Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 687–696 | Cite as

TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0

Original Paper

Abstract

TRACI 2.0, the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts 2.0, has been expanded and developed for sustainability metrics, life cycle impact assessment, industrial ecology, and process design impact assessment for developing increasingly sustainable products, processes, facilities, companies, and communities. TRACI 2.0 allows the quantification of stressors that have potential effects, including ozone depletion, global warming, acidification, eutrophication, tropospheric ozone (smog) formation, human health criteria-related effects, human health cancer, human health noncancer, ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel depletion effects. Research is going on to quantify the use of land and water in a future version of TRACI. The original version of TRACI released in August 2002 (Bare et al. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78, 2003) has been used in many prestigious applications including: the US Green Building Council’s LEED Certification (US Green Building Council, Welcome to US Green Building Council, 2008), the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s BEES (Building for Environment and Economic Sustainability) (Lippiatt, BEES 4.0: building for environmental and economic sustainability technical manual and user guide, 2007) which is used by US EPA for Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP), 2008d), the US Marine Corps’ EKAT (Environmental Knowledge and Assessment Tool) for military and nonmilitary uses (US Marine Corps, Environmental knowledge and assessment tool (EKAT): first time user’s guide, 2007), and within numerous college curriculums in engineering and design departments.

Keywords

Life cycle impact assessment Life cycle assessment Methodology development 

References

  1. Andersson-Skold Y, Grennfelt P, Pleijel K (1992) Photochemical ozone creation potentials. J Air Waste Manag 42:1152–1158Google Scholar
  2. Bare JC (2006) Risk assessment and life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) for human health cancerous and noncancerous emissions: integrated and complementary with consistency within the USEPA. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:439–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environ Sci Technol 40:1104–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod 16:1021–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bare JC, Udo de Haes HA, Pennington DW (1999) Life cycle impact assessment sophistication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000) Life cycle impact assessment midpoints vs. endpoints—the sacrifices and the benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI–the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter W (1994) Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic compounds. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 44:881–899Google Scholar
  9. Carter W (1997) Summary of status of VOC reactivity estimates prepared for the California Air Resources Board Consumer Products Working Group MeetingGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter W (2000) Updated maximum incremental reactivity scale for regulatory applications. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter W (2003) Letter to Mr. Richard Corey Chief, Research and Economics Branch, Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA Jan 24Google Scholar
  12. Carter W (2007) Development of the SAPRC-07 chemical mechanism and updated ozone reactivity scales, final report, California Air Resources BoardGoogle Scholar
  13. Carter W (2008) Estimation of the maximum ozone impacts of oxides of nitrogenGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter W (2010a) Email to Jane Bare. Feb 3:2010Google Scholar
  15. Carter W (2010b) SAPRC atmospheric chemical mechanisms and VOC Reactivity ScalesGoogle Scholar
  16. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME (1991) Hydrocarbons and the long-range transport of ozone and PAN across Europe. Atmos Environ 25:1661–1678Google Scholar
  17. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM (1996) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for a large number of reactive hydrocarbons under European conditions. Atmos Environ 30:181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM, Pilling MJ (1998) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for organic compounds in Northwest Europe calculated with a master chemical mechanism. Atmos Environ 32:2429–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ecological Society of America (2000) Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, Bays, and Seas. Issues in Ecology, vol 7, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  20. Gloria TP, Lippiatt BC, Cooper J (2007) Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41:7551–7557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The eco-indicator 99: a damage orientated method for life cycle impact assessment, the Hague, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Guinée JGM, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A de, Oers L van, Wegner Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, Bruijn H de, Duin R van, Huijbregts M, Lindeijer E, Roorda A, Ven B van der, Weidema B (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, v. 2. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauschild M, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, MacLeod M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum R, McKone T (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42:7032–7036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992a) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds (Part 1). CML, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992b) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds (Part 2). In CML edn. CML, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  27. Hertwich E, McKone T, Pease W (1999) Parameter uncertainty and variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal 19:1193–1204Google Scholar
  28. Hofstetter P, Bare JC, Hammitt JK, Murphy PA, Rice GE (2002) Tools for the comparative analysis of alternatives: competing or complementary perspectives? Risk Anal 22:833–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. International Organization of Standardization (ISO) (2000) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle impact assessment. International Standard ISO14042:2000(E), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1996) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K (eds) Report of intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenkin ME, Hayman GD (1999) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for oxygenated volatile organic compounds: sensitivity to variations in kinetic and mechanistic parameters. Atmos Environ 33:1275–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Itsubo N, Peña C, Potting J, Pennington D, Rebitzer G, Schenck R, Stewart M, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lippiatt BC (2007) BEES 4.0: building for environmental and economic sustainability technical manual and user guide, in National Institute of Standards and Technology edn. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  36. Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto L, Jolliet O (2008a) Evaluation of category indicators and characterization models: application to eutrophication, Task Force 1 of the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  37. Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto L, Jolliet O (2008b) Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in life cycle impact assessment, task force 1 of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  38. McKone TE (1993) CalTOX, a multimedia total exposure model for hazardous-waste sites. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris G (2003) Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts—methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. J Ind Ecol 6:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pennington DW, Bare JC (2001) Comparison of chemical screening and ranking approaches: the waste minimization prioritization tool (WMPT) vs. toxic equivalency potentials (TEPs). Risk Anal 21:897–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pennington DW, Norris G, Hoagland T, Bare JC (2000) Environmental comparison metrics for life cycle impact assessment and process design. Environ Prog 19:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenbaum R, Bachmann T, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen H, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild M (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Solomon S, Albritton DL (1992) Time-dependent ozone depletion potentials for short- and long-term forecasts. Nature 357:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Alley RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL, Chen Z, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M, Hewitson B, Hoskins BJ, Joos F, Jouzel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G, Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Rusticucci M, Somerville R, Stocker TF, Whetton P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical Summary. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 33–34Google Scholar
  45. UNFCCC—The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2003) Review of the implementation of commitments and of other provisions of the convention, National Communications: Greenhouse gas inventories from parties included in Annex 1 to the convention, UNFCCC guidelines on reporting and reviewGoogle Scholar
  46. US Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service (2006) Model simulation of soil loss, nutrient loss, and change in soil organic carbon associated with crop production, pp 114, 171Google Scholar
  47. US Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration (2008) Total US energy consumption, state energy data, Table 7. Energy Consumption Estimates by Source, 1960–2005Google Scholar
  48. US Department of Energy—National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2008) US life-cycle inventory databaseGoogle Scholar
  49. US Environmental Protection Agency (1989a) Exposure factors handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. US Environmental Protection Agency (1989b) Risk assessment guidance for superfund, vol I. Human health evaluation manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Electronic code of federal regulations, title 40—protection of environment, chapter 1—environmental protection agency, subchapter C—air programs, Part 82—Protection of Stratospheric OzoneGoogle Scholar
  52. US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Technical guidance manual for performing wasteload allocations, Book II: streams and rivers—part 1: biochemical oxygen demand/dissolved oxygen and nutrients/eutrophication, p F-6Google Scholar
  54. US Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Custom developed spreadsheet provided by Anne Pope which included all NEI HAP emissions for 2002. Provided in email to Jane Bare on Aug 24, 2007Google Scholar
  55. US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Electronic code of federal regulations, title 40: protection of environment, part 82—protection of stratospheric ozone, subpart A—production and consumption controlsGoogle Scholar
  56. US Environmental Protection Agency (2005a) 2005 toxic release inventory (TRI): public data releaseGoogle Scholar
  57. US Environmental Protection Agency (2005b) Federal register, vol 70, no. 176, 13 Sept 2005 rules and regulations, 53930, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52. Revisions to the California state implementation plan and revision to the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC)—removal of VOC exemptions for California’s aerosol coating products reactivity-based regulationGoogle Scholar
  58. US Environmental Protection Agency (2005c) Federal register: 5 Oct 2005, vol 70, no. 192, proposed rules, pp 58138–58146. 40 CFR Part 52. Approval and promulgation of air quality implementation plans, Texas, highly reactive volatile organic compound emissions cap and trade program for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment AreaGoogle Scholar
  59. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Particulate matter, PM standards revisionGoogle Scholar
  60. US Environmental Protection Agency (2007a) Federal register, vol 72, no. 135, 38952, 16 Jul 2007, US EPA, Part IV, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 59, National volatile organic compound emission standards for aerosol coatings; proposed ruleGoogle Scholar
  61. US Environmental Protection Agency (2007b) National Emissions Inventory (NEI) air pollutant emissions trends data and estimation procedures, 1970–2006 Average annual emissions, all criteria pollutants in MS EXCELGoogle Scholar
  62. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Why is phosphorus important?Google Scholar
  63. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008a) Climate change—Greenhouse gas emissions—human-related sources and sinks of carbon dioxideGoogle Scholar
  64. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008b) Climate change: basic InformationGoogle Scholar
  65. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008c) Effects of acid rainGoogle Scholar
  66. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008d) Environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP)Google Scholar
  67. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008e) EPA’s report on the environment, indicators presenting data for EPA region 5, pp 51–53Google Scholar
  68. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008f) Ground-level ozone, basic informationGoogle Scholar
  69. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008g) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2006Google Scholar
  70. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008h) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2006, Annex 6Google Scholar
  71. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008i) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2006, 15 April 2008. Executive summary: table ES-1Google Scholar
  72. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008j) National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)Google Scholar
  73. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008k) Ozone layer depletion—scienceGoogle Scholar
  74. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008l) Ozone layer depletion—science, class I Ozone-depleting substancesGoogle Scholar
  75. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008m) Ozone layer depletion—science, Class II Ozone-depleting substancesGoogle Scholar
  76. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008n) Ozone science: the facts behind the phaseoutGoogle Scholar
  77. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008o) Particulate matter researchGoogle Scholar
  78. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008p) Particulate matter, basic informationGoogle Scholar
  79. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008q) U.S. climate policy and actionsGoogle Scholar
  80. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008r) What is acid rain?Google Scholar
  81. USEtox Team (2010) Background of the USEtox modelGoogle Scholar
  82. US Green Building Council (2008) Welcome to US Green building councilGoogle Scholar
  83. US Marine Corps (2007) Environmental knowledge and assessment tool (EKAT): first time user’s guideGoogle Scholar
  84. WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (1999) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998. Global ozone research and monitoring project—report no. 44, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  85. WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (2003) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2002, global ozone research and monitoring project—report no. 47, Geneva, Switzerland, p 498, Table 1.6–1.7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations