Trorum Life-Cycle Assessment Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment J. W. Owens Environmental Science Department The Procior 6 Gamble Company Cincinnati, Ohio, USA ——— Keywords Kec ventory Summary fecyce assessment Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique for systematically re assessment analyzing a product from cradle-to-grave, that is, from re- prococt We-qteasessment source extraction through manufacture and use to disposal, LCA is a mixed or hybrid analytical system. An inventory phase analyzes system inputs of energy and materials along with outputs of emissions and wastes throughout iife cycle, usually as quantitative mass loadings. An impact assessment phase then examines these loadings in light of potential en- vironmental issues using a mixed spectrum of qualitative and quantitative methods The constraints imposed by inventorys loss of spatial, temporal, dose-response, and threshold infor: mation raise concerns about the accuracy of impact assess- ment. The degree of constraint varies widely according to ‘the environmental issue in question and models used to ex- trapolate the inventory data. LCA results may have limited value in two areas (1) local and/or transient biophysical pro- cesses and (2) issues involving biological parameters, such as biodiversity, habitat alteration, and toxicity. The end result is dle omnes that impact assessment does not measure actual effects or ee en impacts, nor does it calculate the likelihood of an effect or ‘Series Fisk Rather, LCA impact assessment results are largely direc- Feviromanvat Stee Deparment tional environmental indicators. The accuracy and usefulness 5299 Spine Gove Avesse of indicators need to be assessed individually and in a cir- ‘Gein, OH 45217 ccurnstance-specific manner prior to decision making.Thisfim- SER its LCA’s usefulness as the sole basis for comprehensive assessments and the comparisons of alternatives. In conclu- sion, LCA may identify potential issues from a systemwide (© Coprtight 1997 bythe Masachuteta perspective, but more-focused assessments using other ana- Insite of Technology and Yale Univesity tical techniques are often necessary to resolve the issues. Volume 1, Number 1 1 Journal of Industrial Ecology 37Tronun Introduction In an attempt to improve the environmental character of products, materials, and activities, businesses and governments are pursuing life cycle-based approaches. A life-cycle approach entails a cradle-to-grave consideration of all the stages of a product system.! Stages include the extraction of raw materials; the provision of en- ergy for the operations and transportation be- tween them; material processing and fabrication; product manufacture and distribution, use, recy- cling; and disposal ofthe wastes and the product, itself. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an analyti- cal methodology used to provide information on a product's energy, materials, wastes, and emis- sions from a life-cycle perspective along with an examination of associated environmental issues. LCA is now generally considered to have four components: (1) goal and scope, (2) inven- tory, (3) impact assessment, and (4) improve- ‘ment assessment (SETAC 1991; SETAC 1993a; Hunt et al. 1992; U.S. EPA 1993; Lindfors etal. 1995a). These LCA components evolved some- what separately, and only the inventory opera~ tions relevant to impact assessment and the impact assessment component itself are dis- cussed here. Historically, LCA began in the late 1960s as an exercise to create a mass balance of systemwide energy and materials in order to ana- Iyze the efficiency of resource use of products and materials (see Hunt and Franklin 1996). A brief attempt was made to use these inventories for claims regarding environmental superiority, such as polystyrene over paper packaging (Hock- ing 1991). LCA rarely provided clear differen- tiation between products, however. Instead, LCA demonstrated that (1) all product systems consumed resources and produced wastes and ‘emissions, and (2) most comparisons were in- conclusive because of the discovery of complex and disparate trade-offs. About the same time, LCA practitioners began to explore using the inventory data to characterize the overall envi- ronmental burden of a system with respect to specific environmental issues or categories. The procedural phase generating the profile has been termed “impact assessment” (SETAC 1991), and a conceptual framework for impact assessment hhas been proposed (SETAC 1993a). This exten- 38 Journal of Industrial Ecology sion of inventory esults into impact assessment is still in an exploratory stage. The basic prin- ciples for impact assessment are: (1) the assess- ‘ment should focus on specific concerns or categories, and (2) the process should be a stepwise exercise separating three different op- erations (SETAC 1993b): 1. Classification: Properly select and orga- nize inventory data into technically correct categories. Examples of such cat- egories include climate change, eutrophi- cation, and renewable resources. 2. Characterization: Model the selected in- ‘ventory data to provide better perspective than simple mass loadings, for example, the total number of pounds or tons released. For example, methane is about twenty-fold more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, so that masses alone might be misleading 3. Valuation: Use subjective values in an at- tempt torank or to weight across different categories. ‘Contention has been growing over the use of the term “impact assessment” (Arnold 1995; Perriman 1995; White etal. 1995b). LCA prac- titioners acknowledge that LCA cannot predict ‘or measure actual impacts or effects, but may use the phrase “potential” impacts (see White etal. 1995b). This still seems unclear and confusing because, without assessing or predicting effects, how can a technique assess “potential” impacts? ‘The inventory and impact assessment phases OfLCA have different end results and constitute ‘a mixed or hybrid analytical system. The inven- tory component quantifies energy use, the masses of inputs, and the mass loadings of products, wastes, and releases on a systemwide basis. In contrast, the extrapolation ofthese mass-loading data generates a diverse spectrum of qualitative and quantitative estimates when inventory data are examined from an environmental perspec- tive. These impact results are, by nature, simpli- fications. This article argues that impact ‘assessment results are best described as numerical indicators. These indicators are not a measure- ‘ment of actual effeets or demonstration of any causal linkages, but they do provide simplified directional perspective on environmental topics,providing information on the direction or trend ina given measurement. Currently, the interpre- tative use of these indicators is being explored for a number of applications, such as design for environment. ‘The important issue is whether LCA impact assessment provides only a spectrum of useful in- sights on a system or is also a sound, overall char- acterization useful for all rypes of comparisons, including judgments of enviconmental perfor- mance. This issue has been raised in a more ex- tended technical discussion submitted to the International Standards Organization (Owens and Rhodes 1995). The difference between these views centers on whether LCA alone is sufficient for making definitive comparisons or must be in- tegrated with a set of non-LCA complementary tools to provide meaningful and relevant an- swers. The following discussion is intended (1) to provide background on inventory procedures and (2) to identify a series of technical shorteomings in the current state of the art for impact assess- ‘ment. These shortcomings indicate that LCA has limited stand-alone capability for making com- parisons and must be used cautiously with a suite of asessment tools Description of the LCA Inventory The core of LCA is a cradle-to-grave life- cycle inventory analysis that is fundamentally an engineering exercise describing a chemical, ‘material, and energy accounting balance for the entire produce system. The various inputs and outputs are collected or inventoried for each unit operation in the defined system (figure 1). Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of life-cycle inventory (LCI), The inventory practice and methods are réla- tively well defined (SETAC 1991; SETAC 1993a; U.S. EPA 1993). ‘Three basic inventory conventions and proce- dures are central to LCA and must be taken into account for the subsequent impact assessment: (1) the functional unit calculation, (2) allocation of resources and emissions among multiple prod- ucts, and (3) systemwide data aggregation. In ad- dition, inventory data availability and quality concerns raise analogous issues for impact assess- ment where these aggregated data are assigned to categories, modeled, and aggregated. The Functional Unit Calculation The LCA inventory accounting measure- ment of efficiency occurs mathematically through a “functional unit” to be defined during the goal-and-scope phase (SETAC 199 SETAC 1993a; Hunt, Sellers etal. 1992; U.S. EPA 1993; Lindfors et al. 1995a). Examples of functional units for product systems are packag- ing for 1,000 liters of beverage or the paint to cover 200 square meters. All raw data energy, resources, emissions, and wastes for a system are then normalized to this functional unit, placing all che data on a standardized basis relative to the function. In the beverage package example, ‘normalized results for an aluminum can would be expressed as, for‘example: 0.85 kilograms (kg) of aluminum used or 9 grams (g) of fluoride emitted per 1,000 lites of beverage. The use of a functional unit results in a relative analysis of efficiency for energy and material and is crucial to the original inventory purpose. However, there isno estimate ofthe absolute mass—which Owens, Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment 39Tronun ENERGY Blecttchy Fane (rious) cous £24 iali-sagens xd OPERATION now | s5(15%9) __-| EMISSIONS & WASTES prooucrs TO RECYCLE Agen) seep eats Pets Figure 2 Schematic of is what is needed in a spatial context to begin addressing specific environmental impacts. For example, the relative magnitude of numbers in LCA would not be changed with releases per “widget” calculated for 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 widgets. However, there would be dra- matically different absolute values of importance to environmental and human health scientists and managers Data Allocation Procedures Inventory accounting procedures often re- quite a division or allocation of the materials, ‘energy, and releases, for example, when two or more products are produced in the same opera tion. One example is refinery operations where total refinery resource consumption and emis- sions must be divided or allocated among these products. By accounting convention, allocation usually occurs on a mass basis, and a conceptual example is shown in figure 2. Product A would receive 64.5% of the inputs and outputs, B, 12.9%, C, 6.5%, and the recycled product 16.1%. For most systems, several sequential allocation procedures and calculations are necessary, which reduces further the final percentage of input or output from a particular operation attributed to the product system. This allocation is also neces- sary for a relative energy and material compari- son. Thus, LCA deals with a limited portion of the overall releases in an operation. In this sec- cond fundamental way, LCA does not address or 40 Journal of industrial Ecology inventory data allocation, consider absolute releases of an operation as is normally done in dealing with actual impacts and calculating the likelihood of effects or risks. Data Aggregation ‘Ageregation across the many operations of a system isa particular feature of LCA. Thus, simi- lar elements are combined or aggregated from different operations and locations, for example, asolvent’s releases are summed from production, transportation and distribution, use, recycling, and disposal. Although again necessary for over- all energy and material accounting, this ap- proach is not environmentally realistic. The combination of emissions from different sites (eg., multiple watersheds and air regions) as- sumes a single, overall global exposure that never ‘occurs in reality. This would normally be consid- ered either grossly conservative or unacceptably inaccurate in most environmental assessments. Data Quality and Availability ‘The quality and availability of data for the in- ventory process varies widely and is an expressed concem in the impact assessment process (USS. EPA 1995a). In usual practice, data are collected from a variety of sources: production sites, engi- neering texts, regulatory reports for industries, or industry literature. In many cases, data are not available dicectly from the most accurate source—production sites. These data are usuallyENVIRONMENT considered proprietary. The result is considerable variation in accuracy among numerous indi- vidual data points and the potential for out-of- date entries. In addition, averages or even point estimates from the different sources may then be extrapolated to an entire industry. Ranges, minima, maxima, or distributions have rarely been available in life-cycle studies, and data un- certainty analysis is not widely practiced. I is common practice to address inventory data gaps by using assumptions or estimates. A complete analysis of minor or incidental emis- sions is impractical for any individual operation and isnot feasible for a complete cradle-to-grave system. LCA data are also static by nature. In- ventory data need regular updating, and the dif- ficulty in projecting future performance and innovation must be considered. Overview of Impact Assessment Framework Impact assessment attempts to examine the potential environmental consequences ofa prod- ‘uct system using inventory data. To doo, impact assessment seeks an association or relationship between inventory data set and particular envi- ronmental issues or endpoints using defined im- pact categories. For each category endpoint, the environmental and human health sciences have usually identified a number of compounds or stressors that are related to adverse effects for that endpoint (e.g, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen Conceptual Mechanics of impact Assessment Forum 1 Figure 3 Conceptual diagram of ife-cycle impact assessment ‘oxides for acid rain). These compounds are then targeted for inventory data collection for pat- ticular categories. Then, a category-specific model is used with simplifying assumptions to convert the inventory data into a numerical cat- egory indicator. This category indicator is in- tended to portray in a reasonable fashion an overall load from the system, a life-cycle stage, or ‘an operation on the specific category endpoint. This is shown conceptually in figure 3. Combin- ing all greenhouse gases as total carbon dioxide equivalents is an example of category indicator. In principle, impact assessment strives to achieve an accurate model and representative indicator, but this is often a difficult problem in practice. The indicator’s actual benefit and worth remains to be determined and understood before making decisions. As will be discussed, several factors are involved in determining accu- racy and representativeness. They are: *# disparities between inherent spatial, tem- poral, and toxicological characteristics of the categories and LCA introduced by in- ‘ventory accounting and calculation pro- cedures; * differences in how various categories are defined, especially when subjective judg- ment replaces scientific evidence; and * differences in how various modeling ap- proaches generate the indicators. ‘The important implications of the inventory ac- counting conventions and procedures are sev- ‘Owens, Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment 4Tronon eral. Spatial considerations are largely removed, although industrial sites are widely, even glo- bally, dispersed. Temporal considerations are also lost. The aggregated emissions include sites where rates of emissions may easily differ by sev- eral orders of magnitude. These losses of tempo- ral and spatial considerations lead to an inability to