• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail

Environmental Decision Memo for Food Contact Notification No. 000155

Date: August 16, 2001

 

From: Environmental Chemist, Environmental Group
Division of Chemistry Research and Environmental Review

 

Subject: FCN No. 155 - Silicon dioxide for use as a coating in PET articles

 

Notifier: Tetra Pak, Inc.
c/o Ungaretti & Harris
Chicago, Illinois 60602

 

To: Division of Food Contact Substance Notification Review
Attention: Julius Smith, Ph.D.
Through: Supervisor, Environmental Group

 

 

We have reviewed the claim of categorical exclusion under 21 CFR 25.32(i) for the above referenced notification and conclude that the categorical exclusion is warranted. The claim of categorical exclusion cites the section under which the categorical exclusion is claimed, includes a statement of compliance with the categorical exclusion criteria, and states that no extraordinary circumstances exist that require submission of an environmental assessment (EA). Therefore, neither an EA nor an environmental impact statement is required.

 

We conclude that the notifier's claim of categorical exclusion is warranted even though we had previously asked for an EA for this action; see our January 8, 2001, memorandum on FCN 114. FCN 114 was withdrawn in part so the notifier would have sufficient time to prepare an EA. The basis for our conclusion on this action is provided in the attached document entitled, "Supplement to the Environmental Information for Premarket Notification FCN No. 155."

 

Please let us know if there is any change in the identity or use of the food-contact substance.

 

 

 

Elizabeth Ann Cox

 

Attachment

 

 



 



 

 

Supplement to the Environmental Information
for Food Contact Notification No. 155

Background:

 

The action being requested in FCN 155 was first requested in FCN 114. When FCN 114 was first submitted, it contained a claim for categorical exclusion under 21 CFR 25.32(i). However, at that time, we determined that extraordinary circumstances may apply to this action, which rendered the categorical exclusion not warranted. Specifically, we determined that the proposed action had the potential to affect the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle recycling stream with subsequent environmental impacts, if PET bottles made with the subject food-contact substance were not recycled along with the current supply of PET bottles. We contacted the notifier and explained our concerns. The notifier told us that testing had been done which demonstrated that the subject bottles could be recycled in the current PET recycling stream and agreed to provide that information to us. At this point, FCN 114 was withdrawn, in part so that the notifier would have sufficient time to gather the necessary information. We provided the notifier with recommendations on preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for the re-submission of this action; see our January 8, 2001, memorandum to Dr. Julius Smith on FCN 114. The notifier re-submitted a request for this action in FCN 155 and continued to claim the exclusion in § 25.32(i). The notifier also submitted a document with this notification that was characterized as a confidential EA. This document contained enough information so that, along with our analysis of potential impacts on energy usage, see below, we could determine that we no longer needed to be concerned about extraordinary circumstances. We consulted FDA's NEPA lawyer, Ms. Gloria Overholser, to make sure this was the correct path to follow. She agreed with us. She also said that the confidential information the notifier submitted could be kept confidential. Therefore, we conclude that the categorical exclusion claimed by the notifier is warranted.

 

Potential for impact on energy usage:

 

When a new food-packaging material is expected to compete with and replace a dissimilar material or a material expected to have a different recycling rate, there is potential for effects on energy use. The new articles to be made with the subject food-contact substance are projected to be dissimilar, in some cases, from the articles being replaced. We had requested that the notifier evaluate this potential impact on energy use as a part of the EA we recommended the notifier prepare. In the environmental information submitted with FCN 155, the notifier provided only limited information on energy usage involved with the subject food-contact substance. The notification does, however, contain information about the use applications expected once the notification becomes effective and about the types of materials currently used in these applications. Containers made with the subject food-contact substance are expected to be used for bottles for beer, fresh fruit juices, and carbonated beverages and to package foods such as ketchup. The notification explains that aluminum, glass, and PET are currently used for beer. Further, it explains that PET is currently used for fresh fruit juices and carbonated beverages. For foods expected to be packaged in PET made with the subject food-contact substance, the notification explains that multilayer barrier plastics are currently used. Our projection of the potential for impact on energy usage from replacing PET, aluminum, and glass in these applications is presented below.

 

Replacing PET and other plastics:

 

It has been our experience that, when a new material competes with and replaces a similar material and the articles made with the new material and the articles being replaced are expected to be recycled at the same level, there is little or no potential for significant impacts on energy usage. Among the applications that the notifier expects are several where the currently used materials are very similar to the proposed new material, i.e., PET bottles and multilayer plastic containers. The information submitted by the notifier demonstrates that PET bottles made with the subject food-contact substance can be recycled in the current PET bottle recycling stream. Thus, for the cases where new PET containers made with the subject coating will replace currently used PET bottles, we expect the new bottles to be recycled in the current PET stream. PET containers made with the subject coating are also expected to replace multilayer barrier plastics. For these cases, publicly available information shows that multilayer plastic containers are recycled at a low rate, if at all. It is possible that these new containers will be recycled at a higher rate than the multilayer containers being replaced. If this were to occur, environmental benefits would be likely to accrue. However, we do not believe that these benefits would be significant under the terms of the CEQ regulations that require the preparation of environmental impact statement for actions significantly affecting the environment. Thus, we conclude that the applications where the containers made with the subject food-contact substance will be competing with PET and with multilayer plastics will have little or no potential for significant impacts on energy usage.

 

Replacing aluminum:

 

The notifier "... projects about 250 million cans of beer annually will be in Glaskin-coated PET by 2004." See the paragraphs on "Beer" on page 5 of the confidential environmental supplement in the notification. Glaskin-coated PET is the trade name for articles made with the subject food-contact substance. From other discussion in the paragraphs on beer, we assume that the "250 milllion cans" projected by the notifier are aluminum cans that will be replaced by PET containers made with the subject food-contact substance.

 

Because the notifier did not provide complete information on the potential for impacts on energy usage from the replacement of aluminum cans, we used information available to us.1 & 3 In addition, to predict this potential, we made several assumptions:

 

We projected the size of the new containers made with the subject food-contact substance at two levels: 16 fluid ounces (fl. oz.) and 12 fl. oz. (Scenarios A and B presented in Appendix I of this document.) We also assumed that the volume of beer being replaced is constant at 3 billion fl. oz. (250 million units at 12 fl. oz. per unit).

 

We assumed that the energy information provided in NAPCOR3 continues to be relevant today and that the energy in NAPCOR for PET containers is relevant to PET containers coated with the subject food-contact substance. In addition to assuming relevance, we used NAPCOR's energy data on PET bottles to project several levels of increased energy consumption, as well as no change in energy consumption, for the PET containers with the subject coating.

 

For the energy involved with the size of containers not provided in NAPCOR3 (12 fl. oz. PET bottles) we extrapolated energy from the NAPCOR data for this size and assumed this extrapolation is an accurate prediction of the energy usage involved.

 

We assumed that the PET beer containers will be recycled at the same rate as PET soft drink bottles, which is given in EPA's 1998 Update.1

 

Using these assumptions and data from the notification, from NAPCOR,3 and from EPA's 1998 Update,1 we projected the potential impact on energy usage from replacing aluminum cans in the tables presented in Appendix I. The potential impact is presented for several different scenarios that are based on different assumptions, as outlined in the tables. For each scenario, the change in the amount of energy predicted (calculated in Btus) is also presented in other measures of energy, i.e., barrels of crude oil, gallons of gasoline, and homes electricity consumption each year. Each of these measures is compared to national levels of these values that we found on the internet.

 

An example of the calculations made to project these different scenarios is presented in Appendix II to this document. For this example, we chose the calculations done for Scenario B-2.

 

The calculations summarized in the tables in Appendix I show that it is very unlikely that replacing aluminum cans with bottles made with the subject food-contact substance will result in significant impacts on energy usage.

 

Replacing glass:

 

The notifier indicates in a table in the confidential environmental information of the notification that articles made with the subject substance will replace glass beer bottles. However, the notifier does not provide any quantitative information about this potential replacement. We noted above that the notifier projects about 250 million cans of beer annually will be in Glaskin-coated PET by 2004. As stated above, we believe that this statement refers to aluminum cans. Because the notifier provided no quantitative information about replacing glass beer containers, we have used the 250 million beer containers as the starting point in the analysis of the potential for impact on energy usage from the replacement of glass beer bottles with PET bottles made with the subject substance. We assumed that both the glass beer bottles being replaced and the new PET bottles are 16 fl. oz. and that the volume of beer in these applications is 4 billion fl. oz. (250 million containers at 16 fl. oz. per container). We also assumed that the energy requirements for glass beer bottles and for the new, coated PET beer bottles can be estimated from the information in NAPCOR.3 Otherwise, the analysis is essentially the same as the analyses for replacing aluminum cans presented above and in Appendices I and II to this document. The results of the analysis of replacing glass beer bottles are presented in the tables in Appendix III.

