EPA/530/SW-91C
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
OF NINE BEVERAGE CONTAINER ALTERNATIVES
Final Report
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
OF NINE BEVERAGE CONTAINER ALTERNATIVES
Final Report
This report (SW-91c) on work performed under
Federal solid waste management contract no. 68-01-1848
is reproduced as received from the contractor.
Volume I was written by ROBERT G. HUNT and WILLIAM E. FRANKLIN
Volume II was written by ROBERT G. HUNT, RICHARD 0. WELCH,
JAMES A. CROSS, and ALAN E. WOODALL
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Mention of a commercial product or organization does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-91c) in the solid waste
management series
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.50
-------
FOREWORD
Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970 as amended, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is charged with the study of "changes
in product characteristics and production and packaging practices which
would reduce the amount of solid waste." Beverage containers represent
a significant and rapidly growing fraction of post-consumer municipal
solid waste. The shift from the use of refillable to single-use beverage
containers in the past two decades, has resulted in a significant effect
upon the use of material and energy resources and the generation of solid
wastes and other pollutants. This study identifies the magnitude of these
impacts as they relate to alternative beverage container types.
The report analyzes seven different impact categories: virgin raw
materials use, energy use, industrial solid waste, post-consumer solid
waste, air pollution emissions, and water pollutant effluents. These
impacts were assessed for each manufacturing and transportation step in
the life cycle of a container, beginning with the extraction of raw
materials from the earth, through the fabrication of the product, use
and final disposal.
To assure the accuracy of the analysis, a draft of the report was
carefully reviewed by industrial and other technical experts. Many
valuable comments were received, and these comments have been incorporated
into the report in its current and final form.
One basic conclusion that may be drawn from this analysis is that
a wide-scale shift from the current "one-way," "throw-away" container
system to a returnable system which maximized reuse and recycling of
containers would result in a significant reduction in raw material and
energy use, and a decrease in environmental pollution.
We hope that this study will provide a significant exploration of
the resource and environmental impacts of using alternative beverage
containers, and we hope it will assist those seeking to minimize these
impacts as they relate to beverage container consumption.
--ARSEN J. DARNAY
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
I. Summary 1
A. REPA Summary Results 2
B. Soft Drink Containers 4
C. Recycle and Reuse 8
II. Study Approach and Methodology 9
A. Introduction 9
B. Basic Approach 9
C. Organic Raw Materials—Unique Considerations. ... 12
D. Methodology 14
E. Assumptions and Limitations 15
III. Beer Containers—The Resource and Environmental Profile. . . 19
A. Data Summary 19
B. Ranking Procedures 19
C. Discussion of Systems ..... 28
D. Energy Considerations 33
IV. Reuse and Recycling 37
A. Returnable Bottles 37
B. Recycling 40
Volume II
Chapter I - Basic Conversion Factors 44
A. Mobile and Stationary Sources 44
B. Electric Energy 49
C. Transportation 49
D. Conversion from Conventional 51
Chapter II - Glass Bottles 53
A. General Discussion of Computer Generated Tables . . 53
B. Overview 58
C. Glass Sand Mining 68
D. Limestone Mining 69
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
E. Lime Manufacture 71
F. Natural Soda Ash Mining 72
G. Soda Ash Manufacture 73
H. Feldspar Mining 75
I. Glass Container Manufacture 78
J. Closures 80
K. Plastic Coated Bottles 80
L. Paper Packaging 80
M. Bottle Filling 85
N. Solid Waste Disposal 88
0. Nonreturnable and Returnable Glass Containers 89
P. Glass Recycling 92
Chapter III - ABS Bottle 93
A. Overview 93
B. Crude Oil Production 98
C. Benzene Manufacture 102
D. Natural Gas Production 102
E. Natural Gas Processing 106
F. Ethylene Manufacture 107
G. 1,3-Butadiene Manufacture 109
H. Ammonia Manufacture 112
I. Acrylonitrile Manufacture 115
J. Styrene Manufacture 120
K. Polybutadiene Manufacture 120
L. ABS Resin Manufacture 125
M. Bottle Fabrication 128
N. Container Options 129
Chapter IV - Steel Cans 130
A. Overview of Systems 130
B. Iron Ore Mining 139
C. Coal Mining 141
D. Oxygen Manufacture 142
E. External Scrap Procurement 144
F. Steel Strip Manufacture 145
G. Ferrous Can Fabrication 148
H. Electric Furnace Steel Manufacture 150
I. Steel Closures for Cans 151
J. Can Filling 151
K. Petroleum Products 155
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Chapter V - Aluminum Cans 156
A. Overview 156
B. Bauxite Mining 161
C. Caustic Soda Manufacture 162
D. Refining of Alumina 164
E. Aluminum Smelting 166
F. Aluminum Rolling 168
G. Can Fabrication 169
H. Recycle Options 170
Bibliography 172
-------
Volume I CHAPTER I
SUMMARY
This study is a resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA)
of nine beverage container options. The analysis encompassed seven different
parameters: virgin raw materials use, energy use, water use, industrial solid
wastes, post-consumer solid wastes, air pollutant emissions and water pollutant
effluents. These parameters were assessed for each manufacturing and transpor-
tation step in the life cycle of a container, beginning with extraction of the
raw materials from the earth, continuing through the materials processing steps,
product fabrication, use and final disposal.
The nine container systems encompass four basic raw materials—
glass, steel, aluminum and plastic. A fifth basic material is also included
in packaging of the containers; this material is paper.
The analysis encompasses only the relative environmental effects
for the seven categories listed. We have not included environmental cate-
gories which we judged to be redundant, or for which entirely inadequate
quantitative data existed. Some of the factors excluded were: aesthetic
blight, litter,- waste heat and carbon dioxide. Since this is a relative com-
parison of beverage containers, no attempt is made to determine actual en-
vironmental damage arising from beverage container usage as compared to other
product systems or to national or worldwide industrial activity.
The basic assumptions used in this study are detailed in Chapter II.
These assumptions are quite important and the reader is urged to examine them
carefully. Other environmental studies are presently being made available
for public scrutiny, and the basic assumptions of any two studies should be
examined before comparisons between results are made. In addition, we empha-
size that the results contained in this study pertain to comparative impacts
of specific types of beverage containers only. Extrapolation of these results
to other products will likely be invalid, even if the other products are made
of the same materials. For example, the results contained in this study per-
taining to glass and steel beverage containers cannot be applied directly to
compare other products made from glass and steel because of differences in
amounts of materials required, different material compositions and different
manufacturing subsystems employed.
The specific package selected for study was beer containers, and
the nine container alternatives are given in Table 1. The primary reason
that beer was selected rather than soft drink packages, is that a 12-ounce
package is standard for beer containers. This selection simplified the com-
parison of various container systems. However, resource and environmental pro-
files of soft drink containers were also made on a basis of 1,000 liters of
beverage delivered; although in the case of soft drinks, 16-ounce glass bottles
were compared with 12-ounce cans and plastic bottles.
-------
TABLE 1
NINE BEER CONTAINER ALTERNATIVES
Material and Package Description Code Degree of Occurrence
Glass
Returnable 19-trip on-premise 19-RET Widespread
Returnable 10-trip off-premise 10-RET Widespread
Returnable five-trip off-premise 5-RET Regional
One-way conventional glass OWG Widespread
Plastic coated glass PCG Regional
Steel
Conventional three-piece steel can—
aluminum closure CSTL Widespread
All steel can ALSTL Little Used
Aluminum
Two-piece all-aluminum can ALUM Widespread
(15 percent of cans recycled)
Plastic
Plastic bottle^' ABS Test market
a/ The plastic resin was defined in terms of data available in the open
literature. The profile resulting from the production and use of
proprietary plastics may be somewhat different.
Source: Midwest Research Institute
A. REPA Summary Results
The results of the resource and environmental profile analysis of
beer containers is given in terms of the rank of each system for each impact
category in relation to the other eight containers (Table 2). The system
ranked "one" produces the least overall impact in that category, while the
one ranked "nine" produces the greatest comparative impact. Thus, a rank of
"one" is the most favorable from a resource use or environmental effluent
standpoint.
The 19-RET ranks first in five of the seven categories, and is
the highest ranked container overall. However, deriving comparative relation-
ships for the other systems is a more complex task.
In order to provide a more meaningful comparison, we have compared
returnables to conventional one-way containers. The 10-RET container is the
most representative returnable system for trippage today, whereas 19-RET and
5-RET represent outer bounds of returnable trippage which are found in some
localities or regions. Thus, the 10-RET was selected as the basic container
2
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF COMPARITIVE RANKING OF CONTAINER SYSTEMS FOR
u>
Raw Materials - kg
q
Energy - 10 joule
Water - 103 liter
Industrial Solid
Waste - cu m
Atmospheric Emissions
- kg
Waterborne Wastes - kg
Post-consumer Solid
Wastes - cu m
19-RET
1
1
1
1
1
2
1,000
10-RET
3
2
2
3
2
3
LITERS (AND 1,000 GALLONS) BEER
5-RET
7
4
4
4
4
8
ABSl/
1
6
9
1
6
8
ALSTlJ^
5
3
4
9
3
1
pCGa/
8
6
4
5
6
5
OWG
9
6
4
6
6
5
CSTL
5
5
4
8
5
3
ALUM
4
9
2
6
9
5
i&l Little used or hypothetical containers.
Note: Underlined values represent a tie for that rank. That is, less than a 10 percent difference separated
the values.
-------
for comparison with the one-way systems. If 10-RET is compared only to the
three conventional one-way containers, it ranks first in six of the seven
categories in this four-way comparison. Furthermore, the magnitude of the
difference between 10-RET and single use containers is quite impressive
(Table 3). In the areas of energy, industrial solid waste and air pollution,
the second place system in each category has more than double the quantitative
value of each category compared to 10-RET. However, in post-consumer solid
waste, 10-RET produces about 4.5 times as much waste as either ALUM or CSTL
because of the large weight and volume difference in the containers. However,
this one category alone is not as important as the combined effect of the
others. Hence, we conclude that the returnable system has lower overall
resource and environmental effects than conventional one-way containers.
Comparing 10-RET to the three hypothetical or little used con-
tainers, gives somewhat different results--the diferences are not as great.
However, 10-RET still ranks first or second in all categories (except for
post-consumer waste where it ranks third) when compared to the three other
container alternatives. Thus, we conclude that the returnable system still
has the lowest overall effects, but not by an impressive margin as in the
previous case.
Because of the narrower margin of difference, the possibility
exists that technological innovation, changes in design or other alterations
in the systems could bring about changes in the rankings. The 10-RET is
compared to each of its next lowest ranked competitors in each category for
10-RET vs. the three hypothetical or little used containers (Table 4). Sub-
stantial improvements in one-way containers would be needed to increase their
ranks to a tie with 10-RET; on the average, the impacts of the second ranked
container would have to be cut in half to equal 10-RET. It is unlikely that
the overall impact profile of any container will be improved to match or sur-
pass that of 10-RET in the near future.
B. Soft Drink Containers
Calculations were also carried out for soft drink containers de-
livering a "standard unit" of 1,000 liters of beverage. As shown in Table 5,
the results are quite similar to those for beer containers. That is, the
returnable glass container ranks higher than the one-way systems.
An important aspect of the soft drink systems is the fact that a
wide range of glass bottle sizes and weights are in common use. Thus, the
impacts of the container system per 1,000 liters of beverage vary with the
particular container used. In Table 5, a 16-ounce returnable bottle is com-
pared with 12-ounce one-way containers because the most complete data were
available for these sizes. However, calculations using a wide range of
.glass bottle configurations show that no matter which available container
is chosen, the conclusions of this study are not altered.
-------
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF 10-RET WITH SECOND RANKED
COMPETITION
Raw materials
Energy
Water
Industrial solid wastes
Atmospheric emissions
Waterborne wastes
Post consumer waste—
a I Percent Difference =
(Conventional Containers)
Nearest
Competitor
ALUM
CSTL
ALUM
OWG
CSTL
CSTL
(Second Ranked Competitor) -
Percent
Difference
27
150
Tie
273
135
Tie
(10-RET) „ 10
10-RET
b/ 10-RET ranks third in this category, behind ALUM and CSTL. There is
& 78 percent difference between ALUM and 10-RET.
-------
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF 10-RET TO NEXT LOWEST
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Waterborne Wastes
:OR (Hypothetical or little used
Next
Lowest
Competitor
ALSTL
ALSTL
ALSTL
PCG
i Wastes PCG
ssions ALSTL
2S PCG
)lid Wastes ABS
containers)
Percent
Difference
75
79
153
231
55
56
127
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE DATA FOR SOFT DRINK CONTAINER SYSTEMS
Raw Materials - kg
db)
9
Energy - 10 joule
(106 Btu)
Water - 103 liter
(1,000 gal)
Industrial Solid
Water - cu m
(cu ft)
Atmospheric
Emissions - kg
FOR 1,000 LITERS (AND 1,000 GALLONS)
15-RET ABS
2 1
1 4
1 4
ALSTL PCG CSTL OWG
4 6 4 7
2436
7 364
ALUM
3
6
2
Waterborne Wastes - kg
Post-consumer Solid
Wastes - cu m
(cu ft)
Source: Table 12, Volume II.
-------
C. Recycle and Reuse
Considerable potential exists for improving the resource and en-
vironmental profile of any container system through reuse and recycle. As
has been shown in the primary results for containers presently in use, the
reusable glass bottles have lower overall impacts on resources and the en-
vironment than the other conventional containers. However, the one-trip
containers have potential for reuse or recycling.
It is possible that plastic or glass bottles can be both recycled
and reused. Plastic and glass can be recycled if clean scrap is available.
A plastic returnable bottle may soon be viable. In that event, both reuse
and recycling options will be available to both plastic and glass. A return-
able bottle made from recycled material would have a highly favorable environ-
mental profile compared to other beverage packaging options.
The greatest improvement for any of the material systems as a re-
sult of recycling is for aluminum. The energy use drops from 23.6 x 10"
joules per 1,000 liters at current recycling rates for aluminum to 5.25 x 10
joules for 100 percent recycled aluminum, a decrease of 78 percent. Steel
and plastic show improvements of 39 and 62 percent for 100 percent recycling.
At 100 percent recycling, steel, aluminum and plastic achieve
energy use comparable to the 10-trip glass returnable. However, this is an
unrealistic recycling rate and would not be achievable on a widespread basis.
Even at 50 percent recycling, none of the systems require less energy than
that of a 10- or 19-trip returnable container. However, 50 percent recycling
of any of these materials on a regional or nationwide basis is a very high
rate of recycling and while recycling possesses distinct resource and environ-
mental advantages over one trip containers, they are unlikely to match the
returnable container achieving at least 10-trips.
-------
CHAPTER II
STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
A. Introduction
The purpose of resource and environmental profile analysis is to
determine the comparative effects that alternative or competing products have
on environmental degradation. Environmental degradation may take any or all
of four forms: (1) aesthetic blight; (2) alteration of food chains; (3) crea-
tion of health hazards; (4) depletion of resources; or (5) degradation of the
quality of air, water, and land. The seriousness of an impact is dependent
on the type and amount of environmental damage that takes place.
It would be ideal if an objective analysis would reveal a quantita-
tive measure of environmental degradation. However, this is not the case.
For example, a manufacturing plant may discharge "x" pounds of sulfur oxides
to the air and "y" pounds of oil to a nearby river. But the precise extent
to which these two pollutants contribute to environmental degradation cannot
be readily determined (although there is general agreement that degradation
has occurred). The point of view taken in this study is that even though
the true environmental damage cannot be determined, it is useful to establish
reliable estimates of the relative impact of competitive products. Thus,
even if the true effect of energy use or air pollution is not known, we can
conclude that a product responsible for more energy use or more air pollution
produces more environmental degradation than an alternative product.
B. Basic Approach
The effort expended in the study went into determining quantifiable
impacts of manufacture. The term "manufacture" is used throughout this report
in a general sense—it includes those activities associated with materials
from the time they are severed from the earth to the point where the finished
container has been finally disposed of, including all transportation links in
the processing sequence. The manufacturing activities which intervene are
designated processes or subprocesses. A summary of the impacts documented is
shown in Figure 1.
The nine container options considered in this report are derived
from four basic raw materials. These materials are: glass, plastic, steel,
and aluminum. For each material system, the manufacturing cycle was broken
into its component processes and subprocesses for the purpose of identifying
environmental effects. For some systems, this task is relatively simple
and for some, it is quite complex. For example, glass container manufacture
-------
E W Tr
E M W Tr E M W Tr
IJ 1 LUMUJ
c ir
11
TTrrnTrmi1
AE TrE SW WW AE TrE SW WW AE TrE SW WW
TJ [
AE TrE SW
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT CATEGORIES
INPUT
E = Energy (in all forms)
M = Virgin Materials (consumed and unconsumed)
W = Water
Tr = Transportation to Next Operation
(Including all modes, all fuels in each mode)
OUTPUT
AE = Atmospheric Emissions
TrE = Transportation Effluents (for each fuel type)
SW = Sol id Wastes
WW = Waterborne Wastes
Figure 1 - General overview of resources and environmental effects of container
manufacture and use.
-------
is divided into ten baste processes, with many of the processes not requir-
ing more detailed analysis of suhprocesses. At the other extreme is the
ABS polymer which is manufactured by utilizing 15 basic processes. In
several instances, a detailed analysis of several subprocesses was required.
In one case (petroleum refining) it was necessary to determine completely
the manufacturing parameters for seven such subprocesses.
For each process ajid subprocess, seven parameters are determined:
1. Raw materials: The quantity in kilograms and the type of
virgin raw materials input to each operation were determined in terms of a
given product output. Materials not intended to become part of the finished
product, such as cooling water and fuels, were excluded from raw materials.
Other raw materials, such as additives, which aggregate to less than 5 per-
cent of the total we'ight of the finished container were included in this
category by reporting their weight in the finished product. This provides
an estimate of the virgin raw materials which should be allocated to materials
used in low quantities in the finished product.
2. Energy: The energy in million joules and the source of energy
(oil, gas, electricity, etc.) used by each operation, including transportation,
for a given product output was determined. Process energy used by the actual
manufacturing operations was included. That used for space heating of build-
ings and other miscellaneous categories was excluded wherever possible. The
energy content of certain organic raw materials was also included in energy
summations. (See the discussion on page 12.) The second-order energy neces-
sary to extract, process and transport fuels are included as well as the heat
of combustion of the specific fuels used in a system. The energy value as-
signed to electricity use was the energy associated with the consumption of
fuels necessary to deliver electricity to the customer (see Volume II,
Chapter I, for more details).
3. Wastewater volume: The volume of process water in thousand
liters discharged per unit of product output from each operation was reported.
An alternative measure of water is the actual volume consumed or removed from
natural water cycles. However, such data are not available for every system.
This category considers water discharged only, not what is discharged from a
process into the water in the form of pollutants. (This factor is covered
separately.)
4. Industrial solid wastes: The volume in cubic meters of solid
waste per unit of product output which must be landfilled, or disposed of in
some other way, was determined also. Three categories were measured: process
losses, fuel combustion residues (ashes) and mining wastes. The first cate-
gory—process discards — includes wastewater treatment sludges, solids result-
ing from air pollution control and trim and waste materials from manufacturing
operations which are not recycled. Fuel combustion residues are ash generated
by coal combustion. Mining wastes are primarily materials discarded due to
raw ore processing and do not include overburden removed to expose ore.
11
-------
5. Post-consumer solid wastes: The volume in cubic meters of solid
wastes generated by disposal of the container and its associated packaging was
determined. This is solid waste which most likely would be discarded into
municipal solid waste streams. It was assumed that 9 percent would be incin-
erated and 91 percent would be landfilled, and that the amount of material re-
cycled directly from municipal waste is at present less than 1 percent of the
total volume.
6. Atmospheric emissions: The emissions in kilograms of substances
classified as pollutants were determined per unit of product output. Eleven
identifiable pollutants were considered for each operation--particulates,
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, aldehydes,
other organics, lead, odorous sulfur compounds, ammonia and hydrogen fluoride.
The amounts reported represent actual discharges into the atmosphere after
existing emission controls have been applied. All atmospheric emissions were
considered on an equal basis; no attempt was made to determine the relative
environmental effects of each of these pollutants. However, we do acknowledge
that there are differences in the relative damage caused by air pollutants,
but there is not sufficient documentation available to weight them with respect
to each other.
7. Waterborne wastes: This category includes the water pollutants
in kilograms from each operation per unit of product output. The effluent
values are those after wastewater treatment has been applied and represent
discharges into receiving waters. Thirteen specific pollutants are included--
BOD, COD, suspended solids, dissolved solids (oil field brine), oil, fluorides,
phenol, sulfides, acid, alkalinity, metal ions, chemicals and cyanide. Other
factors such as turbidity and heat, were not included because usable data were
not available.
C. Organic Raw Materials—Unique Considerations
A unique situation exists for products utilizing organic raw
materials, such as wood, crude oil and natural gas. These materials have
alternative uses as feedstocks for material goods such as paper or plastic
products or as fuels for energy. In assessing resource depletion, then, the
use of organic materials can be considered as depleting either material re-
sources or energy resources.
It is our opinion that viewing organic materials either as a mate-
rial resource or as an energy resource is justifiable from an environmental
point of view. In given sets of circumstances, either view may be desirable.
For example, in certain cases MRI's calculations show that some plastic pro-
ducts not only require less process energy, but also use less hydrocarbon energy
resources (including energy content of the basic physical materials) than some
alternative materials.
12
-------
Thus, situations exist where the manufacture of plastic materials — even when
using natural gas and petroleum as a material feedstock--conserves natural
gas and petroleum as compared to competitive products.
The treatment given organic materials in a resource and environmental
profile analysis must be considered carefully. There are two options available:
(1) organic materials used as a material to be converted into a product may be
considered as material resources; or (2) they may be considered as energy re-
sources .
In the first case, the organic materials intended to become part
of a finished product are simply measured in kilograms and treated as any
mineral resource, with one exception. A unique consideration for organic
materials is the inherent fuel value of the material. As natural gas and
petroleum undergo chemical processing, losses in chemical potential energy
occur. That is, a pound of petrochemical made from natural gas has less
fuel value than a pound of natural gas. Thus, a loss in the fuel value of
the material has occurred and should be counted as a loss to the world's
energy reserve. (The energy loss is given up in chemical reactions when
hydrocarbon feedstock is converted to a new compound.)
In the second case, organic materials are simply counted in terms
of their energy content. The amounts of wood, natural gas, and petroleum
severed from the land are measured in terms of joules of energy, rather
than in kilograms. Thus, they are considered as energy resources.
Another point of consideration regarding the fuel value of organic
materials is that finished products are a potential fuel even after they have
been used and discarded. Thus, if the solid waste stream is incinerated and
energy recovered, part of the original fuel value is reclaimed. However, this
point is largely academic at present because, in actual fact, products are
typically landfilled, burned in open dumps or incinerated with no heat re-
covery. Virtually no energy is recovered from solid waste streams, even
though the potential does exist." In addition, the energy content of all
waste products will never be available for recovery. Some portion of the
products will become litter or will be discarded into waste streams too small
for economic heat recovery operations. Even in the distant future, full re-
covery of the residual energy inherent in organic products will probably not
be achieved.
Because of these considerations, a strong case can be made for
treating plastic materials as an energy resource rather than as a material
resource, which reflects accurately the primary environmental concern of the
plastics industry—the consumption of energy reserves in the form of natural
We recognize that several resource recovery installations which recover
energy from solid wastes exist today and that there is an emerging tech-
nology under development. However, at present the actual useful recovery
of the residual energy content of organic wastes is negligible in com-
parison to the amount disposed.
13
-------
gas and petroleum. These fuels are at present, and in the near future will
be, in short supply to a greater extent than any other major natural resource.
As mentioned earlier, the material resources considered in this study such as
limestone and iron ore are much more abundant than natural gas and petroleum.
Petroleum and natural gas feedstock use is not equivalent on a kilogram-for-
kilogram basis with, for example, limestone and a better resource use picture
is conveyed if the energy value of feedstocks is the basis of evaluation.
Since essentially no recovery of the intrinsic fuel value of finished plastic
products is practiced at present, the impact on the nation's energy reserves
as a result of plastics manufacture is the sum of the process energy required
for plastics manufacture and the inherent fuel value of the organic materials
consumed. Thus, our conclusion is that treating organic materials as an energy
input rather than as a physical quantity of material is a more accurate state-
ment of environmental impact and places the comparison of competitive container
systems on a more logical basis.
On the other hand, we have treated wood fiber as both a material
resource and as an energy resource. On a worldwide basis, slightly less than
half of the wood harvested is used as a fuel, with the remainder used as a
material resource. Thus, wood serves for either use. It is difficult to
judge the present and future aspects of wood fiber depletion because of its
renewable character. If wood is viewed as a material resource, then projec-
tions for its future use indicate that adequate amounts of wood can be grown
to maintain world reserves. On the other hand, if significant conversion
from present fossil fuel use patterns to use of wood as a fuel takes place,
the annual harvest of wood would greatly exceed the annual growth and deple-
tion of wood resources would take place. Thus, it seems reasonable to classify
wood used as a material resource with minerals such as sand and limestone for
which long-term supplies exist. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to
classify wood harvested to be used as an energy source with hydrocarbon fuels
or other energy sources. We divided the pulpwood harvested for paper manu-
facture such that the portion which is intended for use in paper is measured
in kilograms of fiber, and the portion burned for process energy is measured
in joules.
D. Methodology
The general approach used to carry out the calculations for the
quantitative comparison was straightforward. All processes and subprocesses
were first considered to be separate, independent systems. For each system
a standard unit such as 1,000 kilograms of output was used as a basis for
calculations. A complete materials balance was first determined. If market-
able coproducts or by-products were produced, the materials inputs were
adusted to reflect only the input attributable to the output product of in-
terest.
14
-------
To illustrate this point, consider a hypothetical manufacturing
process that produces 1,000 kilograms of product 'A.' At the same time, it
produces 500 kilograms of a coproduct 'B1 and 100 kilograms of waste in the
form of air and water pollutants and solid waste. The total input of raw
materials is 1,600 kilograms as shown in Figure 2. An energy input of 3 x 10
joules is assumed for this example. The output is 1,000 kilograms of product
'A' and 500 kilograms of product 'B.'
A 500-kilogram credit has been applied to the input materials be-
cause we are not interested in product 'B.1 This reduces the input from
1,600 kilograms to 1,100 kilograms. In addition, because product 'B' is
one-third of the product output of the process by weight, one-third of the
wastes, or 33 kilograms, is attributed to product 'B'; a new waste figure
of 67 kilograms (100 kilograms - 33 kilograms = 67 kilograms) results. Thus
the raw material input value for product 'A1 is 1,067 kilograms (1,100 kilo-
grams - 33 kilograms = 1,067 kilograms).
Once the detailed material and energy balance information had been
determined for 1,000 kilograms or 1 metric ton of output from each subprocess,
a master flow chart was established for the manufacture of containers. Using
known process yield rates, the output of each subprocess necessary to produce
1,000 kilograms or 1 metric ton of finished containers were determined. Sum-
mary tables for the manufacture of 1,000 kilograms or 1 metric ton of con-
tainers were then constructed. (Details of calculations, summary tables and
data sources are included in Volume II.)
For purposes of comparing the nine container systems, another ad-
justment of the raw numbers was necessary. The purchase and consumption of
containers (their ultimate utility) depends not on the number of kilograms
of containers, but on the number of units necessary to deliver a given quantity
of the beverage to the customer. Hence, the values based on container weight
were converted so that containers were considered on a unit-by-unit basis.
A standard unit of 1,000 liters of beer delivered in 12-ounce containers to
the customer was selected as the unit of comparison.
Up to this point, data gathering and calculations for each system
were kept entirely independent of each other. After converting the data to
a 1,000 liter basis, the nine systems were then compared to each other for
the first time.
E. Assumptions and Limitations
Some assumptions are always necessary to limit a study to reasonable
scope, and it is important for the reader to know what assumptions have been
made in order for him to understand fully the scope and applicability of the
study. The principal assumptions and limitations were:
15
-------
Energy 3 x 10 joules
1,600 kg raw materials- >
Manufacturing Plant
1,000 kg 'A1
-> 500 kg 'B1
100 kg wastes
For analysis purposes, a new flow diagram would be established
as shown here.
9
Energy 2 x 10 joules
1,067 kg raw materials-
Manufacturing Plant
1,000 kg 'A1
67 kg wastes
Figure III-l - Diagram Illustrating Co-Product Credits
16
-------
1. Data sources: An attempt was made in every case to obtain
data which were "typical" and which could be verified in the open literature.
Extensive use was made of government agencies and publications, technical
associations and open literature sources. National average data were used
where possible. Certain sets of data involved proprietary processes so that
information was submitted to us on a confidential basis. However, data in
the public domain were used whenever possible.
2. Geographic scope: The "environment" was defined as the environ-
ment of the world. However, impacts occurring outside this country are not
well documented, so U.S. data was used to calculate foreign impacts. Thus,
iron ore mined in Canada was assumed to produce the same impacts on a kilo-
gram basis as domestic iron ore.
3. Secondary impacts: Impacts resulting from extraction, proces-
sing and transporting fuels are secondary impacts and were considered, as well
as the primary impacts of the fuel combustion. However, secondary impacts re-
sulting from effects such as manufacturing the capital equipment used in con-
tainer manufacture are small per unit output, and can be excluded without sig-
nificant error.
4. Small quantities of materials: The impacts associated with
materials which aggregate to less than 5 percent by weight of the container
were not included. The list of materials which comprise the "less than 5
percent" category was examined to insure that no known "high environmental
impact" materials were excluded from the analysis. This inspection insures
that the values from this assumption do not lead to an error of greater than
5 percent in the final results.
5. Electricity: Electrical energy is considered from the point
of view of its impact on the total energy resources of the nation. A national
average energy expenditure of 11,100 Btu of fossil fuels and hydropower is
required for each kilowatt-hour of electricity made available to the public.
Hence, this conversion factor is used rather than the direct use conversion
factor of 3,413 Btu per kilowatt-hour. The impacts from mining or extraction
of these fuels were included in the analysis.
6. Usage of scrap materials: Environmental impacts of scrap are
considered to be only those impacts incurred after the scrap is discarded from
the manufacturing site. Usually this includes only transportation and scrap
processing steps. The environmental impacts of manufacture of the material
which subsequently becomes scrap is allocated to the prime product. For
example, suppose an idealized metal fabrication plant requires 1.2 metric
tons of steel to produce 1.0 metric tons of prime product and 0.2 metric
tons of steel scrap. The impacts associated with the manufacture of 1.2
metric tons of steel are all allocated to the prime product with none being
allocated to the scrap.
17
-------
7. Point sources of pollution: The burden on specific ecosystems
was not considered--i.e., at specific point sources or geographic locations.
It was assumed the operations took effect on the environment everywhere, not
just where specific manufacturing operations are presently located.
8. Availability of data: Many industrial plants do not keep
records in sufficient detail to determine the data in the desired form for
a REPA study. For instance, if pollutant emission data are needed for a
specific subprocess in a plant, that information may not be available. The
plant may have data only for several combined processes or the entire plant.
In this event, allocation must be used for data on the particular processes
of interest. As the concept of resource and environmental profile studies
gains acceptance, it is likely that more industries will make an effort to
collect these types of data from their own operations and on a unit process
basis. Engineering calculations of materials balances for subprocesses were
used in some instances where actual operating data are not available.
9. Effluent data: Current actual conditions were assumed for
air, water and solid waste discharges to the environment. We made no at-
tempt to derive and apply effluent standards which may be in effect at some
future date. However, the application of future standards has the effect
of shifting effluents from one category into others. It does not usually
add or substract from total amounts of effluents. For example, air pollu-
tion control usually removes air pollutants from air and they are then dis-
charged to water bodies or become solid waste. Thus, reducing air pollution
from a plant will usually increase the water pollutant and/or solid waste
discharge. Thus, the analysis technique preserves the integrity of the laws
of conservation of matter and energy.
10. Consumer impacts: Impacts related to consumer activities such
as transporting the beverage home from the retail store were not included.
We have assumed that trips to retail stores are necessary for other reasons,
and should not be attributed to the container systems. Other consumer im-
pacts (except disposal of the container) relate to the beverage, itself, not
the container.
18
-------
CHAPTER III
BEER CONTAINERS--THE RESOURCE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE
The comparative environmental impacts resulting from the manufac-
ture, filling and delivery of nine container systems are discussed in this
chapter, and are presented in numerical form. A data summary is presented
first, followed by the ranking of the systems. A discussion of the systems
then follows, with special consideration of energy factors concluding the
chapter.
A. Data Summary
The resource and environmental profiles of the nine beer container
systems were derived from a series of calculations and data analyses following
the methodology outlined in the previous chapter. Thousands of calculations
were involved, leading in a stepwise manner, for each impact category for each
process and subprocess. All of the detail and supporting calculations are
contained in Volume II of this report. A description of each system and the
abbreviations used in this report are in Table 6.
Table 7 displays the quantitative summary of these calculations
with the impacts reported in their appropriate units for the number of 12-
ounce containers (2,817) which deliver 1,000 liters of beverage. Also in-
cluded in parentheses are data for 1,000 gallons of beverage delivered
(10,700 containers). These totals result from the aggregation into each
impact category of all values from each process and subprocess of each con-
tainer system.
B. Ranking Procedures
In order to draw conclusions about the comparative environmental
impact of these nine systems, it is necessary to develop a procedure to
rank these systems. Table 8 contains the rank of the nine systems for each
impact category. A survey of the numbers in Table 8 reveals that overall
ranking of the systems is not an easy task. There is no container system
which either leads or lags in all impact categories. ALUM leads in one
category and is last in two categories, exemplifying the problems of simple
ranking systems.
However, the 19-RET ranks first in five of the seven categories,
second in one, and fourth in the remaining category. (A ranking of first
means that the smallest quantitative value was incurred by that system in
that impact category. Thus, a ranking of "one" is the most desirable and
a ranking of 9 is the least desirable.) The 10-RET system also ranks high--
19
-------
TABLE 6
BEER CONTAINER SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS
Abbreviation
19-RET
10-RET
5-RET
ABS
ALSTL
PCG
OWG
CSTL
ALUM
Container
(kgj
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.035
0.054
0.159
0.186
0.050
0.020
Weight
(Oz)
9.8
9.8
9.8
1.2
1.9
5.6
6.6
1.8
0.7
Description
Glass 19-trip on-premise returnable bottle - steel crown closure - three
trip paper packaging
Glass 10-trip off-premise returnable bottle - steel crown closure -
three-trip paper packaging
Five-trip off-premise returnable bottle - steel crown closure - one-trip
paper packaging
ABS one-way plastic bottle - steel crown closure
Three-piece all steel can , one way
Plastic coated one-way glass bottle - steel crown closure
One-way glass bottle - steel crown closure
Conventional three-piece steel can - aluminum ring pull closure
Two-piece one-way all-aluminum can (15 percent of cans recycled)
Note: All bottle systems include paper packaging of empty and filled bottles. Paperboard six-pack carriers
were included in all bottle systems except the 19-trip off-premise. All can systems include paper
packaging of empty and filled cans. Plastic ring six-pack carriers were included.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE DATA FOR CONTAINER SYSTEMS FOR
1,000 LITERS (AND 1,000 GALLONS) BEER
19-RET
10-RET
5-RET
Raw Materials - kg 114.9 186.9 411.9
(Ib) (958.9) (1,560) (3,438)
q
Energy - 10 joule
(106 Btu)
Water - 103 liter
(1,000 gal.)
Industrial Solid
Waste - cu m
(cu ft)
Atmospheric Emissions-kg
(Ib)
Waterborne Wastes - kg
(Ib)
Post-consumer Solid
Wastes - cu m
(cu ft)
4.43
(15.90)
11.35
(11.35)
0.049
(6.59(
8.45
(70.52)
3.29
(27.47)
0.054
(7.16)
6.02
(21.61)
15.42
(15.42)
0.067
(8.91)
11.28
(94.15)
4.17
(34.76)
0.089
(11.96)
12.0
(42.88)
32.52
(32.52)
0.111
(14.94)
24.00
(200.3)
8.29
(69.17)
0.216
(28.88)
ABS
ALSTL
PCG
118.3 326.1 791.3
(987.6) (2,722) (6,604) (
17. 6S./
(63.32)
41.71
(41.71)
0.054
(7.21)
28.84
(240.7)
8.24
(68.79)
0.202
(27.05)
10.8
(38.63)
39.02
(39.02)
0.808
(108.0)
17.47
(145.8)
2.17
(18.14)
0.026
(3.49)
16.9
(60.66)
35.05
(35.05)
0.222
(29.71)
29.44
(245.7)
6.51
(54.32)
0.278
(37.16)
OWG
903.5
7,541) (
17.9
(64.38)
36.94
(36.94)
0.250
(33.46)
31.29
(261.1)
6.76
(56.46)
0.307
(40.97)
CSTL
329.0
2,746) (
15.0
(53.73)
34.10
(34.10)
0.696
(93.00)
26.59
(221.9)
4.12
(34.35)
0.024
(3.22)
ALUM
237.9
1,986)
20.9
(75.03)
15.11
(15.11)
0.270
(36.13)
38.73
(323.2)
7.08
(59.08)
0.020
(2.75)
al This includes 5.70 x 109 joules or 17.26 x 106 Btu which is the energy equivalent of oil and natural gas
used as a material resource.
Source: Table 13, p. 21, Volume II.
-------
TABLE 8
RANK OF CONTAINER SYSTEMS IN EACH IMPACT CATEGORY
Raw Materials
Energy
N3
S3
Industrial Solid
Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions -
Waterborne Wastes
Post-consumer Solid Wastes
1
19-RET
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
,000 LITERS
10-RET
3
2
2
3
2
3
5
(AND 1,000
5-RET
7
4
4
4
4
8
6
GALLONS)
ABS
1
6
9
1
6
8
6
BEER
ALSTL PCG OWG
589
366
444
9 5 6
3 6 6
1 5 5
289
CST1
5
5
4
8
5
3
2
ALUM
4
Source: Table 7
Note: A tie was declared when two numbers were found to be closer than 10 percent of the lower number.
The "ties" are underlined.
-------
TABLE 9
RANKING OF COMPOSITE DATA FOR FOUR CONVENTIONAL CONTAINER
SYSTEMS FOR 1.000 LITERS (AND 1.000 GALLONS) BEER
10-RET CWG CSTL ALUM
Raw Materials 1 432
Energy 1 324
Water \- 3 3 1
Industrial Solid Waste 1 2 4 2
Atmospheric Emissions 1 324
Waterborne Wastes 1 3 1 3
Post-consumer Solid Wastes 3 421
Source: Table 7
a/ See Note on Table 8.
23
-------
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF 10-RET WITH SECOND RANKED
COMPETITION
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Wastes
Post- consumer Waste-2'
Source: Table 7
a/ Percent Difference =
( Conventional Containers)
Nearest
Competitor
ALUM
CSTL
ALUM
OWG
CSTL
CSTL
(Second Ranked Competitor)
Percent
2 /
Difference—
27
150
Tie
273
135
Tie
- (10-RET) x 1
10-RET
b/ 10-RET ranks third in this category, behind ALUM and CSTL. There
is a 78 percent difference between ALUM and 10-RET.
24
-------
second and third in all categories except one, where it ranks fifth. Thus,
we conclude that the two higher trippage rate returnable systems are the ones
with the most favorable overall resource and environmental profiles, but
further definitive ranking of containers is not discernable using this tabular
ranking technique.
Of the three returnable options studied, 10-KET is the system
which most closely approximates the national average situation today, and
will continue to be most representative for at least five years. The 10-RET
was then compared with the three conventional one-way systems now widely used.
These four systems account for almost all of the beer (and soft drinks) con-
tainers used today.
The returnable system ranks highest compared to conventional sys-
tems (Table 9). It leads in six of the seven impact categories. The magni-
tude of the lead of 10-RET over the one-way systems was also calculated
(Table 10). In three of the categories—energy, industrial solid waste and
atmospheric emissions--the lead by 10-RET exceeds 100 percent, with a tie
or smaller lead for three other categories. The 10-RET energy requirements
range from only 0.4 times as much as CSTL to only 0.29 as much as for ALUM;
and the 10-RET leads OWG by 70 percent in the category of industrial solid
waste. The one category that 10-RET does not lead is post-consumer solid
waste, where ALUM leads, accounting for 78 percent less than 10-RET.
The relationship of 10-RET to the three experiemental (developmental)
or little used systems was also compared (Table 11). Here, the 10-RET leads
in three categories, and is second in the remaining four categories. The
lead of the returnable system is not as impressive as in the comparison with
conventional systems, but the returnable container is still the one which
overall results in lowest impact. The PCG system is ranked third or fourth
in all categories except one, where it is ranked second, so it appears to
have the least favorable profile of these developmental systems.
The 10-RET impacts were then compared to its next lowest "non-
conventional" container competitor for each category (Table 12). The gaps
between 10-RET and the next lowest competitor are large in all cases. Thus,
the 10-RET container appears to have the most favorable resource and environ-
mental profile of all eight container options.
Significant technical innovations in the near future could alter
these findings. For example, the development of a lightweight all-steel can
could significantly close the gap between 10-RET and ALSTL, although the
possibilities of a reversal in ranks seem remote. In addition, there may
be comparable favorable developments in returnable container systems in the
future.
25
-------
TABLE 11
RANKING OF COMPOSITE DATA FOR FOUR CONTAINER SYSTEMS FOR
1,000 LITERS (AND 1.000 GALLONS) BEER
10-RET ABS ALSTL PCG
Raw Materials - kg 2134
Energy - 109 joule
Water - 103 liter
Industrial Solid Waste - cu m
Atmospheric Emissions - kg
Waterborne Wastes - kg
Post-consumer Solid Wastes -
cu m
Source: Table 7.
a/ See note on Table 8.
26
-------
TABLE 12
COMPARISON OF 10-RET WITH NEXT LOWEST COMPETITOR
(HYPOTHETICAL OR
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Wastes
Post-consumer Solid Wastes
Source: Table 7
a/ Percent Difference - (Next
LITTLE USED CONTAINERS)
Next
Lowest Ranked
Competitor
ALSTL
ALSTL
ALSTL
PCG
PCG
ALSTL
PCG
ABS
Lowest Ranked Competitor)
Percent
Difference—
75
79
153
231
55
56
127
- (10-RET) „
10-RET
27
-------
Thus, we conclude that the returnable containers giving 10 trips
or more possess an advantage over other container systems from an environ-
mental and resource use point of view. However, based on Table 7, we can-
not rank the one-way systems relative to one another without a more detailed
analysis scheme, which was beyond the prescribed scope of this study.*
C. Discussion of Systems
Details concerning the data and calculations from which Table 7
and the rankings were drawn can be found in the Volume II. However, some
of the more important details of the results are presented here. This in-
cludes a brief description for each container alternative along with a dis-
cussion of the special factors which bear on the rankings of the containers.
19-RET, 10-RET and 5-RET Systems: These returnable systems utilize
a 12-ounce glass bottle weighing 277 grams which on the average makes 19, 10
or 5 trips before being discarded. Each bottle is capped with a 1.8 gram
steel closure. A major distinction in these systems is that the 19-RET sys-
tem is a container which is used "on-premise." That is, the beverage is
consumed at a business establishment. The 10-RET and 5-RET are "off-premise"
type containers and are taken off-premise for consumption. The off-premise
container requires a six-pack carrier, while 19-RET does not. The 10-RET
is assumed to achieve three trips for its six-pack container, as well as the
corrugated container that carries the filled six-packs. But for 5-RET, we
have assumed only one trip for the paper packaging.
The assumption of using one-way carrier packaging for 5-RET is
valid for the situation as it existed in Oregon in 1973. At that time, the
breweries were receiving their off-premise returnable bottles "in any pack-
age" that was handy at the retail store from which the bottles were returned.
Packages that belonged to competitors were discarded at the brewery. However,
we assume that given sufficient time and planning, the situation could improve
to the point where more careful sorting would occur and higher trippage would
be experienced for the boxes and six-pack carriers.
The environmental advantage of the returnable systems lies in the
fact that much less material and energy is needed for bottle construction
to deliver a given quantity of beverage than for a corresponding one-way
container. In fact, a single returnable container will deliver 19, 10 or
5 units of beverage compared to only one for a one-way bottle. This is
partially offset by the fact that returnable bottles are heavier and require
more raw materials per bottle than one-ways, and they also require trans-
portation for the return trip, and extensive washing. Additional points of
interest can be found in the detailed data in Volume II.
MRI has used a more comprehensive and detailed ranking and weighting
methodology on similar studies which does give definitive results on
the containers. However, emphasis in this study was placed on the
quantitative results, with interpretation of the results left largely
to the reader.
28
-------
The detailed profile of 5-RET (Volume II, Table 9) shows that a
high percentage of the impacts are related to the one-trip paper carrier,
while the glass container manufacturing and filling operations account for
most of the remainder. Since the carrier package assumptions are quite im-
portant, we performed calculations for a 5-RET system with various trips
for the packaging. If two trips per carrier package are used instead of
one trip, the energy requirements for 5-RET are lowered from 12 x 10"/1,000 Si
to 9.0 x 10^ j. At three trips per package, the energy for 5-RET is 8 x 10^ j,
moving it much closer to 10-RET. (The other impacts are reduced by signifi-
cant amounts also.) Thus, the assumptions concerning the paper carrier for
5-RET affect its relative position to the other containers. In other words,
the trippage rate on the carrier is as important to the overall results as
the prime container itself.
ABS: The ABS system utilizes a 35-gram ABS plastic bottle in a
one-way configuration. This is a hypothetical bottle, and to our knowledge,
no company is planning to market this particular bottle. However, the im-
pacts of this bottle are judged to be similar to impacts which are produced
by proprietary nitrile based polymers presently being test marketed as
beverage containers. Therefore, even though this system is a hypothetical
construction, it approximates plastic containers projected for future use.
An important impact in the ABS profile is energy use. The ABS
system ranks sixth in energy use. An important aspect of this energy value
is that it contains the energy equivalent of the hydrocarbon feedstock that
goes into the plastic resin. In fact, the energy of the material resource
accounts for 32 percent of the total ABS energy. It is interesting to note
that even though this plastic uses a fuel for a material feedstock, there is
one other system--ALUM--that leads to a significantly greater utilization
of energy per unit of delivered product than ABS. However, as a one-way
system, ABS still requires 4.0 times as much energy as the first place
19-RET system.
If the hydrocarbon feedstock for ABS is counted as kilograms of
raw material rather than joules of energy, the ABS system then ranks fourth
in energy (rather than sixth), and ties with the 5-RET system.
Two other important impacts for ABS are air pollution and water
pollution, for which the ABS ranks sixth for the former and eighth for the
latter. The detailed calculations in Volume II of this report show that
the air pollutant total for ABS is 23 percent hydrocarbon emissions. The
average for all container options in air pollution is 18 percent hydrocarbons.
In most areas of the country, hydrocarbon emissions are considered to be
less important than most other air emissions. In addition, an indeterminate,
but large, fraction of the hydrocarbon emissions listed for ABS is methane,
usually not considered to be a pollutant. Thus, the air pollution for ABS
would be judged as slightly less serious than for other systems, but this
difference would not affect the ranking of the ABS system.
29
-------
The water pollution from the ABS system has several important
components. The largest component is that related to paper packaging manu-
facturing which produces BOD and suspended solids discharges aggregating
47 percent by weight of the total container system water pollution. Another
17 percent is generated off-site as oil field brine (dissolved solids), a
serious fresh water pollutant that can result from improperly disposed brine
associated with oil and gas production. The rest of the water pollution is
generated on-site at the container manufacturing and processing plants.
ABS ranks last in water use, requiring 3.7 times as much as 19-RET.
However, this is primarily cooling water used in petrochemical manufacture
and is not considered to be as significant as the other impact categories.
ALSTL: The ALSTL system is the one way all steel can, and is
characterized by low water pollution (ranked 1), low post-consumer waste
(ranked 2), and relatively low air pollution, water use and energy require-
ments (ranked 3). Thus, ALSTL leads the one way containers in five of the
seven categories; ALSTL is apparently the one way container with the least
overall resource and environmental impact.
The high ranking of ALSTL in the areas of water effluents, air
discharges energy use, and water use may seem surprising in view of the
highly publicized environmental problems of steel mills. However, alloca-
tion of those impacts to this particular steel product results in quite low
values per unit of finished product as compared to other one way containers.
The one high impact in the ALSTL profile is industrial solid wastes,
in which ALSTL ranks last. The ALSTL container produces sixteen times more
industrial solid waste than 19-RET. The waste is primarily inorganic mining
wastes, generated by the extraction and purification of high grade iron ore
from the ore bearing rocks. These solid wastes can cause considerable environ-
mental problems at the sites where they are generated.
PCG and OWG: These two systems are both basically glass systems.
The OWG system uses a 186-gram glass bottle. The PCG system uses a 157-
gram glass bottle with a 2-gram plastic coat. A steel crown is used in
both cases. The plastic coat accounts for only 1 percent of the PCG system
weight requirements, so the PCG profile is quite similar to the OWG profile
and will not be discussed separately.
The OWG system ranks last in both the raw materials and post-
consumer solid waste categories, and PCG ranks eighth in those two categories.
The high raw material use is because glass containers require more kilograms
of raw materials for their manufacture than the other systems. This is shown
by the fact that OWG is by far the heaviest one way container, outweighing
next place ALSTL (54 grams) by a factor of 3.4. The large post-consumer waste
values are caused by a combination of the high weight of the container, coupled
with relatively high volume of the container material per unit of beverage.
This combination causes a relatively large volume of landfill space for each
container. (We assumed the container would not be "cushioned" in mixed waste
and would be crushed in the process of disposal.)
30
-------
Other significant impacts for glass include the fact that OWG ranks
sixth in energy use and air pollution (PCG ranks sixth in air pollution and
sixth in energy, also). The large energy requirement is mainly concentrated
in two operations (Volume II, Table 8): glass manufacture accounts for 53
percent of the OWG system energy total and paper packaging accounts for 26
percent of the energy. Thus, these two operations account for 79 percent
of the total OWG energy. These two operations also account for most of the
air pollution, with glass manufacture accounting for 32 percent (mostly
nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons), and paper packaging also accounting for
32 percent (mostly particulates and sulfur oxides).
In the remaining impact categories, OWG ranks fourth in water use,
sixth in industrial solid waste (PCG ranks fifth in industrial wastes and
fourth in water use). In water pollution, OWG and PCG are tied for fifth
place. Sixty-eight percent of this is attributed to packaging. Glass manu-
facturing plants generally do not have significant water pollution problems,
and this is reflected in the favorable position of OWG in the water pollution
category.
CSTL: The conventional bimetal can consists of a steel body and
bottom with an aluminum ring pull top. The weight of the steel used per can
is 43 grams, while the lid requires only 5.4 grams. However, even though
the lid comprises only 11 percent by weight of the can metal, its manufacture
accounts for 43 percent of the energy requirements as well as significant
amounts of the other impact categories (see Volume II). Thus, CSTL as
opposed to ALSTL produces considerably more impact on the environment as a
result of the aluminum closure's environmental impacts.
One of the most significant impacts for CSTL is the industrial
solid waste associated with iron ore mining (as discussed for ALSTL). CSTL
ranks eighth in this category. Also of importance is energy use and air
emissions associated with the aluminum top. The top accounts for 40 percent
of the air emission total of CSTL.
Post-consumer waste disposal of CSTL is small. (In fact, all of
the metal can systems have quite low post-consumer disposal profiles.) This
is the result of two factors. First, can systems require less packaging for
carriers because they do not require "cushioning" to the extent that glass
containers do; and cans utilize the plastic ring six-pack carriers which
occupy only about one-tenth as much volume as paper carriers. Recently, the
use of adhesives to bind six-packs has come into play as well. The second
factor is that metal has a high density, requiring minimum material volume
per unit of beverage compared to other materials and thus require considerably
less landfill space per unit of beverage delivered. In fact, a steel can
occupies only 8 percent of compacted volume of a one-way glass container.
31
-------
ALUM: The aluminum can for the ALUM system is a 20-gram all
aluminum can with a ring pull top. This system has the highest impacts
on the environment in two categories--energy use and air emissions. It
produces the least impact in the category of post-consumer solid waste
and ranks second in water use.
ALUM requires 1.2 times as much energy as does OWG, the system
ranked next in energy, and 4.7 times as much as 19-RET. The massive
electric energy requirements have been cited as environmental factors in
the aluminum industry. Industry spokesmen often counter that their high
usage of hydropower should be the determining factor. However, MRI's cal-
culations have been based on the point of view that national average elec-
tricity fuel and hydropower data should apply in all cases because of the
large-scale interregional nature of many electric power grids. In addition,
it is contrary to the basic concept of resource and environmental profile
analysis to treat one selected industry differently than others in the source
of electrical power. While it is true that the aluminum industry does use
a proportionately higher percent of hydropower, this usage in effect precludes
others from proportional use of hydropower. The total electrical energy
pool and national fuel profile is the most important consideration--from a
total systems view point. In addition, water power will decline in impor-
tance as the use of coal and nuclear energy for power generation increases.
Thus, growth in aluminum production in the U.S.A. will have to be based
largely on fossil or nuclear fuel.*
Another major impact for ALUM is atmospheric emissions; ALUM con-
tainer manufacture shows 1.3 times as much atmospheric emissions as next
ranked ABS, PCG and OWG, and 4.6 times as much as 19-RET. The source of the
air emissions is primarily electric power generation and sulfur oxides and
particulates combined form 49 percent of the air emissions (coal combustion)
as compared to 42 percent for the all systems average. Thus, the air emis-
sions values show a slightly higher composite concentration of these two
air pollutants.
In the other impact categories, ALUM ranks much higher. It is
sixth in industrial solid wastes, second in water use, fourth in raw mata-
rial use and first in post-consumer disposal. Its high ranking in post-
consumer solid waste is because the aluminum can uses very little material,
and because metal cans result in minimum volume per unit of beverage and
therefore occupies little landfill space. The aluminum can weight of only
20 grams is by far the lightest container. Also, we have calculated the
ALUM system on the basis of 15 percent can recycling which further reduces
solid waste, energy requirements, materials, etc., over a non-recycling
option.
In fact, the industry will likely seek out untapped worldwide sources
of hydropower in preference.
32
-------
D. Energy Considerations
In the closing months of 1973, a dramatic national "energy crisis"
came to the fore. This "crisis" was caused in part by a sudden reduction
in volume o"f worldwide petroleum reserves which were available to the U.S.
Changes such as this can cause alterations in the relative importance of
impact categories. In fact, in times of emergency, only one impact category,
such as energy, may be the only impact of importance.
To examine our REPA results in terms of energy alone, an analysis
of total energy requirements for each system, as well as the sources of
energy, were developed for the various container options (Tables 13 and 14).
In the long term, total energy use is a very important parameter. The various
forms of energy may be interchangeable if long-term planning is utilized,
and no great advantage can be presently ascertained with any degree of cer-
tainty by using coal as an energy source rather than oil. However, for the
short term, oil and natural gas are in quite short supply and industrial use
of these fuels competes with home heating and other uses closely coupled to
"quality of life." Thus, in the short term, it appears the use of hydro-
carbons by industry is generally considered to be a less desirable form of
energy use than coal or wood (although the associated environmental effluents
may be lower in the case of the use of hydrocarbons).
For the conventional containers, the three glass returnable config-
urations are lower in total energy use, and the 19-RET and 10-RET presently
utilize less total hydrocarbon fuels than do the conventional one-way systems
(Tables 13 and 14). For the conventional one-way systems, CSTL utilizes
about the same hydrocarbon energy as 5-RET, but only 64 percent as much hydro-
carbon fuel as OWG, and only 57 percent as much as ALUM. Thus, CSTL appears
to require less of those important fuel resources, although it utilizes 2.2
times more coal than OWG.
For the "nonconventional" beer containers (ALSTL, ABS and PCG)
ALSTL compares well with 10-RET in hydrocarbon fuel usage, but utilizes 5.3
times as much coal, and 1.8 times as much total energy. The ABS container
is ranked sixth in total energy use and ninth in petroleum use. Thus, ABS
does not fare well in the energy analysis. This hydrocarbon usage is in
part related to the large amounts of natural gas and petroleum used as a
material resource (5.7 x 10^ joules petroleum and natural gas) for which
alternate materials do not presently exist. However, some of this energy
could be recovered by incinerating solid waste streams and recovering the
energy.*
It should be noted that plastic formulations other than the one used
here by MRI may result in lower energy values than those used here.
33
-------
TABLE 13
ENERGY, REQUIREMENTS BY FUEL SOURCE FOR CONTAINER SYSTEMS
Petroleum
^ Natural Cat
Hydrocarbon Subtotal
Coal
Wood Fiber
Misc. (hydro and nuclear)
Total Energy
DELIVERING BEER IN 109
19-RET
1.45
1.72
3.17
0.71
0.49
0.06
4.43
(5.20)
(6.17)
(11.37)
(2.55)
(1.76)
(0.21)
( 15.90)
10-RET
1.79
2.42
4.21
0.97
0.76
0.08
6.02
(6.42)
J8.68)
(15.10)
(3.48)
(2.73)
(0.29)
(21.60)
5-RET
3.23
4.38
7.61
1.95
2.23
0.16
12.00
(11.59)
(15.71)
(27.30)
(7.00)
(8.00)
(0.57)
(42.90)
j/ 1,000 / (or 106
ASS*'
8.46
_4.86
13.32^
2.32
1.64
0.35
17.60
(30.35)
(17.44)
(47.79)-'
(8.32)
(5.88)
(1.26)
(63.30)
Btu/1,
000 gal)
ALSTCi'
1.42
,2.98
4.40
6. 11
0.05
0.21
10.80
(5.09)
(10.69)
(15.78)
(21.92)
(0.18)
(0.75)
(38.60)
PCGi/
3.64
8.53
12.17
2.74
1.71
0.26
16.90
(13.06)
130.59)
(43.65)
(9.83)
(6.13)
(0.93)
(60.50)
owe
3.84
9. 10
12.94
2.95
1.78
0.27
17.90
(13
(32
(46.
(10
(6.
(0
(64
.76)
66)
.42)
.59)
,38)
.98)
.4)
CSTC
2.83
4.88
7.71
6.60
0.04
0.59
14.90
(10.14)
(17.51)
'(27.65)
(23.67)
(0.16)
(2.13)
(53.60)
ALUM
4.81
8.62
13.43
6.12
0.04
1.29
20.90
(17.26)
(30.94)
(48.20)
(21.94)
(0.16)
(V62)
(74.92)
a/ These are little used as beer containers.
b/ This includes 5.7 x lO9 Joules (20 x 106 Btu) petroleum and natural gas equivalent used as a material resource.
-------
TABLE 14
RANKING OF SYSTEMS FOR ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH FUEL SOURCE
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Hydrocarbon Subtotal
Coal
Wood Fiber
Misc. (Hydro and Nuclear)
Total Energy
19-RET 10-RET
5-RET
ALSTLH
a/
OWG
CSTL
ALUM
&
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
2
2
2
5
2
2
5
4
4
3
9
3
4
9
5
6
4
6
7
6
1
3
2
7
1
4
3
6
7
6
5
6
5
6
6
9
6
6
6
5
6
4
5
4
7
1
8
5
8
7
6
7
1
9
9
_a/ These are little used as been containers.
b/ See note on Table 8. .
-------
It is our contention that energy requirements should be viewed
in the context of withdrawals from a national or world-wide energy reser-
voir which is limited in extent. However, an alternative view is to con-
sider energy usage in a more confined context. The effect of doing this
can be seen by using the aluminum can as an example. We have assumed that
usage of electricity by aluminum smelters is an energy withdrawal from our
nation's electricity reservoir, and have used national statistics to compute
the fuels used to generate electricity. Aluminum companies contend that
their smelters draw on local energy reservoirs, and thus use "low impact"
hydroelectric power to a much greater extent than the national average.
We have recalculated the ALUM column on Table 13 using aluminum industry
data and have listed the results in Table 15.
A comparison with the Table 14 shows that this consideration
improves the position of ALUM with respect to petroleum use and overall
energy requirements. However, this calculation does not improve ALUM
enough to be a serious contender with the returnable systems.
TABLE 15
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BY FUEL
SOURCE FOR ALUM CONTAINER SYSTEM
109 j/ (106 Btu/ New Rank on
1.000 I 1.000 gal.) Table 14
Petroleum 3.26 (11.70) 5
Natural gas 7.70 (27.62) 7
Hydrocarbon Subtotal 10.96 (39.32) 6
Coal 5.15 (18.47) 7
Wood fiber 0.04 ( 0.16) _!
Miscellaneous (hydro
and nuclear) 1.54 _£ 5.54) 9
Total Energy 17.70 (63.49) 6
Note: We have assumed the following energy profile for electricity used
in aluminum smeltir,g--coal 37.8 percent, natural gas 14.8 percent,
and hydroelectric 47.4 percent.
The energy analysis, then, does not change the conclusions pre-
viously reached. The returnable systems, especially 19-RET and 10-RET, have
the lowest energy values. They require less total energy and generally re-
quire less hydrocarbon fuel than do the one-way systems.
36
-------
CHAPTER IV
REUSE AND RECYCLING
One of the possible means of achieving a more favorable environ-
mental profile is by employing reuse and recycle options. The reason that
these options are of potential benefit to the environment is that reuse and
recycle bypasses most of the basic virgin materials. Manufacturing opera-
tions produce relatively high impacts on the environment and can be bypassed
on reuse or recycling options. However, the bypassing of these manufacturing
operations must be weighed against the new operations of product reuse and
of secondary materials recovery, processing and transportation.
A. Returnable Bottles
An example of environmental effects of product reuse is given in
Figure 3. The parameter selected for this example calculation was energy.
However, similar changes occur in the other six parameters of a REPA profile.
Four bottle systems are plotted so that the environmental improvement at
various trippage rates is shown. The four systems are: (1) on-premise glass
bottles with three-trip paper packaging; (2) off-premise glass bottles with
one-trip paper packaging; (3) off-premise glass bottles with three-trip paper
packaging; and (4) a hypothetical on-premise ABS returnable bottle with
three-trip paper packaging.
The initial part of the four curves (low trippage) shows a very
steep downward slope, indicating a considerable lowering of the system energy
requirements at low trippage rates. In fact, at only two trips, the on-
premise bottles require less energy than every one-way container, except ALSTL.
At three trips, the off-premise containers surpass all one-way systems except
ALSTL, and on-premise containers surpass even ALSTL. At four trips, the off-
premise system with three-trip packaging, requires less energy than ALSTL,
but the off-premise system with one-trip packaging requires about eight trips
to reach that point.
The rapid leveling off of the returnable curves implies that a lower
limit exists for returnable containers. In fact, this lower limit is the re-
quirement for returnable reprocessing (e.g., transportation, washing), new
closure and packaging energy which is about 3.7 for the on-premise bottle,
4.4 for the off-premise, three-trip packaging system and 8.3 for the off-
premise, one-trip packaging. The implication is that for returnable systems
37
-------
oo
ALUM
Off Premise Glass (1 Trip Package)
Off Premise Glass (3 Trip Package)
On Premise Glass or ABS
ALSTL
-------
capable of high trip rates, the impacts of manufacturing the bottle are
negligible. For returnable bottles, then, impacts may be minimized by
using durable bottles capable of high trip rates. This is counter to
current trends of using lighter bottles where possible. The reason for
this is that market factors and current consumer use patterns tend to favor
the lighter bottles, even though environmental considerations may favor a
heavier bottle reused many more times than the current average.
An interesting calculation can be made concerning one type of
possible marketing change. Most beverage markets are served by a broad
array of returnable and one-way containers. However, legislation or
changes in marketing conditions could bring about a change in the mix of
container types used. For example, laws banning or restricting in some
way the availability of one-way containers can convert a marketing area
to use only returnable containers.
The change to a "returnable only" situation will generally pro-
duce new aspects of these systems. We have previously pointed out that one
problem the beer industry has experienced in Oregon as a result of the
"bottle law" is that each company has not secured their own carrier packaging
back with the returnable bottles, thus effectively reducing the trip rate
of the packaging. Another question which arises is if customers accustomed
to throwing away convenience packaging will return the bottles for the
deposit or throw them away, thus creating a "one-trip" situation for the
returnable bottle system.
The heavier returnable bottle discarded after one trip requires
more energy than most one-way systems (Figure 3) . The question then arises
as to what fraction of the market can be served by "one-trip returnable"
(1-RET) before it is environmentally desirable to utilize one-way containers
designed for one time use and discard.
To answer this question, we calculated three market composites
and the percent of returnable bottles which must be discarded after one trip
before the market composite energy requirement rises to 15.0 x ICPj per
1,000 I of beer, the value for the lowest energy commonly available one-way
system (CSTL). Those three composites should cover a realistic range which
would be experienced in selected United States regional markets. The first
composite assumes that the market is partially 19-RET, with the remainder
of the market being 1-RET (one-trip off-premise). The second composite is
a mix of off-premise 5-RET and 1-RET. The third mix assumes that the market
is 20 percent 19-RET, with the remainder being shared between 5-RET and 1-RET.
39
-------
The results of the calculation show that the market share for
1-RET must be 45 percent, 19 percent and 28 percent, respectively. Thus,
in the most pessimistic case of having only 5-RET and 1-RET systems present,
consumers must discard 19 percent of the returnable bottles after one trip
before a currently available one-way system shows lower overall energy use.
But, if higher trip rates and more favorable conditions exist, about 28 to
45 percent of the returnables must be discarded after one trip before a con-
ventional one-way system has a lower energy use.
B. Recycling
The effect of recycling on the total system energy is depicted
in Figure 4. This figure shows that impressive gains are made by recycling
aluminum, plastic or steel from solid waste streams. This is most evident
for ALUM, where the energy of 23.6 x 109j for 1,000 I of beer is reduced
to 5.29 x lO^j for 100 percent recycling, a 78 percent reduction. Improve-
ments in the other systems are significant, but not as great. For steel,
the improvements is 39 percent; for ABS, 62 percent; but for glass, a 23
percent increase is seen. This increase results because we assumed the
solid waste glass recovery would be made from a relatively energy intensive
wet recovery process followed by color sorting the glass from mixed "heavies"
to upgrade it to furnace specification. However, energy savings by recycling
glass of greater than 10 percent in the glass plant are not usually realized
no matter what means of recovery are used. Thus, recovery and recycling of
glass from retail stores or filling plants may result in marginal energy
savings (but considerable reduction in solid waste). The energy saving
values, for materials other than glass, are based on the fact that re-
cycling bypasses many of the conventional manufacturing processes, but for
glass this is not true.
One complicating factor of the recycled materials profiles is the
assignment of energy to recover containers. If containers are recovered by
mechanical means from a solid waste stream, the recovery energy is not large
compared to the total recycled system energy requirements (i.e., if the whole
waste stream is processed for recovery). However, recovering cans through
a voluntary can reclamation center presents a different picture. In one
circumstance, cans are transported by auto to a supermarket collection
center, or other location to which a trip could be considered a necessity.
The purpose of a trip such as this is primarily to buy food, or medicine,
or other necessary goods so that the cans ride "piggy back." No energy of
transportation needs to be assigned in this case. However, if a specific
auto trip is undertaken to take cans to a reclamation center, then impacts
of the entire round trip should be charged to the cans.
40
-------
25 r-
x
o>
10
20
30
40
50 60
Percent Recycled
70
80
90
ALUM
Figure 4
-------
We have calculated the impacts of carrying aluminum cans to a
voluntary collection center by auto. At 1 gallon of gasoline consumed per
100 cans, the change in the 100 percent recycled energy requirement of
aluminum is to increase 82 percent, an increase from 5.25 to 9.55 x 10 j.
This represents a round-trip by car to a collection center only 10 to 15
miles from home with about four cases in the trunk. However, this is still
an index value better than 5-RET or any other one-way system. In fact, a
gasoline consumption of at least 2.2 gallons per 100 cans is required before
the 100 percent recycled aluminum index becomes equal to CSTL, the "best"
conventional one-way system. Thus, even though long travel with empty
aluminum cans is a negative environmental factor, it is usually better than
any currently used one-way system, as long as the "one-way" packaging is
used in the first instance.
Looking at 100 percent recycling values is only of academic inter-
est, of course, because such recovery rates from solid waste streams are not
possible on a regional or national basis. Much of the potentially recoverable
materials are discarded into waste streams in such low concentrations that
to recover it economically is not possible. It is probable that only where
quite large volumes of waste are processed, can recovery of materials be
practiced economically. In addition, the discarded materials, when recovered,
are sometimes contaminated so that reuse is difficult.
A possible recycling rate for various materials is difficult to
determine, but for purposes of comparison, we used a 50 percent recycling
rate compared to returnable options. Figure 4 shows that near 50 percent
recycling both aluminum and glass have index values that are not as low as
using any returnable container while ABS is about equal to 5-RET. However,
none of the 50 percent recycled containers, not even 50 percent recycled
ALSTL, have energy requirements lower than either 10-RET or 19-RET glass.
In fact, recycling rates in excess of 90 percent are required before the
one-way containers are equivalent to 10-RET containers.
In view of the fact that 50 percent recycling from postconsumer
waste is approaching a realistic limit on a regional or national basis, we
conclude that recycling substantially reduces energy use, but does not
supplant reusable containers that make 10 trips or more. In fact, the
5-RET system which we consider as a "lowest limit" for returnable systems
has a lower overall impact than glass and aluminum recycle systems, at 50
percent recycling rates.
On the other hand, two container systems not now widely used--
ABS and ALSTL--may show more environmental improvement resulting from re-
cycle options. ALSTL requires less energy than 5-RET and any recycling
further reduces energy. However, the ABS one-way which requires more
energy than 5-RET can become equivalent to it at less than 50 percent re-
cycling. But this high a recycling rate seems improbable in the near term.
42
-------
On the other hand, Figure 3 shows that a three-trip ABS returnable would
require 12 x 1CPj of energy, the same as the 50 percent recycle ABS. Thus,
it would seem that a logical choice is to look to ABS as a returnable system
if energy reduction is desired. Or even better, an ABS returnable bottle
made from recycled polymer could conceivably be used.
An examination of Figure 4 ohows that the energy requirement for
both all steel and aluminum cans for the range of 80 to 90 percent recycling
falls between 5-KET and 10-RET. Thus, at those high recycling rates, the
energy requirement for cans becomes comparable to conventional off-premise
returnable glass bottle systems. This type of recovery could probably be
accomplished with a technique that forces return of containers outside the
municipal waste stream such as a deposit or other approach to bring beverage
containers back into the use "loop" they were discarded from.
One environmental problem not quantified here is littering. To
alleviate the littering of containers is a somewhat different consideration
of course. Here one must deal with tie habits of individual users of bev-
erages. Oregon has sought remedy in a deposit; other approaches have been
tried too. However, we did not attempt to incorporate litter as an analysis
factor in this study.
43
-------
Volume II CHAPTER I
BAS1C CONVERSION FACTORS
This appendix contains data and information used to convert raw
fuel and electric energy input values into corresponding environmental im-
pact parameters. The basic factors are discussed in four sections:
A. Mobile and Stationary Sources
B. Electric Energy
C. Transportation
D. Conversion from Conventional Units to Metric Units
A. Mobile and Stationary Sources
A set of atmospheric emission factors resulting from the combustion
of fuels has been developed by the authors of this report in cooperation with
the Physical Sciences Division of Midwest Research Institute (MRI). They are
reported in Table 1. These data represent both a comprehensive literature
search and data collected from a nationwide telephone survey. The primary
reference was Reference 44, but numerous other literature sources were used.
The factors represent national average emissions after pollution controls
have been applied. They are representative of projections of levels which
will be experienced in 1975.
Factors relating to both precombustion and combustion impacts are
included. Combustion factors relate only to impacts resulting from combus-
tion of fuel and exclude secondary (or precombustion) environmental effects.
Such secondary impacts are incurred in mining coal, refining oil and so on.
To include these secondary factors, tables similar to Tables 2, 3, and 4 were
derived, making use of the combustion factors in Table 1. These secondary
factors are combined with the primary factors to yield a new set of factors
for fuel combustion similar to those shown in the "total" columns of Table 1.
These modified factors were then used to recalculate the quantities of Tables 2
and 3. This modification resulted in only small changes in Tables 2 and 3
and performing one more iteration insures that all secondary and higher order
impacts are included. Thus, Tables 1, 2, and 3 include all secondary or
higher order environmental impacts relating to fuel combustion.
44
-------
««n
TABLE 1
(Convtntlonal UnU«>
IVEL FACTORS
Cuo-liM ilOOO s*!)
Pfr-
£9P»at iHop £ga|bust_|gfl
En«r»y-i '6 3m: 19.9
Solid Uaatei - Ib 36.2
AttMiphertc F.mliilons • Ib
PirticulAt*^ 4.2
Nitrogen Oxides 34.7
Hydrocarbons 54.3
Sulfur OxUvt - 11.7
Carbon Monoxide U.I
Aldttiydcs 0. V
Other Organic* 0.5
AnnonU 0.4
Lfr*(i 0.001
Total Ata«o»ph*ric 137.5
Uattrbornc Vt*«tei - Ib
Dii.olv.d Solldi (oil field
brine) 80.9
Uthtr 3.1
Residual
Pre-
125.0
11. 0
120.0
103.0
6.0
1030.0
12.0
44.0
3.0
1454.0
(1000 gal . )
Oil Industrial
cottbuition Coabust ion
Snerix - 10* Otu 19.9
Solid Waite< - Ib 36.2
Ataoipheric Emissions - Ib
Nitrogen Oxides 34.7
Hydros irbons 54.3
Sulf"- Oxid.s 31.7
Cirbon Monoxide 11.3
Aldehydes 0.4
Other Organic!. 0.5
Aaron (a 0.4
1. ad 6.001
Total Atmospheric 137.5
Waterborne tfaitaa - tb
Dissolved Solldi (oil field
brine) 80. •
Acid 0.2
Hltal ion O.I
"other 0.8
Total Uaterborne 84.0
150.0
23.0
72.0
3.0
."50.0
4.0
1.0
353.0
Total ss
144.9
36.2
15.2
154.7
157.3
37.7
1041.3
12. A
44.5
0.4
3.0
1466.5
80.9
3.1
84 0
Heating
Total ci
169.9
36.2
27.2
106.7
.57.1
281..
15.3
1.4
0.5
0.'.
0.003
490.5
80.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
R4.0
Di,e>el
Pre-
(1000 ft3)
(1000 Rll) Fuel Oil Mobile Source (1000 111) natural Gas Internal Crab., it ion
Pre-
reifaustion Coatouieton Total combustion
19.9
36.2
4.?
34.7
54.3
31.7
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
137.5
80.9
3.1
84 0
(1000 |
fuel Oil Uti]
Pre-
jmbuitlon Ct
19.9
36.2
4.2
34.7
54.J
3V. 7
11.3
O.i
0.5
0. 1
M.Ol) *
137.5
BO. 9
0.2
O.I
2.8
44.0
1)9.0 158.9
36.2
13.0 17.2
170.0 404.7
37.0 91.3
27.0 58.7
225.0 236.3
J.O -3.4
3.0 3.5
0.4
0.003
678.0 815.5
80.9
1.1
84 0
llw n>atir« D
Pre-
Mnbuation Total
148.0 167.9
36.2
8,0 12.2
105.0 139.7
2.0 56.3
254.0 285.7
3.0 14.)
1.0 1.4
0.5
0.4
0.003
373.0 510.5
80.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
84.0
19.9
36.2
4.2
34.7
54.1
31.7
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.003
1)7.5
80.9
3.1
84.0
Coafaultion
150.0
23.0
105.0
5.0
102.0
1)0.0
10.0
575.0
(1000 gal.)
lltlllate
Pre-
cotnbustion
19.9
36.2
34.7
54.3
J1.7
11,1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.003
137.5
80.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
84.0
Oil Indust, Hi
CoBbuatfon
139.0
IS.O
72.0
3.0
142.0
4.0
2.0
218.0
Pre-
Total coaibuition
169.9 0.056
16.2
27.2 0.003
139.7 0.357
59.) 1.024
333.7 0.012
141.3 0.104
10.4
0.5
0.4
0.003
712.5 1.5
80.9 0.19
3.1
•4.0 0.19
iittnc Coal Indusi
Pre-
Total coabuation
158.9 0.2
It. 2 190.0
19.2 2.0
106.7 0.5
57.3 0.5
17). 7 1.5
15.3 2.5
2.4 0.01
0.5 0.02
0.4
0.003
375.5 7.0
•0.9
0.2 2.0
0.1 0.5
2.8 0.5
84.0 1.0
Qoabuition
1.03
6.0
0.8
1.6
8.4
trial Keiclnl
Cogbuit^on
11.1
31.0
21.0
9.0
0.5
42.0
1.0
O.OOJ
73.5
(1000 ft*)
Natural Gas Industrial Uaatina
Pr«-
total combustion Combustion Total
1.086
0.003
6.357
1.824
0.012
1.704
9.9
0.19
0.19
| (1000 Ib)
Total ;
13.3
221.0
23.0
9.5
1.0
'-t),5
3.5
0.013
0.02
80.5
?.o
0.5
0.5
3.0
0.056
0.003
0.357
1.024
0.012
0.104
1.5
0.19
0.19
Coil Utility
Fre-
eoejbustlort O
0.2
190.0
2 ,0
0.5
o.;
1.5
2.5
0.01
0.02
7.0
J.O
0.5
0.5
3.0
1.03 1.086
0.018 0.021
0.214 0.571
0.003 1.027
0.012
0.020 0.124
0.002 0.002
0.005 0.005
0.3 1.8
0.19
0. 19
Heat (1000 Ib)
Mabultion Totll
13.1 11.1
69.0 259.0
11.0 13.0
9.0 9.5
0.15 0.65
Si.O 56.5
0.5 3.0
0.003 0.013
0.02
75.7 82.7
2.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
(1000 ft3)
Natural Ga.1 Utility Haat^fa]
rre-
coaiHiictop
0.056
0.001
0.357
1.024
0.012
0.104
1.5
0.19
0. 19
Diesel L.
Pre-
coadiuitton
19.9
16.2
4.2
14.7
54.3
31.7
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.003
117.5
M.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
•4.0
Conibuitton Total
1.03 1.0*6
0.015 0.018
0.600 0.957
0.001 1.024
0.012
0.017 0.121
0.001 0.001
0.003 0.001
0.6 2.1
0.19
0.19
Koootlve (1000 lal)
Coalbuation Total
119.0 158.9
It. 2
25.0 29.2
170.0 404.7
94.0 148.3
57.0 88.7
130.0 141.3
5.5 5.9
7.0 7.5
0.4
0.003
688.5 826.0
•0.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
•4.0
-------
TABLE 1 (Concluded)
Energy - 109 ]
Solid Waste* - ky
Parttculacos
Nitrogen ''xUe*
Hydrocarbons
aut fur Oxides
Carbon Vonaxide
Aldehyaei
Other Organic*
Ammonia
lead
DUtolved Solids
(oil fl*ld brliu-1
Other
Total Waterborne
Energy - 109 )
Solid Wastes - kg
Pariiculates
Nlcrogtn- Oxides,
Hydrocarbon:.
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon 'lonOKiJf
Ald^nyd, •>
Oth^r OrvanUs
Autnonla
L«ad
Dissolved ;ol ids
(oil field brlne>
Acid
Metal Ions
Other
Total V'at-irborne
Caso
Pre-
5.5
4.3
0.5
4.2
•i.5
3.8
1 .4
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.0004
9. 3
1.1
10.4
Residual
Pre-
coabustton
5.5
4.3
0.5
4. 1
6.5
3.8
1.4
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.0004
16 6004
9.3
1.1
10.4
.'line 1 1.000 i.
34.8 ,0.3
4. 1
1.3 l.<
14.4 18.0
12.1 18.8
0.7 4.5
U3.4 124.8
1.4 1.45
5.J 5.4
0.05
0 . - 0 . 4004
1 59 '' 175 8004
9.3
1 . 1
10.4
( 1 . 000 i )
Oil ^nJust. HeatlnR
Combust ion Total j
41.8 47.3
4.3
2.8 3.3
8.6 12.8
0.4 6.1
10.0 33.8
0.5 1.9
0.1 0.15
0.1
0.05
0.0004
42 4 59 0004
9.3
1.1
10.4
Dlese
Pre-
5.5
4.3
0.5
4.2
6.5
3.8
1 4
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.0004
9. 3
1 . 1
10.4
Fuel Oil
Pre-
'QirbuaUon .'
5.5
4.3
0.5
4.2
6.5
3.8
1.4
0.05
O.I
0.05
0.0004
16 6004
9.3
l.l
10.4
:1 (1.000 11
)8.7 44.2
4.3
1.6 !A
44.3 48.5
4.4 10.9
3.2 7.0
27.0 28.4
0.4 0.45
0.4 0.5
0.05
0 . 0004
813 97 9004
9.3
1.1
10.4
( 1 . 000 1 )
Utility Heating
Combustion Total
41.2 46.7
4.3
1.0 1.5
12.6 It,. 8
0.2 6.7
SO. 4 34.2
0.4 1.8
0.1 0.15
O.I
0.05
0.0004
44 7 61. 3004
9.3
1.1
10.4
Fuel Oil Mobile Source (1.000/1
Pre-
5.5 41 . 8
4.3
0.5 2.8
4.2 12.6
6.5 0.6
3.8 36.2
1.4 15.6
0.05 1.2
O.I
0.05
0.0(304
16 6004 69 0
9.3
1.1
10.4
(1.000 11
Pre-
combustion Combustion
5.5 38.7
4.3
0.5 1.8
4.2 8.6
6.5 0.4
3.8 17.0
1.4 0.5
0.05 0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0004
16.6004 28.5
9.3
l.l
10.4
47.3
4.3
3.3
16.8
7.1
40.0
17.0
1.25
0.1
0.05
0.0004
85 6004
9.3
1.1
10.4
Total
44.2
4.3
2.3
12.8
6.9
20.8
1.9
0.25
O.I
0.05
0.0004
45. 1004
9.3
1.1
10.,
(1. 000 cu m)
Natural Ca» Internal Combustion
Pre-
2.1
0.05
5.7
16,4
0.2
1.7
24. 05
3.0
3.0
Coal
Pre-
com bust Ion
0.47
190.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.01
0.02
7.03
2.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
38.4 40.5
0.05
96.1 101.8
12.8 29.2
0.2
25.6 27.3
1345 15855
3.0
3.0
(I. 000 1)
Industrial Heat
Combustion Total
30.5 31.0
31.0 221.0
21.0 23.0
9.0 9.5
0.5 1.0
42.0 43.5
1.0 3.5
0.002 0.0(2
0.02
73.502 80.532
2.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
(1,000 cu K)
Natural Gas Industrial Heatliw
Pre-
2.1 38.4
0.05
5.7
16.4
0.2
1.7
3.0
3.0
Coal Utility
Pre-
co.bu.tlon £
0.45
190.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.01
0.02
7.03
2.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
0.3
3.4
0.05
0.3
0.03
0.09
4 16
H«at (1,
40.5
0.35
9.1
16.45
0.2
2.0
0.03
0.08
28 21
3.0
3.0
,000 kg)
'"bu.tlon Total
30.5
69.0
11. 0
9.0
0.2
55.0
0.5
0.002
75.702
31.0
259.0
13.0
9.5
0.7
56.5
3.0
0.012
0.02
82 . 7 32
2.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
(1,000 cu i)
Natural Caa Utility Ha>atliu
Pr«-
2.1
0.05
5.7
16.4
0.2
1.7
3.0
3.0
Dleafl Locn
Pr«-
£ombu.tlon C,
5.5
4.3
0.5
4.2
6.5
3.8
1.4
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.0004
16.6004
9.3
1.1
10.4
38.4
0.2
9.6
0.02
0.3
0.02
0.05
10 19
active (1.
jmbustion
38.7
3.0
44.3
11.3
6.8
15.6
0.7
0.8
82.5
40.5
0.25
15.3
16.42
0.2
2.0
0.02
0.05
34 24
3.0
3.0
JJ2ft_D
Total
44.2
4.3
3.5
4(>.5
17.8
10.6
17.0
0.75
0.9
0.05
0.0004
99.1004
9.3
1.1
10.4
-------
TABLE 2
PRECOMBUSTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM
PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING OF 1.000 CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS
Total
Production Processing Precombustion
Energy - 106 Btu 0.021 0.035 0.056
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulates 0.002 0.001 0.003
Nitrogen oxides 0.119 0.238 0.357
Hydrocarbons 0.495 0.529 1.024
Sulfur oxides 0.010 0.002 0.012
Carbon monoxide 0.038 0.066 0.104
Total Atmospheric 0.66 0.84 1.50
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Dissolved solids
(oil field brine) 0.184 0.007 0.19
47
-------
TABLE 3
PRECOMBUSTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM PRODUCTION. REFINING
AND DELIVERY OF 1,000 GALLONS OF LIQUID HYDROCARBON FUEL
Energy - 106 Btu
Solid wastes - Ib
Process
Fuel combustion
Mining
Total
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulate
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbon
Sulfur oxide
Carbon monoxide
Aldehydes
Other organics
Ammonia
Lead
Total Atmospheric
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Dissolved solids (oil
field brine)
Suspended solids
BOD
COD
Phenol
Sulfide
Oil
Acid
Metal ion
Total waterborne
Production
1.4
10.7
18.0
77.33
Refining Transportation Total
17.5 1.0 19.9
25.4
111.2
0.06
0.06
8.4
0.31
4.2
12.9
19.1
36.2
0.34
3.02
10.83
2.14
1.63
0.04
0.01
3.82
27.16
42.16
29.12
7.75
0.38
0.43
0.42
0.07
4.53
1.34
0.48
1.92
0.02
0.01
0.003
4.2
34.7
54.3
31.7
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.0
137.6
80.9
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
77.4
6.0
0.3
84.0
48
-------
B. Electric Energy
The environmental impacts associated with use of electrical energy
are summarized in Table 4. The impacts were calculated on the basis of a
composite kilowatt-hour (kwhr). A composite kilowatt-hour is defined as
1 kilowatt-hour generated by the U.S. national average mix of fossil fuels
and hydroelectric power. Data were obtained from the Edison Electric Insti-
tute for 1972 .-^
Hydropower was assigned an energy equivalent of 3,413 Btu per kilowatt-
hour and nuclear energy was assigned an energy equivalent of 21,330 Btu per
kilowatt-hour. The amounts of fuel required are the total 1972 U.S. fuel
requirements for electric utilities, divided by the total number of kilowatt-
hours sold to customers. Impact factors from Table 1 were combined with the
fuel quantities to arrive at the impact values in Table 4.
C. Transportation
Environmental impacts occur when goods are transported because of
the consumption of fossil fuels to provide necessary energy. In this study,
the modes of transportation included are rail, truck, pipeline, and barge.
These impacts were calculated by determining the kinds and amounts of fuels
used by each mode on a national average basis. Impacts were then calculated
for 1,000 ton-miles.
94 /
1. Rail; A complete set of fuel consumption data^-' indicates
that diesel fuel accounted for 98 percent of the energy expended by railroads
in 1968. We assumed that 100 percent of the energy was supplied by diesel
fuel and that 5.63 x 10 Btu of fuel were used. This fuel use resulted in
7.68 x 10 ton-miles of transportation .Z2' The corresponding fuel consumption
was 5.25 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles. This value was combined with information
in Table 1 to yield the impacts presented in Table 5.
2- Truck: In 1967, a total of 9.29 x 109 miles were traveled by
trucks engaged in intercity highway hauling. This resulted in 1.10 x 10
ton-miles of transportation.—^ It is estimated that 35 percent of these
miles were traveled by gasoline engine trucks while 65 percent were traveled
by diesel fueled trucks.— National average fuel mileage data are not avail-
able, but a reasonable assumption based on actual experience is that this
type of truck travel results in fuel consumption rates of about 5 miles per
gallon for either type of fuel. Thus, 6.5 x 108 gallons of gasoline and
1.20 x 10^ gallons of diesel fuel were used in 1967. From this, it was
calculated that 5.9 gallons of gasoline and 10.9 gallons of diesel fuel
were consumed per 1,000 ton-miles. Using data in Table 1, impacts were
calculated and reported in Table 5.
49
-------
TABLE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM GENERATION AND DELIVERY OF
1.000 COMPOSITE KILOWATT-HOURS OF ELECTRICITY, 1972 '
Quantity
Percent of Btu
Coal
Oil
Natural Gas
Other
0.22 Ton 13.1 Gal. 2.522 Cu Ft
48.2 -17.0 23.5 11.3^7
Total
Impacts
Energy - 106 Btuf /
Solid wastes - Ib
Mining
Fuel combustion
5.35
83.6
30.4
1.89
0.3
2.61
1.25
11.1
83.6
30.7
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Other
Total Atmospheric
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Acid
Metal ion
Other
Total waterborne
5.7
4.2
0.3
24.9
1.3
0.2
1.6
0.6
3.7
0.1
0.6
5.5
3.5
0.1
0.01
36.4
0.03
6.3
0.01
9.2
1.4
0.7
1.3
6.5
11.3
4.4
28.7
1.4
0.05
52
1.6
0.4
1.4
3.4
&l These values were derived from Reference 1.
b_/ Includes 15 percent of total kilowatt-hours as hydropower and 3 percent
as nuclear. The energy equivalent for hydropower is 0.585 x 10^ Btu
and for nuclear is 0.661 x 10
in this category.
Btu. No other impacts were determined
50
-------
3. Barge: During 1966, barge traffic resulted in 5.0 x 1011
ton-miles of transportation.—' Fuel consumption was 6.99 x 10° gallons of
diesel fuel and 3.09 x 10^ gallons of residual._' Therefore, 1.4 gallons of
diesel fuel and 6.1 gallons of residual were consumed per 1,000 ton-miles.
Again, impacts were calculated and are listed in Table 5.
4. Crude oil and products pipeline: Sources in the pipeline
industry report that, on the average, about 30 cubic feet of natural gas
fuel are required to transport one barrel of oil 300 miles through a pipe-
line. This requirement translates to 30 cubic feet for 45 ton-miles, or
0.67 cubic feet of natural gas per ton-mile of crude petroleum transportation.
This factor, combined with information from Table 1, enabled us to calcu-
late the impacts for 1,000 ton-miles of pipeline transportation. Pipeline
transportation impacts for moving other types of liquids of interest in this
study were assumed to be approximately the same as for crude oil.
According to the data of Table 5, transportation by truck is the
most environmentally detrimental of the four transportation modes. This
result is due to the relative inefficiency of the gasoline engine. Truck
transportation ranks highest in every impact category. Computer analysis
comparing the four transport modes showed that the impacts for trucks is
more than double that of barge transportation, greater than triple that of
rail transportation, and nearly five times worse that pipeline transport.
D. Conversion from Conventional to Metric Units
In the course of this study a large existing data bank was
utilized in making the calculations outlined in this chapter. Because
of the costly and time consuming problems in converting this data bank to
metric units, all calculations were carried out in conventional units.
Therefore, the container system summary table (Table B-13) is in conventional
units, showing the various impacts per one million 12-ounce containers. However,
the discussioas in Volume I will be based on metric units, with the product
base size being 1,000 liters of beverage. The following list of factors
was used to make those conversions from impacts per twelve million ounces
to impacts per 1,000 liters.
Conventional Unit x Conversion Factor = Metric (SI) Unit
Ib 0.4536 kg
Btu 1055. j
gal 3.785 i
cu ft 0.02832 cu m
fl oz 0.02957 I
lb/12 x 106 fl oz 0.001278 kg/103 I
106 Btu/12 x 106 fl oz 0.002973 109 j/103 t
gal/12 x 106 fl oz 0.01067 1/103 &
cu ft/12 x 106 fl oz 0.00007981 cu m/10 l
51
-------
TABLE 5
FUEL CONSUMPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM
1,000 TON-MILES OF TRANSPORTATION BY EACH MODE
Rail Truck Barge Pipeline
Fuel
Gasoline - gal.
Diesel - gal.
Fuel oil - gal.
Natural gas - cu ft
Energy - 106 Btu
Solid wastes (fuel
combustion) - Ib
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbon
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Aldehydes
Other organics
Ammonia
Lead
Total Atmospheric
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Dissolved solids (oil
field brine)
COD
Acid
Metal ion
Other
Total Waterborne
5.3
0.8
0.13
3.9
5.9
10.9 1.4
6.1
2.5
0.40
0.02
16.8
1.2
0.18
5.3
670
0.7
0.17
2.05
0.72
0.46
0.45
0.03
0.04
0.32
5.08
1.73
0.83
8.66
0.12
0.07
0.21
1.31
0.41
2.11
1.17
0.07
0.01
0.01
5.09
1.47
0.01
1.41
8.0
0.394
0.004
0.001
0.005
1.260
0.013
0.003
0.001
0.016
0.562 0.14
0.006
0.001
0.008
0.40
1.29
0.57
0.15
52
-------
CHAPTER II
GLASS BOTTLES
This chapter contains the basic data and outlines the calculations
made to determine the resource and environmental profiles of glass beverage
containers. Eight basic container systems are considered. Of these eight,
four are returnable systems and four are one-way systems. The four return-
able systems are three beer systems with differing trip rates and paper
packaging options, and one soft drink system. The four one-way systems are
the conventional beer and soft drink containers, a hypothetical one-way
from recycled glass and a plastic coated glass one-way designed for beer.
Details for these systems are shown in Figures 1 and 2, and Table 6. Fig-
ure 1 is an overall glass container system flow diagram, Figure 2 and Table 6
provide numerical material summaries.
This chapter discusses glass bottle systems in the following
sequence.
A. General Discussion of Computer Generated Tables
B. Overview
C. Glass Sand Mining
D. Limestone Mining
E. Lime Manufacture
F. Natural Soda Ash Mining
G. Soda Ash Manufacture
H. Feldspar Mining
I. Glass Container Manufacture
J. Closures
K. Plastic Coated Bottles
L. Paper Packaging
M. Bottle Filling
N. Solid Waste Disposal
0. Nonreturnable and Returnable Glass Containers
P. Glass Recycling
A. General Discussion of Computer Generated Tables
Table 7 is in the form that computer generated tables in this
report will duplicate, and the discussion that follows can be generalized
to all of those computer tables. The table is divided into three main
sections: (1) input to systems, (2) output from systems, and (3) summary.
53
-------
Salt
Limestone
Glass
Sand
Natural
Soda
Ash
Feldspar
Other
458
348
186
342
1,333
}55
50
Soda
Ash
Manufacture
278
Lime
Manufacture
93
i
Glass
Container
Manufacture
2,000
(To Bottler)
Figure 1 - Materials Requirements for the Manufacture
of 1 Ton Glass (pounds)
-------
Oi
Additives,
Plastic
Coati ng , Packagi ng ,
& Etc.
.
Raw Materials
Cleaning Agents,
Closures, Packaging
& Etc.
Final Disposal
i t
Glass Manufacture
j
Bottle Filling
^-
Consumption/ Use
^^
Waste Processing
> Return
Cullet i
Figure 2 - Materials Flow for Glass Container Systems
-------
TABLE 6
CONTAINER RELATED MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR 1 MILLION FILLINGS (TONS)
Returnable Bottles
Ui
Glass Containers
Closures
Paper Packaging
Corrugated
Bleached Kraft
Cleaning Agents
Plastic Coat
19 Trip
On-Premise
(Three-
Trip
Paper
Packaging)
16
2
13
_
10 Trip
Off-Premise
(Three-
Trip
Paper
Packaging)
30
2
13
5.7
5 Trip
Off-Premise
(One-
Trip
Paper
Packaging)
61
2
39
17
15 Trip
Soft Drink
(Three-
Trip
Paper
Packaging
22
2
1.4
7.3
One-Way Bottles
Soft
Drink
260
2
22
14.3
Plastic
Coated
173
2
11.4
29
Recycled
Glass
205
2
13.5
29
Con-
ventional
Class
205
2
13.5
29
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.25
2.2
Note: All container volumes were 12 ounces, except 15-trip soft drink which was 16 ounces.
All containers were for beer, except the two specified for soft drink.
-------
TABLE 7
IMPACTS FOB 1 MILLION CUSS COHTA1NERS
INCUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAMF
MATERIAL «000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL S*LT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID MASTE POST-CONSUH
ATMOS PAHTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORflANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
•ATERBORNE FLUORIDES
MATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS
MATERBORNE BOO
MATERBORNE PHENOL
MATERBORNE SULFIDCS
MATERBORNE OIL
MATERBORNE COD
MATER80RNE SUSP SOLIDS
MATERBORNE ACID
MATERBORNE METAL ION
MATERBORNE. CHEMICALS
MATERBORNE CYANIDE
MATERBORNE ALKALINITY
VATCRSORNE CHROMIUM
MATERBORNE IRON
MATERBORNE ALUMINUM
MATEfiBORNE NICKEL
MATERBORNE MERCURY
MATCRBORNE LEAD
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NANC
RAM MATERIALS
ENERiiY
MATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTE*
ATM FMM1SSIONS
MATERBORNE MASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL nASU
UNITS
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU 6AL
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POuNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL *»TU
THOU GAL
cuutc FT
POUNDS
HOUM1S
CUBIC FT
19 TRIP
ON PREM
RETURN
GLASS
28992.
15497.
5809.
10SS2,
21120.
2480.
2416.
0.
3032.
122*.
266.
1.
106*.
13434.
2380.
29979.
672.
1406.
1260.
908.
1928.
T«2.
11.
34.
239.
27.
0.
1.
0.
13.
0.
374.
1593.
0.
0.
6.
2.
578.
ST.
14.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
09898.
1*91.
1064.
618.
t^}^.
2576,
»,72.
10 TRIP
OFF PREM
RETURN
OLASS
41110.
28047.
5809.
17203.
40260.
4727.
460S.
0.
4491.
1717.
308.
I.
14*5.
21922.
3550.
36392.
1121.
211V.
1617.
1199.
2447.
965.
16.
44.
364.
42.
0.
1.
0.
13.
0.
415.
1883.
0.
0.
9.
3.
854.
7S.
19.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
U6263.
ir026.
|4*S.
SJ-..
has ' .
32b9.
1121.
5 TRIP
OFF PREM
RETURN
CLASS
120339.
S444S.
S809.
31194.
80520.
9455.
9211.
0.
11354.
3526.
493.
1.
3048.
42265.
94S8.
S2071.
2708.
$210.
2924.
2094.
5629.
1665.
26.
84.
1061.
72.
0.
2.
0.
13.
0.
742.
3592.
1.
1.
15.
S.
1951.
142.
36.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
322JZ6
»0?0
304B
1401
\rJTi
DOtt.S
2/08
PLASTIC
COATED
SLASS
•2101.
19)112.
M09.
80272.
231000.
27125.
26425.
0.
13343.
S042.
S37.
1«8.
3285.
101373.
8931.
96007.
3484.
6418.
4140.
37»7.
5473.
2098.
31.
• 7.
808.
1(3.
0.
I.
«.
0.
0.
1060.
1914.
1.
1.
40.
17.
1805.
204.
51.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
619187.
bSHT.
33H5.
S1*"i.
;'JI'37.
"3093.
3484.
ONE MAY
GLASS
100 PCNT
RECYCLE
87976.
1649.
4809.
0.
2706.
0.
0.
0.
6517.
7020.
435.
1.
2703.
18513.
1135«.
37003.
1443.
4793.
5367.
4085.
9318,
2021.
40.
•S.
•55.
16.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1634.
2026.
1.
1.
45.
12.
1575.
293.
73.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
104657.
7»Sfi.
270J.
' 90J.
S6SD.I.
Shbl.
1443.
ONE MAY
GLASS
•6041.
1T7303.
3111.
93093.
26789*.
31457.
30645.
0.
1*752.
5461.
574.
1.
3482.
11S977.
9409.
106*69.
3841.
7040.
4367.
3750.
5922.
222*.
34.
92.
•40.
211.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1095.
1986.
1.
1.
43.
6.
1888.
218.
54.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
706997.
bOjb.
3»t>2.
3137.
J "••««<>.
5293.
38.
ISM.
I*.
54.
18*.
36.
0.
3.
8.
11.
0.
28«.
528.
0.
0.
7.
2.
606.
T3.
18.
0.
0.
1000.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
104692.
1«81.
1004.
70*.
6417.
2515.
H21.
SOFT
MINK
OKE-MAY
•LASS
6*627.
«**31 .
541*.
lie***.
339768.
39««7.
38867.
9.
19331.
609*.
SJI.
1.
2»7».
1*1701.
«4».
127*32.
3*25.
7180.
4731.
4*19.
64*0.
t**6.
37.
•9.
»79.
26*.
8.
3.
0.
0.
0.
11*2.
1391.
1.
1.
54.
6.
13*5.
250.
62.
1.
0.
0.
«.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
844805.
6626.
2975.
3750.
26218.
4333.
3425.
-------
At the top of Table 7 we see the input to systems section. In that
section is found a detailed display of the amounts of materials, energy and
water input to each of the nine systems considered here. For example, the
first number in the first column shows that the total manufacturing system
for 1 million 19-trip on-premise returnable glass bottles (starting from
extraction of raw materials from the ground through final disposal) requires
28,992 pounds of wood fiber.
The second section of the table shows the output from the systems,
measured in terms of the solid wastes, atmospheric emissions and water
pollutants.
Finally, the lower section contains an aggregated summary of the
first two sections. For example, all of the lines in the "input to systems"
section of the table which are labeled as materials are summed and listed
as "Raw Materials" in the summary table. The other impacts are summed and
reported in similar fashion.
The overview section of this chapter contains eight tables of the
same type as Table 7. However, Table 14 contains basic data from which
the other tables were derived. Table 14 results from computer calculations
converting raw data into the various impact categories. For example, the
first column on Table 14 is for glass sand mining. This column is based
on Table 15, p. 26. The computer converts values such as 0.0058 ton coal
(Table 15) into its various impacts, such as the air pollutants (Table 1),
and aggregates the value for 1 ton of glass sand mining as shown in Table 14.
These values, along with the other values are then combined to form the sys-
tems as shown in other tables, such as Table 7. This is done by using flow
diagrams such as Figure 1, which shows that 1,333 pounds (0.666 ton) sand are
required for 1 ton of glass manufacture. Then, finally the computer is
instructed to include 16 tons of glass (Table 6) for 1 million fillings of
a 19-trip returnable. The other data needed to build the systems are
treated in the same fashion.
B. Overview
This section contains eight computer generated tables which sum-
marize the environmental impacts of glass bottles. Table 7 displays
the impacts for 1 million containers of each of the systems. Table 8 shows
the impacts for 1 ton of nonreturnable bottles as allocated to each component
process. Tables 9 and 10 present the impacts for returnable systems, also
broken down by component processes. Table 11 presents the GCP System.
58
-------
TABLE 8
IMPACTS ?.;« I TO'i OF (.LASS CM-WAV CONTAINER SVSTEM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
N4MF
MATERIAL >OOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENER&Y PROCESS
ENEROY TRANSPORT
ENERttY OF MATL RESOURCE
• ATCR VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXlnES
\Jl AT«OS HYDROCARBONS
VO ATMOS SULFUR OIIOES
ATMOS CABBON MONO*I Of
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS 07ME« OROAN1CS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOUR10E
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
•ATEKBORNE ^LUOHIOEi
kATERIORNE UISS SOLIDS
•ATCRBORNE BOO
fcATERBORNE PHENOL
•ATEHBORNE SULFIOES
•ATERBONNE OIL
•AIERBORNE COD
•ATERBORNC SUSP SOI. MS
•ATERBORNE ACID
•ATERBORNE METAL ION
•ATERBOHNE CHEMICALS
•ATEBBOHNE CYANIDE
•ATERBORNE ALKALINITY
•ATERBORNE CHROMIUM
•ATERBORNE IRON
•ATERBORNE ALUMINUM
•ATERHOHNl MCKEl
• ATERSOMNt "t-RCUKY
•ATERBORNE LtAD
SUMMARY OF ENVIHONMfMAL IMPACTS
NAME
ENERuY
• ATf"
INOUSTKIAL SOtlO «
A'M tW|SfU"<>
•AT£B"OHNr H.STtj
^VST-CO .stjfcf - $<\.
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL HTU
MIL aiu
MIL BTU
THOU SAL
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POuNiJ
POUND
POUND
POUKu
PCUNTI
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNt.
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
*IL HTU
THOU GAL
Cl'KIC ( T
FELDSPAR
MINING
IS] LBS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.052
.0411
0.000
.341
0.000
.140
143. IS 1
0.000
1.158
.168
.052
.138
.093
.001
.002
0.000
.too
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.027
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o ooo
100
<4 1
. '• 1
1! <•
1. ,"' '• .^
SLASS
SAND
1INING
1311 LBS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.529
.040
0.000
1.207
0.000
.535
2.238
0.000
.250
.441
.3T4
.619
.181
.002
.005
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.086
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.665
.030
.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
.5(4
i.207
.037
1 .l">t
• 7HO
I). 001)
SODA
ISM
11NING
155 LBS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.040
0.000
0.010
.Ml
0.000
0.000
9.240
0.000
.77)
.021
,016
.000
.005
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
.007
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
.040
.093
.1?5
.tf.lb
.007
0.00!)
SODA
ASH
MFO
2T8 LBS
0.000
147.500
o.oot
45*. TOO
.00*
.000
.000
.00*
.251
.851
.000
.00*
2.334
464.260
1.05T
18.22)
0,000
5.192
1.254
.400
4.82*
.192
.005
.004
0.000
.974
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.211
.000
.002
.000
.000
.00?
.974
.192
.048
.00.?
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
807,»i>l
1.H51
J.J36
6.555
1 1.C'»9
!.»'?
0 . 0 'J C
LIME
MfO
92 LBS
0.100
184.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.214
.002
0.000
,01$
16.790
.298
1.681
0.000
1.812
.144
.096
.408
.046
.000
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
.019
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.019
.005
o.ooo
0.000
0.090
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
184.000
.215
.013
,?53
2. SOI
.012
a. ooo
LIMESTON '
HINIH* '
076 LIS '
.980
.too
.»••
.00*
.800
.000
.800
.808
0.000
.016
.014
0.800
.041
0.***
.814
.0*1
0.000
5.691
.045
.818
,•36
,041
.801
.081
0.880
.•88
8.808
,9«6
.888
8.080
0.800
.809
.000
.900
.000
.000
.000
.090
.082
.000
.000
.000
.000.
.080
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.031
.041
.002
5.HT*
.011
0.000
>ALT
IININO
58 LIS
0.008
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.044
.005
0.900
,23«
0.000
.007
.016
0.000
.003
.026
.043
.015
.012
.000
.000
0.000
.000
o.ooo
.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
.010
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
u.bOO
.('41
.23"
.000
.lul
.010
o.ooc
8LASS
CONT
FAB
2000 LBS
0.880
33*. 000
0.000
0.000
1320.000
155.000
151.000
0.000
40.000
IS. 474
.194
0.000
1.16S
45.000
6.317
21.98T
0.000
4.105
10.157
12.5T4
9.297
2.084
.018
.068
0.000
.093
0.000
.890
.000
0.000
0.000
2.715
.002
.001
.001
.201
.007
.004
.422
.106
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2000.000
15.6t>»
l.lf.H
1.017
)«,3?>
1.4SH
J.UOO
DISPOSAL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.13*
0.000
.009
0.060
.035
0.000
IB. 202
.015
.148
.156
.03*
1.625
.912
.160
0.000
.000
0.9(0
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.074
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
.139
.009
.000
!. I*1*
.076
1M.?»?
STEEL
CLOSURE
20 L»S
8.000
8.247
29.044
0.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.900
1.390
.490
.009
.005
.555
8.1T9
.*68
106.21?
0.000
.«99
.197
.405
.«ir
.684
.001
.001
.021
.053
*.«<8
.098
.000
6.000
0.000
.042
.000
.000
.000
.011
.000
.053
.096
.024
.001
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
38.681
.505
.S5S
1.548
1.791
.227
0.000
TRANS
8.998
• .88*
0.0*8
6.8*6
8.0*6
0.980
0.68*
0.8*0
8.066
6.066
1.9*8
0.600
.007
0.060
.349
0.660
0.000
.193
3.236
1.171
.454
1.962
.06?
.142
0.0*0
.004
0.000
.0*7
0.600
0.666
0.0*0
.745
.002
.001
.00)
.001
.0*8
.005
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.690
0.00(1
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.500
.087
.005
9. .13
.764
o.uoc
FILLING
BOTTLES
2000 LBS
0.000
0.866
*»•••
0.000
*.**0
8.888
6.666
6.666
0.000
• 683
0.060
6.000
1.4«4
9.100
.411
2.6*1
6.000
.313
.4SO
.39?
.*!•
.09*
.002
.002
0.000
.000
*.***
.000
.000
0.800
0.000
.119
.000
.000
.000
.000
.901
.000
.035
.009
0.090
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
.683
I.4B4
.177
2.101
.16'
0.000
PACK A6 IN
404 LIS
3*7.117
0.000
0.0*0
6.666
*•*••
0.000
0.800
6.600
II. 1W
7 .006
. 746
0.060
0.801
M.SB3
16. 4* T
19.417
0.600
11.616
6.721
1.511
11.144
1.952
.036
.646
3.042
.005
0.000
.0*1
.966
0.660
0.000
1.204
9.137
.001
.001
.001
.010
7.026
.252
.063
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
0.666
425.567
7.752
8.601
1.01*
f,'TI
1 7 .-.«•»
0.000
-------
TABLE 9
IMPACTS FOR 1 MILLION 5-TRIP OFF PREMISE RETURNABLE iHASS BOTTLES
BOTTLE
SYSTEM
61 TQNS
FILLING PACKAGE DISPOSAL ' TRANS
STEFL
CLOSURE
4000 LbS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
MATERIAL MOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMCSTONC
MATERIAL IRON OKE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL 6LASS SAND
MATERIAL MAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
EMCR6Y PHOCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENER9Y OF NATL RESOURCE
WATER VOLUNK
OUTPUTS FMN •flTCW
NAME
SOLID WASTES PROCESS
SOLID WASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATHOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDCS
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OR6ANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROBCN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
MATERBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS
WATERBORNE BOO
WATERBORNC PHENOL
MATERBORNE SULFIDES
WATERBORNE OIL
WATERBORNE coo
WATERBORNC SUSP SOLIDS
WATERBORNE ACID
WATERBORNE METAL ION
WATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATER80KNE CYANIDE
WATER80RNE ALKALINITY
WATERBORNC CHROMIUM
WATERBORNE IRON
WATERBORNE ALUMINUM
WATERBORNE NICKEL
•ATERBOftNC MERCURY
•ATERBORMC LEAD
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAHE
RAH MATERIALS
ENERGY
WATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
WATEHBORNE WASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU *AL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU OAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
0.
S27»3.
0.
27981 .
80520.
9455.
9211.
0.
2516.
1U1.
18.
0.
331.
32089.
7S6.
24329.
0.
1158.
748.
82*.
937.
174.
3.
5.
0.
60.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ua.
0.
0.
0.
12.
i.
100.
41.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
162479.
1130.
331.
772.
3913.
353.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3213.
0.
0.
0.
0.
48.
418.
0.
0.
421.
2036.
219.
1173.
0.
95.
259.
266.
378.
SO.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
13.
0.
90.
1000.
0.
0.
0.
0.
260.
11.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3261.
41B.
421.
46.
1084.
1365.
0.
122279.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8648.
1927.
220.
0.
2199.
6594.
8494.
5407.
0.
3859.
1340.
696.
4192.
565.
10.
14.
1073.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
333.
2631.
0.
0.
0.
3.
1598.
72.
IB.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
130927.
2147.
2199.
277.
117S1.
4655.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
13.
0.
1.
0.
3.
0.
2590.
1.
U.
14.
3.
287.
1.
41.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
•.
0.
0.
0.
13.
1.
0.
361.
7.
2590.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
243.
0.
14.
0.
56.
0.
0.
34.
543.
197.
108.
566.
10.
21.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
120.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
e.
243.
14.
1.
1481.
123.
0.
a.
1649.
5U09.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
278.
•Ml.
2.
I.
111.
1636.
54.
212*2.
0.
120.
39.
HI.
B5.
IT.
0.
0.
4.
11.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
A.
0.
2.
0.
11.
It.
s.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0.
T736.
101.
111.
310.
358.
45.
0.
60
-------
TABLE 10
IMPACTS FOR 1 HILLION 19-TRIP ON PREMISE RETURNABLE GLASS CONTAINERS
BOTTLE
SYSTEM
16.0 TON
FILLINO PACKAGE DISPOSAL TRANS
STEEL
CLOSURE
4000 LeSS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
MATERIAL ttOOO FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL MAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF NATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FHOII SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID WASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID WASTES MINING
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOS PARTICULARS
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATNOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
•ATERBORNE FLUORIDES
WATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS
WATERBORNE BOD
WATERBORNE PHENOL
WATERBORNE SULFIDES
WATERBORNE OIL
WATERBORNE COD
WATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
WATERBORNE ACID
WATERBORNE METAL ION
WATERBORNE CHEMICALS
WATERBORNE CYANIDE
WATERBORNE ALKALINITY
WATERBORNE CHROMIUM
WATERBORNE IRON
WATERBORNE ALUMINUM
WATERBORNE NICKEL
WATERBORNE MERCURY
WATERBORNE LEAD
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RA» MATERIALS
ENERGY
WATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
WATERBORNE WASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUUD
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU 9AL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL HTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
0.
138*8.
0.
7339.
21120.
2*80.
2416.
0.
660.
292.
5.
0.
•T.
B41T.
198.
6381.
0.
304.
196.
218.
246.
46.
1.
1.
0.
16.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
49.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
26.
11.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
47863.
296.
87.
202.
1026.
93.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3213.
0.
0.
0.
0.
48.
-.18.
0.
0.
421.
2036.
219.
1173.
0.
95.
259.
286.
378.
50.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
13.
0.
90.
1000.
0.
0.
0.
0.
260.
11.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3261.
418.
421.
46.
1084.
1365.
0.
29169.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2059.
419.
51.
0.
435.
1353.
1872.
1190.
0.
063.
300.
153.
1133.
129.
2.
3.
237.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
73.
596.
0.
0.
0.
1.
282.
16.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
31226.
470.
436.
60.
2820.
"72.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
205.
0.
12.
0
164W
5809
0
0
0
0
0
27b
98
2,
I.
111.
0.
1.
0.
642.
0.
4.
4.
1.
71.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
90.
2.
642.
0.
0.
0.
29.
464.
169.
92.
467.
8.
17.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
Q.
102.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2flb.
12.
1.
1240.
104.
0.
1636.
54.
21242.
0.
39.
81.
as.
17.
0.
0.
4.
11.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
11.
19.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
f Tit.
lul.
lil-
310.
61
-------
TABLE 11
IMPACTS FOR 1 MILLION PLASTIC COATED GLASS BOTTLES
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
POLYSTY
FOAM
JACKET
4400 L8S
GLASS
SVSTtM
FILLING
ETC.
MATERIAL WOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU 0AL
UNITS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
zz.
1*9.
0.
107.
3V.
231000.
ZTUb.
Z6»Z5.
0.
13321.
4494.
S37.
1.
3?4b.
SOLID WASTES PROCESS POUND
SOLID WASTES FUEL COMB POUND
SOLID WASTES MINING POUND
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM CUBIC FT
ATMOS PAHTICULATES POUND
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES POUND
ATMOS HYUHOCARBONS POUND
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES POUND
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE POUND
ATMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
ATMOS OTHER URGANICS POUND
ATMOS ODOKOUS SULFUR POUND
ATMOS AMMONIA POUND
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOUR IDE POUND
ATMOS LEAD POUND
ATMOS MERCURY POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUND
WATERBORNE FLUORIDES POUND
WATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS POUND
WATERBORNE BOD POUND
WATERBORNE PHENOL POUND
WATERBORNE SULFIDES POUND
WATERBORNE OIL POUND
WATERBORNE coo POUND
WATER60RNE SUSP SOLIDS POUND
WATERBORNE ACID POUND
WATERBOHNE METAL ION POUND
WATERBORNE CHEMICALS POUND
WATERBORNE CYANIDE POUND
KATERBOPNE ALKALINITY POUND
WATERBORNE CHROMIUM POUND
WATERBORNE IRON POUND
WATERBORNE ALUMINUM POUND
WATERBORNE NICKEL POUND
WATERBORNE MERCURY POUND
WATERBORNE LEAD POUND
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME UNITS
?99.
133.
361.
0.
30.
199.
466.
138.
44.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
73.
10.
0.
0.
2.
11.
4.
7.
Z.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
34H4.
«38fl.
JV4Z.
3331.
533i.
?054.
.11.
0.
?.
0.
0.
0.
V87.
190«.
1.
i .
jt.
*.
IHUl.
1V7.
-t.
»•
0.
n.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
RAk MATERIALS
tMF«GY
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
WATERBORNE WASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
22.
?56.
39.
11.
878.
109.
0.
6l91hb.
s- t: .
34t»4.
62
-------
TABLK 12
IMPACT? FOR I MILLION SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS
15 RET ABS
ALSTL PC6
CSTL
OHG
ALUM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
MATERIAL MOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY or MATL RESOURCE
MATC* VOLUMf
OUTPUTS FRO* SYSTEM*
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID CASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOS PABTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
MATEPBORNE BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
xtTERRORNE SULFIDES
HATERBORNE OIL
•ATERBORNE COD
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
MATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATEHflORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
•4TFRBORNE CHROMIUM
•ATERUORNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
•I4TERHORNE NICKEL
HATERHOHNE MERCURY
MATF.RBORNC LEAD
5UMM.WY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RAH MATERIALS
ENERGY
MATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM EMISSIONS
HATERBORNE HASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL ITU
THOU «AL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL HTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
18162.
23287.
5809.
14145.
33000.
3875.
3775.
0.
2639.
1257.
223.
1.
1*0*.
16055.
2321.
33766.
821.
1359.
1116.
964.
1*35.
1238.
16.
5*.
186.
36.
0.
3.
0.
11.
0.
280.
528.
0.
0.
7.
2.
606.
73.
18.
0.
0.
1000.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10*692.
1*81.
100*.
70*.
6*17.
2515.
821.
»527».
16*9.
5808.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5587.
2637.
910.
1921.
2991.
5819.
6375.
30987.
2018.
2321.
5*76.
5207.
*198.
2773.
29.
102.
439.
51.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
1017.
1426.
0.
1.
12*.
994.
1101.
193.
48.
9.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
58318.
5*69.
2992.
583.
20600.
*915.
2018.
2928.
53682.
189060.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9*81.
3279.
2*1.
55.
3698.
56508.
2022.
691626.
327.
»019.
1786.
3206.
30*7.
1257.
16.
33.
162.
3*6.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
366.
7*.
0.
0.
75.
1*.
379.
632.
158.
* .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
255151.
357*.
3658.
10127.
13873.
1703.
327.
567*6.
183404.
5809.
96327.
277200.
32550.
31710.
0.
12982.
5299.
*73.
108.
2673.
116613.
7*20.
10904*.
3*88.
6135.
*221.
*I89.
5655.
2293.
33.
92.
532.
217.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
1079.
1282.
1.
1.
*7.
16.
1259.
222.
55.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
696728.
5881.
2673.
31*9.
23370.
3962.
3*88.
2703.
43021.
139652.
3335.
0.
0.
0.
57232.
11489.
4*27.
28S.
276.
3197.
46459.
5319.
593618.
302.
*777.
3207.
*229.
6175.
2131.
22.
*7.
12*.
257.
19.
2.
0.
13.
6?.
665.
121.
1.
1.
176.
718.
398.
66*.
171.
22*.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
257*32.
4990.
3197.
8713.
21005.
3224.
302.
62627.
224*31.
5815.
118069.
3397ftb.
39897.
38867.
0.
15331.
6094.
531.
1.
2975.
141701.
8249.
127832.
3*25.
71«0.
4731.
4419.
6490.
2446.
37.
»9.
579.
264.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
1182.
1391.
1.
1.
54.
b.
1385.
250.
62.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1).
0.
844805.
6626.
?975.
3750.
26296.
4333.
342S.
2699.
9139.
0.
92ISO.
0.
0.
0.
153047.
12017.
612*.
27*.
589.
1*17.
14*66.
11277.
22*632.
25B.
5153.
577*.
*HOO.
11503.
30X2.
?.a.
SO.
22.
3.
S3.
2.
0.
17.
lb2.
F>986.
1*17.
3380.
30506.
55*1.
258.
63
-------
TABLE 13
IKPACTS FOB I M1U-IOH tf.it COKTMKERS
19 MT 10 «ET • 5 «ET ABS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAMO
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUIITC ORE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERSV SOURCE HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PfcOCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
•TMOS PAHTICUL«TES
ATMOS NITROGEN 0»IDES
ATMQS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUH
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOUHIDE
ATMOS LEAD
• TMOS MERCURY
»TH05PM£H1C CHLORINE
HATERRORNE FLUORIDES
HtTERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HITERBORNE BOD
HATER80RNE PHENOL
XOEHbORNE SULFIDES
W4TEP90RNE OIL
•ATEHBORNE COD
••TERHURNE SUSP SOL I Ob
•ATERHORNE ACID
•ATERSORNE MET1L ION
•ATESBORNE CHEMICALS
<«TE«HORNE CVAN1DC
••TEHBOPNE ALKALINITY
fcATERBORNE CHHOMIUM
*ArE«woRNt IMON
•ATERBORNE ALUMINUM
•ATFRHORNE NICKEL
•ATERHORNf «EHCURY
••TEHdOBNt LEAD
SUMMARY OF FNVIKONMH»T»L IMPACTS
HAb MATfcHIALS
kNF.RGV
WAttM
IN.jusruiL V'LID bASTES
ATM EMISSIONS
wATfnHOM"4h fcftSTES
^"ST-rofisuMf u SOL »ASTt
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
M|L HTU
THnU GAL
OlbIC FT
POUNDS
POUNUS
cueic PT
28992.
15*97.
S809.
10552.
21120.
2*80.
?*16.
0.
488.
578.
240.
19.
166.
3032.
122*.
266.
1.
106*.
13*3*.
2380.
29979.
67?.
1*06.
1260.
90A.
1928.
782.
13.
34.
239.
27.
0.
1.
0.
13.
0.
32*.
1593.
0.
0.
6.
2.
578.
57.
1*.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
89898.
1*91.
106*.
618.
6612.
2b76.
67?.
*1 1 10.
28047.
5809.
17203.
40260.
»727.
•605.
0.
603.
815.
327.
27.
255.
»«91.
1717.
308.
1.
1*45.
21922.
3S50.
36392.
1121.
2119.
1617.
1199.
2»*7.
965.
16.
**.
36*.
• 2.
0.
1.
0.
13.
0.
415.
1883.
0.
0.
9.
3.
8S4.
7S.
19.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
146253.
2026.
1445.
Bib.
1)827,
112ll
120319.
54445.
5809.
31194.
80520.
9*55.
9211.
0.
1086.
1*7*.
657.
53.
750.
1135*.
3526.
«93.
1.
30*8.
»2265.
9458.
52071.
2708.
5210.
292*.
2094.
5629.
1665.
26.
84.
1061.
72.
0.
2.
0.
13.
0.
742.
3592.
1.
1.
15.
5.
1951.
142.
36.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
322326.
4020.
1048.
l^Ol.
18779.
64HS.
2701.
T726T.
1649.
5808.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2632.
1620.
780.
117.
551.
7861.
3131.
8t»* .
1 921 .
3909.
8739.
321S3.
2^36 .
3459.
'721.
=.261.
47 1 A .
2463.
£S.
9 1.
773.
52.
0.
2.
0 .
1 .
0.
1-71.
2202.
0.
1.
124.
994.
1793.
201.
50.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
; .
0 .
0.
925DO.
S936.
1909.
676.
22-.67.
M.4Q.
292H.
53682.
189060.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
462.
»72.
7055.
71.
17.
9483.
3379.
188.
b5.
36b7.
5651 h.
2088.
6920 It.
327.
40' ".
17..3.
3206.
3176.
887.
12.
It.
In/.
346.
0.
(j.
,1 .
n .
0 •
3b8.
U .
0.
75.
14.
179.
6J7.
Ib9.
4.
0.
0.
fl.
0.
0.
3.
0.
*
255153.
3622.
1C1J4.
1 3667.
1 701 .
327.
82101.
1S3112.
5809.
80272.
231000.
27125.
2642S.
0.
1197.
2798.
922.
87.
575.
13343.
5042.
537.
108.
3285.
101373.
8931.
96007.
3484.
6418.
4140.
3797.
5473.
2098.
31.
87.
808.
183.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1060.
1914.
1.
1.
40.
17.
1805.
204.
SI.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
619187.
S687.
32Kb.
27BS.
23037.
SU93.
3*8*.
86041.
177303.
5011.
93093.
2»789*.
J1457.
3X645.
0.
I2<*0.
3i>62.
993.
92.
59A.
1475?.
S461.
574.
1.
115977.
9409.
106969.
3X41.
7C40.
4367.
J750.
S922.
2228.
14.
9?.
21l!
0.
2.
0.
1) •
0.
10X5.
19X6.
I.
1.
43.
f .
1888.
21h.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
o.
0.
u.
706997.
*tv 36,
146?.
1137^
2»4H».
•^93.
3841.
2Ti'3.
41*21.
139652.
311S.
0.
f.
0.
ST(*3?.
V4-».
161?.
2219.
2*8.
It.
11491.
452ft.
21*.
? '•-.
>1V6.
464S9.
S3" i.
19*022.
302.
4B25.
3215.
422V.
63"2»
1769.
1'.
3?.
124.
?S7.
19.
1.
0.
H.
"2.
121.
1.
1.
1 'S.
710.
19H.
17?)
tf*.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2S74J4.
S037.
Jl-6.
BTI".
?0804.
1221.
302.
7699.
91 IV.
0.
**9SO.
0.
n.
0.
1SJ047.
1602.
28N1.
2''V •
43J.
IS.
1^)19.
•.2*3.
222.
••*•».
1411.
144H6.
11 1*1.
12S040.
/^rt
1202
SMI
4100
H63I
/716.
21.
1*.
22.
1,
s).
1.
0.
• 7.
2i*>.
lov*.
21)9.
2.
1 .
Ml.
IH9V.
169.
161.
MU.
0.
0.
If.
0.
It.
0.
0.
0.
18616*.
703*.
1416.
33*7.
30103.
5539.
64
-------
IMPA^IS FOR 1 TON EACH PROCESS IN THE CUSS afSTOf
INPUTS TO STSTE«S
NAHE
MATERIAL ,000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IHON ORE
"ATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANu
MATERIAL NAT SODA AS"
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUHITt OHE
MATERIAL PROCESS HOD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY Of *ATL RCSOUWCt
• »TER VOLUME
cn
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID KASTfS PROCESS
SOLID BASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID mSTt POST-CONSUH
ATMOS PART1CUL«TES
ATMOS NITROGEN 0«IDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OtIOES
ATMOS CAHBON MONO*I DC
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OROANKS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOUBlOt
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE rLUORIOES
•ATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS
•ATERBORNE BOD
•ATERBORNE PHENOL
•ATERBORNE SULFIDES
•ATERBORNE OIL
•ATERBORNE COO
•ATEBBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
«r«TERBORNE «CIO
KATCRBONNE MCTAL ION
kATERBORNE CHEMICALS
•ATERBORNt CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
•ATERBORNE IRON
KATERBOHNE ALUMINUM
•ATERNORNE NICKEL
•ATEBBORNE MERCURY
•ATERtfOWNE LEAD
SUMMARY OF fNVlOONNtNTAL IMPACT^
NAME
Kin MATf.HML'.
tNERSY
»AT£-I
f'OUSTMAL SOL/0 «A5TtS
ATM EMISSIONS
l.«TERBr.BrMd
IHOU ii»L
tUHlL FT
POuK'jS
SS LIMtSTON
D MINING
ING
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.795
.061
0.000
1.815
0.060
.804
3.366
0.000
.376
.663
.961
.272
.001
.007
0.000
.000
0.600
.006
.000
0.000
o.ooo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
I. 000
.046
.011
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
O.OOD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.B'-b
1 .Hl^
.OS-
1 . 1H7
0 . 0 0 u
LIME SODA ASH SALT
MFO MINING MINING
SOOA ASH
MANUF
FELDSPAR
M1NIN6
(8K1NE)
0.600
0.600
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
.038
.033
0.000
.094
6.000
.077
0.000
13.023
.104
.042
.063
.094
.001
.003
0.600
.000
6.666
.660
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.004
,001
0.000
0.000
0,000
0,000
0.000
0,1100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
,07b
.000
o . 'j (i :
0.000
4000.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
4.648
.037
0.000
.122
3*5.006
6.476
3*. 541
0.000
39*182
3.140
2.086
6.660
.998
.609
.017
0.000
.000
0.066
.600
.000
0,000
0.000
.412
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.405
.101
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
4000.000
?0
.091
0.000
0.600
6.660
0.000
0.000
6.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.193
.021
0.000
1.604
6.600
.031
.071
0.000
.012
.124
.It*
.0*4
.052
.002
.602
6.000
.660
0.600
.000
.000
6.000
0,000
.042
.000
.000
.000
.000
,000
.000
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
i ? 1 4
1 . UU-
.001
!04»
0.000
6.600
2566.666
6.600
3306.600
0.600
6.606
0.006
0.600
9.000
13.318
0.000
0.000
I*. 802
1340.600
21.995
1)1.106
0.000
37.149
9.022
2.879
14.714
2.619
.015
.028
0.606
T.667
0.666
.000
.061
0.000
0.600
1.519
.063
.011
.002
.00?
.013
7.009
1.383
.346
.012
.002
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
G.OOO
5A09.000
1 J.31H
Ifi . * 1?
1.7.157
93 . H 74
1 0, JOO
O.OUO
.666
.666
.666
.666
.666
.666
.666
.0*6
.686
.667
.646
.666
,»47
6.666
1.6**
4604.6M
0.066
15.414
2.2*4
.6*4
1.1*6
1.2*4
.017
.0(6
6.86*
.882
6.066
.6*1
.666
6.060
6.060
.359
.001
.000
.000
.006
.004
.002
.090
.023
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.3*7
4.547
6?. 186
'.480
0 . 0 0 .1
9LASS
CONTAIN
FAB
6.666
134.000
6.660
6.666
1126.600
155.000
151.000
6.666
40.606
15.474
.194
6.616
1.1*8
45.000
6.317
11.967
6.066
4.105
16.157
11.57*
*.W7
2.084
.038
.0*8
0.000
.66]
6.660
.006
.660
0.000
0.000
2.715
.002
.001
.001
.201
.OOT
.004
.422
.106
0.000
0.000
8.000
6.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
2000.000
16.668
1.168
1.017
38. 3«?6
3.458
u.OCC
POLTSTY
FOAM
JACKET
6.666
6.666
6.666
6.666
6.666
6.666
0,606
6.666
16.666
67,607
0.606
48.660
"'**'
11*. 666
*I.2J1
1*4.021
6.606
11.562
90.240
212.029
*2.61*
H.M6)
.166
.tit
6.600
6.666
0.066
0.666
.661
0.066
6.600
13.211
4.403
.001
.001
1.00?
5.013
2.008
1.142
.785
0.600
0.606
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.666
10.000
116.407
17.693
4,8b3
390. 90S
49.586
0.000
-------
INPUTS TO SVST£»S
N»HE
MATERIAL «000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMtSTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
»»TE»IAL &LASS SAM,
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL fELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUIITE OHE
MATEHUL PMOCtSS ADO
ENEBGr PKOUSS
ENERGY TKAi"SPORT
ENCRQV OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FDOM SYSTEMS
NAMF
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID ««STES FUEL COMB
SOLID PASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOS P4RTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS A1.UEHVOES
ATMOS OTHtx ORGANKS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUM
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATNOS LEAD
AT«OS MERCUR*
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
»ATERBOHr«E FLUORIOES
• •TEHbOMM OISS SOLIDS
VATEH80RKE BOO
•ITERBORNE PHENOL
••TEKHOHKE bUlFlDES
MATEHUORNt OIL
••TER80HNE COD
•ATEMBOMNE SUSP SOLlUS
HATERBORNE ACID
•ATERBOhNE METAL ION
••TEHBOBNt CHEMJC«LS
•ATERHORNE CYANIDE
•ATERBORNE ALKALINITY
MATERBORNE CHHOMIUH
•ATERBORNE IHUN
NATERBORNE ALUMINUM
•AlEBHOUNt NIC«EL
•ATERBOHNE MERCURY
• UERAORfcE LE«n
OF INvl-JONHf Nf»L IKMACTS
&*fc MATFUJAL.S
H.f ', i
• IT u
Iwh SI ^I »L ^tUL IU •^•jTF S
HIT - Mfc ! St. 1 c INS
UNITS
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL HTU
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNU
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POU'lO
POUNP
POUNL'
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
MOUND
POUNO
PllS
• f- SO. ./. ' T.
PACKAGE PACKJGE FILLING FILLING DISPOSAL FILLING FILLINS
CORRUG BLEACHED RETURNA8 ONE »AV RETURN ONE »AY
|>RAFT BEER BEER SOFT SOFT
BOTTLE DRINK DRINK
1941.728 2037.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
140. 5S7
18.641
3.468
0.000
29.720
92.4H
127. tit
si.ni
o.ooo
58.930
20.492
10.423
77.392
8.777
.157
.213
16.161
.020
0.000
.0«5
.00!
0.000
0.000
4.977
40.706
.00*
.005
.oos
.0*2
19.27»
1.034
.274
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
?i32.3i;>
j.j . i '*9
"-.7?C
*.".T\
1 V.--71
bfc. 1 J j
0.00 '
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1*4.840
39.203
3.96?
0.000
42.421
148.690
161.819
107.686
0.000
74.490
?5. 814
13.971
46.267
10.517
.195
.248
21.264
.027
0.000
.006
.001
0.000
0.000
6.704
49.428
.005
.006
.007
.OS6
«4. 092
1.375
.344
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
21d2.6t'i
«. 3. >*
Si.'c-1
5.7*'.
1 . •• '£
u . J 3 0
0.000
0.000
0.000
15.744
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.236
2.046
.000
0.100
2. It*
9.977
1.075
S.746
0.000
.466
1.268
1.400
1.853
.24$
.007
.008
0.000
.001
o.eoc
.800
.000
.06?
0.000
.442
4.901
.000
.000
.000
.002
1.275
.055
.014
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.000
.000
1^.979
?.1«h
?.U6»
.?.*><*
o.ooo
.000
.too
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.101
.683
.000
.000
1.484
9.800
.631
2.681
0.000
.IIS
.450
.1*7
.918
.096
.002
.002
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.119
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.035
.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.»><>3
1 .4H4
.177
2.1*1
. 18*
(.• . 0 1 0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.116
0.101
.007
0.000
.029
0.000
11.800
.012
.124
.126
.030
.131
.010
.036
0.000
.000
0.000
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
.062
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
.HP
.007
.Dun
1 . 1 1)
. J*> 1
1 1 .H30
0.000
o.*o»
0.000
10.174
0.008
0.08*
o.*o*
0.800
.152
1.407
.000
0.088
1.1M
.114
1.790
6.286
0.000
.394
1.059
.974
1.682
.169
.003
.005
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.040
0.000
.171
.380
.000
.000
.000
.000
.760
.093
.023
o.ooo
0.000
3.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
.000
.000
10. 327
1.40H
1.198
.104
«.J2».
S.229
0.000
llo.TM
O.M*
0.088
0.0*1
0.080
8.000
0.088
0.000
7.871
3.152
.854
8.8*8
3.6S2
11.8*1
10. r«*
STEEL
CLOSURE
8.080
•J4. 6*0
2904.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00*
0.000
138.972
49.033
.946
.sol
»*.«*£
817.939
f«.M7
9. 727 10*21.140
11.116
4.685
2.761
1.8*4
3.*T|
!.«**
.044
.1**
1.1»S
.8*3
0.888
.80*
.001
0.0*0
0.000
.713
2.6*7
.0*1
.001
.001
.006
2.]**
.1*9
.037
o.ooc
o.ooe
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.080
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1 18.MJS
3.807
3.6b?
.036
U. 147
•>.9y,'
11 .Olf.
o.ooo
59.919
19.747
40.409
42.715
».S»3
.084
.101
2.120
5.3*8
0.000
.1*1
.000
0.000
0.000
4.186
.006
.002
.003
1.063
.024
S.JIS
9.646
2.412
.064
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3860. 05J
SO. 4>(0
5S.46;1
1S4.7«
17<.(,6i
22.720
0.000
SEPARATE
CULLET
0.009
O.OOC
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
».(00
0.008
0.800
11.5*4
.259
0.0(0
*4»1
0.000
13, (61
33.44*
-11.800
3,770
9.530
4,367
23,398
2.07*
,OT7
.0*1
0.000
,*U
0.000
,0«
.000
0.000
0.000
3.625
.009
.003
.004
.005
.038
.021
.647
.162
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
11 .843
.461
.-31*
0.307
4.517
-ll.aoo
-------
Table 12 is a comparison of soft drink containers and Table 13 is the com-
parison of beer containers. This table is the basis for the discussions in
Volume I. Finally, Table 14 shows the results of direct conversion of
raw data contained in the remainder of this chapter into the appropriate
impacts.
The summary section of Table 7 verifies the widely believed
fact that reusable glass beverage containers produce less impact than single
use containers of the same material. This is true even after the additional
weight needed for structural integrity and additional processing and trans-
portation is taken into account for returnable systems. The nonreturnable
system produces more impacts in every category than the 10- or 19-trip
returnables.
Table 8 shows the relative environmental impacts of the component
processes of the one-way bottle system. It is interesting to note that two
processes--paper packaging and glass manufacture--account for most of the
impacts. The glass plant alone leads in three of the seven categories, while
paper packaging leads in two of the others. Energy use is the most serious
impact of the glass plant. Energy use in that one operation makes up 56 percent
of the energy required for the entire bottle system.
Tables 9 and 10 show the importance of component processes for
returnable systems. Table 9 shows that impacts associated with the 5-trip
returnable are concentrated in glass manufacturing and packaging. The
filling step, mainly bottle washing (including heating of the water) contrib-
utes lesser impacts. The filling plant impacts are mainly water pollution
from washing and energy.
For the 19-trip on-premise returnable, Table 10 shows the glass
manufacturing is relatively less important. The filling is more important,
but closure impacts and transportation are also significant sources of
environmental degradation. However, the largest single system impact is
packaging, leading all other subsystems in three categories.
Table 11 summarizes the impacts for plastic coated glass. The
plastic used here is polystyrene, but other plastics have similar profiles.
However, the amount of plastic required in the coating is so small it
contributes only a small percent of the system impact total. Thus, its
advantage lies in the fact that less glass is required for PCG than for a
conventional container.
67
-------
Tables 12 and 13 are included here for reference. Table 12 is a
comparison of soft drink containers and Table 13 is a comparison of beer
containers. These tables are quite similar; and Table 13 is discussed in
detail in Volume I. Table 14 converts the raw data found in the remainder
of this chapter to environmental profiles. This table was discussed in
Section A.
C. Glass Sand Mining
Glass sand is the predominant raw material for glass manufacture.
It comprises 44 percent of the raw materials shown in Figure 1 and is the
source of almost all of the silicon dioxide present in finished container
glass. Silicon dioxide is the major chemical constituent of glass and
amounts to approximately 70 percent by weight of finished container glass.
Glass sand is a high purity quartz sand which usually contains
less than 1 percent of other materials. These stringent purity restrictions
prevent the use of most of the sand available in this country. However,
sizable deposits of glass sand do exist in New Jersey in the form of uncon-
solidated sand banks, and as sandstones found in the Alleghenies and the
Mississippi Valley. In addition, there are smaller deposits located in
various sections of the country.
The mining operations chosen depend on the nature of the deposit
at each location. The mining operations range from simply scooping sand
from a pit or bank and loading it into a truck to quarrying hard sandstone
in a fashion similar to the procedures used to extract limestone. In the
latter event, extensive crushing, washing and screening may be necessary.
Data pertaining to the mining of 1 ton of glass sand are shown in
Table 15 along with the source of each number. The resulting impacts may
be found in Summary Table 14. As shown by the composite index in Table 8,
the overall environmental impact of mining sand is small as compared to
other operations considered in glass manufacturing.
68
-------
TABLE 15
DATA FOR MINING OF I TON GLASS SAND
Sources
Energy 84
Coal 0.0058 ton
Distillate 0.31 gal.
Residual 0.11 gal.
Gas 431 cu ft
Gasoline 0.076 gal.
Electricity 13.9 kwhr
Water volume, 1,800 gal. 85
Waterborne wastes
Suspended solids--! Ib 58 73
Transportation
Rail 90 ton-miles 79
Barge 3 ton-miles 81
Truck 27 ton-miles 68
D. Limestone Mining
Limestone is used by the glass industry as a source of calcium
oxide in glass furnace operations. The limestone is heated in the furnace
so that carbon dioxide is released, leaving calcium oxide behind. Calcium
oxides act as a chemical stabilizer in the finished glass product.
Limestone is quarried primarily from open pits. The most economi-
cal method of recovering the stone has been blasting, followed by mechanical
crushing and screening. According to the Bureau of Mines,—'environmental
problems plague these crushed stone producers more than any other mineral
industry except sand and gravel. The reason for this is that limestone
typically is mined quite close to the ultimate consumer, which frequently
dictates that the mining operation be near, or even within, heavily populated
areas. Hence, their environmental problems are accentuated by their high
visibility.
69
-------
The environmental consequences of limestone mining include: noise
from heavy equipment and from blasting; dust from mining, crushing and screen-
ing; solid residues not properly disposed of; general unsightliness; and oc-
casional contamination of streams. None of these problems is insurmountable
and many quarries are presently operated in an acceptable fashion.
Data concerning the quantifiable environmental impacts of lime-
stone mining are summarized in Table 16. The impacts are summarized in Table
14. Even though the quarrying operations may be objectionable as a neigh-
borhood problem, they produce relatively small impacts on a tonnage basis.
The major problem is dust (particulates). However, compared to the other
operations in the glass system (Table 8), the impacts of limestone mining
are quite small.
TABLE 16
DATA FOR MIKING OF 1 TON LIMESTONE
Sources
Energy
Coal
Distillate
Residual
Natural gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water volume
84
0.00012 ton
0.16 gal.
0.013 gal.
9.3 cu ft
0.049 gal.
2.0 kwhr
91 gal.
85
Process atmospheric
emissions
Particulates
13 Ib
52
Transportat ion
Rail
Water
Truck
10 ton-miles
26 ton-miles
42 ton-miles
79
81
68
70
-------
E. Lime Manufacture
Lime is produced by calcining limestone. Limestone (calcium car-
bonate) is heated in a kiln to a high temperature so that any water present
is driven off and the carbonate is broken up by the evolution of carbon
dioxide. The product remaining is lime (calcium oxide). Significant environ-
mental impacts occur due to fuel combustion and due to material losses. For
1 ton of lime produced approximately 0.8 ton of carbon dioxide is released.
An additional 0.2 ton of material impacts on the environment in the form of
solid waste and as dust (particulate emission). The data are summarized in
Table .17. The impacts are summarized in Table 14.
TABLE 17
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON LIME
Sources
Virgin raw materials 4,000 Ib 15
Energy 84
Coal 0.090 ton
Distillate 0.17 gal.
Residual 0.76 gal.
Natural Gas 1,670 cu ft
Gasoline 0.067 gal.
Electricity 28 kwhr
Water 270 gal. 85
Solid wastes 365 Ib 15,52
Process atmospheric
emissions
Particulates 35 Ib 15,52
Transportation 88
Rail 144 ton-miles
Truck 54 ton-miles
The most important impacts of lime manufacture are raw materials
use and air and water pollution. The raw materials are mostly limestone
which is a readily available mineral, so its use does not seriously deplete
reserves. The air pollution problem is mainly particulates which arise
from dust losses, although some arise from coal combustion. The water
71
-------
pollution problem is of particular interest because it comes entirely from
acid coal mine drainage. Thus, the water pollution problem is generally be-
yond the control of the lime manufacturer.
Table 8 shows that the lime manufacturing impacts are-a small
percentage of the glass bottle profile.
F. Natural Soda Ash Mining
Soda ash, which is the common name for sodium carbonate, is used
in glass manufacture as a fluxing agent. Under the temperature conditions
of a glass furnace the carbonate is converted to sodium oxide which lowers
the melting and working temperature and decreases the viscosity of the melt.
Sodium oxide is the second most abundant material in finished glass, con-
stituting about 15 percent of the finished glass weight.
Soda ash is obtainable in either its natural form or in a manu-
factured form. This section of the chapter deals with its natural form
which accounts for about 36 percent of the soda ash used by the glass in-
dustry.
The most abundant supply of natural soda ash (trona) is obtained
from three mines near Green River, Wyoming. The crude trona is mined from
beds nearly 1,500 feet below the surface using the room and pillar technique.
The trona is processed and refined at the mine site to produce soda ash.
Detailed information is not available to assess accurately the
energy impacts of trona mining. However, most of the mining techniques have
been borrowed from existing coal mining technology so the energy impacts
of trona mining were estimated by using coal mining data. The dominant
energy use in the refining process is the calcining of bicarbonate to pro-
duce the carbonate. This impact was added to the "coal mining" impacts to
produce the estimate of energy use for trona mining.
The estimate of the energy uses is summarized in Table 18. The
other data in the table were obtained or estimated from literature sources
concerning trona mining.
Summary Table 8 shows that natural soda ash mining produces
fairly small environmental impacts as compared to the other operations in
glass manufacture. However, the substantially greater use of energy as com-
pared to the other mined minerals leads to higher atmospheric emissions than
experienced by other minerals' mining operations.
72
-------
TABLE 18
DATA FOR MINING OF 1 TON NATURAL SODA ASH
Sources
Energy
Natural gas 480 cu ft
Water volume 1,200 gal. 85
Mining wastes 120 Ib 16
Process atmospheric emission
Particulates . 10 Ib 68
Transportation
Rail 650 ton-miles 16,68
G. Soda Ash Manufacture
The principal means of manufacturing soda ash is by the Solvay
process. Figure 3 depicts the overall process flow which combines lime-
stone and salt to produce soda ash. Lime, ammonia and sodium bicarbonate
are important intermediate materials.
Data relating to the impacts associated with producing the concen-
trated brine necessary for soda ash manufacture are shown in Table 19. The
customary method of obtaining brine for Solvay process plants is to pump
water into a natural underground salt dome and to pump out the concentrated
brine. This procedure produces virtually no waste products except those
due to fuel combustion to supply the necessary energy. Detailed data were
not available to describe the energy requirements of this process so they
were estimated by using census data for rock salt mining which includes many
of the same basic operations as the hydraulic mining method. Impacts associ-
ated with brine production are all quite small as shown in Table 14. No sig-
nificant contribution is made to bottle manufacture as shown in Table 8.
73
-------
Carbon Dioxide
Brine
Production
Limestone
Mining
1.65
\
I
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Production
i
Carbon
Dioxide
1.25
i
Calcining
Soda Ash
^ 1 00
(to Glass Plant)
Ammonium Chloride
Ammonia
Lime
Kiln
Lime
1
i
i
Ammonia
Recovery
Salt
Calcium Oxide JJ-*J
Calcium Chloride 0'0d
^ i nc,
(Waste)
Figure 3 - Materials Requirements for the Manufacture of 1 Ton
Soda Ash by the Solvay Process (ton)
-------
TABLE 19
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1 TON SALT AS BRINE
Source
Energy 84
Electricity 0.85 kwhr
Fuel oil 0.11 gal.
Gas 169 cu ft
Gasoline 0.014 gal.
Water volume 1,000 gal. 68
Overall environmental impacts for manufacture of 1 ton of soda
ash are quite high per ton output when compared to the other operations
in the glass system as shown in Table 14. A basic factor effecting this
is the inefficiency in utilization of raw materials (Table 20). Considerable
quantities of salt which enter the process simply pass on through so that
approximately 0.5 ton of salt must be disposed of as a solid waste for each
ton of soda ash produced. In addition, over 1 ton of calcium chloride and
calcium oxide is produced. Even though these materials are sometimes sold,
they usually are simply dumped. Not only do these inefficiencies represent
a solid waste problem but the impacts associated with the various mining
and preparation processes are "wasted"since they cannot be allocated to co-
products. Thus, soda ash production must carry the full load.
Another important factor affecting the environmental profile of
soda ash manufacture is the use of coal and residual oils as primary sources
of fuel. These give rise to high values for atmospheric emissions.
Table 8 shows that for soda ash manufacture, six impact
categories occur to a significant degree.
H. Feldspar Mining
Feldspar is an aluminum silicate mineral which is used in glass
manufacture to obtain aluminum oxide. This oxide acts as a stabilizer
and improves the stability and durability of the glass microstrueture. It
is added in small quantities and generally makes up less than 3 percent of
the total glass weight.
75
-------
TABLE 20
DATA. FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON SODA ASH BY THE SOLVAY PROCESS
Virgin raw materials
Salt
Limestone
Other materials
(ammonia, sodium
sulfide)
Energy
Coal
Residual
Gas
Coke
Water volume
Process solid wastes
Process atmospheric
emissions
Ammonia
Particulates
Waterborne wastes
Suspended solids
Transportation
Rail
Barge
Truck
Source
16
3,300 Ib
2,500 Ib
9 Ib
0.235 ton
16.7 gal.
1,200 cu ft
0.1 ton
16,000 gal.
3,340 Ib
7 Ib
21 Ib
7 Ib
220 ton-miles
116 ton-miles
25 ton-miles
16,68
85
16
43
52,68
68
80
83
68
76
-------
Feldspar is mined in 13 states but North Carolina and California
produce 65 percent of the nation's total. Hence, transportation expenses
to bring feldspar to glass plants may be quite high. Feldspar is mined
primarily by open pit quarry techniques. Usually drilling and blasting are
required although this is not always so.
The data pertaining to the impacts associated with feldspar min-
ing are in Table 21, with the impacts summarized in Summary Table 14. The
dominant impact is the considerable mining waste associated with feldspar
mining. More solid waste is associated with this operation per ton of mat-
erial than any other operation for glass manufacture. Also, there is a
significant amount of air pollution which is primarily dust produced by
mining and crude ore processing.
TABLE 21
DATA FOR MINING OF 1 TON FELDSPAR
Energy
Distillate
Gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water volume
Mining wastes
Atmospheric emissions
Particulates
Transportation
Rail
3.8 gal.
60 cu ft
0.25 gal.
56 kwhr
4,500 gal.
4,600 Ib
15 Ib
500 ton-miles
Source
84
86
97
68
68
77
-------
I. Glass Container Manufacture
Glass container manufacture is carried out in an integrated plant
where raw materials are delivered and finished containers are shipped out.
The raw materials are melted and refined in a glass furnace before being
fed in a molten state to forming machines. These machines form and cool the
glass container before annealing. After annealing, they are further cooled
and packed for shipment. A considerable amount of glass breakage occurs
inside the plant. This broken glass (cullet) is considered to be a valuable
raw material and is recycled to the glass furnace. Typically, the raw ma-
terial batch will include 15 percent cullet from internal sources.
Glass is a three dimensional random network of silicon and oxygen
atoms with fluxes and stabilizers added. Thus, glass sand (silicon dioxide)
is the primary raw material. Other important materials added include soda
ash, lime or limestone and feldspar. In the glass furnace, soda ash is con-
verted to sodium oxide which serves as a fluxing agent. The fluxing agents
alter melting and working temperatures by decreasing the viscosity. Lime-
stone yields lime (calcium oxide) in the glass furnace. Calcium oxide along
with the aluminum oxide from feldspar are stabilizers and add desirable
characteristics such as chemical durability to the final product. Other
additives are made in small amounts to add color and to change refining
characteristics for other purposes. Data pertaining to glass manufacture
are in Table 22 with the corresponding impacts in Table 14.
Glass container plants are quite clean from an environmental ef-
fluent point of view as compared to many other types of industrial plants.
This does not mean that glass plants are free of environmental ills, but
the effluents are generally minimal. However, any large industrial plant
may cause considerable local damage to the environment even though its
impact per ton of material is quite low.
Table 8 shows that glass container manufacture produces greater
impact in three of the seven impact categories than the other subsystems
for container systems. Energy use in container manufacture accounts for
56 percent of the total energy category for container manufacture.
The formation of glass requires a considerable amount of heat to
be expended in melting the inorganic chemicals and in sustaining the tem-
peratures at which the necessary chemical reactions and subsequent refining
take place. However, the widespread use of natural gas in glass furnaces
results in quite low atmospheric emissions for this sizable energy expendi-
ture.
78
-------
TABLE 22
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON GLASS CONTAINERS
Virgin raw materials
Sand
Limestone
Soda ash (natural)
Feldspar
Other
Packaging
Corrugated
Energy
Distillate
Residual
Gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water
Process solid waste
Process atmospheric
emissions
Particulates
Waterborne wastes
Oil
Transportation
Rail
Barge
Truck
Source
68,69,83,97,102
1,320 Ib
334 Ib
155 Ib
151 Ib
40 Ib
132 Ib
1.2 gal.
5.5 gal.
10,700 cu ft
0.023 gal.
263 kwhr
870 gal.
45 Ib
2 Ib
0.2 Ib
50 ton-miles
2 ton-miles
186 ton-miles
83
83
68
43
68,71
88
79
-------
Other important impacts for glass plants are atmospheric emissions
and waterborne wastes. The atmospheric emissions are primarily from fuel
combustion; other emissions are only about 2 pounds of particulates and are
of minor importance. However, in some localities the use of fluorspar in
the glass furnace may give rise to troublesome fluoride emissions. Water-
borne wastes from glass plants result from use of oils on the glass form-
ing line. But the major water pollutant associated with glass plant opera-
tions is the acid coal mine drainage associated with coal consumed as an
energy source.
J. Closures
In order to provide a 12-ounce beer bottle comparable to the 12-
ounce can, it is necessary to consider impacts related to closure manufacture.
The typical closure for a glass beer bottle is a steel crown with a plastic
liner. A typical weight for such a closure is 0.0040 pound. For 1 million
containers, then, it would require 4,000 pounds or 2 tons steel. It was
assumed that the impacts for these closures would be approximated on a ton-
nage basis by the impacts for the manufacture of finished steel cans. The
reader is referred to Chapter 4 for a discussion of these impacts.
K. Plastic Coated Bottles
A recent innovation in glass bottles has been the development of
plastic coated bottles. These coatings, or jackets, have the advantage of
reducing the bruising and breaking of bottles as they strike one another or
other objects and also reduce glass shattering. The environmental profile
of these bottles is somewhat better than conventional one-way bottles be-
cause they can be fabricated with 10 to 20 percent less glass in them. The
reason why less glass is possible is because the break and shatter resis-
tance of the bottle allows lighter weight construction.
Table 23 contains data to calculate the impact of the plastic
jacket. Polystyrene foam is the jacket used on the bottles called "Plasti-
shield" bottles. However, these data would serve as a good estimate for
the plastic coatings used on other bottles. Table 11 shows, the
amount of plastic required is so small it accounts for very little
of the total profile.
L. Paper Packaging
Paper packaging is used in significant quantities at two points in
the beer bottle system. The first point is at the glass plant where the
80
-------
TABLE 23
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS POLYSTYRENE FOAM JACKET
Materials
Crude Oil
Natural Gas
Additives
966 Ib.
316 Ib.
5 Ib.
Energy
Water
Natural Gas (internal combustion)
Natural Gas (heating)
Electricity
Industrial Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emission
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
3,800 cu. ft,
17,300 cu. ft.
981 kwhr
8,300 gal.
68 Ib.
77 Ib.
3 Ib.
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved Solids
Oil
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Transportation
Pipeline
Barge
Truck
Rail
12 Ib.
0.5 Ib.
2.2 Ib.
2.5 Ib.
1.0 Ib.
131 ton-miles
125 ton-miles
210 ton-miles
624 ton-miles
Source: 47
81
-------
bottles are packed in corrugated containers for shipment to the bottling
plant, and the second point is at the bottling plant where the filled con-
tainers are placed into paperboard packages such as "six pack" carriers.
The corrugated container is fabricated from two strong liners
made of unbleached kraft paperboard with an inner fluted filler of corruga-
ting medium. The corrugating medium can be made of recycled corrugated
containers, or from a combination of types of virgin fibers. It is common
in the glass industry to use a 100 percent virgin container, so we have
based our example of a corrugated container on that premise.
Table 24 contains basic data relating to corrugated container
manufacture. We have assumed that a corrugated container is fabricated
from unbleached kraft linerboard which comprises 69 percent by weight of
the box, and corrugating medium which is the remaining 31 percent. The
corrugating medium is fabricated from fibers derived from two pulp types:
80 percent from NSSC pulp and 20 percent from unbleached kraft pulp.
Table 14 shows that the most serious environmental problem for
the corrugated container manufacture is energy use. However, it should be
noted that 10 million Btu, or 26 percent of this energy is derived from
burning wood fiber. Thus, if only fossil fuels are considered, the energy
problem is not as serious.
A second important impact is air pollution. This is dominated
by the incineration of waste digestion liquors from NSSC pulp mills. This
procedure is rapidly declining because of pollution control regulations, but
is still practiced to some extent.
A third important problem is water pollution, which is
caused by the basic wasteful nature of wood processing. Unacceptable fibers
and other wood components are washed from the pulp and discarded as water
pollutants.
Table 25 contains basic data for bleached paperboard product manu-
facture. The profile as seen on Table 14 is similar to that of corrugated
boxes. However, the energy requirements are greater, water pollution is
worse, but air pollution is less.
The air pollution from kraft mills differs from the air pollution
from NSSC mills in that the most notable impact from kraft mills derives from
odorous sulfur compounds. The horrible stench produced by the kraft pulping
process is legendary, and where the odor is uncontrolled it produces a quite
severe local impact.
82
-------
TABLE 24
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON CORRUGATED CONTAINERS
Virgin Raw Materials
Wood fiber (bone dry basis)^ 1,992 Ib
Additives 140 Ib
Energy
Kraft Recovery Furnace 9.4 x 10 Btu
Auxiliary Boiler 16.8 x 106 Btu
Diesel 13.6 gal.
Electricity 320 kwhr
Water 29,400 gal.
Process Solid Waste 134 Ib
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 38 Ib
Odorous Sulfur 5 Ib
Sulfur Oxides 43 Ib
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 41 Ib
Suspended Solids 19 Ib
Transportation
Rail 602 ton-miles
Truck 296 ton-miles
Water 12 ton-miles
a/ Thirty percent or 598 Ib is derived from chips and wood residues.
Source: 48
83
-------
TABLE 25
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON BLEACHED KRAFT PAPERBOARP CARRIERS
Virgin Raw Materials
Wood Fiber (bone dry basis)- 2,040 Ib
Additives 140 Ib
Energy
Kraft recovery furnace 12.4 x 10 Btu
Auxiliary boiler 16.8 x 106 Btu
Diesel 13.8 gal.
Electricity 320 kwhr
Water 51,600 gal.
Process Solid Waste 134 Ib
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 38 Ib
Odorous sulfur 7 Ib
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 50 Ib
Suspended Solids 44 Ib
Transportation
Rail 644 ton-miles
Barge 12 ton-miles
Truck 308 ton-miles
&l Thirty percent or 612 Ib is derived from chips and wood residues.
Source: 48
84
-------
Table 8 shows that the total paper packaging systems produce
quite important impacts compared to the other operations.
M. Bottle Filling
New bottles enter the filling plant and are placed on high speed
automated lines which clean, fill, close, pasteurize and package the bottles.
The bottles are rinsed with clean water which need not be heated and moved
along the line by electric motors. The only step requiring significant
amounts of fuel is the pasteurizing step, thus the overall impacts of this
step are not large compared to other steps.
Of interest is the fact that the corrugated shipping cartons in
which the bottles are received are saved and used for shipping the filled
bottles. Thus, the only new packaging required is for the six pack carriers.
Table 26 contains data relating to beer filling plants reporting
for one-way and returnable bottles. A distinction is made between on-premise
and off-premise returnable beer bottles in regards the packaging requirements.
The on-premise bottle is boxed in a closed corrugated carton which lasts
approximately three trips. However, the off-premise carton requires a six
pack carrier as well as a corrugated carton. We have assumed here that the
5-RET off-premise package only makes one trip, but the packaging could serve
for multiple trips if returned to the same brewer.
Significant differences exist between one-way and returnable bot-
tle impacts at the filling plant for several reasons. The most important
are those associated with the returnable bottle. They are the energy
necessary to heat the washing water, the use of caustic washing compounds,
and the resulting water pollution. However, it is customary to use the
waste caustic solution to neutralize the acid brewery wastes. Thus, the
alkaline water pollutants are converted to wastewater treatment sludges and
become part of the solid wastes burden.
In addition to the data related to beer bottles, additional data
are included here for soft drink bottles. Up to the filling plant, the beer
and soft drink bottles utilize the same type of manufacturing operations.
This results from the fact that soft drink bottles are made from the same
type of glass but differ in weight and style from beer bottles.
Table 27 summarizes the data for soft drink bottles. Both one-way
and returnable bottles are included. The data for beer and soft drinks are
quite similar, although differing somewhat in most categories.
85
-------
TABLE 26
DATA FOR FILLING AND DELIVERY OF 1 MILLION 12-OUNCE BEER BOTTLES
Materials
Paper packaging
One way
On-premise returnable
Off-premise returnable
(one trip packaging)
Cleaning agents
Sodium Hydroxide
58,000 Ib (bleached kraft)
27,000 Ib (corrugated
container)
78,000 Ib (corrugated container)
34,000 Ib (bleached kraft)
3,000 Ib
Energy
One way
Coal
Residual
Natural gas
Electricity
Returnable
Coal
Residual
Natural gas
Electricity
1 ton
150 gal.
60,000 cu ft
2,000 kwhr
1 ton
570 gal.
225,000 cu ft
2,000 kwhr
Water
One way
Returnable
Industrial Solid Wastes
300,000 gal.
400,000 gal.
2,000 Ib
Waterborne Wastes
Returnable
BOD
Suspended solids
1,000 Ib
260 Ib
Transportation
One way
Returnable
Rail
Truck
a
Rail
Truck
50,000 ton-miles
40,000 ton-miles
100,000 ton-miles
40,000 ton-miles
Source: 68
86
-------
TABLE 27
DATA FOR FILLING AMD DELIVERY OF 1 MILLION 16-OUNCE SOFT DRINK BOTTLES
Materials
Paper packaging
One way
Returnable
Cleaning agents
Sodium Hydroxide
28,600 Ib (bleached kraft)
14,600 Ib (bleached kraft)
2,500 Ib
Energy
One way
Returnable
Natural gas
Electricity
n
Natural gas
Electricity
123,000 cu ft
12,200 kwhr
184,000 cu ft
13,300 kwhr
Water
One way
Returnable
Industrial Solid Wastes
200,000 gal.
300,000 gal.
1,000 Ib
Waterborne Wastes
Returnable
Alkalinity
BOD
Suspended solids
1,000 Ib
100 Ib
200 Ib
Transportation
One way Gasoline
Returnable Gasoline
110 gal. diesel
500 gal. gasoline
220 gal. diesel
780 gal. gasoline
Source: 68
87
-------
N. Solid Waste Disposal
The primary environmental impacts associated with solid waste dis-
posal depends on the type of disposal taking place. Most of the solid waste
stream in this country is disposed of on land. We will assume that 91 per-
cent of solid waste is landfilled (or dumped) with the remaining 9 percent
being incinerated. Recovery of materials from the post-consumer solid waste
stream is practiced on a fairly small scale nationwide, so no recovery is
included our disposal model.
Transportation is an important factor in disposal impacts. We have
assumed a 20 mile average travel distance per load of refuse in a 20 yard
compactor truck. Assuming that the truck efficiency is 5 miles per gallon
of gasoline, and that the waste is compacted to 500 pounds per cubic yard, the
fuel usage is 0.8 gallons gasoline per ton waste.
For the 9 percent of the "average" ton of solid waste incinerated,
some air pollution results. However, the total pounds of pollutants gener-
ated by the 180 pounds (0.09 x 2,000 Ib = 180 Ib) of waste incinerated for
each ton collected results in a total of 3.8 pounds of air pollution. The only
significant contributor is carbon monoxide at 3.2 pounds. The remaining 0.6 pounds
is distributed approximately equally among particulates,* sulfur oxides,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen chloride. However, we assume that
inert materials such as glass and metals are essentially nonparticipants in
the incineration process and are disposed of on land.
Table 28 contains the data from which impacts were calculated.
Included are the volumes that solid waste occupies in a landfill. These
numbers were derived by determining the theoretical densities of the mat-
erials. In actual fact, an unbroken bottle or an uncollapsed can often finds
its way into landfills (or dumps). However, no data are available on
typical behavior of the various containers in typical landfill operations.
However, the important factor here is that some measure of relative volume
of the various containers can be established and thus provide some estimate.
Although data are lacking concerning all of the containers, it is our opinion
that the volume occupied by the plastic container may be underestimated more
than for the other containers. It is less likely that the plastic bottles
will either compress like a can or break (or split) like a bottle than the
conventional containers. On the other hand, the aluminum can will probably
collapse and compress quite readily so that its relative volume may be over-
estimated here.
Table 8 shows the impacts due to disposal are small.
* It is assumed that a 95 percent efficient precipitator is in place.
I
88
-------
TABLE 28
DATA FOR DISPOSAL OF 1 TON SOLID WASTE
Source
Energy
Gasoline
Solid Waste Volume
Steel
Glass and aluminum
Paper and plasticS'
Process Atmospheric Emissions^'
(for combustible materials)
Carbon monoxide
Other
0.8 gal.
4 cu ft/ton
12 cu ft/ton
33 cu ft/ton
3.2 Ib
0.6 Ib
68
68
52
_a/ This assumes that for 1 ton, there is 36 cu ft, but 9 percent
is incinerated.
J>/ For 180 pounds, or 9 percent of the waste. Nine percent is
incinerated.
0. Nonreturnable and Returnable Glass Containers
At this point, the calculation of the environmental impacts of
the glass container is straightforward. The material flow diagram (Table
6) indicates the amount of each material needed for the manufacture of
1 ton of glass containers. Summary Table 8 shows the results of performing
the impact calculations for each of the materials needed in glass container
manufacture.
For purposes of comparison, the above calculations may be converted
to the basis of 1 million containers. Current data show that a typical one-
way 12-ounce beer bottle weighs 0.41 pound. A spot check was made by weigh-
ing recently purchased bottles which verifies this weight. Thus, 1 million
containers weigh 410,000 pounds or 205 tons. The impacts of 205 tons of
glass containers are readily calculated. The impacts of 2 tons of steel
closures need to be added as shown in Summary Table 8.
89
-------
The impacts that should be attributed to the returnable glass
bottle require close inspection. Current data ' ' indicate that 12-
ounce returnable beer bottles weigh about 0.61 pound per bottle (305 tons
per million containers), or 50 percent more than the corresponding one-way
bottle. In addition, in order to make the calculations comparable to the
other container systems studied, all impacts must be considered including
those which are incurred in preparing the returned container for refilling.
Thus, we must consider transportation of the container from the retail
site back to the bottler as well as impacts associated with cleaning the used
bottle before refilling.
Of considerable importance in calculating impacts relating to re-
turnable bottles is the number of times each bottle is reused, or "trippage."
At present, the trippage experienced by on-premise returnable beer bottles
is 19. -i°°' That is, on the average, each bottle is used 19 times. However,
it is our opinion that the current returnable beer bottle is not comparable
to the other container systems studied here. The usage of on-premise return-
able beer bottles is by commercial customers such as taverns, as opposed to
the personal take-home use experienced by other containers. An analogy can
be drawn with the soft drink industry which experiences national average
trippage of 15 * - which includes vending machine as well as supermarket
and other take-home configurations. However, some soft drink industry
spokesmen indicate that the actual trippage rate may be closer to 10 for the
supermarket take-home package. One beer industry spokesman indicates that
beer packages may experience even fewer trips in the supermarket configuration.
Perhaps five trips or less would be experienced. It should be noted that
good data concerning trip rates do not exist and the trippage actually
achieved is quite difficult to determine accurately. Table 29 and Figure 4
contain the basic data for returnable bottle calculations.
TABLE 29
DATA FOR RETURNABLE GLASS CONTAINERS USED TO DELIVER
1 MILLION 12-OUNCE UNITS OF BEER
Glass Manufacture 305 tons -f N
(where N = trippage)
(Other requirements on Table 6).
Source: 68
90
-------
Closures,
Paper Packaging
Cleaning agents,
etc.
Glass Container
Manufacturing
System
(305/N)
I
Filling
(305)
Utilization/
Return/Discard
(305/N)
Final
Disposal
(return)
(305-305/N)
Figure 4 - Glass Flow to Provide Returnable Beer Bottles for
1 Million Containers at Any Trip Rate N (Tons)
-------
P. Glass Recycling
Waste glass (known as cullet) is a valuable commodity to the glass
industry. It is useful in glass furnaces to promote proper melting of the
raw materials and is generally conceded to aid in the superior formation of
glass. At the present time, most cullet is primarily an industrial scrap.
Most of the cullet used is generated and recycled within the same glass plant,
although glass container filling plants also routinely collect and sell their
broken glass.
Several solid waste separation schemes are presently used on ex-
perimental, or pilot-plant basis to separate cullet from municipal solid
waste streams. This has the advantage of reducing solid waste volume as
well as providing a commodity of value to the glass industry.
Table 30 contains data pertinent to the operation of a hypothetical
scaled up plant similar to the wet separation pilot plant designed by Black-
Clawson Corporation. The pilot plant is in Franklin, Ohio.
TABLE 30
DATA FOR SEPARATION OF 1 TON GLASS CULLET
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Energy
Residual oil 0.042 gal.
Electric 400 kwhr
Natural gas 8 cu ft
Postconsumer Solid Waste -2,000 Ib
Transportation
Truck 100 ton-miles
Source: 66,68
92
-------
CHAPTER III
ABS BOTTLE
This chapter contains the basic data and outlines the calculations
made to determine the total environmental profile for ABS beer bottles.
Three container options were studied: nonreturnable bottles, bottles made
from 100 percent recycled resin, and 10-trip returnable bottles. A steel
closure was used with each option.
Figure 5 shows a flow diagram for manufacturing the ABS bottle.
Crude oil and natural gas are the principal raw materials required. Acrylo-
nitrile, polybutadiene and styrene react to form the ABS resin. In the
recycle option, the raw materials are the used, nonrefillable ABS bottle
(which is cut up, melted, and processed to form other bottles), and the
steel closure. The returnable bottle requires only cleaning materials
and steel closures for raw materials.
sequence.
This chapter discusses the ABS bottle systems in the following
A. Overview
B. Crude Oil Production
C. Benzene Manufacture
D. Natural Gas Production
E. Natural Gas Processing
F. Ethylene Manufacture
G. 1,3 Butadiene Manufacture
H. Ammonia Manufacture
I. Acrylonitrile Manufacture
J. Styrene Manufacture
K. Polybutadiene Manufacture
L. ABS Resin Manufacture
M. Bottle Fabrication
N. Container Options
A. Overview
This section contains the computer generated tables which summarize
the environmental impacts of the ABS beer bottle. Table 31 shows the impacts
for 1 million containers of each option. Table 32 shows the impacts
that each subprocess contributes to the nonreturnable ABS bottle system.
Table 33 contains the impacts for 1,000 pounds of each process in the
ABS system.
93
-------
Crude Oil )07
Production ^
Disti Motion
105
Hydrotreafing
105
Reforming
104
Benzene
Separation
Natural 953
Gas
Production
1000
ABS
System
Closure
Other
Figure 5 -Flow Diagram for Production of 1,000 Pounds of ABS Bottles (in pounds)
-------
TABLE 31
IMPACTS FOR I MILLION ABS BOTTLES FOR THREE OPTIONS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
SUMMARY Of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
ONE HAY
ONE WAY
100 PCT
RECYCLE
MYPOTMET
10 TRIP
RETURNA8
MATERIAL wooo FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL 8LASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU 6AL
UNITS
77267.
1649.
5808.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7«6I.
3131.
88*.
1921.
3909.
6113*.
16*9.
5809.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5028.
2U16.
212.
1.
220*.
2930S.
1649.
5809.
3213.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2710.
1160.
355.
28*.
1233.
SOLID WASTES PROCESS POUND
SOLID WASTES FUEL COMB POUND
SOLID WASTES NININ6 POUND
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM CUBIC FT
ATMOS PARTICULATES POUND
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES POUND
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS POUND
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES POUND
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE POUND
ATMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS POUND
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR POUND
ATMOS AMMONIA POUND
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOUR IDE POUND
ATMOS LEAD POUND
ATMOS MERCURY POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUND
WATERBORNE FLUORIDES POUND
WATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS POUND
WATERBORNE BOD POUND
HATERBORNE PHENOL POUND
•ATERBORNE SULFIDES POUND
WATERBORNE OIL POUND
WATERBORNE COD POUND
WATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS POUND
WATERBORNE ACID POUND
WATERBORNE METAL ION POUND
WATERBORNE CHEMICALS POUND
WATERBORNE CYANIDE POUND
WATEHBORNE ALKALINITY POUND
WATERBORNE CHfcOMIUM POUND
WATERBORNE IRON POUND
WATERBORNE ALUMINUM POUND
WATERBORNE NICKEL POUND
WATERBORNE MERCURY POUND
WATERBORNE LEAD POUND
9154.
• 739.
32153.
2536.
3*59.
5721.
5261.
4718.
2463.
25.
93.
773.
52.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1071.
2202.
0.
1.
12*.
99*.
1793.
201.
50.
9.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
9069.
6935.
29559.
1078.
2799.
1701.
892.
3253.
984.
12.
67.
643.
12.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
313.
1*91.
0.
0.
2.
19.
1350.
155.
39.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
507fl.
2567.
2*582.
168*.
119*.
1728.
1369.
2049.
108S.
14.
58.
242.
18.
0.
1.
0.
13.
0.
386.
1658.
0.
0.
21.
151.
601.
65.
lt>.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MAW MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
WATFH THOU GAL
INDUSTHIAL SOLID WASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
WATERBORNE WASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE CUBIC FT
92586.
5936.
3909.
676.
22567.
6449.
2536.
73620.
2229.
2204.
615.
10362.
3370.
1078.
42689.
1804.
1233.
435.
7771.
2901.
Ibfl*.
95
-------
T»1U 32
i fu» i.uoo rouros oiie-wnv A»S IOHTAIHMS
INPUTS TO SYSTtMS
. NAME
MATERI
ATERI
ATERI
ATCRI
ATCR
ATCH
ATER
ATCR
AtCR
INCA6
ENER8
EMM
IL »OOP F1ICH
IL L
IL II
IL !>
IL GL
IL N
IL Fl
IL §
IL Rl
PRO(
TRAI
OF 1
Ml M 044
ION ORE
LI
ASS SANK
T SODA ASH
LUSR
UHITI
OCES
ESS
ISRUR
(ATL 1
R
OPE
ADD
ESOURCI
•ATER VOLUME
POUNDS
ROUND
POUND
ROUND
POUND
ROUND
POUND
^OUNi)
POUNDS
MR bTu
MIL BTu
MIL BTu
THOU bAL
OUTPUTS FMOM SYSTtMS
NAME
SOLID ASUS PROCESS
SOLID ASICS FUCL COM!
SOLID ASTES MININb
SOLID ASTE POST*CONSUH
AtXOS ARTICULATES
ATNOS ITHObth 01IDES
ATNOS VDROCARIONS
ATMS SULFUR OIIDCS
ATMS CARION NONOIIOE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANIC*
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUU
ATMOS MMON1A
ATMS HYOROMN FLOUR.IDC
ATMS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
•ATIMOMM FLUORIDES
•AT(MO*MC Olil SOLIDS
• AIERMRWC 100
•ATER4DRMC RMCMOL
• ATCRIORME SULFIOES
• ATtmOUNC OIL
• ATIWOONf COC.
• ATCMOKNf SUSP SOLIDS
• ATEMORNE ACID
ATIRMOWC HI
ATERIORMC C.
ATfMORNC C
ATERIORNE A
ATEMORNE 0
4TEMORME I
ATERIORM A
1AL ION
.<2b 0.000 2
.004 .449
.000 .001 .000
.000 .101 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .001
.000 .000 .141
.040 .102 .620
.308 0.100 .7*4
.31* 0.000 .000
.037 . .271 .«14
.000
.100
.000
.000
.000
.000
.010
.000
.172
.444
.000
.000
.4*0
.000 .Oil
.000 .000
.000 .001
.000 .001
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .001
.000 .000
.•71 .lit
.901 .9*1
.000 .000 <
.000 .000 I
.144 10.911
.00*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.•40
.490
.000
.000
.411
.000 .*M
.Ml .110
.Oil .Oil
.000 .000
.000 .010
.001 .000
.000 .010
.000 .000
.•1* I .1(4
.104 ,0*4
.000 .100
.000 .41*
.4*S I. II*
• lit
• Ml
.III
• III
• Ml
• MO
.too
.100
.III
.III
• *io
.000
.111
.Ml l.lll
.III II. Ml
.Ml 71.711
.000 .lit
.100 .Ml
.100 .III
.100 .Ml
.0*0 .000
.000 .411
.000 .III
.7*2 .021
.001 .012
.241 I.M*
.Ml Htl Ml
.Ml .*M
.Ml .*•*)
.1*1 .fM
.000 .110)
.III .MW
.*•* .IM
• Oil .*M
.Oil 1 .Ml
.711 1 .MO
.Ml .411
.Ml .Ml 1
.71* II.Mf
.IM
.IM
.111
.III
.III
.III
.IM
• III
.IM
.III
.lit
.III
.107
.064
.023
.09T
0.000
.006
.042
.164
.011
.022
.001
.000
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
1.142
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.104
.146
.424
0.000
.001
.414
.•14
.407
.019
.007
.004
0.000
.00»
o.ooo
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.122
.004
.001
.001
.002
.013
.007
.000
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.124
.103
0.000
.013
2.00«
10.141
.200
.69*
.004
.004
0.000
.000
O.OOI
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
3.009
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.006
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.010
.101
0.000
.010
4.42*
10.770
.044
l.lll
.000
.000
0.000
0.00*
• .000
0.000
.000
0.00*
0.000
.11*
.000
.110
.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOI
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.706
1.100
1.S41
0.000
.101
23. 2M
1.114
1.271
4.14*
.001
.004
0.010
1.001
I.MI
O.OOI
.110
0.000
o.ooi
.••1
1.412
.000
.000
1.271
3.671
2.040
.0*0
.01 T
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
.0*0
.004
2.1*1
0.000
.102
.9*1
.III
.79*
.III
.002
.003
0.000
o.ioo
O.MO
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.117
.0*2
.000
.000
.006
.402
.029
.042
.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.094
.071
.200
0.000
.012
.447
1.271
.071
.111
.002
.004
0.000
.477
0.100
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.144
.011
.000
.000
.011
.040
.011
.004
.001
.10"
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.609
1.619
4.491
0.000
.144
.401
1.111
1.42*
.171
.001
.001
O.OOI
O.IM
o.ooi
0.010
.000
0.000
0.000
.01]
2.211
.001
.000
.061
4.71*
.60*
.014
.021
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.127
.117
.119
.017
.114
1.2*4
.117
.17*
.101
.001
0.000
O.tlt
0.000
o.oio
.000
0.100
0.000
.114
.172
.010
.000
. 60
. 00
. 72
. 06
. 02
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.111
O.MI
O.ltt
.114
.140
9.117
.101
.111
.111
.111
O.IM
•.III
O.IM
I.IM
o.ooo
O.OOI
O.OOI
.011
.0*1
O.OM
0.000
.004
.100
.190
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.010
4.410
11.117
1.441
4.741
7.107
*.»!»
.Mt
.11*
.117
l.lll
I.IM
l.lll
I.IM
.100
0.000
0.000
.111
.471
.110
.000
.077
2.370
.407
.344
.044
0.000
.001
0.000
.002
.014
.014
.00*
0.000
0.000
.•11
11.411
11.111
0.000
3.913
4.102
2.441
17.177
.141
.011
.014
0.000
0.000
l.lll
0.000
.III
e.tii
0.000
.171
.001
.110
.000
.000
.004
.002
.964
.241
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oot
.«2»
0.000
0.001
.911
11.027
4.1*0
l.*l*
11.114
.147
.114
0.110
.110
O.OOI
.011
O.OOI
o.ooo
O.IM
2.111
.004
.002
.002
.003
.021
.011
.004
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.MO
20. m
.441
242.214
0.000
1.4T»
.411
I.IM
I.IM
• III
.402
.111
.112
.111
I.IM
.III
.lit
• .III
0.000
.101
.000
.III
.000
.026
.001
.111
.21*
.040
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00*
O.OOI
0.00*
O.OOI
24.4*2
1.1*1
4.714
l.lll
.7*4
1.114
I.IM
1.111
.141
.111
.114
• .Ml
.111
I.MI
.Ml
.III
I.MI
0.4*0
.M*
.Mt
.Ml
.••1
.000
.002
.001
.019
.022
0.000
0.000
O.tIO
o.tto
l.lll
• .Ml
0.010
O.lll
• .III
M.-^
JfcliV*
I.MI
IT.TM
I**l
'::«
•:»
.Ml
t.MI
I.IM
t.»*»
11. 4M
.lit
.112
.113
.121
14.111
.411
.120
O.MO
• ••00
I.IM
I.IM
0.000
o.ooo
I.MI
I.IM
I.M*
t. III
S.M
~ I.MI
11. M4
.lit
lllOf
•I«>M
.Mt
I.MI
I.MI
I.MI
.14*
.IM
.III
.111.
.001
.001
.000
.000
.Oil
0.000
O.tOI
I.IM
0.000
o.ooo
I.IM
I.MI
I.MI
l.lll
•AH MATERIALS ROUNDS
EMMY MIL ITU
• ATM THOU >AL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUDIC FT
ATM IMMISS10NS ROUHOS
• ATfRIORNE «4lTI4 ROUNDS
POtT-CON*UNER SOL «ASTE CUD 1C FT
.201
.944
.004
.002
.241 2
.1*3
.000 1
42
7J
44
00
OV<
16
00
0.
21.
I .
>
13.
3.
0.
0
7
3
0
3
1
0
,0.
,
16.
.
0.
0
r 4
7
0
• 3V
4 9
0 0
141 3.17* . 6 l.fl{j
4|6 • 44 .1 .s-j
-36 • " .6 II,. 41
U74 • * • 4 .04
117 2. 7 f. s 6.13
37c -3 .0 7.11
*•« 0. 0 0. 0 U.OO
1
1
I
•t
»40 3.916 12.22
690 .304 4.43
441 .404 ?.a|
00» .UOO .34
• 04 S.4I3 20. 2*
"?« .360 «.6fl
006 0.000 o.OO
. |:g ::g t:!S :.« '!::»: •:••;
r i!? 'Jt? i'"* »•"» n.Mt .M7
ll'llO 3l'«* •*" •*»» »•'«• ••••
1 111 i'? I '•*" *•«»* '»•«•• «.7M
> i:::: .:... .:,-,. .:.;. '.::.: „:•»
-------
TABLE JJ
IHJACT8 rot 1.000 KHJIIM Of CACM "JLOCT81 ft* AM
CHUOC
OIL
PRUU
•CN2ENE
MAN
MATUR«L
OAS
PROD
' NATURAL
•AS
PROCESS
ETMYLEMC
MAN
•UTAOIEN
MAN
AMMONIA
MAN
•CRYLO
MAN
STWNt
MAN
POL' ID
MAN
AM
DCS IN
MAN
Alt
•OTTLC
rti
AM
RECYCLE
INPUTS TO S(STEMS
UNITS
MATERIAL .000 FIBEk
MAUMIAL LIMESTONE
N»TE»IAL IHOS ORE
N«TERUL SALT
MATERIAL I.L«SS S«NO
M»T£l«|AL N«T SOD* AS*
NAT£»I«L FELUSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
N«TER|«L PROCESS >DO
(NIPCY PHCCtSa
ENER5Y T»«Ni»OH
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
»TCM VOLUME
POUND
fOUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
OUTPUTS f»ON SYSTEMS
N*»E
POUNDS
MIL HTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
TNOU G«L
UNITS
.(•0
.to*
.090
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.(10
.070
.116
8.000
.ori
.000 I
.00* 1
.to*
.0*0 I
.000 {
.000 I
.000
.000 (
.000 (
.060
.000
.000 a
.116
• («(
.*•*
.to*
.000
.001
.ott
.000
.oot
.00*
.0*2
.•It
.391
.01*
.*«•
.***
.000
.001
.tit
.tot
.000
.00*
.too
.ISO
.000
.000
.2*4
.***
.***
.tit
.too
.til
.000
.000
.0**
.too i
.295
.376
.too
.126
.!»•
.101
.11*
.III
.III
.000
.to*
.00*
.to*
.0*6
.000
.000
.6S*
.It* .**• .**(
.*«* .100 .1*1
.III .III .III
.It* .101 .001
.1*0 .III .001
.too .too .000
.000 .III .00*
.000 .110 .0*0 (
.SOO .000 .400 3<
.1*1 .TTT ,4JJ ,
.000 .000 .000 (
.III .001 0.000 I
.16* 11.112 11.422 :
.III .*!• .*«*
.101 .III ,|«|
.III .III .III
.101 .III .*«!
.000 .III .III
.000 .100 .11*
.100 .III .10*
1.000 .10* .000
MOO 1 .100 .Da*
.530 .136 .026
.000 .00* .100
.000 .460 .000
.172 2.946 .SOI
.III
.til
.11*
.01*
.01*
.1*0
.*0*
.oot
.090
• 4)4
.000
.009
.116
vO
•vl
SOLID HASTES PROCESS POUND
SOL in ««STES FUEL COMB POUND
SOLID HASTES MINING POUND
SOLID «*STE POST-CONSUN CUBIC FT
• TMOS P»RTICUL«TES POUND
• TMOS NITHUOtN OXIDES POUND
•TMOS HYDROCARBONS POUND
ATM05 SULFUR 0>IOES POUND
•TMOS C«KBON MONOXIDE POUND
•TMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
•TMOS OTHER ORGANIC* POUND
•TMOS ODOROUS SULFUR POUND
• THOS AMMO*I A POUNU
• TMOS HTDR06EN FLOUR IDE POUND
ATMOS LEAD POUND
•TMOS MERCURY POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUND
•ATERBORNE FLUORIDES POUNU
••TCRIOftNE DISS SOLIDS POUND
•»Tt»BORME 800 POUND
•ATERBORNE PHENOL POUND
•1TEHBCRNE SULFIDES POUND
•ATERBORNE OIL POUND
•ATERBORNC COu POUND
••TEHBORNE SUSP SOLIDS POUND'
••TERBORNE «CID POUND
•ATERBORNE MtlAL ION MOUND
••TERBORNE CHEMICALS POUND
ATrRUORNE CYINIOF POUND
•TERBOHNE ALKALINITY POUND
• TEP.BORNE CHROMIUM HOUND
ATERflORNE IKON POUND
•TERBOHNE ALUMINUM POUNU
TFRBORNE NIOCL POUND
ATERBORNE MERCUUY POUND
•TCNBO*N( LEAU POUND
SUMMARY OF ENVIMONMEUTlL IMPACTS
NAME UNITS
.600
.211
.530
0.000
.OS2
.111
1.51S
.106
.210
.OOS
.004
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
11.043
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.010
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
1.000
1.S04
4.0*6
0.000
.794
l.vto
9.471
4. ITS
.113
.06]
.out
0.000
.061
1.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
1.170
.035
.010
.013
,0?0
.120
.070
.071
.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.1*0
0.000
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
.130
.111
0.000
.035
2.192
11.64*
.211
.692
.104
.004
0.000
.000
1.00*
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
3.*9]
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.006
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
.041
.109
0.000
.011
4.901 3
11.401 1
.047
1.312
.000
.000
.001
.III
.III
.Oil
.001
.000
.000
.147
.001 ,
.000
I.B42
S.016
1.00*
.416
1.002
1.133
.79*
i.ros
.004
.009
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
.000
1.000
1.000
.261
•.000
.00* .000
.000 .000
.000 l.oOO
.000 S.200
.000 2.400
.002 .096
.001 .024
.00* 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.1*1 1.0*0
.00* 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.T40
1.61*
IT. 974
0.000
1.4*1
4.900
1.710
6.222
.111
.011
.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
.955
.750
.000
.000
.050
1.2V1
.201
.344
.006
0.000
0.000
«. too
0.100
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.00*
0.000
.44t
.111
.920
• .010
.14*
1.243
S.*S9
.16*
.475
.«**
.01*
0.000
2.20*
*.***
0.001
.00*
0.000
0.000
.T12
.oso
.000
.000
.oso
.230
.OSO
.018
.004
.SOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00*
0.000
0.000
0.000
.It*
2.14*
5.052
0.000
.455
.791
4. TOO
2.109
.091
.001
.002
0.000
0.000
0.00*
0.01*
.too
0.000
0.000
.043
3.000
.000
.000
.0x0
6.200
.HOO
.112
.020
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
.921
2.50*
0.000
.2*4
3.020
«.9SS
,»1T
.624
.010
.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
.000
0.000
0.000
.911
2.910
.000
.000
.470
7.090
2.930
.048
.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
.100
O.tIO
0.000
0.001
.049
1.330
41.19]
.021
.2*9
.005
.012
.000
.001
.110
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.443
.410
0.000
0.000
.070
.830
1.2SO
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.01*
.000
.000
.000
1.100
6.912
11. ITT
0.000
1.520
4.9I.S
7. JIT
6.512
.*»2
.«•*
.til
0.001
•.III
1.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.715
.60*
.000
.000
.010
2.481
.531
.362
.09*
I. 00*
.001
0.000
.102
.016
.016
.•08
0.000
«.ooo
1.000
19.433
52.919
1.000
6.114
7.IS3
2.7IS
11.167
.816
.112
.016
.000
.III
.*••
.It*
.000
.00*
.000
.391
.001
.000
.001
.001
.004
.001
1.014
.251
.000
.•00
.III
.lie
.000
.001
.000
.100
.101
11. lit
1.145
3.11*
t.ltl
.441
.421
.164
l.OTJ
.OS2
.001
.001
• .001
0.000
t.ooo
0.000
.110
0.100
1.000
.021
.100
.000
.000
.000
.200
.200
.16*
.•IS
.too
.III
.•II
.001
.000
.•00
.001
.10*
.10*
««• MATERIALS POUNDS
ENEHC.Y MIL -in
• 4T(K TH'UI C.AL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID «*STCS CUBIC FT
ATM fMlsSIO'.S POUNDS
• •TERVOHht -ASUS POu*l;S
POST-CONSUMLM SOL XASTE CUHIC FT
1.880
I H 1 *i**
3 ?R
.Oil
? • S() i)
11.115"
o.ooo
H.OOO
7.0f>0
4 . 3 1 b
• OH9
?0 . 1 *7
1.-.37
0.000
0.01*
2?.*M
.039
.006
1 3.7H4
4.0U1
0.000
0.000
• 850
• 294
.002
17.681
.ISO
0.000
.200
7.671
1.J16
.10»
5S.7B1
11.?h«
0.000
26.000
7.0M6
4.6b9
.342
?0.?IH
S.h7«
o.ouo
4.SOO
4.151
3.069
.023
11.313
1.61*
0.000
S.OOO
.TTT
13.412
.11V
0. 'Jf>4
10. tr-t
o.ooo
7.400
S.433
11.422
.0^0
1»."4?.
l».3'il
o.ooo
32.800
2.530
3.372
.001
4S.ios
3.011
U.OOu
12.80*
5. 716
2.946
.163
21.?S3
4.40?
0.000
0.000
T.026
2.508
.990-
11.134
1.667
0.000
5.101
.414
.106
.206
2.1S2
.•>««
0.000
-------
For the ABS bottle we will use glass bottle filling and distri-
bution numbers. The disposal data will also be based on the glass system
data in Chapter II.
The ABS resin manufacture described in this chapter is a hypo-
thetical case. The quantities of materials used are estimates. The actual
materials balance used in industry is proprietary. Our purpose in choosing
the ABS system, with estimated values, is to present a typical plastics
manufacturing process, which hopefully will approximate the impacts of
various barrier bottle manufacturing processes.
Figure 5 shows a flow diagram for manufacturing 1,000 pounds of
the ABS system. The values represent pounds of materials required from
each process. In the computer generated tables, crude oil and natural gas
quantities have been counted as their energy equivalent rather than as
pounds of raw materials. The raw materials listed in the tables refer to
additives such as catalysts, material packaging, etc.
B. Crude Oil Production
In drilling a well, a petroleum engineer must select a location
compatible with property boundaries and reservoir engineering analyses.
Provisions must be made for fuel and water supplies, and mud pits for storage
of drilling muds and settling of cuttings from used muds.
More than 80 percent of modern wells and all deep wells are drilled
by the rotary process. In this process, a bit is turned at the bottom of
the hole. Drilling mud is pumped through the drill pipe to cool the bit and
flush drill cuttings to the surface. The mud also provides pressure to pre-
vent collapse of the sides of the hole before casing is inserted, and it
must be heavy enough to block the flow of gas, oil and brine into the drill
hole to prevent expensive and dangerous eruptions from the well.—'
After drilling to an intrusion area, the hole is protected by
inserting a casing. The casing is normally protected by pumping cement through
it, and permitting the cement to rise along the outside of the casing toward
the ground surface. In some instances, the casing must be set prior to
completion of the well. This occurs when the normal hydrostatic pressure
of 0.465 psi per foot of depth is exceeded. Proper setting of the casing
is mandatory to prevent sloughing off around the casing in high pressure
zones. If the hydrocarbons and brine were allowed to work their way along
the outside of the casing, pollution of an upper zone could occur, and result
in contamination of a water supply or the surface of the ground at the
point where the pollutants break through.
98
-------
Upon completion of the well construction, production can begin.
Oil pools produce primarily under four mechanisms: gas expansion, gas-
cap drive, water drive, and gravity drainage. The rates at which the hy-
drocarbon fluids can be withdrawn from a reservoir depend on the number of
wells draining the reservoir, the average thickness of the formation, and
the permeability of the reservoir rock for these fluids. Secondary methods
such as acid treatment, miscible .displacement, addition of surface active
agents, and in-situ combustion, can improve recovery efficiency.
Once production is started, the products are transported mainly
by pipelines to oil field tank batteries or refinery storage vessels. Pre-
liminary treatment involves separation of hydrocarbons from brine and settle-
able solids. The hydrocarbons are then processed by a gas plant or refinery.
Detailed information is scarce concerning the ways in which drill-
ing fluids, drilling muds, well cuttings, and well treatment chemicals may
contribute to pollution. Studies have been made about well blowout and
communication between fresh water aquifers and oil bearing sands. Several
publications are available about oil field brine disposal by subsurface
injection.^./
The data below list the approximate amounts of acids used in the
U.S. in 1 year for oil and gas well treatment.—'
ACIDS USED FOR WELL TREATMENT
Acid Gal/yr Gal/BBL Crude Produced
Hydrochloric 8.7 x 10? 2.2 x 10~2
Formic 2.0 x 106 5.2 x 10~5
Acetic 1.0 x 106 2.6 x 10"5
Also approximately 30 x 10^ pounds of inhibitor and 37 x 10 pounds of
additives are used per year in well treatment. The total domestic crude
q-j /
production in 1971 was 3,296,612,000 barrels.^7 The quantity of inhibitors
per barrel of crude was 9.0 x 10"* pounds, the quantity of additives, 11.2
x 10"^ pounds per barrel. Since these products are injected into the sub-
surface reservoir, the amount of pollution to fresh water aquifers is
probably very small. The drilling muds used prior to production are usually
expensive and therefore merit special handling to prevent excessive losses.
However, most spent muds are left in open slush pits to permit evaporation
of liquids. Most pits are earth filled when evaporation is complete. Some
remain in limited service to contain the effluents from well servicing.
99
-------
Several sources of pollution resulting from oil field operations
are:
1. Well blowout - resulting in surface and subsurface contami-
nation.
2. Dumping of oil based drilling muds, oil soaked cuttings and
treatment chemicals.
3. Crude oil escape from pipeline leaks, overflow of storage
vessels and rupture of storage and transport vessels.
4. Discharge of bottom sediment from storage vessels.
5. Subsurface disposal of brine into a formation which would
permit migration of the brine into area which could result in pollution
of fresh water or contribute toward other natural disasters.
6. Escape of natural gas containing hydrogen sulfide could
pollute fresh water supplies and local atmosphere.
A significant waste product resulting from oil and gas production
is brine. The amount of brine produced can vary from zero to 95 percent
of production. It is estimated by the American Petroleum Institute that
2.5 barrels cf brine per barrel of oil is typical. However, 90 percent
of this is disposed of in some acceptable manner such as subsurface dis-
posal, or evaporation. The remainder is allowed to contaminate surface or
subsurface fresh water streams.
Since 25 percent by weight of the average production from an oil
well is natural gas, 75 percent of the total brine production was allocated
to oil production.
The process loss pollutants are evaporated hydrocarbons, and were
estimated from data obtained from the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District.^
See Table 34 for environmental impacts related to crude oil pro-
duction. Note that the crude oil has been counted as its energy equivalent
rather than pounds of raw materials. The resource energy accounts for
98.9 percent of the total energy for production of 1,000 pounds of crude
oil.
100
-------
TABLE 34
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1.000 POUNDS OF CRUDE OIL
Energy of Material Resource
Raw Materials
Material process additions
(chemicals 0.29, cement 1.0, muds 0.59)
Energy
Electric
Fuel oil mobile source
Gasoline mobile source
Natural gas internal
combustion
Water Volume
Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved solids
Transportation
Barge
Truck
Pipeline
18.0 million Btu
1.88 Ib
6.34 kwhr
0.36 gal.
0.08 gal.
40.0 cu ft
72.0 gal.
0.60 Ib
1.4 Ib
11.0 Ib
28.0 ton-miles
10.0 ton-miles
110.0 ton-miles
Sources
10
3
47
47
3
47
47
47
101
-------
C. Benzene Manufacture
Figure 6 shows an outline for processes typical of refinery
treatment of crude oil.IO/ The oil enters the refinery and passes through
an initiaL purification step where water soluble salts and some "heavies"
are removed. It then is sent to a distillation unit where the components
of the crude are separated according to their boiling points. The light
gases go overhead to a gas processing plant or serve as process fuels. The
other cuts are routed to hydrotreating, cracking, reformer, or other units
to undergo the desired transformations.
The benzene needed for styrene manufacture can be produced in a
refinery. With reference to Figure 7, the steps for obtaining benzene
are: crude distillation, catalytic reforming, and aromatics separation.
The toluene from the separation unit can be dealkylated to produce more
benzene.—' Table 35 lists the environmental impacts for production of 1,000
pounds of benzene. Crude oil is the virgin raw material. A material loss
of about 3 percent occurs between the point the crude enters the plant and
benzene storage.OL' Much of the loss, such as COo and water vapor, is
not accounted for in the impact analysis since they are not considered to
be critical pollutants. The BOD and COD tests do not reflect the benzene
concentration in the wastewater effluent. The 5-day BOD for pure benzene
co / r
is zero..ii' The solubility of benzene in water is around 0.08 percent.
Instrumental methods such as gas chromatography or total organic carbon
analysis could be used to determine the amount of organics, when the stan-
dard methods are limited in their analytical scope.
D. Natural Gas Production
The basic data for natural gas were taken from the 1967 Census
of Mineral Industries.—' The data pertaining to natural gas production
are presented in Table 36. The quantity of production necessary to achieve
1,000 pounds of product gas is counted as its energy equivalent, rather than
as pounds of raw materials. Therefore the energy requirement is large but
97.6 percent of this quantity represents the energy equivalent of the natural
gas. Another large impact is atmospheric emissions of hydrocarbons,
mainly methane.
102
-------
Gases
Crude
Oil
o
u>
Cleaning
Desalting
Atomospheric
Distillation
Vacuum
Distillation
Aromatics
Separation
• Ethylene, Propylene,
Butadiene, Fuels
•Benzene, Toluene
Other Aromatics
Figure 6 - Flow Diagram for Typical Petrochemical Refinery
-------
Crude Oil
1,030
Cleaning,
- «•
Distillation
0t
Catalytic
Reformer
»
Aromatics
Extraction
^ Benzene
~~* 1,000
Figure
7 . *.„.... for Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of Benzene (!„)
-------
TABLE 35
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF L.OOO POUNDS OF BENZENE
Sources
Raw Materials
Catalyst
Energy
Electric
Natural gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur oxides
Aldehydes
Other organics
Ammonia
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
'COD
Oil
Suspended solids
Sulfides
Phenols
Transportation
Pipeline
Barge
Truck
5.0 Ib
49.0 kwhr
6,000.0 cu ft
4,200 gal.
1.0 Ib
0.35 Ib
3.10 Ib
3.40 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.06 Ib
0.035 Ib
0.120 Ib
0.020 Ib
0.070 Ib
0.013 Ib
0.0097 Ib
3 ton-miles
12 ton-miles
15 ton-miles
68
47
47
68
47,70
21,51,71
68
105
-------
TABLE 36
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF NATURAL GAS
Energy of Material Resource
Energy
Electric
Fuel oil mobile source
Gasoline mobile source
Natural gas internal
combustion
Water Volume
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved solids
22.391 million Btu-
3.8 kwhr
0.28 gal.
0.08 gal.
330.0 cu ft
29.0 gal.
10.0 Ib
3.9
a/
Sources
9
47
47
40,44
47
* (i
1,000 Ib NG 4. 0.046
Ib
cu ft
1,030
Btu
cu ft
= 22,391 million Btu
E. Natural Gas Processing
Light straight chain hydrocarbons are normal products of a gas
processing plant. The plant uses compression, refrigeration and oil absorp-
tion to extract these products.— Heavy hydrocarbons are removed first.
The remaining components are extracted and kept under controlled conditions,
until transported in high pressure pipelines, in insulated railcars or in
barges. The primary nonsalable residues coming from the natural gas stream
are volatile hydrocarbons leaking into the atmosphere.
Table 37 contains a summary of processing impacts. The large
natural gas fueled compressor engines use 92 percent of the process energy
attributed to the whole industry, and contribute 80 percent of the air
pollution. Table 33 shows that atmospheric emissions are quite large.
106
-------
TABLE 37
DATA FOR PROCESSING 1,000 POUNDS OF NATURAL GAS
Energy
Electric
Natural gas
Water Volume
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Barge
Pipeline
1.3 kwhr
769.0 cu ft
280.0 gal.
10.0 Ib
42 ton-miles
14 ton-miles
14 ton-miles
70 ton-miles
Sources
47
47
40,44
47
F. Ethylene Manufacture
Ethylene is produced by cracking natural gas liquids, and petro-
leum feedstocks and as a refinery coproduct. Figure 8 shows a typical ethy-
lene plant flow diagram. The feedstock enters the reactors along with steam
to lessen coke formation. The cracked gases are quenched with water and
compressed. Carbon dioxide, acetylene and water are removed. The clean dry
hydrocarbons are sent to fractionation columns to separate ethylene from
by-products and uncracked feedstock.
Data for the environmental impacts of ethylene (olefin) production
are presented in Table 38. Most of the energy used in the process is for
running large compressors. The water volume used is typical for dehydrogenation
and cracking units. Solid wastes from the process are negligible. Process
atmospheric emissions are reported to be around 0.1 percent of throughput.
107
-------
ETHYLENE MANUFACTURE
1010 LPG
Steam
o
00
Cracking
Heaters
Quench
Tower
^ i> Wa
• i i P"—
terborn
Compressors
e Organics
Acetylene
C02
Removal
6 tcf
Of ^Q.
>2
Fractionation
Columns
1000 __ . .
5 ~
— — — £»• Organics
— ' — ff Hydrocarbon Gases
Figure 8 - The Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of Ethylene
-------
TABLE 38
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF ETHYLENE
Sources
Raw Materials
Catalysts 0.2 Ib 33
Energy 24,47
Electric 60.0 kwhr
Natural gas internal combustion 4,950.0 cu ft
Natural gas industrial heat 1,500.0 cu ft
Water Volume 1,200.0 gal. 24,71
Process solid wastes 1.00 Ib
Process Atmospheric Emissions 68
Hydrocarbons 1.00 Ib
Waterborne wastes 47
BOD 2.0 Ib
COD 5.2 Ib
Oil 1.8 Ib
Suspended solids 2.9 Ib
/
G. 1,3-Butadiene Manufacture
The principal commercial routes to butadiene are dehydrogenation
of n-butane and n-butenes, and as a by-product during the manufacture of
olefins._6§/ A typical butane dehydrogenation process is shown in Figure 9.
The butanes feed stream is preheated, and passed through the reactor
catalyst bed to achieve dehydrogenation. The reaction products are quenched
in oil, compressed and scrubbed with absorber oil to remove most of the CA'S.
The C^ mixture is recovered in a stripping column. After further separation,
the remaining butadiene is recovered by extractive distillation with furfural,
The butadiene rerun tower removes polymer, 2-butene, acetylenes, and 1,2-
butadiene. The final product is generally greater than 98.7 percent 1,3 buta-
diene.
The data for environmental impacts are shown in Table 39 with
the resulting impacts in Table 33.
109
-------
Butanes 1,901
Dehydrogenation
Reactors
Absorption &
Stripping Columns
Distillation &
Purification
1,000 1,3 Butadiene
1 1
I i
I 1
260
Carbon
4
Waste
Gas
1
Oil
551
Fuel
Gas
70 15
Recycle Polymers &
H-C Carbonyls
Figure 9 - The Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of 1,3-Butadiene
-------
TABLE 39
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF 1.3 BUTADIENE
Raw Materials
Material process additions
Energy
Electric
Natural gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Oil
Suspended solids
26.0 Ib
215.0 kwhr
4,327.0 cu ft
4,545 gal.
0.74 Ib
1.34 Ib
0.75 Ib
3.29 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.20 Ib
Sources
68
68
68
68
40
68,71
The electric and natural gas values are averages derived from com-
bining the energy inputs for three separate methods of production. The tabu-
lation below shows the breakdown for each process.—/ These values have been
adjusted to reflect by-product credit.
Process
Butanes
Butenes
Percent
of Total
Production
30
47
Total For
1,000 Ib of
Elec.-kwhr
327
216
Butadiene
NG-cu ft
8,656
2,684
Adjusted for
Elec.-kwhr
98.1
101.6
Percent
NG-cu ft
2,597
1,261
Naphtha
Total
23
67
2,040
15.3
215.0
469
4,327
111
-------
For the production of 1,000 pounds of butadiene, the energy requirements
are calculated to be 215 kwhr of electricity and 4,327 cubic feet of natural
gas. This amounts to about 8 million Btu of energy. The large energy re-
quirements for the butanes route is due to the dehydrogenation step.
The process solid wastes were estimated to be 0.1 percent of buta-
diene production. The solids figure would probably be higher if cuprous
ammonium acetate was used to extract butadiene from the C^ product stream.
The solids disposal problem would involve copper salts and spent charcoal,
which serves to extract polymers and acetylene compounds from the CAA.
Atmospheric hydrocarbon emissions are estimated to be 0.1 percent of the
starting raw materials.=il' Waterborne waste data were derived from information
describing pollutants from three separate plants located in Texas.
H. Ammonia Manufacture
Ammonia is a colorless gas with a characteristic odor that is
perceptible at great dilutions. Its boiling point is -33°C. Ammonia weighs
5.14 pounds per gallon at 60°F, or 38.45 pounds per cubic foot at 60°F.
It is prepared on a large scale by direct union of hydrogen and nitrogen:
3H2 + N2 = 2NH3 + 22 kcal. The percent yield is controlled by temperature,
pressure and type of catalyst. Satisfactory conditions for reaction are
pressures of 100-200 atmospheres and temperatures of 550°-600°C.—' A
diagram for the production ammonia is presented in Figure 10. Natural gases,
or other light hydrocarbons, are steam reformed over a nickel catalyst in
a tubular furnace. The hydrocarbons are converted into carbon oxides and
hydrogen (generally referred to as synthesis gas). Carbon monoxide is
reacted in a shift converter to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The
carbon dioxide is removed by an absorber, and generally used in the pro-
duction of urea in an adjacent plant. The absorber off-gas goes through
a methanator to convert traces of carbon oxides which would poison the
synthesis catalyst. The hydrogen and nitrogen combine in the synthesis
loop to form ammonia.
For a typical 1,000 tons per day ammonia plant, 300 gallons of con-
densate per ton of ammonia are produced,.ri_t' This condensate is either sent
directly to a wastewater drain or processed through a stripping tower. A
typical untreated condensate will contain the following impurities:
Concentration
Impurity (per 300 gal, of condensate)
NH3 0.1 Ib
0.1 Ib
MEA 0.2 Ib
112
-------
Air 1,112
1
Natural Gas 494
Steam 2,050
Primary
Reformer
Secondary
Reformer
Shift
Converters
I— 2 Hydrocarbons
CO2 Absorbers,
Methanator
Compression
& Separation
L 1,200 CO2
"—1,389 H2O
-
i
— 62 Fuel Gas
— 2 Ammonia
1 1 Solids
1,000 Ammonia
Figure 10 - Process for the Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of Ammonia
-------
Treatment in a stripping tower should reduce the NH-j content to less than
20 parts per million.
The environmental impacts for ammonia production are presented
in Table 40. The raw materials, energy, and water volume figures are
typical for the industry.—' Process solid wastes were estimated at 0.1
percent of output.—' Primary atmospheric emissions were derived from values
pertaining to plants without controls. It was assumed that controls are
the rule and emissions were reduced by an estimated 90-95 percent.—'
Water effluents from ammonia production contributed the following concen-
trations of pollutants.-—'
BOD 36 ppm
COD 166 ppm
Oil 40 ppm
Suspended Solids 15 ppm
TABLE 40
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1.000 POUNDS OF AMMONIA
Sources
Raw Materials 5
Material Process Additions 4.55 Ib
(Catalyst 0.4, Caustic 4.0, MEA 0.15)
Energy 68
Electric 11.0 kwhr
Natural Gas 3,710.0 cu ft
Water Volume 3,000.0 gal. 5,71
Process Solid Wastes 0.44 Ib 68
Process Atmospheric Emissions 44,70
Hydrocarbons 2.00 Ib
Ammonia 2.20 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 68,73
BOD 0.05 Ib
COD 0.23 Ib
Oil 0.05 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.05 Ib
Ammonia 0.50 Ib
114
-------
The plant used as a primary data source also produced three other
products. Ammonia production was 38.6 percent of the total output. Emis-
sions from ammonia production were assumed to be 38.6 percent of the quanti-
ties present in the final plant effluent.
!• Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Several methods exist for production of acrylonitrile; these
processes are:ii'
1. Reacting acetylene with hydrogen cyanide.
2. Dehydration of ethylene cyanohydrin.
3. Ammonia—propylene ammoxidation.
4. Ammonia—propane ammoxidation.
5. Nitric acid--propylene cyanization.
Methods 3, 4, and 5 are the most common commercial processes. The ammonia-
propylene ammoxidation process was used as the data source for acrylonitrile
production, due to its extensive commercial use and the availability of reli-
able data. The reaction follows the equation:
CH2=CH-CH3 + NH3 + 1.502 > CH2=CH-C=N + 3H20.
The ammonia-propylene route is shown in Figure 11. Propylene
may be obtained from refinery catalytic cracking operations or as a co-
product in ethylene manufacture. Ammonia is prepared by steam reforming
natural gas.
Excluding steam and air, 1,154 pounds of propylene and 373 pounds
of ammonia are required to produce 1,000 pounds of acrylonitrile. Also
produced in the process are 50 pounds of hydrogen cyanide, 50 pounds of
acetonitrile, 108 pounds of fuel gas, 100 pounds of recycle propylene, and
237 pounds of waste carbon, carbon gases, and hydrocarbons. The amount of
"useful" by-products is 23 percent of the total useful output of 1,308 pounds,
The following example shows how the materials required to produce the by-
products are deducted from the total materials requirements, leaving 879
pounds of propylene and 285 pounds of ammonia allocated to the production
of 1,000 pounds of acrylonitrile.
115
-------
Ammonia 373
Propylene 1 , 1 54
Steam 400 •
Air 6,592
Reactors
Absorbers
Vacuum
Columns
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Separation
Acetonitrile
Separation
Acrylonitnle
Separation
1,000 Acrylonitrile
— 108 Fuel Gas
— 100 Propylene
- 5,581 Waste Gas
50
Hydrogen
Cyanide
50 Acetonitrile
,630 Water
Figure 11 - The Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of Acrylonitrile (Ib)
-------
Example:
Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Starting
Plant Output Raw Materials
Acrylonitrile 1,000 Propylene 1,154
Hydrogen cyanide 50 Ammonia 373
Acetonitrile 50 Total 1,527 Ib
Fuel 108
Propylene 100
Waste (as carbon) 237
Total 1,545 Ib
By-products and wastes represent 35.3 percent of the total output
( x lOO) . The materials required to manufacture the by-products--
\1,545 /
and wastes attributable to them—can be deducted from the starting raw
materials. The waste attributable to the useful by-products equals 23
percent of 237 pounds, or 55 pounds f .. .QS x 237 = 55 Ib) . Therefore,
the deductions are:
Deductions
Hydrogen cyanide 50
Acetonitrile 50
Fuel 108
Propylene 100
Waste (carbon) 55
363 Ib
The deductions can be accomplished by proportioning the 363 pounds on the
basis of quantity of starting raw materials:
117
-------
1 154
—J x 363 = 275 Ib for propylene deduction
JL y j£ I
363 - 275 = 88 Ib for ammonia deduction
leaving:
1,154 - 275 - 879 Ib propylene
373 - 88 = 285 Ib ammonia
Since the amount of useful by-products is 23 percent of the usable
total output, the requirements for utilities, and allocations for air emis-
sions, and water and solid wastes for acrylonitrile production, can be re-
duced 23 percent. The values appearing in Table 40 have been adjusted to
reflect by-product credit.
Table 41 summarizes the data for the raw impacts attributed
to the production of 1,000 pounds of acrylonitrile. The raw materials
are considered to be ammonia and propylene. The energy values repre-
sent the sum of Btu's from primary and secondary electrical and fuel
gas power used to convert ammonia and propylene into acrylonitrile. The
water volume represents the amount of water discharged in manufacturing.
This figure will vary, depending on the process and location. The process
solid wastes have been estimated at 0,1 percent of output, based on litera-
ture sources and derived estimates.-E--' The process atmospheric wastes are
based on the estimate that about 0.5 percent of the incoming hydrocarbons
are lost to the atmosphere due to leaks, spills, turnarounds, etc.-tS'
Waterborne wastes refer to pounds of pollutants present in the process
wastewater effluent (not in the water volume required during manufacture).
Under present controls, about 10 percent of the manufacturing water volume
leaves the plant as wastewater. This ratio will vary widely between com-
panies, processes, and locations, li/ Additional water is lost as a result
of evaporation from cooling towers.
The quantity of BOD, COD, etc., in the wastewater stream is de-
pendent upon the efficiency of the plant waste treatment facility. »»^'
Generally, waste streams throughout a plant are combined and are treated
as one flow.
The amount of contaminants attributable to each process can be
calculated if complete data are available for each stream entering the treat-
91 /
ment facility, and if the treatment efficiency for each stream is known. —'
Generally, quantitative data for each stream are not available. Most plants
report pollutants as the quantity present in their final effluent. The waste
treatment facility is designed to reduce total plant contaminants to an
acceptable level. State and federal agencies may require that maximum BOD
118
-------
TABLE 41
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1.000 POUNDS OF ACRYLQNITRILE
Sources
Raw Materials 68
Material Process Addition 5.0 Ib
(Catalyst 1.5, Oxalic Acid 0.5,
Sulfuric Acid 3.5)
Energy 68
Electric 70.0 kwhr
Water Volume 13,800.0 gal. 68
Process Solid Wastes 0.8 Ib 68
Process Atmospheric Emissions 40, 70
Hydrocarbons 4.40 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 68,71
BOD 3.00 Ib
COD 6.20 Ib
Oil 0.08 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.80 Ib
Cyander 0.0008 Ib
Transportation 68
Rail 400 ton-miles
Truck 1°0 ton-miles
119
-------
concentrations not be exceeded. An example is 100 milligrams per liter for
the plant effluent. If the plant produces 10 different products, the amount
of BOD assignable to one of the processes could be allocated on the basis
of percentage input and treatment efficiency. If complete data are not avail-
able, the amount of BOD contributed by each process generally is estimated
from available information. Table 41 shows that water values as well as air
and water pollution are important environmental impacts.
J. Styrene Manufacture
A diagram for styrene production is presented in Figure 12.—'
Ethylbenzene and steam react in the presence of a catalyst to form styrene,
which is separated from unreacted ethylbenzene, toluene, and polymers by
distillation.
Ethylbenzene is commonly made using a Friedel-Crafts type reaction
between benzene and ethylene with aluminum chloride as the catalyst. Another
catalyst, boron trifluoride-alumina, is also used and results in an overall
yield of ethylbenzene of 99 percent from benzene and 93 percent from ethy-
lene.^/
Table 42 gives the raw impacts for producing styrene. The values
are a combination of ethylbenzene and styrene manufacturing impacts.
The process solid wastes are mostly tars and catalyst residues.
Atmospheric hydrocarbon emissions were estimated to be 0.6 percent of the
raw materials used. Losses occur in leaks, spills, by-product and product
loading, etc. By-product credit can be taken for the amounts of benzene
and toluene recovered from the process.
K. Polybutadiene Manufacture
Polybutadiene may be manufactured according to the diagram in
Figure 13. Butadiene is treated with compounds to remove inhibitors and
oxygen. It is then mixed with a solvent and passed through a drying column
and solid absorbents to remove water and other catalyst consumers. The
purified mixed feed is fed to the reactors, where various terminators, cross-
linking agents, modifiers, and catalysts are added. A typical catalyst used
for solution polymerization is n-butyllithium. The cement or reactor
effluent, is routed to blend tanks where mixing of antioxidants into the
polymer solution is effected. The solvent can be removed by several drying
methods. Data for polybutadiene manufacture are presented in Table 43.
120
-------
Benzene
Ethylene
Wate
862
308
r 25
-»
H
Reactor
Scrubbers
Distillation
Columns
I— 7 Vent Gas 1-28
1—10 Water 1—24
-1,
Steam
7,474 —
16 Ethylbenzene
Hydrocarbons
Tar
Reactor
-7,429
. 00
Water
Fuel C
Distillation
Columns
i
>as
-*'
-34 Toluene
- 22 Benzene
L- 13 Tar
1,000 Styrene
Figure 12 - The Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of Styrene
-------
TABLE 42
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF STYRENE
Raw Materials
Catalyst
Energy
Electric
Natural gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Oil
Suspended solids
Transportation
Rail
Truck
7.4 Ib
30.0 kwhr
4,696.0 cu ft
11,332.0 gal.
1.0 Ib
5.0 Ib
2.93 Ib
7.09 Ib
0.47 Ib
2.93 Ib
400 ton-miles
100 ton-miles
Sources
38
38
38
68
40, 70
48, 71
68
122
-------
to
U)
1.3 Bd •
1015
Hexane
Inhibitor,
Oxygen
Removal
2541
)
^ Modifiers •• Antioxidant _£_£^
[ -^ Drying _ , 0.5_ D__,»_.. D-I <- , . Blend _ n
i
"• .- i (_ata ysr ^ IM.UI.JUI* luiymei joiunori , . ^ L,
Lolumn ' ^ Tanks
,.,.,. ] T f\f\ H fi ^ n n /i
Scrap 0.1 f
Hexane
Recovery
2516 Hexane 1
.^M 1
Purification "^
ryers
— 1
Polybutadiene
1000
Hydrocarbon loss
41
Figure 13 -Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of Polybutadiene
-------
TABLE 43
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF POLYBUTADIENE
Raw Materials
Material process additions
(solvent 25, catalyst 0.5, modifier 5.0,
antioxidant 2.3) 32.8 Ib
Source
68
Energy
Natural gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Oil
Suspended solids
Transportation
Rail
Truck
2,330.0 cu ft
3,330.0 gal.
0.10 Ib
41.0 Ib
0.41 Ib
0.83 Ib
0.07 Ib
1.25 Ib
400 ton-miles
100 ton-miles
68
71
68
40, 70
71
68
124
-------
The principal contaminant from the process is the hydrocarbon
solvent lost to the atmosphere during polymer drying.
L. ABS Resin Manufacture
ABS resins are thermoplastic mixtures generally made by:——'
1. Copolymerizing styrene with a copolymer of acrylonitrile
and butadiene.
2. Blending acrylonitrile-butadiene and acrylonitrile-styrene
copolymers.
3. Grafting styrene and acrylonitrile onto a preformed poly-
butadiene matrix.
The ABS resins used for beverage containers usually contain about
75 percent acrylonitrile. The exact formulations are generally proprietary.
In this report, the quantitative values for input materials and energy,
were derived from open literature sources, which describe manufacturing
processes similar to the high nitrile barrier resin. The estimates we have
used should provide a set of data which will be representative of the various
industrial processes used to produce resin for fabrication of barrier bottles.
Figure 14 shows a flow diagram for the manufacture of an ABS resin.
We have chosen acrylonitrile, styrene, and polybutadiene as raw materials.
(The Barex bottle is a copolymer of acrylonitrile and methyl aerylate, while
the Lopac is made from methyacrylonitrile and styrene.)3Z7
t
The data pertaining to manufacturing are shown in Table 44. The
energy and water volume data were taken from a process which produces an
ABS resin containing 70 percent styrene, 23 percent acrylonitrile and 7
percent polybutadiene.—' The values should approximate a process producing
a high nitrile resin.
The solid waste from manufacturing is estimated to be 0.5 percent
of production. Also, incineration is assumed for 80 percent of the wastes,
leaving 1 pound as solid wastes.
The atmospheric hydrocarbon losses are estimated to be 0.3 percent
of the incoming acrylonitrile and styrene.
125
-------
Acrylonitrile 761.0
Styrene 127.0
Polybutodiene 120.0
Catalyst 0.5
Others 12.0
(S3
a.
ABS
Resin
Polymerization
Monomer
Recovery
Units
Recycle Monomers
ABS
Drying,
Finishing
•ABS Resin 1000
Monomers, Waste 9.4
Polymer Scrap 1.0
Others 10.1
Figure 14 - Manufacture of 1,000 Pounds of ABS Resin
-------
TABLE 44
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1.000 POUNDS OF ABS RESIN
Raw materials
Material process addition
(catalysts 0.5, additives 11.5)
Packaging materials (polyethylene)
Energy
Electric
Natural gas
Water volume
Process solid wastes
Process atmospheric emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne wastes
BOD
COD
Oil
Suspended solids
Tot chromium
Iron
Aluminum
Nickel
Cyanide
Transportation
Rail
Truck
12.0 Ib
20.0 Ib
206.0 kwhr
2,386.0 cu ft
2,841.0 gal.
1.0 Ib
2.7 Ib
0.46 Ib
2.36 Ib
0.02 Ib
0.49 Ib
0.0016 Ib
0.016 Ib
0.016 Ib
0.008 Ib
0.0008 Ib
125 ton-miles
125 ton-miles
Sources
50,68
68
50,68
46,68
40, 70
50,68
127
-------
Waterborne waste represents the present effluent guidelines set
by EPA in March of 1973. The quantities are in close agreement with pub-
lished data for ABS plant effluents. l£/
M. Bottle Fabrication
The data in Table 45 show the impacts pertaining to fabrication
of 12-ounce bottles from an ABS resin. The energy required in the process
is the largest impact. The following basic assumptions were made:—'
1. Basic extrusion line producing 150 Ib/hr
2. Electrical requirements - 95 kw
3. Water volume - 1,800 gaLper hour
The requirements for processing 1,000 pounds of resin are: 633 kilowatts and
12,000 gallons of water. The water is assumed to be used five times reducing
the make up requirement to 2,400 gallons per 1,000 pounds. The energy require-
ments will vary with production methods and equipment. Values as low as about
325 kilowatts per 1,000 pounds have been reported.67/
For a description of bottle filling, refer to Chapter II, section
M. The same data used for glass bottles will be used for the ABS bottle.
In like manner, Chapter II, section L discusses bottle packaging, Chapter IV,
section I describes the steel closure, and Chapter IT, section N discusses
solids disposal. Impacts for filling, packaging, closures, and solids
disposal have been included in the computer printouts.
TABLE 45
DATA FOR FABRICATION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF ABS BOTTLES
Source
Raw materials
Material packaging (corrugated) 26.0 Ib 31
Energy
Electric 633.0 kwhr 31
Water volume 2,400.0 gal. 31
Process solid wastes 1.0 Ib 67
Transportation 100 ton-miles 67
128
-------
N. Container Options
The options available to the plastic bottle system are return
and recycle. The impacts for a returnable container should approximate
those for a glass container described in Chapter II.
Table 46 shows the data pertinent to the manufacture of 1,000
pounds of ABS resin from recycled bottles. The data were derived from the
following assumptions:.25/
1. Energy for cleaning and grinding - 50 HP
2. Cleaning compounds - 5 Ib
3. Water volume - 100 gal.
TABLE 46
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1.000 POUNDS OF ABS
RESIN FROM RECYCLE MATERIAL
Source
Raw Materials
Used bottles 1,053 Ib 6g
Cleaning compounds 5.0 Ib
Energy
Electric 37.3 kwhr 68
Water Volume 100.0 gal. 68
Process Solid Wastes 11.0 Ib 68
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 0.2 Ib 68
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 0.1 Ib
..COD 0.2 Ib
Suspended solids 0.2 Ib
Trans portat ion
Rail 125 ton-miles 68
Truck 125 ton-miles
The transportation distance was estimated to be 500 miles from consumer
disposal to resin plant. Ninety-five percent of the bottles were assumed
to be usable as recycle material. Thus, 1,053 pounds of used bottles must
be returned to produce 1,000 pounds of resin. Eighty percent of the off-
spec material is assumed to be incinerated, leaving 11 pounds as solid wastes.
129
-------
CHAPTER IV
STEEL CANS
This chapter contains the basic data and outlines the calcula-
tions made to determine the total environmental profile for steel beverage
cans. Three steel systems were studied. Two of the systems are conven-
tional three-piece steel cans with either aluminum or steel closures.
The third system is a hypothetical three-piece steel can made of recycled
metal.
Figures 15 and 16 outline the operations which are considered
for ferrous strip manufacture. Figure 17 outlines the can fabrication
operations. For conventional steel cans there are four major virgin raw
materials entering the steel strip system as well as manufactured lime and
scrap obtained from outside the steei mill. Thus, counting steel strip
manufacture, can fabrication and solvent manufacture, a total of nine opera-
tions plus intervening transportation are included. For a hypothetical
recycled container, the major material used is postconsumer scrap. Thus,
the only operations differing from the conventional system are solid waste
processing and electric furnace manufacturing operations.
For analysis of these container systems, this chapter is divided
into the following 11 sections. Packaging and disposal basic data are in-
cluded in Chapter II.
A. Overview of Systems
B. Iron Ore Mining
C. Coal Mining
D. Oxygen Manufacture
E. External Scrap Procurement
F. Steel Strip Manufacture
G. Ferrous Can Fabrication
H. Electric Furnace Steel Manufacture
I. Steel Closures for Cans
J. Can Filling
K. Petroleum Products
A. Overview of Systems
On the following pages is a set of tables numbered 47 through 51.
These tables are computer generated reports which provide an overview of
the steel can systems. Table 47 summarizes the relative impacts for 1 mil-
lion, 12-ounce beer cans fabricated from each steel system.
130
-------
Iron Ore
Mining
Limestone
Mining
0.130
Coal
Mining
Oxygen
Manufacture
External
Scrap
Procurement
0.90 (Domestic)
0.47 (Imported)
0.250
Lime
0.067
0.950
0.100
0.310
Other Material
(Fluxes, Chemicals,
Plating Metal, etc.)
0.031
Steel Strip
Manufacture
(Pig Iron &
Raw Steel
Production;
Rolling &
Plating)
1.000
to Can Fabrication
Figure 15 - Materials Flow for the Manufacture of One Ton of Steel
Strip Using Primarily Virgin Materials (in tons)
-------
SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS FOR STEEL CAN FABRICATION
U)
NJ
Packaging
Ferrous Strip
System
Aluminum
Sheet
Manufacture
System
(for Closure)
Coatings,
Adhesives,
Solvents
Materials Requirements
for 1-Ton Finished Cans
Packaging - Ib
Steel Strip - Ib
Can
Fabrication Aluminum Sheet - Ib
Coatings and Adhesives
Solvents - Ib
Solids - Ib
Solder - Ib
Number of Containers /Ton
Weight of 1 Million
Bimetal
Cylinder
and Aluminum
Bottom Closure
50 1.3
1,840
256
20 10
14 9
32
18,000
All Steel
Cylinder
and
Bottom
Steel
Closure
48 10
1,886 360
19 4
13 3
30
16,700
Containers - Ton
55.4
60.0
Figure 16
-------
Limestone
Mining
Iron Ore
Mining
t-*
OJ
OJ
Oxygen
Manufacture
Steel
Scrap
Processing
0.046
0.007
0.015
1.100
Other Material
(Fluxes, Electrodes,
Plating Metal,
Chemicals)
0.015
Electric Furnace-
Steel Strip
Manufacture
(Raw Steel;
Rolling &
Plating)
Solid Waste
Processing
(Shredding;
Magnetic
Separation )
Figure 17 - Materials Flow for the Manufacture of One Ton of Steel Strip
by Melting Scrap in an Electric Furnace (in tons)
-------
TABLE 47
IMPACTS FOR 1 MILLIOH STEEL CANS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
BIMETAL
CAN
ALL STL
100 PCT
RECYCLED
CAN
ALL
STEEL
CAN
MATERIAL MOOD FIKR
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ONE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
2703.
43621.
139652.
3335.
0.
0.
0.
57232.
11491.
4526.
235.
276.
im.
2631.
10037.
1557.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
58*0.
1958.
360.
88.
96*.
2928.
53682.
189060.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9*83.
3379.
188.
55.
3657.
SOLID HASTES PROCESS POUND
SOLID WASTES FUEL COMB POUND
SOLID HASTES MINING POUND
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM CUBIC FT
ATMOS PAHTICULATES POUND
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES POUND
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS POUND
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES POUND
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE POUND
ATMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS POUND
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR POUND
ATMOS AMMONIA POUND
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE POUND
ATMOS LEAD POUND
ATMOS MERCURY POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUND
HATERBORNE FLUORIDES POUND
HATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS POUND
HATERBORNE BOD POUND
HATERBORNE PHENOL POUND
HATERBORNE SULF1DES POUND
HATER80RNE OIL POUND
HATERBORNE COO POUND
HATERBORNE SUSP SOL IOS POUND
HATERBORNE ACID POUND
HATERBORNE METAL ION POUND
•ATERHORNE CHEMICALS POUND
HATERBORNE CYANIDE POUND
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY POUND
•ATERBORNE CHROMIUM POUND
HATERBORNE IRON POUND
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM POUND
HATERBORNE NICKEL POUND
HATERBORNE MERCURY POUND
HATERBORNE LEAD POUND
46459.
5383.
594022.
302.
4625.
3215.
4229.
6302.
1769.
18.
32.
124.
257.
19.
1.
0.
13.
82.
656.
121.
1.
1.
175.
718.
398.
669.
172.
226.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
28213.
3102.
11833.
45.
2367.
2367.
3681.
3150.
1923.
25.
59.
29.
2.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
489.
60.
0.
0.
156.
16.
853.
446.
37.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
56508.
2088.
692039.
327.
4068.
1793.
3206.
3176.
887.
12.
If.
162.
3*6.
0.
0.
0.
J.
0.
35a.
7*.
0.
0.
73.
1*.
379.
6JT.
159.
«.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
HATER TMOU GAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM FMMISSIONS POUNDS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE CUBIC FT
257434.
5037.
3196.
8719.
2080*.
3221.
302.
20066.
2*26.
964.
583.
13606.
2061.
45.
255153.
1013*.
13667.
1701.
3'7.
134
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER POUNDS
MATERIAL LIMESTONE POUND
MATEBIAL IHON ORE POUND
MATERIAL SALT POUND
MATERIAL OLASS SAND POUND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH POUND
MATERIAL FELDSPAR POUND
MATERIAL BAUIITE ORE POUND
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO POUNDS
ENERGY PROCESS MIL HTJ
ENERGY TRANSPORT HIL RTU
ENERGY Of MATL RESOURCE MIL BTU
HATER VOLUME THOU GAL
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
TABU 48
IMPACTS FOR 1 TON BIMETAL CAN'S
:*OH OKf
MINING
1660 LHS
LI»ESTON
MINING
TOO LBS
COAL
MINING
17*0 LBS
LINE
NFG
124 LBS
our
HF8
182 LBS
ElTESNAL
SCRAP
4*0 LBS
STEEL
STRIP
NF8
11*0 LBS
PETROL
PROD
SYS
IT LI
3 PIECE
CAN
FAB
2000 LBS
•LUX
CLOSURE
SYS
25? L6S
TRANS DISPOSAL FILLING PAPER PLASTIC
2000 LBS PACKA6E PACKABf
»9 LI M LIS
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 2*8.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
a. ooo o.ooo o.ooo o.ooo
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.0*0 0.000 0.0*0
.00* O.tOO 4**.t*0
.000 0.010 2520. tOO
.00* 0.000
.00* 0.000
.*** 0.000
.00* 0.000
.010 0.000
.000
.000
.000
.•00
.00*
.too
.000
.00*
.000
.000
.•00
.000
.000
.000 0.000 75.440 .052 S
.884 .013 .123 .las .MO .253 35.62* .105
.138 .011 .03* .002 .004 0.000 .614 .007
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.OtO 0.000 0.000 .SOI
.000 0.001
.000 54.311
.000 0.000
.000 60.1*1
.000 0.0*0
.000 0.010
.000 *.***
.0*0 1*33.064
.000 75. (St.
.419 34.441
.000 .564
.0*0
.000
.0*1
.00*
.000
.101
.M*
.***
.0**
.000
.*••
.*••
.*••
.*•*
.*«»
.000
.00*
.«•*
.*•*
.000
.4BB .111
.000 3.6B3 0.000 0.00*
.«•« *>.T4>T
.«•*
.«•«
.0**
.00*
.00*
.*••
.««»
.13*
.•to
.*••
.000
.000
.0*0
.**•
.*rt
.«•
.*<
.««
.*(
.M
.10
.01
.*<
.444 1.3*
.4|2 .701 .B<
.000 .IBS 0.01
.000 0.000 .*(
4.432 .033 .044 .020 .520 .007 42.612 .13* ,«06 a. 447 .140 .*«• .(SO .72* .04
SOLID HASTES PROCESS POUND
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB POUND
SOLID HASTES MINING POUND
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM CUBIC FT
ATMOS PAMTICULATES POUND
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES POUND
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS POUND
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES POUND
|_i ATMOS CARBON MONO!IDE POUND
(jj ATMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
(n ATMOS OTHER ORGAN ICS POUND
ATMOS OOONOUS SULFUR POUND
ATMOS AMMONIA POUND
ATMOS MYDKOAEN FLOUR10E POUND
ATMOS tCAD POUND
ATMOS MERCURY POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUND
HATERBDRNE FLUORIDES POUND
•ATCRIODNE OISS SOLIDS POUND
•ATERBORNE 800 POUND
HATERBORNE PHENOL POUND
HATERBORNE SOLF1DES POUND
HATER80RNE OIL POUND
HATCRBORNC COO POUND
HATEHBORNE SUSP SOLIDS POUND
KATERBOftNE ACIO POUND
HATERBOHNE METAL IUN POUND
•ATER80RNI CHEMICALS POUND
HATERIORNE CYANIDE POUND
HATERBOP.NE ALKALINITY POUND
HATERIORNE CHROMIUM POUND
HATERBORNE IRON POUND
KITtRaOftNC ALUMINUM POUND
HATERBOPNE NICKEL POUND
•ATEPBORNE MERCURY POUND
HATERBORNE LEAD POUND
0.000
1.113
(822.949
0.000
1S.3T9
.851
.680
1.216
.251
.008
.004
0.000
.000
0.000
.0(0
.000
0.000
0.000
.172
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.057
.014
0.100
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.027
.074
0.000
4. 558
.036
.015
.029
.033
.000
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.0(0
.000
0.000
0.000
.007
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.330
331.658
0.000
3.494
.812
.67?
2,259
3.933
.002
.003
0.00*
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.025
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
3.497
.874
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.630
.401
2.266
0.000
2.442
.195
.129
.551
.062
.001
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.026
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.02%
.006
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.eto
1.144
3.157
0.000
.251
.527
.321
1.1*4
.121
.002
.004
0.000
.000
0.00*
.00*
.000
0.000
0.00*
.054
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.060
.on
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.371
.970
0.000
.OB4
.206
.131
.404
.029
.001
.001
0.000
.00*
(.00*
.000
.000
0.000
*.0»0
.04*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.019
.005
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
644. tOO
12.56*
33.072
0.000
24.19*
10.669
9.164
24.S80
2.316
.049
.060
1.140
4.605
0.0*0
.001
.000
0.001
0.00*
2.50«
.003
.001
.002
.922
.013
4.608
4.315
1.079
.055
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.017
.048
.121
0.000
.022
.0*8
.220
.142
.02$
.002
.002
0.000
.002
(.000
.(00
.000
o.ooo
0.000
.325
.001
.000
.000
.001
.004
.002
.002
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
50.000
• .311
22.813
0.000
1.821
4.341
2T.461
7.861
.655
.010
.018
0.000
0.0(0
(.0(0
0.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
.587
.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
.437
.104
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
65.519
65.626
1490. 58S
0.000
31.619
30.64*
31.643
6T.2J2
17. SIT
.M*
.244
0.00*
.01*
.3**
.004
.0*2
.239
1.4*6
S.»(*
.434
.115
.(06
2.131
12.715
2.024
3,*39
.9S3
4.030
.001
0.001
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
.562
0.400
• .000
.357
4.151
1.T44
f.oor
4.631
.11*
.lit
0.000
• «M
0.0*0
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.202
.003
.001
.001
.002
.012
.00*
.002
.001
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
».*•«
.030
• ••0*
».4M
.013
.114
.111
.«I1
1.010
.*!•
.0*4
0.1*1
.»««
».*•»
.1*1
• .*••
• .••0
0.000
.061
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.too
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00*
.(00
.000
.000
.000
.000
S4.*OI
t.31«
• .ISO
0.000
1.156
1.602
1.3**
3.J72
.34*
.•07
.*•(
*.*00
.*•!
*.*«*
.»••
.(00
• .(00
0.000
.419
.001
.000
.000
.000
.002
.•01
.190
.033
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0(0
0.0(0
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.2*4
3.112
1.441
t.oto
1.444
.502
.HI
1.19*
.21*
.«*4
.005
.396
.*•*
*.(((
.Ml
.000
*.0(0
(.000
.122
,947
.«•(
.too
.000
.001
.472
.(27
.0*7
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.tOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
.IT
1.0*
2.M
0.01
.22
2.22
1.21
.4t
.»!
.«*
.00
.00
.»(
.**
.1*
.*!
.00
.00
.23
.24
.iS
.00
.10
.21
.07
.**
.01
.00
.00
.0*
.(0
.00
.to
.oc
.00
.00
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
NAME
HAM MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL aiu
HATER THOU G»l
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CU8IC FI
ATM CMMISSIONS POUNDS
•ATERBORNE «ASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
0.000
1 .022
4.432
II1*. 125
16.386
0.000
0.000
.025
.033
.001
.009
0.000
0.000
.163
.044
4.4H2
11.179
4.398
0.000
248.000
.2)0
.0?0
.342
3.300
,0b7
0.000
o.ooo
.b«9
.520
.05H
? . 330
. 135
0.000
0.000
.2b3
.007
.018
.857
.073
o.ooo
3065.440
36.239
42.612
9.310
77.5S2
13. "-03
0.000
.OS?
.613
.134
.003
.502
.33H
0.000
52.000
5.419
. tCh
1.09b
*? . 1 b6
1.137
O.'iOO
1227.665
38.758
8.497
21.093
1 71), 734
33.730
0.000
0.000
2.488
.140
.008
J 3. Bftb
1 , ? 32
0.000
0.000
.121
.008
.000
1.392
.066
S.45?
.036
2.412
.050
.893
7.8S2
.«,87
0.000
52.242
.717
.728
.100
4.718
1.626
0.000
1.39
1.60
.0*
.OS
6.22
• <*2
0.00
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
N4NF
MATEKIA. »000 FIBEH
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERUL PON ORE
MATERIAL SJLT
MATERIAL. GLASS. SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA »SM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL. BAUXITE OWE
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MAU RESOURCE
•ATE» VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID WASTES MINING
SOLID BASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS MTWOGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOHIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OR8ANICS
ATMOS ODOSOUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
•ATERSORNE FLUORIDES
KATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
•ATERBORNE 00
•ATERiORNE PHENOL
•ATERBORNE SULFIDtS
•ATERBORNE OIL
•ATERBORNE COD
• 4TFRBORI.E SUSP SOLIOS
•ATERBOMNE AC 10
•ATERBORNE METAL ION
•ATERBORNE CHEMICAL?
•ATFRBORKE CYANIDE
•ATERBORNt ALKALINITY
•ATERBORNE CHROMIUM
•ATER(ORNE IRON
•ATERSORNE ALUMINUM
•ATERBORNE NICKEL
•ATERBORNE MERCURY
•ATCR80MNE LEAD
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAM(
R£*> MATERIALS
ENE-CY
• ATI*
INOUSTMI.L SOI. 10 NASTtS
ATM fM'S-1 >NS
• ATERBr-"'I n«>.!ES
POST-CONSUME" bOi *fc,lt
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND!,
>-IL HTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
ROUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POl/Nl'
POON 'S
MIL BTU
THOI' <;AL
CUBIC FT
WUUNOS
BOUNDS
100* ORE LlNfSTON COAL
MININO MINING MINING
1*97 LBS 717 LSS 1792 LBS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.146
.093
0.000
2.9IS
o.too
.710
1942. M7
0.000
10.359
.573
.418
.819
.169
.006
.003
0.000
.000
t.too
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.116
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.018
.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
t.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
.669
i^HS
CO. 319
12. J«*>
.1*5
0.000
0.000
o.too
0.000
0.000
0.000
(.000
0.000
(.((0
• 013
.012
0.000
.033,
(.(00
.021
.076
0.000
4.662
.037
.015
.030
.(34
.(00
.001
0.000
.001
(.(00
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.007
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
I/. 000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
.02S
.013
.00'.