deal with exposure and ambient concentra- tions which, in tur, leads to an inability to deal with thresholds, critical loads, or dose-response characteristics. LCA also misses the duration, frequency, and magnitude of exposure as well as the occurrence of peak exposures. The result is that LCA users are forced to presume that (1) no threshold exists for any endpoint or effect, and (2) all dose-responses are strictly linear. This nonthreshold assumption has been specifically noted as a difficulty during interpretation and use of the impact assessment results, for ex- ample, the aggregation of seemingly negligible quantities of substances into cotals that are im plied to be significant (SETAC 1993b; U.S. EPA. 1995). This is because, in LCA, all emissions become relevant and are assumed to cause ef fects, whether or not is actually true. Thus, only a zero emission would then have zero im- pact in an LCA context. This assumption con- tradicts thresholds observed in toxicology and the de minimis approach of most toxicologists and regulatory policymakers. Figure 4 Theretionship Spatial LOCAL REGIONAL CONTINENTAL GLOBAL between spatial and temporal TemporalHOURS! WEEKS/ YEARS DECADES scales and LCI, DAYS _MONTHS 4% Journal of Industrial Ecology LACK OF ACCURACY Inherent Characteristics of Impact Categories ‘The inherent spatial, temporal, anid threshold characteristics of each category conflict with the global scale of inventory procedures as shown in figure 4. The capabilities to understand expo- sure, estimate ambient concentrations, or deal with Local factors and processes are lost. These are the core reasons that LCA cannot measure ot predict actual effects. Relative functional unit, loadings are also inadequate to deal with a mul- titude of factors involved in actual impacts as depicted in the following function. IMPACT =f (location, medium, time, rate of release, route of exposure, natural enviconmen- tal process mechanisms, distribution in environ- mental media, environmental persistence, mobility, bioavailability, accumulation, toxicity, concentration of release, assimilative capacity of the particular ecosystem or organism, threshold of effect, etc.). Adapted from U.S. EPA (1995a). Inaddition, basie LCA assumptions are incon- sistent with the process of most ecological effects. * LCA assumes processes respond in a strictly linear manner. Yet, many processes are nonlinear. ‘+ LCA assumes all processes do not have a threshold of critical load; all releases are implicitly presumed to lead to effects. Yet, TE REPRESENTATION Extrapolation of inventory data to impact categories which operate at small spatial scales or at small temporal intervals becomes increasingly inaccurate.Forum Table | Potential accuracy of impact categories based on inherent characteristics Dose ‘Accuracy Impact cavegories Spatial Temporal response Threshold __ relevance Global warming Global ‘iDe Linear (2) No() Good’ Stratospheric ozone Global [De Linear No Good Acidification CriReg. Years Nonlinear Yes, Fair Eutrophication Reg/Local Years Linear Yes Fair-Poor Photochemical smog Reg /Local Hours/Day VNoolinear_— No(?)_ Poor Ecotoxicity Local H-Yeas Nonlinear Yes. Poor Habitat loss Reg. (2)fLocal DefYears Nonlinear ‘Yes Very poor Biodiversity Reg.(2)fLocal Years Nonlinear Yes Very Poor ‘Cr: Continental; Reg. Regional; C: Centuries; De: Decades (?) Some uncertainty in answer; VNonlinear: Very Non many processes have thresholds, and ‘many releases do not lead to any effect or consequence. Implications of Category Inherent Char- acteristics The implications of these inherent constraints are important to understand. There is a wide range of accurate representation and relevance from good to very poor for categories as shown in table 1, and each category is an individual mixture of different characteristics. For some—but not cother—categories, the inherent feasibility and ac- curacy of estimating the category indicators ap- pear tobe acceptable. Global, long-lived processes could be modeled with some accuracy through LCA. In contrast, as processes become more local and more transient, the loss of accuracy and reso- lution increases so that aggregated, mass-loading approaches lose relevance. For example, the com- bined exposure presumed for ecotoxicity or human toxicity by aggregating different substances across the numerous sites simply does not occur in real- ity. In these cases, systemwide aggregation goes beyond worst-case assumptions and results to ere- ate an unrealistic total. The feasibility of LCA impact assessment may be questioned in cases where mass-loading approaches do not result in pertinent metrics The relevant measures are biological in the case of biodiversity and habitat loss, for example, ‘number and types of species for biodiversity and usefulness ofthe specific habitat for species’ for- aging, reproduction, and development. This underscores LCA status as only one of several tools and data sources that should be integrated to provide any overall assessment. In the area of resources, integration of LCA with other information sources and tools is also necessary. For renewable resources, more infor- mation than mass loadings is necessary to under- stand the replenishment of those resources. In the case of forestry, harvesting and silviculture practices are site- and species-specific, for ex- ample, rotation time is affected by climate and other factors. For nonrenewable resources, re- serves