life cycle evaluation of ship transportation development of methodology and testing

7/25/2019 Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation Development of Methodology and Testing

1/32

Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation:

Development of Methodology and Testing

1

Life Cycle Evaluation ofShip Transportation -

Development of Methodologyand Testing

Annik Magerholm Fet (Hi/NTNU)

Eirik Srgrd (DNV)

1Research report Hi 10/B101/R-98/008/00

Aalesund College (Hi) in co-operation withDet Norske Veritas (DNV)


2/32



2

Title: Report no.:

Life Cycle Evaluation of ShipTransportation - Development of

Methodology and Testing

HI10/B101/R-98/008/00

Project no.:98 / 101 Hi

Client(s) (name and adr.): Date: 99.04.30The Research Council of NorwayP.O. Box 2700 St. HanshaugenN 0131 OsloNorway

No. of pages: 32Annexes: 1

Clients ref.:Morten stbyAuthor(s):Annik Magerholm Fet (Hi), Eirik Srgrd (DNV)

Signature:

Responsible signature:Aalesund College, Per Kibsgaard Pettersen

Signature:

Summary:This is the main report for the project Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation: Development ofMethodology and Testing. Aalesund College has led the project, and it is the pre-work for a hopefully coming

project under the European Commissions Fifth Framework program. The project activities have led to thefollowing conclusions:

The State of the Art analysis concludes that the LCA-method has only been used to a limited extent for sea-borne transportation means. More work is needed to establish codes of practice for the evaluation oftransportation (both for ships and other transportation means).

Result from a workshop focusing on needs and requirements descriptions shows that sea-borne transportationis to an increasing extent faced with environmental performance requirements from various categories ofinterested parties. However, actors in the Maritime Industry were interviewed to describe status and needs forenvironmental information, and this concludes that the need and the application of such information is notspecified and not implemented in the businesses today. Environmental performance information will probablymainly be used for marketing purposes.

A simplified Life Cycle Assessment was carried out for M/V Color Festival to gain experience with theapplication of a standard tool. The study indicate that the operational phase is the most important in terms ofcontributions to pre-defined impact categories. However, a range of toxic substances during the ships lifecycle has not been related to impact categories, and the scrapping phase was not considered in terms ofenvironmental impact. LCA was found to be a good starting point for life cycle evaluations, and data andalgorithms are to a large degree available although adjustments, structuring and quality assurance are required.

Main conclusions from the project are that to evaluate the environmental performance of ship transportation ina holistic and life cycle perspective, the two main perspectives are to be addressed in further research;methodological development, and improvement of relevant databases and analytical software tools forevaluating the environmental aspects of transportation modes.

Keywords:Life Cycle Evaluation, Life Cycle Assessment, Ship Transportation

Distribution/Access: Open


3/32



3

PrefaceThis report is a part of the documentation from the project "Life Cycle Evaluation of ShipTransportation - Development of Methodology and Testing". Aalesund College has been incharge of the project with dr.ing. Annik Magerholm Fet as project manager. Other partners inthe project have been Det Norske Veritas and Color Line. Members of the steering committeehave been

Morten stby Norwegian Research FoundationKirsten Rognstad Det Norske VeritasHans Andreas Nielsen Color Line Marine

Annik Magerholm Fet Aalesund College

The project has received financial support from the Norwegian Research Foundation underthe Maritim research program, from Det Norske Veritas, Aalesund College and Color Line.The project period has been March -December 1998.

Reports from the said project are:

Angelfoss, Alfred (Hi): Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation Report fromworkshop 15 16 April 1998, Report no. 10/B101/R-98/004/00, 1998.

Angelfoss, Alfred (Hi); Johnsen, Tommy (DNV); Fet, Annik Magerholm (Hi); Karlsen,Harry (Hi): Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation - State of the Art, Report no.10/B101/R-98/007/00, 1998.

Johnsen, Tommy (DNV); Fet, Annik Magerholm (Hi): Screening Life Cycle Assessmentof M/V Color Festival, Report no. 10/B101/R-98/009/00, 1998.

Fet, Annik Magerholm (Hi); Srgrd, Eirik (DNV): Life Cycle Evaluation of ShipTransportation Development of Methodology and Testing, Report no. 10/B101/R-98/008/00, 1998.

Fiskerstrand, Ingar; Remy, Even T.: Miljinformasjon og Shipping, Sivilkonomoppgaveved Hgskolen i Narvik, 1998.


4/32


5/32



5

data and algorithms are to a large degree available although adjustments, structuring andquality assurance are required.

Main conclusions from the project are that the project has demonstrated that the LCA isappropriate to identify and evaluate environmental impacts caused by material flows duringthe life cycle of a ship. However, to evaluate the environmental performance of shiptransportation in a holistic and life cycle perspective, the two main perspectives are to beaddressed in further research; methodological development, and improvement of relevantdatabases and analytical software tools for evaluating the environmental aspects oftransportation modes. The project recommends a list of tasks to be performed to arrive at

better code of practice for the life cycle evaluation of transport modes.


6/32



6

TABLE OF CONTENTLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................................8

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................9

1.1 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................91.2 OBJECTIVES.................................................. ....................................................... .................................. 91.3 IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREAS............................ ............................................................ ................. 10

2 WORKING APPROACH ........................................................... .......................................................... .... 11

3 THE STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS............................................ ................................................. 12

3.1 FINDINGS FROM THE STATE OF THE ART- STUDY................................................................. 12

3.2 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS................................................... 12

4 WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS .................................................... ........................................................ ... 14

4.1 NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................... ...... 144.2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES ................................................................ ................................ 144.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS ............................................................ 14

5 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION................................................................................. .................. 16

5.1 RESULTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION STUDY ........................................ 165.2 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION STUDY.............................. 16

6 SCREENING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ................................................................ ......................... 17

6.1 RESULTS FROM THE SCREENING ANALYSIS............................................................................ ... 176.2 CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE SCREENING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT............. .......... 17

6.2.1 Conclusions related to M/V COLOR FESTIVAL............................................. .............................. 17

6.2.2 Conclusions related to LCA methodology ......................................... ............................................ 18

6.2.3 Conclusions related to the software SimaPro................................ ................................................ 19

6.3 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SCREENING ANALYSIS ........................................ 19

7 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................................20

7.1 SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREAS.................... ............................................................ .............................. 207.1.1 System boundaries ............................................. ................................................. ........................... 20

7.1.2 Geographical dependencies.............................................................. ............................................. 20

7.1.3 Functional units.... ................................................ ................................................. ........................ 21

7.1.4 Data Quality .................................................... .......................................................... .................... 22

7.1.5 Resource consume, discharges and emissions..................... ............................................ .............. 227.1.6 Performance evaluation........................................................ ..................................................... .... 23

7.1.7 Accidents and risks ............................................... .................................................... ..................... 24

7.1.8 Life cycle costs...................... ................................................................. ........................................ 24

7.2 OVERALL METHODOLOGY........................................................ ...................................................... 24

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ ................................ 26

8.1 WHO NEEDS LIFE CYCLE EVALUATIONS? ........................................................... ........................ 268.2 DO WE HAVE METHODS AVAILABLE FOR LIFE CYCLE EVALUATION OF SHIPTRANSPORTATION?.....................................................................................................................................278.3 IS LCA AN APPLICABLE METHOD TO SHIPS?............................................................ ................... 28

9 FURTHER WORK............................................................ ............................................................ ............ 29

REFERENCES............................................................. ......................................................... .............................. 30


7/32


8/32



8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABC Activity Based CostingBAT Best Available TechnologyCP Cleaner ProductionDfE Product Development and Design for EnvironmentDNV Det Norske Veritas

EA Environmental AuditingEAc Environmental AccountingEEA European Environment AgencyEI Environmental IndicatorsEL Eco LabellingEMS Environmental Management SystemsEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEPE Environmental Performance EvaluationEPI Environmental Performance IndicatorsHi Hgskolen i lesund (Aalesund College)ICS International Chamber of Shipping

IEA International Energy AgencyIMO International Maritime OrganisationIPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISM International Safety ManagementLCA Life Cycle AssessmentLCC Life Cycle CostingLCS Life Cycle ScreeningMET Material, Energy and Toxic analysisMIPS Material Input Per Service unitSFT Statens ForurensningstilsynSNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine EngineeringSTCW The International Convention on Standards of Training,

and Watchkeeping for SeafarersUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeVAA Value Added AnalysisWBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development


9/32



9

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUNDReduction of environmental impacts from all human activities is an overall objective ofsociety. The transportation sector is an important contributor among industrial activities. A

body of knowledge and methodology applicable to the reduction of environmental impactsfrom the transportation sector is available from a number of studies and projects performed inseparate areas over the recent years. A number of rules and regulations have been imposed

with the objective of reducing environmental impacts from ships. However, no systematiccradle to grave analysis has been performed for the maritime transportation sector to provide atotal view on which policy development and research and development priorities can be

based. Today's practise lacks consistency throughout the entire lifetime of a shiptransportation system. The lack of consistency creates a wide range of uncertainties related tothe data collected.

An effort should be made through a holistic approach to analysing the environmental impactof ships during their entire life cycle, how the different impact processes interact andinfluence each other, and the potentials for reducing the impact in the short/medium term aswell as in the long term.

2.2 OBJECTIVESThis project is the pre-project for a planned main project on Life Cycle Evaluation of ShipTransportation. The main project is planned executed under the European CommissionsFifth Frame program on Sustainable Transportation and Inter-modality.

The overall and long-term goal for the main project1isto establish a standardised method forlife cycle evaluation of ships (and ship transportation), which incorporates the most factors fordecision making with respect to environmental aspects of ship transportation.

The objectives of this pre-project are to form the basis and point of departure for the mainproject, including: to evaluate the possibilities for the development of a feasible methodology for life cycle

evaluation, to establish system boundaries and defining the methods to be applied in the life cycle

evaluation, to select adequate cases/scenarios for the main project, to establish a project plan with international perspectives for the main project, and to establish liaisons of co-operation with interested parties.

1The objective as formulated initially in the application to the Norwegian Research Foundation


10/32



10

2.3 IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREASA range of aspects related to Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation were identifiedprior to the execution of the pre-project and will be addressed in this report:

System boundaries: Rational and consistent system boundaries for processes and systems tobe included in a life cycle evaluation have to be defined. Wide system limits will increasecomplexity and costs of the assessments.

Geographical dependencies: Ships are build all over the world and trade in different areas.The actual environmental impact will consequently vary accordingly. The question is howthese variations should be consistently handled in the assessments.

Functional units: The functional unit will vary with ship type according to the objective of theoperation. Units reflecting the function of the transportation have to be properly defined toallow comparison with other transportation means.

Resource consume, discharges and emission: In order to execute assessments of shiptransportation in a life cycle perspective, a range of data is needed for the sub-systems,materials and processes involved. Algorithms and models are needed to evaluate theenvironmental impact of the resource consumption, discharges and emissions of pollutants.There may be a need to define a set of relevant impact categories with related evaluationmodels.

Performance evaluation: The question to be addressed is how the environmental performanceof ships and ship transportation can be evaluated by means of a set of criteria so that design,construction, equipment, operation, maintenance and scrapping contribute to sustainability. Arational method is required to compare the total environmental profile of different conceptsand alternatives. Such an evaluation procedure has to enable weighting between defined

problems.

Accidents and risk: Traditional Life Cycle Assessment do not include accidental impacts. It isa challenge to include the environmental impacts of accidents in the overall assessments ofenvironmental performance.

Life cycle costs: The purpose of the evaluation of environmental performance in a life cycleperspective is to form a proper decision basis for recommending and selecting pollutioncontrol options that do not entail excessive costs. The environmental assessment then have to

be followed up with additional assessments of life cycle costs for the options identified.

Further research: The crucial questions are; what do we know, what data do we have, what arewe able to model, and which aspects should further research focus on?


11/32



11

3 WORKING APPROACH

The main activities in this pre-project are to perform a screening analysis and to identifyappropriate methods to be used to evaluate environmental performance of ship transportationin a life cycle perspective.

In order to form a basis for the development of a standardised method for life cycle evaluationof ships (and ship transportation), the following working approach was applied:

1. A state-of-the-art assessment was carried out by literature search to identify relevantmethods, data, tools and analyses carried out.

2. A workshop was executed to present knowledge in the area, discuss applications to becovered and to identify data and tools available.

3. Actors in the Maritime Industry were interviewed to describe status and needs forenvironmental information.

4. A simplified Life Cycle Assessment was carried out for M/V Color Festival to gainexperience with the application of a standard tool.

5. The preliminary and continually updated content of the CEC 5thFramework Programme

was evaluated to prepare for a main project application. Discussions with tentativeNorwegian partners were held and international partners were assessed.

The results from this project are presented according to this working approach.


12/32



12

4 THE STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS

4.1 FINDINGS FROM THE STATE OF THE ART- STUDY

A State of the Art- study on the application of methods and tools for environmental impactanalysis of ship transportation in a life cycle perspective was performed (Angelfoss et al,1998). Information was collected by literature search and personal contacts. Table 1 next page

presents the main findings.

4.2 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE STATE OF THE ART ANALYSISThe State of the Art analysis concludes that the LCA-method has only been used to alimited extent for sea-borne transportation means. In the cases where LCA has been used ithas been confined to parts of the product chain and for a limited part of the system.

The State of the Art study reveals that methods, software tools and environmental relateddata generally are available. However, although relevant methods are available they are notadequately adapted to ship transportation in a life cycle perspective. The challenge is to

collect and systematise what is already available to establish a framework on which simplifiedanalysis can be based that meet user needs. Such adaptations and integration should beaddressed in future research.

Although data on the environmental impacts of materials and substances are available, theprocess of collecting and systematising available information will probably identify areaswere ship specific data are lacking on a more detailed level. From the study executed, it isconcluded that e.g. the scrapping phase should be further addressed to derive adequateenvironmental data, and a method for the allocation of port pollution and resourceconsumption (including land use) should be established for life cycle evaluation of shiptransportation.

Available software tools are not developed specifically for the life cycle evaluation of shiptransportation, and further work on developing life cycle analyses tools for transportationmodes is needed. Although ship specific data and tools should have priority, an importantapplication of a life cycle evaluation will be studies comparing alternative transportationmodes. The framework should therefore address transportation in general to establish aconsistent framework for such comparisons (common assumptions, common system

boundaries, common pollutants addressed, common impact categories, etc.).


13/32



13

Table 1: Summary of questions and findings in the State of the Art analysis.

Question raised FindingsMethods available? A range of partly overlapping methods for environmental assessments are identified

(process, product and management oriented). International standards and guidelines forLCA are available. See chapter 3 and 9.3, 9.4, 9.6 in Angelfoss et al., 1998.

Categorisation andquantification ofimpacts?

Alternative methods for categorisation of environmental impacts from pollution areidentified. No international standard or recommended method is found established.There is significant uncertainty in normalisation and evaluation factors. No specificcharacterisation factor for ship pollution is identified. See Chapter 4.1 in Angelfoss et

al., 1998.Valuation methods? Alternative methods for evaluation of environmental impact based on contributions toenvironmental impact categories are identified. Generally, the methods can be dividedinto valuation according to political goals, scientific goals, monetary values andauthority panel procedures See Chapter 4.2 and 9.5 in Angelfoss et al., 1998.

Environmentalstudies on the shipbuilding phase?

Several studies are identified (see Chapter 5.2 and 9.1.2, Angelfoss et al., 1998). Typicalenvironmental issues covered are: Related to water: Grinding substance, blasting substance, iron, heavy metals, paint,

coating (from flush down water). Noise: Machinery, grinding, sawing, sandblasting, compressor operation, transport,

cranes, ventilation. Related to air: Dust, particulates, VOC, smell, aerosols. Waste: Iron and metals, waste containing oil, paint, remaining from rebuilding etc.

Environmentalstudies on theoperation andmaintenance phase?

Several studies are identified (see Chapter 5.3 and 9.1.3, Angelfoss et al., 1998). Typicalenvironmental issues covered in the operational phase are: Emissions to air: carbon dioxide, Chlorine Fluor Carbons, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen

oxide non-methane volatile organic compounds, halogenated hydrocarbons. Discharges to water: oil spill, heavy metals, paint effluent, ballast water, sewage

dumping, overboard dumping, particulates.For the maintenance phase issues of particular interest are: Discharges to water: oil spill, heavy metals, paint effluent, sand blasting substance Noise (from sandblasting, grinding etc.)

Environmentalstudies on the shipscrapping phase?

No studies particularly addressing environmental issues are identified. Identified studiestypically address economic and market aspects (see Chapter 5.4 and 9.1.4, Angelfoss etal., 1998).

Environmentalstudies of ports?

No studies are identified that address the allocation of port pollution and resourceconsumption to ship transportation (see Chapter 5.5 and 9.1.6, Angelfoss et al., 1998).

Methods forenvironmental riskassessments?

Methods and studies are available that address ship accidents and the relatedenvironmental risk. IMO guidelines are available. No studies are found that include riskaspects in LCA (see Chapter 5.6 and 9.1.5, Angelfoss et al., 1998).

Comparative studiesof transport modes?

Two LCA based studies which compare transportation modes are identified. Only one ofthe studies include ship transportation (see Chapter 6.1 and 9.2, Angelfoss et al., 1998).

LCA of roadtransportation?

LCA is found to be widely used in the automobile industry, mainly to selectenvironmental friendly sub-systems and components (see Chapter 6.2 and 9.2,Angelfoss et al., 1998).

Other? Agreements, regulations and guidelines for environmental issues of ship transportationare given in Chapter 7 and 9.7, Angelfoss et al, 1998.


14/32



14

5 WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

The workshop addressed the following issues (Angelfoss et al, 1998): Needs and requirements set to environmental life cycle evaluation of ship transportation Methodological approaches and relevant software tools

5.1 NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTSOne goal of the workshop was to identify interested parties and their needs and interests forinformation about the environmental impacts caused by a ship during its life cycle.

It was concluded that the environmental friendliness of ship transportation should beevaluated against a set of criteria. The requirements set to such criteria must meet theseformulated needs. The demand for environmental performance information is generallyexpected to increase in the future, but the specific requirements are vague. It was stressed thatimproved environmental performance have to be assessed in relation to costs and practical

problems.

Table 2 (see next page) shows a preliminary list of interested parties, their driving forces totake environmental issues into considerations and possible applications of environmental

performance information.

5.2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHESMainly the methods in the ISO 14040 serie on LCA were discussed. However, to evaluateship transportation in a life cycle perspective, it is necessary to also take other managementand evaluation methods into use, e.g. formal environmental management systems,environmental indexing and environmental accounting. Their application must besystematised and simplified.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGSSea-borne transportation is to an increasing extent faced with environmental performancerequirements from various categories of interested parties. The needs for environmental

performance data is therefore growing, in particular with respect to environmental impactsfrom the operational phase of vessels. However, it is also a growing demand for informationon local environmental impacts due to building, maintenance and scrapping activities, and inaddition a growing focus on the efficiency of resource use (eco-efficiency).

The present needs by parties in the maritime transportation industry seems to be: Environmental management systems certificates Environmental performance documentation and related certificates (environmental

accountings, class notations, etc.) Overview of design, technology, equipment and procedures for pollution reduction.


15/32



15

Focus will probably be placed on life cycle cost and pollution reduction, practical problemsand limitations in the operational phase. IMO will probably define new regulations forreduced ship pollution. National and regional authorities will define new requirements andincentives. Classification societies will offer environmental class notations. Ship ownerassociations will promote the environmental friendliness of ship transportation. These partiesmay to some degree need life cycle evaluations to compare transportation modes, to balance

pollution reduction obtained and imposed costs and to develop rational and consistent criteriafor regulations and requirements.

The workshop presented alternative methods to documentation and assessment needs

(reference is given to the Workshop Proceedings report, Angelfoss et al, 1998). Apreliminary list of computer tools for LCA was presented. Although this was preliminarywork, the findings showed that a range of tools and related databases are available2.

Table 2: Interested parties and their driving forces to take environmental concern indifferent phases of a ships life cycle.

Interested parties Driving forces Application of the environmental informationThe ship owner and theNorwegian ShipownersAssociation

Reducing material,maintenance and fuelcosts, better rates, highersales prices.

Optimise the operation of a given ship with regardto economy and environmental aspects.

The ship designer Future search forenvironmentallyacceptable solutions.

Information on environmental impacts caused bymaterials by assembling and disassembling processes aswell as information related to the operation of the ship.

The authorities, portauthorities and theInternational MaritimeOrganisation (IMO)

Establish and harmoniseregulations, stimulatebetter environmentalperformance, and reducedpollution.

Differentiation of taxes to stimulate reductions inSOxand NOxduring the entire life cycle, reducedrisks in ports and a relevant basis for preparingreports on environmental performance of sea-transportation means.

The shipyards and relatedindustry, branch organisationsfor shipyards

Materials and costsavings, improvedenvironmentalperformance.

Ease the shipyards planning and performance inaccordance to environmental requirements,hereunder to select materials and methods with lowimpact on the local environment.

International LabourOrganisations (ILO) andbranch organisations

Aim at protecting theemployees regardinghealth and safety.

Find substitutes to substances, materials andequipment with hazardous impact on workingconditions of the employees.

The charterer Increased requirements todocumented environm.performance, quality andsafety.

The criteria for such performance may differ fromone geographical area to another due to variationsin the environmental conditions, e.g. the North Seaversus other marine areas.

The society and environmentalorganisation

Hazardous effects on theenvironment

Information on negative effects in a holisticperspective.

Insurance companies andfinancial institutions

Reward for betterperformance (reducedcosts).

LCA results help to set decision criteria for e.g.reduced premium.

2http://sun1.mpce.stu.mmu.ac.uk/pages/projects/dfe/pubs/dfe33/ecotools.htm


16/32



16

6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

6.1 RESULTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION STUDYNeeds and requirements related to documentation of environmental performance informationwere analysed and documented in the report Miljinformasjon og Shipping3 (Fiskerstrandand Remy, 1998). This study was executed as part of diploma thesis at Bod GraduateSchool of Business.

The study summarises general trends in the society with increasing focus on environmentalissues and expected increased requirements for environmental performance information from

industrial activities. Environmental performance criteria are under development withinfinance institutions, insurance companies, ports and cargo owners.

As part of this study, parties in the maritime transportation sector were interviewed withrespect to needs, requirements and application of environmental performance information.The parties confirm that environmental aspects are likely to become more important in thefuture as an integral part of the business activities. At present, there is generally norequirement within the business community for documentation of environmental

performance. Environmental performance information is merely limited to EnvironmentalAccounting and Environmental Management Certificates. It is probably a long way to walk

before environmental performance information in a life cycle perspective is developed,required and applied within maritime business parties. However, bank and insurance may give

better conditions for clients with documented environmental performance as part of a totalconsideration.

Customers of ship transportation assume that environmental performance information may beimportant for them as well in the future. At present, such information is used only to a limiteddegree applied when choosing transportation partner. However, it is believed to be applicablefor marketing purposes, but is seldom asked for or considered important.

6.2 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION STUDY

Environmental performance information is believed to become important in the future.However, needs, requirements and applications of such information are at present not welldefined in the business community and are mainly used for marketing purposes. It is thereforeanticipated from the results of this study that needs and applications of environmental

performance information in a life cycle perspective will be limited to regulators and branchorganisations for defining rational requirements to the shipping industry.

3In Norwegian only


17/32



17

7 SCREENING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

In the screening analysis a simplified LCA was performed. The most important sub-systemsand related processes were included in the study; e.g. the hull materials and important

processes related to these during construction, maintenance and scrapping of the ship,material flows during production, operation and scrapping of diesel engines.

A commercial software package was applied and tested. The assessment included applicationof standard evaluation method and two alternative antifouling systems were compared to

provide an example of the application of LCA.

7.1 RESULTS FROM THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

As a part of the project, a screening LCA was performed on the Color Line Ro-Ro Passengervessel M/V COLOR FESTIVAL (Johnsen and Fet, 1998). The goal of the screening LCA wasto demonstrate and confirm that the LCA-method is applicable for environmental life cycleevaluation of ships by application of a standard computer tool (SimaPro). Aspects addressedand experience gained are listed in Table 3, see next page.

7.2 CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE SCREENING LIFE CYCLEASSESSMENT

7.2.1 Conclusions related to M/V COLOR FESTIVALWithin the system boundaries defined in this study, the following conclusions can be made forColor Festival: Calculated per functional unit (ton*km) Color Festival has higher environmental impacts

than figures found in literature for other ship types and other transport modes. All life cycle phases should be considered as important, but with respect to different

environmental impacts. Global warming, acidification, eutrophication, smog and energy

consumption for the operational phase. Solid waste from the scrapping phase. Localimpacts like toxicity for humans and ecology for construction and maintenance.

The processes in the life cycle considered as being most important are combustion of oilduring operation, leaking from antifouling during operation, removing primer andantifouling and applying new during maintenance, non recycled/reused materials andcomponents after ending their life time.

According to the valuation method in SimaPro (Eco indicator 95), the ship contributionsare by far most severe to the impact categories human toxicology and acidification. Itshould be noted that NOx and SOx contribute significantly to the category humantoxicology as well to the acidification category. Thus, according to the valuation methodapplied, NOx and SOx emissions in the operational phase are the most important

pollutants contributing to environmental impact.


18/32



18

Table 3. Aspects addressed and experience gained with LCA of a defined shipAspects addressed Experience gainedFunctional unit The main purpose of the ship is to provide shopping and amusement facilities.

Transportation of trucks, cars and passengers is secondary. The functional unit is thendifficult to define and the ship will be considered to have a low environmentalperformance when measured by tonne-kilometre per year. Economic turnover may be agood alternative.

System boundaries No specific problems were identified in this study. The SFI system was applied and foundto be a good starting point to break up the systems into sub-systems. Port and landactivities were not included, but should be assessed for inclusion. Generally, data needswill reflect system boundaries defined. Different system boundaries will makecomparisons difficult. A general rule could be that boundaries are defined according towhat the user can control.

Data collection The applied tool contains relevant cradle to gate data for materials and some general shipdata. There is a lack of data for the scrapping phase. Generally, data for ship specificprocesses are more widespread and lack quality assurance. This reduces reliability inestimates and increases required time resources. The applied tool may form a good basisfor the development of a ship specific database, although input is time consuming.

Allocation Materials which are recycled get subtracted the amount of emissions and resourceconsumption saved by the recycling. This commonly take place in the scrapping phase ofthe analysis. Alternative allocation methods should be evaluated. A method is needed forthe allocation of land based activities.

Inventory results The inventory resulted in an extensive list of pollutants and resource consumes. This isdifficult to handle. Pollutants should be prioritised and/or related to well defined impactcategories. The applied tool enable reduction of this list.

Impact categories Ship contributions to a range of pre-defined impact categories was estimated. These

categories did not cover all pollutants and do not reflect ship locations. The operationalphase generally contribute most significantly to all impact categories except for ozonedepletion and toxic discharges to water. By defining alternative categories for heavymetals and pesticides, the operational phase become less important. The scrapping phaseis not included in the present study which limit the impact assessment. A common set ofimpact categories for ship transportation should be defined.

Valuation Two methods were applied to value impact categories and the ship emissions/dischargesand resource consumes by means of a common unit. The operational phase was identifiedas the most important with NOx and SOx emissions as the main contribution pollutants.An important aspect of ships is the low need for land areas. This is not included in theapplied methods, but is important for comparisons with other transportation modes.

Geographicaldependencies

The applied impact categories and related normalisation and evaluation factors wererepresentative for central Europe emissions and discharges. No attempt was made to

adjust methods to ship locations and related local and regional impacts.

7.2.2 Conclusions related to LCA methodology

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that can be applied to analyse theenvironmental aspect related to the life cycle of a ship, but the methodology is very timeconsuming to use and methodology simplification and specification is needed for efficientuse.

It is necessary to involve construction and maintenance yards, together with the shipowner to get easy access to reliable information.

Existing valuation techniques used within LCA should be used very critically.


19/32



19

The functional unit is very important when systems are compared to each other. It iscommon to use ton*km as a functional unit for transportation systems. This unit should beused with caution as ship may not be build to maximise this unit.

It is beneficial to break the system down into sub-systems. This way the analysis becomesflexible with respect to break down of results.

Access to data for the scrapping phase is poor. Allocation rules related to recycling are important as long as cradle to gate data are

included. If cradle to gate data not are included within a system, the system will not getany benefits from recycling materials, except that less waste are generated.

7.2.3 Conclusions related to the software SimaProThe LCA software program SimaPro 4.0 has been used. The following conclusions has beenmade related to the programme based on this screening analysis: To model complex and large systems it is essential to start building system elements and

combine these to represent the main system. The model must be build by combining processes on a text format. Other programs have

the advantage that the model can be build by combining boxes into a flow diagram. The program has very good presentation possibilities. Since existing methods for classification and characterisation are mainly developed for

land-based industries / activities, the same practice is not always applicable directly for

sea-borne transport. A more detailed check of the impacts of emissions from a shipoperating in open waters should be performed. Characterisation factors should also bechecked against new literature.

The programme allows for alternative impact assessment methods if impact evaluationdata are implemented.

7.3 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SCREENING ANALYSISThe results arrived at in the screening analysis can be briefly summarised like:

The production phase is most important regarding material usage and ozonedepletion, and contributes significantly to ecotoxicolgy in water. The production

phase will mainly contribute to local environmental impact. The operational phase dominates the contribution to greenhouse effects, acidification,

eutrophication, smog formation, human toxicology, water ecotoxicology The scrapping phase gives significant negative contribution to photo-oxidant

formation, solid waste and material usage.

The combustion of fuel was identified to be the most important contributor to environmentalimpacts both global (greenhouse gasses), regional (acidification) and local (humantoxicology). In addition, antifouling with TBTO is the source for local ecotoxicology. TheEco-indicator 95-valuation method ranges human toxicology most important, thenacidification before eutrophication and global warming. However, by using another valuationmethod the results would most probably look slightly different.


20/32



20

8 DISCUSSION8.1 SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREASIn order to arrive at a unified recommended practice, a few areas were already at project startidentified as areas that needed special attention (see Chapter 2.3). These problems areas arediscussed in the following.

8.1.1 System boundariesAccording to the ISO 14040-standard: The system boundaries determine which unit processesshall be included within the LCA. Several factors determine the system boundaries, including

the intended application of the study, the assumptions made, cut-off criteria, data and cost

constraints, and the intended audience.

The selection of inputs and outputs, the level of aggregation within a data category, and the

modelling of the system shall be consistent with the goal of the study. The system should be

modelled in such a manner that inputs and outputs at its boundaries are elementary flows.

The criteria used in establishing the system boundaries shall be identified and justified in the

scope of the study. LCA studies used to make a comparative assertion that is disclosed to the

public shall perform an analysis of material and energy flows to determine their inclusion in

the scope of the study.

As shown in the screening-report there are defined different system boundaries for differentsubsystems. This is in accordance to the standard that says that the boundaries determinewhich unit processes shall be included within the LCA. However, the project has notdiscussed in detail cut-off criteria, data and cost constraints etc., and the criteria used whensystem boundaries are established. Neither are the effects on the final results by using cradleto gate data evaluated. It is necessary to develop a set of criteria for defining system

boundaries for different types of ship transportation.

Important aspects to include in the discussion are the relationships between system and

subsystems, and how much of their material life cycles and their operational areas shall beincluded in the analysis, hereunder also allocation methods (e.g. how much of the positiveeffects of materials that are recycled at the end of the systems life cycle should be subtractedfrom the impacts of the total system, or how to allocate the building of harbours, land use,infrastructure etc. in the evaluation of ship transportation). One rule of thumb could be thatthe life-cycle boundary is drawn around those activities that may significantly affect a firm's

bottom line and which the firm can control.

8.1.2 Geographical dependenciesIn the screening analysis a weighting model developed for mid-European conditions is used

(the Eco-indicator 95 model). The weight factors will vary according to the weight modelselected in the analysis program. However, if a set of weight factors is to be developed for


21/32



21

ship operation or for other life cycle phases of a ship, it is necessary to take environmentalconditions for different geographical areas into considerations (do e.g. SO2and NOx impactthe environment similarly in different geographical regions, or is it necessary to weight toxicmaterials with local environmental impact with the same factor in different geographicalareas).

Today there are different laws and regulations for different geographical areas world wide dueto changing condition of the environment. One will most probably in the future see thatdifferent set of weight factors will be available, e.g. for the North Sea area, for the inlandwater ways in mid Europe, and for trans-Atlantic shipping. Most probably will there be a needof models to analyse and evaluate multivariable problems (emissions to air compared with

discharges of heavy metals to sea) for different geographical areas.

8.1.3 Functional unitsAccording to the ISO 14040-standard: A functional unit is a measure of the performance ofthe functional outputs of the product system. The primary purpose of a functional unit is to

provide a reference to which the inputs and outputs are related. This reference is necessary to

ensure comparability of LCA results.

A system may have a number of possible functions and the one selected for a study is

dependent on the goals and scope of the study. The related functional unit shall be defined

and measurable.

Since M/V Color Festival has different functions (transportation of goods and passenger, inaddition to being a hotel with all its facilities), it is difficult to give an exact recommendationof the best functional unit. However, this project considered the function of Color Festival to

be transport of passengers, trailers and cars. Therefore the functional unit becomes a measureof mass and distance per year. However, this functional unit does not cover the total functionsof the ship, and may therefore not give the "correct" picture of the environmental performanceof the ship. The screening LCA also concluded that this ship has a higher environmental load

per functional unit. It may be discussed whether a functional unit e.g. related to economicturnover, could be a more feasible functional unit. Another interesting question is whether it isnecessary to define the functional unit at all in the beginning of the study since the results perfunctional unit are only of interest when different transport means are being evaluated againsteach other. The results from the impact assessment show the total environmental impact fromthe ship, the true performance of this ship.

To arrive at a recommended practice of the selection of the best functional units, differenttransport means fulfilling the same transport function should have been evaluated. It is worthto remember that the definitions of the functional units are not final. As an LCA is developingit will normally be necessary to redefine the functional unit several times.


22/32



22

8.1.4 Data QualityAccording to the ISO 14040-standard:Data quality requirements specify in general terms the characteristics of the data needed for

the study. Data quality requirements shall be defined to enable the goals and scope of the

LCA study to be met. The data quality requirements should address:

- time-related coverage;

- geographical coverage;

- technology coverage;

- the precision, completeness and representativeness of the data;

- the consistency and reproducibility of the methods used throughout the LCA;

- the sources of the data and their representativeness;

- uncertainty of the information.

In comparative studies, the equivalence of the systems being compared shall be evaluated

before interpreting the results. Systems shall be compared using the same functional unit and

equivalent methodological considerations, such as performance, system boundaries, data-

quality, allocation procedures, decision-rules on evaluating inputs and outputs and impact

assessment. Any differences between systems regarding these parameters shall be identified

and reported.

The screening LCA is based on a large set of data representing different unit operations of the

System Life Cycle. The data are collected from several sources and databases. Very oftenthere are several versions of them in the databases reflecting different time and space contextsand the increase of the knowledge about the unit operations. Since there are innumerable waysto compose an LCA application using the different versions of the data elements, its qualitymay vary in a range determined by the fluctuation of the elementary qualities. However, dueto the elementary quality basis and its real weakness, the data can only be improved, but nevercompleted to the final truth. Consequently, there is no absolute reference available wherethe actual quality could be compared.

To achieve a base of reference, it is recommended to build databases especially developed toevaluate and compare different ship transportation and the transportation means. In this

context it is important to address uncertainty evaluation, which includes technical uncertainty(inexactness and measurement errors), methodological uncertainty (unreliability and choice ofsystem boundaries and evaluation methods), and epistemological uncertainty (ignorance anderrors due to lack of knowledge on system behaviour and on environmental behaviour). Theuse of statistical analysis is also of importance to address.

8.1.5 Resource consume, discharges and emissionsTo evaluate the effect of resource consumption, discharges and emissions, it is necessary to

build impact models. The impact assessment is a technical, quantitative and/or qualitativeprocess to analyse and assess the effects of the environmental burdens identified in the

inventory analysis. There is no generally accepted methodology for consistently andaccurately associating inventory data with specific potential environmental impacts. It is


23/32



23

difficult to find weighting factors which can be commonly adopted all over the world. Themethodological and scientific framework for impact assessment is therefore still beingdeveloped. Although the methodology is not well developed and validated, impact assessment

processes may generally include classification (briefly description of potential environmental effects the inputs and

outputs may cause) characterisation (the relative contributions of each input and output are assigned to

impact categories)

valuation (the relative importance of different environmental impacts is weighted

against each other)

In general, this process involves associating inventory data with specific environmental

impacts and attempting to understand those impacts.

The screening LCA used the environmental impact model (Eco-indicator 95) built into thesoftware tool SimaPro. However, several of the identified material streams are not included inthe database of SimaPro. Therefore it was necessary to add these materials with own weightfactors into the database to get them included in the environmental assessment.

The project results show that it is important to do further research to develop environmentalimpact assessment practice for ships and related material streams. For example to find

procedures to simplify the methodology and make it less time consuming, find criteria for theevaluation of ships in open waters, and to establish allocation rules related to recycling. Other

aspects to be addressed in further research are to establish evaluation models for selected casestudies, evaluate the impact caused by different subsystems in different phases of the lifecycle, demonstrate how to draw interpretation from the classification table, and demonstratehow to link environmental and economic performance.

8.1.6 Performance evaluationThe question to be addressed is how the environmental performance of ship transportation can

be evaluated so that design, construction, equipment, operation and scrapping are performedin accordance with a set of acceptability criteria. The project has identified this as a major

problem, but has not come to any specific recommendation. To establish such acceptability(or evaluation) criteria the LCA method is not sufficient since the LCA-method is a product-oriented method and not a method for evaluation of ship transportation in a holistic

perspective. It is recommended that different environmental management tools can be adoptedand combined in an appropriate manner to meet the needs and requirements (or theacceptability/evaluation criteria) from different interested parties (see e.g. Table 2). Thisapproach is recommended partly on experiences from previous projects (Fet, 1998).Evaluation criteria can be described by means of environmental performance indicators(EPIs). How to build acceptability criteria for the environmental performance of shiptransportation is an important area for further research studies.


24/32



24

8.1.7 Accidents and risksAccident and risks are not addressed in the screening LCA, and it is not a a subject in the ISO14040 standards on LCA. However, it is a challenge to include this in future models forevaluating environmental performance of ship transportation in a life cycle perspective.

8.1.8 Life cycle costsLife Cycle Costs was not addressed in the project. The screening life cycle assessment of twoalternative antifouling concepts demonstrated an LCA application which may followed up byLCC in order to establish the required decision basis.

8.2 OVERALL METHODOLOGYThe screening analysis has demonstrated that the LCA-methodology is an appropriate tool forevaluating environmental impacts from a ship in its different life cycle phases. However, thestate of the art analysis and the report on environmental information and shipping also showthat the LCA-method alone is not sufficient when environmental performance of shiptransportation in a life cycle perspective is to be evaluated. It is necessary to take othermethods and tools into use since different acteurs in the life cycle of a ship have differentneeds and requirements set to this information. To meet these requirements it will benecessary to apply both environmental management systems, use environmental performanceevaluation, use environmental accounting systems etc.

Based on the experiences during the project, it is seen that it is possible to build a guide orrecommended practice for the life cycle evaluation of ship transportation. It is alreadydemonstrated that the LCA is appropriate to identify and evaluate environmental impactscaused by material flows during the life cycle of a ship. However, to evaluate theenvironmental performance of ship transportation in a holistic and life cycle perspective, it is

preferred to combine several environmental management tools. For example use LCA toevaluate environmental impact of material flows, environmental management systems tomake companies to commit themselves to good environmental performance of their products,

processes and activities, and using environmental accounting systems for onboard shipactivities. An identified area for further studies is to combine and test the methods forselected transportation case studies. Trough further research it should be possible to describe arecommended practice for environmental life cycle evaluation of ship transportation and forreporting environmental performance from ship transportation.

This may be done by using the following steps1. Identification of needs and definition of requirements regarding environmental

information.2. Specification of environmental performances and analyses (hereunder using parts of LCA,

EMS, EAc etc. as appropriate).

3. Improvement and reporting.


25/32



25

To come to improved solutions, an iterative process is necessary, and the tools and evaluationtechniques to be taken into use will depend on the intended application of the results.


26/32



26

9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 WHO NEEDS LIFE CYCLE EVALUATIONS?According to a declaration by the Business Charter for Sustainable Development (BCDS);Sustainability demands that we pay attention to the entire life cycles of our products(International Chamber of Commerce, 1991). This should result in a need for life cycleevaluations within the shipping industry as well.

Environmental information in the shipping industry was addressed in a separate study within

this pre-project (Fiskerstrand and Remy, 1998). Environmental aspects are believed to beimportant in the future. Demands on the shipping industry seems to be limited to certificatesfor environmental management standards. Life Cycle Evaluations are not on the agenda.Environmental accounting and other environmental performance information may be

beneficial to promote environmental acceptability in advertising, but are today rarely criteriaapplied to contracting, investments and financial risk considerations (by bank and insurance).

Needs and application for life cycle evaluation within the shipping industry were addressed aspart of the workshop executed within this pre-project (Angelfoss, 1998). At present, theresources required to perform a complete LCA of a ship is high. The value of the results for ashipowner are considered limited compared with costs for the analysis and the needs andrequirements a shipowner faces. LCA and LCC techniques applied to equipment and sub-systems may be valuable to form a decision basis for implementation of pollution reductionoptions. Examples may be exhaust gas cleaning equipment, bunker fuel homogenisers andantifouling systems. There is often a common interest between economy and environmentalfriendliness (e.g. related to fuel savings) that may define needs for life cycle evaluations of

both costs (LCC) and environmental impact (LCA), but limited to equipment and sub-systems.

Demands for life cycle evaluations of ship transportation will probably be limited to: Governmental bodies that need to compare alternative transportation modes and related

regulations and incentives to adjust to a sustainable development. Shipowner organisations that on behalf of their members will document the environmental

performance acceptance of ship transportation to increase transport market shares and toargue for economical incentives to reduce environmental impact

In order to simplify life cycle evaluations of ship transportation: the resources required to execute such analysis have to be reduced significantly, the outcome of the analysis have to reflect aspects that the user can control, the methods applied have to be systematised and simplified, and the data have to be presented in a standardised manner and made available. further research should concentrate on the most important aspects


27/32



27

9.2 DO WE HAVE METHODS AVAILABLE FOR LIFE CYCLE EVALUATIONOF SHIP TRANSPORTATION?A state-of-the-art study was executed as part of this pre-project (Angelfoss et al., 1998). Thestudy reference a range of methods which could be applicable for life cycle evaluations. Thechallenge is not do develop new methods but to systematise and simplify the existing methodsin a holistic perspective.

Application of methods addressing the entire life cycle of a ship was found to be limited.Studies covering the separate phases building and operation and maintenance are numerous.Studies covering environmental aspects of the scrapping phase was not found. The existingdata and experiences for proper simplifications are too fragmented, and must be supplemented

by research.

The evaluations have to include both environmental and economical considerations. LCA andLCC may be a proper basis for further simplifications to arrive at methods for screeninganalyses. However, such simplified methods have to be adjusted to particularly addresscharacteristics of ship building, maintenance, operation and scrapping.

Environmental impact assessment (contribution to defined impact categories, e.g.acidification) and evaluation techniques (weighting between impact categories) are requiredto estimate consequences of emissions/discharges and to prioritise pollution to be controlledand reduced. The state of the art study (Angelfoss et al., 1998) identifies a range of evaluation

techniques that may be applicable. These should be tested to gain experience to identifydifferences and uncertainty in such evaluations. The study also lists the most commonlyapplied impact categories for which normalisation and evaluation factors to some degree areavailable. However, there is a need to establish such relations that are ship specific. Forexample, NOx and SOx emissions in open sea will not contribute to acidification to the samedegree as if the emissions took place from land based industry. An important benefit with shiptransportation is the limited need for land areas. Methods to calculate the land userequirements for a ship transportation and the pollution contribution from ports should beestablished.

Accidental discharges from ships may be considered for inclusion in a life cycle evaluation.The state-of-the-art study presents some methods for risk assessment for ship transportation.For studies of ship transportation in general, these methods may be applied to estimate theenvironmental impact contribution from accidents. Resource and energy consumption relatedto accidents are not addressed in the identified methods. However, the problem arises when aspecific ship is to be analysed. The risk related to a ship will to a large degree depend onhuman and organisational factors that are difficult to quantify. It is recommended to prioritisethe development of a simplified method for life cycle evaluations rather than to includefactors related to accidents.


28/32



28

9.3 IS LCA AN APPLICABLE METHOD TO SHIPS?The screening life cycle assessment (Johnsen and Fet, 1998) performed within the projectshowed that LCA as a method is applicable for life cycle evaluations of ships. Moreover, theapplied softwaretool SimaPro, may serve as a good starting point for the execution of suchanalysis4. However, an important problem is identified for combination ships in defining arepresentative functional unit. Economic turnover is proposed as a functional unit for suchships. Use of land area as a resource is not addressed, but should, as this is an importantfeature for the environmental friendliness of ships. A method have to be developed toallocate the environmental impact of port activities to ship transportation. The appliedsoftware tool include data for materials. Existing data for the ship specific processes are towidespread to enable efficient analysis. The scrapping phase have to be addressed. These

problems are important to address to enable consistent comparisons of alternativetransportation modes.

4despite of already identified weaknesses, see conclusions for SimaPro


29/32



29

10 FURTHER WORK

The project has demonstrated that the LCA is appropriate to identify and evaluateenvironmental impacts caused by material flows during the life cycle of a ship. However, toevaluate the environmental performance of ship transportation in a holistic and life cycle

perspective, the two main perspectives are to be addressed in further research: methodological development improvement of relevant databases and analytical tools for evaluating the

environmental aspects of transportation modes.

Suggested project activities to be performed to improve the mentioned areas are therefore:1. A simplified method for life cycle evaluation of ship transportation should be made. This

could be based on existing environmental management methods, and must focus on theneeds and requirements set by interested parties.

2. Impact categories for the transportation sector in general should be developed, withcharacterisation, normalisation and evaluation factors that reflects the transportationmodes. This will enable comparisons and handling of the several hundred pollutantsresulting from building, maintenance, operation and scrapping of ships.

3. Life cycle evaluation techniques (LCA and LCC) should be applied to a few defined shipscovering the range of types to acquire experience and data that can be applied to develop asimplified method with related data and algorithms.

4. The ship scrapping phase should be further analysed to obtain data for emissions,discharges, resource consume and degree of re-cycling.

5. A method with relevant data should be established to allocate port activities to the shipslife cycle.

Since the problems of intermodal transport systems and sustainability are heavily addressed inthe coming Fifth Frame program in EU, one important area of further work is a project planwith international perspectives for the main project. The plan is to work this out in the nearest

future as a co-operation between the Norwegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU), Det Norske Veritas and international partners. A preliminary draft proposal isdeveloped, see Appendix 1.


30/32



30

REFERENCESAanondsen, S. Livslpsanalyser for beregning av miljpvirkning brukt som verkty ved

prosjektering av skip. (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool in shipdesign).Hovedoppgave, Norges Teknisk- Naturvitenskaplige Universitet, Fakultet for Marin Teknikk,Institutt for Marin Prosjektering, 1997.

Angelfoss, Alfred; Life Cycle Evaluations of Ship Transportation, Workshop April 15.-16.,lesund College, Report no. 10/B101/R-98/004/00, 1998.

Angelfoss, Alfred; Johnsen, Tommy; Fet, Annik Magerholm and Karlsen, Harry; Life CycleEvaluation of Ship Transportation State of the Art., lesund College, Report no.10/B101/R-98/007/00, 1998.

Fet, A.M., Life Cycle Screening - an appropriate methodology for identifying environmentalkey issues in the Ship Industry, Report 9517, Mre Research, lesund, Norway, 1995.

Fet, A.M, Oltedal, G., Renere produksjon i verftsindustrien i Mre og Romsdal, Report 9418, Mre Research, Norway, 1994.

Fet, A. M. , Embelmsvg, J., Johannesen, J. T., Environmental Impacts and Activity BasedCosting during operation of a Platform Supply Vessel, Rapport nr , 9604, Mreforsking

lesund, 1996.

Fet, A.M., Systems Engineering Methods and Environmental Life Cycle Performance withinShip Industry, Norges Teknisk. Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU), Trondheim, ITEV-rapport 1997:1

Fet, A.M., ISO 14000 as a Strategic Tool for Shipping and Shipbuilding., Journal of ShipProduction, August 1998, USA.

Fet, A. M., Environmental Management Tools and their Application A Review withReferences to Case Studies, Paper presented on the 2nd International Conference on

Technology Policy and Innovation, August 3-5, 1998, Lisboa, Portugal, an don UNEPs Fifthhigh level seminar on Cleaner Production, September 29.-30., 1998, Seoul, Korea.

Fet, A. M., Fiskaa, T. M., Guide i miljtiltak for norske skipsverft, rapport 9803,Mreforsking lesund, 1998.

Fiskerstrand Ingard and Remy Even; Environmental Information and Shipping, Thesis,Bod Graduate School of Business, 1998.

International Chamber of Commerce, World Industry Conference on EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 2, Conference Report and Background Papers, ICC, Paris, 1991.


31/32


32/32



APPENDIX 1: DRAFT APPLICATION TO CEC 5thFRAMEWORKPROGRAMME

Environmental assessment of transportationmodes in a life cycle perspective

EU 5thFRAMEWORK PROGRAMME REFERENCE

OBJECTIVES

life cycle evaluation of ship transportation development of methodology and testing

Documents