*. rr
.001
o.ooo
0.005
(.(00
(.000
0.0(0
0.000
0.000
0.000
(.000
.127
.041
0.000
.0*5
(.0(0
.340
341.512
0.000
3.191
.836
.6*7
2.326
4.010
.002
.0(3
(.(00
.(((
0.000
.(00
.000
0.000
0.000
.026
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
3.601
.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
(.0(0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.107
.045
4.615
II. M2
* -S?H
LIME OXYGEN EXTERNAL
MFu MfG SCRAP
126 LBS 187 LBS 585 LBS
0.000
242.000
(.(((
O.OIt
0.0(0
0.0(1
(.000
o.ooo
0.000
.293
.002
0.000
.021
22.991
.411
2.3(2
0.00(
2.4(1
.191
.lit
.159
.163
.101
.001
0.000
.000
t.too
.too
.000
0.000
0.010
.026
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.026
.006
0. 000
o.ooo
t.ooo
o.oot
0.00(
(.(00
0.000
0.000
0,000
252.000
.295
.020
.347
3.434
.058
r. - i) r\l
1. 100
1. 101
t.tio
(.000
(.000
I.OIt
I. OOt
0.000
(.(((
.192
.010
0.0(0
.131
0.000
1.1*9
1.227
(.(((
.216
.538
.128
1.128
.121
.002
.0(4
0.000
.(00
0.000
.Oil
.000
0.0(0
0.000
.060
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.062
.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.502
, b 3 1
.ObO
E . -M I
. 1 i"
a. ooo
0.000
0.100
1.000
1. 100
t. too
(.OK
o.oot
O.OIt
1.1*1
.211
(.(00
0.000
.117
l.lll
.173
.976
0.000
.081
.2(7
.112
.4(7
.(29
.0(1
.((1
0.000
.0(0
0.0(0
.101
.000
0.000
0.000
.044
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.019
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.255
.1/1*
. ttb 3
. ') 7»
t, . (j -'I 0
CLOSURE
360 LSS
0.000
161.046
567. ISO
(.000
0.000
0.000
(.(((
(.1(1
2*.***
8.769
.1(1
.ISO
It. 7*9
118.147
3.734
2070.111
(•lit
11.375
4.21*
11.11*
*•*«•
1.M7
.•11
,»17
.414
1.137
l.tll
.tit
.(II
O.ltt
O.ttl
.774
.011
.too
.001
.208
.005
1.138
I.K5
.451
.012
0.000
0.100
0.001
O.OK
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
755.116
4.105
1 0 . T69
30.130
36 .884
1.0( 0
5TEEL 3 PIECE TRANS DISPOSAL FILLIN6 PAPER PLASTIC
STRIP CAN FAB 2001 LBS CANS PACKAGE PACK AM
HF( 18(6 LBS 2(11 LIS 49 LBS 3* L*S
11(6 LBS
t.oot
460.131
2583. (20
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
77.326
16.516
.629
0.000
43.671
440.100
12. ((2
13. (99
0.000
24.803
10.935
9.393
21.1**
2.4*4
.010
.062
1.8(6
4.721
o.OK
.0(1
.000
0.000
0,000
2,547
.003
.001
.002
.945
.014
4.724
4.423
1.106
.057
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0(0
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
1142.076
17. 1,5
43.6TH
*,543
7-). 491
1 J.H41
0 . o i n
0.000
0.0(0
I.OK
0.1(1
0.000
(.((0
0.0(0
(.0(0
49.03ft
5.111
0.000
t.ooo
.343
47.150
7.903
21.122
0.000
1.7J7
4.094
21.191
7.413
• til
.0(9
.(17
0.000
0.0(0
(.110
0.100
.(00
0.000
0.000
.113
.(00
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
.412
.103
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
4, .035
5.111
.183
1.034
39.7>o
1 . ''7<>
0.100
i.od
0.000
0.000
0.101
1.001
t.ooo
t.too
o.oot
0.100
1.461
o.too
.0*2
o.oto
.121
O.OK
0.000
.226
2.711
.976
1.416
2.014
.164
.141
l.lll
.1*4
l.llt
.112
O.IK
I.IK
0.100
.701
.012
.101
.101
.001
.007
.005
.0(1
.(00
0.0(0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.463
,082
.004
7,569
,71fl
o.s^o
(.Oil
0.000
0.100
1.000
O.OK
0.101
O.OK
(.(((
(.(((
(.((0
.121
(.000
.10*
(.(((
.Ill
l.lll
1.412
.013
.129
.111
.111
1.11*
.11*
.064
O.ttt
.«**
l.lll
.Ml
O.IK
0.001
O.OK
.065
.101
.010
.(00
.(oo
.001
.tot
.101
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
G.OOO
(.000
0.000
0.000
(.(00
(.(00
0.000
.121
.000
.000
\.i1i
.066
5.452
O.tlt
1.00*
1.000
1.1(1
I.IK
0.101
l.ltl
• .tot
.13*
2.271
.410
0.500
.173
11. (00
2.2*5
9.302
0.100
1.111
2. SO*
1.4S1
3.36*
1.411
.821
.tit
l.ttl
.«02
• .111
.1*2
.1**
1.001
l.OM
.41*
.001
.*»«
.101
.001
.001
.013
.123
.031
o.too
0.101
O.OK
(.(00
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ttt
O.OK
.034
2.721
.073
.A45
1 5.241
.793
0.000
4B.7«7
o.tto
t.OM
O.MO
o.ott
O.MI
I.OK
8,011
3.***
.7(2
.011
I.IK
.721
2.244
1.112
l.*91
(.110
1.444
.102
.MS
1.1*4
.215
.to*
.Ml
.».»•
• *«*
».»*«
.*M
.1*1
(.Ml
O.KO
.122
,»97
.001
.0(0
.*00
.011
.472
.027
.007
0.000
0.000
a. no
0.110
o.oto
t.ooo
0.000
t.tto
0.101
It. 242
.787
.728
.100
4.71P
l.6
-------
TA9I.E 50
1 TON 1 "1 ..".ME!TI RtCVCU.fr ALf. S:EEL CAM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL vooo FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUHITE Oat
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
•ATCB VOLUME
U)
OUTPUTS rROM SYSTEMS
NAMF
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID VASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID VASTES MINING
SOLID ••Sit POST-CONSUM
ATMOS PABT1CULATES
ATMOS NITR06EN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR 0*[OES
ATMOS CARION NONOdOt
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER bRGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATHOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
VATCR80KNE FLUORIDES
VATEBBORNE DISS SOLIDS
VATERBORNE BOO
VATERBOHNE PHENOL
VATERBORNE SULFIOES
VATERBORNE OIL
VATERBORNE CUD
VATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
VATERBORNE ACID
VATERBORNE METAL ION
kATERBORNE CHEMICALS
VATERBORNE CYANIDE
VATERBORNE ALKALINITY
mrtatoKNC CHROMIUM
VATERBORNE IRON
VATERBORNE ALUMINUM
VATERBORNE NICKEL
VATERBOHNE MERCURY
»ATC*8ORNE Lttu
SUMMARY Of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
*AV MATLK1ALS
ENERGY
• ATER
1NOUSTH«L SUL1U VASTES
•TH fMMISSIUNS
•ATEMHOPvt ViSlkS
POST-CO'-SLiE" SOL VASTt
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
TNOU 8AL
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
HOUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL XTU
THOU liAL
CUBIC FT
POU'*"S
POUNUS
CUBIC FT
ElTEHNAL
1.11
TON
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.000
.t*9
0.000
0.000
.02*
0.000
1.419
3. 712
0.000
.321
.708
.501
1.547
.112
.005
.003
0.000
.001
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.!•«
.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
.071
.018
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.•><•>*
.0«
.061*
.?HO
(1.000
0»YGE'i
LIME ANU
LIMESTON
0.000
52.808
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
4.000
0.000
.166
.00%
0.000
.128
4.819
.290
67.041
0.000
1.303
.140
.ota
.313
.040
.001
.001
0.000
.100
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.017
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.016
.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
sf.aou
.171
.lir*
.'74
.01H
0.000
ELECTRIC
STL STUP
1.24 TOM
0.000
114.448
25.950
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
24.880
20.93V
0.000
0.000
14.091
348.320
32.140
86.839
0.000
32.111
16.901
12.181
31.197
7.454
.051
.066
0.000
.805
8.000
.000
.001
0.000
0.000
2.860
.004
.001
.002
2.490
.017
13.694
6.641
.416
.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
IbS.JTS
?u.93^
14.093
0.311
2f-.19*>
r.ooo
THREE PC i
1.11 TON
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.800
57.720
6.016
0.000
0.000
.451
55.500
9.101
25.133
0.000
2.021
4.819
10.481
8.726
.727
.011
.020
0.000
0.000
0.806
8.808
.000
0.800
0.000
.651
.808
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
.485
.121
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.008
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
S7.720
b.Olfc
.451
1.217
1.2<>2
i .500
'ETBO
NOD
>»SM
>u LH
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.080
.05*
.117
.OOB
.55b
.148
.019
.053
.142
0.000
.024
.098
.245
.158
.027
.002
.002
0.000
.882
8.800
.088
.000
0.000
0.000
.161
.002
.000
.001
.001
.005
.003
.003
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.058
.681
.14*
.OOJ
.37-.
0 . 1) 'J u
CLOSUBf
T AS
3.1H TON
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.916
.273
.002
.150
.044
8.105
.141
.384
0.000
.034
1.217
8.513
.164
.120
.001
.001
0.000
.000
8.008
.008
.008
0.000
0.000
.134
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.007
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.416
.425
.044
.117
.1*6
O.'JCO
FILLING
AND PL AS
PACKM.t
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.066
0.060
1.3S3
3.035
.450
.759
.118
SI. |65
3.2*7
12.6J2
0.060
1.166
4.611
3. 761
4.168
1.993
.6X6
.651
8.666
.662
6.666
.062
.006
6.600
0.006
.640
.112
.080
.601
.100
.201
.6**
.176
.644
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.066
0.000
0.006
0.060
0.000
0.000
1.353
4.?4J
.118
.890
1.664
0.000
PAPER
PACKAGE
45 Lb
43.857
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.660
1.25*
.6*«
.066
0.000
.716
2.070
3.469
1.641
0.000
1.500
.452
.216
.739
.263
.004
.005
.478
.660
0.606
.666
.600
0.660
0.000
.105
.TS3
.006
.000
.600
.001
.414
.021
.066
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.006
47 lib
743
716
0*7
: 3?2
190
TIlANS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.600
.221
2.932
0.000
.175
0.000
.667
0.006
0.000
.380
5.277
2.674
1.581
10.696
.161
.419
O.QOO
.066
0.000
.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.508
.064
.601
.002
.002
.015
.609
.001
.061
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.000
3.1S4
.175
.009
? 1 . ??5
1.545
o.ooo
11SPOSAL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.003
0.000
.060
0.600
.001
0.000
.74?
.000
.003
.001
.001
.091
.000
.014
0.066
.666
0.006
.666
0.066
0.060
0.000
.601
.600
.660
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
.003
.000
.000
.112
.001
.'4?
-------
TMfACTS fOrt 1 TON EAOI yttnChSS 1'J STEE[ SYSTEMS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
«fAME
M*IE»I»t HOOD F1SEB
MATEH1AL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IKOn ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATEMAL IUASS SANu
MATERIAL NAT Sl>0« AS-i
MATERIAL FELCSPAP
MATERIAL BAUUTE owe
MATERIAL PROCESS *UD
[NERr.y PHOCES^
ENERu* TKANSPJBT
ENEHSY OF M«IL REMiuH
• ATF.K VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
to
00
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMR
SOLID HASTES "1N1NI5
SOLID HASTF OQST -COMSUX
AT«OS PAHT1CULATES
ATMOS NITHOGtN OXJOtS
ATMOS HYDROCAWBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OHIOES
ATMOS CAKRON MONO IDE
ATMOS ALDEf-K/ES
ATMOS OT»EP OBGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUh
ATMOS AMMUN1A
ATMOS MYOROliEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS UAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
KATERBOH-iE FLUOHtnEi
HATERtORNE OISS SOLIDS
•<7E»80»Nf aOU
•ATER80PNE PHFNOL
mTEHRORNE
««TE»bOl"
CYANIDf
ALKALIMIT
CHROMIUM
IHOh
ALUMINUM
NICKEL
MERCURY
LEAD
SUHWARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
ENEMf-Y
• Alt"
(LTM EMMlbSI
• fr Tt *MuHf*t
UNITS
POUNDS
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNP
POUNDS
MIL HIU
HlL HTJ
MIL HTu
TMQU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUNO
POUND
CUMK fT
POUNU
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POuN!'
HOUNH
POUNU
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO">
MIL STU
THOU r-Al
LUUIC FT
IHOl. ORE COAL OlYnEN EUTEXNAL
MINING MINING IF'. SI.H4I-
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.oou
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
.702
.110
0.000
3.SH
0.000
7002.341
0.000
1 2 . 20S
.67',
.539
!l99
.007
.004
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.137
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.045
.01 1
0.000
0.000
o.oou
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.81 1
-*(. S4*
1 4 "*,^4
' I 9-
C . 000
0.990
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oou
0.000
0.000
. !<*?
. 0<«5
0.000
.oso
0.000
.379
3« 1 . ? I 6
o.ooo
4.016
.133
.770
2.597
4.521
.002
.003
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
.029
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
4.020
I.OOS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.1H7
. JSO
4. is;
1 2 . h fi •>
'-,'•> I' a
0.909
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
f.37'1
.10*
0.000
S.710
0.000
I2.7BB
34.6*4
0.000
2 . 7S7
S.786
1.526
12.131
1.340
.019
.041
0.000
.00!
o.ooo
.001
.000
0.000
c.ooo
.64B
.001
.000
.000
. 000
.004
.00?
.66S
.166
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0 000
r 4f4
s 710
f>4 \
2S fti *
. -M 7
(i n 1 1-
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.873
o.ooo
o.ooo
,0?3
o.ooo
1.279
3.344
0.000
.291
.710
l! 393
.101
.004
.003
0.000
.001
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
• 1 64
.009
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.064
.016
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
.873
. 1(2 3
. oft ?
2 . 9S4
. ?S2
• . TflO
STEEL i PIECE
STHIP CAH FAB
0.009
510.000
2740.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
112.000
36. 7i )
. ftA7
0.000
46.31H
700.000
13.661
35. 948
0.000
26.302
11.596
9.461
26.717
2.544
.OS3
.06)
2.000
5.005
0.000
.001
.000
0.000
o.ooo
2.72?
.004
.001
.OJ2
1.002
.015
5.009
4.691
1.171
.060
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
3332.000
34.39!
46.31-
10.12.
*» . *'9S
1 •» . ft 7 I
D . 0 oil
9.900
0.000
0.000
O.flOC
0.000
o.oot
0.000
0.000
52.000
5.419
a. ooi
0.000
.406
<>o.ooo
8.381
22*623
0.000
1.121
4.341
27.461
7.861
.655
.010
.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.5»7
.000
.000
.000
.000
.00?
.001
.437
.109
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
c.ooo
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
S2 000
•> 19
i'6
1 -16
42 ft*
1 37
(1 ,1U
ElECTaiC
FURNACE
STEEL
MAN
0.000
92.000
20.060
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
20.000
1* .83?
tit QOv
o.ooc
.1.329
280.000
2S.996
69.806
0.000
21.813
13.566
9.793
26.846
5.992
• 041
.053
0.000
.004
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
2.315
.903
.001
.002
2.002
.013
ll.ooe
5.339
.335
.0-0
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
132.^0
16.&> j;-
i I .32V
1 . i' 7 3
-»
-------
Table 48 summarizes systems for 1 ton of bimetal (CSTL) cans while Table 49
and 50 summarize the all steel and recycled cans. The remaining Table 51,
converts raw data to impacts for 1 ton output of each subsystem. These
raw data are presented in tables within the text of this chapter.
Table 47 provides an overview of the relative environmental merits
of the two virgin can systems and one 100 percent recycled system. The
widely used three-piece bimetal can is clearly the most detrimental to the
environment, producing more impacts in six of the seven categories. The
all steel can is the second most desirable can from an environmental point
of view with recycled cans being clearly best, producing the least impact
in six of the seven categories.
Tables 48 through 50 summarize the systems for 1 ton of cans
showing contributions of various component processes. Several observations
can be made by viewing these tables. The most important component accounts
for more energy than the manufacture of the steel for the body and bottom.
The most important operation for all steel cans is steel strip manufacture,
which accounts for more impacts than the other operations in five of the
seven categories.
Most other subprocesses contribute very little in each system,
but some major processing step, such as steel manufacture or iron ore
mining, is typically the second most abundant source of impacts.
Table 51 shows impacts for 1 ton output of each component process.
These tables convert the raw data given in this chapter into impact parameters.
B. Iron Ore Mining
The basic raw material for steel can manufacture is iron ore.
This material is found for the most part in flat-lying or gently sloping
beds not more than 20 feet thick. Open pit mining accounts for about 90
percent of the iron ore extracted at present, with the remainder being re-
covered from deep vertical shaft mines.
Because of stringent specifications placed on iron ore used in
blast furnaces it is necessary to beneficiate the ore. This requires that
the ore be crushed to minus 4 inches and screened to remove minus 1/4-inch
pieces. The minus 1/4-inch screenings are concentrated into pellets usually
about 3/8 inch to 1/2 inch in diameter by an agglomeration procedure. The
agglomeration procedure may take place at either the mine or the steel mill.
The crushing and screening operations result in generation of particulate
air pollution.
139
-------
Data concerning the total environmental profile of iron ore mining
were derived from government data sources. These are summarized in Table 52.
Table 51 is a computer generated table which transforms the data from Table 52,
and similar tables for the other operations, into environmental impacts per
ton of output for that operation. However, tables such as 48 are more
meaningful. That table displays the impacts per ton of finished three-piece
conventional steel cans, so that each operation is put into proper perspective.
TABLE 52
DATA FOR MINING OF 1 TON IRON ORE
Source
Energy 8^
Natural gas 360 cu ft
Distillate 0.23 gal.
Residual 0.43 gal.
Electric 28 kwhr
Water Volume 3,500 gal. 85
Mining Wastes 6,500 Ib 97
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 12 Ib 52
Transportation
Rail 83 ton-miles 79
Water 316 ton-miles 81
Observing Table 52 we see that the dominant environmental effect
of mining iron ore is mining wastes. These wastes are quite sizable and
amount to 3.5 tons per ton of marketable ore. This impact is largely one
of aesthetics, blight and land use. The problem is not so much how to dis-
pose properly of the waste, but the mechanics of disposing of so much
waste.
140
-------
Currently there is much discussion concerning the adverse affects
of waterborne .disposal of taconite tailings. This method of disposal is
alleged to create a serious water pollution problem in Lake Superior. The
magnitude of this problem is staggering, as the ore mine which discharges
its wastes is reported to dump nearly 22 million long tons a year, amounting
to 500 pounds per short ton of the total iron ore mined in this country. The
cessation of this problem would significantly reduce current water pollution
of virgin steel systems. We have assumed that these tailings will be
impounded in the very near future, and have included them as solid waste
in Table 52.
Table 48 shows that the overall effect of iron ore mining on three-
piece can manufacture is large only with respect to industrial solid wastes.
C. Coal Mining
The environmental consequences of mining coal are inherently more
serious and more difficult to bring under control than those of most mining
industries. As opposed to limestone quarries which are located in highly
visible locations scattered throughout the country, coal mines tend to be
located far from major population regions. Hence, the environmental damage
of mining coal has not been as visible as that due to limestone mining.
Coal mining results in many of the same environmental detriments
which normally plague limestone mining as well as some which are unique.
Those which are common are the dust and noise associated with mining and
beneficiation; general unsightliness; improperly disposed solid residues
and open surface mines left abandoned in unsatisfactory condition.
In addition, environmental damage results from coal mining in
the form of: (1) burning coal refuse banks; (2) acid mine drainage; and
(3) mine subsidence. The burning refuse banks are unique to coal mining
and are caused by wasted organic material in mine refuse piles undergoing
spontaneous combustion. These fires may burn for many years and may require
intensive effort over a period of several years to extinguish permanently.
Procedures are now established for proper construction of refuse banks which
prevent spontaneous combustion, but extinguishing existing fires will be a
problem for many years. The air pollution from these fires is included in
Table 53.
Acid mine drainage results primarily from the subsidence of layers
of material above deep coal mines as abandoned tunnels collapse. Invariably
this subsidence ruptures water bearing structures above the mine level and
water eventually fills the mine.
141
-------
This water leaches minerals from the structure through which it
moves. The resultant water pollution (shown in Table 53) usually ends up
in the local streams and lakes. This problem grows annually and depends
not on the rate of coal extraction as do most impacts, but on the cumula-
tive total of coal mined. One source—' estimates that to treat acid mine
drainage properly to achieve the current water standards of the state of
Pennsylvania would require a minimum expenditure of $40 million per year
in perpetuity, and this assumes that proper mining techniques are adopted
to prevent the problem from growing.
The problem of mine subsidence is important because nearly 5
million acres of land in the U.S. have been undermined by coal production.
Included in this total on 158,000 acres of urban lands, often present be-
cause of cities whose growth has been stimulated by local coal mining ac-
tivity. Virtually all of this land will sooner or later be affected ad-
versely by mine subsidence. The magnitude of this problem is reflected in
the cost estimates of mine subsidence prevention programs and increased
cost of building foundations in potential subsidence areas. The total of
these two items is over $1 billion, and this amount represents only a small
portion of the total surface damage covered by mine subsidence. Subsidence
can be prevented by proper mining techniques, however.
Table 48 shows that coal mining accounts for .only a small percent
of the impacts of the three-piece bimetal can system.
D. Oxygen Manufacture
The steel industry consumes more oxygen than all other industries
combined, using well over one-half of all oxygen produced in this country.
Oxygen is used in a variety of iron- and steel-making operations ranging
from scrap preparation to basic oxygen process (BOP) steel furnaces. The
latter is the most important accounting for 121 billion cubic feet (5
million tons) of oxygen consumption in 1971 which was 58 percent of the
total consumed by the steel industry.
Oxygen is manufactured by cryogenic separation of air. This
technique is essentially one of liquifying air and then collecting the
oxygen by fractionation. The oxygen is produced in the form of a liquid
which boils at 300°F below zero at normal atmospheric pressure so that it
must be kept under stringent conditions of temperature and pressure for
handling. Most oxygen plants are located quite close to their point of
consumption to minimize transportation difficulties although there is a
small amount of long distance hauling in insulated rail cars.
The environmental data for oxygen manufacture are listed in
Table 54. The impacts are in Table 51. The most important impact is
energy use. Those of air and water pollution are entirely due to fuel
combustion.
142
-------
TABLE 53
DATA FOR MINING OF 1 TON COAL
Energy
Coal
Distillate
Residual
Natural gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water Volume
Process
Mining Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxide
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
Sulfuric acid
Iron
Transportation
Rail
Water
Truck
0.0010 ton
0.22 gal.
0.025 gal.
3.7 cu ft
0.042. gal.
10 kwhr
46 gal.
380 Ib
4.4 Ib
2.2
0.
0.
Ib
Ib
Ib
3.9 Ib
4 Ib
1 Ib
196 ton-miles
30 ton-miles
4 ton-miles
Source
84
85
65
41
42
52
65
65,68
79
82
68,97
143
-------
TABLE 54
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON OXYGEN
Source
Energy
Distillate oil 0.21 gal. 83
Residual oil 0.61 gal.
Natural gas 1,528 cu ft
Gasoline 0.49 gal.
Electricity 415 kwhr
Water 5,600 gal. 83
Transportation
Rail 54 ton-miles 87
Truck 13 ton-miles
E. External Scrap Procurement
The recycling of metallic scrap back into iron and steel furnaces
has long been an economically viable means of utilizing ferrous waste mate-
rials. For instance, one-half of the metallic input to steel furnaces in
1969 was in the form of scrap. Much of the scrap recovered is generated
within the mills themselves and the impacts associated with their recovery
are included with normal iron and steel mill operations. However, sub-
stantial quantities of scrap are transported to iron and steel mills from
external sources (including other mills at different sites). In 1971 this
amounted to 2.6 million tons for blast furnace use and 26.8 million tons
for use in steel furnaces.
The only environmental damage resulting from scrap procurement
is related to energy use for preparing, loading and transporting the scrap.
Positive effects of scrap usage on the environment include the displacement
of virgin materials (and their related environmental effects) in iron and
steel manufacture; and alleviation of solid waste disposal problems by di-
verting scrap from municipal solid waste streams. At the present time, a
rapidly growing but still very small percent of scrap used is derived from
municipal waste streams.
144
-------
The environmental impacts of scrap recovery are not well docu-
mented, but they are small as compared to virgin raw material procurement.
Table 55 contains data from one installation which magnetically separates
ferrous scrap from mixed urban refuse. These data are quite close to MRI
estimates of conventional scrap recovery and processing from industrial
sources. These data were applied to the recycle options recovering
scrap from mixed refuse.
Tables 51 and 48 show the impacts are quite small ,
TABLE 55
DATA PERTAINING TO THE PROCUREMENT OF 1 TON SCRAP
(By Magnetic Separation of Mixed Municipal Wastes)
Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
Distillate
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Barge
40 kwhr
190 cu ft
1.4 gal.
130 ton-miles
2 ton-miles
20 ton-miles
Source: 68
F. Steel Strip Manufacture
The manufacture of steel strip suitable for can fabrication can
be considered to consist of three separate steps: (1) pig iron production,
(2) steel production, and (3) rolling and plating. These processes form
the basic manufacturing step of converting iron ore into steel and are re-
sponsible for most of the environmental impact attributed to can manufacture.
Enormous amounts of energy are required to manufacture steel from
raw materials. This energy is primarily supplied by coal which is first
coked and then mixed with the raw materials. The energy is consumed in the
blast and steel furnaces where the iron ore is converted at high temperatures
145
-------
to iron alloys in a series of chemical reactions with coke, fluxing agents
and other materials. The raw steel is then worked into steel strip and is
plated with tin or chromium for shipment to can fabricators.
Table 56 shows that iron ore is the leading material input to the
steel system. In this study we are considering impacts on resources of
the world, so that depletion of iron ore in foreign countries is included.
Thus, 0.90 ton of domestic and 0.47 imported iron ore per ton steel produced
was included in the calculations.
Solid wastes in the form of discarded metallics are generated in
each step. Most of these materials are recycled directly on-site and,
therefore, are not materials which need to be disposed. However, signifi-
cant solid wastes which require disposal do appear from three sources: (1)
fuel combustion residues; (2) wastewater treatment sludges; and (3) slags
from iron and steel furnaces. These are listed in Table 56.
For many years a very serious air pollution problem existed for
the steel industry from the use of beehive ovens to convert coal into coke.
The air pollution problem resulted because approximately 25 percent of the
coal was converted to airborne materials which were not subject to any
pollution controls .M/ Hence, for every ton of coal input to the plant
there were 500 pounds of coal dust, ammonia, odorous sulfides and a variety
of other materials emitted into the air. Today, almost all of the beehive
ovens have been abandoned in favor of chemical by-product ovens which cap-
ture almost all of the effluent for recycling purposes or for conversion to
by-products. Other pollution controls to reduce dust and fume emissions
from the agglomerating, furnace and finishing areas have also been imple-
mented so that air pollution, although still a problem, is less serious than
it was in previous years.
The extent of present air pollution is revealed in Table 51.
Air pollution is second only to energy in importance as an impact. Another
serious environmental problem facing the steel industry is water pollution.
Waterborne wastes are generated in every subprocess of iron and steel
manufacture. These wastes are primarily suspended solids, oils, waste
acids, waste plating solutions, and dissolved chemicals. Proper treatment
of these wastes is made difficult by the unusually large volumes of effluent
streams.
146
-------
Table 56
DATA FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON STEEL STRIP
Virgin materials
Limestone
Iron ore^'
Other
Total
Energy
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Tar and pitch
LPG
Natural gas
Electricity
Water volume
Solid wastes
Blast furnace slag
Steel furnace slag
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Process atmospheric emissions
Particulates
Agglomerating
Coke manufacture
Blast furnace
Steel furnace
Scarfing
Total
Sulfur oxides
Hydrogen sulfide
Ammonia and organics
Waterborne wastes
Suspended solids
Acids
Oil
Metal ions
Fluorides
Other chemicals
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Water
0.255 tons
1.37 tons
0.041 tons
1.67 tons
0.95 tons
4.2 gal.
8.5 gal.
2.0 gal.
0.18 gal.
6,930 cu ft
430 kwhr
46,000 gal.
220 Ib
340 Ib
140 Ib
11 Ib
2 Ib
5 Ib
5.0 Ib
4 Ib
1.0 Ib
1.0 Ib
0.04
0.02
254 ton-miles
76 ton-miles
93 ton-miles
77
83
55,61
55,61
58,68
61
49,58
87
a/ About two-thirds (0.90 ton) of the iron ore is domestic.
147
-------
The primary source of suspended solids is the blast and steel
furnace areas. Exit gases from these furnaces are scrubbed to prevent air
pollution, and to clean them sufficiently so they may be burned. Some sus-
pended solids are also produced when cleaning the ingots or blooms and dur-
ing rolling operations.
Waste oils, acids, and plating solutions are produced in the roll-
ing and plating areas. These acids result from cleaning operations, whereas
oils and plating solutions result from finishing operations. These solu-
tions typically contain iron salts in addition to other heavy metal ions
related to plating operations.
Coke plant wastes generally account for most of the other chemi-
cals found in the waste streams. Coke plant wastes contain phenols as
well as ammonia, cyanides, and other chemicals.
Table 48 shows that steel strip manufacture accounts for significant
impacts. This category is second only to the aluminum closure system in
importance as a subprocess of three-piece can manufacture.
G. Ferrous Can Fabrication
Steel strip is shipped to can fabricators to be converted into
beer cans. The steel can is made of electrolytic tin plate (ETP) steel or
tin-free steel (TFS). These cans are nearly identical except that the TFS
can is coated with a very thin layer of chromium instead of tin. This
amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of the final can weight in either
case, so the differences are considered negligible.
The three-piece can is fabricated from a metal blank which is
soldered or welded to form the can cylinder. A steel bottom and an
aluminum top are attached to the can cylinder by mechanical crimping. The
connections are made leak-proof with a sealant (end compound). The can
is coated and decorated with inks.
148
-------
Raw data for can fabrication are included in Table 57, with the
impacts displayed in Tables 51 and 48.
TABLE 57
DATA FOR FABRICATION OF CAN BODY AND BOTTOM FOR
1 TON OF THREE-PIECE STEEL CANS
Sources
Virgin materials
Solder
Cement, paint, coatings
Solvent
Packaging (corrugated
containers)
Energy
Natural gas
Electricity
Water volume
Solid waste
68
32 Ib
20 Ib
26 Ib
49 Ib
2,200 cu ft
273 kwhr
320 gal.
50 Ib
68
83
68
Atmospheric emissions
Process hydrocarbons
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Water
24 Ib
97 ton-miles
111 ton-miles
11 ton-miles
68
88
As shown in Table 51 and 48, impacts from can fabrication are
important. These impacts result from the use of electricity to run plant
machinery and natural gas for drying ovens. Significant air pollution also
occurs from evaporated solvents of which it is estimated that only 9 percent
is incinerated to prevent air pollution.
149
-------
H. Electric Furnace Steel Manufacture
As noted in Section F which describes conventional steel manu-
facture, large quantities of steel are recycled each year as a normal part
of the steel-making process. The scrap is normally high grade industrial
waste resulting from metal discarded at various stages in manufacturing.
However, the potential exists to obtain much steel from post-consumer
ferrous wastes, such as steel cans discarded into municipal waste streams.
In this study we are examining one system which might be used to
fabricate ferrous products using post-consumer waste as the primary raw
material. This system is the three-piece electric furnace system. Electric
furnace technology is well established and presently is being used in many
applications. It is typically a small operation compared to large, conven-
tional steel mills. Electric furnaces use scrap as the principal raw
material. Most electric furnaces prior to 1960 did not produce carbon steel,
but produced various ferroalloys for special purposes. However, in 1971,
71 percent of the output of electric furnaces was carbon steel. These fur-
naces can produce suitable can steel. Economics dictate the location and
choice of output products.
Scrap metal and various additives are charged into an electric
furnace through its top. (The materials flow is shown in Figure 17.)
These materials are melted by the conversion of electric energy into heat.
Current is brought into the furnace through large carbon electrodes and
the energy is converted to heat in the furnace. Much less energy is re-
quired for this process than for making steel from virgin ore. The electric
furnace consumes energy primarily by melting the iron and maintaining a high
enough temperature for refining to take place. On the other hand, conven-
tional steel production requires several separate operations: agglomerating,
blast furnace operations, and steel furnace operations. The large difference
in energy is seen by the fact that an energy requirement of 500 kilowatt-
hours per ton of steel for a typical electric furnace translates to a fuel
requirement of about 6 million Btu. This quantity may be compared to over
15 million Btu of fuel required for the blast furnace alone to produce 1 ton
of pig iron. J:/ For 1 ton of steel strip produced, the energy difference is
41 million Btu for conventional steel as opposed to 19 million Btu for the
electric furnace system.
150
-------
The data for electric furnace steel are given in Table 58. The
most troublesome on-site impact of electric steel furnaces is air pollution.
This results primarily from fume emission. "Fume" is the term applied to
electric furnace emissions of airborne particulates--composed predominantly
of metal oxides but also of combusted impurities. These particulates are
quite small, usually below 2 microns, and are somewhat difficult to control.
These emissions occur mainly during charging operations when the roof of the
furnace is opened, and during the "boil" phase.
I. Steel Closures for Cans
In the not-too-distant past, steel beverage cans were closed with
a steel lid. However, the advent of the aluminum ring pull top has virtually
eliminated the steel can closure from the beer can market, although some
steel tops still occur on soft drink cans. As environmental aspects
of product manufacture become more important, it may be desirable to replace
the aluminum tops on steel cans with steel tops.
The steel tops which could be used would probably be fabricated
from tin-free steel. The process is a fairly simple one of stamping the
lids from sheet blanks. A polymer coating is required which must be dried
in an oven.
Table 59 contains the data for the fabrication. The environmental
profile is quite similar to that of the can body and bottom fabrication dis-
cussed in Section G.
J. Can Filling
Can filling proceeds in a manner similar to that described for
bottle filling in Chapter II. The cans are received in the plant, rinsed,
filled, and topped with an appropriate closure. Most commonly used is an
aluminum ring pull top, although a steel top is used in some cases. The
impacts in the filling plant are similar for both aluminum and steel cans,
and for beer or soft drink cans. However, for beer a pasteurization is
required which is not present in the soft drink system. Also, the kinds of
fuels used by brewers are different from those used by soft drink plants.
Table 60 summarizes the impact data.
151
-------
TABLE 58
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1 TON STEEL STRIP FROM
ELECTRIC FURNACE MILLS
Sources
Materials
Scrap 2,140 Ib
Oxygen 30 Ib
Iron ore 14 Ib
Limestone 92 Ib
Carbon electrodes 10 Ib
Plating metal (chromium
or tin) 10 Ib
39
Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
Residual oil
Water
Process solid wastes
500 kwhr (furnace) 1
335 kwhr (rolling and
plating) 68
5,400 cu ft 68
10 gal. 68
11,000 gal. 58,68
140 Ib (slag) 1
140 Ib (treatment sludge) 68
Process atmospheric emissions
Particulates 20 Ib
Carbon monoxide 4 Ib
Waterborne wastes
Suspended solids
Acids
Oil
Chemicals
11 Ib
4 Ib
2 Ib
0.04 Ib
61
61
58,68
152
-------
TABLE 59
DATA FOR FABRICATION OF ONE TON STEEL CAN CLOSURES
Materials
Steel 2,300 Ib
Coatings
Solids 55 Ib
Solvent 45 Ib
Paper packaging 5 Ib
Energy
Natural gas 1,000 cu ft
Electricity 23 kwhr
Industrial Solid Wastes . 45 Ib
Process Atmospheric Emissions 45 Ib
Hydrocarbons
Transportation
Rail 97 ton-miles
Truck 111 ton-miles
Water 11 ton-miles
Source:
68
153
-------
TABLE 60
DATA FOR FILLING 1 MILLION 12-OUNCE CANS
Materials
Packaging
Plastic
Other materials
1,940 Ib
2 Ib
Energy
Beer
Coal
Residual
Natural gas
Electricity
Soft drink
Natural gas
Electricity
Solid Wastes
1.0 ton
150 gal.
55,000 cu ft
2,000 kwhr
15,000 cu ft
1,700 kwhr
3,000 Ib
Transportation
Beer
Rail
Truck
Soft drink
Truck
10,000 ton-miles
7,000 ton-miles
125 gal. diesel
400 gal. gasoline
Source: 68
154
-------
K. Petroleum Products
Various petroleum products are utilized for solvents, petroleum
coke and pitch, and for other uses in this study. For those products, a
system has been derived using "refinery average" data. These data are sum-
marized in Table 61, and on Table 51. The impacts of this system on the
total can systems is quite small.
TABLE 61
DATA FOR 1.000 POUNDS PETROLEUM PRODUCT MANUFACTURE
(Crude Oil Refinery)
Source
Energy of Material Resource
(1,030 pounds crude oil)
Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
Water
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur oxides
Aldehydes
Other organics
Ammonia
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
Phenol
Sulfides
Oil
COD
Suspended solids
18.54 million Btu
50 kwhr
3,000 cu ft
4,800 gal.
0.35 Ib.
3.1 Ib
3.4 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.06 Ib
0.051 Ib
0.014 Ib
0.018 Ib
0.03 Ib
0.16 Ib
0.09 Ib
10
47
47
47, 70
21,51,71
155
-------
CHAPTER V
ALUMINUM CANS
The basic data relating to the manufacture of aluminum beer cans
are presented in this chapter. The conventional aluminum can system con-
sists of primary rolled and drawn aluminum alloy cans. In addition, four
systems using recycled aluminum cans are considered, at recycling levels
of 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent.
Figure 18 shows the principal mining and manufacturing processes
which are involved in the production of aluminum sheet and the material
inputs. Twelve separate operations, including transportation are analyzed.
Data relating to crude oil production and refining may be found in Chapter
III, and discussions of limestone mining and lime manufacture appear in
Chapter II. This chapter is divided into the following eight sections;
A. Overview
B. Bauxite Mining
C. Caustic Soda Manufacture
D. Refining of Alumina
E. Aluminum Smelting
F. Aluminum Rolling
G. Can Fabrication
H. Recycle Options
Filling and distribution of aluminum cans is essentially the same
as for steel cans, so those impacts are found in Chapter IV. Waste disposal
and packaging data are in Chapter II.
A. Overview
The computer reports for the aluminum can system are presented
here. They are of three kinds. Table 62 compares the results for the
four recycling options with the conventional system. Table 63 presents
the results for 1 ton of conventional aluminum cans derived 15 percent
from recycled cans. Table 64 summarizes the impacts for 1 ton of each
operation.
156
-------
Ln
Figure 18 - Materials Flow for 1 Ton Virgin Aluminum Cans
-------
TABU: 62
IMPACTS FOR I MILLION ALUMINUM CANS. 6 OPTIONS
VIRGIN 15 PCNT
ALUMINUM RECYCLE
ALUMINUM
25 PCNT SO PCNT
RECYCLE MECYCLE
ALUM ISUM ALUMINUM
75 PCNT 100 PCNT
RLCYCLE HtCYCLE
ALUMINUM ALUMINUM
INPUTS TO SYSTfcHS
NAMf
UNITS
MATERIAL «OOD FIBER
MATF.PIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATtPlAL SALT
MATEH1AL OLASS SAND
MATERIAL MAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL bAU»ITE ORE
MATERIAL PKUCtSS ADD
ENERGY PRUCtSS
ENtWfi* THANSPOWT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOUHCt
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FMOH SYSTEMS
NAMF
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINlNb
SOLID HASTt POST-CONSUM
ATMOS P«>a.
0.
10893.
0.
0.
0.
180055.
13278.
705*.
?17.
60S.
1S85.
15306.
1?99».
363876.
?9fl.
5975.
6503.
5267.
1J324.
3085.
25.
37.
22.
3.
62.
1.
0.
»3.
266.
1228.
23*.
3,
1.
386.
