Below is a list of our past and present projects organized by subject. Just click on any project title to see the project description for that project.
Most of our projects have a corresponding publication that was created as one of the project's deliverables. See our Publications page for a listing of our publications that you can order online.
AUTOMOBILES & TRANSPORTATION
ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
PRINTING INDUSTRY
EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TOOLS
ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING
OTHER PRODUCT-RELATED PROJECTS
The Product Side of Pollution Prevention: Evaluating the Potential for Safe Substitutes
EPA
Period of Performance: 1/90 - 9/93
Substitution of products and practices that do not require the use of toxic chemicals can reduce hazardous waste generation, mitigate toxic air, water, and soil pollution, and reduce both worker and public exposure to toxic chemicals. This report presents the results of the first study to evaluate the possibility of dramatic reductions in toxic chemical releases by focussing on safe substitutes for products or practices that contain or use toxic chemicals in their manufacturing processes. By identifying priority products for substitution and evaluating the feasibility of safe substitutes for those products, this study provides an important step in the shift toward prevention of toxic chemical pollution at the source.
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for safe substitutes for priority uses of toxic chemicals. The identification of priority uses focused on products that either contain or use chemicals included in the U.S. EPA's 33/50 Program. A list of priority products was developed by determining the most significant uses of the 33/50 chemicals. A useful tool was developed for identifying priority products for each 33/50 chemical - the chemical-use tree diagram. Chemical-use tree diagrams show the step-wise progression of the use of a chemical, from raw material stage through the final consumer or industrial use of the chemical or use of consumer products manufactured from the chemical. As the priority products for each or the 33/50 chemicals were identified, it became apparent that some of the priority products clustered into a few overall use clusters involving the use of more than one of the chemicals. From this evaluation, seven priority use clusters were selected for substitute evaluation: metal finishing, batteries, degreasing, paint stripping, dry cleaning, paints and coatings, and plastics and resins.
This report is organized into two parts. Part I contains the discussion of each of the 33/50 priority chemicals and the selection of priority use clusters for substitutes assessments. For each of the chemicals, the discussion includes the physical properties, health and environmental issues, an industry profile on manufacturers, the supply and demand, the price, the production processes, environmental releases and transfers reported to the Toxic Release Inventory, and an analysis of uses (i.e., chemical-use tree diagrams).
Part II of the report contains the discussion of each of the priority use clusters for which substitutes assessments were performed. This discussion includes an industry profile, the quantities of 33/50 chemicals used in the manufacturing of the product, the important properties of the product which results from the use of the 33/50 chemical, the environmental releases and transfers of 33/50 chemicals during the production of the product, and a focussed discussion of the health, safety, and environmental issues related to the products. Part II also contains an evaluation of safe substitutes for each priority use cluster. These substitutes span the gamut from simple product replacements (e.g., use of reusable cups to replace polystyrene disposable); to product redesign (e.g., substitution of biopolymers for polystyrene foam products); to substitutions for toxic chemicals in manufacturing processes (e.g., use of aqueous parts cleaning solutions in electronics manufacturing rather than solvent degreasing).
Environmental Evaluations for Environmental Labeling
Green Seal
Period of Performance: 12/91 - 12/96
The Center for Clean Products is the primary technical contractor to Green Seal for product environmental evaluations for environmental labeling. The Center works under a task order contract to perform preliminary environmental evaluations, full environmental evaluations, development of draft standards for labeling, and reviews of producer data for certification.
A preliminary evaluation involves a short-term review of data concerning a product and a product category to determine whether a full environmental evaluation should be performed leading to development of a standard for certification. The preliminary evaluation attempts to identify the major environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of the product category and whether
the particular product offers significant advantages in reducing these impacts. The preliminary evaluation is performed through literature reviews, database searches, and contacts with manufacturers.
A full environmental evaluation involves a more rigorous and more quantitative assessment of the life-cycle environmental impacts of the product category under review. The purpose is to identify the key environmental attributes of the product category and feasible measures to reduce them. Detailed surveys of products in the category are performed, and literature, databases, and manufacturer contacts are utilized to characterize and assess the magnitude of resource inputs, energy inputs, and environmental releases. The evaluation results in draft criteria for labeling that address the key environmental attributes.
Certification reviews involve comparison of data submitted by applicants to the standard that has been published by Green Seal. Scientific judgments are made in comparability of data and test methods, and additional testing may be required.
Projects have included certification review of a general purpose household cleaner, development of a recommended standard for laundry detergents, and preliminary environmental evaluations of a number of products, including paints, wood preservatives, concrete mold release agents, and household cleaners.
Household Cleaners: Environmental Evaluation and Proposed Standard for General Purpose Cleaners
Green Seal
Period of Performance: 12/91 - 8/93
The Center performed a full environmental evaluation of household cleaners and developed a proposed standard for labeling of general purpose cleaners. The Center further assisted Green Seal in the development of a draft standard for public comment and evaluated and responded to comments, and revised the standard.
The larger class of household cleaners was broken down into subclasses for evaluation and to determine the full scope of the term "household cleaners" (e.g., does it include oven cleaners and drain cleaners). Household cleaners were categorized by ingredients and by uses and the different types of product packaging for each product category were determined. A review of the market information on household cleaners was then performed to determine the market shares of particular categories of cleaners, product efficacy, and factors that have been reported to influence consumer preference.
Once the ingredient categories, use categories, and market information were evaluated, the general purpose cleaner category was defined for environmental impact evaluation, since it had the largest overall sales and use volume. Product performance standards and procurement regulations were documented for general purpose cleaners. Regulations pertaining to product ingredients were documented and EPA standards for releases during the manufacturing of product ingredients were documented.
A life-cycle evaluation approach was used to review the environmental impacts for the product category. The goal of this qualitative environmental impact evaluation was to identify the stages of the life-cycle for each product where the most significant environmental impacts occur. These significant impacts guided the development of recommended criteria for labeling for the product category to reduce the impacts.
The project team also documented other environmental performance standards for general purpose cleaners from other environmental labeling organizations, such as the Canadian Environmental Choice program and the German Blue Angel program. Finally, a draft standard for labeling was developed from the environmental impact evaluation and from discussions with product manufacturers and other contacts. The draft standard was modified through discussions with Green Seal and was published for public comment. The Center then reviewed the comments, evaluated them, responded to them in writing, and revised the standard for final publication.
Evaluating the Use of Life Cycle Assessment in Environmental Labeling Programs
EPA
Period of Performance: 10/92 - 9/93
This project assisted the EPA Pollution Prevention Division in evaluating the use of life cycle assessment (LCA) in environmental labeling programs in order to support policy analysis of environmental labeling options for the United States.
The project had the following objectives:
- To determine the extent to which existing environmental labeling programs have utilized life cycle assessment for product evaluation.
- To assess the validity and utility of product assessment approaches used by existing environmental labeling programs.
- To evaluate alternative methods for assessing the environmental impacts of products for environmental labeling, including qualitative methods and methods involving scoping to reduce data needs.
The existing product assessment approaches used by environmental labeling programs were studied by reviewing reports and literature concerning these programs and by discussions with labeling program staff. Details of how criteria are set for each program were studied and case studies of selected product categories for which criteria have been set were highlighted. Labeling program staff from several operating programs were contacted, including the Green Seal and Scientific Certification Systems programs in the United States, and the Canadian, German, Austrian, Swedish, French, Nordic, and European Communities' programs.
The methods used by these programs were compared to the ideal of life cycle assessment as provided in EPA's LCA Guidance Document and in publications of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. On the most basic level, the labeling criteria utilized were scrutinized to determine if they missed significant portions of the product life cycle. Where programs did not use LCA, the reasons were documented, including political, technical, and economic constraints. Alternative product assessment approaches for environmental labeling were also evaluated, including expert systems approaches.
A report covering the results of the project was published by EPA.
Vehicle Recycling and Environmental Improvement in Western Europe
Saturn Corporation
Period of Performance: 10/92 - 5/93
Automotive manufacturers in western Europe have been acknowledged as world leaders in vehicle recycling initiatives, largely due to proposed "take-back" legislation in Germany that would require automobile manufacturers to take post-use vehicles back and recycle their materials back into new vehicles. European manufacturers have also pioneered the use of life-cycle assessment in the design of the automobile. The Center was asked by the Saturn Corporation to explore the status of recycling and LCA initiatives in the European auto industry and the status of government initiatives driving the industry.
The project team conducted interviews with BMW, Volvo, German government officials, university researchers, and life-cycle practitioners. Literature was collected and translated. A report was prepared for the Saturn Corporation, and a version of the report was prepared for public release.
