1 Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene Milk Bottles and Polyethylene-coated Paperboard Milk Cartons Background Recently, much attention has been directed at packaging by a variety of interest groups, including environmentalists, government officials, commercial and retail business managers, and legislators. This attention toward packaging has been the result of two factors: 1. An ever-decreasing landfill capacity in this country is being aggravated by an inability to site new landfills and, to a somewhat lesser extent, waste-toenergy facilities. 2. Containers and packaging account for 29.6 percent by volume of the municipal solid waste that is being landfilled, and packaging is the most visible component of solid waste to many people. Certain packaging materials have come under particular scrutiny and have been singled out for restrictive measures such as bans or taxes. Before decisions are made regarding individual packages or materials, a full evaluation should be made of all packaging materials and alternatives. Objective data regarding the waste reduction, energy requirements, environmental discharges, recyclability, combustion aspects, and landfill requirements of different packaging will be crucial in determining alternative solutions to our current and future environmental problems. Conclusions The purpose of this study is to quantify the energy requirements and environmental emissions of both 128-ounce and 64-ounce high-density polyethylene (HDPE) milk bottles and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) paperboard milk cartons. The following conclusions were reached regarding the total energy and environmental impacts for equivalent delivery of 1,000 gallons of milk in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) coated paperboard milk containers. In this study, the term "impact" refers to the quantities of fuel and raw materials consumed and emissions released to the air, water, and land.
2 Franklin Associates, Ltd. Estimated in 1989 that HDPE milk bottles were being recycled at a rate less than 5 percent and paperboard milk containers at zero percent. Therefore, these conclusions are based only on zero percent recycling levels for both the HDPE and paperboard milk containers. The study concludes that at zero percent recycling the 128-ounce HDPE milk bottle has the lowest energy requirements, least atmospheric emissions, and the lowest waterborne waste of the four containers studied. In addition, the 128-ounce HDPE milk bottle and the 128-ounce LDPE coated paperboard container have the lowest solid waste impact. Energy At zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE milk bottle has the lowest energy requirements of the four containers analyzed. The next lowest energy requirements are those of the 128-ounce paperboard carton. These requirements are 16 percent greater than those of the 128-ounce HDPE bottle. The 64-ounce paperboard carton and the 64-ounce HDPE bottle have nearly equal energy requirements and require 33 and 42 percent more energy, respectively, than the 128-ounce HDPE bottle. Also, at zero percent recycling, the 64-ounce paperboard carton and the 64-ounce HDPE bottle require 14 and 22 percent more energy, respectively, than the 128-ounce paperboard carton. Atmospheric Emissions At zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the least atmospheric emissions of the four containers. The next lowest emissions are from the 64-ounce HDPE bottle. Emissions for the 64-ounce HDPE bottle are 43 percent greater than those of the 128-ounce HDPE bottle. Following the 64-ounce HDPE bottle is the 128-ounce paperboard carton with nearly twice the atmospheric emissions of the 128-ounce HDPE bottle and 36 percent greater emissions than the 64-ounce HDPE bottle. The container with the greatest impact is the 64-ounce paperboard carton with: 2.2 times the emissions of the 128-ounce HDPE bottle; 1.5 times the emissions of the 64-ounce HDPE bottle; and 13 percent more emissions than the 128-ounce paperboard carton. Waterborne Wastes
3 At zero percent recycling, waterborne wastes are lowest for the 128-ounce HDPE bottle. The 64-ounce HDPE bottle has the next lowest wastes, which are 44 percent greater than the 128-ounce HDPE bottle. The 128-ounce paperboard carton follows next with over 3.5 times the wastes of the 128-ounce HDPE bottle and over 2.5 times the wastes of the 64-ounce HDPE bottle. The greatest waterborne wastes are contributed by the 64-ounce paperboard carton. Solid Waste Volume The total solid waste volumes reported in this study are the amounts of landfill space required to hold 1,000 gallon-sized HDPE bottles, 1,000 gallon-sized paperboard cartons, 2,000 half-gallon HDPE bottles, and 2,000 half-gallon paperboard cartons, along with the industrial solid wastes and secondary packaging associated with the production of each of these containers. At zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle and the 128-ounce paperboard carton have about equal solid waste volumes under landfill conditions and are the lowest of the four containers examined. The next lowest solid waste volume is that of the 64-ounce paperboard carton. This volume is 9 to 14 percent greater than those of the 128-ounce paperboard carton and the 128-ounce HDPE bottle, respectively. The 64-ounce HDPE bottle has the greatest solid waste volume of the four containers. Solid wastes generated by the 64-ounce HDPE bottle are: 37 greater than the 128-ounce HDPE bottle; 44 percent greater than the 128-ounce paperboard carton; and 26 percent greater than the 64-ounce paperboard carton. While some degradation occurs in landfills, little data exist regarding which materials degrade and the rate of decomposition. Therefore, the degradability of both paperboard and polyethylene milk containers cannot be predicted. As a consequence, no estimates can be made regarding the potential impact on landfill leachate or methane gas production from these containers. Recycling The recycling rate of HDPE bottles in 1989 was estimated at less than 5 percent. However, the infrastructure and market demand for recycled HDPE continue to rapidly grow. While the technology for recycling paperboard exists and has been tested in pilot projects for institutional (school lunch) programs, family-size containers have not yet been targeted for recycling efforts.
4 For these reasons, recycling was analyzed for the HDPE containers, but not for the paperboard containers, due to a lack of available data. As recycling rates increase, a 128-ounce HDPE container will require less energy and will contribute less solid wastes and air emissions than at zero percent recycling. This is also true for 64-ounce HDPE containers. Combustion Impacts On an equal weight basis, the combustion of HDPE bottles releases over twice as much energy as paperboard. This analysis, however, is based on an equivalent volume of milk delivery. By this measurement, the HDPE bottles release a similar amount of energy as the bleached paperboard cartons. On an equivalent volume basis, HDPE will contribute less ash than paperboard. Neither the HDPE bottle nor the bleached paperboard carton will contribute significant atmospheric emissions from combustion due to their composition and the efficiency of incinerator gas scrubbers. Methodology A cradle-to-grave approach was used to determine the energy requirements and environmental emissions of the containers examined in this study. This methodology quantifies energy consumption and environmental emissions at each stage of a product's life cycle, beginning at the point of raw materials extraction from the earth and proceeding through processing, manufacturing, consumer use, and final disposal, recycle, or reuse. This analysis is intended to identify where and what wastes are generated through a cradle-to-grave study. No attempt is made to describe what the effects from these wastes may be. In other words, no attempt to determine the relative environmental effects of these pollutants, such as fish kills or groundwater contamination, as there are no accurate data available. The term "container" is used in this study to mean the entire container delivery system, including the container itself plus all secondary packaging such as closures, labels, corrugated boxes, and delivery crates associated with the primary container. Because these containers are examined independently, factors such as consumer preference and ease of dispensing are not considered. Refrigeration for transport and retail storage, assumed to be equal for all four containers, was not included. Energy use was quantified in fuel or electric energy units and converted to British thermal units (Btu) for each of the many stages, or industrial processes, required to manufacture a container. Btu consumption was determined for six basic energy sources (natural gas, petroleum, coal, hydropower, nuclear, and wood). Energy use is considered in three
5 areas: 1) inherent energy or energy of material resource, 2) operating the process, and 3) transporting the materials. This accounts for the use of fuels as raw materials. Thus, the energy requirements for plastics include the energy equivalent to the combustion value of the natural gas or petroleum raw material feedstocks. Paper products do not have an energy of material source applied to their use of wood as a raw material feedstock, but all energy necessary to obtain, transport and process that fuel into a usable form is calculated. As with energy, the environmental wastes from each step or process were determined. Government documents, as well as federal regulations, technical literature, and industry sources form the basis for these data. These wastes represent actual discharges into the environment after emissions control devices. The environmental emissions can be classified into three broad categories: solid waste, atmospheric emissions, and waterborne wastes. These categories include not only those readily identifiable wastes associated with a specific process, but also the pollutants associated with the fuels consumed in power generation or transportation. The solid waste category includes both industrial solid waste and post-consumer solid waste. Energy use and environmental emissions were determined for various postconsumer recycling levels for the HDPE, containers. HDPE milk containers are currently recovered and recycled in some parts of the country. The infrastructure to collect, process, and recycle HDPE is rapidly developing. The use of zero percent to 100 percent recycling rates is not meant to portray unrealistic expectations. However, the recycling rate is used to illustrate how energy use and environmental releases change as the recycling rate increases. The recycled polyethylene is assumed to replace virgin materials in producing new products. An open-loop recycling system splits the requirements of physically processing the recycled material and credits the product examined in the study with an overall industry replacement of virgin material. The full study considers both open and closed-loop recycling systems. For the purpose of this summary only open-loop recycling systems are presented because openloop recycling mirrors the situation for each package today. Additional data on closedloop recycling is available in the full study. During this study, the research team determined that several pilot recycling programs had been established (in late 1990) for LDPE-coated paperboard containers. These programs involve single-service institutional containers (e.g., for school lunch programs), which utilize the same material as the family-sized paperboard cartons examined in this study. However, these larger containers have not been targeted in these pilot programs. With the preceding factors recognized, the energy requirements and environmental emissions for the paperboard containers analyzed in this study were calculated only at a zero percent recycling rate. We do, however, note that the technical and economic feasibility of recycling post-consumer paperboard containers is now being demonstrated. While no conclusions can be drawn with regard to recycling potential, the zero percent rate simply reflects
6 recycling practice at the time of this report and is not a conclusion about the recyclability of paperboard containers. However, the post-consumer paperboard milk carton does appear to be on the threshold of recycling and may follow the development pattern of other materials recently targeted for recycling. As the recycling of paperboard milk cartons develops and data become available, the analysis of family-size cartons should be developed considering zero to 100 percent recycling. The combustion of post-consumer packages was also included in this analysis. The U.S. EPA Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste: 1990 Update shows (after recycling) that a national average of approximately 15 percent of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream is combusted in incinerators, with energy recovery. Thus, the postconsumer solid waste and the energies for the containers were adjusted for 15 percent combustion. Solid waste in the form of ash resulting form combustion incineration, such as the inorganics remaining after combustion, was estimated from the ash inherent in the materials. However, the atmospheric emissions that result from incinerator combustion of the polyethylene and bleached paperboard with municipal solid waste could not be estimated due to lack of data. While emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators have been characterized, we have no way to attribute these emissions back to a given material. Some studies have characterized the changes in emissions of average MSW to those of MSW "spiked" with specific materials. However, these types of analyses have not been done for bleached paperboard or polyethylene. Most atmospheric emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators are treated in the gas scrubbers used in these facilities. These atmospheric emissions are eventually disposed of in scrubber blowdown as solid waste. Since the atmospheric emissions for paperboard and polyethylene cannot be quantified, the impact of these emissions on scrubber blowdown also cannot be determined. The margin of error for this study is believed to be plus or minus 10 percent. Therefore, distinctions in energy use and environmental emissions will only be significant if the difference is greater than 10 percent. The nature of error in this analysis is systematic and not due to randomness. Thus, the margin of error cannot be statistically determined.
7 Results The results of this analysis are organized by two categories: energy requirements and environmental emissions. For both the energy and environmental results, the findings are presented on the basis of 1,000 gallons of milk delivered. Energy Requirements The energy requirements for HDPE and paperboard milk containers are reported in Table 1-1. They are reported for 1,000 gallons of milk at varying recycling rates for the HDPE bottles and zero percent recycling for the paperboard cartons. Figure 1-1 is a graphic illustration of the energy requirements reported in Table 1-1. Zero Percent Recycling. Both Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1 show that at zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the lowest total energy requirements of the four containers at 5.5 million Btu. The 128-ounce paperboard carton has the next lowest energy requirements at 6.4 million Btu. The 64-ounce paperboard carton and he 64-ounce HDPE bottle have nearly equivalent energy requirements at 7.3 and 7.8 million Btu, respectively.
8 The two 64-ounce containers have the highest energy requirements of the four containers analyzed. These relationships are all expressed holding paperboard constant at zero percent recycling. Various Recycling Rates. When open-loop recycling is considered for the HDPE bottles, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle continues to have the lowest energy requirements of the four containers at all recycling rates.
9 Table 1-1 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR HDPE AND PAPERBOARD MILK CONTAINERS AT VARIOUS RECYCLING RATES (1) (Million Btu's per 1,000 gallons of milk) Recycling Rates (2) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 128-ounce HDPE (1,000 containers) Open-loop 5.5 (3) ounce paperboard (1,000 containers) 6.4 (4) 64-ounce HDPE (2,000 containers) Open-loop 7.8 (3) ounce paperboard (2,000 containers) 7.3 (4) Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. (1) Assumes 15 percent of post-consumer solid wastes are combusted for energy recovery. (2) Recycling is presented here at rates of 0 percent to 100 percent. The use of this range is not meant to indicate current levels of recycling or to predict future recycling rates. The range is merely a theoretical tool used to help interpolate recycling rates between the two endponits. The current recycling rate (1989) for HDPE milk bottles is estimated by Franklin Associates, Ltd. to be less than 5 percent. (3) The inherent energy in the plastic milk bottles is 60 percent of the total energy. Not all the energy may be recovered from the of the combustion of the plastic bottles because of the change in molecular structure due to processing of fossil fuels into plastic products. (4) Recycling is not considered for the paperboard milk carton. The inherent energy of the LDPE coating on the milk carton is 10 percent of the total milk carton energy. The process energy attributed to wood is 31 percent of the total energy of the paperboard carton.
10 The 128-ounce paperboard carton has the second lowest energy requirements until the open-loop recycling rate of the 64-ounce HDPE bottle reaches 83 percent. At this recycling rate, the energy requirements for the 64-ounce HDPE bottle become significantly less than those for the 128-ounce paperboard. The 64-ounce paperboard carton and the 64-ounce HDPE bottle continue to have equal energy requirements until the recycling rate of the 64-ounce HDPE bottle is greater than 50 percent. At this point, the energy requirements of the 64-ounce HDPE bottle are significantly less than those of the 64-ounce paperboard cartons. These relationships are expressed holding paperboard constant at zero percent recycling. Several observations about energy are important to understand: 1. The inherent energy of the HDPE bottle and of the LDPE coating on the paperboard is considered an energy "cost" to each milk container system because plastics are derived from hydrocarbon sources. Hydrocarbons (such as natural gas, natural gas liquids and petroleum) are principally used as fuels in the United States; therefore, when these materials are used as raw materials they are removed from our energy resource supply. Thus, besides process and transportation energy, systems using these materials as raw materials have an additional energy included equal to the energy equivalence of the initial fossil fuel sources. The inherent energy of the HDPE containers is about 60 percent of the total energy at zero percent recycling. 2. In contrast, because wood is not used primarily as an energy resource in the United States, no inherent energy is attributed to the use of wood as a raw material for the paperboard container. This does not mean, however, that the energy obtained from the combustion of wood-derived sources (bark, black liquor, etc.) is not included. On the contrary, because this analysis quantifies the total energy requirements necessary to operate a process or transport materials from all sources, wood-derived energy is handled no differently. When used for these purposes, the energy derived from wood resources for the production of paperboard containers is about 31 percent of the total energy. Environmental Emissions The environmental emissions for the containers are divided into three groups: 1. Solid Wastes 2. Atmospheric Emissions 3. Waterborne Wastes These emissions are reported in Table 1-2.
11 Solid Wastes. The landfill volume of the solid wastes generated by the production, use, and disposal of milk containers is reported in Table 1-2 in cubic feet per 1,000 gallons of milk and includes both post-consumer and industrial solid waste. This waste category includes only materials actually discarded into the waste stream; therefore, industrial scrap or trimmings that are currently recycled for both packaging materials are not considered waste. Post-consumer solid waste volume was derived from weight by applying general material density factors. For industrial solid waste, a density of 50 pounds per cubic foot was used. Post-consumer solid waste is adjusted for 15 percent combustion of all materials not recycled. Zero Percent Recycling. Table 1-2 and Figure 1-2 show that at zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle and the 128-ounce paperboard carton have the lowest solid waste effect and are nearly equivalent at 9.4 and 8.9 cubic feet, respectively. The 64-ounce paperboard container has the next lowest solid waste at 10.2 cubic feet. The 64-ounce HDPE bottle has the greatest amount of solid waste of the four containers at 12.9 cubic feet. Various Recycling Rates. When recycling is considered for the HDPE bottles, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle and the 128-ounce paperboard carton continue to have equal solid wastes until a recycling rate of 16 percent for the HDPE bottle is reached. At this recycling rate, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has significantly lower solid waste than the paperboard container and continues to have the lowest solid waste at all recycling rates.
12 Table 1-2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DATA FOR CONTAINERS (Impacts per 1,000 gallons of milk) (1) Solid Waste (2) (cu. ft.) Atmospheric Emissions (pounds) Waterborne Wastes (pounds) 128-ounce HDPE (1,000 containers) Open-loop 0% Recycle % Recycle % Recycle % Recycled % Recycle ounce paperboard (3) (1,000 containers) 0% Recycle ounce HDPE (2,000 containers) Open-loop 0% Recycle % Recycle % Recycle % Recycled % Recycle ounce paperboard (3) (2,000 containers) 0% Recycle Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. (1) Recycling is presented here at rates of 0 percent to 100 percent. The use of this range is not meant to indicate current levels of recycling or to predict future recycling rates. The range is merely a theoretical tool used to help interpolate recycling rates between the two endpoints. The current recycling rate (1989) for HDPE milk bottles is estimated to be less than 5 percent. (2) Values represent landfill volumes in cubic feet. (3) Recycling is not considered for the paperboard milk carton.
13 The 64-ounce HDPE bottle has the greatest solid waste landfill volume until a recycling rate of 15 percent is reached. At this recycling rate, it is equal to the 64-ounce paperboard container until a recycling rate of 30 percent is reached. At this rate, the 64- ounce HDPE bottle contributes less solid waste than the 64-ounce paperboard carton. At a 26 percent recycling rate, the solid waste for the 64-ounce HDPE bottle is equal to that of the 128-ounce paperboard container. The 64-ounce HDPE bottle remains equal to the 128-ounce paperboard carton until a recycling rate of 41 percent is reached. At this point, the 64-ounce HDPE bottle contributes the second lowest solid waste of the four containers. These comparisons are made with paperboard cartons at a zero percent recycling rate only. Consider that the HDPE bottle has a rigid handle, rigid bottom, and rigid spout, all of which contribute resistance to total flattening of the container, as well as to the resiliency of the material. The pressure applied under landfill conditions by both the compactor vehicle, which may miss containers in its passes, and the weight of layers above the buried refuse is not great enough to overcome these factors and completely flatten the HDPE bottle. On the other hand, paperboard cartons are inherently more flexible and require less pressure to be flattened. The fact that paperboard absorbs moisture in the landfill will increase the degree to which the container is flattened.
