Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard"

Transcription

1 Technical Report Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard Quantifying the environmental impacts throughout the product life cycle, building the evidence base in sustainable construction

2 WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change. Contents Executive summary 1 Glossary of terms 6 Introduction 13 Goal of the study 15 Scope of the study 24 Inventory Analysis 24 Life cycle inventory analysis 56 Life cycle impact assessment 58 Sensitivity analysis 79 Interpretation and conclusions 85 References 90 Annex A 91 Annex B 142 Annex C 160 Annex D 166 Annex E 296 Annex F 299

3 Executive summary Context Through its Construction Programme, WRAP is helping the construction industry cut costs and increase efficiency through the better use of materials. Plasterboard is used extensively in the construction and refurbishment of buildings as a lining for walls and ceilings, and for forming structures such as partitions. Plasterboard waste can arise on construction sites for a number of reasons, including wasteful design, off-cuts from its installation, damaged boards, and over-ordering. It is estimated that over 300,000 tonnes per year of waste plasterboard is produced on construction sites. It can also arise from strip-out activities during refurbishment and demolition projects; the waste arisings from this source are significantly higher. In total it is estimated that over one million tonnes of waste plasterboard are produced each year from construction and demolition activities. Most of this waste is currently disposed to landfill, even though it can be easily recycled. WRAP receives funding from Defra through the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) programme to divert plasterboard waste from landfill by working to overcome the barriers to plasterboard recycling. Additional funding is also received from the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. WRAP is working to overcome the barriers through the following key areas: plasterboard waste minimisation; site waste management; segregation and collection of plasterboard waste; development of infrastructure, including waste logistics and recycling capacity; market development for materials from plasterboard recycling recycled gypsum and reclaimed paper; education, awareness and behavioural change; and informing and influencing legislation, regulations and policy. More information on WRAP s work can be found at Background to the study In January 2007, WRAP commissioned Environmental Resources Management Ltd. (ERM) to carry out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of plasterboard. The study investigated the life cycle of one standard sheet of Type A plasterboard and encompassed all life cycle stages from raw material production to end-of-life management. In any LCA, it is necessary to limit the scope-of-work to investigate areas of interest. The scope of this study was to focus investigations on one specific plasterboard product: Type A; 12.5 mm thick; 1200 x 2400 mm; square edge profile. This is the most common type of plasterboard currently in production in the UK. The scope of work was also restricted by focusing on the closed-loop recycling of gypsum from post-consumer sources back into plasterboard production. There are a number of potential end uses for the gypsum recovered from waste plasterboard, including: cement manufacture; road construction; use as a soil improver; for soil stabilisation; and use as a replacement for clay in block manufacture. WRAP is carrying out a number of studies and trials to investigate and to develop these and other markets. However, the largest end market is currently, and is expected to continue to be, closed loop recycling into plasterboard; and assessing production, waste management and recycling systems in The limitation of focusing efforts on one board type, and recycling route and time period is that the results of the assessment are applicable only within this context. The benefit is a thorough and representative assessment of the potential impacts of this, most common, plasterboard product in the UK. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 1

4 Comparing plasterboard composition Three alternative systems were assessed: 1. Baseline - based on the current (2007) mix of gypsum used in Type A plasterboard production 1 ; 2. 15% recyclate - based on increased levels of post-consumer recycled gypsum (to a maximum of 15% total recycled gypsum content); and 3. 25% recyclate - based on increased levels of post-consumer recycled gypsum (to a maximum of 25% total recycled gypsum content). Resulting impact profiles are shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Impacts assessment results comparison: alternative product systems, one sheet of Type A plasterboard Baseline Baseline 15% recycled content (Low transport) 15% recycled content (High transport) 25% recycled content (Low transport) 25% recycled content (High transport) (Low (High Impact category Unit transport) transport) Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq 0.42x x x x x x10-6 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq The low/high transport scenario assumes that recycled plasterboard travels a total distance of 50 km/450 km from point of collection to point of use respectively These impact profiles suggest that there are environmental benefits associated with increasing the recycled gypsum content in Type A plasterboard. However, these benefits are small in comparison with overall system impacts. For example, the scale of potential savings associated with increasing recycled gypsum content to 25% for one sheet of product is shown in Table 1.2 and Table 1.3. (1) Conventional sources of gypsum in the UK derive from both primary extraction (mining or quarrying) and synthetic sources. The most common of these synthetic sources are desulphogypsum from flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) operations and titanogypsum derived from the production of titanium dioxide pigment. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 2

5 Table 1.2 Savings in comparison with baseline 25% recycled content (assuming low transport) Savings as a% of total Impact category Unit Savings per sheet of Type A plasterboard impacts for the baseline system Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq % Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq % Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H % Acidification kg SO 2 eq % Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq % The low transport scenario assumes that recycled plasterboard travels a total distance of 50 km from point of collection to point of use Table 1.3 Savings in comparison with baseline 25% recycled content (assuming high transport) Savings as a% of total Impact category Unit Savings per sheet of Type A plasterboard impacts for the baseline system Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq % Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq % Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H % Acidification kg SO 2 eq % Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq % Negative values denote a net impact in comparison with the baseline system. The high transport scenario assumes that recycled plasterboard travels a total distance of 450 km from point of collection to point of use For the majority of impact categories assessed, Table 1.2 and Table 1.3 show a less than 10% difference between the current product system and the product with 25% recycled content. Within the boundaries of uncertainty in this assessment, this margin is too small to conclude a categorical benefit of increasing the content of recycled gypsum in Type A plasterboard production. Also note the difference in potential savings between the low and high transport scenarios assessed. These represent the minimum and maximum distance that waste plasterboard and recovered gypsum is likely to travel (assumed to be 50 km and 450 km respectively). In reality, potential savings will lie somewhere in between these figures. The benefits of using post-consumer gypsum in plasterboard production are a function of both: avoiding the need to landfill waste plasterboard; and avoiding the need to produce an equivalent quantity of gypsum from conventional sources (mined or synthetic gypsum). This assessment has found these benefits to be small by comparison with the impacts of other stages in the plasterboard life cycle, such as gypsum calcination, plasterboard production and distribution. For example, Figure 1.1 shows the profile of greenhouse gas emissions across the life cycle of one sheet of Type A plasterboard. The greatest emissions occur in plasterboard manufacturing stages. Using more post-consumer recycled gypsum reduces emissions associated with the production of conventional gypsum and with plasterboard disposal. However, these reductions are small in comparison with the emissions resulting from plasterboard manufacture. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 3

6 Figure 1.1 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: global warming potential kg CO 2 -equivalents Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Waste minimisation during installation The significance of plasterboard production stages in contributing to the life cycle impacts of Type A plasterboard is clear from the detailed results presented in this study. It follows that a number of plasterboard waste minimisation scenarios assessed showed considerable potential for environmental benefits. For example, in global warming terms, savings up to 158 tonnes CO 2 equivalents were shown (a scenario assessing a 750,000 contract for the installation of plasterboard, and reducing in-use wastage rates from 15% to 5%) equating to 62 kg CO 2 equivalents per tonne of plasterboard used in-situ. The results of the assessment suggest that efforts to reduce the environmental impact of Type A plasterboard production might be best targeted at minimising wastage (and thereby reducing production efforts for the equivalent amount of plasterboard that performs its function insitu). Comparing plasterboard end-of-life options Comparing options for plasterboard disposal (Table 1.4) shows the greater potential impact of landfilling plasterboard in monocell, in comparison with mixed waste landfill, across a number of impact categories (including human toxicity). This is a surprising outcome in light of the drive to reduce the amount of waste plasterboard disposed in mixed waste landfill, and avoid hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) emissions. The life cycle inventory compiled in the assessment did show H 2 S to be generated in greater quantities in mixed waste landfill than monocell (an approximate five-fold increase). This increase in H 2 S emissions does not translate into an increase in impact for some of the categories assessed for a number of reasons, as follows: 1. there is a greater diesel consumption burden of disposing plasterboard in monocell (per tonne of waste plasterboard) borne through the reduced economy of scale associated with a smaller site; 2. there is an increased transportation burden of waste plasterboard travelling to monocell landfill. This study was restricted in scope in assessing only plasterboard waste management operations in At this time, information provided indicated that there was only one monocell accepting plasterboard waste in the UK. As a result, waste plasterboard from across the UK must travel, on average, a much greater distance to this site. With an increasing number of monocell sites accepting this waste stream, average transportation distances will decrease, and the potential burdens of monocell landfill will be reduced; and Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 4

7 3. not all of the impacts associated with H 2 S emissions are quantified in this assessment - namely odour and nuisance - as there are no scientifically robust and accepted methods by which to do so. This limits the completeness of impact assessment. Nevertheless, results presented are accurate and representative of the categories of impact assessed. Table 1.4 Comparative impact profiles: one tonne of plasterboard waste to disposal and recycling Recycling (low transport) Recycling (high transport) Impact category Unit Mixed waste landfill Monocell Abiotic depletion Kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) Kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq This table compares the potential impacts of collecting, transporting and either disposing or recycling 1 tonne of plasterboard waste. For the disposal options, this means the plasterboard has reached the end of its useful life. For the recycling options, this means that gypsum is extracted from the plasterboard and can be used again. This further use is not included in these values. A notable limitation of this study was its restricted scope. The study focuses on the closed-loop recycling of gypsum from post-consumer sources back into plasterboard production. There are a number of other end uses for the gypsum recovered from waste plasterboard, and an assessment of the market potential for and barriers to the use of post-consumer recycled gypsum in alternative end uses has been carried out by WRAP [WRAP 2008]. As the study assessed the production of recycled gypsum, it acts as a basis for future consideration of other markets. The assessment reported here has shown some environmental benefit associated with gypsum recycling in comparison with landfill. This benefit is not seen across all categories of impact, as recycling processing impacts (energy consumption) are currently higher than those for mixed waste landfill. It is also highly sensitive to the distance plasterboard waste is transported (see Table 1.4). As a result, further work is recommended to investigate: the potential benefits of using post-consumer recycled gypsum in local open-loop systems; and the potential scale of energy savings that might be achieved through increased economies of scale as greater tonnages of plasterboard are recycled. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 5

8 Glossary of terms Acidification Impact category whereby gases contributing to air acidification are aggregated according to their acidification potential. Acidification is the process whereby air pollution, mainly emissions of ammonia, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, results in the deposition of acid substances. Acid rain is best known for the damage it causes to forests and lakes. Less well known are the many ways it affects freshwater and coastal ecosystems, soils and even ancient historical monuments. Allocation Few industrial processes yield a single output or are based on a linearity of raw material inputs and outputs. In fact, most industrial processes yield more than one product, and they recycle intermediate or discarded products as raw materials. Allocation involves partitioning the input or output flows of a process between the product system under study and one or more other product systems. Anhydrite (CaSO 4 ) Formed when gypsum or hemihydrate are calcined to temperatures above 170 C. In contact with water it readily hydrates to the dihydrate (gypsum) state, and sets very rapidly. However, if calcined to over 300 C a different crystal structure is developed, creating an insoluble form which will only hydrate over a period of decades (as a minimum) and shows no setting properties. Ashdown Agreement A voluntary agreement proposed by the GPDA (Gypsum Products Development Association, representing the three UK plasterboard manufacturers) and developed in conjunction with WRAP and the Market Transformation Programme. Signed in March 2007, it sets specific targets for the plasterboard manufacturers aimed at reducing the amount of plasterboard waste from production and construction activities being disposed to landfill and increasing the amount recycled back into the manufacture of new plasterboard. Defra s intention is to have similar commitments for other stakeholders involved in the life cycle of gypsum. Calcination, calcined Thermal treatment process of calcium sulphate to change its hydration state (the amount of water in its chemical structure, not the free water which would make the mineral feel damp). In the manufacture of plasterboard calcination is used to change calcium sulphate from its dihydrate state (gypsum) state to its hemihydrate state, so plaster slurry that will set can be produced. Closed-loop recycling Processing waste plasterboard into recycled gypsum, and using the recycled gypsum as a feedstock for the manufacture of new plasterboard. Co-disposal The disposal of plasterboard together with other waste streams in a mixed waste landfill. Conventional gypsum Term used in this study to encompass both natural and synthetic gypsum (e.g. flue-gas desulphurisation gypsum, titanogypsum). Depletion of abiotic resources/abiotic resource consumption Impact category whereby an indication of resource depletion is provided by considering the proportion of the available resource (in years) for each raw material consumed by the activities in question, and summing their contributions to depletion of known stocks, giving a measure of total depletion. Dihydrate (CaSO 4.2H 2 O) This is one form in which calcium sulphate is mined (the other is anhydrite), and is also its state when forming the core of plasterboard. It is a fully hydrated material and is stable at normal temperatures, but will change hydration state at temperatures between 50 C and 170 C to the hemihydrate state (see calcination). Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 6

9 Ecoinvent A peer-reviewed database, containing life cycle inventory (LCI) data for over 2500 processes in the energy, transport, building materials, chemicals, paper/board, agriculture and waste management sectors. It aims to provide a set of unified and generic LCI data of high quality. The data are mainly representative of Swiss and Western European conditions. Eutrophication Impact category whereby emissions contributing to eutrophication are aggregated according to their eutrophication potential. Strictly defined, eutrophication is the term used to describe an increase in chemical nutrients (typically compounds of nitrogen or phosphorus) in an ecosystem. With regard to potential for environmental impact, the term is used to mean the resultant excessive plant growth and decay that occurs when nutrient levels are decreased. This can lead to a lack of oxygen and severe reductions in water quality and in fish and other animal populations. Facing paper, lining paper Multi-ply paper liner to the faces of plasterboard, encasing the gypsum plaster core, and giving plasterboard most of its tensile strength. Recycled paper is used in the UK. Flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum Gypsum produced as a by-product of the flue gas desulphurisation process of major combustion plants, mostly coal-fired power stations. It is high purity (>95% calcium sulphate dihydrate), in powder form and usually has a high moisture content. For use in plasterboard it has a defined specification published by Eurogypsum (the Association of European Gypsum Industries). A form of synthetic gypsum. Gypsum A soft mineral composed of calcium sulphate dihydrate. Hemihydrate (CaSO 4.0.5H 2 O) The state in which calcium sulphate is supplied as plaster powder for example, and is formed from calcination of calcium sulphate from its dihydrate state (gypsum). When mixed with water it rehydrates, changing state back to dihydrate (gypsum). This process is infinitely repeatable, enabling gypsum to be fully recyclable. High-sulphate waste The Environment Agency considers high-sulphate waste to be waste with a sulphate content greater than 10%. This includes plasterboard, and can also apply to an entire load of waste (for example mixed construction waste containing plasterboard) if the total sulphate content of the load exceeds 10%. Current waste acceptance criteria require high-sulphate waste loads to be disposed in a high-sulphate monocell, whereas waste loads with a total sulphate content less than 10% may be co-disposed in mixed waste landfill; this is the so-called 10% rule. High-sulphate monocell landfill An engineered cell in a non-hazardous landfill site (as plasterboard waste is non-hazardous unless contaminated with a hazardous substance) solely for the deposit of high-sulphate waste, which ensures that waste is physically separated from other wastes and in particular biodegradable wastes. Human/aquatic/terrestrial toxicity Impact categories based on calculated human, aquatic or terrestrial toxicity potentials. These reflect the potential harm to humans or the aquatic or terrestrial environment of a unit quantity of chemical emitted. Impact category Category of environmental impact used in life cycle impact assessment (e.g. global warming, acidification). All life cycle inventory flows are classified and characterised according to the study s defined impact categories. ISO The international standard for life cycle assessment (LCA). The most recent draft of the standard is ISO 14040:2006. This document describes the principles and framework for undertaking a life cycle assessment. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 7

10 Life cycle assessment Also known as LCA, life cycle analysis, cradle-to-grave analysis. A process of evaluating the effects that a product has on the environment over the entire period of its life. It can be used to study the environmental impact of either a product or the function the product is designed to perform. Key elements are to: (1) map the life cycle of the product system/s under study; (2) identify and quantify the environmental inputs and outputs involved at each stage in the life cycle (eg the energy and raw materials consumed, the emissions and wastes generated); and (3) evaluate and interpret the potential environmental impacts of these inputs and outputs. A systematic and internationally-standardised process is used. This process is set out in the ISO series of standards. Life cycle impact assessment Phase of a life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product. This process involves associating life cycle inventory (LCI) data with specific environmental impact categories. Scientifically-derived characterisation factors (eg global warming potentials) are used to translate life cycle inventory flows (e.g. methane) into quantified impacts (e.g. kg CO 2 -equivalents). Life cycle inventory (LCI) Phase of a life cycle assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs (e.g. energy and raw materials consumed, emissions and wastes generated) for a product throughout its life cycle. The result is a list of flows to and from the environment at each life cycle stage. Mixed waste landfill Landfill site intended for un-sorted (non-hazardous) waste materials. In this study a generic, medium-sized site with composite liner and polyethylene cap is taken to be representative of UK mixed waste landfill sites. Monocell disposal The disposal of a single waste type to either a separate landfill or to a separate cell within a larger site. In this study the term monocell disposal is used to mean the disposal of segregated plasterboard in a high sulphate monocell. Natural gypsum Also referred to as mined or quarried, this is gypsum extracted from the ground. The purity of calcium sulphate dihydrate varies depending on the seam from which it is extracted but is typically 70-98%; the remainder being other minerals such as inert clays. Mining is the extraction method used in the UK, whereas in Europe it is predominantly extracted from open quarries. On/off-site segregation Term used in the study to indicate whether post-consumer waste plasterboard is sorted for recycling at the site at which it arises, or is transported to a separate facility for sorting. Sorting involves separating plasterboard suitable for recycling from the residual waste stream. This is commonly either carried out manually, or with a low degree of mechanisation. Open-loop recycling Processing waste plasterboard into recycled gypsum, and using the recycled gypsum as a material in products and applications other than the manufacture of new plasterboard, for example its application to soils for agricultural benefit. Photo oxidant formation/photochemical oxidation Impact category whereby gases contributing to smog formation are aggregated. Plasterboard Product composed of a gypsum plaster core encased in, and firmly bonded to, strong durable paper liner (see facing paper ) to form a flat rectangular board. The paper surfaces may vary according to the use of the particular type of board and the core may contain additives to impart additional properties. The longitudinal edges are paper-covered and profiled to suit the application [Ref: BS EN 520:2004] The manufacture of plasterboard is a continuous process and comprises the following generic steps: 1. gypsum feedstock is dried if necessary to reduce its moisture content (the term pre-processing is used in this report for this step); Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 8

11 2. gypsum is calcined to convert it to the hemihydrate state; 3. the hemihydrate is blended with various additives in small quantities to control properties in the manufacturing process and performance in use as plasterboard, and with a controlled amount of water to produce a slurry (plaster); 4. on the forming line the slurry is fed onto a continuous sheet of paper liner which forms the face and edges of the plasterboard. A second continuous sheet of paper liner is then applied which forms the back of the plasterboard and also spreads the sandwiched slurry so setting the width and thickness of the plasterboard; 5. the plasterboard travels down the forming line, during which time the plaster gradually sets. Most forming lines are 200 to 400 metres long, the length of the line and the thickness of board being the key factors in determining how fast the line can be run (a typical line speed being around 1 m/s); 6. when set, but not dry, the plasterboard passes under a cutter which cuts the continuous length into individual boards; 7. the boards are transferred onto a drying line which carries them through a large oven; and 8. once dry the boards are trimmed to exact size, then stacked/packaged ready for despatch and use. Different types of plasterboard are manufactured for specific uses and performance requirements, such as sound insulation, moisture resistance and fire resistance, and these each have a designated identification code letter as defined in BS EN 520:2004; standard plasterboard is Type A and is the type considered in this study. Post-consumer recycled gypsum Recycled gypsum derived from plasterboard waste arising from the installation or removal of plasterboard in its product application. Examples include damaged boards and offcuts from its installation in construction projects, and stripped-out plasterboard in demolition projects. See also the definition of Post-consumer material under recycled content. Pre-processing Term used in this report for the drying of gypsum feedstock to reduce its moisture content. Different sources of gypsum often have different moisture content so vary in the amount of drying required. Primary data Original data collected at source by means of interviews, questionnaires or site visits. As opposed to previously published material (secondary data). Production waste derived recycled gypsum Recycled gypsum derived from plasterboard waste arising from the plasterboard manufacturing process. An example would be out-of-specification boards. See also the definition of Pre-consumer material under recycled content. Reclamation Reclaimed (or reused) materials and products are those that have been taken from the waste stream and reused in their original form with minimal reprocessing. Recycled content ISO defines recycled content as the proportion, by mass, of recycled material in a product or packaging. Only pre-consumer and post-consumer materials shall be considered as recycled content, consistent with the following usage of the terms: Pre-consumer material: Material diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process. Excluded is reutilization of materials such as rework, regrind or scrap generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process that generated it. Post-consumer material: Material generated by households or by commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product, which can no longer be used for its intended purpose. This includes returns of material from the distribution chain. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 9

12 Recycled gypsum There is ongoing debate regarding the appropriate name for gypsum obtained from the processing of waste gypsum products, taking into account definitions in Standards, legal interpretation with regard to waste materials, and commonly used and understood terms. For the purposes of this LCA study the term recycled gypsum is used to mean gypsum resulting from the controlled processing of waste plasterboard to separate the gypsum, paper lining, and any contaminants, such that it can be used in lieu of natural or synthetic gypsum. Recycled gypsum is usually in the form of a fine or sandy powder, or a small aggregate-type material. Requirements for producing recycled gypsum and defined specifications for the material are provided in PAS 109 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard (BSI, 2008 tbp). Other commercial specifications also exist. Recycler, reprocessor Individual or company that processes waste plasterboard to produce recycled gypsum. Secondary data Previously published material, as opposed to original data collected at source (primary data). Secondary used for this study have been sourced from: peer reviewed life cycle inventory (LCI) databases; and other data sources, such as books, journal publications, internet sources etc. Sensitivity analysis Systematic procedure for estimating the effects of the choices made regarding methods and data on the outcome of a study. Synthetic gypsum Gypsum produced as a by-product from various industrial processes. The main form of synthetic gypsum is FGD gypsum, others including titanogypsum and phosphogypsum. Titanogypsum Gypsum produced as a by-product of the manufacture of titanium dioxide pigment. A form of synthetic gypsum. Waste Any substance or object the holder discards, intend to discards or is required to discard is waste under the Waste Framework Directive (European Directive 2006/12/EC). Waste minimisation A commonly used term, with no strict or agreed definition. This study uses the term to refer to the use of practices and processes which reduce the amount of waste generated. In this way, waste minimisation actually reduces the amount of raw material used. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 10

13 Contents Executive summary... 1 Glossary of terms Introduction Background to the study Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) The scope of this LCA study Other study limitations Project team Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM) Golder Associates Acknowledgements Goal of the study Scope of the study Functional unit Product systems studied Background Product systems studied System boundaries Raw material production Transport of raw materials Plasterboard production Production and transport of packaging materials Transport of plasterboard Use in construction operations Collection and transport to waste management Waste management Allocation procedures Inclusions/exclusions Cut-off criteria for inclusion of inputs and outputs Production of fixtures and fittings Capital burdens Workforce burdens Key assumptions and limitations...21 Data requirements Geographic boundaries Time boundaries Data quality requirements Inventory analysis...22 Impact Assessment Sensitivity analysis Critical review Critical reviewers Inventory Analysis Raw materials production and pre-processing Gypsum Gypsum pre-processing and transport Facing paper Plasterboard production, packaging and distribution Plasterboard use Fixtures and fittings Wastage rates Plasterboard waste management Core waste collection routes assessed Demolition and waste sorting operations Collection containers Transportation...36 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 11

14 6.4.5 Waste transfer Plasterboard recycling Landfill Secondary datasets Data quality assessment Inventory compilation: product systems Parallels with the BRE methodology for Environmental Profiles of construction products Waste minimisation scenarios Life cycle inventory analysis: summary results Product systems Hydrogen sulphide Life Cycle Impact Assessment Product systems Comparing gypsum sources Comparing plasterboard end-of-life options Hydrogen sulphide...72 Waste minimisation scenarios Sensitivity analysis Allocation of burdens to conventional gypsum Collection containers Collection vehicles Waste transfer Monocell landfill Future electricity mix Construction versus demolition collections Contamination rates Interpretation and conclusions Comparing the alternative systems Where do the majority of impacts and benefits arise from? Waste minimisation Results sensitivity, study limitations and recommendations for further work Modelling assumptions Secondary datasets Study scope References Annex A Impact assessment method (includes characterisation factors) Annex B Annex C System life cycle inventories Lifecycle impact assessment detailed results Annex D Landfill life cycle inventories (Golder Associates report) Annex E Critical review statement Annex F ERM response to critical review statement Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 12

15 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Background to the study In January 2007, WRAP commissioned Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM) to carry out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of plasterboard Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) An LCA study begins with the mapping of all the life cycle stages of a product system in this case, plasterboard. Also commonly called cradle-to-grave assessment, these life cycle stages encompass all steps and processes in the product s life, from production and supply of raw materials, through product fabrication and assembly, distribution and packaging, product installation and use and final disposal, or recycling, at the end of its life. At each of these stages in the product life cycle, natural resources are consumed and emissions (to air, water and land) are released to the environment. When carrying out an LCA for any given product system, these consumptions and emissions (inputs and outputs) are quantified for each life cycle stage, using a systematic and internationally-standardised process. The process is set out in the ISO series of standards. The result is a life cycle inventory (LCI). The inputs and outputs compiled in the life cycle inventory are then related to environmental impacts, such as global warming and resource depletion, using scientifically-derived methods. The result is a quantified environmental impact profile of the product under study. Such an approach provides valuable information about key stages of the product life cycle and relates them to specific and accountable issues. By identifying the steps within the life cycle which have the most significant impact on the environment, environmental management efforts can be directed effectively The scope of this LCA study The study investigated the life cycle of one standard sheet of Type A plasterboard and encompassed all life cycle stages from raw material production to end-of-life management. In any LCA, it is necessary to limit the scope-of-work to investigate areas of interest. The scope of this study was to focus investigations on one specific plasterboard product: Type A; 12.5 mm thick; 1200 x 2400 mm; square edge profile. This is the most common type of plasterboard currently in production in the UK. The limitation of focusing efforts on one board type is that the results of the assessment are applicable to this type of plasterboard only. The benefit is a thorough and representative assessment of the potential impacts of this, most common, plasterboard product in the UK. The scope of work was also restricted by focusing on the closed-loop recycling of gypsum from post-consumer sources back into plasterboard production. There are a number of potential end uses for the gypsum recovered from waste plasterboard. These include cement manufacture, road construction, use as a soil improver, for soil stabilisation, and use as a replacement for clay in block manufacture. WRAP is carrying out a number of studies and trials to investigate and to develop these markets. However, the largest end market is currently, and is expected to continue to be, closed loop recycling into plasterboard. In the light of this, the study considers only closed-loop recycling. As the study assessed the production of recycled gypsum, it acts as a basis for future consideration of other markets. It is again a limitation of the study that its scope is constrained in this way. However this is a necessary limitation, enabling a more accurate and in-depth assessment of the potential impacts and benefits of closed-loop recycling. A further restriction of the study s scope was to assess production, waste management and recycling systems in Later sections of this report discuss how this restriction of the scope has particular implications with respect to the monocell landfill of plasterboard. Information provided indicated that in 2007 there was only one UK monocell accepting plasterboard waste. This has implications for the distance that plasterboard waste from across the UK might travel to be disposed, and hence transportation impacts associated with this management Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 13

16 route. Any comparisons between management routes for waste plasterboard must be made with the study s temporal scope borne in mind Other study limitations It is a limitation of the study that conditions of the data provision prevent reporting on the relative impacts of gypsum production from the different sources from which it is derived (predominantly mined versus synthetic gypsum). Data describing the relative production impacts of these different gypsum sources are commercially confidential, and so cannot be reported separately in the study. Instead, an average production mix for the UK has been determined in order to derive data describing a conventional gypsum source. Conventional sources of gypsum in the UK derive from both primary extraction (mining or quarrying) and synthetic sources. The most common of these synthetic sources are desulphogypsum from flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) operations and titanogypsum derived from titanium dioxide production. The impacts of producing conventional gypsum have been compared with those for recycled gypsum, but no further assessment of the relative burdens of different sources of gypsum can be made. This is a limitation of the study outputs. The study compiled specific and up-to-date information on gypsum transformation, plasterboard production and recycling processes. To describe the potential impacts of fuel, energy, chemical additive, packaging and other material inputs to the systems studied, there is a need to rely on published datasets. This limits the accuracy of the results in describing the potential impacts of the systems under study. However, every effort has been made to ensure that representative data has been collected for the key contributors to the impacts assessed. 3.2 Project team Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM) ERM has been ranked one of the world's leading providers of environmental consulting services, with 100 offices in 40 countries, employing more than 3,000 staff. It has wide-ranging expertise in the field of life cycle assessment, through a specific waste management and LCA team in the UK. This team has a strong track record in projects applying life cycle thinking to environmental problems and have worked with government, industry and other bodies on a range of projects in the field of LCA. The main members of the project team from ERM were: Simon Aumônier was Project Director of the study, providing technical approval and ensuring the project outputs met quality assurance requirements. Simon is a Partner at ERM s Oxford office, heading the team working on UK waste management policy, strategy and LCA. He has over 19 years experience in waste management and environmental protection, both in government R&D and in consultancy. He was involved in setting up and managing the Environment Agency s Life Cycle Research programme for Waste Management from 1994 to 1997, has directed all of ERM s recent LCA studies and the development of the Environment Agency s WRATE software; and Karen Fisher was Project Manager of the study. Karen is a Senior Consultant in ERM s LCA team and has extensive experience in managing and providing technical lead for LCA studies through a variety of projects for Government and commercial organisations. Specific expertise from other members of the ERM LCA team was also utilised throughout the project Golder Associates Golder Associates specialise in providing ground engineering and environmental services, operating globally through 150 offices and over 6,000 staff. Golder Associates (UK) can offer specific knowledge of landfill operations and the modelling of the landfilling of specific wastes. The main members of the project team from Golder Associates (UK) were: David Hall is a hydrogeologist with 30 years experience in the waste management industry, and is a Principal of Golder Associates (UK). David is one of the key authors of both the LandSim and GasSim models on behalf of the Environment Agency, was the project director for Golder s input to the development of WRATE, and developed the methodology for landfill LCI that was adopted within the WRATE model; and Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 14

17 Bridget Plimmer is a hydrogeologist with over 10 years experience in the waste industry. Bridget undertook much of the modelling work required to develop the emissions inputs to WRATE s landfill LCI. Specific expertise from other members of Golder Associates was also utilised throughout the project. 3.3 Acknowledgements ERM would like to thank the following organisations for their help in collating data and information for this study: Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA); Lafarge Plasterboard; British Gypsum; Knauf Drywall; New West Gypsum; Roy Hatfield; Gypsum Recycling UK; and Plasterboard Recycling UK. Their contributions to the project have been invaluable in compiling the most up-to-date information for current plasterboard production and recycling processes. 4.0 Goal of the study The goal of this study was to compile a detailed LCI and conduct a LCA of the environmental burdens associated with the production, use and disposal of plasterboard in the UK. The study quantified the relevant environmental impacts of each stage in the product life cycle and includes the potential environmental impacts of: the various sources of gypsum for use in plasterboard manufacture ( conventional, recycled production waste and recycled post-consumer waste); the different disposal and recovery routes for waste plasterboard (landfill with mixed waste, landfill in highsulphate monocell, and recycling); and efforts to reduce plasterboard waste arisings in construction. The results will be used both to inform decisions on the development of future policy in this area, and to provide a more robust evidence base for WRAP s activities. In particular, this information will be used by WRAP: to inform the basis for its programme priorities and direction; in reporting the performance of the plasterboard projects and initiatives to Defra and other Stakeholders; and when strategically engaging with manufacturers, recycling companies, and other sectors in the supply chain. As the st udy will be used externally, it has undergone critical review by a panel of external reviewers in accordance with the ISO standard on LCA. 5.0 Scope of the study The scope of the study addresses the following items: the function and functional unit of the product systems; the product systems studied and system boundaries; allocation procedures; inclusions/exclusions; assumptions and limitations; data requirements; reporting; and the type and format of the critical review. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 15

18 5.1 Functional unit In accordance with the ISO series of standards, the study has been conducted to enable comparison between plasterboard systems on the basis of functional equivalence. Functional equivalence was established by comparing plasterboard systems for a specific surface area and application, with reference to BS EN 520:2004 Gypsum Plasterboards Definitions, Requirements and Test Methods. The functional unit of the study is one standard sheet of 2400 mm x 1200 mm (8 by 4 ), 12.5 mm thick Type A plasterboard, with square edge profile. This functional unit was selected following discussions with the GPDA and on the basis that: it is the most common type of plasterboard product on the UK market (in terms of production and sales volume, and for use in general purpose applications); it can be manufactured using conventional, production waste and post-consumer recycled gypsum sources (see Section 5.2.2); and it has a standard recipe across the UK market. This choice of plasterboard product is further described in Section Product systems studied Background The study sought to establish the potential environmental impact, or benefit, of reducing the conventional gypsum content of plasterboard, by increasing the incorporation of post-consumer recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard. This is an important statement, and one which influences the study s design. The reasons for this choice in comparison are set out below. Data describing the relative production impacts of primary and synthetic gypsum sources are commercially confidential, and so cannot be reported separately in the study. Instead, an average production mix for the UK has been determined in order to derive data describing a conventional gypsum source. Conventional sources can be used interchangeably, but there is a limit on the quantity of recycled gypsum that can be incorporated into the product before its use, and functional equivalence, is impaired. See section for further detail. The closed-loop recycling of gypsum from waste plasterboard for use in plasterboard manufacture is currently considered to be the most significant market for post-consumer recycled gypsum. As such, this end-route for the recyclate was selected as the primary focus of the assessment. An alternative to using conventional gypsum in plasterboard manufacture is to incorporate increasing quantities of production waste- and post-consumer recycled gypsum. It is assumed that the recycling of production waste is internally optimised, and that the primary potential is for the increased utilisation of postconsumer recycled gypsum Product systems studied Primary and synthetic sources of gypsum can, and are, used interchangeably in the production of the standard plasterboard product to be assessed in the study. Each of the plasterboard manufacturers in the UK also use a proportion of both post-consumer recycled gypsum and recycled gypsum derived from production wastes. Combined estimates derived from manufacturers show that an average of approximately 10.5% of gypsum used in the manufacture of Type A plasterboard is derived from these sources. Approximately 6% of this is recycled process waste and 4.5% is derived from post-consumer sources. There is a limit to the quantity of post-consumer and process-waste derived gypsum that can be incorporated into the product before its production, use, and functional equivalence, is impaired. Following discussions with the GPDA and plasterboard manufacturers, this limit is currently considered to be 25% of the total gypsum input to plasterboard production. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 16

19 The GPDA reports that it is not currently possible to achieve over 25% recycled gypsum in new plasterboard elsewhere in Europe or wider afield. The main limiting factor is the fibre content, which can reduce the speed of production and render the process un-economic. Board fire-rating can also be affected, although this is less of an issue for Type A plasterboard. Fibre is very difficult to remove entirely from the recycled gypsum. The gypsum industry worldwide is working on increasing the theoretical maximum percentage. However, on the basis of current technology, 25% has been taken as the maximum incorporation of recycled content. This study investigated three Type A (12.5 x 1200 x 2400 mm, square edge profile) plasterboard product systems, differing in proportion of post-consumer recycled gypsum used as raw material. These product systems are set out in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Type A plasterboard systems assessed Plasterboard system % Conventional gypsum % Recycled gypsum % Recycled gypsum (production waste) (post-consumer) 1 baseline 89.5%* 6% 4.5% 2 15% recycled content 85% 6% 9% 3 25% recycled content 75%** 6% 19% * base d on average current% of recycled content (10.5%) ** based on estimated maximum% of recycled content (25%) 5.3 System boundaries The study assessed all life cycle stages from raw material production to end-of-life management. The pla sterboard gypsum sources investigated in the study were: conventional sources: o primary mined, or quarried, material; o synthetic desulphogypsum from flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) operations; o synthetic titanogypsum derived from titanium dioxide production processes; production waste (out-of-specification and damaged boards within the manufacturing plant; and the recycling and recovery of gypsum from post-consumer waste plasterboard from construction and demolition activities. The alternative end-of-life management routes investigated were: disposal with construction or demolition waste in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal in high-sulphate monocell landfill; and segregation from construction or demolition waste, with subsequent recycling. (MSW) landfill; There are a number of potential end uses for the gypsum recycled from waste plasterboard. These include: cement manufacture; road construction; use as a soil improver; for soil stabilisation; and use as a replacement for clay in block manufacture. WRAP is carrying out a number of studies and trials to investigate and develop these markets. However, the largest end market is currently, and expected to continue to be, closed loop recycling into plasterboard (WRAP, 2006). In the light of this, the core assessment will consider only the closed-loop recycling of gypsum recovered from waste plasterboard for use in plasterboard manufacture. Figure 5.1 details the main life cycle stages that were included in the life cycle of the plasterboard systems. In the sections below, these stages are described further. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 17

20 Figure 5.1 Study boundary: life cycle stages included in the assessment T = transport Raw material production The production of raw materials, including gypsum sources, facing paper and chemical additives was included in the study, in accordance with the cut-off criteria described in Section The extraction of resources used to produce the raw materials is also included, covering material and energy resources as well as emissions of substances and waste. Data describing the relative production impacts of primary and synthetic gypsum sources are commercially confidential, and so cannot be reported separately in the study. Instead, an average production mix for the UK has been determined in order to derive data describing a conventional gypsum source. This is a limitation of the study. When recycled materials are being used, such as post-consumer recycled gypsum, burdens associated with the collection, processing and transport of these materials were included in the assessment Transport of raw materials The transport of raw materials from point of extraction to point of use in plasterboard production was included in the assessment. Wherever it has not been possible to define the specific distance, a reasonable estimate has been used. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 18

21 5.3.3 Plasterboard production Burdens associated with the conversion of raw materials into plasterboard were included in the study. These also take account of the internal recycling of production waste Production and transport of packaging materials The production, transport and eventual disposal of packaging materials required for distribution and sale of plasterboard products was included in the assessment Transport of plasterboard The transport of finished products to plasterboard merchants and construction contractors was included in the study. There are number of distribution/supply models in operation across the UK plasterboard industry. Each manufacturer will have direct supply agreements in place. There are also a number of large plasterboard merchants in operation, who buy directly from manufacturers and either supply the construction industry directly, or supply smaller builder merchants. Average distribution burdens were derived, representing UK practice in Use in construction operations The use of plasterboard in construction and refurbishment projects and generation of off-cut waste from its installation was included in the study. It is considered that this stage in the plasterboard life cycle may represent the greatest opportunity for reducing post consumer waste arisings. Two waste minimisation scenarios investigated the potential environmental benefits of reducing construction off-cut waste by optimising design, improving site management or other measures. Burdens associated with demolition and refurbishment projects yielding waste plasterboard from its removal were also included in the study Collection and transport to waste management Collection, sorting and transport activities were included for plasterboard being recovered for recycling. Collection and transport was included for plasterboard being landfilled at either mixed waste sites, or high-sulphate monocells. There are number of recycling collection models in operation across the UK plasterboard industry. As with supply arrangements, each manufacturer has take-back schemes in place. However, there are also a number of third party recyclers in operation. A series of collection systems have been derived, as appropriate for UK practice in The burdens of alternative collection systems also include the production and transport of the collection containers themselves Waste management The management of waste plasterboard from construction and demolition operations was included in the study. The proportion of waste plasterboard being sent to recycling or disposal will vary, dependent on the plasterboard system assessed. At current levels of recycled content, waste management routes will likewise reflect current (2007) practice. As the proportion of post-consumer recycled gypsum in plasterboard increases, it follows that recycling and recovery of gypsum must increase in order to provide this feedstock. This is reflected in the waste management requirements of alternative plasterboard product systems (further outlined in Section 6.6). It was earlier noted that only closed-loop recycling of waste plasterboard gypsum for use in plasterboard manufacture is included in the core assessment. When plasterboard is recycled, and gypsum recovered, the system boundaries account for the benefits created from the recycling process (avoided production of conventional gypsum and avoided landfill of waste plasterboard). Facing paper is also reclaimed during the recycling process. There are a number of alternative management routes for the reclaimed paper, including: composting; recycling into paper; incineration in cement kilns; animal bedding; and landfill. The relative proportion of material being processed via each end route was determined and is included in the assessment. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 19

22 5.4 Allocation procedures It is common for some industrial processes to yield more than one product, or to recycle intermediate products or raw materials. When this occurs, the LCA study must allocate material and energy flows, as well as environmental releases, to the different products in a logical and reasonable manner. Where the need for allocation presents itself, then the inputs and outputs of the inter-related processes will, in general, be apportioned in a manner that reflects the underlying physical relationships between them. However, there are certain circumstances where this is not appropriate, or possible, when carrying out an LCA study. In such cases, an alternative allocation method has been used and is fully documented. For example, with regard to the allocation of impact to FGD gypsum, there is a need to capture the additional burdens associated with converting the FGD process output into a saleable gypsum product, as sourced by the plasterboard industry (further detail is provided in Section 6.1.1). 5.5 Inclusions/exclusions Cut-off criteria for inclusion of inputs and outputs The following cut-off rule was applied during the inventory compilation stage of the study: mass flows that on aggregate contribute less than 2% of inputs to a life cycle stage may be omitted from the inventory analysis. Ideally, cut-off criteria will be based on environmental relevance. However, it is often impractical to define cutoff criteria based on environmental impact, since data for a process need to be collected in order to understand the environmental impact of that process. A more practical approach is to base cut-off criteria on mass or energy, as has been taken in this case. It is ERM s belief that the cut-off criteria defined above do not have an affect on the final results. Care was taken when excluding processes from the inventory where inputs under the 2% mass threshold could have a significant environmental impact Production of fixtures and fittings To apply plasterboard and finish joints, nails, screws, tape and joint compound are commonly used. It was anticipated that generic data from literature would be used to describe the burden associated with the production of fixtures and fittings. However, these data are of relatively poor quality in representing the plasterboard systems under study. As such, the production of fixtures and fittings has been excluded from the assessment. This is considered to have a minimal influence on resulting impact profiles, since their mass flow in relation to the functional unit of the study is limited. Furthermore, their use will be common to the different plasterboard systems under assessment Capital burdens The manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning of capital equipment, such as buildings or machines, is not included in the systems investigated. The reason for excluding capital equipment from the assessment is that their potential environmental impact, in relation to the study functional unit, is likely to be negligible. It is common practice in LCA to exclude the impact of capital equipment in this way Workforce burdens It is also common practice when conducting LCAs to exclude human labour burdens. For product LCAs where products and production processes are similar, it is reasonable to assume that human labour is similar for each product system, in which case it is reasonable for this to be excluded. This was considered to be the case for the current study. It was also considered that workforce burdens will fall under the 2% cut-off for contribution to system environmental impacts, a further reason for their exclusion. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 20

23 5.6 Key assumptions and limitations All assumptions and study limitations have been recorded in this report. All key assumptions have further been tested in sensitivity analysis. 5.7 Data requirements The data requirements considered in order to perform this LCA are listed below. Specific, or primary, data are most critical for the main materials comprising plasterboard: gypsum from conventional sources; production waste; post-consumer waste recycling, and facing paper. For the production of chemical additives and packaging materials, generic data have been used, since their mass flow in relation to the functional unit is limited. Further more, these materials are common to the different plasterboard systems (and gypsum sources) under assessment. Specific data are also required for the conversion of raw materials into plasterboard, plasterboard use and end-oflife management. In summary, specific data were researched for: production of conventional and post-consumer recycled gypsum; pre-treatment requirements for gypsum from conventional sources, production waste and post-consumer waste recycling; production of plasterboard facing paper; raw material recipe for the production of standard plasterboard; conversion of raw materials into plasterboard; distribution/supply systems (transport distances, types of transport, storage requirements); construction, refurbishment and demolition operations; waste plasterboard collection systems (for both disposal and recycling); waste management operations, including recycling, landfill with mixed waste and landfill in high-sulphate monocell (process inputs and outputs, transport distances and types of transport); and UK electricity mix, ie the split between different electricity generation methods such as hydro power, coal power, wind power, etc. Generic, or secondary, data were used for: production of chemical additives; materials (when generic data are of sufficient quality, or specific data not available); production of other raw packaging production; packaging waste management; production of collection containers; waste management operations (when generic data are of sufficient quality, or specific data not available); electricity generation; production of transport fuels; and transport emissions Geographic boundaries The plasterboard systems assessed in the study were representative of Type A plasterboard (12.5 x 1200 x 2400 mm, square edge profile) available on the UK market. Where specific data for the UK market were not available, non-uk, or generic, data were used and manipulated to take into account the particular characteristics of the UK situation Time boundaries The plasterboard systems assessed in the study were representative of Type A plasterboard (12.5 x 1200 x 2400 mm, square edge profile) available on the UK market in The time boundary of the study is set as sufficient to account for the complete decomposition of biomass in landfill. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 21

24 5.7.3 Data quality requirements Data quality requirements for the study are defined in Table 5.2 below, based on the ISO standard on goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. Table 5.2 Data quality requirements Parameter Description Requirement Time-related coverage Geographical coverage Desired age of data and the minimum length of time over data should be collected. Area from which data for unit processes should be collected. Data should represent the situation in General data and database data should represent the situation in 2007, and not be more than five years old. Data should be representative of the situation in the UK. Technology coverage Technology mix Data should be representative of the situation in the UK (average mix of technology installed). Precision Completeness Measure of the variability of the data values for each data category expressed. Assessment of whether all relevant input and output data are included for a certain data set. No defined requirement in study scope Specific datasets should be compared with literature data and databases. Representativeness Consistency Degree to which the data represents the identified timerelated, geographical and technological scope. How consistent the study method has been applied to different components of the analysis The data should fulfil the defined time-related, geographical and technological scope. The study method should be applied to all the components of the analysis. Reproducibility Assessment of the method and data, and whether an independent practitioner will be able to reproduce the results. The information about the method and the data values should allow an independent practitioner to reproduce the results reported in the study. Sources of the data Assessment of data sources used. Data should be derived from credible sources and databases. Source: EN ISO 14044: Inventory analysis Inventory analysis involves data collection and calculation procedures to quantify relevant inputs and outputs of a product system. For each of the plasterboard systems assessed, inventories of significant environmental flows to and from the environment, and internal material and energy flows, were produced. The inventories generated provide data on hundreds of internal and elemental flows for each plasterboard system. As such, only summary inventory flows for the plasterboard systems have been included in this report, namely: raw material/mineral consumption; water use; carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions; methane (CH 4) emissions; Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 22

25 nitrogen dioxide (N 2 O) emissions; hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) emissions; non-renewable energy use (as cumulative energy demand ); and renewable energy use (as cumulative energy demand ). Energy use is presented as the cumulative energy demand, using factors as presented in the SimaPro LCA software. 5.9 Impact Assessment The impact categories. assessment phase of an LCA assigns the results of the inventory analysis to different impact Selection of appropriate impact categories is an important step in an LCA. The contributions of each system to the following impact indicators were assessed, which it is considered address a breadth of environmental issues, and for which thorough methodologies have been developed. The study employs the problem oriented approach for the impact assessment, which focuses on: global warming; ozone depletion; photo-oxidant formation; depletion of abiotic resources; eutrophication; acidification; human toxicity; and aquatic and terrestrial toxicity measures. For some impact categories, particularly human toxicity and aquatic and terrestrial eco-toxicity, a number of simplifying assumptions are made in the modelling used to derive characterisation factors. The impact assessment reflects potential, not actual, impacts and it takes no account of the local receiving environment. As a result, their adequacy in representing impacts is still the subject of some scientific discussion. However, they are still widely used, and they were therefore included in the assessment as issues of interest. The method that is used for impact assessment is that developed and advocated by CML (Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden University) and which is incorporated into the SimaPro LCA software tool. The method used for each impact category is described in Annex A Sensitivity analysis Key variables and assumptions have been tested to determine their influence on the results of the life cycle impact assessment. Key areas that were identified for sensitivity analysis included: allocation of burdens to FGD gypsum and titanogypsum; collection containers assumptions; collection vehicle assumptions; waste transfer and sorting assumptions; assumptions regarding the proportion of plasterboard waste arising at construction versus demolition activities; and contamination rates in waste plasterboard collected for recycling. Conclusions made in the study draw on both the primary results for the systems assessed and the variations that result through the sensitivity analysis. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 23

