Plastics Recycling Action Plan - P2 InfoHouse · packaging to computers -- carries with it the...

Plastics Recycling Action Plan

Commonwealth Michael S. Dukakis, Governor

. ' I

fn

#7R $5.60

Executive Off ice of Environmental Affairs . James S. Hoyte, Secretary

Published by MlCHiJIEL J. C*NN0LLY Department of Environmental Quality Engineering

Daniel S. Greenbaum. Cammissinner Secretary o f State

f

.-...- .......... - ._.. . . - . . . . . . . .

I d'

Plastics Recycling Action Plan for Massachusetts

July 1988 A plan for developing plastics recycling as an alternative to other disposal methods .

Written by Gretchen Brewer

Research by Recuperbec, Inc. and Gretchen Brewer

Editing by Patrick Barry

Artwork and design by Robbin Cadena -

This report and the companion volume, "Plastics Recycling Action Plan for Rhode Island," are the results of a joint effort of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Daniel S. Greenbaum Comm jssjoner

--7

i .

. - - . . . . . .

A note to the reader:

In this report, the Commonwealth unveils an ambitious plan to add household plastic wastes to the state-wide, multi-material recycling program. Plastics recycling, a rapidly emerging field, promises creative disposal alternatives and new business opportunities that safeguard the environment and conserve natural resources.

The convenience of modern plastic products -- from packaging to computers -- carries with it the responsibility to constructively manage this material' once it becomes a waste product. Projections show Massachusetts citizens will discard up to seven million tons of plastics between now and the turn of the century. Many of these items can be recycled and returned to the production cycle, given concerted efforts by government, industry, and the public.

By launching modern, convenient recycling services statewide, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering's Division of Solid Waste Management aims to reduce the state's solid waste stream by twenty-five percent. This means one and a half million tons per year of paper, glass, metals, and plastics, will be returned to productive use as resources, rather than problems, for future generations,

This report provides, for the first time, a comprehensive overview of the problems and challenges of recycling plastics in the solid waste stream. In addition, the report recommends an aggressive course of action for plastics recycling for the Commonwealth. We hope that this report and our plans to implement it, demonstrate our commitment to making plastics recycling a success in the Commonwealth.

Sincerely, A f l2y ,k >-

Daniel S. Greenbaum, Commissioner Department of Environmental Quality Engineering

t

Table of Contents

List of Tables, Figures. . . ~ _ . . . ..

. Executive Summary 1

Introduction A statewide recycling push / Regional recycling networks / Integrating plastics collection / Collaboration between Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Part 1 = Background Research

1

1. Why Plastics? 3 Plastics miracle turns sour / Environmental damage / A solid waste dilemma / Plastics as non-renewable resource / Recycling for sustainable plastics use.

J

2. A Guide to Resins 9

A product of the lab / Polyethylene in every home / Polypropylene and polystyrene / PVC, PET, and other resins / Problems k t h foamed polystyrene and PVC

3. How Much Plastic? By any measure, there is plenty / Plastics are 8% of waste / Volume is three times greater / Market share keeps growing / Plentiful polyolefins / Milk jugs / Predicted volumes to 2000

17

3

. I. .

. . !

m 8

I !

i

i !

. . .

4. Collection Methods Survey finds many working models / Charlotte, N.C. / Rhode Island and mandatory recycling / The 'green bin' system / A plastic buy-back center / More multi-material p r o p "

5. Technologies

31

47

Mix of technologies is safest route / Polyolefin separation systems / Mixed plastics systems / PET / Degradable plastics and other technologies / The need for two pilot plants

6. Markets ' . SY

Diverse market base needed / Polyolefin pellets / Plastic park benches / Polyethylene markets expanding / Legislation perks PET market / Chicken-and-egg market development

Part 2 - Plastics Recycling Action Plan .

1. The Action Plan A roadmap for plastics recycling / Material targets and collection strategies / Priming the plastics PUMP / Technologies / Year 2000 Full scale industry / Next steps

67

2. Making it Work

Voluntary solutions pre!erred / Recommended research and development / Incentives / Pending legislation

Appendices A. Resin Identification Methods / B. Primary Product Groups / C. Plastic Collection Programs Surveyed / D. 1985 Profile of Massachusetts Plastic Industry / E. Articles on Recycling Technologies / F. Sources for Plastic Lumber Market Survey / G. Potential Massachusetts Financial Incentives

75

82

Footnotes Acknowledgments

103

Tables and Figures

i

List of Tables 1. Recycling Tonnage by Industry 2. Plastic Consumption by Major Countries, i985 3. Plastic Percent of MSW Weight 4. Materials Discarded in Municipal Waste Stream 5. Weight of MA. Residential Plastic Waste to 2000 6. Typical Life Cycles of Plastic Products 7. Projected Market Distribution of Plastics 8. Projected Quantities of Resin Use by Market 9. Cumulative Resin Use in Selected Markets, 1985-2000 10. Weight of Waste Sampled and Plastic Fraction 11. Weight Composition of MSW Plastics 12 Resin Compostion of M A Residential Plastic Waste 13. Estimated Unredeemed PET in MA. in 1987 14. Cumulative Plastic Discards in MA, 1988-2000 15. Cumulative Potential Resin Quantities, 1988-2000 16. Projected Annual Recovery Rates, Charlotte, N.C. 17. Projected Recovery Rates for East Greenwich, RI. with

18. R2B2 Buy-Back Projected Annual Recovery 19. NARC Annual Recovery of Nine Materials 20. CCRP Annual Recovery of Materials, 1987 21. Comparison of Curbside Collection Programs 22. Volume/Weight Ratios of Processed Plastics 23. Market Prospects for Various Mixed Plastic Products 24. Market Sizing for Mixed Plastic Lumber 25. Structural Properties of Plastic vs. Wood Lumbers 26. Growth of Plastic Volume through 2000

Comparison to Charlotte, N.C.

List of Figures 1. Estimated Growth of Plastic Discards to 2000 2. Plastics Growth by Market, 1970-2000

Page - 6 .

18 19 20 21 33 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 33

35 40 43 44 45 46 61 62 63 73

20 23

i

.>

9

Executive Summary

- Introduction: Adding plastics to recycling plan -. - . f . - . . -.

This project assesses the feasibility of, and designs a plan for, including recovery of household plastic discards in the Commonwealth's statewide multi-material recycling program. Part One of this report presents background research on the status of and outlook for plastics recycling. Based on these findings, Part Two concludes that plastics recycling should be pursued and presents an Action Plan for integrating the plastics component into the Commonwealth's recycling program.

Over the next 15 years the Commonwealth will implement comprehensive recycling and composting programs to reduce the solid waste stream by 25 percent. The plan calls for 10 to 12 recycling regions serving 500,000 people each. Central to each is curbside collection of materials (cans, glass containers and newspapers) and subsequent processing and marketing of those materials at material recovery facilities (MPGs). The system is user-friendly in that residents need do only a simple sort of materials; they are given a storage container to make sorting easy, and collection is set for the same day as regular trash pickup.

A user-friendly approach helps build high participation.

State financing will be used to assist participating communities with public education programs, recycling collection vehicles, and storage containers. The state will also facilitate installation of MPXFs. In return, communities agree to allocate some of. the savings from avoided disposal costs (of roughly $50 per ton) towards collection costs. The Massachusetts Solid Waste Act of 1987 allocates $35 million for regional a:id community programs.

ii

Part One 1. why Plastics? For long-term solution

Plastics recycling lags behind that of paper, metals and glass.

Plastics burst on the American scene in the post-World War 11 era of economic expansion and made possible numerous important products including contact lenses, artificial hearts, microwave ovens, and fuel-efficient cars. But the rapid growth of plastics use has spawned huge and complex problems with disposal, pollution and resource allocation. As the problems mount, the old misconception that plastic can't be recycled is being replaced by a new consensus that plastics must be recycled.

Plastics do not rot or otherwise degrade when exposed to the environment. Thus they have become a stubborn pollutant of oceans, where plastic debris is blamed for the death of 100,000 marine mammals yearly, and of the land, where plastics, with their large volume-to-weight ratios, have become a major contributor to the overflow of America's landfills. Incineration of plastics for energy recovery, though considered a promising disposal alternative, requires re-evaluation in light of its possible contribution to global threats such as the greenhouse effect, climate change arid acid rain.

-

Reuse of plastic is also important because the raw materials for plastics production - petroleum and natural gas -- are non- renewable resources. At present rates of consumption, worldwide oil reserves are expected to run out in 32 years. Despite these reasons to begin recycling, the plastics industry lags far behind the metals, paper and glass industries. The only large- scale recycling of household plastic has been in states where beverage container deposits are mandatory. But recent fast-paced developments both locally and internationally show that large- scale plastics recycling is feasible and worth pursuing.

2. A Guide to Resins: Most are recyclable

Plastic is a product of the laboratory, where its key characteristic of moldability has been refined to make it a versatile and cost- efficient material for packaging and other products. All plastics are either thermosets or thermoplastics. Thermosets make up 13 percent of production and are not easily recycled because they cannot be remelted. Thermoplastics can be remelted and are recyclable. They make up 87 percent of production.

This study concentrated on the thermoplastics most prevalent in

iii

PET soft-drink bottles are the most widely .

recycled plastic.

3

J

the United States. Polyethylene (PE) is the most widely used resin. In its high-density (HDPE) form, it is used for milk jugs, detergent bottles and automotive-fluid containers; its low- density (LDPE) form is used mostly in films including trash bags, dry cleaner bags and grocery sacks. Polypropylene (PP) is mainly used for durable items like battery cases, furniture and conduit, but is making inroads into packaging, strapping and film applications. Polystyrene (PS) is best known in its foamed form, as coffee cups and egg cartons, but it also takes other forms: high-impact, used for plastic cutlery and disposable razors; semi- rigid, used for dairy tubs and mini-containers for cream; and oriented, or crystal, used for clear-plastic cookie trays and deli containers. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), has a tough, shell-like quality that makes it suitable for pipes, siding and gutters. In its more flexible form, as vinyl, it is used in footwear, luggage, and camping gear. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is best known as the thin, durable plastic of soft-drink bottles. It is the most widely recycled plastic because of beverage container deposit laws in nine states. It can be recycled as fiberfill for pillows and jackets or as industrial strapping. Engineering and multi-layer plastics are gaining market share for specialized uses. Engineered plastic alloys, for instance, can meet touoh requirements for strength in auto bumpers or heat resistance in microwave trays. Mu1 ti-layer packages offer barrier proper ties and squeezability as in ketchup bottles and toothpaste tubes.

9

Two plastics in particular cause concern about their impact on the environment. Some foamed polystyrene is manufactured with a group of chemical blowing agents called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are known to degrade the earth's ozone layer. The plastics industry is moving to find substitutes for CFCs. Polyvinyl chloride can pose a problem in incinerators. If burned at sub-optimum temperatures, it may set up conditions for the production of dioxin, an extremely toxic substance. The burn also creates hydrochloric acids, which can cause excessive corrosion of boilers and contribute to the acid rain problem.

3. HOW Much Plastic? Enough to fuel an industry

Surveys of local and international waste streams combined with production figures from industry provide hard data on which to design a large-scale recycling program. Americans use about 190 pounds of plastic per year. In Massachusetts, plastics account for about 8 percent of the waste stream. Plastic volume is about three times that level.

a

iv

The plastics market share is expected to increase dramatically, with resin use increasing from 43 billion pounds in 1985 to a projected 70 billion pounds in 2000. The Massachusetts plastic waste stream in 1995 will have an estimated 170,100 tons of polyolefins (PE and PP), 72,900 tons of polystyrene, and 16,200 tons of polyvinyl chloride. Despite the Commonwealth's Bottle Bill, an estimated 7 million pounds of PET bottles went unredeemed in 1987, which is enough to target that resin for recycling. Plastic milk jugs amount to about 18 million pounds a vear. The numbers suggest that there is and will be substantial hnnage of different resins in the waste stream, enough to fuel an industry.

-

4. CO1leCtiOnS: Curbside service, special trucks

Plastics, like other recyclables, are best separated from the trash at the household level, where they can be collected by recycling trucks and brought to processing centers for further sorting. While North American plastic collection programs are relatively new, West Germany has 10-year-old routes that indicate plastic collection is a natural addition to curbside programs.

Many programs offer lessons for Massachusetts. The Charlotte, N.C., program gathered valuable data on participation rates, optimum container size, loading methods and plastics volume in trucks. In East Greenwich, R.I., an innovative truck with side- loading buckets was tested; it lifts materials to the top of the truck, thus making use of the space that in other trucks is too high for loaders to reach. In West Germany, more than 5 million citizens use a large rolling bin that significantly increases participation and volumes, resulting in diversion of up to 23 percent by weight and 40 percent by volume.

West Germany's rolling bins have brought diversion up to 23%.

In New York City, the R2B2 buy-back center brings in almost 500 tons of plastics per year, ranging from plastic bags to soft-drink bottles, film canisters, plastic cutlery and carry-out containers. A program in Ville Le Salle, Quebec, experimented with larger household bins, but found that senior citizens had problems carrying them down stairs. In Naperville, Ill., milk jugs were added to an eight-item pick-up with little change in productivity and a good gain in revenue. The program uses on-trailer sorting to reduce subsequent processing time. A combination of curbside collection and rural drop-offs has worked well in Columbia County, Wisc., where market conditions for HDPE have improved dramatically. The program once had to de-lid HDPE bottles, sort out non-milk jugs, and bale the material for 6 cents per pound. It now receives 15 cents with fewer restrictions.

1

3

c

The key finding of the collection programs is that plastics take up a disproportionate amount of space in collection boxes, trucks, and at processing centers. The most serious bottleneck is on collection trucks; there is a clear need to design an on-truck mechanism that crushes plastic during the loading process.

ri 5. Technologies: Pursue several types at once

The most prudent approach to developing plastics recycling is to pursue several technologies at once to build a broad-based system that can react to shifts in the marketplace. Two technologies, those that create regrind from PET bottles or HDPE containers, are already in use and have shown rapid evolution. Polyolefin separation technologies take a mixed stream of plastics and separate the lighter polyolefins (PE and PPI from heavier resins. The polyolefins are then formed into pellets that can be marketed to molders both here and abroad. At present, three companies using this technology are worth pursuing: Transplastek of Canada, Sorema of Italy and A.K.W. of West Germany.

One techO1OsY sePar- ates resins; another mixes them together.

ai

The heavy fraction that is screened out by polyolefin separation can become part of the feedstock for mixed-plastic technologies that take variou's recipes of material and form them into plastic lumber and other products. The method requires a high percentage of polyolefins, including plastic bags. It softens the material by internal friction, then forces it into molds where the heavier and most incompatible plastics tend to settle at the center of the piece. Presently, the most promising technologies are those of Advanced Recycling Technology of Belgium and Recycloplas t of West Germany.

6.. Markets: Exports, new ventures hold promise

Development of collection programs and technologies can proceed only as quickly as markets can be developed. While there is strong activity already in the PET and HDPE regrind markets, and an expanding export market for polyolefin pellets, development work is needed to assure sustained markets.

A survey of high-volume Massachusetts plastics molders found that many were shifting away from simple plastic resins in favor of engineered plastics with tight specification demands that rule out use of recycled material. However, small molders and those in less developed countries were identified as strong prospects for purchase of polyolefin pellets. It c t i l l also be important to

vi

Market capaaty and material supply tend to increase together.

convince customer companies - those that place orders for non- food packaging -- that they should specify recycled pellets as feedstock because of their lower cost and environmental benefits.

Mixed-plastic products have a good potential market in the form of plastic lumber for horse stalls, park benches and boat docks. A market survey found that if mixed-plastic could gain a 40 percent share of the market, it would require up to 6 million pounds of material annually for horse stalls, 360,000 pounds for park benches and 126 million pounds for boat docks. The hurdles to widespread plastic lumber use are its initial purchase price, slightly higher than wood, and its flexibility, which rules out certain structural applications.

Polyethylene markets have been expanding rapidly thanks to a worldwide shortage of ethylene production capacity. Two Midwestern firms, Eaglebrook Plastics and Midwest Plastics, are aggressively seeking out additional sources of pos t-consumer plastic. The PET market, spurred by the strong flow of material in Bottle Bill states, is expanding to meet an industry goal of recycling 50 percent of PET bottles by the year 2000.

As with other recyclable materials, experience with plastics has shown that material supply and market capacity must be increased simultaneously. Collection programs are essential to guarantee a strong flow of material and to attract remanu- facturers; but market and capacity development are equally important to convince local governments to add plastic to the collection system.

Part Two 1. The Action Plan: Gettingstarted

Based on the background research findings, the Commonwealth will begin immediately to design plastics recovery into all of the planned Regional Recycling Programs. This activity will proceed on two levels. Near-term efforts, such as collection pilots and market research, will focus on answering: the remaining questions about plastics recycling identified in this report. Mean- while, implementation of the Regional Programs will be geared to the . long-term objective of reclaiming post-consumer plastics throughout Massachusetts.

Two pilot collection programs will be started as soon as possible, one to collect all rigid plastic containers, the other to collect both rigid containers and plastic films. By targeting all rigid con-

vii tainers, and by making the program simple to use, a recovery rate of 45 percent of rigid plastics will be tested. Because plastic has a high volume-to-weight ratio, larger household containers may be necessary, or residents might be asked to put plastic containers in a separate plastic bag. The collection trucks will be of large capacity and be fitted with a high-speed mechanism that crushes plastic bottles to reduce their volume.

At the material recovery facility, plastic capabilities will be designed in from the start. Depending on collection mode, various separation and baling capabilities will be used to facilitate processing; it may also be desirable to include shredders or space for a mixed-plastic molding system.

The MRF operator fee structure envisioned by the regiowl recycling program -- a flat fee plus a percentage of material-sale revenues -- will need to be reevaluated for plastics, whose .

processing costs may cancel out earned revenues. It is recommended that instead of charging no tipping fee at the MWs, a nominal, flat-rate fee for all materials be charged. This will encourage maximum recovery of material.

The Commonwealth will pursue several technologies at once, and will use its full economic development resources to help site at least one polyolefin separation plant and one mixed-plastic plant in the state as soon as feasible.

2. Making It Work: A public-private partnership Strong research and development efforts are needed to refine technologies, streamline collection procedures, and build long- term markets. The Commonwealth will co-sponsor research efforts, but the participatim of the plastics industry and its cor- porate customers is essential because of the formidable r,. C'Gources and expertise that the private sector can bring to the effort.

To foster New England state and industry collaboration, in 1988 DSWM conceived and organized the Plastics Recycling Applied Research Institute (PPdN). It will be a key resource as research and development efforts begin. PRAN's co-founders are New England Container Recovery, Inc. and the University of Lowell's plastics engineering department; its first project is the start-up of a mixed-plastic molding plant using an Advanced Recycling Technology ET/1 machine. PRARI will serve as a research body and think tank of government, industry and business experts; it will be well-suited to performing some of the next steps recommended in this report.

3

A mixed-plastic plant is the first project of a new research group.

9

viii

Government efforts are essential to help plastic recycling grow.

The next phases of research and development will concentrate on these efforts: 1) institute two curbside collection pilots, one for rigid plastics, the other for rigid plastics and film; 2) launch two plastic recycling plants, one for mixed plastics, the other for polyolefin separation; 3) conduct in-depth market research and development for polyolefin pellets, mixed-plas tic lumber products, and both PET and HDPE regrind; 4) evaluate European W t F s with proven plastic processing capabilities and apply findings to first Massachusetts MRFs; 5) refine polyolefin separation technologies with special attention to improving molding properties and further segregating the heavier resins; 6 ) refine mixed- plastics recipes to stiffen plastic lumber products and develop new products with strong market potential, 7) test automatic side-loading bins in areas where packer trucks are already used for trash collection; for other areas, develop onztruck densification mechanisms to reduce plastic volume in curbside vehicles; 8) study the feasibility of drop-off sites for plastic in rural areas where collection service may not be offered, and at major ports to capture plastic marine waste; 9) perform large- scale tests of the three top-ranked separation technologies, and use the pellets from the tests for production test runs; and 10) evaluate PET and HDPE technologies to gauge feasibility of siting such plants in Massachusetts. This work will be shared by PRARI, DSWM, other New England states, and industry.

Government initiatives are important to encourage voluntary initiatives by the plastics industry and, when necessary, to make participation mandatory. To strengthen markets, state agencies will procure products containing recycled plastic whenever they are available. Public education about plastic recycling will emphasize the benefits of re-use and encourage individuals to choose products with recyclable plastic packaging. A voluntary Code of Packaging Standards and emblem will be developed to encourage product manufacturers to avoid excessive packaging and to use recycled resins. An Environmental Package Design Competition will promote recyclability to packaging engineers. All programs will benefit by continued cooperation among New England states.

Several pending bills could become important tools if tougher measures are needed. A Packaging Disposal Tax has been proposed for each layer of non-recyclable packaging. Another bill would require that plastic packaging be constructed of only one resin to facilitate recycling. And a Packaging Code and Review Board could be established to mandate that packaging is COM- patible with recycling programs.

Introduction

Plastics recycling is one part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the waste stream by 25 percent -

An evaluation of plastic recycling This report assesses the feasibility of including plastic discards in the statewide recycling program. Part One examines the types and quantities of plastics in the waste stream, the methods best suited for plastic collections, the technologies available for processing and remanufacturing the plastic, and the long-term outlook for material markets. Part Two concludes that plastic recycling should be pursued and presents an action plan with specific mechanisms for implementing large-scale plastic recycling. It cites key areas where further research and development are needed, and suggests governmental initiatives that will speed recycling growth.

The plastics action plan is one component of a comprehensive recycling and composting program designed to divert at least 25 percent of the solid waste going into Massachusetts' over- burdened landfills, three-fourths of which are expected to close by 1990. This report lays out a framework for integrating plastics into the statewide recycling program, which calls for the phase- in of 12 regional multi-material curbside collection programs across the Commonwealth by the year 2000.

centers and curbside Pickup are core of state program.

3 Each regional program will serve a cluster of towns and cities (average population 500,000) with weekly curbside pick-up of household recyclables (glass containers, cans, newspapers, plastics, etc.). Collected materials will be delivered to a central material recovery facility (MPXF) to be sorted, upgraded and marketed for use as industrial raw materials.

To optimize citizen participation and recovery rates, the "user-

3

2

. The program is funded with $45 million from the 1987 Solid Waste Act.

friendly" program provides each participating household with a handy storage container as a constant reminder to recycle. It requires only a simple sorting of non-recyclables from recyclables. On trash pick-up day, the resident simply puts the recycling container at the curb for pick-up by a recycling truck.

State financing will be used to provide participating communities with specialized collection vehicles, household set-out containers, and public education, and to assist in MRF construction. In return, communities may join a region by passing local mandatory recycling ordinances and agreeing to allocate part of their disposal-cost savings to operate the collection service. Every ton of recyclables accepted by the MRF at little or no charge saves the average Massachusetts community a dump fee of$50.

The Massachusetts Solid Waste Act of 1987 allocates $10 million to municipal and agricultural composting programs and $35 million for regional and community recycling programs. This is an unprecedented commitment by the Commonwealth to mobilize sound waste management alternatives.

A joint effort with mode Island This research was conducted in cooperation with the state of PXhode Island. The background data in this document is for Massachusetts only; the action plans were developed to match each state's needs. Readers interested in the companion PXhode Island study should contact the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 9 Hayes Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02908, (401) 277-3434.

PART 3 ONE

Why Plastics?

Plastics 'miracle' has turned sour as pollution and disposal problems grow; recycling is the only long-term cure

First growth, ihen problems

Plastics are everywhere, a miracle of modern life. They are an incredibly versafile tool of society, and much more than a new way to package milk or fabric softener. Plastic means contact lenses, artificial hearts, more fuel-efficient automobiles, den- tures, microwave ovens, portable computers.

This man-made family of materials exploded onto the Amer- ican scene during the years of rapid economic growth after the Second World War. Since the 1970s, the U.S. plastics industry has continued to grow at a breathtaking rate, with production jumping from 19 billion pounds in 19721, to an estimated 53 to 55 billion pounds in 198T-3. Gross sales, at $138 billion in 1985, are predicted to hit $345 billion in the year 2000, with production pushing towards 76 billion pounds per yearl.

Yet this economic bonanza has spawned huge and complex problems with disposal, pollution and lono- 0 term resource use. In its present, throw-away form, plastic production and use are fast becoming a liability for society. Plastic is clogging the world's oceans, overflowing from its landfills, producing pollution during production and again when burned in incinerators, and consuming large quantities of non-renewable oil and natural gas to make not just artificial hearts but throw-away products by the billions. As the problems mount up, the old misconception that plastic can't be recycled is being turned on its head: not only can it be recycled, if musf be recycled.

Throw-away plastic is 1 a liability fcr society.

3

4

Plastic is a pollutant of land and oceans

Improper disposal of plastic products, either as litter or as , waterborne trash, has caused worldwide problems ranging from

damaged tourist trade at beaches and scenic areas to massive kill- offs of marine wildlife. Annual Coast Week clean-ups on Cape Cod net hundreds of pounds per square mile of plastic utensils, fishing gear and other debris left behind by picnickers or dumped overboard by boaters. Plastic tampon applicators escape the Boston sewage treatment plant and wash up on Massachusetts beaches by the thousands.4

Mastic ocean pollution in U.S. waters - ranging from discarded six-pack yokes to lost fishing nets to plastic bags -- is blamed for the death by entanglement or ingestion of about 100,000 marine mammals annually, including endangered whales and turtles. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that commercial fishing fleets yearly dump 52 million pounds of packaging material into the sea and lose about 300 million pounds of indestructible plastic fishing lines and netsj. Two to four times more plastic debris is washing up on North Atlantic beaches and shorelines than 15 years ago6, and the Worldwatch Institute warns that large quantities of floating plastic particles have been found in the most remote areas of the world's oceans7.

Each year, 352 million poundsofplasticare dumped into the sea.

-

Plastics do not rot, rust, dissolve, biodegrade, or evaporate when exposed to the elements. Discarded polystyrene cups, plastic utensils and straws, used once, will remain a problem for centuries.

'3

5

Plastics bloat the waste stream In the Commonwealth's shrinking landfills, plastics represent an estimated 8 percent by weight of solid waste@, yet take up two to three times that level in volumeg. Given $50/ton tip fees and total disposal costs including collection approaching $100 per ton in many areas, the cost to Massachusetts citizens for plastic disposal is estimated at $24 to $48 million per yearlo.

Thowi% Plastic away costs Massachusetts $24 million per year.

The plastic industry recommends incineration of plastics for energy recovery as a promising alternative to landfilling, since plastics, with their high content of oil and natural gas, can boost the energy value of trash. But waste-to-energy facilities have become increasingly difficult to site because of high costs and atizen concerns over air emissions and disposal of ash residue.

- . .. - - - .

Plastic is a non-renewable resource The waste-to-energy approach also places at risk the future of the plastics industry, whose existence is tied to plentiful supplies of oil and natural gas. Full development of recycling systems offers a win-win scenario that makes plastic a sustainable resource for industry and helps government safeguard public health and relieve pressure on waste-disposal capacity.

Petroleum and natural gas are both the raw materials of and the energy source for plastics production. Continued availability of these scarce, non-renewable resources is a critical issue underlying use and disposal of plastics. According to several sources, known world-wide reserves of economically accessible petroleum and natural gas have remained level, despite huge explor- ation expenditures since 1970, and can be expected to last only 32 to 60 years at present consumption ratesl2J3.

The national dependence on petroleum and natural gas for plastics and other uses carries larger threats, including the vola- tile military and political situation in the Middle East, where one- half of world reserves are located. Now at 38 percent of US. consumption, petroleum imports are expected to rise dramatically in the next decade as domestic reserves are depletedl3. This will coincide with the end of the so-called glut of cheap oil, widely expected to revert in the mid-nineties to shortages and price shocks like those of 1973 and 197914. Thus, our use of plastics and other petroleum and natural gas products plays a key role in future resource and economic security.

Theoilglutwon'tlast.

6

Businesses routinely recycle plastic scrap; consumers can, too.

This scenario promises inevitable, difficult choices for Amer- ican consumers and leaders. Should scarce resources be used for throwaway plastics and fuel to haul more garbage greater dis- tances, or for home heating, agricultural production and industrial growth? Recycling strategies adopted now could not only prevent abrupt economic and lifestyle changes, but bring significant economic opportunities as well. Raw material routed back into the economy will build a more self-reliant nation better positioned for long- term industrial stability.

Plastics recycling: Far behind the pace Plastics recycling is neither impractical nor impossible. It is the optimal solution. Yet with a few exceptions, the plastics industry has lagged far behind other industries in developing capacity to recover and reuse discarded, or post-consumer plastics. Its one major effort, plastic soft drink bottle recycling, recovered only three-tenths of one percent of total plastic production in 1987.

Table 1 RECYCLING TONNAGE BY INDUSTRY

Year Material Tons Recovered

1986 aluminum cans 616,000 1987 glass 1,500,000 1987 paper, all grades 23,500,000 1987 plastic soda bottles 75,000

Yet plastic recycling is nothing new. Reuse of in-house plastic scrap has been widely practiced for decades by plastic molders and reprocessors. The challenge is to adapt existing plastic manufacturing technologies to accommodate pos t-consumer plastic discards. This transition is definitely underway; post- consumer plastic recycling is nearing readiness as both a waste management option and a business opportunity. Recent fast- paced developments show a number of emerging collection, processing and reuse technologies, along with strengthening markets for reclaimed post-consumer plastics.

-

.

Most innovations so far have been pioneered by small entre- preneurs and community recycling programs in the U.S., with considerably more advanced developments occurring in Europe. Meanwhile, the major U.S. plastics industries -- the petrochem-

.-)

3

7’

3

7

A closed-loop system for plastics is within technological reach.

ical companies, resin producers, packaging manufacturers, and the consumer-product giants that use plastic packaging -- have yet to accept responsibility for their share of the waste-disposal problem. It is time that they applied their prodigious resources towards the research and development needed to make plastics recycling happen on a large scale.

This study found many questions still to be answered, but also encouraging signs that most of the components of a closed-loop recycling system are available and ready for implementation. The roadmap that follows in Part Two shows how concentrated efforts by government, business and civic leaders can bring about a fundamental change in the way Americans deal with plastic waste.

.

3

J

8

A Guide to Resins

Most household plastics are recyclable either as distinct resins or mixed together; Americans use polyethylene every day

Plastics are products of the lab Plastics are man-made materials derived from petroleum or natural gas. They consist of various combinations of carbon with hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other organic and inorganic elements formed by linking together small molecule groups called monmus into long-chain molecules called polymcrs.

' Moldability is the chief characteristic accounting for plastics' high versatility. While in liquid form, plastics are capable of being molded, extruded, cast, or otherwise fabricated into myriad shapes. The properties of plastics can be widely varied by mani- pulating molecular structure, by using additives or blends, and by using ever-more sophisticated molding technologies. There are many excellent references on how plastics are made, structure of the industry, and the environmental impact of plastics pro- ductionls.

All plastics are either thermosets or thermoplastics. Them"&, or duroplastics, are cross-linked polymer chains which harden

Plastics that don't permanently in the presence of heat and cannot be remelted, melt are difficult or making them unlikely candidates for recycling. Thermosets impossible to recycle. make up approximately 13 percent of US. plastic salesl6.

TItsmopZastics are singlechain polymers which harden when cooled but, at varying tempeiatures according to resin type, will soften and can be remolded. This characteristic qualifies thermoplastics for recyclina though repeated melting and remolding of some resins will eventually downgrade material properties such as flexibility and strength. Thermoplastics represent about 87 percent of US. plastic salesl6.

2

0:

10

This project focused on the thermoplastic resin types most commonly used in the US. and most prevalent in the waste stream. These are:

High density polyethylene (HDPE) Low density polyethylene (LDPE) Polypropylene (PI?) Polystyrene (PS) Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

Some resins are easy to recognize Citizens come in contact with most resins every day, and with practice, distinctions between some plastic types can be made. Techniques used by the plastics industry (see Appendix A - Resin Identification Methods) can aid identification. However, the presence of some look-alike resins rules out reliance on citizens for resin sorting. Hopefully, a voluntary coding system proposed by the Societv of the Plastics Industry will solve this problem.

~

Polyethelene turns up in many kitchens and laundry rooms.

The most widely used polymer in the US., polyethylene is termed one of the "commodity" plastics because of its high versatility'and relatively low price. The two most common types are high density polyethylene (HDPE), used for the majority of rigid containers such as ' dairy, detergent, and cosmetic bottles, antifreeze containers, and motor oil 'cans'; and low density polyethylene (LDPE) mainly used for films such as trash bags, grocery sacks and dry-cleaning bags.

There is some cross-over in applications between HDPE and

LDPE. For instance, some films and closures are made of HDPE and some rigid items of LDPE. The difference between the two is the degree of branching of the molecular chains and the temperatures at which they melt. While most polyethylenes are used in products with a life span of under one year, more durable uses include toys, buckets, drums, pallets and automotive parts. Two other polyethylene films seeing increasing use are linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and ultra low density polyethylene (ULDPE) .

c

Different grades of HDPE are suited to various molding techniques according to their molecular weight and melt-flow index, i.e., whether they are runny or stiff when passed through a molding orifice. In the recycling context, the grades most often cited are "high load HDPE" suited for extruded and/or blow- molded sturdy items like drums; fractional-melt HDPE used for blow-molding milk jugs and other bottles; and injection-grade HDPE for less demanding uses such as soft drink bottle base cups.

Together with polypropylene, polyethylenes are referred to by the generic t6rm polyolefins. Olefins are chemically active hydrocarbons (i.e. ethylene and propylene) which are the building blocks of polymers.

.)

Most household plastics are polyolefins.

3

Polypropylene (PP) is another commodity thermoplastic which h& mainly been used for durable items like battery cases, furniture and conduit. It is seeing increased use in fibers for rope and strapping, and is making packaging in-roads in both film and rigid form. Many cellophane-like snack food and candy wrappers are now polypropylene. Also "barrier" packaging, the best known example being the multi-layer squeezable ketchup bottle, uses PI? in several of its six or seven layers of plastics and adhesives. The plastic linings of disposable diapers are also PP.

Polypropylene is increasingly interchanged for other members of the polyolefin group, as well as other resin types. For instance, while most carry-out plastic utensils are made of "high-impact" polystyrene, other cutlery that looks and feels just the same is now made of polypropylenel7. This is one example highlighting the difficulty of sorting resin types simply by sight or touch.

Polystyrene (PS) is best known in its foamed form, some of which is made under the trademark name of Styrofoam. It is actually a family of plastics that takes a variety of forms:

high-impact - rigid items such as plastic cutlery, disposable razors, prescription and vitamin bottles;

semi-rigid - slightly pliable items such as lids, single

12

service mini-containers for cream, jelly, and butter pats, and dairy tubs;

oriented, or "crystal" - clear deli carryout containers, cookie package trays and some cellophane-like films;

expanded or foamed - used for packing and insulation materials, as well as food trays, egg cartons, and carry-out containers such as hot cups, plates, and "clamshells" for hamburgers .

One other member of the styrene family deserves mention if only because it is a fixture in virtually every home and office. This is a high durability plastic-rubber blend called acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, or ABS: it is best known as the sturdy housing of telephones and the plastic of Leg0 toy blocks.

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene: your telephone housing.

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is one of the most versatile plastics because its inherent tough, shell-like quality can be softened and modified for diverse applications by the use of additives called "plasticizers." PVCs widest use is in durable construction products such as pipes, siding, conduits, cables, and gutters. Known by lay persons as "vinyl," it is also used extensively in flooring, paneling, siding and as a leather or rubber substitute for luggage, footwear, upholstery, brief cases, clothing, camping gear, and beach rafts.

A sister polymer to PVC is polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), best known by the trade name "saran" as a packaging material. PVDC is the shrink-wrap label used on the newly introduced plastic soft- drink can.

While most PVC used in the U.S. goes to durable products, about 25 percent goes to disposable items and food and non-iaod packaginglg. Food packaging includes salad and vegetable oil bottles, wraps for meat, produce and cheese, bottles for some imported mineral waters, and bottle cap liners and can coatings.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is the best known of the family of polyester plastics because of its extensive use since 1977 for 1-, 2-, and 3-litre soft drink bottles. It is also one of the few post-consumer plastics with a recycling track record, owing to beverage 'container laws in nine states. In 1987, 150 million pounds, or 20 percent, of plastic soda bottles were recycled, according to industry sources.

Most reclaimed PET goes to fiberfill for ski jackets, pillows, and sleeping bags, or to industrial strapping. Some industry analysts predict many new uses will soon be unveiled, noting that

7 13

recycling laws in Califomia, New Jersey, and Phode Island have assured the "critical mass" of material supply to convince industry to develop more recycled PET products. Yet recovery is virtually nonexistent in non-legislated states, and rumors persist that some recovered PET ends up in landfills for lack of a market. The National Association for Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR) has recently organized to boost recovery levels (see more under Markets).

3

Besides the plastic soda bottle, PET is penetrating other food package formats as bottles, jars, sheeting, or blister packs, and some precision applications such as appliance and auto parts. PET blends are also being used for microwaveable trays and

PET is turning up in more than soda bottles.

1 films. ~

There are reports of refillable PET soda bottles being developed in both the U.S. and Europe. Coke-Germany has already test- marketed a "recycling friendly" PET bottle in which the aluminum cap and HDPE base cup were replaced with a PP or PE cap and PET base cup respectively, to simplify material reclamation. In a similar move, several U.S. companies have introduced the petulated PET bottle, also minus the HDPE base cup and extra recovery steps.

1

3

Multi-layer and engineering plastics are less common than the types above but have been increasing their market share rapidly. Multi-layer, or "barrier" plastics have made a strong entry into packaging applications in recent years. Some well known examples are squeezable bottles for ketchup and. condi- ments, and an easy-pour, sturdy orange juice bottle recently introduced by a leading juice company. The combinations of five to seven layers in these containers take advantage of different plastics' barrier properties to keep oxygen out, keep carbonation in, resist the acidic effects of contents like citrus juices, and enhance squeezability.

The containers combine various resins (PP, PVDC, LDPE, PS, and EVOH, or ethyl vinyl alcohol) with adhesives and regrind layers. The regrind layers made of in-plant scrap are sandwiched between virgin resin layers so as not to come in contact with food contents of the package. Using regrind is cited as an advantage of barrier packages because it reduces manufacturing wastes.

Barrier containers were developed to increase shelf-life of plastic- packaged products. Their competitiveness with glass and metal containers has improved, though glass and metal still have longer shelf-lived. Industry observers are of divided opinion on

14 . . -. .

Foam wrappers for hamburgers: A great invention?

barrier packaging's growth potential. Some assert it is unlimitea, while others say its use has already peaked. Either way, these packages raise problems for plastic recycling, because they are permanently bonded plastic mixtures which cannot be separated into distinct resins, and therefore can only be utilized by mixed- plastic recycling technologies. Also, since they cannot easily be distinguished visually from single resin items, such as PVC or HDPE containers, multi-layer items will cause sorting difficulties and material losses at the household and MRF levels.

Engineering plastics can be loosely defined as high-performance hybrid plastics with highly specialized uses. Prices for engineering grades are quoted in dollars per pound rather than cents per pound for commodity plastics. Initially, engineering plastics were introduced to replace high-strength materials such as metals in automobiles and airplanes. A marked new trend is entry into packaging, especially heat resistant microwaveable and dual-ovenable trays, and fancy-shaped, colorful, eye-catching containers geared to consumer impulse buying. Such trends toward more expensive plastic materials are forecasted to double consumer spending by the year 2000, from 20 to 40 percent of the food packaging dollar'.

Whether engineering plastics are a boon or bane for recycling remains to be seen. Some firms believe their high value will create an automatic incentive favoring source separation and recycling. Others suggest that difficulties distinguishing engineering plastics from each other or from commodity plastics will hamper recycling efforts.

Foamed polystyrene: Popular but flawed

Millions of hurried hamburger eaters would probably rank insulated and disposable clamshell packaging made of polystyrene foam as one of the handiest inventions of modern times. Yet the product is inherently flawed. Not only is it difficult or impossible to recycle, the production process uses a factory-made gas that is steadily coding the ozone layer of the Earth.

Foamed polystyrenes have come under attack because of recent scientific evidence linking depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a group of chemical blowing agents used to produce some brands of foamed PS. While CFCs have, in fact, been proven to negatively impact the ozone layerlg, foam packaging reportedly accounts for only three percent of all CFC use in the United States20. The major uses of

Ir

New blowing agents could reduce threat to Earth's ozone layer.

CFC's are as coolants (including freon) in air conditioners and refrigerators, blowing agents for polyurethane foam insulation, and various cleaning and sterilization processes in hospitals, industry, and agriculture.

In response to consumer pressure and proposed legislative bans, the foamed PS packaging industry asserts that conversion to CFC substitutes has been underway for several years21; Du Pont, a major producer of CFC, announced in early 1988 a plan to begin phasing out its use. Steam and hydrocarbons are two substitutes already in limited use, and a new blowing agent HCFC 22 (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) recently received Food and Drug Ad- ministration (FDA) clearance for food-contact applications20. The hydrogen in HCFC 22 is said to make the molecule highly unstable so that it breaks up before reaching and damaging the stratospheric ozone layer.

Other citations in the literature, however, suggest extensive leadtimes and toxicity testing before acceptable CFC substitutes will be availabl022. One challenge for industry will be finding low- priced substitutes allowing foamed PS to retain its cost advantage over altemative products, such as poly-coated paper items. Another is the need to confront polystyrene litter's well-earned reputation as'an eyesore on the American landscape. As Florida Senator George Kirkpatrick put it: "For a hamburger that lasts a few minutes, why do we need a package that lasts as long as the pyramids?"Z

PVC: How safe is it? Much controversy has surrounded the use of PVC in food- contact applications. When liquor was packaged in PVC bottles in the late OS, it was found that vinyl chloride monomers, which are carcinogenic, leached from the containers into the liquor. Asserting that manufacturing techniques have now improved to the extent that this risk is held at safe levels, the PVC industry has petitioned FDA to allow increased use of PVC for food packages. Meanwhile, activist groups hold that the leaching risk is still significant, particularly when PVC is in contact with edible oiiS24. As yet, FDA has not made a final ruling on the issue.

A second major concern about PVC has been its burning behavior in refuse incinerators. It has been alleged that the chlorine in PVC sets up conditions for production of dioxin emissions, and that hydrochloric acid created while burning PVC

16

causes excessive corrosion inside combus tion chambers, leading to a less-clean burn.

PVC might not bum cleanly in the average waste-to-energy plant.

The Vinyl Institute, the PVC industry's trade association, recently sponsored extensive testing of both factors at the Vicon Incinerator in Pittsfield, Mass. Waste samples containing no PVC, average PVC, and extra PVC were burned under various combus tion scenarios using state-of-the-art pollution controls. No significant changes in dioxin levels were observed with any of the samples, as long as the facility functioned at optimum temperatures. However, at sub-optimum temperatures, dioxins did increase, Meanwhile, a direct correlation between PVC content of the waste and hydrochloric acid production was discerned, though this was reported to stay within the range of expected incinerator maintenance levels%.

Several unresolved issues about PVCs impact on the waste disposal system still need attention. The caveat that PVC's burn safcly in correctly run, modern incinerators, with state of the art pollution controls, gives no assurance of PVC's behavior in the average incinerator. According to the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, many facilities now operating in the U.S. do not meet all three conditions26. Finally, further research is needed on the effects of PVC plasticizers in 'both incinerators and landfills.

How Much Plastic?

Knowing what's in the trash is first step towards mining it; there is no shortage in sight

.

Data provide estimates of quantities

The study of garbage is not an exact science. -Waste streams vary by season, locale, weather on a given day, consumer whim. Methodologies vary. And the plastics industry is continually changing, particularly in the packaging area, where plastics are rapidly displacing traditional materials including paper labels and boxes, glass jars and metal cans. Industry growth, meanwhile, has already outpaced projections made just two years ago.

A sampling of Massachusetts waste was beyond the scope of this study, but from available sources it was possible to extrapolate conservative and mid-range estimates of available materials, along with other important data on plastic volume, product mix, resin mix and long-term availability. The numbers show that material supply is more than ample to support an aggressive recycling program and that the most plentiful resins are those that can become feedstock for existing plastic recycling technologies.

There is enough plas-

to fuel an industry. ' ticinthewastestream

Every year, 190 pounds per person

In 1985, the average American purchased and used 190 pounds of durable and non-durable plastic products. At projected industry growth rates, this figure will go to 258 pounds in 1995 and 301 pounds in the year 2000'. Thus, Massachusetts' population of 6 million people will purchase and use over 1.5 billion pounds of plastic products in 1995, and 1.8 billion pounds in 2000.

18

Table 2 PLASTIC CONSUMPTION BY MAJOR COUNTRIES (1985)

Country Consump tion (lbs. / capita/ year)

Spain Netherlands Britain Norway* France Italy* Canada Tap" Switzerland Denmark U.S.A. Australia Sweden* Finland* Belgium West Germany

64.9 80.3

100.8 108.5 112.0 121.0 146.7 150.3 170.3 171.2 190.1 196.0 202.4 240.0 244.4 244.4

* figures are for 1984 0

Source: Plastic Waste Management Institute, 198627

Due to varying product life spans, pounds of plastic consumed do not equal pounds thrown away the same year. For instance, plastic packaging may have a useful life of a few minutes or a few months, while plastics used in automobiles or construction may not reach the waste stream for two to 20 years.

19

Plastics are 5% to 9% of waste load

The amount of plastic that ends up in the waste stream ranges from just under 6 percent to over 9 percent. Samplings done in various locales indicate basic trends.

Table 3 PLASTIC PERCENT OF MSW WEIGHT

City or Region Year %Plastics Source

Essex, Hudson, and Union Counties, NJ Ann Arbor, MI

Northeast Michigan Milwaukee, WI Central Wayne Cty., MI Ingham County, MI Kent County, MI Gexi-nany Belgium France Swieerland Atlantic Cty., NJ Netherlands Quebec Portland, OR

Islip, NY

1980 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1982 1983 1983 1983 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

. _

5.7 7.2 6.2 9.2 5.7 6.2 6.9 9.0 7.6 5.0 4.5 7.0 9.5 6.5 7.7 7.2

. .

28 29 30 31 32 29 29 33 34 34 34 34 35 36 37 2

Extrapolating from the North American figures and adjusting for plastic consumption growth rates suggests that plastics are currently 7 to 8 percent of MSW weight in Massachusetts. The team cross-checked this estimate against an analysis prepared by Franklin Associates for the U.S. EPA8 which projected national average waste composition by analyzing production figures, imports and exports, and product life cycles. According to this model, the national plastic discard rate is estimated at 7.9 percent of MSW weight in 1988, and 9.8 percent by the year 2000.

20

Table 4 MATERIALS DISCARDED IN MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM

(In millions of tons and percent)

1970 1980 2000 tons % tons % Materials tons %

Paper and Paperboard 36.5 Glass 12.5 Metals 135.0 Plastics 3.0 Rubber and

Leather 3.0 Textiles 2.2 Wood 4.0 Other - Food Wastes 12.7 Yard Wastes 21.0 Miscellaneous Inorg. Wastes 1.8

33.2 11.3

122.0 2.7

2.7 2.0 3.6 0.1

11.5 19.0

1.6

49.4 37.1 65.1 12.9 9.7 12.1

128.0 96.0 143.0 9.6 7.2 15.5

3.3 2.5 3.8 2.8 2.1 3.5 5.1 3.8 6.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

10.8 8.1 . 10.8 23.8 17.9 24.4

2.4 1.8 3.1

41.0 7.6 9.0 9.8

2.4 2.2 3.8 0.1 6.8

15.3

2.0

. TOTAL 110.3 100.0 133.0 100.0 158.8 100.0

Source: Franklin Associates, 19868.

Figure 1 ESTIMATED GROWTH OF PLASTIC DISCARDS TO 2000

n million tons

Source: Franklin Associates, 19868.

Massachusetts plastic waste: 8%

3

?

i

Using the 1988 figure of 7.9 percent as a baseline, two sets of fore- casts were made. The conservative growth trend is based on Franklin Associates' national projections of pos t-consumer plastics to the year 2000. The mid-range trend represents a 3 percent annual increase over Franklin Associates' figures to account for observed higher than average plastic use in Massachusetts packaging formats, plus the fact that plastic industry sales have been 4 to 6 percent higher than expected since 198438.

Table 5 shows the resulting range of post-consumer plastics potentially available for recycling from the residential waste stream. The higher figures are presented to allow planning flexibility. However, conclusions about plastic recycling capacity needed by the state are based on the conservative figures.

Table 5 WEIGHT OF MA. RESIDENTIAL' PLASTIC WASTE TO 2000

\ Conservative 1 Mid-range

Year % TPY2 % TPY 1988 7.9 237,000 7.9 237,000 1995 9.0 270,000 9.7 29 1 ,o 00 2000 9.8 294,000 11.3 339,000

IResidential waste is 1/2 ton per person per year according to MA. DSWM weight studies; to project residential plus commer- ad wastes, figures should be doubled to one ton/person/year. Tons per year

Plastics volume is three times its weight While much attention has focused on the weight of plastics in MSW, the concern for solid waste planners is volume of space plastics occupy in shrinking landfills. Various sources suggest that plastics, though 7 to 8 percent of MSW weight, are 25 to 30 percent of MSW v0lume39~4O. This is because items like plastic bottles are light and fluffy, and the material has a "memory," that is, a tendency to bounce back to its original shape.

22

The amount of landfill space plastics require is difficult to calculate because of limited data and wide variation in waste compaction methods at landfills. An uncompacted mix of heterogeneous plastic weighs 38 to 49 pounds per cubic yard. Using landfill operator estimates that compaction would double or triple the pounds of plastic per yard, disposal capacity needs in the Commonwealth could run from 3 to 12 million cubic yards per year if all plastic is landfilled.

Most plastic is used only briefly Product life cycle is a term used to refer to the period of time an item is retained and valued because it serves a purpose. The product becomes waste when its usefulness is perceived to have ended.

The time lag between product use and disposal varies widely, as Table 6 shows. Some items reach the waste stream in a few days or mon!.hs and others aren't discarded for 10 to 20 years. Thus, while packaging and disposable products may account for only 33 percent of production in a given year, they can account for 50 to 80 percent of waste stream plastics in that year. In contrast, the impact on the waste stream of long-life plastics such as construction materials is just beginning to be felt.

Table 6 TYPICAL LIFE CYCLES OF PLASTIC PRODUCTS

Product Estimated life (years)

Packaging Disposable diapers Pens, lighters, razors Footwear Apparel Toys Sporting goods Luggage Furniture Wire arid cable Construction material

1 or less I or less. 1 or less 2 4 5 7 10 10 15 20

Sources: J. Milgrom'", Franklin Assouates8, and MA. DSWM

P 23

Plastic market share to increase The recent Phstics: A.D. 2000 study by Chem Systems, Inc. for the Society of the Plastics Industry predicts major growth for plastic use in both the most disposable and least disposable uses - packaging and building/construction materials, respectively. Sig- nificant growth is also predicted in consumer/institutional, a category that includes many disposables such as carry-out containers, health supplies, etc. (See Appendix B for definitions of primary product types in each market category.) Figure 2 from that study pictures comparative growth areas.

Figure 2 PLASTICS GROWTH BY MARKET, 1970-2000

TRANSPORTATION

PACKAGING

BLDG/CONSTRUCTION

ELECTRICAL/ ELECTRONIC

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

ADH/INKS/COATINGS

OTHER

@ 1970

1905

@ 2000

0 10 20

BILLIONS OF POUNDS

*INOUSTRIAL NOT SHOWN DUE TO LOW VOLUME Source: Chem Systems, Inc., 1987

24

It is instructive to look behind the Chem Systems projections to grasp the full impacts of plastics growth on waste management and recycling systems. Table 7 presents Chem Systems’ data on percent of resin use by each market. Table 8 translates these figures into quantities of resin (in billion pounds) used or expected to be used by each market in 1970,1985, and 2000.

Table 7 PROJECTED MARKET DISTRIBUTION OF PLASTICS

Market1

Adhesives, inks, coatings Bldg.& Construc. Consumer / ins titu tional Electrical /electronic Furniture /furnishings Industrial Packaging Transportation 0th-

Total Percent

Percent of annual production 1970 1985 2000

8.2 22.7 11.3 10.1 7.0 1.0

26.1 5.8 7.8

5.7 23.6. 8.5 6.7 6.0 1.3

30.1 5.3

12.8

5.0 21.3 8.1 7.1 5.8 1.4

32.1 6.1

13.1

100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Chem Systems, Inc. 1987* ISee Appendix B for definitions of products in market categories.

Table 8 PROJECTED QUANTITIES OF RESIN USE BY MARKET

Annual quantities . Market (in billion pounds)

1970 1985 2000 Adhes. Inks, Coatings 1.475 2.525 3.585 Bldg. & Construction 4.095 10.350 14.975 Consumer /Ins tit. 2.030 3.715 5.670 Electrical / Electronic 1.825 2.930 5.020 Furniture/Furnishings Industrial Packaging Transportation

1.275 2.635 4.100 .185 .575 .960

4.695 13.200 22.580 1.035 2.365 4.240

Othe; 1.400 5.600 9.260 Totals 18.015 43.895 70.390 Source: Calculations by MA. DSWM; data Chem Systems, Inc., 1987l

3 25

13

1)

Pursuing this analysis further, it is possible to derive cumulative estimates of total resin use in each market for the entire 15-year period from 1985 to 2000. For example, if Chem System's fore- casts prove correct, selected markets' total resin use will be as shown in Table 9.

Table 9 CUMULATIVE RESIN USE IN SELECTED MARKETS

198 5-2000

billion lbs. million tons

Packaging 286.2 143.1 Consumer /Institutional 75.0 37.5 Building/ Construction 202.6 101.3

These are national figures projected over a time span during which various factors could alter plastic industry growth. Yet the packaging estimates alone present. a sobering picture, as these items are essentially guaranteed to become waste immediately. . The projected national total of 143 million tons of plastic packaging is equivalent to the total amount of MSW Massachusetts would generate in 24 years. Or, on a per capita basis, Massa- chusetts' waste management and recycling systems would need to absorb about 2.5 million tons of plastic packaging between now and 2000, or 166,700 tons per year. This does not take into account the phased arrival of longer life plastic items in the waste stream. However, it further corroborates that packaging alone will average about 70 percent of plastic discards in Massachusetts .

Films, rigid plastics are 83% of discards

Product form also has bearing on plastics targeted for recycling. Focusing on short-life products, mainly packaging, that will be in plentiful supply, the chief forms are rigid, film, and foam. These classifications are as important to the selection of collection and recycling technologies as the resin composition of MSW plastics.

A 1986 waste stream sampling by Recuperbec analyzed plastic discards by product form for the 13 municipalities of the Quebec Urban Community (CUQ). Table 10 presents the CUQ breakdown of rigid, film, and foam items, plus a separate category for

26 -

plastic trash bags. The two categories most likely to be targeted for recycling -- films and rigid plastics -- totaled 83 percent of plastic discards.

Table 10 WEIGHT OF WASTE SAMPLED AND PLASTIC FRACTION (KG)

TYPE OF PRODUCTS TYPE OF PLASTICS Poly- PVC PET Others SAMPLE SIZE % k s styrene Total Plastic Trash Films Rigid Foam

weight weight bags plastic

616 54.5 1263 83.3 753 69.6 969 81.1 688 59.5 797 44.8 392 39.6 469 27.8

7.4 20.7 24.4 10.0 32.7 35.9 8.3 255 33.5 8.5 36.4 31.5 7.0 25.2 23.9 5.4 20.2 16.4 3.2 24.4 11.7 3.2 9.9 13.6

2.0 4.7 2.3 4.7 3.2 2.8 .3

1.1

.TOTALS BY WEIGHT 5947 460.2 53 195 191 21

TOTALS BY PERCENT 7.7 12 42 41 5

28.0 18.5 53.1 24.8 50.3 15.3 44.1 16.8 31.3 25.7 29.8 13.9 36.9 . 1.1 - 16.4 8.9

5.0 2.5 1.3 16.4 1.9

.6

.8 .

.7

.1

.2

.1

.1

.1

- -

- - -*- .

3.0 2.9 2.5 3.7 .6 .4 .8 1.7

290 125 29 - - 16

63 27 6 - 4

Source: Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Quebec, 198642

Resin leaders: Polyolefins, polystyrene

Few U.S. characterization studies have analyzed the resin make- up of MSW plastics. Studies done elsewhere show that polyolefins are far and away the most abundant resins, followed by polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride, as shown below.

Table 11 WEIGHT COMPOSITION OF MSW PLASTICS (%)

France43 Japan27 FRGM CUQ42 (1983) (1985) (1983) (1986)

Type

Polyolefins (PE & PP) 57.0 57.3 70.2 63.0 Polystyrene 19.0 25.9 15.3 27.0 Polyvinyl Chloride 21.0 13.8 11.7 6.0 Others 3.0 3.0 2.8 4.0

28

4

~~ ~

production-level quantities of PET are now and will be in the waste stream.

Industry estimates of PET soda bottle recovery rates under Massachusetts' Bottle Law vary widely. Sources have quoted recovery rates ranging from 60 percenF to 93.4 percenfi6. Incom- plete reporting requirements under the Bottle Law make more precise figures difficult to ascertain, but the consensus of a dozen interviewees suggests high levels of at least 80 percent.

To estimate PET soft-drink bottles sold in Massachusetts, the project team used reported national 1987 PET soft-drink bottle sales of 740 million pounds2, and adjusted according to Massa- chusetts' reported consumption of 6 pounds per capita, double the national average. This yielded an estimate of 37 million pounds of PET bottles sold in the state in 1987. Table 13 shows the resulting range of unredeemed PET potentially available for recovery via the state recycling system.

Table 13 ESTIMATED UNREDEEMED PET IN MA., 1987

Material Bottle Law Estimated availability recovery rate unredeemed PET1

Low 93% 2.59 Medium 80% 7.40 High 60% 14.80

(in million lbs.)

IWhole-bottle weights, including weight of HDPE base cup which averages 25 percent of bottle weight.

18 million pounds of dairy bottles

According to HDPE dairy sales for 19872, corroborated by the Milk Market Administrator, consumption of milk jugs is three pounds per person per year in Massachusetts. This means an estimated.18 million pounds of HDPE dairy bottles entering the waste stream annually could potentially be diverted to recycling.

3

J

27

The closest sampling to Massachusetts is the Quebec study cited in Table 11. The project team observed strong similarities between the two regions' plastics wastes, except for two kej7 differences in packaging formats. The first is that PET bottles were in limited use in Quebec at the time of the study. In Massachusetts PET has a 58% market share and is covered by the redemption system. However, an estimated 10 to 40 percent of PET bottles are not redeemed and enter the waste stream (see next page). Second, liquid dairy products sold in Quebec are packaged in sturdy plastic pouches rather than HDPE jugs. This would suggest heavier polyolefin weights in Massachusetts than in Quebec.

In the absence of actual composition figures for Massachusetts, the Quebec figures are close enough for current planning purposes. They indicate a more than adequate match between targeted material supplies and available plastic recycling technologies and markets. Table 12 shows the estimated resin composition of Massachusetts residential plastic discards to the year 2000.

Table 12 RESIN COMPOSITION OF MASSACHUSETTS

RESIDENTIAL PLASTIC WASTE TO 2000 (tons /year)

Year Total PO ps PVC Other (63%) (27%) (6%) (4%)

1988 237,000 149,310 63,990 14,200 9,500 1995 270,000 170,100 72,900 16,200 10,800 2000 294,000 185,220 79,380 17,640 11,760

Resin composition percentages are from CUQ study42 Plastic percents of MSW are froin Franklin Associates8

See also Table 14 for further breakdown.

Some PET escapes redemption system

Despite the Massachusetts Bottle Bill, some 2.5 million to 14.8 million pounds of unredeemed PET soda bottles end up in the waste stream and could be available for recovery by the plastic recycling system. This level could very well increase once curbside collection is available statewide; many citizens may decide to forfeit deposits in favor of easy curbside pick-up. In any case,

3

1 7

29

Enough plastic to fuel an industry Clearly material supply is the least of the problems in designing a post-consumer plastics recycling system. Estimates of cumulative quantities of plastics available up to the year 2000 range from a low-end estimate of 3.2 million tons to a high-end of 7.4 million tons, enough to sustain a whole new industry in Massachusetts.

Table 14 PLASTIC DISCARDS IN MA., 1988-2000

Material/source Total tons Landfill needs e (cubic yards)

_._ - ~ - . Residential plastics 3.2 million 43 - 65 million

Residential plastics 3.7 million 50 - 76 million

All MSW plastics. 6.4 million 86 - 130 million

All MSW plastics 7.4 million 100 - 152 million

(conservative)

(mid-range)

(conservative)

(mid-range)

Referring back to the conservative and mid-range projections shown in Table 6, the total quantity of post-consumer plastics entering Massachusetts residential waste stream from 1988 to 2000 could range from 3.2 to 3.7 million tons, or 6.4 to 7.4 billion pounds. Looking at fotal municipal solid waste from residential, commeraal, and other sources, plastic discards would double to 6.4 to 7.4 million tons, or 12.8 to 14.8 billion pounds.

In terms of landfill needs, this total material volume could require 43 million to 152 million cubic yards of added disposal capacity. Even if waste-to-energy plants operating or soon to go on line were to reduce this need by 30 to 40 percent, heavy pressure on land disposal capacity will continue.

The figures in Table 15 represent the best estimate of the "universe" of pos t-consumer plastics which could be drawn into a state-fostered plastics recycling industry. The action plan outlines targeted quantities which could realistically be captured by the state's regional programs.

30

Table 15 CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL RESIN QUANTITIES

1988-2000

Quantities available Resin types (in billion pounds)

Conservative Mid-range

4.0006 4.658 1.717 1.996

.lo8 .118

.162 .177

Poly olefins Polystyrene

PET* Other

Polyvinyl chloride .382 .444

*Based on estimates that 20 percent of PET is unredeemed.

Collections

Residents respond well to curbside service, but since plastic jugs are mostly air, hauling them requires large trucks, densification

Experience is best teacher . . . . . . . . . .. - .. . . ..

North American and European recycling operations have a sur- prising level of experience with waste plastic collections, from ad lib efforts launched in the last two years to highly developed systems that have been running since the late '70s.

Plastic collections here are in their infancy compared to their European counterparts. Many questions remain unanswered. Yet there is a growing awareness in the U.S. and Canada that these questions can only be answered by launching pilot collections to learn from actual experience the daily rhythms of post- consumer plastics recovery. The pioneers in this area reason that the costs of conventional hauling/ transfer/disposal methods are so high that the risks/costs of a new way of collecting plastics can't be much worse, and may be better. They further reason that multi-material scenarios allow revenues from a mix of commo- dities to buffer the costs of plastic collections.

Programs underway in West Germany and the Netherlands for 6 to 10 years offer guidance and encouragement for these experi- ments. Standardized, large scale, multi-material programs, combined with well conceptualized sorting plant technologies, have debugged plastics recovery to a considerable degree, though refinements continue.

Cubside collection of Plastic is notfig new in West Germany.

>

Forty-one plastic collection programs were examined: 16 in North America by phone surveys, and 25 West German and Dutch programs by literature search (see Appengix C for full list). Because of wide variations in program designs, markets, record- keeping, and so on, it was not possible to derive standardized

32

,4 ... .. . .

The most important conclusion: Get curbside programs started.

measures ,of recovery rates or collection costs for all programs. Indeed, no isolated costs for plastics were available, though results will soon be in for several pilots.

While the survey did not reveal a collection model tailor-made to fit Massachusetts' regional program, several curbsides come close and valuable information emerged showing a range of program features which could be adopted. The most important conclusion is that collection pilots should be launched immediately to fine-tune efficiencies and test design options to suit various population densities and other variables in different parts of the Commonwealth.

Programs range from rural to big city

The following program profiles are presented as examples of plastic collection efforts to date. No one program is considered the model for Massachusetts, but several contain important elements showing that workable systems are possible. Profiles are presented for:

Charlotte, N.C. East Greenwich, R.I. West German Green Bin System Modified Green Bin System Bronx 2000, N.Y. Ville La Salle, QC. Naperville, IL. Columbia Cty., WI.

c

7

33

Charlotte Sased its momam on Ontario's I U

'blue-box' approach. I)

J

Charlotte, N.C.: Extensive testing Phase I of a voluntary, multi-material curbside collection for Charlotte, North Carolina was launched by Mecklenburg County in February 1987. Including recovery of PET soft-drink bottles, the program started with one truck and 2,500 households, then grew to three trucks and 9,032 households in June. In early 1989, the program will go citywide (110,000 households) and include a material recovery facility (MRF) to sort and upgrade recyclables for market. Charlotte's trail-blazing program will be important to watch because of its similarities to the Massachusetts model.

With funding from Coca Cola USA and design assistance from Resource Integration Systems, the pilot includes extensive experimentation and evaluation of variables, such as participation and recovery rates, truck sorting/loading configurations, and set-out container capacity.

The program is based on the well-known "blue box model'' first tried in Kitchener, Ontario. Dedicated three-compartment trucks (two 28 yd. Belgian Standards and one 15 yd. Evol Lodall) collect recyclables once per week on the same day as one of the twice- weekly trash pick-ups. Each household was supplied a 1.5 cubic foot, bright red set-out container. ' Citizens were asked to place co- mingled PET, cans and glass bottles in the container and stack newspapers on top. The pilot phase tested two box-style containers and one bucket style, all with the same capacity.

Table 16 shows that projected annual recovery levels for 9,032 households (pop. 27,096) are 322 pounds per household.

~ ~~

Table 17 PROJECTED ANNUAL RECOVERY RATES, CHARLOTTE, N.C.

Projected To tal Materials lbs. /household tons

News Glass PET Bi-metal UBC

268.0 1,210 47.0 212 4.0 8 .7 3

2.2 10

Totals 321.9 1,453 Source: Mecklenberg County DPW and Resource Integration Systems, Ltd.

34

Participation records show that 35 to 40 percent of households set out materials in any given week, with overall participation at 80 percent. For partiapating households the rate of set-out varies by material:

92% set out news 63% set out glass 53% set out PET 48% set out aluminum or bi-metal cans 6% set out non-targeted materials

A post-start-up phone survey found that 81 percent of participants found the container size, at 1.5 cubic feet, sufficiently large for weekly pickups:

Time to fill

less than 1 week

Percent of households One-fifth of house-

19 holds filled up their box in under a week. 1 week 40

25 14

1-2 weeks more than 2 weeks

The program also evaluated set-out container handling ease for the t r x k crews. Until the MRF is on line, crews do a partial sort at the curb by placing newspaper bundles in one truck com- partrnent and sorting cans, glass and PET bottles into the other two compartments. Crews found that the shallower, wider boxes

permitted faster, easier sorting than the deeper, narrower buckets. Also, the buckets proved top heavy and more likely to tip when full, plus more apt to blow over and roll away when emPt;V-

Charlotte also evaluated three truck-loading configurations to determine which method of curbside sorting was most compatible with final processing. Currently a sorting line at the temporary facility manually color-sorts PET and glass and magnetically sorts cans.

Loading Method Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3

A News only Glass/PET Alum,bi-metal B News only Glass / cans PET C News only All others All others

Method B proved to be most compatible with the processing system for several reasons. The PET container mix in Charlotte

3

3

. "1

.I

'1'

35

is mainly three-litre bottles, which took up too much space on the sorting line, and 16 02. bottles, which are indistinguishable from 16 02. glass bottles except by picking. them up and touching them. Segregating the PET volume before the sorting line expe- dited processing of all the container streams. Operators measured PET volume at 43 to 56 pounds per cubic yard.

Once the MRF is operational truck-side sorting will be sim- plified to method C above and collection times will decrease. Presently, truck-side sorting is thought to be the reason that trucks are not filled to capacity in an eight-hour day. Until the MRF opens, the curbside area expands, and trucks are filled twice per day, it is too soon to determine the impact on truck capacity of including PET bottles in the curbside.

East Greenwich, R.I.: Mandatory recycling -

Under the nation's first mandatory statewide recycling law, Rhode Island in October 1987 launched two multi-material curbside pilots in the planned phase-in of a Providence area recycling region and MRF expected to be on line by late 1988. Both pilots include collection of PET soft-drink bottles and HDPE dairy bottles. Preliminary findings reported here are for the East Greenwich pilot area of 2,025 households. Extrapolating from second month collection data, recovery rates per household and projected annualized tonnages are shown in Table 18.

Table 18 PROJECTED RECOVERY RATES FOR EAST GREENWICH, R.I.

WITH COMPARISON TO CHARLOTTE, N.C

Material Pounds per Projected % difference household tons/ year from Charlotte

News 384 Glass 140 UBC 7 PET 11 HDPE dairy jugs 7 Non-targeted plastics 5

Non-targeted fcrrous 19 Ferrous 27

389 142 7 11 7 5

27 19

4 3 +198 +218 +175 -

- -- e

Totals c

600 606 --

Source: Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management and RIS.

-

Many Paode Island residents voluntarily sorted other plastics.

The third column compares household recovery rates in East Greenwich to those in Charlotte, where the same program model has been fully on line for nine months. The higher Rhode Island rates may reflect the impact of mandatory versus voluntary recycling.

The plastic recovery figures in East Greenwich are in any case particularly in teres ting. PET numbers reflect this container's 58 percent market share in Rhode Island plus the absence of a competing Bottle Bill redemption system. HDPE dairy jug figures come close to the annual 3 pounds per capita use of this container, which would total 8.7 pounds for an average household of 2.9 people.

Finally, the non-targeted plastics are an interesting signal of citizens' readiness to source separate plastics. This fraction consists largely of other HDPE containers (mainly water, juice and detergent bottles) plus miscellaneous PET and PVC containers. Though publicity very specifically targeted milk jugs and soda bottles only, many citizens voluntarily source separated other plastics too.

Collection crews have not discouraged this behavior by screening out non-targeted plastics and leaving them behind in set-out containers. Though an effective form of public education, this would slow down the co-mingled truck loading rate. Using two-compartment 28 yd. Jaeger-brand trucks, crews place news in one section and all other materials in the second.

Another point of interest in this new pilot is an experiment with set-out container size. While some households received the standard 1.5 cubic foot box, others received plastic 20-gallon drums. The latter proved to have ample capacity, but were too heavy for citizens to move to the curb and crews to safely load into the collection vehicle. Loading difficulty also increased as the truck filled. In contrast, the set-out box proved easier to manage and appears to have adequate storage capacity given weekly pick-ups.

Rhode Island DEM also reports interesting findings from a recent collection trial using the new Labrie automated top- loading recycling truck. The truck is fitted with hydraulically lifted, 1.5 cubic yard baskets on the side of the storage bins, allowing a low loading height to reduce crew effort but full utilization of the storage bins' cubic capacity. Other trucks without the lifts cannot be filled beyond the point where operators can no longer lift material to the top of the pile; they head to the MRF with a good deal of dead-air space at the top of the bins.

37

The pilot provides a crucial information base for planning.

3

This trucks 31 cubic yard capacity is fully used, making its working capacity nearly double many other trucks. One disadvantage is that the side baskets make the truck wider than others and thus ill-suited for narrow streets in older areas of Eastern cities.

Presently, Rhode Island participants are not asked to remove lids or flatten plastic bottles. Though flattening might seem indicated if plastic vojumes increase, or when curbside areas expand, the impact of this, or on-truck mechanical flattening, must be evaluated for compatibility wiith the Bezner-brand sorting system being installed in the MRF.

New England CNnc, the contracted operator for Rhode Island's first MRS, is operating a hand-sorting process for co-mingled materials at a temporary facility until the MRF comes on line. PET is sold to W'ellmak Industries and HDPE to Eaglebrook Plastics. Summarizing experience to date, Rhode Island DEM spokesperson Janet Keller said, "The pilots are the best thing we ever could have done to understand day-to-day recycling realities and to gain an accurate information base for planning."

West Germany: Large rolling bins

West German curbside collections of co-mingled recyclables, including plastics, began about 10 years ago. Now approximately 5 million people benefit from this service. Generally, participation and recovery rates are high, with many programs reporting at least 20 percent reduction of landfilled wastes.

The original model, called the green bin system, involved supplying each household with two 64-gallon plastic carts - a green one for dry wastes (mainly recyclables) and a gray one for wet wastes (organics). The intent was to divert ~7e t wastes for composting and send the rest to landfills or incinerators.

Both carts were serviced on rotation by the same automatic loading packer trucks, with one operator. No new trucks were required and collection costs stayed about the same. The carts were leased to participating municipalities or directly to households at a rate comparable to yearly purchase of plastic trash bags.

Once the rough sort into dry/wet wastes was in place, it became clear that 70 percent of the dry stream was recyclable (paper, glass, metals, plastic and textiles). This led to design of semi-automated

38

sorting plants to recover resources from the dry stream. Some six to ten sorting plant technologies have now reached third- or fourth-generation status due to rapid develop-ment and refinement in this area.

A program sponsored by equipment manufacturer Schaeffer in the Kleve District (pop. 11,000) provides data for a typical green bin system. Over a 15-month period the following pounds per capita were recovered

- Various green-bin approaches have helped divert 40% by volume.

Paper 97.0 Glass 52.0 Metal 12.0 Plastic 5.5 Textiles 7.0 Unclassified trash 15.0 Total 188.5

This yielded a recycling diversion rate of 23 percent by weight, and an estimated 40 percent volume reduction47.

Newer generations of the green bin system have since fine- tuned household source separation to eliminate non-recyclable dry wastes (shoes, carpets, etc.) from the sorting plants, and to upgrade compost and secondary material quality. Some examples of the modified green bin system are:

Method A 1 bin for mixed recyclables

1 bin for compostables 1 bin for the rest

Method B 1 bin for paper

1 bin for glass and metal 1 bin for "wet" wastes 1 plastic bag for plastics

Method C Same as B with addition of

fivegallon baskets for household presorting.

Method D Sack and Sack systems using various numbers of plastic bags

according to the number of targeted materials, e.g., four sacks for paper/ glass, "green" material (compostables) and the rest.

Another Schaeffer pilot in Burbach, FRG (pop.14,OOO) using collection Method C yielded the following six-month recovery

. rates per residence (not per capita as above):

Paper/ cardboard 115 lbs. Glass / metal 33 lbs. Plastic 6 lbs. Total 154 lbs.

Together with heavily promoted backyard composting and waste reduction campaigns, Burbach's recycling program produced a 35 percent weight reduction in landfilled wastes according to solid waste surveys before and during the pilot phase47.

. >

The advantage of the original green bin system is that simple, user-friendly sorting increases participation. Also, the rolling carts are easy to handle, clean, provide greater storage capacity, permit collection of recyclables at frequencies of one week to one month, and perform well out-of-doors. The major drawbacks are storage space required for the carts, and downgrading of the paper fraction, if co-mingled with other materials. For instance, static cling of plastic bags to paper causes losses in both material fractions. Also, this premixing increases separation requirements at the sorting plants.

Drawbad to system: Co-mingled material is less clean. -1

Modified green bin systems, such as the Burbach model including a separate plastic bag for mixed plastics, have improved material quality but also increased participation effort by citizens. This necessitated extensive public education or re-education.

Bronx 2000: A plastic buy-back center Though not a curbside model, Bronx 2000's R2B2 buy-back program is included to give a fuller picture of rapidly developing plastic recycling opportunities. High redemption rates of materials such as aluminum cans under Massachusetts' bottle law tend to rule out the buy-back approach here. In contrast, lower redemption rates in metropolitan New York, plus waste diversion fees paid by the New York City Department of Sani- tation and a large low-income population to collect the material, enabled R2B2 to co-exist with that state's bottle law and expand its material repertoire to include many plastics.

The multi-material buy-back opened in .March, 1982, and began phasing in post-consumer plastics in March, 1983. The first sales

40

Bronx 2000 buys most any kind of separated, identifiable plastic.

. . . -

were contaminated color-mixed plastic bags of various resin types arising from the buy-back operation: the bags in which customers delivered various materials for sale. In the fall of 1983 when New York's Bottle Bill took effect, R2B2 began buying PET, and has added other plastic grades since.

Focusing first on household post-consumer plastics delivered by individuals, R2B2 won a research grant and developed an in- house washing/shredding system to produce de-labeled, clean polyethylene regrind. This positioned the company to open markets with local plastic molding companies, since, as Bronx 2000's Mike Schedler points out, "you can't sell materials that you don't have."48 Subsequently, R2B2 has added a number of commeraal sources of cleaner, largely pre-sorted plastics, such as cutlery and carry-out containers from delicatessens and film cans from photo labs. By cultivating both domestic and export markets, the company now says it can buy any kind of separated, identifiable plastics brought to the door.

R2B2 purchases plastics from individual collectors, commercial establishments, and seven other voluntary recycling programs. With no advertising to the general public, recovery has already reached 40 tons per month. Shortly the program will expand into two adjacent buildings. R2B2 reports that 4,000 square feet is the &nimal staging area required (storage space for pre-and pos t-processed materials) to adequately house the current plastics operation.

Based on recent six-month figures, Table 18 shows that R2B2's plastics volume exceeds that of used beverage cans.

~ -

Table 18 R2B2 BUY-BACK - PROJECTED ANNUAL RECOVERY

Projected Percent Material Tons/Mon. Tons/Yr. of Total

250 3000 26 News Glass 529 6344 56 Corrugated 78 940 8 All plastics 40 484 4

28 332 3

16 196 2 1

UBC

Wood Bi-metal 9 110

Totals 950 11,496 100

41

For the same six-month period, plastic sales totaled $50,000, or an average of $200/ton, for the following breakdown of plastics:

Resin Tons

HDPE (various) 50 PET 60 PVC 12 Totals 242

Film (all types) 120

R2B2 sells film baled and all other plastics shredded in any quantity from one gaylord box to a 30,000-pound export container. Materials are acquired at 0 to 10 cents per pound and sold at 1.5 to 31 cents per pound. The encouraging news from R2B2 staff, and other sources, is that domestic and export markets are "running wild and expected to remain strong for several years."48

Encouraging news: Markets for plastics are 'running wild.'

Ville La Salle, Quebec: Films, rigid plastic

3

Ville La Salle, Quebec, launched a multi-material "blue box" curbside program for 20,000 households (50,000 population) in

.. early 1987. To our knowledge, this program is the only one in North America following the European example of collecting all types of plastic packaging, both films and rigid containers.

The program experimented with both the 1.5 cubic foot box and larger set-out container sizes to accommodate the high volume of plastic packaging. Despite requests from many households for a second box, the program settled on one 1.5 cubic foot box to keep space needs down and handling ease up. The larger

containers were ruled out after tests showed that elderly participants had difficulty carrying full containers on stairs.

The weekly service uses on-truck sorting into separate compartments for: newspaper, mixed paper, plastics, three colors of glass, cans, and refundable beverage containers. Thanks to extensive ongoing publicity and strong government support, plastic recovery levels started hiFh and stayed high throughout the first year, averaging two metric tons per week. At first this material was stockpiled for lack of markets. However, a buyer recently surfaced with capabilities to sell all of this material to export.

The Ville La Salle program will be an important model for Massachusetts because of its similarities in collection model, targeted materials and governmen t-sponsored public education.

42

Naperville, Ill.: 9 materials collected

NARC asks participants to flatten milk jugs to save space.

The Naperville Area Recycling Center (NARC) in that suburb of Chicago added HDPE dairy bottles to its voluntary, multi- material curbside in spring, 1987. Serving 13,000 households with a population of 45,000, the bi-monthly collection is financed by a $26 per ton diversion fee paid by the city (46% of revenues), material sales (41 % of revenues), and miscellaneous income.

NARC targeted dairy bottles only, but also receives miscellaneous HDPE containers such as juice and detergent bottles. Though able to sell both types, the operation has not advertised for non-dairy bottles because, says NARC's Anne Aitchison, "the public would go bananas and overburden our existing space and equipment capacities."49

In the first eight months, NARC collected 10 tons of HDPE, and sold it to Eaglebrook Plastics in Chicago at 10 cents per pound plus freight costs. The operators feel that adding milk jugs made no significant difference in collection costs since the curbside was already handling eight other materials. In fact, HDPE is their second most valuable commodity after aluminum cans.

NARC's curbside service is labor-intensive for both the public and staff. Citizens are asked. to sort materials into nine categories and set them out in boxes, paper or plastic bags, or whatever is handy. NARC asks participants to remove lids and step on milk jugs to flatten them; over 50 percent of participants comply. Some participants set out milk jugs tied together with string, which makes them less apt to blow away, but also allows them to bounce back to their original shape. In contrast, bagged or boxed jugs tend to stay flattened.

'

Collections are done on a truck pulling one of two trailers in rotation. On the older trailer, which has six 4-cubic foot metal bins, heavy materials are sorted into the bins and the light HDPE and UBC are sorted into large plastic bags placed inside 35-gallon drums. The newer trailer was designed to carry six metal bins plus two baskets at the end for HDPE and UBC.

~

Collections are staffed by a driver and two loader/sorters. An average run covers 225 stops in 3 1/2 hours. The team's best rate for loading and on-truck sorting is 85 stops per hour, though the average is 60 stops per hour. Besides time consumed in material sorting, special for-fee pick-ups of appliances and other large scrap items are included in the rate. Noting that the load/sort

~~

) Five wires, corrugated wrapper keep HDPE bales from bursting.

. .>

?

method for eight material types was already "cumbersome," NARC concludes that adding milk jugs has not slowed the pick- up rate.

Generally, two trailer-loads are collected per day, four days per week, though an occasional extra run is needed on heavy days. The average take of HDPE bottles is 75 pounds per run. The mix of half flattened and half whole jugs fills one and one-half 35- gallon drums.

Jugs are transferred directly from the bags into a baler. Eight full bags make a 400- to 500-pound bale and the program produces three bales per week in the same industrial baler (32" x 60") used for corrugated and chipboard. Baling HDPE is less cumbersome than chipboard but more so than corrugated. NARC found the best way to produce a heavy HDPE bale that would not break apart was to wrap each bale with corrugated, compress for at least 10 minutes, and tie with five wires to keep it from bursting.

In eight months of collection, milk jug volumes have grown steadily to 1.5 tons per month. NARC plans to actively solicit other HDPE containers when space and equipment allow. Table 19 indicates NARC'S annual recovery levels.

Table 19 NARCS ANNUAL RECOVERY OF NINE MATERIALS

Material Tons

News 1176 Glass 132 UBC 32 Other metals 12 Corrug/Chipboard 66

HDPE 10 White goods/misc 22

Highgrade 4

Totals 1,454

% of Total

81.0 9.0 2.2 .8

4.5 .3 .7

1 5

100.0

Columbia County, Wisc.: Curbside and 22 drop-offs i

The Columbia County Recycling Program in Portage, Wisconsin, has been collecting post-consumer plastics in multi-material

44

curbside and drop-off programs since January 1983. The bi- monthly curbside for 2,800 homes in Portage plus 22 drop-offs in surrounding rural townships serve a population totaling 27,000. CCRP collects PET, HDPE milk jugs, and other HDPE bottles. Table 20 shows annual recovery rates and earned revenues for all materials.

Table 20 CCRP ANNUAL RECOVERY OF MATERIALS, 1987

Has tics collection has helped bring new people into programs.

Materials News bedding Loose news Glass Corrugated UBC HDPE Tin PET /mist.

Totals

Tons/Yr. % of Total 596 26.0 321 14.0 344. 15.0 848 37.0

4.6 .2 -48 - 2.0 73 3.0 64 2.8

2,299 100.0

Sales $18,800

5,500 14,800 52,100 2,100 6,100

700

$1 00,100

Like Bronx 2000, CCRP has observed the maturing and increasing competitiveness of secondary plastic markets. Last year, it had to manually de-lid bottles, sort milk jugs from colored HDPE, and bale the bottles to earn six cents per pound. Now it sells mixed and baled HDPE bottles to several Midwest buyers at a contracted price of 15 cents per pound, three times the price of a year ago. CCRP says revenues are well worth the marginal extra effort of collecting plastics.

Key findings: Plastics worth the effort Most operators concurred that plastics were worth the added effort of collection because of their improving resale value. Also, they stressed the public's willingness to set out plastics. Several operators noted that adding plastics drew new participants into curbsides,. because once citizens had this means of "relieving their guilt about throwing away bulky plastic bottles, they then started source separating other materials."@ Early results of pilots launched by the Center for Plastics Recycling Research at Rutgers corroborate this attitude.