Clean Technologies Demonstration Project: Demonstration of Alternative Cleaning Systems
EPA
Period of Performance: 9/93 - 8/96
Widespread use of toxic chemicals in all segments of industry and commerce has created the need to deal with burgeoning waste streams containing toxic chemicals emitted into the air and water and buried in the soil. Two decades of pollution control regulations have not been completely effective in reducing environmental releases of toxic chemicals, nor mitigate the human health effects from toxic chemical use. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's 33/50 Program is one example of a new generation of emerging programs and policies which have a greater potential to reduce toxic chemical releases. The 33/50 Program asks industry to voluntarily reduce emissions of 17 toxic chemicals.
This report represents the first demonstration of cleaner technologies to support the goals of the 33/50 Program under the EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR821848. It focuses on substitutes for solvent degreasing processes that eliminate the use of chlorinated organic chemicals; the technologies were: 1) an aqueous wash system; 2) a no-clean technology; and 3) a hot water wash. Technical, environmental, and economic evaluations were performed to determine the merits of the substitutes. A national environmental impact evaluation was also performed to estimate the potential impacts on the nation's environment if entire industrial sectors were to implement the substitutes. This evaluation addressed environmental impacts from a life-cycle perspective. The life-cycle stages of chemical production, use, and disposal were evaluated to determine the national impacts of the alternatives as compared to the 33/50 chlorinated degreasing solvents.
The evaluations were supportive of the implementation of the alternative technologies. Technically, the aqueous wash system reduced process cycle time by 50 percent, and part reject rates by nearly 77 percent with improved cleaning characteristics. The no-clean alternative
had no effect on either cycle time or part reject rates. The environmental evaluation identified a shift in waste stream releases and transfers. The traditional processes released 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) to the air, as well as generating a TCA hazardous waste stream; the substitutes generates either a significant wastewater discharge (aqueous and hot water wash systems), or a volatile organic compound air emission (no-clean technology). Each alternative offered significant financial advantages when evaluated using activity based cost accounting and compared to the traditional solvent degreasing systems.
The national environmental impact evaluation compared the life-cycle environmental merits of traditional solvent systems and the alternatives. Chlorinated solvents, produced from petroleum feedstocks, result in significant emissions during the manufacturing and use of the products. The aqueous wash systems utilize detergents which include surfactants, builders, and chelating agents, all of which are produced from various raw materials and generate waste streams which must be compared to traditional attributes. The nation's infrastructure for wastewater treatment was then evaluated, and the potential impact estimated.
Two demonstrations remain under this cooperative agreement. The first demonstration will focus on safe substitutes for polystyrene as a cushioning material in packaging. Paper products, degradable polymer products, and reusable packaging will be evaluated as alternatives to polystyrene. The third and final demonstration will evaluate the technical, economic, and environmental implications of two alternatives to solvent-based paints and coatings. Powder coatings and a new, 100 percent solids paint product will be evaluated for safe substitutes to solvent-based paints.
Comparative Evaluation of Chemical Risk Ranking Methodologies
EPA
Period of Performance: 10/93 - 4/94
Risk-based evaluations of large numbers of chemicals are often required for regulatory action, to set priorities for pollution prevention, and to evaluate the impacts of chemical use or releases. Risk-based chemical ranking and scoring systems can be used to focus attention and resources on the largest potential hazards, combining an assessment of the toxic effects of chemicals and the potential exposure to those chemicals to provide a relative evaluation of risk.
Numerous chemical ranking and scoring systems have been developed without any scientific consensus on methods. To facilitate development of a framework for overall human health and environmental risk ranking, an evaluation of existing ranking and scoring systems was conducted, with a focus on chemical ranking and scoring. Fifty-one ranking and scoring systems were selected for detailed review. These systems spanned a wide range of methodologies and levels of complexity, to provide a representative sampling of the approaches to chemical ranking and scoring.
A comparative evaluation of the systems was conducted, with a focus on the following aspects of chemical ranking and scoring: the system's purpose and application; specific human health and environmental impacts included; method of accounting for chemical potency and severity of effects; whether and how measures of exposure were included; inclusion of other impacts or issues; the use of aggregation and weighting of different impacts; and data requirements. An evaluation of the important issues inherent to the development of any consensus ranking and scoring system was also presented.
Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management
Monsanto Company
Period of Performance: 3/94 - present
During the development of the chemical ranking and scoring system by the Center for the EPA Product Side of Pollution Prevention project, Monsanto Company became interested in the further refinement and use of the system for setting priorities in toxics release reduction and in product stewardship. The system developed under the EPA cooperative agreement and was called CHEMS I (Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management Strategies I). Monsanto funded the Center to work on a new version of the model (CHEMS II).
