Measuring Sustainability and the Eco-efficiency of Micro Surfacing

Transcription

1 Measuring Sustainability and the Eco-efficiency of Micro Surfacing 1

2 Measuring Sustainability Being able to measure sustainability is critical to its successful integration into business strategy

3 Economic Impact Categories Raw material costs. Labor costs. Energy (electric and natural gas). Capital & non-capital investment costs. Maintenance. EH&S programs and regulatory costs. Illness & injury costs (medical, legal, lost time). Property protection & warehousing costs. Waste costs (hazardous, non-hazardous) Training costs. Other as applicable

4 Environmental Impact Categories Energy Raw Materials Land Use Risk Toxicity Potential Emissions

5 Emissions Impact Categories Emissions Solid Waste Residential, Hazardous, Mining, Construction Air Water BOD, COD, Heavy Metals, Total N, PO 4, Hydrocarbons Green House Gases Ozone Depletion Summer Smog Acid Rain CO 2, N 2 O, halogenated hydrocarbons, CH 4 halogenated hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons, CH 4 SO x, NO x, NH 3, HCl

6 Assessing Environmental Impacts Impacts considered Environmental Fingerprint Environmental advantage Raw Materials Energy consumption Land Use Emissions Toxicity Risk potential Energy Consumption Land Use Emissions Raw Materials Toxicity Potential Risk Potential Occupational Illnesses and Accidents 1.0 = greatest environmental burden = greatest least environmental burden burden Relative overall Impact High Product 2A BASF Product B Product 1C Low Life-cycle data is gathered in six environmental categories and depicted on an environmental fingerprint. The data are then weighted, aggregated and normalized to obtain an overall environmental impact.

7 Weighting Factors for Environmental Impacts What does the emission (or energy consumption) contribute to the total emissions (or energy consumption) in the region considered? What value does society attach to the reduction of the individual potentials?

8 Balancing Costs and the Environment Customer benefit : 1 functional unit for. Environmental Impact (normalized) low eco-efficiency high eco-efficiency Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C The most eco-efficient product has the lowest combined environmental impact and cost. Ecoefficiency is measured from the diagonal line Costs (normalized) 0.0 Alternative B is most eco-efficient.

9 Assessment of Sustainable Innovations Eco-efficiency Analysis for Pavement Preservation Technologies Independent third party methodology validation and study verification Comparative assessment of equally weighted economic & environmental aspects of products and processes Consideration of the entire life cycle (LCA in accordance with ISO norms) Eco-efficiency is analyzed from an end use perspective, so comparison is done for a defined level of output Preventive maintenance of a 1 mile stretch of a 12 foot lane of an urban road to a similar profile and performance using best engineering practices over a 40 year period Micro surfacing vs. Mill and Fill Constant progress with partners

10 Life Cycle Approach

11 System Boundaries Micro surfacing Polymer modified asphalt emulsion w/ SBR Production Emulsifier Polymer Acid Water Milling Aggregate preparation and transport 285 F Use Sweep surface Proportion & Blend Application to Road Lane Stripping Disposal Material removal Transport and Recycling, Disposal Storage (120F), load into truck, transport to site Traffic on the road Grey boxes are not considered, since they are the same for all alternatives.

12 System Boundaries Polymer Modified Hot Mix Overlay (2 Mill and Fill) Production Aggregate preparation & Heating Use Milling of Road Disposal Asphalt Cement Production RAP Sweep surface Material removal at HMA Facility Application to Road Lane Stripping Transport and Recycling, Disposal Load into truck, transport to site Traffic on the road Grey boxes are not considered, since they are the same for all alternatives.

13 Input Data: General

14 Energy Consumption Hotter production and application temperatures for HMA as well as the increased fuel requirements for shipping larger amounts of material to and from the job site contribute to Mill & Fill having a higher energy impact. Microsurfacing has a higher impact in road markings due to the more frequent applications. 5/12/

15 Raw Material Consumption 5/12/

16 Raw Material Consumption 5/12/

17 Air Emissions GHG Emissions Activities related to the transportation and milling of the aggregate as well as the energy consumed during the production, transportation and application of the asphalt had the highest impact on the GWP for the alternatives. CO 2 emissions from the manufacturing / application of the road markings also is a significant contributor. 5/12/

18 Air Emissions Acidification Potential AP primarily results from NO x, and SO x generated during the burning of the fuel oil for the heating of the aggregate and asphalt for the Mill and Fill HMA. Also, fuel and electricity consumption for the milling and transportation of the aggregate also contribute. 5/12/

19 Air Emissions Summary 5/12/

20 Emissions: Solid Waste Solid waste emissions are mostly the result of material sent to landfill. Thus, impact relates directly to the total weight of the alternatives and how much can be recycled. The Mill and Fill alternative, which uses over twice the amount of material than microsurfacing, has the highest impact.

21 Emissions: Water Water emissions are mostly impacted by the hydrocarbon, COD and Cl - emissions generated during the manufacture of the thermoplastic stripping material, specifically the epoxy resins.

22 Overall Emissions

23 Risk Potential: Occupational Illnesses & Accidents Aggregate, the single largest resource for each alternative, contributes the highest risk potential for occupational illnesses and accidents. The longer construction time required for the Mill and Fill alternative exposes the construction workers to a higher risk of construction related injuries and fatalities.

24 Toxicity Potential The toxicity potential of the materials and activities related to the application of the asphalt material to the road for each alternative has the highest impact.

25 Land Use Requirements Energy required for the production and application of the hot mix overlay (e.g. electricity, heating oil) is the largest contributor to land use. Mining wastes (aggregate production) as well as solid waste disposal of the materials not recycled also contribute.

26 Calculation Factors Calculation Factor Land Use 7% Risk 13% Wastes 27% AP 38% Toxicity 19% Emissions 17% Water 34% POCP 26% Resources 24% ODP 6% Energy 20% Air 38% GWP 30% Main Categories Emissions Air Emissions

27 Environmental Fingerprint 1.0 1,0 = worst position, better results ordered relatively, <1 Microsurfacing clearly demonstrates lower environmental burden in all impact categories relative to the Mill and Fill (hot mix overlay) alternative.

28 Overall Economic Results Life Cycle Costs Micro surfacing Mill and Fill Material Cost $/yd2 $4.00 $9.25 Material and Labor Costs $/CB $97,079 $136,037 Disposal Costs $/CB $3,650 $7,900 Lane Rental Fees $/CB $7,740 $19,505 Striping Fee $/CB $15,633 $9,651 Total Cost $/CB $124,103 $173,093

29 Pavement Preservation Portfolio: Base case Preventive maintenance of a 1 mile stretch of a 12 foot lane of an urban road to a similar profile and performance using best engineering practices over a 40 year period For this study, the micro surfacing alternative is the most eco-efficient.

30 Portfolio Scenario 1: 17 year durability for Mill and Fill Preventive maintenance of a 1 mile stretch of a 12 foot lane of an urban road to a similar profile and performance using best engineering practices over a 40 year period Scenario reflects increase from 11 to 17 years in durability for Mill and Fill and results in a significant improvement in relative eco-efficiency of Mill & Fill. Micro surfacing alternative still remains the most eco-efficient.

31 Conclusions: Micro surfacing is the more eco-efficient pavement preservation technology! Micro surfacing shows clear environmental advantages in all 6 impact areas. Micro surfacing has the lowest life cycle cost. Based on the 1 mile stretch of a 12 ft urban lane, micro surfacing relative to Mill and Fill will: require over 1.2 million pounds less material save energy and reduce dependence on fossil fuels savings equivalent to annual consumption of energy in 110 US homes 280 barrels of oil less for every lane-mile significantly reduces waste and material sent to landfill (34 tons) equivalent to waste produced by 1 person over the same 40 years have a smaller carbon footprint. Reduction equivalent to: carbon sequestered annually by over 22 acres of pine forest taking over 20 cars off the road for 1 year.

32

33 For More Information: Bruce Uhlman BASF Corporation - Product Stewardship Sustainability Programs Tel: (973) bruce.uhlman@basf.com 5/12/