Life Cycle Assessment of the Industrial Use of Expanded Polystyrene Packaging in Europe

Transcription

1 Life Cycle Assessment of the Industrial Use of Expanded Polystyrene Packaging in Europe Case Study: Packaging System for TV sets Full report Final version August 2001 Prepared for the Association: European Manufacturers of Expanded Polystyrene (EUMEPS) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 1/130 August 2001

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 6 2. Introduction Background to Study Life Cycle Assessment Report Structure LCA Practitioners and Commissioning Body LCA Practitioners Commissioning Body Goal and Scope of the study Introduction Goal of the study Scope of the study Description of the product studied Functional Unit System Boundaries Material recovery Energy recovery Data Categories Data Quality Critical Review Considerations Life Cycle Inventory analysis: sources of main data and hypotheses Production of expandable polystyrene (PS) Transformation of PS into EPS Data Collection Procedure Sources of data Data Treatment Average data for transformation step Definition of a packaging system for a 25" TV set Transportation steps related to EPS packaging (except closed loop recycling) 32 EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 2/130 August 2001

3 5.5 Transportation steps related to closed loop recycling of EPS Transportation steps related to secondary packaging Shredding of post-consumer EPS End of life Key assumptions Transport model Electricity model Assumptions related to material recycling of EPS Assumptions related to waste composition Assumptions related to incineration of waste Assumptions related to landfilling of waste Life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment results for the reference scenario Resources and energy consumption Resources consumption Energy indicators Air emissions Greenhouse effect Air acidification Photochemical oxidants formation Water emissions Waste production Summary tables of results Why do cardboard and LDPE seem to dominate the results? Life Cycle Sensitivity Analyses and Interpretation Introduction on sensitivity analysis List of sensitivity analyses carried out Consideration of TV sets weight during the transportation step Presentation of the sensitivity analysis Results Fate of EPS packaging including rate of EPS in the closed loop recycling (5%, 25%, 35%) Presentation of the sensitivity analyses Influence of EPS recycling rate with a standard situation regarding domestic waste fate (80% landfill and 20% incineration) Influence of recycling rate with an alternative situation regarding domestic waste fate (0% landfilling) 66 EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 3/130 August 2001

4 7.4.4 Comparison of all studied scenarios with recycling/incineration/landfill Weight of EPS packaging Presentation of the sensitivity analysis Results Summary of sensitivity analyses results Conclusions Summary table of LCA results normalised with European data General conclusions and identification of improvement options External Critical Review Reviewer Comments of the critical review PwC Ecobilan answers to the critical review comments Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Appendix A: Detailed description of sub systems Top level EPS life cycle system description in TEAM Production of Expandable PS beads (sub-system 1) Transport of virgin EPS (sub-system 2) Transformation of expandable PS into EPS packaging (sub-system 3) Transport of empty EPS packaging (sub-system 4) Secondary packaging material (cardboard and LDPE) production and end of life (sub-system 5) Transport of EPS and secondary packaging with TV set (sub-system 6) Used EPS packaging end of life (sub-system 7) Used EPS packaging in closed loop (sub-system 8) Appendix B: Sample questionnaire for data collection of main data Modelling of EPS transformation step Questionnaire for collecting numerical values Data quality questionnaire 98 EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 4/130 August 2001

5 13. Appendix C: Variation of individual data for the transformation step, shredding step and definition of TV packaging system Variation of inputs in the transformation stage Variation of releases in the transformation stage Variation of data for the shredding stage Variation of data for the definition of a 25" TV set packaging system Appendix D: Sources of secondary data Appendix E: Modelling of incineration and landfilling with WISARD TM software Incineration of household wastes with recovery of steam and/or electricity Landfill of household waste with leachates and landfill gas treatment Appendix F: General methodology for life cycle assessment studies Life Cycle Inventory The functional unit System delimitation Data collection Calculation procedures Allocation procedures Impact Assessment and Interpretation of Life Cycle Inventory Identification of impact factors origins in the life cycle Analysis of the flows regarding their effects on the environment Non-renewable resource depletion Global Warming Effect Atmospheric Acidification Photochemical oxidants formation Depletion of stratospheric ozone layer Eutrophication Appendix G: Inventory tables of reference scenario 130 EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 5/130 August 2001

6 1. Executive Summary Introduction Goal and scope of the study The European Manufacturers of Expanded Polystyrene (EUMEPS) Association commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers/Ecobilan to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) used in the industrial packaging sector. EPS production tonnage in Europe for packaging applications (fish boxes excluded) represents around t (source: EUMEPS 2001 statistics). The goal of this LCA was to: - identify the sources of environmental impacts associated with the use of EPS in the packaging sector in Europe, - quantify the benefits of implementing a closed-loop recycling scheme of the EPS used. For purposes of this study, the EPS being studied is used as a packaging material for the packaging of a TV set and more particularly a 25 TV set 1. The packaging system of a 25 TV set is the following: an EPS packaging (0.72 kg), a cardboard box (2.83 kg) and LDPE foam (0.098 kg) giving a total weight of 3.65 kg for an average weight of TV of kg. The study has been conducted according to the requirements of International Standards (ISO 14040, ISO 14041, ISO and ISO 14043). An external critical review was carried out by an independent LCA expert, Dr. Dennis Postlethwaite based in UK. The critical reviewer concluded his comments as follows: "Overall, a well-executed professional LCA fulfilling the objectives of the work and presented in a lucid and exemplary manner." The follow up of the LCA study was insured by a EUMEPS Task Force composed of 7 members from various European countries, through regular contact with PricewaterhouseCoopers/Ecobilan and through 4 meeting that took place all along the study from September 2000 to June Functional unit and system boundaries The functional unit of this LCA is the following: to pack and enable the transportation of television sets (25 ) Based on average data obtained from a number of industry sources, this equates to the use of: 722 kg of EPS, kg of cardboard and 98 kg of LDPE film foam. These quantities represent the functional flow. This LCA study corresponds to a "cradle-to-grave" study, i.e. the whole life cycle of the EPS packaging system for a 25 TV set was considered. Therefore, the study includes the various 1 the value 25 refers to the length of the diagonal of the TV screen (25 = 63.5 cm) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 6/130 August 2001

7 transport routes that are taken by the EPS from the site of production of virgin EPS, through the manufacture of the EPS packaging, its delivery to the customer and its final end of life disposal route. The whole system was broken down into the following 8 f sub-systems, as displayed by figure 1: When defining the life cycle of EPS packaging of TV sets, a choice had to be made regarding the type of recycling option that would be studied within this LCA. For EPS packaging, various types of recycling routes currently exist in Europe, the main one being the use of recycled EPS in blocks for building applications. Recycling in closed loop accounts for approximately 11% of the EPS recycling options in Europe. The rates of EPS recycling varies a lot depending on the European country, from nearly 1% to 86% with a European average of 25% (source: EUMEPS 2001 statistics). In the reference scenario, a rate of 0% recycling was considered, the closed loop recycling being studied in sensitivity analyses. 1- Production of Expandable PS 2- Transport of virgin EPS 698 km 8- Closed-loop recycling Pre-expansion 3- Transformation step 0% to 35% post-consumers EPS Molding 100% to 65% virgin EPS Shredding of used EPS Transport of used EPS 92 km 4- Transport of empty EPS packaging to TV manufacturer 94 km TV set packing 6- Transport of TV set with packaging from manufacturers to retailers 890 km 5- Production and end of life of other packagings (cardboard and PE foam) Separate collection of EPS packaging 50 km Collection of used EPS with domestic waste 30 km 7- End of life 80 % Landfilling 20 % Incineration with energy recovery Figure 1: System boundaries of the life cycle of EPS packaging for TV sets The main steps that were omitted from the system boundaries are production of TV sets, consumption of diesel oil directly related to the transport of TV sets themselves, the transformation step of LDPE in LDPE foam, printing steps of cardboard sheets and transformation step of EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 7/130 August 2001

8 cardboard sheets in boxes. The modelling of secondary packaging life cycle was less detailed and based on literature data. Sources of data and main hypotheses Data concerning the definition of the packaging system for TV sets were provided by two major TV sets manufacturers in Europe. Data concerning the manufacture of EPS packaging, the distribution steps as well as some recycling steps of the packaging system were specifically collected for the purpose of this study in by questionnaires distributed to EUMEPS members (national associations). The data were provided by 15 European industrial companies and are relevant for 2000 or 1999 year, depending on the facility. The data used to model the production of expandable PS correspond to the eco-profile published in 1999 by APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). Corrugated cardboard was considered to be made of recycled fibers and literature data published in 1996 by the federal Swiss Office of Landscape and Environment (BUWAL) were used to model the production step. For LDPE production, APME 1999 data were used. The European fuel mix for electricity generation represents the European situation for To model the fate of used packaging system (EPS, cardboard and LDPE), a ratio of 80% landfilling and 20% incineration with energy recovery was used. This breakdown is representative of 1995 data for European Union but it should be mentioned that the breakdown between incineration and landfilling varies a lot depending on the country in Europe. The end-of life steps (incineration and landfilling) were modelled with Ecobilan in-house data derived from the WISARD 2 software. For transportation steps, classical models were used based on literature data and on real distances of transport collected for the purpose of the study. For the recycling of used EPS in a closed loop, it was assumed that 1 kg of used and shredded EPS replaces 1 kg of virgin pre-expanded PS. Thus, using shredded post-users EPS allows to avoid the use of virgin expandable PS. For any energy recovered from the incineration of waste, the approach chosen was to subtract from the inventory the environmental impacts linked to the production of the energy quantity (electricity or steam) that the incineration process allows to save (considering that an average 35% of the energy from the waste is recovered). 2 WISARD stands for Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal. This software developed by Ecobilan is a life cycle tool for waste management that allows the modelling of the treatment of a waste fraction based on its characteristics and is widely used in several European countries. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 8/130 August 2001

9 LCA results and conclusions The LCA results consist of main results related to the reference scenario and of a set of sensitivity analyses performed on key parameters such as the weight of EPS packaging, the fate of domestic waste (breakdown between landfilling and incineration), and the rate of closed loop recycling. Where do the impacts come from? From the analysis of the reference results (0% of EPS recycling), it can be ascertained that there are three main stages of the life cycle of the EPS packaging system considered that contribute to the greatest impact upon the environment. - Secondary packaging (cardboard and LDPE) production and end of life contribute to the majority of the impacts in the reference scenario, especially with regard to impacts on the aquatic environment and waste production. When analysing in detail the results, it can be ascertained that the majority of the impacts are coming from the various processes involved in the manufacture, processing and end of life of the cardboard. - Virgin expandable PS production and the transformation stage represent two other major contributors to the environmental impacts (energy and air). In particular, the releases to air are dominated by the manufacture of EPS from virgin sources. For photochemical oxidant formation, the transformation stage dominates the results. This is clearly owing to the use of pentane in the transformation process, whereby pentane is released during this stage. With regard to the transport steps related to of EPS packaging life cycle, the impacts surrounding transport of packaging are minimal compared to the impacts relating to the other stages of the life cycle. One reason of this result is that EPS transformation facilities are very close to the packaging users, i.e. TV set manufacturers (distance of transport less than 100 km in average), which avoids environmental impacts. Another result is that EPS packaging life cycle has only minor impact on ozone layer depletion. What is the relative impact of EPS packaging compared with other European sources of impacts? The detailed LCA results, normalised with European data, are presented in table 2: - The first column corresponds to the LCA results linked to the European tonnage of EPS in Europe for packaging application 3 (estimated to be tons/year by EUMEPS) and divided by the European population. In average a quantity of 535 g of EPS packaging is consumed per inhabitant. - The second column presents, for a selection of environmental parameters, the EPS LCA results relating to tons of EPS packaging divided by the total European impact. 3 except fish boxes application EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 9/130 August 2001

10 LCA results 722 kg EPS LCA results per inhabitant (LCA results for t EPS / Europe population) Contribution EPS packaging in Europe Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % Coal consumption (in kg) % Water consumption (in l) % Air emission NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Depletion of the ozone layer (in g. eq CFC11) % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) NA Waste production Domestic waste (in kg) % Table 2: LCA Results after normalisation: environmental impact per inhabitant and contribution (in %) to the total impact in Europe The normal use of EPS packaging system corresponds, in average, to the consumption of 0.7 kg of raw oil per European inhabitant and this application also represents around 0.043% of total consumption of raw oil in Europe. Similarly, the use of EPS packaging system generates a waste quantity equivalent to 0.4% of the total domestic waste in Europe and has a potential impact on the photochemical oxidants formation inferior to 0.15% of the total European potential contribution. How to improve the environmental results of EPS packaging systems? Based on the results of the sensitivity analyses, the identified solutions allowing to decrease the environmental impact related to EPS packaging for TV sets are of 2 types: The solutions that can be influenced by actions involving industrialists (virgin expandable PS producers, EPS transformers and TV manufacturers): - increase the rate of EPS closed-loop recycling leads to improved environmental results: a 35% increase of the recycling rate allows to decrease the environmental impacts of the packaging system by 10 to 20%, whatever the situation regarding domestic waste treatment (more or less landfilling). - design lighter EPS packaging leads to improved environmental results: a 20 % reduction of EPS weight appears to bring reductions in environmental impacts by 10 to 20%. - optimise the energy consumption at the transformation step, as well as reduce the emissions of pentane by the use of recovery systems of such emissions or by the use of low-pentane EPS. - optimise the energy and resource consumption at the expandable virgin PS production (representing 33% of the total energy consumption of the system). Regarding photochemical oxidants formation (due to pentane release during EPS transformation step), 3 solutions allowing to decrease this impact can be mentioned: EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 10/130 August 2001

11 - increase of the use of recycled EPS thus avoiding the use of virgin EPS (an 35% increase in recycling allows a 30% abatement of the impact), - use of low-pentane virgin EPS, - installation at EPS processing facilities of specific equipment for VOC4 treatment (destruction or recycling). The solution that fall under the responsibility of government or local authorities: - The historical trend to decrease the landfillling rate of household waste in favour of incineration with energy recovery 5 will globally improve the environmental impacts of EPS packaging: the complete suppression of landfilling would allow to reach even better environmental performance that the 35 % increase of recycling rate, with improvements usually between 15 and 30 %. This prospective waste management option is particularly favourable for air emissions since it allows to reduce the greenhouse effect (respectively the air acidification) 3 times more (resp. 2 times more) compared to the increase of recycling rate. 4 Volatile Organic Compounds - Pentane is one of them 5 In the study, a global energy recovery efficiency rate of 35% was considered to model incineration process. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 11/130 August 2001

12 2. Introduction 2.1 Background to Study The European Manufacturers of Expanded Polystyrene (EUMEPS) commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers / Ecobilan to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) used in the industrial packaging sector. The study has been undertaken to identify the key environmental impacts of the life cycle of EPS packaging for a 25 television set and the major contributing stages of the EPS life cycle to those impacts. Large TV sets in Europe represent a market segment where EPS is still very active compared to other markets where moulded cellulose is increasing its market share. Based on EUMEPS last statistics, EPS production tonnage in Europe for packaging applications (except for fish boxes) represented around t in Out of this quantity, it can be estimated that the application "transport of brown goods" represents approximately 17 % 6. The data used in this study has been obtained through a number of different sources and, where data has been unavailable, assumptions have been made. As a result we have taken care to highlight all the assumptions made. The process data on the transformation step of EPS has been obtained from industry through EUMEPS and other national associations. Particular attention has been paid in this study to the environmental significance of implementing a closed loop recycling system. The methodology, data collection method, main hypotheses and interpretation techniques adopted in the study were agreed with EUMEPS during meetings attended by members of the project team on 15 th September 2000 (Paris), 26 th January 2001 (London) and 10 th April 2001 (Paris). A previous study 7 carried out by Ecobilan in 1997 was used as a framework/guideline for this European wide analysis. It should be noted that should the results of this LCA be used to inform the decision making process, there are many other factors that play an important role in this process and that this study does not consider such as economic and social factors. The study has been conducted according to the requirements of International Standards (ISO 14040, ISO 14041, ISO and ISO 14043). 6 This % is based on the information supplied by 5 individual national associations (UK, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden) who could supply the statistics of breakdown of EPS packaging tonnage between different applications (fish boxes, brown goods, white goods, trays ). TV sets are part of the "brown goods" family. 7 The Ecobilan Group has already carried out such a study on a national level in France, in 1997, for the French association Eco-PSE. The product studied was a packaging for a telephone-fax machine. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 12/130 August 2001

13 2.2 Life Cycle Assessment LCA is an environmental systems analysis and accounting tool for quantifying the inputs and outputs of an option, whether a product, a process or an activity and relating these to environmental impacts. LCA is a systematic approach, where the system of interest comprises the operations that collectively produce the product or constitute the activity under examination. An LCA offers a clear and comprehensive picture of the flows of energy and materials through a system and gives a holistic and objective basis for comparisons. Results are presented in terms of the system function so that the value of that function can be balanced against the environmental effects with which it is associated. The results of an LCA quantify the potential environmental impacts of a product system over the life cycle, to help identify opportunities for improvement and to indicate more sustainable options where a comparison is made. The results may also contribute to the design process by targeting more significant environmental impacts and the phase of the life cycle to which they relate. The LCA concept dates from the late 1960s and early studies concentrated simply on the use of energy and materials in the manufacture of products. More recently the focus of researchers has broadened to cover a range of sectors and to include a wide variety of environmental concerns including global warming and acidification. The emphasis on the use of LCA in making improvements in product manufacture is changing too and the approach is becoming widely used by both industry and government as a means of comparing the environmental advantages and disadvantages of design options, alternative strategies and of informing and justifying policy development. Table 1.1 summarises the four phases of LCA as specified by ISO ISO 14040: 1997 (E) Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and framework EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 13/130 August 2001

14 Phase Goal and scope definition (ISO ) Inventory analysis (ISO 14041) Impact assessment (ISO ) Interpretation (ISO ) Activities Defines the purpose and scope of the study and sets out the framework in which it will be carried out, including boundary conditions, underlying assumptions, allocation procedures, data quality, etc. Compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs for a given product system throughout its life cycle. Assessment of the environmental effects of the inputs and outputs identified in the inventory, comprising: selection: selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models; classification: assignment of LCI results to impact categories; and characterisation: calculation of category indicator results. Analysis of results, making conclusions, explaining limitations and providing recommendations based on the findings of the preceding phases of the LCA or LCI study and to report the results of the life cycle interpretation in a transparent manner. Table 1: Stages of Life Cycle Assessment 9 ISO 14041: 1998 (E) Environmental management Life cycle assessment Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. 10 ISO 14042: 2000 (E) Environmental management Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment 11 ISO 14043: 2000 (E) Environmental management Life cycle assessment Life cycle interpretation EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 14/130 August 2001

15 2.3 Report Structure The report comprises the following chapters: Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Executive Summary Introduction LCA Practitioners and Commissioning Body Goal and Scope Life Cycle Inventory analysis: sources of main data and hypotheses Life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment results for the reference scenario Life Cycle Sensitivity Analyses and Interpretation Conclusions External Critical Review These chapters are supported by a number of appendices providing detailed information regarding items such as system boundaries, end-of-life modelling, impact assessment methods, etc. Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Detailed description of sub-systems Sample questionnaire for data collection of main data Variation of individual data for the transformation step, shredding step and definition of TV packaging system Sources of secondary data Modelling of incineration and landfilling with WISARD TM software General methodology for life cycle assessment studies Inventory tables for reference scenario EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 15/130 August 2001

16 3. LCA Practitioners and Commissioning Body 3.1 LCA Practitioners The LCA was carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) / Ecobilan and involved staff from the London and Paris offices. Contact addresses details for the LCA practitioners are as follows: United Kingdom Rachel Noel (LCA practitioner) PricewaterhouseCoopers Southwark Towers London Bridge Street London - SE1 9SY UK Telephone: +44 (0) rachel.noel@uk.pwcglobal.com France Olivier Muller (Project Director) and Hélène Lelièvre (Project Manager) Ecobilan PricewaterhouseCoopers Tour AIG 34, place des Corolles Paris La Defense cedex France Telephone: olivier.muller@fr.pwcglobal.com helene.lelievre@fr.pwcglobal.com 3.2 Commissioning Body The project was commissioned by the European Manufacturers of Expanded Polystyrene (EUMEPS). Contact address details for EUMEPS are as follows: Andrew Barnetson EUMEPS secretary Avenue Marcel Thiry Brussels - Belgium Telephone abarnetson@bpf.co.uk EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 16/130 August 2001

17 Regular contact was maintained with the EUMEPS Task Force via EUMEPS Secretary throughout the duration of the project. The EUMEPS Task force attended the 4 meetings that took place all along the study, from September 2000 to June The EUMEPS "Task Force" members are: - Jose Palacios, EUMEPS President, Spain - Serge Galaup, ECO-PSE (French Association), France - Sébastien Botin, French member company of Eco-PSE, France - Haimo Emminger, IZK (German Association), Germany - Alessandro Augello, Italian member company of AIPE (Italian Association), Italy - Carlos Lopez, ANAPE (Spanish Association), Spain - Gerd Voss, German member company of IZK, Germany. 12 The 4 meeting took place at the following dates and places: 15 th September 2000 (Paris), 26 th January 2001 (London), 10 th April 2001 (Paris), 29 th June 2001 (Madrid). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 17/130 August 2001

18 4. Goal and Scope of the study 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents the goal and scope of the LCA study. In particular, the product considered in this LCA, the functional unit and system boundaries are described. The target audience for the project is broad. Primarily, the study is aimed at providing quantitative elements to EUMEPS to inform them of the implications of the manufacturing and closed loop recycling of EPS. In addition, the study will be used to provide environmental results of EPS packaging to stakeholders in industry and other external parties. 4.2 Goal of the study The goal of this LCA is to: - identify the sources of environmental impacts associated with the use of EPS in the packaging sector in Europe, - quantify the benefits of implementing a closed-loop recycling scheme of the EPS used. The results of the project will inform EUMEPS of the key areas of environmental impact associated with the life cycle of EPS packaging along with the environmental implications of implementing a closed loop recycling system. The goal of this study is not to compare EPS packaging with any alternative packaging materials. 4.3 Scope of the study Description of the product studied Polystyrene (PS) has many properties that are of use to many industry sectors. Its foam structure (Expanded Polystyrene-EPS) makes it excellent for shock absorbency and this, combined with its light weight, makes it a useful packaging material. It is also widely used in the building industry as it is a good thermal insulator. For purposes of this study the EPS being studied is used as a packaging material for the packaging of a TV set and more particularly a 25 TV set 13. EUMEPS decided to focus on this type of TV because it is considered to be the most representative size for TV sets on the European market. Considering that the goal of the study was to focus on EPS packaging, only the EPS packaging system was studied within this LCA, even if it may exist other packaging alternatives for TV sets. 13 the value 25" refers to the length of the diagonal of the TV screen (25" = 63.5 cm) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 18/130 August 2001

19 The packaging system of the 25 TV set that was studied is the following: - EPS packaging (made of 2, 3 or 4 parts depending on the specificities of the TV manufacturer), - a cardboard box, - 2 parts of LDPE foam 14 located between the TV set and the EPS parts. Regarding EPS packaging, there are 2 main ways of packaging and protecting the TV set: - 4 EPS corners - 2 or 3 EPS trays (front, back, base) Using corners instead of trays usually allows to lower the weight of the EPS packaging per TV set. Table 2 presents the description of a standard 25" TV set and its packaging system. These characteristics correspond to the average data provided by transformation sites or TV sets manufacturers. The sources of these data are detailed in section 5.3. The variation of individual data used to calculate these average values are presented in section 13.4 of appendix C. Weight of a 25 TV set (including remote control and instructions leaflet) Weight of EPS packaging (made of 2, 3 or 4 parts) Weight of cardboard box Type of cardboard Weight of LDPE foam film (2 parts) kg kg kg Corrugated cardboard, double wall, 100 % recycled fibers kg Total weight of packaging system kg (20% EPS, 77% cardboard, 3%LDPE) Table 2: Description of the 25 TV and its packaging system 14 sometimes refers to as "doufline" 15 The data used to model corrugated cardboard made with recycled fibers are BUWAL 1996 data. In this model, for 100% in weight of corrugated cardboard, 97.4% corresponds to paper (testliner and fluting paper) and 2.6 % corresponds to miscellaneous materials (maize starch, sodium hydroxide and borax). 100% recycled fibers is the type of corrugated cardboard used by one TV sets manufacturer. This data is in line with the data published by FEFCO, indicating that 77% of the production of corrugated cardboard is made from recycled paper. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 19/130 August 2001

20 4.3.2 Functional Unit The functional unit of this LCA is the following: to pack and enable the transportation of television sets (25 ) Based on average data obtained from a number of industry sources, this equates to the use of: kg of EPS, kg of cardboard - 98 kg of LDPE film foam. These quantities represent the functional flow. All the LCA results presented in this report refer to this functional unit * 722 g (average weight of the EPS packaging) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 20/130 August 2001

21 4.3.3 System Boundaries Description of the system under study In this study, the whole life cycle of the EPS packaging for a 25" TV set is considered. Therefore, the study includes the various transport routes that are taken by the EPS from the site of production of virgin EPS, through the manufacture of the EPS packaging, its delivery to the customer and its final end of life disposal route. The whole system was broken down into the following sub-systems (see Figure 2): 1. Production of virgin expandable polystyrene (from raw materials such as raw oil and natural gas), 2. Transport of virgin expandable PS to the transformation site, 3. Transformation of expandable PS and post-consumers EPS into EPS packaging on the premises of EUMEPS members (pre-expansion, expansion and moulding steps), 4. Transport of the EPS packaging to the TV manufacturer site for packing TV sets, 5. Production 17 and end of life of cardboard and PE foam used with the EPS to pack TV sets, 6. Distribution of TV sets (packed with EPS, cardboard box and LDPE foam) from TV manufacturers to retailers, 7. End of life of the EPS packaging (collection with domestic waste, landfilling, incineration), 8. Closed-loop recycling of a fraction of EPS after use. Remarks: - In the reference scenario it was considered that 0 % of used EPS was recycled, thus the environmental impacts related to sub-system 8 are nil. However, the sub-system 8 is displayed in Figure 2, as this sub-system will be part of the whole system in the sensitivity analyses, one of them exploring the environmental consequences of recycling rates of 5%, 25% and 35%. - The production and end-of-life of the "secondary packaging" of a TV set (i.e. cardboard box and LDPE foam) were considered in the system as they are directly linked to the EPS packaging. The results presented in this report are derived from the study of these 8 sub-systems. The detailed system boundaries for each sub-system are described in Appendix A. 17 It should be mentioned that for the modelling of the life cycle of secondary packaging, bibliographical data were used, thus meaning less precise data. This is acceptable, considering that the goal and scope of the present study is to focus on EPS packaging. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 21/130 August 2001

22 1- Production of Expandable PS 2- Transport of virgin EPS 8- Closed-loop recycling Pre-expansion 3- Transformation step 0%of post-consumers EPS Molding 100% of virgin EPS Shredding of used EPS Transport of used EPS 4- Transport of empty EPS packaging to TV manufacturer TV set packing 5- Production and end of life of other packagings (cardboard and PE foam) 6- Transport of TV set with packaging from manufacturers to retailers 7- End of life Separate collection of EPS packaging Collection of used EPS with domestic waste 80 % 20 % Landfilling Incineration with energy recovery Figure 2: System of the life cycle of the EPS packaging of a TV set (reference scenario) For the end-of life sub-system, the breakdown between landfilling and incineration for domestic waste (80%/20%) corresponds to the European average (see section 5.8 for more details). It should be mentioned that this breakdown varies a lot depending on the country in Europe. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 22/130 August 2001

23 When defining the life cycle of EPS packaging of TV sets, a choice had to be made regarding the type of recycling option that would be studied within this LCA. For EPS packaging, various types of recycling routes currently exist in Europe, the main one being the use of recycled EPS in blocks for building applications. The latter route accounts for around 40% of the total European tonnage of recycled EPS, as presented by Figure 3. However, considering the goal of the study and budget constraint, only the close loop recycling (i.e. use in other moulded parts) was considered within this LCA study. PS granules by extrusion 20% Production of moulded parts (i.e. closed loop recycling) 11% Regassing of PSgranules 8% Other 2% Sold for other applications : in insulation bricks 8% Sold for other applications : for EPS lightweight concrete 10% Sold for other applications : as soil improvement 2% Production of blocks (pack. or con.) 39% Figure 3: Breakdown of EPS recycling options in Europe source: EUMEPS 2001 statistics (energy recovery is not included) Also, it should be outlined that in Europe the rate of EPS recycling (in closed and open loops) vary a lot depending on the country, as shown by Table 3, the minimum rate being 0.8% (Denmark), the maximum rate being 85.7% (Austria) and the European average being 25.5%. When looking in details at the closed loop recycling rates achieved by each country, it can be concluded that the average European rate of 2.7% is non nil mainly because of the high rates of 2 exceptions that are Germany (with 17.3%) and Sweden (with 7.6%). Consequently, the ratio of 0% of closed loop recycling considered in the reference scenario was chosen in order to be representative of the current European average but also to meet the second goal of this LCA study which was to assess the benefits linked to the implementation of a closed loop recycling scheme. Austria Belgium Denmark France Germany Ireland Italy Nether -lands Portugal Spain Sweden UK Total year of data *1999* *1999* *1999* Total Recycling % 85.7% 34.4% 0.8% 17.5% 66.5% 6.4% 24.7% 47.3% 3.1% 7.2% 19.5% 15.1% 25.5% Closed loop Recycling % (in moulded parts) 2.1% 1.6% 0.5% 1.1% 17.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 7.6% 0.4% 2.7% Table 3: Recycling rates of EPS packaging in Europe source: EUMEPS 2001 statistics EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 23/130 August 2001

24 Criteria for the inclusion of inflows and outflows to the system The upstream and downstream data for the system inflows and outflows were systematically included when: - they represented more than a certain percentage of the inflows or outflows in terms of mass, or - they consisted of energy flows, or - they were considered to have a significant environmental impact. Life cycle steps omitted The following section indicates the steps that were not taken into consideration during the life cycle of the EPS packaging. 1. In general, the construction of buildings and machines was not included within the system. In fact, the environmental impacts linked to the construction and disassembly of buildings and equipment (e.g., impacts from the production of steel used in the construction of buildings or equipment) are amortised throughout their lifetime, that is over a period where an extremely large number of packaging units are produced. Since experience indicates that the environmental impacts from these components are negligible relative to those coming from the function of the plant, this hypothesis is justified in the scope of this project. 2. The production of TV sets is not included in the system as this step is independent on the type of packaging that is chosen (EPS packaging is one possible option). 3. The consumption of diesel oil directly related to the transport of TV sets themselves was not taken into account as the goal of the study was to focus on EPS packaging and the scope of the study is not to compare several packaging. Should a comparison be carried out, the full consumption of the truck should be taken into account for a fair comparison between different types of packaging. However, in order to get in idea of the impacts related to the transport of the TV sets themselves, a sensitivity analysis was specifically carried by including the fuel consumption related to the TV sets transport (see results presented in section 7.3). 4. The recycling and end-of life of minor packaging items 18 appearing in the cycle of the EPS packaging (e.g. cardboard box and LDPE film used to transport virgin expandable PS beads, packaging used to transport empty EPS packaging ). 5. The transformation of LDPE in LDPE foam. 6. The printing steps of cardboard sheets and transformation step of sheets in boxes (cutting, folding and glueing). The scope of this study was on EPS packaging, consequently the modelling of the life cycle of other parts of the TV set packaging was less detailed. Furthermore, very few reliable public LCA data is available regarding printing process. The impact of this step would be the same whatever the scenario considered Material recovery For the recycling of post-consumers EPS in a closed loop, it was considered that 1 kg of used and shredded EPS replaces 1 kg of virgin pre-expanded PS. Thus, using shredded post-consumers EPS avoids the need to use virgin expandable PS. 18 except the cardboard box and LDPE foam used with the EPS packaging to transport TV sets, whose end of life was completely modelled in the study. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 24/130 August 2001

25 4.3.5 Energy recovery Energy is recovered during the incineration of used EPS packaging during the end-of-life phase. Energy is also recovered during the incineration of secondary packaging (cardboard and LDPE foam) as they were assumed to be treated in the same way as EPS packaging. This section shows how to arrive at a system that has only one unique function: to package and carry TV sets. The method is explained below for the incineration of EPS but has been applied in the same way for the incineration of cardboard and LDPE foam. If it is assumed that the incineration of 1 tonne of EPS packaging leads to the production of Y MJ in the form of electricity and X MJ in the form of steam. The overall energy demand in Europe is assumed to be constant. This energy thus replaces the Y MJ of electricity and X MJ of steam that would need to be produced by a classic energy source if the incineration of household waste were not in place. As a result, the system under study that is producing the electricity and steam should be completed by subtracting the environmental impacts from the production of Y MJ of electricity and X MJ of steam by the standard means of electricity generation in Europe (1998 year). The following diagram illustrates this differential approach: Incineration of waste Y MJ of electricity avoiding (minus) Y MJ of electricity Production of electricity by standard process average European model (1998 year) X MJ of steam avoiding (minus) X MJ of steam Production of steam by standard process 36 % heavy fuel oil 33 % coal 31 % natural gas Figure 4 Consideration of energy recovery for incinerated waste The standard process of production of steam in Europe, i.e. the breakdown between heavy fuel oil, natural gas and coal was assimilated to French data 19 owing to lack of such data at the European level. It should be mentioned that the breakdown used for the modelling (36% heavy fuel oil, 33% coal and 31% natural gas) can be considered as a medium average, very near to an arithmetic average of 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 for each fuel type. 19 The source of the French mix of fossil fuels is the French Association for urban heating systems EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 25/130 August 2001