14 Atmospheric Emissions. Table 1-2 lists atmospheric emissions for the entire analysis of the milk containers in pounds per 1,000 gallons of milk. Figure 1-3 also illustrates these impacts for all four containers. Table 1-2 and Figure 1-3 show that at zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the least atmospheric emissions of the four containers, with 10.1 pounds. The container with the next lowest emissions is the 64-ounce HDPE bottle with 14.4 pounds. The 128-ounce and 64-ounce paperboard cartons follow the HDPE bottles with 19.6 and 22.2 pounds of emissions, respectively. As open-loop recycling is considered for the HDPE bottles, the atmospheric emission for these containers decrease. However, the relative ranking of the four containers does not change. Waterborne Wastes. The waterborne wastes for the delivery of 1,000 gallons of milk in this cradle-to-grave analysis are reported are reported in Table 1-2 and graphed in Figure 1-4. Table 1-2 and Figure 1-4 show that at zero percent and at all recycling rates, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the lowest waterborne wastes of the four containers. The 64-
15 ounce HDPE bottle contributes the next lowest waterborne wastes. This is followed by the 128-ounce and 64-ounce paperboard cartons, respectively.
16 Summary The research reported in this study focuses on the environmental impact of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) milk bottles and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) coated paperboard milk cartons. The study concludes that at zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the lowest energy requirements of the four containers studied. The 128- ounce paperboard carton has the next lowest energy requirements. The 64-ounce paperboard carton and 64-ounce HDPE bottle have nearly equal energy requirements. The 128-ounce HDPE bottle and the 128-ounce paperboard carton have the lowest solid waste effect and are nearly equal at zero percent recycling. The 64-ounce paperboard carton has the next lowest solid waste impact. The 64-ounce HDPE bottle results in the greatest amount of solid waste volume until a 15 percent recycling rate is achieved. At this recycling rate, it becomes equal to the smaller paperboard carton in terms of solid waste impact. At zero percent recycling, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the least atmospheric emissions of the four containers. The container with the next lowest emissions is the 64-ounce HDPE bottle. When recycling is factored in, the rankings of the containers do not change. At all recycling rates, the 128-ounce HDPE bottle has the lowest waterborne wastes of the four containers. The 64-ounce HDPE bottle contributes the next lowest waterborne wastes, followed by the 128- ounce and 64-ounce paperboard cartons, respectively.
17 A Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA) is a comprehensive way to look at products and/or packages from raw materials extraction to final disposition. It is an inventory, quantifying energy and resource use, and air, water, and land pollutant discharges. This is not a risk assessment. No scientific system has been established to evaluate the health or environmental impacts of the results. Likewise, the principal public policy conclusion that can be drawn is that packages or products should not be judged on a win/lose basis. Instead, the packages or products may best be judged on their own and improvements sought to reduce their total environmental consequences and energy/resource requirements (e.g., via reduction and/or recycling).
LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF FOAM POLYSTYRENE, PAPER-BASED, AND PLA FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS Prepared for THE PLASTIC FOODSERVICE PACKAGING GROUP by FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, A DIVISION OF ERG Prairie Village, Kansas
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Bottled water offers consumers a clean, portable supply of drinking water for consumption at home or away from home. Some disposable water bottles are recyclable, and lightweighting
Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1996. 21:191 237 Copyright c 1996 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved ENVIRONMENTAL LIFE-CYCLE COMPARISONS OF RECYCLING, LANDFILLING, AND INCINERATION: A Review of Recent
World Resources Institute Sustainable Enterprise Program A program of the World Resources Institute McDonald s Case Note: Note on Life-Cycle Analysis For more than a decade, WRI's Sustainable Enterprise
Packaging Waste Reduction Life Cycle Inventory Packaging Options for Shipping Soft Goods in E-Commerce and Catalog Sales Businesses, individuals, and governments shipping non-breakable items via a common
Everything you always wanted to know about Waste-to-Energy Contents 4 What is Waste-to-Energy? 6 How does it work? 8 Waste-to-Energy is clean. How does it compare to other sectors? 9 Myths versus Reality
LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF THREE SINGLE-SERVING SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS Revised Peer Reviewed Final Report Prepared for PET Resin Association By Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG Prairie Village, KS August,
Renewable Biomass Biomass Basics Biomass Renewable Energy from Plants and Animals Biomass is organic material made from plants and animals. Biomass contains stored energy from the sun. Plants absorb the
Plastics: An Energy-Efficient Choice Introduction Plastics are derived from petroleum and natural gas. With increased public awareness and concern about waste and energy issues, some have questioned whether
RULE 403 GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON THE DISCHARGE OF AIR CONTAMINANTS (Adopted11/19/85; Revised 9/14/99; 7/24/01; 5/18/2004) A. Applicability This Rule applies to the discharge of Air, Combustion, and Particulate
Environmental Science A Study of interrelationships Unite 9 Solid Waste Management and Disposal Introduction Solid Waste ( 固体废弃物 ) Solid waste means any garbage or refuse; sludge from a wastewater treatment
Discarding beer and soft drink containers after just one use is a relatively new concept. Before World War II, nearly all packaged beer and soft drinks were sold in refillable glass bottles meant to be
Lesson: Plastic Polymers Grade: 4-5 Subject: Science Objectives: Students will: conduct a series of tests to determine the properties of different types of plastics audit the plastic waste generated in
PEER REVIEWED FINAL REPORT LCI SUMMARY FOR FOUR HALF-GALLON MILK CONTAINERS Prepared for THE PLASTICS DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL by FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, A DIVISION OF EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP,
RECYLCED PET: SUSTAINABLE OPTION IN THERMOFORMED PLASTIC PACKAGING Recycled PET is offered as a sustainable solution to consumer demands in thermoformed packaging materials. By: Catalina Aceves Marketing
Sustainable Plastics with Reduced Carbon Footprint & Reduced Waste Joseph P. Greene California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0789 Abstract Plastic products can be made more sustainable by reducing
Pollution Prevention in Corporate Strategy NATIONAL POLLUTION PREVENTION CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Note on Life Cycle Analysis Prepared by Susan Svoboda, manager of the University of Michigan Corporate
5 Category 5: Waste Generated in Operations Category description C ategory 5 includes emissions from third-party disposal and treatment of waste generated in the reporting company s owned or controlled
What Is Integrated Solid Waste Management? This fact sheet provides an overview of options for managing solid waste, identifies the important issues you should consider when planning for solid waste management,
Briefing Paper: What are Conversion Technologies? November 2011 Primary Author: Bob Barrows What are conversion technologies? The term conversion technology encompasses a broad range of technologies used
Recycling Plastic Milk Bottles at School - Frequently Asked Questions Why recycle plastic milk bottles? Can paperboard milk cartons be recycled? How much extra work is involved for staff? How complicated
Waste Management Background Overview of current waste management In 1970, the main method of waste disposal in Iceland was open-pit burning. Over 50 burning pits were in operation, close to one pit per
2011 UNITED STATES NATIONAL POST- CONSUMER PLASTICS BOTTLE RECYCLING REPORT INTRODUCTION The 2011 edition of the United States National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report is the 22 nd annual
2013 UNITED STATES NATIONAL POST- CONSUMER PLASTICS BOTTLE RECYCLING REPORT INTRODUCTION The 2013 edition of the United States National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report is the 24 th annual
Conclusions and Summary Report: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Chromated Copper Arsenate-Treated Utility Poles with Comparisons to Concrete, Galvanized Steel, and Fiber- Reinforced Composite Utility
2014 UNITED STATES NATIONAL POSTCONSUMER PLASTICS BOTTLE RECYCLING REPORT INTRODUCTION The 2014 edition of the United States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report is the 25 th annual report
2007 UNITED STATES NATIONAL POST- CONSUMER PLASTICS BOTTLE RECYCLING REPORT INTRODUCTION The 2007 edition of the United States National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report is the 18 th annual
Recycling Plastic Milk Bottles at School Frequently Asked Questions Why recycle plastic milk bottles? Recycling benefits everyone. Students learn to care for the environment and recycling teaches social
Use of Substitute Fuels in Large Combustion Plants (LCPs) By Pat Swords Content of the Presentation What are substitute fuels What is the experience to date with these fuels What are the regulatory implications
Promotional Items Promotional Items Introduction This section provides information on currently available promotional item options that can help to move the University of Saskatchewan toward its sustainability
Solid Waste: Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan Prepared by Ken Wells For the Climate Protection Campaign www.climateprotectioncampaign.org
Bratenahl s trash is hauled to the Lorain County Landfill located in Oberlin, OH. This landfill is expected to be totally filled in less than 18 years. At that time, our disposal costs will increase because
Conducting a Waste Audit An effective waste reduction program must be based on current and accurate information on the quantity and composition of the waste stream. Therefore, the first step is a waste
Waste a source of energy Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Review: Engaging solutions for tomorrow Garbage School 301: Waste to Energy All organic materials contains energy Plant or animal based Plastics
LIGHT, SAFE & RECYCLABLE Your PET plastic egg carton is environmentally friendly. Not only is it recyclable but it contains recycled PET plastic, the same plastic used to manufacture plastic bottles and
The Aluminum Can Advantage Key Sustainability Performance Indicators June 2016 Introduction As the leading voice for the aluminum industry in North America, the Aluminum Association is committed to providing
Clean Abundant and Economical Natural Gas 1 Fast fill/public Access CNG Station Typical costs are $1.5 million per station as shown 2 Time Fill Private CNG Station Time Fill Post Dispensers K rail Compressors
GEOMATICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Volume 5 Number 3 2011 Katarzyna Grzesik*, Kinga Guca** Screening Study of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the Electric Kettle with SimaPro Software*** 1. Introduction
COAL VERSUS BIOMASS ELECTRICITY GENERATION - COMPARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS USING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Pamela L. Spath Margaret K. Mann National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden,
Craving energy Supplying our energy needs: Source of energy in the US Resources: Fossil Fuels Energy consumption in the US Reading: Ch 13 Oil and gas formation Oil and gas formation 1. Need accumulation
Refrigeration Service Engineers Society 1666 Rand Road Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 UNDERSTANDING REFRIGERANT TABLES INTRODUCTION A Mollier diagram is a graphical representation of the properties of a refrigerant,
MEASURING ENERGY SAVINGS AND GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSION REDUCTIONS BENEFITS RESULTING FROM RECYCLING IN CANADA Enhancement Recycling Program. FACT SHEET BACKGROUNDER INTRODUCTION It is widely accepted,
Government of Montenegro Statistical Office of Montenegro Amount of waste generated from industry 2015 The release comprises selected statistical data on the quantities of generated and treated waste from
Sustainable waste management and petroleum sludge Dunja S. Sokolovic, Dragan D. Govedarica Faculty of Technology, Bul. Cara Lazara 1, Novi Sad Main principles of sustainable oily waste management waste
A Green Idea Reclaiming Urban Wood Waste And Urban Forest Debris For Fuel/Combustion & Renewable Energy Presentation Edward Kalebich Chief Operating Officer Robbins Community Power Facility located Chicago
Developments and trends shaping the future for Waste-to- Energy technology suppliers 21 st October 2015 Copenhagen, Denmark Edmund Fleck ESWET President 2 Contents 1. About ESWET 2. Introduction 3. Modern
Standard Service Levels Waste Sustainability Waste Services: Waste Services coordinates campus-wide waste removal for all solid non-hazardous waste. The service works in conjunction with Custodial Services,
Technical Note: Conversion of fuel data to MWh Questions 12.2 and 12.3 of the information request ask for energy and fuel inputs to be reported according to standardized units commonly used for measuring
Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in Waste for Electricity Generation March, 2001 Prepared By Nolan ITU Pty Ltd in association with TBU Environmental Engineering Consultants Ref: 3082-01
IWR Integrated Waste Recycling Integrated System for treatment and recycling of Municipal Solid Waste 1 1. Introduction IWR is an integrated system, realised by different Italian companies, manufacturers
United States National Risk Management Environmental Protection Research Laboratory Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Research and Development EPA/600/SR-97/118 December 1997 Project Summary Life Cycle Design
PLASTICS RECYCLING - AN OVERVIEW Introduction I. Boustead There is a general climate of opinion at present that recycling is beneficial. A variety of schemes have been devised over the last few years to
Chapter 1: Review Lecturer: Dr Ibrahim Rida Electrical Engineering Department University of Hail First Semester (112) 2011/12 1.2. ENERGY SOURCES Energy resources are the various materials that contain
PERP/PERP ABSTRACTS 2010 PET Bottle to Bottle Recycling PERP Report Abstract March 2010 PERP Report Abstract (of PERP REPORT 08/09S9) PET Bottle to Bottle Recycling March 2010 The ChemSystems Process Evaluation/Research
PROPOSAL FOR SCHOOL RECYCLING PROGRAM ORGANISE & ADMINSTRATE BY: MARCOM RECYCLING POINT CONTACT PERSON: PEARLIE TAN CONTACT DETAILS: 63431270 (TEL) 62340176 (FAX) 96180879 (HP) firstname.lastname@example.org
CHAPTER 62-740 PETROLEUM CONTACT WATER 62-740.010 Declaration of Intent (Repealed) 62-740.020 Applicability 62-740.030 Definitions 62-740.040 General 62-740.100 Management Practices for Producers of PCW
Arecibo Resource Recovery Project Energy Answers International, Inc., through its subsidiary, Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC, is developing a 77 MW Resource Recovery Project to generate renewable energy and
Griffin Disposal and Recycling Services 1-800-693-0472 We ve all heard the term green or eco. If you are already recycling or composting, you have a head start on going green! Practicing the 4Rs Reduce,
Product Sustainability The impact of plastic on life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe Executive Summary July 2011 Authors: Bernd Brandt Harald Pilz denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger
Energise your waste! EU legislation pushes for a reliable alternative to landfilling for residual waste 13 th September 2011, Birmingham Recycling & Waste Management (RWM) Exhibition Dr.ir. Johan De Greef
Fiber Recycling in the United States Youjiang Wang School of Materials Science & Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0295 USA Abstract Due to the growth in world population
REPORT Life Cycle Assessment of consumer packaging for liquid food LCA of Tetra Pak and alternative packaging on the Nordic market Kristian Jelse, Elin Eriksson and Elin Einarson 25 August 29 Archivenumber:.
Life-Cycle Assessment Lesson 1 Overview This is the first lesson on life cycle assessment in this module. In this lesson, the framework for conducting life-cycle assessments is described and examples of
Final Report Life cycle assessment of example packaging systems for milk Retail Distribution System A Life Cycle Assessment covering the potential environmental impact of different example milk containers
REVISED FINAL REPORT CRADLE-TO-GATE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF NINE PLASTIC RESINS AND FOUR POLYURETHANE PRECURSORS Prepared for THE PLASTICS DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL by FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES,
Conclusions and Summary Report: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate-Treated Wood Marine Piles with Comparisons to Reinforced Concrete, Galvanized Steel, and Plastic Marine
Targets Review Project: Consultation on the European Waste Management Targets Authors: Dr Dominic Hogg Thomas Vergunst Laurence Elliott 9 th December 2013 Report for: Michel Sponar, DG Environment, European
Inclusion of Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Source Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. VP Solid Waste Group Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers 1. 0 Should the definition of renewable energy be based
Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) Council Update of Draft Report Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) i sonnevera international corp. Table of Contents 1 Introduction...3
Conclusions and Summary Report Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Highway Guard Rail Posts ISO 14044 Compliant Prepared by: AquAeTer, Inc. Treated Wood Council (2013) Conclusions and Summary Report
A BRIEF SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF KEY POINTS, FACTS, AND CONCLUSIONS FOR University of Wisconsin Study: LIFE CYCLE COMPARISON OF FIVE ENGINEERED SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING FOOD WASTE by WILLIAM F. STRUTZ
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT RECYCLING: On average, each one of us produces 4.4 pounds of solid waste each day. The average person, yearly, throws away about 1 ton of garbage each. 2,000 pounds of trash for
Zero Waste: Organics Recycling Best Practices Compost Matters 2015 Compost Council of Canada Workshop Presented by: Isaul Lopez Biopolymers Sales & Business Development Canada Objectives: Importance of
The sustainable consumption of domestic products: the environmental effect of packaging Montse Meneses 1,a,b, Jorgelina Pasqualino 2,a and Francesc Castells 3,a M. Meneses et al. a AGA, Chemical Engineering
Objectives: The students will learn the lifecycle of electronic devices, the environmental impacts of new age electronic waste (e-waste), and the disposal options at the end of an electronics' useful life.
Edited by D.L. Stewart, Jr., J.C. Daley and R.L. Stephens 19 THE IMPORTANCE OF RECYCLING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE OF METAL PRODUCTS K. J. Martchek Alcoa Inc. 201 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA. 15212,
Estimated emissions and CO2 savings deriving from adoption of in-place recycling techniques for road pavements Introduction Objective: to estimate the CO2 emissions produced by road surface construction
September 2002 Briefing Maximising recycling rates tackling residuals Background Friends of the Earth is an international organisation with over 70 member groups across the World. The majority of these
Nonrenewable Energy Resource Description Environmental Impacts Coal Black or brown solid combustible substance. oil A viscous liquid derived from petroleum, esp. for use as a fuel or lubricant. Natural
Indicator Fact Sheet Theme WASTE CSI 017 Generation and recycling of packaging waste Key message Quantity of packaging per capita, particularly plastic packaging, is increasing while quantity of packaging
2013 Campus Greenhouse Gas Inventory gogreen.etsu.edu Compiled by David McGuinn, S.T.A.R.S. Intern Department of Sustainability East Tennessee State University 1 Introduction ETSU will create a university
Final Report Comparison of Select Materials and Energy Recycling Scenarios City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services April 2007 R. W. BECK, INC. COMPARISON OF SELECT MATERIALS AND
Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas : 2005 Update Final Report Contract No. K2216-04-0006 Submitted to: Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada Submitted
Conclusions and Summary Report on an Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of ACQ- Treated Lumber Decking with Comparisons to Wood Plastic Composite Decking ISO 14044 Compliant Prepared by: AquAeTer, Inc.