Almond Eco-Efficiency Analysis (August, 2011)

39 Pages·2012·0.87 MB·English

Submission for
Verification of Eco-efficiency Analysis Under
NSF Protocol P352, Part B

Almond Eco-Efficiency Analysis
Final Report - August 2011

Submitted by:
BASF Corporation
Product Stewardship
100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ, 07932

Prepared by:
Thomas Laginess, Senior Sustainability Specialist
Troy Schlundt, Value Chain Specialist
Jeffrey Burkey, Manager Business Services
and
Dick Braden – President, Braden Farms
David Long – President, Hilltop Ranch
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
Table of Contents

1. Purpose and Intent of this Submission......................................................3
2. Content of this Submission.........................................................................3
3. BASF' Eco-efficiency Methodoloy …………………………………………………. 3
3.1. Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
3.2. Preconditions ..…………………………………………….…………………………………………… 3
3.3. Work Flow .............…………………………………………..……………………………………….5
4. Study Goals, Decision Criteria and Target Audience..................................5
4.1. Study Goals ...................................................................................................5
4.2. Design Criteria...............................................................................................7
4.3. Target Audience.............................................................................................8
5. Customer Benefit, Alternatives, System Boundaries and Scenarios..........8
5.1. Customer Benefit............................................................................................8
5.2. Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………………………………8
5.3. System Boundaries.........................................................................................9
5.4 Scenario Analyses ……………………………………………………………………………………10
6. Input Parameters and Assumptions.........................................................10
6.1. Input Parameters and Data Sources..............................................................10
6.2 C osts……………………………………………………………………………………………..…..……14
7. Data Sources.............................................................................................15
7.1 Environmental…………………………………………………………………………………………..15
7.2 Amounts and Costs…………………………………………………………………………………...16
8. Eco-efficiency Analysis Results and Discussion .......................................16
8.1. Environmental Impact Results.......................................................................16
8.1.1. Primary energy consumption.....................................................................16
8.1.2. Raw material consumption........................................................................17
8.1.3. Air Emissions............................................................................................18
8.1.3.1. Green House Gases (GHG).....................................................................18
8.1.3.2. Photochemical ozone creation potential (smog) ......................................19
8.1.3.3. Ozone depletion potential (ODP)............................................................20
8.1.3.4. Acidification potential (AP).....................................................................20
8.1.4. Water emissions.......................................................................................21
8.1.5. Solid waste generation..............................................................................22
8.1.6. Land use..................................................................................................23
8.1.7. Toxicity potential......................................................................................24
8.1.8. Risk potential ...........................................................................................25
8.1.9. Environmental fingerprint..........................................................................26
8.2. Economic Cost Results..................................................................................27
8.3. Eco-Efficiency Analysis Portfolio.....................................................................29
8.4 Scenario Analyses …………………………………………………………………………..………..30
8.4.1 Scenario #1: 15% Yield increase in Almond production in 2010
operations..……………………………………………………………………………………….……..30
8.4.2 Scenario #2: 15% Further decrease in water usage in 2010
operations...…………………………………………………………………………….………….…..31
8.4.3 Scenario #3: Higher fuel costs in 2010 operations…….…….………….……..32
9. Data Quality Assessment……………………………………………….……….…33
9.1. Data Quality Statement.................................................................................33
1
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
10. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis......................................................33
10.1. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Considerations.....................................................33
10.2. Critical Uncertainties.....................................................................................35
11. Limitations of EEA Study Results..............................................................35
11.1. Limitations...............................................................................................35
12. References................................................................................................37
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………..………………………38

2
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation

1. Purpose and Intent of this Guidance Document
1.1. The purpose of this submission is to provide a written report of the methods and
findings of BASF Corporation’s “Almond Eco-Efficiency Analysis”, with the intent of
having it verified under the requirements of NSF Protocol P352, Part B: Verification of
Eco-Efficiency Analysis Studies.
1.2. The Almond Eco-Efficiency Analysis was performed by BASF according to the
methodology validated by NSF International under the requirements of Protocol P352.
More information on BASF’s methodology and the NSF validation can be obtained at
http://www.nsf.org/info/eco_efficiency.
2. Content of this Guidance Document
2.1. This submission outlines the methodology, study goals, design criteria, target
audience, customer benefits (CB), process alternatives, system boundaries, and
scenario analysis for the Almond Eco-Efficiency Analysis (EEA) study, which will be
conducted in accordance with BASF Corporation’s EEA (BASF EEA) methodology. This
submission will provide a discussion of the basis of the eco-analysis preparation and
verification work.
2.2. As required under NSF P352 Part B, along with this document, BASF is submitting
the final computerized model programmed in Microsoft® Excel. The computerized
model, together with this document, will aid in the final review and ensure that the data
and critical review findings have been satisfactorily addressed.

3. BASF’s EEA Methodology

3.1. Overview:

BASF EEA involves measuring the life cycle environmental impacts and life cycle
costs for product alternatives for a defined level of output. At a minimum, BASF EEA
evaluates the environmental impact of the production, use, and disposal of a product
or process in the areas of energy and resource consumption, emissions, toxicity and
risk potential, and land use. The EEA also evaluates the life cycle costs associated
with the product or process by calculating the costs related to, at a minimum,
materials, labor, manufacturing, waste disposal, and energy.

3.2. Preconditions:

The basic preconditions of this eco-efficiency analysis are that all alternatives
that are being evaluated are being compared against a common functional unit or
Customer Benefit (CB). This allows for an objective comparison between the various
alternatives. The scoping and definition of the Customer Benefit are aligned with the
goals and objectives of the study. Data gathering and constructing the system
3
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
boundaries are consistent with the CB and consider both the environmental and
economic impacts of each alternative over their life cycle in order to achieve the
specified CB. An overview of the scope of the environmental and economic
assessment carried out is defined below.

3.2.1. Environmental Burden Metrics:

For BASF EEA environmental burden is characterized using eleven categories, at
a minimum, including: primary energy consumption, raw material consumption,
green house gas emissions (GHG), ozone depletion potential (ODP), acidification
potential (AP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), water emissions,
solid waste emissions, toxicity potential, risk potential, and land use. These are
shown below in Figure 1. Metrics shown in yellow represent the six main categories
of environmental burden that are used to construct the environmental fingerprint,
burdens in blue represent all elements of the emissions category, and green show air
emissions.

Figure 1. Environmental Impact categories

3.2.2. Economic Metrics:

It is the intent of the BASF EEA methodology to assess the economics of
products or processes over their life cycle and to determine an overall total cost of
ownership for the defined customer benefit ($/CB). The approaches for calculating
costs vary from study to study. When chemical products of manufacturing are being
compared, the sale price paid by the customer is predominately used. When
4
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
ddiiffffeerreenntt pprroodduuccttiioonn mmeetthhooddss aarree ccoommppaarreedd,, tthhee rreelleevvaanntt ccoossttss iinncclluuddee tthhee ppuurrcchhaassee
aanndd iinnssttaallllaattiioonn ooff ccaappiittaall eeqquuiippmmeenntt,, ddeepprreecciiaattiioonn,, aanndd ooppeerraattiinngg ccoossttss.. TThhee ccoossttss
iinnccuurrrreedd aarree ssuummmmeedd aanndd ccoommbbiinneedd iinn aapppprroopprriiaattee uunniittss ((ee..gg.. ddoollllaarr oorr EEUURROO))
wwiitthhoouutt aaddddiittiioonnaall wweeiigghhttiinngg ooff iinnddiivviidduuaall ffiinnaanncciiaall aammoouunnttss.. TThhee BBAASSFF EEEEAA
mmeetthhooddoollooggyy wwiillll iinnccoorrppoorraattee::
•• tthhee rreeaall ccoossttss tthhaatt ooccccuurr iinn tthhee pprroocceessss ooff ccrreeaattiinngg aanndd ddeelliivveerriinngg tthhee pprroodduucctt ttoo
tthhee ccoonnssuummeerr;;
•• tthhee ssuubbsseeqquueenntt ccoossttss wwhhiicchh mmaayy ooccccuurr iinn tthhee ffuuttuurree ((dduuee ttoo ttaaxx ppoolliiccyy cchhaannggeess,,
ffoorr eexxaammppllee)) wwiitthh aapppprroopprriiaattee ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn ffoorr tthhee ttiimmee vvaalluuee ooff mmoonneeyy;; aanndd
•• CCoossttss hhaavviinngg eeccoollooggiiccaall aassppeecctt,, ssuucchh aass tthhee ccoossttss iinnvvoollvveedd ttoo ttrreeaatt wwaasstteewwaatteerr
ggeenneerraatteedd dduurriinngg tthhee mmaannuuffaaccttuurriinngg pprroocceessss..

33..33 WWoorrkk FFllooww::

AA rreepprreesseennttaattiivvee fflloowwcchhaarrtt ooff tthhee oovveerraallll pprroocceessss sstteeppss aanndd ccaallccuullaattiioonnss
ccoonndduucctteedd ffoorr tthhiiss eeccoo--eeffffiicciieennccyy aannaallyyssiiss iiss ssuummmmaarriizzeedd iinn FFiigguurree 22 bbeellooww..

define determine costs
calculate total normalize
customer of individual life
life cycle costs costs
benefit cycle segments
determine
determine ecological relevance and
identify impacts of individual life society factors for
products / cycle segments aggregation of the
processes effects categories
aggregate impacts to
form effects categories normalize
environmental
establish life
impact
cycle
combine the effects
categories for each life
create eco-
cycle segment
efficiency
portfolio
Figure 2: Overall process flow for BASF AlmondEEA methodology.

44.. SSttuuddyy GGooaallss,, CCoonntteexxtt aanndd TTaarrggeett AAuuddiieennccee
44..11.. SSttuuddyy GGooaallss::
TThhee ssppeecciiffiicc ggooaall ddeeffiinneedd ffoorr tthhee AAllmmoonndd EEccoo--EEffffiicciieennccyy AAnnaallyyssiiss wwaass ttoo qquuaannttiiffyy
tthhee ddiiffffeerreenncceess iinn lliiffee ccyyccllee eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall iimmppaaccttss aanndd ttoottaall lliiffee ccyyccllee ccoossttss ooff
pprroodduuccttiioonn aanndd pprroocceessssiinngg ooff AAllmmoonnddss.. TThhee ccoommppaarriissoonn ooff tthhiiss ssttuuddyy iiss aa ttiimmee
ddiiffffeerreennccee dduuee ttoo cchhaannggeess mmaaddee ttoo ttwwoo ooppeerraattiioonnss.. TThhee ttiimmee eevvaalluuaattiioonn iiss ccoommppaarriinngg
tthhee 22001100 ooppeerraattiioonnss vveerrssuuss 22000077 ooppeerraattiioonnss.. TThhee ddaattaa uusseedd ffoorr tthhee 22001100 ooppeerraattiioonnss
iiss ffrroomm 22001100,, wwhhiillee tthhee ddaattaa ffrroomm 22000077 iiss uusseedd ffoorr 22000077 ooppeerraattiioonnss oorr llaatteerr iiff ddaattaa
wwaass nnoott aavvaaiillaabbllee..
55
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
TThhee ssttuuddyy ssppeecciiffiiccaallllyy qquuaannttiiffiieess tthhee ooppeerraattiioonnaall cchhaannggeess ooff tthhee AAllmmoonndd
pprroodduuccttiioonn aanndd pprroocceessssiinngg.. TThhiiss ssttuuddyy eevvaalluuaatteess tthhee ooppeerraattiioonnaall cchhaannggeess mmaaddee aatt
bbootthh BBrraaddeenn FFaarrmmss aanndd HHiillllttoopp RRaanncchh,, bbootthh llooccaatteedd iinn tthhee SSaann JJooaaqquuiinn VVaalllleeyy,,
CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa,, UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess.. BBrraaddeenn FFaarrmmss ddooeess tthhee ggrroowwiinngg,, hhaarrvveessttiinngg aanndd nnuutt
pprroocceessssiinngg ooff tthhee AAllmmoonnddss,, wwhhiillee HHiillllttoopp RRaanncchh ddooeess tthhee pprroocceessssiinngg,, ssiizziinngg aanndd
ppaacckkaaggiinngg ooff tthhee AAllmmoonnddss..
TThhee mmaajjoorr ffaaccttoorrss iinnfflluueenncciinngg tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall aanndd ccoosstt iimmppaacctt ooff tthhee ssttuuddyy wwiillll
bbee eevvaalluuaatteedd aanndd sshhoowwnn iinn ddiiffffeerreenntt ppaarrttss ooff tthhee ooppeerraattiioonnss aatt bbootthh ccoommppaanniieess..
SSiinnccee bbootthh ccoommppaanniieess wwoorrkk ttooggeetthheerr iinn ddeelliivveerriinngg AAllmmoonnddss ttoo tthhee ccoonnssuummeerrss,, bbootthh
ooppeerraattiioonnss aarree eevvaalluuaatteedd ttooggeetthheerr iinn tthhiiss ssttuuddyy.. TTaabbllee 11 aanndd TTaabbllee 22 oouuttlliinnee tthhee
ooppeerraattiioonnaall cchhaannggeess bbeettwweeeenn 22000077 aanndd 22001100 tthhaatt wweerree eevvaalluuaatteedd iinn tthhiiss ssttuuddyy..
FFuurrtthheerr ttaabblleess iinn tthhee rreeppoorrtt wwiillll pprreesseenntt tthhee aaccttuuaall iinnppuutt vvaalluueess ffoorr eeaacchh ooff tthhee
aalltteerrnnaattiivveess..
SSttuuddyy rreessuullttss wwiillll bbee uusseedd aass tthhee bbaassiiss ttoo pprroommoottee tthhee ooppeerraattiioonnaall cchhaannggeess mmaaddee
aatt bbootthh ccoommppaanniieess aanndd tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall ssaavviinnggss ffoorr pprroodduucciinngg tthhee ssaammee aammoouunntt ooff
AAllmmoonnddss.. TThhee rreessuullttss wwiillll bbee sshhaarreedd wwiitthh ootthheerrss wwiitthhiinn tthhee iinndduussttrriieess,, ssuucchh aass tthhee
CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa AAllmmoonndd BBooaarrdd,, ootthheerr ggrroowweerrss aanndd pprroocceessssoorrss aanndd aaccaaddeemmiicc iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss..
TThhee iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn mmaayy aallssoo bbee sshhaarreedd wwiitthh ggoovveerrnnmmeennttaall aaggeenncciieess aatt tthhee ffeeddeerraall,, ssttaattee
aanndd llooccaall lleevveellss..

Table 1: Operational changes evaluated at Braden Farms.

66
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation

Table 2: Operational changes evaluated at Hilltop Ranch.

4.2 Design Criteria:
The context of this EEA study compares the environmental and cost impacts for
production and processing of 1 ton of Almonds. Since we are evaluating the changes
made over time, the affect of these changes on yield are not being evaluated to
quantify the changes made in the operations. The study design was planned for a 1
year season. The pollination of the almond trees begins around mid to late February
and harvest usually is finished by end of October. This study evaluates the
processing of Almonds from the growing season, which starts at harvest time in
August and usually lasts until June of the following year. The study also evaluates
work done at the farm such as tree pruning and selling of hulls and shells. Since
Almonds grow on trees, we are assuming in this study that the Almond tree orchard
has been established and that the orchard is 5 to 10 years old, which is the
beginning of the peak for an Almond tree. Most Almond orchards last roughly 20 to
25 years before they are removed and new trees are planted.
The Almond study will use data that is documented data from both operations or
is known information within the industry. Data will also be used from published
governmental agencies, university studies, or information within organizational trade
77
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
groups. The study will also look at transportation and equipment use in each of
these areas.
The study is informational driven and goals, target audience and context for
decision criteria used in this study are displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Context of Almond Eco-efficiency Analysis
4.3. Target Audience:
The target audience for the study has been defined as all parties involved with
the study, as well as other potential Almond operations within the State of California.
Future plans may include communication of the study results in marketing materials
and at trade conferences.
5. Customer Benefit, Alternatives and System Boundaries
5.1. Customer Benefit:
The Customer Benefit (CB) applied to all alternatives for the base case analysis is
production and processing of 1 ton of Almonds per year. This study does take into
consideration the hulls and shells that are generated in order to get the 1 ton of final
Almond nuts.
5.2. Alternatives:

The product alternatives compared under this EEA study are (1) production
and processing of Almonds 2010 Operations and (2) production and processing of
Almonds from 2007 Operations. In each of the alternatives the changes made at
both operations were evaluated together and only the changes were assessed in
8
Copyright © 2011 BASF Corporation
this study. This study is not a complete Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of almonds since
an industry standard LCA has not been established.

5.3. System Boundaries:
The system boundaries define the specific elements of the production and use
phases that are considered as part of the analysis. For this study, the system
boundary ends at the Use phase (Hilltop Ranch), since subsequent Almond
processing, consumption and disposal options remained unchanged from 2007
operations to 2010 operations for the purpose of this study. The system boundaries
for the two alternatives are very similar since most of the changes made were for
efficiency. The system boundaries for the 2010 operations are shown in Figure 4 and
the system boundaries for the 2007 operations are shown in Figure 5. Sections of
the production and processing not identified in these figures will not be evaluated in
this study.

Figure 4. System boundaries for 2010 operations
9