United States

Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development

National Risk Management

Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/600/SR-97/082 October 1997

Project Summary
Life Cycle Design of Milk and
Juice Packaging
David V. Spitzley, Gregory A. Keoleian, and Jeff S. McDaniel

A life cycle design demonstration

project was initiated between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Dow Chemical Company,
and the University of Michigan to investigate milk and juice packaging design. The primary objective of this
project was to develop design metrics
and guidelines for environmental improvement of milk and juice packaging
systems. Material production energy accounted for a large portion of the total
life cycle energy for these systems.
Conversely, post-consumer waste was
responsible for a majority of their life
cycle solid waste generation. Packaging systems were also evaluated with
respect to key performance criteria, life
cycle costs, and regulatory trends at
the local, state and national levels. Environmentally preferable containers
were identified, and tradeoffs and correlations between design criteria were
highlighted.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPAs National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key findings of the research project that is fully documented
in a separate report of the same title
(see Project Report ordering information at back).

Introduction
Integration of environmental considerations into the design process represents
a complex challenge to designers, managers and environmental professionals. A
logical framework including definitions,
objectives, principles and tools is essential to guide the development of more eco-

logically and economically sustainable

product systems. In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency collaborated
with the University of Michigan to develop
the life cycle design framework. Using this
framework, environmental, performance,
cost and legal criteria are specified and
used to investigate design alternatives.
A series of demonstration projects with
Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, United
Solar and 3M Corporation have been initiated with Cleaner Products through the
Life Cycle Design Research Cooperative
Agreement. Life cycle assessment and life
cycle costing tools are applied in these
demonstration projects in addition to establishing key design requirements and
metrics. This is a summary report of the
Dow Chemical packaging project that investigated the life cycle design of milk
and juice containers.

Project Description
This study considered the life cycle aspects of both milk and juice packaging for
sale to households. Packages used for
the delivery of fresh dairy milk and/or reconstituted orange juice were selected for
study. Systems for delivering milk and juice
to on-site users, such as school lunch
programs, were not included in this study.
Additionally, this study did not address
impacts associated with beverage production.
A total of nine different container types
were included in this study. Glass bottles,
HDPE bottles, paperboard gable-top cartons, flexible pouches, polycarbonate
bottles, aseptic cartons, PET bottles, steel
cans, and composite cans were studied

using previously published life cycle inventory data. Many of these containers
were included with various sizes, refill
rates, and recycling rates in the study.
Although complete inventory data were
not available for PET bottles, steel cans,
or composite cans; these containers were
only partially analyzed based on data availability.
In order to compare containers on an
equivalent use basis, a functional unit of
1000 gallons was selected. All criteria were
evaluated based on quantities necessary
to deliver 1000 gallons to the consumer.
Although both juice and milk containers were included in all aspects of the
study, for some categories, only results
for milk containers are presented in this
summary since more complete information was available for these containers.

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

in the material production process, and

85% of juice container energy was used
in material production.

(Table 1) summarizes the results of this

analysis. In this table the life cycle data
are normalized to arrive at life cycle scores
ranging from 0 (best) to 10 (worst). Scores
represent the ratio of the data for a specific container relative to the highest reported value in the same category. A complete explanation of the scoring system is
contained in the full report. The following
sections briefly examine each assessment
category. Scores based on energy use
and solid waste data were averaged to
determine the total environmental score.

Solid Waste
For each container system the published
life cycle solid waste was collected and
post-consumer solid waste data were calculated based on container mass. Total
life cycle solid waste values reported include waste from industrial processing in
addition to post-consumer waste. Our
analysis indicated that for both milk and
juice packaging, post-consumer solid
waste accounts for approximately 80% of
total life cycle solid waste. Both post-consumer and life cycle waste can be greatly
affected by changing refill rates and unit
container size.
The one-gallon, 50-trip refillable HDPE
bottle generated the least solid waste over
its life cycle (4 kg/1000 gal). In contrast,
the single-use, one-liter glass bottle generated the greatest mass of life cycle solid
waste (1220 kg/1000 gal).

Environmental
Energy Use
Total life cycle energy for selected containers is shown in Table 2. Material production energy is also shown for these
containers when known.
Our analysis indicated a key design
trend in the container systems; material
production accounted for a majority of the
life cycle energy. On average 91% of milk
container life cycle energy was consumed

Table 1. Milk Container Evaluation

Container Type
Flexible Pouch
Gable Top Carton
Glass Bottle
refillable
single use
HDPE Bottle
refillable
single use
Polycarbonate

Energy Use

Solid Waste

2.1
10.0

0.14
1.1

4.9
8.8

Total Environmental*

1.1
10.0

2.9
9.7
3.3

0.05
0.55
0.04

Cost

Performance

Overall**

1.1
5.6

1.1
1.8

6.2
5.0

2.8
4.1

3.0
9.4

1.2
10.0

10.0
7.5

4.7
9.0

1.5
5.1
1.7

0.7
3.4
1.0

3.8
1.2
5.0

2.0
3.2
2.6

Each energy use, solid waste and cost rating is based on data from the full report, using a scale form best to worst of 0 - 10, where the highest energy, waste and cost
data for the selected containers receive a 10 and all other data normalized to this point; performance ratings convert the subjective evaluations in the full report to
numerical values.
* Total environmental score is the average of energy use and solid waste.
** Overall score is an average of total environmental, cost and performance.

Table 2. Energy Use, MJ/1000 Gal Delivered

Container
Glass Bottle
refillable
single use
HDPE Bottle
refillable
single use
Gable Top Carton
single use
Polycarbonate
refillable
Flexible Pouch
single use

Trippage

Total LIfe Cycle

Material Production

20
-

3900
7000

1910

50
-

2320
7720

470
6930

8000

40

2630

1020

1700

1550

Airborne/Waterborne Emissions
Due to the fact that emissions data were
available for only a limited number of containers and these data were highly variable, emissions data were not used in
evaluation. Both airborne and waterborne
emissions are reported, where available,
in the full report.

Cost
Costs representative of the life cycle of
each container product were determined
from published information and industry
sources. The costs of seven processes/
stages in the container life cycle were
summed to arrive at the total life cycle
container cost. These costs were: empty
container, transportation (fuel use), filling
equipment, municipal waste collection, recycling, incineration, and landfill disposal.
These costs are shown in Table 3. In this
table, waste collection, recycling, incineration, and landfill disposal costs are combined to give the End-of-Life cost. Complete cost data appear in the full report.
Costs for milk and juice containers were
evaluated using the same method.
The price of empty containers accounts
for the majority of total life cycle costs as
calculated by the NPPC. For the container systems examined empty container
cost represented 75% of the total on average. Costs for refillable container systems
are less dependent on empty container
costs than single-use systems.

Performance
Performance requirements for beverage
packaging were determined with a multiple-step process. First, a literature search
was conducted to determine which physi-

cal characteristics and other properties influence beverage retailers and consumers. Next a set of six performance measures were chosen based on their apparent importance. These criteria are clarity,
burst/shatter resistance, ease of opening,
weight, resealability, and necessity of storing empties.
Each container was then subjectively
evaluated for the six performance measures and ranked as follows: good (+),
neutral (0) or poor (-). Using this ranking
the performance measures were weighted
equally to determine overall performance.
Additional market research would be necessary to establish more accurate weighting factors.
Two containers for both milk and juice
were determined to have a good overall
ranking. The single use HDPE bottle was
the only container to receive a good ranking overall for use with both milk and
juice. Of the milk containers, refillable
HDPE was the only other container to
receive a positive ranking overall. The only
other juice container to receive a positive
ranking was the PET bottle. The refillable
glass bottle received a poor performance
ranking overall for use in both milk and
juice packaging.

Legal
A complex set of legal requirements
exist for milk and juice packaging in the
US and other countries. These requirements vary substantially and have impacts
throughout the life cycle. Legal requirements detailed in the full report are
grouped into five categories: fees and
taxes, municipal/state/federal goals, bans
and mandates, recycling/waste minimiza-

Table 3. Cost, $/1000 gal delivered

Container
Glass Bottle
refillable
single use
HDPE Bottle
refillable
single use
Gable Top Carton
single use
Polycarbonate
refillable
Flexible Pouch
single use

Trips

Empty Container

Transportation/Filling

End-of-Life

20
-

$64.00
$773.00

$37.37
$24.40

$14.14
$171.39

$115.51
$968.79

20
-

$45.00
$300.00

$23.73
$19.97

$1.21
$8.27

$69.94
$328.22

$132.00

$21.43

$21.13

$174.56

40

$70.00

$23.52

$1.00

$94.52

$80.00

$19.83

$3.41

$103.24

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

Total LC

tion requirements, and manufacturer requirements. Different packages and materials might be favored under some of the
regulations, but none of them optimally
meet every requirement. In general, current regulations target post consumer
waste, however, the trend is toward
broader more flexible packaging laws.

Design Guidelines
Simplified guidelines for evaluating the
environmental performance of milk and
juice packaging were developed based on
analysis of previous life cycle inventory
studies. The following guidelines were proposed to address life cycle energy and life
cycle solid waste issues in packaging design and management.
1. Life cycle energy can be approximated by computing the material
production energy of the package.
For this reason, less energy-intensive materials should be encouraged along with less material-intensive containers. For refillable
containers, high refill rates should
be achieved to best exploit the initial energy investment in the production of the container.
2. Life cycle solid waste is largely determined by post-consumer packaging waste; consequently less material-intensive containers in general
should be emphasized. The full report details the analysis done and
the conclusions drawn from this
analysis.

Conclusions
This project used the life cycle design
framework and tools to develop environmental and cost metrics for guiding milk
and juice packaging design. In addition,
analysis of milk and juice container systems highlighted both tradeoffs and some
consistent patterns among criteria and
metrics. Refillable HDPE and polycarbonate bottles and the flexible pouch were
shown to be the most environmentally preferable containers with respect to life cycle
energy and solid waste criteria. These containers were also found to have the least
life cycle costs. The strong correlation between least life cycle cost and least life
cycle environmental burden indicates that
the market system is encouraging environmentally preferable containers in these
cases. In other cases, significant externalities (environmental burdens) not reflected in the market system may create a
barrier for market penetration of an environmentally preferable container.

Several performance criteria present

potential barriers to otherwise preferable
containers. For example, containers that
require significant changes in merchandising and/or consumer practices may encounter market resistance. In the case of
refillable containers, merchants must accommodate returns of refillable containers
while consumers must be responsible for
rinsing and returning them to the grocery
store. In the case of the pouch, performance issues must be addressed in order
to achieve successful market penetration.
A pitcher, which must be cleaned periodically, is required to hold the pouch and
facilitate pouring and storage. Thus, although this system is currently popular in
Canada, both the pouch and refillable
bottles exhibit clear performance tradeoffs.
Public education about the environmental

merits of these systems is required to

influence their acceptance.
Based on the findings of this study and
other life cycle assessments, regulations
should be reviewed to encourage more
environmentally preferable packaging.
Regulations that support post-consumer
solid waste minimization should be encouraged, but they should not prohibit systems such as the flexible pouch which are
among the most environmentally preferable container systems.
Dows overall objective in this project
was to use the life cycle design framework as a method of enhancing their strategic planning capabilities for producing
and marketing milk and juice packaging
resins. Dows participation in this project
demonstrates how a material supplier can
take a proactive role in life cycle manage-

ment of its products. Their efforts in life

cycle design enable the company to partner with their customers (package fabricators) in a more effective way to both enhance environmental performance and
economic success. Partnerships are particularly valuable in addressing the complex parameters that affect multiple stages
of a product life cycle.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement number CR822998-01-0 by the National Pollution Prevention Center at the University of
Michigan under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This work covers a period from November
1, 1994 to August 30, 1996 and was completed as of September, 1996.

David V. Spitzley, Gregory A. Keoleian, and Jeff S. McDaniel are with the National
Pollution Prevention Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115.
Kenneth R. Stone is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Life Cycle Design of Milk and Juice Packaging,"
(Order No. PB98-100 423; Cost: $25.00, subject to change) will be available only
from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268

United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268

BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/SR-97/082