Reusable Water Bottles

33
Reusable Water Bottles Curbing non-reusable plastic water bottle use on Duke University’s campus ENV 171 - Dunning J Salzman • J Crabtree • B White •W Gurzynski • C Kachadoorian Water Bottle Group • ENV 171 1

Transcript of Reusable Water Bottles

Page 1: Reusable Water Bottles

Reusable Water BottlesCurbing non-reusable plastic water bottle use on Duke University’s campus

ENV 171 - DunningJ Salzman • J Crabtree • B White •W Gurzynski • C Kachadoorian

Water Bottle Group • ENV 171 1

Page 2: Reusable Water Bottles

Final RecommendationsENV 171

In the United States alone, over 60 million plastic water bottles are thrown out daily.

By the time a water bottle has been purchased, emptied, and recycled, it has already produced an

ecological footprint well beyond its weight. From production (plastic bottles are primarily made

from PET, a petroleum derivate), packaging, and transport (to Britain alone, half a billion bottles

are flown in every year), bottles are much more energy consumptive than their transparent

slender shapes lead on. One could fill a bottle a quarter full of oil to show the amount of

petroleum-derived energy used in placing the bottle in your hand (Sevier).

2

Page 3: Reusable Water Bottles

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Our group sought to better understand the use of bottled water on Duke University’s campus,

curb single-use water bottle consumption, and develop sustainable infrastructure to support the

use of reusable bottles. This project was especially important because of the growing necessity to

manage solid resources responsibly in the face of staggering climate change issues on local,

regional, and global levels. At Duke, our efforts to study different types of plastic bottles, analyze

models of hydration stations, and install units on campus fall directly in line with Duke’s Climate

Action Plan, which pledges to achieve carbon neutrality by 2024. For these reasons, we

approached our research project with a sense of urgency to employ sustainable developments on

campus as soon as possible.

We worked closely with the Duke Sustainability Office, specifically Duke’s Recycling and Waste

Reduction Coordinator Arwen Buchholz and Environmental Sustainability Director Tavey

McDaniel Capps, throughout the Spring 2012 semester. Ms. Buchholz and Ms. Capps were

instrumental in helping us contact certain organizations on campus and advising the deliverables

we created as a part of our ultimate recommendations.

This paper will provide background information on bottled water use from a global perspective,

the feasibility of hydration stations at Duke, and parallel initiatives at other schools. Next, we will

describe our methodology in performing both primary and secondary research. After discussing

findings and offering concise recommendations, we will outline opportunities for future work

with hydration station units at Duke.

Our deliverables from this project, which can be found on our group’s website (http://

sites.duke.edu/environ171_01_s2012/bottled-water-usage/), include: an analysis and

recommendation on “eco-plastics,” a document of hydration station models with cost,

installation, and maintenance details, a data analysis piece from a survey distributed on campus,

and a PowerPoint presentation outlining our project.

As of April 2012, our group has recommended standardizing the use of PET bottles on campus,

installing hydration stations in Wilson Gym and the Bryan Center, and redesigning the water

bottles distributed to freshmen by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

While funding remains an impediment, the Duke Student Environment and Sustainability

Committee of Duke Student Government is confident in securing about $5,000 for initial

3

Page 4: Reusable Water Bottles

installation efforts on West campus. On a long-term scale,

we hope to write in legislation requiring all new

buildings to feature hydration stations, including

the West Union Building, which will undergo construction

this summer.

Problem Identification

Single-use plastic water bottles, a $22 billion industry in the United States, are incredibly energy

consumptive (Back2Tap, 2008). The production, distribution, consumption, and recycling

processes are far from efficient, as only one in six bottles make it to recycling, and the industry

uses over 17 million barrels of oil per year (Pacific Institute, 2012). In order to combat the

rampant “throw away” attitude and relieve some of the energy and emissions stresses evident in

the life cycle of a bottle, organizations around the country have made efforts to raise awareness

and promote alternatives to single-use water bottles.

“Ban the Bottle,” a prominent grassroots organization dedicated to banning plastic water bottles,

has generated thousands of supporters through its blog about the negative aspects of single-use

bottles. The website reports that many colleges throughout the country have made efforts to

control or completely ban the availability and/or sale of plastic water bottles. Prominent schools

to do so include Vassar College, UC Berkley, Harvard University, and Brown University.

Duke University has made commendable efforts to limit single use bottled water, but extensive

action is required to move closer to completely eliminating plastic water bottles on campus.

While the Duke University Marine Lab in Beaufort, NC has completely eliminated single-use

bottles from its dining, catering, and vending machine operations, the Office of the Provost and

Duke Continuing Medical Education have also made productive steps by publicizing the need to

use reusable water bottles.

