business & environment series: cioci-lahd-managing upstream waste

Agenda

1. Waste 101: the waste hierarchy2. Life Cycle Assessment ─ rethinking

waste3. Examples4. Tools and Calculation Approaches5. What the State of Minnesota is

doing

Waste Management Hierarchy

Need for the Waste Hierarchy

But as the political oratory, jokes and embarrassment continue to multiply, so does concern about the crisis over solid waste disposal - not only in the New York region but nationwide. It is a problem that officials say has been building for years with little public interest or concern. -- NY Times, May 1987

1970

• Barrels & Dumps

1976

• Landfill liners

1982

• Incinerator

1986

• Hierarchy

Your world in 1980

What the Waste Hierarchy

Does do:• Guides discards

management• Increase landfill diversion• Help governments plan to

manage discards best (from a 1980 perspective)

• Minimize trash

Doesn’t do: • Guide purchasing decisions• Inform about GHG, toxicity,

human health, or any other environmental issue

• Conserve material resources (incinerator vs. landfill)

• Minimize environmental impact

How Does Zero Waste Fit In?

Zero Waste

• Generally means “zero waste to landfill” or” zero waste to disposal” (landfill or incinerator).

• Typically refers to a facility or event, not a product.

• “Zero waste” in reality is “Maximum diversion.”• Is laudable goal if it means recycling all you can

when you have discards to manage.• UL Environment is certifying zero waste claims

(100%, 98%+ and 80%+ landfill diversion).

Beware the Zero Waste Trap

• Zero waste can drive behavior that runs counter to waste prevention.

• It is often implemented as a free ticket for continued overconsumption of resources - “generate all the waste you want, as long as you can divert it”.

• “It’s okay to use disposables, they get burned to make energy.”

• “Bottled water is fine, as long as I recycle the bottle.”

Life Cycle Assessment & Waste

Recycling

Incineration with energy

recovery

Incineration w/o energy

recovery

Composting

Landfill

Waste

Life Cycle Assessment & Waste

Waste

Recycling

Incineration with energy

recovery

Incineration w/o energy

recovery

Composting

Landfill

Life Cycle Assessment & Waste

Waste

Recycling

Incineration with energy

recovery

Incineration w/o energy

recovery

Composting

Landfill

LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive: Recyclability ≠ Reduced Impact

Example 1: To Box or To Bag?

www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/packaging/LifeCycleInventory.pdfRelated slides courtesy of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Bags and Boxes• Boxes have recyclability and recycled-content

advantages over most types of bags. • But bags have waste prevention advantages

over boxes (for non-breakable 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?

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.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Million Btu of Petroleum per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Petroleum

Results: Natural Gas

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Million Btu of Natural Gas per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Coal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Million Btu of Coal per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Solid Waste

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Pounds of Solid Waste per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Atmospheric Particulate

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pounds of Atmospheric Particulate per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Atmospheric Mercury

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001

Pounds of Atmospheric Mercury per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Biological Oxygen Demand

0 10 20 30 40 50

Pounds of BOD per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Waterborne Suspended Solids

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Pounds of Waterborne Suspended Solids per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Mass Matters!• Weight of materials used is a critical factor: – All bags 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.

• Recyclability and recycled content are not always the best predictor of life cycle energy use or emissions:– BUT, once you’ve chosen a packaging material,

increasing post-consumer content and recycling opportunities can have benefits.

LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive: Recycled Content ≠ Reduced Impact

Example 2: Recycled vs. Virgin Paperback?

Jean-Robert Wells, et al., 2012

LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive: Biobased Content ≠ Reduced Impact

Example 3: Books vs. Digital?

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-04.pdfKozak, 2003

Unintended Consequences of Focusing on Disposal Avoidance

• Recycling viewed as comparable to prevention• Composting viewed as comparable to recycling• Supports faulty logic of “bio-based materials

are always best”• Makes it seem markets don’t matter – all

recycling uses of materials are equal. But they aren’t – e.g.: fiberglass better than aggregate.

Single Attributes vs. LCA

It’s not as simple as we thought. Waste hierarchy aids in discards management, but not purchases, product design, material selection.

The single attributes long considered “givens” for reducing environmental impacts, don’t always bear out.

Other qualities matter, mass of materials, energy source for production, life cycle phase or components of most impact

What tools can you use?

Waste Calculation Tools

Financial Data

Waste Generation

Totals

Generation Totals and

Management Methods

Input-Output Analysis

EPA

EPA WARM, NREL LCA

Data

Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562000)

Impact Category Emission FactorsClimate Change 2.44 kg CO2e

Water Consumption 1.96 gallons

EcoSystem Quality 2.47 Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species per square meter per year (PDF*m2*yr)

Human Health 9.085 E-06Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS)

http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/open-io/

EPA WARM Model

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html

EPA Resources

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/guide_b.pdf

P&G Supplier Scorecard

http://www.pgsupplier.com/en/current-suppliers/environmental-sustainability-scorecard.shtml

www.walmartstores.com/download/4055.pdf

MPCA’s Approach

• Government is large consumer of goods and services

• Have an active EPP program – but based on single attributes and some ecolabels

• Using our purchasing power and LCA to reduce our supply chain impacts

13%

Reducing Environmental Impacts of Purchasing

1. Funding – staff time, dollars (EPA Grant)

2. Expertise (Class & Consultant)3. Preliminary analysis:

- Defined realistic scope – expiring contracts, without political barriers, - Data needs – Dollar value of contract- LCA to find hotspots (total emissions vs. emissions per dollar)

Reducing Environmental Impacts of Purchasing

4. Stakeholder input5. Changes to RFP language for

purchasing6. Documentation of costs and

environmental benefits (GHG, maybe others)

7. Expansion to other contracts/product categories

Questions

Madalyn CiociMadalyn.cioci@state.mn.us651-757-2276

Holly Lahdhlahd@umn.edu763-229-6569