EPA/600/A-93/112
"EPA's Life Cycle Methodology:
Guidelines for Use in Development of Packaging"
Mary Ann Curran
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7837
Approaches to reducing environmental effects of products and processes
have moved steadily upstream over the years from end-of-pipe controls to
source reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, and more recently, toward
multimedia pollution prevention. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) continues the
trend of expanding our view and approach to environmental protection. LCA
takes a holistic approach by analyzing all the cradle-to-grave environmental
releases and impacts associated with a product, process or activity.
HISTORY OF LCA'S
Although LCA has become a popular buzz word during the last 2 years,
LCA's have been used by industry for over twenty years. i.-^The;development of
the LCA concept is generally attributed to Harry:Teas,ley. of Coca-C.ola; : In-
1969, under Teasley's direction, a life cycle study of different beverage
containers was conducted by the Midwest Research Institute.1;,. In.i974, the EPA
conducted a similar study to compare the life cycles of differentrbeverage
containers. After completion of this study, EPA did not pursue^LCA any
further. Today, with pollution prevention and green product design as driving
interests, LCA is finding rediscovered interest within both public and private
sectors. This new found interest extends to Europe and other countries where
LCA is typically referred to as "ecobalance." ,,;••: ::::,,: ••:
PACKAGING LCA'S
An informal review of the open literature found 29 references .to product
life cycle studies, 17 of which are related to packaging materials or
packaging systems. Beverage containers (cans, bottles and cartons) are the
focus of ten of these studies. These packaging-related studies are provided
in the bibliography at the end of the'paper.- (Contacts ;for getting^copies of
the reports are provided when known.) ••-•'..--
SETAC WORKSHOPS
In August 1990, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC) organized a one-week workshop in Vermont to begin to address the need
to develop a technical framework for conducting LCA's. EPA was one of several
sponsors of this workshop. The workshop was attended 54 people who had
-------
expertise in conducting LCA's or in areas that are included in LCA's. The
participants included representatives from government, industry, academia,
consulting firms and environmental organizations.
The goal of the workshop was to determine the current state-of-the-art
for LCA's and to identify research needs that would lead to improving the
methodology. Improving and standardizing the methodology will hopefully
encourage and facilitate a wider use of LCA's and ensure more meaningful
results. The most significant output of the workshop was the consensus by the
participants that an LCA can be divided into 3 components:
1) an inventory of the inputs and outputs associated with the full life
cycle,
2) the translation of these inputs and outputs into environmental
impacts, and
3) the identification of opportunities for lessening either the
inventory inputs and outputs or the resultant impact on the environment.
A complete LCA would include conducting all three components,
Impact / \ Improvement
Analysis / \ Analysis
3
Inventory
FIGURE i.
SETAC hosted an additional two life cycle workshops. One was an impact
analysis workshop which was held in Sandestin, Florida, in February 1992 and
the other was a data quality workshop which was held in Wintergreen, VA, in
October 1992. SETAC will be producing proceedings form these workshops, also.
For information, call the SETAC Foundation at 904/469-9777.
i
METHODOLOGY
Life cycle refers to the cradle-to-grave stages associated with the
production, use and disposal of any product. Figure 2 depicts all of the
steps that must be accounted for in a complete life cycle assessment, although
transportation is shown here as a separate stage, it should be accounted for
in each of the other stages as transportation occurs. The goal of a life
-------
cycle inventory is to create a mass balance which accounts for all the inputs
and outputs to the overall system. It emphasizes that changes made within the
system may result in transferring pollutant between media or it may create
upstream or downstream effects.
Life-Cycle Inventory
Inputs
Energy
Raw
Materials
^f-
f /'/
,s
Raw Material Acquisition
|::;::, :
Material Manufacture
- . 'i
1
Product Fabrication
i
Filling/Packaging/Distribution
' • i
1
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
»
i
1
Recycle/Waste Management
s
Outputs
Atmospheric
Emissions
Solid Wastes
Waterborne
Wastes
Coproducts
System Boundary
Defining system boundaries
FIGURE 2.
LCA is a useful tool for identifying such tradeoffs, however, current
applications of LCA have not been performed in consistent or easily understood
ways. This inconsistency has caused increased criticism of LCA. The EPA
recognized the need to develop an LCA framework which could be used to provide
consistent use across the board. Also, additional research is needed to
-------
enhance the understanding about the steps in the performance of an LCA and its
appropriate usage. Research activities of the EPA's Pollution Prevention
Research Branch in Cincinnati, Ohio, are leading toward the development of an
acceptable method for conducting LCA's. This research has resulted in the
development of a guidance manual for conducting life cycle inventories. The
manual is intended to be a practical guide to conducting and interpreting the
life cycle inventory.
A ten-step approach to performing a comprehensive inventory is presented
in the manual along with the general issues to be addressed.
1) Define the Purpose
2) Define the System Boundaries
3) Devise a Checklist
4) Gather Data
5) Develop Stand-Alone Data
6) Construct a Model
7) Present the Results
8) Conduct a Peer Review
9) Interpret the Results
10) Communicate the Results
Define the Purpose
The inventory process begins with a conceptual phase to define both the
purpose for performing the inventory and the scope of the analysis. The
decision to perform an inventory is usually based on one of several possible
objectives regarding a process, product, or activity. These objectives
include the need to establish baseline information, to identify opportunities
where reduction in resource use and emissions might be achieved, to compare
alternatives, or to help guide the development of new designs. A clear
definition of the purpose will help ensure that the results-will be useful.
Define the System Boundaries
Once the purpose has been determined and the intended use is known, the
system should be defined. "System" is defined generally as a collection of
operations that together perform some defined function. Great care should be
taken in defining the system to be analyzed and in explaining how the
boundaries were drawn. Clearly set boundaries help ensure valid
interpretation of the results and directly affect the outcome of the study.
Two studies on the same product will have different outcomes if the boundaries
are different.
The manual uses a theoretical bar soap as an example system. Even
something as seemingly simple as a bar of soap becomes very complicated when
all of the related life cycle stages are included. Figure 3 is a
simplification of the steps that are involved in a bar soap life cycle.
-------
Grain
Production
Cattle Raising
Salt
Mining
Meat Packing
Tallow Rendering
Caustic
Manufacture
Soap
Manufacturing
Forestry
Soap
Packaging
Paper
Production
Consumer
Postconsumer
Waste Management
Example system flow diagram for bar soap production
FIGURE 3.
Devise a Checklist
The inventory checklist is a tool that covers most decision areas in the
performance of an inventory. A checklist guides data collection and
validation It also leads to model building. Analysts need to develop a
tailored checklist for a specific application so that all the important stages
-------
and categories of information are included.
Conduct a Peer Review
The need for peer review stems from con-cerns in four areas: 1)
questioning the overall results, 2) lack of understanding regarding
methodology or scope, 3) desire to verify data, and 4) communication of
results. Peer review should be established and implemented early in any
study. While an exact peer review process is yet undetermined, the process
should address the four areas of concern.
/
Gather Data
Each subsystem requires inputs of materials and energy, requires
transportation of products, and has outputs of products, co-products, solid
waste, atmospheric emissions and waterborne wastes. Data is gathered for the
amounts and kinds of material inputs and the types and quantities of energy
usage. The environmental releases to air, water and land should be quantified
by type of pollutant. Possible sources for data include facility-specific and
averaged industrial data, government reports, reports in the open literature,
product specifications, and laboratory test data.
Develop Stand-Alone Data ; i, •.-;.\:••> -M,.,,,.; ,.,•
Stand-alone data must be developed for each subsystem to :fit the -
subsystems into a single system. There are two .goalS'-to achieve-this.step: .1)
present data for each subsystem consistently by reporting the same product
output from each subsystem and 2) develop the data in terms of the life cycle
of only the product being examined. A standard unit of output must be
determined for each subsystem, for example, 1,000 tons of harvested trees or
1,000 tons of packaged product. The units for the subsystems do not have to
be the same as that of the final product. Once the data are reported at a
consistent level, the environmental releases to be attributed to .each
subsystem are calculated, usually on a weight basis. :,-.• c :;.:;-.,
Construct a Model :
The next stage is model construction which incorporates the data into a
computer spreadsheet or other accounting technique. The results from the
model give the total picture of energy and resource use and environmental
releases from the overall system. The overall system'flow diagram is
important because it numerically defines the relationships of the individual
subsystems to each other in the production of the final product. It is
important that each subsystem be incorporated in the model with its related
components and that each be linked together in such a way that inadvertent
omissions and double-counting do not occur.
Present the Results
-------
When reporting the final results, it is important to thoroughly describe
the methodology used in the analysis. The report should explicitly define the
system and its boundaries. All assumptions that were made in performing the
inventory should be clearly explained. The results can be presented most
comprehensively in tabular form. Graphical presentation of information helps
to augment tabular data and can aid in interpretation. The presentation
format of data should be consistent with the purpose of the study and should
not arbitrarily simplify the information solely for the sake of presenting it.
Interpret the Results
How the results will be interpreted depends on the purpose for which the
analysis was performed. Careful interpretation is required to avoid making
any unsupported statements.
