Sit with your project

team today
Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment
CEE 12-714 / EPP 19-714

Lecture 23: Peer Review (again) and Structural Path

Analysis
April 11, 2018
Administrivia
• HW6 – due midnight, Friday, April 13th
• Group projects
 Team meetings
 Team Tree, Friday, 10:00
 Draft report due midnight, Monday, April 16th
 20 project points
 See rubric
 Recognize that this draft is a work in progress
 Presentations April 31st and May 2nd
 Final reports due May 9th

3
Group Presentation Schedule

4
Course trajectory
1. Introductions 10. Uncertainty
2. Life cycle thinking 11. Input-output LCA
3. Quantitative methods and 12. Process-matrix LCA
life cycle cost analysis
13. Hybrid LCA
4. ISO LCA framework
14. Impact assessment
5. Critical review
15. Structural path analysis
6. LCA data sources
16. End-of-life with WARM
7. Life cycle inventory
17. Professional responsibility
8. SimaPro
18. Carbon footprinting
9. Handling multifunction
19. LCA for big decisions
systems
20. Project presentations

5
 ISO 14040: Figure 1

Phases of an LCA
6

• Goal and scope

definition

• Inventory

• Impact assessment

• Interpretation

6
Today…
• Review of critical review process
 And applicability to your projects
• What is SPA and how is it useful?
• SPA MATLAB code
 What’s in there, what can you do with it?

7
Review (from Lecture 6)

Critical Review
in LCA
8
Need for Critical Review in LCA
ISO Statements
ISO 14040:
7.1 Critical review is a process to verify whether an LCA has met the
requirements for methodology, data, interpretation and reporting and
whether it is consistent with the principles.
In general, critical reviews of an LCA may utilize any of the review options
outlined in 7.3. A critical review can neither verify nor validate the goals that
are chosen for an LCA by the study commissioner, nor the ways in which
the LCA results are used.

7.2 Need for critical review

A critical review may facilitate understanding and enhance the credibility of
LCA, for example by involving interested parties.”
ISO 14044/6.1: “…In order to decrease the likelihood of misunderstandings
or negative effects on external interested parties, a panel of interested
parties shall conduct critical reviews on LCA studies where the results are
intended to be used to support a comparative assertion intended to be
disclosed to the public.
9
 Critical Review Process (ISO:14040)*
7.3.1 General – Scope needs to state:
 why critical review is being undertaken
 what will be covered, what level of detail
 who needs to be involved in review

7.3.2 Critical review by internal/external expert

 Should have knowledge/technical expertise (don’t
need LCACP)

* Use confidentiality agreements, if needed

10
Critical Review Process
7.3.3 Critical review by a panel of interested
parties
 External independent expert should be selected by
original study commissioner to act as chairperson of
review panel (at least three members). Based on
goal, scope and budget available for the review,
chairperson should select other independent
qualified reviewers
 Panel may also include other interested parties
affected by conclusions drawn from study (e.g.,
government agencies, non-governmental groups,
competitors and affected industries)

11
Top Pet Peeves of LCA
(based on doing peer reviews)
• Not showing inventory flows (and/or by stage)
 Just showing final results tables insufficient
 No “raw” inventory flows
• Making own process models, but with non-robust
inventories
 e.g., using acidification as an LCI metric but having no
SO2 emissions in process data
• No justification of LCIA categories shown
 “Acidification not relevant for our product” despite
availability in SimaPro

12
 Top Pet Peeves of LCA
(based on doing peer reviews)
• No justification of LCIA method
 “we used IMPACT2002 since that’s a button in SimaPro”
• Forgetting that A in LCA is assessment
 Not answering 3rd part of three-part question
• No interpretation / improvement section
 How to reduce!
• Using convenient (read: irrelevant) process data
• Not documenting process data from libraries
 e.g., “SimaPro” not “ecoinvent 2.0… electricity, coal, at
plant”

