LCA is a quantitative method for understanding the environmental impacts of a product, yet all product purchasing decisions are ultimately subjective. Weights are the nexus between the quantitative results of LCA and the values-based, subjective choices of decision makers. In May 2007, NIST introduced a new optional weight set in Version 4.0 of the BEES software. Three key points about this new optional weight set are the basis for discussion in this paper: The new weight set was created specifically in the context of BEES. It is intended to support a practical method to assist environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States based on LCIA results. This is in contrast to the weight sets currently in BEES, which are based on generalist perspectives. The new weight set was created by a multi-stakeholder panel via the AHP method, and is a synthesis of panelists' perspectives on the relative importance of each environmental impact category in BEES. The weight set draws on each panelist's personal and professional understanding of, and value attributed to, each impact category. While the synthesized weight set may not equally satisfy each panelist's view of impact importance, it does reflect contemporary values in applying LCAto real world decisions, and represents one approach others can learn from in producing weight sets. The new weight set offers BEES users an additional option for synthesizing and comparing the environmental performance of building products and making purchasing decisions. In so doing, it strengthens the decision-making process, which is important when making product comparisons in the public domain. The Weight Set: Across all panelists and with explicit consideration of all time horizons, anthropogenic contributions to global warming, weighted at 29%, was judged most important, yet not so important that decisions can be made solely on the basis of this impact. A strong tail of other concerns include fossil fuel depletion (10%), criteria air pollutants (9%), water intake/use (8%), human health cancerous effects (8%), ecological toxicity (7%), eutrophication of water bodies (6%), land use (6%), and human health noncancerous effects (5%). Also of interest are the identified impact areas of concern assigned the lowest weights: smog formation (4%), indoor air quality (3%), acidification (3%), and ozone depletion (2%). Their low weights may indicate that there is not as much immediate concern or that the remedial actions associated with the impact for the most part are underway.

Goal, scope, and background The aim of this work is to present guidance on the application of ISO 14044 to allocation procedures for metal recycling. As such, graphical patterns of metal recycling and generic "rules" for metal recycling maps are presented. The results are intended to be useful in assessing and validating the suitability of allocation procedures for metal recycling in the context of life cycle assessment (LCA) and assist in the understanding of metals flow patterns in product systems. LCA uses a product-focus; therefore, the perspective here is on recycling metals in postconsumer products. The discussions, analysis, and illustrations in this paper emphasize old (post-consumer) scrap and do not detail flows of new (post-manufacturing, preconsumer) or prompt (internal) scrap. The work included participation and review from International Council on Mining and Metals, the Nickel Institute, the International Copper Association, the International Zinc Association, worldsteel (formerly International Iron and Steel Institute), and the International Aluminium Institute. Methods A survey of generic metal flows was conducted for three major non-ferrous metals-nickel, copper, and zinc. Based on the results of this survey, four metal recycling map models were developed. Implications of these recycling maps for LCA were then considered, and parameters necessary to model metal recycling were presented. Relationships of inherent properties and recycling loops are provided and connected to the allocation procedures in the context of LCA. Results and discussion Four metals recycling map models were generated based on a survey and analysis of current metals flow analysis. The utility of the recycling maps is to serve the basis of a structured approach to recycling allocation in life cycle assessment and leveraging the efforts of harmonized recycling metrics. Conclusions A consensus on mapping metals is important in order to achieve an accurate understanding and measurement of metals recycling. To this end, consensus mapping presentation of a general allocation approach and identification of harmonized metrics were achieved among representatives of ferrous and non-ferrous metals groups. Perspectives For the future, allocation factors based on sound empirical data needs to be developed. Those metrics will empower the various stakeholders-industry, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, and academics to make appropriate decisions based on agreed scientific bases.

The impact assessment phase of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has received much criticism due to lack of consistency. While the ISO standards for LCA did make great strides in advancing the consensus in this area, ISO is not prescriptive, but has left much room for innovation and therefore inconsistency. To address this lack of consistency, there is currently an effort underway to provide a conceptual framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and a recommended practice to include a list of impact categories, category indicators, and underlying methodologies. This is an enormous undertaking, especially in light of the current fundamental lack of consensus of the basic elements to be included in a LCIA (e.g., impact categories, impacts, and areas of protection). ISO 14042 requires selection of impact categories that "reflect a comprehensive set of environmental issues" related to the system being studied, especially for "comparative assertions" that involve public marketing claims. To be comprehensive, it is necessary to have a listing of impacts that "could" be included within the LCIA before entering into discussions of impacts that "should" be included. In addition to providing a critical analysis of existing and emerging impact assessment approaches, this paper will formulate a structured representation that allows more informed selection of approaches. The definitions and relationships between midpoint, endpoint, damage, and areas of protection will be presented in greater detail, along with the equations that are common to many of the approaches. Finally, a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of displaying results at various stages in the environmental models will be presented in great detail.

No abstract