The Blueprint for Plastics Recycling

blueprint n 1: a photographic print in white on a bright blue background used esp. for copying maps, mechanical drawings, and architects’ plans 2: a program of action [a blueprint for victory]

- Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

T

i

,

7

t i

..........

-. .. .

..

--..I__ _ _ ............

..... i _I__

1. Introduction --

1.1 Introduction to the Council for Solid Waste Solutions

By the late 1980s, many communities across the United States were grappling with a relatively new problem: how to dispose of their garbage. Landfills long taken for granted were filling up just as public opposition to new landfills was gaining momentum. Effective waste management alternatives were needed-and fast.

Solutions was formed by major resin- producing companies to ensure the reuse or safe disposal of plastics. At the core of the Council’s mission was the four-part waste management hierarchy put forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

In 1988, the Council for Solid Waste

0 Reduce the amount of waste produced in the first place.

Recycle what you can. 0 Convert to energy what can be safely

burned. 0 Landfill only what cannot be safely

disposed of by any other means.

Each element in this hierarchy would be addressed by Council technical research. However, recycling was cleariy the greatest imperative. The Council needed a plan of action-a blueprint for an economically viable and sustainable system of increased plastics recycling in America.

This document will present the Council for Solid Waste Solutions’ Blueprint for Plastics Recycling-the issues addressed and the many Council programs designed to make plastics one of the most recycled materials by the year 2000.

1.2 Introduction to Plastics Recycling

Plastics are inherently recyclable. In fact, manufacturers have been recycling in-house scrap plastics since the industry began in the early part of this century. The challenge now facing the Council for Solid Waste Solutions is developing an efficient method of recycling the plastics that have already left the manufacturing plant and have served their intended use at the consumer level.

Getting these plastics out of the waste stream and back into the manufacturing process requires a recycling in.astwctwe. Just as an infrastructure of roads, bridges and tunnels will get you and your car from Los Angeles to New York, a recycling infrastructure will get used plastics from the consumer to the maker of a new plastic product.

recyclable material-consists of four __ major coriponeiits;

Collection: Rather than being thrown away after serving their initial purpose, plastics are collected for recycling.

This infrastructure-for any

__

0 HandZiuJ: Plastics from collection programs are sorted to increase quality and compacted to reduce shipping costs.

4

0 Reclamation: Plastics are cleaned and converted to flakes or pellets, or in some cases, end products. End-Use: A pellet or end product is marketed.

Each of these functions is generally carried out by an individual organization, municipality or business, yet all are interdependent. Collection programs must deliver plastics in a form consistent with the handler’s processing capabilities. The handler’s processed plastics have to meet the specifications of the reclaimer. And the reclaimer’s flakes, pellets or end products must meet the quality and performance standards of the end-user.

Each step in the recycling process is also linked economically. Collection programs sell their plastics to handlers, who in turn sell them to reclaimers. The profit margin for all depends upon the price the reclaimer is able to get from the end-user-and the entire chain will break down unless recycling is profitable at each step.

are, in the long term, constrained by the market prices of virgin plastics. Although PET-the plastic used in soft drink bottles-presently has the highest value per ton of any recyclable material save aluminum, many high- volume plastics are inexpensive com- modities. Thergwe, maximizinzg operat- inzg eficiency is critical to the profitability of plastics recyclinzg and is a primary focus of the Council3 Blueprint.

The prices paid for recycled plastics

1.3 Introduction to the Blueprint for Plastics Recycling

Developing an expanded recycling infrastructure is very much like the old “chicken and the egg” conundrum. Which part of the infrastructure comes first? Collection? Handling? Reclamation? End-use?

Because of the economic inter- dependence of each stage of plastics recycling, they must all come first. The Council’s Blueprint for Plastics Recycling is therefore designed to help all aspects of the infrastructure develop at the same time.

Already, small-scale infrastructures for recycling plastics are operating successfully around the country- employing a wide variety of technol- ogies and methods. Some of these systems are more efficient than others and all have had to go through a period of trial and error. In many cases, plastics recycling has been an add-on to preexisting recycling systems designed for other materials.

It has been a learn-as-you-go adventure.

In preparing its Blueprint for Plastics Recycling, the Council spent a full year analyzing the existing plastics recycling infrastructure. As a result, the Council knows what does and does not work, and what barriers in the system need to be resolved to make it an economically driven process.*

~

*The Blueprint for Plastics Recycling focuses primarily on the recovery of packaging materials, the current focus of most multi- material recycling efforts. The Council believes that recycling durable items (appliances, cars, etc.) will soon become a priority and has established a Durables Program to address that issue, as well.

Six individual resins-types of plastic-make up the vast majority of plastics found in the average American household. These resins can be identified by recyclers because of a numbered coding system- developed by The Society of the Plastics Industry, 1nc.-which appears on the bottom of many containers. This system is currently mandated by law in 27 states.

PETE HDPE V

LOPE PP PS

OTHER

5 -

The Blueprint has eliminated the trial and error that marked earlier plastics recycling efforts. It was designed to be the source of informa- tion on all aspects of the plastics recycling process. As such, the Blueprint is very much like an architectural plan, mapping out the elements of a success- ful infrastructure for plastics recycling.

But the Blueprint is also a plan for action. There remain barriers to be broken down in achieving greater cost- efficiency in plastics recycling. The Council and its member companies have committed millions of dollars in technical research to breaking through those barriers.

The Council also recognizes that Blueprint information is only valuable if it can be put to use. A wide variety of information transfer and demon- stration programs are now under way to get the right information into the hands of the people who can best apply it.

1.4 How to Use This Document

A full documentation of the Council for Solid Waste Solutions’ Blueprint for Plastics Recycling would be both unwieldy and complex. Instead, this document offers a brief summary of the Blueprint resources available and the Council programs under way at each individual stage of the recycling process-collection, handling, reclamation and end-use. Each chapter reviews the issues explored, the answers found, and the Couficil actions taken to support the growth of that stage of plastics recycling.

Collection P. 9

End-Use p. 33

Handling p. 17 Reclamation p. 27

Conclusion p. 39

__

Overview-A discussion of the technical and procedural issues presented by that segment of the plastics recycling infrastructure. This section will also define the Blueprint goals for that portion of the infrastructure .

Blueprint Research-This sec- tion will identifl the Blueprint research programs targeting the given infra- structure segment, listing individual research objectives.

Research Summaries-These summaries, divided by research objective, provide a more detailed review of research findings and the action taken bv the Council to incorporate those findings into the Blueprint effort.

The four chapters are organized as follows :

6

The goal of the Blueprint for reclaimers is to identlfy the state of the art in plastics reclamation, evaluate the need for action to expand existing reclamation capacity and identify markets for handlers and communities.

Does pelletizing, as opposed to granulating, add

flakes are the form in which plastic feedstocks are sold-be they virgin or government purchasing market, the resins) Council held a series of government/ %e %don 4.3, 28.

plastic products is called reclamatio~w Unlike collection and handling, the reclamation process requires little if my adjwtment for post-consumer vs, industrial scrap plastics.

What geographic range can be covered by a single

The day-long brought together representatives of the plastics

officials and purchasing agents for individual state agencies. The

State redmation ficfiity? %e Section 4.3, p. 28.

the reclaimers may simply grind those reclaiming plastics for recycling in

Identifying the areas where plastics reclamation capacity exists has the related effect of identifying areas where

Other reclaimers clean incoming plastics-usually by washing them- then convert them into either flakes or pellets. Pellets are made by melting

thin strands that are chopped into the plastic down and extmding it into

small, uniform pieces. Pellets and plastics reclamation capacity is lacking.

its menlber comoanies to find of The council is currently working with

bringing neededreclamation faciiities to underserved areas.

Demonstration Workshops/ Information Publications Informational 1-800 Programs Seminars Transfer Materials Information Line

2. Collection The Council’s Blueprint for collection establishes general pdelines for the successful collection of plastics based on exwrience and emerging technologies. I v u

2.1 Overview

At its simplest, collection is the process by which recyclable materials are diverted from the general waste stream and delivered to a processing facility, or handler. Communities may offer this service as a means of either avoiding tipping fees for waste disposal, relieving overburdened disposal facilities, or conserving natural resources.

The three most common forms of collection are:

Curbside collection: Consumers place designated recyclables at the curb- usually in a special container-for collection separate from non- recyclable waste. Curbside collection enables consumers to set aside several different recyclable materials from their regular waste with relatively little effort. Drop-ofcenters: Consumers bring recyclables to a centrally located depot that does not provide payment for materials delivered. Collection at a drop-off center requires more consumer effort, most notably travel time, but is an effective option in communities where curbside collection is not feasible or is not yet well developed. Buyback centers: These centers pay consumers on the basis of the weight or volume of recyclables delivered to a centrally located depot.

No matter what the collection method employed, certain considerations are critical to any program’s success, including:

How are recyclable materials prepared for collection? What types of equipment-from collection bins to trucks-are used? How are non-recyclable materials kept out of the collection system? What costs are involved?

The answers to these questions vary from one collection program to the next. Although recycling is increasingly the subject of national policy debate, recycling programs have traditionally been implemented in response to local waste management needs. Even states mandating recycling have left program design, and most often funding, to local governments. As a result, a wide variety of collection programs-using a wide variety of equipment, methods, and costs-are currently employed around the country.

>

What kind of pro- motional support does a plastics

collection program need to succeed? See Section 2.6, p. 14.

Should recyclable - materials be col- lected in individual -

set-out containers or one larger container? See - Section 2.3, p. 11. -

HOW n an CO-U- This variety posed a significant challenge to the Council for Solid Waste Solutions’ efforts to create a blueprint for plastics recycling. A blueprint requires a certain amount of standardization to be usehl to a potential builder. The Council’s Blueprint research and technical programs were developed to identify general guidelines for the successful collection of plastics-guidelines based on a combination of experience and developing technology.

determine which couection

methods and equipment

See Section 2.4, p. 13. work best for

2.2 Blueprint Collection Research

A. Collection Method Profiles-This study was designed to survey the existing auniversen of plastics collection programs across the country.

Research objectives:

Based on an extensive survey of recycling collection programs, identify representative programs- encompassing a broad range of critical design features-to be studied for efficiency and overall perform- ance. This analysis would enable the Council to identify collection program elements that contribute to the successful recovery of plastics for recycling. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 2.3, p. 11 .)

Evaluate the existing computer software packages designed to help municipal recycling coordinators

for their communities. The most promising software could then be modified as necessary and made available through the Council to a wide audience. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 2.4, p. 13.)

~

create optimal collection programs .___

B. Densification Options for the Collection of Recyclable Plastics- Plastic containers offer high volume at low weight, making them popular with both product manufacturers and consumers. But this also means plastics take up a good deal of space on a recycling collection truck. This report provides a review and analysis of the preliminary technology available to compact plastics during collection.

Research objective:

Identify and evaluate all available and developing plastics compaction technology in order to determine its effectiveness in increasing collection efficiency. Results of this research and relevant plastics industry expertise would be shared with equipment manufacturers to overcome remaining technical barriers. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 2.5, p. 14.)

10

C. Consumer Education Strategies- A collection program will only succeed if consumers understand how to participate correctly. This research was undertaken to identify the most effective means of educating consumers on preparing plastics for collection.

Research objective:

0 Use telephone surveys and focus groups to identify the promotional materials and educational messages that help consumers understand which plastics are being collected in their community and how to prepare those plastics for collection. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 2.6, p. 14.)

2.3 Benchmark Collection Studies

To better understand how plastics fit into the uuniverse” of existing recycling collection programs, the Council gathered basic information on nearly 1,500 programs. From this list, the Council selected 26 representative programs collecting at least one type of plastic for intensive study- 19 featuring curbside collection of recyclables, 4 using drop-offs and 3 offering buybacks.

The 26 targeted programs were chosen to reflect a number of critical variables, including:

A variety of geographic locales. Programs in both large and small communities. A cross section of collection tech- niques and methodologies.

The Council gathered as much specific operational, recovery and financial data as possible from each program. The performance of the selected programs was then compared - - - - - with benchmark criteria for efficient and effective plastics collection. Using this analysis, the Council has identified the collection program elements that contribute to successhl plastics collection, including:

A weekly multi-material curbside collection, including the widest possible range of plastics, provides the best results. Collecting recycla- bles on the same day as the regular garbage is set out also appears to have a favorable impact. Mandatory, as opposed to voluntary, participation programs increase the volume of materials collected. Promotional materials clearly explaining which plastics are and are not currently being collected improve the quality of plastics collected.

The use of a household set-out container, specifically intended for recyclables, boosts participation. The Council’s research found that certain types of containers appear to be more effective than others:

Larger set-out containers permit the collection of a larger volume of recyclables. One large container holding mixed recyclables is more effective than several smaller containers, each holding a specific material. Among rigid set-out containers, box- shaped containers are preferable to round containers.

The Council selected representative collection programs to find the most efficient and effective methods and technologies for collecting plastics. This information has been incorporated into demon- stration programs, a com- prehensive collection manual, and intensive

recycling coordinators. seminars for municipal -

-

11 -

A wide variety of collection trucks are currently employed in recycling collection programs. The Council found that trucks with the following specifications are most efficient:

0 Larger, specially designed recycling vehicles permit more-efficient collection than trucks designed for some other purpose.

hydraulic loading systems appear to be the most efficient.

One-person collection crews are most cost-effective. Right- and left-hand stand-up drive, with easy access to the driver’s position, makes collection possible from both sides of the street.

0 Trucks that can be loaded from either side also facilitate efficient collection.

0 Trucks featuring over-the-top,

The Municipalities Program: Hennepin County, M N

n November 1990, Hennepin County-which includes the city of Minneapolis-completed a groundbreaking I series of plastics collection pilot projects supported by

the Council’s Municipalities Program. The results of these pilots-serving nearly 28,000 households-clearly demonstrated the economic and technical feasibility of plastics recycling and paved the way for making plastics a permanent and growing part of the county’s recycling collection effort.

The pilot programs sponsored by the Council demonstrated that the incremental cost of adding all plastic bottles to the existing collection program ranged from 19C to 286 per household per month, which includes all additional capital and operating costs. Based on this data, a decision was made to mandate collection of all plastic bottles countywide. Expanding the program to collect all rigid plastic containers would divert 6.4 million pounds of plastics per year from the county’s waste stream. The city of Minneapolis has stated its intent to expand collection in the spring of 1991 to include all rigid plastic containers.

~

The Council field-tested several of the equipment and procedural options H identified by the benchmark

research through its Municipalities Program. This program shares new collection and recycling technologies with communities looking for help in collecting plastics for recycling and puts information gathered through the Blueprint Program to the test. By closely monitoring these collection programs, the Council is able to fine- tune the Blueprint for use in other communities.

