Life Cycle Analysis of Paper Products

Dr. Richard A. Venditti

Department of Forest Biomaterials
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8005

Richard Venditti, Professor, Sabbatical Leave Jan-July 2011, Duke University, Center on
Global Change, Room 109 Phytotron, Duke email: [email protected], office 919 681
7180, cell 919 649-4017

Permanent Address: Dept of Forest Biomaterials, North Carolina State University,

Biltmore Hall Rm 1204, 2820 Faucette Drive, Raleigh NC 27695-8005, (919) 515-6185,
[email protected], website: go.ncsu.edu/venditti
1
 Outline
• Introduction to LCA
• LCA of Paper
• North American Printing and Writing Grade LCA’s
• Allocation methods in LCA’s
• Recommendations

2
 Sustainability?
• How do we supply societies needs without harming the
environment or future generations’ ability to meet their
needs?
– People – Planet - Profit

• We have many options to meet our demands.

• How to choose the “best” option?

• Life cycle assessment (LCA) helps to inform our choices.

• LCA has objective and subjective parts!!!

3
 What is a Life Cycle Assessment ?

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to assess the potential

environmental impacts of products, systems, or services at all stages
in their life cycle [ISO 14001:2004].

Types of LCA

•Cradle to Gate: raw materials to finished good (no use or end

life considerations)

•Cradle to Grave: Considers everything from harvesting

materials to the disposal of the finished goods

4
 Example LCA Process
Recycled Materials

Energy Energy
Energy Energy Energy

Raw
Production Transportation Use Disposal
Materials
Recycle

Waste Waste Waste

Waste
Waste
Emissions to Emissions to
air and water Emissions to Emissions to
air and water air and water air and water

5
 Why is an LCA Important?

• Helps ensure compliance with government regulations

• Helps decrease the environmental impact of a given product
- Identifies ways to improve sustainability
- Identifies ways to “green” all aspects of product’s life
• Can reshape company strategy
• Can help marketing
- Can reshape company image
- Develop product advantage of competition

6
Important Aspects of Life Cycle
Assessment

Goal and Scope

Definition

Inventory Analysis Interpretation

Impact Assessment

7
 Defining Goals

• Should state the intent of the study

– Intended application
– Intended use
– Intended audience
• Should also include reason for the study

8
 Defining Scope

• Define functional unit of product

– Example: 100 disposable paper cups vs 1 glass container washed 99 times
• Help establish system boundaries for the LCA
• Determine data collection methods

9
Important Aspects of Life Cycle
Assessment

Goal and Scope

Definition

Inventory Analysis Interpretation

Impact Assessment

10
 Inventory Analysis:

• Definition of the process (flowsheet)

• Definition of all mass and energy inputs to
the process

11
Inventory Analysis: What Needs to be Included?

Recycled Materials

Energy Energy
Energy Energy Energy

Raw
Production Transportation Use Disposal
Materials
Recycle

Waste Waste Waste

Waste
Waste
Emissions to Emissions to
air and water Emissions to Emissions to
air and water air and water air and water

• All relevant stages of the life of a product

12
 Inventory Analysis:
• Foreground data – data specific to the model at hand
• Background data – generic data that can be found in available
databases (examples, generic transportation or electricity)

• Tracking of who is in control of consumption/emissions:

– Scope 1: owned production
– Scope 2: purchased energy sources, like electricity
– Scope 3: non-owned operations such as raw materials production,
transportation in non owned vehicles, or non-owned operations

13
 Inventory Analysis:
Example
• Example product: copy paper
• Raw Materials
– Wood, water, various chemicals, energy
– Chemical and Energy Recovery
• Manufacturing
– Machinery, processes, packaging material
• Transportation and Distribution
– Storage of paper in warehouses, selling of it via wholesalers/retailers
• Use
– Products associated with the use of copy paper
• Disposal
– Waste products, Recycling, landfilling
– Energy recovery

14
Important Aspects of Life Cycle
Assessment

Goal and Scope

Definition

Inventory Analysis Interpretation

Impact Assessment

15
 Impact Assessment
Definition:

Impact assessment is the process of identifying the future

consequences of a current or proposed action. (cbd.int/impact)

It is used to ensure that projects, programs and policies are

economically viable, socially equitable and environmentally
sustainable. (cbd.int/impact)

Developed with target audience in mind.

16
 Example: Environmental Indices
for given impact categories

1. IGW – global warming

2. ISF – smog formation
3. IOD – ozone depletion
4. IAR – acid rain
5. IINH – human inhalation
6. IING – ingestion toxicity
7. ICINH -human carcinogenic inhalation
8. ICING – carcinogenic ingestion toxicity
9. IFT – fish toxicity

17
 Impact Assessment: ISO Standard

• Characterization factors: determine the relative

contribution of an LCI output to the impact category

• For instance, 1 kg CH4 contributes to global warming 26

times 1 kg of CO2
• If, characterization factor for CO2 =1
• Then, characterization factor for CH4 =26
• From the inventory analysis,
– GWP = 1* kg CO2 + 26*kg CH4

18
 Carbon Footprint:
Impact Assessment Method

• Partial life cycle analysis

• A picture of the overall greenhouse gas impact (not
just CO2) of a product over its lifecycle (cradle-to-
grave).
• Reports the net amount of GHG’s for a defined
process, in units of kgCO2(equiv)/basis

Revision Year CO2 equivalents for CH4 CO2 equivalents for N2O
1996 21 310
2001 23 296
2006 25 298

19
Global Carbon Cycle and Forests?

4.1 Pg C /yr
4.1 billion tonne C / yr
14.7 billion tonne CO2 / yr
40 WW Paper Industries
Paper Production 0.15 billion tonne C/yr

• Lal, 2008
 Global Carbon Cycle and Forests?
• Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has
increased by 31% since 1750 (to 390
from 280 ppm) and by 1.5 ppm/yr for
1980-2000 (IPCC 2001)

• Forests are significant in global GHG

(Landsberg & Gower, 1997):
– Cover 65% of the total land
– Contain 90% of the total vegetation
carbon
– 80% of total soil carbon in terrestrial
ecosystems
– Assimilate 67% of the total CO2 removed
from the atmosphere by all terrestrial
ecosystems
 Carbon Footprint:
Impact Assessment Method
• Typically, a carbon footprint does not consider biogenic (from
living processes) carbon nor does it consider CO2 emissions
from the burning or decay of the biogenic material (they
balance each other)
• Biogenic material decay/burning that produces methane or N2O
must be considered

Tree Growth Burn to Produce CO2 only Net zero C footprint

Tree Growth 100% Decay to CO2 and methane + C footprint

22
 Carbon Footprint:
Impact Assessment Method
• Non renewable resources (coal, oil) are considered since they
have been formed over very long time scales and are not being
formed over time scales of interest
• Materials, transportation, energy often have associated with
them carbon emissions
• Long term storage of carbon away from the atmosphere is
considered a negative C footprint contribution
• When one product with a lower C footprint replaces another
with larger C footprint, an avoided C input to the atmosphere is
claimed, a negative C footprint contribution
Tree Growth Book stored in library for long time - C footprint

Tree Growth Burn to replace coal based electricity - C footprint

23
Important Aspects of Life Cycle
Assessment

Goal and Scope

Definition

Inventory Analysis Interpretation

Impact Assessment

24
 Interpretation: ISO Standard

Goal and Interpretation: Direct

Scope Applications:
1. ID Significant issues
Product or
2. Evaluation of process
completion, sensitivity, development
Inventory
consistency, other..
analysis Public policy
3. Conclusions,
recommendations, Marketing
Impact
limitations Strategic Planning
assessment
Other….

25
 Outline
• Introduction to LCA
• LCA of Paper
• North American Printing and Writing Grade LCA’s
• Allocation methods in LCA’s
• Recommendations

26
 Life Cycle Analysis
for Pulp and Paper Products
• Paper is a measure of the quality of life of a society

• Paper is mainly derived from renewable resources

• Complex furnish and manufacturing
• Extremely efficient manufacturing processes using a
majority of renewable fuels
• Paper manufacturing has air/water/solid emissions
• Paper has several co-products manufactured
• A recyclable product (open loop)
• Paper is the major component in landfills and when
degrades anaerobically forms methane

27
Life Cycle Analysis of Paper: Catalog System Boundary

28
 Life Cycle Analysis of Paper: Catalog
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. LCIA Results per Functional Unit (TRACI Method, IPCC) –
Catalogs

1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
1- Fiber procurement 2- Coated freesheet production
Storage
Impact Unit/ Coated
Total use and
category catalog 3- Production ofFiber
catalogs freesheet Production Transport
4- End-
Transport and use of catalogs
landfill
procurement of catalogs and use of-life
production
5- End-of-life Storage in use and landfill
Global warming
kg CO2 eq. 4.89E-01 5.4% 43.6% 15.7% 1.2% 37.7% -3.4%
(GW) 100%
+
Acidification H moles
1.67E-01 7.6% 67.4% 21.1% 1.1% 2.9%
(AC) eq.

Carcinogenics
80%
kg
benzene 8.43E-03 0.6% 66.6% 4.2% 0.0% 28.6%
(CAR)
eq.
Non-
kg60%
toluene
carcinogenics 8.78E+01 0.5% 11.5% 2.4% 0.1% 85.4%
eq.
(NCAR)
Respiratory kg PM2.5
6.52E-04 3.5% 77.9% 15.6% 0.3% 2.6%
effects (RES) 40%
eq.
N/A
Eutrophication
kg N eq. 8.85E-04 1.9% 19.0% 6.2% 0.2% 72.8%
(EU)
Ozone depletion kg20%
CFC-11
1.88E-08 2.8% 66.2% 21.2% 0.4% 9.4%
(OD) eq.
Ecotoxicity kg 2,4-D
2.86E+00 0.9% 14.7% 6.1% 0.1% 78.2%
(ECO) eq.
0%
kg NOx
Smog (SM) 2.10E-03 7.7% 36.4% 48.7% 1.8% 5.3%
eq. GW AC CAR NCAR RES EU OD ECO SM FF
Fossil fuel
MJ surplus
-20% 3.94E-01 9.3% 52.4% 29.8% 2.6% 5.9%
depletion (FF)

ror! No text of specified style in document.-1. Cradle-to-Grave Contribution analysis –

29
Primarily from Coated Freesheet
Life Cycle Analysis of Paper: Catalog: Carbon Footprint

30
 Outline
• Introduction to LCA
• LCA of Paper
• North American Printing and Writing Grade LCA’s
• Allocation methods in LCA’s
• Recommendations

31
 Major NA LCA Studies on
Printing and Writing Grades
• Paper Task Force White Paper No. 3 Lifecycle environmental
comparison: virgin paper and recycled paper based systems.
Originally published Dec. 19, 1995, updated February 2002 (Paper
Task Force, 2002)

• The Heinz Center: Following the Paper Trail: The Impact of

Magazine and Dimensional Lumber Grade Production on GHG
Emissions: A Case Study, 2006. (Heinz, 2006)

• National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Life Cycle
Assessment of North American Printing and Writing Paper Products
(NCASI, 2010)
•

32
 Paper Task Force (Paper Calculator):
• Data circa 1994
• Synthetic, simplistic separation of virgin and recycled systems
• Mainly indicates preferred disposal method
• Has been extensively mis-marketed and mis-used to promote the use
of recycled fibers in specific products
Raw Material Paper Production (3000) Landfill/Incinerate Virgin
Acquisition (300) Paper (2500)

Deinking and Paper Collection of Recycled

Production (3350) Paper (230)

Net GHG Emissions

Landfill 6700 (3.4)

Virgin Office Paper
Incineration 2500 (1.3)

Waste Management 5800 (2.9)

Recycled Office paper Collect/Process 3580 (1.8)

33
 Paper Task Force (Paper Calculator):
• Producers of manufactured paper products are using national
averages of the industry to represent their product. However, the
range of environmental burdens are very large and using averages to
represent specific products is misleading.

2500

2000
CO2 from Fossil Fuels, lb/AD ton

1500

1000

500

-500

-1000
C50D50EDED D(EO)DED OD(EO)D Industry Average

Bleaching Sequence
34
 Paper Task Force (Paper Calculator):
5000

4000

3000
CO2 from Fossil Fuels, lb/AD ton

2000

1000

-1000

-2000
Bleached Kraft Pulp Uncoated free Coated free sheet Lightweight coated Lightweight coated Deinked Recovered
sheet paper paper groundwood virgin paper Fiber
paper

35
 Paper Task Force (Paper Calculator):
• Producers of manufactured paper products are using the results to
indicate that more recycled fiber content in a specific product is better,
however, this is not necessarily true
• It is good to recycle in general
• However, in general, it is most efficient to recycle paper products to
lower valued and not higher valued products
• Example:
0.7
Net GHG, kg CO2eq/kg catalog

0.6

0.5

0.4 Number of
Uses
0.3 Cut off
method
0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Utilization Rate (%)

36
 The Heinz Center: Following the Paper
Trail: The Impact of Magazine
• Data circa 2001
• A scope 1 (owned) and 2 (purch power) study for Carbon Footprint
• Omits scope 3 (non-owned) considerations
• Does not follow LCA procedures/fails to document adequately
• Underestimates carbon footprint

Table 2. Activities in the net GHG Life Cycle tracked in the Heinz Center
Study for the InStyle and Time magazines (ton CO2e/ton product listed)

Transport to InStyle
Forest Printers and (1.11)
Paper
Management Transport Printing and to Final Fate:
Manufacturing
and Harvesting Distribution Landfill
Centers Recycle
Incinerate Time
Purchased Power (1.17)

37
 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI)
• Most modern study
• Robust, scope 1-3 LCA of printing and writing grades
• Follows ISO procedures
• Complex allocation methods for virgin vs recycling products
1- Fiber procurement 2- Coated freesheet production
3- Production of catalogs 4- Transport and use of catalogs
5- End-of-life Storage in use and landfill
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
GW AC CAR NCAR RES EU OD ECO SM FF
-20% 38
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. Cradle-to-Grave Contribution analysis – Catalogs Made
 Comparison of Three Studies:
Study: ISO 3rd Party Review Published in a Clarity of Data Impact Uncertainty Sensitivity Allocation methods
14040 Peer Reviewed Assessment Analysis Analysis
Journal

Paper No. Reviewed by outside No. Extensive Net GHG. None. None. Synthetic separation
Task experts. Comments presentation of of virgin and recycled
Force not provided in the the inventory paper products.
report. data. Inconsistent
application of open
loop recycling.

Heinz No. None. No. Did not define Only GHG None. Not done. None used for
what data was emissions Weaknesses in Results for recycling. Unclear
included. Data reported. study individual assumptions on
in inventory discussed. printing coproduct allocation
results not operations methods.
presented. were
presented.

NCASI Yes External peer review No. Extensive SimaPro Conducted Sensitivity on Co-product and
panel. Panelists flowsheeting of software with respect to process recycling allocation
comments and the processes and running inventory data. conditions, methods used.
responses to the lists of data TRACI. allocations
comments appear in appear in methods,
the report report. impact
assessment
method,
others

39
 Comparing Difft LCA’s
• Very Difficult:
• Example, coated paper:
– PTF: .8-1.8 ton CO2e/ton product
– Heinz: 1.11-1.17
– NCASI: 2.36-3.45
– VTT Study (Finland): 1.0-1.6
– Springer/Stora/Canfor (Europe): 0.4-1.9
• Geographical differences, assumptions, data,
calculation methods, scope, …………….
40
 Outline
• Introduction to LCA
• LCA of Paper
• North American Printing and Writing Grade LCA’s
• Allocation methods in LCA’s
• Recommendations

41
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Allocation: the partitioning of environmental
burdens between two related products
• Controversial:
– ISO methods recommend that allocation is avoided
– ISO does not provide allocation rules, practitioner must decide the
rules and justify their use
– ISO requests that the sensitivity of the LCA results are evaluated
with respect to the allocation methods
• Bottom line: allocation method can determine which
related product in a life cycle is preferred

42
 Two Main Allocation Situations:

• Co-products Allocation: a single process produces

multiple products,
– Burdens can be partitioned by mass flows, monetary
values….
– Example for paper production: paper, TOFA, turpentine
– Emissions from pulping are partitioned to the paper, TOFA,
and turpentine using a stated rule

43
 Two Main Allocation Situations:

• Recycling Allocation: a virgin product is recycled or

re-used in a subsequent life
– There exists operations that are required by the virgin and
the recycled products (shared operations)
– Example shared operations: virgin raw material production,
final disposal
– Many ways to allocate the burdens of the common
operations

• Open loop recycling allocation is the most

controversial issue in LCA currently!!!!
44
 Allocation methods to share burdens reflect
improved environmental efficiency.

• Example: want to understand the burdens of

containing groceries during transport
• Reduce: don’t use a bag, 0 burden/trip
• Re-use (production of bag = 1 burden)
– Use bag once, 1 burden/trip
– Use bag twice, 0.5 burden/trip
• Recycle (to recycle costs 0.4 burdens)
– Then for using the bag and recycling once:
( 1 + 0.4 ) / 2 trips = 0.7 burdens/trip

– (data for example only, not meant to represent an actual

process) 45
 Closed and Open Loop Recycling:
• Closed loop: material or products are returned to
the same system after use and used for the same
purpose again (Baumann, Tillman, 2004)

Production of P Use Product Disposal

Recover

• Open loop: a product is recycled into a different

product
Production of P Use of Product A Disposal
Recover

Production of Product B Disposal

46
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Example: virgin paper recycled twice and then
disposed. Closed loop recycling example P1=P2=P3.

Primary material
production
(V1)

Production of Recycling of Production of Recycling of Production of

Product P1 Product P1 Product P2 Product P2 Product P3
(P1) (R1) (P2) (R2) (P3)

Use of Use of Use of

Product P1 Product P2 Product P3
(U1) (U2) (U3)

End of life
(W3)

47
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Example: virgin paper recycled twice and then
disposed. Closed loop recycling example.