 

The calculations summarized in Appendix III show that it is very unlikely that replacing glass bottles with bottles made with the subject food-contact substance will result in significant impacts on energy usage.

 

 

 

Prepared by:_______________________________________ Date: August 16, 2001
Elizabeth Ann Cox, Environmental Chemist
Environmental Review Group
Division of Chemistry Research and Environmental Review
Office of Food Additive Safety
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration

 

 

 

Approved by:________________________________________ Date: August 16, 2001
Layla Batarseh, Ph.D., Group Supervisor
Environmental Review Group
Division of Chemistry Research and Environmental Review
Office of Food Additive Safety
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration

 

 



 



 

Appendix I
Summary of Potential Impacts on Energy
as a result of subject containers replacing aluminum cans.

Scenario A-1

In Scenario A-1, we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 16 fl. oz. and that no additional energy is involved with these containers over the uncoated PET bottles presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

-3.32 *1010 Btus

a decrease in energy needed
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for Al cans

-5.5%

A decrease of about 6%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

-5,700 barrels

A decrease of about 6 thousand barrels of oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

-0.00010%

A very small percentage decrease
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

-266,000 gallons

A decrease of about 300,000 gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

-0.00031%

A very small percentage decrease
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

-1,100

A decrease of about 1000 homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes as a percentage of number of homes in United States

-0.0011%

A very small percentage decrease

 

  

Scenario A-2

In Scenario A-2, we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 16 fl. oz. and that the energy involved with these containers is 10% more than the energy involved with the uncoated PET bottles presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

2.40 * 1010 Btus

An increase of about 20 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for Al cans

4.0%

An increase of about 4%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

4,100 barrels

An increase of about 4 thousand barrels of oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

0.000073%

A very small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

192,000 gallons

An increase of about 200,000 gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

0.00022%

A very small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

820

An increase of about 800 homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes each year as a percentage of number of homes in United States

0.00080%

A very small percentage increase

 

Scenario A-3

In Scenario A-3, we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 16 fl. oz. and that the energy is involved with these containers is 25% more than the energy involved with the uncoated PET bottles presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

1.10 * 1011 Btus

An increase of about 110 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for Al cans

18.1%

An increase of about 18%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

19,000 barrels

An increase of about 19 thousand barrels of oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

0.00033%

A very small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

878,000 gallons

An increase of about 900 thousand gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

0.0010%

A very small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

3,800 homes

An increase of about 4 thousand homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes each year as a percentage of number of homes in United States

0.0037%

A very small percentage increase

 

 

Scenario B-1

In Scenario B-1, we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 12 fl. oz. and that no additional energy is involved with these containers over the energy for 12 fl. oz. PET bottles extrapolated from data presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

-7.1 * 108 Btus

A decrease of about 700 million Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for Al cans

-0.12%

A small percentage decrease
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

-123 barrels

A decrease of about 100 barrels of oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

-0.0000022%

A very small percentage decrease.
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

-5,690 gallons

A decrease of about 6000 gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

-0.0000065%

A very small percentage decrease.
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

-24 homes

A decrease of about 20 homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes as a percentage of number of homes in United States

-0.000024%

A very small percentage decrease.

 

Scenario B-2

In Scenario B-2, we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 12 fl. oz. and that the energy involved with these containers is 10% more than the energy for 12 fl. oz. PET bottles extrapolated from data presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

5.97 * 1010 Btus

An increase of about 60 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for Al cans

9.9%

An increase of about 10%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

10,300 barrels

An increase of about 10 thousand barrels of crude oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

0.00018%

A small percentage increase.
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

478,000 gallons

An increase of about 480 thousand gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

0.00055%

A small percentage increase.
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

2,000 homes

An increase of about 2 thousand homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes as a percentage of number of homes in United States

0.0020%

A small percentage increase.

 

 

Scenario B-3

In Scenario B-3, we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 12 fl. oz. and that the energy involved with these containers is 25% more than the energy for 12 fl. oz. PET bottles extrapolated from data presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

1.50 * 1011 Btus

An increase of about 150 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for Al cans

24.9%

An increase of about 25%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

26,000 barrels

An increase of about 26 thousand barrels of oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

0.00046%

A small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

1,200,000 gallons

An increase of about 1 million gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

0.0014%

A small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

5,100 homes

An increase of about 5 thousand homes.
This number of homes as a percentage of number of homes in United States

0.0050%

A small percentage increase

Appendix II to
Supplemental Environmental Information for
FCN No. 155

 

 

This appendix presents the calculations leading to the estimate of potential impacts on energy usage in Scenario B-2 (see Appendix I), as an example of our calculations. In Scenario B-2 we assumed that the volume of the new PET containers will be 12 fl. oz and that the energy involved with these containers is 10% more than the energy involved with the uncoated PET bottles, which is based on data presented in NAPCOR.3

 

 

Energy requirements for aluminum cans being replaced:

 

The notifier projected that about 250 million cans of beer annually will be in Glaskin-coated PET by 2004. From other discussion in the paragraphs on beer, page 5 of the confidential environmental information in the notification, we assume that the "250 million cans" projected by the notifier are aluminum cans that will be replaced by PET containers made with the subject food-contact substance. Table WS-9 of NAPCOR 3 shows that the energy requirements for 12 fl. oz. aluminum cans made from virgin aluminum and from recycled aluminum were 45.55 and 12.40 million Btu/1000 gal., respectively. These values convert to 45,550 and 12,400 Btu/gal, respectively.

 

EPA's 1998 Update1 (Table 6, page 38) shows that aluminum beer and soft drink cans were recovered for recycling at 59.5% in 1997 (most recent information available). We used this 59.5% rate to divide up the 250 million cans into cans made from virgin metal and cans made from recycled metal, obtaining the estimates of 101.25 million cans to be made from virgin metal and 148.75 million cans to be made from recycled metal. The volume of beer in 101.25 million 12 fl. oz. cans is 9.492 million gallons. And the volume of beer in 148.75 million 12 fl. oz. cans is 13.945 million gallons. Multiplying the energy requirements for virgin aluminum cans, 45,550 Btu/gal, by the gallons estimated (9.492 million gallons of beer) yields an energy requirement estimate of 432 billion Btus. Multiplying the energy requirements for recycled aluminum cans, 12,400 Btu/gal, by the gallons estimated (13.945 million gallons of beer) yields an energy requirement estimate of 173 billion Btus. Summing these two estimates yields a total energy requirement of 605 billion Btus for the aluminum cans being replaced.

 

Estimating the energy requirements for 12 fl. oz. PET beer bottles:

 

The notifier did not provide any quantitative data on the energy requirements for the PET beer containers to be coated with the subject substance. Therefore, we based our estimates of the energy requirements for these containers on data available to us, i.e., the data in Tables WS-5, WS-6, WS-7 and WS-8 of NAPCOR3 on PET soft drink bottles. These four tables provide data for 16 fl. oz. and 1, 2, and 3 liter PET bottles. We extrapolated from these data to obtain an estimate of the energy requirements for a 12 fl. oz. PET bottle, i.e., we plotted these data on a graph and extended the plot to include 12 fl. oz. bottles, estimating these requirements at 29,600 Btu/gal for 12 fl. oz. PET bottles made with virgin PET and 19,400 Btu/gal for 12 fl. oz. PET bottles made with recycled PET.

 

As explained earlier in this document, we projected two levels of increased energy consumption (10% and 25%), as well as no change in energy consumption, to result from adding the subject coating to PET containers. This example contains the calculations for the projection that the coated PET container will require 10% more energy than the uncoated container. The assumed increase of 10% translates to a requirement of 32,560 Btu/gal for PET containers made with virgin PET and 21,340 Btu/gal for PET containers made with recycled PET.

 

We also assumed that these new coated PET beer containers would be recycled at the current rate for PET soda bottles. Table 7 of EPA's 1998 Update1 gives that figure at 37.3%.

 

Since we are assuming in this example that the new containers and the aluminum cans being replaced are both 12 fl. oz., the volume of beer packaged is the same for both data sets, i.e., 3 billion fl. oz. or 23.44 million gallons. Of this volume, we project that 62.7% will be in containers made from virgin PET and 37.3% from recycled PET. That calculates to 14.70 million gallons in virgin PET and 8.74 million gallons in recycled PET. Multiplying these volumes by the appropriate energy figures yields estimated energy requirements of 478.6 billion Btus for the new, coated virgin containers and 186.5 billion Btus new, coated recycled containers. The sum of these two energy requirement estimates is 665 billion Btus.

 

Comparing aluminum cans to the coated PET containers:

 

As shown above, the energy requirement estimated for aluminum cans being replaced is 605 billion Btus, and for the new containers it is 665 billion Btus, an increase of about 60 billion Btus. This increase is about 10% of the energy required for aluminum cans.

 

The NAPCOR report3 expressed the energy requirements in more common terms (see page 3-10 of NAPCOR), i.e., barrels of crude oil, gallons of gasoline, and homes electricity consumption. We used the information in NAPCOR to express the increase in energy requirements in these common terms. The 60 million Btus is estimated to be equivalent to 10,300 barrels of crude oil, 478,000 gallons of gasoline, and 2,000 homes electricity consumption each year.

 

To put these figures in perspective, we compared them to national levels available on the internet. We obtained data on crude oil produced in and imported to the United States and on motor gasoline consumed in the United States from the website of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy. We obtained the number of occupied housing units in the United States in 1999 from the U.S. Census website.

 

The EIA information on crude oil production and imports for 1999 (most recent information available) shows production at 5.93 million barrels per day and net imports at 9.61 million barrels per day. Summing these two figures and multiplying by 365 days per year yields an estimated value for annual crude oil production and imports of 5.672 billion barrels. The increased energy usage, expressed as barrels of crude oil, that will result from the action under consideration here (10,300 barrels of crude oil) is, thus, estimated at about 0.0002% of the annual oil production and imports.

 

The EIA information on motor gasoline consumed for 1994 (most recent information available) for household motor vehicles shows this level to be 87 billion gallons. The increased energy usage, expressed as gallons of gasoline, that will result from the action under consideration here (478,000 gallons of gasoline) is, thus, estimated at about 0.00055% of annual consumption of gasoline by household vehicles.

 

The Census information on the number of occupied housing units in the United States show this number to be 102,803,000 in 1999 (most recent information available). The increased energy usage, expressed as homes electricity consumption each year, that will result from the action under consideration here (2,000 homes) is, thus, estimated at about 0.002% of the total number of homes in the U.S.

 

This comparison shows that the increase in energy usage is a very small increase and cannot be considered significant.


Appendix III
Summary of Potential Impacts on Energy
as a result of subject containers replacing glass bottles

Scenario C-1

In Scenario C-1, we assumed that the new PET containers will be competing with and replacing glass beer bottles, that the volumes of the new containers and the glass bottles will be 16 fl. oz., that the energy involved with these containers can be estimated from the data in NAPCOR3 and that the energy needed for the new PET containers is the same as that for the uncoated PET soda bottles as presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

-5.9 *1010 Btus

A decrease of about 60 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for glass bottles

-7.1%

A decrease of about 7%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

-10,100 barrels

A decrease of about 10 thousand barrels of crude oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

-0.00018 %

A small percentage decrease
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

-468,000 gallons

A decrease of about 500 thousand gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

-0.00054 %

A small percentage decrease
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

-2,000 homes

A decrease of about 2 thousand homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes each year as a percentage of number of homes in United States

-0.0019 %

A small percentage decrease

 

Scenario C-2

In Scenario C-2, we assumed that the new PET containers will be competing with and replacing glass beer bottles, that the volumes of the new containers and the glass bottles will be 16 fl. oz., that the energy involved with these containers can be estimated from the data in NAPCOR3 and that 10% more energy is need for the new PET containers than is used for the uncoated PET soda bottles as presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus

1.78 * 1010 Btus

An increase of about 18 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for glass bottles

2.2%

A small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil

3,100 barrels

An increase of about 3 thousand barrels of crude oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import

0.000054%

A small percentage increase.
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline

142,000 gallons

An increase of about 140 thousand gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.

0.00016%

A small percentage increase.
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year

608 homes

An increase of about 600 homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes each year as a percentage of number of homes in United States

0.00059%

A small percentage increase.

 

Scenario C-3

In Scenario C-3, we assumed that the new PET containers will be competing with and replacing glass beer bottles, that the volumes of the new containers and the glass bottles will be 16 fl. oz., that the energy involved with these containers can be estimated from the data in NAPCOR3 and that 25% more energy is need for the new PET containers than is used for the uncoated PET soda bottles as presented in NAPCOR.3

Change in Btus1.32 * 1011 BtusAn increase of about 132 billion Btus
Change in Btus as a percentage of energy needed for glass bottles16.1%An increase of about 16%
Change in Btus represented as barrels of crude oil22,800 barrelsAn increase of about 23 thousand barrels of crude oil
These barrels of crude oil as a percentage of the annual crude oil production and import0.00040 %A small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as gallons of gasoline1,060,000 gallonsAn increase in about 1 million gallons of gasoline
These gallons of gasoline as a percentage of the annual consumption of motor gasoline by household vehicles.0.0012%A small percentage increase
Change in Btus represented as homes electricity consumption each year4,500 homesAn increase of about 4 thousand homes electricity consumption each year
This number of homes each year as a percentage of number of homes in United States0.0044%A small percentage increase