Integration of working environment into life cycle assessment framework

Societal Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been considered one of the tools for supporting decision-making related to the environmental aspects of a product system. It has mainly been used to evaluate the potential impacts associated with relevant inputs and outputs to/from a given product system throughout its life cycle. In most cases, LCA has not considered the impacts on the internal environment, i.e. working environment, but only the external environment. Recently, it has been recognized that the consideration of the impacts on the working environment as well as on the external environment, is needed in order to assess all aspects of the effects on human well-being. To this end, this study has developed a total environmental assessment methodology which enables one to integrate both the working environment and the external environment into the conventional LCA framework.

Materials and methods

In general, the characteristics of the impacts on the external environment are different from those on the working environment. In order to properly integrate the two types into total environmental impacts, it is necessary to define identical system boundaries and select impact category indicators at the same level. In order to define the identical system boundary and reduce the uncertainties of LCI results, the hybrid IOA (input–output analysis) method, which integrates the advantages between conventional LCI method and IOA method, is introduced to collect input and output data throughout the entire life cycle of a given product. For the impact category indicators at the endpoint level, LWD (Lost Work Days) is employed to evaluate the damage to human health and safety in the working environment, while DALY (disability-adjusted life years) and PAF (Potentially Affected Fraction) are selected to evaluate the damage to human health and eco-system quality in the external environment, respectively.

Results and discussion

The environmental intervention factors (EIFs) are developed not only for the data categories of resource use, air emissions, and water emissions, but also for occupational health and safety to complete a life cycle inventory table. For the development of the EIFs on occupational health and safety, in particular, the number of workers affected by i hazardous items and the number of workers affected at the i magnitude of disability are collected. For the characterization of the impact categories in the working environment, such as occupational health and safety, the exposure factors, effect factors, and damage factors are developed to calculate the LWD of each category. For normalization, the normalization reference is defined as the total LWD divided by the total number of workers. A case study is presented to illustrate the applicability of the proposed method for the integration of the working environment into the conventional LCA framework.

Conclusions

This study is intended to develop a methodology which enables one to integrate the working environmental module into the conventional LCA framework. The hybrid IOA method is utilized to extend the system boundary of both the working environment module and the external environment module to the entire life cycle of a product system. In this study, characterization models and category indicators for occupational health and safety are proposed, respectively, while the methodology of Eco-indicator 99 is used for the external environment. In addition to aid further understanding on the results of this method, this study introduced and developed the category indicators such as DALY, and LWD, which can be expressed as a function of time, and introduced PAF, which can be expressed as a probability.

Recommendations and perspectives

The consideration of the impacts not only on the external environment, but also on the working environment, is very important, because the best solution for the external environment may not necessarily be the best solution for the working environment. It is expected that the integration of occupational health and safety matters into the conventional LCA framework can bring many benefits to individuals, as well as industrial companies, by avoiding duplicated measures and false optimization.

Keywords

Disability-adjusted life years (DALY) External environment Hybrid IOA method Lost work day (LWD) Occupational health Occupational safety Societal life cycle assessment Working environment 

Abbreviations

BOD

biochemical oxygen demand

COD

chemical oxygen demand

DALY

disability-adjusted life years

DF

damage factor

EF

effect factor

EIF

environmental intervention factor

ExF

exposure factor

GDP

gross domestic product

GtG

gate-to-gate

IOA

input–output analysis

KEMCO

Korea Energy Management Corporation

KOSHA

Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency

LCA

life cycle assessment

LCIA

life cycle impact assessment

LCI

life cycle inventory analysis

LWD

lost work days

MOD

magnitude of disability

MOE

Ministry of Environment

OD

occupational disease

PAF

potentially affected fraction

PRTR

pollutant release and transfer registers

SS

suspended solid

TDR

total domestic quantity of resources transported

TEA

total environmental assessment

T-N

total nitrogen

TNA

total national amount

T-P

total phosphorus

WHI

the number of workers affected by specific hazardous items

WMD

the number of workers proven to magnitude of disability

References

  1. Antonsson A-B, Carlsson H (1994) Two methods to integrate work environment in LCA, Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on life cycle assessment and the working environmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonsson AB, Helene Carlsson H (1995) The basis for a method to integrate work environment in life cycle assessment. J Cleaner Prod Vol. 3, No. 4, Swedish environmental research institute (IVL)Google Scholar
  3. Bengtsson G, Berglund R (1996) Life cycle assessments including the working environment. Swedish Institute of production engineering research (IVF)Google Scholar
  4. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000): The Eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Pré ConsultantsGoogle Scholar
  5. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products. Chapman & Hall, London, UK vol. 2, 465–508Google Scholar
  6. Honkasalo A (2000) Occupational health and safety and environmental management systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 39-45Google Scholar
  7. International Standard ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency (2002) Survey of occupational accidents and diseases 2001Google Scholar
  9. Ministry of Labor (2002) Results on health examination of a worker in 2000. Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  10. Nielsen AM, Weidema BP (2001) Input/output analysis—shortcuts to life cycle data? Environmental Project No. 581Google Scholar
  11. Nilsson M, Antonsson AB (1998) Introduction on why and how to integrate work environment in Life cycle assessment. Occup Hyg 4:215–222Google Scholar
  12. Potting J, Møller BT, Jensen AA (1998) LCANET Theme report—work environment and LCA, Centre of Environmental Science(CML), Leiden UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Poulsen PB, Jensen AA (2004) Working environment in life cycle assessment, SETACGoogle Scholar
  14. Rønning A, Hanssen OJ, Møller H. (1995) Environmentally sound product development of offshore coatings. Østfold Research Foundation (STØ), ISBN: 82-7520-215-9Google Scholar
  15. Schmidt A, Drabæk I, Midtgaard U (1994) Integrated environmental and occupational assessment of new materials. The Danish Materials Technology Programme (MUP)Google Scholar
  16. Terwoert J (1994) Workshop paper life cycle assessment and the working environment. Chemiewinkel of the University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. The Bank of Korea (2000) Input–output tables (2000)Google Scholar
  18. The Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) (2002) Energy Consumption statisticsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Korea Environmental Industry & Technology InstituteSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Materials Chemistry and EngineeringKonkuk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations