NISTIR 7423 

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability 

Technical Manual and User Guide

 

Barbara C. Lippiatt 

 

® 
ii
iii

NISTIR 7423 

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability 

Technical Manual and User Guide

Barbara C. Lippiatt 

Office of Applied Economics 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603 

Sponsored by: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

August 2007 

U.S. Department Of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Robert C. Cresanti, Under Secretary for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

William A. Jeffrey, Director 
iv
v

Abstract 

The BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) version 4.0 software 

implements a rational, systematic technique for selecting environmentally-preferred, costeffective building products. The technique is based on consensus standards and designed to be 

practical, flexible, and transparent. The Windows-based decision support software, aimed at 

designers, builders, and product manufacturers, includes actual environmental and economic 

performance data for over 230 building products across a range of functional applications. BEES 

measures the environmental performance of building products using the environmental life-cycle 

assessment approach specified in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 

standards. All stages in the life of a product are analyzed: raw material acquisition, manufacture, 

transportation, installation, use, and waste management. Economic performance is measured 

using the ASTM International standard life-cycle cost method (E917), which covers the costs of 

initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. Environmental 

and economic performance are combined into an overall performance measure using the ASTM 

standard for Multiattribute Decision Analysis (E1765). For the entire BEES analysis, building 

products are defined and classified based on the ASTM standard classification for building 

elements known as UNIFORMAT II (E1557). 

Key words: Building products, economic performance, environmental performance, green 

buildings, life cycle assessment, life-cycle costing, multiattribute decision analysis, sustainable 

development 

Disclaimer

Certain trade names and company products are mentioned throughout the text. In no case does 

such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the product is the best available for the 

purpose. 

The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units in all 

its published materials. Since this software product is intended for U.S. manufacturers and 

users of building products who evaluate performance using customary units, it is more 

practical and less confusing in some cases to use the customary rather than metric units.

Where possible, however, both metric units and their customary equivalents are reported. 
vi

Acknowledgments 

The BEES tool could not have been completed without the help of others. Thanks are due the 

NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) for its support of this work from its 

inception in 1994. Thanks are due the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief 

Economist for supporting development of BEES results for biobased products, and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pollution Prevention Division for its support over the 

years. Deserving special thanks is the BEES environmental data development team from Four 

Elements, LLC and First Environment, Inc. for its superb data development, documentation, and 

technical support. Special recognition is due Four Elements’ Anne Landfield Greig, whose 

technical expertise, diligence, patience, and unwavering support have contributed in no small 

measure to the success of BEES. Jane Bare, of the EPA Office of Research and Development, 

Sustainable Technology Division, and her TRACI team (particularly Greg Norris of Sylvatica, 

Inc. and Tom Gloria, formerly of Five Winds International) were instrumental in developing the 

life cycle impact assessment methods incorporated into BEES, and continue to go out of their 

way to help the author adapt these methods to the practicalities of BEES. Thanks are also due 

Tom Gloria and Jennifer Cooper of Five Winds International for their technical support for the 

BEES Stakeholder Panel convened at NIST in May 2006, as well as Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory for providing the Energy Star “Cool Roof” data used to analyze BEES roof covering 

alternatives. The author is particularly grateful for the key cooperation and support offered by a 

wide variety of industry associations and manufacturers with products represented in BEES. 

Their cooperation exceeded all expectations, and led to a significant expansion and refinement of 

the underlying BEES performance data. The comments of NIST BFRL colleagues Doug Thomas 

and Cindy Reed inspired many improvements. Special thanks are due Julie Wean for heroically 

incorporating more than 230 products, including their online documentation, into BEES 4.0, and for 

carefully helping test and review the tool. Thanks are also due Tessa Beavers for her outstanding 

administrative support. 

Copyright Information 

This software was developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology by 

employees of the Federal Government in the course of their official duties. Pursuant to title 17 

Section 105 of the United States Code this software is not subject to copyright protection and 

is in the public domain. 

We would appreciate acknowledgement if the software is used. 
vii

Getting Started 

System Requirements 

BEES 4.0 runs on Windows 95 and beyond personal computers with at least 60 MB of available 

disk space. At least one printer must be installed.

Uninstalling BEES 3.0 

While uninstalling BEES 3.0 is not necessary to run BEES 4.0, you may choose to do so. All 

BEES 3.0 files are contained in the folder in which you installed BEES 3.0 (usually 

C:\BEES30d). Thus, the entire BEES 3.0 program may be uninstalled by simply deleting that 

folder. If you choose to leave BEES 3.0 on your system, do not install BEES 4.0 to its folder. 

Installing BEES 4.0 

From Download Site. Once you've completed the BEES registration form, click Submit, and 

then click BEES40zip.exe to download the self-extracting file. If prompted during the 

download, choose to save the file, taking note of the folder to which it is saved. Once 

downloaded, from Windows Explorer, go to the folder containing BEES40zip.exe and double 

click on the file to begin the self-extraction process. Choose to unzip the file to a new folder by 

entering a new folder name when prompted. Click Unzip. Once unzipped, from Windows 

Explorer double click on the file SETUP.EXE in your new folder to begin the self-explanatory 

BEES 4.0 installation process. During installation, you will need to choose a folder in which to 

install BEES 4.0; you must choose a folder different from the one containing the setup file 

(SETUP.EXE). Once installation is complete, you are ready to run BEES 4.0 by selecting 

Start→Programs→BEES→BEES 4.0. 

From CD-ROM. Install BEES by inserting the compact disc into your CD-ROM drive and 

running the BEES setup program, SETUP.EXE. Follow on-screen installation instructions. Once 

installation is complete, you are ready to run BEES 4.0 by selecting 

Start→Programs→BEES→BEES 4.0. 

Running BEES 

First time BEES users may find it helpful to read the BEES Tutorial, found in section 4 of this 

report. Section 4 is a document-based version of the BEES 4.0 Tutorial topic of the software’s 

on-line help system, with step-by-step instructions for running the software. The section also 

includes illustrations of the screen displays. Alternatively, first-time users may choose to doubleclick on the BEES 4.0 Help icon included in the BEES program group at installation for a selfcontained electronic version of the entire online help system. 

While running the BEES software, context-sensitive help is often available from the BEES Main 

Menu. Context-sensitive help is also available through Help buttons on many of the BEES 

windows. 

Technical Support

For questions regarding the BEES model or software, contact blippiatt@nist.gov. 
viii
ix

Contents 

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................v 

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................vi 

Getting Started............................................................................................................................vii 

Contents......................................................................................................................................ix 

List of Tables..............................................................................................................................xiii 

List of Figures .............................................................................................xvii 

1. Background and Introduction.................................................................................................1 

2. The BEES Model....................................................................................................................3 

2.1 Environmental Performance ...............................................................................................3 

2.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition............................................................................................4 

2.1.2 Inventory Analysis........................................................................................................7 

2.1.3 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................8 

2.1.3.1 Impact Assessment Methods ..................................................................................8 

2.1.3.2 Characterizing Impacts in BEES ............................................................................11 

2.1.3.3 Normalizing Impacts in BEES................................................................................24 

2.1.4 Interpretation.................................................................................................................26 

2.1.4.1 EPA Science Advisory Board Study ......................................................................26 

2.1.4.2 BEES Stakeholder Panel Judgment ........................................................................28 

2.2 Economic Performance.......................................................................................................33 

2.3 Overall Performance...........................................................................................................35 

2.4 Limitations..........................................................................................................................35 

3. BEES Product Data ................................................................................................................39 

3.1 Concrete Slabs, Walls, Beams, and Columns.....................................................................39 

3.1.1 Generic Portland Cement Products...............................................................................39 

3.1.2 Lafarge North America Products..................................................................................52 

3.2 Roof and Wall Sheathing....................................................................................................58 

3.2.1 Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing....................................................................58 

3.2.2 Generic Plywood Sheathing..........................................................................................63 

3.3 Exterior Wall Systems ........................................................................................................68 

3.3.1 CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel.......................................................68 

3.4 Exterior Wall Finishes ........................................................................................................72 

3.4.1 Generic Brick & Mortar................................................................................................72 

3.4.2 Generic Stucco..............................................................................................................77 

3.4.3 Generic Aluminum Siding ............................................................................................82 

3.4.4 Generic Cedar Siding....................................................................................................87 

3.4.5 Generic Vinyl Siding ....................................................................................................91 

3.4.6 Trespa Meteon Panel ....................................................................................................95

3.4.7 Headwaters Stucco Finish Application.........................................................................95 

3.4.8 Dryvit EIFS Cladding Outsulation ...............................................................................99 

3.5 Insulation ............................................................................................................................105 

3.5.1 Generic Cellulose..........................................................................................................105 

3.5.2 Generic Fiberglass ........................................................................................................109 

3.5.3 Generic Mineral Wool ..................................................................................................113
x

3.6 Framing...............................................................................................................................117 

3.6.1 Generic Steel Framing ..................................................................................................117 

3.6.2 Generic Wool Framing .................................................................................................119 

3.7 Exterior Sealers and Coatings.............................................................................................124 

3.7.1 BioPreserve SoyGuard Wood Sealer............................................................................124 

3.8 Roof Coverings...................................................................................................................126 

3.8.1 Generic Asphalt Shingles..............................................................................................126

3.8.2 Generic Clay Tile..........................................................................................................131 

3.8.3 Generic Fiber Cement Shingles ....................................................................................135 

3.9 Roof Coatings .....................................................................................................................139 

3.9.1 Prime Coatings Utilithane.............................................................................................139

3.10 Partitions ...........................................................................................................................141 

3.10.1 Generic Gypsum .........................................................................................................141 

3.10.2 Trespa Virtuon and Athlon Panels..............................................................................145 

3.10.3 P&M Plastics Altree Panels........................................................................................145 

3.11 Fabricated Toilets Partitions, Lockers, Ceiling Finishes, Fixed Casework, Table 

 Tops/Counter Tops/Shelving ......................................................................................................148 

3.11.1 Trespa Composite Panels............................................................................................148 

3.12 Wall Finishes to Interior Walls.........................................................................................151 

3.12.1 Generic Latex Paint Products .....................................................................................151 

3.13 Floor Coverings ................................................................................................................158 

3.13.1 Generic Ceramic Tile with Recycled Glass................................................................158 

3.13.2 Generic Linoleum Flooring ........................................................................................160 

3.13.3 Generic Vinyl Composition Tile.................................................................................165 

3.13.4 Generic Composite Marble Tile .................................................................................169 

3.13.5 Generic Terrazzo.........................................................................................................172 

3.13.6 Generic Nylon Carpet .................................................................................................175

3.13.7 Generic Wool Carpet ..................................................................................................179

3.13.8 Forbo Linoleum ..........................................................................................................183 

3.13.9 UTT Soy Backed Nylon Carpet..................................................................................186 

3.13.10 C&A Carpet ..............................................................................................................189 

3.13.11 Interface Carpet.........................................................................................................193 

3.13.12 J&J Industries Carpet................................................................................................198 

3.13.13 Mohawk Carpet.........................................................................................................201 

3.13.14 Natural Cork Flooring...............................................................................................205

3.14 Chairs................................................................................................................................209 

3.14.1 Herman Miller Aeron Office Chair.............................................................................209 

3.14.2 Herman Miller Ambi and Generic Office Chair.........................................................212 

3.15 Roadway Dust Control .....................................................................................................215 

3.15.1 Environmental Dust Control Dustlock .......................................................................215 

3.16 Parking Lot Paving ...........................................................................................................218 

3.16.1 Generic Concrete Paving ............................................................................................218 

3.16.2 Asphalt with GSB88 Seal-Bind Maintenance ............................................................222 

3.16.3 Generic Asphalt with Traditional Maintenance..........................................................226 

3.16.4 Lafarge Cement Concrete Paving ...............................................................................230 

3.17 Fertilizers ..........................................................................................................................229 
xi

3.17.1 Perdue MicroStart 60 Fertilizer ..................................................................................229 

3.17.2 Four All Seasons Fertilizer .........................................................................................232 

3.18 Transformer Oil ................................................................................................................235 

3.18.1 Generic Mineral Transformer Oil ...............................................................................235 

3.18.2 Generic Silicon Transformer Oil ................................................................................238 

3.18.3 Cooper Envirotemp FR3.............................................................................................241 

3.18.4 ABB BIOTEMP..........................................................................................................243

3.18.5 Generic Biobased Transformer Oil.............................................................................246 

3.19 Carpet Cleaner ..................................................................................................................249 

3.19.1 Racine Industries HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System..............................................249 

3.20 Floor Stripper....................................................................................................................253 

3.20.1 Nano Green Floor Stripper .........................................................................................253 

 3.21 Glass Cleaner ....................................................................................................................257 

3.21.1 Spartan Green Solutions Class Cleaner ......................................................................257 

3.22 Bath and Tile Cleaner .......................................................................................................261 

3.22.1 Spartan Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner ...............................................................261 

3.23 Grease & Graffiti Remover...............................................................................................264 

3.23.1 VertecBio Gold Graffiti Remover ..............................................................................264 

3.24 Adhesive and Mastic Remover.........................................................................................266 

3.24.1 Franmar BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover .....................................................................266 

3.24.2 Nano Green Mastic Remover......................................................................................269 

4. BEES Tutorial ........................................................................................................................271 

4.1 Setting Parameters ..............................................................................................................271 

4.2 Defining Alternatives..........................................................................................................274 

4.3 Viewing Results..................................................................................................................276 

4.4 Browsing Environmental and Economic Performance Data ..............................................281 

5. Future Directions....................................................................................................................293 

Appendix A. BEES Computational Algorithms........................................................................295 

A.1 Environmental Performance .............................................................................................295 

A.2 Economic Performance......................................................................................................296 

A.3 Overall Performance ..........................................................................................................296 

Appendix B. Interpreting BEES Environmental Performance Scores: A Primer............... ..297 

References ..................................................................................................................................303 
xii
xiii

List of Tables 

Table 2.1 BEES Global Warming Potential Characterization Factors.......................................12 

Table 2.2 BEES Acidification Potential Characterization Factors.............................................13 

Table 2.3 BEES Eutrophication Potential Characterization Factors .........................................14 

Table 2.4 BEES Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential Characterization Factors...............................15 

Table 2.5 BEES Habitat Alteration Potential Characterization Factors ....................................18 

Table 2.6 BEES Criteria Air Pollutant Characterization Factors ..............................................19 

Table 2.7 Sampling of BEES Human Health Characterization Factors .....................................21 

Table 2.8 Sampling of BEES Smog Characterization Factors ....................................................22 

Table 2.9 BEES Ozone Depletion Potential Characterization Factors.......................................23 

Table 2.10 Sampling of BEES Ecological Toxicity Potential Characterization Factors............24 

Table 2.11 BEES Normalization Values ......................................................................................25 

Table 2.12 Pairwise Comparison Values for Deriving Impact Category Importance Weights ..27 

Table 2.13 Relative Importance Weights based on Science Advisory Board Study ....................28 

Table 2.14 Relative Importance Weights based on BEES Stakeholder Panel Judgments...........30 

Table 3.1 Concrete Constituent Quantities by Cement Blend and Compressive Strength 

 Of Concrete...................................................................................................................45 

Table 3.2 Portland Cement Constituents.....................................................................................46 

Table 3.3 Energy Requirements for Portland Cement Manufacturing........................................47 

Table 3.4 Energy Requirements for Ready Mix Concrete Production ........................................48 

Table 3.5 Concrete Form and Reinforcing Requirements...........................................................50 

Table 3.6 Lafarge North America Concrete Products.................................................................53 

Table 3.7 Lafarge North America Cement Constituents..............................................................56 

Table 3.8 OSB Constituents .........................................................................................................59 

Table 3.9 OSB Production Energy ..............................................................................................61

Table 3.10 OSB Manufacturing Site Emissions...........................................................................61 

Table 3.11 Plywood Sheathing Constituents ...............................................................................65 

Table 3.12 Plywood Production Energy......................................................................................66 

Table 3.13 Plywood Production Emissions .................................................................................66 

Table 3.14 CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel Constituents...............................69 

Table 3.15 Energy Requirements for CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panel Production..........69 

Table 3.16 Air Emissions from CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panel Production ...................70 

Table 3.17 Fired Brick Constituents............................................................................................73 

Table 3.18 Masonry Cement Constituents...................................................................................74 

Table 3.19 Energy Requirements for Brick Manufacturing ........................................................74 

Table 3.19a U.S. Brick Production by Census Region ................................................................75 

Table 3.20 Density of Stucco by Type..........................................................................................77 

Table 3.21 Stucco Constituents....................................................................................................79 

Table 3.22 Masonry Cement Constituents...................................................................................79 

Table 3.23 Energy Requirements for Masonry Cement Manufacturing......................................79 

Table 3.24 Emissions from Masonry Cement Manufacturing .....................................................80 

Table 3.25 Aluminum Siding Constituents...................................................................................83 

Table 3.26 Alloy Composition .....................................................................................................84 
xiv

Table 3.27 Energy Requirements for Aluminum Rolling.............................................................85 

Table 3.28 Cedar Siding Production Energy...............................................................................89 

Table 3.29 Cedar Siding Production Process-Related Emissions...............................................89 

Table 3.30 Vinyl Siding Constituents...........................................................................................93 

Table 3.31 Headwaters Cement Products ...................................................................................96 

Table 3.32 Headwaters Cement Constituents..............................................................................97 

Table 3.33 Dryvit Product Constituents ......................................................................................102

Table 3.34 Energy Requirements for Mixing Dryvit Outsulation and Outsulation Plus.............102 

Table 3.35 Dryvit EIFS Constituents for Outsulation .................................................................103 

Table 3.36 Dryvit EIFS Constituents for Outsulation Plus .........................................................104 

Table 3.37 Blown Cellulose Insulation by Application ..............................................................106 

Table 3.38 Cellulose Insulation Constituents..............................................................................107 

Table 3.39 Energy Requirements for Cellulose Insulation Manufacturing.................................107 

Table 3.40 Fiberglass Batt Mass by Application.........................................................................109 

Table 3.41 Blown Fiberglass Mass by Application .....................................................................109 

Table 3.42 Fiberglass Insulation Constituents............................................................................111 

Table 3.43 Energy Requirements for Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing...............................111 

Table 3.44 Emissions for Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing .................................................111 

Table 3.45 Raw Material Transportation Distances ...................................................................112 

Table 3.46 Blown Mineral Wool Mass by Application................................................................114 

Table 3.47 Mineral Wool Insulation Constituents.......................................................................115 

Table 3.48 Energy Requirements for Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturing .........................115 

Table 3.49 Emissions for Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturing............................................115 

Table 3.50 Lumber Production Energy .......................................................................................122 

Table 3.51 Lumber Production Emissions...................................................................................122 

Table 3.52 SoyGuard Constituents ..............................................................................................125 

Table 3.53 Asphalt Shingles Constituents....................................................................................128

Table 3.54 Type 15 Felt Underlayment Constituents ..................................................................128 

Table 3.55 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Shingle Manufacturing........................................128 

Table 3.56 Asphalt Shingle Production Emissions......................................................................129 

Table 3.57 Type-30 Roofing Felt Constituents ............................................................................132 

Table 3.58 Energy Requirements for Clay Tile Manufacturing ..................................................133 

Table 3.59 Fiber Cement Shingle Constituents ...........................................................................136 

Table 3.60 Type-30 Roofing Felt Constituents ............................................................................137 

Table 3.61 Energy Requirements for Fiber Shingle Manufacturing ...........................................137 

Table 3.62 Prime Coatings Utilithane Manufacturing Energy ...................................................140 

Table 3.63 Prime Coatings Utilithane Installation Energy.........................................................141 

Table 3.64 Gypsum Board Constituents ......................................................................................142 

Table 3.65 Energy Requirements for Gypsum Board ..................................................................143 

Table 3.66 Emissions from Gypsum Board Manufacturing ........................................................143 

Table 3.66a P&M Plastics Altree Panel Constituents.................................................................146 

Table 3.66b P&M Plastics Altree Panel Energy Requirements ..................................................146 

Table 3.67 Trespa Composite Panel Constituents by Mass Fraction..........................................150 

Table 3.68 Trespa Composite Panel Density...............................................................................151 

Table 3.69 Virgin Latex Paint Constituents.................................................................................154 

Table 3.70 Latex Paint Resin Constituents..................................................................................154 
xv

Table 3.71 Consolidated Paint Sorting Data...............................................................................156 

Table 3.72 Consolidated Paint Processing Data.........................................................................156 

Table 3.73 Reprocessed Paint Sorting and Processing Data......................................................157 

Table 3.74 Ceramic Tile Constituents .........................................................................................159 

Table 3.75 Latex/Mortar Blend Constituents ..............................................................................159 

Table 3.76 Energy Requirements for Ceramic Tile Manufacturing ............................................159 

Table 3.77 Linoleum Constituents ...............................................................................................162 

Table 3.78 Inputs to Linseed Agriculture ....................................................................................162

Table 3.79 Electricity Inputs for Cork Flour Production............................................................163 

Table 3.80 Energy Requirements for Linoleum Manufacturing..................................................163 

Table 3.81 Emissions from Linoleum Manufacturing .................................................................163 

Table 3.82 Linoleum Raw Materials Transportation ..................................................................164 

Table 3.83 Vinyl Composition Tile Constituents .........................................................................167 

Table 3.84 Energy Requirements for Vinyl Composition Tile Manufacturing............................167 

Table 3.85 Composite Marble Tile Constituents .........................................................................170 

Table 3.86 Latex/Mortar Blend Constituents ..............................................................................170 

Table 3.87 Energy Requirements for Composite Marble Tile Manufacturing............................171 

Table 3.88 Terrazzo Flooring Constituents.................................................................................173 

Table 3.89 Energy Requirements for Terrazzo Manufacturing...................................................174 

Table 3.90 Terrazzo Flooring Installation Materials..................................................................174 

Table 3.91 Nylon Carpet Constituents.........................................................................................177 

Table 3.92 Energy Requirements for Nylon Carpet Manufacturing ...........................................178 

Table 3.93 Wool Carpet Constituents..........................................................................................180 

Table 3.94 Raw Wool Constituents..............................................................................................181 

Table 3.95 Wool Yarn Production Requirements ........................................................................181 

Table 3.96 Wool Yarn Bleaching Inputs......................................................................................182 

Table 3.97 Energy Requirements for Wool Carpet Tufting.........................................................182 

Table 3.98 Forbo Marmoleum Constituents................................................................................184 

Table 3.99 UTT Broadloom Carpet Constituents........................................................................187 

Table 3.100 C&A Products Included in BEES ............................................................................189 

Table 3.101 C&A ER3 Flooring Constituents .............................................................................191 

Table 3.102 C&A Ethos Flooring Constituents...........................................................................191 

Table 3.103C&A Products’ Mass and Density............................................................................192 

Table 3.104 Bentley Prince Street Commercial Carpet Constituents .........................................195 

Table 3.105 InterfaceFLOR Commercial Carpet Constituents...................................................196 

Table 3.106 Interface Carpet Density..........................................................................................197 

Table 3.107 J&J Certificate Broadloom Carpet Constituents ....................................................199 

Table 3.108 Mohawk Broadloom Carpet Constituents ...............................................................203 

Table 3.109 Mohawk Carpet Density ..........................................................................................204 

Table 3.110 Natural Cork Flooring Constituents........................................................................207 

Table 3.111 Natural Cork Flooring Density ...............................................................................208 

Table 3.112 Herman Miller Aeron Chair Major Constituents ....................................................210 

Table 3.113 Herman Miller Ambi Chair Major Constituents .....................................................213 

Table 3.114 Dustlock Installation Energy Requirements ............................................................217 

Table 3.115 Concrete Constituents..............................................................................................219 

Table 3.116 Energy Requirements for Ready Mix Concrete Production ....................................220 
xvi

Table 3.117 Energy Requirements for Dry Batch Concrete Production.....................................220 

Table 3.118 Hot Mix Asphalt Constituents..................................................................................223 

Table 3.119 Energy Requirements for Hot Mix Asphalt Production...........................................224 

Table 3.120 Emissions from Hot Mix Asphalt Production ..........................................................224 

Table 3.121 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Pavement Installation........................................225 

Table 3.122 Energy Requirements for GSB88 Sealer-Binder Maintenance ...............................225 

Table 3.123 Hot Mix Asphalt Constituents..................................................................................227 

Table 3.124 Energy Requirements for Hot Mix Asphalt Production...........................................227 

Table 3.125 Emissions from Hot Mix Asphalt Production ..........................................................227 

Table 3.126 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Paving Installation ............................................228 

Table 3.127 Energy Requirements for Asphalt Resurfacing........................................................228 

Table 3.128 Microstart 60 Constituents ......................................................................................230

Table 3.129 Microstart 60 Manufacturing Emissions.................................................................231 

Table 3.130 Four All Seasons Energy Requirements ..................................................................234 

Table 3.131 Mineral-Oil Based Transformer Oil Constituents...................................................236 

Table 3.132 U.S. Average Refinery Energy Use..........................................................................237 

Table 3.133 Energy Requirements for Mineral-Oil Based Transformer Oil Production............238 

Table 3.134 Envirotemp FR3 Constituents..................................................................................241 

Table 3.135 Envirotemp FR3 Manufacturing Energy .................................................................241 

Table 3.136 BIOTEMP Transformer Oil Constituents................................................................243 

Table 3.137 Generic Biobased Transformer Oil Constituents ....................................................246 

Table 3.138 Biobased Transformer Oil Manufacturing Energy..................................................247 

Table 3.139 HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System Constituents ...................................................249 

Table 3.140 HOST Processing Materials ....................................................................................251 

Table 3.141 Nano Green Product Constituents...........................................................................254 

Table 3.142 Green Solution Glass Cleaner Constituents............................................................258 

Table 3.143 Green Solution Restroom Cleaner Constituents......................................................262 

Table 3.144 VertecBio Gold Graffiti Remover Constituents .......................................................265 

Table 3.145 BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover Constituents.............................................................267 

Table 4.1 BEES Products Keyed to Environmental and Economic Performance Data Codes...287 
xvii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Decision Criteria for Setting Product System Boundaries ........................................5 

Figure 2.2 BEES Inventory Data Categories ..............................................................................7 

Figure 2.3 BEES Stakeholder Panel Importance Weights Synthesized across Voting Interest 

 And time Horizon .........................................................................................................31 

Figure 2.4 BEES Stakeholder Panel Importance Weights by Stakeholder Voting Interest.........32 

Figure 2.5 BEES Stakeholder Panel Importance Weights by Time Horizon...............................32 

Figure 2.6 BEES Study Periods for Measuring Building Product Environmental and 

 Economic Performance................................................................................................34 

Figure 2.7 Deriving the BEES Overall Performance Score........................................................36 

Figure 3.1 Concrete without Cement Substitutes System Boundaries.........................................43 

Figure 3.2 Concrete with Cement Substitutes System Boundaries..............................................44 

Figure 3.3 Lafarge North America Concrete Products System Boundaries ...............................55 

Figure 3.4 OSB Sheathing System Boundaries............................................................................59 

Figure 3.5 Plywood Sheathing System Boundaries .....................................................................64 

Figure 3.6 CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel System Boundaries.....................69 

Figure 3.7 Brick and Mortar System Boundaries........................................................................73 

Figure 3.8 Portland Cement Stucco System Boundaries.............................................................78 

Figure 3.9 Masonry Cement Stucco System Boundaries.............................................................78 

Figure 3.10 Aluminum Siding System Boundaries ......................................................................83 

Figure 3.11 Cedar Siding System Boundaries.............................................................................88 

Figure 3.12 Vinyl Siding System Boundaries ..............................................................................92 

Figure 3.13 Headwaters Cement Products System Boundaries ..................................................97 

Figure 3.14 Dryvit Outsulation System Boundaries....................................................................101 

Figure 3.15 Dryvit Outsulation Plus System Boundaries............................................................101 

Figure 3.16 Cellulose Insulation System Boundaries..................................................................106 

Figure 3.17 Fiberglass Insulation System Boundaries................................................................110 

Figure 3.18 Mineral Wool Insulation System Boundaries ..........................................................114 

Figure 3.19 Steel Framing System Boundaries ...........................................................................118 

Figure 3.20 Wood Framing System Boundaries..........................................................................120 

Figure 3.21 SoyGuard System Boundaries..................................................................................124 

Figure 3.22 Asphalt Shingles System Boundaries .......................................................................127 

Figure 3.23 Clay Roof Tile System Boundaries...........................................................................130 

Figure 3.24 Fiber Cement Shingles System Boundaries .............................................................136 

Figure 3.25 Gypsum Board System Boundaries..........................................................................142 

Figure 3.25a P&M Plastics Altree Panel System Boundaries ....................................................145 

Figure 3.26 Trespa Composite Panels System Boundaries.........................................................149 

Figure 3.27 Virgin Interior Latex Paint System Boundaries.......................................................153 

Figure 3.28 Consolidated and Reprocessed Interior Latex Paint System Boundaries ...............153 

Figure 3.29 Ceramic Tile System Boundaries .............................................................................158 

Figure 3.30 Linoleum Flooring System Boundaries....................................................................161 

Figure 3.31 Vinyl Composition Tile System Boundaries.............................................................166 

Figure 3.32 Composite Marble Tile System Boundaries.............................................................169 

Figure 3.33 Terrazzo Flooring System Boundaries.....................................................................173 

Figure 3.34 Nylon Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries .........................................................176 
xviii

Figure 3.35 Nylon Carpet Tile System Boundaries .....................................................................176 

Figure 3.36 Wool Carpet System Boundaries .............................................................................180 

Figure 3.37 Forbo Marmoleum System Boundaries ...................................................................184 

Figure 3.38 UTT Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries............................................................187 

Figure 3.39 C&A ER3 Flooring Products System Boundaries ...................................................193 

Figure 3.40 C&A Ethos Flooring Products System Boundaries.................................................191 

Figure 3.41 Bentley Prince Street Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries.................................194 

Figure 3.42 InterfaceFLOR Carpet Tiles System Boundaries.....................................................195 

Figure 3.43 J&J Certificate Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries ..........................................199 

Figure 3.44 Mohawk Regents Row Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries ...............................202 

Figure 3.45 Mohawk Meritage Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries .....................................202 

Figure 3.46 Natural Cork Parquet Floor Tile System Boundaries .............................................205 

Figure 3.47 Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank System Boundaries .........................................206 

Figure 3.48 Herman Miller Aeron Chair System Boundaries.....................................................209 

Figure 3.49 Herman Miller Ambi Chair System Boundaries ......................................................212 

Figure 3.50 Dustlock System Boundaries....................................................................................216 

Figure 3.51 Concrete Paving System Boundaries .......................................................................219 

Figure 3.52 Asphalt Paving with GSB88 Emulsified Sealer-Binder Maintenance 

 System Boundaries....................................................................................................223 

Figure 3.53 Asphalt Paving with Traditional Maintenance System Boundaries ........................226 

Figure 3.54 MicroStart 60 Fertilizer System Boundaries ...........................................................230 

Figure 3.55 Four All Seasons Fertilizer System Boundaries ......................................................233 

Figure 3.56 Mineral Oil-Based Transformer Oil System Boundaries.........................................236 

Figure 3.57 Silicone-Based Transformer Oil System Boundaries...............................................239 

Figure 3.58 Envirotemp FR3 Dielectric Coolant System Boundaries.........................................241 

Figure 3.59 BIOTEMP Transformer Oil System Boundaries......................................................244 

Figure 3.60 Generic Biobased Transformer Oil System Boundaries..........................................247 

Figure 3.61 HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System Boundaries .....................................................250 

Figure 3.62 Nano Green System Boundaries ..............................................................................254 

Figure 3.63 Green Solutions Glass Cleaner System Boundaries ................................................258 

Figure 3.64 Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner System Boundaries..........................................261 

Figure 3.65 VertecBio Gold System Boundaries .........................................................................264 

Figure 3.66 BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover System Boundaries ..................................................267 

Figure 4.1 Setting Analysis Parameters ......................................................................................272

Figure 4.2 Viewing Impact Category Weights.............................................................................272 

Figure 4.3 Entering User-Defined Weights.................................................................................273 

Figure 4.4 Selecting Building Elements for BEES Analysis........................................................274 

Figure 4.5 Selecting Building Product Alternatives....................................................................275 

Figure 4.6 Setting Transportation Parameters............................................................................275 

Figure 4.7 Selecting BEES Reports .............................................................................................277 

Figure 4.8 Viewing BEES Overall Performance Results ............................................................278 

Figure 4.9 Viewing BEES Environmental Performance Results.................................................279 

Figure 4.10 Viewing BEES Economic Performance Results.......................................................280 

Figure 4.11 Viewing BEES Summary Table................................................................................283 

Figure 4.12 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by 

 Life-Cycle Stage........................................................................................................284 
xix

Figure 4.13 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by Flow.....285 

Figure 4.14 Viewing BEES Embodied Energy Results................................................................286 

Figure 4.15 A Sampling of BEES “All Tables in One” Display..................................................286 

Figure 4.16 BEES Product Keyed to Environmental and Economic Performance Data 

 Codes.........................................................................................................................287 
xx
1

1. Background and Introduction 

Construction significantly alters the environment. According to the United Nations Environment 

Programme,1 this industry sector consumes about half of the resources taken from nature 

worldwide, including 25 % of the wood harvest. Mining, quarrying, drilling, and harvesting 

these natural resources not only depletes them but pollutes the air and water, generates waste, 

and accounts for biological diversity losses. Once acquired, transporting raw materials to 

production facilities, then transforming them into building and construction products, generates 

further pollution and requires considerable energy consumption with its associated greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

After production and transportation to a building site, many products generate waste at 

installation. Others have relatively short useful lives, leading to frequent disposal and 

manufacture of replacement products. Others contribute to unhealthy indoor air. Indoor pollutant 

concentrations have been found to be twice to five times as high as those outdoors. Yet other 

products influence building heating and cooling loads, largely responsible for building operating 

energy use, which accounts for 40 % of U.S. energy consumption. Worldwide, energy 

consumption by the built environment is responsible for 40 % of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Selecting environmentally preferable building products is one way to reduce the negative 

environmental impacts associated with the built environment. However, while a 2006 poll by the 

American Institute of Architects showed that 90 % of U.S. consumers would be willing to pay 

more to reduce their home’s environmental impact, they would pay only $4000 to $5000, or 

about 2 %, more.2 Thus, environmental performance must be balanced against economic 

performance. Even the most environmentally conscious building product manufacturer or 

designer will ultimately weigh environmental benefits against economic costs. To satisfy their 

customers, manufacturers and designers need to develop and select building products with an 

attractive balance of environmental and economic performance. 

Identifying environmentally and economically balanced building products is not an easy task. 

Today, the green building decisionmaking process is based on little credible, scientific data. 

There is a great deal of interesting green building information available, so that in many respects 

we know what to say about green buildings. However, we still do not routinely quantify and 

synthesize the available information so that we know what to do in a way that is transparent, 

defensible, and environmentally sound. 

In this spirit, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Healthy and 

Sustainable Buildings Program began the Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability (BEES) project in 1994. The purpose of BEES is to develop and implement a 

systematic methodology for selecting building products that achieve the most appropriate 

balance between environmental and economic performance based on the decision maker’s 

 1

 United Nations Environment Programme, “Sustainable Building and Construction: Facts and Figures,” Industry 

and Environment: Sustainable Building and Construction, Vol. 26, No. 2-3, April-September 2003. 2

 January 2006 survey cited in Washington Post, 8/6/06, p M3 (Green Buildings article by Sacha Cohen). % 
2

values. The methodology is based on consensus standards and is designed to be practical, 

flexible, and transparent. The BEES model is implemented in publicly available decision-support 

software, complete with actual environmental and economic performance data for a number of 

building products. The intended result is a cost-effective reduction in building-related 

contributions to environmental problems. 

In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmentally Preferable 

Purchasing (EPP) Program began supporting the development of BEES for a number of years. 

The EPP program is charged with carrying out Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal 

Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” which directs Executive agencies to 

reduce the environmental burdens associated with the $230 billion in products and services they 

purchase each year, including building products. 

In 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy 

Policy and New Uses, began supporting the development of BEES results for biobased products. 

The 2002 Farm Bill authorized the creation of a program, known as BioPreferred, awarding 

Federal purchasing preference to biobased products, which it defined as commercial or industrial 

goods (other than food or feed) composed in whole or in significant part of biological products, 

forestry materials, or renewable domestic agricultural materials, including plant, animal, or 

marine materials. To address the questions of environmental and cost performance, candidate 

biobased products are now required by federal rule to be evaluated by BEES, and performance 

results shared with federal purchasers.3

 With permission from manufacturers, building-related 

biobased products evaluated to date under BioPreferred are included in BEES 4.0. 

 3

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 

“Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement,” Federal Register, 7 CFR Part 2902, Vol. 

70, No. 7, January 11, 2005. For more information about BioPreferred, go to 

http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov/fb4p/aboutus.aspx . 
3

2. The BEES Model 

The BEES methodology takes a multidimensional, life-cycle approach. That is, it considers 

multiple environmental and economic impacts over the entire life of the building product. 

Considering multiple impacts and life-cycle stages is necessary because product selection 

decisions based on single impacts or stages could obscure others that might cause equal or 

greater damage. In other words, a multidimensional, life-cycle approach is necessary for a 

comprehensive, balanced analysis. 

It is relatively straightforward to select products based on minimum life-cycle economic impacts 

because building products are bought and sold in the marketplace. But how do we include lifecycle environmental impacts in our purchase decisions? Environmental impacts such as global 

warming, water pollution, and resource depletion are for the most part economic externalities. 

That is, their costs are not reflected in the market prices of the products that generated the 

impacts. Moreover, even if there were a mandate today to include environmental “costs” in 

market prices, it would be nearly impossible to do so due to difficulties in assessing these 

impacts in economic terms. How do you put a price on clean air and clean water? What is the 

value of human life? Economists have debated these questions for decades, and consensus does 

not appear likely. 

While environmental performance cannot be measured on a monetary scale, it can be quantified 

using the evolving, multi-disciplinary approach known as environmental life-cycle assessment 

(LCA). The BEES methodology measures environmental performance using an LCA approach, 

following guidance in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 standard 

for LCA.4

 Economic performance is separately measured using the ASTM International standard 

life-cycle cost (LCC) approach.5 These two performance measures are then synthesized into an 

overall performance measure using the ASTM standard for Multiattribute Decision Analysis.6

For the entire BEES analysis, building products are defined and classified based on 

UNIFORMAT II, the ASTM standard classification for building elements.7

2.1 Environmental Performance 

Environmental life-cycle assessment is a “cradle-to-grave,” systems approach for measuring 

environmental performance. The approach is based on the belief that all stages in the life of a 

 4

 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management--Life-Cycle Assessment--

Principles and Framework, International Standard 14040, 2006. 5

 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems, 

ASTM Designation E917-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 6

 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Multiattribute Decision 

Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM Designation E1765-02, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2002. 7

 ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework--UNIFORMAT II, 

ASTM Designation E1557-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 
4

product generate environmental impacts and must therefore be analyzed, including raw materials 

acquisition, product manufacture, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and 

ultimately recycling and waste management. An analysis that excludes any of these stages is 

limited because it ignores the full range of upstream and downstream impacts of stage-specific 

processes. 

The strength of environmental life-cycle assessment is its comprehensive, multi-dimensional 

scope. Many green building claims and strategies are now based on a single life-cycle stage or a 

single environmental impact. A product is claimed to be green simply because it has recycled 

content, or accused of not being green because it emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

during its installation and use. These single-attribute claims may be misleading because they 

ignore the possibility that other life-cycle stages, or other environmental impacts, may yield 

offsetting impacts. For example, the recycled content product may have a high embodied energy 

content, leading to fossil fuel depletion, global warming, and acid rain impacts during the raw 

materials acquisition, manufacturing, and transportation life-cycle stages. LCA thus broadens the 

environmental discussion by accounting for shifts of environmental problems from one life-cycle 

stage to another, or one environmental medium (land, air, water) to another. The benefit of the 

LCA approach is in implementing a trade-off analysis to achieve a genuine reduction in overall 

environmental impact, rather than a simple shift of impact. 

The general LCA methodology involves four steps.8

 The goal and scope definition step spells 

out the purpose of the study and its breadth and depth. The inventory analysis step identifies and 

quantifies the environmental inputs and outputs associated with a product over its entire life 

cycle. Environmental inputs include water, energy, land, and other resources; outputs include 

releases to air, land, and water. However, it is not these inputs and outputs, or inventory flows,

that are of primary interest. We are more interested in their consequences, or impacts on the 

environment. Thus, the next LCA step, impact assessment, characterizes these inventory flows in 

relation to a set of environmental impacts. For example, the impact assessment step might relate 

carbon dioxide emissions, a flow, to global warming, an impact. Finally, the interpretation step 

combines the environmental impacts in accordance with the goals of the LCA study. 

2.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition 

The goal of BEES LCAs is to generate environmental performance scores for building product 

alternatives sold in the United States. These will be combined with economic performance scores 

to help the building community select cost-effective, environmentally-preferred building 

products. 

The scoping phase of any LCA involves defining the boundaries of the product system under 

study. The manufacture of any product involves a number of unit processes (e.g., ethylene 

production for input to the manufacture of the styrene-butadiene bonding agent for stucco walls). 

Each unit process involves many inventory flows, some of which themselves involve other, 

subsidiary unit processes. The first product system boundary determines which unit processes 

 8

 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management--Life-Cycle Assessment--

Principles and Framework, International Standard 14040, 2006. 
5

are included in the LCA. In the BEES system, the boundary-setting rule consists of a set of three 

decision criteria. For each candidate unit process, mass and energy contributions to the product 

system are the primary decision criteria. In some cases, cost contribution is used as a third 

criterion.9

 Together, these criteria provide a robust screening process, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, 

showing how five ancillary materials (e.g., limestone used in portland cement manufacturing) are 

selected from a list of nine candidate materials for inclusion in the LCA. A material must have a 

large contribution to at least one decision criterion to be selected. The weight criterion selects 

materials A, B, and C; the energy criterion adds material E; and cost flags material I. As a result, 

the unit processes for producing ancillary materials A, B, C, E, and I are included in the system 

boundaries. 

Ancillary 

material

Weight Energy 

Cost 

 (as a flag 

when 

necessary)

Included in 

system 

boundaries?

A Yes 

B Yes 

C Yes 

D No 

E Yes 

F No 

G No 

H No 

I Yes 

 

 negligible 

contribution 

 small 

contribution 

 large 

contribution 

Figure 2.1 Decision Criteria for Setting Product System Boundaries 

The second product system boundary determines which inventory flows are tracked for inbounds unit processes. Quantification of all inventory flows is not practical for the following 

reasons: 

• An ever-expanding number of inventory flows can be tracked. For instance, including the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data would result in 

tracking approximately 200 inventory flows arising from polypropylene production alone. 

 9

 While a large cost contribution does not directly indicate a significant environmental impact, it may indicate 

scarce natural resources or numerous subsidiary unit processes potentially involving high energy consumption. 
6

Similarly, including radionucleide emissions generated from electricity production would 

result in tracking more than 150 flows. Managing such large inventory flow lists adds to the 

complexity, and thus the cost, of carrying out and interpreting the LCA. 

• Attention should be given in the inventory analysis step to collecting data that will be useful 

in the next LCA step, impact assessment. By restricting the inventory data collection to the 

flows actually needed in the subsequent impact assessment, a more focused, higher quality 

LCA can be carried out. 

Therefore, in the BEES model, a focused, cost-effective set of inventory flows is tracked, 

reflecting flows that the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development has deemed important in 

the subsequent impact assessment step.10

Defining the unit of comparison is another important task in the goal and scoping phase of LCA. 

The basis for all units of comparison is the functional unit, defined so that the products compared 

are true substitutes for one another. In the BEES model, the functional unit for most building 

products is 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of product service for 50 years. For example, the functional unit for 

the BEES floor covering alternatives is covering 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of floor surface for 50 years. The 

following BEES product categories have different functional units: 

• Roof Coverings: Covering 9.29 m2 (1 square, or 100 ft2) of roof surface for 50 years 

• Concrete Beams and Columns: 0.76 m3 (1 yd3) of product service for 50 years 

• Office Chairs: Seating for 1 person for 50 years 

• Adhesive and Mastic Remover: Removing 9.29 m2 (100 ft2) of mastic under vinyl or similar 

flooring over 50 years 

• Exterior Sealers and Coatings: Sealing or coating 9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) of exterior surface over 

50 years 

• Transformer Oils: Cooling for one 1 000 kV·A transformer for 30 years 

• Fertilizer: Fertilizing 0.40 ha (1 acre) for 10 years 

• Carpet Cleaners: Cleaning 92.9 m2

 (1 000 ft2) of carpet once 

• Floor Stripper: Removing three layers of wax and one layer of sealant from 9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) 

of hardwood flooring once 

• Roadway Dust Control: Controlling dust from 92.9 m2 (1 000 ft2) of surface area once 

• Bath and Tile Cleaner: Using 3.8 L (1 gal) of ready-to-use cleaner once 

• Glass Cleaners: Using 3.785 m3 (1,000 gal) of ready-to-use glass cleaner once11

• Grease and Graffiti Remover: Using 3.8 L (1 gal) of grease and graffiti remover once 

For three building elements—roof coverings, wall insulation, and exterior wall finishes—

functional units may be further specified to account for important factors affecting their 

influence on building heating and cooling loads (e.g., local climate, fuel type). Otherwise, all 

product alternatives are assumed to meet minimum technical performance requirements (e.g., 

 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other 

Environmental Impacts (TRACI): User’s Guide and System Documentation, EPA/600/R-02/052, U.S. EPA Office 

of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, August 2002. 11 While it is unrealistic to assume a need for such a large quantity at a given time, this amount is used so that the 

environmental impacts for the product are large enough to be reported in the BEES results. 
7

acoustic and fire performance). The functional unit provides the critical reference point to which 

all inventory flows are scaled. 

Scoping also involves setting data requirements. Data requirements for the BEES study include: 

• Geographic coverage: The data are U.S. average data. 

• Time period coverage: The data are a combination of data collected specifically for BEES 

4.0 within the last two years and data from the new, critically-reviewed U.S. LCI Database, 

developed using a common, ISO 14040-consistent research protocol.12 

• Technology coverage: For generic products, the most representative technology is evaluated. 

When data for the most representative technology are not available, an aggregated result is 

developed based on the U.S. average technology for that industry. 

2.1.2 Inventory Analysis 

Inventory analysis entails quantifying the inventory flows for a product system. Inventory flows 

include inputs of water, energy, and raw materials, and releases to air, land, and water. Data 

categories are used to group inventory flows in LCAs. For example, in the BEES model, flows 

such as aldehydes, ammonia, and sulfur oxides are grouped under the air emissions data 

category. Figure 2.2 shows the categories under which data are grouped in the BEES system. 

Refer to the BEES environmental performance data files, accessible through the BEES software, 

for a detailed listing of the 504 inventory flow items included in BEES. 

Unit

Process

Other Releases

Releases to Land

Water Effluents

Air Emissions

Water

Energy

Raw Materials

Intermediate Material

or Final Product

Figure 2.2 BEES Inventory Data Categories 

A number of approaches may be used to collect inventory data for LCAs. These range from:13

 12 U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database, 

http://www.nrel.gov/lci/. 13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Life Cycle Assessment: 

Inventory Guidelines and Principles, EPA/600/R-92/245, February 1993. 
8

• Unit process- and facility-specific: collect data from a particular process within a given 

facility that are not combined in any way 

• Composite: collect data from the same process combined across locations 

• Aggregated: collect data combining more than one process 

• Industry-average: collect data derived from a representative sample of locations believed to 

statistically describe the typical process across technologies 

• Descriptive: collect data whose representation may be unknown but which are qualitatively 

descriptive of a process 

Since the goal of BEES LCAs is to generate U.S. average results, generic product data are 

primarily collected using the industry-average approach. Manufacturer-specific product data are 

primarily collected using the unit process- and facility-specific approach, then aggregated to 

preserve manufacturer confidentiality. Data collection for BEES 4.0 was done under contract 

with Four Elements, LLC and First Environment, Inc. using the Simapro LCA software. These 

data represent the closest approximations currently available of the burdens associated with the 

production, use, and disposal of BEES products. For generic products, assumptions regarding the 

associated unit processes were verified through experts in the appropriate industries to assure the 

data were correctly incorporated in BEES. For manufacturer-specific products, a U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget-approved BEES Please Questionnaire was completed by manufacturers 

to collect inventory data from their manufacturing plant(s); these data were validated by Four 

Elements, then associated upstream and downstream data added to yield cradle-to grave 

inventories. For more information about the BEES Please program, visit 

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/please/bees_please.html. 

2.1.3 Impact Assessment 

The impact assessment step of LCA quantifies the potential contribution of a product’s inventory 

flows to a range of environmental impacts. There are several well-known LCA impact 

assessment approaches. 

2.1.3.1 Impact Assessment Methods 

Direct Use of Inventories. In the most straightforward approach to LCA, the impact assessment 

step is skipped, and the life cycle inventory results are used as-is in the final interpretation step 

to help identify opportunities for pollution prevention or increases in material and energy 

efficiency for processes within the life cycle. However, this approach in effect gives the same 

weight to all inventory flows (e.g., to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and to the 

reduction of lead emissions). For most impacts, equal weighting of flows is unrealistic. 

Critical Volumes (Switzerland). The "weighted loads" approach, better known as the Swiss 

Critical Volume approach, was the first method proposed for aggregating inventory flow data.14 

 14 K. Habersatter, Ecobalance of Packaging Materials - State of 1990, Swiss Federal Office of Environment, 

Forests, and Landscape, Bern, Switzerland, February 1991, and Bundesamt fur Umweltschutz, Oekobilanzen von 

Packstoffen, Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz 24, Bern, Switzerland, 1984. 
9

The critical volume for a substance is a function of its load and its legal limit. Its load is the total 

quantity of the flow per unit of the product. Critical volumes can be defined for air and water, 

and in principle also for soil and groundwater, providing there are legal limit values available. 

This approach has the advantage that long lists of inventory flows, especially for air and water, 

can be aggregated by summing the critical volumes for the individual flows within the medium 

being considered--air, water, or soil. However, the Critical Volume approach has been 

abandoned for the following reasons: 

• Fate and exposure are not considered. 

• The underlying assumption that the residual risk at threshold levels is the same for all 

substances does not hold.15

• Legal limit values are available only for certain chemicals and pollutants. Long-term global 

effects such as global warming are excluded since there are no universal legal limits for the 

chemicals involved. 

Ecological Scarcity (Switzerland). A more general approach has been developed by the Swiss 

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and applied to Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, The 

Netherlands, and Germany.16 With this approach, "Eco-Points" are calculated for a product, 

using the "Eco-Factor" determined for each inventory flow. Eco-Factors are based on current 

annual flows relative to target maximum annual flows for the geographic area considered. The 

Eco-Points for all inventory flows are added together to give one single, final measure of impact. 

The concept used in this approach is appealing but has the following difficulties: 

• It is valid only in a specific geographical area. 

• Estimating target flows can be a difficult and time-consuming exercise. 

• The underlying assumption that the residual risk at target levels is the same for all substances 

does not hold.17

• The scientific calculation of environmental impacts is combined with political and subjective 

judgment, or valuation. The preferred approach is to separate the science from the valuation. 

Environmental Priorities System (Sweden). The Environmental Priority Strategies in Product 

Development System, the EPS System, was developed by the Swedish Environmental Research 

Institute.18 It takes an economic approach to assessing environmental impacts. The basis for the 

evaluation is the Environmental Load Unit, which corresponds to the willingness to pay 1 

 15 M.A. Curran et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report, 

NISTIR 6865, Washington, DC, 2002. 16 R. Frischknecht et. al, “Swiss Ecological Scarcity Method: The New Version 2006,” Berne, Switzerland, 

2006. 17 M.A. Curran et al, 2002. 

18 B. Steen, A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS). Version 

2000, CPM Report 1999:4 and 5, CPM, Chalmers University, Göteborg 1999. 
10

European Currency Unit. The final result of the EPS system is a single number summarizing all 

environmental impacts, based on: 

• Society's judgment of the importance of each environmental impact. 

• The intensity and frequency of the impact. 

• Location and timing of the impact. 

• The contribution of each flow to the impact in question. 

• The cost of decreasing each inventory flow by one weight unit. 

The EPS system combines indices of ecological, sociological, and economic effects to give a 

total effect index for each flow. The total effect index is multiplied by the amount of the flow to 

give the "environmental load unit." Although this methodology is popular in Sweden, its use is 

criticized due to its lack of transparency and the quantity and quality of the model’s underlying 

assumptions. 

Eco-Indicator 99. The Eco-Indicator 99 method is a “damage-oriented” approach to life cycle 

impact assessment that has been developed in The Netherlands by Pré Consultants.19 It is 

appealing for its emphasis on simplifying the subsequent life cycle assessment step, namely, 

weighting of the relative importance of environmental impacts. To this end, a very limited 

number of environmental damage categories, or “endpoints,” are evaluated: Human Health, 

Ecosystem Quality, and Resources. Damage models are used to evaluate products in relation to 

these three impact categories. While the Eco-Indicator 99 method offers promise for the future, it 

has been criticized to date due to the many assessment gaps in the underlying damage models. In 

addition, the approach has a European focus at present. 

Environmental Problems. The Environmental Problems approach to impact assessment was 

developed within the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). It 

involves a two-step process:20,21,22,23

• Classification of inventory flows that contribute to specific environmental impacts. For 

example, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are classified 

as contributing to global warming. 

• Characterization of the potential contribution of each classified inventory flow to the 

corresponding environmental impact. This results in a set of indices, one for each impact, 

that is obtained by weighting each classified inventory flow by its relative contribution to the 

impact. For instance, the Global Warming Potential index is derived by expressing each 

contributing inventory flow in terms of its equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. 

 19 M. Goedkoop and R. Spriensma, The Eco-indicator’99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact 

Assessment, VROM Zoetermeer, Nr. 1999/36A/B, 2nd edition, April 2000. 20 Guinée et al., LCA - An operational guide to the ISO-standards, CML, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2001. 21 SETAC-Europe, Life Cycle Assessment, B. DeSmet, et al. (eds), 1992. 22 SETAC, A Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, J. Fava, et al. (eds), 1993. 23 SETAC, Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A “Code of Practice,” F. Consoli, et al. (eds), 1993. 
11

The Environmental Problems approach does not offer the same degree of relevance for all 

environmental impacts. For global and regional effects (e.g., global warming and acidification) 

the method may result in an accurate description of the potential impact. For impacts dependent 

upon local conditions (e.g., smog, ecological toxicity, and human health) it may result in an 

oversimplification of the actual impacts because the indices are not tailored to localities. Another 

drawback of this method is the unclear environmental importance of the impacts, making the 

subsequent weighting step difficult. 

2.1.3.2 Characterizing Impacts in BEES 

The BEES model uses the Environmental Problems approach where possible because it enjoys 

some general consensus among LCA practitioners and scientists.24 The U.S. EPA Office of 

Research and Development has developed TRACI (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of 

Chemical and other environmental Impacts), a set of state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed U.S. life 

cycle impact assessment methods that has been adopted in BEES 4.0.25 Ten of the 11 TRACI 1.0 

impacts follow the Environmental Problems approach: Global Warming Potential, Acidification 

Potential, Eutrophication Potential, Fossil Fuel Depletion, Habitat Alteration, Criteria Air 

Pollutants, Human Health, Smog, Ozone Depletion, and Ecological Toxicity. Water Intake, the 

eleventh impact, is assessed in TRACI 1.0 using the Direct Use of Inventories Approach. BEES 

also assesses Indoor Air Quality, an impact not included in TRACI because it is somewhat 

unique to the building industry. Indoor Air Quality is assessed using the Direct Use of 

Inventories approach, for a total of 12 impacts for all BEES products. Note that some flows 

characterized by TRACI did not have exact matches in the Simapro LCA software used to 

develop life cycle inventories for BEES. Where discrepancies were found, a significance 

analysis was conducted to assess the relevance of the mismatched flows. Proxy flows or 

alternative characterization factors were developed for those mismatched flows found to be 

relevant, and validated with TRACI developers. 

If the BEES user has important knowledge about other potential environmental impacts, it 

should be brought into the interpretation of the BEES results. The twelve BEES impacts are 

discussed below. 

Global Warming Potential. The Earth absorbs radiation from the Sun, mainly at the surface. 

This energy is then redistributed by the atmosphere and ocean and re-radiated to space at longer 

wavelengths. Some of the thermal radiation is absorbed by "greenhouse" gases in the 

atmosphere, principally water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, the chlorofluorocarbons, 

and ozone. The absorbed energy is re-radiated in all directions, downwards as well as upwards, 

such that the radiation that is eventually lost to space is from higher, colder levels in the 

atmosphere. The result is that the surface loses less heat to space than it would in the absence of 

the greenhouse gases and consequently stays warmer than it would be otherwise. This 

 24 SETAC, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art, J. Owens, et al. (eds), 1997. 25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other 

Environmental Impacts (TRACI): User’s Guide and System Documentation, EPA/600/R-02/052, U.S. EPA Office 

of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, August 2002. For a detailed discussion of the TRACI methods, see 

J.C. Bare et al, "TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental 

Impacts," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2003. 
12

phenomenon, which acts rather like a ‘blanket’ around the Earth, is known as the greenhouse 

effect. 

The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon. The environmental issue is the change in the 

greenhouse effect due to emissions (an increase in the effect) and absorptions (a decrease) 

attributable to humans. A general increase in temperature can alter atmospheric and oceanic 

temperatures, which can potentially lead to alteration of circulation and weather patterns. A rise 

in sea level is also predicted from an increase in temperature due to thermal expansion of the 

oceans and melting of polar ice sheets. 

Global Warming Potentials, or GWPs, have been developed to characterize the change in the 

greenhouse effect due to emissions and absorptions attributable to humans. LCAs commonly 

use those GWPs representing a 100-year time horizon. GWPs permit computation of a single 

index, expressed in grams of carbon dioxide per functional unit of a product, which measures 

the quantity of carbon dioxide with the same potential for global warming over a 100-year 

period: 

global warming index = Σi mi x GWPi, where 

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

GWPi = grams of carbon dioxide with the same heat trapping potential over 100 years as 

one gram of inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.1. 26

Table 2.1 BEES Global Warming Potential Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

GWPi

(CO2-

equivalents)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2, net) 1 

Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) 1800 

Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF4) 5700 

CFC 12 (CCl2F2) 10 600 

Chloroform (CHCl3, HC-20) 30 

Halon 1301 (CF3Br) 6900 

HCFC 22 (CHF2Cl) 1700 

Methane (CH4) 23 

Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) 5 

Methyl Chloride (CH3Cl) 16 

Methylene Chloride (CH2Cl2, HC-130) 10 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 296 

Trichloroethane (1,1,1-CH3CCl3) 140 

 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2003. 
13

Acidification Potential. Acidifying compounds may in a gaseous state either dissolve in water 

or fix on solid particles. They reach ecosystems through dissolution in rain or wet deposition. 

Acidification affects trees, soil, buildings, animals, and humans. The two compounds 

principally involved in acidification are sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Their principal human 

source is fossil fuel and biomass combustion. Other compounds released by human sources, 

such as hydrogen chloride and ammonia, also contribute to acidification. 

Characterization factors for potential acid deposition onto the soil and in water have been 

developed like those for the global warming potential, with hydrogen ions as the reference 

substance. These factors permit computation of a single index for potential acidification (in 

grams of hydrogen ions per functional unit of product), representing the quantity of hydrogen 

ion emissions with the same potential acidifying effect: 

acidification index = Σi mi * APi, where 

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

APi = millimoles of hydrogen ions with the same potential acidifying effect as one gram 

of inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.2.27

Table 2.2 BEES Acidification Potential Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

APi

(Hydrogen-Ion 

Equivalents)

Ammonia (NH3) 95.49 

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 44.70 

Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) 60.40 

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 81.26 

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 95.90 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 40.04 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO2) 50.79 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) 33.30 

Eutrophication Potential. Eutrophication is the addition of mineral nutrients to the soil or water. 

In both media, the addition of large quantities of mineral nutrients, such as nitrogen and 

phosphorous, results in generally undesirable shifts in the number of species in ecosystems and a 

reduction in ecological diversity. In water, it tends to increase algae growth, which can lead to 

lack of oxygen and therefore death of species like fish. 

 27 ibid. 
14

Characterization factors for potential eutrophication have been developed like those for the 

global warming potential, with nitrogen as the reference substance. These factors permit 

computation of a single index for potential eutrophication (in grams of nitrogen per functional 

unit of product), representing the quantity of nitrogen with the same potential nutrifying effect: 

eutrophication index = Σi mi x EPi, where

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

EPi = grams of nitrogen with the same potential nutrifying effect as one gram of 

inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.3.28

Table 2.3 BEES Eutrophication Potential Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

EPi

(nitrogenequivalents)

Ammonia (NH3) 0.12 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 0.04 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.09 

Phosphorus to air (P) 1.12 

Ammonia (NH4

+

, NH3, as N) 0.99 

BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) 0.05 

COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) 0.05 

Nitrate (NO3

-

) 0.24 

Nitrite (NO2

-

) 0.32 

Nitrogenous Matter (unspecified, as N) 0.99 

Phosphates (PO4

3-, HPO42-, H2PO4-

, 

H3PO4, as P) 

7.29 

Phosphorus to water (P) 7.29 

Fossil Fuel Depletion. Some experts believe fossil fuel depletion is fully accounted for in 

market prices. That is, market price mechanisms are believed to take care of the scarcity issue, 

price being a measure of the level of depletion of a resource and the value society places on that 

depletion. However, price is influenced by many factors other than resource supply, such as 

resource demand and non-perfect markets (e.g., monopolies and subsidies). Furthermore, fossil 

fuel depletion is at the heart of the sustainability debate. 

Fossil fuel depletion is included in the TRACI set of impact assessment methods adopted by 

BEES 4.0. It is important to recognize that this impact addresses only the depletion aspect of 

fossil fuel extraction, not the fact that the extraction itself may generate impacts. Extraction 

impacts, such as methane emissions from coal mining, are addressed in other impacts, such as 

global warming. 

 28 ibid. 
15

To assess fossil fuel depletion, TRACI follows the approach developed for the Eco-Indicator 99 

method, which measures how the amount of energy required to extract a unit of energy for 

consumption changes over time. Characterization factors have been developed permitting 

computation of a single index for potential fossil fuel depletion--in surplus megajoules (MJ) per 

functional unit of product--and assess the surplus energy requirements from the consumption of 

fossil fuels: 

fossil fuel depletion index = Σi ci x FPi, where

ci = consumption (in kg) of fossil fuel i, and 

FPi = MJ input requirement increase per kilogram of consumption of fossil fuel i, as 

listed in Table 2.4.29

Table 2.4 BEES Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

FPi

(surplus MJ/kg)

Coal (in ground) 0.25

Natural Gas (in ground) 7.80

Oil (in ground) 6.12

While uranium is a major source of energy in the United States, it is not, at present, included in 

the TRACI assessment of the depletion of nonrenewable fuel resources. As impact assessment 

science continues to evolve over time, it is hoped that uranium will become part of that 

assessment. Future versions of BEES will incorporate improved impact assessment methods as 

they become available. 

Indoor Air Quality. Indoor air quality impacts are not included in traditional life-cycle impact 

assessments. Most LCAs conducted to date have been applied to relatively short-lived, nonbuilding products (e.g., paper and plastic bags), for which indoor air quality impacts are not an 

important issue. However, the indoor air performance of building products is of particular 

concern to the building community and should be explicitly considered in any building product 

LCA. 

Ideally, characterization factors would be available for indoor air pollutants as they are for other 

flows such as global warming gases. However, there is little scientific consensus about the 

relative contributions of pollutants to indoor air performance. In the absence of reliable 

characterization factors, a product’s total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are often 

used as a measure of its indoor air performance. Note that a total VOC measure equally weights 

the contributions of the individual compounds that make up the measure. Also, reliance on 

VOC emissions alone may be misleading if other indoor air contaminants, such as particulates, 

aerosols, and mold, are also present. Finally, total VOC measures are highly dependent on the 

 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2003. 
16

analytical method used and there is no single analytical method than can measure the entire 

range of VOCs, rendering the term “total” somewhat misleading. 

Indoor air quality is assessed for the following building elements currently covered in BEES: 

floor coverings, interior wall finishes, chairs, carpet cleaners, glass cleaners, bath and tile 

cleaner, floor stripper, and adhesive and mastic remover.30 Recognizing the inherent limitations 

from using total VOCs to assess indoor air quality performance, estimates of total VOC 

emissions are used as a proxy measure. The total VOC emissions over an initial number of h 

(e.g., for floor coverings, combined product and adhesive emissions over the first 72 h) is 

multiplied by the number of times over the product category’s use period those “initial h” will 

occur (to account for the possibility of product replacements), to yield an estimate of total VOC 

emissions per functional unit of product. The result is entered into the life cycle inventory for the 

product, and used directly to assess the indoor air quality impact. The rationale for this particular 

approach is that VOC emissions are at issue for a limited period of time after installation. The 

more installations required then, the greater the indoor air quality impact. 

Indoor air quality is discussed in the context of sheathing and insulation products. Sheathing 

products are often made of wood, which is of concern for its formaldehyde emissions. 

Formaldehyde is thought to affect human health, especially for people with chemical sensitivity. 

Composite wood products using urea-formaldehyde adhesives have higher formaldehyde 

emissions than those using phenol-formaldehyde adhesives, and different composite wood 

products have different levels of emissions. Composite wood products include oriented strand 

board (OSB) and softwood plywood, both included as sheathing products in BEES. Most OSB is 

now made using a methylene diphenylisocyanate (MDI) binder, and is modeled as such in 

BEES. OSB using an MDI binder emits no formaldehyde other than the insignificant amount 

naturally occurring in the wood itself.31 Softwood plywood also has extremely low indoor 

formaldehyde emissions because it uses phenol-formaldehyde binders and because it is used 

primarily on the exterior shell of buildings.32 Thus, assuming formaldehyde emission is the only 

significant indoor air concern for wood products, neither of the two composite wood products as 

modeled in BEES are thought to significantly affect indoor air quality. 

Indoor air quality is also an issue for insulation products. The main issues are the health impacts 

of fibers, hazardous chemicals, and particles released from some insulation products. These 

releases are the only insulation-related indoor air issues considered in BEES. As a result of its 

listing by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible carcinogen,” fiberglass 

products are now required to have cancer warning labels. The fiberglass industry has responded 

by developing fiberglass products that reduce the amount of loose fibers escaping into the air. 

For cellulose products, there are claims that fire retardant chemicals and respirable particles are 

hazardous to human health. Mineral wool is sometimes claimed to emit fibers and chemicals that 

 30 While indoor air quality is considered for glass cleaners and bath and tile cleaner, manufacturers of all 

products currently in these categories, all of whom produce biobased products, report zero VOC emissions during 

their use. Indoor air quality data provided by manufacturers of products in the grease and graffiti remover category 

is incompatible; as a result, indoor air quality is not assessed for this category. 31 Alex Wilson and Nadav Malin, “The IAQ Challenge: Protecting the Indoor Environment,” Environmental 

Building News, Vol. 5, No. 3, May/June 1996, p 15. 32 American Institute of Architects, Environmental Resource Guide, Plywood Material Report, May 1996. 
17

could be health irritants. For all these products, however, there should be little or no health risks 

to building occupants if they are installed in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. 

Assuming proper installation, then, none of these products as modeled in BEES are thought to 

significantly affect indoor air quality.33

All other BEES building elements are primarily exterior elements, or interior elements made of 

inert materials, for which indoor air quality is not an issue. 

Note that due to limitations in indoor air science, the BEES indoor air performance scores 

are based on heuristics. If the BEES user has better knowledge about indoor air performance, it 

should be brought into the interpretation of the results. 

Habitat Alteration. The habitat alteration impact measures the potential for land use by humans 

to lead to damage of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species. In TRACI 1.0, the set of U.S. 

impact assessment methods adopted in BEES, the density of T&E Species is used as a proxy for 

the degree to which the use of land may lead to undesirable changes in habitats. Note that this 

approach does not consider the original condition of the land, the extent to which human activity 

changes the land, or the length of time required to restore the land to its original condition. As 

impact assessment science continues to evolve, it is hoped that these potentially important 

factors will become part of the habitat alteration assessment. Future versions of BEES will 

incorporate improved habitat alteration assessment methods as they become available. 

Inventory data are not readily available for habitat alteration assessment across all life cycle 

stages; the use and end-of-life stages offer the only reliable inventory data for this impact to date. 

These two stages, though, may be the most important life cycle stages for habitat alteration 

assessment due to their contributions to landfills. Indeed, an informal evaluation of two interior 

wall products found that post-consumer landfill use accounted for more than 80 % of the total 

habitat alteration impact for both products. In BEES, habitat alteration is assessed at the use and 

end of life stages only, based on the landfilled waste (adjusted for current recycling practices) 

from product installation, replacement, and end of life. Future versions of BEES will incorporate 

more life cycle stages as consistent inventory data become available. 

Characterization factors have been developed permitting computation of a single index for 

potential habitat alteration, expressed in T&E Species count per functional unit of product: 

habitat alteration index = Σi ai x TED, where 

ai = surface area (in m2 disrupted) of land use flow i, and 

TED = U.S. T&E Species density (in T&E Species count per m2

), as listed in Table 2.5.

34

 33 Alex Wilson, “Insulation Materials: Environmental Comparisons,” Environmental Building News, Vol. 4, No. 

1, January/February 1995, pp.15-16 34U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2003.
18

Table 2.5 BEES Habitat Alteration Potential Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

TED 

(T&E count/m2)

Land Use (Installation Waste) 6.06E-10 

Land Use (Replacement Waste) 6.06E-10 

Land Use (End-of-Period Waste) 6.06E-10 

Water Intake. Water resource depletion has not been routinely assessed in LCAs to date, but 

researchers are beginning to address this issue to account for areas where water is scarce, such as 

the Western United States. It is important to recognize that this impact addresses only the 

depletion aspect of water intake, not the fact that activities such as agricultural production and 

product manufacture may generate water pollution. Water pollution impacts, such as nitrogen 

runoff from agricultural production, are addressed in other impacts, such as eutrophication. 

In TRACI 1.0, the set of U.S. impact assessment methods adopted in BEES, the Direct Use of 

Inventories approach is used to assess water resource depletion. Water intake from cradle to 

grave is recorded in the BEES life cycle inventory for each product (in liters per functional unit), 

and is used directly to assess this impact. 

Criteria Air Pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are solid and liquid particles commonly found in 

the air. They arise from many activities including combustion, vehicle operation, power 

generation, materials handling, and crushing and grinding operations. They include coarse 

particles known to aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma, and fine particles that can 

lead to more serious respiratory symptoms and disease.35

Disability-adjusted life years, or DALYs, have been developed to measure health losses from 

outdoor air pollution. They account for years of life lost and years lived with disability, adjusted 

for the severity of the associated unfavorable health conditions. TRACI characterization factors 

permit computation of a single index for criteria air pollutants, with disability-adjusted life years 

(DALYs) as the common metric: 

criteria air pollutants index = Σi mi x CPi, where 

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

CPi = microDALYs per gram of inventory flow i, as listed in Table 2.6.36

 35 ibid. 36 ibid. 
19

Table 2.6 BEES Criteria Air Pollutant Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

CPi

(microDALYs/g)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 0.002 

Particulates (>PM10) 0.046 

Particulates (<=PM 10) 0.083 

Particulates (unspecified) 0.046 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO2) 0.014 

Human Health. There are many potential human health effects from exposure to industrial and 

natural substances, ranging from transient irritation to permanent disability and even death. 

Some substances have a wide range of different effects, and different individuals have widely 

varying tolerances to different substances. BEES adopts and extends the TRACI 1.0 approach to 

evaluating human health impacts. Note that this approach does not include occupational health 

effects. 

TRACI developers have computed Toxicity Equivalency Potentials (TEPs), which are 

characterization factors measuring the relative health concern associated with various chemicals 

from the perspective of a generic individual in the United States. For cancer effects, the TRACI 

system’s TEPs are expressed in terms of benzene equivalents, while for noncancer health effects 

they are denominated in toluene equivalents. In order to synthesize all environmental impacts in 

the next LCA step (interpretation), however, BEES requires a combined measure of cancer and 

noncancer health effects because three of its four impact importance weight sets are available 

only at the combined level. The BEES 2.0 Peer Review Team suggested that to address this 

need, threshold levels for toluene and benzene be obtained from the developers of the TRACI 

TEPs and be given equal importance in combining cancer and noncancer health effects.37

Threshold levels were thus obtained and used to develop a ratio converting benzene equivalents 

to toluene equivalents (21 000 kg toluene/kg benzene).38 

The “extended” TRACI characterization factors permit computation of a single index for 

potential human health effects (in grams of toluene per functional unit of product), representing 

the quantity of toluene with the same potential human health effects: 

human health index = Σi mi x HPi, where

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

HPi = grams of toluene with the same potential human health effects as one gram of 

inventory flow i. 

 37 M.A. Curran et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report, 

2002. 36Personal correspondence with Edgar Hertwich, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 

Laxenburg, Austria, 6/20/2002. 
20

There are more than 200 flows included in the BEES human health impact assessment. A 

sampling of the most important of these flows and their characterization factors are reported in 

Table 2.7, sorted in descending order of toluene equivalents.39 Flows to air are preceded with the 

designation “(a)” and flows to water with the designation “(w).” 

As discussed in section 2.1.4, NIST convened a BEES Stakeholder Panel in May 2006 to 

develop a new impact importance weight set for BEES 4.0. To permit a more refined human 

health impact assessment, the panel judged the importance of cancer and noncancer human 

health effects separately. If the BEES user chooses to interpret its LCA results using the 

Stakeholder Panel weight set, the cancer-related flows are assessed in terms of benzene 

equivalents. To view the human health cancer flows and their benzene-based characterization 

factors, open the file EQUIV12.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Smog Formation Potential. Under certain climatic conditions, air emissions from industry and 

transportation can be trapped at ground level, where they react with sunlight to produce 

photochemical smog. One of the components of smog is ozone, which is not emitted directly, 

but rather produced through the interactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides 

of nitrogen (NOx). Smog leads to harmful impacts on human health and vegetation. In BEES, the 

smog impact does not account for indoor VOCs that make their way outdoors. Rather, indoor 

VOCs are evaluated under the BEES Indoor Air Quality impact. 

Characterization factors for potential smog formation have been developed for the TRACI set of 

U.S. impact assessment methods, with nitrogen oxides as the reference substance. These factors 

permit computation of a single index for potential smog formation (in grams of nitrogen oxides 

per functional unit of product), representing the quantity of nitrogen oxides with the same 

potential for smog formation: 

 39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRACI, 2003. As discussed, TRACI benzene equivalents have been 

converted to toluene equivalents. 
21

Table 2.7 Sampling of BEES Human Health Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

HPi

(tolueneequivalents)

Cancer--(a) Dioxins (unspecified) 38 292 661 685 580 

Noncancer--(a) Dioxins (unspecified) 2 286 396 218 965 

Cancer--(a) Diethanol Amine (C4H11O2N) 2 532 000 000 

Cancer--(a) Arsenic (As) 69 948 708 

Cancer--(a) BenzoCancer--(a)pyrene (C20H12) 34 210 977 

Noncancer--(a) Mercury (Hg) 19 255 160 

Noncancer--(w) Mercury (Hg+, Hg++) 18 917 511 

Cancer--(a) Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) 17 344 285 

Cancer--(w) Arsenic (As3+, As5+) 17 210 446 

Cancer--(w) Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) 16 483 833 

Cancer--(a) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 12 333 565 

Cancer--(w) Hexachloroethane (C2Cl6) 8 415 642 

Cancer--(w) Phenol (C6H5OH) 8 018 000 

Noncancer--(a) Cadmium (Cd) 4 950 421 

Cancer--(a) Trichloropropane (1,2,3-C2H5Cl3) 3 587 000 

Cancer--(a) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI) 3 530 974 

Cancer--(a) Dimethyl Sulfate (C2H6O4S) 2 976 375 

Cancer--(a) Cadmium (Cd) 1 759 294 

Cancer--(a) Indeno (1,2,3,c,d) Pyrene 1 730 811 

Noncancer--(a) Lead (Pb) 1 501 293 

Cancer--(a) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1 419 586 

Cancer--(a) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 356 632 

Cancer--(a) Benzo(bjk)fluoranthene 1 356 632 

Cancer--(a) Lead (Pb) 748 316 

Cancer--(a) Ethylene Oxide (C2H4O) 650 701 

smog index = Σi mi x SPi, where

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

SPi = grams of nitrogen oxides with the same potential for smog formation as one gram 

of inventory flow i. 

There are more than 100 flows included in the BEES smog assessment. A sampling of the most 

important of these flows and their characterization factors are reported in Table 2.8, sorted in 

descending order of nitrogen oxides equivalents.40 To browse the entire list of smog flows and 

factors, open the file EQUIV12.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

 40 ibid. 
22

Table 2.8 Sampling of BEES Smog Characterization Factors 

Flow (i)

SPi

(nitrogen oxidesequivalents)

Furan (C4H4O) 3.54 

Butadiene (1,3-CH2CHCHCH2) 3.23 

Propylene (CH3CH2CH3) 3.07 

Xylene (m-C6H4(CH3)2) 2.73 

Butene (1-CH3CH2CHCH2) 2.66 

Crotonaldehyde (C4H6O) 2.49 

Formaldehyde (CH2O) 2.25 

Propionaldehyde (CH3CH2CHO) 2.05 

Acrolein (CH2CHCHO) 1.99 

Xylene (o-C6H4(CH3)2) 1.93 

Xylene (C6H4(CH3)2) 1.92 

Trimethyl Benzene (1,2,4-C6H3(CH3)3) 1.85 

Acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) 1.79 

Aldehyde (unspecified) 1.79 

Butyraldehyde (CH3CH2CH2CHO) 1.74 

Isobutyraldehyde ((CH3)2CHCHO) 1.74 

Ethylene Glycol (HOCH2CH2OH) 1.40 

Acenaphthene (C12H10) 1.30 

Acenaphthylene (C12H8) 1.30 

Hexanal (C6H12O) 1.25 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 1.24 

Glycol Ether (unspecified) 1.11 

Methyl Naphthalene (2-C11H10) 1.10 

Xylene (p-C6H4(CH3)2) 1.09 

Toluene (C6H5CH3) 1.03 

Ozone Depletion Potential. The ozone layer is present in the stratosphere and acts as a filter 

absorbing harmful short wave ultraviolet light while allowing longer wavelengths to pass 

through. A thinning of the ozone layer allows more harmful short wave radiation to reach the 

Earth’s surface, potentially causing changes to ecosystems as flora and fauna have varying 

abilities to cope with it. There may also be adverse effects on agricultural productivity. Effects 

on man can include increased skin cancer rates (particularly fatal melanomas) and eye cataracts, 

as well as suppression of the immune system. Another issue is the uncertain effect on the 

climate. 

Characterization factors for potential ozone depletion are included in the TRACI set of U.S. 

impact assessment methods, with CFC-11 as the reference substance. These factors permit 

computation of a single index for potential ozone depletion (in grams of CFC-11 per functional 

unit of product), representing the quantity of CFC-11 with the same potential for ozone 

depletion: 

ozone depletion index = Σi mi x OPi, where
23

mi = mass (in g) of inventory flow i, and 

OPi = grams of CFC-11 with the same ozone depletion potential as one gram of inventory 

flow i, as listed in Table 2.9.41

Table 2.9 BEES Ozone Depletion Potential Characterization Factors 

Flow (i) 

OPi

(CFC-11 

equivalents)

Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) 1.10 

CFC 12 (CCl2F2) 1.00 

Halon 1301 (CF3Br) 10.00 

HCFC 22 (CHF2Cl) 0.06 

Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) 0.60 

Trichloroethane (1,1,1-CH3CCl3) 0.10 

Ecological Toxicity. The ecological toxicity impact measures the potential of a chemical released 

into the environment to harm terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. An assessment method for this 

impact was developed for the TRACI set of U.S. impact assessment methods and adopted in 

BEES. The method involves measuring pollutant concentrations from industrial sources as well 

as the potential of these pollutants to harm ecosystems. 

TRACI characterization factors for potential ecological toxicity use 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic 

acid (2,4-D) as the reference substance. These factors permit computation of a single index for 

potential ecological toxicity (in grams of 2,4-D per functional unit of product), representing the 

quantity of 2,4-D with the same potential for ecological toxicity: 

ecological toxicity index = Σi mi x EPi, where

mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and 

EPi = grams of 2,4-D with the same ecological toxicity potential as one gram of inventory 

flow i. 

There are more than 150 flows included in the BEES ecological toxicity assessment. A sampling 

of the most important of these flows and their characterization factors are reported in Table 2.10, 

sorted in descending order of 2,4-D equivalents.42 Flows to air are preceded with the designation 

“(a)” and flows to water with the designation “(w).” To browse the entire list of ecological 

toxicity flows and factors, open the file EQUIV12.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the 

BEES software. 

Table 2.10 Sampling of BEES Ecological Toxicity Potential Characterization Factors 

 41 ibid. 42 ibid. 
24

Flow (i)

EPi

(2,4-D equivalents)

(a) Dioxins (unspecified) 2 486 822.73 

(a) Mercury (Hg) 118 758.09 

(a) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (C22H12) 4948.81 

(a) Cadmium (Cd) 689.74 

(a) Benzo(a)anthracene 412.83 

(a) Chromium (Cr VI) 203.67 

(w) Naphthalene (C10H8) 179.80 

(a) Vanadium (V) 130.37 

(a) Benzo(a)pyrene (C20H12) 109.99 

(a) Beryllium (Be) 106.56 

(a) Arsenic (As) 101.32 

(a) Copper (Cu) 89.46 

(w) Vanadium (V3+, V5+) 81.82 

(a) Nickel (Ni) 64.34 

(w) Mercury (Hg+, Hg++) 58.82 

(a) Cobalt (Co) 49.45 

(a) Selenium (Se) 35.07 

(a) Fluoranthene 29.47 

(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++) 26.93 

(a) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI) 24.54 

(w) Cadmium (Cd++) 22.79 

(w) Formaldehyde (CH2O) 22.62 

(a) Zinc (Zn) 18.89 

(w) Beryllium (Be) 16.55 

(a) Lead (Pb) 12.32 

2.1.3.3 Normalizing Impacts in BEES 

Once impacts have been characterized, the resulting impact category performance measures are 

expressed in noncommensurate units. Global warming is expressed in carbon dioxide 

equivalents, acidification in hydrogen ion equivalents, eutrophication in nitrogen equivalents, 

and so on. In order to assist in the next LCA step, interpretation, performance measures are often 

placed on the same scale through normalization. 

The U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development has developed normalization data 

corresponding to its TRACI set of impact assessment methods.43 These data are used in BEES to 

 43J.C. Bare et al, “U.S. Normalization Database and Methodology for Use within Life Cycle Impact 

Assessment,” submitted to the Journal of Industrial Ecology. Note that while a normalization value is not reported 

for the Indoor Air Quality impact, a figure for U.S. VOC emissions/year/capita is reported. To approximate the 

Indoor Air Quality normalization value, 30% of this reported value is taken, based on a U.S. EPA Fact Sheet citing 

that 30% of annual U.S. VOC emissions flow from consumer products such as surface coatings, personal care 

products, and household cleaning products (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Final Air 

Regulations for Consumer Products, 1998). Further note that an error in the original U.S. EPA-reported Human 

Health normalization value was corrected in 2007 by Greg Norris of Sylvatica, Inc., under contract to NIST, and 

incorporated in BEES 4.0. 
25

place its impact assessment results on the same scale. The data, reported in Table 2.11, estimate 

for each impact its performance at the U.S. level. Specifically, inventory flows contributing to 

each impact have been quantified and characterized in terms of U.S. flows per year per capita.44

Summing all characterized flows for each impact then yields, in effect, impact category 

performance measures for the United States. As such, they represent a “U.S. impact yardstick” 

against which to evaluate the significance of product-specific impacts. Normalization is 

accomplished by dividing BEES product-specific impact values by the fixed U.S.-scale impact 

values, yielding an impact category performance measure that has been placed in the context of 

all U.S. activity contributing to that impact. By placing each product-specific impact measure in 

the context of its associated U.S. impact measure, the measures are all reduced to the same scale, 

allowing comparison across impacts. 

Table 2.11 BEES Normalization Values 

Impact Normalization Value 

Global Warming 25 582 640.09 g CO2 equivalents/year/capita 

Acidification 7 800 200 000.00 millimoles H+ equivalents/year/capita 

Eutrophication 19 214.20 g N equivalents/year/capita 

Fossil Fuel Depletion 35 309.00 MJ surplus energy/year/capita 

Indoor Air Quality 35 108.09 g TVOCs/year/capita 

Habitat Alteration 0.00335 T&E count/acre/capitaa

Water Intake 529 957.75 liters of water/year/capita 

Criteria Air Pollutants 19 200.00 microDALYs/year/capita 

Smog 151 500.03 g NOX equivalents/year/capita 

Ecological Toxicity 81 646.72 g 2,4-D equivalents/year/capita 

Ozone Depletion 340.19 g CFC-11 equivalents/year/capita 

Human Health 274 557 555.37 g C7H8 equivalents/year/capita a One acre is equivalent to 0.40 hectares. 

Normalized BEES impact scores have powerful implications. First, by evaluating a product’s 

impacts with reference to their importance in a larger context, an impact to which a product 

contributes little will not appear important when, by comparison, competing products contribute 

even less to that impact. 

Second, while selecting among building products continues to make sense only within the same 

building element, like floor covering, normalized impact scores can now be compared across 

building elements if they are first scaled to reflect the product quantities to be used in the 

building under analysis. Take the example of global warming scores for roof coverings and 

chairs. If these scores are each first multiplied by the quantity of their functional units to be used 

in a particular building (roof area to be covered and seating requirements, respectively), they 

may then be compared. Comparing across elements can provide insights into which building 

elements lead to the larger environmental impacts, and thus warrant the most attention. 

 44Habitat alteration flows have been quantified and characterized in terms of U.S. flows per 0.40 hectares (per 

acre) per capita. 
26

2.1.4 Interpretation 

At the LCA interpretation step, the normalized impact assessment results are evaluated. Few 

products are likely to dominate competing products in all BEES impact categories. Rather, one 

product may out-perform the competition relative to fossil fuel depletion and habitat alteration, 

fall short relative to global warming and acidification, and fall somewhere in the middle relative 

to indoor air quality and eutrophication. To compare the overall environmental performance of 

competing products, the performance scores for all impact categories may be synthesized. Note 

that in BEES, synthesis of impact scores is optional. 

Impact scores may be synthesized by weighting each impact category by its relative importance 

to overall environmental performance, then computing the weighted average impact score. In the 

BEES software, the set of importance weights is selected by the user. Several alternative weight 

sets are provided as guidance, and may be either used directly or as a starting point for 

developing user-defined weights. The alternative weights sets are based on an EPA Science 

Advisory Board study, a 2006 BEES Stakeholder Panel’s structured judgments, and a set of 

equal weights, representing a spectrum of ways in which people value diverse aspects of the 

environment. 

Refer to Appendix A for the BEES environmental performance computational algorithms and to 

Appendix B for a primer on interpreting BEES environmental performance scores. 

2.1.4.1 EPA Science Advisory Board study 

 In 1990 and again in 2000, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) developed lists of the relative 

importance of various environmental impacts to help EPA best allocate its resources.45 The 

following criteria were used to develop the lists: 

• The spatial scale of the impact 

• The severity of the hazard 

• The degree of exposure 

• The penalty for being wrong 

Ten of the twelve BEES impact categories were included in the SAB lists of relative importance: 

• Highest-Risk Problems: global warming, habitat alteration 

• High-Risk Problems: indoor air quality, ecological toxicity, human health 

• Medium-Risk Problems: ozone depletion, smog, acidification, eutrophication, criteria air 

pollutants 

The SAB did not explicitly consider fossil fuel depletion or water intake as impacts. For this 

exercise, fossil fuel depletion and water intake are assumed to be relatively medium-risk and 

low-risk problems, respectively, based on other relative importance lists.46

 45 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Toward Integrated Environmental 

Decision-Making, EPA-SAB-EC-00-011, Washington, D.C., August 2000 and United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental 

Protection, SAB-EC-90-021, Washington, D.C., September 1990, pp. 13-14. 
27

Verbal importance rankings, such as “highest risk,” may be translated into numerical importance 

weights by following ASTM standard guidance provided by a Multiattribute Decision Analysis 

method known as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).47 The AHP methodology suggests the 

following numerical comparison scale: 

1 Two impacts contribute equally to the objective (in this case environmental performance) 

3 Experience and judgment slightly favor one impact over another 

5 Experience and judgment strongly favor one impact over another 

7 One impact is favored very strongly over another, its dominance demonstrated in practice 

9 The evidence favoring one impact over another is of the highest possible order of 

affirmation 

2,4,6,8 When compromise between values of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, is needed. 

Through an AHP process known as pairwise comparison, numerical comparison values are 

assigned to each possible pair of environmental impacts. Relative importance weights can then 

be derived by computing the normalized eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue of the matrix of 

pairwise comparison values. Tables 2.12 and 2.13 list the pairwise comparison values assigned 

to the verbal importance rankings, and the resulting SAB importance weights computed for the 

BEES impacts, respectively. Note that the pairwise comparison values were assigned through an 

iterative process based on NIST’s background and experience in applying the AHP technique. 

Table 2.12 Pairwise Comparison Values for Deriving Impact Category Importance Weights 

Verbal Importance Comparison Pairwise Comparison Value 

Highest vs. Low 6 

Highest vs. Medium 3 

Highest vs. High 1.5 

High vs. Low 4 

High vs. Medium 2 

Medium vs. Low 2 

 46 See, for example, Hal Levin, “Best Sustainable Indoor Air Quality Practices in Commercial Buildings,” Third 

International Green Building Conference and Exposition--1996, NIST Special Publication 908, Gaithersburg, MD, 

November 1996, p. 148. 47 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Multiattribute 

Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM Designation E1765-02, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2002; and Thomas L. Saaty, MultiCriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process--

Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988. 
28

Table 2.13 Relative Importance Weights based on Science Advisory Board Study 

Impact Category 

Relative 

Importance 

Weight (%)

Global Warming 16 

Acidification 5 

Eutrophication 5 

Fossil Fuel Depletion 5 

Indoor Air Quality 11 

Habitat Alteration 16 

Water Intake 3 

Criteria Air Pollutants 6 

Smog 6 

Ecological Toxicity 11 

Ozone Depletion 5 

Human Health 11 

2.1.4.2 BEES Stakeholder Panel judgments 

With version 4.0, BEES introduces a new optional weight set. While the derived, EPA SABbased weight set is valuable and offers expert guidance,48 several interpretations and assumptions 

were required in order to translate SAB findings into numerical weights for interpreting LCAbased analyses. A more direct approach to weight development would consider a closer match 

to the context of the application; that is, environmentally preferable purchasing in the United 

States based on life-cycle impact assessment results, as reported by the BEES software. 

In order to develop such a weight set, NIST assembled a volunteer stakeholder panel that met at 

its facilities in Gaithersburg, Maryland, for a full day in May 2006. To convene the panel, 

invitations were sent to individuals representing one of three “voting interests:” producers (e.g., 

building product manufacturers), users (e.g., green building designers), and LCA experts. 

Nineteen individuals participated in the panel: seven producers, seven users, and five LCA 

experts. These “voting interests” were adapted from the groupings ASTM International employs 

for developing voluntary standards, in order to promote balance and support a consensus 

process. 

The BEES Stakeholder Panel was led by Dr. Ernest Forman, founder of the premier AHP firm 

Expert Choice Inc. Dr. Forman facilitated panelists in weighting the BEES impact categories 

using the AHP pairwise comparison process. The panel weighted all impacts in the Short Term 

(0 years to 10 years), Medium Term (10 years to 100 years), and Long Term (>100 years). One 

year’s worth of U.S. flows for each pair of impacts was compared, with respect to their 

contributions to environmental performance. For example, for an impact comparison over the 

 48 The 1992 Harvard University study-based weight set included in prior BEES versions has been abandoned 

because its data are out of date. 
29

Long Term, the panel was evaluating the effect that this year’s U.S. emissions would have more 

than 100 years hence. 

Once the panel pairwise compared impacts for the three time horizons, its judgments were 

synthesized across these time horizons. Note that when synthesizing judgments across voting 

interests and time horizons, all panelists were assigned equal importance, while the short, 

medium, and long-term time horizons were assigned by the panel to carry 24 %, 31 %, and 45 % 

of the weight, respectively. 

Prior versions of BEES combined TRACI-based measures of cancerous and noncancerous health 

effects into a single Human Health impact because deriving the EPA SAB weight set was only 

possible at the combined level. For the BEES Stakeholder Panel event, however, Cancerous and 

Noncancerous effects were judged separately to enable a more refined assessment of these two 

constituents of the Human Health impact. If the BEES 4.0 user chooses to interpret life-cycle 

impact assessment results using the BEES Stakeholder Panel weight set, then, impact-based 

results may be viewed separately for cancerous and noncancerous health effects. For 

compatibility with the other BEES 4.0 weighting schemes, however, these results are weighted 

and combined into a single Human Health impact for display of BEES Environmental 

Performance Scores. 

The environmental impact importance weights developed through application of the AHP 

technique at the facilitated BEES Stakeholder Panel event are shown in Table 2.14. These 

weights reflect a synthesis of panelists’ perspectives across all combinations of stakeholder 

voting interest and time horizon. The weight set draws on each panelist’s personal and 

professional understanding of, and value attributed to, each impact category. While the 

synthesized weight set may not equally satisfy each panelist’s view of impact importance, it does 

reflect contemporary values in applying LCA to real world decisions. This synthesized BEES 

Stakeholder Panel weight set is offered as an option in the BEES software.
30

Table 2.14 Relative Importance Weights based on BEES Stakeholder Panel Judgments 

Impact Category 

Relative 

Importance 

Weight (%)

Global Warming 29 

Acidification 3 

Eutrophication 6 

Fossil Fuel Depletion 10 

Indoor Air Quality 3 

Habitat Alteration 6 

Water Intake 8 

Criteria Air Pollutants 9 

Smog 4 

Ecological Toxicity 7 

Ozone Depletion 2 

Cancerous 

Effects 8 Human 

Health Noncancerous 

Effects 5 

The three figures below display in graphical form the BEES Stakeholder Panel weights. Figure 

2.3 displays the synthesized weight set, Figure 2.4 the weights specific to panelist voting 

interest, and Figure 2.5 the weights specific to time horizon. The BEES user is free to interpret 

results using any of the weight sets displayed in Figures 2.4 and 2.5 by entering them as a userdefined weight set in the BEES software. 
31

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ozone Depletion

Acidification

Indoor Air Quality

Smog Formation

Noncancerous Effects

Habitat Alteration

Eutrophication

Ecological Toxicity

Cancerous Effects

Water Intake

Criteria Air Pollutants

Fossil Fuel Depletion

Global Warming

Impact Category

Figure 2.3 BEES Stakeholder Panel Importance Weights Synthesized across Voting Interest 

and Time Horizon 
32

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Ozone Depletion

Acidification

Indoor Air Quality

Smog Formation

Noncancerous Effects

Habitat Alteration

Eutrophication

Ecological Toxicity

Cancerous Effects

Water Intake

Criteria Air Pollutants

Fossil Fuel Depletion

Global Warming

Producers

Users

LCA Experts

Figure 2.4 BEES Stakeholder Panel Importance Weights by Stakeholder Voting Interest 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Ozone Depletion

Acidification

Indoor Air Quality

Smog Formation

Noncancerous Effects

Habitat Alteration

Eutrophication

Ecological Toxicity

Cancerous Effects

Water Intake

Criteria Air Pollutants

Fossil Fuel Depletion

Global Warming

Short (<10 years)

Medium (10 years to 100 years)

Long (>100 years)

Figure 2.5 BEES Stakeholder Panel Importance Weights by Time Horizon 
33

2.2 Economic Performance 

Measuring the economic performance of building products is more straightforward than 

measuring environmental performance. Published economic performance data are readily 

available, and there are well-established ASTM standard methods for conducting economic 

performance evaluations. First cost data are collected from the R.S. Means publication, 2007 

Building Construction Cost Data, and industry interviews, while future cost data are based on 

data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair 

Cost Reference 2006-2007 and industry interviews. The most appropriate method for measuring 

the economic performance of building products is the life-cycle cost (LCC) method. BEES 

follows the ASTM standard method for life-cycle costing of building-related investments.49

It is important to distinguish between the time periods used to measure environmental 

performance and economic performance. These time periods are different. Recall that in 

environmental LCA, the time period begins with raw material acquisition and ends with product 

end-of-life. Economic performance, on the other hand, is evaluated over a fixed period (known 

as the study period) that begins with the purchase and installation of the product and ends at 

some point in the future that does not necessarily correspond with product end-of-life. 

Economic performance is evaluated beginning at product purchase and installation because this 

is when out-of-pocket costs begin to be incurred, and investment decisions are made based upon 

out-of-pocket costs. The study period ends at a fixed date in the future. For a private investor, its 

length is set at the period of product or facility ownership. For society as a whole, the study 

period length is often set at the useful life of the longest-lived product alternative. However, 

when alternatives have very long lives, (e.g., more than 50 years), a shorter study period may be 

selected for three reasons: 

• Technological obsolescence becomes an issue 

• Data become too uncertain 

• The farther in the future, the less important the costs 

In the BEES model, economic performance is measured over a 50-year study period, as shown in 

Figure 2.6. This study period is selected to reflect a reasonable period of time over which to 

evaluate economic performance for society as a whole. The same 50-year period is used to 

evaluate all products, even if they have different useful lives. This is one of the strengths of the 

LCC method. It accounts for the fact that different products have different useful lives by 

evaluating them over the same study period. 

For consistency, the BEES model evaluates the use stage of environmental performance over the 

same 50-year study period. Product replacements over this 50-year period are accounted for in 

 49E917-05 Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems ASTM 

International, Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM 

Designation E917-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 
34

the life cycle inventory analysis, and end-of-life inventory flows are prorated to year 50 for 

products with lives longer than the 50-year study period. 

The LCC method sums over the study period all relevant costs associated with a product. 

Alternative products for the same function, say floor covering, can then be compared on the basis 

of their LCCs to determine which is the least cost means of fulfilling that function over the study 

period. Categories of cost typically include costs for purchase, installation, operation, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement. A negative cost item is the residual value. The residual 

value is the product value remaining at the end of the study period. In the BEES model, the 

residual value is computed by prorating the purchase and installation cost over the product life 

remaining beyond the 50-year period.50

Site Selection

and

Preparation

Construction

and Outfitting

Operation

and Use

Renovation

or Demolition

Product

Manufacture

Raw

Materials

Acquisition

ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDY PERIOD

50 Year Use Stage

ECONOMIC STUDY PERIOD

50 years

FACILITY LIFE CYCLE

Figure 2.6 BEES Study Periods For Measuring Building Product Environmental And 

Economic Performance 

The LCC method accounts for the time value of money by using a discount rate to convert all 

future costs to their equivalent present value. Refer to Appendix A for the BEES economic 

performance computational algorithm showing the discounting technique. 

Future costs must be expressed in terms consistent with the discount rate used. There are two 

approaches. First, a real discount rate may be used with constant-dollar (e.g., 2006) costs. Real 

discount rates reflect that portion of the time value of money attributable to the real earning 

power of money over time and not to general price inflation. Even if all future costs are 

expressed in constant 2006 dollars, they must be discounted to reflect this portion of the timevalue of money. Second, a market discount rate may be used with current-dollar amounts (e.g., 

 50 For example, a product with a 40 year life that costs $111/m2

 ($10/ft2) to install would have a residual value of 

$7.50 in year 50, considering replacement in year 40. 
35

actual future prices). Market discount rates reflect the time value of money stemming from both 

inflation and the real earning power of money over time. When applied properly, both 

approaches yield the same LCC results. The BEES model computes LCCs using constant 2006 

dollars and a real discount rate.51 As a default, the BEES tool offers a real rate of 3.0 %, the 2006 

rate mandated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for most Federal projects.52

2.3 Overall Performance 

The BEES overall performance measure synthesizes the environmental and economic results into 

a single score, as illustrated in Figure 2.7. Yet the environmental and economic performance 

scores are denominated in different units. How can these diverse measures of performance be 

combined into a meaningful measure of overall performance? The most appropriate technique is 

Multiattribute Decision Analysis (MADA). MADA problems are characterized by tradeoffs 

between apples and oranges, as is the case with the BEES environmental and economic 

performance results. The BEES system follows the ASTM standard for conducting MADA 

evaluations of building-related investments.53

Before combining the environmental and economic performance scores, each is placed on a 

common scale by dividing by the sum of corresponding scores across all alternatives under 

analysis. In effect, then, each performance score is rescaled in terms of its share of all scores, and 

is placed on the same, relative scale from 0 to 100. Then the two scores are combined into an 

overall score by weighting environmental and economic performance by their relative 

importance and taking a weighted average. The BEES user specifies the relative importance 

weights used to combine environmental and economic performance scores and should test the 

sensitivity of the overall scores to different sets of relative importance weights. Refer to 

Appendix A for the BEES overall performance computational algorithm. 

2.4 Limitations 

Properly interpreting the BEES scores requires placing them in perspective. There are inherent 

limits to applying U.S. average LCA and LCC results and in comparing building products 

outside the design context. 

The BEES LCA and LCC approaches produce U.S. average performance results for generic and 

manufacturer-specific product alternatives. The BEES results do not apply to products sold in 

other countries where manufacturing and agricultural practices, fuel mixes, environmental 

 51Any year 2002 costs were converted to year 2006 dollars using a 1.126 inflation factor developed from 

consumer price indices for housing reported in U.S. Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index: All Urban 

Consumers, Series CUUR0000SAH, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov, January 3, 2007. 52 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for BenefitCost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, October 27, 1992 and OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C, 

Washington, DC, January 2007. 53 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Multiattribute 

Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM Designation E1765-02, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2002. 
36

Figure 2.7 Deriving the BEES Overall Performance Score

Smog 

Global Warming 

Acidification 

Eutrophication 

Fossil Fuel Depletion

Indoor Air Quality

Habitat Alteration 

O

S

First Cost 

Future Costs 

Carbon Dioxide 

 Methane 

Nitrous Oxide 

Ozone Depletion 

Ecological Toxicity

Human Health 

Water Intake 

Criteria Air Pollutants

Environmental

Performance 

Score 

Economic 

Performance

Score 
37

regulations, transportation distances, and labor and material markets may differ.54 Furthermore, 

all products in a generic product group, such as vinyl composition tile floor covering, are not 

created equal. Product composition, manufacturing methods, fuel mixes, transportation 

practices, useful lives, and cost can all vary for individual products in a generic product group. 

The BEES results for the generic product group do not necessarily represent the performance of 

an individual product. 

The BEES LCAs use selected inventory flows converted to selected local, regional, and global 

environmental impacts to assess environmental performance. Those inventory flows which 

currently do not have scientifically proven or quantifiable impacts on the environment are 

excluded, such as mineral extraction and wood harvesting which are qualitatively thought to lead 

to loss of habitat and an accompanying loss of biodiversity. If the BEES user has important 

knowledge about these issues, it should be brought into the interpretation of the BEES results. 

Life cycle impact assessment is a rapidly evolving science. Assessment methods unheard of 

several years ago have since been developed and are now being used routinely in LCAs. While 

BEES 4.0 incorporates state-of-the-art impact assessment methods, the science will continue to 

evolve and methods in use today—particularly those for habitat alteration, water intake, and 

indoor air quality—are likely to change and improve over time. Future versions of BEES will 

incorporate these improved methods as they become available. 

During the interpretation step of the BEES LCAs, environmental impacts are optionally 

combined into a single environmental performance score using relative importance weights. 

These weights necessarily incorporate values and subjectivity. BEES users should routinely test 

the effects on the environmental performance scores of changes in the set of importance weights. 

The BEES LCAs do not incorporate uncertainty analysis as required by ISO 14040.55 At 

present, incorporating uncertainty analysis is problematic due to a lack of underlying uncertainty 

data. The BEES 2.0 Peer Review Team discussed this issue and advised NIST not to incorporate 

uncertainty analysis into BEES in the short run.56 In the long run, however, one aspect of 

uncertainty may be addressed: the representativeness of generic products. That is, once BEES is 

extensively populated with manufacturer-specific data, the variation in manufacturer-specific 

products around their generic representations will become available. 

The BEES overall performance scores do not represent absolute performance. Rather, they 

represent proportional differences in performance, or relative performance, among competing 

alternatives. Consequently, the overall performance score for a given product alternative can 

change if one or more competing alternatives are added to or removed from the set of 

alternatives under consideration. In rare instances, rank reversal, or a reordering of scores, is 

 54 BEES does apply to products manufactured in other countries and sold in the United States. These results, 

however, do not apply to those same products as sold in other countries because transport to the United States is 

built into their BEES life cycle inventory data. 55 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management – Life-Cycle Assessment – 

Principles and Framework, International Standard 14040, 2006. 56 Curran, M.A. et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report, 

NISTIR 6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2002. 
38

possible. Finally, since they are relative performance scores, no conclusions may be drawn by 

comparing overall scores across building elements. For example, if exterior wall finish Product 

A has an overall performance score of 30, and roof covering Product D has an overall 

performance score of 20, Product D does not necessarily perform better than Product A (keeping 

in mind that lower performance scores are better). This limitation does not apply to comparing 

environmental performance scores across building elements, as discussed in section 2.1.3.3. 

There are inherent limits to comparing product alternatives without reference to the whole 

building design context. Such comparisons may overlook important environmental and cost 

interactions among building elements. For example, the useful life of one building element (e.g., 

floor coverings), which influences both its environmental and economic performance scores, 

may depend on the selection of related building elements (e.g., subflooring). There is no 

substitute for good building design. 

Environmental and economic performance are but two attributes of building product 

performance. The BEES model assumes that competing product alternatives all meet minimum 

technical performance requirements.57 However, there may be significant differences in 

technical performance, such as acoustic or fire performance, which may outweigh environmental 

and economic considerations. 

 57 BEES environmental and economic performance results for wall insulation, roof coverings, and exterior wall 

finishes do consider one important technical performance difference. For these building elements, BEES accounts 

for differential heating and cooling energy consumption. 
39

3. BEES Product Data 

The BEES model uses the ASTM standard classification system, UNIFORMAT II,58 to organize 

comparable building products into groups. The ASTM standard classifies building components 

into a four-level hierarchy: major group elements (e.g., substructure, shell, interiors), group 

elements (e.g., foundations, roofing, interior finishes), individual elements (e.g., slab on grade, 

roof coverings, floor finishes), and suggested sub-elements. Elements are defined such that each 

performs a given function, regardless of design specifications or materials used. The 

UNIFORMAT II classification system is well suited to the BEES environmental and economic 

performance methodologies, which define comparable products as those that fulfill the same 

basic function. The BEES model uses the UNIFORMAT II classification of individual elements, 

the third level of the hierarchy, as the point of departure for selecting functional applications for 

BEES product comparisons. 

3.1 Concrete Slabs, Walls, Beams, and Columns 

3.1.1 Generic Portland Cement Products 

Portland cement concrete, typically referred to as “concrete,” is a mixture of portland cement (a 

fine powder), water, fine aggregate such as sand or finely crushed rock, and coarse aggregate 

such as gravel or crushed rock. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (slag cement), fly ash, silica 

fume, or limestone may be substituted for a portion of the portland cement in the concrete mix. 

Concrete mixes modeled in the BEES software include compressive strengths of 21 MPa, 

28 MPa, and 34 MPa (3 000 lb/in2, 4 000 lb/in2, and 5 000 lb/in2). Concrete with 21 MPa 

strength is used in applications such as residential slabs and basement walls, while strengths of 

28 MPa and 34 MPa are used in structural applications such as beams and columns. 

 

Portland cement concrete products like beams and columns are modeled based on volume of 

concrete (e.g., a functional unit of 1 ft3), while basement walls and slabs are modeled on an area 

basis (e.g., a functional unit of 1 ft2). The amount of concrete required depends on the 

dimensions of the product (e.g., thickness of slab or wall and surface area). Above-grade walls 

are typically 15 cm (6 in) thick. Basement walls are 20 cm (8 in) thick, slabs 10 cm (4 in) thick, 

and a typical column size is 51 cm by 51 cm (20 in by 20 in). 

Manufacturing data for concrete products are taken from the Portland Cement Association’s 

LCA database, with extensive documentation provided by the Portland Cement Association for 

incorporating their LCA data into BEES. 

The detailed environmental performance data for generic portland cement products may be 

viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

 58 ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework--UNIFORMAT II, 

ASTM Designation E1557-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 
40

• A1030A.DBF—100 % Portland Cement for Slabs 

• A1030B.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement for Slabs 

• A1030C.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement for Slabs 

• A1030D.DBF—20 % Slag Cement for Slabs 

• A1030E.DBF—35 % Slag Cement for Slabs 

• A1030F.DBF—50 % Slag Cement for Slabs 

• A1030G.DBF—5 % Limestone Cement for Slabs 

• A1030H.DBF—10 % Limestone Cement for Slabs 

• A1030I.DBF—20 % Limestone Cement for Slabs 

• A1030O.DBF—35 % Fly Ash Cement for Slabs 

• A2020A.DBF—100 % Portland Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020B.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020C.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020D.DBF—20 % Slag Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020E.DBF—35 % Slag Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020F.DBF—50 % Slag Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020G.DBF—5 % Limestone Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020H.DBF—10 % Limestone Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020I.DBF—20 % Limestone Cement for Basement Walls 

• B1011A.DBF—100 % Portland Cement 4KSI for Beams 

 

• B1011B.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011C.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI for Beams 
41

• B1011D.DBF—20 % Slag Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011E.DBF—35 % Slag Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011F.DBF—50 % Slag Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011G.DBF—5 % Limestone Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011H.DBF—10 % Limestone Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011I.DBF—20 % Limestone Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011J.DBF—100 % Portland Cement 5KSI for Beams 

 

• B1011K.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011L.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011M.DBF—20 % Slag Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011N.DBF—35 % Slag Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011O.DBF—50 % Slag Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011P.DBF—5 % Limestone Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011Q.DBF—10 % Limestone Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1011R.DBF—20 % Limestone Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1012A.DBF—100 % Portland Cement 4KSI for Columns 

 

• B1012B.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012C.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012D.DBF—20 % Slag Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012E.DBF—35 % Slag Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012F.DBF—50 % Slag Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012G.DBF—5 % Limestone Cement 4KSI for Columns 
42

• B1012H.DBF—10 % Limestone Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012I.DBF—20 % Limestone Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B10120J.DBF—100 % Portland Cement 5KSI for Columns 

 

• B1012K.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012L.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012M.DBF—20 % Slag Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012N.DBF—35 % Slag Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012O.DBF—50 % Slag Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012P.DBF—5 % Limestone Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012Q.DBF—10 % Limestone Cement 5KSI for Columns 

• B1012R.DBF—20 % Limestone Cement 5KSI for Columns 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagrams below show the major elements of the production of portland cement 

concrete products with and without cement substitutes such as fly ash, slag, and limestone. 
43

Figure 3.1: Concrete without Cement Substitutes System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of

Portland Cement

Concrete Without

Cement Substitutes

End-of-Life Transport to

Bldg Site

Concrete Without Cement Substitutes

Limestone

Production

Cement

Rock/Marl

Production

Clay

Production

Shale

Production

Ready-Mix

Plant

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Fine Aggregate

Production

Coarse

Aggregate

Production

Portland

Cement

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Portland

Cement Clinker

Production

Gypsum

Production

Kiln

Energy

Raw Material

Transport
44

Functional Unit of

Portland Cement

Concrete With

Supplementary

Cementitious Materials

End-of-Life Transport to

Bldg Site

Concrete With Cement Substitutes

Limestone

Production

Cement

Rock/Marl

Production

Clay

Production

Shale

Production

Ready-Mix

Plant

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Fine Aggregate

Production

Coarse

Aggregate

Production

Portland

Cement

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Portland

Cement Clinker

Production

Gypsum

Production

Kiln

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Fly Ash,

Slag Cement,

Silica Fume, or

Limestone

Production

Figure 3.2: Concrete with Cement Substitutes System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

As noted above, the constituents of portland cement concrete are portland cement (a fine 

powder), water, fine aggregate such as sand or finely crushed rock, and coarse aggregate such as 

gravel or crushed rock. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (slag cement), fly ash, silica fume, 

or limestone may be substituted for a portion of the portland cement in the concrete mix. 

Typically, fly ash and slag are equal replacements by weight for cement. The same is true for a 

5 % limestone blended cement, but at the 10 % and 20 % blend levels, more blended cement is 

needed in the concrete to achieve equivalent strength as mixes with no limestone replacements. 

Quantities of constituent materials used in an actual project will vary. Mix designs (that is, the 
45

constituent quantities) and strength will also vary depending on the aggregates and cement used. 

The following Table shows quantities of concrete constituents for the three compressive 

strengths modeled. Other materials that are sometimes added, such as silica fume and chemical 

admixtures, are not considered. 

Table 3.1: Concrete Constituent Quantities by Cement Blend 

and Compressive Strength of Concrete 

Constituent Density 

in kg/m3(lb/yd3) 

Constituent 21 MPa 

(3 000 lb/in2

) 

28 MPa 

(4 000 lb/in2) 

34 MPa 

(5 000 lb/in2) 

Cement and Fly Ash, Slag, or 

5 % Limestone 223 (376) 279 (470) 335 (564) 

Coarse Aggregate 1 127 (1 900) 1 187 (2 000) 1 187 (2 000) 

Fine Aggregate 831 (1 400) 771 (1 300) 712 (1 200) 

Water 141 (237) 141 (237) 141 (237) 

Cement and 10 % Limestone 236 (397) 294 (496) 353 (595) 

Coarse Aggregate 1 127 (1 900) 1 187 (2 000) 1 187 (2 000) 

Fine Aggregate 831 (1 400) 771 (1 300) 712 (1 200) 

Water 148 (250) 147 (248) 148 (250) 

Cement and 20 % Limestone 265 (447) 331 (558) 397 (670) 

Coarse Aggregate 1 127 (1 900) 1 127 (1 900) 1 187 (2 000) 

Fine Aggregate 831 (1 400) 771 (1 300) 653 (1 100) 

Water 167 (281) 166 (279) 167 (281) 

Portland Cement Production. Cement plants are located throughout North America at locations 

with adequate supplies of raw materials. Major raw materials for cement manufacture include 

limestone, cement rock/marl, shale, and clay. These raw materials contain various proportions of 

calcium oxide, silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, with oxide content varying 

widely across North America. Since portland cement must contain the appropriate proportion of 

these oxides, the mixture of the major raw materials and minor ingredients (as required) varies 

among cement plants. 

BEES data for cement manufacture is based on the average raw material mix and oxide content 

for all U.S. cement plants for ASTM C150 Type I/II cement, the most commonly used cement in 

North America. The average raw materials for U.S. cement include limestone, cement rock/marl, 

shale, clay, bottom ash, fly ash, foundry sand, sand, and iron/iron ore. For the BEES model, the 

raw materials listed in the Table below are used.59

 59 The weight of inputs is greater than the weight of portland cement output, as a significant percentage of the 

weight of limestone is released as CO2. 
46

Table 3.2: Portland Cement Constituents 

Constituent Mass of 

inputs in kg 

Mass 

Fraction 

Limestone 1.17 72.2 % 

Cement rock, marl 0.21 12.8 % 

Clay 0.06 3.7 % 

Shale 0.05 3.2 % 

Sand 0.04 2.5 % 

Slag 0.02 1.2 % 

Iron/iron ore 0.01 0.9 % 

Fly ash 0.01 0.8 % 

Bottom ash 0.01 0.6 % 

Foundry sand 0.004 0.2 % 

Slate 0.001 0.1 % 

In the manufacturing process, major raw materials are blended with minor ingredients, as 

required, and processed at high temperatures in a cement kiln to form an intermediate material 

known as clinker. Gypsum is interground with clinker to form portland cement. Gypsum content 

is assumed to be added at 3.0 % (by mass fraction) of portland cement. 

Portland cement is manufactured using one of four processes: wet, long dry, preheater, or 

precalciner. The wet process is the oldest and uses the most energy due to the energy required to 

evaporate the water. New cement manufacturing plants are being constructed, and older plants 

converted, to use the more energy efficient preheater and precalciner processes. The mix of 

production processes modeled is 16.5 % wet, 14.4 % dry, 15.8 % preheater, and 53.3 % 

precalciner.60 

The following Table presents U.S. industry-average energy use by process and fuel type, and, for 

all processes combined, average energy use weighted by the process mix. The production of the 

different types of fuel is based on the U.S. LCI Database; however, production of “wastes” used 

as fuel is assumed to be free of any environmental burdens to portland cement production. 

 60 Portland Cement Association, U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2002 (Skokie, IL: Portland 

Cement Association, 2005). 
47

Table 3.3: Energy Requirements for Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Cement Manufacturing Process*

Energy Carrier 

Wet Long Dry Preheater Precalciner 

Weighted

Average

 Coal 50 % 50 % 70 % 63 % 60 % 

 Petroleum Coke 18 % 33 % 11 % 11 % 15 % 

 Electricity 8 % 10 % 12 % 12 % 11 % 

 Wastes 23 % 3 % 2 % 6 % 8 % 

 Natural Gas 1 % 4 % 3 % 7 % 5 % 

 Liquid Fuels** 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 

All Fuels 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 

Total Energy - 

kJ/kg of cement 

(Btu/lb) 

6 400 

(2 749) 

5 591 

(2 402) 

4 357 

(1 872) 

4 220 

(1 813) 

4 798 

(2 061) 

* Cement constitutes 10 % to 15 % by mass fraction of the total mass of concrete. 

** Liquid fuels include gasoline, middle distillated, residual oil, and light petroleum gas

Emissions for portland cement manufacturing are from the Portland Cement Association cement 

LCA database.61 Emissions include particulate matter, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide 

(CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), total hydrocarbons, and hydrogen chloride 

(HCl). Emissions vary for the different combinations of compressive strength and blended 

cements.

The major waste material from cement manufacturing is cement kiln dust (CKD). There is no 

breakdown of CKD by process type. An industry average of 38.6 kg of CKD is generated per 

metric ton (93.9 lb/ton) of cement. Of this, 30.7 kg (74.6 lb) is landfilled and 7.9 kg (19.3 lb) is 

reused on-site or enters commerce as inputs to the agricultural, construction, and waste treatment 

industries.62 

Aggregate Production. Aggregate is a general term that describes a filler material in concrete. 

Aggregate generally provides 60 % to 75 % of the concrete volume. Typically, aggregate 

consists of a mixture of coarse and fine rocks. Aggregate is either mined or manufactured. Sand 

and gravel are examples of mined aggregate. These materials are dug or dredged from a pit, 

river bottom, or lake bottom and require little or no processing. Crushed rock is an example of 

manufactured aggregate. Crushed rock is produced by crushing and screening quarry rock, 

boulders, or large-sized gravel. Approximately half of the coarse aggregate used in the United 

States is crushed rock. 

Concrete contains 25 % coarse and fine aggregate from crushed rock and 75 % coarse and fine 

 61 Nisbet, M.A., Marceau, M.L., and VanGeem, M.G. "Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Manufacture” 

(an appendix to Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete), PCA R&D Serial No. 2095a

(Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). 62 Bhatty, J., et al., Innovations in Portland Cement Manufacturing (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 

2004). 
48

aggregate from sand and gravel.63 The energy to produce coarse and fine aggregate from crushed 

rock is 81 kJ/kg (35 Btu/lb), and the energy to produce coarse and fine aggregate from uncrushed 

aggregate is 17 kJ/kg (7.3 Btu/lb).64 The energy for aggregate production is a 50:50 mix of diesel 

oil and electricity. 

Fly Ash Production. Fly ash is a waste material that results from burning coal to produce 

electricity. In LCA terms, fly ash is an environmental outflow of coal combustion, and an 

environmental inflow of concrete production. This waste product is assumed to be an 

environmentally “free” input material.65 However, transport of the fly ash to the ready mix plant 

is included. 

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (Slag Cement) Production. Slag cement is a waste 

material that is a result of the production of steel. Similar to fly ash, slag is an environmental 

outflow of steel production and an environmental inflow of concrete production. Therefore, slag 

is considered to be an environmentally “free” input material. Unlike fly ash, slag must be 

processed prior to inclusion in concrete. Processing consists of quenching and granulating at the 

steel mill, transport to the grinding facility, and finish grinding. This production energy (an 

assumed 75:25 mix of electricity and natural gas) is assumed to be 722 kJ/kg of slag cement (311 

Btu/lb). Transportation to the ready mix plant is included. 

Limestone Production. While not common practice in the United States, limestone is used as a 

partial replacement for portland cement in most European countries. The concrete mix designs 

used in BEES are estimates based on available literature and have not been tested in the 

laboratory. Mixes at the higher limestone replacement levels are based on limited data. Energy 

burdens for limestone production are taken from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Most portland cement concrete is produced at a central 

ready mix plant. Energy use in the batch plant includes electricity and fuel used for heating and 

mobile equipment.66 

Table 3.4: Energy Requirements for Ready Mix Concrete Production 

Energy Carrier MJ/m3 (MBtu/yd3) MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Heavy Fuel Oil 124 (0.09) 0.05 (22) 

Electricity 124 (0.09) 0.05 (22) 

Total 247 (0.179) 0.1 (43) 

Transportation. Round-trip distances for transport of concrete raw materials to the ready-mix 

plant are assumed to be 97 km (60 mi) for portland cement and fly ash, 216 km (134 mi) for slag, 

and 80 km (50 mi) for aggregate and limestone. The method of transport is truck. A small 

percentage of the above materials, assumed to be 10 %, may be transported more than 3 219 km 

 63 U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Minerals Yearbook—2003, Volume I. Metals and Minerals (Washington, DC: 

Interior Dept., Geological Survey, 2003), pp 64.1-2; 71.1-3. 64 Nisbet, M., et al. “Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete.” PCA R&D Serial No. 

2137a(Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). 65 The environmental burdens associated with the production of waste materials are typically allocated to the 

intended product(s) of the process from which the waste results. 66 Nisbet, M., et. al, “Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete.” 
49

(2 000 mi). When this is the case, transport is assumed to be by rail. 

Transportation 

Transportation of concrete products with portland cement by heavy-duty truck to the building 

site is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Installing each of the BEES concrete applications requires different quantities of plywood forms 

and steel reinforcement as shown in the Table below.67

 67 R. S. Means Co., Inc., 2007 Building Construction Cost Data (Kingston, MA: 2006), pp. 711-713. 
50

Table 3.5: Concrete Form and Reinforcing Requirements 

Building 

Element 

Compressive 

Strength 

MPa (lb/in2

) 

Plywood 

Forms 

(SFCA/functi

onal unit) 

Steel 

Reinforcing 

(lb/ft2 for 

slabs, lb/yd3

for rest) 

Comment 

Slabs 21 (3 000) 1.03 1.67 For 7.62 m (25 ft) span, 4 in thick. 

Above grade 

walls, 

precast 

concrete 

34 (5000) 0 135 

Assume 6 in thick. Plywood wall 

forms are reused over 75 times; hence 

their environmental burdens are not 

taken into account. 

Above grade 

walls, ICF 21 (3000) 0 135 

Assume 6 in thick. The insulation 

board used as formwork becomes part 

of the wall; hence no forms are used. 

Above grade 

walls, castin-place 28 (4000) 0 135 

Assume 6 in thick. Plywood wall 

forms are reused over 75 times; hence 

they are not taken into account. 

Basement 

Walls 21 (3 000) 0 44 

For 0.20 m (8 in) thick, 2.44 m (8 ft) 

high walls. Plywood wall forms are 

reused over 75 times; hence they are 

not taken into account. 

Columns 28 (4 000) 65 290 

For 0.51 m x 0.51 m (20 in x 20 in) 

columns with a 7.62 m (25 ft) span. 

Approximately 65 ft2

 of plywood is 

required per cubic yard of concrete. 

Plywood forms are reused four times, 

each time with 10 % installation 

waste. 

Steel reinforcements are added to the 

concrete forms at 290 lb of steel per 

cubic yard of concrete. The steel 

value is twice the amount for beams. 

Columns 34 (5 000) 65 290 

Values for forms and reinforcement 

provided for 28 MPa (4 000 lb/in2

) 

columns are used for 34 MPa 

(5 000 lb/in2

) columns. 

Beams 28 (4 000) 54 145 

For 7.62 m (25 ft) span beams. Steel 

reinforcements are added to the 

concrete forms at 145 lb of steel per 

cubic yard of concrete (half of the 

amount required for columns). 

Plywood forms are reused four times, 

each time with 10 % installation 

waste. 

Values for forms and reinforcement 

provided for 28 MPa (4 000 lb/in2

) 

beams are used for 

Beams 34 (5 000) 54 145 34 MPa (5 000 lb/in2

) beams. 

Notes: 1. Plywood forms are 12.7 mm (0.5 in) thick and their surface density is 5.88 kg/m2 (1.17 lb/ft2). 

Plywood production impacts are the same as those reported for the BEES Plywood Wall Sheathing 
51

product. 

2. SFCA=0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) contact area. 

3. Steel reinforcing is made from 100 % recycled steel. 

The industry average for steel reinforcement is 5 lb of steel reinforcement/ft3

 of concrete (135 lb 

steel/yd3 concrete). Installation materials are assumed to be transported by truck 161 km (100 

mi) to the point of installation. 

Use 

With general maintenance, quality concrete in buildings will generally last more than 100 years. 

This is a performance-based lifetime. 

Interior concrete not exposed to weather (such as beams, columns, foundations, and footings) 

generally does not require maintenance. For exterior concrete, maintenance will vary depending 

on weather conditions, but usually consists of minimal repairs that can be done by hand. 

Maintenance is not included within the system boundaries of the BEES model. 

 End of Life 

The majority of concrete in the U.S. is used in urban areas where concrete is not accepted at 

landfills. Concrete is recycled as fill and road base, and steel used in concrete reinforcement is 

recycled. Plywood forms are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Kosmatka, S.H., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese W.C., Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures,

14th Ed., (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). p. 327 

Portland Cement Association, U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2002, (Skokie, 

IL: Portland Cement Association, 2005). 

Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc, “Completed BEES Site Questionnaire for Portland 

Cement,” CTL Project No. 312006, (Skokie, IL: Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc, 

June 2002). 

Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc, “Theoretical Concrete Mix Designs for Cement 

with Limestone as a Partial Replacement for Portland Cement,” CTL Project 312006, 

(Skokie, IL: Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc, June 2002). 

Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. and JAN Consultants, “Data Transmittal for 

Incorporation of Slag Containing Concrete Mixes into Version 2.0 of the BEES Software,”

PCA R&D Serial No. 2168a/PCA Project 94-04, (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 

2000). 

Nisbet, M., et al. “Concrete Products Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data Set for Incorporation 

into the NIST BEES Model.” PCA R&D Serial No. 2168/PCA Project 94-04a, (Skokie, IL:

Portland Cement Association, 1998). 

Nisbet, M.A., Marceau, M.L., and VanGeem, M.G. "Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement 

Manufacture (an Appendix to Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement 
52

Concrete)," PCA R&D Serial No. 2095a (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). 

Bhatty, J., et al. Innovations in Portland Cement Manufacturing, (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement 

Association, 2004). 

U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Minerals Yearbook—2003, Volume I. Metals and Minerals

(Washington, DC: Interior Dept., Geological Survey, 2003). pp 64.1-2; 71.1-3. Found at: 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/myb/index.html 

Nisbet, M., et al. “Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete.” PCA 

R&D Serial No. 2137a, (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). 

R. S. Means Co., Inc., 2007 Building Construction Cost Data (Kingston, MA: 2006), pp. 711-

713. 

Industry Contacts 

Martha VanGeem, P.E., Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (on behalf of the Portland 

Cement Association), August-October 2005 

Medgar Marceau, P.E., Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (on behalf of the Portland 

Cement Association), August-October 2005 

3.1.2 Lafarge North America Products 

Lafarge North America, part of the Lafarge Group, is a large, diversified supplier of cement, 

aggregates and concrete as well as other materials for residential, commercial, institutional, and 

public works construction in the United States and Canada. Four Lafarge products are included 

in BEES: 

• Silica Fume Cement (SFC). A mixture of portland cement (90 %) and silica fume (10 %). 

• NewCem Slag Cement. Ground granulated blast furnace slag used as a partial replacement 

for portland cement. 

• BlockSet. A blend of cement kiln dust, fly ash, and cement used to make concrete blocks for 

basement walls. 

• Portland Type I Cement. 

BEES data for SFC and BlockSet products come from the Lafarge plant in Paulding, Ohio, with 

an annual production of 436 810 metric tons (481 500 short tons) of SFC, Type I cement, and 

masonry cement.68 The Lafarge South Chicago location manufactures a total of 816 466 metric 

tons (900 000 short tons) of slag products. Data for the Portland Type I Cement product come 

from the Lafarge plant in Alpena, Michigan, with an annual production of 2 059 310 metric tons 

(2 270 000 short tons). The portland cement manufactured in Alpena is shipped by lake vessels 

to terminals around the Great Lakes. These cementitious products are incorporated in different 

concrete products in BEES as shown in the Table below. 

 68 Annual production data is based largely on 2001 production. Other Lafarge plant data ranges in time from the 

late 1990s to 2001. 
53

Table 3.6: Lafarge North America Concrete Products 

BEES Building 

Element 

Lafarge 

Product 

Specifications 

Concrete for Slabs, 

Basement Walls, 

Beams and Columns 

Silica Fume 

Cement (SFC) 

1 kg (2.2 lb) of SFC is equivalent to 

1 kg (2.2 lb) of generic portland 

cement. Fully 100 % of the portland 

cement is replaced by SFC. 

 Slag Cement 1 kg (2.2 lb) of slag cement is 

equivalent to 1 kg (2.2 lb) of generic 

portland cement. The following 

substitution ratios of slag cement for 

portland cement are used: 20 %, 

35 %, and 50 %. 

Alpena Portland 

Type I 

1 kg (2.2 lb) of Alpena Portland 

Type I cement is equivalent to 1 kg 

(2.2 lb) of generic portland cement 

Concrete for 

Basement Walls 

BlockSet 1 kg (2.2 lb) of BlockSet is 

equivalent to 1 kg (2.2 lb) of generic 

portland cement. Forty percent 

(40 %) of the portland cement is 

replaced by BlockSet. 

Parking Lot Paving Alpena Portland 

Type I 

1 kg (2.2 lb) of Alpena Portland 

Type I cement is equivalent to 1 kg 

(2.2 lb) of generic portland cement 

used in the concrete layer of paving. 

The detailed environmental performance data for these product may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• A1030J.DBF—Silica Fume Cement for Slabs 

• A1030L.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement (20 %) for Slabs 

• A1030M.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement (35 %) for Slabs 

• A1030N.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement (50 %) for Slabs 

• A1030P.DBF—Portland Type I Cement for Slabs 

• A2020J.DBF—Silica Fume Cement for Basement Walls 

• A2020L.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement (20 %) for Basement Walls 

• A2020M.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement (35 %) for Basement Walls 
54

• A2020N.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement (50 %) for Basement Walls 

• A2020O.DBF—BlockSet for Basement Walls 

• A2020P.DBF—Portland Type I Cement for Basement Walls 

• B1011S.DBF—Silica Fume Cement (4KSI) for Beams 

• B1011U.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (20 %) for Beams 

• B1011V.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (35 %) for Beams 

• B1011W.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (50 %) for Beams 

• B1011X.DBF—Silica Fume Cement (5KSI) for Beams 

• B1011Z.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (20 %) for Beams 

• B1011AA.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (35 %) for Beams 

• B1011BB.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (50 %) for Beams 

• B1011CC.DBF—Portland Type I Cement 4KSI for Beams 

• B1011DD.DBF—Portland Type I Cement 5KSI for Beams 

• B1012S.DBF—Silica Fume Cement (4KSI) for Columns 

• B1012U.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (20 %) for Columns 

• B1012V.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (35 %) for Columns 

• B1012W.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (50 %) for Columns 

• B1012X.DBF—Silica Fume Cement (5KSI) for Columns 

• B1012Z.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (20 %) for Columns 

• B1012AA.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (35 %) for Columns 

• B1012BB.DBF—NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (50 %) for Columns 

• B1012CC.DBF—Portland Type I Cement 4KSI for Columns 

• B1012DD.DBF—Portland Type I Cement 5KSI for Columns 
55

• G2022G.DBF—Alpena Type I Cement for Parking Lot Paving 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.3: Lafarge North America Concrete Products System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The Lafarge products are comprised of the raw materials given in the Table below. 

Functional Unit of

Concrete Products

End-of-Life Transport to

Bldg Site

Lafarge North America Concrete Products

Sand

Production Clay

Production

Limestone

Production

Silica Fume

Production

Ready-Mix 

Plant

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Fine Aggregate

Production

Coarse

Aggregate

Production

Lafarge

Products

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Other

Inputs

Production

Fly Ash

Production Gypsum

Production

Slag

Production

Iron

Production
56

Table 3.7: Lafarge North America Cement Constituents 

Constituent 

Silica Fume 

Cement 

Slag 

Cement BlockSet 

Alpena Portland 

Type I 

Limestone 72 % -- 76 % 91 % 

Clay 16 % -- 16 % -- 

Silica Fume 5 % -- -- -- 

Sand 3 % -- 3 % 3 % 

Gypsum 3 % -- 3 % -- 

Slag -- 100 % -- -- 

Fly Ash <0.01 % -- <0.01 % 5 % 

Iron source/scrap 1 % -- 1 % 1 % 

Clay and limestone. Energy consumption and air emissions data for clay and limestone 

production were provided by Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. as part of the overall 

cement plant data collected for Lafarge’s Alpena site, and take into account fuel combustion, 

quarry operations, and haul roads. 

Silica fume. Silica fume is a by-product of the metallurgical processes used in the production of 

silicon metals. It is called "fume" because it is an extremely fine smoke-like particulate material. 

Because it is both pozzolanic and extremely fine (about 100 times finer than cement particles), 

silica fume may be used to considerable advantage as a supplementary cementitious material in 

portland cement concrete. Silica fume has been used in the North American cement and 

concrete industry for over 25 years and can be used in concretes to withstand aggressive 

exposure conditions. Transportation of the silica fume to the electric furnace is accounted for in 

the model. 

Sand and gypsum. Sand production takes into account energy combustion, waste production, 

and air emissions from fuel combustion and quarry operations. Gypsum production takes into 

account electricity and diesel fuel consumption used in surface mining and processing, as well as 

air emissions and waste production. Data for both of these materials are based on the SimaPro 

database. 

Slag. Slag is a waste material from the blast furnace during the production of pig iron. Blast 

furnaces, which produce iron from iron ore in the presence of limestone or dolomite fluxes, 

produce a molten slag. This slag is tapped off the furnace separately from the iron. 

Fly ash. Fly ash comes from coal-fired, electricity-generating power plants. These power plants 

grind coal to a fine powder before it is burned. Fly ash – the mineral residue produced by 

burning coal – is captured from the power plant's exhaust gases and collected for use. Fly ash 

particles are nearly spherical in shape, allowing them to flow and blend freely in mixtures, one of 

the properties making fly ash a desirable admixture for concrete. In LCA terms, this waste 

byproduct from coal combustion is assumed to be an environmentally “free” input material.

However, transport of the fly ash from the production site is included. 
57

Iron. The iron source for the Paulding site is mill scale, a by-product from hot rolling steel. It is 

treated as scrap iron with no upstream burdens since it is a byproduct, but transportation of the 

material is accounted for. 

Manufacturing 

Energy requirements and emissions. The Paulding site uses electricity, petroleum coke, diesel 

oil, and fuel-quality waste (primarily solvents) as energy sources to produce silica fume cement, 

BlockSet, and cement dust. Fuel-quality waste is the largest source of energy for the plant. Its 

upstream production is modeled as being “free,” but its combustion emissions are accounted for 

(using the U.S. LCI Database’s fuel oil combustion data). The Alpena site uses electricity, coke, 

coal, diesel oil, fuel oil, and gasoline as energy sources to produce Portland Type I cement. 

To prepare the slag for use in concrete, slag is quenched with water and is ground. Since the 

water evaporates, there is no effluent run off. Water, electricity, and natural gas consumption 

associated with this process are taken into account. All energy and electricity data are based on 

the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Transportation distances for the raw materials to the manufacturing site were 

provided by Lafarge. Clay and limestone are hauled 1.61 km (1 mi) to the Paulding cement plant 

and 3.22 km (2 mi) to the Alpena site. Silica fume is transported to the Paulding plant 241 km 

(150 mi). Sand is transported to the Paulding and Alpena plants 80 km (50 mi) and 16 km (10 

mi), respectively. Gypsum is transported to the Paulding plant 97 km (60 mi). Slag and iron are 

transported 32 km (20 mi). Fly ash is transported by rail 322 km (200 mi). With the exception 

of fly ash, materials are transported by diesel truck. Both diesel truck and rail transport are 

modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Transportation of finished products to the building site is evaluated based on the same 

parameters given for the generic counterparts to Lafarge products. All products are shipped by 

diesel truck as modeled in the U.S. LCI Database. Emissions from transportation allocated to 

each product depend on the overall weight of the product. 

Installation and Use 

Installing each of the BEES concrete applications requires plywood forms and steel 

reinforcement. Refer to the documentation on generic portland cement concrete products for a 

full description of the modeling of these installation materials. 

End of Life 

Beams, columns, basement walls, and slabs are all assumed to have 100-year lifetimes. Concrete 

parking lot paving is assumed to last 30 years. Since the BEES model for parking lot paving 

accounts for a 50-year use period, two concrete installations are made. 
58

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants, SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Reference 

Oscar Tavares, Lafarge North America (2002) 

3.2 Roof and Wall Sheathing 

3.2.1 Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing 

Oriented strand board (OSB) is made from strands of low density hardwoods and softwoods. 

OSB sheathing is a structural building material used for residential and commercial construction. 

The OSB panels must be grade-stamped to meet building code. Each panel has a third party 

certification and a grade stamp that provides such information as the grading agency, the 

manufacturer, the product type (in this case, sheathing), wood species, adhesive type, the 

allowable roof and floor spans, and panel thickness. A wax, primarily a petroleum-based wax, is 

used as an additive to OSB to provide temporary water holdout. Phenol-formaldehyde and 

methylene–diphenyl-isocyanate (MDI) resins are used as binder materials to hold the strands 

together. 

For residential construction, the building code requirement is typically for a rated sheathing 

panel of either OSB or plywood of 0.95 cm (3/8 in) thickness when sheathing is required, such as 

for shear wall sections; however, common practice is to use sheathing thicknesses greater than 

specified by code, which is referred to as “code plus.” The most common sheathing thickness 

for OSB is 1.1 cm (7/16 in). 

For the BEES system, 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of OSB measuring 1.1-cm (7/16-in) thick is studied. BEES 

performance data are provided for both roof and wall sheathing; life-cycle costs and 

environmental performance data are essentially the same for the two applications. The detailed 

environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B1020A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
59

Functional Unit of 

OSB Sheathing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

OSB 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

OSB Production

Steel Nail 

Production

Timber 

Production

Phenol 

Formaldehyde 

Resin 

Production

MDI Resin 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Petroleum 

Wax 

Production

Timber 

Harvesting

Fertilizer 

Production

Functional Unit of 

OSB Sheathing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

OSB 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

OSB Production

Steel Nail 

Production

Timber 

Production

Phenol 

Formaldehyde 

Resin 

Production

MDI Resin 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Petroleum 

Wax 

Production

Timber 

Harvesting

Fertilizer 

Production

Figure 3.4: OSB Sheathing System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The OSB data for BEES are based on a study performed by CORRIM.69 The following Table 

shows the constituents of 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of 1.1 cm (7/16 in) thick OSB sheathing, in terms of 

percentage of final product. 

Table 3.8: OSB Constituents 

Constituent Mass 

kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Mass Fraction (%) 

Wood 6.76 (1.38) 94.5 

PF resin 0.237 (0.049) 3.34 

MDI resin 0.043 (0.009) 0.66 

Wax 0.108 (0.022) 1.5 

Totals 7.15 (1.46) 100 

 69 Kline, D.E. “Southeastern oriented strandboard production,” Module A, Life Cycle Environmental 

Performance of Renewable Building Materials in the Context of Residential Construction (Seattle, WA: Consortium 

for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials-CORRIM, Inc)/University of Washington, 2004). Found at: 

http://www.corrim.org/reports. 
60

The BEES model includes timber production, which includes raising seedlings, planting, 

fertilizer, and harvesting. Energy use and life cycle data on timber production are based on a 

study by CORRIM of tree production and harvesting in the Southeastern United States for 

southern pine.70 The growing and harvesting of wood is modeled as a composite comprised of a 

mix of low-, medium-, and high-intensity managed timber. Energy use includes electricity for 

greenhouses to grow seedlings, gasoline for chain saws, diesel fuel for the harvesting mechanical 

equipment, and a small amount of fertilizer. Fertilizer production data is adapted from European 

data in the U.S. LCI Database. Emissions from tractors and those associated with production of 

diesel fuel as well as production and delivery of electricity are included and taken from the U.S. 

LCI Database. Electricity use for greenhouse operation is based on the grids for the regions 

where the seedlings are grown. The mix of wood resources for the OSB mills is southern pine 

softwood (75 %) and several different southern hardwoods (25 %). The average density of this 

mix, on an oven-dry basis, is 558 kg/m3 (34.82 lb/ft3

). 

BEES modeling accounts for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees as they grow; the carbon 

becomes part of the wood, and the oxygen is released to the atmosphere. The “uptake” of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere during the growth of timber is about 1.84 kg (4.06 lb) of carbon 

dioxide per kilogram of harvested wood (oven-dry weight). 

Data representing the production of the phenol formaldehyde (PF) resin and MDI are derived 

from American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI 

Database, The ATHENA Institute, and the SimaPro database. The wax used in the production of 

OSB is assumed to be petroleum wax. Production of the petroleum wax is based on the SimaPro 

database and includes the extraction, transportation, and refining of crude oil into petroleum 

wax. Electricity for greenhouse operation is regional for the Southeastern United States, whereas 

electricity for fertilizer production and other inputs is a U.S. average based on fuel source 

breakdown values. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. The energy for the OSB manufacturing process comes from burning the 

wood waste, which was generated during processing, and use of natural gas. Other fuels used 

include propane, diesel, fuel oil, and gasoline to operate mechanical equipment, as well as 

purchased electricity. The site energy and electricity used are shown in the Table below. 

 70 Bowyer, J., et al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building 

Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for Research on Renewable 

Industrial Materials--CORRIM, Inc./University of Washington, 2004). Found at http://www.corrim.org/reports. 

600+ pp.; data also submitted to US LCI Database. 
61

Table 3.9: OSB Production Energy 

Energy Carrier Units Quantity, 0.95 cm 

(3/8 in) basis 

Electricity - Southeast Grid MJ/m2 (kWh/ft2) 7.360 (190) 

Natural Gas MJ/m2 (ft3/ft2) 8.743 (747) 

Diesel fuel L/m2 (gal/ft2

) 0.19 (0.01) 

Distillate Fuel Oil L/m2 (gal/ft2

) 7.74 (0.19) 

LPG L/m2 (gal/ft2

) 0.030 (0.71) 

Gasoline MJ/m2 (gal/ft2

) 0.004 (0.03) 

Hogfuel/Biomass (50 % moisture) kg/m2 (lb/ft2) 4 078 (836) 

Emissions. The process emissions from the OSB manufacturing process (e.g., volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from drying the OSB) are based on CORRIM data, as reported in 

the Table below and in the U.S. LCI Database. With the exception of wood residue combustion, 

emissions from energy combustion at the plant are included upstream. 

Table 3.10: OSB Manufacturing Site Emissions 

Air Emission Quantity in kg/m2

(lb/ ft2), 

 0.95 cm (3/8 in) basis 

Particulates (unspecified) 3.03E-03 (0.62) 

VOC (unspecified) 1.06E-02 (2.18) 

Carbon Dioxide 

(biomass) 

1.17E-01 (24) 

Acetaldehyde 6.34E-04 (0.13) 

Acrolein 2.29E-04 (0.047) 

Methanol 1.95E-03 (0.4) 

Phenol 1.17E-04 (0.024) 

Formaldehyde 5.37E-04 (0.11) 

Transportation. For transportation of raw materials to the manufacturing plant, BEES assumes 

truck transportation of 143 km (89 mi) for wood timber, 932 km (579 mi) for PF resin, 1328 km 

(825 mi) for MDI resin, and 1149 km (714 mi) for the wax, based on CORRIM survey data. The 

tailpipe emissions from the trucks and the emissions from producing the fuel used in the trucks 

are taken into account and are based on the U.S. LCI Database. The delivery distances are oneway with an empty backhaul. For shipping weights to the OSB mill, the moisture content of the 

logs is taken into account. The PF resin is shipped at 50 % solids (50 % water) on a wet basis. 

MDI resin and wax are transported as their stated weight. 

Waste. There is essentially no solid waste from the OSB manufacturing process. All the input 

resin (mainly PF resin with some MDI resin) and the wax can be assumed to go into the final 

product and the excess wood material is assumed to be burned on site for fuel. 
62

Transportation 

Transportation of OSB by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable of the 

BEES system. To determine the shipping weight of OSB, the model assumes the product has a 

5 % moisture content. 

Installation 

During installation, 1.5 % of the mass of the product is assumed to be lost as waste, which is sent 

to the landfill. For walls and roofs, OSB is installed using nails. Approximately 0.0024 kg 

(0.0053 lb) of steel nails are used per ft2

 of OSB. Steel h-clips are used in addition to nails for 

roof sheathing, although only a small number of clips are required per panel. H-clip production 

is not included within the boundary of the model. 

Use 

Based on U.S. Census data, the mid-service life of OSB in the United States is over 85 years. As 

a conservative estimate, CORRIM—and BEES—use a product life of 75 years. 

There is no routine maintenance for sheathing over its lifetime. Roofing material and siding over 

the sheathing should be replaced as needed. Sheathing would only be replaced when the framing 

is replaced, so no replacement is assumed. 

End of Life 

 All of the OSB is assumed to be landfilled at end of life. 

 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Kline, D.E. “Southeastern oriented strandboard production,” Module A, Life Cycle 

Environmental Performance of Renewable Building Materials in the Context of Residential 

Construction (Seattle, WA: Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. 

(CORRIM, Inc.)/University of Washington, 2004): Found at http://www.corrim.org/reports. 

Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable 

Building Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for 

Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. (CORRIM, Inc.)/University of Washington, 

2004) Found at 8http://www.corrim.org/reports. 

Industry Contacts 

Jim Wilson, Oregon State University/CORRIM, Inc. (August 2005-Jan 2006) 
63

3.2.2 Generic Plywood Sheathing 

Plywood sheathing is a structural building material used for residential and commercial 

construction. The panels must be grade-stamped to meet building code. Each panel has a third 

party certification, a grade stamp that provides such information as the grading agency, the 

manufacturer, the product type (in this case, sheathing), wood species, adhesive type, the 

allowable roof and floor spans, and panel thickness. 

Plywood sheathing is made from lower density softwoods. Phenol formaldehyde (PF) is used as 

an adhesive in the manufacturing process. The flow diagram below shows the major elements of 

plywood sheathing production. 

For residential construction, the building code requirement typically is for a rated sheathing 

panel of either OSB or plywood of 0.95 cm (3/8 in) thickness when sheathing is required, as for 

shear wall sections; however, the common practice is to use sheathing thicknesses greater than 

code, which is referred to as “code plus.” The most common sheathing thicknesses are 1.2 cm 

(15/32 in) for plywood and 1.1 cm (7/16 in) for OSB. 

For the BEES system, 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of 1.2 cm (15/32 in) thick plywood panel is studied. BEES 

performance data are provided for both roof and wall sheathing. Life-cycle costs and 

environmental performance data are essentially the same for both products. The detailed 

environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B1020B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
64

Functional Unit of 

Plywood Sheathing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Plywood 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Plywood Production

Steel Nail 

Production

Timber 

Production

Phenol 

Formaldehyde 

Resin 

Production

Extender 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

NaOH

Catalyst 

Production

Timber 

Harvesting

Fertilizer 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Plywood Sheathing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Plywood 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Plywood Production

Steel Nail 

Production

Timber 

Production

Phenol 

Formaldehyde 

Resin 

Production

Extender 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

NaOH

Catalyst 

Production

Timber 

Harvesting

Fertilizer 

Production

Figure 3.5: Plywood Sheathing System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

 The plywood data for BEES are based on two CORRIM resources.70F

71,

71F

72 The dry weight of 

plywood is assumed to be 521 kg/m3

 (32.5 lb/ft3). The Table below shows the constituents of 

0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of 1.2 cm (15/32 in) thick plywood in terms of their final product percentages. 

 71 Bowyer, J., et al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building 

Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for Research on Renewable 

Industrial Materials--CORRIM, Inc./University of Washington, 2004). Found at: http://www.corrim.org/reports; 

data also submitted to US LCI Database. 72 www.corrim.org 
65

Table 3.11: Plywood Sheathing Constituents 

Constituent Mass 

kg/m2

(lb/ft2) 

Mass Fraction (%) 

Wood 5.96 (1.22) 97 

PF Resin 0.108 (0.022) 1.8 

Extender 0.065 (0.013) 1.1 

Catalyst (NaOH) 0.014 (0.003) 0.1 

Total 6.15 (1.23) 100 

Softwood plywood sheathing is primarily produced in the Pacific Northwest and the 

Southeastern United States. For the Pacific Northwest the species of wood used are Douglas Fir 

and Western Hemlock, while for the Southeast the wood species is Southern Yellow Pine, which 

is actually a group of six different softwood species. 

The data for growing and harvesting softwood logs for a composite forest management scenario 

of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and Southeastern United States (SE) is found in the CORRIM 

studies. The growing and harvesting of wood is comprised of a mix of low-, medium-, and highintensity managed timber. Energy use for wood production includes electricity for greenhouses 

to grow seedlings, gasoline for chain saws, diesel fuel for harvesting mechanical equipment, and 

a small amount of fertilizer. Emissions associated with production and combustion of gasoline 

and diesel fuel and those for the production and delivery of electricity are based on the U.S. LCI 

Database. Fertilizer production data is adapted from European data in the U.S. LCI Database. 

Electricity use for greenhouse operation is based on the grids for the regions where the seedlings 

are grown, while the U.S. average electricity grid is used for fertilizer production. CORRIM 

equally weights production in PNW and SE 

BEES modeling accounts for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees as they grow; the carbon 

becomes part of the wood, and the oxygen is released to the atmosphere. The “uptake” of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere during the growth of timber is about 1.84 kg (4.06 lb) of carbon 

dioxide per kilogram of harvested wood (oven-dry weight). 

The glue used in bonding plywood consists of PF resin in liquid form combined with extender 

(which can be a dry agrifiber such as walnut shells or corn husks) and an alkaline catalyst. Data 

for the production of PF resin comes from the U.S. LCI Database. Weights of resin, extender and 

catalyst are given on a 100 % solids basis (moisture content not considered). 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. Manufacturing to produce oven-dry plywood includes several process 

steps including debarking, log conditioning, production of green veneer, production of dry 

veneer, pressing and lay-up, and trimming and sawing. 

The energy for the plywood manufacturing process is generated from burning wood waste and a 

small amount of natural gas, and from purchased electricity. Electricity production emissions are 

based on an average of regional electricity grids for PNW and SE. A small amount of fuel is 

used for log haulers and forklifts at the plywood mill, and consists of liquid petroleum gas 
66

(propane) and diesel. The allocated site energy and electricity use are broken down in the 

following Table for SE and PNW plywood production. The BEES model uses an equallyweighted average for the final product--1.2 cm (15/32 in) thick plywood: 

Table 3.12: Plywood Production Energy 

Energy Carrier Units 

Plywood from 

SE 

Plywood from 

PNW 

Electricity - Regional Grid MJ/m2 (kWh/ft2) 4.26 (0.11) 4.26 (0.11) 

Natural Gas MJ/m2 (ft3/ft2) 3.04 (0.26) 1.64 (0.14) 

Diesel Fuel L/m2 (gal/ft2) 0.041 (0.001) 0.041 (0.001) 

LPG L/m2 (gal/ft2) 0.015 (0.0004) 0.011 (0.0003) 

Hogfuel/Biomass (oven-dry) kg/m2 (lb/ft2

) 1.41 (0.29) 0.88 (0.18) 

Emissions. The allocated air emissions from the plywood manufacturing process are based on 

the CORRIM study and reported in the Table below. Allocation is based on mass and a multiunit process analysis to correctly assign burdens. The VOC emissions are from the drying of 

wood veneer. 

Table 3.13: Plywood Production Emissions 

Air Emission Plywood from SE 

kg/MJ (lb/ft2) 

Plywood from PNW 

kg/MJ (lb/ft2) 

Particulates (unspecified) 3.12E-03 (6.40E-04) 2.00E-03 (4.10E-04) 

VOC (unspecified) 1.32E-03 (2.70E-04) 3.95E-03 (8.10E-04) 

Acetaldehyde 2.39E-05 (4.90E-06) 6.83E-05 (1.40E-05) 

Acrolein -- 2.78E-03 (5.70E-04) 

Methanol 7.32E-04 (1.50E-04) 8.30E-04 (1.70E-04) 

Phenol 8.78E-06 (1.80E-06) 1.85E-05 (3.80E-06) 

Formaldehyde 1.17E-05 (2.40E-06) 1.37E-04 (2.80E-05) 

Acetone 3.42E-05 (7.00E-06) 3.03E-05 (6.20E-06) 

Alpha-pinene 4.88E-04 (1.00E-04) 4.54E-04 (9.30E-05) 

Beta-pinene 1.95E-04 (4.00E-05) 1.76E-04 (3.60E-05) 

Limonene 5.37E-05 (1.10E-05) 4.88E-05 (1.00E-05) 

Methyl-ethyl ketone 3.46E-06 (7.10E-07) 7.32E-06 (1.50E-06) 

Transportation. For transportation of raw materials to the plywood manufacturing plant, 

CORRIM surveys report truck transportation of 126 km (78 mi) for harvested wood and truck 

transportation of 177 km (110 mi) for the resin. The weights of materials shipped to the plywood 

mill reflect the actual moisture content rather than the oven-dry weight in the plywood product. 

Both the logs and the PF resin are shipped with 50 % moisture content on a wet basis (50 % 

water). The delivery distances are one-way with an empty backhaul. 
67

Waste. There is no solid waste from the plywood manufacturing process. The PF resin is 

assumed to go into the final product and all the wood is assumed to go into plywood or coproducts. Co-products include materials such as peeler core, veneer clippings, panel trim, and 

sawdust, as well as wood fuels in the form of bark and wood waste that are burned on site. 

 

Transportation 

Transportation of the plywood by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system 

Installation 

During installation, 1.5 % of the mass of the product is assumed to be lost as waste which is sent 

to the landfill – although wood construction materials are increasingly being recycled into other 

products. For walls and roofs, plywood is installed using nails. Approximately 0.0024 kg 

(0.0053 lb) of steel nails are used per ft2 of plywood. Steel h-clips are used in addition to nails 

for roof sheathing, although only a small number of clips are required per panel. H-clip 

production is not included within the boundary of the model. 

Use 

Based on U.S. Census data, the mid-service life of plywood sheathing in the United States is 

over 85 years. As a conservative estimate, CORRIM uses a product life of 75 years. 

There is no routine maintenance required for sheathing over its lifetime. Roofing material and 

siding over the sheathing should be replaced as needed. Sheathing would only be replaced when 

the framing is replaced; no replacement is assumed. 

End of Life 

All of the plywood is assumed to be disposed of in a landfill at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 9Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable 

Building Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for 

Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. (CORRIM, Inc.)/University of Washington, 

2004). Found at: 10Hhttp://www.corrim.org/reports. 

Industry Contacts 

Jim Wilson, Oregon State University/CORRIM, Inc. (August 2005-Jan 2006) 
68

3.3 Exterior Wall Systems 

3.3.1 CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel 

Based in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, CENTRIA is an international company 

specializing in the manufacture of metal building products and systems for nonresidential walls, 

roofs, and electrical cellular floors. CENTRIA's Formawall Insulated Composite Panel is a 

factory foam-installed metal panel system with a rigid insulating, CFC-free, foam core. Its onepiece design permits a complete, thermally efficient exterior wall that can be installed quickly. 

Its design provides air, water, and vapor barriers. CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panels are 

available in a selection of finishes and thicknesses and come in a range of profile options for new 

and retrofit buildings. CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panels provide an interior wall, vapor 

barrier, thermal insulation, and exterior metal substrate. Besides stainless steel fasteners, no 

additional materials, such as sheathing or more insulation, typically are required. For this reason, 

CENTRIA Formawall is considered an exterior wall system as opposed to a wall finish. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2010A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
69

Figure 3.6: CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

For BEES, a typical finish made of painted galvanized steel skin encases a CFC-free expanded 

polyurethane (PUR) foam insulation layer. The following Table presents the major constituents 

of a CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panel, in terms of their mass per ft2

. 

 

Table 3.14: CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel Constituents 

Constituent Mass, kg/m2 (lb/ft2) Mass Fraction (%) 

Galvanized steel 11.9 (2.43) 79.7 

Expanded PUR foam 3.0 (0.61) 20 

Solvent-based paint 0.05 (0.01) 0.3 

The rigid PUR foam, blown with pentane, is produced with 59 % diphenylmethane diisocyanate 

(MDI) resin and 41 % rigid polyether polyol resin. The amount of pentane used for PUR 

blowing is 0.024 kg (0.054 lb) per lb of foam. Data for pentane comes from APME72F

73 and data 

for the resins from American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. 

LCI Database. 

 73 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005), Tables 1-9. 

Functional Unit of

CENTRIA

Formawal

En -o -Lif

Truc

Transport to

Bld Site

CENTRIA Formawal Insulated Composite Panel

Proces

energy

Raw material 

transport

Expanded 

Polyurethane

Galvanized 

steel

Pain

production

Pentan

CENTRIA

Formawall

production

PUR precursor

resin

Proces

energy

Raw material 

transport
70

Galvanized steel comes from an LCI study by the International Iron and Steel Institute using 

worldwide facility (primary) data from 1999 and 2000.73F

74 Data on production of components in 

the solvent paint comes from elements of the SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Manufacturing energy is used for painting the steel, 

producing the foam, and assembling the components into the CENTRIA Formawall Insulated 

Panel. The following Table presents the manufacturing energy per 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of CENTRIA 

Formawall Insulated Panel: 

Table 3.15: Energy Requirements for CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panel Production 

Energy source Unit/ft2

Electricity 0.9 kWh 

Natural gas 180 ft3

All energy production and consumption data come from the U.S. LCI Database. The emissions 

associated with the production process are provided in the Table below, and result mainly from 

PUR foam blowing and painting. 

Table 3.16: Air Emissions from CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panel Production 

A small amount of manufacturing waste is produced: 0.002 kg (0.004 lb) per ft2

 of CENTRIA 

Formawall Insulated Composite Panel. 

Transportation. The steel is transported approximately 80 km (50 mi) to a facility where it is 

painted, and then it is transported approximately 1 449 km (900 mi) to the CENTRIA facility in 

 74 International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) LCI data sheets provided by an industry contact at Steel Recycling 

Institute. Data are from worldwide production of steel products, with use of 1999-2000 plant data. 

Emission kg/m2 (lb/ft2) 

Methylene Chloride 1.3 E-2 (2.7 E-3) 

Pentane 1.1 E-2 (2.3 E-3) 

Toluene 1.4 E-5 (2.8 E-6) 

Naphthalene 1.5 E-7 (3.0 E-8) 

Formaldehyde 2.0 E-7 (4.0 E-8) 

Acetone 1.7 E-6 (3.5 E-7) 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) 4.3 E-5 (8.9 E-6) 

Dimethyl phthalate 8.8 E-6 (1.8 E-6) 

Glycol Ethers 2.8 E-5 (5.8 E-6) 

Methyl isobutyl ketone 2.3 E-6 (4.7 E-7) 

Xylene (mixed isomers) 1.7 E-5 (3.4 E-6) 

Isophorone 5.4 E-5 (1.1 E-5) 

Ethyl benzene 1.6 E-6 (3.2 E-7) 
71

Arkansas. The polyether polyol and MDI resin are transported approximately 1 288 km (800 mi) 

and 725 km (450 mi), respectively, to CENTRIA. These are all transported by diesel truck, with 

burdens modeled using the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panels are transported an average of 805 km (500 mi) by diesel 

truck to the building site. 

Installation 

Installation of CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panels entails attaching the panel 

directly onto the building framing with Type 305 stainless steel, #14 x 1-3/4 fasteners. Eight 

fasteners are used per 9 m2

 (100 ft2). At 0.01 kg (0.02 lb) each, 0.07 kg (0.16 lb) of fasteners are 

used per 9 m2

 (100 ft2), or 0.0016 lb/ ft2. The electricity used during installation is 0.00021 kWh/ 

ft2. The fasteners are transported an average of 160 km (100 mi) to the installation site. 

Because CENTRIA Formawall panels are built according to pre-designed building 

specifications, they arrive at the site fully measured and ready for installation, and only rarely is 

there a need to trim the product to fit for correct installation. Because any waste would be such a 

small percentage of total material use, no installation waste is modeled for BEES. 

Use 

The product is assumed to have a useful life of 60 years. A building using CENTRIA Formawall 

Insulated Panels typically needs no additional insulation, 

End of Life 

It is assumed that CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Panels are waste at end of life and are sent to 

a landfill. CENTRIA has begun to look at possibilities of a steel recovery process for the 

CENTRIA Formawall panel at the end of its life. In any event, CENTRIA Formawall panels 

have not been in existence long enough for CENTRIA to assess if this recovery will occur during 

decommissioning. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 12Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 7.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Pentane (Association of Plastics 

Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005), Tables 1-9. 

International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), LCI data sheets provided by an industry contact at 

Steel Recycling Institute. 

Industry Contacts 

Mark A. Thimons, CENTRIA (September 2006) 
72

3.4 Exterior Wall Finishes 

3.4.1 Generic Brick & Mortar 

Brick is a masonry unit of clay or shale, formed into a rectangular shape while plastic, cored, and 

then burned or fired in a kiln. Mortar is used to bond the bricks into a single unit. Facing brick is 

used on exterior walls. 

The BEES model for brick in mortar evaluates fired clay facing brick. The brick is cored prior to 

being fired, which removes about 25 % to 30 % of the clay material. The actual dimensions of 

the brick are 9.2 cm x 5.7 cm x 19.4 cm (3.6 in x 2.2 in x 7.62 in). A cored and fired brick of this 

size weighs 1.86 kg (4.10 lb). The nominal dimensions of the brick including the mortar joint are 

9.2 cm x 6.8 cm x 20 cm (3.6 in x 22

/3 in x 8 in). The brick is assumed to be installed with Type 

N mortar, which has a density of 1840 kg/m3

 (115 lb/ft3), with an air content of at least 20 %. 

Masonry is typically measured on the basis of wall area (m2

 or ft2). A brick wall is assumed to be 

80 % brick and 20 % mortar by surface area. 

While buildings with brick and mortar finishes require insulation, the finish does provide a 

thermal resistance value of about R-2. The BEES user has the option of accounting for the 

resulting energy saved, relative to other exterior wall finishes, over the 50-year use period. This 

is explained in more detail under Use. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2011A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
73

Figure 3.7: Brick and Mortar System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Brick uses virtually 100 % mined clay or shale. Bottom ash, a post-industrial recycled material, 

is the most widely used recycled material that is added to the clay during brick production. 

Typical replacement of clay or shale inputs is 0.8 % bottom ash by mass. 

Table 3.17: Fired Brick Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

(%) 

Clay 99.2 

Bottom Ash 0.8 

All material removed in the manufacturing process is returned to the manufacturing stream. 

Fired product that is scrapped is used as grog74F

75 in brick manufacturing or for other uses such as 

landscape chips and roadbed. 

Type N mortar consists of 1 part masonry cement (by volume fraction), 3 parts sand,75F

76 and 6.3 L 

 75 Grog is previously-fired ceramic material, typically from ground brick. It is included in the brick body to 

reduce drying shrinkage or provide a more open texture to the fired brick. 76 Based on ASTM Specification C270-96. 

Functional Unit of 

Brick and Mortar Transport to End of Life 

Construction 

Site 

Brick 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Brick and Mortar

Mortar 

Production 

Sand 

Production 

 Clay 

Production 

Bottom Ash 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Masonry 

Cement 

Production 

Ground 

Limestone 

Portland 

Cement 

Production 

Gypsum 

Production 
74

(1.7 gal) of water. The raw material use for masonry cement is based on Type N masonry 

cement, and its constituents are shown below. 

Table 3.18: Masonry Cement Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

(%) 

Portland Cement Clinker 50.0 

Limestone 47.5 

Gypsum 2.5 

The flow diagram for brick and mortar shows only the solid components of mortar. Some water 

in mortar is chemically bound, so there is some net consumption of water—based on 25 % by 

weight for hydration, approximately 230 kg/m3 (14 lb/ft3) of water is used. Production of the raw 

materials for brick and mortar are based on the SimaPro LCA database and the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements for brick production are listed 

in the Table below. These figures include the drying and firing production steps only, based on 

the latest Brick Industry Association survey stating that these are the most important steps in 

terms of energy use. Environmental flows resulting from the production of the different types of 

fuel are based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.19: Energy Requirements for Brick Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier Quantity per Lb 

Natural Gas 0.028 m3

 (0.987 ft3) 

Grid Electricity 0.0810 MJ (0.0225 kWh) 

Brick production is distributed across U.S. Census Regions as given below. 
75

Table 3.19a: U.S. Brick Production by Census Region 

Census Region Brick Production 

Pacific 2.8 % 

Mountain 3.5 % 

West South Central 17.8 % 

East South Central 17.9 % 

South Atlantic 39.6 % 

West North Central 4.1 % 

East North Central 8.1 % 

Middle Atlantic 5.4 % 

New England 0.8 % 

A blend of grid electricity sources are used to represent this distribution of manufacturing 

facilities. 

Emissions for brick firing and drying are based on AP-42 data for emissions from brick 

manufacturing for each manufacturing technology and type of fuel burned.76F

77,

7F

78

Water Consumption. Water is used in the manufacturing process to impart plasticity to the raw 

materials, which allows the brick to be formed. On average, approximately 20.5 % water by 

weight is used and returned to the atmosphere in drying. 

Transportation. Brick raw materials are typically transported less than 80 km (50 mi) by truck to 

the brick plant.78F

79

Waste. The manufacturing process generates no waste materials as all materials are reused in the 

plant. 

Transportation 

Transportation of brick to the building site is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. Bricks 

are assumed to be transported by truck and rail (84.7 % and 15.3 %, respectively) to the building 

site.79F

80 

 77 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Brick and Structural Clay Product Manufacturing,” Volume 

I: Section 11.3, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors(Washington, DC: US Environmental 

Protection Agency, August 1997). Found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s03.pdf. 78 According to the Brick Industry Association (BIA), AP-42 emissions data are likely to be overstated, as at 

least 30 brick plants have added emission control devices in the past five years, and all new plants (including at least 

5 new plants completed in the past 5 years) include these emission control devices. However, no alternate emissions 

data were made available by BIA. 79 An additional note regarding the production of bricks: according to BIA, brick companies have been cited for 

their reclamation of spent clay pits. Examples include golf courses, wetlands, and land fills. 80 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Brick and Structural Clay Product Manufacturing,” Volume 

I: Section 11.3, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors(Washington, DC: US Environmental 

Protection Agency, August 1997). Found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s03.pdf. 
76

Installation 

Installation of brick and mortar primarily consists of manual labor; no energy use is modeled for 

the installation phase. Losses during the installation phase are estimated to be 5 % of total 

materials per ft2

. Waste from the installation process is typically landfilled. 

While sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and other ancillary materials may be required to 

complete the exterior wall system, these materials are not included in the system boundaries for 

BEES exterior wall finishes. 

Use 

Brick walls are often in service for more than 100 years. Older buildings are adapted to new 

uses, with the existing brick walls included as a design feature. A useful life of 200 years is 

assumed. Most brick walls have little maintenance. Repointing of mortar joints on portions of 

the wall may be required after 25 years, but this minor maintenance step was not included within 

the system boundary of the model. 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES exterior wall finish products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, 

Dryvit Outsulation, and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is 

required by code for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase 

its thermal performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus 

wall, to about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy 

savings for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted 

for in the BEES results.80F

81 

End of Life 

Demolition of brick walls at end of life typically is not done very carefully. The walls are 

knocked down using equipment such as a wrecking ball or explosives, resulting in some loss of 

brick. It is estimated that 75 % of the brick is recovered in usable form. The mortar is removed 

by hand labor using chisels and hammers, typically at the demolition site. The cleaned brick is 

sold for new construction, and the mortar and broken brick are taken to landfills. 

 81 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 
77

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 13Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Brick and Structural Clay Product 

Manufacturing,” Volume I: Section 11.3, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1997). Found at: 

14Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s03.pdf. 

ASTM International, C270-06 Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry, (West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2005). 

Industry Contacts 

J. Gregg Borchelt, P.E., Brick Industry Association (August-November 2005) 

3.4.2 Generic Stucco 

Stucco is cement plaster that can be used to cover exterior wall surfaces. Both portland cement 

and masonry cement are used for the base and finish coats of stucco exterior walls. The densities 

of the different types of stucco coats for portland cement (for a base coat Type C plaster, finish 

coat Type F plaster) and masonry cement (for a base coat Type MS plaster, finish coat Type 

FMS plaster) are shown in the Table below. Since no data on relative market shares of portland 

cement and masonry cement stucco were available, life cycle data for the two stucco types were 

averaged for use in the BEES model. Thus, each generic stucco coat (base or finish) is 

represented by an average of the corresponding portland cement and masonry cement coats. 

Table 3.20: Density of Stucco by Type 

Type of Stucco 

Density 

kg/m3 (lb/ ft3) 

Portland Cement Base Coat C 1 830 (114.18) 

Portland Cement Finish Coat F 1 971 (122.97) 

Masonry Cement Base Coat MS 1 907 (118.98) 

Masonry Cement Finish Coat FMS 2 175 (135.69) 

The BEES model assumes a functional unit of 1 ft2 of stucco applied to a frame construction 

(stucco applied over metal lath). This generally requires a 3-coat covering totaling 2.22 cm (7/8 

in) in thickness. Coats 1 and 2 are each 0.95 cm (3/8 in) thick and the finish coat is 0.32 cm (1/8 

in) thick. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2011B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagrams that follow show the major elements of the production of portland cement 

stucco and masonry cement stucco exteriors. 
78

Functional Unit of

Stucco Exterior

Wall

Portland Cement

Stucco (Type F)

Finish Coat

Production

Truck

Transport

(Raw Matl's)

Portland Cement Stucco

Truck

Transport

(Raw Matl's)

Stucco

Mixing

Energy

Portland

Cement

Production

Hydrated

Lime

Production

Portland Cement

Stucco (Type C)

Base Coat

Production

End-of-Life

Stucco

Mixing

Energy

Sand

Mining

Transport to

Construction

Site

Portland

Cement

Production

Hydrated

Lime

Production

Sand

Mining

Figure 3.8: Portland Cement Stucco System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of

Stucco Exterior

Wall

Masonry Cement

Stucco (Type FMS)

Finish Coat

Production

Truck

Transport

(Raw Matl's)

Masonry Cement Stucco

Truck

Transport

(Raw Matl's)

Masonry Cement

Stucco (Type MS)

Base Coat Production

End-of-Life

Sand Mining Sand Mining

Stucco

Mixing

Energy

Stucco

Mixing

Energy

Masonry

Cement

Production

Masonry

Cement

Production

Limestone

Production

Gypsum

Production

Portland

Cement Clinker

Production

Limestone

Production

Gypsum

Production

Portland

Cement Clinker

Production

Transport to

Construction

Site

Figure 3.9: Masonry Cement Stucco System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The material composition of portland cement and masonry cement base coat and finish coat 
79

stuccos is shown in the following Table.81F

82 

Table 3.21: Stucco Constituents 

Cementitious Materials (volume 

fraction)

Constituent Portland 

Cement 

Masonry 

Cement Lime 

Sand 

(volume 

fraction of 

cementitious 

material)

Base Coat C 1 1.125 3.25 

Finish Coat F 1 1.125 3 

Base Coat MS 1 3.25 

Finish Coat FMS 1 3 

Masonry Cement Production. The raw material use for masonry cement is based on Type N 

masonry cement, and its constituents are shown below. 

Table 3.22: Masonry Cement Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

(%) 

Portland Cement Clinker 50.0 

Limestone 47.5 

Gypsum 2.5 

Production of raw material inputs for masonry cement (limestone and gypsum) and stucco (sand 

and lime) are based on data from the U.S. LCI Database and the SimaPro database. The energy 

requirements for masonry cement production are based on the energy required to grind and mix 

the masonry cement constituents, as follows. 

Table 3.23: Energy Requirements for Masonry Cement Manufacturing 

Fuel Use Manufacturing Energy 

Electricity 0.196 MJ/kg (409.55 Btu/lb) 

The only emissions from masonry cement production, aside from those due to the production of 

the portland cement, are CO2 emissions from the additional lime used to make the masonry 

cement. According to the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory:82F

83 

“During the cement production process, calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is heated in a cement kiln at a 

 82 Based on ASTM Specification C926-94. 

83 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Cement Manufacture (IPCC Source Category 2A1),” Chapter 4.2, 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, April 2006). pp. 4-8 to 4-9. 
80

temperature of about 1 300 oC (2 400 oF) to form lime (i.e., calcium oxide or CaO) and CO2. This 

process is known as calcination or calcining. Next, the lime is combined with silica-containing 

materials to produce clinker (an intermediate product), with the earlier by-product CO2 being 

released to the atmosphere. The clinker is then allowed to cool, mixed with a small amount of 

gypsum, and used to make portland cement. The production of masonry cement from portland 

cement requires additional lime and, thus, results in additional CO2 emissions. Masonry cement 

requires additional lime over and above the lime used in clinker production. In particular, 

nonplasticizer additives such as lime, slag, and shale are added to the cement, increasing its weight 

by approximately five percent.” 

In the BEES model, lime accounts for approximately 47.5 % percent of the added weight. An 

emission factor for this added lime can then be calculated by multiplying this value by the 

emission factor for lime calcining, resulting in a factor of 0.44 kg (0.97 lb) CO2 per kg lime. The 

following Table reports the final CO2 emission factor in terms of emissions per kg masonry 

cement produced. 

Table 3.24: Emissions from Masonry Cement Manufacturing 

Air Emission Emission Factor 

per kg Masonry Cement 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.0209 kg (0.0461 lb) 

Portland Cement Production. BEES documentation on the production of portland cement can 

be found under Generic Portland Cement Concrete Products. 

Transportation. A small percentage of the above raw materials, assumed to be 10 %, may be 

transported more than 3 219 km (2 000 mi). When this is the case, transport is assumed to be by 

rail. Otherwise, transport is assumed to be an average of 322 km (200 mi), by truck. 

Manufacturing 

Stucco is “manufactured” at the point of use of the material. See the section below on 

“Installation.” 

Transportation 

The stucco raw materials are transported to the building site via diesel truck. The distance 

transported is a variable in the BEES model. 

Installation 

Stucco is assumed to be mixed in a 5.9 kW (8 hp), gasoline powered mixer with a stucco flow 

rate of 0.25 m3

/h (9 ft3/h), running for 5 min. The stucco is applied manually to the building, so 

no energy or environmental impacts are assumed at this installation step. A small amount of 

waste, approximately 1 %, is assumed to be generated during the installation process. 

A lath made of 100 % recycled steel may be used as a surface for the applied stucco. The amount 

of steel used per surface area of stucco applied varies according to application. Lath is used on 

wood and metal frame walls; typically 0.15 kg (1/3 lb) is used per ft2

 of wall area. 
81

While sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and other ancillary materials may be required to 

complete the exterior wall system, these materials are not included in the system boundaries for 

BEES exterior wall finishes. 

Use 

With general maintenance, a properly installed stucco exterior will have a useful life of 100 

years. Maintenance will vary greatly with weather conditions, but is usually minimal. Crack 

repairs are done manually. Maintenance is not included within the boundaries of the BEES 

model. 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES exterior wall finish products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, 

Dryvit Outsulation, and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is 

required by code for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase 

its thermal performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus 

wall, to about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy 

savings for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted 

for in the BEES results.83F

84 

End of Life 

Approximately one-third of U.S. stucco production is used in commercial projects, typically over 

masonry or steel studs. At end of life, it is assumed that stucco and lath installed on commercial 

buildings in urban areas are recycled. No data are available on recycling of stucco or lath from 

residential applications; it is assumed that none of this residential material is recycled. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 15Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

 84 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 
82

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Cement Manufacture (IPCC Source Category 2A1),” 

Chapter 4.2, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2006). pp. 4-8 to 4-9 

Industry Contacts 

Martha VanGeem, P.E. Construction Technology Laboratory, Inc., on behalf of the Portland 

Cement Association (August-October 2005) 

Medgar Marceau, P.E., Construction Technology Laboratory, Inc., on behalf of the Portland 

Cement Association (August-October 2005) 

3.4.3 Generic Aluminum Siding 

Aluminum siding is a commonly-used exterior wall cladding that is known for its light weight 

and durability. Aluminum siding typically has an exterior coating to provide color and durability. 

Popular coatings include acrylic, polyester, and vinyl. 

For the BEES system, the functional unit is one ft2

 of exterior wall area covered with horizontal 

aluminum siding in a thickness of 0.061 cm (0.024 in) and a width of 20 cm (8 in). The 

aluminum siding is assumed to be fastened with aluminum nails 41 cm (16 in) on center, 

requiring approximately 0.000374 kg (0.000825 lb) of aluminum nails per ft2 The detailed 

environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2011C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
83

Figure 3.10: Aluminum Siding System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

There are a number of aluminum siding products on the market, most of which are manufactured 

using different combinations of aluminum alloys and coating materials. Coating formulations are 

generally proprietary; the product studied for the BEES system is manufactured as an aluminum 

sheet with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) thermoset topcoat. 

The following Table presents the major constituents of aluminum siding. Life cycle data for the 

production of these raw materials comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.25: Aluminum Siding Constituents 

Constituent Mass 

kg/m2 (lb/ft2

) 

Mass Fraction (%) 

Aluminum Alloy Sheet 1.631 (0.3340) 99 

PVC Topcoat 0.0161 (0.0033) 1 

The aluminum sheet is manufactured from aluminum ingots. Since aluminum recycling is 

considered to be a closed loop process and aluminum siding is generally recycled at the end of 

the life of the building (see End of Life below), the environmental burdens from aluminum 

production are determined by the end-of-life recovery rate and the yield of metal from the 

aluminum recycling process. According to The Aluminum Association, 30 % of all aluminum 

used in construction is from secondary sources. Therefore, the BEES model assumes a mix of 

30 % secondary and 70 % primary aluminum. 

Functional Unit of 

Aluminum Siding Transport to End of Life 

Construction 

Site 

Aluminum 

Siding 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Aluminum Siding

Aluminum Nail 

Production 

PVC 

Production 

Primary 

Aluminum 

Production 

Secondary 

Aluminum 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 
84

The vinyl topcoat is 0.08 mm to 0.09 mm (3.3 mils to 3.7 mils) thick; environmental burdens 

from the production of PVC come from the SimaPro database. 

According to The Aluminum Association, the following aluminum alloys account for over 90 

percent of aluminum used in siding: 3005, Alclad 3004, 3003, 1100, and 3105. Their 

composition is given in the Table below. 

Table 3.26: Alloy Composition84F

85

Alloy Al Co Fe Pb Mn Mo S Ti Zn Total

1100 99.0 - 0.1 - - 0.1 1.0 - 0.0 100.1 

3003 97.3 - 0.1 0.7 - 1.2 0.6 - 0.1 100.0 

3004 96.2 - 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.3 - 0.3 99.9 

3005 96.3 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 100.0 

3105 96.6 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 100.0 

Average 0.1 97.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.2 100.0 

3000 series only 0.1 96.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 100.0 

6061 (nails) 96.7 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 100.0 

In all, alloys only account for 2.9 % to 3.3 % of the mass of the aluminum product. The life 

cycle environmental data for the alloying metals is not included in the model due to lack of 

available data; as a result the model assumes that the alloy is in fact made of 100 % aluminum. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Energy requirements and emissions for production of the 

individual siding components (rolled aluminum alloy and PVC resin) are included in the BEES 

data for the raw material acquisition life-cycle stage. The model, however, does not include the 

energy demands or emissions associated with application of PVC topcoat to the aluminum 

siding. 

In the U.S., approximately half of rolled aluminum products are either hot or cold rolled.85F

86 The 

energy requirements for the average of the hot and cold rolling processes are presented in the 

Table below. 

 85 Alloy composition data from http://www.capitolcamco.com/MSDS/MSDS_I_Aluminum.htm. 86 BCS, Inc., U.S. Requirements for Aluminum Production: Historical Prospective, Theoretical Limits, and New 

Opportunities (Washington, DC: Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, February 2003). 
85

Table 3.27: Energy Requirements for Aluminum Rolling 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Diesel 0.00148 (0.636) 

Kerosene 0.000131 (0.0565) 

Gasoline 0.0372 (16.0) 

Natural Gas 1.11 (479) 

Propane 0.00345 (1.48) 

Electricity 1.11 (475) 

Total 2.26 (972) 

Transportation. Transportation of rolled aluminum and PVC resin to aluminum siding mills is 

assumed to be 402 km (250 mi) by truck. 

Waste. Before rolled aluminum sheet is coiled and shipped, edge trimming knives remove 

damaged material from the edge of the sheet. The average edge trim loss for hot and cold rolling 

is 17 % of unrolled aluminum.86F

87 Edge trim waste is returned to the cast shop for remelting. 

Transportation 

Transportation of manufactured aluminum siding by heavy-duty truck to the building site is 

modeled as a variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Aluminum siding installation is predominately a manual process--a small amount of energy may 

be required to operate compressors to power air guns, but this is assumed to be very small and is 

not included in the analysis. Installation waste with a mass fraction of 5 % is assumed, and all 

waste is assumed to go to landfill.

Nails are assumed to be placed 41 cm (16 in) on center; however, as it is increasingly common to 

find buildings with studs 61 cm (24 in) on center, manufacturers are typically providing 

instructions for nail spacing of 61 cm (24 in) in order for the fasteners to penetrate this framing 

configuration. For installation on 41 cm (16 in) centers, 0.00085 lb of aluminum nails are used 

per ft2

 of siding. The overall installation average is still probably close to 41 cm (16 in), but a 

slight reduction in the mass of the nails, taken conservatively to be 3 %, is modeled to account 

for some installation on 61 cm (24 in) framing. 

While sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and other ancillary materials may be required to 

complete the exterior wall system, these materials are not included in the system boundaries for 

BEES exterior wall finishes. 

 87 BCS, Inc. U.S. Requirements for Aluminum Production: Historical Prospective, Theoretical Limits, and New 

Opportunities.
86

Use 

The product is assumed to have a useful life of 80 years. In some instances, siding without 

significant corrosion damage can be found after 100 years. However, owners may replace siding 

for reasons other than corrosion (e.g., to update the home’s exterior appearance or change the 

color). It is assumed for the model that the siding remains in place over the 50- year use period. 

Buildings with aluminum siding are periodically cleaned, usually for aesthetic reasons. 

Information on typical cleaning practices (e.g., frequency of cleaning, types and quantities of 

cleaning solutions used) is not available; no use phase impacts from cleaning are included. 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES exterior wall finish products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, 

Dryvit Outsulation, and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is 

required by code for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase 

its thermal performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus 

wall, to about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy 

savings for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted 

for in the BEES results.87F

88 

End of Life 

Aluminum scrap has a significant economic value – the market price of clean, thick-walled scrap 

is close to the market price of primary materials. There is therefore a financial incentive to 

recover aluminum siding from a building at the end of its useful life. 

An EPA report, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the 

United States, confirms that the materials most frequently recovered and recycled from 

construction and demolition (C&D) debris are concrete, asphalt, metals, and wood. The EPA 

study also estimates that from 1 % to 5 % of C&D waste consists of metals. Therefore, the 

model assumes that all of the aluminum siding is recovered at the end of its useful life and 

returned to a secondary aluminum smelter for recovery. 

 88 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 
87

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 16Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Aluminum Association, Life Cycle Inventory Report for the North American Aluminum 

Industry (Washington, DC: Aluminum Association November 1998). 

Franklin Associates, “ Management of Construction and Demolition Debris in the United 

States”, Chapter 8, EPA530-R-98-010 - Characterization of Building-Related Construction 

and Demolition Debris in the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 1998) Found at: 17Hhttp://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&drpt.pdf. 

BCS, Inc., U.S. Requirements for Aluminum Production: Historical Prospective, Theoretical 

Limits, and New Opportunities (Washington, DC: Prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, February 2003) 

18Hhttp://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/aluminum/pdfs/al_theoretical.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

Paola Kistler, Director Environment, EHS FIRST, Alcan Inc. (September 2005) 

Michael Skillingberg, The Aluminum Association, Inc. (January 2006) 

3.4.4 Generic Cedar Siding 

Cedar wood is used for exterior siding because it is a lightweight, low-density, aestheticallypleasing material that provides adequate weatherproofing. As with most wood products, cedar 

siding production consists of three major steps. First, roundwood is harvested from logging 

camps. Second, logs are sent to sawmills and planing mills where the logs are washed, debarked, 

and sawed into planks. The planks are edged, trimmed, and dried in a kiln. The dried planks are 

then planed and the lumber sent to a final trimming operation. Finally, the lumber from the 

sawmill is shaped into fabricated, milled wood products. 

For the BEES system, beveled cedar siding 1.3 cm (1⁄2 in) thick and 15 cm (6 in) wide is studied. 

Cedar siding is assumed to be installed with galvanized nails 41 cm (16 in) on center and 

finished with one coat of primer and two coats of stain. Stain is reapplied every 10 years. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2011D.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
88

Functional Unit of 

Cedar Siding End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Galvanized 

Nail 

Production

Cedar Siding 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Cedar Siding

Stain 

Production

Linseed Oil 

Production

TiO2

Production

Timber 

Production

Fertilizer 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

White Spirit 

Production

Primer 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

TiO2

Production

White Spirit 

Production

Naptha

Production

Limestone 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Cedar Siding End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Galvanized 

Nail 

Production

Cedar Siding 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Cedar Siding

Stain 

Production

Linseed Oil 

Production

TiO2

Production

Timber 

Production

Fertilizer 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

White Spirit 

Production

Primer 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

TiO2

Production

White Spirit 

Production

Naptha

Production

Limestone 

Production

Figure 3.11: Cedar Siding System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

CORRIM lumber production data was used to model cedar wood production. This dataset 

includes environmental burdens from growing and harvesting softwood logs for forest 

management in the Pacific Northwest.8F

89 

 

The growing and harvesting of wood is modeled as a composite comprised of a mix of low-, 

medium-, and high-intensity managed timber. Energy use for wood production includes 

electricity for greenhouses to grow seedlings, gasoline for chain saws, diesel fuel for harvesting 

mechanical equipment, and a small amount of fertilizer. Emissions associated with production 

and combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel and those from the production and delivery of 

electricity are based on the U.S. LCI Database. Fertilizer production data is adapted from 

European data in the U.S. LCI Database. Electricity use for greenhouse operation is based on 

the grids for the region where the seedlings are grown, while the U.S. average electricity grid is 

used for fertilizer production. The weight of wood harvested for lumber is based on an average 

oven-dry density of 509.77 kg/m3 (31.824 lb/ft3). 

BEES modeling accounts for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees as they grow; the carbon 

becomes part of the wood, and the oxygen is released to the atmosphere. The “uptake” of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere during the growth of timber is about 1.84 kg (4.06 lb) of carbon 

dioxide per kilogram of harvested wood (oven-dry weight). 

 89 Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building 

Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for Research on Renewable 

Industrial Materials--CORRIM, Inc./University of Washington, 2004). Found at: 

http://www.corrim.org/reports600+ pp.; data also submitted to US LCI Database. 
89

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements allocated to the production of 

softwood lumber for cedar siding are listed in the Table below. These requirements are based on 

average manufacturing conditions in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW). The energy comes 

primarily from burning wood and bark waste generated in the sawmill process. Other fuel 

sources include natural gas for boilers, and propane and diesel for forklifts and log haulers at the 

sawmill. The production and combustion of the different types of fuel are based on the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Table 3.28: Cedar Siding Production Energy 

Energy Carrier 

Quantity 

 per lb 

 Cedar Siding 

Electricity - PNW Grid 4.68E+05 J (0.13 kWh) 

Natural Gas 4.53E-03 m3 (0.16 ft3) 

Diesel fuel 2.01E-03 L (5.3E-04 gal) 

LPG 1.21E-03 L (3.2E-04 gal) 

Hogfuel/Biomass 1.90E-01 kg (0.42 lb) 

Allocated process-specific air emissions from lumber production are based on the CORRIM 

study, as reported in the Table below. Allocation is based on mass and a multi-unit process 

analysis to correctly assign burdens. Note: In the BEES model, CO2 generated by combustion of 

biofuel (hogged wood fuel) and fossil fuel are tracked separately since CO2 from biomass is 

considered environmentally impact-neutral by the U.S. EPA, and as such is not considered when 

determining the Global Warming Potential impact. 

 

Table 3.29: Cedar Siding Production Process-Related Emissions 

Air Emission Emissions per lb 

 Cedar Siding 

Particulates (unspecified) 1.36E-05 kg (3.0E-05 lb) 

VOC (unspecified) 8.62E-05 kg (1.9E-04 lb) 

Transportation. Since sawmills are typically located close to the forested area, transportation of 

raw materials to the sawmill is not taken into account. Transport of primer and stain to the 

manufacturing plant is included. 

Transportation 

Transportation of cedar siding by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Cedar siding installation is predominately a manual process--a relatively tiny amount of energy 

may be required to operate compressors to power air guns, but this amount is assumed to be too 
90

small to warrant inclusion in the analysis. Installation waste with a mass fraction of 5 % is 

assumed, and all waste is assumed to go to landfill. 

Cedar siding panels are attached using galvanized nails. Three nails are required per 0.09 m2

(per ft2

) of siding. Assuming standard 6d 5 cm (2 in) nails, installation requires 0.0054 kg 

(0.0119 lb) of nails per ft2 of siding. No installation waste is assumed for the nails. 

After installation, the siding is primed and stained. The primer is modeled as a standard primer 

with coverage of 46.4 m2 (500 ft2) per gal; the stain is assumed to have coverage of 32.5 m2 (350 

ft2) per gal. One coat of primer and two coats of stain are applied to the siding. 

While sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and other ancillary materials may be required to 

complete the exterior wall system, these materials are not included in the system boundaries for 

BEES exterior wall finishes. 

Use

The density of cedar siding at 12 % moisture content is assumed to be 449 kg/m3

 (28 lb/ft3). The 

product is assumed to have a useful life of 40 years. To prolong the lifetime and maintain the 

appearance of the siding, two coats of stain are assumed to applied every 10 years. Information 

on typical cleaning practices (e.g., frequency of cleaning, types and quantities of cleaning 

solutions used) is not available; cleaning is not included in the system boundaries. 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES exterior wall finish products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, 

Dryvit Outsulation, and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is 

required by code for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase 

its thermal performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus 

wall, to about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy 

savings for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted 

for in the BEES results.89F

90 

 90 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 
91

End of Life 

All of the cedar siding is assumed to be disposed of in landfill at end of life. The practice of 

recycling wood building materials is increasing, but data is not available to quantify this 

practice. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 19Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable 

Building Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for 

Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. (CORRIM, Inc.)/University of Washington, 

2004). Found at: 20H1http://www.corrim.org/reports. 

Industry Contacts 

No industry contacts were identified to provide further insight on this product. 

3.4.5 Generic Vinyl Siding 

Vinyl siding is used as an exterior wall finish on new and renovated construction. Since its 

introduction in the 1960s, vinyl siding has become the most popular wall finish for new 

construction. 

The product is manufactured in a wide variety of profiles, colors, and thicknesses to meet 

different market applications. Vinyl siding is commonly produced as double units that have the 

appearance of two overlapping or adjoining 10 cm or 13 cm wide (4 in or 5 in wide) boards. 

Double 4 and double 5 are the most common profiles and are about equally popular. The weight 

of vinyl siding is about 24 kg (52 lb) per 9.29 m2 (100 ft2), for a typical 0.107 cm to 0.112 cm 

(0.042 in to 0.044 in) thickness. For the BEES system, 0.107 cm (0.042 in) thick, 23 cm (9 in) 

wide horizontal vinyl siding installed with galvanized nail fasteners is studied. The nails are 

assumed to be placed 41 cm (16 in) on center. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2011E.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram that follows shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it 

is currently modeled for BEES. 
92

Functional Unit of

Vinyl Siding End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Galvanized Nail

Production

Vinyl Siding

Production

Raw Material

Transport

PVC

Production

Vinyl Siding

Titanium

Dioxide

Production

Filler

(Calcium

Carbonate)

Impact

Modifier

Stabilizer

Lubricant

Substrate Capstock

PVC

Production

Titanium

Dioxide

Production

Impact

Modifier

Stabilizer

Lubricant

Process

Energy

Figure 3.12: Vinyl Siding System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Most siding is composed of two layers: a substrate and a capstock. The capstock, which accounts 

for about 15 % by weight of the full panel, is the surface that is exposed to the outside and thus is 

formulated to be more weather resistant. 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is the main component in the manufacture of vinyl siding. A 

significant percentage of the final product is composed of post-industrial PVC waste (i.e., PVC 

cuttings and scraps collected from the manufacturing process and recycled into future batches). 

A typical percentage of the final product is 15 % recycled post-industrial material. Calcium 

carbonate is used as a filler material in vinyl siding. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a chemical 

additive that is used in the siding as a pigment and stabilizer; less than 10 % of it is produced 

from ore mined in the United States. The ore is produced in diverse locations including Canada, 
93

Africa, and Australia. All other components are typically supplied from within 3 219 km (2 000 

mi) of the siding manufacturing facility. 

The Table below presents the proportions of constituent materials in the siding studied. Data 

representing the production of raw materials for vinyl siding are based on the SimaPro LCA 

database, the U.S. LCI Database, and American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for 

submission to the U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.30: Vinyl Siding Constituents 

Constituent Percent in 

Substrate 

Percent in 

Capstock 

Overall 

Percent 

PVC 82 % 85.5 % 82.5 % 

Filler (typically, calcium carbonate) 10 % -- 8.5 % 

Titanium dioxide ≤1.5 % 8.5 % 2.5 % 

Impact modifier (typically, acrylic 

or chlorinated polyethylene) 

≤4 % 3 % 4 % 

Stabilizer (typically, organo-tin 

mercaptide) 

1 % 1.5 % 1 % 

Lubricant (typically, 

paraffin/calcium stearate blend) 

1.5 % 1.5 % 1.5 % 

Manufacturing 

Most manufacturers of vinyl siding in North America are located east of the Mississippi, the 

exceptions being manufacturers in Missouri and Texas. Most vinyl siding is extruded, although a 

small percentage of specialty panels are injection molded or thermoformed. For a general 

characterization of vinyl siding, extrusion is most appropriate. 

Energy Requirements. Energy requirements for production of the individual siding components 

are included in the data for the raw material acquisition life-cycle stage. No information was 

available from manufacturers on energy and emissions for the vinyl siding production process. 

Transportation. Transportation of siding raw materials from producers to the siding 

manufacturing plant is taken into account. An assumed average transport distance of 402 km 

(250 mi) is applied to each raw material. 

Waste. As noted in the raw materials description for this product, scrap from siding production 

processes is typically collected at the plant and recycled back into the manufacturing process. 

Transportation 

Transportation of the manufactured siding and nails to the building site by heavy-duty truck is 

modeled as a variable of the BEES software. 

Installation 

Installation of siding is done primarily by manual labor. Nails or screws can be used to install the 

siding; nails are more common and would typically be the type installed with a gun. The energy 

required to operate compressors to power air guns is assumed to be very small and not included 
94

in the analysis. Installation waste with a mass fraction of 5 % is assumed, and this waste is 

assumed to go to a landfill. 

Nails are placed 41 cm (16 in) on center; however, as it is increasingly common to find buildings 

with studs 61 cm (24 in) on center, manufacturers are typically providing instructions for nail 

spacing of 61 cm (24 in) in order for the fasteners to penetrate this framing configuration. Such 

installations represent a small but growing subset of vinyl siding applications. For installation on 

41 cm (16 in) centers, nail use is 0.0024 kg (0.0053 lb) per 0.09 m2

 (per ft2) of siding. The 

overall installation average is still probably close to 41 cm (16 in), but a slight reduction in the 

number of nails per ft2

 is modeled to account for the small proportion installed on 61 cm (24 in) 

framing. 

While sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and other ancillary materials may be required to 

complete the exterior wall system, these materials are not included in the system boundaries for 

BEES exterior wall finishes. 

Use 

The product is assumed to have a useful life of 40 years. Many manufacturers provide warranties 

of 50 years or longer. No routine maintenance is required to prolong the lifetime of the product, 

although cleaning is recommended to maintain appearance. Cleaning would normally be done 

with water and household cleaners. Information on typical cleaning practices (e.g., frequency of 

cleaning, types and quantities of cleaning solutions used) was not available; maintenance was not 

included in the system boundaries. 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES exterior wall finish products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, 

Dryvit Outsulation, and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is 

required by code for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase 

its thermal performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus 

wall, to about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy 

savings for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted 
95

for in the BEES results.90F

91 

End of Life 

Vinyl siding at end of life is assumed to be disposed of in a landfill. End-of-life quantities of 

vinyl siding have not been large enough to warrant establishment of a recycling infrastructure. 

Vinyl siding is not among the top 36 building-related construction and demolition categories 

reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benchmark report on construction 

and demolition waste.91F

92 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 2Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Franklin Associates, “ Management of Construction and Demolition Debris in the United 

States”, Chapter 8, EPA530-R-98-010 - Characterization of Building-Related Construction 

and Demolition Debris in the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 1998) Found at: 23Hhttp://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&drpt.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

David Johnston, Technical Director, Vinyl Siding Institute (September-October 2005) 

3.4.6 Trespa Meteon Panel 

See documentation on all Trespa composite panels under Fabricated Toilet Partitions. 

3.4.7 Headwaters Stucco Finish Application 

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Headwaters, Inc. is a supplier of materials to products as 

diverse as ready-mix concrete, precast concrete, roofing, carpeting, mortar, and stucco. Three 

Headwaters products are included in BEES 

• Masonry Cement Type S. Meets ASTM C91 Type S standard for masonry cement. 

• Scratch & Brown Stucco Cement. Meets ASTM C1328 Type S standard for plastic (stucco) 

cement. Used as a replacement for job-site-mixed stuccos (usually portland and lime or 

portland and masonry cement) under ASTM C926. 

• FRS. Produced and sold under ICBO Evaluation Report No. 4776 and ICC Legacy 

Evaluation Report 459. At this time there are no ASTM standards for this class of products. 