of minerals are dynamic, given that these are estimates of economically extractable quan- tities (current reserves) or currently known de- posits (ultimate reserves). The technology and economics to explore, extract, and process as well as the feasibility of recycling and substitu- tion are variables for each individual material that LCA is unable to address. In conclusion, impact assessment should treat each category in @ unique and individual fashion based on spatial, temporal, dose-response, and threshold heterogeneity among categories. There are important implications for the interpretation of LCAs. Firs, indicators for local and transient categories should be used cautiously unless sup- ported by other information and environmental assessment tools. Second, approaching highly complex biological endpoints, such as biodiver- sity, habitat alteration, and possibly toxicity, with rmass-loading data and models is of questionable relevance and worth. (Owens, Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment 43T ronun Organization of Inventory Data into Impact Categories The next issue for the practical accuracy of LCA impact assessment is the variation in the way impact categories are defined. Two altema- tive approaches introduce additional variation across categories. This adds further heterogeneity confounding interpretation and decision making: * An approach using only known mecha- nisms or processes of action. These mechanisms are drawn from environmen- tal or human health science as the basis for associating inventory compounds or stressors and a category endpoint, and Figure Sa Diagram of, acidification impact category with simplified mechanism. taventor Eniastone Figure Sb Diagram of tight simplified mechanism. 44 Journal of Industrial Ecology + An alternative approach, where some de- sree of subjective judgment is used to de- fine a category. These judgments may be assumptions necessary to create categories or simplified conditions for indicator mod- els that compromise or even contradict environmental or human health science. ‘The mechanistic approach is preferred be- cause itis scientifically supportable. A known mechanism clearly defines effect or endpoint, inventory data to be collected, the potential cat- egory model, and what environmental or other data may test the relevance of the indicator re- sults. Figure Sa shows an acidification mecha- EnvconmentalProcessea >>nism example: the acidification model uses as its basis for equivalency the quantity of protons (acid) generated from each stressor. Although a simple, worst-case estimate, this provides a sci- entifically acceptable basis to calculate an over- all representative loading as an indicator. Universal models and indicators, however, are not technically valid in cases such as eutrophica- tion. Here, the excess of only one of several po- tential limiting nutrients contributes to excessive algal and plant growth at a given site, that is, limiting nutrients are not additive. So a scientifically supportable equivalency to aggre- gate the materials into an overall burden does not exist (figure 5b). Human and ecological toxicity demonstrate both the need for an alternative, qualitative ap- proach and the difficulties of using this ap- proach. There are thousands of chemicals and hundreds of different known mechanisms; many ‘other mechanisms are unknown or incompletely known. A mechanistic approach for these areas is impractical. Qualitative categories are a pos- sible substitute for linkages, but they introduce subjective judgments. For example, toxicologists ‘would not normally combine compounds unless common modes of action have been demon- strated, that is, the compounds exert their toxic- ity via the same mechanism. In contrast, LCA presumes to add all toxics into an overall “score” even if modes of action are scientifically known tobe different. Therefore, subjective judgments will likely engender controversy for applications such as marketing claims or ecolabels; and the use of subjective judgments must be explicitly documented. Modeling of Inventory Data in Impact Categories Afeer the inventory data are assigned to par- ticular categories, the selected data are modeled cor characterized to create the category indi tors. Again, indicators are a representation of the world, nota direct measurement of actual ef- fects. The characterization models, like the in- herent characteristics and category definitions, are usually unique for each impact category. This introduces substantial further variation across categories. To understand informational content Forum and accuracy of a category, the quality and accu racy of the underlying model also needs to be understood. A wide spectrum of models with dif- ferent degrees of complexity and accuracy can be broadly classified into several groups or families (SETAC 1993b): © Equivalency models that attempt to create an overall loading within an impact cat- egory. Equivalency models are pivotal to the LCA aspiration of comparing different systems. * Individual characteristic or property mod- els that provide important perspective on individual substances, for example, envi- ronmental half-life and potency, which do not provide for aggregation. * Generic environmental models that pro- vide understanding of how a substance ‘moves in the environment once released, its degradation or fate, and, if rates of emission are known, expected average concentrations. Even