Jump to main content.

Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI)

Description:

The most effective way to achieve long-term environmental results is through the use of a consistent set of metrics and decision making framework. The U.S. EPA has developed TRACI, the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts to assist in impact assessment for Sustainability Metrics, Life Cycle Assessment, Industrial Ecology, Process Design, and Pollution Prevention.

To develop TRACI, impact categories were selected, available methodologies were reviewed, and categories were prioritized for further research. During the impact assessment methodology research phase, consistency with previous modeling assumptions (especially of the U.S. EPA) was important for every category. The human health cancer and non-cancer categories were heavily based on the assumptions made for the U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund and the U.S. EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook. For categories such as acidification and smog formation, detailed US empirical models, such as those developed by the US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program and the California Air Resources Board, allowed the inclusion of the more sophisticated location specific approaches and location specific characterization factors. When there was no EPA precedent, assumptions and value choices were minimized by the use of midpoints. See the following figure for a graphical representation of TRACI with human health cancer as the example impact category.

TRACI figure Please contact Jane Bare at 513-569-7513 for detailed description

Methodologies were developed specifically for the US using input parameters consistent with US locations for the following impact categories - acidification, smog formation, eutrophication, human cancer, human non-cancer, and human criteria effects. Probabilistic analyses allowed the determination of an appropriate level of sophistication and spatial resolution necessary for impact modeling for several categories, yet the tool was designed to accommodate current inconsistencies in practice (e.g., site specific information is often not available).

TRACI's modular design allows the compilation of the most sophisticated impact assessment methodologies that can be utilized in software developed for PCs. Where sophisticated and applicable methodologies didn't exist, research was conducted by the use of various simulations to determine the most appropriate characterization factors to represent the various conditions within the US. As the research, modeling, and databases for LCIA methods continue to improve, each module of TRACI can be improved and updated. Future research is expected to advance methods for resource-related impact categories.

The following two papers provide a description of TRACI in varying levels of detail:

If you would like additional information concerning use of TRACI or incorporation of TRACI into other environmental tools, please contact Jane Bare.

Disclaimer:

Use of TRACI (the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts), including but not limited to the impact assessment modeling, does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public. Furthermore, it does not release users from any potential liability, either administrative or judicial for any damage to human health or the environment.

Neither EPA nor anyone involved in the development of TRACI makes any warranty, expressed or implied, as to any matter whatsoever, including the accuracy of the database, the appropriateness of actions taken by third parties as a result of using the model, or the merchantability or fitness of the model for a particular purpose. EPA does not endorse any products or services.

