Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Energy decision making in a pulp and paper mill: selection of LCA system boundary

  • PULP AND PAPER
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

North American pulp and paper mills are facing tremendous challenges, which may necessitate major mill modernizations. An example is process modification to reduce dependency on purchased power, which is an expensive resource. Such modifications may have environmental implications at the mills’ sites, on their product life cycle, and on other interconnected systems, and therefore, systematic tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) need to be applied. Different LCA system boundary approaches can be used for such process design applications, and these approaches need to be compared to determine their respective benefits and limitations in this context. This study compares setting the system boundary according to a cradle-to-gate approach [attributional LCA (ALCA)] and a system expansion [consequential LCA (CLCA)] approach using a case study, which deals with implementing cogeneration and increased de-inked pulp production at an integrated newsprint mill.

Methodology

A case study considering various process options to reduce purchased electricity at an integrated newsprint mill is defined. These options include implementing cogeneration and increasing de-inked pulp production. The environmental impacts related to these process options are analyzed using two LCA methodologies. The first one consists in setting the system boundary according to a cradle-to-gate ALCA approach, while the second one uses a differential CLCA approach (system expansion). Comparisons of the two methods are based on different parameters: inclusion/exclusion of the indirect environmental consequences, selected allocation procedures, and effect of using the average versus the marginal technology for power production.

Results

Both the ALCA approach and the CLCA approach indicate that the process options are beneficial. However, the results show that indirect environmental consequences, which are assessed only with the CLCA approach, can be opposite to direct effects (e.g., the results can indicate an improvement of the direct impacts and a deterioration of the indirect ones). In addition, environmental impacts obtained by modeling the average or the marginal technology may be very different. Using an ALCA approach often necessitates the use of an arbitrary allocation procedure, which can greatly affect the results. On the other hand, ALCA can be used to perform “hot spots” identification, which, at this time, is not possible with CLCA.

Discussion

The cradle-to-gate boundary approach, which is usually used in the literature for pulp and paper process design applications, may not always be the most appropriate to determine the environmental consequences of implementing different process options. However, at this time, there is no method based on CLCA allowing for “hot spots” identification, and thus, a combined approach may be required for process design.

Conclusions

It is shown that the choice of the system boundary can significantly affect the results. More specifically, the usage of different allocation procedures in ALCA leads to different interpretation of the results, which does not occur when using the CLCA approach. CLCA provides more complete information for decision making for the cases where most of the consequences occur outside the life cycle of the product investigated.

Recommendations and perspectives

Research opportunities include developing methodologies to integrate ALCA and CLCA for improved process design applications and mechanisms for reducing uncertainty in CLCA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 3–4(6):49–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornejo F, Janssen M, Gaudreault C, Samson R, Stuart PR (2005) Using life cycle assessment (LCA) as a tool to enhance environmental impact assessment (Eia). Chem Engi Transact 7:521–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Das TK, Houtman C (2004) Evaluating chemical-, mechanical-, and bio-pulping processes and their sustainability characterization using life-cycle assessment. Environ Prog 4(23):347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias A, Lopes E, Arroja L, Capela I, Pereria F (2002) Life cycle assessment of paper production from eucalyptus globulus. Case study of the Portuguese industry. Appita J 1(55):21–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T (1999a) Key methodological issues for life cycle inventory analysis of paper recycling. J Cleaner Prod 4(7):281–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T (1999b) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment—with implications for wastepaper management. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

  • Ekvall T, Andrae ASG (2006) Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to lead-free solders. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(11):344–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(2):155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory Analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(9):161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu GZ, Chan AW, Minns DE (2005) Preliminary assessment of the environmental benefits of enzyme bleaching for pulp and paper making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(10):136–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudreault C, Samson R, Stuart PR (2007a) Life-cycle thinking in the pulp and paper Industry. Part I: current practices and most promising avenues. Tappi J 7(6):25–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudreault C, Samson R, Stuart PR (2007b) Life-cycle thinking in the pulp and paper industry. Part 2: LCA studies and opportunities for development. Tappi J 8(6):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinee JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2004) Economic allocation: examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(9):23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) Environmental management–life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006b) environmental management–life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Cornejo F, Stuart PR (2006) Techno-economic considerations for dip production increase and implementation of cogeneration at an integrated newsprint mill. Pulp Pap-Canada 9(107):33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007a) Environmental assessment of Brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models—Part 1: methodological approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(12):391–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007b) Environmental assessment of Brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models—Part 2: case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(12):497–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes E, Dias A, Arroja L, Capela I, Pereira F (2003) Application of life cycle assessment to the Portuguese pulp and paper industry. J Cleaner Prod 1(11):51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munoz I, Rieradevall J, Torrades F, Peral J, Domenech X (2006) Environmental assessment of different advanced oxidation processes applied to a bleaching kraft mill effluent. Chemosphere 1(62):9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer K, Sigman H, Walls M (1997) The cost of reducing municipal solid waste. J Environ Econ Manag 2(33):128–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehnstrom C (2003) LCA of two chemical recovery processes in the pulp industry—a case study. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 3(18):344–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar Zarate ES (2004) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of newsprint production at an integrated mill. Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheringer M, Halder D, Hungerbuhler K (2000) Comparing the environmental performance of fluorescent whitening agents with peroxide bleaching of mechanical pulp. J Indust Ecol 4(3):77–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Asses 1(20):113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vizcarra A, Lo V, Bicho PA, Watson PA (1999) A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of straw pulp incorporation into telephone directory-grade paper. TAPPI J 2(82):115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogtlander JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks CF (2001) Allocation in recycling systems—an integrated model for the analyses of environmental impact and market value. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(6):344–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessement. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen

  • Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen A-M (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cyle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamada H, Daigo I, Matsuno Y, Adachi Y, Kondo Y (2006) Application of Markov chain model to calculate the average number of times of use of a material in society—an allocation methodology for open-loop recycling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(11):354–360

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NSERC Chair in Environmental Design Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Station Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3A7, Canada

    Caroline Gaudreault & Paul René Stuart

  2. Interuniversity Research Center for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services, Department of Chemical Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Station Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3A7, Canada

    Caroline Gaudreault & Réjean Samson

  3. NCASI, P.O. Box 1036, Station B, Montreal, QC, H3B 3K5, Canada

    Caroline Gaudreault

Authors
  1. Caroline Gaudreault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Réjean Samson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul René Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul René Stuart.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Rita Schenk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaudreault, C., Samson, R. & Stuart, P.R. Energy decision making in a pulp and paper mill: selection of LCA system boundary. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 198–211 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0125-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0125-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation