Exhibit A of Attachment 1 - Part 6Appendix C
Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
(LCAs)
This page intentionally left blank
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
A SUMMARY OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS (LCAS)
AND LIFE CYCLE INVENTORIES (LCis)
Prepared by
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
For
City of San Jose
June 2013
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS AND INVENTORIES
A life cycle assessment (LCA) is a process used to assess the environmental impact of a given
product throughout its lifespan. A LCA assesses the raw material production, manufacture,
distribution, use, and disposal (including all intervening transportation steps) of a given product. The
methodology for completing a LCA is standardized by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO).'
A life cycle inventory (LCI) is a study of the inputs and outputs for a product system and is typically
a part of a comprehensive LCA. Raw materials and resource inputs as well as emissions to water,
air, and land are accounted for. An LCI identifies the outputs without trying to analyze the impacts
to an environmental system. For example an LCI would show how many kilograms of carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are produced in a manufacturing process but would not calculate
assess the global warming impacts that would result from those emissions.
LCAs are useful because they provide specific analysis and quantifiable results for the purpose of
assessing environmental impacts of a given product. However, the LCA process is complex and
involves many variables that can differ from report to report. Each LCA assumes different
parameters and system boundaries in its calculations, and utilizes a unique set of data to reach its
conclusions. Often, LCAs are completed in different regions of the world that have unique
environmental factors such as transportation distances and composition of energy supply that may
not apply elsewhere. Similar issues arise with LCIs. For these reasons, the results contained in
LCAs and LCIs consulted for this Initial Study may not precisely reflect conditions in Santa Clara
County.
Due to the variations and limitations involved in the LCA/LCI process, direct comparisons between
the results of two or more studies involve a level of uncertainty. Many environmental impacts occur
on a local or regional scale, and the location of those impacts is difficult to define. However, by
examining the results of several LCAs and LCIs, it is possible to get a reasonable range of the likely
impacts associated with a given product over the course of its lifetime such that a qualitative
comparison of impacts can be presented.
Summaries of the relevant studies consulted in this Initial Study are provided in this Appendix.
Materials referenced in the discussions are defined in Table C -1, below.
' ISO standards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 establish the principles, framework, requirements, and guidelines for
LCAs. International Organization for Standardization. "ISO standards for life cycle assessment to promote
sustainable development." July 7, 2006. Accessed April 9, 2013. Available at:
< http : / /www.iso.orp/iso/homelnews index/news archive/news htm ?refid= Refl019>
Appendix C 1 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Table: C -1
Abbreviations for Food Container Materials
Acronym
Material Type
EPS
Expanded or Extruded Polystyrene
GPPS or PS
General Purpose Polystyrene
HDPE
High- Density Polyethylene
LDPE
Low - Density Polyethylene
PC
Polycarbonate
PET
Polyethylene Terephthalate
PHA
Polyhydroxyalkanoate
PLA
Polylactic Acid
PP
Polypropylene
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
LCA/LCI Summaries:
• Tabone et al. Sustainability Metrics: Life Cycle Assessment and Green Design in Polymers.
2010.
• Madival et al. Assessment of the environmental profile ofPLA, PET, and PS clamshell
containers using LCA methodology. 2009.
• Franklin Associates. Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper - based, and PLA
Foodservice Products. 2011.
• Kuczenski et al. Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study. 2012.
• PlasticsEurope. Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics
Manufacturers. 2008 -2012.
• Zabaniotou, A. & Kassidi, E. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from
polystyrene and recycled paper. 2002.
• Franklin Associates. Life Cycle Inventory of 16 -ounce Disposable Cups. 2009.
• PE Americas. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment IngeoTM biopolymer, PET, PP Drinking
Cups. 2009.
Appendix C 2 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Tabone et al.
Sustainability Metrics: Life Cycle Assessment and Green Design in Polymers
Authors: Michaelangelo D. Tabone, James J. Cregg, Eric J. Beckman, Amy E. Landis
Sponsor: University of Pittsburgh, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Date: September 2, 2010
Products Analyzed: PET, HDPE, LDPE, PP, PC, PVC, GPPS, PLA -G (general process), PLA -NW
(NatureWorks LLC), PHA -G (general process), PHA -S (corn stover), B -PET (hybrid bio /petroleum)
Functional Unit: One liter of polymer contained in pellets (prior to product molding)
Impact Cate ones: Acidification, Carcinogenicity, Ecotoxicity, Energy Use, Eutrophication, Global
Warming, Non - carcinogenicity, Ozone Depletion, Respiratory Effects, Smog, Fossil Fuel Depletion
Summary:
The report assesses the environmental impacts of each polymer's production as well as its adherence
to green design principles. The scope of the study is `cradle -to- gate," meaning that the study only
compares impacts resulting from the production of each plastic and not the use or disposal. The
analysis was broken down into the impact categories listed above, and normalized so that impacts are
compared relative to the greatest impact exhibited by a product for each impact category. A chart
displaying the relative impacts is available within the LCA, but is not reproduced here.
The LCAs for the study show that the production of biopolymers such as PLA and PHA has lower
global warming potential than the production of traditional plastics. However because of the
fertilizer use and pesticide use where the feedstocks are grown, as well as the chemical processing
steps where the polymer is produced, biopolymer production results in greater eutrophication, eco-
toxicity, and human health impacts.
Polypropylene (PP) is the best performer based on the LCAs primarily because its production
releases very little benzene and PM2.5, and was also the least energy demanding of the products
considered. Benzene is classified as a known human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.2
z United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Benzene." January 2012. Accessed April 23, 2013. Available
at: http://www.epa.lzov/ttnatwoI/hlthef/benzene.htmi
Appendix C 3 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Limitations in Annlication of the LCA to Santa Clara County:
The Tabone et al. LCA offers a low potential for bias compared to other LCAs because it was funded
by a University and published in an academic journal. Though the calculated releases of benzene,
toluene and PM2.5 show relative performance of the studied polymers, they lack the context necessary
to conclude that one or more may have a substantially greater impact than the other.
The study does not directly apply to the proposed project because it does not consider the full life
cycle of the products (resins). The "Cradle -to- Gate" scope means that the manufacturing of specific
products, as well as the use and disposal of the products is not considered. As a result, some
materials such as polylactic acid may appear to have greater impacts relative to other materials since
their potential for material recovery via compost and reuse is not incorporated into the impact
calculation.
Another issue with the LCA is that impacts are analyzed based on the European average for
emissions resulting from crude oil and natural gas extraction, processing, and transportation.
Emissions associated with these processes could differ in the United States due to the distances to the
feedstock and the transportation methods used to deliver it to the manufacturing facilities. Along
with the differences in energy supply between Europe and the United States, these factors are
evidence that the results of these LCAs would likely differ if calculated using United States data and
assumptions.
Applications of the LCA to Santa Clara County:
Tabone et al. show that in order to manufacture one liter of polymer in pellets, between 60 and 150
megajoules of energy are expended depending on the material. PP is the least energy intensive of the
studied products, polystyrene is close to the average, and PET and PC are the highest. Though the
results of the study's calculations cannot be extrapolated to make quantitative conclusions about the
production of these polymers, it is helpful to know that the energy required to produce the range of
plastic substitutes to EPS foam is within one order of magnitude.
Ultimately, the impacts analyzed in this study such as eutrophication, carcinogenicity, acidification,
smog, and eco- toxicity, are regional in nature. Since the content of the report does not specify the
exact locations of the steps in polymer production, the locations of the impacts are undetermined.
These impacts are likely to occur outside of Santa Clara County since there is not a large
petrochemical processing industry in the area. While the study gives a broad picture of the relative
impacts of resin production and the issues that arise from it, no conclusions can be drawn about
environmental impacts in Santa Clara County.
Conclusion:
When one considers the end of life scenario, the extra steps required to foam GPPS, and the small
range of energy demands for all substitutes, it becomes clear that this LCA does not show that any
one substitute requires so much energy that its use in place of polystyrene foam would create a
substantial increase in energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Appendix C 4 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Madival et al.
Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA
methodology
Authors: Samosh Madival, Rafael Auras, Sher Paul Singh, and Ramani Narayan
Sponsor: Michigan State University, Department of Chemical Engineering and Material Science
Date: May 23, 2009
Products Analyzed: PLA (NatureWorks LLC), PET, and PS Clamshells
Functional Unit: 1,000 containers with a capacity of 0.4536 kg (llb) each for strawberries
Impact Categories: Global Warming (CO2), Acidification (SO2), Ozone Depletion (CFC -11),
Eutrophication (PO4), Respiratory Organics (ethylene), Respiratory Inorganics (PM2.5), Ecotoxicity
(TEG3), Energy Use, Land Occupation
Summary:
The goal of this study was to compare the environmental impacts of PLA, PET and PS thennofonned
containers used for strawberry packaging. The Madival et al. LCA is a "cradle -to- cradle" study that
includes in its impact evaluation the extraction of the raw material, the resin production process,
container formation, and end -of -life disposal. The LCA also includes shipping distance and
transportation impacts for each product.
The report looked at "Cradle -to- Gate" (i.e. resin production) impacts first and found that PLA had
the greatest impact related to respiratory inorganics such as PM2.5. PET production was found to
have the highest impacts in all production impact categories except for respiratory inorganics,
respiratory organics, and aquatic acidification. The study attributes this to the greater weight of the
PET containers and the transportation distance of the resin.
The study includes a "Cradle -to- Grave" impact assessment which is summarized in Table C -2 below.
As with the Cradle -to -Gate component of the study, polystyrene (not expanded) did not have the
biggest impact in any of the categories.
3 TEG = triethylene glycol
Appendix C 5 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Table C -2
Madival et al. Strawberry Clamshell LCA
Impact assessment values for 1,000 PLA, PET, and PS Containers
Impact Category
PLA
PET
PS
Global warming, kg CO2
735
763
730
Aquatic acidification, kg SO2
5.66
4.97
4.87
Ozone layer depletion, kg CFC -11
9.15 x 10-5
9.48 x 10"
8.71 x 10-5
Aquatic eutrophication, kg PO4
0.0886
0.1480
0.0819
Respiratory organics, kg ethylene
1.33
1 1.29
1.24
Respiratory inorganics, kg PM2.5
1.31
1.26
1.22
Aquatic ecotoxicity, water, kg TEG
257,000
266,000
260,000
Energy, MJ surplus
13,400
14,000
13,500
Land occupation, M20rg.arablea
10.3
11.0
9.8
a m2org.arable = square meters equivalent of organic arable land.
Limitations in AmAication of the LCA to Santa Clara County:
The Madival et al. study does not consider composting as a possible end -of -life scenario for food
containers because at the time of the study, emissions data was not available. While composting
emissions data may continue to be unavailable, it is important to take into account all disposal paths,
especially when considering a PLA material. This is because when plastics made from plant
feedstocks are composted, the carbon that went into the material is released back into the atmosphere,
and the greenhouse gas impacts of the product change. Bioplastics are generally inert in landfills and
act as a carbon sink in those scenarios. Multiple cities in Santa Clara County including San Jose
have access to industrial scale composting facilities and could divert PLA containers to compost
rather than to the landfill.
The Madival et al. LCA evaluates four end -of -life scenarios as well as the `current condition.' The
current scenario for disposal paths used in the study is based on the average U.S. municipal waste
stream for polymers, which in 2005 resulted in 76.5 percent of polymers being landfilled and 23.5
percent being incinerated. Since the cities of Santa Clara County do not incinerate waste and since
almost all of them offer a robust recycling program for disposable food ware plastics, these end -of-
life assumptions are not representative of the project area.
The study incorporates renewable energy credits purchased by NatureWorks LLC into the calculation
of PLA greenhouse gas impacts. The integrity and reliability of the renewable energy credits is not
vetted in this study so it is not clear to what extent they actually reduce global warming impacts.
Furthermore the purchase of energy credits is the practice of one company (NatureWorks) and is not
representative of all PLA products.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the LCA does not consider any of the food containers that
would be affected by the proposed project. Produce - containing clamshells such as those considered
in the study are not made from polystyrene foam, so they would not be affected by the project. It
Appendix C 6 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
would be difficult to extrapolate the results of this impact assessment to apply to the food containers
subject to the proposed ordinance since products differ substantially in weight and volume.
Applications of the LCA to Santa Clara County:
The Madival et al. strawberry clamshells study demonstrates the similarities between the life cycle
impacts of PLA, PET, and PS products. No one product has an environmental impact substantially
greater than another. The study also indicates that the land use and eutrophication issues typically
associated with PLA products may be overstated, since PLA accounts for less phosphate release and
land occupation than PET.
Conclusion:
Three similar products made from PLA, PET, and PS have life cycle environmental impacts on par
with one another. When composting is not considered as an end -of -life scenario for PLA, its
greenhouse gas impacts are comparable to polystyrene (unfoamed).
Appendix C 7 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Franklin Associates
Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper - based, and PLA Foodservice Products
Author: Franklin Associates
Sponsor: American Chemistry Council
Date: February 2011
Products Analyzed:
- 16 -oz hot cups (EPS foam, LDPE- coated bleached paperboard, PLA - coated paperboard,
corrugated sleeve),
- 32 -oz cold cups (EPS foam, LDPE- coated paperboard, wax- coated bleached paperboard,
PLA 1, PLA 2),
- 9 -inch high -grade (heavy -duty) plates (GPPS foam, LDPE- coated bleached paperboard,
solid PLA, molded pulp)
- 9 -inch Lightweight plates (GPPS foam, LDPE- coated paperboard)
- 5 -inch sandwich - clamshells (GPPS foam, fluted paperboard, solid PLA)
Functional Unit: 10,000 product units
Impact Categories: Energy (process, transportation, energy of material resource, and end of life
credit), solid waste, greenhouse gases, water use
Summary:
In 2011, Franklin Associates Ltd. updated a 2006 Life Cycle Inventory in order to include an
evaluation of the carbon footprint and water use of PLA food service products along with those of
EPS foam and paperboard products. The scope of the report was "cradle -to- grave" and included
energy credits for the various products based on their end -of -life scenarios and the national average
for waste incineration (20 percent was used in this study). The PLA products studied were made by
NatureWorks LLC of Blair, Nebraska.
The study found that polystyrene foam products use less energy, generate less solid waste (by
weight), and use less water than comparable products made from paperboard or PLA." The
greenhouse gas and solid waste by volume impacts were mixed, with EPS foam products generally
performing in the middle of the pack.
° Since data sources did not distinguish between consumptive use of cooling water and recirculating use of cooling
water, water is defined as use rather than consumption.
Appendix C 8 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Limitations in Application of the LCI to Santa Clara Count:
Similar to the Madival et al. LCA (2009), this LCI is limited by the inclusion of an energy credit for
waste -to- energy (WTE) combustion of 20 percent of the products. Credit is also given for landfill
gas recovery from decomposition of the paperboard products. Since these assumptions are made
based on national data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, they do not necessarily apply
to Santa Clara County.
The analysis of product carbon footprints includes estimates of carbon dioxide from WTE, methane
from decomposition, electricity displaced by WTE, landfill gas recovery, and carbon sequestration
from landfilled biomass - derived material that does not decompose. These assumptions are
fundamental to the outcome of the greenhouse gas analysis in the LCI, particularly for paperboard
products. No plastic or paper products collected in Santa Clara County are incinerated and landfill
gas recovery is limited.
