Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Spray Polyurethane Foams

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Spray Polyurethane Foams SprayFoam 2012 Dallas InterContinental Hotel February 2, 2012 Rick Duncan Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance George Pavlovich Bayer MaterialScience LLC Shen Tian Bayer MaterialScience LLC The information provided herein are believed to be accurate and reliable, but are presented without guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied. User assumes all risk and liability for use of the information and results obtained. Statements or suggestions concerning possible use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such use is free of patent infringement, and are not recommendations to infringe any patent. The user should not assume that all safety measures are indicated herein, or that other measures may not be required.

AGENDA Definitions Goal and Scope Inventory Analysis Impact Assessment Interpretation and Value Next Steps Acknowledgements

What is Life Cycle Assessment? Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with ALL stages of a product's life raw materials processing packaging installation use distribution raw material extraction manufacturing and blending disposal and recycling

What is Life Cycle Assessment? LCAs prevent a narrow outlook on environmental concerns (single attribute evaluations) by: Utilizing a recognized global methodology that provides a transparent, holistic and balanced approach to product evaluation Compiling an inventory of all energy/material inputs and environmental releases Evaluating the potential impacts associated with all inputs and releases Interpreting the results to help customers make informed and technically sound decisions

What is Life Cycle Assessment? The International Standards Organization (ISO) provides a structured process to assure fair, credible and transparent LCA results Relevant (ISO) LCA Documents 1. ISO 14040: Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework, Second Edition; International Organisation for Standardisation, 2006. 2. ISO 14044: Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines, First Edition; International Organisation for Standardisation, 2006.

What is Life Cycle Assessment? Four basic stages of LCA Goal and Scope Definition Inventory Analysis Interpretation Impact Assessment flow diagram from ISO 14040 Standard

Goal Goal and Scope Definition Enterprise/Industry: Develop environmental strategy for products and services Manufacturing: Create and improve sustainable manufacturing processes Sales and Marketing: Support environmental marketing claims, provide green building credits for LCA/EPD credits Customers: Use best materials and processes and avoid single attribute selection

Scope Goal and Scope Definition Functional Unit System Boundaries Assumptions and Limitations Allocation Methods Environmental Impact Categories

Goal and Scope Definition Scope: Functional Unit Defined by the primary function fulfilled by a product system Enables equal comparison of alternative product systems Determines the reference flow on which amounts of inputs and outputs are calculated For all building insulation products, the functional unit is defined by a new Product Category Rule document[1] (2011): 1m² of insulation material with a thickness that gives a design thermal resistance R SI = 1 m²k/w and with a building service life of 60 years

Goal and Scope Definition Scope: System Boundaries Defines what precisely what materials and processes are to be included in the LCA Other Building Raw Other Building Raw Manufacturing Building Installation Building Use Heating / Cooling Building End of Life Maintenance SPF Raw SPF Raw Manufacturing SPF Installation SPF Use and Maintenance SPF Disposal LCA Study Boundary

Goal and Scope Definition Scope: Assumptions and Limitations Defines the time, technology and geographic limits of the data Time: Raw material and process data < 5 years old Technology: Three generically formulated SPF products Geography: United States Data: Primary data from industry sources, other raw materials from recognized sources (GaBi, NREL LCI databases) Cut off Rules: Ignore energy, materials or emissions <1% if not environmentally relevant

Goal and Scope Definition Scope: Allocation Methods Defines allocation of resource consumption and environmental impacts from joint production of materials used for other processes

Goal and Scope Definition Scope: Environmental Impact Categories Defines environmental impacts per functional unit per Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) 2.0 methodology, except USETox and PEI special energy flow Impact Category Characterization Factor Description Unit Global Warming Potential (GWP) Eutrophication Potential (EP) Acidification Potential (AP) Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) Additional Inventory/Impact Category Primary Energy Demand (PED) [1] Human and Eco Toxicity [2] A measure of greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO 2 and methane. Eutrophication covers all potential impacts of excessively high levels of macronutrients, the most important of which nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).. The acidification potential is a measure of a molecule s capacity to increase the hydrogen ion (H + ) concentration in the presence of water, thus decreasing the ph value. A measure of emissions of precursors that contribute to ground level smog formation (mainly ozone O 3 ), A measure of air emissions that contribute to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. A measure of the total amount of primary energy extracted from the earth, expressed in energy demand from non renewable or renewable resources Measures of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive CMR impact kg CO 2 equivalent kg Nitrogen equivalent mol H + equivalent kg O 3 equivalent kg CFC 11 equivalent MJ Case (human) PAF*m3 (eco) [1] PED is a special inventory flow created by PEI using the concept of primary energy [2] Characterization factors from USETox methodology, a European based methodology developed by SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

