Life cycle assessment of pollutants from ships: the case of an Aframax tanker

(1)

Life Cycle Assessment of

Pollutants from Ships:

The case of an Aframax tanker

Anastasios Mountaneas

Master Thesis

Report no.: SDPO.14.002.m Delft, 24th January 2014

Anastasios Mountaneas Student no.: 4188349 a.mountaneas@gmail.com +30 6 974 320 226

Delft University of Technology

Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3ME) Marine Technology – Shipping Management

Thesis committee:

Prof. dr. E.M. Van de Voorde, TU Delft Assist. Prof. ir. J.W. Frouws, TU Delft Prof. dr. ir. J.G. Vogtländer, TU Delft Dr. Nikolaos Kakalis DNV GL Dr. George Dimopoulos DNV GL D e lf t U n iv e rs it y o f T e ch n o lo g y

(2)

Life cycle assessment of pollutants

from ships: the case of an Aframax

tanker

By

Anastasios Mountaneas

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

in Marine Technology

at the Delft University of Technology,

to be defended publicly on Friday January 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM.

Student number: 4188349

Thesis committee: Prof. dr. E.M. Van de Voorde, TU Delft Assist. Prof. ir. J.W. Frouws, TU Delft Prof. dr. ir. J.G. Vogtländer, TU Delft Dr. Nikolaos Kakalis DNV GL Dr. George Dimopoulos DNV GL

This thesis is confidential and cannot be made public until December 31, 2018.

(3)

(4)

iii

Preface

This thesis is the final assignment of the master program Marine Technology, specialisation Shipping Management at the Delft University of Technology.

The work outlined in this report was conducted in collaboration with DNV GL Research and

Innovation (R&I) hub in Pireaus, Greece. I want to express my gratitude to DNV GL for providing me the possibility to work on a project closely related to a core business that of sustainable shipping, and in cooperation with people of high expertise in this field.

I would like to thank my supervisors at TU Delft, Prof. dr. E.M. Van de Voorde and ir. J.W. Frouws, for their guidance, support and collaboration during this research. Their instructions and comments were invaluable for delivering a dissertation of high value in both technical and methodological aspects.

I am also grateful to my supervisors at DNV GL, N. Kakalis, head of the R&I Pireaus hub, and G. Dimopoulos, senior researcher, for their guidance, excellent collaboration, and providing immediate and sound solutions to all problems encountered. I need also to express my gratitude to Chara Georgopoulou, research engineer, for her overall support and enlightening discussions about the various topics of this work.

I also want to thank Prof. Reinout Heijungs who gave me several insightful suggestions about the application of the LCA methodology and provided useful contacts from practitioners in the field.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their overall support and sincere interest in my work. Special thanks go to my sister Despoina, Ioanna, Dimitris and Tonia.

Delft, January 2014 Anastasios Mountaneas

(5)

(6)

v

1 Introduction

In this chapter, the background of the thesis is given with respect to the sustainability notion and the current approaches to ship-generated pollution. The problem to be addressed is defined and specific objectives are set. Finally, the possible contribution of the thesis outcome to the society and the hosting company is outlined and the thesis structure is presented.

1.1 Background

Sustainability is becoming key topic of the ongoing discussion about the impact of human activities on the environment. Strategic goals of EU maritime transportation policy for 2009-2018 explicitly mention sustainability and call maritime industry to start acting under this notion (European Commission, 2009). However, all recent attempts towards this direction were fragmented and missed the big picture by focusing on specific areas like energy efficiency and air emissions alone. Other approaches considered sustainability identical with its environmental dimension and incorporated some economic aspects. All these drew the attention to particular environmental problems which can be solved with certain

technological solutions (hardware) and misinterpret the broad view of sustainability. Omitted social and economic dimensions could lead to a total understanding of environmental problems and provide combinations of solutions from different fields in wider perspective. This becomes apparent when examining ship’s life cycle; decisions in design and construction have direct impact during shipbreaking, where non industrial practices are the standard in some sites around the world.

Ships generate different waste streams which can have a global or local effect on the environment. Air emissions during operation are the most typical example of global impact, which shows the contribution of shipping to the greenhouse effect and to the ozone depletion phenomenon. On the other side, local effects are exemplified in the case of ship generated waste. A cruise ship with 2000-3000 passengers produces daily 550,000-800,000 litres of grey water, 100,000-115,000 litres of black water, 7,000 – 10,500 litres of garbage and 60-130 kg of toxic waste (Oceana, 2008). According to MARPOL 73/78, the aforementioned waste together with oily waste are firstly treated on board and then delivered to port facilities for further treatment and final deposition. However, it is not rare that port waste facilities do not have the appropriate equipment or size, and major problems are caused to the local community.

Ship related environmental impact is regulated by a complex of international conventions and national laws and rules. Although this legal framework affects a wide spectrum of activities throughout ship’s life cycle – from the shipyard’s location to the final dismantling practices, it could be described as

fragmented and overlapping. There is not a systematic record of pollutants while discussions to regulate some of them e.g. particulate matter have just started. Additionally, the main focus is on the quantities of certain waste streams and not on the actual impacts, e.g. on human health. Thus, any magnifying and cumulative effect of pollutants throughout lifetime is neglected.

DNV GL, a leading classification society and a global provider of services for managing risk, has a constant focus on sustainable shipping and innovation. It is an important part of the DVN strategy to perform research and innovation within key technology areas. DNV GL Research and Innovation (R&I)

(9)

2 serves the purpose of exploring and testing new technologies and building new knowledge within selected technology areas that are believed to be of particular significance for DNV GLs own

development and business activities in the future. In this context, DNV GL R&I would be interested in having a tool offering a holistic view of the aforementioned topics that could assist in discovering possible areas for further research. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an ISO standardized methodology, can be employed for the development of such a tool and provide an alternative method to assess

continuously emerging technologies. Taking advantage of its early involvement in LCA for maritime applications, DNV GL can develop a specialized tool that makes a step towards sustainability by using its augmented knowledge on all ship’s lifetime phases.

1.2 Sustainability measures - Environmental assessment

Sustainability is a notion with no universally accepted definition yet. However, it is based on a simple principle: the survival and wellbeing of human race depends directly or indirectly on the natural environment. Thus, the fulfilling of social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations are coupled with the condition of the nature. Sustainability provides the conditions under which human race and nature exist in harmony without the development of one inducing the

degradation of the other.

This approach of sustainability implies that the aforementioned conditions can take the form of quantifiable limits. However, such limits have not been discovered or invented yet, mainly due to the concept of sustainability itself. At the 2012 UN RIO+20 conference (UN, 2012), it is stated that

sustainable development “…rests on integration and a balanced consideration of social, economic and environmental goals and objectives in both public and private decision-making”. Hence, it is evident that, various disciplines and contexts over different scales of time and space must be considered when applying the concept of sustainability. For example, sustainable agriculture would include the actions of the farmer at a local level, the global balance of production and consumption and the interaction with present and future population. Various decisions and actors are involved together with their individual perception of well-being.

Several sustainability measures have been developed to account for this inexistence of generally accepted limits, especially for the environmental dimension of sustainability. The measures have the form of indicators, indices and methods that attempt to describe the impacts between the human activities or interventions, ecology and environment. While they do not suggest criteria for sustainability, they offer a manner to benchmark current practices/products and measure the effect of different

alternatives. Among these measures are included Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA), Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA).

1.3 Problem definition

Increasing attention has been put in the recent years on the environmental impact resulting from the ship’s construction, operation and end-of-life practices. However, the focus is usually on the

quantification of certain pollutants (e.g. air emissions from engines) and not on their real impact on the environment. Following this path, the consequences of a certain pollutant to other impact categories may be overlooked, as well as the consequences of less ‘popular’ pollutants. Additionally, while

(10)

3 decisions with respect to the ship’s characteristics and operational profile may have consequences for several years ahead and span a wide geographical area, no consistent methodology has been applied to assess the impact of these decisions on the environment. The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is a promising sustainability metric that provides the framework to develop a specialized tool that records, quantifies and assesses environmentally all the pollutants generated by a ship. All previous attempts of LCA for ships had shortcomings (data quality problems, perceived complexity of the method, limited understanding of the results and mal definition of the problem) that hindered the wide application of the methodology.

1.4 Objectives

The main objective of this study is the development of a DNV GL tool for recording all pollutants

generated by ship related factors and assessing their subsequent environmental impact by analysing the entire life cycle of a ship.

The following goals should be accomplished:

 Systematic recording of pollutants generated during ship construction, operation, maintenance and scrapping.

 Collection and compilation of ship relevant data regarding the interaction with the environment in every life cycle phase.

 Connection of the aforementioned environmental data with ship related parameters. In this way, results for a particular ship can be generated and correlation between specific environmental impacts and ship characteristics can be investigated.

1.5 Contribution to the company and the society

The developed tool will enable DNV GL to improve its competence and competitive advantage in terms of environmental performance estimation, eco-labelling and environmental product declaration (EPD) for seagoing vessels. Such services could be useful for self-assessment, benchmarking, improvement and branding purposes of of ship operating companies and shipyards. They can also differentiate the price of similar vessels at the second hand market. Additionally, the tool could be used for crosschecking the results of other LCA studies or tools, when certification of ISO compliance and results validity is required.

With respect to society, environmental organizations can use the methodology proposed in this thesis to develop a scheme for shipping companies and shipyards to report their pollutants, as in case of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The results of this reporting, together with their impact assessment can be used for environmental benchmarking within the sector and if further elaborated, they can establish a metric for the environmental performance of the whole sector. Another possible benefit with respect to society and the environment would be to integrally assess all processes related to ship’s lifetime, in order to identify “red areas” at the material and energy inflows and outflows, where sustainability metrics are low and there is potential for performance improvements.

(11)

4

1.6 Thesis outline

The rest of this thesis is organised as follows. Chapter ‎2 presents the fundamentals of the LCA, and the methodological procedure and requirements as set by the relevant ISO standards. Additionally, previous attempts to apply LCA for ships are reviewed and their main aspects are identified. In chapter ‎3, the initial specifications of the methodology are defined and documented; the system, its boundaries and the assessment method are set. The modelling of the system is described in detail in chapter ‎4.

Chapter ‎5 contains a case study and the interpretation of the results. The conclusions derived from this study and review against the initial objectives is presented in chapter ‎5. Recommendations for future work are suggested in chapter ‎7.

(12)

Chapter ‎2 The LCA Methodology

5

2 The LCA Methodology

In this chapter, the general principles of the LCA methodology are presented and the technique is described according to the ISO standards. Modelling frameworks, methodological aspects and notions are then discussed with respect to the scope of the present study. Previous attempts to apply LCA for ships are also investigated and discussed.

2.1 General description of the LCA methodology

Life cycle assessment is a technique to address environmental aspects and assess environmental impacts related to all the stages of a product’s life from raw materials extraction to production, use, maintenance and disposal or recycling. Natural resources and pollutant emissions are identified and described quantitatively with processes composing the life cycle model. LCA usually demands extensive data collection and processing concerning materials, compositions, products, manufacturing procedures, energy use and corresponding environmental impacts.

Apart from calculating material and energy inflows and outflows, LCA can help in identifying areas for improvement during a product’s life cycle, comparing alternative process technologies for the same product or different materials while the product has the same function. Additionally, it suggests relevant indicators and metrics of environmental performance and can be used as a tool for policy-makers and marketing (e.g. eco labelling schemes, environmental claims, environmental product declaration). Its life cycle perspective encourages preventative and proactive environmental management rather than reactive end-of-pipe approach. In a broader view, LCA itself is a sustainability tool as it directly connects to environmental impact and makes benchmarking possible.

2.2 The LCA method according to ISO 14040/14044:2006

The ISO standards 14044 and 14040 describe the typical procedure to perform a LCA study. More specifically, the general framework and principles are provided in standard 14040, while detailed requirements and guidelines can be found in standard 14044. The four distinct phases comprising a LCA study are described hereafter.

Goal and scope definition

The product under study, the purpose of the study, how and to whom the results are to be communicated is explicitly described in the goal and scope definition. The goal of a LCA affects

significantly the extent and the level of detail of the study, which are explicitly defined in the scope. This specification of the modelling to be performed includes, according to ISO 14040, the following choices that guide the subsequent work:

 Decision of the function of a product or system. Multiple functions are possible even for a single product and the one selected for study should be described in goal and scope.

 Functional unit: expresses the function of a product system in quantitative terms and provides the reference unit where all inputs and outputs are related. It, actually, defines precisely what is being studied and forms a basis for comparability of LCA results.

(13)

6

 System boundary: defines which processes are included in the system that performs the function. The criteria for the choice of the processes vary according to goal and audience of the study, assumptions and data availability. The inventory analysis that follows and the degree of confidence of the final results depend significantly on the criteria set and the decisions made at this step.

 Environmental impacts considered: early selection of the environmental impacts of the product system under study is important as it guides process modelling and the collection of relevant data in inventory analysis. Usually “default” lists of environmental impacts are used including, e.g. global warming, acidification, toxicity, but not always all of these are relevant to the product system or the scope.

 Data quality description. Data should be accompanied with a general characterization of their quality in order for the final outcome to be interpreted to correct extend.

Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)

Life cycle inventory analysis includes data collection relevant to the process model defined in goal and definition, and calculation procedures that link these data with relevant input, output of the system, the functional unit and reference flows. In principle, it is a modelling procedure of the processes of the product system. Usually, the result of the LCI is an incomplete mass and energy balance system, as only environmentally interesting flows are considered.

Most times LCI starts with building a flow model depicting all processes and material/energy exchanges between them according to the system boundary set in goal and scope. Then, data are collected for every process’ energy inputs, raw material usage, products and wastes, emissions to various

compartments and other environmental aspects. After all these data are connected to reference flows and the flow model is completed, the usage of resources and the emissions can be calculated with respect to the functional unit.

LCI might seem a straightforward process of collecting data; however it can become very

time-consuming and sometimes complicated due to techniques such as allocation. Allocation is a technique of partitioning environmental impacts to different products and procedures, when not all of these are within the scope of the study. Multiple functions can also complicate the partitioning of the

environmental impacts of even one product.

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

LCIA aims to evaluate the significance of potential environmental impacts using LCI results (Baumann & Tillman, 2004). It attempts to translate inventory data to more environmentally relevant information by associating them with impact categories and indicators. Thus, another target is to aggregate LCI

extensive information in fewer parameters. The LCIA comprises of three mandatory and four optional steps (ISO, 2006b):

Mandatory:

(14)

7 2. Classification: Assignment of LCI results to the selected impact categories;

3. Characterization : Calculation of category indicator results;

Optional:

4. Normalization: Calculation of the magnitude of category indicator results relative to reference information;

5. Grouping: Sorting and possibly ranking of the impact categories;

6. Weighting: Aggregating indicator results across impact categories using numerical factors based on value-choices;

7. Data quality analysis: Understanding the reliability of the collection of indicator results.

Life cycle interpretation

Life cycle interpretation is the process of assessing the results from LCI and/or LCIA to draw conclusions. It is the phase, where raw numbers from inventory and impact assessment calculations, are refined to provide meaningful results. Interpretation should be in accordance with goal and scope of the study and should include check procedures to understand the uncertainty of the results. However, LCA is an iterative process and in case unexpected results occur not in line with goal and scope, they should not be disregarded. Instead, goal and scope could be reformulated (Baumann & Tillman, 2004).

According to ISO 14044, interpretation comprises of three elements:

1. Identification of significant issues;

2. Evaluation that considers completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks; 3. Conclusions, limitations and recommendations.

2.3 LCA methodological concepts and modelling frameworks

The ISO standards provide the necessary steps and the general directions on how to conduct a thorough and coherent LCA study. However, the provisions of the standards can be interpreted in different ways as various approaches can be followed to define the boundaries and the modelling components according to the initial goal and scope of a LCA study. This could result in LCAs with misleading conclusions, yet compliant to ISO standards. Thus, a robust procedure is needed to interpret properly the primary goal of a LCA study and specify in detail the procedural steps.

In the following sections, two significant LCA system modelling frameworks are presented. The selection of the appropriate framework depends largely on the LCA goal and the decision context that this poses. The specification for the present study is conducted in chapter ‎3.

2.3.1 Attributional and consequential system modelling frameworks

In attributional LCA, the system under study is modelled as it is or forecasted to be, and it is considered to be placed into a static technological and economic environment. The environmental impacts attributed to the system can be calculated over its total life cycle and thus can include all upstream and downstream value chains, and its end-of-life. The data used to describe the processes comprising the system can be average (aggregated), generic or process specific depending on the magnitude of the

(15)

8 averaging effect across the value chains. For example, the environmental impact of a single supplier delivering a significant material to the production facility of the product under study should be ideally based on specific data, whereas the impact of the electricity consumption of the facility could be based on average data. As far as the origin of the data is concerned, historical, fact-based or measured data can be used within the attributional framework.

Consequential LCA attempts to describe the consequences of a decision in the foreground system to other systems and processes both inside and outside the life cycle of the product and the economy. In contrast with the attributional LCA, no actual or forecasted models of the supply and value chains with respect to the product systems under study are used, but instead, generic supply chains that interact with the market mechanisms, political decisions etc. are modelled. A typical example of consequential LCA application is the changing of the level of output, consumption and disposal of a product. The modelling of the causal relationships originating from this change can include expected measures such as material bans, green incentives, opening (or closing) of production plants, displacement of competing products etc. The data used in consequential LCA are of higher uncertainty than in attributional, as this the modelling depends heavily on economic models, demand and supply and market mechanisms.

2.3.2 Foreground and background systems

The modelling of the product system heavily depends on the goal of the particular LCA study and it can differ considerably between studies of different goal, even though the same product system is of interest. The processes of the product system can be differentiated into two levels: the processes of the foreground system and those of the background system. The foreground system refers to the system of primary concern while the background system provides energy and materials to the foreground system as aggregated data sets in which individual plants and operations are not identified. The differentiation between foreground and background systems is based on two different perspectives (EC-JRC-IES, 2010b): (1) the specificity perspective, where the system processes are characterised with respect to whether process specific data or average/generic data are needed, and (2) the management perspective, where the system processes are characterised on whether they can be managed by “direct control or decisive influence” within the decision context of the LCA study.

With respect to the specificity perspective, the foreground system contains the processes that are specific to it and thus specific data (manuals, suppliers etc.) are the most appropriate and must be used. For example, the foreground system for a product LCA study conducted for its producer contains all the processes in the production facility and the specific upstream and downstream processes that cannot be sufficiently described by the market average data. On the other side, the management perspective identifies a wider set of processes during the lifecycle as foreground, depending on the varying impact of the decisions made. It includes all in-house processes of the producer/ operator of the system under study, the processes downstream and upstream which the producer/ operator can influence or specify and processes during the usage and end-of-life of the product that can be influenced by either direct decisions or design characteristics of the product. In the case of ship recycling for example, all related processes are considered foreground since their environmental impact largely depends on the material selection made by the ship owner at the design stage.

(16)

9 The background system in the specificity perspective contains all the processes that can be

appropriately represented by average and generic data due to the average effect, for example, across the suppliers. A theoretically homogenous market is assumed to provide the processes to the

foreground system. Under these terms, the usage and end-of-line phases of a product are background processes in a LCA study conducted on behalf of the producer. The management perspective identifies as background processes the part of the system that no sufficient control or influence by the

producer/operator/user exists. For example, the steel production for steel parts is a background process for the steel parts purchaser.

2.4 Literature review: ship focused LCAs

Application of the LCA method in the maritime industry was attempted in the past by joint efforts of companies and research institutes and proved that its application is possible with relative success. The main problem in all studies was the lack of ship relevant data. Simplifying assumptions and use of data from other sectors for similar processes did approach the magnitude of the impact, however with high uncertainty. Herein, most thorough LCA applications for the shipping sector are presented in

chronological order, to enable observing the different approaches of researchers through time.

2.4.1 LCA of “M/V Color Festival”

LCA on the shipping sector was used for the first time on the passenger ship “M/V Color Festival” (Johnsen & Fet, 1999). Actually, it was a screening of LCA and its purpose was to demonstrate and evaluate the methodology on this sector. The main conclusion was that dividing ship in different systems and subsystems can greatly facilitate data collection and process modelling. Data for the construction phase originated from actual reports from Norwegian shipyards and where no appropriate data were available, databases provided by the LCA software SimaPro (PRé Consultants, n.d.) were used. Generally, this data is not specific for ships or maritime related processes, as they intent to describe the market average or common practice in many industries.

The functional unit for the study was the “ton-km transported per year between Oslo and Hirshals”. The vessel was considered to transport a certain number of passengers, cars and trailers per year between Oslo and Hirshals and her life time was assumed 20 years.

Results showed that different environmental impacts were considered important at different life phases of the ship:

 Global warming, acidification, eutrophication, smog and energy consumption for the operational phase.

 Solid waste from the scrapping phase.

 Local impacts like toxicity for humans and ecology for construction and maintenance.

The impact analysis concluded to the most important processes per life phase of the ship. For example, processes related to oil combustion and antifouling paint leaching was considered as being important during the operation phase. Processes related to painting were considered as being important during maintenance. Finally, the recycling of materials was important for the scrapping phase assessment.

(17)

10 Using the impact assessment method Eco indicator ’95, impacts to the categories of human toxicology and acidification were also identified. Finally, the main conclusion was that using system approach, i.e. dividing the ship in different systems and subsystems can greatly facilitate data collection and process modelling.

2.4.2 EVEA ‘LCA-Ship’ tool

“LCA-SHIP” (Jivén et al., 2004) is one more custom made LCA software developed by a Swedish

consortium of shipping companies, authorities and institutions. The interesting feature of this tool is the modelling of the ship’s energy systems, energy flow and exchanges during the operation phase of the ship.

The first step at the energy systems modelling is the calculation of the required propulsion power. The ITTC-78 ship performance prediction method is used with most input data having default values

according to regression of all displacement ships tested at SSPA Sweden AB. The modelling of the energy systems on board is based on a systems approach. The main components of the system, e.g. main engine, shaft generators, economizers, are presented as interconnected blocks where the user defines the percentage of energy consumed with respect to the energy entering the system. Types of energy considered are: mechanical, thermal and electrical. The purpose for this kind of modelling is to allow for checking saving strategies and optimization procedures. Yet, no optimization procedure is provided by the tool and it should be noticed that the aforementioned user-defined percentages are directly

translated to the fuel consumption of the power production system in the beginning of its lifetime (main engine, generators and boilers).

The inventory contains data from all the life cycle phases. However, losses and recycling rates of materials used at the construction and scrapping phase must be defined by the user. An effort with relative success was put in order to include the impact from cradle-to-grave of the important

materials/equipment used during the life cycle phases. The numerous assumptions made towards this direction led to inconsistences with respect to the analysis boundary and the quality of the final results. For example, the engines and boilers are considered to have the same environmental impact with that of equal weight steel, aluminium’s production impact is the average of EU whereas the steel is

considered produced in Sweden, the air emissions of electricity production are based on that of the EU at 1994. Additionally, several data of known poor quality from previous LCA studies (e.g. M/V Color Festival) were used (e.g. the welding length during construction is based on a very small vessel). Some other limitations of the inventory include the use of only two types of fuel (heavy and diesel oil) and that drydockings involve only sandblasting and no painting. Sandblasting is prohibited by most countries nowadays.

With respect to impact assessment, five impact categories are evaluated within the tool: acidification, eutrophication, global warming, ozone depletion and photochemical ozone production. The results obtained are endpoint impact indicators and thus, the optional elements of normalization, grouping and weighting are implemented. The main impact assessment method is the Ecoindicator ’99, while the following three are also available: EDIP, Tellus, EPS2000 and EPS money

(18)

11 More comprehensive and complete methods have been developed however nowadays (EC-JRC-IES, 2010a). The Eco indicator is a damage-oriented method, mainly developed for assessing industrial products and not assemblies like ships. The EDIP method is a midpoint method which applies weighting factors on the basis of political environmental targets set by the Danish Government or by various international protocols(Wenzel, Hauschild, & Alting, 2000). The Tellus evaluating scheme was developed with respect to the Swedish context and uses data on society's willingness-to-pay to calculate the weighting factors. They use both data on emission taxes (the Swedish CO2-tax) and marginal costs for reducing emissions down to decided emission limits for certain criteria pollutants (CO, NOX, PM10, SOX, VOC and lead). The EPS system is mainly aimed to be a tool for a company's internal product

development process. The impact of materials used is expressed as an index which represents money and it is linked to society’s willingness to pay for the protection of endpoint categories.

2.4.3 NMRI ‘LCA for ship’ tool

The National Maritime Research Institute of Japan (NMRI) has performed a long research program (NMRI, 2006), which its main outcome was a ship specific LCA software focused on the Japanese maritime context. A database was compiled by collecting data from shipping companies, shipyards and on site investigations. More specifically, data for the LCA inventory of the construction phase were developed from the construction of a 76000 DWT bulk carrier in a Japanese shipyard. Data for the operation of the ship (average operating profile, trip pattern, engine load) were investigated with use of the navigational logbooks of five specific ships: oil tanker, bulk carrier, container ship, LNG carrier, RO/RO carrier. Shipbreaking operations in China were also surveyed, however no data are referenced (M. Kameyama, Hiraoka, Sakurai, Naruse, & Tauchi, 2005). Additionally, LCA was performed for the construction of a marine main engine and was incorporated in the software. The definition of the ship to be analysed in the tool includes, apart from the main particulars, a specification list (weight, on board position) of parts, hazardous materials etc. that has to be prepared by the user. The quantification of the environmental loads and LCI analysis are carried out according to the matrix method, meaning that data are treated only with linear relations. Data for background procedures were retrieved from the Japanese LCA database

The life cycle impact assessment is performed with the LIME model, which is an indicator especially created for the Japanese conditions (geography, population, current environmental load). The functional unit used is ton-mile for all ship types. The software also provides indicators representedby the ratio of the value obtained with the load on the environment products and services through its life cycle. These indicators are intended for use in the Japanese environmental product declaration which is an eco-labelling scheme.

Let us notice that all published literature (apart from two papers) from the aforementioned project and the software itself are in Japanese.

2.4.4 ‘Sustainable Ship Design (SSD)’ tool

The SSD tool (SSD) is the most recent LCA application developed by a French consortium of

(19)

12 and has two versions: a complete tool for use by building sites and architectural offices and a tool adapted to suppliers and subcontractors.

The complete tool intends to measure the environmental impacts of all the ship throughout the entire life cycle. The modelling of the life cycle includes six stages: materials for construction (raw material extraction, production of ship equipment, transportation to the yard), assembly on site (consumptions and wastes at the ship yard), ship operation and maintenance, ship dismantling and end-of-life (fate of dismantling wastes). Each life cycle step is modelled as a set of inventories of inflows and outflows of every material used, process, consumption, machinery component etc. Thus, life cycle steps are

modelled to a large extend according to a typical bill of materials and not as expressions with respect to ship parameters. This means that the tool user should explicitly know or approximate the types and/or values for the inflows and outflows of all ship systems and components.

The tool for suppliers and subcontractors aims to measure impacts of their products which have an adapted life cycle, from raw material extraction to end product life. Again here, an inventory of inflows and outflows must be established by the user.

The assessment of the environmental impacts at both tools is accomplished by using the impact assessment module of SimaPro and applying existing LCIA methods. The following impact indicators have selected to describe the environmental impacts (Tincelin, Mermier, Pierson, Pelerin, & Jouanne, 2007):

 Global warming – IPCC 2007 (CO2 equivalent)

 Eutrophication (PO4 equivalent)

 Atmospheric acidification (SO2 equivalent)

 Ozone layer depletion (CFC11 equivalent)

 Human toxicity (1.4-DB equivalent)

 Fresh water aquatic eco toxicity (1.4-DB equivalent)

 Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (1.4-DB equivalent)

 Terrestrial ecotoxicity (1.4-DB equivalent)

 Respiratory effects (PM2.5 equivalent)

 Abiotic depletion (Antimony equivalent)

 Water (m3)

 Energy consumption (MJ equivalent)

 Bulk waste production (kg)

 Hazardous waste production (kg)

Within the SSD tool, a simplified methodology has been developed based on the Admiralty’s constant and a simple life cycle model (Tincelin et al., 2007). The methodology uses a criterion to provide a first evaluation of the effect of a green technology on an existing ship design and to compare green technologies, given their LCAs.

(20)

13

2.4.5 BAL.LCPA

BAL.LCPA (BAL, 2013) is a decision making tool for shipyards and ship operators, developed under the EU FP7 Collaborative Project BESST (Breakthrough in European Ship and Shipbuilding Technologies, 2009 – 2013). The BESST project focused at the Life Cycle Performance (LCP) assessment of ships concepts, demonstrating the life cycle impact of maritime technological solutions compared to current designs. The project was kicked off on 2009 and ended in February, 2013. The consortium consisted of 50 partners, including shipyards, manufacturers, universities and research institutes, classification societies and maritime industry stakeholders. The total project cost was approximately 28 million euros.

The BAL.LCPA tool assesses the life cycle performance of vessels and their subsystems by combining financial, environmental, safety and other societal aspects within a single methodology. The most common application is the comparison of different technical options in the early design phase, in order to determine the one(s) which is (are) most likely to deliver the best performance over time.

Additionally, it can be used to measure the performance of an already existing system.

Apart from modelling the technical performance of components, BAL.LCPA also considers risk of loss and hidden costs such as repair and maintenance costs. Additionally, different scenarios with

parameters which evolve through time can be defined by taking into account environmental taxation, fuel prices, currency exchange rates, discount rates etc.

The comparison and assessment of solutions is based on a list of Key Performance Indicators. Some of them are:

 Net present Value (NPV) is a commonly used economic measure to describe the incoming and outgoing cash flows over time at today’s value. It enables the comparison of economic

profitability among alternative solutions/investments.

 Expected NPV, the NPV enhanced with the probability factors of certain accidents and the connected costs.

 Environmental indicators which measure the impact of relevant emitted gas on certain

categories. Equivalent CO2, SOX, NOX and PO4 quantities of gases are used to estimate the impact on climate change, acidification, photochemical oxidation and eutrophication respectively.

 Social Welfare Index (SWI) assesses the effects and the perception of technical components on the human nature.

2.4.6 Other attempts

Other LCA applications in shipping sector limit the life cycle perspective to either specific environmental impacts or specific ship type. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) developed a LCA application based on SimaPro especially for fishing vessels. Energy consumption and air emissions were compared between different ship types and other transport modes in the study of (Kristensen, 2000).

(21)

14

2.4.7 Discussion on ship-focused LCAs

In this paragraph, all previous LCA studies/tools that their product system was a ship will be compared and discussed. The target is to identify the points that the LCA practitioners agree and that would help our research, and to locate areas which could be elaborated in the present study.

The main characteristics of the previous attempts are summarised in Table 1. In total, five documented applications of the LCA method for ships were found. The first three , LCA of “M/V Color Festival” (Johnsen & Fet, 1999), ‘LCA for ship’ (NMRI, 2006) and ‘LCA-Ship’ (Jivén et al., 2004), were conducted by academia and thus, were followed by detailed documentation. The most recent, ‘Sustainable Ship Design’(SSD, 2010) and ‘BAL.LCPA’ (BAL, 2013), were mainly driven by consultants which probably explains their poor documentation.

In all studies, the product system defined is a vessel of particular type. The functional unit adopted by academia studies expresses the supply of transport and hence ton-km is used for all ship types. Alternatively, the results are presented per transported cargo unit (i.e. ton, TEU). The most recent studies use a custom environmental index or the time dependence of the environmental assessment results during the life time.

The tools developed cover all common ship types, although not tested. (Johnsen & Fet, 1999) is a screening study for a specific RoPax vessel and part of the data used were collected from the ship’s constructor and operator. The documentations of (Jivén et al., 2004), (SSD, 2010) and (BAL, 2013)

suggest that all ship types are within the scope, given that appropriate data are available. However, (SSD, 2010) is tested on special ship type, e.g. frigate and sailboat. On the other side, the tool of (NMRI, 2006) was successfully tested for the types shown in Table 1.

The different applicability of the tools on various ship types is explained by examining the modelling of the system for the inventory analysis and the data used. In case of extensive use of databases, either very few or extensive details of the materials and energy used during the ships life cycle are required. This depends on the modelling level of detail in terms of processes considered. For example, (Jivén et al., 2004) focuses on the energy consumption on board by providing an extensive, yet simplistic, model of the on board machinery and thus, requires details with respect to the energy flow among the different components. The environmental impact of the shipbuilding phase is calculated based on data from the previous study of (Johnsen & Fet, 1999). In this way, data from a RoPax vessel are extrapolated for modelling other vessel types without considering possible discrepancies. The most consistent modelling approach was made by (NMRI, 2006), where actual data from a panamax bulker were extrapolated for similar ship types and databases were used only for background processes.

Every study uses different impact assessment method. The reason is that all studies were conducted at different years and used the best available, or in other words, the most popular at that time. None of the methods was selected based on criteria related to the maritime context. The LIME method used by the study (NMRI, 2006) is an monetary assessment method developed specifically for the Japan,

(22)

15 Table 1 Main characteristics and comparison of previous LCA tools and studies for ships. Each row of ‘environmental impact category considered’ contains identical, similar or linked environmental phenomena. Empty cells indicate that no similar phenomenon to the other attempts was considered (Source: own composition).

Previous ship-focused LCAs LCA of “M/V Color

Festival”

(Johnsen & Fet, 1999)

‘LCA-Ship’

(Jivén et al., 2004)

‘LCA for ship’

(NMRI, 2006) ‘Sustainable Ship Design’ (SSD, 2010) ‘BAL.LCPA’ (BAL, 2013)

Software used SimaPro Custom Custom Add-on for

SimaPro Custom

Ship types

considered RoPax Not specified

Tanker Bulk carrier LNG carrier Containership RoRo Tested on: Cruise vessel Frigate Sailboat Passenger vessel Not specified Functional unit ton-km ton-km, TEU-km Distance (nm)

ton, TEU ton-km

Custom environmental design index per life time

Temporal distribution over lifecycle Inventory data sources Measurement Databases Literature Databases Measurement Literature Databases

Databases Not specified

LCIA method Ecoindicator ‘95

Ecoindicator ‘99 EDIP

EPS2000 EPS MONEY Tellus

LIME Not specified Not specified

Environmental impact categories considered

Greenhouse effect Global warming Global warming Global warming Climate change Acidification Acidification Acidification Acidification Acidification Eutrophication Eutrophication Eutrophication Eutrophication Eutrophication Photo-oxidant formation Photo-oxidant formation Photo-oxidant formation - Photo-oxidant formation Ozone depletion Ozone depletion - Ozone depletion -

Winter smog - Urban air

pollution

Respiratory

effects -

Human toxicology - - Human toxicity -

Ecological toxicology - - Terrestrial ecotoxicity - - - Fresh water ecotoxicity - - - Resource consumption Resource depletion - - - Waste production Waste production -

(23)

16 The selection of impact categories for environmental assessment is free upon the choice of the LCA practitioner according to the ISO standards. The previous studies assess the impact on various

categories depending on the availability from the selected LCIA method, yet all studies assess the impact on global warming, acidification and eutrophication. In Table 1, each row of “Environmental impact categories considered” contains categories corresponding to similar or linked environmental

phenomena. Where no linked phenomena are addressed, the cell is empty. Photo-oxidant formation is not taken into account only by study, and ozone depletion by two. The air quality is also assessed by most studies, though not the same environmental modelling and assumptions are used. Effects on human health and natural environment are assessed by two studies. Resource consumption and waste production are considered by two studies too, however it must be noted that LCIAs do not provide widely accepted models for these categories. Additionally, the life cycle of the system must be fully modelled from cradle-to-grave in order to allow for unbiased assessment, and this is the reason that these categories are not generally used (Baumann & Tillman, 2004).

2.5 Chapter conclusions

In this chapter, the general principles that a modern LCA study must follow were presented in order to provide the appropriate framework for conducting the present thesis. The key characteristics of the methodological steps required by the relevant ISO standards were identified and the compulsory items were distinguished from the optional. In total four steps must be followed:

1. Goal and scope definition. Firstly, the goal of the study must be clearly stated. Then, the function of product system under study (e.g. the supply of transport work) must be decided along with the corresponding functional unit. The boundary of the system must then be defined and the environmental phenomena considered in line with the goal set.

2. Life cycle inventory analysis. Here, the system must be modelled in order to calculate the amount of releases to the environment during the life cycle. Either attributional or

consequential frameworks should be followed, and foreground and background processes should be distinguished in order to use the appropriate data and calculate the releases correctly. 3. Impact assessment: A sound method must be applied to assess the impact assessment of the

releases calculated in the previous step.

4. Interpretation: The assessment results must be explained in order to reveal significant issues and draw conclusions. Additionally, they must also be critically judged in terms of data used and their quality.

Apart from recognising the procedure to be followed, previous ship-focused LCA attempts were also reviewed and compared in this chapter. The main findings were:

 The supply of transport work is the usual function decided for ships.

 The data used for the modelling of the life cycle comes from actual measurements, literature and databases. Extrapolation of actual data from specific cases is commonly used for the modelling of other ship types.

 The most popular method at the time of each study is used for impact assessment without applying any criteria with respect to the specific product system under study, i.e. the ship.

(24)

17

 The impact categories considered are global warming, acidification and eutrophication at minimum. Photo-oxidant formation and ozone depletion are also very common.

The above findings could be useful for the present study in terms of providing data for inventory analysis and revealing areas that could be elaborated by either using data or models of higher quality. What is more, the impact categories that should be considered at minimum (global warming, acidification and eutrophication) and those that could be additionally included are also revealed.

The chapters of the thesis hereafter follow the methodological procedure described previously.

Decisions with respect to modelling framework, fore-/background processes and corresponding data are described in the relevant chapters. The findings from the literature review are met along the whole report and the studies are citrated when appropriate.

(25)

Chapter ‎3 LCA initial specifications

18

3 LCA initial specifications

In this chapter, the goal and scope of a LCA analysis focused on ships are defined in line with the objectives set for the current thesis. The corresponding decision context set by the goal and its impact on the definition of the scope items and the respective system modelling framework, processes considered and data types needed, is discussed with regard to the concepts presented in chapter ‎2.

3.1 LCA Goal

The goal of this LCA study is to monitor the environmental impact of a marine vessel during her life cycle by calculating the amounts of the associated pollutants, and assessing their impact with a scientifically and technically valid method. The compilation or development of specific, average or generic unit processes and data sets for use in ship relevant LCA applications is also part of the goal.

3.2 LCA Scope

The definition of several scope items are in principal determined by the information provided in the goal definition. In the following sections, the product system (ship) and its function and corresponding functional unit are unambiguously defined. The boundary of the system and the included processes are clearly specified in line with the goal and the modelling framework that this implies.

3.2.1 Product system

The product system to be studied is a marine vessel of the following types: oil tanker, bulk carrier, passenger vessel (RoPax or cruise ship), offshore supply vessel. The vessel is further specified by the following user-defined parameters:

 Main dimensions (length overall, length between perpendiculars, breadth, depth, draught);

 Deadweight;

 Gross tonnage;

 Lightship weight;

 Lightship steel weight;

 Main and auxiliary engines installed power;

 Main and auxiliary engines speed;

 Main and auxiliary engines fuel type.

3.2.2 Function and functional unit of the product system

The principal function of all ship types within the scope is the supply of transport work. Different units are used to measure the quantity of various cargo types and hence, different functional units should be defined for the vessel types transporting specific cargo types. For ship types transporting cargo that is measured with respect to its weight (e.g. crude oil, iron ore), ton-mile is selected as the functional unit. In case of cargo measured in volume units (e.g. cement), m3-mile should be used. The cruise ships are carrying only passengers and thus, person-mile is more appropriate as a functional unit. RoPax vessels are carrying both passenger and vehicles, and thus an aggregating functional unit should be used. Their payload can be calculated by the sum of the number of passengers multiplied by 75 Kg. which is the passenger weight and total number of cars multiplied by 1500 kg which is the car weight [HSC

(26)

19 Code,2000]. In Table 2, the functional units per ship type within the scope of the present study are illustrated:

Table 2 Functional unit for ship types within scope.

Ship type Functional unit

Bulk carrier ton-mile or m3-mile

Oil/Product carrier ton-mile

Cruise vessel passenger-mile

Roll-on/roll-off passenger (RoPax) vessel ton-mile

Offshore supply vessel ton-mile

3.2.3 Modelling framework

This decision context determines the LCI modelling frame (attributional or consequential) and in turn, the processes included within the system boundary, the processes modelling and corresponding data collection, and other decisions made during the inventory modelling and the impact assessment.

According to our goal definition, the study has a descriptive character and does not support any decision directly. We are interested in the environmental impact occurring within a certain temporal window (i.e. the ship’s life cycle) based on decisions already taken. Therefore, the system should be modelled as it could be measured and the attributional modelling framework (see section ‎2.3.1) is the most

appropriate.

The ship is considered operating in a static economic and technological environment. Its technical characteristics and equipment are unaltered since its construction (apart from time degradation and maintenance substitutions). The models and parameter values used for describing the operational profile and practices should be representative of the actual conditions during the life cycle. In this sense, present and past data of adequate quality can be used for depicting/forecasting the real behaviour of the ship from cradle-to-grave. Similarly, economic parameters, market mechanisms, future legislation impact and interaction among them are not modelled and thus, not interacting with the life cycle phases of the ship.

The attributional modelling framework adopted in this study introduces certain requirements for the type (specific, average or generic) of data specifying the processes included within the system boundary. This topic will be addressed in the chapter ‎4 where the system model is analysed in detail.

3.2.4 System Boundary

Ship’s life cycle is considered to start at keel laying and finish just after the final dismantling is completed. The lifecycle is divided in three major phases: construction, operation and shipbreaking. The operation phase consists of sailing and maintenance stages which are consecutive and repeated over time. Therefore, the boundary of the product system is set on the fence line of the shipyard and shipbreaking yard, and on the port. Raw materials acquisition, transportation of materials to the shipyard, production of goods (e.g. fuels, consumables etc.) and every other process that takes place outside the shipyard’s fence line is omitted in the present LCA analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the system boundary, the basic processes and material/energy flows under study (within red frame).

(27)

Chapter ‎3 LCA initial specifications 20 Energy Sources Materials (e.g. coatings) Ship parts (e.g. machinery) Shipbuilding Consumables Electricity Production Shipbuilding Ship Electricity Electricity Sailing Maintenance Waste Port Reception Facilities Ship Shipbreaking Recycled materials Reused materials Deposited materials (e.g. landfill, dump)

(28)

21 As far as the operation phase is concerned, the boundary is set exactly on the port quay. The interaction between ship and port occurs through the delivery of wastes (oily wastes, garbage etc.) to the port facilities as mandated by the MARPOL 73/78 convention. Normally, these wastes should be treated before their final disposal in a landfill or an incinerator. Several treatment technologies are

available(Hess, Snuverink, Schoof, & A.M de Leeuw, 2004) with different applicability depending on the port profile (Wolterink, Hess, Schoof, & Wijnen, 2004). However, the existence of such facilities varies considerably according to local policies (Carpenter & Macgill, 2005; EPE, 2003).

Ideally, the life cycle of the system in attributional modelling should include the whole supply chain and downstream, i.e. from raw materials extraction to end-of-life treatment and return of substances to earth(ISO, 2006a). It is evident that the boundary of this study includes only the foreground processes (see sec. ‎2.3.2) with respect to the ship’s total supply/value chain. The rationale behind this boundary selection resides in the objective of this thesis to calculate and assess the interaction between the environment and a ship of specific characteristics. This suggests that the point of view of the shipowner and/or the shipbuilder is of interest for this LCA analysis.

With respect to the management perspective described in section ‎2.3.2, the boundary should include those processes controlled directly or influenced decisively by these two actors. Thus, these processes should be for the present study: all in-house functions (e.g. shipyard processes, ship operation profile), processes at suppliers that are influenced by choice (e.g. blasting material type at repair yard, fuel type), end-of-life processes since they are influenced by decision and design of the ship (shipbreaking assumed as in third-world countries). The processes considered as background typically for attributional

modelling (EC-JRC-IES, 2010b) are those of tier-two suppliers and long term contractors/suppliers that cannot be affected considerably.

Since the analysed ship has specific characteristics, the processes that particularise her life cycle should also be included in foreground modelling according to the specificity perspective of section ‎2.3.2. Again all in-house processes and tier-one suppliers should be considered as foreground and specific data should describe them. In contrast, the processes far downstream and upstream the supply/value chain (i.e. tier two suppliers) of the ship belongs to the background and averaged data can be used.

3.2.5 Basic assumptions

The modelling of the three phases composing ship’s lifetime is based on several assumptions with main criterion the availability and quality of data with respect to ship-related processes. Only major

assumptions affecting the whole model are referred in this paragraph. Minor ones affecting only certain processes (e.g. painting) will be mentioned in chapter ‎4.

 At the shipbuilding phase, the environmental impact from conveyance within shipyard is not considered. The number and capacity of cranes, trucks and forklifts vary significantly from shipyard to shipyard and for different reasons making even estimations not a safe option.

 The ship-port interaction is taken into account only as the delivery of bulk amounts of waste and garbage. Their chemical composition has large variation depending on ship type, on board treatment equipment (e.g. incinerator) and operator’s policy.

(29)

22

 The impact of the emissions to local level (e.g. the vicinity of the shipyard or occupational exposure) will not be assessed.

 The end-of-life scenario assumes the current scrapping practices of the so-called shipbreaking nations (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). These countries account for more than 90% of the industry while the Hong Kong Convention which regulates environmental, health and safety issues of shipbreaking is estimated to come into force after 2020 (see chapter ‎0).

3.3 LCIA method selection

During the ship’s lifecycle phases pollutants are released in all three compartments –air, soil and water- and contribute to environmental impacts with different extent. Various impact assessment methods exist that differentiate in the number of impact categories addressed and the models to assess them. In this section, an attempt is made to determine the most relevant set of impact categories and the most appropriate LCIA method for the life cycle of a ship from the recommended methodologies presented in the ILCD handbook (EC-JRC-IES, 2010c).

Generally, the release of a substance to the environment triggers a series of consecutive phenomena that finally affect three areas of protection: human health, natural environment and natural resources. Most LCIA methods use a cause-and-effect approach to model the chain of the phenomena. Depending on the position along this chain, the impact categories are distinguished in midpoint and endpoint. The endpoint categories coincide with the aforementioned areas of protection and express the relative importance of emissions and their consequences at the end of the cause-and-effect chain. Midpoint impacts are defined as the link between the initial releases and final consequences, and each one can cause more than one endpoint impact. The ILCD handbook proposes ten midpoint impact categories to be checked for relevance in all sectors: climate change, ozone depletion, human toxicity, respiratory inorganics, ionising radiation, photochemical ozone formation, acidification in land and water, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, land use and resource depletion.

In line with the objectives of the thesis, the environmental impact assessment of a ship should include the widest possible set of impact categories. Review of the categories considered in the previous ship relevant LCA attempts (see section ‎2.4) and communication with industry professionals revealed that the following impacts should be at least assessed: global warming, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, ozone depletion, toxicity for humans and ecology. The set of the midpoint categories is a trade-off between the available categories of each LCIA method and the quality of the underlying models, since different methods categorise the environmental impact differently. In the present study, the ReCipe 2008 method was selected (see below) and the following midpoint categories will be assessed:  Climate change;  Ozone depletion;  Terrestrial acidification;  Freshwater eutrophication;  Human toxicity;

(30)

23

 Particulate matter formation;

 Terrestrial ecotoxicity;

 Freshwater ecotoxicity;

 Marine ecotoxicity.

It should be noticed that no model assessing the impact of invasive species due to ballast water transportation could be found. The ionising radiation impact, although available by ReCiPe, will not be assessed since it is found irrelevant with ship’s lifecycle (only smoke detectors contribute insignificantly if not recycled/reused after ship dismantling).

The models used to calculate the midpoint impacts of the pollutants are less complex than those for endpoints, as the amount of forecasting and effect modelling is reduced (Bare, 2002). Less

environmental mechanisms have to be modelled and thus assumptions and value choices are minimised. While endpoint modelling allows for aggregation across impact categories (e.g. comparison climate change and ozone depletion categories on human health), the requirement for reliable data and robust models, which are often not available, reduces the level of comprehensiveness (Bare, 2002) and increases the uncertainty of the results (Baumann & Tillman, 2004). This is the reason that impact assessment at midpoint level is implemented at the present study.

Numerous LCIA methods are available with modelling at midpoint, endpoint or both levels. The EC-JRC-IES provides the most recent attempt (EC-JRC-EC-JRC-IES, 2010c) to distinguish the most up-to-date, thorough and reliable methods used currently, based on a comparison methodology including a set of uniform criteria including geographic differentiation, i.e. varying the impact of a substance with the region’s characteristics ,such as population density, type of use (urban, rural) etc. To select the appropriate LCIA method among the recommended by EC-JRC-IES with respect to the objectives of the present thesis, the following criteria were set:

 Range of impact categories and number of relevant substances covered;

 Appropriateness of impact categories covered for ship’s LCA study;

 Quality of modelling at midpoint level.

Based on these, the ReCiPe 2008 method was proved to be the most appropriate. It covers all the midpoint impact categories selected above and provides the most extensive list of assessed substances (covers 3000 substances while the next most extensive covers 1000 approximately). Additionally, groups of pollutants that are difficult to speciate are used as reference substance in certain categories and hence, the uncertainly is reduced. For example, NMVOCs, which are a collection of numerous organic compounds is used as reference substance in the photochemical ozone formation category. With respect to midpoint impact modelling, ReCiPe provides a harmonised approach in terms of modelling principles and value choices (EC-JRC-IES, 2010c; M. Goedkoop et al., 2009). Thus, the calculated results refer to the same point of the cause-and-effect chain and are uniform as far as the regional and compartment conditions are concerned. This approach increases the validity of the results and allows for selecting the location of e.g. the shipyard, between urban or rural area. The main characteristics of the selected ReCiPe 2008 method are presented in the following section.

(31)

24

3.3.1 The ReCiPe 2008 impact assessment method

The ReCiPe method(M. Goedkoop et al., 2009) is a life cycle assessment model which incorporates the advantages of two other models: the CML2001 (Guinée, 2002) and Eco-indicator ’99 (M. Goedkoop, R. Spriensma, 1999). It uses the approach of the CML2001 for assessing the midpoint impacts and the main characteristics of the endpoint impact assessment of the Eco-indicator ’99. Contrary to the other models, ReCiPe provides 18 midpoint impact categories and three endpoint indicators, in order to evaluate the life cycle impact.

Figure 2 Flowchart of ReCiPe model. Left: LCI parameters, middle: midpoint categories, right: endpoint categories (M. Goedkoop et al., 2009).

Figure 2 illustrates the categories and the connections among different impact levels. At the first level, the results of the life cycle inventory are connected to the 18 midpoint categories and they are

converted to equivalent amount of the reference substance per category. At the second level, each midpoint category is connected to the relevant endpoint categories, using the same categorization as in the Eco-indicator 99 model. It should be noticed that a midpoint category can be connected with more than one endpoint category. Where no adequate assessment method exists for linking the categories between the two impact levels, the corresponding impact is not taken into account in the endpoint results. An important category for the present study which falls within this case is marine eutrophication.

Another advantage of the ReCiPe model is that it provides factors for each level category (midpoint, endpoint) with respect to three cultural perspectives:

Life cycle assessment of pollutants from ships: the case of an Aframax tanker

Life Cycle Assessment of

Pollutants from Ships:

The case of an Aframax tanker

Anastasios Mountaneas

Life cycle assessment of pollutants

from ships: the case of an Aframax

tanker

Anastasios Mountaneas

Preface

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Sustainability measures - Environmental assessment

1.3 Problem definition

1.4 Objectives

1.5 Contribution to the company and the society

1.6 Thesis outline

2 The LCA Methodology

2.1 General description of the LCA methodology

2.2 The LCA method according to ISO 14040/14044:2006

Goal and scope definition

Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

Life cycle interpretation

2.3 LCA methodological concepts and modelling frameworks

2.4 Literature review: ship focused LCAs

2.5 Chapter conclusions

3 LCA initial specifications

3.1 LCA Goal

3.2 LCA Scope

3.3 LCIA method selection