January/February 1990
Although the collection, processing, and reuse rates for this material have been lagging behind those of other recyclables, speakers at a recent conference agreed that there’s growth potential for plastic recycling.
By Robert J. Garino
Robert J. Garino is director of commodities for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Washington, D.C.
What can be done with the more than 33 billion pounds of plastic scrap generated annually? A growing number of people say it shouldn't be burned, buried, banned, boycotted, biodegraded, or blended off. Instead, it should be recycled. But is it economically practical to recycle postconsumer plastic scrap? Industry experts tried to answer that question and others at a conference hosted by the Institute for International Research held in Miami in September.
The total plastic market is huge (approximately 59 billion pounds of resin were consumed last year), but recycling plays only a modest role in the industry, focusing more on the postconsumer packaging sector than on any other market segment or scrap source. However, published estimates show that only approximately 1 percent of the approximately 15 billion pounds of plastic packaging discarded per year is recycled.
The bulk of what makes up postconsumer plastic packaging, and thus the bulk of plastic recycling, is thermoplastics. The packaging sector is believed to be the largest user of thermoplastics, accounting for between 25 and 30 percent of the total plastic resins market, according to industry estimates. Approximately half that amount, an estimated 9 billion pounds annually, is in the form of rigid containers. The balance is in plastic films. Thermoplastics include a number of plastic types, which can be used in a variety of packaging applications. Some of the most common are:
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE): trash bags, diaper backing, bulk fruit and vegetable grocery bags, and storage bags.
High-density polyethylene (HDPE): containers for milk, liquid detergents, and bleach; film canisters; and soft-drink bottle base cups.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET): soft-drink-bottles.
Polypropylene (PP): syrup bottles, yogurt and margarine tubs, shampoo bottles, container caps and lids, and drinking straws.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC): meat wrap and bottles for edible oils.
Polystyrene (PS): disposable dishes, foam cups, disposable utensils, egg cartons, and fast-food packaging.
The Starting Point: Collection
The first step in any true recycling endeavor is collection. States that have deposit legislation (the "bottle bill" states of Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont) report economic successes in collecting postconsumer PET containers. However, not all legislators and environmentalists view bottle bills as the most effective or efficient measure to combat either plastic litter for the short term or plastics in the solid waste stream for the long term. As an alternative to bottle bills, a growing number of municipalities are considering a more comprehensive approach to reducing plastic's contribution to litter and overcrowded landfills: mandatory source separation. In fact, some believe residential curbside collection programs can capture the majority of plastics routinely discarded today.
Curbside Programs Projected to Expand
Speaking at the September plastic recycling conference, Linda Koffenberger, development program manager for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, emphasized the importance of municipal curbside collection programs in securing large amounts of HDPE and PET scrap, now and in the future. Although curbside collection is still in its infancy, she believes that these programs will prevail because the American public wants them.
According to Koffenberger, plastic curbside programs are reaching more than 20 percent of U.S. households. Put another way, she figures that nearly 50 percent of the U.S. population could be involved by 1994. Assuming 25 to 30 pounds of plastics are discarded per household per year, she estimated that that could amount to nearly 1.5 billion pounds of plastics reclaimed from curbside programs--and that doesn't include PET recovered from the deposit states. In fact, she termed her forecast "conservative" considering several factors that will likely encourage curbside collection programs: a positive political climate, corporate commitments to "get involved" with postconsumer plastics, and growing technical know-how of plastic processing and reuse.
Koffenberger also identified several elements that could slow the curbside trend: declining values for both recycled plastics and virgin resins, the current oversupply of old newspapers from municipal collection programs, and a lack of integrated recycling systems--those that fully embrace collecting, processing, and marketing end-use products. Nevertheless, she said, there will be "steady growth" in plastic recycling. One key to growth, she emphasized, is private/public cooperation through collection and processing partnerships designed to increase reuse of postconsumer plastics. As an example she pointed to her company's 50-50 joint venture with Waste Management, Inc., which will see plastics recovered from curbside processed and consumed by Du Pont. In turn, Du Pont will manufacture and market plastic highway products for the state of Illinois. Down the road, Du Pont is looking at a nationwide program for processing plastic scrap that could grow from a 30-million-pound capacity in 1990 to 200 million pounds per year by 1995.
Economics: Volume Is What Counts
George M. Savage, principal and senior vice president, Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., Richmond, California, looked closer at the costs of source-separated plastics from curbside operations. Since plastic collection likely would be an addition to an established curbside program, his figures were presented in terms of incremental costs, that is, the added cost for collecting and processing PET and HDPE. (Plastic "processing" consisted of segregation and baling. Capital and operation costs also were included.)
His analysis indicated that while the incremental costs of plastic collection alone were indeed high-at $220 per ton-the net cost after inclusion of total revenues for all recyclables, including plastics, was estimated at $66.00 per ton, versus $57.00 per ton without plastic scrap collection. (A study recently completed for the Minnesota Metropolitan Council also found that, when looking just at plastic collection, the incremental cost of curbside collection was $220 per ton of plastics.)
If this net cost is correct, it appears many established curbside programs could add plastics to their collections. William P. Moore, director of waste reduction recycling for Waste Management, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois, however, noted serious problems associated with handling bulky, lightweight materials such as PET and HDPE. Although he did not take issue with Savage's figures, with plastics, he said, "it's volume that counts." Moore could not, however, assign a specific figure for the economic feasibility of plastic collection. Because of a host of marketing variables, he said, collecting and processing plastics "could range anywhere between $200 and $800 per ton."
As for revenues generated from curbside, he noted there is currently "no economic justification for plastic scrap collection--or for tin can collection for that matter." According to Moore's estimates, aluminum cans contribute the largest portion of total revenues from curbside collections: approximately 45 percent. Aluminum scrap collection, he concluded, "makes sense," while adding anything else "only increases costs."
Looking ahead, Moore believes more municipalities will be involved with sorting and processing plastic scrap through materials recovery facilities (MRFS, pronounced "murfs"). The number of these facilities is likely to increase in the future, meaning more plastic scrap will be processed into granulated plastic feedstock for consumption by manufacturers. As for end-use markets, Moore reiterated the importance of agreements such as the joint venture his company has taken with Du Pont. He also stated that plastic products ought to be designed with recyclability in mind.
MRF and PIRF
While some municipalities and private companies are looking to MRFs as an economical way to sort and process postconsumer plastic scrap, at least one company is advocating a nationwide network of PIRFs--plastic integrated recycling facilities, each capable of processing 100 million pounds annually. Speaking at the Miami conference, Edwin Hafner, president of Hafner Industries, New Haven, Connecticut, said his company expects to build a demonstration PIRF by 1990. A full-scale operation will be built the following year, he said. According to Hafner, each PIRF will process a wide variety of plastics, focusing first on industrial plastic scrap and adding postconsumer scrap later. Although the actual process is proprietary, he stated that the technology will separate a variety of plastics into identifiable resins. This feature, he said, "mutes the need to first find markets." The output, he continued, "should reenter the broad market spectrum for each plastic as a cost/performance competitor with its virgin counterpart."
Hafner also cautioned attendees about a growing "antiplastic" tide in the United States. There are some 800 bills that have been introduced at various levels of government, he said, the effect of which could reduce overall plastic usage. Plastic recycling, however, could be "the growth industry" of the next decade and beyond, he added, "if we don't queer its chances by inaction."
What to Do with Polystyrene Foam?
Also advocating private recovery and reuse of plastic scrap was Larry Sax, vice president of recycling, wTe Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. His company has been working with Amoco Foam Products Co. and McDonald's Restaurants in a demonstration of postconsumer polystyrene foam recycling since early 1987.
Today, in cooperation with McDonald's and the state of New York, wTe Corporation is supplying postconsumer polystyrene foam from fast-food restaurants, schools, and businesses to a fully automated processing facility in Brooklyn, New York. The facility is operated by Polystyrene Recycling Inc., a subsidiary of Amoco Foam Products Co. According to Sax, the reclaimed foam will be manufactured into various products for commercial and consumer use. (Current U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations prohibit recycled plastics from reentering the food service industries.) According to Sax, the Brooklyn plant is currently processing 50 percent foam and 50 percent "other." The "other," mostly paper, he stated, is earmarked as refuse-derived fuel. Although he admitted that present concentrations of foam make it difficult for profitability, he firmly believes that the Brooklyn facility could be profitable if volumes were maintained at about 3 million to 5 million pounds of polystyrene foam per year.
Politics, Not Economics, Counts
As concluded by several speakers over the two-day conference, plastic recycling is still in its early stages. However, all agreed, the potential for growth in plastic usage is virtually assured and recycling will play an important role in meeting future plastic consumption. As for the collection of postconsumer plastic scrap, most participants agreed curbside collection assists recycling efforts better than buy-back arrangements, drop-off centers, or forced-deposit legislation. Although the economics of curbside collection may be shaky, most believe that mandatory source-separation programs will continue to be driven by politics, not dollars and cents.
Once material is collected, however, will MRFs (or PIRFs) sort and process the bulk of postconsumer plastics? Today, there are between 20 and 25 (reports vary) MRFs in operation throughout the United States, owned and operated both privately and jointly with municipalities. By the early 1990s, one speaker noted, there could be 100 more. But what about integrated processing ventures owned jointly by resin manufacturers and private waste haulers? And where do the more traditional multimaterial scrap processors fit in with either collection or processing? Some at the conference believe that capital demands of plastic processing are well beyond the typical scrap processor's resources. Therefore, scrap processors may be relied upon as transporters and intermediate collectors of plastic scrap, not processors.
Thus, while future collection of postconsumer plastics seems assured, the processing and reuse of plastic scrap remains in uncharted waters. Speakers conceded that, today, there appears to be no economic justification to process and reuse postconsumer scrap plastics. However, if the major plastic resin manufacturers intend to expand their markets for plastics, they also must come to grips with their scrap. It is those manufacturers, speakers agreed, that will determine how quickly and how far plastic recycling moves ahead.•
Although the collection, processing, and reuse rates for this material have been lagging behind those of other recyclables, speakers at a recent conference agreed that there’s growth potential for plastic recycling.