‘89.: :3... a .1“: ,- -..‘. ‘ . A: , .-
\ - ' A» .u‘
- my. 0.; \n. . "' A...» ‘7 .%.Tr' “ ‘,...a , , _ a
.. .. “'1‘” . , ._ 1»;
tr.“ , . “1. hr. “17 - . ‘ ‘

:rz-z'.‘ ‘ ' d
‘ ‘

655m; .
ms:
J!

-
$1}, ‘3

. L‘ It. w_
..; 3.3.9. 4‘1: v. '-

V' lv
'1-

u
f

I'.

, wa-

.L,«

. w .
.m,
' Laws"
anl
.

, Mag-'1‘

3" 1" A
‘ .- 375 21:.
. 219;.“ 7
17'. ' .7

~ .

“03-”{3

.s‘ “.5
5.; ‘u VJ:
P

It.
r.

d
$17k:
... ..
..J "3‘ V‘

«3...! »

’ 1,"
5%
‘ . 4.442..

,"; tut. ‘
Aa‘}?—.~,0 ... :1 ..-

2. 4g; .
q.

. :8

11“" 733.2,“?

m. yaw
I fut?“

r
nan

-méw‘
’1.
.. 5 4‘1

 

 

.

.v ..

{-23.33
.2 :u

-mv ..—
Y n. 4"A

r???

,-...

.V .1“.
WV «My
"xvi
3.3

a;

xc,
"- Id :11»

a with; W?» ”‘4:
"=3“- i5??? ‘

1“ ,_

.37: 3"..{4'y
.3351.
a; “a; ’5“:
' ‘1 ..J.
.1.§f2‘.:~‘;5:3~;.$;§;' ..z
.

«a

A . . .
o ‘ ..p-o , ‘
‘3, uncut“:
. .u . .
M ’ ‘

1"
.9":

v ‘3 a); 193K 3.:k.
a? g.‘ as!" 5.1.
--Luale’Eg‘1W

:‘Ti"7'":.§.\ v» 'wlv.

“
'1 ‘ if?
m ,
@éf’”
L

..
JENA‘CyK “
4“! “I“? ‘

.1: u
3;!
got: ‘
. .3130“ " , ,
’“ “' 71:93.13.
..1 5:35;: 1%

Jr—v .v
... ..

, _. w‘
.3523 5:17;; 1
. , ... .. .
"f

"xzrg'EWr‘fff‘i "x
"gals.” fig") ". '
" ' ‘31? . .

.0».
Atvl

 

 

SLITY LIBRARIE

||l|l|ll||l|llllllllllllllllllllHillllll Ill! Illllllll

3 1293 0090

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Solid Waste Integrated

Packaging Evaluation System

presented by

Brian Peter Saputo

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degree in Packaqinq

”14¢sz

Major professor

Date 5/221/10/

0-7539 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY 1
MIchlgan State
Unlverelty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l Ifll J

MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEqueI Opportunity Institution
cha-ot

 

 

SOUD WASTE INTEGRATED
PACKAGING EVALUATION SYSTEM

BY

Brian Peter Saputo

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1991

 

Th‘l

 

I Foerl...‘ El“

dakh‘. “

63.; £0- 7 7

ABSTRACT

SOUD WASTE INTEGRATED
PACKAGING EVALUATION SYSTEM

By

Brian Peter Saputo

This thesis develops a model to determine the volume of waste material a
package contributes to the solid waste stream. This model, SWIPES-Solid
Waste Integrated Packaging Evaluation System—is designed to be used by
industry professionals as a decision making tool when designing a package.
The model was designed on a volume basis and uses a derived unit of
measure called a “swipe" which is used to quantify all the variables. These
include package volume. number of uses, compaction density. recycling rate,
recycled content of package. combustion, package performance. composting,

and manufacturing scrap.

Dedicated to Caris Jean Palmer,
the one person who inspires me the most.
Thanks for believing in me.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the members of my committee:
Chairperson Dr. Susan Selke, and Dr. Theron Downes of the School of
Packaging, Dr. Cynthia Fridgen of the Department of Resource Development,
and Mr. Dennis Young of Lansmont Corporation. This thesis would not have

been possible without the expertise and understanding of these people.

Most importantly, I would like to thank my family: my father and mother,

Pete and Diane, my sister Meg, and my brother Mike. There support, both

emotionally and financially, helped me accomplished my goals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I ............................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1
THE PROBLEM .................................. 2
PACKAGING .................................... 3
Containment ................................ 3
Protection ................................. 4
Communication ............................. 4
Performance ............................... 4
SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................... 5
Source Reduction ............................ 5
Recycling .................................. 5
Combustion ................................ 5
Landfilling .................................. 6
SWIPES-Solid Waste Integrated Packaging Evaluation
System ................................... 7
CHAPTER II ............................................... 1O
MODEUNG .......................................... 1O
MODELMAKING .................................. 10
WASTE MANAGEMENT MODELS ..................... 14
CHAPTER III ............................................... 18
THE SWIPES VARIABLES ................................ 18
Package Volume ................................. 18
Compaction Density ............................... 22
Recycled Content ................................. 28
Recycling Rate ................................... 29
Combustion ..................................... 37
Composting ..................................... 42
Manufacturing Scrap .............................. 44
Protective Effectiveness ............................ 45
CHAPTER N .............................................. 47
THE FORMULA ....................................... 47

A ”SWIPE" ...................................... 49

The Model ...................................... 50

Arbitrary Values .................................. 50

The Scenario .................................... 52

Mass of Package ................................. 53
Manufacturing Scrap .............................. 54

Reuse ......................................... 55

Recycling Rate/Recycled Content ..................... 56

Composting ..................................... 58

Combustion ..................................... 59

Protective Effectiveness ............................ 61
Manufacturing Scrap Correction Factor ................. 62

Product Correction Factor .......................... 62

CHAPTER V ............................................... 65
CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 65

Uses .......................................... 65

Arbitrary Values .................................. 67

Future Research .................................. 68

APPENDIX A .............................................. 70
A COMPARISON OF TWO PACKAGE SYSTEMS ............... 70
REFERENCES ............................................. 83

LISTOFTABLES

TABLE 1 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States .....................................

21

TABLE 2 Density of Discarded and Compacted MSW ............... 23
TABLE 3 Comparisons of Five Different containers for

Delivering 1,000 Gallons of Beverage ................... 26

TABLE 4 Percent of Waste After Incineration ...................... 41

US'TOF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 SWIPES FLOW CHART ............................. 12
FIGURE 2 SWIPES ......................................... 44

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Before World War II, packaging was often thought of as simply a
necessary function. There were no packaging trade associations or consulting
firms and operations were not distinct from manufacturing. By 1960. with the
coming of television and the growth of advertising, consumerism began to rise.
Packaging acquired a new role and became a strategic element in successful
sales campaigns.

Packaging was now considered as important as manufacturing in the
product line. Packaging was essential in getting the product from the producer
to the consumer. But, it was more than that The mum-dimensions of
packaging caused one author to note that “the era of the ’growing package,’
had emerged. associated with such production innovations as ’disposable;’
’one-way,’ or single use products; and ’convenience Iiving’" (Blumberg and
Gottlieb. 1989). This new mindset and way of life. combined with the rise in
petrochemical-related materials, specifically plastics, created an explosion of

packaging waste.

W

Today, packaging has emerged as a significant contributor to the solid
waste crisis. In the US, residents throw away over 160 million tons of waste
every year. Residents of Michigan throw away enough plastic milk jugs,
disposable diapers, tin cans and other trash to fill the Pontiac Silverdome.
That’s about 11.8 million tons a year, or more than a ton for every person in the
state. EPA statistics show that packaging accounts for 27.6% by weight and
29.6% by volume of the solid waste stream (EPA. 1990).

These numbers have made packaging engineers and the manufacturing
industry targets of environmental groups. This opposition has led to new laws
and policies concerning packaging degradability issues. deposits. and taxes.

In the northeast United States. where the problem has reached crisis
proportions, nine states (NJ. PA. NY, CT. RI. MA. NH, VT, and ME) have joined
together to form the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG). They have
identified source reduction of packaging as an area requiring specific attention.
"Of particular concern are the actions which industry can take to reduce
packaging and packaging materials before the product reaches the retailer and
consumer.” (MacEwan, 1990) A Task Force of state officials was formed in
1988 to develop findings and recommendations directly related to source
reduction. 1

Consumers are becoming more aware of the solid waste crisis than ever

3
before and are showing a strong willingness to do something about it. They

are consciously purchasing more products packaged in degradable materials,
recyclable and recycled materials, and in general, more products considered
"environmentally sound“. It is the responsibility of business to respond to the
wants and needs of the consumer. This responsibility often falls on the
packaging engineer. Not only must this person design a package keeping in
mind the primary objectives of containment, protection, communication, and
performance (or convenience), but, they must also incorporate the idea of

source reduction into the design.

W

There are three broad categories of packaging that each require different
technologies and talents, 1) consumer packaging, 2) industrial packaging, and
3) military packaging. Industrial packaging usually involves large. heavy units
with no attempt to make the package appealing to the eye. Military packaging
is often highly specialized, protective packaging specified by the government in
great detail. This thesis is focused on consumer packaging, that is usually
small units in large numbers. Consumer packaging is often decorated and
aesthetically pleasing to the eye. (Hanlon, 1984) There are four functions a
package has to perform. They are defined by the Packaging Institute USA:
1) Containment for handling, transportation, and use. The basic reason for

the package is to enable product movement. Packaging allows one to carry

4
not only what can be held by hand, but products such as liquids and dry free

flowing powders, which are not transportable in consumer size units if they are
not contained (Abbott, 1989).

2) Protection and/or preservation of the contents in terms of shelf life, use
life, and sometimes protection of the external environment. Most dry products
need protection from moisture, and wet products are susceptible to loss of
moisture. Oxygen and other gases can also affect certain products, while some
need to retain gases (for example carbonated liquids such as beer or soft
drinks). The combination of the product on the inside, and the package on the
outside, must also protect against crushing from stacking and palletizing and
breakage from vibration and dropping, either in shipment or in storage (Abbott,
1989).

3) Communication or identification of content, quality, quantity, and
manufacturer, usually by means of printing, labelling, decoration, transparency
or package shape. The design and decoration must also facilitate selection
and sales. They must also meet government requirements for listing of
ingredients and nutritive value (Abbott, 1989).

4) Performance or utility which would facilitate dispensing and use of
products, including ease of opening, reclosure, application, portioning, unit of
use, safety, multipacks, and working features such as aerosol sprays, memory-
packs and especially provisions for instructions (Abbott, 1989). I

W
To understand how to approach the problem of packaging in the waste

stream, the issue of solid waste management must be addressed. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency and others are encouraging the
concept of integrated solid waste management (Selke, 1989). This concept
consists of a hierarchy of four approaches:

W. The optimum way to reduce waste is by not producing it in
the first place. Source reduction includes: reducing the amount of packaging
materials used, developing products with longer useful lives, utilizing reusable
and multi-use packages, and selecting the appropriate materials for the
application (Young, 1989).

Mpg. Recycling involves the separation and marketing of a waste
material (e.g., paper, glass, aluminum) from the waste stream so that it can be

remanufactured into a usable product.

mm. Incinerators can burn wastes strictly to reduce the volume of
waste that must be landfilled. Waste-to-energy incinerators also reduce the

volume of waste, but these facilities are designed to recover energy in the form
of steam or electricity.

Mg. This option involves burying waste in ”sanitary“ landfills. It should
only be necessary (in an optimum system) for items that cannot be managed
by the other three approaches.