2232.
392.
6T3.
ies.
70*.
a.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
?699.
9134.
a.
9260.
0.
0.
0.
1530*7.
120)9.
6223.
222.
589.
1*16.
1**B6.
113*1.
2250*0.
25fl.
5202.
5781.
*800.
11631.
2716.
23.
3*.
22.
3.
53.
1.
0.
3r.
226.
109*.
209.
2.
1.
381.
1899.
369.
506.
161.
610.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2A <)9.
BHb<..
0.
H169.
0.
0.
0.
1150*1.
1118?.
5675.
161.
553.
1308.
139*1.
K'229.
199156.
232.
»fcf)l.
5217.
*»6'J.
10*70.
2*05.
21.
31.
22.
3.
*6.
0.
0.
3?.
199.
100?.
1VJ.
2.
1.
J7S.
1677.
3S».
527.
1**.
5*8.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2699.
S376.
0.
S»*6.
0.
0.
a.
40027.
90b6.
»2<*6.
l»s.
• 21.
1030.
1257ft.
7*59.
13*»36.
166.
3386.
3931.
3670.
7617.
1725.
1ft.
2S.
22.
2.
il.
a.
0.
22.
133.
775.
Ib2.
1.
1.
3*9.
1123.
317.
382.
10*.
391.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
^6^9.
26U8.
0.
?7?3.
'0.
0.
0.
*sni».
69M<«.
291 '.
lu«.
2^0.
753.
11212.
*6«9.
69715.
ico.
20 «2.
26*b.
?*71.
*7bJ.
10*5.
11.
la.
22.
1.
la.
u.
0.
1 1.
66.
5*9.
111.
1.
0.
3*1.
Sb8.
27«.
237.
63.
235.
0.
0.
0.
0.
u.
0.
0.
0.
TJ.
1V19.
*99S.
J*.
796.
US'*.
207i.
IVOV.
365.
r .
12.
22.
1.
U.
0.
0.
0.
r>.
322.
»>9.
0.
0.
23.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
MA« MATERIALS
ENERGY
• ATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID «AST£S
ATM EMUISSIONS
HATERBOMNC HASTES
POST-CONSUMEh SOL HASTE
POUNDS
MIL rtTlT
TMOU GAL
CUHIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
217676.
7956.
1585.
39**.
3*3*7.
6303.
298.
18616*.
703*.
1*16.
3367.
30303.
5539.
258.
165155.
6*09.
1308.
3015.
27397.
5026.
232.
11263*.
*862.
1030.
2085.
?0»*6.
37*0.
166.
60113
3316
7S J
11S6
13*1"*)
?*7]
100
7592.
22t>.
65*6.
158
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NiMC
MATf U[«L 1.00 1 F Ihf«
MATf Hl«t
LIMESTONE
ATESIAL IXOs ORE
• TtSUL SALT
ATlMIAl
ATfMAl
ATtBIA
»ieoi»
ATEHIA
Mt 0 "i T
tHtt>r,i
tNE»0>
GLASS SAND
NAT SUOA ASH
FELL. SPA?
BAUMTE 0«E
BWOCfcSS ADC
KOCtSS
RASSPuHT
t MflL R[Sl.U>.rK
•ATE* VOLUMt
UNITS
POUNDS
HOUNU
POUND
POUM
POUND
POUND
POUNli
POUNU
POUNDS
MU nTu
MIL HTU
MIL BTu
THOU TiAL
OUTPUTS FBu« SYSTEMS
NAME
Ol
VD
SOL ID «ASHS oi-OCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL CUMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOS PAHTKULATES
ATMOS NITHObFN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDHOCAWBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHEK OMdANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHE»IC CMLOMINE
HATErtBCRNt FLUOMIOES
•ATERBOHNE D1SS SOLIDS
HATERUORNE BOD
HATER80RNE PHFNOL
HATEPflOw'iE SuiFlnES
•ATERBORNF Olt
. AT£OrtOB:(f C:,',
HATCRbORNt SUSP SOLIDS
•ATER80RNE ACID
•ATERBOHNE METAL ION
•ATERHOHNE LHEMICALS
BATEH10RNE CYANIDE
•ATFHBOf/,t ALKALINITY
•ATfASORNE CHUOMIUM
HATERHUR'lE IHON
•ATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATER80RNE NICKEL
HATF180MME "thCUMY
HATE"BOt-NE LEAH
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POuNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUNO
POUNU
POUND
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUN1.
POUND
POUND
POUND
SUMMARY Of FNVHONMENTAL IMPACT^
«A« MATERIALS
ENFKOY
• ATF"
INnUSThUL SuLID HASTES
ATM FNMISMOXS
KATIRBORNE »ASTES
POS7-COIISUMF- SU, HASTE
PUUNUS
MIL HTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC M
• Oli'ltiS
POUNDS
fPHII. FT
M .-. 1 1 • T F
M|'«[N[
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oon
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
' !o*S
0.000
,094
0.000
.786
2.008
O.OOC
23*104
1.222
1 .645
.874
.903
.01")
.037
0.000
.001
0.000
.002
.000
0,000
0.000
.376
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.010
0.000
tl .000
0.000
o.ono
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0,000
1 .949
.094
.03*
f 1 . 8 0 (i
0.000
C'l-T K
S'MU
3^f L *i
O.OOC
0.000
c.ooo
» 1 1.40h
O.UOO
n.000
o.ooo
o.OOO
h.l-lft
J.t*»
0.000
,.502
9.6H8
80.485
0.000
2 . OS2
3.519
1.426
9.064
.451
.006
.000
0.000
.000
o.ooo
.000
.004
1.640
0.000
.281
.001
.000
.000
• 000
. (jijf
.001
.505
.12'
0 . 0 C 0
O.QOO
0.090
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
.000
.002
C * »- — .. £
O * "J X */• J S
0 — * (B C *> •£
c < — c »v *> v
I I«F
0.000
404.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0 . 0 1, 0
.01 >
'• . 9 '1 0
.05?
37.,- 10
.676
3.771
0.000
6.674
.342
.221
.923
.121
.001
.002
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
.046
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
c.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
40H.OOO
.492
.052
H.2**
J.OOO
PPiil'H IS
1 r-i L [Tf
XIFININ.
*»012 Ld
0 . 0 0 'J
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1M32.436
^rtO.h-,0
0.000
0 . o 0 0
'"'"
0.000
61.683
H793.742
0.000
72.138
31.404
20.021
74.0*3
5.851
.121
.119
0.000
.015
0.000
.000
.001
o.ooo
.981
5.836
3.300
.07S
.004
. 1 4~-
79. a /ri
.024
3.37K
.844
23.270
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7113.270
41 ,07u
1.73"
11. .551
203.71-^
117.71*
': . 0 '1 l'
'^ELTINO
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0 . guO
0.000
63.«70
0.000
O.OOC
33.979
174.794
354.117
964.142
0.000
1 03. 332
152.301
91.627
348.783
88.215
.294
.469
0.000
.001
2. .152
.000
.OOo
0.000
9.100
14.107
f.M4
.007
.00*
1.100
4. JS4
6.3*0
1 0 . <• 0 7
5.249
.476
.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
D.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
63.010
167.430
33.V79
2 1. ISt.
'Hl.jf.
M .6*1
O.'iOO
••L-LL l \o
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
92.276
0.000
0.000
15.685
25). 700
14.019
38.177
0.000
3.843
9.890
10.517
13.206
1.666
.025
.053
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
o.oot
0.000
1.856
.001
.000
.000
1S.«5H
.003
H.415
.731
.183
3.505
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
92.276
IS. 615
4.I30
1.000
Fib-l . A
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
72.302
0.000
0.000
.009
3.510
.705
1.919
U.OOO
.155
.414
24.138
.662
.066
.001
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.065
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.037
.00*
O.OliO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.302
.009
.HJ
2S.417
.11.'
0.000
BOQY
14*0 LH
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oco
51 .246
0.000
0.000
29.200
42.133
114.733
0.000
24.512
36.6K6
39.5T7
3. 877
,05H
.113
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.001
o.ooo
0.000
3.845
.002
.001
.001
.001
.009
.oo">
2.198
.Si.9
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooc
o.ooc
o.ooo
51.246
32.35B
/.•:\i
11..K7-.
6.611
0.100
» ILL I'.G
C.«R|f-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0. 000
o.ooo
J.Sfl?
1 .190
2, Q 0-
. jl J
135.43)-
a.7?8
31 .04*
0.000
12.204
9.961
11.402
5.275
.06A
.136
0.000
.006
0.000
.006
.000
0.000
0.000
2.224
.614
.001
.001
.263
• S3o
.1X3
.465
.116
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
1U231
.113
2 . .' 7 6
4?. 674
A .405
0.000
1^1 L fl
j?0.500
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.506
1,733
O.OCO
1 . 794
5.591
7.734
4.917
0.000
3 .565
1.240
.631
4.682
.531
.010
.013
.9711
.001
0.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
.301
2.4-,3
.000
.000
.000
.003
1.166
.066
.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
129.005
l.»43
1.79h
.246
4. VI16
0.000
TPA 'SP'J"
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
•l . 0 0 0
o.ooo
0.000
a. 067
0.090
• 44-
0.000
1.744
0.000
0.000
1 .21 *OM
0.000
o.oto
0.010
0.000
o.ooo
0.0*0
0.00*
0.000
6.000
1.627
.043
o.ooo
.160
1.800
1.732
4.5.4
-1.770
2.215
1.344
1.107
1.961
.243
.008
.009
0.000
.001
0.000
.0**
.000
0.00*
0.010
.314
.00*
.01*
.000
.000
.002
.IS)
.081
.012
0.000
.00*
.000
.too
.000
.0**
o.ooo
0.000
0.001
6.«*t
I.***
.16*
.10*
6.8*7
.587
-1.77*
-------
TABLK 64
lMI"u;['S FOK 1 TON OK EACH PROCESS FOR ALUMINUM SYSTKM
MINIM,
CAUSTIC BAUMTE ALUMINUM
SOOA MEFINING SM£LUN6
SYSTtM
ALUMINUM AUJ"!NUM ALUM
CAN BOOr CLOS>;Kf WiCrClF
FAB FtB
• • IAI «OOD FIHt w
*A U '* 1AL l^ON. UHf
"•ATt-JlAl SALT
K,AIF>- I AL 'I ASS SAN1'
"ATF»1AL NAT *0«* AS*
"A1ER1AL FH.n-.PAf
"ATI -'I AL HM'HI It u"t
"ATflAL PMlCt-SS AOU
F Nt-,'Y f«OCtSS
[\FWr.Y THANSPOHT
OF FNVlNONMt ,TAl IMPAi T <=
NA«*l
WA* MAHMIALb
r NFMUY
«ATFw
INDUSTRIAL SULin »ASTEb
AT* EMMISSIONS
• ATFOHO«;<[ .ASTtS
POST-CUNSI'MFB SOL KASTt
»IL i Tr
»li PT
MIL IP HASTFb BBOCEbS
S'lL I.) HASTtS FUEL COMH
soi ID VASTFS MINING
l-0l In HfcSTr PljST-CONSUM
nTMOS PA1.T KutATf S
-ITwOS NITfcUuEN OAIOES
ATMQS HYDBUCAKbUNS
ATMOb SULFUX OXIDES
ATMUS CAHHON MOMOX10E
..'-')-, Al (>t"YOf S
AT^OS OTHF-M UW(»ANIC^
dTMPs Ol'UF«UUS SUlFUP
AT"OS AXMONU
ATMOS HYDHUf.f.N FLOUMInE
ATMrtS Lf'A"
MTHn-, >4F ft uF v
ArnJs"HtF.IC CwLOuINt
.ATFUHOHNt F-LUIIMIPts
• ATfUHOXi.f I.Iib SOI lUb
KATC'RHOUNE HUD
• aTERMOB'.t PHENOL
. iTF W.'QP'IF SULF li^ S
• a TF ^MOUf.f OIL
• ATfl-BOPf.t '.USF- SOLluS
•ATFHHOPNt AGIO
.ATFJROPNE MtlAL ION
,«I>UM()~NF CMfMiCAL-.
• ATFwHU*.Nt CYANlDt
-ATFPHUW.-t AL'ALIMl*
• JTFtfSUhNt LH^OMlUM
VA1 1 MHOMNF INQN *
• ATtMBOPNfe MO£L
•ATFMMOHNE ^fnCU^Y
•afFPHUhNF LfAO
POUND
POUND
HOUND
CUBIC FT
PUIJNO
I'OuNI'
t.8UNO
POUNO
POUNO
P0i,"l
POUNU
POiiNh
^ OuNu
POUND
PIUNil
P0|.^.|;
POijNO
POl 'Nf
POUNf.
POUND
POUND
POl iNl1
POIlNH
POUND
POUND
POUNO
I-OIIND
POUNC
^OvjNI
^t)UNO
POUND
Pfil,NU
POjN'J
-•OHM.
TMOU (-AL
CUH1C FT
0.000
0.000
0.000
U.OOO
1.000
0 .000
o.aoo
(1.000
o.ouu
«s*«^
.O^H
0.000
. o1«?.000
0.000
O.OOU
0.000
O.UOO
J?.0^0
1 1 • 3* 3
.022
0.000
7.7BO
24.070
-.0.19*
417.0Z?
o.ooo
1 ') .ft 3*
IB. 596
7 »3fl"7
»6.96S
2.339
.013
.0.?
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.019
d.^00
0.000
l.obS
.003
.001
.00)
.001
.011
.007
2.618
.654
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.000
.01?
^174.050
18.36S
7.780
6.632
94.S15
4.763
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
i»0' .000
1*0.000
2" .474
a. ooo
0.000
.876
0.000
30.8*9
4383.720
o.ooo
35 . 96 1
lb.655
9 90 1
36.911
2.917
.061
.059
0.000
.001
0.000
.000
.001
0.000
.«H4
2.Y09
1 .64S
.037
.00<<
.07?
3*.U19
.012
1.684
.•21
1 1 .*00
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.300
0.000
0.000
3546.000
20.474
.87S.
59.597
101. S»3
SH.691
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
rn.ooo
1 *b. 827
0.000
o.ono
37.7|3
1.000
393.0/6
10'0.0»0
o.ooo
169.0 36
101 .695
3S7.10T
97.908
.3?6
.5?!
0.000
.001
^.nlO
.000
.00*
0.000
10. 100
15. 6*7
3.201
.007
.00-*
1 ,?20
4.543
7,u92
?n..<)is
b.«?«
.s/8
.011
o.'-OO
o.O'. o
0.000
0,01^
0.000
'j.OTO
o . o r- o
7 1.000
l»5.rt^7
17.71)
22.37!
873. »96
68. 691
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
c.ooo
0.000
0.000
o.oou
TH.200
11.9]^
0.000
il. 000
13.292
215.000
11.8B1
32.3S3
G.OOO
3 .2*7
0.362
6.912
ll.lxl
1.412
.021
.0»s
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
g.ooo
.000
o.ooo
0.000
1.S73
.001
.000
.000
13.100
.00?
7.1 )2
.620
.155
2.X70
0.000
O.COO
0.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0 . 0 1 II
0.000
7».?00
11. 9H
13.292
3.500
33.2?1
25.5S3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
70-^CO
4* . 326
0.000
0.000
1.2/i
* o.oou
57.716
157.168
0.000
33.578
C n OCC
~ 'J • C9T
5«.?I5
5.3U
.0"-
.!•>•>
0.000
0.001
u.3"'j
0.000
.301
0.000
0.000
5.2-.7
.90 )
.001
.001
.002
.012
.008
3.010
.7SJ
o.ooc
o.l)r, i
O.OIru
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
70.200
4».3i-<.
1.271
3.4»1
156.26'
9.056
0.000
0.100
-'1.0S6
0.000
• 77.70>.
d.OOO
•,.000
0.000
-19-. 971
^-•S.ftHl
? ' 3 . 7 J ' i
• . ». < 7
?".<-?-
'. 7,» ",
^ 1 ^.99^
'-<"'.8«0
1 l«3n.o«?
r.ooc
'"»',. »4P
<-*3.24l
';j.«.5a»
13--.511?
. 44Q
1 . V )9
0.000
.!<"'
^. '»4
.070
.01 .-
i .*<**
i I . rt>.
»'.S
i'67. 701
'i.OOO
o.ono
O.ouO
0. 000
1.000
0.600
0.1.00
ri.090
O.OOO
itll.Q&O
i ') .C .000
.ooc
.OOH
...I .'J
'. , 'lll'l
e , i i (1
. K. J
.- 1
.'. 1
.0 i?
."1 J
1 .CD1
,^T^
.145
o . or j
^ . -
,.t 13
U.OOO
•1.000
0.000
0 .000
o.ooo
o.ooo
-O.OOG
U..-C7
J.I^H
.7?-
4-.. -13
) . •> U'
-11.^00
160
-------
Table 63 summarizes all operations for 1 ton of cans. All the
operations and systems listed refer to the production of the can cylinder,
closure and associated packaging. It is clear that the steps of bauxite
refining and aluminum smelting dominate the environmental impact profile
of the aluminum can system.
Table 64 is a printout for 1 ton of product from each operation.
Its purpose is to convert raw data into environmental profiles for each
step. Data for 1 ton of each operation are presented in the following
sections of this chapter.
Table 62 compares the impacts for the conventional aluminum can
system with five hypothetical recycle levels. These are discussed in
Section H.
B. Bauxite Mining
Aluminum is the most widely distributed metal in the earth's
crust, with only the nonmetallic elements oxygen and silicon surpassing
it in abundance. However, bauxite ore is at the present time the only
commercially exploited source of aluminum. Although other types of earth,
including ordinary clay, contain aluminum, industry economics favor bauxite
as the preferred ore.
Bauxite is formed by the action of rain and erosion on materials
containing aluminum oxide (alumina). The heavy rainfall and warm tempera-
tures of the tropics provide the most nearly ideal conditions for this
process, and most of the world's bauxite is mined in these regions. Al-
though the United States is the world's largest consumer of bauxite,
nearly 90 percent of the bauxite used here is imported.
Most bauxite is mined by open-pit methods. In Jamaica, the lead-
ing producer of bauxite, the ore lies close to the surface, and only the
vegetation and topsoil need to be stripped. In Arkansas, the top domestic
producing region, open-pit mining is also used, with stripping ratios of
10 feet of overburden to 1 foot of ore considered minable. Underground
mining is employed at one location in Arkansas, and this method is the most
common in Europe.22.'
Table 65 presents the data relating to the mining of 1 ton of
bauxite ore, based on domestic data.
161
-------
TABLE 65
DATA FOR THE MINING OF 1 TON BAUXITE ORE
Source
Energy 89
Distillate 0.122 gal.
Residual 0.0737 gal.
Gasoline 0.194 gal.
Natural gas 398 cu ft
Electric 7.03 kwhr
Water Volume 15.7 gal. 90
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 6.7 Ib 52
Transportation 67,86
Truck 10 ton-miles
BargeS/ 950 ton-miles
a/ Domestic transportation of imported ore.
It is clear that the environmental impacts of bauxite raining are
relatively small. This is evident upon examination of Table 63 which indicates
that mining of bauxite accounts for quite low levels of impacts of the
aluminum can system.
Mining solid wastes which are often associated with ore mining
are not included here, but are instead counted in the refining operation,
where they show up either as suspended solids in wastewater effluents or as
solid wastes.
C. Caustic Soda Manufacture
The refining of bauxite ore to alumina employs strong caustic
soda solutions. The major raw material for caustic soda is salt, and it
is assumed here that this is obtained by the mining of rock salt. Rock
salt mines are widely distributed throughout the United States, with 17
states reporting production in 1969.— '
Data pertaining to the mining of 1 ton of rock salt are presented
in Table 66.
162
-------
TABLE 66
DATA FOR THE MINING OF 1 TON RO(X SALT
Energy
Residual
Gasoline
Natural gas
Electric
Water Volume
Mining Wastes
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Source
84
0.11 gal.
0.01 gal.
168 cu ft
85 kwhr
521 gal.
262 Ib
300 ton-miles
50 ton-miles
84
68
68
Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) is manufactured from salt by an
electrolytic process. The aqueous sodium hydroxide solution is electrolyzed
to produce caustic soda, chlorine, and hydrogen gas. The chlorine and caus-
tic soda each account for about half the output of the process, with hydrogen
amounting to only 1 percent by weight. Therefore, half the impacts of the
process are allocated to chlorine production and half to caustic soda pro-
duction. The chlorine is a useful product in other manufacturing processes,
so its impacts are not included in the aluminum can system. The impacts al-
located to caustic soda manufacture are presented in Table 67.
163
-------
TABLE 67
DATA FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF 1.000 POUNDS CAUSTIC SODA
Virgin Raw Materials
Salt
Process additives
Energy - Electric
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process atmospheric emissions
Chlorine
Mercury
Waterborne Wastes
Lead
Mercury
Dissolved solids
1,071 Ib
16 Ib
722 kwhr
3,475 gal.
12 Ib
4.25 Ib
0.009 Ib
0.006 Ib
0.00013 Ib
0.2 Ib
Source
12,68
12,68
11
68
68
68
68
D. Refining of Alumina
Before it can be used in the manufacture of metallic aluminum,
bauxite ore must be refined to nearly pure aluminum oxide, A1203, usually
called alumina. The method used to accomplish this is called the Bayer
process, which is used almost exclusively. The bauxite is crushed and dis-
solved in digesters, using strong caustic soda and lime solutions. The un-
dissolved residue, known as red mud, is filtered out and constitutes a major
disposal problem for alumina refiners. Sodium aluminate remains in solution,
where it is hydrolyzed and precipitated as aluminum hydroxide, which is then
calcined to alumina, generally in a rotary kiln.
The data for bauxite refining (Table 63) indicate that solid
wastes constitute the largest part of the environmental profile. This
category consists largely of mining wastes, the roughly 45 percent of
bauxite that is discarded after the sodium aluminate is removed in solution.
The manner in which wastes are handled determines whether they show up as
waterborne wastes or as solid wastes. If these red muds are simply discharged
into a river, they are of course a major water pollutant. However, we have
assumed that in the near future, all of these wastes will be impounded in
settling ponds, where they end up as solid wastes on land. The figures used in
164
-------
the present study are based on data reflecting this assumed future practice.
Current industry projections call for reductions of as much as 97 percent
in the waterborne wastes of alumina plants by mid-1975 '
Impact data for alumina refining are presented in Table 68.
TABLE 68
DATA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1 TON OF REFINED ALUMINA
Virgin Raw Materials
Bauxite
Other
Energy
Coal
Distillate
Residual
Natural gas
Electric
Water Volume
Mining Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Chemicals
Fluorides
Oil and grease
Phenols
Transportation
Rail
Barge
Truck
3,046 Ib
140 Ib
0.140 ton
6.56 gal.
12.2 gal.
5,400 cu ft
700 kwhr
479 gal.
3,722 Ib
24.4 Ib
1.64 Ib
39.8 Ib
11.6 Ib
0.489 Ib
0.0698 Ib
0.0356 Ib
600 ton-miles
600 ton-miles
68 ton-miles
Source
35,97
83
68
68
52
70,71,74,76
68
144
165
-------
E. Aluminum Smelting
The reduction of refined alumina to metallic aluminum results in
the largest environmental impact of any process in the production of aluminum
cans. When both the can body and the top are considered, smelting operations
lead all other subsystems in three of the seven categories.
The principal cause of the high environmental impacts associated
with aluminum smelting is the high consumption of electrical energy required
to effect the separation of aluminum from its oxide. The process is carried
out in a long series of electrolytic cells, carrying direct current. The
alumina is dissolved in a molten bath of cryolite and aluminum fluoride.
Carbon anodes carry the current to the solution, and a carbon cathode lining
carries the current out of the solution and on to the next cell. The anodes
are consumed during the reaction at a rate of approximately 0.75 ton of mate-
rial per ton of aluminum produced. The principal products of the reaction
are carbon dioxide, which is evolved as a gas, and elemental aluminum which
settles to the bottom of the cell and is periodically drained off.
Although there are significant pollution problems at the smelter
site, most of the impacts in the categories of atmospheric emissions, water-
borne wastes, and solid wastes result from the generation of electricity
and the mining of coal for fuel in electrical generation. It is clear,
therefore, that the extremely high electrical requirement is the overriding
environmental concern in aluminum smelting operations.
The emission factors for electrical generation--which are used for
every system in this study--are based on a national average mix of fuels for
electrical generation, including hydroelectric power. It is true that the
aluminum industry uses a relatively high proportion of hydroelectric power.
It is our judgment, however, that a study such as this should not distinguish
between different "kinds" of kilowatt hours, since if the hydroelectric power
were not used by the aluminum industry, it would be available as an alterna-
tive to power generated with fossil fuels. In cases where electricity is
generated by the aluminum companies for captive use in their plants, the
power is not included in the electrical energy category. Rather, the fuels
used to generate that power are included separately; and, in this latter
case of self-generated power, full credit is given for hydroelectric genera-
tion to the extent it occurs.
The primary pollution problem at the smelter site is fluoride
emissions from the cryolite baths. These occur as both particulate and
gaseous atmospheric emissions, and as waterborne wastes. Carbon monoxide,
while constituting a greater weight percent of the emissions, is of a lower
order of toxicity and of secondary concern to smelter operators.
166
-------
A newly developed process is said to be able to produce aluminum
with about 30 percent less power, while eliminating fluoride emissions al-
together. It would still use an electrolytic process, but the alumina would
first be converted to aluminum chloride. The products of the electrolysis
would be molten aluminum and chlorine, which would then be reused in the
chlorination step. Although the new process appears to hold promise for the
long run, there is not indication that it will have a significant effect on
the industry's practices in the foreseeable future.—'
The data used in calculating the environmental impacts of aluminum
smelting are presented in Table 69.
TABLE 69
DATA FOR THE SMELTING OF 1 TON OF ALUMINUM
Source
Virgin Raw Materials^'
Process additives 70 Ib 35
Energy 83
Distillate 0.465 gal.
Residual 1.37 gal.
Natural gas 40,000 cu ft
Electric 12,800 kwhr
Water Volume 34,800 gal. 76
Solid Wastes 194 Ib 58,68
Atmospheric Emissions 76
Particulates 30.6 Ib
HF gas 2.61 Ib
SOY 18.8 Ib
A.
Hydrocarbons 4.19 Ib
CO 75.0 Ib
NOY 1.36 Ib
X
Waterborne Wastes 76
Suspended Solids 7.04 Ib
Fluorides 10.1 Ib
BOD 3.18 Ib
COD 4.46 Ib
Cyanide 0.0107 Ib
Ammonia 0.528 Ib
Metal ions 0.702 Ib
Oil and grease 1.21 Ib
a_/ Coke and pitch production, for anode manufacture, is counted as a
separate system. See data for refinery products in Chapter III.
167
-------
F. Aluminum Rolling
Aluminum ingots from the smelter, along with some new scrap alum-
inum, are processed by rolling mills into aluminum alloy sheet. The alloy-
ing materials, mainly magnesium, are assumed to be added at the rate of less
than 2 percent of the material input. The scrap used here is not postcon-
sumer scrap, but is industrial scrap, usually from can fabricating plants.
The post-consumer scrap considered in the recycle options in Section I is
in addition to the new scrap normally used in conventional aluminum cans.
Table 70 contains the data for rolling 1 ton of sheet for use in aluminum
can bodies and tops.
TABLE 70
DATA FOR THE ROLLING OF 1 TON ALUMINUM SHEET
Source
Virgin Raw Materials
Process Additives
(alloying materials and
lubricating oils)
Energy
Natural Gas
Electricity
Water Volume
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Solid Wastes
68
78.2 Ib
7,020 cu ft
387 kwhr
13,100 gal.
0.594 Ib
215 Ib
68
68
52
68
Waterborne Wastes
Suspended Solids
Phosphates
Oils and Grease
7.13 Ib
2.97 Ib
13.1 Ib
68
Transportation
Rail
Truck
68
1,420 ton-miles
12.5 ton-miles
168
-------
G. Can Fabrication
The aluminum can body, which forms the sides and bottom of the
container, is drawn from a single piece of aluminum sheet. The can top,
also made from aluminum sheet, does not have to be drawn, and its fabrica-
tion therefore requires substantially less energy than does the can body.
The can top and can body are not joined at the fabricating plant, but rather
at the filling plant, after the beverage is in the can.
Tables 71 and 72 contain the basic data for the fabrication of
the aluminum can body and top, respectively.
TABLE 71
DATA FOR THE FABRICATION OF 1 TON ALUMINUM CAN BODIES
Virgin Raw Materials
Process additives 70.2 Ib
Packaging 121 Ib
Energy
Natural gas 21,600 cu ft
Electricity 1,880 kwhr
Water Volume 563 gal.
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 19.8 Ib
Solid Wastes 40 Ib
Transportation
Truck 110 ton-miles
Rail 97 ton-miles
Barge 11 ton-miles
Source: 68
169
-------
TABLE 72
DATA FOR THE FABRICATION OF 1 TON ALUMINUM CLOSURES
Virgin Raw Materials
Process Additives 82.6 Ib
Packaging H.6 Ib
Energy
Natural Gas 1,000 cu ft
Electricity 85 kwhr
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 88 Ib
Solid Wastes 13 Ib
Source: 68
H. Recycle Options
Considerable environmental gains can be made by using recycled
aluminum as opposed to virgin aluminum used in a product. Table 73 sum-
marizes the environmental data for a secondary smelter recycling aluminum
cans. Included are operations for shredding and transporting the cans to
a smelter as well as smelter data. A credit is given for the removal of
the cans from the solid waste stream.
Two important assumptions have been made which make this recycling
profile more favorable to aluminum recycling than for other situations. One
assumption is that the cans are carried back to a grocery store and further
carried on to processors by backhaul trucks. Thus, the cans are assumed
to ride "piggy back" on transportation already occurring for another purpose.
For voluntary collection centers where cars may be driven long distances for
the sole purpose of delivering cans, this is not true. Some details con-
cerning this possibility can be found in Volume I.
The second assumption is that the scrap recycled is "clean" cans.
If significant impurities and alloying materials are present in aluminum
scrap, then the impacts of smelting are greater. Highly corrosive and
environmentally damaging materials such as chlorine may be required, as
well as higher energy requirements. Much more serious air pollution can
result, as well as considerably more solid waste. Thus, the recycling
options considered here probably represent a "most favorable" situation
for aluminum recycling.
170
-------
TABLE 73
DATA FOR RECYCLING ONE TON ALUMINUM FROM CLEAN SCRAP
Materials
Fluxes
Energy
Distillate
Residual
Natural gas
Electricity^/
Water
Industrial Solid Wastes
b/
Post-Consumer Solid Waste-
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
Suspended Solids
Transportation
Rail
40 Ib
5.7 gal.
5.3 gal.
4,651 cu ft
360 kwhr
800 gal.
12 Ib
-2,000 Ib
12 Ib
1 Ib
500 ton-miles
ji/ Includes 250 kwhr for shredding cans.
_b/ This represents 2,000 Ibs of cans removed from the solid waste stream.
Source: 68,83
171
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Bashforth, G. Reginald, The Manufacture of Iron and Steel, London,
Chapman and Hall, Limited, 1964.
2. Beychok, M. R., Aqueous Wastes From Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants,
London, John Wiley and Sons, 1967.
3. Craft, B. C., W. R. Holden, and E. D. Graves, Jr., Well Design: Dril-
ling and Production, Prentice-Hall, 1962.
4. Faith, W. L., and A. Atkisson, Jr., Air Pollution, Second Edition,
New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1972.
5. Faith, W. L., D. B. Keys, and Ronald L. Clark, Industrial Chemicals,
3rd Edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1965.
6. Gould, R. F., Ed., "Refining Petroleum for Chemicals," Advances in
Chemistry Series No. 97, Washington, D. C., American Chemical Society
Publication, 1970.
7. Hahn, Albert V. G., The Petrochemical Industry Market and Economics.
New York, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
8. Hougen, Olaf A., Kenneth J. Watson, and Roland A. Ragatz, Chemical
Process Principles, Part 1, 2nd Ed., New York, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1959.
9. Nelson, W. L., Ed., Petroleum Refining Engineering, 4th Edition, New
York, McGraw-Hill, 1958.
10. Nemerow, Nelson L., Liquid Waste of Industry, Theories, Practices, and
Treatment, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley, 1971.
11. Ross, Steven, Environmental Regulation Handbook, Environment Informa-
tion Center, Inc., 1973.
12. Shreve, N., and R. Norris, Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Edition,
New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
172
-------
Encyclopedias
13. "Acrylonitrile," Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, Vol. 1,
1964.
14. "Iron," Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 2nd Edition,
Vol. 13, 1963.
15. "Lime and Limestone," Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
2nd Edition, Vol. 12, 1963.
16. "Sodium Carbonate," Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
2nd Edition, Vol. 1, 1963.
Journals or Magazines
17. "Alcoa Unveils New Process," New York Times. January 12, 1973.
18. Chemical Engineering. December 14, 1970.
19. Chemical Marketing Reporter. January 8, 1973.
20. Collins, Gene, "Oil and Gas Wells - Potential Pollutants of the Environ-
ment," Journal WPCF. December 1971.
21. Eckenfelder, W. W., and J. L. Barnard, "Treatment-Cost Relationship
for Industrial Wastes," Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 67,
No. 9, September 1971.
22. Elkin, H. F., and R. A. Constable, "Source-Control of Air Emissions,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. October 1972.
23. "Ethylene," Chemical Week, October 23, 1965.
24. Hatch, L. F., "A Chemical View of Refining," Hydrocarbon Processing.
February 1969.
25. "Forecast/Review," The Oil and Gas Journal.. January 29, 1973.
26. Hatch, L. F., "A Chemical View of Refining," Hydrocarbon Processing.
February 1969.
27. Hydrocarbon Processing. September 1971.
28. Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1971.
173
-------
29. Kennedy, J. L., "Lone Star's Deep Hunton Test Headed for 29,000 Feet,"
The Oil and Gas Journal, May 28, 1973.
30. Kulperger, R. J., "Company Treats Its Own, Other Wastes," Water and
Wastes Engineering. November 1972.
31. "Modern Plastics Special Report," Modern Plastics, April 1973.
32. Moores, C. W., "Wastewater Biotreatment: What It Can and Cannot Do,"
Chemical Engineering. December 25, 1972.
33. Rothman, S. N., "Ethylene Plant Optimization," Chemical Engineering
Progress, June 1970.
34. Somner, H. H., Chemical Engineering Progress, 1960.
35. "The Story of Aluminum," The Aluminum Association, p. 13.
36. "Unique System Solves Plastic Problem," Water and Wastes Engineering,
June 1973.
37. Vincent, B. F., Jr., J. D. Idol, Jr., J. T. Duck, L. J. Kiest, and
C. L. Blanchard, "Barex 210 Resin, A New Transparent Barrier Resin,"
Plastics in Packaging, Society of Plastics Engineers, 1969.
38. Wett, Teil, "Petrochemical Report," Oil and Gas Journal, March 12, 1973,
Reports
39. "A Cost Analysis of Air Pollution Controls in the Integrated Iron and
Steel Industry," Thomas M. Barnes and H. W. Lownies, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Contract No. PH-22-68-65, May 1969.
40. "Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries, A Guide for Measure-
ment and Control," United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Report No. 763, 1960.
41. "Coal, Proceedings of the First Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,"
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, 1969.
42. "Coal Refuse Fires an Environmental Hazard," United States Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Circular 8515.
43. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,'r R. L. Duprey, United
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center
for Air Pollution Control, Durham, North Carolina, 1968.
174
-------
44. "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors," United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, EPA Report No. AP-42, 1972.
45. "Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for Bauxite Refining...," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1973.
46. "Disposal of Polymer Solid Wastes by Primary Polymer Producers and
Plastics Fabricators," United States Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Contract No. PH-86-68-160, 1972.
47. "Environmental Impacts of Polystyrene Foam and Molded Pulp Meat Trays,"
W. E. Franklin and R. G. Hunt, Midwest Research Institute, Report
for the Mobil Chemical Company, Macedon, New York, 1972.
48. "Environmental Effects of Recycling Paper," R. G. Hunt and W. E.
Franklin, presented at the 73rd National Meeting of American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, August 27-30, 1972, Minneapolis,
revised July 9, 1973.
49. "Environmental Steel," The Council on Economic Priorities, New York,
1973.
50. "Interim Effluent Limitation Guidance for the Plastics and Synthetic
Materials Industry," EPA Office of Permit Programs, March 19, 1973.
51. "Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes," Volume on Liquid Wastes,
American Petroleum Institute, 1969.
52. "Particulate Pollutant System Study," Vol. Ill, Air Pollution Control
Office, Durham, North Carolina, 1971.
53. "Petroleum Effluent Treatment Practices," United States Department of
the Interior, FWPCA, 1970.
54. "Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs in the Organic Chemical Industry,"
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
55. "Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes," United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1972.
56. "Subsurface Disposal of Industrial Wastes," Interstate Oil Compact
Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1968.
175
-------
57. "Technoeconomic Analysis of Mining and Milling Wastes," IIT Research
Institute, IITRI Project No. G-6027, Special Report, May 29, 1969.
58. l'The Cost of Clean Water," Vol. Ill, United States Department of the
Interior, FWPCA Publication No. IWP-1, Blast Furnaces and Steel
Mills, 1967.
59. Ibid., FWPCA Publication No. IWP-5, Petroleum Refining.
60. Ibid., FWPCA Publication No. IWP-10, Plastics Materials and Resins.
61. "The Integrated Iron and Steel Industry Air Pollution Problem,"
Cincinnati, Ohio: Timothy W. Dewitt, United States Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Air Pollution
Control, Durham, North Carolina, 1968.
62. "The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel," United States Steel
Corporation, 1964.
63. "Transportation Air Pollutant Emissions Handbook," Argonne National
Laboratory, 1972.
64. "Treatment of Wastewater from the Production of Polyhydric Organics,"
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
65. "Underground Coal Mining in the United States," TRW Systems Group,
Prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, 1970.
66. "Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery Demonstration Plant," City of Franklin,
Ohio, Interim Report, 1972.
Unpublished Material and Private Sources
67. Hannon, Bruce, Unpublished Draft Report, Center for Advanced Computa-
tions, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, September 1972.
68. Midwest Research Institute, Private Data Used for Estimates. This in-
cludes data submitted to us by industries for use in this study.
69. Midwest Research Institute, Unpublished Report Prepared for the
President's Council on Environmental Quality.
176
-------
70. Texas Air Control Board, 1970 Emissions Data, Self Reporting System,
Nonpublished data.
71. Texas Water Quality Board, Wastewater Effluent Report, 1972, Unpublished
data extracted from Self-Reporting-Data, submitted by companies
located in Texas, to the TWQB.
72. The Plastic Beer Bottle, Edison Technical Services, Inc.
73. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Unpublished Records on
Industrial Pollutants, Dallas, Texas, 1973.
74. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Refuse Act Discharge
Permit Applications.
75. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago,
Personal Communication, 1974.
76. Washington State Department of Ecology, Unpublished Data, 1973.
Yearbooks
77. American Iron and Steel Institute, Annual Statistical Report. 1971.
78. Edison Electric Institute, Statistical Yearbook for 1970.
79. Interstate Commerce Commission, Carload Waybill Statistics. 1966, State-
ment SS-2. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
80- Interstate Commerce Commission, Transport Statistics in the United
States, Part 7, 1969, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
81. United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterborne
Commerce of the United States, 1966, San Francisco, California, U.S.
Army Engineer Division, Corps of Engineers.
82• Ibid.. National Summaries. Tables 2 and 3.
83. United States Department of Commerce, Census of Manufactures, 1967,
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
84- United States Department of Commerce, Census of Mineral Industries.
1967. Tables 3, 6, and 7, Washington, D.C., Government Printing
Office.
177
-------
85 • Ibid. , Water Use in Mining. Table 1-A.
86. ibid., 1963, Volume I.
87. United States Department of Commerce, Census of Transportation, 1967
"Commodity Transportation Survey," Washington, D.C.; Government
Printing Office.
il- , Volume II.
88 '
89. United States Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 1970, Tables 823 and 826, Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office.
90- United States Department of the Interior, Mineral Facts and Problems,
1965. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
91. Ibid., 1970.
92. United States Department of the Interior, Mineral Industry Surveys,
1971. "Crude Petroleum, Petroleum Products and Natural Gas-Liquids,"
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1972.
93. Ibid. . "Natural Gas Production and Consumption."
9^- Jbid., "Petroleum Refineries in the United States and Puerto Rico."
95- United States Department of the Interior, Minerals Yearbook, 1966,
Vol. I-II, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
96. ibid., 1969.
97. Ibid. , 1970.
JJ01066
178
------- |