The CHEMS II model was developed with extensive input from Monsanto scientists. It utilizes more information on the potency of chemical effects and combines some of the parameters that are scored in the CHEMS I model. Monsanto and the Center are currently in the process of working out the details of a consensus on the changes to CHEMS I. Monsanto has already used the preliminary version of CHEMS II to set priorities for reducing TRI releases at its facilities and has taken the two versions of the model to the Chemical Manufacturers Association for review and potential use by its members.
The project is also developing a more user-friendly version of the CHEMS I model (and ultimately CHEMS II) that can be used by managers to quickly assess the relative health and environmental hazards of chemicals.
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Printed Wiring Board Industry
EPA
Period of Performance: 11/94 - 3/98
The EPA Design-for-the Environment Program Printed Wiring Board Project (PWB) is a voluntary cooperative relationship among agreement between EPA, industry, academia, public interest groups, and other stakeholders to evaluate the risk, performance, and cost of substitutes for high-priority uses of toxic chemicals in PWB production. The first project focussed on "making holes conductive (MHC)," the process of applying a conductive layer to the surface of drilled through-holes prior to electroplating. The evaluations are then documented through the development of a Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA), a report which brings together the data on each of the alternatives for comparison.
EPA has taken a lead role in conducting the CTSA for past DfE industry projects, but one of the goals of the DfE program is to empower industry and others to perform these evaluations on their own. The PWB industry CTSA is the first demonstration of a CTSA where a partner other than EPA has taken primary responsibility for performing the CTSA, with the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies taking that role.
The Center surveyed PWB manufacturers regarding chemical use and workplace practices in the MHC process, and with industry and EPA developed a test protocol to be used during the performance testing of MHC alternatives. The results of the survey, performance testing, and other data were used by the Center to assess the exposure and risk to workers, ambient populations, and the environment.
A cost analysis of the substitutes was performed using cost data gathered from PWB manufacturers, chemical suppliers, and the performance tests of the alternatives. The Center also conducted research on the energy and resource impacts of the substitutes, and has completed a draft CTSA document that is undergoing final review. The draft CTSA, entitled, "Printed Wiring Board Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Making Holes Conductive, Vol. I and Vol. II " is available from the Center or EPA. The final CTSA will be available in early 1998. The EPA contact is Dipti Singh.
The Center has recently commenced another CTSA for the PWB industry focussing on the hot air solder leveling process which uses lead-based solder. For more information contact Mary Swanson or Jack Geibig.
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Printing Industry
EPA
Period of Performance: 11/94 - 10/97
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Project is a cooperative, voluntary effort between EPA, certain sectors of the printing industry, academia, and other stakeholders to evaluate the risk, performance, cost of substitute products and processes, and to document this evaluation in a Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA). The Screen Printing CTSA focussed on substitute screen cleaning and reclamation systems that can be used to remove excess ink from a screen, remove the stencil that is used to block the ink, and remove any residual contaminants or haze to permit the screen to be reused. The Lithography CTSA is focussed on substitute blanket washes that can be used to clean the image-transfer blanket on offset, sheet-fed lithographic presses.
The Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies was a key academic partner for both of these CTSAs, contributing the analyses of workplace practices and worker exposure scenarios, pollution prevention opportunities through improved workplace practices, energy impacts, and resource conservation. The Center conducted a survey of workplace practices for both industry sectors, prepared separate electronic databases for managing and analyzing the two sets of data, and developed preliminary worker exposure scenarios and source release assessments from the data. This information was used to guide the exposure assessment and risk characterization portions of the CTSAs, which were performed by EPA.
Survey results, together with data from other sources, were used to prepare reports for both CTSAs on workplace practices that printers can implement to prevent pollution. The Center also conducted research on the energy and resource impacts of substitute screen reclamation systems and substitute blanket washes and prepared reports for both the screen printing and lithography CTSAs.
The CTSA report on screen printing, entitled "Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment, Industry: Screen Printing" is available from EPA by contacting Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) (P: 202-260-1023). The CTSA on lithography, entitled "Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Lithographic Blanket Washes" is available from EPA by contacting Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) (P: 202-260-1023). The Center has recently commenced a new DfE project for the rotogravure printing industry in which the Center will play both a convening role as well as coordinating the CTSA. For more information, contact Maria Socolof.
DfE Gravure Project
EPA
Period of Performance: 6/97 - 12/99
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the University of Tennessee (UT) Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, and Western Michigan University (WMU) worked with the Gravure Association of America (GAA) and other gravure industry members to identify a study focus area to address risk reduction and pollution prevention opportunities in the gravure printing industry. The EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) Gravure Project has resulted in a Temperature Control Study and a call for further action by the industry.
The gravure industry is comprised of three main sectors: publication, packaging, and product printing. The DfE Gravure Project focuses on the packaging and product sectors. Compared to publication printers, packaging and product printers generally consist of more companies with fewer presses and fewer employees per facility. In general, publication printers are more automated and have more resources to address environmental concerns.
The Gravure Project began with a scoping phase to determine a focus area for packaging and product printers to address reduced risk and emissions due to printing operations. Following scoping, a laboratory experiment was conducted to determine the effects of temperature control on solvent consumption and print quality. Using the experiment results, the Gravure Project is intended to provoke industry into considering alternatives for reducing fugitive emissions and promoting risk reduction and pollution prevention, while also maintaining or improving print quality. The purpose of the Gravure Project is to determine whether ink temperature control technologies are a worthy subject of further investigation by the industry in an effort to reduce potential exposures, reduce solvent losses (and cost), and improve/maintain print quality. For more information, contact Maria Socolof.
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment Methods
EPA
Period of Performance: 11/94 - 10/97
EPA's DfE program develops standard analytical tools to help businesses incorporate environmental considerations into business decisions. Key among these tools is the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA) methodology for evaluating the risk, performance, cost, and conservation of substitute chemicals, processes and technologies. The Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies prepared a CTSA methodology and resource guide which describes the DfE methods and analyses employed by EPA, the Center, and other stakeholders in DfE pilot projects. The final document includes a comprehensive listing of databases, analytical models, and previously published guidance for conducting the analyses.
For this research the Center organized the CTSA methodologies into "information modules" which simplifies the analyses and allows individual users to focus on the environmental issues of most concern to their business or industry. The first part of the methodology and resource guide is an overview of the CTSA process which describes the benefits of designing for the environment, how to prepare for the CTSA, and the basic interrelationships of analyses in a CTSA. The second part consists of 21 module descriptions, organized according to the type of analyses (e.g., chemical and process information, risk-related analyses, etc.).
The Center has worked closely with an EPA Advisory Committee to identify and document EPA methods, particularly those relating to hazards assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Other information modules, such as those pertaining to the performance assessment and cost analysis of alternatives, were modeled after the methods used in DfE pilot projects, but expanded to facilitate their application to other industries.
The CTSA guidance document, entitled "Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: A Methodology & Resource Guide" is available from EPA or the Center. The EPA contact is Jed Meline. For more information from the Center contact Lori Kincaid.
Vehicle Recycling and Disposal Policies in Industrialized Countries: Implications for the Recycling Infrastructure
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
Period of Performance: 1/96 - 5/96
This project evaluated vehicle recycling policies, and infrastructure capacity, availability and costs in industrialized and developing countries around the world. The project focussed on the world's top 21 industrialized countries, including countries in North America, Europe, Asia and South America to determine the status of national vehicle recycling policies and infrastructure. Policies identified in the study include national legislative/regulatory requirements and voluntary agreements affecting end-of-life vehicles, waste classifications of auto shredder residue, and bans or restrictions on the landfilling of auto shredder residue. A secondary focus was on policies governing scrap tires, automotive fluids, and other automotive components. Cost and technology information included the availability and costs of dismantlers and shredders, landfills, energy recovery facilities, and chemical recovery facilities, as well as scrap metal values (ferrous and nonferrous).
Automotive Recycling in the United States and Japan: Benchmarks and Future Directions
Saturn Corporation
Period of Performance: 1/94 - 8/95
In response to proposed or pending legislation in Europe and Japan, many automobile manufacturers have instituted vehicle recycling programs to evaluate methods of recycling materials from post-use vehicles back into new vehicles. This project is the first study in the U.S. to set preliminary benchmarks for vehicle recycling programs, including benchmarks of organizational structure, recycling goals and strategies, recycling projects (e.g., disassembly, paint removal research, etc.), materials use, and in-plant and post-use recycling rates.
The project team designed questionnaires for data collection and sent them to all major U.S. and Japanese automobile manufacturers. Personal interviews were conducted with automobile manufacturers and government officials in Japan and the United States to clarify responses in the questionnaires and to collect more detailed information.
A report is being prepared that will discuss benchmarks and future directions without revealing specific data provided by any specific company, other than data that has been released to the public.
Extended Producer Responsibility
UT Waste Management Research and Education Institute (WMREI)
Period of Performance: 7/94 - 7/95
The Center conducted research on policies embodying the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility and prepared a report surveying policies country-by-country. The Center also convened a symposium in Washington, D.C., of policy researchers and policy analysts, including EPA personnel, to discuss EPR and its potential application in the United States.
There are several policy instruments that can be used to encourage a shift of responsibility for the ultimate environmental impacts of products up and down the chain from raw materials extraction to ultimate disposal. These range from "soft" voluntary measures, like corporate "product stewardship" programs, to "hard" regulatory approaches, like the German "take back" regulation, and include:
- corporate product stewardship programs
- buy-back systems
- leasing systems
- deposit-refund systems
- product environmental information, including labeling
- product taxes to fund waste management systems
- return requirements for consumers
- take-back requirements
The purpose of this project was to explore the full range of options for extended producer responsibility, with particular attention given to the environmental and economic aspects of "take back" requirements. A draft report was prepared that documents and assesses the policy measures that have been implemented in Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and the United States.
The Center also organized a symposium on extended producer responsibility policies that was held in Washington, D.C. in November, 1994, which resulted in a proceedings published by the Center.
Extended Product Responsibility: Symposium and Case Studies
EPA
Period of Performance: 6/95 - 6/96
This project is a one-year Cooperative Agreement with the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, that will explore the principle of Extended Product Responsibility and voluntary advances in the use of that principle that can be used to encourage producers to design products with life-cycle environmental impacts in mind.
Extended Product Responsibility is an emerging principle in which the actors along the product chain accept an appropriate degree of responsibility for the life-cycle environmental impacts of the whole product system, including up-stream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the product, impacts from the manufacturer's production process, and down-stream impacts from the use and disposal of the product. Thus, a shared "chain of responsibility" is borne by designers, manufacturers, distributors, users, and disposers of products, with the greater degree of responsibility resting on the links in the chain with the greater ability to influence the life-cycle impacts of the product system.
The project will result in the organization of a one-day symposium on EPR in Winter 1996. The project team will perform the substantive planning for a one-day symposium on Extended Product Responsibility to be held in Washington, D C., in Winter 1996. The symposium will bring together interested company representatives and others who can share case studies of successful EPR-based strategies, government officials, non-governmental organizations, and researchers in the field. Written papers will be required of the speakers, and a proceedings will be prepared for publication within approximately three months after the Symposium.
The project will also result in a report of case studies of the voluntary implementation of EPR by companies in the U.S. The project team will select 4-6 companies who have reduced non-hazardous solid waste generation by implementation of a voluntary EPR approach for preparation of case studies. The case studies will document, using available information, the approach used, the amount of solid waste reduction, other life-cycle environmental benefits from the redesign of products or packaging, economic benefits to the companies, and lessons learned in the process.
The third product of the project would be a background document which would elaborate on the principle of Extended Product Responsibility and survey policy instruments that embody the principles that are in use in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. It would build upon work that has already been done by the researchers involved. The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies is the lead organization with Patty Dillon of Tufts University and Bette Fishbein of INFORM as partners.
Life-Cycle Design for the Automobile
EPA, Saturn Corporation
Period of Performance: 1/96 - 9/98
The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies received a major grant through the United States Environmental Technology Initiative to develop cleaner designs for the automobile in partnership with the Saturn Corporation
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The goal of the project is to develop an interactive design toolkit that will allow automobile designers to take the environment into account as part of the design process. The toolkit will rely upon life-cycle assessment, which is the process of determining the full environmental impacts of products or materials in each stage of their life cycle (from extraction of raw materials, to manufacturing, to use, and ultimate disposal), as well as other DfE tools. The life-cycle design toolkit will allow designers to make environmental tradeoffs among materials, alternative designs, and manufacturing technologies in conjunction with existing design criteria for cost, safety, and performance.
The Center is working directly with Saturn to develop the toolkit and to demonstrate it with Saturn designs. The life-cycle design toolkit developed and demonstrated in the project will also be available to other U.S. manufacturers. The life-cycle design tool is incorporating life-cycle impact assessment, which will include both an environmental and occupational component, and is also incorporating total cost assessment for the Saturn plant.
• A draft version of the report for this project is available here. (The download file is 8 chapters in Word Perfect format, zipped using WinZip [total file size zipped is 463 kB].)
Verification of Finishing Technologies for Printed Wiring Boards, including the Hot Air Solder Leveling Process
EPA
Period of Performance: 10/96 - 12/00
This project with the EPA DfE program is part of the work that the Center has been doing with the Printed Wiring Board (PWB) segment of the electronics industry. The Surface Finishes Project was initiated in October 1996 to evaluate alternate surface finish technologies for Printed Wiring Boards. This project is examining lead-free alternatives to the hot air solder leveling (HASL) process, in order to identify those surface finish technology alternatives that perform competitively, are cost-effective, and pose fewer potential environmental and health risks. The University of Tennessee's Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies is working with the PWB industry and other stakeholders, under a grant from EPA, to conduct this evaluation.
The most commonly used PWB finishing technologies are HASL and electroplated tin lead. These technologies may pose potential health and environmental risks due to the use of lead. The HASL process also generates significant quantities of excess solder that must be recycled. In this project, the HASL process will be tested as the baseline technology. Alternative technologies will also be evaluated, and these include: organic solderability protectorate (OSP), immersion tin, immersion silver, electroless nickel/immersion gold, and electroless palladium/immersion gold.
Limited data have been developed on the performance of these technologies by some earlier studies done by the Circuit Card Assembly and Materials Task Force (CCAMTF) and the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS). This project will supplement the work done by the CCAMTF. The DfE Project, however, will be the first one to evaluate data on the health and environmental risks together with the costs of these technologies. The alternative technologies are expected to generate substantially less hazardous waste and may be more cost effective than the baseline technology.
The results of the study will be available in 1999. EPA expects that the results of the study will encourage PWB manufacturers to adopt cleaner, more environmentally benign and cost-effective processes, which will improve competitiveness in the international marketplace and benefit the environment.
Life-Cycle Environmental Evaluation of Aluminum and Composite Intensive Vehicles
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Period of Performance: 8/98 - 1/99
This life-cycle-based environmental evaluation of New Generation Vehicles (NGVs) was conducted by The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies (CCPCT) as part of research being done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) under the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) initiative.
The two diesel-electric hybrid vehicles evaluated, which are currently under development, were the Ford P2000 and the Chrysler ESX2. They were compared against a generic U.S.-built 1994 vehicle (in the same class as the Ford Taurus and Chrysler Concorde).
Due to the limited timeframe of the study, it was not possible to conduct a complete Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). Instead, using readily available data or previously conducted studies, estimates were made of the energy consumed, solid wastes generated and air emissions produced from the following life-cycle stages: Extraction and Materials Processing; Manufacturing; Use; and End-of-Life.
The results reveal that the life-cycle energy consumption of the NGVs is considerably lower than that of the 1994 vehicle (by about 55%), attributable primarily to the reduced fuel requirement during the Use stage. Energy use in other stages is relatively insignificant, so that its increase in the Extraction and Materials Processing stage (from the newer, more energy-intensive materials in the NGVs) is overshadowed by the savings achieved during Use. One life-cycle stage dominates in solid waste generation: Extraction and Materials Processing, which includes solid wastes from mining and refining of materials. The use of new materials in the NGVs clearly results in higher solid waste generation during this stage as compared to the baseline.
The lifetime GWP calculated for the NGVs is much lower than that of the 1994 vehicle (on the order of about 50% less), with the following global warming gases included in the analysis: CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluoromethane (CF4), and perfluoroethane (C2F6). This reduction is clearly due to reduced emissions of CO2 and CH4 during the Use life-cycle stage. There are increases in GWP in the Extraction and Materials Processing and Manufacturing stages for the NGVs, which are easily overcome by decreases during the Use stage. Of the other air emissions, CO emissions are also considerably reduced, while both PM and NOx emissions increase, compared to the baseline, due mostly to the combustion of diesel fuel (Use stage). In the Extraction and Materials Processing life-cycle stage, the increases in PM and NOx emissions are due to the use of more energy-intensive materials in the NGVs.
Original Equipment Manufacturer/Supplier Relationship: Exploring Methods to Promote Cleaner Technologies in the Automobile Supply Chain
EPA, Saturn Corporation
Period of Performance: 7/97 - 12/00
This "Greening the Supply Chain" project is designed to identify and assess methods that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and their suppliers can employ to promote cleaner production to all members of the supply chain in the automobile industry. It is funded by the EPA Design for the Environment Program and relies upon the partnership between the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies and the Saturn Corporation.
Automobile companies rely on an extensive, multi-tiered chain of companies to provide them with the materials, parts, and assemblies required for the manufacture of an automobile. The current Saturn supply chain presents unique opportunities for improvement in environmental performance that have not previously existed. The network of relationships between suppliers provides increased access to lower tier suppliers and their operating processes, allowing for a more thorough evaluation of the life-cycle impacts to the environment resulting from individual products or processes. Improved communication between suppliers may be utilized to promote innovative technologies, process enhancements, or management practices which result in overall environmental improvement. The supply chain has the ability to magnify any environmental improvement realized by one member through the communication now possible. Furthermore, working with a supply chain offers the opportunity to reduce environmental burdens over the entire chain and limits the possibility of shifting environmental burdens from one link in the supply chain to another.