Table 21 summarizes the programs on which the most data were

a5

available. In general, "user friendly" systems providing some combination of set-out containers, minimal material preparation requirements for citizens, good public education, frequent pick- ups, and a broad range of targeted plastics achieved the higher recovery rates. Properly conceptualized sorting operations or MRFs enhance material upgrading capabilities and market options.

Except for the green bin systems using packer trucks with partial compaction (to minimize glass breakage), no programs reported on-truck densification. The East Greenwich and Charlotte programs, in fact, have not yet reached the size where truck capacity is put to the test. But the sheer volume of plastics when collected in quantity indicates that extensive evaluation of vehicle sizes and experimentation with densification techniques are needed to develop optimum collection modes and economics.

Table 21 COMPARISON OF CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAMS

Locale/ Collected Population materials

Charlotte, NC news, glass, (27,000) cans, PET

E. Greenwich, RI news, glass, (5,821) UBC, ferrous,

PET, HDPE,

Kleve, FRG (1 1,Ooo)

Burbach, FRG (14,000)

Naperville, IL (45,000)

Bronx, NY (pop. NA)

Columbia Cty., WI (27,000)

LaSalle, Quebec (50,000)

paper, glass, metals, textiles, all plastics

paper, comg., glass, metal, all plastics

multi-material & HDPE dairy

mu1 ti-material & LDPE, HDPE, E, PVC, PET &other plastics

multi-material, PET & HDPE

mu1 ti-ma terial, all film &rigid packaging

Annual plastic Program recovery, type #/household

weekly curb- 4 side, 15 cu.ft. set-out containers, voluntary

weekly curbside 23 1.5 cu.ft. containers, mandatory

curbside, alternate 13 weeks, green bins voluntary

rotating curbside 12 modified green bin, voluntary

bi-mon thly 2.3 curbside voluntary

buy-back & NA intermediate processor for other programs

curbside & 4 drop-off, voluntary

weekly 11.5 curbside, 1.5 cu.ft. container, voluntary

Trucktype Process Markets

dedicated semi-auto; Wellman Rompart- sorting/ and others ment, 1-man grinding. Crew- (MRF pending)

dedicated hand-sort/. Wellman, Rompart- baling. Eaglebrook ment, 2-man (MIX? pending)

standard sorting NA aut o-load plant packer, 1-man

standard sorting NA auto-load plant packer, 1-man

recycling baling Eaglebrook trailers, sort/ load, 2-man

NA washing, molders, shredding export, & grinding others or baling

rebuilt beer baling Midwest, truck, 3-man Eaglebrook

dedicated NA reprocessor 7-compartment truck

46

The optimum method will likely be a hybrid based on pilot projects.

Whereas collection capaaty economics are not fully worked out, a wide range of off-the-shelf equipment is available to size- reduce plastics at the M W for shipping to markets, and shipping costs of compacted plastics are comparable to those of other recyclable materials. Table 22 shows volume/ weight figures for loose and densified plastics, as reported by surveyed programs.

Table 22 - VOLUMEYWEIGHT RATIOS OF PROCESSED PLASTICS Material Condition Weight and volume

PET soda bottles PET soda bottles PET bottles PET bottles PET bottles Film Film HDPE (dairy only) HDPE (dairy only) HDPE (mixed) HDPE (mixed) HDPE (mixed) Mixed (PET & dairy) Mixed (PET, dairy, &

other rigid) Mixed (rigid, no film

or dairy) Mixed (rigid, no film) Mixed (rigid & film)

whole, loose whole, loose baled (3Vx62") granulated granulated baled (30x42~48) baled whole, loose baled (32x60) baled (32x60) granulated granulated whole, loose

whole, loose

whole, loose granulated densified by mixed- plastic molding tech.

40-43 # / cu . yd . 53# /gaylord 5OO#/bale 7OO-750# / gaylord 30,OOO# / semi-load 1,100#/bale 44,000#/semi-Ioad 24#/cu .yd. 400-500# / bale 900#/bale 800-1,000#/gaylord 42,0OO# /semi-load 3% /cu.yd. average

38#/cu.yd.

49#/cu.yd. 500-1,0OO#/gaylord

average 60# /cu.ft.

1. Gaylord size is the most commonly used 4O"x48"x36". Sources: R2B2, NARC, Columbia County, Ville La %le, IPCC, RIS, R.I. DEM.

It was not possible to determine plastics processing costs for MRFs or sorting plants as no such systems are yet on line in North America. Processing costs for presorted plastics were also not available. However, sample figures from companies that provide reprocessing services are available from other studies.50

The recommended collection approach for Massachusetts is to target a wide range of plastic packaging of all resin types-- certainly all rigid containers and possibly film -- to better capitalize on end-use technologies and markets. The optimum recovery method will likely be a hybrid utilizing vehicles that test out best in American pilots; addition of on-truck densification methods; and suitable match-ups of these systems with carefully designed MRF/sorting plant technologies.

Technologies

Recycling of polyolefins is proven; mixed-resin methods from Europe can handle most everything els;

Existing technologies can do the job

.) A world-wide technology search to identify existing or promising plastics recycling technologies found two complementary methods that can handle the bulk of the Commonwealth's plastics waste stream. Several recent technology breakthroughs have brought methods well beyond the experimentation level, and industrial-scale operations in Europe have proven the engineering viability of various companies' technologies.

The technologies of plastics recycling are inuseeveryday.

The new generation of pos t-consumer recycling technologies grew out of adaptations of off-the-shelf plastic molding technologies and/or industrial scrap recycling technologies. The challenge has been to modify these technologies to accept heterogeneous mixtures of plastic resins, normally incompatible with one another, and to tolerate contamination by various non- plastic materials. Finely tuned systems set to precise tolerances and specialized resins had to be relaxed to accommodate random mixtures of post-consumer plastics.

The chief barriers to plastic recycling are in the nature of the material itself more than in the technologies. The key problem is plastics' susceptability to heat. High temperatures needed to fully sterilize the material will either degrade it or burn it. Therefore, recycled food-contact plastic packages cannot be guaranteed to meet FDA safety requirements and cannot be made back into food packages. This automatically rules out large product markets for recycled plastics, a ,hardship not faced by glass, metal, and some paper recycling processes. It does not, however, preclude significant boosts in use of reclaimed poly-

>

Another of the most promising recycling systems relies on techniques to blend resins that are usually incompatible with each other. These processes yield end products of relative thickness

. and mottled, dark colors, which limits their use to markets where durability and weatherability outweigh appearance.

The technologies can generally be divided into five broad categories:

Separation technologies that mechanically segregate distinct resins from a mixed-plastic stream;

Mixed plastic technologies that use the mixed-plastic stream as is;

PET recycling technologies for soft-drink bottles only; W ashinghp gra ding t e chnologies for previously

sorted plastics, such as HDPE dairy bottles; and Other technologies now under development.

Forty technologies in these categories were surveyed. Attention then narrowed to those technologies most consistent with the mu1 ti-resin, user-friendly collection approach described in the previous chapter. PET recycling technologies were also given further evaluation because of sizable quantities possibly becoming available as the recycling program phases in. Also, PET'S relatively high resale value justifies creating the capability at the MRF to cull this resin.

The best technologies are those that accept a mix of resin types.

3

49

Washinghpgrading technologies, specifically those for previously source-separated HDPE rigid containers, were set aside at the outset of this study as being incompatible with the user- friendly, mxlti-resin approach. At that time, preparation requirements (lid and label removal, etc.) were deemed too demanding to generate high participation or justify sales revenues. How- ever, a number of the firms using these technologies have since relaxed preparation requirements and subs tantially increased prices as systems, experience, and markets matured. Thus, these technologies may find a role in the early or later phases of the program, especially if the market situation remains as strong as at present. Several companies are leading the way on expansion of this market and are discussed in the Markets chapter.

One technology has improved rapidly since the study began.

,,

3

Rating the technologies

Ttechnologies were ranked for separation, mixed-plas tic and PET applications, assigning scores based on the following criteria:

Criterion

Feedstock versatility

End products

Level of Development

. cost

Productivity

Description

The capacity of a process to handle variations in the incoming material. The strictest requirement is for

. industrial, homogeneous, uncontaminated feedstock, e.g. thoroughly washed trimmings and/or clean floor sweepings. The most lenient and highest ranking feedstock is classified as post-consumer, heterogeneous (mixed), contaminated. Quantity, quality, resale value, market potential for end products were the types of questions used to evaluate the various methods, although they varied somewhat depending on thc type of technology. For this criterion, the scale ranged from Drawing Board to Full Industrial Scale with one or more large plants in commercial operation. Costs were evaluated by determining how much a turn-key or ready-to-start plant using the technology would cost per 220 pounds of output per hour. Where not available, costs were estimated. The technology with the lowest cost automatically received the most points while the most expcnsive received none. All other technologies of the same type were scaled in a linear comparison to these two end points. Each technology was assigned a number equal !D its input capacity in lbs. per hour divided by 220. The highest productivity receivcd the maximum points for this criterion while the lowest received a proportional fraction of the maximum.

50

On the basis of these ratings, the team short-listed the top two or three technologies in each category as those the state should facilitate in the early phases of implementing the plastics recycling program. (For . - . more detailed descriptions of these technologies, see Appendix E.)

Separation technologies Separation technologies segregate high-value plastics from other plastics. The target plastic is generally the polyolefin fraction (HDPE, LDPE, PP). The machine takes a raw feedstock of - mixed _. plastics that may be contaminated with paper, glass, metals, dirt, etc., and separates the plastics into polyolefin and a residue fraction made up of PS, PVC, and PET. It is possible to pelletize the polyolefin fraction (screening it in the process) to further ensure low levels of contamination. Usually the plastic is thoroughly washed at some stage.

Of the eleven technologies reviewed, three were most promising: Transplastek of Canada; Sorema of Italy; and A.K.W.

Separation systems remove contaminants and heavier resins.

of W&t Germany.

Transplastek's technology accommodates either mixed rigid plastics or films. The system involves chopping or granulating of the plastic followed by washing, sink/float separation and pelletizing the separated plastic. In the granulation phase, the raw plastic fraction of the MSW is chopped into small pieces which are then passed through an air cyclone to remove the fines (paper labels, dust, etc.). In the washing phase, dirt and other contaminants including other plastic resins are separated from the process stream. The plastic chips are sorted by a proprietary sink/float (separation) and drying system before being fed to an extruder for pelletizing. Once the pellets are formed, they are cooled and dried to produce the final end product that is ready for shipment as feedstock to make new products. It is also possible to sort out some of the more valuable types of plastics, like PET, after washing and before the plastics stream is made into pellets. This improves the overall economics of a plastic recycling program by allowing for the sale of an uncontaminated, high-value plastic fraction. '

Sorema's methodology is similar to that of Transplastek. Sore- ma has used its technology for about 20 years, mainly on films (LDPE used in plastic bags and agricultural films used as a mulch and/or as hothouses). A full-scale test with Massachusetts MSW plastic would be needed to prove if this is a vinble technology.

A.K.W. uses a whirl- pool effect to separate out heavier plastics.

3

3

A.K.W.3 technology is quite similar to Transplastek's and Sorema's. A.K.W. also claims that it is able to convert the pellets into end products including plastic bags and blow-molded products. A.K.W.'s separation process is based on hydrucycluning rather than the sink/float/suction tanks used by Transplastek and Sorema. In hydrocycloning, the material enters the top of a cone-shaped vessel. There it encounters a very high speed vortex or swirl of water rising from the bottom of the vessel. The vortex spins the material around the cone in an extremely tight spiral as it is pulled down by gravity. The centripetal acceleration separates the material stream by density. The less dense material migrates towards the center of the vessel and is transported out of the top of the hydrocyclone. The denser fraction of the material leaves through the bottom.

All three of the technologies accept heterogeneous, contaminated feedstocks. This helps reduce handling/processing requirements at the household and MRF levels. All three systems produce lightly contaminated (95% PE, 5% PPI, homogeneous pellets that are easily used by commodity custom molders.

A.K.W. has . completed construction of its first industrial-scale plant, which is in shakedown and evaluation. Transplastek and Sorema already have industrial plants in operation. Sorema has longer experience in plant operation, but its system has primariiy focused on agricultural films. Its full capabilities for post-consumer rigid plastics will need evaluation by way of an on-site plant audit.

Transplasteks system, while originally designed for mixed- industrial scrap, has been fully adapted for post-consumer mixed plastics. The firm also has extensive experience marketing PO pellets, particularly overseas, and its entire production is sold out. Transplastek's technology requires advance separation of films and rigid plastics, probably at the MRFs. The separation up- grades recycled pellet properties.

.

Plant costs are highest for AKW, while Sorema is slightly more expensive than Transplastek. All three system process 2,000- 2,200 pounds per hour, or approximately 17 million pounds per year. On. the basis of cost, current development, and proven capability to accommodate MSW plastics, Transplastek was ranked first, Sorema second, and AhW third.

Arrangements were made to run limited tests of the three short- listed technologies using representative samples of h4SW mixed plastics. The project budget did not allow shipping large

52

Pellets are about 93% polyethylene and 5% polypropylene.

. .

quantities, Le., 500 to 2,000 pounds, so the companies' industrial scale, in-line systems could not be utilized for the tests. Instead, 15-pound samples were sent to each firm for test-runs in their labs. The results give a fair indication of separation capabilities at this stage, and point to areas needing further development. The pellets produced by all three technologies were essentially identical in composition: 94 to 95 percent polyethylene and 5 to 6 percent polypropylene. Given the small sample size, it was not possible to detect statistically significant differences among the three systems' products.

The production tests have shown that all three technoIogies retrieve a polyolefin fraction of 64 to 80 percent of total feedstock. The remaining heavy plastics (PET, PVC, PS, ABS) account for 15 to 31 percent of the mix, while a 5 percent residue consists of fines, aluminum, paper labels, and other inorganics. The fines and heavy plastics are presently discarded as system waste while R&D efforts focus on further separating the heavy fraction into distinct resins for sale to market. Meanwhile, the parallel development of the recommended mixed-plas tic technologies would provide an outlet for this sizable flow of inexpensive or free heavy plastics.

Mixed-plastics technologies Mixed-plastics technologies produce finished products molded from a mixed-plastic fraction. The feedstock can be random MSW plastics (generally about 63 percent polyolefins), or it can be made up of various recipes designed to achieve specific properties in end products. This includes the option to leave PET bottles and/or HDPE milk jugs in the mix or cull them out. to be marketed separately. Process temperatures of 200 degrees Centi- grade destroy most food and bacterial residues. Remaining contaminants and tramp materials are encapsulated in the blended plastic.

Of six technologies studied, two were retained for further consideration at this time: Advanced Recycling Technology Ltd. (ART) of Belgium and Recycloplast of West Germanv. A third promising' technoloy, Tolymer Products of Iowa, was not available-for sale at the time of the survey and was therefore not included. It should be further evaluated along with a new, proprietary, mixed-plas tic technology developed by Polymerixe

< 1 . - .- -

The Recycloplast process begins with the feedstock passing

53 through a metal separator to a cutting mill, where it is shredded into flakes. From there, the plastic goes to a storage/feed silo. Several such silos fitted with valves can create almost any desired recipe of plastic. The silos can be used for the introduction of film from agricultural sources and coloring agents and/or other chemical additives that enhance certain properties. The plastic is then fed into a cylindrical plasticizer which gently kneads the mixture into a homogeneous paste using the heat produced by internal friction. In this manner, the system avoids denaturing the plastic, which causes it to lose its essential proper ties.

Minimizing degradation of the plastic also reduces the amount of hydrochloric acid emissions produced by the chlorine in PVC. To screen out this pollutant and acid rain precursor, Recycloplast has a complete flue gas treatment unit as part of its plant; extensive studies have shown it to be effective although quite costly (15 to 20% of plant capital cost) because it requires a biologically controlled filter, (For more information see article in Appendix E).

-

On leaving the plasticizer, the flow of thoroughly mixed material is cut into portions dictated by the mold size. The portions are molded by hydraulic presses at 300 to l,!500 tons of pressure, then are quickly cooled to provide the finished product. Due to the relatively low structural strength of plastic, Recycloplas t's end products tend to be thick-walled in nature: sheets, panels, skids, flower pots, cable reels, pallets.

I

.+. ........................... ........................ .......................

..... ............. ..... .-:.:-:.:.:*. ............................ .............

...... ..:.:.:.:.* 9 .::::p-

4

. . . . ...

From household mix of plastics comes lumber, other products. Advanced Recycling Technology's ET/l process uses a shredded

feedstock that is partly densified film and partly mixed rigid plastics including HDPE. The method is similar to that of

I

54

Three mixed-plastic machines are in pilot operation in the U.S.

Recycloplast except in the plastification/molding phases. While Recycloplast uses a rotary cylinder to provide paste to a press-type molder in a two-stage process, the ET/l combines these two steps into one by extrusion molding. The only difference here is that the plastic paste is held inside a mold to cool and solidify after it has been forced or extruded. The ET/l uses an auger to friction heat the mixed plastic and feed it into the mold. Since this auger-to-mold connection is air-tight, no off-gassing is reported.

i' ''

Ten or 12 molds are mounted on a rotary turret that looks something like a gattling gun. At any one time, seven or nine of the molds are under water while a cooled shape is being ejected from the last mold. The system produces products that are from one to four yards in length with cross sections up to 4" square. The ET/l can be simultaneously fitted with up to 12 different mold shapes provided all molds are of the same length and the cross-sectional area varies by no more than a factor of two.

All impurities in the finished product are concentrated in the center of the shape. The final product can be nailed, screwed, sawed, planed, drilled and painted just like wood. Dyes can also be added to the plastic to produce any fairly dark color. The method produces items that are quite long in comparison to their cross sections, making it ideal for products like lumber, (. fence posts and sign posts.

Both technologies are currently operating on a large industrial scale. ART'S ET/1 was the least expensive of all of the technologies reviewed in this category while Recycloplast was the most expensive, in part due to its flue gas control system and the expensive hydraulic presses used in the molding phase. The ET/l, however, is limited to about 400 pounds of through-put per hour, while Recycloplast can produce up to 1,500 pounds/ hour depending on the end product. To bring the ET/1 up to 1,200 pounds/hour, three molding units could be used, all supplied by the same preparation equipment and operated by the same staff.

The ET/1 method is simpler than Recycloplast and requires no off-gas control. Also, three facilities using the ET/1 technology are already on-line in the US., though none are operating on full production schedules. One is at Processed Plastics in Ionia, Michigan, one at the Center for Plastics Recycling Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and the third is owned New England CRInc. of Massachusetts. These working units will provide valuable information on how well the system performs (>

55

Wellman processed some 100 million pounds of PET in 1986.

under local market conditions. The Recycloplast and ET/l technologies produce an end product whose appearance is somewhat rough and uneven in color, and each has limits in terms of product shape and size. For optimum market penetration a combination of the two technologies could be used to produce a wider range of end products.

Pet Recycling Technologies The PET soft-drink bottle is composed of many things: PET (clear or green), an HDPE base-cup, label, glue and aluminum cap and ring. All of these components, with the exception of the glue and label, have a high market value if they can be separated and recycled. Since up to 14 million pounds of unredeemed PET could be available for recovery in Massachusetts, potential e market value (at 20 to 30 cents per pound) ranges from $2.8 million to $4.2 million per year.

PET recycling involves shredding the feedstock, followed by washing and contaminant removal. Optional additions in some technologies include color separation of the clean PET, pelletizing the flakes, and increasing intrinsic viscosity to add value.

Four technologies of varying uses and performance were chosen: Wellman of South Carolina, St. Jude Polymer of Pennsylvania, Nelmor of Massachusetts, and A.K.W. of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Because it was not possible to make an on-site audit of A.K.W.'s apparently promising technology, the system was set aside for future consideration after an audit has been conducted.

Wellman is the largest U.S. user of recycled PET from deposit states, with consumption for 1986 estimated at 100 million pounds. Its technology is not available for other users and few details of the proprietary process are known. The company produces fiberfill from the plastic using a technology that is also well developed in Europe.

St. Jude Polymer, in close cooperation with Lummus Co. of Columbus, Ga., has expanded processing operations to roughly 22 million pounds of PET per year. Projections for 1988 call for a capacity of between 50 and 60 million pounds, depending on site acquisition. Details of the process are confidential. St. Jude can apply solid-state technology to increase the viscositv of its product to between 0.8 and-1.4, thus enhancing its use'in more demanding applications.

56

Nelmor aims to produce a very clean PET flake that could be re- used without going to the extrusion/pelletization step, thus avoiding thermal degradation. This approach is not common now because aluminum contaminants could create severe problems in molding processes. Nelmor has developed pilo t-scale components, but doesn't have a commercial process on-line.

, '

An in-depth comparison is not possible due to the proprietary nature of much of the technology. Should a decision be made to actively encourage plant installation, however, these three front- runners, plus AKW, should be evaluated more fully.

Other technology developments A number of promising technology developments case to light during the course of this project. It was beyond the project scope to evaluate these leads, so no assertions are made as to the soundness or commercial readiness of these methods.

Plastic-coated paper recycling - The problems cited earlier about foamed polystyrene carry-out containers have spurred various claims and counter-claims about the relative recyclability ( or degradability of plastic-coated paper versus foamed PS items

'

(cups, plates, etc.). On the degradability question there is almost no up-to-date research to back up claims for or against either type of package. Thorough research is needed to create a basis for objective discussion. Similarly, the recyclability question is somewhat clouded. Technically, foamed PS can be recycled. Though this is not widely practiced, several firms have reported research and development in progress.

Six technologies in various stages of development are currently capable of recycling plastic-coated paper items. These technologies target poly-ca~ted pupms typically used in such products as milk cartons, frozen food boxes, six-pack carriers, paper cups and plates, and so on. Two systems utilize only clean manufacturing wastes (trimmings, etc.); three utilize post-consumer feedstock; and a sixth technology, now moth-balled, utilized post-consumer poly-coated materials. Of the five operating systems, three are in industrial scale and two are pilot plants.

Milk cartons and frozen food boxes are plastic-coated paper.

.

The technologies chiefly target the paper for recovery because it is bleached, long-fiber high grade material with excellent resale value. The polyethylene removal process automatically lifts off printing inks as well, leaving a high quality pulp substitute. ' .

57

Two of the systems also reported capability to reclaim the polyethylene coating material. Four of the operating systems are pulping methods, and the fifth uses the poly-coated paper as is in various molded products. Two of the processes reportedly sterilize the recovered paper during the pulping stage so that it is free of organic residues and theoretically safe for reuse in food packaging.

i

These technologies merit watching for possible future use. How- ever, the regional recycling program will not target poly-coated paper at this time.

Degradable plastics - The litter and marine-pollution problems noted earlier have prompted keen interst in the idea of degradable plastics that break down and go away over time. Photodegradable plastics are blended with additives that make the material degrade when exposed to the ultraviolet rays from sunlight. One type of the plastic has been used for a number of years for six-pack yokes, in response to legislation in about a dozen states. A photodegradable plastic trash bag made by a Massachusetts firm has been on the market for several years. Exposed to direct sunlight for a given period of time, these items over-heat, become brittle and break down into smaller and

1 Degradable plastics smaller pieces. Biodepdable plastics contain additives such as cornstarch, which make them susceptible to attack by microorganisms like those that decompose organic wastes in a landfill or compost pile. The additives are weak links in the plastic molecular chains; when microorganisms eat them the plastic falls apart.

break into pieces but don't really go away.

A few new plastics under development are made completely of biodegradable organic material such as cornstarch or chitin, a protein derived from shellfish waste. However, most biodegradable plastics are blends of synthetic plastic and organic additives.

While it may prove appropriate to require certain highly litter- prone items to be degradable, the Society of the Plastics Industry warns that degradability alone is too simplistic a solution to the complex problem of plastics disposals*. Also, Research Triangle Institute, which is conducting a study of degradable plastics for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, cau- tions that long-term effects of plastic dust and other degradation by-products on the food chain and marine environment are as yet unknowns*. Finally, wide use of degradables would be at cross-purposes to plastics recycling, which aims to convert plastic wastes to durable products and predicatable raw materials.

58

Plastics as fuel, chemical feedstock - Various reports t $ 8 '

indicate development of technologies using pyrolysis, solvents, and other processes to reduce plastics to fuel products or to chemical feedstocks for new plastics. Most of these methods are experimental and five to 15 years away from commercial availability. They bear watching, and could draw strong interest in the event of renewed petroleum shortages and price shocks.

Conclusion: Build two plants Massachusetts state government will encourage ins tallation of at least one polyolefin separation plant and one mixed-plastics plant. Each plant should be supported with extensive market development assistance.

The need for a PET recycling plant is less pressing because the redemption system has maintained high recovery rates. However, the option should be reconsidered if convenient curbside collection diverts significant quantities of PET away from redemption.

A PET plant may become desirable if redemption levels fall.

Further evaluation will be done on washing/grinding systems (. for sorted plastics like HDPE milk jugs. The strong market conditions and rapidly evolving technologies indicate favorable economics for that portion of the plastics stream. The best route with this technology may be to use the Commonwealths ample economic development resources to attract an existing processor to Massachusetts.

59

Markets

Molders often demand virgin resins, but export market and new ventures, if nurtured, promise to fill the gaps

Diverse markets must be in place When the flow of post-consumer plastic reaches production volumes in the early'l990s, a network of markets for the material must. be in place. This preliminary market survey found that some markets for PET and HDPE regrind already exist and are growing rapidly. Others, like that for recycled polyolefin pellets, already show strong growth and have huge potential if major customer firms begin specifying recycled feedstock as a preferred material. A third category of markets, those for finished lumber- like products made from mixed plastic, will have to be developed from scratch, but government procurement programs could play an important role in getting them started.

Polyolefin: Local market is shifting Using the recycled polyolefin pellets from the separation technology tests, 37 custom molders in Massachusetts were surveyed to assess their readiness to use this feedstock. The Society of the Plastics Industry lists 959 plastic manufacturing and related member companies in Massachusetts (see Appendix D), of which the 37 were selected because their high production volumes suggested they were buyers of commodity plastics. The companies could theoretically realize a significant profit advantage because recycled PO pellets are priced about 50 percent below virgin resins.

Massachusetts is home to 959 plastics- related firms.

The company purchasing agents were contacted and sent a molded test Diece. a one-ounce samde of PO pellets. and a

60

product spkification sheet. The project budget did not pennit sending sufficient pellet quantities for in-plant test-runs, which require a minimum of 500 pounds.

Though too limited for hard conclusions, the survey did reveal two key trends about the local plastics industry. First, many Massachusetts custom-molders are already shifting away from commodity plastics to high-specification, high-value-added items made of specialty and engineering plastics. Second, large custom molders seldom have leeway to deviate from their customers' product specifications of color, raw material, and so on. Therefore, it is the customer companies that will have to be persuaded to accept reclaimed plastics. A large motor oil or liquid detergent producer, for example, could significantly bolster the market by switching to PO pellets for injection or blow-molded bottles. The move could also provide excellent public relations mileage for the company if it is the first major user of the state's recycled pellets.

Discussions with plastic brokers and reprocessors, combined with the experience of Bronx 2000 (see Collections chapter), suggest that small local custom molders and plastic industries in developing countries offer the greatest market potential for PO pellets. They are less able to compete on world markets for virgin resin feedstocks; they often use older, less sophisticated and more tolerant molding equipment; and their product lines tend more toward functional essentials than high-tech items like microwaveable trays. The current worldwide polyethylene shortage, discussed later in this chapter, bodes well for the PO

Small molders and overseas firms are potential pellet buyers.

pellet market.

3

61

Mixed plastics: Park benches of future

Market potential was analyzed for nine mixed-plastic products which could be produced by ART'S ET/l technology, and estimates were made of New England market size for the three most promising products. The data show that these markets, if properly developed, could support a minimum of two ET/l units and a maximum of four ET/l plants of three units each.

~~ ~~~ ~~~

Table 23 MARKET PROSPECTS FOR VARIOUS MIXED-PLASTIC PRODUCTS

Market

Boat docks

Auto curb stops

Breakwaters

Park benches

Mushroom trays

Horse stalls

Picnic tables

Playground equipment Railroad ties

Key considerations

Extremely large existing market in NE. Continuous exposure to harsh, wet environment. Plastic products currently used, accepted.

Plastic currently used, cost effective. Coloring throughout saves maintenance costs. Lighter weight saves on labor costs.

Wet environment ideal for plastic.

Continued exposure to inclement weather. Primary customers are governments, schools.

Moist conditions require plastic. Plastic products currently used.

Horses tend to chew top rail, forcing replacement. Bottom of stalls deteriorate, forcing replacement. Large market also inNew York.

Manufacturing for government use done by prison system with subsidized lumber. Outdoor environmcnt ideal for plastic. Outdoor environmcnt ideal for plastic.

Excellent potential for recycled plastic. Potentially large replacement market.

Conclusions

Strong potential. c

Limited data available.

Tight conshction regulations; no large NE market.

Strong potential.

Limited market data available; possible foodcontact concerns.

Strong potential.

Small markct. Price supports rule out competitive position. Limited market data available.

Tight construction specs. Long-term strength and load-test results Dendinr.

- 1 1

L.8 Source: Touche Ross, Inc., 1987

Boat docks, horse stalls and park benches offer the largest potential for initial marketing efforts. These products capitalize on plastic's resistance to weather, chemicals, salt water, temperature extremes, termites, and ultraviolet light deterioration.

Executive Order 279, signed by Governor Dukakis in May, 1988,

62

Huge market exists if horse industry accepts plastic stall boards.

10% 1400-1450 -- 2000-31 50 20% 2870-3050 _I 4000-6300 30% 4275-4535 150-270 6000-9400 i 40% 5680-6025 240-360 . 8000-126000 50% 7150-7580 300-450 10000-15750 60% 70%

- 360-540 - - 420-630 I_

1. Represents percent of current market that may be displaced by plastic product. 2 Includes New York market. Source: Touche Ross, Inc. 1987

established a state procurement program for recycled content I

products.53 This will help assure demand for items like park benches and docks, both of which are cost competitive with wood and concrete. The Massachusetts Division of Waterways is particularly interested in plastic pier decking because of high wood replacement costs.

i

The large horse population in New England and New York presents the opportunity to replace the top and two bottom horse stall boards, which are most subject to wear and tear. This is a potentially high demand area, provided the horse industry, steeped in tradition, will accept an altemate material.

Table 24 MARKET SIZING FOR MIXED PLASTIC LUMBER

(in thousands of lbs /year>

Market Horse stalls2 Park benches Boat docks capture1

Tough competition: wood While the uses for mixed-plastic lumber are limited only by the imagination, the immediate need is to identify likely market niches and develop them aggressively. The main hurdles are that plastic lumber is not suited for structurally demanding uses, is not yet accepted by consumers, and may not be cost- competitive with wood except in applications involving high maintenance and/or frequent replacement.

-

Structural tests have shown that lumber made of the average *

mix of MSW plastics may not offer sufficient strength to compete with low-priced framing lumber made of wood. particularly true if only initial purchase price rather than life- j ,

cycle costs are considered.

This is I

3

density Wood Type 1bJcu.f t.

63

Table 25 shows that plastic's E-value, or relative stiffness, is considerably lower than that of common pine; plastic lumber will thus require tighter spacing of underlying joists (of wood or steel) to avoid excessive springiness. Careful product engineering and market targeting can somewhat offset this disadvantage. Flexibility is no problem, for instance, in rails for horse stalls, and an all-plastic park bench could have stiffness designed in. Research and development might also find certain plastic recipes that bring the E-value closer to that of wood. Plastic lumber should also be specifically marketed as a non-toxic, long- life alternative to pressure-treated lumber, which contains cyanide, and products made with creosote.

hori. shear (H) (psi)

Table 25 0

STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF PLASTIC VS. WOOD LUMBERS

eastern white pine red oak

white oak sugar maple

soft maple

24.9 43.2 46.3 44 35

Common Lumbers: I -

white fir

lommon Dock Lumbers:

27

, 120-145 120-145

- 95110

Lophira alata southern yellow pine

douglass fir

- - -

120-150 951 15

1 5 7 1 - 'lastic Lumber

compRssion perp to grain

(psi)

600 600

365 -

390 - 455 380 - 455 -

3500

a m p m i o n para to grain

(psi)

950-1550 950-1550

900-1050

875-2250 1000-1 750 -

3500

E-value (a

psi)

1.5 1.5

-

1.6 - 1.76 1.6 - 1.76

0.075

Source: Recourse Systems, Inc., "Feasibility Study for the Massachusetts Public Sector Procure- ment Program,'' internal document, MA. Division of Solid Waste, January 1988.

Polyethylene: Upbeat market

The recent surge in polyethylene markets, with prices for post- consumer material tripling in 1987 and those for virgin grades posting 22 percent inaeases in the last six months54.55, gives a strong indication that this of all the plastic sectors is the most

. .. .

64

likely to be market driven. Polyethylene, like polystyrene before it, could soon double its 1986 price leve156.

t' ' _

The worldwide polyethylene shortage is a result of rapidly growing demand combined with a lack of plant capacity to produce the ethylene monomers that are the raw material of polyethylene. Industry sources predict this shortfall could continue for two years or mor&57. Because it takes three years to put an ethylene reactor on line and two more to commission a polyethylene plant, one forecaster suggested a lag of up to five years, though he still called the situation temporary%. Current ethylene capacity is sold out through 1990, but if several mothballed or pending plants open, the situation could change - rapidly%.

The lower value of the dollar has also drawn domestic polyethylene production to export markets, increasing supply pressures for domestic molders and boosting demand for reclaimed polyethylene. Record-breaking 1987 demand for products like pipes, tiles and conduit, which can readily absorb high levels of post-consumer polyethylene, has also helped fuel price increases59.

i Two companies lead market surge Two firms specializing in reclaimed polyethylenes are experiencing dynamic growth and leading the marketplace.

Midwest Plastics of Stoughton, Wisc., has developed a proprietary high-speed cleaning process that removes paper labels and contaminants from HDPE milk jugs and other containers. The system can process 2,000 pounds per hour to a Grade I regrind used as feedstock for drain pipes, culverts and tiles. Midwest manufactures these items itself and also supplies regrind to other producers. Material acceptance has been so strong that Midwest plans to open additional reprocessing plants on both coasts.

Midwest Plastics currently purchases all types of HDPE bottles mixed, at 25 cents per pound granulated, and 15 to 18 cents baled. The firm 'has also successfully tested a pilot-scale version of its system for mixed film and plans to expand this operation and begin purchasing film shortly. Midwest has encouraged states with bottle bills and mandatory recycling programs to include HDPE bottles in recovery programs, stressing stable and growing demand for this material.

~

i

65

Eaglebrook Plastics of Chicago operates a proprietary cleaning process for dairy and other post-consumer HDPE bottles, as well as a cleaning and regrind service for industrial scrap users. The firm operates 24 hours a day and processes 1 million pounds of material a month; it offers long-term contracts to recycling operators and in some cases offers granulators and shipping rebates. The company founder claims that demand for post- consumer HDPE is unlimited; he says the bottleneck is in persuading recycling programs to collect the material.

Eaglebrook Plastics recently opened a second plant, Eaglebrook East, in Middletown, N.Y., and a wholly owned subsidiary in Chicago that produces molded lumber and other profiles from recovered HDPE. Prices range from 8 to 17 cents per pound depending on whether milk jugs are mixed with other bottles and ,whether materials are baled or granulated. Eaglebrook will also broker other plastics as a service to recycling companies.

PET New laws spur 50% recycling goal

In response to growing consumer and legislative pressure to recycle PET, major PET resin suppliers and bottle manufacturers in 1987 launched several aggressive initiatives to increase PET recycling and assure markets for reclaimed material. The um- brella group, the National Association for Plastic Container Reco- very (NAPCOR), headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., has set a goal of achieving a 50 percent PET recycling level nationally by 1992. NAPCOR will focus initial efforts in seven states including Cali- fornia and New Jersey, where recent legislation mandates drama- tic increases in PET recycling.

PET goal: 50 percent recovery level by 1992.

NAPCOR joined with local organizations to form the Plastic Recycling Corpora tion of New Jersey, which offers equipment funding, technical support and marketing assistance to help persuade counties to include plastic beverage bottles in their recycling programs. The Plastic Recycling Corporation of Cali- fornia was similarly organized to guarantee PET markets and facilitate plastic bottle recovery under the new AB2020 law. The corporation has guaranteed recycling operators a PET price equal to the scrap value plus material handling costs.

These initiatives and promised R&D to create more product uses for post-consumer PET suggest that substantial increases in PET recovery and re-use will be seen in the next few years.

66

A strong material flow Chicken can help produce new - and egg: Encouraging demand

for non-food Markets in the past year have illustrated a growing trend toward supply-driven demand, that is, the creation of market capacity and thus demand by the presence of a strong and long-term flow of material. The already strong polyethylene market in the Midwest expanded from industrial scrap to post-consumer plastics when that material became available, while the PET market expansion is driven by legislation that guarantees a material flow. In some states, government procurement pref- ,,-

erences promise to bolster the markets from the demand end ( while collection programs fuel the supply end.

containers. -

Further product and market development are needed to bring the polyolefin pellet and mixed-plastic markets up to potential. Combined with the possibility of culling HDPE and PET at Massachusetts MRFs, such development would guarantee that the collection programs would have a broad-based and sustained market for their materials.

i.

PART The Action Plan TWO

The plastics recovery cycle is identical to that of other materials.

A sustained and aggressive effort that engages citizens, government and industrv can make plastics'& recyclable as other maierials

A roadmap for plastics recycling Making plastics recycling work in the Commonwealth requires the successful integration of plastics collection into the statewide recycling program, while simultaneously developing the technologies and markets that will transform that material into economically viable new products. Though less developed than methods for recycling newspaper, glass or aluminum, the plastics recovery cycle is identical: collect the material, process it for re- manufacture, create a new product and sell it.

This chapter provides a roadmap for that process. It recommends which plastic discards will be collected; sets recovery goals; suggests sizing and sorting criteria for material recovery facilities (MRFs); predicts the needed industrial recycling capacity; and recommends specific technologies that can help create a strong and sustained market.

The following chapter outlines research and development and other public-priva te initiatives to suFport implementation of statewide plastics recycling. The entire plan is built around data and assumptions developed over the two-year life of this project and presented in Part One of this report.

Material targets: Rigid packaging, film Regional recycling programs should initially target the entire rigid packaging fraction of waste plastics -- milk jugs, shampoo bottles, detergent and fabric softener containers, yogurt cups, etc. -- while keeping; open the possibility of adding collection of

68

By targeting rigid containers and film, the recovery rate could be tripled.

plastic films (grocery sacks, etc.) when capacity and experience allow. One pilot for rigid containers only and one for film and rigid containers will be launched at the earliest feasible dates.

This strategy maximizes waste diversion levels and savings on trash disposal costs, while optimizing market access and earning potential. It depends on existine proven technologies that can

gories: polyolefins, made up of the plastics used for most house- - hold containers; high-density polyethylene, the plastic of dairy jugs, which can be processed into "regrind" and sold; PET, the familiar plastic of two-liter soda bottles, also marketable as regrind, and mixed plastics, which can include all of the above along with other household plastics including bags and wraps. This broad-based approach offers the best and most reliable economic foundation for plastics recycling.

separate the various plastic resins into four mark1:table cate- i

This approach differs from existing U.S. plastics programs, which in general have targeted only soda bottles made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and/or dairy bottles made of high- density polyethylene (HDPE). That limited approach yields plastic recovery levels of up to 11 percent of the estimated 80 pounds of household plastics discarded by each Massachusetts resident yearly. By expanding collections to all rigid containers, and supporting the program with adequate design, publicity and capital investment, that recovery rate can be doubled or tripled.

-

-

The rigid container stream includes all plastic bottles, tubs, jars, baskets, boxes, trays, plates, carry-out containers and lids. The

technologies is foamed polystyrene ("Styrofoam"). only household plastic excluded due to a current lack of recycling (\

3 69

Publicity: Plastic recycling is simple As with any large-scale recycling program, the citizens of the state are the most important participants. The program must therefore be as user-friendly as possible, and publicity must stress that households can recycle plastics as easily as any other material.

There will be no requirements for elaborate sorting of plastics either from each other or from other containers made of glass or metal. Straightforward instructions delivered through a variety of media will emphasize that labels, lids and any metal rings need not be removed. Products will be identified by their form or contents, not by their technical resin types. Residents will be asked to set out plastic milk, water and juice jugs, detergent and shampoo bottles, prescription and vitamin jars, coffee can lids, clear carry-out containers, film cans, cosmetic containers, salad oil bottles, soft drink bottles, windshield washer fluid jugs, and anti-freeze containers.

A series of flyers, media announcements, and school educational programs can add new examples to the list as needed, and when plastic films are added to the program, residents will be asked to set out their grocery sacks, bread bags, dry cleaning bags, etc.

3

Recovery goal: 45% of rigid plastics By integrating plastic collections into the state's multi-material curbside collection programs, a 45 percent recovery of rigid plastics can be attained. To reach that level will require that 75 percent of households served by multi-material collection programs participate, and that each of those households recycles 60 percent of the rigid plastic containers coming into the home. Assuming a 1990 plastics content in Massachusetts solid waste of 492 million pounds, of which roughly 40 percent is rigid plastic, a single recycling region would recover 7.4 million pounds (3,700 tons) of material in 1990 and 8.8 million pounds (4,400 tons) in 2000 if plastics consumption continues to grow as expected.

The program needs 75% participation to reach target goals.

,

Because no programs of this magnitude exist in the United States, the'45 percent recovery rate cannot be compared to actual experience. The calculations used to arrive at the target rate, however, are firmly grounded in the experience of other curbside collection programs that attain SO percent or better participation and up to 90 percent capture of targeted materials. Also, the assumptions of plastics volume in the waste stream were pur- posely weighted towards the conservative side. The rapid growth

70

Plastic may overflow from the boxes recommended in state plan.

of citizen acceptance of recycling nationwide also supports the possibility that the 45 percent target may in fact be low.

Collection: How best to haul 'balloons'?

Transporting uncompacted plastic bottles has been likened to carrying a load of balloons: there is much volume but little resale value in terms of material weight. This characteristic of household plastics underlies every aspect of the collcztion and sorting process; it will demand both ingenuity in equipment design and an ability of program directors to make operational adjustments as programs mature.

The Massachusetts Regional Recycling Program calls for dis tri- bution of one 1.5 cubic foot recycling container to each participating household in the service area. Assuming the 45 percent recovery rate, about 3/4 of a pound of plastic per week will be set out in the box, and it will take up from 1/4 of the space. While that may prove adequate, the experience of other mu1 ti-material curbside programs is that some households store materials for two to four weeks before setting out their boxes, and that households that consume a lot of plastics tend to overflow their boxes. Thus, other set-out container configurations such as the larger rolling cart used in Germany's "green bin" system should be evaluated in collection pilots. Another promising approach is to have households put plastics in a separate plastic bag that is then dipped to the recycling box to keep it from blowing away.

Collection vehicles must confront the same problems by having a large capacity and, if possible, a built-in compaction process for plastics. The regional plan calls for one collection vehicle per 25,000 households, with an expected daily payload of eight tons per day, or 1 1/2 truckloads. When roughly 3/4 pound of plastic per household is added to the mix, the truck must haul an additional 1,042 pounds per day, or 27 cubic yards of uncompacted material. Given the planned use of vehicles in the 28- to 34-cubic yard range, that means each truck on plastic collection routes would handle one full additonal load per day.

A number of ways to respond to the problem are possible - extended shifts, additional trucks, off-loading plastics en-route, using packer trucks that compress the material. But the most cost-effective and therefore recommended approach is to fit an existing high-capacity curbside vehicle with a mechanism that densifies the plastics, flattening but not shredding, as they are loaded at the curb. This change would require that instead of two-

71

Adding plastics will require design changes at the MRFs.

compartment trucks (one for paper, the other for co-mingled containers), as currently planned, three-bin vehicles will be needed, with operators doing truck-side sorting of plastics into the third compartment.

MRFs: Include plastics capability With collection logistics solved and 45 percent recovery of rigid plastics, a regional material recovery facility (MRF) will need the space and equipment to handle 7.1 million pounds or 187,000 cubic yards of plastics per year, or roughly 719 cubic yards per day assuming a one-shift operation.

Each MRF will have to be individually tailored for plastics processing depending on the technologies used and the expected overall capacity of the facility. Key design criteria will depend on the plant's through-put rate, processing techniques, indoor and outdoor storage space, shipping tumover, and number of shifts per day. Certain other specifications, though varying from plant to plant, will relate strictly to the plastic fraction:

Front-end separation may be desirable to ,cull soft- drink bottles and/or dairy jugs to allow their sale as distinct plastic resins;

Segregation of plastic from other containers will be needed in programs where a two-compartment truck delivers co- mingled containers;

Visual spot checks of glass and metal streams will be needed to maintain quality control in programs with delivery by three-compartment trucks; otherwise, stray plastic containers could cause contamination problems.

Shredders and/or balers will be required to reduce the volume of plastics before shipping to markets. The shredders may be fitted with air classification systems to provide a preliminary sort of film from rigid plastics;

Production space may be desirable for an on-site plastics molding system (an "ET/l"; see Chapter 5) that can produce plastic lumber and other products from mixed plastics.

MRF incentives: Priming the pump The Regional Recycling Program has .been promoted to Massa- chusetts communities largely on the basis of savings in disposal costs: while conventional disposal tipping fees will continue to

72 cost $50 per ton or more, tipping at the state's first MI?? will be free. Incentives to attract private-sector operators to this MRF include a contractual fee for running the facility plus earned revenues for recovered material sold to markets. This fee structure needs to be reevaluated for post-consumer plastics, whose processing costs might cancel out earned revenues, depending on which markets are accessed. To alleviate risk for MRF operators, it is recommended that they be allowed to charge a nominal, flat-rate tip fee for all recyclables. This will eliminate disin- centives for maximum recovery of plastics and other materials that may be added later, e.g. mixed paper.

Recycling tip fees should be fixed by contractual arrangement at a rate significantly lower than prevailing disposal tip fees. This places recycling on a par with other disposal methods from a cost- management standpoint, while retaining its competitive edge over the less-desirable landfilling and energy recovery options.

(

A modest tip fee helps MPG operators divert maximum tonnage.

Technologies: Pursue all types To recycle plastics on a large scale will require that whole new markets be opened for products made from recycled material, while currently active markets are expanded. In turn, large and

plastics and help stabilize 'market prices. The Massachusetts strategy is to tap into existing plastic markets while vigorously pursuing development of two newer and complementary recycling technologies: a polyolefin separation system to produce a pellet feedstock for molders, and a mixed-plastic molding system that creates end products including plastic lumber.

( steady material supplies will fuel demand for pos t-consumer -,

The Comrponwealth will use its full economic development resources (see Appendix G) and/or the financial resources provided by the 1987 Solid Waste Act to assist in the siting of at least one industrial-scale plant of each type by 1990. With both plants on-line, the state is guaranteed to have production capacity for both rigid plastics, which are the preferred feedstock for pOlyOk!fin Systems, and for plastic films, which are one essential ingredient of mixed-plastic molding recipes. The systems further complement each other because mixed-plastic machines can accept heavier plastic resins, barrier packages, and other plastics that are separated out in the production of polyolefin pellets. Both systems are compatible with existing domestic and export markets for regrind made of separated PET soda bottles or HDPE dairy bottles; both can operate efficiently even if those materials are culled from the mix.

T~~ technologies that together handle most household plastics.

i

73 Thorough research and development of domestic and export markets for all four end-products -- pellets, mixed-plastic products, PET regrind, and HDPE regrind - should coincide with implementation of plastic collections and start-up of the two new production facilities. Preliminary research indicated sufficient demand to support the first facilities, and they in turn will generate end-products needed to penetrate and expand markets for additional products. Markets, material supply and end uses must be developed simultaneously, each bolstering the chances of the others' success.

3

By year 2,000, a dozen or more plastic plants in Massachusetts.

Year 2000: A full-scale industry If projected recovery rates are met and the plastic collections are spread into all 12 recycling regions, the nation's first full-scale plastic recycling industry is likely to develop here. Plastic volume would increase by a factor of seven or more between 1990, when the pilots begin, and 2000, when the program is statewide.

Table 26 GROWTH OF PLASTIC VOLUME THROUGH 2000

Year MRFS Rigid Only Rigid/Film (million pounds) (million pounds) On Lhe

1990 2 14.8 21.9 1995 7 56.7 85.1 2000 12 105.6 158.4

These quantities could supply a mix of up to six pellet-making plants, 10 mixed-plastic systems, and/or domestic and export regrind markets. Clearly, aggressive market and product development will be required to accomplish this growth, which shows volumes doubling every 30 months. Though government leadership will be essential, such growth will also depend on strong and inspired involvement of the plastics industry.

74 . . . -. - - - .-. .. . _ _ _ .. . .. - .. .

Once m y plastics w end up in

ding be@ pon't have landfills.

- .ns to

. . . . . . .

Making It Work

Industrv will d a v crucial role A ! as plastics recycling takes off;

government must guide growth

Government-industry teamwork This study revealed a number of promising technologies, markets and collection approaches to be examined and refined through further research and pilot projects. The Commonwealth is prepared to co-sponsor appropriate projects, and has committed funding for collection of plastics to ensure a steady flow of raw material. Thus it aims to minimize risks and foster teamwork with industry in the transition to large-scale plastics recycling. In turn, were industry to match the Commonwealth's

' commitment with its own formidable talents and resources, most barriers to plastics recycling would easily fall away.

Research and pilot projects recommended for immediate attention are as follows:

Create public-private research consortium. Recognizing the need to create a mechanism for teamwork among govemment, industry and academia, the Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste Management conceived and organized a public-

A public-private con- private consortium called the Plastics Recycling Applied sortium has begun Research Institute, Inc. PRARI's mission is to foster coordinated, research on plastics. pragmatic research and development to optimize waste plastic

collections, processing, recycling technologies, products and markets.

1

PRARI's co-founders are New England Container Recovery, Inc. (CRInc.), of North Billerica and the University of Lowell's Plastics Engineering Department in Lowell. The first PRARI project is a pilot ET/l mixed-plastic molding plant capitalized by New England CRInc., with research support provided by Lowell University under a Massachusetts Centers of Excellence

76

Corporation grant. Officially opened in May 1988, the project focuses on optimizing ET/l processes, products and markets, and provides the first post-consumer plastic recycling capacity in the Commonwealth.

Getting started is the most important step to successful recycling.

PR4RI supporters also include the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the Vixyl Institute, Coca Cola U.S.A. and Citizens Energy Corporation. Additional assistance is expected from other Northeastern states, universities and private firms. PRARI will ( serve as a research body, funding conduit, and think tank of recycling, business and polymer experts, and will be specially suited to conducting research and development projects like those recommended below.

Design and implement pilot collections. The history of recycling programs throughout the nation shows that the most important first step in any program is to begin: to get people recycling. This is especially important for the plastics program as it will provide day-to-day proof that plastics recycling is possible. Two collection pilots will be launched at the earliest possible date, preferably by working with existing community- sponsored curbsides which can easily add the plastics component to their programs. The best strategy will be to strengthen programs in areas scheduled to be included in the first regions by providing early delivery of state-purchased vehicles and se t-out containers, publicity, and program design/evaluation assistance.

One pilot will target all rigid plastic containers; the other will target all rigid plastics and films. Various configurations of collection vehicles, on-truck densification methods, set-out containers and publicity will be evaluated to resolve questions ( about collection efficiency and costs, equipment capacity,

1

One company could boost whole industry by speufying pellets.

participation and recovery rates. This will provide concrete information on which to base plastic recycling expansion plans.

Build two production plants. True long-term development of the industry cannot begin until finished products made from Massachusetts post-consumer plastics are being tested by the marketplace. The Commonwealth will mobilize economic development assistance and solid-waste bond funds to assist private sector ins tallation of two industrial-scale recycling plants in Massachusetts. This includes one polyolefin separation plant and one full-capacity ET/l system with multiple machines. Steps will be taken to help in-state reprocessors expand, and to attract out-of-state reprocessors to locate plants in the Commonwealth.

Develop markets for new products. The Commonwealth will conduct in-depth market research and development projects for polyolefin pellets, mixed-plastic profile items, and regrind. These projects will explore domestic and export demand, identify and cultivate likely end-users, evaluate economics and market size, conduct market tests, and design comprehensive short- and long-term market strategies.

For polyolefin pellets, major companies using non-food-contact products and packaging will be approached and.asked to consider using this alternative feedstock. The public relations value of the switch will be stressed.

For mixed-plastic profile items, market development will focus first on docks, piers, boardwalks, park benches and horse stalls already idenitified as promising sectors in New England. Additional research will focus on boating and ski industry uses, grave vaults, playground structures, bus shelters, and fence posts and rails. As well, in situ performance tests of items like park benches will be staged in highly visible locations like state parks and piers, in cooperation with New England state govemments.

Evaluate MRF technologies. In-depth evaluations will be conducted on at least four European MRFs or sorting plant technologies with proven plastics processing capabilities. Most such systems are either not available or not yet on line in the U.S. The Division of Solid Waste Management should broaden its knowledge of MRF technologies and plastic sorting systems

:in order to specify and/or better assess proposed private-sector MRF systems.

--- -

Improve separation technologies. The state will sponsor research and development to optimize polyolefin separation

4

78 ~

technologies in two key areas. One is to improve the molding properties of the resulting polyolefin pellet (95% polyethylene and 5% polypropylene). The second is to devise ways to further segregate distinct resins from the process residue of PSC, PET, PS and other plastics. This will increase recovery by this technology and strengthen end-product marketability.

Further separation of resins would improve recovery rate, profits.

('

Improve ET/1 products. Massachusetts will sponsor research and development both to improve performance properties of, and invent/test broader uses for, ET/l profile products. Various lines of research, such as bringing E-values closer to those of wood, are described in the Markets chapter. These efforts will also include ASTM testing and approval.

Test on-truck densification systems. Two approaches to reducing problems with excessive volume on collection trucks will be pursued. The first is to evaluate the West German green bin system of rolling carts plus automatic side-loading compactor trucks to assess its appropriateness for areas where side-loaders are already used for trash collection. The second effort involves development of a high speed, high volume on-truck densification mechanism to flatten rigid plastic containers as they are loaded onto various dedicated sideloading and top-loading curbside vehicles. The goal is to achieve maximum compaction of whole containers without slowing down truck-loading. Size reduction by shredding is ruled out, because it eliminates the option to cull certain plastic items (PET bottles, milk jugs) at the MRF.

.

Develop plastic drop-off depots. The Commonwealth will sponsor a feasibility study and the design of two types of drop-off depot systems for rigid plastics. One should be tailored to partly rural regions like the Lower Pioneer Valley where drop- off satellites using roll-off bins will serve outlying areas. The second should meet the requirement of the Plastic Pollution Control Act to establish depositories at major ports for plastic shipping wastes. Both systems should include densification capabilities.

Plastic depots at ports could divert waste and cut Ocean pollution.

Perform large-scale separation tests. As follow-up to the small-scale tests conducted in this research phase, the Division of Solid Waste Management will conduct on-site plant audits and full-scale process tests of the three top-ranked separation technologies: Transplastek, AKW and Sorema. This means running samples of at least 2,000 pounds of typical MSW rigid plastic. In turn, the market development effort for (,

- . . . .. . .

Park benches and piers will be made of locally produced plastic.

polyolefin pellets will utilize these finished materials for large- scale production test-runs by local and overseas custom molders.

Evaluate PET recycling technologies. A mid-term research activity is to evaluate via plant audits the PET recycling technologies short-listed in Chapter 6, with an eye toward future negotiations to site a plant in Massachusetts once recovered material volumes warrant.

Engaging industry in solutions The preferred approach by the Commonwealth is to utilize incentives to engage the plastics industry in cooperative solutions. Examples of these incentives follow.

Procurement of recycled-content products. State agencies will move quickly to implement Executive Order 279, which requires purchase of products made of pos t-consumer plastics. The program will boost market strength of existing products and open up markets for new products, thus helping to assure viability of plastic recycling enterprises in Massachusetts. State Purchasing Agents in charge of piers, parks, roads and waterways can look to plastics recyclers for mixed-plastic lumber for docks, piers, park benches and road dividers; polyethylene products including traffic cones, drainage pipe, tiles and culverts; polyolefin products including waste baskets and recycling set-out containers, and recycled asphalt-plastic compounds for road sur- facing. Products used in public areas will be fitted with plaques with a message like this: "Recycled Plastic Product: A better use for Massachussets waste."

Motivate with uublic education. A critical role in motivating and sust$ning participation in recycling programs is public education, especially with plastics because the education must overcome the perception that plastics are impossible to recycle. The public will be informed first about the environmental problems of plastics, including marine pollution, incineration hazards, and pollution from the production process. It will also be given concrete suggestions on hoG individuals can reduce that damage through packaging choices, anti-litter efforts and support of local recycling programs. Also, a special training program must be directed at two key groups: private and public waste haulers, who will be involved in the collection of plastics, and MRF operators who must integrate plastics into their operations.

80

On Kellogg cereal boxes: "Packaged in recycled paperboard."

f Devise Code of Packaging Standards. A program to encourage proper packaging standards will be devised and implemented using the West German "Blue Angel" program as a model. Just as Underwriters Laboratory gives safety approval to products, this program will certify packaging as "environmentally friendly" if it meets standards such as: ease of recyclability, use of a resin-identification symbol, compatibility of material with existing recycling markets, absence of excessive packaging layers, tendency of product to become litter, bio- degradability or photodegradability, and use of recycled material in manufacture. The seal of approval could be prominently displayed by those companies that come forward to lead the effort, and though not mandatory, will by its high visibility encourage other companies to come into the program. There is a strong precedent for this type of program in other recycling areas: Coca-Cola now prints "Glass Recycles" on its glass containers and the Kellogg Co. prints "Packaged in Recycled Paperboard" on its cereal boxes.

Create a Package Design Competition. The state will sponsor a competition to reinforce the code described above and make an impact on the packaging industry's design engineers. The annual competition will solicit entries in a -

number of categories similar to those of the packaging code, but with an emphasis on using art and design to flaunt a package's engineering.

i

Encourage New England cooperation. The Common- wealth will continue both to spur technology breakthroughs and build region-wide support for plastics recycling through cooperative efforts with other New England states. This team approach has already greatly enhanced the breadth of research possible, led to creation of PRARI, and will be of the utmost importance as plans are shaped into hard programs.

Pending legislative measures

A measure of the importance of plastics recycling is that several of the recommendations outlined here, along with numerous other bills, have already been introduced in the Massachusetts State House and in other state legislatures. Below are three examples of get-tough measures that could become important tools in the months and years ahead:

4, A Packaging Disposal Tax has been proposed in Massachusetts

81

A packaging tax would discourage use of non- recyclable materials.

and about eight other states; it would put a three-cents-per-layer tax on non-food products sold at retail in the state. All packaging materials are targeted, including paper as well as plastic, but certain categories including easily recyclable materials are ex- empted or given a percentage break. The intent of the bill is to recoup from industry the disposal cost of excessive packaging, and to economically discourage addition of new layers. The resulting fund would be used to finance the rest of the state-wide recycling system, help end-use industries locate in the Commonwealth, and support research and development for recycling of plastics and other materials. Full details of these amd pther bills are available from the Committee on Natural Re- somces, State House, Boston, MA 02133.

One-resin plastic packaging would be the only type allowed for sale in Massachusetts if this proposal becomes law. This would facilitate recycling by eliminating multi-layer and multi- component packages including plastic cans, which major soft drink companies have been experimenting with, mu1 ti-layer squeeze bottles, PET bottles with HDPE base mps, even milk jugs if the lid is made of a different resin. Recommended additions to this concept would be the elimination of other barriers to recycling including use of non-water-soluble glues for labels and the ' co-mingling within a single package of different materials (aluminum caps on plastic bottles).

A Packaging Code and Review Board would be a stronger alternative to the voluntary Code of Packaging Standards proposed above. It would mandate the same criteria for packaging, in effect banning environmentally burdensome materials and packaging practices. The Solid Waste Commission created by the Solid Waste Act of 1987 will seriously examine this and other options if industry fails to take meaningful, expeditious steps to address the solid waste problem.

82

Avvendices

A. Resin Identification Methods

Listed below are standard criteria used by the plastics industry to identify common resin types.

Polyolefins (Polyethylenes and Polypropylene) Visual - majority of containers are opaque or translucent; films are generally translucent or transparent; mat finish Tactile - slightly waxy to the touch' Mechanical - flexible containers do not crack Flame test -black smoke, resin drips Density - floats on water Melt point - HDPE - 275O F.; LDPE - 230° F.; PI? - 380° F.

Polystyrene (PS) Visual - few bottles; some containers with wide mouth; smooth and shiny surface Mechanical - rigid containers crack when folded Flame test -black smoke; filamentous; no drip . Density - sinks in water Melt point - 464O F.

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Visual - some transparent bottles have faint blue cast; bottle bottoms show blow-molding mark; bottles have seams; certain more rigid films. Mechanical -becomes opaque white when folded Flame test -black smoke to begin, white after; produces hydrochloric add and a burnt odor Density - sinks in water Melt point - 410° F.

4 1'

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Visual - clear, transparent; mainly beverage bottles; no seams; bottle bottom has injection molding nub Tactile - tough and highly resilient Flame test -bright, crackly, sooty; drips; gas smells sweet, irritating Density - sinks in water Melt point - 5 1 8 O F.

B: Primary Product Groups

3

1. Transportation Motor Vehicles and Parts: including autos, trucks, buses, motor- cycles, and bicydes All Other: including railroad equipment, travel trailers, campers, golf carts, snowmobiles, aircraft, military vehicles, ships, boats and recreational vehicles

2. Packaging Bottles, jars, vials Faod containers: excluding disposable cups Flexible packaging: bags and film All other: including tubes, tape, strapping, drums, caps, baskets, trays, boxes, pallets, shipping crates, pails, buckets, shipping cases, blister and bubble containers

including household and institutional refuse

3. Building and Construction Pipe, conduit and fittings: drainage, irrigation, plumbing fix- tures, septic tanks Building material for all structures: siding, flooring, and insulation materials All other: panels, doors, windows, skylights, bathroom units, gratings and railings

4. Electrical and Electronic Home and industrial appliances: including electrical industrial equipment, wire and cable covers, communications equipment Electronic components: including resistors, magnetic tape, records, and batteries

5. Furniture and Furnishings Rigid and flexible types: including household and office furniture, bedding, carpets, rugs, backing, curtains, blinds,

84

awnings, lamps, picture frames, wall coverings ... i'

i

6. Consumer and Institutional Products Disposable food serviceware: including disposable cups Dinner and kitchenware: including picnicware Toys and sporting goods Health care and medical products: including laboratory supplies Hobby and graphic arts supplies: including photographic equipment and supplies All other: including footwear, luggage, buttons, lawn & garden tools, signs and displays, credit cards

7. IndustridMachinery All types: including engine and turbine parts, farm and garden machinery, construction and related equipment, machine tools, ordnance and frearms, chemical process equipment

8. Adhesives/Coatings Adhesives and sealants All other: including printing ink, magnet wire enamels, core binders, foundry facings, paper coating and glazing, paints, var- nishes, and enamels

i" \ 9. Other

Sales of resin to resellers, compounders, converters, distributors, etc. Unclassified sales whose end-use markets cannot be ascer- tained under any of the market categories listed above.

Source: Chem Systems, Inc., 19871

C: Plastic Collection Programs Surveyed North America West Germany

Bloomsdale, PA Bronx, N.Y. Charlotte, N.C. Columbia County, WI. Coplay, PA

East Greenwich, RI. Grand Rapids, MI. Islip, N.Y. Marin County, CA. Naperville, IL. Niagara, ONT.

Bad Durkheim Burbach Dietzenbach Donnersber g EIU

Erf tkreis Freibur g Hannover Heidelburg Karlsruke Neve

3

ri

85

Ontario, CA. Or tenau Oregon City, OR. Ravensburg Sunnyvale, CA. Rhein-Neckar Ville La Salle, QC. Rottweil West Bend, WI. Vier sen

Witzenhausen Wolfsburg

Netherlands Amersfoort DeBilt Groningen Haarlemmermeer Hertogenbosch Sanpoor t-Zuid Woerden

D: Profile of Massachusetts Plastics Industry, 1985 Massachusetts ranks in the top 10 U.S. states according to the following criteria from the Society for the Plastics Industry:

Category Number Rank

Establishments 959 9 Employees 55,800 9 Payroll $1.1 billion 9 Wages $7l5 million 9 Value of Shipments $6.0 billion 9 New Capital Expenditures $2.50 million 7

E: Articles on Recycling Technologies Part I: Advanced Recycling Technology Part 2 Recycloplast Part 3: Coke Germany-Reko PET Bottle and Recovery System Part 4: AKW Separation Technology and PET Recycling Technology

The following series of articles was prepared by MA. DSWM and published in 1987. It is reprinted with permission of: Resource Recycling Journal P.O. Box 10540 Portland, Oregon 97210

86

by Gretchen Brewer This is the first in a series on selected European recycling technologies researched via plant tours in Belgium and West Germany and the Fifth lntemational Recycling Congress in Berlin under sponsorship of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Gretchen Brewer, recycling program coordinator with the Mas- sachusetts Division of Solid Waste, is chief planner of the state's plastic and tire recovery programs.

Advanced Recycling Technologies, Ltd. (ART) of Belgium is one of a handful of European firms that have pioneered innovations that allow reclamation of plastics wastes that were previously considered non-recoverable: mixed plastics from municipal refuse and industrial scrap too contaminated for in-plant recycling. The two key breakthroughs in this area are systems that utilize the mixed plastics stream as-is, and systems that are designed to extract the predominant polyolefin fraction from other plastics waste. (Polyolefin is primarily composed of polyethylene and polypropylene.)

Advanced Recycling Technologies, featured in this article, and Recycloplast AG of West Germany, which will be presented in Part 2 in this series, are the two

European plastics recycling, Part 1

European companies that have taken the lead in mixed plastics recycling. A subsequent article will also present one example of a polyolefin extraction technology *

Favorable factors Growing European interest in plastics recycling is a push-pull phenomenon. The push manifests itself in forms that are familiar to residents of North America - shrinking landfill capacity, rising disposal costs, reservations about refuse incineration, and increasing public concern about the growing percentage of plastics in the waste stream, particularly in packaging materials (see Tables 1 and 2).

The pull is Western Europe's de- I'

pendence on high-priced imports of p e l

Table 2 - Plastic Waste Stream Composition in West Germany

Percent TvDe of Plastic Polyolefins

60-65

5 15

1 High density polyethylene (HDPE) Low density polyethylene (LDPE) Polypropylene (PP)

Polystyrene (PS) Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 10-1 5 Other plastics 5

Source: Fifth International Recycling Congress, Proceedings, Berlin, West Ger- many, 1986. 1

Table 1 - Plastics in the European municipal solid waste

Country Sampling Year Percent of MSW

Belgium 1983 5.0 France 1983 4.5 Germany 1983 7.6 Netherlands 1985 6.5 Switzerland 1983 7.0 Source: Recuperbec. Inc.. Survey of Waste Stream Analyses in U.S. and

Abroad, report to Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste, 1987.

14 Resource Recycling MayIJune 1987

?

troleum and natural gas feedstocks for plastics manufacturing, plus domestic shortages of other raw materials (wood, metal) for which recycled plastics may substitute. These factors helped to prompt a re-evaluation of waste plastics as a resource worth reclaiming, providing that economically viable recovery and recycling technologies could be developed. .

One further development in West Ger- many helped 40 improve recovery economics. Programs set up over the past ten years to collect and process source- separated wet wastes (compostables) and dry wastes (70 percent recyclables), produced an out-throw stream of com- mingled household plastics while other materials (paper, glass, metal, textiles) went on to markets. At first the plastics. waste was landfilled. However, as more sorting centers came on line (some 20 centers now serve three to five million Germans), a substantial and steady stream of mired plastics became available as an inexpensive feedstock to supply new plastic recycling technologies. Also, refuse-derived-fuel processing plants throughout Europe have helped guarantee raw material supplies. .

Advanced Recycling Technologies This profile of the company and its mixed plastic recycling technology is drawn from a tour of ARTS testing and demonstration plant in Brakel, Belgium and interviews with the firm's chief executive; Philippe Julien.

ART has explored plastic recycling solutions for many years. Initially, the firm imported the Reverzer technology from Japan 12 years ago, but the first plants failed on economic grounds. The technology's creator, Mi!subishi, has abandoned the technology as well, although a few plants still operate in Mexico and Japan.

Subsequently, ART developed and patented the ETA (Extruder Technology I) system, which is now operating in 12

plants in Europe and Russia and is pending in many more locations. The first U.S. plant has been installed in Michigan by Processed Plastics, a division of Summit Steel. While this plant will utilize both industrial and post-consumer scrap, most operating ETA systems use post-consumer plastics as their main feedstock.

The striking feature of the ETA is its ability to do what many have thought impossible - produce stable molded products by blending a wide range of plastic resins. !hat are usually incompatible with each other. The system accommodates various thermoplastic mixtures and up to 40 percent contamination by other materials commonly present in municipal, commercial and industrial plastics wastes (paper, glass, dirt, metal, etc.). The basic principle is that the polyolefin fraction, typically 60 percent of plastic discards, softens to become the carrier while other ma-

Shown above is the -// operator control panel and a 4"x 4"x 4'pOSt mold. The mold is installed in the carrier which rotates the molds from the fill position into the wafer bath for cooling and then fo the cooling sta- tion.

terials become fillers lending rigidity to end products.

The key idea is that the ETA process does not change anything chemically. The specifications are those of whatever waste goes in, which means end products are not engineered to precise tolerances. On the other hand, output quality, color and other characteristics can be controlled by operator judgments in batching and adjustments in the extruder. This fac-

Resource Recycling M a y h n e 1987

88 tor and the choice of forgiving products allows predictable production of reliable items.

Unlike standard extruders, the ETA uses no outside heat saurce since this would degrade the materials’ physical properties. Instead, the mixture IS softened by friction as it is forced through the extruder by a high shear mechanical screw. As well, residence time and dis- tance are kept shon to avoid degradaton.

Products Advanced Recycling’s ETA process produces a simple range of versatile products: posts, poles, stakes and slats of various dimensions. Products can range from one to four meters in length and in cross sections of 2% centimeters in diameter for a circular pole to 12 x 12 centimeters for a square pile. Molds of different cross section shapes (square, circular, rectan- gular, triangular, etc.) can be used simultaneously, as long as the molds in a given production run are all the same length.

Like. wood, Syntal products can be nailed, screwed, cut and planed with standard woodworking equipment, pigmented or painted, and do not conduct electricity. Unlike wood, the products are water resistant, rot and bacteria proof, resistant to salt water, chemicals and urine, will not splinter or split, are animal proof (horses won’t eat them), withstand freezing and

. .

thawing, and are shock absorbing (e.g., in a stable floor). The first Syntal posts that were put in the ground five years ago have stayed straight and rot-free with no maintenance.

The most common applications of the products are boardwalks, piling and staging in marshlands, dock surfaces and piers, vine stakes, pig sty floor slats, horse

7

ranch fencing, road markers, reflecting posts, and electrified cattle fences. -A promising new use is construction of playground equipment where the safety factor (no splinters or sharp edges) out- weighs the cost. Syntal products typically substitute for wood, concrete and metal,

Plastics mix Although the process tolerates a wide range of plastics and non-plastic materials, ART offers certain recommendations about the percentage of polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene terephthalate and polystyrene in the mix as follows:

Polyvinyl chloride. The thermal insta- bility of the PVC polymer may result in difficulty discharging products from the molds. This can be corrected by limiting PVC to 10 percent by weight of the mix or by adding a thermal stabilizer. In the latter case, the system can then tolerate up to 50 percent PVC, as in cable scrap, without risk of problem emissions (e.g., hydrochloric acid).

8 Polyethylene terephthalate. The flow range of this tough material is considerably higher than the system’s design range which is geared to more preva- , lent plastics. PET must first be finely ground so that it will act as a filler con- centrating in the core of the pole to give it stiff ness. The mix should not exceed 20 percent by weight. Polystyrene. Although impact grades add toughness to the mix, non-imp grades (“crystal”) cause surface fini, irregularities in the poles, and expanded PS (Styrofoam) has too low a

. .

i

4

16 Resource Recycling May’June 1987

3 89

3

bulk density for the process. PS should be limited to 10 percent by weight of the feedstock.

Meanwhile, the ART system has excellent tolerance for difficult non-plastic contaminants. An example of one material

) ?at was being processed during the tour das aseptic (brick pack) waste consisting

of laminated plastic and aluminum sheets from which the paper layer had been removed by hydropulping. Finely shredded, this type of material adds strength and rigidity to the product while reducing its

Features Two advantages of ART’S ETA system are its modular design and moderate price. Excluding preparation equipment, the complete unit (including one set of molds) is in the range of $200.000-$250,000.

The output of a single unit averages 500 tons per year. But depending on desired throughput, one preparation line can supply three to four ETA machines for 1,500-2,000 tons per year production. Or > the preparation line can supply a single ETA’S production for three shifts. Either configuration can be operated by one em- ployee.

In addition, one machine can produce a wide range of products. The low cost of molds ($2,000-$4,000) limits the risk of

9 creating and marketing new products. Typically, the sale of 500 pieces of a new Troduct pays for a mold.

In wood-poor Western Europe and Japan, ETA “building block” products

’ weight.

Aluminized plastic film recovered scrap can be molded into poles, p and other shapes.

A pallet of 4 “ x 4”x G’posts molded contaminated plastic waste from con cia1 and residential collections.

Road and park barricades made mixed contaminated plastic waste.

from llanks

using ?mer-

with

have found wide use in agricultural, horticultural, marine and highway applications. Besides the obvious advantage of lessening pressures on forest resources, the use of ETA lumber for public structures in some parts of Europe has solved another problem - pilfering of portable wood items for use as winter fuel. These wood-saving benefits are far-reaching since a Syntal post can replace not one but perhaps 10-20 wooden posts on a product-life basis.

“ While the uses of ETA lumber are wide,

product acceptance and marketability have yet to be shown in the U.S. In this regard, the Processed Plastics plant in Michigan will provide an interesting test case. RR

For more information, contact Advanced Recycling’s U. S. representative: John Maczko, Mid-Atlantic Plastic Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 507, 320 Chestnut Street, Roselle, NJ 07203; (20 1) 24 1-9333.

17 Resource Recycling MayIJune 1987

90

By Gretchen Brewer This is the second in a series on selected European recycling technologies researched via plant tours in Belgium and West Germany and the Fifth International Recycling Congress in Berlin under the sponsorship of the German Marshall Fund in the United States. Gretchen Brewer, recycling program coordinator with the Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste, is chief planner of the state's plastics and tire recovery programs.


A key breakthrough in European plastics recycling has been technological innovations that allow the use of mixed post-consumer plastics to manufacture new end products. Brilliant by its very simplicity, this idea meant tuming the problem up- side down by asking what products could be made from the material as it is, rather than assuming mixed plastic wastes are non-recyclable unless separated into their myriad resin types. This second article in a series on European plastics recycling features Recycloplast AG of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Recycloplast The Recycloplast technology and the product Replast were invented and patented by Erich Wiechenrieder and the first pilot plant opened in Neukolbing in 1984. Now, three industrial scale plants are operating in West Germany and others are pending in Switzerland, Tai- wan and elsewhere. The process was patented in the US. in 1980, and a U.S. office was established in 1986. Findings reported here are drawn from tours of plants in Munich and Kempten.

The main feedstock for the process is contaminated, mixed waste plastics from nearby sorting centers, which mechanically separate plastics from comingled recyclables collected in "green bin" curbside programs in several regions of Ger- many. Initially, post-consumer waste was the only raw material used: however, experience has shown that adding up to 30 percent industrial scrap (mainly polyethylene) improves quality control and broadens the range of end products. The industrial scrap used is generally too contaminated for in-plant recycling, so that it too is diverted from the waste stream by the Recycloplast system. Whereas municipal waste plastic is tipped for free, the company has found that industries will gladly pay $20 to $60 US. per ton to tip manufacturing wastes, rather

than paying higher costs at landfills and incinerators.

Batch mix The basic principle of the process is to work with a batch that is 50-70 percent thermoplastics and 30-50 percent other materials. The other materials can be thermoset plastics, metal, wood, paper, sand, glass, etc., which are naturally present in plastic fractions extracted from municipal solid waste, or which may be added to meet certain product requirements (rigidity, light weight, etc.). Fillers may include rubber, paper and wood chips, natural or synthetic fibers, silica . products (sand, quartz, clay), glass, ( metal, or metal oxides.

The process is geared to the melt range of the dominant plastics in the waste stream, polyethylene and polypropylene (60-65 percent). When the mix is heated to 180-200 degrees Celsius, these plastics soften to form the matrix, or paste, that carries the rest of the materials. A good analogy is that the polyethylene/ polypropylene fraction acts like a cookie dough, and the other materials, which have been pre-shredded, are like the raisins in the cookies. In this way plastics with a lower melt range become part of the dough, and those with higher melt ranges act as fillers along with the non- plastic materials.

An important feature of the Recyclo- plast techology is its ability to utilize the new breed of composite and moisture barrier packaging that combines layers of various plastic resins and other materials. Such products are non-recyclable except in mixed plastic technologies. As well, Re- cycloplast products may be re-recycled through the same system.

Except for manual loading of feed con-( veyors, the Recycloplast system is fully automated and commter controlled. The

.

'

System features , I

16 Resource Recycling July 1987

Solidified chunks of industrial plastic scrap are broken with a sledge hammer before infeed to the Recycloplast system.

Bagged plastic film is sent to first-stage shredding via a magnetic head conveyor.

entire operation is run by three to four employees. The plant is extremely clean, with exceptional safety features, and no emissions were evident. Fhis aspect of the newer installations

is a major improvement over the pilot plant in Neukolbing, where company officials acknowledge that fumes were released inside the facility due to the degradation of polyvinyl chloride in the heating process. However, company officials also noted that the system can be s e t at lower temperatures to accommodate mixtures of 50-100 percent polyvinyl chloride, as in cable scrap, as well as higher melt ranges for resins such as polyethylene terephthalate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. In addition, test runs indicate that the system can utilize more problematic feedstocks such as auto shredder residue and the mixed plastics stream from refuse-derived fuel facilities.

According to recent tests, Recycloplast plants meet all applicable West German environmental standards in the recently

U


. . .. . . .. . . . . - . . . .. .

revised TA Luft testing procedure. The safety of this technology is shown by the fact that the second plant toured was located in a residential area in Munich.

Typical plant size is 20,000 square feet - half for equipment and half for storage. Electrical service of 800 kilowatts is required, with power use at 500 kilowatts per hour.

Throughput is 5,000 tons per year on three shifts and the cost of a facility (plant and installation) is about $5-6 million U.S. Fifteen percent of the plant cost is for pollution control and the other costly components are the presses, which can run $500,000 each. Smaller plants are also available (2.500-3.000 tons per year) at prices ranging from $1 million to $4.5 million. .

End products Recycloplast products are generally large, thick-walled items such as pallets, grates, manhole covers, wall and flooring sheets, planter tubs, sound absorbing walls, signpost bases, composting boxes, and cable reels. At present, products cannot be made with a thickness of less than 4 millimeters, nor can they be blow- molded, injection-molded or extruded. However, ongoing research and development is expected to alter this picture. For example, production of extruded and injection-molded items is anticipated within one year. Replast's best applications are products where low cost and durability are more important than appearance. Though dyes can be used to make colors uniform,

1 . . . .

-

92 1 Vlew of the plant: computer control

room (upper right), enclosed conveyor system (middle), and sequentially fed hydraulic presses in which Replast Is molded.

2 Examples of Replast products include backyard composting box. s:xage containers and planters.

3 Sturdy, waterproof and rustproof drainage gutters for use in driveways and parking ramps.

4 Replast planters, window boxes and floor slabs await shipment.

-

most products are dappled dark colors (green, brown or gray) owing to the mixed colors ofthe feedstock. It is not possible to make white or light-colored items unless the feedstock recipe is largely non- postconsumer plastics.

The outstanding characteristics of Re- plast products are that they are totally waterproof and rot-proof, inedible (for livestock applications such as horse stalls), and shock absorbing and sound

L

attenuating. One new product that capitalizes on this last feature is recycling drop-off containers which were recently tested by the City of Munich for glass collections. The city has just ordered 200 Replast bins to replace the noisier fiberglass igloos now in place.

Replast products perform like LDPE (low density polyethylene) in various performance tests including thermal expansion, thermal conductivity, electrical resist

I O

Resuurce Recycling July 1987

93

4

tivity, temperature stability, flammability, and liquid impermeability. Recycloplast has launched aggressive product research and development to expand the range of applications in horticultural, agricultural. construction, transportation, and domestic sectors. The company strives to work with plant investors to custom design new products and help develop needed tooling. Purchase agree- ments offer access to ongoing research and development, as well as service and replacement terms.

Viewed as an alternative to landfills and incinerators, where construction and operating costs continue to climb, the Re- cycloplast technology offers an economically preferable approach for post- consumer plastics “disposal.” Plant economics are also strengthened by offer- ing user fee disposal to the plastics manufacturing sector. Hopefully, U.S. tests of end product market acceptance will soon provide a complete picture of this technology’s potential for addressing the plastics disposal problem. RR

For more information, contact Hans Weilandt, Recycloplast of North America, P.O. Box 2043, 150 Louis Street, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; (20 1 ) 440-2 100.

Manufacturing process The basic steps in the Recycloplast production process are as follows:

Feedstock is loaded manually into a hopper, then travels by conveyor with a magnetic head (metal separation) to a grinder. Finely shredded material is pneumatically conveyed to one of six storage silos, with further metal separation en route: usually three of the silos contain mixed post-consumer plastics, one contains industrial scrap, one contains coloring, and one contains hot granulate (pre- heated shredded plastic). Computer-controlled dosing units draw materials from various silos according to the desired recipe and charge the material into the plastificator. The matrix material is slowly melted by friction heat and the mixture is kneaded so that the materials are homogenized and impurities are embedded in the form of small particles. Computer-controlled melt temperatures in the Dlastificator minimize

m Coloring agents, fire retardants and other fillers may be introduced in the plastificator according to desired product strength and surface appearance specifications. An automatically adjusted scraper removes the melted paste from the plastificator and presses it via a heated extruder die into pre-measured, roll-shaped loaves. The loaves are conveyed immediately to a press charging device (thereby conserving process energy), which alternately fills a se- quence of molds mounted in large 300-1,500 ton hydraulic presses. Products are stabilized by water- cooling the molds on a pre-program- med cycle down to 40 degrees Cel- sius, and are then ejected onto a conveyor belt to be transferred to storage: alternatively, the hot Re- plast paste may be transferred to a granulator and made into pellets for later use. Pollution control devices throughout the plant capture dust and particu- lates and draw off emissions to a

material degradation, but also attain , heat levels sufficient to destroy is recycled within the operation. harmful substances such as bacteria.

c I gas scrubber system: cooling water


European plastics recycling,

by Gretchen Brewer This is the third in a series of articles on plastics recycling in Europe, researched via plant tours in Belgium and West Ger- many and the Fifth International Recycling Congress in Berlin under the sponsorship of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Gretchen Brewer, recycling program coordinator with the Mas- sachusetts Division of Solid Waste, is chief planner of the state’s plastics and tire recovery programs.

The previous two articles in this series featured plastic recycling technologies at- tempting to make the best of a problematic situation by converting the growing volume and complexity of plastic wastes back into saleable products. This chapter from Europe looks at a bold experiment that tackles the plastics problem at the front end. In a unique collaboration, Coca- Cola Germany and Desmacon and Reko of the Netherlands redesigned the plastic bottle for optimum recyclability and introduced it with reverse distribution, Le., recovery, systems in place.

This case stands as a shining example of the strong recovery rates and recovery economics that are attainable by voluntary industry action, using only a fraction of the energy, ingenuity, and research and development funds spent to design and market nonrecyclable products. The information reported here is drawn from pres- entations by Dr. Horst Mueller of Coke Germany and Mr. Jan van den Goorbergh of Reko, the Netherlands, at the Fifth ln- ternational Recycling Congress in Berlin.

PET in Europe The polyethylene terephthalate plastic soda bottle (known as PET in the U.S., PETP in Europe, and also commonly termed the polyester bottle) was introduced on the world market in 1977-1 978. By 1986, its market penetration in Europe stood at 70,000 metric tons, about one- fifth the U.S. level and one-tenth of worldwide consumption.

At 45,000 metric tons, or two-thirds of 1986 production, the United Kingdom has been Europe’s largest PET user. As such, it has also been Europe’s guinea pig. With no deposit system and few depot programs in effect, the United Kingdom was the first country to see significant glass container displacement and plastic waste increases like those accompanying PETS introduction in many parts of the U.S.

These lessons were not lost on the con-

tinent. While PET has made inroads in some parts of Europe, it has not been universally accepted. Several Scandina- vian countries blocked PET by limiting legal beverage containers to a small number of standardized refillables. Also, recent waste management measures in West Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland allow governments to use dis- cretionary sanctions, such as deposits, to discourage new packaging types considered environmentally burdensome.

At stake in many parts of Western Europe are well-established, high performance glass container recovery programs using refillables, deposits and/or drop-off depots. Widespread concern about the impact of plastic led to a 1984 resolution by the International Recycling Congress enjoining industry to strive for “planned recycling of plastic products,” that is, building in recyclability at the product design stage.

The Coke-Reko experiment To their credit, Coca-Cola Germany, Desmacon (a Netherlands petrochemical

66 CDR introduced a new 2-liter PET bottle with a standard shape, size, color .

and with a clear PET base

company and PET bottle producer) and Reko (Desmacon’s plastic recycling subsidiary) launched their PET experiment iP; 1985, nearly two years before legislatiom. would have forced this approach.

16 Resource Recycling September/October 1987

Nonetheless, their motivation was strictly commercial. On the one hand, the three , the U.S. companies (CDR) sought the msrketing advantage of PET to deliver larger quantities (1.5- and 2-liter containers) of product to the consumer in a “convenient, lightweight, unbreakable container.” On the other hand, they sought the best possible recovery and resale economics if a recycling program should prove neces- 66 After 14 months, sary. Correctly reasoning that political cli- mates and public opinion in West Ger- recovery rates for the new

acetate) - have never been marketed in

Nevertheless, the most common PET bottles in the U.S. present sufficient stumbling blocks. Bottle bodies come in either clear or green PET; market demand is

many and the Netherlands would reject contain& were at 70 another plastic throwaway container, CDR set about designing a “recycling percent in West Germany

and 73 percent in the friendly” PET bottle. \

lnalyzing PET’S recyclability By examining U.S. and European recycling experience with PET bottle designs then on the market, COR quickly con- cluded that, “The PET material in the body of the bottle is well-suited to recovery and

) reuse . . . (but) the other bottle components either disrupt the recovery process or limit the reusability of the material.” The speakers at the conference added that while deposits have ensured high recovery rates in the nine US. states with deposit systems, other conditions for com-

.I mercially successful recycling remain un- fulfilled: “Again and again, it is the extremely large variety of bottle types that proves to be the stumbling block. For in designing their bottles, manufacturers seem to give little or no thought to the recyclability of their product. This makes

1 recycling a costly affair, while due to the poor quality of the recovered PET, revenues barely cover the cost of recycling.”

Van den Goorbergh presented a PET recycling matrix that outlined the relative recyclability of existing product designs. Fortunately, the two least recyclable types of plastic containers - those where the PET body is coated with PVDC (polyvinylidine chloride) or EVA (ethyl vinyl

J

s

Netherlands. f 9

adequate for clear but slack for green or color-mixed PET. Also, paper labels attached to the bottles with hot-melt (non- water soluble) glue are difficult to remove, requiring costly washing steps.

Three types of lids - aluminum lined with PVC (polyvinyl chloride) or EVA, polyethylene lined with PVC or EVA, and polypropylene lined with PVC or EVA - present problems. The prevailing method of using a caustic to dissolve the aluminum away from the PET yellows the PET and thereby limits its reuse applications. Other aluminum removal techniques leave traces of the metal con- taminating either the PET or the high density polyethylene (HDPE) base cup material. Meanwhile, polyethylene or polypropylene lid material can be segregated from PET by float-sink (according to specific gravity) but remains contaminated by PVC or EVA.

Finally, the HDPE base cups used to make the containers stand up present two obstacles. One is the hot-melt adhesive attaching them to the blow-molded PET

bodies. The more serious obstacle is that the base cups are made of every hue in the rainbow, with the result tbat me recovered, color-mixed flakes are suitable only for making black recycled plastic products. In fact, the base cup material forms the “junk” fraction from PET bottle recovery along with paper label scrap: aluminum, polyethylene or polypropylene lined with PVC or EVA, depending on lid type: and adhesive residue.

The different PET bottle In a coordinated action, Coke, Desmacon and Reko invented a new two-liter PET bottle which eliminated all but one of the recycling obstacles named above. They standardized the bottle shape and size and used only clear bottles and base cups, even for Coke’s Fanta and Sprite products that had been marketed in colored containers. By switching from HDPE to a clear recycled PET base cup, they eliminated the need to sort base cups from bottle material, while simultaneously creating market demand for 20 percent of the reclaimed PET.

To offset labeling contamination, CDR adopted smaller paper labels attached with water-soluble glue. Aluminum lids were replaced by PVC-lined polypropylene lids, an interim step until research and development was completed on an unlined single-piece polyethylene closure with adequate sealant properties. At the time this experiment was reported, the PVC contamination of the closure material was the container’s last remaining recycling obstacle, though subsequent developments may have eliminated this problem. In any case, this is a minor difficulty since recovery economics hinge chiefly on the purity and resale value of reclaimed PET.

Voluntary deposit adopted In a move that would surprise Americans

Continued on page 47.

1 17 Resource Recycling September/October 1987

96

European plastics (continued from page 17)

accustomed to industry's stiff deposit law opposition, CDR voluntarily decided to in- troduce the container with a deposit in pilot areas of the Netherlands and West Germany, Though it felt deposits slightly compromised PET'S marketing edge, CDR believed this strategy offered the best potential for high recovery rates, while preempting possible govemment opposition to the containers.

Finally, the company reasoned that if consumers accepted the notion of returnable PET bottles, then reverse distribution could be accomplished by piggybacking on the existing returnable system for glass bottle refillables. Thus, CDR set deposits for 8-packs of 2-liter bottles in reusable cases equal to the same quantity of beverage in 12-packs of glass bottles in reusable cases.

Sharing risks and benefits Before introducing the new PET bottle, CDR held lengthy- negotiations to win cooperation from all players: producers of Coke in Germany and other beverages in the Netherlands, bottle manufacturers, industries supplying bottle components (lids, etc.), retailers, govemment, and the recycling industry. Despite seemingly conflicting inierests, each became con- vinced the venture was a win-win prop- osition. Tough decisions were made, including dropping colored containers to identify some soft drink brands: capitaliz- ing new bottle manufacturing capacity; in- vesting in collection systems and research and development of new plastic recycling technologies: and underwriting a public education campaign to make sure consumers recognized PET as returnable and recyclable.

Impressive results Fourteen months into the program, recovery rates were at 70 percent in West Ger- many and 73 percent in the Netherlands. Elated, the sponsors projected recovery would soon match the 93 percent recovery rate for returnable glass bottles and prospects loohad good for extending the PET bottle throughout both countries.

Reko also reported that by the end of 1985, its new PET processing division, Re-Tech, had perfected a proprietary recycling technology yielding pure, crystal-clear PET polymer suitable for a wide range of high quality products. Examples of products included injection-molded,

blow-molded thermoformed automotive parts: electrical components: and containers. At that point, the Re-Tech pilot plant in the Netherlands was operating at 1,500 tons per year and scaling up to 10,000 tons per year.

Summing up the new program, van den Goorbergh stated, "In this way, the used PETP bottle does not reincarnate as an energy-devouring waste monster, but is reborn as PETP raw material with a valuable second life." Dr. Mueller added: "Ex- perience has now shown that planning for the ultimate disposal of used packages requires the same careful study as introduction of the package itself. Recyclability has become an integral part of Coca-Cola GmbH's package development and marketing strategy . . . Our recycling system is open and available to our competitors

. provided they design the PET bottle to fit RR the system."

~~

Formore information, contact Jan van den Goorbegh, Re-tech B V, Postbus 19 1, 6190 AD Beek (L), Holland: telephone: (04402) 76060.

,

c

9 97


3y Gretchen Brewer This fourth article in the series on Euro- pean recycling technologies draws from research which began under sponsorship of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. and continued via a team effort by the b-lassachusetts Division of Solid Waste, Rhode Island Department of Environmen- tal Management, and Recuperbec, Inc., of Quebec, to design a soon-to-be-released two-state Plastics Recycling Ac- tion Plan. Gretchen Brewer is a recyciing program coordinator with the Massa- 1 tetts Division of Solid Waste.

The marked trend in the West toward increasingly complex plastics, such as multi-layer “barrier” packaging and costly, engineering plastics, is paralleled by a widespread view in industry that waste plastic recycling . will only succeed economically if it can meet the “gold from garbage” maxim. This means that systems must be able to reclaim high-value, pure resins suitable for the kind of high technology (and sometimes over-designed) applications now popular in the industry.

Indeed, this is a major challenge for plastic recycling planners. Mixed plastic recycling technologies, as described in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, offer great potential for reducing the plastic waste stream, because of the sheer volume they can absorb, and particularly since they may prove to be the only means for reus- ing co-extruded, composite, compound- ed, and other materials. However, the impact of these technologies on plastic industry raw material use patterns will be small, at least for the present.

Hence the search is on to extract from mixed plastic wastes high grade virgin resin substitutes to be looped back into productive use at the custom-molder level

of the plastics industry. Over the past five to 10 years, several European firms have focused considerable research and development in this vein.

This article presents two examples developed by Amberger Kaolinwerke GmbH Apparate und Verfahren (or AKW Equip- ment and Process Design) of West Ger- many. The first system extracts high quality polyolefin regranulate from mixed plastic wastes; the second polyethylene terephthalate (PET) recovery system, while similar to some American technologies, presents a few unique upgrading features.

Applying mineral knowl-how AKWs principal business activity is in mineral mining, processing and trade. One of its key products is kaolin, a clay- like substance used in porcelain manufacture. The 80-year-old company has long specialized in developing techniques for cleaning, separating and refining dirty and/or mixed materials, and has been selling these mineral processing technologies on the world market for 20 years.

In the past four years, AKW has transferred this mineral processing know-how to the waste plastics field. Besides the

Table 1 - Sorting center dry wastes

Population Throughput (3 shiftsp Plastics2 Polyolefins 0.25 million 22,500 tpy or 4 tph 1,500 tpy 1,000 tpy 0.5 million 46,500 tpy or 8 tph 3,100tpy 2,000 tpy 1 .O million 92,400 tpy or 15 tph 6,100 tpy 4,000 tpy 1.3 million 1 17,000 tpy or 20 tph 7,700 tpy 5,000 tpy

Throughput composition *Mixed plastic composition

Paper 46.0% PVC, PS, ABS 30-35% Glass 14.2% Polyolefins 60-6Fi0/0 Metal 6.4% Fines 1- 5% Textiles 1.9% Residuals 25.0% Plastics 6.6% Source: Guido Ropertz, “Economic Recovery of Plastics from Urban and Industrial Waste,”

I Joumal for Preparation and Processing, January 1986.

J f47 source Recycling November/December 1987

Andrb Paradis of Recuperbec lnc., Quebec, Canada and Friedrich Donhauser, former AKW manager, in front of the hydrocyclone at the AKWpilot plant in Hirschau, West Ger- many.

two technologies presented here, the firm has developed systems for recovering polypropylene (PP) from auto battery waste, and copper, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE) and aluminum from cable scrap.

One of AKWs important innovations is a process for extracting a high quality polyolefin resin from post-consumer, mixed plastic wastes supplied by West German sorting centers. The process was first developed at a pilot plant in Hirschau, and will shortly operate on an industrial scale at a plant now nearing completion in Bavaria. This latter plant is co-located with a Horstmann sorting center, also under construction for processing com- mingled recyclables, and the two will be powered by methane gas recovered from a nearby landfill. Ultimately, a waste-to- energy plant for residuals will be sited at this location as well. The AKW system and sorting center are scheduled to begin operations in early 1988.

Recycling rationale AKW division manager, Guido Ropertr, notes that plastic recycling technologies will fill a major waste management gap that has only become obvious since a large number of sorting centers have come on line in West Germany. By 1988, over 10 million people (one-fifth of the population) will receive regular separate collection of "dry wastes," that is, non-pu- trescible, mainly recyclable materials. Table 1 shows the projected dry waste composition and sorting center throughput from various population densities.

Continued on page 4 1.

,I

Resource Recycling November/December 1987

I 99

Name TicIe Company AdJrrsJ

Telephone ( )

Mat1 to Rewmrce Rrr)cling. P O Box 10510. Portland. OR 97210. (503) 227 1319

Cityfitate ZIP

d-

f i ” European plastics 1 (continued from page 19) -l

Based on the assumptions in this table, 900,000 tons of dry wastes (including 60,000 tons of mixed plastics) will be available from sorting centers in 1988. Yet Ropertz states that as late as 1985, 17,000 tons of sorting center plastics went

He notes that AKW became interested in plastic recycling because “the oil crisis, growing environmental pollution, increased dumping costs, and receding dumping capacities made us realize raw

3 material reserves are limited.” But, he . adds, the firm’s chief premise was that the system be able to recover nearly pure material economically from heterogeneous compounds on an industrial scale in order to succeed.

,

4 ‘ to landfills.

1 Polyolefin separation The AKW process starts with baled mixed plastics from sorting centers. In Western Europe, this mixture is typically 65 percent polyolefins (PE and PP), 15 percent polystyrene (PS), 10 percent polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and 5 percent other plas- ics: (The non-plastic portion of the mixture amounts to 5 percent.) The process steps are as follows:

The material is unbaled, then fed through a grinder. The mix passes a magnetic separator, then is converted to flakes in a granulator.

m Coarse mineral contaminants are

’

I

a pelletized polyethylene raw material containing a small percentage (less than 5 percent) of polypropylene. This was confirmed in recent processing tests on Massachusetts and Rhode Island municipal solid waste plastic samples shipped to AKW’s pilot plant. The product’s performance characteristics are very similar to those of virgin PE, but the color is a blend (usually beige) owing to the feedstock. While the product cannot be used to make film (e.g., plastic bags), it is suitable for injection molding.

AKW projects that this “regenerate pellet” can compete at one-half the cost of virgin resin. If it captures just one percent of market capacity in West Germany, this would yield a demand of 60,000 tons per year. Their first industrial-scale plant will produce 4,000-6,000 tons per year.

PlasPET system AKW has designed and implemented a second system for recovery of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) from soft drink containers. Since these bottles are not yet widely used in West Germany, the firm installed the first PlasPET system in a pilot plant in Gloucester, England, in collaboration with Semptol, Ltd., a PET bottle manufacturer. The steps in the process are as follows:

Whole bottles are sent through size reduction, then wet-mechanical separation to remove the HDPE and paper fractions, as well as the fines left from the granulating process. The remaining material is dried, the PET flakes in the mixture are precrys- talked, then the aluminum is removed

electrostatically. An optional chemical process is available for PVDC (polyvinylidine chloride) or saran-coated bottles, which dissol- ves the PVDC away from the PET flakes. The PET flakes are color-sorted into green, brown and clear to upgrade the value and versatilitypf the end product. The flakes are dried, extruded, pelletized and recrystallized to minimize moisture retention during storage. At 1,500-3,000 tons per year industrial

capacity, AKW also projects favorable economics for this raw material, if the recovery plant can secure sufficient quantities of post-consumer PET bottles. This has been a major problem so far at the Gloucester pilot plant, because there is no beverage container redemption system in England to guarantee supplies, and thus far reverse vending machines have not sufficed. Nevertheless, AKW is op- timistic about the future of this technology within a depositlreturn context and because of the rapid growth in PET container use worldwide.

The firm is similarly determined about plastic recycling in general. Asserts Guido Ropertz: “Future generations will either thank us for saving raw material resources or revile our crass stupidity for not taking up this challenge.” SR

For more information contact: Dr. Ing. Guido Ropertz, division manager, AKW Apparate und Verfahren, GmbH, Georg Schiffer Strasse 70, Postfach 7169, D- 8452 Hirschau, West Germany, telephone (09622) 7 83 30.

separated in a settling tank. The separated flakes-are washed in a second settling tank and sorted by a hydrocyclone into a heavy fraction (PS, PVC, and others) and a light fraction (PE and PP). (The two components of the light fraction, PE and PP, can be segregated from the rest because they have the same specific gravity). The light fraction is then dewatered, thermally dried and homogenized in a

The light fraction is extruded, pelletized, cooled and placed in silos or sacks for storage. The heavy fraction (PS, PVC, and other plastics) is dewatered and is being retained for experimentation with further

J sorting and/or manufacturing processes. One possibility is to sinter this compound under heat and pressure to form

The end product of AKWs process is

)

) mixer.

. plates or sheets.

READ RESOURCE RECYCLING, I North America’s Recycling Journal

Subscribe today

47 Resource Recyding November/December 1987

>

100

( F Sources, Plastic Lumber Market Survey

1.

2.

Industry sources: Plastic Institute of America; Soaety of the Plastics Industry; Center for Plastics Recycling Research; Plastics Research Foundation. Manufacturers of recycledmixed plastic products: Mid-Atlantic Plastic Systems; N.E.W. Plastics; Polymer Products, Inc.; Processed Plastics Co. (subsidiary of Summit Steel). Horse stalls: American Horse Council; Massachusetts Food & Agriculture Dept.; Horseman’s Yankee Pedlar Magazine; Yankee Horsetrader Magazine; Barn Yard Builders; Morton Buildings; Whitehaven Farms; Northeast Equine Supply. Park benches: M.E. OBrien & Sons, Inc.; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Purchasing Agency; Massachusetts Parks Engineer- ing and Construction; Game Time; Quality Industries; National Recreation and Parks Assn. Boat docks: International Marina Institute; American Boat & Yacht Council; Waterfront Design Associates; Atlantic Marine; Goodhue Marine; Ed Dougherty (Kingman Marina); National Marine Manufacturers Assn.; Barnegat Transportation.

f

CORRXUTIOW ( M T O U - JoMnOMMAw (617) 7234920

G: Potential Financial Incentives

JNVESTHENT ELIGIBILI TY CRITERIS

INVESTMENT IN THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES - HI TECN - - VIABLE PROWCT/SERVICE

START UP OR EARLY EXPANSION STAGE

- UNABLE TO SECURE SUFFICIENT CAPITAL FROM CONVENTIONAL SOURCES

WENT FINANCE CORP ( C O F U

MILTON BEN JAMIN, JR. (617) 742-0366

E N T U R E CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM INVESTMENT IN THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES - WST BE IN A COWUNITY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AREA

BENEFIT TO COC AREA R E S I O M T S .

FROM CONVENTIONAL SOURCES

SUCCLSS

- PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC

- UNABLE TO SECURE FINANCING

- REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF

~omrn OEVELOPHENT PROGRAM SAME ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AS ABOVE - INCLUDE SUFFICIENT ON-GOING

COC CONTROL

RESIDENTIAL, COWERCIAL AN0 INWSTRIAL PROPERTY.

- ASSIST CDC IN REVITALIZING

AK)VNT J Y E L

$100,000 - $500,000 LOAN OR EQUITY

$ 75,000 - $300,000 UP TO ONE THIRO OF TOTAL FINANCING

LOAN OR EQUITY

WT MIRE T W N $250,000 NOT MIRE T W N 20% OF PROJECT ’COSTS

LOAN OR EQUITY

3)

101

m

GRANT

IMESTHENT

JNVESTHENT ELIGIBILIT Y CRITERIA

-DEVELOPnENT

-> YILLIW FITZHENRY (617) 565-7236

AS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COIWERCE HAS DETERMINED THAT HASSACWSETTS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EOA FUNDS.

THE M O R PROGRAH WITH FUNOING AVAI LAB1 LI TY g l k u C WORKS AN0 OWELO WEN[ JACILITIES ASS I STANX - HUST CONFORH WITH OVERALL

APPROVED PROGRAH FROH IDA.

50 - 80% OF PROJECT COST EXCLUOING LAN0 ACQUISITION

3

LEVERAGE FEOERAL FUNDS - El(eELLEHCL1

MEW JONES (617) 727-7430

POLYHER SCIENCE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AT UNIVERSITY OF LOWELL AND UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AmERST. - LEVERAGE FEOERAL AN0 FUNOS - INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE.

LOANS TO THE FOLLOVING BUSINESSES - W W ' S BONO RATING LOVER 1" E M .

FROH CONVENTIONAL SOURCES -. UNABLE TO SECURE FINANCING

- cw&uBcaIKRC) YILLIM TORPEY . _ (6_17) 536-3900

$100,000 - $5,000,000 FIXE0 RATE. LONG-TERM. SUBBOROINATEO

LOANS

HEOIUH TO LONG TERM FINANCING FOR COHPANIES THAT W NOT QUALIn FOR CONVENTION4L FINANCING

AVERAGE 1985 $400,000

LOANS OR EQUITY CHUSETTS B U S I N W EN1 CORPORATION m)

KENNETH S n m (617) 350-8877

a S W L L BUS1 NESS AOHINISTRATION [SBA) POLLUTION CONTROL FlNANC16 WARANTEE PROGRAH - NEf WORTH LESS THAN $6.000.000 - - IN OPERATION 5 YRS. -

NET PROFIT LESS THAN $Z.OOO,OOO

PROFITABLE 3 OUT OF 5 YRS

ruX $5,000,000 OVER 30 YRS.

100% GUARANTEE

AOHINISTER S8A 503 PROGRAH W X l M $500,000 ruXIWM GUARANTEE I 9oz AVERAGE LOAN $175,000

WARANTEE

LOAN

HORTGAGE AOHINISTER S8A 504 PROGRAH - - NET VORTH LESS THAN $600.000 NET PROFIT LESS THAN $2.000.000 FOR LAST 2 YRS

LESSER OF 40% OF PROJECT COST OR $500,000

LOANS 8 .

9.

PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO JOB INTENSIVE PROJECTS IN AREAS OF HIGHER TK4N AVERAGE UNEHPLOYHENT

NO PUXIHUH, AVERAGE 1200.000 - $500.000

THE THRIFT FUNQ

PAUL RUPP (617) 227-0604

IWSSACHUSETTS GOVERNHENT LANQ ?A!%

KATHLEEN HOGAN (617) 727-8257

HORTGAGE FINANClNG $100,000 - $3.000.000 HORTGAGE ON PROPERTIES/PROJECTS THAT WST - BE BLIGHTEO, OECAOENT. SUBSTANOARO - BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE - HAVE COrmff(ITY SUPPORT

- BE REPLICABLE BY OTHER - L'EVERAGE AOOITIOWL FINANCING

ORGANIZATIONS

SONoMlC OEVELOPHENT SET ASIOE PROGRAH I EOSA) CRITERIA ARE: - CREATION/RETENTION OF LOW/

- C O W N I T Y NEEDS - SUBSTANTIAL WON-EOSA FUNOING - INCREASED TAX REVENUES - COMMUNITY POPULATION LESS THAN

HOOERATE INCOHE JOBS

50,000 PEOPLE - C O W N I T Y HUST APPLY

10, $ 50.000 - $500,000 LOANS OR GRANTS 25% O f PROJECT COST

W T I V E OFFICE OF C O W 1 Ty hN0 ONELO PHENT (EOQ 1

KAREN E U I R (627) 727-7001

102

11. - E l ! @ ~INANCING AGENCY rMIF4 1

BRIAN CARTY (617) 451-2477

JNVESTHENT E-ILITV C R I f E R I 4 InOVNT -1TY DEVELOPMEN T A m wx $1 .ooo.ooo GRANTS ( C M G 1 AVERAGE $450,000 PROJECTS WST - CREATE NEW EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTWITIES

RATIO

OISTRESS.

- PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT LEVERAGE

- ASSIST IN RELIEVING ECOWNIC

U U T l O N CONTROL BONG - WST BE I N A COWERICAL AREA REVITALIZATION DISTRICT (CARD)

' 12. -1s Pg!lwcl D" Pnm BUSINESS WST HAVE ON (MPE) - CLEARLY DEFINE0 PROTOTYPE/

CONCEPT SAIUEL L E I K I N - W B L E TO SECURE SUFFICIENT (617) 727-2252 CAPITAL THROW4 CONVENTIONAL

SOURCES

13. t!#SSAC-F LOSS CARRY OYER FOR NEW RNEMlEo CORPORATIONS

(617) 7274264 F I V E YEAR AIDRTIUTION OF POLLUTION CONTROL F A C I L I T l E S

EXEHPTION FROfl LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR 20 YEARS

RESEARCH AND OEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES - SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR

WCHINERY - 1% INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT - LOCAL TAX EXEHPTION ON TANGIELE PROPERlY.

UNLIMITED

TOTAL AVAILABLE 1986/87 $1.500.000

&xi LOANS

z I N W S T R I A L DEVELOPMENT BONOS LOAM GUARANTEES 100% FEDERALLY GUARANTEED TAX EXEMPT BONO.

GRANT I N EXCHANGE FOR ROYALTIES

TAX RELIEF

TAX R E L I E F

TAX RELIEF

TAX RELIEF

1 03

f" ' 7

Footnotes

1, Chem Systems, Inc, Plastics: AD 2000, Production and Use Through the Turn of the Cenhu-y, the Society of the Plastics Industry, 1987. 2. Resource Recycling, Inc., "Plastics Recycling Update," Feb-

3. Berins, Mike, "Plastics Focus," The Plastics Connection, Inc., February 1,1988. 4. Foote, Judith, Cape Cod Conservation District, personal commitnication, February, 1987. 5. Browne, Malcolm W., 'World Threat of Plastic Trash Defies Technological Solution," newspaper and date unknown. 6. Dumanoski, Dianne, "A Plastic Sea," Boston Globe, October 22, 1987. 7. Flavin, Christopher, 'The Future of Synthetic Materials: The Petroleum Connection," Worldwatch Institute, 1980. 8. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1960 to 2000, U.S. EPA, 1986. 9. Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste Management, 'Weight to Volume Measurements of Common Container Materials," internal document, May, 1987. 10. Calculation of M A DSWM.

World Energy, June, 1987, London. 12. Gever, John et al., Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1986. 13. Renner, Michael, G., "Car Crash Oil, Debt and the Future of the Automobile," World Watch, January-February, 1988. 14. , Energy Security: A Report to the President of the United States, U.S. Dept. of Energy, March, 1987, Washington, D.C. 15. See for example Wirka, Jeanne, "Plastics Packaging in the Environment: A Case Study for Source Reduction," Environ- mental Action Foundation, April 1988.

"ary, 1988.

11. I British Petroleum Statistical Reuiri. of

1 G.0

16. Resource Integration Systems, Ltd., "Market Study for Recy- clable Plastics: Background Report," Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, 1987. 17. Schedler, Mike, Bronx 2000, personal communication re: lab tests of recovered plastics, January 26,1988. 18. Pess, George, "Thermoplastics in the Postconsumer Waste Stream,'' Environmental Action Coalition, 1985. 19. Boyle, Robert H., "Forecast for Disaster," Sports Illustrated, November 11,1987. 20. Sherman, Xancy, presentation to the Rhode Island Source Reduction Task Force on behalf of the Food Service and Packag- ing Institute, January 6,1988. 21. Russell, Bob, presentation to Paode Island Source Reduction Task Force on behalf of h o c 0 Foam Products Corporation, Jan- uary 6,1988. 22. , 'TechPak," McGraw-Hill, February 1, 1988. 23. Quoted by Hinkley, Bill, Florida Department of Environ- mental Regulation, SPI Rigid Container Division meeting, March 10,1988. 24. Lampi, Ruth, Coalition for Recyclable Waste, personal com- municatibn, January, 1988. 25. Midwest Research Center, "Results of the Combustion and Emissions Research Project at the Vicon Incinerator Facility in Pittsfield, MA," New York State Energy Research and Develop- ment Authority, Albany, 1987. 26. Hirsch, Allan, U.S. EPA, written comments to FDA on environmental impacts of proposed increase in PVC food packaging, undated, received by FDA June 2,1986. 27. Plastic Waste Management Institute, Plastic Waste: Resource Recovery and Recycling in Japan, and Updated Data Addendum, Tokyo, 1985 and 1986. 28. SCS Engineers, RAS Associates, and Recon Systems, "Study of Municipal Solid Waste Quality, Composition, and Full Charac- teristics in Essex, Hudson and Union Counties," Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, 1982. 29. , "Source Separation, Feasibility Study for Wayne County Michigan,'' Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Michigan, 1981. 30. , "Islip Solid Waste Management Plan," New York; 1982. 31. , "Northeast Michigan Waste Stream Assessment," Northeast Michigan Counal of Governments, 1980. 32. University of Arizona and University of Wisconsin, "The Milwaukee Garbage Project," Solid Waste Counal of the Paper Industry, 1981.

33. Tenech Environmental Engineers, "Kent/Ottawa Resource Recovery Project," Ottawa, 1983. 34. Lavalin, "Etude sur les Dechets: Rapport de Mission," Montreal, 1984. 35. Secondary Resource Development Consultants, "Waste Sources, Quantities, and Composition in Atlantic County," 1984. 36. Klockner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH, "Recycling Zoeter-meer," Duisburg, FRG, 1985. 37. Roche et Associates, "Impact de la Collecte Selective sur le Territoire de la CUQ,'* Quebec City, Quebec, 1986. 38. Calculations by MA DWM based on Chem Systems projections* compared to industry growth rates2.3. 39. International Plastics Consultants Corporation, personal communication, February, 1988. 40. Center for Plastics Recycling Research at Rutgers, personal communication, January, 1988. 41. Milgrom, Jack, "Identifying the Nuisance Plastics," New Saentist 5Z1973. 42. Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Quebec, "Composition des Plastiques Presents dans les Ordures Munidpales de la CUQ," Quebec City, August, 1986. 43. ANRED, "Caracteristique du Marche des dechets de matieres plastique en France," France, June, 1983. 44. VanNostrand Remhold Co., "Energy in Packaging and Waste," Workingham, U.K., 1983. 45. International Plastic Consultants Corporation, "Plastic Pac- kaging Quantities Potentially Available 1987-2002," January, 1988. 46. Cunningham, Rily, Massachusetts Soft Drink Association, personal communication, January, 1987. 47. S.S.I. Schaeffer, 'Waste Collection with Separation of Domes- tic Refuse and Recyclable Waste," presentation at Pennsylvania Recycling Conference, May, 1987. 48. Schedler, Mike, Bronx 2000/R2B2, personal communication, December 1987. 49. Atchison, Anne, Naperville Area Recycling Center, personal communication, December 1987. 50. See for example Resource Integration Systems, Ltd., Statewide Market Study for Recycled Plastics, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, February, 1987. 51. , "An SPI Overview of Degradable Plastics," presented at SPI symposium, June 10,1987. 52. Andrady, Tony, of Research Triangle Institute, presentation to Suffolk County Waste Management Task Force, Stonybrook, W, January 26,1988. 53. Dukakis, Michael S., Governor, Executive Order 279, May 18, 1987. 54. , "TechPak," McGraw-Hill, various issues

106

from November, 1987 through March, 1988. 55. Berins, Mike, "Plastics Focus," The Plastics Connection, Inc.,

("*' March 14,1988. 56. Boyd, G. Mike, "Outlook for Plastics," Chemical Data, Inc., March, 1988. 57. Silver, Steve, Deer Polymers, personal communication, November, 1987. 58. Jecha, George, Allied Signal, personal communication, March

I 1988. 59. , "New Plastics Market Developing," Recy- cling Today, December, 1987.

t

7 107

Acknowledgments

This project is the first phase of a two-state effort initiated by Governor ~ Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts and Governor Edward DiPrete of Rhode Island to explore cooperative solutions to the growing problem of plastics in the solid waste stream. Research was conducted by Recuperbec, Inc., of Quebec City, Quebec, under contracts with the Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM). Editing, design and typography costs were funded by the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp. MA DSWM wishes to recognize the valued efforts of the following project team:

Andre Paradis, Recuperbec, Inc. Jennifer McLellan, Recuperbec, Inc. Bruce Johnston, Recuperbec, Inc. Marty Beck, Devtech, Inc. Derek Stephenson, Resource Integration Systems, Ltd. Clement Audet, Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Quebec Lee C. Steele, Touche Ross Gretchen Brewer, MA DSWM Julie Bender, MA DSWM Victor Bell, RI DEM Janet Keller, RI DEM

MA DSWM gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Ger- man Marshall Fund of the United %ies for sponsoring part of the European research for this study. Finally, we extend hearty thanks to the many recycling professionals, industry and government representatives, and countless others who shared information in the interests of moving towards the realization of a largescale plastics recycling industry.

.

480 PALLETS, PLASrlC

3 n

1 Figure 2. Operation of a low-level palletizer. (a ) Operation 1. Sealed shipping cases feed in and are oriented to the preprograinined pattern. When one row is formed, the cases move forward. The next row forms and moves forward, continuing until the layer IS complete and Lhe loading plate is filled. (b) Operiitioii 2. The layer is lifted to the height of the existing pallet stack. The filled loading plate moves into position just above the pallet stack. (c) Operation 3. The loading piale retracts, allowing the cases to settle, row by row onto thc top of the pallet slack. The pullet is squared by R squnring bar which also nssurcs complete unloading. The loading plate returns to starting position where another accumulated load is ready.

>

9 Depallctizing

The removal of product from piillet dcpcnds upon the con- formation of the product. Bulk depalletizers remove tiers of’ product from the pallet i n much the same manner as bulk palletizers in reverse. In one approach, the tops of the containers a rc gripped nicchanicnlly, piieumntically, or with ;I vacuum, and the tier is lifted onto a discharge table. In another, )

the tier is swept onto the discharge table. Itemoval of the tier sheet or inverted tray is as critical here a s in bulk palletization. Product stability i s a key factor in all bulk handling operations and the primary determinant of method.

Depalletization of plastic cases or crates may require modified bulk depalletizers or specialized robotic depalletizers. Plastic crates usually have a n interlocking feature which requires a tier to be lifted clear of the one below before transfer ki the discharge table, thus precluding a sweep system. Most pail deptilletixers must handle the products individually in addition to lifting clear of the pail below.

Depalletization of corrugated cases is more difficult than palletization. The flaps on the cases get caught on one another, preventing consistent sweep-off. Corrugated cases do not in- Lerlock, so clamping thc pcrimctcr c a u ~ e x the center caxex i n

thc tior to slip down. The most reliable way to remove a whole tier of corrugated cases is to use tier sheets, but the additional cost discourages wide acceptance. The next-best method is a combination clamping and vacuum system. Some automated warehousing systems remove cases from pallets one at a time i n i1 type of “order-picking” operation. Little effort is being expended today on finding better case-depalletization methods because thc shift to bulk handling has shifted research and development work in tha t direction as well.

S. D. AI.I.EI. ABC-KCM Technical Industries, Incorporated

PALLETS, EXPENDABLE C O R R U G A T E D

Corrugated board can be combined with other material:, to produce pallets for lightweight loads. Several manufacturers provide expendable pallets tha t use corrugated materials for the deck and various other products for the support structure. The deck can be supported by plastic legs, cut-down paper cores, or corrugated buildup material. All provide the features required by materials handling systems. Most expendable corrugated pallets have a load limitation of 1500 lb (680 kg). They can be custom manufactured to fit the exact dimensions of the load placed on them. Typical users include manufacturers of foam products, electrical components, and plastics.

PALLETS, PLASTIC

Plastic pallet construction began during the late 1960s when the low cost of commodity resins such as polystyrene and polyethylene encouraged scores of molders to enter this promising market. In the early 1970s, HDPE was priced at about $0.16/lb ($0.35/kg). Still in i ts infancy, the plastic pallet market was severly curtailed when prices of commodity resins more than doubled at the time of the 1973 oil embargo. A 2 : 1 price differential between wood and plastic pallets quickly became a 4 : l price disadvantage. In the United States today, plastic pallets still represent only about 1-2% of a $950 million (lo6) pallet market (1).

A number of changes taking place in the 1980s has encouraged the use of plastic pallets:

packaging is now often considered part of direct production cost instead of fixed overhead. This highlights the savings generated by reusable pallets;

,.--

.-

-I c **, \ I

PALLETS, PLASTIC 489

adoption of t he Just-In-‘I’ilnc inventory coiiccyt 12) incluti- ing rcusablc packaging, iiiventory reduction, atid higlior quality; greater use of robots and automated palletizcrs which require uniform size/weight pallets; and increased awareness and regulation of plant snnit:ition.

Typical single- and double-faced pallets are shown in Fig- ures 1 and 2.

Materials. Most plastic pallets are m;itiuf:ic.t.itt.rtl fr(itii HDPE (see Polyethylene, high density). Materials such a s polystyrcnc, bergl lass-reinforced plastics (FIW), atid polypropylene a rc used occasionally. Heavy pallet loads and unsupported pallet racking may dictatc the use of stiffer polystyrcnc (see Polystyrene).

FRP (see Thermosets) a re used for low-volunic custom pallet requirements or prototype pallets. I n this situation. low- cost wootlcti trioling is uscd witli 1.11s I i a t i d lay-itp f i l i c ~ t ~ ~ l : i s s tccliniquc. Polyropylcnc (see Polypropyletic) Iias beeti itsctl to construct structurnl fonm plnstic pnl lc ts by coiiip:inies with CSCPSS virgin or regrind ~~olypt .o~~ylc i ie . I ’ o l y ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y l c t i c is tit)(

normally \lscd in pilllet construction bec:iusc! it rcquiivs relatively cspcnsivc impact iiiotlificrs for cold-wcallict. 1 i d i ) r -

3

.>

1

1

III;1Ilce.

IJolycthylene is favorcd for a number of reasons; commodity status (ie, low cost, uniform performance, readily available, wide mxptancc) ; excellent resistance to impact; good performance under a wide range of operating conditions (ie, temperatures of -30 to 150 O F (-34 to 66’0, indoor or outdoor applications, light- to heavy-weight loading); outstanding chemical rt1sist:iiicc: to most ncids a n d bases; USDA and FDA clearanca Iiir its(’ i t 1 hod iind ptiitriniiccutical plants; c;isy clc:;ining; and outstanding iiiolriing and design flexibility.

Polycttiylene’s one glaring weakness is its inability to resist deflection (bending) under load. This deflection problem is especially serious in pallet-racking applications. Unsupported racks do not have center supports or decking. In these racks, the pallet must span an open space while maintaining the loiid. With lo : i t l s of ovcr 2000 Ib (907 kg), plastic pallets are proiic 10 tic~iditig (d(!fIectioiiJ. In addition to the i n i L i ; i l dcflcction, the plastic pallet will continue to hcnd o r creep for up to two weeks. Over t.irric, it may ticcome difficult to reenter the pallet with thc forks of a lift. Most standard pallet rack, drivc- through-rack, and gravity-flow rack is “unsupported.”

In situations where heavyweight racking is a must, steel- rcinforced plastic or stiffer polystyrene (PSI a re frequently used. Steel reinforcements add expense, and compared to IiDl’E, 1’s ~ I J S ~ S inure urid olrcrs less chcmicnl and impact resistance. One solution to the racking problem is i n the design of rackable pallets. Two-w:!y-entry pallets can rack over 3000 Ib (1360 kg) in an unsupported rack (see Fig 3) . Experimental plastic resins are also being tried in a n attempt to solve the racking d i 1 c” ma.

Pallet design and the method +f construction greatly ini!aence pallet performance, price, and acceptance. Today plastic pallcts are designed and built using several difrerent processing techniques (see ‘Fable 1 ).

Struotrircd fimm nioltlirrg. Most plastic pallets made today :w(! 1ii;ido hy str.uctur:ii fiJ:lm moltiinc. (3,4) This low pressure itijcctioii inoltling process produces parts with :I solid skin sur- imunding a foamed core. Comparcd to high-pressure injection tnoldiiig, structural lijani molding allows the economic production of‘ heiivy wall sections and helps reduce stress points throughout the pallct. T h e structural foam process provides outstanding design flexibility. Wall thickness of 3/16 to 3/4

’

Design and construction.

Figure 2. Typical double-lhced plastic pallct.

. ," 490 PALLETS, PLASTIC

3

in. can he molded to proditcc p:illcts r:inging from liglitweight. single-faced units to super-duty rxki t ig pallets. Anotlier bcnc- fit i s high-speed production, with cycle times as low as 2-3 minutes. Good resistance to impact, high strength per pound (kilogram), and good dcflcction strength ;!i'e : i l l positive characteristics tha t make structural foam a good choice I b r large scale production of both custom ant1 proprietary pillcts. 'I'ho chief limitation of structural foam is that relatively high volume (3000 total units minimum) is required to amortize the relatively high tooling cost. Whcn rompnrcd to tiigli-i):wsui.e injection niolding, the tooling 1'01. structural fixiin may lie less costly. Most low-pressure foam tools may be built from nin- chined aluminum or Kirksite, which reduces tooling costs by up to 50'.';-. \Vlicn structural h i m tools :ir(s hiti l t I'roni S L ( Y ~ ~ , t h - cost s : i v i i i p :ire ncgl igi blc.

l ~ ~ , y ( ~ / / o n trio/(/ iug. I1igtiq)r~~ssritv i i 1 j t S c . l i ( i i r i i i i i l ( l i i i k : (si-i, 1 1 1 -

j c x - t i o i r iiit)itiing\. : i~so ot~itrs t1 tas i j : i i i \ t > s i \ > i \ i t y . II is iistvl tiir t \ i ( . production of' pallets tha t range f'rom very ligli twcbiglit tlisposii- bles to heavy-duty 60-lb (27-kg) rcusables. Injection mol~led parts generally have narrower wall sections than structural foam. c 0.300 in. ( 5 7.62 mm). and rely on their rih design fill.

structurnl integrity (5). Injection molding csccls in liglitweight large-volume production. Cycle times for 118 in. ( 3 . 2 m m ) injection-molded pallets c;in bc untlei. oiic niinutc. lleavy- duty parts with wall sections 2 118 in. (3.2 mml offkr high strength and excellent durability. Uecause high molding pressures require expensive equipment and hardened-steel tooling, high-volume production runs ir 10,000) :ire generally required to amortize tooling and press costs.

Rotufional rrzoldiiig. Rotational molding ( 3 ) (see Itotntional molding) uses a heated tool into which solid or liquid polynrcr is placed. This process offers the most economical tooling costs. Myriad sizes and designs of relatively low-qunntitv (1000- 2000 units) ciiti 1~ ccoiiotiiic:illy j w t i l i o t l . I )(,sicti i i i i i o v : i t i i i i t ,

including the molding of steel-ciic;ipsiil;itccl, siiiootli-slciiiti(!(l

pallets is a feature of rotational nioldirig. Rotation;illy tnoldcd p:irts ofTcr good rcsistaiice to h i u n t itiip;ict x i i d t l i c b txy) i i i r 01 ' small puncturc d ~ i i i a g c is possible. Its t lrawlxrcks iiicludt. rclir- tively long cycle times (as high :is f in : min) ant1 relatively narrow 3/1G-in. (4.8-nim) wall thickness, (6) liiniting iwtLition- ally nioldcd p:illets to medium-dutv q)pIicaticliis. Soriiu iwta- tioilally molded designs can acconiodate the additioii 01' steel reinforcement for heavier loads and pallet racking operations.

1

1)

3

3

j

,, f ~ ~ ( ~ t ' ~ / / f J / i J / ' ~ t f ~ / l ~ r . ' I ' ~ l ~ ~ l ~ l ~ J f ~ l ~ l ~ l ~ d I)l:lStiC pal lets (SCC Ther- moforming) a re offered in dozens of low-cost lightweight designs. Inexpensive tooling allows faster amortization of low- volume custom pallets. For example, custom reusable dunnage trays a re often thermoformed. Thermoforming too, hiis its disac1v~rnt:igcs. W'ith cycle times averaging five min- u t v s ( 6 ) , high-volume projects :ire sometimes impractical. I r i

dd i t i on , relatively narrow wall thickncsscs limit these pallets to lighter loads, usually under 3000 Ib (1360 kg!. They are not often found in heavy-duty racking applications. Twin- sheet vacuum forming allows heavier loads with reduced de- fleclion, but it lengthens cycle times and adds cost.

R e c d i v r i irljccliori n i o f d i t i g ( R I M ) . RIM polyurethane pallets a re starting to enter the market now. RIM utilizes two or i i i o r c l iquid cotitpoii(:nts (poly01 itntl isocy:in;rtcJ which ;ire

iiiixcd, t l i c i i iii,jectctl inLo :i cioscd inold. 'I'liese two components react to form a finished polymer taking on the shape of the tool. The chief advantages of RIM are lower cost equipment and tooling especially in building large parts such as pallets. 'I'tic chief disadvantage of RIM pallets is the lower resistance to deflection. For this reason, many large RIM parts are steel reinforced or manuf'actured with fiberglass or mineral fillers. These stiffening techniques add cost.

Plastic pallets are used primarily i n the food. I)Ii:iritiaccuticnl, textile, high-tcchnology, and .iutomotive industries. I)ue to the higher cost ( J f plastic pallets, most pur- chasers use their pallets in-plant, or in a closed-loop shipping system. Plastic pallets are almost always found in applications where the user can retrieve most of the pallets after each trip.

Pl;istic Ixillets of all types offer certain generic advantages which m:ikc! them attractive alternatives to other pallet materials. Listcd helow are snine of the plastic pallet's chief benefits.

/ A J / f K / J I / / / v / / i / i * . Tlic rclntivcly cxpcnsivc plastic pallc~ m u s t iil'1i.r : I 1i)iig scsrv iw lilb, Miiny cristoniors c:xpcric:ncc plastic l ) ; i l l ( ~ l l i l i . r i l ' f i v c s

/ i c~ tLlrc . c , e / /ocicl (/futu/zc. Sii~ootlr tiioldctl plastic hclps eliminate pIYJdUct damage. There are no broken boards or pro- truding nails to damage sensitive loads ( 7 ~ . Ecisy clennup. Plastic pallets are easy to clean and keep clean (8 ) . lJSUA c ~ r i t l FDA cleurarice. Both polyethylene and polysty- rctie arc! acceptable in food and pharmaceutical plants. Pal- lets made from these materials can be approved on a case by case basis by the on-site inspectors. Reduced worker injury. Smooth construction and consistent weights help to eliminate minor cuts and back strain (7). C i i c ~ ~ i i ~ d l y inert. Polyethylene plastic pallets are highly resistant to acids and bases, and a t ambient temperatures, hydrocarbon solvents. Mois t i~re proof. Plastic pallets will not absorb moisture and soak l(JallS. Plastic pallets will not rust or brcak down i n wc!l coiiditioiis (8 ) .

NO Iicithrir fbr pests. I'lastic pallets will not hwhor or sup- I ) o i t thc, gro:svth of worms, eggs, mold: or r i i i l ~ j ~ ; ~ ~ .

ih,sig ri (rr/iicitt/(igc*.s o/'plaslic* j ~ d l ~ k mi L include.

Advantages.

i i i i i c yt:;irs ;rnd mor(: ( 7 ) .

nwtubility (single-faced pallets can nest with each other w f ~ c ~ r i itnlo;idcd). This feature can save over 50% of valu- ; i I ) l ( ! triick or d o c k space; and interslacking ( the ability to positively locate one !oaded pallot on Lop of another loacicd pallet).

Tuhle 1. Plastic 1’:tllcts. I’rotluctiori .\lctliocls _- ____-_____-___--

Plastic p:illets Molding proce:. I’l;iaiic pellets advani;iges d i , w d v a n t a ~ e ~ lrfeal pallet application Secondiii-y application.+ Tac,ling o p h n s Average cycle \Val1 thickness

struciuraI-fo;:m molding

injection molding

rotational molding

ecimiJr,:c prt)duction oi hwi : y *.valI sect ims

short c:;cle times good impact resistance good deflection strength high sirength per pound

good weighr and

high wst tooling ; int i

prctces%irac i’tiu ipnien t

(kilogram]

dimensional tolerance allows complex shapes

flexible process allows production of light weight disposable as well 25 heavy duty returnable pallets: allows comples georxtry

highest tooling cost highest equipment costs high energy costs

low equip)ment cost low tooling cost

production of double walled parts

vacuum forming low c o s equipment Inw c o s rooling

react ion-i nject ion molding

lighter weight tooling and equipment costs less than injection molding processes

nlloivs complex designs lo\ver pressures and

temperatures afford significant savings (70‘; 1 over injection-molding processes

relatively long cycle times

limited weight and dimensional stabilit:;

limited to simpler design (geometry1

relatively long cycle times

limited wall thickness limited depth of draw limited design complesity

limited deflection strength

slightly longer cycle times than injection-molding processes

limited dimensional stability

larce voluinc* cu.-toni t)r proprietary pnllr~. . with runs of 1000 pallets or more

minimum custom order quantity 3000 units

largest voliinie custom and proprietary pallets

low volume production of large pallets

custom pallet projects of 1000 units or more are feasible

h v e r volume. low cost, 1 i p ht wei g h t pa 1 lets

pallet projects of 300 units and above are feasible

lighter duty custom and proprietary pallets

pallet projects of 1000 units and above should be justifiable

m;rnuf‘;ic.ture of heavy duty racking pnllets is possible by using filled polyethylene pallets or polystyrene

wall thicknesses of up to 1 in. (2.54 cml can be used when necessary

lightweight disposable pallets can be inespensively produced by keeping wall sections narro\v and cycle t imes short; heavy duty racking pallets can be manufactured by using heavier wall sections and a well i n t e g a t e d rib design

duty racking pallet is possible by ecapsulating steel reinforcements into the pallets

heavier loads up to 3000 Ib (1361 kgl can be accomodateii by using twin sheet vacuum forming

vacuum-formed pallets are not generally used for heavy duty racking applications

fiberglass-reinforced react ion inject ion molding is used to increase deflection strength for heavier applications

steel reinforceinents can be encapsulated for additional strength

manufacture of heavy

Kirl:site 2-4 min aluminum .=tee1

hardened steel 30 s to 3 min

casr aluminum 3-6 min izbricated

mela1 plated nickel

nietsl plaster epasy \V&d

3-6 min

1 i ghht weig h t steel

aluminuni Kirksite sprayed niet:rl

2-4 min

?x-% in. (0.8-9.5 mm t -

lh-2.0 in. (3.2-51 mnil

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

US. Industrial Outlook, United States 1)epartment of Com- merce, Jan. 1984. J . M. Callnhan, “Just-In-Time A Winner,” Au/oi~~otiuc! Inctiistries dfuognziite, 65(3), 78 (March 1985). Modcrrr Plastics Encyclopedia, 1983-1984 cd., McGraw-Hill Pub- liriitioiis Co., New York, N.Y. “Wlint’s Available in Plastics?”, Wnrc~/rorr.sc~ Suprruisor’s llrclli~lirc, Nnt ioiial Foreman’s Institute, Waterford, Conn., J u n e 25, 1984. “Pnllets Take Off in All Directions,” i\foc/cril PIu:;/ic Mtrg“rirrv. (i4-66 (hlnrcli 1971). “t;itting t’lnstic Pallets to the Job,” ).‘/aslic- Uesigti lg’oriirii, %:J), 57 thlnyiJune 1984). R. F. ICllis, “Plnstic Pallets Eliiiiiniilc I’rotluct 1hiii;igc i i i Stor- npr.“ A f o t k * r . r r Ma/cvYnls Ilntrtlliirg M t i g ( ~ ~ i i ~ i ~ . 39(8). 87 r,J uiie 8, 1!)84). “Molded Plastic Pallets Solve Odor Transfer Prohlein,”Fotitl Pro- ci,ssf’/tAr h f C g f J Z i l I C ‘ , 46(3), 108 (hlarch 1985).

L. T. Lulil.

bIenasIiatorporation

PALLETS, WOOD

A pallet is a fabricated platform used as a base for assem- bling, storing, handling, and transporting materials and products in a unit load. A pallet container, or bin pallet, is a pallet having a superstructure of at least two sides (fixed, removable, or collapsible), with or without a lid (1 ) . Pallets and containers are constructed of a variety of structural forms of wood, metals. plastics (see Pallets, plastic), paperboard (see Pallets, expendable corrugated), and various conibin:itions of tlicse materials ,

I’nllcts were introduced ns a inaterials hnndling tool i i i t h c 1930s n f t c v t tic forklift truck nianufiicturcrs drvclopetl sniall highly maneuverable lift trucks unci hand-jacks (2) . Wooden p:iI Icits w c w ~ t i n t riuploycd on ;I largv sc;ilct during World W:ir I1 by thc military services. ‘I’hcv purch:ised inore th:in 50 million ( loii) pnllets froin 1941 to 1945, and annual production increased from 11 to 32 million ( loG).

I n 1946, the food-processing industry, together with trans- portat inn conipmics, terniiii;il wai.(~l iowc (wiil):ini(~s, m i d the pallet-tnanufacturing industry, recominendcd t,he adoption of 40 1 32 i n . aiid 40 X 48 in . pallct sizes. ‘I‘hese recomnirntla- tions were incorporated in the Department of Commerce Sim- plified Practice Recommendation No. R228-47, “Pallets for the Handling of Groceries and Packaged Merchandise.”

111 1947, the National Wooden I-’allet Manufiicturcrs’ Asso- ciation was formed as a part-time division 01’ the National Wooden Box Association, and i ts first set of specifications was issued in 1949. The first Federal specification for pallets was issued in 1947, and bv 1952, there \ v c r ~ ;it Ic;ist, three nii1it:iry sp iy ihx t ions i n force.

Lhiriiig tlic pcriod from 1952 to l!)(i5, p i l l v t prodiictioii vx- pnndcd from 33 million (lo(;) to 88 million per yc:ir. ‘l’he Na- t iona 1 Wooden I’al let Man 11 fac tu rcrs’ Association ( N W I’M A ) scp:ir:i!cd froin the National Wooden I h x Associatioii i n 1953. ‘l’hc N\\’I’klA published new spccilications Ibr Iiiirdwootl pallets aiid for pallets produced from West Coast woods in 1962. The scope of the association was expanded to include wooden containers, and the name was changed to National Wooden

The first industry pallet pool in the United States was formed in 1945 in the brick industry, and a national interindustry pool was started in Sweden in 1947 (3). By 1962, 13 national interindustry pallet pools were in operation in Eu- rope, and 10 company-operated national pools were in existence in the United States. Intercompany pallet pools have operated primarily within groups of related industries,since the c d y 1‘360s in the United States. These pools are labeled as pallet-exchange or pallet-interchange pools to denote the transfer of ownership of the pallets when the ownership of the goods on thc pallet is transferred. The pallet-exchange pool operating among firms in the food and rclatcd industries is variously labeled a s the “food pallet pool” or the “GMA pool” initiated by firms within the Grocery Manufacturers of Amer- ica (GMA).

After 1965, rcscarch focused on solving problems of equal- ity of value and quality of pallets exchanged in pool operations of the food industry. A procedure for estimating the strength of wooden pallet deckboards was published in 1959 (4). Proce- dures for estimating strength and stiffness of deckboards and stringers under a variety of load and support conditions were published in 1976 (5). These procedures were developed as a computer program in 1978 (6). The William H. Sardo, Jr., Pal- let and Container Research Laboratory was established on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at Blacksburg, Va., in 1976.

In 1984, the NWPCA copyrighted an improved computer- ized standard design procedure developed cooperatively by NWPCA, the Pallet and Container Research Laboratory, and the U.S. Forest Service, entitled, “Pallet Design System’! (7). For location and purpose of principal research laboratories, see Table 1.

Standards and specifications

A list ol‘U.S. pallet standards is contained in ’I’ahlc 2. ‘I’hc American Society of Mechanical Engineers in conjunction with the Americm National Standards Institutr! has published standards on pallet definitions and terminology, pallet

‘l’:iI~le I . Principal I’allct Rewnrch 1,aboretorics

1 Iiriovr.sr/rc*s Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg,

Va. conducts research into engineering design characteristics of pallets, pallet materials, and pallet fasteners

Utcilcct Slates Gouernmetil United States I>epnrtment of Agricullurc, Forest Service Northciistcln Forest ISsperinicnt Stiition Vorcsslry Sciciiccs LiIIiorntory l’rinceton. W.V. .

coiiducts research on supply and demand for pallets and pallet m:itt-ri:ils

1 J i i i t t d S1.iiti.s I ) e p : i ~ h i ~ n t of I)dbiisc, I k p : i r t i w n t ~ l ‘ l h c A r m y h.lol)ility Equipment Ilesearch and Development Command

, F ~ r t fhlvoir . Va. conducts research and testing and publishes specificitlions fix 1)OI) piillets Pallet and Container Association (NWPCA) in 1967.

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Plastics Recycling Action Plan - P2 InfoHouse · packaging to computers -- carries with it the...

Documents