71
4.4.2 Two REPAs Measure Similar but Not
the Same Indicators
Robert Hunt and William Franklin, writing in the first issue of the International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, recount how Coca-Cola’s Teasley and MRI’s
Darnay originally set the foundations of LCA. Hunt and Franklin focus on the
pre-1990’s history of LCA as it quickly moved from a commercially driven endeavor
to a standard global analytical method. MRI would conduct many more REPAs for
Coca-Cola and other private companies throughout the next two decades. Most
industry-contracted REPA study results continue to be kept private. This is true for
both publicly or privately held company studies, which are likewise based on
detailed process and raw material descriptions that could be used by industry
competitors.
A few years after the original proprietary study was conducted, Darnay, who had
moved on to serve as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste Management
in the early years of the EPA, worked again with MRI, this time on a publishable
study of beverage container alternatives that shared the technical details not available in the original commercial study. Hunt and Franklin, while not named investigators in the first study, were working at MRI at the time and were later named
principal investigators conducting the US Government’s Resource and Environmental
Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container Alternatives.
Their final 1974 REPA report evaluates a slightly different collection of containers (for beer this time) than the initial Coca-Cola study:
1. Glass bottle—returnable 19-trip—used on premises
2. Glass bottle—returnable 10-trip—refilled at a central bottling facility
3. Glass bottle—returnable 5-trip—refilled at a central bottling facility
4. Glass bottle—one-way
5. Glass bottle—plastic coated
6. Steel can—three piece with aluminum closure composite
7. Steel can—all steel
8. Aluminum can—two piece all aluminum (15% of cans recycled)
9. Plastic bottle—ABS plastic
Included in the study was a section that analyzed environmental impacts for soft
drink containers as well. This list was also modified from the original study and
included:
1. Glass bottle—returnable 15-trip
2. Glass bottle—one way
3. Glass bottle—plastic coated
4. Steel can—three piece with aluminum closure composite
5. Steel can—all steel
6. Aluminum can—two piece all aluminum (15% of cans recycled)
7. Plastic bottle—ABS
4.4 Corporate Origins of Environmental LCA
4.4.2 Two REPAs Measure Similar but Not
the Same Indicators
Robert Hunt and William Franklin, writing in the first issue of the International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, recount how Coca-Cola’s Teasley and MRI’s
Darnay originally set the foundations of LCA. Hunt and Franklin focus on the
pre-1990’s history of LCA as it quickly moved from a commercially driven endeavor
to a standard global analytical method. MRI would conduct many more REPAs for
Coca-Cola and other private companies throughout the next two decades. Most
industry-contracted REPA study results continue to be kept private. This is true for
both publicly or privately held company studies, which are likewise based on
detailed process and raw material descriptions that could be used by industry
competitors.
A few years after the original proprietary study was conducted, Darnay, who had
moved on to serve as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste Management
in the early years of the EPA, worked again with MRI, this time on a publishable
study of beverage container alternatives that shared the technical details not available in the original commercial study. Hunt and Franklin, while not named investigators in the first study, were working at MRI at the time and were later named
principal investigators conducting the US Government’s Resource and Environmental
Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container Alternatives.
Their final 1974 REPA report evaluates a slightly different collection of containers (for beer this time) than the initial Coca-Cola study:
1. Glass bottle—returnable 19-trip—used on premises
2. Glass bottle—returnable 10-trip—refilled at a central bottling facility
3. Glass bottle—returnable 5-trip—refilled at a central bottling facility
4. Glass bottle—one-way
5. Glass bottle—plastic coated
6. Steel can—three piece with aluminum closure composite
7. Steel can—all steel
8. Aluminum can—two piece all aluminum (15% of cans recycled)
9. Plastic bottle—ABS plastic
Included in the study was a section that analyzed environmental impacts for soft
drink containers as well. This list was also modified from the original study and
included:
1. Glass bottle—returnable 15-trip
2. Glass bottle—one way
3. Glass bottle—plastic coated
4. Steel can—three piece with aluminum closure composite
5. Steel can—all steel
6. Aluminum can—two piece all aluminum (15% of cans recycled)
7. Plastic bottle—ABS
4.4 Corporate Origins of Environmental LCA