It was our initial goal to work towards a complete ban of water bottles on campus, but analysis of

supply side and demand side economics have led to us to believe that offering alternatives to

single use plastic bottles must precede a ban if effective change is the ultimate goal. For that

reason, we have worked to install hydration stations at Duke University in order to promote the

use of reusable water bottles in our overarching attempt to curb plastic water bottle on campus.

4

60 million bottles are

discarded daily. Only 1 in 6

make it to the recycling bin.

Page 5: Reusable Water Bottles

What follows is an explanation of our data collection and methods used to obtain the necessary

findings for responsible recommendations to the Duke Sustainability Office.

Team A - Hydration Station(supply alternative)

Team B - Bottle Water(demand-side)

Wk 1-3: explore and evaluate hydration station models

Wk 1-3: research plastic bottle varieties + waste implications

Wk 4-5: develop feasibility of hydration stations on East Campus

Wk 4-5: analyzed water bottle use on Duke campus with survey

Wk 6-7: secure on-campus support and maintenance infrastructure for hydration station implementation

Wk 6-7: secure on-campus support and maintenance infrastructure for hydration station implementation

Wk 8: finalize financial backing for hydration station and long-term goals; presentation of final deliverables to clients

Wk 8: finalize financial backing for hydration station and long-term goals; presentation of final deliverables to clients

Project Timeline - Initial Design

5

Page 6: Reusable Water Bottles

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

We used two major means of collecting data for this project. Using primary and secondary

research gave us a robust understanding of campus realities regarding water bottle use and

preferences for reusable bottles--two elements that are critical to our success in helping our

clients establish a hydration station infrastructure.

Secondary Research

To begin our investigation, we used secondary research to understand the different types of

plastic used in non-PET bottles, and the different options of hydration stations available, as per

the request of our client.

Plastic Bottle Varieties: Our client wanted to generate a deliverable that would describe the

different types of PET and compostable and ‘plant-based’ bottles that are commonly used. We

started the search by reviewing academic articles that describe the plant-based bottle debate (that

they are not recyclable using common recycling techniques, despite being nearly

indistinguishable from regular PET plastic bottles). After establishing which types of plastic

(plant-based, compostable, ect), we dedicated our research to understanding the particular

chemical composition of these bottles, and creating a list of pros and cons for their use. Given the

project trajectory set by our client, we decided that a life-cycle analysis would be best to give us

the most useful recommendation. This analysis included the recyclability of each bottle’s type

according to Duke’s recycling service, Sonoco, and the long-term compostability of the bottle

according to academic articles. This resulted in one of our deliverables: a chart sheet examining

the different types of PET and plant-based bottles, and a recommendation of the best types that

the Sustainability Office should advocate.

Hydration Station Possibilities: This secondary research attempt examined publishings from

other peer institutions as Duke to examine what options they considered in creating a hydration

station infrastructure. From this starting point, we began to cross-list these options with those

that would be viable given Duke’s plumbing and existing

infrastructure. Once we had used inductive reasoning, we

completed the analysis by compiling a list of options,

referencing the manufactures’ websites to get price

quotes on equipment and units. To break down the mass of

6

51 billion single-use

bottles are used annually in

the United States alone.

Page 7: Reusable Water Bottles

information, we identified the major manufacturers that build ‘hydration station’ equipment.

Primary Research

Our project, especially in its more final stages towards achieving implementation, required

primary research to bolster our secondary approaches. We depended heavily on the personal

interviews with maintenance staff and facilities managers to understand what would be the most

feasible option for installing hydration station.

The most important primary research for creating a hydration station infrastructure on campus

required two initiatives: collecting survey data about student reusable water bottle use and

observational data about existing hydration station use.

Survey Data: We created an online survey distributed via campus listserv. Given that our target

audience was undergraduate and graduate students, we knew that making an online survey, that

was quick to finish and not particularly thought-intensive, would be the surest way to access the

student population. This goal was met, and we polled some 80 individuals across campus. We

determined this was a fair number to make some basic conclusions about student water bottle

preferences on campus.

We managed to reach 55 men and 23 women, who live on West, Central, and East campuses.

Though we reached some graduate students, most respondents were undergraduates.

Observation Data: We observed two of the major refilling locations on campus: the spigot on the

water fountain in Alpine Bagels and the water fountains at the Wilson gym. We decided that

these places would be likely to observe student use of refillable water bottles because of the ease

of refilling in Alpine, and the need to refill water while exercising at Wilson. We recorded

anecdotal observation, coding for identified gender of observed parties.

Primary data was also was gathered from first-person interviews with our clients and their

community partners who identified important information they had gathered from their own

experiences. This information was especially important to understand which options for

hydration stations would work best because we as students lacked the anecdotal evidence to state

which options were best.

