Life cycle considerations environmental risks

The risk of misleading labels being used can be minimised by giving stronger emphasis to labels verified by a third party based on multiple criteria and life cycle considerations. The effectiveness of an environmental label as a countermeasure against greenwashing practices and a way to gain consumer trust depends on its ability to be truthful, easy to communicate and, finally, verifiable and accurate. 

Resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA), the forerunner to the current practice of life cycle assessment, focused on quantifying the energy requirements and emissions of a product or process but not the impacts on human health or the ecosystem. Ideally, according to the originators of REPA, the analysis would be linked to a risk assessment of emissions related to a process or product [91,92]. It is worth noting, with respect to the theme of this book, that REPA originated in 1969. Environmental life cycle considerations did not formally enter into product development or modification before that time. 

The life cycle cost of a process is the net total of all expenses incurred over the entire lifetime of a process. The choice of process chemistry can dramatically affect this life cycle cost. A quantitative life cycle cost cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy to be of practical value. There is benefit, however, in making a qualitative estimate of the life cycle costs of competing chemistries. Implicit in any estimate of life cycle cost is the estimate of risk. One alternative may seem more attractive than another until the risks associated with product liability issues, environmental concerns, and process hazards are given due consideration. Value of life concepts and cost-benefit analyses (CCPS, 1995a, pp. 23-27 and Chapter 8) are useful in predicting and comparing the life cycle costs of alternatives. 

Understanding that tests and evaluation are critical that risks, environmental considerations, life cycle cost, etc. are verified (testing). ... 

The fact that environmental considerations have been and will continue to be an important motivation to develop and introduce biopolymers calls for a comparison of their environmental performance with their petrochemical counterparts. To this end, life cycle assessment (LCA) can be applied, which is a standardised method to quantify environmental impacts. LCA studies, however, do not address environmental risks (e.g. related to outcrossing of genetically modified species) and they neither cover ethical, social, and economic aspects. 

The main interest in the analysis of uranium in environmental samples is its effect as radioactive toxic heavy metal on the flora and fauna and assessment of the potential risk to human life directly or through the food chain. Natural uranium is present in practically all types of environmental samples—plants, soil, water bodies, and even air. In addition, anthropogenic activities related mainly to releases and discharges from the uranium fuel cycle may contaminate nearby areas, and that pollution may spread by wind and water action to considerable distances from the source. In order to assess the uranium content in the environment, representative samples need to be gathered (see Frame 3.2)—a task that is much more complicated than generally expected due to the variability of the sampled media. 

---