PPEC
April 27, 2011
A Peek under the Covers of Corrugated Packaging
Life Cycle Assessment Work
PLUS
“The good, the bad and the ugly about our LCA”
Dwight Schmidt
President
Fibre Box Association
Executive Director
Corrugated Packaging Alliance
Today’s Presentation Outline
The Peek
U.S. Life Cycle Analysis of a corrugated product
The View under the Covers
Lessons We learned
Lessons I learned
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Open Discussion
Corrugated:
The Sustainable Package
“The Peek”
Overview of an LCA Study
•
Goal & Scope Definition:
–
•
Life Cycle Inventory:
–
•
Goal and
Scope
Definition
Data collection, modeling &
analysis
Impact Assessment:
–
•
Determination of scope and
system boundaries
Life cycle assessment framework
Analysis of inputs and
outputs using indicators
Inventory
Analysis
Interpretation:
–
Sensitivity analysis, monte
carlo analysis, dominance
analysis, etc.
Impact
Assessment
Interpretation
Audiences
To whom will this LCA be directed?
– Corrugated Packaging Alliance (internal)
– Member CEOs, top management
– All industry members
Who are the potential external stakeholders?
– Wal-Mart (as a representative retailer), CPGs
– Compass (MERGE), U.S. LCI data base
– Sustainable Packaging Coalition/Green Blue, EPA, EDF,
other NGOs
– International corrugated community (ICCA, FEFCO)
– Academics, LCA practitioners, software providers
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
1.
Construct a core LCI dataset for corrugated packaging to
enable benchmarking
Identify relevant impact indicators and their key
mechanisms for this industrial sector
Conforming to ISO 14040 series, necessary to support
comparisons (requires expert review)
Primary Uses:
2.
3.
4.
–
–
5.
Respond to marketplace information requests (e.g. Wal-Mart
Scorecard, carbon and energy, etc.)
Benchmark for improvement overtime
Build capability within industry members regarding proper
use of LCA information
Life Cycle Metric
Functional Unit:
– Per kilogram of U.S. Industry Average Corrugated
Product shipped
• Shipped = saleable
12” Pizza Box (6 = 1 kilo)
Style:
Die-Cut Self Locking Tray
ID Dimensions 12 x 12 x 2
Board Weight: 30#/26#B/30#
Sq. Ft.
Basis Wt
Box Wt
3.67
95.32 #/msf
.39 lbs
.177 kg
Need Photo
24-12 Beer Case (3 = 1 kilo)
Style:
Die-Cut RSC
ID Dimensions
15 5/8 x 10 7/16 x 9
Board Weight:
35#/26#B/35#
Sq. Ft.
Basis Wt
Box Wt
6.93
105.3#/msf
.77 lbs
.35 kg
Need Photo
RSC- ECT 32 = 1 Kilo
Style:
RSC
ID Dimensions
20 x 18 x 20
Board Weight:
35#/26#C/35#
Sq. Ft.
Basis Wt
Box Wt
20.47
108.18#/msf
2.2 lbs
1 kg
LCA Scope & Boundaries
Scope:
System Boundaries
• Included
– Raw materials
• Feedstock, ancillaries,
consumables
– Energy
– Processing of materials
– Operation of primary
production equipment
– Waste
– Packaging of products
– Transportation of raw and
processing materials
– Overhead (heating, lighting)
of manufacturing facilities
– Internal transportation of
materials
• Excluded
– Capital equipment and
maintenance
– Maintenance and operation of
support equipment
– Manufacture and transport of
packaging materials not
associated to final product
– Transportation of employees
Data sources:
CORRIM II report: Virgin fiber manufacturing
Fisher data: Fiber and chemical input for containerboard manufacturing and
production volume provided by Fisher International.
NCASI: Quality-assured AF&PA survey data on energy usage and selected
releases to the environment of containerboard mills.
FBA: Converting plant inputs and outputs
GaBi LCI database:
• U.S. transportation model (based on the most recent U.S. Census Bureau
Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (2002) and U.S. EPA emissions standards
for heavy trucks in 2007)
• U.S. paper EoL model (based on 2006 U.S. EPA Life Cycle Assessment of
landfill emissions)
• Fuels, energy, and ancillary materials: Regional mixes and datasets from
the GaBi LCI data-base
Scope:
Data Quality
• Time coverage
– 2006 for primary data, latest/best available for proxy data
• Technology coverage
– Representative industry technology mix within process flow model
specifications
• Geographical coverage (production)
– U.S.
• Raw and Process Materials
– By existing studies, available proxy data sets where possible
• Fuels and Energy
– Consumptions: Industry averages distinguished by fuel type
– Sources: Ideally, regional grid mixes based on location, else U.S.
averages
– Distinguish renewables from fossil
– Include greenhouse gas information: direct vs. indirect vs. biomass
Expert Reviewers
LCA Expert Panel (reviews all three steps)
–
–
–
–
–
Jamie Meil – Athena Institute / LCA Expertise, Chair
Dr. Lindita Bushi – Athena Institute
Dr. Michael Deru – NREL / US LCI DB
Martha Leflar – GreenBlue / SPC
Dr. Jim Wilson – Oregon State / CORRIM
Life Cycle Contributions
Key Findings
1. Paper mills drive the life-cycle profiles
2. Transportation of final product does not define
the profile
3. EoL is only important with respect to GWP
Greenhouse Gases
• Paper Industry mills collectively pledged to reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 12
percent (compared to a year 2000 baseline) by
2012.
• The result - 14% decrease by 2006 versus the 12%
by 2012 commitment.
• New Goals will be set later this year for 2020.
Summary Thought
“What a long, strange trip it’s been.”
The Grateful Dead, Truckin’
“Diving Under the
Covers”
“Lessons WE Learned!”
Lessons WE Learned
1. Transparency is a must
• Everyone is watching and
suspicious
– Competitors
– ENGOs
– Academics
• Awareness of LCA work has
increased exponentially
• Too many “experts” running
around
Lessons WE Learned
1. Transparency is a must
2. Expert Reviewers are a key
Lessons WE Learned
1. Transparency is a must
2. Expert Reviewers are a key
3. Water needs to be included
Lessons WE Learned
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transparency is a must
Expert Reviewers are a key
Water needs to be included
Boxplant data collection needs to be improved
Lessons We Learned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Transparency is a must
Expert Reviewers are a key
Water needs to be included
Boxplant data collection needs to be improved
Open vs. Closed loop selection needed to be explained
Figure 4: Exemplary mass flow of closed-loop approach
Lessons WE Learned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Transparency is a must
Expert Reviewers are a key
Water needs to be included
Boxplant data collection needs to be improved
Open vs. Closed loop selection needed to be explained
Mixed mills a problem
Lessons WE Learned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Transparency is a must
Expert Reviewers are a key
Water needs to be included
Boxplant data collection needs to be improved
Open vs. Closed loop selection needed to be explained
Mixed mills a problem
Multiple data sources for mills must be remedied
–
–
Imbalance of Carbon Balance (carbon in and out)
Lack of unit process information critiqued
Principles of LCA
•Energy consumption, Raw material consumption,
•Greenhouse effect, Smog, Acidification, Over-fertilization,
•Impact
assessment
•Environmental toxins, Problems with waste
• ...
•Emissions
•Waste
•Inventory
analysis
•Output
•Input
•Output
•Input
•Output
•Input
•Output
•Input
•Output
•Input
•Resources
•Life cycle stages
•Phases of the
life cycle
Gathering and
preparation
of raw materials
Manufacturing
initial products
•Production phase
Production
Use
•Use phase
Disposal
Recycling
Depositon
•End of Life
31
Lessons WE Learned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Transparency is a must
Expert Reviewers are a key
Water needs to be included
Boxplant data collection needs to be improved
Open vs. Closed loop selection needed to be explained
Mixed mills a problem
Multiple data sources for mills must be remedied
–
–
Imbalance of Carbon Balance (carbon in and out)
Lack of unit process information critiqued
8. Little control over timing (2007 scoping ‘til now)
“Lessons I Learned!”
Lessons I learned
1. Numerous assumptions have to be made
Lessons I learned
1. Numerous assumptions have to be made
2. You have to have a open mind or a “trust me”
attitude toward data and methodologies
Lessons I learned
1. Numerous assumptions have to be made
2. You have to have a open mind or a “trust me”
attitude toward data and methodologies
3. Most comparative LCA’s are flawed by nature
Hard to Compare
Lessons I learned
1. Numerous assumptions have to be made
2. You have to have a open mind or a “trust me”
attitude toward data and methodologies
3. Most comparative LCA’s are flawed by nature
4. There is always room for improvement
Lessons I learned
1. Numerous assumptions have to be made
2. You have to have a open mind or a “trust me”
attitude toward data and methodologies
3. Most comparative LCA’s are flawed by nature
4. There is always room for improvement
5. You need to turn the results of the academic
exercise into action:
– Educate stakeholders on impacts
– Set goals for improvement
Online Carbon Calculator
“The GOOD,
the BAD
and the UGLY!”
The Good
First ever complete LCA of a corrugated product in
the U.S.
• Can be used as a benchmark for industry
improvement.
• Will be part of the USLCI database.
• It resulted in a model that can be used by
members for their own studies.
The Bad
Over $300,000 plus thousands of hours of data
compilation and project and process supervision
over 3 years.
The Ugly
Unable to use with SPC Compass tool and EPA WARM
model due to our inability to provide two recycled
data points…
Therefore it will not be vetted by SPC and EPA it will
not be used in Wal-Mart Scorecard
So, they have defaulted to current EcoInvent data
that has been adjusted for U.S. energy grid.
Background – Gate-to-Gate Data
GHG from Fossil Fuel Combustion On Site & Purchased Electrical and Steam Energy
(Scope 1 & 2)
1800
1600
kgCO2e/adst
1400
Kraft
1200
Semichem
1000
Kraft/Semichem
800
Recycle
600
Best Fit
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Recycled Furnish
70%
80%
90% 100%
12.12.12
For More Info
www.corrugated.org
THANK YOU