Flexible Packaging, Waste Prevention, and Environmental Considerations

Transcription

1 Flexible Packaging, Waste Prevention, and Environmental Considerations Prepared for Environmental Summit January 25, 2007 St. Petersburg Beach, Florida David Allaway Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Portland, Oregon

2 DEQ s Solid Waste Program Permits and inspects solid waste facilities (landfills, transfer stations, compost sites, etc.). Enforces Opportunity to Recycle requirements. Statewide planning and evaluation (material recovery survey, waste composition study)

3 DEQ s Solid Waste Program (continued) Issues solid waste reduction and planning grants. Provides technical assistance and information to cities, haulers, waste generators. Develops voluntary partnerships with industry (thermostats, packaging). Special projects.

4 Solid Waste Policy in Oregon Waste management hierarchy: Prevent waste, then Reuse, then Recycle, then Compost, then Recover energy, then Landfill

5 Pounds Per Person Per Day Recycling is Up in Oregon, But So is Waste Generation Key Results Energy (by process) Total Solid Waste Disposed, Recovered, and Generated Pounds Per Person Per Day = Generated = Recovered = Disposed Recovery + Disposal = Generation

6 Oregon s Recovery and Generation Goals Recovery Goals Recovery = recycling, composting, some energy recovery 45% recovery rate in % recovery rate in Generation Goals Generation = all discards No increase in per-capita waste generation in 2005 and subsequent years. No increase in total waste generation in 2009 and subsequent years.

7 Packaging Waste Prevention Project ( ) Packaging comprises ~20% of waste generation in Oregon. Pilot project co-funded by Metro. Pilot project objectives: Through technical assistance, accomplish measurable waste prevention at a small number of Oregon businesses (voluntary participation). Identify best management practices that reduce waste and save money. Evaluate effectiveness of pilot project and need for more activity in this area.

8 A Common Question: To Box, or To Bag?

9 Common Business Perceptions The choice of void fill is the most important environmental choice. Plastic is made from oil and is therefore bad. By extension, products not made from oil aren t bad (or as bad). Downstream (disposal) impacts are as important, or more important, than upstream (manufacturing) impacts. Wastes that biodegrade are inherently good. Recyclability is important.

10 Bags and Boxes Boxes have recyclability and recycled-content advantages over most types of bags. But bags have waste prevention (source reduction) advantages over boxes (for nonbreakable items), due to lower weight. Different types of bags and void fills for boxes exist can we state with any certainty that one general approach is better than the other, from a cross-media perspective?

11 General Product/Packaging Life General Product/Packaging Life Cycle Cycle Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Raw Materials Acquisition Materials Manufacture Product Manufacture Product Use or Consumption Final Disposition Landfill, Combustion, Recycle, or Reuse Wastes Wastes Wastes Wastes Reuse Product Recycling Figure 1-1. General materials flow for "cradle-to-grave" analysis of a product system.

12 DEQ Life Cycle Inventory Analysis: Background Commissioned by Oregon DEQ and co-funded by Metro and the U.S. EPA. Study is an inventory analysis (not an impact analysis) of 26 different packaging options for mail-order non-breakable items. Consultant team: Life Cycle Analysis: Franklin Associates (Kansas) Packaging Engineering: Pack Edge Development (Oregon) Critical Review Panel: Mary Ann Curran (EPA ORD), Dr. Joyce Cooper (U. of Washington) and Dr. Gregory A. Keoleian (U. of Michigan)

13 DEQ Life Cycle Inventory Analysis: Background Now available on-line at: A few caveats: The report is highly technical. Read the foreword and the preface! Don t extrapolate the results to other packaging systems! (for example, grocery bags, or packaging for fragile items) Be aware of the limitations as described in the report.

14 Common Problems with LCAs Many LCA studies are privately funded and those with results unfavorable to the funder (sponsor) are unlikely to be published. Results historically (<1995) have been used for self-promotion. Many LCA reports are a mysterious black box (no data; not replicable). Many LCAs historically have not undergone a truly independent critical review.

15 Our Sample Product Shipped from order fulfillment center in Salem, Oregon to central Missouri via ground delivery

16 Materials Evaluated Corrugated box* Void Fill (for boxes) Polystyrene loose fill* Corn starch loose fill Molded paper loose fill Inflated air pillows * Newsprint dunnage* Kraft dunnage* Shredded office paper Shredded boxes Shipping Bags Unpadded all-kraft mailer* Unpadded all-poly mailer* Kraft mailer with ONP padding* Kraft mailer with poly bubble padding* Poly mailer with poly bubble padding* *Different levels of post-consumer content also evaluated.

17 Variables Evaluated in Our Study Type of packaging (box with different types of void fills vs. different types of padded and unpadded bags) Type of material Recycled content Focus is on packaging that is commercially available today (or with a little bit of stretching) These are all variables that the merchant (order fulfillment center) can control, or at least influence.

18 Variables Not Evaluated in Our Study End-of-life recycling/reuse rates. Source of raw materials: environmental management and habitat (e.g. different standards of sustainable forestry ). Source of raw materials: political and socio-economic conditions (e.g. petroleum from Alaska vs. Nigeria). Regional electrical grids. International production. Air freight to customer. Materials of the future (not currently commercialized). PLA. Degradability.

19 Results Energy (by process) Results Energy (by process) Figure ES-1. Total Energy Requirements for 10,000 Packages (million Btu/10,000 packages) Disposal of Dunnage Disposal of Box/Bag Transp of Packaged Product Dunnage Production & Transp Box/Bag Production & Transp All-Paper Padded Bag Low PC All-Paper Padded Bag High PC Bubble-Padded Bl Kr Bag Low PC Bubble-Padded Bl Kr Bag High PC Unpadded LLDPE Bag Low PC Unpadded LLDPE Bag High PC Bubble-Padded LLDPE Bag Low PC Bubble-Padded LLDPE Bag High PC Box w/air Packet Low PC Box w/air Packet High PC Box w/eps LF Low PC Box w/eps LF High PC Box w/cornstarch LF Low PC Box w/cornstarch LF High PC Box w/molded Pulp LF Low PC Box w/molded Pulp LF High PC Box w/unbl Kraft Low PC Box w/unbl Kraft High PC Box w/newsprint Low PC Box w/newsprint High PC Box w/pc Office Paper Low PC Box w/pc Office Paper High PC Box w/pc Corrugated Low PC Box w/pc Corrugated High PC Unpadded Bl Kr Bag Low PC Unpadded Bl Kr Bag High PC Bl Kr = Bleached Kraft; PC = Postconsumer; LF = Loose Fill

20 Results Energy (by process) Preliminary Results 350 Disposal 300 Transport to Customer MM Btu/10,000 packages Dunnage Production Box/Bag Production 50 0 Unpadded - higher Bleached - higher Box & EPS - higher Box (low er - higher Box (low er - higher PE bag - PCR kraft bag w / PCR - low er PCR PCR) & PCR PCR) & PCR low er PCR PE bubble - PCR molded pulp shredded low er PCR corrugated PE = polyethylene PCR = post-consumer recycled (content) EPS = expanded polystyrene

21 Results Results Energy Energy (by (by type) type) 350 Transportation Energy of Material Resource Process MM Btu/10,000 packages Unpadded - higher Bleached - higher Box & EPS - higher Box (lower - higher Box (lower - higher PE bag - PCR kraft bag w/ PCR - lower PCR PCR PCR) & PCR PCR) & PCR lower PCR PE bubble - molded pulp shredded lower PCR corrugated PE = polyethylene PCR = post-consumer recycled (content) EPS = expanded polystyrene

22 Results: Petroleum Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Million Btu of Petroleum per 10,000 Packages

23 Results: Natural Gas Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Million Btu of Natural Gas per 10,000 Packages

24 Results: Coal Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Million Btu of Coal per 10,000 Packages

25 Results: Solid Waste Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of Solid Waste per 10,000 Packages

26 Results: Solid Waste, Net of Credits for Using Post-Consumer Materials Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of Solid Waste (net, after diversion credits) per 10,000 Packages

27 Results: Atmospheric Particulate Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of Atmospheric Particulate per 10,000 Packages

28 Results: Atmospheric NOx Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of Atmospheric NOx per 10,000 Packages

29 Results: Atmospheric Fossil Derived Carbon Dioxide* Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags *Landfill, waste incineration, and forestry-related emissions not included. Pounds of Atmospheric Fossil Derived CO2 per 10,000 Packages

30 Results: Atmospheric Mercury Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of Atmospheric Mercury per 10,000 Packages

31 Results: Biological Oxygen Demand Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of BOD per 10,000 Packages

32 Results: Waterborne Suspended Solids Low PC Box/Fills High PC Box/Fills Low PC Bags High PC Bags Pounds of Waterborne Suspended Solids per 10,000 Packages

33 Mass Matters! Weight of materials used is a critical factor: The heaviest box + void-fill option (corrugated box + molded pulp loose fill) weighs 26 times more than the lightest bag option (LLDPE bag). Allbags evaluated have lower burdens than boxes (in most categories) because of their much lower weight. This confirms (indirectly) the relative ranking of waste prevention and recycling in the waste management hierarchy.

34 More Results Recyclability is not always the best predictor of life cycle energy use or emissions. Recycled content is also not always the best predictor of life cycle energy use or emissions: The manufactured loose fill option with the highest post consumer content (molded pulp) also has the highest use of non-renewable fuels! BUT, once you ve chosen a packaging material, increasing post-consumer content and recycling opportunities can have benefits.

35 More Results The most important consideration (in DEQ s study) is box vs. bag. All other considerations are of secondary importance: Choice of void fill Post-consumer recycled content vs. virgin content Paper vs. plastic Upstream burdens may be much higher than downstream burdens. Are any of the options sustainable? NO

36 Please Don t interpret the study as being antipaper... interpret the study as being antibox... interpret the study as being antirecycling or anti-recycled content

37 Project Evaluation: Key Findings/Conclusions Some businesses implemented changes, others didn t. Estimated total savings: $994,000/year 493 tons/year (net) Many businesses are already very efficient in their use of packaging... but surprising low-hanging fruit still exists.

38 Low Hanging Fruit...

39 Packaging Tools Case studies Best practices Evaluation checklists Other resources

40 DEQ s Waste Prevention Strategy ( ) Lay out specific achievable results and activities that DEQ can implement to help reduce waste generation Strategy currently under development Packaging waste prevention likely a focus area Partnership opportunities?

41 Contact Information My contact information David Allaway Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality Solid Waste Policy & Program Development (503)