1 Peer Reviewed Report COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF REUSABLE PLASTIC CONTAINERS AND DISPLAY-AND NON-DISPLAY- READY CORRUGATED CONTAINERS USED FOR FRESH PRODUCE APPLICATIONS PREPARED FOR: IFCO Corporation BY: Franklin Associates, A Division of Eastern Research Group (ERG) February 2017
20
Embed
COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF REUSABLE …...COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF REUSABLE ... quantified evaluations of the environmental benefits and tradeoffs for the entire
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Peer Reviewed Report
COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF REUSABLE PLASTIC CONTAINERS AND DISPLAY-AND NON-DISPLAY-
READY CORRUGATED CONTAINERS USED FOR FRESH PRODUCE APPLICATIONS
PREPARED FOR:
IFCO Corporation
BY:
Franklin Associates, A Division of Eastern Research Group (ERG)
Table ES–1. Systems Analyzed – Container Specifications ........................................................................... 8 Table ES–2. Parameter Values for the Sensitivity Analysis ..........................................................................17 Table ES–3. Weight Factors for Mixed Produce ...........................................................................................18 Table ES–4. Baseline LCIA Results for Produce Containers ........................................................................19
List of Figures
Figure ES–1. Examples of RPCs Used for Produce ...................................................................................... 3 Figure ES–2. RPC Product System Boundaries ............................................................................................10 Figure ES–3. DRC & NDC (Fiber Container) Product System Boundaries ..................................................11 Figure ES–4. Comparison of Per-Trip Ratios for Empty Container Weight to Produce Capacity Weight per
Container Type & Produce Application ........................................................................................................15 Figure ES–5. Comparison of Average Life Cycle Ratios for Empty Container Weight to Produce Capacity
Weight per Container Type & Produce Application .....................................................................................15
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Continuous environmental improvement has become a principle of most business and
government organizations, with particular attention to sustainability of packaging and
distribution within product supply chains. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been
recognized as a scientific method for making comprehensive, quantified evaluations of
the environmental benefits and tradeoffs for the entire life cycle of a product system,
beginning with raw material extraction and continuing through disposition at the end of
its useful life. The report that follows is a comparative LCA of three options for
containers used in shipping produce throughout North America. The data sets for each
type of container are based on data from IFCO’s North American business; the three
types of containers evaluated are:
1. Reusable plastic containers (RPCs),
2. Display-ready corrugated fiber containers (DRCs), and
Table ES–1. Systems Analyzed – Container Specifications
Length
(inches)
Width
(inches)
Height
(inches)
RPC 5.00 40.0 8.00 23.6 15.8 10.6
NDC 2.00 40.0 20.0 19.6 12.8 11.1
DRC 2.00 40.0 20.0 19.6 12.8 11.1
RPC 4.60 25.4 5.52 23.6 15.8 9.70
NDC 1.90 25.0 13.2 19.5 12.5 10.5
DRC 2.00 26.0 13.0 23.6 15.7 9.50
RPC 3.80 40.0 10.5 23.6 15.8 7.30
NDC 1.03 30.0 29.1 19.5 11.5 6.50
DRC 2.00 40.0 20.0 23.6 15.7 6.50
RPC 3.40 20.0 5.88 23.6 15.8 5.90
NDC 1.90 19.0 10.0 23.0 16.0 4.80
DRC 1.70 19.0 11.2 23.6 15.7 5.10
RPC 5.24 49.7 9.48 23.6 15.8 11.5
NDC 2.80 43.7 15.6 24.0 16.3 10.7
DRC 2.40 39.0 16.3 23.3 15.4 11.1
RPC 5.00 40.0 8.00 23.6 15.8 10.6
NDC 2.20 43.3 19.7 20.0 13.3 10.0
DRC 2.15 40.0 18.6 23.6 15.7 10.0
RPC 3.80 32.0 8.42 23.6 15.8 7.30
NDC 1.80 25.0 13.9 18.5 12.0 7.00
DRC 1.90 35.0 18.4 23.6 15.7 6.50
RPC 4.20 40.0 9.52 23.6 15.8 8.30
NDC 1.90 40.0 21.1 20.0 11.6 11.8
DRC 2.30 42.0 18.3 22.1 15.9 8.75
RPC 3.40 25.0 7.35 23.6 15.8 5.90
NDC 1.30 25.0 19.2 15.0 10.8 8.25
DRC 1.80 25.0 13.9 15.1 10.8 8.75
RPC 2.80 9.00 3.21 23.6 15.8 4.10
NDC 1.00 8.00 8.00 19.5 15.3 3.63
DRC 0.89 8.00 8.99 15.5 15.8 3.75
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
Empty Ctr
Weight
(lb/ctr)
Produce
Capacity
(lb/ctr)
Capacity to
Weight Ratio
(lb produce/
lb container)
Peaches/
Nectarines
Onions,
dry
Tomatoes
Straw-
berries
Apples
Bell Peppers
Carrots
Grapes
Lettuce,
Iceberg
Oranges
Produce
Application
Container
Type
Container Dimensions
9
The following life cycle stages are included for each produce container system:
1. Raw material extraction includes raw material resource extraction (e.g.,
petroleum and natural gas used as feedstock for resin for RPCs, harvesting of
trees and collection of postconsumer corrugate boxes for fiber for DRCs and
NDCs) and delivery to manufacturing steps;
2. Materials manufacture of the inputs (resin, corrugate board) required to produce
the produce containers, which consists of the transport required for delivery of the
extracted raw materials and other material components to the manufacturing
facility, manufacturing/processing steps for production of the materials, and
unitizing these components for delivery to the container conversion facility;
3. Converting of the produce containers includes transport of the manufactured
materials to the converting facility, where applicable; converting processes to
form the empty container; and unitizing of flat, empty, containers for shipment to
growers;
4. Production of ancillary components such as wooden pallets, which incorporates
all steps from resource extraction through production of the ancillary components,
including transportation of required materials up to the manufacture and
unitization of the ancillary components;
5. Distribution transport of filled produce containers from produce
suppliers/growers to a retail distribution center (DC), then on to retailers; this step
also includes return transport of used, empty containers from the retailers to the
DC/container pooling center (e.g., backhauling of the RPCs);
6. Cleaning and sanitizing (plastic systems only) of the RPCs available for reuse,
which includes transport of the used RPCs from the DC/pooler to the cleaning
facility, cleaning and sanitizing processes, and unitization of the cleaned
containers in collapsed form for shipment. RPCs that are still in good condition
are shipped back to produce suppliers/growers for reuse, while containers that are
damaged or excessively worn are sent to an RPC manufacturing facility for
recycling into a new usable product;
7. Recycling of the produce container material, which includes transport of the RPC,
DRC, or NDC container materials to locations where the material is then re-
processed to prepare it for use in manufacture of another product; and
8. Postconsumer disposal of the produce container or container scrap which has
been used (in the case of the fiber container) or lost from the IFCO rental pool
during use due to theft or improper handling (in the case of RPCs); this step
includes transport of the container/container materials from the retailer to:
a. The site of landfill. and includes material-specific processes occurring at the
landfill, or
b. The site of waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration, and includes material-
specific processes occurring at the WTE facility
A summary flow diagram of the boundaries for the RPC and conventional fiber
corrugated container systems are shown in Figure ES-2 and Figure ES–3, respectively.
Executive Summary
10
Figure ES–2. RPC Product System Boundaries
4. Ancillary Materials
Manufacture
1.Resource Extraction
3. RPC Container
Conversion
Grower 5. Distribution
6. Cleaning &
Sanitization
Retailer
8a. Landfill
8b. Waste-
to-Energy
2. & 7.Materials Manufacture
Industrial Waste Recycling & Disposal
Containers to Recycling
Containers to
Reuse
Within Study Boundary
Outside Study Boundary
Intermediate Inputs from Technosphere
Treatment of Water
Capital Equipment
Human Capital
Elementary Inputs from Nature
Water
Raw Materials
Elementary Outputs to Nature
Water
Airborne Emissions
Waterborne Emissions
Intermediate Outputs to Technosphere
Treatment of Waste Water
Capital Equipment to be Recycled
Solid Waste to be Managed
Executive Summary
11
Figure ES–3. DRC & NDC (Fiber Container) Product System Boundaries
Executive Summary
12
ES.2.3. Data Sources
Primary data collected for this analysis include the empty container weight and materials
required for distribution of the RPCs as well as the transport distances for the distribution
specifications specific to IFCO operations in North America. Likewise, the cleaning and
servicing of used RPCs was modeled with primary data provided by IFCO. Production of the
polypropylene RPCs was modeled using primary data collected from IFCO’s suppliers. For data
that was not collected for this project, data from credible published sources or licensable
databases are used wherever possible in order to maximize transparency. Foreground data for
production of DRCs and NDCs are adapted from a gate-to-gate inventory of converted
corrugated containers published by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI) in 2014.4 The LCI data for producing the virgin material and hog fuel inputs to the US
containerboard mills are represented by updated forestry LCI data from CORRIM Phase I and
Phase II Reports.5,6 The recycled content of corrugated produce boxes is modeled as 38.4%,
based on an August 2016 press release from the Corrugated Packaging Alliance.7 The analysis
used polypropylene resin data from the ACC Plastics Data (updated in 2011) published in the US
LCI Database.
ES.2.4. Recycling Methodology When material is used in one system and subsequently recovered, reprocessed, and used in
another application, there are different methods that can be used to allocate environmental
burdens among different useful lives of the material. The ISO standards for LCA note that
avoiding allocation (e.g., by expansion of system boundaries) is the preferred approach;
therefore, system expansion is the baseline approach used in this analysis. Under the system
expansion approach, recycling of a product can result in material displacement credits if the
system is a net producer of recycled material. In the case of the corrugated fiber produce boxes,
the recycling rate (95%) is greater than the recycled content of the box (38.4%), and the excess
recovered fiber is credited with displacing a mix of virgin unbleached fiber and recycled fiber
equivalent to the mix of virgin and recycled fiber in the recovered boxes (61.6% virgin, 38.4%
recycled).
4 NCASI (2014). Life Cycle Assessment of U.S. Average Corrugated Product, Final Report. Prepared for the
Corrugated Packaging Alliance (CPA), a joint venture of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA),
the Fibre Box Association (FBA), the Association of Independent Corrugated Converters (AICC), and TAPPI.
April 24, 2014. 5 Bowyer J, Briggs D, Lippke B, Perez-Garcia J, Wilson J (2004). Life Cycle Environmental Performance of
Renewable Materials in Context of Residential Building Construction: Phase I Research Report. Consortium for
Research on Renewable Industrial Materials, CORRIM Inc. Seattle, WA. Report modules accessed at:
http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2005/Phase1/index.asp. 6 Lippke B, Wilson J, Johnson L, Puettmann M (2009). Phase II Research Report. Life Cycle Environmental
Performance of Renewable Materials in the Context of Building Construction. Consortium for Research on
i.e., regional variations in electricity based on the eight North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) regional grids
9. Recycling methodology used in the LCI i.e., system expansion vs. cut-off
10. Best- and worst-case scenarios for the recycled content of fiber-based produce containers
The values for the trip number, loss rate, breakage rate, and recovery yield used in the baseline
scenario reflect the rates achieved and observed in IFCO’s North American operations; whereas,
those used in the sensitivity analysis reflect the most practical range of values given discussions
with IFCO and their supply chain. An overview of the values used to examine the effect these
parameters have on the overall comparison of environmental burdens of the use of plastic versus
fiber produce containers is shown in Table ES–2.
Table ES–2. Parameter Values for the Sensitivity Analysis
Baseline Max or Interim Min
RPC Trip Number
39.3 72.9 23.4
RPC Loss Rate
0.80% 0.85% 0.75%
RPC Breakage Rate
0.98% 2.0% 0.10%
RPC Recycling Recovery Yield
98% 99% 97%
RPC Recycled Content
50% 100% 0%
RPC Cleaning Distance
398 miles 597 miles 199 miles
Fiber Containers' Recycling Rate
95% 78% 50%
Fiber Containers' Recycled Content
38.4% 52.7% 0%
Electricity Grid Mix (Region)
US Avg SPP NPCC
Recycling Allocation Methodology
System Expansion n/a Cut-Off
ES.3. KEY FINDINGS
For this analysis, results are presented for delivery of 1,000 tonnes of each investigated produce
commodity as well as for the delivery of the average tonne of mixed produce. The weight factors
for a tonne of mixed produce are estimated using 2013 data on weights of fresh produce to
market from the USDA NASS. These weight factors are shown in Table ES–3.
Executive Summary
18
Table ES–3. Weight Factors for Mixed Produce
The LCI results are characterized for eight different LCIA indicators: global warming potential,
energy demand, ozone depletion potential, water consumption, acidification, eutrophication,
photochemical smog generation potential, and solid waste generation. Energy and solid waste
results are further disaggregated and presented in terms of types of energy (type by fuel source
and expended vs. feedstock) and types of solid waste (fuel-related, process and post-consumer
and landfilled, incinerated, and waste-to-energy shares).
For most of the impact categories examined in this study, the LCIA results are obtained using the
TRACI 2.1 characterization methodologies.8, TRACI 2.1 is an internationally accepted
methodology and selected by Franklin Associates as the most appropriate methodology to apply
in this study, i.e., with a North American geographic scope. Global warming potential is
characterized using factors from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth
Assessment Report published in 20139. Cumulative energy demand is assessed with Franklin
Associates’ own method and includes both fossil and non-fossil energy. Results for water
consumption and solid waste generation are simply life cycle inventory (LCI) totals. Land-use
impacts are not included in the LCIA.
Table ES–4 compares the quantitative LCIA results for 1,000 tonnes of mixed produce delivered
in RPCs, DRCs, and NDCs in North America. This table also provides the potential
environmental savings that could be realized per 1,000 tonnes of produce by switching from
fiber produce containers to RPCs for distribution of produce in North America.
8 EPA’s Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI), see:
http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/TRACI_2_1_User_Manual.pdf. 9 G. Myhre et al., Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, in CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL
SCIENCE BASIS. CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING GROUP I TO THE FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE IPCC Table 8.7 at 714 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2013).
Weight to
Fresh Markets
in 2013 (lbs)
2013 Mixed
Produce
Weight
Factor
Apples 6,860,900,000 20%
Bell Peppers 1,443,300,000 4.1%
Carrots 2,425,500,000 6.9%
Grapes 2,233,880,000 6.4%
Lettuce 4,515,000,000 13%
Oranges 4,478,000,000 13%
Peaches 793,940,000 2.3%
Onions 6,965,400,000 20%
Tomatoes 2,728,000,000 7.8%
Strawberries 2,508,500,000 7.2%
TOTAL 34,952,420,000 100%
Executive Summary
19
For this analysis, Franklin Associates considers that overall differences in LCI/LCIA results of
less than 25 percent for emissions, water consumption, and impact results and differences of less
than 10 percent for energy and solid waste should not be assumed to be significant. Given
uncertainties in LCI data and LCIA methods, these differences are reasonable thresholds for
considering results between product systems sufficiently disparate to be meaningful.
Table ES–4. Baseline LCIA Results for Produce Containers
(Per 1,000 tonnes of produce delivered in North America)
For the baseline scenario, all eight categories indicate significantly greater environmental savings
for use of IFCO RPCs relative to use of fiber DRCs and NDCs.
Concluding Remarks
The RPC use savings are primarily due to the avoidance of energy consumption and emissions
incurred during the production of fiber DRCs and/or NDCs—processes that, despite
incorporating recovered fiber, must be repeated for the entire weight of the container for each
container use. The steady-state reuse process of delivering produce with RPCs only consumes
about 33/1000ths of the RPC container material per use cycle compared to 100 percent material
manufacturing and recycling required per use with shipments made in single-use fiber
containers.
In all eight examined environmental indicators (energy demand, global warming potential, ozone
depletion potential, water consumption, acidification, eutrophication, smog, solid waste
generation), the IFCO RPCs, as defined in this analysis, provides greater environmental savings
for delivering produce in North America than does the use of fiber corrugated containers for
these commodities.
The sensitivity analysis indicates that these conclusions are not changed for: 1) the range of
reuse rates (i.e., number of useful lives or trip number) projected for the average IFCO RPC, 2)
RPCs DRCs NDCsDRC -->
RPC
NDC -->
RPC
Energy Demand GJ eq 872 2,405 2,329 64% 63%
Global Warming kg CO2 eq 52,503 76,518 74,248 31% 29%
Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2.6E-04 0.0012 1.1E-03 78% 77%
Water Consumption m3 H2O 110 540 523 80% 79%
Acidification kg SO2 eq 192 565 547 66% 65%
Eutrophication kg N eq 8.76 60.3 58.4 85% 85%
Photochemical Smog kg O3 eq 4,739 8,162 7,925 42% 40%
Solid Waste kg SW 2,082 14,397 13,916 86% 85%
Meaningful difference (lower for RPCs)
Insignificant difference
Per 1,000 Tonnes of North
American Produce Delivered:
(Potential Savings:
RPC Relative to Fiber
Executive Summary
20
the range of RPC loss rates at the use phase, 3) the range of breakage rates for RPCs , 4) the
range of recovery yields at the RPC manufacturing/recycling step, 5) the range of recycled resin
content designated for reusable RPCs, 6) the variations in distances for the retail distribution to
IFCO RPC service center transportation leg, or 7) variations in the electricity grid fuel mix.
Conclusions regarding GWP shift in 3 sensitivities: 1) lower recycling rates for fiber corrugated
containers, where the GWP difference between RPCs and fiber boxes becomes inconclusive at a
50% fiber box recycling rate; 2) the range of recovered fiber contents for the DRCs or NDCs,
where the GWP difference between RPCs and fiber boxes becomes inconclusive for fiber boxes
modeled at the overall corrugated industry average recycled content of 52.7% (rather than the
38.4% content reported by CPA for produce boxes); and 3) use of cut-off recycling
methodology, where GWP differences between RPCs and fiber boxes become inconclusive. In
addition, when the worst-case scenario for RPCs is compared to best-case and baseline fiber box
scenarios, the difference in GWP becomes inconclusive.
The reasons for the shifts in GWP conclusions with changes in recycled content, recycling rate,
and recycling allocation method can be explained as follows: Under the system expansion
recycling allocation method used for the baseline results in this analysis, recycling burdens and
virgin paperboard displacement credits are included when the amount of postconsumer material
produced from the container system (the recycling rate) is greater than the amount of
postconsumer material used by the container system (the box’s recycled content). In the case of
the corrugated fiber produce boxes, the baseline recycling rate (95%) is greater than the recycled
content of the corrugated produce box (38.4%), so there is an excess 56.6% recovered fiber that
is recycled and displaces some virgin fiber in other uses. However, recycling operations are more
dependent on fossil fuels for energy compared to virgin paperboard production, so there is a net
increase in GWP for every kg of excess paperboard that is recycled and displaces virgin
paperboard. (Recycling does show benefits for other impacts for the fiber boxes, including net
reductions in energy and water consumption.). Because there is a net increase in GWP per kg of
excess recovered paperboard under the system expansion modeling, the GWP results decrease
when there is less excess paperboard recovered (excess calculated as recycling rate minus
recycled content). This differential decreases when the recycling rate decreases (e.g., from 95%
to 50% in the recycling rate sensitivity analysis) or the recycled content of the box increases
(e.g., from 38.4% to 52.7% in the recycled content sensitivity analysis). This explains why the
GWP results improve for the fiber boxes in these sensitivities. GWP results also improve for
fiber boxes under the cut-off recycling allocation method, in which boxes recycled at end of life
leave the system boundaries with no recycling burdens or material displacement credits.