7

Page 8: Reusable Water Bottles

In analyzing this primary data, we broke down the responses, highlighting the most important

questions that relate to USE and OWNERSHIP of reusable water bottles by asking the following

questions:

Questions Answer Options

- Do you own a reusable water bottle? Yes / No

- Do you use a reusable water bottle on a daily basis? Yes / No

- What percentage of plastic water bottles do you recycle? [open ended]

- If you don’t carry a reusable water bottle, what prevents you from doing so? [open ended]

- If there were reusable-water bottle filling stations on campus, how likely would you be

to use a reusable water bottle?

Very Likely <> Very Not Likely

- Do you have any strong feelings/thoughts about bottled water use on Duke’s campus? [open ended]

These questions were quick enough to answer for most respondents, while the open ended

questions provided for greater richness of response from those who cared to respond. We

estimated that the answers for the questions with prefabricated responses would provide the bulk

of our data analysis, especially because tracking this behavior with raw data would be the most

important to our recommendations.

In coming up with recommendations about where to place hydration stations around campus, we

used deductive inference using our own personal familiarity with Duke student conduct and

behavior since each member of our group is an undergraduate Duke student.

Findings and Data

In our observations, we noticed that women refilled their water bottles more frequently than

men. While sitting in Alpine Bagles, most of the students who refilled their water bottles were

women. According to this anecdotal evidence, women frequently refilled their water bottles,

while men were typically buying non-reusable water bottles from the Alpine counter. We

wondered if women were more likely to own and use their refillable water bottle than men. We

posited that our data would reflect this hypothesis in survey data.

8

Page 9: Reusable Water Bottles

36%

64%

Men who OWN a reusable bottle

64%

36%

Men who USE a reusable bottle

Yes No

21%

8%

32%

40%

% of plastic water bottles recycled (MEN)

0-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

4%

96%

Women who OWN a reusable bottle

30%

70%

Women who USE a reusable bottle

Yes No

9

Page 10: Reusable Water Bottles

When examining the data, we decided to examine three critical questions that seemed to have

distinct differences along gender-identity lines. It seemed that men were much less likely to use a

reusable water bottle as well as to recycle single-use water bottles. For example, 64% of men

polled owned a reusable water bottle, while a full 96% of women admitted to owning one

themselves. The difference was even more apparent in those who used their reusable water

bottles. Of men, only 36% of those polled said they used a reusable water bottle. Nearly the

opposite was true of women: a full 70% of women used their reusable water bottles, while only

30% said they did not. According to these data, men seem to be much more averted to using

reusable water bottles, while women were much more keen to use their reusable water bottle.

Again, it appears that women are more likely to recycle. Of female respondents, none (0%)

claimed to recycle less than 25% of the time, while 40%--nearly half of male respondents said that

they recycle less than 25% of the time. A third of women recycle more than 75% of the time, while

only a fifth of men claimed to do so. Our inference from the data is that women face a more

accepting social climate that encourages ‘being green’ especially in visible ways like recycling or

using a reusable water bottle.

31%

31%

38%

% of plastic water bottles recycled (WOMEN)

0-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

10

Page 11: Reusable Water Bottles

In general, about 3 of 4 students own a reusable water bottle, while under half (46%) use one

regularly. Most students polled recycle between 25% and 50% of the time, while 33% recycle all

the time. 22% recycle between 0% and 25% of the time. The greatest impediments that students

identified that keep them from using reusable water bottles is the inconvenience of carrying one

or the inconvenience of filling it. Most respondents identified one of these two reasons as their

primary deterrence for using a reusable water bottle. This bodes well for our project

recommendations because it shows that students would likely support an improved

infrastructure to refill reusable water bottles. All but two respondents said they would likely use a

reusable water bottle if there were reusable-water filling stations on campus. Of those two

respondents who responded “not likely,” one already owns and uses a refillable bottle, while the

other neither owns nor uses one. Both were male.

27%

73%

Students who OWN a reusable bottle

54% 46%

Students who USE a reusable bottle

Yes No

22%

12%

34%

31%

% of plastic water bottles recycled (STUDENTS)

0-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

11

Page 12: Reusable Water Bottles

These data bolster our group’s project to affect the demand for on-campus single-use water

bottles. It makes important implications about moving forward, however, especially to gain the

support of a male audience who, as an inference made from the data, do not support ‘green’

activities or using a refillable water bottle, especially compared to their female compatriots.

Hydration Station and Bottle Recommendations: The data collected for these attempts can be

reviewed in the Findings Appendix, where the final deliverables are seen. Overall, we concluded

that retrofitting old water fountain units with an additional feature that simply places into the

existing infrastructure would be best, and cheapest for the older units on Duke’s campus. These

results were corroborated by members of the facilities management staff on campus who agree

that this option is the best when considering moving forward with this project.