 91 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 92 Franklin Associates, “ Management of Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States”, Chapter 8, 

EPA530-R-98-010 - Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States

(Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, June 1998) Found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf. 
96

BEES data for these products are based on 2005 data from the manufacturer’s San Antonio, 

Texas plant, with an annual production of 27 945 metric tons (30 804 short tons). These 

cementitious products are incorporated in different stucco finishes in BEES as shown in the 

Table below: 

Table 3.31: Headwaters Cement Products 

BEES Exterior Wall 

Finish Alternative 

Headwaters 

Product Specifications 

Headwaters Masonry 

Cement Type S-based 

Stucco 

Masonry 

Cement Type S 

1 kg (2.2 lb) of Masonry Cement 

Type S produced by Headwaters 

replaces 1 kg (2.2 lb) of traditional 

Masonry Cement Type S used in 

generic stucco. Fully 100 % of the 

traditional cement is replaced by 

Headwaters’ Masonry Cement. 

Headwaters Scratch 

& Brown Stucco 

Cement Type S 

Scratch & 

Brown Stucco 

Cement Type S 

1 kg (2.2 lb) of Scratch & Brown 

Stucco Cement Type S produced by 

Headwaters replaces 1 kg (2.2 lb) of 

traditional Masonry Cement Type S 

used in generic stucco. Fully 100 % 

of the traditional cement is replaced 

by Headwaters’ Scratch and Brown 

Stucco Cement. 

Headwaters FRSbased Stucco FRS 1 kg (2.2 lb) of FRS produced by 

Headwaters replaces 2 kg (4.4 lb) of 

traditional Masonry Cement. Fully 

100 % of the traditional cement is 

replaced by Headwaters’ FRS. The 

metallic lath weighs either 

0.95 kg/m2

 (1.75 lb/yd2) or 1.36 

kg/m2

 (2.50 lb/yd2). The lighterweight lath is used in 60 % of the 

applications. 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• B2011H.DBF—Headwaters Scratch & Brown Stucco Cement Type S 

• B2011I.DBF—Headwaters FRS-based Stucco 

• B2011K.DBF—Headwaters Masonry Cement Type S-based Stucco 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram shown below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it 

is currently modeled for BEES. 
97

 

Figure 3.13: Headwaters Cement Products System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The three Headwaters products are comprised of the raw materials given in the Table below. 

Table 3.32: Headwaters Cement Constituents 

Constituent 

Masonry 

Cement 

Type S 

Scratch & 

Brown Stucco 

Cement FRS 

Fly Ash (class F) Yes Yes Yes 

Portland Cement (gray, 

type I) Yes Yes Yes 

Hydrated Lime (type S) Yes Yes Yes 

Polypropylene Fibers No No Yes 

Functional Unit of End-of-Life Transport to

BldgSite

Headwaters, Inc. Cement Products

Fly Ash

Production

Portland

Cement

Production

Lime

Production

PP Fibers

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Fine Aggregate

Production

Coarse

Aggregate

Production

Headwaters

Products

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Other

Inputs

Production

Ready-Mi

Plant

Cement Products
98

Portland cement. The BEES generic portland cement data are used for the portland cement 

constituent, and comes from the Portland Cement Association LCA database, which is 

documented under Generic Portland Cement Concrete Products. 

Fly Ash. Fly ash comes from coal-fired, electricity-generating power plants. These power plants 

grind coal to a fine powder before it is burned. Fly ash – the mineral residue produced by 

burning coal – is captured from the power plant's exhaust gases and collected for use. Fly ash 

particles are nearly spherical in shape, allowing them to flow and blend freely in mixtures, one of 

the properties making fly ash a desirable admixture for concrete. In LCA terms, this waste 

byproduct from coal combustion is assumed to be an environmentally “free” input material.92F

93 

Transport of the fly ash from the production site is included in the product modeling. 

Lime and Polypropylene. Data for hydrated lime production takes into account limestone 

extraction, crushing and calcination, and quick lime hydration, and comes from the U.S. LCI 

Database. Data for polypropylene production comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Raw materials are brought to the cement plant in 18-

wheel tankers and blown into silos. Material drops from the silos to a weigh-batcher, a blender, 

and a bagger. Only one product is produced at a time for at least a full day. Since all gray (fly 

ash-containing) products are related, changing products consists of tapping the system down and 

bagging the last of the product in the system. Allocation of the resources is based on the number 

of bags of each product produced. Energy consumed on site is mostly electricity (87 %) and 

diesel fuel oil. The site produces solid waste (1 % of production) and emits particulates. All 

energy and electricity data is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. The transportation distance of raw materials from the supplier to the 

manufacturer was provided by Headwaters and ranges from 16 km (10 mi) for the polypropylene 

fibers, to 48 km (30 mi) for the portland cement and lime, to 660 km (410 mi) for the fly ash. 

Materials are transported by diesel truck, with burdens modeled using the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Transportation of finished products to the building site is evaluated based on the same 

parameters given for the generic counterparts to Headwaters’ products, and all products are 

shipped by diesel truck. Emissions from transportation allocated to each product depend on the 

overall weight of the product. Diesel truck transportation is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Installation and Use 

While sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and other ancillary materials may be required to 

complete the exterior wall system, these materials are not included in the system boundaries for 

BEES exterior wall finishes. Maintenance for Headwaters’ exterior stucco products will vary 

depending on weather conditions, but usually consists of minimal repairs that can be done by 

hand. Maintenance is not included in the system boundaries for this product. 

 93 The environmental burdens associated with the production of waste materials are typically allocated to the 

intended product(s) of the process from which the waste results. 
99

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES exterior wall finish products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, 

Dryvit Outsulation, and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is 

required by code for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase 

its thermal performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus 

wall, to about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy 

savings for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted 

for in the BEES results.93F

94 

End of Life 

With general maintenance, exterior stucco wall finishes will generally last more than 100 years. 

This is a performance-based lifetime. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 24Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Reference 

Herb Nordmeyer, Headwaters, Inc. (2006) 

3.4.8 Dryvit EIFS Cladding Outsulation 

In 1969, Dryvit Systems, Inc., currently owned by 25HRPM International Inc. in Medina, OH, 

introduced North America to its exterior wall cladding system with insulation installed as part of 

the outside wall. Since that time, Dryvit's Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) have 

been used on commercial and residential buildings in the United States. 

The two most widely used EIFS cladding, Outsulation and Outsulation Plus, are evaluated in 

 94 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 
100

BEES. These are comprised of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulation board, a fiberglass 

mesh which is used for reinforcement, a polymer modified cement-based adhesive/basecoat and 

a polymer-based textured finish used as a top coat to enhance aesthetic appeal. Outsulation Plus 

is a next generation cladding that has an added layer of air and moisture barrier which not only 

protects the wall from accidental moisture but provides better insulation by stopping air 

infiltration. Both of these cladding systems can be installed in new and existing buildings. 

Dryvit operates four manufacturing plants in the United States, including one at its headquarters 

in West Warwick, RI, and has subsidiary operations in Canada, Poland, and China. The data for 

the BEES evaluation is based on the West Warwick, RI facility. 

Both Outsulation and Outsulation Plus are installed onto sheathing. While they are thermally 

efficient, the building still requires insulation. According to the manufacturer, both products 

provide a thermal resistance value of about R-6. The BEES user has the option of accounting for 

the energy saved, relative to other exterior wall finishes, over the 50-year use period. This is 

explained in more detail under Use. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the 

files B2011L.DBF, for Dryvit Outsulation, and B2011M.DBF, for Dryvit Outsulation Plus, 

under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagrams below shows the major elements of the production of these products as they 

are currently modeled for BEES. 
101

Figure 3.14: Dryvit Outsulation System Boundaries 

Figure 3.15: Dryvit Outsulation Plus System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of

Outsulation Plus 

siding

En -o -Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Primus 

Production

Dryvit Outsulation Plus

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Solvent 

production

Acrylic resin 

production

Aggregate/

sand

TiO2

production

Portland 

Cemen

production

Water

Other ma ’ls

production

Outsulation 

Plus 

production

EP

production

Fiberglass 

mes

production

GPP

production

Quarzputz 

Production

Backsto

Production

Functional Unit of

Outsulation siding En -o -Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Primu

Production

Dryvit Outsulation

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Solvent 

production

Acrylic resin 

production

Aggregate/

sand

TiO2

production

Portland 

Cemen

production

Water

Other ma ’ls

production

Outsulation 

production

EP

production

Fiberglass 

mes

production

GPP

production

Quarzputz 

Production
 

102

Raw Materials 

Outsulation’s basecoat, the textured finish top coat, and the barrier layer offered as part of 

Outsulation Plus are mixed and packaged at Dryvit’s facility. These products and their 

constituent materials are presented in the Table below. 

 

Table 3.33: Dryvit Product Constituents 

Constituent 

Adhesive/Basecoat 

(Primus) 

Topcoat 

(Quarzputz) 

Barrier 

(Backstop 

NT) 

Solvent yes yes yes 

Resins yes yes yes 

Aggregate yes yes yes 

Fine filler yes yes 

Titanium dioxide slurry yes yes 

Other materials yes yes yes 

Water yes yes yes 

The solvent, considered to be mineral spirits, is modeled as naphtha, whose data comes from the 

refining model in a U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy study on 

biodiesel and petroleum diesel fuels.94F

95 The fine filler is modeled as lime, which is based on the 

U.S. LCI Database. The resin is modeled as an acrylic-based resin. Data for this resin, plus the 

aggregate and titanium dioxide (TiO2) slurry, are based on elements of the SimaPro database, 

which is comprised of a mix of U.S. and European data. Water makes up over 23 % of 

Quarzputz and Backstop NT and almost 30 % of Primus. 

Primus is just one of Dryvit’s products that can be used as a basecoat and adhesive in 

Outsulation. Dryvit’s other wet and dry basecoats include Genesis, Primus DM, and Genesis 

DM. Dryvit also produces a variety of textured finishes. The most popular are Quarzputz, 

Sandblast, Sandpebble and Sandpebble Fine. These are available in three bases (Mid base, 

Pastel base, and Accent base) depending upon the amount of TiO2 present. The bases can be 

tinted to the desired color either in the factory or at distributor locations. 

The packaging of these products (5 gal polypropylene pails) is included in the model, with the 

polypropylene data coming from American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for 

submission to the U.S. LCI Database. 

 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Energy use at the Dryvit plant is primarily electricity to 

blend the Primus, Quarzputz, and Backstop NT constituents in large vessels and package them 

into 5 gal pails. The quantity of electricity used for each product is provided in the Table below. 

 95 Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus, NREL/SR580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Energy, May 1998). 
 

103

Table 3.34: Energy Requirements for Mixing Dryvit Outsulation and Outsulation Plus 

Materials 

Dryvit Product kWh/lb 

Primus 6.26 E-4 

Quarzputz 1.28 E-3 

Backstop NT 7.47 E-4 

Total 2.65 E-3 

Electricity production fuels and burdens come from the U.S. LCI Database. Any fine material 

particulates released during blending is captured by a dust collection system, so no particulates 

or other emissions are released. No manufacturing waste is produced. 

Transportation. Transportation distances of the product components were provided by Dryvit 

and range from 1 770 km (1 100 mi) for the fillers and 1 086 km (675 mi) for the aggregate, 

down to 80 km (50 mi) for the solvent. These are transported by diesel truck, as modeled in the 

U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Dryvit products, plus the EPS and fiberglass mesh (neither of which are produced by Dryvit), are 

modeled, by default, as being transported an average of 402 km (250 mi) by diesel truck to the 

building site. The BEES user is free to change this assumed transport distance. 

Installation 

Dryvit’s components described above, plus the EPS and fiberglass mesh, are installed together at 

the building site to produce the Outsulation and Outsulation Plus products. These materials are 

specified in the following two tables. Note that while sheathing, weather resistive barriers, and 

other ancillary materials are required to complete the exterior wall system, these materials are 

not included in the system boundaries for BEES exterior wall finishes. 

Table 3.35: Dryvit EIFS Constituents for Outsulation 

Constituent Specification Quantity per 9 m2

 

(100 ft2) of EIFS 

EPS 2 ft x 4 ft x 1.5 in 5.67 kg (12.5 lb) 

Fiberglass Mesh 4.3 oz/yd2 1.35 kg (2.98 lb) 

Primus 5 gal pail = 60 lb = 110 ft2 25 kg (55 lb) 

Quarzputz 5 gal pail = 70 lb = 130 ft2

 24.43 kg (53.85 lb) 
 

104

Table 3.36: Dryvit EIFS Constituents for Outsulation Plus 

Constituent Specification Quantity per 9 m2 

(100 ft2)of EIFS 

EPS 2 ft x 4 ft x 1.5 in 5.67 kg (12.5 lb) 

Fiberglass Mesh 4.3 oz/yd2 1.35 kg (2.98 lb) 

Primus 5 gal pail = 60 lb = 110 ft2 25 kg (55 lb) 

Quarzputz 5 gal pail = 70 lb = 130 ft2

 24.43 kg (53.85 lb) 

Backstop NT Texture 5 gal pail = 60 lb = 275 ft2

 9.89 kg (21.8 lb) 

EPS is produced by licensed EPS molders to a specification that has been established by Dryvit 

and ASTM. Fiberglass mesh also is produced to Dryvit specification and ASTM standard. The 

Dryvit basecoats, weather barriers, and finishes are used on the jobsite by trained plasterers. The 

process of applying EIFS Cladding begins once the stud walls are constructed and sheathing is 

up. (For consistency with other exterior wall finish products, sheathing is not included in the 

product model.) The EPS is applied to the sheathing with Primus as the adhesive and then again 

coated with Primus for a basecoat. In the field, Primus is mixed with equal amounts of cement. 

The fiberglass mesh is embedded into the basecoat. After 24 h of drying time, the textured 

finish, Quarzputz, is placed as the top coat. Outsulation Plus installation includes a layer of 

Backstop NT for the added layer of air and moisture barrier. 

Data for EPS resin production and blowing into foam insulation and fiberglass are based on the 

SimaPro database. For the BEES system, these are included with the raw material acquisition 

stage data since they are considered part of the main product. Portland cement (mixed with 

Primus) is included with the use stage of the product model, and its data comes from the U.S. 

LCI Database. For detailed information on this latter material, see Generic Portland Cement 

Concrete Products. 

According to the manufacturer, installation waste can run from 1 % to 5 %; 2.5 % is modeled for 

BEES. This waste is assumed to go to landfill. 

Use 

Any maintenance or cleaning over the life, if needed, is done manually and with relatively few 

materials. Because maintenance can vary from owner to owner based on frequency and degree, 

representative data was neither available nor included in the model. 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for exterior wall finish product alternatives. Thermal performance affects 

building heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and 

building energy costs over the BEES 50-year use stage. 

 

For exterior wall finishes, thermal performance differences are optionally assessed for 14 U.S. 

cities spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, 

and natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

finish alternatives for analysis, if the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, he 

or she selects the U.S. city closest to the building location and the building heating fuel type, so 
 

105

that thermal performance differences may be customized to these important contributors to 

building energy use. 

Three BEES products affect thermal performance: generic brick and mortar, Dryvit Outsulation, 

and Dryvit Outsulation Plus. Assuming a thermal resistance value of R-13 is required by code 

for exterior walls, then R-13 insulation on a brick and mortar wall will increase its thermal 

performance to about R-15, and on a Dryvit Outsulation or Dryvit Outsulation Plus wall, to 

about R-19. If the BEES user chooses to account for thermal performance, use energy savings 

for these three products, over and above that provided by R-13 insulation, are accounted for in 

the BEES results.95F

96 

End of Life 

Both Dryvit products are assumed to have useful lives of 50 years. At end of life, it is assumed 

that Outsulation and Outsulation Plus materials are waste and sent to a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 26Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 7.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Dr. Chander Patil, Dryvit Systems Inc. (August 2006) 

3.5 Insulation 

3.5.1 Generic Cellulose 

Blown cellulose insulation is produced primarily from post-consumer wood pulp (newspapers), 

typically accounting for roughly 85 % of the insulation by weight. Cellulose insulation is treated 

with fire retardant. Ammonium sulfate, borates, and boric acid are used most commonly and 

account for the other 15 % of the cellulose insulation by weight. 

BEES performance data are provided for thermal resistance values of R-13 for a wall application 

and R-38 for a ceiling application. The amount of cellulose insulation material used per 

functional unit is shown in the following Table, based on information from the Cellulose 

Insulation Manufacturers Association (CIMA) and the U.S. Department of Energy. 

 96 Note that if generic brick and mortar and/or the two Dryvit products are the only alternatives being compared, 

use energy savings are computed relative to the selected alternative with the lowest R-value. 
 

106

Table 3.37: Blown Cellulose Insulation by Application 

Application 

Thickness 

cm (in) 

Density 

kg/m3

 (lb/ft3) 

Mass per Functional Unit 

kg/m2 (lb/ft2) 

Wall--R-13 8.9 (3.5) 35.3 (2.20) 3.13 (0.641) 

Ceiling--R-38 27.6 (10.9) 27.2 (1.70) 7.52 (1.54) 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• B2012A.DBF—Blown Cellulose R-13 

• B3012A.DBF—Blown Cellulose R-38 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Cellulose Insulation End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Cellulose 

Insulation 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Cellulose Insulation Production

Newspaper 

Recovery

Boric Acid 

Production

Ammonium 

Sulfate 

Production

Blowing 

Energy

Functional Unit of 

Cellulose Insulation End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Cellulose 

Insulation 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Cellulose Insulation Production

Newspaper 

Recovery

Boric Acid 

Production

Ammonium 

Sulfate 

Production

Newspaper 

Recovery

Boric Acid 

Production

Ammonium 

Sulfate 

Production

Blowing 

Energy

Figure 3.16: Cellulose Insulation System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Cellulose insulation is essentially shredded recovered wastepaper that is coated with fire 

retardants. The mix of these materials is provided in the following Table; while the relative 

proportions of the fire retardants vary among manufacturers, they are assumed to be mixed in 

equal proportions for BEES. 
 

107

Table 3.38: Cellulose Insulation Constituents 

BEES recovered newspaper data includes burdens from wastepaper collection, sorting, and 

subsequent transportation to the insulation manufacturer. Since it is a recovered product, 

burdens from upstream production of the pulp are not included in the system boundaries. 

Ammonium sulfate is assumed to be a co-product of the production of nylon (caprolactam). The 

boric acid flame retardant is assumed to be produced from borax. Data for both materials, 

representing the early 2000s, is European.

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. There are no wastes or water effluents from the process 

of manufacturing cellulose insulation. The process includes shredding the wastepaper and 

blending it with the different fire retardants. Manufacturing energy is assumed to come from 

purchased electricity, as shown below. 

Table 3.39: Energy Requirements for Cellulose Insulation Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Electricity 0.35 (150) 

Transportation. The raw materials are all assumed to be shipped 161 km (100 mi) to the 

manufacturing plant via diesel truck. 

Waste. All waste produced during the production process is recycled back into other insulation 

materials. Therefore, no solid waste is generated during the production process. 

Transportation 

Transportation of cellulose insulation by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Cellulose insulation has a functional lifetime of more than 50 years – there is no need to replace 

or maintain the insulation during normal building use. During the installation of loose fill 

insulation, any waste material is added into the building shell where the insulation is installed, so 

there is effectively no installation waste. 

For loose fill insulation, a diesel generator is used to blow the insulation material into the space. 

For one h of operation, a typical 18 kW (25 hp) diesel engine can blow 818 kg (1 800 lb) of 

insulation. The emissions and energy use for this generator are included in the system boundaries 

for this product. No other installation energy is required. 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Recovered Newspaper 85 

Ammonium Sulfate 7.5 

Boric Acid 7.5 
 

108

Use 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects building 

heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and building 

energy costs over the 50-year use stage. Since alternatives for ceiling insulation all have R-38 

thermal resistance values, thermal performance differences are at issue only for the wall 

insulation alternatives. 

For wall insulation, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 14 U.S. cities 

spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, and 

natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

insulation alternatives for analysis, the BEES user selects the U.S. city closest to the building 

location and the building heating fuel type, so that thermal performance differences may be 

customized to these important contributors to building energy use. A NIST study of the 

economic efficiency of energy conservation measures (including insulation), tailored to these 

cities and fuel types, is used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling requirements per functional 

unit of insulation.96F

97 BEES environmental performance results account for the energy-related 

inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements. To account for the 50-year energy 

requirements in BEES economic performance results, 2005-2006 winter fuel prices by U.S. 

region97F

98 and U.S. Department of Energy fuel price projections over the next 30 years98F99 are used 

to compute the present value cost of operational energy per functional unit for each R-value. 

End of Life 

While cellulose insulation is mostly recyclable, it is assumed that all of the insulation is disposed 

of in a landfill at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2006), Table WF01. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 27Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Petersen, S., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family 

Housing (NBSIR 81-2380) (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1981). 

Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis –April 2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, April 2006). 

 97 Petersen, S., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family Housing, NBSIR 81-

2380(Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1981). 98 Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006(Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 2006), Table WF01. 99 Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis –April 

2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards and Technology, April 2006).The year 

30 DOE cost escalation factor is assumed to hold for years 31-50. 
 

109

Industry Contacts 

Daniel Lea, Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association (July 2007). 

3.5.2 Generic Fiberglass 

Fiberglass batt insulation is made by forming spun-glass fibers into batts. At an insulation plant, 

the product feedstock is weighed and sent to a melting furnace. The raw materials are melted in a 

furnace at very high temperatures. Streams of the resulting vitreous melt are either spun into 

fibers after falling onto rapidly rotating flywheels or drawn through tiny holes in rapidly rotating 

spinners. This process shapes the melt into fibers. Glass coatings are added to the fibers that are 

then collected on conveyers. The structure and density of the product is continually controlled 

by the conveyer speed and height as it passes through a curing oven. The cured product is then 

sawn or cut to the required size, such as for a batt. Off-cuts and other scrap material are recycled 

back into the production process. 

BEES performance data are provided for fiberglass batt insulation with thermal resistance values 

of R-13, R-15, and R-19 for a wall application, and R-38 for a ceiling application. 

 

Blown fiberglass insulation is made by forming spun-glass fibers using the same method as for 

batts but leaving the insulation loose and unbonded. For loose fill fiberglass insulation, BEES 

performance data are provided for a thermal resistance value of R-38 for a ceiling application. 

The tables below specify fiberglass insulation by type and R-value: 

Table 3.40: Fiberglass Batt Mass by Application 

Application 

Thickness 

cm (in) 

Density 

kg/m3

 (lb/ft3) 

Mass per Functional Unit 

kg/m2 (oz/ft2) 

Wall--R-13 8.9 (3.5) 12.1 (0.76) 1.07 (3.52) 

Wall--R-15 8.9 (3.5) 22.6 (1.41) 2.01 (6.58) 

Wall--R-19 15.9 (6.25) 7.0 (0.44) 1.11 (3.65) 

Ceiling--R-38 30.5 (12.0) 7.7 (0.48) 2.35 (7.71) 

Table 3.41: Blown Fiberglass Mass by Application 

Application 

Thickness 

cm (in) 

Density 

kg/m3

 (lb/ft3) 

Mass per Functional Unit 

kg/m2 (oz/ft2) 

Ceiling--R-38 37.7 (14.8) 8.8 (0.55) 3.32 (10.9) 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• B2012B.DBF—Fiberglass Batt R-19 

• B2012C.DBF—Fiberglass Batt R-15 

• B2012E.DBF—Fiberglass Batt R-13 
 

110

• B3012B.DBF—Fiberglass Batt R-38 

• B3012D.DBF—Blown Fiberglass R-38 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Fiberglass 

Insulation

End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Fiberglass 

Insulation 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Fiberglass Insulation Production

Cullet 

Recovery

LImestone

Production

Soda Ash 

Production

Borax 

Production

Kraft 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Facing 

Production 

(for faced 

batts)

Sand 

Production

Glass 

Coatings 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Fiberglass 

Insulation

End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Fiberglass 

Insulation 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Fiberglass Insulation Production

Cullet 

Recovery

LImestone

Production

Soda Ash 

Production

Borax 

Production

Kraft 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Facing 

Production 

(for faced 

batts)

Sand 

Production

Glass 

Coatings 

Production

Figure 3.17: Fiberglass Insulation System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Fiberglass insulation is made with a blend of sand, limestone, soda ash, and recycled glass cullet. 

Recycled window, automotive, or bottle glass is increasingly used in the manufacture of glass 

fiber, and it now accounts for approximately 30 % to 50 % of the raw material input. The 

recycled content is limited by the amount of usable recycled material available in the market – 

not all glass cullet is of sufficient quality to be used in the glass fiber manufacturing process. The 

use of recycled material has helped to steadily reduce the energy required to produce insulation 

products. 

The raw materials used to produce fiberglass insulation are show in the following Table. 
 

111

Table 3.42: Fiberglass Insulation Constituents 

Constituent Batt 

Mass Fraction (%) 

Loose Fill 

Mass Fraction (%) 

Soda Ash 9 9 

Borax 12 13 

Glass Cullet 34 35 

Limestone 9 9 

Binder Coatings 5 <1 

Sand 31 33 

The life cycle environmental profiles for the constituents of fiberglass insulation are based on 

life cycle data from the SimaPro software tool and data from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements for melting the glass 

constituents into fibers and drying of the completed batt involve a mixture of natural gas and 

electricity. The energy demands are outlined in the following Table. 

Table 3.43: Energy Requirements for Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Natural Gas 1.99 (857) 

Electricity 1.37 (591) 

Total 3.36 (1448) 

The manufacturing process generates air emissions from the combustion of the fuels used to melt 

the raw materials and from the drying of the insulation material prior to cutting and packaging. 

Emissions from fuel combustion are captured in the fuel use data included in the BEES model; 

additional emissions are listed in the Table below. 

Table 3.44: Emissions for Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing 

Emission Bonded Batts 

g/kg (lb/ton) 

Unbonded Loose Fill 

g/kg (lb/ton) 

Particulates 2.380 (4.759) 1.610 (3.220) 

VOC 0.759 (1.518) 0.083 (0.165) 

Transportation. The raw materials are all shipped to the manufacturing plant via diesel truck. 

The average shipping distances are as follows: 
 

112

Table 3.45: Raw Material Transportation Distances 

Constituent Distance to Plant 

km (mi) 

Borax 805 (500) 

Soda Ash 805 (500) 

Glass Cullet 161 (100) 

Limestone 161 (100) 

Binder Coatings 322 (200) 

Sand 161 (100) 

Waste. All waste produced during the cutting and blending process is either recycled into other 

insulation materials or added back into the glass mix. Thus, no solid waste is generated during 

the production process. 

Transportation 

Transportation of fiberglass insulation by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Fiberglass insulation has a functional lifetime of more than 50 years – there is no need to replace 

or maintain the insulation during normal building use. During the installation of fiberglass batts 

and loose fill insulation, any waste material is added into the building shell where the insulation 

is installed - there is effectively no installation waste. 

 

Installing batt insulation is primarily a manual process; no energy or emissions are included in 

the model. For blown fiberglass insulation, a diesel generator is used to blow the insulation 

material into the ceiling space. For one h of operation, a typical 18 kW (25 hp) diesel engine can 

blow 818 kg (1 800 lb) of insulation. No other installation energy is required. 

Use 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects building 

heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and building 

energy costs over the 50-year use stage. Since alternatives for ceiling insulation all have R-38 

thermal resistance values, thermal performance differences are at issue only for the wall 

insulation alternatives. 

For wall insulation, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 14 U.S. cities 

spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, and 

natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

insulation alternatives for analysis, the BEES user selects the U.S. city closest to the building 

location and the building heating fuel type, so that thermal performance differences may be 

customized to these important contributors to building energy use. A NIST study of the 

economic efficiency of energy conservation measures (including insulation), tailored to these 

cities and fuel types, is used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling requirements per functional 
 

113

unit of insulation.9F

100 BEES environmental performance results account for the energy-related 

inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements. To account for the 50-year energy 

requirements in BEES economic performance results, 2005-2006 winter fuel prices by U.S. 

region10F

101 and U.S. Department of Energy fuel price projections over the next 30 years10F102 are used 

to compute the present value cost of operational energy per functional unit for each R-value. 

End of Life 

While fiberglass insulation is mostly recyclable, it is assumed that all of the insulation is 

disposed of in a landfill at end of life. 

 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2006), Table WF01. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 28Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Petersen, S., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family 

Housing (NBSIR 81-2380) (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1981). 

Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis –April 2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, April 2006). 

Industry Contacts 

Clarke Berdan II, Owens Corning (January 2006 – May 2006) 

Paul R. Bertram, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (July 2007) 

3.5.3 Generic Mineral Wool 

Blown mineral wool insulation is made by spinning fibers from natural rock (rock wool) or iron 

ore blast furnace slag (slag wool). Rock wool and slag wool are manufactured by melting the 

constituent raw materials in a cupola. A molten stream is created and poured onto a rapidly 

spinning wheel or wheels. The viscous molten material adheres to the wheels and the centrifugal 

force throws droplets of melt away from the wheels, forming fibers. The fibers are then 

collected and cleaned to remove non-fibrous material. During the process a phenol 

formaldehyde binder and/or a de-dusting agent are sometimes applied to reduce free, airborne 

wool during application. 

 

 100 Petersen, S., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family Housing, NBSIR 81-

2380 (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1981). 101 Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006 (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 2006), Table WF01. 102 Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis –

April 2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards and Technology, April 

2006).The year 30 DOE cost escalation factor is assumed to hold for years 31-50. 
 

114

BEES performance data are provided for a thermal resistance value of R-13 for a wall 

application and R-38 for a ceiling application. The Table below specifies mineral wool 

insulation for these applications. 

Table 3.46: Blown Mineral Wool Mass by Application 

Application 

Thickness 

cm (in) 

Density 

kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 

Mass per Functional Unit 

kg/m2 (lb/ft2) 

Wall--R-13 7.9 (3.1) 64.1 (4.00) 5.06 (1.04) 

Ceiling--R-38 30.6 (12.1) 27.2 (1.70) 8.34 (1.71) 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• B2012D.DBF—Blown Mineral Wool R-13 

• B3012C.DBF—Blown Mineral Wool R-38 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Mineral Wool 

Insulation

End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Mineral Wool 

Insulation 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Mineral Wool Insulation Production

Coke 

Production

Iron Slag 

Recovery

Diabase Rock 

Production

Blowing 

Energy

Functional Unit of 

Mineral Wool 

Insulation

End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Mineral Wool 

Insulation 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Mineral Wool Insulation Production

Coke 

Production

Iron Slag 

Recovery

Diabase Rock 

Production

Blowing 

Energy

Figure 3.18: Mineral Wool Insulation System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Mineral wool can be manufactured using iron ore slag (slag wool) or natural diabase or basalt 

rock (rock wool). Some products contain both materials; about 80 % of North American mineral 

wool is manufactured using iron ore slag. Loose fill mineral wool insulation is generally 

unbonded, that is, no resin is used to bind the fibers together. The BEES model for this product 
 

115

represents a weighted mix of the different types of mineral wool insulation used in North 

America, as given in the Table below. 

Table 3.47: Mineral Wool Insulation Constituents 

The life cycle environmental profiles for the constituents of mineral wool insulation are based on 

surrogate life cycle data in the SimaPro software tool and the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements for melting the product 

constituents into fibers and drying of the fibers involve a mixture of coke and electricity. The 

energy demands are outlined in the following Table. 

Table 3.48: Energy Requirements for Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Coke 6.38 (2740) 

Electricity 1.0 (430) 

Total 7.38 (3170) 

The manufacturing process generates air emissions from the combustion of the fuels used to melt 

the raw materials and from the drying on the insulation material prior to packaging. Emissions 

from fuel combustion are captured in the fuel use data included in the BEES model; additional 

emissions are included in the Table below. 

Table 3.49: Emissions for Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturing 

Emission Unbonded Loose Fill

g/kg (lb/ton) 

Particulates 2.061 (4.122) 

Fluorides 0.019 (0.038) 

Transportation. The raw materials are all assumed to be shipped 161 km (100 mi) to the 

manufacturing plant via diesel truck. 

Waste. All waste produced during the production process is either recycled into other insulation 

materials or added back into the melt. Therefore, no solid waste is generated during the 

production process.

Transportation 

Transportation of mineral wool insulation by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Diabase 

Rock/Basalt 22 

Iron Ore Slag 78 
 

116

a variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Mineral wool insulation has a functional lifetime of more than 50 years – there is no need to 

replace or maintain the insulation during normal building use. During the installation of loose 

fill insulation, any waste material is added into the building shell where the insulation is installed 

- there is effectively no installation waste. 

 

A diesel generator is used to blow the insulation material into the building shell. For one h of 

operation, a typical 18 kW (25 hp) diesel engine can blow 818 kg (1 800 lb) of insulation. The 

emissions and energy use for the generator are included in the system boundaries for this 

product. No other installation energy is required. 

Use 

It is important to consider thermal performance differences when assessing environmental and 

economic performance for insulation product alternatives. Thermal performance affects building 

heating and cooling loads, which in turn affect energy-related LCA inventory flows and building 

energy costs over the 50-year use stage. Since alternatives for ceiling insulation all have R-38 

thermal resistance values, thermal performance differences are at issue only for the wall 

insulation alternatives. 

For wall insulation, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 14 U.S. cities 

spread across a wide range of climate and fuel cost zones, and for electricity, distillate oil, and 

natural gas heating fuel types (electricity is assumed for all cooling). When selecting wall 

insulation alternatives for analysis, the BEES user selects the U.S. city closest to the building 

location and the building heating fuel type, so that thermal performance differences may be 

customized to these important contributors to building energy use. A NIST study of the 

economic efficiency of energy conservation measures (including insulation), tailored to these 

cities and fuel types, is used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling requirements per functional 

unit of insulation.102F

103 BEES environmental performance results account for the energy-related 

inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements. To account for the 50-year energy 

requirements in BEES economic performance results, 2005-2006 winter fuel prices by U.S. 

region103F

104 and U.S. Department of Energy fuel price projections over the next 30 years104F105 are used 

to compute the present value cost of operational energy per functional unit for each R-value. 

End of Life 

While mineral wool insulation is mostly recyclable, it is assumed that all of the insulation is 

disposed of in a landfill at end of life. 

 103 Petersen, S., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family Housing, NBSIR 81-

2380(Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1981) 104 Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006 (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 2006), Table WF01. 105 Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis –

April 2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards and Technology, April 

2006).The year 30 DOE cost escalation factor is assumed to hold for years 31-50. 
 

117

References 

Life Cycle Data 

Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2006), Table WF01. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 29Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Petersen, S., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family 

Housing (NBSIR 81-2380) (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1981). 

Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis –April 2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, April 2006). 

Industry Contacts 

Anders Schmidt, dk-Teknik Energy & Environment (November 2005 – January 2006) 

3.6 Framing 

3.6.1 Generic Steel Framing 

Steel is an important construction framing material. Cold-formed steel studs for framing are 

manufactured from blanks sheared from sheets cut from coils or plates, or by roll-forming coils 

or sheets. Both these forming operations are done at ambient temperatures. Cold-formed steel 

shapes are made from flat-rolled 0.46 mm to 2.46 mm) (18 mil to 97 mil) carbon steel as either 

single bent shapes or bent shapes welded together. Two basic types of steel framing, nailable 

and nonnailable, are available in both punched and solid forms. Zinc chromate primer, 

galvanized, and painted finishes are available. Steel stud and joist systems have been adopted as 

an alternative to wood and masonry systems in most types of construction. Steel framing is also 

used extensively for interior partitions because it is fire-resistant, easy to erect, and makes 

installation of utilities more convenient. Cold-formed steel framing can be installed directly at 

the construction site or it can be prefabricated off- or on-site for quicker installation. The 

assembly process relies on a number of accessories usually made of steel, such as bridging, bolts, 

nuts, screws, and anchors, as well as devices for fastening units together, such as clips and nails. 

The functional unit of comparison for BEES framing alternatives is 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2). The steel 

framed exterior wall has 33 mil galvanized steel studs placed 61 cm (24 in) on center, and has a 

service life of 75 years. Self-tapping steel screws, used as fasteners for the steel studs, are 

included. While the exterior wall is constructed as an assembly with sheathing components and 

insulation, for the BEES framing category, only the framing material is accounted for, not the 

full assembly. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2013A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 
 

118

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Steel Framing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Steel Framing 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Steel Framing Production

Steel Screw 

Production

Steel 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Functional Unit of 

Steel Framing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Steel Framing 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Steel Framing Production

Steel Screw 

Production

Steel 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Figure 3.19: Steel Framing System Boundaries 

Raw Materials and Manufacturing 

BEES modeling of the production of raw materials necessary for steel stud and fastener 

manufacture is based on data from the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and the 

International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), which represent late 1990s world-wide production of 

steel and account for recycling loops. Energy requirements and emissions from manufacturing 

cannot be itemized, since the industry data are in fully-aggregated form. 

Secondary data were obtained from LCA databases and published literature. 

Transportation 

Transportation of the steel framing by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

During installation of the steel stud framing, 1 % of the installation materials are assumed to be 

lost as waste, which is recycled by contractors following “green building” practices. 

Approximately 0.0056 kg (0.0123 lb) of galvanized steel screws are assumed to be used per ft2

of steel framing. The installation of the framing is assumed to be a manual process, so no energy 

inputs or emissions are included in the model. 
 

119

Use 

Steel framing is assumed to have a useful life of 75 years. This is a conservative value; steel 

studs have a very long life due to their galvanized treatment. 

End of Life 

All the steel framing and its components are assumed to be recycled at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 30Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Contacts 

Bill Heenan, President, Steel Recycling Institute (January 2006) 

Greg Crawford, Vice President, Steel Recycling Institute (January 2006) 

3.6.2 Generic Wood Framing 

Wood framing is the most common structural system used for non-load-bearing and load-bearing 

interior and exterior walls, and consists of lumber and specific applications of treated lumber. 

The load-bearing walls support floors, ceilings, roof and lateral loads, and nonbearing walls 

carry only their own weight. Interior walls can be either non-load bearing or load bearing, 

whereas all exterior walls should be considered load bearing. Exterior walls are comprised of 

one or two top and bottom plates and vertical studs. Sheathing or diagonal bracing ensures lateral 

stability. When the wall is on a concrete foundation or slab, building code requires that the sill or 

sole plate (also called bottom plate) that is in contact with the concrete must be treated wood. 

In general, dimensions for framing lumber are given in nominal in, that is, 2x4 and 2x6, but the 

actual dimensions of a 2x4 are 3.8 cm x 8.9 cm (1.5 in x 3.5 in) and of a 2x6, 3.8 cm x 14 cm 

(1.5 in x 5.5 in). Framing lumber must be properly grade-marked to be acceptable under the 

major building codes. Such grade marks identify the grade, species or species group, seasoning 

condition at time of manufacture, producing mill, and the grading rules-writing agency. 

Wood studs are produced in a sawmill, where harvested wood is debarked and sawn into specific 

dimensions. The lumber is then dried in a controlled environment until the desired moisture 

content (between 12 % and 19 %) is reached. Framing lumber may be treated with preservatives 

in order to guard against insect attack or fungal decay. Treated lumber is used for any application 

where wood is in contact with concrete or the ground. All wood, including framing, used in 

places with serious termite problems, such as in Hawaii, must be treated. 

The functional unit of comparison for BEES framing alternatives is 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of loadbearing exterior wall. The wood-framed wall consists of wood studs placed 41 cm (16 in) on 

center, and has a service life of 75 years. While the exterior wall is constructed as an assembly 

with sheathing components and insulation, for the BEES system, only the framing material—

either treated or untreated wood--is accounted for, not the full assembly. 
 

120

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

file B2013B.DBF, for treated wood framing, and B2013C.DBF, for untreated wood framing, 

under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Wood Framing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Wood Stud 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Wood Framing Production

Galvanized 

Nail 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Timber 

Harvesting

Fertilizer 

Production

Preservative 

Production 

(Treated 

Wood Option)

Functional Unit of 

Wood Framing End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Wood Stud 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Wood Framing Production

Galvanized 

Nail 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Timber 

Harvesting

Fertilizer 

Production

Preservative 

Production 

(Treated 

Wood Option)

Figure 3.20: Wood Framing System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

For BEES, data were collected for the harvested trees used to produce the dimension lumber 

necessary for framing load-bearing walls. The lumber is primarily produced in the Pacific 

Northwest (PNW) and the Southeastern United States (SE). For PNW the species of wood used 

are Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock, while for SE the wood species is Southern Yellow Pine, 

which is actually a group of six different softwood species. 

The data to grow and harvest softwood logs for a composite forest management scenario for 

PNW and SE is found in a study by CORRIM.105F

106 The growing and harvesting of wood includes a 

mix of low-, medium-, and high-intensity managed timber. Energy use for wood production 

includes electricity for greenhouses to grow seedlings, gasoline for chain saws, diesel fuel for 

 106 Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building 

Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for Research on Renewable 

Industrial Materials-- CORRIM, Inc./University of Washington, 2004). Found at: http://www.corrim.org/reports; 

data also submitted to US LCI Database. 
 

121

harvesting mechanical equipment, and a small amount of fertilizer. Emissions associated with 

production and combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel, and those for the production and delivery 

of electricity, are based on the U.S. LCI Database. Fertilizer production data is adapted from 

European data in the U.S. LCI Database. Electricity use for greenhouse operation is based on the 

grids for the regions where the seedlings are grown, while the U.S. average electricity grid is 

used for fertilizer production. BEES adopts the CORRIM study’s equally-weighted average of 

forest management practices in PNW and SE. The weight of wood harvested for lumber is based 

on an average oven-dry density of 510 kg/m3

 (31.8 lb/ft3). 

BEES modeling accounts for the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees as they grow; the carbon 

becomes part of the wood, and the oxygen is released to the atmosphere. The “uptake” of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere during the growth of timber is about 1.84 kg (4.06 lb) of carbon 

dioxide per kilogram of harvested wood (in oven-dry weight terms). 

Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA), the lumber treatment assumed in previous versions of 

BEES, is no longer permitted for use in the United States. An article from the Treated Wood 

Council website reports that alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ), a copper-based preservative, is 

the most popular replacement preservative for CCA.106F

107 This contains 66.7 % copper oxide and 

33.3 % didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride. The data used in BEES for copper oxide is based 

on European data for copper production, provided by the SimaPro database. For lack of better 

available data, proxy data was used to represent didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride; esterquat, 

a type of quaternary ammonium, was used as the proxy, and its production data comes from a 

European study on detergents.107F

108 The treated wood in BEES is assumed to contain 4.0 kg/m3 

(0.25 lb/ft3) ACQ.108F

109 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements allocated to the production of 

softwood lumber for wood framing are listed in the Table below. These requirements are based 

on average manufacturing conditions in the PNW and SE regions of the United States. The 

energy comes primarily from burning wood and bark waste generated in the sawmill process. 

Other fuel sources include natural gas for boilers, and propane and diesel for forklifts and log 

haulers at the sawmill. The production and combustion of the different types of fuel are based on 

the U.S. LCI Database. The electricity grid used is an average by fuel breakdown for both 

regions. 

 107 Frome, A., “Wood Treaters Switch to New Chemical,” TimberLine Online Newspaper (April 2004). Found at: 

http://www.treatedwood.com/news/industry_articles/new_chemical_040104.pdf. 108 Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 109 Southern Pine Council, “Table 12: AWPA Standards for Softwood Lumber & Plywood,” Southern Pine Use 

Guide (Kenner, LA: Southern Pine Council, 2003), pp. 17. Found at: 

http://www.southernpine.com/awpatable1_03.pdf. 
 

122

Table 3.50: Lumber Production Energy 

Energy Carrier Quantity per lb Lumber 

 in SE 

Quantity per lb Lumber 

 in PNW 

Electricity 1.80E+05 J (0.05 kWh) 2.88E+05 J (0.08 kWh) 

Natural Gas 4.81E-08 L (1.7 E-09 ft3) 23 L (0.82 ft3) 

Diesel fuel 0.56 mL (1.5 E-04 gal) 0.98 mL (2.6 E-04 gal) 

Kerosene 0.001 mL (3.8 E-07 gal) -- 

LPG 7.95E-05 mL (2.1 E-08 gal) 2.69E-04 mL (7.1 E-08 gal) 

Gasoline 0.05 mL (1.2 E-05 gal) 0.06 mL (1.7 E-05 gal) 

Hogfuel/Biomass 

(oven-dry basis) 118 g (0.26 lb) 73 g (0.16 lb) 

The allocated process-related air emissions from lumber production are based on the CORRIM 

study and reported in the Table below. Allocation is based on mass and a multi-unit process 

analysis to correctly assign burdens. Note: In the BEES model, CO2 generated by combustion of 

biofuel (hogged wood fuel) and fossil fuel are tracked separately since CO2 from biomass is 

considered environmentally impact-neutral by the U.S. EPA, and as such is not considered when 

determining the Global Warming Potential impact. 

Table 3.51: Lumber Production Emissions 

Air Emission Quantity per lb 

Lumber from SE 

Quantity per lb 

Lumber from PNW 

Particulates (unspecified) 0.44 g (9.7 E-04 lb) 0.01 g (3.0 E-05 lb) 

VOC (unspecified) 0.50 g (1.1 E-03 lb) 0.09 g (1.9 E-04 lb) 

Treating Wood. Data for treating wood comes from a treated lumber producer.109F

110 Lumber is put 

into a vacuum chamber where air is removed from the wood cells. Preservative is pumped into 

the chamber, and with the pressure in the chamber raised, the preservative is forced into the 

wood. At the end of the treatment, a vacuum removes excess preservative from wood cells. 

Transportation. Sawmills are often located close to tree harvesting areas. For transportation of 

logs to the sawmill, CORRIM surveys report an average truck transportation distance of 103 km 

(64 mi) for harvested wood. The delivery distances are one-way with an empty backhaul. For 

preservative-treated lumber, truck transportation of 322 km (200 mi) is assumed for transport of 

the preservative. 

Transportation 

Transportation of wood framing by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system. 

The weight of wood shipped includes its moisture content. For the shipping weight of lumber, 

the oven-dry density of lumber, 510 kg/m3 (31.8 lb/ft3), plus its moisture content of 19 % (an 

 110 See www.follen.com/faq.html#q3. 
 

123

additional 97 kg of water), yields a shipping weight of 607 kg/m3 (37.9 lb/ft3). The ACQ-treated 

lumber is usually shipped green, so a 40 % to 60 % moisture content is assumed. 

Installation 

Installation of wood framing is assumed to be done primarily by manual labor, so there are no 

installation emissions. It is assumed that wood studs are placed 16 in on center and are fastened 

with galvanized steel nails. Production of the galvanized steel for nails is based on data from the 

International Iron and Steel Institute.10F

111

At installation, 5 % of the product is lost to waste, and all of this waste is disposed of in a 

landfill. It is assumed that 0.04 kg (0.09 lb) of galvanized nails are needed to install the framing. 

Use 

Based on U.S. Census data, the mid-service life of a wood-framed house in the United States is 

over 85 years. To be conservative, CORRIM assumes a life of 75 years for the residential shell, 

including wood framing. The product is therefore assumed to have a useful life of 75 years. 

There is no routine maintenance for the framing over its lifetime. The building envelope (roof 

and siding) should be maintained to ensure water tightness and prevent water damage to the 

shell. 

End of Life 

All the wood framing is assumed to be disposed of in landfill at end of life. The practice of 

recycling is increasing, but data are not available to quantify this practice. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 31Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable 

Building Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for 

Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. (CORRIM, Inc.)/University of Washington, 

2004). Found at: 32Hhttp://www.corrim.org/reports. 

Frome, A., “Wood Treaters Switch to New Chemical,” TimberLine Online Newspaper (April 

2004). Found at: 

34Hhttp://www.treatedwood.com/news/industry_articles/new_chemical_040104.pdf. 

Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of Detergent Ingredients, 

Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 

Southern Pine Council, “Table 12: AWPA Standards for Softwood Lumber & Plywood,” 

Southern Pine Use Guide, (Kenner, LA: Southern Pine Council, 2003), pp. 17. Found at: 

35Hhttp://www.southernpine.com/awpatable1_03.pdf. 

 111 Life Cycle Inventory Data Sheet for Steel Products issued to First Environment in January 2006. Data 

represent the years 1999-2000. 
 

124

Industry Contacts 

Jim Wilson, Oregon State University/CORRIM, Inc. (August 2005-Jan 2006) 

3.7 Exterior Sealers and Coatings 

3.7.1 BioPreserve SoyGuard Wood Sealer 

Produced by BioPreserve in Erie, Pennsylvania, SoyGuard Premium Water Repellent & Wood 

Sealer is a biobased, non-toxic exterior wood coating with a weak odor and low VOC. It can be 

applied to new, old, and pressure-treated wood surfaces that are exposed to moisture and 

weather, such as outdoor decks, siding, furniture, fences, and doors. SoyGuard contains methyl 

soyate, a natural solvent derived from soybean oil that penetrates the wood surface and 

encapsulates wood cells with a protective polymer resin made from recycled polystyrene. 

For the BEES system, the functional unit for the sealer and coating category is sealing or coating 

9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) of surface. At an application rate of 23.2 m2 (250 ft2) per gal and a density of 

3.4 kg (7.5 lb) per gal, this amounts to use of 1.36 kg (3 lb) of SoyGuard per application. The 

detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B2040A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product as it is 

modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.21: SoyGuard System Boundaries 

Functional Unit 

o SoyGuard

Truc

Transport 

to Building

BioPreserve SoyGuard Wood Sealer

Proces

energy

Raw material 

transport

SoyGuard

production

Methyl 

soyate

production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Soybean 

production

Recycled 

EPS

Recycling 

processes
 

125

Raw Materials 

The SoyGuard constituents are used in the following proportions. 

Table 3.52: SoyGuard Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Methyl Soyate 92 

Recycled expanded polystyrene (EPS) 8 

Methyl soyate production data comes from the life cycle data for biodiesel production developed 

for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study that compared petroleum-based diesel fuel 

to biodiesel.1F

112 Data for soybean production comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

The production of virgin extruded polystyrene (EPS) is not accounted for since recycled EPS is 

used in the product, but data for recycling the EPS is included and encompasses the following 

subprocesses: collection at end of life, shredding and grinding, milling, separation, and 

granulation. This data is 1990s European data on mixed polymers and comes from the SimaPro 

database. Transportation of the recycled EPS to the BioPreserve plant is included. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. Data to heat and mix the materials into the final product is calculated 

using the energy consumed and quantity produced in an 8-h shift, and amounts to 0.0022 

kWh/kg (0.001 kWh/lb) of product. Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electricity grid 

from the U.S. LCI Database. A small amount of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

particulate emissions are released during the process: 1.4 E-5 kg (3.0 E-5 lb) of VOC and 1.4 E-6 

kg (3.0 E-6 lb) of particulates per lb of SoyGuard produced. A small amount of solid waste is 

generated as well: 4.5 E-7 kg (1.0 E-6 lb) of filtered solid particles from recycled EPS per lb of 

SoyGuard produced. All of these outputs are accounted for in the BEES product model. 

Transportation. Methyl soyate is transported approximately 1368 km (850 mi) to the plant, 

while the EPS comes from only 8 km (5 mi) away. Materials are transported by diesel truck, 

which is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

As a default, product transport to the customer is assumed to average 563 km (350 mi) by diesel 

truck, modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. The BEES user is free to change the default 

transportation distance. 

Installation and Use 

SoyGuard requires that one thin coat be applied with a brush, roller, or power sprayer, but for the 

product to be fully effective it must be applied only at a rate the surface can absorb. For BEES, 

SoyGuard is modeled as being manually applied. One application lasts approximately 2 years. 

As with all BEES products, re-application over the 50-year use period–a total of 25 applications 

in all–is accounted for in the model. 

 112 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 
 

126

End of Life 

No end-of-life is modeled since the product is fully consumed during the use phase. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 36Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

BioPreserve, SoyGuard Wood Protection Premium Water Repellent and Sealer: Product 

Information and Application Instructions. Found at: 37Hhttp://www.biopreserve.com. 

Industry Contacts 

Brad Davis, BioPreserve (January 2006) 

3.8 Roof Coverings 

3.8.1 Generic Asphalt Shingles 

Asphalt shingles, available in a wide range of colors and styles, are suitable for use on roofs with 

pitches from 2:12 to 21:12.12F

113,

13F

114 Asphalt shingles are commonly made from fiberglass mats 

impregnated and coated with a mixture of asphalt and mineral filler for both a decorative finish 

and a wearing layer. The shingles are nailed over roofing underlayment installed over a deck of 

sheathing, typically oriented strand board. 

The market for asphalt shingles has changed significantly in the past 10 years, from primarily 3-

tab shingles to now over 56 % of the market consisting of laminated/multi-layered products. 

Laminate asphalt shingles typically are available in dimensions of 30 cm by 91 cm (12 in by 

36 in). Roof coverings such as asphalt shingles are evaluated in BEES on the basis of a 

functional unit of roof area covered: 1 square (9.29 m2, or 100 ft2). Allowing for the 

recommended overlap, a typical number of shingles required to cover one square is about 80 

standard shingles or 65 metric shingles, with an average weight of about 14 kg/m2

 (280 

lb/square).14F

115

The type of underlayment used has typically been asphalt-impregnated organic felt, although 

self-adhering polymer modified bituminous sheet materials have been experiencing 20 % to 

30 % growth in use over the past several years. For roof pitches from 3:12 to 4:12, two layers of 

 113 Pitch ratio expressed as rise in in: run in in. 114 Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) 

Residential Asphalt Roofing Manual (Calverton, MD: Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, 1997) pp. 17. 115 Shingle dimensions and weight per square based on survey of product information available in ICC reports on 

laminated asphalt shingles produced by various manufacturers (http://www.icces.org/reports/index.cfm?search=search). Number of shingles per square from survey of laminated asphalt shingle 

products on ebuild.com. 
 

127

Type-15 felt underlayment are used, while roof pitches greater than 4:12 shed water more 

quickly and thus require only one layer of Type-15 felt.15F

116

For BEES, a roof covering of asphalt laminated shingles with a 20-year life, installed with one 

layer of type-15 roofing underlayment and galvanized steel nails, is analyzed. The roof sheathing 

is not considered in the analysis. The detailed environmental performance data for this product 

may be viewed by opening the file B3011A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES 

software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.22: Asphalt Shingles System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The composition of asphalt shingles is shown in the Table below. Granules production is 

modeled as rock mining and grinding. 

 116 Crowe, J. P. “Steep-slope roof systems require different underlayment installations.” Professional Roofing 

(May 2005). 

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Shingles Transport to End of Life 

Construction 

Site 

Galvanized 

Nail 

Production 

Asphalt 

Shingle 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Asphalt Shingles

Type 15 Felt 

Production 

Cardboard 

Production 

Wood Chip 

Production 

Asphalt 

Production 

Filler 

Production 

Granules 

Production 

(Rock Crushing 

/Grinding) 

Fiberglass 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Asphalt 

Production 

Dolomite 

Production

Limestone 

Production

Sand 

Production 

(for back 

surfacing) 
 

128

Table 3.53: Asphalt Shingle Constituents 

Constituent Kg/m2 

(lb/square)* 

Mass Fraction 

Asphalt 2.7 (56) 20 % 

Filler 5.9 (120) 43 % 

Fiberglass Mat 0.7 (14) 5 % 

Granules 3.4 (70) 25 % 

Back surfacing (sand and talc) 1.0 (19.6) 7 % 

Total 14 (280) 100 % 

*

One square is equivalent to 9.29 m2 (100 ft2)

Type-15 felt consists of asphalt and organic felt. The composition is shown in the following 

Table. The organic felt is assumed to consist of 50 % recycled cardboard and 50 % wood chips. 

Table 3.54: Type 15 Felt Underlayment Constituents 

Constituent Kg/m2 

(lb/square)*

Mass Fraction 

Asphalt 0.3 (5.4) 45 % 

Organic Felt 0.2 (4.8) 40 % 

Limestone 0.06 (1.2) 10 % 

Sand 0.03 (0.6) 5 % 

Total 0.6 (12) 100 % 

*

One square is equivalent to 9.29 m2 (100 ft2)

Data for the production of underlayment materials and asphalt shingle constituents are from the 

SimaPro LCA database and U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. According to the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers 

Association (ARMA), asphalt shingles are produced by nine manufacturers in about 22 states. 

Data on production and combustion of fuels for shingle manufacture is from the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Table 3.55: Energy Requirements for Asphalt Shingle Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/m2 (Btu/ft2

) 

Natural Gas 2.3 (202) 

Electricity 0.89 (78) 

Total 3.19 (280) 

Emissions pertaining to manufacturing asphalt shingle roofing materials follow.16F

117 

 117 Trumbore, D. et al. “Emission Factors for Asphalt-Related Emissions in Roofing Manufacturing.” 

Environmental Progress 24:3 (2005): 268-278. 
 

129

Table 3.56: Asphalt Shingle Production Emissions 

Air Emission Emission factor 

g/kg (lb/ton) asphalt 

Particulates (unspecified) 0.04 (0.08) 

Sulfur oxides 0.45 (0.9) 

Carbon monoxide 0.35 (0.7) 

Nitrogen oxide 0.03 (0.06) 

Total organic compounds 0.02 (0.04) 

Transportation. Asphalt is assumed to be transported 402 km (250 mi) by truck, rail, and 

pipeline in equal proportions. Limestone, sand, talc, and granules are assumed to be transported 

by truck and rail, also over the same distance and in equal proportions. Fiberglass materials are 

assumed to be transported the same distance by truck. 

Roofing underlayment raw materials are also assumed to be transported 402 km (250 mi). 

Asphalt is assumed to be transported by truck, train, and pipeline in equal proportions, while the 

cardboard and wood chips are assumed to be transported by truck. 

Waste. Solid wastes generated during the manufacturing process that are not internally recycled 

within the process are sent off site to either be landfilled or incorporated into other products. 

Transportation 

Transportation of asphalt shingles by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. Roofing underlayment and nails are assumed to be transported 161 

km (100 mi) by truck to the building site. 

Installation 

In areas with normal wind conditions, four nails should be used to fasten each shingle, while six 

nails per shingle are recommended in high wind regions. Galvanized roofing nails should be 

used, with a minimum nominal shank diameter of 12 gauge, 0.267 cm (0.105 in), and a minimum 

head diameter of 0.953 cm (3/8 in).17F

118 At four nails per shingle, 320 nails per square are required 

to secure standard shingles (80 shingles/square), and 260 nails per square are required for metric 

shingles (65 shingles/square). Installation of one layer of Type-15 felt underlayment is assumed 

to require an additional 120 nails per square. The weight of 440 nails (for 80 standard shingles 

with underlayment) is 2.2 kg (4.9 lb) and the weight of nails for 65 metric shingles including 

underlayment is 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). 

Installation of asphalt shingles is assumed to be done primarily by manual labor, so the 

installation phase in BEES is free of environmental burdens; however, equipment such as 

conveyors may be used to move the roofing materials from ground level to rooftop, and 

compressors may be used to operate nail guns used to install roofing materials. There were not 

enough data to quantify this aspect. 

 118 Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) 

Residential Asphalt Roofing Manual, pages 20-23. 
 

130

Installation waste from scrap is estimated at approximately 10 % of the installed weight. 

Installation scrap is generally landfilled, although some manufacturers offer an incentive for 

contractors to return scrap for recycling into shingles. Data were not available to quantify 

installation scrap recycling. 

Use 

At 20 years, new shingles are installed over the existing shingles. No additional underlayment is 

generally required, since the original roof covering left in place serves the same purpose as the 

underlayment.18F

119 At 40 years, the two layers of shingles and the original underlayment are 

removed before installing replacement shingles with underlayment. 

It is important to consider solar reflectivity differences among roof coverings of different 

materials and colors when assessing the environmental and economic performance of roof 

covering alternatives. “Cool” roofs reflect and emit solar radiation well, and thus stay cooler in 

the sun than less reflective, less emissive materials. The cool temperature results in buildingscale cooling energy savings ranging from 2 % to 60 %.19F

120 A much less significant rise in 

building heating energy costs also occurs. BEES accounts for solar reflectivity performance in 

computing energy-related LCA inventory flows and building energy costs over the 50-year use 

stage for roof covering products. 

For roof coverings, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 16 U.S. cities 

spread across a range of Sunbelt climate and fuel cost zones. When selecting roof covering 

alternatives for use in Sunbelt climates,120F

121 the BEES user chooses 1) the roof covering material 

and color, 2) the U.S. Sunbelt climate city closest to the building location, 3) the building type 

(new or existing), 4) its heating and cooling system (electric air-source heat pump or gas 

furnace/central air conditioning heating and cooling systems), and 5) its duct placement 

(uninsulated attic ducts or ducts in the conditioned space), so that thermal performance 

differences may be customized to these important contributors to building energy use. Energy 

use data provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory (and which LBL developed for the U.S. EPA Energy Star Roof Products 

program), tailored to these five parameters, are used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling 

requirements per functional unit of roof covering.12F

122 BEES environmental performance results 

account for the energy-related inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements (stored 

in USEENVIR.DBF), and BEES economic performance results account for the present value 

cost resulting from these energy requirements (stored in USEECON.DBF). 

 119 Ibid, p. 71. 120 Memorandum from Sarah Bretz/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to Barbara Lippiatt/National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 12/18/98. 121 In cold climates, the amount of roof insulation is more important to thermal performance than the color of the 

roof covering. 122 LBL data were developed for BEES by LBL’s Sarah Bretz, based on Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated 

Impact of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in 

Single-Family New Residential Buildings, LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 

1998, and on Parker et al., “Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential 

Building,” ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104, 1998, p. 1. 
 

131

End of Life 

When the two layers of shingles and underlayment are removed after 40 years, all materials 

(shingles, underlayment, and nails) are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill, and are modeled 

as such. However, there is a growing trend to recycle shingles into pavement products. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 38Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Trumbore, D. et al. “Emission Factors for Asphalt-Related Emissions in Roofing 

Manufacturing”. Environmental Progress 24:3 (2005): 268-278. 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers 

Association (ARMA) Residential Asphalt Roofing Manual (Calverton, MD: Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturers Association, 1997) pp. 17. 

Crowe, J. P. “Steep-slope roof systems require different underlayment installations.” 

Professional Roofing (May 2005) Found at 

39Hhttp://www.professionalroofing.net/article.aspx?A_ID=640. 

Industry Contacts 

Russ Snyder, Vice President, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, December 2005 – 

February 2006 

3.8.2 Generic Clay Tile 

Clay tiles are manufactured from clay, shale, or similar naturally-occurring earthy substances 

and subjected to heat treatment at elevated temperatures (known as firing). The most commonly 

used clay tiles are the one-piece “S” mission tile and the two-piece mission tile. One-piece “S” 

tile accounts for about 60 % of the clay roof tile market. Red-colored tiles are still quite popular, 

although there is now a wide range of colors and blends available. 

Roof coverings such as clay tile are evaluated in BEES on the basis of a functional unit of roof 

area covered: 1 square (9.29 m2, or 100 ft2). The weight of the one-piece “S” tile is 357 kg to 381 

kg (788 lb to 840 lb) per square, with 75 to 100 pieces of tile per square. The two-piece mission 

tile weighs approximately 476 kg (1 050 lb) per square, with 150 pieces of tile (75 tops and 75 

pans) per square. 

Clay tiles are installed over a deck of wood sheathing, typically oriented strand board covered 

with underlayment, which is generally asphalt-impregnated organic felt. For roof pitches from 

4:12 to 10:12, two layers of Type-30 felt are used, while roof pitches of greater than 10:12 use 

one layer of Type-30 felt.12F

123

For the BEES system, a roof covering of red Spanish one-piece “S” clay tiles, one layer of Type 

II No. 30 roofing felt, and galvanized nails is studied. The weight of the clay tile is 381 kg (840 

 123 Crowe, J. P. “Steep-slope roof systems require different underlayment installations.” Professional Roofing 

(May 2005). 
 

132

lb) per square, with 75 to 100 pieces of tile per square. The detailed environmental performance 

data for this product may be viewed by opening the file B3011B.DBF under the File/Open menu 

item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.23: Clay Roof Tile System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The clay tile is composed of fired clay. Raw material sources are typically located relatively 

close to tile plants, so an 80 km (50 mi) transport distance is assumed in the model. For the 

underlayment, Type II No. 30 roofing felt is used, which consists of asphalt and organic felt in 

the quantities given in the Table below. The organic felt is assumed to consist of 50 % recycled 

cardboard and 50 % wood chips. The production of clay and felt materials is based on the 

SimaPro LCA database and U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.57: Type-30 Roofing Felt Constituents 

Constituent Kg/m2

 

(lb/square)* 

Mass Fraction 

Asphalt 0.57 (12) 45 % 

Organic Felt 0.51 (10) 10 % 

Limestone 0.13 (2.6) 5 % 

Sand 0.06 (1.3) 40 % 

Total 1.27 (25.9) 100 % *

One square is equivalent to 9.29 m2 (100 ft2)

Functional Unit of

Clay Tile Roofing End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Galvanized

Nail Production

Clay Tile

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Clay Production

Clay Tiles

Type 30 Felt

Production

Asphalt

Production

Cardboard

Production

Wood Chip

Production
 

133

 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. In the United States, the top three (by market share) clay 

roofing tile manufacturers are located in Southern California, Northern California, and Ohio. All 

clay tile manufacturers use 100 % natural gas to fire the kilns; most plants, however, are at least 

partially automated and use the latest technology, which requires electricity. Natural gas and 

electricity use reported by one tile producer were 8.7 therms (873 390 Btu) of natural gas and 

110 MJ (30.5 kWh) of electricity per 381 kg (840 lb) square of tile. No other production data 

was available; these values were taken as representative. 

Table 3.58: Energy Requirements for Clay Tile Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Natural Gas 2.42(1040) 

Electricity 0.29 (120) 

Total 2.7 (1160) 

Data on electricity generation and production and on combustion of natural gas are from the U.S. 

LCI Database. 

Transportation. The clay raw material is assumed to be transported 80 km (50 mi) to the 

manufacturing plant, and to be evenly split between train and truck modes of transport. All 

components of roofing felt are assumed to be transported 402 km (250 mi). Asphalt is assumed 

to be transported by truck, train, and pipeline in equal proportions, while the cardboard and wood 

chips are assumed to be transported by truck. 

Waste. Clay tile scrap or rejects that occur before the firing process are recycled back into the 

manufacturing process. After firing, any scrap or rejects are recycled by crushing for use on 

tennis courts, baseball fields, and other applications. 

Transportation 

Transportation of clay tile by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable of the 

BEES system. Roofing underlayment and nails are assumed to be transported 161 km (100 mi) 

by truck to the building site. 

Installation 

Rollers, conveyors, or cherry pickers are used to move the tile up to the roof; however, no data 

quantifying the associated energy use were available. Nailing of clay tiles is done by hand; nail 

guns are not used. Galvanized steel or copper nails can be used for installation; galvanized nails 

are cheaper and are more commonly used, so are assumed for the BEES analysis. For 

installation, one nail per tile is used for a roof pitch less than 7:12.123F

124 For roofs with a pitch 

greater than 7:12, two nails are required per tile, or 150 to 200 nails per square. In BEES, the 

tiles are assumed to be installed using one nail per tile. 

Clay tile roofing requires at least one layer of Type II No. 30 felt, and one layer is assumed for 

 124 7:12 pitch = 7 in rise per 12 in run. 
 

134

the model. The underlayment uses 30 to 40 “roofing top” nails per square. Each galvanized steel 

nail is assumed to weigh 0.002 kg (0.004 lb). Installation waste from scrap is estimated at 2 % to 

5 % of the installed weight. 

Use 

Clay roof tile has a long service life. Many clay roofs have been in existence for more than one 

hundred years. Clay tile generally does not need to be replaced; however, the underlayment may 

need replacement after 10 years to 15 years. When the underlayment is replaced, the roof tiles 

are typically reused. The tiles themselves are replaced after 70 years. 

It is important to consider solar reflectivity differences among roof coverings of different 

materials and colors when assessing the environmental and economic performance of roof 

covering alternatives. “Cool” roofs reflect and emit solar radiation well, and thus stay cooler in 

the sun than less reflective, less emissive materials. The cool temperature results in buildingscale cooling energy savings ranging from 2 % to 60 %.124F

125 A much less significant rise in 

building heating energy costs also occurs. BEES accounts for solar reflectivity performance in 

computing energy-related LCA inventory flows and building energy costs over the 50-year use 

stage for roof covering products. 

For roof coverings, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 16 U.S. cities 

spread across a range of Sunbelt climate and fuel cost zones. When selecting roof covering 

alternatives for use in Sunbelt climates,125F

126 the BEES user chooses 1) the roof covering material 

and color, 2) the U.S. Sunbelt climate city closest to the building location, 3) the building type 

(new or existing), 4) its heating and cooling system (electric air-source heat pump or gas 

furnace/central air conditioning heating and cooling systems), and 5) its duct placement 

(uninsulated attic ducts or ducts in the conditioned space), so that thermal performance 

differences may be customized to these important contributors to building energy use. Energy 

use data provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory (and which LBL developed for the U.S. EPA Energy Star Roof Products 

program), tailored to these five parameters, are used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling 

requirements per functional unit of roof covering.126F

127 BEES environmental performance results 

account for the energy-related inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements (stored 

in USEENVIR.DBF), and BEES economic performance results account for the present value 

cost resulting from these energy requirements (stored in USEECON.DBF). 

 End of Life 

At end of life, clay tiles are recovered and re-used. Usually, clay tile removed for underlayment 

replacement is saved on a pallet for re-use on the same building. If the tile is not to be replaced 

 125 Memorandum from Sarah Bretz/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to Barbara Lippiatt/National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 12/18/98. 126 In cold climates, the amount of roof insulation is more important to thermal performance than the color of the 

roof covering. 127 LBL data were developed for BEES by LBL’s Sarah Bretz, based on Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated 

Impact of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in 

Single-Family New Residential Buildings, LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 

1998, and on Parker et al., “Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential 

Building,” ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104, 1998, p. 1. 
 

135

on the building, the roofer will use it on another building that specifies the same tile type and 

color. The trend today is that old clay tiles are in demand and are often considered more 

valuable than the newly produced clay tile. Recovered clay roofing tiles are offered by 

wholesalers to the public worldwide via the Internet, local advertising, and trade magazines. 

Regardless of condition, used clay tile is not thrown away. All clay tile can be 100 % re-used, resold, or crushed for use on tennis courts, baseball fields, and other applications. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 40Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Crowe, J. P. “Steep-slope roof systems require different underlayment installations.” 

Professional Roofing (May 2005). 

Industry Contacts 

Yoshi Suzuki, General Manager, MCA Superior Clay Roof Tile (February 2006) 

3.8.3 Generic Fiber Cement Shingles 

Fiber cement shingles are considered a synthetic equivalent to wood shingles. In general, these 

roofing materials can last longer that wood or asphalt products. In the past, fiber cement 

shingles were manufactured using asbestos fibers. Now asbestos fibers have been replaced with 

cellulose fibers. 

Roof coverings such as fiber cement shingles are evaluated in BEES on the basis of a functional 

unit of roof area covered: 1 square (9.29 m2, or 100 ft2). For the BEES system, a 45-year fiber 

cement shingle consisting of portland cement, fly ash, silica fume, sand, and cellulose fibers is 

studied. The shingle size modeled is 36 cm x 76 cm x 0.4 cm (14 in x 30 in x 5/32 in). Type-30 

roofing felt and galvanized nails are used for installation. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B3011C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

136

Functional Unit of

Fiber Cement

Shingles

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Galvanized

Nail Production

Fiber Cement

Shingle

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Fiber Cement Shingles

Type 30 Felt

Production

Asphalt

Production

Cardboard

Production

Wood Chip

Production

Sand

Production

Portland

Cement

Production

Fly Ash

Silica Fume

Organic Fiber

(e.g., w ood chips,

recycled new sprint)

Figure 3.24: Fiber Cement Shingles System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Fiber cement shingles are composed primarily of portland cement, fly ash, organic fiber, and 

fillers. The relative proportions of these and other product constituents are provided in the 

following Table. 

Table 3.59: Fiber Cement Shingle Constituents 

Constituent Mass 

kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) Mass Fraction (%) 

Portland cement 6.35 (1.30) 40 

Fly ash 5.27 (1.08) 33 

Silica fume 1.29 (0.26) 8 

Filler (sand) 1.61 (0.33) 10 

Organic fiber (including wood 

chips, recycled newsprint) 1.29 (0.26) 8 

Pigments (oxides) 0.11 (0.02) 1 

Total 15.93 (3.26) 100 
 

137

Production of portland cement is described under the Portland Cement Concrete Products 

documentation. Fly ash is a waste product from coal combustion in electric utility boilers, and 

silica fume is a waste product from the manufacture of silicon and ferrosilicon alloys. These 

waste products are assumed to be environmentally “free” input materials; however, transport of 

these materials to the shingle plant is included. Data for the production of other input materials is 

from the SimaPro LCA database and U.S. LCI Database. 

Sources of organic fiber include wood chips and recycled newsprint. The amount of each is 

likely to vary by manufacturer; one manufacturer reports that recycled newsprint accounts for 

3 % of the mass fraction of their product. 

For the underlayment, Type II No. 30 roofing felt is used, which consists of asphalt and organic 

felt as listed in the Table below. The organic felt is assumed to consist of 50 % recycled 

cardboard and 50 % wood chips. The production of felt materials is based on the SimaPro LCA 

database and U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.60: Type-30 Roofing Felt Constituents 

Constituent Kg/m2

 

(lb/square)* 

Mass Fraction 

Asphalt 0.57 (11.5) 45 % 

Organic Felt 0.51 (10.4) 10 % 

Limestone 0.13 (2.6) 5 % 

Sand 0.06 (1.3) 40 % 

Total 1.27 (25.9) 100 % *

One square is equivalent to 9.29 m2 (100 ft2)

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Fiber cement is manufactured by blending the raw 

materials; the blend is then cured to produce shingles. Energy—of the types and amounts given 

below—is required for blending and for curing of the final product. Data on production and 

combustion of fuels, including electricity generation, is from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.61: Energy Requirements for Fiber Shingle Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Natural Gas 2.08 (894) 

Electricity 0.69 (297) 

Total 2.77 (1 191) 

Transportation. Most shingle raw materials are assumed to be transported to the manufacturing 

plant 402 km (250 mi) by truck. A small percentage, assumed to be approximately 2 %, of the 

shingle material inputs may be transported more then 3 219 km (2 000 mi); due to economic 

constraints, it is assumed that these products are transported by rail rather than by truck. 

Roofing felt raw materials are also assumed to be transported 402 km (250 mi) by truck. 
 

138

Waste. No data were available on types and quantities of solid wastes generated from the shingle 

manufacturing process; no waste was assumed to be generated. 

Transportation 

Transportation of fiber cement shingles by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Installation of fiber cement shingles is assumed to be primarily a manual process, however, 

equipment such as conveyors may be used to move the roofing materials from ground level to 

rooftop, and compressors may be used to operate nail guns used to install roofing materials. The 

energy and emissions from the potential use of equipment and tools is not included within the 

system boundaries of the BEES model. 

The mass of fiber cement shingles is assumed to be 16 kg/m2

 (325 lb/square), based on 36 cm x 

76 cm x 0.4 cm (14 in x 30 in x 5/32 in) size shingles. One layer of Type-30 felt underlayment is 

used under the shingles. To install the shingles and underlayment, 13 galvanized steel nails per 

m

2 (120 nails per square) are assumed to be used for the underlayment, and 32 nails per m2

 (300 

nails per square) are used for the shingles. Each galvanized steel nail is assumed to weigh 0.002 

kg (0.004 lb). Installation scrap is estimated at 5 % of the installed weight and is assumed to be 

landfilled. 

Use 

The product is assumed to have a useful life of 45 years. At replacement, it is assumed that a new 

layer of felt is applied beneath the new shingles. 

It is important to consider solar reflectivity differences among roof coverings of different 

materials and colors when assessing the environmental and economic performance of roof 

covering alternatives. “Cool” roofs reflect and emit solar radiation well, and thus stay cooler in 

the sun than less reflective, less emissive materials. The cool temperature results in buildingscale cooling energy savings ranging from 2 % to 60 %.127F

128 A much less significant rise in 

building heating energy costs also occurs. BEES accounts for solar reflectivity performance in 

computing energy-related LCA inventory flows and building energy costs over the 50-year use 

stage for roof covering products. 

For roof coverings, thermal performance differences are separately assessed for 16 U.S. cities 

spread across a range of Sunbelt climate and fuel cost zones. When selecting roof covering 

alternatives for use in Sunbelt climates,128F

129 the BEES user chooses 1) the roof covering material 

and color, 2) the U.S. Sunbelt climate city closest to the building location, 3) the building type 

(new or existing), 4) its heating and cooling system (electric air-source heat pump or gas 

furnace/central air conditioning heating and cooling systems), and 5) its duct placement 

(uninsulated attic ducts or ducts in the conditioned space), so that thermal performance 

 128 Memorandum from Sarah Bretz/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to Barbara Lippiatt/National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 12/18/98. 129 In cold climates, the amount of roof insulation is more important to thermal performance than the color of the 

roof covering. 
 

139

differences may be customized to these important contributors to building energy use. Energy 

use data provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology by Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory (and which LBL developed for the U.S. EPA Energy Star Roof Products 

program), tailored to these five parameters, are used to estimate 50-year heating and cooling 

requirements per functional unit of roof covering.129F

130 BEES environmental performance results 

account for the energy-related inventory flows resulting from these energy requirements (stored 

in USEENVIR.DBF), and BEES economic performance results account for the present value 

cost resulting from these energy requirements (stored in USEECON.DBF). 

End of Life 

When the shingles and underlayment are removed after 45 years, all materials (shingles, 

underlayment, nails) are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill, and are modeled as such. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 41Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Contacts 

Martha VanGeem, P.E., Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (on behalf of the Portland 

Cement Association), August-October 2005 

Medgar Marceau, P.E., Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (on behalf of the Portland 

Cement Association), August-October 2005. 

3.9 Roof Coatings 

3.9.1 Prime Coatings Utilithane 

Utilithane 1600, according to its manufacturer Prime Coatings, Inc., is a tough, flexible, abrasion 

and chemical resistant polyurethane used as a protective coating and liner for a broad spectrum 

of applications including concrete and steel substrates and roofs. Utilithane contains no solvents 

and meets all VOC regulations.130F

131 

Utilithane is a two-component system in which 2 parts of resin are mixed with 1 part activator, 

and is spray applied using plural component airless spray equipment. The product can be 

applied from 0.5 mm (20 mils) to 12.7 mm (500 mils) or more in thickness during a single 

application. Ultimate thickness specifications vary for each application depending on intended 

use and material applied. The application modeled for BEES is a Utilithane roof coating with an 

 130 LBL data were developed for BEES by LBL’s Sarah Bretz, based on Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated 

Impact of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in 

Single-Family New Residential Buildings, LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 

1998, and on Parker et al., “Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential 

Building,” ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104, 1998, p. 1. 131See www.utilithane.com. 
 

140

average applied thickness of 2.54 mm (100 mils). 

The functional unit for Utilithane is 1 ft2 of roof protection. Its density is 4.20 kg (9.25 lb) per 

gal and its coverage is approximately 148.6 m2 (1 600 ft2) per gal at one mil thickness. At this 

density and coverage rate, 0.26 kg (0.58 lb) of Utilithane are needed per ft2

. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

B3013A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

This manufacturer considers this information confidential. 

Raw Materials 

This manufacturer considers this information confidential. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. Manufacturing involves electricity use for heating and mixing 

components. Prime Coatings provided data on the mixing vessel, times, and temperatures of 

mixing, and capacity of operation. The following energy requirements were modeled based on 

these parameters: 

Table 3.62: Prime Coatings Utilithane Manufacturing Energy 

Energy Carrier kWh/ ft2

 

Electricity 0.001 

Natural gas 0.014 

No air emissions data (except for those related to energy use) are available. Electricity and 

natural gas use in a boiler are modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. The resin components of the product are transported an average of 161 km (100 

mi) to the manufacturing facility and the activator is transported 805 km (500 mi). Materials are 

transported by diesel truck, which is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Both the resin compound and activator are transported 1287 km (800 mi) to the site of 

installation in 55 gal drums or 250 gal totes. Diesel truck is the mode of transport, and its 

environmental burdens are modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Installation and Use 

Installation of Utilithane requires the use of a compressor to mix and spray the product and a 

small electric heater to heat the product prior to application. Based on the manufacturer’s data, 

the following installation energy requirements are modeled. 
 

141

Table 3.63: Prime Coatings Utilithane Installation Energy 

Energy Carrier kWh/ ft2

Electricity 0.004 

Diesel fuel 0.04 

End of Life 

Utilithane has a useful life of over 50 years. At the end of its life, it is assumed to be disposed of 

in a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 42Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Steve Crandal, Prime Coatings (2004) 

3.10 Partitions 

3.10.1 Generic Gypsum 

Gypsum board, also known as “drywall” or “plaster board,” consists of a core of gypsum 

surrounded with a paper covering. Several varieties of gypsum board products are available; 

each is comprised of a specially formulated gypsum plaster mix and facing paper specifically 

developed for the intended application. These gypsum board products include regular gypsum 

wallboard, moisture-resistant gypsum board, and type-X fire-resistant gypsum board. 

For the BEES system, 0.9 m2

 (1 ft2) of 13 mm (1⁄2 in) gypsum wallboard, joint tape, joint 

treatment compound, and wallboard nails are studied. The bulk density of wallboard is assumed 

to be 769 kg/m3

 (48 lb/ft3). Gypsum wallboard is assumed to be nailed to wood studs, 41 cm (16 

in) on center. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

C1011A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

142

Functional Unit of 

Gypsum Board End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Steel Screw 

Production

Gypsum Board 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Gypsum Board

Joint 

Compound 

Production

Clay Mining

Polyvinyl 

Acetate 

Production

Gypsum 

Production

Paper 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Limestone 

Mining

Joint Tape 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Kraft Paper 

Production

Starch 

Production

Additives 

Production Gypsum 

Mining

Synthetic 

Gypsum 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Gypsum Board End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Steel Screw 

Production

Gypsum Board 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Gypsum Board

Joint 

Compound 

Production

Clay Mining

Polyvinyl 

Acetate 

Production

Gypsum 

Production

Paper 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Limestone 

Mining

Joint Tape 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Kraft Paper 

Production

Starch 

Production

Additives 

Production Gypsum 

Mining

Synthetic 

Gypsum 

Production

Figure 3.25: Gypsum Board System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Drywall primarily consists of gypsum that is mixed with additives and backed on both sides with 

kraft paper. The following Table shows the proportions of materials used in producing drywall. 

Table 3.64: Gypsum Board Constituents 

Constituent Kg/m2 (lb/ft2

) Mass Fraction 

Gypsum 8.326 (1.705) 85 % 

Paper 0.981 (0.201) 10 % 

Additives 0.294 (0.060) 3 % 

Starch 0.196 (0.040) 2 % 

Total 9.796 (2.006) 100 % 

Data for the production of each of these raw materials comes from both the U.S. LCI Database 

and SimaPro. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Gypsum board is produced using partially dehydrated or 

calcinated gypsum. The gypsum is fed into a mixer where it is combined with water and other 

ingredients to form a slurry or paste. The slurry is spread onto a moving belt of face paper and 

then covered with a backing paper. As the materials move down the production line, the edges of 

the face paper are folded over the backing paper to create one of several edge types. The board 

then progresses down the production line where it is cut into specific lengths. The individual 

boards are subsequently run through dryers. Once dry, the wallboard moves further down the 
 

143

line where it is trimmed to an exact length, paired with another board, bound on both ends with a 

labeling tape, and stacked in a bundle. The bundles are taken into the warehouse, where they are 

selected for shipment to either distributors or building sites. 

The energy requirement for manufacturing is essentially natural gas used for the drying process - 

the specific amount of natural gas consumed is provided in the following Table. 

Table 3.65: Energy Requirements for Gypsum Board 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg 

(Btu/lb) 

Natural Gas 19.02 (8 196) 

Emissions from the production of gypsum are included in the product data for the raw materials 

acquisition life-cycle stage. Emissions from manufacturing are based on U.S. EPA AP-42 

emissions factors for gypsum processing. These emissions consist primarily of particulate 

emissions (known as PM-10) during the cutting and sawing stage in the plant. Only the PM-10 

emissions are included in the manufacturing life-cycle stage data. 

Table 3.66: Emissions from Gypsum Board Manufacturing 

Emissions kg/m2

 (g/ft2) 

PM-10 0.000027 (0.00251) 

Filterable Particulates 0.000036 (0.00334) 

Transportation. The transportation of the gypsum, starch, and additives to the gypsum board 

facility is taken into account, and assumed to require 80 km (50 mi) by truck. The paper used to 

back the gypsum board is assumed to be shipped in rolls 402 km (250 mi) by truck to the plant. 

Waste. Approximately 2.25 % of the gypsum board produced is lost as waste during the 

manufacturing process. 

Transportation 

Transportation of gypsum board by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Gypsum board may be attached to wood framing, cold-formed steel framing, or existing surfaces 

using nails, staples, screws, and adhesives appropriate for the application. Joints between 

gypsum boards may be sealed or finished using paper or glass fiber mesh and one or more layers 

of joint treatment compound. Joint treatment compound is available in ready-mixed or dry 

powder form. The ready mixed variety is usually a vinyl-based, ready-to-use product that 

contains limestone to provide body. Clay, mica, talc, or perlite are often used as fillers. Ethylene 

glycol is used as an extender, and antibacterial and anti-fungal agents are also included. The dry 

powder form of joint treatment compound is available in normal drying (dries primarily by 
 

144

evaporation) and accelerated setting (chemically setting) formulations. 

Approximately 2.04 kg (4.5 lb) of wallboard nails are used for each 92.90 m2 (1 000 ft2) of 

wallboard.13F

132 Joints are assumed to be treated with 52 mm-wide (2-1/16 in-wide) paper joint tape 

and ready-mixed, all-purpose joint treatment compound. Approximately 62.6 kg (138 lb) of joint 

compound are assumed to be used for every 92.90 m2 (1 000 ft2) of wallboard.132F

133 About 12 % of 

the installation materials are assumed to go to waste, all of which is disposed of in a landfill. 

Use 

Gypsum board is assumed to have a useful life of 75 years, provided it is well maintained and 

protected. There are no emissions from the use of gypsum board and repairs required to patch 

holes or tears are not included in the product system boundaries. 

End of Life 

While there is some recovery of gypsum board at end of life, most of the material is disposed of 

in a landfill. No recycling is included in the system boundaries. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 43Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

USG Corporation, The Gypsum Construction Handbook. (Chicago, IL: USG Corporation, 

2000). Found at http://www.usg.com/resources/handbooks/ViewGCH.do. 

Industry Contacts 

Michael Gardiner, Gypsum Association (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) 

 132 USG Corporation, The Gypsum Construction Handbook. (Chicago, IL: USG Corporation, 2000). 133 Ibid. 
 

145

3.10.2 Trespa Virtuon and Athlon Panels 

See documentation on all Trespa composite panels under Fabricated Toilet Partitions. 

3.10.3 P&M Plastics Altree Panels 

Altree panels, manufactured by P&M Plastics, Inc., are biobased composite panels composed of 

wood fiber from invasive tree species, or of scrub and plastic from recycled milk bottles. 

According to the manufacturer, the encapsulation of plastic in the product makes Altree less 

susceptible than other types of wood composite boards to thickness swelling when exposed to 

high humidity or water. The plastic also reduces the opportunity for decay from fungus, mold, 

and mildew and aids in resistance to termites and other insects, rodents, and parasites. 

Altree panels are used in a variety of exterior and interior applications. For BEES, Altree panels 

are found in the Partitions product category. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

C1011D.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

 

 

Figure 3.25a: P&M Plastics Altree Panel System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Functional Unit of

Altree Panels En -o -Life

Truck

Transport to

Bld Site

Stainless steel

bolt pro ’n

Composit

pane

Production

P&M Plastics AltreePanel

Proces

energy

Raw material 

transpor

Forest residues 

production

Recycled 

HDPE pro ’n

Maleated HDPE 

coupling agent

Lubrican

production

Coloran

production

Collectio

energy
 

146

Altree panels are comprised of the materials given in the table below. 

Table 3.66a: P&M Plastics Altree Panel Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Woody forest residues 38.3 

Recycled HDPE 57.3 

Maleated HDPE coupling agent 2.2 

Surfactant with lubricant 2.2 

Colorant 0.6 

Altree panels consist of wood fiber from invasive species, which is taken whole (and includes 

needles, branches, bark, and small and large woody stems) or in chips at the acquisition site. 

Because the wood used is either residuals from the forest or shrubs with no other use or value, 

and no planting has been done, the modeling of this input takes into account only the fuel used to 

collect the material. 

The modeling of recycled high density polyethylene (HDPE) is based on the energy to produce 

clean flakes from milk jugs, and is calculated from an industry report to be 0.22 kWh/kg (0.36 

MJ/lb) produced. Electricity is based on the U.S average grid mix and data is based on the U.S. 

LCI Database. 

 

The maleated HDPE coupling agent is assumed to be a combination of maleic anhydride and 

virgin HDPE. Most of the data for maleic anhydride comes from a chemical process report 

produced for the U.S. Department of Energy. HDPE data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

For lack of other data on the specific lubricating surfactant used in Altree panels, it is modeled as 

linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (LAS) based on its anionic surfactant properties. Data for LAS 

comes from a European life-cycle inventory containing late 1990s data on European detergent 

production. The colorant is excluded because its exact composition is unknown and it only 

accounts for 0.6 % of the mass of raw materials. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. At manufacturing, the forest residue is ground to a fine 

fibrous state. This and the other raw materials are compounded or fed and blended into the 

molten polymer. The compounded material is then pressed or shaped into an end product. These 

process stages require purchased electricity and natural gas in a boiler in the following amounts. 

Table 3.66b: P&M Plastics Altree Panel Energy Requirements 

Energy Carrier Quantity per kg Altree panel 

Electricity13F

134 4.3 MJ (1.2 kWh) 

Natural gas134F

135 0.43 MJ (0.12 kWh) 

In addition to energy, 0.061 L (0.016 gal) of cooling water is used per kg of product. No data are 

 134 This figure is based on a purchased electricity rate of 5 MW of total yearly production and the estimated 

operating time, as provided by the manufacturer. 135 This figure is based on total ft3

 of natural gas purchased and total yearly production, as provided by the 

manufacturer. 
 

147

available on particulates resulting from the grinding process. 

Transportation. Data for the transportation of raw materials from the supplier to the 

manufacturer is provided by P&M Plastics, with diesel truck as the mode of transportation. 

Diesel trucking is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

 

Transportation 

Diesel truck and rail are the modes of Altree panel transport from manufacturing to use, with the 

average distance traveled being 402 km (250 mi), shared equally by truck and rail. Both modes 

of transport are modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

Altree is assumed to be installed using an average of 0.0023 kg (0.0051 lb) of stainless steel 

bolts for each 0.09 m2 (1 ft2

) of panel. The production of steel comes from the U.S. LCI 

Database. Approximately 3 % of the panel is lost to waste during the installation process from 

cutting the panels to fit the installation area. 

End of Life 

Altree is assumed to have a lifetime of 50 years. After year 50, the panel is removed and is 

modeled as being recycled, or reused, 20 % of the time and landfilled 80 % of the time. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 4Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Climenhage, David, Recycled Plastic Lumber (Ontario, Canada, Environment and Plastics 

Industry Council and Corporations Supporting Recycling, January 2003), p. 34. Found at: 

45Hhttp://www.cpia.ca/epic/

BRIDGES to Sustainability, A Pilot Study of Energy Performance Levels for the U.S. 

Chemical Industry, Contract # DE-AC05-00OR22725 (Oak Ridge, TN, U.S. Department of 

Energy, June 2001). 

Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of Detergent Ingredients, 

Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 

Industry Contacts 

John Youngquist, P&M Plastics, Inc. (November 2004) 
 

148

3.11 Fabricated Toilet Partitions, Lockers, Ceiling Finishes, Fixed Casework, Table 

Tops/Counter Tops/Shelving 

3.11.1 Trespa Composite Panels 

Based in The Netherlands, Trespa International BV is the world's largest manufacturer of solid 

composite panels. Trespa entered the U.S. market in 1991, and now produces millions of ft2 of 

sheet material annually. Trespa North America’s products offer an alternative to thin laminate 

and epoxy-resin products. Each of Trespa's four composite panel lines has been designed for a 

particular use: 

1. Athlon, a panel developed for a wide range of interior applications including durable fittings; 

2. Meteon, a panel developed for exterior applications such as such as facade cladding, roof 

edgings, canopies & street furniture; 

3. TopLabPLUS, a panel that is highly resistant to chemicals and designed for laboratory work 

surface areas; and 

4. Virtuon, an interior panel system that is impact, moisture, and stain resistant, thus suggested 

for applications in public areas and areas where cleanliness is very important. 

In October 2005, the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute awarded GREENGUARD Indoor 

Air Quality Certification to Trespa’s Athlon, Virtuon, and TopLabPLUS panels, which were 

tested for chemical emissions performance under the GREENGUARD Standard for Low 

Emitting Products.135F

136 According to GREENGUARD, these panels can be specified with the 

confidence that they will not impact the indoor air.136F

137

For the BEES system, the functional unit for composite panels, regardless of application, is 0.09 

m

2

 (1 ft2) of panel. 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• C3030B.DBF—Athlon 

• B2011F.DBF—Meteon 

• E2021A.DBF— TopLabPLUS

• C3030A.DBF—Virtuon 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of these products, as they 

are currently modeled for BEES. 

 136 GREENGUARD Environmental Institute, “Trespa phenolic panels earn GREENGUARD Indoor Air Quality 

certification,” (Atlanta, Georgia, October 2005). 137 Ibid. 
 

149

Figure 3.26: Trespa Composite Panels System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

All Trespa panels are made in the same way – with an interior core material and a layer of 

decorative facing on both sides. The core and facing materials come from different sources for 

different applications, so the overall mix of raw material inputs is different for each product as 

shown in the Table below. 

Functional Unit of

Trespa Panels End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Stainless steel

bolts prod’n

Composite

Panel

Production

Trespa Composite Panels

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Kraft paper

production

Wood chip 

production

BisphenolA-Tar prod’nFormaldehyde prod’n

Other mat’ls

production

Wood 

production
 

150

Table 3.67: Trespa Composite Panel Constituents by Mass Fraction 

Constituent Athlon Meteon TopLabPLUS Virtuon 

Kraft paper (recycled) 52 % 17 % 17 % 44 % 

Wood chips 0 % 38 % 38 % 0 % 

Bisphenol-A-Tar 18 % 17 % 17 % 15 % 

Formaldehyde 28 % 28 % 28 % 24 % 

Other Materials 2 % 0 % 0 % 18 % 

The kraft paper used in the panels is recycled, so no raw material inputs for this product 

constituent are modeled, with the exception of its transport to the manufacturing site. Wood 

chips come from pine. Pine wood chip production is a coproduct of timber production, whose 

BEES model includes raising pine seedlings, planting, fertilizer, and harvesting. Energy use and 

other life cycle data for southern pine tree production and harvesting in the Southeastern United 

States are based on CORRIM data,137F

138 which is also found in the U.S. LCI Database. 

 

Bisphenol-A-Tar is used as a binder in the panels. Tar is a co-product of Bisphenol A 

production, so a portion of the production burdens of Bisphenol A are allocated to the production 

of the tar. Formaldehyde is also used as a binder in the panels, and is assigned the same 

upstream production data as that for other BEES products with formaldehyde. BEES data for 

formaldehyde, Bisphenol A, and the other materials in the Trespa products are derived from the 

contents of the SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Trespa composite panel manufacturing consists of 

bonding the core panel and the two decorative panels. The manufacturing process requires 

natural gas, diesel oil, and electricity as energy inputs. To produce one square meter of panel, 

Trespa uses 2.6 kWh (9.4 MJ) of electricity, 23.4 kWh (84.4 MJ) of natural gas, and 0.17 kWh 

(0.6 MJ) of diesel oil. All energy data, including electricity, diesel equipment, and natural gas 

use in boilers are modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Data for the transport of raw materials from the supplier to the manufacturer 

are provided by Trespa, with diesel truck as the mode of transportation. Diesel trucking is 

modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Trespa panels are shipped from the production facility in The Netherlands to a U.S. port – a 

distance that is modeled as 10 000 km (6 214 mi) by sea. The transportation emissions allocated 

to each of the four Trespa panel products are based on the overall mass of the product, as given 

in the Table below. Transportation from the U.S. port of entry to the building site, by diesel 

truck, is modeled as a variable in BEES. 

 138 Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building 

Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for Research on Renewable 

Industrial Materials--CORRIM, Inc./University of Washington, 2004) Found at http://www.corrim.org/reports. 
 

151

Table 3.68: Trespa Composite Panel Density 

Product Mass per Applied Area 

 kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Density 

 kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 

All products (10 mm or 0.39 in 

thickness) 

14 (2.9) 1 400 (87.40) 

Diesel trucking and transportation via ocean freighter are modeled based on the U.S. LCI 

Database.

 

Installation and Use 

Trespa panels are installed using stainless steel bolts. On average, 0.025 kg (0.055 lb) of 

stainless steel bolts are required to install 1 m2 (11 ft2) of composite panel. Approximately 3 % 

of the panel is lost as waste during the installation process due to scrap from cutting the panels to 

fit the installation area. 

End of Life 

Trespa panels are assumed to have a lifetime of 50 years. After year 50, the panels are removed 

and about 50 % of the waste is reused in other products, while the remaining 50 % is sent to a 

landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 46Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

GREENGUARD Environmental Institute, “Trespa phenolic panels earn GREENGUARD 

Indoor Air Quality certification,” (Atlanta, Georgia, October 2005). 

Bowyer, J., et. al., Phase I Final Report: Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable 

Building Materials in the Context of Residential Construction. (Seattle, WA: Consortium for 

Research on Renewable Industrial Materials--CORRIM, Inc./University of Washington, 

2004) Found at 47Hhttp://www.corrim.org/reports. 

3.12 Wall Finishes to Interior Walls 

3.12.1 Generic Latex Paint Products 

Conventional paints are generally classified into two basic categories: water-based (in which the 

solvent is water) and oil-based (in which the solvent is an organic liquid, usually derived from 

petrochemicals). Oil-based paints are sometimes referred to as solvent-based. Paints essentially 

consist of a resin or binder, pigments, and a carrier in which these are dissolved or suspended. 

Once the paint is applied to a surface, the carrier evaporates, leaving behind a solid coating. In 

oil-based paints the carrier is a solvent consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOC), which 

can adversely affect indoor air quality and the environment. As a result, government regulations 

and consumer demand are forcing continuing changes in paint formulations. These changes 

have led to formulations containing more paint solids and less solvent, and a shift away from oilbased paints to waterborne or latex paints. 
 

152

BEES considers three neutral-colored, latex-based paint alternatives for interior use: virgin latex 

paint plus two types of latex paint that contain leftover household paint, or post-consumer (PC) 

paint--consolidated and reprocessed. Because they do not use solvents as the primary carrier, 

latex paints emit far fewer volatile organic compounds (VOC) upon application. They also do 

not require solvents for cleaning of the tools and equipment after use. Water with a coalescing 

agent is the carrier for latex paints. The coalescing agent is typically a glycol or glycol ether. 

The binder is synthetic latex made from polyvinyl acetate and/or acrylic polymers and 

copolymers. Titanium dioxide is the primary pigment used to impart hiding properties in white 

or light-colored paints. A range of pigment extenders may be added. Other additives include 

surfactants, defoamers, preservatives, and fungicides. 

Consolidated paint facilities are often located at or near county or city recycling and Household 

Hazardous Waste (HHW) facilities. These facilities generally have relatively small-scale 

operations in which paint meeting a certain quality is blended and repackaged and sold or given 

away to the public. In larger consolidating operations, some virgin materials are added to the 

paint. Reprocessed paint is generally produced in a larger-scale facility and varies by producer 

and PC paint content; reprocessed paint can contain 50 % to over 90 % PC paint. 

The three latex paint alternatives are applied the same way. The surface to be painted is first 

primed and then painted with two coats of paint. One coat of paint is then applied every 4 years. 

In reality, the three paint options vary in quality, but for BEES they are assumed to be of the 

same quality, with one gal covering 37.2 m2

 (400 ft2). 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• C3012A.DBF—Virgin Latex Paint 

• C3012B.DBF—Consolidated Latex Paint 

• C3012C.DBF—Reprocessed Latex Paint 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram shown below shows the major elements of the production of these products as 

they are currently modeled for BEES. 
 

153

Figure 3.27: Virgin Interior Latex Paint System Boundaries 

Figure 3.28: Consolidated and Reprocessed Interior Latex Paint System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Virgin latex paint. The major virgin latex paint constituents are resins (binder), titanium dioxide 

(pigment), limestone (extender), and water (thinner), which are mixed together until they form 

an emulsion. The average composition of the virgin latex paint/primer system modeled in BEES 

is listed in the Table below. 

Functional Unit 

of Paint End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Virgin Latex Paint

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

TiO2 

Production

Resin

Production

Paint 

production

Primer

Production

Limestone 

Production

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

TiO2 

Production

Resin

Production

Limestone 

Production

Functional Unit 

of Paint End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Consolidated and Reprocessed Interior Latex Paint

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Paint 

Consolidation or 

Reprocessing

Primer

Production

Car / truck 

transport

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

TiO2 

Production

Resin

Production

Limestone 

Production Leftover 

latex paint

Virgin 

Paint 

Additives
 

154

Table 3.69: Virgin Latex Paint Constituents 

Constituent Paint Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Primer Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Resin 25 25 

Titanium dioxide 12.5 7.5 

Limestone 12.5 7.5 

Water 50 60 

The data for titanium dioxide is 1990s European production data from the SimaPro database. 

Limestone data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. The Table below displays the market shares 

for the resins used for interior latex paint and primer as well as the components of each type of 

resin as they are modeled in BEES. The production of the monomers used in the resins is based 

on elements of the SimaPro database. 

Table 3.70: Latex Paint Resin Constituents 

Resin Type 

Market 

Share 

(%) 

Constituents 

Mass 

Fraction 

(%) 

Vinyl Acrylic 25 Vinyl Acetate 80 to 95 

 Butyl Acrylate 5 to 20 

Polyvinyl Acrylic 12.5 Polyvinyl Acrylic 100 

Styrene Acrylic 12.5 Styrene 50 

 Butyl Acrylate 50 

Virgin latex paint is assumed to be sold in one-gal steel cans, which are included in the model. 

Steel data comes from life cycle inventories submitted by the American Iron and Steel Institute 

(AISI) and the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) and represents late 1990s worldwide 

production of steel. 

Consolidated paint. A recent LCA study on leftover paint waste management138F

139 that surveyed 

paint consolidation plants all over the United States found the average percentage of virgin 

constituents to be approximately 1.5 %, with the remainder being leftover household paint. At 

5.08 kg (11.2 lb) per gal this amounts to 0.08 kg (0.17 lb) of virgin additives, which are 

described above. Consolidated paint is usually repackaged in 19 L (5 gal) high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) plastic buckets, which are included in the BEES model. Data on HDPE 

comes from American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Reprocessed paint. The leftover paint waste management study also surveyed paint 

reprocessing plants. Based on this survey, PC paint content ranged from 55 % to 93 %, with a 

weighted average of 76 %. Therefore, the quantity of virgin constituents was modeled as 24 %, 

amounting to 1.24 kg (2.74 lb) of virgin additives per gal of reprocessed paint, at an assumed 

 139 Franklin Associates and Four Elements Consulting, LLC, “Life Cycle Assessment Results for Six "Pure" 

Methods for Managing Leftover Paint. Draft Report” (Paint Product Stewardship Initiative, 2006). For more 

information, go to http://www.productstewardship.us.
 

155

density of 1.34 kg/L (11.2 lb/gal). These additives are described under the virgin latex paint raw 

materials section above. Reprocessed paint is packaged in both 19 L (5 gal) HDPE plastic 

buckets and 3.8 L (1 gal) steel containers; the BEES model assumes half the reprocessed paint is 

packaged in each option. 

Manufacturing 

Paint manufacture essentially consists of combining the ingredients, less some of the solvent, in 

a steel mixing vessel. In some cases the mixing is followed by a grinding operation to break up 

the dry ingredients, which tend to clump during mixing. Then, additional solvents or other 

liquids are added to achieve final viscosity, and supplemental tinting is added. Finally, the paint 

is strained, put into cans, and packaged for shipping. 

Virgin latex paint. The blending energy for virgin latex paint and the paint primer is assumed to 

be 4.5 MJ (1.25 kWh) of purchased electricity per gal of paint blended and 7.0 MJ (1.94 kWh) of 

additional energy per gal.139F

140 In the absence of data on the source of the additional energy 

required, it is assumed to be natural gas. Emissions associated with paint and paint primer 

manufacturing, such as particulates to the air, are based on U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors. 

Truck transportation of raw materials to the paint manufacturing site is assumed to average 402 

km (250 mi) for limestone, 2400 km (1500 mi) for titanium dioxide, and 80 km (50 mi) for the 

resins. 

Consolidated latex paint. Before PC paint undergoes consolidation, it is sorted from solvent 

based paints, contaminated paint, and other HHW materials that come to a HHW facility. Once 

the paint in good condition is separated from other types of paint and HHW, the paint cans are 

opened manually or electrically and paint is poured into a mixing vessel. The cans are 

sometimes crushed using electrical equipment. Water is often used to clean facilities, as are 

absorbents to soak up paint from the floor. Waste is minimized as often the emptied containers 

are recycled. The following Table provides consolidation plant sorting inputs and outputs. 

 140 Based on the amount of purchased electricity reported in U.S. Department of Commerce, "2002 Census 

Report: Paint and Coating Manufacturing 2002," based on 1.3 billion gallons of all paints and coatings produced in 

2002. 
 

156

Table 3.71: Consolidated Paint Sorting Data 

Flow Units Amount 

Inputs 

Water used L/L (gal/gal) 0.22 (0.22) 

Absorbent used to absorb paint 

on floor kg/L (lb/gal) 0.0002 (0.002) 

Electricity J/L (kwh/gal) 31 0227 (0.327)

Natural gas process fuel m3/L (ft3/gal) 0.0001 (0.010) 

Diesel fuel (mobile equipment) L/L (gal/gal) 0.0009 (0.001) 

Natural gas (mobile equipment) L/L (gal/gal) 0.0003 (0.0003)

Propane (mobile equipment) L/L (gal/gal) 0.005 (0.005) 

Gasoline (mobile equipment) L/L (gal/gal) 0.0002 (0.0002)

used oil L/L (gal/gal) 0.001 (0.001) 

Outputs 

Waste kg/L (lb/gal) 0.102 (0.850) 

Next, the paint is blended and repackaged. The following Table provides the consolidation 

process energy and water requirements. 

Table 3.72: Consolidated Paint Processing Data 

Flow Units Amount 

Water used L/L (gal/gal) 0.07 (0.07) 

Electricity J/L (kwh/gal) 55 092 (0.058) 

Natural gas process fuel m3/L (ft3/gal) 0.00001 (0.002) 

Diesel fuel (mobile equipment) L/L (gal/gal) 0.002 (0.002) 

Propane (mobile equipment) L/L (gal/gal) 0.007 (0.007) 

The absorbent used to soak up paint from the facility floor is reported as cat litter, which is 

modeled as clay using the SimaPro database. All data on energy use and combustion in mobile 

equipment and boilers comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

The leftover paint waste management study found that about 60 % of the time, paint comes to a 

consolidation plant by truck from a HHW facility or a municipal solid waste transfer station. 

The remaining incoming paint comes directly from households via passenger vehicle. Based on 

the surveys, truck transportation is on average 161 km (100 mi) and car transport is on average 

15 km (9.4 mi). The passenger vehicle mileage has been allocated to one-fourth its amount to 

account for the mass of other HHW drop-off items likely transported in the car plus driving for 

other errands during the same trip. The passenger vehicle is modeled as 50 % gasoline-powered 

car and 50 % sport utility vehicle, and gasoline usage and emissions data come from an EPA 

study on passenger vehicles.140F

141 Truck transportation data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Reprocessed latex paint. As with consolidated paint, before paint is reprocessed it must be 

 141 National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, “Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for an 

"Average" Passenger Car” and Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for an "Average" Light Truck (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA420-F-97-037, April 1997). 
 

157

sorted from other incoming materials. Once the PC latex paint appropriate for reprocessing is 

sorted from other paints and materials, it is blended with virgin materials and packaged for sale. 

The following tables provide the inputs and outputs from sorting and reprocessing. 

Table 3.73: Reprocessed Paint Sorting and Processing Data 

Flow Quantity per L 

 (per gal ) 

Inputs: 

Water used 0.565 L (0.565 gal) 

Electricity 0.425 MJ (0.447 kWh) 

Propane (mobile equipment) 0.0023 L (0.0023 gal) 

Gasoline (mobile equipment) 0.0009 L (0.0009 gal) 

Outputs: 

Waste 0.0083 kg (0.07 lb) 

Paint reprocessing facilities mostly receive leftover paint via truck from collection sites 

including HHW facilities. Because there are fewer reprocessing facilities, trucks travel on 

average a greater distance than to consolidation facilities; this distance is about 885 km (550 mi) 

according to the leftover paint study. 

Transportation 

Transportation of virgin and reprocessed latex paint from the manufacturing facility to the 

building site via heavy-duty truck is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. Transportation 

of the consolidated paint, also a BEES variable, is accomplished by gasoline-powered car and 

sport utility vehicle, typically traveling a much shorter distance due to the high number of local 

paint consolidation facilities and markets. 

 

Installation 

At the beginning of the 50-year BEES use period, one coat of primer is applied under the two 

coats of paint. The raw materials section above provides the material constituents for primer. 

Use 

Every four years, the wall is assumed to be painted over with one additional coat, amounting to 

12 additional coats over the 50-year use period. As with all BEES products, these 

“replacements” are accounted for in the model. All three paint options are assumed to have a 

VOC content of 150 g (5.29 oz) per liter and to release 20.5 g (0.05 lb) VOC per functional unit 

over 50 years. 

End of Life 

At end of life, all the paint goes into the landfill with the wall on which it is applied. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 48Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 
 

158

Industry Contacts 

David Darling, National Paint & Coating Association (2005) 

3.13 Floor Coverings 

3.13.1 Generic Ceramic Tile With Recycled Glass 

Ceramic tile flooring consists of clay, or a mixture of clay and other ceramic materials, which is 

baked in a kiln to a permanent hardness. To improve environmental performance, recycled 

windshield glass is often added to the ceramic mix. 

For the BEES system, a 50-year ceramic tile with 75 % recycled windshield glass content, 

installed using a latex-cement mortar, is studied. Each tile is 15 cm x 15 cm x 1.3 cm (6 in x 6 in 

x 1⁄2 in) and weighs 632.4 g (22.31 oz). 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

C3020A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of

Ceramic Tiles w ith

Recycled Glass

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Clay Tile

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Clay Mining

Ceramic Tiles with Recycled Glass

Mortar

Production

Styrene

Butadiene

Production

Butadiene

Production

Portland

Cement

Production

Sand Mining

Styrene

Production

Recycled

Glass

Production

Figure 3.29: Ceramic Tile System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Clay and recycled glass are the primary constituents of the ceramic tile. The mass of each raw 

material is provided in the Table below. 
 

159

 

Table 3.74: Ceramic Tile Constituents 

Constituent Mass 

Fraction 

kg/tile 

 (oz/tile) 

kg/m2

 (oz/ft2

) 

Clay 25 % 0.1581 

(5.577) 

6.807 

(22.31) 

Recycled Glass 75 % 0.4743 

(16.73) 

20.42 

(66.92) 

The environmental impacts for the production of clay are based on surrogate data in the SimaPro 

database. Burdens associated with glass production are allocated to the application for which the 

glass is initially produced (vehicle windshields), so the only burdens from recycled glass 

production are those associated with the collection and reprocessing of windshields. 

The ceramic tiles are installed using a latex/mortar blend. The constituents of the latex/mortar 

blend are provided in the Table below. 

Table 3.75: Latex/Mortar Blend Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

Mortar 69.6 % 

Portland Cement 17 % 

Sand 83 % 

Styrene-Butadiene Latex 30.4 % 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements for the drying and firing 

processes of ceramic tile production are listed in the Table below. 

Table 3.76: Energy Requirements for Ceramic Tile Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier Contribution MJ/kg 

(Btu/lb) 

Coal 9.6 % 0.402 (173) 

Natural Gas 71.9 % 3.013 (1 295) 

Fuel Oil 7.8 % 0.327 (140) 

Wood 10.8 % 0.448 (193) 

Total 100 % 4.19 (1 801) 

Emissions for ceramic tile firing and drying are based on U.S. EPA AP-42 data for emissions 

from the combustion of the specific fuel types. 

Transportation. Transportation of the recycled glass to the tile facility is taken into account as 

402 km (250 mi) by truck. The clay used to make the tiles is assumed to be shipped by truck 80 

km (50 mi). 

Waste. The manufacturing process generates no waste materials as all materials are reutilized in 
 

160

the plant. 

Transportation 

The distance for mortar transport to the end user is assumed to be 241 km (150 mi) by truck. 

Transportation of tiles by diesel truck to the building site is modeled as a variable of the BEES 

system. 

 

Installation 

Installing ceramic tile requires a layer of latex/mortar approximately 1.3 cm (1⁄2 in.) thick, which 

is equivalent to 0.567 kg (1.25 lb) per ft2.14F

142 The relatively small amount of latex/mortar used 

between the tiles is not included. Installation of tile and mortar is assumed to be a manual 

process, so no there are no emissions or energy inputs. About 5 % of the installation materials 

are assumed to go to waste, all of which is disposed of in a landfill. 

Use 

Ceramic tile with recycled glass is assumed to have a useful life of 50 years. Maintenance of the 

tile floor during this period – e.g., cleaning, polishing – is not included within the system 

boundaries. 

End of Life 

All of the ceramic tile and latex/mortar are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 49Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Contacts 

National Tile Contractors Association (2005) 

3.13.2 Generic Linoleum Flooring 

Linoleum is a resilient, organic-based floor covering consisting of a backing covered with a thick 

wearing surface. For the BEES system, 2.5 mm (0.098 in) sheet linoleum manufactured in 

Europe, with a jute backing and a polyurethane-acrylic finish coat, is studied. An acrylate 

copolymer adhesive is included for installation. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

C3020B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below presents the major elements of the production of this product as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

 142 Average application rate at 0.5 in thickness reported at http://www.texascement.com/mortarcalc.html and 

http://www.c-cure.com/servref/covcalc/impmort/fimp.htm. 
 

161

Figure 3.30: Linoleum Flooring System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The following Table lists the constituents of linoleum and their proportions. The data comes 

from a European study on the life cycle of flooring materials.142F

143 One square meter of 2.5 mm 

(0.098 in) linoleum weighs approximately 2.9 kg (6.4 lb). 

 143 Asa, J., et al.(Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, 1995). 

Functional Unit of

Linoleu En -

Butadiene 

Styrene 

Linoleum

Transport

Raw 

Production

Butadiene 

Production

Tall 

Production

Acryli

Lacquer 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Styrene 

Production

Jute 

Production

Limeston

Production

Sawdust 

Production

Cor

Production

TiO

Production

Linseed Oil 

Production

Functional Unit of

Linoleu En o Lif

Transport to

Construction 

Site

Linoleu

Production

Proces

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Linoleum

Styrene 

Butadiene 

Production

Butadiene 

Production

Tall 

Production

Acryli

Lacquer 

Production

Raw Material 

Transport

Styrene 

Production

Jute 

Production

Limeston

Production

Sawdust 

Production

Cor

Production

TiO2

Production

Linseed Oil 

Production
 

162

Table 3.77: Linoleum Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction g/m2

 

(oz/ft2) 

Linseed oil 23.3 % 670 (2.2) 

Pine rosin/tall oil 7.8 % 224 (0.7) 

Limestone 17.7 % 509 (1.7) 

Wood flour 30.5 % 877 (2.9) 

Cork flour 5.0 % 144 (0.5) 

TiO2 (pigment) 4.4 % 127 (0.4) 

Jute (backing) 10.9 % 313 (1.0) 

Acrylic lacquer 0.35 % 10 (0.03) 

Total 100 % 2 874 (9.4) 

The cultivation of linseed is based on a modified version of wheat production from the U.S. LCI 

Database (for lack of other available data), and inputs are presented below. 

Table 3.78: Inputs to Linseed Agriculture 

Input Kg/ha (lb/acre) 

Nitrogen Fertilizer 31 (28) 

Phosphorus Fertilizer 20 (17) 

Potassium Fertilizer 25 (22) 

Pesticides (active compounds, 

with 20 % lost to the 

atmosphere) 

0.7 (0.7) 

To harvest the linseed, it is assumed that a diesel tractor is used, requiring approximately 0.61 

MJ of diesel fuel per kg (263 Btu/lb) of linseed harvested. The yield of linseed is 1 038 kg per 

hectare (420 lb/acre). Energy requirements for linseed oil production include fuel oil and steam, 

and are allocated on an economic basis between linseed oil (87 %) and linseed cake (13 %). 

Allocation is necessary because linseed cake is a co-product of linseed oil production, so its 

production impacts should not be included in the BEES model for linoleum flooring. The 

emissions associated with linseed oil production are allocated on the same economic basis. The 

production of the fertilizers and pesticides is based on elements of the SimaPro database. 

The production of tall oil is based on European data for kraft pulping, with inventory flows 

allocated between kraft pulp and its coproduct, tall oil.143F

144 The production of limestone comes 

from the U.S. LCI Database. Wood flour is sawdust produced as a coproduct of wood 

processing, and its production is based on the U.S. LCI Database. Cork flour is a coproduct of 

wine cork production. Cork tree cultivation is not included, but energy requirements for the 

processing of the cork is included as shown in the Table below. 

Table 3.79: Electricity Inputs for Cork Flour Production 

 144 Fédération Européenne des Fabricants de Carton Ondulé (FEFCO), 2003. Found at: 

http://www.fefco.org/fileadmin/Fefco/pdfs/Technical_PDF/Corrected_database_2003.pdf. 
 

163

Cork Product MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Cork Bark 0.06 (26) 

Ground Cork 1.62 (696) 

Production of the pigments used is based on the European production of titanium dioxide, from 

the SimaPro database. Linoleum backing, jute, is mostly grown in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, 

and China. Jute is predominantly rain-fed, requires little fertilizer and pesticides, and cultivation 

is generally done by manual labor. Data for the production of acrylic lacquer materials is based 

on elements of the SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. Producing linoleum requires electricity and natural gas; the following 

Table lists the energy requirements for linoleum production.14F

145 

Table 3.80: Energy Requirements for Linoleum Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Electricity 2 (859.8) 

Natural Gas 10 (4 299.2) 

Emissions. Since most linoleum manufacturing takes place in Europe, it is assumed to be a 

European product in the BEES model. European linoleum manufacturing results in the following 

air emissions in addition to those from energy use. 

Table 3.81: Emissions from Linoleum Manufacturing 

Emission g/kg (oz/lb) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOC) 1.6 (0.025) 

Solvents 0.94 (0.015) 

Particulates (unspecified) 0.23 (0.004) 

Transportation. Data for linoleum raw material transport from point of origin to a European 

manufacturing location is shown in the Table below.145F

146

 145 Data is based on an average of public data and manufacturer-specific information. 146 Asa, J., et. al., Life-Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials(Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, 

1995).
 

164

Table 3.82: Linoleum Raw Materials Transportation 

Raw Material Km (mi) Mode 

Linseed oil 4 350 (2 703) 

1,500 (932) 

Ocean Freighter 

Train 

Pine rosin/tall oil 2 000 (1 243) Ocean Freighter 

Limestone 800 (497) Train 

Wood flour 600 (373) Train 

Cork flour 2 000 (1 243) Ocean Freighter 

TiO2 (pigment) 500 (311) Diesel Truck 

Jute (backing) 10 000 (6 214) Ocean Freighter 

Acrylic lacquer 500 (311) Diesel Truck 

Transport of the finished product from Europe to the United States is included in the model as 

part of the manufacturing process. 

Waste. Most process waste is recycled at the plant and the remainder is sent to a landfill for 

disposal. For this model, 3 % of process input materials are assumed to go to a landfill. 

Transportation 

Transportation of linoleum by heavy-duty truck from the U.S. distribution facility to the building 

site is modeled as a variable of the BEES system Transportation data is based on the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Installation 

For optimal adhesion, an acrylate copolymer adhesive is applied to a subfloor or other surface at 

a thickness of 0.29 mm and mass of 290 g/m2. Usually linoleum seams are sealed against 

moisture by welding with a weld rod. This minimal amount of energy is not accounted for in the 

model. 

Installation waste is assumed to be 5 % of the installed weight. In the United States, and in 

BEES, this waste is assumed to be sent to a landfill for disposal. (In Europe, this waste would go 

into incineration, which would generate 18.3 MJ/kg (2.31 kWh/lb) energy.) 

Use 

Linoleum is known for its durability. Through evaluation of actual lifetime data, is has been 

determined that linoleum has a useful life of 30 years.146F

147 As with all BEES products, the life 

cycle environmental impacts from this replacement during the 50-year use phase are included in 

the life cycle inventory data. Volatile organic compound (VOC) off-gassing from the adhesive is 

included in the BEES modeling. 

End of Life 

At end of life, it is assumed that linoleum is disposed of in a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

 147 Federal Association of the Sworn Experts for Room and Equipment e.V., Guide to the Inquiry of Time Values 

and Decreases in Value of Floor Coverings(Bonn, Germany: Federal Association of the Sworn Experts for Room 

and Equipment e.V.) 
 

165

Golden, CO. Found at: 50Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Asa, J., et. al., Life-Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials, (Sweden: Chalmers University of 

Technology, 1995). 

Fédération Européenne des Fabricants de Carton Ondulé (FEFCO), European Database for 

Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies, 2003. Found at: 

http://www.fefco.org/fileadmin/Fefco/pdfs/Technical_PDF/Corrected_database_2003.pdf. 

Federal Association of the Sworn Experts for Room and Equipment e.V., Guide to the Inquiry 

of Time Values and Decreases in Value of Floor Coverings, (Bonn, Germany: Federal 

Association of the Sworn Experts for Room and Equipment e.V.). 

Industry Contacts 

Jennifer Gaalswyk, Armstrong Corporation (Sept 2005 – Jan 2006) 

3.13.3 Generic Vinyl Composition Tile 

Vinyl composition tile (VCT) is a resilient floor covering. Relative to the other types of vinyl 

flooring (vinyl sheet flooring and vinyl tile), VCT contains a high proportion of inorganic filler. 

The tile size modeled in BEES is 30 cm x 30 cm x 0.3 cm (12 in x 12 in x 1/8 in), with a weight 

of about 0.613 kg (1.35 lb). 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

C3020C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

166

Functional Unit of

Vinyl Composition

Tile

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Styrene-Butadiene

Production

Vinyl

Composition

Tile Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Vinyl Acetate/

Vinyl Chloride

Production

Vinyl Composition Tile

Limestone

Production

Styrene

Production

Butadiene

Production

Acrylic

Lacquer

Production

Plasticizer

Production

Ethylene

Production

Acetic Acid

Production

Oxygen

Production

Chlorine

Production

Figure 3.31: Vinyl Composition Tile System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The average makeup of vinyl composition tile is limestone, plasticizer, and a copolymer of vinyl 

chloride (95 %) and vinyl acetate (5 %). A layer of styrene-butadiene adhesive is used during 

installation. 

The Table below lists the composition by weight of 30 cm x 30 cm x 0.3 cm (12 in x 12 in x 

1/8 in) VCT. A finish coat of acrylic latex is applied to the tile at manufacture. The thickness of 

the finish coat is assumed to be 0.005 mm (0.2 mils). The production of these raw materials, and 

the styrene-butadiene adhesive, is based on the SimaPro database, the U.S. LCI Database, and 

American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI Database. 
 

167

Table 3.83: Vinyl Composition Tile Constituents 

Constituent Mass 

kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Limestone 5.54 (1.14) 84 

Vinyl resins: 5 % vinyl 

acetate / 95 % vinyl 

chloride 

0.797 (0.163) 12 

Plasticizer: 60 % BBP 

(butyl benzyl phthalate) 

/ 40 % DINP 

(diisononyl phthalate) 

0.269 (0.055) 4 

Total 6.61 (1.35) 100 

Internal recycling is quite common, with at least 99 % of the raw materials initially used in the 

manufacturing process being ultimately used in the finished product. Typically, all scrap and 

rejected materials are reused in the manufacturing process for VCT. In fact, the amount of 

recycled content from tile processing can range from 12 % to 50 % of a finished tile. 

It is difficult to provide a representative number for tile recycled content from sources external to 

the plant, due to multiple manufacturing sites and the lack of a constant supply of both postindustrial and postconsumer polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The majority of the recycled materials 

used are post-industrial, and a conservative recycled content number from external sources is 

1 % by weight of the tile. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Energy requirements for the manufacturing processes 

(mixing, folding/calendaring, finish coating, and die cutting) are listed in the Table below. 

Table 3.84: Energy Requirements for Vinyl Composition Tile Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Electricity 1.36 (585) 

Natural Gas 0.85 (365) 

Total 2.21 (950) 

Emissions associated with the manufacturing process arise from the combustion of natural gas 

and are modeled using the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. VCT producers are located throughout the country. The bulk of the product 

weight is limestone, a readily available and plentiful filler typically located in close proximity to 

manufacturing sites. The raw materials used in the manufacture of the tile are all assumed to be 

transported to the production facility via diesel truck over a distance of 402 km (250 mi). 

Transportation of adhesive to the end user is assumed to be 241 km (150 mi) via diesel truck. 

Waste. Typically, less than 1 % waste is generated from the production of VCT. This waste is 
 

168

usually comprised of granulated VCT and VCT dust and is disposed of in a landfill. 

Transportation 

Transportation of vinyl composition tile by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

A layer of styrene-butadiene adhesive is used during installation. The thickness of the adhesive 

is 0.08 cm (1/32 in) at application. Approximately 0.0133 kg (0.0294 lb) of adhesive is applied 

per ft2 of vinyl composition tile. The adhesive is applied wet, and a loss in volume arises due to 

evaporation of the water in the adhesive as it dries. Adhesives are typically water-based and thus 

few volatiles are emitted. Installation of vinyl composition tile is primarily a manual process, so 

no energy use is modeled for the installation phase. 

Installation scrap varies depending on the job size. It is estimated that, on average, installation 

scrap for a commercial job is 2 % to 3 %. Scrap is sent to landfill. 

Use 

Vinyl composition floor tile is most commonly used in applications such as school cafeterias and 

classrooms, where there is relatively little exposure to abrasion from tracked-in grit and dirt. 

Based on historical observations, it is estimated that VCT in such applications lasts an average of 

40 years before it is replaced due to wear. In extremely heavy traffic areas (which are normally 

much smaller in area), such as entryways in a school, the tile has a shorter life expectancy. 

Because of differing VCT manufacturers’ maintenance recommendations, there is not a single 

industry standard for maintenance of the product over its lifetime. Typically, VCT is stripped 

and polished annually. Many of the acrylic finishes used after the floor is installed consist of the 

same general materials as the factory-applied finishes. The equipment used to maintain the floor 

depends on the maintenance system selected by the building owner, often based on the desired 

overall appearance. Electric- or propane-powered floor machines may be used for stripping, 

polishing, and buffing. Frequency of refinishing, and types and quantities of stripping and 

polishing chemicals used each time, depend on the maintenance programs developed by 

individual building owners. Today, low-volatile organic compound (VOC) or no-VOC 

maintenance products are available for maintaining VCT floors. VOC off-gassing from the tile 

and adhesive at each installation are included in the BEES modeling. 

End of Life 

At end of life, the VCT and adhesive are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 51Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 
 

169

Industry Contacts 

William Freeman, Resilient Floor Covering Institute, (September-November 2005) 

3.13.4 Generic Composite Marble Tile 

Composite marble tile is a type of composition flooring. It is a mixture of polyester resin and 

matrix filler, colored for a marble effect, that is poured into a mold to form tiles. The mold is 

then vibrated to release air and level the matrix. After curing and shrinkage the tile is removed 

from the mold, trimmed, and polished if necessary. 

 

For the BEES system, a 30 cm x 30 cm x 0.95 cm (12 in x 12 in x 3/8 in) tile, installed using a 

latex-cement mortar, is studied. The detailed environmental performance data for this product 

may be viewed by opening the file C3020D.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES 

software. 

Flow Diagram 

The following flow diagram shows the major elements of the production of composite marble 

tile, as currently modeled in BEES. 

Figure 3.32: Composite Marble Tile System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of 

Composite Marble 

Tile 

Transport to End of Life 

Construction 

Site 

Composite 

Marble Tile 

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Composite Marble Tile

Latex/Mortar 

Blend 

Production 

Sand 

Production 

Resin 

Production 

Limestone 

Filler 

Production 

TiO2

Production 

Process 

Energy 

Raw Material 

Transport 

Polyester 

Production 

Portland 

Cement 

Production 

Styrene 

Butadiene 

Production 

Styrene 

Production 
 

170

Raw Materials 

The Table below gives the constituents included in the marble matrix and their proportions. It is 

assumed that 3 % of the material is lost at manufacture from the trimming process. 

Table 3.85: Composite Marble Tile Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

(%) 

Filler 78.25 

Resin 20.01 

Pigment (TiO2) 1.50 

Catalyst (MEKP) 0.24 

The resin percentage given above is a weighted average, based on data from four sources ranging 

from 19 % to 26 % resin content. The remainder of the matrix is composed of filler, pigment, 

and catalyst. Since calcium carbonate is the typical filler used for U.S. composite marble tile 

production, it is the assumed filler material in the BEES model. The filler is composed of coarse 

and fine particles in a combination of two parts coarse to one part fine. Filler production 

involves the mining and grinding of calcium carbonate. The resin used in the matrix is an 

unsaturated polyester resin cross-linked with styrene monomer. The styrene content can range 

from 35 % to 55 %. An average value of 45 % is used for the model. 

The main catalyst used in the United States for the marble matrix is Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

Peroxide (MEKP). This catalyst is used as a solvent in the mixture of resin and filler, so is 

consumed in the process; however, approximately 1 % of the MEKP catalyst is composed of 

unreacted MEK, which is assumed to be released during the reaction. The amount of catalyst is 

assumed to be about 1 % of the resin content, or 0.24 % of the total marble matrix. Due to a lack 

of public data on MEKP production, and the small mass fraction of the component, MEKP 

production is not included within the system boundaries. 

A colorant may be used if necessary. The quantity depends on the color required. The colorant 

is usually added to the mixture before all the filler has been mixed. For the BEES study, 

titanium dioxide at 1.5 % is assumed. 

Composite marble tiles are installed using a latex/mortar blend. The constituents of the 

latex/mortar blend are provided in the Table below. 

Table 3.86: Latex/Mortar Blend Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

(%) 

Portland Cement 38 

Sand 22 

Styrene-Butadiene Latex 40 
 

171

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Electricity is the only energy source involved in 

producing and casting the resin-filler mixture for composite marble tile. The tile is cured at 

room temperature. The Table below shows electricity use for composite marble tile 

manufacturing. 

Table 3.87: Energy Requirements for Composite Marble Tile Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg 

(Btu/lb) 

Electricity 0.047 (20.3) 

The chief emissions from composite marble tile manufacturing are fugitive styrene and MEK air 

emissions. The styrene emissions come from the resin constituent and are assumed to be 2 % of 

the resin input. The MEK emissions come from the 1 % un-reacted MEK in the catalyst blend. 

Emissions of styrene from the matrix are assumed to be 0.129 kg/m2

 (0.026 lb/ft2), and MEK 

emissions 0.00086 kg/ m2 (0.00018 lb/ft2). 

Transportation. All product raw materials are assumed to be transported 402 km (250 mi) by 

truck. For the mortar raw materials, the portland cement and sand are assumed to be transported 

48 km (30 mi) by truck to the packaging plant, and the latex raw materials are assumed to be 

transported 161 km (100 mi) to the production facilities. 

Transportation 

Shipping the cement, sand, and latex to the end user is assumed to cover 322 km (200 mi) via 

diesel truck. Transportation of tiles by diesel truck to the building site is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Installing composite marble tile requires a sub-floor of a compatible type, such as concrete. A 

layer of latex/mortar approximately 1.3 cm (1⁄2 in) thick is used, which is equivalent to 

17.96 kg/m2

 (3.563 lb/ft2). Installation of tile and mortar is assumed to be primarily a manual 

process, so there are no emissions or energy inputs. About 5 % of the installation materials are 

assumed to go to waste, all of which is disposed of in a landfill. 

Use 

With general maintenance, properly installed composite marble tile will have a useful life of 75 

years. Maintenance – such as cleaning and sealing of the tile - is not included within the 

boundaries of the BEES model. 

End of Life 

At end of life, it is assumed that the composite marble tile and the latex/mortar used for 

installation are disposed of in a landfill. 
 

172

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 52Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Contacts 

No industry contacts were found that were able to provide industry data. 

3.13.5 Generic Terrazzo 

Terrazzo is a type of composition flooring. It consists of a mix of marble, granite, onyx, or glass 

chips in portland cement, modified portland cement, or resinous matrix that is poured, cured, 

ground, and polished. 

BEES evaluates an epoxy, or resinous, terrazzo containing a high proportion of inorganic filler 

(principally marble dust and chips), a pigment for aesthetic purposes, and epoxy resin. The 

materials are mixed and installed directly on site and, when dry, are polished. The epoxy 

terrazzo is 9.5 mm (3/8 in) thick. 

 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

C3020E.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

173

Functional Unit of 

Terrazzo Flooring End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Terrazzo 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Terrazzo Flooring

Installation 

Materials

Grout 

Production

Epoxy 

Production

Marble Dust 

and Chips 

Production

TiO2

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Epoxy Resin 

(Part A) 

Production

Primer 

Production

Acrylic Sealer 

Production

Epoxy 

Hardener 

(Part B) 

Production

Zinc Alloy 

Divider 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Terrazzo Flooring End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Terrazzo 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Terrazzo Flooring

Installation 

Materials

Grout 

Production

Epoxy 

Production

Marble Dust 

and Chips 

Production

TiO2

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Epoxy Resin 

(Part A) 

Production

Primer 

Production

Acrylic Sealer 

Production

Epoxy 

Hardener 

(Part B) 

Production

Zinc Alloy 

Divider 

Production

Figure 3.33: Terrazzo Flooring System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The Table below lists the constituents of epoxy terrazzo and their proportions. 

Table 3.88: Terrazzo Flooring Constituents 

Terrazzo Constituents Mass Fraction (%) 

Marble dust and chips 77 

Epoxy resin 22 

Pigment (titanium dioxide) 1 

The term “marble” refers to all calcareous rocks capable of taking a polish (e.g., onyx, travertine, 

and some serpentine rocks). Marble is quarried, selected to avoid off-color or contaminated 

material, crushed, washed, and sized to yield marble chips for Terrazzo.147F

148 Note that because 

marble dust is assumed to be a coproduct rather than a waste byproduct of marble production, a 

portion of the burdens of marble quarrying is allocated to marble dust production. 

Typical amounts of raw materials used are as follows: 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) of marble dust and 0.23 kg 

(0.51 lb) of marble chips per 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2); 3.8 L (1 gal) of epoxy resin per 0.8 m2 (8.5 ft2); and, 

depending on customer selection, from 1 % to 15 % pigment content. The density of epoxy resin 

is approximately 1.1 kg/L (9.3 lb/gal). 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Terrazzo is “manufactured” at the site of installation. 

 148 National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association, Inc. (NMTA) website, http://www.ntma.com; Phone conversation 

with NMTA representative February 2006. 
 

174

The energy requirements for the on-site process include mixing the primer, mixing the terrazzo, 

grinding the surface (occurs before and after grouting), controlling the dust from grinding, 

mixing grout, and polishing the floor. 

The only energy data available are for mixing the terrazzo, which is assumed to require a 

5.97 kW (8 hp) gasoline-powered mixer running for 5 minutes. 

Table 3.89: Energy Requirements for Terrazzo Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Gasoline 0.003 (1.17) 

Transportation. The terrazzo constituents are assumed to be transported 402 km (250 mi) by 

diesel truck to the terrazzo supplier. 

Waste. Approximately 1 % of the materials used to make the terrazzo are wasted during 

manufacturing. This waste is assumed to be disposed of in a landfill.

Transportation 

Transportation of terrazzo flooring by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Installing epoxy terrazzo requires a sub-floor of a compatible type, such as cement board, 

exterior grade plywood, concrete block, concrete, or cement plaster. Most systems adhere to 

concrete slabs. 

Table 3.90: Terrazzo Flooring Installation Materials 

Installation Materials Mass Fraction (%) 

Divider Strips (Zinc) 54.4 

Epoxy Resin 34.3 

Acrylic Sealer 11.3 

To prevent the terrazzo from cracking, dividers are placed precisely above any concrete joints. 

Back-to-back “L” strip dividers are recommended for construction joints. Standard dividers are 

a 9.5 mm (3/8 in) wide, 16 gauge white zinc alloy, and weigh approximately 0.177 kg/m (0.119 

lb/ft). A 10 cm (4 in) thick concrete slab should have concrete joints at a maximum spacing of 

3.7 m (12 ft); therefore, 29 m (96 ft) of divider are required for every 13.4 m2 (144 ft2). 

Manufacturer specifications suggest bonding the divider strips to the floor using 100 % solid 

epoxy resin. The BEES model does not account for the bonding material; the amount is assumed 

to be negligible. 

Prior to applying the epoxy terrazzo, the sub-floor must be primed. The primer is made by 

mixing the epoxy resin components at a lower ratio than that used for the epoxy terrazzo. 
 

175

Typical coverage is approximately 18.6 m2 to 23.2 m2 (200 ft2 to 250 ft2) per blended gal of 

primer. 

After the terrazzo mixture has been applied and the surface has been grinded, the surface is 

grouted to fill and seal any voids. The grout is made by mixing the epoxy resin components in 

the same ratio used in the epoxy terrazzo. Typical coverage is approximately 46.5 m2 to 65.0 m2

(500 ft2 to 700 ft2

) per blended gal of grout. 

After the floor has been grouted and polished, two coats of acrylic sealer are applied at an 

approximate thickness of one to two mils. Typical coverage for a single coat is approximately 

74.3 m2 to 92.9 m2

 (800 ft2 to 1 000 ft2) per gal of sealer. 

Use 

With general maintenance, a properly installed terrazzo floor will have a useful life of 75 years. 

Maintenance – such as cleaning and sealing of the tile - is not included within the boundaries of 

the BEES model. 

End of Life 

At end of life, it is assumed that the terrazzo and any installation materials will be disposed of in 

a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 53Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Contacts 

The National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association, Inc. (December 2005 – February 2006) 

3.13.6 Generic Nylon Carpet 

For the BEES analysis, nylon carpet with an 11-year life (broadloom) or 15-year life (tile) is 

studied. The mass for 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of broadloom carpet is approximately 2.2 kg/m2 (0.45 

lb/ft2

), while the mass for 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of carpet tile is approximately 4.8 kg/m2 (0.98 lb/ft2). 

Four different product combinations are included in the BEES database. These combinations are 

listed below, along with their corresponding environmental performance data file names. Data 

files may be viewed by opening them under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

• C3020F.DBF—Nylon Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue 

• C3020I.DBF—Nylon Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue 

• C3020L.DBF—Nylon Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue 

• C3020O.DBF—Nylon Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue 
 

176

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Nylon Carpeting End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Nylon 

Broadloom 

Carpet 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Nylon Broadloom Carpet Manufacturing

Glue 

Production

Filler 

Production

Backing 

Production

Nylon Fiber 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Polypropylene 

Production

Styrene 

Production

Styrene 

Butadiene 

Production

Nylon 6,6 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Nylon Carpeting End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Nylon 

Broadloom 

Carpet 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Nylon Broadloom Carpet Manufacturing

Glue 

Production

Filler 

Production

Backing 

Production

Nylon Fiber 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Polypropylene 

Production

Styrene 

Production

Styrene 

Butadiene 

Production

Nylon 6,6 

Production

Figure 3.34: Nylon Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries 

Figure 3.35: Nylon Carpet Tile System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of 

Nylon Carpeting End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Nylon Tile 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Nylon Tile Carpet 

Glue 

Production

Filler 

Production Primary 

Backing 

Production

Nylon Fiber 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

PET 

Production

Styrene 

Production

Nylon 6,6 

Production

Precoat

Production

EVA Latex 

Production

Backing 

Production

PET 

Production

Additive/Filler 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Nylon Carpeting End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Nylon Tile 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Nylon Carpet Tile Manufacturing

Glue 

Production

Filler 

Production Primary 

Backing 

Production

Nylon Fiber 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

PET 

Production

Styrene 

Production

Nylon 6,6 

Production

Precoat

Production

EVA Latex 

Production

Backing 

Production

PET 

Production

Additive/Filler 

Production
 

177

Raw Materials 

Nylon carpeting consists of a mix of materials that make up the face and the backing of the 

product. The composition of broadloom carpet and carpet tiles differs significantly; 

specifications are provided in the following Table. 

Table 3.91: Nylon Carpet Constituents 

Constituent Material g/m2 (oz/ft2

) 

Broadloom 

Face Fiber Nylon 6,6 1 029 (3.37) 

Backing Polypropylene 227 (0.74) 

 Styrene butadiene latex 263 (0.86) 

 Limestone (CaCO3) filler 909 (2.98) 

 Stainblocker 0.24 (0.001) 

 Other additives 2 (0.01) 

Tile 

Face Fiber Nylon 6,6 787 (2.58) 

Primary 

Backing Polyester (PET) woven 161 (0.53) 

Precoat EVA latex 321 (1.05) 

 Limestone (CaCO3) filler 2 518 (8.25) 

 Diisononyl phthalate 636 (2.08) 

poly(Ethylacrylate-co-vinyl 

chloride) 390 (1.28) 

 Stainblocker 12.2 (0.04) 

 Other additives 93 (0.30) 

Fiberglass Fiberglass 52 (0.17) 

Backing Virgin PVC 261 (0.86) 

Data for Nylon 6,6 and styrene butadiene latex are based on recent European data from the 

plastics industry.148F

149,149F150 Data for polypropylene, PET, and PVC are based on American 

Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI Database, and data for 

limestone comes directly from the U.S. LCI Database. Data for the remaining nylon carpet 

materials are derived from elements in the SimaPro database, which include North American and 

European data from the late 1990s and 2000s. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. Carpet manufacturing consists of a number of steps, including formation 

of the synthetic fibers; dyeing of the fibers; and construction, treatment, and finishing of the 

carpet. For both nylon carpet types, the nylon material is made into fibers and then ‘tufted’ to 

 149 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 150 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005) and Boustead, I.(Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: www.plasticseurope.org. 
 

178

produce the carpet face. The face yarn is attached, using a primary coating and tufting needles, 

to the polymer backing. The energy requirements for these process steps are provided in the 

following Table. 

Table 3.92: Energy Requirements for Nylon Carpet Manufacturing 

Energy Carrier Broadloom 

MJ/m2

 (Btu/ft2) 

Tile 

MJ/m2 (Btu/ ft2) 

Electricity 0.39 (34) 2.2 (197) 

Fuel Oil 5.0 (437) 3.5 (306) 

Heating Steam 1.67 (145) 2.4 (207) 

Emissions. Emissions associated with the manufacturing process arise from the production of 

electricity and the combustion of fuel oil and natural gas, and are based on the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Solid Wastes. Approximately 9 % and 7 % waste is generated from the production of nylon 

broadloom carpet and carpet tile, respectively. Included in these figures are customer returns and 

off-specification production. All waste is assumed to be disposed of in a landfill. 

Water Consumption. Approximately 0.96 kg/m2 (0.20 lb/ft2) and 0.93 kg/m2 (0.19 lb/ft2) of 

water is consumed during the manufacture of nylon broadloom carpet and carpet tile, 

respectively. 

Transportation. Transport of raw materials to the carpet manufacturing plant is assumed to 

cover 402 km (250 mi) by truck. 

Transportation 

Transportation of nylon carpet by heavy-duty truck to the building site is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system. 

Installation 

Nylon broadloom carpet and nylon carpet tiles are installed using either a standard latex glue or 

a low-VOC latex glue. For the tile, typical glue application is 0.012 kilograms (0.026 lb) of glue 

per ft2

 of installed tile. For the broadloom carpet, two applications of glue are required – 0.624 

kg/m2 (0.128 lb/ft2) is applied to the product and then spots of glue are applied to the floor space 

at a rate of 0.022 kg/m2

 (0.004 lb/ft2). 

No glue is assumed to be wasted during the installation process, yet 5.7 % of the broadloom 

carpet and 2 % of the carpet tile are assumed to be lost as landfilled waste. 

Use 

The use phase of this product is either 11 years or 15 years depending on the type of nylon 

carpeting, broadloom or tile, respectively. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental 

burdens from these replacements are included in the inventory data. Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC) off-gassing from the carpet and both traditional and low-VOC adhesives are 

included in the BEES modeling. 
 

179

End of Life 

At end of life, a recycle rate of 0.7 % is assumed for broadloom carpet, while none of the carpet 

tile is recycled. The nylon carpet and its adhesives are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 54Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 66 (NYLON 66) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: STYRENE (Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: BUTADIENE (Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: www.plasticseurope.org. 

3.13.7 Generic Wool Carpet 

In BEES, wool carpet with a 25-year life is studied. The mass of 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of wool 

broadloom carpet or carpet tile is approximately 40 oz (1.13 kg). Four different product 

combinations are included in the BEES database. These combinations are listed below, along 

with their corresponding environmental performance data file names. Data files may be viewed 

by opening them under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

• C3020G.DBF—Wool Carpet Tile with Traditional Glue 

• C3020J.DBF—Wool Carpet Tile with Low-VOC Glue 

• C3020M.DBF—Wool Broadloom Carpet with Traditional Glue 

C3020P.DBF—Wool Broadloom Carpet with Low-VOC Glue 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

180

Functional Unit of 

Wool Carpeting End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Wool Carpet 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Wool Carpet Manufacturing

Glue 

Production

Filler 

Production

Backing 

Production

Wool Fiber 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Polypropylene 

Production

Styrene 

Production

PVC 

Production

Styrene 

Butadiene 

Production

Calcium 

Carbonate 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Wool Carpeting End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Wool Carpet 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Wool Carpet Manufacturing

Glue 

Production

Filler 

Production

Backing 

Production

Wool Fiber 

Production

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Polypropylene 

Production

Styrene 

Production

PVC 

Production

Styrene 

Butadiene 

Production

Calcium 

Carbonate 

Production

Figure 3.36: Wool Carpet System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Wool carpeting consists of a mix of wool for the facing, a polymer for the backing, and a styrene 

butadiene/limestone mix that is used to adhere the facing to the backing. The difference between 

the tile and broadloom carpets is the polymer that makes up the backing, as shown below. 

Table 3.93: Wool Carpet Constituents 

Constituent Material g/m2 (oz/ft2) 

Broadloom 

Face Fiber Wool 1 571 (5.11) 

Backing Polypropylene 139 (0.45) 

 Styrene butadiene latex 254 (0.83) 

 CaCO3 filler 750 (2.44) 

Tile 

Face Fiber Wool 1 517 (4.94) 

Backing Virgin PVC 133 (0.43) 

 Styrene butadiene latex 244 (0.79) 

 CaCO3 filler 724 (2.36) 

Data for wool production comes from the U.S. LCI Database. Production data for the remaining 

materials in the carpet comes from the U.S. LCI Database and elements of the SimaPro database, 

which is based on North American and European data from the late 1990s and 2000s. 

Raw wool is greasy and carries debris that needs to be washed off in a process called “scouring.” 

The amount of washed wool per kg of raw wool is 80 %, as shown in the table below along with 
 

181

mass fractions for other raw wool constituents reported by the Wool Research Organization of 

New Zealand (WRONZ). 

Table 3.94: Raw Wool Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

(%) 

Clean fiber (ready to be carded and spun) 80 

Grease 6 

Suint salts 6 

Dirt 8 

Grease is recovered at an average rate of 40 %.150F

151 The scoured fiber is then dried, carded, and 

spun. The table below lists the main inflows and outflows for the production of wool yarn from 

raw wool as reported by WRONZ.15F

152 

Table 3.95: Wool Yarn Production Requirements 

Flow Amount per kg (per lb) 

wool yarn 

Input 

Natural Gas 5.375 MJ (3.29 kWh) 

Electricity 0.70 MJ (0.43 kWh) 

Lubricant 0.063 kg (0.31 lb) 

Water 37.5 L (21.79 gal) 

Output 

Wool yarn152F

153 1 kg (4.85 lb) 

Water emissions due to 

scouring: 

 Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand 

 Chemical Oxygen Demand 

4.125 g (0.02 lb) 

11.625 g (0.06 lb) 

Most of the required energy is used at the scouring step. Since grease is a co-product of the 

scouring process, a mass-based allocation is used to determine how much of the energy entering 

this process is due exclusively to the production of washed wool. One-fourth of the required 

energy is used for drying. Lubricant is added for blending, carding, and spinning, and some 

lubricant is incorporated into the wool. Approximately 6 % of the wool is lost during the 

blending, carding, and spinning processes of yarn production; this waste is accounted for in the 

BEES data for the manufacturing life-cycle stage. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. 

Wool yarn production into carpet fiber requires additional steps including bleaching, dyeing, and 

finishing. The inputs to the bleaching process, provided in the table below, are based on a Best 

 151 The non-recovered grease exits the system (e.g., as sludge from water effluent treatment). 152 These requirements also include processes such as dyeing and blending which take place at this stage. 153 Accounts for the loss due to the 80 % mass fraction of clean fiber in raw wool. 
 

182

Available Techniques document for the textile industry.153F

154 No energy data are available for 

bleaching, and information for dyeing and finishing is not sufficient to permit inclusion in the 

BEES model. 

Table 3.96: Wool Yarn Bleaching Inputs 

For both wool carpet types, the wool must be “tufted” to produce the carpet face. The face yarn 

is attached, using a primary coating and tufting needles, to the carpet backing. The energy 

requirements for this process step are provided in the following table. 

Table 3.97: Energy Requirements for Wool Carpet Tufting 

Energy Carrier MJ/m2 (kWh/ft2) 

Electricity 1.79 (0.05) 

Natural Gas 

(industrial boiler) 8.13 (0.21) 

Total 9.92 (0.26) 

Emissions associated with the manufacturing process arise from the production of electricity and 

the combustion of natural gas, and are based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Solid Wastes. Nearly 0.01 kg (0.02 lb) of waste is generated from the production of 0.09 m2 (1 

ft2) of wool broadloom and tile carpeting. The waste is assumed to be disposed of in a landfill. 

Transportation. Truck transport of raw materials to the manufacturing plant is assumed to 

require 402 km (250 mi) by truck, with the exception of wool, which is transported 1 600 km 

(1000 mi). 

Transportation 

The distance for transport of wool broadloom carpet and wool carpet tile by heavy-duty truck to 

the building site is modeled as a variable of the BEES system.

Installation 

Wool broadloom carpet and wool carpet tile both are installed using either standard latex glue or 

a low-VOC latex glue. For the tile, a typical glue application is 0.13 kg/m2

 (0.03 lb/ft2) of glue 

per unit installed tile. For the broadloom carpet, 0.13 kg/m2

 (0.14 lb/ ft2) is applied. 

 

 154 European Commission, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Best Available Techniques for 

the Textile Industry (July 2003), p.135. 

Input kg/kg (= lb/lb) Wool 

Yarn 

Stabilizer 0.030 

Sodium Tri-Polyphosphate 0.015 

Hydrogen Peroxide (35%) 0.200 

Formic Acid (85%) 0.002 

Sodium Hydrosulphite 0.008 
 

183

No glue is assumed to be wasted during the installation process, but 5.7 % of the broadloom 

carpet and 2 % of the wool tile are assumed to be lost as waste; this waste is accounted for in the 

BEES data for the manufacturing life-cycle stage. All waste is assumed to be disposed of in a 

landfill. 

Use 

With a life of 25 years, the carpet is installed twice over a 50-year period. As with all BEES 

products, the environmental burdens from replacement are included in the inventory data. VOC 

off-gassing from the carpet and its installation adhesives are included in the BEES modeling. 

End of Life 

At end of life, the wool broadloom carpet and carpet tile are assumed to be disposed of in a 

landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 5Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

European Commission, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Best Available 

Techniques for the Textile Industry (July 2003). 

3.13.8 Forbo Linoleum 

Linoleum is a resilient, organic-based floor covering consisting of a backing covered with a thick 

wearing surface. Oxidized linseed oil and rosin are mixed with the other natural ingredients to 

form linoleum granules. These granules are then calendared onto a jute backing, making a 

continuous long sheet. The sheets are hung in drying rooms to allow the naturally occurring 

process to continue until the product reaches the required flexibility and resilience. The sheets 

are then removed from the drying rooms, cut into rolls, and prepared for shipment. 

Forbo Marmoleum may be installed using either a styrene-butadiene or a no-VOC adhesive. 

Both installation options are included in BEES. The detailed environmental performance data for 

these product options may be viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu 

item in the BEES software: 

• C3020R.DBF—Forbo Marmoleum with Standard Adhesive 

• C3020NN.DBF—Forbo Marmoleum with No-VOC Adhesive 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

184

Functional Unit 

of Marmoleum End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Forbo Marmoleum Flooring

Process energy

Transport by 

train

Limestone 

Production

Marmoleum

production Adhesive

Production

Raw material 

transport

Sawdust 

Production

Wood Prod’n

& Harvesting

Transport by 

ship

Transport by 

truck

Tall oil 

Production

Linseed oil 

Production

Rosin 

Production

Jute 

Production

Pigment 

Production

Acrylic 

Lacquer 

Production

Flax seed 

Production

Agrichemicals

production

Fertilizer

production

Fertilizer

production

Figure 3.37: Forbo Marmoleum System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The Table below lists the constituents of 2.5 mm (0.10 in) linoleum and their proportions. 

Table 3.98: Forbo Marmoleum Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction154F

155 Mass per Applied Area 

in g/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Linseed oil 20 % 588 (0.12) 

Tall oil 13 % 398 (0.08) 

Pine rosin 3 % 76 (0.02) 

Limestone 20 % 592 (0.12) 

Wood flour 31 % 901 (0.18) 

Pigment 4 % 101 (0.02) 

Jute (backing) 8 % 233 (0.05) 

Acrylic lacquer 1 % 12 (0.00) 

Total: 100 % 2 901 (0.59) 

For lack of other available data, the cultivation of linseed is based on a modified version of 

wheat production from the U.S. LCI Database. To harvest the linseed, it is assumed that a diesel 

tractor is used – approximately 0.61 MJ (0.17 kWh) of diesel is consumed per kg (263 Btu/lb) of 

 155 Marieke Goree, Jeroen Guinée, Gjalt Huppes, Lauran van Oers(The Netherlands: Leiden University, 2000). 
 

185

linseed harvested. The yield for linseed is 1 038 kg per hectare (420 lb per acre). Energy 

requirements for linseed oil production include fuel oil and steam, and are allocated on an 

economic basis between linseed oil (87 %) and linseed cake (13 %). Allocation is necessary 

because linseed cake is a co-product of linseed oil production, so its production impacts should 

not be included in the BEES model. The emissions associated with linseed oil production are 

allocated on the same economic basis. The production of the fertilizers and pesticides is based 

on elements of the SimaPro database. 

The production of tall oil is based on European data for kraft pulping, with inventory flows 

allocated between kraft pulp and its coproduct, tall oil.15F

156 Pine rosin production is assumed to 

have no burdens, since the harvesting of raw pine rosin is done mainly by hand, according to 

Forbo. 

The production of limestone comes from the U.S. LCI Database. Wood flour is sawdust 

produced as a coproduct of wood processing, and its production is based on the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Data for production of the pigments used in the product is modeled based on the European 

production of titanium dioxide, and comes from the SimaPro database. Linoleum backing, jute, 

is mostly grown in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, and China. Jute is a predominantly rain-fed and 

requires little fertilizer and pesticides, and cultivation is generally manual. Data for the 

production of acrylic lacquer materials is based on elements of the SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The production of each unit of Marmoleum (0.09 m2

 or 

1 ft2

) requires 0.45 MJ (0.13 kWh) of electricity and 1.8 MJ (0.5 kWh) of natural gas. Burdens 

from the production and use of energy are based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to 

the manufacturing plant in Europe are provided by Forbo. In addition to raw materials transport, 

the manufacturing life-cycle stage includes transport of the finished product from the European 

manufacturing plant to the United States. All of these requirements, involving transport by diesel 

truck, rail, and ocean freighter, are accounted for, with data based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Transportation by diesel truck of the finished product from the U.S. distribution facility to the 

building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. 

 

Installation 

Marmoleum may be installed using 0.0003 kg (0.0007 lb) of either a styrene-butadiene or a noVOC adhesive. Additionally, an acrylic sealant is applied to the flooring at each installation. 

Approximately 6 % of the flooring is wasted and landfilled at installation. 

Use 

 156 Fédération Européenne des Fabricants de Carton Ondulé (FEFCO), 2003. Found at: 

http://www.fefco.org/fileadmin/Fefco/pdfs/Technical_PDF/Corrected_database_2003.pdf. 
 

186

Linoleum is known for its durability. Through evaluation of actual lifetime data, it has been 

determined that linoleum has a useful life of 30 years.156F

157 As with all BEES products, the life 

cycle environmental burdens from replacement are included in the inventory data. 

End of Life 

At the end of its life, the used flooring is sent to a landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 56Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Marieke Goree, Jeroen Guinée, Gjalt Huppes, Lauran van Oers, Environmental Life Cycle 

Assessment of Linoleum (The Netherlands: Leiden University, 2000). 

Fédération Européenne des Fabricants de Carton Ondulé (FEFCO), European Database for 

Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies, 2003. Found at: 

http://www.fefco.org/fileadmin/Fefco/pdfs/Technical_PDF/Corrected_database_2003.pdf 

Federal Association of the Sworn Experts for Room and Equipment e.V., Guide to the Inquiry 

of Time Values and Decreases in Value of Floor Coverings, (Bonn, Germany: Federal 

Association of the Sworn Experts for Room and Equipment e.V.). 

Industry Contacts 

Tim Cole, Forbo Industries (2002) 

3.13.9 UTT Soy Backed Nylon Carpet 

Based in Dalton, GA, Universal Textile Technologies (UTT) supplies the carpet and synthetic 

turf industries with multiple backing systems, including polyurethane backings. BEES includes 

a nylon carpet made with Biocel, a polyurethane backing for carpets and artificial turf in which a 

soybean-based polyol replaces a portion of the inputs required to make traditional polyurethane 

backing. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this nylon carpet with a soy polyol backing 

may be viewed by opening the file C3020U.DBF, for installation with a standard adhesive, and 

C3020PP.DBF, for installation with a low-VOC adhesive, under the File/Open menu item in the 

BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

 157 Federal Association of the Sworn Experts for Room and Equipment e.V., Guide to the Inquiry of Time Values 

and Decreases in Value of Floor Coverings(Bonn, Germany: Federal Association of the Sworn Experts for Room 

and Equipment e.V.). 
 

187

Figure 3.38: UTT Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The following Table presents the product constituents and their relative shares of the product 

mass. 

Table 3.99: UTT Broadloom Carpet Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

Soy Polyol 11 % 

Petroleum Polyol 11 % 

Nylon Yarn 31 % 

Isocyanate 9 % 

Fillers 31 % 

Other Additives 7 % 

The yarn consists of Nylon 6,6, represented in BEES by European data from the plastics 

industry.157F

158 Data for the production of polyether polyol and isocyanate is provided by American 

Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI Database and elements 

of the SimaPro database. Soy polyol production is based on life cycle soybean oil production 

data developed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),158F

159 updated to reflect a newer 

manufacturing process for the oil processing. 

 158 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 159 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Functional Unit 

of UTT 

Broadloo

Carpe

En o Lif

Truc

Transport to

Bld Sit

UTT Soy Urethane -Backed Broadloom Carpet

Proces

energy

Raw material 

transport

Isocyanate

Production

Fille

Productio

n

production

So Polyo

Production

Latex Adhesive

Production

Yar

Spinnin

Raw material 

transport

Nylon 6,6 

Production

Petroleu

Polyo

Production

Soybean & 

Soy 

Production

Carpe
 

188

Fillers include limestone and fly ash. Limestone data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. Fly 

ash, the mineral residue produced by burning coal, is captured from electricity-generating power 

plants' exhaust gases and collected for disposal or use. When used, this byproduct is assumed to 

be an environmentally “free” input material, although its transport to the production site is 

included in the BEES model. Data for all other additives are taken from elements of the 

SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The manufacturing process for UTT soy backed nylon 

carpet consists of forming the polyurethane backing, curing the backing, and adhering it to the 

nylon facing. Site data are used to quantify the energy inputs to the production process, which 

consist of purchased electricity (0.021 kWh/ft2

) and natural gas (0.23 MJ/ft2). Data for all 

energy precombustion and use comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to 

the manufacturing plant are provided by UTT. The materials are transported by diesel truck, 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Transport by diesel truck from the manufacturing plant in Dalton, Georgia to the building site is 

based on data from the U.S. LCI Database. The BEES user is free to adjust the default 

transportation distance. 

Installation 

The installation adhesive for the standard UTT carpet product is assumed to be the same 

traditional contact adhesive used to install the generic BEES carpet products. The other UTT 

carpet product is installed using a low-VOC adhesive . For both, the average application is 

assumed to require 0.65 kg adhesive/m2 (0.13 lb/ft2). About 3.5 % of the product is wasted 

during its installation. 

Use 

The lifetime of UTT broadloom carpet is assumed to be 11 years, consistent with the 11-year 

lives assumed for the other broadloom carpets in BEES, so it is replaced 4 times after the initial 

installation over the 50-year BEES use period. As with all BEES products, the life cycle 

environmental burdens from these replacements are included in the inventory data. 

End of Life 

At each replacement, it is assumed that 5 % of the used carpet is recycled, with the remaining 

95 % going to a landfill. 
 

189

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 57Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 66 (NYLON 66) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Jim Pollack, Omnitech International (2005) 

3.13.10 C&A Carpet 

C&A is a manufacturer of modular tile and six-foot structured back carpeting for the commercial 

market. As part of Tandus, C&A works with sister brands Monterey and Crossley to provide 

customized floor covering solutions for its customers. The four C&A products listed below are 

included in BEES. 

Table 3.100: C&A Products Included in BEES 

Product Line Style 

ER3 RS Modular Tile Habitat (nylon 6,6 with 80 % pre-consumer 

content) 

ER3 RS Cushion Roll Goods Intersection (nylon 6,6 with 90 % preconsumer content) 

Ethos RS Modular Tile Topography (nylon 6,6 with 80 % preconsumer content) 

Ethos RS Cushion Roll Goods Yosemite (nylon 6,6 with 80 % preconsumer content) 

Some of C&A’s carpets are available as “climate neutral” products, meaning the greenhouse 

gases emitted over their life cycles are optionally offset or balanced. The BEES user may choose 

either the traditional or climate neutral versions of these products when selecting them for 

analysis. 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• ER3 RS Modular Tile: C3020X.DBF 

• ER3 RS Cushion Roll Goods: C3020Y.DBF 

• Ethos RS Modular Tile: C3020Z.DBF 
 

190

• Ethos RS Cushion Roll Goods: C3020AA.DBF 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagrams below show the major elements of the production of these products as they 

are currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.39: C&A ER3 Flooring Products System Boundaries 

Functional Unit 

of ER3 Carpet 

Products

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

C&A ER3 Cushion Roll Goods and Carpet Tile

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Rec’d Vinyl 

grinding & 

processing

Limestone 

Production

Carpet 

production

Primary 

Backing raw 

materials

RS Pre-applied 

Adhesive

Production

Acrylic 

Production

Yarn 

Spinning

Raw material 

transport

Recycled 

Nylon 66

Virgin 

Nylon 66 

Production

Recycled 

Vinyl
 

191

Figure 3.40: C&A Ethos Flooring Products System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The following tables present the constituents by mass percentage of the ER3 and Ethos products. 

Table 3.101: C&A ER3 Flooring Constituents 

Constituent ER3 Tile 

Mass Fraction 

ER3 Cushion Roll 

Mass Fraction 

Nylon 6,6 Yarn 2 % 2 % 

Post-industrial nylon 6,6 10 % 17 % 

Primary backing 5 % 4 % 

Recycled vinyl/Limestone (filler) 72 % 62 % 

Other Additives (precoat, etc.) 11 % 15 % 

Total: 100 % 100 % 

Table 3.102: C&A Ethos Flooring Constituents 

Constituent Ethos Tile 

Mass Fraction 

Ethos Cushion Roll 

Mass Fraction 

Nylon 6,6 Yarn 3 % 3 % 

Post-industrial nylon 6,6 11 % 11 % 

Primary backing 4 % 4 % 

Recycled PVB/ Limestone (filler) 65 % 65 % 

Other Additives (precoat, etc.) 17 % 17 % 

Total: 100 % 100 % 

Functional Unit 

of Ethos Carpet 

Products

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

C&A Ethos Cushion Roll Goods and Carpet Tile

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Rec’d PVB 

grinding & 

processing

Limestone 

Production

Carpet 

production

Primary 

Backing raw 

materials

RS Pre-applied 

Adhesive

Production

Acrylic 

Production

Yarn 

Spinning

Raw material 

transport

Recycled 

Nylon 66

Virgin 

Nylon 66 

Production

Recycled 

PVB
 

192

Yarn for the ER3 products consists primarily of post-industrial (PI) nylon 6,6. While producing 

the PI nylon 6,6 is not—and should not—be accounted for, spinning it into yarn plus its 

transportation to the manufacturing site is taken into account in the model. Data for the 

production of virgin nylon 6,6 comes from the European plastics industry.159F

160 

 

The secondary backing for ER3 products is made from recycled post consumer (PC) and PI vinyl 

backed carpet and waste. As with the PI nylon 6,6, no production data is included, with the 

exception of data for the material’s processing into backing and transportation to the site. 

The secondary backing for Ethos products is made from PC polyvinyl butyral (PVB) film 

recovered from windshield and safety glass recycling facilities. The transportation and 

processing of the PVB are accounted for in the model. 

Data for materials in the primary backing and for other additives comes from the U.S. LCI 

Database and elements of the SimaPro database, which includes both North American and 

European data from the late 1990s and 2000s. Data for the limestone comes from the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. The manufacturing process for C&A’s products consists of tufting the 

nylon yarn, applying the precoat compound, and joining the secondary backing. The energy to 

produce ER3 tile and the two Ethos products is comprised of 30 % electricity and 70 % natural 

gas. The ER3 cushion rolls require more energy to produce due to yarn dyeing processes; 

energy sources include electricity (27 %), natural gas (59 %), fuel oil (12 %), and biodiesel 

(2 %). The production and use of these energy sources come from the U.S. LCI Database, and 

biodiesel production data comes from a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) LCA 

study on biodiesel use in an urban bus.160F

161 

Transportation. Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to 

the manufacturing plant are provided by C&A. Most of the materials are transported exclusively 

by diesel truck, while some are transported by both diesel truck and rail. All forms of 

transportation are included in the model, and all data is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Waste. Any waste generated during the manufacturing process is recycled back into other carpet 

products. 

Transportation 

The distance for transport by diesel truck from the C&A manufacturing plant in Dalton, Georgia 

to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. Transportation emissions allocated to each 

product depends on its overall mass, as given in the following Table. 

Table 3.103: C&A Products’ Mass and Density 

 160 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 161 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 
 

193

Product 

Mass per Applied 

Area in kg/m2 (lb/ft2)

Density in 

kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 

ER3 Modular Tile 4.4 (0.90) 674.4 (42.1) 

ER3 Cushion Roll Goods 3.7 (0.76) 586.3 (36.6) 

Ethos Modular Tile 3.9 (0.80) 619.9 (38.7) 

Ethos Cushion Roll Goods 3.1 (0.63) 488.6 (30.5) 

Installation 

C&A products are produced with RS pre-applied adhesive, which provides a “peel and stick” 

installation system. It simplifies installation, reduces VOC and odors associated with the use of 

wet adhesives, and does not require an air-out period. According to C&A, carpet waste of less 

than 3 % is generated during installation. Scraps are typically kept at the building site for future 

repairs. 

Use 

C&A’s roll products are replaced after 25 years. The modular tile products are replaced after 15 

years. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are 

included in the inventory data. 

End of Life 

All C&A products are 100 % recyclable in their in-house closed-loop recycling process. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 58Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 66 (NYLON 66) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Lynn Preston, Tandus (June 2006) 

3.13.11 Interface Carpet 

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Interface is active in the global commercial interiors market, offering 

modular and broadloom carpets, fabrics, interior architectural products, and specialty chemicals. 

Nine Interface carpet products are included in BEES. They are listed below, together with the 

names of the BEES files containing their detailed environmental performance data. 
 

194

Bentley Prince Street Division: 

• UPC Recycled Nylon Carpet Tile (C3020VV.DBF) 

• UPC Recycled Nylon Carpet Tile With Cool Carpet (C3020WW.DBF) 

• Scan Recycled Nylon Broadloom Carpet (C3020TT.DBF) 

• Scan Recycled Nylon Broadloom Carpet With Cool Carpet (C3020UU.DBF) 

•Capri Recycled Nylon Broadloom Carpet (C3020RR.DBF) 

•Capri Recycled Nylon Broadloom Carpet With Cool Carpet (C3020SS.DBF) 

InterfaceFLOR (IFC) Division: 

• Entropy Recycled Nylon And Vinyl Carpet Tile With Cool Carpet (C3020XX.DBF) 

• Sabi Recycled Nylon And Vinyl Carpet Tile With Cool Carpet (C3020QQ.DBF) 

• Transformation Recycled Nylon And Vinyl Carpet Tile With Cool Carpet (C3020CC.DBF) 

Some of Interface’s products are “climate neutral” under its Cool Carpet program. Climate 

neutral refers to products whose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over their life cycles are offset 

or balanced. The GHGs of IFC carpets under the Cool Carpet program are offset by 16.1 kg 

(35.4 lb) CO2-equivalents/yd2

, while Bentley Prince Street products’ GHGs are offset by 22.0 kg 

(48.4 lb) CO2-equivalents/yd2

. These values are based upon internal Interface LCAs. Because 

these values are greater than those in the life cycle inventories compiled for BEES, the BEES 

Global Warming Potential results for Cool Carpets are set to zero. Entropy, Sabi, and 

Transformation carpet tiles are always Cool Carpets, while for the other Interface products 

offered in BEES, the customer has the choice of purchasing the Cool Carpet option for an 

additional cost per square unit. All these options are offered in BEES. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of these products as they 

are currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.41: Bentley Prince Street Broadloom Carpets System Boundaries 

Functional Unit 

of Broadloom 

Carpet

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Bentley Prince Street Broadloom Carpet Products

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

PP 

Production

Polyester 

Production

Virgin 

Nylon 66 

Production

Carpet 

production

Recycled 

Nylon 66

SBR Latex 

Production

Adhesive

Production

Thickener 

Production

Acrylic 

Latex 

Production

Limestone 

Production

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport
 

195

Figure 3.42: InterfaceFLOR Carpet Tiles System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Interface’s two carpet divisions produce like mixes of materials, as shown in the tables below. 

Table 3.104: Bentley Prince Street Commercial Carpet Constituents 

Constituent UPC Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Scan Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Capri Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Virgin Nylon 6,6 34 34 30 

Recycled Nylon 6,6 

(pre-consumer) 

6 6 10 

Polypropylene or Polyester 

primary backing 

5 5 5 

SBR Latex backing 11 11 11 

Limestone 31 31 31 

Other Additives 13 13 13 

Functional Unit 

of Carpet Tile End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

InterfaceFLOR Carpet Tile Products

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Polyester

Production

Virgin 

Nylon 66 

Production

Carpet tile 

production

Recycled 

Nylon 66

Limestone 

Production

Recycled 

Vinyl

TacTiles

Production

Acrylate 

Polymer

PET 

Production

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Production
 

196

Table 3.105: InterfaceFLOR Commercial Carpet Constituents 

Constituent Entropy Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Sabi Mass 

Fraction (%) 

Transformation 

Mass Fraction (%) 

Virgin Nylon 6,6 9 5 6 

Recycled Nylon 6,6 (preconsumer) 5 5 6 

Polyester primary backing 2 2 2 

Recycled vinyl backing 

(pre-consumer) 

22 23 23 

Recycled vinyl backing 

(post-consumer) 

39 41 40 

Limestone (filler) 14 15 14 

Other Additives 9 9 9 

Data for nylon resin, polyamide 6,6, comes from publicly-available data from the European 

plastics industry.16F

162 Interface provided the energy required to spin the nylon into yarn 

(approximately 1.7 MJ/kg yarn). The nylon 6,6 and vinyl used in these carpet products have 

significant recycled content. These recycled materials carry no environmental burdens from the 

production of the virgin materials. However, they do carry impacts from transport after leaving 

the waste stream and subsequent processing. For example, the electricity used to grind down 

post-industrial and post-consumer material to a usable size is assigned to the recycled materials. 

This data is provided by Interface. 

For the broadloom applications, the nylon yarn is back-coated with styrene butadiene rubber 

(SBR) to provide stability. Both styrene and butadiene production data come from the most 

recent APME data sets.162F

163,

163F

164 For the carpet tiles, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) is used to bind 

the nylon to the primary substrate. Data representing this process comes from public and sitespecific data in the SimaPro database. Data for polypropylene, polyester (polyethylene 

terephthalate, or PET), and the limestone filler comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The manufacturing process for the UPC, Scan, and Capri 

carpets essentially consists of weaving the nylon yarn, applying the precoat compound, and 

joining the yarn to the backing. This process requires both purchased electricity and natural gas. 

The production of a ft2

 of UPC, Scan, or Capri carpet requires approximately 0.24 MJ (0.07 

kWh) of electricity and 2.1 MJ (0.58 kWh) from natural gas. 

The manufacturing process for Entropy, Sabi, and Transformation carpet tile products consists of 

tufting the nylon yarn, applying the EVA adhesive, and joining the yarn to the backing. 

Producing 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of each of these carpet tiles requires approximately 0.59 MJ (0.16 

 162 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 163 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 164 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 
 

197

kWh) of electricity and 0.40 MJ (0.11 kWh) from natural gas. All energy production and 

consumption data come from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Waste. A small amount of manufacturing waste, as reported by Interface, is included in each of 

its BEES carpet products. 

Transportation. Manufacturer-reported transportation distances for shipment of the raw 

materials from the suppliers to the Interface plants are accounted for through diesel truck 

modeling based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

The transportation distance for diesel trucking from the Interface manufacturing plant in Georgia 

or California to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. The quantity of transportation 

emissions allocated to each product depends on the overall mass of the product, as given in the 

Table below. 

Table 3.106: Interface Carpet Density 

Product 

Mass 

 kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Density 

kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 

Scan 2.6 (0.53) 343 (21.4) 

UPC 2.6 (0.53) 343 (21.4) 

Capri 2.4 (0.49) 318 (19.9) 

Entropy 4.4 (0.90) 616 (38.5) 

Sabi 4.2 (0.86) 608 (38.0) 

Transformation 4.3 (0.88) 602 (37.6) 

Installation 

The Interface carpet products evaluated by BEES are installed using a contact adhesive. The 

low-VOC TacTiles material, consisting of PET and acrylate polymer, is a tape that is applied 

between IFC carpet tiles at installation. A low-VOC glue is used for Bentley Prince Street 

installations. The following installation waste percentages are incorporated into the BEES 

models: UPC and Scan, 3 %; Capri, 5 %; and Entropy, Sabi, and Transformation, 1 %. 

Use 

With lifetimes of 15 years, the Entropy, Sabi, UPC, and Transformation carpet tiles are replaced 

3 times over the 50-year BEES use period. The broadloom carpets, Scan and Capri, have 11-

year lives, requiring 4 replacements over the use period. As with all BEES products, life cycle 

environmental burdens from these replacements are included in the inventory data. 

 

End of Life 

According to the manufacturer, at end of life, the Entropy, Sabi, and Transformation carpet tiles 

are recycled in a closed loop process, avoiding disposal in a landfill. At end of life for Capri, 

UPC, and Scan products, an average of 12.5 % is reclaimed. 
 

198

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 59Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 7.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 66 (NYLON 66) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: STYRENE (Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: www.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: BUTADIENE (Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: www.plasticseurope.org. 

Industry Contacts 

John Jewell and Paul Firth, Interface (July 2006) 

3.13.12 J&J Industries Carpet 

J&J Industries is a privately-held manufacturer of commercial carpet, primarily for corporate 

interiors but also for healthcare, retail, education, and government facilities. The company 

provided data on one of its 0.8 kg (28 oz) products: Certificate with Styrene Butadiene Resin 

(SBR) Backing. The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed 

by opening the file C3020DD.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

199

Figure 3.43: J&J Certificate Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The following Table presents the constituents of the J&J product and their relative quantities. 

Table 3.107: J&J Certificate Broadloom Carpet Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

Yarn (Nylon 6) 32 % 

Styrene Butadiene Resin 

(SBR) 

10 % 

Limestone 41 % 

Other Additives 16 % 

The yarn consists of Nylon 6, which is produced from the polymerization of caprolactam and 

whose BEES data comes from public data provided by the European plastics industry.164F

165 The 

SBR used in the carpet comes from European plastics data on styrene165F

166 and butadiene.16F167

Limestone filler production data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

 165 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 166 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 167 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Functional Unit 

of J&J Certificate 

Carpet

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

J&J Certificate Broadloom Carpet

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

SBR 

Production

Filler 

Production

Carpet 

production

Other 

additives 

production

Adhesive

Production

Yarn 

Spinning

Raw material 

transport

Nylon 6 

Production
 

200

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Certificate’s manufacturing process consists of tufting 

the nylon yarn and joining the yarn to the backing. This process uses purchased electricity, 

natural gas, and other fossil fuels. The production of one unit of carpet (0.09 m2, or 1 ft2) 

requires 1.2 MJ (0.34 kWh) of electricity, 1.58 MJ (0.439 kWh) of natural gas, and less than 0.03 

MJ (0.01 kWh) of other fossil fuels. Energy production and combustion data are modeled based 

on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to 

the manufacturing plant are provided by J&J. The materials are transported by diesel truck, 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

The distance for diesel truck transport from the J&J manufacturing plant in Dalton, Georgia to 

the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES, and transportation burdens are based on data 

from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Installation 

Certificate broadloom carpet is assumed to be installed using a low-VOC adhesive. The average 

application is assumed to require 0.03 kg (0.07 lb) of adhesive per unit of carpet (0.09 m2

, or 1 

ft2). On average, 7 % of the carpet and 5 % of the adhesive are lost during installation. 

 

Use 

The lifetime of the carpet is assumed to be 11 years, consistent with lives for other broadloom 

carpets in BEES, and meaning it is replaced 4 times after initial installation over the 50-year 

BEES use period. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these 

replacements are included in the inventory data. 

End of Life 

At end of life, it is assumed that Certificate is sent to the landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 60Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 6 (NYLON 6) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 66 (NYLON 66) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: BUTADIENE (Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: www.plasticseurope.org. 
 

201

Industry Contacts 

Howard Elder, J&J Industries (2002) 

3.13.13 Mohawk Carpet 

Mohawk Industries is the second-largest manufacturer of commercial and residential carpets and 

rugs in the United States and one of the largest carpet manufacturers in the world. Mohawk is 

involved in all aspects of carpet and rug production, from raw materials development to 

advanced tufting, weaving, and finishing. The company provided data on two broadloom carpets: 

Regents Row, a woven commercial carpet, and Meritage, a tufted commercial carpet. The 

detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• C3020FF.DBF—Mohawk Regents Row 

• C3020GG.DBF—Mohawk Meritage 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagrams below show the major elements of the production of these products as they 

are currently modeled for BEES. 
 

202

Figure 3.44: Mohawk Regents Row Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries 

Figure 3.45: Mohawk Meritage Broadloom Carpet System Boundaries 

Functional Unit 

of Regents Row 

Carpet

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Mohawk Regents Row Broadloom Carpet

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Polyprop. 

Yarn 

Production

Polyester 

Yarn 

Production

Carpet 

production

Fillers & 

additives 

production

Green Seal 

Certified Adhesive

Production

Raw material 

transport

Nylon 66 

Yarn 

Production

Styrene 

Butadiene 

latex prod’n

Functional Unit 

of Meritage

Carpet

End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Mohawk Meritage Broadloom Carpet

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Polyprop. 

Yarn 

Production

EVA 

Production

Carpet 

production

Fillers & 

additives 

production

Green Seal 

Certified Adhesive

Production

Raw material 

transport

Nylon 6 

Yarn 

Production

Recycled 

Nylon 6
 

203

Raw Materials 

The two Mohawk carpets are produced from different materials and have different ratios of 

backing to yarn. The mixture of the main constituents of each carpet is listed in the Table below. 

Table 3.108: Mohawk Broadloom Carpet Constituents 

Constituent Regents Row 

Mass Fraction 

Meritage 

Mass Fraction 

Yarn (nylon 6; 50 % recycled) -- 49 % 

Yarn (nylon 6,6) 51 % -- 

Backing 16 % 9 % 

Precoat and other additives 33 % 42 % 

The yarn for Regents Row carpet consists of woven nylon 6,6. Data for the production of virgin 

nylon 6,6 is publicly-available from the European plastics industry.167F

168 The yarn for Meritage 

carpet is 50/50 recycled-virgin nylon 6. The virgin nylon 6 is produced from the polymerization 

of caprolactam and is based on publicly-available European data.168F

169 While producing the 

recycled nylon 6 is not—and should not be—accounted for, spinning it into yarn plus its 

transportation to the manufacturing site are included in the BEES model. 

The backing for the Regents Row carpet is a 50/50 mix of polypropylene and polyester fibers. 

The Meritage carpet only uses polypropylene for the backing material. Data for these backing 

materials comes from American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the 

U.S. LCI Database. 

Since the Regents Row carpet is woven, the nylon yarn is back-coated with styrene butadiene 

latex to provide stability. For the Meritage carpet, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) is used to 

adhere the backing to the tufted nylon. Life cycle inventory data for styrene and butadiene are 

taken from European plastics data,169F

170 and EVA data are derived from elements of the SimaPro 

database. A majority of the “other additives” is limestone filler, whose data is based on the U.S. 

LCI Database. The remaining additives’ production data are based on the SimaPro database and 

U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The manufacturing process for Mohawk Regents Row 

carpet consists of interlacing face yarns with backing yarns which are then coated with finish 

chemicals. This process requires both purchased electricity and natural gas. The production of 

each unit of Regents Row carpet (0.09 m2

, or 1 ft2) requires 0.4 MJ (0.1 kWh) of electricity and 

0.73 MJ (0.20 kWh) of natural gas. The manufacturing process for Meritage consists of tufting 

the nylon yarn into the backing foundation and coating the fabric with the EVA chemical system. 

This process requires 0.6 MJ (0.18 kWh) of electricity and 0.71 MJ (0.20 kWh) of natural gas 

 168 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 169 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

www.plasticseurope.org. 170 Boustead, I.(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005) and Boustead, I.(Association of 

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: www.plasticseurope.org. 
 

204

per unit. All energy production and combustion data is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials by diesel truck from 

the suppliers to the manufacturing plant are provided by Mohawk. Diesel trucking burdens are 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

The transportation distance from the Mohawk manufacturing plant in South Carolina or Georgia 

to the building site is modeled as a variable in BEES. Both products are shipped by diesel truck. 

The quantity of transportation emissions allocated to each product depends on the overall mass 

of the product, as given in the Table below. 

Table 3.109: Mohawk Carpet Density 

Product Mass per Applied Area in 

kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Density in 

kg/ m3 (lb/ft3) 

Regents Row 2.34 (0.47) 336.67 (22.27) 

Meritage 2.41 (0.48) 346.67 (22.93) 

 

Installation 

Both Mohawk carpets are installed using a low-VOC adhesive. The average application requires 

about 0.04 kg (0.09 lb) of adhesive per unit of carpet (0.09 m2, or 1 ft2). For both carpets, 

approximately 5 % of the carpet and adhesive is wasted during installation; this is incorporated 

into the BEES product models. 

Use 

All BEES nylon broadloom carpets are assumed to have lifetimes of 11 years. Thus, both 

Mohawk broadloom carpets are assumed to be replaced four times over the 50-year BEES use 

period. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are 

included in the inventory data. 

End of Life 

At end of life, it is assumed that the Mohawk products are sent to the landfill. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 61Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 66 (NYLON 66) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

62Hwww.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: POLYAMIDE 6 (NYLON 6) 

(Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005). Found at: 

63Hwww.plasticseurope.org. 

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: STYRENE (Association of 
 

205

Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, March 2005) and Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the 

European Plastics Industry: BUTADIENE (Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, 

March 2005). Found at: 64Hwww.plasticseurope.org. 

Industry Contacts 

Frank Endrenyi, Mohawk Industries (2002) 

3.13.14 Natural Cork Flooring 

Natural Cork is a U.S. supplier of cork flooring and wall coverings. It distributes products 

manufactured by Granorte, a Portuguese company that recycles cork waste from the production 

of cork bottle stoppers. The energy used to produce the cork tiles comes mainly from waste cork 

powder. Natural Cork provided data on two of its products: cork parquet tile and cork floating 

floor plank. The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by 

opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• Natural Cork Parquet Floor Tile —C3020HH.DBF 

• Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank—C3020II.DBF 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagrams below show the major elements of the production of these products as they 

are currently modeled for BEES. 
 

206

Figure 3.46: Natural Cork Parquet Floor Tile System Boundaries 

Figure 3.47: Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank System Boundaries 

Functional Unit 

of Parquet Tile End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Natural Cork Parquet Tile

Polyurethane 

Binder 

Production

Cork 

flooring 

production

Adhesive

Production

Raw material 

transport

Recycled 

Cork 

Processing 

Recycled Cork 

Waste 

Process energy

Raw material 

transport by truck

Raw material 

transport by ship

Functional Unit 

of Floating Floor 

Plank End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank

Process energy

Raw material 

transport by truck

Polyurethane 

Binder 

Production

Cork 

flooring 

production

Adhesive

Production

Raw material 

transport

Recycled 

Cork 

Processing 

Recycled Cork 

Waste 

High Density 

Fiberboard 

Production

Wood 

Waste 

Wood 

Harvesting

Raw material 

transport by ship
 

207

Raw Materials 

Both Natural Cork floor products use a cork sheet made from a combination of recycled cork 

waste and urethane binder. The floating floor plank also includes a layer of High Density 

Fiberboard (HDF) cut into a tongue-and-groove pattern. The mixture of the main constituents of 

each floor product is listed in the Table below. 

Table 3.110: Natural Cork Flooring Constituents 

Constituent Parquet Floor 

Mass Fraction 

Floating Floor 

Mass Fraction 

Recycled Cork Waste 93 % 58 % 

Binder 7 % 3 % 

High Density Fiberboard 

(HDF) 

-- 39 % 

Since the cork constituent is a waste product, the environmental burdens from virgin production 

of the cork are not included. The energy used to grind the cork, however, is included, as is its 

transportation to the manufacturing facility. HDF is produced mostly from recovered wood waste 

– only 14 % of the wood going into HDF is harvested directly. In the absence of available data, 

HDF manufacturing is represented, by proxy, with oriented strand board (OSB) production data 

provided by the U.S. LCI Database and described in more detail under Generic Oriented Strand 

Board Sheathing. 

The binder for Natural Cork flooring is a moisture-cured urethane, produced from a reaction 

between polyisocyanate and moisture present in the atmosphere. Isocyanate production data is 

based on publicly available plastics data in the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements. The manufacturing processes for the two cork floor products are 

essentially the same. Cork waste is ground and blended with the urethane binder, then cured. 

For the floating floor plank, the HDF is sandwiched between two cork sheet layers and then 

cured. 

Electricity and an on-site boiler are used to blend and cure both products. The boiler uses cork 

powder generated during the production process to produce steam and electricity. Manufacturing 

the parquet flooring requires about 0.8 MJ (0.02 kWh) of both thermal and electrical energy per 

unit produced (0.09 m2

, or 1 ft2); the floating floor plank requires about 1 MJ (0.28 kWh) of 

electricity and 0.9 MJ (0.25 kWh) of thermal energy per unit. Water is also used in the 

production process, but it is recycled and recovered by the plant. Producing each unit of product 

generates about 1 kg (2.2 lb) of waste, 94 % of which is used to produce energy and 3 % of 

which is recycled. The recycled material is accounted for in the BEES life cycle inventory. 

Transportation. Transportation distances for shipment of the raw materials from the suppliers to 

the manufacturing plant were provided by Natural Cork. The materials were transported by 

diesel truck, based on the U.S. LCI Database. 
 

208

Transportation 

The finished cork products are shipped first from the manufacturing facility in Portugal to the 

Natural Cork warehouse in Georgia–a distance of about 6 437 km (4 000 mi). Environmental 

burdens from this leg of the journey are built into the manufacturing portion of the BEES lifecycle inventory and are evaluated based on transport by ocean tanker using fuel oil. The 

transportation distance from the Natural Cork warehouse in Augusta, Georgia to the building site 

is modeled as a variable in BEES. Both products are shipped from Augusta by diesel truck; the 

quantity of transportation emissions allocated to each product depends on the overall mass of the 

product, as given in the Table below. 

Table 3.111: Natural Cork Flooring Density 

Product Mass per Applied Area in 

kg/m2

 (lb/ft2) 

Density in 

kg/ m3 (lb/ft3) 

Cork Parquet Tile 2.56 (0.51) 516.67 (34.18) 

Cork Floating Floor 7.44 (1.48) 563.33 (37.26) 

 

Installation 

Natural Cork parquet tile is installed using a water-based contact adhesive. The average 

application requires about 0.009 kg (0.020 lb) of adhesive per unit of flooring (0.09 m2, or 1 ft2). 

The Natural Cork floating floor requires only a minimal amount of tongue-and-groove adhesive 

to bond the individual planks together. On average, 5 % of the adhesive is wasted during 

installation, but none of the flooring is lost. 

Use 

Based on information from Natural Cork, its flooring does not require replacement over the 50-

year BEES use period. 

End of Life 

At end of life, the used flooring is sent to a landfill, since according to the manufacturer none is 

currently being recycled. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 65Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Industry Contacts 

Phillipe Erramuzpe, Natural Cork (2002) 
 

209

3.14 Chairs 

3.14.1 Herman Miller Aeron Office Chair 

Herman Miller is a worldwide producer of office furniture systems, seating, and accessories; 

filing and storage products for business, home office and healthcare environments; and 

residential furniture. The Herman Miller Aeron business chair consists of more than 50 different 

components and subassemblies from more than 15 direct suppliers. These components and 

subassemblies are constructed from four major materials: plastics, aluminum, steel, and 

foams/fabrics. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product can be viewed by opening the file 

E2020A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.48: Herman Miller Aeron Chair System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Approximately 60 % of the Aeron chair, by mass fraction, is comprised of recycled materials 

including steel, polypropylene, glass-filled nylon, 30 % glass-filled PET, and aluminum. The 

mixture of all the chair constituents in terms of their mass fractions is provided in the Table 

below. 

Functional Unit of

Chair

Truck

Transport to

User

Aeron Chair 

production

Process 

energy

Herman Miller Aeron Chair

Nylon Recycled 

Steel

Primary 

Steel

Raw material 

transport

Acetal

PP ABS PET

Glass-filled 

PET

Glass fiber Zinc

Stainless 

Steel

Recycled 

Aluminum
 

210

Table 3.112: Herman Miller Aeron Chair Major Constituents 

Constituent Description 

Plastics 

27 % for all plastics (24 % for seat and back frame 

assemblies, 9 % for knobs, levers, bushings, 

covers) 

Aluminum 35 % for aluminum base, swing arms, seat links, 

arm yokes 

Steel 23.5 % for tilt assembly, 2 % for nuts, bolts, other 

components 

Foam/fabric (arm 

rests, lumbar 

supports) 

Less than 4 %; Pellicle seat & back suspension 

system is a combination of synthetic fibers and 

elastomers 

Composite 

subassemblies 

3 % for 5 casters; 6.7 % for pneumatic cylinder; 

6.2 % for moving components of tilt assembly 

Of the plastics and metals in the Aeron chair that are nonrenewable, over two-thirds are made 

from recycled materials and can be further recycled at end of life. 

Plastic components. Roughly one-fourth (27 %) of the Aeron chair, by mass fraction, is made up 

of various plastic resin materials including polypropylene, ABS, PET, nylon, and glass-filled 

nylons. The seat and back frame assemblies make up 23.6 % of the chair’s weight. The seat and 

back frames are made of glass-filled PET, two thirds of which consists of post-industrial 

recycled materials. The plastic in the Pellicle suspension system (approximately 2 % of the chair 

weight) can be removed for replacement or for recycling of the seat and back frames. The 

remaining plastic components are various knobs, levers, bushings, and covers. 

According to the manufacturer, these single-material plastic components used in the Aeron chair 

are identified with International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) recycling symbols and 

ASTM, International material designations to help channel them into the recycling stream. 

Data for production of the plastic components comes from American Chemistry Council 2006 

data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI Database. 

Aluminum. Roughly 35 % of the Aeron chair is made from aluminum. Major components 

include the base, swing arms, seat links, and arm yokes. Aluminum components from the Aeron 

chair at the end of its life can be segregated and entered back into the recycling stream to be 

made into the same or other components, so they can be considered part of a closed-loop 

recycling system. 

All aluminum components are made from 100 % post-consumer recycled aluminum, for which 

production data is found in the U.S. LCI Database. 

Steel. The tilt assembly, approximately 23.5 % of the chair’s weight, is largely made up of steel 

stampings and screw-machined components. These steel components represent 74 % of the tilt, 

by mass fraction, or 17.3 % of the mass of the chair. From 7 % to 50 % of the steel components 
 

211

in the tilt are made from recycled materials. The remaining steel materials (less than 2 % of the 

chair) are nuts, bolts, and other components that require the high strength properties of steel. 

Production of primary and secondary steel is based on LCI data submitted by the American Iron 

and Steel Institute (AISI) and the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), which represents 

late 1990s worldwide steel production. 

Foam/Fabric. The armrests and lumbar supports are the only Aeron chair components made 

from foams or fabrics. The Pellicle seat and back suspension system is a combination of 

synthetic fibers and elastomers and comprises a small percentage of the chair. Fabric scraps 

from Herman Miller’s production facilities are recycled into automobile headliners and other 

similar components. Foam scraps are recycled into carpet padding. Data on synthetic fibers and 

elastomers comes from elements of the U.S. LCI Database and the SimaPro database. 

Composite Subassemblies. The Aeron chair has three composite subassemblies of multiple 

material types. They consist of five casters, a pneumatic cylinder, and the moving components of 

the tilt assembly. The pneumatic cylinder can be returned to the manufacturer for disassembly 

and recycling. All material production data is based on elements of the U.S. LCI Database and 

the SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy requirements and emissions from chair assembly are included in the model but not 

shared to protect company-specific confidential data. The energy used for processes that form 

materials into chair parts (plastic extrusion, steel rolling and stamping, etc.) is included in the 

product data for the raw materials acquisition life cycle stage. 

Transportation 

Packaging materials for the Herman Miller Aeron chair include corrugated paper and a 

polyethylene plastic bag to protect the product from soiling and dust. Each of these materials is 

part of a closed-loop recycling system. As such, they are not included in the system boundaries. 

On larger shipments within North America, disposable packaging can be eliminated through use 

of reusable shipping blankets. 

Transportation of the chair by heavy-duty truck to the building is modeled as a variable of the 

BEES system. Data on diesel trucking is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

The plastics in the chair are low-VOC emitting and most painted parts are powder-coated. The 

small amounts of foam and fabric are insignificant contributors of VOC. 

End of Life 

The Herman Miller Aeron chair is designed to last at least 12.5 years under normal use 

conditions, so the chair is assumed to be replaced three times over the 50-year BEES use period. 

As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are 

included in the inventory data. 

 
 

212

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 6Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

67Hhttp://www.hermanmiller.com. 

Industry Contacts 

Gabe Wing, Herman Miller (2001) 

3.14.2 Herman Miller Ambi and Generic Office Chairs 

Herman Miller is a worldwide producer of office furniture systems, seating, and accessories; 

filing and storage products for business, home office. and healthcare environments; and 

residential furniture. The Herman Miller Ambi chair is typical of the industry average office 

chair, and is used in BEES to represent both itself and a generic office chair. 

The detailed environmental performance data for both these products can be viewed by opening 

the file E2020B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.49: Herman Miller Ambi Chair System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of

Chair

Truck

Transport to

User

Ambi Chair 

production

Process 

energy

Herman Miller Ambi Chair

Nylon Recycled 

Steel

Primary 

Steel

Raw material 

transport

Acetal

PP ABS PET

Glass-filled 

PET

Glass fiber Zinc

Stainless 

Steel
 

213

Raw Materials 

The Herman Miller Ambi chair consists of more than 50 different components and 

subassemblies from more than 15 direct suppliers. The components and subassemblies are 

constructed from variations of three major materials: plastics, steel, and foams/fabrics. 

Approximately 20 % of the Ambi chair’s weight is made up of recycled steel, polypropylene, 

nylon, and glass-filled nylon. The mixture of all the constituents in terms of their mass fractions 

is given in the Table below. 

Table 3.113: Herman Miller Ambi Chair Major Constituents 

Constituent Description 

Plastics (PP, PVC, nylon, 

glass-filled polymer) 

33 % for all plastics (24 % for seat shells, 9 % for 

knobs, levers, bushings, covers) 

Steel 63 % for tilt assembly and base; 2 % for nuts, bolts, 

other components 

Foams/fabrics Less than 4 %; included in open-loop recycling 

systems 

Composite subassemblies 3 % for five casters; 6.7 % for pneumatic cylinder; 

6.3 % for moving components of tilt assembly 

Of the plastics and metals in the Ambi chair that are nonrenewable, over two-thirds are made 

from recycled materials and can be further recycled at end of life. 

Plastic components. Roughly one-third of the Herman Miller Ambi chair, by weight, is made 

with polypropylene, PVC, nylon, and glass-filled nylons. The seat shells make up 24 % of the 

chair’s weight. The seat shells, made of polypropylene, contain 10 % post-industrial recycled 

materials. The remaining plastic components are various knobs, levers, bushings, and covers. 

These single-material plastic components are identified with International Organisation for 

Standardization (ISO) recycling symbols and ASTM, International material designations to help 

channel them into the recycling stream. Data for each of these plastic components comes from 

American Chemistry Council 2006 data developed for submission to the U.S. LCI Database. 

Steel. The tilt assembly and base, constituting approximately 63 % of the chair’s weight, are 

largely made of steel stampings and screw-machined components. These steel components are 

74 % of the tilt assembly by weight, or 50 % of the weight of the chair. The steel components in 

the tilt assembly are made from 28 % to 50 % recycled-content materials. The remaining steel 

materials (less than 2 % of the chair’s mass) are nuts, bolts, and other components that require 

the high-strength properties of steel. The steel components of the Ambi chair can be segregated 

and entered into the recycling stream. 

Production of primary and secondary steel is based on LCI data submitted by the American Iron 

and Steel Institute (AISI) and the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), which represents 

late 1990s worldwide steel production. 

Foam/Fabric. Data on synthetic fibers and elastomers come from elements of the U.S. LCI 

Database and the SimaPro database. These materials are part of an open-loop system; they can 

be transformed into other products. For example, fabric scraps from Herman Miller’s current 
 

214

production facilities are made into automobile headliners and other similar products. Foam 

scraps are used in carpet padding. 

Composite Subassemblies. There are three composite subassemblies of multiple material types. 

They include five casters (3 % of the chair mass), a pneumatic cylinder (6.7 % of the chair 

mass), and the moving components of the tilt assembly (6.3 % of the chair mass). The 

pneumatic cylinder can be returned to the manufacturer for disassembly and recycling. All 

material production data is based on elements of the U.S. LCI Database and the SimaPro 

database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy requirements and emissions from chair assembly are included in the model but not 

shared to protect company-specific confidential data. The energy used for processes that form 

materials into chair parts (plastic extrusion, steel rolling and stamping, etc.) is included in the 

product data for the raw materials acquisition life cycle stage. 

Transportation 

Packaging materials for the Herman Miller Ambi chair include corrugated paper and a 

polyethylene plastic bag to protect the product from soiling and dust. Each of these materials is 

part of a closed-loop recycling system. As such, they are not included in the system boundaries. 

On larger shipments within North America, disposable packaging can be eliminated through use 

of reusable shipping blankets. 

Transportation of the chair by heavy-duty truck to the building is modeled as a variable of the 

BEES system. Data on diesel trucking is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

The chair is designed for easy maintenance, with many replaceable components. For BEES, 

however, no parts replacement is assumed; instead, the entire chair is simply replaced at end of 

life (see End of Life section below). 

The plastics in the chair are low-VOC emitting and most painted parts are powder-coated. The 

small amounts of foam and fabric are insignificant contributors of VOC. 

End of Life 

The Herman Miller Ambi chair is designed to last at least 12.5 years under normal use 

conditions. Thus, the chair is assumed to be replaced three times over the 50-year BEES use 

period. As with all BEES products, life cycle environmental burdens from these replacements are 

included in the inventory data. 

 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 68Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

http://www.hermanmiller.com 
 

215

Industry Contacts 

Gabe Wing, Herman Miller (2001) 

3.15 Roadway Dust Control 

3.15.1 Environmental Dust Control Dustlock 

The roadway dust suppressant category includes products aimed at eliminating or reducing the 

spread of dust associated with gravel roads and other sources of high dust levels such as 

construction. Dustlock, produced by Environmental Dust Control, Inc. in Minnesota, is a 

biobased dust suppressant produced from by-products of the vegetable oil refining process. 

When applied, Dustlock penetrates into the bed of the material generating the dust and “bonds” 

to make a barrier that is naturally biodegradable. The bond keeps Dustlock in place, preventing 

the exposure of any material underneath. The manufacturer reports that Dustlock also reduces 

erosion of surface material (e.g., gravel) and the appearance of mud. 

The functional unit for this category in BEES is dust control for 92.9 m2

 (1 000 ft2) of surface 

area. One gal of Dustlock covers approximately 3.4 m2

 (37 ft2), so 102 L (27 gal) of Dustlock 

are modeled for the BEES application. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

G2015B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

216

Figure 3.50: Dustlock System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Dustlock is comprised of acidulated soapstock and linseed distillate. The acidulated soapstock 

may be any combination of sunflower, canola, or soybean soapstock. Since BEES data for 

soybean production and processing is the most comprehensive, soybean-based soapstock is 

modeled for this product. Acidulated soapstock is a co-product of the soybean crushing process 

involved in biodiesel production; data for this process comes from biodiesel life cycle data 

developed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture that was used to compare petroleum-based 

diesel fuel to soy-based biodiesel.170F

171 The allocation among biodiesel and its coproducts is massbased, with acidulated soapstock amounting to 0.1 % of the total output. Data for soybean 

production comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Energy requirements and emissions for linseed oil production involve fuel oil and steam, and are 

allocated on an economic basis between linseed oil (87 %) and linseed cake (13 %). The 

cultivation of linseed is based on a modified version of wheat production data from the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

 171 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Functional Unit 

of Dustlock

Environmental Dust Control Dustlock

Process 

energy

Raw material 

transport

Linseed 

distillate

productio

Dustlock

Production

Soybean 

production

Acidulated 

soapstock

production

Linseed 

production

Truck 

Transport 

to 

Gasoline 

production

LPG 

production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

217

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Electric motors and pumps are used to blend the product 

and pump it in and out of tanks; these consume 1.5 J (4.3 E-4 kWh) per kg of Dustlock. 

Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Raw materials are transported to the manufacturing site by diesel truck: 

soapstock travels 451 km (280 mi) and linseed oil 1086 km (675 mi). Diesel trucking is modeled 

using the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Product transport to customers is assumed to average 805 km (500 mi) by diesel truck, and is 

modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Installation 

Dustlock requires heating before application when outside air or ground temperature is below 16 

◦

C (60 ◦F) at night. For the BEES model, the heating is done with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). 

Gasoline-powered equipment is used to spray the DustlockTM onto the surface area. The energy 

requirements follow. 

Table 3.114: Dustlock Installation Energy Requirements 

Energy Carrier Quantity 

MJ/kg (kWh/lb) 

Liquid petroleum gas 0.14 (0.02) 

Gasoline 0.004 (0.001) 

Dustlock is applied at a rate of 3.4 m2

 (37 ft2) per gal, or 102 L (27 gal) for a 92.9 m2 (1 000 ft2) 

application. At a density of 3.4 kg (7.5 lb) per gal, 93 kg (205 lb) of Dustlock are used for the 

application. 

End of Life 

No end of life burdens are modeled since the product is consumed during use. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 69Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Howard Hamilton (2005) 
 

218

3.16 Parking Lot Paving 

3.16.1 Generic Concrete Paving 

Portland cement concrete, typically referred to as “concrete,” is a mixture of portland cement (a 

fine powder), water, fine aggregate such as sand or finely crushed rock, and coarse aggregate 

such as gravel or crushed rock. The semi-fluid mixture forms a rock-like material when it 

hardens. Fly ash—a waste material—may be substituted for a portion of the portland cement in 

the concrete mix. 

Concrete is specified for different building elements by its compressive strength measured 28 

days after casting. Concretes with greater compressive strengths generally contain more 

cementitious materials. For the BEES concrete paving alternatives, a compressive strength of at 

least 24 MPa (3 500 lb/in2) is used. The concrete paving systems all consist of a 15 cm (6 in) 

layer of concrete poured over a 20 cm (8 in) base layer of crushed stone or compacted sand. 

Paving installed in regions that experience freezing conditions have intentionally entrained air to 

the volume of 4 % to 6 % to improve its durability in these conditions. 

For 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) of concrete paving, the 15 cm (6 in) thick concrete layer weighs 32.9 kg (72.5 

lb) and the 20 cm (8 in) thick crushed stone base layer weighs 33.3 kg (73.3 lb). Fly ash, a waste 

material that results from burning coal to produce electricity, can be substituted in equal 

quantities by mass for various proportions of the cement. 

The detailed environmental performance data for three generic concrete paving alternatives may 

be viewed by opening the following files under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software: 

• G2022A.DBF—100 % Portland Cement for Parking Lot Paving 

• G2022B.DBF—15 % Fly Ash Cement for Parking Lot Paving 

• G2022C.DBF—20 % Fly Ash Cement for Parking Lot Paving 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of concrete paving for 

these products, as they are currently modeled for BEES. 
 

219

Figure 3.54: Concrete Paving System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The Table below shows concrete constituents and their quantities for the compressive strength of 

24 MPa (3 500 lb/in2

). 

Table 3.115: Concrete Constituents 

Constituent Kg/m3

(lb/ yd3) 

Mass Fraction 

Portland Cement and Fly Ash 265 (450) 12 % 

Coarse Aggregate 1070 (1800) 42 % 

Fine Aggregate 710 (1200) 38 % 

Water 180 (300) 8 % 

In LCA terms, fly ash is an environmental outflow of coal combustion, and an environmental 

inflow of concrete production. As such, this waste product is considered an environmentally 

“free” input material.17F

172 Transport of the fly ash to the ready mix plant, however, should be—and 

is—included in the BEES model. 

A small amount of coarse aggregate and sand, assumed to be approximately 3 %, is recycled 

from unused returned concrete. Process water from concrete manufacturing (post-industrial) and 

in some cases post-consumer water also may be used as a component in concrete. 

 172 The environmental burdens associated with the production of waste materials are typically allocated to the 

intended product(s) of the process from which the waste results. 

Functional Unit of

Paved Concrete End-of-Life Transport to

Paving Site

Concrete

Production

Process

Energy

Raw Material

Transport

Concrete Paving

Fly Ash 

(0%, 15%, 20)%)

Portland

Cement

Production

Coarse

Aggregate

Production

Fine Aggregate

Production

Water

Stone

Base

Production
 

220

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. For concrete paving, about 20 % of the concrete is 

produced in central ready mix operations. Energy use in the batch plants includes electricity and 

fuel used for heating and mobile equipment.172F

173 

Table 3.116: Energy Requirements for Ready Mix Concrete Production 

Energy Carrier MJ/m3

 (MBtu/yd3) MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Heavy Fuel Oil 124 (0.09) 0.05 (22) 

Electricity 124 (0.09) 0.05 (22) 

Total 247 (0.179) 0.1 (43) 

Most concrete for paving applications (80 %) is produced in dry batch operations where the 

constituents are placed in a truck mixer. Concrete producers are located in all regions of the 

country since the product has to be placed within 1 h driving time from the production location. 

The trucks consume one gal of diesel fuel for every 5 km to 6 km (3 mi to 4 mi) traveled, and 

travel on average 64 km/h (40 mi/h) to reach the site. The fuel usage for mixing concrete in a 

truck mixer is estimated at 30 % of the total fuel used by mixer trucks. 

Table 3.117: Energy Requirements for Dry Batch Concrete Production 

Energy Carrier L/m3

 (gal/yd3) L/kg (gal/lb) 

Diesel Oil Total 7.07 (1.43) 0.00318 (0.00038) 

Diesel Oil for Mixing (30 %) 2.12 (0.429) 0.00095 (0.00011) 

Transportation. Concrete raw materials are transported to a plant where they are batched into 

either a plant mixer or a truck mixer. Round-trip distances by truck for the transport of the 

materials are assumed to be 97 km (60 mi) for portland cement and fly ash and 80 km (50 mi) for 

aggregate. 

Waste. There is no manufacturing waste for either of the concrete manufacturing processes.

Transportation 

The distance for transportation of concrete paving materials by heavy-duty truck to the building 

site is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. 

 173 Nisbet, M., et al. “Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete.” PCA R&D Serial No. 

2137a(Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). 
 

221

Installation 

The energy required for site preparation and placement of crushed stone is 7.5 MJ/m2 (663 

Btu/ft2

) of paving. The energy required for concrete placement is included in the energy 

requirements for the mixer truck that transports the concrete to the site. 

About 3 % to 5 % of the total production of paving concrete is unused at the job site and returned 

to the concrete plant. Some of this material is recycled back into the product, and supplementary 

products also are developed. In some cases, the returned concrete is washed into pits and the 

settled solids are reused for other purposes or diverted to landfills. Landfill usage is minimized 

due to cost. For the purpose of this generic model of concrete paving, it is most representative of 

current practice to assume that 75 % of the leftover concrete is recycled back into the product as 

aggregate and 25 % is reused for other purposes. Industry practice varies based on local 

regulations, plant space, and company policy. 

Installation of concrete paving on roadways requires heavy equipment using heavy fuel at 0.7 

MJ (0.19 kWh) of fuel per ft2

 of paving; however, use of heavy equipment for installation may 

not be required for applications such as parking areas and sidewalks. Paving of larger parking 

areas like a mall area (generally totaling greater than 929 m2, or 10 000 ft2) requires some powerdriven equipment with screeds173F

174 and ride-on finishing machines. The fuel used is some 

combination of diesel and gasoline, although only diesel fuel is assumed for modeling purposes. 

A rough estimate of fuel usage is about 20 % of that used for road paving. Smaller area 

placements (totaling less than 929 m2, or 10 000 ft2) are done manually with hand tools. 

As noted above, unused concrete is usually returned to the concrete plant. About 1 % waste is 

generated on site as poured waste or spillage. This concrete is not returned to the mixer truck but 

is collected and hauled to the landfill with other construction debris. 

 

Use 

The design life for concrete pavement is typically 30 years, although longer life designs are now 

being promoted. Maintenance requirements are not intensive relative to life-cycle energy and 

other environmental burdens. 

End of Life 

At end of life, concrete parking lot paving is typically overlaid rather than replaced if the land is 

going to remain in use as a parking lot. The concrete is generally removed if the land is going to 

be used for a different purpose. 

If the concrete paving is removed, the material can be crushed and reused on site or transported 

for use in another fill application. The decision to send crushed concrete to a landfill is a project 

decision. It is most representative of current practice to assume that removed concrete is 

managed by crushing and reusing or recycling in some manner other than landfilling. 

 174 Screeds are used to level poured concrete surfaces. 
 

222

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 70Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Nisbet, M., et al. “Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete.” PCA 

R&D Serial No. 2137a, (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2002). 

Industry Contacts 

Colin Lobo, Ph.D., P.E, Vice President of Engineering, National Ready Mixed Concrete 

Association, September-October 2005. 

3.16.2 Asphalt with GSB88 Seal-Bind Maintenance 

The design of an asphalt parking lot pavement is dependent on the projected weight of traffic, 

the soil conditions at the site, and environmental conditions. Common asphalt parking lots 

consist of between 5 cm and 10 cm (2 in and 4 in) thick Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA), which 

contains, on average, 15 % Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP). RAP is obtained from the 

millings of HMA surface lots or roadways and is typically hauled back to the HMA plant for 

reuse. The HMA pavement material is typically placed over a 15 cm (6 in) crushed aggregate 

base. In colder climates, additional fill material that insulates against frost-susceptible soils may 

be added below the base aggregate. The maintenance product assessed for this BEES paving 

alternative is GSB88 Emulsified Sealer-Binder produced by Asphalt Systems, Inc. of Salt Lake 

City, Utah. GSB88 Emulsified Sealer-Binder is a high-resin-content emulsifier made from 

naturally occurring asphalt and is applied to base asphalt every four years to prevent oxidation 

and cracking. 

For the BEES asphalt parking lot model, a 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) surface with 8 cm (3 in) thick paving is 

studied. The amount of material used is 16.4 kg (36.2 lb) of HMA, 30.6 kg (67.5 lb) of crushed 

stone, and 12 installments of the GSB88 sealer-binder, at 0.374 kg (0.82 lb) each, over 50 years. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product system may be viewed by opening 

the file G2022D.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product system as it 

is currently modeled for BEES. 
 

223

Figure 3.52: Asphalt Paving with GSB88 Emulsified Sealer-Binder Maintenance System 

Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The composition of asphalt paving is shown in the Table below, and the production of its raw 

materials is based on data from both the U.S. LCI Database and the SimaPro database. The 15 % 

RAP in HMA reduces virgin asphalt binder requirements (by approximately 1 %) and reduces 

crushed stone (aggregate) amounts by approximately 14 %. The emulsifier is composed of 

asphalt with water and a small amount of surfactant. 

Table 3.118: Hot Mix Asphalt Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

 (layer) 

Mass Fraction 

 (components) 

Hot Mix Asphalt 99.5 % -- 

Gravel 81 % 

Asphalt 

binder 

4 % 

RAP 15 % 

Tack Coat 0.5 % -- 

Asphalt 66 % 

Water 33 % 

Emulsifier 1.1 % 

HCl 0.2 % 

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Paving End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Stone Base 

Production

Asphalt Base 

Layer

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Asphalt Paving and Maintenance

Asphalt 

Cement 

(Maintenance)

Tack Coat Hot Mix 

Asphalt

Hot Mix 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Tack Coat

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Emulsifier 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Emulsifier 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Paving End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Stone Base 

Production

Asphalt Base 

Layer

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Asphalt Paving with GSB88 Emulsion Maintenance

GSB88 Maintenance

Light fuel oil

Production

Sand

Production

Hot Mix 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Tack Coat

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Emulsifier 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Emulsifier 

Production

Detergent 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Paving End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Stone Base 

Production

Asphalt Base 

Layer

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Asphalt Paving and Maintenance

Asphalt 

Cement 

(Maintenance)

Tack Coat Hot Mix 

Asphalt

Hot Mix 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Tack Coat

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Emulsifier 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Emulsifier 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Paving End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Stone Base 

Production

Asphalt Base 

Layer

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Asphalt Paving with GSB88 Emulsion Maintenance

GSB88 Maintenance

Light fuel oil

Production

Sand

Production

Hot Mix 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Tack Coat

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Emulsifier 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Emulsifier 

Production

Detergent 

Production
 

224

Raw materials used in the GSB88 sealer-binder include water, asphalt, sand, light fuel oil, 

detergent, emulsifier, and hydrochloric acid (HCl).174F

175 These materials, too, are based on data 

from the U.S. LCI Database and the SimaPro database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements for HMA production are 

provided in the Table below, and represent a weighted average of requirements for production in 

counterflow drum (85 %) and batch mix (15 %) plants. 

Table 3.119: Energy Requirements for Hot Mix Asphalt Production 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Diesel 0.017 (7.3) 

Natural Gas 0.29 (124.7) 

Total 0.307 (132) 

Emissions from the production of the upstream, or raw, materials and energy carriers are from 

the U.S. LCI Database. Emissions associated with the manufacture of asphalt are based on U.S. 

EPA AP-42 emission factors. The primary emissions from HMA production are particulates 

(PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOC); these are averaged on a weighted basis between 

counterflow drum (85 %) and batch mix (15 %) production technologies, as shown below. 

Table 3.120: Emissions from Hot Mix Asphalt Production 

Production Process PM 

g/kg (lb/ton) 

VOC 

g/kg (lb/ton) 

Counterflow Drum 0.07 (0.14) 0.016 (0.032) 

Batch Mix 0.0225 (0.45) 0.0041 (0.0082) 

Weighted average 0.0629 (0.1258) 0.0143 (0.02843) 

Transportation. Transport of the HMA raw materials to the production site is accomplished by 

trucking, over an average distance of 48 km (30 mi). 

Waste. The manufacturing process generates no waste materials as all materials are utilized in 

the HMA pavement. 

Transportation 

Transport of HMA by heavy-duty truck to the construction site is modeled as a variable of the 

BEES system.

Installation 

New asphalt pavements are placed directly on graded and compacted aggregate base or 

subgrade. A truck carrying HMA paving material from the plant backs up to a paver and dumps 

 175 Detailed information on product composition is not provided to protect manufacturer confidentiality. 
 

225

the material into a hopper or a material transfer vehicle, which agitates the asphalt mix to keep 

the aggregate from segregating and to help ensure a uniform temperature. The paver lays a 

smooth mat of material, then a series of compactors make the material more dense. These 

compactors may include vibratory or static steel wheel rollers or rubber tire rollers. If multiple 

layers are placed or the parking lot is overlaid, the pavement surface is cleaned (typically by 

brooming) and then a distributor truck puts down a tack coat. The energy requirements for 

installation of an asphalt parking lot are provided in the following Table, with all diesel data 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.121: Energy Requirements for Asphalt Pavement Installation 

Installation Process Energy Carrier MJ/ft2

Site Preparation and Stone Base 

Placement Diesel Equipment 0.7 

Asphalt Binder Course Installation Diesel Equipment 0.96 

Asphalt Wearing Course Installation Diesel Equipment 0.48 

 Total 2.14 

Use 

Asphalt parking lot pavement is assumed to have a useful life of at least 50 years with 

application of GSB88 sealer-binder maintenance every 4 years. The energy required for each 

maintenance application is provided in the following Table. 

Table 3.122: Energy Requirements for GSB88 Sealer-Binder Maintenance 

Maintenance Process Energy Carrier MJ/ft2

GSB88 Sealer-Binder Application Diesel Equipment 9.45 E-4 

End of Life 

At end of life, asphalt paving is typically overlaid rather than replaced if the land is going to 

remain in use as a parking lot. The HMA is generally removed and recycled, however, if the land 

is going to be used for a different purpose. For BEES, the product is removed at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 71Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hot Mix Asphalt Plants,” Volume I: Section 11.1, 

AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004). Found at: 

72Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s01.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

Howard Marks, Director of Regulatory Affairs, National Asphalt Paving Association (2005) 

Mr. Gail Porritt, Asphalt Systems, Inc. (2002) 
 

226

3.16.3 Generic Asphalt with Traditional Maintenance 

The design of an asphalt parking lot pavement is dependent on the projected weight of traffic, 

the soil conditions at the site, and environmental conditions. Common asphalt parking lots 

consist of between 5 cm and 10 cm (2 in and 4 in) thick Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA), which 

contains, on average, 15 % Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP). RAP is obtained from the 

millings of HMA surface lots or roadways and is typically hauled back to the HMA plant for 

reuse. The HMA pavement material is typically placed over a 15 cm (6 in) crushed aggregate 

base. In colder climates, additional fill material that insulates against frost-susceptible soils may 

be added below the base aggregate. Maintenance of asphalt parking lots, over 50 years, typically 

involves a 3.8 cm (1.5 in) HMA overlay with tack coat at year 15 followed by a 3.8 cm (1.5 in) 

mill and HMA overlay with tack coat every subsequent 15 years. Each maintenance coat 

contains, on average, 15 % RAP. 

For the BEES asphalt parking lot model, a 0.09 m2 (1 ft2) surface with 8 cm (3 in) thick paving is 

studied. The amounts of materials used are 16.4 kg (36.2 lb) of HMA, 30.6 kg (67.5 lb) of 

crushed stone, and 3 installments of the HMA maintenance at 7.7 kg (17.0 lb) each. 

 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product system may be viewed by opening 

the file G2022E.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product system as it 

is currently modeled for BEES. 

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Paving End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Stone Base 

Production

Asphalt Base 

Layer

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Asphalt Paving and Maintenance

Asphalt 

Cement 

(Maintenance)

Tack Coat Hot Mix 

Asphalt

Hot Mix 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Tack Coat

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Emulsifier 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Emulsifier 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Functional Unit of 

Asphalt Paving End-of-Life

Transport to 

Construction 

Site

Stone Base 

Production

Asphalt Base 

Layer

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Asphalt Paving and Maintenance

Asphalt 

Cement 

(Maintenance)

Tack Coat Hot Mix 

Asphalt

Hot Mix 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Tack Coat

Process 

Energy

Raw Material 

Transport

Emulsifier 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Gravel 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Asphalt 

Production

Emulsifier 

Production

Hydrochloric 

Acid 

Production

Figure 3.53: Asphalt Paving with Traditional Maintenance System Boundaries 
 

227

Raw Materials 

The composition of asphalt paving is shown in the Table below. The production of the raw 

materials required for both the pavement and its maintenance is based on data from both the U.S. 

LCI Database and the SimaPro database. The 15 % RAP in HMA reduces virgin asphalt binder 

use (by approximately 1 %) and reduces crushed stone (aggregate) amounts by approximately 

14 %. The emulsifier is composed of asphalt with water and a small amount of surfactant. 

Table 3.123: Hot Mix Asphalt Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction 

 (layer) 

Mass Fraction 

 (components) 

Hot Mix Asphalt 99.5 % -- 

Gravel 81 % 

Asphalt 

binder 

4 % 

RAP 15 % 

Tack Coat 0.5 % -- 

Asphalt 66 % 

Water 33 % 

Emulsifier 1.1 % 

HCl 0.2 % 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. The energy requirements for HMA production are 

provided in the Table below, and represent a weighted average of requirements for production in 

counterflow drum (85 %) and batch mix (15 %) plants. 

 

Table 3.124: Energy Requirements for Hot Mix Asphalt Production 

Energy Carrier MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 

Diesel 0.017 (7.3) 

Natural Gas 0.29 (124.7) 

Total 0.307 (132) 

Emissions from the production of the upstream (raw) materials and energy carriers are from the 

U.S. LCI Database. Emissions associated with the manufacture of asphalt are based on U.S. EPA 

AP-42 emission factors. The primary emissions from HMA production are particulates (PM) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC); these are averaged on a weighted basis between 

counterflow drum (85 %) and batch mix (15 %) production technologies, as shown below. 

Table 3.125: Emissions from Hot Mix Asphalt Production 

Production Process PM 

g/kg (lb/ton) 

VOC 

g/kg (lb/ton) 

Counterflow Drum 0.07 (0.14) 0.016 (0.032) 

Batch Mix 0.0225 (0.45) 0.0041 (0.0082) 

Weighted average 0.0629 (0.1258) 0.0143 (0.02843) 
 

228

Transportation. Transport of the HMA raw materials to the production site is accomplished by 

trucking, over an average distance of 48 km (30 mi). 

Waste. The manufacturing process generates no waste materials as all materials are utilized in 

the HMA pavement. 

Transportation 

Transport of HMA to the construction site by heavy-duty truck is modeled as a variable of the 

BEES system. 

Installation 

New asphalt pavements are placed directly on graded and compacted aggregate base or 

subgrade. A truck carrying HMA paving material from the plant backs up to a paver and dumps 

the material into a hopper or a material transfer vehicle, which agitates the asphalt mix to keep 

the aggregate from segregating and to help ensure a uniform temperature. The paver lays a 

smooth mat of material, then a series of compactors make the material more dense. These 

compactors may include vibratory or static steel wheel rollers or rubber tire rollers. If multiple 

layers are placed or the parking lot is overlaid, the pavement surface is cleaned (typically by 

brooming) and then a distributor truck puts down a tack coat. The energy requirements for 

installation of an asphalt parking lot are provided in the following Table, with all diesel data 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Table 3.126: Energy Requirements for Asphalt Paving Installation 

Installation Process Energy Carrier MJ/ft2

Site Preparation and Stone Base 

Placement Diesel equipment 0.7 

Asphalt Binder Course Installation Diesel equipment 0.96 

Asphalt Wearing Course Installation Diesel equipment 0.48 

 Total 2.14 

Use 

The asphalt parking lot pavement is assumed to have a useful life of greater than 50 years with 

maintenance performed every 15 years. The maintenance of the parking lot with HMA is called 

resurfacing. The surface is cleaned and all unnecessary debris is removed. A tack coat is then 

applied by a distributor truck. Hot asphalt is then applied and compacted. The energy required 

for resurfacing is provided in the following Table. 

Table 3.127: Energy Requirements for Asphalt Resurfacing 

Maintenance Process Energy Carrier MJ/ft2

Asphalt Resurfacing Diesel equipment 0.72 

After the initial resurfacing at year 15, all subsequent resurfacings begin with removal of 3.8 cm 

(1.5 in) of existing material, followed by an HMA overlay with tack coat containing, on average, 
 

229

15 % RAP. The 3.8 cm (1.5 in) of milled material is returned to the HMA manufacturing process 

as RAP. 

End of Life 

At end of life, the product is typically overlaid rather than replaced if the land is going to remain 

in use as a parking lot. However, the HMA is generally removed and recycled if the land is going 

to be used for a different purpose. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 73Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hot Mix Asphalt Plants,” Volume I: Section 11.1, 

AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004). Found at: 

74Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s01.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

Howard Marks, Director of Regulatory Affairs, National Asphalt Paving Association (2005)

3.16.4 Lafarge Cement Concrete Paving 

See documentation on all BEES Lafarge concrete products under Lafarge North America 

Products. 

3.17 Fertilizers 

3.17.1 Perdue MicroStart 60 Fertilizer 

Perdue AgriRecycle’s MicroStart 60TM is a slow-release nitrogen fertilizer consisting almost 

entirely of chicken litter, a byproduct of the poultry industry. Its Nitrogen-PhosphorusPotassium (NPK) ratio is 4-2-3. 

For the BEES system, the functional unit for fertilizers is applying 10 kg (22 lb) nitrogen per 

acre for a period of ten years. A typical application of MicroStart 60TM is 318 kg (700 lb) per 

acre. As the nitrogen in one application is released over a period of three years, fertilizer use per 

acre, per year, is 106 kg (233 lb). To achieve a 10 kg (22 lb) nitrogen per acre requirement, 

however, this amount is scaled up to 245 kg (540 lb) of fertilizer per acre per year.175F

176 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

G2060A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

 176 While this may not be the manufacturer’s suggested rate of use for this product, an adjustment was made to 

enable comparison of BEES fertilizers on a functionally equivalent performance basis. 
 

230

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.54: MicroStart 60TM Fertilizer System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Microstart 60 is composed of raw poultry litter and poultry fat, in the proportions shown in the 

Table below. 

Table 3.128: Microstart 60 Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Raw poultry litter 99.9 

Poultry fat 0.1 

The raw poultry litter is a byproduct of the poultry industry and would otherwise be a waste 

product. Therefore, any impacts associated with its production, such as chicken farming and 

poultry production, are allocated to the production of the poultry, not the litter. Wastewater 

generation from poultry production processes is accounted for in the context of poultry fat 

production; poultry fat accounts for 0.1 % of the inputs to these processes.176F

177 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Electricity and #2 diesel oil for a generator are among 

the energy requirements for manufacturing. Steam is generated from a 74.6 kW (100 hp) boiler, 

for palletizing and heating the finished product, for use of a scrubber, and for dust control. 

Approximately 472 MJ (131 kWh) and 0.04 m3

 (10 gal) of diesel are required to produce one ton 

 177 World Bank Group, “Meat Processing and Rendering,” (World Bank, July 1998). Found at: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/PPAH/$File/65_meat.pdf. 

Functional Unit of

Fertilizer

Truck

Transport to 

sit

MicroStart

60

Production

Poultry litter 

production

MicroStart 60 Fertilizer

Poultry fat 

production 

Process

Energy

Raw Material

transport
 

231

(2 000 lb) of fertilizer. Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. 

LCI Database. Diesel fuel production data comes from the U.S. LCI Database, as does a portion 

of the data used to represent its combustion in a boiler. Data for some of the diesel emissions is 

provided directly by Perdue AgriRecycle, and is included in the BEES model as follows.

Table 3.129: Microstart 60 Manufacturing Emissions 

Air Emission g/kg (lb/ton) 

Nitrogen Oxides 1.24 (2.48) 

Carbon Dioxide 1.61 (3.21) 

Sulfur Dioxide 1.61 (3.21) 

Particulates (unspecified) 1.23 (2.45) 

Ammonia 0.48 (0.95) 

Transportation. The raw litter is transported an average of 120 km (75 mi) and the poultry fat 

161 km (100 mi) to Perdue AgriRecycle’s facility. 

Water Effluents. About 10 tanker loads of water effluents per week are generated from 

manufacturing Microstart 60TM. However, this water is beneficially applied on land for 

irrigation, so is not modeled as a wastewater or as specific water effluents. 

Transportation 

Truck and rail are both used to ship Microstart 60TM to customers located across the United 

States. The transportation distance is modeled as a variable of the BEES system, with burdens 

shared equally by truck and rail. 

Installation 

Any burdens that may arise from on-site application of fertilizer are not accounted for in BEES. 

Use 

The nitrogen in the fertilizer is released over a three-year period. Microstart 60TM is fully 

biodegradable. 

End of Life 

There are no end of life burdens for this product since it is fully consumed during use, 

eliminating the need for waste management. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 75Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

World Bank Group, “Meat Processing and Rendering,” Pollution Prevention and Abatement 

Handbook (World Bank, July 1998). Found at: 

76Hhttp://lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/PPAH/$File/65_meat.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

Joe Koch, Perdue AgriRecycle (2005) 
 

232

3.17.2 Four All Seasons Fertilizer 

Four All Seasons is a fertilizer composed of corn products, soybean products, and animal byproducts with a Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potassium (NPK) ratio of 10-1-1. According to the 

manufacturer, it can be used as a substitute for certain petroleum-based fertilizers: for every two 

applications of the petroleum-based product, only one application of Four All Seasons is 

necessary. 

For the BEES system, the functional unit for fertilizers is applying 10 kg (22 lb) nitrogen per 

acre for a period of ten years. A typical application of Four All Seasons is approximately 489 kg 

per hectare (436 lb per acre). Since nitrogen continues to be released in the second year, 

fertilizer use per acre, per year, is 132 kg (290 lb), assuming the application lasts 1.5 years. To 

achieve a 10 kg (22 lb) nitrogen per acre requirement, however, this amount is scaled down to 

100 kg (220 lb) of fertilizer per acre per year.17F

178 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

G2060B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

 178 While this may not be the manufacturer’s suggested rate of use for this product, an adjustment was made to 

enable comparison of BEES fertilizers on a functionally equivalent performance basis. 
 

233

Figure 3.55: Four All Seasons Fertilizer System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Four All Seasons is composed of several animal- and vegetable-based products and byproducts. 

Animal blood meal. Production of animal blood meal is based on European data for 

slaughterhouse residue production.178F

179 

Dry distiller grain. Production of this product constituent is based on the dry milling process, in 

which the grain is a coproduct of ethanol. Various sources are used to generate data for the dry 

milling process.179F

180 

 

Corn syrup. This constituent is based on wet milling processes, and modeled with data from 

several sources.180F

181

Soybean meal. Data for this product constituent is based on data from the National Renewable 

 179 Nielsen, H., 2.-0 LCA Consultants, July 2003. Found at: http://www.lcafood.dk. 180 Graboski, Michael S., (National Corn Growers Association, August 2002); Shapouri, H., "The 2001 Net 

Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol" (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

“Grain Elevators and Processes,” Volume I: Section 9.9.1, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

(Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003). Found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s0909-1.pdf. 181 Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, July 2003); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 

January 1995). Found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf. 

Functional Unit of

Fertilizer

Truck

Transport to 

sit

Four All 

Seasons 

Production

Blood meal 

production

Four All Seasons Fertilizer

Soybean 

meal 

production 

Dried distiller

grain 

production 

Corn syrup 

production 

Process

Energy

Raw Material

transport

Soybean

Production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Corn

Production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

234

Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) LCA study of biodiesel use in an urban bus.18F

182 

 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Electricity and steam are used to produce Four All 

Seasons fertilizer. Four All Seasons provided site data for the amount of each in dollars per ton 

of fertilizer produced. The Table below translates this data into energy requirements for the 

production process. Natural gas is assumed to produce the steam. 

Table 3.130: Four All Seasons Energy Requirements 

Energy Carrier Quantity per kg 

Electricity182F

183 0.065 MJ (0.018 kWh) 

Steam183F

184 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) 

Transportation. The corn products are transported approximately 16 km (10 mi) to the Four All 

Seasons facility, and the soybean and blood meal products are transported approximately 97 km 

(60 mi) to the facility. 

Solid Waste. Any solid wastes from manufacturing are reused in the system, so no wastes need 

to be modeled. 

Transportation 

A truck is assumed to transport the fertilizer to point of use, and the distance it travels is modeled 

as a variable in the BEES system. 

Installation 

Any burdens that may arise from on-site application of fertilizer are not accounted for in BEES. 

Use 

The nitrogen in the fertilizer is assumed to be released over a 1.5 year period. Four All Seasons 

fertilizer is fully biodegradable. 

End of Life 

There are no end of life burdens for this product since it is fully consumed during use, 

eliminating the need for waste management. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

 182 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 183 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iowa's 2002 average price of electricity. Found at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity. The 2002 price corresponds to the date for which the manufacturer 

supplied data. 184 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iowa's 2004 average price of industrial natural gas. Found at: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PIN_DMcf_a.htm. The 2004 price corresponds to the date 

for which the manufacturer supplied data. 
 

235

Golden, CO. Found at: 7Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Graboski, Michael S., Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol (National Corn 

Growers Association, August 2002). 

Shapouri, H., "The 2001 net energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol" (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2004). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Grain Elevators and Processes,” Volume I: Section 

9.9.1, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003). Found at: 

78Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s0909-1.pdf. 

Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving 

opportunities for the corn wet milling industry, LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, July 2003). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: 

79Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Delayne Johnson, Four All Seasons (2005) 

3.18 Transformer Oil 

3.18.1 Generic Mineral Transformer Oil 

Mineral oil-based transformer oil can be made from either naphtha or paraffin. Since the 

naphthenic-based mineral oil carries a larger market share, it is used as the mineral oil base for 

the product in BEES.184F

185 The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be 

viewed by opening the file G4010B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The figure below shows the elements of mineral oil-based transformer oil production. 

 185 2001 telephone conversation with United Power Services, an independent transformer oil testing laboratory. 
 

236

Functional Unit of

Transformer Oil

Truck

Transport

Crude Oil

Refining

Electricity

Production

Domestic

production

Propane

Production

Natural

Gas

Production

Truck

Transport

(Crude Oil)

Mineral Oil-Based

Transformer Oil

Foreign

Production

Train

Transport

(Crude Oil)

Ship

Transport

(Crude Oil)

Diesel

Fuel

Production

Coal

Production

Steam

Production

Heavy fuel

Oil

Production

Petroleum

Coke

Production

End-of-Life

Figure 3.56: Mineral Oil-Based Transformer Oil System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Mineral-oil based transformer oil is composed of the materials listed in the Table below. The 

density of the oil is assumed to be 0.864 kg/L.185F

186 

Table 3.131. Mineral-Oil Based Transformer Oil Constituents 

Constituent 

Mass 

(kg/kg oil) 

Naphtha 98 % 

Pour-point depressives and other additives 2 % 

The production of naphtha requires extraction of crude oil and crude oil refining; since naphtha 

is just one of many oil refinery products, only a portion of the inputs and outputs to these 

processes is allocated to naphtha production. Data for these inputs and outputs is based on the 

SimaPro and U.S. LCI Databases, as detailed below. 

Crude Oil Extraction. This production component includes process flows associated with the 

extraction of crude oil from the ground. U.S. LCI Database data used to represent extraction 

from onshore and offshore wells range from the late 1990s to early 2000s. 

Crude Oil Refining into Naphtha. Crude oil refining involves raw material and energy use as 

well as emissions. Crude oil refining is based on an average U.S. refinery. It is assumed that the 

material required by the refinery includes crude oil and other petroleum-based feedstocks, 

purchased energy inputs, and process catalysts. 

 186.From http://www.shell-lubricants.com/Electrical/diala_hfx.html and 

http://www.camd.lsu.edu/msds/t/transformer_oil.htm. 
 

237

Crude oil refineries draw much of their energy requirements from the crude oil stream in the 

form of still gas and catalyst coke as shown in the Table below. Additional energy requirements 

and process needs are fulfilled by the other inputs listed in the Table.186F

187

Table 3.132. U.S. Average Refinery Energy Use 

Energy Carrier Annual Quantity 

(MJ)

Still Gas 1.52E+12 

Catalyst Coke 5.14E+11 

Natural Gas 7.66E+11 

Coal 3.27E+09 

Steam 3.8E+10 

Electricity 1.43E+11 

Propane (C3H8, kg) 6.21E+10 

Diesel Oil (kg) 3.16E+09 

Heavy Fuel Oil 6.13E+10 

Coke 1.77E+10 

Other 8.8E+09 

The emissions and energy requirements associated with the production of these fuels are 

accounted for. Emissions are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AP-42 emission 

factors. 

Allocation. Crude oil refineries produce a number of different petroleum products from crude 

oil. The method for allocating total refinery energy use and total refinery emissions to the 

production of naphtha is complicated by the fact that the refinery product mix is variable, both 

among refineries and even with time for a given integrated refinery. The following method is 

used to allocate refinery flows to naphtha production: 

1. Calculate the percentage of total refinery energy use by refinery process. 

2. Calculate naphtha’s share of each process’s energy consumption. 

3. For each refinery process, multiply the corresponding results from steps 1 and 2 to get the 

percentage of total refinery energy use allocated to naphtha refining 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements

After producing naphtha, pour-point depressives and other additives such as antioxidants are 

added to give the transformer oil the properties it needs. The specifics for these additives can not 

be reported because they are confidential, but their production data come from the SimaPro 

database. The assumed energy requirement for producing the transformer oil is given in the 

 187 Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 1994, Report No. DOE/EIA-0340(94)/1, May 

1995. 
 

238

Table below.187F

188

Table 3.133. Energy Requirement for Mineral-Oil Based Transformer Oil Production 

Requirement 

Quantity (per kg 

oil) 

Production Energy 1.6 MJ (0.44 kWh) 

Transportation 

Trucking is the mode of transport representing transportation from the transformer oil production 

plant to the transformer to be filled at the point of use. The transportation distance is modeled as 

a variable of the BEES system. Only trucking is modeled, and not pipeline transportation, since 

transformer oil is a specialty petroleum product with a tiny market as compared to other 

petroleum products. As a result, pipeline transportation burdens allocated to transformer oil are 

assumed to be insignificant. 

Use 

The amount of oil used in a transformer depends on the size of the transformer. A relatively 

small-sized (1 000 kV•

A) transformer is assumed, which requires about 1.89 m3 (500 gal) of 

fluid to cool. It is assumed that the use phase of the transformer oil lasts the lifetime of the 

transformer, approximately 30 years. Included in the modeling is the electricity required to 

recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests indicate the need. Reconditioning is 

assumed to occur every five years.18F

189 

End of Life

With periodic reconditioning of transformer oil during the 30-year life of the transformer, the oil 

can be further reconditioned and reused in another transformer at end of life. This is assumed to 

be the case; none of the product is landfilled. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 80Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

3.18.2 Generic Silicone Transfer Oil 

Silicone-based transformer fluid is a synthetic transformer oil composed primarily of 

dimethylsiloxane polymers, and follows a very different series of production steps than does 

mineral oil-based transformer oil. The detailed environmental performance data for this product 

may be viewed by opening the file G4010C.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES 

 188 This data is based on confidential energy requirement data gathered for biobased transformer oil production 

(summer 2005). It is used in the absence of more representative manufacturing energy information for this product. 189 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 

website’s Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document, 

http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist_pub.html . Energy information on reconditioning was provided during 

telephone conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001. 
 

239

software. 

Flow Diagram 

The figure below shows the elements of silicone transformer fluid production.

Functional Unit

of SiliconeBased Fluid

Truck

Transport

Silicone-Based

Transformer Fluid

End-of-Life

Silicone

Transformer

Fluid Prod.

Dimethylsiloxane

Production

Energy

Production

Figure 3.57. Silicone-Based Transformer Oil System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

While silicone-based fluid is produced both in the United States and abroad, the only publiclyavailable data is European. European data is used to model the main component of the product, 

cyclical siloxane.189F

190 

Manufacturing 

The production of dimethylsiloxane starts with the production of dimethylchlorosilane using 

chloromethane and silicon. Dimethylchlorosilane undergoes hydrolysis reactions to produce 

dimethylsilanediol, which undergoes another series of hydrolysis reactions to condense into 

cyclical siloxane. The average density of the fluid is assumed to be 0.9565 kg/L.190F

191 

 190 Silicon production: JL Vignes, Données Industrielles, économiques, géographiques sur des produits 

chimiques (minéraux et organiques) Metaux et Matériaux, pp. 134, ed. 1994, Union des Physiciens; 

Dimethylchlorosilane production: "Silicones", Rhône-Poulenc département silicones, Techno-Nathan edition, 

Nouvelle Librairie, 1988; Dimethylsilanediol and cyclic siloxane production: Carette, Pouchol (RP Silicones), 

Techniques de l'ingénieur, vol. A 3475, p.3. 191 From http://www.clearcoproducts.com/pdf/msds/specialty/MSDS-STO-50-Transformer-Oil.pdf and 

http://www.dowcorning.com/applications/product_finder/pf_details.asp?l1=008&pg=00000642&prod=01496204&t

ype=PROD. 
 

240

Transportation 

Trucking is the mode of transport used to represent transportation from the transformer oil 

production plant to the transformer to be filled at point of use. The transportation distance is 

modeled as a variable of the BEES system. 

Use

The amount of oil used in a transformer depends on the size of the transformer. A relatively 

small-sized (1 000 kV•A) transformer is assumed, which requires about 1.89 m3 (500 gal) of 

fluid to cool. It is assumed that the use phase of the transformer oil lasts the lifetime of the 

transformer, approximately 30 years. Included in the modeling is the electricity required to 

recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests indicate the need. Reconditioning is 

assumed to occur every five years.19F

192 

End of Life

With periodic reconditioning of silicone-based transformer oil during the 30-year life of the 

transformer, the oil is in good enough condition for half of it to be further reconditioned and 

reused in another transformer. The other half is sent back to the manufacturer for restructuring 

for production into other silicone-based products.192F

193 End-of-life options for transformer oil do not 

include waste disposal, as it is generally a well-maintained product and can be used in other 

applications. Therefore, none of the product is assumed to be landfilled. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 81Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

3.18.3 Cooper Envirotemp FR3 

Envirotemp FR3 Dielectric Coolant is a soy oil-based transformer fluid. A relatively small-sized 

(1 000 kV•

A) transformer is assumed for BEES, which requires about 1.89 m3 (500 gal) of fluid 

to cool. The functional unit for Envirotemp FR3, as for all BEES transformer oils, is the use of 

1.89 m3 (500 gal) of transformer fluid to cool a 1 000 kV·A transformer for a period of 30 years. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

G4010D.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

 192 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 

website’s Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document, 

http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist_pub.html . Energy information on reconditioning was provided during 

telephone conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001. 193 Information from Dow Corning, http://www.dowcorning.com, "Reuse, recycle, or disposal of transformer 

fluid," 2001. 
 

241

Figure 3.58: Envirotemp FR3 Dielectric Coolant System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The main constituent of Envirotemp FR3 is degummed soybean oil, and it contains small 

amounts of other additives, shown in the Table below. 

Table 3.134: Envirotemp FR3 Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Degummed soybean oil 95 

Additives 5 

Data for soybean production comes from the U.S. LCI Database. Production data for soybean oil 

comes from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory LCA study on biodiesel use in an urban 

bus,193F

194 in which degummed soy oil is modeled as the precursor to soy-based biodiesel. Additives 

used in Envirotemp FR3 include a blend of natural esters and methacrylate resins, phenol 

compounds, and coloring. These additives are not specified due to confidentiality concerns, but 

they are included in the model and life cycle data for their production comes from the general 

contents of the SimaPro LCA database. 

 194 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Functional Unit of

Envirotemp End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

Bldg Site

Reprocessing 

Electricity

Envirotemp 

FR3 

Production

Degummed 

soy oil 

production

Envirotemp FR3 Dielectric Coolant

Production of 

Additives

Reprocessing elec’ity

Process

Energy

Raw Material

transport

Soybean

Production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

242

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Steam from natural gas and electricity are used to heat 

and blend a 22.71 m3

 (6 000 gal) batch of Envirotemp FR3. The Table below presents the 

quantities of each type of energy per gal of product (1 gal weighs 3.2 kg). 

Table 3.135: Envirotemp FR3 Manufacturing Energy 

Energy Carrier Quantity per gal 

Electricity 0.216 MJ (0.06 kWh) 

Natural gas 4.43 MJ (4 200 Btu) 

Electricity and natural gas are modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Transportation. Soybean oil is assumed to be transported 322 km (200 mi) to the production 

site. Transportation of additives is assumed to cover 800 km (500 mi) by truck to the 

Envirotemp facility. Transportation data is based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Heavy-duty truck transportation is used to represent transportation from the Envirotemp facility 

to the transformer to be filled at the point of use. The distance traveled is modeled as a variable 

of the BEES system. 

Use 

For BEES, Envirotemp FR3 Dielectric Fluid is used in a transformer with a capacity of 1.89 m3

(500 gal). Any type of transformer oil needs to be reconditioned or reclaimed over the life of the 

transformer: transformer aging, thermal problems, or electrical problems can generate dissolved 

gas, which results in deterioration or contamination of the fluid. Included in the BEES use phase 

modeling is the electricity required to recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests 

indicate the need. Reconditioning is assumed to occur every five years.194F

195 The transformer itself 

is assumed to have a lifetime of 30 years. 

End of Life 

At the end of the 30-year life of the transformer, Envirotemp FR3 is modeled the same as most 

all other transformer oils in BEES: at year 30, Envirotemp is assumed to be further reconditioned 

and reused in another transformer. Included in the end-of-life modeling is the electricity 

required to recondition the oil. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 82Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

 195 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 

website’s Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document, 

http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist3-30. Energy information on reconditioning was provided during telephone 

conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001. 
 

243

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Patrick McShane, Cooper Power Systems (February 2005) 

3.18.4 ABB BIOTEMP 

BIOTEMP, produced by ABB, Inc., is an insulating dielectric fluid used in transformers. 

BIOTEMP is made from various raw vegetable oils, depending on the most ideal market 

conditions at the time. The most common oils used in this product include sunflower, safflower, 

and soybean. BIOTEMP is modeled for BEES assuming use of sunflower oil. 

A relatively small-sized (1 000 kV•

A) transformer is assumed for BEES, which requires about 

1.89 m3

 (500 gal) of fluid to cool. The functional unit for BIOTEMP, as for all BEES 

transformer oils, is the use of 1.89 m3 (500 gal) of transformer fluid to cool a 1 000 kV·A 

transformer for a period of 30 years. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

G4010E.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

244

Figure 3.59: BIOTEMP Transformer Oil System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

BIOTEMP consists of a high oleic vegetable oil, for BEES a sunflower-based oil, and a small 

quantity of antioxidant additives, in the proportions shown below. 

Table 3.136: BIOTEMP Transformer Oil Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

High oleic sunflower oil 98.4 

Antioxidant additives 1.6 

Functional Unit of

BIOTEMP® End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

BldgSite

Reprocessing 

Electricity

BIOTEMP®

Trans. Oil 

Production

Process

Energy

Sunflower oil

Production

BIOTEMP® Transformer Oil

Reprocessing elec’ity

Antioxidant Additives 

Production

Raw Material

transport

Sunflower

Production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Functional Unit of

BIOTEMP End-of-Life

Truck

Transport to

BldgSite

Reprocessing 

Electricity

BIOTEMP

Trans. Oil 

Production

Process

Energy

Sunflower oil

Production

BIOTEMP Transformer Oil

Reprocessing elec’ity

Antioxidant Additives 

Production

Raw Material

transport

Sunflower

Production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

245

Data on high oleic sunflower oil covers both sunflower production and production of the oil from 

sunflower seeds. Sunflower production is modeled as a U.S. average using data aggregated from 

various sources.195F

196

Production of oil from sunflower seeds is modeled based on soybean crushing and crude oil 

production data, adjusted using mass balance information pertaining to sunflowers.196F

197 

The specific antioxidants are phenol- and amine- based, and are not further specified to protect 

manufacturer confidentiality. These are modeled, though, and the life cycle data for the 

production of phenol and amine as base materials in the additives comes from the general 

contents of the SimaPro LCA database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. At manufacturing, energy is used to heat and filter the 

raw vegetable oil, blend in the antioxidants, and run the blended compound through a vacuum 

process. The electricity required for these processes amounts to 1.8 MJ (0.5 kWh) per kilogram 

of product. Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Transportation. Truck transportation to the BIOTEMP facility for sunflower oil is assumed to 

cover 5 230 km (3 250 mi), and for the additives is assumed to cover 1 127 km (700 mi). 

Waste. Manufacturing waste includes spent filter cartridges. Approximately 0.003 kg (0.007 lb) 

of spent cartridges result from 1 kg of BIOTEMP production; this is sent to a landfill. 

Transportation 

Heavy-duty trucking is used to represent transportation from the BIOTEMP production facility 

to the transformer to be filled at the point of use. The transportation distance is modeled as a 

variable of the BEES system. 

Use 

For BEES, BIOTEMP transformer oil is used in a transformer with a capacity of 1.89 m3

 (500 

gal). Any type of transformer oil needs to be reconditioned or reclaimed over the life of the 

transformer: transformer aging, thermal problems, or electrical problems can generate dissolved 

gas, which results in deterioration or contamination of the fluid. Included in the BEES use phase 

modeling is the electricity required to recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests 

indicate the need. Reconditioning is assumed to occur every five years.197F

198 The transformer itself 

 196 Schmierer, J. et al., SF-SV-04 (Sacramento Valley: University of California Cooperative Extension, 2004). 

Found at: http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cost_return_articles/sunflowersv2004.pdf; National Sunflower 

Association, 2005. Found at: http://www.sunflowernsa.com/growers/default.asp?contentID=72; Thomas Jefferson 

Agricultural Institute, Columbia, MO, 2005. Found at: 

http://www.jeffersoninstitute.org/pubs/sunflower.shtml#Fertility; U.S. Geological Survey, “National Totals By Crop 

and Compound: Sunflower,” . Found at: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/crop/sunflower.html; Ontario Ministry of 

Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, “Herbicide recommendations for sunflower,” (November 2002). Found at: 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub75/12sunflo.htm. 197 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 198 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 
 

246

is assumed to have a lifetime of 30 years. 

End of Life 

At the end of the 30-year life of the transformer, BIOTEMP is modeled the same as most other 

transformer oils in BEES: at year 30, BIOTEMP is assumed to be further reconditioned and 

reused in another transformer, with reconditioning electricity included in the end-of-life 

modeling. BIOTEMP is 97 % to 99 % biodegradable. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 83Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Schmierer, J. et al., Sample Costs to Produce Sunflowers for Seed in the Sacramento Valley,

SF-SV-04 (Sacramento Valley: University of California Cooperative Extension, 2004). 

Found at: 84Hhttp://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cost_return_articles/sunflowersv2004.pdf. 

National Sunflower Association, 2005. Found at: 

85Hhttp://www.sunflowernsa.com/growers/default.asp?contentID=72. 

Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute, Columbia, MO, 2005. Found at: 

86Hhttp://www.jeffersoninstitute.org/pubs/sunflower.shtml#Fertility. 

U.S. Geological Survey, “National Totals By Crop and Compound: Sunflower,” National 

Water Quality Assessment Pesticide National Synthesis Project. Found at: 

87Hhttp://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/crop/sunflower.html. 

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, “Herbicide recommendations for 

sunflower,” Other Field Crops: Sunflowers: Introduction (November 2002). Found at: 

8Hhttp://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub75/12sunflo.htm. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Don Cherry, ABB, Inc. (March 2005) 

3.18.5 Generic Biobased Transformer Oil 

Biobased transformer oil is relatively new to the market. Results of independent tests on the 

performance of biobased transformer oil are comparable to results for other transformer oils, 

such as the mineral-based and silicone-based fluids in BEES. 

Biobased transformer oil is produced from vegetable oil feedstock. The detailed environmental 

performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file G4010F.DBF under the 

File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

 

website’s Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document, 

http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist3-30. Energy information on reconditioning was provided during telephone 

conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001. 
 

247

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram in the figure below shows the elements of biobased transformer oil production, 

as it is currently modeled in BEES. 

Figure 3.60: Generic Biobased Transformer Oil System Boundaries 

Raw Materials

Generic biobased transformer oil is composed of the materials listed in the Table below. 

Table 3.137. Generic Biobased Transformer Oil Constituents 

Constituent 

Mass 

(kg/kg oil) 

Biobased oil (soybean and/or other vegetable 

oils) 

96.5 % 

Antioxidants and other additives 3.5 % 

Production data for converting soybeans to oil198F

199 is updated with more recent U.S. LCI Database 

data on soybean growing and harvesting. While fertilizer and agrichemical use, and some energy 

use for farming equipment, are similar in amount to the older data, electricity use is different 

(slightly higher), as is natural gas use. There are also additional inputs represented by the new 

data, including lime. 

Manufacturing

After producing biobased oil, antioxidants and other additives are added as enhancements. These 

 199 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Functional unit of biobased 

fluid

Truck

Transport

Biobased Transformer Fluid

End-of-Life

Biobased

Transformer

Fluid Prod.

Biobased oil and additives 

production (including energy 

and materials)

Production of 

manufacturing 

energy
 

248

additives are confidential so could not be reported, but their production data come from the 

SimaPro database. The energy requirement for producing transformer oil is listed in the Table 

below.19F

200

Table 3.138. Biobased Transformer Oil Manufacturing Energy 

Requirement Quantity (per kg oil) 

Production Energy 1.6 MJ (0.44 kWh) 

Transportation 

Trucking is the mode of transport used to represent shipment of the product from the transformer 

oil production plant to the transformer to be filled at the point of use. The transportation distance 

is modeled as a variable of the BEES system. 

Use 

For BEES, generic biobased transformer oil is used in a transformer with a capacity of 1.89 m3

(500 gal). Any type of transformer oil needs to be reconditioned or reclaimed over the life of the 

transformer: transformer aging, thermal problems, or electrical problems can generate dissolved 

gas, which results in deterioration or contamination of the fluid. Included in the BEES use phase 

modeling is the electricity required to recondition the oil when dissolved gas analysis tests 

indicate the need. Reconditioning is assumed to occur every five years.20F

201 The transformer itself 

is assumed to have a lifetime of 30 years. 

End of Life 

At the end of the 30-year life of the transformer, generic biobased transformer oil is modeled the 

same as most other transformer oils in BEES: at year 30, the product is assumed to be further 

reconditioned and reused in another transformer, with reconditioning electricity included in the 

end-of-life modeling. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 89Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

 200 This data is based on confidential energy requirement data gathered from a biobased transformer oil producer 

(summer 2005). 201 Information on dissolved gas analysis testing can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 

website’s Facilities Instructions Standards and Techniques (FIST) document, 

http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist3-30. Energy information on reconditioning was provided during telephone 

conversations with S.D. Myers, a transformer and transformer fluid contractor, November 2001. 
 

249

3.19 Carpet Cleaners 

3.19.1 Racine Industries HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System 

Racine Industries’ HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System uses a Green Seal®-certified, biobased 

cleaning compound. The HOST cleaning compound is a mixture of moisture, cleaning agents, 

and recycled organic fibers that work as tiny sponges to absorb dirt from the carpet. The 

compound is worked through the carpet with a brushing machine when working on large areas, 

or with a hand brush or one’s fingers when working on spots. The soiled compound is then 

vacuumed, leaving a clean, dry carpet. The used product, being dry, does not require wastewater 

treatment; it can be composted. HOST is used to clean commercial and residential carpets, 

including those comprised of wool and other natural carpet fibers (it is also used to clean grout). 

Use of this dry system reduces water use and avoids the energy and time associated with use of 

dehumidifiers or air conditioners to dry carpets cleaned with wet systems. According to the 

manufacturer, the HOST System also removes mold, dust mites, and allergens and is 

manufactured in an EPA-registered facility (074202-WI-001). 

For the BEES system, the function defined for carpet cleaning is cleaning 92.9 m2

 (1 000 ft2) of 

carpet, which amounts to use of 4.25 kg (9.37 lb) of HOST. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

250

Figure 3.61: HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

HOST is made up of the materials shown in the Table below. 

Table 3.139: HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Water 63 

Processed organic fiber 31 

Other material inputs 6 

Processed organic fiber. Processed organic fiber (POF) is comprised of 100 % pre-consumer 

waste from industrial processing. Because this fiber would otherwise be a waste material, no 

impacts from fiber production or fiber-based product production are accounted for. However, 

transportation of the fiber to the Racine plant, as well as energy requirements for manufacturing 

the fiber into usable material in HOST, are accounted for in BEES, as described below under 

Manufacturing. 
 

251

Other material inputs 

Emulsion Polymer. Production data for methyl methacrylate, used to represent the emulsion 

polymer, comes from publicly available European data.201F

202 

Citrus extract. For production purposes, this extract from citrus rind is considered a coproduct 

of orange production. It is assumed to comprise 0.5 % of the total mass of useful orange 

products, which include orange juice, cattle peel feed, and alcohol. Orange production data 

comes from a variety of sources.20F

203,

203F

204,

204F

205

Other ingredients. Data for remaining ingredients comes from several sources, including a 

United Nations publication on fertilizer production,205F

206 elements of the U.S. LCI and SimaPro 

databases, engineering calculations, and a European life-cycle inventory containing late 1990s 

data on European detergent production.206F

207 A solvent is modeled as naphtha, whose production 

data comes from petroleum refining process data found in a National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory LCA study on biodiesel use in an urban bus,207F

208 in which petroleum-based diesel fuel 

is compared to biodiesel. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. A total of 0.022 MJ (0.06 kWh) electricity is used in 

processing HOST, and covers the following processes: 

• Blending the constituents 

• Conveying and blending the liquid and POF 

• Fill line packaging 

• Lighting, controls, and ventilation associated with producing HOST 

Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average grid, and data for electricity are from the U.S. LCI 

Database. Natural gas is required to process the organic fiber and amounts to 1.2 MJ (0.33 kWh) 

per kilogram of HOST. Data are from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Processing Materials. A sanitizer is used to sanitize process equipment. Water is used to rinse 

the blending tank and to clean and sanitize the POF processing and conveyance system and 

filling line. Quantities of these ancillary materials are reported in the Table below. 

 202 Boustead, I., “Report 14: Polymethyl Methacrylate,” (Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, 

September 1997), pp. 27-29. Found at: http://www.apme.org. 203 National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005. Found at: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/index2.jsp. 204 Reposa, J. Jr. and Pandit, A., "Inorganic Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment Losses from a Citrus Grove 

during Stormwater Runoff” (Melbourne, FL: Civil Engineering Program, Florida Institute of Technology). Found 

at: http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/023PLreposacitrus.pdf. 205 Extrapolation of data on agricultural production in the U.S. LCI Database. 206 International Fertilizer Industry Association, “Part 1: the Fertilizer Industry's Manufacturing Processes and 

Environmental Issues,” ISBN: 92-807-1640-9 (Paris: United Nations Environment Programme, 1998). 207 Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 208 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 
 

252

Table 3.140: HOST Processing Materials 

Material Quantity per kg 

Sanitizer 0.015 g (0.0005 oz) 

Water 0.0076 L (0.002 gal) 

Solid Waste. Some waste is generated during processing, and includes quality assurance 

samples, filling line start-up waste, and plastic container waste, all of which amount to 0.003 kg 

(0.008 lb) per kg product. A portion of this waste is landfilled, while a portion is stored as 

samples. 

Transportation. The transportation distance for all the, constituents besides organic fiber and 

sanitizer is approximately 80 km (50 mi). The fiber is transported about 563 km (350 mi) to the 

facility, and sanitizer is supplied locally (within 8 km, or 5 mi). All materials are transported by 

diesel truck, whose burdens are modeled based on data in the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Product transport to the customer via diesel truck is a variable in BEES, and is modeled based on 

the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

A total of 4.25 kg (9.37 lb) of HOST are needed to clean 92.9 m2 (1 000 ft2) of carpet. HOST is 

distributed on the floor, brushed, and then vacuumed away. Electricity use associated with 

brushing the cleaner through the carpet and vacuuming is obtained by averaging the cleaning 

time based on use of the following three types of vacuum cleaners, for an overall average of 12.5 

min per 92.9 m2 (per 1 000 ft2):208F

209 

• Upright Vacuum (from 30 cm to 61 cm in width, or from 12 in to 24 in) 

• Large Area Push-Type Vacuum (66 cm to 91 cm, or 26 in to 36 in) 

• Backpack Vacuum & Orifice Carpet Tool (30 cm to 61 cm, or 12 in to 24 in) 

Assuming a 1 500 W (2.012 hp) motor and taking into account the first stage of brushing and the 

second stage of vacuuming, the electricity required to clean 92.9 m2

 (1 000 ft2) is 135 MJ (37.6 

kWh), or 32 MJ (8.8 kWh) per kilogram of HOST.209F

210 Electricity is modeled based on the U.S. 

average electric grid from the U.S. LCI Database. 

End of Life 

The contents of the vacuum filter bag or hopper are typically emptied into a waste bin for 

landfilling. The mass of the cleaner is accounted for in the landfill modeling for this product. 

While some residential and commercial consumers compost vacuum waste, this is not considered 

in the BEES product model. 

 209 International Sanitary Supply Associations (ISSA), “Cleaning Applications and Tasks,” The Official 358 

Cleaning Times, 1999. 210 This assumes the brushing stage uses the same quantity of energy as the vacuuming stage. 
 

253

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 90Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Boustead, I., “Report 14: Polymethyl Methacrylate,” Eco-profiles of the European Plastics 

Industry (Association of Plastics Manufacturers of Europe, September 1997), pp. 27-29. 

Found at: 91Hhttp://www.apme.org. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005. Found at: 

92Hhttp://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/index2.jsp. 

Reposa, J. Jr. and Pandit, A., "Inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses from a 

citrus grove during stormwater runoff” (Melbourne, FL: Civil Engineering Program, Florida 

Institute of Technology, date unknown). Found at: 

93Hhttp://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/023PLreposacitrus.pdf. 

International Fertilizer Industry Association, “Part 1: the Fertilizer Industry's Manufacturing 

Processes and Environmental Issues,” Mineral Fertilizer Production and the Environment, 

ISBN: 92-807-1640-9 (Paris: United Nations Environment Programme, 1998). 

Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of Detergent Ingredients, 

Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Industry Contacts 

Deborah Lema (2006) 

3.20 Floor Stripper 

3.20.1 Nano Green Floor Stripper 

Nano Green mastic remover and floor stripper are two applications in the Nano Green Sciences, 

Inc. line of janitorial and sanitation products. Nano Green is biobased and biodegradable. It is 

extracted and blended from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved food stocks, 

principally corn, grains, soybeans, and potatoes, and, according the manufacturer, its cleaning 

capabilities have been shown to be as effective as those of almost any detergent, cleaner, or soap 

in the marketplace today. 

Nano Green falls into two BEES product categories: mastic remover and floor stripper. For the 

BEES system, the function of mastic remover is removing 9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) of mastic under 

vinyl or similar flooring over a period of 50 years. The function of floor stripper in BEES is 

removing three layers of wax and one layer of sealant from 9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) of hardwood 

flooring. 

 

The detailed environmental performance data for these products may be viewed by opening the 

file H1012A.DBF, for the floor stripper, and the file J1010B.DBF, for the mastic remover, under 

the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 
 

254

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of Nano Green as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.62: Nano Green System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

The materials contained in Nano Green are listed in the Table below. Each is found on the FDAapproved Everything Added to Food in the United States (EAFUS) list. 

Table 3.141: Nano Green Product Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Corn-based amino acids 16 

Corn-based nonionic surfactants 32 

Tetracetic acid (potato based chelating 

agent) 

16 

Grain-based organic alcohol 16 

Tall oil fatty acid 2 

Corn-based amino acids. No data are available for the production of corn-based amino acids 

per se; corn starch is used as a surrogate since amino acids are often produced via fermentation, 

with corn starch as the raw material. Corn starch is assumed to be produced by the wet milling 

Functional Unit of

Nano Green

Truck

Transport to 

User

Nano Green 

Production

Corn-based 

amino acids

Nano Green Mastic Remover and Floor Stripper

Corn-based 

nonionic 

surfactants

Tall oil fatty 

acid 

End-of-life

Process

Energy

Raw material

transport

Potato

Production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Potato based 

chelating 

agent

Grain-based 

organic 

alcohol

Corn 

production

Wood 

production

Corn 

production

Corn 

production
 

255

process, with ethanol and other coproducts allocated away. Data on wet milling comes from a 

study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.210F

211 Data on particulate matter emissions comes 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AP-42 emissions factors.21F

212 Corn growing and 

production data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Corn-based nonionic surfactant. Nano Green uses a corn-based nonionic surfactant; in the 

absence of available data on its production, anionic surfactants are used as a surrogate. 

Specifically, production data for palm kernel oil (PKO) and coconut oil (CNO) based alkyl 

polyglocosides (APG) from a European life cycle study of detergent surfactants production are 

averaged.21F

213 Since corn content is substantial, comprising 33 % and 36 % of the material 

requirements for APG-CNO and APG-PKO, respectively, these surfactants are judged to be 

viable surrogates. 

Potato-based chelating agent. Potato starch is used as a surrogate for the tetracetic acid 

constituent, with data for its production coming from the Danish LCA food database.213F

214 Data for 

potato production comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Grain-based organic alcohol. Corn ethanol is assumed to be the basis for the grain-based 

organic alcohol constituent. Ethanol production is modeled using an average of dry and wet 

milling operations.214F

215 

 

Tall oil fatty acid. Data for tall oil fatty acid is based mainly on data for tall oil alkyd, found in a 

Finnish LCA study on coated exterior wood cladding.215F

216 The tall oil fatty acid is modeled as 

comprising 95 % of the mass of inputs and outputs as it is a precursor to the alkyd. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Energy is used in Nano Green production primarily to 

blend the product using a 0.5 hp motor. Blending 3.785 m3

 (1 000 gal) for approximately four h 

amounts to 0.002 hp·h/gal. Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the 

U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. All materials are transported by diesel truck approximately 805 km (500 mi) to 

 211 Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, July 2003). 212 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: Compilation 

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995). Found 

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf. 213 Stalmans, H., et al., “European Life-Cycle Inventory for Detergent Surfactants Production,” , Vol. 32, No. 2, 

1995, pp. 84-109. 214 Danish LCA Food Database, found at: http://www.lcafood.dk/processes/industry/potatoflourproduction.htm. 215 Graboski, Michael S., (National Corn Growers Association, August 2002); Shapouri, H., "The 2001 Net 

Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol" (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

“Grain Elevators and Processes,” Volume I: Section 9.9.1, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

(Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003). Found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s0909-1.pdf. Wet milling data sources are cited under Corn-based 

Amino Acids. 216 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, “Environmental Impact of Coated Exterior Wooden Cladding,” 

1999. 
 

256

the manufacturing facility. Diesel trucking is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Diesel trucking is used to transport the product from the Nano Green facility to the building site, 

and is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. The trucking distance is a variable in BEES. 

Use 

When Nano Green is used as a mastic remover, approximately 0.002 m3 (0.5 gal) is needed to 

remove 18.6 m2

 (200 ft2) of mastic from the floor. It is assumed that Nano Green is applied twice 

to remove mastic over a period of 50 years. The same amount of Nano Green is required to 

remove several layers of wax and sealant from 9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) of hardwood flooring, but it is 

assumed that the floor is completely stripped only once over the 50 year BEES use period. Other 

data on use are not available. 

End of Life 

The mass of Nano Green at end of life is accounted for in the landfill modeling for this product. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 94Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving 

Opportunities for the Corn Wet Milling Industry, LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, July 2003). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: 

95Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf. 

Stalmans, H., et al., “European Life-Cycle Inventory for Detergent Surfactants Production,” 

Tenside, Surfactants, Detergents, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1995, pp. 84-109. 

Danish LCA Food Database, found at: 

96Hhttp://www.lcafood.dk/processes/industry/potatoflourproduction.htm. 

Graboski, Michael S., Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol (National Corn 

Growers Association, August 2002). 

Shapouri, H., "The 2001 net energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol" (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2004). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Grain Elevators and Processes,” Volume I: Section 

9.9.1, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003). Found at: 

97Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s0909-1.pdf. 

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, “Environmental Impact of Coated Exterior 

Wooden Cladding,” 1999. 

Industry Contacts 

Alvin Bojar, Nano Green Sciences, Inc. (2005) 
 

257

3.21 Glass Cleaner 

3.21.1 Spartan Green Solutions Glass Cleaner 

Spartan Chemical Company, Inc. Green Solutions Glass Cleaner is formulated to penetrate, 

emulsify, and remove dirt with minimal effort. Green Solutions contains no fragrances, dyes, or 

VOC. It is Green Seal-certified and it meets Green Seal’s environmental standard for industrial 

and institutional cleaners based on its reduced human and aquatic toxicity and reduced smog 

production potential. 

For the BEES system, 3.785 m3 (1,000 gal) of ready-to-use glass cleaner is studied.216F

217 Green 

Solutions is produced in concentrated form and diluted at the point of use. For 3.785 m3 (1 000 

gal) of ready-to-use Green Solutions, 56 kg (120 lb) of concentrate is used. The detailed 

environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

H1013B.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

 217 While it is unrealistic to assume a need for such a large quantity at a given time, this amount is used so that 

the environmental impacts for the product are large enough to be reported in the BEES results. 
 

258

Figure 3.63: Green Solutions Glass Cleaner System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Green Solutions glass cleaner is comprised of the following materials. 

 

Table 3.142: Green Solutions Glass Cleaner Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%)217F

218

Water 94 

Polyethylene glycol 1-5 

Alkyl polyglycoside 

surfactant 

1-5 

Ethoxylated alcohol 1-5 

Sodium carbonate 1-5 

Citric acid 1-5 

A portion of the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is corn-based and assumed to be corn ethanol, for 

which production data is based on an average of wet- and dry-milling processes. Data for 

 218 Some mass fractions are presented as ranges to protect confidential information. 

Functional Unit of

Glass Cleaner

Truck

Transport to

Use

Green 

Solutions 

Glass Cleaner 

production

Process 

energy

Spartan Green Solutions Glass Cleaner

Raw material 

transport

Corn 

production

Dilution

water

Sodium 

carbonate 

production

Citric acid 

production

Alkyl 

polyglycoside

Water

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Polyethylene 

glycol 

production

Ethoxylated

alcohol 

production
 

259

production of corn comes from the U.S. LCI Database. Process inputs and outputs for ethanol 

from dry milling come from two ethanol studies.218F

219,

219F

220 Wet milling data comes from a corn wet 

milling study addressing energy efficiency.20F

221 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AP42 emissions factors provide air emissions data on wet and dry milling.21F

222,

2F

223

Polyethylene glycol is assumed to be a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. Data 

for these substances comes from a source with late 1990s European production data23F

224 and from 

elements of the SimaPro and U.S. LCI Databases. An LCA study on detergents24F

225 provides the 

data for alcohol ethoxylate, which is used to produce the ethoxylated alcohol in the product. 

The production of sodium carbonate is based on the U.S. LCI Database module for soda ash. 

Citric acid is not included in the model in the absence of available data. Overall, however, the 

small quantity of citric acid use is judged to contribute little to the raw materials burdens for the 

product. 

 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Product manufacturing consists of a simple chemical 

blending operation requiring virtually no heat or pressure. Items in the formulation are drum or 

bulk storage materials that are added to the open top mixing vessel via an air-operated drum lift 

or air actuated valve. The batching water is used at ambient temperature so no heating is 

required. The quantity of electricity required to blend one gal is 0.0025 MJ (0.0007 kWh). 

Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation. Materials are transported varying distances ranging from 14 km (9 mi) to 885 

km (550 mi) to the plant. Materials are transported by diesel truck, which is modeled based on 

the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

All final product shipping occurs via diesel semi-truck to approximately 450 points of 

distribution around the country, averaging a distance of 1 207 km (750 mi) to the customer. This 

default transportation distance may be adjusted by the BEES user. Diesel trucking is modeled 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

According to user directions, two ounces of concentrated cleaner are used per gal of water, a 

 219 Graboski, Michael S., (National Corn Growers Association, August 2002). 220 Shapouri, H., "The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol" (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004). 221 Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, July 2003). 222 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Grain Elevators and Processes,” Volume I: Section 9.9.1 

(Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003). Found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s0909-1.pdf. 223 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7 (Washington, DC: US 

Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-

7.pdf. 224 European Commission, “Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Large Volume Organic 

Chemical Industry” , February 2002. 225 Dall’Acqua, S., et al. , Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 
 

260

dilution ratio of 1:64. The density of Green Solutions glass cleaner is 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) per gal. As 

a result, 0.067 m3

 (17.6 gal) of water are used per kilogram of concentrate. For 3.785 m3 (1 000 

gallons) of ready to use glass cleaner, 56 kg (120 lb) of the concentrate are used. Other data on 

use, such as application rates and frequencies, are neither available nor uniform among users. 

End of Life 

No end-of-life modeling is required, since the product is fully consumed during use. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 98Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving 

opportunities for the corn wet milling industry, LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, July 2003). 

Graboski, Michael S., Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol (National Corn 

Growers Association, August 2002). 

Shapouri, H., "The 2001 net energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol" (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2004). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: 

9Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Grain Elevators and Processes,” Volume I: Section 

9.9.1, AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003). Found at: 

10Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s0909-1.pdf. 

European Commission, “Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Large 

Volume Organic Chemical Industry”, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 

February 2002. 

Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of Detergent Ingredients, 

Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 

Industry Contacts 

Bill Schalitz (2005) 
 

261

3.22 Bath and Tile Cleaner 

3.22.1 Spartan Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner 

Spartan Chemical Company, Inc. Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner is a natural acid toilet, 

urinal, and shower room cleaner. It contains 8 % natural citric acid, a hard water scale remover 

that cleans soap scum, water spots, and light rust from toilet bowls, urinals, and shower room 

walls and floors. Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner is Green Seal-certified and it meets Green 

Seal’s environmental standard for industrial and institutional cleaners. 

For the BEES system, 3.8 L (1 gal) of ready-to-use cleaner is studied. The detailed 

environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

H1014A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.64: Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner is comprised of the following materials. 

 

Functional Unit of

Restroom Cleaner

Truck

Transport to

Use

Green 

Solutions 

Restroom 

Cleaner 

production

Process 

energy

Spartan Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner

Raw material 

transport

Corn 

production

Citric acid 

production

Xanathan gum 

production

Water

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Ethoxylated

alcohol 

production

Sugar cane 

production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

262

Table 3.143: Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Water 91 

Citric acid 8 

Ethoxylated alcohol 0.1 to 1 

Xanathan gum 0.1 to 1 

In general, citric acid may be manufactured from several renewable natural resources: citrus 

fruits, pineapple waste, or crude sugars. The citric acid in this product is modeled as coming 

from molasses from sugar cane. Citric acid process data comes from a plant in the United States 

that produces approximately 10 million kg (22 million lb) of crystalline citric acid per year.25F

226 

Both sugar cane production data and data representing molasses extraction from the sugar cane 

come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.26F

227,

27F

228 

An LCA study on detergents28F

229 provides the data for alcohol ethoxylate. Xanathan gum is a 

thickening agent produced naturally by bacteria. For BEES, xanathan gum is assumed to be corn 

sugar based, and as such, corn starch is used as the basis for the sweetener. Corn starch is 

produced by the wet milling process for which data comes from a Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory study.29F

230 Data on particulate matter emissions from wet milling comes from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency AP-42 emissions factors.230F

231 Corn growing and production 

data comes from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Product manufacturing consists of a simple chemical 

blending operation with virtually no heat or pressure involved. Items in the formulation are 

drum or bulk storage materials that are added to the open top mixing vessel via an air-operated 

drum lift or air actuated valve. The batching water is used at ambient temperature so no heating 

is required. The quantity of electricity required to blend one gal of the product is 0.0025 MJ 

(0.0007 kWh). Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI 

Database. 

Transportation. Materials are transported varying distances to the plant, ranging from 14 km (9 

mi) for the ethoxylated alcohol to 805 km (500 mi) for the xanathan gum. Materials are 

transported by diesel truck, which is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

 226 Petrides, Demetri(Intelligen, Inc.), 2001. 227 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, : 

http://ers.usda.gov/Data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/89019/&arc=C; http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/data.htm. 228 Resource Economics Division of the Economic Research Service(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1997). 229 Dall’Acqua, S., et al. , Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 230 Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, July 2003). 231 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7(Washington, DC: US 

Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-

7.pdf. 
 

263

Transportation 

All final product shipping occurs via diesel semi-truck to approximately 450 points of 

distribution around the country, averaging a distance of 1 207 km (750 mi) to the customer. This 

default transportation distance may be adjusted by the BEES user. Diesel trucking is modeled 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

Green Solutions is VOC-free and can be used both "as is" and diluted. According to the 

manufacturer’s customer use data, most of the time it is not diluted; when it is, a 1:10 dilution 

ratio is the average. For BEES, the product is assumed to be used in undiluted form. Other data 

on use, such as application rates and frequencies, are neither available nor uniform among users. 

End of Life 

No end-of-life modeling is required since the product is fully consumed during use. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 10Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Petrides, Demetri, Bioprocess Design (Intelligen, Inc.), 2001. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Sugar and Sweetener Yearbook: 

102Hhttp://ers.usda.gov/Data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/89019/&arc=C; 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/data.htm. 

Resource Economics Division of the Economic Research Service, Farm Business Economics 

Report, 1996, Report # ECI-1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997). 

Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of Detergent Ingredients, 

Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 

Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving 

opportunities for the corn wet milling industry, LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, July 2003). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: 

103Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf

Industry Contacts 

Bill Schalitz, Spartan Chemical Company, Inc. (2005) 
 

264

3.23 Grease & Graffiti Remover 

3.23.1 VertecBio Gold Graffiti Remover 

VertecBioTM Gold is a corn and soybean derived solvent used to remove spray paint and ink 

from all types of surfaces. It is a light gold liquid with low volatility that is rinsed away with 

water. 

For the BEES system, 3.8 L (1 gal) of VertecBioTM Gold is studied. The detailed environmental 

performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file H1015C.DBF under the 

File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 

Figure 3.65: VertecBioTM Gold System Boundaries 

Functional Unit of

Graffiti Remover

Truc

Transport to 

Use

Methyl soyate

production

VertecBio Gold Graffiti Remover

Ethyl lactate 

production 

VertecBio

Gol

production 

Proces

Energy

Raw Material

transport

Soybean

Production

Fertilizer

production

Cor

Production

Agrichemicals

production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

265

Raw Materials 

VertecBioTM Gold is primarily made up of the materials shown in the Table below. 

Table 3.144: VertecBioTM Gold Graffiti Remover Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Ethyl lactate 50 

Methyl soyate 50 

Data for the soybean-based input, methyl soyate, is based on soybean production data from the 

U.S. LCI Database. Data for both the production of soybean oil and the esterification process 

used to produce methyl soyate comes from a National Renewable Energy Laboratory LCA study 

on biodiesel use in an urban bus.231F

232 Information on ethyl lactate comes from the manufacturer,23F233

elements of the U.S. LCI Database, a report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on corn 

wet milling, 23F

234 and U,S. EPA AP-42 emissions factors.234F235 

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. VertecBioTM Gold production involves mixing the 

components in batches. No heating of the components is required. Energy is used for pumping 

raw materials into a 3.78 m3

 (1 000 gal) vessel, mixing the components, and pumping the 

product out of the vessel. Actual energy requirements are not available; the pumps are assumed 

to require 1.5 kW (2 hp) for a duration of 1 h and the mixer is assumed to require 15 kW (20 hp) 

for a duration of 1 h, based on conversations with production facility personnel. Total energy 

use per 3.785 m3

 (1 000 gal) batch is calculated to be 59.1 MJ (16.4 kWh), or 0.06 MJ (0.02 

kWh) per gal. 

Transportation. The transportation distance for shipping the raw materials to the manufacturing 

plant by diesel truck is assumed to be 402 km (250 mi). Diesel trucking burdens are modeled 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Product transport is assumed to cover 1 175 km (730 mi) by diesel truck, which is modeled 

based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

One gal of VertecBioTM Gold weighs 3.56 kg (7.85 lb), and it is fully biodegradable. No data on 

effluents from rinsing the product are available. 

End of Life 

No end-of-life modeling is required since the product is fully consumed during the use phase. 

 232 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 233 Phone conversation with Rathin Datta, Vertec Biosolvents, September 20, 2004. 234 Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, July 2003). 235 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: Compilation 

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors(Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995). Found 

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf
 

266

References 

Life Cycle Data 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 104Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., and Ruth, M., Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving 

opportunities for the corn wet milling industry, LBNL-52307 (Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, July 2003). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Corn Wet Milling,” Volume I: Section 9.9.7, AP-42: 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, January 1995). Found at: 

105Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s09-7.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

Vertec Biosolvents, Inc. (September 2004) 

3.24 Adhesive and Mastic Remover 

3.24.1 Frammar BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover 

BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover is a soybean based product used to remove asbestos mastic, carpet 

mastic, and ceramic tile mastic. The user pulls up the flooring, pours BEAN-e-doo onto the 

surface, and after about one h, scrapes off the softened mastic. BEAN-e-doo has no odor and 

rinses away with water. 

For the BEES system, the function of mastic remover is removing 9.29 m2 (100 ft2) of mastic 

under vinyl or similar flooring over a period of 50 years. 

The detailed environmental performance data for this product may be viewed by opening the file 

J1010A.DBF under the File/Open menu item in the BEES software. 

Flow Diagram 

The flow diagram below shows the major elements of the production of this product, as it is 

currently modeled for BEES. 
 

267

Figure 3.66: BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover System Boundaries 

Raw Materials 

BEAN-e-doo is made up of the materials shown in the Table below. 

Table 3.145: BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover Constituents 

Constituent Mass Fraction (%) 

Methyl soyate 85 

Nonionic surfactants235F

236 14 

d-Limonene 1 

Data for methyl soyate originates with soybean production data from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Data for the production of soybean oil and its further transformation into methyl soyate comes 

from a National Renewable Energy Laboratory LCA study on biodiesel use in an urban bus.236F

237 

While data for production of the nonionic surfactant compounds in the product is unavailable, 

data for producing alcohol ethoxylate (AE) is used as a proxy.237F

238 D-Limonene is the major 

component of oil extracted from citrus rind; for production data purposes it is considered a 

coproduct of orange production. As such, it is assumed to comprise 0.5 % of the total mass of 

useful orange products, which include orange juice, cattle peel feed, and alcohol. Orange data 

comes from a variety of sources.238F

239,

239F

240,

240F

241 

 236 Names of surfactants not released to protect the confidentiality of company data. 237 Sheehan, J. et al., NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 238 Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 239 National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005. Found at: 

Functional Unit of

Mastic Remover

Truc

Transport to

Use

BEAN-e-do ®

Mastic 

Remove

Production

Methyl soyate

production

BEAN-e-doo® Mastic Remover

Surfactant

production 

D-limonen

production 

En -o -lif

Proces

Energy

Raw Material

transport

Soybean

Production

Fertilizer

production

Orang

Production

Agrichemicals

production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production

Functional Unit of

Mastic Remover

Truc

Transport to

Use

BEAN-e-do

Mastic 

Remove

Production

Methyl soyate

production

BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover

Surfactant

production 

D-limonen

production 

En -o -lif

Proces

Energy

Raw Material

transport

Soybean

Production

Fertilizer

production

Orang

Production

Agrichemicals

production

Fertilizer

production

Agrichemicals

production
 

268

Manufacturing 

Energy Requirements and Emissions. Manufacture of BEAN-e-doo consists of pumping the 

components together into a 1.14 m3

 (300 gal) container, then draining the container. Production 

energy is required for pumping, but no heating of the product is required. For each 3.8 L (1 gal) 

of product, 0.004 MJ (0.001 kWh) is the estimated energy requirement based on the size of the 

pump. Electricity is modeled using the U.S. average electric grid from the U.S. LCI Database. 

Approximately 0.04 m3 (10 gal) of water is included in the model to account for rinsing the tank 

between several production batches. 

Transportation. Methyl soyate is transported approximately 322 km (200 mi) to the BEAN-edoo facility. D-limonene is transported approximately 1931 km (1 200 mi), and the surfactants 

are transported about 64 km (40 mi). All materials are assumed to be transported by diesel truck, 

which is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Transportation 

Diesel trucking is the mode of product transport from the BEAN-e-doo facility to the customer. 

The transportation distance is, by default, 805 km (500 mi), but this distance can be adjusted by 

the BEES user. Diesel trucking is modeled based on the U.S. LCI Database. 

Use 

According to manufacturer instructions for vinyl mastic removal, one gal of BEAN-e-doo may 

be applied to up to 18.6 m2

 (200 ft2) of flooring, so 0.002 m3 (0.5 gal) is modeled for removing 

9.29 m2 (100 ft2) of mastic. It is assumed that BEAN-e-doo is applied twice to remove mastic 

over a period of 50 years. Data on water requirements or potential effluents from rinsing the 

product are not available. 

End of Life 

After BEAN-e-doo has been applied and mastic removed, they are both assumed to be disposed 

of in a landfill. However, while they are disposed together, only the mass of the BEAN-e-doo is 

accounted for at end of life. 

References 

Life Cycle Data 

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. 2005. 

Golden, CO. Found at: 106Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/database. 

PRé Consultants: SimaPro 6.0 LCA Software. 2005. The Netherlands. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Energy, May 1998). 

Dall’Acqua, S., et al., Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of Detergent Ingredients, 

Report #244 (St. Gallen: EMPA, 1999). 

 

http://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/index2.jsp. 240 Reposa, J. Jr. and Pandit, A., "Inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses from a citrus grove during 

stormwater runoff” (Melbourne, FL: Civil Engineering Program, Florida Institute of Technology). Found at: 

http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/023PLreposacitrus.pdf. 241 Extrapolation of data for agricultural products from the U.S. LCI Database. 
 

269

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005. Found at: 

107Hhttp://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/index2.jsp

Reposa, J. Jr. and Pandit, A., "Inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses from a 

citrus grove during stormwater runoff” (Melbourne, FL: Civil Engineering Program, Florida 

Institute of Technology, date unknown). Found at: 

108Hhttp://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/023PLreposacitrus.pdf. 

Industry Contacts 

Dan Brown, Franmar Chemical, Inc. (September 2004) 

3.24.2 Nano Green Mastic Remover 

See documentation on both Nano Green products under Floor Stripper. 
 

270
 

271

4. BEES Tutorial 

To select environmentally-preferred, cost-effective building products, follow three main steps: 

1. Set your study parameters to customize key assumptions 

2. Define the alternative building products for comparison. BEES results may be 

computed once alternatives are defined. 

3. View the BEES results to compare the overall, environmental, and economic 

performance scores for your alternatives. 

4.1 Setting Parameters 

Select Analysis/Set Parameters from the BEES Main Menu to set your study parameters. A 

window listing these parameters appears, as shown in Figure 4.1. Move around this window by 

pressing the Tab key. 

BEES uses importance weights to combine environmental and economic performance measures 

into a single performance score. If you prefer not to weight the environmental and economic 

performance measures, select the “no weighting” option. In this case, BEES will compute and 

display only disaggregated performance results. 

Assuming you have chosen to weight BEES results, you are asked to enter your relative 

importance weights for environmental versus economic performance. These values must sum to 

100. Enter a value between 0 and 100 for environmental performance reflecting your percentage 

weighting. For example, if environmental performance is all-important, enter a value of 100. The 

corresponding economic importance weight is automatically computed. Next you are asked to 

select your relative importance weights for the environmental impact categories included in the 

BEES environmental performance score: Global Warming, Acidification, Eutrophication, Fossil 

Fuel Depletion, Indoor Air Quality, Habitat Alteration, Water Intake, Criteria Air Pollutants, 

Smog, Ecological Toxicity, Ozone Depletion, and Human Health. You are presented with four 

sets of alternative weights. You may choose to define your own set of weights or to select a 

built-in weight set derived from an EPA Science Advisory Board study, judgments by a BEES 

Stakeholder Panel, or a set of equal weights.241F

242 Press View Weights to display the impact 

category weights for all four weight sets, as shown in Figure 4.2. If you select the user-defined 

weight set, you will be asked to enter weights for all impacts under analysis, as shown in Figure 

4.3. These weights must sum to 100. 

 242 So that the set of equal weights would appropriately sum to 100, individual weights have been rounded up or 

down. These arbitrary settings may be changed by using the user-defined weighting option. 
 

272

Figure 4.1 Setting Analysis Parameters 

Figure 4.2 Viewing Impact Category Weights 
 

273

Figure 4.3 Entering User-Defined Weights 

Finally, enter the real (excluding inflation) discount rate for converting future building product 

costs to their equivalent present value. All future costs are converted to their equivalent present 

values when computing life-cycle costs. Life-cycle costs form the basis of the economic 

performance scores. The higher the discount rate, the less important to you are future building 

product costs such as repair and replacement costs. The maximum value allowed is 20 %. A 

discount rate of 20 % would value each dollar spent 50 years hence as only $0.0001 in present 

value terms. The 2006 rate mandated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for most 

Federal projects, 3.0 %, is provided as a default value.24F

243

 243 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for BenefitCost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, October 27, 1992 and OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C, 

Washington, DC, January 2007 
 

274

Figure 4.4 Selecting Building Element for BEES Analysis 

4.2 Defining Alternatives 

Select Analysis/Define Alternatives from the Main Menu to choose the building products you 

want to compare. A window appears as in Figure 4.4. Selecting alternatives is a two-step 

process. 

1. Select the specific building element for which you want to compare 

alternatives. Building elements are organized using the hierarchical structure 

of the ASTM standard UNIFORMAT II classification system: by Major 

Group Element, Group Element, and Individual Element.243F

244 Click on the 

down arrows to display the complete lists of available choices at each level of 

the hierarchy. For a listing BEES products included in each building element, 

click View Product List. 

BEES 4.0 contains environmental and economic performance data for over 

230 products across a wide range of building elements including beams, 

columns, roof sheathing, exterior wall finishes, wall insulation, framing, roof 

coverings, partitions, ceiling finishes, interior wall finishes, floor coverings, 

chairs, and parking lot paving. Press Ok to select the choice in view. 

 244 ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework--UNIFORMAT II, 

ASTM Designation E1557-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 
 

275

Figure 4.5 Selecting Building Product Alternatives 

Figure 4.6 Setting Transportation Parameters
 

276

2. Once you have selected the building element, you are presented with a 

window of product alternatives available for BEES scoring, such as in Figure 

4.5. Select an alternative with a mouse click. After selecting each alternative, 

you will be presented with a window, such as in Figure 4.6, asking for the 

distance required to transport the product from the manufacturing plant to 

your building site.24F

245 If the product is exclusively manufactured in another 

country (e.g., linoleum flooring), this setting should reflect the transportation 

distance from the U.S. distribution facility to your building site (transport to

the distribution facility has already been built into the BEES data). 

If you have already set your study parameters, press Compute BEES Results to compute and 

display the BEES environmental and economic performance results. 

4.3 Viewing Results 

Once you have set your study parameters, defined your product alternatives, and computed 

BEES results, BEES displays the window for selecting BEES reports illustrated in Figure 4.7. 

By default, the three summary graphs shown in Figures 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 are selected for display 

or printing. Press Display to view the three graphs. For all BEES graphs, the larger the value, 

the worse the performance. Also, all BEES graphs are stacked bar graphs, meaning the height of 

each bar represents a summary performance score consisting of contributing scores represented 

as its stacked bars. 

1. The Overall Performance Results graph displays the weighted environmental 

and economic performance scores and their sum, the overall performance 

score. If you chose not to weight, this graph is not available. 

2. The Environmental Performance Results graph displays the weighted 

environmental impact category scores and their sum, the environmental 

performance score. Because this graph displays scores for unit quantities of 

individual building products that have been normalized (i.e., placed on a 

common scale) by reference to total U.S. impacts, they appear as very small 

numbers. For a primer on interpreting BEES environmental performance 

scores, refer to Appendix B. If you chose not to weight, this graph is not 

available. 

3. The Economic Performance Results graph displays the first cost, discounted 

future costs and their sum, the life-cycle cost. 

 245 If you have chosen the wall insulation or exterior wall finish elements, you will first be asked for parameter 

values so that the products’ influence on heating and cooling energy use over the 50-year study period can be 

properly estimated. If you have chosen roof coverings and installation will be in a U.S. Sunbelt climate, you will be 

asked for parameter values that will permit accounting for 50-year heating and cooling energy use based on roof 

covering color. 
 

277

Figure 4.7 Selecting BEES Reports 
 

278

Figure 4.8 Viewing BEES Overall Performance Results 
 

279

Figure 4.9 Viewing BEES Environmental Performance Results 
 

280

Figure 4.10 Viewing BEES Economic Performance Results 

BEES results are derived by using the BEES model to combine environmental and economic 

performance data using your study parameters. The method is described in section 2. The 

detailed BEES environmental and economic performance data, documented in section 3, may be 

browsed by selecting File/Open from the Main Menu. 

From the window for selecting BEES reports, you may choose to display a summary Table 

showing the derivation of summary scores, graphs depicting results by life-cycle stage and by 

contributing flow for each environmental impact category, graphs depicting embodied energy 

performance, and an All Tables in One report giving all the detailed results in a single tabular 

report. Figures 4.11 through 4.15 illustrate each of these options.245F

246

Once you have displayed any BEES report, you may select additional reports for display by 

selecting Tools/Select Reports from the menu.246F

247 To compare BEES results based on different 

parameter settings, either select Tools/Change Parameters from the menu, or if the Summary 

Table is in focus, press the Change Parameters button. Change your parameters, and press Ok. 

 246 If you Set Analysis Parameters to use the BEES Stakeholder Panel weight set to interpret life-cycle impact 

assessment results, then impact-based results may be viewed separately for cancerous and noncancerous health 

effects. For compatibility with the other BEES 4.0 weighting schemes, however, these results are weighted and 

combined into a single Human Health impact for display of BEES Environmental Performance Scores. For more 

information on the BEES Stakeholder Panel weight set, see section 2.1.4. 247 This feature is not available from the menu displayed with the BEES Summary Table. 
 

281

You may now display reports based on your new parameters. Then you may find it convenient to 

view reports with different parameter settings side-by-side by selecting Window/Tile from the 

menu. Note that your parameter settings are displayed on the Table corresponding to each graph. 

Print any BEES report from the Print menu item. Note that neither the Print to File option of the 

printing setup window nor the Export menu item are functional in BEES. 

Embodied Energy 

While the environmental impacts from energy consumption and combustion already are 

accounted for throughout the BEES results by environmental impact category, BEES reports 

embodied energy results for informational purposes. BEES classifies and reports total embodied 

energy in two ways: (1) by fuel and feedstock energy and (2) by fuel renewability.247F

248

The first classification system uses the energy accounting categories of fuel energy and 

feedstock energy. Feedstock energy is the energy content of fuel resources extracted from the 

earth, while fuel energy is the amount of energy that is released when fuels are burned. When 

fuel resources such as petroleum and natural gas are used as material inputs (e.g., as feedstocks 

for the manufacture of polystyrene resin), then the energy value remains in the feedstock 

category. When extracted fuel resources are transformed into fuels and burned for energy, 

however, most of the feedstock energy is transformed into industrial process or transportation 

energy. This moves the quantity of combustion energy from the feedstock category into the fuel 

category. Because less than 100 % of the inherent energy value of extracted resources remains 

after fuel converting processes and combustion, a small amount of energy remains in the 

feedstock category. In general, biobased products and plastics will generate higher BEES 

feedstock energy values because there is potential energy "embodied" in the system. A rubber 

tire, for example, will have feedstock energy in the tire itself and fuel energy from its 

production. If, after use, the tire is then sent to a cement kiln to recover its energy as a method of 

"disposing" of the used tire, then that feedstock (potential) energy in the tire is converted to that 

amount of fuel to the cement kiln. In that case, the feedstock energy in the tire has been 

converted to fuel energy. 

Total embodied energy is also classified and reported using the energy accounting categories of 

renewable energy and non-renewable energy. Energy derived from fossil fuels such as 

petroleum, natural gas, and coal is classified as non-renewable, while energy from all other 

sources (hydropower, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass) is classified as renewable. 

4.4 Browsing Environmental and Economic Performance Data 

The BEES environmental and economic performance data may be browsed by selecting 

File/Open from the Main Menu. Environmental data files are specific to products, while there is 

a single economic data file, LCCOSTS.DBF, with cost data for all products. Some 

environmental data files map to a product in more than one application, while the economic data 

typically vary for each application. Table 4.1 lists the products by environmental data file name 

(all with the .DBF extension) and by code number within the economic performance data file 

LCCOSTS.DBF. 

 248 Embodied energy definitions documented by Four Elements, LLC. 
 

282

The environmental performance data files are similarly structured. The first column in all these 

files, XPORT, shows the default transportation distance from manufacture to use (in mi). The 

second column lists a number of environmental flows. Flows marked “(r)” are raw materials 

inputs, “(a)” air emissions, “(ar)” radioactive air emissions, “(s)” releases to soil, “(w)” water 

effluents, “(wr)” radioactive water effluents, and “E” energy usage. All quantities are expressed 

in terms of the product’s functional units, typically 0.09 m2

 (1 ft2) of product service for 50 

years.248F

249 The column labeled “Total” is the primary data column, giving total cradle-to-grave 

flow amounts. Next are columns giving flow amounts for each product component, followed by 

columns giving flow amounts for each life-cycle stage. The product component columns roughly 

sum to the total column, as do the life-cycle stage columns. The IAINDEX column is for internal 

BEES use. 

The economic performance data file LCCOSTS.DBF lists for each cost the year of occurrence 

(counting from year 0) and amount (in constant 2006 dollars) per functional unit. 

Warning: If you change any of the data in the environmental or economic performance data files, 

you will need to reinstall BEES to restore the original BEES data. 

 249 The following BEES product categories have different functional units: Roof Coverings: covering 9.29 m2

 (1 

square, or 100 ft2

) of roof surface for 50 years; Concrete Beams and Columns: 0.76 m3 (1 yd3) of product service for 

50 years; Office Chairs: seating for 1 person for 50 years; Adhesive and Mastic Remover: removing 9.29 m2

 (100 

ft2

) of mastic under vinyl or similar flooring over 50 years; Exterior Sealers and Coatings: sealing or coating 9.29 

m2

 (100 ft2) of exterior surface over 50 years ; Transformer Oils: cooling for one 1 000 kV·A transformer for 30 

years; Fertilizer: fertilizing 0.40 ha (1 acre) for 10 years; Carpet Cleaners: cleaning 92.9 m2

 (1 000 ft2) of carpet 

once; Floor Stripper: removing three layers of wax and one layer of sealant from 9.29 m2

 (100 ft2) of hardwood 

flooring once; Roadway Dust Control: controlling dust from 92.9 m2

 (1 000 ft2) of surface area once; Bath and Tile 

Cleaner: using 3.8 L (1 gal) of ready-to-use cleaner once; Glass Cleaners: using 3.785 m3 (1 000 gal) of ready-to-use 

glass cleaner once; and Grease and Graffiti Remover: using 3.8 L (1 gal) of grease and graffiti remover once. 
 

283

Figure 4.11 Viewing BEES Summary Table 
 

284

Figure 4.12 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by LifeCycle Stage 
 

285

Figure 4.13 Viewing BEES Environmental Impact Category Performance Results by Flow 
 

286

Figure 4.14 Viewing BEES Embodied Energy Results 

Figure 4.15 A Sampling of BEES “All Tables In One” Display 
 

287

Table 4.1 BEES Products Keyed to Environmental and Economic Performance Data Codes 

MAJOR ELEMENT 

Group Element 

Individual Element 

BEES Product 

Environmental 

Data File 

Name 

Economic 

Data Code 

Slab On Grade

Generic 100 % Portland Cement A1030A A1030,A0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement A1030B A1030,B0 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement A1030C A1030,C0 

Generic 20 % Slag Cement A1030D A1030,D0 

Generic 35 % Slag Cement A1030E A1030,E0 

Generic 50 % Slag Cement A1030F A1030,F0 

Generic 5 % Limestone Cement A1030G A1030,G0 

Generic 10 % Limestone Cement A1030H A1030,H0 

Generic 20 % Limestone Cement A1030I A1030,I0 

Lafarge Silica Fume Cement A1030J A1030,J0 

Anonymous IP Cement Product A1030K A1030,K0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (20 %) A1030L A1030,L0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (35 %) A1030M A1030,M0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (50 %) A1030N A1030,N0 

Generic 35 % Fly Ash Cement A1030O A1030,O0 

SUBSTRUCTURE 

Foundations 

Lafarge Portland Type I Cement A1030P A1030,P0 

Basement Walls

Generic 100 % Portland Cement A2020A A2020,A0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement A2020B A2020,B0 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement A2020C A2020,C0 

Generic 20 % Slag Cement A2020D A2020,D0 

Generic 35 % Slag Cement A2020E A2020,E0 

Generic 50 % Slag Cement A2020F A2020,F0 

Generic 5 % Limestone Cement A2020G A2020,G0 

Generic 10 % Limestone Cement A2020H A2020,H0 

Generic 20 % Limestone Cement A2020I A2020,I0 

Lafarge Silica Fume Cement A2020J A2020,J0 

Anonymous IP Cement Product A2020K A2020,K0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (20 %) A2020L A2020,L0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (35 %) A2020M A2020,M0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement (50 %) A2020N A2020,N0 

Lafarge BlockSet A2020O A2020,O0 

SUBSTRUCTURE 

Basement Construction 

Lafarge Portland Type I Cement A2020P A2020,P0 

Beams

Generic 100 % Portland Cement 4KSI B1011A B1011,A0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI B1011B B1011,B0 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI B1011C B1011,C0 

Generic 20 % Slag Cement 4KSI B1011D B1011,D0 

Generic 35 % Slag Cement 4KSI B1011E B1011,E0 

Generic 50 % Slag Cement 4KSI B1011F B1011,F0 

Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 4KSI B1011G B1011,G0 

Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 4KSI B1011H B1011,H0 

Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 4KSI B1011I B1011,I0 

Generic 100 % Portland Cement 5KSI B1011J B1011,J0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI B1011K B1011,K0 

SHELL 

Superstructure 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI B1011L B1011,L0 
 

288

Generic 20 % Slag Cement 5KSI B1011M B1011,M0 

Generic 35 % Slag Cement 5KSI B1011N B1011,N0 

Generic 50 % Slag Cement 5KSI B1011O B1011,O0 

Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 5KSI B1011P B1011,P0 

Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 5KSI B1011Q B1011,Q0 

Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 5KSI B1011R B1011,R0 

Lafarge Silica Fume Cement 4KSI B1011S B1011,S0 

Anonymous 4KSI Product B1011T B1011,T0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (20 %) B1011U B1011,U0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (35 %) B1011V B1011,V0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (50 %) B1011W B1011,W0 

Lafarge Silica Fume Cement 5KSI B1011X B1011,X0 

Anonymous 5KSI Product B1011Y B1011,Y0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (20 %) B1011Z B1011,Z0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (35 %) B1011AA B1011,AA 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (50 %) B1011BB B1011,BB 

Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 4KSI B1011CC B1011,CC 

Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 5KSI B1011DD B1011,DD 

Columns

Generic 100 % Portland Cement 4KSI B1012A B1012,A0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI B1012B B1012,B0 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 4KSI B1012C B1012,C0 

Generic 20 % Slag Cement B1012D B1012,D0 

Generic 35 % Slag Cement 4KSI B1012E B1012,E0 

Generic 50 % Slag Cement 4KSI B1012F B1012,F0 

Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 4KSI B1012G B1012,G0 

Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 4KSI B1012H B1012,H0 

Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 4KSI B1012I B1012,I0 

Generic 100 % Portland Cement 5KSI B1012J B1012,J0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI B1012K B1012,K0 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement 5KSI B1012L B1012,L0 

Generic 20 % Slag Cement 5KSI B1012M B1012,M0 

Generic 35 % Slag Cement 5KSI B1012N B1012,N0 

Generic 50 % Slag Cement 5KSI B1012O B1012,O0 

Generic 5 % Limestone Cement 5KSI B1012P B1012,P0 

Generic 10 % Limestone Cement 5KSI B1012Q B1012,Q0 

Generic 20 % Limestone Cement 5KSI B1012R B1012,R0 

Lafarge Silica Fume Cement 4KSI B1012S B1012,S0 

Anonymous 4KSI Product B1012T B1012,T0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (20 %) B1012U B1012,U0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (35 %) B1012V B1012,V0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 4KSI (50 %) B1012W B1012,W0 

Lafarge Silica Fume Cement 5KSI B1012X B1012,X0 

Anonymous 5KSI Product B1012Y B1012,Y0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (20 %) B1012Z B1012,Z0 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (35 %) B1012AA B1012,AA 

Lafarge NewCem Slag Cement 5KSI (50 %) B1012BB B1012,BB 

Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 4KSI B1012CC B1012,CC 

SHELL 

Superstructure 

Lafarge Portland Type I Cement 5KSI B1012DD B1012,DD 

Roof Sheathing

Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing B1020A B1020,A0 

SHELL 

Superstructure 

Generic Plywood Sheathing B1020B B1020,B0 

SHELL Exterior Wall Systems 

Exterior Enclosure CENTRIA Formawall Insulated Composite Panel B2010A B2010,A0 

SHELL Exterior Wall Finishes 

Generic Brick & Mortar B2011A B2011,A0 
 

289

Generic Stucco B2011B B2011,B0 

Generic Aluminum Siding B2011C B2011,C0 

Generic Cedar Siding B2011D B2011,D0 

Generic Vinyl Siding B2011E B2011,E0 

Trespa Meteon Panels B2011F B2011,F0 

Anonymous Brick & Mortar Product 1 B2011G B2011,G0 

Headwaters Scratch & Brown Stucco Type S B2011H B2011,H0 

Headwaters FRS B2011I B2011,I0 

Anonymous Brick & Mortar Product 2 B2011J B2011,J0 

Headwaters Masonry Cement Type S B2011K B2011,K0 

Dryvit EIFS Cladding Outsulation B2011L B2011,L0 

Exterior Enclosure 

Dryvit EIFS Cladding Outsulation Plus B2011M B2011,M0 

Wall Insulation 

Generic Blown Cellulose R-13 B2012A B2012,A0 

Generic Fiberglass Batt R-19 B2012B B2012,B0 

Generic Fiberglass Batt R-15 B2012C B2012,C0 

Generic Blown Mineral Wool R-13 B2012D B2012,D0 

Generic Fiberglass Batt R-13 B2012E B2012,E0 

Anonymous R-13 Product B2012F B2012,F0 

Anonymous R-15 Product B2012G B2012,G0 

SHELL 

Exterior Enclosure 

Anonymous R-19 Product B2012H B2012,H0 

Framing 

Generic Steel Framing B2013A B2013,A0 

Generic Wood Framing--Treated B2013B B2013,B0 

SHELL 

Exterior Enclosure 

Generic Wood Framing--Untreated B2013C B2013,C0 

Wall Sheathing 

Generic Oriented Strand Board Sheathing B1020A B2015,A0 

SHELL 

Exterior Enclosure 

Generic Plywood Sheathing B1020B B2015,B0 

Exterior Sealers and Coatings 

BioPreserve SoyGuard Wood Sealer B2040A B2040,A0 

SHELL 

Exterior Enclosure 

Anonymous Masonry Waterproofing Product B2040B B2040,B0 

Roof Coverings

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Black B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Coral B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Dk Brown B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Dk Gray B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Green B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Lt Brown B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Lt Gray B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--Tan B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles--White B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Asphalt Shingles B3011A B3011,A0 

Generic Clay Tile B3011B B3011,B0 

Generic Clay Tile--Red B3011B B3011,B0 

Generic Fiber Cement--Lt Gray/Lt Brown B3011C B3011,C0 

Generic Fiber Cement Shingles B3011C B3011,C0 

Generic Fiber Cement--Dk Color B3011C B3011,C0 

SHELL 

Roofing 

Generic Fiber Cement--Med Color B3011C B3011,C0 

Ceiling Insulation

Generic Blown Cellulose R-38 B3012A B3012,A0 

Generic Fiberglass Batt R-38 B3012B B3012,B0 

Generic Blown Mineral Wool R-38 B3012C B3012,C0 

Generic Blown Fiberglass R-38 B3012D B3012,D0 

SHELL 

Roofing 

Anonymous R-38 Product B3012E B3012,E0 

SHELL Roof Coatings
 

290

Prime Coatings Utilithane B3013A B3013,A0 

Partitions 

Generic Gypsum Board C1011A C1011,A0 

Trespa Virtuon Panels C3030A C1011,B0 

Trespa Athlon Panels C3030B C1011,C0 

P&M Plastics Altree Panels C1011D C1011,D0 

INTERIORS 

Interior Construction 

Anonymous Biobased Panel Product 2 C1011E C1011,E0 

Lockers 

Trespa Virtuon Panels C3030A C1030,A0 

INTERIORS 

Interior Construction 

Trespa Athlon Panels C3030B C1030,B0 

Fabricated Toilet Partitions

Trespa Virtuon Panels C3030A C1031,A0 

INTERIORS 

Fittings 

Trespa Athlon Panels C3030B C1031,B0 

Wall Finishes to Interior Walls 

Generic Virgin Latex Paint C3012A C3012,A0 

Generic Consolidated Latex Paint C3012B C3012,B0 

INTERIORS 

Interior Finishes 

Generic Reprocessed Latex Paint C3012C C3012,C0 

Floor Coverings 

Generic Ceramic Tile w/ Recycled Glass C3020A C3020,A0 

Generic Linoleum Flooring C3020B C3020,B0 

Generic Vinyl Composition Tile C3020C C3020,C0 

Generic Composite Marble Tile C3020D C3020,D0 

Generic Terrazzo C3020E C3020,E0 

Generic Nylon Carpet Tile C3020F C3020,F0 

Generic Wool Carpet Tile C3020G C3020,G0 

Generic Nylon Carpet Tile/Low-VOC Adhesive C3020I C3020,I0 

Generic Wool Carpet Tile/Low-VOC Adhesive C3020J C3020,J0 

Generic Nylon Carpet Broadloom C3020L C3020,L0 

Generic Wool Carpet Broadloom C3020M C3020,M0 

Generic Nylon Carpet Broadloom/Low-VOC C3020O C3020,O0 

Generic Wool Carpet Broadloom/Low-VOC C3020P C3020,P0 

C&A ER3 Modular Tile, Climate Neutral C3020Q C3020,Q0 

Forbo Linoleum C3020R C3020,R0 

Anonymous Carpet Tile Product C3020S C3020,S0 

C&A ER3 Cushion Roll Goods, Climate Neutral C3020T C3020,T0 

UTT Soy Backed Nylon Broadloom C3020U C3020,U0 

C&A Ethos Modular Tile, Climate Neutral C3020V C3020,V0 

C&A Ethos Cushion Roll Goods, Climate Neutral C3020W C3020,W0 

C&A ER3 Modular Tile C3020X C3020,X0 

C&A ER3 Cushion Roll Goods C3020Y C3020,Y0 

C&A Ethos Modular Tile C3020Z C3020,Z0 

C&A Ethos Cushion Roll Goods C3020AA C3020,AA 

IFC Transformation Carpet Tile, Climate Neutral C3020CC C3020,CC 

J&J Industries Certificate Broadloom Carpet C3020DD C3020,DD 

Mohawk Regents Row Broadloom Carpet C3020FF C3020,FF 

Mohawk Meritage Broadloom Carpet C3020GG C3020,GG 

Natural Cork Parquet Tile C3020HH C3020,HH 

Natural Cork Floating Floor Plank C3020II C3020,II 

Forbo Linoleum/ No-VOC Adhesive C3020NN C3020,NN 

UTT Soy Backed Nylon Broadloom/Low-VOC C3020PP C3020,PP 

IFC Sabi Carpet Tile, Climate Neutral C3020QQ C3020,QQ 

BPS Capri Broadloom Carpet C3020RR C3020,RR 

BPS Capri Broadloom, Climate Neutral C3020SS C3020,SS 

BPS Scan Broadloom Carpet C3020TT C3020,TT 

INTERIORS 

Interior Finishes 

BPS Scan Broadloom Carpet, Climate Neutral C3020UU C3020,UU 
 

291

BPS UPC Carpet Tile C3020VV C3020,VV 

BPS UPC Carpet Tile, Climate Neutral C3020WW C3020,WW 

IFC Entropy Carpet Tile, Climate Neutral C3020XX C3020,XX 

Ceiling Finishes 

Trespa Virtuon Panels C3030A C3030,A0 

INTERIORS 

Interior Finishes 

Trespa Athlon Panels C3030B C3030,B0 

Fixed Casework 

Trespa Virtuon Panels C3030A E2010,A0 

EQUIPMENT & 

FURNISHINGS 

Furnishings Trespa Athlon Panels C3030B E2010,B0 

Chairs 

Herman Miller Aeron Office Chair E2020A E2020,A0 

Herman Miller Ambi Office Chair E2020B E2020,B0 

EQUIPMENT & 

FURNISHINGS 

Furnishings 

Generic Office Chair E2020B E2020,B0 

EQUIPMENT & Table Tops, Counter Tops, Shelving 

FURNISHINGS Trespa Toplab Plus Panels E2021A E2021,A0 

Furnishings Trespa Athlon Panels C3030B E2021,B0 

Roadway Dust Control 

Anonymous Roadway Dust Control Product G2015A G2015,A0 

BUILDING SITEWORK 

Site Improvements 

Environmental Dust Control Dustlock G2015B G2015,B0 

Parking Lot Paving 

Generic 100 % Portland Cement G2022A G2022,A0 

Generic 15 % Fly Ash Cement G2022B G2022,B0 

Generic 20 % Fly Ash Cement G2022C G2022,C0 

Asphalt with GSB88 Seal-Bind Maintenance G2022D G2022,D0 

Generic Asphalt with Traditional Maintenance G2022E G2022,E0 

Anonymous IP Cement Concrete Product G2022F G2022,F0 

BUILDING SITEWORK 

Site Improvements 

Lafarge Alpena Type I Cement G2022G G2022,G0 

Fertilizers

Perdue MicroStart 60 Fertilizer G2060A G2060,A0 

BUILDING SITEWORK 

Site Improvements 

Four All Seasons Fertilizer G2060B G2060,B0 

Transformer Oil 

Generic Mineral Transformer Oil G4010B G4010,B0 

Generic Silicone Transformer Oil G4010C G4010,C0 

Cooper Envirotemp FR3 G4010D G4010,D0 

ABB BIOTEMP G4010E G4010,E0 

BUILDING SITEWORK 

Site Electrical Utilities 

Generic Biobased Transformer Oil G4010F G4010,F0 

Carpet Cleaners 

Anonymous Carpet Cleaning Product H1011A H1011,A0 

BUILDING MAINTENANCE

Cleaning Products 

Racine HOST Dry Carpet Cleaning System H1011B H1011,B0 

BUILDING MAINTENANCE Floor Stripper 

Cleaning Products Nano Green Floor Stripper H1012A H1012,A0 

Glass Cleaners 

Anonymous Glass Cleaning Product H1013A H1013,A0 

BUILDING MAINTENANCE

Cleaning Products 

Spartan Green Solutions Glass Cleaner H1013B H1013,B0 

BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bath and Tile Cleaner 

Cleaning Products Spartan Green Solutions Restroom Cleaner H1014A H1014,A0 

Grease & Graffiti Remover 

Anonymous Graffiti Remover Product 1 H1015A H1015,A0 

Anonymous Graffiti Remover Product 2 H1015B H1015,B0 

BUILDING MAINTENANCE

Cleaning Products 

VertecBio Gold Graffiti Remover H1015C H1015,C0 

Adhesive and Mastic Removers 

Franmar BEAN-e-doo Mastic Remover J1010A J1010,A0 

BUILDING REPAIR & 

REMODELING 

Remodeling Products Nano Green Mastic Remover J1010B J1010,B0 
 

292
 

293

5. Future Directions 

Development of the BEES tool does not end with the release of version 4.0. Plans to expand and 

refine BEES include releasing updates every 24 months with model and software enhancements 

as well as expanded product coverage. Listed below are a number of directions for future 

research that have been proposed in response to obvious needs, feedback from BEES users, and 

peer review comments:249F

250

Proposed Model Enhancements 

• Combine building products to permit comparative analyses of entire building components, 

assemblies, and ultimately entire buildings

• Conduct and apply research leading to the refinement of impact assessment methods for 

indoor air quality, habitat alteration, and water intake 

• Characterize uncertainty in the underlying environmental and cost data, and reflect this 

uncertainty in BEES performance scores 

• Update the BEES LCA methodology in line with future advances in the evolving LCA field 

Proposed Data Enhancements 

• Continue to solicit cooperation from industry to include more manufacturer-specific building 

products in future versions of BEES (this effort is known as the BEES Please program)

• Refine all data to permit U.S. region-specific BEES analyses. This enhancement would yield 

BEES results tailored to regional fuel mixes and labor and material markets, and would 

permit more accurate assessment of local environmental impacts such as locally scarce 

resources (e.g., water) 

• Permit flexibility in study period length and in product specifications such as useful lives 

• At least every 10 years, revisit products included in previous BEES releases for updates to 

their environmental and cost data 

• Evaluate biobased products using BEES to assist the Federal procurement community in 

carrying out the biobased purchasing mandate, known as BioPreferred, of the 2002 Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act (Public Law 107-171) 

Proposed Software Enhancements 

• Make streamlined BEES results available on a web-based platform 

• Add feature soliciting product quantities from the BEES user to automate the process of 

comparing BEES scores across building elements 

• Add feature permitting import and export of life cycle inventories 

• Add feature permitting integrated sensitivity analysis so that the effect on BEES results of 

changes in parameter settings may be viewed on a single graph 

 250 P. Hofstetter et al., User Preferences for Life-Cycle Decision Support Tools: Evaluation of a Survey of BEES 

Users, NISTIR 6874, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, July 2002; and M.A. 

Curran et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer Review Report, NISTIR 

6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2002. 
 

294
 

295

Appendix A. BEES Computational Algorithms 

A.1 Environmental Performance 

BEES environmental performance scores are derived as follows. 

∑=

=

p

k 1

j jk EnvScore where IAScore ,

EnvScorej = environmental performance score for building product alternative j; 

p = number of environmental impact categories; 

IAScorejk = characterized, normalized and weighted score for alternative j with 

 respect to environmental impact k: 

*100

Norm

IA * IVwt

IAScore

k

jk k

jk = , where 

IVwtk = impact category importance weight for impact k; 

Normk = normalization value for impact k (see section 2.1.3.3); 

IAjk = characterized score for alternative j with respect to impact k: 

∑=

= ∗

n

i 1

IA , where jk Iij IAfactori

n = number of inventory flows in impact category k; 

Iij = inventory flow quantity for alternative j with respect to inventory 

flow i, from BEES environmental performance data file (See section 4.4.); 

IAfactori = impact assessment characterization factor for inventory flow i 

The BEES life-cycle stage scores, LCScoresj, which are displayed on the environmental 

performance by life-cycle stage graph, are derived as follows: 

∑=

= ∗ ∗

n

i 1

sj jk ij LCPercentsij LCScore , where IAScore IPercent

LCScoresj = life cycle stage score for alternative j with respect to stage s; 

∑=

∗

∗ = n

i 1

ij i

ij i

ij

I IAfactor

I IAfactor

IPercent ; 

∑=

= r

s 1

sij

sij

sij

I

I

LCPercent , where 

Isij = inventory flow quantity for alternative j with respect to flow i for life 

 cycle stage s; 

r = number of life cycle stages 
 

296

A.2 Economic Performance 

BEES measures economic performance by computing the product life-cycle cost as follows:

∑= + =

N

t 0

t

t

j (1 d)

C LCC , where 

LCCj = total life-cycle cost in present value dollars for alternative j; 

Ct = sum of all relevant costs, less any positive cash flows, occurring in year t; 

N = number of years in the study period; 

d = discount rate used to adjust cash flows to present value 

A.3 Overall Performance 

The overall performance scores are derived as follows:

) *100

LCC

LCC

) (EconWt*

EnvScore

EnvScore

Score (EnvWt* n

j 1

j

j

n

j 1

j

j

j

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

= +

∑ ∑ = =

, where 

Scorej = overall performance score for alternative j; 

EnvWt, EconWt = environmental and economic performance weights, respectively 

 (EnvWt + EconWt = 1); 

n = number of alternatives;

EnvScorej = (see section A.1); 

LCCj = (see section A.2) 
297

Appendix B. Interpreting BEES Environmental Performance Scores: A Primer Product ABC has a BEES Environmental Performance Score of 0.0230 and Product XYZ What does that mean? Let’s start from the beginning, considering just one product and one environmental impact at a time. Let’s taGlobal Warming performance of Product ABC, and ask: Q. How much does Product ABC contribute to Global Warming over its life cycle? A. BEES tells me that Product ABC contributes 1,279,132 grams of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases oQ. So what? All products contribute greenhouse gases over their life cycle. Is 1,279,132 grams a lot or a little? of this number? A. By relating the number to the total amount of greenhouse gases released every year, per person, in the Unit

this person—John Q. Public—our yardstick, and mark the spot showing Product ABC’s greenhouse gases relativ
298

Q. Okay. Let’s say you do that for Product ABC for all 12 environmental impacts. But then what? How cayardsticks when they’re measuring different things? Wouldn’t you be mixing apples and oranges? 
299

A. Yes, you would be, unless you made a single, common yardstick for all impacts—one based on Product ABof John Q. Public’s impacts. That way, you could plot all impacts on the same graph. It’s like a nutrition label, ba product’s percentages of recommended daily allowances, we’re reporting its percentages of John Q. Public’s e

Let’s do this for Product ABC and Product XYZ. 
300

Q. I’m still confused. It looks like Product ABC scores better on Global Warming, but worse on Human HealHow do I know which product is environmentally preferred, all things considered? Can’t you just give me a simpA. I could, but that would mean all environmental impacts are of the same importance. Most experts say thatgive you a weighted average score instead, using weights from U.S. EPA experts. Then you can compare Prodwith Product XYZ when you’re shopping for “green” products. But always remember, it’s better to have a lower 

Performance Score. Think of the BEES Score as a penalty score—the higher it is, the worse it is. 
301
302

Q. Okay. But after all this, when I tell my colleagues that Product ABC, with a BEES Environmental Performangreener than Product XYZ, with a score of 0.0640, what am I really saying? A. You’re saying that, over its life cycle, one unit of Product ABC does less damage to the environment than do

XYZ. If your colleague’s eyes start to glaze over, quickly finish by saying that products with lower BEEOtherwise, explain that Product ABC is greener because it contributes, on average, 0.0230 % of annual per capi

impacts, while Product XYZ contributes a larger share, 0.0640 %. 
 

303

References 

American Institute of Architects, Environmental Resource Guide, 1996. 

ASTM International, Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework--

UNIFORMAT II, ASTM Designation E1557-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 

ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to 

Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, 

ASTM Designation E1765-02, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002. 

ASTM International, Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and 

Building Systems, ASTM Designation E917-05, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 

Ash, Knoblock, and Peters, Energy Analysis of Energy from the Forest Options, ENFOR Project 

P-59, 1990. 

Bare, J.C., Norris, G.A., Pennington, D.W. and McKone, T., "TRACI: The Tool for the 

Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts," Journal of Industrial 

Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2003. 

Braunschweig, Ahbe S., and Muller-Wenk, R., Methodik fur Oekobilanzen auf der bases 

Okologischer Optimierung, Schriftenreihn Umwelt 133, Swiss Federal Office of Environment, 

Forests, and Landscape, October 1990. 

Bundesamt fur Umweltschutz, Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen, Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz 24, 

Bern, Switzerland, 1984. 

BUWAL, Methode der ökologischen, Knappheit - Ökofaktoren 1997, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 

Nr.297, ÖBU/BUWAL, Bern, Switzerland, 1998 

Carter, William P., "Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic Compounds", 

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 44, July 1994, pp. 881-899 

CML, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Background, Leiden, The Netherlands, 

October 1992. 

Curran, M.A. et al., BEES 2.0, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Peer 

Review Report, NISTIR 6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 

2002. 

Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook—November 2006, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2006. 
 

304

Forintek Canada Corporation, Building Materials in the Context of Sustainable Development – 

Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor Estimates for 

Structural Wood Products, March 1993. 

Frischknecht, R. et al., “Swiss Ecological Scarcity Method: The New Version 2006,” Berne, 

Switzerland, 2006. 

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., The Eco-indicator ’99: A damage oriented method for Life 

Cycle Impact Assessment, VROM Zoetermeer, Nr. 1999/36A/B, 2nd edition, April 2000. 

Guinée et al., LCA - An operational guide to the ISO-standards, CML, Leiden, The Netherlands, 

2001. 

Habersatter K., Ecobalance of Packaging Materials - State of 1990, Swiss Federal Office of 

Environment, Forests, and Landscape, Bern, Switzerland, February 1991. 

Hofstetter, P. et al., User Preferences for Life-Cycle Decision Support Tools: Evaluation of a 

Survey of BEES Users, NISTIR 6874, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Washington, DC, July 2002. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third 

Assessment Report, 2001.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management--Life-Cycle 

Assessment--Principles and Framework, International Standard 14040, 2006. 

Johnson, B.N., “Inventory of Land Management Inputs for Producing Absorbent Fiber for 

Diapers: A Comparison of Cotton and Softwood Land Management,” Forest Products Journal, 

Vol. 44, No. 6, 1994. 

Konopacki and Akbari, Simulated Impact of Roof Surface Solar Absorptance, Attic, and Duct 

Insulation on Cooling and Heating Energy Use in Single-Family New Residential Buildings, 

LBNL-41834, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1998. 

Levin, Hal, “Best Sustainable Indoor Air Quality Practices in Commercial Buildings,” Third 

International Green Building Conference and Exposition--1996, NIST Special Publication 908, 

Gaithersburg, MD, November 1996, p 148. 

Life-Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials, Jonsson Asa, Anne-Marie Tillman, & Torbjorn 

Svensson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 1995. 

Parker et al., “Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in 

Residential Building,” ASHRAE Transactions, SF-98-6-2, Vol. 104, 1998, p. 1. 

Petersen, Stephen R., Economics and Energy Conservation in the Design of New Single-Family 

Housing, NBSIR 81-2380, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1981. 
 

305

Portland Cement Association, Concrete Products Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data Set for 

Incorporation into the NIST BEES Model, PCA R&D Serial No. 2168, PCA Project 94-04a, 

prepared by Michael Nisbet, JAN Consultants, 1998. 

Potting, Jose and Blok, Kornelis, “Life-cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering,” 

Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1995, pp. 201-213. 

Potting, Jose and Kornelis, Blok, Life-cycle Assessment of Four Types of Floor Covering,

Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 1994. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), DEAM: Data for Environmental Analysis and Management,

developed by Ecobilan (a member company of PwC), 2001. 

R.S. Means Company, Inc., 2007 Building Construction Cost Data, Kingston, MA, 2006. 

Research Triangle Institute. A Multimedia Waste Reduction Management System for the State of 

North Carolina, Final Report. Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Health, 

Environment, and Natural Resources, Pollution Prevention Program, April, 1993. 

Roodman, D.M., and Lenssen, N., A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns 

are Transforming Construction, Worldwatch Paper 124, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, 

March 1995. 

Rushing, A.S. and Fuller, S.K., Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis –April 2006, NISTIR 85-3273-21, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Washington, DC, 2006. 

Saaty, Thomas L., MultiCriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process--Planning, 

Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988. 

SETAC, A Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, J. Fava, et al. (eds), 1993. 

SETAC, Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A “Code of Practice,” F. Consoli, et al. (eds), 

1993. 

SETAC-Europe, Life Cycle Assessment, B. DeSmet, et al. (eds), 1992. 

SETAC, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art, J. Owens, et al. (eds), 1997. 

Sheehan, J. et al., Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban 

Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089, prepared for USDA and U.S DOE, May 1998. 

Spelter H, Wang R, and Ince P, Economic Feasibility of Products from Inland West SmallDiameter Timber, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ( May 1996). 
 

306

Steen B., A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development 

(EPS). Version 2000, CPM Report 1999:4 and 5, CPM, Chalmers University, Göteborg 1999. 

Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape, Environmental Series No. 250. 

United Nations Environment Programme, “Sustainable Building and Construction: Facts and 

Figures,” Industry and Environment: Sustainable Building and Construction, Vol. 26, No. 2-3, 

April-September 2003. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and 

New Uses, “Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement,” Federal 

Register, 7 CFR Part 2902, Vol. 70, No. 7, January 11, 2005. 

U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory 

Database, 109Hhttp://www.nrel.gov/lci/. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index: All Urban Consumers, Series 

CUUR0000SAH, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov, January 3, 2007. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summary, 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management 

Strategies, A Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and 

Environmental Impacts, EPA/600/R-94/177, Office of Research and Development, Washington, 

DC., 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors, 

Version 6.0, EPA 454/C-98-005, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, October 1998. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Framework for Responsible Environmental 

Decisionmaking (FRED): Using Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate Preferability of Products, by 

Science Applications International Corporation, Research Triangle Institute, and EcoSense, Inc, 

EPA 600/R-00/095, 2000. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Life Cycle 

Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles, EPA/600/R-92/245, February 1993. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Toward Integrated 

Environmental Decision-Making, EPA-SAB-EC-00-011, Washington, D.C., August 2000 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting 

Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, SAB-EC-90-021, Washington, D.C., 

September 1990. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Background Document to Support 

Rulemaking Pursuant to the Clean Air Act - Section 112(g), Ranking of Pollutants with Respect 
 

307

to Hazard to Human Health. EPA-450/3-92-010, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and 

Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI): User’s Guide and System Documentation, EPA/600/R02/052, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, August 2002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool. Beta Test 

Version 1.0. User’s Guide and System Documentation, EPA 530-R-97-019, Draft, Office of 

Solid Waste, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC, 1997. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, October 27, 1992. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs: Appendix C, Washington, DC, January 2007. 

Whitestone Research, The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 2006-

2007, 11th Annual Edition, Santa Barbara, CA, 2006. 

Wilson, Alex and Malin, Nadav, “The IAQ Challenge: Protecting the Indoor Environment,” 

Environmental Building News, Vol. 5, No. 3, May/June 1996, p 15. 

Wilson, Alex, “Insulation Materials: Environmental Comparisons,” Environmental Building 

News, Vol. 4, No. 1, January/February 1995, pp.15-16 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific assessment of ozone depletion, 1991. 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, 

Report 44 (Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project).