Energy Star
Energy Star is a United States government program to promote energy efficient consumer products. It is well known for its logo appearing on many computer products and peripherals, though on many European-targeted products, TCO Certification, a combined energy usage and ergonomics rating from the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO), is used instead.
History
The Energy Star program was created in 1992 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission by power plants. The program was developed by John S. Hoffman, inventor of the Green Programs at US EPA, and implemented by Cathy Zoi and Brian Johnson. The program was intended to be part of a series of voluntary programs, such as Green Lights and the Methane Programs, that would demonstrate the potential for profit in reducing greenhouse gases and facilitate further steps to reducing global warming gases.
It began as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy efficient products, and computer products were the first to be labeled. It has since expanded to major appliances, office equipment, lighting, home electronics, and more.[1] The label can also be found on some new homes and commercial and industrial buildings.
The EPA estimates that it saved about $12 billion in energy costs in 2005 alone.[2] Energy Star has been a driving force behind the more widespread use of LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use.
Specifications
A new Energy Star specification for desktop computers went into effect 20 July 2007.[3] The requirements are more stringent than the previous specification and existing equipment designs can no longer use the logo unless re-qualified. The power requirements are for 80% or greater AC power supply efficiency using the standards defined by 80 Plus Program. [4]
See also
One Watt Initiative
Power management
E-waste
Green energy
House Energy Rating (Australia)
European Union energy label
External links
Official Energy Star web site
Energy Star computer specifications
Energy Star Australia
Energy Star Canada
Energy Consumption Calculator
Energy Star entry at Ecolabelling.org
Ward 49 of the City of Chicago includes most of Rogers Park and parts of West Ridge.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and with safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. The EPA began operation on December 2, 1970, when it was established by President Richard Nixon. It is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the President of the United States. The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the Administrator is normally given cabinet rank. The current Administrator (as of 2007) is Stephen L. Johnson, and the current Deputy Administrator is Marcus Peacock. The agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees.[1]
Overview
EPA comprises 17,000 people in headquarters program offices, 10 regional offices, and 27 laboratories across the country. More than half of its staff are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and computer specialists.
The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the primary responsibility for setting and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and Native American tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures.
The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
History
On July 9, 1970, Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent, agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which harm human health and degrade the environment. The EPA was assigned the task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner, safer America.
Programs
Energy Star
In 1992 the EPA launched the Energy Star program, a voluntary program that fosters energy efficiency; in 2006 EPA launched WaterSense to similarly foster water efficiency. EPA also administers the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (which is much older than the agency) and registers all pesticides legally sold in the United States. It is also responsible for reviewing projects of other federal agencies' Environmental Impact Statements under NEPA.
Fuel economy testing and results
American automobile manufacturers are required to use EPA fuel economy test results to advertise the gas mileage of their vehicles, and the manufacturers are disallowed from providing results from alternate sources. The fuel economy is calculated using the emissions data collected during two of the vehicle's Clean Air Act certification tests, by measuring the total volume of carbon captured from the exhaust during the test. This calculated fuel economy is then adjusted downward by 10% city and 22% highway to compensate for changes in driving conditions since 1972.
The current testing system was developed in 1972, and is a simulation of rush-hour Los Angeles of that era. Prior to 1984, the EPA did not adjust the fuel economy downward, and instead used the exact fuel economy figures calculated from the test. In December 2006, the EPA finalized new test methods to improve fuel economy and emission estimates, which would take effect with model year 2008 vehicles[3], setting the precedent of a 12 year review cycle on the test procedures.
As of the 2000s, most motor vehicle users report significantly lower real-world fuel economy than the EPA rating; this problem is most evident in hybrid vehicles. This is mainly because of drastic changes in typical driving habits and conditions which have occurred in the decades since the tests were implemented. For example, the average speed of the 1972 "highway" test is a mere 48 mph, with a top speed of 60 mph. It is expected that when the 2008 test methods are implemented, city estimates for non-hybrid cars will drop by 10-20%, city estimates for hybrid cars will drop by 20-30%, and highway estimates for all cars will drop by 5-15%[3]. The new methods include factors such as high speeds, aggressive accelerations, air conditioning use and driving in cold temperatures.
In February 2005, the organization launched a program called "Your MPG" that allows drivers to add real-world fuel economy statistics into a database on the EPA's fuel economy website and compare them with others and the original EPA test results.
Air quality and air pollution
The Air Quality Modeling Group (AQMG) is in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and provides leadership and direction on the full range of air quality models, air pollution dispersion models[4][5] and other mathematical simulation techniques used in assessing pollution control strategies and the impacts of air pollution sources.
The AQMG serves as the focal point on air pollution modeling techniques for other EPA headquarters staff, EPA regional Offices, and State and local environmental agencies. It coordinates with the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) on the development of new models and techniques, as well as wider issues of atmospheric research. Finally, the AQMG conducts modeling analyses to support the policy and regulatory decisions of the EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
The AQMG is located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Oil Pollution Prevention
SPCC - Spill Prevention Containment and Counter Measures. Secondary Containment mandated at oil storage facilities. Oil release containment at oil development sites.
Libraries
In 2004, the Agency began a strategic planning exercise to develop plans for a more virtual approach to library services. The effort was curtailed in July 2005 when the Agency proposed a $2.5 million cut in its 2007 budget for libraries. Based on the proposed 2007 budget, the EPA posted a notice to the Federal Register, September 20, 2006 that EPA Headquarters Library would close its doors to walk-in patrons and visitors on October 1, 2006.[6]
The EPA has also closed three of its regional libraries and reduced hours in others, [7] using the same FY 2007 proposed budget numbers.
Controversies
DDT ban
In 1972 the EPA banned DDT because of its "unreasonable adverse effects on man and the environment."[8] Studies in the intervening years have demonstrated that while its acute effects on humans and primates are mild at worst, DDT and its degradants have a very heavy impact on aquatic life and the avian populations which feed on them.[9]
Mercury emissions
In March 2005, nine states, California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont, sued the EPA. The EPA's inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.[10][11] The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls[12]. The suit alleges that the EPA's rule allowing exemption from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of pollution credit trading allows power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions.[13] Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. In one of the most stringent examples, Illinois' proposed rule would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009, with no trading allowed.[14]
Global warming
In June 2005, a memo revealed Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before their release.[15]
Cooney resigned two days after the memo was published in The New York Times. Cooney said he had been planning to resign for over two years, implying the timing of his resignation was just a coincidence. Specifically, he said he had planned to resign to "spend time with his family."[16] One week after resigning he took a job at Exxon Mobil in their public affairs department. [17]
Greenhouse gas emissions
The Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA has the authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in automobile emissions, stating that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act capacious definition of air pollutant." The court also stated that the EPA must regulate in this area unless it is able to provide a scientific reason for not doing so.[18]
Fuel economy
In July 2005, an EPA report showing that auto companies were using loopholes to produce less fuel-efficient cars was delayed. The report was supposed to be released the day before a controversial energy bill was passed and would have provided backup for those opposed to it, but at the last minute the EPA delayed its release.[19]
Very fine airborne particulates
Tiny particles, under 2.5 micrometres, are attributed to health and mortality concerns[20] so some health advocates want EPA to regulate it. The science may be in its infancy although many conferences have discussed the trails of this airborne matter in the air. Foreign governments like Australia and most EU states have addressed this issue.
The EPA first established standards in 1997, and strengthened them in 2006. As with other standards, regulation and enforcement of the PM2.5 standards is the responsibility of the state governments, through State Implementation Plans.[21]
Review of air quality standards
Since its inception the EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on nonscience personnel. EPA has recently changed their policies regarding limits for ground-level ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead. New policies will minimize scientist interaction in this process and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge. This new policy has been criticized by Democrats.[22]
EPA offices
Each EPA regional office is responsible within its states for implementing the Agency's programs, except those programs that have been specifically delegated to states.
Each regional office also implements programs on Indian Tribal lands, except those programs delegated to Tribal authorities.
List of EPA administrators
Related legislation
The legislation here is general environmental protection legislation, and may also apply to other units of the government, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
Air
Water
Land
Endangered species
Hazardous waste
See also
Acid mine drainage
Air pollution
American Heritage Rivers
AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
Atmospheric dispersion modeling
BioWatch
Category:Air dispersion modeling
List of waste management companies
List of waste management topics
List of solid waste treatment technologies
List of Superfund sites in the United States
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Renewable energy
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Wise Use Movement
External links
US EPA Glossary
Environmental Protection Agency
Articles and documents from EPA's development 1970-
The environmental statutes for which EPA has primary responsibility
www.fueleconomy.gov
Collected Papers of William Sanjour, a retired EPA employee and whistleblower
Current 40 CFR Books in Digital Format
High Court Rules Against White House on Emissions, Breaking Legal News, April 2, 2007
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and with safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. The EPA began operation on December 2, 1970, when it was established by President Richard Nixon. It is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the President of the United States. The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the Administrator is normally given cabinet rank. The current Administrator (as of 2007) is Stephen L. Johnson, and the current Deputy Administrator is Marcus Peacock. The agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees.[1]
Overview
EPA comprises 17,000 people in headquarters program offices, 10 regional offices, and 27 laboratories across the country. More than half of its staff are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and computer specialists.
The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the primary responsibility for setting and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and Native American tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures.
The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
History
On July 9, 1970, Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent, agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which harm human health and degrade the environment. The EPA was assigned the task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner, safer America.
Programs
Energy Star
In 1992 the EPA launched the Energy Star program, a voluntary program that fosters energy efficiency; in 2006 EPA launched WaterSense to similarly foster water efficiency. EPA also administers the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (which is much older than the agency) and registers all pesticides legally sold in the United States. It is also responsible for reviewing projects of other federal agencies' Environmental Impact Statements under NEPA.
Fuel economy testing and results
American automobile manufacturers are required to use EPA fuel economy test results to advertise the gas mileage of their vehicles, and the manufacturers are disallowed from providing results from alternate sources. The fuel economy is calculated using the emissions data collected during two of the vehicle's Clean Air Act certification tests, by measuring the total volume of carbon captured from the exhaust during the test. This calculated fuel economy is then adjusted downward by 10% city and 22% highway to compensate for changes in driving conditions since 1972.
The current testing system was developed in 1972, and is a simulation of rush-hour Los Angeles of that era. Prior to 1984, the EPA did not adjust the fuel economy downward, and instead used the exact fuel economy figures calculated from the test. In December 2006, the EPA finalized new test methods to improve fuel economy and emission estimates, which would take effect with model year 2008 vehicles[3], setting the precedent of a 12 year review cycle on the test procedures.
As of the 2000s, most motor vehicle users report significantly lower real-world fuel economy than the EPA rating; this problem is most evident in hybrid vehicles. This is mainly because of drastic changes in typical driving habits and conditions which have occurred in the decades since the tests were implemented. For example, the average speed of the 1972 "highway" test is a mere 48 mph, with a top speed of 60 mph. It is expected that when the 2008 test methods are implemented, city estimates for non-hybrid cars will drop by 10-20%, city estimates for hybrid cars will drop by 20-30%, and highway estimates for all cars will drop by 5-15%[3]. The new methods include factors such as high speeds, aggressive accelerations, air conditioning use and driving in cold temperatures.
In February 2005, the organization launched a program called "Your MPG" that allows drivers to add real-world fuel economy statistics into a database on the EPA's fuel economy website and compare them with others and the original EPA test results.
Air quality and air pollution
The Air Quality Modeling Group (AQMG) is in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and provides leadership and direction on the full range of air quality models, air pollution dispersion models[4][5] and other mathematical simulation techniques used in assessing pollution control strategies and the impacts of air pollution sources.
The AQMG serves as the focal point on air pollution modeling techniques for other EPA headquarters staff, EPA regional Offices, and State and local environmental agencies. It coordinates with the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) on the development of new models and techniques, as well as wider issues of atmospheric research. Finally, the AQMG conducts modeling analyses to support the policy and regulatory decisions of the EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
The AQMG is located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Oil Pollution Prevention
SPCC - Spill Prevention Containment and Counter Measures. Secondary Containment mandated at oil storage facilities. Oil release containment at oil development sites.
Libraries
In 2004, the Agency began a strategic planning exercise to develop plans for a more virtual approach to library services. The effort was curtailed in July 2005 when the Agency proposed a $2.5 million cut in its 2007 budget for libraries. Based on the proposed 2007 budget, the EPA posted a notice to the Federal Register, September 20, 2006 that EPA Headquarters Library would close its doors to walk-in patrons and visitors on October 1, 2006.[6]
The EPA has also closed three of its regional libraries and reduced hours in others, [7] using the same FY 2007 proposed budget numbers.
Controversies
DDT ban
In 1972 the EPA banned DDT because of its "unreasonable adverse effects on man and the environment."[8] Studies in the intervening years have demonstrated that while its acute effects on humans and primates are mild at worst, DDT and its degradants have a very heavy impact on aquatic life and the avian populations which feed on them.[9]
Mercury emissions
In March 2005, nine states, California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont, sued the EPA. The EPA's inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.[10][11] The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls[12]. The suit alleges that the EPA's rule allowing exemption from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of pollution credit trading allows power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions.[13] Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. In one of the most stringent examples, Illinois' proposed rule would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009, with no trading allowed.[14]
Global warming
In June 2005, a memo revealed Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before their release.[15]
Cooney resigned two days after the memo was published in The New York Times. Cooney said he had been planning to resign for over two years, implying the timing of his resignation was just a coincidence. Specifically, he said he had planned to resign to "spend time with his family."[16] One week after resigning he took a job at Exxon Mobil in their public affairs department. [17]
Greenhouse gas emissions
The Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA has the authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in automobile emissions, stating that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act capacious definition of air pollutant." The court also stated that the EPA must regulate in this area unless it is able to provide a scientific reason for not doing so.[18]
Fuel economy
In July 2005, an EPA report showing that auto companies were using loopholes to produce less fuel-efficient cars was delayed. The report was supposed to be released the day before a controversial energy bill was passed and would have provided backup for those opposed to it, but at the last minute the EPA delayed its release.[19]
Very fine airborne particulates
Tiny particles, under 2.5 micrometres, are attributed to health and mortality concerns[20] so some health advocates want EPA to regulate it. The science may be in its infancy although many conferences have discussed the trails of this airborne matter in the air. Foreign governments like Australia and most EU states have addressed this issue.
The EPA first established standards in 1997, and strengthened them in 2006. As with other standards, regulation and enforcement of the PM2.5 standards is the responsibility of the state governments, through State Implementation Plans.[21]
Review of air quality standards
Since its inception the EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on nonscience personnel. EPA has recently changed their policies regarding limits for ground-level ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead. New policies will minimize scientist interaction in this process and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge. This new policy has been criticized by Democrats.[22]
EPA offices
- Office of Administration and Resources Management
- Office of Air and Radiation
- Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
- Office of the Chief Financial Officer
- Office of General Counsel
- Office of Inspector General
- Office of International Affairs
- Office of Environmental Information
- Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
- Office of Research and Development
- Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
- Office of Water
Each EPA regional office is responsible within its states for implementing the Agency's programs, except those programs that have been specifically delegated to states.
- Region 1 - responsible within the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
- Region 2 - responsible within the states of New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
- Region 3 - responsible within the states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
- Region 4 - responsible within the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
- Region 5 - responsible within the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
- Region 6 - responsible within the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
- Region 8 - responsible within the states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
- Region 9 - responsible within the states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa.
Region 10 - responsible within the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Each regional office also implements programs on Indian Tribal lands, except those programs delegated to Tribal authorities.
List of EPA administrators
- 1970–1973
William D. Ruckelshaus
- 1973–1977
Russell E. Train
- 1977–1981
Douglas M. Costle
- 1981–1983
Anne M. Gorsuch (Burford)
- 1983–1985
William D. Ruckelshaus
- 1985–1989
Lee M. Thomas
- 1989–1993
William K. Reilly
- 1993–2001
Carol M. Browner
- 2001–2003
Christine Todd Whitman
- 2003–2005
Michael O. Leavitt
- 2005—
Stephen L. Johnson
Related legislation
The legislation here is general environmental protection legislation, and may also apply to other units of the government, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
Air
- 1955 - Air Pollution Control Act PL 84-159
- 1963 - Clean Air Act PL 88-206
- 1965 - Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act PL 89-272
1966 - Clean Air Act Amendments PL 89-675
1967 - Air Quality Act PL 90-148
1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
1970 - Clean Air Act Extension PL 91-604
1976 - Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469
1977 - Clean Air Act Amendments PL 95-95
1990 - Clean Air Act Amendments PL 101-549
Water
- 1948 - Water Pollution Control Act PL 80-845
- 1965 - Water Quality Act PL 89-234
- 1966 - Clean Waters Restoration Act PL 89-753
- 1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
- 1970 - Water Quality Improvement Act PL 91-224
- 1972 - Water Pollution Control Act PL 92-500
- 1974 - Safe Drinking Water Act PL 93-523
- 1976 - Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469
- 1977 - Clean Water Act PL 95-217
- 1987 - Water Quality Act PL 100-4
Land
- 1964 - Wilderness Act PL 88-577
- 1968 - Scenic Rivers Preservation Act PL 90-542
- 1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
- 1970 - Wilderness Act PL 91-504
- 1977 - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act PL 95-87
- 1978 - Wilderness Act PL 98-625
- 1980 - Alaska Land Protection Act PL 96-487
- 1994 - California Desert Protection Act PL 103-433
- 1996 - Food Quality Protection Act
Endangered species
- 1946 - Coordination Act PL 79-732
- 1966 - Endangered Species Preservation Act PL 89-669
- 1969 - Endangered Species Conservation Act PL 91-135
- 1972 - Marine Mammal Protection Act PL 92-522
- 1973 - Endangered Species Act PL 93-205
Hazardous waste
- 1965 - Solid Waste Disposal Act PL 89-272
- 1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
- 1970 - Resource Recovery Act PL 91-512
- 1976 - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act PL 94-580
- 1980 - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("Superfund") PL 96-510
- 1982 - Nuclear Waste Repository Act PL 97-425
- 1984 - Hazardous and Solid Wastes Amendments Act PL 98-616
- 1986 - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act PL 99-499
- 2002 - Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act ("Brownfields Law") PL 107-118
See also
Acid mine drainage
Air pollution
American Heritage Rivers
AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
Atmospheric dispersion modeling
BioWatch
Category:Air dispersion modeling
List of waste management companies
List of waste management topics
List of solid waste treatment technologies
List of Superfund sites in the United States
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Renewable energy
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Wise Use Movement
External links
US EPA Glossary
Environmental Protection Agency
Articles and documents from EPA's development 1970-
The environmental statutes for which EPA has primary responsibility
www.fueleconomy.gov
Collected Papers of William Sanjour, a retired EPA employee and whistleblower
Current 40 CFR Books in Digital Format
High Court Rules Against White House on Emissions, Breaking Legal News, April 2, 2007
Recycling in the United States
Recycling in the United States
Financial implications
Some argue State support for recycling may be more financially expensive in the short term than alternatives such as landfill; recycling efforts in New York City in the USA cost $57 million per year[1]. It is argued that the benefits to society from recycling compensate for any difference in cost. Landfilling waste is an inefficient use of resources, contributes to global warming through the release of methane into the atmosphere and by the pollution of groundwater and waterways. The long term financial costs of remediating pollution caused by landfilling waste are often not taken into consideration.
