Environmental Packaging International
A Deep Dive into the Life Cycle of Flexible Packaging Victor Bell, EPI March 22, 2013
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Environmental Packaging International • Specialists in global environmental packaging & product stewardship requirements • Offices • Rhode Island • New Hampshire • Our clients include:
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Packaging Fees and LCAs
Steel Can Coffee
HDPE Can Coffee
Composite Bag Coffee
(107 grams)
(59 grams)
(24 grams)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
International Fee Comparison (per 1000 units/12 oz) Steel (11.3 oz)
HDPE(11.3 oz)
Composite Bag(12 oz)
Belgium
$12.30
$25.28
$13.97
Canada (Ontario)
$8.02
$9.42
$6.17
Canada (Quebec)
$7.48
$7.36
$4.79
Canada (Manitoba)
$13.41
$10.52
$7.91
Germany
$70.57
$141.88
$43.33
Japan
$4.21
$31.83
$12.55
Taiwan
$6.43
$15.54
$6.11
Country
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Walmart Scores Comparison Metric
Weight Package 1
Package 2
Package 3
Greenhouse gas emissions from package production
15%
0.000001173
0.000000319
0.000000144
Sustainable material
15%
0.00076527
0.00421862
0.000158124
Average distance to transport material
10%
0.000740495
0.000408098
0.000158124
Product to package ratio
15%
0.000740495
0.000408098
0.000158124
Cube utilization
15%
0.82375
0.8185
0.79825
Recycled content
10%
0.000543679
0.000369326
0.000154458
Recovery
10%
0.030467661
0.034800532
0.01483058
Non-renewable energy
5%
0.919497182
0.913625579
0.915599562
Innovation different from energy standard
5%
5
5
5
1.00
5.00
9.75
Total Normalized Score (out of 10) Number in green denotes a better score, number in red denotes a worse score.
Secondary and transport packaging is not included in this analysis, only primary packaging.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Consumption Metrics Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ-equiv)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Water Consumption (l)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz)
Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Functional Unit of Comparison = 132 oz; COMPASS tool assigned industry average post consumer recycled content percentage for material category ‘Steel – 37%.’
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Consumption Metrics Biotic Resource Consumption (m3) Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.023
0.028
Mineral Consumption (kg)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) 0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Emissions Metrics GHG Emission (kg CO2-equiv)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) 0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
CP: Human Impacts (Total) (1 million DALYs)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz)
Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Emissions Metrics
Eutrophication (kg PO4-equiv)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz)
Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) 0.00000
0.00100
0.00200
0.00300
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
0.00400
Percentage of Disposal Vs. Recovery
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Flexible Packaging Bio-Based vs. Degradable vs. Compostable vs. Non-Bio-Based •
•
What is the most likely EOL for flexible packaging? • Where (which countries are they going to)? • What is the disposal infrastructure? Can degradable or compostable packaging be recycled?
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure •
Waste-to-Energy (“WTE”) • In Europe, includes co-incineration: • Mass Burn Incineration (of unsorted MSW in a Municipal Waste Combustor) • Refuse Derived Fuel (pelletized/fluff MSW remaining after removing non-combustible materials) • Feedstock Recovery • Pyrolysis (thermal decomposition of organic material/MSW at high temp in the absence of air/oxygen) • Gasification (thermal decomposition of organic material/MSW in presence of limited oxygen/air) • Material Recovery (“MRF”) and Mechanical Biological Treatment (“MBT”) Facilities • Clean MRFs (for materials separated at source from MSW) and Dirty MRFs (accept mixed MSW stream and separate designated recyclables through manual/mechanical sorting) • Plastics Recovery Facilities (sorting/separation facilities for just plastic waste) • MBT Facilities (Technologies for treatment of residual MSW. The waste goes through biological and mechanical processes) • Organic Recycling • Composting (natural aerobic breakdown of organic/degradable material to produce compost) • Anaerobic Digestion (controlled anaerobic (oxygen free) breakdown of organic/degradable material to capture biogas)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: US & Canada Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
MSW
United States
12%
12%
14%
22%
26% 54%
57% 7%
26% 54%
8%
8%
5%
3%
3%
25%
22%
27%
Canada 75%
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
73%
70%
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: UK & France Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
MSW
9%
12%
14%
10%
36% 49%
United Kingdom
50%
39%
81%
29%
26%
27%
29%
44%
France
55%
11% 8%
15%
26% 12%
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
18%
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: Germany & Austria Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
MSW
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
0.5%
0.5% 18%
18%
24%
30%
34%
34%
Germany 29%
48%
48%
17%
41.1 million tons
40.1 million tons
38.7 million tons 0.4%
0.4%
16%
18.8%
18.8% 29%
38.7%
38.7%
Austria 41%
15%
3.1 million tons
42.1%
3.8 million tons
Source: This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
42.1%
3.9 million tons
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011
Material Waste Streams: Total Recovery Ratio: EU 27+, 2009 (PC Plastic Waste)
Sources: Plastics Europe, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011 This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: Latin America Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
MSW
Brazil
Argentina
Note: Improper Disposal includes open dumps, roadside ditches, and other non-controlled locations Source: This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: Latin America Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
MSW
MSW
Predicted 2021 MSW
Mexico
Note: Improper Disposal includes open dumps, roadside ditches, and other non-controlled locations Source: This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011
Where Will Compostable Packaging End Up? • Compostable packaging not yet accepted into composting or AD facilities for large-scale organic recycling. • Designed for degradability: concern of methane emissions in areas which still landfill • Recent studies show degradability plastics can contribute to rapid anaerobic biodegradation of materials within a landfill, emitting carbon dioxide and methane. • Recent estimates by the US EPA: of all the methane generated by U.S. landfills in 2009, 39% was emitted, 57% was captured and combusted. 30% of the total generated landfill methane was used for energy recovery. The GHG benefits from this recovery only offset the impacts of emitting about 4% of the methane generated from landfills in 2009.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Path to Organic Recycling
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Questions? Contact EPI at: Victor Bell (President) Environmental Packaging International 41 Narragansett Avenue Jamestown, RI, 02835 USA Tel: (401) 423 2225 Fax: (401) 423 2226
[email protected] www.enviro-pac.com
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Environmental Packaging International • Specialists in global environmental packaging & product stewardship requirements • Offices • Rhode Island • New Hampshire • Our clients include:
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Packaging Fees and LCAs
Steel Can Coffee
HDPE Can Coffee
Composite Bag Coffee
(107 grams)
(59 grams)
(24 grams)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
International Fee Comparison (per 1000 units/12 oz) Steel (11.3 oz)
HDPE(11.3 oz)
Composite Bag(12 oz)
Belgium
$12.30
$25.28
$13.97
Canada (Ontario)
$8.02
$9.42
$6.17
Canada (Quebec)
$7.48
$7.36
$4.79
Canada (Manitoba)
$13.41
$10.52
$7.91
Germany
$70.57
$141.88
$43.33
Japan
$4.21
$31.83
$12.55
Taiwan
$6.43
$15.54
$6.11
Country
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Walmart Scores Comparison Metric
Weight Package 1
Package 2
Package 3
Greenhouse gas emissions from package production
15%
0.000001173
0.000000319
0.000000144
Sustainable material
15%
0.00076527
0.00421862
0.000158124
Average distance to transport material
10%
0.000740495
0.000408098
0.000158124
Product to package ratio
15%
0.000740495
0.000408098
0.000158124
Cube utilization
15%
0.82375
0.8185
0.79825
Recycled content
10%
0.000543679
0.000369326
0.000154458
Recovery
10%
0.030467661
0.034800532
0.01483058
Non-renewable energy
5%
0.919497182
0.913625579
0.915599562
Innovation different from energy standard
5%
5
5
5
1.00
5.00
9.75
Total Normalized Score (out of 10) Number in green denotes a better score, number in red denotes a worse score.
Secondary and transport packaging is not included in this analysis, only primary packaging.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Consumption Metrics Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ-equiv)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Water Consumption (l)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz)
Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Functional Unit of Comparison = 132 oz; COMPASS tool assigned industry average post consumer recycled content percentage for material category ‘Steel – 37%.’
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Consumption Metrics Biotic Resource Consumption (m3) Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.023
0.028
Mineral Consumption (kg)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) 0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Emissions Metrics GHG Emission (kg CO2-equiv)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) 0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
CP: Human Impacts (Total) (1 million DALYs)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz) Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz)
Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) -0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Comparative Packaging Assessment – Emissions Metrics
Eutrophication (kg PO4-equiv)
Great Value Coffee (11.3 oz)
Folgers Coffee (11.3 oz) Dunkin Donuts (12 oz) 0.00000
0.00100
0.00200
0.00300
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
0.00400
Percentage of Disposal Vs. Recovery
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Flexible Packaging Bio-Based vs. Degradable vs. Compostable vs. Non-Bio-Based •
•
What is the most likely EOL for flexible packaging? • Where (which countries are they going to)? • What is the disposal infrastructure? Can degradable or compostable packaging be recycled?
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure •
Waste-to-Energy (“WTE”) • In Europe, includes co-incineration: • Mass Burn Incineration (of unsorted MSW in a Municipal Waste Combustor) • Refuse Derived Fuel (pelletized/fluff MSW remaining after removing non-combustible materials) • Feedstock Recovery • Pyrolysis (thermal decomposition of organic material/MSW at high temp in the absence of air/oxygen) • Gasification (thermal decomposition of organic material/MSW in presence of limited oxygen/air) • Material Recovery (“MRF”) and Mechanical Biological Treatment (“MBT”) Facilities • Clean MRFs (for materials separated at source from MSW) and Dirty MRFs (accept mixed MSW stream and separate designated recyclables through manual/mechanical sorting) • Plastics Recovery Facilities (sorting/separation facilities for just plastic waste) • MBT Facilities (Technologies for treatment of residual MSW. The waste goes through biological and mechanical processes) • Organic Recycling • Composting (natural aerobic breakdown of organic/degradable material to produce compost) • Anaerobic Digestion (controlled anaerobic (oxygen free) breakdown of organic/degradable material to capture biogas)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: US & Canada Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
MSW
United States
12%
12%
14%
22%
26% 54%
57% 7%
26% 54%
8%
8%
5%
3%
3%
25%
22%
27%
Canada 75%
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
73%
70%
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: UK & France Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
MSW
9%
12%
14%
10%
36% 49%
United Kingdom
50%
39%
81%
29%
26%
27%
29%
44%
France
55%
11% 8%
15%
26% 12%
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
18%
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: Germany & Austria Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
MSW
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
0.5%
0.5% 18%
18%
24%
30%
34%
34%
Germany 29%
48%
48%
17%
41.1 million tons
40.1 million tons
38.7 million tons 0.4%
0.4%
16%
18.8%
18.8% 29%
38.7%
38.7%
Austria 41%
15%
3.1 million tons
42.1%
3.8 million tons
Source: This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
42.1%
3.9 million tons
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011
Material Waste Streams: Total Recovery Ratio: EU 27+, 2009 (PC Plastic Waste)
Sources: Plastics Europe, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011 This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: Latin America Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
Predicted - 2021
MSW
MSW
MSW
Brazil
Argentina
Note: Improper Disposal includes open dumps, roadside ditches, and other non-controlled locations Source: This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011
Prevalence of Collection and Treatment Infrastructure: Latin America Country
Past - 2001
Current - 2011
MSW
MSW
Predicted 2021 MSW
Mexico
Note: Improper Disposal includes open dumps, roadside ditches, and other non-controlled locations Source: This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. , 2011
Where Will Compostable Packaging End Up? • Compostable packaging not yet accepted into composting or AD facilities for large-scale organic recycling. • Designed for degradability: concern of methane emissions in areas which still landfill • Recent studies show degradability plastics can contribute to rapid anaerobic biodegradation of materials within a landfill, emitting carbon dioxide and methane. • Recent estimates by the US EPA: of all the methane generated by U.S. landfills in 2009, 39% was emitted, 57% was captured and combusted. 30% of the total generated landfill methane was used for energy recovery. The GHG benefits from this recovery only offset the impacts of emitting about 4% of the methane generated from landfills in 2009.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Path to Organic Recycling
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Questions? Contact EPI at: Victor Bell (President) Environmental Packaging International 41 Narragansett Avenue Jamestown, RI, 02835 USA Tel: (401) 423 2225 Fax: (401) 423 2226
[email protected] www.enviro-pac.com
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