Another problem with applying the results of this LCI to products consumed in Santa Clara County is
that the weights of the products studied in the report are based on the averages calculated for the
original 2006 study as well as some PLA product samples. The study includes a disclaimer on the
first page of the executive summary that says in boldface print:
"...the results of this study should not be used to draw general conclusions about comparative
results for the full range of product weights available in each product category."
Since the proposed project would apply to polystyrene foam foodservice products of all weights and
volumes, applying the results of this study to all products would be in conflict with the disclaimer
made at the beginning of the report.
Applications of the LCI to Santa Clara County:
According to this LCI, bioplastics such as PLA have much lower greenhouse gas impacts when they
are landfilled rather than incinerated. This is because the atmospheric carbon that went into the com
feedstocks would be sequestered when PLA products are landfilled. On the other hand, the study
shows that the most sustainable end -of -life scenario for EPS foam products, which are made from
hydrocarbons extracted from petroleum, is incineration.
Conclusion:
Due to its high air content and low density, EPS foam creates less solid waste by weight than
paperboard or PLA products. By volume, EPS foam generates approximately as much solid waste as
paperboard products. The use of corrugated sleeves for paperboard hot cups causes them to have
much higher solid waste and energy impacts.
Appendix C 9 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Kuczenski et al.
Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study
Authors: Brandon Kuczenski, Roland Geyer, Matthew Trujillo
Sponsor: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Date: May 2012
Products Analyzed: EPS, GPPS, PET, PP, and PLA clamshell containers
Functional Unit: 1,000 clamshell containers
Impact Categories: Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary:
This study was prepared in 2012 to support CalRecycle's efforts in greenhouse gas emissions
accounting as the State of California implements AB 32, the State's global warming law. The report
studied the full life -cycle of clamshell containers by calculating "cradle -to- gate" greenhouse gas
emissions, forward logistics (transportation and distribution) emissions, end -of -life management
emissions, and emissions reductions from displaced production due to recycling.
Results of this LCA show that PLA clamshells have the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
when all product types are landfilled. If PLA is composted, it emits nearly as much as the most
carbon - intensive plastic, PET. PET has the highest pre - consumer greenhouse gas emissions and the
highest if landfilled, but it has the lowest impacts when it is assumed that the containers are recycled
in- State. EPS foam is among the lowest in energy demand. The results are shown in more detail in
Table C -3, below.
Appendix C 10 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Table C -3
Kuczenski et al. Plastic Clamshell Container Study
Life -cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy demand for
different polymers
Material
No- Recovery Total
In -State Recovery
Total'
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg CO2e per 1,000 clamshells)
EPS Foam
53.6
64.4 -69.9°
GPPS
51.8
50.0 -50.96
PET
80.7
43.0 -51.2°
PP
61.1
57.9 -59.5"
PLA
41.5
77.2
Energy (Megajoules per 1,000 clamshells)
EPS Foam
1,222
963 -9936
GPPS
1,169
1,012 - 1,1896
PET
2,040
979- 1,7056
PP
1,846
1,568- 1,8826
PLA
1,802
1,806
a This scenario calculates the greenhouse gas emissions of the products if they are
recovered rather than landfilled. For non - recyclable materials, this means either
waste -to- energy conversion (EPS foam) or in the case of PLA, composting.
b Ranges provided reflect two mutually- exclusive end -of -life pathways. The
former number indicates the environmental benefits through avoided production
and landfilling; the latter indicates the environmental benefits through displaced
economic activity.
Limitations in Application of the LCA to Santa Clara County
The primary reason why this LCA does not completely apply to the proposed project is that it models
life -cycle emissions of the products for scenarios in which either 100 percent of the products are
landfilled or 100 percent are recovered through diversion including: waste -to- energy conversion,
recycling, and/or composting. Neither of these scenarios resembles the real life -cycle of clamshell
containers in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the calculated emissions per 1,000 clamshells in this
study are not an accurate estimate of the actual emissions associated with clamshells in the project
area.
Another issue with the LCA is that it only studies clamshell containers, whereas the proposed project
would apply to all disposable foam foodservice ware. The emissions associated with disposable cups
and plates could vary based on the production processes, the distance required to transport the
materials to their respective manufacturing sites, and the recovery options available for the products.
Applications of the LCA to Santa Clara County:
This study provides further evidence about the role of the end -of -life scenario in evaluating PLA
products' greenhouse gas impacts. When PLA products are landfilled, they can sequester carbon
from the active carbon cycle to the geologic carbon cycle. Based on this study, when composted, the
Appendix C I 1 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
greenhouse gas emissions associated with PLA nearly double. In contrast, the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with PET decline by nearly 50 percent when PET is recycled. Polypropylene
impacts are reduced by recycling as well, though not to the same degree as the impacts of PET.
As stated above, the end -of -life scenarios considered do not represent the current waste disposal
situation in Santa Clara County. However they do show the best and worst case scenarios for each
plastic clamshell. In the case of EPS foam clamshells, which are not recovered in the project area,
the estimation for greenhouse gas emissions and energy use is likely the best estimate of any of the
LCAs described in this Appendix.
Conclusion:
Regardless of end -of -life scenario, GPPS clamshells have lower greenhouse gas emissions, and PET
clamshells can as well depending on to what extent they are recycled. The study clearly shows that
PP clamshells have greater greenhouse gas impacts than EPS foam clamshells do. If landfilled, PLA
clamshells also have much lower greenhouse gas impacts than their EPS foam counterparts.
Therefore, replacing EPS foam clamshells with plastic substitutes has the potential to reduce
greenhouse gas impacts if PET is recycled at a high rate and PLA is landfilled.
Appendix C 12 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
PlasticsEurope
Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers
Author: PlasticsEurope — Association of Plastics Manufacturers
Sponsor: PlasticsEurope — Association of Plastics Manufacturers
Dates: 2008 - 2012
Types of Plastic Analyzed: GPPS, LDPE, HDPE, PP, and PET
Functional unit: One kilogram (kg) of each type of polymer
Impact Cate ones: Non - Renewable Materials (minerals, fossil fuels, and uranium), Renewable
Materials (biomass), Water Use in Processing, Non - renewable Energy Resources, Renewable Energy
Resources (biomass), Waste (non - hazardous, hazardous), Global Warming Potential, Ozone
Depletion Potential, Acidification Potential, Petrochemical Ozone Creation Potential, Nutrification
Potential (eutrophication), Dust/Particulate Matter, Total Particulate Matter
Summary:
The plastics industry in Europe prepared ISO 14025 compliant life cycle inventories (LCIs) for a
number of plastic resins .5 These analyses identify the impacts from production of various types of
plastics. The LCIs do not include the impacts of turning the plastic pellet feedstocks into completed
food containers, but they do allow for a comparison of the impacts from the production of each type
of plastic most commonly used for cups, plates, and clamshells.
According to the PlasticsEurope data, PET pellet production has substantially greater emissions and
water use than unfoamed GPPS and PP pellet production does. Production of PET pellets requires
ten times more water than GPPS (unfoamed) pellets and approximately 1,000 times more water than
the production of PP pellets. The acidification potential of PET, as measured in sulfur dioxide
equivalents, is close to three times greater than that of GPPS. Dust and particulate matter emissions
from PET production are ten times greater than GPPS production. Table C -4 contains more in -depth
results of the LCIs.
5 ISO is the International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14025:2006 establishes principles for the use of
environmental information, primarily intended for use in business -to- business communication, but their use in
business -to- consumer communication under certain conditions is not precluded.
Appendix C 13 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Table C-4:
PlasticsEurope: Excerpts from Life Cycle Inventories
Polymer Comparisons
Indicator
LDPE
HDPE
PP
PET
GPPS
Non - renewable materials
-Minerals
4.2g
2.6g
1.8g
2.9g
-
•Fossil fuels
1,591.3g
1,595.7g
1,564.5g
1,715.Og
-
•Uranium
0.009g
0.006g
0.0058
0.009g
-
Renewable materials
10.79g
8.70g
5.13g
15.34g
-
(biomass)
Water use in processing
2,934g
3.38g
4.79g
4,8288
510g
Non - renewable energy
resources as upper heating
value
-For energy
25.3MJ
21.7MJ
20.4MJ
42.5 MJ
33.96 -37.96 MJ
-For feedstock
51.6MJ
54.3MJ
52.6MJ
39.8 MJ
44.3 -48.3 MJ
Renewable energy resources
(biomass)
-For energy
1.2MJ
0.8MJ
0.4MJ
0.6MJ
0.52MJ
-For feedstock
0
0
0
0
0
Waste
-Non-hazardous
0.034kg
0.032kg
0.024kg
0.089kg
0.015kg
-Hazardous
0.005kg
0.006kg
0.005kg
0.004kg
0.00055kg
Global Warming Potential
2.13kg
1.96 kg
2.00kg
3.49 kg
2.25kg CO2eq
CO2eq
CO2eq
CO2eq
CO2eq
Ozone Depletion Potential
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.000016g CFC-l1 eq
Acidification Potential
7.74g
6.39g
6.13g
15.59g
5.38g SO2eq
SO2eq
SO2eq
SO2eq
SO2eq
Petrochemical Ozone
1.19g
1.23g
0.92g
2.43g
0.85 g ethene eq
Creation Potential
ethene eq
ethene eq
ethene eq
ethene eq
Nutrification Potential
0.50g
0.43g
0.74g
1.038
0.48g PO4eq
(eutrophication)
PO4eq
PO4eq
PO4eq
PO4eq
Dust/Particulate Matter
0.69g PMio
0.64g
0.59g
1.94g
0.15g PM10
PM10
PMI0
PMio
Total Particulate Matter
0.70g
0.64g
0.60g
1.958
0.17g PM10
g = grams kg = kilograms n/a = entries are below quantification limit
mj = megajoules eq = equivalent
Appendix C 14 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Limitations in Application of the LCIs to Santa Clara County
The LCIs contain a cradle -to -gate analysis, meaning they only consider environmental effects
resulting from the manufacturing process up until the material leaves the factory. The reports do not
include analysis of environmental effects related to creating, using, or disposing food containers.
The information is provided in this Initial Study because it is among the best available for all of the
plastic feedstocks under discussion, and it allows comparison between the materials; it is not similar
or comparable to the complete life cycle analyses discussed elsewhere in this Initial Study, which
generally address more than just the source materials.
Additionally, the reports state that the information was gathered from European processors and
manufacturers. This information may or may not be the same as the processing done for the products
available to the American food service industry. Air and water emissions regulations differ between
Europe and the United States. The type of energy sources used to produce electricity play a
substantial role in determining the environmental impact of plastic production, and that differs
between Europe and the United States too.
Applications of the LCIs to Santa Clara County
The data supporting the PlasticsEurope LCIs was provided by various plastics producers in the
European industry and represents the industry averages. In the case of GPPS, the data covers 95
percent of the European GPPS production capacity.6 Since the LCA data covers so much of the
European industry, factors such as electricity sources and transportation distances which are typically
variable should be more constant and allow for comparison of the production impacts of each pellet.
Thus the data in Table C -4 and summarized on page 16, above, provides a fairly accurate comparison
of PET, GPPS, PP, and HDPE/LDPE.
Conclusions:
When the sources of energy and transportation distances are relatively constant, the production of
PET resin pellets results in substantially higher water use, global warming potential, acidification,
and particulate matter emissions. However as demonstrated by other LCAs summarized in this
appendix, product manufacturing, consumption, and end -of -life stages of plastic products is
determinative of the product's life cycle impacts. Therefore the outcomes of these LCIs cannot be
used to say decisively that one product has a greater environmental impact than another.
6 PlasticsEurope. "Environrnental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: General Purpose
Polystyrene (GPPS) and High - Impact Polystyrene (HIPS)." November 2012. Page 3. Available at:
ham: / /www plasticseurone orgi plastics- sustainability /eco- orofileslbrowse-by list asox
Appendix C 15 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Zabaniotou, A. & Kassidi, E.
Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper
Authors: A. Zabaniotou, E. Kassidi
Sponsor: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Date: October 25, 2002
Products Analyzed: 6 -egg eggcup containers (EPS foam and recycled paper)
Functional Unit: 50,000 6 -egg eggcups (1.1 metric tons recycled paper, 0.75 metric tons polystyrene)
Impact Categories: Greenhouse Warming Potential, Ozone Depletion Potential, Acidification
Potential, Nutrient Enrichment, Summer Smog, Winter Smog, Carcinogenic Substances, Heavy
Metals
Summary:
This 2002 LCA studied the material and energy inputs and subsequent air and water emissions from
the production of eggcup packaging. In this way the study was more like an LCI than an LCA. The
systems studied are in Greece and Europe, and the study uses data derived from other European
countries. This LCI does not include the transportation, distribution, use, or disposal phases of the
product life cycles; therefore it is a "Cradle -to- Gate" study.
Zabaniotou and Kassidi found that polystyrene foam eggcup production produced seven times more
NO. and 16 times more SO. than the production of recycled paper eggcups. Recycled paper eggcup
production resulted in twice as much solid waste and twice as much heavy metal waste (e.g. lead,
cadmium, and nickel). Relevant data from the study is provided in Table C -5, below.
Table C -5
Zabanioutou & Kassidi Eggcup Container Study
Selected Material Input and Emissions Data
Polystyrene Foam
Recycled Paper
Raw Materials
Fuel
718 m3
358 m3
Natural Gas
715 m3
18.5 m3
Waste Paper
-
1,500 kg
Energy Feedstock
Total Energy
84,548MJ
38,288MJ
Air Emissions
CH4 (methane)
3.4 kg
1.6 kg
CO2 (carbon dioxide)
2,952.5 kg
1,788.0 kg
N20 (Nitrous oxide)
11.5 g
16.3 g
NO, (Nitrogen oxides)
32.7 kg
4.2 kg
SO„ (Sulfur oxides)
95.0 kg
5.8 kg
Appendix C 16 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Limitations in Application of the LCI to Santa Clara County
This LCI has limited relevance for the proposed project, because it does not include any products that
would be affected by the proposed project. It is included in this Appendix because there is a small
amount of available life cycle information about the environmental impacts of paper food packaging
production.
The main issues with this LCI are the lack of definitions, the geographic region studied, and
assumptions made for the data. For example, the study does not define the quantity of recycled
content used in the paper eggcups, so the reader is left to assume that they are made of 100 percent
recycled paper. One of the measurements, `fuel,' is also undefined. Fuel is implied to mean a
petrochemical, but it is measured in kilograms and cubic meters in two separate places in the study,
which means it could be a solid, liquid, or gaseous petroleum product.
Zabaniotou and Kassidi study eggcups in Greece and polystyrene production in Europe. The
transportation of raw materials as well as the composition of the energy supply in Europe likely
differs from the production of eggcups sold in the United States. The authors also note that the data
used for their calculations was not readily available, so they relied on a European model that
represents the average European production scenario.
Applications of the LCI to Santa Clara County
The results of the study can be used at a general level to compare EPS foam and recycled paper, but
it would be speculative to make any conclusions about cups, plates, bowls, and clamshell containers
based on the eggcup study. This study shows that to produce 1.1 metric tons of recycled paper
eggcup containers, 1.5 metric tons of recycled paper is used. The study does not provide enough
context to show whether 73 percent efficiency feedstock efficiency is representative of recycled
paper products in general.
Conclusions:
The scope of this study and the data used to support the calculations have limited applications for the
proposed ordinance. This study supports the hypothesis that producing products with recycled paper
requires less energy than producing EPS foam products, but it does not prove it conclusively for the
products used in the project area.
Appendix C 17 - Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Franklin Associates
Life Cycle Inventory of 16 -ounce Disposable Cups
Author: Franklin Associates
Sponsor: MicroGREEN Polymers
Date: February 19, 2009
Products Analyzed: EPS cup, LDPE- coated Paperboard cup, LDPE- coated Paperboard cup +
corrugated sleeve, and RPET SMX (recycled PET solid -state microcellular expansion) foam
Functional Unit: 10,000 16 -ounce cups
Impact Cate¢ories: Solid waste (weight and volume), Energy, Global Warming Potential
Summary:
In 2009 Franklin Associates prepared a Life Cycle Inventory for MicroGREEN Polymers, the
producers of the RPET SMX foam cup. The LCI compares the RPET cup to polystyrene foam and
coated paperboard cups. The study includes the impacts associated with the packaging for the cups
as well. Two ISO - compliant approaches are used to model the effects of recycled - content and end -
of -life recycling. The data included below is from the "Postconsumer free" approach that allocates
the impacts of disposal to the current system unless the product can be recycled, in which case the
ultimate burdens leave the studied system. The alternative approach assumes subsequent uses for all
products, but since it does not resemble the waste disposal system in the project area it is not
included here.
The report found that RPET SMX and EPS foam cups had lower impacts in all categories than coated
paperboard cups, with or without sleeves. Packaging for EPS foam cups resulted in the greatest
impacts across all categories when compared to the packaging of other products. The data
summarized in Table C -6 below does not incorporate energy credits for the products since the end -
of -life assumptions made in the study do not reflect the actual end -of -life scenarios in Santa Clara
County (e.g. energy credit for incinerating EPS foam).
Appendix C 18 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Table C -6
Franklin Associates 16-oz Hot Cup Study
Life Cycle Impacts of 10,000 Cups — Postconsumer Free Approach
Total
Global Warming
Solid Waste (Weight)
Solid Waste (Volume)
Energy
Potential (Pounds
(Pounds)
(Cubic feet)
(Million Btu)
of CO2e)
RPET SMX
4.65
768
205
8.66
EPS
7.46
780
136
10.49
Coated Paperboard
8.62
798
354
10.65
Coated Paperboard
+ Corrugated
10.34
1,215
483
14.70
Sleeve
Limitations in Application of the LCI to Santa Clara County
This study assumes that EPS foam and paperboard products were made entirely from virgin materials
whereas the RPET is modeled to contain 100 percent post- consumer resin. Coated paperboard cups
can include post - consumer recycled content, which would affect the environmental emissions from
their production.
The study also relies on the Franklin Associates database for corrugated packaging using industry
average data. Data for EPS foam resin production comes from the U.S. LCI database and data for
RPET SMX production comes from MicroGREEN, the sponsor of the study. These data sources
introduce the potential for bias, which could weigh the results in favor of the sponsors of the study.
The difficulty in applying this study to the proposed project arises out of the fact that the functional
unit is 10,000 hot cups. At this time, the City of San Jose does not have the information necessary to
estimate how many of each type of EPS foam product are used in the project area. The life cycle
impacts of clamshells, plates, and bowls, are likely different than the 16 -ounce hot cups studied.
This makes it difficult to extrapolate from the results and apply any quantitative analysis to the
proposed project and the substitute products.
Applications of the LCI to Santa Clara County
This study shows that while paperboard cups and EPS foam cups yield similar volumes of solid
waste when disposed, paperboard is much heavier and results in slightly greater greenhouse gas
emissions. The effects of the corrugated sleeve on the impacts of paperboard hot cups are
substantial; corrugated sleeves cause an approximately 50 percent increase in global warming
potential and a 40 percent increase in the volume of solid waste. Since most people use corrugated
sleeves when drinking hot beverages from paper cups, it is reasonable to assume that the two should
be evaluated together when considering hot cups.
Appendix C 19 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Conclusion:
The corrugated sleeves used with coated paperboard hot cups account for a substantial portion of the
greenhouse gas and solid waste impacts of the cups. While the greenhouse gas emission margins
between 16 -ounce paperboard cups and EPS foam cups are small, it is reasonable to conclude based
on this study that paperboard cups with corrugated sleeves account for greater greenhouse gas
emissions than EPS foam cups.
Appendix C 20 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
PE Americas
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment IngeoTM biopolymer, PET, PP Drinking Cups
Author: PE Americas
Sponsor: NatureWorks LLC & Starbucks
Date: December 12, 2009
Products Analyzed: IngeoTM PLA, PET, and PP
Functional Unit: One 16 -ounce cold drinking cup and flat lid
Impact Categories: Energy Use, Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, Eutrophication
Potential, Summer Smog, Water Use,
Summary:
In 2009, PE Americas prepared this study for Starbucks, which was considering integrating
sustainable packaging materials into its cold beverage cup designs. Starbucks currently uses PET
cups and lids, but could replace it with the NatureWorks IngeoTM biopolymer. Polypropylene is also
included in the study. This LCA evaluates the cradle -to -gate production of the polymer pellets, the
transportation and conversion of the pellets, the transportation of the cups and lids to Starbucks
shops, and disposal of the cups into landfills. Two different weights are considered for both PP and
PLA products. Data was not available for energy used in IngeoTM production, so IngeoTM is modeled
based on the information as provided for PP and PET. Since the results are presented graphically
and do not include specific data points, the impact results are provided in the table below based on
relative rank.
The results of the study show that the PET cup and lid have the highest energy use, global warming
potential, and photochemical ozone creation potential (summer smog) of the products considered.
The IngeoTM 14.4g cup and 2.32g lid combination with the PET energy data applied has the greatest
acidification and eutrophication potential and also uses the most water. In general, the traditional
plastics (PET and PP) have more impacts related to energy, smog, and global warming than the
IngeoTM products do. On the other hand, the IngeoTM products use more water and cause more water
quality impacts than traditional plastics.
Appendix C 21 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Table C -7
PE Americas Cold Cup LCA
Relative Performance of One 16 -oz Drinking Cup and Lid
PET
Polypropylene
IngeoTm
15.5g/2.5g
13.18g/2.12g
12.73g/2.05g
13.6g / 2.19g
14.4g / 2.32g
PET'
PPb
PET°
PP°
Energy
1
2
3
5
7
4
6
GWP
1
2
3
5
7
4
6
Acidification
4
6
7
2
5
1
3
Eutrophication
5
6
7
3
4
1
2
Summer Smog
1
3
6
4
7
2
5
Water Use
4
5
6
2c
3
1
2-
a Rankings are in order of greatest to lowest impact. For example, PET uses the most energy, whereas the
14.4g/2.32g IngeoTM (with PET energy data) uses the most water. A `T represents the most favorable outcome for
the products studied.
The PET and PP scenarios for the IngeoTM polymer apply production energy data for PET and PP to the IngeoTm
production process.
c These two products' life cycles use approximately the same amount of water.
Limitations in Application of the LCA to Santa Clara County:
This study examines very specific transportation and production scenarios associated with Starbucks
cups and lids. All pellets are assumed to be transported to a Solo Cup Company facility
(manufacturer of Starbucks cups) and all final products are assumed to be transported to a Starbucks
distribution center. Thus the study does not apply to all products that would be affected by the
proposed project.
Another limitation of the study is the lack of energy data for IngeoTm production. Assuming that the
energy used for IngeoTm is similar or identical to the energy used for PET and PP serves a
comparative purpose, but does not provide a definitive result about which products use the most
energy or have the biggest impacts.
Finally, the study assumes that all products are landfilled. This simplifies the comparison, however it
is not representative of the current waste disposal options available in Santa Clara County. Many
people favor PLA products because they assume they will be composted (an end -of -life scenario that
actually increases the greenhouse impacts of PLA products). Though the industrial composting
capacity of the County is limited, it is not insignificant. Also, PET and PP are both widely recycled
in California and are accepted at recycling facilities in Santa Clara County.
Applications of LCA to Santa Clara County:
Though Starbucks does not use or distribute polystyrene foam food ware at its stores, the results of
this study reveal the differing environmental impacts between substitute product materials. PET has
the highest energy use and global warming potential of the polymer materials, which is similar to the
results of other studies summarized in this Appendix. The IngeoTm PLA products perform well in
those categories, but those results could be different if they were assumed to be landfilled and if
measured energy data from its production were used in the LCA.
Appendix C 22 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
The PLA products considered in this study use the most water and have the biggest impacts on water
quality. This is most likely due to the production of the corn feedstock, which typically involves the
use of pesticides and fertilizers.
One thing this study shows clearly is that for two products of the same material type, the lighter the
product the lower the impact. This makes sense since they both use the same materials and weight
reflects the amount of feedstock used to make the product.
Conclusions:
The assumed end -of -life scenario for the products in this study lends bias to the PLA products. PET
is typically recycled and PLA can be composted in many parts of Santa Clara County. Under those
circumstances, PET would have lower energy use and PLA would have a higher global warming
potential. Therefore the results of this study should not be applied to the proposed project.
Appendix C 23 Summary of Life Cycle Assessments
Appendix D
Summary of Available Information
On Disposable Food Containers
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
A SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
ON DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS
Prepared by
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
For
City of San Jose
July 2013
DISPOSABLE FOOD WARE
The project proposes to ban the use of expanded or extruded polystyrene (EPS) foam food service
ware by individuals, restaurants, and other entities within participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara
County. Foam food service ware products generally include hot and cold cups, bowls, plates,
clamshells, and in some cases food trays.' Some jurisdictions may also choose to adopt ordinances
restricting EPS foam food ware sales in stores and retail outlets. A restriction on sales of EPS foam
coolers or ice chests could also be included in ordinances adopted by participating jurisdictions.
The City of San Josh and other participating jurisdictions are not proposing to specify which
materials must be used as alternatives to EPS foam containers, and there are a wide variety of
substitutes available for purchase both locally and on the internet. The result of the proposed project
would be a decrease in the use of EPS foam, though overall use of disposable food service ware is
not expected to decrease.
The food service ware products identified during preparation of this Initial Study and available for
sale to the general public include a variety of plastics, paper materials, paper materials lined with
plastics, and bioplastics. Many of these products are made from virgin materials (i.e. newly-
produced); many others contain pre - consumer and/or post - consumer recycled content. Predicting
which substitutes would be selected by food vendors and consumers is not as straight - forward as
looking at the price because the characteristics of the materials (e.g. durability, water resistance,
insulation) are also factors in the selection process.
As with EPS foam food service ware, the environmental impacts of the substitutes arise from raw
material extraction and processing, product manufacturing, the use and disposal of the products, and
the transportation associated with each step of the product life- cycle. Since the City of San Josh
cannot predict exactly which materials would replace EPS foam in the local food service industry,
the following discussion is provided to characterize the available substitutes and to summarize what
is known about their environmental impacts.
A clamshell is a foldable, closable container that holds food ranging from sandwiches to take -out dinners.
Appendix D 1 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Manufacturing Disposable Foodservice Ware
Plastic Products
Many plastic products already exist that could replace polystyrene foam plates, bowls, cold drink
cups, lids, and clamshells. A range of plastic resins can be used to manufacture these products,
though the most common plastics used are polypropylene (PP), general purpose polystyrene (GPPS,
unfoamed), and PET (polyethylene terephthalate). In most jurisdictions within Santa Clara County,
these plastic materials are recyclable regardless of food contamination and are used widely along
with EPS foam. Other plastics that could be used to produce foodservice ware include polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), low- density and high- density polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE), and polycarbonate
(PC).
The European plastics industry prepared Life Cycle Inventories (LCIs) for a number of plastic resins
including GPPS. Though the LCIs do not include the impacts of turning the resins into completed
products, they allow for a comparison of the impacts of manufacturing each type of plastic
commonly used for food ware.
The data used for these LCIs is from European plastic manufacturers, which may or may not closely
resemble processes used by the manufacturers that produce the disposable food ware available to
United States buyers. For example, one of the biggest differences between manufacturers can be the
sources of energy used for the production process. Using electricity from coal versus electricity from
nuclear power would substantially alter the impacts from plastic production.
The following data from the European plastics industry is provided because it is among the best
available for all of the plastic resin feedstocks under discussion, and because it allows comparison of
materials. Data from other studies is provided in Appendix C of this Initial Study as well as later in
this Appendix.
D 2 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Table D -1:
PlasticsEurope: Excerpts from Life Cycle Inventories
Plastic Comparisons
Indicator
LDPE
HDPE
PP
PET
GPPS
Non - renewable materials
-Minerals
4.2g
2.6g
1.8g
2.9g
-Fossil fuels
1,591.3g
1,595.7g
1,564.5g
1,715.Og
Data not available
-Uranium
0.009g
0.006g
0.005g
0.0098
Renewable materials
10.79g
8.70g
5.13g
15.348
(biomass)
Data not available
Water use in processing
2,934g
3.38g
4.79g
4,828g
Slog
Non - renewable energy
resources as upper heating
value
-For energy
25.3MJ
21.7MJ
20.4MJ
42.5 MJ
33.96 -37.96 MJ
-For feedstock
51.6MJ
54.3MJ
52.6MJ
39.8 MJ
44.3 -48.3 MJ
Renewable energy
resources (biomass)
-For energy
1.2MJ
0.8MJ
OAMJ
0.6MJ
0.52MJ
-For feedstock
0
0
0
0
0
g = grams
MJ = megajoules
The information in Table D -1 shows environmental performance indicators associated with the
manufacture of one kilogram (kg) of each type of plastic indicated. It is not possible, based on the
information available to the City of San Jose, to state that one of these five plastic resins results in a
much greater environmental impact than the other. There is not enough context for the
manufacturing activities to know how applicable they are to products sold and used in the United
States and Santa Clara County.
Polystyrene (PS) and PET appear to use comparable amounts of energy for production, however PS
uses much less water and generally has smaller environmental impacts. The production of
polypropylene (PP) uses much less water and energy than PS or PET do, however it uses more non-
renewable energy resources for its feedstock than PS does.
Appendix D 3 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Paper Products
Paper products are commonplace among disposable food service ware used by consumers and food
vendors. Cold cups, hot cups, and bowls are usually made of paperboard lined with either wax or a
thin layer of polyethylene. The lining acts as a non -porous layer and prevents the paper from
absorbing fluids in the food. Hot cups are typically used along with a corrugated sleeve in order to
insulate the user's hands from the temperature of the cup.
Plates and clamshells can also be made with paperboard, though most are made from molded pulp or
fiber that can also be lined. Paper products can be produced with virgin pulp or recycled pulp (pre -
consumer and/or post - consumer) or a combination of the two.
There is limited information available about the life cycle environmental impacts of paper food
service ware products. The information below comes from studies sponsored by the plastics industry
and one academic study that examines eggcups, a product which would not be affected by the
proposed ordinance. See Appendix C for further details on these studies.
Table D -2
Zabanioutou & Kassidi Eggcup Container Study
Material Input and Emissions Data
For 50,000 6 -egg Eggcup Containers
Polystyrene Foam
Recycled Paper
Raw Materials
Fuel
718 m3
358 m3
Natural Gas
715 m3
18.5 m3
Waste Paper
-
1,500 kg
Total Energy
84,548 MJ
38,288 MJ
Air Emissions
CH4 (methane)
3.4 kg
1.6 kg
CO2 (carbon dioxide)
2,952.5 kg
1,788.0 kg
N20 (Nitrous oxide)
11.5 g
16.3 g
NO. (Nitrogen oxides)
32.7 kg
4.2 kg
SO, (Sulfur oxides)
95.0 kg
5.8 kg
Based on Zabanioutou and Kassidi's study of the life cycle of eggcup containers in Greece, recycled
paper requires much less raw material and energy than polystyrene does. As a result it causes fewer
nitrogen and sulfur oxides and greenhouse gases to be released. The study shows that recycled paper
eggcup production results in more nitrous oxide emissions than polystyrene foam eggcup production
does. The applications of this study to the proposed ordinance are limited by its scope, but it shows
some of the key emissions from the manufacturing process.
Two studies by Franklin Associates conclude that paperboard products have higher life -cycle
environmental impacts than polystyrene foam. One of the two studies was sponsored by
MicroGREEN Polymers to compare their 16 -ounce recycled PET hot cup to similar EPS foam and
paperboard cups. The data from this 2009 report is shown in Table D -3 below.
Appendix D 4 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Table D -3
Franklin Associates 16-oz Hot Cup Study
Life Cycle Impacts of 10,000 Cups — Postconsumer Free Approach
Total
Global Warming
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Energy
Potential (Pounds
(Weight) (Pounds)
(Volume) (Cubic feet)
(Million
of COze)
Btu)
RPET SMX
4.65
768
205
8.66
EPS
7.46
780
136
10.49
Coated
Paperboard
8.62
798
354
10.65
Coated
Paperboard +
10.34
1,215
483
14.70
Corrugated Sleeve
According to this study, coated paperboard hot cups with a corrugated sleeve require the use of
almost 50 percent more energy than EPS foam cups during their life - cycle. They also yield far
greater waste both by weight and by volume.
A separate 2011 study by Franklin Associates and sponsored by the American Chemistry Council
shows that 16 -ounce low- density polyethylene (LDPE) coated paperboard hot cups use more energy
than EPS cups do. Other impact categories discussed in the 2011 study such as solid waste and
global warming potential show similar results.
Figure D -1: Select Data from 2011 Franklin Associates LCA
Energy for 16 -oz Hot Cups (10,000 average weight cups)
EPS Wn P LDPE PMd LOPE PP LDPE PP
4 70 1329 1950 .4.19Yesee +1.10Yews
m da 0%Yemmp muds 9%de
Each life cycle assessment or inventory uses different parameters that limit the applicability of the
life cycle analysis to the products being studied. Paper products generally seem to require more
energy and generate more waste than EPS foam, though their performance can depend on recycled
content and the disposal path. Paper products are also compostable and biodegrade in the marine
environment.
Appendix D 5 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Bio -based Products
A recent trend in the disposable food service ware industry has been to make products out of
materials derived from plants such as corn, sugar cane, and wheat. Two bio -based materials,
polylactic acid (PLA) and bagasse, provide alternatives to plastic and paper, respectively. Polylactic
acid is a polymer derived from corn starch and for a long time was only produced by NatureWorks
LLC in Blair, Nebraska. That is changing as more producers enter the market. Bagasse is a dry
fibrous residue that remains after juice is extracted from the crushed stalks of sugar cane.
Since PLA and bagasse can serve as substitutes for plastic and paper, they can substitute for PS foam
food service ware products in ways similar to plastic and paper products. According to
WorldCentric, a manufacturer of bio -based foodservice ware, producing bio -based materials uses
much less energy and water than producing EPS foam. On the other hand, producing bio -based
products uses more water than producing substitute plastic products. Table D -4 from their website is
shown below.
Table D -4
WorldCentric Eco-profiles for different materials
Manufacturing One Pound of
Energy
Water Used
Solid Waste
CO2 Emissions
the Material
(gals)
(Ibs)
(Ibs)
(kWh)
Wheat -Straw
0.66
13.33
n/a
0.69
Sugarcane Bagasse
1.73
14.41
n/a
1.71
Corn PLA
5.37
8.29
0.042
1.3
Coated Paperboard (SBS)
5.2
12.38
2.33
3.2
-Virgin
100% Recycled Paperboard (SBS)
3.06
3.53
1.34
1.71
PET (Polyethylene)
10.28
7.45
0.087
2.81
PP (Polypropylene)
9.34
5.12
0.029
1.67
EPS (Polystyrene / Styrofoam)
11.28
20.54
0.113
2.51
a Source: WorldCentric. "Energy Savings." 2013. Accessed April 17, 2013. Available at:
http://www.worldcentric.org/sustainability/enerjzv-savings
- All eco- profiles for plastics are referenced through PlasticsEurooe
- IngeoT"i PLA ecw- profile data is referenced from NatureWorks LLC
- Paperboard data is referenced from Environmental Paper Network Calculator
- Since Sugar Cane and Wheat Straw fiber are discarded agricultural by- products and the plants
not grown
exclusively for making compostable tableware products, WorldCentric only takes energy & resource and
emissions data from field to factory gate.
- Ba asse and Wheat Straw data is actual manufacturing data.
The WorldCentric eco- profiles do not include the impacts associated with the manufacture,
transportation, use, and disposal of the products, which could substantially alter the results. The
profiles also treat sugar cane and wheat straw fiber as by- products, so the calculations do not include
the energy and water used to grow the sugar cane and wheat straw.
Further information on the life cycle impacts of bio -based products can be found in Appendix C of
this Initial Study.
Appendix D 6 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Divertability
The waste disposal paths available to consumers within the project area vary based on the jurisdiction
and waste collection provider. The end -of -life scenario for a given product plays an important role in
determining its environmental impact. For example when a plastic product is recycled and reused, it
displaces a certain amount of plastic that would otherwise need to be newly - produced. The
environmental benefits of that displacement are credited to the recycled product, reducing its
individual environmental impact. On the other hand if that plastic product is landfilled, then none of
the energy or resources that were expended for its production are recovered.
The end of life scenario of a product is an especially important factor in determining the greenhouse
gas impacts of PLA products. According to Kuczenski et al., PLA remains inert in landfills but can
release its full carbon content as carbon dioxide in municipal and commercial composting facilities.'
Since PLA is made from plants, plants which capture atmospheric carbon in order to grow, if it is
landfilled it serves as a carbon sink. However if PLA is composted then the carbon that was initially
captured by the plants is ultimately released back into the atmosphere, which recycles carbon that has
been part of the `active' carbon cycle (as opposed to carbon from petroleum fossil fuels released
from the `geologic' carbon cycle (as opposed to carbon from petroleum fossil fuels released from the
`geologic' carbon cycle) and does not represent a net change in atmospheric carbon levels.
There are no facilities in Santa Clara County that incinerate waste and convert the heat into
electricity or another form of usable energy. Some facilities perform methane recovery, but in
general if a product is landfilled then the energy and resources that are contained in the product are
also disposed. The following table indicates the waste disposal paths that would be followed by EPS
foam and substitute foodservice products made from plastics, fibers, and compostable plastics. Some
jurisdictions are in the process of adding composting programs or testing composting programs for
various sectors.
' Kuczenski et al. "Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study." May, 2012. Page 8.