For locations for the first hydration stations, we are considering places that are highly visible,

highly frequented by foot traffic, and, especially for Wilson Gymnasium, places where water

consumption is higher than in other locations. We are still encouraging the development of

hydration stations around East Campus, especially in residence

halls, with the goal to create long-term habitual use by first-year

students that they will carry over to living on West and

Central campuses. To see the full recommendations,

see our Future Recommendations with map below.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Types of Plastic Bottles:

When we began work on the project, our clients had asked us to research different types of

plastic bottles in hopes that we could identify a more sustainable alternative to the standard PET

petroleum-based bottles being used on campus. Bioplastic bottles, or those made from biomass

sources, immediately stood out as potential candidates because they are made from renewable

sources, rather than fossil fuels. However, as we worked our way through the project, it became

increasingly apparent that bio-plastic bottles were not the answer. Due to concerns about the

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from bioplastic production, as well as the feasibility of their

proper disposal at Duke, we were able to confidently report that bioplastics were not a logical

alternative to PET. Specifically, we worried about the inclusion of bioplastics in PET recycling

streams and the incongruence between bioplastic production and Duke’s Climate Action Plan.

12

Over 17 million barrels of oil are

used to produce plastic bottles

annually. That would enough to

power a million cars for a year.

Page 13: Reusable Water Bottles

Instead, we recommended that until Duke can completely move away from the use of non-

reusable bottles, it should standardize the use of PET bottles across campus and work to increase

the rate at which they are recycled.

Reusable Bottles: After coming to the conclusion that the combination of hydration stations and

reusable bottles was the best way to limit bottled water use, the next task was to decide on the

best way to promote the use of reusable bottles. We think that giving practical reusable bottles to

incoming freshmen during orientation is the best option initially. Of the student body, we reason

that first-years are generally the most energetic and receptive to innovative sustainability efforts.

As this is such, we think they will be the most likely to adopt and embrace the switch. If Duke is

able instill in them an awareness of sustainability in their first year, they will bring it with them to

West Campus in their subsequent years. Duke currently gives out a reusable bottle during

orientation, but at 12 oz, it is too small to use practically to carry water. This small bottle is given

out because Duke’s Student Wellness Center believes that freshmen will be inclined to put

alcohol in larger bottles. We are currently working to change their preconceived notions on the

basis that this assumption makes no logical sense.

Types of Hydration Stations: Our next order of business was

deciding which models of hydration stations would

make the most sense in different locations. Through

personal observation, we ascertained that the majority of

the main buildings on campus have Halsey Taylor, Oasis, and

Elkay brand water fountains in them. Thus, we identified the

models similar to the Halsey Taylor Hydroboost Retrofit Kit with Filter as the best hydration

station to install in the majority of locations around campus. The HT Hydroboost Retrofit Kit

requires minimal labor during installation, as it can be placed on top of the existing Halsey Taylor

fountain. It is priced at $564.50, which means it ranks as one of the cheaper models. Randy

Orange, Duke’s Buildings Coordinator, estimated that the cost of installing this model,

including installation materials and labor, would be about $480. Adding that to the cost of the

unit itself, each retrofit will cost about $1,000. We also thought it might be advantageous to

install one of the more aesthetically pleasing models, such as the Brita recessed mount (priced

$2,150), in higher-traffic areas in hopes of generating more interest in hydration stations.

13

One could fill a water

bottle 1/4 full of oil to show

its petroleum footprint.

Page 14: Reusable Water Bottles

Hydration Station Locations: A unit can be installed anywhere where there is access to water,

power, and a drain, though it makes the most fiscal sense to place them on top of existing water

fountains. After consulting with Randy Orange, we decided it was reasonable to aim for installing

one hydration station in each building on West Campus. We thought it made the most sense to

first work on installing the stations in higher-traffic buildings to get students and faculty

accustomed to using the units.

There are a number of complications with installing hydration stations on East Campus. Firstly,

Randy Orange does not have jurisdiction on East Campus. Instead, Joe Clark, the Housing

Coordinator, is in charge. Secondly, many of the existing water fountains are recessed, or semi-

recessed, which will raise costs because a carpentry team will be required to retrofit the fountains

with hydration stations. Lastly, it may be difficult to convince the administration to tamper with

the vintage feel of the older dorms on East Campus.

Budget: As mentioned earlier, the total cost of installing the Halsey Taylor retrofit unit will

about $1,000. Unless we want to install some of the flashier models in the more visible areas, we

will budget $1,000 per unit. Randy Orange suggested that we not use filters in any of the units,

as the water in them is already safe to drink and changing the filters will incur additional

maintenance costs.

