:tates C solid wastes:

PAIR PLAN T O PREVAIL- OVER

PLASTICS 9 .......................................

Massachusetts and Rhode Islund have tackled plastics recycling problems head-on. Here’s their well-developed game plan.

n late 1986, Governors Michael Dukakis and Edward DiPrete of Massachusetts and Rhode Island pledged cooperation in exploring innovative plastics recycling solutions. A 16-month feasibility study followed, with the Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste Manage-

ment and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management funding contractor Recuperbec, Inc. (Quebec).

The resulting “Plastics Recycling Action Plans” for both states were unveiled earlier this summer.

Presented here are highlights of the two states’ research

underway in the two states. Note that the effort may extend to other parts of New England; Governor William O’Neill recently pledged Connecticut’s involvement for a three- state effort.

:. findings and action plans. Many parts of the plans are

Finding a win-win scenario While part of the study looked at quantities of plastics in the waste stream, possible growth rates, and so on, the proj- ect focused heavily on actual experience as the guide. In this seme, the research team functioned as “talent scouts” - looking for winning approaches to collection, remanu- facture, and marketing.

Researchers began with the premise that plastics recy- cling could and should be done, and that their job was sim-

By GRETCHEN BREWER Brewer is a recycling program coordinator for the Massachusetts Division of Solid Waste Management.

ply to find out how to make it a win-win proposition. That is, the goal was to gather enough information and formulate a plan whereby the states could engage and assist entrepre- neurial solutions by the private sector, and particularly the plastics industry.

The bottom line, then, was to be: Government would meet its obligation to protect the environment and public health through sound waste management, while new busi- ness opportunities would be identified for entrepreneurs.

Using composition studies from around the U.S., the re- search team learned that the average portion of the waste stream plastics make up (by weight) is 8%. Volume has been measured at two to three times that figure.

Per capita plastic discards seem insignificant by weight but are impressive in terms of volume. The average Ameri- can throws away 45 pounds, or 1.5 cubic yards of plastics per year. For a consumer who purchases milk and soft drinks in plastic bottles, the figures would be 70 pounds and 2.5 cubic yards. Adding other plastic discards (besides packaging) brings the total to 80 pounds and 3.0 cubic yards per capita.

Collection through regional programs A most important state government strategy outlined in the action plans is the guarantee of raw material supplies for industry. This means government will finance public edu- cation, collection equipment, and processing of materials for market.

To recover large, steady supplies, Massachusetts and

AUGUST 1988 I WASTE AGE 147

Rhode Island are implementing regional recycling pro- grams. Rhode Island’s program is being launched under the nation’s first state-wide mandatory recycling law; Massachusetts’s program was mandated by the state Solid Waste Act of 1987, which appropriated $35 million for re- cycling.

Each regional program will serve a cluster of towns and cities with an average combined population of 500,000. The regional approach allows:

economies of scale; critical mass of materials to leverage markets; processing capabilities to guarantee material quality;

and a measure of government oversight to assure the best

available recovery techniques are used. Experience in plastics recovery from the waste stream,

gathered from 41 multi-material collection programs in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, was studied. Since collection is always cited as the main obstacle to plastics recycling, it was surprising to learn of so many programs with track rec- ords using a variety of techniques from what can best be described as “ad lib” to highly developed systems. The re- port profiles the eight most interesting programs.

Table One Collection Program Profiles

& other plastics grams Columbia County, multi & PET,;.. ’ curbside & drop-off I. 4 f ?rebuilt beer truck, baling Wis. (27,000) & HDPE voluntary.. . - 3-man crew

LaSalle. Quebec multi & all film weekly curbside 10 recycling vehicle, NA (20,000) & rigid plastics voluntary 7 compartments

150 WASTE AGE / AUGUST 1988

Plastics Recycling Contd.

next evolution in collection techniques. Flattening of plastic allows later culling of certain resins such as PET and HDPE, depending on market conditions.

In addition, tests of the green bin system are recom- mended in areas where packer trucks are already used for trash collections. Rhode Island has tested a larger-capacity, top-loading recycling vehicle, and will cosponsor research and development of the on-truck densification device.

Targeted material All rigid plastic containers, of all resin types and possibly including films, are to be targeted. Citizens will not be ex- pected to identify different resins or perform elaborate preparations such as flattening, removing lids, etc. They will be asked to place all items they recognize as rigid plas- tic containers commingled in the set-out bin, along with glass bottles, cans, and newspapers.

Pilot collections proposed in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, for just all rigid plastics and all rigid and film plas- tics, will build on findings of the first Rhode Island pilots. Collection techniques are to be fine-tuned. It is expected that properly designed, financed, and publicized collection methods can capture 45% of rigid plastic containers in the waste stream and about 20% of film; this equates to 14 to 20 pounds per person per year.

Material processing and end use Each region’s recycling hub will be a materials recovery facility (MRF), where commingled materials will be sorted from each other and prepared for market. The first MRFs (one in each state) are being funded and built by the states and contracted out for private operation. Both will begin operations in 1989.

Massachusetts’s action plan recommends the remaining 11 MRFs planned by :he state be capitalized and built by the private sector. These privately run MRFs would be al- lowed to charge reasonable tip fees (less than for conven- tional disposal).

Further evaluation of fully developed, European MRF technologies with proven plastic handling capabi1ities.k also urged.

What is to become of the material? The action plan calls for the states to help the private sector install end-use plas- tics recycling plants. If recommendations are followed, the states will move immediately to site two industrial scale plants (one in each category described below) by 1990, when two or three regions are expected to be fully operational.

Of 40 technologies from around the world reviewed in the study, roughly a dozen were “short-listed.” These match

152 WASTE AGE I AUGUST 1988

the user-friendly, mixed plastics collection scenario, per- . mitting high recovery volume. The two most promising technology categories are:

separation systems, which reclaim polyolefin (polyethi ylene and polypropylene) raw material pellets from mixed i plastic wastes; and ’6

mixedplastics molding systems, which use the com- i mingled resin stream as is.

Examples of polyolefin separation systems are Trans- .f plastek of Canada, Sorema of Italy, and AKW of West Ger many. Mixed plastics molding systems include Advanced Recycling Technology’s ET/1, and Recycloplast.

Additional technologies for further evaluation and pos- .I sible installation were identified by the researchers. A PET recovery plant is urged; it would process the 7 to 14 milliol pounds F r year that escape Massachusetts’s redemption : system (plus PET from Rhode Island). Re-grind systems, such as those used by Eaglebrook and Midwest Plastics, an recommended. And other emerging mixed plastics systems such as those of Polymer Products of Iowa and Polymerix ; of New Jersey, will bear watching.

Demand for materials is a focus A preliminary market survey for polyolefin pellets found ,:

limited interest among large, local custom molders. Most have switched from commodity plastics to engineering 3

plastics in the regional shift toward high tech industries. 1 Demand is strong am‘qng small custom molders in the

Northeast and in developing countries, however. For ex- i ample, the first polyolefin separation plant in North Amerj ica is “sold out,” and offshore demand for re-grind HDPE i has jumped off the charts (in part as a result of aworldwidc ethylene shortage).

Prices are now being quoted in the 15 to 29 cents per pound range for contaminated polyethylenes. One year agc this material, maximally cleaned and processed, claimed only six cents per pound.

Preliminary research into markets for mixed plastics ex- truded products (lumber substitutes) identified three strong areas to tap first. If 40% of the New England market were captured for horse stalls (top and bottom boards), park . benches, and boat docks, this would support at least two mixed plastics systems. Key niches to exploit are products that use pressurized lumber and lumber treated with a creosote.

Another recommendation, later implemented by a state executive order, was for Massachusetts to mobilize its pur- chasing power to favor products with recycled content, in- cluding plastic goods. A first step will be the purchase of set-out curbside recycling containers, which are made of u

I

plastics Recycling Conld.

to 25% post-consumer plastic content. Both states will also consider purchase of mixed plastics structures such as park benches for state parks and other public areas. Besides state Drocurement, the action plan recommends that Massachu- setts and Rhode Island co-fund in-depth market develop- ment efforts to tap regional demand for mixed plastics items and export demand for polyolefin pellets.

Promote public-private R&D collaboration Another initiative recommended by the researchers is for the states to take steps to foster cooperation among indus- try, government, and academia on key R&D areas. This is needed to fill gaps in the recycling loop.

Anticipating this need, in 1987 the Massachusetts Divi- sion of Solid Waste Management organized the Plastics Recycling Applied Research Institute, Inc. (PRARI). Other supporters include the Rhode Island Solid Waste Manage- ment Corp.

PRARI is a think-tank, funding-conduit, and research

body combining the skills of polymer, business, and recy cling experts. Its first project is an ET/1 pilot plant that opened in May. Installed by New England CRInc. at its fi Billerica, Mass., facility, the project has research support: from Lowell University (funded by the Massachusetts Ce ters of Excellence Corp.).

Other research projects will seek to diversify separatiol technologies, build markets, etc.

Happily ever after The Massachusetts-Rhode Island studies revealed fast- paced developments in plastics recycling, maturing collec tion methods and end-use technologies, and growing mar ket potential. Not all questions have answers, but many b, riers that seemed insurmountable a year ago have vanishe

In fostering this environment, the states' overall stratel now is to act as marriage-broker, bringing about a happy match between government and the private sector to ag- gressively implement large-scale plastics recycling. I

b

FHE's New Tbb Grinder Reduce Bulky Wood Waste Markets For Recycled Produces Chips From Volume by up to 7 0 9 4 1 Bulky Wood include: Bulky Wood Waste: FHE's Tub Grinder with Garden mulch,

Construction wood waste Caterpillar@ power processes Pallets bulky wood waste at a rate Demolition wood Brush and limbs (up

Ground cover

in excess of 50 yards Soil binder for erosion '

Fuel Harvesters Equipment Fuel Harvesters Equipment Inc.

12759 Lorna Rica Drive Grass Valley, CA 95945 Tel: (916) 272-7664