within these families, there is heterogene- ity to consider during interpretation. In the case of the equivalency models, differences in their complexity and simplifying assumptions can be distinguished: ‘Sophisticated full equivalency models in- corporate several attributes and perspec- tives, for example, carbon dioxide equivalents for global warming include potency for the absorption and emission of infrared radiation as well as environ- ‘mental half-life. * Simple full equivalency models, for ex- ample, 100% maximum acidity (see figure 5a). + Equivalency models covering only sub- groups within a category, for example, the reactivity of organic substances covers one group of photochemical smog contribu- tors, This model, however, cannot incor- porate the highly nonlinear reaction of these organics with NO,. * Categories where universal equivalency models are not valid under all site-specific conditions, for example, eutrophication (see figure 5b). Owens, Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment 45Tronun Without equivalency, category indicators representing toral loadings are not scientifically supportable, Thus, direct comparisons between systems for such a category are not technically supportable, Valid equivalency models exist for only a few categories, meaning technical com- parisons are feasible for only a small subset of categories. Currently, sophisticated equivalency models are only available for greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletors. Increasing simplifying assumptions are made for other cat- cegories such as acid rain. Thus, the desired com- parative ability of LCA 2s a stand-alone tool is severely constrained if such compatisons require scientific validity. ‘Some additional useful information can be gained using individual properties when equiva- Tency is not available. For example, environ- mental persistence or half-life of substances is a valid parameter to consider. As before, underly- ing isues of confidence limits exist in such pa- rameters accumulated from different laboratories using different techniques and conditions. Also, there will be data gaps where the necessary pa- rameters may not be available for some sub- stances. Again, LCA’s comparative ability is constrained. Discussion ‘The goal of LCA is meaningful, overall im- provement of product or materials throughout the life cycle. Given the complexity of this un- dertaking, LCA’s capabilities and limitations to deliver useful and accurate information must be clearly understood. Foremost, LCA is a mixed system. The inventory and the impact assess- ment phases are inherently different in the type and quality of information they deliver. The in- ventory phase is focused on the efficiency with which energy and materials are used, and repre- sents a quantitative accounting system. The im- pact assessment phase attempts to examine possible environmental issues. The inventory accounting conventions, however, constrain the impact assessment to only mass loading informa- tion and lack relevant environmental measures and information. ‘The various category indicators are then of a far more qualitative nature than inventory results 46 Journal of Industrial Ecology and are based on aggregation and worst-case, no threshold presumptions. This introduces signifi- cant compromises to the value of this informa- tion. Further, considerable variety exists among indicators, s0 each much be interpreted individu- ally. This poses questions about how to properly apply and use LCA. The limited case studies available indicate that LCA impact assessment ‘can yield contradictory, conflicting, and incom- patible results (Lindfors et al. 1995a, 1995b). Most important, although impact assessment may potentially lead toa better recognition of associa tions between a product system and the possible ‘environmental consequences, LCA cannot quan- tify actual environmental effects or easily incor- porate the multiplicity of other relevant factors necessary to determine actual impacts. ‘This leads to the core problem: miscommuni- cation of LCA capabilities and usefulness in the use of the term “impact.” For most parties, im- pact is directly synonymous with an adverse con- sequence. By equating mass loadings with impact, there is an implicit assumption that all emissions will be directly related to effects, whether or not this is actually true. The term impact also sometimes leads to an expectation that LCA cannot deliver: that LCA can by itself distinguish or discriminate environmentally rel- evant differences. Infact, LCA does not demon- strate any direct linkage between cause and effect, and this point should be clearly commu- nicated to users and the study audiences (US. EPA 1995a). ‘A wide range of applications has been pro- posed for LCA, for example, from design for the environment exercises to marketing claims and ecolabels to government policy. Can LCA pro- vide the required technical and scientific rigor commensurate with the needs of each applica- tion? Not in isolation from other environmental ‘measures for most applications. LCA needs to be integrated with these other information and as- sessment techniques to obtain a relevant analysis ‘of the emission and resources for decision makers. The current process is deficient in a number of respects. The LCA impact assessment process, however, i in its infancy (U.S. EPA 1995a), and several remedies can be suggested. ‘The first remedy is to rename LCA’s qualita- tive impact assessment component as an emis-sion and resource assessment to remove the con- fusion in the misuse of the term impact. This prevents the untealistic expectations that lead to the proposal to use LCA as the sole tech- ‘nique or information source for determining overall environmental superiority. ‘The second remedy is to provide a means to understand the basic usefulness and accuracy of the emission and resource information contained in each environmental category. A descriptive system similar to table 1 and including the char- acterization models is needed to provide perspec- tive on the usefulness of LCA information in various categories. This would make the funda- mental constraints and assumptions explicit and recognizable. In addition, LCA practitioners ‘usually report both inventory and impact assess- ment phase results as average point estimates. Presenting these various category indicators as single point estimates and as equivalent in sub- stance and accuracy is at best an incomplete screening analysis and, at worst, may be a seti- ously misleading description for decision makers. Distinctions in inventory data quality and ranges are also needed so that sensitivity analyses can be performed on the indicator results ‘The third remedy isto recognize that LCA re- sults are only directional indicators for each cat- egory. Conceptually, indicators aggregate and distill important data to identify an issue or is- sues and, over time, establish trends. In the en vironmental area, several national and international organizations have begun to de- velop and to evaluate the use of indicators and indicator systems. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is evaluating a pressure-state-response system of environmental indicators to give a snapshot of issue and to be used for trend analy- sis. According to the OECD (1994), this combi- nation of indicators allows parties to understand ina simple, but crude, fashion the condition of a category (state, eg., the level of water or air pol- lution), those activities and emissions contribut- ing to the burden on the category (pressure, e.g. the quantities of substances released), and the actions taken to improve the category (response, eg, the number of audits or regulatory viola- tions). When indicator trends are combined, progress or deterioration in the category may be evident, indicating the success of the response or the need for further improvement. It is reco; nized that national indicators need to be subdi vided for many categories into regional and even local indicators in order to be useful (Environ- ment Canada 1991). In LCA, the various cat cegory indicators could be viewed as analogous to the pressure indicators. LCA, however, lacks the information provided by the environmental sta- tus and response indicators. This presents a possibility for a fourth remedy, the use of non-LCA information to address the actual relevance of the LCA\s profile of emission and resource indicators. To date, LCA results have not been integrated with other techniques, ‘or Sources of information such as environmental ‘or occupational monitoring or ecological and human health risk assessments. Yet, to make clear the relevance of the emission and resources, identified by LCA, environmental data must be used to assess the occurrence, magnitude, fre- quency, of risks of actual effects. Environmental inventories underlay many of the state indicators noted above. Examples include air and water na- tional inventories in the United States whit are accumulated from regional, state, and local data (US. EPA 1994, 1995b) and emerging in- ternational inventories (OECD 19912,1991b; UNEP 1994). LCA‘s broad, but rudimentary, screening capabilities need to be integrated with other environmental tools in an overall environ- mental management framework. The goal is to have each tool or technique performing the task and providing the information to which it is best suited, while other complementary tools address its weaknesses and limitations. Recently, such a preliminary scheme for environmental manage- ment has been outlined (White et al. 1995a). In summary, LCA isnot capable or sufficient by itselfof generating a comprehensive environ- ‘mental assessment of any system. This does not diminish the several demonstrated benefits of LCA: (1) evaluate the overall material and en- exgy efficiency of a system; (2) identify pollution shifts between operations or media as well as other trade-offs in materials, energy, and re- leases; and (3) benchmark system efficiency im- provements and reductions in releases. LCA offers a broad screening approach using mass loadings to indicate numerous hypothetical con- Owens, Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment 47Tronun sequences possible from releases. When the nec- essary data are collected in the inventory data set, LCA thus provides some insight and identi- fies possible issues in the environmental, re- source, and human health areas. LCA may be most useful during the design phase of products. Screening information that offers rapid issue identification is much needed. This allows the design team to turn to profes- sionals from various disciplines to evaluate the identified issues using other information and techniques. The end result is to identify and to avoid significant problems that were previously hidden. This prevents major development delays and rework, if otherwise undiscovered environ- ‘mental problems are encountered later in the product development cycle. More important, pollution and possible disposal and waste liabili- tles are avoided once the design enters actual production. Beyond product design, LCA en- counters increasing limitations. Outside mate~ sial and energy efficiency, LCA will not provide definite, overall answers that many users may desire or clear unequivocal answers for some im- pact categories. This significantly limits LCA’s ability to conduct an overall or comprehensive assessment and to compare alternatives. Notes 1, The térm “product system” stems from the engi- reering approach inherent in LCA accounting procedures. Engineers recognize a multitude of diverse, but individual, operations necessary to extract energy materials, produce intermediates, formulate or produce, use the product, and man- age wastes in various operations. These indl- vidual operations are interelated by the lifecycle ‘of a product that then constitutes a “system” for that product. References Amnold, FS. 1995. Why environmental life cycle as- sessment doesn't work. Journal of Environmental Law and Science (first quarter): 4-14. Environment Canada. 1991. Report on Canada's ‘progress towards a national set of environmental indicators. SOE Report 91-1. ENI-11/91-1E, En- vironment Canada, Ottawa. 48 Journal of Industrial Ecology Hocking, M. B. 1991. Paper versus polystyrene: A. ‘complex choice. Science 251: 504-505. ‘Hunt, R.G., and W. E, Franklin. 1996. LCA—How it came about—Personal reflections on the origin and the development of LCA in the USA. Inte- national Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14-7. Hunt, R. G., J. D. Sellers, and W. E. Franklin. 1992, Resource and environmental profile analysis: A. lifecycle environmental assessment for products and procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Reviews 12: 245-269, Lindfors, L-G., K. Christiansen, L. Hoffman, Y. Viewnen, V.Juntilla, 0. Hanssen, A. Ranning, T. Ekvall, and G. Finnveden. 1995a, Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nordic ‘Council of Ministers. Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen. Lindfors, L-G., K. Christiansen, L. Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, Ve Juntilla, A. Leskinen, O-J Hanssen, A. Renning, T. Ekvall, and G. Finnveden. 1995b. LCA-Nordic technical reports No. 10. TemaNord 1995:503 Committee on Cleaner Technology, Nordic Council of Minis- ters, Soborg, Denmark. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1991a. OECD environmental data. Compendium 1991. 97-91-01-1. Paris. OECD. 1991b. The sate of he environment. 97-91-01- 1. Pati OECD. 1994. Environmental indicators: OECD core set. Pati. ‘Owens, J. W. and S. Rhodes. 1995. Discusion paper on the feasibility of developing characterization models for various impact categories. ISO TC207/SC 5/ ‘WG, D30, Paris: International Standards Orga- nization. Perriman, R. J. 1995. Is LCA losing its way? SETAC- Europe LCA-News 5(1): 45. SETAC. 1991. A technical framework for life-cycle assessment. Edited by J. Fava, R. Denison, B. Jones, M. Curran, B. Vigon, S. Selke, and J. Barnum. Proceedings of a workshop in Sraug- slers Notch, Vermont. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18-23 August 1990 at Pensacola, Florida. SETAC. 1993a. Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: ‘A ‘Code of Practice.” Edited by F. Consoli, D. Allen, I. Boustead, J. Fava, W. Franklin, A. A. Jensen, N. de Oude, R. Parrish, R. Periman, D. Postlethwaite, B. Quay, J. Séguin, and B. Vigon. Society of Environmental Toxicology and (Chemistry Press, Pensacola, FL- SETAC. 19938. A conceptual framework for life- ‘eycle impact assessment. Edited by J. Fava, F.Consoli, R Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin, and B. Vigon. Proceedings of a workshop in Sandestin, Florida. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1~7 February 1992, at Pensacola, Florida UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program). 1994. Environmental Data Report 1993-1994. Prepared for the UNEP by GEMS Monitoring ‘and Assessment Research Centre, London. Ox- ford: Blackwell Publishers. USS. EPA (US. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Life-cycle assessment: Inventory guidelines and principles. EPA/6OQ/R-92/245. Prepared by Battelle and Franklin Associates for the U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Laboratory, Office of Re- search and Development. Cincinnati, OH. US. EPA. 1994. National air quality and emissions trends report, 1993. Office of Air Quality, US. EPA, EPA 454/R-94/026. Research Triangle Park, NC. Forum 7 USS. EPA. 1995a, Life-cycle impact assessment: A con- ceptual framework, key issues, and summary of x- isting methods. EPA/6OO/R-95/245. Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for the U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. ULS. EPA. 1995b. National water quality inventory. 1994 report to Congress. U.S. EPA, Office of Wa- ter. EPA/B41/R-95005. Washington, DC. White, P.R., B. De Smet, J.W. Owens, and P. Hindle. 1995a, Environmental Management in an Inter national Consumer Goods Company. Resources, conservation and recycling 14: 171-184. White, P, B. De Smet, H. A. Udo de Haes, and R. Heijungs. 1995b. LCA back on track—but is it ‘one track or two? SETAC-Europe LCA-News 5G) 4-5. Owens, Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment 49