2. Agenda
1. Waste 101: the waste hierarchy
2. Life Cycle Assessment ─ rethinking waste
3. Examples
4. Tools and Calculation Approaches
5. What the State of Minnesota is doing

3. Waste Management Hierarchy

4. 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

5. 1970 1976 1982 1986
• Barrels & • Landfill • Incinerator • Hierarchy
Dumps liners

6. Your world in 1980

7. What the Waste Hierarchy
Does do: Doesn’t do:
• Guides discards • Guide purchasing decisions
management • Inform about
• Increase landfill diversion GHG, toxicity, human
• Help governments plan to health, or any other
manage discards best (from environmental issue
a 1980 perspective) • Conserve material resources
• Minimize trash (incinerator vs. landfill)
• Minimize environmental
impact

8. How Does Zero Waste Fit In?

9. 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).

10. 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.”

11. Life Cycle Assessment & Waste
Recycling
Incineration
with energy
recovery
Incineration
Waste w/o energy
recovery
Composting
Landfill

12. Life Cycle Assessment & Waste
Recycling
Incineration
with energy
recovery
Waste
Incineration
w/o energy
recovery
Composting
Landfill

13. Life Cycle Assessment & Waste
Recycling
Incineration
with energy
recovery
Waste
Incineration
w/o energy
recovery
Composting
Landfill

16. 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.pdf
Related slides courtesy of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

17. 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?

18. 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.

19. Results: Petroleum
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Million Btu of Petroleum per 10,000 Packages

20. Results: Natural Gas
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Million Btu of Natural Gas per 10,000 Packages

21. Results: Coal
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Million Btu of Coal per 10,000 Packages

22. Results: Solid Waste
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Pounds of Solid Waste per 10,000 Packages

23. Results: Atmospheric Particulate
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pounds of Atmospheric Particulate per 10,000
Packages

24. Results: Atmospheric Mercury
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Pounds of Atmospheric Mercury per 10,000
Packages

25. Results: Biological Oxygen Demand
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pounds of BOD per 10,000 Packages

26. Results: Waterborne Suspended Solids
Low PC Box/Fills
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Bags
High PC Bags
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pounds of Waterborne Suspended Solids per
10,000 Packages

27. 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.

28. LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive:
Recycled Content ≠ Reduced Impact
Example 2: Recycled vs. Virgin Paperback?
Jean-Robert Wells, et al., 2012

29. LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive:
Biobased Content ≠ Reduced Impact
Example 3: Books vs. Digital?
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-04.pdf
Kozak, 2003

31. 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.

32. 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?

33. Waste Calculation Tools
Input-Output
Financial Data
Analysis
Waste
Generation EPA
Totals
Generation EPA
Totals and
Management
WARM, NREL
Methods LCA Data

34. Waste Management and Remediation
Services (NAICS 562000)
Impact Category Emission Factors
Climate 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-06
Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS)
http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/open-io/

35. EPA WARM Model
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html

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

38. P&G Supplier Scorecard
http://www.pgsupplier.com/en/current-suppliers/environmental-sustainability-scorecard.shtml

39. www.walmartstores.com/download/4055.pdf

42. MPCA’s Approach
• Government is large consumer of
goods and services
• Have an active EPP program – but 13%
based on single attributes and some
ecolabels
• Using our purchasing power and LCA
to reduce our supply chain impacts

43. 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)

44. Reducing Environmental
Impacts of Purchasing
4. Stakeholder input
5. Changes to RFP language for
purchasing
6. Documentation of costs and
environmental benefits
(GHG, maybe others)
7. Expansion to other
contracts/product
categories

45. Questions
Madalyn Cioci Holly Lahd
Madalyn.cioci@state.mn.us hlahd@umn.edu
651-757-2276 763-229-6569