13
Final pet peeves
• Poor documentation of assumptions in general
• Giving a 10 page LCA report to review
 when a 100 page report is needed
• Asking for review, then not closing the loop with
responses / edits / even a “thank you”
• No sensitivity / uncertainty analysis
• Silly victories – 6.00 better than 6.04, etc.
• Too many significant digits! Record: 14

14
In-class exercise: Think about typical
Peer Review questions for your group
project
1. Is methodology consistent with ISO 14040/14044?
2. Are objectives, scope, purpose, and boundaries of study
clearly identified?
3. Are assumptions used clearly identified and reasonable?
4. Are sources of data clearly identified and representative?
5. Does LCIA include comprehensive set of (justified) indicators,
and are results compared by category without weighting?
Does LCIA use an accepted international standard?
6. Is there sufficient analysis of sensitivity and uncertainty of
results?
7. Is report complete, consistent, and transparent?
8. Are conclusions appropriate based on data and analysis?
9. Are there other issues of concern? What is your overall
satisfaction with study?
15
Part 1

Structural Path
Analysis

16
Recap of Detail Available in LCA
Models Discussed So Far
• LCA methods generally yield aggregated
results
 IO-LCA: rolled up totals by sector
 US LCI, ecoinvent, etc. as process matrices: rolled up
totals by process

17
Examples of aggregated results

18
EIO-LCA economic and CO2 emissions
results for 'Paint and Coatings' Sector

19
Limitations of Aggregated Results
• Useful/interesting to have “total effects across
system” and aggregated results for each sector
or process
• But, might care about very specific effects
 What are effects of a specific demand for electricity in
a part of system (not just total)
 Where in supply chain are heavy impacts?
 We know the iron casting occurs in Allegheny
County…

20
Yet – we’ve seen glimpses of this
• SimaPro ‘Network’
visualization feature
• Results by stage or
scenario

21
Structural path analysis
• Methodology to “unroll” aggregated results
 Reveal underlying connected flows
• Resultant “paths” can be ranked
 Why would this be useful?
 Hot spots within supply chain
 Prioritization for analysis
 Do average properties reflect your study target?
 Prioritization for process improvements
 Alternative sourcing of materials and energy?

22
Two-Unit Example to illustrate paths

A12

A11 1 2 A22

A21

Typically,  A11 A12 

organized as a A=  
matrix!
 A21 A22 

23
Two-Unit Example as Tree
(a)
A12

A11 1 2 A22

A21

(b)

Tier 0 1 2 Y

Tier 1 1 2 1 2

Tier 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
24
Generating aggregated results

• Generally, LCA models show results

“across all apples”, i.e., sum of all apples
1 and 2, as elements of a result vector, X

-1
é .05 .01 ùé 0 ù é 10 ù
X= A Y = ê úê ú=ê ú
ë 0 .1 ûë 1000 û ë 100 û
25
Generating aggregated results

Standard inventories do not provide line by line

display of each “1” node contribution to total number
of Type 1 apples

26
Not just Tier level analysis
• We have seen SOME more detail beyond the
total X vector
• Chapter 8 – how to find tier-by-tier values

X = [I + A + A×A + A×A×A + … ] Y
= IY +AY + A2Y + A3Y + …
= Tier 0 + Tier 1 + Tier 2 + …

• Just summarizes total of all nodes in each tier

• To isolate and rank impacts within tiers, we need
a ‘path’ to a node
27
Path
Analysis

• Method to find value of specific node/paths

• Can be described from top to bottom, or bottom to
top
 Chain of nodes between final demand and final node of interest
• Which branches lead to high value nodes/apples?
• 428-sector economy example paths:
 electricity consumed by engine manufacturer of a final demand
automobile
 production of rubber in tires needed by a new automobile
28
Path
Analysis

• Node value is product of the demand and

coefficients in the path:

• Paths can be of varying lengths

 This shows a path length of 2.
 Path length of 1 would be just Y to Tier 1
 Path length 0 is final production of demanded good, Y
29
Revisit 2-sector example from Ch. 8
• How did we get the coefficients in the A matrix?

30
Review of A matrix derivation
Transaction
table Process 1 Process 2 X Y
Product 1 150 500 350 1000
Product 2 200 100 1700 2000
V 650 1400
X 1000 2000

150/1000 500/2000 Convert transactions to a

200/1000 100/2000 per $ basis (the functional
unit in an EIO)
Direct
requirements
matrix
A 0.15 0.25
0.2 0.05
31
Revisit 2-sector example from Ch. 8
 A11 A12 
A=  
 21 22 
A A
Y1 = $100 B
Y2 = $0 B

What are these node values?

32
 Revisit 2-sector example from Ch. 8
 A11 A12 
A=  
 21 22 
A A
Y1 = $100 B
Y2 = $0 B

Y1 or $100 billion
Y1*A11 =
$100B * 0.15 = $15 billion

Y1 * A11 * A21 =
$100B * 0.15 * 0.2 = $3.0 billion Y2 * A22 =
$0B * 0.05 = $0 billion 33
What about energy/environmental
effects??
• Similar node value equation:

Effect node value =RkYk Ajk Aij …

Y1 = $100 B

34
2-sector example
• Can generate a sorted list of largest nodes (and
their paths)
Y1 – 5,000 g
Y1:1 – 750 g
Y1:1:1 – 112.5 g
Y1:2 – 100 g
• Also might care about total impact of a node and
it’s supply chain
 Node’s “LCI value”

35
Can we do the same thing for a larger
system?
• Yes. Technique called Structural Path Analysis,
SPA
• Problem:
 Number of supply chain interactions goes up
exponentially!
• EIO-LCA at 4th supply chain tier: 4304
interactions, or 34 billion interactions!
• Must use some cutoff rules
• Luckily, can still get a good amount of system
using programming

36
 Structural paths
• EIO-LCA (aggregated) results for soft drink sector
($1M)
• What’s really going on within the matrix?
• Where are the hot spots?

37
How?
• MATLAB code provided to perform complete,
economy-wide SPA on your IO system
 Requires: final demand, A matrix, R matrix, truncation
criteria
 Produces: list of paths sorted by impact
 Truncation criteria needed to keep it manageable

• To start, look at output of code

• What are the important paths underlying the 940
mt GHG from making $1M of soda?

38
Abridged SPA Summary Graph
for Soft Drinks – Top GHG Paths

Legend
LCI tons
Sector
site tons

39
Where are the top 5 paths?
Rank by “Sector site tons”

Legend

LCI tons
Sector
site tons

40
Soft drinks SPA
• Top 10 paths of 2002 benchmark US IO model,
total GHG of $1million from Soft drink and ice
manufacturing sector
• Truncation parameter of 0.01% of the total tons
CO2e in the SPA for a path's LCI value

41
 Soft drinks SPA
Summary
Total number of paths assessed • “Effects, site” = GHG for that node (Col. C)
Truncated at 4 steps and
LCI@site>0.01% of total effects
• All paths start with sector with final demand
(S1) (Columns E&F)
• “Effects, LCI@site” = GHG for that node and it’s
supply chain (Col. D)
• Tier 0 will have Length = 0, soda manuf. facility,
with LCI@site effects being same as Total
Effects (940.4 tons), and much lower site
effects (36 tons)
43
Compare to eiolca.net results

• Website shows a “roll up total”

for all blue boxes with the same
sector # (e.g., power gen, soda)
• EIO-LCA website (and models
in general) count up all the
similar apples into piles.
• SPA does not roll up these
totals, treats them all as
separate apples on the
hierarchical supply tree

44
How does this help with hybrid?
• If you know the emissions associated with
a certain supplier
• If you know a certain supplier was not US-
based
 Or in different region of electric grid!

• See SPA Spreadsheet for Soft Drinks

45
Wrap up
• Looked at paths and the drill-down details
that SPA provides
• Examined output from SPA MATLAB runs
• Visualization tool
• Hot spot identification!
• Next time, how to use SPA in a hybrid LCA
 What if you wanted to adjust not the sector
totals, but an individual part of the supply
chain?
46
Next
• Finish Structural Path Analysis
 Read rest of Ch 12
 Read SPA exchange paper and skim other material
• HW6 due Friday, April 13, midnight
• Preliminary project results/draft report due
Monday, April 16, midnight

47
Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment
CEE 12-714 / EPP 19-714

Lecture 24: Structural Path Analysis, continued

April 16, 2018
 HW7 due Thursday, April 26,
Administrivia midnight
Extra credit is worthwhile!