26 4.3.6 Data Categories Environmental flows 8 data categories were utilised to characterise inputs and outputs of the system: - raw materials consumption (e.g. raw oil, raw natural gas, bauxite ); - water used as inputs; - products as outputs (the functional unit of each unit process); - air emissions; - water emissions; - soil emissions; - waste as outputs; - recovered matter as outputs (when their effective reuse or recycling is outside the system boundaries). Energy indicators The following energy flows were calculated: - «Total Primary Energy»: the total primary energy expressed in «MJ» represents all energy drawn from natural resources, burned as combustible at each life cycle step, (corresponding to fuel energy) or present in material which is consumed at each life cycle step (that corresponds to Feedstock Energy or the energy content in the material), including all losses. The total primary energy can be split into either non-renewable energy and renewable energy or fuel energy and feedstock energy. The following equation illustrates this : Total primary energy = Non-renewable energy + Renewable energy = Fuel energy + Feedstock energy - «Non-renewable Energy»: part of total primary energy that is non-renewable expressed in MJ (energy content in oil, natural gas...), - «Renewable Energy»: part of total primary energy which is renewable expressed in MJ (energy contains of wood coming from a renewable forest source, hydraulic energy...), - «Feedstock Energy»: part of total primary energy expressed in MJ that is contained within used materials such as combustible fuel material. For example, energy contained in oil, natural gas and wood (for linoleum flooring) which are used as raw materials for the production of plastics (including losses). - «Fuel Energy»: part of total primary energy expressed in MJ which contains in used materials such as combustible, for example, energy contains in oil, natural gas used such as combustible in order to product steam for plastics production. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 26/130 August 2001

27 Environmental impact indicators Based on the environmental flows calculated, the environmental impact indicators listed in Table 4 were calculated: Environmental Indicator Depletion of non-renewable resource Increase of greenhouse effect Air acidification potential Photochemical oxidants creation potential Depletion of stratospheric ozone layer Water eutrophication potential Method used in this study Ecobilan method called "RMD (R*Y)" see appendix F (section ) for details on the method IPCC method, (100 years time horizon) see appendix F (section ) for details on the method CML method see appendix F (section ) for details on the method WMO method see appendix F (section ) for details on the method WMO method see appendix F (section16.2.7) for details on the method CML method see appendix F (section ) for details on the method Table 4: List of environmental impact indicators calculated Regarding greenhouse effect, also referred to as global warming, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes 3 different quantitative assessment methods relating to 3 time-horizons (20, 100 and 500 years). The 100 years time horizon was selected within this study because this is the most common method used in LCA studies and also because it corresponds to the reference one used for greenhouse gases inventories done at a country level or at an individual company level. Moreover, the 20 year horizon does not cover all the associated impacts linked with climate change and the 500 years horizon can be considered as being fraught with more uncertainties Data Quality International standards relating to LCA require assessment of data with respect to age, geographical and technical coverage. This study aims at assessing the environmental impacts of EPS packaging, in Europe and at the present time. Data Age: Data concerning the manufacture of EPS packaging and the distribution steps of the packaging were collected in by questionnaires distributed to EUMEPS members. The data obtained from 15 companies are relevant for 2000 or 1999 year, depending on the site. Other literature data used in this study was published in the 1990 s. In particular, the data related to the production of expandable PS was published in 1999 by APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). The European fuel mix for electricity generation represents the European situation for The fate of domestic waste (80 % landfilled and 20% incinerated) that is used to model the end-of-life of the EPS packaging is representative of 1995 data for Europe (see section 5.8). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 27/130 August 2001

28 Geographical: All main data are representative of the European situation. Data concerning the manufacture of EPS packaging were collected within 15 companies belonging to 10 European countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. Data concerning the production of expandable PS correspond to the data published by the APME and are thus representative of the European situation. The data related to the fate of domestic waste are also representative of the European situation. Technical Coverage: The data on production processes can be considered as representing the current industrial techniques. 4.4 Critical Review Considerations An external critical review by an independent LCA expert, Dr. Dennis Postlethwaite, was carried out. The peer reviewer's comments and the Ecobilan PwC's answers to these remarks are presented in section 9 of this report. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 28/130 August 2001

29 5. Life Cycle Inventory analysis: sources of main data and hypotheses Industrial data were specifically collected within this LCA project for the following steps: - transformation of expandable PS into EPS packaging, - transportation of virgin expandable PS to the site of transformation, - transportation of empty packaging to TV manufacturers sites, - transportation of TV sets with EPS packaging from TV site manufacturers to retailers, - transportation of used EPS (for recycling) in the closed-loop, - minor transportation steps related to secondary packaging, - shredding and reuse of used EPS. Other data come from bibliographical sources and previous European studies. They are presented in appendix D. 5.1 Production of expandable polystyrene (PS) Data for the production of expandable PS correspond to the eco-profile of expandable PS published by the APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe), in The primary data used for this eco-profile calculation refer to 1994 data and were supplied by 12 European plants located in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the UK. 5.2 Transformation of PS into EPS The data on transformation steps were collected specifically for this LCA study with a questionnaire that was then sent to various industrial companies by representatives from EUMEPS. The questionnaires were filled in directly by sites during the period November 2000 to February The collected data refer to 2000 or 1999 year, depending the site Data Collection Procedure The data collection process first involved the design of a specific Excel questionnaire for the data required. An example of a sample questionnaire is shown in appendix B. The following data was sought from the questionnaire: - the inputs and outputs related to the transformation of PS into EPS packaging; - the characteristics of the transportation steps located upstream and downstream of the transformation site (average distance of transport, real load of truck, maximum load, type of truck ). Each data provider was also asked to qualify the quality of data by providing general information on them (initial source, year of data, representation, data gaps ). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 29/130 August 2001

30 5.2.2 Sources of data The initial questionnaire was sent to 22 European companies of which 15 returned completed questionnaires to PricewaterhouseCoopers Ecobilan (in a few cases, the questionnaires were only partially filled in). Data for the transformation of expandable PS to EPS was provided by the following 15 European companies/organisations: Belgium (1) Denmark (1) France (3) Germany (1) Italy (2) Netherlands (1) Portugal (1) Spain (1) Sweden (1) UK (3) TOTAL: 15 European sites Association Styfabel (average, data from 3 Belgium companies were used) Styropack Knauf Isobox Technologies Storopack ex Novempor 20 Storopack Demcom Gruppo Poron Synprodo Plastimar Isopor SCA Tuscarora Linpac Moulded Foams Styropack Table 5: Sources of data for the transformation step of EPS Data Treatment The data were gathered and then processed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Ecobilan. The treatment step of the "raw data" consisted of: - a mass balance between inputs and outputs in order to check that the difference between inputs and outputs was within +/-2%. - a comparison of data for the same parameter in order to detect any odd values. For instance, the total energy consumption from each data source was checked to see whether it was within the same order of magnitude from one site to the other. - direct checking with the site, whenever necessary, i.e. each time a big difference of an individual data with the average was detected. - calculation of an average value for each piece of data provided Average data for transformation step Average data were calculated by using the individual data of each company (with an equal weight of 1 for each different site). They are presented in Table 6. Owing to the difficulty on measuring and the assumed small quantities of pollutants released in water, water releases were not considered to be a major impact for the transformation of EPS. As a 20 The French Novempor company was bought during the LCA stuty by Storopack Group and remaned Storopack. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 30/130 August 2001

31 result, it was left to the discretion of the sites to provide the information if it was readily available. One site does make precise measurements on its water effluent and was able to provide this information for the study. Consequently the water emissions for the transformation step were modelled with these data. Inputs -All data must refer to 1000 kg of final dried EPS Stages Material Water Electricity Heavy Fuel Oil Natural Gas (in kg) (in litre) (in kwh) (in kwh) (in kwh) 1- Before pre-expansion Pre-expansion '- Stabilisation Moulding Drying/Storage Total ( ) Outputs -All data must refer to 1000 kg of final dried EPS Stages Material out /Waste (in kg) Water out (in litre) Pentane emitted (in %) Steam out (in kg) 1- Before pre-expansion Pre-expansion Stabilisation Moulding Drying/Storage Total ( ) Table 6: Average site data for transformation step (provided by 15 companies) data refer to kg of final dried EPS packaging The variation of individual data for the main parameters of the transformation step (expandable PS input, total energy consumption, % of pentane emitted ) are presented in appendix C, section 13.1 and section Over 15 companies transforming expandable PS: - 12 facilities are using natural gas as fuel (i.e. 80 %) - 3 facilities are using heavy fuel oil as fuel (i.e. 20 %) Moreover, the EPS waste quantity produced at the molding step (in average 10.7 kg per ton of final EPS) is shredded and recycled internally on site, thus reducing the quantity of waste related to the transformation step (see Figure 5) (shredding step is detailed in section 5.7). Virgin EPS Pre-expansion step 10.2 kg of EPS 3.3 kg of waste 10.7 kg of waste Molding step Shredding step 0.46 kg of waste Total EPS waste: 3.76 kg 1000 kg of final EPS packaging Figure 5: Modelling of internal recycling of EPS waste on transformation sites EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 31/130 August 2001

32 5.3 Definition of a packaging system for a 25" TV set The sources of data used to describe an average packaging system of a 25 TV set are detailed in Table 7. The average resulting data have been presented in section The individual data were supplied by EPS packaging manufacturing companies and by 2 TV set manufacturers (Philips and Thomson Multimedia). It must be noted that both Philips and Thomson Multimedia have only one site of production in Europe for 25 TV sets (both sites are located in Poland). Therefore, the data provided by them can be considered to be representative of the European situation. Weight of a 25 TV set Weight of EPS packaging (made of 2, 3 or 4 parts) Weight of cardboard box Type of cardboard average of 5 companies: Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Poron (Italy), Philips (France), Thomson Multimedia (France) average of 6 companies: Knauf (France), Poron (Italy), Styropack (UK), Tuscarora (UK), Philips (France), Thomson Multimedia (France) average of 4 companies: Knauf (France), Poron (Italy), Philips (France), Thomson Multimedia (France) 1 company Philips (France) Weight of LDPE foam film (2 parts) average of 2 companies Knauf (France) and Thomson Multimedia (France) Table 7: Sources of data for the definition of the packaging system of a 25" TV set 5.4 Transportation steps related to EPS packaging (except closed loop recycling) The same questionnaire as the one used for the transformation step was used for the transportation of expandable virgin PS and the transportation of empty EPS packaging. For the transportation of packed TV sets, data were collected by Ecobilan PwC by directly contacting TV manufacturers or by means of the French Association Eco-PSE who asked its members to provide such information. Table 8 presents the calculated average data as well as the sources of data for these 3 transportation steps. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 32/130 August 2001

33 Transportation of virgin expandable PS (from supplier of expandable PS beads to transformation site) Distance Real load of truck 698 km 22.9 t average of 14 companies transforming EPS Maximum load 23.9 t average of 13 companies transforming EPS Empty return Packaging (for 1 t of EPS beads) 50 % yes 50% no 1 PE plastic bag: 1.15 kg 1 cardboard box: 17.3 kg (both packaging items were considered to be recycled) average of 12 companies transforming EPS average of 4 companies transforming EPS: Isobox Technologies (France), Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Tuscarora (UK) Transportation of empty and finished EPS packaging (from transformation site to TV manufacturer) Distance Real load of truck Maximum load Empty return Packaging (for 1 t of EPS packaging) 94 km 0.66 t 17 t 43 % yes 57 % no LDPE film: 11.8 kg (it was considered to be recycled after use) average of 7 companies transforming EPS: Isobox Technologies (France), Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Plastimar (Portugal), Styropack (UK), Tuscarora (UK), Styfabel (Belgium) average of 4 companies transforming EPS Isobox Technologies (France), Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Plastimar (Portugal), Tuscarora (UK) Transportation of TV set with EPS packaging and secondary packaging (from TV manufacturer to retailer) Distance Number of TV sets per truck Type of truck Empty return 890 km 283 units 80, 100 or 120 m3 No average of 4 companies: Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Philips (France), Thomson Multimedia (France) Table 8: Data and sources of data for the transportation steps related to EPS (except closed loop recycling) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 33/130 August 2001

34 5.5 Transportation steps related to closed loop recycling of EPS The closed loop recycling of EPS can be split in 2 parts: 1. Transport of EPS packaging from retailer warehouse to a platform where such packaging are gathered (this platform can be the initial warehouse), via the customer's house where the TV set is unpacked. 2. Transport of EPS packaging from this platform to a transformation site for shredding and use in the manufacturing of new packaging. The data related to the first step were transmitted by a French distribution company specialised in brown and white goods via the French Eco-PSE Association. This company currently takes back the EPS packaging of the TV sets when customers choose to have them delivered at home. For the second step, the data were collected with the main questionnaire on transformation step as such sites can receive post-consumers EPS. Table 9 presents the data and their sources for these 2 transportation steps. Transportation of used EPS packaging (from retailer to gathering platform via customers) Distance Number of TV sets and thus EPS packaging per truck Maximum load 50 km 10 units 0.95 t Type of truck PTR (<3.5 t) Empty return 14 l/100 km (max load) non, circuit Transportation of used EPS packaging (from platform to transformation site) Distance Real load of truck Maximum load Empty return Packaging 92 km 0.82 t 15.3 t 27 % yes 73 % no LDPE bag 1 bag contains 30 kg of EPS and weights 433g a French distribution company specialised in brown and white goods via the French Eco- PSE Association average of 11 companies transforming EPS Isobox Technologies (France), Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Isopor (Spain), Plastimar (Portugal), Styropack (Denmark), Tuscurora (UK), Poron (Italy, Decom (Italy), Synprodo (NL) and Styfabel (Belgium) Eco-PSE association (France) Table 9: Data and sources of data for the transportation steps related to EPS closed loop recycling EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 34/130 August 2001

35 5.6 Transportation steps related to secondary packaging In the life cycle of the EPS packaging, 2 other transportation steps were considered: - the transport of flat cardboard boxes from the supplier to the TV sites manufacturers, - the transport of LDPE foam parts from the supplier to the TV manufacturers sites. The data used in the model as well as their sources of data are presented in Table 10. Transportation of flat cardboard boxes (from supplier to TV manufacturers) Distance Real load of truck Maximum load Empty return 100 km 8.35 t 24 t no Ecobilan estimation based on data provided by 2 TV manufacturers: Philips, France and Thomson multimedia, France Transportation of LDPE foam and LDPE film (used as alternative material in a sensitivity analysis) (from supplier to TV manufacturers) Distance Real load of truck Maximum load Empty return 100 km 2.94 t 24 t no Ecobilan estimation based on data provided by 1 TV manufacturer: Thomson multimedia, France Table 10: Data and sources of data for the transportation steps related to secondary packaging 5.7 Shredding of post-consumer EPS The data related to this step were collected with the same questionnaire as for the transformation step. The average data and sources of data are presented in Table 11. The variation of individual data for electricity consumption and waste quantity production is presented in section 13.3 of appendix C. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 35/130 August 2001

36 Consumption of electricity/t of EPS Quantity of waste produced / t of EPS kwh 45.5 kg 21 average of 9 companies: Isobox Technologies (France), Knauf (France), Storopack ex Novempor (France), Plastimar (Portugal), Tuscarora (UK), Poron (Italy), Synprodo (NL), Styfabel (Belgium), Styropack (UK) Fate of EPS waste 80 % landfilled 20 % incinerated with energy recovery Ecobilan PwC hypothesis (same ratio as for the domestic waste) Table 11: Data and sources of data for the shredding step of post-consumer EPS 5.8 End of life After use, except the fraction of EPS that was considered to be recycled in a closed loop, the transport packaging was considered to be: - collected with the domestic waste flow, - landfilled or incinerated with energy recovery 22 (respectively 80 % and 20 %). Other waste disposal routes were not studied, as they were not considered to be significantly relevant to the disposal of this particular material. This end-of life model was applied to: - the used cardboard box, - the used LDPE foam. The data related to the split between incineration and landfilling derive from statistics published by the European Environment Agency in These figures are representative of EU situation in No more recent statistics was available during the modelling and calculation step. The WISARD 24 software was used to model the incineration and landfilling of a given material. This software is a life cycle tool for waste management that allows the modelling of the treatment 21 This waste quantity is equivalent to a waste ratio of 4.5% and corresponds to the average waste of the individual companies that supplied data. It must be outlined that some of these companies process, apart from industrial clean EPS waste, some post-consumers EPS waste (from selective domestic waste collection). The latter type of EPS, being mixed with other type of waste, generates higher level of waste during the shredding step. Consequently, it can be concluded that this waste quantity of 45.5 kg may be overestimated when applied to only clean EPS packaging coming from TV sets. 22 The hypothesis that 100 % of incineration is made with energy recovery was chosen in order to anticipate the European Directive 2000/76/CE dated 4 December 2000 and related to the incineration of waste. The article 4 specify that the energy produced by the incineration of waste should be done, when feasible. 23 Original source: - Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century - Chapter 3.7 Waste generation and management. Primary data: 67% of waste was landfilled, 17% incinerated, 10% recycled, 5% composted and 1% managed by other options. 24 Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 36/130 August 2001

37 of a waste fraction based on its characteristics. Appendix E gives a detailed description of the model for incineration and landfilling. 5.9 Key assumptions Transport model There are many ways to calculate fuel consumption, taking into account a variety of factors that influence the consumption (truck type, driving conditions, etc.) or the way it should be allocated to the transported goods (actual load, share of the product of interest in the truck load/volume, empty return trips, etc.). Below is the general-purpose formula that was used in this study for the calculation of the amount of fuel (diesel oil) used to transport a given amount of product. The basic assumptions are: fuel consumption for a truck with full load: 38 litres / 100 km fuel consumption for an empty truck: 2/3*38 litres / 100 km linear consumption for intermediary loads. The quantity of diesel oil necessary to transport a real load of product or material per truck delivery was calculated as follows: quantity of diesel oil (in litres) = distance of transport (in km) * 38/100 *[2/3 +1/3*real load/maximum load + empty return rate*2/3] Furthermore, for the transportation of TV sets with their packaging system, the fixed part of the fuel consumption (2/3) was attributed to the TV set themselves, as the goal of this transport step is really to deliver TV sets and not their packaging to the customers. The data collected show that there is no empty return for the transport of TV sets. Consequently the marginal fuel consumption allocated to the TV packaging system (EPS part + cardboard + LDPE foam) and taken into account in all the LCA calculation was per truck delivery: quantity of diesel oil (in litres) = distance of transport (in km) * 38/100 1/3*(total weight of packaging system per TV)* number of TV per truck /maximum load of a truck) Thus, By difference, the fuel consumption allocated to the TV sets themselves was: quantity of diesel oil (in litres) = distance of transport (in km) * 38/100 *[2/3 +1/3*(weight of TV)* number of TV per truck /maximum load of a truck)] EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 37/130 August 2001

38 5.9.2 Electricity model The model used for grid electricity production is representative of the European situation in 1998 (see details in Table 12). Electricity efficiency, production, supply and combustion of each type of fuel, except for hydroelectricity and nuclear electricity, have been derived from data published in 1996 by the Federal Office for Energy (ETH 25 ). For the hydroelectricity model, an efficiency of 90 % was applied to convert hydropower to primary energy. For nuclear electricity, the data of the nuclear cycle and efficiency were derived from previous LCA studies performed by Ecobilan for the nuclear sector. European Union, 1998 Coal % Lignite 7.70 % Fuel Oil 7.66 % Natural Gas % Nuclear % Hydro (assumption: % hydro+wind+waves+tide) Process Gas (coke oven gas + blast furnace 1.01 % gas) Free electricity 1.86 % (geothermal, solar, biomass and animal products, industrial waste, municipal waste) Distribution losses 6.22 % Table 12: Characteristics of grid electricity in 1998 in Europe (source: International Energy Agency, 2000) Assumptions related to material recycling of EPS For the recycling of used EPS in a closed loop, it was assumed that 1 kg of used and shredded EPS replaces 1 kg of virgin pre-expanded PS. Thus, using shredded post-users EPS allows to avoid the use of virgin expandable PS. 25 ETH, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Federal Office of Energy based in Zürich - Ökoinventare für Energie Systeme EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 38/130 August 2001

39 5.9.4 Assumptions related to waste composition In order to model the incineration and landfilling of the packaging items (EPS, cardboard and LDPE), the composition and parameters of each material presented in Table 13 were considered. Parameter EPS Cardboard LDPE film assimilated to plastic films Net Calorific value 40.0 MJ/kg 16.1 MJ/kg 31.4 MJ/kg (NCV) Composition Quantity of biogas released during the decomposition of waste over 100 years 10 % humidity dry content: 92.3 % C 7.7 % H 10 % humidity dry content: % C biomass 6.35 % H % O 0.54 % Cl 0.45 % N 0.14 % S 0.17 % Fe 1.04 % Al 10 % humidity dry content: 67 % C 9.93 % H % O 1.47 % Cl 0.9 % N 0.32 % S % Fe % Al 14.5 % mineral matter 0 kg/kg kg/kg 26 0 kg/kg Table 13: Physical characteristics of EPS, cardboard and LDPE film For cardboard and LDPE film, the waste composition data come directly from PricewaterhouseCoopers Ecobilan waste management software WISARD 27. In this modelling, a waste fraction is made of one main material (e.g. LDPE) contaminated by other elements present in the domestic waste stream, which explains the trace elements in the above table Assumptions related to incineration of waste The incinerator model used in the study was obtained from PricewaterhouseCoopers Ecobilan waste management software WISARD. The WISARD model is presented in details in appendix E. A new 250 kt/year incinerator, based on UK data, was used as a representative incinerator. However specific combustion rates and parameters on energy recovery derived from average French data were used, as they were considered to be more representative than one data set from a UK incinerator. The main parameters of the incineration model are presented in Table This means that after 100 years, and for 1 kg of cardboard landfilled, there will be 1 kg kg = kg remaining in the landfill. 27 WISARD: Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 39/130 August 2001

40 Energy recovery parameters (with an average NCV of 8.04 MJ/kg of waste Electricity consumption 80 kwh/t Electricity sold kwh/t Steam sold MJ/t Overall energy recovery efficiency 35 % Gas cleaning consists of a spray absorber (as a rule) where lime slurry is atomised and reacts with acid gases Type of flue gas treatment and conditions these for the baghouse filter. In addition activated carbon is dosed before the baghouse filter. Inputs are hydrated or quick lime, activated carbon, water; outputs consist of gas cleaning residuals (incorporating fly ash) and treated flue gas Table 14: Characteristics of incinerator model The application of these parameters to each type of waste gives the results displayed in Table 15. Parameter EPS Cardboard LDPE film Net Calorific Value (NCV) 40.0 MJ/kg 16.1 MJ/kg 31.4 MJ/kg Quantity of electricity 2.11 MJ 0.84 MJ 1.65 MJ recovered from the waste incineration Quantity of steam recovered from the waste incineration MJ 4.80 MJ 9.43 Table 15: Energy recovered from waste incineration Owing to the assumption that the incinerator produces electricity and steam, it is assumed that the production of electricity and steam from classical fuels (natural gas, coal, nuclear fuel ) is avoided. Section and section respectively present the mix of fuels used for electricity and steam production Assumptions related to landfilling of waste Information for the landfilling of waste (EPS, cardboard and LDPE) was also obtained from WISARD software. The WISARD model is presented in details in appendix E. The landfill used in the model was a large wet clay line landfill and is based on UK data. However some parameters (listed in Table 16) derived from average French data, as they were considered to be more representative than one data set from a UK landfill. Production of biogas - 30 % direct discharged - 70 % flared (methane is burnt to CO2) Recovery of energy from biogas treatment none Production of leachates 85 l/ produced / t landfilled waste Treatment of leachates - 10% is not treated - 90 % is treated with a biological treatment Table 16: Characteristics of landfilling model EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 40/130 August 2001

41 6. Life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment results for the reference scenario All the results presented in this section always refer to the functional unit, i.e. to pack and enable the transportation of television sets (25 ), which corresponds as explained in section 4.3.2, to the following quantity of packaging materials: kg of EPS, kg of cardboard - 98 kg of LDPE film foam. Also, all the LCA results are split between the 8 sub-systems defined in the system boundaries section, i.e.: 1. Production of virgin expandable polystyrene (from raw materials such as raw oil and natural gas), 2. Transport of virgin expandable PS to the transformation site, 3. Transformation of expandable PS (pre-expansion, expansion and moulding steps), 4. Transport of the EPS packaging to the TV manufacturer site for packing TV sets, 5. Production and end of life of cardboard and PE foam used with the EPS to pack TV sets, 6. Distribution of TV sets (packed with EPS, cardboard box and LDPE foam) from TV manufacturers to retailers (the diesel consumption directly linked to the TV sets being excluded). 7. End of life of the EPS packaging (collection with domestic waste, landfilling, incineration) 8. Closed-loop recycling of a fraction of EPS after use. It is reminded that the reference scenario considers that 0 % of used EPS is recycled. This is why the sub-system 8 ("closed loop recycling") does not appear in the results tables nor the graphs of this section. The environmental consequences of closed loop recycling have been studied in one of the sensitivity analyses that covers various recycling rates (see section 7.4). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 41/130 August 2001

42 6.1 Resources and energy consumption 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transfor mation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboar d and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 1000 units of EPS packaging TOTAL Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) Feedstock Energy (in MJ) Fuel Energy (in MJ) Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) Renewable Energy (in MJ) Raw oil consumption (in kg) Natural Gas consumption (in kg) Coal consumption (in kg) Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) Water consumption (in litre) Table 17: Resource and energy consumption of the life cycle stages of EPS for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario The table above shows the average data for the consumption of resources and energy during the stages of manufacture, use and end of life of the EPS. The boxes shaded orange show the life cycle step that consumes the greatest amount of resources or energy while the boxes shaded yellow show the second contributor step. It can be clearly ascertained from this table that stage one (virgin EPS production) of the EPS life cycle and stage 5 (cardboard and LDPE) consume the greatest amounts of energy and resources. The cells coloured blue indicate the maximum value for that particular material energy consumption if stage 5 is ignored. From this it can be ascertained that both stage 1 (production of virgin EPS) and stage 3 (transformation) are the stages of the life cycle of the EPS that consume the greatest quantity of resources and energy. The graphs below provide a detailed breakdown of the trends in resource consumptions and energy. Owing to the range of graphs available only those that show interesting and informative results have been generated. Where similar trends exist for raw material consumption or releases from the life cycle of the EPS, not all of the graphs have been produced. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 42/130 August 2001

43 6.1.1 Resources consumption Depletion of non renewable resources (in year-1) (r) Uranium (U, ore) (r) Oil (in ground) (r) Nickel (Ni, ore) (r) Natural Gas (in ground) (r) Lead (Pb, ore) (r) Barium Sulphate (BaSO4, in ground) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life Figure 6: Depletion of non-renewable resources for the life cycle of EPS for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario The main non-renewable resource consumed from the life cycle of the EPS is natural gas, the majority of which is consumed during the manufacture of EPS from virgin materials (stage 1). Stage 3 (transformation) and stage 5 (cardboard and LDPE) also consume large quantities of natural gas. Oil (in ground) is the second largest non-renewable resource consumed during the life cycle stage and the trend of consumption follows that of natural gas. Barium sulphate is also consumed during the life cycle of the EPS, in the transformation step, and more particularly during the extraction of natural gas consumed during the pre-expansion and moulding stages. There is also a small contribution of uranium resource consumed for the generation of electricity used to produce cardboard with recycled fibers. The consumption of these non-renewable resources are all related to the stages of the life cycle that have a high energy consumption. A small negative consumption can be seen for the end of life stage (stage 7) of the life cycle. This is directly related to the incineration of EPS which has energy recovery and therefore avoids the consumption of non-renewable resources. Regarding water, 51% of water consumption is linked to the secondary packaging life cycle, more particularly to cardboard production and this type of water corresponds to process water. 35% of waster is consumed during transformation step of EPS and is linked to steam usage. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 43/130 August 2001

44 6.1.2 Energy indicators TOTAL Virgin EPS Transport virgin EPS Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) Transformation 5- Cardboard and LDPE 4- Transport of empty EPS 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 7: Consumption of Primary Energy for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario Figure 7 displays the consumption of primary energy in the life cycle stages of the EPS. The use of cardboard and LDPE as packaging clearly leads to the consumption of the greatest proportion of Primary Energy in the life cycle. The manufacture of virgin EPS and transformation stage also consume fairly large quantities of such energy compared to the other life cycle stages. The end of life stage avoids the consumption of MJ of primary energy. This is evidently linked to the production of electricity and steam during the incineration of EPS and the other packaging items. A very similar pattern emerges when looking at the results for other fuel energy (see Figure 8). Fuel Energy (in MJ) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS Transformation 2- Transport virgin EPS 4- Transport of empty EPS 6- Transport with TV 5- Cardboard and LDPE 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 8: Fuel Energy for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 44/130 August 2001

45 Regarding feedstock energy (see Figure 9), which refers to the energy contained in materials, 46% is due to the virgin EPS step (feedstock energy contained in oil and natural gas used to produce EPS beads). 61% is related to the cardboard and LDPE life cycle (mainly to the cardboard production), as it should be reminded that in the reference scenario, 80% of the waste packaging materials is considered to be landfilled, such preventing any recovery of the potential energy they contain TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS Feedstock Energy (in MJ) Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 7- EPS End of life 6- Transport with TV 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 9: Feedstock Energy for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario When looking at the breakdown of energy between renewable and non renewable energy, it can be concluded that over 90% of the renewable energy consumed by the life cycle stage of the EPS is consumed by the sub system related to cardboard and LDPE, and more precisely by the cardboard production. This suggests that the energy consumed for the manufacture of this material originates from a predominantly renewable energy source. Therefore, whilst this stage of the life cycle consumes the greatest amount of energy, an important fraction (60 %) of the energy consumed from this process is renewable as opposed to the other life cycle stages that consume predominantly nonrenewable energy. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 45/130 August 2001

46 6.2 Air emissions 1000 units of EPS packaging TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformati on 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life CO2 fossil air emission (in g) CO air emission (in g) NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) Particulates air emission (in g) SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) Methane air emission (in g) Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) Table 18: Air Emissions from the life cycle stages of EPS for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario A selection of key air emissions are shown above. The boxes shaded orange show the life cycle step that releases the largest quantity of pollutants into the atmosphere. Where stage 5 (cardboard and LDPE) have the greatest impact, the second largest value has been coloured in yellow It is clear from the table that there are three main stages of the life cycle that contribute to the greatest emissions to atmosphere. These three stages are the same as for energy and resource consumption (production of EPS from virgin material, transformation and use of cardboard and LDPE). The LCA results regarding ozone depletion impact category show that the EPS packaging life cycle contribution to this impact is negligible, with around 3 g equivalent CFC-11 as a total. This quantity can be compared to the annual quantity of CFCs produced per European inhabitant equal to approximately 90 g 28 in Consequently, in the results of the sensitivity analyses, this impact category was omitted. There are a number of releases to air that are considered in this study. Some are presented in the following graphs. 28 source: Eurostat - Environnement Statistics 1997, edition A total of 33.1 kt of CFCs (CFC-11, 12, 113, 114, 115) was produced in 1996 within the European Union. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 46/130 August 2001

47 6.2.1 Greenhouse effect IPCC-Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 years) (a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) (a) Methane (CH4) 10,000,000 (a) HCFC 22 (CHF2Cl) (a) Halon 1301 (CF3Br) (a) CFC 13 (CF3Cl) (a) CFC 12 (CCl2F2) 5,000,000 (a) CFC 114 (CF2ClCF2Cl) (a) CFC 11 (CFCl3) (a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF4) (a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fossil) 0 TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life Figure 10: Greenhouse Effect for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario This graph clearly shows the main stages of the EPS life cycle that contribute to the Greenhouse Effect. Both stages 1 (production of virgin EPS) and 3 (transformation) contribute greatly to the greenhouse effect with releases of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, stage 5 has the largest impact on the Greenhouse Effect as it releases almost double the amount of gases, with the majority of methane being released from this stage of the life cycle (methane is coming from the landfilled cardboard). This pattern ties in with the trend of energy and resource consumption of these three stages. The sources of methane are varied however, cardboard in particular releases a large quantity of methane during its disposal with biogas emission Air acidification Air acidification (in g eq. H+) (a) Ammonia (NH3) (a) Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4) (a) Sulphur Oxides (SOx as SO2) (a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) (a) Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) (a) Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) (a) Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) (a) Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling -200 Figure 11: Air Acidification for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 47/130 August 2001

48 In relation to air acidification, it is clearly the same three stages that have the most significant contribution to acidifying releases to atmosphere. The most prominent contribution is made by sulphur oxides (SOx) which contribute over 50% of the air acidifying gases. The majority of this gas is released from stages one and three. Within stage three (transformation step), the origin of SOx gas is the combustion of heavy fuel oil which is still used by some of the transformer facilities. In the survey performed within this LCA study, it appears that 3 facilities over 15 are using heavy fuel oil as the main source of energy. The other major gas comprises nitrogen oxides, this is most prominent for stages one and five but is also present in stages three and four. Interestingly, the end of life stage for the EPS at stage seven shows both a positive and a negative value for air acidification. A small quantity of sulphur oxides are avoided from this stage of the life cycle, whilst a small quantity of nitrogen oxides are released. The negative value for sulphur oxides is a result of the incineration of the waste with energy recovery. This avoids the production of electricity and steam Photochemical oxidants formation WMO-Photochemical oxidant formation (average) (g.eq ethlylene) (a) Pentane (n-c5h12) (a) Methanol (CH3OH) (a) Methane (CH4) (a) Hydrocarbons (unspecified) (a) Hydrocarbons (except methane) (a) Butene (1-CH3CH2CHCH2) (a) Butane (n-c4h10) (a) Benzene (C6H6) (a) Acetone (CH3COCH3) Total 1. Virgin EPS Production 2. Virgin EPS Transport 3. Transformation 4. Transport of empty EPS 5.Card and LDPE: Prod.and EoL 6.Transport with TV 7.EPS End of life Figure 12: Photochemical oxidant formation for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario The largest contributor to the formation of photochemical oxidants is the transformation stage. This is clearly the result of the use of pentane during this life cycle stage as can be seen in the original average questionnaire received from respondents (see Table 6). A small contribution to photochemical oxidant formation is made by hydrocarbons (except methane) in the production of virgin EPS and the secondary packaging materials. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 48/130 August 2001

49 6.3 Water emissions TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (in g) Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) (in g) Water emission of nitrate (in g) Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) Figure 13: Releases to water from the life cycle stages of EPS for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario A selection of key releases to water are shown above. The boxes shaded orange show the life cycle step that has the largest impact in relation to releases to water. The second largest value has been coloured in yellow. It is clear from the table that the use of cardboard and LDPE have, by far, the greatest contribution to impacts associated with releases to water with over 80% of the impact to water coming from this source. The second most significant stage in the life cycle is stage one, virgin EPS production. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 49/130 August 2001

50 Water eutrophication ( in g eq. PO4) CML Method 1, (w) Phosphorus Pentoxide (P2O5) (w) Phosphorus (P) (w) Phosphorous Matter (unspecified, as P) (w) Phosphates (PO4 3-, HPO4--, H2PO4-, H3PO4, as P) (w) Nitrogenous Matter (unspecified, as N) (w) Nitrogenous Matter (Kjeldahl, as N) (w) Nitrite (NO2-) (w) Nitrate (NO3-) (w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (w) Ammonia (NH4+, NH3, as N) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life Figure 14: Water eutrophication for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario The graph above shows the key contributing chemicals to the eutrophication phenomenon. Clearly 94% of the eutrophication impact comes from the use of cardboard and LDPE as a secondary packaging material. Nitrate is the greatest contributor to this process, accounting for 72% of the total eutrophication impact, followed by chemical oxygen demand and ammonia. The main contributor step within the secondary life cycle is the production of corrugated cardboard which is the source of 99.7% of nitrate water emissions, while LDPE foam contribution to water impacts is negligible. Remark: for the landfilling of packaging materials (EPS, cardboard and LDPE), based on a quantity of 85 litres of leachates produced per ton of landfilled waste and on a biological treatment of 90% of the leachates, the landfilling of EPS, cardboard and LDPE are the source of around 55 g equivalent PO4, that is 6.4% of the total. With less favourable assumption regarding landfilling facilities (i.e. 21 % of treatment of leachates instead of 90% and litres of leachates per ton of waste instead of 85 litres), it can be roughly estimated that the landfilling of packaging materials would be the source of around 5100 g equivalent PO4, thus representing around 86% of the total. This assumption would be even less favourable to cardboard. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 50/130 August 2001

51 6.4 Waste production TOTAL Total waste (in kg) Hazardous waste (in kg) Mineral waste (in kg) Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) Total recovered matter (in kg) NB: Non mineral waste category represents the waste that is landfilled 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV Figure 15: Waste produced from the life cycle stages of EPS for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario The boxes shaded in orange are the life cycle stages that have the greatest contribution the one shaded in yellow are the life cycle stages that have the second highest contribution to the production of waste and the boxes shaded pale yellow have the third highest contribution. 7- EPS End of life Once again, cardboard and LDPE dominate as the main contributor to releases to the environment, creating 60% and over of the different waste types produced. When looking at the TEAM system in more detail, it is apparent that the waste from the production and disposal of cardboard is far higher than the waste from the EPS, which is a direct consequence of the greater quantity of cardboard packaging compared to EPS packaging (2 828 kg cardboard compared to 722 kg of EPS and 98 kg of LDPE). Also, during the production of the cardboard and LDPE, more waste is produced than that produced by the production of EPS: kg of waste for 1 kg of EPS whereas kg of waste is produced for 1 kg of cardboard (that is 2.5 times more than EPS) and 0.13 kg of waste is produced for 1 kg of LDPE film (that is 3.4 times more than EPS). Finally, regarding total waste linked to the secondary packaging life cycle, 95% is related to cardboard while 5% is related to LDPE foam, which is a direct consequence of the difference in the weight of the respective materials (cardboard weight is 29 times higher than LDPE foam weight). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 51/130 August 2001

52 Total waste (in kg) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 6- Transport with TV 5- Cardboard and LDPE 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 16: Total waste produced during the life cycle of EPS for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 52/130 August 2001

53 6.5 Summary tables of results 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transform ation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Closeloop recycling Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) 33% 0% 19% 1% 47% 0% -2% 0% Feedstock Energy (in MJ) 46% 0% 0% 1% 61% 0% -7% 0% Fuel Energy (in MJ) 25% 1% 33% 2% 37% 0% 2% 0% Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) 47% 1% 26% 2% 26% 0% -2% 0% Renewable Energy (in MJ) 0% 0% 1% 0% 98% 0% 0% 0% Raw oil consumption (in kg) 60% 1% 16% 4% 18% 1% -2% 0% Natural Gas consumption (in kg) 43% 0% 30% 0% 28% 0% -1% 0% Depletion of non renewable resources (in 43% 0% 32% 1% 25% 0% -2% 0% Water consumption (in litre) 13% 0% 35% 1% 51% 0% -1% 0% Air emission CO2 fossil air emission (in g) 34% 1% 34% 2% 26% 1% 2% 0% CO air emission (in g) 18% 1% 65% 4% 16% 1% -6% 0% NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) 44% 2% 11% 7% 31% 2% 3% 0% Particulates air emission (in g) 41% 1% 16% 3% 39% 1% -1% 0% SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) 41% 1% 46% 1% 18% 0% -7% 0% Methane air emission (in g) 9% 0% 8% 0% 83% 0% -1% 0% Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) 40% 1% 30% 4% 27% 1% -3% 0% Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g 27% 1% 27% 2% 41% 1% 2% 0% Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. 8% 0% 84% 1% 8% 0% 0% 0% Table 19: Summary Table of results (Resources and Air) for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario Table 19 and Table 20 summarise the LCA results of the reference scenario: the boxes shaded orange show the life cycle step that has the largest impact in relation to releases to water. The second largest value has been coloured in yellow. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 53/130 August 2001

54

55 Water emission 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transfor mation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboar d and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Closeloop recycling Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) 2% 0% 1% 0% 94% 0% 1% 0% Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (in g) 11% 1% 0% 0% 88% 0% 0% 0% Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) (in g) 8% 0% 0% 0% 84% 0% 8% 0% Water emission of nitrate (in g) 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) 20% 0% 18% 0% 62% 0% -1% 0% Waste production Total waste (in kg) 1% 0% 2% 0% 74% 0% 23% 0% Hazardous waste (in kg) 7% 0% 12% 0% 81% 0% -1% 0% Mineral waste (in kg) 17% 0% 35% 0% 60% 0% -13% 0% Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) 0% 0% 0% 0% 72% 0% 28% 0% Total recovered matter (in kg) 0% 7% 0% 4% 88% 0% 0% 0% NB Non mineral waste category represents the waste that is landfilled Table 20: Summary Table of results (Water and Waste) for 1000 units of TV sets transported reference scenario In conclusion and as illustrated by Table 19 and Table 20, there are three major stages within the life cycle of the EPS that provide the greatest contribution to environmental impacts. Clearly the manufacture and use of cardboard and LDPE as a packaging material dominates the tables of results, contributing in most cases to over 60% of the overall impacts. The manufacture of EPS from a virgin source (stage 1) is the second main contributor to environmental impacts relating to resource consumption, releases to air and water releases. This is closely followed by the transformation stage (stage 3) which also contributes to a large percentage of the impacts relating to the above emissions / releases to the environment. The end of life phase of the EPS contributes to 23% of the total waste output from the life cycle system and to 28% of household waste (represented by the category non mineral inert waste). With regard to the transport steps related to of EPS packaging life cycle, the impacts surrounding transport of packaging are minimal compared to the impacts relating to the other stages of the life cycle. One reason of this result is that EPS transformation facilities are very close to the packaging users, i.e. TV set manufacturers (distance of transport less than 100 km in average), which avoids environmental impacts. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 55/130 August 2001

56 6.6 Why do cardboard and LDPE seem to dominate the results? As seen previously, cardboard and LDPE production and end-of-life contribution represent more than 60 % of the total for the following categories: - methane emission, - water emissions, - solid waste production. The way that the system has been built in TEAM means that the whole life cycle of the cardboard and the LDPE are summarised in one system, whereas for the EPS, the different life cycle stages are split in different sub-systems (stages). As a consequence, the resultant impacts associated with the life cycle of the EPS will appear less than those for the cardboard and LDPE. However, it is still possible to ascertain from the above table those stages as of the life cycle of the EPS that have a greater impact on the environment than the others. Another reason for this, as previously explained, is that the weight of EPS packaging represents 722 kg whereas the weight of secondary packaging (cardboard box and LDPE foam) represents kg, which is to say 4 times more. Note: regarding the secondary packaging items themselves, there is also a great difference in terms of weight, since cardboard boxes represent kg against 98 kg for LDPE foam, that is to say about 29 times more. In order to exclude the environmental impacts related to the production and end-of-life of secondary packaging materials, Table 21 presents the LCA results obtained without this stage (subsystem 5) units of EPS packaging system TOTAL sub Total EPS (without secondary pack.) Variation Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % Water consumption (in litre) % Air emission CO2 fossil air emission (in g) % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % Waste production Total waste (in kg) % Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) % Table 21: Summary table of LCA results without the contribution of secondary packaging EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 56/130 August 2001

57 7. Life Cycle Sensitivity Analyses and Interpretation 7.1 Introduction on sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis is essential to fully interpret the LCI's and LCIA's and to test the significance of the assumptions and parameters. In this chapter, we describe the approach to sensitivity analyses followed by the presentation and interpretation of the sensitivity analyses that have been carried out. Sensitivity analyses were performed for a variety of parameters to establish the magnitude of influence on the LCI's and impact assessments. The approach to selecting sensitivity analyses was to apply analyses where: assumptions had been made which, in our opinion, might significantly influence the results of the inventories and impact assessments (e.g. the average weight of EPS packaging and the average fate of domestic waste); and it was interesting to test the benefits of some actions like the implementation of a closed loop recycling scheme for EPS packaging. Remark: in the tables presented hereafter, the cells presenting a variation higher than 20 % have been shaded yellow. This rule has been adopted for all sensitivity analyses in order to ease the comparison between them. 7.2 List of sensitivity analyses carried out Table below presents the sensitivity analyses performed within this LCA study. Description of sensitivity analysis section sensitivity 1 Inclusion of TV set weight 7.3 sensitivity 2 Increase of EPS recycling rate (5%, 25%, 35%) standard situation for domestic waste sensitivity 3 Increase of EPS recycling rate (5%, 25%, 35%) 0% landfilling for domestic waste sensitivity 4 sensitivity 5 Change of domestic waste fate: from 80 to 0% landfilling with 0% of EPS recycling Change of domestic waste fate: from 80 to 0% landfilling with 35% of EPS recycling sensitivity 6 Decrease or increase in EPS packaging weight Table 22: List of sensitivity analyses carried out EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 57/130 August 2001

58 7.3 Consideration of TV sets weight during the transportation step Presentation of the sensitivity analysis The study was carried out to identify the environmental impacts of the life cycle of an EPS packaging. It was decided that whilst the reference for the EPS packaging was the transportation of television sets, the actual transportation of the television sets would not be taken into account, in order not to hide the LCA results with the impacts directly related to TV transport. This sensitivity analysis was carried out to ascertain what influence the transportation of the televisions themselves would have on the overall results Results The addition of the weight of the television set does impact the results. The results of this sensitivity analyses are presented in Table units of EPS packaging Total without TV transport Total with TV transport % of difference (with TV-without TV)/without TV Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Feedstock Energy (in MJ) % Fuel Energy (in MJ) % Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) % Renewable Energy (in MJ) % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % Coal consumption (in kg) % Uranium consumption (in kg) 0 0 0% Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % Water consumption (in litre) % Air emission CO2 fossil air emission (in g) % CO air emission (in g) % NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % Particulates air emission (in g) % SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % Methane air emission (in g) % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (in g) % Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) (in g) % Water emission of nitrate (in g) % Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) % Waste production Total waste (in kg) % Hazardous waste (in kg) % Mineral waste (in kg) % Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) % Total recovered matter (in kg) % Table 23: Variation of results when considering the impact of TV transportation As illustrated by Table 23, the main areas impacted by the addition of the weight of the TV to the system are: - resource consumption, - air emissions. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 58/130 August 2001

59 Resource consumption The additional weight in the transport stage has resulted in an increase in oil consumption with a variation of + 85 % (see Figure 17), and consequently, but to a lesser extent, on non-renewable resource consumption (+ 18%) as oil is the second contributor to this impact after natural gas (Figure 18). Both of these variations are clearly a result of the increased consumption in fuel used by the vehicles transporting the TV sets TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS Raw oil consumption (in kg) 5- Cardboard and LDPE TV weight EPS + secondary packaging 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 17: Sensitivity Analysis: impact of TV weight on raw oil consumption Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) TV weight EPS + secondary packaging TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 18: Sensitivity Analysis: impact of TV weight on depletion of non-renewable resources EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 59/130 August 2001

60 Water consumption (in litre) 40,000 TV weight 35,000 EPS + secondary packaging 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,000 TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 19: Sensitivity Analysis - The impact of TV weight on water consumption The additional weight leads to a slight increase in water consumed. Air emissions The additional weight in the transport of the EPS results in a significant impact on air acidification (+ 74%). The graph now shows this stage (transport of TV) as having the greatest contribution to air acidification out of the life cycle stages instead of stage 1 (production of virgin EPS) in the reference scenario. This is clearly linked to the fuel consumption of the vehicle which will increase as a result of the increased weight of the transported goods. Air acidification (in g eq. H+) 2000 (a) Ammonia (NH3) 1500 (a) Sulphur Oxides (SOx as SO2) (a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3-4- Transport of Transformation empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling -500 Figure 20: Sensitivity Analysis - The impact of TV weight on Air Acidification The additional weight in the transport of EPS results in a significant increase in the release of CO 2. (+ 48%) as displayed by Figure 21. CO2 being the main contributor to greenhouse effect (source of 73% of the impact), the additional TV weight has therefore also a great influence on this environmental impact, with a change of + 38% (see Figure 22). The transport of the TV now replaces virgin EPS production as the second highest contributor step to the greenhouse effect. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 60/130 August 2001

61 TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation CO2 fossil air emission (in g) 4- Transport of empty EPS TV weight 5- Cardboard and LDPE EPS + secondary packaging 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 21: Sensitivity Analysis - The impact of TV weight on CO2 emissions IPCC-Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 years) 15,000,000 (a) Methane (CH4) 10,000,000 (a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fossil) 5,000,000 0 TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life Figure 22: Sensitivity Analysis - The impact of TV weight on Greenhouse Effect EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 61/130 August 2001

62 7.4 Fate of EPS packaging including rate of EPS in the closed loop recycling (5%, 25%, 35%) Presentation of the sensitivity analyses A set of sensitivity analyses was carried out to ascertain the likely impact of increasing the rate of EPS recycling whilst maintaining a domestic waste disposal rate of 80% landfill and 20% incineration, corresponding to the current European situation and to the reference scenario. The rates tested were 5%, 25% and 35% recycling of EPS packaging. In addition a second set of sensitivity analyses was carried out to identify the significance of having a 0% recycling rate with 0% landfilling and a 35% recycling rate with 0% of landfilling. These scenarios are summarised in Table 24 and their results presented in the following sections. Fate of waste joining the domestic waste flow Rate of EPS final fate of EPS (EPS not recycled, cardboard and LDPE) recycling reference scenario 80 % landfilling 20 % incineration 0 % 0 % R 80% L 20% I scenario 1 80 % landfilling 20 % incineration 5 % 5 % R 76% L 19% I scenario 2 80 % landfilling 20 % incineration 25 % 25 % R 60% L 15% I scenario 3 80 % landfilling 20 % incineration 35 % 35 % R 52% L 13% I scenario 4 0 % of landfilling 100 % incineration 0 % 0 % R 100 % I scenario 5 0 % of landfilling 100 % incineration 35 % 35% R 65% I Table 24: Summary of sensitivity analyses performed on waste fate EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 62/130 August 2001

63 7.4.2 Influence of EPS recycling rate with a standard situation regarding domestic waste fate (80% landfill and 20% incineration) The results showing the influence of the increase of EPS recycling rate for a standard situation regarding domestic waste flow (i.e. 80% landfilling and 20 % incineration) are summarised in Table units of EPS packaging REFERENCE Scenario 3 0% EPS recycling domestic waste: 80% Landfilling - 20% incineration 35% EPS recycling domestic waste: 80% Landfilling -20% incineration variation when increase of EPS recycling rate of 35 % domestic waste: 80% Landfilling -20% Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Feedstock Energy (in MJ) % Fuel Energy (in MJ) % Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) % Renewable Energy (in MJ) % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % Coal consumption (in kg) % Uranium consumption (in kg) 0 0-4% Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % Water consumption (in litre) % Air emission CO2 fossil air emission (in g) % CO air emission (in g) % NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % Particulates air emission (in g) % SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % Methane air emission (in g) % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (in % Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand % Water emission of nitrate (in g) % Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) % Waste production Total waste (in kg) % Hazardous waste (in kg) % Mineral waste (in kg) % Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) % Total recovered matter (in kg) % Table 25: Results of the increase of EPS recycling rate current situation for domestic waste Most of the indicators are affected by a reduction comprised between 5 and 15 % for an increase of EPS recycling rate from 0 % to 35 %. The highest variation concerns the photochemical oxidants creation (-30%) and the raw oil consumption (- 20%). It should be also mentioned that in this situation, the increase of EPS recycling rate always corresponds to a benefit with a reduction of the environmental impact. The results are detailed by the following graphs for a selection of environmental indicators. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 63/130 August 2001

64 Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % of recycling Figure 23: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 80% landfill and 20% incineration Non-renewable resource depletion It can be ascertained from the above chart that there is a strong correlation between the percentage of recycling and the depletion of non-renewable resources. As recycling rates increase, the rate of the depletion of non-renewable resources decreases (35 % of recycling corresponds to 15% of the impact). This is the result of the avoidance of the need to consume raw materials to manufacture goods from a virgin source. The processes involved in extracting and process virgin materials are often energy intensive, often more so than the recycling of goods. Therefore, the recycling process is likely to consume less energy, thus avoiding the need to extract so many resources (i.e. coal, oil and gas) from the ground. Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % of recycling Figure 24: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 80% landfill and 20% incineration Primary energy consumption An identical pattern to Figure 23 exists for all types of energy consumption (except renewable energy), with a reduction between 10 and 16% when the rate of EPS recycling is increased to 35 %. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 64/130 August 2001

65 Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % of recycling Figure 25: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 80% landfill and 20% incineration photochemical oxidants formation Whilst the trend remains the same, the level of reduction between 0 and 35 % of recycling rate is higher than for the previous indicator (with 30 %), as using recycled EPS directly decreases the contribution of the pre-expansion step of the transformation stage, which is the main source of pentane emissions. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 65/130 August 2001

66 7.4.3 Influence of recycling rate with an alternative situation regarding domestic waste fate (0% landfilling) The results showing the influence of the increase of EPS recycling rate for an alternative situation regarding domestic waste flow (i.e. 0% of landfilling and 100% incineration with energy recovery) are summarised in Table units of EPS packaging Scenario 4 Scenario 5 0% EPS recycling 35% EPS recycling domestic waste: 0% landfilling domestic waste: 0% landfilling variation when increase of recycling rate of 35 % domestic waste: 0% landfilling Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Feedstock Energy (in MJ) % Fuel Energy (in MJ) % Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) % Renewable Energy (in MJ) % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % Coal consumption (in kg) % Uranium consumption (in kg) 0 0-2% Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % Water consumption (in litre) % Air emission CO2 fossil air emission (in g) % CO air emission (in g) % NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % Particulates air emission (in g) % SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % Methane air emission (in g) % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (in % Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand % Water emission of nitrate (in g) % Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) % Waste production Total waste (in kg) % Hazardous waste (in kg) % Mineral waste (in kg) % Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) % Total recovered matter (in kg) % Table 26: Results of the increase of EPS recycling rate alternative situation for domestic waste treatment (0% landfilling) Compared to the previous situation: - the influence of the recycling rate is quite similar in this situation than with the standard treatment of domestic waste (see Table 27) - except for waste production, CO air emission and coal consumption for which the increasing of the recycling rate has adverse effects as it increases the environmental impact. This adverse consequence is due to the fact that for these parameters, the incineration with energy recovery avoids emissions (respectively -82 kg of waste g of CO and -231 kg of coal), thanks to saving of grid electricity and steam production from fossil fuels (especially from coal). Consequently, when the quantity of recycled EPS increases, less EPS waste is sent to incineration, thus implying lower savings from the end-of life step. Figure 26 illustrate this adverse effect. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 66/130 August 2001

67 Coal consumption (in kg) % of recycling Figure 26: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 0% landfilling Coal consumption All the values associated with coal consumption are negative. This is a result of the incineration process which generates electricity and therefore avoids the need to extract coal from the ground in order to produce electricity and steam. In the incineration model used, when energy is generated, the system assumes that coal is avoided. As a result the final inventory of results produces negative values. The reason that the negative value decreases as the recycling rate increases (i.e. effectively showing that the more EPS is recycled, the less coal we avoid), is that as the recycling rate increases, we are taking EPS out of the incinerator meaning the incinerator has less waste to burn. Therefore, the incinerator generates less energy. As a consequence it is considered that less coal is avoided Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % of recycling Figure 27: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 0% landfilling Depletion of non-renewable resources The trend is identical to that of Figure 27 for all energy usage (-15 % of the impact) apart from renewable energy, with a decrease between 10 and 17 %. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 67/130 August 2001

68 Except for the increase in the level of carbon monoxide as recycling rates increases, the overall impact on the air emissions, in particular greenhouse and air acidification always corresponds to a benefit for the environment, as illustrated by Figure 28 and Figure 29, with respectively 12 and 18%. Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % of recycling Figure 28: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 0% landfilling air acidification Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) % of recycling Figure 29: Sensitivity Analysis Influence of recycling rate with 0% landfilling greenhouse effect EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 68/130 August 2001

69 7.4.4 Comparison of all studied scenarios with recycling/incineration/landfill The following graphs show on a same basis the results of all of all the sensitivity analyses relating to recycling, landfill and incineration. The comparison of the position of both lines also allow to see the influence of the treatment of domestic waste on the results. Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling Figure 30: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate Depletion of non-renewable resources The sensitivity analysis with 35% recycling and 0% of landfilling (that is 100% incineration) has the least impact on non-renewable resource depletion. The option with 0% recycling with 80% landfill and 20% incineration has the greatest impact on the depletion of non-renewable resources Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling Figure 31: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate Primary energy EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 69/130 August 2001

70 Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling Figure 32: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate - Air Acidification Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling Figure 33: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate - Greenhouse Effect EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 70/130 August 2001

71 Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling 788 Figure 34: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate - Water eutrophication Total waste (in kg) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling Figure 35: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate - Total waste Regarding production of total waste (see Figure 35) it can be noted that the increase of the EPS recycling in the situation where domestic waste is 100% incinerated has neutral to moderately adverse effects, since the quantity of total waste slightly increases (+3%). When looking in details the results, this is due to the increase of the mineral waste category, that is linked to the extraction of coal. Indeed incineration waste with energy recovery allows saving some coal, and thus avoids some waste produced at the extraction step. By diverting some EPS packaging from the incineration treatment (for recycling purpose), the quantity of avoided coal decreases and less waste is avoided. Analysis of the above results shows that the option with the least impact on the environment, except for total waste, is the option with 35% recycling and 0% landfilling (100% incineration). The option with the greatest impact on the environment is the reference scenario with a 0% recycling rate, 80% landfill and 20%incineration. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 71/130 August 2001

72 Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Landfilling - 20% Incineration 100% Incineration % of recycling Figure 36: Sensitivity analysis - Influence of waste fate - Photochemical oxidant formation For photochemical oxidant formation the option with 35% recycling and 100% incineration has the least impact as for all other results. The option with 35% recycling, 80% landfill and 20% incineration for domestic waste treatment has the second least impact. Again, the 0% recycling rate with 80% landfill and 20% incineration has the greatest impact upon the environment. Finally, Table 28 shows that the treatment of domestic waste has a great influence on the LCA results units of EPS packaging REFERENCE Scenario 4 Scenario 3 Scenario 5 0% EPS recycling domestic waste: 80% landfilling - 20% incineration 0% EPS recycling domestic waste: 0% landfilling Change of domestic waste fate (from 80 to 0% landfilling) with 0% of EPS recycling 35% EPS recycling domestic waste: 80% landfilling -20% incineration 35% EPS recycling domestic waste: 0% landfilling Change of domestic waste fate (from 80 to 0% landfilling) with 35% of EPS recycling Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % % Feedstock Energy (in MJ) % % Fuel Energy (in MJ) % % Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) % % Renewable Energy (in MJ) % % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % % Coal consumption (in kg) % % Uranium consumption (in kg) % % Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % % Water consumption (in litre) % % Air emission CO2 fossil air emission (in g) % % CO air emission (in g) % % NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % % Particulates air emission (in g) % % SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % % Methane air emission (in g) % % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq % % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % % Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand % % Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Dem % % Water emission of nitrate (in g) % % Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) % % Waste production Total waste (in kg) % % Hazardous waste (in kg) % % Mineral waste (in kg) % % Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) % % Total recovered matter (in kg) % % Table 28: Influence of fate of domestic waste on the results (with 0 and 35 % of recycling) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 72/130 August 2001

73 7.5 Weight of EPS packaging Presentation of the sensitivity analysis A sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the significance of the variation in the weight of the EPS. The weight was varied from kg per unit (the reference weight) to a minimum of 0.6 kg per unit (that is a reduction of 17 %) and a maximum of 1 kg per unit (that is an increase of 38 %) Results 1000 units of EPS packaging 0.6 kg MIN kg REF. 1 kg MAX variation between ref. and min (- 17%) variation between ref. and max (+38%) variation when -20 % of weight Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % 20% -10% Feedstock Energy (in MJ) % 15% -8% Fuel Energy (in MJ) % 24% -12% Non Renewable Energy (in MJ) % 28% -14% Renewable Energy (in MJ) % 1% 0% Raw oil consumption (in kg) % 31% -16% Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % 28% -14% Coal consumption (in kg) % 36% -18% Uranium consumption (in kg) % 10% -5% Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) % 29% -14% Water consumption (in litre) % 19% -9% Air emission 0% CO2 fossil air emission (in g) % 28% -14% CO air emission (in g) % 32% -16% NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % 26% -13% Particulates air emission (in g) % 23% -12% SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % 31% -16% Methane air emission (in g) % 6% -3% Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % 28% -14% Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO % 23% -11% Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % 35% -18% Water emission 0% Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) % 2% -1% Water emission of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) (in % 5% -2% Water emission of BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand % 6% -3% Water emission of nitrate (in g) % 0% 0% Water emission of Suspended Matter (in g) % 15% -7% Waste production 0% Total waste (in kg) % 10% -5% Hazardous waste (in kg) % 7% -4% Mineral waste (in kg) % 15% -8% Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) % 11% -5% Total recovered matter (in kg) % 4% 2% Table 29: Influence of weight of EPS packaging The two charts displayed hereafter show the general trend that is apparent for all results related to the weight of the EPS packaging. Logically, the impact on the environment increases as the weight of the EPS increases. The most significant impact occurs in relation to the production of EPS from virgin materials (stage 1). The transformation stage also sees an increase in environmental impact. There is very little change in the impacts in relation to the transportation stages of the EPS. The indicators that are the most affected by this parameter are: - resource depletion (a variation of 20 % in weight implies a variation between 10 and 18 %) - air emissions (a variation of 20 % in weight implies a variation between 11 and 18 %, except for methane emissions). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 73/130 August 2001

74 TOTAL Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) 0.6 kg kg 1 kg 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 37: Sensitivity Analysis - Weight of EPS packaging Depletion of non-renewable resources Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) TOTAL 1- Virgin EPS 2- Transport virgin EPS 3- Transformation 4- Transport of empty EPS 5- Cardboard and LDPE 6- Transport with TV 0.6 kg kg 1 kg 7- EPS End of life 8- Close-loop recycling Figure 38: Sensitivity Analysis - Weight of EPS packaging Air acidification EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 74/130 August 2001

75 7.6 Summary of sensitivity analyses results 1000 units of EPS packaging system Inclusion of TV set weight Increase of EPS recycling rate (+35%) standard situation for domestic waste Increase of EPS recycling rate (+35%) 0% landfilling for domestic waste Change of domestic waste fate (from 80 to 0% landfilling) with 0% of EPS recycling Change of domestic waste fate (from 80 to 0% landfilling) with 35% of EPS recycling Decrease in EPS packaging weight (- 20%) Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) 20% -11% -11% -18% -17% -10% Raw oil consumption (in kg) 85% -20% -22% -23% -25% -16% Natural Gas consumption (in kg) 1% -15% -16% -12% -12% -14% Depletion of non renewable resources (in year -1) 18% -15% -15% -16% -16% -14% Water consumption (in litre) 10% -5% -4% -5% -4% -9% Air emission Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) 74% -13% -12% -27% -26% -14% Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) 38% -10% -18% -29% -35% -11% Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) 17% -30% -32% -9% -11% -18% Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) 6% -1% -1% -8% -7% -1% Waste production Total waste (in kg) 0% -8% 3% -75% -72% -5% Non Mineral waste (inert) (in kg) 0% -10% 17% -100% -100% -5% Table 30: Summary of sensitivity analyses results The variations presented in this summary table are calculated as follows: - weight of TV (column 2 of the table) (impact with TV weight- reference) / reference - increase of EPS recycling rate standard situation for domestic waste (column 3 of the table): (scenario 3 -reference) / reference - increase of EPS recycling rate 0% landfilling for domestic waste (column 4 of the table): (scenario 5 - scenario 4) / scenario 4 - change of domestic waste treatment when 0% of EPS is recycled (column 5 of the table): (scenario 4 - reference) / reference - change of domestic waste treatment when 35% of EPS is recycled (column 6 of the table): (scenario 5 - scenario 3) / scenario 3 - reduction of EPS weight of 20% (column 7 of the table): (decreased weight - reference) / reference EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 75/130 August 2001

76 8. Conclusions 8.1 Summary table of LCA results normalised with European data The aim of this section is to assess the contribution of the environmental impacts of EPS packaging to the global European environmental impacts. The idea is to calculate the environmental impact linked to EPS packaging per European inhabitant and also to be able to say that EPS packaging system represents x % of the European total, for a given environmental parameter. The approach that was followed for this normalisation step is described below: - the total tonnage of EPS used for packaging application (except for fish boxes) was estimated by EUMEPS to be tons in Europe given that the LCA results calculated in this study refer to the functional unit, i.e. to transport TV sets, which corresponds to t EPS, the LCA results were converted so to correspond to the total European tonnage of EPS packaging ( t/year); - the LCA results were then divided by the total number of inhabitants in Europe 30, such giving the environmental impact of EPS packaging per inhabitant. - in parallel and for a selection of environmental parameters for which the total European impact data is available, the EPS LCA results relating to tons of EPS packaging were divided by the European total so to assess the contribution of EPS packaging. Table 31 presents the results of this normalisation step. LCA results 722 kg EPS LCA results per inhabitant (LCA results for t EPS / Europe population) Contribution EPS packaging in Europe Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in MJ) % Raw oil consumption (in kg) % Natural Gas consumption (in kg) % Coal consumption (in kg) % Water consumption (in l) % Air emission NOx air emission (as NO2) (in g) % SOx air emission (as SO2) (in g) % Air Acidification (in g eq. H+) % Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in g eq. CO2) % Photochemical oxidant formation (in g eq. ethylene) % Depletion of the ozone layer (in g. eq CFC11) % Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) NA Waste production Domestic waste (in kg) % Table 31: LCA Results after normalisation: environmental impact per inhabitant and contribution (in %) to the total impact in Europe The data that have been considered to calculate the contribution of the European quantity of EPS packaging to the total environmental impact in Europe are presented with their source in Table European Union, that is 15 countries inhabitants in EU-15 in 1997 (source: Eurostat - Environnement Statistics , 2000 edition) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 76/130 August 2001

77 Total impact in Europe Source of data for total impact in Europe Resources consumption Primary Energy consumption (in GJ) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics Raw oil consumption (in t) Energy Statistics of OCDE Natural Gas consumption (in t) Energy Statistics of OCDE Coal consumption (in t) Energy Statistics of OCDE Water consumption (in m3) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics Air emission NOx air emission (as NO2) (in t) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics SOx air emission (as SO2) (in t) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics Air Acidification (in t eq. H+) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics Greenhouse effect years time horizon (in t eq. CO2) UNFCC inventories-1998 year Photochemical oxidant formation (in t eq. ethylene) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics Depletion of the ozone layer (in t. eq CFC11) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics Water emission Water eutrophication (in g eq. phosphates) no data available Waste production Domestic waste (in t) Eurostat - Environnement Statistics year Table 32: Data for the total European environmental impacts EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 77/130 August 2001

78 8.2 General conclusions and identification of improvement options From the analysis of the reference results it can be ascertained that there are three main stages of the life cycle pf the EPS packaging system considered that contribute to the greatest impact upon the environment. Secondary packaging (cardboard and LDPE) production and end of life contribute to the majority of the impacts in the reference scenario, especially with regard to impacts on the aquatic environment and waste production. When analysing in detail the results, it can be ascertained that the majority of the impacts are coming from the various processes involved in the manufacture, processing and end of life of the cardboard. Virgin expandable PS production and the transformation stage of the life cycle of EPS packaging represent two other major contributors to the environmental impacts. In particular, the releases to air are dominated by the manufacture of EPS from virgin sources. For photochemical oxidant formation, the transformation stage dominates the results. This is clearly owing to the use of pentane in the transformation process, whereby pentane is released during this stage. With regard to the transport steps related to of EPS packaging life cycle, the impacts surrounding transport of packaging are minimal compared to the impacts relating to the other stages of the life cycle. One reason of this result is that EPS transformation facilities are very close to the packaging users, i.e. TV set manufacturers (distance of transport less than 100 km in average), which avoids environmental impacts. Another result is that EPS packaging life cycle has minor impact on ozone layer depletion. For the reference scenario with 0% of EPS that is recycled and which corresponds to a packaging system made of 20% of EPS, 77% of cardboard and 3% of LDPE film, the environmental impacts are split between the EPS packaging and secondary packaging (cardboard and LDPE) as follows and as illustrated by Table 33 below: - the primary EPS packaging dominates for the following categories: resource depletion, energy consumption and air emissions (except methane), - the secondary packaging is the main source of impact for the water consumption, water releases and waste production categories. More particularly, cardboard packaging life cycle is the principal source of these impacts, as cardboard part weights 29 times more than LDPE part units of TV sets packaging system Contribution of EPS primary packaging Contribution of secondary packaging (97% of cardboard and 3% of LDPE in weight) (step 5) (step ) Primary Energy consumption 53% 47% Depletion of non-renewable resources 75% 25% Water consumption 49% 51% Air Acidification 73% 27% Greenhouse effect years time horizon 59% 41% Photochemical oxidant formation 92% 8% Water eutrophication 6% 94% Total waste 26% 74% Domestic waste 28% 72% EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 78/130 August 2001

79 Table 33: Repartition of the impacts calculated in the reference scenario between primary and secondary packaging subsystems It must be mentioned that in the reference scenario, EPS packaging is considered to be manufactured from 100% virgin EPS whereas cardboard boxes are considered to be made only of recycled fibers. If corrugated cardboard would have been considered to be made of virgin fibers, the primary energy of the whole system would have increased of 14% and the total energy of the system relating to secondary packaging would have increased of 29%. When considering that 35% of EPS is recycled (situation modelled by a sensitivity analysis), the breakdown between primary and secondary packaging evolves as presented by Table 34, the contribution of primary packaging slightly decreasing units of TV sets packaging system Contribution of EPS primary packaging Contribution of secondary packaging (97% of cardboard and 3% of LDPE in weight) (step 5) (step ) Primary Energy consumption 47% 53% Depletion of non-renewable resources 70% 30% Water consumption 46% 54% Air Acidification 69% 31% Greenhouse effect years time horizon 54% 46% Photochemical oxidant formation 89% 11% Water eutrophication 4% 96% Total waste 19% 81% Domestic waste 20% 80% Table 34: Repartition of the impacts calculated between primary and secondary packaging subsystems in the scenario with 35% of EPS recycling The following conclusions can be drawn from the sensitivity analyses results. For environmental impacts linked to transport by road such as oil consumption, global warming and air acidification potential, the transport of the TV sets themselves, when taken into account, represents respectively 85%, 38% and 74% of the total impacts caused during the life cycle of the TV packaging. The identified solutions allowing to decrease the environmental impact related to EPS packaging for TV sets are of 2 types: The solutions that can be influenced by actions involving industrialists (virgin expandable PS producers, EPS transformers and TV manufacturers): - increase the rate of EPS closed-loop recycling leads to improved environmental results: a 35% increase of the recycling rate allows to decrease the environmental impacts of the packaging system by 10 to 20%, whatever the situation regarding domestic waste treatment (more or less landfilling). - design lighter EPS packaging leads to improved environmental results: a 20 % reduction of EPS weight appears to bring reductions in environmental impacts by 10 to 20%. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 79/130 August 2001

80 - optimise the energy consumption at the transformation step, as well as reduce the emissions of pentane by the use of recovery systems of such emissions or by the use of lowpentane EPS. - optimise the energy and resource consumption at the expandable virgin PS production (representing 33% of the total energy consumption of the system). Regarding photochemical oxidants formation (due to pentane release during EPS transformation) step, 3 solutions allowing to decrease this impact can be mentioned: - increase of the use of recycled EPS thus avoiding the use of virgin EPS (an 35% increase in recycling allows a 30% abatement of the impact), - use of low-pentane virgin EPS, - installation at EPS processing facilities of specific equipment for VOC 31 treatment (destruction or recycling). The solution that fall under the responsibility of government or local authorities: - The historical trend to decrease the landfillling rate of household waste in favour of incineration with energy recovery 32 will globally improve the environmental impacts of EPS packaging: the complete suppression of landfilling would allow to reach even better environmental performance that the 35 % increase of recycling rate, with improvements usually between 15 and 30 %. This prospective waste management option is particularly favourable for air emissions since it allows to reduce the greenhouse effect (respectively the air acidification) 3 times more (resp. 2 times more) compared to the increase of recycling rate. 31 Volatile Organic Compounds - Pentane is one of them 32 In the study, a global energy recovery efficiency rate of 35% was considered to model incineration process. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 80/130 August 2001

81 9. External Critical Review 9.1 Reviewer The external review was carried out by Dr Dennis Postlethwaite, an independent LCA consultant, located in UK. The critical review was carried out based on the draft version of the full LCA report that was edited in June Compared to this first version, the present version of the LCA report includes amendments or additional information, generally minor, that were made by Ecobilan in order to take into account both the critical review comments and EUMEPS Task force comments. 9.2 Comments of the critical review The following pages present Dr Dennis Postlethwaite' s comments received in June EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 81/130 August 2001

82 CRITICAL REVIEW OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT The following comments pertain to the Draft Final Report issued by Pricewaterhouse Coopers in June It should firstly be noted that a limited time was available in which to conduct the Critical Review. It has thus only been possible to consider in any depth the report itself, on which an attempt has been made to assess its quality, its compliance with the ISO Standards on LCA and to seek significant omissions, errors and unjustified assumptions. It has not been possible in this time to examine the Appendices in any detail nor to independently check data sources and quality. Given the recognised high quality of Pricewaterhouse Cooper studies previously encountered by the author, there is every confidence that neither of these will present any problems. It is also acknowledged that the Critical Review was undertaken on the Draft Final Report, in which there are still some sections or individual items which require minor updating and amendment, although it is anticipated that these will not have any significant effect. The study report and the study itself is excellent and is a perfect example of how LCA should be conducted. It is a relatively small study since it considers one system only, rather than two more as is common in many LCA s. Nevertheless, the study is quite large and has involved collection, assimilation and analysis of a prodigious amount of data. The work has been professionally executed throughout and fully accords with the requirements, where applicable, of the ISO Standards on LCA, the only minor deviation perhaps being that the Critical Review was conducted at the end of the study, rather than iteratively at the requisite stages. Since the study is a relatively small one and the overall standard of the work is exceptionally high, this is not a serious lapse. Reporting of the study has been well and competently undertaken. There is a very high transparency throughout all data sources have been authenticated and referenced, proper attention has been placed on data quality, and all assumptions have been clearly stated and qualified. Overall, the study is more than adequate to achieve its stated goals of identifying the sources of environmental impacts associated with the use of Expanded PolyStyrene (EPS) in the packaging system used for TV sets and of quantifying the benefits of implementing a closed-loop recycling scheme for the EPS so used. Not only has the system been characterised in depth environmentally but an investigation has also been made, via sensitivity analyses, to determine which are the most important factors, from which opportunities for improvement have been identified. A notable feature of the work is the presentation of data and results. These are given in detail in respective appendices, from which the requisite amount of information has been extracted and presented in the body of the report. In particular, the bar charts reproduced in the latter are all relevant, make significant points and are transparent. Overall, the division between data in the report and in the appendices has been very sensibly made and this renders the report both lucid and comprehensible. Goal and Scope. As stated above, the goal of the study has been well and clearly stated, as has also the Functional Unit to pack and enable the transport of 1000 television sets. The overall process diagram (Fig 1) is clear and comprehensible, although it should perhaps be stated that this does apply to the reference scenario ie the one where there is 0% recycling of used EPS, and that the inclusion of the recycling steps in the diagram is necessary to cover the Sensitivity Analyses which were subsequently conducted. Assumptions and omissions have been properly considered and treated. All are reasonable for the scope of the study and to achieve its objective. A sensible choice for Impact Assessment has been made, since this has been limited to a consideration of the five key Environmental Indicators. The latter are all of current pertinence and are all based on established and acknowledged approaches, EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 82/130 August 2001

83 for which appropriate references have been given. An acceptable explanation is put forward for not considering ozone depletion, a further critical parameter. The section on energy recovery (4.3.5) and the diagram (Fig 2) are confusing (4.3.5). Would it not be simpler to compile the overall LCI giving Overall Energy Consumption (1), to then calculate the Energy Recoveries (2), subtract them to give a corrected Overall Energy Consumptions and then, convert the latter to resource consumptions and emissions? Two further comments can be made, both relatively minor. Firstly, it appears to be an anachronism that the television sets are characterised in Imperial Units (ie inches) yet the whole of the data and other considerations throughout the work are based on the metric system. Secondly, perhaps greater explanation should be made for the choice of one system only. Some reference is desirable in this section to possible alternatives, even if they are not viable, in order to provide a fuller perspective. Inventory Analysis: Data collection and treatment procedures have been clearly stated. Specific emphasis has been placed on the consistency of the data used, notably through the use of wellprepared forms submitted to each of the participating companies, and on data quality, for which again appropriate questionnaires were completed by the participants and submitted to the study executors. A concerted effort is also apparent to ensure that the results of calculations were consistent and that any anomalies were resolved. Where external data has been used, this has been from accepted and authenticated sources, which have been fully referenced. A minor point arising in this section concerns the data presented in Table 14, where it would be better if the data given were all qualified to the same degree (ie decimal place). Inventory Analysis and Impact Assessment: This work has been thoroughly and well undertaken. Inventory data have been adequately summarised in the body of the report and have been elaborated in the appendices. However, a separate and more detailed compilation of the overall inventory, as is customary in many LCA s. would constitute a further useful appendix The bar charts presenting the results of the Impact Assessment are particularly good since they not only provide the actual results but present them in a clear and comprehensible form. It is recommended that a further statement be incorporated into the last paragraph of page 33, to the effect that, although the reference scenario is for 0% recycling, the effect of recycling has been pursued via sensitivity analyses (ie in Chapter 7 see also Section para 3). The Impact Assessment data for Global Warming are given in Section (Fig 7). Their evaluation is covered, and justified, in some detail in appendix 16, section where three time scales are given for this effect (20; 100; 500 years), yet only the 100 year scenario is considered in section Some explanation, or rationalisation of this selection, and of any likely effect from it, would be helpful. Section 6.5 is the most critical section of this chapter and has been well executed, the summary tables given being particularly useful and relevant. Sensitivity Analyses: Sensitivity analysis is a very useful, indeed necessary, part of LCA. The evaluation of some 13 possible scenarios by sensitivity analysis given in section 7 is an example of how such analyses should be undertaken. The tables and charts of results clearly show the effect of altering various parameters, and they not only enable identification of the most critical effects, but quantify their magnitude and allow assessment of the most opportune options for improving the system and for further action. They also reveal some surprising effects, notably, for example, that emissions can actually increase as the recycling rate of EPS increases at high waste incineration rates with energy recovery. They also demonstrate well the impossibility of obtaining an overall result from LCA since, in many cases, alteration of an input variable can result in both positive and negative environmental changes. In conclusion, this is a very useful section. All relevant scenarios appear to have been considered and evaluated, resulting in a worthwhile outcome from EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 83/130 August 2001

84 which a broader perspective has been achieved and opportunities for improvement have been identified. Conclusions: This chapter adequately encapsulates the findings of the work, being both succinct and comprehensible. The analyses undertaken and the conclusions reached are pertinent and soundly based on the inventory, its analysis and the subsequent interpretations. The attempt a t normalisation with total European impacts is commendable and, again, allows a fuller perspective to be realised. Two conclusions would seem to be very important: - pentane emissions are a major factor. Their reduction or elimination by non- or lesserdamaging alternatives ought thus to be explored. - secondary packaging (cardboard and LDPE) contributes significantly, in some cases more than EPS itself (Table 31) Overall, a well-executed professional LCA fulfilling the objectives of the work and presented in a lucid and exemplary manner. Dr Dennis Postlethwaite, LCA Consultant EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 84/130 August 2001

85 9.3 PwC Ecobilan answers to the critical review comments Point 1: " the only minor deviation perhaps being that the Critical Review was conducted at the end of the study, rather than iteratively at the requisite stages. Since the study is a relatively small one and the overall standard of the work is exceptionally high, this is not a serious lapse. Reporting of the study has been well and competently undertaken." Answer: the fact that the critical review took place only at the end of the study was a deliberate choice of both Ecobilan PwC and the EUMEPS Task Force responsible of the follow up of the study. The reason of this choice is that, as already stated by Dr. Postlethwaite, an iterative critical review process was judged to be too heavy compared to the limited scope of the study. Point 2: " The section on energy recovery (4.3.5) and the diagram (Fig 2) are confusing (4.3.5)." A: The diagram has been slightly changed and a sentence was added in order to increase understanding of this methodological issue. Point 3: "Firstly, it appears to be an anachronism that the television sets are characterised in Imperial Units (ie inches) yet the whole of the data and other considerations throughout the work are based on the metric system." A: The size of TV sets was given in inches unit as this term is still used by TV sets manufacturers themselves to describe the different types of TV, even if it is true that this unit can appear a bit out of date. Note: 25'' = 63.9 cm in diagonal (size of large TV sets). Point 4: "Secondly, perhaps greater explanation should be made for the choice of one system only. Some reference is desirable in this section to possible alternatives, even if they are not viable, in order to provide a fuller perspective." A: The section dealing with the system boundaries definition was completed with additional information in order to state that other recycling routes than closed loop recycling exist (this implies that other type of systems could have been studied, provided the scope of the study would have been broader). Also, in section dealing with product description, it was mentioned that for TV sets packaging function, other packaging types than EPS based system may exist but that the LCA study voluntarily only considered EPS-based packaging system. Point 5: "A minor point arising in this section concerns the data presented in Table 14, where it would be better if the data given were all qualified to the same degree (ie decimal place)." A: Table 13 and 15 (the latter being formerly table 14) were modified in order to present the numerical values in an homogeneous way. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 85/130 August 2001

86 Point 6: "However, a separate and more detailed compilation of the overall inventory, as is customary in many LCA s. would constitute a further useful appendix." A: The full Life cycle inventory of the reference scenario, with LCA results split between the 8 sub systems, was added to the report in the form of a new appendix (appendix G). Point 7: "It is recommended that a further statement be incorporated into the last paragraph of page 33, to the effect that, although the reference scenario is for 0% recycling, the effect of recycling has been pursued via sensitivity analyses (ie in Chapter 7 see also Section para 3)." A: An additional statement reflecting this was added in paragraph 3 of section 6. Point 8: "The Impact Assessment data for Global Warming are given in Section (Fig 7). Their evaluation is covered, and justified, in some detail in appendix 16, section where three time scales are given for this effect (20; 100; 500 years), yet only the 100 year scenario is considered in section Some explanation, or rationalisation of this selection, and of any likely effect from it, would be helpful." A: It is true that in LCA studies and for greenhouse impact assessment, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes coefficients relating to 3 time-horizons. The 100 years time horizon is the method which is the most common in LCA studies and also which corresponds to the reference method used to perform greenhouse gases inventories at a country level or at an individual company level. A statement arguing this choice was added in section dealing with environmental impact indicators. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 86/130 August 2001

87 10. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Allocation: Cut off criteria Data quality: Environmental impact: Eutrophication: Feedstock energy: Fuel energy: Functional unit: Input: Life cycle: Life cycle impact: assessment: Life cycle inventory analysis: Partitioning the input or output flows of a unit process to the product system under study. Limits which define the degree of detail to which the system boundaries are taken, in respect of modelling unit processes back to the cradle in a cradle to gate study. Nature or characteristic of collected or integrated data. Representation of possible change to the environment resulting from a product system (as defined in the LCA) Enrichment in mineral salts of marine or lake waters when it refers to the natural process or, as the enrichment in nutritive elements of waters when referring to human intervention Combustion heat of raw material inputs, which are not used as an energy source, to a product system, expressed in terms of higher heating value or lower heating value. Potential energy inherent in the fossil fuel feedstock measured by calorific value, which is used by combustion. Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit in a life cycle assessment. Material or energy which enters a unit process (materials may include raw materials, products, and energy may be in the form of feedstock energy, fuel energy, electricity and from renewable/non-renewable sources). Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or generation of natural resources to the final disposal. Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts of a product system. Phase of life cycle assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and output, for a given product system throughout its life cycle. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 87/130 August 2001

88 Output: Product system: Raw material: Recycling: Reference flow: Sensitivity analysis: System boundary: Transparency: Uncertainty analysis: Unit process: Waste: Waste (fuel energy): Material or energy which leaves a unit process (materials may include raw materials, products, emissions and waste). Collection of materially and energetically connected unit processes which performs one or more defined functions. Primary or secondary material that is used to produce a product. Reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials for the original purpose or for other purposes including organic recycling but excluding energy recovery Relates to the functional unit and is used for the calculation and propagation of life cycle inventory data. Systematic procedure for estimating the effects on the outcome of a study of the chosen methods and data. Interface between a product system and the environment or other product systems. Open, comprehensive and understandable presentation of information. A systematic procedure to ascertain and quantify the uncertainty introduced in the results of a life cycle inventory due to the cumulative effects of input uncertainty and data variability. It uses either ranges or probability distributions to determine uncertainty in the results. Smallest portion of a product system for which data care collected when performing a life cycle assessment. Any output from the system which is disposed. Potential energy inherent in the waste feedstock measured by calorific value, which can be realised by combustion. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 88/130 August 2001

89 List of Abbreviations APME Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe CFC Chlorofluorocarbons CH 4 Methane Cl 2 Chlorine CML University of Leiden, Centre for Environmental Studies CO Carbon monoxide CO 2 Carbon dioxide COD Chemical oxygen demand DEAM Data for Environmental Analysis and Management EDC Ethylene dichloride EPS Expanded polystyrene EU European Union EUMEPS The European Manufactures of Expanded Polystyrene g eq. Gram equivalent GWP Global warming potential H + Hydrogen ion IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISO International Standards Organisation LCA Life cycle assessment LCI Life cycle inventory LCIA Life cycle impact assessment MSW Municipal Solid Waste NH + 4, NH 3 as N Ammonium ions and ammonia, expressed as equivalent nitrogen NO Nitrogen oxide NO 2 Nitrogen dioxide NO x Oxides of nitrogen N 2 O Nitrous oxide ODP Ozone Depletion Potential PE Polyethylene PO 3-4, HPO 4-, Phosphate ions SO 2 Sulphur dioxide SO x Oxides of sulphur TEAM Tools for Environmental Analysis and Management. TEAM is the proprietary tool of the Ecobilan Group for Life Cycle Assessment VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WISARD Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal % w/w Percent weight/weight EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 89/130 August 2001

90 11. Appendix A: Detailed description of sub systems 11.1 Top level EPS life cycle system description in TEAM 11.2 Production of Expandable PS beads (sub-system 1) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 90/130 August 2001

91 11.3 Transport of virgin EPS (sub-system 2) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 91/130 August 2001

92 11.4 Transformation of expandable PS into EPS packaging (sub-system 3) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 92/130 August 2001

93 11.5 Transport of empty EPS packaging (sub-system 4) 11.6 Secondary packaging material (cardboard and LDPE) production and end of life (sub-system 5) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 93/130 August 2001

94 11.7 Transport of EPS and secondary packaging with TV set (subsystem 6) 11.8 Used EPS packaging end of life (sub-system 7) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 94/130 August 2001

95 11.9 Used EPS packaging in closed loop (sub-system 8) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 95/130 August 2001

96 12. Appendix B: Sample questionnaire for data collection of main data 12.1 Modelling of EPS transformation step Distance of transport (in km) Real load of truck (e.g.10 t) Maximum load of truck (e.g. 24 t) Empty return (Yes/No) Delivery of virgin EPS granules Virgin EPS Storage at moderate temperature Slow diffusion of pentane Granules of expandable polystyrene Inputs Water Water Pre-treatment Natural Gas Fuel Steam production Pentane Electricity Process PRE-EXPANSION Steam Landfill Natural Gas (pre-expander) Waste Fuel Water emissions* Incineration Other input flows Other outputs *Please attach any measurement performed on water effluent Inputs COOLING - DRYING Pre-expanded granules Inputs STABILISATION IN SILO Pentane Pre-expanded granules Inputs Water Pre-treatment Water Natural Gas Steam production Fuel Pentane Water Condensates Landfill Electricity Process machines MOULDING Waste Natural Gas Water emissions* Incineration Fuel Other outputs Other input flows EPS Packaging *Please attach any measurement performed on water effluent Flow entrants DRYING IN STEAM ROOM Pentane EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 96/130 August 2001

97 12.2 Questionnaire for collecting numerical values * Pre-expansion & moulding -All data must refer to1000 kg of final dryed EPS- Please use the specified units Inputs Material (in kg) Water (in litre) Electricity (in kwh) Heavy Fuel Oil (in kwh) Natural Gas (in kwh) Stages 1- Before pre-expansion 2- Pre-expansion 2- Stabilisation 3- Moulding 4- Drying/Storage Total ( ) Outputs Material out /Waste (in kg) Water out* (in litre) Pentane emitted (in %) Steam out (in kg) Stages 1- Before pre-expansion 2- Pre-expansion 2- Stabilisation 3- Moulding 4- Drying/Storage 1000 Total ( ) *Please fax in parallell any measurement performed on water effluent % of EPS which is internally reprocessed on the site Destination of EPS waste % * Shredding of recycled EPS -All data must refer to1000 kg of final granules of recycled EPS- Please use the spe Material (in kg) Inputs Outputs 1000 Water (in litre) Electricity (in kwh) Waste (in kg) * Transportation data for virgin EPS Distance of transport Real load of truck Maximum load of truck Empty return (Yes/No) km tons tons * Transportation data for recycled EPS Distance of transport Real load of truck Maximum load of truck Empty return (Yes/No) km tons tons EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 97/130 August 2001

98 12.3 Data quality questionnaire EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 98/130 August 2001

99 13. Appendix C: Variation of individual data for the transformation step, shredding step and definition of TV packaging system The following graphs show the level of variation between the individual questionnaires that were filled in by EUMEPS members, for the main process parameters of the processes. The average value was used in the TEAM model. The variance for the different inputs and outputs of the transformation stage have altered since their initial presentation to EUMEPS members on 10 th April 2001 in Paris. As a result of the discussions held at this meeting, further information and clarification was sought by the project team from the original data providers where data was considered to be erroneous. Data was refined as a consequence Variation of inputs in the transformation stage The range of variation between questionnaires for the quantity of EPS entering the transformation stage was small. The difference between the minimum and maximum value was 96kg (see below). Quantity of Virgin EPS (in kg/t EPS) Transformation step average = kg/t EPS EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 99/130 August 2001

100 The variation in values for water consumption during the transformation stage was from 8,232 litres per tonne of EPS to 21,971 tonnes of EPS, i.e. a difference of 13,739 litres per tonne of EPS transformed. Quantity of water consumed (in litre/t EPS) Transformation step average = litre The maximum energy consumption was kwh/t of EPS and the minimum value was kwh, this is a difference of kwh. This difference is considered to be realistic owing to the variation in size and operations at each of the 15 respondent sites Quantity of energy : Electricity + fossil fuel (natural gas or heavy fuel oil) consumed (in kwh/t EPS) Transformation step average = kwh EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 100/130 August 2001

101 13.2 Variation of releases in the transformation stage The data for pentane varied from a minimum of 3.4 % to a maximum of 6.5 %. % of pentane emitted in the air Transformation step average = 5.7% The variation of EPS as an output of the transformation phase was small with a minimum value of kg and a maximum value of kg Quantity of material out (in kg / t EPS) Transformation step average = 1014 kg/t EPS EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 101/130 August 2001

102 13.3 Variation of data for the shredding stage The shredding stage of the life cycle uses small amounts of electricity. Here the difference between the minimum and maximum values was 310 kwh. 400 Electricity consumption (kwh/tonne EPS) Shredding average = 144 kwh For the input of EPS into the shredding step, a difference in weight of EPS entering this phase was 173 kg. Material In (in kg/tonne EPS) Shredding 1000 average = kg EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 102/130 August 2001

103 13.4 Variation of data for the definition of a 25" TV set packaging system The weight of EPS packaging for a 25"TV set was between kg and kg, with an average of kg. 1 Weight of EPS Packaging (in kg) 0.75 average : kg The weight of a cardboard box for a 25"TV set was between 2.5 kg and 3 kg, with an average of kg. Weight of cardboard box for 25" TV set (in kg) average : kg EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 103/130 August 2001

104 The weight of a 25" TV set was between 25 kg and 33 kg, with an average of kg. Weight of a 25" TV set (in kg) average : kg EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 104/130 August 2001

105 14. Appendix D: Sources of secondary data Table 35: Sources of secondary data Name of module Life cycle step where used Sources 211 Cardboard (Recycled, Grey Board): Production 2 BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft) n 250 Band II: Ökoinventare für Verpackungen Bern, 1996 Page Corrugated Cardboard (Recycled Fibers): Production 5 BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft) n 250 Band II: Ökoinventare für Verpackungen Bern, 1996 Page I Diesel Oil: Production 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 Laboratorium fur Energiesysteme ETH, Zurich, 1996 Teil 1, Erdol Page Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE, Film): Production 3, 4, 5 Ecoprofiles of plastics and related intermediates I.Boustead APME, Brussels, 1999 available on site web: Lubricant: Production 3 derived from heavy fuel oil production (ETH data) 274 Aluminium (Al, Sheet): Production 3 BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft) N 250 Bern, 1998 Page: I Coal: Combustion and production 3, 5, 7, 8 Laboratorium fur Energiesysteme ETH, Zurich, 1996 Teil 1, Kohle Page I Heavy Fuel Oil: Combustion and production 3, 5, 7, 8 Laboratorium fur Energiesysteme ETH, Zurïch, 1996 Teil 1, Erdol Page I Natural Gas: Combustion (Low NOx) and production 3, 5, 7, 8 Laboratorium fur Energiesysteme ETH, Zurich, 1996 Teil 1, Erdgas Page Road Transport (Diesel Oil, litre) 7 (collection of d. waste) 1) Diesel oil production cf. Atomic module of Diesel Oil Production 2) Diesel oil combustion Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape (FOEFL or BUWAL) Environmental Series No. 132 Bern, February 1991 page A16 602S Road Transport (Truck 16t, litre) 8 ETH Zurich 1996 Anteil 3 Anhang B Transport und bauprozesse page: S Road Transport (Truck 24t, litre) 2, 4, 5 ETH Zurich 1996 Anteil 3 Anhang B Transport und bauprozesse page: S Road Transport (Truck 40t, litre) 6 ETH Zurich 1996 Anteil 3 Anhang B Transport und bauprozesse page: 6-10 E Demineralised Water (I2): Production 3 Municipal Solid WasteFrench incineration plant. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 105/130 August 2001

106 15. Appendix E: Modelling of incineration and landfilling with WISARD TM software 15.1 Incineration of household wastes with recovery of steam and/or electricity A- Process Description Modelling the incineration of household wastes with steam and/or electricity recovery. The following processes are taken into account : - Unloading waste in the refuse pit, loading grab. - Incineration in a grate furnace, rotating furnace or fluidised-bed incinerator. - Heat recovery in a boiler. Steam can be sold and/or used to produce electricity. - Scrubbing (dry, semi-dry, wet) and fly-ash removal (electrostatic precipitator, fabric filter). - Processing of scrubbing effluents in a water treatment plant prior to release to sewer. - Removal of ferrous and non-ferrous fractions from bottom ash using magnetic and eddy current equipment. Comments The Functional Unit is 'to incinerate household wastes whose quantity and composition are defined in other parts of the tool'. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 106/130 August 2001

107 Process Diagram Sale of Y MJ electricity Household waste collected 1 tonne Incinerator Minus Furnace and boiler Steam Production ( MJ/t) Treatment of flue gas, fly and bottom ash ~5500 m 3 /t 0-2 m 3 /t kg/t irons 0-10 kg/t Alu scrap kg/t bottom ash kg/t generated waste Sale of X kg steam Releases to the atmosphere Releases to water Recycling of Z kg iron scrap W kg aluminium scrap Landfill of generated wastes (unrecoverable bottom ash, etc) Raw materials Raw materials Raw materials Raw materials Raw materials kg/t clinkers Conventional process for steam production Conventional process for electricity production Conventional process for steel production Conventional process for aluminium production Conventional Process for steam production uminium Conventional process to extract aggregates Recovery of V kg bottom ash X kg steam Y MJ electricity Z kg steel W kg aluminium V kg aggregates Note : Figures are indicative only. For more information on reuse routes, please refer to corresponding data sheets The following diagram shows the various recycling routes for recovered metals after incineration (indicated numbers) EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 107/130 August 2001

108 MSW (1t) incl steel (35 kg) and aluminium packaging (3.5 kg) 30 % of iron oxides 60 % of aluminium oxides Incineration ashes smokes 300 kg of clinkers (incl 24 kg Fe & 11 kgfe oxided 1.5 kg Alu & 2 kg Al oxided) 90 % of non oxidised alu oxydéis recovered 64 % of non oxided iron is recovered De-ironing (magnetic sorting) Bottom ash (274 kg) Eddy current Bottom ash (272 kg) Maturation (before reuse Irons (26 kg) with 60 % Fe nodules (2kg) with 63 % Aluminium Reuse in road underlay coatings (13 kg) Crushing Preparation (crushing, criblage, ) residues (0.7 kg) Reuse or warehousing irons (13 kg) with 92 % Fe nodules (1.3 kg) with 95 % Aluminium electric steelworks Aluminium recycling foundry B- System Definition Included : - Construction and demolition of the incineration site. - Processes linked to the site operation (consumption of site vehicles, machinery ). - Utility usage. - Flue gas scrubbing. - Processing of scrubbing liquid after flue gas treatment - Processing of bottom ash (metal scrap recovery). - Transport and recycling of iron and aluminium scrap (see corresponding sheets). - Transport and landfill of unrecoverable bottom ash and fly ash (see corresponding sheets). - Transport and recovery of bottom ash for use in road underlay (see corresponding sheet). Excluded : - Collection and transport of household wastes to the incineration site (taken into account elsewhere in the tool). EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 108/130 August 2001

109 TEAM TM C- Main Data Characteristics Date type : Parameters relating to site management-: Sources [1], [2], [3]. Data processing : Nature : mass balance Allocations rules used : EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 109/130 August 2001

110 Flow Type Allocation rule Consumption on site, construction and demolition Allocation by mass Use Allocation by mass Solid outgoings Bottom ash : mineral content of incoming wastes Operations material consumption for energy production Operations energy production Operations material consumption for the treatment of flue gas Operations (flue gas treatment) outflows Ferrous waste : ferrous materials content of incoming wastes Aluminium wastes : aluminium content of incoming wastes Allocation according to energy content of wastes Allocation according to energy content of wastes Allocation according to the content in sulphur and chlorine of wastes Volume of flue gas (V flue gas ) V flue gas = V flue gas (0) 33 * LHV wet /LHV wet (0) CO 2 CO 2 = CO 2 (0) * C/C(0) CO CO = [CO] (0) * V flue gas SO x SO x = [SO x ] (0) * V flue gas if there is sulphur in wastes, otherwise 0 NO x NO x = [NO x ] (0) * V flue gas N 2 O N 2 O = [N 2 O] (0) * V flue gas NH 3 NH 3 = [NH 3 ] (0) * V flue gas HCl HCl = [HCl] (0) * V flue gas if there is chlorine in wastes, otherwise 0. HF HF = [HF] (0) * V flue gas if there is fluoride in wastes, otherwise 0. HBr HBr = [HBr] (0) * V flue gas if there is bromine in wastes, otherwise 0. Dusts Dusts = [Dusts] (0) * V flue gas Heavy metals Heavy metals = [heavy metals] (0) * V flue gas if there are heavy metals in wastes, otherwise 0. Zn Zn = [Zn] (0) * V flue gas if there is zinc in wastes, otherwise 0. Hg Hg = [Hg] (0) * V flue gas if there is mercury in wastes, otherwise 0. Cd Cd = [Cd] (0) * V flue gas if there is cadmium in wastes, otherwise 0. Fly ashes ½ Content in mineral materials + ½ (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes Operations material consumption for the treatment of waste water Operations (treatment of scrubbing water) outflows Allocation according to the content in sulphur and chlorine of wastes Suspended matter 1/3 Content in mineral materials + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes COD 1/3 energy content + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes BOD 5 1/3 energy content + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes N (total) 1/3 energy content + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes P (total) 1/3 energy content + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes Chlorides 1/3 energy content + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes Phenols 1/3 energy content + 2/3 (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes Heavy metals Content in heavy metals of wastes Solid Residues ½ Content in mineral materials + ½ (content Chlorine + Sulphur) of wastes (sludge cake) 33 suffix (0) is used in reference to the typical composition of wastes. Brackets [ ] refer to concentrations in mg/nm 3. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 110/130 August 2001

111 Representation Year : techniques used in the 1990s Geographical area : Europe Site Capacity : Variable Market share in the UK: refer to Environment Agency data Module characteristics : Reliability : Modelling from the operations of more than 15 sites in Europe. Completeness : High D- Data sources Identification : Source [1] : 'Life Cycle Assessment on the management and treatment of household waste by incineration, landfill, composting and anaerobic digestion', A study performed by the Ecobilan Group for ADEME, Source [2] : «Life Cycle Inventory of the Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste», Tebodin UK Ltd, 1996, report for the Environment Agency of England and Wales. Source [3] : «Life Cycle Inventory development for Incineration construction and dismantling», Chem 1997, Systems, report for the Environment Agency of England and Wales. Contact : Date of transmission for main data : Main Sources detailed by category : Raw materials : parameters according to data from [1], [2] & [3] Energies : parameters according to data from [1], [2] &[3] Air emissions : parameters according to data from [1] & [2] Releases to water : parameters according to data from [1] & [2] Wastes and co-products : parameters according to data from [1] & [2] E- Confidentiality Aspect Data under agreement : Process data Confidentiality agreement : No F- Ecobilan Module creation : Estelle Vial, Christèle Wojewodka Module Validation : Olivier Muller EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 111/130 August 2001

112 15.2 Landfill of household waste with leachates and landfill gas treatment A- Process Description Modelling the landfill of household waste. The following operations are taken into account: - Construction of landfill cells - Deposit of waste into the cells. - Periodic covering with clay and/or sand. - Collection and combustion of landfill gas in flares and/or in a boiler used for electricity production. - Collection and processing of leachates (by physio-chemical means or evaporation by incineration). Comments The functional unit is «to landfill MSW whose quantity and composition have been defined in another part of the tool». Data concerning the production of landfill gas and leachates relate to a period of around 100 years. This makes the collection of data difficult. Process Diagram Household waste collected 1 tonne Landfilling Landfill site Minus 10-50% leaks (landfill equipped with flares) Production of landfill gas Emission of leachates Flaring Combustion in boiler Output 15-33% Leachate treatment 10-20% leaks (landfill equipped with drains) Emissions in the atmosphere (fugitive or post Y MJ electricity 0-150kWh/t Releases to water (fugitive or post treatment) Raw materials Conventional process for electricity production (coal) Y MJ electricity Note : Figures are indicative only. B-System Definition Included : - Construction and cover of the site at end of use. - Operation for landfilling (consumption of fuel and lubricants for machinery, ). - Leachate produced from water passing through household waste in landfill. - Decomposition of putrescible waste with production of landfill gas. - Treatment of leachates in water treatment plant. - Combustion of captured landfill gas. - Fugitive emissions of landfill gas - Fugitive emissions of leachates. EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 112/130 August 2001

113 Excluded : - Collection and transport of household waste to the landfill site (taken into account elsewhere in the tool) - Transport of raw materials to the site. - Leachates processing by other means : physical (inverted osmosis, ultra-filtration), thermal (incineration). - The outcome for water treatment plant sludge (they represent less than 0.6% of the entire weight of incoming municipal waste). TEAM TM Main system for landfilling EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 113/130 August 2001

114 Sub-system for the landfill site C- Main Data Characteristics Data Type : - Parameters relative to site management: Sources [1] & [2]. Data processing : Nature : mass balance Allocation rules : EUMEPS LCA of EPS packaging Final report 114/130 August 2001