1. NordLCA-project Developing LCA for infrastructure management
NVF, Climate and Environmental committee meeting Iceland
Soile Knuuti, Finnish Transport Agency

2. Why LCA?
Reduction of climate impact is highly prioritized. The goals for reducing GHG are increasingly demanding. Finland is aiming for carbon free traffic system by 2045
Traffic composes 92 % and infrastructure 8 % of the of the GHG emissions of the traffic system in Finland (Finnish traffic Agency 2012)
The share traffic/infrastructure varies between the countries
The meaning of infrastructure will rise after the traffic emissions have reduced
Road authorities as infra managers are responsible for the emissions of the infrastructure
Good methods and tools are necessary for supporting good decisions and choices throughout the infrastructure planning and construction processes
The results of LCA-calculations can be used as a criteria in planning and bidding processes for choosing the solutions with smallest CO2-emissions during the whole life span
Soile Knuuti

3. Benefits of LCA Visualizing environmental impact through all processes
Planning
Designing
Construction
Operation
Maintenance
follow-up
Possible applications of the LCA-tools are
Environmental budgeting (choosing road / railway corridor alignments, materials)
Tender / bidding procedures (requirement or award criterion)
Accounting for environment after/during construction

4. NordLCA-project parties
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA), Bob Hamel, Project leader
Swedish Transport Agency (STA), Åsa Lindgren, Project manager
Finnish Transport Agency (FTA), Soile Knuuti, Project manager
NordFoU project

5. Goals of the project The main goals of NordLCA-project are
to increase Nordic collaboration
learning from each others
circumstances and challenges are similar
to hasten development of LCA methods
to link LCA with BIM and LCC
NordLCA-project also aims to
create the common ground for green public procurement criteria
better, more universal and more applicable LCA-tools
better understanding for scopes of application of the various LCA-tools

6. NordLCA –actions and reports
State of the art –report of LCA tools in Finland, Sweden, Norway (11/2017)
Workshop NRA’s and consultants 09/2017
Road map based on workshop and Sota (1/2018)
Seminar
~60 participants
Guide for LCA of Road and Rail Infrastructure
Linking LCA with BIM and LCC?
Dissemination

7. RoadMap

8. State of the Art -report
Description of experiences on using LCA-calculations and applying environmental requirements in procurement
Describing calculation methods that are currently used
Weaknesses and strengths of the calculation methods

9. State of the Art: Finland
There is nearly 20 years of experience of LCA-calculations of road construction in Finland
At the moment LCA is not routinely used as a tool in FTA’s contracts but has been used to point out the environmental criteria in special cases
LCA-tools
FORE
LCA calculations are based on average construction costs
a project for defining new CO2 emission factors (~300) is going on -> open database
MELI
Excel-based tool
Shortest transportation distance of aggregates led to least impacts on environment and also lowest costs and thus lowest bidding price
One Click LCA
Calculations are based on EN standard
mainly used for LCA-calculations of buildings

10. LCA experiences in Norway
Early phase tool EFFEKT (obligatory)
Excel based
Late phase tool VegLCA (pilots)
Other similar tools in use by Bane Nor and Nye Veier

11. Experiences at Trafikverket, Sweden
Tools
Klimatkalkyl: can be used in all stages of an infrastructure project
The results: CO2e and primary energy use
Geokalkyl: evaluation of infrastructure alignment
Calculates construction cost, energy- and CO2e consumption
EKA: calculates greenhouse gas emission and the primary energy used
in asphalt manufacturing

12. GHG reducing requirements

13. Geokalkyl GIS-tool Road / railway corridor alignments
Routes –site specific conditions, design
Geotechnics, choice of methods
Soile Knuuti

14. Comparison of the Nordic tools: Infrastructure type, covered areas
Road, streets and Highways
Railway
Bridge
Tunnel
Airfield
Municipal infrastructure
Earth-works
Road coating
Other
Earthworks
Fore
Meli
One- Click LCA
Klimatkalkyl
EKA
Geokalkyl
Climate Module in EFFEKT
Veg LCA
Method for generic road and rail elements

15. SPECIFIC MISSING AREAS
Yes
Maybe No
SPECIFIC MISSING AREAS
Tool
Transport during construction phase
In use (Traffic emissions)
Maintenance
End-of life
Land use changes
Comparisons of 2 or more alt.
Fore
Meli
One- Click LCA
Klimatkalkyl
EKA
Geokalkyl
Climate Module in EFFEKT
Veg LCA
Method for GRRE
Missing areas in red. Green is covered.

16. Administrative information
Yes
Maybe No
Question
Fore
Meli
OCL
Klimatkalkyl
EKA
Geokalkyl
C M in E
VegLCA
MGRRE
In use
Linked with BIM
LCC included
Mandatory to use
Incorporated to NRA Process
Suitable for public procurement
Suitable for tender procedures
Suitable for environmental accounting
Lead to more beneficial planning decisions
Is owned by the Transport Agency
Free, no costs to use the tool
The Finnish tools stands out, as they all have private owners. Only One-click LCA is connected with BIM, and only Geokalkyl has some costs (LCC) as results. Klimatkalkyl is very suitable to use for environmental accounting since it can be used in all stages of a project.
NRA= planprocess

17. Standards and LCA-results
Results of the LCA
Fore
Meli
OCL
Klimatkalkyl
EKA
Geokalkyl
C M in E
VegLCA
MGRRE*
CO2
CO2e
Energy use
Cost
Other LCA impact categories
Standard
Fore
Meli
OCL
Klimatkalkyl
EKA
Geokalkyl
C M in E
VegLCA
MGRRE
ISO14040:2006
ISO14041
EN15978
EN15804
ISO219131
ISO 21930
Other, guidelines etc
Most of the tools give a result in Co2ekv and energy. Other impact categories are often missing.
Standard compliance is a bit unclear, the swedish tool Klimatkalkyl are right now evalutated to see what is missing and how they comply to the different standards. You can also se that the tools follow the most ”basic” standard (se next picture)
* No common structure

18.
Soile Knuuti

19. Case: Kivikontie interchange (2014-2016)
Greenhouse gases calculations of the Kivikontie interchange were done at design phase and after construction (tools: FORE, Meli-HEL, One-Click-LCA)
Calculation results differed between the LCA-tools due to
different ways of calculating materials emissions
different breakdown structure of working phases and machine work
different methods of evaluating impacts
Actual total emissions were depending on tool 21% to 54% lower than designed emissions due to changes in transport distances and materials
Descriptions of each work specification left the calculators too much freedom for different assumptions -> non-comparable results
A common set of material and work-specific principles should be established

20. Case: Kivikontie interchange (2014-2016)
Calculation tools include different factors
The results of the emission calculations
carried out in the Kivikko.
The results for column stabilization had biggest variation

21. Asphalt LCA study
In 2017 FTA had a study aiming to identify a methodology, which would allow taking into account greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint) and energy efficiency in asphalt sourcing
3 LCA tools (asPECT (GB), EKA (STV), One Click LCA (FI)) were evaluated on their intended application, calculation methodology, inputs and reports, applicability, compliancy with the Finnish Act on Public Procurement, technology and usability, scope, and strengths and weaknesses
The study showed that there was variation (within and between the tools) in the results due to differing parameters
For using emissions as a bidding criteria in public procurement, the results must be precise enough to help determine the winning bid and the parameters (e.g. framework, emission factors, material amounts, recycled materials, transportation distances) must be followed to ensure equal and fair treatment of all the bidders

22. Guide
Standards
EPD’s
Framework …

23. Conclusions
For using emissions as a bidding criteria in public procurement, the results must be precise enough and calculation parameters must be followed to ensure equal and fair treatment of all the bidders
More calculation cases would be needed for developing the tools further since the problems / development needs come visible in real project calculation
Development of standard data transfer formats, standard nomenclature, guidance and application-based calculation tools are needed
Standards are not very specific -> we need more accurate guidance for getting comparable results