Raw Matl Virgin Prod Collect/transp Recycle Collect/transp Recycle Waste

Process Process Mgmt
V1 P1 R1 P2 R2 P3 W3
Potentially Potentially Potentially
Shared Not Shared Not Shared Shared
Shared Shared Shared
Operation Operation Operation Operation
Operation Operation Operation
CO2e
Lb/ton 300 3000 230 3350 230 3350 2500
product
CO2e
ton/ton
product .15 1.50 .12 1.68 .12 1.68 1.25

Table 7. Net GHG of office paper from various life cycle stages from the Paper Task Force (2002, pg. 132), waste management is 80/20 landfill/incinerate.

48
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Choice of allocation method determines whether
virgin or recycled products are promoted:
7000
Virgin Burden Recycled Burden
Paper Task Force
6000

5000
Shared Burden
Net GHG, lb CO2eq/ton

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
Cutoff MLWMBR 50/50 Closed Loop Quality Loss RMAGWT
Recycling
49
Paper Recycling:
An Open Loop

• Paper products are

recycled into other
products with
different yields upon
recycling, closed
loop recycling not a
good model

50
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Cut off method: no shared burdens
• Virgin product carries all virgin production burden
• Recycled products aren’t assigned any virgin burdens
• Promotes recycling relative to disposal
• Doesn’t acknowledge the value of recyclable materials
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Flow sheet of cut off method.
Cut off Point
GWP =70

Disposal
Product 1

Raw Manuf. Manuf Disposal

Materials Product 1 Product 2 Product 2

GWP =30 GWP =50 GWP =40 GWP =70

Product 1 Burden = 30 +50 + 70 = 150

Product 2 Burden = 40 + 70 = 110

52
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Number of subsequent uses recycling allocation
method: burdens associated with virgin material
production are shared by all lives of the materials
• Acknowledges benefit to making recyclable materials
 Allocation Methods in LCA:
• Number of uses method. Share common burdens.
GWP =70

Disposal
Product 1
GWP =30
Raw GWP =15 Manuf. Manuf Disposal
Materials Product 1 Product 2 Product 2
GWP =50
GWP =40 GWP =70

Transferred shared burden

Product 1 Burden = 30 -15 +50 + 70 = 135 GWP =15

Product 2 Burden = 15 + 40 + 70 = 125

54
 Allocation Methods Comparison:
• Used FEFPro carbon footprint tool for paper products
• Determined carbon footprint for both number of uses
and cut off method as a function of
– Recovery rate of product
– Utilization rate of recycled fibers in product
FEFPro:
 Allocation Methods Comparison:
• Recovery Rate:
– Increased RR decreases carbon footprint
– Number of uses carbon footprint much less than cutoff
0.700

0.600
Net GHG, kg CO2eq/kg catalog

0.500

0.400

0.300
Cut off Number of Uses
0.200

0.100

0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100

Recovery Rate (%)

 Allocation Methods Comparison:
• Utilization Rate:
– UR does not significantly impact carbon footprint
– Number of uses carbon footprint similar to cutoff
0.7

0.6
Net GHG, kg CO2eq/kg catalog

0.5

Number of Uses
0.4
Cut off method

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Utilization Rate (%)

 Outline
• Introduction to LCA
• LCA of Paper
• North American Printing and Writing Grade LCA’s
• Allocation methods in LCA’s
• Recommendations

59
 Recommendations:
• The comparisons of different LCA studies can be extremely
difficult.
• The authority and reasonableness of LCA studies are not
consistent.
 Recommendations:
• When considering two related products in the same life cycle
such as virgin or recycled materials, the choice of available
allocation methods can determine whether virgin or recycled
material is promoted.

• The number of uses method is an appropriate model for the life

cycle analysis of paper products, which is most reasonably
modeled as an open loop recycling process.
 Recommendations:
• As based on data in this paper, the recovery of used paper for
manufacture of new materials or use in incineration to create
energy is more desirable than landfilling.

• With respect to the utilization of recovered paper in specific

products, the data in this paper demonstrate that a blanket
statement that all paper products should maximize use of
recovered paper is not substantiated.

• Increased recycling of paper products and the design of paper

products that are recyclable is environmentally beneficial.
 Recommendations:

• Industry average data are useful for an industry to benchmark

its overall performance.

• The use of industrial averages of environmental impacts to

promote a specific paper product relative to other similar paper
products is not reasonable.