Communicate the Results
In reporting life cycle inventory results, a timely, continuous approach
is recommended. The steps to a continuous communication process include 1)
identifying the intended audience or audiences early in the study, 2)
determining the message to be communicated, and 3) selecting the methods that
can most effectively be used to communicate with each audience. Throughout
the development and application of the life cycle inventory method, the
knowledge gap between analysts and audiences will close".
DECISION POINTS
Within the life cycle "community," there is general agreement on major
elements that should be included in a life cycle inventory. However, decision
points occur in the process of accounting for energy and environmental
releases which lead to apparent differences in methods. For example, co-
product allocation is one of these decision points. As seen in Figure 2, a
typical process results in multiple products. In this example, our process
makes 100 Ib of product A and 500 Ib of Product B. One simple way of
allocating the environmental releases from the process among the products is
using weight basis. Therefore, two-thirds of the releases would be attributed
to A and one-third to Product B. However, weight basis is not the only
possibility. Allocation could also be done by market share as well as other
ways.
LIFE CYCLE DESIGN
LCA provides valuable information, but it does not provide a complete
picture alone when determining the soundness of a product or process design.
For a manufacturer to make an informed decision regarding the best use of
resources to improve a product line, additional information is needed. This
includes total cost assessment which brings external costs (for example,
liability costs) into the calculations of production costs. It is important
7
-------
Actual process flow diagram
for the production of
Products 'A' and 'B'
1.6COIb
Raw or
Intermediat
Materials
Energy Water
3 x 109 Btu 600 gal
; i
T 7
ri
X
| Transportation
V j) —
I
30 Ib
Atmospheric
Emissions
1
10 Ib
Waterborne
\ Wastes
100 Ib
Solid Waste
I.OOOlb
Product 'A'
500 Ib
Product 'B'
Flow diagrams showing the
normalized resources and
environmental releases for
each coproduct
1.067lb
Raw or
Intermedia!
Materials
Energy
2x 109 Btu
\
K
t
20 Ib
Atmospheric
Emissions '
67
Water
400 gal
\
T
1 Transponaiion 1 _ooo Ib
J * Product 'A'
•0
7lb
Waterborne
Wastes
Ib
Solid Waste
Coproduct Allocation for Product 'A'
533 Ib
Raw or
Intermediat
Materials
Energy
1 x 109 Btu
\
A
\
10 Ib
Atmospheric
Emissions '
33
Water
200 gal
i
| Transportation 500 ^
J Coproduct 'B'
T'
3lb
Waterborne
Wastes
Ib
Solid Waste
Coproduct Allocation for Product 'B1
FIGURE 4.
Example coproduct allocation based on relative weight
8
-------
that the same boundaries be used for both the inventory study and the total
cost assessment for continuity. Must also consider product efficacy to be
sure that product changes do not affect the quality and effectiveness of the
final product. Similarly, marketing studies must be conducted to ensure that
new or modified products still meet consumers' needs. And, of course there
are legal and environmental considerations which must be met. These five
components together, when conducted concurrently, provide a sound basis for
decision-making.
THE FUTURE OF LCA
EPA will continue its research efforts to develop LCA as a useful tool
for industry to use in evaluating and improving products and processes. We
will continue to investigate possible approaches to carrying out the impact
analysis component, however, this appears to be a much longer-term research
area. A more immediate need is to identify the major methodological
differences recognized by leading LCA practitioners and begin dialogue between
them which will lead to a consensus approach.
Continued research is also needed in the area of "streamlining" since
the LCA process can be .very time consuming requiring thousands of data points.
Streamlining will possibly occur as more assessments are conducted and
"blocks" of data become available for future studies. For example,
information on the production of a standard cardboard carton of specified
dimensions may be plugged into any system where such a carton is used.
A second approach to streamlining may exist in a type of "life cycle
review" where environmental consequences are identified where they occur in
any of the life cycle stages. The occurrences of these releases or impacts
can be identified and accounted for through available literature, industry-
specific data or through the use of an expert panel. While this approach
appears to be have merit, especially in product design activities, an exact
procedure for performing a life cycle review which yields verifiable results
is yet to be developed.
References:
1. "xLife Cycle Analysis' Methodology, Policy Impact Studied," COPPE
Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 1991.
2. EPA, "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage
Container Alternatives," prepared by MRI, EPA/530/SW-91c, 1974.
3. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, "A Technical Framework
for Life Cycle Assessments," December 1991.
-------
Bibliography of Packaging-Related LCA Studies:
EPA, "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container
Alternatives," prepared by MRI, EPA/530/SW-91c, 1974. (National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, 22161, 703/487-4650)
"Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Plastics and Competitive
Materials," prepared for the Society of the Plastic Industries by MRI, Kansas
City, Missouri, 1974.
Hunt, R.G. & W.E. Franklin, "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of
Beer Containers," Chemtech. August, 1975. (Franklin Associates, 4121 West 83rd
St., Prairie Village, KS, 913/649-2225)
EPA, "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Five Milk Container
Systems," prepared by MRI, 1978.
Franklin Associates, Comparative Energy and Environmental Impacts of 21 PET
and 11 Refillable Glass Bottles Used for Soft Drink Delivery Systems in
Germany, Prairie Village, Kansas, 1985. (Franklin, above)
Franklin Associates, "Comparative Energy and Environmental Impacts for
Softdrink Delivery Systems, Prairie Village, Kansas, 1989. (Franklin, above)
Lundholm, M.P. and G. Sundstrom, "Tetra Brik Asceptic Environmental Profile,"
printed in Sweden by AB Faelths Tryckeri, Varnamo;.. 1986 and'1989;; A.. > ar:i
Franklin Associates, "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Foam
Polystyrene and Bleached Paperboard Containers," Prairie Village, Kansas, June
1990. (Franklin, above) ,..;
O.C.L. Mekel and G. Huppes, "Environmental Effects of Different Packaging
Systems for Fresh Milk," September 1990. (CML, Leiden University, P.O. Box
9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands, (0) 71 277461) .'..=... •
Martin B. Hocking, "Paper versus Polystyrene: A Complex Choice," Science.
Vol. 251, February 1, 1991.
Vinyl Product Lifecycle Assessment," prepared for the Vinyl Institute,
September 17, 1991. (Chem Systems, 303 South Broadway, Tarrytown, NY, 10591-
5487, 914/631-2828)
The Tellus Institute, "Impacts of Production and Disposal of Packaging
Materials - Methods and Case Studies," prepared for the Council of State
Governments, November 1991. (Tellus Institute, 89 Broad Street, Boston, MA,
02110, 617/426-5844).
Lundholm, M.P. and Sundstrom, G., "Resource and Environmental Impact of Two
Packaging Systems for Milk, Tetra Brik Cartons, and Refillable Glass Bottle."
Deloitte and Touche, "Tetra Pak Inc.: Summary Report Energy and Environmental
Impact Profiles in Canada of Tetra Brik Aseptic Carton and Glass Bottle
10
-------
Packaging Systems," 1991.
D.G. Koch and C.C. Kuta, "Assessing Environmental Tradeoffs: Procter &
Gamble's Approach to Life Cycle Analysis," in Inside Environment, December
1991. (P&G Ivorydale Technical Center, 5299 Spring Grove Ave, Cincinnati, OH,
45217, 513/627-5584)
"Reusable versus Disposable: A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of
Polystyrene, Paper/Cardboard and Porcelain Crockery," TAUW Infra Consult
B.V., May 1992. (Commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, P.O. Box 450, 2260
MB Leidenschendam, The Netherlands, 70-317 4174)
Anne-Marie Tillman, H. Baumann, E. Eriksson, and T. Rydberg, Packaging and the
Environment: "Life Cycle Analyses of Selected Packaging Materials;
Quantification of Environmental Loadings," September 1991. (Chalmers
Industrieteknik, S-412 88 Gothenburg, Sweden, +46 31 72 40 20)
11
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before complel1 /'
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/A-93/112
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EPA's Life Cycle Methodology:
Development of Packaging
Gudelines for Use in
3. i
5. REPORT DATE
11/9/92
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Mary Ann Curran
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
US EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
conference paper
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
PACK EXPO '92, Chicago, IL, 11/9/92
16. ABSTRACT
Approaches to reducing environmental effects of products and processes have moved
steadily upstream over the years from end-of-pipe controls to source reduction and
recycling of hazardous waste, and more recently, toward multimedia pollution prevention.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) continues the trend of expanding our view and approach to
environmental protection. LCA takes a holistic approach by analyzing all the cradle-to-
grave environmental releases and impacts associated with a product, process or activity.
An informal review of the open literature found 29 references to product life cycle
studies, 17 of which are related to packaging materials or packaging systems. Beverage
containers (cans, bottles and cartons) are the focus of ten of ttiese studies. These
packaging-related studies are provided in the bibiography at the end of the paper. The
paper includes discussion of the history of LCA's, SETAC's involvement in LCA, EPA's
guidance on life cycle inventory methodology, life cycle design, and the future of LCA.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
life cycle assessment
life cycle analysis
LCA
cradle-toOgrave
ecobalance
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This RtportI
Unclassified
!1. NO. OF PAGES
12
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliii pagfl
Unclassified
22, PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |