -1.35E-07
1.68E-08 4.77E-07 6.66E-11 1.56E-07 -2.65E-07
4.57E-05 3.25E-06 6.93E-06 3.91E-07 -1.74E-07
2.55E-06-3.65E-07
1.03E-07-1.04E-08
4.17E-06-3.38E-07
2.38E-03 9.80E-06
2.05E-04
7.63E-08
1.73E-04-3.91E-05

24

Table 4.3-4 LCI analysis result of labeled TULC with an environmental impact of waste(unit: kg/can)I/O Type
Selection
Material
Manufacturing Distribution Use
DisposalIN
ENERGY Crude oil
3.89E-02 5.40E-03 1.75E-03 4.02E-03 -2.89E-02
IN
ENERGY Coal
2.57E-02 1.35E-03 1.87E-07 4.39E-04 -1.10E-02
IN
ENERGY Natural gas
4.68E-03 2.47E-03 2.71E-05 2.74E-04 -2.04E-04
IN
MATERIAL Uranium
1.78E-07 9.12E-08 1.27E-11 2.97E-08 -7.15E-09
IN
MATERIAL Iron
3.33E-02-2.88E-02
IN
MATERIAL Aluminum
1.93E-03
IN
MATERIAL Nickel
5.14E-12IN
MATERIAL Chrome
9.38E-11
IN
MATERIAL Manganese
1.34E-09
IN
MATERIAL Mountain gravel
2.97E-09
IN
MATERIAL Limestone
1.47E-03
9.65E-05
OUT Air
Carbon dioxide
7.53E-02 2.72E-02 5.64E-03 1.46E-02 -2.75E-02
OUT Air
Sulfur dioxide
7.86E-05 1.12E-05 6.93E-06 3.66E-06 -2.47E-05
OUT Air
Nitrogen oxide
9.43E-05 7.15E-05 8.66E-05 2.68E-05 -3.05E-05
OUT Air
Nitrogen monoxide
2.95E-07 6.30E-06 1.02E-07 6.04E-07 1.85E-07
OUT Air
Methane
8.58E-09 2.44E-07 3.39E-11 7.97E-08 -1.35E-07
OUT Air
NMVOC
1.68E-08 4.77E-07 6.66E-11 1.56E-07 -2.65E-07
OUT Air
PM10
4.57E-05 3.25E-06 6.93E-06 3.91E-07 -1.74E-07
OUT Water
COD
2.55E-06-3.65E-07
OUT Water
Total phosphorus
1.03E-07-1.04E-08
OUT Water
Total nitrogen
4.17E-06-3.38E-07
OUT General
General waste
2.38E-03 9.80E-06
2.05E-04
OUT General
Molten slag
7.63E-08
3.55E-03
OUT Industrial Other sludge
1.73E-04-3.91E-05

25

Table 4.3-5 LCI analysis result of labeled TULC with an environmental impact and also with therecycling rate lowered from 88% to 50% (unit: kg/can)I/O Type
SelectionIN
ENERGY Crude oil
IN
ENERGY CoalIN
ENERGY Natural gas
IN
MATERIAL Uranium
IN
MATERIAL Iron
IN
MATERIAL Aluminum
IN
MATERIAL Nickel
IN
MATERIAL Chrome
IN
MATERIAL Manganese
IN
MATERIAL Mountain gravel
IN
MATERIAL Limestone
OUT Air
Carbon dioxide
OUT Air
Sulfur dioxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen oxide
OUT Air
Nitrogen monoxide
OUT Air
Methane
OUT AirNMVOC
OUT Air
PM10
OUT Water
COD
OUT Water
Total phosphorus
OUT Water
Total nitrogen
OUT General
General waste
OUT General
Molten slag
OUT Industrial Other sludge

Material
Manufacturing Distribution Use
Disposal
4.15E-02 5.40E-03 1.75E-03 4.02E-03 -1.93E-02
2.67E-02 1.35E-03 1.87E-07 4.39E-04 -7.30E-03
4.71E-03 2.47E-03 2.71E-05 2.74E-04 -7.58E-05
1.82E-07 9.12E-08 1.27E-11 2.97E-08 3.41E-09
3.59E-02-1.94E-02
1.93E-03
5.14E-12
9.38E-11
1.34E-09
2.97E-09
1.56E-03
6.52E-05
7.78E-02 2.72E-02 5.64E-03 1.46E-02 -1.73E-02
8.06E-05 1.12E-05 6.93E-06 3.66E-06 -1.59E-05
9.68E-05 7.15E-05 8.66E-05 2.68E-05 -1.96E-05
2.74E-07 6.30E-06 1.02E-07 6.04E-07 1.94E-07
8.29E-09 2.44E-07 3.39E-11 7.97E-08 -6.92E-08
1.62E-08 4.77E-07 6.66E-11 1.56E-07 -1.36E-07
4.57E-05 3.25E-06 6.93E-06 3.91E-07 -6.03E-08
2.62E-06-2.46E-07
1.03E-07-1.04E-08
4.23E-06-2.28E-07
2.38E-03 9.80E-06
2.05E-04
7.63E-08
1.57E-02
1.82E-04-2.64E-05

26

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

Assessment steps and subject areas of influence

For impact assessment, the Life-cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modeling 2 (LIME2)
was used to assess weighting steps. Table 5.1-1 shows the target areas of environmental impact.
Table 5.1-1 Areas of environmental impact to be assessed
Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)
Resource consumption (mineral)
Global warming
Urban air pollution
Ozone layer depletion
Acidification
Eutrophication
Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality
Noise
Waste
Land use

5.2







Result of impact assessment (weighting)

1.40E+00
1.40E+00

1.20E+00
1.20E+00

1.00E+00

1.00E+00

8.00E-01

8.00E-01
6.00E-01

6.00E-01
4.00E-01

4.00E-01
2.00E-01

2.00E-01
0.00E+00

0.00E+00J200WN2Q-S-2

J200TF2-S-2

J200TF2-SL-2 J200TF2-SL-88 J200TF2-SL-50

J200WN2Q-S-2
J200TF2-SL-2 J200TF2-SL-88
J200TF2-SL-50
二酸化炭素 J200TF2-S-2二酸化硫黄
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
粒子状物質(PM10)
CO2
石炭

原油
SO2 亜酸化窒素

窒素酸化物
General waste
天然ガス PM10

アルミニウム
Crude oil

Nox 溶融スラグ

CoalNatural gas

Alminium

Molten slag

鉄J200WN2Q-S-2
Welded can (control)
J200TF2-S-2
TULC (regular printed can)
J200TF2-SL-2
Labeled TULC

J200TFS-SL-88
Labeled TULC with an environmental impact ofwaste
J200TFS-SL-50
Labeled TULC with an environmental impact
of waste and also with the recycling rate loweredfrom 88% to 50%

N2O

Iron

Figure 5.2-1 Weighting result (by substance)

27

1.40E+00

1.20E+00

1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
6.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
J200WN2Q-S-2

J200TF2-S-2

J200TF2-SL-2 J200TF2-SL-88 J200TF2-SL-50-2.00E-01-4.00E-01
Raw material

Figure 5.2-2

Manufacturing

Distribution

Use

Disposal

Weighting results [JPY/kg]

Weighting results [JPY/kg]

1.40E+00

Weighting result(by process)1.00E+00

8.00E-01

6.00E-01

4.00E-01

2.00E-01

0.00E+00
J200WN2Q-S-2

J200TF2-S-2

Non-biotic resources
Acidification
Urban area air pollution
Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (soil)

Figure 5.2-3

J200TF2-SL-2

Global warming
Eutrophication
Human toxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (air)
Waste

J200TF2-SL-88

J200TF2-SL-50

Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant
Human toxicity (water)
Ecotoxicity (water)
Indoor air quality pollution

Weighting result(by category)

Figure 5.2-1 shows the weighting result by substance. While the environmental impact of carbon dioxide
emission was significant, the environmental impact of the newly added substance 'molten slag' was also
considerable. It had a large impact particularly when the lower recycling rate was applied.
Figure 5.2-2 shows the environmental impact of each process. Saving energy in the manufacturing
process directly leads to reduction of the environmental loads. If the recycling rate is low, theenvironmental loads in the recycling and disposal process are too high to lower the environmental impact.
Figure 5.2-3 shows the environmental impact by category. Global warming and waste were the two areasof impact greatly influenced by the container type and recycling rate and had large environmental impacts.
Urban area air pollution caused by NOx and SOx also had a high environmental impact.

28

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of study result

In this study, the environmental impact of the entire lifecycle (material production, product manufacturing,transportation, use, disposal, and recycling) of a conventional welded can and TULC was assessed, withboth subjects being steels cans commonly used to contain coffee, and the TULC was developed for the
purpose of reducing environmental loads. These types of cans hardly had any differences in the level ofenvironmental impact as a social cost, but the result was still correlated with LC-CO2 assessment results.
Considering the number of beverage containers used, it is necessary to reduce environmental loads eventhough the reduction is minimal, and the study clearly showed that TULC had environmental advantages
over the conventional steel can. Note, however, the level of environmental loads was slightly but clearlyhigher for labeled TULC than the regular TULC.
In this study, the environmental impact that could not be examined by the LC-CO2 method was studied.
This is because the recycling rate was 88%, and although the amount of waste was small, its environmental
impact could not be ignored. Also, there was a significant environmental impact when the recycling rate
was lowered to 50%. Although recycling itself generates environmental loads, it is necessary to improve
the recycling rate as much as possible while effectively using resources and maintaining a good balance ofgeneration and reduction of environmental loads.

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

The study clearly showed that the amount of energy use was the major determinant of the assessment result.
The scope of the product assessment covered the environmental impacts of all processes and also included
the environmental impact of waste; therefore, the study results should have high validity. In future studies,
it is necessary to examine how environmental impacts such as productivity or human influence, which are
not generated by energy, should be assessed.

29

Report on
Power Generation Business Assessment

May 2008
CHUBU Electric Power30

1． General Information
1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:
Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

Environmental Management Group, Environment Department, Environment and Location
Division, CHUBU Electric Power
Yasunori Katou
Katou.Yasunori@chuden.co.jp
Nagoya Office, JAPAN NUS
Takeshi Toramaru
toramaru@janus.co.jp

Report preparation date

May 31, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Assessment of the environmental impact of power generation (fuel procurement, fossil fuel consumption,
and waste generation) from the following perspectives:
 Environmental impact comparison among modes of power generation (LNG thermal power, coal
thermal power, oil thermal power, and nuclear power generation)
 Assessment of the environmental impact reduction effect of improvement in power generation
efficiency(LNG thermal power (1100ºC level CC) and LNG thermal power (1300ºC level CC) generation)

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

The subjects of this study were the power plants that used the following major power generation modes togenerate power:
 LNG thermal power (1100ºC level CC) generation LNG thermal power (1300ºC level CC) generation
 Oil thermal power generation
 Coal thermal power generation
 Nuclear power generation* CC: combined cycle power generation

31

100%

[Reference information]
CHUBU Electric Power provides power to Aichi, Gifu
(excluding some parts), Mie (excluding some parts),
Nagano, and Shizuoka (areas west of the Fuji River) and,as of the end of March 2007, owns power generation
facilities as listed below. The graph on the right showsthe energy production ratio in FY2006.
Thermal power generation:

22.3696 million kW(11 locations)Hydro-electric power generation: 5.22 million kW(182 locations)
Nuclear power generation:
4.884 million kW(1 location)
Total:
32.473 million kW(194 locations)

3.2

8%
8%

80%

Hydropower

Oil

60%

45%
LNG

40%
Coal

24%
20%
15%

Nuclear
power

0%
Energy production ratio(FY2006)

Functions and functional unit

A functional unit means 1 kWh of electricity at a power distribution terminal of a power plant (LNG
thermal power, coal thermal power, oil thermal power, and nuclear power plants).

3.3

System boundary

A system includes fuel procurement, and construction, operation, and dismantling of a power plant (Figure
3.2-1).

Figure 3.2-1 Power generation business system and its boundary

32

3.4

Special notes A power plant was assumed to operate for 30 years.
 Sulfur oxide (SOx) was considered as SO2 in the assessment.
 In the assessment, all waste generated during the course of power plant operation was assumed to be
used in landfills except for what would be recycled.

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

Our past records were referred to for obtaining data on fuel for power generation, amount of power
generated, material required for power plant operation, emissions (CO2, SOx, and NOx) caused by power
generation, and the amount of waste generation.

4.2

Background data

Data by Hondo, et al 1) and Hondo 2) was used to obtain information on fuel procurement and facility
construction. Other data was obtained from JEMAI-LCA pro (Japan Environmental Management
Association for Industry).

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Tables 4.3-1 through 4.3-5 show subject items of inventory analysis for each power generation facility andalso lists of analysis results.

33

Table 4.3-1 LCI analysis result for LNG thermal power generation(1100ºC level combined cycle)

Environmental emission load

Consumption load

[Unit: kg/kWh]

Depletedresources

Outdooratmosphere

Water

Operation

Fuelprocurement

Construction
anddismantlingPowergeneration

Disposal

Coal

2.02E-07

7.25E-04

3.15E-06

2.27E-09

Crude oil (fuel)1.89E-03

1.37E-04

2.38E-04

1.32E-08

Natural gas

2.90E-02

1.71E-05

1.65E-01

1.30E-09

Uranium

1.37E-11

1.63E-09

2.13E-10

1.54E-13

Iron

7.40E-04

Nickel

1.51E-08

Chrome2.75E-07

Manganese

3.93E-06

Mountain gravel

7.58E-05

Lime stone

1.21E-03

CO2

1.07E-01

2.82E-03

4.64E-01

5.22E-08

SOx

2.81E-06

9.51E-07

8.61E-08

2.63E-11

NOx

1.35E-04

1.76E-06

1.12E-04

4.77E-11

CH4

4.01E-04

4.33E-09

5.72E-10

7.55E-12PM10

1.95E-06

4.38E-07

4.02E-09

8.90E-13

COD

2.24E-07

General waste
Soil(estimated fixedvalue if amount is
unknown)

7.80E-06

Molten slag

2.24E-04

34

2.48E-05

Table 4.3-2 LCI analysis result for LNG thermal power generation(1300ºC level combined cycle)

Environmental emission load

Consumption load

[Unit: kg/kWh]

Depletedresources

Outdooratmosphere

Operation

Fuelprocurement

Construction
anddismantlingPowergeneration

Disposal

Coal

1.71E-07

4.42E-04

1.25E-06

4.92E-10

Crude oil (fuel)1.60E-03

8.90E-05

1.19E-04

2.87E-09

Natural gas

2.45E-02

1.06E-05

1.40E-01

2.82E-10

Uranium

1.16E-11

1.00E-09

8.47E-11

3.32E-14

Iron

4.44E-04

Nickel

9.03E-09

Chrome

1.65E-07

Manganese

2.35E-06

Mountain gravel

5.03E-05

Lime stone

8.00E-04

CO2

9.07E-02

1.76E-03

3.77E-01

1.13E-08

SOx

2.38E-06

5.95E-07

4.12E-08

5.70E-12

NOx

1.14E-04

1.12E-06

6.54E-05

1.03E-11

CH4

3.39E-04

2.66E-09

2.27E-10

8.87E-14

PM10

1.65E-06

2.79E-07

1.93E-09

1.92E-13

Water

COD

Soil

(estimated fixed value
if amount is unknown)

3.59E-08

General waste
2.98E-06

Molten slag

1.34E-04

35

5.38E-06

Table 4.3-3 LCI analysis result for coal thermal power generation

Environmental emission load

Consumption load

[Unit: kg/kWh]

Depletedresources

Outdooratmosphere

Operation

Fuelprocurement

Construction
anddismantlingPowergeneration

Disposal

Coal

3.04E-04

5.44E-04

3.62E-01

1.57E-07

Crude oil (fuel)6.38E-03

1.03E-04

6.17E-04

9.12E-07

Natural gas

2.46E-04

1.28E-05

1.34E-05

8.97E-08

Uranium

2.06E-08

1.22E-09

9.08E-10

1.06E-11

Iron

5.61E-04

Nickel

1.14E-08

Chrome2.08E-07

Manganese

2.97E-06

Mountain gravel

5.40E-05

Lime stone

8.60E-04

5.09E-03

CO2

2.40E-02

2.10E-03

8.89E-01

3.59E-06

SOx

2.29E-05

7.09E-07

1.33E-04

1.81E-09

NOx

4.76E-05

1.32E-06

6.75E-05

3.29E-09

CH4

2.01E-03

3.23E-09

2.43E-09

2.82E-11

PM10

3.21E-06

3.24E-07

2.58E-06

6.13E-11

Water

COD

Soil

(estimated fixed value
if amount is unknown)

1.24E-07

General waste
7.00E-06

Molten slag

1.69E-04

36

1.71E-03

Table 4.3-4 LCI analysis result for oil thermal power generation

Environmental emission load

Consumption load

[Unit: kg/kWh]

Depletedresources

Outdooratmosphere

Water

Operation

Fuelprocurement

Construction
anddismantlingPowergeneration

Disposal

Coal

1.88E-07

2.59E-03

7.15E-06

9.87E-08

Crude oil (fuel)1.76E-03

4.82E-04

2.49E-01

5.75E-07

Natural gas

2.74E-05

6.11E-05

5.52E-06

5.65E-08

Uranium

1.28E-11

5.80E-09

4.84E-10

6.67E-12

Iron

2.65E-03

Nickel

5.39E-08

Chrome

9.84E-07

Manganese

1.41E-05

Mountain gravel

2.65E-04

Lime stone

4.22E-03

CO2

1.25E-02

9.99E-03

6.56E-01

2.27E-06

SOx

2.61E-06

3.38E-06

1.23E-04

1.14E-09

NOx

1.27E-05

6.23E-06

4.65E-05

2.07E-09

CH4

3.42E-11

1.54E-08

1.30E-09

1.78E-11

PM10

1.55E-06

1.55E-06

1.67E-06

3.86E-11

COD

3.43E-07

General waste
Soil(estimated fixedvalue if amount is
unknown)

1.96E-05

Molten slag

8.01E-04

37

1.08E-03

Table 4.3-5 LCI analysis result for nuclear power generation

Environmental emission load

Consumption load

[Unit: kg/kWh]

Depletedresources

Outdooratmosphere

Water

Operation

Fuelprocurement

Construction
anddismantlingPowergeneration

Disposal

Coal

1.73E-03

1.12E-03

1.89E-07

1.12E-04

Crude oil (fuel)1.96E-04

1.81E-04

2.13E-07

1.11E-04

Natural gas

7.63E-04

3.33E-05

9.48E-08

2.25E-05

Uranium

5.63E-07

3.58E-09

2.70E-06

2.87E-09

Iron

1.06E-03

6.09E-05

Nickel

2.16E-08

1.24E-09

Chrome

3.94E-07

2.26E-08

Manganese

5.63E-06

3.23E-07

Mountain gravel

1.55E-04

1.44E-05

Lime stone

2.46E-03

2.29E-04

CO2

1.07E-02

4.53E-03

1.47E-06

8.04E-04

SOx

7.96E-06

1.57E-06

1.12E-09

4.24E-07

NOx

7.89E-06

2.88E-06

8.90E-10

7.99E-07

CH4

6.21E-08

9.53E-09

3.43E-11

7.68E-09

PM10

6.71E-07

7.84E-07

4.82E-11

1.22E-07

COD

1.16E-08

General waste
Soil(estimated fixedvalue if amount is
unknown)

5.33E-07

Molten slag

3.20E-04

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

1.84E-05

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method
based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization, damage
assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment are listed inTable 5.1-1.

38

Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant creation











Ozone layer depletion

Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste



Land use

5.2

Result of impact assessment

5.2.1
Characterization
Figures 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 show characterization of each mode of power generation in terms of global
warming and acidification, respectively.
As shown in Figure 5.2-1, when compared with LNG thermal power generation (1100C level CC), theglobal warming effect was reduced by 16% in LNG thermal power generation (1300ºC level CC). Coalthermal power generation had the strongest impact on global warming, followed by oil thermal power and
LNG thermal power generation. Nuclear power generation had a low impact on global warming(approximately 3% of LNG thermal power generation (1300ºC level CC), the type of thermal power
generation that had the lowest impact on global warming) as there is no CO2 emission at the time of power
generation.
As shown in Figure 5.2-2, when compared to the use of LNG thermal power (1100ºC level CC), theacidification effect was reduced by 27% when LNG thermal power (1300ºC level CC) was used to generate
power. Coal thermal power generation had the strongest impact on acidification, followed by LNG
thermal power (1100ºC level CC), oil thermal power, and LNG thermal power (1300ºC level CC)
generation in this order.
Nuclear power generation had a low impact on acidification (approximately 14% of LNG thermal power
generation (1300ºC level CC), the type of thermal power that had the lowest impact on acidification)
because there is no NOx or SOx emission at the time of power generation.

39

Since there is no SOx emission at the time of power generation using LNG thermal power,
acidification was mainly caused by NOx. Meanwhile, when power was generated using coal or oil
thermal power, acidification was attributed to both SOx (SO2) and NOx, and between them, SOx(SO2) had a particularly strong impact on acidification.
3.0E-04

1.2
MetｈaneSO2

CO2

Result of characterization(acidification)

Result of characterization(global warming)

1.0

0.8

16%

0.6

0.4

0.2

2.0E-0427%

1.5E-04

1.0E-04

5.0E-05

0.0E+00

0.0
LNG
LNG
(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)

Figure 5.2-1

5.2.2

Nox

2.5E-04

Coal

Oil

Nuclearpower

Result of characterization(global warming)

LNG
LNG(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)

Figure 5.2-2

Coal

Oil

Result of characterization(acidification)

Damage assessment

Figures 5.2-3 through 5.2-6 show the assessment result of damage (by substance) to 4 areas ofprotection.
In the area of human health (Figure 5.2-3), coal thermal power generation had a stronger adverse
effect than oil thermal power generation, but in the area of social assets (Figure 5.2-4), the result was
the other way around. This is because, while CO2 influences human health more than social assets,
crude oil consumption has a stronger impact on social assets than human health. In the areas ofprimary production (Figure 5.2-5) and biodiversity (Figure 5.2-6), coal thermal power generation
had a prominent impact.

40

Nuclear
power

1.4

Damage assessment result (social
assets)[Yen/kWh]

2.00E-07
1.80E-07

Damage assessment result (humanhealth)[DALY/kWh]

1.60E-07

1.40E-07
1.20E-07
1.00E-07
8.00E-08
6.00E-08

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

4.00E-08

LNG
LNG(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)

2.00E-08

Coal

Oil

Nuclear
power

0.00E+00

LNG
LNG(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)

CO2

Nox

Figure 5.2-3

Coal

MethaneOil

SO2

Nuclear
power

PM10

CO2

Natural gass

Nox

Crude oil

MethaneMolten slag

General waste

SO2

Iron

Coal

NickelUranium

Figure 5.2-4

Damage assessment
result (human health)

Damage assessment result(social assets)

9.0E-03

Nox

SO2

Damage assessment result(biodiversity) [EINES/kWh]

Damage assessment result (primary
production)[NPP/kWh]8.0E-03
7.0E-03
6.0E-035.0E-03
4.0E-033.0E-032.0E-03

1.0E-03
0.0E+00
LNG
LNG(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)

Coallime stone

General waste

Figure 5.2-5

Coal

Mountain gravel

Iron

Manganese

Oil

Nuclear
power

Molten slag

0.0E+00
LNG
LNG(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)
Molten slag

Coal

Mountain gravel Manganese

ChromeDamage assessment result(primary production)

Figure 5.2-6

41

Coal

Oil

General waste

Lime stone

ChromeNickelNuclear
power
Iron

Damage assessment result(biodiversity)

5.2.3WeightingFigure 5.2-7 shows the consolidated study
result (by substance) for each mode of power
generation.

5.0
4.5

4.44

Weighting result [JPY/ｋWh]4.0
3.5
Consolidated social cost, or environmental
3.0
impact, of each mode of power generation
2.18
1.78
2.5
was: approximately 2.18 yen/kWh for LNG
2.0
about 20%
thermal power generation (1100ºC level CC);
1.5
approximately 1.78 yen/kWh for LNG thermal
1.0
power generation (1300ºC level CC);
0.5
approximately 4.44 yen/kWh for coal thermal
0.0
LNG
LNG
Coal
power generation; approximately 3.28
(1100℃CC) (1300℃CC)
yen/kWh for oil thermal power generation;
Uranium
Iron
Lime stone
and approximately 0.10 yen/kWh for nuclear
Coal
Molten slag
PM10
power generation. Also, the value for LNG
Crude oil
MethaneNox
thermal power generation (1300ºC level CC)
CO2
was lower than that of LNG thermal power
generation (1100ºC level CC) by approximately 20%.

3.28

0.10
Oil

Nuclear
power
General waste
SO2
Natural gass

Substances that had a high environmental impact were CO2 and fuels (coal, crude oil, and naturalgas), and there was also an environmental impact of SOx (SO2) emissions caused by coal and oil
combustion.
For the environmental impact of each mode of power generation, Figure 5.2-8 shows the impact on
power generation-related processes, and Figure 5.2-9 shows the impact on the areas of influence.
For the power generation-related processes, the environmental impact of thermal power generation
was predominately attributed to the actual power generation process (accounting for approximately
80 to 90%). Meanwhile, nuclear power generation had a relatively high environmental effectduring the fuel procurement process (CO2 emission due to the use of overseas power).

For the areas of influence, thermal power generation had significant impacts on global warming(mostly attributed to CO2 emission) and consumption of non-living resources (mostly attributed tofuel consumption). Furthermore, coal and oil thermal power generation had an impact on air
pollution in urban areas (mostly attributed to SOx emission).

42

5.0

4.5

4.5

4.0

4.0

3.5

3.5

3.0

3.0

weighting result [JPY/ｋWh]

Weighting result [JPY/ｋWh]

5.0

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

0.5

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

0.0
LNG
(1100℃CC)

LNG(1300℃CC)

Disposal
Construction and dismantling

Figure 5.2-8

Coal

Oil

Nuclearpower

Power generation
Fuel procurement

Weighting result (by process)6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of study result

LNG(1100℃CC)

LNG(1300℃CC)

Coal

Oil

Nuclear power

Waste

Air pollution in urban areas

Eutrophication

Acidification

Global warming

Non-living resources

Figure 5.2-9

Weighting result(by area of influence)

The environmental impact of the power generation business was assessed for each of the major
modes of power generation (LNG thermal power, coal thermal power, oil thermal power, and nuclear
power generation) while taking into account the business life cycle (fuel procurement, power plant
construction, operation, and demolition). This study also confirmed that, through the comparisonof the environmental impact between LNG thermal power generation (1100ºC level CC) and LNG
thermal power generation (1300ºC level CC), improvement of power generation efficiency resulted
in reduction of the environmental impact.
The weighting environmental impact of each mode of power generation was: approximately 2.18
yen/kWh for LNG thermal power generation (1100ºC level CC); approximately 1.78 yen/kWh for
LNG thermal power generation (1300ºC level CC); approximately 4.44 yen/kWh for coal thermal
power generation; approximately 3.28 yen/kWh for oil thermal power generation; and approximately
0.10 yen/kWh for nuclear power generation. The environmental impact of nuclear power
generation in comparison with the others was thus significant. Also, this result confirmed that
improvement of LNG thermal power generation efficiency (1100ºC level CC  1300ºC level CC)
could reduce the environmental impact by approximately 20%.

43

The size of an environmental impact (or a social cost) was, assuming that the electricity rate was 20
yen/kWh, approximately 10% of the charge in LNG thermal power generation (1100ºC level CC),
approximately 9% of the charge in LNG thermal power generation (1300ºC level CC),
approximately 22% in coal thermal power generation, approximately 16% in oil thermal power
generation, and approximately 0.5% in nuclear power generation. Also, the weighting social cost
(obtained from the FY2006 power production ratios, excluding hydro-electric power generation) wasapproximately 2.43 yen/kWh, which was approximately 12% of the electricity charge.

44

When the weighting result was reviewed in terms of process and area of impact, the environmental
impact of the thermal power generation phase (mostly global warming, followed by air pollution in
urban areas and consumption of non-living resources) accounted for a large part of the total power
generation-related environmental impact.
In the power generation business, CO2 emission during power generation had a large impact on
global warming; therefore, introduction of nuclear power or high efficiency LNG thermal power toreduce CO2 emission during power generation would be the most effective measures to reduce theenvironmental impact.

6.2

Limitations of study result

For the assessment in this study, FY2006 power plant performance data of CHUBU Electric Powerwas used as a model case. The scope of assessment covered important processes in the power
generation business; therefore, study results should have high validity.
Also, because it was difficult to obtain detailed background data on fuel procurement, power plant
construction, and power plant dismantling (amount of material used in facilities), estimated values
were obtained from the studies by Hondo et al1) 2). This should not affect the assessment results as,
when the power generation business was summarized, the environmental impact was observed
predominantly in the power generation phase.

References1)

2)

Hiroki Hondo, et al: “Power Generation Technology Assessment based on Life Cycle CO2Emission: Re-estimation Using the Latest Data and the Influence of Differences inPreconditions,” Study Report Y99009, Socio-Economic Research Center, Central ResearchInstitute of Electric Power Industry (2000).
Hiroki Hondo: “Nuclear Power Generation Technology Assessment based on Life Cycle CO2Emission,” Study Report Y01006, Socio-Economic Research Center, Central Research Instituteof Electric Power Industry (2001).

45

Report on"Environmental Impact Comparison of
Toilet Care using an Automatic Urine
Collector"

May 2008
Unicharm Corporation

46

1.

General Information

1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

Environmental Promotion Office, CSR Department, Unicharm Corporation
Nobuaki Kosugi
nobuaki-kosugi@unicharm.co.jp

Report preparation date

May 30, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Identify environmental impacts associated with toilet care for a one-day period, and determine theenvironmental load of toilet care that uses the automatic urine collector currently under joint
development with Hitachi, Ltd. compared with conventional toilet care using only disposable paper
diapers.

2.2

Application of study result

In addition to determining the environmental impacts of conventional toilet care using disposable
diapers and urine collection pads (hereinafter referred to as "conventional toilet care system") andtoilet care using the automatic urine collector and pads specially designed for the use with theautomatic urine collector (hereinafter referred to as "toilet care system using an automatic urine
collector"), clarify processes that are important for improving the environmental impacts and provide
information for improvements to be made in the designing process. Also, use the result broadly asa means of communication, such as to convey information to help customers in selecting products.

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

Toilet care for a one-day period using tape fastening-type adult disposable diapers that are
manufactured, used and disposed of within Japan, the automatic urine collector, and pads speciallydesigned for the use with the automatic urine collector; conventional toilet care for a one-day periodusing tape fastening-type adult disposable diapers and urine collection pads.

47

3.2

Functions and functional unit

"Toilet care" in this report refers to toilet assistance provided to individuals who have difficultyusing the toilet by themselves due to sickness, injury or old age and require some form of help. In
this study, toilet care required for such an individual in a one-day period was specified as thefunctional unit, and an analysis was performed on the environmental impacts of disposable diapers
and pads used for providing the required care.
A conventional toilet care system uses a combination of disposable diapers and urine collection pads.
The system is designed so that only the urine collection pad needs to be changed each time thepatient urinates, reducing the number of diaper changes required and thus helping reduce the burdens
on caregivers as well as on the environment.
Unicharm is currently developing a toilet care system using an automatic urine collector jointly with
Hitachi, Ltd. to further reduce the burdens on caregivers and impacts on the environment. Whiledisposable diapers are also used in the toilet care system using an automatic urine collector as in theconventional system, the new system involves a urine collection pad with an attached sensor andpipe that is connected to a pump. When the sensor detects urine, it sends a signal to start the small
pump, which suctions the urine through the pipe and into a tank.
The functional unit of each system is: Conventional toilet care system: for a one-day period
Tape fastening-type adult disposable diapers  2 / urine collection pads x 6
 Toilet care system using an automatic urine collector: for a one-day period
Tape fastening-type adult disposable diapers  2 / specially designed pads x 2 / automaticurine collector
The study covers the entire life cycle of each system. For the toilet care system using an automaticurine collector, the assessment was conducted on the assumption that tape fastening-type adultdisposable diapers and pads designed for the use with the automatic urine collector are incinerated
for disposal after use. Collected urine is disposed of into a toilet once a day. "Products" refers to
products manufactured by Unicharm and includes three items: tape fastening-type adult disposable
diapers, urine collection pads, and pads designed for the use with the automatic urine collector.

3.3

System boundary

The system boundary encompasses the raw material extraction, production, use and disposal stages(Figure 3.2-1).

48

Figure 3.2-1 Schematic diagram of system boundary

49

3.4

Special notes (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

While the assessment took into consideration the environmental load of the automatic urine collector
during its use stage, environmental impacts associated with the production and disposal of the urine
collector are not covered in this assessment.
Due to the high confidentiality of information on the manufacturing technology of pads used withthe automatic urine collector, which is still under review at the present time, we have decided not torelease data related to the assembly stage of products (tape fastening-type adult disposable diapers,
pads designed for the use with the automatic urine collector, and urine collection pads) in this report.
For this reason, the product production stage was excluded from the scope of the assessment in orderto adjust the system boundary to be the same for both toilet care systems.
Similarly, the transportation stage was excluded from the assessment of both systems for the purposeof adjusting the system boundary, as the shipping volumes and transportation distances are notdetermined at this time.

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

Data used in this assessment are actual measurements taken on representative materials,
which were referenced from the results of studies on the environmental impact of materials
conducted with the material suppliers and subsidiaries of Unicharm in 2002 and 2004.
Data on the energy consumption of the automatic urine collector were obtained with thecooperation of Hitachi, Ltd.

4.2

Background data

For the incineration disposal stage, the assessment was conducted using data on generalwaste (mainly plastic waste) incinerators obtained from the database compiled by the JapanLCA Forum.

Data on the advanced wastewater treatment process were provided byProfessor Muroyama and others 1), and all other background data were sourced from
Jemai-LCA Pro.

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Table 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 represent the list of items covered in the inventory analyses andthe analysis results for the conventional toilet care system, the toilet care system using an
automatic urine collector, and the toilet care system using an automatic urine collector
combined with advanced wastewater treatment. The unit for all three cases is specified asusage for a one-day period.
Table 4.3-1 Result of LCI analysis of conventional toilet care system (unit: kg/day)50Impact of emission/discharge tothe environment

Impact of resource
consumption

Production

Exhaustible
resources

Renewable
resourcesTo
atmosphere

To watersystem
To soilsystemDistribution

Use

Disposal--

0.00E+00

1.80E-03

5.62E-01--

0.00E+00

1.06E-03

Natural gas

4.31E-02--

0.00E+00

8.37E-04

U content of an ore

Rawmaterial

Product

Coal

6.41E-02

Crude oil (for fuel)2.09E-06--

0.00E+00

1.58E-07

Wood

-

-

-

-

-

Water

-

-

-

-

-

CO2

1.63E+00--

0.00E+00

1.36E-02

SOx

1.12E-03--

0.00E+00

3.40E-04

NOx

4.75E-03--

0.00E+00

7.63E-04

PM10

1.11E-04--

0.00E+00

6.60E-05

COD

5.59E-03--

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

T-P

0.00E+00--

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

T-N

0.00E+00--

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

Unspecified solid waste

4.60E-02--

0.00E+00

9.65E-02

Sludge2.66E-04--

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

Table 4.3-2 Result of LCI analysis of toilet care system using an automatic urine collector(unit: kg/day)

Impact of emission/discharge tothe environment

Impact of resource
consumption

Production

Exhaustible
resources

Renewable
resourcesTo
atmosphere

To watersystem
To soilsystemDistribution

Use

Disposal--

5.18E-03

1.23E-03

3.50E+00--

9.61E-04

6.50E-04

Natural gas

3.00E-02--

2.41E-03

6.07E-04

U content of an ore

1.61E-06--

4.56E-07

1.08E-07

Wood

-

-

-

-

-

Water

-

-

-

-

-

CO2

1.59E+00--

2.38E-02

8.73E-03

SOx

7.56E-04--

3.76E-06

1.82E-04

NOx

2.35E-03--

9.91E-06

4.08E-04

PM10

4.57E-05--

0.00E+00

3.51E-05

COD

2.42E-03--

0.00E+00

6.00E-05

T-P

0.00E+00--

0.00E+00

7.44E-06

T-N

0.00E+00--

0.00E+00

8.46E-05

Unspecified solid waste

1.89E-02--

0.00E+00

5.14E-02

Sludge2.24E-04--

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

Raw
material

Product

Coal

3.56E-02

Crude oil (for fuel)51

Table 4.3-3 Result of LCI analysis of toilet care system using an automatic urine collector(combined with advanced wastewater treatment system) (unit: kg/day)consumption
the environment

Impact of emission/discharge to

Impact of resource

Production

Exhaustible
resources

Renewable
resourcesTo
atmosphere

To watersystem
To soilsystemDistribution

Use

Disposal--

5.18E-03

1.31E-03

4.47E-01--

9.61E-04

6.85E-04

Natural gas

2.97E-02--

2.41E-03

6.11E-04

U content of an ore

1.55E-06--

4.56E-07

1.15E-07

Wood

-

-

-

-

-

Water

-

-

-

-

-

CO2

1.19E+00--

2.38E-02

1.00E-02

SOx

5.28E-04--

3.76E-06

1.81E-04

NOx

2.03E-03--

9.91E-06

4.08E-04

PM10

4.57E-05--

0.00E+00

3.51E-05

COD

2.42E-03--

0.00E+00

3.18E-05

T-P

0.00E+00--

0.00E+00

3.00E-07

T-N

0.00E+00--

0.00E+00

3.42E-05

Unspecified solid waste

1.89E-02--

0.00E+00

5.14E-02

Sludge2.24E-04--

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

Raw
material

Product

Coal

3.48E-02

Crude oil (for fuel)

52

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Method based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization,
damage assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment
are listed in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication











Ozone layer depletion

Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste



Land use53

5.2

Result of impact assessment
5.2.1

Characterization

The characterization results of the environmental impacts of the conventional toilet care system, thetoilet care system using an automatic urine collector, and the toilet care system using an automaticurine collector combined with advanced wastewater treatment are laid out in Figure 5.2-1, 5.2-2 and5.2-3 respectively for the categories of resource consumption, waste and eutrophication. In the
category of energy resource consumption, most impacts are associated with material production as
well as crude oil consumption attributable to the materials used, and the result indicates thatchanging from the conventional toilet care system to the toilet care system using an automatic urine
collector would have a considerable effect in reducing the impacts. For the toilet care system using
an automatic urine collector, there was a concern over the potential negative impacts associated withthe treatment of high-concentration wastewater due to the fact that all urine collected in an entire day
would be disposed of in a toilet at once. Advanced wastewater treatment was therefore
incorporated into the impact assessment as a comparison to determine the impact of wastewater
treatment; however, the result indicates that there is little difference in impacts between the treatment
methods. The most significant effect of the system change is apparent in the impact category of
waste, and it is attributable to the reduced quantity of pads used in the toilet care. While thecategory of eutrophication shows the least difference between the impacts of the systems, the result
indicates that advanced wastewater treatment significantly reduces the emissions of phosphorus,
reducing the environmental impact as the result.

2.00E-04

3.00E+01

1.80E-04

Coal

2.50E+01

1.60E-04

Natural gas

1.40E-04

2.00E+01

1.20E-04
1.00E-04

1.50E+01

1.00E+01

Crude oil

8.00E-05

General

6.00E-05

waste

4.00E-05

5.00E+00

2.00E-05
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
従来排泄ケア原油

Figure 5.2-1

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
天然ガス
石炭

Characterization result (energy
resource consumption)

54

従来排泄ケア
採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
その他汚泥Figure 5.2-2

Characterization result(waste)3.00E-04

2.50E-04

2.00E-04

NOx

N tonal

P total

1.50E-04

1.00E-04

COD
5.00E-05

0.00E+00
従来排泄ケア
採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
COD
窒素酸化物
全リン
全窒素

Figure 5.2-3

5.2.2

Characterization result(eutrophication)

Damage assessment

The results of the damage assessment (breakdown by substance) for four safeguard subjects are laidout in Figure 5.2-4 through 5.2-7. While CO2 emissions constitute the largest impact on humanhealth, a significant impact reduction effect is achieved by reduced SOx emissions as the result of the
reduction in energy consumption. Most of the impact on biodiversity is attributable to generalwaste in association with the disposal of waste in landfills. For social welfare and primary
production, crude oil has a sizable impact in addition to CO2 and waste, and four substances
including these three and SOx are major contributors to the environmental impacts overall.

6.00E-07

3.50E-14

エラー!

Coal

3.00E-14

NOx

5.00E-07

PM

2.50E-14

4.00E-07

SO2

2.00E-14

General

3.00E-07
1.50E-14

2.00E-07

waste

1.00E-14CO2
1.00E-07

5.00E-15
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
従来排泄ケア二酸化炭素

Figure 5.2-4

二酸化硫黄

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
窒素酸化物

粒子状物質(PM10)

Result of damage assessment(human health) (unit: DAILY/day)55

従来排泄ケア

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)

一般廃棄物(不明・一律)

Figure 5.2-5

石炭

その他汚泥

Result of damage assessment(biodiversity) (unit: EINES/day)全窒素
N total
全リン
P total
ウラニウム
Uranium
COD
COD
その他汚泥
Other sludge
石炭
Coal
天然ガス
Natural gas
二酸化硫黄
Sulfur dioxide
窒素酸化物
Nitrogen oxide
二酸化炭素
Carbon dioxide
原油
Crude oil
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
General waste

7.00E+00

6.00E+00

5.00E+00

4.00E+00

6.00E-03

5.00E-03

SO2
NOx

4.00E-03

3.00E-03

Coal
3.00E+00

2.00E-03

General
2.00E+00

1.00E-03

1.00E+00

0.00E+00

waste

従来排泄ケア

0.00E+00
従来排泄ケアFigure 5.2-6

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)

Result of damage assessment(social welfare) (unit: YEN/day)

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)

一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
窒素酸化物
その他汚泥

Figure 5.2-7

石炭
二酸化硫黄

Result of damage assessment(primary production) (unit: kg/day)Figure 5.2-8 and 5.2-9 represent the breakdown of the result by process for the safeguard
subjects of human health and biodiversity, which yielded distinctive results in the damage
assessment. The impacts on human health occur mostly in the raw material production
stage, and it is assumed that the major causes of the damage are the emissions of CO2 andSOx generated due to energy consumption in association with the production of raw
materials. The damage to biodiversity is largely associated with the disposal stage, whichleads to an assumption that the impacts occur due to the disposal of incineration ash inlandfills after waste is incinerated. The impact category of eutrophication, which indicatedan impact reduction effect of advanced wastewater treatment in the characterization result,is found to have only a small effect on overall impacts in the result of this damage
assessment.