Project Allies: Aside from Duke University Stores, specifically Manager Jim Wilkerson who

makes a substantial profit from the sale of plastic bottles, every campus organization has been

receptive to our project. Randy Orange, Duke’s facilities manager, has been especially

supportive of our work. Duke Student Government has also been supportive, estimating that

they could supply us with $5,000. We have forged a positive relationship with SESC and East

Campus Council for future work starting at the beginning of the Fall Semester.

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONSThis project has great potential for future growth in the coming years. We recommend this

project continue in a coalition partnership of student groups and the sustainability office. In this

14

Page 15: Reusable Water Bottles

section we will discuss the vision we have maintained for this project, and make

recommendations for action in the coming years.

First, we recommend you adopt the goal of banning plastic water bottles on Duke's campus. If

the Duke carbon offset initiative is any indication, our administration strives to consider Duke a

progressive institution with regard to environmental policy. Given recent media attention our

peer institutions such as Harvard and Princeton have received for banning plastic water bottles,

we believe this is the next major environmental movement for college campuses. From our data

collection, we believe that this is a realistic end goal, if we adopt a tiered strategy for gaining

support among the undergraduate population. The strategy we recommend for future action has

three stages: creating infrastructure, marketing and providing reusable bottles, and removing

plastic bottle availability.

Creating a Hydration Station Infrastructure

General Reasoning:

The first step towards eliminating plastic water bottles is creating an infrastructure for reusable

water bottles to be successful. Our observations, data, and interviews all indicated that the

greatest inhibitor to individuals using reusable bottles was a lack of places to fill them up. Simply

put, Duke students do not like the idea of filling up reusable water bottles in bathrooms and

water fountains. To counter this, a hydration station infrastructure would allow for the success of

reusable water bottles on campus.

East Campus Implementation:

We believe that hydration station implementation may be best served by proving its success on

East Campus first. Focusing efforts on one campus can have a much stronger impact and foster a

class of students who are more sustainably focused.  By investing in one hydration station for

each of the 14 East campus dorms in addition to the Marketplace, Carr, Friedl, the bus stop, and

Brodie Gym, an entire reusable water bottle ecosystem can be created for a relatively small cost.

We have already contacted the leadership group of East Campus, and its advisior, Ms. LB

Bergene, who has been receptive to the project. We suggest meeting with the 2012-2013 East

Campus Council in the month of September and tasking them with adopting the program onto

East Campus.

15

Page 16: Reusable Water Bottles

Creating an infrastructure on East can be coupled with the aforementioned initiative to provide

new students with reusable water bottles. The water bottles currently given out to the incoming

freshmen are too small to foster a change in the way people use plastic water bottles. Although we

have faced opposition to changing the size of the orientation water bottles from the Duke

Wellness center, we strongly believe providing full-size bottles is in the best interest of the

University's goals.

West Campus Infrastructure:

Expanding such an infrastructure to West Campus will require careful considerations for

locations. As the campus houses two to three times more students, it will also be more costly to

implement. We recommend this phase begin first with high-traffic areas, and then be expanded

to residential dorms and academic buildings last. Buildings which are critical to adopting an

infrastructure on West Campus include: Bryan Center, Perkins Library, Bostock Library, Bella

Union (4th floor McClendon Tower), Wilson Gym (upstairs and downstairs), Great Hall, and

outside Subway/Loop. These locations create the very minimum coverage required to foster

success of the initiative on West Campus. After an initial installation at these locations, a second

16

Page 17: Reusable Water Bottles

round should encompass each residential quad, and later each academic building.  This West

Campus implementation can be coordinated by DSG and the Environmental Alliance. We have

already contacted DSG leadership for 2012-2013, including George Carotenuto (VP for

Facilities and the Environment) and they are very excited to be included in the project.

Marketing and Providing Reusable Bottles

Encouraging Reusable Bottle Purchase:

Once a hydration station infrastructure has been created, focus should turn to how to increase

student accessibility to reusable bottles. This should be pursued in a two part strategy: a

marketing campaign to encourage students to purchase bottles, and the sale/distribution of

Duke endorsed reusable bottles. The marketing campaign should focus on using reusable

bottles, and use comedic advertisements similar to the ones Sustainability had put it residential

dorms (i.e. “make it a quickie”). We would also recommend memes as a comedic advertisement,

as they seem to have been popular mediums for advertising on campus in the past year. Such an

advertisement is shown below. These ads should be laminated and placed over hydration stations,

and also posted in protected ad spaces (not student ad spaces).

An advertisement campaign will likely encourage environmentally conscious students to

purchase bottles. However, such a campaign may leave out a population of students who could

potentially use reusable bottles, but lack the initiative to buy one themselves. To reach this

17

Sample advertisement using the popular meme concept

Page 18: Reusable Water Bottles

population, we recommend an on-campus sale/giveaway of subsidized bottles. These bottles

could be sold on FLEX points, and subsidized through DSG, the Nicholas School, or Student

Affairs. We recommend selling at a price point no greater than $5.00 per bottles to ensure

affordability for students. Such a sale would allow Duke Sustainability Office or willing donors to

buy a reliable brands, and even advertise on the bottle itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Acknowledgements:

This project began as a simple research assignment. Over the semester, behind the unwavering

support of our clients Arwen Buchholtz, Tavey Capps and Casey Roe, the project has developed

into a substantive plan for the future of water bottle use at Duke University. Rebecca Dunning

and Becky Fisher provided invaluable guidance and made innumerable helpful suggestions to aid

us in our project. Multiple conversations with Randy Orange of Facilities Management and the

Student Environment and Sustainability Committee of Duke Student Government informed our

recommendations, and we sincerely thank them for their contribution. 

If you have any questions, please contact our analysts for the original data or further analysis.

Email at: [email protected]

Bibliography

Meding, T. (2008). Going green: Reusable water bottles. Produced by, 9(3), 52-53. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2412068?accountid=10598.

Piemonte, V. and Gironi, F. (2011), Land-use change emissions: How green are the bioplastics?. Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy, 30: 685–691. doi: 10.1002/ep.10518

Sevier, L. (2009, Spotlight on...reusable water bottles. The Ecologist, 39(3), 49-49. http://search.proquest.com/docview/234935012?accountid=10598.

18

Page 19: Reusable Water Bottles

Findings AppendixCollected Deliverables for Client Review

ENV 171

19

Page 20: Reusable Water Bottles

MEMO: BIOPLASTIC BOTTLE INFEASIBLE AT DUKEThere are a number of negative externalities associated with bioplastic production:

1. Acquiring enough space to cultivate the crops used to make bioplastics often means clearing forests, grasslands, and peatlands which function as natural carbon sinks. These land-use changes mean that the production of bioplastics releases 9 to 170 times more carbon dioxide than the product itself saves by replacing petroleum-based plastics.

2. The same crops used in making bioplastics are also important food crops. This competition will inevitably cause world food prices to rise.

3. Cultivation (fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, etc) of the crops used to make bioplastics relies heavily on inputs of fossil fuel energy.

4. Byproducts of bioplastic production include habitat fragmentation, soil erosion, pesticide exposure, and the eutrophication of ground and surface water.

Piemonte, V. and Gironi, F. (2011), Land-use change emissions: How green are the bioplastics?. Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy, 30: 685–691. doi: 10.1002/ep.10518

These negative externalities elicit debate as to whether bioplastics are actually better for the environment than traditional petroleum plastics. A life cycle analysis reveals additional externalities concerning bioplastic disposal.

Biodegradable disposable water bottles composed of 100% bioplastic or a bioplastic-PET blend should not be used on Duke’s campus for the following reasons:

1. Supporting the use of bioplastic is antithetical to university objectives outlined in Duke’s Climate Action Plan. The push for total carbon neutrality by 2024 would be inhibited by encouraging the use of a material that is derived from fossil fuel intensive crops (industrially cultivated corn and soy). The positive net carbon emissions would have to be factored into Duke’s total carbon footprint and hinder achieve of carbon neutrality.

2. The university’s industrial composter, Brooks Contractor, has indicated the inability and an unwillingness to process bioplastic disposable water bottles. From a technical standpoint, laboratory decomposition cannot be replicated in their facilities (the top and ring do not fully decompose). As a philosophical statement, Amy Brooks believes that reusable bottles are the more environmentally responsible choice.

3. The university’s recycling company, Sonoco, does not have the capacity to process bottles composed of bioplastic-PET blends due to the differing chemical and physical properties of the materials. A switch to bioplastics would result in increased costs to Duke due to penalty charges assessed by Sonoco.

4. The head of Duke University Stores, Jim Wilkerson, has definitively indicated that his vendors would not participate in a voluntary switch to bioplastic bottles.

The optimal choice for Duke is to standardize the use of PET water bottles (which comprise the vast majority of bottles currently in use on campus) and aggressively pursue various initiatives to improve the convenience and encourage the use of reusable water bottles.

20

Page 21: Reusable Water Bottles

ORIGINAL LOGIC MODEL: FROM MEETING ON FEBRUARY 15TH, 2012

21

Page 22: Reusable Water Bottles

HYDRATION STATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Bottled Water: A Global LookChoosing tap water over bottled water may seem like a simple choice: tap water costs much less, is safer, and often tastes just as good, if not better. Nonetheless, many people continue to buy bottled water, whether out of convenience or preference.There are numerous environmental concerns with bottled water: the production and consumption of bottled water consumes energy, pollutes the environment, and contributes to global warming. Producing the plastic bottles uses energy and emits toxic chemicals. Transporting the bottled water across hundreds or thousands of miles spews carbon dioxide into the air, complicating our efforts to combat global climate change. And in the end, empty bottles are piling up in landfills.

• Plastic bottle production in the United States annually requires about 17.6 million barrels of oil.

• Worldwide bottling of water uses about 2.7 million tons of plastic each year.• About 86 percent of empty plastic water bottles in the United States land in the garbage

instead of being recycled. That amounts to about two million tons of PET plastic bottles piling up in U.S. landfills each year.

• Many plastic bottles of all types and sizes will be incinerated, which releases toxic byproducts such as chlorine gas and ash laden with heavy metals.

• Manufacturing the 28.6 billion PET water bottles in the United States takes the equivalent of 17.6 million barrels of oil.

Bottled water also has significant social implications for communities. Not only does bottled water contribute to a global lack of drinking water, it also causes local inaccessibility to water. In privatizing water, bottling corporations limit access to an essential resource that many believe should always be public.  

Efforts at Duke University The Duke University Marine Lab, in Beaufort, NC, has eliminated single use bottles of water from life and work on campus.  This elimination of single use bottles includes Dining Operations, Catering and all vending machines on the Pivers’s Island Campus.

The Office of the Provost at Duke University has eliminated single use bottled water containers.  The change was inspired by Provost Peter Lange after he heard Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee Jackson Browne speak about the importance of living sustainably.  Lange banned plastic water bottles from the administrative offices on the second floor of the Allen Building.  The office has switched from plastic bottles to a cooler and paper cups.  Many employees have purchased durable water bottles and mugs to use instead of paper cups, eliminating even more waste.

Duke Continuing Medical Education has discontinued their purchase of single use bottled water. 

22

Page 23: Reusable Water Bottles

Duke University has recently undertaken several efforts to eliminate single use water bottles at events.

At Duke University, the student-run Take Back the Tap Campaign aims to make tap water more readily available on campus, to change students’ perceptions about drinking water, and, ultimately, to eliminate bottled water sales on campus.  The Environmental Alliance began its Take Back the Tap campaign in the spring of 2009 with a series of taste tests on The Plaza. During the summer of 2009, they tested Duke's tap water from several sources and found it to be free of eight common contaminants.

Hydration Station Unit Reviews:

Britta Hydration StationBritta offers two models of hydration stations, a surface mount (on-wall) model and a recessed model (in-wall).

The recessed model is 30.25 in. by 15 in. by 3.9 in. and weighs 33 pounds. Both models feature an advanced filtration system that has been certified to remove chlorine taste and odors, lead, and 99.9% of cysts. They are also both sensor operated, allowing for touch-free, hygienic operation. Further, these models are antimicrobially treated by the natural protect of silver against mold and mildew. Lastly, every 24 hours, these systems automatically purge.

The Britta hydration stations fill at 0.5 GPM, and the laminar flow helps prevent spillage. When the filter requires replacement, an LED light on the front panel indicates this- green (good), yellow (replace soon), red (replace now).

23

Page 24: Reusable Water Bottles

Britta’s models have received numerous water-quality, electrical, and plumbing certifications. Filters last for approximately 2,500 gallons.The units require a line voltage of 110V AC and a frequency of 50Hz to 60Hz. Additional options for the HCR8 model include a water chiller attachment.

$2,150.00 per installed unit.

Oasis Hydration StationsThe Oasis VersaFiller is a dual-purpose fountain and bottle filler. It accomadates refillable bottled of almost any size and dispenses with and without electricity. More of a retrofit than a standalone unit.

This model is also certified by water-quality groups.Feature include:

• Lead-free waterways• Brushed stainless steel cabinet• Heavy-duty galvanized steel frame bolts directly to the wall• Freshield® antimicrobial alcove and activation button to resist mildew, discoloration,

odors and degradation• 5-year limited warranty

The listed price for Oasis Versafiller’s is $1675, but they can be found online for $985.50."

The Oasis AquaPointe is listed at $1600. It offers refrigerated or ambient filtered water. Options for a completely reusable housing and biodegradable filter are available.

24

Page 25: Reusable Water Bottles

Feature include:• Installs directly into existing water lines• Lead-free waterways• Built-in, 100-micron strainer stops particles from entering waterway• Heavy-duty steel frame bolts directly to the wall• Uses R-134a refrigerant• 1-year warranty on refrigeration system 

Elkay Hydration Stations

The Elkay Retrofit Bottle Filling Station (Elkay EZH2O LZWSRK) is priced at $491.30.

Features include:• Retro Kit attaches to most 115V/60Hz EZ push bar-activated water coolers to create

a bottle filling station

25

Page 26: Reusable Water Bottles

• Space saving ADA-compliant design• Sanitary, no-touch, sensor activation with automatic 30-second shut-off timer• WaterSentry Plus 3000 gallon filter included• Silver Ion anti-microbial protection• Quick fill rate is 1.1 GPM for refrigerated units• Laminar flow provides minimal splash• Filter Monitor indicating when replacement is necessary• Green Ticker counts the quantity of 12 oz. bottles saved for refrigerated units• Constructed of durable 18 gauge stainless steel and ABS plastic

The Elkay Surface Mount

-Installs directly onto wall with robust hanging - Sanitary, no-touch, sensor activation with automatic 20-second shut-off timer - WaterSentry®Plus 3000 gallon filter included Silver Ion anti-microbial protection - Quick fill rate is 1.5 gpm standard; 1.1 gpm when paired with remote chiller - Laminar flow provides minimal splash -Visual user interface display includes: " -Filter Monitor indicating when replacement is necessary " - Green Ticker counting the quantity of plastic bottles saved from waste -Optional remote chiller packages installed within 15 feet delivers chilled drinking water

This unit is priced at $1316.65.

Elkay In-Wall SwirFlo

26

Page 27: Reusable Water Bottles

Unit priced at $3,305.50

Features include:• Complete with EZH2O in-wall and SwirlFlo GRN models including ECH8GRN with high-efficiency

refrigeration system• ADA compliant design• Sanitary, no-touch, sensor activation with automatic 20 -second shut-off timer• WaterSentry Plus 3000 gallon filter included• Bi-level models include two ECH8GRN chillers and additional WaterSentry VII filter• Quick fill rate of 1.1 gpm• Includes mounting frame for quick and simple installation• Hinged door for easy servicing

Halsey Taylor

HTHB-HAC-RF HydroBoost Retrofit Kit with FilterUnit Priced at $564.50

General

27

Page 28: Reusable Water Bottles

Bottle filling station designed to retro-fit existing HAC pushbar activated models. Applicable on 115V models only. Rated for indoor use. Supplied with redesigned basin to ensure proper fit and allow for easy installation. Ideal for use in sports and fitness centers, educational and healthcare facilities, airports, office buildings and many other commercial buildings.

HydroBoost™ Retro-Fit Bottle Filling StationSensor-activated enhanced with user interface graphics. Quick fill rate is 1.5 gallons per minute on refrigerated model and 1.1 gallons per minute on ambient model. Laminar flow provides a clean fill with minimal splash and easy maintenance. Equipped with an automatic 20-second shut-off timer. Key plastic components are integrated with silver ion anti-microbial protection to inhibit growth of mold and mildew.

Green CounterVisually displays count of plastic bottles saved from the landfills.

The HTHBWF-OVLSERGRN model,

Easy installation with Halsey Taylor water fountains, which we already have in Perkins and Bostock library.

Price quotes are available through Halsey Taylor, but comparable models with other companies cost about $3000.

Below are compatible Halsey Taylor Units with this model.

Recommendations: Considering we have Halsey Taylor water fountains in all of the main buildings on campus from personal observation, the HT Hydroboost Retrofit Kit with Filter

28

Page 29: Reusable Water Bottles

(priced at $564.50) makes the most sense to me from a fiscal and an installation feasibility standpoint.

It might be beneficial to put in on the aesthetically please models, like the Britta Recessed mount in a high-traffic area (such as the great hall), but in order to make the most change without incurring high costs on the University, I recommend the HT Hydroboost Retrofit Kit with Filter Hydration stations.

29

Page 30: Reusable Water Bottles

PRICE ESTIMATE INFORMATION: COURTESY OF RANDY ORANGE, COORDINATOR OF BUILDINGS AND MAINTENANCE STAFF

30

Page 31: Reusable Water Bottles

31

COMPLETE RAW DATA FROM SURVEY

Page 32: Reusable Water Bottles

Data Break-Down

Number of ResponsesNumber of Responses Who own a reusable bottleWho own a reusable bottle Who use a on a regular basisWho use a on a regular basis Percentage of bottles respondent recycles Percentage of bottles respondent recycles Percentage of bottles respondent recycles Percentage of bottles respondent recycles

Totals Yes No Yes No 0-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

Men 55 35 20 20 35 21 17 4 11

Yes No Yes No 0-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

Women 23 22 1 16 7 0 5 4 4

Yes No Yes No 0-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

Total 78 57 21 36 42 21 23 8 15

32