1. EPS
WASTE
Field
Study
for
MS&E
264
REDUCTION
AT
K&A
Submitted by:
Veronica Chau
Kalpana Kumar
Dangfun Pornnoparat
Abrash Pervaiz
2. Executive Summary
Kreysler & Associates (K&A) is a company that produces composite Fiberglass
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) for use in architecture, sculpture and industrial applications.
Currently, K&A uses Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) as the material for making FRP molds,
and Unsaturated Polyester (UPR) as the resin. EPS is widely used as a molding material in
FRP-making due to these properties: (1) light-weight, (2) heat-resistant, and (3) cheap.
However, the challenges with using EPS are: it is non-biodegradable; a significant portion is
wasted in creating the mold; and it cannot be recycled once contaminated with resins. Hence,
of the EPS purchased, 100% goes to waste. The objective of our project was thus to find
ways of reducing K&A’s EPS waste from 100% to as close to 0% as possible.
This report begins with an overview of K&A supply-chain for EPS use. An LCA of
EPS and UPR production is presented to show its impact on the environment. Analysis of the
potential solutions for K&A falls under the broad categories of process re-engineering and
assessing alternative materials. Process re-engineering focuses on changes in the current
processes that K&A can make to reduce or eliminate the various sources of EPS waste. An
LCA comparison of alternate materials to replace EPS and UPR is also carried out. This
comparison focuses primarily on four key parameters: energy consumption, carcinogens,
ozone layer depletion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, the alternatives discussed are ranked on a matrix of sustainability versus
feasibility (the degree to which K&A can implement these changes). Based on the ranking,
the final recommendations to K&A are to (1) use a dust sheet/filter to prevent contamination,
(2) use advanced CNC machines such as 3D cutting to eliminate EPS dust while creating the
shape, (3) down-cycle the clean chunks of EPS by selling them for alternative uses, and (4)
continue using EPS and UPR as the foam and resin, respectively, until analysis into a more
suitable material can be done.
i
3. Table of Contents
1. Company Background and Motivation .............................................................................. 1
2. Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1
3. Description of EPS Supply Chain at K&A ........................................................................ 2
4. Life Cycle Analyses of EPS and UPR................................................................................ 3
5. Sustainability Assessment of Alternatives ......................................................................... 4
a) Process Re-engineering .................................................................................................. 4
b) Alternative Materials and Resins.................................................................................... 6
6. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 7
7. Areas for further research................................................................................................... 8
8. Conclusion and Key takeaways.......................................................................................... 8
Appendix A: Financial Analysis.................................................................................................l
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: EPS Pictures ..............................................................................................................a
Exhibit B: EPS Supply Chain at K&A..........................................................................................b
Exhibit C: Life Cycle Analyses of EPS and UPR........................................................................... c
Exhibit D: Process Re-engineering Options ..................................................................................e
Exhibit E: List of Contacted Companies ........................................................................................f
Exhibit F: LCA of Alternate Materials .........................................................................................g
Exhibit G: Recommendations Matrix ........................................................................................... k
ii
4. 1. Company Background and Motivation
Founded in 1982, Kreysler and Associates (K&A) is a custom fabrication shop
specializing in the design, engineering and manufacture of composite products, particularly
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) for architecture, sculpture and industrial applications. The
process of making FRP involves various combinations of fiber, polymer and resins that are
unique to each project. Currently, K&A uses Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)1 as the material for
making FRP molds and Unsaturated Polyester (UPR) as the resin.
EPS is widely used as a molding material in FRP-making because it has the following
properties: (1) light-weight (made from 98% air), (2) heat-resistant, and (3) cheap. However,
the challenges with using EPS are that it is non-biodegradable; a significant portion is wasted
in creating the mold, and it cannot be recycled once contaminated (See Exhibit A for pictures
of EPS and the waste generated). As an example, K&A purchases 3700 pounds of EPS on
average for each project, but only utilizes 1800 pounds for the mold. Additionally, this EPS
mold cannot be reused or recycled once contaminated with resins. Hence, of the EPS
purchased, 100% goes to waste.
2. Project Description
The objectives of our project are:
• To find ways of reducing K&A’s EPS waste from 100% to as close to 0% as possible
• To suggest potential alternatives to EPS and UPR that are more environmentally friendly
and sustainable in the long run.
1
EPS is commonly known as “Styrofoam”, which is a trademark brand developed by The Dow Chemical Company
1
5. 3. Description of EPS Supply Chain at K&A
Exhibit B gives a snapshot of the overall flow of the EPS supply chain. K&A
receives the EPS from its suppliers2 in the form of large, untrimmed blocks with dimensions
ranging from 36” x 48” x 96” up to 41” x 49” x 288”. In order to use the EPS for molding,
the large blocks are trimmed down to a rough size using a handheld hotwire. This initial
trimming results in scrap foam in large chunks (about 15% of the original block), which we
refer to as “clean chunks”. K&A disposes these chunks by giving them for free to companies
that want them3.
The trimmed blocks are then put on CNC machines and are cut into the required
shape for the mold. This machining process results in waste in the form of “foam dust”,
which is about 35% of the original block of EPS. There are two categories of dust: clean and
contaminated. The clean dust, which forms 14% of all EPS bought, is normally picked up by
the foam suppliers for reuse as they drop off new blocks at K&A. As other materials share the
same machining space with EPS, a major portion of the dust (around 21% of the original EPS
volume) becomes contaminated with urethane foam, wood dust and fiberglass composites
from other parts of the shop. Additionally, a vacuum system which helps with cleaning up
was removed last year due to shop expansion. Without this tool, cleaning and sorting dust is
difficult. Even though the contaminated dust has 98% EPS by volume, recyclers demand
100% purity and hence all the contaminated dust is landfilled.
Of the EPS bought, 50% is actually used for molding; which is again discarded to
landfill after use as it is contaminated with UPR. Therefore, 71% of EPS used by K&A
results in contaminated waste after taking into account both the initial and after-use scrap.
2
Currently, the two main suppliers for K&A are ACH Foam Technologies (http://www.achfoam.com/) and Insulfoam
(http://www.insulfoam.com/).
3
New Image Foam (http://newimagefoam.com/) and Right Way Recycling (http://www.rightwayrecycling.us/) are the two
companies currently picking up these chunks from K&A. “Craigslist” is also being used to find companies interested in
picking up these chunks, but this process is arbitrary and not standardized.
2
6. A very small amount of EPS is used for packaging, but it is negligible, so we have not
considered it in our analysis.
4. Life Cycle Analyses of EPS and UPR
With the given information, a life cycle analysis (LCA) was performed for EPS and
UPR using SimaPro 7.2. While all the impact categories are important for any type of LCA
or environmental consideration, this paper mainly examines greenhouse gas emissions, ozone
layer depletion, carcinogens, and energy resources for analysis.
Exhibit C(a) gives an overview of the energy resources needed to produce, assemble,
and dispose of EPS. The energy intensive stages lie in the raw materials acquisition and
production stages of EPS, (Exhibit C(b)) while transportation and landfilling contribute
minimally. Exhibit C(a) shows that the entire EPS life cycle requires 147,000 MJ. Putting
this number into perspective, it would require the heat energy from lighting 10 million
wooden matches to produce 1 lb of EPS.
1 p (1 production unit) of each is created and 1 p of each is disposed of, showing the
100% EPS waste that K&A currently follows. Similarly, when greenhouse emissions are
analyzed in Exhibit C(c), production of EPS accounts for almost 99% of the greenhouse gas
emissions (transportation excluded) at 4,810 kg of CO2. Putting this into perspective, one
complete life cycle loop produces about 1,200 kg CO2 more than a single car with 30 mpg
(Honda Fit)4 driving 12,000 miles per year.
Exhibit C(d) gives numerical data that corresponds to all impact categories in the
LCA. Because raw materials acquisition and production of EPS is most environmentally
impactful, Exhibit C(e) shows the total energy inputs and emission outputs of these two
phases in the lifecycle.
4
Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42326638/30_Cars_That_Get_30_MPG?slide=6
3
7. 5. Sustainability Assessment of Alternatives
Our analysis of the potential solutions falls under the broad categories of process re-
engineering and assessing alternative materials. Process re-engineering focuses on changes in
the current processes that K&A can make to reduce or eliminate the various sources of EPS
waste. A comparison of alternate materials to replace EPS and UPR was also carried out.
a) Process Re-engineering
Exhibit D gives an overview of all the options for process re-engineering. We briefly
discuss each option below:
• Customization at Suppliers: The first option to minimize EPS waste is to obtain
customized molds from the suppliers such as ACH. However, as K&A’s architectural
molds are heavily customized for each project, it would be difficult to communicate
precise mold patterns to suppliers; therefore, this is not a feasible option.
• Revenue-generation from clean chunks: Instead of giving away the clean chunks for
free, K&A can sell them. From our research, EPS can be down-cycled into a number of
other products such as coat hangers, picture frames and packing peanuts. We have
contacted many companies that are willing to pay for and down-cycle clean EPS. The list
of contacted companies is provided in Exhibit E.
• 3D CNC-cutting machine: To reduce EPS dust in the cutting process, 3D CNC cutting
tools (such as those provided by Streamline Automation5) can be used in place of a
traditional CNC machine. These tools provide automated foam carving and foam cutting
production processes, using state-of-the-art software and equipment that greatly reduces
the volume of dust produced in the cutting process.
• Shave-off contaminated surface: One alternative to increase the proportion of clean EPS
is to shave off the contaminated surface from the mold, possibly with a handheld hot
5
Streamline Automation (www.3dcutting.com) is a company that provides a full range of tools and services for CNC
cutting. The approximate cost of their equipment and services ranges from $40-240k.
4
8. wire. Due to the complexity of the customized shape, this would be difficult and labor
intensive. It is estimated that a 250 cubic feet mold would require 2 hours of labor,
costing $100/hour, to shave off its contaminated surface. Moreover, some amount of
foam would still end up in landfill.
• Revenue generation from contaminated chunks: There is a potential to sell
contaminated chunks to Avangard Innovation, a recycling solutions provider in Texas. A
sample of contaminated EPS scraps needs to be verified to see whether it can be recycled
and still have some value. If the sample passes the test, EPS chunks can be picked up by
Avangard’s partner warehouse located in California. K&A can earn the highest price if it
supplies at least 35,000 lb, or earn less at smaller volume. As K&A uses limited volume
of EPS, the amount of revenue that they can potentially earn from this source is restricted.
• Melt contaminated EPS into styrene: Since EPS is made by synthesizing pentane and
styrene, EPS can be melted in a process called thermal densification, after which styrene
is recovered. This process, however, is dangerous as it uses carcinogenic inputs.
• Compaction and disposal: K&A can save significant costs from transportation to landfill
by using a compacter that compresses the EPS waste bound for disposal. Although this is
not a revenue-generating option and requires investment in buying new equipment, this
will compact the foam by a ratio of 70:1, thereby reducing the volume of EPS that
requires transportation to landfill.
• Use a dust sheet: While the vacuum system is out of use due to shop expansion, a dust
sheet can be used to clean up dust during the cutting process to prevent dust from
contamination. This will help increase the ratio of clean dust that can be recycled.
5
9. To analyze the financial aspects of K&A’s EPS waste reduction efforts, we did a mock6 NPV
analysis to determine the “breakeven budget” for K&A for “x%” reduction in EPS waste. The
results are outlined in Appendix A: Financial Analysis.
b) Alternative Materials and Resins
As EPS is lightweight, commercialized, cheap, and heat resistant, finding alternative
materials (see Exhibit F(a) for the list of materials considered) that exactly suited these
characteristics, were not found. The biofoam from the company, Green Cell, is made from
corn starch, while polyurethane foam (PUR) is made from petroleum and vegetable
sources. Exhibit F(b) was partially referenced to consider possible resin alternatives.
According to Exhibit F(c), to fit K&A’s requirements, the foam is required to be
denser (37 lbs/cuft) than EPS. Exhibit F(d) compares all the materials against EPS as a
baseline. Considering the same impact categories as the LCA (energy resources, ozone,
carcinogens, and greenhouse gas), EPS performs the best against all the other viable
choices. Although both woods7 provide the best LCA results, they are not feasible options.
The lightest wood, balsa (density 7-9 lbs/cuft8), cannot compete with EPS produced at 2
lb/cuft. Additionally, while wood is a much better environmental option than foamed plastic
(biodegradability of EPS is over 200 years9), it is not a sustainable option to cut down the
equivalence of 3,700 lbs for each project that K&A pursues. Similarly, the alternative resins
considered perform extremely poorly against UPR (Exhibit F(e)).
Interestingly, the biodegradable biofoam performed the worst, and by a large margin,
in carcinogens and ozone layer. Exhibit F(f) shows that chemical additives and maize
production at the plant account for the majority of these emissions.
6
See Appendix A: Financial Analysis for model assumptions.
7
Basswood is also known as Linden (used this name in SimaPro)
8
Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html
9
Study of photocatalytic degradation of polystyrene (http://tinyurl.com/874mshq)
6
10. 6. Recommendations
To provide strong recommendations for K&A’s EPS problem, the alternatives discussed
above were ranked on a matrix of sustainability versus feasibility (the degree to which K&A
could implement these changes). Exhibit G shows this ranking:
● Options such as using a dust sheet/filter were ranked high, both in terms of feasibility and
sustainability, as we believe this is a cheap yet easy process change for K&A to
implement. This option will help eliminate contamination in EPS dust.
● Options that ranked high on sustainability, but low on feasibility (for example, selling
contaminated EPS to the Texas-based Avangard Innovation) were so, primarily because
of the uncertainty in implementation.
● Options that were high on feasibility, but low on sustainability (using epoxy and
polypropylene) fared so, because even though they were industry-standards, LCA showed
that they did not perform well in terms of energy consumption, and hence were not
sustainable in the long-run.
● Finally, options that fared low on both sustainability and feasibility (biofoam and wood)
did so, because they either performed very poorly in LCA, and/or were too expensive to
use as a molding material.
Based on Exhibit G, out final recommendations (in order of priority) are:
● Use a dust sheet/filter to prevent contamination.
● Use 3D CNC cutting machine to eliminate EPS dust while creating the shape.
● Down-cycle the clean chunks of EPS by selling them for alternative uses.
● Continue using EPS and UPR as the foam and resin, respectively, until more sustainable
alternatives are found.
7
11. 7. Areas for further research
While our team conducted a preliminary analysis of alternate materials for EPS and
UPR, given our limited knowledge in the chemical composition of materials, there is still
room for research into an appropriate replacement for EPS that is both biodegradable and
non-toxic. Recent research has been conducted into biodegradable and bio-based thermosets
that show potential to replace synthetic, fossil fuel-based thermosets. For instance, a team led
by Prof. Gadi Rothenberg and Dr. Albert Alberts of the University of Amsterdam have new
thermoset resins that are made from renewable sources, and display properties of
biodegradability and non-toxicity10. However, this research is still in its infancy, and it will
take some time before such products can be made commercially available.
8. Conclusion and Key Takeaways
The following are key takeaways that we learned from working on this project:
• EPS is everywhere: The use of EPS is so prevalent these days that it is an integral part of
our daily lives. Eliminating it from a key process is an extreme challenge.
• EPS is highly recyclable as long as it is clean: Despite our efforts, we found that
contaminated EPS has very little value. There is a need for process change to eliminate
EPS contamination in the first place (Design for Sustainability).
• Biodegradability does not imply sustainability: Many companies only focus on the
sustainability during the end-of-life of a product, rather than throughout the life cycle of
the product. The LCA results that we obtained on the biofoam were a classic example of
this. While the foam was biodegradable, it was the most environmentally harmful in
terms of ozone layer depletion and carcinogens. However, as we learned in the Herman-
Miller case, there is a need to incorporate sustainability in every aspect of the product life
cycle, beginning from its design.
10
Source: http://biopol.free.fr/index.php/new-biobased-and-biodegradable-thermoset-resins/
8
12. Exhibit A: EPS Pictures
(a) New EPS Blocks (b) Clean EPS Chunks
(c) Clean EPS Chunks (d) EPS Dust
(e) EPS Blocks before Molding (f) EPS Blocks after Molding
a
14. Exhibit C: Life Cycle Analyses of EPS and UPR
a) Energy Resources for EPS Production, Assembly and Disposal
b) Energy Resources for EPS Raw Material Acquisition and Production
c
15. c) EPS and UPR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
d) EPS LCA Data Table
d
16. e) EPS LCA Data for Raw Material Acquisition and Production
Exhibit D: Process Re-engineering Options
e
17. Exhibit E: List of Contacted Companies
No. Company Company Website Location Brief Description Distance
Name from
K&A
(miles)
1 Rastra www.rastra.com Scottsdale Build a high quality 782
Engineering ,AZ building material from EPS
2 Infiltrator http://www.infiltratorsystems.c N/A Use modified or fire- N/A
Systems Inc. om retardant EPS in drainage
applications
3 Rapac Inc. http://ringcompanies.com/rapac Oakland, Manufacture EcoSix, 2137
home TN which is recycled
Polystyrene foam
4 Timbron https://www.facebook.com/Tim Stockton, Timbron International 76
International bron.International?sk=info CA collects, recycles, and
converts waste Polystyrene
(Styrofoam) into building
products
5 Alliance of www.epspackaging.org Napa, CA AFPR provides a full list of 11
foam EPS recycling drop off
Packaging locations.
Recyclers
6 Plastic http://www.plasticsmarkets.org/ Multiple Connects recycled plastics N/A
Markets Dot locations buyers and suppliers
Org on
website
7 El Cerrito http://www.el- El Cerrito, Recycling Center 26
Recycling cerrito.org/index.aspx?NID=19 CA
Center 3
8 G.B. http://www.gbimcorp.com/inde St. Union Recyclers and Plastics 55
Industrial x.htm City, CA providers
Materials
Corp
9 Foam http://www.foamfabricatorsinc. St. Foam Providers 100
Fabricators, com/ Modesto,
Inc. CA
10 American http://www.americanrecyclingc St. Recycling Center, now 102
Recycling a.com/wpress/ Modesto, accepts EPS
Company CA
11 Tegrant http://www.tegrant.com/ Hayward, Provide thermal, protective 62
Corporation CA and consumer packaging
12 F.P. http://www.fpintl.com/ Redwood "Environmental" Packaging 65
International City, CA providers
13 Avangard http://www.avaicg.com/ Houston, EPS Recyclers N/A
Innovative Texas
14 Kurtz Ersa http://www.kurtz.de/ Germany EPS Recyclers N/A
15 STYROCYC http://www.styrocyclers.com Marietta, EPS Recyclers N/A
LERS, LLC Georgia
16 GreenMax www.intcorecycling.com China EPS Recyclers N/A
17 Streamline http://3dcutting.com Calgary, Providers of State-of-the-art N/A
Automation Alberta, 3D CNC Cutting
Canada
f
18. Exhibit F: LCA of Alternate Materials
a) Alternative Materials and Resins Considered
b) Comparison of Biodegradability of Bio-based Plastics
g
22. Exhibit G: Recommendations Matrix
Sustainability
Feasibility
• Green cells indicate the steps that K&A should undertake to reduce their EPS waste.
Yellow cells indicate further possibilities which require more work to ascertain their
feasibility. Red cells indicate steps that K&A should avoid due to lower sustainability
impacts and/or lower feasibilities.
• Items in ‘Blue’ indicate a material (as either a mold or a resin).
k
23. Appendix A: Financial Analysis
The intuition from the financial analysis is summarized in the following table:
Target Reduction Breakeven Budget Range
17%-50% 11 $0-$103,444
50%-100%12 $103,444-$258,159
It can be seen from the above table that in order to reduce the EPS waste (excluding
the contaminated mold), K&A can invest just over $100,000 in order to recover the
investment based on the savings that they can get from reduced buying of EPS and the
landfill costs. Any added investment can be termed as an investment in reducing the
environmental footprint of the company. This “breakeven budget” can be allocated to acquire
new equipment (such as the 3D CNC cutting machine) for re-engineering the processes
within K&A such that they result in minimal waste. Our argument is that it can be financially
feasible for K&A to reduce its waste by re-engineering their processes to attain a certain
waste-reduction target. Please refer to the next page for the complete analysis.
11
This range includes EPS waste in the form of clean chunks, clean dust and dirty dust. Anything below 17%
has negative cash flows and results in no savings.
12
This range considers the total EPS waste including the waste from contamsinated mold.
l
24. $300,000
$250,000
$200,000
Breakeven
Budget
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
($50,000)
($100,000)
%
EPS
Waste
Reduc:on
Sample Data from Spreadsheet Model:
Model Assumptions:
1) Only one laborer working 40 hrs in a week at minimum wage is running and maintaining
the machine.
2) Cost of Energy is 16 cents per kWh and the equipment is rated at 20kWh and runs for
1000 hours in an year.
3) The cost of one sheet of EPS was calculated using the minimum size given by K&A, and
by getting the price from the Internet (http://univfoam.com/pricing-calculators/eps-
pricing).
m
25. 4) Number of sheets used per project was calculated by assuming that K&A uses 1800 lbs
of EPS per project.
5) Transportation costs (costs to transport the EPS from ACH and other suppliers) are
proportional to the amount of EPS transported.
6) One trip (from ACH to K&A) costs $35 and there are four trips per week.
7) Landfill costs have been calculated using the information given by K&A.
8) 100% of the landfill costs will be eliminated using the machine (this is not entirely
reasonable though, there will still be some mold left).
9) Discount Rate and Corporate Tax Rate have been assumed at 10% and 30%,
respectively.
n
