application of life cycle assessment to waste management christina seidel executive director
Post on 20-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Waste
Management
Christina SeidelExecutive Director
What is Life-Cycle Assessment?
LCA: Quantify total burdens of a productor project including everything from:
-upstream effects of sourcing materials, to
-downstream effects of disposal after the project or product is finished.
“CRADLE to GRAVE”
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
What is Life-Cycle Assessment?
PRODUCTLIFE CYCLE
Core Activity
S Emissions_ Functional Unit
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainable Design
Supportable, reliable decisions must be made between alternative projects or designs based on Real Environmental Consequences
Life Cycle Assessment now provides a broadly accepted framework for complex decisions involving direct and indirect (societal) costs.
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
The Common Link:Life-Cycle Thinking
Product / project evaluation including upstream and downstream burdens and/or costs associated with your project / product even if they are paid elsewhere.
Using Life Cycle Thinking to improve design and/or make a better decision between options.
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
History of LCA (1)
1969: Coca-Cola commissioned the first “REPA”
(Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis)
What’s the best pop container?
A re-usable glass bottle or a recyclable steel can?
(Note that both alternatives are long obsolete)
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
History of LCA (2)
Following the Coca-Cola study:REPA studies focus on solid waste and recycling
Mobil Chemicals, (plastics manufacturer), compared plastic meat trays vs. pulp trays
SOME RESULTSMAY NOT BE
AS EXPECTED !
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
History of LCA (3)
1975 - 88: Corporate Focus on product improvement
Companies applied REPA for product design.
1970's energy crisis spurred interest in “full fuel cycle analysis”.
What is the actual environmental cost to switch
10 million cars from petroleum gasoline to natural gas ? • Or to battery electric ? • Or to synthetic fuel?
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
History of LCA (4)
1990 : LCA is BornSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) : “Life-Cycle Assessment” (LCA)
Emphasis on life cycle thinking for new chemicals … Resources, Manufacture, Deployment, Use, Disposal, Fate
History of LCA (5)
Complexity of LCA work and data scarcity led to a desire for standards.
1994: Canadians were involved early, leading to …
CSA Z760-94 Life Cycle Assessment
CSA PLUS 1107 User's Guide to Life Cycle Assessment: Conceptual LCA in Practice
Credit: Dr. David Checkel
History of LCA (6)
ISO added LCA to their series of environmental standards …
1997 ISO 14040: LCA - Principles and framework
11 pages with two references
1998 ISO 14041: LCA - Goal & Scope Def. and Inventory Analysis
2000 ISO 14042: LCA - Life Cycle Impact Assessment
2000 ISO 14043: LCA - Life Cycle Interpretation
2000 ISO 14049: LCA - Examples of ApplicationCredit: Dr. David Checkel
LCA Outputs – Paper Recycling
Input Unit Quantity
Recyclable paper unsorted kg 1.30E+03
Diesel kg 7.74E+00
Fuel (Oil) kg 1.45E-02
Electrical Energy kWh 3.64E+00
Output
Recyclable paper sorted kg 1.21E+03
Cardboard packaging kg 8.80E+01
Dust ppm 2.34E+00
LCA Outputs – Paper Recycling Thus you have to consider the emissions coming from that 3.64 kWH electricity consumption so based on that inventorised process for electricity production ( Ökoinventare für Verpackungen; Band I und II; Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 250/I. Switzerland) , the calculations are as follows:
Energie Source Unit Petroloeum Gas Bituminous Coal Lignite Hydro [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh]Primary Energy Carriers Raw Lignite for delivery kg 3.21E-03 8.71E-04 5.96E-03 1.48E+00 0.00E+00Crude gas Nm³ 1.39E-02 2.41E-01 7.14E-03 1.30E-03 0.00E+00Crude Bituminous Coal for preparation kg 2.42E-03 5.51E-02 6.13E-01 4.41E-03 0.00E+00Crude Oil from Borehole kg 2.75E-01 6.22E-04 8.47E-03 1.69E-03 0.00E+00Uranium from Ore g 2.18E-04 5.92E-05 4.05E-04 3.99E-04 0.00E+00Potential Hydro Energy kWh 3.92E-03 1.06E-03 7.25E-03 7.14E-03 1.31E+00Wood kg 2.37E-05 6.71E-04 5.94E-03 4.33E-05 0.00E+00 kWh 2.69E+00 1.93E+00 2.53E+00 3.03E+00 3.06E-01 Air Emissions Dust/PM g 3.76E-01 6.52E-02 1.73E+00 2.02E+00 0.00E+00Benzol g 2.51E-03 4.13E-03 1.31E-04 3.31E-05 0.00E+00PAH Polyzyklische Arom. KW g 1.90E-05 9.97E-05 1.37E-05 1.26E-05 0.00E+00Aromatische KW g 6.24E-03 2.03E-03 1.29E-02 1.51E-02 0.00E+00Halon H1301 g 6.57E-05 1.48E-07 2.02E-06 4.03E-07 0.00E+00Halogenierte KW g 5.69E-09 1.55E-09 1.06E-08 1.04E-08 0.00E+00Methane g 1.10E+00 1.76E+00 4.26E+00 2.62E-01 0.00E+00NMVOC g 2.18E+00 1.23E-01 1.00E-01 3.01E-02 0.00E+00CO2 fossil g 8.80E+02 7.67E+02 9.79E+02 1.35E+03 0.00E+00CO g 2.23E-01 2.67E-01 1.25E-01 1.33E-01 0.00E+00Ammonia g 7.56E-04 1.94E-04 5.84E-03 5.05E-04 0.00E+00Hydroflouric acid g 9.73E-04 5.28E-05 3.19E-02 2.28E-02 0.00E+00Nitrous Oxide g 1.94E-02 5.58E-03 6.06E-03 6.86E-03 0.00E+00Hydrochloric acid g 9.69E-03 6.19E-04 3.00E-01 2.19E-01 0.00E+00 SO2 g 9.30E+00 2.65E-01 4.02E+00 6.86E+00 0.00E+00 NO2 g 1.96E+00 1.49E+00 2.52E+00 1.97E+00 0.00E+00Lead g 5.18E-04 3.61E-06 1.83E-04 4.94E-05 0.00E+00Cadmium g 5.96E-05 2.29E-07 4.66E-06 2.16E-05 0.00E+00Manganese g 1.58E-04 2.96E-06 1.11E-04 3.83E-05 0.00E+00Nickel g 4.52E-03 4.88E-06 4.64E-04 6.63E-05 0.00E+00Mercurt g 2.79E-06 1.46E-05 3.85E-05 5.03E-05 0.00E+00Zink g 3.79E-04 5.82E-06 3.50E-04 3.35E-04 0.00E+00Metalle g 2.70E-02 1.23E-03 7.90E-02 6.28E-02 0.00E+00radioact. Substanzen kBq 1.90E+01 5.15E+00 3.52E+01 3.47E+01 0.00E+00
LCA Outputs – Paper Recycling Energie Source Unit Petroloeum Gas Bituminous Coal Lignite Hydro [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh]
Primary Energy Carriers
Raw Lignite for delivery kg 3.21E-03 8.71E-04 5.96E-03 1.48E+00 0.00E+00Crude gas Nm³ 1.39E-02 2.41E-01 7.14E-03 1.30E-03 0.00E+00
Crude Bituminous Coal for preparation kg 2.42E-03 5.51E-02 6.13E-01 4.41E-03 0.00E+00
Crude Oil from Borehole kg 2.75E-01 6.22E-04 8.47E-03 1.69E-03 0.00E+00Uranium from Ore g 2.18E-04 5.92E-05 4.05E-04 3.99E-04 0.00E+00Potential Hydro Energy kWh 3.92E-03 1.06E-03 7.25E-03 7.14E-03 1.31E+00
Wood kg 2.37E-05 6.71E-04 5.94E-03 4.33E-05 0.00E+00
kWh 2.69E+00 1.93E+00 2.53E+00 3.03E+00 3.06E-01Water Emissions BOD g 6.01E-04 1.95E-05 1.39E-04 6.59E-06 0.00E+00COD g 1.07E-02 2.49E-04 4.35E-03 1.61E-04 0.00E+00AOX als Cl- g 4.76E-05 1.18E-07 1.52E-06 3.02E-07 0.00E+00material suspended g 7.86E-01 2.20E-01 3.63E-02 6.78E-03 0.00E+00Phenole g 1.98E-03 3.86E-05 6.62E-05 1.19E-05 0.00E+00Toluol g 1.63E-03 3.73E-05 5.04E-05 1.01E-05 0.00E+00polycyclical aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) g 1.79E-04 9.15E-07 5.53E-06 1.10E-06 0.00E+00Aromatic Hydrocarbons g 1.17E-02 4.19E-04 3.63E-04 7.34E-05 0.00E+00Chlorinated Hydrocarbons g 1.21E-05 3.38E-06 4.92E-07 8.77E-08 0.00E+00Fats oils g 3.64E-01 9.35E-03 1.13E-02 2.27E-03 0.00E+00DOC g 8.02E-06 3.55E-03 2.18E-05 1.36E-05 0.00E+00TOC g 1.07E-01 2.39E-01 4.94E-03 1.64E-03 0.00E+00Ammonium g 1.38E-02 6.64E-04 1.42E-03 1.86E-04 0.00E+00Nitrat g 9.27E-03 5.27E-05 2.35E-02 2.22E-04 0.00E+00Nitrogen org. geb. g 1.33E-03 9.19E-06 7.05E-05 1.67E-05 0.00E+00Total Nitrogen g 1.35E-02 5.66E-05 5.43E-04 1.18E-04 0.00E+00Arsenic g 1.90E-05 1.78E-04 1.97E-03 1.44E-05 0.00E+00Chlorid g 7.38E+00 6.31E-01 6.30E+00 1.25E-01 0.00E+00Cyanid g 5.28E-05 6.85E-05 6.28E-06 5.98E-07 0.00E+00Phosphat g 3.69E-04 5.33E-03 5.85E-02 4.22E-04 0.00E+00Sulfat g 2.74E-01 4.62E-01 4.35E+00 5.02E+00 0.00E+00Sulfid g 4.21E-04 6.48E-05 1.40E-05 2.83E-06 0.00E+00Anorg. Salts and acids g 5.33E+00 4.02E-01 3.40E+00 5.26E+00 0.00E+00Aluminium g 3.99E-03 8.90E-02 9.75E-01 7.15E-03 0.00E+00Barium g 3.48E-02 7.19E-03 7.91E-02 7.74E-04 0.00E+00Lead g 4.13E-05 4.48E-04 4.90E-03 4.34E-05 0.00E+00Cadmium g 1.50E-05 4.49E-06 5.07E-05 4.86E-07 0.00E+00Chrom g 1.56E-04 9.11E-04 9.77E-03 7.16E-05 0.00E+00Iron g 8.27E-03 2.82E-02 3.03E-01 2.37E+00 0.00E+00Cooper g 4.41E-05 4.45E-04 4.89E-03 3.56E-05 0.00E+00Nickel g 5.83E-05 4.48E-04 4.93E-03 3.60E-05 0.00E+00Mercury g 1.65E-07 7.82E-07 1.39E-06 1.75E-08 0.00E+00Zink g 1.59E-04 8.94E-04 9.82E-03 7.23E-05 0.00E+00Metalle g 8.47E-02 9.24E-03 1.02E-01 1.27E-03 0.00E+00radioact. Substanzen kBq 1.81E-01 4.74E-02 3.25E-01 3.19E-01 0.00E+00
LCA Outputs – Paper Recycling Production 1 Kg Diesel from the gas station The sorting process uses 7.74 Kg Diesel therefore:
Input Quantity Unit Quantity Unit
Energetic resources usedExpenditure of Energy Expenditure of Energy - Not Renewable 1.33E+01 kWh/kg 1.03E+02 kWh Expenditure of Energy - Not RenewableExpenditure of Energy - Renewable 9.50E-03 kWh/kg 7.36E-02 kWh Expenditure of Energy - RenewableExpenditure of Energy - Others 1.76E-02 kWh/kg 1.36E-01 kWh Expenditure of Energy - OthersExpenditure of Energy - Sum 1.33E+01 kWh/kg 1.03E+02 kWh Expenditure of Energy - SumRaw Materials from fossil sitesExpenditure of Materials Expenditure of Materials-Not Renewable 2.32E+01 g/kg 1.80E+02 gExpenditure of Materials- Renewable 3.55E+02 g/kg 2.75E+03 gExpenditure of Materials- Others 2.54E+00 g/kg 1.97E+01 gExpenditure of Materials- Sum 3.81E+02 g/kg 2.95E+03 g
OutputAir EmissionsSO2 2.29E+00 g/kg 1.77E+01 gNOx 1.58E+00 g/kg 1.23E+01 gHCl 1.12E-02 g/kg 8.68E-02 gHF 9.04E-04 g/kg 7.00E-03 gStaub 2.33E-01 g/kg 1.81E+00 gCO 6.10E-01 g/kg 4.73E+00 gNMVOC 7.95E-01 g/kg 6.16E+00 gH2S 4.73E-07 g/kg 3.66E-06 gNH3 6.68E-05 g/kg 5.18E-04 gCO2 3.88E+02 g/kg 3.00E+03 gCH4 3.57E+00 g/kg 2.77E+01 gN2O 7.96E-03 g/kg 6.16E-02 gPerfluormethane 3.85E-07 g/kg 2.98E-06 gPerfluorethane 4.84E-08 g/kg 3.75E-07 g
ResiduesAshes 2.96E+00 g/kg 2.29E+01 gflue-gas desulfurization plant-Residues 5.65E-01 g/kg 4.37E+00 gSludge 8.92E-01 g/kg 6.91E+00 gWaste production 3.96E+00 g/kg 3.06E+01 gSpoil 1.39E+02 g/kg 1.08E+03 gResidues highly active 8.19E-05 g/kg 6.35E-04 gN 2.14E-06 g/kg 1.65E-05 gAOX 6.71E-08 g/kg 5.20E-07 gCOD 2.33E-01 g/kg 1.80E+00 gBOD 6.53E-03 g/kg 5.06E-02 ganorg. Salts 1.76E-05 g/kg 1.37E-04 g
Heavy metalsAs 2.46E-05 g/kg 1.91E-04 gCd 6.17E-05 g/kg 4.78E-04 gNi 2.51E-03 g/kg 1.94E-02 gCr 3.07E-05 g/kg 2.38E-04 g
What is Waste?And How Should We Manage it?
What is Waste?
Represents system failure/ inefficiency
Design to eliminate waste
Zero Waste movement
Zero Waste Definition
Zero Waste is a goal that is both pragmatic and visionary, to guide people to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that may be a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health."
Zero Waste International Alliance
Cradle to Cradle
Biological nutrientsOrganics
Designed to return safely to the environment
Technological nutrients
Closed loop recycling
Sources of Waste Materials generated in Alberta
Residential33%
Industrial, Commercial
& Institu-tional40%
Construc-tion & Demo-
lition27%
Source: Stats Canada
Composition of Residential Waste
Paper25%
Food & Yard
Waste35%
Glass3%
Metal6%
Plastic7%
Other Mixed25%
Source: Action on Waste, % composition by weight
~ 50 % of paper is newsprint
• Meat & fish waste
• Diapers• HHW
• Textiles• Dust
ICI Waste Composition
Paper54%
Food Waste13%
Plastic7%
Glass4%
Metals7%
Other15%
Source: Action on Waste, % composition by weight
• HHW• Misc. Organics • Yard Waste
C&D Waste Composition
Asphalt8%
Brick/Stone5%
Concrete8%
Drywall6%
Metal12%
Roofing13%
Wood19%
Other29%
Source: CRD Waste Characterization Study, CH2M Gore & Storrie Ltd.
MSW Waste Composition
Paper29%
Wood, Rubble, Leather, Textiles
25%
Food & Yard23%
Plastic9%
Glass6% Metals
8%
Municipal solid waste composition in Alberta (1994)Source: Alberta Environment, SOER for Alberta
Waste Management Hierarchy
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
Recover
Landfill
3Rs
Residuals Management
Disposal Options
3Rs Hierarchy
ReduceSource reduction can be achieved by purchasing durable, long-lasting goods, as well as seeking products and packaging that represent a reduction in materials, energy consumption or toxicity
ReuseReusing involves the use of a product more than once without altering its form, either for the same or for a different purpose
RecycleDiverting products from disposal at the end of their useful lives, sorting, transporting and processing them to produce secondary sources of materials that are subsequently used in the production of new goods
Mobius Loop
collection
remanufacture
resale
Net GHG Emissions from MSW Management Options
(tonnes eCO2/tonne)
Material Source Reduction
Recycling/ Composting
Anaerobic Digestion
Thermal Treatment
Landfill
Newspaper (3.81) (2.81) (0.49) (0.05) (1.22)
Fine Paper (5.93) (3.33) (0.34) (0.04) 1.18
Cardboard (5.22) (3.34) (0.32) (0.04) 0.29
Aluminum Cans
(4.55) (6.49) 0.01 0.01 0.01
Steel (1.95) (1.15) 0.01 (0.99) 0.01
Glass (0.40) (0.10) 0.01 0.01 0.01
HDPE (2.74) (2.27) 0.01 2.85 0.01
PET (3.50) (3.63) 0.01 2.13 0.01
Computers NA (1.59) 0.01 0.41 0.01
Food Waste NA (0.24) (0.10) 0.02 0.80
Yard Waste NA (0.24) (0.15) 0.01 (0.33)
Energy Use: Recycled & VirginContent Products (MJ/kg)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Recycled
Virgin
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
CO2 Emissions: Recycled &VirginContent Products (kg eCO2/kg)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Recycled
Virgin
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
Energy Savings: Recyclingversus WTE Incineration (MJ/kg)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Recycling
WTE Incineration
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
CO2 Emissions: Recycling versus Disposal (kg eCO2/kg)
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Recycling
WTE Incineration
Landfill+Energy
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
CO2 Emissions: Composting versus Disposal (kg eCO2/kg)
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Composting
WTE Incineration
Landfill+Energy
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
Value of Pollution Reductions from Recycling & Composting
Discard Type Environmental Value (US$/metric ton)
Newspapers $363-367
Cardboard 467-496
Mixed Paper 172-197
Glass Containers 61
PET Plastics 639-712
HDPE Plastics 224-310
Other Plastics 224-310
Aluminum Cans 1,607
Ferrous Cans & Scrap 18-72
Food Scraps 62-107
Yard & Garden Debris 61-74
Compostable Paper 52-78
Source: Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management
Beyond LCA
Genuine progress indicator (GPI) developed in 1995
GDP inadequate measure of a nation’s health
needed a more comprehensive measurement system to monitor the total well-being of society
more than just economic output
Genuine Wealth (well-being) model developed by Mark Anielski to assess the overall economic, social, health and environmental well-being of communities.
VALUES
Processes(technology)
Source: The Interface Model based on Ray C. Anderson. 1999, Mid-Course Correction.: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model. Interface Inc. modelMark Anielski
capitalpeople
suppliers
raw materials
$$
products
market
customers
Typical Company of the 20th Century
Source: The Interface Model based on Ray C. Anderson. 1999, Mid-Course Correction.: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model. Interface Inc. model
VALUES
Processes(technology)
capitalpeople
suppliers
raw materials
$$
products
market
customers
EARTH’S LITHOSPHERE
COMMUNITY
empl
oyee
s
Wag
es $
law
s
Taxe
s $
Inve
stm
ents
$
divi
dend
s $
EARTH’S BIOSPHERE
was
te
emis
sion
swaste materialswaste to landfill or incinerator
orga
nic
inor
gani
c
Closing the Waste Loop
x
xx
x
Solar energy
x
x x
SUSTAINABILITY LINK
TECHNICAL CYCLE
TECHNICAL CYCLE
x
xx
NATURAL CYCLE
NATURAL CYCLE
Compostable productsnatural m
aterials
x
The Genuine Wealth process examines the life-cycle of the relationships of your organization to other stakeholders
Suppliers
Market
Customers
Biosphere
Community
Lithosphere
Natural Materials Waste to Landfill
Solar Energy
Raw Material
$ $
Products
Organic & Inorganic
Source: Based on Interface Inc. model
Waste Emissions
EmployeesWagesInvestmentsTaxesLaws and ValuesServiceSensitivityExpectations
SocialCapital
NaturalCapital
ProducedCapital
FinancialCapital
HumanCapital
Alberta Stewardship Program Full Cost Accounting Assessment
Study Purpose: An accounting of the full range of economic, social and environmental benefits, costs and impacts of Alberta’s waste stewardship programs for beverage containers, electronics, tires and used oil materials.
Intended Use: To assess the true societal value of these stewardship programs to Albertans, and to serve as an accounting framework for assessing the sustainability of waste stewardship programs.
Research Process
Used Genuine Wealth Assessment full cost benefit accounting tool
Itemized the costs and benefits
Monetary estimates assigned where data exists
Estimates: low, medium (average), high
Net value then calculated
Result: relative “return” on a per unit recycled, per Albertan basis
Genuine Wealth Accounting Framework for Alberta’s Stewardship Programs
•Time-use spent in cleaning, sorting, delivery and transportation of recycled materials.
•Direct and indirect employment (employees, contractors, suppliers)
•Full-time vs. part-time employment•Productivity•Creativity and entrepreneurship•Workplace safety•Training and professional development•Personal self-development
•Health effects (raw material extraction and waste management)•Civic pride and responsibility (e.g. participation rates as a proxy)•Equity and fairness: the equitable distribution of costs and benefits of programs amongst various stakeholders.
•Improved overall quality of life (e.g. perceived value of cleaner/healthier environments)
*Customer relationships (value, loyalty and commitment by customers)*Supplier relationships (value and commitment by suppliers)*Reputation *Work place climate (e.g. Employee interrelationships, meaningful work, workplace stress, teams and team spirit)
*Workplace equity (incomes, age-sex distribution, women in management)
*Employee family quality of life*Financial investment/giving/donations to the community
•Reduced landfill and incineration•Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions•Energy consumption•Reduction in pollutants to air, land and water.
•Environmental quality risk •Ecosystem integrity/environmental protection
•Local disamenity (odor, vermin, traffic)
• Buildings• Machinery and equipment• Technology • Patents• Brands• Intellectual property (ideas,
innovations)• Management processes• Production processes• Databases
•Sales of recovered/recycled materials•Program Administration and Operating Costs, Investment Costs, Amortized Costs and Aftercare Costs:
• Alberta Used Oil Mgmt. Assoc.• Beverage Container Mgmt. Board• Alberta Recycling Mgmt. Authority
•Government spending on services and support•Industry/retail sector costs (fee collection and other financial costs)
•Household costs (direct costs associated with cleaning, sorting, delivery, and transportation)
•Transportation costs: fuel costs to transport wastes to collection points.
•Market disruption costs (due to reduced competition and costs incurred by industry)
•Savings (forgone operating costs) from extended landfills
•Avoided costs from siting and operational costs•Financial Liabilities: Debt and Accounts payable
HumanCapital
0
50
100
BuiltCapital
Natural Capital
Financial(Economic)
Capital
SocialCapital
Note: Items marked with an asterisk and italicized are items that are part of the Genuine Wealth framework for businesses but which will not necessarily be assessed for the Alberta Stewardship Program evaluation due to data limitations.
The benefits side of the GPI “income statement”:
Value of recovered materials in end markets.
Reduced landfill development and operational costs
Reduced environmental contamination and associated health risks of environmental impairment
Reduced environmental risks
Reduced costs of extraction/processing of virgin materials for products
Overall value of a cleaner/healthier environment
Employment benefits of a growing recycling industry
Avoided greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants
Resource conservation
Increased employment
Economic spin-offs such as tourism
Reduced liability
Energy savings
The cost side of the GPI “income statement”:
Program administrative and operational costs (direct and indirect)
Costs to government in the oversight role of Stewardship Programs
Costs to other parties (i.e., retail sector to collect eco-fees, public/household participation)
Any increased environmental impacts associated with the programs
Disruptions to the marketplace
Operating and amortized capital costs, including costs associated with collection, transportation, storage, recycling, reuse, and recovery of materials
Reduced employment
Nuisance or increased risk management costs
Energy use
Other unaccounted environmental and social costs
Summary of Monetized Costs / Benefits
Recycling Program Costs and Benefits (fiscal year 2004-2005)
COSTS Low Medium High
Program operating costs
Recycling incentives
Administration incl. amortization
Recycling development and promotion
Government support
Retail sector program support
Disruption in marketplace
Total Costs
BENEFITS Low Medium High
Reduction in GHG emissions
Avoided raw material use
Extended landfill life
Avoided siting and operational costs
Reduced environmental and human health liability
Direct employment
Indirect employment
Expanded economic activity
Community investment
Total Benefits
GHG Savings Through Recycling Beverage Containers
Material
Net Recycling Emissions vs
Landfill (MTCE/ tonne)*
Tonnes Diverted
(2004)
Net Emissions
(MTCE)
Glass (recycled) -0.12 35,021 -4,203
Glass (reused) -0.38 36,199 -13,756
PET -3.64 6,854 -24,947
HDPE -2.29 228 -523
Other plastic -1.82 44 -81
Aluminum -6.51 9,813 -63,883
Steel -1.16 253 -293
Polycoat -1.82 1,755 -3,194
Total System -110,878
GHG Benefits from Tire Recycling
Estimated GHG $ reduction benefits
Low estimate ($27/tonne CO2)
European Carbon Trading Market
Value
Medium estimate
($85/tonne CO2)
High estimate ($142/tonne CO2)
Stern Review (Britain)
GHGs avoided (low impact scenario) 21,000 21,000 21,000
Total benefit $576,000 $1,776,000 $2,975,000
Benefit per tire recycled $0.14 $0.43 $0.72
GHGs avoided (high impact scenario) 138,000 138,000 138,000
Total benefit $3,788,000 $11,669,000 $19,549,000
Benefit per tire recycled $0.91 $2.81 $4.70
Tire Program CostsProgram Operating Costs
Program operating costs $19,190,287
Recycling incentives $11,555,722
Administration incl. amortization $862,042
Recycling development and promotion $6,772,523
Other Non‑Program Societal Costs
Government support $50,433
Retail sector program support $34,323
Disruption in marketplace $0
Total Program Costs $19,275,043
Tire Program Benefits
Low Medium HighSocietal Benefits
Reduction in GHG emissions $576,000 $10,063,000 $19,549,000
Avoided raw material use $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000
Extended landfill life $12,800,000 $16,160,000 $19,520,000
Avoided siting and operational costs
$25,000 $62,000 $99,000
Reduced environmental and human health liability
$600,000 $2,000,000 $2,900,000
Direct employment $465,537 $728,667 $1,588,899
Indirect employment $498,561 $780,357 $1,701,612
Expanded economic activity — — —
Community investment $2,101,000 $2,101,000 $2,101,000
Total Societal Benefits $24,566,098 $39,395,024 $54,959,511
Tire Program Net Benefits
Low Medium High
Net Annual Costs/Benefits $5,291,055 $20,119,981 $35,684,468
Net Annual Costs/Benefits per tire $1.27 $4.84 $8.58
Net Annual Costs/Benefits per Albertan**
$1.62 $6.18 $10.96
56
Recycling in Alberta
2004 Provincial Trends
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Generated Disposed Diverted
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Sasksatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Data from the territories and PEI are not provided due to confidentiality reasonsSource: Statistics Canada 2006
kg/capita/year
Provincial Waste Disposal
Source: Stats Can 2008
Provincial Waste Disposal
Source: Stats Can 2008
Provincial Waste Diversion
Source: Stats Can 2008
Provincial Waste Diversion
Source: Stats Can 2008
City of Calgary
Blue Cart RecyclingService for single family homes
Community Recycling DepotsService for multi-family homes
Network of over 50 depots
Calgary Recycling Depot
Edmonton
Blue bag, curbside pickup of recyclables
Co-composter composts organics contained in the general waste stream
Depots for drop-off of multi-family recyclables
New program for blue bag collection of multi-family
Year-round EcoStation household hazardous waste drop-off
Edmonton Program
Airdrie
First Alberta community to implement “user-pay” garbage systemResidents assigned bag limit of 5 Bags in 1992
Annual reductions bag limit now 2
Drop-off depot for collection of recyclablesOpened new Westside recycling facilityParticipation rate – 72%
Population ~38,091
Strathcona County
Rural Alberta
Primarily drop-off depot collection of recyclables
Varied levels of service
Bag limits, user-pay and landfill bans common tools used to promote waste reduction
Edson & DistrictRecycling Depot
“[Packaging] stewardship is a concept by which industry, governments, and consumers assume a greater responsibility for ensuring that the manufacture, use, reuse, recycling, and disposal [of packaging] has a minimum impact on the environment.”
CCME Stewardship Definition
OECD defines EPR as an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle.
Extended Producer Responsibility Definition
Beverage Containers
Scrap Tires
Used Oil Materials
Electronics
Paint
Alberta Stewardship Programs- Regulated
Pesticide Containers (http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/pesticide/news/wastefacts98.html)
Dead Drugs (Envirx)
Portable Rechargeable Battery Collection (Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation)
Covers Nickel-Cadmium (Ni-Cd), Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH), Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) and Small Sealed Lead (Pb) rechargeable batteries.
Alberta Stewardship Programs - Non-Regulated / Voluntary
Beverage Container Recycling
Return system established in 1972
Containers are returned for deposit at over 278 collection sites in Alberta (216 bottle depots for all products and 62 retail locations for beer only)
1.6 billion containers collected and recycled in 2008 (77% return rate)
Beverage Container Management System
Deposit paid at retail level on ready to drink beverage containers (including milk)
10 cents on containers up to and including one litre
25 cents on containers larger than one litre
10 cents for beer bottles and cans
Container Recycling Fee (CRF) shown visibly on till slips – non-refundable
Scrap Tires
Program launched in 1992
Regulated retail advance disposal surcharge - $4.00
Program administered by non-profit stakeholder board (Alberta Recycling Management Authority – Tire Recycling Program)
Dedicated Fund
Board Funding StrategyPay for resultsValue-added products
Used Oil Management Program
Environmental Handling Charge (EHC) on new oil materials (oil, filters, plastic containers)
Industry-established non-profit, AUOMA, governs funds
Return Incentive (RI) paid for collection / transport to recyclers
Similar program in effect in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario
Alberta’s Electronics Recycling Program
Launched October 2004
Environmental fees collected on the sale of new eligible electronics in Alberta. More than 300 collection sites across Alberta
Some communities hold e-waste roundup events
Over 2,800,000 units or 53,500 tonnes of electronic components recycled
Paint Recycling Program
Launched April 1, 2008
Over 225 collection sites have been established throughout Alberta
Over 3.8 million litres of paint and 480,000 aerosol containers have been recycled
Stewardship Summary
Stewardship programs have been successful in diverting waste
Regulation provides level playing field to producers
Dedicated funds ensure targeted programs
DAOs maintain “arm’s length” from government
Recycling Council of Alberta
VisionZero Waste
Extended Producer Responsibility
Social Conscience
MissionTo Promote and Facilitate Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Resource Conservation in Alberta
Christina SeidelExecutive Director
403.843.6563
www.recycle.ab.ca