• Group projects
 Draft report due midnight, tonight
 Team meetings
 Not required, but feel free to request a meeting
 Final reports due May 9th

49
Course trajectory
1. Introductions 10. Uncertainty
2. Life cycle thinking 11. Input-output LCA
3. Quantitative methods and 12. Process-matrix LCA
life cycle cost analysis
13. Hybrid LCA
4. ISO LCA framework
14. Impact assessment
5. Critical review
15. Structural path analysis
6. LCA data sources
16. End-of-life with WARM
7. Life cycle inventory
17. Professional
8. SimaPro responsibility
9. Handling multifunction 18. Carbon footprinting
systems
19. LCA for big decisions
20. Project presentations

50
 ISO 14040: Figure 1

Phases of an LCA
51

• Goal and scope

definition

• Inventory

• Impact assessment

• Interpretation

51
Today…
• Structural path exchange
• SPA MATLAB code
 What’s in there, what can you do with it?
• Using SPA in Hybrid LCA
 Changing a node
 Interpreting the results
• Professional responsibility

52
MATLAB SPA
• Last class we saw the SPA output and discussed
its interpretation
• Now, the underlying software
 Needed for HW7

53
MATLAB SPA
Hint: Download zip file, extract into a new folder you can find easily.

54
MATLAB SPA

Focus on the 2 Run

scripts – you should
not be modifying the
other called scripts.

Script called by the Run*.m script

Runs SPA for 428 sector EIO 2002

Runs SPA for 2 sector example

More script called by the Run*.m script

55
 Double-click on
RunEIO02SPA.m to open in
RunEIO02SPA.m Editor

clear all Make changes as appropriate

for your run
load('Matlab EIOLCA/2002 EIOLCA Matlab (full version
updated 030613)/EIO02.mat') % relative path to 2002
EIOLCA .mat file

F = EIvect(7,:); % matrix of energy & GHG results, 7 is

total GHGs

A = A02ic; % from the industry by commodity matrix

filename = 'softdrinks_1million';
56
RunEIOSPA.m, continued
% sector names in the external .mat file
sectornames = EIOsecnames;

L = L02ic; % industry by commodity total reqs

F_total = F*L;

y = zeros(428,1);

y(70,1) = 1; % sector 70 is soft drink mfg (soda), $1

million 57
RunEIOSPA.m, continued

percent = 0.01; % 'cut-off' of upstream LCI (% of total

effects)

T_max = 4; % Max tiers to search

% this prints the T_max, percent, etc. params in the

file
% change to 0 or comment it out if not needed
thresh_banner=1;

58
RunEIOSPA.m, continued
% this last command runs two other .m files in the
zip file
% the parameters on the right hand side are the
threshold parameters
SPAEIO02(F, A, y, F_total, T_max, percent, filename,
sectornames, thresh_banner);

59
 RunEIOSPA.m, continued
• After editing RunEIO02SPA.m to reflect your
choices, select Run in the Toolstrip

>> RunEIO02SPA Read tree...

tolerance.. Elapsed time is 0.546176 seconds.
0.0940 Sort tree
Elapsed time is 0.308106 seconds.
Construct the tree... Print sorted tree to file...softdrinks_1million.txt
tolerance.. Elapsed time is 0.225992 seconds.
0.0940 The total number of paths is 1095 the total
effects covered are 684.1311 and covers
>> 72.7495 percent of emissions
Elapsed time is 7.493936 seconds. >> 60
MATLAB SPA
• Next, open the generated .txt file in Excel
 When importing the file, select two delimiters –
semicolons and colons (enter “:” in the ‘other’ field)

61
Now what?
• We have the theory to unroll the supply chain
• We have a program that gives us the nodes with
highest impacts
• How to use this power?

62
Structural Path
Exchange

63
Structural path exchange method
• Path and node-specific information can be used
to assess alternative designs
• Generate baseline SPA
• Replace specific baseline results (nodes) with
adjusted data or assumptions
 Primary data
 Supplier information
 Local characteristics

64
Path exchange steps
(1) Perform general SPA for a sector and effect of
interest to develop baseline estimate
(2) Identify paths where alternate process data
could be used
 Paths with relatively high values in baseline
 Process values significantly different than averages
(3) Re-calculate SPA results with path exchanges,
compare new results to baseline SPA

65
For each exchanged path:
• Develop quantitative connection between baseline
and alternative process data
• Simplest case, straightforward percentage change
 50% reduction in need for Path 1
 50% reduction in emission intensity in Path 1
• More complex analyses track shifts from one path to
another, or transformations across different units
 20% reduction in Path 1 (truck transport), causing some
increase in demand for Path 2 (rail transport)
 Mass to dollars, energy requirements across technologies
• Normalize available process data to replace
information in default path
• Update path value

66
 You have reduced the
transaction coefficient, A
Simple exchange #1 matrix, so the impacts flow
through that node’s LCI

• Model $1m soda (SDM), 940.4 tons GWP, Total

• Important path:
 Wet corn milling>SDM, 52.1 tons (site), 119.4 tons (LCI)
 Targeted process improvement: reduce corn requirement by
50%

• Adjusted path:
 Site: 50%*52.1 = 26.0 ton GWP
 LCI: 50%*119.4 tons = 59.7 ton GWP
• Adjusted Total:
 940.4 – originalLCI + revisedLCI = 940.4 - 119.4 + 59.7 =
880.7 ton
 880.7/940.4 = 94%, or a 6% reduction overall

67
 Essentially changing R matrix
coefficient (ton GWP/$) by hand,
Simple exchange #2 while keeping A matrix coefficient
the same (still buying same
amount of electricity)

• Model $1m soda (SDM), 940.4 tons GWP, total

• Important path:
 Power generation>SDM, 79.6 tons (site), 83.6 tons (LCI)
 Process improvement: change to green electricity
• Adjusted path:
 Site: 0 ton GWP
 LCI: 0 ton GWP (assuming the non-direct electricity is also
very green)
• Adjusted total:
 940.4 – originalLCI + revisedLCI = 940.4 - 83.6 + 0 = 856.8
ton
 856.8/940.4 = 91%, or a 9% reduction overall
68
 Essentially changing R matrix
coefficient (ton GWP/$) by hand,
Simple exchange #3 while keeping A matrix coefficient
the same (still buying same
amount of electricity)

• Model $1m soda (SDM), 940.4 tons GWP, total

• Important path:
 Power generation>SDM, 79.6 tons (site), 83.6 tons (LCI)
 Process improvement: change to electricity with carbon
capture, eliminate all GWP at site
• Adjusted path:
 Site: 0 ton GWP
 LCI: 83.6 - 79.6 tons = 4.0 ton GWP (assuming grid electricity
used for all non-direct)
• Adjusted total:
 940.4 – originalLCI + revisedLCI = 940.4 - 83.6 + 4.0 = 860.8
ton
 860.8/940.4 = 92%, or a 8% reduction overall

69
More complex exchange
• Model $1m soda (SDM), 940.4 tons GWP, total
• Important path:
 Truck>SDM, 15 tons (site), 21.7 tons (LCI)
 Logistics improvement: shift 50% of truck shipments to rail
• Impacted secondary path
 Rail>SDM, 2.5 tons (site), 3.2 tons (LCI)
 How much will these emissions change to accommodate
shift from truck?
 Rail emissions: 0.1 kg CO2/ton-mile
 Truck emissions: 0.17 kg CO2/ton-mile
• Adjusted truck path:
 Site: 50%*15 ton = 7.5 ton GWP
 LCI: 50%*21.7 = 10.9 ton GWP
70
More complex exchange, continued

• Adjusted rail path (site)

 Need to know how many more ton-miles will be added
to rail
 15 tons CO2 truck = 15,000 kg CO2
 15,000 kg CO2/0.17 kg CO2 per ton-mile = 88,200 ton
mile
 Additional needed rail ton-mile = 88,200*50% =
44,100 new rail ton-mile
 Additional CO2 from new rail ton-miles = 44,100 ton-
mile * 0.1 kg CO2/ton-mile = 4.4 tons
 NEW rail tons = original + additional = 2.5 + 4.4 = 6.9
tons (site)
71
More complex exchange, continued

• Adjusted rail path (LCI)

 Increase proportional to increase in Site
 3.2original LCI * (6.9adjusted Site/2.5original Site) = 8.8 tons (LCI)
• Adjusted total:
 940.4 – originaltruck – originalrail + revisedtruck + revisedrail =
940.4 - 21.7 - 3.2 + 10.9 + 8.8 = 935.1 ton
 935.1/940.4 = 99%, or a 1% reduction overall

Minor CO2 improvement

for a lot of logistical
planning, but perhaps a
lot less expensive
72
Structural Path Analysis

• Want more on structural path analysis and

exchange theory? See Lenzen paper
• Method here emphasized IO-LCA, but works
equally for process based LCA
• SPA is a rigorous quantitative method to
disaggregate matrix-derived LCA results
• Path exchange is a hybrid method that allows
strategic modification based on available
monetary or physical data

73
Bonus: Online SPA Visualization tool

• http://www.eiolca.net/abhoopat/componentviz/

74
PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR CLAIMS
US Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
• General mission: “The FTC is a bipartisan
federal agency with a unique dual mission to
protect consumers and promote competition.”
• Established a series of guides about
“environmental claims”

76
FTC Enforcement
• Guides about FTC’s views about environmental
claims
• Help marketers avoid making environmental
marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive
 Section 5 of FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45
• FTC can take enforcement action if marketer
makes environmental claim inconsistent with
guides
 Must prove that challenged act/practice is unfair or
deceptive in violation of Section 5

77
Does FTC enforce the guidelines?
• “The staff of the Federal Trade Commission has
sent warning letters to five providers of
environmental certification seals and 28
businesses using those seals, alerting them to
the agency’s concerns that the seals could be
considered deceptive and may not comply with
the FTC’s environmental marketing guidelines.”

78
US FTC Guide to Env’l Marketing Claims
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58. Source: 77 FR 62124, Oct. 11, 2012.

a) Qualifications and disclosures should be clear,

prominent, and understandable
b) Should specify whether it refers to the product,
it's packaging, a service, or just to a portion of
the product, package, or service

79
Example: What does the claim apply
to?
• A plastic package
containing a new shower
curtain is labeled
“recyclable” without further
elaboration
 Does claim refer to plastic
packaging or the shower
curtain?
 Claim is deceptive if any part
of either packaging or
curtain, other than minor,
incidental components,
cannot be recycled

80
Example: What does claim apply to?

• A soft drink bottle is labeled

“recycled.”
 Bottle is made entirely from recycled
materials, but bottle cap is not
 Bottle cap considered minor,
incidental component of package
 Claim is not deceptive

81
 FTC Guide (cont.)
c) ... should not overstate, directly or by implication, an
environmental attribute or benefit. Should not state
or imply environmental benefits if the benefits are
negligible

• A rug is labeled “50% more recycled content than

before.” The manufacturer increased recycled content
of rug from 2% recycled fiber to 3%
 Claim is technically true
 Conveys false impression that manufacturer has increased
significantly use of recycled fiber

82
Example: Implied benefits
• Trash bag labeled “recyclable” without qualification
 Trash bags ordinarily not separated from other trash at
landfill or incinerator for recycling
 Highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose
 Even if technically capable of being recycled, claim is
deceptive since it asserts environmental benefit where
no meaningful benefit exists