Publications

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles and Chapters

  1. Bare, J.C. and T.P. Gloria. (2007). “Environmental Impact Assessment Taxonomy Providing Comprehensive Coverage of Midpoints, Endpoints, Damages, and Areas of Protection.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Available online July 27.
  2. Bare, J.C., T.P. Gloria, and G. Norris. (2006). “Development of the Method and U.S. Normalization Database for Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Sustainability Metrics.” Environmental Science and Technology, 40, 16.
  3. Bare, J.C. and T.P. Gloria. (2006). “Critical Analysis of the Mathematical Relationships and Comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Approaches.” Environmental Science and Technology, 40, 4.
  4. Bare, J.C. (2006). “Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) for Human Health Cancerous and Noncancerous Emissions: Integrated and Complementary With Consistency Within the U.S. EPA.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 12, 3.
  5. Jolliet, O., R. Müller-Wenk, J. Bare, et al. (2004). “The LCIA Midpoint-Damage Framework of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.” International Journal of LCA, 9, 6.
  6. Bare, J.C., G.A. Norris, D.W. Pennington, and T. McKone. (2003). “TRACI – The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6, 3.
  7. Pennington, D.W., J.C. Bare, R. Knodel, et al. (2003). “Evaluating Pollution Prevention Progress (P2P) III: An Environmental Tool for Screening in Product Life Cycle Assessment and Chemical Process Design.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 5, 2.
  8. Hofstetter, P., J.C. Bare, J.K. Hammitt, et al. (2002). “Tools for the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?” Risk Analysis, 22, 5.
  9. Hertwich, E.G., D.W. Pennington, and J.C. Bare. (2002). “Introduction.” Presentation, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Europe 2002, Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving Toward Best Available Practice, Vienna, Austria, May 12–16.
  10. Finnveden, G., P. Hofstetter, J.C. Bare, et al. (2002). “Normalization, Grouping, and Weighting in Life Cycle Impact Assessment.” Presentation, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Europe 2002, Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving Toward Best Available Practice, Vienna, Austria, May 12–16.
  11. Pennington, D.W., G. Norris, T. Hoagland, and J. Bare. (2001). “Metrics for Environmental Comparison of Process and Product Alternatives in a Holistic Framework.” In: Process Design Tools for the Environment, Edited by S.K. Sikdar and M.M. El-Halwagi. Taylor and Francis, U.K.
  12. Pennington, D.W. and J.C. Bare. (2001). “Comparison of Chemical Screening and Ranking Approaches: The Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool (WMPT) vs. Toxic Equivalency Potentials (TEPs).” Risk Analysis, 21, 5.
  13. Bare, J., J. Fava, E. Hertwich, et al. (2001). “The Areas of Protection Debate.” In: Global LCA Village, Gate to Environmental and Health Science (EHS). Edited by W. Klöpffer.
  14. Bare, J.C., P. Hofstetter, D.W. Pennington, and H.A. Udo de Haes. (2000). “Life Cycle Impact Assessment Midpoints vs. Endpoints – The Sacrifices and the Benefits.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5, 6.
  15. Pennington, D.W., G.A., Norris, T. Hoagland, and J.C. Bare. (2000). “Environmental Comparison Metrics for Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Process Design.” Environmental Progress, 19, 2.
  16. Bare, J.C., H.A. Udo de Haes, and D.W. Pennington. (1999). “Life Cycle Impact Assessment Sophistication.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 4, 5.

Other Publications

  1. Bare, J.C. and T.P. Gloria. (2005). “A Closer Look at Life Cycle Impact Assessment for the Building Design and Construction Industry.” Building Design and Construction, November.
  2. Hofstetter, P., B.C. Lippiatt, J.C. Bare, and A.S. Rushing. (2002). User Preferences for Life Cycle Decision Support Tools: Evaluation of a Survey of BEES Users.” NISTIR 6874.
  3. Bare, J.C. (2002). “Developing a Consistent Decision-Making Framework by Using the U.S. EPA’s TRACI.” Presentation, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, November 3–8.
  4. Bare, J.C. and G.A. Norris. (2002). “General Activity of LCA in the USA.” Presentation, Research Center for Life Cycle Assessment, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) Meeting, Tsukuba, Japan.
  5. Bare, J.C., D.W. Pennington, and H.A. Udo de Haes. (2000). “Implications of Inventory Structure for Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Uncertainty Analysis.” Presentation, Life Cycle Impact Assessment Sophistication: An International Workshop, July. EPA/600/R-00/023.

Other Contributions

  1. Udo de Haes, H.A. and E. Lindeijer. (2002). “Areas of Protection, The Areas of Protection in Life Cycle Impact Assessment.” Final draft chapter in: Global LCA Village, Gate to Environmental and Health Science (EHS). Edited by W. Klöpffer.
  2. Udo de Haes, H.A. (2001). “Areas of Protection.” Third draft chapter in: Global LCA Village, Gate to Environmental and Health Science (EHS). Edited by W. Klöpffer.
  3. International Organization of Standardization (ISO). (2000). “Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact Assessment.” International Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. International Standard ISO14042:2000(E).
  4. Udo de Haes, H.A. (1998). “ISO’s Compromise on Comparative Assertions in Life Cycle Impact Assessment.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 3.

Principal Investigator:

Jane Bare (bare.jane@epa.gov)
U.S. EPA - Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Sustainable Technology Division - Systems Analysis Branch
(MS-466), 26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 USA
(513) 569-7513

Office of Research & Development | National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.