Summary and Conclusion, Miljøstyrelsen

Miljøvurdering af plastdrikkebægre

Summary and Conclusion

Purpose

The purpose of this project has been to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of using recyclable plastic cups as an alternative to the use of disposable cups for the sale of beverages at large scale events. The analysis covers the environmental, economic and practical aspects of using the different types of plastic cups.

The background to the project is the substantial resource consumption and waste production associated with the use of disposable items.

Scope

The project investigates four types of 0.4 litre plastic cups designed for the distribution of beverages at large scale events, for example at football matches or music festivals. Two of the cups are reusable, whilst the other two are disposable.

Of the two reusable cups, one is made of polypropylene (PP), and the other is made of polycarbonate (PC). The PC cup has the same transparency quality as glass, whereas the PP cup has a lower transparency quality and is more pliable. The two disposable cups are made of polystyrene (PS). One of the PS cups has the same transparency quality as glass, while the other PS cup is more pliable and splinter-free.

Reusable cups have been in international use for a number of years and have been used in Denmark in Tivoli and at Roskilde Festival. Disposable cups have been in use over a long period of time, and at a range of different events.

In this project, the reusable PP cup type was tested at three football matches held at Lyngby Stadium to investigate practical and economic aspects in the use of reusable plastic cups.

Project Implementation

The project was implemented in the following phases:

Selection and specification of four different types of plastic cups including handling logistics

Preliminary environmental screening of the cups to identify their environmental strengths and weaknesses

Optimisation of the reusable concept to take into account Danish circumstances

Test of the reusable cup concept and data collection at three football matches held at Lyngby Stadium

Detailed life cycle assessment according to the EDIP model

Analysis of the financial , occupational health and safety, and consumer aspects relating to the use of the different packaging systems

Development of an environmental fact sheet for the four types of cup

Dissemination of the resulting experiences

Testing the Reusable Cups

In the summer of 2000, Dansk Flaskegenbrug A/S (Danbottle Recycling Ltd) ) entered into an agreement with Lyngby Stadium to test the reusable cup concept at three football matches. The football matches were held on Monday 30^th October, Sunday 12^th November and Sunday 26^th November.

Transparent reusable PP cups bearing the logos of the local football club (Lyngby FC), the club’s sponsor (PFA) and Dansk Bægergenbrug (Dancup Recycling) were chosen for use. The cups also displayed an instruction stating that a deposit was required for the cups. The deposit was set at 5 DKK per cup.

PP cups containing beverage were sold at 4 bars as well as the stadium restaurant, and a total of 4 collection points were established in the stadium. Lyngby Stadium was responsible for managing the collection system, including the deposit fees. Dansk Bægergenbrug was responsible for transport of the cups outside of the stadium as well as washing the cups.

Table 1.1 below shows the different rates of return and rates of reuse at the three football matches.

Table 1.1:
Rates of return and reuse for reusable cups at Lyngby Stadium, autumn 2000

Test date	Total number of cups distributed	Rate of return (%)	Rate of reuse
30^th October	1 595	75	4
12^th November	1 539	88	7.7
26^th November	2 394	83	5.9
Total	5 528	82	5.5

As a form of benchmarking to the above, Tivoli has achieved a rate of return of 85-90% for its reusable cups, and a rate of reuse of 8-9 times.

The somewhat lower rates of return and reuse at Lyngby Stadium were most probably caused by a combination of their newness, their souvenir value to the local football fans and because of the short period of time that they were tested in.

The stadium’s users, i.e. the bar staff and football fans, generally accepted using the reusable cups. It should be possible to reach higher rates of reuse when their newness has dropped and the concept has become more integrated over a period of time.

Lifecycle Assessment

The lifecycle assessment was developed using EDIP (Environmental Design of Industrial Products), which is a computer-based Life Cycle Assessment model developed by the Institute for Product Development at the Danish Technical University.

The lifecycle assessment included:

Generating environmental profiles for each type of cup (review of the individual cup’s load on central environmental parameters during all life cycle phases)

Calculation of which rates of reuse (number of use) the reusable cups have to reach to become an environmentally better alternative to disposable cups

Analysis of the environmental consequences of recycling the plastic at the end of the cups’ lifetime, as well as the consequences of varying the transport distances.

The EDIP-model allows the user to aggregate the product’s environmental effects into a combined parameter, called the total environmental effect, and represented by the unit milli-person equivalents, weighted (mPEW). The total environmental effect is reached by multiplying the individual environmental effects with a weighting factor, calculated within the framework of the legislation in this area. Ressource comsumption is not included.

On the above basis, the total environmental effect of the four different types of cups at various rates of reuse is shown in the bar chart below. G1A is the reusable PP cup. G2A is the reusable PC cup. E1 is the splinter-free disposable cup. E2 is the disposable cup with the same quality of transparency as glass.

Figure 2:
Review of the total environmental effect in milli-person equivalents, weighted (mPEW), for the four types of cups at different rates of reuse for the reusable cups

The diagram indicates that reusable cups have a greater environmental effect (environmental impact) than disposable cups with a rate of reuse of 1, i.e. the cup is only used once. If the reusable cup (G1) is used twice, then it is already more environmentally friendly than the disposable cup (E1). If the reusable cup (G1) is used 5 times, then it is more environmentally friendly than both disposable cups. If the reusable cups are used 10 times, then they are the best environmental choice.

The start point for the lifecycle assessment has been a transport distance of 10 km between the place where the reusable cups are washed, and the place where they are in use. If the transport distance is increased then the environmental benefits of using the reusable cups become less. This has been allowed for in Table 4.1.

The lifecycle analysis also shows that there is no noteworthy environmental difference if the reusable cups are washed at a stationary unit 10 km from their place of use, or are washed in a mobile unit that can be located at the place of use. Nonetheless, there is no noticeable difference if the plastic that is disposed of after the use of the disposable cups and recyclable cups is recycled or is incinerated for energy use.

Overall Analysis

A list of expenses and income from the use of both reusable and disposable cups was made on the basis of the information and experiences collected from the tests.

With a rate of reuse of 5, the reusable cups and the splinter-free disposable cups (E1) have equal costs. On the other hand, the disposable cups with glass-like transparency are somewhat more expensive.

The expense factors that effect the reusable cups the most are the purchasing price and the costs associated with washing and transportation of the cups. Profit made from the deposit system (from unreturned cups) and sponsor agreements are the main generators of income.

The most significant expenses in the case of the disposable cups, are the purchasing prices for the individual cups, as well as the anticipated packaging tax. Profit is mostly made from sponsor agreements.

Increasing the rate of reuse will probably not have a significant effect on the financial situation for the reusable cups, as the reduced expenses associated with a higher rate of reuse, will be partially negated by lower profits from the deposit system. On the other hand the increased income from sponsors will improve the financial situation for both disposable and reusable cups.

It is anticipated that there will be no negative occupational health and safety consequences from changing to the use of reusable cups, as the only significant problem will be heavy lifts.

Normally, lifts of over 12 kg are classified as critical, but are not judged to be relevant here.

No systematic investigation of the users’ attitude towards the return system was made but, on the basis of interviews of selected fans and bar staff at Lyngby Stadium, there would seem to be overall acceptance of the return system.

Conclusion

The lifecycle assessment identified that the reusable cups that were applied the most (PP cups), only have to reach a rate of reuse of 2, before they become an environmentally better alternative to using the splinter-free beer cups. At a rate of reuse of 4, the PP cups become an environmentally better alternative to non-reusable cups with the same transparency quality as glass.

The tests at Lyngby Stadium show that it is possible to achieve, within a short period of time, a rate of reuse of 5, which makes PP cups an environmentally responsible alternative.

Reusable PC cups have to reach a rate of reuse of 4-7 before they are superior to disposable cups. These rates of reuse have actually been reached in Tivoli over a long period of time, so it should be possible to achieve environmental benefits through the use of both types of reusable cup, on condition that the return system is well set-up. In addition, the users generally accepted the reusable cup system.

The potential raw material savings from introducing return systems at all football stadiums and music festivals in Denmark is estimated to be approximately 100 tons plastic per year.