70
considering the impacts related solely to the visible solid waste disposal problem,
the major crisis of the day in 1969, he envisioned a study that would simultaneously
assess multiple impact categories.
Coca-Cola may have lacked the in-house expertise and staffing to carry out to
fruition what had not been done before, but they possessed the financial resources
to fund a groundbreaking study. The research team would have to adequately
address inherent complexity involved in defining, collecting, and analyzing the data
on multiple interrelated processes. In the spring of 1970, Teasley contracted Midwest
Research Institute (MRI) to conduct the first formal commercial “resource and environmental profile analysis” (REPA). The REPA established the basic framework for
what would, 20 years later, become life cycle assessment (LCA). MRI’s Assistant
Director of the Economics and Management Science Division, Arsen Darnay, collaborated with Teasley to design and execute the study to meet two objectives:
1. To establish the total environmental impacts created by the use of each of several
selected container systems available to Coca-Cola USA; and
2. To compare the impacts of various types of containers under the assumption that
each container type is used exclusively for Coca-Cola packaging. (OTA 1976)
In the final articulation these impacts would include:
1. Materials consumption
2. Energy consumption
3. Water consumption
4. Solid waste generation
5. Energy effluents
6. Air pollutant emissions
7. Waterborne waste emissions
8. Economic impacts
Eight container system types were compared:
1. Electrolytic tin plated (ETP) can
2. Tin free steel (TFS) can
3. Aluminum can
4. One-way glass bottle (OWB)
5. Returnable bottle (RB)
6. Owens-Illinois glass composite package (GCP) container
7. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bottle
8. Monsanto “Lopac” bottle
They would be assessed over five operations phases:
1. Mining
2. Processing
3. Fabrication
4. Filling
5. Consumption/discard
4 Do Something: Mid-twentieth Century Developments
considering the impacts related solely to the visible solid waste disposal problem,
the major crisis of the day in 1969, he envisioned a study that would simultaneously
assess multiple impact categories.
Coca-Cola may have lacked the in-house expertise and staffing to carry out to
fruition what had not been done before, but they possessed the financial resources
to fund a groundbreaking study. The research team would have to adequately
address inherent complexity involved in defining, collecting, and analyzing the data
on multiple interrelated processes. In the spring of 1970, Teasley contracted Midwest
Research Institute (MRI) to conduct the first formal commercial “resource and environmental profile analysis” (REPA). The REPA established the basic framework for
what would, 20 years later, become life cycle assessment (LCA). MRI’s Assistant
Director of the Economics and Management Science Division, Arsen Darnay, collaborated with Teasley to design and execute the study to meet two objectives:
1. To establish the total environmental impacts created by the use of each of several
selected container systems available to Coca-Cola USA; and
2. To compare the impacts of various types of containers under the assumption that
each container type is used exclusively for Coca-Cola packaging. (OTA 1976)
In the final articulation these impacts would include:
1. Materials consumption
2. Energy consumption
3. Water consumption
4. Solid waste generation
5. Energy effluents
6. Air pollutant emissions
7. Waterborne waste emissions
8. Economic impacts
Eight container system types were compared:
1. Electrolytic tin plated (ETP) can
2. Tin free steel (TFS) can
3. Aluminum can
4. One-way glass bottle (OWB)
5. Returnable bottle (RB)
6. Owens-Illinois glass composite package (GCP) container
7. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bottle
8. Monsanto “Lopac” bottle
They would be assessed over five operations phases:
1. Mining
2. Processing
3. Fabrication
4. Filling
5. Consumption/discard
4 Do Something: Mid-twentieth Century Developments