CRC FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL LIMITED A.C.N. 55 584 819 Stage 2 Report for Life Cycle Assessment for Paper and Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria January 21 Stage 2 of the National Project on Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Systems for Domestic Paper and Packaging Authors Tim Grant 1, Karli L. James 2, Sven Lundie 3, and Kees Sonneveld 2 1 Centre for Design at RMIT University. 2 Centre for Packaging Transportation and Storage at Victoria University (as part of the CRC for International Food Manufacture and Packaging Science). 3 Centre for Water and Waste Technology at the University of New South Wales (as part of the CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control). Mr. Tim Grant at RMIT GPO Box 2476V Melbourne, 31 Phone:(3) 9925 349, Fax (3) 9639 3412 Email: tim.grant@rmit.edu.au Assoc. Prof. Kees Sonneveld at VUT PO Box 14428, MCMC, Vic 31 Phone:(3) 9216843, Fax:(3) 9216874 Email: kees.sonneveld@vu.edu.au Dr Sven Lundie at CRC WMPC UNSW PO Box 1, Kensington, NSW 233 Phone:(2)9385 597, Fax:(2) 9313 8624 Email: s.lundie@unsw.edu.au A project supported by EcoRecycle Victoria and undertaken by the CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control, the Centre for Waste and Water Technology at UNSW, the National Centre for Design at RMIT and the Centre for Packaging, Transportation and Storage at VUT acting on behalf of the Food and Packaging CRC. Additional financial support by the Publishers National Environment Bureau (PNEB), the Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC) and the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc (ALC).
DISCLAIMER In compiling this report, the authors have adopted and referred to data and methodologies that are currently under development. Any conclusions or data referred to in the report are the result of the analysis of selected Australian and international information, the quality of which the authors have limited control. The authors, nor their respective organisations, give no warranty concerning the accuracy of the material provided in the report and will not be liable for any decisions or actions taken by users of the report in reliance on the report. Disclaimer
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following organisations for their assistance in providing financial support: EcoRecycle Victoria (the study commissioner); Publishers National Environment Bureau (PNEB); Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC); and Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc. The authors would like to thank the following people who assisted in the provision of data, and/or on the advisory committee in reviewing the draft report. Steve Balmforth; Myron Williams; Steve Dahl; and Peter Sligh, Norske Skog Dick Parrott, Publishers National Environment Bureau Dr Tony Wilkins, News Limited Nick Harford; and Denis James, Visy Recycling Gary Jenkins, Amcor Sophi MacMillan and Rob Faulkner, Australian Vinyls Basil Siganakis, Cryogrind Linda DiFlora and Ed Kosior, Visy Plastics Belinda OBrien and Peter Slane, Qenos Zoe Wood, PACIA Martin Drerup and Gerard van Rijswijk, ALC Peter Wall and Trevor Quick, Paperlinx Warren Knox, BHP Steel Packaging C. Michael, Energy Development Colin MacIntosh, EPA Victoria John Pullen, Alcoa Malcolm Wright, KAAL Malcolm Matthews, Can Group (ACG) David Coutts, Australian Council (AAC) Ron Scheele, Polystyrene Australia Garry Legget, Waste Service Kristy Michael, Energy Development Acknowledgements
Executive Summary 1 Introduction This is a summary of a research study into the environmental savings and impacts of Victoria s kerbside paper and packaging waste management system. The primary sponsor was EcoRecycle Victoria, with additional funding provided by the Publishers National Environment Bureau, the CRC for International Food Manufacture and Packaging Science, and the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc. This project has also been assisted by the Beverage Industry Environment Council through its commitments given in the Beer and Soft Drink National Action Plan under the Auspices of the National Packaging Covenant. The study builds on, and incorporates, previous work published in the Stage 1 Report on the LCA of Packaging Waste Management Scenarios published in November 1999. As the study was concerned with the Melbourne Metropolitan Area, data has been collected, modelled and analysed for this area only (and including one rural situation Bendigo in Victoria). Therefore, the results cannot be directly transferable to other city regions in Australia without local and regional specific data being included in the modelling and analysis. This summary report is the result of more than 2 years of research at three universities (RMIT, Victoria University on behalf of the CRC for International Food Manufacture and Packaging Science and the University of New South Wales on behalf of the CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control). The results are based on complex models of the real world, which, by necessity, contain many assumptions and generalisations. Not all of these assumptions are included in this summary, so for a full understanding and assessment of the results readers should refer to the main report and accompanying appendices. The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of EcoRecycle Victoria or the Victorian Government. The results of the study will however, provide important input to policy and program development for kerbside recycling. 1.1 Background In Australia there is strong public support for kerbside recycling, which has been encouraged by governments and industry alike in the establishment of these programs. This support has been based on the assertion that recycling has a positive impact on the environment through the saving of resources and a reduction in the impacts resulting from landfill of this waste. This has led to the principle question for this study, which is: Does the current recycling system result in a nett reduction in environmental impacts and if so what is the magnitude of this saving? The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive environmental model for domestic paper and packaging waste management activities (in particular recycling and landfilling) using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. 1.2 Life Cycle Assessment LCA provides the methodology to evaluate the potential environmental effects of a product over the entire period of its life cycle. It involves collecting data on raw materials used, Executive Summary 3
energy consumption and wastes to air, water and land. Data is collected for every stage of the life cycle, from mining or harvesting the raw materials through to processing, transport, consumption and disposal. Based on a relevant Functional Unit for the system (in this case the service of waste management for the selected materials) under study, this data is then aggregated and modelled into a Life Cycle Inventory, which in turn is characterised and classified to determine the environmental impacts of the system. Because this study aimed at assessing the environmental impacts of post consumer paper and packaging waste, the life cycle was limited to waste collection through to material reprocessing or landfill (see Figure 1: System Boundaries). The environmental impact of the actual use of packaging in the distribution, marketing and use of the products was not studied. Figure 1 System boundary for the Life Cycle Assessment study Raw Material Extraction Product Material Processing Filling Package Manufacture Material Processing Raw Material Extraction Production Distribution Secondary and Tertiary packaging Printing and distribution Use Secondary Packaging discard Avoided product system for landfill Avoided product system for recycling Coal Extraction Transport Paper and Packaging discard to waste stream Paper and Packaging discard to Recycle Stream Product or package manufacture with recyclate Raw Material Extraction Electricity generation Transport Transport Collection & transport Reprocessing Material Processing Power generation from methane (organic fractions only) Landfill Collection & transport Transport Sorting and primary processing Product or package manufacture with alternative to recyclate System boundary for Paper and Packaging Waste Project Stage 2 Executive Summary 4
In this study five impact categories/ environmental indicators (Greenhouse, Summer Smog, Energy, Solid Waste, and Water Use) (see Table 1) are selected to determine the environmental impact. Table 1 Impact categories / Environmental indicators Impact category Major contributors Nature of damage Greenhouse CO 2, Methane Climate change Smog precursors VOC s Low level ozone creation causing respiratory illness Energy embodied Coal, gas, crude oil and Depletion of energy reserves hydro reserves Water Use Nett water use potable, Water quality, water Solid Waste process, cooling. Solid wastes from production and reprocessing. depletion, biodiversity Impacts depend on character of waste Other impact categories such as acidification, human and eco-toxicity, nitrification, land-use and noise were not included due to irrelevance and/or lack of reliable data or methodology. 1.3 Peer review The study has undergone a critical review by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and an International LCA expert (CML, the Netherlands). The outcomes of the reviews have been incorporated into this report. A copy of the CML review report is included in Error! Reference source not found.. 2 Goal and Scope 2.1 Goal of the study To determine the environmental impacts and savings (as far as is practical) of recycling versus landfilling of common domestic packaging products, paper and old newspapers in Victoria. To provide an impartial and transparent research process, which allows for more informed stakeholder debate in the area of recycling and waste minimisation. To identify further research needs in this area, including: The investigation of the (avoided) environmental impacts of other waste management options such as composting and waste-to-energy; and The incorporation of LCA data into a stand-alone computer model for use by local and state government authorities. Executive Summary 5
2.2 Scope The scope of the study (Stage 2) included all commonly recycled materials in the kerbside waste stream. In addition to old newspapers the packaging materials were: Paper and board packaging (corrugated containers and box-board); Liquidpaperboard () (gable top and aseptic cartons); High density polyethylene () bottles; Polyvinyl chloride () bottles; Polyethylene terephthalate () bottles; Other, mixed packaging plastics (flexible and rigid); bottles and jars; ; and cans. The two waste management systems currently used in Victoria were studied landfill and recycling. To enable a viable comparison between the recycling and landfill options, the recycling system includes a credit for the virgin material that is avoided through the process of recycling (see system boundary diagram in Figure 1). The nett saving for recycling also includes any impacts that are avoided from landfill (or benefits that are avoided, such as energy generation for landfill gas). Figure 2 shows the method for calculating the total nett savings generated by the recycling process. Figure 2 Method for calculating nett environmental savings in the recycling process Waste management (removal of discards from kerb) - recycling Waste management Reprocessing to Production of + - - = Recycled material virgin material (removal of discards from kerb) landfill Nett savings of recycling Recycling operations- collection and reprocessing (usually -ve value representing impacts on environment) Avoided virgin material production (usually -ve value representing impacts on environment) Avoided landfill impacts (usually -ve value representing impacts on environment, may be positive due to energy production from landfill) Nett recycling savings when value is +ve or impacts when value is -ve The functional unit for the study was defined as (Minutes Jan 15 1998): "The management of the recyclable 1 fractions of paper board, liquidpaperboard,,,, other plastics, glass, steel and aluminium packaging and old newspapers discarded at kerbside from the average Melbourne household in one week 2 " The function under examination is waste management. It is to this function that the functional unit described above is related. 1 Recyclable is defined, as a package/material for which there is an established recycling system (Minutes, Jan 15, 1998). 2 Discards are defined as material put out for either recycling of final disposal in the kerbside collection. Executive Summary 6
2.3 Landfill Degradation Scenarios For the plastic, metal and glass components of the recycling system, the impact in landfill is relatively low as the materials do not break down significantly. For paper fractions in landfill there will be some degradation. The by-products of this degradation predominantly are carbon dioxide and methane. Some of the methane can be captured for flaring or electricity generation, and some will be lost to the atmosphere as a potent greenhouse gas. It is assumed that currently 55% of methane is captured at landfill, while 5% out of the remaining 45% of non-captured methane is oxidised within the landfill. However there is great uncertainty concerning the level of degradation in landfill. Because of its importance to the results, three landfill degradation scenarios were applied. Full degradation in which all organic components are fully degraded. Carbon sequestration (CS USEPA data) - where 34% and 23% of newsprint and paperboard respectively is assumed not to breakdown. This is used as the baseline assumption (based on (ICF 1997; US EPA 1998). Lignin content (CS Lignin content calcs.) - where 78% and 53% of newsprint and paperboard respectively is assumed not to breakdown (Based on worked by Tchbanoglous 1993). 3 Results Figure 3 shows the mix of materials presented for kerbside recycling and disposal for Melbourne, based on 1997 survey data. This is important because the savings from recycling in the following graphs are presented on the basis of the functional unity (i.e., for one week from one household in Melbourne). The total mass of materials presented at the kerbside for recycling and disposal is 6.6 kg per household per week consisting of 4.1 kg in recycling containers and 2.5 kg of recyclables in garbage container. Figure 3 Average mass of materials presented at kerbside for recycling and disposal per typical Melbourne household per week. mass presented at kerbside (kg) per household per week 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 Paper & Board Recycling Landfill Mixed Plastics Executive Summary 7
The magnitude of savings illustrated in the results and graphs throughout this report are influenced by the quantity of each material in the overall total of materials presented at kerbside. 3.1 Summary of savings from recycling per household per week Table 2 shows the nett savings from a week's recycling for a typical Melbourne household. Table 2 Summary of nett savings from recycling per typical Melbourne household per week Impact Unit Totals Equivalence Greenhouse kg CO2 eq. 3.2 This equates to.25% of a households total allocation of greenhouse gases from all sources. Embodied energy MJ 32.2 9 kwh or enough energy to run a 4 Watt light bulb for 72 hours. (Accounting for electricity losses). Smog precursors g C2H4 eq. 1.3 Equivalent to the emission from 4.5 kms of travel in average post 1985 passenger car. Water use litres 92.5 The equivalent of 5 sink loads of dishes. Solid waste kg 3.6 Depending on the material, between 6% to 9% of the product placed for recycling will remain out of solid waste streams. Note: This is under the CS USEPA data scenario at landfill for the organic fractions. 3.1.1 Greenhouse Approximately 47% of the greenhouse savings (in the CS USEPA data at landfill scenario) are from avoided methane, which would have been generated at landfill by the organic fractions (it is assumed that 55% of the methane generated in landfill is captured for electricity generation). The remainder of the greenhouse savings are due to the avoidance of virgin material production. Figure 4 shows the results for all three landfill scenarios including full degradation; CS (USEPA data); and CS (Lignin content calcs.). The results between the full degradation scenario and the carbons sequestration scenarios are different for the paper fibre products only (as these landfill scenarios relate only to those materials that contain organic fractions). The reasons for the differences are related to lower methane generation in landfill when lower degradation rates are assumed (see Figure 5). Working counter to this reduction of greenhouse gases from methane generation, there is an increase in CO 2 emissions with the CS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenarios. This is due to the reduced power generation from methane (due to the lower emission), and therefore less avoided fossil fuel based electricity generation (note that most Melbourne landfills collect biogas (methane) for electricity generation or heat recovery). A third mechanism with landfills is the sequestration of a fraction of the carbon contain in the paper. This carbon is taken from the atmosphere in forest growth, converted into paper when harvested and processed, and a fraction of it (depending on the landfill assumptions mentioned in the three scenarios above) is assumed not to be re-emitted to the atmosphere. Executive Summary 8
Figure 4 Nett savings in greenhouse gases from recycling per typical Melbourne household per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation. Full Degradation CS (US EP A data) 3.5 3.5 CS (Lignin cont. calc.) 2.5 Recycling 2.5 Landfill 1.5 1.5 CO2 eq. (kg).5 -.5-1.5 Paper & Board Alum inium CO2 eq. (kg).5 -.5-1.5 Paper & Board Alum inium -2.5-2.5 3.5 2.5 Ne tt Re cycling Savings (including avoided landfill) 1.5 CO2 eq. (kg).5 -.5-1.5 Paper & Board -2.5 Notes: The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfill savings (top right graph). Non-organics not affected by different landfill scenarios. Negative values = impacts. Under the full degradation scenario all carbon in the paper fractions is assumed to degrade and re-emit to the atmosphere. Under the CS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenarios a percentage of the carbon in the paper fractions is assumed not to degrade and thus not to be re-emitted (i.e., not released to the atmosphere). In Figure 5 this is represented as CO 2 sequestered to landfill. For the recycling, this sequestration assumption lowers the savings as it reduces the greenhouse benefits (due to less avoided fossil fuel electricity generation) of recycling versus landfill. Executive Summary 9
Figure 5 Greenhouse Gas Savings from recycling (all materials) per household per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation. Recycling savings Landfill Savings 4 4 3 3 2 2 kg CO2 eq 1-1 -2-3 -4-5 CO2 CO2 (sequestered in landfill) Methane 1-1 -2-3 -4-5 CO2 CO2 (sequestered in landfill) Methane 4 3 2 Nett recycling savings (including avoided landfill) Full Degradation CS (USEPA data) CS (Lignin calc.) 1 kg CO2 eq -1-2 -3-4 -5 CO2 CO2 (sequestered in landfill) Methane Global Warming Gases Notes: The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfill savings (top right graph). Negative values = impacts. Executive Summary 1
3.1.2 Embodied energy Embodied energy includes all fuels used in the collection and reprocessing of the recyclable materials as well as credits for energy consumption in the production of the avoided products. In the case of plastics this includes fuels used as feedstocks in the production of the plastics. The results for the embodied energy savings from one week's recycling per household are shown in Figure 6. The total embodied energy nett savings of recycling per household per week is 32 MJ (based upon CS USEPA data scenario at landfill). Figure 6 Nett savings in embodied energy from recycling per typical Melbourne household per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation. Full Degradation CS (US EPA data) 18 18 CS (Lignin cont. calc.) 16 16 14 14 Embodied Energy (MJ) 12 1 8 6 4 Recycling Embodied Energy (MJ) 12 1 8 6 4 Landfill 2 2-2 Paper & Board -2 Paper & Board 18 16 Embodied Energy (MJ) 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Nett Recycling Savings (including avoided landfill) -2 Paper & Board Notes: The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfill savings (top right graph). Non-organics not affected by different landfill scenarios. Negative values = impacts. Executive Summary 11
In the case of the other two landfill scenarios, the savings in embodied energy are 26.5 MJ for full degradation scenario and 39.4 MJ for the CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenario. The reason for the decrease and increase respectively in embodied energy savings for recycling is a result of the recycling savings taking account of landfill avoided. In the full degradation scenario paper is generating more methane compared with the CS USEPA data scenario and hence more energy is recoverable. This results in an increased replacement (avoidance) of fossil fuel sources. In the CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenario the landfilling of paper is generating less methane, and hence less energy which reduces the displacement of fossil fuel sources. For the other materials and to a lesser extent the paper fractions, the embodied energy savings are predominantly from the avoided extraction and production of virgin materials. Table 3 gives a direct comparison of the energy required to produce the equivalent virgin and recycled material, with the materials considered in the study. It must be noted that the actual end product (boundary) as shown in Table 3 for the materials differ. This is due to the fact that when virgin materials are replaced with recyclate material the position of replacement is not necessarily a finished product in all cases. It may be a semi-finished material which could go into different applications. Executive Summary 12
Table 3 Embodied energy savings per kilogram in the production of recycled product as compared to an equivalent virgin products. Product Recycled (MJ) Virgin (MJ) Savings Comment Product taken to the newsprint roll. 33.7 5.9 34% is usually a mix of recycled and virgin material in Australia. Product taken to the production of Corrugated boardunbleached 27.7 35.7 22% corrugated board. Corrugated board is often a mix of recycled and virgin material in Australia. Product taken to the production of steel slab. Steel scrap comes from many sources and this number relates to kerbside source material in Melbourne only. Steel is often a mix of recycled and virgin material in Steel slab 7.32 34.7 79% ingot 14.1 26 93% 15.5 75.2 79% 19.7 81.2 76% 7.93 4.3 8% 9.74 22.5 57% Australia. Product taken to the production of aluminium ingots. scrap comes from many sources and this number relates to kerbside source material in Melbourne only. Aluminum often includes a mix of recycled and virgin material. Product taken to the production of granulate. Recycled product may have more limitation than virgin. High energy savings are partly due to feedstock energy in virgin material. Product taken to the production of granulate. High energy savings are partly due to feedstock energy in virgin material. Product taken to the production of flake. High energy savings are partly due to feedstock energy in virgin material. Product taken to the production of molten glass (pre bottle formation). is always a mix of virgin and recycled material. Note: The material may not be a finished product but may represent an intermediate product where the substitution between recycled and virgin product can be made. For example, for paperboard the substitution is paper pulp and not paper. These numbers do not take account of impacts and benefits of landfill. 3.1.3 Smog precursors Smog precursors are chemicals which, when released in urban areas, have the potential to combine with sunlight to produce photochemical smog. The results for the savings (approximately 1.35 g C2H4 eq. in the CS USEPA data scenario at landfill) in smog precursors by recycling are shown in Figure 8. Executive Summary 13
Figure 8 Savings in smog precursors from recycling per typical Melbourne household per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation. Full Degradation CS (US EPA data) 1 1 CS (Lignin cont. calc.).8.8 Smog precursers (g C2H4).6.4.2 -.2 Paper & Board Re cycling Smog precursers (g C2H4).6.4.2 -.2 Paper & Board Landfill 1.8 Ne tt R ecycling Savings (including avoided landfill) Smog precursers (g C2H4).6.4.2 Paper & Board -.2 Notes: The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfill savings (top right graph). Non-organics not affected by different landfill scenarios. Negative values = impacts. One of the major sources of smog precursors in the study is from recycling and waste collection trucks. Other sources include fugitive emissions and combustion emissions from industrial processes. For newsprint, paper and board, steel, and the cumulative industrial emissions from virgin production and landfill are larger than the cumulative emissions from recycling and collection processes and, hence, there are nett savings generated through recycling. For and glass the industrial emissions are not larger than Executive Summary 14
the recycling emissions and therefore result in smog precursor debits. The reason for not being showing on the graph is due to the fact that the emissions from the two sources are basically equal. Executive Summary 15
3.1.4 Water use In Figure 9 the savings in water use from one weeks recycling per household in the Melbourne Metropolitan Area is presented. Savings of water (based upon the CS USEPA data scenario at landfill) is approximately 92.5 litres. Figure 9 Nett savings in water use from recycling per typical Melbourne household per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation. Full Degradation CS (US EPA data) 6 6 CS (Lignin cont. calc.) 5 5 4 Recycling 4 Landfill Water Use in Litres 3 2 1 Water Use in Litres 3 2 1-1 -2 Paper & Board -1-2 6 N ett R ecycling Savings (including avoide d landfill) 5 4 Water Use in Litres 3 2 1 Paper & Board -1-2 Notes: The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfill savings (top right graph). Non-organics not affected by different landfill scenarios. Negative values = impacts. Executive Summary 16
The savings in water use across the system are a result of reduced water consumption in virgin paper production and virgin aluminium production. Recycling of and consumes more water than is avoided in virgin production (due to the washing processes in the reprocessing system). 3.1.5 Solid waste Solid waste results, in LCA terms, really refer to residual materials (in landfill and a range of other emissions listed as solid wastes), but which may be disposed of in a variety of manners. For example, all ash from coal combustion is listed as solid waste, as is coal washery waste from the washing of black coal. The actual management of these wastes varies, with some of them being treated or reused in useful ways. Having noted this, the solid waste results for recycling are dominated by the disposal of paper and packaging fractions being studied. The savings in solid waste generation from one weeks recycling per household in the Melbourne Metropolitan Area is presented in Figure 1. Savings of approximately 3.6 kg are made up of avoided landfill of the non-paper fractions plus the residual solid waste that remains after CS USEPA data scenario degradation of paper. Under the full degradation scenario this residual material is the inorganic component of the paper (between 7-1% by weight). Under the CS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenarios the solid waste includes un-degraded paper. This is shown in Figure 1 with waste from newsprint rising 1.65 kg in the full degradation scenario to 1.7 kg and 1.77 kg per household per week respectively under the CS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenarios. The high value for glass solid waste savings is a result of the quantity (mass) of glass in the recycling system and the fact that glass does not degrade in landfill. Executive Summary 17
Figure 1 Savings in solid waste from recycling per typical Melbourne household per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation. Full Degradation CS (US EPA data) 2 2 CS (Lignin cont. calc.) 1.5 Re cycling 1.5 Landfill 1 1 Solid W aste (kg).5 -.5-1 -1.5 Paper & Board Solid W aste (kg).5 -.5-1 -1.5 Paper & Board -2-2 -2.5-2.5 2 1.5 Ne tt R ecycling Savings (including avoided landfill) 1 Solid Waste (kg).5 -.5-1 Paper & Board -1.5-2 -2.5 Notes: The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfill savings (top right graph). Non-organics not affected by different landfill scenarios. Negative values = impacts. 3.2 Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analysis tests assumptions, conditions and data that have the ability to affect the results and conclusions of the study. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for:! Landfill gas capture sensitivity - showed strong correlation with greenhouse and embodied energy results - the more gas capture, the better the result for landfill, and consequently lowering of nett recycling benefits. Executive Summary 18
! Reprocessing yield sensitivity - very strong effect on recycling benefits - higher yield results in greater benefits! Yield of materials at kerbside as more material in set out in a given collection area, (all other things such as material composition and quality being equal), the recycling system efficiency is improved, with lower transport emissions per tonne of materials collected and greater overall savings per household due to higher yields.! Household washing behaviour sensitivity - very little effect overall on water or energy use on a system wide level, although, for individual materials, the water use in recycling is a nett impact rather than saving.! Case study on Regional recycling sensitivity - mostly little change for the centre test (Greater Bendigo), except from the effect of not having any landfill gas capture, which increases the overall net benefits for recycling from a greenhouse perspective.! Recycling collection frequency - minor improvement in energy indicators and substantial improvements in smog savings for recycling with lower collection frequencies. Overall none of the sensitivities tests altered the direction of the results, however landfill assumptions and reprocessing yield has the potential to change the magnitude of the results significantly. 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 4.1 Environmental savings of recycling 4.1.1 Overall Environmental Impact This study investigates five environmental indicators and impact categories, chosen in consultation with stakeholder groups, as being relevant indicators for the waste management sector in Victoria. The environmental indicators and impact categories are: greenhouse gases; embodied energy; smog precursors; water use; and solid waste. The study does not include an analysis of indicators and impact categories for which information was not sufficiently available. Thus, there are some environmental issues not covered and these need to be considered when interpreting the results. The most serious omissions are:! Human and eco-toxicity impacts from virgin material production, recyclables and waste collection, reprocessing of materials and landfill leachate;! Land use and soil impacts, particularly from forestry operations in virgin paper fibre production and agricultural operations in wheat production;! Local amenity impacts from landfill;! Resource consumption and/or depletion; and! Consumer behavioural data. Executive Summary 19
Taking the above into account it can be concluded that from the indicators that were assessed, on a system wide level, recycling provides substantial environmental savings originating from both avoided virgin material production and avoided landfill impacts. At a local council level, however, the magnitude of savings and/or impacts might be different due to variability in system conditions. However, it is not likely that the results will vary significantly since the results are sensitive to end product of the recycling process, and not to the collection mode The most important factors for maximizing the environmental benefits from landfill are: Recycling to the highest value product so as to avoid the production of high value, and high environmental impact, virgin materials. Maintain or increase the mass of materials from household catchments, without compromising the usability of the material at the end of life. This increase in total environmental returns is from avoided products and avoided landfill, while also making the collection more efficient on a per tonne basis. Reduce smog and other transport emissions from waste collection vehicles in urban areas by using efficient vehicles, with either pollution control equipment, and/or alternative fuels such as natural gas. Maintain good landfill management practices particularly in terms of gas capture for energy recovery, landfill capping and leachate control. Strategies for dealing with un-recyclable paper and plastic fractions should be investigated, particularly in the context of management of the broader organic material stream. 4.1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions All materials show a saving in greenhouse gas emissions when recycled regardless of the landfill degradation scenarios. However, the degradation scenarios for organic material can reduce the savings by up to 5% if CS (USEPA data) is considered and results in a negative impact, if the CS (Lignin content calcs.) is considered when compared with the full degradation scenario. 4.1.3 Embodied Energy Most materials show savings in embodied energy, despite substantial energy credits being given to biogas captured landfilling of paper based materials. The energy saving increases substantially if lower degradation rates are assumed. For liquidpaperboard however, a high fallout rate of material assumed from MRFs and in repulping, combined with energy credits for disposal of paper board fraction in landfill, results in a small energy deficit (or impact) from recycling. Plastics record high energy savings largely due to feedstock energy savings. Metals and glass record significant energy saving from avoided energy use in virgin material production. 4.1.4 Smog precursors Savings in smog precursors for recycling are found in those recyclables for which the manufacturing of the avoided virgin product features substantial emissions for smog precursors in urban areas. Plastics generally fall into this category, as do the metals, and, to a lesser extent, newsprint and paperboard. For and glass the smog emissions from recyclables collection are not offset by savings in avoided virgin products manufacturing and, hence, there is a nett environmental impact in smog precursors when recycling these fractions. Executive Summary 2
4.1.5 Water use Savings in water use are found in paper, newsprint, aluminium, glass, and steel can recycling. For and recycling, water use (due to washing the collected plastics) is higher than water use in avoided virgin plastic production. For liquidpaperboard there are no water savings but potentially a small water deficit. This is largely due to low pulping efficiencies, but also to low water consumption in the avoided pulp manufacture. 4.1.6 Solid waste Solid waste is a difficult indicator, as the end destination of many of the substances, listed as solid waste, is not clear. However, the avoidance of recyclables being disposed in landfill does result in solid waste reductions (savings) from recycling for all materials studied. 4.1.7 Landfill assumptions Assumptions in regard to degradation conditions at landfill are critical to the nett impact saving for recyclables. Three aspects are important for the landfill system and, with them, greenhouse gas emissions depending on the degradation of the organic fractions:! Greenhouse impact from methane generated under ideal anaerobic conditions in landfills with an assumed leakage from the gas capture system (if installed);! Oxidisation of non-captured methane within the landfill;! Greenhouse savings from avoided combustion for fossil fuels when methane is collection and combusted for electricity generation; and! Greenhouse savings when carbon stored in paper fibre is placed in landfill and assumed to degrade (that is, it is sequestered at least in the medium term). Care needs to be taken in interpreting the results from landfill, given the variability of landfill systems and degradation of organic waste fractions, and also the long time frames involved. 4.1.8 Recycling Yields Fallout of the material throughout the recycling system generally reduces the benefit potentially available. Improvement in these yields, both at kerbside and in reprocessing, will further improve the impact savings for recycling. 4.1.9 Collection frequencies Reducing collection frequency has the ability to reduce smog and energy impacts from collection, and thus improves the total savings for recycling. However, yields of recyclables from householders need to be maintained (or increased) when moving to lower frequencies to avoid loss of impact savings. 4.1.1 Regional centre recycling Recycling in regional centres has some additional impacts in transport to market, however there are also potential impact savings due to lower traffic congestion, lower smog hazards, and reduced landfill management making recycling a greater imperative. For this reason, it is recommended each area to be looked at on an individual basis. Executive Summary 21
4.2 Recommendations 4.2.1 Specific Recommendations short term 4.2.1.1 Implementation of the kerbside service standards Pursue policies and programs which maintain or increase recycling quantities while maintaining or improving the quality of the materials set out. New materials such as Polyproplene maybe included when market conditions are appropriate, as some additional environmental savings could be achieved with the inclusion of this material. 4.2.1.2 Maintain good recycling markets Where practicable, closed loop and/or high quality recycling market should be maintained and encouraged. 4.2.1.3 Remote recycling The study looked at a large regional centre (Bendigo) and found that recycling still generated substantial environmental savings. To extend this understanding, a study on three remote recycling areas, (e.g., Mildura, East Gippsland and Glenelg) should be undertaken to determine the worst case access to market situations in Victoria. 4.2.1.4 Organics and other fractions An extension of the study should be undertaken to look at the management of organic materials. This is important in looking at a more complex and integrated waste management operation such as composting and energy recovery. 4.2.1.5 Energy recovery The most competitive energy recovery technology currently available should be assessed alongside the traditional recycling technologies to aid in the debate regarding these technologies. 4.2.2 General Recommendations medium to long term 4.2.2.1 National impact savings of recycling The study is limited to Victoria. However in conjunction with the study the researchers are investigating the (avoided) environmental impacts of recycling versus landfill for six councils in New South Wales. The results of this study will be available early 21. It is recommended to investigate the viability, and respectively the sensitivity of the result of the Victorian study for other Australia States and Territories and on a nationwide basis. 4.2.2.2 Environmental Decision Support Service There are many dynamics in the recycling system, which are often specific to individual locations and management practices. Testing the environmental performance of the average practices has been the task of this study. The time and cost of this study are too onerous to be undertaken for each location or situation, however the outcomes of the study provide the base information to produce an environmental decision making tool for waste management and recycling in Victoria. Executive Summary 22
It is recommended to develop and implement a centralised "decision support service" regarding environmental impacts of consumer waste management. This would support State and local government policy development and waste management strategy development of other stakeholders. 4.2.2.3 Product specific assessments This project has dealt with paper and packaging as one homogenous material mix. One consequence of the material-based approach is that product strategies, such as reuse and light weighting, cannot be meaningfully included as waste management strategies. The background data on how materials are managed in recycling and landfill now allows for other product specific assessments. It is recommended to consider the comparative study of alternative packaging product strategies, taking into account the outcomes of this study in order to identify environmentally optimum strategies for packaging waste minimisation (e.g., with respect to the National Packaging Covenant). It is also recommended to use the developed methodology, as well as outcomes, to expand the study to other domestic waste components such as organic, hazardous and other household waste. The inclusion of event, commercial and industrial waste management practices could also be considered. 4.2.2.4 Other Waste Management Practices The study has only focussed on current waste management practices. Alternative practices, such as waste-to-energy through incineration, have not been considered. However, a comparison with alternative waste management practices is now feasible due to the significant amount of information collected in this study. A comparison, particularly between material recycling and waste-to-energy practices, could be of great benefit in order to explore options to meet national reduction targets on waste to landfill. It is recommended to use the outcomes of this study to evaluate the environmental feasibility of alternative domestic waste management practices, for which the results of this study can service as a benchmark. Executive Summary 23