This hierarchy suggests that there is not a single technology that will
solve the solid waste crisis. Each technology has its place in an integrated
system.

This thesis attempts to develop a system that can be used by industry to
help evaluate package design and the solid waste contribution of the
packaging materials. The idea for this thesis was drawn from a paper entitled
“Packaging Source Reduction Evaluation" written by Dennis Young of Lansmont
Corporation. Young (1989) developed a theoretical system that was "...in no
way held out to be factually based," but instead was intended to encourage
further study into the relationship between packaging and the waste stream.

The challenge of this thesis will be tying together the needs of solid
waste management with those of packaging. A system must be created that
will take into account all the variables involved in designing a package, for
example protection and containment, and the variables involved in solid waste

management, such as recycling versus landfilling.

The model is called SWIPES—Solid Waste Integrated Packaging

Evaluation System. Optimally, a model would entail all environmental
quantifications associated with package use and disposal. This would include
such impacts as energy content and waste by-products of the manufacturing
process, groundwater contamination, and toxicity. The following is a list of
some of the variables which would be included:

PACKAGE VOLUME

NUMBER OF USES
COMPACTION DENSITY
PACKAGE WEIGHT
RECYCLED CONTENT
RECYCLABIUTY
INCINERATION

TOXICITY

AIR POLLUTION
GROUND/WATER POLLUTION
PROTECTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCT UFETIME

ENERGY CONTENT
DEGRADATION
MANUFACTURING WASTES/POLLUTANTS
DISTRIBUTION METHODS

Thetaskofquantifying allofthesevariablesintotheforrnatofonemodel
is a very difficult task and is beyond the scope of this thesis. To quantify how
the air pollution an extra three ounces of aluminum, added to a can, would

affect the environment goes beyond the bounds of this paper. However, it is

not an impossible task and could be the basis for further research.

8
The goal of the SWIPES model is to quantify the volume of waste that

the package can contribute to a landfill. Volume was chosen as the basis for
SWIPES because it is a significant factor in the solid waste problem today. The
volume of waste, not the weight, is filling up our landfills. The following factors

were singled out of the above list to be considered as variables in the model:

vokrme - the volume of the packaging material not including the product
W density - the volume of the compacted package in a landfill
nunber of uses - packages designed for longer life (re—use potential).
recycled conmnt - used in making the package.

recyclability - using discarded packaging material in manufacturing of
new materials.

combustion - concerns include safe and non-toxic materials, renewable
vs. non-renewable resources, and whether the package was disposed of
in a waste-to-energy facility or an incinerator.

composl'ng - volume reduction due to natural degradation processes.

mamfacmr'ngscrap-theamountofscrap materialapackage

contributes to the waste stream as a result of its production. Can this

scrap be recycled?

protectiveelfecliveness-orpackage performancewhich reduces

product damage.

One of the first problems involved in a system of this type is the question
of quantitative versus qualitative data. In order for this model to work, each
variable must be put in quantitative terms. This system creates a unitary

measurement to quantify the impact of the package design on the solid waste

stream.

Onewayto quantifythe amountofwaste in apackage isto quantifythe
embodied value ofthe package. Both packagecostandcostofdisposal
(monetary) have been used in the evaluation of package design. However,
cost is not a suitable criteria for optimization if the goal is to minimize the solid
waste contribution. There is no direct relationship between the cost of a
package and its solid waste contribution. Even disposal costs do not
differentiate between materials. SWIPES will attempt to go beyond cost as a
factor. "Packaging professionals, used to the cost criteria applied to package
development, require such an evaluation method to assess both new
development projects and proposed solid waste sensitive alternatives to
existing packages. With such a system, a firm would need only the resolve to
address its contribution to solid waste" (Young, 1989).

Thegoalsofthistl'lesisaretocreateasystemthatcanbeused in
business, or to provoke the continued study of this subject until such a system
does exist. Many of the problems of solid waste management are just starting
to be addressed today and further study is essenfial. The reduction of
packaging's contribution to the solid waste stream is a worthy challenge for

today’s packaging professionals. This paper will attempt a first step.

CHAPTERII
MODEUNG

In the preface of Building Scientific Mgels, Laing (1986) says; "Model
building, although at times highly mathematical, is essentially a very practical
subject. The way in which models of the real world can be constructed must
be learned both from formal teaching and from practical experience with its
ensuing pattern of success and failure." This is particularly important in this
case because SWIPES is a new approach for dealing with a real world
scenario. The Solid Waste Integrated Packaging Evaluation System is an
attempt to create a system for package engineers to compare new package
designs, existing packages, or both, and determine how much waste that

particular package contributes to the solid waste stream.

W
The first and most important step to model building is a full

understanding of the problem. There are two types of problems; cognizant,
those problems we know about, and non-cognizant, those we know very little
about. In the case of a cognizant problem, we are aware of its existence (and

where the trouble lies. Non-cognizant problems present a lack of certainty as

10

11
to where exactly the trouble lies, although by definition there is usually an

awareness that a problem does exist in some form (Laing, 1986).

In order to make sure the analyst fully understands the nature of the
problem, they must explore all possible questions. They must seek to examine
the situation in every possible way and be continually considering new, more
realistic, approaches. This should not mean creating models of increasing
complexity, but rather a movement toward simplicity as a consequence of
greater understanding of the complications (Laing, 1986).

A useful tool to help visualize the problem is a conceptual diagram or a
flow chart. The object is to display the problem diagrammatically and to
indicate which variables react with others. A simple flow chart of the SWIPES
model is shown in Figure 1.

Burghes and Borrie (1981) describe model making in seven steps: 1)
formulate a real medel, 2) create assumptions for the model, 3) formulate the
mathematical problem, 4) solve the mathematical problem, 5) interpret the
solution, 6) validate the model, and 7) use the model to explain, predict, decide,
or design a problem. This is an oversimplified way to look at the problem, as I
think it was intended to be in the context of the chapter. However an important
point was made by the authors. It is important to "translate the real problem
into a mathematical one by making a number of simplifying assumptions. 1)

Important variables must be identified, and the relationships between them

FIGUFET SWIPESFLOWCI'IART

 

 

2558
age.

gm

 

 

 

mocxuac
ggzuu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

455T

 

 

 

 

 

.m- 55'

 

mmg
gantbiz

 

 

. H.549...
9E

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5323
, GEES.
wwgzoulfim m>=omboma~
M ,
H
Htxocm
3&5
H.540.)
2 Sfiegfil
s... an”?
gflgu ,
w m g m. m 4.
526568 .2“ .._ m m. J. 2..
r. m. .. -.. m .o _. Ti“;
gm...“ ox... . m . J_ ms;
was.» 350$

 

 

 

12

postulated. 2) The assumptions and relationships constitute the ’mathematical
model’, and generally lead to a mathematical problem of some sort. which is
solved for me relevant variables using appropriate mathematical techniques. 3)
The solutions must now be interpreted back in terms of the real problem "
(Burghes and Borrie, 1981).

Assumptions are necessary, especially with a system like SWIPES,
because of the complexity of the problem. There are so many different
variations of the problem that certain assumptions must be made to justify the
variable relationships and the final results.

The initial stage of actual model building is to assemble equations
representing the physical mechanisms that are believed to be applicable. A
selection from these equations is then manipulated to obtain a framework for
the desired mamematical model.

I"I'he different types of information available to the model builder will often
be incompatible, because they exist at different theoretical levels, and are
impossible to combine" (Nicholson, 1980). This is the basic problem with
SWIPES. All the variables are relatively incompatible. Volume is measured in
cubic inches while recyclability and package performance do not have any
standard measurement.

Assuming that the equations can be made compatible, the next stage of
equation selection can proceed. All equations that will have significant effects

on the model behavior must be included. Equations with unknown effects can

13

14
alsobelndudedatthistime(theycanberemovedlateriftheydonotfit). The

disadvantagetothisisthattheinitial modelwlll mostlikelybelargeand
complex. The alternative is to produce a simple model first and refine it as
necessary (Nicholson, 1980; Laing, 1986). This is the approach SWIPES will
take.

SWIPES will only deal with the volume of waste generated in the
packaging process. Initial concepts of the model included energy use in
manufacturing, air pollution, water pollution, etc. It was decided that the scope
of this task went beyond a Master’s thesis. SWIPES will take the first step
toward this model and hopefully encourage further research and formulation.

W

There have been many models created to deal with waste management,
from different individual facets, such as recycling, to an Integrated overall
solution. However, none have explored the problem of consumer packaging in
the waste stream.

The model by Dave Bumstein, "Development of a Computer Model to
Estimate Waste Disposal Costs" (1982), was created to estimate the disposal
costsforbothhazardousandnonhazardouswastes generatedfromcoal
combustion facilities. Historically these wastes had relatively low sales value as
a resource for recovery or reuse. Therefore, the incentive for recovery must

come from a combination of the price received for the material and savings

15
from waste disposal costs. This program was designed to cover all aspects of

disposal including landfill cell design and dimensions, risk assessment, quantity
of waste, and capital costs.

E. Jurek and ES. Kempa (1980) discussed how to develop a model for
recycling waste materials. The purpose of their paper was to prove the viability
of recycling using a mathematical model. The first step in any waste
management model, as discussed by Jurek and Kempa, is a dear
understanding of the waste stream. This depends on the volume and
composition of the waste. An example of some of the ideas a recycling model
should address are: a) technological improvements and manufacturing of
durable goods, b) design of specialized plants for the processing of waste
materials with the aim of reusing their components, c) optimization of the waste
separation and conditioning processes to make the separated products fit for
recycling. This model is strictly a cost-benefit analysis of a recycling project.
Some of the variables include flow of waste, transportation, material costs, and
the degree of recyclabillty.

In 1979, the EPA developed a "Resource Recovery Management Model"
to help regional, state, and local officials develop resource recovery plans. This
model was developed to address the characteristic delays in decision-making
on solid waste management issues. These delays are often attributed to
projectmanagerorkeyofficial’schangesand/orchangesin lawsand I
regulations. This model provides a systematic approach to charting progress

16
and maintaining the continuity of the decision-making process (EPA, 1974).

Adel A. Aly’s model, "Refuse Collection and Disposal Cost Model" (1978)
describes a large scale refuse collection-disposal-recycling-energy reclamation
system that had produced large scale savings In metropolitan Washington, DC.
A selected company had a number of independent facilities operating in the
metropolitan area. Refuse from these facilities ranged from very small amounts
to very large amounts. Each facility had multiple waste generation points on
site (up to 50). Nineteen of the facilities were to receive refuse service from the
company. This model was created to find the most economical approach to a
complex scheduling problem. Total cost figures were generated for five
possible solutions on the basis of five variables: cost of containers, labor cost
of hauling, cost of vehicles, labor costs of pickup, and disposal cost. The least
costly solution could be tried first and if the scheduling proved infeasible, the
next solution was tried.

Rafael Lusky’s paper entitled "A Model of Recycling and Pollution
Control," (1976) developed a recycling model that both includes the positive
direct effect of the recycled good upon the consumer’s utility function and
determines the allocation of resources between the recycling activity and
disposal. Three activities are considered: production of the original
consumption good, production of the recycled good, and disposal.

Almost all of these models relate the problem of waste management to

monetary costs. As stated earlier, cost is not a good criteria for optimization if

17
the goal is to minimize the solid waste contribution. There is no direct

relafionshipbetweenthecostofapackageanditssolidwastecontibufion.
Even disposalcostsdonotdifferentiate between materials. Thismodelwilluse

a system similar to the monetary system of exchange used today and define a
new unit of measurement. This will be explained in more detail in Chapter N.

CHAPTER III
THE SWIPES VARIABLES

The following is a brief discussion of each of the variables used in
SWIPES. Justification of each will follow. Literature was not found for all of
these factors. An abundance of information was available for some, while little

or no specific studies have been done for others.

mm. Volume is the most important variable in the model. SWIPES
is based on the volume of waste contributed from a package to landfill space.
However, most studies concentrate on weights of generated garbage. Waste
stream analysis in the US. has tended to involve only estimates, primarily
based on materials flow methodology. This approach, first developed during
the 19705 by EPA analyses, essentially involves an estimate of what is likely to
be discarded based on what is manufactured, rather than actual measurements
made at disposal sites (T raux, 1988). These studies relied exclusively on weight
parameters, such as tons per day, tons per year, and so on, and not on

volume factors.

18

19

The most comprehensive study found was an EPA-sponsored waste
stream analysis done by Franklin Associates Ltd. (1990) This is part of an
ongoing study to characterize MSW and is updated every two years. Most of
the data compiled in this study were from official or proprietary studies and first
hand research done by Franklin Associates, unattainable by this author. The
Garbage Project at the University of Arizona is where much of the experimental
work has been done. Materials such as paper and plastic which are resilient
and change their volume easily need additional study.

The basic approach used in the Garbage Project was to develop an
experimental program to measure a set of density factors for solid waste
components, measured in pounds per cubic yard. MSW volume (in millions of
cubic yards) was calculated by dividing the weight (in millions of pounds) by
the density (in pounds per cubic yard). An experimental program was worked
out in cooperation with the Garbage Project at the University of Arizona in order
to generate density data.

Chapter 5 of the 1990 EPA Update entitled, "Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste by Volume", discusses the results of that data and the
space occupied by garbage in a landfill.

"It has been realized for many years that the space

occupied by waste is also important Landfills do not get

overweight. Their space fills up. It would be more useful to

quantify MSW by cubic yards of space occupied, than by tons of .

weight. However, volume measurements are far more complex to

make than weight measurements. Volume measurements are very

contextual. A pound of paper is a pound of paper no matter
whether it is in flat sheets, crumpled into a wad, or compacted into

20

a bale. However, the m occupied will be very different in

each case. Perhaps the one-pound wad of paper will occupy as

muchastentimesthevolumeofapoundofbaledpaper'(EPA,

1990).

Another problem with volume analysis of waste is the difficulty in
establishing a typical set of environmental conditions to serve as a basis for
comparison. Every landfill treats waste differently; thus the difficulty is in how to
define typical landfill conditions. Different landfills achieve different levels of
compacfion and therefore different volumes for different materials. Over time,
surroundings may become more acidic, and gases in the landfill convert from
air to other gases, such as methane. This could possibly change the strength
and characteristics of some materials. Moisture conditions will also change
over time. This makes it very difficult to formulate a set of standard
environmental conditions to serve as a basis for volume measures (EPA.1990;
Erwin 8r Healy, 1990).

Volume of waste has become an increasingly critical factor for landfills in
recent years, since their capacity is primarily a function of volume, dependent
on the remaining available space. In "The War on Waste", Blumberg (1989)
says,

'The focus on weight in current waste stream analyses has

served to underestimate the importance of changes in the

volume of waste. For example, EPA analyses have shown that,

by volume, the paper and plastic components of the waste

stream... .have been increasing more rapidly than any of the other

categories. At the same time, these studies also found that

containers and packaging showed a slightly declining
percentage of the total by weight, not because of less generation

21

of such wastes, but from the use of lighter weight materials; for
example, the plastic soft drink container."

When discussing landfill space, volume is much more important than
weight. Compared to the volume they contribute, the weight of such lightweight
materials as paper and plastic is relatively insignificant in terms of landfill space.
Weight does not contribute to the filling up of a landfill. Erwin and Healy
(1990) say:

"...paper takes up 38 percent more volume than it does weight,

for a total of almost 48 percent of landfill volume.

Without adding other costly steps such as shredding,

paper cannot be compacted more than it is. Thus, its impact on

the landfill is likely to remain significant unless it is sidetracked

before getting there."

Table 1 shows the relationships between the weight and volume of different

packaging materials.

TABLE 1 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States
Landfill
Weight Weight Volume Volume
Materials (mil tons) (‘96 oftofal) (mil cu yd) (96 oftotal)
Glass Pkg 9.8 6.3 7.0 1.8
Steel Pkg 2.4 1.6 8.7 2.2
Aluminum Pkg 1.0 0.7 6.7 1.7
Paper(board) 21.9 14.0 57.5 14.4
Plastic Pkg 5.5 3.5 32.4 8.1
Wood Pkg 2.1 1.3 5.3 1.3
Other Misc. Pkg 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1
Total Pkg 43.0 27.6 118.0 29.6

Some:EPA.ChuectubeflondMunlclpdSofidWedehflnUnhedStet-ez1MUpdet-.

22
Paper and paperboard is clearly the largest contributor by weight and volume.

However, when considering the ratio of weight to volume, plastic packaging is
by far the most significant.

Volume of waste generated is the crucial factor in the SWIPE system. A
high percentage of packaging is lightweight materials such as paper and plastic
and the volume they contribute is rapidly filling up landfill space.

Package weight was initially not considered important to the SWIPES
model. However after further research and literature review it was decided that
it was necessary as a transitionary variable. Solid waste is generally
characterized by weight and costs of disposal are usually dependant on weight.
This includes tipping fees, fuel costs of transportation, and any other energy
costs. Therefore, because of the ease of finding a package weight compared
to finding its volume, weight will be used in the same manner as it was used in
the EPA study (as discussed earlier in this chapter). Weight will be divided by
the compaction density of the package which will result in a package volume.

W. This is the amount of compaction a package will undergo
in a landfill. After MSW is dumped in a landfill, it is covered and compacted
with heavy equipment. This removes much of the air and empty space that
could otherwise be utilized. Obviously, every material is going to have a
different compaction ratio. Similarly, every package will be different

Data on this subject was difficult to find. Almost all of the studies done

TABLE 2 Density of Discarded and Compacted MSW'

Materials
Pl . III'I

Glass Containers
Beer and soft drink
Other containers

Steel Containers
Beer and soft drink
Food cans
Other packaging
Aluminum
Beer and soft drink
Other packaging

Paper and Paperboard
Corrugated
Other paperboard
Paper packaging
Plastics
Film
Rigid containers
Other packaging

Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging

Density
(lbs/cu yd)

2800

750
740
670
185

1,015

EPA. W of M In the U351“ Updde. Table 43.

*Dboerdedbrmdeflebmyendcompoefing,beforecombueuonmdhndfillng.

Density

(lbs/cu in)

0.0600
0.0600

0.0120
0.0120
0.0120

0.0053
0.01 17

0.01 61
0.01 76
0.01 59

0.01 44
0.0076
0.0040

0.01 71
0.021 8

24
on this subject were done on a proprietary basis; thus they were not made

available to the general public. Studies that were found were only done on
mixed waste streams entering a landfill with no specific data on separate
materials. The only information found on the separation of the waste stream by
type of waste was in the EPA-Franklin Associates, 1990 Update study. It
summarizes the best estimates of density of 24 categories of waste, including
most packaging materials.

This study, done in association with The Garbage Project at the
University of Arizona, used a specially constructed machine which can compact
MSW samples to replicate landfill conditions. However, because of the
complexities of measuring volumes, lab procedures were not deemed adequate
to replicate actual conditions. Therefore, actual landfill samples were also
collected using a special system to maintain the compaction density existing in
the landfill. The results are shown in Table 2. Density is considered one of the

most important factors of SWIPES because of its direct relationship to volume.

m. lfapackagecanbeusedmorethanonetime, itwillstayoutofthe
waste stream longer. Reusable packaging is not found very often in the
consumer goods arena. The logistics of retuming a package to the
manufacturer undamaged make it a difficult task. In fact, almost 90% by weight
of all packaging is discarded by the consumer within one year of purchase.

Most packages are designed for short lifetimes, with little attention given to

25
reuse of that package (EPA, 1974).

Reusing packages has some positive environmental and economic
effects. These include a decrease in the environmental discharges associated
with the production of packaging, (e.g., air pollution and water pollution), a
reduction in material and energy consumption, and a decrease in the quantities
of solid waste generation (EPA, 1974). One industry that was fairly successful
in the past is the beverage bottle industry, in particular, glass bottles. Because
of the inert nature of glass, the FDA considers it safe to reuse after specific
cleaning. Today however, the comparatively small cost of using single-use
plastic containers has diminished this practice significantly. The results of a
study by the EPA on the benefits of a refillable bottle system versus single-use
bottles are shown in Table 3.

'It is clear from these results that package reuse has some definite
environmental benefits. However, there are some technological and economic
issues that will most likely affect the implementation and establishment of these
systems. Most of the uses for reusable packaging are in the industrial product
sector. These include drums, pallets, collapsible bins, racks and boxes. In the
consumer products sector, the refillable bottle and the reusable carton are the
only ones found to be in use. The reason for the limited use is due in large
part to the amount of product design and development needed to implement
such a system.

For a package to be reusable, it must be captured from the final user

TABLE 3 Comparisons of Five Different containers for
Delivering 1,000 Gallons of Beverage

 

 

 

10—trip
Environmental Impact returnable All Birnetallic One-way Aluminum
glass steel glass
Energy (106 Btu) 24 41 57 72 91
Virgin Raw Matl(lb) 1,538 2,029 1,677 7,515 578
Water Volume (10’) 11 38 34 37 16
Waterborne Waste (lb) 45 349 335 68 249
Emissions (lb) 111 157 264 328 381
Post-consumer
Solid Waste (fi’) 12 4 a 41 3
Industrial
Solid Waste (lb) 8 71 61 32 29
'All oorrtalrrere are 12-ounoe beer.

“Source: EPA, 1974.

27
and returned to the point where the container can be reused. This could be
accomplished by offering an economic incentive to return the package to a
particular location, much like the bottle deposit law, or by developing a system
of household separation with curbside collection. The Resource Recovery and

Source Reduction study (EPA, 1974) states:

“With respect to commercial or shipping packaging,
a system similar to those currently in operation might
be employed. At the present time, for example, the
distributors of commercial packaging to large outlets
often return to collect the used packages for reuse.
This type of system could be employed on a large
scale if reusable packaging became more
widespread. For either commercial or consumer
packaging users, then, it is clear that systems for
obtaining and returning the used containers would
have to be developed and instituted prior to the
widespread acceptance and use of refillable
containers."

As mentioned above, reuse is rarely seen in the consumer packaging
field and is most prevalent in industrial packaging. This is simply because it is
easier to establish a return system between the manufacturer and industrial
plants than between the manufacturer and the average consumer. However,
reuse does become more practical when considering packaging used to ship
the final package and product, for example corrugated shippers, racks, and
pallets. If reuse has any future in consumer packaging, this is the area where it

will be most acceptable.

28

W How much recycled material is used to make a package?
Using recycled materials to make new products helps create market demand
for those materials as well as keeping a percentage of waste out of landfills.
The recycled content of the products will be defined broadly to include any
secondary material derived from post-consumer residuals. This will include only
materials recovered from the municipal solid waste stream after consumer use.

The objective of using recycled materials is to increase resource recovery
flows out of the solid waste stream. These include 1) a reduction in solid waste
disposal costs; 2) reduction of environmental damage from solid waste
disposal; 3) reduction of environmental damage from virgin material extraction;
4) reduction of demands on virgin material natural resources (EPA, 1974).

A few things must be considered when using recycled materials. Many
times strength is compromised. Recycled materials may not have the same
tensile, burst, or compression strengths as virgin materials. In the case of
paper and paperboard products, the recycling process reduces the quality of
the cellulose fibers and their ability to bond together. The underlying concern is
with potential material and product performance attributes that might be
affected, the types of changes that could be considered socially or
economically "acceptable," and the types of constraints that might be set on
allowable degradation in product quality and performance quality. These are all

subjects that will have to be addressed on an individual basis by the package

29
designers. Another more obvious consideration is with the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA). The FDA has applied certain restrictions on the use of

recycled materials in conjunction with food products.

m. This is the rate at which materials are being recycled, which
depends on the recyclability and availability of these materials. Recyclability is a
general term relating to the relative technical ease or feasibility of recovering a
particular material from products that would potentially enter the post-consumer
solid waste stream. Recycling rates can be determined on a local or national
basis.

In order to include recycling into the SWIPE system, individual materials
must be examined. Some materials such as metal and glass are relatively easy
to recycle. Others, like some composite materials and some plastics, are not
recycled at all because it is economically and technically impractical. Every
material will act differently, in terms of stability, when recycled. For example,
glass, steel, and aluminum will remain highly stable. Each can be recycled
numerous times without any significant material damage and can be considered
just as good as virgin materials. Paper and plastic, however, exhibit significant
property losses each time hey are recycled.

One thing that each of these materials have in common is the concern
over contaminants in the recycling process. Each of these recycling processes

must make every effort to clean contaminants from the stock or it will

significantly affect the final product.

Materials will be broken down into the following categories and examined
separately: steel, aluminum, paperboard and corrugated, glass, and plastics,
including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high density polyethylene (HDPE),
and polystyrene (PS).

STEEL-The use of recycled steel is estimated to save 60-70% of the
energy required to produce steel cans from ore (Selke, 1990). Yet only small
amounts are used, because supply outweighs demand. Most of the supply
comes from home scrap, industrial scrap, and prompt scrap. Post-consumer
scrap from the municipal solid waste stream generates a very small percent.

Post-consumer steel in the form of cans can be collected at drop-off sites
or in local pick-up programs. Recent efforts have shown an increase in can
recycling. Contaminants are a concern when recycling packaging cans. These
include organics from coatings, lead from solder, and tin from tinplate cans.

There are four major categories for uses of recycled steel. 1) Remelt by
the primary steel industries; both in oxygen and open hearth furnaces both of
which have serious concerns with the amount of scrap used. 2) Remelt by
small localized steel manufacturers. Impurities are less of a problem because
smaller, electric furnaces are used. 3) Remelt by iron and steel foundries to
manufacture cast iron. Larger amounts of impurities are tolerated for noncritical
applications of the steel. 4) Copper industry uses steel scrap to recover cOpper

in solution resulting from the leaching of low grade ores (Selke, 1990).

31
The major obstacle for the steel recycling industry is demand. Currently,

supply outweighs demand. Because of all the other supplies of steel scrap
(other than post-consumer, ie. industrial and home scrap) and the limits to the
amountsmostmillsmnuse,steelcansarenotneeded. Newmethodsof
milling should be used more readily and more markets need to be explored.

ALUMINUM—Out of all of these materials, aluminum has had the most
recycling success. Aluminum cans have been recycled at a rate of above 50%
of the available supply since 1981. This success can be attributed to the
aluminum industry and bottle deposit laws. Using aluminum scrap in the
manufacturing process can have overall costs savings of 40% (Selke, 1990). It
reduces energy use, air pollution, water pollution, and it saves natural
resources.

Cans can be collected in various ways. Bottle deposit law states put a
return fee on the can when it is purchased. Other states have collection or
drop-off sites for recovery. Another option is reverse vending machines.
Consumers can return their cans into the machine, which will scan and crush
the can, and give them money or a receipt for the aluminum.

After aluminum cans are collected, they are usually magnetically
screened for other types of metal (l.e., steel). Next they are shredded to about
one inch in size. Dust and fines are removed to prevent explosions. They are
magnetically screened again and then pneumatically screened to remove paper

and other contaminants. The aluminum is now ready for the furnace.

32
While recycling of beverage cans has been very successful, other types

of aluminum have not been targeted. Other types of aluminum containers
should be targeted for recycling; for example, T.V. dinner trays and pie tins.
However collection of these will be more difficult. Bottle bills do not include
these containers and often it is difficult for the consumer to know the difference
between aluminum and steel. It will be up to the industry to push for recycling
of other aluminum containers.

PAPERuThe fibers in paper are significantly damaged and shortened
eachtimeitisprocessed becauseofthe mechanical process neededto
resuspend the fibers. For this reason, recycled paper is considered of a lower
quality than virgin stock. However, new methods and technologies are
Improving the quality of today’s recycled paper. Still the quality of the paper
depends on the percentage of recycled content, the quality of the fibers being
recycled, and the demands of the end user.

There are three kinds of paper that are recycled today to any extent:
corrugated containers, newsprint, and office paper. While corrugated is the
only one of these three used in packaging applications, the others could be
used for packaging purposes after recycling. Collection is by drop-off sites,
curbside collection, or recovery from industry through the distribution chain.

After collection, the paper fibers must be resuspended into a slurry form.
This is done by a beater or a hydropulper which works like a kitchen blender to

break up the paper. Screening and the removal of contaminants is also done.

33
Contaminants such as food wastes and adhesives can be a problem. If

deinking is necessary, chemicals are used to wash away the ink. Deinking
usually involves the loss of some fiber stock (1 540%) (Selke, 1990). The
mechanical action of resuspension is what damages and shortens the fibers.
As mentioned above, recycled paper is usually weaker than virgin stock,
however this depends on the percent of recycled content used in the paper.
Recycled paper is made on either a Fourdrinier or a cylinder machine. Some
systems can use both recycled and virgin stock interchangeably, but most only
use one type.

Using recycled paper has significant cost savings. It reduces the energy
needed for processing, it uses less water, reduces water pollution and air
pollution.

Recycling corrugated paperboard packaging has been done for a long
time. Supply is sufficient from large chain outlets and manufacturing facilities,
but it could still be increased.

Non-corrugated packaging is not recycled to any extent. It has not been
determined if these fibers are useful. Paper recycling is a game of supply and
demand. This market tends to fluctuate and must be stabilized. Packaging
paper other than paperboard is not recycled because of the impracticality at
the present time. Much of this paper is used in labels and multi-Iayer barrier
materials and would be extremely difficult to separate. 1

GLASS-Recycling glass first involves separation by color. Mixed glass

34
can be used for certain applications, such as construction and road-surfacing

applications, but the value is reduced. Glass is usually sorted at the recycling
center or drop—off site before it is broken. Three bins are usually provided for
amber, green and flint colored glass. Pick-up programs can be designed to
separate the glass or collect a mixed stream. A very small amount of mixture is
allowed for the production process for each type of glass (is. amber, green,
flint). Flint has the most stringent allowances. Only a very small amount of
green or amber glass can be present or the cullet will be too contaminated.

After collection and separation, the glass is reduced in size. It is
broken/crushed to increase its density and reduce the volume for shipping
purposes. The next step is the removal of contaminants. This process is called
beneficiation. The glass is now ready for the fumace.

Post consumer glass used as a raw material in making new glass is
called cullet. The use of cullet significantly lowers the production costs of
making new glass by facilitating the melting of the other virgin materials (sand,
limestone, and soda ash) at a lower temperature. This reduces the energy
needed, increases production, and increases furnace life.

Color-sorted recycled glass is primarily used for new containers. Other uses
include insulation, glass fibers, construction aggregate, and other building
materials.

Currently the glass industry is trying to meet a goal of 50% cullet in the

manufacturing process. This is a goal that can easily be achieved and even

35
sumd. The only thing that could hinder this goal is supply of cullet.

Industry needs to push for more post-consumer recycling. If a supply is
available, the industry will use as much as they can. New markets must also be
researched in order to assure a use for all types of glass, including mixed
streams.

PLASTIC-Plastics can be recycled but not all are. Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Low Density
Polyethylene (LDPE), Polystyrene (PS), and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) are among
the few that are recycled. Plastics are subject to degradation when they are
exposed to heat causing oxidation, chain scission, and cross-linking. Each
resin type will react differently to heat and the recycling process, but in general
the more times it is recycled (exposed to heat), the more its properties will
change (Selke, 1990).

Recycling plastic is much more complicated than the other materials
because of the wide range of different resin types in use. It is important that
these resin types not be mixed if the unique properties of the resin are needed,
however if the properties of a mixed plastic stream are desired it can be done.
Another consideration is whether the plastic is a therrnoset or a thermoplastic.
The basic difference is that thermoplastics can be remelted, thermoset cannot.
Most of the major plastics used in packaging today are thermoplastics: HDPE,
LDPE, PEI', PS, PVC, and Polypropylene (PP). Therrnosets can be recycled

(via grinding and using as filler or chemically altering the resin) but are usually

36
not. Most ofthe attention in recycling plastics is toward thermoplastics. PET is

the only one that is significantly being recycled, with HDPE as the second most
recycled plastic.

The supply for recycled plastic generally comes from two places:
industrial/manufacturing scrap and post-consumer waste. Scrap is generated
both during the making of the plastic and the product it is used for. Generally,
this scrap can be reused fairly easily however, contaminants can cause
problems. Scrap or post-consumer waste that is recycled into a similar product
(as the original product), with similarly stringent specifications is termed primary
recycling. Secondary recycling is the term that describes recycling of a
materials (or products) into different products will less stringent specifications.

Retrieving post-consumer plastic is done by either curbside pick-up or
drop-off boxes. Depending on the end use of the recycled plastic and the
machines used to recycle, it will be separated by type or commingled. Single
resin systems require that only one type of resin be recycled. While the
technology exists to separate a commingled stream by plastic type, it is not
economical at this time. The best way to do this is by collecting separate
plastic types. To aid in this, the Society of Packaging Industry (SPI) has
implemented a coding system to help consumers identify the type of plastic
being used. A successful method of increasing recovery rates is a bottle bill.
Beverage containers receive a 5 or 10 cent deposit fee when purchased and

must be returned to receive a refund. This method is only used in nine states.

37

Processing recycled plastic resins is similar to processing \n'rgin resins
except for the initial steps of granulating, cleaning and sometimes repelletizing.
Markets for some resins do exist in the US. (eg. drainage pipes for HDPE and
PVC), however large quantities are not being recycled at this time, except for
PET which is recycled at a rate greater than 20 percent.

Commingled recycling avoids the problems of separating the plastics and
provides a market for multilayer coextruded containers. Processing equipment
is specially designed for this type of plastic and because of the incompatibility
of the different resins, products are designed to have relatively low strength.
Usual markets include substitutes for wood and concrete. Compatibilizers can
be used to increase the strength of this product, however, research is still being
done.

There are many obstacles in the way of plastic recycling. Because it
cannot usually be reused for food applications, more markets must be
developed for each type of resin. They are light weight and high volume
materials, thus they are not economical to transport great distances unless
shredded or pelletized at the point of collection. Also, it Is difficult for
consumers to distinguish between types. The available technology for recycling

sometypesisnoteconomicalattl'iistime.

m. Waste volume can be considerably reduced by burning municipal

solid waste (MSW) to an ash form. There are two systems in use today:

38
incineration and wastcto-energy (WTE) facilities. Although these terms are

often used interchangeably in popular writing and conversation, the two entities
are technically very different.

An incinerator is a facility that burns solid waste strictly for the purpose of
volume reduction. Many incinerators, especially the older ones, operate with
"minimal fuel preparation and limited combustion control” (R.W. Beck and
Associates, 1988). lncinerators are often associated with old-style municipal
waste burners. These facilities were often very dirty and operated with little or
no pollution control. This type of garbage incinerator is quickly becoming a
thing of the past.

WTE facilities include many types of installations that incinerate MSW to
recover energy from waste. These include both large-scale units that burn up
to 3,000 tons/day and small, modular units that burn as little as 50 tons/day.
They either mass burn or use fuel prepared from garbage (refuse derived fuel,
RDF). In most mass burn units, almost all the waste, except for very large
items such as appliances, is sent through the furnace including noncombustible
materials such as metals and glass. With no energy value, these noncombusti-
bles lower the overall performance of the system. Additional problems such as
slagging and jamming may also occur. Bulk waste is very heterogeneous in
energy value, moisture, etc. making stable operation difficult.

The RDF systems were developed to help solve some of the problems of

mass burn units. RDF systems prepare the waste stream for incineration by

39
separatingouttl'lenon-bumablesandmbtingwetanddrygarbageasthe

system is fueled.

In an RDF system, raw garbage is shredded and processed to create a
relatively homogeneous product. This fuel Is relatively free of metals, glass, grit,
and other noncombustibles. The fuel is shredded to a small size and called
fluff, or densified into briquettes or pellets, referred to as densified refuse-
den'ved fuel (d-RDF). The use of RDF will increase performance of the facility,
but it will also increase the cost of processing.

The main objective of a WTE facility is to recover energy. A secondary
benefit is that it will also reduce the volume of waste being Iandfilled. Because
the goal is energy recovery, the burning process is carefully monitored and
controlled to achieve maximum efficiency, which lowers the amount of harmful
emissions released by the facility. Efficiency coupled with pollution control
devices can protect air quality and clean up gaseous emissions (Waste Age,
1985; Reindl, 1988).

There are two times when MSW will go directly to the landfill: when it is
non-processible, such as large appliances, and when the incinerator is not
operating. There will be times when the incinerator is shut down for
maintenance or repairs, about 15 percent of the time over the life of the facility.
When the incinerator is shut down, all MSW must be shipped to a landfill.
Adding the non-processible waste, 15 percent by weight, and the amount of

waste generated during shutdown time, 15 percent, we calculate that 30

40
percent of the waste over the life of the facility will need to be directly landfilled,

leaan 70 percent to be incinerated (Fridgen and Saputo, 1990).

This 70 percent will be reduced to approximately one-third by weight
(after incineration) of the ash by-product, including the water used to cool the
ash and prevent the ash from being blown around. This portion will need to be
landfilled. As an example, consider a community that generates 1,000 tons per
day (TPD) of MSW exclusive of recycling or source-reduction programs.

This process appears to reduce the MSW by only about 50 percent.
However, "because incinerator ash is significantly more dense than raw MSW
(1,500 to 2,000 lbs/cubic yard compared to 1,000 lbs/cubic yard), one ton of
ash occupies only one-half to two-thirds the landfill space as the same weight
of MSW' (R.W. Beck and Associates, 1988).

This is very significant when considering-the volume associated with
packaging waste (as discussed earlier). The SWIPE system must take into
consideration any reduced volume due to combustion, including whether or not
the material is combustible. Renewable resources must also be considered.
Can a material be recycled? Incineration will destroy any potential for reuse.

Other factors considered include associated air, ground, and water
pollution, energy required to incinerate the waste (Btu’s), and disposal costs of
ash. However, these factors could not be integrated into the SWIPES model
without considerably more research and knowledge needed to quantify these

variables and integrate them into the system. This is an area for further

41

TABLE 4 Percent of Waste After Incineration

Total MSW ................................... 1,000 TPD
non-processible = <15%> by weight ......... 150 TPD
shut down time = <15% of 750 TPD> ......... 127,5 TPD

directly to the landfill ................. mg

Total MSW incinerated .......................... 722.5 TPD
reduced to 25% by weight of MSW ........... 181 TPD
added water = 05% by weight ............... SLED

ash by-product to landfill .............. 211139

TOTAL AMOUNT OF WASTE TO LANDFILL .......... 4%.5 TPD

42

research.

m. Composting is a waste management technique intended to take a
large portion of organic waste out of the waste stream. The process involves
the biological breakdown (decomposition) of organic materials into humus.
Humus is a rich, dark soil with good water retention characteristics.
Decomposition takes place due to the metabolic activity of oxygen-dependant
(aerobic) bacteria and microorganisms present in all organic materials. Under
the proper conditions, including adequate moisture and aeration, these
microorganisms flourish and break down refuse into humus (Fridgen and
Rahman, 1990).

The most prevalent type of composting today is of food and yard waste.
Currently only a small percentage of the MSW stream is composted. However,
there are a growing number of source separation facilities that separate organic
waste, including some paper from the municipal solid waste stream. In
addition, many states are in the process of passing legislation to prohibit
compostables from the MSW stream.

Due to the decrease of landfill space, the increase in disposal costs, and
the high initial costs of incineration, recycling and composting are becoming a
viable option for many municipalities. "Clearly, the growth in the number of
projects over the last year alone shows there is serious interest in utilizing

composting to manage a portion of the total solid waste stream" (Goldstein,

1989).

Facilities built to compost materials from the organic part of the solid
wastestream arethemostefficientwhentheyare run in conjunctionwitha
recycling facility. First the recyclable and non-organic materials are removed
from the waste stream. The remaining organic materials can then be
composted. To prepare this material for composting, it is usually shredded or
ground to a small size. The following is an example of a state of the art
composting procedure at a resource recovery center in Fillmore, Minnesota.

"The moisture content of the MSW prior to composting is 31 percent.
Water is added, and the material goes into static piles at 55 percent (water).
Windrows (long piles; strips) of ground garbage are constructed on top of air
channels that are built into the floor and blowers add air to the windrows. It
takes about 48 hours for the piles to reach the desired temperature (about 55
degrees celsius). The material remains inside the building for three weeks, and
is not turned. After that time, the compost is moved outside and restacked.
Coarse particles keep the piles from becoming anaerobic. The compost is
screened after three weeks using a half inch screen. The left over of plastic
and nondecomposed paper is Iandfilled. About 25 percent (by weight) of the
composted refuse goes to the landfill" (Craig, 1988). The screened material is
then stored inside until the desired carbon to nitrogen ratio is reached.

Paper is the only compostable organic material used today in the A

packaging field. Paper is also one of the largest portions of the waste stream.

44
Presently, the field of MSW composting is a new and growing field and the

potential cannot be ignored. This variable is intended more for future use than
at present. Composting keeps wastes that cannot be recycled out of landfills

and should be considered a necessary element in solid waste management.

W. This variable determines the amount of wasted material
that will be disposed of from the manufacturing process. This is very difficult to
examine because it is so specific to the package and process being used. This
number does not include the scrap that is recycled back into the manufacturing
process but only that which is discarded. Many facilities will use their scrap as
additional feedstock. This can be found in all areas of material manufacturing
including, glass, steel, aluminum, paper, and plastics. However, in the
packaging process, this practice is not as prevalent. Many packages today are
made up of composite materials that cannot be recycled back into the
manufacturing process. For example, a standard brick-pack used for juices is
made up of paper, plastic, and aluminum foil. These materials are put together
and sold as acomposite material. The composite material isthen cuttothe
specifications of the package. Any waste from this cutting process is relatively
uselessandmustbedisposedof. Thecostandtechnologyneededto

separate these materials render recycling not practical at this time.

W. Every package is designed to protect a product to a
certain degree. If this protection fails, the product will most likely be damaged.
Damagecoststhemanufacturerandtl'lecustomermoneyandcancontribute
both package and product to the waste stream. This is one of the reasons
packaging is so important. Therefore, it is crucial that package protection is not
compromised due to environmental concerns.

Often, more packaging materials are used then are necessary. Package
engineers are using lighter and stronger materials to do the same jobs. New
technologies and discoveries have reduced a large percentage of waste without
compromising protection. For example, today, glass can be blown thinner than
in the past and can be just as strong. Twenty years ago, a glass bottle was
likely to weigh about 11 ounces. Today, glass bottles weigh about 9 ounces
and can withstand the same rigorous testing as the heavier bottles (Lingle,
1990). The discovery and widespread use of plastics have made packaging
much lighter and just as strong if not stronger.

Though the relative amount of waste produced by packaging has
decreased, the actual amounts of packaging waste have increased. This is due
to increases in the amount of packaging used and an increase in population,
thus increasing the amount of solid waste.

The protective effectiveness of a package will determine the amount of

damage to the product. However, knowing how effective packaging will be in

45
the distribution environment is difficult because many firms do not have a good

idea about the obstacles their products currently experience. Firms do not

have systems for managing damage information, and therefore they cannot
make as effective decisions about protection as they could if they had good
information.

This variable will determine the amount of damage a product sustains
throughout its life, from the manufacturer to the retailer. However, the
practicality of this task is something that the distribution field has been
struggling with for years. Many industries today do not track damage to their
products in distribution (Palmer, 1991).

CHAPTERIV
THEFOMULA

The model or system presented in this thesis is a first step toward a
practical, working system. There are many other variables and steps that could
and should be included at a later time. SWIPES is designed to be used by
packaging engineers to asses both new development projects and proposed
solid waste sensitive alternatives to existing packages. This model will be
designed so that it is easily adaptable to a computer program.

In the past, cost has been the main criteria used to assess a package’s
value. This analysis by cost, in terms of money, has often been complex. It
must include both tangible costs, such as materials and labor, and intangible
costs, such as goodwill and corporate image. The cost of packaging may be
thought of as the package cost, plus the cost of consequences of packaging,
such as product damage. Thus, as the job we ask the package to do in terms
of protection and containment increases, the cost of that package will most
likely increase. Accordingly, as the demands on the package increase (in

terms of protection and containment), damage should decrease. There is a

47

43
desired balance between these variables that package designers must meet.

However, the problem with this approach is that it doesn't consider the cost of
disposal, both monetarily and environmentally (Young, 1989). Most of the time,
the packaging supplier does not deal with the cost of disposing the final
product. However, with increasing environmental concerns, packaging
professionals are becoming more aware that this problem must be dealt with at
the source.

The problem with the cost analysis method is that there is no definable
relationship between the cost of a package and its solid waste contribution.
The direct costs associated with solid waste disposal are tipping fees, which
are the costs charged to dump garbage in a landfill. These fees are
determined according to weight or volume depending on the landfill. However,
these would not be a good measure because they do not distinguish between
materials. Thus every material is weighted on the same basis.

Assuming that there is a need to address packaging contributions to the
solid waste stream, then there is a need for an integrated evaluation criteria.
This system should assess the waste contribution of all packaging materials
used or proposed for a designated product. It should run parallel to cost
concerns, but not replace them. The linkage between this system and cost
concerns should be left up to the user. The system must consider all
necessary packaging. For example, a product is put into a paperboard box.
That paperboard box is then put into a corrugated shipper that contain 12 of

49
the paperboard boxes. Sixteen corrugated shippers are then stacked on a

pallet and stretch wrap is used to secure the boxes. In order to find out how
much waste one product is contributing, the contribution of the paperboard box
must be determined along with an apportionment of the corrugated shipper, the
stretch wrap, and the pallet In other words, one-twelfth of the corrugated
shipperand one-twelfthofone-sbtteenthofthestretchwrapand pallet.

The best way to approach this is by running each package type
(shipper, stretch wrap) through the system and then adding up the totals. The
model is titled the Solid Waste Integrated Packaging Evaluation System or
SWIPES. Following is a description of SWIPES and how it can be applied.

me:
In order to place all of these variables into one underlying formula, a

consistent unit of measure must be developed, much like the dollar is the unit
of measure for money. This unit is called a “swipe", denoted as s. This is not a
monetary unit since it meets only the third of the three requirements of money;
1) a medium of exchange, 2) a store of value, 3) a standard of value (Schiller
1983). Swipes is designed to be used as a standard of value for packaging

professionals to use as a comparative tool.

ELM

The SWIPES model is developed so that the user has the power to
personalize the outcome to a particular situation. The values that are input into
this model depend on what the user is trying to accomplish. For example, if
the package being analyzed is only used in the state of Michigan, then data on
recycling rates and incineration methods should be used from Michigan. If the
product and package are used nationwide, than national data should be used.
In some instances, the user will be asked to input an arbitrary number based
on the values of the user. This is discussed more in the following section.

Figure 2 displays the SWIPES formula and a list of all the variables.

mm

This model was designed with the Environmental Protection Agency’s
hierarchy of waste management as an underlying theme; namely source
reduction, reuse, recycling (composting), combustion and landfilling (Selke,
1989). In this hierarchy, source reduction is valued over reuse, reuse over
recycling, recycling over combustion, and combustion over landfilling as waste
management options. SWIPES is designed in the same way.

Throughout the model, the user will be asked to make decisions on
some values according to the situation and the user’s beliefs. These arbitrary

numbers, W, X, Y, and Z, should be based on this hierarchy. The user must

W

s = (mthdthU+fime,.,)](1-X.r,)(1-X2r.l[1-(Y<=)(1-e)]l1-(Z)(1-a)ll1+b]
1 + W(n-1)

 

+P+S
where:W_>_X;ZandW_>_YzZ

a = fraction of ash after combustion

b = average percent product damage in distribution

c = composting rate

dm = compaction density of package

d" = compaction densrty of product

a = residue after compost screening

f = fraction of scrap disposed of

i = incineration rate

mm = mass or weight of package

mp, = mass or weight of product

m, = mass or weight of scrap per package

n -- number of uses

P = product correcfion factor = b(swipes value for product) or
= b(m,,ld,,)[1 - (Z)(% combustible of product)]

r, = recycled content
rr = recycling rate
S = correction factor for manufacturing scrap

= f(mem)(X1)(r,)

s=swipes
W=arbitraryvalueforreuse(0_<_w,g1)
X1 & X2 = arbitrary values for recycling (0
Y= arbitrary valueforcomposting (0

5
Z = arbitrary value for combustion (0 g

51

52
make a decision on factors for the following variables: Reuse (W), Recycling

Rate/Recycled Content (X, IX2). Composting (Y), and Combustion (2). The
value for reuse should be greater than recycling rate/recycled content and/or
composting. These two are considered equals on the EPA hierarchy. Thus,
both of these should be greater than combustion. In other words, W Z X _>_ Y
and W 2 Y _>_Z. By doing this, the variables are weighted according to the
EPA hierarchy.

The user must also consider the individual circumstances for each of
these variables. When considering the values of these factors the user must
understand that a value of one denotes that this factor has no or extremely
small external costs to the environment. If a value of zero is entered, the
variable is considered of no benefit to the environment. For example, if the
user decides that composting is of little benefit to the environment, a value of
0.4 might be given to factor Y. If Y = 0.4, then factors W and X must be
greater or equal to 0.4 and factor 2 must be less than or equal to 0.4. These
values are completely arbitrary and are up to the discretion of the user. The
onlyconstraintsarethat W_>_X2,ZandW_>_Y2_Z.
mom

In order to simplify this discussion of the SWIPES formula, a fictitious
scenario will be used to run through the variables. In Appendix A, real life
examples will be run through SWIPES.

The package used in this discussion is a double wall corrugated

53
container used to ship a television set. The additional foam packing, pellets

and stretch wraps will be excluded at this point for simplicity. The container is
determined to weigh 3 pounds and the television weighs 35 pounds. The
container is designed for only one use and is recyclable, with local recycling
rates at 14% for old corrugated containers (000) and contains 24% recycled
content and composting is not practiced in the local area. Fourteen percent of
the waste stream is being incinerated in a waste-to-energy facility and the
container is 97% incinerable. During the manufacturing process, .15 pounds of
scrap is produced per container however; 96% of that scrap is recycled back

into the manufacturing process. Damage to the product is 2% in transit.

W
The first step of the model is to determine the volume of the package

using the mass or weight. Volume is defined as the amount of space the
package occupies in a landfill after compaction. Due to the lack of available
data on the volume of a package and the ease of determining the weight,
SWIPES determines the compacted volume using the weight of the package.
Weight in pounds (mm) is dividing by the compaction density in pounds per
cubic yard or pounds per cubic inch (d), giving the compacted volume of the
package. This number can be determined using the compaction densities
listed in Table 2.2.

The corrugated container (CC) used as an example weighs three

54
pounds and according to Table 2.2, the compaction density of corrugated

containers is approximately 0.0161 lbs/cu inch. By simply dividing the weight
by the compaction density, a compacted volume is achieved.

CC = 3 lbs/0.0161 lbs per cu in = s186.34

The answer is labeled in swipes for simplicity of later mathematical
manipulations, however technically it is in cubic inches. It is important to note
at this time that if SWIPES is being used to compare packages, the value of the

compaction densities must be consistent (l.e., yards to yards; inches to inches) .

W

This variable determines how much scrap waste from the manufacturing
process will be disposed of. This variable allows for the consideration of
incineration and recyclability of that scrap. Industrial scrap usually has a
different recycling rate than municipal solid waste, therefore this rate must be
compensated for. Scrap will be determined as §[1+f(m,/mm)]; where f is the
’fractionofscrap being disposedof(05f5_1);andm./mpk°istheratioof

scrap weight to package weight.

co = s186.34[1+(.04[0.15/3])] = §1B6.71

55
In the example of the corrugated container, the weight of the package

was determined to be three pounds and the weight of scrap to be 0.15
pounds. Of that 0.15 lbs of scrap, ninety-six percent will be recycled back into
the manufacturing process.

A correction factor is needed to compensate for the small fraction of
scrap added to the swipes value that will not be recycled at the OCC rate.
Since the recycling rate for this scrap has already been included as a credit,
later application of the Recycling Rate/Recycled Content variable results in
double counting, which must be compensated for with the S variable.

Balsa

Package reuse is one of the simplest variables to derive. The formula
used is s/[1+W(n-1)]. This formula avoids the problem of counting reuse as
worse than single use. Factor n is defined as the average number of uses
achieved. Factor W is the first arbitrary number in which the user must decide
on a value. This is a number less than or equal to one and is used to give less
than full credit for reuse if necessary. This is needed because of the
environmental impacts involved in reusing packages, such as some cleaning
costs and transportation costs. This is also the number that qualifies the EPA
hierarchy as explained earlier. For example, if the corrugated container is

designed for an average of three uses, swipes would be divided by three.

CC = s186.71 /[1+0.85(1-1)] = s186.71

In our example, the corrugated container only gets one use. This package now

"costs" s186.71.

MW
These two variables, recycling rates and recycled content, were

combined because of their similarities and their dependency on one another.
Recycling rates (r,) are defined by national or local recycling rates for that
particular material or package being analyzed. These rates help distinguish
between the percentage of the time this container will be recycled compared to
incineration or other means of disposal. Recycled content (r,) is the amount of
material present in the package that is recycled. This variable is defined as
§[(1-X,r,)(1-X2r,)]; where both factors X, and X, are always less than or equal to
one.

Two separate factors are needed to give credit to both the producer or
manufacturer of the recycled material and the user of the recycled material.
Neither could exist without the other, therefore the appropriate course is to split
the credit. Factor X, gives credit for waste reduction to the package being
recycled. The closer X, is to one, the more full credit it is allotted. Factdr X2

gives credit for waste reduction to the user of recycled material. As X2

57
approaches one, more credit is given to the user of recycled material.

The problemwiththis approach isapplyingthemtothewaste
managementhierarchyforrnat;W2XzZandW;YzZ,whereX, +X2=
X. Onesuggestedwaytoapproachthisistoallowx, =X2=Xl2. This
specification assumesthatx, andszillbeequal becauseoftheclose
relationship between recycling rates and recycled content. If the situation
dictates otherwise, for example recycled content is considered much more
important, these values can be manipulated. By conforming to all of these
specifications,XwilIalwaysbelessthanorequaltoWandthechancesof
double counting are eliminated. However, this is strictly up to the judgement of
theuser. Themodelwillstillfunction iinsnotlessthanW, however,the
values will not be weighted according to the EPA hierarchy of waste

management options.

CC = §186.71[(1 - 0.4 * 0.454)“ - 0.4 * 0.24)] = §138.13

In the corrugated container example, the container is made up of 24
percent recycled material and is recycled at about 45.4 percent on a national
basis (EPA, 1990). When determining these two factors, it is important to
rememberthathhould be lessthanfactorW. FactorWused inthe reuse
variable is .85. Suppose that recycled content is just as important as the
recycling rate. There is a need for markets using recycled materials in order for

58
recycling to be profitable, however, the external cost of recycling must be

accounted for. Not all the fibers from the recycling make it into a new box.
Some fibers are broken into very small pieces and disposed of with the water
from the manufacturing process. This waste water must be treated and the
sludge disposed of. This is an external cost to the environment.

Therefore, both factor X, and X2 will be 0.4. These two number add up to .80
which is smaller than the value for W, therefore all criteria are met.

Me

This variable is defined as the amount of material that is compostable.
Composting is one of the most difficult variables to justify, simply because it is
not done very often in the US. However, it cannot be ignored because it is a
growing field and has good potential as a future waste management technique.
As a result, most of the time this variable will simply cancel out and not affect
the outcome. It is assumed that this variable will become more important in the
future.

Composting is defined as §[1 - (Yc)(1-e)]. Factor e is the waste residue
left over after screening of the compost. This material is usually disposed of in
a landfill. Factor Y is an arbitrary number between zero and one, defined by
the user. Similarly to the reuse and recycling factors, this factor is based on
the values of the user. Zero would mean that composting is of no benefit to

society and is not a viable option, while one would mean the opposite. Factor

 

59
c is defined as the fraction packages that are composted. It would not be

appropriate to use national composting rates because these rats include mostly
yard wastes. Presently, in most cases this number will be approximately zero
because packages are not composted with other materials. If it cannot be
determined, simply input it as zero and this variable will be bypassed.

CC = s138.13[1 - (0.8 * 0)(1-0)] = s138.13

For example, the corrugated container is compostable, however we will
assume that composting is not done in the local area. Factor Y is another
arbitrary number which here is defined as 0.8. Because composting is not
done, this variable is rather insignificant in this example and will be canceled out
by inputing a zero for factors a and c. However, a zero should not be input for
factor Y because the next variable, combustion (2) must be considered. If Y is

a zero, 2 must also be a zero.

mm

The definition of combustion as it is used in this model will assume safe,
non-toxic incineration. This means that environmental concerns for air and
water pollution will not be considered at this stage of the model development.
The potential complexity of this variable is overwhelming if all the aspects are

considered including incineration vs. waste-to-energy (WT E) facilities, energy

60
content from burning, potential air pollution, and pollution from disposal of the

ash. At this stage, SWIPES will take a relatively elementary approach to the
problem. This will still accomplish the intended goal of the model, however
further work needs to be done in this area. These considerations can be used
however, when the user is determining the arbitrary value Z Considering WTE
better than incineration for example.

This variable will assume that combustion is equal to
§[1-(Z)(1-a)]. The definition of a is the fraction of ash left over after
combustion. This will be a number between zero and one, where zero is a
totally combustible material and one is a non-combustible material. Factor i is
the fraction of packages that are being incinerated. This factor can use local or
national data, however it should be consistent when comparing two packages.
In this case, overall MSW incineration rates can be used (unlike composting)
because most facilities are mass-bum systems that do not distinguish between
materials. This is also a number between zero and one.

Factor 2 is defined as an arbitrary number or credit for incineration
between zero and one. This is a value judgement dependant on the user
where zero could mean that combustion is of no benefit to society and one is
completely beneficial. This factor could also be used to distinguish between
incineration and a waste-to-energy facility, weighting WTE as more beneficial.

In our example of the corrugated container, we will consider it 97 percent

incinerable and 14 percent of the waste stream is being incinerated. We will

61
assumethataWTEfacilityisbeingusedandthearbitraryvalueZischosento

be 0.5.
CC = s138.13[1-(.5 *.14)(1 -.03)] = s128.75

At this point, the "cost“ of this package is s128.75 which can be defined
as a corrected compacted landfill volume per package. Still, there is another
factor that must be considered in order to disclose the total compacted landfill
contribution per package. The "contribution" of volume is defined as everything
that this package will contribute to the landfill. Many times this will depend on
the package’s performance.

W

Protective effectiveness or package performance is defined as the
effectiveness of a package in doing its job of protecting the product. It is
extremely important not to forget about package performance when trying to
design an environmentally sound package. Packaging must first protect the
product. Many times, if the package fails, the product will be damaged. If the
product is destroyed, then it must be disposed of along with the package
creating added waste. Other losses include transit costs, disposal costs, and

the cost of a new product and package.

CC = §128.75(1 + 0.02) = §131.33

Protective effectiveness is defined as §[1 + b]. Factor b is defined as the

average percent damage to product during distribution.

M E ! . S Q !' E l
The next step in SWIPES is the correction factor for manufacturing scrap

as explained above. This correction factor S, equals f(m,/mm)(r,)(x,).
CC = s131.33 + (.04[0.15/3])(.4)(.454) = s131.33

In most cases this number will be extremely small and will not show up in the
swipes figure. However, in cases where large amounts of scrap are being
discarded, this variable will make a difference. 1

In order to get a true value of the volume of waste the package
contributes to the landfill, any product discarded into the landfill must also be

included.

W
This creates a rather complex problem. In order to get a true value for

the product, it must be run through a swipes model. However, due to the

 

63
complexityofthistaskandthediffiwltyoffindingsomeofthevalues needed,

this may be impractical. The product contribution is likely to be small because
the reuse variable does not apply and product recycling rates are generally
small. The use of a simplified model can be justified involving compaction

ThissimplifiedmodelisusedasacorrectionfactorP,andisaddedon
at the end of the formula. This factor P is defined as b(product weight/product
compaction density)[1-(iZ)(% combustible)].

An exception to this factor is liquid products. When simply determining
the volume of waste from a product to a landfill, liquid can be determined to be
negligible. Any further development of the SWIPES model which looks at other
aspects of the environment, such as pollution and toxicity, must include liquid
as a factor.

The corrugated container used to ship a television set weighing 35 lbs
receives 2 percent damage in transit for both the package and the product.
The difficulty is in finding the compaction density for the television set.
Currently, the figures are only broken down into broad categories. In the EPA
1990 Update, all durable goods are given one value. It is assumed that these
numbers will be broken down further in the future. However, for now the figure
of 520 lbs/cu. yards or 0.0111 lbs/cu. inches for durable goods will be used. In
reality, this compaction density is much to small for a television set. This

causes a large increase in the swipes value (563.06). A more accurate number

64
could be used if available. Because cubic inches were used previously in the

model, it must be used now for consistency.

P = 0.02(35/.0111)(1-[o.14 * 0.51l01) = scans

CC = s131.33 + s63.06 = s194.42

In most cases, television sets, along with most other durable goods, will bypass
the incineration process. Therefore we will assume percent combustible to be
zero.

When running a whole package system through the SWIPES model, it
may include the initial package, a corrugated shipper, a pallet, stretch wrap,
etc.. It is important to note that the product correction factor P, only needs to
be run through the model one time. Once the product is accounted for, it
should not be counted again when the pallet or stretch wrap are run through
the model. Therefore P, should be added on as a final step after all other
components (shipper, pallet, etc.) have been added together.

This description of SWIPES was simplified in order to stress the
mathematical relationships of the variables. In Appendix A, two commonly used

packages will be analyzed using this system.

CHAPTERV

The SWIPES model presented in this thesis is a first attempt at a
practical, working model that can be used in industry. It is understood that
much more can be done to the SWIPES formula to add to its usefulness. The
flexibility of the model is one of its most valuable attributes. SWIPES is
designed to enable further variables to be added on to the formula without any
extensive reworking of the existing model. It was also designed to enable the
user to delete variables that are considered irrelevant or unnecessary. By
simply putting zeros in for unknown values, the variable will cancel out and not
change the swipes value. SWIPES is also compatible with almost any

spreadsheet computer program.

M
SWIPES can be used in various ways depending on the needs of the

user. The swipes value (s) should be considered as a unit of measurement

similar to a dollar. This allows the user to compare similar packages that

65

66
contain different quantities of product. For example, a user may compare a half

gallon HDPE orange juice container to a gallon orange juice container. If the
swipes value of the gallon container is s150 and the half gallon is s85, a
comparison can be made according to the product to package ratio. In this
case, the half gallon orange juice container holds half of the amount of product
but has a higher swipes value ratio. Therefore, the half gallon container costs
more in terms of swipes. [2(s85 half gallon o.j. containers) = s170].

SWIPES also allows the user to input data on a local or national level
depending on the need. If the user is analyzing a product that is only
distributed in the state of Michigan, data that pertains to Michigan should be
used. If it is distributed on a national level, national data should be used.
SWIPES allows ample flexibility when inputing numbers. This is necessary due
to the thousands of different scenarios and situations available. At this time, it
would be almost impossible to determine a constant value for any of the factors
or variables. However, in time and with further research, some of these
numbers may become more stable.

It is important to realize that SWIPES does more than determine the
"costs" of a package. It has the ability to analyze the package, the product,
and the whole distribution channel involved in the process. By considering all
the different types of packaging needed throughout the distribution channel,
including corrugated containers, racks, pallets, stretch wrap, etc., SWIPES

enables the user to compare the values of different package systems using

67
different distribution methods.

mm

Currently, there are various alternatives for managing waste: Iandfilling,
incineration, waste to energy facilities, recycling, composting, reuse, and source
reduction. While there is agreement that each differ in value, there is no
agreement on quantifying these different approaches. There is no universal
agreement that one method of waste management is 10 times, 5 times, or 2
times, better than another. For this reason, the SWIPES model had to have the
flexibility to be explicit to each individual situation. SWIPES allows the user to
explicitly input their values and further, to explore the effects of changing those
values.

Still, there is a need for some structure when making these decisions.
For this reason, the values given to factors W, X, Y, and Z are based on the
Environmental Protection Agency’s hierarchy of waste management along with
the individual situations of the user. This allows the user to weight the package
based on the ideas of reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, combustion, and
landfilling, with reducing and reusing receiving the most credit, while landfilling
receives the least. These arbitrary values are very much a strength in the
model. Allowing the user to tailor the model to a particular situation is crucial in

a rapidly changing field such as waste management.

W

Eachoftheninevariablesusedinthismodelwasconsideredtobe
necessary in determining the volume of waste a package contributes to the
waste stream. However, the SWIPES can be much more than this. With further
work, SWIPES can become a model to help determine the environmental
impacts of a package. In order for this to be accomplished, new variables
need to be researched and developed, some of which are listed in Chapter 1.
For example, a variable to determine the amount of energy needed to
manufacture a package. This in turn could be used to determine the amount of
air and/or water pollution produced by the manufacturing process.

However, this task is not an easy one. All the variables used in the
SWIPES model as it stands today are based, in some way, on volume. Many
of the variables needed to determine other environmental impacts are not
based in volume. This will require a major conceptual change and/or
expansion of the model.

Research must also be done on the arbitrary values. By better
understanding these values, they may become less arbitrary and more
standardized. This would allow the model to be used on more of a national
basis.

It is also possible that at some future date, SWIPES values may appear

next to the price tag on consumer products. Just like the now familiar Energy

69
Guides on appliances that indicate energy efficiency, SWIPES could provide

one more variable in consumer decisions.

This thesis is a stepping stone for further development on this topic.
SWIPES has the potential to be a very powerful tool in the decision making
process of today’s packaging engineers, logistics analysts, and other
distribution level positions. With today’s environmental concerns, in which
money is not always the central issue, another criteria is needed to help with

APPENDIX A

APPENDD( A
A COMPARISON OF TWO PACKAGE SYSTEMS

Two dissimilar packages are used in the section to run through the
SWIPES model. The two packages chosen are: 1) TIDE laundry detergent in
the king size, paperboard container; 2) Quality Dairy one gallon milk containers
made of high density polyethylene with a low density polyethylene closure.

Each of these products were researched to the greatest extent possible,
however some information was not available. Numbers that were not actual
data will be asteriked to show that they were not available and the best
possible estimate was made. The following page shows an example of the

SWIPES model and a list of variables.

70

 

SWIPES - SOUD WASTE INTEGRATED PACKAGING EVALUATTON SYSTEM

g, = (mm/dmm +i(m,/mp.,,)](1-x,r,)(1-X2r.)[1-(Yc)(1-e)][1-(le1-alll1+bl
1 + W(n-1)

 

+P+S
where:W2_X_>_ZandW;Y_>_Z

a = fraction of ash after combustion

b = average percent product damage in distribution

c = composting rate

dm = compaction density of package

dpf = compaction density of product

a = residue after compost screening

f = fraction of scrap disposed of

i = incineration rate

mpkg = mass or weight of package

mpr = mass or weight of product

m, = mass or weight of scrap per package

n = number of uses

P = product correction factor = b(swipes value for product) or
= b(mdewm - (iZ)(% combustible of product)]

r, = recycled content
r, = recycling rate
S = correction factor for manufacturing scrap

= f(ms/mpkg)(x1)(rr)

s = swipes
W = arbitrary value for reuse (0_<_W < 1)

X1 8. X2 = arbitrary values for recycling (0 _<_X, _<_1)(0_<_X2 _<_ 1)
Y = arbitrary value for composting (0 _<_ Y _s_ 1)
Z = arbitrary value for combustion (0 _<_ Z 5 1)

TTDE LAUNDRY DETERGENT (DRY POWDER)

The container examined is the king size (4 lbs. 10 ounces) Tide laundry
detergent in a paperboard box. The detergent is in the powder form.
According to Proctor and Gamble, the Tide boxes are shipped out in a manner
specified by the buyer. The method used here is the one Kroger uses. There
are 8 Tide containers per shipper and approximately 16 shippers' to a pallet.
This container is packed in corrugated shippers and stretch wrapped with 1 mil
low density polyethylene wrap to a wooden pallet. Table 5 lists all of the values
needed for the SWIPES model.

The Tide container is made of white lined recycled sheets and uses
approximately 2.8 square feet of material at 34 points.
Tide container weight = 4.6 lbs/pt. @ 34 pts x 2.8 sq. feet = 0.475 lbs
The corrugated shipper is a single wall C-flute RSC (regular-slotted
container). Approximately 11.5 square feet of material is used with a minimum

combined weight of facing of 84 Ibs.(200 test). The approximate weight of this
container is 1.5 lbs.

Tide me “nor

Package Volume

§ = (madam)

s = (0.4375/0.176) = s24.se

Manufacturing Scrap

-—- §(1+f*[m,/mp,,°])

= 24.86[1 +(o.1 [ours/0.43751); = s25.29

72

Tables KingSlzeTTdeContainer

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tide Container Corrugated Stretch Wrap Pallet
Shipper (LDPE; 1 mil) (wood)
a' 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04
b' 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
c' 0 0 0 0
an 0.0176 0.0161 0.0144 0.0171
lbs/cu
dpr .. .. .. ..
lbs/cu
e' 0 0 0 0
f’ 0.01 0.01 0 0
l' 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
mm 0.4375 1.5 0.6 40
(IDS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* signifiesmaactudvaluescouldndbefoundsobestposslbbestimmesaremade.

ARBIIR__ARY VALUES: Consistency was used throughout the model for values
W and Y. This scenario dictated no dramatic differences that would influences
any of these values in one direction or another in terms of environmental costs.
Value X (X1 + X2 = X) did fluxuate depending on the package. Both recycling
and the use of recycled content were felt to be of equal importance with reuse
for the Tide container and the corrugated shipper. Each package lends itself
well to the use of recycled material and should be taken advantage of. Also the
environmental effects of both were considered equal. The stretch wrap does
have the potential to be recycled into another product, however, no recycled
content is used. The pallets can be recycled into wood chips or other wood
products, however, recycled wood is not used in their construction. Because of
the environmental costs associated with incineration (is. air pollution, ground
water pollution), factor 2 was given a very low value.

Reuse
= §/[1+W(n-1)]
= 25.29/[1+.9(1-1)] = s25.29

Recycling Rate/Recycled Content

= §[(1 'x1rr) (1 'xz'eil
= 25.29[1 -(0.45) (0077)] [1 -(0.45) (0.8)] = §15.62

Composting
= sli-(YCIU-ell
= 15.62[1-(0.4)(0)(1-0)] = s15.62

Combustion
= §[1-(Z)(1-a)]

= 15.62[1-(0.2)(0.14)(1-0.03)] = 515.20

74

75

Protective Effectiveness
= §[1+b]
= 15.20[1+0.008] = s15.32

Manufacturing Scrap Correction Factor

M8 = i * (mesdlxoirl

MS = 0.1 [0.075/0.4375] [0.45] [0.077] = s0.0006

This factor must be added on to the swipes value. Product Correction
factor P, is also added on. However since this value is only needed once, it

should be done as a final step, added on after the swipes values for all of the
packaging components have been added together.

Total Swipes
s15.32 + 50.0006 = s15.321

In order to achieve an accurate measure of this products true
contribution to landfill volume, the corrugated shipper, the stretch wrap, and the
pallet must also be run through the model and added to the swipes value of
the original Tide container.

W

s = [1.5/0.0161][1 + 0.01 (0.1/1.5)]

 

1 + .9(1-1)

[(1-L4][454])“-[-4][0-3])l[1-(-4)(0)(1~0)]

 

76

[1 -(.2) (0.1 8) (1 -0.03)] [1 +0.008] + 0.00029 = §65.32

MS = 0.01(0.4/2.5)(.4)(.454 = §0.00029

Since there are 8 Tide containers per shipper, this final swipes value will
be divided by eight.

s65.32 / 8 = s8.165

etch W

s = [0.6/0.0144][1 + 0(0.02/0.6)]

 

T + .9(1-1)

[(1-[~4110])(1-[-2][0])][1-(-4)(0)(1-0)]

[1-(.2)(0.18)(1-0.01)][1+0.008] + 0 = 540.501

MS = 0(0.02/0.6)(.4)(0) = 0

There are sixteen corrugated shippers per pallet. Therefore, only one-
sixteenth of one-eighth of the swipes value are accountable for 9m Tide
container. In other words, the swipes value determined here represents one-
hundred percent of the stretch wrap and the pallet. When considering the
swipes value of only one Tide container, only a fraction of the stretch wrap and

77

pallet value is accountable. In this case there are 128 Tide containers (8 per
shipper x 16 shippers per pallet) per pallet. Thus 1/128 of the value is needed
for both the stretch wrap and the pallet.

s40.501 / 128 = §0.316

BEE

5 = [40/0.0171][1 + 0(2/40)]

 

1 -l- .9(10-1)

[(1-L4] [0])(1-l-21lollll1-(-4)lO)(1 -0)l
[1-(.2)(o.1s)(1-o.04)][1+o.ooe] + o = s248.166

MS = 0(2/40)(.85)(0) = 0

This value must also be divided by 128 for the same reasons as above.
s248.166l128 = s1.939

W

This value must be added on as a final step and should only be done
once.

p = b t (m "mum - % combustible of product)(iZ)

p = 0.008[253.97][1-(0)(0.14 * 0.2)] = sacs

78

T ' Value

§15.321 -I- §8.165 + §0.316 + §1.939 + §2-03 = §27.771

§

Quality Dairy One Gallon Milk Container

This milk container is made of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and the
closure is made of Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE). The gallon containers are
shipped by fours in specially designed milk crates made of high density
polyethylene. These crates are designed for approximately 20 uses'. Table 6
lists all the needed values for the SWIPES model.

Tables OualityDairyOneGallonMilkContalner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* signifiesmataaualvaluescoulanbefoundsobeapossibbestimaesaremade.

79

80

W: Value W was slightly lower for the milk container and
closure than the crate because of the added environmental costs of washing
needed to reuse these containers. Value X was the same for the milk container
and closure because of their similarities. Each has great potential to be
recycled yet, cannot use recycled content in their design. The milk crate can
use recycled content and can also be recycled. Factor Y was equated equally
with factor X because of the similar environmental costs and because
composting of these materials is not relevant. Factor 2 was give the lowest
value because of the environmental costs of incineration.

Mug

[0.1469/0.0076][1 + 0.006(0.02/0.1469)]

 

1 + .8(1-1)

[(1-[~41 [0-01])(1-[-2] [01)][1-(-6)(0)(1-0)]

[1-(.2)(0.18)(1-0.01)][1+.002] + 0.000003

= s18.627

MS = 0.006(.02/0.1469)(.4)(0.01) = 0.000003

Note: Since the product is a liquid it is considered negligible in terms of landfill
volume, thus, correction factor P is not needed in this case.

 

81

Windmtearsfip)

Im
II

[0.0061/0.0076][1 + 0.006(0.0001/0.0061)]

 

1 + .8(1-1)

[(1-L4] [0-01])(1-[-2] [01)][1-(-6)(0)(1-0)]

[1 -(.2) (0.1 8) (1 -0.01 )] [1 +002] + 0.0000004

= s0.773

MS = 0.006(0.0001/0.0061)(.4)(0.01) = 0.0000008

Milk

_s_ = [3.0/0.0076][1 + 0.006(0.07/3.0)]

 

1 + .9(20-1)

[(1-L45] [0-01])(1-[-45] [01)][1-l-6)(0)(1-0)]

[1-(.2)(0.18)(1-0.01)][1+.002] + 0.0000006

= s20.981

MS = 0.006(0.07/3.0)(.45)(0.01) = 0.0000006

This milk crate is designed to hold four milk containers per crate. Since
the value of one milk container is being determined in this example, the swipes

82
value for the crate must be divided by four.

520.981 I 4 = §5.245

M

_s = Milk Container + Closure -l- Milk Crate

s18.627 + §0.773 + s5.245 = s24.645

REFERENCES

Abbott, Donald L, W Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, Iowa, 1989.

Aly, Adel A., "Refuse Collection and Disposal Cost Model," W
Industrial Enginfiring, 2(4):203-209, 1978.

Bider, William L "Packaging Today, Solid Waste Tomorrow: Where Does It Go?"
Presented at the 4th lntemational Conference on Packaging, Franklin
Associates, LTD., KS, September, 1985.

Blumberg, Louis, and Robert Gottlieb. War 99 Wage; Cg] Madge Vina Its
Battle WM Garbaggz, Island Press, Washington DC, 1989.

Bryant, James W., "A Modeling Approach to Scrap Recycling," flesourm Policy,
5(1):3441, 1979.

Burghes, ON, and Borrle, M.S., Modeling with Qiffereflal Egugtjons, Ellis
Horwood Limited, England, 1981.

Bumstein, Dave, "Development of a Computer Model to Estimate Waste
Disposal Costs," Engineering-Science, Inc, Atlanta, GA. PP. 483-500,
1982.

Craig, Norman, "Solid Waste Composting Underway in Minnesota," ED9129-
vol. 29, no. 7, August 1988.

EPA, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United Statesz1990
Update," EPA/530-SW-90-042, June 1990.

EPA. WW. Office Of Water and Waste
Management, Washington DC, SW 768, September, 1979.

83

84

Erwin, Lewis and L Hall Healy. P a i ll W :Mana em nt
mtsgiss, American Management Association, New York, N.Y., 1990.

Evans, Brian W. "How Garbage Analysis Can Reduce Collection Costs,"
M vol. 26, no. 2, 1985.

Fridgen, Cynthia and Brian Saputo, ’Wastcto-Energy," Ask the Right Questions:
A Waste Management Initiative, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI. 1990.

Fridgen, Cynthia and Dilruba Rahman, "Returning Waste to the Soil," Ask the
Right QuestionszA Waste Management Initiative, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI, 1990.

Goldstein, Nora, "Solid Waste Composting in the US," flgclcjs, vol. 30, No. 11,
November 1989. _

Hanlon, Joseph F., H nd k of Pack 9 i rin 2nd Edition, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1984.

Jurek, E. and Kempa, E.S., "Modeling of Recycling of Solid Waste," Materials
and energy for refuse, proceedings of the 2nd int. symp., Wroclaw
Technical University, Poland, p. 10.7 - 10.12, TP 360 f. 158, 1981.

Laing, Gordon, Building Sciem s ModsLs, Gower Publishing Company Limited,
Aldershot, England, 1986.

Llngle, Rick. "Source Reduction: When Less is More," Prsgarg Fmds, May
1990. pp. 217-220.

Lufsky, Rafael, "A Model of Recycling and Pollution Control," Canadian Journal
of Economics, 9 (1): 91-101, February, 1976.

MacEwan, Alan D., From a memo written to Dennis Young, Coalition of
Northeast Governors, Washington DC. 20001 , April 17, 1990.

Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resourg Bmvegy and §ource
Reduction: Second Resort to Congress, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, US. Environmental Protection Agency, SW 122
112, 1974.

R..W BeckandAssociates, etal.,

WW
Lo ogl Govemmem Shguld Ask , kNational League of Cities, Washington
DC, Dec. 1988

85

Nicholson, H., W Vol. 1, The Institute of Electrical
Engineers, London and New York, 1980.

Palmer, Caris J., Managsrial Methods of mung Bragg giggly in
Qigribgtjgn: Damage Measurement, Anslfils' , gag W120. A Thesis,

Michigan State University, March, 1991.
Reindl, John. "Energy from Solid Waste," Extension Energy Committee, 1988.

Schiller, Bradley R. "The Macro Economy Today," Random House, New York,
1983.

Selke, Susan E. Packa in Bans T as r d if R uirem
gm Ws Going7, Lansmont Corporation, Monterey, CA, 1989.

Selke. Susan E. W
Sglgtjggs, Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., 1990.

Traux, Hawley. "Built to Last," 5mm March-April, 1988.

was Ags, Sugglemsnt,’Waste to Energy Report," Nov. 1985.

Young, Dennis. "Packaging Source Reduction Evaluation," Lansmont
Corporation, Charlotte, MI, 1990.