Inventory Analysis Other Building Raw Other Building Raw Manufacturing Building Installation Building Use Heating / Cooling Building End of Life Maintenance SPF Raw SPF Raw Manufacturing SPF Installation SPF Use and Maintenance SPF Disposal LCA Study Boundary Work completed by PE International Detailed in separate report to be made available to SPFA members Independently reviewed by 3 person Critical Review Panel

Inventory Analysis Other Building Raw Other Building Raw Manufacturing Building Installation Building Use Heating / Cooling Building End of Life Maintenance SPF Raw SPF Raw Manufacturing SPF Installation SPF Use and Maintenance SPF Disposal LCA Study Boundary SPF Raw Manufacturing includes transportation, blending and packaging of raw materials by formulator Data from six different formulators was obtained via survey Generic formulations provided by SPFA and CPI

Inventory Analysis Low Density Open Cell SPF Medium Density Closed Cell Roofing Density (lb/ft3) 0.5 2.0 3.0 Thermal Performance (R/inch) 3.6 6.2 6.2 B side Chemical SPFA CPI SPFA CPI SPFA Polyester 45% 36% 35% Polyol Mannich 30% 34% 45% Compatibilizer 10% 12% Polyether 35% 34% Fire Retardant TCPP 25% 25% 4% 16% 8% Brominated 6% Blowing Agent Reactive (H2O) 24% 20% 2% 2% <2% Physical (HFC) 9% 7% 7% Catalyst Amine 6% 8% 3.0% 4% 2% Metal <1% <1% Surfactant Silicone <1% 1% 1.0% 1% 1%

Inventory Analysis Other Building Raw Other Building Raw Manufacturing Building Installation Building Use Heating / Cooling Building End of Life Maintenance SPF Raw SPF Raw Manufacturing SPF Installation SPF Use and Maintenance SPF Disposal LCA Study Boundary SPF Installation Includes materials transportation, highpressure application, PPE/consumables and factors such as trim waste and product yield Data from different SPF contractors was obtained by PEI

Inventory Analysis Other Building Raw Other Building Raw Manufacturing Building Installation Building Use Heating / Cooling Building End of Life Maintenance SPF Raw SPF Raw Manufacturing SPF Installation SPF Use and Maintenance SPF Disposal LCA Study Boundary SPF Use and Maintenance Performed detailed energy modeling of typical new residential home with SPF insulation to 2009 I code Performed detailed energy modeling of typical existing commercial building with SPF roofing system added (R20) Three representative climate zones considered (MN, VA, TX)

Inventory Analysis SPF Use-Phase Energy Modeling New Residential Home 2434 SF with typical home Two story Wood frame construction Insulated to IRC 2009 per climate zone Air leakage rates from SPF vs fibrous insulation included in model performed using EnergyGauge software Climate data from Minneapolis, Richmond and Houston Existing Commercial Building 10,000 SF post 1980 strip mall building Existing roof assembly R values of R4 and R12 assumed on underside of roof deck Additional roofing SPF added to create R20 roof assembly per ASHRAE 90.1 2010 Air leakage rates from SPF vs fibrous insulation NOT included in model performed using EnergyPlus software Climate data from Minneapolis, Richmond and Houston

Impact Assessment Cradle to Grave, minus Use Phase All results included in detailed report from PE International. Areas of interest are PED and GWP Primary Energy Demand Foam Type Operation/Process Raw Material Contribution Global Warming Potential Foam Type Operation/Process Raw Material Contribution

Impact Assessment 160.00 Primary Energy Demand 140.00 5. End of Life MJ per functional unit 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 4. Use Phase Emissions 3. Installation 2. Transportation 1. Raw & Blending 0.00 Low Den 1 Low Den 2 Med Den 1 Med Den 2 Roofing

Roofing Impact Assessment Med Den 2 Med Den 1 Low Den 2 Low Den 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Polyol Polyester Polyol Mannich Polyol Compatibilizer Polyol Polyether Fire Retardant TCPP Fire Retardant Brominated Blowing Agent Reactive Blowing Agent Physical Catalyst Amine Catalyst Metal Surfactancts Silicone PMDI Packaging Transportation Blending

