Terri Lynch-Caris, Ph.D., P.E. Kettering University

Associate Professor of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering

End-of-Life Considerations in the Design Process I. General Introduction to Environmentally Conscious Design Course The National Academy of Engineers (NAE, 2004) and other authoritative sources have cited the need for environmental sustainability to be included in the engineering design process to meet the growing environmental needs of this planet. Contemporary companies recognize and have taken action toward improving their environmental impact by publicly sharing their initiatives in the form of Sustainability Reports (Baxter, 2011). The complexity of the problem requires a multi-disciplinary approach to analyze the complete life cycle of products to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the needs of future generations. To meet this need, a multi-disciplinary course, IME540: Environmentally Conscious Design, was developed and offered at Kettering University with support from the National Science Foundation (DUE #0511322). Seven unique units were developed by faculty from various disciplines including (1) historical, social and ethical perspectives, (2) life cycle analysis, (3) material selection, (4) manufacturing process design, (5) end of use considerations, (6) environmentally responsible management and (7) green chemistry. The course has been offered since 2007 and currently delivers as an elective course for both undergraduate and graduate students in an online format. The End-of-Use Considerations Unit described in this document is listed as Unit 5 in the online version of the multi-disciplinary course, IME540. II. Focus on End-of-Use Considerations Unit There are seven learning objectives associated with IME540 consisting of one learning objective for each unit. The learning objective associated with the End-of-Use Considerations Unit as written in the syllabus reads:

Propose design changes to a product to enhance recycling, reuse and/or remanufacturing capability with consideration of the economics of these activities.

This unit addresses strategies and challenges associated with reducing the environmental impact of a product after it has been used by a consumer or business. Discussion focuses on remanufacturing, recycling, and disposal options as extended producer responsibility becomes the norm. In assessing current products, there is a lot of waste in packaging and the product itself. This results in an increased amount of potential resources that go to

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$1$

the landfill as garbage when in fact the materials could have been recovered and reused indefinitely. While putting waste in a landfill is not necessarily an unsafe or inappropriate option for disposal of nonhazardous waste, the negative environmental impact of dwindling nonrenewable resources could be mitigated with more recycling and alternative use at the end of a products life. III. End-of-Use Topic Outline The following outline describes the topics that may be contained in a unit comprised of three teaching sessions each two hours in duration. The sessions contain readings, discussions and activities. Technical discussion details and selected activities follow the outline.

Session 1: Background on End-of-life alternatives 2.1 Pre-reading: case study of a landfill “A case study in the development of a

landfill gas-to-energy project for the Antioch, Illinois, Community School District” by Poetter & Torresani (2004)

2.2 Discussion: Introductory lecture on End-of-Use Considerations includes technical content and class interaction. Thought-provoking questions should be interspersed throughout the lecture. How do we measure the advantages and disadvantages of a landfill? What products make up a major portion of the current landfill? What nonrenewable resources (e.g., copper wire in electronics or plastics made of petroleum) are used in everyday disposable products? What are the negative environmental impacts associated with manufacturing consumer products (e.g., toxic emissions) that could be mitigated with more recycling? What are common engineering challenges associated with designing for end of life that will have to be overcome before a re-design is feasible?

2.3 Activity: Students will form groups and pick a product for redesign. Students will

evaluate their chosen product with an end-of-life disposition matrix (see example in Figure 6) for the current design. After establishing the current disposition, students will discuss options for eliminating and/or reducing waste and reusing materials at the end of the product’s useful life through a redesign of the original product. The disposition matrix is then expanded to compare the current design to the proposed design. Advanced classes may include quantitative criteria design requirements for municipal solid waste from the Environmental Protection Agency (Wastes, 2011) or other authoritative sources.

2.4 Continuing Discussion: Recycling economics and legislation including American

Forest and Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI, 2011), sustainable industry performance in ISO 14001 (ISO, 2011), LEED certification (USGBC, 2011), WEEE criteria (Clisby, 2010) and other current topics.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$2$

Session 2: Tour of local landfill - This tour will illustrate the result of many waste streams in the local area as well as how waste can be converted into energy.

Session 3: Background on eliminating waste, reducing waste and re-using products 3.1 Pre-reading; “Desktop Computer Displays, A Life-Cycle Assessment,” (Geibig,

2001) Executive Summary may be included as a handout. Additional information may be given on a website and should be browsed prior to class.

3.2 Opening discussion will focus on how to put the landfill out of business. What will this do to the energy market? How should products be designed so that they will not be put in the landfill at the end of their useful lives? How will the consumers habits have to change to eliminate the traditional curbside garbage can? Will the garbage can be turned into multiple garbage containers sorted by the type of material contained within the container? Since current municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are not necessarily an unsafe or inappropriate option for disposal of waste, why is the MSW landfill considered to have a negative environmental impact?

3.3 Continuing discussion on sustainable design topics such as the economics of

using a landfill versus recycling and remanufacturing.

3.4 Assessment: Groups will present their redesigned product from Session 1 and 2 for environmental and cost impacts. One group member may serve as the recorder and is expected to capture all discussion from the Blackboard discussion group for the written report. Another student, the spokesperson, will summarize and present the majority consensus topics as well as interesting anecdotal findings from the experience. Other roles may be defined depending on the size of the group. Assessment of the redesigned product plan using an end-of-life index will be compared to the original design.

IV. End-of-Use Technical Discussion Introduction & Expectations This module addresses strategies and challenges associated with reducing the environmental impact of a product after it has been used by a consumer or business. Discussion will focus on remanufacturing, recycling, by-product exchange and disposal options as becomes the norm. What students should expect:

• Lectures, readings and activities with discussion

• A visit to a landfill with questions and discussion

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$3$

• Group presentations to redesign a common product with consideration and perspectives for the end-of-life of the product

Review Begin with a review of the first four units in the Environmentally Conscious Design Class, IME540, to show that all introductory materials will play a role in the end-of-life options for a product. Mention topics from the remaining units that will also have an impact on this unit. Previous units include: (1) historical and societal influences, (2) life cycle analysis (LCA) as used to define the boundary of the system, (3) material selection techniques using quantitative methods for choosing materials and (4) process design considerations to show industry relevance. Remaining units in the class include management issues and green chemistry. Note that the first principle of green chemistry emphasizes prevention and states: “It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created.” Reinforce the complexity of design and the fact that many factors play a role in the end-of-life options for a product. Review the typical cradle-to-grave life cycle stages that were first presented in the LCA unit. The cradle-to-gate stage includes raw material extraction/acquisition, materials processing and product manufacture. The use stage includes product use, maintenance, and repair. The end-of-life stage includes the final disposition for the product at the end of its useful life. A product is assumed to be at the end of life when any of the following occur:

• It has served its useful life

• It is no longer functional

• It is rendered unusable due to technological/style obsolescence, changing market demands, innovation-driven product improvements, or mature products are simply replaced by better technology

Points to Ponder Did you know that most living organisms produce waste products that are safely recycled by the ecosphere? Did you know that humans are the only species that produce unnatural waste? What if we decided that the cradle-to-grave concept was a poor strategy that would sacrifice the next generation’s ability to utilize the natural resources that we enjoy? We would need to consider the product life cycle from cradle-to-cradle. What if we decided to design our products sustainably? What if we embraced the idea of Sustainable Development as defined by The Brundtland Commission in 1987 as engineering for human development “that meets the needs of the

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$4$

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”? What would be the implications for engineers and product designers? End-of-Life Options There are several choices for the end-of-life of a product. First there are disposal options including incineration, landfill (solid waste or hazardous), recycle (with disassembly or without disassembly), reuse through service and refurbishment through remanufacture. One of the most common disposal options is the municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill and is considered to be a non-industrial-ecology alternative for the end-of-life of a product. Figure 1 shows a simplified interpretation of the many end-of-life options that exist for physical products. The end-of-life disposition of a product is primarily set during the design process. The materials chosen, the manufacturing design process, the functionality and use of the product are chosen in the early stage of product design. Thus, the end-of-life of a product must be considered from the beginning if a sustainable product life cycle is the objective. The goal is cradle to reincarnation (or cradle-to-cradle), since if one is practicing industrial ecology correctly there is no grave. In other words, a sustainable design is desirable to eliminate waste products and the negative consequences of natural resource depletion. The efficiency with which the cradle-to-cradle objective is achieved is highly dependent on the design of products and processes.

Figure 1. End-of-Life Options

This figure is based on information in (Graedel, 2003)

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$5$

The Landfill Some historical perspective of the early design for the disposal of waste can be found in the literature (Eldridge, 2007). An example of a landfill in the late 1940’s is described in the literature (Sanitary Engineering Research Project, 1952) from Univ. of CA:

Refuse was dropped and spread out over a large area to allow scavengers easy access. At the end of the day pigs were allowed on the spread-out refuse for overnight feeding. The next day the pigs were herded off and the refuse was pushed to the edge of the fill for burning.

This description can prompt a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the early landfill followed by a discussion of current regulations. Later, The US Public Health Service (USPHS) stepped in to provide leadership to eliminate open-burning dumps and replace them with municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills to improve the management of refuse. A great deal of time is spent examining the landfill and the sanitary process of receiving a variety of waste products in a common location. Figure 2 shows the typical composition of a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill to begin the discussion of “What waste streams make up a major portion of the current landfill?” A web search will elicit additional and sometimes conflicting resources showing the typical landfill composition.

Figure 2. A Typical Landfill Composition (Cascadia, 2001) The environmental implications for transporting waste to a landfill represent another topic for discussion as these implications may be significant. The workings of a landfill are often oversimplified from the perspective of a casual observer. Students may be amazed to discover the time, cost and intricacies of a working

Landfill Composition

0% & Co nstructio n

Demo litio n18.1%

Organics30.4%

P lastic8.5%

M etal8.8%

Glass3.0%

P aper23.5%

M ixed1.3%

Househo ldHazardous

0.3%Special

6.2%

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$6$

landfill. A visit and tour of a local landfill is usually a memorable experience. The complexities of building and maintaining the property are explained and often surprising. “Municipal solid waste landfills (MFWLFs) receive household waste. MSWLFs can also receive non-hazardous sludge, industrial solid waste, and construction and demolition debris. All MSWLFs must comply with the federal regulations in 40 CFR Part 258 (Subtitle D of RCRA), or equivalent state regulations. Federal MSWLF standards include:

• Location restrictions—ensure that landfills are built in suitable geological areas away from faults, wetlands, flood plains, or other restricted areas.

• Composite liners requirements—include a flexible membrane (geomembrane) overlaying two feet of compacted clay soil lining the bottom and sides of the landfill, protect groundwater and the underlying soil from leachate releases.

• Leachate collection and removal systems—sit on top of the composite liner and removes leachate from the landfill for treatment and disposal.

• Operating practices—include compacting and covering waste frequently with several inches of soil help reduce odor; control litter, insects, and rodents; and protect public health.

• Groundwater monitoring requirements—requires testing groundwater wells to determine whether waste materials have escaped from the landfill.

• Closure and postclosure care requirements—include covering landfills and providing long-term care of closed landfills.

• Corrective action provisions—control and clean up landfill releases and achieves groundwater protection standards.

• Financial assurance—provides funding for environmental protection during and after landfill closure (i.e., closure and postclosure care).”

Many landfills engage in a waste to energy process that allows energy to be generated from the decomposing waste. Approximately five years after a cell is filled with waste, wells are constructed to capture the landfill gas that is generated as a by-product of decomposing waste. One well covers an area of approximately one hundred feet in diameter. Landfill gas contains methane, a potent greenhouse gas that can be captured and used to fuel power plants, manufacturing facilities, vehicles, homes and more. The landfill gas is captured and routed to a generating station where electricity is generated. The electricity may be purchased by a local utility company and sent to the grid to be sold to consumers. Some projects may sell the electricity directly to a partner business consumer. Converting waste to energy is not a modern idea. Some examples are given from the 1700-1800 time frame. In the 1700’s waste paper was used for heating and cooling and used vegetable oils were burned in lamps. The English burned solid waste for fuel in a unit they called “crematory” to generate steam to produce electrical power. Refuse-driven fuel was reported in Japan in 1897. Thus, we need to study history to understand sustainable practices.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$7$

The Recycling Process Designing for recycling (DfR) is one of the most important aspects of industrial ecology. The idea is a “cradle-to-cradle” or a “sustainable” design to eliminate the need for disposing of waste in a landfill. Figure 3 shows a flowchart representation of the life cycle of a product. As shown, the recycling process of one product may impact the life cycle of other products. A main consideration in DfR during the design phase is the need for disassembly of a product prior to being recycled. Designers should consider the elimination of required disassembly steps in order to make the recycling step profitable and sustainable. Disassembly can add unnecessary cost to the recycling process as shown in Figure 4 and making landfilling the least cost alternative at the end of use in a product’s life cycle.

Figure 3. The Recycling Process This figure is based on information in (Graedel, 2003)

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$8$

Figure 4. Comparison between cost of landfilling and cost of disassembly as a function of the number of disassembly steps

This figure is based on information given in the (Graedel, 2003) textbook The economics and supply chain ramifications of recycling and remanufacturing can be expanded in an advanced class. Additional resources (such as Davis, 2006) should provide real-life applications with thought-provoking examples. Vocabulary Simple definitions may be included for introductory level students. Some example definitions and references include:

Biodegradable substance: The term biodegradable is used to describe materials that decompose through the actions of bacteria, fungi, and other living organisms.typically originating from plant or animal sources, which may be degraded by other living organisms. Other biodegradable wastes include human waste, manure, sewage, slaughterhouse waste. (Biodegradable substances, 2004)

Composting: Composting is the process of arranging and manipulating organic

wastes so that they are gradually broken down, or decomposed, by soil microorganisms and animals. Composting and the use of compost in gardening are important activities of gardeners who prefer not to use synthetic fertilizers. Nature itself composts materials by continually recycling nutrients from dead organic matter. (Blashfield, 2004)

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$9$

Contaminated Soil: The presence of toxic and radioactive chemicals in soil at

concentrations above trace levels poses potential risks to human health and ecological integrity. Soil can be contaminated by many human actions, including discharge of solid or liquid materials to the soil surface, pesticide and fertilizer application, subsurface release from buried tanks, pipes, or landfills, and deposition of atmospheric contaminants such as dust and particles containing lead. (Batterman, 2004)

Dioxin: Chlorinated dioxins are a diverse group of organic chemicals. TCDD is a

particular dioxin that is toxic to some species of animals in extremely small concentrations. As such, TCDD is the most environmentally controversial of the chlorinated dioxins…Dioxins have no particular uses. They are not manufactured intentionally, but are synthesized incidentally during some industrial processes (Freedman, 2004)

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): an environmental policy approach in

which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. (OECD, 2011)

Incineration: Incinerators are industrial facilities used for the controlled burning

of waste materials. The largest incinerators are used to burn municipal solid wastes, often in concert with a technology that utilizes the heat produced during combustion to generate electricity. (Freedman, 2004)

Industrial ecology: is concerned with the optimization of resources, energy, and

capital. The goal is the systematic study of the implications of designs, production, and processes on the environment. Although the focus is on manufacturing, the principles and techniques can be applied to other areas of economic activity such as mining, agriculture, and consumer behavior. (Frankel, 1996)

Landfill: Today, the municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill is the major method of

disposing waste materials in North America and other developed countries, even though considerable efforts are being made to find alternative methods, such as recycling, incineration, and composting. The term “sanitary landfill” was first used in the 1930s to refer to the compacting of solid waste materials. Initially adopted by New York City and Fresno, California, the sanitary landfill, now referred to as a municipal solid waste landfill, used heavy earth-moving equipment to compress waste materials and then cover them with soil. (Richman, 2004)

NIMBY: Acronym for "Not In My Back Yard." A term for a person who resists

unwanted development, such as manufacturing plants, prisons, power companies, or chemical companies in his or her own neighborhood or town. (NIMBY, 2002)

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$10$

Pollution: Anything that corrupts, degrades, or makes something less valuable or

desirable can be considered pollution….Many reserve the term for harmful physical changes in our environment caused by human actions. (Pollution, 2004)

Solid Waste: The term ‘‘solid waste’’ means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a

waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges…The term ‘‘solid waste management’’ means the systematic administration of activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste. (United States Senate, 2002)

In addition to encyclopedia and dictionary definitions, a good source for terminology is the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Terms of Environment, 2009) for additional terms. V. Selected Activities Related to End-of-Use Considerations Field Trip: Students visit a local landfill. The tour includes a visit to an active cell in the

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill as well as the equipment maintenance facility and waste-to-energy capture system where electricity is generated from methane. Prior to the landfill trip, students are introduced to the design and regulations for landfills. (Wastes, 2011) For communities that lack a municipal solid waste landfill, a field trip may be infeasible. Thus, the EPA website and associated images may necessarily replace the field trip.

Overview of Group Project: Small groups are formed to evaluate the end-of-use strategy

for one common product. Students begin by performing a web search to identify the makeup of a landfill by the types of waste and compare the percentage of waste that is compostable to that of waste that is not compostable. Secondly, they perform a breakdown of their chosen product and identify (potential and real) waste streams at the end of its useful life. Finally, the students redesign their product for a sustainable cradle-to-cradle design to prevent it from culminating in a landfill at the end of its useful life. The final presentation includes a discussion of remanufacturing, recycling, and alternative disposal options as possible end-of-life alternatives including an evaluation of the environmental and cost impact of the redesigned product.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$11$

Group Project Initial Assignment or Part I The process of forming, managing and assessing group work in an online class can be tricky. Dr. Dan Apple of the Pacific Crest Institute held an Interactive Learning Institute Workshop September 25-28, 2006 on the campus of Kettering University in Flint, Michigan. The initial draft of the learning activity was developed as part of the workshop for a traditional classroom. The activity was modified for the online version of the class and continues to be improved through student feedback.

1. Perform a web search to illustrate what makes up a landfill and the impact of your chosen product. A reputable website to initiate further research can be found in governmental agencies such as the US EPA (Waste, 2011) and state websites. Students are to solicit answers to two questions:

(1) What categories of products make up a landfill? (2) What is the landfill impact of your chosen product?

2. In pre-chosen groups, go into group discussion board and contribute individual

ideas. Assign team roles – recorder and spokesperson. Recorder will capture results from the group pages for posting on Blackboard discussion board. Spokesperson will respond to any questions from peers. All group members should be contributing in their private group page space with due dates appropriate for the class.

3. Groups will report back to the class via Blackboard with web search results being sure to include URL references and other sources of information used to ascertain the landfill impact.

4. This summary will be the beginning of the final research assignment for Unit 5. Group Project Continuing Assignment or Part II

5. Continue working in pre-assigned groups for product assessment. As before, all group members should be contributing in their private group page space. Assign the roles of recorder and spokesperson to different individuals than the first group assignment.

6. Brainstorm ideas for redesigning the group’s chosen product that will prevent the

product from ending up in a landfill at the end of its useful life. Examples of a product for re-design can be helpful such as Figures 5 and 6.

7. Prepare a persuasive presentation to convince management that your redesign idea will be profitable.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$12$

Figure 5. Schematic breakdown of a coffee maker

Disposition Current Design

Proposed Design

Recycling 0% 40%

Remanufacturing 0% 10%

Incineration 0% 20%

Hazardous Landfill 0% 0%

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill

100% 30%

Figure 6. Comparison of Design Alternatives for End-of-Life Disposition

A group write-up explaining the new design is expected and will be graded according to a grading rubric provided in advance. A sample grading rubric is provided. An example student assignment is included as an attachment.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$13$

Grading Rubric for Group Project Name of chosen Product: Group Participants: Goal: Insightful summary of course topic integrated into the redesign of the group’s chosen product and presented in a Powerpoint or Word document for assessment.

1. Problem statement (10 pts). The introductory statement should advance a clear and

coherent statement of the argument, problem, or analysis of the product under study. It provides direction and structure for the project, and can be either proven or disproven by evidence. The statement and overall project should utilize concepts and terms from the Unit 5 reading and lecture materials.

2. Ideas for Re-Design (10 pts). This section should include insights from the topics

presented in the unit as thought-starters for re-designing the chosen product. Additional research may be required to discover the critical aspects and implications associated with the re-design of the chosen product.

3. Content and Argumentation (10 pts). This refers to the quality of the project and its

ability to support the argument or analysis as set out in the problem statement. There should be a clear description of the chosen product as well as common and ideal end-of-life practices associated with product. The content should be well-researched and organized, and contain a significant amount of relevance. Thinly-researched, disorganized, and insubstantial projects will be sharply downgraded in this category.

4. Analysis/critical reflection (10 pts.) Proposed redesign reveals deep and critical

analysis of the current product design and alternatives to reduce the environmental impact. How insightful and thoughtful is the proposed redesign?

5. Presentation (10 pts). The project should be well-presented and packaged including

cost implications of redesigned product. Any powerpoint presentations and/or written papers should be well-written, well-organized, engagingly presented with few grammatical and spelling errors.

Performance Criteria:

exe

mpla

ry

adequate

min

or

revi

sions

needed

majo

r re

visi

ons

needed

off

targ

et

not

done

Poin

ts

Poss

ible

Poin

ts E

arn

ed

Factor 1: Problem Statement 10 8 5 3 1 0 10

Factor 2: Ideas for redesign 10 8 5 3 1 0 10

Factor 3: Content and Argumentation 10 8 5 3 1 0 10

Factor 4: Analysis/Critical Reflection 10 8 5 3 1 0 10

Factor 5: Presentation 10 8 5 3 1 0 10

Total

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$14$

VI. References Allenby B.R. & Graedel, T.E. (2003). Industrial Ecology (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Batterman, S. & Duncan, L. (2004). Contaminated Soil. In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.)The Gale Encyclopedia of Science, (Vol. 2). (3rd ed., pp. 1025-1028) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps /start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

Baxter Worldwide. (2010). Sustainability Report – Product-End-of-Life. General format.

Retrieved August 18, 2011 from http://www.sustainability.baxter.com/product-responsibility/product-end-of-life.html

Biodegradable Substances. (2004). In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.)The Gale

Encyclopedia of Science, (Vol. 1). (3rd ed., pp. 503-504) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_ accessmich

Blashfield, J. (2004). Composting. In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.)The Gale

Encyclopedia of Science, (Vol. 2). (3rd ed., pp. 981-984) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. & Sky Valley Associates. (2002). Appendix C: Waste

composition study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawai’i. In Update to the integrated solid waste management plan for the County of Hawai’i. (pp. 5). Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/env_mng/iswmp_final/appendixc.pdf

Clisby, Rory. (2011, August 11). Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

General format. Retrieved June 11, 2010 from http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/ topics/ WEEE/ default.aspx.

Davis J. L. [Jerry], Davis, L. [Lauren], Samanlioglu, F., & Stanfield, P. (2006, May). Systemized

Critical Chain Project Management with Application to Remanufacturing. Proceedings of the Institute of Industrial Engineers Annual Conference 2006, Institution of Industrial Engineers, Orlando, Fl.

Eldredge, R. W. & Hickman Jr., H. L. (1999, September). A Brief History of Solid Waste

Management in the US During the Last 50 Years. MSW Management: The Journal for Municipal Solid Waste Professionals. 9(5). Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.mswmanagement.com/september-october-1999/solid-waste-management.aspx.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$15$

Frankel, H. (1996, June ) Industrial Ecology. IIE Transactions, (Vol. 28). (6), 521. Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

Freedman, B. (2004). Dioxin. In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.)The Gale

Encyclopedia of Science, (Vol. 2). (3rd ed., pp. 1249-1251) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

Freedman, B. (2004). Incineration. In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.)The Gale

Encyclopedia of Science, (Vol. 3). (3rd ed., pp. 2109-2112) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale:http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

Geibig, J., Kincaid, L., Overly, J., & Socolof, M. (2001, December). Desktop Computer

Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/ oppt/ dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca/

International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO 1400 essentials. General

format. Retrieved August 17, 2011 from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials

Kortesis C. & St. Louis, B. (2011). Deodorant Redesign Proposal: Unit 5 Student

Assignment. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering, Kettering University, Flint, Michigan.

Landfills (2011, July 27). In US EPA A-Z Index. General format. Retrieved August 24,

2011 from http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm

Methane. (2011, April 14). In U.S. EPA A-Z Index. General format. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/methane/

National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering

in the New Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NIMBY. (2002). In The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd ed., (3rd ed.) Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

OECD (2011) Extended Producer Responsibility. Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,3746,en_2649_34281_35158227_1_1_1_1,00.html

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$16$

Poetter B. & Torresani, M. (2004, March 22). A case study in the development of a landfill gas-to-energy project For the Antioch, Illinois Community School District. Retrieved from www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/SWANA04LFG&CHP.pdf

Pollution. (2004). In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.)The Gale Encyclopedia of

Science, (Vol. 5). (3rd ed., pp. 3174-3176) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_accessmich

[Pollutants definition in 2nd paragraph]

Richman, V. (2004). Landfill. In K. L. Lerner & B. W. Lerner (Eds.) The Gale Encyclopedia of Science, (Vol. 4). (3rd ed., pp. 2269-2273) Detroit: Gale Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=AONE&u=lom_ accessmich

Sanitary Engineering Research Project. (1952, December). An Analysis of Refuse

Collection and Sanitary Landfill Disposal. (Technical Bulletin No. 8, Series 37). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative. (n.d.). Basics of SFI. General format. Retrieved August

17, 2011 from http://www.sfiprogram.org

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future. (UN Document No. A/42/427). Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/index.shtml.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, June 18). Terms of Environment:

Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms. General format. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ OCEPAterms/

United States Green Building Council. (2011) United States Green Building Council

website. Retrieved August 17, 2011 from http://www.usgbc.org/LEED

United States Senate (2002) Solid Waste Disposal Act [As amended through P.L. 107-377 December 31, 2002]. (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992K). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://epw.senate.gov/rcra.pdf

[Definition for solid waste can be found in Section 1004, Subheading 27] U.S. EPA (2011), Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste - Municipal Solid Waste, Last updated

on Monday, September 12, 2011, Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$17$

Wastes. (2011, July 27). In US EPA Solid Waste Landfill Publications. General format. Retrieved August 18, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/sw_pubs.htm#guidance.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$18$

Attachment A: Example Student Assignment Script

IME 540 Research Assignment – Unit 5 Module 7

Name of chosen product: Deodorant

Group participants: Constantine Kortesis, Bradford St. Louis

Project Initiation

When we initially started this project, we limited our scope to deodorants and excluded antiperspirants, and thought that we would have an opportunity to explore:

1. Alternatives to reduce odor-causing bacteria. Odors are caused by bacteria, not perspiration.

2. The various chemicals that comprise commercially available deodorants

3. The environmental, biological and social impact of the production of the chemicals that comprise deodorants

4. The various package types, functions and their chemical composition.

A. Spray-on

B. Roll-on

C. Rub-on

D. Wipe-on

E. Powder / Dust-on

F. Plastic,

G. Metal,

H. Glass

I. Refillable

J. Disposable

5. The environmental and social impact of the production processes that produce the packaging

6. The impact of the transportation of the materials to produce the product, the packaging and delivery of the final product to the point of sale.

7. The impact of the production processes that combine the product with the packaging

8. The end-of life disposition (reuse, repurpose, recycle or land-fill) of the packaging.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$19$

Focus Upon Packaging for Rub-on / Wipe –on Deodorant

See Slide #2 Project Conception

As the class topics were presented, we limited the scope and focus of our project to design of the packaging rather than attempt to analyze and reengineer the chemical composition of the deodorant product itself. The lessons learned regarding the packaging issues are applicable to a wide range of commercial products, and the analysis tools that we studied are more easily applied to mechanical products as opposed to compounds of unfamiliar or proprietary chemistry. Thus, we eliminated items 1-3 and 7 and focused upon 4, 5, 6 and 8, listed above. Also, we limited the packaging to the type used for rub-on or wipe-on “stick” deodorants – items 4C or 4D, above – and considered refillable vs. disposable packaging – items F,G, I and J. We eliminated glass packaging, primarily because we did not believe that the market would favor a package that might shatter if dropped onto a ceramic tile bathroom floor.

Problem Statement – Slide #3

Most of today’s commercially produced deodorant “sticks” come in plastic packaging that ends up in landfills, even if the packaging is sent to recycling processors.

Many commercially-produced deodorants that are available in today’s mass market consist of a fully consumable product and the packaging that contains it for production, distribution and handling. Typically, all of the packaging ends up as waste after the product has been depleted from the package. The typical packaging contains enough deodorant for three or four months of daily use by one user, but may have a usable lifetime of more than 15 years. One of our team members has been refilling the same plastic deodorant container for that long, and expects it to last for many more years.

What we discovered in our research was that recycling of such packaging is fraught with challenges. According to “Seven Misconceptions about Plastic and Recycling”, published by the Ecology Center of Berkley, CA, {http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html}, most plastic containers that may be collected for recycling are not actually re-processed for a variety of reasons. Most commercially available deodorants are contained and/or applied by highly durable plastic polymer packaging that ultimately ends up in a landfill. Even packaging that could be recycled, if it were disassembled into its component parts, typically goes to landfill because its components are assembled from dissimilar polymers and are often not marked for recycling.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$20$

Our Current Product Package – Slide #4

Our current product package consists of six unmarked plastic components plus a label. The deodorant “Block” is also shown, for perspective, but is fully consumable. Note that in the picture, the “product pusher” is shown molded to the deodorant block but is also shown without the block. Colgate-Palmolive representatives told us, by telephone, that the parts are not marked for recycling because they are comprised of “mixed” plastics, including PET and PP and, possibly styrene. Colgate’s logic is that recycling centers will send assemblies of dissimilar plastics to landfills or incinerators rather than disassemble them. Therefore, Colgate intends for all of the packaging to go to landfill or incineration.

Recycling Trends – Slide #5

Public awareness, governmental regulation and increasing material and energy costs will result in more recycling – We predict.

Ideal Packaging – Slides #6, 7 and 8

An “ideal” deodorant, like any “ideal product” would be one that requires no individual packaging, such as an apple, pear or automobile, or one that “comes in its own package: much like a banana, orange or coconut.

While there are some commercially available “solid dry crystal deodorants” that could be sold in simple paper wrappers, most contain “ammonium aluminum sulfate” (formula (NH4)Al(SO4)2·12H2O – {http://www.the-green-diva.com/2010/06/faith-in-nature-crystal-deodorant-review-2/} and there is some debate about the safety of using deodorants that contain any aluminum-based compounds {http://www.naturallyfreshdeodorantcrystal.com/naturally-fresh-deodorant-crystal}.

Current Process Tree – Slide #9

As previously stated, 100% of most current-design deodorant packaging goes to landfills or incinerators because recycling centers are not inclined to expend labor to disassemble and sort the packaging components.

Ideas for re-design

Alternate Packaging Possibilities – Slide #10

Ideas for redesign include the elimination of the threaded “drive screw” mechanism (including the mounting base) and replacing it with a simple “push up” product elevating platform such as was commonly used in the Old Spice deodorant line. Proctor & Gamble discontinued that package design in February 2010. For more details, see: http://feedback.pgestore.com/pg_estore/topics/dont_buy_the_new_oblong_screw_up_shaped_stick

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$21$

Other ideas include:

Manufacture packaging of homogeneous material so that it can be melted, as an assembly, for recycling, when service life has ended.

Produce deodorant refills, wrapped in waxed paper

Establish refill centers at the point of sale

Use materials with lesser environmental impact and improved recyclability:

Aluminum

Waxed or coated paper

Waxed or coated cardboard

Stainless steel

Bamboo – we could not find much information about the environmental impact of harvesting and processing of bamboo for packaging, but we did consider it.

Biopolymer from vegetable sources (e.g. Ingeo polylactic acid) http://www.natureworksllc.com/product-and-applications/ingeo-biopolymer/technical-resources/ingeo-biopolymer-technical-data-sheets.aspx

http://www.natureworksllc.com/product-and-applications/fact%20or%20fiction.aspx#cold

Analysis/Critical Reflection

Least Impact Material – Slide #11

This slide shows our WPI analysis of the impact of using different packaging materials. The logic behind the desired material performance characteristics:

Water resistant: Packaging had to be water resistant to the extent that it would keep the deodorant from getting water-logger or washed away in a moderately humid environment, such as in a bathroom medicine cabinet.

Shatter resistant: Material should withstand an inadvertent drop onto a tiled floor without shattering.

Service Temperature: Material must be capable of maintaining cohesive integrity in cold temperatures such as in high-altitude air cargo containers or on skiing trips or Arctic expeditions. It must also maintain integrity at temperatures needed for the filling process (approx. 40 degree C). The material did not require any extreme tensile or shear strength. I just had to be strong enough to hold 3.5 ounces of deodorant for several months of storage and use.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$22$

Reusability? Maybe yes. Maybe no. Packaging made of the selected materials could be refilled, but the logistics of refilling operations would require more research. This is what we discovered:

The class materials and time available for research did not allow for actual production testing, distribution testing and market testing of the concept of deodorant refills or point-of-sale thermo-flow refilling stations. However, point-of-sale refilling stations do exist for liquid products such as eyeglass cleaner (Costco stores), and high viscosity products such as honey, brown rice syrup, agave (Whole Foods stores and Oryana Natural Foods Market – Traverse City, MI – for example). Thus, it is conceivable that empty deodorant could be refilled at a filling station that contained a heating element to make the product flow into the case. One deodorant (Colgate-Palmolive Speed Stick) that we tested flowed at approximately120 degrees F.

We did not have the resources to determine whether manufacturers or retailers would be able to handle the logistics of operating and maintaining such refilling stations, but they may not be significantly more complex than honey fillers. Raw honey has a viscosity very similar to that of stick deodorant. Sleeping Bear Farms apiary (971 South Pioneer Road, Beulah, MI 49617-9778 – tel.: (231) 882-4456) supplies the Oryana Natural Foods Market with bulk honey for its filling station. The heat needed to melt raw honey without damaging it was approximately 118 degrees F, about the same as required for the deodorant.

When we contacted the owner of the Sleeping Bear Farms apiary regarding possible filling stations for raw honey, he said that there were two main challenges to doing that. One challenge was how he would transfer bulk raw honey into a filling station, because he would need to heat a big load of it at the store. The other challenge was that the equipment at the store would need to be designed to not heat the entire load but only what was needed to fill the consumer’s container. By analogy, we conclude similar engineering and maintenance challenges for point of sale deodorant refilling stations. This does not mean that this cannot be done, but is beyond our current level of timing and resources.

The manufacturing plant could design and build molds to produced preformed deodorant refill blocks, but those would need to be carefully wrapped to prevent contamination and deformation during the shipping process. This, too, presents engineering challenges and does not completely eliminate packaging inasmuch as a wrapper around the refill block would still have to be recycled, incinerated or sent to landfill.

What about waxed or coated cardboard? The WPI analysis shows favorable results for “waxed” or coated cardboard. When we researched waxed paper or polymer coated paper, we learned that such paper is not accepted by most recycling centers. The coatings are typically petroleum-based although Ingeo, from NatureWorks LLC, is a polylactic acid vegetable-based polymer that is now

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$23$

used for coating paper coffee cups. While it is made from renewable resources, it cannot be recycled or composted conventionally. Paper coated with Ingeo may decompose in a landfill in a year or two, but the polymer requires a special process to decompose it. According to NatureWorks, LLC, it may or may not be recycled, but not while it is still bonded to the paper. NatureWorks states, at http://www.natureworksllc.com/product-and-applications/fact%20or%20fiction.aspx#dam,:

NatureWorks LLC is working with representatives of the plastics recycling industry to study the handling of post-consumer PLA in mixed plastic streams. The current research shows Ingeo biopolymer can exist in the present North American infrastructure with the existing commercial systems for recycling PET and HDPE. In addition, NatureWorks is committed to responsibly ensuring the successful introduction of the material into existing waste management and recycling infrastructures.

Such wording does not exactly tell us that Ingeo plastics are, indeed, recyclable or compatible with other plastics. NatureWorks does claim that its Ingeo is compostable under certain industrial composting facilities or via chemical hydrolysis, but not in landfills {http://www.natureworksllc.com/the-ingeo-journey/end-of-life-options/feedstock-recycling.aspx}.

Another possible refilling option may be to use high-pressure injection molding-type rams to extrude the semi-solid deodorant into the packaging at ambient temperatures. This process would be easier if the current deodorant packaging design with drive screw were replaced by the old-style “push up” configuration. One of the current limitations of the “push-up” type of package is that it cannot be made taller than an adult’s ability to push deodorant elevator platform into the tubular housing. The threaded drive screw design does not have that limitation. However, the typical 3.5 oz. “tall” drive-screw type case and the 3.5 oz. push up case both hold the same amount of deodorant, but the push up case is shorter with a round cross section vs. the elliptical cross section of the drive-screw type of case.

As we were conducting our materials options analyses (intuitive selection, pair-wise selection, Saaty’s Scale analysis and Weighted Performance Indices analysis), it became more apparent that there is no clear answer as to what is the “best” packaging material. All-aluminum packaging may be the most recyclable in the long run, unless the NatureWorks LLC puts systems into operation to actually recycle and reprocess their Ingeo PET polymers. Nature works claims that production of Ingeo PET “ produces 60% less greenhouse gases and uses 50% less non-renewable energy (NREU) than traditional polymers like PET & polystyrene”

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$24$

ttp://www.natureworksllc.com/the-ingeo-journey/eco-profile-and-lca.aspx but it remains to be seen if the infrastructure will exist to realize the necessary processing for the polylactic acid (PLA) polymers to live up to NatureWorks LLC’s promises.

The primary purpose of our deodorant packaging is to facilitate the clean handling, distribution and application of the deodorant. It also must withstand the process heat used to fill it and must also not break if dropped on a ceramic tile bathroom floor.

Thus, we established the following packaging design requirement: minimize environmental impact. Use recycled materials for production and use materials that are as near to 100% recyclable or refillable at the end of life of the deodorant, i.e., when the deodorant is fully consumed and depleted from the packaging.

The related constraints are:

• Fixed length and cross-sectional area, for convenient handling

• Moderate impact strength to prevent shattering (i.e., glass packaging would be

recyclable with minimal environmental effects, but may not be shatterproof.)

• For the current design of the commercially produce deodorant package, we can

consider it to be a cylinder with internal pressure, although the pressure is not much

more than atmospheric pressure plus the maximum weight (92.1 grams) of the

deodorant.

• Must not distort or melt during the filling process. Must maintain integrity at 40

degrees C.

• Also, the package must have some degree of thermal shock resistance. More

specifically, it must have a service temperature range from minus 50 degrees C to

plus 40 degrees C.

!""#$%&'%()*+,-.')/0)123)4#(5)3%,#6#'")7)8'+,+9:%()7);<+9('"#"=>."

CYLINDER WITH INTERNAL PRESSURE

elastic distortion, pressure and radius specified, wall thickness free

!f / "

CYLINDER WITH INTERNAL PRESSURE

elastic distortion, pressure and radius specified; wall thickness free

E / "

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$25$

1. To minimize environmental impact, replace density ! by Ie! instead, where Ie is the eco-indicator value for the material.

2. !f = failure strength (the yield strength for metals and ductile polymers, the tensile strength for ceramics, glasses and brittle polymers loaded in tension; the flexural strength or modulus of rupture for materials loaded in bending); " = density.

3. For design for infinite fatigue life, replace !f by the endurance limit !e.

Also, the package must have some degree of thermal shock resistance. More specifically, it must have a service temperature range from minus 50 degrees C to plus 40 degrees C. This is a guess. We are not yet certain about how hot the liquefied deodorant is during the pour.

The Performance Indices table included the following but this may not really be applicable. A major constraint is that the packaging must not be damaged by the heat of the pouring of the hot liquid deodorant into the package case during the filling process.

THERMAL SHOCK RESISTANCE

maximum change in surface temperature; no failure

!f / E #

Proposed Design for New Packaging – Slide #12

Five components, including the label, vs. Seven (including label) for the old design.

Proposed Design for New Packaging – Slide #13

More details about the materials for the new design.

It may be possible to produce a firm and durable product pusher out of cardboard, but at this time, we elect to go with a PLA plastic until further research and development provides a better solution. If we use cardboard coated with Ingeo (or similar) PLA polymer, that PLA is “compostable” or recyclable, according to the PLA manufacturer, NatureWorks, LLC. However, at the time of our research, the PLA is only certain to be compatible with PLA but may not yet be so with other types of polymers.

A related challenge is the need for a process that rapidly separates the cardboard from the PLA coating. There is some speculation that merely heating the coated cardboard to a temperature lower than its combustion point may melt the PLA off of the paper. We have not yet found rigorous data to support that speculation.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$26$

Proposed Process Tree – Slide #14

Even if some of the packaging of the new design is sent to a conventional landfill, it may eventually decompose. The cardboard components will decompose if exposed to sufficient moisture for an extended time. NatureWorks claims that the PLA will not decompose in conventional landfill but will do so at an industrial composting facility. There are very few industrial composters in the United States. See http://www.findacomposter.com/listing/results.php?where=City%2C+ST+or+Postal+Code&keyword=&template_id=

Because the source of the PLA plastic is renewable cornstarch, there is a lesser environmental impact (NartureWorks claims about a 50% reduction in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the production of PLA vs. conventional plastics). http://www.natureworksllc.com/The-Ingeo-Journey/Eco-Profile-and-LCA/Life-Cycle-Analysis/Cups_PEA.aspx

Recycling, the Environment and the Consumer – Slide #15

As the cost/price of non-renewable materials increase, the total life-cycle costs of renewable will diminish by comparison.

Issues – Slide #16

If we build it, will they come? Our analysis indicated that waxed or coated cardboard may be a viable packaging solution but, as mentioned above, the coating may or may not decompose in a natural environment, and we have not been able to ascertain how well a cardboard, push-up type container would actually perform in service nor how it would be perceived by the public.

One limitation to our proposed design change is the usable length of the container is limited by how far an adult finger can push up the deodorant elevator/pusher platform. This has not been a problem with older deodorant tubes for either 2.5 oz. or 3.5 oz. packages. Thus, we conclude that these package volumes will be accepted by our targeted consumers. Further market testing will be necessary before going to full production.

If we institute recycling collection points, exclusively for our packing materials, we will be able to control the recycling process. Tom’s of Maine has succeeding in doing so for its various plastic product packaging materials.

We were not able to establish specific prices for coated cardboard packaging. However, due to the reduced design complexity and the fact that the cardboard packaging will not be injection-molded will drive down both the material costs and the processing costs vs. the original Petroleum/Natural Gas-based PET polymer design. As the cost of petroleum and natural gas rise, the relative cost differential will continue to favor our proposed packaging design changes.

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$27$

As our analysis progressed we determined that whatever packaging material we selected, there was no insurmountable obstacle to some form of recycling or composting. Tom’s of Maine is one deodorant manufacturer that has developed its own recyclable polymer packaging that is marked for recycling, is composed of parts made of the same polymer, throughout, and Tom’s has established its own recycling drops at many of its nationwide retailers. Tom’s will even accept empty Tom’s containers that customers can send directly to the factory. http://www.tomsofmaine.com/business-practices/environmental-practices/gimme5

Recommendations -- Slide #17

These recommendations include actions to address the issues listed in the Issues slide. Before going into full production, we propose the construction of market testing prototypes. Making such prototypes will help us to assess market acceptance of the new design and will help us to gain insight into the related costs of production.

Because one deodorant manufacturer has already succeeding in handling the logistics of dedicated recycling drop boxes for its products at many of its retailers’ locations, we are confident that we can also handle similar logistics until such time as more “conventional” recycling centers can handle PLA plastics and PLA-coated cardboard.

Other References – Slide #18

We have indicated various references in the slides and in this script, above. However, we also found useful supporting materials at the web pages listed on this slide.

Attachment B: Example Student Powerpoint Slides

!"#$%&$'()$*%"(+#),-.+%"($+"$./)$0)(+1"$2,%3)(($ 2-1)$28$

Two additional pages in separate file

!"#!"$%##

#

!"#$#%&'()*"$"+,-').%#/#+&0!"#$#%&'()*"$"+,-').%#/#+&0

1234567)48,'("%)97::

;%&$<#%$)=(>)?#@,+A#'+(&'(,'")B#%("+,+

.%#C"D()A#'D"/(,#'.%#C"D()A#'D"/(,#'E)-%#F,'-)/@G0,D)&F&%"'"++)#<)&'$)F,00,'-'"++)(#)%"DHD0")F,00),I/&D()+&0"+)#<)'#'4%"DHD0&G0")/%#$@D(+)#J"%)(,I">))KL,+)/%#C"D()F&+),',(,&("$)(#)"M/0#%")F&H+)(#)0,I,()(L")#J"%&00)"'J,%#'I"'(&0) ,I/&D()&++#D,&("$)F,(L)(L")I&'@<&D(@%")&'$)$,+(%,G@(,#')#<)$"#$#%&'(>))KL,+)+(@$H)"'D#I/&++"$)(L")<#00#F,'-)&+/"D(+N))

:> O#D@+N))P&%,#@+)/&DQ&-")(H/"+R)<@'D(,#'+)&'$)(L",%)DL"I,D&0) D#I/#+,(,#'>

E> =/%&H4#'

;> *#004#'

A> *@G4#'

!> 8,/"4#'

3> .#F$"%)S)!@+(4#'

O> .0&+(,D

T> 2"(&0

U> T0&++

1> *"<,00&G0"

V> !,+/#+&G0"

9> 3'J,%#'I"'(&0),I/&D()#<)(L")/%#$@D(,#')/%#D"++"+)(L&()/%#$@D")(L")/&DQ&-,'-

W> 1I/&D()#<)(L")(%&'+/#%(&(,#')#<)(L")I&("%,&0+)(#)/%#$@D")(L")/%#$@D()&'$)(L")/&DQ&-,'-)&'$)$"0,J"%H)#<)(L")<,'&0)/%#$@D()(#)(L")/#,'()#<)+&0">

6> 3'$4#<)0,<")$,+/#+,(,#')X%"@+"R)%"/@%/#+"R)%"DHD0")#%)0&'$4<,00Y)#<)(L")/&DQ&-,'->

.%#G0"I)=(&("I"'(.%#G0"I)=(&("I"'(•2#+()/0&+(,D)/&DQ&-,'-)<#%)D#II"%D,&00H)/%#$@D"$)$"#$#%&'()Z+(,DQ+[)D#I"),')/0&+(,D)/&DQ&-,'-)(L&()"'$+)@/),')0&'$<,00+)#%),'D,'"%&(#%+)

•3J"'),<)(L")/&DQ&-,'-),+)+"'()(#)%"DHD0,'-)/%#D"++#%+>

•2&'H)/&DQ&-"+)&%")'#()"J"')I&%Q"$)<#%)%"DHD0,'->)

\@%)A@%%"'().%#$@D().&DQ&-"\@%)A@%%"'().%#$@D().&DQ&-"

A#I/#'"'(+! X]Y)^#'4%"DHD0&G0")/0&+(,D)/,"D"+! X:Y).%#$@D()?&G"0! X:Y)!"#$#%&'()G0#DQ

!%,J")=D%"F 2&,')A&+"

;&+").0&("

.%#$@D().@+L"%

\@("%)A&/

1''"%)A&/

!"#$#%&'();0#DQ

*"DHD0,'-)K%"'$+*"DHD0,'-)K%"'$+

L((/NSS"'J,%#'I"'(>&G#@(>D#IS-,S#>L(I_`,a:SbVc`K,a:c+$'a"'J,%#'I"'(cD$'a'"F+,++@"+c(Ia]dc<a:7c+@a/576>:>WW]>,/ec((a9cG(a:cG(+a:c`@aL((/fWESSFFF>"/&>-#JSI+FS<&D(+>L(I

8L,0")0"++)(L&'):SW)#<)/0&+(,D+)&%")D@%%"'(0H)%"DHD0"$R)(L")(%"'$),+)+("&$,0H),'D%"&+,'->))8")"M/"D()(L&()-#J"%'I"'()%"-@0&(,#'+)I&H)G")&$#/("$),')(L")<@(@%")(#),'D%"&+")(L,+)%&(")+,-',<,D&'(0H>

.&DQ&-,'-N)1$"&0)A#'$,(,#'.&DQ&-,'-N)1$"&0)A#'$,(,#'E')Z,$"&0[)$"#$#%&'(R)0,Q")&'H)Z,$"&0)/%#$@D(R[)F#@0$)G")#'")(L&()%"g@,%"+)'#),'$,J,$@&0)/&DQ&-,'->3M&I/0"+N))&//0"R)/"&%)#%)&@(#I#G,0">))

!"#!"$%##

$

.&DQ&-,'-N)1$"&0)A#'$,(,#'.&DQ&-,'-N)1$"&0)A#'$,(,#'KL")'"M()G"+()#/(,#'),+)#'")(L&()ZD#I"+),'),(+)#F')/&DQ&-"[>

3M&I/0"+N))G&'&'&R)#%&'-"R)D#D#'@(>

.&DQ&-,'-N)1$"&0)A#'$,(,#'.&DQ&-,'-N)1$"&0)A#'$,(,#'KL,%$)G"+()#/(,#'),+)&)/&DQ&-")(L&()D&')G"N)*"@+"$)

!"#"$R)h,//#)0,-L("%

#%)*"DHD0"$!"#"$R) E0@I,'@I)D&'>

A@%%"'().%#D"++)K%""A@%%"'().%#D"++)K%""

:77f)#<)D@%%"'(4$"+,-')/&DQ&-,'-)"'$+)@/),')&)0&'$<,00)#%),'D,'"%&(#%)$@")(#)(L")%"DHD0,'-),++@"+)#<)D#I/#@'$)/0&+(,D)&++"IG0,"+

&'()*+,-.-)/011-2034)510)4*6

53'7(64-809:1;7<:)*=:

>:'7'30+4-?1'6@

?1'A-B'17*+,C+D:64*'+-B'17*+,-53'6:))

E0A-B04:3*01)

F30+)2'3404*'+ F30+)2'3404*'+F30+)2'3404*'+

B0+(G064(3*+,-H06*1*4I

J1:643*6*4I

F30+)2'3404*'+

K):

K):7->:'7'30+4

>*)2')01-'G-506@0,*+,

80+7G*11-'3-C+6*+:304*'+

L0)4:-L04:3

E0("%'&(").&DQ&-,'-).#++,G,0,(,"+E0("%'&(").&DQ&-,'-).#++,G,0,(,"+! O@'D(,#'&0)KH/"+

" =/%&H4#'" !,+I,++"$)44 D#I/0"M,(H)#<))&(#I,`"%)

" *#004#'" *@G4#'" 8,/"4#'

! 2&("%,&0)KH/"+" P"-"(&G0");&+"$).0&+(,D)X.#0H0&D(,D)ED,$)#%).?EY" .&/"%SA&%$G#&%$" 2"(&0R))E0@I,'@I)#%)=(&,'0"++)=(""0" T0&++

" .%#'")(#)+L&(("%,'-)FL"')$%#//"$

" *"<,00&G0"" *"DHD0&G0"

" O&J#%,(")DL#,D"

?"&+()1I/&D()2&("%,&0?"&+()1I/&D()2&("%,&02&("%,&0+)F"%")F",-L("$)G&+"$)#')"'J,%#'I"'(&0),I/&D(>));&+"$)#')(L"+")%"+@0(+)D&%$G#&%$)F&+)DL#+"')&+)&)J,&G0")&0("%'&(,J">

!"#$%&'()#"*+,(-+,(./+0+,#&*(1#"2#'%&'

3#*/,%#$ 451565

M-*)-<*,<N-#-*)-1'A β

M-*)-<*,<N-#-*)-1'A β

M-*)-<*,<N-#-*)-1'A β

OP20QO#%%%Q"OO,6/RQOS@010-)6'3:QQ β

M-*)-<*,<N-#-*)-1'A β γ

L0T:7-502:3 R %URR $ %U$ V %UWM %U%X %UXW $ # %UMWR$XY0379'037-O6'04:7-/*T:7Q R %URR # %U# V %UWM %U%V # $ # 7587879

Z:,:4091:[90):7-5JF V %UWM R %URR R %URR $UW %U%#M R %UXW %U$!VXW;1(/*+(/N- M # V %UWM M # RUM %U%## V %UM %UVXXW$

\40*+1:))-\4::1 M # M # M # %UW %U%MW V %UM %U%#%W#

4#*/,(,/:%:*#&"/759;8

!<#**/,=,++-(>%?=#"*(:*,/&'*<@

759;A

!/,B%"/(C/?=5(DA7(*+(EF7(G759H7

1/,-+,?#&"/(6&0%"/:75AFF

G+:*757IH

.%#/#+"$)!"+,-'.%#/#+"$)!"+,-'*"J"%()(#)+,I/0,D,(HN

A#I/#'"'(+! X:Y).?E).0&+(,D)/,"D")i @+")+,'-0")(H/")#<)/0&+(,D)<#%)%"DHD0&G,0,(H

! X:Y)8&M"$)#%).?E)A#&("$)A&%$G#&%$)K@G"! X:Y)8&M"$)#%).?E)A#&("$)A&%$G#&%$)A&/! X:Y).%#$@D()?&G"0! X:Y)!"#$#%&'()G0#DQ

.0&+(,D).@+L"%

!"#$#%&'();0#DQA&%$G#&%$)K@G"c)A&/

!"#!"$%##

R

.%#/#+"$)!"+,-'.%#/#+"$)!"+,-'*"J"%()(#)+,I/0,D,(HN

! \@%)8.1)&'&0H+,+)+L#F+)(L&()(L")F&M"$)#%)D#&("$)D&%$G#&%$)L&+)(L")0"&+()"'J,%#'I"'(&0),I/&D(R)#J"%&00R)"J"'),<)0&'$<,00"$>))

! A@%%"'()%"DHD0,'-)("DL'#0#-H)D&')%"DHD0")(L").?E)/0&+(,D)D#&(,'-+)&+)F"00)&+).?E).3K4(H/")+#0,$+>

! K"DL'#0#-H)(#)g@,DQ0H)+"/&%&(")(L")D#&(,'-)<%#I)(L")D&%$G#&%$),+)+(,00)@'$"%)$"J"0#/I"'(>

! E+)(L")("DL'#0#-H)$"J"0#/+R)F")I&H)G")&G0")(#)%"DHD0")&)/&DQ&-")#<):77f)D#&("$)D&%$G#&%$R)#%)&()0"&+():77f)#<)(L").?E)D#&(,'->

.0&+(,D).@+L"%

!"#$#%&'();0#DQA&%$G#&%$)K@G"c)A&/

.%#/#+"$).%#D"++)K%"".%#/#+"$).%#D"++)K%""

1')(L")/%#/#+"$)/%#D"++R)(L")D&/)&'$)G&+")D&')G")%"DHD0"$>

\/011-5034)510)4*6

&'()*+,Y'04:7-Y0379'037

>:'7'30+4-?1'6@

E:6I61:7-502:3C+D:64*'+-B'17*+,-53'6:))

E0A-B04:3*01)

F30+)2'3404*'+ F30+)2'3404*'+F30+)2'3404*'+

B0+(G064(3*+,-H06*1*4I

J1:643*6*4I

F30+)2'3404*'+

K):

K):7->:'7'30+4

>*)2')01-'G-506@0,*+,

80+7G*11-'3-C+6*+:304*'+

L0)4:-L04:3

>*)2')*4*'+ Y(33:+4->:)*,+

53'2'):7->:)*,+

J/"K"$%&' 7L I7L

J/?#&M-#"*M,%&' 7L 7L

C+6*+:304*'+ %] %]

&0^037'()-80+7G*11 %] %]

\'1*7-L0)4:-80+7G*11 #%%] $%]

*"DHD0,'-R)(L")3'J,%#'I"'()&'$)(L")*"DHD0,'-R)(L")3'J,%#'I"'()&'$)(L")A#'+@I"%A#'+@I"%! A#'+@I"%+)&%")F,00,'-)(#)/&H)&()0"&+()5f)I#%")<#%)%"'"F&G0")/%#$@D(+

! 9:4Wjf)#<)D#'+@I"%+)D0&++)"'J,%#'I"'(&0)/%#("D(,#')&+)"M(%"I"0H),I/#%(&'(

! jf)#<)D#'+@I"%+)+"&%DL)#@()"'J,%#'I"'(&00H)D#'+D,#@+)D#I/&',"+)(#)$#)G@+,'"++)F,(L>

L((/NSSFFF>L-(J/%#>D#ISL/%#S'F+e,'$@+(%He'"F+S&%(,D0"S7R9]96RU.*\e9]5:je5d6kk59R77>L(I0

1++@"+1++@"+! 2&%Q"()&DD"/(&'D")#<)'"F)/&DQ&-,'->! 2&'@<&D(@%&G,0,(H)#<)'"F)/&DQ&-,'->! ?#-,+(,D+)#<)D@+(#I,`"$)%"DHD0,'-! K#Il+)#<)2&,'")&0%"&$H)$#"+)(L,+" L((/NSSFFF>(#I+#<I&,'">D#ISG@+,'"++4/%&D(,D"+S"'J,%#'I"'(&04/%&D(,D"+S-,II"5

! K"DL'#0#-H)(#)%"DHD0").?E4D#&("$)/&/"%>! .?E)I&'@<&D(@%"%+)&%")F#%Q,'-)#')(L,+

! A#+(+>

*"D#II"'$&(,#'+*"D#II"'$&(,#'+! 1I/0"I"'()#%)&$$)'"F)$"+,-')(#)/%#$@D()0,'"4@/>)).%#/#+"$)/&DQ&-,'-)F,00)G")0,-L("%R)0"++)"M/"'+,J"R)&'$)'#()L,'$"%)/%#$@D()/"%<#%I&'D">

!8#%Q)F,(L)I&%Q"(,'-)(#)"+/#@+")G"'"<,(+)#<)-%""')/&DQ&-,'->

!8#%Q)F,(L)+&0"+)&'$)0#-,+(,D+)(#),'+(,(@(")%"DHD0,'-)D"'("%+)&()#@%)D@+(#I"%+)+&0"+)+,("+>

!8#%Q)F,(L)/%#D@%"I"'()(#)<,'&0,`")<,'&'D,&0),I/&D(+>

\(L"%)*"<"%"'D"+\(L"%)*"<"%"'D"+! L((/NSSFFF>(#I+#<I&,'">D#ISG@+,'"++4/%&D(,D"+S"'J,%#'I"'(&04/%&D(,D"+S-,II"5

! L((/NSSFFF>G"+&<"'"(>D#IS/JDSG,#/0&+(,D+>L(I

! L((/NSS"'>F,Q,/"$,&>#%-SF,Q,S;,#/0&+(,D

! L((/NSSFFF>+D,"'D"$&,0H>D#IS%"0"&+"+S9775S:9S75:9:]:d59W:>L(I

! L((/NSSFFF>D"%"/0&+(>D#ISL#I"/&-">/L/

! L((/NSS-&+9>#%-S977jS::S7jS+(@$H4G,#4G&+"$4/0&+(,D+4D#@0$4J,&G0H4%"/0&D"4'"&%0H4&004/0&+(,D+S

! L((/NSSFFF>D&'#'>D#IS'"F+S97:7S#D(:6">L(I0

! L((/NSSFFF>I"(&G#0,M>D#IS+@+(&,'&G0"S$"<&@0(>&+/M_1!aWW]