Working Report, 24/2006 – Ecolabelling of printed matter - part II

Ecolabelling of printed matter - part II

1 Introduction

1.1 Goal and scope definition
- 1.1.1 Goal definition
- 1.1.2 Scope definition

Studies dealing with product life-cycle assessments (LCA) on printed matter are relatively new. A limited number of available LCA’s on offset printed matter has been produced during the last ten years, dominated by reports from framkom (former IMT) (Dalheilm & Axelsson 1995, Axelsson et al 1997, Johansson 2002) and the Danish EPA (Drivsholm et al. 1996, Drivsholm et al. 1997). There is also a study by INFRAS (1998) focusing on graphic paper which also includes print products (e.g. newspaper) as functional units.

The results from these studies all point to paper (forestry and especially pulp and paper production) as the overall dominating contributor to the potential environmental impact from the life-cycle of offset printed matter. This dominating role of paper is primarily visible in the energy-related impact categories of global warming, acidification and nutrient enrichment. All the studies focus on energy consumption including the emissions and impact categories related to energy.

Chemical related impact categories, i.e. covering ecotoxicity and human toxicity are included in the studies by Dalheilm & Axelsson (1995) and Axelsson et al. (1997) using the EPS methodology (based on the willingness to pay principle, described in Steen (1999)) as their main approach, but the degree to which emission of specific chemicals is included is not readily transparent in the documentation and the impression is that it is only done to a limited degree. The study by INFRAS (1998) also includes the chemical related impact categories by making use of the EcoIndicator-95 methodology (damage approach, based on the distance to target methodology, described in Goedkoop (1995)) and the CML method (impact or midpoint approach) based on Heijungs et al. (1992). In the INFRAS study the CML impact category on “ecotoxicity water” is included whereas the “human toxicity” and “ecotoxicity air” is excluded. Also the EcoIndicator-95 impact categories (actually effect categories) on “pesticides”, “airborne heavy metals”, “water borne heavy metals” and “carcinogenetic substances” are included. However for both the CML method and the Ecoindicator-95 method only emissions for which characterisation factors already existed were included (AOX an exception see Section 4.1.2.1) and therefore the study were limited in coverage. On the basis of the report INFRAS report (INFRAS 1998) it is assessed that the emissions to air included are mainly energy related ones (NOx, SO₂ etc.) and for the emissions to water mainly heavy metals and AOX (bleaching) from pulp- and paper making processes and printing. Inclusion of specific organic substances seems to be very limited. The study by Johansson (2002) does not include chemical related impact categories at all and the last study by Drivsholm et al. (1996, 1997) making use of the EDIP methodology (used in this study) only includes the emission of two substances in the impact assessment covering the chemical related impact categories.

Only in the study by Johansson (2002) is sheet fed offset included as a separate entity.

In this report we include the chemical related impact categories to a higher degree by making use of some of the latest knowledge about emissions from the production at a printing company combined with knowledge about the composition of the raw materials used during the production of offset printed matter. In some cases also upstream emissions from production of raw materials are included.

This report describes an LCA of a fictitious (or model) “typical” sheet feed printing company. The main scenario used is primarily based on the two technical background documents (Brodin and Korostenski 1995 and 1997) for the Ecolabelling of Printed Matter (Nordic Ecolabelling 2002) and the report by Larsen et al. (1995). Inventory data from six Danish sheet fed offset printing companies and published data from Danish and other European investigations are also included.

As defined in the project application and as agreed upon with the Danish EPA the LCA method used in this study is the EDIP method (Wenzel, Hauschild and Alting 1997; Hauschild and Wenzel 1998). The main reasons for choosing EDIP are that this method with its relatively simple key property based impact assessment part seems feasible for the LCA approach relevant for use in ecolabelling of products associated with many chemical emissions. Furthermore, many of the toxicity related characterisation factors for the relevant chemicals already exist in this method.

This study is done in accordance with the ISO 14040-series.

1.1 Goal and scope definition

1.1.1 Goal definition

The goal of the study is to identify the distribution of potential environmental impacts and consumption of resources during the life cycle of generic printed matter produced on a model sheet feed offset printing company in Europe. The results are to be used for developing ecolabelling criteria.

1.1.2 Scope definition

All stages of the life cycle are covered as regards the use of raw materials/energy (from material extraction to disposal when possible) but for the potential environmental impacts, the main focus is on the production stage.

The composition of composite/mixture raw material (e.g. printing ink, developers) is generic and simplified.

Average typical data have been used, i.e. not from a specific printing company with a functional unit defined in details. The data are assessed to be suitable for developing ecolabelling criteria from an LCA approach (especially if combined with sensitivity analyses).

1.1.2.1 Functional unit

Functional unit: 1 ton of sheet feed offset produced printed matter.

The printed matter is to be considered as a non-laminated average piece of printed communication covering books, pamphlets, brochures, posters, magazines and more, generically produced at a model but typical sheet fed offset printing company.

The life time of the printed matter is varying from a few weeks for advertising material to several years for books and posters. For the sake of normalisation of the LCA results, the life time is here set to one year.

1.1.2.2 Assessment criteria

The assessment criteria used here are defined as the impact categories made operational in the EDIP method (Wenzel, Hauschild and Alting 1997; Hauschild and Wenzel 1998) and include: Global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, nutrient enrichment, photochemical ozone formation, chronic human toxicity via water and soil, chronic ecotoxicity in water and soil, acute human toxicity via air, acute ecotoxicity in water, hazardous waste, nuclear waste, slag and ashes, and bulk waste. Furthermore resource consumption is included. As the life cycle of printed matter is dominated by the use of a lot of chemicals, it is important to include the chemical-related impact categories (i.e. ecotoxicity and human toxicity). Furthermore, the production of the main raw material paper is energy-demanding which makes the inclusion of the energy-related impact categories important (global warming, acidification and nutrient enrichment).

1.1.2.3 Scope definition of the product system

Click here to see Figure 1.

Figure 1: The product system

Due to the scope of this study, transport is only included when it is an integrated part of a unit process included (e.g. production of paper from cradle to gate). So transport of raw materials from producer to the printing company and the transport in the production, use and disposal stages are not included. However transport for recycling of paper as described in Frees et al. (2004) is included because it is an integrated part of the unit process used here. The importance of transport in the life cycle of printed matter is however assessed but mainly on the basis of existing LCA-studies, see Section 4.1.4.

For finishing, only lacquering and gluing are included. Laminating is typically not done at the sheet fed offset printing company (Brodin & Korostenski 1995) and inventory data is not readily available. Lamination is therefore excluded here. Packaging processes occurring at the printing company such as the use of wooden pallets, paper and/or “shrink plastic” are also excluded due to lack of data but they are assessed to be of very low significance as compared to the other activities.

For disposal of printed matter it is assumed that 53% of the paper consumption (including both spillage and product) is recycled and the rest, i.e. 47%, is incinerated and the heat utilised. This assumption is based on the Danish situation in 2000 (Tønning 2002). Differences in recycability of the printed matter (e.g. deinking or repulping problems due to content of hotmelt or water based inks) are not included due to lack of readily available quantitative data and the scoping of this study. A qualitative description of the issue may be found in the report “Recycling of printed products” (ECSPI 2000).

Direct and indirect overhead operations such as production of printing machines and office supplies are expected to contribute insignificantly to the overall impacts and are generally not included. However total energy consumption covering, for example, heating and lighting at the model printing company (indirect overhead operations) are included.

1.1.2.4 Time scope

The time to produce one functional unit is assumed to be a few days and the production takes place in the period 1990 – 2002. The use stage and disposal stage will for most of the printed matter take a few weeks and cover the same time period. Given that the lifetime is assumed to be one year in the functional unit, the disposal will take place in the period 1991-2003. For long-lived items like books and posters the use stage may cover several years and this would delay the disposal stage by several decades. The material stage is assumed to cover at least 1980 – 2002.

1.1.2.5 Technological scope

In general, a marginal energy approach is used in the identification of the technology applied to generate the consumed electricity, i.e. production of electricity is based on natural gas. This is because electricity consumption is increasing in Europe, and the dominant new production facilities use natural gas as an energy resource. Further arguments and description of the marginal energy approach can be found in Frees et al. (2004), and references to the exact energy unit processes used here can be found in Annex A.

The consumption of paper in Europe is increasing, which leads to a marginal approach for paper also (Frees et al. 2004), i.e. increased demand for paper will lead to paper production based on virgin fibres. So in the reference scenario the paper market is unsaturated.

The technologies used for the material stage are to some extent dependent on the unit process data that have been readily available for this study. For example for pulp and paper production, the technologies are modern and used in the Swedish pulp and paper industry in 2001 (Frees et al. 2004) for producing white paper based on ECF (Elemental Chlorine Free) sulphate pulp (virgin fibres) for use in, for example, the printing industry. References for the pulp and paper unit process and other unit processes in the material stage can be found in Annex A.

For the production stage, the technologies included in this study mainly cover the technologies used at sheet feed offset printing companies during 1990 – 2000 especially in the Nordic countries but also in Northern Europe. It is evaluated that these technologies still dominate. However, the chosen scoping excludes “new” state–of-the-art technologies. These technologies include, for example, Computer–To-Plate (CTP) and waterless offset (Silfverberg et al. 1998) which have been used to a limited degree for some years (Larsen et al. 1995) and for which the market share is still increasing (April 2004). On the other hand, technologies and techniques which are no longer used (or only used to a limited degree under controlled conditions) in Northern Europe for say 20 – 30 years are most probably still used especially in Eastern European countries. Examples of such “old” technologies and techniques could be extended use of dampening form rollers with cloth (Heber” dampening system) needing at least daily cleaning using hazardous solvent-based cleaning agents which are emitted directly to the water recipient after use (no Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) or only a mechanical one). Another example could be extended use of aromatic very volatile solvents for manual cleaning of the printing machine leading to extensive exposure of workers and large air emissions. The use of cleaning agents containing more than 0.1% aromatic solvents is not considered in this study (i.e. reference scenario), and only limited use of dampening form rollers with cloth (Heber” dampening system) is included, i.e. 10-20% of the dampening systems. Emission of solvent-based cleaning agents to water is therefore very limited (0.1-1%) in the reference scenario, and only water emission of detergents used for cleaning is relatively high (50%). For description of the use of dampening form rollers with cloth see Larsen et al. (1995).

For the disposal stage the technologies used for incineration and recycling of paper are modern Northern European types.

1.1.2.6 Geographical scope

The production of printed matter is assumed to take place in Europe with a main focus on Scandinavia. As described below, wastewater treatment by wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is not included in the reference scenario making this scenario also relevant for Southern and Eastern Europe. However, a scenario with waste water treatment (see Section 2) is also included and can be considered as relevant for Northern Europe, especially Sweden and Denmark.

For the material stage, the production of paper is assumed to take place in Sweden and the inks for printing are assumed to be produced in Europe.

Disposal and recycling are based on scenarios for Denmark. However European disposal scenarios are considered in the sensitivity analysis, see Section 4.1.2.

1.1.2.7 Allocation

For paper consumption in the reference scenario it is assumed that only paper produced from virgin fibres is used (the typical case today), and only in the scenario including a saturated paper market (see Section 2) have the energy savings from producing recycled paper instead of virgin paper been allocated to the functional unit. However, for the total paper-related potential impact (comprising forestry, pulp and paper production, and disposal of waste paper and product), the avoided potential impact from incineration of fossil fuel due to incineration of paper and the avoided potential impact from production of virgin fibres due to production based on recycles fibres are allocated to the paper and designated paper (net). The designation paper (gross) is used for the case where the avoided potential impacts are not allocated to the paper. For consumption of aluminium (offset plates) it is assumed that recycled aluminium is used and the extra energy used to produce virgin aluminium to replace the loss of 8% during the recycling process is allocated to the functional unit.