United States National Risk Management

Environmental Protection Research Laboratory

Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268

Research and Development EPA/600/SR-97/082 October 1997

Project Summary

Life Cycle Design of Milk and

Juice Packaging

David V. Spitzley, Gregory A. Keoleian, and Jeff S. McDaniel

A life cycle design demonstration

project was initiated between the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency–

National Risk Management Research

Laboratory, Dow Chemical Company,

and the University of Michigan to investigate milk and juice packaging design. The primary objective of this

project was to develop design metrics

and guidelines for environmental improvement of milk and juice packaging

systems. Material production energy accounted for a large portion of the total

life cycle energy for these systems.

Conversely, post-consumer waste was

responsible for a majority of their life

cycle solid waste generation. Packaging systems were also evaluated with

respect to key performance criteria, life

cycle costs, and regulatory trends at

the local, state and national levels. Environmentally preferable containers

were identified, and tradeoffs and correlations between design criteria were

highlighted.

This Project Summary was developed

by EPA’s National Risk Management

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,

to announce key findings of the research project that is fully documented

in a separate report of the same title

(see Project Report ordering information at back).

Introduction

Integration of environmental considerations into the design process represents

a complex challenge to designers, managers and environmental professionals. A

logical framework including definitions,

objectives, principles and tools is essential to guide the development of more ecologically and economically sustainable

product systems. In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency collaborated

with the University of Michigan to develop

the life cycle design framework. Using this

framework, environmental, performance,

cost and legal criteria are specified and

used to investigate design alternatives.

 A series of demonstration projects with

Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, United

Solar and 3M Corporation have been initiated with Cleaner Products through the

Life Cycle Design Research Cooperative

Agreement. Life cycle assessment and life

cycle costing tools are applied in these

demonstration projects in addition to establishing key design requirements and

metrics. This is a summary report of the

Dow Chemical packaging project that investigated the life cycle design of milk

and juice containers.

Project Description

This study considered the life cycle aspects of both milk and juice packaging for

sale to households. Packages used for

the delivery of fresh dairy milk and/or reconstituted orange juice were selected for

study. Systems for delivering milk and juice

to on-site users, such as school lunch

programs, were not included in this study.

Additionally, this study did not address

impacts associated with beverage production.

A total of nine different container types

were included in this study. Glass bottles,

HDPE bottles, paperboard gable-top cartons, flexible pouches, polycarbonate

bottles, aseptic cartons, PET bottles, steel

cans, and composite cans were studied
2

using previously published life cycle inventory data. Many of these containers

were included with various sizes, refill

rates, and recycling rates in the study.

Although complete inventory data were

not available for PET bottles, steel cans,

or composite cans; these containers were

only partially analyzed based on data availability.

In order to compare containers on an

equivalent use basis, a functional unit of

1000 gallons was selected. All criteria were

evaluated based on quantities necessary

to deliver 1000 gallons to the consumer.

 Although both juice and milk containers were included in all aspects of the

study, for some categories, only results

for milk containers are presented in this

summary since more complete information was available for these containers.

Results

A multicriteria analysis of the performance, cost, environmental, and regulatory issues influencing each container system was conducted. The scoring table,

(Table 1) summarizes the results of this

analysis. In this table the life cycle data

are normalized to arrive at life cycle scores

ranging from 0 (best) to 10 (worst). Scores

represent the ratio of the data for a specific container relative to the highest reported value in the same category. A complete explanation of the scoring system is

contained in the full report. The following

sections briefly examine each assessment

category. Scores based on energy use

and solid waste data were averaged to

determine the total environmental score.

Environmental

Energy Use

Total life cycle energy for selected containers is shown in Table 2. Material production energy is also shown for these

containers when known.

Our analysis indicated a key design

trend in the container systems; material

production accounted for a majority of the

life cycle energy. On average 91% of milk

container life cycle energy was consumed

in the material production process, and

85% of juice container energy was used

in material production.

Solid Waste

For each container system the published

life cycle solid waste was collected and

post-consumer solid waste data were calculated based on container mass. Total

life cycle solid waste values reported include waste from industrial processing in

addition to post-consumer waste. Our

analysis indicated that for both milk and

juice packaging, post-consumer solid

waste accounts for approximately 80% of

total life cycle solid waste. Both post-consumer and life cycle waste can be greatly

affected by changing refill rates and unit

container size.

 The one-gallon, 50-trip refillable HDPE

bottle generated the least solid waste over

its life cycle (4 kg/1000 gal). In contrast,

the single-use, one-liter glass bottle generated the greatest mass of life cycle solid

waste (1220 kg/1000 gal).

Table 1. Milk Container Evaluation

Container Type Energy Use Solid Waste Total Environmental* Cost Performance Overall**

Flexible Pouch 2.1 0.14 1.1 1.1 6.2 2.8

Gable Top Carton 10.0 1.1 5.6 1.8 5.0 4.1

Glass Bottle

 refillable 4.9 1.1 3.0 1.2 10.0 4.7

 single use 8.8 10.0 9.4 10.0 7.5 9.0

HDPE Bottle

 refillable 2.9 0.05 1.5 0.7 3.8 2.0

 single use 9.7 0.55 5.1 3.4 1.2 3.2

Polycarbonate 3.3 0.04 1.7 1.0 5.0 2.6

Each energy use, solid waste and cost rating is based on data from the full report, using a scale form best to worst of 0 - 10, where the highest energy, waste and cost

data for the selected containers receive a 10 and all other data normalized to this point; performance ratings convert the subjective evaluations in the full report to

numerical values.

* Total environmental score is the average of energy use and solid waste.

** Overall score is an average of total environmental, cost and performance.

Table 2. Energy Use, MJ/1000 Gal Delivered

Container Trippage Total LIfe Cycle Material Production

Glass Bottle

 refillable 20 3900 1910

 single use - 7000

HDPE Bottle

 refillable 50 2320 470

 single use - 7720 6930

Gable Top Carton

 single use - 8000

Polycarbonate

 refillable 40 2630 1020

Flexible Pouch

 single use - 1700 1550
3

Airborne/Waterborne Emissions

Due to the fact that emissions data were

available for only a limited number of containers and these data were highly variable, emissions data were not used in

evaluation. Both airborne and waterborne

emissions are reported, where available,

in the full report.

Cost

Costs representative of the life cycle of

each container product were determined

from published information and industry

sources. The costs of seven processes/

stages in the container life cycle were

summed to arrive at the total life cycle

container cost. These costs were: empty

container, transportation (fuel use), filling

equipment, municipal waste collection, recycling, incineration, and landfill disposal.

These costs are shown in Table 3. In this

table, waste collection, recycling, incineration, and landfill disposal costs are combined to give the End-of-Life cost. Complete cost data appear in the full report.

Costs for milk and juice containers were

evaluated using the same method.

The price of empty containers accounts

for the majority of total life cycle costs as

calculated by the NPPC. For the container systems examined empty container

cost represented 75% of the total on average. Costs for refillable container systems

are less dependent on empty container

costs than single-use systems.

Performance

Performance requirements for beverage

packaging were determined with a multiple-step process. First, a literature search

was conducted to determine which physical characteristics and other properties influence beverage retailers and consumers. Next a set of six performance measures were chosen based on their apparent importance. These criteria are clarity,

burst/shatter resistance, ease of opening,

weight, resealability, and necessity of storing empties.

Each container was then subjectively

evaluated for the six performance measures and ranked as follows: good (+),

neutral (0) or poor (-). Using this ranking

the performance measures were weighted

equally to determine overall performance.

Additional market research would be necessary to establish more accurate weighting factors.

Two containers for both milk and juice

were determined to have a good overall

ranking. The single use HDPE bottle was

the only container to receive a good ranking overall for use with both milk and

juice. Of the milk containers, refillable

HDPE was the only other container to

receive a positive ranking overall. The only

other juice container to receive a positive

ranking was the PET bottle. The refillable

glass bottle received a poor performance

ranking overall for use in both milk and

juice packaging.

Legal

A complex set of legal requirements

exist for milk and juice packaging in the

US and other countries. These requirements vary substantially and have impacts

throughout the life cycle. Legal requirements detailed in the full report are

grouped into five categories: fees and

taxes, municipal/state/federal goals, bans

and mandates, recycling/waste minimization requirements, and manufacturer requirements. Different packages and materials might be favored under some of the

regulations, but none of them optimally

meet every requirement. In general, current regulations target post consumer

waste, however, the trend is toward

broader more flexible packaging laws.

Design Guidelines

 Simplified guidelines for evaluating the

environmental performance of milk and

juice packaging were developed based on

analysis of previous life cycle inventory

studies. The following guidelines were proposed to address life cycle energy and life

cycle solid waste issues in packaging design and management.

1. Life cycle energy can be approximated by computing the material

production energy of the package.

For this reason, less energy-intensive materials should be encouraged along with less material-intensive containers. For refillable

containers, high refill rates should

be achieved to best exploit the initial energy investment in the production of the container.

2. Life cycle solid waste is largely determined by post-consumer packaging waste; consequently less material-intensive containers in general

should be emphasized. The full report details the analysis done and

the conclusions drawn from this

analysis.

Conclusions

This project used the life cycle design

framework and tools to develop environmental and cost metrics for guiding milk

and juice packaging design. In addition,

analysis of milk and juice container systems highlighted both tradeoffs and some

consistent patterns among criteria and

metrics. Refillable HDPE and polycarbonate bottles and the flexible pouch were

shown to be the most environmentally preferable containers with respect to life cycle

energy and solid waste criteria. These containers were also found to have the least

life cycle costs. The strong correlation between least life cycle cost and least life

cycle environmental burden indicates that

the market system is encouraging environmentally preferable containers in these

cases. In other cases, significant externalities (environmental burdens) not reflected in the market system may create a

barrier for market penetration of an environmentally preferable container.

Table 3. Cost, $/1000 gal delivered

Container Trips Empty Container Transportation/Filling End-of-Life Total LC

Glass Bottle

 refillable 20 $64.00 $37.37 $14.14 $115.51

 single use - $773.00 $24.40 $171.39 $968.79

HDPE Bottle

 refillable 20 $45.00 $23.73 $1.21 $69.94

 single use - $300.00 $19.97 $8.27 $328.22

Gable Top Carton

 single use - $132.00 $21.43 $21.13 $174.56

Polycarbonate

 refillable 40 $70.00 $23.52 $1.00 $94.52

Flexible Pouch

 single use - $80.00 $19.83 $3.41 $103.24

End-of-Life = recycling, incineration, and landfill disposal
4

EPA/600/SR-97/082

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Center for Environmental Research Information

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT No. G-35

Several performance criteria present

potential barriers to otherwise preferable

containers. For example, containers that

require significant changes in merchandising and/or consumer practices may encounter market resistance. In the case of

refillable containers, merchants must accommodate returns of refillable containers

while consumers must be responsible for

rinsing and returning them to the grocery

store. In the case of the pouch, performance issues must be addressed in order

to achieve successful market penetration.

A pitcher, which must be cleaned periodically, is required to hold the pouch and

facilitate pouring and storage. Thus, although this system is currently popular in

Canada, both the pouch and refillable

bottles exhibit clear performance tradeoffs.

Public education about the environmental

merits of these systems is required to

influence their acceptance.

 Based on the findings of this study and

other life cycle assessments, regulations

should be reviewed to encourage more

environmentally preferable packaging.

Regulations that support post-consumer

solid waste minimization should be encouraged, but they should not prohibit systems such as the flexible pouch which are

among the most environmentally preferable container systems.

Dow’s overall objective in this project

was to use the life cycle design framework as a method of enhancing their strategic planning capabilities for producing

and marketing milk and juice packaging

resins. Dow’s participation in this project

demonstrates how a material supplier can

take a proactive role in life cycle management of its products. Their efforts in life

cycle design enable the company to partner with their customers (package fabricators) in a more effective way to both enhance environmental performance and

economic success. Partnerships are particularly valuable in addressing the complex parameters that affect multiple stages

of a product life cycle.

This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement number CR822998-01-0 by the National Pollution Prevention Center at the University of

Michigan under the sponsorship of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This work covers a period from November

1, 1994 to August 30, 1996 and was completed as of September, 1996.

David V. Spitzley, Gregory A. Keoleian, and Jeff S. McDaniel are with the National

Pollution Prevention Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115.

Kenneth R. Stone is the EPA Project Officer (see below).

The complete report, entitled "Life Cycle Design of Milk and Juice Packaging,"

(Order No. PB98-100 423; Cost: $25.00, subject to change) will be available only

from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Telephone: 703-487-4650

The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268