-~ 1111’1‘

___

Based on the findings of the Council’s benchmark research and Municipalities Program projects, the

Council recently compiled a compre- hensive manual, Hmv to Implement a Plastics Recyclind PrHram, featuring the latest information for designing a plastics recycling program. Topics covered in this text include:

0 Identifying different kinds of plastic

Estimating the weight and volume

0 Locating markets for collected

0 Designing a program to collect

Selecting appropriate equipment for

Storing, baling and shipping plastics

materials for recycling.

available for collection.

plastics.

plastics.

plastics collection.

fer recycling. Promoting a plastics recycling program.

The Council stron.ly recommends the implementation of multi-material collectwn prodrams that include plastics from the oatset. However, this manual also

12

provides step-by-step instructions on adding plastics to existing collection programs in a cost-effective manner.

The Council has developed a half-day workshop to acquaint municipal recy- cling coordinators with the

information ccntained in How to Implement a Plastics Recycling ProJram. The workshop program incorporates presentations by recyclers, municipal coordinators and plastics specialists, and features case studies on new collection technologies, the changing specifications and prices in post- consumer plastics markets, and the current trends in reclamation technol- ogies. The workshop is presented in an audience-interactive format that encourages municipal recycling coor- dinators to share information and experiences.

2.4 Collection Software Evaluation

Several computer software packages on the market are intended to help municipal waste management officials calculate their costs and design the best recycling collection program for their community. The geographic, demographic and waste composition patterns of a given community are compared to available collection options to create model collection systems that will be effective for that community.

The Council analyzed three of the leading computer programs to determine their accuracy in predicting the costs and effectiveness of collection programs including plastics.

Software characteristics evaluated in this study include:

Ease ofuse. Flexibility of program/ability to process a variety of scenarios.

Accuracy of program predictions compared to existing recycling operations. Accuracy in predicting the cost impact of adding one or more types of plastics to existing collection programs.

None of the software packages tested * was considered ideal in all circum-

stances. The lack of flexibility of these programs-that is, their inability to adapt to the range of variables that must be considered in designing effective plastics collection systems-was the primary source of concern.

A software package devel- oped by Eastman Chemical Co. was determined to be the most promising of

those studied. The Council is now working with the s o h a r e designers to increase the program’s flexibility and subsequently the accuracy of its results.

A software package capable of incorporating a wide number of variables is, inevitably, somewhat diffi-

cult to use. A keen familiarity with the intricacies of the package is essential to properly analyze the results. The Council is therefore providing to communities the services of program operators knowledgeable in recycling who will ensure that accurate input provides accurate output.

To make the best use of this service, recycling coordinators will be asked KO provide detailed information regarding their communities’ waste stream and collection needs. This information can then be loaded into the software program by a staff member of the Council, who will work with the local coordinator to interpret the results.

Several software packages have been introduced to help design and predict the costs of collection pro- grams. The Council has identified the software most accurate in predicting the impact of plastics on a collection program and is now working to improve the software and make it available to communities.

13

The Council has studied all available plastics densifica- tion technology and is working with equipment manufacturers to overcome remaining technical barriers.

The Council's research indicates that in order for on-board densification to improve the collection efEciency of post-consumer plastics, the equipment must:

Have a hopper large enough to handle the peak amount of plastics that could be set out by a given household.

Allow for compaction in transit to minimize time required per stop.

tion ratios of at least 9:l. Achieve volume reduc-

The compactors studied, as a group, achieved significantly greater volume reduction (between 10 and 20 to 1) than did the flattener/perforators (2 to 1). Plastics have inherent shape memory and substantial re-expansion occurs without the continuous pressure applied by the compactor units. The volume reduction achieved by truck- mounted flattener/perforators was

2.5 Densification tions for the Collection sp o Recyclable Plastics

The collection of plastics for recycling is hindered by the fact that plastic containers often have a very high volume relative to their weight and, therefore, occupy a disproportionate amount of space on the collection truck.

Densifying, or compacting, plastics as they are collected is one potential solution to the volume issue. In fact, a variety of compaction equipment is now on the market. However, most of this technology is relatively new and certain performance barriers remain.

As part of its Blueprint research effort, the Council endeavored to determine the effectiveness of available- and developing-plastics compaction technology in order to better assist the development of improved systems.

The volume-reduction technology studied fell into two general categories:

Compactors-Equipment that will densify recyclable material and contain it, under pressure, not allowing it to expand until it is unloaded.

0 Flattener/Perforators-Equipment that perforates and flattens material, then ejects the material into a receptacle or processor. Perforators do not hold the material under pressure. This type of equipment helps to prevent plastic bottles from re-expanding after being flattened.

offset by the space required for the equipment.

The relative novelty of plastics compaction technology (the oldest model studied was introduced in 1989) is evident in the performance of all units examined by the Council. Difficulties in loading and unloading, as well as a tendency for mechanical breakdown, were common to most units.

The Council is working with equipment manufac- turers to overcome the technical difficulties and to

develop systems that build upon the best characteristics of the existing systems. In the short time since the completion of the Council's analysis, new and improved equipment has already been introduced.

As these systems are refined, the Council is also working with commu- nities to develop innovative solutions to the challenge of plastics' volume. These range from building cages for plastics on existing collection vehicles, to encouraging consumers to crush containers by carehlly stepping on them before placing them in the set- out container or the drop-off bin.

2.6 Consumer Education Strategies

Consumer participation in a collection program quickly becomes a matter of habit, making it essential that con- sumers develop the right recycling habits from Day 1 of a collection program. Consumer education programs are an effective means of encouraging good recycling habits.

in use in the average household presents the consumer with the challenge of recognizing which plastics can and cannot go into the recycling container. They must also understand what, if any, steps must be taken to

The wide variety of plastic products

14

prepare recyclable materials for collection. These range from rinsing out bottles to carefully stepping on them, reducing the amount of space taken up in the recycling container.

To find the best means of educating consumers about their role in recycling, the Council field-tested the effective- ness of existing promotional materials. Follow-up surveys and focus groups were then used to improve and refine those materials for maximum impact.

strategies tested included the following:

The first-round promotional

Direct-mail brochures informing residents that plastics were being collected in their neighborhood, the kinds of plastics currently being accepted,. and how to prepare plastics for collection.

Education tags used by collection crews to notify consumers of any errors in the types of plastics set out or the manner in which their plastics were prepared for collection. Bin hangtags attached directly to the recycling container indicating which plastics would be collected.

After the first round of promotion was complete, the Council initiated a follow-up telephone survey to measure the level of awareness of the plastics collection program and identify any common points of confusion and/or reluctance to participate in the program. Public enthusiasm for plastics recycling was clearly demonstrated, as 9 in 10 respondents spoke favorably of the collection program. However, nearly one-third of the consumers surveyed indicated at least some confusion regarding the types of plastics that could be collected and/or how they should be prepared.

The issues raised by survey respond- ents were then explored in a series of focus groups in which consumers were asked to help identify more effective

means of communicating the collection program’s messages. The following guidelines emerged:

Pictures communicate ideas simply and quickly and are particularly important in educating nonreaders and children. Headlines featuring a direct call to action, such as “Recycle Plastic Now,” encourage consumers to read the brochure. Language in the brochure should also be simple and direct, avoiding excessive “back- ground” information. A telephone information line is the preferred source for more-detailed recycling-related issues.

A list of “Do’s and Don’t’s’’ is the most effective way to communicate the types of plastics to be collected. Receiving informational materials through the mail is consumers’ first preference. Supplementing these mailings with tags attached to re- cycling bins or doorhangers rein- forces key messages. Education tags are effective only if the driver is consistent in filling them out.

As the variety of plastics collected for recycling grows, the Council will continue to identify and refine effective consumer education materials that will help these expanded programs succeed.

To help communities meet their consumer education needs, the Council is developing a variety of

generic educational materials that can be tailored to individual plastics collection programs. Based on the focus group findings, these materials include clip-art-numbered, step-by- step illustrations showing how to pre- pare plastics-and a listing of plastics collection “Do’s and Don’t’s.’’

The Council’s consumer research has identified the best ways to communicate about plastics recycling to program participants. This information is now being shared with recycling com- munities nationwide to help them produce effective promotional materials.

15

3. Handling The Council’s Blueprint for handlers is designed to expand plastics handling capacity, improve handling efficiency, facilitate the processing of a greater variety of plastics, and help handlers locate feedstock and markets.

3.1 Overview

Handlers are the critical link between collection programs and reclaimers, improving the economics of plastics recycling by performing two important tasks:

Sorting;. Collection programs are often multi-material, while reclaimers generally process only one or two types of materials. That means collected recyclables must be separated from one another for shipment to the appropriate reclaimer. Removing non-recyclable items and other contaminants also increases the price reclaimers will pay for recyclables. Densificcattion: Lower volume-to- weight ratios translate into lower shipping costs. Most handlers densify separated materials before shipping them to the reclaimer. Baling is the most common means of densification, although some handlers granulate, or grind, collected plastics.

The hnctions performed by handlers are fairly consistent, but the businesses themselves take a number of distinct forms. Some have expanded pre- existing scrap businesses to include post-consumer materials. In areas where reclaimers are not readily available, some handlers operate as intermediate brokers for recyclables and stockpile materials for more economical shipment to markets. Others operate both as handlers and reclaimers.

Plastics can be delivered to handlers in several different forms. This has an impact on the equipment used and services provided by the handlers:

0 Handlers accepting plastics already separated from other materials usually sort them by resin type, then densify them.

0 If recyclables are not separated by either the consumer or the collection crew, the handler must have the capacity to sort materials by type- plastic, glass, aluminum, steel and paper. A handler meeting this criterion is a materials recovery fmdity (MRE; pronounced ‘huv) .

Which balers handle plastics Q most efficiently?

See Section 3.4, p. 21.

Ideally, there should be close coor- dination between the handler and the collection program to ensure that collection methods are adapted to the handler‘s capacity and market specifications. As discussed in the preceding section, the better the public understands which plastics can and cannot currently go into the set-out container, the less time and effort the handler needs to spend on removing contaminants.

How much plastic must pass through a MRF before

automated sorting is cost- effective? See Section 3.5, p. 23.

"--

Where are the mar- kets for a handler's output? See Section

3.3, p. 19.

Are alternatives to hand sorting by resin type being

developed? See Section 3.5, p. 23.

Coordination between handlers and reclaimers is also important. Handlers must be sure that their processing system can deliver plastics in the quantities and quality that would make them valuable to the available reclamation markets.

Plastics can be recycled in com- mingled form. For example, plastic lumber is made from commingled, or mixed, resins. However, each resin type has unique properties that make it desirable for specific applications. Pure, or generic, resins therefore have a higher value and are preferred by most reclaimers. Handlers must sort plastics by resin type to meet that high value demand.

The Council's long-range goal is to increase the variety of plastics collected, raising the need for more sophisticated separation capacity.

3.2 Blueprint Handlers Research

A. Post-Consumer Handlers Survey- To obtain a complete understanding of the state of the art in handling plastics for recycling, the Council conducted a comprehensive survey of businesses handling post-consumer plastics.

Research objectives:

0 Develop a detailed characterization of all existing handling operations and identifjr informational and technological gaps to be addressed to expand plastics handling capacity. Council research or educational programs would be initiated accordingly. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 3.3, p. 19.)

0 Identify plastics handling procedures that contribute to maximum efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Council would provide this information to both existing and potential plastics handlers. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 3.4, p. 21.)

18

B. Materials Recovery Facilities Assessment-The Council conducted a study of all MRFs operating and planned in the United States to determine their plastics handling capacity.

Research objective :

Select representative MRF process- ing systems for intensive review, with systems demonstrating efficient plastics handling to be recommended by the Council for use in planning new facilities. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 3.5, p. 23.)

C. Research and Development of Automated Sorting Technologies- Sorting individual resin types from a stream of mixed plastics currently relies heavily on manual labor. The Council is supporting technical research that should introduce a greater degree of automation to plastics sorting.

Research objective:

0 Identify and explore possible means of automating the plastics sorting process, emphasizing systems that can recover individual resin types from a stream of mixed plastics. The Council would then work to help make promising technology commercially available. (For information on research results and Council action, see Section 3.6, p. 25.)

3.3 Post-Consumer Handlers A detailed survey of post- consumer plastics handlers enabled the Council to

Survey

The Council conducted a nationwide telephone survey of existing businesses handling post-consumer plastics for

locate Potentid markets for collected plastics nation- wide. The suTvey * identified common infor-

recycling in order to obtain compre- hensive information regarding their

mationd and teclmid needs. A variety of pro- - - -

operations. Each business was asked for the following information, with the understanding that all proprietary

Psandsemices-hdud- ing a toll-free Momation line-have now been intro-

to ad&ess those information wodd remain confidential:

0 Business location.

0 Types of handling services provided. 0 Types of plastics handled, in what

form and in what quantities.

0 Collection programs served and reclamation markets supplied.

0 Average and greatest distance from materials collection locations.

0 How plastics are delivered to the handling facility.

0 Type of handling equipment used and size of labor force employed.

0 Amount of plastics processed in the past 12 months vs. actual annual capacity.

individual resin types. 0 Purchase and sale prices for

0 Processing and shipping costs.

needs.

The majority of plastics handlers employ one of the following handling methods (in order of predominance):

Receiving pre-sorted materials and simply baling them for shipment to reclaimers. (This is the most common process for other materials as well.)

Sorting by type from mixed plastics, then baling.

Granulating presorted plastics.

Sorting from a mixed stream, then granulating.

19

The survey was conducted over the course of three months in 1990, achieving a 95% overall response rate. In all, the Council identified 643 confirmed plastics handlers operating in the United States by the end of the survey period.

The survey questions were supple- mented by informal discussions with many handlers in order to gain insight into their role as the link between collection programs and reclamation markets for plastics. Several common handler needs emerged from these discussions, including:

0 Cleaner incoming stock. Greater quantities of plastics to be

Higher prices paid for processed

Assistance in marketing processed

processed.

plastics.

plastics.

The "typical" plastics handler:

Single-facility operator with less than three years'

Traditional business has been paper, glass and/or metal

Currently handles PET and HDPE. Receives majority of plastics from within a 50-mile

Accepts only loose plastic, either presorted or

Rejects less than 5% of plastics received. Plans to expand plastics handling operation. Ships processed plastics relatively long distances to

experience in plastics handling.

recovery.

radius of facility.

commingled.

reclaimers.

20

The first two needs are more effectively addressed at the collection stage of recycling. Information on the Council's consumer education programs designed to reduce the contamination of plastics collected for recycling can be found in Section 2.6 (p. 14). Similarly, the Council's efforts to increase the number of plastics collection programs is documented in Section 2.3 (p. 11).

The prices paid for processed plastics are a more difficult issue to address because these prices are, in fact, market driven. The Council is actively working to increase end-use demand for recycled plastics, which will have a favorable impact on the economics of all phases of the recycling process. Please see Section 5.3 (p. 34) for additional information.

The Council is also working to improve the cost-efficiency of plastics handling operations (see Section 3.4,

-~

p. 21).

The Council offers market- ing assistance through a series of unique databases compiled from the Council's

Blueprint surveys and available through the Council's toll-free information line, 1-800-2-HELP-90. For example, information-line operators have direct computer access to the name, location and processing capabilities of each handler surveyed by the Council, enabling a plastics collection program (ix., community) to find a handler or market. The toll-free hotline also allows a plastics reclaimer to lncate a source of processed materials.

This database-updated regularly- may also be used to develop shipping networks among plastics handlers. These networks would be particularly useful in rural areas which generate relatively low volumes of plastics, or parts of the country presently lacking nearby reclamation capacity. Combin- ing shipments from multiple plastics handling operations would greatly increase the cost-effectiveness of shipping.

accessible through the toll-free line (see Section 3.5, p. 23 for more infor- mation). A third database covers all plastics reclaimers identified by the Council (see Section 4.3, p. 28), which can help handlers find reclamation markets for their processed plastics.

A separate database on MRFs is also

3.4 Maximizing Efficiency in Plastics Handling

To identify the handling methods and equipment that contribute most to efficient and cost-effective plastics handling, the Council conducted an analysis of the operational and economic data provided to the Council by plastics handlers.

Currently, most plastics handlers process PET (the plastic used in soft drink bottles) and-HDPE (the plastic used in milk, juice and water jugs) from curbside or drop-off collection programs. The relative novelty of the plastics handling industry-the “typical” plastics handler has less than three years’ experience-has led to a wide variety of plastics processing systems being implemented by indi- vidual handlers. Although many of these are performing adequately, survey results show certain methods and technologies to be consistently more efficient. These include:

Balers:

Hydraulically powered horizontal balers permit higher throughput (balers must fit particular quantity needs of handlers).

matically tie bales lower labor costs.

parts and “off the shelf‘ components reduce downtime.

turers received outstanding marks from handlers for the performance and reliability of their equipment.

Programmable balers that auto-

0 Balers with interchangeable spare

Several individual baler manufac-

Granulators:

0 Shredding prior to granulation is preferred.

0 Granulators with angled steel-alloy knives produce more-uniform flakes.

0 Use of small-horsepower blowers which continually discharge granulated materials will increase efficiency.

Based on survey responses, processing systems incorporating these specifications currently keep handlers’ costs for baled plastics, delivered to reclaimers, at approximately 1.56 per pound. Granulating costs approximately 56 per pound. The Council expects these costs to remain stable, as baler and granulator technology is fairly advanced.

The Council’s research also points to potential increases in the cost of separating plastics-currently 56 per pound-due to the labor-intensive nature of the task. These costs may be offset as automated sorting technology is made available. (For information on the Council’s research into automated sorting technologies, see Section 3.6, p. 25.)

The Council has identified efficient handling proce- dures and technologies and - is providing this informa- tion to both existing and potential plastics handlers __ through a comprehensive manual, demonstration - programs and a quarterly newsletter. -

__

A comprehensive manual based on the Council's research, How to Add Post- Consumer Ph&s to Ymr

Processing Bwiness, will compile all available information on the economics and technical aspects of post-consumer plastics recovery. This manual will enable the handlers of other recyclable materials to cost-effectively add plastics handling capacity to their operations. It will also help plastics handlers currently processing only industrial scrap to expand into the post-consumer field.

Due for publication in summer 1991, this manual covers issues such as designing processing lines, selecting equipment, finding supply and markets, and determining costs. The identification and separation of plastic resin types will be featured, empha- sizing current practices as well as new

The Municipalities Program: Milford, NH I

M ilford, a rural community of 12,000, enacted a comprehensive, mandatory recycling ordinance

, in 1983, building a MRF to process their recy- clables for shipment to reclaimers. From the outset, how- ever, the MRF was unable to handle plastics economically.

Small, rural communities such as Milford collect a relatively low total volume of recyclables. At these levels, it is not cost-effective to purchase the high-capacity baling equipment that has proved effective in compacting plastics.

Working with Frontier Recycling, the Council designed and built a relatively inexpensive, small-scale handling system that perforates, densifies, and then bales sorted plastics for efficient shipping and marketing. A prototype was provided free of charge to the Milford MRF to test its effectiveness.

__

technology currently in development (see Section 3.6, p. 25). Data on current recovery operations such as materials recovery facilities (MRFs), traditional recycling facilities, and industrial scrap- plastic recyclers will also be included.

~

--

The Council's research indicates that many types of equipment used in handling non-plastic

recyclable materials are also effective in handling plastics. Existing tech- nology, however, is not adaptable to all situations, and new processing equipment designed with plastics in mind is currently being developed. Through the Council's Municipalities Program, promising new handling equipment will be tested for actual performance in a real-world environ- ment (see box).

The Council makes the findings of its Blueprint research available to all plastics handlers through

H a d h s News, a free, quarterly news- letter. Each issue features articles, case studies and research updates that keep handlers abreast of the latest plastics processing technology.

22

3.5 Benchmark MRF Study

The growing emphasis on multi- material curbside collection programs is matched by rapid growth in the number of MRFs planned or operating in the United States. A comprehensive Council survey conducted in 1990 identified 94 operating MRFs, plus an additional 106 either planned or under construction. It is therefore essential that these facilities be equipped with processing systems capable of handling post-consumer plastics for recycling.

MRFs are distinguished from other recyclables handlers by their capaci;ty to sort recyclables by type from a hlly or partially commingled stream. Also,

the greater complexity of the handling functions they perform generally requires a greater degree of automation in their operations. However, some manual sorting is always required for quality control.

Automated sorting systems are designed to take advantage of characteristic properties of individual recyclables. For example, steel is the only magnetic recyclable. Plastics and aluminum are light, while glass is much heavier. Aluminum conducts electricity while plastic does not. By utilizing increasingly selective automated systems, a MRF can separate materials with relatively low manual labor requirements.

a

08

A

The Council has identified the MRP technologies with effective plastics handling capabilities and is working to ensure that these tech- nologies are incorporated into any plans for new M R P S .

Existing automated sorting lines exploit various inherent properties-the - magnetism of steel, the relative weight of glass, and

- the electrical conductivity - of aluminum-to segregate mixed recydables. -

23 __

To determine the cost-efficiency of this technology in processing plastics, the Council initiated a cost comparison of automated vs. manual sorting of plastics at various levels of throughput. MRFs studied in this research were selected to reflect various combinations of automated equipment.

In this study, the Council focused on three types of automated sorting technology:

Air classifiers, which use air currents to separate lighter materials (plastics and aluminum) from heavier materials (glass). Trommels, which separate larger plastic containers from smaller aluminum and plastic containers. Eddy current separators, which can be used to remove aluminum from plastics.

On the basis of this research, the

The Council is now working to identify and contact communities and private contractors planning MRFs

in order to communicate the findings of its research. Regardless of whether or not plastics are currently being collected in the given area, the Council encourages MRF planners to install sorting systems with plastics handling capacity or systems that are readily adamable to the addition of dastics. Thi's will avoid costly retrofiiting efforts when plastics collection is implemented in the future.

To help MRFs with plastics handling capacity secure an adequate supply of post- consumer plastics for

processing, they have been entered into a database accessible through the Council's toll-free information line. Communities can use this continually expanding database to identifir existing -

Council has determined benchmark operating criteria for cost-efficient use of automated sorting of plastics from other recyclable materials:

0 The maximum sustainable rate of manual sorting is 500 pounds of plastics per hour per worker.

0 In all cases studied, air classifiers were more cost efficient in sorting aluminum and plastics from other materials than hand sorting. The use of trommels and/or eddy current separators is more cost efficient than manual sorting at plastics throughput levels of more than 600 Ibs./hr.

0 There is a strong positive correlation between higher levels of throughput and automation and lower sorting

orplanned MRFs in their areas that might accept the plastics they collect. Similarly, MRF operators can take advantage of the hotline to identify potential reclamation markets for their plastics (see Section 4.3, p. 28).

costs.

24

3.6 Research and Development of Automated Sorting Technologies

To facilitate the development of automatic resin sorting systems, the Council has contracted with several academic and industry researchers. These include:

0 Plastics Recycling Foundation

Foster Miller Inc. 0 Dev Tech Labs, Inc.

(PRF).

PRF is a research-oriented founda- tion that provides grants to universities investigating a wide variety of plastics recycling issues, including automated sorting of resin types. PRF currently envisions at least three approaches to mechanical sorting of plastics by resin type from a mixed stream:

Sorting items as collected (macro sorting).

Sorting after flaking or granulation (micro sorting).

Sorting by dissolution and recovery, taking advantage of the different chemical compositions of various plastic resins (selective sorting).

If these automated sorting technolo- gies are to achieve maximum efficiency, an automated delivery system must be developed. Foster Miller, a private engineering firm, is now refining a prototype that can deliver plastic containers to a macro sorting line consistently, efficiently and without bunching containers in a way that might impede resin identification.

Dev Tech‘s research addresses the difficulty sometimes encountered in distinguishing clear PET bottles from PVC containers. Dev Tech is developing a micro-sorting system which can separate ground PET and PVC resins with almost 100% accuracy.

The Council’s goal in contracting for this research is to bring effective sorting systems

to commercial availability. To that end, the Council is working to forge links between the developers of promising technologies and commercial equipment manufacturers.

An automated sorting breakthrough

PRF is currently testing an automated macro-sorting system capable of sorting plastic bottles into five individual categories:

- -

Clear PET bottles. -

0 Green PET bottles. -

Natural, or unpigmented, polyethylene and polypro- pylene bottles. All vinyl bottles. All other bottles.

__

-

-

__

This system uses a conveyor belt to pass plastics - through a series of spectroscopic scanners-one for each type of plastic. These scanners look for the light transmission and X-ray reflection patterns specific to a given plastic. A bottle matching a givcn “fingerprint” is bumped off the conveyor line and into a resin-specific collection bin. -

-

- -

-

25 -

4. Reclamation The goal of the Blueprint for reclaimers is to identifjr the state of the art in plastics reclamation, evaluate the need for action to expand existing reclamation capacity and identi@ markets for handlers and communities.

4.1 Overview

Transforming used plastic products into a feedstock for manufacturing new plastic products is called reclamation. Unlike collection and handling, the reclamation process requires little if any adjustment for post-consumer vs. industrial scrap plastics.

The vast majority of plastics reclaimers have some handling capacity. Traditionally, industrial-scrap reclaimers were located near the scrap source, eliminating the need for a separate handling operation. But with the increased emphasis on recycling post-consumer plastics, many of these reclaimers have expanded their operations to include plastics from other handlers.

The specific reclamation processes performed by a reclaimer depend largely upon the reclaimer's confidence in the preparation of the plastics coming into the facility. Ideally, reclaimers develop working relation- ships with certain handlers that will guarantee a supply of plastics meeting certain specifications. In these instances, the reclaimers may simply grind those plastics into flakes for sale to end-users, or make new products themselves.

Other reclaimers clean incoming plastics-usually by washing them- then convert them into either flakes or pellets. Pellets are made by melting the plastic down and extruding it into thin strands that are chopped into small, uniform pieces. Pellets and flakes are the form in which plastic feedstocks are sold-be they virgin or post-consumer.

What geographic range can be kl covered by a single

Section 4.3, p. 28.

The primary barrier to be overcome at the reclamation stage of plastics recycling is simply the lack of sufficient reclamation See reclaimers to meet the growing demand in certain geographic areas. The Council's research therefore focused on what, if any, Council action would be required to increase reclamation capacity.

Does pelletizing, as opposed to kl granulating, add

value to recycled resins? See Section 4.3, p. 28.

4.2 Blueprint Reclamation Research

Plastics Reclaimers Survey-To obtain a complete understanding of the state of the art in reclaiming plastics for use in new products, the Council conducted a comprehensive survey of existing reclamation businesses.

Research objectives:

0 Develop a detailed characterization of all existing reclaimers and identify informational and technological gaps to be addressed in order to expand plastics handling capacity. Council research or educational programs would be initiated accordingly. (For research results and information on Council action, see Section 4.3, p. 28.)

A detailed survey of exist- ing post-consumer plastics reclaimers enabled the Council to identify com- mon informational and technical needs. A variety of programs and services- including a toll-fiee infor- mation line-have now been introduced to address those needs. Council mem- ber companies also are working to till gaps identi- fied in reclamation capacity.

4.3 Plastics Reclaimers Survey

The Council conducted a nationwide telephone survey of existing businesses reclaiming plastics for recycling in order to obtain comprehensive information regarding their operations. Each business was asked for the following information, with the understanding that all proprietary information would remain confidential:

Business location. Types of reclaiming services provided. Types of plastics processed, in what form and in what quantities.

Handlers served and end-use markets supplied. Average and greatest distance from materials collection locations.

How plastics are delivered to the reclaiming facility.

Type of reclamation equipment used and size of labor force employed.

The'Gtypical" plastics reclaimer: l Has more than five years' experience in reclaiming plastics. Operates more than one reclamation facility and plans to expand plastics reclaiming operation. Currently reclaims HDPE and PET and often does not reclaim non-plastic materials. Requests that plastics be delivered uncontaminated. Accepts both loose and baled plastics. Majority of plastics processed originate from within a 300-mile radius of the reclamation facility. Cleans, granulates, pelletizes and/or produces a new plastic product.

Amount of plastics processed in the past 12 months vs. actual annual capacity. Purchase and sale prices for individual resin types. Processing and shipping costs.

In all, the Council identified and surveyed 168 plastics reclaimers operating in the United States by the end of the survey period.

open-ended questions about how the plastics recycling infrastructure could be improved. The needs most commonly cited included:

Reclaimers surveyed were also asked

A greater number of end-use markets for PET and HDPE. More and better end-use markets for plastics other than PET and HDPE. Automated technology to separate plastics by resin type. Increased demand for products made with recycled plastics. Less contamination in plastics delivered for reclamation. Greater supply of plastics for reclamation.

28

The Council’s survey revealed that reclaimers are generally far more stable and established businesses than the “typical)) plastics handler. The technology used to reclaim PET and HDPE has proved effective and is fairly standardized. Most of the needs identified are, in fact, issues that the Council is addressing at other levels of the infrastructure:

The Council has conducted an exhaustive analysis of the market potential of products made of commingled, or multi-resin, recycled plastic. This would provide markets for plastics other than PET and HDPE (see Section 5.4, p. 36). A number of automatic resin-sorting technologies are currently being explored with extensive research grants from the Council (see Section 3.6, p. 25).

consumer education materials to reduce contamination of recyclable plastics at the collection source (see Section 2.6, p. 14). In addition, the Council offers guidelines to help MRFs use automatic sorting equipment cost-effectively (see Section 3.5, p. 23). Comprehensive information- including a manual and a newsletter- from the Council will give handlers step-by-step instruction on adding plastics processing capacity to their business (see Section 3.4, p. 21).

The Council has developed

The Council believes that market conditions will dramatically increase the demand for many recycled resins. In the case of PET and HDPE, the projected growth of demand for these recycled plastics exceeds the current rate of increase in collection.

The Council used economic information provided by plastics reclaimers to estimate the average profit margins in PET and HDPE reclamation. These figures were derived relative to the market prices of recycled PET and HDPE in late 1990. The Council projects that demand for these resins will increase in the years ahead, providing additional profit possibilities.

TABLE 4.1

Recycled Resin Prices

Resin Baled

HDPE Natural 8-1 1 Mixed Colors 5-8

LDPE Film 5-9 PET

Clear 8-10 Green 7-8

- PS PVC 6-10 PP -

Mixed Bottles 5-8

(c pw Pound)

Repind Pellet

28-31 32-39 22-23 28-31 - 19-23

33-35 42-45 - 17

16-23 26-40 12-25 - 8-20 20-30 - -

Source: Plastics News, with additions from BbCyck. January 1991.

Under current operating conditions, recycled PET can bring the reclaimer a profit of as much as 9C per pound, with an average return of 86: per pound. This compares favorably with most other recyclable materials. Recycled HDPE brings the reclaimer a solid, if less spectacular, average profit margin of 46: per pound.

TABLE4.2 ~~

Plastic Recycling Costs (@per Pound) by Processing Type

Processiqg Type cos t

Collecting and Sorting 5.0 Baling 1.5 Granulating 5.0 Washing and Drying 6.0 Extruding and Pelletizing 7.0 Transporting 2.0 Total 25.0-26.5l

'Baling may not be required if handler granulates material for shipment to reclaimer.

TABLE4.3

Potential Reclaimer Profits by Plastic Type

Product Selling Price

PET-clear pellet 35C PET-clear flake 30C PET-green flake 256 HDPE-natural pellet 24C HDPE-natural flake 20Q HDPE-colored flake 156

(Q per Pound)

Cost Profit

276 84 21Q: 9c 18C 7Q 20Q 4 C 15Q 5C 126: 3Q

To help reclaimers attract more plastics for recycling, ~

their name, location and the plastics they accept have __

been entered in a computer database, which is updated periodically. Handlers looking for reclamation markets can access this information by calling the Council's toll-free number, 1-800-2-HELP-90. Because most reclaimers will accept collected plastics directly from collection programs in their immediate area, communities can also make use of the Council's database to create direct links with reclaimers. Council operators can either provide this information over the phone or send print-outs as requested.

Information-line operators also have access to the Council's handler database, featuring similar information on plastics handlers (see Section 3.3, p. 19) and MRFs with plastics handling capacity (see Section 3.5, p. 23). Reclaimers can use these databases to identify potential new sources of post- consumer plastics.

30

Identifying the areas where plastics reclamation capacity exists has the related effect of identifying areas where

plastics reclamation capacity is lacking. The Council is currently working with its member companies to find ways of bringing needed reclamation facilities to underserved areas.

Already a number of important member-company ventures have been launched, greatly expanding both the reach of plastics reclamation capacity and the variety of resins being reclaimed. These include:

Du Pont has entered into a joint venture with Waste Management, Inc., called the Plastics Recycling Alliance (PRA). PRA reclamation plants are already operating in Chicago and Philadelphia, and three additional plants will open by 1994. This venture-which processes a variety of plastics, including PET- represents an important step toward the industry's goal of a 50% PET soft drink bottle recycling rate by 1993.

The National Polystyrene Recycling Company (NPRC) was created by eight of the nation's leading polystyrene manufacturers, several of whom are Council members. The NPRC intends to recycle 25% of the nation's polystyrene output by 1995. Currently, three NPRC plants are up and running and several others will open in the near future.

Company

A Union Carbide facility now under construction in Piscataway, NJ, will soon recycle a variety of plastic resins, including plastic films.

0 Occidental Chemical Corporation has launched a buyback reclamation program for post-consumer PVC bottles and containers. Again, the industry goal is a 25% recycling rate for bottles and containers by 1995.

OxvChem,

0 Quantum Chemical Corporation will market 40 million pounds of post-consumer plastics annually from its multi-resin reclamation facility due to open in late 1991 in Heath, OH. Quantum's feedstock of post-consumer plastics- polypropylene, PET and HDPE containers-will be supplied by one of the world's largest MRFs, being constructed by an independent waste management firm, among other sources.

--+antum

31 -

5. End-Use The Council’s Blueprint for end-use markets is working to expand the size and variety of markets open to recvcled plastics.

5.1 Overview

The end-user is the economic engine that drives the recycling process. Market demand is the fuel that makes it run. In the past, market demand for recycled plastics was low. As a result, there were relatively few economic incentives for handlers and reclaimers (most often private companies) to become involved in post-consumer recycling. Similarly, communities- many working with limited public funds-had no incentive to collect plastics if there were no good markets. By increasing the demand for recycled plastics, the implementation of the Blueprint will improve the economic incentives for plastics handlers and reclaimers to create new markets for communities.

recycling looks promising. A rapidly growing demand for recycled resins among plastic manufacturers is visible to consumers in the supermarket. In 1990, for example, several familiar packages featured a new twist: recycled plastic content. Products incorporating recycled plastics into their packaging included:

Today, the future for plastics

Liquid detergents and fabric softeners. Eggs. Motoroil.

And by the end of 1990, the world’s two largest soft drink companies announced plans to introduce soft drink bottles made with recycled plastic.

The introduction of recycled plastics into commercial packaging marks an emerging trend toward using recycled plastics in applications with increas- ingly stringent quality standards. Furthermore, the manufacturers of these products are calling attention to their packaging’s recycled content. Consumers now recognize that recycled plastics are suitable for use in a wide range of products-a key to the future success of plastics recycling.

To date, the increased market activity has focused primarily on two resins: PET and HDPE. These are the most commonly collected plastics and the recycling infrastructure is producing an increasingly large and reliable stream of recycled PET and HDPE to attract large-scale manufacturers.

The Council and its member com- panies are now working to expand end-use markets for additional recycled resin types including: polystyrene, low density polyethylene (LDPE), vinyl and polypropylene.

In addition, the Council is con- ducting research to identify end-use applications for commingled, or mixed, recycled plastics.

marketsfor recycled plastics? See Section 5.3, p. 34.

What is the market potential for plastic lumber made fiom

recycled mixed resins? See Section 5.4, p. 36.

Household cleaners.

33

Day-long roundtable dis- cussions with government and industry representa- tives identified products made with recycled plastics that could be incorporated into government and corporate purchasing policies. The Council is now working to provide the necessary informational support necessary to see those policies implemented.

5.2 Blueprint End-Use Research

A. GovernmentlIndustry Round- tables-The Council conducted a series of meetings between plastics industry representatives and government purchasing agents.

Research objective:

a Hold day-long roundtable discus- sions with government and industry representatives to identify products that could be purchased if made with recycled plastics. These discussions would give government purchasing agents, recycling policymakers and industry experts a forum to share information and move both government and industry sectors forward. (For research results and information on Council action, see Section 5.3, p. 34.)

B. Mixed Plastics Product Market Penetration Study-The Council conducted market analysis to determine the marketing potential of specific products currently manu- factured with recycled mixed plastics.

Research objective:

Estimate potential market penetration of mixed plastic versions of products traditionally made with other materials and determine the advantages and disadvantages of the old and new products. (For research results and information on Council action, see Section 5.4, p. 36.)

5.3 Government/Industry Roundtables

Government purchasing policies present an opportunity to develop relatively large and centralized markets for products made with recycled plastics. Many states and localities have sought to encourage the use of recycled materials by state agencies. However, the implementation of these policies often lags behind their legislative mandate. To determine how to introduce recycled plastics into the government purchasing market, the Council held a series of government/ industry roundtables.

The day-long meetings brought together representatives of the plastics recycling industry, state recycling officials and purchasing agents for individual state agencies. The roundtable agenda was designed to investigate the issues leading to purchasing decisions and the types of products made from recycled plastics that could be bought.

Not all of the products available with recycled plastic content were relevant to every agency’s purchasing director. Each roundtable was therefore targeted to a particular type of state agency. Individual sessions were held for general purchasing,

34

transportation, and parks and construction agency representatives from six states in the midwest-selected as the program’s testing ground. Recycling officials from each state attended all roundtables to provide continuity.

Roundtable participants were asked to explore six issues affecting their willingness to purchase a given product made with recycled plastic:

Perceptual barriers.

Technical barriers. Methods to overcome barriers.

Performance characteristics that

The type of proof acceptable. What else a buyer would need to

must be proved.

know to buy a recycled product as a matter of course.

The government/industry round- tables identified more than 70 products that could be purchased if made from recycled plastic. Participants currently buy 60 products that are already available with recycled plastic content.

Roundtable participants also identified a variety of information and resources that would facilitate their purchase of recycled plastics, such as:

A listing of available products made with recycled plastics.

Standardized definitions of recycled plastic. Demonstration programs to test the real-world performance of new products made with recycled plastics.

A SeDarate session was held for The Government/Industry task group discussed 34 products in detail. They were:

purchasing agents from the Council for Solid Waste Solutions’ own member companies. Although the participants in this meeting differed &om those in the government-uriented trash bags sessions, their god was the same: to assist corporate representatives in identifying products made with pails recycled resins that could be

trash cans cleaner’s carts buckets

mop buckets incorporated into their corporate trays purchasing. desk accessories

carpeting

Encouraged by very positive feedback from all parties involved in the roundtable sessions, the Council is

bringing the program to other parts of the country. Insight gained through the roundtables is shared with the appropriate product manufacturers to help make potentially valuable post- consumer plastic items commercially available.

The Council’s legislative representa-

mats urinal screens pallets distribution boxes drainage pipe culverts concrete accessories insulation porous pavement geotextiles partitions sign blanks playground equipment fencing barricades

tives are also working to ensure that traffic cones states’ purchasing preferences include precise language that will result in larger markets for recycled plastics.

The Council is working with a leading standards- setting organization to curbing

d e l i ~ ~ t o r posts signposts guardrail posts lumber & landscaping timber outdoor privies picnic tables noise & retaining walls parking stops

develoD standardized definitions of the terms used in establishing purchasing preferences and policies. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) is recognized by policy-making agencies and their recommendations are likely to become the basis of law in many states.

35

The Council has researched the market potential of products currently being made with recycled mixed plastics. Results of this research are being shared with product manufac- turers to assist their mar- keting efforts and guide the development of additional products with market potential.

The State of Florida Depart- ment of Transportation has launched a testing program for a variety of traffic-safety

items made with recycled plastics. The Council is closely monitoring the success of this pilot program and will share results with highway depart- ments in other states as they are made available.

5.4 Mixed Plastics Product Market Penetration Study

To maximize the effectiveness of plastics recycling as a means of conserving resources and reducing waste, the Council commissioned a study of the market potential of selected products made with plastic “tailings.”

after generic, or single, resins are separated and prepared for market. For example, if a handler is preparing collected soft drink bottles for ship- ment to a PET reclaimer, all non-PET plastics that found their way onto the collection truck will be considered tailings. A variety of products traditionally made with non-plastic materials are now being manufactured with recycled plastic tailings. These include:

Tailings are the plastics remaining

Fence posts.

Signposts. Picnic tables. Landscape timbers.

The Council’s research identified potential markets for these products, then evaluated the market penetration they might be able to achieve. Relative costs and performance characteristics were analyzed to determine each product’s competitive advantages and disadvantages compared with those of traditional materials.

The products made from com- mingled recycled plastics were found to have the following general advantages :

Plastics are weather- and insect-

They are expected to have a longer

They are expected to require less

resistant.

useful life.

maintenance.

The Council also identified the following as the competitive disad- vantages of the products made from recycled plastics:

Products from commingled recycled plastics presently have a significantly higher initial cost. The non-traditional appearance of plastic products is not acceptable to some potential buyers, either for aesthetic or regulatory reasons. Claims regarding the longevity of plastic products are untested under real-world conditions.

There is concern about the structural integrity of some of the plastic products.

36

The main barrier to marketing these plastic products is cost. The higher initial price may be offset by signifi- cantly longer product life. The mixed- plastic products need to have their longevity documented in order to convince purchasing agents of their durability. Purchasing agents must also be educated about total life-cycle costing. A product that lasts three times as long avoids not only the purchase cost of replacement items, but also costs associated with transporting and installing the replacements, and disposing of used items.

The higher price of the recycled plastic products reflects the high manufacturing costs involved. The majority of manufacturing technolo- gies currently available in the United States have a low output capacity. There are, however, a few higher-rate technologies and processing im- provements that will lead to greater productivity. The Council believes that the cost of the recycled-content items studied will become more competitive over time.

As improvements are made in the manufacturing technology for mixed plastic products, higher ~-

product peaormake properties will permit their use in high-value appli- cations. These engineered plastic products will be designed to use the plastic properties to their greatest advantage and thereby command a higher price on the market.

6. Conclusion s we move into 1991, plastics recycling stands on the brink of an unprecedented period of growth. More than 500 communities around the country already collect plastics A for recycling. With the Blueprint for Plastics Recycling,

the Council for Solid Waste Solutions has honed the tools that will enable thousands of other communities to begm collection programs that succeed from Day 1.

At the same time, the Blueprint will provide the framework for the development of a nationwide recycling infrastructure to service new collection efforts. And the continuing commitment of the Council for Solid Waste Solutions and its member companies to create reliable and expandmg markets for recycled plastics will provide the infrastructure with the economic fuel to make it work.

map, but a dynamic process by which the state of the art in plastics recycling is defined, then made even better. There remain si@icant technical barriers to overcome, and a wide range of questions to be answered. The Council for Solid Waste Solutions is determined to break through these barriers, pursue these answers, and continue to refine its Blueprint until plastics recycling has reached its M l potential.

The Blueprint unveiled in this document is not a static, unchanging

L

k

1275 K Street, NW Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-5319

1-800-2-HELP-90

A Program of The Society of the Plastics

Industry, Inc. 81991 The Council for Solid Waste Solutions

i

f