83
 FTC Guide (cont.)
d) Comparative environmental marketing claims
should be clear to avoid consumer confusion
about the comparison. Marketers should have
substantiation.
• Advertiser notes that its glass bathroom tiles contain
“20% more recycled content”
 To what? Their previous product or to its competitors’?
 Advertiser should have substantiation for both
interpretations
 Or make basis for comparison clear
 “20% more recycled content than our previous bathroom tiles.”
84
 Example: Competitive claims
• Advertiser claims “our plastic diaper liner has the
most recycled content.”
 diaper liner has more recycled content, calculated as a
percentage of weight, than any other on the market,
although still well under 100%
 Claim likely conveys that product contains significant
percentage of recycled content and has significantly
more recycled content than competitors
 If advertiser cannot substantiate these messages, claim
would be deceptive.

85
Example: Competitive claims
• Advertiser claims that its packaging creates “less
waste than the leading national brand.”
 Advertiser implemented source reduction several
years ago and supported claim by calculating relative
solid waste contributions of the two packages
 Advertiser should have substantiation that comparison
remains accurate

86
Examples: Competitive claims
• A product is advertised as “environmentally preferable.”
 Claim likely conveys product is environmentally superior to
other products. Unlikely that marketer can substantiate
messages conveyed – claim is deceptive
 Would not be deceptive if accompanied with clear and
prominent language limiting environmental superiority
representation to particular substantiated attributes,
provided advertisement's context does not imply other
deceptive claims.
 “Environmentally preferable: contains 50% recycled content
compared to 20% for the leading brand” would not be
deceptive.

87
FTC Guides
§260.5 Carbon offsets.
§260.6 Certifications and seals of approval.
§260.7 Compostable Claims.
§260.8 Degradable claims.
§260.9 Free-of claims.
§260.10 Non-toxic claims.
§260.11 Ozone-safe and ozone-friendly claims.
§260.12 Recyclable claims.
§260.13 Recycled content claims.
§260.14 Refillable claims.
§260.15 Renewable energy claims.
§260.16 Renewable materials claims.
§260.17 Source reduction claims.

88
Close the Loop
• LCAs might inevitably be performed to
substantiate such “claims”, especially for
comparative assessments to be released to the
public

• Need to envision those potential claims, and if

needed, carefully and clearly document and
caveat your findings to support (or not support)
such claims.

89
ACLCA
• American Center for Life Cycle Assessment
 Only focused professional group in U.S., education
and training focused mission
 www.lcacenter.org
 Annual Conference
 LCA XVIII, September 25-28, 2018, Fort Collins, CO

90
LCACP – Professional Certification
• Similar to LEED AP
• ~$500 exam
 Can be done locally, or at annual conference
• ~ 60 LCACPs out there
 Troy Hawkins, CMU EPP/CEE, Franklin, EPA
 Not Scott, Deanna, Gwen, others in field
 While valuable, unlikely you will “lose out” on an
opportunity by not having it
• Primary goal: Gain a reputation of doing good
work
91
LCACP Exam
• Half day, closed book, multiple choice exam
 184 questions!
 No calculator needed
 No SimaPro questions!
 Grading curve – 30% failure rate
• Preparing:
 A “criteria list” available that implies content
 Study ISO standards
 Study ACLCA Ethics Statement

92
Certification and Recertification
• Certification for 3 years
• Maintain status by:
 Take and successfully complete current LCACP
examination in 3rd year of cycle,
 Earn 36 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) in
approved areas of professional development, or
 Earn 18 CEUs and document 25 years of experience
in life cycle assessment

93
Activities that Earn CEUs
• Taking courses on LCA
• Giving courses/lectures on LCA
• Doing an MS or PhD thesis on LCA
• Attending LCA conferences
• Publishing papers/books on LCA

• Authoring peer (critical) – reviewed LCA studies

• And more…

94
Next
• HW7 due Thursday, April 26, midnight
 Extra credit is worthwhile!
• Wednesday, guest lecture, Sara Hartwell, US
EPA (retired) on EPA’s Waste Reduction Model
(WARM) as an LCA tool
 Be on time, please.

95