Claim and boundary review
Does the proposed message match the LCA scope, PCR, EPD type, geography, functional requirement, and data quality?
Sustainability & LCA — boundary-aware review
A lower-carbon asphalt claim should survive the person who checks it.
Independent technical review of asphalt and bitumen sustainability claims — LCA, EPD, recycling, softeners, modifiers, durability — before the number reaches a customer, an agency, or an executive.
where the claim stops and the assumptions begin
Read the evidence behind the claim.
Carbon numbers matter, but they are not the whole asphalt decision. A sustainability claim can be wrong for purely technical reasons: an unclear LCA boundary, an outdated binder factor, a weak EPD comparison, an allocation assumption doing too much work, an additive with no aging data, or recycled-content language standing in for real circularity. KAT reads the evidence behind the claim and marks where the claim stops and the assumptions begin — so what you say publicly stays inside what you can defend.
the problem
Cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-laid, or whole-life? Different boundaries answer different questions.
Binder cradle-to-gate data, plant EPDs, haul distances, RAP credits, warm-mix benefits, use-phase assumptions, and end-of-life rules each measure something different. Marketed as a single figure, they produce a number nobody can trace. A defensible claim starts by knowing which question it actually answers — and staying inside that scope.
KAT's role is technical translation — what the number means, which assumptions control it, what evidence is missing, and how to say it without overselling.
what the boundary decides
SpecificityWhether the claim is product-, plant-, project-specific, or directional.
RAPWhether it appears as a recycled-content headline or a modelled binder credit.
Warm mixWhether it counts as burner-fuel savings, a durability effect, or both.
End-of-lifeWhether it is a genuine credit or an accounting convenience.
what we review
Six review modules, one test: does the message match the evidence?
Sustainability pressure usually arrives faster than the data to answer it. These modules turn that pressure into staged, credible action instead of a claim you later walk back.
Binder factor interpretation
Bitumen carbon factors read in context: crude slate, refinery route, terminal operations, allocation, region, and how current the factor is.
RAP and circularity evidence
Separating real circularity from recycled-content language via binder contribution, diffusion, softener strategy, stockpile quality, and performance risk.
PMB, additive, and secondary-liquid review
Whether polymers, softeners, bio-derived streams, process oils, or waste-derived inputs carry compatibility and aging evidence.
EPD readiness and data capture
The data technical and plant teams need before formal LCA modelling, EPD generation, or procurement submittals.
Customer or agency explanation
Technical limits turned into plain-language memos, talking points, and decision packages.
the check
A defensible story connects impact, material behavior, and service life.
Four questions decide whether a claim survives a technical reviewer.
- 01Boundary & data — cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-laid, whole-life, or directional — and are the binder, aggregate, fuel, electricity, transport, additive, RAP, and terminal assumptions current and appropriate?
- 02Mechanism — what actually reduces impact: less virgin binder, lower burner fuel, reduced hauling, warm mix, longer life, avoided rework, or better recycling?
- 03Performance & fit — does the lower-impact option still protect against cracking, rutting, moisture damage, low-temperature behavior, and aging — and meet the governing binder, mix, owner, agency, or procurement requirement?
- 04Message — can the organization state what is measured, what is assumed, what is excluded, and what still needs validation?
the KAT position
Asphalt is a choice, not a leftover.
The argument in Responsible Asphalt Production (PARC 2026) is that asphalt earns its place on environmental merit — when the sustainability case is built on evidence, not framing. That case holds on three conditions: it lowers impact, it protects reliable supply, and it verifies durability. Miss one and the claim may still be a sound direction of travel — but it should be qualified before it becomes a public promise.
01Lower impact — LCA, EPD, plant data, recycling evidence, and logistics that identify what genuinely moves the environmental result.
02Reliable supply — whether the binder, modifier, softener, RAP, or secondary liquid can be supplied consistently enough to stand behind the claim.
03Verified durability — laboratory, specification, construction, and field evidence before anyone declares victory.
“Asphalt is a choice, not a leftover — and a responsible claim is one built to survive the person who checks it.”
Pavel KrizPrincipal · Kriz Asphalt Technology
From “Responsible Asphalt Production,” PARC 2026 — see Publications →
deliverables & scope
Practical outputs for real decisions.
Every engagement produces something a team can act on — not a lecture on methodology.
- 01Claim risk screen — a concise verdict: reject, qualify, support directionally, support quantitatively, or EPD-backed.
- 02Boundary and data memo — the applicable LCA boundary, PCR or EPD requirement, assumptions, gaps, and the data needed next.
- 03Material evidence checklist — a review framework for RAP, softeners, PMB, additives, bio- and waste-derived inputs, and lower-temperature production.
- 04Customer-ready explanation — what you can safely say, what must be qualified, and what should stay internal.
- 0590-day improvement plan — a roadmap for better plant data, EPD readiness, product validation, or claim discipline.
Scope note — KAT does not replace an accredited EPD program operator or a formal LCA practitioner where third-party-verified EPDs are required. KAT helps technical and commercial teams prepare, interpret, stress-test, and communicate the asphalt-specific evidence behind them.
related work
See how a carbon claim moves when the boundary moves.
The worked LCA reality-check example shows how a single asphalt carbon figure changes once boundaries, RAP, warm mix, plant energy, binder factors, and performance confidence are handled honestly.
start here
Have a sustainability claim that needs technical review?
Share the wording, the product or project boundary, the mix or binder context, and the decision it supports — we'll tell you where it stands.
Every engagement is confidential.