stage 2 report for life cycle assessment for paper and ...s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/... · a...

CRC FOR WASTE MANAGEMENTAND POLLUTION CONTROL LIMITED

A.C.N. 055 584 819

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 forPackaging, 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 IndustryEnvironment Council (BIEC) and the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc (ALC).

Mr. Tim Grant at RMITGPO Box 2476V Melbourne, 3001Phone:(03) 9925 3490, Fax (03) 9639 3412Email: [email protected]

Assoc. Prof. Kees Sonneveld at VUTPO Box 14428, MCMC, Vic 3001Phone:(03) 92168043, Fax:(03) 92168074Email: [email protected]

Dr Sven Lundie at CRC WMPCUNSW PO Box 1, Kensington, NSW 2033Phone:(02)9385 5097, Fax:(02) 9313 8624Email: [email protected]

Stage 2 Report for

Life Cycle Assessment for Paper and

Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in

Victoria

January 2001

Stage 2 of the National Project on Life Cycle Assessment of WasteManagement Systems for Domestic Paper and Packaging

Authors Tim Grant1, Karli L. James2, Sven Lundie3, and Kees Sonneveld2

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).

Life Cycle Assessment of Paper and Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria. Final Report - Stage 2

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER

In compiling this report, the authors have adopted and referred to data andmethodologies that are currently under development. Any conclusions or datareferred to in the report are the result of the analysis of selected Australian andinternational information, the quality of which the authors have limited control. Theauthors, nor their respective organisations, give no warranty concerning the accuracyof the material provided in the report and will not be liable for any decisions oractions taken by users of the report in reliance on the report.


Acknowledgements

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following organisations for their assistance in providingfinancial 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, Aluminium Can Group (ACG)

• David Coutts, Australian Aluminium Council (AAC)

• Ron Scheele, Polystyrene Australia

• Garry Legget, Waste Service

• Kristy Michael, Energy Development


Executive Summary 3

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

This is a summary of a research study into the environmental savings and impacts ofVictoria’s kerbside paper and packaging waste management system. The primary sponsorwas EcoRecycle Victoria, with additional funding provided by the Publishers NationalEnvironment Bureau, the CRC for International Food Manufacture and Packaging Science,and the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc. This project has alsobeen assisted by the Beverage Industry Environment Council through its commitments givenin the Beer and Soft Drink National Action Plan under the Auspices of the NationalPackaging Covenant. The study builds on, and incorporates, previous work published in theStage 1 Report on the LCA of Packaging Waste Management Scenarios published inNovember 1999. As the study was concerned with the Melbourne Metropolitan Area, datahas been collected, modelled and analysed for this area only (and including one ruralsituation – Bendigo in Victoria). Therefore, the results cannot be directly transferable toother city regions in Australia without local and regional specific data being included in themodelling 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 andPackaging Science and the University of New South Wales on behalf of the CRC for WasteManagement and Pollution Control). The results are based on complex models of the realworld, which, by necessity, contain many assumptions and generalisations. Not all ofthese assumptions are included in this summary, so for a full understanding andassessment of the results readers should refer to the main report and accompanyingappendices.

The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of EcoRecycle Victoria or theVictorian Government. The results of the study will however, provide important input topolicy and program development for kerbside recycling.

1.1 Background

In Australia there is strong public support for kerbside recycling, which has been encouragedby governments and industry alike in the establishment of these programs. This support hasbeen based on the assertion that recycling has a positive impact on the environment throughthe 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 environmentalimpacts and if so what is the magnitude of this saving?

The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive environmental model for domestic paperand packaging waste management activities (in particular recycling and landfilling) using aLife Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology.

1.2 Life Cycle Assessment

LCA provides the methodology to evaluate the potential environmental effects of a productover the entire period of its life cycle. It involves collecting data on raw materials used,


Executive Summary 4

energy consumption and wastes to air, water and land. Data is collected for every stage ofthe 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 wastemanagement for the selected materials) under study, this data is then aggregated andmodelled into a Life Cycle Inventory, which in turn is characterised and classified todetermine the environmental impacts of the system.

Because this study aimed at assessing the environmental impacts of post consumer paper andpackaging waste, the life cycle was limited to waste collection through to materialreprocessing or landfill (see Figure 1: System Boundaries). The environmental impact of theactual use of packaging in the distribution, marketing and use of the products was notstudied.

Figure 1 System boundary for the Life Cycle Assessment study

Raw Material Extraction

Material Processing

Package ManufactureFilling

Product

Distribution

Use

Paper and Packaging discard to Recycle Stream

Paper and Packaging discard to

waste stream

Secondary and Tertiary packaging

Secondary Packaging

discard


Material Processing

Transport

Product or package

manufacture with alternative

to recyclate

Landfill Collection & transport

Sorting and primary

processing

Reprocessing

Product or package

manufacture with recyclate

Avoided product system for recycling

Transport

Transport

System boundary for Paper and Packaging Waste Project Stage 2

Newsprint Production


Material Processing

Printing and distribution

Collection & transport

Power generation

from methane (organic

fractions only)

Avoided product system for landfill

Coal Extraction

Electricity generation

Transport


Executive Summary 5

In this study five impact categories/ environmental indicators (Greenhouse, Summer Smog,Energy, Solid Waste, and Water Use) (see Table 1) are selected to determine theenvironmental impact.

Table 1 Impact categories / Environmental indicators

Impact category Major contributors Nature of damageGreenhouse CO2, Methane Climate changeSmog precursors VOC’s Low level ozone creation

causing respiratory illnessEnergy embodied Coal, gas, crude oil and

hydro reservesDepletion of energy reserves

Water Use Nett water use – potable,process, cooling.

Water quality, waterdepletion, biodiversity

Solid Waste Solid wastes from productionand reprocessing.

Impacts depend on characterof waste

Other impact categories such as acidification, human and eco-toxicity, nitrification, land-useand 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 anInternational LCA expert (CML, the Netherlands). The outcomes of the reviews have beenincorporated 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 recyclingversus landfilling of common domestic packaging products, paper and old newspapers inVictoria.

• To provide an impartial and transparent research process, which allows for moreinformed 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 wastemanagement options such as composting and waste-to-energy; and

• The incorporation of LCA data into a stand-alone computer model for use by localand state government authorities.


Executive Summary 6

2.2 Scope

The scope of the study (Stage 2) included all commonly recycled materials in the kerbsidewaste stream. In addition to old newspapers the packaging materials were:

• Paper and board packaging (corrugated containers and box-board);

• Liquidpaperboard (LPB) (gable top and aseptic cartons);

• High density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles;

• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bottles;

• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles;

• Other, mixed packaging plastics (flexible and rigid);

• Glass bottles and jars;

• Steel cans; and

• Aluminium cans.

The two waste management systems currently used in Victoria were studied – landfill andrecycling. To enable a viable comparison between the recycling and landfill options, therecycling system includes a credit for the virgin material that is avoided through the processof recycling (see system boundary diagram in Figure 1). The nett saving for recycling alsoincludes any impacts that are avoided from landfill (or benefits that are avoided, such asenergy generation for landfill gas). Figure 2 shows the method for calculating the total nettsavings generated by the recycling process.

Figure 2 Method for calculating nett environmental savings in the recycling process

The functional unit for the study was defined as (Minutes Jan 15 1998):

"The management of the recyclable1 fractions of paper board,liquidpaperboard, HDPE, PVC, PET, other plastics, glass, steel andaluminium packaging and old newspapers discarded at kerbside from theaverage Melbourne household in one week 2"

The function under examination is waste management. It is to this function that thefunctional 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.

Recycling operations- collection and reprocessing (usually -ve value representing impacts on environment)

Avoided virgin material production(usually -ve value

representing impacts on environment)

Avoided landfillimpacts (usually -ve value

representing impacts on environment, may be positive due to energy production from

landfill)

Reprocessing to Recycled material

Production of virgin material-+ - = Nett savings of

recycling

Waste management (removal of discards from

kerb) landfill

Waste management(removal of discards from

kerb) - recycling

Nett recycling savings when value is +ve or impacts when value is -ve


Executive Summary 7

2.3 Landfill Degradation Scenarios

For the plastic, metal and glass components of the recycling system, the impact in landfill isrelatively low as the materials do not break down significantly. For paper fractions inlandfill there will be some degradation. The by-products of this degradation predominantlyare carbon dioxide and methane. Some of the methane can be captured for flaring orelectricity generation, and some will be lost to the atmosphere as a potent greenhouse gas. Itis assumed that currently 55% of methane is captured at landfill, while 50% out of theremaining 45% of non-captured methane is oxidised within the landfill. However there isgreat uncertainty concerning the level of degradation in landfill. Because of its importanceto 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 andpaperboard respectively is assumed not to breakdown. This is used as the baselineassumption (based on (ICF 1997; US EPA 1998).

• Lignin content (CS Lignin content calcs.) - where 78% and 53% of newsprint andpaperboard respectively is assumed not to breakdown (Based on worked byTchbanoglous 1993).

3 Results

Figure 3 shows the mix of materials presented for kerbside recycling and disposal forMelbourne, based on 1997 survey data. This is important because the savings fromrecycling in the following graphs are presented on the basis of the functional unity (i.e., forone week from one household in Melbourne). The total mass of materials presented at thekerbside for recycling and disposal is 6.6 kg per household per week consisting of 4.1 kg inrecycling containers and 2.5 kg of recyclables in garbage container.

Figure 3 Average mass of materials presented at kerbside for recycling and disposalper typical Melbourne household per week.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

New

sprin

t

Pape

r &B

oard LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PET

HD

PE

PVC

Mix

edPl

astic

s

mas

s pre

sent

ed a

t ker

bsid

e (k

g) p

er h

ouse

hold

per

wee

k

Recycling

Landfill


Executive Summary 8

The magnitude of savings illustrated in the results and graphs throughout this report areinfluenced by the quantity of each material in the overall total of materials presented atkerbside.

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 perweek

Impact Unit Totals EquivalenceGreenhouse kg CO2 eq. 3.2 This equates to 0.25% of a households total

allocation of greenhouse gases from allsources.

Embodied energy MJ 32.2 9 kWh or enough energy to run a 40 Wattlight bulb for 72 hours. (Accounting forelectricity losses).

Smog precursors g C2H4 eq. 1.3 Equivalent to the emission from 4.5 kms oftravel 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 60% to

90% of the product placed for recycling willremain 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 organicfractions (it is assumed that 55% of the methane generated in landfill is captured forelectricity generation). The remainder of the greenhouse savings are due to the avoidance ofvirgin 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 degradationscenario and the carbons sequestration scenarios are different for the paper fibre productsonly (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 whenlower degradation rates are assumed (see Figure 5). Working counter to this reduction ofgreenhouse gases from methane generation, there is an increase in CO2 emissions with theCS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenarios. This is due to the reducedpower generation from methane (due to the lower emission), and therefore less avoided fossilfuel based electricity generation (note that most Melbourne landfills collect biogas (methane)for electricity generation or heat recovery). A third mechanism with landfills is thesequestration of a fraction of the carbon contain in the paper. This carbon is taken from theatmosphere in forest growth, converted into paper when harvested and processed, and afraction 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 9

Figure 4 Nett savings in greenhouse gases from recycling per typical Melbournehousehold per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation.

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 degradeand 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 andthus not to be re-emitted (i.e., not released to the atmosphere). In Figure 5 this is representedas CO2 sequestered to landfill. For the recycling, this sequestration assumption lowers thesavings as it reduces the greenhouse benefits (due to less avoided fossil fuel electricitygeneration) of recycling versus landfill.

Ne tt Re cycling Savings (including avoided landfill)

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

New

sprin

t

Pape

r &B

oard LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PET

HD

PE

PVCC

O2

eq. (

kg)

R e cycling

-2 .5

-1 .5

-0 .5

0 .5

1 .5

2 .5

3 .5

New

spri

nt

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

CO

2 eq

. (kg

)

Landfill

-2 .5

-1 .5

-0 .5

0 .5

1 .5

2 .5

3 .5

New

spri

nt

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

CO

2 eq

. (kg

)

Full Degradat io n

CS (US EP A dat a)

CS (L ign in con t . calc.)


Executive Summary 10

Figure 5 Greenhouse Gas Savings from recycling (all materials) per household perweek for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation.


savings (top right graph).• Negative values = impacts.

Nett recycling savings (including avoided landfill)

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

CO2 CO2 (sequestered in landfill) MethaneGlobal Warming Gases

kg C

O2

eq

Full DegradationCS (USEPA data)CS (Lignin calc.)

Recycling savings

-5

-4

-3-2

-1

0

12

3

4

CO2 CO2 (sequesteredin landfill)

Methane

kg C

O2

eq

Landfill Savings

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

CO2 CO2 (sequesteredin landfill)

Methane



3.1.2 Embodied energy

Embodied energy includes all fuels used in the collection and reprocessing of the recyclablematerials as well as credits for energy consumption in the production of the avoidedproducts. In the case of plastics this includes fuels used as feedstocks in the production ofthe plastics. The results for the embodied energy savings from one week's recycling perhousehold are shown in Figure 6. The total embodied energy nett savings of recycling perhousehold per week is 32 MJ (based upon CS USEPA data scenario at landfill).

Figure 6 Nett savings in embodied energy from recycling per typical Melbournehousehold per week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation.



N ett Re cycling Savings (including avoided landfill)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

New

sprin

t

Pape

r &B

oard LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PET

HD

PE

PVC

Embo

died

Ene

rgy

(MJ)

Landfill

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

New

spri

nt

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

Em

bodi

ed E

nerg

y (M

J)

Fu ll Degrad ation

CS (US EPA d ata)

CS (Lig n in con t. calc.)

R ecycling

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

New

spri

nt

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

Em

bodi

ed E

nerg

y (M

J)



In the case of the other two landfill scenarios, the savings in embodied energy are 26.5 MJfor full degradation scenario and 39.4 MJ for the CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenario. Thereason for the decrease and increase respectively in embodied energy savings for recycling isa result of the recycling savings taking account of landfill avoided. In the full degradationscenario paper is generating more methane compared with the CS USEPA data scenario andhence more energy is recoverable. This results in an increased replacement (avoidance) offossil fuel sources. In the CS (Lignin content calcs.) scenario the landfilling of paper isgenerating less methane, and hence less energy which reduces the displacement of fossil fuelsources.

For the other materials and to a lesser extent the paper fractions, the embodied energysavings 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 andrecycled material, with the materials considered in the study. It must be noted that the actualend product (boundary) as shown in Table 3 for the materials differ. This is due to the factthat when virgin materials are replaced with recyclate material the position of replacement isnot necessarily a finished product in all cases. It may be a semi-finished material whichcould go into different applications.



Table 3 Embodied energy savings per kilogram in the production of recycled productas compared to an equivalent virgin products.

ProductRecycled(MJ)

Virgin(MJ) Savings Comment

Newsprint 33.7 50.9 34%

Product taken to the newsprint roll.Newsprint is usually a mix of recycled andvirgin material in Australia.

Corrugatedboard-unbleached 27.7 35.7 22%

Product taken to the production ofcorrugated board. Corrugated board is oftena mix of recycled and virgin material inAustralia.

Steel slab 7.32 34.7 79%

Product taken to the production of steel slab.Steel scrap comes from many sources andthis number relates to kerbside sourcematerial in Melbourne only. Steel is often amix of recycled and virgin material inAustralia.

Aluminiumingot 14.1 206 93%

Product taken to the production ofaluminium ingots. Aluminium scrap comesfrom many sources and this number relatesto kerbside source material in Melbourneonly. Aluminum often includes a mix ofrecycled and virgin material.

HDPE 15.5 75.2 79%

Product taken to the production of HDPEgranulate. Recycled product may have morelimitation than virgin. High energy savingsare partly due to feedstock energy in virginmaterial.

PET 19.7 81.2 76%

Product taken to the production of PETgranulate. High energy savings are partlydue to feedstock energy in virgin material.

PVC 7.93 40.3 80%

Product taken to the production of PVCflake. High energy savings are partly due tofeedstock energy in virgin material.

Glass 9.74 22.5 57%

Product taken to the production of moltenglass (pre bottle formation). Glass is alwaysa mix of virgin and recycled material.

Note: The material may not be a finished product but may represent an intermediate product where thesubstitution between recycled and virgin product can be made. For example, for paperboard the substitution ispaper 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 tocombine 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 smogprecursors by recycling are shown in Figure 8.



Figure 8 Savings in smog precursors from recycling per typical Melbourne householdper week for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation.

Notes:

• The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfillsavings (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 wastecollection trucks. Other sources include fugitive emissions and combustion emissions fromindustrial processes. For newsprint, paper and board, steel, PET and HDPE the cumulativeindustrial emissions from virgin production and landfill are larger than the cumulativeemissions from recycling and collection processes and, hence, there are nett savingsgenerated through recycling. For LPB and glass the industrial emissions are not larger than

Ne tt R ecycling Savings (including avoided landfill)

Gla

ss

LPB

Alu

min

ium

Pape

r & B

oard

HD

PE

PVC

PET

Stee

l can

s

New

sprin

t

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Smog

pre

curs

ers

(g C

2H4)

Re cycling

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

CNew

spri

nt

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

-0 .2

0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1

Smog

pre

curs

ers

(g C

2H4)

Landfill

Gla

ss

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

CAlu

min

ium

LP

B

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

New

spri

nt

-0 .2

0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1

Smog

pre

curs

ers

(g C

2H4)

Full Degradat io n

CS (US E P A dat a)

CS (L ign in con t . calc .)



the recycling emissions and therefore result in smog precursor debits. The reason for PVCnot being showing on the graph is due to the fact that the emissions from the two sources arebasically equal.



3.1.4 Water use

In Figure 9 the savings in water use from one weeks recycling per household in theMelbourne Metropolitan Area is presented. Savings of water (based upon the CS USEPAdata scenario at landfill) is approximately 92.5 litres.

Figure 9 Nett savings in water use from recycling per typical Melbourne household perweek for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation.



N ett R ecycling Savings (including avoide d landfill)

Pape

r & B

oard

PET

HD

PE

PVC

New

sprin

t

LPB

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wat

er U

se in

Litr

es

R ecycling

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

New

spri

nt

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

-2 0

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wat

er U

se in

Lit

res

Landfill

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

New

spri

nt

LP

B

Alu

min

ium

PE

T

PV

C

Wat

er U

se in

Lit

res

Full Degradat ion

CS (US EP A dat a)

CS (L ign in co n t . calc.)



The savings in water use across the system are a result of reduced water consumption invirgin paper production and virgin aluminium production. Recycling of PET and HDPEconsumes more water than is avoided in virgin production (due to the washing processes inthe reprocessing system).

3.1.5 Solid waste

Solid waste results, in LCA terms, really refer to residual materials (in landfill and a range ofother emissions listed as solid wastes), but which may be disposed of in a variety ofmanners. For example, all ash from coal combustion is listed as solid waste, as is coalwashery waste from the washing of black coal. The actual management of these wastesvaries, with some of them being treated or reused in useful ways. Having noted this, thesolid waste results for recycling are dominated by the disposal of paper and packagingfractions being studied.

The savings in solid waste generation from one weeks recycling per household in theMelbourne Metropolitan Area is presented in Figure 10. Savings of approximately 3.6 kgare made up of avoided landfill of the non-paper fractions plus the residual solid waste thatremains after CS USEPA data scenario degradation of paper.

Under the full degradation scenario this residual material is the inorganic component of thepaper (between 7-10% by weight). Under the CS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin contentcalcs.) scenarios the solid waste includes un-degraded paper. This is shown in Figure 10 withwaste from newsprint rising 1.65 kg in the full degradation scenario to 1.7 kg and 1.77 kgper household per week respectively under the CS (USEPA data) and CS (Lignin contentcalcs.) 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.



Figure 10 Savings in solid waste from recycling per typical Melbourne household perweek for the three landfill scenarios for organic degradation.

Notes:

• The nett savings (bottom graph) values represent the recycling savings (top left graph) minus the landfillsavings (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 affectthe results and conclusions of the study. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for:

! Landfill gas capture sensitivity - showed strong correlation with greenhouse andembodied energy results - the more gas capture, the better the result for landfill, andconsequently lowering of nett recycling benefits.

Ne tt R ecycling Savings (including avoided landfill)

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

New

sprin

t

Pape

r &B

oard LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PET

HD

PE

PVC

Solid

Was

te (k

g)

Re cycling

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

Gla

ss

Stee

l can

s

Alu

min

ium

LP

B

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

New

spri

nt

-2 .5

-2

-1 .5

-1

-0 .5

0

0 .5

1

1 .5

2

Solid

Was

te (

kg)

Landfill

Pap

er &

Boa

rd

LP

B

Gla

ss

Alu

min

ium

Stee

l can

s

PE

T

HD

PE

PV

C

New

spri

nt

-2 .5

-2

-1 .5

-1

-0 .5

0

0 .5

1

1 .5

2

Solid

Was

te (

kg)

Full Degradat io n

CS (US E P A dat a)

CS (L ign in con t . calc .)



! Reprocessing yield sensitivity - very strong effect on recycling benefits - higher yieldresults 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 recyclingsystem efficiency is improved, with lower transport emissions per tonne of materialscollected and greater overall savings per household due to higher yields.

! Household washing behaviour sensitivity - very little effect overall on water orenergy use on a system wide level, although, for individual materials, the water usein 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 andsubstantial improvements in smog savings for recycling with lower collectionfrequencies.

Overall none of the sensitivities tests altered the direction of the results, however landfillassumptions and reprocessing yield has the potential to change the magnitude of the resultssignificantly.

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 inconsultation with stakeholder groups, as being relevant indicators for the waste managementsector in Victoria. The environmental indicators and impact categories are: greenhousegases; embodied energy; smog precursors; water use; and solid waste.

The study does not include an analysis of indicators and impact categories for whichinformation was not sufficiently available. Thus, there are some environmental issues notcovered and these need to be considered when interpreting the results. The most seriousomissions are:

! Human and eco-toxicity impacts from virgin material production, recyclables andwaste collection, reprocessing of materials and landfill leachate;

! Land use and soil impacts, particularly from forestry operations in virgin paper fibreproduction and agricultural operations in wheat production;

! Local amenity impacts from landfill;

! Resource consumption and/or depletion; and

! Consumer behavioural data.



Taking the above into account it can be concluded that from the indicators that wereassessed, on a system wide level, recycling provides substantial environmental savingsoriginating from both avoided virgin material production and avoided landfill impacts.At a local council level, however, the magnitude of savings and/or impacts might bedifferent due to variability in system conditions. However, it is not likely that the results willvary significantly since the results are sensitive to end product of the recycling process, andnot 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, withoutcompromising the usability of the material at the end of life. This increase in totalenvironmental returns is from avoided products and avoided landfill, while alsomaking the collection more efficient on a per tonne basis.

• Reduce smog and other transport emissions from waste collection vehicles in urbanareas by using efficient vehicles, with either pollution control equipment, and/oralternative fuels such as natural gas.

• Maintain good landfill management practices particularly in terms of gas capture forenergy recovery, landfill capping and leachate control. Strategies for dealing withun-recyclable paper and plastic fractions should be investigated, particularly in thecontext 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 thelandfill degradation scenarios. However, the degradation scenarios for organic material canreduce the savings by up to 50% if CS (USEPA data) is considered and results in a negativeimpact, if the CS (Lignin content calcs.) is considered when compared with the fulldegradation scenario.

4.1.3 Embodied Energy

Most materials show savings in embodied energy, despite substantial energy credits beinggiven to biogas captured landfilling of paper based materials. The energy saving increasessubstantially if lower degradation rates are assumed. For liquidpaperboard however, a highfallout rate of material assumed from MRFs and in repulping, combined with energy creditsfor 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 materialproduction.

4.1.4 Smog precursors

Savings in smog precursors for recycling are found in those recyclables for which themanufacturing of the avoided virgin product features substantial emissions for smogprecursors in urban areas. Plastics generally fall into this category, as do the metals, and, toa lesser extent, newsprint and paperboard. For LPB and glass the smog emissions fromrecyclables collection are not offset by savings in avoided virgin products manufacturingand, hence, there is a nett environmental impact in smog precursors when recycling thesefractions.



4.1.5 Water use

Savings in water use are found in paper, newsprint, aluminium, glass, PVC and steel canrecycling. For PET and HDPE recycling, water use (due to washing the collected plastics) ishigher than water use in avoided virgin plastic production. For liquidpaperboard there are nowater savings but potentially a small water deficit. This is largely due to low pulpingefficiencies, 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 assolid waste, is not clear. However, the avoidance of recyclables being disposed in landfilldoes 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 impactsaving 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 inlandfills 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 iscollection and combusted for electricity generation; and

! Greenhouse savings when carbon stored in paper fibre is placed in landfill andassumed 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 oflandfill systems and degradation of organic waste fractions, and also the long time framesinvolved.

4.1.8 Recycling Yields

Fallout of the material throughout the recycling system generally reduces the benefitpotentially available. Improvement in these yields, both at kerbside and in reprocessing, willfurther improve the impact savings for recycling.

4.1.9 Collection frequencies

Reducing collection frequency has the ability to reduce smog and energy impacts fromcollection, and thus improves the total savings for recycling. However, yields of recyclablesfrom householders need to be maintained (or increased) when moving to lower frequenciesto avoid loss of impact savings.

4.1.10 Regional centre recycling

Recycling in regional centres has some additional impacts in transport to market, howeverthere 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, itis recommended each area to be looked at on an individual basis.



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 whilemaintaining or improving the quality of the materials set out. New materials such asPolyproplene maybe included when market conditions are appropriate, as some additionalenvironmental 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 maintainedand encouraged.

4.2.1.3 Remote recycling

The study looked at a large regional centre (Bendigo) and found that recycling still generatedsubstantial environmental savings. To extend this understanding, a study on three remoterecycling areas, (e.g., Mildura, East Gippsland and Glenelg) should be undertaken todetermine 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 organicmaterials. This is important in looking at a more complex and integrated waste managementoperation such as composting and energy recovery.

4.2.1.5 Energy recovery

The most competitive energy recovery technology currently available should be assessedalongside the traditional recycling technologies to aid in the debate regarding thesetechnologies.

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 areinvestigating the (avoided) environmental impacts of recycling versus landfill for sixcouncils in New South Wales. The results of this study will be available early 2001. It isrecommended to investigate the viability, and respectively the sensitivity of the result of theVictorian 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 individuallocations and management practices. Testing the environmental performance of the averagepractices has been the task of this study. The time and cost of this study are too onerous tobe undertaken for each location or situation, however the outcomes of the study provide thebase information to produce an environmental decision making tool for waste managementand recycling in Victoria.



It is recommended to develop and implement a centralised "decision support service"regarding environmental impacts of consumer waste management. This would support Stateand local government policy development and waste management strategy development ofother stakeholders.

4.2.2.3 Product specific assessments

This project has dealt with paper and packaging as one homogenous material mix. Oneconsequence of the material-based approach is that product strategies, such as reuse and lightweighting, cannot be meaningfully included as waste management strategies. Thebackground data on how materials are managed in recycling and landfill now allows forother product specific assessments.

It is recommended to consider the comparative study of alternative packaging productstrategies, taking into account the outcomes of this study in order to identify environmentallyoptimum strategies for packaging waste minimisation (e.g., with respect to the NationalPackaging Covenant). It is also recommended to use the developed methodology, as well asoutcomes, to expand the study to other domestic waste components such as organic,hazardous and other household waste. The inclusion of event, commercial and industrialwaste 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, acomparison with alternative waste management practices is now feasible due to thesignificant amount of information collected in this study. A comparison, particularly betweenmaterial recycling and waste-to-energy practices, could be of great benefit in order to exploreoptions to meet national reduction targets on waste to landfill.

It is recommended to use the outcomes of this study to evaluate the environmental feasibilityof alternative domestic waste management practices, for which the results of this study canservice as a benchmark.

stage 2 report for life cycle assessment for paper and ...s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/... · a...

Documents