MIE315H1S - Design for the Environment

Project 45: Recycled paper towels vs high speed air dryer

Group 29

Name Student Number

Ian McKenzie

Jaeeun (Angela) Yoo

James Klein

Yoel Markus

TA Name: Ali Oskooei Submission Date: March 21, 2014

1

Executive Summary

In response to Cineplex Entertainment’s request to compare washroom hand-drying methods of 100% post-consumer recycled paper towels and Dyson’s Airblade™ technology, we have prepared a final report and recommendation. We have completed an economic analysis, evaluating the net present worths of the alternatives over their projected lifetime, a hybrid LCA (a combination of economic input-output and conventional life cycle analyses) assessing the environmental impacts of the products at each life cycle stage as per the TRACI 2.0 method, and a societal analysis to address qualitative considerations that fall outside the analyses performed here and in the previous report.

The functional unit as defined previously in our preliminary analysis was a dry pair of hands, and we had determined that both alternatives met the objectives and constraints that we outlined in addition to performing this baseline task. Based on this FOC analysis and the SLCA that followed, it was recommended that the client need not replace their current setup for what we concluded as a minimal overall improvement.

Investigating the economics of each product’s life cycle are an important consideration

for the company’s bottom line. We calculated the net present worth of the initial setup, usage, repair and end-of-life disposal costs. For paper towels, which are already installed, this included the cost of paper towel refills and bin liners as well as the replacement of damaged dispensing units over a 10-year lifespan; the largest economic cost for paper towels was use-phase replacements. For the Airblade™, this included the initial purchase, electricity consumption, and repair and disposal costs and its highest cost was at initial purchase.

After categorizing environmental midpoint categories in accordance with TRACI 2.0 for

each of the product life cycle stages, we performed a Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (HLCA) using both conventional and Economic Input-Output (EIO-LCA) methods. Costs associated with each life-cycle stage excluding use was inputted as economic activity into the relevant sectors in the US2002 Purchaser EIO-LCA model. Conventional analysis was used for the Airblade’s™ electricity usage, since the power generation and supply in Canada is not as heavily based on fossil fuels as in the US. We concluded that paper towels were far worse than Airblade for every midpoint consideration.

Keeping in mind the subjectivity of societal preferences and concerns, Cineplex must

address negative opinions of users toward either alternative perpetuated by misconceptions regarding hygiene as well as efficacy and speed of these two methods. These issues were discussed and suggestions were made to promote awareness of the benefits of using the preferred method. With the more conclusive analyses in this report, it is our final recommendation, as can be seen in our final decision matrix, that Cineplex Entertainment should replace paper towels with Dyson Airblade™ units in their theatres across Canada.

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ………………… 1.1 Topic and Alternatives………… 1.2 Preliminary Findings ………… 1.3 Goal and Scope………………… 1.4 Functional Unit ……………….

2. Economic Analysis …………… 2.1 Life Cycle Costs…………………

2.1.1 Initial Costs………………… 2.1.2 Usage Costs………………… 2.1.3 Repair Costs………………… 2.1.4 End of Life …..………………

2.2 Analysis Methods ……………… 2.2.1 Time Value of Money……… 2.2.2 Regional Analysis …………

2.3 Paper Towel…………………… 2.3.1 Usage Costs: Towels and Bin

Liners……………………… 2.3.2 Repair Costs: Dispenser

Replacement ……………… 2.3.3 Summary……………………

2.4 Dyson Airblade™ ……………… 2.4.1 Initial Costs: Dryer Purchase

and Dispenser Salvage…… 2.4.2 Usage Costs: Electric Power. 2.4.3 Repair Costs: Part

Replacement……………… 2.4.4 Summary……………………

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives……

3. Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment… 3.1 Analysis Methods …….…………

3.1.1 Paper Towel ……………… 3.1.2 Dyson Airblade™ …………

3.2 Impact Assessment …….……… 3.2.1 Premanufacture and

Manufacturing ….………… 3.2.2 Transportation ……….…… 3.2.3 Use……………..…………… 3.2.4 Disposal…….………………

3.3 Summary and Discussion ……..

4 4 4 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10

12 12 12 12 13 13 15 16 17 19

4. Societal Analysis……………… 4.1 Hygiene .…...…………………… 4.2 Speed and Dryness ..……………

5. Summary and Recommendations ……………

6. References ……………………

7. Appendices ……………………. Appendix A: Preliminary Findings Appendix B: Time Value of Money Appendix C: Regional Analysis Appendix D: EIO-LCA Results

24 24 24

25

27

30 30 31 32 34

3

1. Introduction

1.1 Topic and Alternatives

Cineplex Entertainment has requested a life cycle assessment study comparing the 100% post-consumer recycled paper towels currently used in the bathrooms throughout their 161 location across Canada, and the Dyson Airblade™ that the company is considering adopting. Each washroom contains multiple recessed stainless steel paper towel dispensing units, that dispense single, square, folded towels. Used paper towels are disposed of in waste bins underneath the dispenser. Dyson Airblade is a hands-free, automatic hand dryer that uses ‘blades’ of air to scrape water from the hands post-washing. The Airblade unit eliminates the need for a garbage disposal, and is being promoted as a more environmentally friendly option for drying hands. The specific products being considered in this report are Dyson AB14 model 1

and Tork Universal Hand Towel Multifold MK530A, a 100% recycled, unbleached towels . Bin 2

liners and replacement paper towel dispensers used for analysis are Ralston 2956 Clear Garbage Bags and Bobrick B-3944 . 3 4

1.2 Preliminary Findings

Our preliminary recommendation of a preferred alternative was based on a Functions, Objectives and Constraints (FOC) analysis and a Streamline Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA). The matrices summarizing these results can be found in Appendix A. We concluded through FOC, using pairwise comparison and weighted decision matrices, that although both alternatives are functionally equivalent and met all constraints, the Airblade™ outperformed paper towel on the objective criteria. Conversely, using the SLCA matrix, we concluded that paper towels outperformed the Airblade™. Given these opposing results, we recommended that Cineplex continue using paper towels in their theatres, as there will be little benefit to counteract the hassle of switching facilities to a new method. However, this recommendation was qualified by the limitations inherent in the SLCA method, as the purely qualitative results do not address the quantities of resources used and residues produced, nor can the results be normalized to the functional unit.

1 The AB14 was chosen due to it being Dyson’s latest model of their hands-in product. 2 The Tork towels were chosen due to their availability in Canada (switched from Kimberly-Clark).[1]

3 Ralston bags chosen because they are a standard product; fits observed dispensers; distributed in Canada and sold in convenient quantity of 500 bags/case.[2] 4 The Bobrick dispensers used because they were most similar to observed units currently in place at a theatre location.[3]

4

1.3 Goal and Scope

This final report will define and evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of these alternatives over a lifespan of 10 years, based on the expected lifespan of new Dyson equipment.[4] We will analyse all economic impacts borne by Cineplex over each of the alternatives’ operational lifespan. Time value of money is addressed using Net Present Worth. We will also present a Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment, with outputs corresponding to direct environmental effects outlined by TRACI 2.0. For both analyses, figures are normalized to the functional unit for comparison. Based upon these results, we will make a final recommendation to Cineplex Entertainment.

1.4 Functional Unit

The primary function for each alternative is the ability to dry a pair of hands. As such, the functional unit (FU) used throughout the economic and environmental analysis is defined as one (1) pair of dried hands.

An approximate number of FUs over a 10 year lifespan is based upon the following attendance statistics: in 2013, Cineplex’s 161 theatres in canada were visited by 72,703,000 patrons.[5] Assuming each patron uses the washroom and dries their hands once per visit, this corresponds to 727,030,000 FUs in 10 years. Furthermore, each theatre has on average 2 sets of 2 washrooms with 4 drying methods per washroom.[6] Thus, in 10 years, the average theatre dispenses 4515714 FUs, or 282232 FUs per dryer. Note that these calculations assume no attendance changes over the lifespan.

5

2. Economic Analysis 2.1 Life Cycle Costs

2.1.1 Initial Costs As the paper towel alternative is already in place; no initial costs are incurred. The initial costs of the Airblade™ alternative include purchase price, tax and shipping costs of each unit. We also consider revenue generated through the sale of decommissioned paper towel dispensers for scrap stainless steel recycling. Installation costs (i.e. labour and minor remodelling) are not considered as such tasks are assumed to be part of the duties of the theatre’s maintenance staff.

2.1.2 Usage Costs The paper towel alternative requires ongoing replenishment of towels and bin liners for which we consider the purchase price, tax and shipping costs. For the Airblade™ alternative, we consider direct energy costs (with tax) as the dryers require ongoing electric power for operation. The costs for regular maintenance (such as paper towel/bin liner replenishment and routine cleaning) are not considered as they are similar for both alternatives, and are built into regular janitorial staff wages.

2.1.3 Repair Costs The paper towel dispensers are generally replaced rather than repaired due to their mechanical simplicity and low cost.[6] Replacement costs include purchase price, tax and shipping costs for each unit, as well as revenue salvaged from the sale of damaged dispensers for scrap stainless steel recycling. Repair costs for the Airblade™ alternative consider repairs and parts not covered under warranty, as well as tax. Labour costs are not considered as they are covered under Dyson’s warranty for the first year[4] then included in the wages of Cineplex maintenance employees.

2.1.4 End of Life It is assumed that used paper towels are transported to the nearest landfill or local recycling facility for disposal as part of the regular waste from each theatre location.[7] Similarly, Dyson Airblades™ can either be taken to a recycling facility or disposed of as regular waste. At the customer’s request, Dyson retrieves used Canadian Airblade™ units to recycle them at their Ontario warehouse[4]; these costs are covered by Dyson and have therefore been excluded from consideration. It is also assumed that if theatres do not make this request, the disposal of the

6

driers is included with Cineplex’s regular waste, thereby incurring negligible additional cost. Therefore, the costs of disposal for both alternatives have been excluded from the economic analysis.

2.2 Analysis Methods

2.2.1 Time Value of Money Each analyzed alternative requires various expenditures to be made at different times throughout their lifecycle. We used a net present worth (NPW) analysis to normalize all costs to the buying power of money at year zero. All calculations are conducted using an annual interest rate of 11%, Cineplex’s minimum annual rate of return (MARR).[8] Complete NPW calculations for all associated costs for both alternatives can be found in Appendix B. All monetary values are expressed in CAD2014 unless otherwise specified.

2.2.2 Regional Analysis Cineplex has locations in various regions throughout Canada. In order to account for different regional conditions, relevant costs (e.g. shipping, energy) are evaluated using a weighted average of values for the five provinces with the most theatres, namely: Ontario (47%), British Columbia (16%), Quebec (16%), Alberta (12%) and Nova Scotia (9%).[5] Complete documentation of regional costs can be found in Appendix C.

2.3 Paper Towels

2.3.1 Usage Costs: Towels and Bin Liners Assuming 2 towels are used per FU,[7] an average theatre requires a new case of 4000 towels every 1.62 days, roughly 13 cases every 3 weeks. Every such delivery costs $382.46, plus $24.63 tax and $85.61 shipping, for a total of $492.70 per theatre every 3 weeks.[9] The NPW of paper towels over 10 years is $8,507,729.44, $52,843.04 per theatre, $3302.69 per dispenser, or 1.17¢ per FU. Assuming one bin liner is used per dispenser per workday,[10] an average theatre uses 5,840 bags per year, approximately 1 case of 500 bags per month. Each case costs $29.54, plus $2.26 tax $13.03 shipping, for a total monthly cost of $44.83 per theatre.[2] The NPW of bin liners over 10 years is $535,060.96, $3,323.36 per theatre, $207.71 per dispenser, or 0.0736¢ per FU.

7

2.3.2 Repair Costs: Dispenser Replacement Approximately one paper towel dispenser in each theatre location is replaced every 8 months, and is preferred over repair [6]. A replacement dispenser costs $286.95, plus $42.80 tax and $58.62 shipping, for a total cost of $388.37.[11] When a unit is disposed of, the stainless steel can be sold as scrap and recycled for $0.60/lb (March 2014, local pricing).[12] For each 36lb dispenser (shipping weight)[13], a ‘salvage’ value of $21.06 can be recovered. The NPW associated with replacement dispensing units over 10 years is $531,708.94, $3302.54 per theatre, $206.41 per dispenser, or 0.0731¢ per dried pair of hands.

2.3.3 Summary The following table summarizes the economic costs of the paper towel system. NPW values are normalized per FU unless otherwise specified.

Table 2.1: Paper Towel Economic Costs

As presented above, the most significant costs associated with the paper towel alternative come from the towels themselves by an order of magnitude. Overall, the 10 year NPW of the paper towel alternative is just over 1¢ per FU.

2.4 Dyson Airblade™

2.4.1 Initial Costs: Dryer Purchase and Dispenser Salvage Each dryer purchased from Dyson costs $1349.00, plus $170.67 tax and $30 shipping,[4] for a total cost of $1379.00/dryer. As with paper towel dispenser replacement, each dryer represents

8

an opportunity to sell a dispenser for a salvage value of $21.06. The net initial cost is $3,498,053.44 for full implementation, $21,727.04 per theatre, $1357.94 per dryer, or 0.481¢ per FU.

2.4.2 Usage Costs: Electric Power The Dyson Airblade™ has a power rating of 1400W and a 12 second dry time.[14] The regionally weighted average electricity cost in Canada is 9.2498¢/kWh.[15] Therefore, the Airblade™ has an effective electricity cost of 0.0432¢/use. This results in a monthly usage cost of $1.015 per dryer. While not in use, the Airblade™ consumes at most 0.5W of standby power[14], resulting in an additional monthly cost of $0.033 per dryer. With regionally weighted, taxes charged are $0.130 monthly. Assuming even distribution of uses throughout the year, the NPW of electricity costs is $225,142.40 for full implementation, $1,398.40 per theatre, $87.40 per dryer, or 0.0310¢ per FU.

2.4.3 Repair Costs: Part Replacement In the interest of being conservative, this analysis will consider the scenario of needing to repair one dryer per Cineplex location in the sixth year from their purchase, that is, the year after Dyson’s parts warranty expires[4]. Dyson charges a flat rate of $175 for each repair outside of warranty excluding HEPA filter replacement[4]; HEPA filters are expected to need replacement every 5-7 years at $69.99 each[4]. Assuming the worst case scenario, i.e. all dryers will need a HEPA filter replacement and one additional repair in year 6, repairs will cost Cineplex a lump sum of $709,840.39 (year 6 value). Therefore, our estimated present worth cost for repairs and replacement parts amounts to $379,509.66 for full implementation, $2357.20/theatre, $147.33/ dryer, or 0.0522¢ FU.

2.4.4 Summary The following table summarizes the economic costs of the paper towel system. NPW values are normalized per FU unless otherwise specified.

9

Table 2.2: Dyson Airblade™ Economic Costs

As presented above, the most significant costs associated with the Dyson Airblade™ alternative come from the initial costs of purchasing the machines by an order of magnitude. Overall, the 10 year NPW of the paper towel alternative is just over 0.6¢ per FU.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives The following graph presents the normalized NPW for each alternative including the costs of each subsystem.

Figure 2.1: Net Present Worth Comparison of Alternatives

10

As demonstrated above, the economic impact of continuing to use paper towels greatly exceed that of switching to the Dyson Airblade™ alternative. Despite the paper towel system’s lack of upfront costs and use-phase energy requirements, the NPW of the towels alone over 10 years (0.0117 $/FU) is nearly double that of the entire Dyson Airblade™ system (0.006252 $/FU). However, though the overall and ongoing costs of the Airblade™ alternative are drastically less, switching systems incurs a high upfront cost to be borne by Cineplex as a lump sum. Therefore, though the overall analysis supports a recommendation of the Airblade™ alternative, company cash flows must be considered when deciding whether Cineplex is in a position to make the change.

11

3. Hybrid Life Cycle Analysis 3.1 Analysis Methods

3.1.1 Paper Towel Paper towels are a commodified part of a well established economic sector. Thus, the upstream processes can be addressed using the Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) model, which uses the purchaser price of paper towel as an input and directly generates values for environmental impacts of both premanufacture and manufacturing together, as well as interrelated processes. The same is true for bin liners and replacement towel dispensers. Transportation was defined here as the transport of the towels from the nearest place of manufacture to the theatres, i.e. only between Manufacture and Use. Transport between other phases were folded into the relevant EIO-LCAs as truck transport: Premanufacture to Manufacture will be covered in their combined section, and Use to Disposal will be accounted for in the latter’s analysis. The analysis here was again an EIO-LCA with the retail shipping price as the purchaser’s economic input. As paper towels require no inputs and create no residues during use, no LCA is required for their use phase. Processes within the end-of-life stage include the transportation of the products to the landfill, as well as the disposal at the landfill site. Through the ‘562000 - Waste Management and Remediation’ sector, both effects from disposal at the landfill as well as transport to the landfill can be determined in EIO-LCA [16]. Paper towels are currently landfilled and there is no evidence that they are recycled [7].

3.1.2 Dyson Airblade™ Though the airblade is not commodified nor is it part of an established sector, it is well described by the “Small Electrical Appliances” sector which includes, among other products, “household-type fans, [and] household-type vacuum cleaners”[16] which share many parts as well as a common parent company and manufacturer with the Airblade™. Therefore the premanufacture and manufacturing phases can be addressed using EIO-LCA, including those for repair parts. Since the Airblade™ is manufactured in Malaysia very close to its border with Singapore[17], ship transport was considered from Singapore to Vancouver, BC (the closest port of entry in Canada). From there, the Airblades™ were assumed to be transported by truck in order to provide a fair comparison with paper towels, as rail transport had significantly worse TRACI impacts than truck for the same quantity of economic activity. Both water and truck transports

12

were analyzed using EIO-LCAs, as Dyson charges a flat-rate country-wide shipping fee that could easily be inputted. During use, the Airblade™ runs on electrical power. Though the power generation sector is well established and would be a good candidate for EIO-LCA, the model uses old data for the American sector which would not be applicable to current and future implementation in Canada, where power generation comes from very different sources. As such, we use the conventional LCA approach by finding the amount of energy required and comparing that to the measured impacts of the regionally weighted power generation methods in Canada. End of life treatment of the Dyson Airblade™ is the same as that for paper towel with no significant evidence of recycling. In Canada, at the request of the customer, Dyson is beginning to take back used Airblade™ units to be recycled. Recycling of these units is not taken into account here, as no further specific parts-related information from Dyson was provided [4].

3.2 Impact Assessment

3.2.1 Premanufacture and Manufacturing The total cost of purchasing 10 years worth of paper towels was calculated to be $13,749,614.67 CAD. In present day, this is equivalent to $12,231,670.99 USD. Using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) values found in Appendix B to convert, this equates to $9,264,373.32 USD in 2002, or $0.0127 per FU. This value will be entered into the ‘Sanitary paper product manufacturing’ sector of the EIO-LCA 2002 Purchaser model. The total cost of purchasing 10 years worth of bin liners at Cineplex’s usage rate is $5,379.60 CAD. Using current conversion rates, this is equivalent to $4,784.42 USD. Using our CPI conversion, this is equivalent to $3,623.76 USD in 2002. This was input into the ‘Plastics Bag Manufacturing’ sector of the EIO-LCA model. Finally, since we are assuming repairs to paper towel dispensers simply involve replacing them, which would require the manufacture of new dispensers, the cost of dispenser replacements are also be included in the premanufacture and manufacturing stages of the analyzed life cycle. The total cost of these repairs is $5,825.55 CAD, which is currently equivalent to $5,181.03 USD, which is equivalent to $3,924.16 in 2002 USD. This value will be input into the ‘ Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing’ sector in the EIO-LCA model. The economic input and corresponding environmental impacts for paper premanufacture and manufacturing are included in the below diagram which describes the flow of energy, water, and material inputs through processing and manufacturing stages to the finished product of paper towel. Bin liners and replacement dispensers are not represented in the diagram as their impacts as determined by the EIO-LCA model were not significant.

13

Figure 3.1: Paper Towel Premanufacture and Manufacturing

The initial cost of fully implementing the Airblade™ system is $3,498,053.44 CAD, which is approximately $3,111,871.84 USD in present day. Using the CPI conversion, this is equivalent to $2,356,958.63 USD in 2002 which is entered into the ‘Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing’ sector in the EIO-LCA model.. Additionally, the cost of the parts and repairs, which would also involve manufacturing of new Airblade™ parts, for the Airblade™ purchased in year 6 is $709,840.39 CAD. This is currently equivalent to $631,474.72 USD, which is equivalent to $478,284.41 USD in 2002. The total EIO-LCA model input for the premanufacture and manufacture of the Airblade™ is $2,835,243.04 in 2002 USD, or $0.00390 per FU. The economic input and corresponding environmental impacts are included in the diagram below which describes the flow of energy, water, and material inputs through resource acquisition and manufacturing stages to the finished product of a Dyson Airblade.

14

Figure 3.2: Airblade™ Premanufacture and Manufacturing

3.2.2 Transportation Paper towels were assumed to be transported to each theatre from the nearest place of manufacture solely by truck[7]. Tork’s parent company, SCA Tissue North America, has multiple mills in the United States with many in close proximity with the US-Canada border, making the truck a readily available and versatile choice. Rail was rejected a potential mode of transport as the short distances and the low density of the load (paper towels) would reduce the train’s fuel efficiency[18] and consequently its affordability. As before, the NPW of the triweekly $85.61 shipping price (as quoted earlier in Section 2.3.1) was found over 10 years with a 11% annual interest rate (see Appendix B for sample calculation) and multiplied by the number of theatres (161) to yield $1.48 million USD (2002 purchaser price). For the Airblade™, standard shipping 40-ft. high-cube containers (dimensions L 12.056 m × W 2.347 m × H 2.684 m[19]) were considered for the water transport between the port in Malaysia (approximated as Singapore, the nearest port) and Vancouver (the westmost port in Canada) at

15

a fee of $6572 CAD per container[20]. A packaged Dyson Airblade™ is of dimensions H 0.732 m × W 0.356 m × D 0.305 m and weighs 11 kg[14], which yielded a fit of 798 boxes per container[21] (the total weight of 8778 kg was well under the maximum allowable). If Cineplex purchased all Airblades™ for all theatres at the same time, i.e. 16 units/theatre × 161 theatres = 2,576 units system-wide, it would require 3.228 40-ft. high-cube containers for a total price of $21,214.88 CAD, which is currently equivalent to $18,875.84 USD or $14,290.90 2002 USD ($0.0000197 2002 USD per FU). This purchaser price was inputted into the water transportation sector of the EIO-LCA; the detailed list of impacts can be found in Appendix D. From Vancouver, it was assumed that Airblades™ were transported to their destinations by truck[22]. An economic input value was derived as follows: he Dyson-quoted $30 CAD flat-rate shipping fee (assumed to account for both water and land transports from the Dyson plant to the customer) throughout the provinces was multiplied by the number of Airblades™ required (2,576) to obtain a total shipping charge of $77,280 CAD or $68,888.67 USD; this was then converted to $68,888.67 USD then to $52,155.61 2002 USD using the CPI; the earlier water transport price ($14,290.90 2002 USD) was subtracted from this value to yield a truck transport purchaser price of $37,864.71 2002 USD ($0.0000521 2002 USD per FU), which was inputted into the truck transportation sector of the EIO-LCA to yield the results as found in Appendix D.

3.2.3 Use The use of a paper towel is purely mechanical, with no inputs or outputs relevant to an LCA. For the Airblade™, the only use-phase input is the electricity required to operate the machine and keep it on standby. A conventional LCA was chosen due to the lack of an appropriate Canadian EIO-LCA database for electricity generation. To more accurately represent the electrical needs of the 161 theatres located across 10 provinces, the regional weighting based on theatre distribution by province employed in the economic analysis was also used here. For the 5 provinces with the most theatres, the sources of electrical generation are enumerated in the following list (rounded percentages in parentheses, for ease of analysis--0% signifies that the source was not considered): 1) Ontario: Nuclear 58.9% (59%); Hydro 23.2% (23%); Natural Gas 10.5% (11%); Wind 3.2% (3%); Coal 2.1% (2%); Solar Photovoltaic 1.1% (1%); Bioenergy 1.1% (1%) [23] N.B.: Values were reweighted to exclude Conservation 2) BC: Hydro 82.1% (82%); Biomass 10.8% (11%); Natural Gas 5.6% (6%), Wind 1.1% (1%); Heat Recovery 0.2% (0%); Biogas 0.1% (0%); Diesel 0.1% (0%) [24] 3) Quebec: Hydro 95.8% (96%); Wind 0.8% (1%); Biomass 0.8% (1%); Petrol 0.6% (0%); Natural Gas 0.1% (0%) [25]

16

N.B.: Values were scaled to reflect the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor in 2012 and became Hydro 98%; Wind 1%; Biomass 1% 4) Alberta: Coal 52.5% (53%); Natural Gas 37.4% (37%); Wind 3.6% (4%); Hydro 3.2% (3%); Biomass 2.9% (3%); Other 0.5% (0%) [26] 5) Nova Scotia: Coal 59%; Natural Gas 21%; Hydro 8%; Wind 5%; Bio 2%; Geothermal 3%; Petrol 2%; Tidal 0.3% (0%) [27][28][29] The weighted average was calculated as follows:

Weight (%)

Nuclear Hydro Coal Natural Gas

Wind Bioenergy Geothermal Petrol Solar PV

ON 47 59 23 2 11 3 1 0 0 1

BC 16 82 0 0 6 1 11 0 0 0

QC 16 0 98 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

AB 12 0 3 53 37 4 3 0 0 0

NS 9 0 8 59 21 5 2 3 2 0

Weighted Total

100 41 28 13 12 3 3 0 0 0

The environmental impacts of nuclear, hydro, coal and natural gas usage in electricity generation were researched and are summarized in Appendix D. Wind and bioenergy sources were not studied in order to simplify the analysis.

