Link to full report

Transcription

Link to full report

Report
Life Cycle Assessment
of Caskets and Urns
June 2015
Life Cycle Assessment of Caskets and Urns
On behalf of thinkstep AG* and its subsidiaries
Document prepared by
Tobias Zoellner, Fabian Loske
Title
Sustainability Project and Sales Assistant
Under the supervision of
Katharina Bauch
Title
Consultant
Signature
Date
10/03/2015
Quality assurance by
Barbara Nebel, PhD
Title
Managing Director
Signature
Date
07/06/2015
Address
thinkstep Ltd
11 Rawhiti Road
Pukerua Bay
Wellington 5026
New Zealand
Phone
+64 4 889 2520
Fax
+64 4 974 7223
Email
[email protected]
Internet
www.thinkstep.com
This report has been prepared by thinkstep AG with all reasonable skill and diligence within the terms and conditions of the
contract between thinkstep and the client. thinkstep is not accountable to the client, or any others, with respect to any matters
outside the scope agreed upon for this project.
Regardless of report confidentiality, thinkstep does not accept responsibility of whatsoever nature to any third parties to whom
this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at its own risk. Interpretations, analyses,
or statements of any kind made by a third party and based on this report are beyond thinkstep’s responsibility.
If you have any suggestions, complaints, or any other feedback, please contact thinkstep at [email protected].
* thinkstep AG is the legal successor of PE INTERNATIONAL AG
Table of Contents
Acronyms..................................................................................................................1
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................2
1.
Life Cycle Assessment .......................................................................................5
2.
Goal and Scope .................................................................................................5
2.1
Goal ............................................................................................................5
2.2
Scope..........................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Functional unit and description of product system ................................6
2.2.2 System boundaries...............................................................................6
2.2.3 Key assumptions ..................................................................................7
2.2.4 Environmental impact indicators ...........................................................8
2.2.5 Allocation............................................................................................10
2.2.6 Data quality and sensitivity analysis ...................................................10
2.2.7 Limitations ..........................................................................................11
2.2.8 Critical review .....................................................................................11
3.
Life Cycle Inventory .........................................................................................12
4.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology ....................................................13
5.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results ............................................................14
5.1
Results for direct cremation caskets ..........................................................14
5.2
Results for funeral caskets including interior materials ..............................17
5.2.1 Interior materials for the funeral caskets .............................................18
5.2.2 Cremation scenario ............................................................................20
5.2.3 Burial scenario ...................................................................................23
5.3
Results for urns .........................................................................................26
5.4
Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................28
5.4.1 Dataset for sensitivity scenario ...........................................................29
5.4.2 Sensitivity of cremation scenario ........................................................29
5.4.3 Sensitivity of burial scenario ...............................................................30
6.
Interpretation....................................................................................................32
7.
References ......................................................................................................35
Appendix A
Materials amounts for the caskets and urns .....................................36
Appendix B
Results Tables .................................................................................39
Acronyms
AP
Acidification Potential
CML
Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University
EP
Eutrophication Potential
eq
equivalent
GaBi
Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung (German for holistic balancing)
GWP
Global Warming Potential
ISO
International Organisation for Standardisation
kg
kilogram
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
LCI
Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
MDF
Medium Density Fibreboard
MJ
mega joule
NZ
New Zealand
NZ P
Abbreviation for ‘New Zealand plastic urn’
NZ W
Abbreviation for ‘New Zealand wooden urn’
ODP
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Potential
PED
Primary Energy Demand
Ply
Abbreviation for ‘plywood casket’
POCP
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
WRI
World Resources Institute
WBCSD
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study is to assess and compare the environmental performance of:

Two types of direct cremation caskets (plywood and MDF);

Two types of funeral caskets including interior materials (pine wood and MDF);

Three types of urns (wooden urn NZ, plastic urn NZ, plastic urn AUS).
The study is intended to be used to inform about improvements and for communication of
the results internally and in direct communication with external stakeholders. Public
disclosure of the comparative results is intended only for the results for caskets and the
New Zealand urns. The results for the Australian urns have therefore been removed from
this report.
The following impact categories and LCI indicator are evaluated in this study. A detailed
description can be found in Section 4.

Primary Energy Demand (PED)

Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Acidification Potential (AP)

Eutrophication Potential (EP)

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
The four tables below show the environmental performance over the entire life cycle of the
caskets and urns for GWP and PED. Results for the other environmental indicators included
within this study are presented in the full report (Section 5). The results for the funeral
caskets, including interior materials, are split into two scenarios: cremation and burial.
Table 1: Life cycle results for direct cremation caskets (excluding interior materials)
PED (MJ)
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
GWP is similar to
MDF casket
260
24
Driving an average petrol car1 for 100 km
Plywood casket
230
14
It can be seen in Table 1 that the GWP of the MDF casket is about 70% higher than for the
plywood casket. The plywood casket also has slightly lower PED, but in the impact
categories AP, EP and POCP the plywood casket has a higher environmental impact than
the MDF casket.
The higher results of the plywood casket in the categories AP, EP and POCP are mainly
associated with the high emissions that arise during the transport of the plywood from Chile
1
Euro 4 emissions standard, well-to-wheels, 1585cc, 78 kW, 1240 kg (Nemry et al. 2008).
2
to New Zealand. Note that the plywood casket without transport2 would have better
environmental performance than the bare MDF casket in all impact categories.
Table 2: Life cycle results for cremation of funeral caskets (including interior materials)
PED (MJ)
GWP is similar to
MDF casket (bare)
280
26 Driving an average petrol car1 for 108 km
Pine wood casket
(bare)
190
9.1 Driving an average petrol car1 for 37 km
Mattress (wool)
50
Linen sideset
30
130
Polyester sideset
4
Bioplastic handle
25
Plastic handle
50
Wooden handle
*
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
Combination for
standard MDF
casket*
460
39
Combination for
standard pine
wood casket#
250
13
MDF casket + polyester sideset + plastic handle
wood casket + linen sideset + bioplastic handle
# Pine
Table 2 shows the results for the whole life cycle of two types of funeral casket assuming
cremation. The funeral caskets consist of a bare casket, a set of interior materials, and
handles. The results in the table allow different combinations of these elements to be
selected for a specific casket. The combination for a standard pine wood casket has a lower
environmental impact compared to the standard combination for an MDF casket in all
impact categories if no wool mattress is used (see last two rows of Table 2).
2
Including materials, manufacturing, packaging and cremation.
3
Table 3: Life cycle results for burial of funeral caskets (including interior materials)
PED (MJ)
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
GWP is similar to
MDF Casket
445
-14
Pine wood casket
(incl. linen sideset)
235
-36
Pine wood casket
(incl. linen sideset
and wool mattress)
285
-12
Avoiding driving an average petrol car1 for
58 km
148 km
49 km
During burial, the carbon embodied in the caskets themselves is gradually transferred into
soil carbon as they break down (negative GWP values in Table 3). Due to its higher weight,
the MDF casket stores a larger amount of carbon than the pine wood casket. The pine wood
casket is favourable to the MDF casket if no wool mattress is used.
Table 4: Life cycle results for urns
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
PED (MJ)
Wooden urn
Plastic urn
GWP is similar to
3
0.27
19
0.58
The wooden urn has lower environmental impacts than the plastic alternative in all of the
impact categories in this study. The Primary Energy Demand for the wooden urn is much
lower than for the alternative urns as can be seen in Table 4.
Limitations and external review
The LCA calculations and methodology follow the ISO 14040/44 guidelines. The
comparative results for the New Zealand vs Australian urns are not intended to be
communicated publicly. Additional documentation and sensitivity analysis would be
required to fully comply with ISO 14040/44 requirements. The results are therefore removed
from this report.
New Zealand datasets were not available for all materials. A sensitivity analysis for wood
as the most relevant material has been undertaken.
An external review of three independent reviewers focused on the overall robustness of the
study, the scope, and appropriateness of data, methodology and approach in line with the
intended and stated goal of the study. The review statement is included in Appendix C –
Critical Review Report.
4
1. Life Cycle Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an established method to objectively and scientifically
evaluate the resource requirements of a product and its potential impacts on the
environment during every phase of its production, use, and disposal. According to the ISO
14040/44 standards, an LCA study consists of four phases:
1. Goal and scope (framework and objective of the study);
2. Life cycle inventory – LCI (input/output analysis of mass and energy flows from
operations along the product’s value chain);
3. Life cycle impact assessment – LCIA (evaluation of environmental relevance, e.g.
Global Warming Potential); and
4. Interpretation (e.g. optimisation potential).
The individual phases will be briefly explained in the respective sections of this report.
2. Goal and Scope
The goal and scope stage outlines the purpose of the study, and defines the analysed
product, system boundaries, data requirements and limitations.
This study consists of two main parts:

A comparative LCA of two types of direct cremation caskets without interior
materials (plywood and Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF)) and of two types of
funeral casket including interior materials (pine wood and MDF);

A comparative LCA of a wooden urn and two types of plastic urn.
2.1
Goal
The goal of this study is to evaluate and compare the environmental performance of these
products, identifying environmental benefits and drawbacks. This will enable Return to
Sender to:

Better understand the environmental performance of its caskets and urns across all
life cycle stages;

Identify hot spots where reductions in environmental impacts could be achieved in
the future;

Create the data needed for communication of possible environmental benefits of its
own caskets and urns with their customers; and

Communication of the results internally and in direct communication with external
stakeholders. Public disclosure of the comparative results is intended only for the
results for caskets and the New Zealand urns.
5
2.2
Scope
Functional unit and description of product system
The functional units are a) one standard casket3 and b) one standard urn4, as used for
funeral services in New Zealand.
There are two scenarios for the standard casket, one is for funerals and one for cremation.
The funeral caskets are either from solid pine wood or MDF, with interior materials. See
Section 5.2.1 for a detailed description of casket interior composition.
The direct cremation caskets are plywood or MDF caskets without interior materials.
The urns are plastic or wooden urns. The plastic urns also include a plastic bag, whereas
the wooden urns include a paper bag.
System boundaries
The system boundaries for the caskets include the extraction of raw materials,
manufacturing of the casket components, the packaging of these materials, their transport
to the manufacturing site and manufacture of the finished casket. The transport of the
assembled caskets to the location of final usage was also modelled. For the end of life of
the funeral caskets including interior materials, two scenarios were considered: the burial
of the caskets at a cemetery and their cremation in a cremation chamber. In contrast, for
the direct cremation caskets without interior materials, only the cremation scenario was
considered.
For the urns, transport and packaging of the materials was not considered, as they arrive
without any packaging and the location of production and usage is not known. Therefore
the LCA only contains the impacts of the manufacturing and disposal of the urns. All urns
are assumed to be deposited on a landfill after usage.
Simplified flowcharts with the system boundaries for the caskets can be seen in Figure 1
and Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the system boundaries for the urns.
System boundary
Primary Energy
Resources
Water
Assembly of
Assembled
Cremation of
casket
casket
casket
Emissions
Emissions
Figure 1: System boundary for the cremation scenario of the caskets
3
Standard casket means a casket for an average person; typical dimensions in the order of magnitude of
2.1m x 0.6m x 0.7m
4
Standard urn means an urn for taking up the cremated remains of an average person (capacity about 3.3 litres)
6
System boundary
Primary Energy
Resources
Assembly of
Assembled
casket
casket
Water
Burial of casket
Emissions
Figure 2: System boundary for the burial scenario of the caskets
System boundary
Primary Energy
Resources
Water
Assembly/
Assembled
production of urn
urn
Landfilling of urn
Emissions
Emissions
Figure 3: System boundary for the urns
Key assumptions

No further impacts were assumed after burial; the biogenic carbon dioxide bound in
the materials of the casket is stored in the ground as soil carbon rather than being
released to air;

The release of the biogenic carbon in the cremation scenario is modelled according
to the guidance provided by the GHG protocol (2011) and ISO/TS 14067. Both
standards specify, that the carbon removal should only reflect the amount of carbon
embedded in the product;

The amount of natural gas required for the cremation is independent of the energy
content of the casket (as confirmed by the crematorium);

Customers for the caskets are located in Auckland, New Zealand;

The MDF casket is produced in Kumeu (Auckland) and the pine wood and plywood
caskets in Mt Roskill (Auckland);

The origin of the wood for the MDF and pine wood casket is in New Zealand whereas
the wood for the plywood casket comes from Chile;
7

No packaging is included for the urns, as they arrive without packaging;

Transport for urns was not considered as the location of production and usage is not
known. At the time when this report was written, Return to Sender did not sell their
wooden urns in Australia and it is not known if the urns would be shipped to or
manufactured in Australia. A sensitivity analysis showed that even if the wooden
urns would be shipped to the Australian east coast, the impact of the wooden urns
would be still lower than the impact of the plastic urns produced in Australia. If more
details are available in the future or a specific scenario is given, then the transport
information needs to be integrated;

All of the urns are assumed to be deposited on a landfill after usage;

Maintenance for the burial plot is outside of the scope of the study;

In the main results in Section 5, the results for the pine wood funeral casket are
shown including a wool mattress in the interior. The reason for this is that at the start
of this study, the wool mattress was included in this casket type by default. Since
Return to Sender has decided to remove the mattress as a consequence of
preliminary results from this study, the tables in the executive summary also show
the results without the wool mattress.
Environmental impact indicators and methodology
A set of impact assessment categories and information on primary energy considered to be
of high relevance to the goals of the project has been chosen.
Global warming potential and primary energy demand are chosen because of their
relevance to climate change and to energy and resource efficiency, which are strongly
interlinked, of high public and institutional interest, and deemed to be some of the most
pressing environmental issues of our times.
Eutrophication, acidification, and photochemical ozone creation potentials are chosen
because they are closely connected to air, soil, and water quality and capture the
environmental burden associated with commonly regulated emissions such as NO x, SO2,
VOC, and others.
For the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), the methodology CML 2001 (version April
2013) was used (Guinée 2001). A short description of these impact categories can be found
in Section 4.
8
Table 5: Environmental impact indicators
Impact Category
Methodology
Primary Energy Demand (PED) from NonRenewable Energy (net calorific value)
thinkstep 2013
Global Warming Potential, 100 Years (GWP100)
Guinée 2001 (April 2013 update)
If and how toxicity impacts should be assessed in Life Cycle Assessment is still a subject
of discussion amongst LCA practitioners and experts. The precision of the current USEtox™
characterisation factors vary within a factor of 100–1,000 for human toxicity and 10–100 for
freshwater ecotoxicity5. To avoid the implication of a false sense of precision in a
comparative LCA study these impact indicators have not been included into this study.
Many Product Category Rules for Environmental Product Declarations also exclude toxicity
as an impact category for that reason.
The quality of the data and underlying method for land use change indicators (especially
the indirect land use change) are not seen as robust enough for a comparative LCA study.6
As all casket types assessed in this study are wooden products, it is assumed that the
effects of the land use change is similar for all caskets and therefore negligible in a
comparative study.
Water was not considered to be a key impact indicator for the product range.
Optional Elements
No normalisation or weighting of results is applied in this study. This is in line with the ISO
14040/44 requirements for a comparative LCA study.
Limitations of Life Cycle Impact Assessment
It shall be noted that the above impact categories represent impact potentials, i.e., they are
approximations of environmental impacts that could occur if the emitted molecules would
(a) actually follow the underlying impact pathway and (b) meet certain conditions in the
receiving environment while doing so.
LCIA results are therefore relative expressions only and do not predict actual impacts, the
exceeding of thresholds, safety margins, or risks.
5
6
Rosenbaum et al (2008).
Finkbeiner (2013).
9
Allocation
The crematorium confirmed that the amount of natural gas used for the cremation of caskets
is independent of the casket type. Therefore, all emissions related to natural gas were
allocated to the deceased who is outside of the system boundary for this study. No further
allocation procedures were necessary in the foreground product system. For allocation in
background data, please refer to the GaBi database documentation (thinkstep 2013).
Data quality and sensitivity analysis
In line with the goal of the study the data quality needs to be as precise, complete,
consistent, and representative as possible under given time and budget constraints.





Measured primary data are considered to be of the highest precision, followed by
calculated data, literature data, and estimated data.
Completeness is judged based on the completeness of the inputs and outputs per
unit process and the completeness of the unit processes themselves. The goal is
to capture all relevant data in this regard.
Consistency refers to modelling choices and data sources. The goal is to ensure
that differences in results reflect actual differences between product systems and
are not due to inconsistencies in modelling choices, data sources, emission
factors, or other artefacts.
Reproducibility expresses the degree to which third parties would be able to
reproduce the results of the study based on the information contained in this
report.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which the data matches the
geographical, temporal, and technological requirements defined in the study’s goal
and scope.
An evaluation of the data quality with regard to these requirements is provided in Chapter
5 of this report.
Wherever possible, the model is based on primary data from the manufacturer of the
caskets and urns. The quantities for the different materials are extracted from the Bill of
Material provided by Return to Sender. Actual transport modes and distances are used to
analyse transport for the components of the caskets. All upstream and downstream
processes such as input materials, electricity, fuels, and end of life process are taken from
GaBi 6 LCA databases (thinkstep 2013). If necessary, literature data was used to complete
the model.
The data for the MDF casket was based on measurements and weighing of the individual
components of the casket.
No cut-off criteria are defined for the foreground system. All available energy and material
flow data have been included in the model.Cut-off criteria in the background system are as
defined on the GaBi website at http://documentation.gabi-software.com
10
A key requirement was that the model needs to be valid for New Zealand. If no New Zealand
specific dataset was available, Australian or European datasets were used as
approximations. The dataset for Medium Density Fibreboard was adapted by replacing the
United Kingdom electricity dataset with the New Zealand specific electricity mix. This
reduced the Global Warming Potential of the MDF casket including interior materials by
10 %. This indicates a possible influence of the origin of these datasets. Since New Zealand
has an electricity mix with a higher share of renewable energies than Australia or countries
in Europe, the values in this study can be seen as conservative assumptions.
A dataset for solid pine that was consistent with the data requirements was not available for
New Zealand timber. A sensitivity analysis has therefore been undertaken to test the
influence of using a European dataset. The results of the sensitivity analysis have shown
that the overall comparison of the different caskets would not be changed. The results of
the sensitivity analysis are documented in Section 5.4.
Limitations
The LCA calculations and methodology follow the ISO 14040/44 guidelines. The results for
the comparison of New Zealand to Australian urns are not intended to be communicated
publicly. Additional documentation and sensitivity analysis would be required to fully comply
with ISO 14040/44 requirements. Results are therefore not included in this version of the
report.
New Zealand datasets were not available for all materials. A sensitivity analysis of the most
relevant materials has been undertaken.
Critical review
As Return to Sender is interested in communicating the results of this study with customers
and external stakeholders, this report has undergone external critical review, conducted by
the following LCA experts:

Kimberly Robertson (chair of review panel) and Benjamin Canaguier, consultants at
Catalyst Ltd;

Andrew Barber, director at Agrilink NZ; and

Gayathri Gamage, Auckland University.
The reviewers were chosen based on their experience in Life Cycle Assessment especially
in the New Zealand context and their experience in LCA with timber products.
The review focused on the overall robustness of the study, the scope, and appropriateness
of data, methodology and approach in line with the intended and stated goal of the study.
The review statement is included in Appendix C – Critical Review Report.
11
3. Life Cycle Inventory
In the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase, all relevant material and energy inputs and outputs
over the life cycle of the product are recorded and turned into a flow chart for the life cycle
of the product. This information is used to assess environmental impacts in the Life Cycle
Impact Assessment phase described in the next section.
The primary data used in this study was obtained from Return to Sender, via data collection
tables. Bill of Materials for all types of caskets and urns were provided by Return to Sender.
The data for the MDF casket was based on measurements and weighing of the individual
components of the casket. The collected data is representative for 2014.
A detailed compilation of the life cycle inventory of the different caskets can be found in
Appendix A. Details of all materials including their mass are provided. In addition for each
material details of transport distance and mode of transport are shown in Appendix A.
The dataset for the incineration of wood products in a waste incineration plant was adapted
to the cremation of wood in a cremation chamber by removing the credits for thermal energy
and electricity.
Any electricity in the foreground system is considered to be average electricity from the NZ
grid. The dataset “Electricity Grid Mix New Zealand” from the GaBi database (thinkstep
2013) was chosen to reflect this. It reflects the following:







Hydro 57%
Natural gas 19%
Geothermal 14%
Wind 4.4%
Coal 3.6%
Other renewable 1%
Other non-renewable 1%
12
4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology
During the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), all flows recorded during the LCI phase
are evaluated regarding their potential environmental impact. The impact assessment
results were calculated using the CML 2001 methods from Leiden University’s Institute of
Environmental Sciences with April 2013 characterisation factor updates (Guinée 2001). The
different impact categories evaluated in this study are described below. PED as a Life Cycle
Inventory indicator has been included alongside the LCIA indicators.
Primary Energy Demand (PED)
Amount of primary energy in fossil primary energy carriers such as coal, fuel oil and natural
gas which is used during the life cycle of the product. Primary energy from renewable
sources, such as hydropower and wind power, was excluded.
Reference unit: MJ of primary energy (net calorific value)
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Impact of human emissions on the radiative forcing of the atmosphere with its adverse
impacts on ecosystem health, human health and material welfare. The results in this study
are presented including uptake and release of biogenic carbon (total GWP).
Reference unit: kg CO2 equivalent (100-year time horizon)
Impacts of acidifying pollutants on soil, groundwater, surface waters, biological organisms,
ecosystems, materials and buildings. Major acidifying pollutants are SO2, NOx and NHx.
Reference unit: kg SO2 equivalent
Eutrophication is the enrichment of an ecosystem with chemical nutrients from agriculture
and development, pollution from septic systems and sewers, and other human-related
activities which increase the flux of both inorganic nutrients and organic substances into
terrestrial, aquatic, and coastal marine ecosystems.
Reference unit: kg PO43- equivalent
Formation of reactive chemical compounds such as ozone by the action of sunlight on
certain primary air pollutants. The main pollutants are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs),
CO and NOx.
Reference unit: kg Ethylene (C2H4) equivalent
13
5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results
In this section, the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results are shown first for the direct
cremation caskets without interior materials, then for the caskets including interior materials
in the cremation and burial scenario and finally, the results for the urns are presented.
For the evaluation of the results, the inputs collected in the Life Cycle Inventory are shown
in five groups:
5.1

Transport:
Impacts of ship and truck transport of materials for casket;

Packaging:
Impacts for the packaging of the materials for the casket;

Casket itself:
Impacts of the manufacturing of the bare casket (without interior
materials);

Casket interior: Impacts of the materials in the interior of the casket;

Cremation:
Impacts of casket cremation.
Results for direct cremation caskets
Results overview
Table 6: Life cycle results for direct cremation caskets (excluding interior materials)
PED (MJ)
1
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
GWP is similar to
MDF casket
260
24
Plywood casket
230
14
The plywood direct cremation casket saves 10 kg CO2-eq compared to the MDF direct
cremation casket.
It can be seen in Table 6 that the GWP of the MDF casket is about 70% higher as for the
plywood casket. The plywood casket also has a slightly lower PED. However, in the impact
categories AP, EP and POCP the plywood casket has a higher environmental impact than
the MDF casket.
The higher results of the plywood casket in the categories AP, EP and POCP are mainly
to New Zealand. Note that the plywood casket without transport7 would have better
environmental performance than the bare MDF casket in all impact categories.
7
Including materials, manufacturing, packaging and cremation.
14
Detailed results description
As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, the direct cremation caskets do not include any interior
materials and they are only used for cremation. The results for these caskets are shown in
Figure 4 and Figure 5 below. In these diagrams, the impacts for the plywood casket
(abbreviated as “Ply”) are set to 100% and compared to the Medium Density Fibreboard
casket (abbreviated as “MDF”). The GWP is shown in a separate diagram because the large
positive and negative contributions of the different categories make it hard to see the overall
impact. All of these results are presented in more detail in Table 19 in Appendix B. Table
20 in Appendix B shows the absolute values and compares them to equivalent impacts such
as lighting a light bulb for a certain number of hours.
Figure 4 displays the environmental impacts of the two casket types in matters of GWP.
The left side of that diagram shows the aggregated GWP while on the right side the GWP
is disaggregated.
In Figure 4, a positive value stands for a release of greenhouse gases whereas a negative
value stands for the uptake of carbon dioxide which is bound in the biomaterial. As shown
in Table 7, the MDF casket stores a larger amount of carbon dioxide than the plywood
casket. This is due to the higher weight of this type of casket. However, the net carbon
dioxide uptake of the MDF casket itself is still lower than for the plywood casket since more
carbon dioxide emissions arise during the MDF production (see negative, dark blue bars in
Figure 4). All of the biogenic carbon that had been taken up during plant growth gets
released during the cremation in the form of carbon dioxide. Therefore the net emissions of
biogenic carbon over the entire life cycle of the caskets are zero since the uptake of
greenhouse gases equals their release during cremation.
In total, the GWP of the MDF casket is about 70% higher than the GWP of the plywood
casket. In absolute values, the saving of the plywood casket is 10 kg CO2-eq compared to
the MDF casket.
Figure 4 also shows that cremation has a large environmental impact in the category GWP
whereas transport and packaging are relatively unimportant for this impact category.
15
Figure 4: Environmental impacts for direct cremation caskets (GWP)
Table 7: Biogenic carbon balance for the direct cremation caskets
Casket
Biogenic carbon
uptake during plant
growth
Biogenic carbon
release during
end of life
Net release
of biogenic
carbon
Unit
MDF casket
-49
49
0
kg CO2-eq
Plywood casket
-46
46
0
kg CO2-eq
In Figure 5, the environmental impacts for the direct cremation caskets are shown in the
impact categories PED, AP, EP and POCP. It can be seen that while the plywood casket
performs better in the category PED, it has a higher environmental impact than the MDF
casket in the categories and AP and EP. In the category POCP, negative environmental
impacts for the transport of the MDF casket can be seen. These negative impacts can occur
due the fact that for truck transport, carbon monoxide emissions get released which inhibit
the process of photochemical ozone creation. Due to this negative contribution of the
transport processes for the MDF casket, the overall POCP for the MDF casket is lower than
for the plywood casket.
The higher impact of the plywood casket in the categories AP, EP and POCP is mainly
to New Zealand.
16
Figure 5: Environmental impacts for direct cremation caskets (except GWP)
The contribution of the cremation to GWP (Figure 4) is significant whereas its contribution
to the other impact categories (Figure 5) is much less significant. The contribution of
packaging is negligible (below 1 % in all impact categories for both casket types).
5.2
Results for funeral caskets including interior materials
As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, burial and cremation scenarios were modelled for the final
usage of the funeral caskets including interior materials (pine wood and MDF casket).
According to the manufacturer of the pine wood casket, about 75 % of the caskets are
buried and the remaining 25 % are cremated. Although this information is available, no
weighted average between the two options is calculated since this is not part of the scope
of the study.
For this section, the same MDF casket as in Section 5.1 and a pine wood casket are
examined. Compared to the direct cremation caskets two differences are of importance:
1. The MDF funeral casket features handles and uses wood finish, but no wood finish
nor handles are used for the MDF direct cremation casket.
2. Interior materials are included in the funeral caskets, but not for the direct cremation
caskets. These interior materials will be analysed in more detail in the following
section (5.2.1).
17
Please note that the values in this section all refer to the pine wood funeral casket with a
wool mattress since the wool mattress was included by default at the start of this study. The
results without the wool mattress are only shown in the results overview for the cremation
scenario in Section 5.2.2.
Interior materials for the funeral caskets
The total weight and the material composition for the interior materials of the pine wood and
MDF funeral caskets are shown in Figure 6 below. This Figure shows that the interior for
the MDF casket consists mainly of polyester and cotton (for sideset; MDF casket does not
include a mattress) whereas the main materials for the pine wood interior are linen (for the
sideset) and wool fleece (for the mattress). A more detailed list of all interior materials can
be found in Table 17 and Table 18 in Appendix A.
Figure 6: Mass composition of the interior materials for the caskets
18
Figure 7: Environmental impacts in the category GWP for the interior materials for the caskets
Comparing the weight information in Figure 6 to the environmental impact information in
Figure 7, it can be seen that the overall impact of the pine wood casket interior materials is
much higher than for the MDF interior materials. This cannot be explained by the higher
weight of the pine wood casket interior materials alone, it also relates to the different
materials used for the casket interior. Especially the wool used for the pine wood casket
has a very high GWP. Even though it only makes up 27 % of the weight, it contributes to
more than 93 % of the environmental impacts of the interior materials for the pine wood
casket. The high contribution of wool to the impact category GWP is mainly an effect of on
farm emissions of methane from enteric fermentation of sheep and nitrous oxide emissions
from the agricultural soil.
19
Cremation scenario
Results overview
Table 8: Life cycle results for cremation of funeral caskets (including interior materials)
PED (MJ)
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
GWP is similar to
MDF casket (bare)
280
Pine wood casket
(bare)
190
Mattress (wool)
50
Linen sideset
30
130
Polyester sideset
4
Bioplastic handle
25
Plastic handle
50
Wooden handle
Combination for
standard MDF
casket4
460
39
Combination for
standard pine
wood casket5
250
13
1
MDF casket + polyester sideset + plastic handle
5
Pine wood casket + linen sideset + bioplastic handle, but excl. wool mattress
4
In the cremation scenario, the combination of the pine wood funeral casket without wool
mattress saves 26 kg CO2-eq compared to the standard combination of materials for the
MDF funeral casket.
Table 8 shows the results for the whole life cycle of two types of funeral casket assuming
cremation. The funeral caskets consist of a bare casket, a set of interior materials, and
handles. The results in the table allow different combinations of these elements to be
selected for a specific casket. The combination for a standard pine wood casket shows a
lower environmental impact compared to the standard combination for an MDF casket in all
impact categories if no wool mattress is used.
20
The main difference between the cremation scenario and the burial scenario is that the
carbon which is stored in the caskets and interior materials is released into the atmosphere
(for the cremation scenario) instead of being stored as soil carbon (for the burial scenario).
The emissions from the cremation also affect the other impact categories, but on a lower
scale than the GWP. In Table 21 and Table 22 in Appendix B, the results tables for the
cremation scenario are shown.
Compared to the direct cremation scenario displayed in Figure 4, where the plywood casket
shows a significantly lower GWP than the MDF casket, it can be seen in Figure 8 below that
the GWP released during the cremation of the funeral caskets, is almost identical for the
MDF casket and the pine wood casket including linen sideset and wool mattress. This is
due to the higher emissions, which are associated with the interior materials for the pine
wood casket (especially the wool as shown in Section 5.2.1). If the wool mattress is left out,
the pine wood funeral casket shows a significantly lower GWP than the MDF funeral casket
(Table 9).
Table 9: Comparison of results for cremation of funeral caskets with and without mattress
for pine wood casket
PED (MJ)
1
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
GWP is similar to
MDF casket
460
39
Pine wood casket
including mattress
Pine wood casket
without mattress
300
38
250
13
Table 10 shows a slightly higher release of biogenic carbon during the cremation of the
caskets including interior material compared to the direct cremation scenario shown in in
Table 7. This is due to the use of biogenic interior materials like cotton or wool which also
take up some carbon dioxide. The overall net biogenic carbon balance is zero once again,
because all of the biogenic carbon gets released as carbon dioxide during cremation.
21
Figure 8: Environmental impacts for funeral caskets including all interior materials in the
cremation scenario (GWP)
Table 10: Biogenic carbon balance for the cremation scenario
Casket
Biogenic carbon
uptake during plant
growth
Biogenic carbon
release during
end of life
Net release of
biogenic carbon
Unit
Pine wood casket
-48
48
0
kg CO2-eq
MDF casket
-50
50
0
kg CO2-eq
Figure 9 shows that for the other impact categories than GWP, the main part of the
environmental impacts is related to the casket itself and the interior materials, whereas the
cremation is relatively unimportant (<10 %). It can be also seen that the interior materials
(including mattress) used for the pine wood casket have a smaller impact than the interior
material used for the MDF casket in the categories PED, AP and EP. This is reversed for
POCP. When leaving away the mattress for the pine wood casket, the overall results for the
pine wood casket are better in all impact categories.
22
cremation scenario (except GWP)
Burial scenario
Results overview
Table 11: Life cycle results for burial of funeral caskets (including all interior materials)
PED (MJ)
1
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
GWP is similar to
MDF Casket
445
-14
Pine wood casket
(incl. linen sideset)
235
-36
Pine wood casket
(incl. linen sideset
and wool mattress)
285
-12
59 km
148 km
49 km
During burial, the carbon embodied in the caskets themselves is gradually transferred into
soil carbon as they break down (negative GWP values in Table 15). Due to its higher weight,
the MDF casket stores a larger amount of carbon than the pine wood casket. The pine wood
casket is favourable to the MDF casket if no wool mattress is used.
23
The results for the burial scenario are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 (and Table 23 and
Table 24 in the annex).
The biogenic carbon balance for the burial scenario in Table 12 shows a negative net global
warming effect since the carbon bound in the wood during plant growth is assumed to be
stored in the soil instead of being released into the atmosphere. The storage of biogenic
carbon leads to a negative GWP figure for both casket types as shown in Figure 10. This
means that they bind more greenhouse gases than they release during their life cycle. Due
to its higher weight, the MDF casket stores a higher amount of biogenic carbon than the
pine wood casket. However, the manufacturing of the MDF casket produces more
greenhouse gases than the pine wood casket. Therefore the total GWP savings related to
the casket itself are lower for MDF casket (red section of the stacked column). Despite this
fact it can be seen, in the left section of the graph, that the MDF casket has a better global
warming performance than the pine wood casket, due to the high impact of the interior
materials, i.e. the mattress, used for the pine wood casket.
burial scenario (GWP)
24
Table 12: Biogenic carbon balance for the burial scenario
Casket
Biogenic carbon
uptake during plant
growth
Biogenic carbon
release during
end of life
Net release of
biogenic carbon
Unit
Pine wood casket
-48
0
-48
kg CO2-eq
MDF casket
-50
0
-50
kg CO2-eq
Figure 11 shows that the pine wood casket (including all interior materials) has a lower
environmental impact over all of the categories except GWP. The impacts of the MDF
casket are between 130 % and 241 % of the value for the pine wood casket.
burial scenario (except GWP)
25
5.3
Results for urns
Results overview
In this section the results from the assessment of the urns are detailed.
Table 13: Life cycle results for urns
GWP
(kg CO2-eq)
PED (MJ)
Wooden urn NZ
Plastic urn NZ
1
GWP is similar to
3
0.27
19
0.58
GWP savings of the New Zealand wooden urn compared to the New Zealand plastic urn
are 0.31 kg CO2-eq.
The New Zealand wooden urn has lower environmental impacts than the plastic alternative
in all of the impact categories in this study. The PED for the New Zealand wooden urn is
much lower than for the alternative New Zealand plastic urn as can be seen in Table 13.
The results of the life cycle impact assessment for the urns are displayed in Figure 12. In
this graph, the following abbreviations are used:

NZ W:
New Zealand wooden urn

NZ P:
New Zealand plastic urn
Like for the caskets, the value for the environmental impact of the New Zealand wooden
urn is set to 100 % for each impact category and the results for the plastic urn are compared
to that value. The absolute impact value for the different impact categories for the wooden
urn including a comparison to equivalent environmental impacts is shown in Table 25 in
Appendix B.
Figure 12 shows that the New Zealand wooden urn has a lower environmental impact than
the plastic alternative in all categories. The benefit is especially high for the PED, where the
results for the New Zealand plastic urn is about 6 times as high as the value for the New
Zealand wooden urn. This is due to the fact that growing wood requires much less energy
than extracting fossil fuels and converting them into plastic with the help of heat and
chemical reactions. The New Zealand plastic urn has between 149 % and 196 % of the
environmental impacts of the New Zealand wooden urn in the categories AP, EP and POCP.
The biogenic carbon balance for the New Zealand wooden urn in Table 14 shows that more
greenhouse gases are released during the life cycle than biogenic carbon is sequestered
during the growth of the wood used for the urn. This can be explained by the fact that not
only biogenic carbon dioxide but also biogenic methane is released during the
decomposition of the urn in the landfill. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than
26
carbon dioxide. This leads to a value of 0.27 CO2-eq for the New Zealand wooden urn for
its whole life cycle (including non-biogenic carbon). In total the New Zealand wooden urn
saves 0.31 kg CO2-eq compared to the New Zealand plastic urn.
800%
700%
600%
500%
400%
300%
200%
100%
0%
Wood Plastic
PED
Wood Plastic
Wood Plastic
Wood Plastic
Wood Plastic
AP
EP
POCP
GWP100
Figure 12: LCIA results for urns
Table 14: Biogenic carbon balance for urns
Urn
New Zealand
wooden urn
Biogenic carbon
uptake during plant
growth
Biogenic carbon
release during
end of life
-0.74
0.89
27
Net release of
biogenic carbon
0.15
Unit
kg CO2-eq
5.4
Sensitivity Analysis
To evaluate the sensitivity of the results regarding assumptions and chosen datasets, the
origin of the pine wood for the pine wood casket was considered as most significant and
therefore included in the sensitivity analysis.
The sensitivity analysis was done based on the main scenario, including the woollen
mattress.
Since a consistent, well documented dataset was not available for New Zealand pine timber,
a German dataset (referred to as “reference dataset”) for pine timber was used for the
model. The model using the reference dataset will be referred to as “reference scenario”.
To evaluate the sensitivity of the model towards this substitution, a New Zealand pine timber
dataset (referred to as “sensitivity dataset”) was approximated based on research data by
the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF 2011). The data was created by
applying different (older) characterisation methods than used for the rest of this study. For
AP, EP, and POCP the CML 2001 factors were used while for the GWP the IPCC 2007
factors were applied. The calculated carbon uptake and density of the two pine datasets
was slightly different, due to different densities of the timber. This had been adjusted to be
the same in both datasets.
The model using the sensitivity dataset will be referred to as “sensitivity scenario”. A
comparison of the two datasets is described in Section 5.4.1.
The sensitivity dataset then used to determine the sensitivity of differences in the final LCIA
results for the pine wood casket for the cremation (Section 5.4.2) and burial (Section 5.4.3)
scenario. A comparison of the MDF casket with the reference and sensitivity scenario for
the pine casket was included for both the cremation and burial scenario.
Figure 13 summarises the scope of the sensitivity analysis with the cremation and burial
scenarios in which the different caskets/casket scenarios are compared.
Sensitivity analysis funeral caskets
Cremation scenario
Burial scenario
Pine reference scenario
Pine reference scenario
Pine sensitivity scenario
Pine sensitivity scenario
MDF
MDF
Figure 13: Scope of sensitivity analysis
28
Dataset for sensitivity scenario
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment results for each dataset on its own are show in Figure
14. When comparing the sensitivity dataset with the reference dataset one can see that the
sensitivity dataset leads to around 60% less PED, but higher impacts for AP, EP, POCP.
The GWP of both datasets is roughly the same, with a slightly more negative carbon balance
for the sensitivity dataset.
Figure 14: Relative comparison of the environmental impacts of pine datasets for reference
and sensitivity scenario (Reference scenario impacts set as 100% benchmark)
Sensitivity of cremation scenario
The cremation scenario was calculated using both the reference and the sensitivity dataset
in comparison with the MDF dataset. The results are shown in Figure 15.
While there are differences between the results based on reference and the sensitivity
datasets, it is shown that both show lower impacts than the MDF casket (Figure 15).
In Figure 15 it can be seen that in the sensitivity scenario, compared to the reference
scenario, the PED is reduced roughly by 25% and AP, EP and POCP are increased. The
GWP remains basically unchanged and is only reduced by 3% in the sensitivity scenario.
29
Figure 15: Comparison of cremation scenarios for pine wood funeral caskets and MDF
(Reference scenario impacts as 100% benchmark)
It can be seen that for the sensitivity scenario the relative environmental advantage of the
pine wood casket towards the MDF casket is reduced for AP, EP and POCP. The
comparative results for the GWP have not been influenced significantly. The lower energy
use (PED) of the sensitivity dataset, as in Figure 14 increases the difference between the
pine and the MDF caskets.
Sensitivity of burial scenario
Figure 16 shows the results of the relative comparison of the potential environmental
impacts of the reference and sensitivity scenarios for the pine wood casket and the MDF
casket in the burial scenario. The results are overall comparable to the cremation scenario,
except for GWP.
For GWP the sequestration of CO2 has increased in the sensitivity scenario by roughly 10%.
The relative differences of the results between the MDF casket and the reference
respectively sensitivity scenario are explained below.
30
Figure 16: Comparison of burial scenarios for pine wood funeral caskets and MDF casket
(Reference scenario impacts as 100% benchmark)
The results of the relative comparison of pine wood caskets with the results for a burial MDF
casket are similar to the cremation scenario.
31
6. Interpretation
The study was originally planned as streamlined LCA study. However, after the initial results
for the caskets were available the goal of the study was extended to include external
communication of the results relating to caskets.
Since the data collection was done in a comprehensive manner already, the main change
was to expand the report to include additional documentation and undertake a sensitivity
analysis for the datasets for wood. This has been completed and is now incorporated in the
report.
It should also be noted that the results in the study that refer to funeral caskets include the
woollen mattress for the pine casket. Since early results have shown that the woollen
mattress contributes significantly to the GWP, Return to Sender have made the decision
not include the mattress in future.
Interpretation of results
The analysis of the environmental impacts for the direct cremation caskets, i.e. excluding
all interior materials, showed a higher impact of the plywood casket in the categories AP,
EP and POCP. This is caused by transport of the plywood from Chile to New Zealand. The
contribution of the cremation is only high in the category GWP and the contribution of
packaging to the environmental impacts is negligible.
The interior for the pine wood funeral casket has higher environmental impacts than the
interior of the MDF casket in the category GWP. The high environmental impacts for the
interior of the pine wood casket are mainly related to the wool fleece. In the other categories,
however, the interior materials (including the mattress) for the pine wood casket show a
slightly lower environmental impact (except for POCP). When taking out the mattress, the
interior of the pine wood casket has lower impacts in all impact categories.
The biogenic interior materials reduce the difference between the pine wood casket and the
MDF casket in the category GWP, but the MDF casket still had slightly higher environmental
impacts. If the wool mattress is taken out, the pine wood casket shows a significantly lower
GWP.
In the cremation scenario for the funeral caskets, the overall GWP was positive since the
carbon bound in the wood gets released in the form of carbon dioxide during the cremation.
For the burial scenario, in contrast, the carbon from the casket gets stored in the ground,
resulting in a net storage of greenhouse gases over the life cycle. In the burial scenario, the
MDF casket stores a larger amount of carbon due to its higher weight. This and the high
impact of the interior materials used for the pine wood casket, results in a better GWP value
of the MDF casket (if a wool mattress is used in the pine wood casket). Removing the wool
mattress from the pine wood casket results in a significantly better environmental
performance of this casket compared to the MDF casket. The pine wood casket has lower
impacts in all other impact categories regardless of whether a mattress is included in the
pine wood casket or not.
For the urns, it was shown that the New Zealand wooden urn has a better environmental
performance than the plastic urn in all of the impact categories.
32
Data Quality Assessment
Inventory data quality is judged by its precision (measured, calculated or estimated),
completeness, consistency and representativeness (geographical, temporal, and
technological).
To cover these requirements and to ensure reliable results, first-hand data for the bill of
materials provided by Return to Sender in combination with consistent background LCA
information from the GaBi 2013 database were used. The LCI datasets from the GaBi 2013
database are widely distributed and used with the GaBi 6 Software. The datasets have been
used in LCA models worldwide in industrial and scientific applications in internal as well as
in many critically reviewed and published studies. In the process of providing these datasets
they are cross-checked with other databases and values from industry and science.
 Precision and consistency are considered to be high as the majority of the relevant
foreground data are measured data from Return to Sender. All background data
are sourced from GaBi databases with the documented precision.
 Completeness of foreground unit process data is considered to be high, as
complete Bills of Materials were used for the different caskets and urns. No data
were knowingly omitted. All background data are sourced from GaBi databases
with the documented completeness.
 Reproducibility is supported as much as possible through the disclosure of the bill
of materials, and documentation of the modelling approach as well as
assumptions. Based on this information, any third party should be able to
approximate the results of this study using the same data and modelling
approaches.
 All primary data were collected for the year 2014. All secondary data come from
the GaBi 2013 databases and are representative of the years 2010-2013. As the
study intended to compare the product systems for the reference year 2014,
temporal representativeness is considered to be high.
 All primary and secondary data were collected specific to New Zealand where
possible. Where country-specific or region-specific data were unavailable, proxy
data were used. Geographical representativeness is considered to be high.
 All primary and secondary data were modelled to be specific to the technologies or
technology mixes under study. Where technology-specific data were unavailable,
proxy data were used. Technological representativeness is considered to be high.
Model Completeness and Consistency
All relevant process steps for each product system were considered and modelled to
represent each specific situation. The process chain is considered sufficiently complete and
detailed with regards to the goal and scope of this study.
All assumptions, methods and data are consistent with each other and with the study’s goal
and scope. Differences in background data quality were minimised by predominantly using
LCI data from the GaBi 2013 databases. System boundaries, allocation rules, and impact
assessment methods have been applied consistently throughout the study.
33
Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis has shown that a locally representative dataset for the pine
influences the overall results, especially with regards to AP, EP and POCP The energy
demand (PED) changes significantly. The influence on the overall GWP of the casket is
only very minimal.
The overall conclusion for the comparison between the pine and the MDF caskets has not
been changed and remains valid.
The results show that future LCA studies would benefit from locally relevant datasets.
Limitations of LCIA
It should be noted that the life cycle impact categories represent impact potentials, i.e., they
are approximations of environmental impacts that could occur if the emitted molecules (a)
actually follow the underlying impact pathway and (b) meet certain conditions in the
receiving environment while doing so. In addition, the inventory only captures that fraction
of the total environmental load that corresponds to the chosen functional unit (relative
approach). LCIA results are therefore relative expressions only and do not predict actual
impacts, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins, or risks.
34
7. References
Finkbeiner 2013
GHG Protocoll 2011
Finkbeiner, Indirect land use change (iLUC) within Life Cycle
Assessment (lca) – scientific robustness and consistency with
international standards, 2013
GHG Protocol, Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting
Standard, 2011
Guinée 2001
Guinée et al, An operational guide to the ISO-standards, Centre
for Milieukunde (CML), Leiden, the Netherlands, 2001.
ISO 14040:2006
ISO 14040 Environmental Management – Life Cycle
Assessment – Principles and Framework, 2006.
ISO 14044:2006
ISO 14044 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment
– Requirements and guidelines, 2006.
ISO/TS 14067:2013
ISO/TS 14067 Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products
– Requirements and guidelines for quantification and
communication, 2013.
Nemry 2008
Nemry et al., Environmental Improvement of Passenger
Cars (IMPRO-car), Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, 2013.
thinkstep 2013
GaBi database 2013 LCI documentation. thinkstep AG,
Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 2013 (http://documentation.gabisoftware.com/).
Rosenbaum 2008
Rosenbaum et al., USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model:
recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and
freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2008) 13:532–
546.
MAF 2011
Nebel et al., Life Cycle Assessment: Adopting and adapting
overseas LCA data and methodologies for building materials in
New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2011
35
Appendix A
Materials amounts for the caskets and urns
Direct cremation caskets
Table 15: Material amounts for the MDF direct cremation casket
Category
Material
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Packaging for casket
MDF
Plastic connectors
Glue
Screws
Energy for final assembly
Plastic
Steel
Amount Unit Transport distance in km Means of transport
30.600
0.016
0.051
0.011
0.066
0.002
0.044
kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
kg
kg
146
25
25
N/A
-
Truck
Truck
Truck
N/A
-
Table 16: Material amounts for the plywood direct cremation casket
Category
Material
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Plywood
Plastic connectors
Glue
Screws
Plastic
Steel
27.100
0.016
0.051
0.011
0.066
0.002
0.044
kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
kg
kg
9938
25
25
N/A
-
36
Ship
Truck
Truck
N/A
-
Caskets including interior materials
Table 17: Material amounts for the pine wood funeral casket including interior materials
Category
Material
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Interior casket
Interior casket
Interior casket
Pine wood
Plywood base
Screws
Glue
Wooden connectors
Finish (water based)
PLA for handle
Pine wood for handle
Corn starch lining
Wool fleece with polyester knit
Linen
Plastic
Steel
Amount
21.400
5.000
0.011
0.036
0.013
0.400
0.672
0.067
0.384
0.047
0.548
0.846
0.002
0.044
Unit Transport distance in km
Means of transport
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
Truck
Ship
Truck
Truck
Ship
Truck
Truck
N/A
Truck
Truck
Ship
Ship
-
37
226
10607
9
5
21534
647
5
N/A
5
124
7679
10607
-
Table 18: Material amounts for the MDF funeral casket including interior materials
Category
Material
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Casket itself
Interior casket
Interior casket
Interior casket
Interior casket
MDF
Plastic connectors
Glue
Screws
Plastic for handle
Finish (solvent based)
Pine wood for handle
Cotton
Plastic sheet
Polyester
70% Polyester / 30% Viscose
Plastic
Steel
30.600
0.016
0.051
0.011
0.672
0.400
0.384
0.066
0.320
0.070
0.574
0.140
0.002
0.044
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
146
25
25
25
647
25
N/A
10607
10607
10607
10607
-
38
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
N/A
Ship
Ship
Ship
Ship
-
Appendix B
Results Tables
Please note that the total value for the plywood casket has been set to 100 % and all of the
other values in the table relate to that value in each impact category. The absolute values
for each percentage in Table 19 can be calculated by multiplying the percentage with the
absolute value in the respective impact category in Table 20.
Table 19: Results for the direct cremation caskets (cremation)
Impact
Casket Casket
category type
itself
PED
Ply
74.00%
4.97%
0.23%
20.81% 100.00%
101.93%
5.61%
0.23%
4.10% 111.88%
Ply
-252.14%
323.18%
0.17%
28.79% 100.00%
MDF
-171.09%
344.08%
0.17%
5.16% 178.32%
Ply
32.92%
3.23%
0.05%
63.80% 100.00%
MDF
34.56%
3.65%
0.05%
Ply
44.02%
3.97%
0.04%
MDF
61.55%
4.49%
0.04%
Ply
41.28%
3.94%
0.07%
106.83%
4.45%
0.07%
MDF
GWP
AP
EP
POCP
Cremation Packaging Transport Sum
MDF
2.02%
40.28%
51.97% 100.00%
3.90%
69.97%
54.71% 100.00%
-13.18%
98.18%
Table 20: Absolute values and equivalencies for the direct cremation caskets (Plywood)
100 % =
1
Unit
Equivalent to
PED
232 MJ
Lighting a light bulb (60W) in New Zealand for
GWP
13.7 kg CO2-eq
Driving an average petrol car1 for
56 km
AP
0.191 kg SO2-eq
345 km
EP
0.024 kg PO4-eq
515 km
POCP
0.013 kg C2H4-eq
69 km
39
493 hours
Table 21: Results for the cremation scenario for the funeral caskets including interior
materials
Impact
Casket
category type
PED
Pine
MDF
GWP
AP
EP
POCP
Casket
Casket
interior itself
Cremation Packaging Transport Sum
27.01%
60.58%
4.52%
0.18%
7.72% 100.00%
42.82% 101.83%
5.30%
0.18%
4.05% 154.18%
Pine
64.55%
-100.86%
131.49%
0.06%
4.76% 100.00%
MDF
17.06%
-57.56%
139.90%
0.06%
2.41% 101.87%
Pine
14.39%
36.83%
8.90%
0.11%
39.77% 100.00%
MDF
Pine
MDF
Pine
MDF
35.39%
46.57%
49.35%
58.68%
38.72%
92.28%
29.30%
66.85%
34.28%
202.04%
9.55%
5.63%
5.46%
8.44%
9.01%
0.11%
0.04%
0.04%
0.12%
0.12%
10.24%
18.47%
6.57%
-1.52%
-20.48%
147.57%
100.00%
128.27%
100.00%
229.41%
Table 22: Absolute values and equivalencies for the cremation of the pine wood funeral
casket including interior materials
100 % =
PED
Equivalent to
636 hours
156 km
161 km
EP
0.089 kg SO2-eq
0.023 kg PO4-eq
493 km
POCP
0.007 kg C2H4-eq
39 km
GWP
AP
1
Unit
299 MJ
37.8 kg CO2-eq
40
Table 23: Results for the burial scenario for the funeral caskets including interior materials
Impact
Casket
category type
PED
Pine
MDF
Casket
Casket
interior itself
Packaging Transport Sum
28.29%
63.44%
0.18%
8.09% 100.00%
44.85% 106.65%
0.18%
4.24% 155.92%
GWP
Pine
204.98%
-320.30%
0.19%
15.13%
-100.00%
MDF
54.19%
-182.80%
0.19%
7.65%
-120.77%
Pine
15.80%
40.42%
0.12%
43.66%
100.00%
MDF
Pine
MDF
Pine
MDF
38.85%
49.35%
52.30%
64.09%
42.28%
101.30%
31.05%
70.83%
37.44%
220.65%
0.12%
0.04%
0.04%
0.13%
0.13%
11.24%
19.57%
6.96%
-1.66%
-22.37%
151.51%
100.00%
130.13%
100.00%
240.70%
AP
EP
POCP
Table 24: Absolute values and equivalencies for the burial scenario of the pine wood funeral
casket including interior materials
100 % =
Equivalent to
GWP
Unit
286 MJ
-11.9 kg CO2-eq
AP
0.081 kg SO2-eq
147 km
EP
0.022 kg PO4-eq
0.007 kg C2H4-eq
Driving an average petrol
for
465 km
36 km
PED
POCP
1
car1
607 hours
49 km
Table 25: Absolute values and equivalencies for the wooden urn
PED
GWP
1
100 % = Unit
2.87 MJ
0.272 kg CO2-eq
Equivalent to
6.10 hours
Driving an average petrol
for
1.12 km
car1
AP
0.0017 kg SO2-eq
3.04 km
EP
0.0002 kg PO4-eq
3.82 km
POCP
0.0001 kg C2H4-eq
0.52 km
41
8. Critical review report for the LCA of caskets and urns
This report presents the findings of a critical review of the study “Life Cycle Assessment of
caskets and urns”. The LCA study was carried out by thinkstep Ltd. for Return to Sender.
The two objectives of the study were to:
1. Compare two types of direct cremation caskets without interior materials (plywood
and Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF)) and of two types of funeral casket including
interior materials (pine wood and MDF); and
2. Compare a wooden urn and two types of plastic urn.
Composition of the panel
The critical review has been carried out by:




Kimberly Robertson (chair of review panel), consultant at Catalyst Ltd;
Benjamin Canaguier, consultant at Catalyst Ltd;
Andrew Barber, director at Agrilink NZ; and
Gayathri Gamage, Auckland University.
Nature of the critical review work
The critical review work was initiated on the post-study report in January 2015 and ended
in May 2015. Oral and written communication (email) ensued amongst reviewers and
thinkstep Ltd. and resulted in the production of a new version of the report by thinkstep Ltd.
thinkstep Ltd. has taken into account the comments from the initial review and significantly
improved the LCA report. This critical review report is the synthesis of final comments by
the reviewers.
Conclusions of the review
The critical review process has worked (according to ISO 14044) in order to determine the
following has been accomplished:




The methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid;
The data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study;
The interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study; and
The study report is transparent and consistent.
The critical review panel considers the report as being of good quality comparable to other
existing LCA reports. The critical review statement and conclusions are provided as follows.
Critical review statement:
The conclusions fulfil the goals of the study. However, while results of the caskets and New
Zealand urns may be disclosed to the public, there are outstanding methodological and
technical issues that impede the disclosure of the comparative results for the Australian and
New Zealand urns.
We would like to point out some minor issues in the final report (unresolved matters from
the review) and we recommend these be corrected prior to the release of this report:
42




A table for all results was recommended (comment 3) - there is no ISO requirement
to do so, however, it is something that would make all the results easier to access.
For comments 8 and 9, 2 significant number system rather than 2 decimal place
system is used. For the sake of consistency, 2 decimals is recommended.
For comment 20, regarding the modelling of biogenic carbon, please quote the
relevant ISO standard.
Uncertainty analysis was recommended (comment 27) i.e. a short section on
uncertainty analysis and inclusion of uncertainty bar within bar charts. Sensitivity
analysis as recommended for the interpretation section as per ISO 14040/44
standards has been provided for different sources of wood for the caskets. With
respect to sensitivity analysis, the report contain justification for the exclusion of
transport for the urns. However, the sensitivity analysis on which this justification is
based on is not in the report.
The general findings of the review panel are summarised within the critical review report for
the LCA of caskets and urns.
Consistency of methods used with ISO 14044 requirements
The LCA reports on the impacts of the following impact categories:
 Primary Energy Demand (PED) thinkstep 2013
 Global Warming Potential (GWP)
 Acidification Potential (AP)
 Eutrophication Potential (EP)
 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
The impact assessment results, with the exception of PED, were calculated using the CML
2001 characterisation factor updates from April 2013. These methodologies are well known
and accepted in the LCA community. PED was calculated using methodology by thinkstep
(2013).
The LCA calculations and methodology follows the ISO 14040/44 guidelines. An exception
is the comparison of New Zealand and Australian urns for which additional documentation
and sensitivity analysis is required to fully comply with ISO 14040/44 requirements. This is
not considered a limitation of the LCA report given that the results of the comparison for
New Zealand and Australian urns are not intended to be communicated to the public.
Overall, the review panel finds that the methods used are scientifically and technically valid.
Scientific and technical validity
The explanation supplied for the choice of impact assessment categories and methods is
more acceptable now than compared to the previous version of the report. The report does
not include indicators such as for ecotoxicity, however this has been justified in accordance
with literature regarding issues related to the development of these impact categories.
Appropriateness of data used in relation to the goal of the study


Foreground data is detailed and available in terms of bill of materials. The supply
chain data is available though could be more detailed.
A mix of primary data gathered via Return to Sender and existing datasets were
utilised. Since New Zealand datasets were not available for all materials, sensitivity
analysis for relevant materials was undertaken.
43


A sensitivity analysis of what was considered as the most relevant materials (wood
with respect to its source) has been undertaken. The sensitivity analysis has shown
that a locally representative dataset for the pine influences the overall results for AP,
EP and POCP and PED while GWP impacts remain unaffected. This indicates that
procurement of local data would be a significant improvement, although outside the
scope of this study.
There is a significant data gap with respect to the transportation of the urns.
Sensitivity analysis referred to this section of the report is not provided.
Overall, the review panel found that the data used is appropriate and reasonable with regard
to the study objective.
Validity of interpretations in the scope of the limitations of the study
The review panel found that the interpretation of the results reflects the limitations identified
and the sensitivity analyses undertaken support the conclusions. This could be enhanced
with the inclusion of uncertainty analysis.
Transparency and consistency
Documentation material amounts is available in the report appendix together with the LCA
results tables containing relative results in % form.
The review panel finds that the study report is sufficiently transparent and consistent.
Sufficient detail is provided in the description of the product systems, key assumptions, and
data quality.
9. Review response
The comments from the reviewers were very helpful to improve the report. Their comments
have been addressed accordingly in order to fulfil the requirement for publication of the
results.
Would like to respond to the minor unresolved issues from the review:




All relative results are included in the appendix. Results that are required to fulfil the
goal of the study are included throughout the report.
We regarding the provision of two significant numbers instead of 2 decimal places
as more appropriate. 2 decimal places for all results in one table can lead to the
inclusion of more than 2 significant numbers for some results and therefore imply a
higher accuracy for those in comparison with others.
The standard for modelling biogenic carbon is included in Section 2.2.3 on page 7.
The results for Australian urns are now excluded from this report.
44

Link to full report

Transcription

Similar documents

Coffins Brochure - Scotmid Funeral Directors

A Local Legacy - 2012 Mastercraft Casket Company

Gallery or Casket Selector – it`s your choice A

Did You Know? - Eagleson Funeral Home

Traditional Cremation Service - Flintofts Funeral Home And Crematory