Appendix D 7 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Table D -5
Food Service Ware Disposal Patb by Material Type and Sector for Jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County
Material Type
Fiber
Compostable
Jurisdiction
Sector
EPS
Rigid Plastic
(Paper,
Plastic
Foam
(PET, PP, PS)
Bagasse)
PLA
Single Family
Recycled If
Residential
Landfill
source separated
Landfill
Landfill
SF Res
Recycled
Source separated
Composted
Compostable
Multi - Family
orpost - collection
Post - collection
Post - collection
Residential
Landfill
MSW (Municipal
MSW
MSW
San Jose
(MF Res)
Solid Waste)
processing
processing
processing
Commercial
Landfill
Recycled
Composted
Post- collection
Potentially
(Comm)
Compostable
processing
Composted If
Composted If
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated
separated
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled if
source separated
Landfill
Landfill
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled if
source se arated
Landfill
Landfill
Campbell,
Los Gatos,
Recycled if
Composted if
Composted if
Monte
Comm
Landfill
source separated
source
source
separated
separated
Sereno,
Saratoga
Recycled if
Composted if
Composted if
Special Events
Landfill
source separated
source
source
separated
separated
Composted
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Post Collection
if source
Landfill
separated
Composted
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Post Collection
ifsource
Landfill
separated
Cupertino
Composted
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
Post Collection
ifso urce
Landfill
separated
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
Composted
Post Collection
Landfill
Appendix D 8 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Table D -5
Food Service Ware Disposal Path by Material Type and Sector for Jurisdictions in
Santa Clara Coun
Material Type
FPS
Rigid Plastic
Fiber
Compostable
Jurisdiction
Sector
(Paper,
Plastic
Foam
(PET, PP, PS)
Bagasse)
PLA
Composted if
Composted if
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated in
separated in
organics cart
organics cart
MY Res
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
Composted if
Composted if
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated in
separated in
Gilroy
organics cart'
organics cart'
Composted if
Composted if
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated b
p y
separated by
e vent organizer
event organizer
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Recycled/Z
Landfill
Com osted
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Recycled /
Landfill
Los Altos
Com osted z
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
Recycled/
Landfill
Z
Composted'
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
Recycled/
Landfill
z
Composted'
SF Res
Landfill
Rec cled
Landfill
Landfill
Milpitas
MF Res
Landfill
Rec cled
Landfill
Landfill
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
Composted if
Composted if
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated in
separated in
organics cart
or anics cart
ME Res
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
Composted if
Composted if
Morgan Hill
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated in
separated in
organics cart'
organics cart'
Composted if
Composted if
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated by
separated by
event organizer
event organizer
Appendix D 9 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Table D -5
Food Service Ware Disposal Path by Material Type and Sector for Jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County
Material Type
Fiber
Compostable
Jurisdiction
Sector
EPS
Rigid Plastic
(Paper,
Plastic
Foam
(PET, PP, PS)
Bagasse)
PLA
Recycled Source
SFRes
Landfill
separated or post -
Landfill
Landfill
collection MSW
processing
Recycled Source
M F Res
Landfill
separated or post -
Landfill
Landfill
collection MSW
Mountain
processing
View3
Composted or
Composted or
Landfill if
Landfill if
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated'
se arated°
Composted if
Composted if
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated
separated
Landfill
Landfill
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
compostpilot
compost pilot
Composted if
Composted if
W Res
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated
separated
Palo Alto
Composted if
Potentially
Compostable if
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
source
separated
source
separated
Composted if
Composted if
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
source
source
separated
separated
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill clean
a er rec cled
Landfill
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill clean
Landfill
paper r
Santa Clara
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill clean
pap rec tied
Landfill
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill clean
Landfill
paper recycled
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled'
Landfill
Landfill
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled' I
Landfill
Landfill
Composted if
Composted if
Comm
Landfill
Recycled5
participant in
participant in
food scrap pilot
food scrap pilot
program only
ro ram only
Sunnyvale
Composted if
Composted if
source
separated;
source
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled-
Annual Ara and
separated;
Wine Festival
Annual Art and
Only
Wine Festiva(
Only
Appendix D 10 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Table D -5
Food Service Ware Disposal Path by Material Type and Sector for Jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County
Material Type
EPS
Rigid Plastic
Fiber
Compostable
Jurisdiction
Sector
(Paper,
Plastic
Foam
(PET, PP, PS)
Bagasse)
PLA
Uninc.
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
County,
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
Districts 1,
4,5 A,B, &
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
C
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
Landfill
Landfill
Recycled if
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled
source
Landfill
separated
Recycled if
Uninc.
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled
source
Landfill
County,
separated
District 2
Recycled if
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
source
Landfill
separated
Recycled if
Special Events
Landfill
Recycled
source
Landfill
se arated
Uninc.
SF Res
Landfill
Rec cled
Rec cled6
Landfill
County,
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled
Rec cled6
Landfill
District 3A
Comm
Landfill
Recycled
Recycled'
Landfill
Special Events
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
SF Res
Landfill
Recycled if
Landfill
Landfill
source separated
Uninc.
MF Res
Landfill
Recycled if
Landfill
Landfill
County,
source separated
District 3, B
Comm
Landfill
Recycled if
Landfill
Landfill
source separated
& C
Recycled if
Composted if
Composted if
Special Events
Landfill
source separated
source
source
separated
separated
Gilroy and Morgan Hill: only 3 -4 businesses currently have organics collection.
'Los Altos: paper is recycled or composted depending on type (e.g. clean or soiled), Bagasse is
composted.
3 Mountain View: rigid plastic clamshells not accepted for recycling.
4Mountain View: composting program available to all businesses beginning July 1, 2013.
3 Single -use disposable plastic foodservice ware is recycled when /if markets exist. Other rigid plastics ( #1-
#7) are recycled.
6 District 3a: Processed MSW fiber is composted, mixed recycled fiber is recycled.
Appendix D I 1 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
Coolers /Ice Chests
Jurisdictions within the project area may prohibit the sale of expanded polystyrene coolers or ice
chests along with EPS foam food service ware. EPS foam ice chests tend to range in volume from 22
to 30 quarts, or enough to hold 24 12 -ounce cans. At this time, the City of San Josh is unable to
identify any disposable substitutes that might be used in place of EPS foam coolers. Therefore it is
expected that people would use either durable plastic ice chests or insulated bag coolers as
alternatives.
Information on the environmental impacts of ice chests is sparse, and the City could not find any life -
cycle analyses or inventories to document the impacts of substitute containers. As shown above,
polystyrene foam containers consistently weigh less than their plastic counterparts. It is reasonable
to assume that durable plastic substitute coolers are heavier than EPS foam coolers of similar sizes.
Not only do durable plastic coolers weigh more than comparable EPS foam coolers, they also can be
much larger. For example, Wal -Mart offers a 150 -quart Rubbermaid ice chest, which offers a
volume more than five times greater than the typical EPS foam ice chest.
Based on weight and the information presented in this appendix, it seems that the production of a
polystyrene foam ice chest would have fewer environmental impacts than the production a durable
plastic ice chest. When looking at the full life -cycle of the two, it is less clear. Durable plastic
coolers are intended for reuse over many years whereas EPS foam coolers may be used as few as one
or two times. The longer a durable plastic cooler is used, the better its environmental performance
will be relative to an EPS foam cooler.
With regards to the end of life phase, neither product is recyclable or compostable, so both would end
up in landfills when disposed of properly. If improperly disposed, polystyrene foam coolers would
be more likely to break into pieces and disperse in the terrestrial or marine environment than durable
coolers. This is due to the fact that EPS foam coolers are made of small PS foam beads that can
break apart from physical impacts as well as erosive forces from water, sand, and wind.
Appendix D 12 Summary of Disposable Food Ware
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK