Plastics, Rubber, and Paper Recycling - ACS Publications - American

Chapter 5

Polymer Recycling:

Economic Realities

Jeffrey R. Ellis

Downloaded by PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 1, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: May 5, 1995 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1995-0609.ch005

J. R. Ellis, Technical and Economic Services, Newton, PA 18940

Recycling i s just one option for the disposing of polymeric wastes. Energy recovery by incineration, landfilling where there i s sufficient space, use of degradable polymers where warranted, and the cracking of plastics into useful chemicals are all feasible alternatives. Source reduction and increased reuse of polymeric products w i l l also impact the economic viability of plastics recycling. Research has shown that because of transportation and processing economics, polymer recycling w i l l be of most value when it i s part of an integrated waste management infrastructure encompassing all feasible options within a confined greater municipal area. Federal and state mandates for recycling only have the effect of imposing regressive levies on the costs of goods and services without contributing any useful solution to the nation's waste disposal problems.

Environmental activists have fought for and obtained legislative mandates, regulatory f i a t and appealed to individual and business guilt to promote recycling as a solution to disposal problems not only for plastics, but also for other waste products such as paper and metals. Unfortunately, markets for collected waste have been much slower to develop than the ability to sort and amass. During the last business downturn, the price of recycled plastics, specifically polyethylene, was $0.02 to 0.03 per pound higher than that of virgin resins (1). The recycling of other materials such as newsprint and even traditionally desirable aluminum cans has been hampered because these have been either a glut on the market or were no longer competitive with newly produced products. For many recyclable materials, collectors have paid handling fees to processing centers instead of being paid for what i s collected. Within the 0097-6156/95/0609-0062$12.00/0 © 1995 American Chemical Society In Plastics, Rubber, and Paper Recycling; Rader, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.

5. ELLIS

Polymer Recycling: Economic Realities


last few years disincentives have generally outnumbered incentives for plastics recycling (Table I ) . Table I . Incentives and Disincentives for Plastics Recycling Incentives Disincentives 1. Legislative mandates 1. Unfavorable economics 2. Regulatory f i a t 2. Transport logistics 3. "Green" image 3. Lack of markets 4. Customer, community 4. Waning interest goodwill 5. Regulatory restrictions 6. Declining markets because of downgaging 7. Competition from paper and virgin plastics 8. Competing solutions to plastics waste problems The public has generally been cooperative. People w i l l separate plastics from other wastes although separation of one plastic from another even when these are embossed with easily identified symbols must generally be done separately. There i s generally no payment made at the curbside. Studies commissioned by the American Plastics Council i n i t s "Model Cities" program indicate that the incremental costs of collection of plastics at curbside i s under $0.05 per pound. However the other steps i n the recycling process a l l add incremental costs. Sorting, baling, cleaning, flaking and/or repelletizing and the intermediate transportation steps bring the costs of recycling commingled plastics to a level of over $1700. per ton. Those costs are at least ten times more expensive than that of recycling easily separable homogeneous plastic products (PET and HDPE bottles) or that of alternative disposal methods (see Table II). Table I I . Economics of Waste Disposal Methods MfithQd finwt. Rftt.Jmatft Landfilling $30 per ton Incineration/Energy Recovery $100 per ton Recycling of PET and HDPE bottles - $100 - $150 per ton Cost of trucks/services for recyclables Separation and other processing costs Public education and marketing costs Recovered Value

$30-$50/ton $50-$70/ton $20-$30/ton $1Q /ton

Alternatives to landfilling are cost competitive only i n the Northeast and i n other areas where high tipping fees and transportation charges prevail. SOURCE: Adapted from ref. 2.

In Plastics, Rubber, and Paper Recycling; Rader, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.

64

PLASTICS, RUBBER, AND PAPER RECYCLING


The State of Post Consumer Polymer Recycling Recycling infrastructures have been put together for each of the commodity plastics (polyolefins, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, and thermoplastic polyesters) which make up the bulk of the waste stream. However, i n i t i a l capacities have been underutilized and there have been major consolidations. What has most hindered the adoption of plastics recycling i s the lack of nearby markets, associated with the unfavorable economics of transportation. Historically, sourcing clean consistent grades of recycled plastics has also been d i f f i c u l t although these problems are now largely overcome. Success in recycling has generally been exhibited by small entrepreneurial companies which are involved with a l l phases of plastics recycling from collection to the manufacture of finished products such as plastic lumber and outdoor furniture. Many such companies have also failed. Despite both domestic and international incentives, i t has been d i f f i c u l t for large companies to offer recycled plastics resins or blends thereof and to develop markets for these products. What incentives there are have not generally been from a profit motive per se, but more from trying to help customers promote an environmentally conscious or "green" image with the public. These customers are major consumers of plastic packaging materials. Among them are leading companies in the manufacture of household chemicals and lubricating products. Some food products and food service companies are beginning to demand a recycling infrastructure for a l l plastic packaging materials selected although these firms will not be likely to use recycled materials for the packaging of their own products. Automobile manufacturers and makers of business machines are also experimenting with using parts such as bumpers and electronics housings made from plastics with recycle content. Resin suppliers, plastics processors and their customers must continue to respond to consumer, regulatory and legislative initiatives, usually on a local or statewide basis, which mandate implementation of solutions to solid waste disposal problems. Additional incentives are the desire to obtain public goodwill and endorsements of being "environmentally correct." Unfortunately, large plastic resin manufacturing companies and large users of plastics, the main targets for environmentalist and legislative pressures, usually can do very l i t t l e except make public relations gestures, often at the expense of profitability, regarding direct implementation of solutions to the plastics waste problem. Partnerships of large companies with smaller ones operating locally have not been successful and most have been dissolved. Other firms have left the plastics recycling business or abandoned large segments thereof entirely. As can be seen from Table II, landfilling i s s t i l l the cheapest alternative. Landfills, especially in the Northeast U.S. continue to be closed, with no new ones opening, an4 the cost of landfill disposal i s obeying the classic laws of economics. Incineration has been a d i f f i c u l t s e l l because of community "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) responses based largely



5. ELLIS


65

on fears of toxic ash, toxic or unpleasant fumes, or simply the amount of traffic generated - nor i s i t generally considered an environmentally appropriate solution. Waste-to-energy plants are more acceptable, but these also often face community opposition. Cooperation with a private u t i l i t y , particularly one with existing high fuel costs i s also necessary for construction of a commercially viable waste-to-energy facility. Chemical modification and pyrolytic cracking of plastics has advanced to the point that useful chemicals are obtained. Indeed, chemical modification by methanolysis or glycolysis accounts for some of the infrastructure for the recycling of bottles made from amorphous thermoplastic polyester. Although not economical now, technology for the cracking of commingled plastics (much like that for the cracking of crude oil) into a mixture of useful chemicals has been demonstrated. Plastic scrap would then not have to be sorted, cleaned and reprocessed and transportation costs would be minimal. Existing refineries and land zoned for such purposes could be used. Degradable plastics must be custom formulated and have been shown to have niche uses; for example ,in agricultural mulch films and six-pack ring holders, but building in degradability is not a solution to the problem of what to do with over 90% of the billions of pounds of plastics waste being generated annually. Some companies have solved their sourcing problems by developing their own infrastructure to collect, often from their customers, suitably clean and homogenous materials which can be made into useful products. For example, film grade polyethylene is recycled by collection of used shopping or merchant bags, dry cleaning bags, and other relatively clean products and made into trash bags, lawn and leaf bags, or even back into merchant bags. High density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, originally used for milk and water, are made into o i l or household chemical containers. Often the recycled material is sandwiched between layers of virgin material, which has better chemical and environmental stress crack performance, and also is probably more aesthetically pleasing to the ultimate consumer purchaser. However, i t is unknown i f these sandwich structures can be readily recycled because of progressive deterioration of the recyclate layer. The availability of competitive materials such as paper also imposes economic strictures on the costs that can be borne. Long term profitability of recycling ventures is also jeopardized by customers adopting source reduction techniques such as downgaging the wall thickness by using tougher materials, or by using less complex packaging constructions. The possibility of reuse is also being explored in North America. In Europe, reused soft drink bottles and molded automobile constructions are commonplace. What has been the hardest obstacle to overcome for plastics recycling are transportation pricing structures based on weight and volume of materials. Trucks and r a i l cars are not economical methods of transporting low density materials such as molded or foamed plastics. The longer the distance hauled, the worse the



66


economics become. Unfavorable transportation economics inhibits the development of large scale markets and the participation of large companies and large organizations such as municipal governments. For this reason, the city of Philadelphia, PA has reduced its participation in plastics recycling programs. In contrast, Minneapolis, MN has a successful plastics recycling program. Administrators of the Minneapolis program think that the smaller size of the city, the more efficient use of labor, and most of a l l the commitment of an educated citizenry to recycling and waste reduction and separating the various plastics by type at the curbside or alleyway, have been the key elements of the program's success. Economic conditions, however, have made things d i f f i c u l t even for this program. Market development for recycled plastics has been stymied because of the low cost of virgin resins. Another unknown which w i l l be hard to plan for in advance i s the commitment of governments to mandated recycling. Mandates or preferences for the purchase of products made from recycled materials as i s currently proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency very often conflict with mandates to purchase the least expensive suitable product. Many potential end uses of recycled plastics are also overseen by regulatory agencies such as the Department of Transportation and the Food and Drug Administration. These agencies w i l l require comprehensive testing of packaging materials and finished products made from recycled materials. Use of recycled materials in packaging has been allowed in certain cases, for example in egg cartons, and in pesticide containers. Industry standards setting organizations, for example, the Plastics Pipe Institute, will also require extensive testing before approval i s given. Interest in plastics recycling in the U.S.A. has generally declined over the last two years. The people of the State of Massachusetts, in 1992, rejected a far reaching law regarding plastics recycling. What i s instructive i s the experience of the Province of Ontario with i t s recycling law. The law was enacted with the support of nearly a l l groups of people affected by such legislation, and at least in the earlier stages, compliance (with fines being assessed for non-participation) has been high. In practice, the program works well in urban areas and is an economic l i a b i l i t y in rural and sparsely populated areas. Tax programs are now proposed to help municipalities set up a recycling infrastructure and develop markets for the materials collected. A law passed by the State of California mandating recycle content in packaging, due to take effect in 1995, w i l l be the f i r s t on a similar scale to be implemented in the U.S. Does Recycling of Post Consumer Use Plastics Make Sense Plastics recycling has i t s successes. Thermoplastic polyesters from bottles are converted into fibrous products and to a small extent the basic chemical components of the resin. HDPE bottles are recycled into plastic lumber, film products for trash bags and other end uses even though the energy content i s probably more valuable where the cost of energy i s high (Table


5.

ELLIS


III). These successes however represent almost 90% of the total amount of plastics recycled. Examples of smaller scale successes are the recycling of loose f i l l polystyrene packaging (for example in the San Francisco Bay area) and plastics used in automotive construction. Methanolysis and glycolysis of polyester are also feasible i f feedstock costs are minimal (Table IV).


Table III. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS OBTAINED Plastic HDPE PET

Waste to Energy Conversion $312 $28-$140

vs. Recycling $120 $470

Based on $0.14 per kilowatt/hour of energy. SOURCE: Decision Resources (Waltham, MA), Personal Communication, 1991. Table IV: Cost of Methanolvsis of PET

Cost per pound Feedstock Conversion & handling

Capital costs Total costs

$0.30 $0.20

$0.15 $0.65

Total cost of DMT and EG from petroleum $0.35 Cost of glycolysis i s similar. Source: Cornell, D., Eastman Chemical Co., Personal Communication, 1993-4. According to spokespeople from DuPont and Hoechst-Celanese, current methanolysis programs being implemented are feasible because feedstock costs are minimal. Materials recycling has been shown to be just as susceptible to the vagaries of the business cycle as are other industries. Planning must be long-term as well as immediate. Recycling operations in municipalities with unionized sanitation labor require special care. The combination of recession, lack of markets, unfavorable transportation economics, and the decline in grant and support money for implementation of recycling programs available from state funding sources have put them in a serious economic bind such that contracts are not being renewed, although to this point not summarily abrogated. To some extent this research money i s being obtained through programs funded by private industry and the American Plastics Council. Money i s particularly needed to finance education programs so that


67


68


residents know which materials are recyclable and thus will be separated from other waste prior to pick-up. Transportation routing programs designed to maximize efficiency must also be developed. If large municipalities are going to continue participating in curbside collection and sorting, contracts between partners, suppliers and customers must be drawn up to provide for contingencies in times of economic distress. Recycling programs in suburbs where money has been spent on education programs, and where carting i s done by private haulers are generally considered much more manageable and successful. With separation done at the curbside, and with separation of commingled plastics into uniform components prohibitively expensive, i t i s not likely that development of sorting technologies w i l l be profitable. The City of San Diego has taken a major financial loss on i t s sorting plant which under current conditions has l i t t l e to do. Current automated sorting technologies are based on differences in plastics density or on visual inspection of embossed number codes. The equivalent of bar code sensitization would be more desirable for reducing costs i f a labeling system could be implemented. Analysis of transportation economics leads inexorably to the conclusion that plastics recycling i s best handled on a local or regional basis with region being defined as a greater municipal area. The American Chemical Society in i t s public outreach literature also endorses this view. It i s municipalities which have the most problems with plastics and other wastes disposal. Municipalities also have the population and market applications densities required to set up economically feasible recycling infrastructures. It i s at the municipal level at which solutions to solid waste problems must be implemented. Mandates from state legislatures, usually at least one level removed from such problems are often worse than useless. Such legislation usually does not provide any funding or even any mechanisms for solutions to be implemented. Entrepreneurship regarding development of products made from recycled plastics usually starts with small firms. Incubators, possibly in partnership with local universities, can be set up and financial incentives to help small businesses can be provided through standard assistance programs. Collectors of materials for recycling can be given licenses or franchises to collect at curbside or from accumulation centers. Municipal governments as one of the largest customers for finished goods in the region can even give preferences for products made from locally recycled materials. Funding for such programs may also be available from Federal sources. What i s the role of the plastics industry and plastics processors? Established plastics processors can certainly examine the possibility of making use of collected materials for recycling and, i f economically feasible, use them to make products therefrom which can be readily sold. Occasionally, because processors service sensitive markets such as food packaging or medical products, separate f a c i l i t i e s for the storage and processing of recycled resins may be necessary.



5. ELLIS


69

Large resin companies can also participate, but again mostly on a local basis. On a corporate wide basis, expertise can be made available on a consulting basis to municipalities and startup firms on issues of plastics processing, the blending of recycled plastics with virgin resins, and information on how plastics performance w i l l vary with how plastics are collected, cleaned, blended and repelletized. Some large companies committed to offering recycled resins are offering compounding expertise (such as with coloring agents or impact modifiers), or finished products such as insulation board, in an effort to develop profits from value-added products made from recycled resins. It i s certainly hoped by a l l who have a stake in the success of recycling that the plastics industry, although i t i s under no legislative compulsion to do so, w i l l develop markets for recycled materials. So far, market development for recycled products and the use of alternatives to landfilling have barely kept pace with the amount of trash generated. Between 1989 and 1991, the experience of the State of Pennsylvania i s that recycling has not even been able to prevent a small increase in the total poundage of waste generated per person daily. It i s also going to be important to educate large national customers for plastic resins and finished products made therefrom that solutions to the plastic waste problem must be implemented locally. It may not even make sense or be harmful to have a national policy. For example, in desert environments or other regions of water scarcity, in the balance, i t will be less environmentally damaging to incinerate or l a n d f i l l waste rather than use precious water to clean i t for recycling. Conclusions The recycling of plastics, like other solutions to waste disposal problems, is subject to the laws of economics. Much as legislatures and regulatory agencies may try, these laws cannot be repealed. Plastics recycling programs must be market driven. Resin manufacturers, processors and end users must continue to battle against ill-conceived laws and regulations which would make plastics the equivalent of a controlled substance. The waste problems that the nation faces are primarily local in nature and are best solved at a local level. Local governments should consider a l l solutions, including recycling, to the materials waste problems. If necessary, municipalities must make unpopular decisions to site incinerators or waste-to-energy plants, or permit new cracking f a c i l i t i e s or landfills i f recycling or use of degradable plastics are either uneconomic or inadvisable to implement. Recycling should be encouraged, but not i f the advantages gained are minimal and too costly to be supported by the existing economic infrastructure. Literature Cited 1. Plastics

News Resin Pricing

Chart, Crain Communications,

Inc., Akron, OH, 1993. 2. Porter, J. W., Recycling at the Crossroads, Porter & Associates, Sterling, VA, 1993. RECEIVED December 19, 1994


Plastics, Rubber, and Paper Recycling - ACS Publications - American

Recommend Documents