56

6.00E-07
5.00E-07

3.50E-14

Disposal

3.00E-14

4.00E-07
3.00E-07
2.00E-07use

2.50E-14
2.00E-14

Raw

1.50E-14

material

1.00E-14

1.00E-07

5.00E-15

0.00E+00
従来排泄ケア素材

Figure 5.2-8

Disposal

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
製造

物流

使用

0.00E+00

Raw
material
従来排泄ケア

廃棄素材

Result of damage assessment
by process (human health)(unit: DAILY/day)

57

Figure 5.2-9

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
製造

物流

使用

廃棄

Result of damage assessment
by process (biodiversity)(unit: EINES/day)5.2.3Weighting

The result of consolidating (by substance) for the three toilet care systems is shown in Figure 5.2-10.
Items that comprise large portions of the total life-cycle environmental impact are the emissions ofCO2, SOx, waste and crude oil, which is practically consistent for all three systems. Of these four
substances, the result indicates that the most significant effect in reducing the environmental impacts
comes from the reduction of waste emissions.
Figure 5.2-11 and 5.2-12 respectively represent the breakdown of the result by process and by
impact category. The breakdown by process in Figure 5.2-11 indicates that the raw material
production and disposal stages account for the most of the environmental impacts of all systems.
The reduction of materials used is resulting in reduced waste emissions, and the significant reductionin the environmental impacts is achieved through the reduced raw material use. The result also
confirms that only small environmental impacts occur in the use stage of the toilet care system using
an automatic urine collector compared with its overall life cycle impacts, and there is only a little
difference in the system's environmental impacts between the use with or without the advanced
wastewater treatment. From the result of consolidating by impact category, it is observed thatmajor environmental impacts associated with the toilet care systems are global warming, urban air
pollution, waste and non-biological resources consumption.
1.80E+01

1.80E+01

1.60E+01

1.60E+01
1.40E+01

1.40E+01

1.20E+01

1.20E+01

Disposaluse

1.00E+01

1.00E+01

8.00E+00

8.00E+00

6.00E+00

6.00E+00

4.00E+00

4.00E+00

2.00E+00

Raw
material

0.00E+00

2.00E+00

従来排泄ケア

0.00E+00
従来排泄ケア
二酸化炭素
CO2
二酸化硫黄
SO2
窒素酸化物
NOx
石炭
Coal
その他汚泥
Other sludge
全リン
P tonal

素材

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
General waste
原油
Crude oil
粒子状物質(PM10)
PM10
天然ガス
Natural gas
COD
COD
全窒素
N total

採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)
製造

物流

使用

廃棄

Figure 5.2-11 weighting result by process(unit: YEN/day)
1.80E+01
1.60E+01
1.40E+01
Waste
1.20E+01
Acidification
1.00E+01
Urban air pollution
8.00E+00
6.00E+00
Global
4.00E+00
2.00E+00
Non-biologicalresources
warming
0.00E+00
従来排泄ケア
採尿機排泄ケア 採尿機(高度処理)

Figure 5.2-10 weighting result by
substance (unit: YEN/day)

非生物系資源
酸性化
都市域大気汚染人間毒性(土壌)
生態毒性(土壌)

地球温暖化
富栄養化
人間毒性(大気)
生態毒性(大気)廃棄物

オゾン層破壊光化学オキシダント
人間毒性(水)生態毒性(水)
室内空気質汚染Figure 5.2-12 weighting result by impact
category (unit: YEN/day)58

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of study result

The assessment was conducted on the environmental impacts over the life cycle (raw material
production, use (average toilet care for a one-day period), and disposal) of three types of toilet caresystems: conventional toilet care system using disposable diapers, toilet care system using an
automatic urine collector, and toilet care system using an automatic urine collector combined withadvanced wastewater treatment. The environmental impacts in terms of social costs are calculated
to be approximately 16 yen for the conventional toilet care system, 9.8 yen for the toilet care systemusing an automatic urine collector, and 9.7 yen for the toilet care system using an automatic urine
collector combined with advanced wastewater treatment.
The assessment result confirmed that most of the environmental impacts associated with toilet carewould occur in the raw material production stage and the disposal stage after use. The emissions of
CO2 and SOx, disposal of waste in landfills and the consumption of crude oil would be the maincauses of the impacts, and major environmental impacts that would likely result from these causes
are global warming, urban air pollution, waste and non-biological resource consumption.
Considering the single-use nature of disposable diapers that are thrown away after one-time use,
reducing the environmental impacts in the raw material production stage by reducing the amount of
raw materials used would also lead to the reduction of environmental impacts in the disposal stage.
For toilet care using the automatic urine collector, reducing the use of raw materials through steps
taken in the use stage, such as the use of a pump to suction urine to reduce the number of diaper
changes needed, would provide a tradeoff between the use and raw material production stages.
From the perspective of environmental assessment, this would result in the reduction ofenvironmental load as it reduces the use of raw materials in the raw material production stage, which
is deemed to be responsible for the largest share of the total environmental impact.
The environmental impact of the use of advanced wastewater treatment was incorporated into theassessment of the toilet care system using an automatic urine collector, out of concern over the
impact of disposing of wastewater with higher than normal levels of contamination in a toilet byflushing down all urine collected in an entire day at once. However, the results found that the
impact of the disposal with a frequency as low as once a day would be minimal over the entire
environmental impacts, and the effect of advanced wastewater treatment in reducing environmental
impacts would also be small in the equivalent of about 0.1 yen in monetary value.
With regard to the stages excluded from the scope of this assessment (product production andtransportation), it can be assumed through consulting data from past studies that the environmental
impacts of the toilet care system using an automatic urine collector compared with that of theconventional toilet care system would also be smaller in these stages. Taking into consideration allthese aspects, the utility of the toilet care system using an automatic urine collector in theenvironmental context has been confirmed.

59

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

The completeness of the assessment and the validity of the assessment result are deemed adequate inview of the fact that the assessment covers important processes (raw material production, use anddisposal) that are responsible for over 90% of the environmental load according to the results of pastlife cycle assessments on disposable diapers. However, considering the circumstance that the
production method of the products used in the toilet care system using an automatic urine collector
differs greatly from that of the conventional toilet care system, the assessment of the processes
excluded from the scope of this assessment (product production and transportation) as well as theanalysis of the assessment result should also be conducted once the production technology has been
established and the scenario for the transportation stage has been developed.

Acknowledgments
We extend our sincere appreciation to Mr. Tanaka of Hitachi, Ltd. for his cooperation in obtaining
inventory data on the automatic urine collector, all concerned members of the LCA Japan Forum forproviding us with this opportunity, members of the study committee office of the Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry for undertaking coordination work behind thescenes, members of the LIME2 study working group for sharing various views with us, Professor
Norihiro Itsubo of the Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City University forleading the working group and providing us with generous instructions, and Mr. Masaharu Motoshitaof the Research Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability, the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology for assisting us in preparing this report and with our inquiries on
LCA in general.

References
1)

Katsuhiko Muroyama et al. (2006): Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for an Advanced Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Research Paper, Organization for Research and Development of
Innovative Science and Technology, vol. 21, P178-185

60

Report on"Environmental Impact Comparison
between Synthetic and Natural Adhesives
for Wood-Based Materials"

May 2008
Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd.

61

1.

General Information

1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

Kyoto Research & Development Laboratory, Urban Infrastructure andEnvironmental Products Company, Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd.
Koshiro Nakajima
nakajima016@sekisui.jp

Report preparation date

May 30, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Through a LCA, assess the environmental impacts of a conventional petroleum-derived synthetic
adhesive for wood-based materials and a newly developed adhesive produced from natural raw
materials, and determine the environmental performance of the adhesives.

2.2

Application of study result

Determine the environmental performance of a newly developed adhesive produced from natural
raw materials. Clarify processes that are important for improving the environmental impacts andprovide information for improvements to be made in the designing and production processes.

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

Adhesive for wood-based materials that is produced, used and disposed of within Japan (weight: 1
kg).

3.2

Functions and functional unit

"Recycled engineered wood (trade name: Sekisui Chemical "EcoValue Wood")" is assumed as the
subject wood-based material for this assessment, with the requirement to meet the following two
criteria as the functional unit:(1) Quality standard for adhesion-molded wood-based framing materials(2) Standard strength for SPF No. 2 grade
In other words, the function was defined to allow the development of certain quality variations andprescribed adhesive strength when the adhesive is used for wood-based materials.

3.3

System boundary

The assessment covers the resource extraction stage through the production stage (Figure
3.2-1).

62

Figure 3.2-1 Adhesive and wood-based building material product system and systemboundary

3.4

Special notes (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

For the conventional synthetic adhesive, this environmental assessment uses literature data 1) on
inventory analyses covering up to the production stage. The system boundary is therefore specified
as the resource extraction stage through the production stage.
The assessment does not factor in the environmental impacts occurring in the overseas transportation
stage for the reason that LIME2 is intended for application within Japan.

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

The result of a research conducted by Sawada et al. 1) was used for the assessment of theconventional petroleum-derived synthetic adhesive (API: aqueous polymer isocyanate). Data basedon actual measurements taken at the company plants were used for the adhesive produced fromnatural raw materials (tannin adhesive). "Recycled engineered wood (trade name: Sekisui
Chemical "EcoValue Wood")" was assumed as the subject wood-based material for the assessment,
and data collected at the company plants were used for the foreground data.

4.2

Background data

The database and optional "data pack" 3) of LCA software "JEMAI-Pro" 2) provided by the Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry were used in this assessment.

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Table 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 represent the list of items covered in the inventory analyses and the analysis
results of the API adhesive (1 kg) and tannin adhesive (1 kg).

63

Table 4.3-1 Result of LCI analysis of API adhesive (unit: kg/kg)
Production
Resources

Air

Water

Industrial

No.

Name

Unit

Total

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5

Al
Cu
PB
U
Zn
silica sandCoal for fuelCoal for material
Crude oil
Natural gas
Lime stone
CO2
As
CH4
Cd
Cr
Hg
N2O
NMHC
NOx
NOx（mobile emission source）
Ni
PM10（mobile emission source）
Pb
SO2
SOx
Dust
Dust（mobile emission source）
As
BOD
Cd
Cr
Hg
Rubble(landfill)
Low level radioactive waste
Plastic waste(landfill)
Industrial/landfill waste
Slag(landfill)

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

5.05E-07
1.05E-07
3.85E-09
2.66E-06
2.14E-08
3.12E-08
4.18E-02
1.47E-07
4.76E-01
2.85E-02
6.63E-05
8.97E-01
2.52E-09
4.36E-05
2.08E-10
4.59E-09
3.04E-09
3.73E-05
5.55E-06
4.28E-04
6.31E-05
5.15E-09
4.62E-06
1.21E-08
8.50E-04
7.18E-05
1.01E-04
1.35E-05
5.02E-12
1.02E-04
7.52E-13
1.50E-11
5.02E-13
1.56E-10
1.86E-06
7.88E-11
6.23E-09
2.02E-07Note) The values were calculated based on literature 1) data.

64

Table 4.3-2 Result of LCI analysis of tannin adhesive (unit: kg/kg)

Resources

Air

Industrial

Raw material

Production

Powdered tannin
production

Adhesive
production

No.

Name

Unit

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Al
Cu
PB
U
Zn
silica sandCoal for fuelCoal for material
Crude oil
Natural gas
Lime stone
CO2
As
CH4
Cd
Cr
Hg
N2O
NMHC
NOx
NOx（mobile emission source）
Ni
PM10（mobile emission
source）
Pb
SO2
SOx
Dust
Dust（mobile emission source）
Hydrocarbon
As
BOD
Cd
Cr
Hg
Rubble(landfill)
Low level radioactive waste
Plastic waste(landfill)
Industrial/landfill waste
Slag(landfill)

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.97E-07
1.03E-07
3.79E-09
7.97E-07
2.10E-08
3.07E-08
2.37E-02
1.45E-07
9.43E-02
3.60E-02
5.08E-06
3.69E-01
7.51E-10
7.46E-06
6.21E-11
1.37E-09
9.07E-10
1.93E-05
1.66E-06
1.42E-04
7.91E-05
1.54E-09kg

6.55E-06

4.16E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

3.60E-09
1.45E-04
2.82E-05
2.54E-05
9.70E-09
1.81E-05
4.93E-12
6.74E-06
7.40E-13
1.48E-11
4.93E-13
1.54E-10
5.57E-07
7.75E-11
6.13E-09
1.99E-07

3.60E-09
1.42E-04
2.69E-05
2.27E-05
9.70E-09
1.28E-05
4.93E-12
6.74E-06
7.40E-13
1.48E-11
4.93E-13
1.54E-10
5.57E-07
7.75E-11
6.13E-09
1.99E-07

12

Water

Total

13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5

65

2.56E-11

1.09E-06
2.61E-02
3.60E-04
8.29E-02
2.84E-11

1.35E-06
2.39E-05
3.41E-05
5.80E-05

1.27E-06

4.97E-07
1.03E-07
3.79E-09
7.97E-07
2.10E-08
3.07E-08
2.37E-02
1.45E-07
6.83E-02
3.57E-02
5.08E-06
2.87E-01
7.51E-10
7.46E-06
6.21E-11
1.37E-09
9.07E-10
1.79E-05
1.66E-06
1.18E-04
4.49E-05
1.54E-09

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Method based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization,
damage assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment
are listed in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant creation







*

*

Ozone layer depletion

Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste
Land use**: Not covered in the LIME calculation sheet-: No coefficients by LIME

66

5.2

Result of impact assessment
5.2.1

Characterization

The characterization results of the environmental impacts of the API adhesive and tannin adhesive inthe categories of resource (energy) consumption and acidification are laid out in Figure 5.2-1 and5.2-2. While the consumption of natural gas associated with the tannin adhesive has a larger
impact in the category of energy consumption, there is little difference in the total impacts between
the two types of adhesives. In the acidification category, the emission of nitrogen oxide during the
production of ingredients for the API adhesive is resulting in a significant impact, of which
environmental load amounts to more than twice that of the tannin adhesive. Similar results wereobtained for other impact categories such as global warming and eutrophication, which indicated that
the API adhesive has more than twice the load of the tannin adhesive. The result of
characterization in the mineral consumption category confirmed that the environmental load of thetannin adhesive, which is made of natural raw materials, is approximately 1/3 of that of the API
adhesive. These results suggest the superiority of tanning adhesive in environmental performance.

4.50E-04

3.00E+00
Natural gas

Coal

SO2
NOx

4.00E-04

2.50E+00

3.50E-04
3.00E-04

2.00E+00

2.50E-04

1.50E+00

2.00E-04

1.50E-04

1.00E+00

1.00E-04

5.00E-01

5.00E-05
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
ＡＰＩ adhesive

Figure 5.2-1

ＡＰＩ adhesive

Tannin adhesive

Characterization result(energy consumption)

Figure 5.2-2

67

Tannin adhesive

Characterization result(acidification)

5.2.2

Damage assessment

The results of the damage assessment (breakdown by substance) for four safeguard subjects are laidout in Figure 5.2-3 through 5.2-6. The amounts of impacts on human health and social welfare
shown in the results indicate large differences of more than two times between the two adhesives.
A similar tendency can also be observed in the results for primary production and biodiversity, where
the tannin adhesive is found to be superior to the API adhesive. The reason for such differences
can be attributable to the production of synthetic ingredients for the API adhesive, which involves
larger impacts compared to using tannin made of natural ingredients.
2.00E-07

7.00E-01
Methane

1.80E-07

N 2O

6.00E-01

NOx

1.60E-07

PM10
1.40E-07

5.00E-01

SO2[DALY/f.u.]

1.20E-07[JPY/f.u.]

CO2

1.00E-07

CO2

Natural gas

NOx

N 2O

SO2

Coal

U

CH4

Cu

Zn

4.00E-01

3.00E-01

8.00E-08
6.00E-08

2.00E-01
4.00E-08

1.00E-01

2.00E-08
0.00E+00

ＡＰＩ adhesive

0.00E+00

Tannin adhesive

ＡＰＩ adhesive

Figure 5.2-5Result of damage assessment(primary production)

1.20E-03

mountain gravel

Pb

4.50E-16

Zn

4.00E-16

AlCu

3.50E-16[EINES/f.u.][kg/f.u.]

8.00E-04

Result of damage
assessment (biodiversity)

5.00E-16

mountain gravel
Pb
Zn
Al
Cu
Lime stone
SO2
NOX
Coal

1.00E-03

Figure 5.2-6

Tannin adhesive

6.00E-04

4.00E-04

Lime stone
Coal

3.00E-16
2.50E-16
2.00E-16
1.50E-16
1.00E-16

2.00E-04

5.00E-17
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

ＡＰＩ adhesive

Figure 5.2-3

Tannin adhesive

ＡＰＩ adhesive

Result of damage
assessment (human health)68

Figure 5.2-4

Tannin adhesive

Result of damage assessment(social welfare)[DALY/f.u.]

Figure 5.2-7 and 5.2-8 represent the breakdown of the results by process for human health, in whicha large difference was confirmed between the impacts of the API adhesive and tannin adhesive, andfor primary production, which presented a smaller difference. For the tannin adhesive, the "rawmaterial" stage includes the plantation of mimosa trees operated overseas and the production of
powdered tannin. From the result, it can be estimated that the environmental impact of the tannin
adhesive on human health would remain at around 1/4 of that of the API adhesive given that theadhesives are produced in manufacturing plants within Japan. For the impact on primary
production, as the impact occurring during the production of the tannin power is very small and theamount of power input during production of adhesives is about the same for both types of adhesives,the difference is assumed to be attributable to synthetic ingredients.

2.00E-07
1.80E-07
1.60E-07
1.40E-07
1.20E-07
1.00E-07
8.00E-08
6.00E-08
4.00E-08
2.00E-08
0.00E+00
ＡＰＩ adhesive

USE
Distribution

Production
Raw material

Tannin adhesive

Figure 5.2-7 Damage to human health by process

1.20E-03

Use[kg/f.u.]

1.00E-03

Distribution

8.00E-04

Production

6.00E-04

Raw material

4.00E-04
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
API adhesive Tannin adhesive

Figure 5.2-8 Damage to primary production by process695.2.3Weighting

4.00E+00

Weghiting result[JPY/f.u.]

The weighting result (by substance)
for the API adhesive and tannin
adhesive is shown in Figure 5.2-9. For
both types of adhesives, the emissionsof CO2 is the largest contributor to theenvironmental impact occurring during
the resource extraction stage throughthe production stage. An aspect of thesynthetic-based API adhesive shown in
the result that is different from thetannin adhesive is that its environmental
impact includes sizable portions
resulting from the emissions of SO2 and
PM10.

Al
Cu
U
MethaneNatural gas
N2 O
NOx
Coal
PM10
SO2
CO2

3.50E+00
3.00E+00
2.50E+00
2.00E+00

1.50E+00
1.00E+00
5.00E-01
0.00E+00

API adhesive

Figure 5.2-9

Tannin adhesive

weighting result (by substance)

Figure 5.2-10 and 5.2-11 respectively represent
the breakdown of the weighting result by process and by impact category. The result by process inFigure 5.2-10 indicates that the impact of the tannin adhesive associated with overseas plantation
operation (= raw material) is very small, and it is because the process is mainly carried out throughmanual labor combined with the use of a private power generation facility. The breakdown by
impact category illustrates that dominant environmental impacts are global warming, urban air
pollution and non-biological resource consumption.

Disposal

3.50E+00

Use

3.00E+00

Distribution
2.50E+00
Production
2.00E+00

Raw material

1.50E+00
1.00E+00

Weighting result[JPY/f.u.]

4.00E+00
4.00E+00

3.50E+00
3.00E+00
2.50E+00
2.00E+00
1.50E+00

1.00E+00
5.00E-01
0.00E+00
API adhesive

5.00E-01

Non-biological resources
Acidification
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (soil)

0.00E+00
ＡＰＩ adhesive

Tannin adhesive

Figure 5.2-10 weighting result (by process)70

Global warming
Eutrophication
Human toxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (air)
Waste

Figure 5.2-11 weighting result(by impact category)Tannin adhesive
Ozone layer depletion
Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity (water)
Ecotoxicity (water)
Indoor air pollution

6.

Conclusion

6.1. Summary of study result
The assessment was conducted on the environmental impacts of API adhesive and tannin adhesive
covering from their resource extraction stage to the production stage. The environmental impacts
in terms of social costs are calculated to be approximately 3.5 yen for the API adhesive (1 kg) and
1.4 yen for the tannin adhesive (1 kg). As a commercial API adhesive (1 kg) is currently around
350 yen, the social cost of the adhesive for wood-based materials is estimated to be about 1% of its
life cycle (from resource extraction to production) cost.
The assessment result confirmed that most of the environmental impacts associated with theadhesive occur during the production of synthetic ingredients. The emissions of CO2 and CH4, andthe consumption of crude oil are the main causes of the impacts, and major environmental impacts
that are expected to result from these causes are global warming, urban air pollution andnon-biological resource consumption.
In order to lessen the environmental impacts of adhesives for wood-based materials, an effective
solution would be to change the use of synthetic ingredients to natural raw materials to reduce theemissions of substances that can cause environmental loads. Compared with the aqueous polymer
isocyanate adhesive (synthetic-based) that is becoming more commonly used in recent years due toits characteristic that it does not contain formaldehyde, the assessment result indicated that switching
to the tannin adhesive (natural-based) has the potential to reduce the environmental impacts by half.

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

The scope of this assessment was specified in accordance with the system boundary used in thereference literature, and included only limited processes (from resource extraction to production ofadhesive). For this reason, the validity of the assessment result is considered limited. While theenvironmental loads that occur in the overseas transportation stage of natural raw materials grown inplantations were excluded from the scope of this assessment for the reason that LIME2 is intended
for application within Japan, the inclusion of the overseas transportation stage should be consideredin the future. Since we have not conducted studies on the emissions of chemical substances during
the use of wood-based materials and the generation of chemical substances during the waste
incineration, the effects that these factors could have on the assessment result are unknown under thepresent circumstances, and the completeness of the scope of the assessment with regard to chemical
substances may not be sufficient.
Many plants manufacturing wood-based materials recently started to introduce wood chip boilers toutilize mill ends for further energy conservation and reduction of environmental impacts. The
LCIA covering the life cycle of such systems should be considered in the next step.

71

References
1)

2)
3)

Yukinobu Sawada, Keisuke Ando, Nobuaki Hattori, Yasuo Tamura (2006): Inventory Analysis
of Adhesives Used for Wood Based Materials. Journal of the Japan Wood Research Society,vol. 52, No. 4, p 235-240
Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (2005): LCA software"JEMAI-LCA Pro ver. 2.1.2"
Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (2006): LCA software"JEMAI-LCA Pro optional data pack"72

Report on Environmental Impact Comparisonof "Metal-Enclosed Switchgear(High Voltage Panel)" and "Low Voltage
Motor Control Center" Switchboards

May 2008
Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd.
Fuji Electric Advanced Technology Co., Ltd.

73

1.

General Information
1.1

Assessor

Organization:

Name:
Contact:

1.2

Production Technology Department/Production Planning Department,
Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd.
Electric Equipment Technology Laboratory, Fuji Electric Advanced Technology Co.,Ltd.
Masahiko Masuda/Seishi Yamamiya
Takashi Kuwabara
masuda-masahiko@fesys.co.jp/yamamiya-seishi@fesys.co.jp
kuwabara-takashi@fujielectric.co.jp

Report preparation date

May 23, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Determine the effects of energy conservation and weight reduction on lowering the environmental
impacts (loads) of new products compared to conventional products, by assessing the life cycle
environmental impacts of the products using the LIME2 method.

2.2

Application of study result

Determine the environmental performance of a conventional product and a new product for each of
two switchboard models: "metal-enclosed switchgear (high voltage panel)" and "low voltage motor
control center." Clarify processes that are important for improving the environmental impacts andprovide information for improvements to be made in the designing process.

74

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

3.1.1
Metal-enclosed switchgear (high voltage panel)
A device connected to a high voltage circuit with a frequency of 60 Hz or lower and rated voltage of
3.6 kV/7.2 kV, and consisting of switching equipment, control, measurement, protection, adjustment,internal connection, auxiliaries, grounded metal enclosure box and support structure.
Definition based on the Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association (JEMA) standard: JEM 1425.
Hereinafter referred to as "high voltage panel."
The main specifications of the conventional and new products are laid out in Table 3.1-1.
Table 3.1-1 High voltage panel) main specifications of conventional and new products
Conventional product:
7.2 kV panel

New product:
SLIMEC-V6

BW-06-002

BW-07-003

Number of functional units mounted per unit area

2 units

2 units

Rated current of main circuit of functional unit

300A

300A

Rated short-time withstand current of main circuitof functional unit

12.5 kA12.5 kA

JEM 1425/MW

JEM 1425/CW

Ingress protection rating

IP2X

IP2X

Dimension (W x H x D)

700 x 2350 x 1800 mm

600 x 2350 x 700 mm

607.0 kg

260.2 kg

Ecoleaf registration number

Compliant standard/type code

Total mass
Exterior appearance

Key improvements made to new product(Priority theme in new product development was
reduction of panel depth)

The total mass of the entire panel was significantly
reduced through the reduction of the panel depth
achieved as the result of downsized internal
equipment and the progress of conductor
processing technologies.
Improvement was made in reducing the energy
consumption of the entire panel through theintroduction of energy-efficient equipment.
Energy conservation (reduction of power
consumption): 16%
Weight reduction (reduction of product mass):
 57%

75

3.1.2
Low voltage motor control center
A switching control device connected to a low voltage circuit with an alternating current frequencyof 50 Hz or 60 Hz and voltage of 600V or lower, and used to centrally connect and disconnect,
control and protect motor and lighting loads.
Definition based on the Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association (JEMA) standard: JEM 1195.
Hereinafter referred to as "control center."
The main specifications of the conventional and new products are laid out in Table 3.1-2.
Table 3.1-2 Control center) main specifications of conventional and new products
Conventional product:
SM1200

New product:
SM3000Ecoleaf registration number

BG-04-001

BG-05-002

Number of functional units mounted per unit
area

10 units

10 units

Connection method for main and control
circuits

BB method(Direct connection)

BB method(Direct connection)

Dimension (W x H x D)

630 x 2350 x 600 mm

630 x 2350 x 600 mm

Total mass

382.4 kg

296.4 kg

Exterior appearance

Key improvements made to new product(Priority theme in new product development
was high-density mounting of units)

The total mass of the entire panel was reduced as
the result of the reduced panel size achieved
through the high-density mounting of functional
units (a maximum of 40 units can be mounted on
the front and back surfaces of the new product,
where the conventional product allows the mountingof 14 units maximum).
Improvement was made in reducing the energy
consumption of the entire panel through theintroduction of energy-efficient equipment andreduction of energy loss by shortening the powerlines of the main circuit.
Energy conservation (reduction of power
consumption): 36%
Weight reduction (reduction of product mass):
 22%

76

3.2

Functions and functional unit
3.2.1

High voltage panel

The number of functional units mounted per unit area: 2 units, rated current of main circuit: 300A.
The calculations factored in the power consumption of the high voltage panel only, based on the
average load factor of 35% at the rated current of the main circuit of the functional unit for 24 hours
a day, 360 days a year (downtime of 5 days formaintenance) for 15 years.
3.2.2

Control center

The number of functional units mounted per unit area:
10 units, total control capacity: 150 kW.
The calculations factored in the power consumption of
the control center only, based on the assumption thatinternal equipment units at 70% of the maximum
capacity feeds the load for 4 hours a day, 360 days ayear (downtime of 5 days for maintenance), for 15
years.

3.3

System boundary

The assessment covers the raw material production,assembly (product production), transportation, use, anddisposal/recycling stages (same for both high voltage
panel and control center). See Figure 3.3-1.

3.4

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary ofswitchboard

Special notes

Given the fact that switchboards have long life spans of over 15 years and products become
properties of clients, information obtainable regarding their disposal and recycling processes isusually limited and it is difficult to accurately determine how products are disposed of in practice.
Under these circumstances, we have carried out calculations for the disposal/recycling stage basedon the following scenario (same scenario was applied to both high voltage panel and control center)
formulated after conducting interviews with industrial waste disposal operators and research throughthe Internet and related literature.
Iron and copper that can be dismantled manually using general-purpose tools are collected andshredded, and included in the calculation as a deduction at the recovery rate of 80% 1) (recycling
effect). The remaining 20% and other components with the exception of instruction documents are
shredded and disposed of in a landfill as industrial waste. Instruction documents (wood pulp-based
paper) are deducted at a 40% recovery rate 2) (recycling effect). The remaining 60% is incinerated
as general waste, and the incineration ash is disposed of in a landfill as industrial waste.

77

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

Actual measurements taken at the company plants or provided by contractors (partiallyresearch data).

4.2

Background data

Common intensities for Ecoleaf environmental label 4) administered by the Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry (JEMAI) 3) are used.

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Table 4.3-1 through Table 4.3-4 represent the list of items covered in the inventory analyses
and the results of the analyses of conventional and new high voltage panel products as wellas conventional and new control center products.
All of the above products have registered Ecoleaf environmental labels 4), and the inventory
analysis results are published on the JEMAI website 5) (Note that the data on thedisposal/recycling stage shown in the tables are the combined values of the disposal andrecycling effects).

Exhaoustible resources

Mineral resources
To air
To water
To soilEmission to the environment

Renewable
resources

Inventry analyses

Impact by resource consumption

Energyresources

Table 4.3-1 High voltage panel: 7.2 kV panel (conventional product) LCI data
unit

Rwa material

Production

Distribution

Use

Disposal/Recycling

Coal
Crude oil (for fuel)
LNG
U content of an ore
Crude oil (for material)
Fe content of an ore
Cu content of an ore
Al content of an ore
Ni content of an ore
Cr content of an ore
Mn content of an ore
Pb content of an ore
Sn content of an ore
Zn content of an ore
Au content of an ore
Ag content of an ore
Silica sand
HaliteLimestone
soda ash

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.48E+02
1.24E+02
2.52E+01
2.39E-03
4.31E+01
4.86E+02
2.29E+01
1.07E+00
1.15E-01
3.23E-01
2.60E+00
2.00E+00
4.03E-02
2.05E+01
0
2.49E-02
1.28E+01
4.65E+01
1.02E+02
6.35E-02

3.48E+01
4.13E+01
1.85E+01
2.36E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.38E-03
1.29E+01
2.00E-01
9.36E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.94E+02
4.46E+02
1.97E+02
2.67E-02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-2.30E+02
5.96E+00
3.72E+00
4.98E-04
0-2.95E+02-8.39E+00
0-6.00E-03-1.09E-01
7.08E-02-6.82E-01
0-6.70E+00
00-3.89E+00
6.62E-03-4.78E+01
0

wood

kg

2.10E+00

000-1.74E-01

water

kg

CO2
SOx
NOx
N2O
CH4
CO
NMVOC
CxHy
dust
BOD
COD
N total
P totalSS
Unspecified solid waste
Slag
SludgeLow level radio-active waste

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.47E+04
1.62E+03
8.70E-01
1.17E+00
8.96E-02
6.33E-03
2.58E-01
1.24E-02
5.02E-02
2.07E-01
8.41E+00
2.10E+02
2.30E+00
1.67E-03

2.64E+04
2.77E+02
2.14E-01
2.57E-01
3.12E-03
6.30E-03
7.57E-02
1.23E-02
2.53E-03
1.63E-02
3.25E-06
00
1.65E-03

1.04E+00
4.17E+01
5.12E-02
6.40E-01
7.52E-04
2.50E-07
2.56E-01
4.92E-07
1.29E-02
5.12E-020006.56E-08

2.98E+05
3.06E+03
2.34E+00
1.85E+00
3.35E-02
7.13E-02
4.53E-01
1.40E-01
7.29E-03
1.00E-010001.86E-02

3.56E+03-5.54E+02-1.40E-01-2.27E-01-1.03E-02
1.34E-03-9.19E-02
2.62E-03-1.35E-02-7.65E-02
2.95E+02-9.31E+01
0
3.48E-04

78

Exhaoustible resources

Mineral resources
To air
To water
To soilEmission to the environment

Rene
wable
resou
rces

Inventry analyses

Impact by resource consumption

Energyresources

Table 4.3-2 High voltage panel: SLIMEC-V6 (new product) LCI data
unit

Rwa material

Production

Distribution

Use

Disposal/Recyclin
g

Coal
kg
Crude oil (for fuel)
kg
LNG
kg
U content of an ore
kg
Crude oil (for material)kg
Fe content of an ore
kg
Cu content of an orekg
Al content of an ore
kg
Ni content of an orekg
Cr content of an ore
kg
Mn content of an ore
kg
Pb content of an orekg
Sn content of an ore
kg
Zn content of an ore
kg
Au content of an ore
kg
Ag content of an ore
kg
Silica sandkg
Halitekg
Limestonekg
soda ash
kg
wood
kg
water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
N totalkg
P totalkg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
Sludgekg
Low level radio-active wastekg

1.83E+02
4.39E+01
1.04E+01
9.27E-04
1.72E+01
1.97E+02
1.34E+01
6.02E-01
1.24E-02
8.47E-02
1.05E+00
1.13E+00
1.37E-02
1.07E+01
2.90E-05
1.80E-02
6.78E+00
2.31E+01
3.95E+01
7.58E-02
3.49E+00
1.58E+04
6.56E+02
3.91E-01
4.61E-01
3.62E-02
2.44E-03
1.07E-01
4.78E-03
1.96E-02
8.19E-02
6.56E-01
9.48E+01
1.29E+00
6.48E-04

2.57E+01
3.25E+01
1.29E+01
1.74E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.03E+04
2.04E+02
1.57E-01
1.84E-01
2.38E-03
4.64E-03
5.37E-02
9.09E-03
1.77E-03
1.16E-02
3.11E-02
00
1.21E-03

8.30E-04
7.75E+00
1.20E-01
5.62E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.24E-01
2.50E+01
3.07E-02
3.84E-01
4.51E-04
1.50E-07
1.53E-01
2.95E-07
7.75E-03
3.07E-02
00
0
3.94E-08

3.31E+02
3.74E+02
1.66E+02
2.24E-02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.51E+05
2.57E+03
1.96E+00
1.56E+00
2.81E-02
5.99E-02
3.81E-01
1.17E-01
6.13E-03
8.40E-020001.56E-02-1.04E+02
2.62E+00
1.65E+00
2.27E-04
0-1.32E+02-6.76E+00
0-2.68E-03-4.89E-02
3.16E-02-5.49E-010-5.40E+00
00-2.59E+00
2.50E-03-2.14E+010-1.74E-01
9.84E+02-2.51E+02-8.77E-02-1.07E-01-4.61E-03
6.14E-04-4.22E-02
1.20E-03-6.06E-03-3.47E-02
1.11E+02-4.31E+01
01.59E-04

79

Mineral resources

Exhaoustible resourcesunit

Rwa material

Production

Distribution

Use

Disposal/Recyclin
g

Coal
kg
Crude oil (for fuel)
kg
LNG
kg
U content of an ore
kg
Crude oil (for material)kg
Fe content of an ore
kg
Cu content of an orekg
Al content of an ore
kg
Ni content of an orekg
Cr content of an ore
kg
Mn content of an ore
kg
Pb content of an orekg
Sn content of an ore
kg
Zn content of an ore
kg
Au content of an ore
kg
Ag content of an ore
kg
Silica sandkg
Halitekg
Limestonekg
soda ash
kg
wood
kg
water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
N totalkg
P totalkg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
Sludgekg
Low level radio-active wastekg

2.68E+02
8.73E+01
1.87E+01
1.52E-03
2.88E+01
2.87E+02
1.72E+01
9.59E-01
9.67E-02
2.29E-01
1.54E+00
1.45E+00
4.56E-04
1.46E+01
0
8.99E-02
9.33E+00
1.67E+01
6.75E+01
1.21E-01
6.74E-01
3.03E+04
1.01E+03
5.75E-01
7.65E-01
6.60E-02
4.02E-03
1.62E-01
7.86E-03
3.32E-02
1.30E-01
1.10E+01
1.33E+02
2.06E+00
1.06E-03

2.39E+01
3.53E+01
3.75E+01
1.62E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.81E+04
1.87E+02
1.42E-01
1.15E-01
3.66E-03
4.32E-03
2.77E-02
8.46E-03
7.24E-04
6.15E-03
1.01E-04
02.30E+00
1.13E-03

8.30E-04
7.75E+00
1.20E-01
5.62E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.24E-01
2.50E+01
3.07E-02
3.84E-01
4.51E-04
1.50E-07
1.53E-01
2.95E-07
7.75E-03
3.07E-02
00
0
3.94E-08

3.27E+02
3.69E+02
1.63E+02
2.21E-02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.47E+05
2.54E+03
1.94E+00
1.54E+00
2.77E-02
5.91E-02
3.75E-01
1.16E-01
6.04E-03
8.29E-020001.54E-02-1.75E+02
4.30E+00
2.74E+00
3.78E-04
0-2.21E+02-1.12E+01
0-4.50E-03-8.21E-02
5.32E-02-9.11E-01
0-8.95E+00
00-4.31E+00
2.97E-03-3.60E+010-2.52E-01
1.65E+03-4.22E+02-1.47E-01-1.79E-01-7.78E-03
1.02E-03-7.10E-02
2.00E-03-1.02E-02-5.83E-02
1.32E+02-7.23E+01
02.64E-04

To air
To water
To soilEmission to the environment

Ren
ewa
ble
reso
urce
s

Inventry analyses

Impact by resource consumption

Energyresources

Table 4.3-3 Control center: SM1200 (conventional product) LCI data

80

Mineral resources

Exhaoustible resourcesunit

Rwa material

Production

Distribution

Use

Disposal/Recyclin
g

Coal
kg
Crude oil (for fuel)
kg
LNG
kg
U content of an ore
kg
Crude oil (for material)kg
Fe content of an ore
kg
Cu content of an orekg
Al content of an ore
kg
Ni content of an orekg
Cr content of an ore
kg
Mn content of an ore
kg
Pb content of an orekg
Sn content of an ore
kg
Zn content of an ore
kg
Au content of an ore
kg
Ag content of an ore
kg
Silica sandkg
Halitekg
Limestonekg
soda ash
kg
wood
kg
water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
N totalkg
P totalkg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
Sludgekg
Low level radio-active wastekg

2.24E+02
5.34E+01
1.20E+01
1.20E-03
1.33E+01
2.45E+02
9.33E+00
1.10E-01
2.73E-02
1.21E-01
1.30E+00
9.46E-01
1.99E-02
1.05E+01
0
1.89E-01
6.80E+00
1.43E+01
5.68E+01
1.42E-01
6.51E-01
2.23E+04
7.95E+02
4.09E-01
5.20E-01
3.87E-02
3.19E-03
1.24E-01
6.23E-03
2.24E-02
9.58E-02
4.03E+00
1.02E+02
2.35E-01
8.40E-04

1.45E+01
1.83E+01
1.88E+01
9.81E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.10E+04
1.13E+02
8.60E-02
6.91E-02
1.86E-03
2.62E-03
1.67E-02
5.14E-03
3.74E-04
3.70E-03
3.69E-05
05.50E-01
6.84E-04

8.30E-04
7.75E+00
1.20E-01
5.62E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.24E-01
2.50E+01
3.07E-02
3.84E-01
4.51E-04
1.50E-07
1.53E-01
2.95E-07
7.75E-03
3.07E-02
00
0
3.94E-08

2.10E+02
2.37E+02
1.05E+02
1.42E-02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.59E+05
1.63E+03
1.24E+00
9.86E-01
1.78E-02
3.79E-02
2.41E-01
7.43E-02
3.88E-03
5.32E-02000
9.90E-03-1.50E+02
3.70E+00
2.38E+00
3.19E-04
0-1.92E+02-5.96E+00
0-3.91E-03-7.14E-02
4.61E-02-4.85E-01
0-4.76E+00
00-2.68E+00
2.06E-03-3.12E+010-2.52E-01
2.17E+03-3.63E+02-9.62E-02-1.50E-01-6.78E-03
8.60E-04-6.03E-02
1.68E-03-8.87E-03-5.00E-02
9.11E+01-6.10E+01
0
2.23E-04

To air
To water
To soilEmission to the environment

Ren
ewa
ble
reso
urce
s

Inventry analyses

Impact by resource consumption

Energyresources

Table 4.3-4 Control center: SM3000 (new product) LCI data

81

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Method based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization,
damage assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment
are listed in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant creation











Ozone layer depletion

Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste



Land use82

5.2

Result of impact assessment

5.2.1
Characterization (high voltage panel)
The characterization results of the environmental impacts of the conventional high voltage panel
product (7.2 kV panel) and new product (SLIMEC-V6) in the categories of resource (energy)
consumption, resource (mineral) consumption, global warming and waste are laid out in Figure 5.2-1
through Figure 5.2-4. The environmental impacts of the new product have been reduced from theconventional product in all impact categories, owing to the energy conservation and weight
reduction achieved for the new product. The reduction in the impacts is especially significant in
the categories of mineral consumption and waste as the result of the drastically reduced amount ofmetal used.
3.00E-07

7.00E+04

32%

6.00E+04

46%

2.50E-07

5.00E+04

2.00E-07

4.00E+04

1.50E-07

3.00E+04

1.00E-07
2.00E+04

5.00E-08
1.00E+04
0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

Crude oilFigure 5.2-1

SLIMEC-V6

SLIMEC-V6

Coal

Ag Zn Cu Pb U Sn Mn Fe Ni Cr Au

Natural gas

Characterization result(energy consumption)

Figure 5.2-2

Characterization result(mineral consumption)

5.00E-01

5.00E+03

28%

4.50E+03

62%

4.50E-01

4.00E+03

4.00E-01

3.50E+03

3.50E-01

3.00E+03

3.00E-01

2.50E+03

2.50E-01

2.00E+03

2.00E-01

1.50E+03

1.50E-01

1.00E+03

1.00E-01

5.00E+02

5.00E-02

0.00E+00

0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

CO2

Figure 5.2-3

7.2kV panel

SLIMEC-V6

N2O

General waste

CH4

Characterization result(global warming)

Figure 5.2-4

83

Molten slag

SLIMEC-V6

other sludge

Characterization result(waste)5.2.2
Characterization (control center)
The characterization results of the environmental impacts of the conventional control center product(SM1200) and new product (SM3000) in the categories of resource (energy) consumption, resource(mineral) consumption, global warming and waste are laid out in Figure 5.2-5 through Figure 5.2-8.
The environmental impacts of the new product have been reduced from the conventional product in
the impact categories of energy consumption, global warming and waste owing to the energy
conservation and weight reduction achieved for the new product. On the other hand, the impact has
increased in the mineral consumption category, which is largely due to the product's silver content.
While the total mass of the entire panel of the new product has been decreased as the result of the
reduced amount of iron and copper used, the amount of silver used in the new product has increased(Table 5.2-1 and Table 5.2-2).
5.00E+04

8.00E-07

4.50E+04

7.00E-07

35%

4.00E+04+88%

6.00E-07

3.50E+04
5.00E-07

3.00E+04
4.00E-07

2.50E+04
3.00E-07

2.00E+04
2.00E-07

1.50E+04

1.00E+04

1.00E-07

5.00E+03

0.00E+00

Ag
SM1200SM30000.00E+00
SM1200

Crude oilFigure 5.2-5SM3000Coal

Ag Zn Cu Pb U Sn Mn Fe Ni Cr Au

Natural gas

Characterization result(energy consumption)

Figure 5.2-6

4.00E+03

Characterization result(mineral consumption)

2.50E-01

34%

3.50E+03

34%
2.00E-01

3.00E+03

2.50E+03

1.50E-01

2.00E+03

1.00E-01

1.50E+03

1.00E+03

5.00E-02
5.00E+02

0.00E+00

0.00E+00
SM1200

CO2

Figure 5.2-7

SM3000N2O

SM1200CH4

General waste

Characterization result(global warming)

Figure 5.2-884SM3000

Molten slag

Other sludge

Characterization result(waste)Table 5.2-1 Amount of iron, copper and silver used in products
SM1200SM3000Difference

Iron usage (kg)

276.4

235.9

40.5

Copper usage (kg)

56.4

30.4

26.1

Silver usage (kg)

0.090

0.189

0.1

Total mass (kg)382.37296.37

86.0

Table 5.2-2 Resource consumption characterization factors for main metal components
Characterization factor (1/R)
Fe

3.00E-05

Cu

6.20E-03

Al

8.40E-05

Ag

7.50E+00

Au

4.40+0185

5.2.3
Damage assessment (high voltage panel)
The results of the damage assessment (breakdown by substance) for four safeguard subjects are laidout in Figure 5.2-9 through Figure 5.2-12. The quantity of damage has been reduced for all
safeguard subjects. The reduced waste volume achieved by the reduction of the product weight hascontributed considerably to lowering the damage.
1.40E-03

1.80E+04

28%

1.20E-03

49%

1.60E+04

social assets[JPY]

Human health [DALY]

1.40E+04

1.00E-03
8.00E-04
6.00E-04
4.00E-04

1.20E+04
1.00E+04
8.00E+03
6.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03

2.00E-04

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

7.2kV panel

7.2kV panel

CO2

SO2

Figure 5.2-9

Nox

PM10

SLIMEC-V6

N2O

NMVOC

General waste
Crude oil
Molten slag
Ag
Nox

CH4

Result of damage
assessment (human health)Figure 5.2-10 Result of damage
assessment (social assets)

3.50E+01

1.00E-10

9.00E-11

43%

3.00E+01

58%

8.00E-11

2.50E+01

biodiversity[EINES]

primary production[NPP]SLIMEC-V6

CO2
Cu
Zn
Natural gas
SO2

2.00E+01
1.50E+01
1.00E+01

7.00E-11
6.00E-11
5.00E-11
4.00E-11

3.00E-11
2.00E-11

5.00E+00

1.00E-11
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

Coal
Ag
Nox
NMVOC

Cu
SO2
Molten slag
Fe

7.2kV panel

SLIMEC-V6

General waste
Cu
Ag
Zn
Other sludge
Pb

General waste
Sn
Zn

Figure 5.2-11 Result of damage
assessment (primary
production)

SLIMEC-V6

Molten slag
Coal
Sn
Fe
Lime stone

Figure 5.2-12 Result of damage
assessment (biodiversity)865.2.4
Damage assessment (control center)
The results of the damage assessment (breakdown by substance) for four safeguard subjects are laidout in Figure 5.2-13 through Figure 5.2-16. The quantity of damage has been reduced for humanhealth, social welfare and biodiversity. The conservation of energy has contributed considerably to
lowering the damage to human health. Damage to primary production has increased slightly due tothe impact of silver consumption.
1.20E-03

1.20E+04

16%

1.00E-03

1.00E+04

8.00E-04

8.00E+03
sosial assets[JPY]

human health[DALY]

34%

6.00E-04

4.00E-04

6.00E+03

4.00E+03

2.00E+03

2.00E-04
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

SM1200SM1200

CO2

SO2

Nox

SM3000

PM10

N2O

NMVOC

General waste
Crude oil
Molten slag
Ag
Nox

CH4

Figure 5.2-13 Result of damage
assessment (human health)

SM3000CO2
Cu
Zn
Natural gas
SO2

Figure 5.2-14 Result of damage
assessment (social assets)

2.50E+01

6.00E-11

15%
5.00E-11+4%

4.00E-11

1.50E+01

1.00E+01

biodiversity[EINES]

primary production[NPP]

2.00E+01

Ag

5.00E+00

3.00E-11
2.00E-11
1.00E-11
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
SM1200SM1200SM3000

Coal

Cu

General waste

Ag

SO2

Sn

Nox

Molten slag

Zn

NMVOC

Fe

Figure 5.2-15 Result of damage
assessment (primary
production)

General waste
Cu
Ag
Zn
Other sludge
Pb

SM3000

Molten slag
Coal
Sn
Fe
Lime stone

Figure 5.2-16 Result of damage
assessment (biodiversity)875.2.5Weighting (high voltage panel)
The Weighting results (by substance, by process and by impact category) are shown in Figure 5.2-17
through Figure 5.2-19. The social cost is approximately 410,000 yen for the conventional productand 250,000 yen for the new product, indicating the reduction of about 40%.
The result by substance indicates that the emissions of CO2, general waste and SO2 are the major
causes of the environmental impacts of the products, and the effect of waste reduction achieved
through the reduced weight of the new product has contributed considerably to the assessment result.
Despite the prediction we had made prior to the assessment that the largest portion of the products'
environmental impact would be associated with the use stage, the Weighting result by process
confirmed that almost as much impact occurs in the raw material stage as in the use stage.
According to the Weighting result by impact category, the major impacts of the products are
non-biological resource consumption, global warming, urban air pollution and waste.
4.50E+04

4.50E+04

40%

4.00E+04

3.50E+04

Weighting result[JPY/f.u.]

Weighting result[JPY]

4.00E+04

3.00E+04
2.50E+04
2.00E+04
1.50E+04
1.00E+04
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

CO2
SO2
Crude oil
Molten slag
Nox

SLIMEC-V6

General waste
Cu
Coal
Zn
Ag

3.50E+04

3.00E+04
2.50E+04
2.00E+04
1.50E+04
1.00E+04
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

SLIMEC-V6-5.00E+03

Raw material
Use

Figure 5.2-17 Weighting result(by substance)

Production
Disposal

Distribution

Figure 5.2-18 Weighting result(by process)5.00E+04

Weighting result[JPY]

4.00E+04
3.00E+04
2.00E+04
1.00E+04
0.00E+00
7.2kV panel

Non-biological resources
Ozone layer depletion
Eutrophication
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (water)
Ecotoxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (soil)
Indoor air pollution

SLIMEC-V6

Global warming
Acidification
Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity (air)Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (waterl)
Waste

Figure 5.2-19 Weighting result(by impact category)
5.2.6
Weighting (control center)
The Weighting results (by substance, by process and by impact category) are shown in Figure 5.2-20

88through Figure 5.2-22. The social cost is approximately 280,000 yen for the conventional productand 220,000 yen for the new product, indicating the reduction of about 20%.
The result by substance indicates that the consumption of silver and emissions of CO2, general waste
and SO2 are the major causes of the environmental impacts of the products, and the consumption ofsilver for the new product has significantly affected the assessment result. The effect ofenvironmental load reduction in the use stage achieved as the result of the improved energy
efficiency of the new product has contributed considerably to the assessment result as shown in the
Weighting result by process. In terms of the proportion of the impacts, however, the result
indicates that the portions of the products' environmental impacts occurring in the use stage and raw
material stage are almost the same. According to the Weighting result by impact category, themajor impacts of the products are non-biological resource consumption, global warming, urban air
pollution and waste, which are the same for the high voltage panel products.
3.50E+04

3.00E+04

2.50E+04

3.00E+04

2.00E+04

2.50E+04

Weighting result[JPY]

Weighting result[JPY]20%

1.50E+04
1.00E+04
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
SM1200

CO2
SO2
Crude oil
Molten slag
Nox5.00E+03-5.00E+03

SM1200Raw material
Use

SM3000

Production
Disposal

Distribution

Figure 5.2-21 Weighting result(by process)3.00E+04

Weighting result[JPY]1.00E+04

0.00E+00

General waste
Scu
Coal
Zn
Ag

3.50E+04

2.50E+04
2.00E+04
1.50E+04
1.00E+04
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
SM12001.50E+04

SM3000Figure 5.2-20 Weighting result(by substance)

Non-biological resources
Ozone layer depletion
Eutrophication
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (water)
Ecotoxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (soil)
Indoor air pollution

2.00E+04

SM3000Global warming
Acidification
Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity (air)Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (waterl)
Waste

Figure 5.2-22 Weighting result(by impact category)

89

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of study result

In order to determine the effects of energy conservation and weight reduction on improving theenvironmental impacts of new products compared to conventional products for each of the twomodels of switchboards (high voltage panel and control center), the assessment was conducted on
the environmental impacts of the products over their entire life cycle (raw material, production,transportation, use, and disposal/recycling) using the LIME2 method. The results of the assessment
are presented in Table 6.1-1 and Table 6.1-2, which also include the assessment results on the CO2
emissions of the products.
Table 6.1-1 Assessment result for high voltage panels
High voltage panel

CO2 emissions (kg)Social cost (10,000 yen)

7.2 kV panel

4,448

40.9

SLIMEC-V6

3,207

24.7

-27.9%-39.6%

Table 6.1-2 Assessment result for control centers
Control center

CO2 emissions (kg)Social cost (10,000 yen)SM1200

3,334

28.3

SM3000

2,200

22.1

-34.0%-21.8%

These results verify the effect of improvements made to the new product on reducing theenvironmental load (social cost) for both switchboard models. The social cost reduction rates haveresulted in different values from the CO2 emissions reduction rates.
Although we had assumed that the largest portion of the products' environmental impacts would be
associated with the use stage given that switchboards are generally operated continuously and havelong life spans of over 15 years (the use stage is responsible for 70-80% of the CO2 emissions forboth switchboard models according to CO2 emission assessment results), the Weighting result byprocess confirmed that almost as much impact occurs in the raw material stage as in the use stage.
This indicates that the reduction of product size and weight has the same degree of importance as the
improvement of energy efficiency in order to reduce the environmental load of switchboards.
It has also become evident from the Weighting rtesult by substance that the consumption of rare
metals such as gold and silver constitutes a large impact. Therefore, limiting the use of rare metals
would be effective for reducing the environmental load of switchboards, and collection and recycling
following the use of products should also be considered in the future.

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

Because switchboards are build-to-order products with a broad variety of models, the data on thespecific models covered in this assessment do not universally apply to all switchboard products.
The improvement of the completeness of the assessment scope as well as sensibility analyses basedon different calculation conditions, particularly under different use conditions, are priority issues for
future assessments.

90References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association (2000/12): Study report on the present status, trend
and future challenges for the recycling of power reception and distribution equipment
Paper Recycling Promotion Center (http://www.prpc.or.jp/): Trend in waste paper recovery rate,
trend in recovered paper utilization rate
Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry:
http://202.214.40.151/JEMAI_DYNAMIC/index.cfm
Ecoleaf environmental label: http://202.214.40.151/ecoleaf/index.cfm
http://jemai-live.ashleyassociates.co.jp/ecoleaf/prodbycmp_companyobj61.cfm

91

Report on
Environmental Impacts Before and After
Installation of a Document Digitization
Solution

May 2008
Fujitsu Laboratories Limited

92

1.

General Information

1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

Environmental Technology Lab. Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
Shigeharu Suzuki
shige@labs.fujitsu.com

Report preparation date

May 30, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Assessment of the environmental impact and understanding of the environmental efficiency of an
information-and-communication technology (ICT) solution for digitizing documents (the "document
digitizing solution" hereinafter.)

2.2

Application of study result

The study result will be used to understand how the environmental efficiency changes after
installation of the solution and also to provide to document digitization solution users quantitative
information on the environmental improvement effect of the solution.

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

A document digitization solution is a solution that digitizes office work instruction manuals or
various types of regulatory documents for the purpose of introducing paper-less operation andimproving document update efficiency (Figure 3.1-1).
Differences between before and after the document digitization solution are as follows (Figure
3.1-2):
Issues in conventional document creation: traditionally, distribution of printed materials had thefollowing issues:  it took a long time to distribute or publish printed materials,  operational anddistribution costs were high, and  documents could not be revised fast enough to keep up withchanges.
How the abovementioned issues were solved with a document digitization solution: use of
XML-based technologies allowed creation of a system that: a) required a low operational cost, b)
could use existing document assets, and c) could promptly respond to the need for document
revision.

93

Figure 3.1-1 Overview of a document digitization solution

Issues in conventional document creation

Solution by a document digitization solution

Before the solution installation, conventional tasks involving
distribution of printed materials had the following issues:

Use of XML-based technologies allowed creation of asystem that realized:

It took a long time to distribute or publish printed materialsa) Low operational cost

Because documents were bound and then published,proofreading and printing were necessary. Documents mayneed to be corrected during proofreading. In this case,interactions with a printing company tended to be complicated,
requiring even more time before publication.

By installing a function that allows a document creator toconvert a Word document into the XML and then HTML
formats, the operational cost can be reduced. Also, byimplementing a document control work flow that does not
require interactions with a printing company, it is possiblethat paper-based document-specific costs (artwork creation,binding, and shipment) can be reduced.

Operational and distribution costs were highWhen shipment of bound documents was outsourced to atransportation company, the transportation cost rose as thenumber of areas or volume of shipment increased. If
documents were not printed on-demand, printed material
stock and storage space had to be properly managed.

b) Effective use of existing document assets
A document digitization solution supports existing document
assets. By importing existing Word documents or text
documents using a Word-based document creation tool, it ispossible to greatly reduce loads of initial digitization tasks.

Documents could not be revised fast enough to keep up
with changesc) Prompt response to the need for document revision.
A document digitization can quickly respond to the need for
document revision. This can be achieved by installing afunction that allows correction of a document in units ofchapter or section or a function that allows comparison ofold and new versions in which the document structure isstandardized in the XML format and the features of XML
such as tag-based document operation are effectively used.

Instruction Manuals or regulatory documents created by acompany must be frequently revised as there are productchanges, annual reorganizations, and changes in businessprocesses. There were cases where revision of documents
could not be completed by the date when revised informationmust be communicated to document users.

Figure 3.1-2 Characteristics of a document digitization solution

94

3.2
Functions and functional unit
The functional unit is the updating of 1,300 types of instruction manuals to be handled in a year
when distributing them to 1,500 divisions.

3.3

System boundary

Product use, collection, and disposal stages are included in the system boundary (Figure 3.3-1).
<Assessment condition>
Before installation: Artwork creation, proofreading, and binding were outsourced to a printing
company. Printed materials were stored in distribution warehouses anddelivered when requested.
After installation:
Writers publish their writings on the Internet by themselves without using aprinting company. Because documents are available on the Internet,
shipment from distribution warehouses has been dramatically reduced.

Collection
and disposal

Use(operation)

Shipment anddistribution

Design,development,
andmanufacturing

Procurement＜System boundary＞

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary of installation of a document digitization solution

3.4

Special note (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

The solution procurement, design, development, manufacturing, shipment, and distribution stages
were excluded from the study.
In the assessment, the environmental impact was divided into factors1) 2) such as resource
consumption, movement of people or objects, efficiency improvement, storage space, and ICT
device power consumption.

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

We interviewed our solution users and obtained measurement data they collected during solution
operation.

4.2

Background data

For the product use stage, we referred to the in-house database created based on the 2000
inter-industry relations table, and for paper incineration in the collection and disposal stage, we used
EcoLeaf data.

95

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 show the subjects of pre- and post-installation inventory analysis and analysis
results.
Table 4.3-1 Result of LCI analysis before installation of the subject document
digitization solution
unit

Inventry analyses

Exhaoustible resources

Impact by resource consumption

Energyresources

Mineralresources

Emission to the environment

Renewable
resources

To air

To water

To soil

Production
Raw material
Product

Coal
kg
Crude oil (for fuel)
kg
LNG
kg
U content of an ore
kg
Crude oil (for material)kg
Fe content of an ore
kg
Cu content of an orekg
Al content of an ore
kg
Ni content of an orekg
Cr content of an ore
kg
Mn content of an ore
kg
Pb content of an orekg
Sn content of an ore
kg
Zn content of an ore
kg
Au content of an ore
kg
Ag content of an ore
kg
Silica sandkg
Halitekg
Limestonekg
soda ash
kg
wood
kg
water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
N totalkg
P totalkg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
Sludgekg
Low level radio-active waste kg

Distribution

Use

Disposal

7.65E+05
6.63E+05
2.06E+05

5.80E-01
6.99E-01
2.90E-01
3.92E-05

1.17E+05

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
9.45E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E+02
5.05E+00
5.14E-02
9.67E-02
8.11E-05
1.05E-04
1.41E-02
2.05E-04
3.07E-05
5.13E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0

-

-

-

-

-

5.53E+06
7.27E+03
1.04E+04

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

96

-

-

3.27E+05
2.83E+05
2.20E+03
2.25E+04
2.25E+05-

1.70E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.74E-05

Table 4.3-2 Result of LCI analysis after installation of the subject document
digitization solution
unit

Inventry analyses

Exhaoustible resources

Impact by resource consumption

Energyresources

Mineralresources

Emission to the environment

Renewable
resources

To air

To water

To soil

Production
Raw material
Product

Coal
kg
Crude oil (for fuel)
kg
LNG
kg
U content of an ore
kg
Crude oil (for material)kg
Fe content of an ore
kg
Cu content of an orekg
Al content of an ore
kg
Ni content of an orekg
Cr content of an ore
kg
Mn content of an ore
kg
Pb content of an orekg
Sn content of an ore
kg
Zn content of an ore
kg
Au content of an ore
kg
Ag content of an ore
kg
Silica sandkg
Halitekg
Limestonekg
soda ash
kg
wood
kg
water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
N totalkg
P totalkg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
Sludgekg
Low level radio-active waste kg

Distribution

Use

Disposal

2.61E+05
2.12E+05
7.17E+04

2.90E-01
3.50E-01
1.45E-01
1.96E-05

3.90E+04

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.72E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.50E+02
2.53E+00
2.57E-02
4.84E-02
4.05E-05
5.25E-05
7.03E-03
1.03E-04
1.53E-05
2.57E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0

-

-

-

-

-

1.85E+06
2.42E+03
3.34E+03

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

97

-

-

1.09E+05
9.46E+04
7.37E+02
7.53E+03
7.54E+04-

8.52E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.37E-05

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Method based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization,
damage assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment
are listed in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment

Charactariza
tion

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption(energy)○○○

Resource consumption(mineral)○○○Global warming

○

○

○

Urban air pollution

－

○

○

Acidification

○

○

○

Eutrophication

○

○

○

※

※

Ozone layer depletion

Photochemical oxidant
creation
Waste
Human toxicity

Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality－

Land use※※：No factors in LIME calculation sheet－：No factors in LIME

98

5.2

Result of impact assessment

5.2.1
Characterization
Figures from 5.2-1 through 5.2-4 show the results of characterization of energy resource
consumption, mineral resource consumption, acidification, and eutrophication before and after
installation of the document digitization solution.
For all of the above, the environmental impacts were lower after the installation, and this seems to be
attributed to reduction of paper consumption, reduction of people/object movement due to website
viewing, and reduction of energy consumption due to improvement of efficiency as a result of
installation of the solution.

Figure 5.2-1 Characterization result(energy resource consumption)

Figure 5.2-2 Characterization result(mineral resource consumption)

Figure 5.2-3 Characterization result(acidification)

Figure 5.2-4 Characterization result(eutrophication)99

5.2.2
Damage assessment
Figures 5.2-5 through 5.2-8 show the results of damage assessment (by substance) for four areas ofprotection.
The four areas of protection are human health, social assets, primary production, and ecodiversity,and for all of them, damage was dramatically reduced after installation of the solution. In humanhealth, installation of the solution resulted in dramatic reduction of damage caused by CO2 and SOx,and in social assets, damage of crude oil, total phosphorous, and total nitrogen was halved. This
seems to be attributed to reduction of paper consumption, reduction of people/object movement due
to website viewing, and reduction of energy consumption due to improvement of efficiency. In
primary production and ecodiversity, there was reduction in coal consumption after installation of
the solution perhaps due to reduction of paper consumption and improvement of efficiency.

Figure 5.2-5 Damage assessment result(human health)Figure 5.2-6 Damage assessment result(social assets)

100

Figure 5.2-7 Damage assessment result(primary production

Figure 5.2-8 Damage assessment result(biodiversity)

5.2.3
WeightingFigure 5.2-9 shows the weighting result (by substance) for before and after installation of the
document digitization solution. Because the environmental impact of CO2 and SOx emissions
accounted for approximately 70% of the entire impact both before and after the installation,
reduction thereof through reduction of paper consumption and energy consumption by improving
efficiency as a result of solution installation contributed to reduction of the entire environmental
impact.
Figure 5.2-10 shows the breakdown by area of influence. Both before and after installation, theenvironmental impact was high in the areas of global warming and urban air pollution. The
dramatic reduction of the environmental impact in these areas can be attributed to the global
warming or pollution suppression effect supported by the reduction of paper consumption andenergy consumption.

Figure 5.2-10 weighting result(by area of influence)

Figure 5.2-9 weighting result(by substance)

101

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of study result

The environmental effect of updating 1,300 types of instruction manuals, which is the amount being
handled in a year, and distributing them to 1,500 divisions was assessed for the document
digitization solution users. The study showed that the environmental impact dramaticallydecreased after installation of the solution. This seems to be attributed to reduction of paper
consumption, reduction of people/object movement due to website viewing, and reduction of energy
consumption due to improvement of efficiency.
Characterization results showed that reduction of paper consumption, reduction of people/object
movement due to website viewing, reduction of energy consumption due to improved efficiency(crude oil and coal), and CO2 and SOx emissions were the major determinants of the level ofenvironmental impact.
The damage assessment showed that, both before and after the installation, human health
was affected by the reductions of CO2 and SOx emissions that influenced global warming
and urban air pollution, and public assets such as the consumption of non-living resources,
global warming, and eutrophication are reduced with a reduction in CO2 and crude oil
consumption. By reducing the consumption of coal which is a product of primary
production and biodiversity, its influence is made obvious that it is the main cause of the
reduction in the consumption of non-living resources.
The weighting results showed that, both before and after the installation, reduction of CO2 and SOx
emission was the key to reduction of global warming and urban air pollution, meaning that reductionof paper consumption and energy consumption would have a global warming or pollution
suppression effect.

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

This assessment was conducted to understand how the environmental efficiency changed after
installation of the solution and also to provide to document digitization solution users quantitative
information on the environmental improvement effect of the solution. For this reason, theassessment was conducted for the stages from the product use to the collection and disposal stages.
Generally speaking, the product use stage has the largest environmental impact within the entire life
cycle of a solution (procurement, design and development, manufacturing and shipment, distribution,use, and collection and disposal), and the assessment in this study seems to mostly agree with thistendency.
Strictly speaking, however, it is necessary to examine how to define and prorate man-hours required
for software design, development, and manufacturing, as well as collection, disposal, and recycling.
Also, while paper incineration and power consumption caused by the use of ICT devices such as PCs
were included as the subject of assessment, there was no study on chemical substances contained inmaterials because the assessment did not include device materials or manufacturing processes as the
subjects of the assessment. These elements should have a great influence on assessment results
when it focuses on device materials or manufacturing processes. For this reason, this assessment
may not have included all the items that would have been required as study subjects. It is thus
necessary to carefully interpret the study results depending on the assessment purpose.

102

References
1)
2)

Yasunari Matsuno, et al (ed.): Assessing IT Society from the Environment Point of View, Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry, 2007.
Shigeharu Suzuki, et al: LIME-based Environmental Load Assessment of an ICT Solution,
Abstract of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Japan Institute of Energy, pp. 382-383

103

Report on "Environmental Impact
Study of LCD Projector"

May 2008
Hitachi, Ltd.

104

1

General Information

1.1

Assessor

Organization: Manufacturing System 1st Department, Production Engineering Research Laboratory,
Hitachi, Ltd.
Name: Ayano NishiguchiContact: ayano.nishiguchi.ud@hitachi.com

1.2 Report preparation date
May 19, 2008

2

Purpose of Study

2.1 Basis of study
Assess the environmental impact of a liquid crystal projector (LCD projector) throughout its life
cycle with the use of LCA, and analyze the future approaches to be taken in the environmentallyconscious designing.

2.2

Application of study result

Analyze the environmental impact of household electrical appliances other than global warming,using an LCD projector as a case example.

3

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

The appearance of a high-definition capable LCD projector PJ-TX200J 1), which is used as the
subject of this study, and the overview of its specifications are as shown below.

Figure 3.1-1 LCD projector

105

Table 3.1-2 LCD projector specification overview
Model

PJ-TX200J

Projection system

Transmissive 3LCD shutter projection system

Panel resolution

921,600 pixels (1,280 V  720 H)

Maximalbrightness

1200 lm

Contrast ratio

7000:1

Power supply

100V AC (50/60 Hz)Powerconsumption

220 W

Dimensions

340 (W) x 113 (H)  299 (D) mm

WeightProduct: 4.7 kg, Package and other: 2.2 kg

The main environmentally-conscious feature of this LCD projector is that lead-free solder is used forthe assembly of its printed circuit board. Other features include the use of non-halogen resin in its
exterior parts, and the mechanical parts that are manufactured completely polyvinyl chloride-free.
The use of foam polystyrene as a packaging material has also been discontinued, replaced bypulp-mold made from used paper.

This indicates that consideration for the environment isincorporated not only into the product itself but also into its packaging materials.

3.2

Functions and functional unit

The functional unit is specified as the entire life cycle of 1 (one) LCD projector, under the condition
that the projector is used for 3.5 hours/day, during 100 days/year,
for a total of 5 years, for the purpose of viewing digital
high-definition images.

3.3

System boundary

The system boundary encompasses the processes including the
raw material, assembly (production), transportation (distribution),use, and disposal stages (Figure 3.3-1).

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary of
LCD projector

106

3.4

Special notes (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

The inventory was calculated using as the assessment criteria the Product-Specific Criteria for Data
Projector (PSC-ID: AG-03) 2) established by the Ecoleaf environmental labeling program of theJapan Environmental Management Association for Industry (JEMAI).

The outline of theassessment criteria is described below.
 Transportation (distribution) stage:
Transportation means is land transportation by truck; transportation distance is 500 km.
 Use stage:
Use of this product by a customer for 3.5 hours/day, 100 days/year, for 5 years.
 Disposal stage:
The product is disposed of as general waste after use.
Data on part of the assembly (production) processes that are outsourced or components
manufactured externally, such as purchased parts, are not covered in this assessment.

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

The assessment was conducted using the actual measurement data taken at the company plants.

4.2

Background data

Data provided in the Ecoleaf program were used for the inventory analysis.

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Table 4.3-1 presents the list of items covered in the inventory (LCI: Life Cycle Inventory) analysisof the LCD projector and the result of the analysis.

This analysis result contains some data

extracted from within published information of the aforementioned Ecoleaf program 3) that werenecessary for this analysis.

107

Table 4.3-1 Result of LCI analysis of the LCD projector (unit: kg)

5

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The second version of the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on
Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) was used for this impact assessment, employing the method's threesteps consisting of characterization, damage assessment and weighting. The impact categories
covered in each step of the assessment are shown in Table 5.1-1.

108

Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
LCIA steps
Environmental

Characterization

impact category

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)

○

○

○

Environmental
Resource consumption (ore)

○

○

○

impact category
Global warming

○

○

○

Urban air pollution

―

○

○

Ozone layer depletion

○

○

○

Acidification

○

○

○

Eutrophication

○

○

○

Photochemical oxidant

○

○

○

Waste

○

○

○

Human toxicity

○

○

○

Ecotoxicity

○

○

○

Indoor air quality

―

○

○

Noise

―

○

○

Land use※※※*: Not covered in the LIME calculation sheet-: No coefficients by LIME

109

5.2

Result of impact assessment

5.2.1 Characterization
The characterization result of the environmental impact of the LCD projector is laid out in Figure5.2-1 through 5.2-7. While Hitachi's environmentally conscious designing has been carried out
mainly from the perspective of preventing global warming and depletion of resources, the use of
LIME also enables other environmental categories such as eutrophication and photochemical oxidant
creation to be studied. A noticeable aspect shown in this result is that nitrogen oxides have an
impact on many of the categories overall. In Figure 5.2-2, larger environmental impacts in the
category of mineral consumption are indicated in the order of zinc, copper and nickel. Meanwhile,by referring to the inventory volumes, it can be observed that the impact of nickel consumption is thegreatest. The following section will provide the analysis of the degree of damage attributable toeach impact category, which will then be used to determine areas that require concentrated effort.
2.50 E- 09

3.50 E+03

ChromiumIron

3.00 E+03

Aluminum2.00 E- 09

Coal

Manganese

Zinc

2.50 E+03

Lead

Natural gas

1.50 E- 09

2.00 E+03

Nickel1.50 E+03

1.00 E- 09

Crude oil

Copper

1.00 E+03
5.00 E- 10
5.00 E+02

Zinc
0.00 E+ 00

0.00 E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

Combined result
原油

Figure 5.2-1

天然ガス

亜鉛

石炭

Characterization result(energy consumption)

3.00E+02

銅ニッケル

Figure 5.2-2

鉛

マンガン

アルミニウム鉄

クロムCharacterization result(mineral consumption)

4.00E-01

Methane

3.50E-01

2.50E+02
3.00E-01

Nitrous oxide

Nitrogen oxide

2.00E+02
2.50E-01

2.00E-01

1.50E+02

Carbon dioxide

1.50E-01

1.00E+02

Sulfur dioxide

1.00E-01

5.00E+01

5.00E-02

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

Combined result
二酸化炭素

Figure 5.2-3

亜酸化窒素

二酸化硫黄

メタン

Characterization result(global warming)

Figure 5.2-4

110

窒素酸化物

Characterization result(acidification)

8.00E-03

5.00E-03
4.50E-03

7.00E-03

Other sludge
4.00E-03

6.00E-03

Molten slag

3.50E-03

5.00E-03

3.00E-03
4.00E-03

2.50E-03

General waste (unspecified/inclusive)
3.00E-03

2.00E-03

Nitrogen oxide

1.50E-03
2.00E-03

1.00E-03
1.00E-03

5.00E-04
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

一般廃棄物(不明・一律)

Figure 5.2-5

溶融スラグ

Combined result

その他汚泥

窒素酸化物

Characterization result(waste)Figure 5.2-6

4.50E-03
4.00E-03
3.50E-03
3.00E-03

Non-methane volatileorganic compounds (average)

2.50E-03
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00
総合結果

Combined result
非メタン揮発性有機化合物(平均)Figure 5.2-7

Characterization result(Photochemical oxidant creation)

111

Characterization result(eutrophication)

5.2.2 Damage assessment(1) Breakdown by substance
The result of damage assessment for four safeguard subjects is laid out in Figure 5.2-5 through 5.2-8(breakdown by substance). The main cause of both the damage to human health indicated in Figure5.2-5 and damage to social welfare in Figure 5.2-6 is carbon dioxide (hereinafter referred to as CO2).
Damage to primary production shown in Figure 5.2-7 is contributed largely by coal, and damage tobiodiversity in Figure 5.2-8 is primarily as the result of general waste. The result also confirms that
sulfur dioxide (hereinafter referred to as SO2), nitrogen compound and general waste each have an
impact on three safeguard subjects.
5.00E+02

8.00E-05

窒素酸化物
Nitrogen4.50E+02
7.00E-05

oxide

4.00E+02

一般廃棄物waste
General

3.50E+02

SO22
SO

5.00E-05

4.00E-05[Yen/f.u.][円/f.u.][DALY/f.u.]

6.00E-05

CO22
CO

3.00E-05

3.00E+02

原油
Crude
oil

2.50E+02
2.00E+02
1.50E+02

CO22
CO

2.00E-05

1.00E+02
1.00E-05

5.00E+01
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

Combined result
二酸化炭素
窒素酸化物
亜酸化窒素
メタン

Figure 5.2-5

二酸化炭素
溶融スラグ
二酸化硫黄
ニッケル

二酸化硫黄
粒子状物質(PM10)
非メタン揮発性有機化合物(平均)Damage to human healthby substance

Figure 5.2-6

一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
天然ガス
その他汚泥

Damage to social
welfare by substance

1.80E-12

1.20E+00

1.00E+00

窒素酸化物
Nitrogen

1.60E-12oxide

1.40E-12

SO22
SO[EINES/f.u.]

8.00E-01[NPP/f.u.]

原油
銅
窒素酸化物

銅
Copper
6.00E-01

石炭
Coal

4.00E-01

1.20E-12

石炭Coal

1.00E-12
8.00E-13
6.00E-13

一般廃棄物waste
General

4.00E-13

2.00E-01
2.00E-13
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result
石炭
二酸化硫黄
窒素酸化物
溶融スラグ
その他汚泥

Figure 5.2-7

Combined result
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
その他汚泥
山砂利
鉄

銅
一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
非メタン揮発性有機化合物(平均)
アルミニウム山砂利

Damage to primary
production by substance

Figure 5.2-8

112

石炭
銅
亜鉛

溶融スラグ
アルミニウムニッケル

Damage to biodiversity
by substance(2) Breakdown by process
The breakdown of the result by process is laid out in Figure 5.2-9 through 5.2-12. The raw material
stage consistently accounts for a large portion of the total impact for each of all safeguard subjects.
The use stage has the greatest impact on human health, social welfare and primary production asshown in Figure 5.2-9 to 5.2-11, and the disposal stage is the dominant contributor to the damage tobiodiversity as illustrated in Figure 5.2-12.
6.00E+02

8.00E-05
7.00E-05

5.00E+02[DALY/f.u.]

使用段階
Use
stage

5.00E-05
4.00E-05
3.00E-05

素材段階
Raw
material stage

2.00E-05[Yen/f.u.][円/f.u.]6.00E-05
4.00E+02

使用段階
Use
stage

3.00E+02

素材段階
Raw
material stage

2.00E+02

1.00E+02
1.00E-05
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

Combined result
素材

Figure 5.2-9

製造

物流

使用

素材

廃棄

Damage to humanhealth by process

製造

物流

使用

廃棄

Figure 5.2-10 Damage to social
welfare by process

1.80E-12

1.20E+00

1.60E-12
1.40E-12

8.00E-01

使用段階
Use
stage

6.00E-01

4.00E-01

素材段階
Raw
material stage

2.00E-01[EINES/f.u.][NPP/f.u.]

1.00E+00

廃棄段階
Disposal stage

1.20E-12
1.00E-12
8.00E-13
6.00E-13

素材段階
Raw material stage

4.00E-13
2.00E-13
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

Combined result
素材

製造

物流

使用

素材

廃棄

Figure 5.2-11 Damage to primary
production by process

製造

物流

使用

廃棄

Figure 5.2-12 Damage to biodiversity
by process

113

(3) Breakdown by impact category
The breakdown of the result by impact category is laid out in Figure 5.2-13 through 5.2-16. The
impacts of eutrophication and photochemical oxidant creation observed in the characterization
process in Section 5.2.1 are not found in this result except for primary production. It can therefore
be assumed that these two categories have relatively small impacts at present. Safeguard subjects
that are affected by environmental impacts other than global warming includes human health shownin Figure 5.2-13, which is also affected by urban air pollution, and primary production in Figure5.2-15 on which non-biological resources have a significant impact. The result also indicates thatthe impacts of non-biological resources and waste are present on social welfare in Figure 5.2-14 andbiodiversity in Figure 5.2-16.
6.00E+02

8.00E-05

廃棄物
Waste

5.00E+02

都市域大気汚染Urban
air pollution

6.00E-05
5.00E-05
4.00E-05

地球温暖化
Globalwarming

3.00E-05[Yen/f.u.][円/f.u.][DALY/f.u.]

7.00E-05

4.00E+02

地球温暖化
Globalwarming

3.00E+02

2.00E+02

非生物系資源Non-biologicalresources

2.00E-05
1.00E+02

1.00E-05
0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果

総合結果

Combined result

Combined result
非生物系資源
富栄養化
人間毒性(水)生態毒性(土壌)

地球温暖化
光化学オキシダント
人間毒性(土壌)
廃棄物

オゾン層破壊都市域大気汚染生態毒性(大気)非生物系資源
富栄養化
人間毒性(水)生態毒性(土壌)酸性化
人間毒性(大気)
生態毒性(水)Figure 5.2-13 Damage to human healthby impact category

地球温暖化
光化学オキシダント
人間毒性(土壌)
廃棄物

オゾン層破壊都市域大気汚染生態毒性(大気)酸性化
人間毒性(大気)
生態毒性(水)Figure 5.2-14 Damage to social welfare
by impact category

1.20E+00

1.80E-12

1.00E+00

廃棄物
Waste

8.00E-01

地球温暖化
Globalwarming

1.60E-12

6.00E-01

非生物系資源Non-biologicalresources

4.00E-01[EINES/f.u.][NPP/f.u.]

1.40E-12
1.20E-12

廃棄物
Waste

1.00E-12
8.00E-13
6.00E-13

非生物系資源Non-biological resources

4.00E-13

2.00E-01
2.00E-13
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
総合結果

総合結果

Combined result
非生物系資源
富栄養化
人間毒性(水)生態毒性(土壌)

地球温暖化
光化学オキシダント
人間毒性(土壌)
廃棄物

Combined result
オゾン層破壊都市域大気汚染生態毒性(大気)酸性化
人間毒性(大気)
生態毒性(水)非生物系資源
富栄養化
人間毒性(水)生態毒性(土壌)

Figure 5.2-15 Damage to primary
production by impact
category

地球温暖化
光化学オキシダント
人間毒性(土壌)
廃棄物

オゾン層破壊都市域大気汚染生態毒性(大気)酸性化
人間毒性(大気)
生態毒性(水)Figure 5.2-16 Damage to biodiversity
by impact category114

5.2.3 Weighting
1.80E+03

The weighting result by substance is

Crude
原油 oil

1.60E+03

shown in Figure 5.2-17. In addition

all found to have impacts on most of
the safeguard subjects as shown in
Section 5.2.2 Damage assessment (1)Breakdownbysubstance,

thisweighting result indicates that crude
oil constitutes a sizable impact while
the impact of nitrogen oxide is[Yen/f.u.][円/f.u.]1.40E+03

to CO2, SO2 and general waste that are

一般廃棄物
Generalwaste

1.20E+03

SO2
SO
2
1.00E+03
8.00E+02
6.00E+02

CO2
CO2

4.00E+02
2.00E+02
0.00E+00
総合結果 result
Combined

relatively small.

二酸化炭素
原油
銅
天然ガス

Figure 5.2-18 represents the weighting
result by process. The use and raw

二酸化硫黄
石炭
溶融スラグ

一般廃棄物(不明・一律)
窒素酸化物
粒子状物質(PM10)

Figure 5.2-17 Weighting result by substancematerial stages, which are confirmed
to have large environmental impacts in Section 5.2.2 Damage assessment (2) Breakdown by process,are also shown responsible for the majority of the total impact in this result.
Figure 5.2-19 shows the breakdown by impact category.

In this weighting result, urban air

pollution, which is found to have an impact only on human health in 5.2.2 Damage assessment (3)Breakdown by impact category, accounts for a larger impact than non-biological resources thatshows a sizable impact on most of the safeguard subjects in the same damage assessment.
The result also suggests that environmental impacts of urban air pollution, non-biological resources

2.00E+03

2.00E+03

1.80E+03

1.80E+03

1.60E+03

1.60E+03

1.40E+03

1.40E+03

1.20E+03
1.00E+03

使用段階
Use
stage

8.00E+02
6.00E+02
4.00E+02[Yen/f.u.][円/f.u.][Yen/f.u.][円/f.u.]and waste should also be taken into consideration in addition to global warming.

素材段階
Raw
material stage

廃棄物
Waste
都市域大気汚染Urban
air pollution

1.20E+03
1.00E+03

地球温暖化
Globalwarming

8.00E+02
6.00E+02

非生物系資源Non-biologicalresources

4.00E+02
2.00E+02

2.00E+02

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

総合結果 result
Combined

総合結果 result
Combined

非生物系資源
富栄養化
人間毒性(水)生態毒性(土壌)

素材 製造 物流 使用 廃棄

Figure 5.2-18 weighting result byprocess

地球温暖化
オゾン層破壊光化学オキシダント 都市域大気汚染
人間毒性(土壌)
生態毒性(大気)廃棄物

酸性化
人間毒性(大気)
生態毒性(水)Figure 5.2-19 weighting result by
impact category
115

6Conclusion

6.1 Summary of study result
The assessment of the environmental impact of an LCD projector was conducted covering its entire life
cycle from the raw material stage to the assembly (production), use (3.5 hours/day, 100 days/year, for 5
years), transportation (land transportation by truck; distance 500 km) and disposal (treated as general waste
after use) stages.
According to the result, the environmental impacts associated with the LCD projector consist largely of
those generated during the use and raw material stages. The assessment result by impact category has
identified environmental impacts of urban air pollution, non-biological resources and waste in addition to
global warming, and determined that the major causes of these impacts are the emissions of CO2 and SO2,
general waste and the consumption of crude oil. By referring to the inventory, CO2 and SO2 emissions
and crude oil consumption are assumed to be attributable to energy consumption. In light of the fact that
there are no items found in this part of the assessment that are unique to an LCD projector, it can beassumed that the above result is common for household appliances of which the main environmental impact
is electricity consumption.
Based on the above study result, the analysis for future approaches in environmentally conscious designingis summarized as follows. Considering that energy consumption is the main factor of the environmental
impact of the LCD projector, promoting the further development of energy-saving technologies for the
product is crucial in order to reduce its burdens to the environment. The environmental impact of the raw
material stage is also significant and it is therefore important that improvements are made such as byselecting the types of raw materials that produce lower environmental burdens, and reducing the amount of
raw materials used in the product by adopting a lightweight design. In addition to the reduction of raw
material use, the promotion of recycling is also deemed important for the purpose of reducing waste
generation.
6.2 Limitations and future challenges
This assessment has contributed toward identifying several other environmental impacts than global
warming. However, the result is based on the conditions specified by the PSC, and the environmental
impacts confirmed in the assessment may vary under different assessment conditions. For example, thisassessment was conducted on the assumption that the product is treated as general waste in the disposal
stage. The environmental impacts should also be studied considering different conditions, such as when
the product is recycled instead of disposed of entirely as waste.

116

References
1) WOOO World LCD Projector, Hitachi, Ltd.
http://av.hitachi.co.jp/homeproj/index.html
2) Product-Specific Criteria for Data Projector (PSC ID: AG-03), Japan Environmental Management
Association for Industry
http://www.jemai.or.jp/JEMAI_DYNAMIC/data/current/groupobj-451-pdf.pdf
3) Ecoleaf environmental label registration No. AG-06-024, Japan Environmental Management
Association for Industry
http://www.jemai.or.jp/JEMAI_DYNAMIC/data/current/prodobj-928-pdf.pdf

117

Report on"Environmental Impact Assessment ofHousehold Air Conditioner"

June 2008

118

1.

General Information

1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

System Engineering Laboratory, Corporate Research & Development Center,Toshiba Corporation
Yoshiyuki Hondo
yoshiyuki.hondo@toshiba.co.jp

Report preparation dateJune 14, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Assess the subject product provided with energy-saving features (released in 2006) and the benchmark
product (released in 2000) using LIME2 (Japanese-design Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on
Endpoint Modeling), and confirm the reduced environmental impacts of the subject product.

2.2

Application of study result

Toshiba has developed its own environmental efficiency indicator named "Factor T" 1) 2), which is
calculated incorporating an environmental impact assessment using LIME1. Taking into account theresult of this study, the updating of the assessment method to LIME2 will be considered.

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

The study looks at two household air conditioner models that are manufactured, used and disposed ofwithin Japan. The benchmark product model is a household air conditioner RAS-406YDR, and thesubject product model is a household air conditioner "Daiseikai SDR Series" RAS-402SDR.
Air conditioner Equipped with 4 cleaning functions to maintain energy conservation and cleanliness for 10 years

FactorHousehold air
conditioner"Daiseikai SDR
Series"RAS-402SDR(released in
December 2006)

Value factor: 1.65

Main points of value improvement

Automatic cleaning... Self-cleans the inside of the unit that cannot be reachedmanually, maintaining a clean and powerful unit.
Air purification ... Cleans the air in the room with plasma air purifying, ventilationand ozone deodorization.
Increased maximum capacity ... Powerful performance provides comfort
throughout the year. Quickly warms the room even on cold mornings.

Environmental impact
reduction factor: 1.29

Main points of environmental improvement

Energy conservation ... A combination of a built-in high-performance compressor andhigh-efficiency inverter enhances energy conservation. Automatic cleaning function self -cleans
the inside of the unit and maintains energy -efficient operation.

Automatic cleaning... Saves the need for manual cleaning of the inside of the unit andreplacement of filters.

Comparison
product

The industry's top-class performance combinedwith the fully automatic cleaning function helps
save energy for a long time.
This air conditioner delivers comfort and energy
conservation at the same time.

Figure 3.1-1 Subject of study
119

3.2

Functions and functional unit

As the functional unit, the assessment uses the assumption that one household air conditioner is used in ahousehold for the duration of 10 years. The use conditions in the use stage are set according to thecalculation conditions for annual performance factor (APF) (the Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Industry Association standard (JRA 4046: calculation conditions for period power consumption of room air
conditioner)) (Table 3.2-1).
Table 3.2-1 Use conditions applied to this assessment
Item

Conditions

Outside air temperature

Apply Tokyo model

Indoor temperature setting

27C for air conditioning, 20C for heating

PeriodAir conditioning for 3.6 months (June 2 - September 21)
Heating for 5.5 months (October 28 - April 14)

3.3

Time of use

18 hours from 6:00 to 24:00

Building type

Average wooden house

System boundary

Recycling

Disposal

Use

Distribution

Production

Raw material
procurement

The assessment covers the raw material, assembly (production), transportation (distribution), use, disposal,
and recycling stages (Figure 3.2-1).

System Boundary

Figure 3.2-1 System boundary for this assessment

3.4

Special notes (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

This study uses data referenced from existing literature 3) in the assessment for the disposal and recycling
stages. The assessment is conducted based on the assumption that the entire amount of CFC refrigerant iscollected.

120

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

The assessments for the raw material (procurement) and use stages were conducted using design data. For
the production stage, input items (energy etc.) were allocated according to the shipping value.

4.2

Background data

As the background data, this assessment used the environmental impact intensities 4) based on the 2000
edition of the inter-industry relations table provided with the Easy-LCA 3) assessment tool. For waste, theweight of waste was calculated according to the disposal rate of each material, and included in theindustrial waste (unspecified/inclusive) category of the LIME2 classification. The disposal model used in
Easy-LCA was also applied to this assessment. LIME2 involves two types of coefficients for wood: acoefficient for "wood (natural)," which indicates wood harvested from managed forests, and a coefficientfor "wood (unknown)," which is for woods from forests of which the management status is unknown. The
wood consumption volume was calculated using applicable environmental impact intensity, and was
divided according to the ratios of natural forests and artificial forests for pulpwood published on thewebsite of the Japan Paper Association 5).

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Table 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 represent the list of items covered in the inventory analyses of the two models ofhousehold air conditioners and the results of the analyses.

121

Table 4.3-1 Result of LCI analysis of household air conditioner (benchmark product)(unit: kg/f.u.)

Crude oil for fuel
Coal
Natural gas
Crude oil for material
Iron
CopperAluminum
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
NickelChromium
GravelCrushed stone
Limestone
Wood (natural)

0.39
26.31
4.47
11.62
22.55
1.00
4.35
0.03
0.25
0.12
0.01
0.10
0.59
1.56
13.07
0.13

0.25
2.51
2.53
1.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

186.731816.781037.12188.08
13.36
0.19
0.51
0.02
0.15
0.08
0.01
0.07
36.51
25.03
30.17
1.79

Disposal/
recycling-0.10-13.89-0.90-1.05-14.22
-0.33
-1.63
0.00
-0.13
-0.07
-0.01
-0.06
-0.14
-0.62
-7.41
-0.03

Wood (unknown)

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.84

-0.01

CO2
Sox
Nox
HFC
HFC23
PFC
SF6
Dust
COD
T-N
T-P

121.06
0.12
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00

12.65
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

1.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

8970.36
3.61
5.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.07
5.01
0.09

-39.27
-0.04
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.00

Waste

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.31

Exhaustible resources
To outdoor air
To watersystem
To soilsystem

Impact of emission/discharge to the environment

Renewable
resources

Impact of resource consumption

Raw material
procurement

122

Production Distribution UseTable 4.3-2 Result of LCI analysis of household air conditioner (subject product)(unit: kg/f.u.)

Crude oil for fuel
Coal
Natural gas
Crude oil for material
Iron
CopperAluminum
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
NickelChromium
GravelCrushed stone
Limestone
Wood (natural)

0.42
27.84
4.71
13.76
23.67
1.11
4.66
0.03
0.26
0.13
0.01
0.10
0.63
1.63
14.35
0.14

0.25
2.51
2.53
1.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

144.201403.02800.92145.24
10.32
0.15
0.39
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.01
0.05
28.19
19.33
23.30
1.38

Disposal/
recycling-0.10-13.89-0.90-1.05-14.22
-0.33
-1.63
0.00
-0.13
-0.07
-0.01
-0.06
-0.14
-0.62
-7.41
-0.03

Wood (unknown)

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.65

-0.01

CO2
Sox
Nox
HFC
HFC23
PFC
SF6
Dust
COD
T-N
T-P

129.00
0.13
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.00

12.65
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

1.74
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

6927.40
2.79
4.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.05
3.87
0.07

-39.27
-0.04
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.00

Waste

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.47

Exhaustible resources
To outdoor air
To watersystem
To soilsystem/discharge to the
Impact of emission
environment

Renewable
resources

Impact of resource consumption

Raw material
procurement

123

Production Distribution Use

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method
based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization, damage
assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment are listed inTable 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming











Urban air pollution
Ozone layer depletion
Acidification







Eutrophication













Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality
Noise
Waste
Land use

124

5.2

Result of impact assessment

5.2.1

Characterization

120,000

Natural gas Coal Crude oil
100,000

80,00060,00040,00020,0000

RAS-406YDR (benchmark model) RAS-402SDR (subject model)

Figure 5.2-1

Characterization(energy consumption)

Resource (mineral) consumption characterization

Resource (energy) consumption characterization

The characterization results of the environmental impacts of the household air conditioners in the
categories of resource (energy) consumption and resource (mineral) consumption are laid out in Figures
5.2-1 and 5.2-2. The energy consumption is largely attributable to the consumption of electricity, and theresult shows that the energy consumption of the subject model has been reduced by 22% from that of thebenchmark model as the result of the energy-saving design. While the resource (mineral) consumption
has been reduced slightly, the breakdown indicates that the ratio of copper has increased. This is due tochanges made to the composition of parts.
6.00E-09
5.00E-09
4.00E-09
3.00E-09
2.00E-09
1.00E-09
0.00E+00
RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)RAS-402SDR (subject model)
Copper Zinc

resultLead Nickel Iron Manganese Aluminum

Figure 5.2-2

125

Chromium

Characterization
result(mineral consumption)

1.20E+04

2.00E-03

1.00E+04
Social welfare［YEN/f.u.］

2.50E-03

Human health［DALY/f.u.］

Human health［YEN/f.u.］

5.2.2
Damage assessment
The results of the damage assessment (breakdown by substance) for four safeguard subjects are laid out in
Figures 5.2-3 through 5.2-6. All the results indicate that the subject product has the smaller impact thanthe benchmark product. Carbon dioxide emissions account for a major part of the impacts on humanhealth and social welfare. Coal consumption and wood consumption have large impacts on primary
production and biodiversity, respectively.

8.00E+03
社会試算［YEN/f.u.］

1.50E-03

1.00E-03

6.00E+03

4.00E+03

5.00E-04
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)
Carbon dioxide
Particulate matter (PM10)
Sulfur hexafluoride
HFC-23Figure 5.2-3
Sulfur hexafluoride

RAS-402SDR (subject model)

Sulfur dioxide
PM10 (non-point source)
HFC-134a

0.00E+00
RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)

Nitrogen oxide
Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

RAS-402SDR (subject model)

Natural gas
Crude oil
Carbon dioxide
Total nitrogen
Nitrogen oxide
Sulfur dioxide
Lime
Total phosphorous Copper
Industrial waste (unspecified/inclusive)

Tetrafluoromethane

Figure 5.2-4

Resultofdamageassessment (human health)

6.00E+01

Resultofdamageassessment (social welfare)

2.50E-10

5.00E+01
2.00E-10

3.00E+01

2.00E+01

1.00E+01

1.50E-10

1.00E-10［EINES/f.u.］

Biodiversity［EINES/f.u.］Primary production［kg/f.u.］

4.00E+01

5.00E-11

0.00E+00

0.00E+00
RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)
Coal
Wood (natural forest)
Sulfur dioxide
CopperRock (except limestone) Iron

Figure 5.2-5

RAS-402SDR (subject model)
Wood (unknown) Nitrogen oxide
Aluminum
Limestone
Pit gravel

Result of damage assessment(primary production)

RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)

Wood (natural forest)
CopperLimestone
Pit gravel

Figure 5.2-6

126

RAS-402SDR (subject model)

Wood (unknown)
Industrial waste (unspecified/inclusive)
Rock (except limestone)

Coal
Aluminum
Iron

Resultof damage assessment(biodiversity)

5.2.3WeightingMonetary value of damage［YEN/f.u.］

60,000Raw material
Production Distribution
The weighting result (by process) for theUse
Disposalbenchmark and subject models is shown in
50,000Figure 5.2-9. While the environmental
40,000impact of the subject model at the raw
material procurement stage has increased by
30,0007.7% over the benchmark model because of
20,000
the increase in the volume of copper used,
the total impacts over the product life cycle,
10,000measured in terms of the monetary value of0
associated environmental damage, were
RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)RAS-402SDR (subject model)
calculated as 48,870 yen for the benchmark-10,000
model and 38,199 yen for the subject model.
Figure 5.2-9 weighting result (by process)This indicates that the environmental impactof the subject model has been reduced byapproximately 22% compared with the benchmark model. A large majority of the overall environmental
impacts of household air conditioners is associated with their electricity consumption during the use stage,and impacts that occur in other stages constitute only a small portion. The result shows that theenvironmental impact of the subject model has been successfully reduced in the use stage, which is due toits energy-saving design.

Figure 5.2-10 and 5.2-11 respectively represent the breakdown of the result by substance and by impact
category. The breakdown by substance indicates that major contributors to the total environmental impact
are carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions and coal consumption, and the breakdown by impact
category illustrates that dominant environmental impacts are global warming, urban air pollution andnon-biological resource consumption.
6.00E+04

60,000

Monetary value of damage［YEN/f.u.］

Monetary value of damage［YEN/f.u.］

5.00E+04

4.00E+04

3.00E+04

2.00E+04

1.00E+04

50,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000

0.00E+00

RAS-406YDR (benchmark model) RAS-402SDR (subject model)
Carbon dioxide
Sulfur dioxide Coal
Natural gas
Nitrogen oxide Crude oil
Particulate matter (PM10) Total nitrogen

Wood (natural forest)
Wood (unknown)

Figure 5.2-10 weighting result(by substance)

RAS-406YDR (benchmark model)

Non-biological resource consumption
Acidification
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (soil)

RAS-402SDR (subject model)

Global warming
Eutrophication
Human toxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (air)Waste

Ozone layer depletion
Photochemical oxidant creation
Human toxicity (water)
Ecotoxicity (water)
Indoor air quality pollution

Figure 5.2-11 weighting result(by impact category)

127

6.
6.1

Conclusion
Summary of study result

The assessment of the environmental impacts of household air conditioners was conducted on two models(benchmark model released in 2000 and subject model released in 2006) covering their entire life cycle.
The weighting result using LIME2 confirmed that the environmental impact of the subject model has been
reduced by 22% over the benchmark model. The major portion of the reduction has been achieved
through the reduction in electricity consumption during the use stage, which demonstrates the effect of theenergy-saving design. Although the consumption of copper has been slightly increased due to changes
made to the composition of parts, its impact is very small in light of the reduction achieved in the overall
environmental impact.

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

As mentioned previously, the assessments concerning the disposal and recycling stages were conductedusing values referenced from existing literature based on statistics on the disposal of general waste, andalso on the assumption that the entire amount of CFC refrigerant is collected. However, in order to obtain
results reflecting the actual conditions more accurately, further detailed assessments of the present disposal
and recycling processes will need to be carried out. This should be addressed as one of the futurepriorities.

References
1)

2)
3)
4)
5)

Toshiba Group "Development of Eco-efficiency Indicator Factor T and its Promotion in Japan andOverseas"
http://www.jemai.or.jp/JEMAI_DYNAMIC/data/current/detailobj-3631-attachment.pdf
Advancing Together with Factor T 2008 Edition
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/env/jp/products/pdf/factor_t_2008.pdf
Norio Takeyama and Hideyo Kagami (1996): Application of Easy-LCA Method to OA Products. The
2nd International Conference on EcoBalance, pp. 198-201
Y. Kobayashi et. al. (2007): Int. J. Environmental Technology and Management, 7(5), (2007), pp.
694-733
Japan Paper Association: Japan Paper Association website (http://www.jpa.gr.jp/)128

Report on
Environmental Impact Analysis of Indoor Air
Quality Improvement through the Use of aHigh-Function Building Material

July 2008
Environmental Office
TOSTEM CORPORATION

129

1.

General Information

1.1

Assessor

Organization:
Name:
Contact:

1.2

Planning and Promotion Group, Environmental Office, TOSTEM CORPORATION
Hiroshi Mine
mineh1@exc.tostem.co.jp

Report preparation dateJuly 31, 2008

2.

Purpose of Study

2.1

Basis of study

Sick building syndrome has been considered an important house-related issue, and a wide variety ofsolutions have been implemented such as reduction of formaldehyde exuding from building materials andimprovement of ventilation system performance in well-sealed houses. Also, one of the newest possible
solutions is allowing wall materials or their decorations such as wallpapers to have an ability to adsorb anddecompose indoor air quality contaminants. According to the study by the Center for Housing
Renovation and Dispute Settlement Support, the number of consultations about sick building syndrome has
been decreasing after it peaked in FY2008. However, considering the fact that the Japan Testing Centerfor Construction Materials has established a voluntary industrial standard called the Standard of Emission
Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds from Building Products, it seems that the sick building syndrome
issue is now widely known and better understood instead of attracting less attention than before.
In this study, LCA was conducted to assess the life cycle environmental impact of the interior material
called MOISS which has the ability to adsorb and decompose indoor air quality contaminants. Then, after
an understanding of its environmental characteristics was obtained, its formaldehyde adsorption anddecomposition capability was assessed while taking into account CO2 emission caused by decomposition of
the contaminants. The current and potential effectiveness of recycling of MOISS, mainly made of natural
materials, was then assessed.

2.2

Application of study result

The study result will be used to understand the environmental efficiency of MOISS, identify important
processes for reducing the environmental impact, and provide information to contribute to design
improvement. Also, the potential of product appeal or business activity indices using LIME2
environmental impact assessment results will be tested.

3.

Scope of Study

3.1

Subject of study and its specifications

The interior material called MOISS, which is manufactured, used, and disposed of in Japan, was the study
subject. As the control subject, a commonly used type of wall (cloth-covered gypsum board) was used.
Both MOISS and the gypsum board had a thickness of 9.5 mm.

130

MOISS is characterized by: humidity adjustment and deodorant functions like soil walls or trees;
adsorption and decomposition of toxic substances due to the use of vermiculite as the main ingredient; noadhesive finish as it does not need to be covered by paper; and recyclability due to the use of natural
material as the main ingredient.

3.2

Functions and functional unit

The functional unit is the entire life cycle of a wall to furnish one side of a room. For MOISS, it is 6
boards each having an area of 910 mm  1820 mm, a total of approximately 10.0 m2 (weight: 9.4 kg  6
pieces). For a common wall, too, it is 6 boards with a total area of approximately 10.0 m2 (weight: 10.8
kg  6 pieces). Formaldehyde exposure for 8 years of wall use is used in the assessment as the indoor air
quality contaminating parameter.

3.3

System boundary

The raw material procurement, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal stages were included within
the system boundary (Figures 3.3-1 and Figure 3.3-2). In this study, the environmental impact assessment
for product-specific processes, excluding the product use stage, was the 'ver. 1' assessment, and theenvironmental impact assessment including the product use stage (formaldehyde-related environmental
impact assessment) was the 'ver. 2' assessment.
System boundary＜MOISS＞

Overseas raw
material・Vermiculite

Disposal
Use

Manufacturing

Domestic raw
materials

Recycling・Calciumhydroxide, forexampleFigure 3.3-1 System boundary of MOISS131

System boundary＜Plasterboard＞

Overseas raw
material
・Natural gypsum

Manufacturing

Domestic raw
materials

Use・By-product gypsum

Disposal＜Vinyl cloth＞

Domestic raw
materials

Manufacturing

・Polyvinyl chloride

Figure 3.3-2 System boundary of a common wall

3.4

Special notes (processes or items exempted from assessment, etc.)

The by-product gypsum refinement process (flue-gas desulfurization) was not included in the by-productgypsum environmental impact parameter as it was a by-product process. Also, construction, maintenance,and disposal of factories and machines for product manufacturing as well as construction and demolition ofresidences were not within the scope of the assessment.
Note that the formaldehyde adsorption and decomposition capability of MOISS was calculated based on its
performance test result.1) Although an interior material recycling model is now under development, inorder to incorporate the current status, both MOISS and the common wall were both treated as industrial
waste (debris). MOISS is considered as industrial waste of a stabilized type and a gypsum board isconsidered as industrial waste of a controlled type, but this type difference was not taken into considerationin this study.

4.

Inventory Analysis

4.1

Foreground data

Data on the amount of raw materials, resources, and energy used in MOISS manufacturing was collected in
FY2004 with the cooperation of the manufacturer MITSUBISHI MATERIALS KENZAI CORPORATION.
Data on the amount of gypsum boards and vinyl wallpaper was cited from the 3rd revision of the FY2007
JLCA-LCA database created by the Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry 2). The
environmental impact of the product use stage was calculated based on the result of the study by Kaneko, etal 3) and references for that study 4). Also, results of interviews with the manufacturers and the result of
the study by the Investigation Committee for Promotion of Waste Gypsum Board Recycling 5) werereferred to in order to obtain information on the current status of the disposal stage.

132

4.2

Background data

Based on the information obtained through interviews with the MOISS distributor, MITSUBISHI
MATERIALS KENZAI CORPORATION, it was assumed in the study that raw materials of MOISS were
procured domestically as well as internationally; vermiculite was imported from South Africa, and otherraw materials were procured in Japan. As for procurement of raw materials of gypsum boards, it was
assumed in this study that natural gypsum was imported from Thailand and Australia, and by-productgypsum and other raw materials were domestically procured based on the statistical data provided by the
Gypsum Board Association of Japan 6) and also the result of the study by the Investigation Committee for
Promotion of Waste Gypsum Board Recycling 5). Other data required in the study was from the databaseof JEMAI-LCA Pro of the Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry 7).

4.3

Inventory analysis item and result table

Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 show the subjects and results of inventory analysis for MOISS and the common wall,
respectively.

Environmental load of emission

Environmental load of
consumption

Table 4.3-1 MOISS LCI analysis result [Unit: kg/f.u.])

Depletedresources

Recyclable
resources

Outdoorair

Material

Manufacturing

Distribution

Coal

3.76E-01

1.56E+00

7.25E-05

Crude oil (fuel)1.53E+00

5.51E+00

4.49E-03

Natural gas

2.53E-01

1.07E+00

8.59E-05

Uranium

3.87E-05

1.66E-04

2.33E-09

Sand

1.81E+01

Limestone

2.84E+01

Feldspar1.35E+01

Use

Disposal

-

Wood
Water

-

-

-

(2.80E-02)

CO2

1.85E+01

3.50E+01

6.61E+00

SOx

3.83E-04

6.87E-03

2.39E-03

NOx

2.30E-03

1.45E-02

3.77E-04

N2O

1.67E-04

6.40E-04

1.90E-05
7.27E-05

CH4

1.70E-04

5.68E-04

NMVOC

7.84E-05

3.37E-04

PM10

1.99E-04

3.89E-04

1.14E-04

PM10 (source)

1.43E-05

8.99E-05

7.86E-04

NOx (source)

1.96E-04

1.23E-03

2.46E-02

SO2

3.45E-04

3.84E-04

8.28E-06

Indoor air

HCHO

Soil

Industrial
waste(2.58E-03)
56.64

133

Environmental load of emission

Environmental load of
consumption

Table 4.3-2 Common wall LCI analysis result [Unit: kg/f.u.])

Depletedresources

Recyclable
resources

Outdoor air

Material

Manufacturing

Distribution

Coal

7.57E-01

5.37E-01

5.48E-05

Crude oil (fuel)8.55E-01

7.75E+00

3.12E-03

Natural gas

5.23E-01

4.69E-01

6.01E-05

5.70E-05

1.76E-09

Uranium

5.68E-05

Crude oil(raw material)

2.27E+00

Limestone

2.00E+01

Use

Disposal

-

-

Wood
Water

-

-

-

CO2

7.18E+00

2.73E+01

4.14E+00

SOx

1.36E-03

9.80E-03

1.62E-03

NOx

3.44E-03

1.46E-02

2.85E-04

N2O

3.51E-04

5.33E-04

1.44E-05
5.49E-05

CH4

3.75E-04

7.37E-04

NMVOC

1.15E-04

1.15E-04

PM10

7.02E-04

5.50E-03

8.61E-05

PM10 (source)

1.08E-04

2.11E-05

4.79E-04

NOx (source)

1.47E-03

2.88E-04

1.50E-02

SO2

3.52E-03

1.88E-02

6.24E-06

Indoor air

HCHO

Soil

Industrial
waste(2.18E-02）
65.1

134

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1

LCIA steps and impact categories used in assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Japanese-design "Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method
based on Endpoint Modeling" (LIME2) through its three steps consisting of characterization, damage
assessment and weighting. The impact categories covered in each step of the assessment are listed inTable 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 LCIA steps and environmental impact categories used in assessment
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption(mineral)

Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Ozone layer depletion

-





Acidification







Eutrophication

-





Photochemical oxidant creation

-





Human toxicity

-





Ecotoxicity

-





Indoor air quality







Noise

-

Waste







Land use

135

5.2

Result of impact assessment

5.2.1 Characterization
As the result of characterization of MOISS and the common wall, Figure 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 show theirresource (energy) consumption and global warming effects. The graphs marked as 'ver. 1' show the resultof the assessment that did not include the product use stage (indoor air pollution). The graphs marked as'ver. 2' show the result of the assessment that did include the product use stage (this applies to the damage
assessment and weighting results). In terms of resource (energy) consumption, MOISS had a slightly
lower environmental impact than the common wall. However CO2 emission of MOISS had a higher
environmental impact than the common wall on global warming. Therefore, different types of energy had
different levels of environmental impact. When other areas of influence were included, MOISS had lessenergy consumption, acidification, and waste than the common wall while the common wall had lessmineral resource consumption and global warming effects than MOISS.
In this result, it is noteworthy that MOISS ver. 1 and ver. 2 had approximately the same level of CO2 impact
on global warming and that the impact of CO2 emission caused by formaldehyde decomposition was
marginal in the overall result.
7.00E+01

5.00E+02

6.00E+01

5.00E+01

Characterization: global warming

Characterization: resource (energy) consumption

4.00E+02

3.00E+02

2.00E+02

4.00E+01

3.00E+01

2.00E+01

1.00E+02
1.00E+01

0.00E+00

0.00E+00
MOISSver.1

Common wall ver.1
Crude oilFigure 5.2-1

MOISSver.2

MOISSver.1

Common wall ver.2

Common wall ver.1
Carbon dioxide

Natural gas Coal

Figure 5.2-2

Characterization(energy consumption)136

MOISSver.2

Nitrous oxide

Common wall ver.2

MethaneCharacterization(global warming)

t result

5.2.2

Damage assessment

Figures 5.2-3 through 5.2-6 show the assessment result of damage (by substance) to 4 areas of protection.
MOISS had slightly lower environmental impacts on social assets and biodiversity than the common wall
while the common wall had a slightly lower environmental impact on primary production. The graphs
also show that the environmental impact of waste (debris) was the largest of all substances in the areas ofsocial assets, primary production, and biodiversity.
In the area of human health, the ver. 2 result shows that formaldehyde had a large impact, meaning thathigh formaldehyde adsorption and decomposition capability would greatly contribute to human health. It
should also be noted that CO2 and SOx emission
also had relatively large impacts.

Figure 5.2-4

Damage assessment result(social assets)

Figure 5.2-5

Damage assessment result(primary production)

Figure 5.2-6
137

Damage assessment result(biodiversity)

Figure 5.2-7 shows damage to primary production by process wherein the structure is different between
MOISS and the common wall. Because desulfurization gypsum is a by-product gypsum generated during
power generation and is used as the main ingredient of the common wall, its loads were not included in theassessment; therefore, the graph shows that the common wall caused smaller damage than MOISS in thematerial stage. Vermiculite, the main ingredient of MOISS, is also a by-product of excavation of otherminerals or vermiculite of higher quality; however, based on the conclusion that it would be appropriate if
the material loads were included, the material loads based on weights were included in the assessment.
Note, however, examination of inclusion of parameters other than weights, such as prices that show quality
difference, should also be examined in the future.
Finally, the disposal stage of both MOISS and the common wall accounted for most of the damage toprimary production, and the damage of the disposal stage of MOISS ver. 1 in particular accounted for 73%
of the entire damage caused by MOISS ver. 1.

Figure 5.2-7

Damage to primary
production by process1385.2.3WeightingFigure 5.2-8 shows the weighting study result(by substance) for MOISS and the common wall.
For both types of wall, debris (industrial waste),
CO2 emission, SOx emission, and crude oil
consumption of ver. 1 had large environmental
impacts. When the product use stage wasincluded in the assessment (ver. 2) to add theenvironmental impact of formaldehyde, thesocial cost, or environmental impact, was 1,500
yen/f.u. for MOISS and 3,200 yen/f.u. for thecommon wall.
Figure 5.2-9 shows the environmental impact byprocess, and Figure 5.2-10 shows theenvironmental impact by the area of influence.
When examined by process, both MOISS andthe common wall had large environmental
Figure 5.2-8 Weighting result
impacts in their manufacturing, (use), and(by substance)
disposal stages, accounting for most of theentire impact. When examined by the area ofinfluence, the environmental impact of indoor air quality pollution of the process including the use stage(common wall ver. 2) was equal to all the other parameters combined for that process. In addition, theenvironmental impacts of waste, global warming, and urban area air pollution were prominent.

Figure 5.2-9

weighting result(by process)Figure 5.2-10 weighting result(by area of influence)1395.2.4

Process structure of MOISSFigure 5.2-11 shows the weighting result by process for MOISS(ver. 1). Its environmental impact was the largest in its disposal
stage, accounting for 78%. As for other stages, the material,
manufacturing, and distribution stages accounted for 6%, 12%,and 4%, respectively. Although it was originally expected thattransportation of vermiculite would cause a large environmental
impact because it is imported from South Africa (transportation
distance: approximately 15,000 km); however, it turned out thatits impact was small due to the use of bulk carriers.
5.2.5

Recycling effectFigure 5.2-12 shows the estimate of MOISS recycling effects.
Figure 5.2-11 weighting result
Here, in ver. 1 the product use stage was excluded from the(by process)calculation and the product was assumed to be processed asindustrial waste (debris). To compare with this, in ver. 3 it was assumed that 25% of the waste productfrom a dismantled residence was used as cover soil and the rest was processed as industrial waste, and inver. 4 it was assumed that 25% of the waste product from a dismantled residence as collected, ground, andrecycled into materials at its production base and the rest was transported to an industrial waste processing
facility. Note that, the value 25% is a value tentatively set referring to the ratio of recycled material
contained in other building materials.
Using cover soil did not result in any significant effectbecause the waste product would still be disposed of at adisposal field; however, grinding and material recycling
indicated effects. Because no rare minerals are consumed
when manufacturing the product, the effect of material
recycling was more significant in the disposal stage than in
the material stage.
A model is now being developed to recycle waste materials
including gypsum boards collected from the site of residence
demolition.8) Also, since no adhesive is used in
manufacturing of MOISS and its main ingredients are all
natural materials, it is highly likely that it will be easy to
implement a material recycling system once the collection
system is established.
Figure 5.2-12 weighting result (by substance)

140

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of study result

In this study, the environmental impact was assessed for the entire life cycle (material, manufacturing,
distribution, use (8 years of use; assessment of the environment impact of formaldehyde), disposal, andrecycling stages) of MOISS and a commonly used wall (cloth-covered gypsum board). When the use
stage was excluded from the assessment, the environmental impact as social costs was 1,200 to 1,300 yen.
When the use stage was included in the assessment, however, the environmental impact was approximately
1,500 yen for MOISS and approximately 3,200 yen for the common wall.
For both study subjects, the disposal stage accounted for most of the environmental impact. The study
also showed that the manufacturing stage had a larger environmental impact than the material or
distribution stages. Aside from the disposal stage, CO2 emission, SOx emission, and crude oil
consumption had relatively large environmental impacts. When the product use stage was included in theassessment, the indoor air quality pollution had a large environmental impact, meaning that adsorption anddecomposition of formaldehyde would greatly contribute to reduction of the environmental impact eventhough there would be CO2 emission during decomposition.
Finally, the study indicated that material recycling of MOISS would be effective in reduction of theenvironmental impact.

6.2

Limitations and future challenges

The scope of the product assessment covered important processes (material, manufacturing, distribution,use, and disposal); therefore, the study results should have high validity. Meanwhile, the amount offormaldehyde adsorption and decomposition, which was the assessment subject of the use stage, wasobtained based on the corresponding previous performance test results. Even though the value was basedon previous studies, it may still be different from exposure in a real residence. Furthermore, MOISS has
not only the formaldehyde adsorption and decomposition capability but also VOC adsorption as well as
humidity control capabilities. Assessment of the effectiveness of these capabilities should also be studied
in the future.
When LIME was upgraded to LIME2, the function to assess the environmental impact of indoor air quality
pollution was added to widen the scope of assessment. The assessment quality also became higher in
LIME2. Therefore, it is our plan to use the LIME2 assessment results to promote product features orcreate a business activity plan.

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to: Mr. Itsubo and Mr. Motoshita of the National Institute ofAdvanced Industrial Science and Technology for advice and guidance; the Japan Environmental
Management Association for Industry for managing the office used for this project; Mr. Ogura of
Mitsubishi Materials Corporation and Mr. Shoda of Mitsubishi Shoji Construction Materials Corporation
for advice on inventory data collection; participating companies for providing us with valuable comments
during the project; and cooperating TOSTEM employees.

141References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Mitsubishi Materials Corporation: "Report on the Formaldehyde Adsorption Test Using MOISS,"
2003.
The Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry: FY2007 JLCA-LCA Database ver. 3.
Kaneko, et al: "Assessment of the Impact of VOC Adsorbing Wall Materials on Health in Terms of the
Impact on Sick Building Syndrome," 2006.
Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health: "Study on Living Environment Safety," 2001.
The Investigative Committee for Promotion of Waste Gypsum Board Recycling: "Report on
Examination and Survey on Promotion of Waste Gypsum Board Recycling," 2002.
The Gypsum Board Association of Japan: Raw Material Statistics on the Gypsum Board Associationof Japan Website, 2007.
The Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry: JEMAI-LCA Pro ver. 2.1.1.
The Environmental News: Issue No. 1927 (1), March 5, 2008.

142

Report on Sustainable Forest Management andEnvironmental Impact Assessment in Relation
to Base Paper for Paper Cups

July 2010
Paper Cup Working Group, Printers Association of
Japan

143

1

General

1.1 Evaluator
Name:

Toshihiko Arima (Alpha Research Institute)

Organization: Paper Cup Working Group, Printers Association of Japan
Contact:

arima@alpha-research.co.jp

1.2 Date of Report Creation
July 14, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
The main ingredient of a paper cup for beverages is paper. Paper is made from trees, and the impact of
deforestation on primary production and biodiversity has been a strong concern. The beverage paper cup
LCA carried out by the Paper Cup Working Group (WG) indicated that the weighting values changed
greatly depending on: if wood was obtained from forests that were managed so that primary production andbiodiversity could be protected; or if it was obtained from forests that were not under such management.1)
In that LCA, environmental impacts were compared between the two abovementioned forest patterns on an
all-or-nothing basis without taking into account their actual forest management status. Therefore, figuresindicating the current forest management status were not studied in that assessment.
In this study, based on the knowledge of the countries of origin of wood chips, country-specificenvironmental load coefficients were used to conduct LCA reflecting as much reality as possible, and theresult of the LCA thus conducted was compared with the assessment of a scenario in which base paper for
paper cups was all procured from properly managed forests. By doing so, the objective of the study was
to gain a quantitative understanding of the importance of forest management.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
The study result will be used for acquisition of a quantitative understanding of the importance of proper
management of forests where base paper for paper cups is obtained, and the result will also be referred to in
future material procurement.

1)

Since it was difficult to collect data on production of base paper for paper beverage cups, data on a 200-ml brick-shapepaper container was used as a close example.

144

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subject and its Specifications
The subject of the study was a beverage paper cup produced, used, and disposed of inside Japan (productweight: 5.56 g).

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
For a beverage paper cup whose maximum capacity is 275 ml (usually used with approximately 200 ml ofbeverage), the functional unit in this study was a combination of its entire life cycle and material recycling
after use (recycled pulp production).

3.3 System boundary
The system included the material, container manufacturing, shipment, incineration, recycled pulp
production, and substituted values (electricity was substituted for waste power generation duringincineration, and virgin pulp production was substituted for recycled pulp production) (Figure 3.2-1).

Use

System boundary
Packing
material

Base paper

LDPE

Product
manufacturing

Shipment

Recycled
pulp

Ink
Recycled
pulp

Incineration

Incineration

Figure 3.2-1 Product system and system boundary of a paper cup for beverages

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)
Paper cups for beverages are used in a wide variety of places such as in vending machines, at fast foodrestaurants, and in general households. It was therefore difficult to create product use scenarios and tocollect environmental load data in these scenarios. As far as the study objective was concerned, inclusion
or exclusion of the product use stage would not influence the study result; therefore, we did not include theproduct use stage in the system boundary.

145

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
Data on material transportation, product manufacturing, and product shipment was collected from 5 leading
paper cup manufacturers (Shioku Pack, Dai Nippon Printing, Tokan Kogyo, Toppan Printing, and Dixie
Japan; they account for more than 90% of the Japanese paper cup market share). Data to be used in theassessment was then prepared by obtaining the weighted average using the manufactured product weight.

4.2 Background Data
Data on paper production was created by combining data of a 200-ml brick-shape paper container 1) 2)
provided by the former Institute for Policy Sciences (current Research Center for Policy Studies) and data(on high-grade white paperboard) available in the database of the Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan(JLCA). 2)
For LDPE resin production data, its indirect energy consumption involved in production was supplemented
by JEMAI-LCA Pro data based on the JLCA data.
JEMAI-LCA Pro data was used to obtain data on environmental loads associated with energy consumption
and transportation and also with recycled pulp production (pulp production as a result of collection andrecycling of waste sheets and used paper cups disposed of by factories).
Analysis of environmental impacts on primary production and biodiversity requires wood procurement data(where it is obtained and if trees are planted or naturally grown). For this, the CSR Report Detailed
Version 3) issued by the Nippon Paper Group was used. Note that, since it was difficult to obtainprocurement data focusing only on base paper for paper beverage cups, procurement data for paper ingeneral was used.

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and a List of Analysis Results
Table 4.3-1 shows the result of inventory analysis of a paper beverage cup. Here, inter-scenario
comparisons with regard to primary production and biodiversity means comparisons among the results ofcalculation using different wood-related coefficients, and the inventory was the same across all the
scenarios.
The Disposal process shown in Table 4.3-1 includes the substituted values. There are two types ofsubstitution. The first type results from collection and recycling (into recycled pulp) 3) of some waste
sheets and used paper cups disposed of by factories. This recycling is replaced by virgin pulp production.
The other type results from waste power generation during incineration of uncollected used paper cups.
This is replaced by purchased electricity.

2)

Although the data provided by the former Institute for Policy Sciences allowed calculation of energy consumption in paper
production, it did not clearly indicate what kind of energy source was used. For this reason, the high-grade white
paperboard data of JLCA was used to create a breakdown of Bunker C and purchased electricity.
3)
At places like baseball stadiums, some used paper cups are collected and recycled into toilet paper. Currently, the paper
cup collection rate (against the production volume) is approximately 4%4) and, for this reason, the collection rate was set at
4% for the substituted value calculation purpose.

146

Table 4.3-1 Paper beverage cup LCI
I/O

Type

Substance

Material

Manufacturing

INPUT

MATERIAL

Uranium

1.39E-08

3.47E-08

2.08E-09 -9.10E-09

4.16E-08

ENERGY

Coal

2.16E-04

3.94E-04

2.37E-05 -2.39E-04

3.95E-04

Crude oil

1.65E-03

3.34E-04

5.40E-04 -1.62E-04

2.36E-03

Natural gas

2.25E-04

2.26E-04

1.10E-05 -4.72E-05

4.15E-04

Aluminum

7.26E-09

7.94E-09

0

6.64E-10

1.59E-08

Copper

1.11E-07

1.64E-09

0

1.38E-10

1.13E-07

Lead

4.08E-09

6.06E-11

0

5.07E-12

4.15E-09

Zinc

2.26E-08

3.36E-1002.81E-11

2.30E-08

Limestone

1.20E-08

1.15E-080

9.52E-10

2.45E-08

Wood

1.44E-020001.44E-02

Carbon dioxide

4.40E-03

2.76E-03

1.78E-03 -1.31E-04

8.81E-03

Methane1.54E-07

5.19E-08

1.17E-06 -5.30E-08

1.32E-06

Nitrogen monoxide

6.29E-08

1.09E-07

3.79E-08 -2.91E-08

1.81E-07

Nitrogen oxide

1.68E-05

1.11E-06

1.75E-05 -7.66E-07

3.46E-05

Nitrogen monoxide(non-point source)

2.14E-07

2.68E-07

4.34E-06 -1.38E-07

4.68E-06

Sulfur dioxide

3.80E-06

4.84E-07

1.42E-05 -9.56E-07

1.75E-05

Hydrogen chloride

1.92E-100Arsenic

1.32E-11

Cadmium
Total mercury

MATERIALOUTPUT Air

Water

Industrial

GeneralDistribution0

1.92E-10

3.29E-11

1.98E-12 -8.64E-12

3.94E-11

1.09E-12

2.72E-12

1.63E-13 -7.14E-13

3.26E-12

1.59E-11

3.97E-11

2.39E-12 -1.04E-11

4.76E-11

Non-methane volatile organic
compound (average)

2.90E-08

7.24E-08

4.35E-09 -1.90E-08

8.68E-08

Nickel

2.69E-11

6.73E-11

4.04E-12 -1.77E-11

8.05E-11

PM10 (non-point source)

1.19E-08

1.96E-08

1.30E-07 -1.01E-08

1.51E-07

Lead

6.31E-11

1.58E-10

9.47E-12 -4.14E-11

1.89E-10

Arsenic

7.21E-14

7.88E-14

0

6.60E-15

1.58E-13

Cadmium

1.08E-14

1.18E-14

09.90E-16

2.36E-14

Total mercury

7.21E-15

7.88E-15

0

6.60E-16

1.58E-14

COD

3.06E-06

00

0

3.06E-06

Total phosphorus

2.56E-090002.56E-09

Total nitrogen

7.80E-080007.80E-08

Dust

5.44E-07

3.78E-08

2.64E-07 -2.15E-07

6.31E-07

Debris

1.65E-10

2.46E-120

2.06E-13

1.68E-10

Slag

2.14E-07

3.18E-09

0

2.66E-10

2.17E-07

Sludge

1.00E-05

0001.00E-05

Waste acid

3.19E-080003.19E-08

Waste oil

8.77E-070008.77E-07

Industrial waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)

7.23E-05

6.13E-05

2.10E-07 -2.80E-08

1.34E-04

00Incineration ash

147

0

Disposal

02.21E-07

2.21E-07

5

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to assess the following three steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table
5.1-1 shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damage assessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption(mineral)

Global warming







Urban air pollution







Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant







Human toxicity







Ecotoxicity







Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste







Ozone depletion

Land use148

5.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Characterization

Figure 5.2-1 shows the result of characterization of a paper beverage cup. Crude oil accounted for most of
the resource (energy) consumption as it was used not only as an energy resource but also as polyethylene tobe applied on a paper cup. Uranium accounted for most of the resource (mineral) consumption. Here,uranium was used as an energy source (power generation).
CO2 accounted for most of the global warming. Nitrogen oxide accounted for a large part of acidificationand eutrophication, and mercury and arsenic accounted for high percentages in human toxicity andecotoxicity. It is believed that the high percentage of mercury is attributed to use of industrial water, andarsenic is attributed to use of electricity.

Industrial waste (estimated fixed value if
amount is unknown))

100%
90%

60%
50%
40%

Uranium

CO2
Nitrogen oxdide

Crude-oil30%

Nitrogen oxdide

compound (average)

Sulfur dioxide70%Non-methane volatile organic

Cadmium

80%

Arsenic
Total mercury

NickelTotal mercury

Arsenic
Total mercury

20%

Total mercury

Total mercury

Arsenic

10%0%Resource

Resource(energy)(mineral)consumption

consumption

Global warming

Acidification

Eutrophication

Photochemical

Human toxicity

Human toxicity

Aquatic

Aquatic

Soil ecotoxicity

Soil ecotoxicity

oxidant(air)(water)ecotoxicity (air)ecotoxicity(air)(water)Waste(water)Figure 5.2-1 Characterization result

5.2.2

Damage Assessment

Inter-scenario comparison was conducted to assess damage. The five scenarios described below weredifferent from each other in terms of how wood, the raw material of a paper cup, would affect primary
production and biodiversity. In Scenarios A through D, it was assumed that there would be some kind of
influence on primary production and biodiversity. In Scenario E, it was assumed there would be no
impact on primary production or biodiversity. In all scenarios, it was assumed that wood obtained fromplanted forests had no impact on primary production or biodiversity (Table 5.2-1).
In Scenario A, the cutting down of trees in natural forests affects both primary production and biodiversity.
In Scenario B, reforestation after cutting down trees in natural forests leads to elimination of the impact on
primary production, but nothing is done to eliminate the impact on biodiversity.
In Scenario C, reforestation after cutting down trees in certified forests leads to elimination of the impact
on primary production and biodiversity, but both are affected when trees in uncertified forests are cut down.
In Scenario D, certified forests are treated in the same way as Scenario C, but for uncertified forests,
reforestation is carried out after cutting down the trees. In this case, although there is no impact on149

primary production, biodiversity is affected.
In Scenario E, all trees are subject to sustainable forest management, and there is no impact on primary
production or biodiversity.
In these scenarios, the ratio between wood from planted forests and wood from natural forests, and also theratio between certified forests and natural forests were both based on the breakdown of places of origin andalso the breakdown of natural and planted forests provided in the CSR report issued by the Nippon Paper
Group.4) Note that the data described above is not an accurate description of base paper for paper cups; itis believed to describe paper in general.
Table 5.2-1 Scenarios
Wood from planted forests
Certified
Uncertified
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
Scenario E

Wood from natural forests
Certified
Uncertified

PP: No

PP: No

PP: Yes

PP: Yes

BD: No

BD: No

BD: Yes

BD: Yes

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

BD: No

BD: No

BD: Yes

BD: Yes

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

PP: Yes

BD: No

BD: No

BD: No

BD: Yes

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

BD: No

BD: No

BD: No

BD: Yes

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

PP: No

BD: No

BD: No

BD: No

BD: NoNote 1: PP refers to primary production, and BD refers to biodiversity.
Note 2: Shaded cells show items that have impacts on the environment.
1)Category comparison
Figure 5.2-2 shows the result of damage assessment (primary production). While the calculated
environmental load was 8.65E-03 in Scenario A (all natural trees affect primary production), it was
4.78E-03 in Scenario C (uncertified natural trees affect primary production), and it was 2.53E-05 inother scenarios. The environmental load was slightly lower in Scenario C because it was assumed
that certified natural trees would not affect primary production. The environmental load was evenlower in Scenarios B, D, and E where it was assumed that acquisition of wood would not affectprimary production.
According to the breakdown, most of the environmental load in Scenarios A and C was attributed toresources, but in other scenarios, acidification accounted for more than half of the environmental load.

4)

If information specifically about base paper for paper cups had been available, that information would have been used as
Scenario A; however, no such information was available. Therefore, data on paper in general provided by one company wasused in Scenario A.

150

8.65E-03

1.00E-02
8.00E-03

4.78E-03

6.00E-03
4.00E-03 Resource, 8.63E-03

2.53E-05

2.53E-05

2.53E-05

Scenario D

Scenario E

2.00E-03
0.00E+00
Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

100%
80%
Acidification

60%
Resource

Acidification

Acidification

Resource

Resource

Scenario D

Scenario E

Resource

40%
20%

Resource

0%
Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Figure 5.2-2 Damage assessment result (primary production)
Figure 5.2-3 shows the result of damage assessment (biodiversity). In Scenarios A and B (all natural trees
affect biodiversity), the calculated environmental load was 2.14E-13 (100% attributed to wood). In
Scenarios C and D (uncertified natural trees affect biodiversity), the environmental load was 8.29E-14 (ofwhich, 8.28E-14 was attributed to wood). In Scenario E (all wood is under sustainable forest
management), the environmental load was 7.54E-17.
According to the breakdown, in Scenario E, ecotoxicity (air) accounted for approximately 57%, waste forapproximately 37%, and resources for approximately 6% of the environmental load. In other scenarios,
resources were responsible for almost the entire environmental load.

151

2.50E-13

2.14E-13

2.14E-13

2.00E-13
8.29E-14

1.50E-13

8.29E-14

1.00E-13 Resource, 2.14E-13

7.54E-17

5.00E-14

Resource, 8.28E-14

0.00E+00
Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario E

100%
Waste

80%
60%
Resource

Resource

Resource

Resource

40%

Ecotoxicity (air)20%
0%Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario E

Figure 5.2-3 Damage assessment result (biodiversity)
Figures 5.2-4 and 5.2-5 show the result of damage assessment reorganized in terms of substances.
For primary production, wood accounted for most of the environmental load in Scenarios A and C. In
Scenarios B, D, and E, coal and nitrogen oxide accounted for approximately 30% and sulfur dioxide
accounted for approximately 20% of the environmental load.
In biodiversity, wood accounted for most of the environmental load in scenarios other than Scenario E. In
Scenario E, industrial waste accounted for approximately 35%, nickel accounted for approximately 22%,and arsenic accounted for approximately 15%.

100%
90%
Coal

80%

Coal

Coal

Nitrogen oxide

Nitrogen oxide

Nitrogen oxide

Sulf ur dioxide

Sulf ur dioxide

Sulf ur dioxide

Scenario D

Scenario E

70%
60%
50%

Wood

Wood

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Figure 5.2-4 Damage assessment (primary production; by substance)

152

100%
80%

Nickel

60%
Wood

Wood

Wood

Wood

40%

I ndustrial waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)

20%

Arsenic

0%
Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario E

Figure 5.2-5 Damage assessment (biodiversity; by substance)

5.2.3

WeightingFigure 5.2-6 shows the weighting result for each scenario described in the Damage Assessment section.
Calculated social costs were as follows: 3.51 yen for Scenario A, 3.12 yen for Scenario B, 1.48 yen for
Scenario C, 1.26 yen for Scenario D, and 0.09 yen for Scenario E. For Scenario A, 3.42 yen out of 3.51
yen was attributed to wood. Wood also accounted for a large part of social costs for Scenarios B, C, and
D. In Scenario E, however, the social cost was significantly low because it was assumed that wood would
not have any impact on the social cost.
In terms of substance, wood accounted for almost the entire environmental load in Scenarios A through D,
while SO2 and CO2 accounted for 42% and 32% respectively in Scenario E. The high percentage of SO2
was believed to be attributed to Bunker C used in sea transportation (by tankers) when raw materials were
imported (Figure 5.2-7).

3.51E+00
3.12E+00

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

1.48E+00

1.26E+00
9.00E-02

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Figure 5.2 -6 weighting result (by scenario)

153

Scenario E

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Carbon dioxide
Wood

Wood

Wood

Wood

Sulf ur dioxide

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario E

Figure 5.2-7 weighting result (breakdown by substance in each scenario)
Figure 5.2-8 shows the weighting result in terms of process in each scenario. The material process was
responsible for most of the environmental load in Scenarios A through D while the logistics, material, andmanufacturing processes accounted for 49%, 38%, and 17%, respectively, of the environmental load in
Scenario E.
In terms of the category of environmental impact, resources accounted for most of the environmental loadin Scenarios A through D. In Scenario E, however, urban air pollution and global warming accounted for
48% and 32%, respectively, of the environmental impact in Scenario E. Urban air pollution was causedby NOx and SO2, and global warming was caused by CO2 emissions.

100%
80%

Logistics

60%
Material

Material

Material

Material

40%

Manuf acturing

20%

Material

0%
Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario E-20%

Figure 5.2-8 Weighting result (breakdown by process)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Urban air pollution

Resource

Resource

Resource

Resource
Globalwarning

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Figure 5.2-9 weighting result (breakdown by category)

154

Scenario E

6Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
The environmental impact assessment of the entire life cycle, including substituted values for recycling,
was conducted with a paper cup for beverages. In this study, we looked at how LCA results would be
influenced by where the wood used for the base paper in paper cups was sourced, namely from planted
forests or natural forests. Such sensitivity analysis was carried out because the main raw material of apaper cup was wood and previous studies had shown that the paper production process had a relatively highenvironmental load.
When base paper for paper cups was procured in the same way as paper in general, the weighting result for
the entire life cycle (including substituted values obtained when 4% of used paper cups was collected andrecycled) showed that the social cost was 3.51 yen. Of which, 3.42 yen was attributed to wood.
In wood procurement, forestation and forest certification programs have been implemented in order torealize sustainable wood procurement. It should be noted, however, not all base paper for paper cups wasprocured from properly managed forests.
If all wood was procured from forests under sustainable management (with no adverse effects on primary
production and biodiversity), as shown in the weighting result, the social cost was 0.09 yen. The social
cost was 3.51 when base paper for paper cups was procured in the same way as paper in general. There
was therefore a large difference in social costs, suggesting the importance of forest management.

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
In this study, data on procurement of paper in general was used since data specifically on procurement ofbase paper for paper cups was not available. The data for paper in general, however, was not complete,
and thus there were some assumptions in this study: Paper was in fact procured from multiple paper manufacturers, but procurement data could beobtained from only one manufacturer. Therefore, it was assumed in this study that paper was
procured from only this company (or, it was assumed that the procurement conditions were the sameat all manufacturers).
 Data on places of origin (countries or regions) was available. Cumulatively, for all procured wood,there was data on the ratio of trees from planted forests and natural forests. However, the ratio oftrees from planted forests and natural forests in each country was not known. For this reason, it
was assumed in this study that the ratio of trees from planted forests and natural forests was the samein all applicable countries and regions.
 It was assumed that a relatively large amount of wood leftover from logging was used to produce
paper cups. However, data on just how much was not available; therefore, the rate of leftover woodused for paper cup production was assumed to be the same as for the rate of leftover wood used forgeneral paper production.

155

It is therefore necessary in the future to carry out more fact-based LCA using data on procurement statusspecifically on base paper for paper cups. Then, using the result of the study thus conducted, it will benecessary to produce paper cups that would impose lower environmental loads by maximizing procurement
and use of wood from forests under sustainable management.
Also, base paper used in production of paper cups is made of virgin pulp and does not contain any recycled
paper. Used paper cups can become high quality recycled paper materials. Currently, only some usedpaper cups are collected and recycled. In the future, it will be necessary to improve the collection andrecycling rates and also to explore more effective ways to use used paper cups.

Reference
1)

Paper Cup Working Group,Printers Association of Japan: Environmental Impact Assessment of aPaper Cup by the Printers Association of Japan.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ilcaj/2008/0/19/_pdf/-char/ja/ (see 2010-5-17)

2)

The Institute for Policy Sciences: Survey Report on Container Package Life Cycle Assessment,
pp.37-39, pp.52-52, and pp.104-107 (2005).

3)

Nippon Paper Group 2009 CSR Report Detailed Version.
http://www.np-g/com/csr/report_2009pdf_02html (see 20110-5-17)

4)

Paper Cup Recycling Promotion Conference: FY2007 Material Flow after the Paper Cup Production
Phase. http://www.alpha-research.co.jp/common/pdf/material_flow_19.pdf (see 2010-3-23)

156

 Reference material: Procurement Data Preparation and Environmental LoadIn this study, wood procurement data was prepared using the following procedure for environmental load
calculation.
 For
paper
cup
materials, check theratio between broad
leaf trees and needle
leaf trees.
Material producer countries and tree species (FY2008)
Broad leaf trees
Country
Australia

Broad leaf trees

In 1,000 bone dry tons

Ratio

Tree species

Country

Ratio

In 1,000 bone dry tons

Tree species

1,837.0

50.1% Eucalyptus

Australia

418.0

77.2% Pinus radiata

Chile

678.8

18.5% Eucalyptus

America

69.0

12.7% Douglas fir

South Africa

652.1

17.8% Eucaly ptus, Acacia

New Zealand

19.7

3.6% Pinus radiata

Brazil287.2

7.8% Acacia

Chile

18.3

3.4% Pinus radiata

Uruguay

143.3

3.9% Eucalyptus

Russia16.6

America

50.8

1.4% Oak mix

Thailand

18.9

Total

3,668.1

Total

541.6

3.1% Abies sanchalinensis
100.0%

0.5% Eucalyptus

 Identify
paper
producercountries(then, the broad leaf
tree-needle leaf tree
ratio must be adjusted
for base paper for
paper cups).

100.0%
Source: Nippon Paper Group w ebsite

 Identify raw materials
for paper in general.

Breakdown of procured materials (FY2008)
 Needle leaf trees

12.9%

 Waste lumber 1.7%
 Trees from uncertified natural forests

0.4% Trees from uncertified planted forests
7.1%

 Broad leaf trees

Overseas
4,209.7,000
bone drytonsTrees from certified forested sites
3.7%

 Waste lumber Needle leaf trees

57.7%

 Broad leaf treesJapan
1,839,500
bone dry
tons

42.3%

 Trees from certified natural forests 0.4%
 Trees from uncertified natural forests 40.4%
 Waste lumber

1.6%

Source: Nippon Paper Group website

3.0%

Trees fromplantedforests

Trees fromnaturalforests

%
%
%

%
%
%

%
%
%

100%
100%
100%

%
100%

%

%

100%

Australia
Chile
South Africa(Waste lumber)
Total

87.1%

Trees from certified planted  Waste lumber 31.9%
forests
27.0%
 Trees from uncertified
natural forests
5.6%
 Tees from uncertified planted Treesfromcertifiedforests
31.5%
natural forests
0.1% Trees from uncertified
planted forests 19.9%
 Trees from certified naturalforests
20.9%
 Treesfromcertifiedplantedforests 0.2%
 Trees from uncertified naturalforests
4.8%

Total

 Reorganize the material data
based on the ratios excluding
waste lumber (same ratio in
each country).

 Add waste lumber througheconomic dispatch (see thenext page for the dispatch
method).

Primary production

 Usecountryand
category-specific coefficientsto calculate environmentalloads.

Biodiversity

157

[Economic dispatch of waste lumber]* Approximately 11.7% of wood chips used in production of base paper for paper cups is waste lumber
and is subject to economic dispatch as described below (environmental load was calculated for theremaining 88.3% without economic dispatch).
* Economic dispatch was based on: the price of a square of abies sanchalinensis lumber with a crosssection of 7.5  7.5 cm or larger for lumber products; and the price of needle leaf tree wood chips for
waste lumber. Prices of these lumber products and wood chips were based on the Statistics of the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on Wood Prices (March 2010) (approximate figures).
* The wood chip price was not only for chips made from waste lumber; it was also for chips made fromlogs.
Lumber product: 10.5 cm  10.5 cm
Log: 34 cm diameter

Waste lumber: wood chips* Weight ratio between lumber products and wood chips
 The bottom area of a log (34 cm diameter) is907.46 m2 (100%)
 The bottom area of 4 pieces of a 10.5  10.5 cm square log is 441.00 m2 (48.6%)
 The bottom area of the log that becomes waste lumber is466.46 m2 (51.4%)* Weight of lumber and waste lumber that can be obtained from 1 ton of logs (the bottom area ratio isdirectly translated into the weight ratio) Lumber:
0.486 tons
 Waste lumber:
0.514 tons
* Economic value of lumber (lumber products) and wood chips (waste lumber) that can be obtained from
1 ton of logs (unit price  weight)
 Lumber:
116,047 yen/t  0.486 tons = 56,395 yen (89.6%)
 Wood chips: 12,700 yen/t  0.51 tons =6,528 yen (10.4%)
 Total (per ton of logs):
62,923 yen (100.0%)* Log weight required for acquisition of 1 ton of wood chips
 Lumber
0.95 tons (0.486 divided by 0.514)
 Wood chips: 1.00 tons
 Total:1.95 tons* Therefore, the environmental load of 1 ton of wood chip equals 10.4% of logs weighing 1.95 tons.
(Wood chip weight  1.95  10.4%  coefficient = environmental load of wood chips made from waste
lumber)158

l Procurement of wood chips for paper production for paper cups (Scenario A)
Place of origin
Inventory perPrimary production
1 kg of lumber
Coefficient
ImpactCertified planted forest
Broad leaf
Australia
1.05E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
trees
3.27E-01 Uncertified planted forest
1.22E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
8.11E-02
2.30E+00
1.86E-01
Uncertified natural forest
8.16E-01
1.86E-02
2.30E+00
4.28E-02
Certified planted forest
Chile
3.87E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.21E-01 Uncertified planted forest
4.52E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
3.00E-02
1.16E+00
3.47E-02
Uncertified natural forest
6.88E-03
1.16E+00
7.97E-03
Certified planted forest
South Africa
3.72E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.16E-01 Uncertified planted forest
4.34E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
2.88E-02
8.60E-01
2.48E-02
Uncertified natural forest
6.61E-03
8.60E-01
5.69E-03
Certified planted forest
Brazil
1.64E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.11E-02 Uncertified planted forest
1.91E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
1.27E-02
8.60E-01
1.09E-02
Uncertified natural forest
2.91E-03
8.60E-01
2.50E-03
Certified planted forest
Uruguay
8.18E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.55E-02 Uncertified planted forest
9.54E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
6.33E-03
8.60E-01
5.44E-03
Uncertified natural forest
1.45E-03
8.60E-01
1.25E-03
Certified planted forest
America
2.90E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
9.04E-03 Uncertified planted forest
3.38E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
2.24E-03
1.51E+00
3.39E-03
Uncertified natural forest
5.15E-04
1.51E+00
7.79E-04
Certified planted forestJapan
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.38E-01 Uncertified planted forest
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
1.35E-03
1.71E+00
2.31E-03
Uncertified natural forest
1.37E-01
1.71E+00
2.33E-01
Russian planted forest
Lumber
9.51E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.85E-02 Russian natural forest
5.63E-03
1.37E+00
8.03E-04
North American planted forest
4.58E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
North American natural forest
2.71E-03
1.51E+00
4.25E-04
South-sea planted forest
6.34E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
South-sea natural forest
3.75E-03
2.59E+00
1.01E-03
Other planted forest
1.44E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Other natural f orest
8.55E-03
8.60E-01
7.62E-04
Certified planted forest
Needle leaf Australia
1.41E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
trees
4.27E-02 Uncertified planted forest
2.70E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
0.00E+00
2.30E+00
0.00E+00
Uncertified natural forest
1.84E-01
1.52E-03
2.30E+00
3.50E-03
Certified planted forest
America
2.33E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.04E-03 Uncertified planted forest
4.46E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
0.00E+00
1.51E+00
0.00E+00
Uncertified natural forest
2.52E-04
1.51E+00
3.80E-04
Certified planted forest
Chile
6.17E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.87E-03 Uncertified planted forest
1.18E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
0.00E+00
1.16E+00
0.00E+00
Uncertified natural forest
6.67E-05
1.16E+00
7.72E-05
Certified planted forest
Japan
4.33E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.58E-02 Uncertified planted forest
4.31E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Certified natural forest
2.16E-04
1.71E+00
3.70E-04
Uncertified natural forest
1.21E-02
1.71E+00
2.07E-02
Russian planted forest
Lumber
2.56E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.69E-02 Russian natural forest
1.52E-02
1.37E+00
2.16E-03
North American planted forest
1.23E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
North American natural forest
7.30E-03
1.51E+00
1.15E-03
South-sea planted forest
1.71E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
South-sea natural forest
1.01E-02
2.59E+00
2.72E-03
Other planted forest
3.89E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Other natural f orest
2.30E-02
8.60E-01
2.05E-03
Total
1.00E+00
1.10E+00
5.99E-01
1.95E+00 tons of lumber are required to produce 1 ton of wood chips.
Economic value of wood chips with respect to lumber:
10.4%

159

Biodiversity
Coefficient
Impact0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.97E-11
1.60E-12
1.97E-11
3.67E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.86E-11
8.58E-13
2.86E-11
1.97E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.37E-10
3.95E-12
1.37E-10
9.06E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.37E-10
1.74E-12
1.37E-10
3.99E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.37E-10
8.67E-13
1.37E-10
1.99E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.47E-11
3.29E-14
1.47E-11
7.56E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.93E-11
2.61E-14
1.93E-11
2.64E-12
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.41E-12
4.33E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.47E-11
4.12E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.98E-10
7.71E-14
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.37E-10
1.22E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.97E-11
0.00E+00
1.97E-11
3.00E-14
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.47E-11
0.00E+00
1.47E-11
3.69E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.86E-11
0.00E+00
2.86E-11
1.91E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.93E-11
4.18E-15
1.93E-11
2.34E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.41E-12
1.17E-14
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.47E-11
1.11E-14
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.98E-10
2.08E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.37E-10
3.27E-13
1.48E-11

Report on Environmental Impact Assessmentof Ethanol Production Using Rice Straw as a
Raw Material

March 2010
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science andTechnology

160

1

General

1.1 Persons in charge of the assessment
Names:

Masaharu Motoshita and Cuifen Yang

Organization: Research Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability, National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology
Contact:

m-motoshita@aist.go.jp

1.2 Date of Report Creation
April 29, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
We conducted this study to assess the environmental impacts of ethanol made of rice straw as a raw
material, to identify influential processes in ethanol production, and to discuss differences in the level ofenvironmental impacts attributed to the utilization of its byproducts.

2.2 Application of the Result
The result is expected to promote the reduction of environmental impacts caused by the operation of plants.

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Product system
The product system is the ethanol production process using from rice straw. The rice straw is naturally
dried on a farm field after being harvested, compressed, packaged, and transported to the plant by trucks.
Transported material rice straw is hydrolyzed with concentrated sulfuric acid and subsequently fermented
to produce ethanol. Two scenarios for the use of a byproduct (lignin) were assumed to be assessed. Lignin
produced in the hydrolyzing process is utilized as a fuel of boilers for production of electricity and steam in
one scenario (scenario 1: with a lignin-fueled boiler), and is filled in a land as waste in the other scenario(scenario 2: without a lignin-fueled boiler).

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
The functional unit is to produce 1GJ of ethanol from unutilized or low utilized rice straw (ethanol yield:
0.236 L/kg).

116

3.3 System boundary
All processes from rice straw collection to transportation of produced ethanol including the processes ofcrushing, hydrolyzing, and fermenting raw material were assessed. Rice straw production was not includedin the assessment (Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2).
Paddy-riceproduction
Rice
Rice straw

Collection andtransportation

Ethanol production

Ethanoltransportation

Crushing

Roll baler
Acid hydrolysis andglycation

Bale grab

Fermentation, distillation,and dehydration

Transportation bytank lorry

Lignin boiler

Transportation
by trucks

Waste water treatment

Figure 3.2-1 System boundary for the assessment of ethanol production from rice straw(scenario 1: with a lignin-fueled boiler)
Paddy-riceproduction
Rice
Rice straw

Collection andtransportation
Roll baler

Ethanol production

Ethanoltransportation

Crushing
Acid hydrolysis andglycation

Bale grab
Fermentation,
distillation, anddehydration

Transportation bytank lorry

Transportation
by trucks

Figure 3.2-2 System boundary for the assessment of ethanol production from rice straw(scenario 2: without a lignin-fueled boiler)162

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)Raw material of the assessed ethanol production system (unutilized or low utilized rice straw) is incinerated
or plowed into the soil as an agricultural residue. Thus, the production process of rice straw is excluded
from system boundary. However, energy and materials used in rice cropping should be allocated to not only
rice but also byproducts (rice straw and chaff) in the case of additional rice production for the purpose ofutilizing idled arable land. Furthermore, rice straw is widely used for composting, feed production,
ethanol, and soil reduction. Allocation to these purposes should also be considered.

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Data of a Unit Process
Input data of energy and materials in each process was obtained from the previous case study1).

4.2 Background Data
Inputs and outputs data on energy and materials was referred from LCA software (AIST-LCA ver.4).

4.3 Inventory Analysis and List of Analysis Results
Table 4.3-1 shows the results of inventory analysis for each item in two scenarios.
Table 4.3-1 The result of LCI analysis in two scenarios (kg/f.u.)
Scenario 1(w ith a lignin-fueled boiler)
Collection and transportation

Resources

Air

Water

Industrial

Al (resource)
Cu (resource)
Pb (resource)
U (resource)
Zn (resource)
Quartz sand (resource)
Limestone (resource)
Crude oil (resource)
Coal
Natural gas (resource)
CO2
CH4
N2O
NMVOC
NOx
NOx (mobile emission source)SOx
SOx (mobile emission source)
Dust
PM10 (mobile emission source)
As
Cd
Cr
Hg
Ni
Pb
As
Cd
Cr
Hg
Debris (landfill)
Slag (landfill)
Waste plastics (landfill)
Industrial w aste and landfill w aste(unspecified)
Sludge (landfill)

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.25E-08

1.56E+00
5.80E-04
2.35E-02
5.02E+00
3.90E-05
8.15E-05
6.72E-04
5.37E-04
1.47E-02
1.30E-04
7.36E-04
5.92E-05
4.71E-04
7.03E-12
5.81E-13
1.28E-11
8.49E-12
1.44E-11
3.37E-11

Ethanol production

6.75E-03
1.05E-01
3.81E-02
8.32E-05
2.13E-01
3.45E-02
3.81E+00
8.52E-01
9.44E-01
5.11E-01
7.98E+00
1.66E-04
2.70E-04
3.67E-04
2.86E-03
1.07E-03
2.56E-03
1.67E-04
7.84E-05
7.44E-08
6.15E-09
1.35E-07
8.98E-08
1.52E-07
3.56E-07
6.70E-08
1.01E-08
2.01E-07
6.70E-09
1.55E-03
2.83E-01
7.80E-04

Ethanol transportation

1.62E-09

5.20E-01
2.12E-04
7.80E-03
1.66E+00
2.69E-05
3.09E-04
4.36E-05
6.81E-03
2.30E-05
3.40E-04
3.10E-06
2.18E-04

Scenario 2(w ithout a lignin-fueled boiler)
Total
6.75E-03
1.05E-01
3.81E-02
8.32E-05
2.13E-01
3.45E-02
3.81E+00
2.94E+00
9.45E-01
5.43E-01
1.47E+01
2.05E-04
3.78E-04
1.35E-03
3.45E-03
2.26E-02
2.71E-03
1.08E-03
2.29E-04
7.67E-04
7.44E-08
6.15E-09
1.35E-07
8.98E-08
1.52E-07
3.56E-07
6.70E-08
1.01E-08
2.01E-07
6.70E-09
1.55E-03
2.83E-01
7.80E-04

Collection and transportation

1.60E-08

2.69E+00
1.04E-03
4.03E-02
8.62E+00
3.90E-05
1.40E-04
1.34E-03
6.32E-04
2.95E-02
1.79E-04
1.47E-03
6.59E-05
9.42E-04
7.03E-12
5.81E-13
1.28E-11
8.49E-12
1.44E-11
3.37E-11

Ethanol production

6.75E-03
1.05E-01
3.81E-02
2.70E-04
2.13E-01
3.45E-02
3.61E+00
1.84E+01
2.95E+00
1.87E+00
7.51E+01
1.91E-03
1.65E-03
1.15E-03
3.58E-02
2.08E-03
9.07E-02
8.66E-03
1.53E-04
2.42E-07
2.00E-08
4.40E-07
2.92E-07
4.94E-07
1.16E-06
6.70E-08
1.01E-08
2.01E-07
6.70E-09
1.55E-03
2.83E-01
7.80E-04

Ethanol transportation

3.24E-09

1.04E+00
4.24E-04
1.56E-02
3.33E+00
5.38E-05
6.18E-04
8.72E-05
1.36E-02
4.60E-05
6.81E-04
6.20E-06
4.35E-04

Total
6.75E-03
1.05E-01
3.81E-02
2.70E-04
2.13E-01
3.45E-02
3.61E+00
2.21E+01
2.95E+00
1.93E+00
8.70E+01
1.95E-03
1.85E-03
3.10E-03
3.65E-02
4.52E-02
9.09E-02
2.15E-03
8.73E-03
1.53E-03
2.42E-07
2.00E-08
4.40E-07
2.92E-07
4.94E-07
1.16E-06
6.70E-08
1.01E-08
2.01E-07
6.70E-09
1.55E-03
2.83E-01
7.80E-04kg

1.84E-02

1.84E-02

1.84E-02

1.84E-02kg

2.00E+00

2.00E+00

4.91E+01

4.91E+01163

5Impact Assessment

5.1 Assessment Steps and Impact Categories
LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2) was used to assess theimpacts of the target product system accoding to the following three steps: characterization, damage
assessment, and weighting. Table 5.1-1 shows the target impact categories in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Impact categories in each assessment step
Characterization

Damage assessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant







Human toxicity







Ecotoxicity







Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste







Ozone depletion

Land use1645.2 Results of Impact Assessment
5.2.1

Characterization

1200

0.06

1000

0.05

800

Coal

600

Natural gas
Crude oil

400

200

Characterization result (waste: m 3)

Characterization result (resource (energy)
consumption: 1/R)

Characterization results on resource (energy) consumption and waste landfill are shown in Figures 5.2-1
and 5.2-2. A large part of impacts on energy consumption is attributed to crude oil consumption.
Significant reduction of energy consumption can be achieved by utilizing lignin as a boiler fuel in scenario
1 (with a lignin-fueled boiler). On the other hand, the impact on waste landfill is also larger in scenario 2(without a lignin-fueled boiler) compared to scenario 1 due to the increase of landfill volume of wasted
lignin. Therefore, the key to successful environmental impact reduction is how to utilize lignin generated
during hydrolysis effectively. Utilization of lignin as a boiler fuel is expected to contribute to the reductionof the environmental impacts from the perspectives of both suppressions of energy consumption and waste
landfill.

Sludge
0.04

Slag
0.03

Industrial wate (estimated
fixed value if amount is
unknown)

0.02

Waste plastics
0.01

Debris00Lignin boiler used

Lignin boiler used

Lignin boiler not used

Lignin boiler not used

Figure 5.2-2 Characterization result (waste)

Figure 5.2-1 Characterization result(energy consumption)165

5.2.2

Damage Assessment

The results of damage assessment (broken down by substance) for four endpoints are shown in Figure 5.2-3,
5.2-4, 5.2-5, and 5.2-6. The damage on all endpoints can be represed by utilizing lignin as a boiler fuel.
Human health is greatly affected by CO2 emissions, and in the scenario without a lignin-fueled boiler
damage caused by sulfur dioxide emission is also large. The damaged on social assets caused by landfillof lignin (sludge landfill) dominate large part of total damage. The same tendency can be observed in bothprimary production and biodiversity. The results therefore suggest that to avoid the landfill of lignin cangreatly contribute to the reduction of overall environmental damage.
0.000035

Non-methane volatile organic compound (average)

Damage on social assets (yen/f.u.)

Damage on human health (DALY/f.u.)

0.00003

Arsenic

Lead

0.000025

Non-methane volatile organic compound (average)

Nitrous oxide

0.00002

Particle material (PM10)

0.000015

Nitrogen oxide
Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

0.00001

PM10 (non-point source)
Sulfur dioxide

0.000005

Carbon dioxide

Methane1000

a lignin-f ueled boiler

Nitrogen oxide

Industrial waste (estimated fixed value if amount is unknown)

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

Slag

Carbon dioxide

Lead

0.5
Non-methane volatile organic compound(average)

0.3

Limestone

0.2

Zinc

0.1

Coal

Hexavalent chrome
Coal

5E-12

Total mercury
Lead

4E-12

Arsenic
Slag

3E-12

Nickel2E-12Total mercury
Arsenic

1E-12

CopperSludge0
withused
Lignin boiler

CopperFigure 5.2-5 Damage assessment(primary production)

Cadmium

6E-12

Sludgea lignin-f ueled boiler

SludgeDamage assessment(social assets)

7E-12

Damage on biodiversity (EINES/f.u.)

0.6

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

Copper

8E-12

Slag

a lignin-f ueled boiler

Zincwithout
a lignin-fueled
Ligninboilernotboiler
used

Figure.5.2-4

0.7

Lignin boiler
not used
without

Crude oil

200

with
a lignin-fueledboilerLigninboilerused

Sulfur dioxide

Lignin boiler
with used

Lead

400

nitrogen oxide

0Natural gas

0

Figure 5.2-3 The result of damage
assessment (human health)

0.4

Sulfur dioxide600

withoutnot used
Ligninboilerignin
boilerot useda lignin-f ueled boiler

0.8

Nitrous oxide

8000with used
Lignin boiler

Damage on primary production (kg/f.u.)

Coal

1200
Methanea lignin-f ueled boiler

Figure.5.2-6

without
Lignin boiler
not useda lignin-f ueled boiler

Damage assessment(biodiversity)

The results of damage assessment for four endpoints are broken down by processes. The production
process was responsible for a large part of the overall damage on every endpoint. Landfill of lignin
contributes to the increase of the damage on social assets, primary production, and biodiversity as shown in
Figures 5.2-4, 5.2-5, and 5.2-6. Concerning on human health, the damage caused by energy consumption
for fermentation, distillation, and dehydration dominates large part of total damage, and it can besignificantly reduced by utilizing lignin as a boiler fuel (Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2).

166

0.000035

1200
1200

Damage assessment result: social
assets (yen/f.u.)

0.000025
0.000025

Logistics

0.00002

Logistics

0.00002

Production

0.000015

Production

0.000015

Material
Material

0.00001

0.00001

0.000005
0.000005

Damage on social assets (yen/f.u.)

0.00003(DALY/f.u.)
healthhealth(DALY/f.u.)
Damage on human

Damage assessment result: human

0.000035

0.000030 0
a lignin-f ueled boiler

Logistics
Logistics

600

Production

600

400

Production

Material

400

Material

200 200

withoutnot used
Lignin boiler

0with boiler usedwithoutboiler not used
LigninLignina lignin-f ueled boiler
a lignin-f ueled boiler

a lignin-f ueled boiler

Figure 5.2-7 Damage assessment(human health)Figure 5.2-8

0.8

Damage assessment(social assets)

Damage assessment result: biodiversity(EINES/f.u.)

8E-12
8E-12

0.7
0.7

0.6
0.6

Logistics

0.5
0.5

Logistics

0.4

Damage on biodiversity (EINES/f.u.)

0.8

Damage on primary production (kg/f.u.)

800

800

0
with used
Lignin boiler

Damage assessment result: primary
production (kg/f.u.)

1000

1000

Production

0.4

Production

0.3

Material

0.3

Material

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

7E-12

7E-12

6E-12

6E-12

Logistics

5E-12

5E-12

Logistics

4E-12

Production

4E-12

Production

3E-12

Material

3E-12

Material

2E-12
2E-12
1E-12
1E-12

00

0 0
with used
Lignin boiler

withoutnot used
Lignin boiler

a lignin-f ueled boiler

a lignin-f ueled boiler

Figure 5.2-9 Damage assessment(primary production)

withboiler used
Lignina lignin-f ueled boiler

without
Ligninboiler not used
a lignin-f ueled boiler

Figure.5.2-10 Damage assessment(biodiversity)1675.2.3WeightingFigure 5.2-11 shows the result of weighting (broken down by substances). It clearly indicates that the use of
a lignin-fueled boiler could lead to the significant reduction of the overall environmental impact.
Especially, the environmental impacts of CO2 emission, sludge (lignin) landfill, and particle matter (PM10)
emission are large, and the effective utilization of lignin can reduce the environmental impacts caused bythese substances.
NMVOC
NMVOC

1800
1800

MethaneMethaneresult (yen/f.u.)
Consolidationimpact(yen/f.u.)
Environmental

1600
1600

NaturalgasgasNaturalNitrousoxide
oxide
Nitrous

1400
1400

Nitrogenoxide
oxide
Nitrogen

1200
1200

Particlemattermatter(PM10)(PM10)
Particle

1000
1000

Lead
Lead
Slag
Slag

800
800

Nitrogenoxide
oxide(non-point(non-pointsource)
source)Nitrogen

600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0

Sulfurdioxide
dioxideSulfurCrudeoiloil
Crude
PM10(non-point(non-pointsource)
source)
PM10
Zinc
Zinc
CopperCopperwith
Lignin boiler used
a lignin-fueledboiler

without
boiler not usedaLigninlignin-fueledboilerSludgeSludgeCarbondioxide
dioxideCarbonFigure 5.2-11 weighting result (by substance)

5.2.4

Comparison with Gasoline

Figure 5.2-12 and 5.2-13 show CO2 emissions and the result of weighting in two scenarios and the case ofgasoline use. LCI data on gasoline was referred to AIST-LCA ver. 4 and impact assessment was
conducted by using LIME2.
1800
100
1800

Use

1600

80

Use

Logistics

1400

70

Consolidation result (yen/f.u.)

CO2 emission (kg-CO2/f.u.)

Environmental impact (yen/f.u.)

90

Production

Logistics

Material

Production

1200

60
1000

50

Material

800

40
30
20

600
400
200

10
0

1600

Use

1400

Logistics

1200

Production

1000
Material
800
600
400
200

0
with
a lignin-f ueled boiler

Lignin boiler usedwithout
a lignin-f ueled boiler

Lignin boiler not used0

Gasoline

Lignin boiler used

Lignin boiler not used

Gasoline

Figure 5.2-12 CO2 emissions (by life stage)

Figure 5.2-13 weighting result(by life stage)

168

GasolineCO2 emissions from combustion of ethanol made of rice straw are not included in the assessment becauseof biomass-derived CO2. Therefore, as shown in Figure 5.2-12, the use of a lignin-fueled boiler can reduce
CO2 emission more than that in the case of gasoline (approximately 1/5). Meanwhile, the result of
weighting (Figure 5.2-13) includes the environmental impacts caused not only by CO2 emissions but also
other factors. Thus, the environmental impact of bio-ethanol produced with a lignin-fueled boiler isestimated for approximately half of that in the case of gasoline. The difference between bio-ethanol andgasoline becomes smaller in terms of weighting result than in terms of CO2 emission. However, note alsothat it has been pointed out that there is a risk of toxic byproducts emission during bio-ethanol combustionin previous studies. Although this issue was not taken into account in this study, the environmental impactof this toxic byproducts emission may affect the conclusion of this report if it were included in theassessment.

5.2.5

Case Example of Other Types of Bio-Ethanol

LIME Points/ 1kg-EtOH95% (25.5MJ)

As a reference information, Figure 5.2-14 shows the result of weighting on bio-ethanol made of sugar canes
by LIME, conducted by Sagisaka, et al (2006). The result shows that bio-ethanol made of sugar canes
causes an extremely large environmental impact. In this case, the environmental impact on land use is also
assessed, and the result shows that the land use dominates quite a large part of the environmental impact.
This suggests that the effect of land use change to produce bio-ethanol will not be negligible. Also, thelarger impact of urban air pollution is found in the case of bio-ethanol than the case of gasoline, comparedto the difference in the impact of global warming. This seems to be largely caused by the difference of gridmix in the areas of both cases. Therefore, the type of fuel used and grid mix may affect the conclusion of
the assessment.

Urban Air Pollution
Natural Resources
Land Use
Solid Waste
Photochemical Oxidant
Eutrophication
Acidification
Ecotoxicity
Hazardous Chemical Substances
Ozone Layer Depletion
Global Warming

20

15

10

5

0

Biomass

Gasoline

Figure 5.2-14 The result of weighting for sugar cane-derived bio-ethanol and gasoline based on
LIME

169

6

Conclusion

6.1 Summary
The environmental impacts caused by ethanol production from rice straw were assessed by using LIME2
methodology. It was found that energy consumption for fermentation, distillation, and dehydration
processes after hydrolysis of rice straw dominated a large part of the overall environmental impact. The
utilization of lignin, generated during hydrolysis, as a boiler fuel can reduce the environmental impact of
not only energy consumption but also waste landfill and holds the reduction of the overall environmental
impact to approximately 1/10.

6.2 Limitations of and Future Tasks
The result showed that the effects of transportation of rice straw and ethanol were not significant. Since theanalysis was conducted according to the scenarios assumed standard conditions, it is necessary to calculate
the environmental impact of transportation more precisely in each scenario for further improvement of theassessment. Also, it was assumed that the raw material was unutilized or low utilized rice straw (generally
incinerated in present situation); therefore, the environmental load of rice cropping was not included in theassessment. For the comparison of the environmental impacts of different fuels, it is necessary to include
the environmental loads of raw material production in the assessment. In this case, allocation ofenvironmental loads from rice cropping to products (polished rice, rice straw, and chaff) should be carefully
considered.

References
1)

C. Yang and M. Sakisaka: Assessment of Bio-Ethanol Production Using Rice Straw, Journal of theInstitute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan, Vol.5, No.4, pp.501-509, 20092)

Sagisaka, M., T. Ohtani, Y. Kaji, K. Tahara and K Kobayashi: Fluctuation of Environmental Burden
Induced by Uncertainty of Biomass Production, Bangkok, 2006

170

Report on the Method of Filling a PET Bottle
Using Lower Water Consumption

June 2010
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.

171

1

General

1.1 Evaluators
Names:

Ayumi Shibata and Asako Fujimori

Organization: Packaging Operations, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.
Contact:

Shibata-A3@mail.dnp.co.jp, Fujimori-A@mail.dnp.co.jp

1.2 Date of Report Creation
July 17, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
We, Dai Nippon Printing (DNP), offer our customers not only PET bottles (preforms) but also the molding,filling, and packaging system that DNP developed. When filling a PET bottle with a beverage, in addition
to utilities such as electricity, a large amount of water is used for cleaning bottles and producing steam forheating. The aseptic filling method that DNP has traditionally used allows filling of PET bottles with abeverage that is sterilized at a high temperature for a short period of time. This method does not require
much heat, and furthermore, with the use of a special sterilization method, the amount of water required forwashing PET bottles can be reduced.
Recently, we received a number of requests from our customers for development of a new method thatwould allow more efficient use or saving of water, meaning development of a bottle filling method thatwould allow further reduction of water use. In the new method we thus developed, a molding machine
and an aseptic filling machine are directly connected with each other such that the amount of water required
to wash bottles can be reduced to approximately 1/6th compared to the conventional method. The new
method also improves energy efficiency to reduce the amount of heat use.
In this study, we examined this new method to compare between the conventional and new methods
through LIME2-based environmental impact assessment. In this assessment, we included water, thecenter of interest of the Water Footprint Network, as a subject of assessment.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
The study result will be used to promote understanding of the environmental impact of each filling method
and also to advertise advantages of the new method.

172

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subjects and their Specifications
Two aseptic PET bottle filling systems (from the preform molding phase to the content sterilization, bottle
molding, filling, labeling, and disposal phases) using the conventional and the newly developed filling
process, respectively.

Figure 3.1.1 Image of an aseptic bottle filling systemConventional method
This is a Dai Nippon Printing's original sterilizing and filling method in which high-temperaturehydrogen peroxide mists are blown into a bottle. This method realizes a high sterilization effectwithin a short period of time.

New method
This is the advanced version of the conventional method. With the blow-molding device being
directly connected to the aseptic filling device, energy efficiency has been improved and water
consumption has been reduced.

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
A functional unit in this system was a system required for filling a PET bottle with 500 ml of low acidbeverage (tea).

173

3.3 System Boundary
The subjects of assessment were the preform molding, content sterilization, bottle molding, filling, labeling,
and disposal phases. The beverage itself was not included as a subject of assessment. In inventory
analysis, the life cycle was defined as the phases from the beverage (tea) PET bottle preform molding phaseto the disposal phase, and the entire life cycle was assessed. Assessment was carried out on 500-ml
bottles for the amount produced in an hour (36,000 bottles). Environmental impact assessment wasconsidered as performance assessment; therefore, only the filling phase was assessed.

Preform

Molding
machineSterilizing
machineContent

Cap

Aseptic fillingmachineBottleLabel

Labeling
machine(sterilizing, filling,
and capping)

Product

Waste water disposal

System boundary

Product disposal, recycling,
and recovery

Performance assessment

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)Since there has been no established damage assessment coefficient for wastewater, it was excluded fromthe scope of the study. Energy used to treat wastewater, however, was included.
Also, there is no detailed public data on energy required to dispose of PET bottles, and so this was excluded
from the scope of the study (emission data was included however) as well.

174

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
We used the FY2008 data on the amount of use of materials, resources, and energy that had been obtained
from bottle filling lines already installed at customers' plants.

4.2 Background Data
As background data, we used JEMAI-LCA Pro and JEMAI-LCA Option Datapack. Waste recovery was
included in the disposal phase. We also used data provided by the Council for PET Bottle Recycling1) on
what was involved in handling 1g of used PET bottle and also on industry average recycling data forheat-resistant 500ml bottles (collection rate: 62.3%).

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and a List of Analysis Results
Table 4.3-1 shows the subjects of inventory analysis of the new aseptic PET bottle filling method and a listof some of the analysis results. The analysis result data for the conventional filling method has been
omitted since the subjects of inventory analysis are the same as for the new filling method.

175

Table 4.3-1 LCI analysis result for the aseptic PET bottle filling system [new system] (in kg/f.u.)
Unit

Preform
molding

Content
sterilization

Bottlemolding

FillingLabeling

Disposal

Coal

kg

1.41E+02

6.51E+00

7.46E+01

5.09E+01

3.04E+01

1.26E+01

Crude oil (resource)kg

1.16E+03

2.61E+02

1.38E+01

1.64E+02

1.27E+02

4.87E+00

Natural gas

kg

1.39E+02

3.02E+00

3.47E+01

2.37E+01

1.87E+01

5.99E+00

Uranium (resource)kg

1.24E-02

5.72E-04

6.57E-03

4.48E-03

2.67E-03

1.11E-03

Cu (resource)kg

2.98E-05

2.70E-03

0.00E+00

1.59E-04

2.64E-05

0.00E+00

Al (resource)kg

1.26E-04

1.14E-02

6.70E-04

1.12E-04

Pb (resource)kg

9.61E-07

8.69E-05

5.11E-06

8.52E-07

Zn (resource)kg

5.33E-06

4.82E-04

2.83E-05

4.72E-06

Limestonekg

1.82E-04

1.65E-02

9.70E-04

1.62E-04!!Process waterkg

1.26E+04

3.51E+03

4.75E+03

1.47E+03!!Pure waterkg

2.53E+03!!Cooling waterkg

3.14E+05

2.51E+00

Water for hydropower
generationkg

4.25E+04

1.97E+03

CO2kg

2.09E+03

Askg

1.17E-05

Cd

kg

CH4

kg

Cr

Non-renewable resources
Recyclable
resources
Outdoor air
Water
Waste

Environmental emission-related loads

Consumption-related loads

Item

1.36E+01

1.56E+02
1.47E-01

1.93E+04

6.07E+02

2.26E+04

1.54E+04

9.19E+03

3.80E+03

8.93E+02

3.42E+02

7.36E+02

4.00E+02

2.35E+02

5.42E-07

6.24E-06

4.25E-06

2.54E-06

1.05E-06

9.70E-07

4.48E-08

5.16E-07

3.51E-07

2.10E-07

8.68E-08

1.10E-01

2.37E-02

7.32E-03

1.87E-02

1.35E-02

1.71E-03kg

2.13E-05

9.86E-07

1.14E-05

7.74E-06

4.62E-06

1.91E-06

Hgkg

1.42E-05

6.54E-07

7.53E-06

5.13E-06

3.06E-06

1.27E-06

N2Okg

1.18E-01

1.52E-02

1.48E-02

1.84E-02

1.43E-02

2.75E-03

Ni

kg

2.40E-05

1.11E-06

1.28E-05

8.69E-06

5.19E-06

2.15E-06

NMHC

kg

6.06E-02

3.99E-03

2.12E-02

1.57E-02

1.03E-02

4.26E-03

NOxkg

9.87E-01

4.49E-01

1.43E-01

3.51E-01

1.89E-01-3.90E-01

NOx(mobile emission source)kg

1.31E-01

3.55E-03

4.03E-02

2.77E-02

1.98E-02

1.23E-02

Pbkg

5.62E-05

2.60E-06

2.99E-05

2.04E-05

1.22E-05

5.03E-06

PM10(mobile emission source)kg

9.63E-03

2.61E-04

2.95E-03

2.03E-03

1.45E-03

9.01E-04

SO2kg

1.84E+00

1.31E+00

6.42E-02

7.98E-01

3.92E-01-4.87E-01

Dust

kg

1.93E-01

1.28E-01

2.69E-03

7.56E-02

3.81E-02

1.04E-03

Askg

1.25E-09

1.13E-07

6.66E-09

1.11E-09

Cdkg

1.88E-10

1.70E-08

9.98E-10

1.66E-10

Hgkg

1.25E-10

1.13E-08

6.66E-10

1.11E-10

Debris (landfill)kg

3.90E-08

3.53E-06

2.08E-07

3.46E-08

Slag (landfill)kg

5.04E-05

4.56E-03

2.68E-04

4.47E-05

Industrial waste(estimated fixed value if
amount is unknown)kg

7.92E+03

5.40E-04

3.14E-03

4.86E+02

Waste plastics (landfill)kg

1.96E-08

1.78E-06

1.05E-07

1.74E-08

176

4.60E-03

7.94E+01

Carbon dioxide emission

6000

Figure 4.3-1 shows the amount of carbon dioxide
emission. The amount of carbon dioxide emission
during the filling phase was approximately 20% of
the total emission, and the study showed that the new
filling method was able to reduce carbon dioxide
emission by approximately 300 kg per hour, which
would be translated into 7.2 tons per day. This was
realized by reduction of use of electricity or steam asa result of energy efficiency improvement. Also
note that the carbon dioxide emission decreased in
the wastewater treatment phase due to the reductionof the amount of wastewater generated.

CO2 emission [kg]

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
New method

Conventional
methodFilling method

Preform molding
Bottle molding
Labeling

Liquid treatment
Filling
Disposal

Figure 4.3-1 Carbon dioxide emission

Amount of use of water
Table 4.3-2 and Figure 4.3-2 show the analysis result for the amount of water used in the filling phase.
Table 4.3-2 Amount of water use
Filling method

New

Conventional

Water for hydropower generation (in tons)

17.1

18.7

Water for sterilization and cleaning (in tons)

3.0

18.0

Total

20.1

36.7

Amount of water used (in tons)

50
40
30
20
10
0
New method

Conventional method

Filling method
Water for sterilization and cleaning
Water for hydropow er generation

Figure 4.3-2 Amount of water use
Assessment of the amount of use of water indicated that, as shown in Table 4.3-2 and Figure 4.3-2, with the
new method, it was possible to reduce the water usage amount to approximately 2/3 of the conventional177method. In particular, the amount of water used in sterilization and cleaning could be reduced to 1/6th ofthe conventional method, and this could be translated into reduction of the amount of water use byapproximately 12 tons per hour. Meanwhile, the amount of water used for hydropower generation did notdecrease as much as the water used for sterilization and cleaning; however, it was still possible to save
approximately 1.6 tons of water per hour.

5Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to assess the following three steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table
5.1-1 shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Damage assessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)Resource consumption (mineral)Global warmingUrban air pollution

Ozone depletionAcidification

Eutrophication

Photochemical oxidant

Human toxicity

Ecotoxicity

Indoor air quality





Noise





Waste





Land use

Use of water

5.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Damage Assessment

Assessment of damage induced by water resource consumption was carried out using the two coefficients
as follows:178A) "The List of Coefficients for Assessing Health Damage Caused by Water Resource Consumption(Preliminary Edition, as of October 18, 2009)"2) provided by Mr. Motoshita of the National Institute ofAdvanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)B)"Using GIS to Evaluate Regional Human Health Impacts from Water Use 3) by Anne-Marie Boulay,
Jean-Baptiste Bayart, Cecile Bulle, Manuele Margni, and Louise Deschenes

5.2.1.1

Damage Assessment Using Coefficient A

Using Coefficient A as a coefficient for assessing damage caused by water resource consumption (refer to
Section 5.2.1), country-specific damage was assessed for the amount of water used in the filling phase("water consumption"). Countries selected as subjects of the assessments were the countries where ourfilling machines have been installed or may be installed in the future, and also the countries with highdamage coefficients. We calculated health damage in a yen value by multiplying the health damage
coefficient of each country by water consumption per hour. Table 5.2-1, Table 5.2-2, and Figure 5.2-1
show the results.
Table 5.2-1 Water-induced health damaged in countries where the aseptic filling system has
been installed (Coefficient A)

Country

Healthdamagecoefficient [DALYs/m3]

Health damage per hour [yen]New method

Conventional
methodWorld average

9.47E-09

¥0.5

¥2.6

China

1.30E-10

¥0.0

¥0.0

Korea

6.72E-10

¥0.0

¥0.2

America

4.00E-09

¥0.2

¥1.1

Vietnam

5.92E-10

¥0.0

¥0.2

Japan

9.90E-10

¥0.1

¥0.3

Table 5.2-2 Water-induced health damaged in other countries (Coefficient A)

Country

Healthdamagecoefficient [DALYs/m3]

Singapore

Health damage per hour [yen]New method

Conventional
method

1.38E-09

¥0.1

¥0.4

India

1.25E-08

¥0.7

¥3.4

Indonesia

1.84E-09

¥0.1

¥0.5

Myanmar

9.47E-09

¥0.5

¥2.6

Central Africa

1.30E-06¥68.4¥355.3179

Damage to human health [yen/hour]

¥400
¥350
¥300
¥250

New method¥200

Conventional
method

¥150
¥100
¥50

Central Africa

MyanmarIndonesia

India

SingaporeJapan

VietnamAmericaThailandSingapore

Korea

China

World average¥0

Figure 5.2-1 Water-induced health damage by country (Coefficient A)
Table 5.2-1, Table 5.2-2, and Figure 5.2-1 show that health damage caused by water resource consumption
was close to 0 yen in almost all subject countries. However, in Central Africa where the damage
coefficient was the highest of all subject countries, the damage was 355 yen in the conventional method
and 68 yen in the new method, showing a large difference from other subject countries.

180Meanwhile, the environmental
impact of water resource
consumption was approximately 0
yen in most of the subject countries.
Therefore, carbon dioxide and sulfur
dioxide cause a much stronger
environmental impact than water
resource consumption.

Damage to human health [yen/hour]

Figure 5.2-2 shows the result of damage assessment in terms of substances. The amount of damage tohuman health was 1.22E-04(DALYs) in the new method,
4.00E-04
meaning that the use of the new
method could allow reduction of
3.50E-04
approximately 1,800 yen of damage
per hour. This could be realized by
3.00E-04
reduction of carbon dioxide andsulfur dioxide emissions. The
study has shown that the use of the
2.50E-04
new method led to improvement ofCO2energy efficiency which in turn led
2.00E-04
to reduction of power consumption.
1.50E-04

1.00E-04

SO2
5.00E-05

0.00E+00
New method

Conventional method

Sulfur dioxide

Carbon dioxide

Nitrogen oxide

PM10 (non-point source)

Nitrous oxide

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

Lead

Total mercury

Water resource consumption

Non-methane volatile organic
compound (average)

MethaneFigure 5.2-2 Damage assessment result by substance (Coefficient A)

181

5.2.1.2

Damage Assessment Using Coefficient B

Using Coefficient B as a coefficient for assessing damage caused by water resource consumption (refer to
Section 5.2.1), region-specific damage was assessed for the amount of water used in the filling phase("water consumption"). We calculated health damage in a yen value by multiplying the health damage
coefficient of each country (mean value) by water consumption per hour. Table 5.2-3 shows the results.

02
06
24
39
83

Figure 5.2-3 Characterization factors for human health impacts (water surface 1)
Reference B: Using GIS to Evaluate Regional Human Health Impacts from Water Use
Table 5.2-3 Water-induced health damage region

LegendHealth damage
coefficient3[DALYs/m ]Damage to human health[DALYs]Damage to human health
[Yen]

New
methodNewmethodConventional
method¥0

Difference

Conventional
methodConventional-new¥0¥00.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

2.80E-04

5.38E-05

2.80E-04¥789¥4,100¥3,311

8.39E-04

1.61E-04

8.39E-04¥2,367¥12,299¥9,932

1.68E-03

3.23E-04

1.68E-03¥4,735¥24,598¥19,864

3.36E-03

6.46E-04

3.36E-03¥9,469¥49,197¥39,728

5.97E-03

1.15E-03

5.97E-03¥16,834¥87,461¥70,627

1.15E-02

2.21E-03

1.15E-02¥32,353¥168,089¥135,736

The damage coefficient is zero in Japan, North America, and Europe; therefore, health damage by water
resource consumption is zero yen. The study showed that the impact of water resource consumption on
health was much higher than the case where Coefficient A was used. In Central Africa, where the damage
coefficient is the highest, health damage was 168,089 yen when using the conventional method and 32,353
yen when using the new method, meaning that there was a 135,736 yen difference per hour.
The health damage caused by water resource consumption in regions marked with yellow, such as China,
was combined with the substance-specific damage assessment result obtained using LIME2 (Figure 5.2-4).

182

When the amount of damage wasconverted into Japanese yen, thedamage was approximately 30,000
yen per hour with the conventional
method, and the study found that thedamage caused by water resource
consumption accounted forapproximately 82% of the total
damage. Meanwhile, with the new
method, the damage wasapproximately 8,000 yen, and thedamage caused by water resource
consumption accounted forapproximately 56% of the total
damage.

3.50E+04

Damage to human health [yen/hour]

The result is quite different from thecase where Coefficient A was used inwhich damage by water resource
consumption accounted for a largepart of health damage.

3.00E+04

2.50E+04

2.00E+04

1.50E+04

1.00E+04

Water
resource
consumption

5.00E+03

CO2
SO2
0.00E+00
New method

Conventional method

Sulfur dioxide

Carbon dioxide

Nitrogen oxide

PM10 (non-point source)

Nitrous oxide

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

Lead

Total mercury

Water resource consumption

Non-methane volatile organic
compound (average)

MethaneFigure 5.2-4 Damage assessment result by substance (Coefficient B)

183

Weighting

Figure 5.2-2 shows the weighting result for
both filling methods (by substance). For
the new method, carbon dioxide had thehighest environmental impact followed bysulfur dioxide and crude oil in that order.
When converted into a yen value, theenvironmental impact of the new method
was 5,340 yen and that of the conventional
method was 7,680 yen.

9.00E+03
8.00E+03

Consolidated result (YEN/hour)

5.2.2

7.00E+03

Total
mercury

6.00E+03
5.00E+03

Crude
oil

4.00E+03

SO2

3.00E+03
2.00E+03

CO2

1.00E+03
0.00E+00

New method

Conventional method

Carbon dioxide

Sulfur dioxide

Crude oil

Total mercury
Natural gas

Coal
Nitrous oxide

Nitrogen oxide
PM10 (non-point source)

NickelFigure 5.2-5 Weighting result (by substance)

9.00E+03

Consolidated result (YEN/hour)

Figure 5.2-3 shows the weighting
result by category. The resultshows that both methods had highenvironmental impacts on global
warming and urban air pollution.
The level of impact of these twocategories was lower for the new
method.

8.00E+03

Ecotoxicity(water)7.00E+03
6.00E+03

Urban airpollution

5.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03

Globalwarming

2.00E+03

Abiotic
resources

1.00E+03
0.00E+00
New method

Conventional method

Abiotic resources

Global w arming

Ozone depletion

Acidification

Eutrophication

Photochemical oxidant

Urban air pollution

Human toxicity (air)Human toxicity (w ater)

Human toxicity (soil)

Ecotoxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (w ater)

Ecotoxicity (soil)

Waste

Indoor air pollution

Figure 5.2-6 weighting result (by category)184

Consolidation result (YEN/hour)

Health damage calculated using Coefficient B was added to the weighting result by substance obtainedusing LIME 2 (Figure 5.2-7).
2.00E+04
1.80E+04
1.60E+04
1.40E+04
1.20E+04
1.00E+04
8.00E+03
6.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
New method

Conventional method

Carbon dioxide

Sulfur dioxide

Crude oil

Total mercury

Coal

Nitrogen oxide

Natural gas

Nitrous oxide

PM10 (non-point source)

NickelBar (solid color): Amount of damage to human health in each region (see Figure 5.2-3)■ Indonesia and Thailand■ Vietnam and Egypt■ China and Pakistan■ India and South Africa■ South India and Algeria■ Central Africa and Uganda

Figure 5.2-7 Weighting result (by substance) and health damage by water resource consumption(Coefficient B)
Figure 5.2-7 shows that the health damage calculated using Coefficient B was much higher than theweighting result. Note that, in the conventional method, the regions marked in green, such as Vietnam,
and regions with higher health damage exceeded the damage shown as the weighting result. In the new
method, the regions market with light orange, such as India, and regions with higher health damage
exceeded the weighting result.

185

6

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
Japan is a country with abundant water resources, and irrespective to the type of coefficient, damage tohuman health caused by water resource consumption was almost 0. It should be noted, however, that the
study indicated that the new method was an excellent bottle filling method that could significantly reduce
the amount of water used and also the damage cause by CO2 and SO2.
Meanwhile, assuming that our filling system is introduced to China, India, other Asian countries, or Africancountries, the study indicated that the amount of damage caused by water resource consumption calculatedusing Coefficient B was much lower with the new method than with the conventional method.

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
Types and amount of water available are different in different regions across the world. The water used inthis assessment was assumed to be industrial water, but it will be necessary to select basic units appropriate
for the types of water used in the system. For this, it will be necessary to establish a wide variety of basic
water units.
Furthermore, there has not been any established coefficient for assessing damage caused by water resource
consumption, and this has caused large discrepancies in calculation results. In order to improveassessment reliability, we hope that coefficients for assessing damage caused by water resource
consumption will be established soon.
In the future, we hope to continue improving the efficiency of water resource use and energy use, and also
to carry out assessment that is more fact-based.

Reference
1) Japan PET Bottle Association: PET Bottle LCI Analysis Report, pp. 31, 53, 2006
2) The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (provided by Mr. Motoshita):
The List of Coefficients for Assessing Health Damage Caused by Water Resource Consumption(Preliminary Edition, as of October 18, 2009)
3) Anne-Marie Boulay, Jean-Baptiste Bayart, Cecile Bulle, Manuele Margni, and Louise Deschenes:
Using GIS to Evaluate Regional Human Health Impacts from Water Use, SETAC (2010.5) abstract

186

Report on Environmental Impact Assessmentof a Professional Golf Tournament

March 2010
Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Dentsu Inc.
Hiroshi Yamaguchi (Itsubo LCA Laboratory, Faculty ofEnvironmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City
University)

187

1

General

1.1 Evaluator
Name:

Hiruma Masato

Organization: Communication Lab 2nd Research Group, Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Dentsu
Inc.
Contact:

hiruma.masato@dentsu.co.jp

Name:

Hiroshi Yamaguchi

Organization: Itsubo LCA Laboratory, Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City
University

1.2 Date of Report Creation
March 20, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
Eco-friendliness in the field of hosting events conventionally has simply treated physical issues such aswaste, noise, and landscape conservation. It usually involves compliance with regulations established in
the location of the event, but at the same time, hosting parties often, too, voluntarily take action to addressthese issues.
The definition of the abovementioned eco-friendliness, however, has been changing with the increase of
global awareness of environmental issues such as global warming and conservation of biodiversity.
This change is clearly reflected in how environmental impact assessment is introduced. While it is often
introduced to calculate emissions for carbon offset purposes, in many cases, it is introduced because event
hosting parties wish to quantitatively understand the effectiveness of their own eco-friendly activities. In
conventional eco-friendly measures, hosting parties or event organizers would carry out ad-hoc measures,and effectiveness of these measures would be understood as fragmented information on resources used,
output volume (amount of sorted waste), and recognition of the eco-friendly activities (recognition byvisitors or amount of media exposure). Introduction of environmental impact assessment; however,should aim to help understand the level of effectiveness of eco-friendly measures implemented to reduce
environmental loads that are generated during events. The assessment in this study therefore encourages
review of event hosting and organizing activities and also environmental issues from the management pointof view. As a result of such review, management methods may be established in future such thatenvironmental measures will be created systematically instead of on an ad-hoc basis as is common atpresent.
At the same time, since environmental impact assessment methods have been developed targeting mainly
the manufacturing industry, it is necessary to examine if these methods can be applied as is to activities
188

carried out in the service industry such as event hosting services.
In this study, based on the abovementioned changes in event-related operations, an event example wasassessed using LIME in order to identify: specific constituents of the environmental impact of an event; andpossible issues regarding application of conventional environmental impact assessment methods.
First of all, it was important to obtain rough ideas of the type and amount of environmental impact that is
generated during an event. Then, applying the existing assessment methods to the subject event, we
examined what kind of assessment methods were appropriate for event-related operations and also whatkind of preparation, such as database development, was required for assessment.
Note that, in this study project, a professional golf tournament was used as a subject of the study since withthis type of event we could easily obtain cooperation of event organizers.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
The study result will be used to help understand the outline of the environmental impact generated inassociation with a professional golf tournament. It will be also used to identify issues in tournamentenvironmental impact assessment.

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subjects and their Specifications
We created an imaginary golf tournament using data of actual professional golf tournaments. In general, atournament consists of venue preparation, practice by players, actual matches, ancillary events, and cleanup.
The Japan Golf Tour Organization (JGTO) provided support in setting tournament conditions.

3.2

Duration andlocation

Duration: one week (two days for practice and four days for the
tournament)
Location: venue not within walking distance from the nearest station(in the northern Kanto area)

Participants

125 professional players, 100 amateur players, 20,180
spectators(galley) , 445 volunteers, and 260 tournament officials

Scope ofassessment

All processes before, during, and after the tournament (details to be
described later)

Function and Functional Unit

A functional unit in this study means the amount of environmental loads generated per person (spectators,
player, or tournament official) during the life cycle of a professional golf tournament.

189

3.3

System boundary

As shown in Figure 3.2-1, the system includes travel by people, preparation of tournament related facilities
and equipment, hosting of the tournament, and waste disposal.
[Figure 3.2-1] System boundary

Golf course
Means of travel

Waste

Host
Food and drink
Golf matches

CO2

Players
Distributed

Environmental

materials

Spectatorsload reduction
scenario

Figure 3.2-1 System and system boundary of a golf tournament

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)
Assessment was carried out using 3EID due to the necessity to handle a large number of items subject toassessment and also due to the nature of the objective of this study, but in some parts, we used theaggregation LCA method. As a result, we carried out assessment using our own hybrid method.
Due to the technical restrictions on data acquisition, travel by spectators was estimated using small-sizeddata that did not necessarily guarantee statistical validity.

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
An overview of the type and amount of materials and resources used was obtained from the budget list andthe tournament manual. Meanwhile, we referred to the data obtained from sponsoring companies for thetype and amount of novelty items, food, and drinks distributed to spectators.

4.2 Background Data
The environmental load data based on the input-output table was used. CO2 data was obtained from 3EIDof the National Institute for Environmental Studies. The data on resource and energy consumption,190

excluding crude oil, was obtained from the database created by Tokyo City University. The data on crude
oil was obtained from the database created by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science andTechnology. The data on travel by people was obtained from the statistical data by Ministry of Land，
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and Ministry of the Environment.

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and List of Analysis Results
Table 4.3-1 shows the subjects of professional golf tournament inventory analysis, and Table 4.3-2 shows
the list of analysis results.
Table 4.3-1 Subjects of inventory analysis

Large category

Mediumcategory

Hosting of achampionship

Hosing of atournament

Small category

Distributed
materials
TravelWaste

Golf course
management

Players

Subject group
Basic unit

Equipment and Tents, pavilions,
supplies required temporary
in thelavatories, andtournament and stands
use thereof

531 Input-output table

Signboards

Arches, banners,
signboards, andtheme boards

101

Food and drinks Food, drinks, andlunchboxes

79

Staff members

Temporary staff
members,transportation
security, andweather forecaster

39

Electricity andlighting work, andsound equipment
installation

7

Expenses of the Accident insurance
tournament office premiums, copy
machines, photodevelopment

8

Dealing with thepress,
communication,
events for fans, andprinting

69

Mugs, polo shirts,
winner's jackets

7 Aggregation method
and input-output
analysis combined(including
Planes and cars
amateur players)

133 Aggregation method

Green Festival

Publicrelations

Numberof items

Item

Players Spectators

Hosting
Venue
party
























Spectators

Trains, buses, andcars

9Volunteers

Trains and buses

291

Bus tour

Buses

5

Staff
members

Cars

19



Part-timers

Trains and buses

8Combustible waste,noncombustible
waste, PET bottles,
and cardboard
boxes

4 Aggregation method

Utilities,
landscaping,seeds, fertilizers,
and chemicals

20 Aggregation method
and input-output
analysis combined

191













Table 4.3-2 Inventory analysis result
100%
90%
80%
70%

60%
Golf course management
50%

Waste
Travel40%

Distributed materials
30%

Public relations
Hosting of the tournament

20%
10%

0%
53.51

16.59

3.18

CO2
(kg)

Oil
(liter)

Coal
(kg)

1.14

5.47

2.23

0.03

0.12

3.38

4.37

14.34

Natural
Iron
Iron ore Copper Aluminum Gravel Crushed Watergas consumption (kgt)
(kg)
and
(kg)
stone consumption
(m3)
(kg)
quarrying
(m3)
(kg)
(kg)

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to assess the following three steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table
5.1-1 shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damage assessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-

-

-

Ozone depletion

-

-

-

Acidification

-

-

-

Eutrophication

-

-

-

Water







Photochemical oxidant

-

-

-

Human toxicity

-

-

-

Ecotoxicity

-

-

-

192

Indoor air quality

-

-

-

Noise

-

-

-

Waste







Land use

5.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Characterization

As the result of characterization of a golf event, Figure 5.2-1 shows the result by major tournamentelements in terms of the global warming, resource (energy) consumption, and water consumption. Figure
5.2-2- shows the result by substance emitted or consumed.
The result shows that hosting of the tournament was responsible for a large part of the global warming,
resource (energy) consumption, and water consumption. Note also that travel was another major
contributing factor to the global warming effect. Meanwhile, public relations, involving creation of
printed materials, accounted for a relatively large part of the water consumption.
100%
90%
80%

70%
60%
Golf course management

Waste

50%

TravelDistributed materials

40%

Public relations

Hosting of the tournament

30%
20%

10%
0%
Global warming

Resource consumption

Water consumption

Area of impact

Figure 5.2-1 Characterization result (by major tournament element)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

Water
Aluminum

50%

CopperIron

40%

Natural gas
Coal
Oil

30%

CO2

20%
10%
0%

Global warming

Resource consumption

Water consumption

Figure 5.2-2 Characterization result (by substance emitted or consumed)193

5.2.2

Damage Assessment

The damage assessment result (by substance) for the four areas to be protected was: organized in terms ofmajor tournament elements as shown in Figure 5.2-3; and organized in terms of substances emitted or
consumed as shown in Figure 5.2-4.
For the major tournament elements, hosting of the tournament was more responsible than any otherelements for the damage to all areas to be protected. In particular, it accounted for 90% of damage caused
in primary production and biodiversity. In social assets and human health, hosting of the tournament andtravel accounted for 90% of the damage. Within the area of human health, hosting of the tournament
accounted for 70% of the damage, but travel and public relations were also responsible for relatively large
parts of the damage. When the damage assessment result was organized in terms of substances emitted or
consumed, substances such as coal, copper, and iron were responsible for a large part of the damage inprimary production and biodiversity, and CO2 and oil accounted for a large part of the damage in social
assets and human health.
100%

80%

60%
Golf course management
Waste
Travel40%

Distributed materials
Public relations
Hosting of the tournament

20%0%Primary production

Biodiversity

Social assets

Human health-20%

Figure 5.2-3 Damage assessment result (by major tournament element)
100%

90%

80%

70%

Water
60%

Gravel and quarrying
Aluminum
Copper50%

Iron
Natural gas

40%

Coal
Oil

30%

CO2
20%

10%

0%
Primary production(0.06 kg)

Biodiversity(7.4E-14 EINES)

Social assets(¥61)

Human health(7.E-06DALY)

Figure 5.2-4 Damage assessment result (by substance emitted or consumed)194

5.2.3Weighting

The weighting social cost was 175 yen per person (3.7 million yen for the entire tournament). Figure5.2-5 shows the weighting result by major tournament element. The social cost of hosting of thetournament was 91 yen per person, accounting for more than half of the entire social cost (1.92 million yen
for the entire tournament), followed by travel, which was 74 yen per person (1.56 million yen for the entire
tournament). Figure 5.2-6 shows the weighting result by substance emitted or consumed. The social
cost of CO2 emission per person was 125 yen (2.63 million yen for the entire tournament), accounting for
70% of the entire social cost, followed by oil, which was 37 yen (780,000 yen for the entire tournament).
Figure 5.2-7 shows the weighting result by the areas to be protected. The social cost was 107 per personin the area of human health (2.27 million yen for the entire tournament), followed by 64 yen in the area ofsocial assets (1.35 million yen for the entire tournament).
200.0

200.0

180.0

180.0

160.0

160.0

140.0

140.0

120.0

Water consumption

120.0

Gravel and quarrying

Golf course management
100.0

Aluminum
100.0

Waste

CopperIron consumption

Travel80.0

80.0Distributed materials

Natural gas
Coal

Public relations

60.0

60.0

Oil

Hosting of the tournament

CO2

40.0

40.0

20.0

20.0

0.0

0.0
175.2

175.2

Consolidated result by major element, per person (in yen)

Consolidated assessment: by substance emitted or consumed per person (in yen)

Figure 5.2-5 weighting result (by major
tournament element)

Figure 5.2-6 weighting result (by substanceemitted or consumed)

200
180

Consolidated assessment result (yen)

160

140
120
Human health100

Social assets

Biodiversity

80

Primary production
60
40
20

0
175.2

Consolidated assessment: by area of protection per person (in yen)

Figure 5.2-7 weighting result (by area ofprotection)

195

6

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
Using the input-output analysis database, we obtained the amount of CO2 emission and resource
consumption (oil, coal, natural gas, iron, copper, aluminum, gravel, and water). The study found thatapproximately 50% of CO2 emission and oil consumption were attributed to hosting of the tournament andtravel, and more than 85% of resource consumption other than oil was attributed to hosting of thetournament. Also, more than 40% of water consumption was attributed to equipment and supplies
required in the tournament and use thereof, and also to food and drinks. Furthermore, the study indicatedthat copper consumption was attributed to the use of the TrackMan system (radio communicationequipment), and gravel consumption was attributed to preparation of temporary stands and lavatories(concrete).
We conducted LIME2-based environmental impact assessment using the inventories described above.
The characterization result showed that hosting of the tournament and travel had a large impact on the
global warming (CO2 emission) and the resource consumption. Meanwhile, hosting of the tournamentand public relations (production of printed material) were both responsible for high water consumption.
When the characterization result was viewed from the substance point of view, CO2 accounted for a largepart of the global warming, and consumption of oil, copper, natural gas, and iron constituted a large part ofresource consumption.
The damage assessment result indicated that the hosting of the tournament accounted for more than 90% ofdamage to the primary consumption and biodiversity. Hosting of the tournament and travel eachaccounted for more than 45% of damage to the social assets. Finally, hosting of the tournament, travel,and public relations were responsible for damage to human health in that order. When the damage
assessment was examined from the substance point of view, oil, coal, copper, iron, and natural gas
accounted for a large part of damage to the primary production and biodiversity. Meanwhile, oil, CO2,and copper accounted for a large part of damage to the social assets, and CO2 was responsible for a largepart of damage to human health. Water had a much lower environmental impact.
The weighting result showed that the social cost was 175 yen per person (3.7 million yen for the entire
tournament). The social cost of hosting of the tournament was 91 yen per person (1.92 million yen for theentire tournament), and travel was 74 yen per person (1.56 million yen for the entire tournament). In
terms of substances, the social cost of CO2 emission per person was 125 yen (2.63 million yen for the entire
tournament), accounting for most of the total social cost, and oil was 37 yen (780,000 yen for the entire
tournament). In terms of areas to be protected, the social cost was 107 per person in the area of humanhealth (2.27 million yen for the entire tournament), followed by 64 yen in the area of social assets (1.35
million yen for the entire tournament).

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future TasksFirst of all, based on the nature of this type of event where most of the facilities and equipment used during
a tournament is rented, it is necessary to improve the assessment method by developing basic units for
rented items. Also, as the number of substances subject to assessment increases, the reliability ofenvironmental impact assessment must improve accordingly.

196

The assessment result in this study indicated that hosting of the tournament, travel, and public relations(printing) had large environmental impacts. For public relations (printing), use of electronic media could
be applied immediately. It is, however, difficult to establish appropriate environmental impact reduction
measures for hosting of the tournament and travel. For these, the only realistic way to reduce theenvironmental impact is to reduce the size of the tournament, but this would be meaningless when the
purpose and the function of the event, which is considered as communication in a broad sense, areconsidered. It could be possible to select a venue that is easily accessible by public transportation systems,
but this would lead to a concentration of venues in the central area of a town or in a city. This is not afavorable situation in terms of the social aspect of the Triple Bottom Line.
As described earlier, an event is a communication tool. A large number of stakeholders are involved, andthings occur during that event are quickly shared by society. Therefore, desirable ways of using the resultof environmental impact assessment of an event will be:  as an index to prevent further increase ofenvironmental loads, and  as quantitative data to raise environmental awareness of stakeholders including
spectators.

197

Reference
1)
2)

3)

4)
5)

6)
7)

N. Itsubo. Environmental Load Assessment of an International Marathon from the Life Cycle Point ofView. Journal of the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 510.
H. Yamaguchi, et al. Calculation of CO2 Emission in a Golf Tournament and Examination of an
Emission Reduction Method. The Collection of Abstracts for the 4th Meeting of the Institute of Life
Cycle Assessment, Japan, D2-07, p. 204.
M. Kitazawa and N. Itsubo. Development of an Input-Output LCI Database for Fossil Fuels andMineral Resources. The Collection of Abstracts for the 4th Meeting of the Institute of Life Cycle
Assessment, Japan, pp. 2-28, 328.
Y. Ono, et al. Development of a Water Inventory Database to be Applied to a Water Footprint. The
Collection of Abstracts for the 5th Meeting of the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan, D2-13.
K. Horiguchi, et al. Creation of an Environmental Load Basic Unit Database for LCA Analysis of
Events. The Collection of Abstracts for the 5th Meeting of the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment,
Japan, C1-04.
K. Nansai and Y. Moriguchi. Embodied Energy and Emission Intensity Data for Japan Using an
Input-Output Table (3EID). National Institute for Environmental Studies.
M. Motoshita. Development of a Method to Assess Damage of Infectious Diseases Caused by
Noncommercial Water Shortages. The Collection of Abstracts for the 4th Meeting of the Institute ofLife Cycle Assessment, Japan, A3-02, p. 228.

198

Report on Comparison of Environmental
Impact of Substations

April 2010
Toshiba Corporation

199

1

General

1.1 Evaluator
Name:
Hideki Noda
Organization: Power System Solution and Distribution System R＆D Department, Power and Industrial
Systems R&D Center, Toshiba Corporation
Contact:

hideki1.noda@toshiba.co.jp

1.2 Date of Report Creation
April 30, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
Substations are built in a wide variety of places such as in mountains and cities. They may be outdoor
substations or underground substations. In general, substations tend to be built in outdoor suburban areas
since it is difficult to secure the land in urban areas. In many cases, these outdoor substations are built inmountain areas. A switchgear installed in an outdoor substation may be either a gas insulated switchgear(GIS) that uses SF6 gas as an insulating medium or an air insulated switchgear (AIS) that secures a certain
distance as a means of insulation instead of using SF6 gas. Since the GIS insulates SF6 gas well, the GIS
is smaller than the AIS. The AIS is the type that has been in use for a long time.
Therefore, in this assessment, we compared a GIS and an old type AIS assuming they are used in a 145kV
substation built in a mountain area. Through the comparison, we quantified the amount of reduction of
the environmental impact due to reduction of the substation area. Note that this quantification was carriedout based not only on the conventional assessment, such as assessment of the environmental impact on
global warming, but also on the environmental impact of forest use on biodiversity and primary production
as well as the environmental impact of industrial waste disposal on biodiversity, primary production, andsocial assets.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
In the comparison between a 145kV GIS substation and an AIS substation, important elements in an
eco-friendly substation design were identified through inventory analysis of the environmental impact on
global warming, biodiversity, and so on, so that the obtained result can provide useful tips for substation
designs.

200

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subjects and their Specifications
Among a wide variety of substations, the subject of the study was a 145kV switchgear (4 lines and Bus
Section) and its single line diagram as shown in Figure 3.1-1. The specific equipment subject toassessment was the switchgear (consisting of the circuit breaker (CB), disconnecting switch / earth switch(DS / ES), current transformer (CT), voltage transformer (VT), lightning arrester (LA), bushing (Bg), frame,and electric wire).

CH

CH

Figure 3.1-1 145kV switchgear single-line diagram
Note that, for this switchgear, the rated voltage was 145 kV, the rated current was 3,150A, and the rated
short-time current was 40 kA.

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
A functional unit in this study was the entire lifecycle of a substation (a switchgear and its concrete
foundation). Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 show the assessment conditions. Figure 3.2-1 shows the image ofoccupation area comparison between the old-type and new substations.
Table 3.2-1 Assessment condition (common condition)
Duration of use

30 yearsService life of a concrete foundation

90 years

Rated current

3150A

Load factor

50%

SF6 gas leakage (during operation)

0.05%/year

SF6 gas leakage (when breakers are open)

1% each time

Number of times the breakers are opened

1 time (during removal)

201

Table 3.2-2 Assessment condition
Old-type AIS

GIS

GIS / old-type AIS

Total equipment mass (in tons)

80

28

34.9%

Amount of concrete (m3) Note

350

23

6.7%

3,000

100

3.3%

0

29

2

Occupation area (m )SF6 emission (kg/30 years)

Note: The amount of concrete shown in the table is 1/3 of the actual amount used since its service lifeis 3 times longer than the GIS.

AIS
GIS

Figure 3.2-1 Image of downsizing of a substation

3.3 System boundary
Figure 3.3-1 shows the system boundary. It includes foundation building, manufacturing, current loss, SF6
gas leakage, and disposal.

System boundary
Material

EnergyFoundation building

SF6leakage

Manufacturing
Material
EnergyParts
manufacturing

Assembly

Use

Disposal

Recycling(material, forexample)Current
loss

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)
Among the equipment that constitutes a substation, a transformer, secondary equipment, the main building
and its devices, and the steel tower were not included as the subjects of assessment.
202

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
Survey data on the amount of concrete used in the foundation building phase, the amount of materials,
resources, and energy used in the material phase, and the amount of current loss and SF6 gas leakage during
the use phase was used.

4.2 Background Data
To obtain basic units required for each phase, we used the database created based on the 2000 input-output
analysis, including overseas load data, available in Easy-LCA.

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis
Table 4.3-1 shows the list of subjects of inventory analysis.
Table 4.3-1 Subjects of inventory analysis
Consumption-related load
Air emission-related load
(greenhouse gases)

Energy
CO2
HFC
HFC23
PFC
SF6
Air emission-related load
SOx
NOx
Dust
Water emission-related load
BOD
COD
SS
T-N
T-P
Resource consumption-related Crude oil raw material
load
Crude oil fuel
Coal
Natural gas
Iron
CopperLead
Zinc
Aluminum
Manganese
ChromeNickelCrushed stone
Gravel and quarrying
Limestone
Material (wood)Land use
Footprint
Disposal
Equipment
Foundation

203

Unit
MJ
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
L
L
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
m3
m2
kg
m3

5

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to asses the following 3 steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table 5.1-1
shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step. The areas to be protected are humanhealth, social assets, primary production, and biodiversity. In land use, protection of primary production
and biodiversity was focused on through protection of forests, while in foundation and equipment disposal,
protection of social assets, primary production, and biodiversity was emphasized.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damage assessment

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming











Urban air pollution

weightingOzone depletion
Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant







Waste







Land use

Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality
Noise

204

5.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Characterization

Figure 5.2-1 shows the characterization result with regard to global warming for the substation with the
GIS and the substation with the old-type AIS. Inventory for this analysis included CO2, HFC, HFC23,
PFC, and SF6.

Global warming: characterization result (yen/f.u.)

For the substation with the old-type AIS, current loss was the major factor for global warming, and for thesubstation with the GIS, it was SF6 gas leakage. Note that the current loss caused twice as much damage
as SF6 gas leakage. The overall characterization result shows that the environmental impact of thesubstation with the GIS was 38% of that of the substation with the old-type AIS. Other contributing
factors were equipment materials (from CB to electric wire/Bg in the graph) and the foundation.

6.0E+06

SF6 gas leakage

100%
Current loss
5.0E+06
Foundation
4.0E+06
3.0E+06

AIS-electric wire /GIS-BgLA
Current loss

Frame

38%
VT

2.0E+06
1.0E+06

Foundation

SF6 gasleakageCT
LINE-DS/ES
BUS-DS/ES

0.0E+00

Substation with Substation withthe old-type AIS
the GISCB

Figure 5.2-1 Characterization result (global warming)

205

5.2.2

Damage assessment

Figures 5.2-2 through 5.2-5 show the damage assessment results with regard to the four areas to beprotected. In all areas, the GIS had a lower environmental impact than the old-type AIS. Meanwhile, thedamage tendency for human health was different from that for other areas. This is attributed to the factthat foundation disposal and use of forests had no impact on human health.

Foundation disposal

7.E+06

6.E-01Equipment disposal
SF6

100%
NOx

PFC

100%

HFC23
HFC

SF6

Social assets (yen/f.u.)

Human health (DALY/f.u.)

5.E-01

6.E+06PFC

4.E-01

HFC23
HFC
3.E-01

Dust

SOx

NOx
37%

2.E-01

SOx
SF6

CO2

Nickel

5.E+06ChromeFoundation
disposal

Manganese
Aluminum

4.E+06

Zinc
Lead
Copper

3.E+06Equipment
disposal

Iron
Natural gas
Coal

2.E+06

Crude oil fuelCopperCrude oil raw material

1.E-01

T-P

19%

CO2
1.E+06

SF6

T-N
COD

0.E+00

CO2

Old AIS

GIS

NOx
SOx

0.E+00
Old AIS

Figure 5.2-2 Damage assessment result(human health)
1.E+05Figure 5.2-3 Damage assessment result(social assets)

Foundation disposal

100%

7.E-07100%

Equipment disposal

Foundation disposal
Equipment disposal

Forest use (productiv ity )1.E+05

6.E-07

Forest use (div ersity )Material (wood)

Limestone
Grav el and quarry ing

Biodiversity (EINEs/f.u.)Primary production (kg/f.u.)Material (wood)

1.E+05

Crushed stone

8.E+04

NickelFoundation
disposal

6.E+04ChromeManganese
Aluminum

Equipment
disposal

4.E+04Zinc
Lead

2.E+04

Forest use

11%Foundation
disposal

4.E-07Equipment
disposal

GIS

Limestone
Grav el and quarry ing
Crushed stone
NickelChrome3.E-07

Manganese
Aluminum

2.E-07

Zinc

ForestLead
Copper

1.E-07

9%

Coal

0.E+00

Old AIS

5.E-07

Copper
Iron

Coal

CO2

GIS

Iron
Coal

NOx

0.E+00SOx

Old AIS

Figure 5.2-4 Damage assessment result(primary production)

GIS

Figure 5.2-5 Damage assessment result(biodiversity)2065.2.3WeightingFigure 5.2-6 shows the weighting result. The environmental impact of the substation using the GIS was
20% lower than that of the substation using the old-type AIS. Figure 5.2-6 (a) shows the weighting result
by process (material, land use, operation, and disposal processes). The environmental impact offoundation disposal, current loss, and land use of the substation using the old-type AIS was higher than theenvironmental impact of SF6 gas leakage at the substation using the GIS. This result therefore suggeststhat the reduction of occupation area as a result of installing a switchgear using SF6 gas would have apositive effect on the environment. Figure 5.2-6 (b) shows the weighting result by device. The result
here shows that current loss of electric wires at the substation using the old-type AIS had a large
environmental impact. Figure 5.2-6 (c) shows the result by inventory. The result indicated thatfoundation disposal and land use of the substation using the old-type AIS had a large environmental impact,
while SF6 and SOx had a large environmental impact at the substation using the GIS.

2.5E+07

Foundation disposal
100%

3.0E+07

Equipment disposal

Foundation disposal
Equipment disposal

SF6 gas leakage
Foundation
disposal

100%

SF6
PFC

Land use

2.0E+07
Equipment
disposal

1.5E+07
Current loss

2.5E+07

HFC

AIS-electric wire / GIS-Bg

Material (w ood)
Limestone

VT

Land use

19%

SF6 gas leakage

CT
LINE-DS/ES

CB

BUS-DS/ES

Substation w ith
the old-type AIS

DustFoundation
disposal

2.0E+07

Frame

0.0E+00

HFC23

Foundation

LA

1.0E+07
5.0E+06

Land use

Current loss

Amount of damage (yen/f.u.)

Amount of damage (yen/f.u.)

3.0E+07

Substation w ith
the GISCB

Gravel and quarrying
Crushed stone
NickelEquipment
disposal

ChromeManganese

1.5E+07

Aluminum
Zinc

Land use

Lead
CopperIron
1.0E+07
Foundation
disposal(a) By process

Crude oil raw material
T-P

19%
5.0E+06

Amount of damage (yen/f.u.)

2.5E+07
Foundation
disposal

2.0E+07
1.5E+07

T-N

Foundation disposal

100%

Equipment
disposal
Land use

COD

Equipment disposal

SOx

Land use

CO2

AIS-electric wire / GIS-Bg

Substation w ith the old-type
AIS

19%

LINE-DS/ES
BUS-DS/ES

0.0E+00

CB

CB

Substation w ith
the old-type AIS

Substation w ith the GIS(c) By inventoryCT

5.0E+06

CO2

LA

VT
Wire

Substation w ith
the GIS(b) By device
Figure 5.2-6 Weighting result

207

NOX
SOX

Frame

1.0E+07SF6

0.0E+00

Foundation

Coal
Crude oil fuelEquipment
disposal

3.0E+07

Natural gas

Figure 5.2-7 shows a comparison of damage to the areas to be protected. This figure shows that for boththe substations using the old-type AIS and the GIS, the largest impact was on biodiversity followed byhuman health, social assets, and primary production in this order.

9.0E+06

Amount of damage (yen/f.u.)

8.0E+06
7.0E+06
6.0E+06
5.0E+06
4.0E+06
3.0E+06
2.0E+06
1.0E+06
0.0E+00
Old AISGIS

Human health

Old AISGISSocial assets

Old AISGIS

Primary production

Old AIS

Biodiversity

GIS

Energy

CO2

SOx

NOx

BOD

COD

SS

T-N

T-P

Crude oil raw material

Crude oil fuel

Coal

Natural gas

Iron

CopperLead

Zinc

Aluminum

Manganese

ChromeNickelCrushed stone

Gravel and quarrying

Limestone

Material (w ood)

Dust

HFC

HFC23

PFC

SF6

Forest use (productiv ity )Forest use (div ersity )Equipment disposal

Foundation disposal

Figure 5.2-7 Weighting result (by the area to be protected)

5.2.4

Comparison between the weighting result and the characterization result interms of global warming

Comparison between Figure 5.2-1 and Figure 5.2-6 indicates that the environmental impact of thesubstation using the GIS was 38% of that of the substation using the old-type AIS according to thecharacterization result in terms of global warming, but it was 19% according to the weighting result. Thisis mainly because the environmental impact of land use and foundation disposal was not included incharacterization for global warming. Therefore, when comparing facilities that use land in very different
ways, GHG assessment alone may not cover all important points, and it is thus desirable that theenvironmental impacts on biodiversity and primary production also be included in analysis to the fullest
extent possible.

208

6

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
With a 145-kV substation using the GIS and a substation using the old-type AIS as the subjects of study, wequantified the environmental impact of the life cycle of each substation (land development (booked 1/3 ofthe actual volume), manufacturing, use (50% load factor for 30 years), and disposal).
The major factors of the environmental impact were foundation, current loss, and land use for thesubstation with the old-type AIS. The environmental impact of these factors was much larger than SF6
gas leakage at the substation with the GIS, indicating that the reduction of occupation area as a result of
selecting a switchgear using SF6 gas had a positive effect on the environment. Also, current loss ofelectric wires at the substation using the old-type AIS was larger than the current loss by the innerconductor of the GIS, and when the substation has operated for 30 years at 50% of the load factor, thecurrent loss would become the major environmental factor of the substation using the old-type AIS.
When the weighting result and the characterization result in terms of global warming were compared, theenvironmental impact of the substation using the GIS was 19% of that of the substation using the old-type
AIS according to the weighting result and 38% according to the characterization result. This suggests thatwhen comparing facilities that use land in very different ways, it is desirable that the environmental impact
on biodiversity and primary production be assessed in addition to global warming. It is desirable,
therefore, that biodiversity and primary production data be prepared and improved.

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
This study included all important processes (foundation building, material procurement, manufacturing,
operation, and disposal) as the subjects of the assessment; therefore, we believe that the validity of theassessment result can be guaranteed. However, the background data described earlier was used inassessment of the environmental impact of concrete material and the disposal process, both of which had alarge environmental impact. Although it is not clear how the use of the background data would influence
the assessment result, it is still desirable that the priority data be used as much as possible. Furthermore,
for current loss, which was one of the major contributing factors to the environmental impact caused by thesubstation using the old-type AIS, the load factor depends on how the substation is operated. Therefore, it
is desirable to examine the operational status first and then define the assessment condition based on theexamination result.
End of document209

Report on Environmental Impact Assessmentof HYDROTECT Coating

June 2010
TOTO LTD.

210

1

General

1.1 Evaluators
Name:

Junji Kameshima and Toshihiro Takagi

Organization: TOTO LTD.
Contact:

junji.kameshima@jp.toto.com and toshihiro.takagi@jp.toto.com

1.2 Date of Report Creation
June 3, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
An air pollutant nitrogen oxide (NOx) not only has an adverse effect on the human body but also is known
as a substance that causes photochemical smog or acid rain. NOx is generated in a wide variety of places
such as factories, thermal power plants, cars, and houses, and it is thus difficult to completely control its
generation. A photocatalyst exposed with UV rays contained in sunlight generates unique effects such as
decomposition and hydrophilic properties. Our product, HYDROTECT coating, is a type of coating thatuses such a photocatalytic function to realize a highly durable coating, self-cleaning (dirt prevention) andair purification (NOx removal) effects.
In this study, we conducted environmental impact assessment of a life cycle of HYDROTECT coating(trade name: ECO-EX) and an ordinary coating (acrylic silicone coating) in order to understand theenvironmental characteristics of HYDROTECT coating and also to compare environmental performance
between these two types of coating.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
Through the comparison of the environmental impact between HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary
coating, we intend to understand the environmental characteristics of HYDROTECT coating and also toprovide information thereof.

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subjects and their Specifications
The subjects of the study were: HYDROTECT coating (trade name: ECO-EX (white)) and an ordinary
coating (acrylic silicone coating (white)), which was produced, applied, and used as coating on walls inside
Japan, by the amount sufficient for coating an area of 1,000 m2. Table 3.1-1 shows a comparison of
specifications between HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary coating. HYDROTECT coating consistsof an undercoating layer, a colored barrier layer, and a photocatalytic layer, while an ordinary coating
consists only of an undercoating layer and a colored layer. In this study, the entire coating film structure211was treated as the subject of assessment. The colored barrier layer of HYDROTECT coating is a coating
film that is less susceptible to degradated than the colored layer of the ordinary coating, and it needs to bereapplied only once every 20 years. Also, HYDROTECT coating has special functions such as
self-cleaning and air purification. The effectiveness of the self-cleaning function would lead to adecreased necessity to clean outer walls. However, since it is often the case that the users of outer walls
rarely if ever clean them, the self-cleaning function was excluded from the scope of the study. As a result,only the air purification effects were included as the subject of the study.
Table 3.1-1 Comparison of specifications between HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary coating

Ordinary coating

Colored layer

2-layer

Outer building wall

Photocatalytic layer

Colored barrier layer

undercoating layer

Structure

Outer building wall

3-layerundercoating layer

HYDROTECT coating

Years before re-applied
20 years*
10 years
Amount of coating used
375 kg355 kgSelf-cleaning
YesNo
Air purification
Yes
No*In-house assessment: passed the accelerated weathering test SWOM for 6,000
hours (equivalent to 20 years of use)212

The photocatalytic air purification effects refers to a process in which NOx in the air sticks to the coating
film surface, NOx becomes NO3- through photocatalytic reactions, and NO3- is removed from the air when
it is washed off in rain. This process is characterized by efficient removal of even low-concentration NOx
at room temperature.1) Note, however, the amount of NOx that can be removed largely depends on the
NOx concentration, wind direction, wind velocity (diffusion), and the amount of solar radiation (UV rays),and it is thus difficult to generalize the amount of removal in the actual environment. For this reason, we
calculated the amount of NOx removal by converting** actual HYDROTECT coating NOx removal
performance data (JIS R 1701-1)2). Note also that the amount of NO3- generated on the HYDROTECT
coating surface was excluded from the assessment since it would be the same as what is generated in theusual nitrogen cycle as long as the air purification effects is examined from the nitrogen cycle point of view
(Figure 3.1-2).
**Converting the NOx removal performance data (JIS R 1701-1) into the amount of NOx removal
Major determinants of the amount of NOx removal are concentration and diffusion status of NOx and also
the irradiated amount of UV rays. The NOx concentration was set to 1ppm in accordance with the JIS
measurement condition, and this was higher than the concentration in the actual environment. For thisreason, we assumed that a sufficient amount of NOx was already present and the amount of removal thus
depended only on the irradiated amount of UV rays. Since a constant amount of UV rays were irradiatedusing a BLB lamp during the JIS measurement, we obtained the amount of NOx removal by scaling theamount of UV rays irradiation in the actual environment in proportion to the amount UV rays irradiated.
Using the standard climate and sunlight radiation data (METPV-3)3), the amount of UV rays in the actual
environment was obtained by: averaging the amount of sunlight irradiated onto applied surfaces (from four
directions to a vertically installed outer wall) in February, May, August, and November in the years from1990 to 2003; and multiplying the obtained average value by the UV ray content that can be handled by aphotocatalyst.

HYDROTECT(photocatalytic
reaction)

Figure 3.1-2 Conceptual diagram of the nitrogen cycle involving HYDROTECT coatin

213

3.2

Function and Functional Unit

For both HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary coating, the functional unit was as follows: white coatingcolor, coating area of 1,000 m2, and 20 years of use. HYDROTECT coating is designed to be highly
durable and is required to be re-applied only once every 20 years; therefore, in the years of use set in thisassessment, which was 20 years, HYDROTECT coating was assumed to be coated only once without
having to be recoated (total amount of coating used: 375 kg). On the other hand, the ordinary coating isdesigned to be re-applied every 10 years, and therefore, it was assumed in the assessment that it wasrecoated once during the assessment years. As a result, it was assumed that the ordinary coating wascoated twice during the assessment (total amount of coating used: 710 kg).

3.3 System boundary
A system included the phases from material production to transportation, application, and use as coating on
walls (Figure 3.3-1).
<System boundary>Material
production

Manufacturing

Transportation

Application

Use

Disposal

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary for HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary coating

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)
Coatings are disposed of as coated building walls, meaning that there is no disposal of only coating films.
Therefore, disposal of the coatings was excluded from the scope of the assessment. Also, outer wallcleaning, which is expected to be carried out within the use phase through high-pressure washing or byusing cleansers, was excluded from the scope of the assessment since it is often that case that users do notwash the subject walls at all

214

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
We used the data obtained in our surveys on HYDROTECT coating material composition, transportation,energy used in application, and use of walls (amount of NOx removal). We obtained the amount of NOxremoval based on the value of 1.35 mol (JIS R 1701-1), which was the NOx removal capability value for
HYDROTECT coating (trade name: ECO-EX) certified by the Photocatalysis Industry Association ofJapan.

4.2 Background Data
Inventory data for coating raw materials, electricity, and trucks for transportation was obtained from the
JEMAI-LCA Pro database and the Option Datapack. Data on the amount of energy used in coating
manufacturing and waste quantity was obtained from the acrylic emulsion production process data for asynthetic resin emulsion designed for building construction created by the Japan Paint Manufacturers
Association. This data was available in the LCA database developed by the Life Cycle Assessment
Society of Japan (JLCA). Data on raw materials of the ordinary coating was based on the white synthetic
resin emulsion (water-based) data obtained from the LCA Guidebook5) issued by the Japan Paint
Manufacturers Association.

215

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and Lists of Analysis Results
Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 show the inventory analysis results for HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary
coating.

Exhaustible resources
Outdoor air
Water
Soil

Discharge-related environmental load

Consumption-related
environmental load

Table 4.3-1 HYDROTECT coating LCI analysis result (kg/f.u.)

Coal
Crude oil
Natural gas
Uranium
CopperAluminum
Lead
Zinc
Limestone
Rock (excluding limestone)
Titanium
Carbon dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxide
Nitrous oxide
MethaneNon-methane volatile organic compound (average)

Particle matter (PM10)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Hexavalent chrome
Total mercury
Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)
NickelPM10 (non-point source)
Lead
COD
Arsenic
Cadmium
Hexavalent chrome
Total mercury
DebrisIndustrial waste (estimated fixed value if amount is unknown)

Waste plastics
Slag

Material
Manufacturing Transportation Application
production
3.90E+01
4.40E-01
2.07E-03
1.11E-01
1.94E+02
8.16E-02
1.06E+01
2.07E-02
3.79E+01
2.05E-01
9.61E-04
5.18E-02
1.86E-03
3.87E-05
1.82E-07
9.81E-06
2.30E-06
1.11E-05
8.46E-08
4.69E-07
1.33E+02
3.17E+00
2.84E+01
6.08E+02
2.02E+00
3.40E+01
5.11E-01
3.69E-01
3.78E-04
7.37E-03
9.58E-05
2.24E-01
8.41E-04
8.51E-04
2.13E-04
2.56E-02
8.74E-05
5.47E-04
2.21E-05
1.88E-02
4.31E-05
2.03E-07
1.09E-05
9.78E-03
1.25E-04
3.75E-02
3.16E-05
4.61E-02
1.58E-05
5.86E-05
4.01E-06
1.52E-06
3.68E-08
1.73E-10
9.31E-09
1.26E-07
3.04E-09
1.43E-11
7.70E-10
2.77E-06
6.69E-08
3.14E-10
1.69E-08
1.84E-06
4.44E-08
2.08E-10
1.12E-08
1.59E-02
2.37E-04
1.82E-01
6.01E-05
3.12E-06
7.52E-08
3.53E-10
1.90E-08
1.17E-03
1.74E-05
1.90E-02
4.41E-06
7.30E-06
1.76E-07
8.27E-10
4.46E-08
2.54E-02
1.10E-10
1.65E-11
3.30E-10
1.10E-11
3.44E-09
1.46E-03
2.71E-05
1.27E-07
6.86E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
4.44E-06

216

Use-9.45E+01-1.16E+02


3.95E+01
2.04E+02
3.82E+01
1.91E-03
2.30E-06
1.11E-05
8.46E-08
4.69E-07
1.33E+02
3.17E+00
2.84E+01
6.44E+02
3.77E-01-9.43E+01
2.62E-02
1.89E-02
4.74E-02
4.62E-02
1.57E-06
1.30E-07
2.85E-06
1.90E-06-1.16E+02
3.21E-06
2.02E-02
7.52E-06
2.54E-02
1.10E-10
1.65E-11
3.30E-10
1.10E-11
3.44E-09
1.49E-03
2.00E+00
4.44E-06

Exhaustible resources
Outdoor air
Water
Soil

Discharge-related environmental load

Consumption-related
environmental load

Table 4.3-2 Ordinary coating LCI analysis result (kg/f.u.)

Coal
Crude oil
Natural gas
Uranium
CopperAluminum
Lead
Zinc
Limestone
Rock (excluding limestone)
Titanium
Carbon dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxide
Nitrous oxide
MethaneNon-methane volatile organic compound (average)

Particle matter (PM10)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Hexavalent chrome
Total mercury
Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)
NickelPM10 (non-point source)
Lead
COD
Arsenic
Cadmium
Hexavalent chrome
Total mercury
DebrisIndustrial waste (estimated fixed value if amount is unknown)

Waste plastics
Slag

Material
production
5.09E+01
3.29E+02
5.30E+01
2.69E-03
4.59E-06
2.22E-05
1.69E-07
9.38E-07
2.99E+02
1.37E-06
6.60E+01
9.75E+02
5.84E-01
3.41E-01
3.85E-02
3.16E-02
1.38E-02
7.06E-02
2.18E-06
1.80E-07
3.98E-06
2.64E-06
1.88E-02
4.46E-06
1.39E-03
1.05E-05
9.30E-03
2.20E-10
3.30E-11
6.60E-10
2.20E-11
6.88E-09
2.20E-03
1.30E+00
8.88E-06

Manufacturing Transportation Application

8.09E-01
1.50E-01
3.77E-01
7.13E-05

3.91E-03
2.01E+01
1.82E-03
3.44E-07

2.23E-01
4.13E-02
1.04E-01
1.96E-05

3.71E+00
6.96E-04
1.55E-03
1.61E-04
7.94E-05
2.30E-04
2.92E-05
6.76E-08
5.60E-09
1.23E-07
8.16E-08
4.36E-04
1.38E-07
3.20E-05
3.24E-07

6.43E+01
1.39E-02
1.61E-03
1.03E-03
3.83E-07
7.09E-02
1.11E-04
3.26E-10
2.70E-11
5.94E-10
3.94E-10
3.44E-01
6.68E-10
3.60E-02
1.56E-09

1.02E+00
1.92E-04
4.26E-04
4.43E-05
2.19E-05
6.33E-05
8.02E-06
1.86E-08
1.54E-09
3.39E-08
2.25E-08
1.20E-04
3.81E-08
8.82E-06
8.92E-08

4.98E-05
1.84E+00

2.40E-07

1.37E-05

217

Use


5.19E+01
3.50E+02
5.34E+01
2.78E-03
4.59E-06
2.22E-05
1.69E-07
9.38E-07
2.99E+02
1.37E-06
6.60E+01
1.04E+03
5.99E-01
3.45E-01
3.98E-02
3.17E-02
8.50E-02
7.07E-02
2.27E-06
1.88E-07
4.14E-06
2.74E-06
3.63E-01
4.64E-06
3.74E-02
1.09E-05
9.30E-03
2.20E-10
3.30E-11
6.60E-10
2.20E-11
6.88E-09
2.26E-03
3.14E+00
8.88E-06

5

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to assess the following three steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table
5.1-1 shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.

Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damage assessment

Consolidation

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant







Human toxicity







Ecotoxicity







Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste







Land use***

Ozone depletion

Cells with the * symbol mean that the LIME calculation sheet did not support them.
Cells with the - symbol mean that the LIME coefficient was not available.

2185.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Characterization

Figures 5.2-1 through 5.2-3 show the characterization results for HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary
coating in terms of global warming, resource (mineral) consumption, and acidification. For both
HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary coating, carbon dioxide was responsible for a large part of the
global warming, and titanium was responsible for a large part of the resource (mineral) consumption.
According to the LCI analysis results shown in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, the values for these substances werehigh in the material production phase. These values were lower for HYDROTECT coating than theordinary coating because the ordinary coating had to be coated twice while HYDROTECT coating had tobe coated only once during the 20 years of use, meaning that the amount of use of HYDROTECT was halfthat of the ordinary coating. In both HYDROTECT and the ordinary coating, the type of titanium
contributing to the resource (mineral) consumption was mainly titanium dioxide in white pigments of thecoating. Although HYDROTECT coating contains not only titanium dioxide in white pigments but also
photocatalytic titanium dioxide, the amount of titanium dioxide is only 0.2% of the amount of titanium
dioxide in white pigments, and the environmental impact of the special titanium dioxide is therefore small.
Note that, in the graph for HYDROTECT coating, the acidification bar was extending significantly to thenegative side because the air purification effects removed NOx.
2.00E-07

Resource (mineral) consumption:
characterization

Global warming: characterization

1.20E+03
1.00E+03
8.00E+02
Methane6.00E+02

CarbondioxideNitrous oxide
Carbon dioxide

4.00E+02

2.00E+02

1.60E-07

1.40E-07

Aluminum

1.20E-07

Lead

1.00E-07

Titanium

HYDROTECT
coating
Hydrotect

Copper

6.00E-08

Uranium

4.00E-08

Titanium

2.00E-08

Figure 5.2-1

Hydrotect
HYDROTECT
coating

Ordinary
Regularcoating
paintCharacterization result (global
warming)

Figure 5.2-2

2.00E+01
0.00E+00-2.00E+01

Nitrogen oxide(non-point source)-4.00E+01-6.00E+01

Sulfur dioxide-8.00E+01
Nitrogen oxide (non-point
source)-1.00E+02

Nitrogen oxide-1.20E+02

Nitrogen oxide-1.40E+02-1.60E+02

Hydrotect
HYDROTECTRegularOrdinarypaintcoating

coating

Figure 5.2-3

Characterization result(acidification)

219

Zinc

8.00E-08

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

Acidif ication: characterization

1.80E-07

Ordinary coating
RegularpaintCharacterization result(resource (mineral)
consumption)

5.2.2

Damage Assessment

1.00E-03

Social assets: amount of damage [yen/f.u.]

Human health: amount of damage [DALY/f.u.]

Figures 5.2-3 through 5.2-6 show the result of damage assessment (by substance) in the four areas to beprotected. One of the major characteristics of the damage assessment result for HYDROTECT coating isthat the amount of damage to human health, social assets, and primary production resulting from nitrogenoxide and nitrogen oxide (non-point source) is a negative figure. This is attributed to NOx removal due tothe air purification effects of HYDROTECT coating. Meanwhile, for both HYDROTECT coating and theordinary coating, titanium accounted for a large part of damage to social assets, primary production, andbiodiversity.

Nitrogen oxide

5.00E-04

Nitrogen ox ide (non-point source)

0.00E+00

Hexav alent chrome-5.00E-04

Nitrogen oxide(non-point source)-1.00E-03-1.50E-03

Arsenic
MethaneLead-2.00E-03

Nitrogenoxide-2.50E-03

Non-methane volatile organic compound(average)
Nitrous oxide-3.00E-03

Particle matter (PM10)-3.50E-03

PM10 (non-point source)-4.00E-03

Sulf ur dioxide

Hydrotect

Regular paintNitrogen oxide

6.00E+03
4.00E+03

Titanium

2.00E+03

Non-methane volatile organic
compound (average)

0.00E+00

Uranium-2.00E+03

Nitrogen oxide
Nitrogen oxide(non-point source)(non-point source)-4.00E+03-6.00E+03-8.00E+03

Nitrogenoxide-1.00E+04-1.20E+04

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

1.00E+02

Aluminum

8.00E+01

Copper

6.00E+01

Titanium
4.00E+01
2.00E+01

Waste plastics

0.00E+00-2.00E+01

Nitrogen oxide(non-point source)-4.00E+01

Nitrogen oxide-6.00E+01

Sulfur dioxide
Non-methane volatile organic compound(average)

Limestone
Coal

Hydrotect

Figure 5.2-5Industrial waste (estimated fix ed value if
amount is unknown)
Rock (excluding limestone)

Regular paintTitanium

Damage assessment result(primary production)

Biodiversity: amount of damage [EINES/f.u.]Primary production: amount of damage[NPP/f.u.]

Nitrogen oxide

1.20E+02

Natural gas

Regular paintTitanium
Crude oil

Damage assessment result(social assets)

1.20E-10

Nitrogen oxide
Cadmium

1.00E-10

Hexavalent chrome
8.00E-11

Limestone
Total mercury

6.00E-11

Titanium
Titanium
4.00E-11

Lead
Coal
Arsenic

2.00E-11

Nickel
0.00E+00

Figure 5.2-6

220

Sulfur dioxide

Carbon dioxide

Hydrotect

Figure 5.2-4

1.40E+02

Nitrous oxide-1.60E+04

Carbon dioxide

Damage assessment result(human health)

Coal

Waste plastics-1.40E+04

Titanium

Figure 5.2-3

Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

Waste plastics
Hydrotect

Regular paintTitanium

Damage assessment result(biodiversity)

5.2.3WeightingFigures 5.2-7 through 5.2-9 show the weighting results for HYDROTECT coating and the ordinary coatingby substance, process, and the area of impact. For HYDROTECT coating, nitrogen oxide and nitrogenoxide (non-point source) in the result by substance, the product use phase in the result by process, andurban air pollution and acidification in the result by area of impact showed large negative figures. This is
attributed to the fact that NOx was removed by the air purification effects of HYDROTECT coating, which
was one of its major characteristics. Figure 5.2-10 is the weighting result for HYDROTECT coating
and the ordinary coating showing social costs of the phases from material production to application (thetotal of the material production, manufacturing, transportation, and application phases), the product use
phase, and the combined total (the entire cycle meaning the total of the material, manufacturing,transportation, application, and product use phases). The social cost of the phases from material
production to application for HYDROTECT coating was about half that of the ordinary coating, and this is
attributed to the fact that HYDROTECT coating is twice as durable as the ordinary coating. Also, sinceNOx was removed during the product use phase of HYDROTECT coating, the value significantly extended
to the negative side of the graph, making the resulting social cost a negative figure, showing a large
difference in the environmental impact between the two types of coatings.
3.00E+04

Titanium

Nitrogen oxide
Nitrogen oxide (non-point source)

1.00E+04

Nitrous oxide

0.00E+00

Natural gas
Particle matter (PM10)-1.00E+04

Nitrogen oxide(non-point source)-2.00E+04

Coal
Waste plastics-3.00E+04

PM10 (non-point source)-4.00E+04

Crude oil

Nitrogen oxide

Sulfur dioxide-5.00E+04

Carbon dioxide-6.00E+04

Consolidation result [YEN/f.u.]

Ecotoxicity (water)
Ecotoxicity (air)0.00E+00

Human toxicity (water)

Acidification

Human toxicity (air)Urban air pollution-2.00E+04-4.00E+04

Urban airpollution
Abiotic resources-5.00E+04

Photochemical oxidant
Eutrophication
Acidification

HydrotectTransportation-3.00E+04

Manufacturing-4.00E+04

Material production-5.00E+04

Acidification
Regular paint2.00E+04
1.00E+04
0.00E+00-1.00E+04-2.00E+04

Hydrotect-3.00E+04

Regular paint-4.00E+04-5.00E+04
Material
production toapplication

Abiotic resources

Figure 5.2-9 Weighting result (by area ofimpact)Ordinary coating-6.00E+04

Global warming-6.00E+04-2.00E+04

3.00E+04

Waste

Abiotic
resources

Application

Use-1.00E+04

Figure 5.2-8 Weighting result (by process)1.00E+04-3.00E+04

Use

0.00E+00

HYDROTECT coating

Figure 5.2-7 Weighting result (by substance)-1.00E+04

1.00E+04

Ordinary coating

3.00E+04

Material
production

2.00E+04-6.00E+04

Titanium

HYDROTECT
coating

2.00E+04

Consolidation result [YEN/f .u.]

2.00E+04

Consolidation result [YEN/f.u.]

Consolidation result [YEN/f .u.]

3.00E+04

Use

Total

Figure 5.2-10 Weighting result (by coating)

221

6

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
In this study, we assessed the environmental impact of the entire life cycle (from the material production
phase to the manufacturing, transportation, application, and use phases; application on the surface area of
1,000 m2; and product use for 20 years) of HYDROTECT coating and an ordinary coating. The
environmental impact in terms of social costs was -43,000 yen for HYDROTECT coating and 26,000 yen
for the ordinary coating. This difference was largely due to: high durability of HYDROTECT coating
leading to reduction of frequency of recoating; and the photocatalytic air purification effects. In order tofurther reduce the environmental impact, it is expected that improvement of coating durability andimprovement of the NOx removal capability will both be effective. Also, the negative figures obtained in
HYDROTECT coating-related assessment indicated that HYDROTECT coating had positive effects on theenvironment.

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
The assessment conducted in this study included all important processes as the subjects of the study(material production, manufacturing, transportation, application, and use), and therefore, we believe thatthe validity of the study result can be guaranteed. HYDROTECT coating contains not only titanium
dioxide in white pigments but also photocatalytic titanium dioxide. Since we were unable to estimate theenergy consumption in production of the photocatalytic titanium dioxide, we used the white pigment
titanium dioxide as the basic units of both types of titanium dioxide. Note, however, that the amount of
the photocatalytic titanium dioxide contained was small such that it would not have much influence on theassessment result. Similarly, we were unable to obtain detailed data on coating containers (cans) andsupplies used in application; therefore, these items were also excluded from the assessment. The amountof NOx removal was calculated using the NOx removal performance data (JIS R 1701-1) on theassumption that it would be reaction rate-controlling and rely only on the amount of light since it wasdifficult to assess it uniformly considering the fact that it would greatly vary depending on the environment.
It is also worth considering that, although only the NOx removal effects were examined as a photocatalytic
reaction, SOx could also be removed through the photocatalytic reaction. Nevertheless, there wasinsufficient experimental data on SOx removal by photocatalyst and the amount of its removal therefore
could not be examined. For this reason, the SOx removal performance was not included as the subject of
the study. The points made above will have to be reviewed and examined for future studies.

Reference
1) Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Development of Removal Techniques of Air Pollutants
using a Photocatalyst, 1997.
2) Japanese Standards Association. Fine Ceramics (Advanced Ceramics, Advanced Technical Ceramics) -Test Method for Air Purification Performance of Photocatalytic Materials -- Part 1: Removal of Nitric
Oxide (JIS R 1701-1).
3) New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). Standard Climate andSolar Radiation Data (METPV-3)
4) K. Shibata and Z. Uchijima, ed. Distribution and Measurement of Solar Energy. Japan Scientific
Societies Press, 1987.
5) Japan Paint Manufacturers Association: LCA Guidebook by Japan Paint Manufacturers Association vol.
1, 2002.

222

Report on Comparison of the Environmental
Impact of Various Types of Containers

May 2010
Toyo Seikan Kaisha, Ltd.

223

1

General

1.1 Evaluator
Name:

Yumi Yoshimura

Organization: Toyo Seikan Kaisha, Ltd.
Contact:

yumi_yoshimura@toyo-seikan.co.jp

1.2 Date of Report Creation
May 31, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
Containers are necessary for saving, protecting, and providing their contents to consumers. Since thecontainers are disposable, it is necessary to select recyclable materials or to reduce container weight inorder to reduce the environmental loads.
Since different containers are made with different materials, it is believed that they have different levels ofenvironmental impact. Therefore, to reduce the environmental impact of containers, it is necessary to
examine such differences. For this reason, we conducted LCA to examine the environmental impact of
the entire life cycle of a wide variety of containers (aluminum cans, a PET bottle, and a stand-up pouch) tounderstand their environmental efficiency.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
The study result will be used to improve the understanding of the environmental impact of each type ofcontainer, identify differences of the environmental impact of different containers, and reduce theenvironmental impact.

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subjects and their Specifications
The subjects of the study were two types of aluminum cans (DWI can and aTULC), a PET bottle, and astand-up pouch that were all manufactured, used, and disposed of inside Japan. Table 3.1-1 shows the
specifications and characteristics of the subject containers.

224

Table 3.1-1 Specifications and characteristics of subject containers
Container
Aluminum can(DWI can)Specifications and characteristics
 conventional aluminum can

Weight15.5 g 350 ml and for carbonated drinks
 Shaped by the draw and wall ironing (DWI) method A lubricant is applied when shaping the can A coating is applied on the inner surface after the can isshapedAluminum can (aTULC)

 The name stands for Aluminum Toyo Ultimate Can

14.2 g 350 ml and for carbonated drinks
 Uses polyester film laminated aluminum plate as a canmaterial; therefore, application of a lubricant or a coating on
the inner surface is unnecessary

PET bottle A heat-resistant bottle that can be filled with tea (a 350-ml

29.1 gbottle for carbonated drinks was not available)
 350 ml
 Formed by resin injection and blowing The cap and label are included as the subjects of theassessment

Stand-up pouch

 A pouch containing detergent refill (a 350-ml pouch forbeverages was not available)
 350 ml Manufacturing of the pouch involves the plastic film printing,lamination, and forming processes

225

8.2 g

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
A functional unit in this assessment was one container to be filled with 350 ml of contents, protected, andprovided to a consumer.

3.3 System boundary
The system boundary in this assessment included from the material production phase to the productmanufacturing, filling, use, disposal, and recycling phases. The contents of the containers were excluded
from the scope of the assessment (Figure 3.3-1).
Content production
System boundary
Material
production

Product
manufacturing

Logistics
Disposal
andrecycling

Use

Figure 3.3-1 System boundary for a container

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)
The aluminum cans used in this assessment were designed for carbonated drinks, but a 350-ml PET bottle
and a 350-ml stand-up pouch designed for carbonated drinks were not available; therefore, a PET bottle
and a stand-up pouch designed for different purposes were used. Also, although aluminum cans and othertypes of container require different filling methods, the method used for aluminum cans was applied toother types of container in this assessment.

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
We referred to the FY2008 Toyo Seikan measurement data to obtain data on the amount of materials,
resources, and energy used in manufacturing of the body and the lid of an aluminum can, manufacturing ofa PET bottle, and manufacturing of a stand-up pouch.

226

4.2 Background Data
The LCA data for the manufacturing of material and product, logistics, use, disposal, and recycling phases
for the aluminum cans was obtained in accordance with the EcoLeaf Product Category Rule (PCR) "Metal
Cans for beveragis and Foods" (PCR number: BC-01). The scenario created for the aluminum cans wasapplied to the other types of containers to obtain the data. Note, however, the PET bottle disposal andrecycling scenario was created based on the study report issued by the Institute for Policy Sciences 1), andthe stand-up pouch disposal and recycling scenario was created based on the study report issued by theJapan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association. 2)
Although the calculation method is specified in the EcoLeaf PCR "Flexible Packaging Materials Made
Mainly with Plastic Materials" (PCR number: CX-01) to obtain the stand-up pouch data, we instead used
the PCR "Metal Cans for beveragis and Foods" in order to align its system setting to that of the aluminumcans.
Also note that, in this assessment, we used the EcoLeaf basic units.

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and List of Analysis Results
Table 4.3-1 shows the subjects of inventory analysis for the aluminum (DWI) can and the list of theanalysis results. Analysis results for other types of containers were omitted since the same inventory wasused.
Table 4.3-1 Aluminum (DWI) can LCI analysis result (kg/can)Life cycle state

Mineral resources

Energyresources

Coal
Crude oil (fuel)
LNG
Uranium ore (U)Crude oil (raw material)
Iron ore (Fe)Copper ore (Cu)
Bauxite (Al)
Nickel ore (Ni)
Chrome ore (Cr)Manganese ore (Mn)
Lead ore (Pb)
Tin ore (Sn)Zinc ore (Zn)Gold ore (Au)Silver ore (Ag)
Quartz sandRock salt
Limestone
Soda ash (natural)
Other
Recyclable wood
resources water
CO2
SOx
NOx
N2O
To the air CH4
CO
NMVOC
CxHy
dust
BOD
COD
To the water Total N
Total PSS
Unspecified solid waste
To the soil Slag
SludgeLow radioactive waste

Non-renewable resources

Consumption-related environmental load
Emission-related environmental load

Inventory analysis

Input-output items

Unit

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Manufacturing
Material

Product

2.63E-02
1.41E-02
1.31E-02
9.66E-09
6.14E-04
006.30E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.85E-04
1.05E-03
0
9.27E-04
3.80E-01
8.61E-02
2.45E-04
1.49E-04
5.35E-07
8.03E-08
4.50E-07
1.47E-07
2.61E-07
1.48E-04
1.12E-06
3.02E-06
4.82E-07
6.67E-08
8.36E-06
2.61E-03004.60E-09

2.21E-03
5.61E-03
4.94E-03
1.50E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.96E+00
3.69E-02
1.85E-05
1.02E-04
1.34E-05
4.01E-07
3.00E-05
1.90E-05
3.44E-06
5.74E-06
4.38E-06
00
1.05E-07

227

Logistics

Use

2.57E-07
2.40E-03
3.72E-05
1.74E-11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.93E-04
7.75E-03
9.52E-06
1.19E-04
1.40E-07
4.66E-11
4.75E-05
9.15E-11
2.40E-06
9.52E-06
0001.22E-11

5.49E-04
5.02E-03
3.43E-04
3.71E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.04E-02
1.66E+00
1.82E-02
4.57E-06
3.35E-05
7.55E-07
9.97E-08
9.97E-07
1.95E-07
3.34E-07
4.89E-07
2.56E-04
002.60E-08

Disposal andrecycling-1.73E-02-4.22E-03-1.74E-03
1.51E-09000-4.21E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4.28E-04-7.00E-04
00-8.81E-03-3.60E-02-2.41E-04-7.33E-05
1.59E-07
4.05E-09
1.68E-07
7.93E-09
9.76E-08-9.88E-05-3.84E-09-1.58E-07-4.86E-06
0001.06E-09

5

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to asses the following 3 steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table 5.1-1
shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damageassessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution







Ozone depletion







Acidification







Eutrophication







Photochemical oxidant







Human toxicity







Ecotoxicity







Indoor air quality

-





Noise

*

*

*

Waste







Land use****: Cells with the * symbol mean that the LIME calculation sheet did not support them.
-: Cells with the - symbol mean that the LIME coefficient was not available.

228

Characterization results for containers with regard toresource consumption, global warming, andphotochemical oxidant are shown in Figures 5.2-1
through 5.2-3, respectively.
With regard to resource consumption, consumption of
crude oil and natural gas were high for the aluminumcans. For the PET bottle and the stand-up pouch,crude oil consumption was high but the ratio of natural
gas was not as high as for the aluminum cans.
Consumption of natural gas accounted for highpercentages in resource consumption for the aluminumcans due to how aluminum plates were manufactured.
When the PET bottle and stand-up pouch, both using
resins as main raw materials, were compared, thestand-up pouch was found to use a smaller amount of
resources than the PET bottle due to the difference inthe amount of resin use.
With regard to global warming, characterization results
were different from the resource consumption results;
all types of containers had similar results. The
stand-up pouch had lower resource consumption thanother types of containers because it required lessmaterial for manufacturing. However, since this typeof pouch is made with compound materials, it isunlikely to be recycled and is most likely incinerated.
This leads to the situation where the resin of the pouch
generates more carbon dioxide than other types ofcontainer, and the analysis result indicated that thelevel of global warming was after all about the same asother types of containers.
With regard to photochemical oxidant, the stand-up
pouch showed a significant effect. Manufacturing ofa standing pouch requires more solvents than any othertypes of containers due to printing and laminating of
the package, and these solvents are volatilized using
dryers. Dried solvents are then incinerated anddetoxified using exhaust gas treatment equipment, but
realistically speaking, it is not possible to collect andprocess 100% of them. Although only a little, thedried solvents are thus emitted to the air to cause
generation of photochemical oxidant.
229

Resource (energy consumption): characterization

Characterization

2.50E+00

2.00E+00

1.50E+00

1.00E+00

5.00E-01

0.00E+00
Aluminium can(DI can)

Aluminium can(aTULC)

Crude oilPETbottleNatural gas

Stand-up
pouch
Coal

Figure 5.2-1 Characterization result(resource consumption)
1.60E-01

warming: characterization
Global warming:
Global5.2.1

1.20E-01

8.00E-02

4.00E-02

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Aluminium
Aluminiumcan
can Aluminium
Aluminiumcan
can
(DWI
can)
(aTULC)(DI can)(aTULC)

PET
PET
bottlebottleStand-up
Stand-up
pouch
pouch

Nitrous
Nitrousoxide
oxide

MethaneMethaneFigure 5.2-2 Characterization(global warming)

resultCarbonCarbon dioxide
dioxide4.00E-04
4.00E-04

Photochemical
characterizationoxidant: characterization
Photochemical oxidant:

5.2 Impact Assessment Result

3.00E-04
3.00E-04

2.00E-04
2.00E-04

1.00E-04
1.00E-04

0.00E+00
0.00E+00

Aluminium can
Aluminium
can(DWI can)(DI can)

Aluminium
Aluminium can
can(aTULC)(aTULC)

PET
PET
bottlebottleStand-up
Stand-up
pouch
pouch

Non-methane volatile organic compound (average)
Non-methane volatile organic compound (average)

Figure 5.2-3 Characterization
result(photochemical oxidant)

5.2.2

Damage Assessment

Figures 5.2-4 through 5.2-7 show the results of damage assessment (by substance). With regard to thedamage to human health, sulfur dioxide used in the PET bottle had more impact than that of other types ofcontainers. Similarly, the non-methane volatile organic compound used in the stand-up pouch had more
impact than that of other types of containers. This is because a lot of energy (electricity) is used in the
PET bottle shaping process, which in turn generates a lot of sulfur dioxide. Meanwhile, the reason why
the non-methane volatile organic compound used in the stand-up pouch had a large impact was that, as
described in the characterization result, there were solvents that could not be collected and processed byexhaust gas treatment equipment. The same result was indicated for the damage assessment result withregard to primary production.
As for the damage to social assets and biodiversity, the aluminum cans had a larger waste impact than the
PET bottle and the stand-up pouch. This was due to waste generation during the course of manufacturingof aluminum plates, which were the raw material of the aluminum cans.
3.00E-01

Social assets [yen]5.00E-08

Human health [DALY]

4.00E-08

3.00E-08

2.00E-08

1.00E-08

0.00E+00

1.00E-01

0.00E+00

Aluminium can(DI can)

Aluminium can(aTULC)PET
bottleStand-uppouch

Aluminium can(DI can)

Aluminium can(aTULC)PET
bottleCrude oil

Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen oxide

Stand-up
pouch

Carbon dioxide

Particle matter (PM10)

Nonindustrial waste (estimated fix ed
value if amount is unknown)
Natural gas

Sulfur dioxide

Nitrogen oxide

Sulf ur dioxide

Coal

Nitrous oxide

Non-methane volatile organic
compound (average)

AluminumNon-methane volatile organic
compound (average)

MethaneFig. 5.2-4

Damage assessment result(human health)Fig. 5.2-5

Damage assessment result(social assets)

8.00E-16

Biodiversity [EINES]

2.00E-03

1.00E-03

0.00E+00

Nitrous oxide

Uranium

3.00E-03

Primary production [kg]2.00E-01

Aluminium can(DI can)

Aluminium can(aTULC)PET
bottleStand-up
pouch

Coal

Nitrogen oxide

Aluminum

Limestone

Nonindustrial waste (estimated f ixedv alue if amount is unknown)
Non-methane v olatile organic
compound (av erage)
CopperZinc

Lead

Sulf ur dioxideFig. 5.2.6

6.00E-16

4.00E-16

2.00E-16

0.00E+00
Aluminium can(DI can)Damage assessment result(primary production)

PET
bottleNonindustrial waste (estimatedf ixed v alue if amount is unknown)
Aluminum

Coal

CopperZinc

Lead

Mountain grav elFig. 5.2.7

230

Aluminium can(aTULC)Stand-up
pouch

Limestone

Damage assessment result(biodiversity)

5.2.3WeightingFigure 5.2-8 shows the weighting result (by substance) for each type of container.
There were no large differences in the total values for all the types of subject container. For all of them,carbon dioxide emissions accounted for the largest part of the environmental impact. Other significant
factors of the impact were: sulfur dioxide emissions for the PET bottle; and non-methane volatile organic
compound emissions for the stand-up pouch.
Figure 5.2-9 shows the weighting result by the area of impact. The aluminum cans had a larger impact
than other types of container on a biotic resources and waste, and the stand-up pouch had a significant
impact on photochemical oxidant.
1.00E+00
8.00E-01

6.00E-01
4.00E-01

2.00E-01
0.00E+00

Aluminium can Aluminium can(DI can)(aTULC)PET
bottleCarbon dioxide

Particle matter (PM10)

Nonindustrial waste (estimated f ixedv alue if amount is unknown)
Nitrogen oxide

Sulf ur dioxide

Coal

Natural gas

Nitrous oxide

AluminumStand-up
pouch

Consolidation result [yen]Consolidation result [yen]1.00E+00

6.00E-01

4.00E-01

2.00E-01

0.00E+00
Aluminium can(DI can)

Crude oil

Abiotic resources
Acidification
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (soil)

Non-methane v olatile organic
compound (av erage)

Figure 5.2-8 Weighting result(by substance)

68.00E-01

Aluminium can(aTULC)

Global w arming
Eutrophication
Human toxicity (air)otoxicity (air)
Waste

Figure 5.2-9

PET
bottleStand-uppouch

Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant
Human toxicity (w ater)
Ecotoxicity (w ater)
Indoor air pollution

Weighting result(by area of impact)

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
We assessed the environmental impact of the entire life cycle (material production, product manufacturing,logistics, use, disposal and recycling) of two types of aluminum can (DWI can and aTULC), a PET bottle,
and a stand-up pouch in order to examine the differences in the environmental impact among them.
The total values in the weighting results did not show any significant differences among the subject
containers. However, the breakdown of the environmental impact by substance showed some differences.
The aluminum cans had a large impact on waste, the PET bottle had a large impact on sulfur dioxide, andthe stand-up pouch had a large impact on the non-methane volatile organic compound.
In order to reduce the environmental impact of containers in general, it is necessary to incorporate the study
result described above when establishing environmental impact reduction measures customized for eachtype of container. For example, a measure for reducing processing energy can be established for the PET
bottle, and a measure for reducing the amount of use of solvents can be established for the stand-up pouch.

231

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
In order to make the system boundary uniform across all types of container, we included the content filling
process in the assessment. However, since we were unable to obtain data on the filling process for PET
bottles and stand-up pouches, we used aluminum can filling data. Also, the subjects of the assessment
were different types of container designed for different uses; therefore, the study result has not accuratelyreflected the functions and characteristics of the subject containers, meaning that the result of comparisonof these containers should not be generalized. In future, comparison must be made under more controlled
conditions.

Reference
1)
2)

The Institute for Policy Sciences: Investigation Report on Life Cycle Assessment of Container andPackaging (2005)
The Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association: Examination of the Environmental Load
Involved in the Method to Recycle Plastic Packaging and Containers

232Report on Comparison of the Environmental
Impacts of Business Activities

May 2010
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

233

1

General

1.1 Evaluator
Name:
Shigeharu Suzuki
Organization: Environmental Technology Lab. Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
Contact:shige@labs.fujitsu.com

1.2 Date of Report Creation
May 15, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study

We conducted LCA of the environmental impact of our business activities to clarify the breakdown andchronological changes of the environmental impact.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
We will use the study result to encourage implementation of eco-friendly business activities based on theunderstanding of the environmental impact of business activities from the life cycle and the supply chain
points of view. The study result will also be used to identify chronological changes in the environmental
impact and to provide information as tips for reduction of the environmental impact.

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subject and the Specifications
The subject of the study is manufacturing of the leading products* in the Fujitsu group business activities in
FY2007 and FY2008.
*Leading products: 15 types of product such as PCs, mobile phones, and servers

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
The functional unit in this study is the life cycle of leading products manufactured and shipped in eachsubject fiscal year.

234

3.3 System boundary
The system includes the raw material procurement (material), manufacturing, and logistics phases (Figure
3.2-1).

System boundary

Material

Manufacturing

Logistics

Use

Disposal(Development, designing, procurement,
manufacturing)

Figure 3.2-1 Business activity system and system boundary

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)We excluded the use and disposal phases from the scope of the assessment in order to focus on theenvironmental impact of manufacturing of the leading products in our business activities.

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
We referred to our own survey data and the sustainability report1) 2) for the amount of materials, resources,and energy used from the material phase to the manufacturing phase of the leading products.
We also used the survey results disclosed and provided by research companies to obtain data on the volumeof shipment of the leading products.3) 4) 5)

4.2 Background data
We used our own database created based on the input-output table to obtain the basic unit data for energy
and materials.

235

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and Lists of Analysis Results
Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 show the subjects of inventory analysis of FY2007 and FY2008 business activities
and the lists of the analysis results.

Table 4.3-1 FY2007 business activities LCI analysis result
Unit
MJ
Mcal
Coal
kg
EnergyCrude oil (fuel)kg
resources Natural gas
kg
Uranium ore (U)kg
Crude oil (raw material) kg
Iron ore (Fe)kg
Copper ore (Cu)kg
Bauxite (Al)kg
Nickel ore (Ni)kg
Chrome ore (Cr)kg
Manganese ore (Mn)kg
MineralLead ore (Pb)kg
resources Tin ore (Sn)kg
Zinc ore (Zn)kgGold ore (Au)kg
Silver ore (Ag)
kg
Sand
kg
Limestonekg
Soda ash (natural)
kg
Other
kg
Recyclable
Woodkg
resources
Water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
To the air
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
To the water T-P
kg
T-N
kg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
To the soil
Sludgekg
Low radioactive waste kg

Non-renewable resources

Consumption-related environmental load
Emission-related environmental load

Inventory analysis

Consumption energy

236

Manufacturing
Material
Product
1.57E+10
2.50E+08
2.07E+08
2.83E+06
1.48E+08
1.23E+06
6.28E+07
1.31E+06

1.52E+08
2.80E+05
4.48E+06
1.07E+05

5.19E+07
5.88E+06
1.52E+07

3.06E+04
4.42E+02
2.63E+03

5.49E+04
7.46E+02
5.60E+03

5.52E+03
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0.00E+00---

1.13E+09
1.08E+06
1.78E+06

1.68E+07
7.90E+03
1.24E+04

1.05E+07
1.02E+04
6.89E+04

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.97E+06
7.96E+06
3.24E+05
2.81E+06
5.22E+06

2.51E+03
3.28E+03
5.78E+01
1.35E+03
2.01E+03

9.02E+03
9.74E+03
1.46E+02
2.36E+03
6.32E+03---

Logistics

Table 4.3-2 FY2008 business activities LCI analysis result
Unit
MJ
Mcal
Coal
kg
EnergyCrude oil (fuel)kg
resources Natural gas
kg
Uranium ore (U)kg
Crude oil (raw material) kg
Iron ore (Fe)kg
Copper ore (Cu)kg
Bauxite (Al)kg
Nickel ore (Ni)kg
Chrome ore (Cr)kg
Manganese ore (Mn)kg
MineralLead ore (Pb)kg
resources Tin ore (Sn)kg
Zinc ore (Zn)kgGold ore (Au)kg
Silver ore (Ag)
kg
Sand
kg
Limestonekg
Soda ash (natural)
kg
Other
kg
Recyclable
Woodkg
resources
Water
kg
CO2
kg
SOx
kg
NOx
kg
N2O
kg
To the air
CH4
kg
CO
kg
NMVOC
kg
CxHy
kg
dust
kg
BOD
kg
COD
kg
To the water T-P
kg
T-N
kg
SS
kg
Unspecified solid waste
kg
Slag
kg
To the soil
Sludgekg
Low radioactive waste kg

Non-renewable resources

Consumption-related environmental load
Emission-related environmental load

Inventory analysis

Consumption energy

237

Manufacturing
Material
Product
1.33E+10
1.99E+08
1.75E+08
2.23E+06
1.25E+08
1.01E+06
5.32E+07
1.03E+06

1.30E+08
2.39E+05
3.82E+06
9.15E+04

4.42E+07
5.00E+06
1.30E+07

2.42E+04
3.49E+02
2.07E+03

4.69E+04
6.37E+02
4.78E+03

4.82E+03
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0.00E+00---

9.51E+08
9.11E+05
1.50E+06

1.34E+07
6.23E+03
9.84E+03

8.93E+06
8.71E+03
5.88E+04

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.89E+06
6.74E+06
2.75E+05
2.38E+06
4.40E+06

1.98E+03
2.59E+03
4.57E+01
1.07E+03
1.59E+03

7.69E+03
8.31E+03
1.24E+02
2.02E+03
5.39E+03---

Logistics

5.

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to assess the following three steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table
5.1-1 shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damage assessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption(mineral)

Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication







Ozone depletion

Photochemical oxidant
Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality
Noise
Waste
Land use

5.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Characterization

Figures 5.2-1 through 5.2-3 show the FY2007 and FY2008 business activity characterization results withregard to resource and energy consumption, mineral consumption, and eutrophication, respectively.
The amount of the environmental impact in FY2008 decreased from FY2007. Although the number ofunits shipped varied for each type of product, the total shipment volume decreased, resulting in thedecrease of the environmental impact.
In both years, the impact of crude oil consumption accounted for a large part of energy consumption.
Meanwhile, gold consumption accounted for a large part of mineral consumption, and this seemed to be
attributed to gold-plating of boards or electronic parts. As for the environmental impact on water, total
nitrogen accounted for more than 60% of eutrophication.

238

1.60E-01

Characterization: mineral resource consumption

Characterization: energy resource consumption

1.80E+10
1.60E+10
1.40E+10
1.20E+10
1.00E+10
8.00E+09
6.00E+09
4.00E+09
2.00E+09
0.00E+00
FY2007
Crude oilFigure 5.2-1

1.40E-01

1.20E-01

1.00E-01

8.00E-02

6.00E-02

4.00E-02

2.00E-02

0.00E+00
FY2007

FY2008Coal

Gold

Natural gas

Characterization result(energy consumption)

Figure 5.2-2

Copper

FY2008Iron

Aluminum

Characterization result(mineral consumption)

2.00E+06

Characterization: eutrophication

1.80E+06
1.60E+06
1.40E+06
1.20E+06
1.00E+06
8.00E+05
6.00E+05
4.00E+05
2.00E+05
0.00E+00
FY2007
Total
nitrogen

Figure 5.2-3
5.2.2

Total
phosphorous

FY2008COD

Nitrogen oxide

Characterization result (eutrophication)

Damage Assessment

Figures 5.2-4 through 5.2-7 show the damage assessment results (by substance) for the four areas to beprotected.
For human health, the overall damage was halved by the two major causes, carbon dioxide and sulfur
dioxide.
For social assets, gold accounts for more than half of the entire damage, and the rest of the damage wasattributed to carbon dioxide, crude oil, and copper.
For primary production and biodiversity, coal, gold, and copper caused large damage239

.
4.00E+02

7.00E+09

Damage: social assets (YEN/f.u.)

Damage: human health (DALY/f.u.)

3.50E+02

3.00E+02

2.50E+02

2.00E+02

1.50E+02

1.00E+02

0.00E+00

4.00E+09

3.00E+09

2.00E+09

0.00E+00
FY2007

Carbon dioxide

FY2007

FY2008Sulfur dioxide

Gold

Carbon Crude oil
dioxideNitrogen oxide Natural gas

Nitrogen oxide

Damage assessment result(human health)Figure 5.2-5

1.40E+07

FY2008
CopperTotal
phosphorous
Sulfur dioxide
Coal

Total
nitrogenDamage assessment result(social assets)

9.00E-06
8.00E-06

1.20E+07

Damage: biodiversity (EINES/f.u.)

Damage: primary production (kg/f.u.)

5.00E+09

1.00E+09

5.00E+01

Figure 5.2-4

6.00E+09

1.00E+07

8.00E+06

6.00E+06

4.00E+06

7.00E-06
6.00E-06
5.00E-06
4.00E-06
3.00E-06
2.00E-06

2.00E+06
1.00E-06

0.00E+00
FY2007

0.00E+00

FY2008FY2007

Coal Gold Copper
Nitrogen oxide
Aluminum
Sulfur dioxide
Iron

Figure 5.2-6

Damage assessment result(primary production)

CopperFigure 5.2-7

Coal

FY2008Gold

Aluminum

Iron

Damage assessment result(biodiversity)

Figures 5.2-8 and 5.2-9 show the damage assessment results by process. The material phase (raw material
procurement) accounted for most of the damage, and the ratio of the damage of the manufacturing or
logistics was only about 1%.

240

9.00E-06

3.50E+02

8.00E-06

Damage: biodiversity (EINES/f.u.)

Damage: human health (DALY/f.u.)

4.00E+02

3.00E+02

2.50E+02

2.00E+02

1.50E+02

1.00E+02

5.00E+01

6.00E-06
5.00E-06
4.00E-06
3.00E-06
2.00E-06
1.00E-06

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

FY2007
Material

Figure 5.2-8

7.00E-06

FY2008Manufacturing

Logistics

Human health damage
assessment by process

Figure 5.2-9

FY2007

FY2008Material

Manufacturing

Logistics

Biodiversity damage
assessment by process

Figures 5.2-10 through 5.2-13 show the damage assessment results by area of impact.
The global warming and the urban air pollution by carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide almost caused almost
equal damage to human health. For social assets, damage to abiotic resources caused by energy andmineral consumption accounted for more than 70% of the overall damage, and the global warming andeutrophication accounted for 10%, respectively.
Also, abiotic resource consumption accounted for almost all damage to primary production andbiodiversity.
7.00E+09

4.00E+02

Damage: social assets (YEN/f.u.)

Damage: human health (DALY/f.u.)

3.50E+02

3.00E+02

2.50E+02

2.00E+02

1.50E+02

1.00E+02

6.00E+09

5.00E+09

4.00E+09

3.00E+09

2.00E+09

1.00E+09

5.00E+01

0.00E+00

0.00E+00
FY2007
Global warming

FY2007

FY2008
Urban air pollution

Figure 5.2-10 Damage to human health(assessment by area of impact)

FY2008Abiotic resources Global warming
Acidification
Eutrophication

Figure 5.2-11 Damage to social assets(assessment by area of impact)2411.40E+07

9.00E-06

Damage: biodiversity (EINES/f.u.)

Damage: primary production (kg/f.u.)

8.00E-06
1.20E+07

1.00E+07

8.00E+06

6.00E+06

4.00E+06

6.00E-06
5.00E-06
4.00E-06
3.00E-06
2.00E-06

2.00E+06

1.00E-06
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
FY2007
Abiotic resources

FY2008FY2007
FY2008Abiotic resources

Acidification

Figure 5.2-12 Damage to primary production(assessment by area of impact)
5.2.3

7.00E-06

Figure 5.2-13 Damage to biodiversity(assessment by area of impact)

WeightingFigure 5.2-14 shows the weighting result by substance, and Figure 5.2-15 shows the weighting result by
area of impact.
There was no significant difference in the breakdown of the result between FY2007 and FY2008, but theoverall social costs were lower for FY2008.
The major factors responsible for the amount of consolidated damage in terms of the substance were:consumption of gold that had a large environmental impact on social assets; and emissions of carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide to the air that had a large impact on human health and social assets.
The major factors responsible for the amount of consolidated damage in terms of areas of impact were:consumption of abiotic resources such as gold, coal, and copper; and the global warming and urban air
pollution caused by carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

242

1.60E+10

1.40E+10

1.40E+10

1.20E+10

1.20E+10

Consolidation (YEN/f.u.)

Consolidation (YEN/f.u.)

1.60E+10

1.00E+10

8.00E+09

6.00E+09

4.00E+09

2.00E+09

4.00E+09

CarbondioxideNitrogenoxide

FY2008FY2007

SulfurCopperCrude oildioxideTotal
Total
Naturalphosphorous nitrogen gas

Abiotic resources
Global warming
Eutrophication
Urban air pollution

Figure 5.2-14 Weighting result(by substance)

66.00E+09

0.00E+00

FY2007Coal

8.00E+09

2.00E+09

0.00E+00
Gold

1.00E+10

FY2008Acidification

Figure 5.2-15 Weighting result(by areas of impact)

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
We assessed the environmental impact of the material to manufacturing phases of the leading products ofour business activities such as PCs, mobile phones, and servers. The assessment result indicated that theoverall damage was lower in FY2008 than in FY2007.
More specifically, the factors contributing to the environmental impact were mainly the consumption of
crude oil and gold, followed by global warming and urban air pollution caused by carbon dioxide andsulfur dioxide emissions.
Mobile phones require more gold than PCs or servers per product unit weight.
Damage to the social assets will therefore decrease and the environmental impact caused by resource
consumption can be controlled if the amount of gold use can be controlled and reduced in the
manufacturing phase or earlier.
Also, in the four areas to be protected, social assets were the most susceptible to the environmental impact
while biodiversity was highly unlikely to be affected by it.

2436.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
In this study, only the selected phases were assessed (material, manufacturing, and logistics), and the use
and the disposal processes were not included. Therefore, not all existing phases were covered. However,if the product use phase was included in the assessment, the assessment would show a huge environmental
impact of electricity used during the product use, making the environmental impact of manufacturing lessvisible. For this reason, we limited the scope of assessment to the manufacturing phase and the earlier
phase. Also, chemical substances were not included as the subjects of the assessment; therefore, it is notclear how these substances would affect the study result. Because of these exclusions, it is possible to saythat the assessment did not sufficiently include all important substances. Furthermore, we attempted toincorporate the result of our forestation activities into the assessment to examine their effect on biodiversity,
but we eventually decided to exclude them from the scope of the assessment because we were unable toobtain sufficient data on the pre- and post activity status. We hope to continue our study on the effect offorestation since we expect that biodiversity will attract more attention in the future.

Reference
1) Fujitsu Group Sustainability Report (2009): Operating Activities and Environmental Loads
2) Fujitsu Group Sustainability Report (2008): Operating Activities and Environmental Loads
3) MM Research Institute. Overview of Domestic PC Shipments for FY2007 and FY2008.
4) IDC Japan. Overview of Domestic Mobile Phone Shipments for FY2007 and FY2008.
5) Nork Research. Overview of Domestic PC Server Shipments for FY2007 and FY2008.

244

Report on Comparison of the Environmental
Impact between a Traditional Adult Diaper andthe Humany Automatic Urine Suction System

June 2010
Unicharm Humancare Corporation

245

1

General

1.1 Evaluators
Names:

Nobuaki Kosugi

Organization: Unicharm Humancare Corporation
Contact:

nobuaki-kosugi@unicharm.com

1.2 Date of Report Creation
June 17, 2010

2

Study Objective

2.1 Background of the Study
We started sale of an automatic urine suction system, Humany, as a toileting assistance product for adultusers. We believe this product can change the basic approach to toileting assistance and also will have apositive impact on the environment. Therefore, in this study, we compared the environmental efficiency
between a traditional toileting assistance product and Humany.

2.2 Application of the Study Result
Based on the examination of environmental advantages of our product, we will disclose the result of thisstudy and also use this to raise internal as well as external motivation.

3

Scope of the Study

3.1 Subjects and their Specifications
Humany machine: mass of 2 kg, power consumption of 10 W during suction, power consumption of 1 W
while in stand-by mode, and tank capacity of 1 liter
Medium-sized adult diaper with side tapes: product mass of approximately 110 g
Humany pad: product mass of approximately 40 g
Urine collection pad: product mass of approximately 40 g

3.2 Function and Functional Unit
A functional unit set for this study was 1 day of use of a toileting assistance system for an adult, and we
conducted the assessment on the entire life cycle of a paper diaper required for that system operation.
Adult toileting assistance consists of: Traditional toileting assistance: 1.5 paper diapers with side tapes, 6 urine collection pads, and 1 timeuse of a flush toilet
 Humany: Humany system, 0.1 pieces of a Humany net (replaced every 10 days), 1 paper diaper with246

side tapes, 1 Humany pad, and 2 times use of a flush toilet

3.3 System boundary
A system for this study included from the manufacturing to the use and then disposal stages. Note that the
manufacturing process of the Humany system itself and the transportation process were excluded from thestudy. It was assumed in this study that used paper diapers were all incinerated (Figure 3.3-1).

Machine partsprocurement

Material

Raw material
production

Material

Humany machine
manufacturing

Paper diaper manufacturing(including urine collection
pad)

Tap water

Use

Disposal

Sewer
systemEnergySystem boundary

Figure 3.3-1 Humany life cycle assessment system boundary

3.4 Note (Processes or Items Excluded from the System Boundary)
The environmental impact of production of parts, assembly, and transportation of the Humany system was
marginal for the life cycle; therefore, they were excluded from the study. The following factors were also
excluded from the study: construction, maintenance, and disposal of factories involved in product and fuelmanufacturing; tools and parts required in system maintenance; and construction, maintenance, andremoval of roads and related infrastructure required for transportation.
For the product use stage, we assumed that stools would be disposed of in a flush toilet as recommended by
the Japan Hygiene Products Industry Association.

4

Inventory Analysis

4.1 Priority Data
We obtained the data on the amount of materials and resources used based on our product specifications
and manufacturing specifications. As for the amount of energy used in the manufacturing phase, we
referred to the measurement data obtained at our factory. Data on disposal and incineration was obtained
from data we obtained from our own study. The system was assumed to be used under our recommended
conditions.

4.2 Background Data
We used the Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA) database to obtain the waste disposal data.

247

Other data was obtained from JEMAI-LCA Pro data.

4.3 Subjects of Inventory Analysis and Lists of Analysis Result
Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 show the subjects of inventory analysis and lists of analysis results for
Humany-based toiletry assistance and the traditional toiletry assistance.
Table 4.3-1 LCI analysis result for Humany-based toiletry assistance (kg/day)

7.00E-03

Fuelmanufacturing
3.06E-03

6.38E-02

5.68E-04

0.00E+00

8.23E-04

9.91E-06

4.03E-03

1.42E-03

0.00E+00

2.02E-03

7.80E-06

3.65E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.36E-01
5.04E-06

2.70E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.90E-02
6.08E-07

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

3.75E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.97E-02
4.52E-06

1.48E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.01E-02
3.69E-09

NOx

1.38E-04

5.85E-06

0.00E+00

9.05E-06

7.11E-06

PM10

9.53E-06

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

6.15E-07

SOx
COD
T-P
T-N
Waste
landfill

1.05E-04
3.63E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

2.22E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

3.55E-06
6.00E-05
7.44E-06
8.46E-05

3.17E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

4.06E-03

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

5.67E-05

8.99E-04

Emission-related loads

Consumptionrelated loads

Manufacturing

Nonrenewable
resources
Recyclable
resources

Outdoor air

Water
Soil

Coal
Crude oil(fuel)Naturalgas
Uranium
Wood
Water
CO2
N2O

Transportation

MaintenanceDisposal

0.00E+00

4.26E-03

1.68E-05

Table 4.3-2 LCI analysis result for toiletry assistance using a paper diaper and a pad (kg/day)

4.31E-02

Fuelmanufacturing
1.70E-02

2.51E-01

3.16E-03

0.00E+00

1.25E-04

3.19E-04

2.90E-02

7.92E-03

0.00E+00

2.42E-04

2.51E-04

1.37E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.35E-01
2.55E-05
2.99E-03

1.50E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
9.85E-02
3.38E-06
3.25E-05

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

3.56E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.22E-03
5.59E-06
2.15E-06

4.75E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.03E+00
1.19E-07
2.29E-04

PM10

7.11E-05

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

1.98E-05

SOx
COD
T-P
T-N
Waste
landfill

7.11E-04
3.80E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

1.23E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

9.96E-07
9.00E-05
1.12E-05
1.27E-04

1.02E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

2.95E-02

6.36E-05

0.00E+00

8.50E-05

2.89E-02

Emission-related loads

Consumptionrelated loads

Manufacturing

Nonrenewable
resources
Recyclable
resources

Outdoor air

Water
Soil

Coal
Crude oil(fuel)Naturalgas
Uranium
Wood
Water
CO2
N2O
NOx

248

Transportation

MaintenanceDisposal

0.00E+00

4.04E-04

5.39E-04

5

Impact Assessment

5.1 Subject Assessment Steps and Areas of Impact
In the impact assessment, LIME2 (Life cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling 2)
was used to assess the following three steps: characterization, damage assessment, and weighting. Table
5.1-1 shows the areas of impact subject to the assessment in each step.
Table 5.1-1 Subject areas of environmental impact and assessment steps
Characterization

Damage assessment

Weighting

Resource consumption (energy)







Resource consumption (mineral)







Global warming







Urban air pollution

-





Acidification







Eutrophication











Ozone depletion

Photochemical oxidant
Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Indoor air quality

-

Noise

-

Waste





Land use249

5.2 Impact Assessment Result
5.2.1

Characterization

Figures 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 show the characterization of 1 day of the traditional toiletry assistance and one dayof Humany-based toiletry assistance in terms of the environmental impact on global warming and waste
disposal. Since the previous LIME2 calculation indicated a large environmental impact on global
warming, we prepared an additional scenario in which all waste was subject to landfill instead ofincineration. The overall result was that the Humany-based toiletry assistance had a lower environmental
impact than the traditional toiletry assistance.
With regard to the environmental impact on global warming, since used paper diapers are in generalincinerated, the environmental impact of the traditional toiletry assistance is high, simply due to the amountof waste incinerated. The negative environmental impact on global warming could be reduced using
landfills instead of incinerating the waste; however, the environmental impact caused by Humany-based
toiletry assistance was still lower than the traditional toiletry assistance even after incineration was replacedby use of landfills. This was due to the amount of energy used in manufacturing of materials and also dueto the fact that Humany required less material for manufacturing.
In terms of the environmental impact on waste disposal, the environmental impact caused by landfills wasthree-digits higher than incineration. Although use of landfills could reduce the environmental impact interms of global warming, incineration could result in dramatic reduction of the waste volume.

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

Humanybased
toiletry
assistance

HumanyTraditional
based
toiletry
toiletry
assistanceassistance(all subject
to landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

General waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)

Figure 5.2-1

Characterization (waste)

Humanybased
toiletry
assistanceTraditional
Humanytoiletrybasedassistancetoiletry(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

Carbon dioxide

Nitrous oxide

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

Figure 5.2-2

250

Characterization(global warming)

5.2.2

Damage Assessment

Figures 5.2-3 through 5.2-6 show the results of damage assessment in the four areas to be protected (bysubstance). The overall result was that the Humany-based toiletry assistance had a lower environmental
impact than the traditional toiletry assistance. Note, however, incineration of waste products caused
greater damage to human health than landfills did. In the remaining areas, however, landfilling had alarger impact than incineration. We believe that the damage to the human health was high because of air
pollutants such as CO2 and SO2 generated during waste incineration or during combustion of fossil fuels
used as energy. In other areas, waste landfills had a large environmental impact in all scenarios.

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

SulfurdioxideCarbondioxideFigure 5.2-3

Figure 5.2-5Traditional
Humanytoiletrybasedassistancetoiletry(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

Nitrogenoxide

Particlematter(PM10)

Humanybased
toiletry
assistanceTraditional
toiletry
assistance

Figure 5.2-4

HumanyTraditional
based
toiletry
toiletry
assistance(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

General waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)

Nitrogenoxide

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

SulfurdioxideDamage assessment(primary production) [kg]Humanybased
toiletry
assistance

General waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)
Nitrogen oxide
Total nitrogen

Nitrousoxide

Damage assessment(human health) [DALY]

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

Coal

Humanybased
toiletry
assistance

HumanyTraditional
based
toiletry
toiletry
assistance(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)
Carbon dioxide

Crude oilSulfur dioxide
Nitrous oxide

Coal

Damage assessment(social assets) [yen]Humanybased
toiletry
assistanceTraditional
Humanytoiletrybasedassistancetoiletry(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

General waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)

Figure 5.2-6

251

Natural gas

Coal

Damage assessment(biodiversity) [EINES]

5.2.3WeightingFigure 5.2-7 shows the weighting result (by substance). Overall, the environmental impact was
dramatically reduced when the traditional toiletry assistance was replaced with Humany-based toiletry
assistance, and the reduction ratio was approximately 87%. Under this condition, the environmental
impact became lower throughout the life cycle.
When the environmental impact of waste disposal was compared between incineration and landfilling,
landfilling indicated a higher environmental impact. As shown in the weighting result by process inFigure 5.2-8, the disposal process accounted for more than 75% of the entire impact in the scenario in
which the waste product was subject to landfilling. Therefore, although the overall environmental impact
was largely attributed to CO2 causing the global warming, replacement of incineration with landfilling
would have a higher environmental impact.

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

Humanybased
toiletry
assistance

General waste (estimated fixedvalue if amount is unknown)
Nitrogen
Crude oiloxide
Particle matter (PM10)
Nitrous oxide
Total phosphorous

Carbon dioxide

Figure 5.2-7

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

HumanyTraditional
based
toiletry
toiletry
assistance(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

Material

SulfurdioxideCoal
Natural gas

Weighting result(by substance) [yen]Figure 5.2-8

Humanybased
toiletry
assistance

Manufact
uring

Traditional
Humanytoiletrybasedassistancetoiletry(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)
Logistics

Use

Disposal

Weighting result(by process) [yen]Figure 5.2-9 shows the breakdown of the weighting result by the area of impact, Figure 5.2-10 shows thepercentage-based presentation of the same weighting result. Figure 5.2-9 suggests that the environmental
impact was high in the areas of global warming, urban air pollution, and disposal. Among them, theglobal warming in particular accounted for approximately 50% of the entire impact. Although theenvironmental impact on global warming decreased in the scenarios in which waste products were subject
to landfilling instead of incineration, the environmental impact on waste disposal became more significant,accounting for more than 90% of the entire impact.

252

Traditional
toiletry
assistance

Humanybased
toiletry
assistanceTraditional
Humanytoiletrybasedassistancetoiletry(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

Abiotic resources

Global warming

Eutrophication

Photochemical oxidant

Human toxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (air)Human toxicity (soil)
Human toxicity (water)
Waste
Ecotoxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (water)Ozone depletion

Traditional
toiletry
assistanceAcidification

Abiotic resources

Urban air pollution

Eutrophication
Human toxicity (air)Ecotoxicity (air)Indoor air pollution

Figure 5.2-9

Humanybased
toiletry
assistanceTraditional
Humanytoiletrybasedassistancetoiletry(all subject assistanceto landfilling) (all subject
to landfilling)

Global warming

Acidification
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant
Urban air pollution
Human toxicity (water)
Human toxicity (soil)
Waste
Ecotoxicity (soil)
Ecotoxicity (water)

Indoor air pollution

Weighting result(by area of impact ) [yen]Figure 5.2-10 Weighting result(by area of impact ) [yen]The raw material of the pulp that we use in manufacturing of paper diapers is obtained from thinning woodin managed forests. Wood used for other purposes is also cut in managed forests. Therefore, we createdan additional scenario in which wood cut from unmanaged forests was used in the traditional toiletry
assistance in order to examine the changes in weighting results.
Figures 5.2-11 and 5.2-12 show the weighting results by substance taking into account the environmental
impact of forest management. The results show that the environmental impact was approximately 23
times higher when pulp made from wood of unmanaged forests was used than when pulp made from woodof managed forests was used. Compared to the scenario in which waste was subject to landfilling as well,this newly created scenario had a significantly higher environmental impact. We believe this is due to theenvironmental impact of land use, such as the cutting down of trees in unmanaged forests, on thebiodiversity.

250

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

200
150
100
50
0
Managed forests

Coal
Uranium ore (U)
SOx
dust
T-N

Managed forests
All waste subject tolandfilling
Crude oil (fuel)
Wood
NOx
COD
Unspecified solid waste

Unmanaged forests

Managed forests

Natural gas
CO2
N2O
T-P

Coal
Uranium ore (U)
SOx
dust
T-N

Figure 5.2-11 Weighting result(by substance for different forest
management scenarios )Managed forests
All waste subject tolandfilling

Crude oil (fuel)
Wood
NOx
COD
Unspecified solid waste

Unmanaged forests

Natural gas
CO2
N2O
T-P

Figure 5.2-12 Weighting result(by substance for different forest
management scenarios )

253

6

Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the Study Result
We assessed the environmental impact of the entire life cycle (material production, product manufacturing,product use (1 day), and disposal) of the functional unit, which was 1 day of toiletry assistance (1 day of
the traditional toiletry assistance and Humany-based toiletry assistance). When the environmental impact
was converted into social costs, the social costs of the traditional toiletry assistance were approximately 9
yen/day (3,250 yen/year), and the social costs of Humany-based toiletry assistance was approximately 1.1
yen/day (approximately 400 yen/year). The actual expenses of toiletry assistance such as purchase of
paper diapers was approximately 450 yen/day for the traditional toiletry assistance and approximately 430
yen/day for Humany-based toiletry assistance (note that the initial cost of purchasing the Humany system isapproximately 100,000 yen, and 90% of it would be refunded since it is covered by the nursing-careinsurance). Therefore, the social costs were approximately 2% and approximately 0.3%, respectively,
with respect to the type, or scenarios, of toiletry assistance.
In both scenarios, material production accounted for more than 50% of the entire environmental impact,
followed by incineration. Material production and incineration combined accounted for more than 90% of
the entire environmental impact. In particular, CO2 emission and crude oil (resource) consumption were
responsible for a large part of the impact, followed by CO2 emission during incineration and landfilling
after incineration. As a result, we found that the both material production and incineration had significant
environmental impacts on global warming, urban air pollution, and waste disposal.
Meanwhile, when the method of waste disposal was replaced by landfilling to reduce the major
contributing factors to global warming, the study showed that the environmental impact on global warming
did decrease; however, the environmental impact on waste disposal significantly increased. According to
the weighting result, incineration would cause less environmental impact than landfilling.
We also compared the scenario in which wood, a raw material of pulp to serve as a major product material,
was obtained from managed forests and the scenario in which wood was obtained from unmanaged forests.
When the environmental impact was converted into social costs, the social costs of the scenario in whichwood obtained from managed forests was used in the traditional toiletry assistance product wereapproximately 9 yen/day (3,250 yen/year), and when the wood was obtained from unmanaged forests, thesocial costs were approximately 210 yen/day (approximately 76,000 yen/year). The study thus indicatedthe importance of forest management for protection of biodiversity.

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Tasks
In this study, we assessed the environmental impact of the material production, use, and disposal processes.
Based on the previous paper diaper life cycle assessment result, the assessment covered the important
processes that would be responsible for more than 90% of the environmental impact. Therefore, we
believe that the validity of the assessment result can be guaranteed. Note, however, a Humany pad is
manufactured in a very different way from a traditional paper diaper, and it is thus necessary in the future to
conduct assessment again as new system production technologies are established. Also, we were unable
to obtain data on manufacturing of the Humany system. Although we believe that this process does nothave any significant impact, it is still necessary to reassess this as soon as the data becomes available suchthat more important data can be covered in the study.

254

Reference
1) Katsuhiko Muroyama, et al. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for an Advanced Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Kansai University Organization for Research and Development of Innovative
Science and Technology Research Report, vol. 21, pp. 178-185. 2006.

Acknowledgments
For the participation in the LIME2 WG and creation of the report, we would like to express our gratitude
to: Professor Itsubo of Tokyo City University and Mr. Motoshita of the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) for repeated advice and instructions; Mr. Yamagishi of the Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry for his administrative support; and all the
representatives of the participating companies for providing a wide variety of comments and opinions
during the working group activities.

255

Information
17th LCA Case Studies Symposium
28 February - 1 March, 2011
Budapest, Hungary

SETAC Europe
http://lcabudapest.setac.eu/?contentid=344

The 6th Meeting of The Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan
2-4, March, 2011
Sendai, Japan

ILCAJ
http://ilcaj.sntt.or.jp/meeting/The 18th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
2-4, May, 2011
Braunschweig, Germany

Technische Universitat Braunschweig
http://www.lce2011.de/en/home

SETAC Europe 21st Annual Meeting
15-19, May, 2011
Milan, Italy

SETAC Europe
http://milano.setac.eu/?contentid=291

ISIE 2011 conference
7-10, June, 2011
Berkeley, USA

ISIE
http://isie2011.berkeley.edu/

LCA XI
4-6, October, 2011
ChicagoAmerican Center for Life Cycle Assessment
http://www.lcacenter.org/

Sustainable Innovation 11
24-25, October, 2011
Farnham, UK

The Centre for Sustainable Design
http://www.cfsd.org.uk/events/tspd16/index.html

SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting
13-17, November, 2011
Boston, MA, USA

SETAC North America

3rd International Conference on Green and Sustainable Innovation
December 2011
Thailand

SETAC Europe 22nd Annual Meeting
20-24, May 2012
Berlin, Germany

SETAC Europe
http://berlin.setac.eu/?contentid=404

SETAC North America 33rd Annual Meeting
11-15, November, 2012
Long Beach, CA, USA

SETAC North America

SETAC North America 34th Annual Meeting
17-21, November, 2013
Gaylord Opryland, Nashville, TN,

SETAC North America

SETAC North America 35th Annual Meeting
9-13, November, 2014
Vancouver, British Columbia

SETAC North America

Planning & Information Sub-Committee:
Tokyo city university
Dr. Norihiro Itsubo
Japan Science and Technology Agency
Mr. Kiyoshi Ueno
The Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association
Mr. Koichi ICHIMURA
Chiba Institute of Technology
Dr. Kiyoshi SHIBATA
Mr. Junichi NAKAHASHI Asahi Kasei Corporation
Plastic Waste Management Institute
Mr. Hajime Nishihara

Editor's AddressLife Cycle Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA)LCA Development Office, JEMAI(Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry)
2-1, Kajicho 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0044
tel: +81-3-5209-7708 fax: +81-3-5209-7716
E-mail: lca-project@jemai.or.jp
http://www.jemai.or.jp/english/