3.2.4 Disposal

The total costs of disposing paper towels over 10 years and Airblades in year 10, based on their respective tonnage of disposed municipal solid waste (MSW), is input into the above sector to find their environmental impacts (midpoints). The weighted average distance traveled for transportation to the landfill from five major cities in each of the five main provinces, equates to 109.4 km travelled (see Appendix C).

The weight of municipal solid waste (MSW) corresponding to the FU is 3410 mg [7]. Based on traffic estimates, the use of 2 paper towels per patron results in 145,406,000 individual towels. This translates into 916.7 tonnes of paper towel waste sent to the landfill each year across all theatre locations. Since waste collection is likely each week, this equates to approximately 19 tonnes per week across Canada. Using the weighted average cost of disposal at landfills in the five major centres of $94.06/tonne (see Appendix C), the total cost of disposal is $1787.14 per week, and $932,877.08 (2014) over a 10 year period.

17

This cost, converted to US dollars, is $840,543.24 (USD, 03/16/2014)[32]. Applying this to the US 2002 Purchaser model, corresponds to $640,168.73 USD, or $0.000881 per FU, input into the ‘Waste Management and Remediation’ sector. This input as well as the corresponding impacts are included in the flow diagram below showing the flow from use phase to waste collection and transportation to landfill.

Figure 3.3 Paper Towel End of Life

The total weight of an Airblade drying unit is 8.14 kg[33]. Assuming that the whole unit

is sent to the landfill after its functional lifetime of 10 years the total weight of Airblade units to be disposed is 20.969 tonnes. Using the weighted average cost of disposal across Canada, this would equal $1972.34 (CAD, 2014) in year 10 or $1776.97 (USD, 03/16/2014). Applying this total disposal cost to the US 2002 Producer model, corresponds to $1345.36 USD of input into the ‘Waste Management and Remediation’ sector. This input as well as the corresponding impacts are included in the flow diagram below showing the flow from use phase to waste collection and transportation to landfill. Also included are the use phase fossil fuel energy inputs for electric power generation and its associated impacts.

18

Figure 3.4: Airblade™ End of Life

3.3 Results of Analysis

In our HLCA, we collected data on environmental impacts classified and characterized by TRACI 2.0 Impact Assessment as Global Warming Potential (GWP) [kgCO2e], Air Acidification [kg SO2e], Eutrophication [kg Ne], Ozone Depletion [kg CFC-11e], Smog [kg O3e], Ecotoxins [kg 2,4De], Human Health (HH) Criterion Air Pollution (also called Airborne Particulate) [kg PM10e], HH Carcinogens [kg benen eq], HH Non Carcinogens [kg toluene eq], Land Use [kha], Water Use [L], and Fossil Fuel Depletion [TJ]. Though all of these midpoints were measured, as shown in full data tables in appendix D, due to the availability of information for conventional analysis of Canadian electricity generation, only GWP, Air Acidification, Smog, Airborne Particulate, Carcinogens, and Fossil Fuel Depletion could be measured fully. Graphs showing the magnitude these 6 impacts by each alternative are shown below.

19

Figure 3.5: Global Warming Potential Comparison

Figure 3.6: Air Acidification Comparison

20

Figure 3.7: Airborne Particulate Comparison

Figure 3.8: Smog Comparison

21

Figure 3.9 Carcinogens Comparison

Figure 3.10: Fossil Fuel Depletion Comparison

22

Using these graphs to compare performance, it is clear that the paper towel solution causes much greater environmental impact than the Dyson Airblade™ - often by an order of magnitude. This, like the economic analysis results, is mainly due to the ongoing need to manufacture more paper towels. Though the manufacturing process for the Airblade™ is qualitatively more impactful as demonstrated by the SLCA from our preliminary report found in Appendix A, the quantity of manufacturing processes required per FU using the paper towel alternative cause the total impact from manufacturing to significantly exceed all other impacts.

It is noteworthy that the impacts associated with use phase electrical energy generation

are negligible in each case presented. This indicates that the trend of paper towels having significantly greater impacts than the Airblade™ currently observable in the indicators not shown above due to lack of energy generation values would likely be unchanged, further reinforcing the performance advantage for the Airblade™.

Conversely, we noted that the EIO-LCA model showed the power generation and supply

sector to be a top environmental impact contributor in many cases where electricity generation was not being directly measured. Most notably, premanufacture and manufacturing results exhibited this feature. As we have identified the American energy sector to be unfit for approximation to energy generated in Canada, it is likely that the high impacts for both alternatives in the upstream phases are proportionally inflated.

23

4. Societal Analysis

An important consideration that is not reflected in the previous analyses is that of public perception and preference. When surveyed, the most important concerns for people selecting a hand drying method are hygiene, and speed and dryness.[34] In fact, some decision makers selecting a method to install rank these concerns above economic concerns. It is therefore necessary that these societal factors be addressed.

4.1 Hygiene Despite the fact that there is bacterial equivalence on the hands post-washing according to health guidelines, and neither hand drying option adds any additional bacteria to washed hands[35], there is still a differing perception that one method is more ‘dirty’ than the other. Paper towels are thought of as ‘freshly’ dispensed for individual use, whereas the same hand dryer is used by many other people. There is a fear, too, that a patron may need to touch the hand drying unit, accidentally bumping the sides of the Airblade while placing hands inside. Particularly, people with larger hands may find it uncomfortable or awkward to use. Cleanliness of the bathroom environment is also a concern. Whilst paper towels can easily be disposed of in a waste bin, it can possibly overflow if not emptied regularly, dispersing across the floor. Dryers, however, present the possibility for dirty water to be sprayed onto the floor, resulting in a safety hazard. Sitting water on the Dyson Airblade can also become moldy if not wiped regularly. Promotion amongst company employees about the importance for continued overall bathroom cleanliness is paramount. Regular, scheduled bin disposal, or Airblade cleaning and wipe-down, as well as mopping any water found on the surrounding floor will ease the minds of patrons. Advertising materials and signage in bathroom stalls, above urinals and near to sinks and dryers relaying data of hygiene improvement by use of the Airblade™ would further encourage its adoption and use. Awareness of its HEPA filter as an air purifier will alleviate concerns over recycled, ‘dirty’ air.

4.2 Speed & Dryness A common misconception is that paper towels are the more effective method overall. Through prior experiences with paper towels, to a consumer, paper towels appear to dry hands more quickly and effectively than hand dryers. Paper towels provide the feeling of dryer hands due to the rubbing action normally used to make them effective at absorbing water from the hands. However, as demonstrated in the summary of our FOC analysis in Appendix A, both systems in reality provide the same degree of dryness with the same speed. The company might consider, along with other promotional materials about hand washing, providing guidelines and improved instructions for using Airblade. Data regarding drying times being presented will help to encourage adoption.

24

5. Summary and Recommendations

In our preliminary report we presented an analysis based on the ability for each alternative to meet defined functions, objectives and constraints (FOC). While we found that both alternatives were functionally equivalent, the Airblade™ had a slight edge over paper towels when it came to meeting objectives, particularly its ease of upkeep. When measuring environmental impact, the SLCA presented the opposite result, giving paper towels a significant edge over the Airblade™ throughout the product life stages. Our preliminary recommendation was to keep the paper towel alternative.

In this report, we conducted an economic analysis and HLCA, this time normalizing quantitative values to the functional unit of a pair of dried hands to ensure comparability of alternatives and equivalence of analysis. This makes the HLCA results much more credible than the those from the SLCA. We also conducted a societal analysis to address public perception. A weighted scoring matrix summary of our decision can be found in the tables below along with a pairwise comparison matrix for determining the relative importance ranking of our evaluation methods. The FOC scores were taken directly from our preliminary report.

Table 5.1: Pairwise Comparison of Evaluations

Table 5.2 Final Weighted Decision Matrix

25

Our economic analysis considered costs associated with each of either alternative’s relevant life stages: implementation, use and repair phase, and end of life. Through this analysis, the Airblade™ was shown to vastly outperform paper towels in terms of cost per functional unit. Although the Airblade™ was shown to have significant implementation costs, the present worth of 10 years of paper towels alone easily exceeded all of the Airblade™’s associated costs. Using the present worth values of each to calculate a relative score, the Airblade™ earned an 80% score whereas the paper towel alternative only earned 38%.

Our HLCA considered all of the environmental impacts associated with each stage of either alternative’s life including premanufacture, manufacturing, transportation, use, and end of life, as well as those for any associated products. Though the SLCA gave a qualitative indication of paper towels having less environmental impact than the Airblade™, our quantitative analysis of TRACI Impacts showed the paper towel to have far greater environmental impacts over 10 years in every category measured. In order to determine relative scores, the lower impact for each of our 6 featured TRACI impacts was divided by the impact of each alternative and summed to obtain a score out of 6. The Airblade™ consistently had the lowest impact, gaining a score of 6/6, whereas paper towel only managed 1.39/6.

Finally, our societal analysis identified some issues concerning public misconceptions. The two main areas considered were perceived hygiene and speed and dryness. While the public’s perceptions were in favour of paper towels, strategies were suggested to address these misconceptions and improve the favour of the Airblade™. Due to the qualitative nature of this analysis, scores were assigned based on whether the public opinion of an alternative was favourable over the other for a specific area. Since public opinion generally favours paper towel, the alternative was scored 2/2 while the Airblade™ was given 0/2.

In conclusion, we recommend the Airblade™ based on its superior performance in all of

our quantitative evaluations and the low significance of societal considerations.

26

6. References [1] Tork. Tork Universal Hand Towel Multifold [Online]. Available:

http://www.en.tork.ca/product/MK530A/ [2] Nexday Supply. 24" x 24" Garbage Bags - 10-15 Gallon Capacity [Online]. Available:

http://www.nexdaysupply.ca/NexDay-Supply-Products/24-x-24-Garbage-Bags-11-20-Gallon-Capacity

[3] Bobrick. Recessed Convertible Paper Towel Dispenser and Waste Receptacle [Online]. Available: http://www.bobrick.com/Documents/B-3944_td.pdf

[4] J. Yoo. (2014, Mar. 17). Email Correspondence with Dyson Representative Raymond Cornell.

[5] Cineplex Inc. (2014, Feb. 10). Management's Discussion and Analysis [Online]. Available: http://investorrelations.cineplex.com/cmsAssets/docs/pdf/Reports_Filings/02%2011%2014%20Cineplex%20MDA%20(2013%20Annual).pdf

[6] J. Yoo. (2014, Feb. 11). Phone interview with a Cineplex Manager. [7] T. Montalbo, J. Gregory, R. Kirchain. (2011, Sept. 19). Life Cycle Assessment of Hand

Drying Systems [Online]. Available: http://msl.mit.edu/publications/HandDryingLCA-Report.pdf

[8] Cineplex Inc. (2012). 2012 Annual Report [Online]. Available: http://investorrelations.cineplex.com/cmsAssets/docs/pdf/Reports_Filings/2012%20Cineplex%20Annual%20Report_FINAL.pdf

[9] Nexday Supply. MK530A Tork Universal Hand Towel Multifold - Natural (9.5"x9.1"), 4000/case [Online]. Available: http://www.nexdaysupply.ca/NexDay-Supply-Products/Singlefold-Multifold-Interfold-Towels/MK530A-Tork-Universal-Hand-Towel-Multifold-Natural

[10] Environmental Resource Management. (2001, Aug.). Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Study [Online]. Available: http://plippo.com/eco/eco_pdf/Paper_Towels_VS_Drier.pdf

[11] Global Industrial. Bobrick ClassicSeries Recessed Convert. Fold Towel Dispenser/Recept [Online]. Available: http://www.globalindustrial.ca/p/janitorial-maintenance/hand-dryers-towel-dispensers/janitorial-towel-dispensers/bobrick-classicseries-recessed-convert-folded-towel-dispens-recept-12

[12] Peel Scrap Metal Recycling Ltd. (2014, Mar. 10). Prices As Of: March 10 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.peelscrapmetalrecycling.com/

[13] Bobrick. (2012, Jan 1). Distributor's Net Price List [Online]. Available: http://ibob.bobrick.com/ibob/img/US%202012%20Price%20Lists%20Combined.pdf

[14] Dyson. Dyson Airblade dB Technical Specification AB14 [Online]. Available: http://www.dysonairblade.ca/medialibrary/Files/Tech%20Specs/dB_TECHSPEC_CAEN.pdf

[15] Hydro-Quebec. (2013). Comparison of Electricity Prices in Major North American Cities

27

[Online]. Available: http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/comparison_prices/ [16] Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2008). Economic Input-Output Life

Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA), US 1997 Industry Benchmark model [Online]. Available: http://www.eiolca.net

[17] Appliance Maganzine. (2004, Jun 1). Dyson Projects Malaysian Sales [Online]. Available: http://www.appliancemagazine.com/news.php?article=6800)-

[18] D. Lawyer. (2006, Oct). Rail vs. Truck Energy Efficiency [Online]. Available: http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/rail_vs_truckEE.html

[19] AMID Logistics, LLC. FCL - Full Container Load In International Shipping of Ocean Freight [Online]. Available: https://internationalshippingusa.com/Ocean_Freight_FCL.aspx

[20] Sea Freight Calculator. Sea Freight Canada [Online]. Available: http://www.seafreightcalculator.com/canada/

[21] Sea Freight Calculator. Box Quantity Calculator [Online]. Available: http://www.seafreightcalculator.com/boxes-quantity-calculator/

[22] My Greener House. Dyson [Online]. Available: http://www.mygreenerhouse.ca/members/details/product/272/dyson.htm

[23] Ontario. (2013). Achieving Balance - Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan [Online]. Available: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/LTEP_2013_English_WEB.pdf

[24] British Columbia. Electric Generation and Supply [Online]. Available: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Electricity/supply/Pages/default.aspx

[25] Quebec. (2013). Production of electricity [Online]. Available: https://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/energie/statistiques/statistiques-production-electricite.jsp

[26] Alberta. (2013). Electricity Statistics [Online]. Available: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/682.asp

[27] Nova Scotia. About The Plan [Online]. Available: http://www.nsrenewables.ca/about-plan

[28] Nova Scotia Power. How We Make Electricity [Online]. Available: https://www.nspower.ca/en/home/about-us/how-we-make-electricity/default.aspx

[29] Statistics Canada. CANSIM [Online]. Available: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a47 [30] World Nuclear Association. Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emission of

Various Electricity Generation Sources [Online]. Available: http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

[31] Scientific Certification Systems, Inc.. (2005, Feb). An Environmental Assessment of Selected Canadian Electric Power Generation Systems Using a Site-Dependent Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Approach [Online]. Available: http://www.electricity.ca/media/pdfs/EnvironmentallyPreferrablePower/3-SCS%20CEA%20FinalRrpt%200305.pdf

[32] Xe. XE Live Exchange Rates [Online]. Available: http://www.xe.com/ [33] Global Industrial. Dyson Airblade [Online]. Available:

http://www.globalindustrial.ca/product/itemKey/31131752

28

[34] N. Pringle, Footprints Market Research. (2011, July). Hand Drying Research [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stackmasula.com.au%2Fdocuments%2FFootprintsHandDryingResearchReport.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFxd6J9kF3PiLuBe9QTqryRR54nfg

[35] A.M. Snelling, T. Saville, D. Stevens, C.B. Beggs. (2011, Jan.). Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers [Online]. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04838.x/abstract

[36] US Inflation Calculator. Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/

[37] Canada Revenue Agency. GST/HST rates [Online]. Available: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/gst-tps/rts-eng.html

[38] Ontario. Small landfill sites [Online]. Available: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/small-landfill-sites?site=A051601

[39] Toronto. (2014). Approved Solid Waste 2014 Rates and Fees [Online]. Available: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=b16687fc1b273410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=65ac433112b02410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

[40] Calgary. Landfill rates [Online]. Available: http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/WRS/Pages/Landfill-information/Landfill-Rates.aspx

[41] City of Vancouver. Vacouver Landfill and South Vancouver Transfer Station [Online]. Available: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/landfill-and-transfer-station.aspx

[42] Progressive Waste Solutions. Lachenaie Landfill [Online]. Available: http://www.progressivewaste.com/en/locations/lachenaie-landfill/business

[43] BFI Canada. Recycling [Online]. Available: http://www.bficanada-quebec.com/serv_dechetterie.php

[44] Halifax. Otter Lake Waste Processing & Disposal Facility [Online]. Available: https://www.halifax.ca/wrms/otterlake.html

[45] Google. Google Maps [Online]. Available: maps.google.ca

29

Appendix A Preliminary Findings

The following matrices summarize our preliminary findings using FOC and SLCA analyses. These findings informed our preliminary recommendation, that Cineplex should continue using paper towels currently in place. Table A.1 is the weighted decision matrix used to compare the alternatives based on their performance on objective criteria, weighted to reflect relative importance of each criterion. We determined that the Airblade™ outperformed the paper towel option.

Table A.1

Table A.2 is the summary matrix used to compare the alternatives based on Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis, using qualitative information about the inputs and outputs associated with each life stage of either alternative. We determined that the paper towel option outperformed the Airblade™.

Table A.2

30

Appendix B Time Value of Money

Net Present Worth is calculated using the formula where A is thePW (P /A, i, N)N = A     = A i(1+i)N(1+i) −1N

periodic cost, i is the interest rate, and N is the number of payment periods. All calculations use an annual interest rate of 11%, which is converted to the relevant periodic interest rate, i, by the formula where r is the annual 11% interest rate and n is the1 )r = ( + i n − 1

number of payment periods per year. Paper Towels

.603%, A 0.79n = 352 ⇒ i = 0   = 3 CAD

Dispenser

PW (10yrs) (P /A, i, N) 0.79 302.69  N = A     = 3 P /30.79, 0.00603,(     3520) = 3 CAD

Dispenser

Bin liners

2 .873%, A .80n = 1 ⇒ i = 0   = 2 CADDispenser

PW (10yrs) (P /A, i, N) .80(P /2.80, 0.00873, 120) 07.71N = A     = 2     = 2 CADDispenser

Dispenser Replacement

.5 .205%, A 2.96n = 1 ⇒ i = 7   = 2 CADDispenser

PW (10yrs) (P /A, i, N) 2.96(P /22.96, 0.07205, 15) 06.41N = A     = 2     = 2

Airblade Repair Cost PW (10yrs) (P /F , i, N) 09, 40.39(P /F , 0.11, 6)  379, 09.66CADN = F     = 7 8     =   5

Airblade Operating Energy

2 .873%, A .1784  n = 1 ⇒ i = 0   = 1 CADdryer

PW (10yrs) (P /A, i, N) .1784(P /A, 0.00873, 120)  87.40 CAD/dryerN = A     = 1     =  

Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used to adjust monetary values to past currency value. This is important for the EIO-LCA model which accepts inputs in USD 2002. Therefore, the value of the input in USD 2002 is equal to the value in USD 2014 multiplied by the ratio between CPI 2002 and CPI 2014 (i.e. 177.17:233.916, or 0.7571).

[36]

31

Appendix C Regional Pricing Data Averages are calculated using the following weights which correspond to each province’s share of Cineplex theatres in the five provinces with the most locations: Ontario (47%), British Columbia (16%), Quebec (16%), Alberta (12%) and Nova Scotia (9%). Locations in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland & Labrador and Prince Edward Island were omitted as they were deemed insignificant for this analysis. Cineplex Locations as of December 31, 2013[5]

ON BC QC AB NS Total

Number of Locations 65 23 22 16 13 139*

% (2 s.f.) 47 16 16 12 9 100 *Actual total across Canada is 161 (including the 22 in the five omitted provinces). Sales Tax Rates[37]

ON BC QC AB NS Weighted Average

Type HST GST+PST GST+QST GST HST -

Total (%) 13 12 14.975 5 15 12.376 Paper Towels

ON BC QC AB NS Weighted Average

Shipping 46.61 46.61 151.09 133.42

178.42 85.61

Tax 21.45 27.80 26.67 27.56 28.04 24.63 Bin Liners

ON BC QC AB NS Weighted Average

Shipping 10.31 10.31 16.19 15.79 22.81 13.03

32

Tax 2.00 2.57 2.29 2.57 2.62 2.26 Towel Dispensers

ON BC QC AB NS Weighted Average

Shipping 56.90 57.65 56.90 57.65 73.71 58.62

Tax 44.70 41.35 51.49 17.23 54.10 42.80

Electricity Use

ON BC QC AB NS Weighted Average

¢/kWh 10.51 6.28 4.88 14.04 9.33 9.2498

Landfill Disposal

Toronto: Green Lane Landfill [38] [39]

Calgary: Spyhill, Shepard Landfill, East Calgary Landfill [40]

Vancouver: Vancouver Landfill [41]

Montreal: Lachenaie Landfill, Ste. Sophie Landfill [42] [43]

Halifax: Otter Laker Waste Processing [44]

Toronto Calgary Vancouver Montreal

Halifax Weighted Average

Distance (km)* 206 19.4 25.3 43.4 17.3 109.4

Cost ($/T)** 103 107 108 107 125 94.06 *Average distance from city centre to surrounding municipal landfills currently in use [45]

**Disposal fees based on drive-in basis; commercial agreement of weekly collection costs for Cineplex may be cheaper

33

Appendix D HLCA Results Tabulated results from EIO-LCA model are presented below, in order of product processes

D.1 Paper Towel Premanufacture and Manufacture EIO-LCA

34

D.2 Paper Towel Bin Liner Premanufacture and Manufacturing EIO-LCA

35

D.3 Paper Towel Dispenser Replacement EIO-LCA

36

D.4 Airblade Premanufacture and Manufacturing EIO-LCA

 

37

D.5 Paper Towel Transportation EIO-LCA

    

38

 D.6 Airblade™ Water Transportation EIO-LCA

39

D.7 Airblade™ Ground Transportation EIO-LCA

40

D.8 Airblade™ Use Phase Electricity Consumption Conventional LCA

41

D.9 Paper Towel Disposal EIO-LCa

42

D.10 Airblade™ Disposal EIO-LCA

     

43

MIE315 ­ Attribution Table  

Project #: 45 (Paper towels vs. air dryer)  Date: March 21, 2014 

TA Name: Ali Oskooei  Assignment: Final Consultant’s Report  

This table should be filled out and submitted with all team written documents. It should accurately reflect who contributed to the report and what they contributed. Team members found to be not doing their fair share of the workload may have their grade penalized. Team members doing more than their fair share will NOT earn any bonus marks.  

 Role  James Klein  Jaeeun (Angela) Yoo  Ian McKenzie  Yoel Markus 

RS, RD, CM 

Econ Analysis: Paper Towel LCA: Use 

Societal Analysis 

Introduction Econ Analysis: Dyson  LCA: Transport, Use 

Econ Analysis: Dyson LCA: 

Premanu/Manu 

Econ Analysis: Paper Towel LCA: Disposal 

RD, CM  Section conclusions    Overall conclusion 

Exec Summary Societal Analysis Introduction 

MR, ET, FP 

Econ Analysis: Dyson 

Introduction Overall conclusion 

Exec Summary Econ Analysis 

LCA: Transport, Use     

OR1  all       

OR2      all   

OR3    all     

         

 

Fill in abbreviations for each role. You do not have to fill in every cell. 

RS – responsible for research of information  

RD – wrote the first draft  

MR – responsible for major revision 

ET – edited for grammar, spelling, and expression 

FP – final read through of complete document for flow and consistency 

CM – responsible for compiling the elements into the complete document 

OR ­ other 

44

If you put OR (other) in a cell please put it in as OR1, OR2, etc. Explain briefly below the role referred to: 

 

OR1:  Table of Contents, comparison matrices, bar charts, flow diagrams, formatting and submission 

OR2:  IEEE Citations 

OR3:  LCA impact tables 

 

Verification: By signing below, you verify that you have read the attribution table and agree that it accurately reflects your contribution to this document. You also agree that your contribution is entirely original except where appropriate references are indicated. 

 

Print Name:   Jaeeun (Angela) Yoo   Signature:  AY 21/03/2014 

Print Name:   James Klein  Signature:  JK  21/03/2014 

Print Name:   Ian McKenzie  Signature:  IM 21/03/2014 

Print Name:   Yoel Markus  Signature:  YM  21/03/2014 

 

 

45