26 5.11 Critical review In accordance with the ISO standard on LCA, the study was reviewed by a panel of external reviewers. The review panel s report is presented in Annex E, and ERM s responses given in Annex F. The review panel addressed the following issues. For the goal and scope: o ensure that the scope of the study is consistent with the goal of the study, and that both are consistent with the ISO standard; and o prepare a review statement. For the inventory: o review the inventory for transparency and consistency with the goal and scope and with the ISO standard; o check data validation and that the data used are consistent with the system boundaries. It is unreasonable to expect the reviewer to check data and calculations beyond a small sample; and o prepare a review statement. For the impact assessment: o review the impact assessment for appropriateness and conformity to the ISO standard; and prepare a review statement. o For the interpretation: o review the conclusions of the study for appropriateness and conformity with the goal and scope of the study; and o prepare a review statement. For the draft final report: o review the draft final report for consistency with reporting guidelines in the ISO standard and check that recommendations made in previous review statements have been addressed adequately; and o prepare a review statement including consistency of the study and international standards, scientific and technical validity, transparency and relation between interpretation, limitations and goal Critical reviewers The critical review was performed by a panel comprising: Peter Lee Jane Anderson Peter Braithwaite 6.0 Inventory Analysis Oakdene Hollins Ltd (Chair); BREEAM Materials, BRE Global Ltd; and Environment Agency This section describes in more detail the plasterboard systems assessed, together with the data used to generate a complete life cycle inventory for these systems. The inventory analysis procedure involves data collection and calculations to quantify relevant inputs and outputs for each product system. Data sources include both primary and secondary data. Primary data relating to plasterboard manufacture and recycling process inputs and outputs were sourced. Secondary data from life cycle databases have been used for common processes, materials, transport steps and electricity generation. Sections 6.1 to 6.6 describe the assumptions, data and inventories used to generate the life cycle inventories for each plasterboard system. 6.1 Raw materials production and pre-processing Gypsum Gypsum derived from four different conventional (non-recycled) sources is used in the production of Type A plasterboard: imported mined gypsum (1) ; flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum produced in the UK; (1) No UK mined gypsum is currently used in Type A plasterboard production in the UK. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 24

27 imported flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum; and titanogypsum produced in the UK (as a by-product of titanium dioxide production). Data to describe the burdens of producing gypsum from these alternative sources were derived from literature and published life cycle databases, as specific data from industry were unavailable. The data used in the assessment are described below. Imported mined gypsum Data describing open-pit gypsum mining were sourced from Kellenberger et al (2004) (contained within the Swiss Ecoinvent life cycle inventory database). These data were used in place of primary data from the plasterboard industry. Currently only mined gypsum sourced from Europe is used in Type A plasterboard production. This is most commonly mined in quarries, or open pits, in comparison with the closed-pit mining practices carried out in the UK. As a result, it was considered by the GPDA that the Ecoinvent dataset for open-pit mining would be more representative of European gypsum mining practices than industry data for UK mining practices, and that these data should be used in the assessment. UK flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum With regard to FGD gypsum, data collection is more complicated. This material is a by-product from maor combustion plants, predominantly those generating electricity from coal. It is only produced because legal constraints are such that sulphur emissions from coal-fired power stations must be abated ( 1 ). As such, the majority of burdens associated with its production should be allocated to the production of energy (the primary function of the power station), not to the material itself. Instead, there is a need to capture any additional burdens associated with converting the FGD process output into a saleable gypsum product, as sourced by the plasterboard industry. On the basis of discussions with, and literature provided by, energy producers, it seems that data to describe these additional burdens are not recorded. Miller (2006) describes the two alternative methods for wet limestone FGD systems yielding calcium sulphate: natural; and forced oxidation. Natural oxidation is limited by the oxygen present in the flue gas and results in a waste material for disposal (calcium sulphite). By contrast, forced oxidation promotes a high conversion of calcium sulphite to calcium sulphate (gypsum) and results in a by- that can be marketed. Thus it is considered that, for the purposes of the study, the additional energy product requirements of forced oxidation should be taken as a proxy for an allocation of burden to the saleable byproduct. In a report for the National Lime Association (National Lime Association, 2003), the power demands of a forced- air oxidation system are described. The parasitic power demands of FGD systems average at 1.5% of gross power generation (2). Oxidation and gypsum processing demands approximately 36% of this power demand. Accordingly, the assessment assumed that the specific burdens allocated to a saleable FGD gypsum product is equivalent to 0.5% of the power output from burning coal in a power station. Running at an average energy conversion efficiency of 36% (DTI, 2006), a coal-fired power station requires 10 MJ of coal to produce an output of 1 kwh of electricity (3.6 MJ per kwh divided by 36% efficiency). Allocating 0.5% of this power output to oxidation and gypsum processing gives 0.05 MJ coal required per kwh of electricity produced. In order further to allocate this burden to a quantity of gypsum product, a value of 0.037kg gypsum production per kwh of electricity production was assumed (Nazarko et al, 2006). Combining these gives an allocated 1.4 MJ of coal combustion per kg of FGD gypsum produced (0.05 MJ coal combustion per kwh divided by kg FGD gypsum per kwh). This is the energy required to oxidise calcium sulphite into calcium sulphate and to process it into a saleable product. (1) Flue gases containing SO2 are scrubbed commonly with limestone, yielding calcium sulphite. This can be further oxidised to produce gypsum (calcium sulphate) ( 2) Parasitic power loss can be described as the energy usage of auxiliary equipment at a power plant that consumes electrical energy. The net generating capacity of a power plant is the difference between the gross power output of the electric generator and the parasitic power. It is usual to express the parasitic power as a percentage of the gross generator output. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 25

28 Data from the Ecoinvent database were used to describe the burdens of burning coal in a power plant. Imported flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum The same approach as above was used to model the potential impacts of FGD gypsum from imported sources. A minor applied difference was the selection of Ecoinvent data to describe the burdens of burning coal in a power plant. A dataset specific to the country of origin of the imported gypsum was selected. UK titanogyspum Titanogypsum is a by-product of producing titanium dioxide via the sulphate process. Each tonne of titanium dioxide produced by the sulphate process generates a significant quantity of very dilute sulphuric acid, which is neutralised with limestone to produce gypsum (so-called titantogypsum). It is again a regulatory constraint that requires the treatment of the acid product and, as such, the majority of the burden associated with the neutralisation process must be allocated to the production of titanium dioxide (the primary function of plant operations). In the same way as discussed for FGD gypsum, there is a need to capture any additional burdens associated with converting the neutralisation process output into a saleable gypsum product, as sourced by the plasterboard industry. However, data to describe this beneficial process are lacking and so a similar approach could not be taken for estimating the burdens of titanogypsum production as that for FGD gypsum. Huntsman Tioxide reports that limestone would be used to neutralise acidic process effluents regardless of whether there is a market for the titanogypsum product, as this is the most economic means of treatment (Huntsman Tioxide, personal communication). It was therefore considered reasonable to allocate all of the burdens of neutralisation to titantium dioxide production, with no burden being allocated to the titanogypsum byproduct. Note that this is not an ideal means of allocating burdens to titanogypsum production, but insufficient data exist to further dissaggregate the burdens of neutralisation. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine whether this assumption would have a significant influence on outcomes. It was found that, for the majority of categories of impact assessed, impact profiles differed by <2% when alternatively assuming that 0% and 100% of the b urdens of acid neutralisation are allocated to titanogypsum production. Thus it is considered that results are not sensitive to this assumption Gypsum pre-processing and transport Transportation and pre-processing requirements for the different gypsum sources used in Type A plasterboard production were provided by plasterboard manufacturers. These were averaged according to proportional use (for Type A plasterboard) across the industry. Resulting burdens are shown in Table 6.1. Gypsum pre-processing involves drying of the gypsum feedstock to reduce its moisture content. Different sources of gypsum often have different moisture content, so vary in the amount of drying required. Table 6.1 Gypsum transportation and pre-processing Process Step Inputs Value per Inventory data Data source tonne of gypsum Transport imported mined gypsum: mine to production plant Road transport 16 tkm* 40-tonne truck Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ship transport 2730 tkm Transoceanic Ecoinvent freight ship Transport UK FGD: power plant to production plant Road transport 54 tkm 40-tonne truck Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Rail transport 54 tkm Rail freight Ecoinvent Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 26

29 Process Step Inputs Value per tonne of gypsum Inventory data Data source Transport imported FGD: power plant to production plant Road transport 2 tkm* 40-tonne truck Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ship transport 1083 tkm Transoceanic freight ship Ecoinvent Transport UK titanogypsum: chemical plant to production plant Pre-processing imported mined gypsum** Road transport 11 tkm 40-tonne truck Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Grid electricity 4.8 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 0.8 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace (including emissions) Pre-processing UK FGD gypsum** Grid electricity 3.8 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 11.4 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace Pre-processing imported FGD gypsum** Grid electricity 3.8 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 11.4 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace Pre-processing UK titanogypsum** Grid electricity 13.0 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 9.4 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace Pre-processing process waste recycled gypsum** Grid electricity 10.0 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 3.3 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace Pre-processing post-consumer recycled gypsum** Natural gas 3.3 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Source: GPDA data provision. Weighted average flows for UK Type A plasterboard production, 2006 data. * plant/mine reported to be located close to dock facilities ** drying operations Grid electricity 10.0 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace Facing paper Data to describe the inputs and outputs of facing paper production were provided by plasterboard manufacturers. Burdens were averaged according to relative production and are shown in Table 6.2. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 27

30 Table 6.2 Facing paper production Inputs/ outputs Inputs Flow Virgin paper/card (unbleached thermomechanical pulp) Recycled paper/card (corrugated and mixed paper) Value per tonne of paper Inventory data Data source 19.8 kg Thermo-mechanical pulp Ecoinvent 1030 kg Sorted waste paper Ecoinvent Starch 6.8 kg Potato starch* Ecoinvent Biocide 9.0 kg Biocides Ecoinvent Dyes 0.3 kg ** - ASA Sizing 2.3 kg AKD sizer* Ecoinvent Retention polymer 0.7 kg ** - Antifoaming agent 0.3 kg ** - Aluminium oxide 4.8 kg Aluminium oxide Ecoinvent Water 7105 litres Mains water/river water Ecoinvent Grid electricity kwh UK mix 2007/ French average mix Natural gas 54.4 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Fuel oil 0.5 litres Fuel oil production/ combustion Ecoinvent/Dti Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace (including emissions) Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace (including emissions) Outputs Wastewater to sewer/ watercourse 7105 litres Wastewater treatment/direct discharge Ecoinvent BOD 491 g - - COD 2740 g - - Suspended solids 1108 g - - NO g - - Process waste to recycling 15.6 kg Paper recycling Ecoinvent Process waste to landfill 63.3 kg Residual waste landfill Ecoinvent Source: GPDA data provision. Weighted average flows for UK Type A plasterboard production, 2006 data. Note: small discrepancy between inputs and outputs due to water evaporation * closest equivalent ** data gap. Combined <1% of total inputs Facing paper is sourced alternatively from France or the UK (24%:76%). It was assumed that paper sourced from within the UK would travel an average of 100 km and that paper sourced from France would travel an average 300 km. 6.2 Plasterboard production, packaging and distribution Data to describe inputs and outputs for Type A plasterboard production, packaging and distribution operations were provided by each plasterboard manufacturer and averaged according to relative production. Table 6.3 shows an averaged dataset for the calcination process. Table 6.4 shows inputs and outputs for the production, packaging and distribution of 1 tonne of Type A plasterboard. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 28

31 Table 6.3 Calcination (stucco production) Type A plasterboard Inputs Value per Inventory data Data source tonne of stucco Imported mined gypsum 439 kg See Section UK FGD gypsum 393 kg See Section Imported FGD gypsum 203 kg See Section UK titanogypsum 64 kg See Section Process-waste recycled gypsum 74 kg See Section Post-consumer recycled gypsum 55 kg See Section Grid electricity 32.7 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 21.1 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace (including emissions) LPG 26.9 kwh LPG production Idemat Source: GPDA data provision. Weighted average flows for UK Type A plasterboard production, 2006 data. Note: discrepancy between inputs and outputs due to mass loss in drying process (approximately 1200 kg gypsum input per tonne of stucco) Table 6.4 Type A plasterboard production, packaging and distribution Inputs/ outputs Flow Value per tonne of board Inventory data Inputs Stucco 859 kg See Table Facing paper 47 kg See Table Data source Corn starch 4.0 kg Maize starch Ecoinvent Potassium sulphate 0.7 kg ** - Fluidiser 0.6 kg ** - Detergent 0.1 kg Soap* Ecoinvent Edge glue 0.2 kg ** - Waste paper 1.7 kg Sorted waste paper Ecoinvent Copper sulphate 0.2 kg ** - Lignin sulphonate 1.7 kg ** - Ink 0.01 kg ** - Nealit (finely ground gypsum) 5.2 kg Mined gypsum Ecoinvent Dextrose 0.9 kg ** - Packing dust 3.5 kg ** - Water 526 litres Mains water Ecoinvent Grid electricity 25 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Natural gas 49 m 3 Natural gas production/ combustion Ecoinvent - combustion in industrial furnace (including emissions) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 29

32 Inputs/ outputs Flow Value per tonne of board Inventory data Data source Paper packaging kg Paper Ecoinvent Plastic film packaging 0.15 kg LDPE packaging film Ecoinvent Wooden pallets 13.6 kg Softwood Ecoinvent Plasterboard pallets 3.7 kg Plasterboard Project data Road transport 222 km 28-tonne truck Ecoinvent Outputs Water (evaporation) 383 kg - - Waste plasterboard for recycling Waste plasterboard to landfill 66.6 See Section kg Monocell See Annex D Packaged product kg Source: GPDA data provision. Weighted average flows for UK Type A plasterboard production, 2006 data. Note: small discrepancy between inputs and outputs due to water evaporation * closest equivalent ** data gap. Combined <1% of total inputs 6.3 Plasterboard use Fixtures and fittings To apply plasterboard and finish joints, nails, screws, tape and joint compound are commonly used. It was anticipated that generic data from literature would be used to describe the burden associated with the production of fixtures and fittings. However, these data are of relatively poor quality in representing the plasterboard systems under study. As such, the production of fixtures and fittings has been excluded from the assessment at this stage. This is considered to have a minimal influence of resulting impact profiles, since their mass flow in relation to the functional unit of the study is limited. Furthermore, their use will be common to the different plasterboard systems under assessment Wastage rates It was assumed that all packaging materials used for the supply of plasterboard to site would be disposed to landfill on use of that plasterboard. An exception to this was where plasterboard materials are used for packaging. In this case, it was assumed that the plasterboard would be disposed along the same route as construction offcuts. (see Section 6.4). In addition, a number of sources (eg FPDC, 2006) estimate that plasterboard wastage within the construction industry can amount to anything from 10% to 20%. A midpoint of this range (15%) was modelled in core analyses. It was considered that this stage in the plasterboard life cycle could represent the greatest opportunity for reducing post consumer waste arisings. As such, two waste minimisation scenarios investigated the potential environmental benefits of reducing construction off-cut waste by optimising design, improving site-management or by other measures. Section 6.7 describes the waste minimisation scenarios in more detail. 6.4 Plasterboard waste management The primary step in undertaking to understand the potential impacts of plasterboard at end-of-life was to network its potential management paths. This involved the creation of a flow diagram of the potential waste management routes that plasterboard waste might follow. The compilation of this flow diagram involved several sources, as outlined in the following sections. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 30

33 Discussions with industry Discussions with industry representatives were the starting point for defining disposal and recovery routes. In these initial discussions, three broad sources of post-consumer plasterboard waste arisings were outlined: construction (including installation in commercial refurbishments); demolition (including strip-out of commercial refurbishments); and SME (small and medium enterprise) builders in the repair, maintenance and improvement (RMI) sector. Approximately one-third of waste plasterboard arisings are currently from construction, with the remaining twothirds arising from demolition. Arisings from the RMI sector are proportionately split across these two main areas (ie waste arisings from RMI will occur approximately 1:2 as installation:strip-out). Recovery for recycling is likely to occur predominantly through the construction sector, where waste is recovered via two predominant routes: major operators or contractors using a closed-loop plasterboard recycling scheme (PRS); and third-party regional or local operators independent plasterboard recyclers. Review of literature Efforts were made to collate any available data from relevant literature. Several articles were reviewed in order to fill potential data gaps, and also to supplement existing information. In particular, the following sources were used: WRAP (2006) Review of Plasterboard Material Flows and Barriers to Greater use of Recycled Plasterboard. Prepared by AEA Technology Plc, for WRAP; WRAP (2007) Case study: A partnership approach to plasterboard waste management and recycling; WRAP (2007) Case study: Plasterboard waste minimisation and management; FPDC (2006) Diverting plasterboard waste from landfill in the UK. Prepared by Oakdene Hollins, for FPDC; Market Transformation Programme (MTP) (2006) BNPB1 Plasterboard industry, product and market overview. Briefing Note, Defra Market Transformation Programme; and MTP (2006) BNPB2 Plasterboard waste management. Briefing Note, Defra Market Transformation Programme. By reviewing available literature, different pathways that waste recovery can follow were identified, helping to define collection, recovery and disposal routes in greater detail. It was also possible to gain a better understanding of the more/less common routes of recovery. Questionnaires for plasterboard recyclers Questionnaires were distributed to each plasterboard recycler in the UK, in order to obtain new and accurate information on plasterboard recovery and recycling. The questionnaire set out data requirements with regard to: waste plasterboard collection; waste plasterboard transportation; material and energy inputs to the recycling process; and outputs from the recycling process. A list of those companies providing information is shown in Table 6.5. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 31

34 Table 6.5 Recycling questionnaire respondents Company British Gypsum Knauf Lafarge Gypsum Recycling UK New West Gypsum Recycling (UK) Plasterboard Recycling UK Roy Hatfield Wastefile Activity Plasterboard manufacturer/recycler Plasterboard manufacturer/recycler Plasterboard manufacturer Recycler Recycler Recycler Recycler Waste manager Cross-checking of literature with questionnaires Once data from questionnaires had been received, they were cross-checked with information derived from literature and initial discussions with industry. Estimates made on the amount of waste recovered through takeback schemes and by third-party recyclers were found to be approximately equal to the data provided in the questionnaires. Finding evidence of correlation between the two sources of information proved to be a useful sense check Core waste collection routes assessed A primary finding of the data collection exercise was to highlight the complexity of the systems involved. Plasterboard waste management operations across the UK are many, varied and often tailored to the specific needs of a site or contractor. Data and information describing them are, at the same time, incomplete and sometimes conflicting. Given this inherent variability, deriving a baseline model to represent current practices in the UK is an uncertain task. The approach taken was to model a number of core management routes that could be defined in simple terms and investigated for their influence on results. Six baseline waste management routes were drawn-up: 1 sorting and collection of construction off-cuts for recycling; 1a onsite segregation; 1b offsite segregation; 2 collection of construction off-cuts for disposal; 3 demolition, sorting and collection of end-of-life plasterboard for recycling; 3a onsite segregation; 3b offsite segregation; and 4 demolition and collection of end-of-life plasterboard for disposal. The burdens of each management route was subsequently characterised according to: demolition and sorting requirements; collection container needs; transportation vehicles and distances travelled; waste transfer/bulking; and waste management processes. Assumptions in defining the requirements of each management route are described in the following sections. Wherever assumptions were considered to have a potentially significant influence on the results of the assessment, they were considered further in sensitivity analysis (see Section 9.0). Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 32

35 6.4.2 Demolition and waste sorting operations As a general rule it was considered that plasterboard waste arising at end-of-life would incur a demolition burden. In comparison, waste plasterboard arising during construction operations (ie wastage in use) was assumed not to require demolition. In the Ecoinvent database, Doka (2003) considers an approximate burden of 35.9 MJ diesel/tonne and 0.15 kg particulate emissions/tonne for demolition activities. These estimates were similarly used in the current study, however it is recognised that this may overestimate the burden of strip-out activities commonly associated with plasterboard removal. A further rule-of-thumb was that waste collected for recycling on-site would incur an on-site sorting, or segregation burden, and that waste collected for disposal or off-site sorting would not. A recent report for WRAP, carried out Scott Wilson, estimates an average 66.2MJ diesel use per tonne of plasterboard for on-site demolition and waste separation activities. It was assumed that the difference between this estimate and the demolition burdens noted above are incurred during on-site waste segregation (30.3 MJ diesel per tonne of plasterboard separated for collection). O ff-site sorting was assumed to occur in a separate materials recycling facility, or similar. Data from the Ecoinvent database, detailing the fuel requirements of a waste sorting plant, were used to assess the potential impacts of off-site sorting Collection containers Data relating to the collection container requirements for disposal and recycling collections were derived from information provided in recycling questionnaires, and subsequent clarification discussions. Recyclers were asked to provide information on an estimated split of containers used and on the capacity, weight and material composition of each container. This information was averaged according to the relative quantities of plasterboard collected by each respondent. Resultant container requirements for one tonne of waste plasterboard collected for recycling are shown in Table 6.6 and Table 6.7. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 33

36 Table 6.6 Collection containers recycling and disposal: average proportional use Container type Average proportional use: Construction waste, on-site sorting 1 Construction waste, off-site sorting 2 Construction waste, disposal 2 Demolition waste, on-site sorting 3 Demolition waste, off-site sorting 2 Demolition waste, disposal 2 40 yd skip/ro-ro 23% 20% 20% 64% 20% 20% 20 yd skip/ro-ro 3% 20% 20% 10% 20% 20% 16 yd skip 2% 20% 20% 7% 20% 20% 12 yd skip 1% 20% 20% 4% 20% 20% 8 yd skip 3% 20% 20% 8% 20% 20% 6 yd skip 0.2% 0.4% 1100 litre bin 1% 660 litre bin 1% Bag 63% Pallet 1% Compactor (no container required) 2% 7% 1. determined from questionnaire responses and further discussion with recyclers. Recyclers were asked to provide information on an estimated split of containers used to collect waste for recycling. 2. Assumed that skips would predominantly be used where wastes are not sorted on site. An average split between 8 yd 40 yd was applied as a base assumption. 3. Based on a consideration that bins bags and pallets would be unlikely to be used at demolition sites due to space constraints. These containers were removed from the on-site sorting dataset and the remaining containers were adjusted to total 100% Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 34

37 Table 6.7 Collection containers recycling and disposal: total container requirements Container type Average capacity Number of containers needed for one tonne of waste Total for an average tonne of: Construction Construction waste, waste, on-site sorting* off-site sorting* Construction waste, disposal* Demolition waste, on-site sorting* Demolition waste, off-site sorting* Demolition waste, disposal* 40 yd skip/ro-ro 11 tonnes yd skip/ro-ro 6 tonnes yd skip 5 tonnes yd skip 4 tonnes yd skip 3.3 tonnes yd skip 2 tonnes** litre bin 400 kg** litre bin 200 kg Bag 277 kg Pallet 1.7 tonnes Compactor (no container required) - - *% proportional use for 1 tonne plasterboard waste collection (on average) x number of containers need to hold one tonne of waste ** ERM assumption Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 35

38 A further consideration for modelling is the number of times that a container may be used over its lifetime. This information is required in order to allocate the burdens of producing the container across the total tonnage of waste plasterboard that it will contain over its lifetime. From discussions with recyclers, it was determined that, on average, skip containers have a lifespan of approximately five years, bins a lifespan of approximately one year and bags used for plasterboard collection are single-use only. However, little information could be determined as to how many times containers are typically used over this time, so a number of assumptions were made. Two scenarios were investigated. In the first instance, a maximum re-use scenario, it was assumed that skips and bins would be re-used once per day over a five and one year period respectively. This is considered to be the upper limit of re-use, and so a more reasonable scenario of re-use once per week over the five year and one year period was also investigated (mid-re-use). The latter scenario was modelled in the core analyses, with the sensitivity to this assumption tested using the maximum re-use scenario. Table 6.8 Container materials, weights and re-use Container type Weight Material inventory data and source Allocated weight per use mid re-use Allocated weight per use max re-use 40 yd skip/ro-ro 3235 kg Steel, Ecoinvent 12.4 kg 2.5 kg 20 yd skip/ro-ro 2395 kg Steel, Ecoinvent 9.2 kg 1.8 kg 16 yd skip 1915 kg* Steel, Ecoinvent 7.4 kg 15.kg 12 yd skip 1434 kg* Steel, Ecoinvent 5.5 kg 1.1 kg 8 yd skip 954 kg Steel, Ecoinvent 3.7 kg 0.7 kg 6 yd skip 714 kg* Steel, Ecoinvent 2.7 kg 0.5 kg 1100 litre bin 99 kg Injection moulded HDPE, Ecoinvent 660 litre bin 72 kg Injection moulded HDPE, Ecoinvent Bag 1 kg Extruded Polypropylene, Ecoinvent 1.9 kg 0.4 kg 1.4 kg 0.3 kg 1 kg 1 kg Pallet 20 kg Wood/Steel, Ecoinvent 33.1 kg 6.6 kg Source: plasterboard recycler questionnaires * ERM assumption Transportation Collection vehicles data, relating to the requirements for vehicles for disposal and recycling collections were derived from information provided in recycling questionnaires, and subsequent clarification discussions. A wide variety of vehicles are used in disposal and recycling collections and so it was necessary to make a number of simplifying assumptions and to test their sensitivity at a later stage. Vehicles were allocated according to container type and reported loading capacities. The resultant vehicle requirements for waste plasterboard collections for recycling and disposal are shown in Table 6.9. Note that the information provided was not of a sufficient level of detail to discern between construction-derived and demolition-derived wastes. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 36

39 Table 6.9 Collection vehicles recycling and disposal Container type Average vehicle loading Inventory data modelled 40 yd skip/ro-ro tonnes 28-tonne truck (payload 15 t) 20 yd skip/ro-ro 6 tonnes 16-tonne truck (payload 7.5 t) 16 yd skip Up to 7 tonnes 16-tonne truck (payload 7.5 t) 12 yd skip Up to 7 tonnes 16-tonne truck (payload 7.5 t) 8 yd skip Up to 7 tonnes 16-tonne truck (payload 7.5 t) 6 yd skip Up to 7 tonnes 16-tonne truck (payload 7.5 t) 1100 litre bin 7.5 tonnes** Refuse collection vehicle (RCV)* 660 litre bin 7.5 tonnes** Refuse collection vehicle (RCV)* Bag 6.5 tonnes 16-tonne truck (payload 7.5 t) Pallet 15 tonnes* 28-tonne truck (payload 15 t) Compactor 21 tonnes** Refuse collection vehicle (RCV)* Source: plasterboard recycler questionnaires * ERM assumption ** ERM/Ecoinvent assumption Data source Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent Ecoinvent Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent, adapted with Euro IV emissions standards Ecoinvent Transport distances There is considerable inherent variability in the distance that a tonne of plasterboard waste might travel to a recycler. As such, the approach taken for this assessment was to model two alternative scenarios for the transport of plasterboard waste to recyclers, and the onward transport of products. These are outlined in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2. Note that these serve to represent potential extremes by which to test the sensitivity of the results to transport assumptions. It is acknowledged that transportation of waste plasterboard and recovered gypsum is a parameter that can vary widely within the systems assessed, and one for which a justifiable average cannot be easily defined. By considering reasonable maximum and minimum distances travelled, the range of impacts that might result from waste transport can be determined. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 37

40 Figure 6.1 Transport to recycling (low) 40km Site 20km Transfer Station/MRF 20km Recycler 10km 50km Board Manufacturer Paper Use Approx 40 km to recycler. Assumed bulk (40 t) transporters used for delivery from transfer station and recycler to onward destination Figure 6.2 Transport to recycling (high) 400km Site Transfer Station/MRF 40km 15km 360km Recycler 50km 50km Board Manufacturer Paper Use Approx 400 km to recycler Assumed bulk (40 t) transporters used for delivery from transfer station and recycler to onward destination Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 further outline initial assumptions for the transport of waste to disposal. Transport distances to mixed waste landfill are assumed to be low (equivalent to the low recycling transport scenario). This is a reasonable assumption in consideration of the large number of landfill sites across the UK that accept mixed construction and demolition wastes. Waste plasterboard travelling to monocell is assumed to travel a much larger distance. Information provided indicated that in 2007 there was only one operational monocell accepting plasterboard waste in the UK (located in the North of England). A breakdown of construction and demolition waste arisings by UK region ( 1) was used to determine the approximate average distance that a tonne of waste arising in the UK might travel to this site. Figure 6.3 Transport to mixed waste landfill 40km Site 20km Transfer Station 20km Landfill Assumed bulk (40 t) transporters used for delivery from transfer station to landfill site (1) WRAP, personal communication Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 38

41 Figure 6.4 Transport to monocell landfill 250km Site 20km Transfer Station 230km Landfill Assumed bulk (40 t) transporters used for delivery from transfer station to landfill site Waste transfer The assessment factors in waste plasterboard travelling to the recycling facility via a transfer, bulking or sorting facility. As an initial assumption it was assumed that 50% of all waste collected would pass via a transfer station prior to onward delivery to treatment (recycling or landfill). In practice, this will vary considerably dependent on the distance from the transfer station to the recyclers. The greater the distance to the recyclers, the higher the probability that a transfer station will be used. The sensitivity of results to this assumption is considered in sensitivity analysis (see Section 9.4). Data to describe the burdens of waste transfer were sourced from the Environment Agency s WRATE database (Waste Transfer Station process) Plasterboard recycling Data to describe inputs and outputs for process waste recycling were provided by each plasterboard manufacturer and averaged according to relative quantities processed. Table 6.10 shows an averaged dataset. Table 6.10 Process waste recycling Inputs/ outputs Flow Value per tonne of waste Inventory data Data source Inputs Grid electricity 9.6 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Diesel 1.3 litres Diesel production/ combustion Outputs Recycled gypsum 957 kg To pre-processing and input to calcination Reclaimed paper 43 kg Landfill (33%) Composting (33%) Recycling (33%) Ecoinvent - diesel combustion in machinery/generator (including emissions) - WRATE (landfill paper, recycling paper, composting) Waste to landfill 0.4 kg To mixed waste landfill See Annex D Source: plasterboard recycler questionnaires Data to describe inputs and outputs for post-consumer waste recycling were provided by plasterboard manufacturers and recyclers. Datasets were again averaged according to the relative tonnage of waste processed. Table 6.11 shows an averaged dataset. Note that reported contamination rates are considered to be low and have been investigated further in sensitivity analysis (see Section 9.0). Results were not found to be sensitive to this parameter. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 39

42 Table 6.11 Post-consumer waste recycling Inputs/ outputs Flow Value per tonne of waste Inventory data Data source Inputs Grid electricity 9.9 kwh UK mix 2007 Ecoinvent/Dti Diesel 0.9 litres Diesel production/ combustion Outputs Recycled gypsum 930 kg 1. To pre-processing and input to calcination Ecoinvent - diesel combustion in machinery/generator (including emissions) - 2. To other gypsum uses Reclaimed paper 68 kg Landfill (33%) Composting (33%) Recycling (33%) WRATE (landfill paper, recycling paper, composting) Waste to landfill 2 kg To mixed waste landfill See Annex D Source: plasterboard recycler questionnaires Landfill Detailed life cycle inventories describing the burdens of disposing waste plasterboard in a mixed waste and monocell landfill have been derived by Golder Associates. Annex D is a detailed report, produced by Golder Associates. This sets out the method adopted, the assumptions and data used, and results obtained, in the estimation of the environmental burdens and emissions associated with the disposal of plasterboard to landfill. The following elements require clarification, in addition to the report. Methane emissions Section of the Golder report discusses additional calculations to quantify emissions of carbon dioxide and methane (CO 2 and CH 4 ) from mixed waste and monocell landfill. Subsequent discussion with the peer review panel led to the consideration that the amount of methane produced in monocells will be so small, and released at such a low rate, that it is likely to undergo oxidation to carbon dioxide in the surface layers of the site before it could be released into the atmosphere. As such the assessment considers that methane emissions from the monocell landfill of plasterboard are zero. In comparison, methane from the degrading paper in a mixed waste landfill is likely to be drawn out along with other landfill gases. Some of this gas will be captured and flared, or combusted in an engine (a default of a 75% capture rate is assumed). The remainder is assumed to escape to the atmosphere as fugitive emissions. Hydrogen sulphide emissions the results of gas modelling, presented in Table 11 of the Golder report, show hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) to be generated in more significant quantities in the mixed waste landfill (codisposal) site in comparison with the monocell site, as might be expected. However, discussions were raised with the peer review panel as to whether hydrogen sulfide would be generated at a monocell landfill at all (some emissions are currently shown). With no real data from operational monocell sites against which to compare the model outputs, this study uses the original outputs from modelling without amendment. However, it must be noted that data for H 2 S emissions from monocell landfill should be treated with caution. Other gaseous emissions In Section 4.4 of the report, the authors consider that the negative values generated for some of the trace gases and NOx oxides of nitrogen are simply noise in the results and unless there is a compelling reason to include these, we would suggest that the trace gas results and NOx are ignored. This approach was taken in the assessment and these emissions have been ignored. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 40

43 Leachate emissions In Section of the report, the list of contaminants incorporated within each of the modelling scenarios is summarised and it is recommended that manufacturers be approached in order to confirm the inclusion (or otherwise) of these species in plasterboard. This approach was taken and, as a result of discussions, those species included in the assessment were: calcium; copper; naphthalene; potassium and sulphate. 6.5 Secondary datasets Secondary data have been used for common processes, materials, transport steps and electricity generation in the assessment. The key life cycle inventory (LCI) databases used to describe these processes were: Ecoinvent (version 1.3) - Ecoinvent is a peer-reviewed database, containing life cycle inventory data for over 2500 processes in the energy, transport, building materials, chemicals, paper/board, agriculture and waste management sectors. It aims to provide a set of unified and generic LCI data of high quality. The data are mainly investigated for Swiss and Western European conditions; and IDEMAT (IDEMAT 2001) - this database was developed at Delft University of Technology, department of industrial design engineering, under the IDEMAT project. The focus is on the production of materials and data are mostly original (not taken from other LCA databases), deriving from a wide variety of sources. The secondary datasets used relate predominantly to Western European process technologies and, as such, will confer some differences from equivalent UK systems. Assuming that technologies will not differ, the most significant difference is likely to be with respect to energy mix. It was not possible within the scope of the assessment to manipulate all the datasets used to represent the UK electricity mix. However, care has been taken that direct inputs of electricity, for example to plasterboard production, facing paper production and recycling processes, reflect appropriate geographies. Further, it is reasonable to consider that a number of the ancillary material and fuel inputs to processes, for which secondary data have been used, will be produced across Europe and, as such, average European or global technologies are applicable. Details of all secondary datasets used in the assessment are summarised in Table 6.12 and Table Commentary on their quality and representativeness for the assessment is further provided in Section Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 41

44 Table 6.12 Datasets used to model fuel/energy production processes Fuel/energy Source Database Geography Year Technology Reference Grid electricity, UK Ecoinvent UK 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent data used for energy production (Ecoinvent-Report No. 6). Electricity mix for 2007 taken from the Environment Agency WRATE tool, and originally sourced from Dti statistics. Grid electricity, France Ecoinvent France 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Diesel (production) Ecoinvent Europe 2005 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Diesel combustion in machinery/generator Ecoinvent Europe 2001 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Light fuel oil Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Heavy fuel oil Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Natural gas production Ecoinvent UK 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Natural gas combustion in furnace Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Technology available in mid 1990s Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Coal power station/hard coal burned in power plant Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Steam Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 LPG Idemat Europe 1994 Average technology PWMI report. (2 Olefins) Propane/butane Ecoinvent Switzerland 2000 Average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 6 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 42

45 Table 6.13 Datasets used to model other production and waste managements inputs Material/process Database Geography Year Technology Reference Thermo mechanical pulp Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Modern average technology Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 Sorted waste paper (recycled paper) Ecoinvent Europe 1993 Potato starch Ecoinvent Germany 2002 Maize starch Ecoinvent Germany 2002 Biocides Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Data from 1 Swiss sorting plant, used as European average. Average technology used in Switzerland in the mid of 90's Ecoinvent-Report No. 8 Typical potato starch production in Germany Ecoinvent-Report No. 15 Typical maize starch production in Germany Ecoinvent-Report No. 15 Data are used as European average data. Equal split to four different substances without any further inputs/outputs. Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 AKD sizer Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Synthesised from fatty acid. Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 Aluminium oxide Ecoinvent Europe 2002 Technology of one medium sized plant in Germany Ecoinvent-Report No. 10 Mined gypsum Ecoinvent Switzerland 2003 Open pit mining Ecoinvent-Report No. 7 Milled limestone Ecoinvent Switzerland /Europe 2002 The company works on a technically high level; heavy machines (excl. building machines) are operated electrically; air is recirculated in closed loop to avoid dust emissions Ecoinvent-Report No. 7 Soap Ecoinvent Europe 1995 Average technology for the production of soap out of a blend of fatty acids from palm and coconut oil, representing typical European production mix in the mid 90s. Ecoinvent-Report No. 12 Tap water Ecoinvent Europe 2000 Example of a waterworks in Switzerland. Ecoinvent-Report No. 8 Polyethylene, HDPE Ecoinvent Europe 1993 Polymerization of ethylene under normal pressure and temperature. Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 43

46 Material/process Database Geography Year Technology Reference Polypropylene Ecoinvent Europe 1993 Polymerization of propylene. Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 Extrusion, plastic film Ecoinvent Europe 1997 Present technologies. Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 Injection moulding Ecoinvent Europe 1997 Present technologies. Ecoinvent-Report No. 11 Wooden Pallet Ecoinvent Europe 2002 Standard composition of materials Ecoinvent-Report No. 7 Steel, low alloyed Ecoinvent Europe 2001 EU technology mix Ecoinvent-Report No. 10 Packaging paper/mixed plastics to sanitary landfill/municipal incineration Ecoinvent Switzerland 1995 Average Swiss MSWI plants in Well applicable to modern treatment practices in Europe Ecoinvent-Report No. 13 Disposal packaging materials in landfill WRATE UK 2006 Average technology Paper recovery (recycling/landfill/composting) WRATE UK 2006 Average technology Environment Agency (2007) WRATE Available at: Environment Agency (2007) WRATE Available at: Sewage treatment at wastewater treatment plant, class 3 Ecoinvent Switzerland 2000 Transport by ship Ecoinvent Global 2000 Specific to the technology mix encountered in Switzerland in Well applicable to modern treatment practices in Europe Ecoinvent-Report No. 13 HFE based steam turbine and diesel engines Ecoinvent-Report No. 14 Transport by 40 yd Ro-ro WRATE UK 2006 Average vehicle operation Environment Agency (2007) WRATE Available at: Transport by lorry (40 tonne, 28 tonne, 16 tonne), RCV Ecoinvent Switzerland/ Europe 2005 Average vehicle operation Ecoinvent-Report No. 14 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 44

47 6.5.1 Data quality assessment Primary and secondary data quality has been assessed, using the data quality requirements defined in Section Primary datasets Primary data have been collected for gypsum transportation, receipt and pre-processing steps, gypsum calcination, facing paper production, plasterboard production, packaging and distribution. The data obtained are considered to be of good quality and are representative for the production of Type A plasterboard in the UK in Primary data have also been collected for plasterboard recycling processes. The data are incomplete, as a number of plasterboard recyclers did not provide data for their processes. However, data were provided by those recyclers with the greatest throughput, and so resulting inputs and outputs are considered to be a good representation of current operations in the UK. Secondary datasets The majority of secondary datasets used fulfil data quality requirements for geographical and technology coverage. Since representativeness is a combination of these (plus data age), this criterion is, for the most part, also fulfilled. It has been difficult to assess generic LCI databases with regard to completeness and precision, as the databases used generally did not contain enough specific information to allow evaluation at this level. However, all secondary data used in the assessment were sourced from peer-reviewed databases, predominantly the Ecoinvent database, and so are considered to be of acceptable completeness and precision. The age of secondary databases is a concern, as the majority of datasets relate to technologies in 2000 or earlier. This is a common and increasing problem in conducting LCAs. For this assessment, the Ecoinvent (version 1.3) LCI database has been used - commonly considered to be one of the most up-to-date and complete available. As such, it is considered that, in the absence of more specific data, these datasets were deemed appropriate for use as a surrogate. The following materials did not fulfil all data quality requirements and have been found to have an influence on resulting impact profiles (see Section 8): potato starch production; maize starch production; biocide production; and waste paper sorting (recycled paper). The requirement to use these secondary datasets is a limitation of the study. Interpretation of results should take account of this limitation. 6.6 Inventory compilation: product systems Data and information provided by plasterboard manufacturers and recyclers were used to draw up a baseline system representing mass flows for the current production, use and end-of-life management of Type A plasterboard. A baseline system for one sheet of Type A plasterboard (the functional unit of the assessment) is shown in Figure 6.5; Figures 6.6 and 6.7 subsequently show mass flows for the alternative product systems under assessment: Type A plasterboard with 15% recycled gypsum content; and Type A plasterboard with 25% recycled gypsum content. In developing these scenarios, it was assumed that the proportion of waste plasterboard being sent to recycling or disposal varies, dependent on the plasterboard system assessed. At current levels of recycled content, waste management routes likewise reflect current (2007) practice. As the proportion of post-consumer recycled gypsum in plasterboard increases, it follows that recycling and recovery of gypsum must increase in order to provide this feedstock. Other key variables and data sources for each scenario are presented in Table Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 45

48 6.7 Parallels with the BRE methodology for Environmental Profiles of construction products The BRE Green Guide to Specification provides guidance for specifiers, designers and their clients on the relative environmental impacts of elemental specifications for roofs, walls, floors etc. Environmental ratings of these specifications are based on LCA, using the Environmental Profiles method, developed by BRE. The environmental profiles method provides a set of common rules and guidelines for applying LCA to construction products, with the aim of producing UK database of profiles for a wide range of construction products. Three types of environmental profiles can be created: profiles for a tonne of manufactured material, covering all impacts from the cradle to the factory gate; profiles for building elements, eg 1 m 2 of flooring or roofing, covering all impacts from cradle to installation; or a profile from cradle to grave. An environmental profile for plasterboard has been carried out, focusing on cradle (raw materials extraction) to gate (final product) impacts, but also providing indicative burdens for distribution and end-of-life management. This work is detailed in an unpublished confidential report. The environmental profiles method uses the same principles as this LCA study: those set out in the ISO standard on LCA. This standard provides a framework which any LCA study should follow, but allows the LCA practitioner to make methodological choices and assumptions that are appropriate to the goal and scope of the study being undertaken. The peer review process then determines that the choices and assumptions made are appropriate and result in a robust assessment. The main methodological difference between this LCA study and the BRE environmental profiles method is in the allocation of burdens to synthetic gypsum production. In the environmental profiles method, burdens are allocated to synthetic gypsum on the basis of the relative economic value of process outputs and by-products. Sections and 9.1 discuss the approach taken for this study, which is considered to be both sound and representative of the impacts incurred in the production of these materials. Section 9.1 suggests that the results are sensitive to the means of allocation, and therefore there is a likelihood the two methodologies would produce different results. Other differences between the two studies will occur as a result of the age of data used. Being representative of 2007 production techniques, this study uses the most up-to-date information relating to the impacts of Type A plasterboard production. The environmental profile study uses data from a slightly earlier time period, and from a range of plasterboard factories, none of which at the time were undertaking post consumer gypsum recycling. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 46

49 Figure 6.5 Mass flows: baseline scenario, one sheet of Type A plasterboard (23.4 kg) Imported Mined Imported FGD UK FGD UK Titanogypsum Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Landfill Recycling Composting 22.1 Water 3.3 Calcination (stucco production) 2.6 Gypsum pre-processing Facing paper management Gypsum for other uses Landfill residues Facing paper Evaporation Additives Packaging materials Board production 23.4 Packaging 23.8 Distribution Process waste recycling Process waste to monocell landfill Process waste to mixed waste landfill 1.7 Disposal packaging materials On-site sorting for recycling Use in construction To off-site sorting for recycling 0.4 Off-site sorting 2.1 Collection for landfill Post consumer recycling Waste transfer On-site sorting for recycling End of life/ demolition 0.1 To off-site sorting for Mixed waste landfill recycling 19.6 Collection for landfill Monocell landfill All flows in kg. Numbers may not total due to rounding. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 47

50 Figure 6.6 Mass flows: 15% recyclate scenario, one sheet of Type A plasterboard (23.4 kg) Imported Mined Imported FGD UK FGD UK Titanogypsum Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Landfill Recycling Composting 21.0 Water 3.3 Calcination (stucco production) 3.7 Gypsum pre-processing Facing paper management Gypsum for other uses Landfill residues Facing paper Evaporation Additives Packaging materials Board production 23.4 Packaging 23.8 Distribution Process waste recycling Process waste to monocell landfill Process waste to mixed waste landfill 2.9 Disposal packaging materials On-site sorting for recycling Use in construction To off-site sorting for recycling 0.7 Sorting plant 1.3 Collection for landfill Post consumer recycling Waste transfer On-site sorting for recycling End of life/ demolition 0.2 To off-site sorting for Mixed waste landfill recycling 19.2 Collection for landfill Monocell landfill All flows in kg. Numbers may not total due to rounding. 1.1 kg avoided conventional gypsum. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 48

51 Figure 6.7 Mass flows: 25% recyclate scenario, one sheet of Type A plasterboard (23.4 kg) Imported Mined Imported FGD UK FGD UK Titanogypsum Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Landfill Recycling Composting 18.5 Water 3.3 Calcination (stucco production) 6.2 Gypsum pre-processing Facing paper management Gypsum for other uses Landfill residues Facing paper Evaporation Additives Packaging materials Board production 23.4 Packaging 23.8 Distribution Process waste recycling Process waste to monocell landfill Process waste to mixed waste landfill 5.6 Disposal packaging materials On-site sorting for recycling Use in construction To off-site sorting for recycling 1.4 Sorting plant 1.6 Collection for landfill Post consumer recycling Waste transfer On-site sorting for recycling End of life/ demolition 0.9 To off-site sorting for Mixed waste landfill recycling 16.3 Collection for landfill Monocell landfill All flows in kg. Numbers may not total due to rounding. 3.6 kg avoided conventional gypsum. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 49

52 Table 6.14 Modelling assumptions product systems Variable Baseline 15% Recyclate 25% Recyclate Assumptions % conventional gypsum 89.5% 85% 75% As per scenarios outlined in Section 6.6. % process waste gypsum 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% Process wastage rate is optimised so available feedstock is assumed to remain the same. % post-consumer gypsum 4.5% 9.0% 19.0% All additional recycled feedstock will be post-consumer derived. Use wastage rate 15% 15% 15% ERM assumption. The influence of this is explored further in the waste minimisation scenarios (see Section 6.8). % to waste transfer 50% 50% 50% ERM assumption. Considered to have little influence on outcome but to be tested in sensitivity analysis. Plasterboard collection rate: construction waste 41% 63% 56% Data collected from plasterboard recyclers and manufacturers suggest a current approximate 41% collection rate from construction waste (130,050 tonnes collected for both open-and closed-loop recycling from an estimated 318,000 tpa arisings. This arisings estimate was determined on the basis of estimated plasterboard consumption in 2007 of 2,120,000 tonnes (MTP, 2006a) and an in-use wastage rate of 15%). For the systems with increased recycling, it was assumed that collection rates from construction waste would reach a maximum of 50% for use in plasterboard manufacture (thus more than 50% would need to be collected to account for the additional recycling of waste plasterboard for other uses). This value was chosen as it is in line with industry voluntary targets. Additional tonnages of waste plasterboard required to meet feedstock requirements for plasterboard manufacture are assumed to arise from demolition waste. % closed loop recycling (postconsumer gypsum) 69% 82% 90% Data provided by plasterboard recyclers were used to determine current collection rates from construction and demolition wastes. These were applied to the mass flow model to calculate the total quantity of post-consumer recycling. The quantity to be used in the manufacture of Type A plasterboard (closed loop recycling) was determined on the basis of feedstock requirements. All additional recovered plasterboard/gypsum was assumed to be used for other uses (open loop systems and other plasterboard systems). It was further assumed that closed loop recycling increases to meet feedstock demand for Type A plasterboard manufacture. % open loop recycling (postconsumer gypsum) 31% 18% 10% The total quantity of post-consumer recovered gypsum to other uses is assumed not to change for each system assessed (although relative proportions decrease in light of the increase in closed-loop gypsum recovery). Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 50

53 6.8 Waste minimisation scenarios In a recent report to the FPDC (FPDC, 2006), a short term target of reducing wastage of plasterboard in construction projects, from 15% to 13%, was considered. The potential benefits associated with this have been investigated in the study. Greater reductions, to 5%, have also been considered to investigate the scale of benefits that might be achieved in the longer term. The investigation started with the consideration of a drywall package order of 750,000. At an approximate cost of 6 per 12.5 x 2400 x 1200 mm sheet, this equates to approximately 3000 tonnes of plasterboard supplied. A 15% wastage rate in use results in 2550 tonnes of this plasterboard remaining insitu, and the remaining 450 tonnes being collected for recycling or disposal. To investigate the potential benefits of reducing wastage rates, based on the 2550 tonnes of plasterboard remaining in-situ the required supply tonnage was calculated should the wastage rate have been either 13% or 5%. Resulting flows are shown in Figure 6.8 to Figure In each scenario, all other system parameters were assumed to remain as for the baseline scenario of the core assessment. Care was taken, however, that there was sufficient availability of waste plasterboard to feed both open and closed loop markets. Figure 6.8 to Figure 6.10 show that an increasing quantity of waste plasterboard from demolition at end-of-life must be collected to achieve this. Note that these scenarios are not intended to reflect working practice, but instead to indicate what the potential benefits of plasterboard waste minimisation could be. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 51

