LCI Review report

Table 1: General review reporting items

REVIEW REPORTING
General information
Data set name Nylon 6 glas filled (PA 6 GF) ; Production mix
Data set UUID and a494f691-2070-4796-b002-474878345dce
version number
02.01.000
Data set locator (e.g. http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/processes/a494f691-
Permanent URI, 2070-4796-b002-474878345dce_02.01.000.xml
URL, contact point,
or database name
and version, etc.)
Data set owner PlasticsEurope aisbl, Brussels
Review commis- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Envi-
sioner(s) ronment and Sustainability (IES)
Reviewer name(s) Dr.-Ing. Ivo Mersiowsky, DEKRA Industrial GmbH, Sustainability Ser-
and affiliation(s), con- vices
tact
Review type applied Independent external review
Date of review com- 21/11/2011
pletion
(DD/MM/YYYY)
Reviewed against / ILCD Data Network - Entry-level requirements
Compliance system
name

Reviewer assessment:
Aspect Yes No Comments

Quality compliance X Entry-level requirements fulfilled. -- While TeR, GR, and TiR are held to
(ISO 14040 & be at least »Good« for this Eco-profile report and LCI dataset (due to the
adopted methodology), these aspects had not been documented in the
14044) fulfilled (see
original Eco-profile reports. Also, C, P, and M had not been formally as-
table 2)
sessed and cannot be ascertained anymore. – Meta data on TeR, GR,
and TiR were added in the course of the ELCD dataset development
with a view to entry-level compliance.

Method compli- X Practitioner designed procedures, software and models based on long-
ance (ISO 14040 & term experience with SETAC guidance and ISO 14040–43. While the
revised ISO 14040/44 had not been in existence at the time of the last
14044) fulfilled and
update of this dataset (2005), ISO compliance is still given. Formal as-
documented in data
pects underpinning method compliance were not documented in the
set original Eco-profile reports, but are provided in the corresponding ELCD
datasets.
Nomenclature X Note that original Eco-profile reports did not use ILCD nomenclature (but
compliance (see ta- are internally consistent). The ELCD datasets reviewed here were con-
verted into ILCD nomenclature and are thus compliant.
ble 3) fulfilled

Documentation X Entry-level requirements fulfilled. – While the original documentation did

compliance (see ta- not enable review (meta data, goal & scope, and interpretation of LCI
data missing), the methodology is reported elsewhere and allows for an
ble 3) fulfilled
appraisal. – Nomenclature was revised, and meta data with a minimum
documentation were added in the course of the ELCD dataset develop-
ment with a view to entry-level compliance.

Review compliance X The original Eco-profile reports and LCI datasets had been subject to
(Independent external independent internal reviews by industry experts ascertaining that tech-
review OR independ- nical plausibility of the data.
ent internal review + In addition, this independent external review was conducted to confirm
review report) fulfilled ILCD compliance as per the aspects reported here.

Compliant with ISO X See comment on method compliance (ISO 14040/44) above.
14040 & 14044
Overall compliant X The dataset is compliant with ILCD entry-level requirements. Due to the
with Compliance less stringent requirements on data quality indicators and documenta-
system tion in contrast to full ILCD compliance (see comments above), this
dataset can be included in the ELCD database. Future updates of this
dataset will need to ensure a more comprehensive assessment of data
quality indicators and documentation to comply with full ILCD require-
ments.

Date, location, re-

viewer signature

i.V. Dr.-Ing. Ivo Mersiowsky, DEKRA Industrial GmbH

Stuttgart/Germany, 21 November 2011
Table 2: Specific/detailed review reporting items for LCI data set: Quality compliance
(ISO 14040 & 14044)

ITEMs Comments
Time-related cover- Good+
age/representativeness:
Primary (foreground) data collection and calculation in 1996, pre-
“age of data and the minimum sumably drawing on annual data of 1994–95.
length of time over which data
should be collected” Last update and re-calculation in 2005.

“qualitative assessment of the de- Data were collected for one year, i.e. based on annual reports. The
gree to which the data set reflects calculation conducted in 2005 was an update of background proc-
the true population of interest” esses (in particular, energy supply data as of 2005). It was held
that the foreground data were still applicable, in that (a) production
technology supposedly had not changed significantly and/or (b)
plants had not been consolidated or decommissioned. This as-
sumption was based on expert judgment among PlasticsEurope’s
member companies.
Note: The above explanation is inferred from personal communica-
tion [1], but not provided in the original Eco-profile report itself.
Geographical cover- Good+
age/representativeness:
Europe.
“geographical area from which data
for unit processes should be col- The goal was to provide a European production average.
lected to satisfy the goal of the An unknown number production plants across Europe were in-
study” cluded in the data collection. The selected plants were selected to
“qualitative assessment of the de- represent >80% of the total European production volume.
gree to which the data set reflects
According to the meta-data a coverage of 95% was achieved.
the true population of interest”

Technology cover- Good+

age/representativeness:
Technology mix.
“specific technology or technology
mix” The goal was to provide a European production average.

“qualitative assessment of the de- See Geographical Coverage above for details. The participating
gree to which the data set reflects PlasticsEurope member companies and their production sites in-
the true population of interest” cluded in the survey represent the technology mix at the time of this
study.
TeR is explicitly described in the meta-data.
Precision: Unknown
“measure of the variability of the The precision cannot be assessed because the original Eco-profile
data values for each data ex- reports and LCI datasets neither specify ranges nor provide an as-
pressed (e.g. variance)”
sessment of variability.
Completeness: Unknown: »All relevant flows quantified« (meta-data)
“percentage of flow that is meas- The completeness of the LCI data had not been reported in the
ured or estimated”; assessed on original study. An a posteriori verification appears not feasible, be-
level of process
cause (a) the Eco-profile report and LCI dataset is an aggregated
process inventory (i.e. critical activity data, such as useful energy
ITEMs Comments
input to core process are unknown); (b) the Eco-profile report does
not include impacts (other than global warming figures) and an as-
sessment of completeness in relation to impacts was outside the
scope of the study.
Consistency: Good.
“qualitative assessment of whether The entire LCI modelling and calculation for this study – as well as
the study methodology is applied for related LCI models created under the PlasticsEurope Eco-
uniformly to the various compo-
profile programme – were governed by the same methodology
nents of the analysis”
(Boustead 2005) and conducted using the same software and da-
tabase system (Boustead) [2].
Sources of the data;
Appropriateness of use pri- All foreground processes were modelled using primary data col-
mary/secondary data source lected from production sites as detailed above. Background proc-
esses were modelled using secondary data from appropriate
sources, such as the International Energy Agency for hydrocarbon
resources.
For further details, see meta-data on TeR.
Uncertainty of the information Unknown
(e.g. data, models and assump- An assessment of the uncertainty has not been conducted in the
tions). course of the original Eco-profile study.
As of now, no errors in the primary data are suspected. Models and
assumptions have been subject to internal review by industry ex-
pert groups within PlasticsEurope and are hence deemed valid.
Since original data, models, and assumptions are not available
anymore (or stored in an undisclosed document repository), this
item cannot be ascertained anymore.
Others

Table 3: Specific/detailed review reporting items for LCI data set: Nomenclature and
Documentation

ITEMs Comments
Nomenclature

Correctness and consistency The nomenclature is consistent because all Eco-profile reports
of applied nomenclature and LCI dataset had been prepared by Ian Boustead using the
same software model (Boustead) and governed by the same
methodology document (Boustead 2005) [2].
At the time of the creation of this Eco-profile, the ILCD handbook
had not existed – hence the pre-defined ILCD reference elemen-
tary flows were not used.
Upon conversion into ELCD datasets, matching lists were used to
obtain fully compliant ILCD nomenclature.
Technical terms are used correctly and consistently.
 ITEMs Comments
Documentation

Appropriateness of documen- The documentation of the ELCD dataset appears appropriate in

tation extent (see Document that it comprehensively presents the available meta-data and fur-
“Documentation of LCA data ther information – it enables a fair appraisal of the dataset.
sets”)
Appropriateness of documen- The documentation form as per the ILCD format is appropriate in
tation form (ILCD Format) that it is comprehensive and transparent.
Additional Information
The original process data is probably from 1996. Only energy supply data were updated in
2005.
It is suspected that there are factual errors in the underlying LCI dataset for polyamide 6 (see
report #07).
An update of the PA6–GF dataset is envisaged tentatively for 2011. As a plastic compound, this
is somewhat outside the scope of PlasticsEurope representing the polymer industry. Aside from
the underlying dataset for PA6, to be updated in 2011, an up-to-date dataset for glass fibres would
also be required. Hence, it is conceivable that this needs to become a third-party effort.
The meta-data is chiefly secondary information which is not contained in the original Eco-profile
report and, hence, cannot be verified. The Eco-profile report provides barely a brief introductory
description of the product and production system (stoichiometric formulae and production tech-
nologies), and the LCI tables. A specific report does not exist: the Eco-profile report does neither
include meta data, nor goal & scope, nor a comment or interpretation on the LCI data themselves.
While the LCI tables provide additional details, such as the allocation of entries to broad catego-
ries according to the origin of flows (fuel production and delivery, fuel use, transport, or process),
other details concerning data quality are not available.
Results, data, methods, assumptions and limitations are documented only in the separate
methodology document [2] which provides an overarching methodological guidance.
References
[1] Personal communication: intermittent face-to-face and phone interviews with PlasticsEurope
Eco-profiles programme representatives Aafko Schanssema and Ian Boustead conducted be-
tween October 2007–January 2011.
[2] Ian Boustead, Methodology documentation, 2005.