America Recycles Day
The 11th annual America Recycles day was held on the 15 November 2007. Hundreds of events annually are being held across the country to raise awareness about the importance of recycling and to encourage Americans to sign personal pledges to recycle and buy recycled products.[2][3]
Run by the recycling sector organization National Recycling Coalition, America Recycles Day 2006 is being sponsored nationally by global aluminum company Novelis, stationery firm Staples, waste firm Waste Management Recycle America, the American Beverage Association and the EPA.
Although America may not enjoy much of a reputation for environmentalism on the global stage, in some US cities recycling levels are much higher than, for example, in the UK.[4]
See also
Keep America Beautiful
Recycling in Canada
Recycling in Ireland
International Container Supplier
Busch Systems International Inc.
External links
http://www.OurEarth.org/
http://www.nyc.gov/sanitation
http://www.nyc.gov/nycwasteless
http://www.nyc.gov/nycstuffexchange
http://www.ecyclegroup.org
Financial implications
Some argue State support for recycling may be more financially expensive in the short term than alternatives such as landfill; recycling efforts in New York City in the USA cost $57 million per year[1]. It is argued that the benefits to society from recycling compensate for any difference in cost. Landfilling waste is an inefficient use of resources, contributes to global warming through the release of methane into the atmosphere and by the pollution of groundwater and waterways. The long term financial costs of remediating pollution caused by landfilling waste are often not taken into consideration.
America Recycles Day
The 11th annual America Recycles day was held on the 15 November 2007. Hundreds of events annually are being held across the country to raise awareness about the importance of recycling and to encourage Americans to sign personal pledges to recycle and buy recycled products.[2][3]
Run by the recycling sector organization National Recycling Coalition, America Recycles Day 2006 is being sponsored nationally by global aluminum company Novelis, stationery firm Staples, waste firm Waste Management Recycle America, the American Beverage Association and the EPA.
Although America may not enjoy much of a reputation for environmentalism on the global stage, in some US cities recycling levels are much higher than, for example, in the UK.[4]
See also
Keep America Beautiful
Recycling in Canada
Recycling in Ireland
International Container Supplier
Busch Systems International Inc.
External links
http://www.OurEarth.org/
http://www.nyc.gov/sanitation
http://www.nyc.gov/nycwasteless
http://www.nyc.gov/nycstuffexchange
http://www.ecyclegroup.org
Plastic recycling
Plastic recycling
Plastic recycling is the process of recovering scrap or waste plastics and reprocessing the material into useful products, sometimes completely different from their original state. For instance, this could mean melting down polyester soft drink bottles then making model army figures and ammunition.
Before recycling, plastics are sorted according to their resin identification code. PET, for instance, has a resin code of 1.
Obstacles
When compared to glass or metallic materials, plastic poses some unique challenges from a recycling perspective. Chief among them is their low entropy of mixing, which is due to the high molecular weight of large polymer chains. Another way of stating this problem is that, since a macromolecule interacts with its environment along its entire length, its enthalpy of mixing is very, very large compared to that of a small organic molecule with a similar structure; thermal excitations are often not enough to drive such a huge molecule into solution on their own. Due to this uncommon influence of mixing enthalpy, polymers must often be of nearly identical composition in order to mix with one another. To take representative samples from beverage containers, the many aluminium-based alloys all melt into the same liquid phase, but the various copolymer blends of PET from different manufacturers do not dissolve into one another when heated. Instead, they tend to phase-separate, like oil and water. Phase boundaries weaken an item made from such a mixture considerably, meaning that most polymer blends are only useful in a few, very limited contexts.
Another barrier to recycling is the widespread use of dyes, fillers, and other additives in plastics.
The polymer is generally too viscous to economically remove fillers, and would be damaged by many of the processes that could cheaply remove the added dyes. Additives are less widely used in beverage containers and plastic bags, allowing them to be recycled more frequently.
The use of biodegradable plastics is increasing. If some of these get mixed in the other plastics for recycling, the recycled plastic is less valuable.
Many such problems can be solved by using a more elaborate monomer recycling process, in which a condensation polymer essentially undergoes the inverse of the polymerization reaction used to manufacture it. This yields the same mix of chemicals that formed the original polymer, which can be purified and used to synthesize new polymer chains of the same type. Du Pont opened a pilot plant of this type in Cape Fear, North Carolina, to recycle PET by a process of methanolysis, but it closed the plant due to economic pressures.
Another potential option is the conversion of assorted polymers into petroleum by a much less precise thermal depolymerization process. Such a process would be able to accept almost any polymer or mix of polymers, including thermoset materials such as vulcanized rubber tires and the biopolymers in feathers and other agricultural waste. Like natural petroleum, the chemicals produced can be made into fuels as well as polymers. A pilot plant of this type exists in Carthage, Missouri, using turkey waste as a feedstock. See the main article on thermal depolymerization. Gasification is a similar process, but is not technically recycling since polymers are not likely to become the result.
Recently, a process has also been developed in which many kinds of plastic can be used as a carbon source in the recycling of scrap steel. [1]
Yet another process that is gaining ground with startup companies (especially in Australia, United States and Japan) is Heat Compression. The heat compression process takes all unsorted, cleaned plastic in all forms, from soft plastic bags to hard industrial waste, and mixes the load in tumblers (large rotating drums resembling giant clothes dryers). The process generates heat from the friction of the plastic materials rubbing against each other inside the drum, eventually melting all, or most of the material. The materials are then pumped out of the drum through heated pipes into casting moulds. The most obvious benefit to this method is the fact that all plastic is recyclable, not just matching forms. But criticism rises from the energy costs of rotating the drums, and heating the post-melt pipes.
Applications
The most-often recycled plastic, HDPE or number 2, is downcycled into plastic lumber, tables, roadside kerbs, benches, truck cargo liners, trash receptacles, stationery (e.g rulers) and other durable plastic products and is usually in demand. The white plastic "peanuts" used as packing material are often accepted by shipping stores for reuse.
In Israel successful trials have shown that plastic films recovered from mixed municipal waste streams can be recycled into useful products.[2]
Similarly, agricultural plastics such as mulch film, drip tape and silage bags are being diverted from the waste stream and successfully recycled into bulk resin commodities in Labelle, FL.[3]
Historically, these agricultural plastics have primarily been either landfilled or burned on-site in the fields of individual farms.[4]
The environmental benefits of recycling plastic are that it produces less sulphur dioxide, less waste and less carbon dioxide.
Consumers
Plastic recycling rates lag far behind those of other items, such as newspaper (about 80%) and cardboard (about 70%). One reason is that consumers often don’t understand the types of plastics that can be recycled in their area. Types of plastics are assigned a number, which is usually stamped or printed on the bottom of containers and surrounded by a pyramid of arrows. (See the table in Plastic.) Numbers 1, 2, and 6 are the most-often recycled plastics in the United States. Many programs exist in the United States and the reduction of weight in numerous packaging applications has been significant over the last 25 years.
Consumers can find out which plastics are accepted in their local area and how to prepare and transfer them by contacting their local recycling hauler (usually the local city or county solid waste or public works department, or a private company). Generally, paper labels do not need to be removed from plastic bottles or containers, but lids should be thrown away because they typically are made from a type of plastic that is not recyclable. Plastic bottles and containers must be rinsed, squashed, and placed in recycle bins for collection. Plastic grocery bags are often accepted by stores in recycling containers placed near the entranceways. [5]
See also
Recycling of PET Bottles
Scrap
Recycling
Plastic recycling is the process of recovering scrap or waste plastics and reprocessing the material into useful products, sometimes completely different from their original state. For instance, this could mean melting down polyester soft drink bottles then making model army figures and ammunition.
Before recycling, plastics are sorted according to their resin identification code. PET, for instance, has a resin code of 1.
Obstacles
When compared to glass or metallic materials, plastic poses some unique challenges from a recycling perspective. Chief among them is their low entropy of mixing, which is due to the high molecular weight of large polymer chains. Another way of stating this problem is that, since a macromolecule interacts with its environment along its entire length, its enthalpy of mixing is very, very large compared to that of a small organic molecule with a similar structure; thermal excitations are often not enough to drive such a huge molecule into solution on their own. Due to this uncommon influence of mixing enthalpy, polymers must often be of nearly identical composition in order to mix with one another. To take representative samples from beverage containers, the many aluminium-based alloys all melt into the same liquid phase, but the various copolymer blends of PET from different manufacturers do not dissolve into one another when heated. Instead, they tend to phase-separate, like oil and water. Phase boundaries weaken an item made from such a mixture considerably, meaning that most polymer blends are only useful in a few, very limited contexts.
Another barrier to recycling is the widespread use of dyes, fillers, and other additives in plastics.
The polymer is generally too viscous to economically remove fillers, and would be damaged by many of the processes that could cheaply remove the added dyes. Additives are less widely used in beverage containers and plastic bags, allowing them to be recycled more frequently.
The use of biodegradable plastics is increasing. If some of these get mixed in the other plastics for recycling, the recycled plastic is less valuable.
Many such problems can be solved by using a more elaborate monomer recycling process, in which a condensation polymer essentially undergoes the inverse of the polymerization reaction used to manufacture it. This yields the same mix of chemicals that formed the original polymer, which can be purified and used to synthesize new polymer chains of the same type. Du Pont opened a pilot plant of this type in Cape Fear, North Carolina, to recycle PET by a process of methanolysis, but it closed the plant due to economic pressures.
Another potential option is the conversion of assorted polymers into petroleum by a much less precise thermal depolymerization process. Such a process would be able to accept almost any polymer or mix of polymers, including thermoset materials such as vulcanized rubber tires and the biopolymers in feathers and other agricultural waste. Like natural petroleum, the chemicals produced can be made into fuels as well as polymers. A pilot plant of this type exists in Carthage, Missouri, using turkey waste as a feedstock. See the main article on thermal depolymerization. Gasification is a similar process, but is not technically recycling since polymers are not likely to become the result.
Recently, a process has also been developed in which many kinds of plastic can be used as a carbon source in the recycling of scrap steel. [1]
Yet another process that is gaining ground with startup companies (especially in Australia, United States and Japan) is Heat Compression. The heat compression process takes all unsorted, cleaned plastic in all forms, from soft plastic bags to hard industrial waste, and mixes the load in tumblers (large rotating drums resembling giant clothes dryers). The process generates heat from the friction of the plastic materials rubbing against each other inside the drum, eventually melting all, or most of the material. The materials are then pumped out of the drum through heated pipes into casting moulds. The most obvious benefit to this method is the fact that all plastic is recyclable, not just matching forms. But criticism rises from the energy costs of rotating the drums, and heating the post-melt pipes.
Applications
The most-often recycled plastic, HDPE or number 2, is downcycled into plastic lumber, tables, roadside kerbs, benches, truck cargo liners, trash receptacles, stationery (e.g rulers) and other durable plastic products and is usually in demand. The white plastic "peanuts" used as packing material are often accepted by shipping stores for reuse.
In Israel successful trials have shown that plastic films recovered from mixed municipal waste streams can be recycled into useful products.[2]
Similarly, agricultural plastics such as mulch film, drip tape and silage bags are being diverted from the waste stream and successfully recycled into bulk resin commodities in Labelle, FL.[3]
Historically, these agricultural plastics have primarily been either landfilled or burned on-site in the fields of individual farms.[4]
The environmental benefits of recycling plastic are that it produces less sulphur dioxide, less waste and less carbon dioxide.
Consumers
Plastic recycling rates lag far behind those of other items, such as newspaper (about 80%) and cardboard (about 70%). One reason is that consumers often don’t understand the types of plastics that can be recycled in their area. Types of plastics are assigned a number, which is usually stamped or printed on the bottom of containers and surrounded by a pyramid of arrows. (See the table in Plastic.) Numbers 1, 2, and 6 are the most-often recycled plastics in the United States. Many programs exist in the United States and the reduction of weight in numerous packaging applications has been significant over the last 25 years.
Consumers can find out which plastics are accepted in their local area and how to prepare and transfer them by contacting their local recycling hauler (usually the local city or county solid waste or public works department, or a private company). Generally, paper labels do not need to be removed from plastic bottles or containers, but lids should be thrown away because they typically are made from a type of plastic that is not recyclable. Plastic bottles and containers must be rinsed, squashed, and placed in recycle bins for collection. Plastic grocery bags are often accepted by stores in recycling containers placed near the entranceways. [5]
See also
Recycling of PET Bottles
Scrap
Recycling
Tire recycling
Tire recycling
Tire recycling is the process of recycling vehicles tires that are no longer suitable for use on vehicles due to wear or irreparable damage (such as punctures). These tires are among the largest and most problematic sources of waste, due to the large volume produced and their durability. Those same characteristics which make waste tires such a problem also make them one of the most re-used waste materials, as the rubber is very resilient and can be reused in other products. Approximately one tire is discarded per person per year. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency reports 290 million scrap tires were generated in 2003.[1] Of the 290 million, 45 million of these scrap tires were used to make automotive and truck tire re-treads.[2] With landfills minimizing their acceptance of whole tires and the health and environmental risks of stockpiling tires, many new markets have been created for scrap tires. Growing markets exist for a majority of scrap tires produced every year, being supported by State and Local Government.
History
Rubber recycling dates back to about the time when industrial rubber manufacturing began. A machine called a Masticator or a "pickle", invented by Thomas Hancock around 1820, which ground up rubber scraps into shreds that could then be mashed into blocks and reused. Due to the high cost of rubber (equal in cost per ounce to silver), starting in 1910 and continuing well into the 20th century, 50% of rubber content was recycled.[3] This type of rubber recycling was very basic and easy, but short-lived. In 1843 Charles Goodyear invented vulcanization, a process of weather proofing rubber by linking all the molecules in a rubber product into one big molecule preventing separation, receiving a patent on June 24, 1844.[4] Since vulcanization links the molecules it is difficult to separate these molecules again to recycle, meaning the product cannot be re-melted.[5] Vulcanized rubber could still be shredded and ground, but had to be mixed with natural rubber to reuse. A shortage of natural rubber caused by the need for tires during World War II, led to the building of synthetic rubber plants around the world in 1945.[6] In the 1960s cheap oil imports and an increased use of synthetic rubber brought down manufacturing costs making the tire and rubber industry's recycled rubber content drop to 20%.[7] Use of synthetic rubber surpasses that of natural rubber for the first time.[8] The 1960s also brought about steel-belted radial tires, which made recycling even more difficult; the steel now would have to be removed after slicing and grinding. A national wave of Tire-Derived Fuel (TDF) development occurs in the mid 1980s, although not recycling, eliminates tires and provides a fuel for utilities. In 1990 markets are shown to exist for 17% of used tires, growing to 78% in 2001 and up to 80.4% in 2003.[9] Due to safety issues, tire industry's recycled rubber content drops to 5-15%, new tires must be manufactured primarily from virgin rubber. The tire recycling industry is currently developing methods of devulcanization or rubber molecule separation by: Pyrolysis, Bacteria, Ultrasound, Thermal, or Mechanical means.
Tire Life Cycle
The tire life cycle can be identified by the following six steps:
1) Product developments and innovations increase tire life, increments of replacement, consumer safety, and reduce tire waste.
2) Proper manufacturing and quality of delivery reduces waste at production.
3) Direct distribution through retailers, reduces inventory time and ensures that the life span and the safety of the products are explained to customers.
4) Consumers use and maintenance choices like tire rotation affect tire wear and safety of operation.
5) Manufacturers and retailers set policies on return, re-tread, and replacement to reduce the waste generated from tires and assume responsibility for taking the ‘tire to its grave’ or to its reincarnation.
6) Recycling tires by developing strategies that combust or process waste into new products, creates viable businesses, and fulfilling public policies.[10].
Landfill Disposal
Tires are not desired at landfills due to their large volumes, 75% void space, which quickly consumes valuable space.[11] Tires can trap methane gases causing them to become buoyant, or ‘bubble’ to the surface. This ‘bubbling’ effect can damage landfill liners that has been installed to help keep landfill contaminants from polluting local surface and ground water.[12] Shredded tires are now being used in landfills, replacing other construction materials, for a light weight backfill in gas venting systems, leachate collection systems, and operational liners. Shredded tire material may also be used to cap, close, or daily cover landfill sites.[13] Scrap tires as a backfill and cover material is also more cost effective, since tires can be shredded on site instead of hauling in other fill materials. In 2003, 38 states banned whole tires from landfills, 35 allowed shredded tires, 11 banned all tires from landfills, 17 allowed processed tires in mono-fills, and 8 states had no restrictions on scrap tires in landfills (Rubber Manufacturers Association, 2003).
Stockpiles and Illegal Dumping
Tire stockpiles create a great health and safety risk. Tire fires can occur easily, burning for months, creating substantial pollution in the air and ground, becoming Superfund cleanup sites. By recycling tires it helps to reduce the number of tires in storage. The United States has decreased the number of waste tires in storage from 700-800 million in 1994, down to 275 million tires in 2004 primarily due to state scrap management programs (Rubber Manufacturers Association 2004). An additional health risk, tire piles provide harborage for vermin and a breeding ground for mosquitoes that may carry diseases. Illegal dumping of scrap tires pollutes ravines, woods, deserts, and empty lots; which has led many states to pass scrap tire regulations requiring proper management. Tire amnesty day events, in which community members can deposit a limited number of waste tires free of charge, can be funded by state scrap tire programs, helping decrease illegal dumping and improper storage of scrap tires.
Ultrasound recycling
High power ultrasound is applied to the cured rubber during extrusion and the high pressure, heat and mechanical energy break the crosslinks which make the extrudate a gum rubber like new material, that can be recurred and molded into new rubber products.
Markets
As of 2003 markets existed for 80.4% of scrap tires, about 233 million tires per year. These markets are for: Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) 44.7% (130 million), Civil Engineering Projects 19.4% (56 million), Ground Rubber turned into molded rubber products 7.8% (18 million), Ground Rubber turned into rubber-modified asphalt (4.3% (12 million), Exported 3.1% (9 million), Cut/Stamped/Punched Products 2.0% (6.5 million), and Agricultural and Misc. uses 1.7% (3 million).[14]
Tire Recycling Supply Chain
The Tire Recycling Supply Chain is divided into three stages:
Collection and processing stage
The number of tires being made available for recycle is growing, as attention and demand for tire derived products increases. In addition, state and government programs exist to clean-up scrap tire stockpiles and illegal dumping sites with a long-term goal of no scrap tires sent to the landfill. The tire processing stage is sorted into four operations: whole tires, stamped (cut) tires, chipped (shredded) tires, and ground (crumb) rubber.
Tire-derived products stage
Second stage of tire recycling involves the production of alternate products for sale. New products derived from waste tires generate more economic activity than combustion or other low multiplier production, while reducing waste stream without generating excessive pollution and emissions from recycling operations.[15].
Tire-derived products
Whole tires can be reused in many different ways. One way, although not recycling, is for a Steel mill to burn the tires for carbon replacement in steel manufacturing. Tires are also bound together and used as different types of barriers such as: collision reduction, erosion control, rainwater runoff, wave action- that protects piers and marshes, and sound barriers between roadways and residences. Entire homes can be built with whole tires by ramming them full of earth and covering them with concrete, known as Earthships.
Some Artificial reefs are built using tires that are bonded together in groups, there is some controversy on how effective tires are as an artificial reef system, an example is The Osborne Reef Project.
Ground up tires even find their way back to your car in the form of automotive parts, like: exhaust hangers, brake pads and shoes, acoustic insulation, and even low percentages go into making new tires.
Distribution and demand stage
For the third stage the production of new products is so dependant on a distribution network and marketing efforts to ensure sales, that transporters and processors of tires are expected to keep focusing on their upstream activity. In order to create new products companies are more likely to merge or link with distributors and retailers to ensure product sales and satisfy customers. Consolidation up and down the tire recycling supply chain must occur to increase the probability of a healthy business. Integrating supply chains can reduce costs, and prices, placing producers closer to their customers. The challenge remaining is to realize supply chain consolidation without increasing prices or decreasing product and service quality. It may be unlikely that companies will keep prices low when consolidation creates larger organizations that take advantage of economies of scale and increased market power.[16].
Environmental Concerns
Due to heavy metals and other pollutants in tires there is a potential risk for the leaching (leachate) of toxins into the groundwater when placed in wet soils. This impact on the environment varies according to the Ph level and conditions of local water and soil. Research has shown that very little leaching occurs when shredded tires are used as light fill material, however limitations have been put on use of this material; each site should be individually assessed determining if this product is appropriate for given conditions.[17]
State and Local Government
State laws and regulations dealing with scrap tires are currently enacted in 48 states. Here are some common features of state programs that deal with scrap tires: source of funding for the program, licensing or registration of scrap tire haulers, processors, and end users, manifests for scrap tire shipments, limitations on who may handle scrap tires, financial assurance requirements for scrap tire handlers, and market development activities.[18] Some state programs are now supported by fees charged to the consumer at purchase or disposal of each tire. These fees sometimes called “tipping fees” help to support recycling costs. When the disposal rates charged to consumers are set high this in turn discourages landfill disposal, a simple solution encouraging more affordable tire recycling programs.
See also
Vulcanization/Devulcanization
Pyrolysis
Recycle
Tire
Rubber
Tire fire
Landfill
Landfill liner
Waste Management
Artificial reef
Re-tread
Katy Trail (Dallas)
Rubber mulch
Mousepad
Underlay
Railroad tie
Rubberized asphalt
External links
Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Tire Derived Product Suppliers, California
International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, Inc.
New Scientist article on a microwave process that turns tires back to oil.
Tire recycling is the process of recycling vehicles tires that are no longer suitable for use on vehicles due to wear or irreparable damage (such as punctures). These tires are among the largest and most problematic sources of waste, due to the large volume produced and their durability. Those same characteristics which make waste tires such a problem also make them one of the most re-used waste materials, as the rubber is very resilient and can be reused in other products. Approximately one tire is discarded per person per year. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency reports 290 million scrap tires were generated in 2003.[1] Of the 290 million, 45 million of these scrap tires were used to make automotive and truck tire re-treads.[2] With landfills minimizing their acceptance of whole tires and the health and environmental risks of stockpiling tires, many new markets have been created for scrap tires. Growing markets exist for a majority of scrap tires produced every year, being supported by State and Local Government.
History
Rubber recycling dates back to about the time when industrial rubber manufacturing began. A machine called a Masticator or a "pickle", invented by Thomas Hancock around 1820, which ground up rubber scraps into shreds that could then be mashed into blocks and reused. Due to the high cost of rubber (equal in cost per ounce to silver), starting in 1910 and continuing well into the 20th century, 50% of rubber content was recycled.[3] This type of rubber recycling was very basic and easy, but short-lived. In 1843 Charles Goodyear invented vulcanization, a process of weather proofing rubber by linking all the molecules in a rubber product into one big molecule preventing separation, receiving a patent on June 24, 1844.[4] Since vulcanization links the molecules it is difficult to separate these molecules again to recycle, meaning the product cannot be re-melted.[5] Vulcanized rubber could still be shredded and ground, but had to be mixed with natural rubber to reuse. A shortage of natural rubber caused by the need for tires during World War II, led to the building of synthetic rubber plants around the world in 1945.[6] In the 1960s cheap oil imports and an increased use of synthetic rubber brought down manufacturing costs making the tire and rubber industry's recycled rubber content drop to 20%.[7] Use of synthetic rubber surpasses that of natural rubber for the first time.[8] The 1960s also brought about steel-belted radial tires, which made recycling even more difficult; the steel now would have to be removed after slicing and grinding. A national wave of Tire-Derived Fuel (TDF) development occurs in the mid 1980s, although not recycling, eliminates tires and provides a fuel for utilities. In 1990 markets are shown to exist for 17% of used tires, growing to 78% in 2001 and up to 80.4% in 2003.[9] Due to safety issues, tire industry's recycled rubber content drops to 5-15%, new tires must be manufactured primarily from virgin rubber. The tire recycling industry is currently developing methods of devulcanization or rubber molecule separation by: Pyrolysis, Bacteria, Ultrasound, Thermal, or Mechanical means.
Tire Life Cycle
The tire life cycle can be identified by the following six steps:
1) Product developments and innovations increase tire life, increments of replacement, consumer safety, and reduce tire waste.
2) Proper manufacturing and quality of delivery reduces waste at production.
3) Direct distribution through retailers, reduces inventory time and ensures that the life span and the safety of the products are explained to customers.
4) Consumers use and maintenance choices like tire rotation affect tire wear and safety of operation.
5) Manufacturers and retailers set policies on return, re-tread, and replacement to reduce the waste generated from tires and assume responsibility for taking the ‘tire to its grave’ or to its reincarnation.
6) Recycling tires by developing strategies that combust or process waste into new products, creates viable businesses, and fulfilling public policies.[10].
Landfill Disposal
Tires are not desired at landfills due to their large volumes, 75% void space, which quickly consumes valuable space.[11] Tires can trap methane gases causing them to become buoyant, or ‘bubble’ to the surface. This ‘bubbling’ effect can damage landfill liners that has been installed to help keep landfill contaminants from polluting local surface and ground water.[12] Shredded tires are now being used in landfills, replacing other construction materials, for a light weight backfill in gas venting systems, leachate collection systems, and operational liners. Shredded tire material may also be used to cap, close, or daily cover landfill sites.[13] Scrap tires as a backfill and cover material is also more cost effective, since tires can be shredded on site instead of hauling in other fill materials. In 2003, 38 states banned whole tires from landfills, 35 allowed shredded tires, 11 banned all tires from landfills, 17 allowed processed tires in mono-fills, and 8 states had no restrictions on scrap tires in landfills (Rubber Manufacturers Association, 2003).
Stockpiles and Illegal Dumping
Tire stockpiles create a great health and safety risk. Tire fires can occur easily, burning for months, creating substantial pollution in the air and ground, becoming Superfund cleanup sites. By recycling tires it helps to reduce the number of tires in storage. The United States has decreased the number of waste tires in storage from 700-800 million in 1994, down to 275 million tires in 2004 primarily due to state scrap management programs (Rubber Manufacturers Association 2004). An additional health risk, tire piles provide harborage for vermin and a breeding ground for mosquitoes that may carry diseases. Illegal dumping of scrap tires pollutes ravines, woods, deserts, and empty lots; which has led many states to pass scrap tire regulations requiring proper management. Tire amnesty day events, in which community members can deposit a limited number of waste tires free of charge, can be funded by state scrap tire programs, helping decrease illegal dumping and improper storage of scrap tires.
Ultrasound recycling
High power ultrasound is applied to the cured rubber during extrusion and the high pressure, heat and mechanical energy break the crosslinks which make the extrudate a gum rubber like new material, that can be recurred and molded into new rubber products.
Markets
As of 2003 markets existed for 80.4% of scrap tires, about 233 million tires per year. These markets are for: Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) 44.7% (130 million), Civil Engineering Projects 19.4% (56 million), Ground Rubber turned into molded rubber products 7.8% (18 million), Ground Rubber turned into rubber-modified asphalt (4.3% (12 million), Exported 3.1% (9 million), Cut/Stamped/Punched Products 2.0% (6.5 million), and Agricultural and Misc. uses 1.7% (3 million).[14]
Tire Recycling Supply Chain
The Tire Recycling Supply Chain is divided into three stages:
Collection and processing stage
The number of tires being made available for recycle is growing, as attention and demand for tire derived products increases. In addition, state and government programs exist to clean-up scrap tire stockpiles and illegal dumping sites with a long-term goal of no scrap tires sent to the landfill. The tire processing stage is sorted into four operations: whole tires, stamped (cut) tires, chipped (shredded) tires, and ground (crumb) rubber.
Tire-derived products stage
Second stage of tire recycling involves the production of alternate products for sale. New products derived from waste tires generate more economic activity than combustion or other low multiplier production, while reducing waste stream without generating excessive pollution and emissions from recycling operations.[15].
Tire-derived products
Whole tires can be reused in many different ways. One way, although not recycling, is for a Steel mill to burn the tires for carbon replacement in steel manufacturing. Tires are also bound together and used as different types of barriers such as: collision reduction, erosion control, rainwater runoff, wave action- that protects piers and marshes, and sound barriers between roadways and residences. Entire homes can be built with whole tires by ramming them full of earth and covering them with concrete, known as Earthships.
Some Artificial reefs are built using tires that are bonded together in groups, there is some controversy on how effective tires are as an artificial reef system, an example is The Osborne Reef Project.
- The process of stamping and cutting tires is used in some apparel products, such as sandals and as a road sub-base, by connecting together the cut sidewalls to form a flexible net.
- Chipped and shredded tires are used as Tire Derived Fuel (TDF); once again not recycling, but TDF helps to eliminate tires from our waste stream and produces a fuel source. Also used in civil engineering applications such as: sub grade fill and embankments, backfill for walls and bridge abutments, sub grade insulation for roads, landfill projects, and septic system drain fields
- Ground and crumb rubber, also known as size-reduced rubber, can be used in both paving type projects and in moldable products. These types of paving are: Rubber Modified Asphalt (RMA), Rubber Modified Concrete, and as a substitution for an aggregate. Examples of rubber-molded products are: Carpet padding or underlay, flooring materials, dock bumpers, patio decks, railroad crossing blocks, livestock mats, sidewalks, rubber tiles and bricks, moveable speed bumps, and curbing/edging. Then there is plastic and rubber blend molded products like pallets and railroad ties. Athletic and recreational areas can also be paved with the shock absorbing rubber-molded material. Rubber from tires is sometimes ground into medium-sized chunks and used as rubber mulch.
Ground up tires even find their way back to your car in the form of automotive parts, like: exhaust hangers, brake pads and shoes, acoustic insulation, and even low percentages go into making new tires.
Distribution and demand stage
For the third stage the production of new products is so dependant on a distribution network and marketing efforts to ensure sales, that transporters and processors of tires are expected to keep focusing on their upstream activity. In order to create new products companies are more likely to merge or link with distributors and retailers to ensure product sales and satisfy customers. Consolidation up and down the tire recycling supply chain must occur to increase the probability of a healthy business. Integrating supply chains can reduce costs, and prices, placing producers closer to their customers. The challenge remaining is to realize supply chain consolidation without increasing prices or decreasing product and service quality. It may be unlikely that companies will keep prices low when consolidation creates larger organizations that take advantage of economies of scale and increased market power.[16].
Environmental Concerns
Due to heavy metals and other pollutants in tires there is a potential risk for the leaching (leachate) of toxins into the groundwater when placed in wet soils. This impact on the environment varies according to the Ph level and conditions of local water and soil. Research has shown that very little leaching occurs when shredded tires are used as light fill material, however limitations have been put on use of this material; each site should be individually assessed determining if this product is appropriate for given conditions.[17]
State and Local Government
State laws and regulations dealing with scrap tires are currently enacted in 48 states. Here are some common features of state programs that deal with scrap tires: source of funding for the program, licensing or registration of scrap tire haulers, processors, and end users, manifests for scrap tire shipments, limitations on who may handle scrap tires, financial assurance requirements for scrap tire handlers, and market development activities.[18] Some state programs are now supported by fees charged to the consumer at purchase or disposal of each tire. These fees sometimes called “tipping fees” help to support recycling costs. When the disposal rates charged to consumers are set high this in turn discourages landfill disposal, a simple solution encouraging more affordable tire recycling programs.
See also
Vulcanization/Devulcanization
Pyrolysis
Recycle
Tire
Rubber
Tire fire
Landfill
Landfill liner
Waste Management
Artificial reef
Re-tread
Katy Trail (Dallas)
Rubber mulch
Mousepad
Underlay
Railroad tie
Rubberized asphalt
External links
Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Tire Derived Product Suppliers, California
International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, Inc.
New Scientist article on a microwave process that turns tires back to oil.
Paper recycling
Paper recycling
Paper recycling is the process of recovering waste paper and remaking it into new paper products. There are three categories of paper that can be used as feedstocks for making recycled paper: mill broke, pre-consumer waste, and post-consumer waste.[1] Mill broke is paper trimmings and other paper scrap from the manufacture of paper, and is recycled internally in a paper mill. Pre-consumer waste is material that was discarded before it was ready for consumer use. Post-consumer waste is material that was discarded after actually being used by a consumer. The grades of post-consumer recycled paper are OCC (old corrugated containers), WCC (waxed corrugated containers), ONP (old newspapers), OMG (old magazines), OTD (old telephone directories), and RMP (residential mixed paper).[2] Paper suitable for recycling is called "scrap paper".
Process
While there are differences depending on the specific type of paper being recycled (corrugated fiberboard, newspaper, mixed office waste), recycling processes include the following steps:
Standards
Since the early 1980's, recycled paper has gone from gray and dingy flecked sheets reported to clog up copy machines to an indistinguihable competitor of traditional bright white paper. [3]
However, paper fibers cannot be recycled indefinitely because fiber length and strength are degraded with each use. Individual fibers can only be recycled 4-6 times.[4] When fibers become too short, they are not retained in the pulp or paper and end up in the sludge for disposal. New fibers are usually added to recycled pulp when new paper products are made.
Consequently, most recycled paper will still contain some new pulp.
There is no universal standard for the maximum percentage of virgin pulp in recycled paper.[1][5] 'Recycled' paper is available that includes anywhere from 10 to 100 percent "post-consumer" paper.[6] The EPA mandated the use of 50% post-consumer recycled paper by the federal government, state governments that receive federal funding, and many companies that receive money from the federal government.[7] The EPA does not regulate recycled paper used outside of the government; it only sets a minimum guideline.[1] The UK also does not have any legal standards, only non-mandatory guidelines instituted by a variety of different organizations.[1]
Rationale for recycling
Industrialized paper making takes a tremendous toll on the environment both upstream (where raw materials are acquired and processed) and downstream (waste-disposal impacts).[8] Recycling paper reduces this impact.
Forest preservation
Today, 90% of paper pulp is made of wood. Paper production accounts for about 43% of harvested wood,[9] and represents 1.2% of the world's total economic output.[10] Recycling of newsprint saves about 1 tonne of wood while recycling 1 tonne (1.1 ton) of printing or copier paper saves slightly more than 2 tonnes of wood. This is because kraft pulping requires twice as much wood since it removes lignin to produce higher quality fibers than mechanical pulping processes. Relating tonnes of paper recycled to the number of trees not cut is meaningless, since tree size varies tremendously and is the major factor in how much paper can be made from how many trees.[11] Trees raised specifically for pulp production account for 16% of world pulp production, old growth forests 9% and second- and third- and more generation forests account for the balance.[9] Most pulp mill operators practice reforestation to ensure a continuing supply of trees. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies paper made from trees harvested according to guidelines meant to ensure good forestry practices.[12] It has been estimated that recycling half the world’s paper would avoid the harvesting of 20 million acres (80,000 km²) of forestland.[13]
Energy
There is some debate concerning the energy savings realized in recycling paper. The EIA claims a 40% reduction in energy when paper is recycled versus paper made with unrecycled pulp. [14] while the Bureau of International Recycling, BIR, claims a 64% reduction.[15] Some calculations show that recycling one ton of newspaper saves about 4,000 KWh of electricity, although this may be too high (see comments below on unrecycled pulp). This is enough electricity to power a 3-bedroom European house for an entire year, or enough energy to heat and air-condition the average North American home for almost six months.[16] It must be noted that recycling paper to make pulp may actually consume more fossil fuels than making new pulp via the kraft process since these mills generate all of energy from burning waste wood (bark, roots) and byproduct lignin.[17] Pulp mills producing new mechanical pulp use large amounts of energy, a very rough estimate of the electrical energy needed is 10,000 megajoules (MJ) per tonne of pulp (2500 kW·h per short ton),[18] usually from hydroelectric generating plants. Recycling mills purchase most of their energy from local power companies and since recycling mills tend to be in more urban areas, it is likely that the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.
Landfill use
About 35% of municipal solid waste by weight is paper and paper products.[19] Recycling 1 tonne of newspaper eliminates 3 cubic meters of landfill.[20] Incineration of waste paper is usually preferable to landfilling since useful energy is generated. Organic materials, including paper, decompose in landfills, albeit sometimes slowly, releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Many larger landfills now collect this methane for use as a biogas fuel. In highly urbanized areas, such as the northeastern US and most of Europe, land suitable for landfills is scarce and must be used carefully. Fortunately, it is in such areas that collection of waste paper is also most efficient.
Water and air pollution
The US EPA has found that recycling causes 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution.[21] Pulp mills can be sources of both air and water pollution, especially if they are producing bleached pulp. Modern mills produce considerably less pollution than those of a few decades ago.
Recycling paper decreases the demand for virgin pulp and thus reduces the overall amount of air and water pollution associated with paper manufacture. Recycled pulp can be bleached with the same chemicals used to bleach virgin pulp, but hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydrosulfite are the most common bleaching agents. Recycled pulp, or paper made from it, is known as PCF (process chlorine free) if no chlorine-containing compounds were used in the recycling process.[22] However it should be noted that recycling mills may have polluting by-products, such as sludge. De-inking at Cross Pointe's Miami, Ohio mill results in sludge weighing 22% of the weight of wastepaper recycled.[23]
Cleaning contaminants from scrap paper
Scrap from paper mills (broke) is the cleanest source for recycling. The high rates of of recycling for post-consumer office paper, newspaper, paperboard, and corrugated fiberboard reflect the efficiency of recycling mills to clean and process the incoming materials. Several technologies are available to sort, screen, filter, and chemically treat the recycled paper.
Many extraneous materials are readily removed. Twine, strapping, etc are removed from the hydropulper by a "ragger". Metal straps and staples can be screened out or removed by a magnet. Film-backed pressure sensitive tape stays intact: the PSA adhesive and the backing are both removed together.[24]
Materials which are more difficult to remove include wax coatings on corrugated cartons and "stickies", soft rubbery particles which can clog the paper maker and contaminate the recycled paper. Stickies can originate from book bindings, hot melt adhesives, PSA adhesives from paper labels, laminating adhesives of reinforced gummed tapes, etc.[25][26][27]
Criticism
Many of the claimed benefits of paper recycling have fallen under criticism; criticized areas include the claim that recycling saves trees, reduces energy consumption, reduces pollution, creates desirable jobs, and saves money.
Recycling facts and figures
In the mid-19th century, there was an increased demand for books and writing material. Up to this time, paper manufacturers had used discarded linen rags for paper, but supply could not keep up with the increased demand. Books were bought at auctions for the purpose of recycling fiber content into new paper, at least in the United Kingdom, by the beginning of the 19th century.[28]
Internationally, about half of all recovered paper comes from converting losses ("pre-consumer" recycling), such as shavings and unsold periodicals; approximately one third comes from household or "post-consumer" waste.[29]
Some statistics on paper consumption:
United States of America
Recycling has long been practiced in the United States. The history of paper recycling has several dates of importance:
1690: The first paper mill to use recycled linen was established by the Rittenhouse family.[31]
1897: The first major recycling center was started by the Benedetto family in New York City, where they collected rags, newspaper, and trash with a pushcart.
1993: The first year when more paper was recycled than was buried in landfills.[32]
Today, over half of the material used to make paper is recovered waste.[33] Paper products are the largest component of municipal solid waste, making up more than 40% of the composition of landfills.[34][35] In 2006, a record 53.4% of the paper consumed in the U.S. (or 53.5 million tons) was recovered for recycling.[36] This is up from a 1990 recovery rate of 33.5%[37]. The U.S. paper industry has set a goal to recover 55 percent of all the paper consumed in the U.S. by 2012. Paper packaging recovery, specific to paper products used by the packaging industry, was responsible for about 76.6% of packaging materials recycled with more than 24 million pounds recovered in 2005.[38]
Twenty years ago, only one curbside recycling program existed in the United States, which collected several materials at the curb. By 1998, 9,000 curbside programs and 12,000 recyclable drop-off centers had sprouted up across the nation. As of 1999, 480 materials recovery facilities had been established to process the collected materials.[39]
External links
Joearth - Information for responsible paper purchasing
Paper recycling
Conservatree - Information on environmental and recycled paper
Information on recycling and paper drives for fundraising
Paper Industry Association Council: paperrecycles.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Paper and Paperboard Products
Paper recycling is the process of recovering waste paper and remaking it into new paper products. There are three categories of paper that can be used as feedstocks for making recycled paper: mill broke, pre-consumer waste, and post-consumer waste.[1] Mill broke is paper trimmings and other paper scrap from the manufacture of paper, and is recycled internally in a paper mill. Pre-consumer waste is material that was discarded before it was ready for consumer use. Post-consumer waste is material that was discarded after actually being used by a consumer. The grades of post-consumer recycled paper are OCC (old corrugated containers), WCC (waxed corrugated containers), ONP (old newspapers), OMG (old magazines), OTD (old telephone directories), and RMP (residential mixed paper).[2] Paper suitable for recycling is called "scrap paper".
Process
While there are differences depending on the specific type of paper being recycled (corrugated fiberboard, newspaper, mixed office waste), recycling processes include the following steps:
- Pulping: Adding water and applying mechanical action to separate fibers from each other.
- Screening: Using screens, with either slots or holes, to remove contaminants that are larger than pulp fibers.
- Centrifugal cleaning: Spinning the pulp slurry in a cleaner causes materials that are more dense than pulp fibers to move outward and be rejected.
- Flotation: Passing air bubbles through the pulp slurry, with a surfactant present, causes ink particles to collect with the foam on the surface. By removing contaminated foam, pulp is made brighter. This step is sometimes called deinking.
- Kneading or dispersion: Mechanical action is applied to fragment contaminant particles.
- Washing: Small particles are removed by passing water through the pulp.
- Bleaching: If white paper is desired, bleaching uses peroxides or hydrosulfites to remove color from the pulp.
- Papermaking: The clean (and/or bleached) fiber is made into a "new" paper product in the same way that virgin paper is made.
- Dissolved air flotation: Process water is cleaned for reuse.
Waste disposal: The unusable material left over, mainly ink, plastics, filler and short fibers, is called sludge. The sludge is buried in a landfill, burned to create energy at the paper mill or used as a fertilizer by local farmers.
Standards
Since the early 1980's, recycled paper has gone from gray and dingy flecked sheets reported to clog up copy machines to an indistinguihable competitor of traditional bright white paper. [3]
However, paper fibers cannot be recycled indefinitely because fiber length and strength are degraded with each use. Individual fibers can only be recycled 4-6 times.[4] When fibers become too short, they are not retained in the pulp or paper and end up in the sludge for disposal. New fibers are usually added to recycled pulp when new paper products are made.
Consequently, most recycled paper will still contain some new pulp.
There is no universal standard for the maximum percentage of virgin pulp in recycled paper.[1][5] 'Recycled' paper is available that includes anywhere from 10 to 100 percent "post-consumer" paper.[6] The EPA mandated the use of 50% post-consumer recycled paper by the federal government, state governments that receive federal funding, and many companies that receive money from the federal government.[7] The EPA does not regulate recycled paper used outside of the government; it only sets a minimum guideline.[1] The UK also does not have any legal standards, only non-mandatory guidelines instituted by a variety of different organizations.[1]
Rationale for recycling
Industrialized paper making takes a tremendous toll on the environment both upstream (where raw materials are acquired and processed) and downstream (waste-disposal impacts).[8] Recycling paper reduces this impact.
Forest preservation
Today, 90% of paper pulp is made of wood. Paper production accounts for about 43% of harvested wood,[9] and represents 1.2% of the world's total economic output.[10] Recycling of newsprint saves about 1 tonne of wood while recycling 1 tonne (1.1 ton) of printing or copier paper saves slightly more than 2 tonnes of wood. This is because kraft pulping requires twice as much wood since it removes lignin to produce higher quality fibers than mechanical pulping processes. Relating tonnes of paper recycled to the number of trees not cut is meaningless, since tree size varies tremendously and is the major factor in how much paper can be made from how many trees.[11] Trees raised specifically for pulp production account for 16% of world pulp production, old growth forests 9% and second- and third- and more generation forests account for the balance.[9] Most pulp mill operators practice reforestation to ensure a continuing supply of trees. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies paper made from trees harvested according to guidelines meant to ensure good forestry practices.[12] It has been estimated that recycling half the world’s paper would avoid the harvesting of 20 million acres (80,000 km²) of forestland.[13]
Energy
There is some debate concerning the energy savings realized in recycling paper. The EIA claims a 40% reduction in energy when paper is recycled versus paper made with unrecycled pulp. [14] while the Bureau of International Recycling, BIR, claims a 64% reduction.[15] Some calculations show that recycling one ton of newspaper saves about 4,000 KWh of electricity, although this may be too high (see comments below on unrecycled pulp). This is enough electricity to power a 3-bedroom European house for an entire year, or enough energy to heat and air-condition the average North American home for almost six months.[16] It must be noted that recycling paper to make pulp may actually consume more fossil fuels than making new pulp via the kraft process since these mills generate all of energy from burning waste wood (bark, roots) and byproduct lignin.[17] Pulp mills producing new mechanical pulp use large amounts of energy, a very rough estimate of the electrical energy needed is 10,000 megajoules (MJ) per tonne of pulp (2500 kW·h per short ton),[18] usually from hydroelectric generating plants. Recycling mills purchase most of their energy from local power companies and since recycling mills tend to be in more urban areas, it is likely that the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.
Landfill use
About 35% of municipal solid waste by weight is paper and paper products.[19] Recycling 1 tonne of newspaper eliminates 3 cubic meters of landfill.[20] Incineration of waste paper is usually preferable to landfilling since useful energy is generated. Organic materials, including paper, decompose in landfills, albeit sometimes slowly, releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Many larger landfills now collect this methane for use as a biogas fuel. In highly urbanized areas, such as the northeastern US and most of Europe, land suitable for landfills is scarce and must be used carefully. Fortunately, it is in such areas that collection of waste paper is also most efficient.
Water and air pollution
The US EPA has found that recycling causes 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution.[21] Pulp mills can be sources of both air and water pollution, especially if they are producing bleached pulp. Modern mills produce considerably less pollution than those of a few decades ago.
Recycling paper decreases the demand for virgin pulp and thus reduces the overall amount of air and water pollution associated with paper manufacture. Recycled pulp can be bleached with the same chemicals used to bleach virgin pulp, but hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydrosulfite are the most common bleaching agents. Recycled pulp, or paper made from it, is known as PCF (process chlorine free) if no chlorine-containing compounds were used in the recycling process.[22] However it should be noted that recycling mills may have polluting by-products, such as sludge. De-inking at Cross Pointe's Miami, Ohio mill results in sludge weighing 22% of the weight of wastepaper recycled.[23]
Cleaning contaminants from scrap paper
Scrap from paper mills (broke) is the cleanest source for recycling. The high rates of of recycling for post-consumer office paper, newspaper, paperboard, and corrugated fiberboard reflect the efficiency of recycling mills to clean and process the incoming materials. Several technologies are available to sort, screen, filter, and chemically treat the recycled paper.
Many extraneous materials are readily removed. Twine, strapping, etc are removed from the hydropulper by a "ragger". Metal straps and staples can be screened out or removed by a magnet. Film-backed pressure sensitive tape stays intact: the PSA adhesive and the backing are both removed together.[24]
Materials which are more difficult to remove include wax coatings on corrugated cartons and "stickies", soft rubbery particles which can clog the paper maker and contaminate the recycled paper. Stickies can originate from book bindings, hot melt adhesives, PSA adhesives from paper labels, laminating adhesives of reinforced gummed tapes, etc.[25][26][27]
Criticism
Many of the claimed benefits of paper recycling have fallen under criticism; criticized areas include the claim that recycling saves trees, reduces energy consumption, reduces pollution, creates desirable jobs, and saves money.
Recycling facts and figures
In the mid-19th century, there was an increased demand for books and writing material. Up to this time, paper manufacturers had used discarded linen rags for paper, but supply could not keep up with the increased demand. Books were bought at auctions for the purpose of recycling fiber content into new paper, at least in the United Kingdom, by the beginning of the 19th century.[28]
Internationally, about half of all recovered paper comes from converting losses ("pre-consumer" recycling), such as shavings and unsold periodicals; approximately one third comes from household or "post-consumer" waste.[29]
Some statistics on paper consumption:
- The average per capita paper use in the USA in 2001 was 700 pounds (318 kg). The average per capita paper use worldwide was 110 pounds (50 kg).[30]
- It is estimated that 95% of business information is still stored on paper. [Source: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Discussion Paper (IIED, London, September 1996)]
- Although paper is traditionally identified with reading and writing, communications has now been replaced by packaging as the single largest category of paper use at 41% of all paper used. [Source: North American Factbook PPI, 1995. (Figures are for 1993)]
- 115 billion sheets of paper are used annually for personal computers [Source: Worldwatch Institute]. The average daily web user prints 28 pages daily [Source: Gartner group and HP]
- Most corrugated fiberboard boxes have over 25% recycled fibers. Some are 100% recycled fiber.
United States of America
Recycling has long been practiced in the United States. The history of paper recycling has several dates of importance:
1690: The first paper mill to use recycled linen was established by the Rittenhouse family.[31]
1897: The first major recycling center was started by the Benedetto family in New York City, where they collected rags, newspaper, and trash with a pushcart.
1993: The first year when more paper was recycled than was buried in landfills.[32]
Today, over half of the material used to make paper is recovered waste.[33] Paper products are the largest component of municipal solid waste, making up more than 40% of the composition of landfills.[34][35] In 2006, a record 53.4% of the paper consumed in the U.S. (or 53.5 million tons) was recovered for recycling.[36] This is up from a 1990 recovery rate of 33.5%[37]. The U.S. paper industry has set a goal to recover 55 percent of all the paper consumed in the U.S. by 2012. Paper packaging recovery, specific to paper products used by the packaging industry, was responsible for about 76.6% of packaging materials recycled with more than 24 million pounds recovered in 2005.[38]
Twenty years ago, only one curbside recycling program existed in the United States, which collected several materials at the curb. By 1998, 9,000 curbside programs and 12,000 recyclable drop-off centers had sprouted up across the nation. As of 1999, 480 materials recovery facilities had been established to process the collected materials.[39]
External links
Joearth - Information for responsible paper purchasing
Paper recycling
Conservatree - Information on environmental and recycled paper
Information on recycling and paper drives for fundraising
Paper Industry Association Council: paperrecycles.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Paper and Paperboard Products
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)