54 Figure 6.8 Mass flows: baseline 15% wastage in use Imported Mined Imported FGD UK FGD UK Titanogypsum Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Landfill Recycling Composting 2832 Water 426 Calcination (stucco production) 334 Gypsum pre-processing Facing paper management Gypsum for other uses Landfill residues Facing paper Evaporation Additives Packaging materials Board production 3000 Packaging 3052 Distribution Process waste recycling Process waste to landfill Process waste to mixed waste landfill 222 Disposal packaging materials On-site sorting for recycling Use in construction To off-site sorting for recycling 55 Sorting plant 266 Collection for landfill Post consumer recycling Waste transfer On-site sorting for recycling End of life/ demolition 9 To off-site sorting for Mixed waste landfill recycling 2512 Collection for landfill Monocell landfill All flows in kg. Numbers may not total due to rounding. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 52

55 Figure 6.9 Mass flows: waste minimisation scenario 13% wastage in use Imported Mined Imported FGD UK FGD UK Titanogypsum Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Landfill Recycling Composting 2767 Water 417 Calcination (stucco production) 326 Gypsum pre-processing Facing paper management Gypsum for other uses Landfill residues Facing paper Evaporation Additives Packaging materials Board production 2931 Packaging 2982 Distribution Process waste recycling Process waste to landfill Process waste to mixed waste landfill 218 Disposal packaging materials On-site sorting for recycling Use in construction To off-site sorting for recycling 55 Sorting plant 225 Collection for landfill Post consumer recycling Waste transfer On-site sorting for recycling End of life/ demolition 16 To off-site sorting for Mixed waste landfill recycling 2487 Collection for landfill Monocell landfill All flows in kg. Numbers may not total due to rounding. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 53

56 Figure 6.10 Mass flows: waste minimisation scenario 5% wastage in use Imported Mined Imported FGD UK FGD UK Titanogypsum Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Gypsum pre-processing Landfill Recycling Composting 2534 Water 382 Calcination (stucco production) 298 Gypsum pre-processing Facing paper management Gypsum for other uses Landfill residues Facing paper Evaporation Additives Packaging materials Board production 2684 Packaging 2731 Distribution Process waste recycling Process waste to landfill Process waste to mixed waste landfill 206 Disposal packaging materials On-site sorting for recycling Use in construction To off-site sorting for recycling 51 Sorting plant 79 Collection for landfill Post consumer recycling Waste transfer On-site sorting for recycling End of life/ demolition 38 To off-site sorting for Mixed waste landfill recycling 2399 Collection for landfill Monocell landfill All flows in kg. Numbers may not total due to rounding. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 54

57 7.0 Life cycle inventory analysis: summary results 7.1 Product systems For each of the plasterboard systems assessed, inventories of flows to and from the environment, and internal material and energy flows, have been produced. The inventories generated provide data on hundreds of elemental flows for each plasterboard system. As such, only summary inventory flows for the plasterboard systems have included in this report, namely: raw material/mineral consumption; water use; CO 2 emissions; CH 4 emissions; N2O emissions; H 2 S emissions; non-renewable energy use (as cumulative energy demand ); and renewable energy use (as cumulative energy demand ). Energy use is presented as the cumulative energy demand, using factors as presented in the SimaPro software. Summary inventory flows for each plasterboard system are shown in Table 7.1. A full life cycle inventory for each system can be found in Annex B. Summary inventory flows are presented alternatively for low transport and high transport scenarios. This refers to the distance that waste plasterboard travels from its point of collection (construction or demolition site) to its point of use (in plasterboard manufacture). For the low transport scenario, this distance is assumed to be a minimum of 50 km. For the high transport scenario, this distance is assumed to be a maximum of 450 km. Results have been reported in this way because transport of waste plasterboard is a key parameter in the product systems for some inventory flows. Note, for example, differences in CO 2 emissions and non-renewable energy consumption between the low and high transport scenarios. It is also a parameter that can vary widely within the system, and one for which a reasonable average cannot be easily defined. Points of note in the summary inventory flows are shown in commentary under Table Hydrogen sulphide Comparative H 2 S emissions are of particular interest for the scenarios assessed, as its avoidance is the primary reason for regulating the disposal of this waste stream in mixed waste landfill. Table 7.1 accordingly shows that the high recycling plasterboard systems result in lower net H 2 S emissions, as greater quantities of waste plasterboard are diverted from landfill. Table 7.1 shows reductions to be of the following order: a 4% decrease in H 2 S emissions for the 15% recycled content system (in comparison with the baseline); and a 17% decrease in H 2 S emissions for the 25% recycled content system (in comparison with the baseline). The uncertainty surrounding absolute estimates of H 2 S emissions is noted in Section However, results clearly show a reduction in H 2 S emissions proportional to the quantity of post-consumer waste plasterboard diverted from landfill for use in Type A plasterboard manufacture. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 55

58 Table 7.1 Inventory analysis results comparison: alternative product systems Impact Category Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Abiotic resource consumption kg Water use kg CO 2 (fossil and biogenic) kg CH 4 kg N 2 O kg H 2 S kg Non renewable energy* MJ-eq Renewable energy* MJ-eq * Cumulative energy demand Points of note In general, increasing the content of recycled gypsum in Type A plasterboard is shown to lead to reductions in mineral resource consumption, water use, CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O and H 2 S emissions. However, these reductions are small in comparison with the totals for each system. Reductions in mineral consumption, CO 2 and N 2 O emissions are achieved predominantly through the displacement of conventional gypsum sources. Reduction in water use is predominantly achieved through reduced shipping of gypsum from overseas. Reductions in CH 4 and H 2 S emissions are achieved through reductions in waste plasterboard landfill. The high transport scenarios are shown to lead to increases in energy consumption, through increased fuel use. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 56

59 8.0 Life Cycle Impact Assessment The impact assessment phase of an LCA assigns the results of the inventory analysis to different impact categories. 8.1 Product systems Each product system was assessed for performance against the following impact categories: Depletion of abiotic resources - an indication of resource depletion is provided by considering the proportion of the available resource (in years) for each raw material consumed by the activities in question, and summing their contributions to depletion of known stocks, giving a measure of total depletion in years. Raw materials extracted that contribute to resource depletion are aggregated according to their impact on resource depletion compared with antimony reserves as a reference. Impacts are expressed in kg Sb (antimony) equivalents. Global warming - gases contributing to the greenhouse effect are aggregated according to their impact on radiative warming compared to carbon dioxide as the reference gas. Impacts are expressed in kg CO 2 equivalents. Stratospheric ozone depletion - for gases that contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer (eg chlorofluorocarbons), ozone depletion potentials have been developed using CFC-11 as a reference substance. Impacts are expressed in kg CFCF-11 equivalents. Human toxicity - methods have been developed which estimate the potential harm that may result from emissions of chemical compounds to the environment. The impact assessment method used in this assessment is based on calculated human toxicity potentials and is not related to actual impact. These Human Toxicity Potentials (HTP) are a calculated index that reflects the potential harm of a unit of chemical released into the environment. Characterisation factors, expressed as HTPs, are calculated with USES-LCA, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances for an infinite time horizon. For each toxic substance, HTPs are expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/kg emission. Resulting impacts are expressed in 1-4 dichlorobenzene equivalents. Marine/fresh-water/terrestrial aquatic eco-toxicity - eco-toxicity potentials for the aquatic and terrestrial environments are calculated with USES-LCA, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances. Characterisation factors are expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/ kg emission. Resulting impacts are expressed in 1-4 DB equivalents. Photo-oxidant formation - gases contributing to smog formation are aggregated according to their relative photo-oxidant potential compared to ethylene as the reference gas. Impacts are expressed in kg C2H 4 equivalents. Acidification - gases contributing to air acidification are aggregated according to their acidification potential. These potentials have been developed for potentially acidifying gases such as SO 2, NOx, HCl, HF and NH 3 on the basis of the number of hydrogen ions that can be produced per mole of a substance, using SO 2 as the reference substance. Impacts are expressed in kg SO 2 equivalents. Eutrophication - phosphorus is the key nutrient for eutrophication in freshwater and nitrate is the key substance for saltwater. Those substances that have the potential for causing nutrification are aggregated using nutrification potentials, which are a measure of the capacity to form biomass compared to phosphate (PO 4 ). Impacts are expressed in kg PO 4 equivalents. Summary results, showing a comparison in impact profile between the plasterboard systems assessed are shown in Table 8.1 to Table 8.5. Figure 8.1 to Figure 8.10 also show a breakdown of results for each impact category for the baseline plasterboard system and 25% recycled content system (1). A complete set of detailed impact assessment results and contribution analysis is provided in Annex C. For all tables and figures impacts assessment results are again presented for low transport and high transport scenarios. This again refers to the distance that recovered waste plasterboard travels from its point of collection (construction or demolition site) to its point of use (in plasterboard manufacture). For the low transport (1) Results for the 15% recycled content system are intermediate and so are not shown in the Figures. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 57

60 scenario, this distance is assumed to be a minimum of 50 km. For the high transport scenario, this distance is assumed to be a maximum of 450 km. Results have been reported in this way because transport of waste plasterboard is a key parameter in the product systems, and one which can vary widely with no justifiable average. Commentaries under tables and figures highlight key points in the impact assessment results. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 58

61 Table 8.1 Impacts assessment results comparison: alternative product systems, one sheet of Type A plasterboard 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low ttransport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Impact Category Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq Points of note In general, increasing the content of recycled gypsum in Type A plasterboard is shown to lead to potential environmental savings across all categories of impact. This is with the exception of the high transport scenario, which shows a slight increase in ozone layer depletion potential when recycled content is increased. This is associated with the increased transportation requirements of waste plasterboard collections, and associated emissions from burning fuel in engines. Across all other categories, recycling post-consumer plasterboard for use in Type A plasterboard production is shown to result reduced environmental impacts. The potential scale of these savings is shown in Table 8.2 to 8.4. Note that these savings are small in comparison with the total system impacts. Also note the difference in potential savings between the low and high transport scenarios. These represent the minimum and maximum distance that waste plasterboard and recovered gypsum is likely to travel. In reality, potential saving will lie somewhere in between these figures. Figures 8.1 to 8.10 show the life cycle stages that contribute most to the potential impacts (and savings) in each category. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 59

62 Table 8.2 Savings in comparison with baseline per sheet of Type A plasterboard (assuming low transport) Impact Category Unit 15% recycled content 25% recycled content Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq Table 8.3 Savings in comparison with baseline per sheet of Type A plasterboard (assuming high transport) Impact Category Unit 15% recycled content 25% recycled content Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq Negative values denote a net impact in comparison with the baseline system Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 60

63 Table 8.4 Savings in comparison with baseline per m 3 of Type A plasterboard (assuming low transport) Impact Category Unit 15% recycled content 25% recycled content Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq Table 8.5 Savings in comparison with baseline per m 3 of Type A plasterboard (assuming high transport) Impact Category Unit 15% recycled content 25% recycled content Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq Negative values denote a net impact in comparison with the baseline system Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 61

64 Figure 8.1 Impact profile one sheet of Type A plasterboard: abiotic resource depletion kg Sb-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Plasterboard production and calcination are two of the predominant contributors to this impact category, as a result of a high consumption of natural gas and fossil-derived electricity. Conventional gypsum production is also a predominant contributor, through the extraction of mineral resources in production. Note that the assessment assumes that the gypsum source (conventional or recycled) has no influence on the resource intensity of calcination and plasterboard production. This is a potential limitation of the study and would benefit from further investigation. The 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production and pre-processing in comparison with the baseline system, as might be expected. The 25% recycled content systems shows increased resource consumption during collection and transportation for recycling, but only for the high transport scenario. Life cycle stages associated with recycling (collection, transport, gypsum production and pre-processing) contribute relatively little to the impact profile for this category. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 62

65 Figure 8.2 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: global warming potential 3.50 kg CO2-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Conventional gypsum production, plasterboard production, calcination, facing paper production, plasterboard distribution and disposal in mixed waste landfill are the predominant contributors to global warming impacts. Impacts in calcination, plasterboard production and facing paper production are primarily incurred through natural gas and electricity consumption. Impacts in gypsum production occur as a result of combustion of coal in power stations (and its allocation to the production of gypsum through oxidation of FGD residues). Impacts at the distribution stage are incurred as a result of diesel combustion in transportation and subsequent emissions. Impacts at the disposal stage are incurred as a result of the degradation of facing paper in landfill and subsequent methane emissions. The 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production, transport and pre-processing and the avoidance of plasterboard disposal. Life cycle stages associated with recycling (collection, transport, gypsum production and pre-processing) contribute relatively little to the impact profile for this category. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 63

66 Figure 8.3 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: ozone layer depletion kg CFC 11-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Transportation and energy consumption are key factors that influence ozone depletion impacts. Life cycle stages that have a high transportation burden (gypsum transport, plasterboard distribution, end-of-life transport) or a high energy burden (stucco production, facing paper production, plasterboard production) accordingly contribute significantly to results for this impact category. The 25% recycled content system shows some savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production, pre-processing, transport and the avoidance of plasterboard disposal. Additional burdens are incurred in waste collection by the high recycling, high transport scenario. Tables 8.3 and 8.5 show this additional burden to result in net impacts being incurred for the high recycled content systems, when compared with the baseline. Differences between systems are still small (<10%), however, and cannot be used to state a categorical benefit of one over the other. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 64

67 Figure 8.4 Impact Profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: human toxicity 0.80 kg 1,4 DB-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Conventional gypsum production, plasterboard production, calcination, facing paper production, plasterboard distribution and other transportation stages are the predominant contributors to human toxicity impacts. Impacts in conventional gypsum production, calcination, plasterboard production and facing paper production are primarily incurred through natural gas and electricity consumption, but also in the production of some process additives, such as biocides and starch. Impacts in plasterboard distribution and other transport steps occur as a result of fuel combustion and resulting emissions. The 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production, transport and pre-processing and reduced end-of-life burdens. The 25% recycled content system shows additional burdens in the collection of waste plasterboard, particularly for the high transport scenario. Life cycle stages associated with recycling (collection, transport, gypsum production and pre-processing) contribute relatively little to the impact profile for this category. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 65

68 Figure 8.5 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: freshwater aquatic toxicity 0.50 kg 1,4 DB-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Facing paper production is the predominant contributor to freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity impacts. On interrogation of the results, the predominant contributor to the freshwater aquatic toxicity impacts of this process is the input of sorted waste paper from municipal sources. The dataset used to describe the impacts of waste paper recovery assumes that contamination residues from the sorting process are sent to a waste incinerator for treatment. Emissions from this treatment have significant influence on the results for this impact category and so their interpretation should take this into account. The impact of paper production overshadows all other process contributions to this category. The 25% recycled content system shows minor savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production. Life cycle stages associated with recycling (collection, transport, gypsum production and pre-processing) contribute relatively little to the impact profile. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 66

69 Figure 8.6 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: marine aquatic toxicity 2000 kg 1,4 DB-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Conventional gypsum production, plasterboard production, calcination and facing paper production are the predominant contributors to marine aquatic ecotoxicity impacts. Impacts in gypsum production occur as a result of combustion of coal in power stations (and its allocation to the production of gypsum through oxidation of FGD residues). As for other impact categories, impacts in calcination, plasterboard production and facing paper production are incurred through natural gas and electricity consumption. Facing paper production incurs burdens as a result of the assumed incineration of contamination residues from waste paper sorting. Given the importance of conventional gypsum production in this category, the 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of a reduced reliance on conventional gypsum input to production. It follows that this category of impact sees one of the larger margins of differentiation between the high recycling and baseline systems: 8-9% reduced impact for the 25% recycled content system. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 67

70 Figure 8.7 Impact profile - one sheet Type A plasterboard: terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4 DB-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Conventional gypsum production, plasterboard production, facing paper production and transportation stages are the predominant contributors to terrestrial ecotoxicity impacts. Impacts in plasterboard and facing paper production are primarily incurred during the production of starch (potato/corn starch) and other process additives (eg biocide additives to paper production). Impacts in gypsum production occur as a result of combustion of coal in power stations (and its allocation to the production of gypsum through oxidation of FGD residues). Impacts in plasterboard distribution and other transport steps occur as a result of fuel combustion and resulting emissions. Given the importance of conventional gypsum production in this category, the 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of a reduced reliance on conventional gypsum input to production. Greater impacts are seen in collection and transport at end of life, however, such that overall net differences between the baseline and high recycled content systems are small. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 68

71 Figure 8.8 Impact profile - one sheet Type A plasterboard: photochemical oxidation kg C2H4-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Conventional gypsum production, transportation steps and disposal of waste plasterboard in landfill are shown to be key factors that influence photochemical oxidation impacts. Impacts in gypsum production occur as a result of combustion of coal in power stations (and its allocation to the production of gypsum through oxidation of FGD residues). Impacts at the distribution stage are incurred as a result of diesel combustion in transportation and subsequent emissions. Gaseous emissions from landfill result in photochemical oxidation impacts during waste disposal. It follows that the 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of a reduced reliance on conventional gypsum and a reduced reliance on landfill at end-of-life. This category of impact sees the largest margin of differentiation between the high recycling and baseline systems: 10-12% reduced impact for the 25% recycled content system. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 69

72 Figure 8.9 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: acidification kg SO2-equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Points of note Transportation is a key factor that influences acidification impacts, due to engine emissions of acidifying gases. Life cycle stages that have a high transportation burden (gypsum transport, plasterboard distribution, end-of-life transport) accordingly contribute significantly to results for this impact category. Other combustion processes also contribute to acidification impacts, such as combustion of landfill gas and combustion of coal in power stations. This is likely to be the factor influencing the high contribution of conventional gypsum production and plasterboard disposal to acidification impacts. The 25% recycled content system shows savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production, transport and the avoidance of plasterboard disposal. This impact category sees one of the largest margins of differentiation between the high recycling and baseline systems: 8-11% reduced impact for the 25% recycled content system. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 70

73 Figure 8.10 Impact profile - one sheet of Type A plasterboard: eutrophication kg PO4 3- -equivalents % recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Baseline (low transport) Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Baseline (high transport) Points of note Transportation, additive production and effluent emissions are found to be key factors that influence eutrophication impacts. Life cycle stages that have a high transportation burden (gypsum transport, plasterboard distribution, end-of-life transport) or a result in emissions of effluent with high biological oxygen demand to watercourse (facing paper production) accordingly contribute significantly to results for this impact category. Plasterboard production also contributes significantly, and closer interrogation of results shows eutrophication impacts predominantly to be incurred in the production of corn starch additive and in the combustion of natural gas (and release of nitrogen oxide emissions). The 25% recycled content system shows some savings as a result of reduced conventional gypsum production, transport and the avoidance of plasterboard disposal. Alongside these savings, the high recycling, high transport scenario incurs additional burdens in waste collection for recycling. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 71

74 8.2 Comparing gypsum sources Comparative impact profiles for conventional gypsum and post-consumer recycled gypsum are shown in Table 8.6 to Table 8.8. The relative impact profiles clearly show post-consumer recycled gypsum to have a reduced environmental impact in comparison with the current mix of conventional gypsum sources used in Type A plasterboard manufacture (on a tonne-for-tonne basis). This is true for all categories of impact where a low transportation burden is incurred by the collected waste plasterboard. However, where waste plasterboard, and the recycled gypsum, must travel further to its point of use, the recycled gypsum shows a slightly greater potential for impact than conventional gypsum with respect to eutrophication and ozone layer depletion. 8.3 Comparing plasterboard end-of-life options Comparative impact profiles for plasterboard end-of-life options (disposal in mixed waste landfill, disposal in monocell landfill or recycling) are shown in Tables 8.9 to The relative impact profiles show that, where transport distances for post-consumer recycled plasterboard are low, reduced impacts over mixed waste landfill are seen for some categories of impact: global warming potential; ozone layer depletion; human toxicity; freshwater toxicity; photochemical oxidation; acidification; and eutrophication. For the most part, the reduction in impact results from avoided emissions associated with plasterboard disposal in landfill. Table 8.12 shows that, when a high transport scenario is considered, recycling only shows potential environmental benefits within the categories of global warming potential, freshwater toxicity and photochemical oxidation. With regards to ozone layer depletion, human toxicity, acidification and eutrophication, the impacts of increased transportation outweigh the benefits of avoided landfill. For two categories of impact, post-consumer waste recycling shows higher potential burdens than mixed waste landfill regardless of transport scenario: abiotic resource depletion; and marine aquatic ecotoxicity. For the most part, these additional burdens are borne as a result of the increased energy requirements of the recycling process, and in differences in collection requirements. It is interesting to note the greater potential impact of landfilling plasterboard in monocell, in comparison with mixed waste landfill, across a number of impact categories. For the most part, this is because of the greater diesel consumption burdens of disposal in monocell (per tonne of waste plasterboard) borne through the reduced economy of scale associated with a smaller site. Assumptions with regard to the operation requirements of mixed waste and monocell landfills are set out in Annex D. Transportation also plays a part. For example, with respect to the potential for acidification impact, disposing waste in monocell landfill shows a reduced impact over mixed waste landfill. When the likely transportation burden of waste travelling to monocell is taken into account, monocell performs comparatively worse than mixed waste landfill. Note that this study assesses plasterboard waste management routes and operations in 2007, when there was only one monocell accepting plasterboard waste in the UK. As a result, waste plasterboard from across the UK must travel, on average, a much greater distance to this site (calculated as an average of approximately 250 km). If the number of monocell sites accepting this waste stream increased, average transportation distances would decrease, and the potential burdens of monocell landfill would be reduced. Mixed waste landfill performs worse than monocell only within two categories of impact: global warming potential; and photochemical oxidation. These categories are those most influenced by assumptions regarding methane released from facing paper degradation. In mixed waste landfill, paper is assumed to degrade anaerobically and result in methane emissions, some of which are captured and combusted and some of which escape to the atmosphere. In a monocell landfill, it is assumed that fugitive methane emissions are negligible Hydrogen sulphide It is a point of note that the avoidance of H 2 S emissions is one of the key drivers for reducing the amount of waste plasterboard disposed in mixed waste landfill, and yet its influence on landfill impact profiles is not immediately apparent. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 72

75 H 2 S is an important emission in terms of nuisance (in particular odour), but also in relation to acidification and toxicity. The gas is combustible and will burn within a landfill flare or gas engine to produce acidifying oxides of sulphur. In interrogating the results of the assessment further, it is found that: H 2 S emissions contribute to the human toxicity profile for mixed waste landfill, but emissions of the gas, and their potential impact, are low in comparison with the burdens of diesel consumption on-site. By processing less waste and consuming a greater quantity of diesel per tonne throughput, the monocell landfill performs less well than a mixed waste landfill for this, and the majority of other categories of impact; and mixed waste landfill incurs greater acidification impacts than monocell landfill, partly as a result of H 2 S release and combustion. However, as previously discussed, this impact is over-shadowed by increased transportation burdens for monocell landfill. Note also that odour and nuisance elements of the impact caused by H 2 S emissions are not quantified in this assessment, as there is no scientifically robust and accepted method by which to do so. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 73

76 Table 8.6 Impact profile: one tonne of conventional gypsum (UK 2007 for Type A plasterboard) Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Gypsum production Gypsum transport Gypsum pre-processing Total Table 8.7 Impact profile: one tonne of post-consumer recycled gypsum (assuming low transport) Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Plasterboard collection Plasterboard recycling Transportation (plasterboard and gypsum) Gypsum pre-processing Total * On the basis that one tonne of post-consumer recycled gypsum displaces the production of one tonne of conventional gypsum (UK 2007 mix for Type A plasterboard) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 74

77 Table 8.8 Impact profile: one tonne of post-consumer recycled gypsum (assuming high transport) Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Plasterboard collection Plasterboard recycling Transportation (plasterboard and gypsum) Gypsum pre-processing Total Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 75

78 Table 8.9 Impact profile: one tonne of plasterboard waste to mixed waste disposal Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Plasterboard collection Plasterboard transport Disposal Total Table 8.10 Impact profile: one tonne of plasterboard waste to monocell disposal Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Plasterboard collection Plasterboard transport Disposal Total Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 76

79 Table 8.11 Impact profile: one tonne of plasterboard waste to post-consumer recycling (assuming low transport) Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Plasterboard collection Plasterboard transport Recycling Total Assumes split of construction & demolition waste arisings and onsite/offsite recycling as per baseline scenario Table 8.12 Impact profile: one tonne of plasterboard waste to post-consumer recycling (assuming high transport) Impact category Abiotic depletion Global warming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Freshwater aquatic ecotox. Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication Unit kg Sb eq kg CO 2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kg C 2 H 4 kg SO 2 eq kg PO 3-4 eq Plasterboard collection Plasterboard transport Recycling Total Assumes split of construction & demolition waste arisings and onsite/offsite recycling as per baseline scenario Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 77

80 8.4 Waste minimisation scenarios Table 8.13 shows the impact profiles generated for the waste minimisation scenarios. Table 8.13 Impact assessment results: waste minimisation scenarios Baseline: total scenario impact 13% wastage: total scenario impact 5% wastage: total scenario impact 13% wastage: savings in comparison with baseline 5% wastage: savings in comparison with baseline Impact Category Unit Abiotic depletion t Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) t CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) t CFC-11 eq Human toxicity t 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity t 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity t 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity t 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation t C 2 H Acidification t SO 2 eq Eutrophication 3- t PO 4 eq All scenarios relate to the in-situ use of 2550 tonnes of plasterboard; All scenarios are modelled based on the assumptions set out for the core assessment baseline, low transport system. Savings across all categories of impact are seen, as might be expected In global warming terms, these savings equate up to 158 tonnes of CO 2 eq for the scenario shown, and 62 kg CO 2 eq per tonne of plasterboard used insitu. 9.0 Sensitivity analysis The section describes the sensitivity analyses undertaken as part of the study. Sensitivity analysis is a process whereby key input parameters about which there may be uncertainty, or for which a range of values may exist, are tested. Key areas that have been identified for sensitivity analysis are: allocation of burdens to synthetic gypsum production; collection containers assumptions; collection vehicle assumptions; waste transfer and sorting assumptions; disposal of plasterboard waste in mixed waste landfill versus monocell landfill; the potential influence of changes in future grid electricity mixes; assumption regarding the proportion of plasterboard waste arising at construction versus demolition activities; and contamination rates in recovered waste plasterboard. 9.1 Allocation of burdens to conventional gypsum Section sets out study s assumptions with regard to allocation of burdens to synthetic gypsum production (FGD gypsum and titanogypsum). The sensitivity of results to these assumptions was tested by assuming no allocated burdens to synthetic gypsum production. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 78

81 Figure 9.1 Normalised comparison: assumed allocation vs 0% allocation % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication Baseline scenario (allocation) Baseline scenario (no allocation) 25% recyclate (allocation) 25% recyclate (no allocation) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. Figure 9.1 shows the reduced impact profile of the system for which no burden of synthetic gypsum was assumed. This is most marked for those categories of impact in which gypsum production burdens were found to contribute significantly. Showing a greater than 20% difference in system impacts across a number of categories, the results are considered to be sensitive to the assumed burdens allocated to synthetic gypsum production. 9.2 Collection containers Section sets out study s assumptions with regard to the number of times a waste plasterboard collection container is re-used. A mid-value was used in the assessment and the sensitivity of this assumption was tested by alternatively assuming a very high rate of re-use. By assuming this, we are allocating less of the container s production impacts to each tonne of plasterboard handled. Figure 9.2 shows that the assumption made predominantly affects toxicity categories, where up to 5% difference in impact is seen between systems with mid- and maximum re-use. Differences are approximately the same for the baseline system and the 25% recycled content system, indicating that there is little, or no, impact of this assumption on comparative assertions made in this assessment. With a <5% influence for the majority of categories, the results are not considered to be sensitive to this assumption. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 79

82 Figure 9.2 Normalised comparison: low vs high reuse of collection containers % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication Baseline (mid container re-use) Baseline (max container re-use) 25% recyclate (mid container re-use) 25% recyclate (max container re-use) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. 9.3 Collection vehicles Section sets out assumptions with regard to the vehicles (and capacities) used to collect and transport plasterboard waste. Different sized vehicles have different operating characteristics. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine the influence on results of assuming that plasterboard is collected in a larger number of smaller vehicles (7.5 t payload trucks in comparison with a majority 40 cu yd ro-ro). Figure 9.3 Normalised comparison: small vs larger collection vehicles % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication 25% recyclate (high transport) 25% recyclate (high transport, small vehicle) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. Figure 9.3 shows that the change in vehicle capacity assumption has a minimal influence on the plasterboard impact profiles. Within the current boundaries of uncertainty surrounding transportation requirements for recycled materials, the assessment results are not considered to be sensitive to transport vehicle assumptions made. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 80

83 9.4 Waste transfer The core assessment assumes that 50% of all collected waste passes through a waste transfer station. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine the influence on results should this be increased to 100% or decreased to 0%. Figure 9.4 Normalised comparisons: 0%, 50%, 100% waste transfer % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication Baseline scenario (50% transfer) Baseline scenario (0% transfer) Baseline scenario (100% transfer) 25% recyclate (50% transfer) 25% recyclate (0% transfer) 25% recyclate (100% transfer) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. Figure 9.4 shows that the change in waste transfer assumption has a minimal influence on results within each plasterboard system (on the basis of the relative transportation distances and vehicles assumed for direct and transferred waste). The results indicate that there is little influence of this assumption on the impact profiles or comparative assertions made in this assessment. 9.5 Monocell landfill The core assessment assumes, based on the survey results, that all disposed post-consumer plasterboard is sent to a mixed waste landfill. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine the influence on assessment results should it instead be sent to a monocell landfill. Figure 9.5 shows the difference in impact profile for the system for which disposal of plasterboard waste in monocell landfill was assumed. This is most marked for those categories of impact in which plasterboard disposal burdens were found to contribute significantly. Showing a greater than 20% difference in system impacts across a number of categories, the results are considered to be sensitive to the fate of waste plasterboard. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 81

84 Figure 9.5 Normalised comparison: post-consumer waste plasterboard to mixed waste landfill vs monocell landfill % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication Baseline scenario (mixed waste landfill) Baseline scenario (monocell) 25% recyclate (mixed waste landfill) 25% recyclate (monocell landfill) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. 9.6 Future electricity mix The core assessment assumes a current UK grid electricity mix. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine the influence on assessment results should the timeframe of the assessment be in future years, with an alternative grid electricity mix. The mix in 2020 forecast by the Dti, now (DBERR) was used to carry out this sensitivity test. Figure 9.6 Normalised comparison: current grid electricity mix vs projected mix in abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication % Baseline scenario (2007 elec mix) Baseline scenario (2020 elec mix) 25% recyclate (2007 elec mix) 25% recyclate (2020 elec mix) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. The assumed electricity mix affects two of the toxicity categories to the greatest degree, where up to 5% difference in impact is seen between systems with 2007 and 2020 electricity mix. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 82

85 Differences are approximately the same for the baseline system and the 25% recycled content system, indicating that there is little impact of this assumption on comparative assertions made in the assessment. With <5% influence for the majority of categories, the results are not considered to be sensitive to the timeframe of the study with regard to electricity mix. 9.7 Construction versus demolition collections The core assessment assumes a cap on the quantity of plasterboard waste collected from construction waste. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine the influence on results should this cap be increased (from 50% collected from construction waste for plasterboard manufacture to 75%). Figure 9.7 Normalised Comparison: Increased Collections from Construction Waste vs Demolition Waste % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication 25% recyclate (50% construction waste collection) 25% recyclate (75% construction waste collection) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems. Figure 9.7 shows the change in assumption to have minimal influence on impact profiles. As such, the assessment results are not considered to be sensitive to this assumption. 9.8 Contamination rates The core assessment assumes a minimal fate of residues production from recycling, as determined from data collected from plasterboard recyclers. A sensitivity test was carried out to determine the influence on results should residue rates from demolition-derived waste plasterboard instead be 10%. Figure 9.8 shows that the change in assumption to a 10% contamination rate waste has a minimal influence on results. The assessment results are not considered to be sensitive to the assumptions made. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 83

86 Figure 9.8 Normalised comparison: increased residue rates from plasterboard recycling % abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100) ozone layer depletion (ODP) human toxicity fresh water aquatic ecotox. marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation acidification eutrophication 25% recyclate (high transport, standard contamination) 25% recyclate (high transport, 10% contamination) For each category, the scenario showing the greatest impact scores 100%. Comparative impacts for all other scenarios are presented as a percentage of this in order to show the scale of difference between systems Interpretation and conclusions This study investigated the life cycle environmental impacts of Type A plasterboard production and use. Specifically the following plasterboard product was assessed: one sheet of Type A plasterboard, 12.5 mm thick, 1200 x 2400 mm, square edge profile. This is the most common type of plasterboard currently in production in the UK. The study sought to establish the environmental impacts across the life cycle stages of the product, and the potential environmental impact, or benefit, of reducing the conventional gypsum content of this product by increasing the use of post-consumer recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard. Three alternative systems were constructed. 1. Baseline - based on the current (2007) mix of gypsum used in Type A plasterboard production % recyclate - based on increased levels of post-consumer recycled gypsum (to a maximum of 15% total recycled gypsum content) % recyclate - based on increased levels of post-consumer recycled gypsum (to a maximum of 25% total recycled gypsum content). All systems assume current production techniques for Type A plasterboard in the UK. The high recyclate systems assume that post-consumer recycling of waste plasterboard at end-of-life must increase to meet the increasing feedstock demand Comparing the alternative systems The resulting impact profiles for the 15% recyclate system were proportionately between the baseline and 25% recyclate scenario. Therefore, for clarity in presenting the results only those for the baseline and 25% recyclate scenario are given in this section and compared. It will be seen later in this section that this does not affect the quality of the conclusions drawn. Resulting impact profiles for one sheet of baseline Type A plasterboard and one sheet of plasterboard incorporating 25% recycled gypsum (post-consumer and process waste derived) are shown in Table Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 84

87 Table 10.1 Impacts assessment results comparison: alternative product systems, one sheet of Type A plasterboard Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Impact category Unit Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq The impact profiles shown suggest that there are environmental benefits associated with increasing the recycled gypsum content in Type A plasterboard. Potential benefits are observed across all of the categories of environmental impact assessed. However, these benefits are small in comparison with overall system impacts. For example, the scale of potential savings associated with increasing recycled gypsum content to 25% for one sheet of product is shown in Table 10.2 and Table For the majority of impact categories, Table 10.2 and Table 10.3 show a less than 10% difference between the current product system and the system for which the proportion of recycled gypsum reaches a theoretical maximum. Within the boundaries of uncertainty in this assessment ( 1 ), this margin is too small to conclude a categorical benefit of increased gypsum recycling for use in Type A plasterboard production. Also note the difference in potential savings between the low and high transport scenarios. These represent the minimum and maximum distance that waste plasterboard and recovered gypsum is likely to travel (assumed to be 50 km and 450 km respectively). In reality, potential savings will lie somewhere in between these figures. Table 10.2 Savings in comparison with baseline 25% recycled content (assuming low transport) Savings as a% of total Impact category Unit Savings per sheet of Type A plasterboard impacts for the baseline system Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq % Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq % Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H % Acidification kg SO 2 eq % Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq % (1) An inevitable function of using secondary data for the production on energy and material inputs Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 85

88 Table 10.3 Savings in comparison with baseline 25% recycled content (assuming high transport) Impact Category Unit Savings per sheet of Type A plasterboard Savings as a% of total impacts for the baseline system Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq % Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq % Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq % Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H % Acidification kg SO 2 eq % Eutrophication kg PO 3-4 eq % Negative values denote a net impact in comparison with the baseline system The benefits of using post-consumer gypsum in plasterboard production are a function both of: avoiding the need to landfill waste plasterboard; and avoiding the need to produce an equivalent quantity of gypsum from conventional sources (natural or synthetic gypsum). This assessment has found these benefits to be small by comparison with the impacts of other stages in the plasterboard life cycle, such as gypsum calcination, plasterboard production and distribution Where do the majority of impacts and benefits arise from? The relative contribution of each life cycle stage to overall plasterboard impacts differs according to the category of impact assessed. In general, the following were found. Plasterboard production and calcination are two of the predominant contributors to abiotic resource depletion, global warming potential, ozone layer depletion and human toxicity, as a result of a high consumption of natural gas and fossil-derived electricity. Plasterboard and facing paper production also contribute greater than 50% of impacts in the categories: freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity and eutrophication. These impacts are incurred in the production of process additives and other inputs. Note that secondary data to describe these inputs are poor. Transportation steps in the plasterboard life cycle have been found to be key contributors to impacts in the following categories: ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidation, acidification and eutrophication. Conventional gypsum production is a key contributor to abiotic resource depletion, global warming potential, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation and acidification. The majority of impacts in gypsum production occur as a result of combustion of coal in power stations (and its allocation to the production of gypsum through oxidation of FGD residues). Gypsum pre-processing incurs relatively little burden across the plasterboard life cycle. Plasterboard disposal (in mixed waste landfill) is a key contributor to potential global warming, photochemical oxidation and acidification impacts. Life cycle stages associated with recycling (collection, transport, gypsum production and pre-processing) contribute relatively little to the overall impact profiles for plasterboard systems. From the above, it can be concluded that plasterboard systems with increased recycled gypsum content will show greater benefits in those categories to which conventional gypsum production and plasterboard waste disposal contribute most (as these are the processes avoided by recycling). Photochemical oxidation (smog formation) and acidification impacts are shown in the assessment to be predominantly affected by conventional gypsum production and plasterboard disposal (as well as transportation impacts). Tables 10.2 and 10.3 accordingly show potential savings to be greatest for these categories of impact. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 86

89 10.3 Waste minimisation The significance of plasterboard production stages in contributing to the life cycle impacts of Type A plasterboard is clear from the detailed results presented in this study. It follows that the plasterboard waste minimisation scenarios assessed showed considerable potential for environmental benefits. For example, in global warming terms, these savings equate up to 158 tonnes CO 2 equivalents for the scenario shown (a 750,000 contract, reducing wastage rates from 15% to 5%), and 62 kg CO 2 equivalents per tonne of plasterboard used in-situ. The results of the assessment suggest that efforts to reduce the environmental impact of Type A plasterboard production might be best targeted at minimising wastage (and thereby reducing production efforts for the equivalent amount of plasterboard that performs its function in-situ) Results sensitivity, study limitations and recommendations for further work Modelling assumptions Sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the assessment were not be sensitive to the majority of assumptions made in the assessment. This is with two exceptions, as follows. 1. Results are sensitive to the assumption that post-consumer plasterboard waste is sent to mixed waste landfill. This is a reasonable assumption and reflects current practice in the UK. However, note should be made of the change in system burdens that would occur should waste plasterboard instead be sent to monocell (for some categories an increase in impact and for others a decrease). 2. Results are sensitive to the burdens allocated to production of synthetic gypsum sources (primarily FGD gypsum). It is again considered that the assumptions made were reasonable, and the approach taken to allocating burden sound. However, note should be made of the reduced system burdens that would be seen should FGD gypsum production be allocated no environmental burden. The assessment assumes that the gypsum source (conventional vs recycled) has no influence on the resource intensity of calcination and plasterboard production. This is a potential limitation of the study and would benefit from further investigation Secondary datasets Results are also sensitive to the secondary datasets used in the assessment, particularly those datasets used to describe the burdens of additive and recycled paper inputs to plasterboard and facing paper production. It is a recommendation that further work should seek to improve data quality in these areas Study scope A further study limitation that is considered notable is its restricted scope. The study focuses on the closed-loop recycling of gypsum from post-consumer sources back into plasterboard production. There are a number of potential end uses for the gypsum recycled from waste plasterboard, including cement manufacture, road construction, use as a soil improver, for soil stabilisation and use as a replacement for clay in block manufacture. An assessment of the market potential for, and barriers to the use of, post-consumer recycled gypsum in alternative end uses has been carried out by WRAP [WRAP, 2008]. The assessment reported here has shown some environmental benefit associated with gypsum recycling in comparison with landfill. This benefit is not seen across all categories of impact, as recycling processing impacts (energy consumption) are higher than those for mixed waste landfill. It is also highly sensitive to the distance plasterboard waste is transported (see Table 10.4). Within the context of the functional unit of this study (one sheet of Type A plasterboard manufacture), the benefits observed have also been shown to be minor, overshadowed by the impacts of plasterboard manufacture. As a result, further work is recommended to investigate the potential benefits of using post-consumer recycled gypsum in local open-loop systems. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 87

90 Table 10.4 Comparative impact profiles: one tonne of plasterboard waste to disposal and recycling Mixed waste landfill Recycling (low transport) Recycling (high transport) Monocell Impact category Unit landfill Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H Acidification kg SO 2 eq Eutrophication kg PO 4-3- eq Table 10.4 shows the greater potential impact of landfilling plasterboard in monocell in comparison with mixed waste landfill across a number of impact categories (including human toxicity). This occurs for two predominant reasons: 1. the greater diesel consumption burdens of disposal in monocell (per tonne of waste plasterboard) borne through the reduced economy of scale associated with a smaller site; and 2. the increased transportation burden of waste plasterboard travelling to monocell landfill. This study is restricted in scope in assessing only plasterboard waste management operations in Information provided indicated that at this time there was only one monocell accepting plasterboard waste in the UK. As a result, waste plasterboard from across the UK must travel, on average, a much greater distance to this site. With an increasing number of monocell sites accepting this waste stream, average transportation distances will decrease, and the potential burdens of monocell landfill will be reduced. It is a further point of note that the avoidance of H 2 S emissions is one of the key drivers for reducing the amount of waste plasterboard disposed in mixed waste landfill, and yet its influence on landfill impact profiles is not immediately apparent. Landfill life cycle inventory development showed H 2 S to be generated in greater quantities in mixed waste landfill than monocell (an approximate five-fold increase). The high recycling plasterboard systems result in lower net H 2 S emissions, as greater quantities of waste plasterboard are diverted from landfill. Reductions are in the region of a 17% decrease in H 2 S emissions for the 25% recycled content system. Not all of the impacts associated with H 2 S emissions are quantified in this assessment - namely odour and nuisance - as there is no scientifically robust and accepted method by which to do so. This limits the completeness of impact assessment. Nevertheless, results presented are accurate and representative of the categories of impact assessed. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 88

91 11.0 References Althaus H.J., Chudacoff M., Hischier R., Jungbluth N., Primas A. and Osses M. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Chemicals. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 8, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. Althaus H.J., Blaser S., Classen M., Jungbluth N. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Metals. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 10, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. BSI (2008, tbp) PAS 109 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard. Joint WRAP BSI publication. To be published DTI (2006). Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statisitics (DUKES) DTI, London. Doka G. (2003) Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 13, EMPA St. Gallen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. FPDC (2006) Diverting plasterboard waste from landfill in the UK. Prepared by Oakdene Hollins, for FPDC. Hischier R. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Packaging and Graphical Paper. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 11, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. Jungbluth N. (2003) Erdöl. In: Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz (ed. Dones R.). Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 6, Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. Kellenberger D., Althaus H.-J. and Jungbluth N. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Building Products. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 7, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. Market Transformation Programme (MTP) (2006a). BNPB1 Plasterboard industry, product and market overview. Briefing Note, Defra Market Transformation Programme. MTP (2006b). BNPB2 Plasterboard waste management. Briefing Note, Defra Market Transformation Programme. Miller E.C. (2006). Scrubber Technologies for FGD. Global Gypsum, September Nazarko J., Schreiber O., Kuckshinrichs W. and Zapp P. (2006). Environmental Analysis of the Coal-based Power Production with Amine-based Carbon Capture. Accessed on 1/10/2007. National Lime Association (2003). Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation. Project Number Prepared by Sargent & Lundy, Chicago. WRAP (2006) Review of Plasterboard Material Flows and Barriers to Greater use of Recycled Plasterboard. Prepared by AEA Technology Plc, for WRAP WRAP (2008) Waste plasterboard market scoping study. Prepared by Enviros Consulting Ltd, for WRAP Spielmann M., Kägi T. and Tietje O. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Transport Services. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 14, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. Zah R., Hischier R. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Detergents. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 12, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 89

92 Annex A Impact assessment method (includes characterisation factors) Introduction Extracted From Simapro Name CML 2 baseline 2000 This method is an update from the CML 1992 method. This version is based on the spreadsheet version 2.02 (September 2001) as published on the CML web site and replaces the preliminary version. The CML 2 baseline method elaborates the problem-oriented (midpoint) approach. The CML Guide provides a list of impact assessment categories grouped into: A Obligatory impact categories (Category indicators used in most LCAs); B Additional impact categories (operational indicators exist, but are not often included in LCA studies); and C Other impact categories (no operational indicators available, therefore impossible to include quantitatively in LCA). In case several methods are available for obligatory impact categories, a baseline indicator is selected, based on the principle of best available practice. These baseline indicators are category indicators at "mid-point level" (problem oriented approach)". Baseline indicators are recommended for simplified studies. The guide provides guidelines for inclusion of other methods and impact category indicators in case of detailed studies and extended studies. Only baseline indicators are available in the CML method in SimaPro (based on CML Excel spreadsheet with characterisation and normalisation factors). In general, these indicators do not deviate from the ones in the spreadsheet. In case the spreadsheet contained synonyms of substance names already available in the substance list of the SimaPro database, the existing names are used. A distinction is made for emissions to agricultural soil and industrial soil, indicated with respectively (agr.) or (ind.) behind substance names emitted to soil. Emissions to seawater are indicated with (sea), while emissions to fresh water have no addition behind their substance name (we assume that all emissions to water in existing process records are emissions to fresh water). Depletion of abiotic resources This impact category indicator is related to extraction of minerals and fossil fuels due to inputs in the system. The Abiotic Depletion Factor (ADF) is determined for each extraction of minerals and fossil fuels (kg antimony equivalents/kg extraction) based on concentration reserves and rate of deaccumulation. Climate change The characterisation model as developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is selected for development of characterisation factors. Factors are expressed as Global Warming Potential for time horizon 100 years (GWP100), in kg carbon dioxide/kg emission. Stratospheric ozone depletion The characterisation model is developed by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and defines ozone depletion potential of different gasses (kg CFC-11 equivalent/ kg emission). Human toxicity Characterisation factors, expressed as Human Toxicity Potentials (HTP), are calculated with USES-LCA, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances for an infinite time horizon. For each toxic substance HTP's are expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/ kg emission. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 90

93 Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Eco-toxicity Potential (FAETP) are calculated with USES-LCA, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances. Characterisation factors are expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/ kg emission. Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Marine eco-toxicity refers to impacts of toxic substances on marine ecosystems (see description fresh water toxicity). Terrestrial ecotoxicity This category refers to impacts of toxic substances on terrestrial ecosystems (see description fresh water toxicity). Photo-oxidant formation Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) (also known as summer smog) for emission of substances to air is calculated with the UNECE Trajectory model (including fate), and expressed in kg ethylene equivalents/kg emission. Acidification Acidification Potentials (AP) is expressed as kg SO 2 equivalents/ kg emission. Eutrophication Nutrification potential (NP) is based on the stoichiometric procedure of Heijungs (1992), and expressed as kg PO 4 equivalents/ kg emission. Normalisation For each baseline indicator, normalisation scores are calculated for the reference situations: the world in 1990, Europe in 1995 and the Netherlands in Normalisation data are described in the report: Huijbregts et al LCA normalisation data for the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the World (1990 and 1995). May 01 Characterisation for sum parameters metals added. October 2001 Version 2.02 update. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 91

94 Table A.1 Abiotic depletion Compartment Abiotic resource depletion kg Sb eq Raw aluminium (in ore) Raw argon Raw bauxite 2.1E-09 Raw chromium (in ore) Raw chromium (ore) Raw coal Raw coal ETH Raw coal FAL Raw cobalt (in ore) Raw copper (in ore) Raw copper (ore) E-05 Raw crude oil Raw crude oil (feedstock) Raw crude oil ETH Raw crude oil FAL Raw crude oil IDEMAT Raw energy from coal Raw energy from lignite Raw energy from natural gas Raw energy from oil Raw iron (in ore) 8.43E-08 Raw iron (ore) Raw lead (in ore) Raw lead (ore) Raw lignite Raw lignite ETH Raw magnesium (in ore) 3.73E-09 Raw manganese (in ore) Raw manganese (ore) Raw mercury (in ore) Raw molybdene (in ore) Raw molybdenum (ore) E-05 Raw natural gas Raw natural gas (feedstock) Raw natural gas (vol) Raw natural gas ETH Raw natural gas FAL Raw nickel (in ore) Raw nickel (ore) E-06 Raw palladium (in ore) Raw platinum (in ore) 1.29 Raw K 3.13E-08 Raw silicon 2.99E-11 Raw silver 1.84 Raw sulphur Raw tin (in ore) Raw tin (ore) Raw uranium (in ore) Raw uranium FAL Raw zinc (in ore) Raw zinc (ore) E-05 Raw polonium (in ore) 4.79E+14 Raw krypton 20.9 Raw protactinium (in ore) Raw radon 1.2E+20 Raw xenon Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 92

95 Compartment Abiotic resource depletion kg Sb eq Raw radium (in ore) Raw calcium (Ca) 7.08E-10 Raw actinium (in ore) 6.33E+13 Raw thulium (in ore) Raw vanadium (in ore) Raw erbium (in ore) Raw praseodymium (in ore) Raw niobium (in ore) Raw holmium (in ore) Raw lutetium (in ore) Raw bismuth (in ore) Raw F Raw thorium (in ore) Raw lanthanum (in ore) 2.13E-08 Raw thallium (in ore) Raw iridium (in ore) 32.3 Raw rubidium (in ore) 2.36E-09 Raw arsenic (in ore) Raw osmium (in ore) 14.4 Raw ruthenium (in ore) 32.3 Raw cadmium (in ore) 0.33 Raw ytterbium (in ore) Raw Na 8.24E-11 Raw hafnium (in ore) Raw tantalum (in ore) Raw gadolinium (in ore) Raw neon Raw lithium (in ore) Raw strontium (in ore) Raw cesium (in ore) Raw dysprosium (in ore) Raw antimony (in ore) 1 Raw gallium (in ore) Raw samarium (in ore) Raw terbium (in ore) Raw boron (in ore) Raw indium (in ore) Raw phosphor (in ore) Raw helium 148 Raw germanium (in ore) Raw titanium (in ore) Raw scandium (in ore) 3.96E-08 Raw europium (in ore) Raw barium (in ore) 1.06E-10 Raw tellerium (in ore) 52.8 Raw selenium (in ore) Raw I Raw neodymium (in ore) 1.94E-17 Raw Cl 4.86E-08 Raw zirconium (in ore) Raw beryllium (in ore) Raw yttrium (in ore) Raw tungsten (in ore) Raw gold (in ore) 89.5 Raw cerium (in ore) 5.32E-09 Raw Br Raw natural gas (feedstock) FAL Raw crude oil (feedstock) FAL Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 93

96 Compartment Abiotic resource depletion kg Sb eq Raw coal (feedstock) FAL Raw uranium (in ore) ETH Raw rhodium (in ore) 32.3 Raw rhenium (in ore) Table A.2 Global warming potential Compartment Global warming (GWP100) kg CO 2 eq Air 1,1,1-trichloroethane 110 Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CO 2 1 Air CO 2 (fossil) 1 Air dichloromethane 9 Air HALON Air HCFC Air HCFC Air HCFC-141b 630 Air HCFC-142b 2000 Air HCFC Air HCFC-225ca 170 Air HCFC-225cb 530 Air HFC Air HFC Air HFC-134a 1300 Air HFC Air HFC-143a 3800 Air HFC-152a 140 Air HFC-227ea 2900 Air HFC Air HFC-236fa 6300 Air HFC-245ca 560 Air HFC Air HFC Air HFC-4310mee 1300 Air methane 21 Air N2O 310 Air perfluorbutane 7000 Air perfluorcyclobutane 8700 Air perfluorhexane 7400 Air perfluorpentane 7500 Air perfluorpropane 7000 Air SF Air tetrachloromethane 1400 Air trichloromethane 4 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 94

97 Table A.3 Ozone layer depletion Compartment Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq Air 1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.11 Air CFC-11 1 Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air CFC Air HALON Air HALON Air HALON Air HALON Air HALON Air HALON Air HALON Air HCFC Air HCFC Air HCFC-141b Air HCFC-142b Air HCFC Air HCFC-225ca Air HCFC-225cb Air methyl bromide 0.37 Air methyl chloride 0.02 Air tetrachloromethane 1.2 Table A.4 Human toxicity Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air 1,1,1-trichloroethane 16 Air 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 130 Air 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 120 Air 1,2-dichloroethane 6.8 Air 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene 120 Air 1,3-butadiene 2200 Air 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Air 2,4-D 6.6 Air acrolein 57 Air acrylonitrile 3400 Air Aldrin 19 Air ammonia 0.1 Air As Air Atrazine 4.5 Air Azinphos-methyl 14 Air Ba 760 Air Be Air Bentazon 2.1 Air benzene 1900 Air benzylchloride 3500 Air Carbendazim 19 Air Cd Air cobalt Air Cr (III) 650 Air Cr (VI) Air CS2 2.4 Air Cu 4300 Air di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.6 Air dibutylphthalate 25 Air dichloromethane 2 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 95

98 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air Dichlorvos 100 Air Dieldrin Air dioxin (TEQ) Air Diuron 210 Air DNOC 160 Air dust (PM10) 0.82 Air ethene 0.64 Air ethylbenzene 0.97 Air ethylene oxide Air Fentin-acetate 2200 Air formaldehyde 0.83 Air H 2 S 0.22 Air HCl 0.5 Air heavy metals 1634 Air hexachlorobenzene Air HF 2900 Air Hg 6000 Air m-xylene Air Malathion Air Mecoprop 120 Air Metabenzthiazuron 7.1 Air metals 1634 Air Metamitron 0.88 Air methyl bromide 350 Air Mevinfos 1 Air Mo 5400 Air naphthalene 8.1 Air Ni Air NO2 1.2 Air NOx (as NO2) 1.2 Air o-xylene 0.12 Air p-xylene Air PAH s Air Pb 470 Air pentachlorophenol 5.1 Air phenol 0.52 Air phthalic acid anhydride 0.41 Air propyleneoxide 1300 Air Sb 6700 Air Se Air Simazine 33 Air Sn 1.7 Air SO Air styrene Air tetrachloroethene 5.5 Air tetrachloromethane 220 Air Thiram 19 Air Tl Air toluene 0.33 Air trichloroethene 34 Air trichloromethane 13 Air Trifluralin 1.7 Air V 6200 Air vinyl chloride 84 Air Zn 100 Water 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 130 Water 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 120 Water 1,2-dichloroethane 28 Water 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene 120 Water 1,3-butadiene 7000 Water 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 9100 Water 2,4-D 3.5 Water acrylonitrile 7100 Water Aldrin 6000 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 96

99 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water As 950 Water Atrazine 4.6 Water Azinphos-methyl 2.5 Water Ba 630 Water Be Water Bentazon 0.73 Water benzene 1800 Water benzylchloride 2400 Water Carbendazim 2.5 Water Cd 23 Water Co 97 Water Cr (III) 2.1 Water Cr (VI) 3.4 Water Cu 1.3 Water di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.91 Water dibutylphthalate 0.54 Water dichloromethane 1.8 Water Dichlorvos 0.34 Water Dieldrin Water dioxins (TEQ) Water Diuron 53 Water DNOC 59 Water ethyl benzene 0.83 Water ethylene oxide Water formaldehyde Water hexachlorobenzene Water Hg 1400 Water Malathion 0.24 Water Mecoprop 200 Water metallic ions Water Metamitron 0.16 Water Mevinfos 11 Water Mo 5500 Water Ni 330 Water PAH s Water Pb 12 Water pentachlorophenol 7.2 Water phenol Water propylene oxide 2600 Water Sb 5100 Water Se Water Simazine 9.7 Water Sn Water styrene Water tetrachloroethene 5.7 Water tetrachloromethane 220 Water Thiram 3.3 Water toluene 0.3 Water trichloroethene 33 Water trichloromethane 13 Water Trifluralin 97 Water V 3200 Water vinyl chloride 140 Water Zn 0.58 Soil 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 54 Soil 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 43 Soil 1,2-dichloroethane (ind.) 5.7 Soil 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 52 Soil 1,3-butadiene (ind.) 2200 Soil 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (ind.) 170 Soil 2,4-D (agr.) 47 Soil acrylonitrile (ind.) 1500 Soil Aldrin (agr.) 4700 Soil As (ind.) 1000 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 97

100 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Atrazine (agr.) 21 Soil Azinphos-methyl (agr.) 39 Soil Bentazon (agr.) 15 Soil benzene (ind.) 1600 Soil benzylchloride (ind.) 490 Soil Carbendazim (agr.) 140 Soil Cd (agr.) Soil Cd (ind.) 67 Soil Cr (III) (ind.) 300 Soil Cr (VI) (ind.) 500 Soil Cu (ind.) 1.3 Soil di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate(ind) Soil dibutylphthalate (ind.) Soil dichloromethane (ind.) 1.3 Soil Dichlorvos (agr.) 0.97 Soil Dieldrin (agr.) 7600 Soil dioxin (TEQ) (ind.) Soil Diuron (agr.) 1300 Soil DNOC (agr.) 280 Soil ethylene oxide (ind.) 4600 Soil formaldehyde (ind.) Soil gamma-hch (Lindane) (agr.) 490 Soil hexachlorobenzene (ind.) Soil Hg (ind.) 1100 Soil Malathion (agr.) Soil Mecoprop (agr.) 740 Soil Metamitron (agr.) 6.5 Soil Mevinfos (agr.) 5.7 Soil Ni (ind.) 200 Soil Pb (ind.) 290 Soil pentachlorophenol (ind.) Soil propylene oxide (ind.) 590 Soil Simazine (agr.) 210 Soil styrene (ind.) Soil tetrachloroethene (ind.) 5.2 Soil tetrachloromethane (ind.) 220 Soil Thiram (agr.) 7.9 Soil toluene (ind.) 0.21 Soil trichloroethene (ind.) 32 Soil trichloromethane (ind.) 10 Soil vinyl chloride (ind.) 83 Soil Zn (ind.) 0.42 Soil phenol (agr.) 1.9 Soil Bentazon (ind.) 0.16 Water Fentin chloride (sea) 12 Water dihexylphthalate Soil Zineb (ind.) 0.1 Soil Iprodione (ind.) Water Fentin acetate 880 Soil Metolachlor (ind.) 0.11 Soil diethylphthalate (agr.) Water Aldicarb 61 Soil Fenitrothion (ind.) 0.32 Air DDT 110 Water carbon disulfide 2.4 Water Dichlorvos (sea) Soil 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 69 Soil 2-chlorophenol (agr.) 8.3 Air Propachlor 12 Soil Captan (agr.) Water toluene (sea) Soil 2,4-dichlorophenol (ind.) 1.9 Air Parathion-ethyl 3.3 Soil styrene (agr.) 0.48 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 98

101 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil barium (agr.) 360 Water m-xylene 0.34 Water Parathion-methyl 100 Water Trichlorfon 0.37 Soil Demeton (agr.) 5700 Water Cypermethrin 5.5 Soil ethylene (ind.) 0.62 Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene 1.1 Water Acephate (sea) Soil 1,3-dichlorobenzene (agr.) 250 Soil benzylchloride (agr.) 5500 Soil Oxamyl (agr.) 10 Air tributyltinoxide 7500 Water Pirimicarb (sea) Water Methomyl 3.3 Water dimethylphthalate 7.2 Air hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Soil As (agr.) Soil 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (ind.) 1.6 Water Dinoseb (sea) 0.63 Water Folpet (sea) 0.31 Soil Metazachlor (agr.) 49 Water o-xylene (sea) Soil anilazine (agr.) 0.08 Soil diisodecylphthalate (agr.) 110 Soil Dichlorvos (ind.) Water Anilazine 0.24 Water Metobromuron 8 Soil Azinphos-ethyl (agr.) 760 Water Aldicarb (sea) 0.24 Soil carbon disulfide (ind.) 2.2 Water Oxamyl 0.36 Water Chlorpyriphos (sea) Soil Metazachlor (ind.) 0.16 Air 2-chlorophenol 22 Water Fenthion (sea) 0.46 Air Tolclophos-methyl 0.06 Soil pentachlorobenzene (ind.) 140 Air dihexylphthalate 7000 Soil MCPA (agr.) 100 Soil Chlorpyriphos (ind.) 0.14 Soil Parathion-ethyl (agr.) 2.9 Soil Cyanazine (ind.) 0.35 Soil Glyphosate (ind.) Air Carbaryl 3.2 Soil Pyrazophos (agr.) 51 Water hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Soil benzene (agr.) Water Chlordane (sea) 1200 Water Dimethoate (sea) Water Iprodione (sea) Soil dioxin (TEQ) (agr.) Water Carbaryl 4.7 Soil Desmetryn (agr.) 650 Water Bifenthrin (sea) 0.75 Water 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 160 Water Heptenophos (sea) Soil Dinoseb (ind.) 97 Air cypermethrin 170 Soil Heptenophos (ind.) 0.02 Air 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene 1200 Soil Malathion (ind.) Soil para-xylene (agr.) 3 Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene (sea) 0.47 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 99

102 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil acrolein (ind.) 17 Air Glyphosate Water Glyphosate Water 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (sea) 0.26 Water 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (sea) 62 Soil Chlorothalonil (ind.) 1 Soil Acephate (ind.) 0.31 Soil Methabenzthiazuron (ind.) 0.36 Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene (sea) 4.1 Soil aphthalene (ind.) 1.6 Water 2,4-D (sea) Soil Dinoseb (agr.) 560 Soil diisooctylphthalate (ind.) Soil methylbromide (ind.) 260 Water Demeton 720 Soil Aldicarb (agr.) 510 Soil Endrin (agr.) 8400 Air Heptenophos 23 Soil Folpet (ind.) 1.5 Air Chlorpropham 0.34 Water 2,4-dichlorophenol (sea) Soil Diuron (ind.) 7.2 Soil Acephate (agr.) 22 Soil 1,1,1-trichloroethane (agr.) 16 Soil chlorobenzene (agr.) 7.1 Water Triazophos 320 Soil dihexylphthalate (ind.) 14 Water Mo (sea) 6800 Water Sb (sea) 8600 Soil Fenthion (agr.) 30 Water Oxamyl (sea) Water Fenthion 93 Water aphth (sea) Water Bentazon (sea) Water Fentin hydroxide (sea) 4.1 Air 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 35 Water Cu (sea) 5.9 Soil Mevinfos (ind.) Water 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene 92 Water Iprodione 0.18 Water Ethoprophos 1800 Water diisodecylphthalate (sea) 3.2 Water methyl-mercury Air dinoseb 3600 Soil 2,4,5-T (ind.) 0.18 Soil Methomyl (ind.) 0.69 Soil Triazophos (agr.) 1200 Water diisodecylphthalate 19 Soil Cyromazine (agr.) 280 Soil Thiram (ind.) 0.25 Water Co (sea) 60 Soil ethylbenzene (ind.) 0.5 Water propylene oxide (sea) 16 Soil vanadium (agr.) Water Dichlorprop (sea) Water thallium Water Chlorothalonil (sea) 0.45 Water Triazophos (sea) 1.6 Air 3-chloroaniline Soil bifenthrin (ind.) 0.3 Water tetrachloromethane (sea) 170 Water 4-chloroaniline (sea) 4 Water Parathion-ethyl 31 Air Chlorpyriphos 21 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 100

103 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil ethylene (agr.) 0.78 Soil pentachloronitrobenzene (agr.) 72 Soil Folpet (agr.) 13 Soil anthracene (ind.) 0.02 Air Parathion-methyl 53 Air Lindane 610 Water trichloroethene (sea) 14 Water Phoxim (sea) 0.29 Soil Heptachlor (agr.) 670 Soil Dimethoate (agr.) 320 Water Glyphosate (sea) Water 3,4-dichloroaniline (sea) 1.5 Soil Metolachlor (agr.) 11 Soil Dichlorprop (ind.) 0.26 Soil 1,4-dichlorobenzene (ind.) 0.74 Soil Chlordane (agr.) 2800 Water Linuron (sea) 0.65 Air Metobromuron 55 Soil toluene (agr.) 0.35 Water styrene (sea) 0.01 Air Oxamyl 1.4 Water Chloridazon (sea) Soil Dichlorprop (agr.) 4.5 Water Ethoprophos (sea) 13 Soil phenol (ind.) Soil Parathion-methyl (ind.) 1.7 Air Chlordane 6700 Soil Fentin acetate (agr.) 72 Water Metamitron (sea) Water Methabenzthiazuron 2.6 Air Permethrin 0.85 Soil Pyrazophos (ind.) 1.2 Soil 4-chloroaniline (ind.) 510 Air 4-chloroaniline 260 Soil thallium (agr.) Air Acephate 3.1 Water naphtalene 5.6 Air Metolachlor 2.6 Water benzylchloride (sea) 55 Soil Ethoprophos (agr.) 5700 Air Deltamethrin 1.6 Soil anilazine (ind.) Soil Dinoterb (ind.) 0.12 Soil Coumaphos (agr.) Water Permethrin (sea) 0.26 Air anilazine Water 1,2-dichloroethane (sea) 5.5 Soil tetrachloromethane (agr.) 220 Soil tributyltinoxide (ind.) 43 Water Pb (sea) 79 Water dioxins (TEQ) (sea) Water aphthalene (sea) 0.19 Soil Propoxur (ind.) 0.27 Soil dibutylphthalate (agr.) 1.3 Air Ethoprophos 1100 Soil diethylphthalate (ind.) Soil Pirimicarb (ind.) 0.29 Water Metazachlor (sea) Air Dichlorprop 1.1 Water 3-chloroaniline (sea) 2.1 Water p-xylene 0.35 Water butylbenzylphthalate (sea) Water V (sea) 6200 Water Chlordane 740 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 101

104 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Cd (sea) 100 Soil acrylonitrile (agr.) Soil Co (agr.) 2400 Soil butylbenzylphthalate (ind.) Water Thiram (sea) Soil Endrin (ind.) 750 Water methyl-mercury (sea) Soil Carbendazim (ind.) 0.43 Air 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 8.3 Water ethylene oxide (sea) 540 Soil Propoxur (agr.) 270 Water DDT (sea) 34 Water Deltamethrin (sea) Water benzene (sea) 210 Soil antimony (agr.) 8900 Soil diisooctylphthalate (agr.) 32 Soil Dieldrin (ind.) 1500 Water dioctylphthalate (sea) 1.3 Water Chlorpropham (sea) Air Pyrazophos 25 Air Triazophos 210 Air Oxydemethon-methyl 120 Soil dioctylphthalate (agr.) 8.6 Soil Oxamyl (ind.) Soil pentachlorophenol (agr.) 0.15 Soil Linuron (ind.) 9.4 Soil Chloridazon (ind.) 0.02 Water Endosulfan (sea) Soil propylene oxide (agr.) Soil Atrazine (ind.) 0.88 Soil Pb (agr.) 3300 Soil 2,4-dichlorophenol (agr.) 740 Water Chlorfenvinphos (sea) 3.8 Soil Metamitron (ind.) Water hexachlorobenzene (sea) Water o-xylene 0.42 Water Fenitrothion (sea) 0.09 Water Coumaphos (sea) 220 Water Ni (sea) 750 Soil PAH (carcinogenic) (agr.) Soil Cyanazine (agr.) 24 Soil Zineb (agr.) 20 Soil ethylbenzene (agr.) 0.75 Soil hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (agr.) Soil Azinphos-methyl (ind.) Air butylbenzylphthalate 10 Water Tri-allate (sea) 1.2 Water pentachlorophenol (sea) 0.14 Water Mecoprop (sea) 0.84 Soil dimethylphthalate (ind.) 0.27 Water 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) 30 Water Methabenzthiazuron (sea) Soil Tolclophos-methyl (agr.) 11 Soil Aldicarb (ind.) 13 Air pentachloronitrobenzene 190 Soil hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (ind.) Soil hexachlorobenzene (agr.) Soil vanadium (ind.) 1700 Soil bifenthrin (agr.) 29 Soil trichloroethene (agr.) 32 Soil DDT (agr.) 270 Water Captafol (sea) 9.7 Water Methomyl (sea) Soil Deltamethrin (ind.) 0.03 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 102

105 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water phthalic anhydride Soil 1,2-dichloroethane (agr.) 1300 Water diethylphthalate 0.14 Soil Cu (agr.) 94 Water dimethylphthalate (sea) Soil Benomyl (ind.) Water Permethrin 23 Soil 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) 80 Air diazinon 59 Water Folpet 8.6 Soil Cr (III) (agr.) 5100 Air 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 290 Soil Chloridazon (agr.) 2.2 Soil Fentin hydroxide (agr.) 88 Water Parathion-methyl (sea) 0.54 Air methomyl 6.2 Water Propoxur 1.3 Soil meta-xylene (ind.) Water Deltamethrin 2.8 Soil Dimethoate (ind.) 3 Water 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (sea) 220 Water methylbromide 300 Water PAH (sea) Soil Oxydemethon-methyl (ind.) 3.8 Soil Chlorothalonil (agr.) 0.94 Water 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (sea) 56 Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene 74 Soil 3,4-dichloroaniline (ind.) 31 Water thallium (sea) Water Dinoseb 160 Air anthracene 0.52 Water Mevinfos (sea) Soil Triazophos (ind.) 37 Water Isoproturon 13 Water tributyltinoxide (sea) 55 Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene (sea) 30 Water HF (sea) 3600 Water Azinphos-methyl (sea) Air Bifenthrin 19 Air diethylphthalate 0.32 Soil Aldrin (ind.) 160 Water diethylphthalate (sea) Water 2,4,5-T 1.9 Water Hg (sea) 8200 Water Cypermethrin (sea) Soil trichloromethane (agr.) 14 Water Trichlorfon (sea) Soil Mecoprop (ind.) 42 Air Iprodione 0.28 Water Chlorpyriphos 44 Soil Benomyl (agr.) 0.43 Soil Chlordane (ind.) 27 Soil 3-chloroaniline (agr.) Soil Ni (agr.) 2700 Soil Fenthion (ind.) 1.5 Water Lindane 830 Soil 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 56 Soil tin (agr.) 13 Water Captafol 500 Water Cr (VI) (sea) 17 Water Chlorfenvinphos 810 Air tri-allate 9.7 Soil Trichlorfon (ind.) 0.02 Air pentachlorobenzene 410 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 103

106 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air 2,4,5-T 0.89 Soil selenium (ind.) Air 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene 46 Water dibutylphthalate (sea) Water Cr (III) (sea) 10 Air chlorobenzene 9.2 Soil Fentin chloride (agr.) 130 Soil Simazine (ind.) 2.2 Soil 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 14 Soil methylbromide (agr.) 260 Water Parathion-ethyl (sea) 0.18 Soil Pirimicarb (agr.) 26 Water Pyrazophos 53 Soil 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 42 Water trichloromethane (sea) 6 Air Captafol 87 Soil Propachlor (ind.) 0.14 Air Endrin 1200 Soil Fentin chloride (ind.) 13 Soil thallium (ind.) Air Fentin hydroxide 850 Soil 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) 180 Air Desmetryn 95 Soil Iprodione (agr.) 1.8 Air Pirimicarb 3.4 Air MCPA 15 Soil Tri-allate (agr.) 5.8 Soil dioctylphthalate (ind.) Water 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene 1700 Water vinyl chloride (sea) 43 Water Fentin hydroxide 870 Soil gamma-hch (Lindane) (ind.) 52 Soil butylbenzylphthalate (agr.) 0.31 Air coumaphos 780 Soil Isoproturon (ind.) 2.8 Soil Captafol (agr.) 960 Water phenol (sea) Water Diazinon (sea) 0.27 Water diisooctylphthalate 18 Soil antimony (ind.) 2600 Water Captan (sea) Water Cyromazine (sea) Air 3,4-dichloroaniline 220 Water Metobromuron (sea) Soil Trichlorfon (agr.) 33 Soil Chlorpyriphos (agr.) 14 Soil Desmetryn (ind.) 2.9 Water pentachloronitrobenzene (sea) 46 Soil 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (ind.) 2.9 Water Anilazine (sea) Water 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) 25 Air dioctylphthalate 19 Air 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 50 Water Trifluralin (sea) 6 Soil 1,2-dichlorobenzene (agr.) 7.3 Soil Diazinon (agr.) 120 Soil methyl-mercury (agr.) Air 1,2-dichlorobenzene 9.1 Water Be (sea) Soil di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (agr.) 1.8 Air Metazachlor 6.8 Soil 2-chlorophenol (ind.) 1.4 Water HF 3600 Water Tolclophos-methyl (sea) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 104

107 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Chlorpropham (ind.) Soil Co (ind.) 59 Water Metazachlor 1.7 Soil Fentin acetate (ind.) 9.2 Water Cyromazine 5.4 Water 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (sea) 54 Soil Dinoterb (agr.) 0.36 Air Disulfothon 290 Water phthalic anhydride (sea) Soil methyl-mercury (ind.) Soil Tolclophos-methyl (ind.) 0.04 Water Desmetryn 50 Water Chlorothalonil 6.7 Water Pirimicarb 1.7 Water formaldehyde (sea) Soil Linuron (agr.) 170 Soil 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (agr.) Water 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 45 Soil tributyltinoxide (agr.) 290 Water Azinphos-ethyl (sea) 1.6 Water Chloridazon 0.14 Water Phoxim 12 Air Captan 0.59 Soil Phoxim (agr.) 25 Water Tri-allate 83 Water 2,4,5-T (sea) Soil beryllium (ind.) 7000 Soil Carbaryl (agr.) 21 Soil Captan (ind.) Soil beryllium (agr.) Soil meta-xylene (agr.) 3.8 Water Endrin (sea) 1600 Water Metolachlor 0.55 Water Aldrin (sea) 780 Soil tetrachloroethene (agr.) 6.4 Water Se (sea) Air Chlorothalonil 8.4 Soil Propachlor (agr.) 15 Air cyromazine 38 Soil Parathion-ethyl (ind.) 0.11 Water ethene 0.65 Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane (sea) 9.6 Soil ortho-xylene (agr.) 5 Air Propoxur 37 Air Fenitrothion 5.9 Water di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (sea) 0.04 Water Carbendazim (sea) Soil Heptenophos (agr.) 3.4 Air Linuron 14 Soil Endosulfan (ind.) Soil Coumaphos (ind.) 1600 Soil Phtalic anhydride (ind.) Air Fentin chloride 840 Water acrylonitrile (sea) 51 Water Coumaphos Soil Cr (VI) (agr.) 8500 Water hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (sea) Soil Trifluarin (ind.) 0.68 Soil DDT (ind.) 1.8 Water Zineb (sea) Water Bifenthrin 98 Water Simazine (sea) Air Aldicarb 72 Soil Cypermethrin (agr.) 5200 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 105

108 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water 3,4-dichloroaniline 130 Water Disulfothon (sea) 1.5 Soil barium (ind.) 320 Air cyanazine 3.5 Soil Tri-allate (ind.) 0.36 Soil 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 5.2 Water Metolachlor (sea) Soil Phtalic anhydride (agr.) 0.01 Water Linuron 110 Air Chlorfenvinphos 270 Water Acephate 2.1 Water Tolclophos-methyl 1 Soil 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) 84 Water m-xylene (sea) 0.01 Soil 1,3-dichlorobenzene (ind.) 50 Water Endosulfan 17 Soil Demeton (ind.) 89 Air Benomyl Soil DNOC (ind.) 2.8 Air Chloridazon Water Carbofuran (sea) 0.21 Soil 3-chloroaniline (ind.) 460 Soil Zn (agr.) 64 Air Folpet 2 Soil Chlorfenvinphos (agr.) 1200 Water 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 180 Water 2-chlorophenol (sea) 0.35 Water Benomyl (sea) Air Azinphos-ethyl 200 Soil Methabenzthiazuron (agr.) 51 Air 1,3-dichlorobenzene 62 Water cyanazine 6 Water 2-chlorophenol 70 Soil Endosulfan (agr.) 0.26 Air diisooctylphthalate 310 Soil Azinphos-ethyl (ind.) 6.9 Water Zn (sea) 3.2 Air methyl-mercury Soil Diazinon (ind.) 3.2 Water anthracene (sea) 0.16 Water acrolein 59 Water anthracene 2.1 Air Phoxim 0.97 Air 1,4-dichlorobenzene 1 Soil Chlorfenvinphos (ind.) 44 Soil Trifluarin (agr.) 120 Soil hydrogen fluoride (agr.) 1800 Water Ba (sea) 800 Soil Permethrin (ind.) Soil Fentin hydroxide (ind.) 8.5 Air zineb 4.8 Soil 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (agr.) 31 Water Demeton (sea) 0.3 Water MCPA 15 Water 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 35 Soil 3,4-dichloroaniline (agr.) 1700 Water DDT 37 Soil selenium (agr.) Water Malathion (sea) Soil 2,4-D (ind.) 0.72 Soil PAH (carcinogenic) (ind.) 2700 Water Heptachlor 3400 Soil Cyromazine (ind.) 1.3 Water chlorobenzene 9.1 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 106

109 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Carbofuran (ind.) 8 Water Heptachlor (sea) 43 Water Oxydemethon-methyl 74 Water Atrazine (sea) Soil aphthalene (agr.) 4.8 Soil pentachlorobenzene (agr.) 4500 Water Sn (sea) 0.11 Water Propachlor 1.6 Water 1,3-butadiene (sea) 450 Water 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (sea) 0.61 Air dinoterb 170 Water pentachlorobenzene (sea) 410 Water DNOC (sea) Water Propachlor (sea) Soil Carbofuran (agr.) 1400 Water Fentin chloride 860 Water diisooctylphthalate (sea) 9.7 Water Fenitrothion 22 Soil Disulfoton (ind.) 2 Soil Fenitrothion (agr.) 12 Soil Captafol (ind.) 79 Air 2,4-dichlorophenol 95 Soil Carbaryl (ind.) 0.15 Air diisodecylphthalate 46 Soil anthracene (agr.) 0.51 Soil 1,2-dichlorobenzene (ind.) 6.9 Water 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (sea) 47 Soil Permethrin (agr.) 11 Soil ethylene oxide (agr.) Water MCPA (sea) Water pentachloronitrobenzene 91 Air Isoproturon 130 Water Disulfothon 340 Soil dichloromethane (agr.) 2.4 Soil diisodecylphthalate (ind.) Water ethyl benzene (sea) 0.07 Water Propoxur (sea) Water Diuron (sea) 0.19 Soil Parathion-methyl (agr.) 24 Water Dichlorprop 24 Water dioctylphthalate 6.3 Soil Isoproturon (agr.) 960 Soil formaldehyde (agr.) 2.3 Soil Methomyl (agr.) 43 Water Zineb 1.7 Water Heptenophos 1.3 Soil hydrogen fluoride (ind.) 1800 Soil dihexylphthalate (agr.) 1200 Soil 2,4,5-T (agr.) 5.8 Water pentachlorobenzene 1200 Soil chlorobenzene (ind.) 6.8 Soil ortho-xylene (ind.) Soil Heptachlor (ind.) 4.4 Soil Glyphosate (agr.) Water Dimethoate 18 Water As (sea) 2400 Water 3-chloroaniline 3500 Soil 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 5.4 Water p-xylene (sea) Water acrolein (sea) 0.8 Water Benomyl 0.14 Soil tin (ind.) 0.52 Soil para-xylene (ind.) Soil Oxydemethon-methyl (agr.) 610 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 107

110 Compartment x Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil 1,4-dichlorobenzene (agr.) 2.9 Soil dimethylphthalate (agr.) 28 Water tetrachloroethene (sea) 2.8 Water Carbaryl (sea) Air dimethylphthalate 210 Water Desmetryn (sea) 0.12 Air Demeton 71 Soil carbon disulfide (agr.) 3.6 Soil Ethoprophos (ind.) 380 Water Azinphos-ethyl 460 Water chlorobenzene (sea) 5.2 Soil 1,1,1-trichloroethane (ind.) 16 Soil Chlorpropham (agr.) 2.1 Water dichloromethane (sea) 0.3 Air Carbofuran 200 Air dimethoate 44 Air Endosulfan 6.7 Soil 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (ind.) 460 Soil 4-chloroaniline (agr.) Water Isoproturon (sea) Water Dinoterb 2.5 Soil 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (agr.) 5.3 Soil 1,3-butadiene (agr.) 3100 Soil Metobromuron (agr.) 410 Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane 16 Soil pentachloronitrobenzene (ind.) 4.3 Water Lindane (sea) 6.1 Water Chlorpropham 1 Water tributyltinoxide 3400 Soil Mo (ind.) 3100 Water Diazinon 66 Water Captan Soil Hg (agr.) 5900 Water cyanazine (sea) Soil vinyl chloride (agr.) 520 Soil Cypermethrin (ind.) 1.8 Water Fentin acetate (sea) 4.1 Water dihexylphthalate (sea) 370 Water methylbromide (sea) 25 Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene 8.9 Water 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) 30 Air Heptachlor 40 Soil Phoxim (ind.) 0.38 Water Dieldrin (sea) 5500 Soil Metobromuron (ind.) 1.9 Water Pyrazophos (sea) 0.23 Soil Deltamethrin (agr.) 0.16 Soil Mo (agr.) 6200 Water Endrin 6000 Air Trichlorfon 4.4 Soil 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (agr.) 1800 Water Carbofuran 56 Air Fenthion 63 Water 4-chloroaniline 2900 Soil acrolein (agr.) 230 Soil MCPA (ind.) 0.97 Water carbon disulfide (sea) 0.48 Water Dinoterb (sea) Water Oxydemethon-methyl (sea) 0.01 Water 2,4-dichlorophenol 16 Soil Disulfoton (agr.) 170 Air dust (PM10) stationary 0.82 Air dust (PM10) mobile 0.82 Water butylbenzylphthalate Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 108

111 Table A.5 Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air 1,1,1-trichloroethane Air 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene Air 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene Air 1,2-dichloroethane Air 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene Air 1,3-butadiene Air 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 5.9 Air 2,4-D 39 Air acrolein 520 Air acrylonitrile 0.41 Air Aldrin 2.7 Air As 50 Air Atrazine 360 Air Azinphos-methyl 420 Air Ba 43 Air Be Air Bentazon 5.6 Air benzene Air benzo(a)anthracene 42 Air benzo(a)pyrene 88 Air benzylchloride 0.76 Air Carbendazim 3000 Air Cd 290 Air cobalt 640 Air Cr (III) 1.9 Air Cr (VI) 7.7 Air CS Air Cu 220 Air di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.35 Air dibutylphthalate 0.56 Air dichloromethane Air Dichlorvos 510 Air Dieldrin 200 Air dioxin (TEQ) Air Diuron 530 Air DNOC 3.4 Air ethene 1.4E-11 Air ethylbenzene Air ethylene oxide Air Fentin-acetate 4300 Air fluoranthene 18 Air formaldehyde 8.3 Air heavy metals Air hexachlorobenzene 1.3 Air HF 4.6 Air Hg 320 Air m-xylene Air Malathion 1800 Air Mecoprop 37 Air Metabenzthiazuron 70 Air metals Air Metamitron 0.93 Air methyl bromide Air Mevinfos 9300 Air Mo 97 Air naphthalene 0.5 Air Ni 630 Air o-xylene Air p-xylene Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 109

112 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air PAH's 170 Air Pb 2.4 Air pentachlorophenol 11 Air phenol 1.5 Air phthalic acid anhydride Air propyleneoxide Air Sb 3.7 Air Se 550 Air Simazine 2100 Air Sn 2.5 Air styrene Air tetrachloroethene Air tetrachloromethane Air Thiram 2700 Air Tl 1600 Air toluene Air trichloroethene Air trichloromethane Air Trifluralin 9.9 Air V 1700 Air vinyl chloride Air Zn 18 Water 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 4 Water 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 3.5 Water 1,2-dichloroethane Water 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene 5 Water 1,3-butadiene 3 Water 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 290 Water 2,4-D 400 Water acrylonitrile 79 Water Aldrin Water As 210 Water Atrazine 5000 Water Azinphos-methyl Water Ba 230 Water Be Water Bentazon 51 Water benzene Water benzo(a)anthracene Water benzo(a)pyrene Water benzylchloride 200 Water Carbendazim Water Cd 1500 Water Co 3400 Water Cr (III) 6.9 Water Cr (VI) 28 Water Cu 1200 Water di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 79 Water dibutylphthalate 79 Water dichloromethane Water Dichlorvos Water Dieldrin Water dioxins (TEQ) Water Diuron 9400 Water DNOC 110 Water ethyl benzene 0.55 Water ethylene oxide 9.8 Water fluoranthene Water formaldehyde 280 Water hexachlorobenzene 150 Water Hg 1700 Water Malathion Water Mecoprop 380 Water metallic ions Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 110

113 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Metamitron 23 Water Mevinfos Water Mo 480 Water Ni 3200 Water PAH's Water Pb 9.6 Water pentachlorophenol 710 Water phenol 240 Water propylene oxide 4 Water Sb 20 Water Se 2900 Water Simazine Water Sn 10 Water styrene 0.44 Water tetrachloroethene 0.7 Water tetrachloromethane 0.21 Water Thiram Water toluene 0.29 Water trichloroethene Water trichloromethane Water Trifluralin Water V 9000 Water vinyl chloride Water Zn 92 Soil 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 0.03 Soil 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (ind.) Soil 1,2-dichloroethane (ind.) Soil 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (ind.) Soil 1,3-butadiene (ind.) Soil 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (ind.) 4.8 Soil 2,4-D (agr.) 29 Soil acrylonitrile (ind.) 8.1 Soil Aldrin (agr.) 280 Soil As (ind.) 130 Soil Atrazine (agr.) 340 Soil Azinphos-methyl (agr.) 190 Soil Bentazon (agr.) 8.3 Soil benzene (ind.) Soil benzo(a)pyrene (ind.) 530 Soil benzylchloride (ind.) 3.2 Soil Carbendazim (agr.) 2000 Soil Cd (agr.) 780 Soil Cd (ind.) 780 Soil Cr (III) (ind.) 5.3 Soil Cr (VI) (ind.) 21 Soil Cu (ind.) 590 Soil di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate(ind) Soil dibutylphthalate (ind.) 0.31 Soil dichloromethane (ind.) Soil Dichlorvos (agr.) 74 Soil Dieldrin (agr.) 600 Soil dioxin (TEQ) (ind.) Soil Diuron (agr.) 350 Soil DNOC (agr.) 1.2 Soil ethylene oxide (ind.) 0.98 Soil fluoranthene (ind.) 76 Soil formaldehyde (ind.) 44 Soil gamma-hch (Lindane) (agr.) 97 Soil hexachlorobenzene (ind.) 4.3 Soil Hg (ind.) 850 Soil Malathion (agr.) 160 Soil Mecoprop (agr.) 30 Soil Metamitron (agr.) 0.41 Soil Mevinfos (agr.) 350 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 111

114 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Ni (ind.) 1700 Soil Pb (ind.) 6.5 Soil pentachlorophenol (ind.) 1.3 Soil propylene oxide (ind.) 0.48 Soil Simazine (agr.) 2300 Soil styrene (ind.) Soil tetrachloroethene (ind.) Soil tetrachloromethane (ind.) Soil Thiram (agr.) 690 Soil toluene (ind.) Soil trichloroethene (ind.) Soil trichloromethane (ind.) Soil vinyl chloride (ind.) Soil Zn (ind.) 48 Soil phenol (agr.) 3.5 Soil Bentazon (ind.) 11 Water Fentin chloride (sea) 18 Water dihexylphthalate 110 Soil Zineb (ind.) 1400 Soil Iprodione (ind.) 1.9 Water Fentin acetate Soil Metolachlor (ind.) 5800 Soil diethylphthalate (agr.) 0.16 Water Aldicarb Soil Fenitrothion (ind.) 3000 Air DDT 320 Water carbon disulfide 110 Water Dichlorvos (sea) Soil 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil 2-chlorophenol (agr.) 7.9 Air Propachlor 20 Soil Captan (agr.) 0.4 Water toluene (sea) Soil 2,4-dichlorophenol (ind.) 9.2 Air Parathion-ethyl 2800 Soil styrene (agr.) Soil barium (agr.) 110 Water m-xylene 0.6 Water Parathion-methyl Water Trichlorfon Soil Demeton (agr.) 800 Water Cypermethrin Soil ethylene (ind.) 1.1E-09 Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene 1 Water Acephate (sea) Soil 1,3-dichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil benzylchloride (agr.) 0.92 Soil Oxamyl (agr.) 30 Air tributyltinoxide 7700 Water Pirimicarb (sea) Water Methomyl Water dimethylphthalate 3.1 Air hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 46 Soil As (agr.) 130 Soil 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (ind.) 120 Water Dinoseb (sea) 0.11 Water Folpet (sea) 16 Soil Metazachlor (agr.) 3.9 Water o-xylene (sea) Soil anilazine (agr.) 0.21 Soil diisodecylphthalate (agr.) Soil Dichlorvos (ind.) 300 Water Anilazine 1100 Water Metobromuron 430 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 112

115 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Azinphos-ethyl (agr.) 2800 Water Aldicarb (sea) 0.12 Soil carbon disulfide (ind.) 0.34 Water Oxamyl 650 Water Chlorpyriphos (sea) 0.23 Soil Metazachlor (ind.) 14 Air 2-chlorophenol 13 Water Fenthion (sea) 0.26 Air Tolclophos-methyl 0.15 Soil pentachlorobenzene (ind.) 1.1 Air dihexylphthalate 0.5 Soil MCPA (agr.) 0.46 Soil Chlorpyriphos (ind.) 1400 Soil Parathion-ethyl (agr.) 500 Soil Cyanazine (ind.) 3000 Soil Glyphosate (ind.) 3.7 Air Carbaryl 110 Soil Pyrazophos (agr.) 250 Water hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Air phenanthrene 1.3 Soil benzene (agr.) Soil chrysene (ind.) 290 Water Chlordane (sea) 31 Water Dimethoate (sea) Water Iprodione (sea) 3.8E-09 Soil dioxin (TEQ) (agr.) Soil phenanthrene (ind.) 1.2 Water Carbaryl 4500 Soil Desmetryn (agr.) 3 Water fluoranthene (sea) 0.87 Water Bifenthrin (sea) Water 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 16 Water Heptenophos (sea) Soil Dinoseb (ind.) Air cypermethrin Soil Heptenophos (ind.) 120 Air 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene 11 Soil Malathion (ind.) 650 Soil para-xylene (agr.) Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene (sea) Air chrysene 39 Soil acrolein (ind.) Air Glyphosate 22 Water Glyphosate 1400 Water 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (sea) Water 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (sea) Soil Chlorothalonil (ind.) 3.7 Soil Acephate (ind.) 160 Soil Methabenzthiazuron (ind.) 140 Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene (sea) Soil naphtalene (ind.) 12 Water 2,4-D (sea) 1.1E-10 Soil Dinoseb (agr.) Soil diisooctylphthalate (ind.) Soil methylbromide (ind.) 0.14 Water Demeton Soil Aldicarb (agr.) Soil Endrin (agr.) Air Heptenophos 120 Soil Folpet (ind.) Air Chlorpropham 2.3 Water 2,4-dichlorophenol (sea) Soil Diuron (ind.) 1100 Soil Acephate (agr.) 51 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 113

116 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil 1,1,1-trichloroethane (agr.) Soil chlorobenzene (agr.) Water Triazophos Soil dihexylphthalate (ind.) Water Mo (sea) 6.6E-19 Soil fluoranthene (agr.) 19 Water Sb (sea) 7.6E-21 Soil Fenthion (agr.) 3500 Water Oxamyl (sea) Water Fenthion Water ethene (sea) 1E-12 Water Bentazon (sea) 7.4E-09 Water Fentin hydroxide (sea) Air 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene Water Cu (sea) 4.1E-20 Soil Mevinfos (ind.) 1500 Soil chrysene (agr.) 74 Water 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene 14 Water Iprodione 160 Water Ethoprophos Water diisodecylphthalate (sea) Water methyl-mercury Air dinoseb Soil 2,4,5-T (ind.) 1.5 Soil Methomyl (ind.) Soil Triazophos (agr.) 5800 Water diisodecylphthalate 86 Soil Cyromazine (agr.) 6500 Soil Thiram (ind.) 4400 Water Co (sea) 1.2E-18 Soil ethylbenzene (ind.) Water propylene oxide (sea) Soil vanadium (agr.) 4700 Water Dichlorprop (sea) 1.6E-12 Water chrysene Water thallium 8000 Water Chlorothalonil (sea) 0.14 Water Triazophos (sea) Air 3-chloroaniline 100 Water phenanthrene 520 Soil bifenthrin (ind.) 410 Water tetrachloromethane (sea) Water 4-chloroaniline (sea) Water Parathion-ethyl Soil benzo[a]anthracene (agr.) 62 Air Chlorpyriphos 520 Soil ethylene (agr.) 1.1E-09 Soil pentachloronitrobenzene (agr.) 15 Soil Folpet (agr.) 4500 Soil anthracene (ind.) 320 Air Parathion-methyl 990 Air Lindane 52 Water trichloroethene (sea) Water Phoxim (sea) Soil Heptachlor (agr.) 2.3 Soil Dimethoate (agr.) 8.9 Water Glyphosate (sea) 2.1E-11 Water 3,4-dichloroaniline (sea) Soil benzo[ghi]perylene (agr.) 61 Soil Metolachlor (agr.) 1900 Soil Dichlorprop (ind.) Soil 1,4-dichlorobenzene (ind.) Soil Chlordane (agr.) 94 Water Linuron (sea) 0.06 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 114

117 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air Metobromuron 49 Soil toluene (agr.) Water styrene (sea) Air Oxamyl 56 Water Chloridazon (sea) Soil Dichlorprop (agr.) Water Ethoprophos (sea) 1 Soil phenol (ind.) 13 Soil Parathion-methyl (ind.) 4400 Air Chlordane 270 Soil Fentin acetate (agr.) 380 Water Metamitron (sea) 6.8E-10 Water Methabenzthiazuron 1100 Air Permethrin Soil Pyrazophos (ind.) 990 Soil 4-chloroaniline (ind.) 490 Air 4-chloroaniline 2 Soil thallium (agr.) 4200 Air Acephate 79 Water naphtalene 660 Air Metolachlor 1500 Water benzylchloride (sea) Soil Ethoprophos (agr.) Air Deltamethrin 1800 Soil anilazine (ind.) 0.86 Soil Dinoterb (ind.) 1300 Soil Coumaphos (agr.) Water Permethrin (sea) 10 Air anilazine 14 Water 1,2-dichloroethane (sea) Soil tetrachloromethane (agr.) Soil tributyltinoxide (ind.) 4200 Water Pb (sea) 5.6E-23 Water dioxins (TEQ) (sea) Water naphtalene (sea) Soil Propoxur (ind.) Soil dibutylphthalate (agr.) Air Ethoprophos 2400 Soil diethylphthalate (ind.) 0.63 Soil Pirimicarb (ind.) 5200 Water Metazachlor (sea) Air Dichlorprop Water 3-chloroaniline (sea) Water p-xylene 0.55 Water butylbenzylphthalate (sea) Water V (sea) 2.4E-18 Water Chlordane Water Cd (sea) 2.5E-20 Soil acrylonitrile (agr.) 6.5 Soil Co (agr.) 1700 Soil butylbenzylphthalate (ind.) 0.1 Water Thiram (sea) Soil Endrin (ind.) Water benzo(ghi)perylene Water methyl-mercury (sea) 160 Soil Carbendazim (ind.) 6100 Air 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 15 Water ethylene oxide (sea) Soil Propoxur (agr.) Water DDT (sea) 15 Water Deltamethrin (sea) 3.2 Water benzene (sea) Soil antimony (agr.) 10 Soil diisooctylphthalate (agr.) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 115

118 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Dieldrin (ind.) 2300 Water dioctylphthalate (sea) Water Chlorpropham (sea) Air Pyrazophos 180 Air Triazophos 3300 Air Oxydemethon-methyl 2400 Soil dioctylphthalate (agr.) Soil Oxamyl (ind.) 120 Soil pentachlorophenol (agr.) 0.33 Soil Linuron (ind.) 2400 Soil Chloridazon (ind.) 3.9 Water Endosulfan (sea) Soil propylene oxide (agr.) 0.42 Soil Atrazine (ind.) 930 Soil Pb (agr.) 6.5 Soil 2,4-dichlorophenol (agr.) 2.5 Water benzo(k)fluoranthrene Water Chlorfenvinphos (sea) Soil Metamitron (ind.) 1.5 Water hexachlorobenzene (sea) 1.1 Water o-xylene 0.56 Water Fenitrothion (sea) Water Coumaphos (sea) 110 Water Ni (sea) 6.1E-19 Soil indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (agr.) 90 Soil PAH (carcinogenic) (agr.) 58 Soil Cyanazine (agr.) 810 Soil Zineb (agr.) 370 Soil ethylbenzene (agr.) Soil hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (agr.) 70 Soil Azinphos-methyl (ind.) 800 Air butylbenzylphthalate 0.4 Water Tri-allate (sea) 1.1 Water pentachlorophenol (sea) Water Mecoprop (sea) 3.8E-10 Soil dimethylphthalate (ind.) Water 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) Water Methabenzthiazuron (sea) Soil Tolclophos-methyl (agr.) 3.1 Soil Aldicarb (ind.) Air pentachloronitrobenzene 47 Soil hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (ind.) 84 Soil hexachlorobenzene (agr.) 3.2 Soil vanadium (ind.) 4700 Soil bifenthrin (agr.) 100 Soil trichloroethene (agr.) Soil DDT (agr.) 87 Water Captafol (sea) Water Methomyl (sea) Soil Deltamethrin (ind.) 96 Water phthalic anhydride 0.55 Soil 1,2-dichloroethane (agr.) Water diethylphthalate 34 Soil Cu (agr.) 590 Water dimethylphthalate (sea) Soil Benomyl (ind.) 18 Water Permethrin Soil 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) Air diazinon 230 Air indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 170 Water Folpet Soil Cr (III) (agr.) 5.3 Air 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 80 Soil Chloridazon (agr.) 1.8 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 116

119 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil benzo[k]fluoranthrene (ind.) Soil Fentin hydroxide (agr.) 380 Water Parathion-methyl (sea) 0.12 Air methomyl Water Propoxur Soil meta-xylene (ind.) Water Deltamethrin Soil Dimethoate (ind.) 28 Water 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (sea) 1.9 Water methylbromide 19 Water PAH (sea) 0.12 Soil Oxydemethon-methyl (ind.) 3600 Soil Chlorothalonil (agr.) 1 Water 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (sea) Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene 1.2 Soil benzo[k]fluoranthrene (agr.) 5200 Soil 3,4-dichloroaniline (ind.) 4000 Water thallium (sea) 7.9E-18 Water Dinoseb Air anthracene 140 Water Mevinfos (sea) Soil Triazophos (ind.) Water Isoproturon 1900 Water tributyltinoxide (sea) 3 Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene (sea) Water HF (sea) Water Azinphos-methyl (sea) Air Bifenthrin 820 Air diethylphthalate 0.42 Soil Aldrin (ind.) 290 Water diethylphthalate (sea) Water 2,4,5-T 17 Water Hg (sea) 6.8 Water Cypermethrin (sea) 2.4 Soil trichloromethane (agr.) Water Trichlorfon (sea) Soil Mecoprop (ind.) 78 Air Iprodione 2.8 Water Chlorpyriphos Soil Benomyl (agr.) 4.6 Soil Chlordane (ind.) 370 Soil 3-chloroaniline (agr.) 74 Soil Ni (agr.) 1700 Soil Fenthion (ind.) Water Lindane 6500 Soil 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil tin (agr.) 6.9 Water Captafol Water Cr (VI) (sea) 3.5E-22 Soil benzo[a]anthracene (ind.) 250 Water Chlorfenvinphos 1100 Water indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (sea) Air tri-allate 61 Soil Trichlorfon (ind.) Air pentachlorobenzene 0.37 Air 2,4,5-T 0.85 Soil selenium (ind.) 1500 Air 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene Water dibutylphthalate (sea) Water Cr (III) (sea) 8.8E-23 Water benzo(a)pyrene (sea) 0.28 Air chlorobenzene Soil Fentin chloride (agr.) 250 Soil Simazine (ind.) 5600 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 117

120 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water chrysene (sea) 0.26 Soil 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 0.19 Soil methylbromide (agr.) 0.14 Water Parathion-ethyl (sea) 0.2 Soil Pirimicarb (agr.) 1700 Water Pyrazophos Soil 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 0.02 Water trichloromethane (sea) Air Captafol Soil Propachlor (ind.) 64 Air Endrin 1100 Soil Fentin chloride (ind.) 990 Soil thallium (ind.) 4200 Air Fentin hydroxide 4200 Soil 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) Air Desmetryn 6.8 Soil Iprodione (agr.) 0.23 Air Pirimicarb 2400 Air MCPA 1.1 Soil Tri-allate (agr.) 50 Soil dioctylphthalate (ind.) Water 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene 860 Water vinyl chloride (sea) Water Fentin hydroxide Soil gamma-hch (Lindane) (ind.) 370 Soil butylbenzylphthalate (agr.) Air coumaphos Soil Isoproturon (ind.) 400 Soil Captafol (agr.) Water phenol (sea) Water Diazinon (sea) Water diisooctylphthalate 21 Soil antimony (ind.) 10 Water Captan (sea) Water Cyromazine (sea) Air 3,4-dichloroaniline 1700 Water Metobromuron (sea) Soil Trichlorfon (agr.) 3300 Soil Chlorpyriphos (agr.) 360 Soil Desmetryn (ind.) 11 Water pentachloronitrobenzene (sea) 11 Soil 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (ind.) 99 Water Anilazine (sea) Water 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) 0.03 Air dioctylphthalate Air 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 0.1 Water Trifluralin (sea) 1.8 Soil 1,2-dichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil Diazinon (agr.) 1300 Soil methyl-mercury (agr.) Air 1,2-dichlorobenzene Water Be (sea) 1.6E-16 Soil di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (agr.) Air Metazachlor 7.4 Soil 2-chlorophenol (ind.) 31 Water HF 19 Water Tolclophos-methyl (sea) Soil Chlorpropham (ind.) 6.4 Soil Co (ind.) 1700 Water Metazachlor 150 Soil Fentin acetate (ind.) 1500 Water Cyromazine Water 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (sea) Soil Dinoterb (agr.) 330 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 118

121 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air Disulfothon 27 Water phthalic anhydride (sea) 4.6E-11 Soil methyl-mercury (ind.) Soil Tolclophos-methyl (ind.) 9.2 Water Desmetryn 190 Water Chlorothalonil 370 Water Pirimicarb Water formaldehyde (sea) Soil Linuron (agr.) 690 Soil 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (agr.) 150 Water 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 1600 Soil tributyltinoxide (agr.) 1100 Water Azinphos-ethyl (sea) Water Chloridazon 31 Water Phoxim 2600 Air Captan 16 Soil Phoxim (agr.) 4.4 Water Tri-allate Air benzo(k)fluoranthrene 3900 Water 2,4,5-T (sea) 1.7E-10 Soil beryllium (ind.) Soil Carbaryl (agr.) 23 Soil Captan (ind.) 4.7 Soil beryllium (agr.) Soil meta-xylene (agr.) Water Endrin (sea) 6.1 Water Metolachlor Water Aldrin (sea) 1.3 Soil tetrachloroethene (agr.) Water Se (sea) 7.4E-18 Air Chlorothalonil 2.5 Soil Propachlor (agr.) 17 Air cyromazine 3500 Soil Parathion-ethyl (ind.) 1900 Water ethene Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane (sea) Soil ortho-xylene (agr.) Air Propoxur Air Fenitrothion 2500 Water di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (sea) Water Carbendazim (sea) Soil Heptenophos (agr.) 31 Air Linuron 40 Soil Endosulfan (ind.) 9 Soil Coumaphos (ind.) Soil Phtalic anhydride (ind.) Air Fentin chloride 1800 Water acrylonitrile (sea) Water Coumaphos Soil Cr (VI) (agr.) 21 Water hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (sea) 23 Soil Trifluarin (ind.) 160 Soil DDT (ind.) 340 Water Zineb (sea) Water Bifenthrin Water Simazine (sea) Air Aldicarb Soil Cypermethrin (agr.) Water 3,4-dichloroaniline Water Disulfothon (sea) Soil barium (ind.) 110 Air cyanazine 1900 Soil Tri-allate (ind.) 200 Soil 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 0.1 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 119

122 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Metolachlor (sea) 0.07 Soil Phtalic anhydride (agr.) Water Linuron Air Chlorfenvinphos 32 Water Acephate 1100 Water Tolclophos-methyl 500 Soil 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) Water m-xylene (sea) Soil 1,3-dichlorobenzene (ind.) Water Endosulfan Soil Demeton (ind.) 2600 Air Benomyl 30 Water benzo(k)fluoranthrene (sea) 9.1 Soil DNOC (ind.) 4.5 Air Chloridazon Water Carbofuran (sea) Soil 3-chloroaniline (ind.) 250 Soil Zn (agr.) 48 Air Folpet 410 Soil Chlorfenvinphos (agr.) 16 Water 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 13 Water 2-chlorophenol (sea) Water Benomyl (sea) Air Azinphos-ethyl 290 Soil Methabenzthiazuron (agr.) 44 Air 1,3-dichlorobenzene Water cyanazine Water 2-chlorophenol 1600 Soil Endosulfan (agr.) 2.2 Air diisooctylphthalate 0.12 Soil Azinphos-ethyl (ind.) 3700 Water Zn (sea) 1.8E-21 Air methyl-mercury 7300 Soil Diazinon (ind.) 4600 Water anthracene (sea) 17 Water acrolein Water anthracene Air Phoxim 0.44 Air 1,4-dichlorobenzene Soil Chlorfenvinphos (ind.) 59 Soil Trifluarin (agr.) 40 Soil hydrogen fluoride (agr.) 9.4 Water Ba (sea) 2.4E-19 Soil Permethrin (ind.) 3700 Soil Fentin hydroxide (ind.) 1500 Air zineb 940 Soil 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (agr.) 32 Water Demeton (sea) Water MCPA 27 Water 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 5200 Soil 3,4-dichloroaniline (agr.) 1800 Water DDT Soil selenium (agr.) 1500 Water Malathion (sea) Soil 2,4-D (ind.) 82 Soil PAH (carcinogenic) (ind.) 230 Water Heptachlor Soil Cyromazine (ind.) 6500 Water indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Water chlorobenzene 0.36 Soil Carbofuran (ind.) 1800 Soil benzo(a)pyrene (agr.) 130 Water Heptachlor (sea) Water Oxydemethon-methyl Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 120

123 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Atrazine (sea) Soil naphtalene (agr.) 3.8 Soil pentachlorobenzene (agr.) 0.59 Water Sn (sea) 9.5E-23 Water Propachlor 1200 Water 1,3-butadiene (sea) Water 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (sea) Air dinoterb 2900 Water pentachlorobenzene (sea) 0.24 Water DNOC (sea) Water Propachlor (sea) Soil Carbofuran (agr.) 580 Water Fentin chloride Water diisooctylphthalate (sea) Water Fenitrothion Soil Disulfoton (ind.) 290 Soil Fenitrothion (agr.) 760 Soil benzo[ghi]perylene (ind.) 240 Soil Captafol (ind.) Air 2,4-dichlorophenol 1.4 Water phenanthrene (sea) Soil Carbaryl (ind.) 120 Air diisodecylphthalate 0.56 Soil anthracene (agr.) 82 Soil 1,2-dichlorobenzene (ind.) Water 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (sea) Soil Permethrin (agr.) 920 Soil ethylene oxide (agr.) 0.79 Water MCPA (sea) 5.3E-13 Water pentachloronitrobenzene 4000 Air Isoproturon 190 Water Disulfothon Air benzo(ghi)perylene 44 Soil dichloromethane (agr.) Soil diisodecylphthalate (ind.) Water ethyl benzene (sea) Water Propoxur (sea) Water Diuron (sea) Soil Parathion-methyl (agr.) 1100 Water benzo(ghi)perylene (sea) Water Dichlorprop 5.3 Water dioctylphthalate 2.8 Soil Isoproturon (agr.) 170 Soil formaldehyde (agr.) 15 Soil Methomyl (agr.) Water Zineb Water Heptenophos Soil hydrogen fluoride (ind.) 9.4 Soil dihexylphthalate (agr.) Soil 2,4,5-T (agr.) 0.44 Soil indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (ind.) 360 Water pentachlorobenzene 51 Soil chlorobenzene (ind.) Soil ortho-xylene (ind.) Soil Heptachlor (ind.) 8.9 Soil Glyphosate (agr.) 0.92 Water Dimethoate 170 Water As (sea) 3.8E-20 Water 3-chloroaniline 2500 Soil 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 0.09 Water p-xylene (sea) Water acrolein (sea) 5 Water benzo(a)anthracene (sea) 1.1 Water Benomyl 6800 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 121

124 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil tin (ind.) 6.9 Soil para-xylene (ind.) Soil Oxydemethon-methyl (agr.) 970 Soil 1,4-dichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil dimethylphthalate (agr.) Water tetrachloroethene (sea) Water Carbaryl (sea) Air dimethylphthalate Water Desmetryn (sea) Air Demeton 23 Soil carbon disulfide (agr.) 0.34 Soil Ethoprophos (ind.) Water Azinphos-ethyl Water chlorobenzene (sea) Soil 1,1,1-trichloroethane (ind.) Soil Chlorpropham (agr.) 1.8 Water dichloromethane (sea) Air Carbofuran 900 Air dimethoate 13 Air Endosulfan 45 Soil 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (ind.) 150 Soil 4-chloroaniline (agr.) 170 Water Isoproturon (sea) Water Dinoterb Soil phenanthrene (agr.) 0.29 Soil 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (agr.) 28 Soil 1,3-butadiene (agr.) Soil Metobromuron (agr.) 95 Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.11 Soil pentachloronitrobenzene (ind.) 58 Water Lindane (sea) 0.11 Water Chlorpropham 83 Water tributyltinoxide Soil Mo (ind.) 260 Water Diazinon Water Captan 2100 Soil Hg (agr.) 850 Water cyanazine (sea) Soil vinyl chloride (agr.) Soil Cypermethrin (ind.) Water Fentin acetate (sea) Water dihexylphthalate (sea) Water methylbromide (sea) Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene 1 Water 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) Air Heptachlor 1.4 Soil Phoxim (ind.) 7.9 Water Dieldrin (sea) 16 Soil Metobromuron (ind.) 95 Water Pyrazophos (sea) Soil Deltamethrin (agr.) 24 Soil Mo (agr.) 260 Water Endrin Air Trichlorfon Soil 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (agr.) 1.2 Water Carbofuran Air Fenthion 2500 Water 4-chloroaniline 3100 Soil acrolein (agr.) Soil MCPA (ind.) 1.7 Water carbon disulfide (sea) Water Dinoterb (sea) Water Oxydemethon-methyl (sea) Water 2,4-dichlorophenol 170 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 122

125 Compartment x Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Disulfoton (agr.) 72 Water butylbenzylphthalate 76 Table A.6 Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air 1,1,1-trichloroethane Air 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene Air 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene Air 1,2-dichloroethane Air 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene Air 1,3-butadiene Air 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.32 Air 2,4-D 0.6 Air acrolein 16 Air acrylonitrile Air Aldrin Air As 1600 Air Atrazine 2 Air Azinphos-methyl 0.19 Air Ba 4.9 Air Be 1800 Air Bentazon 0.25 Air benzene Air benzo(a)anthracene 0.23 Air benzo(a)pyrene 0.24 Air benzylchloride Air Carbendazim 20 Air Cd 81 Air cobalt 110 Air Cr (III) 3000 Air Cr (VI) 3000 Air CS Air Cu 7 Air di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Air dibutylphthalate Air dichloromethane Air Dichlorvos 9.8 Air Dieldrin 1.1 Air dioxin (TEQ) Air Diuron 8.7 Air DNOC 0.24 Air ethene 1.3E-12 Air ethylbenzene Air ethylene oxide Air Fentin-acetate 5.3 Air fluoranthene Air formaldehyde 0.94 Air heavy metals Air hexachlorobenzene 0.26 Air HF Air Hg Air m-xylene Air Malathion 0.02 Air Mecoprop 1.8 Air Metabenzthiazuron 0.45 Air metals Air Metamitron Air methyl bromide Air Mevinfos 43 Air Mo 18 Air naphthalene Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 123

126 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air Ni 120 Air o-xylene Air p-xylene Air PAH's 1 Air Pb 16 Air pentachlorophenol 2.3 Air phenol Air phthalic acid anhydride Air propyleneoxide Air Sb 0.61 Air Se 53 Air Simazine 8.8 Air Sn 14 Air styrene Air tetrachloroethene Air tetrachloromethane Air Thiram 32 Air Tl 340 Air toluene Air trichloroethene Air trichloromethane Air Trifluralin Air V 670 Air vinyl chloride Air Zn 12 Water 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene Water 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene Water 1,2-dichloroethane Water 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene Water 1,3-butadiene Water 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Water 2,4-D 9.3E-10 Water acrylonitrile Water Aldrin Water As 1E-17 Water Atrazine Water Azinphos-methyl Water Ba 5.1E-19 Water Be 3.3E-16 Water Bentazon Water benzene Water benzo(a)anthracene Water benzo(a)pyrene Water benzylchloride Water Carbendazim Water Cd 1.4E-20 Water Co 2.7E-18 Water Cr (III) 2.3E-19 Water Cr (VI) 2.3E-19 Water Cu 4.1E-21 Water di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Water dibutylphthalate Water dichloromethane Water Dichlorvos Water Dieldrin 0.26 Water dioxins (TEQ) 590 Water Diuron Water DNOC Water ethyl benzene Water ethylene oxide Water fluoranthene Water formaldehyde Water hexachlorobenzene 0.26 Water Hg 930 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 124

127 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Malathion Water Mecoprop Water metallic ions 5.754E-21 Water Metamitron 8.5E-10 Water Mevinfos Water Mo 2.3E-18 Water Ni 1E-18 Water PAH's Water Pb 4.8E-22 Water pentachlorophenol Water phenol Water propylene oxide Water Sb 1.7E-20 Water Se 1.6E-17 Water Simazine Water Sn 7.9E-22 Water styrene Water tetrachloroethene Water tetrachloromethane Water Thiram Water toluene Water trichloroethene Water trichloromethane Water Trifluralin Water V 1E-17 Water vinyl chloride Water Zn 2.5E-21 Soil 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 8 Soil 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 0.99 Soil 1,2-dichloroethane (ind.) Soil 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (ind.) 0.22 Soil 1,3-butadiene (ind.) Soil 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (ind.) 0.68 Soil 2,4-D (agr.) 1.6 Soil acrylonitrile (ind.) 2.1 Soil Aldrin (agr.) 20 Soil As (ind.) 3300 Soil Atrazine (agr.) 6.6 Soil Azinphos-methyl (agr.) 0.97 Soil Bentazon (agr.) 0.59 Soil benzene (ind.) Soil benzo(a)pyrene (ind.) 23 Soil benzylchloride (ind.) 0.71 Soil Carbendazim (agr.) 49 Soil Cd (agr.) 170 Soil Cd (ind.) 170 Soil Cr (III) (ind.) 6300 Soil Cr (VI) (ind.) 6300 Soil Cu (ind.) 14 Soil di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate(ind) Soil dibutylphthalate (ind.) Soil dichloromethane (ind.) Soil Dichlorvos (agr.) 200 Soil Dieldrin (agr.) 110 Soil dioxin (TEQ) (ind.) Soil Diuron (agr.) 23 Soil DNOC (agr.) 0.52 Soil ethylene oxide (ind.) 0.19 Soil fluoranthene (ind.) 2.3 Soil formaldehyde (ind.) 4.4 Soil gamma-hch (Lindane) (agr.) 23 Soil hexachlorobenzene (ind.) 3 Soil Hg (ind.) Soil Malathion (agr.) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 125

128 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Mecoprop (agr.) 4.7 Soil Metamitron (agr.) Soil Mevinfos (agr.) 87 Soil Ni (ind.) 240 Soil Pb (ind.) 33 Soil pentachlorophenol (ind.) 4.8 Soil propylene oxide (ind.) 0.12 Soil Simazine (agr.) 29 Soil styrene (ind.) Soil tetrachloroethene (ind.) 0.3 Soil tetrachloromethane (ind.) Soil Thiram (agr.) 51 Soil toluene (ind.) Soil trichloroethene (ind.) Soil trichloromethane (ind.) Soil vinyl chloride (ind.) Soil Zn (ind.) 25 Soil phenol (agr.) Soil Bentazon (ind.) 0.5 Water Fentin chloride (sea) Water dihexylphthalate Soil Zineb (ind.) 15 Soil Iprodione (ind.) 0.3 Water Fentin acetate Soil Metolachlor (ind.) 0.41 Soil diethylphthalate (agr.) 2.1 Water Aldicarb 0.19 Soil Fenitrothion (ind.) 81 Air DDT 19 Water carbon disulfide Water Dichlorvos (sea) Soil 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 0.25 Soil 2-chlorophenol (agr.) 0.38 Air Propachlor 0.54 Soil Captan (agr.) Water toluene (sea) Soil 2,4-dichlorophenol (ind.) 0.54 Air Parathion-ethyl 1.1 Soil styrene (agr.) Soil barium (agr.) 10 Water m-xylene Water Parathion-methyl Water Trichlorfon Soil Demeton (agr.) 60 Water Cypermethrin 16 Soil ethylene (ind.) 2.3E-09 Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene Water Acephate (sea) 5.3E-10 Soil 1,3-dichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil benzylchloride (agr.) 0.8 Soil Oxamyl (agr.) 5.9 Air tributyltinoxide 17 Water Pirimicarb (sea) Water Methomyl Water dimethylphthalate Air hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 4.2 Soil As (agr.) 3300 Soil 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (ind.) 0.97 Water Dinoseb (sea) Water Folpet (sea) Soil Metazachlor (agr.) 0.17 Water o-xylene (sea) Soil anilazine (agr.) 0.23 Soil diisodecylphthalate (agr.) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 126

129 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Dichlorvos (ind.) 200 Water Anilazine Water Metobromuron Soil Azinphos-ethyl (agr.) 220 Water Aldicarb (sea) Soil carbon disulfide (ind.) 1.6 Water Oxamyl Water Chlorpyriphos (sea) Soil Metazachlor (ind.) 0.15 Air 2-chlorophenol Water Fenthion (sea) Air Tolclophos-methyl Soil pentachlorobenzene (ind.) 1.7 Air dihexylphthalate Soil MCPA (agr.) Soil Chlorpyriphos (ind.) 17 Soil Parathion-ethyl (agr.) 17 Soil Cyanazine (ind.) 63 Soil Glyphosate (ind.) Air Carbaryl Soil Pyrazophos (agr.) 30 Water hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 4 Air phenanthrene Soil benzene (agr.) Soil chrysene (ind.) 4.5 Water Chlordane (sea) 0.28 Water Dimethoate (sea) Water Iprodione (sea) 1.5E-10 Soil dioxin (TEQ) (agr.) Soil phenanthrene (ind.) Water Carbaryl Soil Desmetryn (agr.) 2.9 Water fluoranthene (sea) Water Bifenthrin (sea) Water 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene Water Heptenophos (sea) Soil Dinoseb (ind.) 420 Air cypermethrin 8900 Soil Heptenophos (ind.) 16 Air 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene 0.54 Soil Malathion (ind.) Soil para-xylene (agr.) Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene (sea) Air chrysene 0.22 Soil acrolein (ind.) 7000 Air Glyphosate Water Glyphosate 2.2E-11 Water 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (sea) Water 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (sea) Soil Chlorothalonil (ind.) 0.61 Soil Acephate (ind.) 1.3 Soil Methabenzthiazuron (ind.) 0.88 Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene (sea) Soil naphtalene (ind.) 2.6 Water 2,4-D (sea) 1.8E-12 Soil Dinoseb (agr.) 590 Soil diisooctylphthalate (ind.) Soil methylbromide (ind.) 0.37 Water Demeton Soil Aldicarb (agr.) 4200 Soil Endrin (agr.) 4200 Air Heptenophos 2.2 Soil Folpet (ind.) 78 Air Chlorpropham Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 127

130 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water 2,4-dichlorophenol (sea) Soil Diuron (ind.) 19 Soil Acephate (agr.) 1.7 Soil 1,1,1-trichloroethane (agr.) Soil chlorobenzene (agr.) 0.12 Water Triazophos Soil dihexylphthalate (ind.) Water Mo (sea) 2.9E-18 Soil fluoranthene (agr.) 2.3 Water Sb (sea) 3E-20 Soil Fenthion (agr.) 290 Water Oxamyl (sea) Water Fenthion Water ethene (sea) 9.9E-14 Water Bentazon (sea) 3.3E-10 Water Fentin hydroxide (sea) Air 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 0.24 Water Cu (sea) 2.5E-20 Soil Mevinfos (ind.) 90 Soil chrysene (agr.) 4.6 Water 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene 0.17 Water Iprodione Water Ethoprophos 0.24 Water diisodecylphthalate (sea) Water methyl-mercury 930 Air dinoseb 97 Soil 2,4,5-T (ind.) 0.64 Soil Methomyl (ind.) 220 Soil Triazophos (agr.) 250 Water diisodecylphthalate Soil Cyromazine (agr.) 630 Soil Thiram (ind.) 81 Water Co (sea) 4.9E-18 Soil ethylbenzene (ind.) Water propylene oxide (sea) Soil vanadium (agr.) 1400 Water Dichlorprop (sea) 1.1E-14 Water chrysene Water thallium 3.1E-17 Water Chlorothalonil (sea) Water Triazophos (sea) Air 3-chloroaniline 0.47 Water phenanthrene Soil bifenthrin (ind.) 83 Water tetrachloromethane (sea) Water 4-chloroaniline (sea) Water Parathion-ethyl Soil benzo[a]anthracene (agr.) 31 Air Chlorpyriphos 0.13 Soil ethylene (agr.) 2.3E-09 Soil pentachloronitrobenzene (agr.) 2.7 Soil Folpet (agr.) 110 Soil anthracene (ind.) 8.8 Air Parathion-methyl 5.7 Air Lindane 1.8 Water trichloroethene (sea) Water Phoxim (sea) Soil Heptachlor (agr.) 5.5 Soil Dimethoate (agr.) 0.8 Water Glyphosate (sea) 4.4E-14 Water 3,4-dichloroaniline (sea) Soil benzo[ghi]perylene (agr.) 8.3 Soil Metolachlor (agr.) 0.54 Soil Dichlorprop (ind.) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 128

131 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil 1,4-dichlorobenzene (ind.) 1 Soil Chlordane (agr.) 74 Water Linuron (sea) Air Metobromuron 0.99 Soil toluene (agr.) Water styrene (sea) Air Oxamyl 2.9 Water Chloridazon (sea) Soil Dichlorprop (agr.) Water Ethoprophos (sea) Soil phenol (ind.) Soil Parathion-methyl (ind.) 79 Air Chlordane 2.2 Soil Fentin acetate (agr.) 12 Water Metamitron (sea) 1.4E-11 Water Methabenzthiazuron Air Permethrin 26 Soil Pyrazophos (ind.) 29 Soil 4-chloroaniline (ind.) 11 Air 4-chloroaniline Soil thallium (agr.) 700 Air Acephate 0.69 Water naphtalene Air Metolachlor 0.11 Water benzylchloride (sea) Soil Ethoprophos (agr.) 270 Air Deltamethrin 0.76 Soil anilazine (ind.) 0.23 Soil Dinoterb (ind.) 9.9 Soil Coumaphos (agr.) Water Permethrin (sea) Air anilazine Water 1,2-dichloroethane (sea) Soil tetrachloromethane (agr.) Soil tributyltinoxide (ind.) 37 Water Pb (sea) 4.6E-21 Water dioxins (TEQ) (sea) 830 Water naphtalene (sea) Soil Propoxur (ind.) 1300 Soil dibutylphthalate (agr.) Air Ethoprophos 17 Soil diethylphthalate (ind.) 2.1 Soil Pirimicarb (ind.) 94 Water Metazachlor (sea) Air Dichlorprop Water 3-chloroaniline (sea) Water p-xylene Water butylbenzylphthalate (sea) Water V (sea) 2.2E-17 Water Chlordane Water Cd (sea) 1.1E-19 Soil acrylonitrile (agr.) 2.5 Soil Co (agr.) 220 Soil butylbenzylphthalate (ind.) 0.01 Water Thiram (sea) Soil Endrin (ind.) 3600 Water benzo(ghi)perylene Water methyl-mercury (sea) 7600 Soil Carbendazim (ind.) 38 Air 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.24 Water ethylene oxide (sea) Soil Propoxur (agr.) 1800 Water DDT (sea) 0.96 Water Deltamethrin (sea) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 129

132 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water benzene (sea) Soil antimony (agr.) 1.3 Soil diisooctylphthalate (agr.) Soil Dieldrin (ind.) 100 Water dioctylphthalate (sea) Water Chlorpropham (sea) Air Pyrazophos 2.3 Air Triazophos 34 Air Oxydemethon-methyl 41 Soil dioctylphthalate (agr.) Soil Oxamyl (ind.) 6 Soil pentachlorophenol (agr.) 4.8 Soil Linuron (ind.) 18 Soil Chloridazon (ind.) 0.68 Water Endosulfan (sea) Soil propylene oxide (agr.) 0.14 Soil Atrazine (ind.) 4.4 Soil Pb (agr.) 33 Soil 2,4-dichlorophenol (agr.) 0.59 Water benzo(k)fluoranthrene 0.21 Water Chlorfenvinphos (sea) Soil Metamitron (ind.) Water hexachlorobenzene (sea) 0.24 Water o-xylene Water Fenitrothion (sea) Water Coumaphos (sea) 0.5 Water Ni (sea) 2.6E-18 Soil indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (agr.) 13 Soil PAH (carcinogenic) (agr.) 6.3 Soil Cyanazine (agr.) 69 Soil Zineb (agr.) 16 Soil ethylbenzene (agr.) Soil hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (agr.) 53 Soil Azinphos-methyl (ind.) 1 Air butylbenzylphthalate Water Tri-allate (sea) Water pentachlorophenol (sea) Water Mecoprop (sea) 1.8E-11 Soil dimethylphthalate (ind.) 1.4 Water 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) Water Methabenzthiazuron (sea) Soil Tolclophos-methyl (agr.) 1.8 Soil Aldicarb (ind.) 4200 Air pentachloronitrobenzene 0.12 Soil hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (ind.) 47 Soil hexachlorobenzene (agr.) 3.5 Soil vanadium (ind.) 1400 Soil bifenthrin (agr.) 83 Soil trichloroethene (agr.) Soil DDT (agr.) 60 Water Captafol (sea) Water Methomyl (sea) Soil Deltamethrin (ind.) 8.5 Water phthalic anhydride 1.2E-10 Soil 1,2-dichloroethane (agr.) Water diethylphthalate Soil Cu (agr.) 14 Water dimethylphthalate (sea) Soil Benomyl (ind.) 3.5 Water Permethrin 0.39 Soil 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) 0.83 Air diazinon 0.29 Air indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.8 Water Folpet 0.6 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 130

133 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil Cr (III) (agr.) 6300 Air 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 0.31 Soil Chloridazon (agr.) 0.9 Soil benzo[k]fluoranthrene (ind.) 390 Soil Fentin hydroxide (agr.) 12 Water Parathion-methyl (sea) Air methomyl 120 Water Propoxur Soil meta-xylene (ind.) Water Deltamethrin Soil Dimethoate (ind.) 0.62 Water 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (sea) Water methylbromide Water PAH (sea) Soil Oxydemethon-methyl (ind.) 85 Soil Chlorothalonil (agr.) 0.68 Water 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (sea) Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene Soil benzo[k]fluoranthrene (agr.) 390 Soil 3,4-dichloroaniline (ind.) 18 Water thallium (sea) 4.2E-17 Water Dinoseb 0.34 Air anthracene Water Mevinfos (sea) Soil Triazophos (ind.) 200 Water Isoproturon Water tributyltinoxide (sea) Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene (sea) Water HF (sea) Water Azinphos-methyl (sea) Air Bifenthrin 8.8 Air diethylphthalate 0.53 Soil Aldrin (ind.) 20 Water diethylphthalate (sea) Water 2,4,5-T Water Hg (sea) 7600 Water Cypermethrin (sea) 0.25 Soil trichloromethane (agr.) Water Trichlorfon (sea) Soil Mecoprop (ind.) 3.3 Air Iprodione 0.11 Water Chlorpyriphos Soil Benomyl (agr.) 3.5 Soil Chlordane (ind.) 73 Soil 3-chloroaniline (agr.) 1.4 Soil Ni (agr.) 240 Soil Fenthion (ind.) 280 Water Lindane 0.16 Soil 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 9.3 Soil tin (agr.) 30 Water Captafol Water Cr (VI) (sea) 2E-18 Soil benzo[a]anthracene (ind.) 31 Water Chlorfenvinphos Water indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (sea) Air tri-allate Soil Trichlorfon (ind.) 2600 Air pentachlorobenzene Air 2,4,5-T 0.32 Soil selenium (ind.) 110 Air 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene 0.18 Water dibutylphthalate (sea) Water Cr (III) (sea) 2E-18 Water benzo(a)pyrene (sea) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 131

134 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air chlorobenzene Soil Fentin chloride (agr.) 12 Soil Simazine (ind.) 21 Water chrysene (sea) Soil 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 12 Soil methylbromide (agr.) 0.36 Water Parathion-ethyl (sea) Soil Pirimicarb (agr.) 120 Water Pyrazophos Soil 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (agr.) 1.2 Water trichloromethane (sea) Air Captafol 5.9 Soil Propachlor (ind.) 2.3 Air Endrin 49 Soil Fentin chloride (ind.) 11 Soil thallium (ind.) 700 Air Fentin hydroxide 5.5 Soil 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) 15 Air Desmetryn 1.2 Soil Iprodione (agr.) 0.14 Air Pirimicarb 46 Air MCPA Soil Tri-allate (agr.) 1.3 Soil dioctylphthalate (ind.) Water 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene 0.44 Water vinyl chloride (sea) Water Fentin hydroxide Soil gamma-hch (Lindane) (ind.) 22 Soil butylbenzylphthalate (agr.) 0.01 Air coumaphos 1000 Soil Isoproturon (ind.) 4.6 Soil Captafol (agr.) 28 Water phenol (sea) Water Diazinon (sea) Water diisooctylphthalate Soil antimony (ind.) 1.3 Water Captan (sea) 9.4E-10 Water Cyromazine (sea) Air 3,4-dichloroaniline 8.7 Water Metobromuron (sea) Soil Trichlorfon (agr.) 1900 Soil Chlorpyriphos (agr.) 17 Soil Desmetryn (ind.) 2.6 Water pentachloronitrobenzene (sea) Soil 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (ind.) 3.9 Water Anilazine (sea) 7E-10 Water 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) Air dioctylphthalate Air 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene Water Trifluralin (sea) Soil 1,2-dichlorobenzene (agr.) Soil Diazinon (agr.) 12 Soil methyl-mercury (agr.) Air 1,2-dichlorobenzene Water Be (sea) 3.9E-16 Soil di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (agr.) Air Metazachlor Soil 2-chlorophenol (ind.) 0.37 Water HF Water Tolclophos-methyl (sea) Soil Chlorpropham (ind.) 0.12 Soil Co (ind.) 220 Water Metazachlor Soil Fentin acetate (ind.) 11 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 132

135 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Cyromazine Water 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (sea) Soil Dinoterb (agr.) 9.9 Air Disulfothon Water phthalic anhydride (sea) 2.8E-12 Soil methyl-mercury (ind.) Soil Tolclophos-methyl (ind.) 1.5 Water Desmetryn Water Chlorothalonil Water Pirimicarb Water formaldehyde (sea) Soil Linuron (agr.) 21 Soil 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (agr.) 17 Water 2,4,5-trichlorophenol Soil tributyltinoxide (agr.) 37 Water Azinphos-ethyl (sea) Water Chloridazon Water Phoxim Air Captan Soil Phoxim (agr.) 4.7 Water Tri-allate Air benzo(k)fluoranthrene 30 Water 2,4,5-T (sea) 6.4E-11 Soil beryllium (ind.) 3600 Soil Carbaryl (agr.) 0.11 Soil Captan (ind.) 0.12 Soil beryllium (agr.) 3600 Soil meta-xylene (agr.) Water Endrin (sea) 0.38 Water Metolachlor Water Aldrin (sea) Soil tetrachloroethene (agr.) 0.3 Water Se (sea) 1.8E-17 Air Chlorothalonil Soil Propachlor (agr.) 2.5 Air cyromazine 310 Soil Parathion-ethyl (ind.) 17 Water ethene 1.1E-12 Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane (sea) Soil ortho-xylene (agr.) Air Propoxur 700 Air Fenitrothion 21 Water di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (sea) Water Carbendazim (sea) 1.6E-10 Soil Heptenophos (agr.) 16 Air Linuron 0.2 Soil Endosulfan (ind.) 2.8 Soil Coumaphos (ind.) Soil Phtalic anhydride (ind.) Air Fentin chloride 0.26 Water acrylonitrile (sea) Water Coumaphos 6 Soil Cr (VI) (agr.) 6300 Water hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (sea) 2.1 Soil Trifluarin (ind.) 34 Soil DDT (ind.) 59 Water Zineb (sea) Water Bifenthrin Water Simazine (sea) Air Aldicarb 2000 Soil Cypermethrin (agr.) Water 3,4-dichloroaniline Water Disulfothon (sea) Soil barium (ind.) 10 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 133

136 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Air cyanazine 31 Soil Tri-allate (ind.) 1.3 Soil 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 0.77 Water Metolachlor (sea) Soil Phtalic anhydride (agr.) Water Linuron Air Chlorfenvinphos 0.49 Water Acephate Water Tolclophos-methyl Soil 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (agr.) 19 Water m-xylene (sea) Soil 1,3-dichlorobenzene (ind.) Water Endosulfan Soil Demeton (ind.) 49 Air Benomyl 0.47 Water benzo(k)fluoranthrene (sea) Soil DNOC (ind.) 0.49 Air Chloridazon Water Carbofuran (sea) Soil 3-chloroaniline (ind.) 1.2 Soil Zn (agr.) 25 Air Folpet 1.7 Soil Chlorfenvinphos (agr.) 1.3 Water 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 0.23 Water 2-chlorophenol (sea) Water Benomyl (sea) 1.4E-09 Air Azinphos-ethyl 2.4 Soil Methabenzthiazuron (agr.) 1.1 Air 1,3-dichlorobenzene Water cyanazine Water 2-chlorophenol Soil Endosulfan (agr.) 2.7 Air diisooctylphthalate Soil Azinphos-ethyl (ind.) 72 Water Zn (sea) 1.9E-20 Air methyl-mercury Soil Diazinon (ind.) 10 Water anthracene (sea) Water acrolein 5.8 Water anthracene 0.02 Air Phoxim Air 1,4-dichlorobenzene Soil Chlorfenvinphos (ind.) 1.2 Soil Trifluarin (agr.) 35 Soil hydrogen fluoride (agr.) Water Ba (sea) 6.6E-19 Soil Permethrin (ind.) 250 Soil Fentin hydroxide (ind.) 11 Air zineb 7.2 Soil 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (agr.) 1 Water Demeton (sea) Water MCPA 1.4E-11 Water 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol Soil 3,4-dichloroaniline (agr.) 26 Water DDT 0.31 Soil selenium (agr.) 110 Water Malathion (sea) Soil 2,4-D (ind.) 1.1 Soil PAH (carcinogenic) (ind.) 6.3 Water Heptachlor Soil Cyromazine (ind.) 630 Water indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Water chlorobenzene Soil Carbofuran (ind.) 5.9 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 134

137 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Soil benzo(a)pyrene (agr.) 23 Water Heptachlor (sea) Water Oxydemethon-methyl Water Atrazine (sea) Soil naphtalene (agr.) 3.1 Soil pentachlorobenzene (agr.) 2.1 Water Sn (sea) 7.2E-21 Water Propachlor Water 1,3-butadiene (sea) Water 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (sea) Air dinoterb 3.4 Water pentachlorobenzene (sea) Water DNOC (sea) 1.5E-09 Water Propachlor (sea) Soil Carbofuran (agr.) 7.5 Water Fentin chloride Water diisooctylphthalate (sea) Water Fenitrothion Soil Disulfoton (ind.) 11 Soil Fenitrothion (agr.) 83 Soil benzo[ghi]perylene (ind.) 8.3 Soil Captafol (ind.) 22 Air 2,4-dichlorophenol 0.03 Water phenanthrene (sea) Soil Carbaryl (ind.) 0.14 Air diisodecylphthalate Soil anthracene (agr.) 8.9 Soil 1,2-dichlorobenzene (ind.) Water 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (sea) Soil Permethrin (agr.) 250 Soil ethylene oxide (agr.) 0.22 Water MCPA (sea) 2.2E-14 Water pentachloronitrobenzene 0.05 Air Isoproturon 2.5 Water Disulfothon Air benzo(ghi)perylene 0.2 Soil dichloromethane (agr.) Soil diisodecylphthalate (ind.) Water ethyl benzene (sea) Water Propoxur (sea) Water Diuron (sea) Soil Parathion-methyl (agr.) 81 Water benzo(ghi)perylene (sea) Water Dichlorprop 6.1E-12 Water dioctylphthalate Soil Isoproturon (agr.) 6.4 Soil formaldehyde (agr.) 5.8 Soil Methomyl (agr.) 300 Water Zineb Water Heptenophos Soil hydrogen fluoride (ind.) Soil dihexylphthalate (agr.) Soil 2,4,5-T (agr.) 0.74 Soil indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (ind.) 13 Water pentachlorobenzene Soil chlorobenzene (ind.) 0.12 Soil ortho-xylene (ind.) Soil Heptachlor (ind.) 5.3 Soil Glyphosate (agr.) Water Dimethoate Water As (sea) 3E-17 Water 3-chloroaniline Soil 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (ind.) 17 Water p-xylene (sea) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 135

138 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water acrolein (sea) 0.16 Water benzo(a)anthracene (sea) Water Benomyl Soil tin (ind.) 30 Soil para-xylene (ind.) Soil Oxydemethon-methyl (agr.) 92 Soil 1,4-dichlorobenzene (agr.) 1 Soil dimethylphthalate (agr.) 1.4 Water tetrachloroethene (sea) Water Carbaryl (sea) 1.1E-09 Air dimethylphthalate 0.64 Water Desmetryn (sea) Air Demeton 0.3 Soil carbon disulfide (agr.) 1.6 Soil Ethoprophos (ind.) 190 Water Azinphos-ethyl Water chlorobenzene (sea) Soil 1,1,1-trichloroethane (ind.) Soil Chlorpropham (agr.) 0.13 Water dichloromethane (sea) Air Carbofuran 3 Air dimethoate 0.3 Air Endosulfan Soil 1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene (ind.) 17 Soil 4-chloroaniline (agr.) 16 Water Isoproturon (sea) Water Dinoterb Soil phenanthrene (agr.) Soil 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (agr.) 4.4 Soil 1,3-butadiene (agr.) Soil Metobromuron (agr.) 2.2 Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane Soil pentachloronitrobenzene (ind.) 2.6 Water Lindane (sea) Water Chlorpropham Water tributyltinoxide 0.11 Soil Mo (ind.) 36 Water Diazinon Water Captan Soil Hg (agr.) Water cyanazine (sea) Soil vinyl chloride (agr.) Soil Cypermethrin (ind.) Water Fentin acetate (sea) Water dihexylphthalate (sea) Water methylbromide (sea) Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene Water 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (sea) Air Heptachlor Soil Phoxim (ind.) 3.8 Water Dieldrin (sea) 0.1 Soil Metobromuron (ind.) 2.2 Water Pyrazophos (sea) Soil Deltamethrin (agr.) 8.5 Soil Mo (agr.) 36 Water Endrin 0.35 Air Trichlorfon 1200 Soil 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (agr.) 0.7 Water Carbofuran Air Fenthion 16 Water 4-chloroaniline Soil acrolein (agr.) 7000 Soil MCPA (ind.) Water carbon disulfide (sea) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 136

139 Compartment x Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Water Dinoterb (sea) Water Oxydemethon-methyl (sea) Water 2,4-dichlorophenol Soil Disulfoton (agr.) 11 Water butylbenzylphthalate Table A.7 Photochemical Oxidation Compartment Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H 2 Air 1,1,1-trichloroethane Air 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 1.27 Air 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1.28 Air 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 1.38 Air 1,3-butadiene 0.85 Air 1-butene 1.08 Air 1-butoxy propanol Air 1-hexene Air 1-methoxy-2-propanol Air 1-pentene Air 2,2-dimethylbutane Air 2,3-dimethylbutane Air 2-butoxyethanol Air 2-ethoxyethanol Air 2-methoxyethanol Air 2-methyl-1-butanol Air 2-methyl-1-butene Air 2-methyl-2-butanol Air 2-methyl-2-butene Air 2-methyl hexane Air 2-methyl pentane 0.42 Air 3,5-diethyltoluene 1.3 Air 3,5-dimethylethylbenzene 1.32 Air 3-methyl-1-butanol Air 3-methyl-1-butene Air 3-methyl-2-butanol Air 3-methyl hexane Air 3-methyl pentane Air 3-pentanol Air acetaldehyde Air acetic acid Air acetone Air benzaldehyde Air benzene 0.22 Air butane Air CO Air cyclohexane 0.29 Air cyclohexanol Air cyclohexanone Air decane Air diacetone alcohol Air dichloromethane Air diethyl ether Air dimethyl ether Air dodecane Air ethane Air ethanol Air ethene 1 Air ethyl t-butyl ether Air ethylacetate Air ethylbenzene 0.73 Air ethylene glycol Air ethyne Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 137

140 Compartment Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H 2 Air formaldehyde 0.52 Air formic acid Air heptane Air hexane Air i-butane Air i-butanol 0.36 Air i-butyraldehyde Air i-propyl acetate Air i-propyl benzene 0.5 Air isoprene 1.09 Air isopropanol Air m-ethyl toluene 1.02 Air m-xylene 1.1 Air methane Air methanol 0.14 Air methyl acetate Air methyl chloride Air methyl formate Air methyl i-propyl ketone 0.49 Air methyl t-butyl ether Air methyl t-butyl ketone Air neopentane Air NO Air NO Air nonane Air o-ethyl toluene Air o-xylene 1.1 Air octane Air p-ethyl toluene Air p-xylene 1 Air pentanal Air pentane Air propane Air propene 1.12 Air s-butanol 0.4 Air s-butyl acetate Air SO Air styrene 0.14 Air t-butanol Air t-butyl acetate Air tetrachloroethene Air toluene 0.64 Air trichloroethene 0.33 Air trichloromethane Air hexan-3-one Air 1-butyl acetate Air cis-2-pentene 1.12 Air 1-butanol 0.62 Air cis-dichloroethene Air dimethyl carbonate Air butyraldehyde Air 2-butanone Air propylene glycol Air hexan-2-one Air diisopropylether Air trans-2-pentene 1.12 Air isopentane Air propanoic acid 0.15 Air cis-2-hexene 1.07 Air trans-2-butene 1.13 Air diethylketone Air 1-propyl acetate Air dimethoxy methane 0.16 Air 1-undecane Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 138

141 Compartment Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H 2 Air trans-2-hexene 1.07 Air methyl propyl ketone Air trans-dichloroethene Air 1-propanol Air i-butene Air 1-propyl benzene Air propionaldehyde Air cis-2-butene 1.15 Table A.8 Acidification Compartment Acidification kg SO2 eq Air ammonia 1.6 Air NO2 0.5 Air NOx 0.5 Air NOx (as NO2) 0.5 Air SO2 1.2 Air SOx 1.2 Air SOx (as SO2) 1.2 Table A.9 Eutrophication Compartment Eutrophication kg PO4--- eq Air ammonia 0.35 Air nitrates 0.1 Air NO 0.2 Air NO Air NOx (as NO2) 0.13 Air P 3.06 Air phosphate 1 Water COD Water NH Water NH Water nitrate 0.1 Water P2O Water phosphate 1 Water NH3 (sea) 0.35 Soil phosphor (ind.) 3.06 Soil nitrogen (ind.) 0.42 Soil phosphoric acid (ind.) 0.97 Soil ammonia (agr.) 0.35 Soil phosphate (ind.) 1 Soil ammonium (ind.) 0.33 Water phosphate (sea) 1 Soil ammonium (agr.) 0.33 Soil nitric acid (agr.) 0.1 Soil nitric acid (ind.) 0.1 Water COD (sea) Water HNO3 (sea) 0.1 Water P 3.06 Soil ammonia (ind.) 0.35 Soil phosphoric acid (agr.) 0.97 Water phosphoric acid 0.97 Water nitrogen (sea) 0.42 Water nitrate (sea) 0.1 Soil nitrate (ind.) 0.1 Soil nitrate (agr.) 0.1 Water NH4+ (sea) 0.33 Water phosphoric acid (sea) 0.97 Soil phosphor (agr.) 3.06 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 139

142 Compartment Eutrophication kg PO4--- eq Air phosphoric acid 0.97 Soil phosphate (agr.) 1 Water nitrogen 0.42 Soil nitrogen (agr.) 0.42 Water P (sea) 3.06 Air ammonium 0.33 Water HNO3 0.1 Air HNO3 0.1 Water nitrite 0.1 Air N Water P2O5 (sea) 1.34 Air P2O Soil P2O5 (ind.) 1.34 Soil P2O5 (agr.) 1.34 Water nitrite (sea) 0.1 Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 140

143 Annex B System life cycle inventories Table B.1 System life cycle inventories, one sheet of Type A plasterboard Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Raw material Aluminium, 24% in bauxite, 11% in crude ore, in ground g Anhydrite, in ground µg Barite, 15% in crude ore, in ground g Basalt, in ground mg Bauxite, in ground mg Borax, in ground µg Calcite, in ground g Carbon dioxide, in air g Chromium, 25.5 in chromite, 11.6% in crude ore, in ground mg Chrysotile, in ground µg Cinnabar, in ground µg Clay, bentonite, in ground g Clay, unspecified, in ground g Coal, 29.3 MJ per kg, in ground mg Coal, brown, in ground g Coal, hard, unspecified, in ground kg Cobalt, in ground µg Colemanite, in ground mg Copper, 0.99% in sulfide, Cu 0.36% and Mo 8.2E-3% in crude ore, in ground mg Copper, 1.18% in sulfide, Cu 0.39% and Mo 8.2E-3% in crude ore, in ground mg Copper, 1.42% in sulfide, Cu 0.81% and Mo 8.2E-3% in crude ore, in ground mg Copper, 2.19% in sulfide, Cu 1.83% and Mo 8.2E-3% in crude ore, in ground mg Diatomite, in ground ng Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 141

144 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Dolomite, in ground mg Energy, gross calorific value, in biomass MJ Energy, kinetic, flow, in wind MJ Energy, potential, stock, in barrage water kj Energy, solar kj Energy, unspecified kj Feldspar, in ground µg Fluorine, 4.5% in apatite, 1% in crude ore, in ground mg Fluorine, 4.5% in apatite, 3% in crude ore, in ground mg Fluorspar, 92%, in ground mg Gas, mine, off-gas, process, coal mining/m3 dm Gas, natural, in ground m Granite, in ground µg Gravel, in ground g Gypsum, in ground kg Iron ore, in ground mg Iron, 46% in ore, 25% in crude ore, in ground g Kaolinite, 24% in crude ore, in ground g Kieserite, 25% in crude ore, in ground mg Lead, 5%, in sulfide, Pb 2.97% and Zn 5.34% in crude ore, in ground mg Magnesite, 60% in crude ore, in ground mg Magnesium, 0.13% in water µg Manganese, 35.7% in sedimentary deposit, 14.2% in crude ore, in ground mg Molybdenum, 0.010% in sulfide, Mo 8.2E-3% and Cu 1.83% in crude ore, in ground mg Molybdenum, 0.014% in sulfide, Mo 8.2E-3% and Cu 0.81% in crude ore, in ground µg Molybdenum, 0.022% in sulfide, Mo 8.2E-3% and Cu 0.36% in crude ore, in ground mg Molybdenum, 0.025% in sulfide, Mo 8.2E-3% and Cu 0.39% in crude ore, in ground µg Molybdenum, 0.11% in sulfide, Mo 4.1E-2% and mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 142

145 Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Cu 0.36% in crude ore, in ground Nickel, 1.13% in sulfide, Ni 0.76% and Cu 0.76% in crude ore, in ground mg Nickel, 1.98% in silicates, 1.04% in crude ore, in ground g Occupation, arable, non-irrigated m2a Occupation, construction site cm2a Occupation, dump site cm2a Occupation, dump site, benthos cm2a Occupation, forest, intensive m2a Occupation, forest, intensive, normal m2a Occupation, industrial area cm2a Occupation, industrial area, benthos mm2a Occupation, industrial area, built up cm2a Occupation, industrial area, vegetation cm2a Occupation, mineral extraction site cm2a Occupation, permanent crop, fruit, intensive cm2a Occupation, shrub land, sclerophyllous mm2a Occupation, traffic area, rail embankment mm2a Occupation, traffic area, rail network mm2a Occupation, traffic area, road embankment cm2a Occupation, traffic area, road network cm2a Occupation, urban, discontinuously built mm2a Occupation, water bodies, artificial cm2a Occupation, water courses, artificial cm2a Oil, crude, 42.7 MJ per kg, in ground g Oil, crude, in ground g Olivine, in ground µg Pd, Pd 2.0E-4%, Pt 4.8E-4%, Rh 2.4E-5%, Ni 3.7E-2%, Cu 5.2E-2% in ore, in ground ng Pd, Pd 7.3E-4%, Pt 2.5E-4%, Rh 2.0E-5%, Ni 2.3E+0%, Cu 3.2E+0% in ore, in ground µg Peat, in ground mg Phosphorus, 18% in apatite, 12% in crude ore, in ground mg Phosphorus, 18% in apatite, 4% in crude ore, in mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 143

146 Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit ground Pt, Pt 2.5E-4%, Pd 7.3E-4%, Rh 2.0E-5%, Ni 2.3E+0%, Cu 3.2E+0% in ore, in ground ng Pt, Pt 4.8E-4%, Pd 2.0E-4%, Rh 2.4E-5%, Ni 3.7E-2%, Cu 5.2E-2% in ore, in ground ng Rh, Rh 2.0E-5%, Pt 2.5E-4%, Pd 7.3E-4%, Ni 2.3E+0%, Cu 3.2E+0% in ore, in ground ng Rh, Rh 2.4E-5%, Pt 4.8E-4%, Pd 2.0E-4%, Ni 3.7E-2%, Cu 5.2E-2% in ore, in ground ng Rhenium, in crude ore, in ground ng Rutile, in ground ng Sand, unspecified, in ground mg Shale, in ground µg Silver, 0.01% in crude ore, in ground ng Sodium chloride, in ground g Sodium sulphate, various forms, in ground mg Soil, unspecified, in ground g Stibnite, in ground ng Sulfur, in ground mg Sylvite, 25 % in sylvinite, in ground mg Talc, in ground mg Tin, 79% in cassiterite, 0.1% in crude ore, in ground µg TiO2, 45-60% in Ilmenite, in ground mg Transformation, from arable mm Transformation, from arable, non-irrigated sq.in Transformation, from arable, non-irrigated, fallow mm Transformation, from dump site, inert material landfill mm Transformation, from dump site, residual material landfill mm Transformation, from dump site, sanitary landfill mm Transformation, from dump site, slag compartment mm Transformation, from forest mm Transformation, from forest, extensive cm Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 144

147 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Transformation, from industrial area mm Transformation, from industrial area, benthos mm Transformation, from industrial area, built up mm Transformation, from industrial area, vegetation mm Transformation, from mineral extraction site mm Transformation, from pasture and meadow mm Transformation, from pasture and meadow, intensive mm Transformation, from sea and ocean cm Transformation, from shrub land, sclerophyllous mm Transformation, from unknown mm Transformation, to arable mm Transformation, to arable, non-irrigated sq.in Transformation, to arable, non-irrigated, fallow mm Transformation, to dump site mm Transformation, to dump site, benthos cm Transformation, to dump site, inert material landfill mm Transformation, to dump site, residual material landfill mm Transformation, to dump site, sanitary landfill mm Transformation, to dump site, slag compartment mm Transformation, to forest mm Transformation, to forest, intensive mm Transformation, to forest, intensive, normal cm Transformation, to heterogeneous, agricultural mm Transformation, to industrial area mm Transformation, to industrial area, benthos mm Transformation, to industrial area, built up mm Transformation, to industrial area, vegetation mm Transformation, to mineral extraction site cm Transformation, to pasture and meadow mm Transformation, to permanent crop, fruit, intensive mm Transformation, to sea and ocean mm Transformation, to shrub land, sclerophyllous mm Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 145

148 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Transformation, to traffic area, rail embankment mm Transformation, to traffic area, rail network mm Transformation, to traffic area, road embankment mm Transformation, to traffic area, road network mm Transformation, to unknown mm Transformation, to urban, discontinuously built mm Transformation, to water bodies, artificial mm Transformation, to water courses, artificial mm Ulexite, in ground µg Uranium, in ground mg Vermiculite, in ground mg Volume occupied, final repository for low-active radioactive waste mm Volume occupied, final repository for radioactive waste mm Volume occupied, reservoir m3day Volume occupied, underground deposit mm Water, cooling, unspecified natural origin/m3 dm Water, lake cu.in Water, river dm Water, salt, ocean cu.in Water, salt, sole cm Water, turbine use, unspecified natural origin m Water, unspecified natural origin/kg g Water, unspecified natural origin/m3 cu.in Water, well, in ground cu.in Wood, hard, standing cm Wood, soft, standing cm Wood, unspecified, standing/m3 mm Zinc 9%, in sulfide, Zn 5.34% and Pb 2.97% in crude ore, in ground mg Air Acenaphthene ng Acetaldehyde µg Acetic acid mg Acetone µg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 146

149 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Acrolein ng Actinides, radioactive, unspecified nbq Aerosols, radioactive, unspecified mbq Aldehydes, unspecified µg Aluminum mg Ammonia mg Ammonium carbonate ng Antimony µg Antimony-124 nbq Antimony-125 nbq Argon-41 Bq Arsenic µg Barium µg Barium-140 µbq Benzaldehyde ng Benzene mg Benzene, ethyl- µg Benzene, hexachloro- ng Benzene, pentachloro- ng Benzo(a)pyrene µg Beryllium ng Boron mg Bromine mg Butadiene µg Butane mg Butene µg Cadmium µg Calcium mg Carbon-14 Bq Carbon dioxide g Carbon dioxide, biogenic kg Carbon dioxide, fossil kg Carbon disulfide mg Carbon monoxide mg Carbon monoxide, biogenic mg Carbon monoxide, fossil g Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 147

150 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Cerium-141 µbq Cesium-134 nbq Cesium-137 µbq Chlorine µg Chloroform ng Chromium mg Chromium-51 nbq Chromium VI µg Cobalt µg Cobalt-58 nbq Cobalt-60 µbq Copper mg Cumene mg Cyanide mg Dinitrogen monoxide mg Dioxins, measured as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin ng Ethane mg Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-, HFC-134a mg Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- µg Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, CFC- 114 µg Ethane, hexafluoro-, HFC-116 µg Ethanol µg Ethene mg Ethene, chloro- µg Ethylene diamine µg Ethylene oxide ng Ethyne µg Fluorine µg Fluosilicic acid µg Formaldehyde mg Heat, waste MJ Helium mg Heptane mg Hexane mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 148

151 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, alkanes, cyclic ng Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, alkanes, unspecified mg Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, unsaturated mg Hydrocarbons, aromatic mg Hydrocarbons, chlorinated µg Hydrocarbons, unspecified mg Hydrogen mg Hydrogen-3, Tritium Bq Hydrogen chloride mg Hydrogen fluoride mg Hydrogen sulfide mg Iodine mg Iodine-129 mbq Iodine-131 mbq Iodine-133 µbq Iron mg Isocyanic acid µg Krypton-85 Bq Krypton-85m mbq Krypton-87 mbq Krypton-88 mbq Krypton-89 mbq Lanthanum-140 µbq Lead µg Lead-210 mbq m-xylene µg Magnesium mg Manganese µg Manganese-54 nbq Mercury µg Methane g Methane, biogenic mg Methane, bromochlorodifluoro-, Halon 1211 µg Methane, bromotrifluoro-, Halon 1301 µg Methane, chlorodifluoro-, HCFC-22 µg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 149

152 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30 ng Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12 ng Methane, dichlorofluoro-, HCFC-21 pg Methane, fossil g Methane, monochloro-, R-40 ng Methane, tetrachloro-, CFC-10 µg Methane, tetrafluoro-, FC-14 µg Methane, trichlorofluoro-, CFC-11 pg Methane, trifluoro-, HFC-23 ng Methanol mg Molybdenum µg Monoethanolamine µg Nickel mg Niobium-95 nbq Nitrate µg Nitrogen oxides g NMVOC, non-methane volatile organic compounds, unspecified origin g Noble gases, radioactive, unspecified kbq Ozone mg PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons mg Paraffins ng Particulates mg Particulates, < 2.5 um g Particulates, > 10 um g Particulates, > 2.5 um, and < 10um g Particulates, SPM mg Pentane mg Phenol mg Phenol, pentachloro- µg Phosphorus µg Platinum pg Plutonium-238 nbq Plutonium-alpha nbq Polonium-210 mbq Polychlorinated biphenyls ng Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 150

153 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Potassium mg Potassium-40 mbq Propanal ng Propane mg Propene mg Propionic acid mg Propylene oxide µg Protactinium-234 mbq Radioactive species, other beta emitters mbq Radium-226 mbq Radium-228 mbq Radon-220 µbq Radon-222 kbq Ruthenium-103 nbq Scandium ng Selenium µg Silicon mg Silicon tetrafluoride ng Silver ng Silver-110 nbq Sodium mg Sodium chlorate mg Sodium dichromate µg Sodium formate µg Strontium µg Styrene ng Sulphate mg Sulfur dioxide g Sulfur hexafluoride µg t-butyl methyl ether µg Thallium ng Thorium ng Thorium-228 mbq Thorium-230 mbq Thorium-232 mbq Thorium-234 mbq Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 151

154 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Tin µg Titanium µg Toluene mg Uranium ng Uranium-234 mbq Uranium-235 mbq Uranium-238 mbq Uranium alpha mbq Vanadium mg water mg Xenon-131m mbq Xenon-133 Bq Xenon-133m mbq Xenon-135 Bq Xenon-135m Bq Xenon-137 mbq Xenon-138 mbq Xylene mg Zinc mg Zinc-65 nbq Zirconium ng Zirconium-95 nbq Water Acenaphthene ng Acenaphthylene ng Acetic acid µg Acidity, unspecified mg Actinides, radioactive, unspecified mbq Aluminum g Ammonia µg Ammonium, ion mg Antimony mg Antimony-122 µbq Antimony-124 mbq Antimony-125 mbq AOX, Adsorbable Organic Halogen as Cl mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 152

155 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Arsenic, ion mg Barite g Barium mg Barium-140 µbq Benzene mg Benzene, ethyl- µg Beryllium µg BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand g Boron mg Bromate µg Bromine mg Butene µg Cadmium, ion µg Calcium, ion g Carbonate mg Carboxylic acids, unspecified mg Cerium-141 µbq Cerium-144 µbq Cesium µg Cesium-134 mbq Cesium-136 µbq Cesium-137 Bq Chlorate mg Chloride g Chlorinated solvents, unspecified µg Chlorine mg Chloroform pg Chromium-51 mbq Chromium VI mg Chromium, ion µg Cobalt mg Cobalt-57 µbq Cobalt-58 mbq Cobalt-60 mbq COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand g Copper, ion mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 153

156 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Cumene mg Cyanide mg Dichromate µg DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon g Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- µg Ethene µg Ethene, chloro- ng Ethylene diamine µg Ethylene oxide ng Fluoride mg Fluosilicic acid µg Formaldehyde mg Glutaraldehyde µg Heat, waste MJ Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, alkanes, unspecified mg Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, unsaturated µg Hydrocarbons, aromatic mg Hydrocarbons, unspecified mg Hydrogen µg Hydrogen-3, Tritium kbq Hydrogen peroxide mg Hydrogen sulfide mg Hydroxide µg Hypochlorite µg Iodide mg Iodine-131 mbq Iodine-133 µbq Iron-59 µbq Iron, ion g Lanthanum-140 µbq Lead mg Lead-210 Bq Magnesium mg Manganese mg Manganese-54 mbq Mercury µg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 154

157 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Metallic ions, unspecified µg Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30 µg Methanol µg Molybdenum mg Molybdenum-99 µbq Naphthalene ng Nickel, ion mg Niobium-95 mbq Nitrate g Nitrite mg Nitrogen mg Nitrogen, organic bound mg Oils, unspecified g PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons µg Paraffins ng Phenol mg Phosphate mg Phosphorus mg Polonium-210 Bq Potassium-40 mbq Potassium, ion g Propene mg Propylene oxide µg Protactinium-234 mbq Radioactive species, alpha emitters µbq Radioactive species, Nuclides, unspecified Bq Radium-224 Bq Radium-226 Bq Radium-228 Bq Rubidium µg Ruthenium-103 µbq Scandium µg Selenium µg Silicon g Silver-110 mbq Silver, ion µg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 155

158 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Sodium-24 µbq Sodium formate µg Sodium, ion g Solids, inorganic mg Solved solids mg Strontium mg Strontium-89 mbq Strontium-90 Bq Sulphate g Sulfide µg Sulfite mg Sulfur mg Suspended solids, unspecified g t-butyl methyl ether µg Technetium-99m µbq Tellurium-123m mbq Tellurium-132 µbq Thallium µg Thorium-228 Bq Thorium-230 Bq Thorium-232 mbq Thorium-234 mbq Tin, ion mg Titanium, ion mg TOC, Total Organic Carbon g Toluene mg Tributyltin compounds µg Triethylene glycol µg Tungsten µg Uranium-234 mbq Uranium-235 mbq Uranium-238 mbq Uranium alpha Bq Vanadium, ion mg VOC, volatile organic compounds, unspecified origin mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 156

159 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Xylene mg Zinc-65 mbq Zinc, ion mg Zirconium-95 µbq Slags mg Waste, inorganic mg Soil Aclonifen µg Aluminum mg Antimony ng Arsenic µg Atrazine mg Barium mg Bentazone µg Boron µg Cadmium µg Calcium mg Carbetamide µg Carbon mg Chloride mg Chlorothalonil mg Chromium µg Chromium VI µg Cobalt µg Copper µg Cypermethrin µg Dinoseb µg Fenpiclonil µg Fluoride mg Glyphosate mg Heat, waste kj Iron mg Lead µg Linuron µg Magnesium mg Mancozeb mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 157

160 15% recycled content (low transport) 15% recycled content (high transport) 25% recycled content (low transport) 25% recycled content (high transport) Substance Unit Baseline (low transport) Baseline (high transport) Manganese mg Mercury µg Metaldehyde µg Metolachlor mg Metribuzin µg Molybdenum ng Napropamide µg Nickel µg Oils, biogenic mg Oils, unspecified g Orbencarb µg Phosphorus mg Pirimicarb ng Potassium mg Silicon mg Silver ng Sodium mg Strontium µg Sulfur mg Tebutam µg Teflubenzuron µg Tin ng Titanium µg Vanadium µg Zinc mg Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 158

161 Annex C Lifecycle impact assessment detailed results Table C.1 Results breakdown baseline scenario (low recycling transport), one sheet of Type A plasterboard Abiotic depletion % Global warming (GWP 100) % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) % Human toxicity % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport(conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Total % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity % Terrestrial ecotoxicity % Photooxidation % Acidification % Eutrophication % Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 159

162 Table C.2 Results breakdown baseline scenario (high recycling transport): one sheet of Type A plasterboard Abiotic depletion % Global warming (GWP 100) % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) % Human toxicity % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport (conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Total % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity % Terrestrial ecotoxicity % Photooxidation % Acidification % Eutrophication % Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 160

163 Table C.3 Results breakdown 15% recyclate scenario (low recycling transport): one sheet of Type A plasterboard Abiotic depletion % Global warming (GWP 100) % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) % Human toxicity % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport (conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Total % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity % Terrestrial ecotoxicity % Photooxidation % Acidification % Eutrophication % Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 161

164 Table C.4 Results breakdown 15% recyclate scenario (high recycling transport): one sheet of Type A plasterboard Abiotic depletion % Global warming (GWP 100) % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) % Human toxicity % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport (conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Total % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity % Terrestrial ecotoxicity % Photooxidation % Acidification % Eutrophication % Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 162

165 Table C.5 Results breakdown 25% recyclate scenario (low recycling transport): one sheet of Type A plasterboard Abiotic depletion % Global warming (GWP 100) % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) % Human toxicity % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport (conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Total % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity % Terrestrial ecotoxicity % Photooxidation % Acidification % Eutrophication % Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 163

166 Table C.6 Results breakdown 25% recyclate scenario (high recycling transport): one sheet of Type A plasterboard Abiotic depletion % Global warming (GWP 100) % Ozone layer depletion (ODP) % Human toxicity % Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Gypsum production (conventional) Gypsum transport (conventional) Gypsum preprocessing (conventional) Gypsum production (recycled process waste) Gypsum production (closed loop recycled post-consumer waste) Other recycling outputs Gypsum preprocessing (recycled) Stucco production (gypsum calcining) Facing paper production Plasterboard production Packaging and distribution Collection and transport for recycling Collection and transport for disposal Disposal Total % Marine aquatic ecotoxicity % Terrestrial ecotoxicity % Photooxidation % Acidification % Eutrophication % Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 164

167 Annex D Landfill life cycle inventories (Golder Associates report) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard 165

168

169

170 October i Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Model Scenarios EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND CLOSURE Construction and Restoration (Closure) Burdens Operational Burdens EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL LEACHATE General Methodology LandSim Modelling Site Dimensions Leachate Source Term Loading Calculations Groundwater Emissions Discharge to Leachate Treatment Plant and Sewer Total Emissions Associated with Landfill Leachate EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL GAS General Methodology GasSim Modelling Site Dimensions Landfill Gas Source Term Combustion Plant Electricity Generation Loading Calculations Total Emissions Associated with Landfill Gas CH 4 & CO 2 Emissions in Co-disposal Scenario - Additional Calculations Increase in the Proportion of Plasterboard in Co-Disposed Waste REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Specification of Landfill Engineering Construction (Plant) Burdens Associated with Plasterboard Disposal Construction (Materials) Burdens Associated with Plasterboard Disposal Operational Burdens Associated with Plasterboard Disposal Summary Leachate Source Term Data. Leachate Treatment Plant Removal Factors Loading from Site Associated with Leachate (kg per tonne of waste). Disposal to Monocell

171 October ii Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Loading from Site (Due to Plasterboard) Associated with Leachate (kg per tonne of co-disposed waste). Co-Disposal with MSW. Summary Trace Gas Source Term Data. Classification of Gas Constituents for Reporting. Total Emissions from Site Associated with Landfill Gas (kg per tonne of waste) for Separate Disposal to Monocell and Co-Disposal Scenarios. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Electronic Copies of Models and Spreadsheets (CD) Summary of Calculations and Assumptions (Construction & Operation) Summary of Calculations and Assumptions (LandSim and GasSim)

172 October Plasterboard LCA Version A INTRODUCTION The specific objectives of the Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard Project (WRAP Reference PBD014) are to compile a detailed Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of the environmental burdens associated with the production, use and disposal of plasterboard in the UK, and to use the LCI data to compare the environmental impacts arising from the different source, disposal and recovery routes. Environmental Resources Management Ltd. (ERM) have been retained by WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) for completion of the project. Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (Golder Associates) have been subcontracted to ERM to estimate the environmental emissions specifically associated with the disposal of plasterboard to landfill. Two scenarios have been included disposal to monocell and co-disposal with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The intention has been to model representative sites based on existing UK landfills. A similar project, in which the environmental burdens associated with the disposal of various waste streams to landfill, was completed by Golder Associates as part of the development of the WRATE Life Cycle Assessment tool. WRATE (Waste and Resource Assessment Tool for the Environment) is a tool for evaluating the environmental aspects of waste management activities during their whole life. It allows users to identify the environmental impacts associated with the routing of waste from kerbside collection through advanced waste treatment facilities such as anaerobic digestion, to ultimate disposal. The approach used in this project is compatible with the approach used for the development of WRATE, for which further detail is provided in Hall et al, This report sets out the methodology adopted and results obtained in the estimation of the environmental burdens and emissions associated with the disposal of plasterboard to landfill. The emissions and burdens fall into three main categories: Those relating to the construction, operation and closure of the landfills; Emissions to water via the formation and movement of leachate; and Emissions to the atmosphere, primarily associated with landfill gas. Data for use in this project has been provided by third parties who wish to remain anonymous; Golder Associates has not independently verified any of the data. In those instances where data have not been available, professional judgement and experience has been used to make appropriate assumptions, which have been fully documented. Should additional data become available the figures quoted in this report may need to be amended.

173 October Plasterboard LCA Version A Model Scenarios Although a number of combinations of basal liner and cap engineering are common within both UK MSW landfills and mono-disposal sites, for the purposes of this study, which focuses on comparison, an engineering system common to both scenarios is considered appropriate. Monocell disposal. Within this project monocell disposal refers to the disposal of a single waste type to either a separate landfill or to a separate cell within a larger site. The environmental emissions associated with the disposal of plasterboard to monocell have been assessed assuming a single representative (generic) site, based on data from existing UK sites. This allows an element of extrapolation to future disposal conditions and maintains consistency with the WRATE work. Assumptions made in terms of site engineering are presented in Table 1. Details of model parameters describing waste properties etc. are listed in Appendix C. Co-disposal with MSW. The generic medium sized site with composite liner and PE cap modelled as part of the development of WRATE has been selected as generally representative of UK MSW sites. Assumptions made in terms of site engineering are presented in Table 1. Details of model parameters describing waste properties etc. are listed in Appendix C. The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations require that gypsum based and other high sulphate bearing materials are disposed of in cells where no biodegradable waste is accepted. Environment Agency guidance defines gypsum-based and other high sulphate bearing material to be wastes with more than 10% sulphate in any one load. The aim of the mixed waste scenario is to establish the environmental burdens associated with the disposal of smaller quantities of unsegregated plasterboard (for example within skips of builders waste) to non-hazardous sites along with other types of MSW. Although the content of high sulphate wastes within individual loads is limited to 10%, operators do not keep records of the number of such loads reaching landfill. It has not, therefore, been possible to determine the proportion of plasterboard within standard MSW with any accuracy, and there is no appropriate legislative limit. However, it is known that bricks, blocks and plaster make up 5.2% of standard MSW (NAW/AEAT Technology, 2003). If it is assumed that plasterboard makes up approximately 10% of this waste fraction, a figure of around 0.5% plasterboard in standard MSW would seem appropriate, and where appropriate this value has been assumed within the current project. Should more specific data subsequently become available this figure would need to be adjusted.

174 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Table 1: Specification of Landfill Engineering Item Medium Size MSW Monocell Area 20 Ha 4 Ha Waste thickness 25 m 10 m Operational Life Span 20 years 20 years Waste input rate 150, ,000 tonnes per annum 10,000-30,000 tonnes per annum Assumed Total Capacity 5,000,000 tonnes 400,000 tonnes Cap Engineering PE cap PE cap Basal Engineering Composite liner Composite liner Assumed Leachate Head 1m 1m

175 October Plasterboard LCA Version A EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND CLOSURE Burdens and emissions associated with the construction, operation, and closure (capping and restoration) of landfills have been addressed by constructing a bill of quantities of the key raw materials, fuel and energy usage typical of the landfill sizes considered. The assessment has been completed in a similar way to that used in the development of WRATE for both scenarios; the data for a medium sized site with composite liner and PE cap used in WRATE has been included as the co-disposal scenario without modification. The monocell model has been based on existing UK sites where possible, with additional parameters taken from the WRATE small sized site. A spreadsheet detailing the assumptions, calculations and results is included electronically in Appendix A, and in hardcopy form in Appendix B. Emissions have been expressed as kg material per tonne of plasterboard disposed. If it is assumed that the constructional, operational and restoration burdens associated with the co-disposal of plasterboard with MSW are directly proportional to the percentage of plasterboard assumed to be within standard MSW, all calculated burdens may be multiplied by this percentage to give an emission due to plasterboard per tonne of co-disposed waste. These figures are included in the Appendices. 2.1 Construction and Restoration (Closure) Burdens The primary burdens associated with landfill construction are linked to raw materials and fuel use. The amount of time that construction plant (dozers, dumps trucks, excavators etc.) is used on site has been estimated and compared with the service life of the machinery in order to assign appropriate burdens (based on manufacturer specifications) for the materials used in the plant s operation. The raw materials used during the construction of a landfill include items common to all liner systems and items that are liner type or material specific. Items such as weigh bridges, access roads, fencing restoration materials etc. have also been included in each scenario. No allowance has been made for the volume of void occupied by cell walls since the void is usually measured inside the liner, i.e. the air space for landfill and not the original shape of the void. A figure of 5% of the void volume has been assumed for the volume of additional excavation required for cell formation as the landfill is assumed to be in a quarry. The results of the assessment of the material and fuel usage associated with the construction and restoration of both the monocell and co-disposal site are contained in electronic form (spreadsheet) in Appendix A, and as hardcopy in Appendix B. A summary of the results is set out below in Tables 2 and 3.

176 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Table 2: Construction (Plant) Burdens Associated with Plasterboard Disposal (kg material per tonne of plasterboard) Monocell Co-disposal Fuel * Steel ** Plastic ** Rubber** Oil** * Density of diesel assumed to be 0.85 kg/l. Figure relates to amount of diesel used and requires conversion to diesel emissions. ** Capital burdens associated with the construction of plant used on site. Table 3: Construction (Materials) Burdens Associated with Plasterboard Disposal (kg material per tonne of plasterboard) Monocell Co-disposal Clay Gravel HDPE Concrete Polyethylene Soils LLDPE Bitumen Aggregate Steel Wood Operational Burdens The burdens and materials used during the operational phase of the landfill comprise the materials (mainly steel) used to construct the plant routinely used on a landfill (e.g. compactors, loading shovels, dozers, tractors, water and fuel bowsers etc.), the fuel, lubrication and rubber that are consumed, and water utilised on site. All these items are landfill size dependent and the usage will follow a pattern of economies of scale. Virtually all landfills (with the possible exception of ultra small remote landfills in isolated communities) will have at least one compactor. However, only the larger sites will routinely utilise more than one. The only item that is likely to be related solely to the volume of waste being placed is daily cover, which will be applied at the end of the working day across those wastes placed during the day. It is unusual, even on the largest landfills, to tip two waste lifts in a single day and most landfills use a lift height that is in the order of 2-3 m. It has therefore been assumed that the amount of daily cover is directly proportional to waste placed irrespective of landfill size or input rates.

177 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The results of the assessment of the material and fuel usage associated with the operation of both the monocell and co-disposal site are contained in electronic form (spreadsheet) in Appendix A, and as hardcopy in Appendix B. A summary of the results is set out below in Table 4. Table 4: Operational Burdens Associated with Plasterboard Disposal (kg material per tonne of plasterboard) Monocell Co-disposal Soil Steel** Rubber** Diesel * Oil** Water * Density of diesel assumed to be 0.85 kg/l Figure relates to amount of diesel used and requires conversion to diesel emissions ** Capital burdens associated with the construction of plant used on site.

178 October Plasterboard LCA Version A EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL LEACHATE 3.1 General Methodology The calculation of the leachate emissions inventory was carried out in two stages: The commercially available software LandSim v2.5 was used to calculate the concentration of contaminants reaching the water table and leachate treatment plant (sewer), along with volumetric flow rates, for both disposal to monocell and co-disposal with municipal solid waste (MSW); and The results were exported and manipulated in Excel in order to calculate the total emissions (in terms of kg contaminant per tonne of waste). In terms of leachate production, it has been assumed that there is no interaction between plasterboard and MSW when co-disposed (note, this is not the case when considering gas generation). Given this assumption, it is possible to calculate the environmental emissions from the generic medium sized non-hazardous site assuming 100% plasterboard waste, and subsequently reduce the emissions by a factor representing the actual proportion of plasterboard in MSW. For example, if the contaminant burden determined for the generic co-disposal site assuming 100% plasterboard is 8 kg per tonne of waste, then the contaminant burden when plasterboard makes up only 0.5% MSW would be 0.4 kg per tonne of co-disposed waste (= 8/200). Or put another way, if there are 8 kg of contaminant per tonne of plasterboard, there will be 8 kg of contaminant per 200 tonnes of total co-disposed waste. 3.2 LandSim Modelling As in the development of WRATE, the modelling of leachate emissions has been undertaken using LandSim Version 2.5, which was developed for the Environment Agency to provide probabilistic quantitative risk assessments of specific landfill site performance in relation to groundwater protection. A summary of the calculation methods used and assumptions made within LandSim is included in Appendix C; a detailed report describing the technical background to this model and the specific developments contained in Version 2.5 can be found in Drury et al, LandSim is a probabilistic model. It needs to be in order to assess the performance of geomembrane liner systems where a detailed knowledge of the number, size and distribution of defects in the liner could never be known precisely. Virtually all the inputs to the model can be described as probability density functions essentially encompassing the range and type of uncertainty associated with each parameter. Output from the model is in the form of percentiles so that a risk analyst is able to assess both the likely outcomes and more extreme/conservative outcomes.

179 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 For the purposes of this project all results have been taken at the 50 th percentile. This is the same approach as that taken in the groundwater Pollution Inventory study undertaken by Golder Associates for the Environment Agency in 2001 and the same approach as adopted for developing the landfill LCI values for WRATE. The 50 th percentile represents a close approximation to the most likely value if the analysis was repeated across a large range of sites. As this study is not focusing on site-specific issues, but rather is intended to take a broad, but defensible, approach, this is considered an appropriate method that is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Again, as in the development of WRATE, the models have been run for a 20,000 year period (a reasonable surrogate for infinity). During the model simulation the effects of degradation of both the engineered liner and the low permeability cap have been included. The LandSim model for the medium sized composite lined site with a PE cap used during the development of WRATE has been adopted for this project with minimal modification. Electronic copies of each of the LandSim models are included in Appendix A. Hardcopy examples of the input distributions used in LandSim modelling are included in Appendix C, and additional detail is given in the following sections Site Dimensions Since the LandSim model initially assumes 100% plasterboard waste in both scenarios (Section 3.1), the only differences between the monocell model and the co-disposal model are the cell length & width, the number of cells, the waste thickness and the surface breakout level. In addition, since an active gas extraction system is assumed in the MSW site, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are defined as such in the co-disposal model. In line with current UK monocell practice, no gas extraction system was included in the monocell model Leachate Source Term The range of contaminants found in leachate is determined by the components of the waste stream. There are a limited number of monocells accepting plasterboard in the UK. Contaminants selected for inclusion in the leachate assessment, and the concentrations of the selected contaminants, have been based on combined leachate monitoring data from sites which accepted either solely plasterboard or a combination of plasterboard, other gypsum wastes and, historically, asbestos. Asbestos is unlikely to impact leachate quality, so the available data is assumed to be representative of the leachate expected from pure plasterboard disposal.

180 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Initial screening was carried out as follows: Determinands for which all results were recorded as ND, % recovered or less than detection limits were omitted (detection limits varied). 95 species remained; Species not included on the Pollution Inventory List (with the exception of ammoniacal nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, sulphate, sulphide and sulphur) were omitted, as were properties or determinands for which LandSim modelling could not be carried out (e.g. temperature, alkalinity, COD). 38 species remained; The 6 PAHs on the Pollution Inventory List were summed to give a Total PAH figure; All PCBs recorded above detection limits were summed to give a Total PCB figure; Ortho-phosphate was omitted (total phosphate was included); o,p-ddt and p,p-ddt were combined and modelled as DDT; and Total and dissolved sulphur measured at one Site were modelled as total sulphate, since negligible sulphide was detected. A total of twenty three determinands remained for inclusion in the Life Cycle Inventory. The list of contaminants incorporated within each of the modelling scenarios and the initial concentrations of each of these contaminants in leachate have been included electronically in Appendix A, and are summarised in Table 5. It is recommended that manufacturers are approached in order to confirm the inclusion (or otherwise) of these species in plasterboard. Based on criteria of dimensionless Henry s Law Constant > 4x10-4 and Molecular Weight < 200 g/mol, only naphthalene was considered as a Volatile Organic Compound for the purposes of the LandSim modelling. LandSim v2.5 uses kappa values to model the decline in source concentration with time. The method is similar to that adopted by the EU Technical Adaptation Committee during the derivation of waste acceptance criteria for Annex 2 of the Landfill Directive, and is expanded in Drury et al, Details of the kappa values incorporated in the LandSim models are included in Table 5. Sulphate leaching from wastes is a relatively complex process and it is not uncommon for there to be two readily distinguishable dissolution rates, probably related to the form of gypsum (powdered or bulk plasterboard). These complexities can be readily modelled in LandSim by treating sulphate as two different contaminants with different kappa values. For the purposes of this project, the kappa value used in modelling inert waste in the development of WRATE has been incorporated. Total cyanide has been modelled conservatively using the Kd value for free cyanide included in the development of WRATE.

181 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Both scenarios have been modelled assuming leachate management with the control of leachate levels to 1 m above the liner system, on the basis that this is the most common specification for leachate control. Leachate is assumed to be pumped from the site to a leachate treatment plant prior to discharge of the treated effluent to sewer. The amount that is pumped to the treatment plant varies during the simulation as the cap and liner degrade. Only leachate remaining after leakage from the base of the site would be pumped from the site.

182 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Table 5: Summary Leachate Source Term Data minimum median maximum count # <LOD PDF (mg/l) 8 Kappa (m & c) Koc/Kd Aldrin ng/l < TRIANGULAR( , , ) Treat as Cd UNIFORM(410,160000) 5 Ammoniacal Nitrogen N:mg/l < LOGTRIANGULAR(0.005,44,218) 9 As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Cadmium (Diss) mg/l < < LOGTRIANGULAR( ,0.001,0.005) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Calcium (Diss) mg/l TRIANGULAR(78,231,3147) Treat as Na & K Treat as Na & K Chloride mg/l LOGTRIANGULAR(18,346,3880) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Chromium (Diss) mg/l < UNIFORM(0.005,0.15) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Copper (Diss) mg/l < LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.02) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Cyanide (Total) mg/l SINGLE(0.1) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Dieldrin ng/l SINGLE( ) Treat as Cd TRIANGULAR(3982,12600,38700) 5 Endosulphan-alpha ug/l SINGLE(0.138) Treat as Cd UNIFORM(2040,200000) 5 Fluoride mg/l UNIFORM(1.1,4.3) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Lead (Diss) mg/l < LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.04) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Magnesium (Diss) mg/l < TRIANGULAR(0.05,144,370) Treat as Na & K Treat as Na & K Naphthalene ug/l < LOGTRIANGULAR( , ,0.0159) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Nickel (Diss) mg/l < LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.86) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model DDT 1 ng/l SINGLE( ) Treat as Cd UNIFORM(19953, ) 5 Total PAH 2 ug/l < LOGUNIFORM( ,0.0908) Treat as Cd UNIFORM(107152, ) 6 Total PCB 3 ug/l UNIFORM( , ) Treat as Cd UNIFORM(19055, ) 7 Phosphate mg/l < LOGTRIANGULAR(0.05,0.05,44.9) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Potassium (Diss) mg/l LOGTRIANGULAR(0.1,90,1500) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Sodium (Diss) mg/l LOGTRIANGULAR(1.1,36316,36500) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model Sulphate mg/l LOGTRIANGULAR(667,1687,94000) As in WRATE Model (Inert Waste) 0 Sulphide 4 mg/l < Total Sulphur (Diss) 4 (SO4:mg/l) Total Sulphur 4 (SO4:mg/l) Zinc (Diss) mg/l < LOGUNIFORM(0.0025,0.26) As in WRATE Model As in WRATE Model NOTES o,p-ddt and p,p-ddt combined Sum of 6 PAHs included in the Pollution Inventory List. Sum of all individual PCBs exceeding detection limits. Total and dissolved sulphur modelled as total sulphate, since negligible sulphide detected in these samples. Koc values sourced from USDA ARS Pesticide Properties Database, 6 Koc values for individual PAHs sourced from Environment Agency Draft Technical Report P5-079/TR1 "Review of the Fate and Transport of Selected Contaminants in the Soil Environment", September 2003, (Recommended values for use in CLEA Model). Koc value sourced from ConSim Helpfiles. 8 Values less than detection limits replaced with half limit of detection. 9 Omitting apparent outlier of 2450 mg/l

183 October Plasterboard LCA Version A Loading Calculations The emissions from leachate are assumed to be released to groundwater (where leachate has leaked through a liner system) and to surface water (albeit via a sewer) where leachate has been directed to a leachate treatment plant Groundwater Emissions Groundwater flow from the base of the engineered barrier through the unsaturated zone to the water table has been modelled assuming that the leaking fluid displaces the existing pore water, changing neither volume nor properties of the soil water (a no-wetting scenario). The dispersion and retardation of contaminants has been included, and the parameters defining these processes are listed in Appendix C. While the emission from the landfill could be argued to take place once the contaminants have passed through the liner system, emissions have been assessed as contaminants reach the water table (prior to dilution) in order to include attenuation processes within the unsaturated zone. Given the uncertainties surrounding the specific condition of the unsaturated zone beneath the scenario sites, biodegradation has not been used in the models. This is a conservative assumption that will affect a small number of organic species only. Modelled values for leachate leakage rate and contaminant concentration at the base of the unsaturated zone for each timestep of the LandSim model (91 in total) have been exported to Microsoft Excel. Leakage rates have been multiplied by concentrations at each time. Intervening years have been interpolated, and the figures integrated to give the total mass loading to groundwater for each contaminant over the period modelled. For some highly retarded contaminants some concentration remained present at 20,000 years. Since it is not possible to simulate a longer time period within LandSim, in these instances the total loading to the environment was approximated by multiplying leakage rates by contaminant concentrations within the leachate (rather than the base of the unsaturated zone) at each timestep. An electronic copy of the spreadsheet detailing the calculations for each scenario is included in Appendix A. A hardcopy is included in Appendix C Discharge to Leachate Treatment Plant and Sewer The discharge of leachate to a leachate treatment plant has also been included in the assessment of the overall environmental burdens. Modelled values for flow to the leachate treatment plant and contaminant concentration in leachate for each timestep of the LandSim model (91 in total) have been exported to Microsoft Excel. Flow rates have been multiplied by concentrations at each time. Intervening years have been interpolated, and the figures integrated to give the total mass loading to the leachate treatment plant for each contaminant over the life of the landfill.

184 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Leachate treatment plant removal factors have been used to represent the effect of leachate treatment. The total loading has been multiplied by the removal factor to give the total mass loading to sewer following treatment for each contaminant. Leachate treatment plant removal factors were obtained as part of the WRATE software development for virtually all species modelled (Robinson and Knox, 2003, Robinson pers. comm. 2004), and these values have been retained in the current work. Where no data exist (due primarily to the very low concentrations of specific species in the input to the plants for which data are available) assumed values based on surrogate compound behaviours were agreed. The specific values used are presented in Table 6. An electronic copy of the spreadsheet detailing the calculations for each scenario is included in Appendix A. A hardcopy is included in Appendix C. Table 6: Leachate Treatment Plant Removal Factors Species LTP Removal Factor (1= no reduction in concentration) Aldrin 1 Ammoniacal Nitrogen Cadmium 0.3 Calcium 1 Chloride 1 Chromium 0.7 Copper 0.5 Cyanide 1 Dieldrin 1 Endosulphan-alpha 1 Fluoride 1 Lead 1 Magnesium 1 Naphthalene 0.05 Nickel 0.8 DDT 1 Total PAH 1 Total PCB 1 Phosphate 0 Potassium 1 Sodium 1 Sulphate 1 Zinc Total Emissions Associated with Landfill Leachate The total loading to the environment for each contaminant (in kg) resulting from the production of leachate has been represented as the sum of the total mass loading to groundwater and the total mass loading to sewer, following treatment, over the life of the landfill.

185 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The figures have been normalised for variations in site size by dividing by the mass of plasterboard waste in the site (giving the total mass of contaminant per mass of plasterboard, in kg/tonne). The results are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7: Loading from Site Associated with Leachate (kg per tonne of plasterboard). Disposal to Monocell Groundwater LTP Total Aldrin 1.896E E E-05 Ammoniacal Nitrogen 2.711E E E-04 Cadmium 8.454E E E-07 Calcium 1.868E E E-01 Chloride 6.200E E E-01 Chromium 5.357E E E-05 Copper 6.616E E E-05 Cyanide 4.458E E E-04 Dieldrin 5.576E E E-06 Endosulphan-alpha 1.166E E E-04 Fluoride 1.303E E E-03 Lead 5.554E E E-05 Magnesium 2.776E E E-01 Naphthalene 1.449E E E-09 Nickel 4.372E E E-04 DDT 3.503E E E-06 Total PAH 5.654E E E-06 Total PCB 7.347E E E-06 Phosphate 2.645E E E-05 Potassium 1.237E E E-02 Sodium 9.885E E E+00 Sulphate 2.224E E E+00 Zinc 4.767E E E-05

186 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Table 8: Loading from Site Associated with Leachate (kg per tonne of plasterboard). Co-Disposal with MSW. Groundwater LTP Total Aldrin 3.193E E E-06 Ammoniacal Nitrogen 2.823E E E-03 Cadmium 7.319E E E-06 Calcium 2.398E E E+00 Chloride 8.160E E E-01 Chromium 5.955E E E-04 Copper 1.179E E E-05 Cyanide 5.603E E E-04 Dieldrin 9.870E E E-06 Endosulphan-alpha 1.317E E E-04 Fluoride 1.650E E E-03 Lead 7.367E E E-05 Magnesium 3.537E E E-01 Naphthalene 1.225E E E-10 Nickel 2.662E E E-04 DDT 5.901E E E-06 Total PAH 5.343E E E-06 Total PCB 7.177E E E-06 Phosphate 3.186E E E-04 Potassium 1.654E E E-01 Sodium 1.244E E E+00 Sulphate 3.265E E E+01 Zinc 5.211E E E-05 Results for the co-disposal scenario may be expressed in terms of kg per tonne of total waste disposed (including MSW), assuming a range of plasterboard proportions within MSW; figures are presented within the spreadsheet.

187 October Plasterboard LCA Version A EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL GAS 4.1 General Methodology The calculation of the landfill gas emissions inventory was carried out in two stages using a similar approach to that for the leachate detailed in Section 3: The commercially available software GasSim Version 2.0 (GasSim2) was used to calculate the generation of landfill gas and the concentrations of trace components reaching the atmosphere, for both disposal to monocell and co-disposal with MSW; and The raw results were exported and manipulated in Microsoft Excel in order to calculate the total emissions (in terms of kg per tonne of waste). Where appropriate, gaseous emissions have been combined into groups for reporting purposes. In contrast to the approach adopted for leachate production, it has been assumed that there is interaction between plasterboard and MSW when co-disposed. 4.2 GasSim Modelling The modelling of landfill gas emissions has been undertaken using GasSim2, which was developed for the Environment Agency to provide probabilistic quantitative risk assessments of specific landfill site performance in relation to gas production and emissions. GasSim2 describes gas generation; gas partitioning between collection, migration, surface emissions and biological methane oxidation; as well as incorporating combustion plant and atmospheric dispersion and impact. A summary of the calculation methods used and assumptions made within GasSim2 is included in Appendix C; a detailed report describing the technical background to this model and the specific developments contained in Version 2.0 can be found at In common with LandSim, GasSim2 is a probabilistic model, in order to assess the generation of landfill gas where a detailed knowledge of the waste composition, moisture content and degradation rates could never be known precisely. Virtually all the inputs to the model can be described as probability density functions essentially encompassing the range and type of uncertainty associated with each parameter. Output from the model is in the form of percentiles so that a risk analyst is able to assess both the likely outcomes and more extreme/conservative outcomes. For the purposes of this project all results have been taken at the 50 th percentile. This is the same approach as that taken in the groundwater Pollution Inventory study undertaken by Golder Associates for the Environment Agency in 2001 and the same approach as adopted for developing the landfill LCI values for WRATE.

188 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The models have been run for a 150 year period which would be expected to be sufficient to encompass the vast majority of potential gas generation from landfill sites. During the model simulation, active gas management is assumed to occur on the co-disposal site using both flares and engines, in line with current best practice. Biological oxidation was assumed for 10% of the methane emissions that passed directly to atmosphere through fugitive emissions from the surface. Gas collection and temporary capping of waste was assumed to occur at the end of 2008, the year after the site began accepting waste. Final site capping activities are assumed to occur in the year following closure (2027) using a cap which is compliant with current Environment Agency permeability guidelines. Gas engines and flares were installed on the co-disposal site at the end of 2008, co-incident with the installation of temporary capping and active gas management. The gas collection infrastructure installed is representative of current industry practice and follows guidance on the management of landfill gas from the Environment Agency. Sufficient gas engine capacity was installed to ensure the flare was operational for less than 10% of the time during the period of peak gas production. Gas engines were assumed to have priority over flares. Electronic copies of each of the GasSim2 models are included in Appendix A. Hardcopy examples of the input distributions used in GasSim2 modelling are included in Appendix C, and additional detail is given in the following sections Site Dimensions Two separate co-disposal scenario models (with and without plasterboard) have been constructed, based on the medium size MSW cell detailed in Table 1. By subtracting the results of one model from the other, the gas emissions due to co-disposed plasterboard have been obtained. The modelled plasterboard monocell dimensions are as detailed in Table 1. In line with current UK monocell practice, no gas extraction system was included in the monocell model Landfill Gas Source Term The range of contaminants found in landfill gas is determined by the constituent components of the waste stream. GasSim2 simulates the generation of methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen from the degradation of wastes defined within the waste inventory (MSW composition data, in Appendix C). Certain wastes are assumed to be rapidly degradable (e.g. putrescible wastes), some moderately degradable (e.g. a proportion of the paper and card) and some slowly degradable (textiles, and some newspaper). The moisture content of the landfill has a major influence on the rate of degradation and therefore gas production rates, but not the total quantity of gas produced. GasSim2 contains three different default rate constants depending upon the likely moisture inputs to the landfill.

189 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Average moisture contents, most representative of current UK landfill characteristics, have been assumed for the purposes of this modelling. Entrained in the generated bulk gas will be certain trace components that are routinely found in landfill gas. The models were run assuming default trace gas concentrations (developed during the research leading to the publication of GasSim2) and updated where necessary with the publication of the Komex database (Parker, 2002). Table 9: Summary Trace Gas Source Term Data. Species PDF (mg/m 3 ) 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorochloroethane Logtriangular(0.002,0.2,2.0) 1,1,1-Trichlorotrifluoroethane Logtriangular(0.005,0.4,8.0) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Logtriangular(0.004,1.0,10.0) 1,1-Dichloroethane Logtriangular(0.02,0.28,3.9) 1,1-Dichloroethene Logtriangular(0.03,2.8,19) 1,1-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane Logtriangular(0.05,2.5,6.4) 1,2-Dichloropropane Single(0.0) 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane Logtriangular(0.01,9.8,300) Butanethiol Loguniform(1.0e-30,0.08) 1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane Logtriangular(0.04,0.51,31) 2-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane Loguniform(0.05,1.5) 2-Propanol Logtriangular(0.05,2.0,34) Acetalehyde (ethanal) Loguniform(0.075,2.546) Acetone Logtriangular(0.05,0.1,50) Benzene Logtriangular(3.1,15,73) Butadiene (modelled as 1,3-Butadiene) Loguniform(1.e-30,0.02) Butane Logtriangular(0.19,1.0,709) Butene isomers Logtriangular(0.01,0.2,1.8) Carbon disulphide Loguniform(0.9,170) Carbon monoxide Logtriangular(0.11,1.1,5.e-3) Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) Loguniform(1.e-30,0.02) Carbonyl sulphide Logtriangular(0.006,0.2,4.4) Chlorobenzene Loguniform(0.002,3000) Chlorodifluoromethane Logtriangular(0.005,0.1,9.9e3) Chloroethane Loguniform(1.e-30,5.3) Chlorofluoromethane Logtriangular(0.008,0.2,110) Chloroform (trichloromethane) Logtriangular(0.001,0.2,70) Chlorotrifluoromethane Logtriangular(0.1,0.2,49) Dichlorodifluoromethane Logtriangular(0.01,9.0,790) Dichlorofluoromethane Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,602) Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) Logtriangular(0.001,0.02,1.52e3) Diethyl disulphide Logtriangular(0.001,0.02,2.6) Dimethyl disulphide Logtriangular(0.03,0.17,12) Dimethyl sulphide Logtriangular(0.03,0.73,24.3) Ethane Logtriangular(0.005,6.25,200) Ethanethiol (ethyl mercaptan) Loguniform(1.e-30,0.08) Ethanol Logtriangular(0.005,0.2,810) Ethyl toluene (all isomers) Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,8.3) Ethylbenzene Logtriangular(0.001,0.001,875) Ethylene Uniform(0.2,5.8) Ethylene dichloride Logtriangular(0.006,0.01,1820) Fluorotrichloromethane Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,1000) Formaldehyde (methanal) Logtriangular(0.026,0.068,0.188) Hexane Logtriangular(0.001,9.6,44)

190 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Species PDF (mg/m 3 ) Hydrogen sulphide Logtriangular(2.4,53,580) Limonene Logtriangular(0.001,0.1,240) Methanethiol (methyl mercaptan) Loguniform(1.e-30,0.3) Methyl chloride (chloromethane) Logtriangular(0.006,0.2,10) Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) Logtriangular(0.001,180,1600) Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone) Logtriangular(0.005,0.005,73) Methyl isobutyl ketone Logtriangular(0.005,0.2,9.9) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) combustion para-dichlorobenzene (modelled as 1,4-Dichlorobenzene) Logtriangular(0.006,0.005,2.7) Pentane Logtriangular(0.02,0.3,105) Pentene (all isomers) Logtriangular(0.24,3.5,12) Propane Logtriangular(0.001,1.9,12.9) Propanethiol Loguniform(1.e-30,0.09) Sulphur dioxide combustion t-1,2-dichloroethene Logtriangular(0.02,0.24,2.6) Tetrachloroethane (modelled as 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane) Loguniform(0.001,50) Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene) Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,7700) Toluene Logtriangular(0.001,0.1,1250) Trichlorobenzene (all isomers) Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,0.13) Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene) Logtriangular(0.25,1.65,88) Trichlorofluoromethane Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,1000) Trichlorotrifluoroethane Logtriangular(0.001,4.8,24) Trimethylbenzene (all isomers) Logtriangular(0.001,0.01,187) Vinyl chloride (chloroethene, chloroethylene) Logtriangular(1.1,31.730) Xylene (all isomers) Logtriangular(0.001,0.001,6178) Combustion Plant Landfill gases collected and passed through the combustion plant will be converted to appropriate combustion products (with the exception of carbon dioxide) and certain new gases will be created. The efficiency of this conversion may depend upon the plant installed and in this case is assumed to be 99% for both flares and gas engines. Flare capacity was provided to a minimum gas production of 100 m 3 /h. Three gas engines, each rated to approximately 1 MWe utilising approximately 600 m 3 /h of landfill gas were assumed to be installed. A minimum gas flow rate of 250 m 3 /hr was used for gas engines although the details of the partitioning of the gas flow between flares and engines is not significant here as the combustion efficiencies are assumed to be similar.

191 October Plasterboard LCA Version A Electricity Generation The combustion of landfill gas in gas engines produces electricity with a typical conversion efficiency of 38%. Therefore, electricity generation from this renewable source of energy mitigates energy production from other sources. No account of electricity generation and offsetting of emissions from other sources of electricity generation has been made. 4.3 Loading Calculations Landfill gas is assumed to be released to the atmosphere in two ways: Controlled emission via the gas collection system and subsequent combustion; or Fugitive emissions from the surface through permanently capped, temporary capped an uncapped areas of the site. There is no intrinsic means of summing all of the gaseous emissions over the lifetime of the landfill within GasSim2 as the model was not developed for this purpose. However GasSim2 contains a module which integrates the total atmospheric emissions in terms of ozone depletion or global warming potential (GWP). By adjusting the GWP for each gas emitted to unity, the sum of the emissions of each gas over the life of the site for each of the different scenarios may be determined. Due to the very large number of trace gas components present in GasSim2, the trace components were grouped according to their chemical properties e.g. chlorinated solvents, alcohols, BTEX, etc in a similar manner to WRATE.

192 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 Table 10: Classification of Gas Constituents for Reporting. Group Name Alcohols Aldehydes Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BTEX CFCs Chlorinated Solvents Chlorinated Solvent degradation products Chloro-benzenes HCFCs Ketones Partial Combustion Products Substituted Aromatics Sulphurous Compounds Terpenes Gases Included 2-Propanol, Ethanol Acetalehyde (ethanal), Formaldehyde (methanal) Butene isomers + Butadiene (modelled as 1,3-Butadiene), Butane, Ethane, Ethylene, Hexane, Pentane, Pentene (all isomers) Benzene, Ethyl toluene (all isomers), Ethylbenzene, Trimethylbenzenes (all isomers), Toluene, Xylene (all isomers) 1,1,1-Trichlorotrifluoroethane, 1,1-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane, 1,2- Dichlorotetrafluoroethane, Chlorotrifluoromethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, Trichlorofluoromethane, 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethene, 1,2- Dichloropropane, Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane), Chloroform (trichloromethane), Dichloromethane (methylene chloride), Ethylene dichloride, Methyl chloride (chloromethane), Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane), t-1,2-dichloroethene, Tetrachloroethane (modelled as 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane), Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene), Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene) Chloroethane, Vinyl chloride (chloroethene, chloroethylene) Chlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, Trichlorobenzene (all isomers) 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorochloroethane, 1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane Acetone, Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone), Methyl isobutyl ketone Carbon monoxide Trimethylbenzene (all isomers) Butanethiol, Carbon disulphide, Carbonyl sulphide, Diethyl disulphide, Dimethyl disulphide, Dimethyl sulphide, Ethanethiol (ethyl mercaptan), Hydrogen sulphide, Methanethiol (methyl mercaptan), Propanethiol Limonene 4.4 Total Emissions Associated with Landfill Gas The total loading to the environment for each emitted component (in kg per tonne of plasterboard) resulting from the production of landfill gas has been represented as the sum of the total mass emitted to atmosphere from combustion activities and fugitive emissions over the life of the landfill (Table 11). Because the values generated for the co-disposal scenario are the result of running two simulations and subtracting the results of one from the other, there is some noise in the results. Much of this noise results from the probability density functions in GasSim, some of which span many orders of magnitude. Methane and CO 2 generated by degradation of the paper on the plasterboard in the co-disposal scenario is not identifiable at the level of reporting possible with the model. Significant differences between the monocell and the co-disposal scenario can be seen with respect to SO 2 and H 2 S, with the former being absent in the monocell (as it is a combustion product and the monocell has no combustion equipment) and the latter being generated in more significant quantities in the co-disposal site.

193 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The negative values generated for some of the trace gases and NO x are simply noise in the results and unless there is a compelling reason to include these, we would suggest that the trace gas results and NO x are ignored. Table 11: Total Emissions from Site Associated with Landfill Gas (kg per tonne of plasterboard deposited) for Separate Disposal to Monocell and Co-Disposal Scenarios. Species Monocell Disposal Co-disposal CH E E+00 CO E E+00 SO E E-01 H 2 S 5.13E E-03 1 NO x 0.00E E+00 Alcohols 1.63E E-05 Aldehydes 5.28E E-06 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 1.42E E-04 BTEX 1.70E E-04 CFCs 1.13E E-04 Chlorinated Solvents 1.70E E-03 Chlorinated Solvent Degradation 3.15E E-03 Products Chlorobenzenes 2.94E E-05 HCFCs 3.02E E-04 Ketones 5.56E E-05 Partial Combustion Products 6.68E E+00 Substituted Aromatics 7.98E E-06 Sulphurous Compounds 1.58E E-05 Terpenes 3.00E E-06 Note: NOx = NO + NO 2,expressed as NO 2. Formed during combustion. Model runs were based on a plasterboard paper content of 0.5%. Recently obtained data indicates that the paper content of plasterboard is closer to 5.0%. The monocell disposal model is therefore likely to have underestimated the emissions of CO 2 and CH 4 by a factor of ten, since in this scenario paper is the only source of these emissions. H 2 S emissions from the monocell are also likely to have been underestimated as H 2 S emissions are limited by the availability of carbon (not sulphur) at these carbon contents. The model results for CO 2, CH 4 and H 2 S in the monocell disposal scenario have therefore been increased by a factor of ten in Table 11 to account for the increased paper content of plasterboard. The model results for the co-disposal scenario are unlikely to be affected by an increase in the paper content of plasterboard from 0.5% to 5%, as the overall increase in biodegradable carbon is insignificant when compared with the biodegradable carbon present in the general waste mass.

194 October Plasterboard LCA Version A CH 4 & CO 2 Emissions in Co-disposal Scenario - Additional Calculations The zero emission of both methane and carbon dioxide from the co-disposal scenario given in Table 11 occurs as a result of the subtraction of two simulations which differ only in the sulphur content of the waste input. In reality, the generation of methane and carbon dioxide through the breakdown of plasterboard facing paper would occur in both the monocell and co-disposal scenarios. The emission of methane and carbon dioxide will not be the same in the two scenarios, due primarily to the collection and combustion of gases in the co-disposal site. Therefore, although the basic methodology used in the estimation of gaseous emissions through the co-disposal of plasterboard is sound, the following calculation has been completed in order to give a more detailed figure for the emission of methane and carbon dioxide in the co-disposal scenario. The results of the monocell disposal scenario may be taken as an initial estimate of the quantities of methane and carbon dioxide generated through the breakdown of plasterboard facing paper (i.e kg methane per tonne of plasterboard and 58.5 kg carbon dioxide per tonne of plasterboard). Any scaling variation between the monocell and co-disposal site is considered minimal. Assuming a 75% collection efficiency of LFG over the Site s lifetime, and 99% conversion of methane to carbon dioxide in engines and flares, emissions may be calculated as follows: Methane: 17.4 * 0.25 = 4.35 kg t -1 CH 4 emitted without being collected. ( ) * 0.01 = kg t -1 CH 4 emitted unburnt. Total CH 4 emission (co-disposal scenario) = = 4.48 kg t -1 plasterboard Carbon Dioxide: 58.5 kg t -1 CO 2 emitted directly 17.4 * 0.75 = kg t -1 CH 4 collected, = kg t -1 CO 2 (44/16 molecular weight ratio) * 0.99 = kg t -1 CO 2 from combustion of CH 4 Total CO 2 emission (co-disposal scenario) = = kg t -1 plasterboard If it is assumed that the collection efficiency of LFG over the lifetime of the Site is 50% (rather than 75%), the calculation results are: Total CH 4 emission (co-disposal scenario) = 8.79 kg t -1 plasterboard Total CO 2 emission (co-disposal scenario) = kg t -1 plasterboard

195 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 It is assumed that no significant biological oxidation of gas occurs before entry to the atmosphere Increase in the Proportion of Plasterboard in Co-Disposed Waste to 1% The co-disposal scenario is based on an assumed proportion of plasterboard within standard MSW of 0.5%. Minor modification to the proportion of plasterboard in MSW to 1% would not significantly affect the bulk composition of the waste mass, and emissions of non-sulphur containing gases would remain substantially the same. However, when expressed as kg per tonne of plasterboard, the figures decrease by approximately a factor of two. Emissions of sulphur-containing gases (where the plasterboard is the dominant source) would increase if the proportion of plasterboard in MSW were to increase. However, when emissions are expressed as kg per tonne of plasterboard placed, the figures remain the same. Significantly greater increases in the plasterboard content of MSW would be expected to affect the emissions of all gases, as the assumption that the bulk composition of the waste is unaffected would no longer be valid.

196 October Plasterboard LCA Version A REFERENCES Drury D., Hall D.H. and Dowle, J. (2003). The development of LandSim 2.5. NGCLC Report GW/03/09. Environment Agency, Solihull. Environment Agency Guidance for Wastes Destined for Disposal to Landfills Interpretation of the Waste Acceptance Requirements of the Landfill (England & Wales) Regulations 2002 (as amended). Environment Agency Guidance on the Management of Landfill Gas, LFTGN03, Hall D.H., Plimmer, B. and Thomas, B. (2006). Modelling Landfill Burdens The Foundation And Backbone Of Waste LCA. Waste 2006, Stratford upon Avon. Hall D.H, Plimmer B, and Kemp J. (2001). Scoping report on Pollution Inventory reporting for emissions to groundwater from landfills and subsequent reporting tool. Environment Agency Technical Report P1-497/TR The Composition of Municipal Waste in Wales - National Assembly for Wales (NAW)/AEAT Technology - December 2003 Parker, T. (2002) Investigation of the composition and emissions of trace components in landfill gas. R & D technical report ; P1-438/TR. Bristol : Environment Agency Robinson H.D. and Knox K., (2003). Updating the landfill leachate Pollution Inventory reporting tool. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report No PI-496/TR(2).

197 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 APPENDICES

198 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 APPENDIX A ELECTRONIC COPIES OF MODELS AND SPREADSHEETS (CD)

199 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS (CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION)

200 CONSTRUCTION (MATERIALS) BURDENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTERBOARD TO LANDFILL Landfill Parameters Monocell Co-disposal SUMMARY Area (ha) 4 20 No. of Cells 4 10 Burdens associated with landfill Area of Cell (m2) (kg material per tonne of plasterboard) Depth of Cell (m) Monocell Co-disposal Total Site Void (m3) Clay Void per Cell (m3) Gravel Annual Input (m3) HDPE Time to Fill Cell (yrs) 5 2 Concrete Lifetime of site (yrs) Polyethylene Density of waste (untreated) t/m Soils LLDPE Density Related Information Bitumen Engineered Clay (kg/m3) 2000 Aggregate Separator Geotextile (kg/m2) Steel Drainage Gravel (kg/m3) 1800 Wood Leachate Collection Pipe (kg/m) 8.42 Basal Geomembrane (kg/m3) 940 Basal Protection Geotextile (Monocell site) (kg/m2) 0.77 Basal Protection Geotextile (Co-disposalium site) (kg/m2) 1.07 Proportion of plasterboard co-disposed with MSW (%) 0.5 Basal Protection Geotextile (large site)(kg/m2) 2.87 Type 1 Sub Base (kg/m3) 1900 Final Waste Cover (kg/m3) 1800 Capping Geomembrane (kg/m3) 920 Burdens due to plasterboard disposal Capping Geotextile (kg/m2) 0.3 (kg material per tonne of total waste ) Subsoils (kg/m3) 1800 Monocell Co-disposal Topsoil (kg/m3) 1800 Clay Plain Pipe for Gas Wells (kg/m) 1.39 Gravel Slotted pipe for gas wells (kg/m) HDPE Weight of well head (kg) 10 Concrete Lateral carrier pipes (kg/m) 1.39 Polyethylene Weight of manifold to collect 10 pipes (kg) 300 Soils Weight of condensate pot (kg) 150 LLDPE Ringmain pipe (kg/m) 13.2 Bitumen Aggregate Steel Wood Landfill Construction Clay/Geomembrane Composite Liner Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Excavation of cell (m3) Mass of Clay Used per Cell (t) Total (kg) Total (kg) Excavation of Landfill (m3) Mass of Clay used per Landfill (t) Clay m clay liner per cell (m3) Mass of Clay bunds per Cell (t) Gravel m clay liner for landfill (m3) Mass of Clay bunds per landfill (t) HDPE Clay Bunds per Cell (m3) Mass of geomembrane per cell (t) Concrete Clay Bunds per Site (m3) Mass of Geomembrane per landfill (t) Polyethylene Geomembrane for Cell base (m2) Mass of protection geotextile per cell (t) Geomembrane for Landfill (m2) Mass of protection geotextile per landfill (t) Protection Geotextile for Cell Base (m2) Mass of drainage blanket per cell (t) Protection Geotextile for Landfill (m2) Mass of drainage blanket per landfill (t) Drainage Blanket Per Cell (m3) Mass of leachate pipework per cell (t) Drainage Blanket Per Landfill (m3) Mass of leachate pipework per landfill (t) Leachate Pipework per Cell (m) Leachate Pipework per landfill (m) Leachate Extraction Concrete Bases per Cell (m3) 8 8 Leachate Extraction Concrete Bases per Landfill (m3) Leachate Extraction Tower Pipework Per Cell (m) Leachate Extraction Tower Pipework Per Landfill (m) Landfill Restoration Geomembrane Cap Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Final Waste Cover Layer per Cell (m3) Mass of final waste cover layer per cell (t) Total (kg) Total (kg) Final Waste Cover Layer per Landfill (m3) Mass of final waste cover layer per landfill (t) Soils m thick clay cap per Cell (m3) Mass of Clay Used per Cell (t) Clay m thick clay cap per Landfill (m3) Mass of Clay used per Landfill (t) LLDPE Geomembrane Cap per Cell (m2) Mass of capping geomembrane per cell (t) Polyethylene Geomembrane Cap per Landfill (m2) Mass of capping geomembrane per landfill (t) Geotextile Protector per Cell (m2) Mass of capping geotextile per cell (t) Geotextile Protector per Landfill (m2) Mass of capping geotextile per landfill (t) Subsoils per Cell (m3) Mass of subsoils per cell (t) Subsoils per Landfill (m3) Mass of subsoils per landfill (t) Topsoil per Cell (m3) Mass of topsoil per cell (t) Topsoil per Landfill (m3) Mass of topsoil per landfill(t) Grass Seeding per Cell (m2) Grass Seeding per Landfill (m2) Surface Water Drainage Ditch per Cell (m) Surface Water Drainge Ditch per Landfill (m) Landfill Gas Extraction Wells/Pipework Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Number of Wells per Cell 0 7 Mass of plain pipe per cell (t) Total (kg) Total (kg) Number of Wells per Landfill 0 71 Mass of plain pipe per landfill (t) HDPE Gas Well Drilling Per Cell (m) Mass of slotted pipe per cell (t) Gas Well Drilling Per Landfill (m) Mass of slotted pipe per landfill (t) Length of Plain Pipe Required per Cell (m) 0 35 Mass of well heads per cell (t) Length of Plain Pipe Required per Landfill (m) Mass of well heads per landfill (t) Length of Slotted Pipe per Cell (m) Length of Slotted Pipe per Landfill (m) Mass of carrier pipes per cell (t) Number of well heads per cell 0 7 Mass of carrier pipes per landfill (t) Number of well heads per landfill 0 71 Mass of manifolds per cell (t) Number of carrier pipes to manifold per cell 0 7 Mass of manifolds per landfill (t) Length of carrier pipes per cell (m) Mass of condensate pots per cell (t) Length of Carrier pipes per landfill (m) Mass of condensate pots per landfill (t) Number of manifolds per cell 0 1 Mass of ringmain per cell (t) Number of manifolds per landfill 0 9 Mass of ringmain per landfill (t) Number of condensate pots per cell 0 1 Number of condensate pots per landfill 0 9 Length of ring main per cell (m) Length of ring main per landfill (m) Tarmac Site Entrance Road Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Amount of Wearing Course (m3) Mass of wearing course (t) Total (kg) Total (kg) Amount of Base Couse (m3) Mass of base course (t) Wearing Course Amount of Road Base (m3) Mass of road base (t) Bitumen Amount of Sub-base aggregate (m3) Mass of sub base aggregate (t) Aggregate Base Course Bitumen Aggregate Road Base Bitumen Aggregate Concrete Site Entrance Road Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Amount of Concrete (m3) Mass of Concrete (t) Total (kg) Total (kg) Concrete Materials to form Weighbridge Materials to form Wheel wash Materials to form Fencing TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Total (kg) Total (kg) Concrete Steel TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Total (kg) Total (kg) Concrete Steel Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal TOTAL Monocell Co-disposal Length of perimeter fence (m) Mass of material for perimeter fencing (t) Total (kg) Total (kg) Length of internal fencing (m) Mass of material for internal fencing (t) Wood Construction & Operation.xls Construction Materials

201 CONSTRUCTION (PLANT) BURDENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTERBOARD TO LANDFILL Landfill Parameters Monocell Co-disposal Area (ha) 4 20 No. of Cells 4 10 Area of Cell (m2) Depth of Cell (m) Total Site Void (m3) Void per Cell (m3) Annual Input (m3) Time to Fill Cell (yrs) 5 2 Lifetime of site (yrs) Working Hours per Day 9 Density of waste (untreated) t/m Plant Fuel Consumption (l/h) Average Lifespan (hrs) Weight of Plant (kg) % Weight Steel % Weight Plastic % Weight Rubber Oil Usage (l/hr) Dump Trucks (assume Volvo A30 or CAT 300) % 1% 5% 0.41 Dozer (assume CAT D6) % 1% 1% 0.22 Excavator (assume CAT 330 or VolvoEC330) % 1% 1% 0.19 Sheepsfoot Roller (assume 15 t Bomag Self Propelled Single Drum) % 0% 0% 0.05 Smooth Roller (assume 15 t Bomag Self Propelled Single Drum) % 0% 0% 0.05 Paver (assume standard road paver) % 0% 1% 0.22 Drilling Rig (assume Rotary Rig) % 0% 0% 0.22 Number Weeks Days Hours per Cell Hours Per Landfill Fuel Per Landfill (l) Cell Construction (Composite Liner) Monocell Landfill Dump Trucks Dozers Excavators Rollers Excavator for use with membrane/textile Co-disposal Landfill Dump Trucks Dozers Excavators Rollers Excavator for use with membrane/textile Cell Restoration (Geomembrane Cap) Monocell Landfill Dump Trucks Dozers Excavators Rollers Excavator for use with membrane/textile Co-disposal Landfill Dump Trucks Dozers Excavators Rollers Excavator for use with membrane/textile Excavation of Ditches (Cell Restoration) Monocell Landfill Excavator Co-disposal Landfill Excavator Drilling Gas Wells Monocell Landfill SUMMARY Rotary Rig Burdens associated with landfill Co-disposal Landfill (kg material per tonne of plasterboard) Rotary Rig Monocell Co-disposal Fuel* Tarmac Road Construction (both scenarios) Steel Excavator N/A Plastic Dozer N/A Rubber Dump Truck N/A Oil Smooth Drum Roller N/A * Density of diesel assumed to be 0.85 kg/l Paver N/A Weighbridge and Wheel Wash Construction (both scenarios) Proportion of plasterboard co-disposed with MSW (%) 0.5 Excavator N/A Dozer N/A Dump Truck N/A Burdens due to plasterboard disposal (kg material per tonne of total waste ) Concrete Road Construction (both scenarios) Monocell Co-disposal Excavator N/A Fuel* Dozer N/A Steel E-05 Dump Truck N/A Plastic E-07 Smooth Drum Roller N/A Rubber E Oil E-05 * Density of diesel assumed to be 0.85 kg/l No of plant per landfill Steel Per Landfill (kg) Plastic Per Landfill (kg) Rubber Per Landfill (kg) Oil Per Landfill (l) Construction & Operation.xls Construction Plant

202 OPERATIONAL BURDENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTERBOARD TO LANDFILL Landfill Parameters Monocell Co-disposal Area (ha) 4 20 No. of Cells 4 10 Area of Cell (m2) Depth of Cell (m) Total Site Void (m3) Void per Cell (m3) Annual Input (m3) Time to Fill Cell (yrs) 5 2 Lifetime of site (yrs) Density of waste (untreated) t/m Fuel Consumption (l/h) Average Lifespan (hrs) Weight of Plant (kg) % Weight Steel % Weight Plastic % Weight Rubber Oil Usage (l/hr) Plant Dump Trucks (assume Volvo A30 or CAT 300) % 1% 5% 0.41 Dozer (assume CAT D6) % 1% 1% 0.22 Excavator (assume CAT 330 or VolvoEC330) % 1% 1% 0.19 Sheepsfoot Roller (assume 15 t Bomag Self Propelled Single Drum) % 0% 0% 0.05 Smooth Roller (assume 15 t Bomag Self Propelled Single Drum) % 0% 0% 0.05 Compactor (Cat 826) % 0% 0% 0.22 Loader Shover (Cat 963) % 0% 0% 0.22 Road Sweeper (Tractor Mounted) % 0% 6% 0.05 Dust Suppression (Tractor/Bowser) % 0% 6% 0.05 Totals Total Per tonne of waste Monocell Co-disposal Monocell Co-disposal Material Daily Cover per landfill (kg) Plant Number of Compactors SUMMARY Number of Loading Shovels 1 1 Total Number Compactors Based on Lifespan per landfill Burdens associated with landfill Total Number Loading Shovels Based on Lifespan per landfill (kg material per tonne of plasterboard) Amount of Steel associated per landfill (kg) Monocell Co-disposal Total Working Hours Per Landfill Soil Total Fuel Per Landfill (l) Steel Total Oil Per Landfill (l) Rubber Diesel * Road Sweeping Oil Number of Road Sweepers Water Total Number Road Sweepers Based on Lifespan per landfill * Density of diesel assumed to be 0.85 kg/l Amount of Steel Associated With Landfill (kg) Amount of Rubber Associated with Landfill (kg) Total Working Hours Per Landfill Proportion of plasterboard co-disposed with MSW (%) 0.5 Total Fuel Per Landfill (l) Total Oil Per Landfill (l) Dust Suppression Burdens due to plasterboard disposal Number of Tractor/Bowsers 1 1 (kg material per tonne of total waste ) Total Number Road Sweepers Based on Lifespan per landfill Monocell Co-disposal Amount of Steel Associated With Landfill (kg) Soil Amount of Rubber Associated with Landfill (kg) Steel Total Working Hours Per Landfill Rubber E-06 Total Fuel Per Landfill (l) Diesel * Total Oil Per Landfill (l) Oil E-05 Water Water Used for Wheel Wash * Density of diesel assumed to be 0.85 kg/l Volume of Water (m3) 8 8 Lifetime of Site (yrs) Volume of water per site (m3) Construction & Operation.xls Operational Burdens

203 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS (LANDSIM AND GASSIM)

204 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS (LANDSIM and gassim) C.1 Introduction The modelling of leachate emissions has been undertaken using LandSim Version 2.5, which was developed for use by the Environment Agency to provide probabilistic quantitative risk assessments of specific landfill site performance in relation to groundwater protection. This Appendix contains a brief overview of the calculation methods utilised in LandSim and the assumptions made (both within LandSim and explicitly as part of this project) in order to give the reader a better understanding of the processes which are being modelled. A detailed report describing the technical background to LandSim and the specific developments contained in Version 2.5 can be found in Drury et al 2003 (reference in main text). All input parameters used in the LandSim modelling are included as part of this Appendix. Modelling of gaseous emissions has been undertaken using GasSim Version 2. GasSim is a probabilistic performance assessment model that includes gas generation, partitioning between collection, migration, surface emissions and biological methane oxidation as well as incorporating combustion plant and atmospheric dispersion and impact. A short description of GasSim v2 and the calculation methods used is included within this Appendix. The scenarios modelled are the same as those for the LandSim modelling described in the following sections. C.2 Lifecycle LandSim v2.5 is able to simulate the release of leachate and the impact on groundwater throughout the lifecycle of the landfill. During the period of institutional control (typically the duration of landfilling and the period of financial provision following closure of the site), the leachate level is assumed to be maintained according to the permit or licence (1 m for both scenarios modelled as part of this project). Any leachate generated in excess of this level is assumed to have been pumped from the waste. Following this period, leachate extraction and treatment will cease. Infiltration to waste as a result of leachate recirculation also ends. As a consequence, the leachate head will vary according to a balance of infiltration to the waste from rainfall and leakage through the basal liner. If the leakage rate always remains lower than the potential infiltration rate then overtopping (surface discharge) must occur at some point in time. The head of leachate when surface breakout occurs is specified by the user. As part of this project, institutional control has been maintained throughout the assumed 20,000 year lifecycle of the site.

205 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The degradation of the site engineering is simulated in LandSim v2.5, i.e. the inevitable physical and chemical deterioration of the site engineering (cap and artificial sealing layer) over time. The model does not simulate failure of engineering, which is the reduction in performance due to poor design or poor construction. The simulation of engineering failure is considered to be outside the scope of the model. The modelled scenarios assume that there will be no maintenance or work on the landfill post closure (at the end of filling). C.3 Infiltration The infiltration to the site surface required by the model is generally the effective rainfall, but consideration should also be given to the effect of fluid inflows into the landfill other than effective rainfall, such as the inflow of groundwater into the sides of an unlined site, the inflow of groundwater from perched water tables, or inflow resulting from a leachate recirculation scheme. LandSim assumes that leachate is generated instantaneously by infiltration into the landfill because it is assumed that the adsorptive capacity of the waste is balanced by its ability to generate leachate by degradation. During the period of landfilling, it is assumed that rain will fall directly onto the open waste. Once the cap is in place, a different value of infiltration (the cap design infiltration) is used. Experimental data indicates that polyethylene will degrade through time primarily through the process of oxidation. If the cap is to be constructed from polyethylene, therefore, the modelled infiltration rate increases linearly between the design infiltration (after construction) and the grassland infiltration following the onset of cap degradation. Default values for the onset and the end point of degradation are set within the model as 250 years and 1,000 years following the end of landfilling, respectively, as described in model documentation. The conceptual model assumes that restoration is to grassland; if final restoration is to a different surface then an appropriate infiltration rate for that surface should be used. Deterioration in the performance of mineral (clay and geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)) caps is not included in LandSim v2.5. It is recognised that settlement of the wastes may affect the integrity of compacted clay and GCL caps, however the majority of this settlement will take place, and therefore should be identified, during the period of institutional control when remedial measures can be implemented. For these mineral caps, the impact of settlement on their performance must be specifically addressed at the design and construction stages. The performance of GCL caps may also be impaired as a result of ion exchange, particularly when sodium activated bentonite is used. Any associated deterioration in performance is not included in LandSim v2.5 and so must be explicitly considered at the design stage.

206 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 C.4 Cell Geometry The modelled scenarios assume a single landfill Phase which includes a number of identical Cells, the number and size of which vary for each size of site. Assumptions are made regarding waste field capacity, density and porosity (see LandSim input sheets as part of this Appendix). C.5 Leachate Inventory The source term describes the inventory in terms of concentrations of selected contaminants in the leachate and their availability for release. The initial concentrations of each of the contaminants in leachate in the modelled scenarios are listed in the main text). The change in concentration of non-volatile substances with time is species-specific, permitting more accurate modelling of the change in physical and chemical characteristics of individual contaminants. The method of modelling the decline of non-volatile substances in leachate is similar to that adopted by the EU Technical Adaptation Committee, during the derivation of waste acceptance criteria for Annex 2 of the Landfill Directive. The change in leachate concentration is controlled by how rapidly the waste mass is flushed by infiltration (i.e. the liquid solid ratio) and by how readily any non-volatile species will be released from the solid to the aqueous phase. The change in concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contained within a landfill will be very different to those of non-volatile species because of their tendency to be removed by landfill gas extraction systems. VOCs are defined by the USEPA as species with a Henry s Law coefficient greater than (dimensionless) and a molecular weight less than 200 g/mole. These characteristics result in a strong tendency for VOCs to partition to the surrounding air rather than remain in the aqueous phase (i.e. leachate). A dataset collected from several UK landfills, at which the leachate concentration of several VOCs has been monitored over a long period (up to 11 years), has been used to investigate the decline in aqueous concentration for these contaminants in LandSim. Specific decay rates derived from the monitoring data have been used to calculate equivalent half-life values. The most conservative half-life value derived from this approach was 10 years, and this is the default value in LandSim v2.5 used to predict the change in concentration of VOCs in leachate. It is assumed that an active landfill gas extraction system is proposed (or exists) at the site. The range of contaminants found in leachate is determined by the components of the waste stream. There are a limited number of monocells accepting plasterboard in the UK. Contaminants selected for inclusion in the leachate assessment, and the concentrations of the selected contaminants, have been based on combined leachate monitoring data from two sites which accepted either solely plasterboard or a combination of plasterboard, other gypsum wastes and, historically, asbestos. Asbestos is unlikely to impact leachate quality, so the available data is assumed to be representative of the leachate expected from pure plasterboard disposal. Further details are provided in the main text.

207 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 C.6 Drainage System The extent of leakage through the base of each cell of the landfill is directly proportional to the overlying head of leachate. The head of leachate is dependent on, amongst other things, the drainage system in place at the site, and LandSim v2.5 can model a variety of common drainage arrangements. As part of this project, both scenarios have been modelled assuming leachate management with the control of leachate levels to a constant 1 m above the liner system, on the basis that this is the most common specification for leachate control. C.7 Engineered Barrier For compacted lining systems, conventional uniform hydraulic flow is modelled. In the case of synthetic membrane systems, leakage is assumed to be entirely through defects and is modelled using recent research on this topic from geosynthetic literature. If the artificial sealing liner is simulated as a mineral barrier (e.g. compacted clay, GCL), then LandSim v2.5 assumes no change in physical properties will occur during the simulation and the properties of the liner will remain fixed through time. The performance of dense asphaltic concrete (DAC) liners is also assumed to remain unchanged through time. The leakage will be controlled only by the level of leachate above the base of the landfill (leachate head) and the hydraulic conductivity, thickness and surface area of the liner. Although physical and/or chemical degradation of compacted clay and GCL liners has not been included within LandSim v2.5, it should be noted that these engineered systems may form a less effective barrier to leachate than natural formations (e.g. in situ deposits of low permeability clay). This is due to the unavoidable potential for weaknesses to be introduced during the construction of the engineered barrier amongst other factors. Furthermore the expected increase in the ionic strength of leachates as a result of the Landfill Directive may adversely affect the hydraulic conductivity of GCL liners in particular. These factors must be explicitly considered when designing and assessing the risks from a proposed landfill liner, particularly for GCL liners. Evidence pertaining to the longevity of mineral liners will remain under review and may be incorporated in future releases of LandSim. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is the standard construction material for flexible membrane landfill liners in the UK. The properties of geomembranes (e.g. HDPE) used in a basal lining system will change during a simulation as a result of degradation. As with the degradation of polyethylene caps (section B.3), there are three discrete phases in the oxidation of polyethylene liners (depletion of anti-oxidants, onset of oxidation, polymer deterioration). In addition, defects (e.g. pinholes, holes and tears) in the geomembrane will be introduced during and after construction. LandSim v2.5 simulates these defects and the effects of FML degradation in two stages: From liner construction until the onset of polymer degradation, the rate of occurrence of defects will gradually increase; and After polymer degradation commences by oxidation, the area of existing defects will double on a regular basis.

208 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The basis for the default values for defect density is presented in the LandSim documentation. In recognition of the results of leak detection surveys post construction, there is a need to bias the occurrence of defects towards low density soon after construction. The most likely value for the triangular distribution representing pinhole and hole defect density will move from the minimum value to the maximum value at a linear rate until the onset of oxidation (default value = 150 years following the start of landfilling). On six occasions during this period, LandSim will select a value from the distribution ensuring that it is at least as high as the previous value. The rate of defect occurrence may therefore reach its maximum value on the first timeslice, alternatively it may never reach its maximum before the onset of degradation within any specific iteration during a full simulation. As the HDPE oxidises, the area of defects (pinholes, holes and tears) generated during (and after) liner construction is assumed to increase. On the basis of experimental research carried out in the United States (referenced in LandSim documentation), LandSim v2.5 simulates the degradation by doubling the area of defects on a regular basis. A default value of 100 years has been set within the model for the time period over which the area of defects doubles, whilst the onset of degradation has been set at 150 years from the start of landfilling. Both these values can however be changed by the user if alternative values can be justified. LandSim v2.5 simulates contaminant transport through the mineral part of the artificial sealing liner. This includes, if selected, the processes of dispersion, partitioning and biodegradation of contaminants. The calculation of contaminant concentrations is carried out in the same way as all other pathways within the model - by using the one dimensional advection dispersion equation. This option has been included in the current project. The conceptual model for leakage is explained in more detail in Drury et al, 2003, which is referenced in the main text. C.8 Unsaturated Zone LandSim uses a Laplace Transform technique to solve the advection-diffusion equation that describes contaminant transport. This method has been designed to simulate dispersion of a variable source in a way that conserves mass, mimics reality and allows the assessment of retarded species, if required. Biodegradation can also be included. A linear isotherm (plot of mass of contaminant in the solid phase against concentration in solution) is assumed in the consideration of contaminant retardation, with a constant Kd. All reactions occurring are assumed to be rapid (when compared with flow rate) and reversible and temperature is assumed constant. It is also assumed that flow does not occur in fissures. Partitioning of the contaminant to the gas phase is not considered, although for some species this may be significant in the unsaturated zone.

209 October Plasterboard LCA Version A.0 The migration of contaminants in the unsaturated zone beneath a mineral barrier (e.g. compacted clay, GCL) is not the same as that beneath a synthetic membrane liner, since the latter only permits the movement of leachate through discrete defects. LandSim v2.5 calculates the area of leachate flow for each of the liner systems in order to simulate contaminant movement (see Drury et al for additional detail). The dispersion and retardation of contaminants has been included in all scenarios modelled as part of this project, and the parameters defining these processes (LandSim default values) are listed in this Appendix. Given the uncertainties surrounding the specific condition of the unsaturated zone beneath the scenario sites, biodegradation has not been used in the model. This is a conservative assumption that will affect a small number of organic species only. C.9 Vertical Pathway and Aquifer The concentration of an individual contaminant in the saturated vertical pathway and aquifer zone is also modified by considering dilution, dispersion and the time dependence of the declining source term. The vertical pathway and aquifer zone are not included in the scenarios modelled as part of this project; contaminant concentrations are calculated at the base of the unsaturated zone (water table).

210 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Calculation Settings Number of iterations: 101 Results calculated using sampled PDFs Full Calculation Clay Liner: Retarded values used for simulation No Biodegradation Unsaturated Pathway: Retarded values used for simulation No Biodegradation Saturated Vertical Pathway: No Vertical Pathway Aquifer Pathway: Unretarded values used for simulation No Biodegradation Timeslices at: 30, 100, 300, 1000 Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 1 of 10

211 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Decline in Contaminant Concentration in Leachate Fluoride Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Lead Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Magnesium Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Naphthalene Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.4 m (kg/l): 0 Nickel Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Phosphate Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Potassium Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Sodium Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Sulphate Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Zinc Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Dieldrin Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Endosulphan-alpha Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): DDT Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): PAHs Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): PCBs Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 2 of 10

212 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Background Concentrations of Contaminants Justification for Contaminant Properties Unjustified value All units in milligrams per litre Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 3 of 10

213 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Phase: Phase 1 Infiltration Information Cap design infiltration (mm/year): NORMAL(50,5) Infiltration to waste (mm/year): SINGLE(250) Infiltration to grassland (mm/year): NORMAL(150,15) End of filling (years from start of waste deposit): 20 Start of cap degradation (years from end of waste deposit): 250 End of cap degradation (years from end of waste deposit): 1000 Justification for Specified Infiltration Unjustified value Duration of management control (years from the start of waste disposal): Cell dimensions Cell width (m): 50 Cell length (m): 50 Cell top area (ha): 1 Cell base area (ha): 0.25 Number of cells: 4 Total base area (ha): 1 Total top area (ha): 4 Head of Leachate when surface water breakout occurs (m) SINGLE(5) Waste porosity (fraction) SINGLE(0.6) Final waste thickness (m): SINGLE(10) Field capacity (fraction): SINGLE(0.3) Waste dry density (kg/l) SINGLE(0.85) Justification for Landfill Geometry Unjustified value Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 4 of 10

214 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Source concentrations of contaminants All units in milligrams per litre Declining source term Aldrin Ammoniacal_N Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper Cyanide (total) Fluoride Lead Magnesium Naphthalene Nickel Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Dieldrin Endosulphan-alpha DDT PAHs PCBs TRIANGULAR(5e-005,5e-005, ) Substance to be treated as List 1 LOGTRIANGULAR(0.005,44,218) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(5e-005,0.001,0.005) Substance to be treated as List 1 TRIANGULAR(78,231,3147) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(18,346,3880) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality UNIFORM(0.005,0.15) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.02) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality SINGLE(0.1) Substance to be treated as List 1 UNIFORM(1.1,4.3) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.04) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality TRIANGULAR(0.05,144,370) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(5e-006,5e-006,0.0159) Substance to be treated as List 1 LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.86) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(0.05,0.05,44.9) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(0.1,90,1500) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(1.1,36316,36500) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(667,1687,94000) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGUNIFORM(0.0025,0.26) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality SINGLE( ) Substance to be treated as List 1 SINGLE(0.138) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality SINGLE( ) Substance to be treated as List 1 LOGUNIFORM(5e-005,0.0908) Substance to be treated as List 1 UNIFORM( , ) Substance to be treated as List 1 Justification for Species Concentration in Leachate Monocell Unjustified Version A.0.sim value 19/09/ :30:05 Page 5 of 10

215 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Source concentrations of contaminants All units in milligrams per litre PCBs UNIFORM( , ) Substance to be treated as List 1 Justification for Species Concentration in Leachate Unjustified value Drainage Information Fixed Head. Head on EBS is given as (m): SINGLE(1) Justification for Specified Head Unjustified value Barrier Information There is a composite barrier Justification for Engineered Barrier Type Unjustified value Liner installed under CQA Design thickness of clay (m): SINGLE(1) Density of clay (kg/l): UNIFORM(1.5,2) Pathway moisture content (fraction): SINGLE(0.18) Onset of FML degradation (years since filling commenced) 150 Pathway longitudinal dispersivity (m): SINGLE(0.1) Time for area of defects to double (years) 100 Membrane defects (number per hectare): Pin holes: Minimum 0, Maximum 25 Holes: Minimum 0, Maximum 5 Tears: Minimum 0, Most Likely 0.1, Maximum 2 The most likely value for the PDFs representing the density of pinholes and holes will move from the minimum value selected above to the maximum value selected above over the time period before FML degradation commences Justification for Composite: Flexible Membrane Liner Unjustified value Hydraulic conductivity of mineral lower liner (m/s): SINGLE(1e-009) Justification for Composite: Clay or BES Substrate Properties Unjustified value Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 6 of 10

216 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Retardation parameters for clay liner Uncertainty in Kd (l/kg): Aldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Ammoniacal_N Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper Cyanide (total) Fluoride Lead Magnesium Naphthalene: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Nickel Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Dieldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Endosulphan-alpha: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g DDT: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PAHs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PCBs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g UNIFORM(410,160000) UNIFORM(0.1,0.5) UNIFORM(40,120) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(19,31) UNIFORM(120,300) SINGLE(0.1) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(27,440) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(1288) UNIFORM(21,144) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(20) TRIANGULAR(3982,12600,38700) UNIFORM(2040,200000) UNIFORM(19953, e+006) UNIFORM(107152, e+006) UNIFORM(19055, e+006) Fraction of Organic Carbon (fraction) UNIFORM(0.005,0.01) Justification for Liner Kd Values by Species Unjustified value Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 7 of 10

217 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. pathway parameters Modelled as unsaturated pathway Pathway length (m): Flow Model: Pathway moisture content (fraction): Pathway Density (kg/l): SINGLE(1) porous medium UNIFORM(0.05,0.1) UNIFORM(1.8,2.1) Justification for Unsat Zone Geometry Unjustified value Pathway hydraulic conductivity values (m/s): SINGLE(1e-006) Justification for Unsat Zone Hydraulics Properties Unjustified value Pathway longitudinal dispersivity (m): SINGLE(0.1) Justification for Unsat Zone Dispersion Properties Unjustified value Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 8 of 10

218 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Retardation parameters for pathway Modelled as unsaturated pathway Uncertainty in Kd (l/kg): Aldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Ammoniacal_N Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper Cyanide (total) Fluoride Lead Magnesium Naphthalene: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Nickel Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Dieldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Endosulphan-alpha: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g DDT: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PAHs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PCBs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g UNIFORM(410,160000) UNIFORM(0.1,0.5) UNIFORM(40,120) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(19,31) UNIFORM(120,300) SINGLE(0.1) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(27,440) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(1288) UNIFORM(21,144) SINGLE(0.2) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(20) TRIANGULAR(3982,12600,38700) UNIFORM(2040,200000) UNIFORM(19953, e+006) UNIFORM(107152, e+006) UNIFORM(19055, e+006) Fraction of Organic Carbon (fraction) UNIFORM(0.005,0.02) Justification for Kd Values by Species Unjustified value Aquifer Pathway Dimensions for Phase Pathway length (m): Pathway width (m): UNIFORM(310,810) SINGLE(400) pathway parameters No Vertical Pathway Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 9 of 10

219 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Generic Monocell, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. pathway parameters Modelled as aquifer pathway. Mixing zone (m): Calculated. Aquifer Thickness: SINGLE(10) Justification for Aquifer Geometry Unjustified value Pathway regional gradient (-): Pathway hydraulic conductivity values (m/s): Pathway porosity (fraction): SINGLE(0.001) SINGLE(0.0001) SINGLE(0.02) Justification for Aquifer Hydraulics Properties Unjustified value Pathway longitudinal dispersivity (m): Pathway transverse dispersivity (m): SINGLE(30) SINGLE(10) Justification for Aquifer Dispersion Details Unjustified value Retardation parameters for pathway Modelled as aquifer pathway. No retardation values used in this simulation. Check 'Unretarded Contaminant Transport' setting under simulation preferences. Monocell Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :30:05 Page 10 of 10

220 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Calculation Settings Number of iterations: 101 Results calculated using sampled PDFs Full Calculation Clay Liner: Retarded values used for simulation No Biodegradation Unsaturated Pathway: Retarded values used for simulation No Biodegradation Saturated Vertical Pathway: No Vertical Pathway Aquifer Pathway: Unretarded values used for simulation No Biodegradation Timeslices at: 30, 100, 300, 1000 Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 1 of 10

221 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Decline in Contaminant Concentration in Leachate Fluoride Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Lead Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Magnesium Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Naphthalene Half life (years): 10 Volatile Nickel Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Phosphate Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Potassium Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Sodium Non-Volatile c (kg/l): 0.6 m (kg/l): 0 Sulphate Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Zinc Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Dieldrin Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Endosulphan-alpha Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): DDT Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): PAHs Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): PCBs Non-Volatile c (kg/l): m (kg/l): Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 2 of 10

222 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Background Concentrations of Contaminants Justification for Contaminant Properties Unjustified value All units in milligrams per litre Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 3 of 10

223 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Phase: Phase 1 Infiltration Information Cap design infiltration (mm/year): NORMAL(50,5) Infiltration to waste (mm/year): SINGLE(250) Infiltration to grassland (mm/year): NORMAL(150,15) End of filling (years from start of waste deposit): 20 Start of cap degradation (years from end of waste deposit): 250 End of cap degradation (years from end of waste deposit): 1000 Justification for Specified Infiltration Unjustified value Duration of management control (years from the start of waste disposal): Cell dimensions Cell width (m): 140 Cell length (m): 140 Cell top area (ha): 2 Cell base area (ha): 1.96 Number of cells: 10 Total base area (ha): 19.6 Total top area (ha): 20 Head of Leachate when surface water breakout occurs (m) SINGLE(25) Waste porosity (fraction) SINGLE(0.6) Final waste thickness (m): SINGLE(25) Field capacity (fraction): SINGLE(0.3) Waste dry density (kg/l) SINGLE(0.85) Justification for Landfill Geometry Unjustified value Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 4 of 10

224 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Source concentrations of contaminants All units in milligrams per litre Declining source term Aldrin Ammoniacal_N Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper Cyanide (total) Fluoride Lead Magnesium Naphthalene Nickel Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Dieldrin Endosulphan-alpha DDT PAHs PCBs TRIANGULAR(5e-005,5e-005, ) Substance to be treated as List 1 LOGTRIANGULAR(0.005,44,218) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(5e-005,0.001,0.005) Substance to be treated as List 1 TRIANGULAR(78,231,3147) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(18,346,3880) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality UNIFORM(0.005,0.15) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.02) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality SINGLE(0.1) Substance to be treated as List 1 UNIFORM(1.1,4.3) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.04) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality TRIANGULAR(0.05,144,370) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(5e-006,5e-006,0.0159) Substance to be treated as List 1 LOGUNIFORM(0.0005,0.86) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(0.05,0.05,44.9) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(0.1,90,1500) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(1.1,36316,36500) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGTRIANGULAR(667,1687,94000) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality LOGUNIFORM(0.0025,0.26) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality SINGLE( ) Substance to be treated as List 1 SINGLE(0.138) Data are spot measurements of Leachate Quality SINGLE( ) Substance to be treated as List 1 LOGUNIFORM(5e-005,0.0908) Substance to be treated as List 1 UNIFORM( , ) Substance to be treated as List 1 Justification for Species Concentration in Leachate MediumUnjustified Composite MSW Version valuea.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 5 of 10

225 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Source concentrations of contaminants All units in milligrams per litre PCBs UNIFORM( , ) Substance to be treated as List 1 Justification for Species Concentration in Leachate Unjustified value Drainage Information Fixed Head. Head on EBS is given as (m): SINGLE(1) Justification for Specified Head Unjustified value Barrier Information There is a composite barrier Justification for Engineered Barrier Type Unjustified value Liner installed under CQA Design thickness of clay (m): SINGLE(1) Density of clay (kg/l): UNIFORM(1.5,2) Pathway moisture content (fraction): SINGLE(0.18) Onset of FML degradation (years since filling commenced) 150 Pathway longitudinal dispersivity (m): SINGLE(0.1) Time for area of defects to double (years) 100 Membrane defects (number per hectare): Pin holes: Minimum 0, Maximum 25 Holes: Minimum 0, Maximum 5 Tears: Minimum 0, Most Likely 0.1, Maximum 2 The most likely value for the PDFs representing the density of pinholes and holes will move from the minimum value selected above to the maximum value selected above over the time period before FML degradation commences Justification for Composite: Flexible Membrane Liner Unjustified value Hydraulic conductivity of mineral lower liner (m/s): SINGLE(1e-009) Justification for Composite: Clay or BES Substrate Properties Unjustified value Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 6 of 10

226 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Retardation parameters for clay liner Uncertainty in Kd (l/kg): Aldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Ammoniacal_N Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper Cyanide (total) Fluoride Lead Magnesium Naphthalene: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Nickel Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Dieldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Endosulphan-alpha: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g DDT: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PAHs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PCBs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g UNIFORM(410,160000) UNIFORM(0.1,0.5) UNIFORM(40,120) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(19,31) UNIFORM(120,300) SINGLE(0.1) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(27,440) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(1288) UNIFORM(21,144) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(20) TRIANGULAR(3982,12600,38700) UNIFORM(2040,200000) UNIFORM(19953, e+006) UNIFORM(107152, e+006) UNIFORM(19055, e+006) Fraction of Organic Carbon (fraction) UNIFORM(0.005,0.01) Justification for Liner Kd Values by Species Unjustified value Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 7 of 10

227 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. pathway parameters Modelled as unsaturated pathway Pathway length (m): Flow Model: Pathway moisture content (fraction): Pathway Density (kg/l): SINGLE(1) porous medium UNIFORM(0.05,0.1) UNIFORM(1.8,2.1) Justification for Unsat Zone Geometry Unjustified value Pathway hydraulic conductivity values (m/s): SINGLE(1e-006) Justification for Unsat Zone Hydraulics Properties Unjustified value Pathway longitudinal dispersivity (m): SINGLE(0.1) Justification for Unsat Zone Dispersion Properties Unjustified value Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 8 of 10

228 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. Retardation parameters for pathway Modelled as unsaturated pathway Uncertainty in Kd (l/kg): Aldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Ammoniacal_N Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper Cyanide (total) Fluoride Lead Magnesium Naphthalene: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Nickel Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Dieldrin: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g Endosulphan-alpha: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g DDT: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PAHs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g PCBs: Calculated kd Partition to Organic Carbon ml/g UNIFORM(410,160000) UNIFORM(0.1,0.5) UNIFORM(40,120) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(19,31) UNIFORM(120,300) SINGLE(0.1) SINGLE(0) UNIFORM(27,440) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(1288) UNIFORM(21,144) SINGLE(0.2) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(0) SINGLE(20) TRIANGULAR(3982,12600,38700) UNIFORM(2040,200000) UNIFORM(19953, e+006) UNIFORM(107152, e+006) UNIFORM(19055, e+006) Fraction of Organic Carbon (fraction) UNIFORM(0.005,0.02) Justification for Kd Values by Species Unjustified value Aquifer Pathway Dimensions for Phase Pathway length (m): Pathway width (m): UNIFORM(310,810) SINGLE(400) pathway parameters No Vertical Pathway Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 9 of 10

229 Project: Plasterboard LCA Project Number: RECORD OF RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL Customer: ERM / WRAP Medium sized site, composite liner, PE cap. Based on MSW model used for WRATE LCI, waste properties and cell dimensions altered. Includes data received following submission of B.1 report. pathway parameters Modelled as aquifer pathway. Mixing zone (m): Calculated. Aquifer Thickness: SINGLE(10) Justification for Aquifer Geometry Unjustified value Pathway regional gradient (-): Pathway hydraulic conductivity values (m/s): Pathway porosity (fraction): SINGLE(0.001) SINGLE(0.0001) SINGLE(0.02) Justification for Aquifer Hydraulics Properties Unjustified value Pathway longitudinal dispersivity (m): Pathway transverse dispersivity (m): SINGLE(30) SINGLE(10) Justification for Aquifer Dispersion Details Unjustified value Retardation parameters for pathway Modelled as aquifer pathway. No retardation values used in this simulation. Check 'Unretarded Contaminant Transport' setting under simulation preferences. Medium Composite MSW Version A.0.sim 19/09/ :54:27 Page 10 of 10

230 Aldrin * Ammoniacal Nitrogen Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper * Cyanide Dieldrin * Endosulphan-alpha * Fluoride Lead * Time Leakage Flow to LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Yrs l/d l/d mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-30 Load (kg) from entire site LTP treatment factors Site content tonnes (assuming bulk density of plasterboard = 1.15 tonnes per m 3 ) Total Load from entire site Groundwater LTP Total Aldrin 1.896E E E-05 kg/tonne Ammoniacal Nitrogen 2.711E E E-04 kg/tonne Cadmium 8.454E E E-07 kg/tonne Calcium 1.868E E E-01 kg/tonne Chloride 6.200E E E-01 kg/tonne Chromium 5.357E E E-05 kg/tonne Copper 6.616E E E-05 kg/tonne Cyanide 4.458E E E-04 kg/tonne Dieldrin 5.576E E E-06 kg/tonne Endosulphan-alpha 1.166E E E-04 kg/tonne Fluoride 1.303E E E-03 kg/tonne Lead 5.554E E E-05 kg/tonne Magnesium 2.776E E E-01 kg/tonne Naphthalene 1.449E E E-09 kg/tonne Nickel 4.372E E E-04 kg/tonne DDT 3.503E E E-06 kg/tonne Total PAH 5.654E E E-06 kg/tonne Total PCB 7.347E E E-06 kg/tonne Phosphate 2.645E E E-05 kg/tonne Potassium 1.237E E E-02 kg/tonne Sodium 9.885E E E+00 kg/tonne Sulphate 2.224E E E+00 kg/tonne Zinc 4.767E E E-05 kg/tonne * Mass not reached water table within 20,000 years modelled. Leakage rate multiplied by source concentration (rather than concentration at base of unsaturated zone) to approximate total emission to groundwater. Burdens Version A.0.xls Monocell

231 Magnesium Naphthalene Nickel DDT * Total PAH * Total PCB * Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Burdens Version A.0.xls Monocell

232 Aldrin * Ammoniacal Nitrogen Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Copper * Cyanide Dieldrin * Endosulphan-alpha * Fluoride Lead * Time Leakage Flow to LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Yrs l/d l/d mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-09 Load (kg) from entire site LTP treatment factors Site content tonnes (assuming bulk density of plasterboard = 1.15 tonnes per m 3 ) Total Load from entire site (assuming all plasterboard) Total load from entire site (assuming co-disposal with MSW) Groundwater LTP Total % Plasterboard E E E E E E E E-07 Aldrin kg/tonne Ammoniacal Nitrogen 2.823E E E-03 kg/tonne 7.238E E E E E-04 Cadmium 7.319E E E-06 kg/tonne 4.198E E E E E-07 Calcium 2.398E E E+00 kg/tonne 3.696E E E E E-01 Chloride 8.160E E E-01 kg/tonne 1.299E E E E E-02 Chromium 5.955E E E-04 kg/tonne 4.833E E E E E-05 Copper 1.179E E E-05 kg/tonne 8.988E E E E E-06 Cyanide 5.603E E E-04 kg/tonne 6.733E E E E E-05 Dieldrin 9.870E E E-06 kg/tonne 1.009E E E E E-07 Endosulphan-alpha 1.317E E E-04 kg/tonne 4.203E E E E E-05 Fluoride 1.650E E E-03 kg/tonne 1.938E E E E E-04 Lead 7.367E E E-05 kg/tonne 1.348E E E E E-06 Magnesium 3.537E E E-01 kg/tonne 5.450E E E E E-02 Naphthalene 1.225E E E-10 kg/tonne 1.150E E E E E-11 Nickel 2.662E E E-04 kg/tonne 4.855E E E E E-05 DDT 5.901E E E-06 kg/tonne 8.354E E E E E-07 Total PAH 5.343E E E-06 kg/tonne 1.358E E E E E-07 Total PCB 7.177E E E-06 kg/tonne 2.009E E E E E-07 Phosphate 3.186E E E-04 kg/tonne 7.965E E E E E-05 Potassium 1.654E E E-01 kg/tonne 2.543E E E E E-02 Sodium 1.244E E E+00 kg/tonne 1.911E E E E E-01 Sulphate 3.265E E E+01 kg/tonne 4.444E E E E E+00 Zinc 5.211E E E-05 kg/tonne 2.476E E E E E-06 * Mass not reached water table within 20,000 years modelled. Leakage rate multiplied by source concentration (rather than concentration at base of unsaturated zone) to approximate total emission to groundwater. Burdens Version A.0.xls Co-disposal

233 Magnesium Naphthalene Nickel DDT * Total PAH * Total PCB * Phosphate Potassium Sodium Sulphate Zinc Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP Groundwater LTP kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period mg/l kg/period E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Burdens Version A.0.xls Co-disposal

234 GasSim landfill gas risk assessment tool

235 Introduction The introduction of European legislation controlling emissions from landfill sites warrants a common means of assessing the risks to various media from landfill gas (LFG). The following directives are relevant to the need to control and/or report emissions to atmosphere: Waste Framework Directive, 1991 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive, 1996 Landfill Directive, The Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Regulations 2000 have been introduced to address the requirements of the IPPC Directive. These Regulations cover the design, construction, operation and maintenance of LFG management systems and require: gas management systems to control LFG management of odour reporting of releases of named pollutants (the Pollution Inventory). Gaseous emissions from permitted/licensed landfill sites will be regulated according to site-specific risk management practices to minimise the impact on: health from trace gas emissions and combustion products; the local environment from odour and vegetation stress; the global atmosphere through global warming and ozone depletion. GasSim has been developed as a management tool by the Environment Agency (the Agency) to provide probabilistic quantitative assessment of the performance of a specific landfill site. It allows the Agency and landfill operators to evaluate the environmental performance of different gas management systems and to optimise LFG management. GasSimLite has also been developed to help with the reporting of Pollution Inventory (PI) substances. The IPPC Directive requires the reporting of site-specific emissions data from all PPC sites to the European Pollution Emission Register (EPER) by June GasSimLite is available to download free from: Program outline GasSim has been encoded using Microsoft Visual Basic and C++ programming languages. It has been designed to be used by professionals with a good understanding of landfill gas. GasSim combines various modules dealing with gas generation, migration, impact and exposure into a single integrated model. The Monte Carlo simulation technique is used to model the uncertainty associated with many of the input parameters. Users are guided via a diagrammatical representation of the conceptual model (Figure 1) to enter primary input values into the relevant parts of the model. Many of the inputs to the probabilistic elements of the model can be entered as probability density functions (Figure 2). As GasSim has been written as a modular package, it can be easily upgraded and all future releases will be backwardly compatible. Models created using GasSimLite can be read by the full version of GasSim. Changes to the different trace gas default concentrations or PI substances and threshold levels are easy to make and an update is provided via a simple data file. Figure 1 GasSim conceptual model overlain on main screen 1 Environment Agency Waste Regulation and Management Research Programme

236 GasSim conceptual model GasSim is based on a set conceptual model, which must be appropriate for the landfill being assessed (Figure 1). However, users must take account of the limitations associated with the construction and use for the model. These are highlighted in the user documentation. Exposure is modelled using the CLEA approach (Environment Agency, 2002), using the same algorithms and exposure factors where possible. The risk assessment is not concerned with short-term acute events, but deals more with long-term exposure. Landfills located in highly sensitive or complex areas may require more sophisticated lateral migration and atmospheric dispersion modelling. Model background The model has been developed using the HELGA framework (Gregory et al., 1999), which was also developed for the Agency. However, the framework has been expanded to include: the destruction and creation of trace gases during combustion in engines and flares; the generation of hydrogen sulphide; the inclusion of discrete fractures to determine the methane oxidation potential in the cap; an advection component in the determination of the lateral migration; odour units; a consistent approach in the exposure module to CLR10 (Environment Agency, 2002). Model run options GasSim has a number of run time options (Table 1). Impact assessment GasSim has been designed to assess the risk of LFG impacting humans, the local environment and the global atmosphere under different management options. These are assessed using the four modules described below. Gas generation (source) GasSim uses a multi-phase first-order decay equation (for both methanogenic and acetogenic decay) to determine the generation of methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen produced from the waste mass, composition and moisture content. The flexible definition of the waste composition allows the model to be tailored to individual landfills. The generation of trace gases (including half-life decay) is calculated from userdefined or typical concentrations of LFG. Gas emissions (source) GasSim can also model the emissions from flares and engines. Individual flares and engines can be specified and the dates when the equipment becomes available can be defined. If there is the equipment and sufficient gas to run it, then GasSim can be configured to switch engines and flares on and off automatically. Alternately, users can supply details of the gas management equipment that is in place and define which years the equipment should be used. The emissions model determines the effects of the gas management options by determining bulk and trace LFG emissions: from the cap through the liner from engines and flares. These are simulated using information about the flare, engine, liner and capping. Methane oxidation can be enabled for surface emissions through the cap. Table 1 Options for running GasSim Option Function LandGEM mode Hydrogen sulphide simulated Trace gas declining source term Pollution Inventory Odorous gases Waste moisture content On-site or off-site human Determines the quantity of LFG using the US EPA LandGEM model (Pelt et al., 1998) rather that the more complicated GasSim multi-phase equation. Determines the quantity of H 2 S generated from the quantities of carbon, calcium sulphate and iron deposited in the landfill rather than a simple default value. Can be specified to reduce the trace gas concentration due to volatilisation. Provides a full list of pollution inventory gases and emissions for a specific year. Determines odour problems using odourous gases or odour units. Can either specify or allow calculation of the moisture content of the waste. Calculates the exposure to modelled gases receptors (either raw trace components or combustion products). Environment Agency R&D Technical Summary P1-295

237 Figure 2 Data entry box The emission of combustion products generated in the flare/engine are simulated using user-defined or typical concentrations per m 3 of combustion gas exhaust, or by simulating the evolution of parent substances (for example, hydrochloric acid from chlorine-containing substances). Environmental transport (pathway) The dispersion of these emissions in the environment is simulated for terrestrial lateral migration in two ways. For mineral liners or where no liner exists, a onedimensional advection-diffusion equation is used. Where a geomembrane has been included, a one-dimensional diffusion model is used. For atmospheric dispersion, the model uses the NRPB R91 (Gaussian plume) model (NRPB, 1995). These models determine the concentrations of the various species in the unsaturated subsurface and in the air. The atmospheric model includes wet and dry deposition for on-site and off-site receptors at various vectors plotted on a wind rose. Impact/exposure (receptor) GasSim assesses the environmental impact of the bulk and trace species in LFG on the: global atmosphere by determining the global warming potential and ozone depletion potential; local environment using odour thresholds and a vegetation stress threshold; humans by a series of exposure scenarios, each of which has a set of defined exposure pathways and exposure factors for the critical groups. Model outputs The outputs from the model can be divided into six sections (see Table 2). A typical gas generation curve is shown in Figure 3. Hardware and software requirements To run GasSim, you will need an IBM-compatible PC with a Pentium processor with a speed of at least 300 MHz with 64 Mb of RAM. The software has been developed to run under Windows 95/98/2000. Windows NT users are unlikely to have difficulty installing and using the software, but GasSim has not been developed specifically for NT and installation problems are not supported. Table 2 Model outputs Property Gas generation and emissions Atmospheric dispersion Lateral migration Pollution Inventory (PI) Global impact Exposure concentrations Output The gas generation and emissions can be viewed on a concentration versus time graph. The dispersion of the plume in the atmosphere in one and two dimensions. The gas emissions can be viewed on a concentration versus distance graph. The gas emissions required for PI reporting requirements for every year of the landfill s life. Global warming potential and ozone depletion potential. Calculated exposure value in mg/kg (bodyweight)/day. Environment Agency Waste Regulation and Management Research Programme

238 Figure 3 Typical LFG generation profile Further information R&D Project P1-295 was funded by the Agency s Waste Regulation and Management Programme. Further information can be obtained from the R&D Management Coordinator (Waste Programme). Environment Agency Block 1 Government Buildings Burghill Road Westbury-on-Trim Bristol BS10 6BF Tel: Fax: Users will need 15 Mb of hard disk space for installation. The space required for temporary files during simulation will vary from 10 Mb upwards and depend on the complexity of the simulation. Complex multi-phase, multiple contaminant simulations may need more than 100 Mb. Guidance manual and technical support GasSim comes with a fully illustrated guidance manual. A help desk run by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd and Land Quality Management Ltd offers full technical support for GasSim. References Environment Agency, The contaminated land exposure assessment model (CLEA): technical basis and algorithms. Environment Agency R&D Publication CLR10. Prepared by the Agency s National Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre. Environment Agency, Bristol. Gregory, R.G., Revans, A.J., Hill, M.D., Meadows, M.P., Paul, L. and Ferguson, C.C., A framework to assess the risks to human health and the environment from landfill gas. Environment Agency Technical Report P271. Prepared under contract CWM/168/98. Environment Agency, Bristol. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), Methodology for assessing the radiological consequences of routine releases of radio nuclides to the environment. Report EUR European Commission, Luxembourg. Pelt R., White C., Blackard A., Bass R.L. and Burklin C., and Heaton R.E., User s manual landfill gas emissions model version 2.0. EPA/600/R-98/054. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Contract 68-D US EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Obtaining GasSim A free demonstration version of GasSim can be downloaded from the GasSim website ( The full version can be purchased from: Golder Associates (UK) Ltd Landmere Lane Nottingham NG12 4DG Tel: Fax: GasSim@golder.com GasSimLite can be downloaded free of charge from Project manager The Environment Agency s Project Manager for R&D Project P1-295 was Louise McGoochan (Southern Region). 1 Environment Agency R&D Technical Summary P1-295

239 CONTACTS: THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD. Tel: Fax: ENVIRONMENT AGENCY REGIONAL OFFICES ANGLIAN Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay Peterborough PE2 5ZR Tel: Fax: MIDLANDS Sapphire East 550 Streetsbrook Road Solihull B91 1QT Tel: Fax: NORTH EAST Rivers House 21 Park Square South Leeds LS1 2QG Tel: Fax: SOUTHERN Guildbourne House Chatsworth Road Worthing West Sussex BN11 1LD Tel: Fax: SOUTH WEST Manley House Kestrel Way Exeter EX2 7LQ Tel: Fax: THAMES Kings Meadow House Kings Meadow Road Reading RG1 8DQ Tel: Fax: WALES NORTH WEST Cardiff Warrington MIDLANDS Solihull Bristol NORTH EAST Leeds THAMES Reading Peterborough ANGLIAN London NORTH WEST Richard Fairclough House Knutsford Road Warrington WA4 1HG Tel: Fax: WALES Rivers House/Plas-yr-Afon St Mellons Business Park St Mellons Cardiff CF3 0EY Tel: Fax: Exeter SOUTH WEST Worthing SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY GENERAL ENQUIRY LINE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY F L O O D L I N E ENVIRONMENT AGENCY EMERGENCY HOTLINE HO-06/02-1k-C-BGTY-POD Printed on Revive

Glossary of sustainability related terms

Glossary of sustainability related terms Glossary of sustainability related terms The Industry of paints and printing inks has always been an enabler of sustainable solutions. To facilitate communication and coordinate efficient actions towards

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyproc Rf 15 mm Date: 31 st January 2014 Version : 1 N VERIFICATION 60460036_GYPROC General information Manufacturer: Saint-Gobain

More information

Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Recart Cartons and Alternative Soup Containers on the U.S. Market July 2014

Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Recart Cartons and Alternative Soup Containers on the U.S. Market July 2014 Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Recart Cartons and Alternative Soup Containers on the U.S. Market July 2014 Presentation Overview 1. LCA Methodology 2. Soup Packaging LCA Goal & Scope 3. Soup Packaging

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO Isover Roof N 160 mm. Realization data: Version:

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO Isover Roof N 160 mm. Realization data: Version: ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Isover Roof N 160 mm Realization data: Version: Main product information General Information Manufacturer: Saint-Gobain Isover

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with ISO and ISO 21930

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with ISO and ISO 21930 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with ISO 14025 and ISO 21930 Gyproc Normal Standard Plasterboard Verification Date : 26.11.2013 Version : 1.0 VERIFICATION N EPD : S-P-00428 Gyproc A/S Hareskovvej

More information

Anaerobic digestion system Life cycle assessment. Dr Yue Zhang

Anaerobic digestion system Life cycle assessment. Dr Yue Zhang Anaerobic digestion system Life cycle assessment Dr Yue Zhang Lecture 18, Friday 16 th August 2013 Course RE1: Biogas Technology for Renewable Energy Production and Environmental Benefit, the 23 rd Jyväskylä

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Multimax 30 120mm Date of realisation : 2 september 2013 Version : 1.2 General information Manufacturer: Saint-Gobain Construction

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Sonepanel 50 mm Date of realisation : 2 september 2013 Version : 1.2 General information Manufacturer: Saint-Gobain Construction

More information

Environmental Product Declaration

Environmental Product Declaration KONE TRAVELMASTER 110 Environmental Product Declaration Environmental Product Declaration What is an EPD? The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) provides you as a KONE customer with information on

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyproc Finish Plaster (Skimcoat, Skimcoat Short Set, Carlite and Carlite Ultra products) Date: July 2014 Version : 1 General

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Saint-Gobain Denmark A/S Gyproc Gyptone 12.5 mm with Activ Air Date of issue: 2017-07-17 Valid until: 2022-05-16 Version : 1

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Saint-Gobain Denmark A/S Gyproc Gyptone 12.5 mm with Activ Air Date of issue: 2017-07-17 Valid until: 2022-05-16 Version : 1

More information

Life Cycle Assessment of the Cement Industry in Zimbabwe

Life Cycle Assessment of the Cement Industry in Zimbabwe Life Cycle Assessment of the Cement Industry in Zimbabwe Charles Mbohwa 1, Sibusiso Moyo 2 1 University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa, 2 University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 12.5mm Gyproc Habito Publication/issue date: 2017/09/29 updated : 2018/08/14 Version : 2 Valid until : 2023/08/14 Registration

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 GYPROC GN 13 STANDARD BOARD Date de réalisation :31.1.2014 Version : v1 N DE VERIFICATION EPD : ENV537 General information Manufacturer:

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION ROLL FORMED STEEL PANELS

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION ROLL FORMED STEEL PANELS ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION ROLL FORMED STEEL PANELS ArcelorMittal is the world s largest steel and mining company with leading research and development and technology, as well as sizeable captive

More information

Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of California Redwood Decking

Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of California Redwood Decking Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of California Redwood Decking 1/8/2013 Dr. Elaine Oneil Dr. Richard Bergman Dr. Han-Sup Han Dr. Ivan Eastin Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Redwood Decking Introduction

More information

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Author: Vincenzo Piemonte, Associate Professor, University UCBM Rome (Italy) 1.Theme description The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) allows to evaluate the interactions that a product

More information

Typical Western Red Cedar Decking

Typical Western Red Cedar Decking Environmental Product Declaration Typical Western Red Cedar Decking This Type III environmental declaration is developed according to ISO 21930 and 14025 for average cedar decking products manufactured

More information

i-report tool prepared by:

i-report tool prepared by: EcoProduct i-report 213 PRODUCT FOOTPRINT REPORT MARCH 12, 214 SARAH MARTINEZ, SUSTAINABILITY MAVEN i-report tool prepared by: Coppelia Marincovic 344 Boylston Street Boston, MA 2116, USA John Heckman

More information

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Declaration Holder SAS International LCA Practitioner / Issuer Atkins Ltd /

More information

1. Project Overview 2. PE Americas 3. LCA Overview 4. Project Goal & Scope 5. Results. Higher Societal Value of Glass Recycling

1. Project Overview 2. PE Americas 3. LCA Overview 4. Project Goal & Scope 5. Results. Higher Societal Value of Glass Recycling 1. Project Overview 2. PE Americas 3. LCA Overview 4. Project Goal & Scope 5. Results Higher Societal Value of Glass Recycling GMIC Conference May 19, 2011 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Container Glass

More information

Brickwork. Key Information General Process. Modelling & Assumptions Detailed model description

Brickwork. Key Information General Process. Modelling & Assumptions Detailed model description Key Information General Process Brickwork This dataset represents average end-of-life conditions for brickwork in the UK. The modelled product includes mortar. Description Reference Flow 1kg of brickwork

More information

Environmental product declaration. KONE MonoSpace Special

Environmental product declaration. KONE MonoSpace Special Environmental product declaration KONE MonoSpace Special Environmental product declaration General information The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) provides you as a KONE customer information on

More information

INTRODUCTION PRINTING & WRITING PAPERS LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION PRINTING & WRITING PAPERS LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION PRINTING & WRITING PAPERS LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT The Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) initiated a life-cycle assessment (LCA)

More information

Typical Western Red Cedar Siding

Typical Western Red Cedar Siding Environmental Product Declaration Typical Western Red Cedar Siding This Type III environmental declaration is developed according to ISO 21930 and 14025 for average cedar siding products manufactured by

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyproc Normal - Standard Plasterboard Date of issue: 2013-11-26 Revision data: 2018-08-31 Validity: 5 years Valid until: 2023-07-31

More information

Work Book Extracts. Life Cycle Inventory. 13mm Standard Plasterboard. Unit Operations

Work Book Extracts. Life Cycle Inventory. 13mm Standard Plasterboard. Unit Operations Work Book Extracts Life Cycle Inventory 13mm Standard Plasterboard Unit Operations 1997 1996 to 1998 Boral and Pioneer Operations delivering to NSW Only Working draft extracts only released for review

More information

C40 CEM I. Key Information General Process Description Reference Flow 1kg of concrete Reference Year 2012

C40 CEM I. Key Information General Process Description Reference Flow 1kg of concrete Reference Year 2012 Key Information General Process Description Reference Flow 1kg of concrete Reference Year 2012 Modelling & Assumptions Detailed model description C40 CEM I This dataset represents average end-of-life conditions

More information

Case Study: Plastic Panel Remanufacture or Recycling

Case Study: Plastic Panel Remanufacture or Recycling Case Study: Plastic Panel Remanufacture or Recycling Executive Summary: GnoSys Ecometrics, under the guise of the Polymer Research Centre, was commissioned by a consortium lead by Xerox to put undertake

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyptone 10 mm with Activ Air Date of issue: 2017-07-17 Revision date: 2018-10-17 Validity: 5 years Valid until: 2023-09-28 Scope

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyproc Vådrumsplade - Wetroom Plasterboard Date of issue: 2013-11-26 Revision data: 2018-08-31 Validity: 5 years Valid until:

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyptone 12.5mm with Activ Air Date of issue: 2017-07-17 Revision date: 2018-10-17 Validity: 5 years Valid until: 2023-09-28 Scope

More information

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Declaration Holder SAS International LCA Practitioner / Issuer Atkins Ltd /

More information

KONE TravelMaster 110. Environmental product declaration

KONE TravelMaster 110. Environmental product declaration KONE TravelMaster 110 Environmental product declaration Environmental product declaration General information This Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) provides you with information on the environmental

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO Gyproc PROTECT F - FireBoard

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO Gyproc PROTECT F - FireBoard ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyproc PROTECT F - FireBoard Verification Date: 13 th January 2016 Valid Until: 13 th January 2021 Version : 2.0 Registration

More information

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Declaration Holder SAS International LCA Practitioner / Issuer Atkins Ltd /

More information

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Declaration Holder SAS International LCA Practitioner / Issuer Atkins Ltd /

More information

ArcelorMittal Construction Mineral wool sandwich panels

ArcelorMittal Construction Mineral wool sandwich panels ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION According to EN 15804 Mineral wool sandwich panels Promistyl/Ondafibre (Induswall - Archwall - Indusroof) Taranos/Pflaum FO - Vulcanos/Pflaum FOM - Agnios/Pflaum FI -

More information

Precast Concrete Floor Slabs

Precast Concrete Floor Slabs Key Information General Process Description Reference Flow Reference Year 2012 Modelling & Assumptions Detailed model description Precast Concrete Floor Slabs This dataset represents average end-of-life

More information

Life Cycle Assessment of the HP Pro x2 612 G2 Tablet in the United States

Life Cycle Assessment of the HP Pro x2 612 G2 Tablet in the United States Life Cycle Assessment of the HP Pro x2 612 G2 Tablet in the United States Life cycle inventories and impact assessment of the HP Pro x2 612 G2 Tablet Final Summary Report Prepared for: Date: June 11, 2018

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 RB 12.5 mm Rigips Standard Plasterboard Date of issue: March 2015 Valid until: March 2020 Declaration Number 3013EPD-14-0508

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN and ISO 14025 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Gyproc Loftplader Ceiling Plasterboard Date of issue: 2013-11-26 Revision data: 2018-08-31 Validity: 5 years Valid until: 2023-07-31

More information

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD COOPERATION (IEC) PCR BASIC MODULE. CPC Division 68: Postal and courier services VERSION 1.

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD COOPERATION (IEC) PCR BASIC MODULE. CPC Division 68: Postal and courier services VERSION 1. THE INTERNATIONAL EPD COOPERATION (IEC) PCR BASIC MODULE CPC Division 68: Postal and courier services VERSION 1.0 D 2009-03-03 03-03-2009 2/16 How to use PCR Basic Modules based on the UN CPC structure...

More information

Environmental performance indicators: key features of some recent proposals

Environmental performance indicators: key features of some recent proposals Sustainable Development and Planning III 409 Environmental performance indicators: key features of some recent proposals R. Langford Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, London, England

More information

Environmental Product Declaration

Environmental Product Declaration Environmental Product Declaration According to ISO 14025 Fabricated Steel Reinforcing Bar (Rebar) Issue Date: August 7, 2017 Valid Until: August 7, 2022 Copyright ASTM International, 300 Barr Harbor Drive,

More information

Life Cycle Modeling and Assessment

Life Cycle Modeling and Assessment Life Cycle Modeling and Assessment CEE 111/211 Multi-disciplinary Modeling Mike Lepech Stanford Civil & Environmental Engineering January 31, 2012 Outline Industrial Ecology Life Cycle Assessment BEES

More information

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to ISO14025, BS EN ISO 15804:2012 and International EPD System PCR 2012:01 Declaration Holder SAS International LCA Practitioner / Issuer Atkins Ltd /

More information

ISO & EN 15804: A1:2013

ISO & EN 15804: A1:2013 Owner: Randers Tegl A/S No.: MD-14003-EN_rev1 Revision: Rev1 ECO EPD: 00000796 Issued first time: 23-07-2014 Issued: 21-12-2018 Valid to: 21-12-2023 3 rd P A R T Y V E R I F I E D EPD VERIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

Life Cycle Assessment of the treatment of MSW in the average European Waste-to-Energy plant

Life Cycle Assessment of the treatment of MSW in the average European Waste-to-Energy plant Life Cycle Assessment of the treatment of MSW in the average European Waste-to-Energy plant Jan Manders Deputy President CEWEP MALMÖ, 24th November 2009 1 CEWEP Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy

More information

BNPB1: Plasterboard - industry, product and market overview

BNPB1: Plasterboard - industry, product and market overview BNPB1: Plasterboard - industry, product and market overview Version 1.4 This Briefing Note and referenced information is a public consultation document and will be used to inform Government decisions.

More information

Environmental Product Declaration

Environmental Product Declaration Environmental Product Declaration Fly ash for concrete, asphalt and cement production This environmental product declaration (EPD) is in accordance with EN ISO 14025 and EN 15804. The product declaration

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per ISO and EN 15804

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per ISO and EN 15804 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per ISO 14025 and EN 15804 Owner of the Declaration Programme holder Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.v. (IBU) Publisher Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.v. (IBU) Declaration

More information

FOR Hertalan Easy Cover COMPANY INFORMATION / DECLARATION OWNER. MRPI code Xxxxxxx. DATE OF ISSUE May 21 th, END OF VALIDITY May 21 th, 2020

FOR Hertalan Easy Cover COMPANY INFORMATION / DECLARATION OWNER. MRPI code Xxxxxxx. DATE OF ISSUE May 21 th, END OF VALIDITY May 21 th, 2020 COMPANY INFORMATION / DECLARATION OWNER FOR Hertalan Easy Cover MRPI code Xxxxxxx DATE OF ISSUE May 21 th, 2015 END OF VALIDITY May 21 th, 2020 Carlisle Construction Materials bv Industrieweg 16 8263 AD

More information

1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment

1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment 1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment This section of the handbook introduces the concept of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Videos 2, 3 and 4 of the GaBi Paper Clip

More information

Legrand's environmental commitments

Legrand's environmental commitments 128, Av. du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny 87045 Limoges cedex - France Tel.: +33 (0)5 55 06 87 87 Fax: +33 (0)5 55 06 88 88 i Your usual Sales office Website: www.legrand.fr This document is based on

More information

Environmental Product Declaration Aluminium Window System

Environmental Product Declaration Aluminium Window System Environmental Product Declaration Aluminium Window System February 2017 Environmental Product Declaration This environmental product declaration (EPD) is for a CEN standard window frame produced by Kawneer

More information

Product Sustainability. Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) November 2013

Product Sustainability. Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) November 2013 Product Sustainability Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) November 2013 Contents Introduction Product Sustainability Trends How to Achieve Product Sustainability Initiatives on Product Sustainability

More information

Deliverable 29 Life Cycle Flow Diagram (LCFD) for each alternative supply chain configuration considered - 19/07/2016 -

Deliverable 29 Life Cycle Flow Diagram (LCFD) for each alternative supply chain configuration considered - 19/07/2016 - Deliverable 29 Life Cycle Flow Diagram (LCFD) for each alternative supply chain configuration considered - 19/07/2016 - Table of content 1 Introduction... 3 1.1 Project summary... 3 1.2 Partners... 3 1.3

More information

Nonwoven fabrics [EDP (0)]

Nonwoven fabrics [EDP (0)] Nonwoven fabrics [EDP 2005-147(0)] 1. General 1.1. Scope and definition This requirement specifies technical considerations, declaration format and communication necessary for developing and issuing Environmental

More information

Environmental Product Declaration Aluminium Door Systems. February 2017

Environmental Product Declaration Aluminium Door Systems. February 2017 Environmental Product Declaration Aluminium Door Systems February 2017 Environmental Product Declaration This environmental product declaration (EPD) is for a CEN standard door system produced by Kawneer

More information

ISO & EN 15804: A1:2013

ISO & EN 15804: A1:2013 Owner: Randers Tegl A/S No.: MD-17002-EN_rev1 Revision: Rev1 ECO EPD: 00000641 Issued first time: 16-01-2018 Issued: 21-12-2018 Valid to: 21-12-2023 3 rd P A R T Y V E R I F I E D EPD VERIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

State of the Nation Report

State of the Nation Report State of the Nation Report Landfilling Practices and Regulation in Scotland Contents 1. Summary of Solid Waste Management Sector... 2 2. Overview of Landfill Practices... 5 3. Key Stakeholders in the solid

More information

Life Cycle Performance of Sustainable Buildings: Appraisal of the Lyell Centre and Oriam

Life Cycle Performance of Sustainable Buildings: Appraisal of the Lyell Centre and Oriam Life Cycle Performance of Sustainable Buildings: Appraisal of the Lyell Centre and Oriam Sep 2018 Sahar Mirzaie, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, SM76@HW.AC.UK Dr. G.F. Menzies, Heriot-Watt University,

More information

PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR)

PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR) PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR) For preparing an environmental declaration (EPD) for Product Group Asphalt and crushed stone NPCR 18 November 2010 NPCR 18 Asphalt and crushed stone 10.11.2010 1 Content 1.

More information

BNPB3: Plasterboard - legislation and policy drivers

BNPB3: Plasterboard - legislation and policy drivers BNPB3: Plasterboard - legislation and policy drivers Version 1.6 This Briefing Note and referenced information is a public consultation document and will be used to inform Government decisions. The information

More information

Green Guide Update: BRE Response to Comments on the Normalisation Briefing Paper (3b)

Green Guide Update: BRE Response to Comments on the Normalisation Briefing Paper (3b) Green Guide Update: BRE Response to Comments on the Normalisation Briefing Paper (3b) Comments in bold have been provided by our Life Cycle Assessment Peer Reviewers. A list of all those who have provided

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL EMBODIED CARBON DATABASE

DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL EMBODIED CARBON DATABASE DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL EMBODIED CARBON DATABASE FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Jack C.P. Cheng1, Irene M.C. Lo, Vincent J.L. Gan, Ran Jing, Jing L. Zhang Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

More information

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 st International EIMPack Congress 2012 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS Sandra Ferreira Marta Cabral Nuno Cruz Pedro Simões Rui Cunha Marques Lisbon, 29 November 2012 EIMPack: Economic

More information

Product Go! Mobile glassboards. Functional Unit 1 m2 of writing surface for 10 years of use

Product Go! Mobile glassboards. Functional Unit 1 m2 of writing surface for 10 years of use Declaration Owner Clarus 7537 Jack Newell Blvd N Fort Worth, TX 76118 469.400.7472 www.clarus.com Product Go! Mobile glassboards Functional Unit 1 m2 of writing surface for 10 years of use EPD Number and

More information

Appendix 1: Method statement

Appendix 1: Method statement Appendix 1: Method statement Overview This report is intended to document up to date information on the water, carbon and waste impacts of UK clothing and provide detailed information on the resource and

More information

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) according to EN and ISO Portland-composite cement (CEM II) produced in Europe

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) according to EN and ISO Portland-composite cement (CEM II) produced in Europe Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) according to EN 15804 and ISO 14025 Portland-composite cement (CEM II) produced in Europe - 2 - Owner of the Declaration CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association

More information

TECHNICAL NOTE #08. Carbon Footprint in the context of clay brick masonry walling TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTOR

TECHNICAL NOTE #08. Carbon Footprint in the context of clay brick masonry walling TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTOR TECHNICAL NOTE #08 in the context of clay brick masonry walling TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTOR Technical Committee Clay Brick Association of SA For many years CO2 has been thought to be in an elegant balance, but

More information

Carbon Footprint and Life. Experience. Christian Leroy, ESTAL Congress Sept 2009

Carbon Footprint and Life. Experience. Christian Leroy, ESTAL Congress Sept 2009 Carbon Footprint and Life Cycle Analysis: the EAA Experience Christian Leroy, ESTAL Congress 2009 22 Sept 2009 Executive Committee General Assembly 2009 Market groups - Packaging - Building - Automotive

More information

PLASTERBOARD SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE PSP (UK) 13 November 2012, European Parliament Brussels Presented by: Malcolm Waddell, WRAP UK

PLASTERBOARD SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE PSP (UK) 13 November 2012, European Parliament Brussels Presented by: Malcolm Waddell, WRAP UK PLASTERBOARD SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE PSP (UK) 13 November 2012, European Parliament Brussels Presented by: Malcolm Waddell, WRAP UK Agenda Introduction to WRAP Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership

More information

FOR Hertalan Easy Weld MF COMPANY INFORMATION / DECLARATION OWNER. MRPI code Xxxxxxx. DATE OF ISSUE May 21 th, END OF VALIDITY May 21 th, 2020

FOR Hertalan Easy Weld MF COMPANY INFORMATION / DECLARATION OWNER. MRPI code Xxxxxxx. DATE OF ISSUE May 21 th, END OF VALIDITY May 21 th, 2020 COMPANY INFORMATION / DECLARATION OWNER FOR Hertalan Easy Weld MF MRPI code Xxxxxxx DATE OF ISSUE May 21 th, 2015 END OF VALIDITY May 21 th, 2020 Carlisle Construction Materials bv Industrieweg 16 8263

More information

UNIT DOSE A Sustainability Step for Fabrics Liquids

UNIT DOSE A Sustainability Step for Fabrics Liquids UNIT DOSE A Sustainability Step for Fabrics Liquids Unilever Supports Sustainable Development of Detergents with Capsules A SUSTAINABILITY STEP FOR FABRICS LIQUIDS CAPSULES UNIT DOSE Unilever is committed

More information

Declaration Owner North American MgO LLC 40 South St. North Aurora, IL

Declaration Owner North American MgO LLC 40 South St. North Aurora, IL Declaration Owner North American MgO LLC info@northamericanmgo.com 40 South St. North Aurora, IL 60542 630.518.4766 http://www.northamericanmgo.com/ Product MagTech Ultra Magnesium Oxide Board Functional

More information

Life cycle Assessment

Life cycle Assessment Life cycle Assessment Life Cycle Assessment LCA is a 'cradle to grave' method of assessing environmental impact. It is an analysis which covers the entire life cycle of a product or function, from the

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION BILLERUDKORSNÄS DECOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION BILLERUDKORSNÄS DECOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION BILLERUDKORSNÄS DECOR BILLERUDKORSNÄS BillerudKorsnäs is one of the world s leading producers of virgin and primary fibre based packaging materials, primarily for consumer

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per /ISO 14025/ and /EN 15804/

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per /ISO 14025/ and /EN 15804/ ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per /ISO 14025/ and /EN 15804/ Owner of the Declaration Mineral Products Association (MPA) UK Programme holder Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.v. (IBU) Publisher Institut

More information

fermacell Gypsum Fibreboard

fermacell Gypsum Fibreboard fermacell Gypsum Fibreboard Environmental product declaration as per ISO 14025 and EN 15804 Valid to: 11th of December 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION as per ISO 14025 and EN 15804 Owner of the

More information

Environmental Product Declaration

Environmental Product Declaration Environmental Product Declaration of sodium salts in accordance with ISO 14025 General Information THE INTERNATIONAL EPD SYSTEM Sodium Carbonate - Sodium Bicarbonate in accordance with ISO 14025 CPC Code:

More information

Legrand's environmental commitments

Legrand's environmental commitments 128 Av. du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny 87045 Limoges Cedex - France Tel. : +33 (0) 5 55 06 87 87 Fax : +33 (0) 5 55 06 88 88 i Your usual Sales office Website www.legrand.fr This document is based on

More information

Life Cycle Assessment of the use of solid biomass for electricity

Life Cycle Assessment of the use of solid biomass for electricity JRC Enlargement & Integration Programme Life Cycle Assessment of the use of solid biomass for electricity Workshop by JRC and the National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute Moscow, 22-1 Overview 1. IFEU

More information

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Overview

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Overview Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Overview Dr. David E. Meyer, Dr. Mary Ann Curran (Retired) Photo image area measures 2 H x 6.93 W and can be masked by a collage strip of one, two or three images. The photo

More information

Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Assessment Systems Thinking: Electric Cars Example Petrol Car Electric Car 115 g CO 2 emissions / km 0 g CO 2 emissions / km Coal Source Electricity Raw Materials Manufacturing Car Operation

More information

EPD. 3 rd P A R T Y V E R I F I E D. Owner: DEKO p s No.: ECO EPD: MD EN Issued: Valid to:

EPD. 3 rd P A R T Y V E R I F I E D. Owner: DEKO p s No.: ECO EPD: MD EN Issued: Valid to: Owner: DEKO p s No.: ECO EPD: MD-16004-EN 00000451 Issued: 14-11-2016 Valid to: 14-11-2021 3 rd P A R T Y V E R I F I E D EPD VERIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION ISO 14025 & EN 15804 Owner of declaration

More information

Plasterboard Roadmap: Status Report July 08

Plasterboard Roadmap: Status Report July 08 Plasterboard Roadmap: Status Report July 08 1. Summary This roadmap focuses on understanding and improving the life cycle impacts of plasterboard. A number of government and industry-led measures are in

More information

Environmental Product Declaration

Environmental Product Declaration Environmental Product Declaration Typical Western Red Cedar Bevel Siding ½ x 6 Clear Grade, Painted Type III environmental declaration developed according to ISO 21930 and 14025 for average cedar siding

More information

Reducing and recycling plasterboard waste on a site where space is a constraint

Reducing and recycling plasterboard waste on a site where space is a constraint Plasterboard case study Reducing and recycling plasterboard waste on a site where space is a constraint This case study describes the approaches taken to design out, recover and recycle plasterboard waste

More information

LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS... real-world execution

LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS... real-world execution LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS... real-world execution Dwight Schmidt President, Fibre Box Association PRESENTED BY: Life Cycle Analysis Real World Execution Packaging Summit May 13, 2008 Dwight Schmidt President

More information

UN CPC 322 BOOKS, IN PRINT

UN CPC 322 BOOKS, IN PRINT 2011:24 VERSION 1.02 TABLE OF CONTENTS General Introduction...3 1 General information...4 2 Definition of the product group...5 2.1 Specification of manufacturing company...5 2.2 Specification of the product...5

More information

Particleboard. Environmental Product Declaration AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL CANADIAN WOOD COUNCIL

Particleboard. Environmental Product Declaration AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL CANADIAN WOOD COUNCIL AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL CANADIAN WOOD COUNCIL The American Wood Council (AWC) and Canadian Wood Council (CWC) are pleased to present this Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for particleboard. This EPD

More information

2015 UL LLC. All Rights Reserved

2015 UL LLC. All Rights Reserved This declaration is an environmental product declaration (EPD) in accordance with ISO 14025. EPDs rely on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to provide information on a number of environmental impacts of products

More information

Environmental Performance of Wood Products. CHEM-E2115 Wood Products: Application and Performance

Environmental Performance of Wood Products. CHEM-E2115 Wood Products: Application and Performance Environmental Performance of Wood Products CHEM-E2115 Wood Products: Application and Performance Some words about me Education Bachelor of Engineering (Wood Techn.) from Lahti University of Applied Sciences

More information

Legrand s environmental commitments

Legrand s environmental commitments 128, av. du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny 87045 Limoges Cedex - France Tel: +33(0)5 55 06 87 87 Fax:+33(0)5 55 06 88 88 i Your usual Sales office Website www.legrand.fr This document is based on the ISO

More information

Korsnäs Liquid FC. Environmental Product Declaration

Korsnäs Liquid FC. Environmental Product Declaration Environmental Product Declaration Korsnäs Liquid FC This is an Environmental Product Declaration of Korsnäs Liquid FC, registered in the International EPD System (www.environdec.com). The declaration has

More information

A clean energy solution from cradle to grave

A clean energy solution from cradle to grave Environmental Product Declaration A clean energy solution from cradle to grave Offshore wind power plant employing SWT-4.0-130 siemens.com / wind Assessing the performance of a wind power plant The environmental

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN A1:2014 and EN 16783

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN A1:2014 and EN 16783 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION In accordance with EN 1584+A1:214 and EN 16783 Isover DOMO PLUS - 1 mm Date of publication: 218-1-3 Validity: 5 years Valid until: 223-1-29 Declaration number: 315-EPD-35758

More information