The Center has surveyed Saturn Corporation suppliers to identify: 1) instances where the OEM/Supplier relationship has been used to promote cleaner production and pollution prevention in the supply chain, and (2) common environmental issues or concerns among Saturn and its suppliers, suppliers who have successfully overcome these issues, and the mechanisms that were needed, developed or already in-place to assist this process. This information has been used to develop case studies and to help define the framework for a pilot demonstration project with Saturn and its suppliers, which is in development. One strong pilot project recommendation is to focus on the reduction of VOC and HAP air releases throughout the Saturn supply chain by focusing on changing Saturn specifications (e.g. molding a polymer part in color instead of painting it). A total life-cycle approach would be utilized to identify possible alternatives to the current specification which would result in a reduction of the air release of concern. The overall effect of this approach could result in a significant reduction in air pollutant release over the entire supply chain. Success of this project would validate this new "supply chain" method of thinking, encouraging its application to releases to other media as well as its use in the development of future design specifications.
Computer Display Project
Visit the Computer Display Project Web page on this site for additional information.
EPA
Period of Performance: 10/96 - 12/01
The Center, under a grant from EPA's DfE Program, conducted a voluntary, cooperative project with the electronic display industry to assess the life-cycle environmental impacts of flat panel display (FPD) and cathode ray tube (CRT) technologies that can be used for desktop monitors. This study compares different types of liquid crystal display (LCD) technologies to the CRT as well as to one another.
The study combines the evaluation techniques of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and cleaner technology substitutes assessment (CTSA). An LCA looks at the full life cycle of the product from materials acquisition to manufacturing, use, and final disposition. It does not normally include performance, cost, or risk. On the other hand, a CTSA does not necessarily consider environmental impacts over the entire life cycle. It is a comparative evaluation of alternative technologies, processes, products, or materials, and it focuses on comparing human and ecological risk, energy and natural resource use, performance, and cost. By combining these methods, the project provided the display industry and consumers with a comprehensive comparison of LCD and CRT technologies.
Final project results have been compiled in the final report: Desktop Computer Displays: A life-cycle Assesment. The project began by convening stakeholder groups that represent industry, academia, government, and public interest. The stakeholder groups served as a steering committee and peer reviewed the project's results. The Center, with input from these stakeholder groups, defined the project goals and boundaries; developed methods for collecting the life-cycle inventory data; identified the product materials of interest in the LCA; and proposed a life-cycle impact assessment methodology for comparing the environmental and health impacts of the display technologies. The Center collected data from Japanese and U.S. display manufacturers for the LCA.
The following publications have resulted from the project to date:
- Socolof, M.L, J.G. Overly, L.E. Kincaid, J.R. Geibig. Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment, Volume 1 and 2. EPA 744-R-01-004a,b, December 2001.
- Socolof, M.L., J. G. Overly, L.E. Kincaid, D. Singh, and K. Hart. "Preliminary Life-Cycle Assessment Results for the Design for the Environment Computer Display Project," 2000 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, p. 290-297. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, May, 2000.
- Socolof, M.L., J.G. Overly, L.E. Kincaid, R. Dhingra, D. Singh and K.M. Hart. "Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts of CRT and LCD Desktop Monitors," 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado, May, 2001.
- Socolof, M.L., L.E. Kincaid, C. Mizuki, G. Schuldt, K. Hart, and D. Singh. "CRT and LCD Monitor and Process Materials Evaluated for Environmental Improvement," Journal of the Society for Information Display, Volume 9, Number 1, 2001, p. 45-50.
- Socolof M.L., M. Swanson, L. Kincaid, J. Overly, K. Hart, D. Singh (1999) An Environmental Life-Cycle Design Tool for Assessing Impacts of CRT and LCD Monitors. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, IEEE Danvers, MA, p. 232-237.
- Socolof M.L., L. Kincaid, C. Mizuki, G. Schuldt, K. Hart, D. Singh (1999) CRT and LCD Monitor and Process Materials Evaluated for Environmental Improvement. Proceedings of the 1999 Display Manufacturing Technology Conference, Society for Information Display, San Hose, CA, p. 1-4.
- US-EPA (1998) Computer Display, Industry and Technology Profile, EPA 744-R-98-05, US-EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington DC.