Roofing Impact Assessment Med Den 2 Med Den 1 Low Den 2 Low Den 1 Petro chemical based raw materials affect Primary Energy Demand in proportion to their volumes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Polyol Polyester Polyol Mannich Polyol Compatibilizer Polyol Polyether Fire Retardant TCPP Fire Retardant Brominated Blowing Agent Reactive Blowing Agent Physical Catalyst Amine Catalyst Metal Surfactancts Silicone PMDI Packaging Transportation Blending

Impact Assessment 40.00 Global Warming Potential [kg CO2 eq] 35.00 kg CO2 per functional unit 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5. End of Life 4. Use Phase Emissions 3. Installation 2. Transportation 1. Raw & Blending 5.00 0.00 Low Den 1 Low Den 2 Med Den 1 Med Den 2 Roofing

Impact Assessment 40.00 Global Warming Potential [kg CO2 eq] 35.00 kg CO2 per functional unit 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 HFC blowing agents have direct impact on GWP results 5. End of Life Use of low GWP blowing agents in closed cell SPF will substantially lower GWP impacts 4. Use Phase Emissions 3. Installation 2. Transportation 1. Raw & Blending 5.00 0.00 Low Den 1 Low Den 2 Med Den 1 Med Den 2 Roofing

Impact Assessment 1.00E 11 Normalized Impacts of Spray Foam 1.00E 12 1.00E 13 1.00E 14 1.00E 15 AP EP GWP ODP Smog 1.00E 16 Low Den 1 Low Den 2 Med Den 1 Med Den 2

Use Phase Impact Assessment All results included in detailed report from Sustainable Solutions. Noticeable residential energy savings due to reduced air leakage, especially in colder climates Moderate commercial building energy savings from additional SPF roof insulation

Interpretation Years to Recover Primary Energy Demand of SPF Commercial Total Primary Energy Demand of Insulation Used (MJ) Total Years to Recover Primary Energy Demand R4 to R20 9.4 Total Primary Energy Demand of Insulation Used (MJ) Total Years to Recover Primary Energy Demand R12 to R20 16.7 Houston Richmond 803,922 7.6 401,961 15.6 Minneapolis 5.1 11.9

Interpretation Years to Recover Primary Energy Demand Residential Total Primary Energy Demand of Insulation Used (MJ) Total Years to Recover Primary Energy Demand from: No Cavity Insulation,0.55 ACHn To: 2009 IECC R values, 0.10 ACHn MD SPF Houston (1) 96,792 5.6 Richmond 111,649 1.3 Minneapolis 150,772 0.9 LD SPF Houston (1) 55,075 3.2 Richmond 63,528 0.8 Minneapolis (2) 85,789 0.5 1. Houston home uses unvented attic, Richmond and Minneapolis homes have insulated attic floor 2. Impact of additional stud depth and required vapor retarder not included for LD SPF in Minneapolis

Interpretation IMPORTANT NOTES ON RESULTS: 1. Results are PRELIMINARY and await critical review 2. Recovery times may be shorter; analysis does not include impacts of : Air barrier Systems needed for air permeable insulations Reduced HVAC system size Reduced framing depth and structural improvements for MD SPF Vapor retarder needed for LD SPF in cold climates 1. Product specific attributes will affect results Coverage Rate R value Density Raw

Interpretation Comparison with other Insulations Data for other insulations published in LCA Databases Before comparison of environmental impacts, check: Units Scope of Study (cradle/end of life, cradle/gate, etc.) Boundaries of Study Peer Reviewed Process

Interpretation I Report Access Available to LCA Project Sponsors to evaluate alternative materials and processes custom/alternative formulations Insert I Report screen shot

Contractor Impact Sales and Marketing: Support environmental marketing claims Provide LCA/EPD credits for green building programs LEED 2012, IgCC, ASHRAE, GreenGlobes programs Customers: Select and specify best materials and processes

Project Documents Interpretation Several documents will be publically available in 2012 summarizing the key results from this project. Detailed Technical Reports Summary Whitepaper and Presentation Technical Marketing Brochure Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) U.S. LCI Database LCA Template (model LCI/EPD) for material suppliers

Acknowledgements History LCA project initially started in Nov 2008 June 2009 Resumed Nov 2010 to Present Project Volunteers George Pavlovich and Shen Tian of Bayer MaterialScience for technical leadership Project Sponsor Reviewers Funding Sources $130k sponsorship from 17 SPFA member suppliers $50k from SPFA General Budget $5k from ACC BCMIT Program towards CRP costs materials

Acknowledgements SPFA Supplier Sponsors Industry Association Sponsors