EPA/530-SW-89-051
REPORT TO CONGRESS
Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Wastes
February 1990
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office, of Solid Waste
Office of Water
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 1 4 1990
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
President of the Senate
Washington D.C. 20510
*
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit the enclosed Report to Congress on
Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Waste. The report presents
the results of our study carried out pursuant to Section 2202 of
the 1987 Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act.
The report addresses the impacts of post-consumer plastic
wastes and methods to improve current management methods including
source reduction, recycling, and degradable plastics.
William K.
Enclosure
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEE 1 4 1990
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas Foley
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit the enclosed Report to Congress on
Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Waste. The report presents
the results of our study carried out pursuant jtp Section 2202 of
the 1987 Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act.
The report addresses the impacts of post-consumer plastic
wastes and methods to improve current management methods including
source reduction, recycling, and degradable plastics.
William K. Re
Enclosure
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION
SECTION TWO PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISPOSAL OF PLASTICS
AND PLASTIC PRODUCTS
2.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
2.2.1 Manufacturing Resins
2.2.2 Incorporating Additives
2.2.3 Processing Resins into End Products
2.3 PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION STATISTICS
2.3.1 Historical Overview
2.3.2 Domestic Production of Plastics
2.3.3 Import/Export and Domestic Consumption
2.3.4 Economic Profile of the Plastics Industry
2.3.4.1 Sector Characteristics
2.3.4.2 Market Conditions and Prices for Commodity Resins
2.3.5 Forecasts of Market Growth
2.3.6 Characteristics of Major Resin Types
2.3.7 Characteristics of Major Additive Types
2.4 MAJOR END USE MARKETS FOR PLASTICS
2.4.1 Packaging
2.4.2 Building and Construction
2.4.3 Consumer and Institutional Products
2.4.4 Electrical and Electronics
2.4.5 Furniture and Furnishings
2.4.6 Transportation
2.4.7 Adhesives, Inks, and Coatings
2.4.8 Other
2.5 DISPOSITION OF PLASTICS INTO THE SOLID WASTE STREAM
2.5.1 Plastics in Municipal Solid Waste
2.5.2 Plastics in Building and Construction Wastes
2.5.3 Plastics in Automobile Salvage Residue
2.5.4 Plastics in Litter
2.5.5 Plastics in Marine Debris
ES-1
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-10
2-10
2-11
2-11
2-11
2-12
2-12
2-12
2-15
2-17
2-19
2-19
2-26
2-26
2-32
2-35
2-35
2-38
2-38
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-43
2-51
2-51
2-52
2-54
REFERENCES
2-55
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
SECTION THREE IMPACTS OF PLASTIC DEBRIS ON THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
3.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
3.2
TYPES AND SOURCES OF PLASTIC DEBRIS
3.2.1 Land-Based Sources
3.2.1.1 Plastic Manufacturing and Fabricating Facilities and Related
Transportation Activities
3.2.1.2 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Activities
3.2.1.3 Sewage Treatment Plants and Combined Sewer Overflows
3.2.1.4 Stormwater Runoff/Nonpoint Source
3.2.1.5 Beach Use and Resuspension of Beach Litter
3.2.2 Marine Sources
3.2.2.1 Merchant Marine Vessels
3.2.2.2 Fishing Vessels
3.2.2.3 Recreational Boats
3.2.2.4 Military and Other Government Vessels
3.2.2.5 Miscellaneous Vessels (Educational, Pfivate Research,
and Industrial Vessels)
3.2.2.6 Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms
3.2.2.7 Recent Estimates of Plastic Wastes Disposed in U.S. Waters
By All Maritime Sectors
3.2.3 Illegal Disposal of Wastes into the Marine Environment
FATE OF PERSISTENT MARINE DEBRIS
3.3.1 Physical Fate and Transport Processes
3.3.2 Degradative Processes
EFFECTS OF PLASTIC DEBRIS
3.4.1 Impacts on Marine Wildlife
3.4.1.1 Entanglement
3.4.1.2 Ingestion
3.4.2 Aesthetic and Economic Effects
3.4.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety
3.5 SUMMARY
3.3
3.4
rage
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-5
3-10
3-13
3-14
3-16
3-22
3-23
3-25
3-27
3-28
3-30
3-30
3-31
3-37
3-40
3-40
3-43
3-45
3-45
3-46
3-56
3-65
3-67
3-67
REFERENCES
3-69
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
SECTION FOUR IMPACTS OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS WASTE ON
THE MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
4.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
4.1.1 Landfilling
4.1.1.1 Management Issues
4.1.1.2 Environmental Issues
4.1.2 . Incineration
4.1.2.1 Management Issues
4.1.2.2 Environmental Releases
4.1.3 Litter
4.2 LANDFILLING ;
4.2.1 Management Issues
4.2.1.1 Landfill Capacity
4.2.1.2 Landfill Integrity
4.2.1.3 Other Management Issues
4.2.2 Environmental Releases
4.2.2.1 Leaching of Plastic Polymers
4.2.2.2 Leaching of Plastics Additives
4.3 INCINERATION
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.1.1 Number, Capacity, and Types of Incinerators
4.3.1.2 Combustion Properties of Plastics
4.3.1.3 Plastics Combustion and Pollution Control
4.3.2 Incinerator Management Issues
4.3.2.1 Excessive Flame Temperature
4.3.2.2 Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs)
4.3.2.3 Formation of Slag
4.3.2.4 Formation of Corrosive Gases
4.3.3 Environmental Releases
4.3.3.1 Emissions from MSW Incinerators
4.3.3.2 Plastics Contribution to Incinerator Ash
4.4 LITTER
4.4.1* Background
4.4.2 Analysis of Relative Impacts of Plastic and Other Litter
REFERENCES
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-5
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-12
4-12
4-29
4-31
4-32
4-34
4-34
4-39
4-39
4-39
4-40
4-40
4-41
4-44
4-49
4-51
4-51
4-55
4-57
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
SECTION FIVE
OPTIONS TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF
POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS WASTES
Page
5-1
5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
5.1.1 Source Reduction
5.1.2 Recycling
5.1.3 Degradable Plastics
5.1.4 . Additional Efforts to Mitigate Impacts of Plastic Waste
5.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE EXAMINATION OF PLASTIC WASTE
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
5.3 SOURCE REDUCTION
5.3.1 Definitions and Scope of the Analysis
5.3.2 Opportunities for Volume Reduction of Gross Discards of Waste
5.3.3 Opportunities for Toxicity Reduction
5.3.4 Systematic Analysis of Source Reduction Efforts
5.3.5 Current Initiatives for Source Reduction
53.5.1 State and Local Initiatives
5.3.5.2 Industry Initiatives
5.4 RECYCLING
5.4.1 Scope of the Analysis
5.4.2 Status and Outlook of Plastics Recycling Alternatives
5.4.2.1 Collecting Plastics for Recycling
5.4.2.2 Separation of Plastics by Resin Types
5.4.2.3 Processing and Manufacturing of Recycled Plastics
5.4.2.4 Marketing of Recycled Plastics Products
5.4.2.5 Summary: Integration of Plastics Recycling Alternatives
5.4.2.6 Current Government and Industry Plastics Recycling Initiatives
5.4.3 Costs of Plastics Recycling
5.4.3.1 Costs of Curbside Collection Programs
5.4.3.2 Costs of Adding Plastics to Curbside Collection Programs
5.4.3.3 Costs of Rural Recycling Programs
5.4.3.4 Costs of Container Deposit Legislation
5.4.4 Environmental, Human Health, Consumer, and Other Social
Costs and Benefits Generated by Recycling Plastics
5.4.4.1 Environmental Issues
5.4.4.2 Health and Consumer Issues
5.4.4.3 Other Social Costs and Benefits
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-10
5-12
5-21
5-21
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-25
5-29
5-37
5-44
5-48
5-51
5-54
5-56
5-56
5-67
5-70
5-71
5-74
5-74
5-74
5-75
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
5.5
5.6
DEGRADABLE PLASTICS
5.5.1 Scope of the Analysis
5.5.2 Types of Degradable Plastics and Degradation Processes
5.5.2.1 Photodegradation
5.5.2.2 Biodegradation
5.5.2.3 Other Degradation Processes
5.5.3 Environmental, Health, and Consumer Issues and Other Costs and
Benefits Generated by Use of Degradable Plastics
5.5.3.1 Environmental Issues
5.5.3.2 Efficiency of Degradation Processes in the Marine Environment
5.5.3.3 Human Health Issues
5.5.3.4 Consumer Asues
5.5.4 Cost of Degradable Plastics
5.5.5 Current States of Efforts to Foster Manufacture
and Use of Degradable Plastics
5.5.5.1 Regulations Requiring Use of Degradable Plastics
5.5.5.2 Industry Inilatives on Degradable Plastics
ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECT OF PLASTIC
POLLUTION ON THE SOLID WASTE STREAM
5.6.1 Efforts to Contfol Discharges of Land-Generated Wastes from Sanitary
Sewers, Stormvper Sewers, and Nonpoint Urban Runoff
5.6.2 Efforts to Implement the MARPOL Annex V Regulations
Efforts to Reduce Plastics Generated from Fishing Operations
Efforts to Control Discharges of Plastic Pellets
EPA Programs to Control Environmental Emissions from Incineration
EPA Programs to Control Environmental Hazards Arising from the
5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
5.6.6
Landfilling of flastic Wastes with Municipal Solid Waste
REFERENCES
Page
5-75
5-76
5-76
5-77
5-79
5-80
5-81
5-81
5-85
5-88
5-89
5-90
5-90
5-90
5-92
5-94
5-94
5-95
5-96
5-96
5-98
5-98
5-100
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
SECTION SIX OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS
6.1 OBJECTIVES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
6.1.1 Source Reduction
6.1.2 Recycling
6.1.3 Landfilling and Incineration
6.2 OBJECTIVES FOR HANDLING PROBLEMS OUTSIDE THE MSW
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems/Combined Sewer Overflows/
Stormwater Drainage Systems
6.2.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems
6.2.1.2 Combined Sewer Overflows
6.2.1.3 Stormwater Discharges
6.2.2 Other Sources of Marine Debris
6.2.2.1 Vessels
6.2.2.2 Plastic Manufacturers, Processors, and Transporters
6.2.2.3 Garbage Barges
6.2.2.4 Land- and Sea-Originated Litter
6.2.3 Degradable Plastics
Page
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-6
6-9
6-11
6-11
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-17
APPENDIX A STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES A-l
AVAILABLE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
A.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A-l
A.2 LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTES A-3
FROM VESSELS INTO NAVIGABLE WATERS
A.2.1 The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and A-3
Control Act of 1987
A.2.2 Additional Legislation A-4
A.3 LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTES A-5
FROM LAND SOURCES TO NAVIGABLE WATERS
A.3.1 The Ocean Dumping Act A-6
A3.2 The Clean Water Act A-6
A.3.3 Shore Protection Act of 1988 A-7
A.3.4 Deepwater Port Act A-7
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
A4 DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTE FROM ANY SOURCE ONTO LAND
A.4.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
A.4.2 Clean Air Act
A.5 OTHER LEGISLATION THAT INFLUENCES MANUFACTURE OR
DISCARD OF PLASTIC MATERIALS
A.5.1 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
A.5.2. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
A.5.3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Laws
A.5.4 Plastic Ring Law
A.5.5 National Environmental Policy Act
REFERENCES
age
A-7
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-9
A-9
A-10-.
A-ll
A-ll
A-12
APPENDIX B STATE AND LOCAL RECYCLING EFFORTS
REFERENCES
B-l
B-14
APPENDIX C SUBSTITUTES FOR LEAD- AND CADMIUM-CONTAINING
ADDITIVES FOR PLASTICS
C.1 INTRODUCTION
C.2
C.3
SUBSTITUTE COLORANTS AND THEIR PROPERTIES
C.2.1 Costs of Lead- and Cadmium-Based Pigments and Their Substitutes
C.2.2 Other Factors Affecting Selection of Substitutes and Substitute Costs
SUBSTITUTE STABILIZERS AND THEIR PROPERTIES
C.3.1 Substitutes for Lead-Containing Heat Stabilizers
Substitutes for Cadmium-Containing Heat Stabilizers
Costs of Lead and Cadmium-Based Heat Stabilizers and Their Substitutes
Other Factors Affecting Selection of Substitutes and Substitute Costs
C.3.2
C.3.3
C.3.4
REFERENCES
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-5
C-8
C-9
G-10
C-12
C-16
C-16
C-19
vn
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This report was developed in response to Section 2202 of the 1987 Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act, which directs EPA to develop a report to Congress on various issues
concerning plastic waste in the environment. Specifically, EPA is required to:
• Identify plastic articles of concern in the marine environment,
• Describe impacts of plastic waste on solid waste management, and
• Evaluate methods for reducing impacts of plastic wastes, including recycling,
substitution away from plastics, and the use of degradable plastics.
In this report, EPA has examined two other methods for reducing impacts associated with
plastic wastes in addition to those specified in the statute. These are: (1) source reduction of
plastic waste (this is broader than substitution away from plastics) and (2) methods for
controlling the sources of plastic marine debris.
SCOPE OF THE REPORT
The report focuses primarily on plastic waste in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, that
is, post-consumer plastic waste. The only exception to this focus is the consideration of plastic
pellets, which are the raw materials used in the processing and manufacture of plastic products.
Pellets are included in the report because they have been found in high concentrations in the
marine environment and they pose ingestion risks to some forms of marine life.
•%
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS AND ACTION ITEMS
PRODUCTION AND USE OF PLASTICS
Plastics are resins, or polymers, that have been synthesized from petroleum or natural gas
derivatives. The term "plastics" encompasses a wide variety of resins each offering unique
properties and functions. In addition, the properties of each resin can be modified by additives.
Different combinations of resins and additives have allowed the creation of a wide array of
products meeting a wide variety of specifications.
U.S. production of plastics has grown significantly in the last 30 years, averaging an annual growth
rate of 10%. Continued growth is expected. The largest single market sector is plastics
packaging, capturing one-third of all U.S. plastics sales. Building and construction (25% of U.S.
sales) and consumer products (11%) follow.
ES-1
-------
Plastics production and use has grown because of the many advantages plastics offer over other
more traditional materials. A few of the desirable intrinsic properties of plastics include: (1)
design flexibility — plastics can be modified for a wide variety of end uses, (2) high resistance to
corrosion, (3) low weight, and (4) shatter resistance. Table ES-1 provides information on some
of the major classes of plastic resins, their characteristics, and examples of product applications.
PLASTICS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
EPA has identified several articles of concern in the marine environment due to the risks they
pose to marine life or human health or to the aesthetic (and related economic) damage they
cause. These articles of concern are: plastic pellets, polystyrene spheres, syringes, beverage
ring carrier devices, uncut plastic strapping, plastic bags and sheeting, plastic tampon applicators,
condoms, fishing nets and traps, and monofilament lines and rope.
Many other items of marine debris (made from plastic as well as other materials) have been
identified during the development of this report. Taken as a whole, all components of marine
debris are unsightly and offensive to many people.
Specific sources for each debris item are not well known; however, the major land-based
sources appear to be:
• Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sewage treatment plants
• Stormwater runoff and other non-specific sources
• Plastic manufacturing and fabrication and related transportation activities (for pellets)
The major marine-based sources appear to be:
• Commercial fishing vessels
• Offshore oil and gas platforms
Recreational littering (on land and from vessels) also contributes to marine debris.
The following are EPA's major action items for reducing and controlling the sources of marine
debris:
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS -
• EPA will ensure that all permits for CSO discharges include technology-based
limitations for the control of floatable discharges.
ES-2
_
-------
Table ES-1
PLASTIC RESIN CHARACTERISTICS, MARKETS, AND PRODUCTS
Resin Name
Characteristics
Primary Product Markets
Product Examples
Low-Density Polyethylene
(LDPE)
Moisture-proof; inert
Packaging
Garbage bags; coated
papers
Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC)
Clear; brittle unless
modified with piasticizers
Building and construction;
packaging
Construction pipe; meat wrap;
cooking oil bottles
High-Density Polyethylene
(HOPE)
Flexible; translucent
Packaging
Milk and detergent bottles;
boil-in-bag pouches
Polypropylene
(PP)
Stiff; heat- and chemical-
resistant
Furniture; packaging
Syrup bottles; yogurt tubs;
office furniture
Polystyrene
(PS)
Brittle; clear; good thermal
properties
Packaging; consumer products
Disposable foam dishes and
cups; cassette tape cases
Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)
Tough; shatterproof
Packaging; consumer products
Soft drink bottles; food and
medicine containers
-------
• EPA is developing guidance for States and local communities on effective operation
and control of a combined sewer system. Information on low-cost control mechanisms,
which may be helpful in reducing releases of floatable debris, will be included.
• EPA will sample a limited number of CSO discharges to pinpoint which articles are
frequently released from CSOs.
STORMWATER DISCHARGES -
• EPA is developing a Report to Congress on stormwater discharges. Floatable
discharges will be considered in this report. The report is expected to be completed by
mid-1990.
• A subsequent report will be prepared on control mechanisms necessary to mitigate the
water quality impacts of discharges examined in the initial Report to Congress. A final
report is targeted for the end of 1991.
• EPA will sample and study a limited number of stormwater discharges to better
pinpoint which articles are released from these sources.
VESSELS -
m EPA recommends that Federal and State agencies should enter into agreements with
the U.S. Coast Guard to enforce Annex V of MARPOL, which prohibits the discharge
of plastic waste at sea.
• EPA recommends that port facilities, local communities, industry, and interested
Federal agencies should coordinate efforts to develop recycling programs for plastic
waste that is brought to shore in compliance with Annex V of MARPOL.
• EPA will support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
investigation of methods to reduce the loss and impacts of fishing nets and gear by
providing related information, such as information on degradable plastics.
LITTER PREVENTION AND RETRIEVAL -
• EPA will continue to support and conduct a limited number of harbor and beach
surveys and cleanup operations.
• EPA will continue to work with NOAA and other Federal Agencies to distribute
educational materials to consumers on marine debris.
E'S-4
-------
EPA is developing an educational program for consumers that describes the proper
method for disposing of household medical waste.
MANAGEMENT OF PLASTIC WASTES
Most post-consumer plastic waste is landfilled along with municipal solid waste. A small
percentage (approximately 10%) of municipal solid waste is incinerated, and 10% is recycled.
Only 1% of post-consumer plastic waste is recycled.
Plastic waste accounts for a large and growing portion of the municipal solid waste stream.
Plastics are about 7% (by weight) of municipal solid waste and a larger percentage by volume.
Current waste volume estimates range from 14 to 21 percent of the waste stream. The amount
of plastic waste is predicted to increase by 50% (by weight) by the year 2000.
Half of the plastic waste stream is packaging waste. The rest of the plastic waste stream includes
non-durable consumer goods such as pens and disposable razors and durable goods such as
furniture and appliance casings.
Management of plastics in a landfill;
Plastic wastes have not been shown to create difficulties for landfill operations. The structural
integrity of a landfill is not affected by plastic wastes.
Plastics wastes affect landfill capacity because of the large and growing amount of plastic waste
produced, not because the wastes are not degradable. Some have claimed that plastic waste
affect landfill capacity even more than other larger volume wastes (e.g., paper) because plastics
do not degrade in a landfill. While it is true that plastic wastes are very slow to degrade in
landfills, recent data indicate that other wastes, such as paper and food waste, are also slow to
degrade. Degradation of waste, therefore, has little effect on landfill capacity.
Data are too limited to determine whether plastic additives contribute significantly to leachate
produced in municipal solid waste landfills. Only certain additives have the potential for causing
a problem; however, their contribution to leachate volume or toxicity is unknown.
Management of plastics in an incinerator
Plastics contribute significantly to the heating value of municipal solid waste, with a heating value
of three times that of typical municipal waste.
Controversy exists regarding whether halogenated plastics (e.g., polyvinyl chloride) contribute to
emissions from municipal waste incinerators. Emissions of particular concern are acid gas
emissions and dioxin/furan emissions. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration are
ES-5
-------
continuing to analyze these issues. Final conclusions await completion of these additional
analyses.
Plastic additives containing heavy metals (e.g., lead and cadmium) contribute to the metal content
and possibly the toxicity of incinerator ash. Additional investigation is needed to determine with
greater accuracy the impact of plastic additives on incinerator ash toxicity (i.e., whether lead-
and cadmium-based plastic additives contribute to leachable lead and cadmium in ash).
Potential substitutes for these additives are examined in Appendix C of this report.
METHODS FOR REDUCING IMPACTS OF PLASTIC WASTES
Source Reduction
Source reduction is defined to include activities that reduce the amount or toxicity of the waste
generated. EPA is considering all components of the waste stream as possible candidates for
source reduction. ,
There are a number of ways of achieving source reduction. Examples include:
• Modify design of product or package to decrease the amount of material used.
• Utilize economies of scale with larger size packages.
• Utilize economies of scale with product concentrates.
• Make material more durable so that it may be reused.
• Substitute away from toxic constituents in products or packaging.
It is difficult to consider source reduction of plastic waste or any single component of the waste
stream in isolation because the goal of source reduction is to reduce the amount or toxicity of
the entire waste stream, not just of one component. Attempts to reduce the amount of one
component may actually cause an increase in another component and possibly in the entire
waste stream.
For this reason, source reduction actions need to be carefully examined. In many cases,
particularly those involving material substitution, a lifecycle evaluation should be completed. Such
an analysis includes an evaluation of the impacts of the material from production to disposal.
For example, the changes in natural resource use, energy use, consumer safety and utility, and
product disposal that may result from the proposed action should be considered. This type of
evaluation will ensure that source reduction efforts do not merely shift environmental problems
from one media or waste stream to another.
ES-6
-------
The following are EPA's major action items regarding source reduction:
• EPA has issued a grant to the Conservation Foundation to evaluate strategies for
MSW source reduction. Under this grant the Conservation Foundation will convene a
national steering committee of municipal solid waste source reduction experts to discuss
source reduction opportunities and incentives to promote source reduction, including
potential selection criteria for a corporate source reduction awards program. The
steering committee is expected to provide recommendations by the Fall of 1990.
• Building on work done with the (Conservation Foundation, EPA will develop a model
for conducting lifecycle analyses. A preliminary model should be available by the end
of 1991.
• EPA has partially funded an effort to analyze the environmental impact of six different
packaging^ materials and the effects of various public policy options that are aimed at
altering the mix of packaging materials. Project completion is expected by early 1991.
• EPA is continuing to evaluate the potential substitutes for lead and cadmium-based
additives that are identified in Appendix C of this report.
B EPA supported the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) in developing
preferred packaging guidelines and a regional framework for encouraging source
reduction actions. CONEG's Source Reduction Task Force issued a report in
September 1989, which outlined packaging guidelines and recommended that a
Northeast Source Reduction Council be formed with representatives from the
northeastern states, industry, and the environmental community. The council will
develop long-range policy to reduce packaging at the source, implement the packaging
guidelines, and educate the public. EPA is working with the Council on these
activities.
• EPA is examining potential incentives and disincentives to source reduction of
municipal solid waste. A report is expected by early 1990.
Recycling
Most plastic recycling efforts to date have focused on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink
bottles and to a lesser extent on high density polyethylene milk jugs. In total, only about 1% of
the post-consumer plastic waste stream is recycled.
Plastics recycling is in its infancy. Efforts underway right now by the plastics industry and State
and local governments are numerous and varied. Thus, the information presented here
represents the current state of plastics recycling and will, most likely, very quickly be out of
date. It is very difficult to predict the future of plastics recycling because so much depends on
the research and other efforts that are now underway.
ES-7
-------
Technologies exist for recycling either single homogeneous resins or a mixture of plastic resins:
I
• Recycling of relatively homogeneous resins (e.g., PET from soft drink bottles) may
yield products that compete with virgin resins. Such recycling offers the greatest
potential to reduce long-term requirements for plastics disposal. However, a system to
capture and recycle the products of such recycling must be established.
• Recycling of a mixture of: plastic resins often yields products that compete with low-
cost commodities such as wood or concrete. This approach may capture a large
percentage of the plastic waste stream because separation of resins is not a barrier to
this approach. However, because the products of this type of recycling may eventually
require disposal, mixed plastics recycling may delay, but may not ultimately reduce, the
long-term requirements for plastic waste disposal.
The major factors currently limiting plastics recycling are:
• Collection and supply. This appears to be the greatest limitation facing recycling of
both single resins and a mixture of resins; however, the recycling of single resins is
more severely limited by the lack of ability to separate a complex mixture of plastic
wastes (such as would be collected through a curbside program). There are several
methods of collection including curbside collection, drop-off centers, buy-back centers,
and container deposit legislation (i.e., "bottle bills"). Curbside collection and bottle bills
have received the most attention:
— Curbside collection of plastics (and other recyclables) can capture a great
variety and amount of plastic waste. However, this strategy imposes relatively
high costs for collection and is not universally applicable (e.g., not all areas
offer curbside collection of municipal solid waste).
— Container deposit legislation, which was enacted primarily to control litter, not
increase recycling, has proven effective at diverting plastic soft drink containers
from disposal; however, soft drink bottles represent only a small percentage
(approximately 3%) of plastic wastes. Thus, this method, as currently
implemented, will not divert significant amounts of plastic wastes. In addition,
recycling officials have raised concerns that container deposit systems remove
the most valuable, revenue-generating material from the recycling stream. This
may impair local efforts to recycle other materials (e.g., newspaper, cans, etc.)
in curbside collection programs.
These two collection strategies are interrelated. Waste management officials need to
carefully weigh the costs and benefits related to each strategy (described in Section 5
of this report) and, very importantly, the relationship between the two choices before
selecting a collection mechanism.
ES-8
-------
• Markets. The markets for the products of mixed plastics recycling still face serious
questions, particularly regarding cost-competitiveness. Markets for the products of
single resins such as PET and HDPE appear to be large. Recycling of other single
resins (e.g., PS) is only just beginning; therefore, market evaluations are difficult to
make.
The following are EPA's major action items regarding plastics recycling:
• EPA is providing technical assistance and general information to the public on plastics
recycling through a municipal solid waste clearinghouse and a neer match program.
Both of these efforts offer information and assistance on recycling of all municipal solid
waste components, not just plastics.
• EPA is examining potential incentives and disincentives to recycling of municipal solid
waste components.
• EPA calls on the plastics industiy to continue to research and provide technical and
financial assistance to communities on plastics collection, separation, processing, and
marketing.
Degradable Plastics
There are various mechanisms that are technically viable for enhancing the degradability of
plastic. Biodegradation and photodegradation are the principal mechanisms currently .being
explored and commercially developed. The most common method for enhancing the
biodegradability of plastics has involved the incorporation of starch additives. Production of
photodegradable plastics involves the incorporation of photo-sensitive carbonyl groups or the
addition of other photo-sensitive additives.
Before the application of these technologies can be promoted, the uncertainties surrounding
degradable plastics must be addressed. First, the effect of different environmental settings on
the performance (e.g., degradation rate) of degradables is not well understood. Second, the
environmental products or residues of degrading plastics and the environmental impacts of those
residues have not been fully identified or evaluated. Finally, the impact of degradables on
plastic recycling is unclear.
EPA does not believe that degradable plastics will help solve the landfill capacity problems facing
many communities in the U.S. However, there may be potentially useful applications of this
technology, including agricultural mulch film, bags for holding materials destined for composting,
and certain articles of concern in the marine environment (.e.g, beverage container rings).
ES-9
-------
The following are EPA's major action items regarding degradable plastics:
• EPA has initiated two major research efforts on degradable plastics. The first project
will evaluate degradable plastics in different environmental settings and examine the
byproducts of degradation. The second project will evaluate the effects of degradable
plastics on post-consumer plastics recycling. Interim results are expected by mid-1990.
• EPA calls on the manufacturers of degradable plastics to generate and make available
basic information on the performance and potential environmental impacts of their
products in different environmental settings.
• Title I of the 1988 Plastic Pollution Control Act directs EPA to require that beverage
container ring carrier devices be made of degradable material unless such production is
not technically feasible or EPA determines that degradable rings are more harmful to
marine life than non-degradable rings. The uncertainties regarding degradable plastics
(discussed above) pose some difficulties for EPA's implementation of this Act;
however, some specific information is known regarding ring carrier devices:
— EPA has not identified any plastic recycling programs that currently accept or
are considering accepting ring carriers. Therefore, degradable rings should not
impair recycling efforts.
— Ring carriers are usually not colored and therefore do not include metal-based
pigments. Thus, concerns regarding leaching of pigments appear to be minimal
for these devices.
The research on degradable plastics (see above) now underway at EPA will help
resolve remaining issues. EPA will initiate a rulemaking to implement the above
legislation in 1990. A final rule is expected by late 1991.
ES-10
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
In 1987 Congress passed the United States-Japan Fishery Agreement Approval Act (Public Law
100-220), which includes the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA).
Among other objectives, MPPRCA is intended to control disposal of plastics from ships and
improve efforts to monitor uses of drift nets. Title n of the Act directs EPA to investigate and
report on various issues concerning plastics waste in the environment, including:
H Articles of concern in the marine environment
• Impacts of plastics waste on solid waste management
• Methods for reducing impacts of plastics on the environment and solid waste
management (e.g., recycling, substitution away from plastics, and use of degradable
plastics)
This report is the compilation of data gathered by EPA in response to that directive.
The focus of the report is plastic wastes in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream: the
amount of such waste; its impact on human health, the environment, and management of the
MSW stream (i.e., post-consumer plastic waste); and options for reducing these impacts (e.g.,
recycling). In addition, the report considers:
f
• Improper disposal of plastics in the marine environment (e.g., disposal from vessels)
and on land (i.e., Uttering)
• Impacts on the marine environment of plastic pellets used in the manufacture of plastic
articles; this industrial waste is considered here because the high concentrations of the
pellets found in the world's oceans are a major concern
Principal findings are listed at the beginning of each section. The report is organized as
follows:
Section 2 provides context for the rest of the report. It provides a technological overview
of the plastics industry, statistics concerning production and consumption levels of various
types of plastics in the United States, and definitions of the major end use markets and
disposal paths for plastics.
Section 3 categorizes plastic articles of concern in the marine environment and the impact
of these and other plastic wastes on ocean ecology.
Section 4 examines management issues and environmental concerns associated with
disposing of plastics (as a part of MSW) by the two primary means used in the United
States: landfilling and incineration. In addition, the section covers the problems associated
with plastic litter and analyzes the relative impacts of plastic and other litter.
1-1
-------
Section 5 examines strategies for reducing plastic waste management problems (e.g., source
reduction and recycling). The strategies chosen are geared to resolving the plastic waste
management issues identified in Sections 3 and 4.
w - -
Section 6 outlines the actions to be taken by EPA as well as recommended actions for
industry and other groups to address the concerns identified in the earlier sections. The
objectives presented here are divided into two categories: those for improving the
management of the MSW stream and those for addressing problems outside the MSW
management system.
Appendix A provides an overview of the legal authorities available to EPA and other
Federal agencies for improving plastics waste management
Appendix B supports the discussion of plastic recycling efforts in Section 5 by presenting
information on state recycling programs, state bottle bills, and the characteristics of various
community curbside recycling programs.
Appendix C investigates the potential for substitution of less toxic additives for the lead-
and cadmium-based additives used in some plastics. A summary of the status of EPA's
research on this topic is presented.
1-2
-------
SECTION TWO
PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISPOSAL
OF PLASTICS AND PLASTIC PRODUCTS
This chapter provides a technological overview of the plastics industry (Section 2.1) and
presents key statistics concerning production, import/export, and consumption levels of major
types of plastics used in the United States (Section 2.2). In addition, this chapter defines the
characteristics of the major plastics types (Section 2.2.6), the major end use markets (Section
2.3), and the disposal paths for plastic wastes generated in the United States (Section 2.4).
This introductory material is the context for understanding and assessing the fate and impact of
various plastics once they are discarded by consumers. The quantitative information about
production levels as well as the descriptions of the types and uses of the diverse plastic
products define the role of plastics in the economy. Additionally, information presented about
the growth trends among different types of plastic help to' determine the plastic waste
management requirements of the future.
2.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Following are the key findings of this section:
• The term "plastic" encompasses many different types of materials offering a wide
variety of properties.
• Production of plastic goods involves three primary steps: 1) manufacturing resins,
2) incorporating additives, and 3) processing or converting resins (usually by a
different firm, or processor) into end products for various markets, including
packaging, building and construction, and consumer products.
• Additives are used in some plastics to 1) modify physical characteristics, 2) influence
aesthetic properties, or 3) permit processing of the resins.
• U.S. production of plastics has grown from about 3 billion pounds in 1958 to about
57 billion pounds in 1988 for an average annual growth rate of 10.3%. During the
same period, annual GNP growth (measured in constant 1982 dollars) has averaged
3.2%.
• The largest-volume market sectors for plastics are packaging and building and
construction.
• The five plastics in order of greatest use in 1988 were low- and high-density
polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE, respectively), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene,
and polypropylene (PP).
2-1
-------
Polymers are categorized as thermoplastic or thermoset plastics. Of these two, the
former can be melted and reformed ~ a characteristic that is important in recycling
plastic products.
Industry actions (i.e., announced capacity increases amounting to 25% of current
capacity) and market forecasts suggest that rapid market growth should be expected
for a number of years in the plastics industry.
Plastics represented 7.3% of MSW by weight (including all waste sources) in 1986
(Franklin Associates, 1988) and are expected to increase to 9% by the year 2000.
Information regarding the composition of the plastic waste stream is limited.
2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
Production of plastic goods involves three primary steps: 1) manufacturing resins, 2)
incorporating additives, and 3) processing or converting resins (usually by a different firm, or
processor) for various markets for disposable and durable end products, including packaging,
building and construction, and consumer products.
2.2.1 Manufacturing Resins
Plastics are resins, or polymers, that have been synthesized from petroleum or natural gas
derivatives (see Table 2-1). Chemicals composed of small molecules called monomers are
typically produced from the crude oil or natural gas liquids and then allowed to react to form
the solid polymer molecules. All polymers are composed of long chains of monomers; the
chains may or may not be attached to each other. Plastics that can be softened and reformed
are termed thermoplastics, and plastics that cannot be melted and reformed are termed
thermosets.
• Thermoplastics. Because the monomer chains in these polymers are not cross-linked
(that is, they comprise two-dimensional rather than three-dimensional molecular
networks), these plastics can be melted and reprocessed without serious damage to the
properties of the resins (Curlee, 1986). As the temperature or pressure of a
thermoplastic resin increases, the molecules can flow as needed for molding purposes.
The molecular structure becomes rigid, however, when the resin is cooled. This
malleability is one reason thermoplastic resins comprise such a large percentage of the
plastics market (see Table 2-2). Plastics manufacturers produce thermoplastics in a
number of easily transportable forms, including pellets, granules, flakes, and powders.
Examples of thermoplastic resins include polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
polystyrene, and thermoplastic polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
2-2
-------
Table 2-1
FEEDSTOCK CHEMICALS FOR HIGH-VOLUME PLASTICS
Feedstock Chemical
Possible Products
Acetylene
Benzene
Butadiene
Ethylene
Methane
Naphthalene
Propylene
Toluene (a)
Xylenes(a)
Polyvinyl chloride
Polyurethane
Polystyrene
Polyurethane
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)
Polyurethane
ABS
High-and low-density polyethylene
Polyvinyl chloride
Polystyrene
ABS
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Polyurethane
Polyesters
PET
Poiyurethane
Polyurethane
Polypropylene
Polyurethane
Polyester
Polyurethane foams, elastomers, and resins
Polyesters
Polystyrene
PET
ABS
Unsaturated polyseters
Polyurethanes
(a) This feedstock chemical can be used to derive benzene; see above
for the resins that can be derived from benzene.
Source: The Society of the Plastics Industry, 1988.
2-3
-------
Table 2-2
U.S. SALES OF PLASTICS,
BY RESIN
(MILLION POUNDS, 1988)
Resin
Sales
As % of
Total Sales
THERMOPLASTIC RESINS
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
Polyvinyl chloride
and copolymers (PVC)
High-density polyethylene (HOPE)
Polypropylene (PP)
Polystyrene (PS)
Thermoplastic polyester (incl.
polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT))
Acrylonitrile/butadiene/
styrene (ABS)
Other styrenics (a)
Other vinyls (b)
Nylon
Acrylics
Thermoplastic elastomers
Polycarbonate
Polyphenylene-based alloys (c)
Styrene/acrylonitrile (SAN)
Polyacetal
Cellulosics
Total- Thermoplastic
9,865
8,323
8,244
7,304
5,131
2,007
1,238
1,220
958
558
697
495
430
180
137
128
90
47,005
17.3
14.6
14.5
12.8
9.0
3.5
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
82.6
(Cont.)
2-4
-------
Table 2-2 (Cont.)
U.S. SALES OF PLASTICS,
BY RESIN
(MILLION POUNDS, 1988)
Resin
Sales
As % of
Total Sales
THERMOSETTING RESINS
Phenolic
Polyurethane
Urea and melamine
Polyester, unsaturated
Epoxy
Alkyd
Total- Thermosetting
3,032
2,905
1,515
1,373
470
320
9,615
5.3
5.1
2.7
2.4
0.8
0.6
16.9
Others (d)
288
0,5
TOTAL
56,908
100.0
(a) Excludes ABS and SAN. Examples include styrene-butadiene and styrene-based
latexes, styrene-based polymers such as styrene-maleic anhydride (SMA), and
styrene-butadiene (SB) polymers.
(b) Includes polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl butyrol, polyvinylidine chloride and related resins.
(c) Includes modified phenylene oxide and modified phenylene.
(d) Includes small-volume resins of both the thermoplastic and thermoset type.
Note: Sales includes all sales by domestic manufacturers for domestic consumption or for
export.
Source: Modern Plastics, 1989.
2-5
-------
• Thermosets. Thermosetting plastics (thermosets) tend to be rigid, infusible, and
insoluble. Because the molecular chains are cross-linked (i.e., the resin is composed of a
three-dimensional network of molecules), thermosets are stronger under high temperatures
than thermoplastics. For the same reason, however, these plastics cannot be reshaped
once the molecular structures are formed. Most thermoset
resins are used in industries such as building and construction and transportation (e.g.,
marine craft). Examples include phenolics, polyurethanes, and epoxy resins.
The wide variety of markets for plastics has created a demand for an equally wide array of
resins (polymers). Plastics scientists have developed a number of innovative methods to tailor
polymer characteristics to specific end uses. This research involves developing new blends of
existing polymers, creating new polymers, and/or incorporating new additives for new
applications in plastics engineering.
These hundreds of resins on the market, whether thermoplastics or thermosets, can be further
categorized according to the level of production and market demand for each resin. The resin
categories are commodity, transitional, and engineering/performance. See Table 2-3 for the
characteristics associated with each of these categories as well as for examples of thermoplastic
resins of each type.
Commodity — Commodity resins are defined as those polymers produced in large volumes
and used as the material inputs for numerous plastic products. These polymers resemble
commodities in that their basic characteristics are well-established and are not subject to
refinements or differentiation among manufacturers. These polymers are also produced at
the lowest cost of all plastics. Because of the large volumes produced, these polymers are
the most readily identified among plastic wastes. Examples include various plastics used for
packaging.
Transitional -- Transitional resins are polymers that are produced at a significantly lower
rate than commodity resins but at a significantly higher rate than specialty resins. Likewise,
the price per pound of transitional resins is 75 cents to $1.25 — more than the commodity
resins and less than the specialty resins.
Engineering/performance — Specific types of specialty resins are manufactured by only a
few companies and have a limited range of uses. Because both engineering and
performance resins are produced in relatively small quantities for narrowly defined
applications, the price per pound of these resins is high — as much as $20 per pound.
Development of new technologies and automated production lines may eventually catalyze a
larger market for these plastics (e.g., as replacements for metal), and thus a larger
production volume (Chem Systems, 1987). Typical applications for engineering/performance
polymers are listed in Table 2-4.
2-6
-------
Table 2-3
CLASSIFICATION OF
THERMOPLASTIC POLYMERS
Characteristics
VOLUME (Pounds per
polymer)
PROCESSABILITY
THERMAL STABILITY
PRICE ($/lb, 1986)
POLYMERS INCLUDED:
Commodity
1.5-10 billion
High
Low
0.25-0.75
LD polyethylene
Polyvinyl chloride
HD polyethylene
Polypropylene (PP)
Polystyrene
Polyethylene tereph-
thalate (PET, bottle
grade)
Transitional
0.5-1 .5 billion
Good
Medium
0.75-1.25
ABS/SAN
Acrylics
PP (Glass-filled)(a)
PE (Glass-filledXa)
Other styrenics-
selected polymers(a)
Engineering
20-500 million
Good
High
1.25-3.00
PET(Glass-filled)(a)
PBT
Polyacetal
Polycarbonate
Modified PPO/PPE
Nylon (6 and 66)
SMA terpolymer(a)
Other alloys and
blends(a)
Performance
Less than 20 million
Least
Excellent
3.00-20.00
Fluoropolymers
Liquid crystal polymers(a)
Nylon (11 and 12)
Polyamidelmide
Polyarylate
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)
Polyetherimide
Polyethersulfone
Polyimide
Polyphenylenesulfide
Polysulfone
(a) Polymers under development.
Source: Adapted from Chem Systems, 1987. Production volume ranges have been updated in some cases with more recent data.
-------
TABLE 2-4
TYPICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING AND PERFORMANCE POLYMERS
Polyacetal
Nylon
Polycarbonate
Modified PPO/PPE
PBT
PET (glass-filled)
Polyarylate
PEEK
Polyetherimide
Polyethersulfone
Polyphenylene sulfide
Automotive (steering column, window and windshield wiper)
components, hardware, faucets, valves, gears, disposable cigarette
lighters, medical apparatus
Wire and cable, barrier packaging film, electrical connectors,
windshield wiper parts, radiator and tanks, brake fluid reservoirs,
gears, impellers, housewares
Electrical/electronic components, housings, switches,
aerodynamically styled headlights, glazing, appliances, medical
apparatus, compact (audio) discs, baby bottles
Business machine and appliance housings, TV cabinets and
components, electrical/electronic components, automotive interior
trim and instrument panels
Electrical/electronic components, automotive electrical components
(distributor caps and rotors), automotive exterior body
components, pump and sprinkler components
Electrical/electronic components, automotive electrical
components, consumer products, office furniture components
Glazing, electrical/electronic components, automotive fog lamps,
microwave oven components
Wire and cable, aerospace composites, electrical connectors and
coils, bearings
Printed circuit boards, microwave oven components, frozen food
trays, electrical/electronic components
Printed circuit boards, electrical/electronic components, composites
Electrical/electronic components, halogen headlight components,
carburetor components, pump components, industrial parts,
composites
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
Polysulfone
Fluoropolymers
Liquid crystal
polymers
Polyamide-imide
ElectricaVelectronic components, pumps, valves, pipe, microwave
oven cookware, medical apparatus
Nonstick cookware coating, wire and cable, solid lubricating
additives for other plastics
Freezer-to-oven cookware, fiber optic construction,
electrical/electronic components
Valves, mechanical components, automotive engine block,
industrial components
Source: Chem Systems, 1987.
2-9
-------
2.2.2 Incorporating Additives
Some resins are used essentially as they are formed (as pure polymers), but market demands
usually dictate further tailoring of the polymers' properties. Additives are used in plastics 1) to
alter physical characteristics (e.g., to increase flame retardance), 2) to influence aesthetic
properties (e.g., to add color), or 3) to permit processing of the resins (e.g., to increase plastic
melt flow) (Radian, 1987). The type of additive determines when it is added, whether at the
resin manufacturing plant or at the processing plant. (In thermoplastics, additives may be added
after the resin is formed or during processing into end products.) The type of additive also
determines the amount used, ranging from less than 1% to 60% by volume of the end product.
Additives are incorporated into plastics by one of two ways:
• As solids or liquids physically mixed with the plastic polymer; because these additives do
not react with the polymer but are mixed with it, there exists a hypothetical potential for
these additives to leach out of the end product. Any leaching that could possibly occur
depends on the characteristics of the polymers and additives, including their degree of
miscibility (i.e., the degree to which they are mixed), and on the environmental exposure
of the plastic (e.g., temperature conditions).
• As substances that react with the plastic polymer; these additives generally cannot migrate
out of the plastic end products into outside media without chemical breakdown of the
plastic (Dynamac, 1983). (Any unreacted additives may, however, be available for
leaching.)
The primary types and roles of additives are discussed in Section 2.3.7.
2.23 Processing Resins into End Products
Processors can select from among a variety of technologies in creating products from
thermoplastic and thermosetting plastics. For most thermoplastic commodity resins, the
processor usually purchases the resins in the form of small pellets. The pellets may then be
coated with the additives (e.g., colorants) needed in the final products or fed into machines that
melt and mix the resins. Resins can also be colored using a hot compounding technique at this
juncture. The melted resins can be extruded through a die (e.g., to form pipe or fiber), pressed
into a mold, or foamed by introducing a gas. After cooling, the products are trimmed to
remove any excess material and sent to the next processing step. Certain thermoplastic resins,
however — most notably, PVC — are purchased as a powder, which is pressed into pill-like
shapes and then processed.
The working range between the temperature at which a thermoplastic melts and that at which it
decomposes may be fairly narrow, and some decomposition may take place at even the lowest
melt temperature. Thus, thermoplastics are kept in a melted state for as short a time as
possible, and temperatures are generally kept low.
Thermosets, on the other hand,.are often shipped to processors in liquid form. The processor
then simultaneously molds or foams plastic products and then "cures" the resin. The curing
2-10
-------
process (e.g., setting into a mold) usually causes the catalytic cross-linking or other chemical
reaction that permanently hardens the thermoset into a desired shape (e.g., that of the mold).
Pressure and heat can both be used in processing thermosets.
23 PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION STATISTICS
23.1 Historical Overview
The first commercial plastics were developed over one hundred years ago, but the growth of
the petrochemical industry (beginning in the 1920s) was the catalyst behind plastics becoming
major consumer materials. Now plastics have not only replaced many wood, leather, paper,
metal, glass, and natural fiber products in many applications, but also have facilitated the
development of entirely new types of products. As plastics have found more markets, the
amount of plastics produced in the United States has grown from about 3 billion pounds in
1958 to about 57 billion pounds in 1988 (Modern Plastics, 1989; see Table 2-2). This growth
represents an average annual rate of 10.3%. During the same time period, GNP (measured in
constant 1982 dollars) has grown at an annual rate of 3.2%.
Between 1935 and 1958, many new plastics were developed based on technology that resulted
from the needs of war and the markets for new products following the war. These efforts led
to production of plastic films for packaging of foods and other items, plastic sheets for windows
and decoration, and upholstery materials for automobile seats and furniture.
^
Early plastics, however, were often inferior to traditional materials; thus, they were still not
accepted as the material of choice for many durable and nondurable goods. Only after new and
better plastics were developed in the 1960s and 1970s did plastics become the first choice for
many items of commerce. Acceptance by manufacturers and consumers of these new plastics
led to further developments in processing and synthesizing (e.g., some modern thermosets can
be set without heat or pressure). Now plastics materials have become industrial commodities in
the same category as steel, paper, or aluminum, and the various end use markets support a
major plastics industry that ships more than $82 billion worth of products per year (Chem
Systems, 1987).
23.2 Domestic Production of Plastics
The most important plastics in terms of 1988 U.S. production volume are listed in Table 2-2.
On a weight basis, thermosets currently account for only 16.9% of the total domestic production
of plastic resins. Of the thermoplastics, the most important resins on the basis of volume
produced (i.e., the commodity resins) are low-density polyethylene (LPDE), polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and polypropylene (PP); these account for 60% of
total thermoplastic production. For information concerning minor plastics not listed on this •
table, see the Modern Plastics Encyclopedia (1988).
2-11
-------
233 Import/Export and Domestic Consumption
Import/export and domestic consumption data for major thermoplastics are listed in Table 2-5.
There is a modest positive net trade balance (exports minus imports) for all of the resins. The
only resins for which export volume exceeds 10%' of U.S. production are polypropylene (PP)
and acrylonitrile/ butadiene/styrene (ABS).
Plastics are also exported or imported as finished products. Such shipments are not reflected in
the statistics on resins. In later sections on plastics in the solid waste stream, data are
employed that capture the effect of imported plastics in final products (Franklin Associates,
1988).
23.4 Economic Profile of the Plastics Industry
23.4.1 Sector Characteristics
Two sectors of the economy are involved in the manufacture of plastic products: manufacturers
of plastic resins and processors of the plastic resins into plastic products. According to available
government statistics detailed below, the latter sector, plastics processing, is much larger both in
terms of sales generated and workforce employed.
Resin manufacturing is dominated by large petrochemical plants. Table 2-6 presents estimates
of the total nameplate capacity of major firms for the production of the most important
commodity thermoplastics (on the basis of volume produced). (Nameplate capacity is the design
capacity of the plant.) As the table indicates, the major petrochemical firms have sufficient
nameplate capacity to satisfy the entire U.S. demand for these resins.
As indicated in Section 2.2.1, engineering/performance resins used in commerce are
manufactured by a smaller group of firms. These high-performance or unusual resins may be
generated in batches for specific customers rather than in standardized, large-volume production
processes. Most of the resins, however, are made in the same large petrochemical plants as the
commodity resins because these manufacturers are capable of investing in the research necessary
for developing the polymers.
Department of Commerce statistics indicate a total of 477 resin manufacturers (as classified in
SIC 2821, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). The industry employed 55,500 workers and
generated annual shipments valued at $23.9 billion for 1987 (SPI, 1988). Resin manufacturing
plants are concentrated in the -Gulf of Mexico and in the Atlantic Coast states. The states with
the largest employment in resin manufacturing are Texas, New Jersey, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, and California (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1985).
2-12
-------
Table 2-5
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
OF MAJOR THERMOPLASTIC RESINS
(MILLION POUNDS, 1988)
OJ
*
Domestic Production
Resin
Low-density
polyethylene
Polyvinyl
chloride
High-density
polyethylene
Polypropylene
and co-polymers
Polystyrene
ABS
For U.S.
Consumption
8,911
7,854
7,540
6,102
4,979
1,016
For
Export
954
469
704
1,202
152
222
Total U.S.
Production
9,865
8,323
8,244
7,304
5,131
1,238
Exports as
% of U.S.
Production
9.7
5.6
8.5
16.5
3.0
17.9
Total
Domestic
Imports Consumption(a)
816 9,727
133 7,987
86 7,626
33 6,135
53 5,032
50 1 ,066
Imports as %
of U.S.
Consumption
8.4
1.7
1.1
0.5
1.1
4.7
Net Trade
Balance
(Exp-lmp)
138
336
618
1169
99
172
(a) Domestic consumption was defined as the sum of U.S. consumption of domestic production and imports.
Source: Modern Plastics, January 1989.
-------
Table 2-6
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF MAJOR
MANUFACTURERS FOR SELECTED COMMODITY RESINS
(Million pounds, 1988)
Resin
Low- and high-
density polyethylene
POlyvinyl chloride
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Number of
Manufacturers
, Included
16
13
13
16
Total
Nameplate
Capacity
1/1/89
20,125
9,622
8,355
6,140
Total U.S.
1988 Sales
18,109
8,323
7,304
5,131
Capacity
As % of
Total U.S.
1 988 Sales
111
116
114
120
Note: The number of manufacturers included was based on listings in the source.
Source: Modern Plastics, 1989.
2-14
-------
In contrast to the relatively select group of resin manufacturers, the plastic processing and
converting industry encompasses over 12,0(30 establishments (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988).
These firms purchase resins and process them for all manner of packaging, consumer, or
industrial uses. The plastic processing industry generated shipments of $60.5 billion in 1987, or
approximately 1.5 times the sales of the resin manufacturers. The plastic processing sector also
employs a workforce more than ten times the size of that for resin manufacturing (580,000
workers; SPI, 1988).
23.4.2 Market Conditions and Prices for Commodity Resins
Recycling programs that potentially will .be developed for plastics waste (see Section 5) may
compete with virgin resin production; the price movements for virgin resins may thus affect the
economic viability of recycling efforts. This section examines the behavior of markets for
commodity resins. As noted, manufacturing of each of the commodity thermoplastics (see Table
2-6) is dominated by ten to twenty petrochemical firms. Due to economies of scale in
production, each plant must be quite large to achieve competitively low production costs. Thus,
any change in capacity due to the construction of a new plant can be a significant market
development.
Furthermore, because the construction of new capacity requires several years from inception to
production, industry planners cannot predict with certainty the market conditions that will
prevail when new capacity is brought online. At that time, therefore, the industry may face
excess capacity. Because, by definition, the commodity plastic resins made by different plants
are interchangeable, manufacturers with excess capacity may respond by trying to undercut the
prices offered by other plants. As a result, the plastics market can experience erratic swings in
product prices when substantial, discrete shifts occur in available production capacity.
Price levels are also affected by the availability of the natural gas derivatives that are the
principal raw materials for plastics manufacture. This availability may be influenced by a range
of factors in energy markets or by production problems in the major plants that produce the
derivatives. In the latter category, for example, accidental fires at two ethylene plants in 1988
created a raw material shortage for the manufacturers of polyethylene and several other resins
(Chemical Week, 1988).
It should be noted that these generalizations represent extreme simplifications of chemical
industry pricing behavior. Actual industry decisions incorporate long-term contract pricing
agreements, contracting and planning issues for raw material supplies, and a myriad of other
factors.
In recent years, little new capacity has become available despite a period of rapid demand
growth. The apparent strains on capacity have probably contributed to the price increases seen
for major commodity resins (Table 2-7). As the table shows, prices for these resins have risen
sharply in the past two years.
2-15
-------
Table 2-7
PRICE MOVEMENTS FOR
SELECTED COMMODITY RESINS
(1986-1988)
Resin
Price ($/lb)
1986
1988
Low-density polyethylene
0.29
0.51
Polyvinyl chloride, pipe grade
0.29
0.43
High-density polyethylene
0.32
0.51
Polyethylene terephthalate
(PET, bottle grade)
0.55
0.70
Note: Prices shown reflect contract or prevailing selling prices that incorporate discounts,
allowances, and rollbacks from current list prices.
Source: Modern Plastics, 1989b.
2-16
-------
In an apparent response to the price increases and projected increases in market demand (these
are described further below), a number of firms have announced forthcoming capacity increases.
Manufacturers of low- and high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polypropylene —
the four largest-volume resins — have announced capacity additions equivalent to nearly 25% of
current industry capacity (Modern Plastics, 1989).
Any future price volatility for plastic resins cannot be predicted. For this study, it should be
noted that price swings in plastic resin markets could influence many aspects of the flow of
plastic materials through the economy. Price changes influence, for example, the
competitiveness of plastics with other products in any of the intermediate or end use markets ~
and thus the rate at which plastics enter the solid waste stream. Price swings also will affect the
economic return for programs in solid waste management or reduction (e.g., source reduction or
recycling).
23.5 Forecasts, of Market Growth
In 1987, The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) commissioned a market forecast study (Chem
Systems, 1987). This research examined the historical growth rates in the major plastics markets
and developed forecasts of future growth to the year 2000. Table 2-8 presents the principal
forecast findings for the total plastics market and for each of eight end use markets.
Historically, the average annual growth for plastic sales (measured by weight) has ranged from
3.2% per annum in electrical/electronic sales to 7.8% in industrial markets and 9.6% in "other"
markets. The high growth rates in the latter categories partly reflect the new uses for
engineering thermoplastic resins in a variety of technical or specialized applications. Packaging
is the number one market in terms of absolute size; this market grew rapidly from 1970 to
1985, with an average annual growth rate of 7.1%. The second largest market, building and
construction, also showed a relatively large average annual growth rate of 6.2%.
The SPI research estimated that future growth rates among the end use markets until the year
2000 would vary from 2.4% (adhesives, inks, coatings) to 4.0% (transportation) per annum.
The forecasters assumed an average annual growth rate for the U.S. Gross National Product
during this period of 2.9% per annum. Thus, the overall market growth for plastics, estimated
at 3.2%, was forecast to exceed the rate for the economy as a whole. Even so, the rate
predicted was almost half the actual annual growth rate between 1970 and 1985 (6.3%).
The SPI forecast study was performed in 1987 using 1985 data. Since that time, plastic markets
have growil at a faster rate than had been projected. Aggregate U.S. production grew from
47.8 billion pounds in 1985 to 56.9 billion pounds in 1988; the annual average growth in recent
years, therefore, has been virtually the same as that of the past two decades.
2-17
-------
Table 2-8
PLASTIC INDUSTRY MARKET SECTOR GROWTH, 1970-2000
(Millions of Pounds)
to
i-»
00
! l!
Average Annual Growth Rate (%)
Packaging
Building & construction
Other
Consumer
Electrical/electronic
Furniture/furnishings
Adhesives inks & coatings
Transportation
Total domestic demand
Total exports
Total
1970
4,695
4,095
1,585
2,030
1,825
1,275
1,475
1,035
18,015
1,180
19,195
1985 -
13,200
10,350
6,175
3,715
2,930
2,635
2,525
2,365
43,895
3,945
47,840
2000
22,580
14,975
10,220
5,670
5,020
4,100
3,585
4,240
70,390
5,160
75,550
Actual Average
1970-1985
7.1
6.2
9.5
4.1
3.2
4.9
3.6
5.7
6.3
8.4
6.3
Forecast
1985-2000
3.6
2.5
3.4
4.9
3.7
3.0
2.4
4.0
3.2
1.8
3.1
Source: Chem Systems, 1987.
-------
2.3.6 Characteristics of Major Resin Types
Differences in resin properties and in the economics of production determine the manner in
which resins are used in various end markets. This section summarizes the main characteristics
of resins and introduces the most common product uses. The information is designed to allow
relationships to be identified between resin types and the plastic products that eventually appear
in the solid waste stream.
The major types of plastics are listed in Table 2-9, along with their salient characteristics and
primary product markets. For production data for each of these resins, see Table 2-1; for
import/export and total domestic consumption data for the four most important resins (by
volume produced), see Table 2-4.
Table 2-10 presents a complete distribution of the commodity resins according to the product
market in which they are used. The majority of low- and high-density polyethylene and
polyethylene terephthalate resins are used in packaging. PVC and two thermoset resins
(phenolic and urea melamine) are used primarily in building and construction. Other
thermoplastics such as polystyrene and polyethylene terephthalate are used most commonly in
categories defined for consumer and institutional products. More information about each of the
end user markets is provided in Section 2.4.
23.7 Characteristics of Major Additive Types
Plastic additives play an important role in modifying the characteristics of virgin resins. The
additives used encompass a variety of chemicals and can be as significant as the resin itself in
determining product use. This section introduces the categories of additives and presents a
summary of information about production levels (for each category and for selected chemicals
or minerals within the category), purposes for additive use, and the patterns of use relative to
the different plastic resins. Additives are examined again in Section 4, where the issue of
additive toxicity is considered.
Table 2-11 summarizes the characteristics of the various categories of additives. The table lists
the purposes for each type of additive as well as the kinds of final product that could contain
the additives. Additives are used with resins l)"to increase the ease of processing of the resin,
and/or 2) to improve the characteristics of the final product. Additives used for the first
purpose include antistatic agents, catalysts, free radical initiators, heat stabilizers, and lubricants.
Most additives improve on balance the characteristics of the final product.
Manufacturers produced 9.7 billion pounds of plastic additives in 1982, a quantity equal to 17%
of the weight of the polymers themselves. Additives in the largest categories of use generated
most of this production. Table 2-12 presents the production levels for 16 categories of
additives. As can be seen from the table, fillers and plasticizers represent 75% of all additives
produced. Three more categories - reinforcing, agents, flame retardants, and colorants -
account for another 19%. Production levels for the remaining categories are one or two orders
of magnitude smaller.
2-19
-------
Table 2-9
RESIN CHARACTERISTICS, MARKETS, AND PRODUCTS
to
Resin
Resin
Characteristics
Primary
Product Markets
Product
Examples
THERMOPLASTICS
Low-density polyethylene Largest volume resin used for
(LDPE) packaging. Moisture-proof, inert
Polyvinyl chloride
(PVC)
Strength and clarity. Brittle unless
modified with plasticizers
High-density polyethylene Tough, flexible, translucent
(HOPE)
Polypropylene
(PP)
Stiff, heat &
chemical resistant
Polystyrene
(PS)
Brittle, clear, rigid, good thermal
properties; easy to process
Packaging
Building & construction,
packaging
Packaging
Furniture & furnishings,
packaging, other
Packaging, consumer
products
High-clarity extruded film, wire
and cable coatings, refuse bags
coated papers
Construction pipe, meat wrap,
blister packs, cooking oil bottles,
phono records, wall covering,
flooring
Milk and detergent bottles,
heavy-duty films, e.g. boil bag
pouches, liners, wire &
cable insulation
Syrup bottles, yogurt and
margarine tubs, fish nets, drinking
straws, auto battery cases, carpet
backing, office machines &
furniture, auto fenders
Disposable foam dishes & cups, egg
cartons, take-out containers, foam
insulation, cassette tape cases
(Cont.)
-------
Table 2-9 (Cont.)
RESIN CHARACTERISTICS, MARKETS, AND PRODUCTS
to
Resin
Resin
Characteristics
Primary
Product Markets
Product
Examples
Other Styrenics
Strong, stretchable
Polyethylene terephthalate Tough, shatter resistant
(PET)
Acrylonitrile/butadiene/
styrene
THERMOSETS
Phenolic
Polyurethane
Urea and melamine
Tough, abrasion resistant
Heat resistant, strength, shatter
resistant
Malleable for rigid or flexible foams
Rigid, chemically resistant
Polyester, unsaturated Malleable for fabrication
of large parts
Adhesives, coatings &
inks
Packaging, consumer
products
Transportation, electrical
and electronic products
Building & construction
Furniture & furnishings,
building & construction,
transportation
Building & construction,
consumer products
Building & construction,
transportation
Assembly and construction
adhesives, pressure sensitive
labels and tapes, footwear soles,
roof coatings
Soft drink bottles, other beverage,
food, & medicine containers,
synthetic textiles, x-ray and
photographic film, magnetic tape
Pipe, refrigerator door linings,
telephones, sporting goods,
automotive brake parts
Handles, knobs, electrical
connectors, appliances,
automotive parts
Cushioning, auto bumpers & door
panels, varnishes
Plywood binding, knobs, handles,
dinnerware, toilet seats
o
Electrical components, automobile
parts, coatings, cast shower/bath units
Sources: Chem Systems (1987); Wirka (1988); SPI (1988).
-------
Table 2-10
RESINS DISTRIBUTED BY
MAJOR END MARKETS
to
Consumer &
Resins/Market Share (%)
THERMOPLASTICS
Low-density polyethylene
Polyvinyl chloride
High-density polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Other styrenics(a)
Polyethylene
terephthalate(a)
ABS/SAN(a)
THERMOSETS
Phenolic
Polyurethane
Urea and melamine
Polyester, unsaturated
Packaging
64.1
7.6
53.0
21.6
29.2
0.0
59.2
0.0
—
3.8
2.0
. —
Building &
Construction
3.9
62.6
9.5
0.5
11.7
3.8
0.0
15.9
83.4
20.2
76.2
39.7
Institutional
Products
6.3
3.3
11.0
14.4
34.3
3.8
18.7
6.8
—
—
—
7.2
Electrical &
Electronic
4.4
6.5
1.7
4.3
9i5
0.0
5.3
21.8
4.2
5.9
—
3.5
Furniture & Transport-
Furnishings
0.4
3.6
—
18.7
0.8
14.6
0.0
0.0
—
37.1
2.4
1.6
ation
—
—
2.6
4.1
—
0.9
0.0
24.5
2.2
18.8
—
34.7
Adhesives,
Inks, &
Coatings
3.5
1.4
—
—
—
54.2
0.0
0.0
2.3
--
—
—
All Other
6.9
9.8
11.3
17.9
12.1
22.6
9.9
21.8
7.2
14.3
19.4
12.6
Exports
10.4
5.3
10.8
18.5
2.3
0.0
7.0
9.1
0.6
—
—
0.7
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: The Society of the Plastics Industry, 1988, except (a) which is Chem Systems, 1987.
-------
Table 2-11
CHARACTERISTICS AND USES OF PLASTICS ADDITIVES.
Additive
Examples or Types
Purpose
Typical Applications
For Products w/Additive
N>
Antimicrobials Oxybisphenoxarsine, isothlazalone
Antloxidants Phenolics, amines, phosphites,
thloesters
Antistatic agents Amine salts, phosphoric acid esters,
polyethers
Blowing Azobisformamide, chlorofluorocarbons
agents pentane
Catalysts and Numerous
curing agents
Colorants Organic and inorganic pigments, dyes
Fillers Minerals, e.g. calcium carbonate wood
flours
Flame Aluminum trihydrate, halogenated
retardants hydrocarbons, organophosphates,
antimony oxide
Increase resistance of finished product to
microorganisms
Prevent deterioration of appearance and
physical properties during processing and
long term use
Control static buildup during processing or
In final product
Add porosity to produce foamed plastics
Facilitate polymerization
and/or curing of resin
Enhance appearance and consumer
appeal of end product
Add hardness or other properties, lower
production costs
Reduce combustibility of plastic
Roof membranes, pond liners,
appliance gaskets, outdoor furniture,
trash bags
Numerous
Films, bottles, electronics and
computer room furnishings, medical
equipment
Food trays, insulation, cushions,
clothing, mattresses
Numerous
Consumer products
Coatings, composites, flooring
Consumer, electrical, transportation
& construction
(Cont.)
-------
Table 2-11 (Cont.)
CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF FUSTICS ADDITIVES
Additive
Examples or Types
Purpose
Typical Applications
For Products w/Additive
Free radical
initiators
Peroxides, azo compounds
Assist In polymerization or curing
Numerous
Heat Organotin mercaptides, lead
stabilizers compounds, and barium,
cadmium and zinc soaps
Impact Methacrylate butadiene styrene, acrylic
modifiers polymers, chlorinated PE.ethylene vinyl
acetate
Lubricants Fatty acids, alcohols and amides, esters,
& mold metallic stearates, sllicones, soaps,
release waxes
agents
Plasticizers Phthalates, trimellitates,
aliphatic di- and tri-esters,
polyesters, phosphates
Reinforcers Glass fibers, wood flours
UV Hindered amines, carbon black, hydroxy-
stabilizers benzophenones, hydroxyfaenzotrlazoles
Prevent heat degradation or improve heat
resistance of polyvlnyl chloride
Improve strength and impact-resistance
Construction pipe, bottles, wire &
cable coatings, film, sheet and
upholstery
Rigid PVC applications, building
& construction (pipe and siding)
Improve viscosity of plastic or reduce Molded and extruded consumer
friction between plastic and surrounding products
surfaces, Including molds
Soften and flexibilize rigid polymers
Improve physical properties of resin
Prevent or inhibit degradation by UV
light
Garden hose and tubing, floormats,
gaskets, coatings
Laminates
Building materials, agricultural
films
Sources: Kresta (1982); Modern Plastics (1989); Radian Corp. (1987); Rauch Associates (1986); Seymour (1978);
and Stepek-Daoust (1983).
-------
Table 2-12
ADDITIVE PRODUCTION LEVELS, USE CONCENTRATIONS,
AND MAJOR POLYMER APPLICATIONS
(1987)
Additive
Total
Production
(million Ib)
Additive
Concentration '
in Plastic Products(a)
(Ib additive/100 Ib resin)
Largest
Polymer Markets
Fillers 5,586
Plasticizers 1,694
Reinforcements 893
Flame retardants 513
Colorants 438
Impact modifiers 130
Lubricants 96
Heat stabilizers 83
Free radical initiators(b) 44
Antioxidants 42
Chemical blowing agents 13
Antimicrobial agents 11
Antistatic agents 8
UV stabilizers 7
Catalysts(c) 6
Others 104
High 10-50
High 20-60
High 10-40
High 10-20
Low 1-2
High 10-20
Low < 1
Moderate 1 -5
Low <1
Low <1
Moderate 1-5
Low < 1
Low <1
Low < 1
Low <1
Low < 1
PVC, Unsat. polyester
PVC, cellulosics
Unsat. polyester, epoxy
Various (in building, auto)
Numerous
PVC, styrenics, polyolefins,
engineering plastics
PVC, PS, polyolefins
PVC
LDPE, PS, PVC, acrylics, PE
Polyolefins, impact
styrene, ABS
Polyurethane, PVC, PP,
PS, ABS
PVC, PE, polyurethane
PVC, polyolefins,
polyurethane
Polyolefins, PE, PP, PS, PVC
polycarbonate
Polyurethane
TOTAL
9,668
(a) Estimates refer to concentrations in those products where the additive is used.
(b) Includes organic peroxides only, as reported by source.
(c) Includes urethane catalysts only, as reported by source.
Source: Production estimates and polymer markets from Chemical and
Engineering News, 1988.
Concentration estimates developed by Eastern Research Group.
2-25
-------
The much higher production and consumption estimates for some additives are explained partly
by the manner of their use: Some additives are mixed into the plastic polymer in bulk, while
others are combined only at the rate of 1% or less of the polymer. Table 2-12 summarizes the
rate of use in products for the largest categories of additives. The large-volume additives may
represent one-half as much weight as the resin in some applications. In contrast, colorants, and
most other categories of additives, are added at very low rates into the polymers. The table
also describes the resins that are most likely to be combined with an additive for a particular
product use. For example, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) may be combined with any of several
additives. In some cases, the additive is almost ubiquitous (e.g., colorants are employed in 70%
of all products), and in others the use of the additive is determined less by the nature of the
resin than by the product use (e.g., automotive or construction uses require flame retardants).
The additive categories are defined according to purpose, and a range of chemical compounds
or minerals are used within each category. Table 2-13 presents consumption data for the most
commonly used additives within each category. In-most categories, one or two additives are
preferred by manufacturers, with others used for specialized and much more limited
circumstances. For example, fiberglass consumption represents approximately 80% of all use of
reinforcing agents. Also, some additives are much more expensive, thus limiting their use.
2.4 MAJOR END USE MARKETS FOR PLASTICS
The major end use markets for plastics, in order of volume, are 1) packaging; 2) building and
construction; 3) consumer prodtacts; 4) electrical and electronics; 5) furniture and furnishings; 6)
transportation, including automobiles, vans, trucks, and aircraft; 7) adhesives, inks, and coatings;
and 8) other. For the major products in each market category, see Table 2-14.
The following information about the market sectors is drawn from Chem Systems, 1987. The
growth factors mentioned here should be considered in light of the various "solutions" for
plastics waste management discussed in Section 5; these solutions may shift growth potential
among the market sectors.
2.4.1 Packaging
In the packaging market segment, LDPE is used in the highest volume of any plastic resin (see
Figure 2-1). This segment — already the largest plastics market — will continue to grow if
traditional materials are replaced with plastics as well as if new packaging products are
developed from plastics. Demographic shifts in the United States, including smaller family size,
an aging population, and the employment of more American adults, are proving catalysts for the
increased use of plastics in packaging. Manufacturers continue to find plastics to be attractive,
low-cost materials that can be adapted to their diverse packaging and product presentation
needs. Supporting trends include (Chem Systems, 1987):
2-26
-------
Table 2-13
CONSUMPTION OF LARGE-VOLUME ADDITIVES
(Millions of Pounds, 1986)
Additive
Consumption
Additive
Consumption
FILLERS (a)
Inorganics
Minerals
Calcium carbonate
Kaolin & other
Talc
Mica
Other minerals
Other inorganic
Glass spheres
Natural
TOTAL
PLASTICIZERS
Phthalates
Dioctyl (OOP)
Diisodecyl
Dibutyl
Ditridecyl
Diethyl
Dimethyl
Others
Total - Phthalates
Epoxidized oils
Soya oil
Others
Total - Epoxidized oils
Phosphates
Polymerics
Dialkyl adipates
Trimellates
Others
Oleates
Palmitates
Stearates
All others
Total - Others '
TOTAL
1,700.0
105.0
97.0
11.0
225.0
18.0
132.0
2,288.0
290.0
153.0
22.0
21.0
18.0
9.0
671.0
1,184.0
120.0
16.0
136.0
50.0
49.0
133.0
62.0
13.0
4.0
10.0
168.0
195.0
1,809.0
REINFORCING AGENTS
Fiberglass ' 780.0
Asbestos 90.0
Cellulose 84.0
Carbon & other high performance 7.0
TOTAL 961.0
COLORANTS
Inorganics
Titanium dioxide 292.0
Iron oxides 11.0
Cadmiums 6.0
Chrome yellows (includes lead) 6.0
Molybdate orange 4.0
Others 4.0
Total - Inorganics 323.0
Organic pigments
Carbon black 86.0
Phthalo blues 3.0
Organic reds 3.0
Organic yellows 1.0
Phthalo greens 1.0
Others 1.0
Total - Organics 95.0
Dyes
Nigrosines 3.0
Oil solubles 1.0
Anthroquinones 0.5
Others 0.6
Total - Dyes 5.1
TOTAL 423.1
CHEMICAL BLOWING AGENTS
Azodicarbonides 11.3
Oxbissulfonylhydrazide 0.5
High temperature CBA's 0.4
Inorganic 0.4
TOTAL 12.6
(Cont.)
2-27
-------
Table2-13(Cont.)
CONSUMPTION OF LARGE-VOLUME ADDITIVES
(Millions of Pounds, 1986)
Additive
FLAME RETARD ANTS
Additive Flame Retardants
Aluminum trihydrate
Phosphorous compounds
Antimony oxide
Bromine compounds
Chlorinated compounds
Boron compounds
Others
Total - Additive Flame Retardants
Reactive Flame Retardants
Epoxy reactive
Polyester
Urethanes
Polycarbonate
Others
Total - Reactive Flame Retardants
TOTAL
LUBRICANTS
Metallic stearates
Fatty acid amides
Petroleum waxes
Fatty acid esters
Polyethylene waxes
TOTAL
HEAT STABILIZERS
Barium-cadmium
Tin
Lead
Calcium-zinc
Antimony
TOTAL
Consumption
218.0
60.0
36.0
36.0
33.0
11.0
19.0
413.0
28.0
12.0
12.0
8.0
10.0
70.0
483.0
37.0
21.0
18.0
13.0
6.0
95.0
35.0
25.0
23.0
5.0
1.0
89.0
Additive
UV STABILIZERS
Benzotriazoles
Benzophenes
Salicylate esters
Cyanoacrylates
Malonates
Benzilidenes
Others
TOTAL (1984)
IMPACT MODIFIERS
Acrylics
MBS
ABS
CPE
Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolyr
Others
TOTAL
ANTISTATIC AGENTS
Quaternary ammonium compo
Fatty acid amides & amines
Phosphate esters
Fatty acid ester derivatives
Others
TOTAL
ANTIOXIDANTS
Hindrecl phenols
Others
TOTAL (1984)
Consumptior
5.5
135.0
6.5
35.0
(a) Data presented are not fully consistent with estimates of filler consumption given in Table 2-11 because
of differences in the definition of categories.
Notes: Data are for 1986 unless otherwise indicated at TOTAL.
Data for free radical initiators, antimicrobials, catalysts and curing agents not available.
"-" means not separately available.
Source: Modern Plastics and Rauch Associates; as cited in Rauch Associates, 1986.
2-28
-------
Table 2-14
MAJOR PRODUCT AREAS IN THE
PLASTICS MARKET CATEGORIES
Market Category/
Product Area
Product
as Percentage
of Category
Category
as Percentage
of U.S. Sales
PACKAGING
Flexible packaging
except household &
inst. refuse bags & film 24.1 (a)
All other categories,
except those below 23.9 (a)
Bottles, jars, and vials 18.8 (a)
Food containers
(Excl. disp. cups) 17.0 (a)
Household & inst. refuse
bags and film 16.1 (a)
Packaging, Total 100.0
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
Pipe, conduit and fittings 39.8
Siding (incl. accessories and
structural panels) 11.5
Insulation materials 11.1
Flooring 8.4
All other 29.2
Building and Construction, Total 100.0
CONSUMER AND INSTITUTIONAL PRODUCTS
All categories, except those below 42.0
Disposable food serviceware
(incl. disp. cups) nd
Health care and medical products nd
Toys and sporting goods 9.6
Hobby and graphic arts supplies nd
Consumer and Inst. Products, Total 100.0
33.5
24.8
11.1
(Cont.)
2-29
-------
Table2-14(Cont.)
MAJOR PRODUCT AREAS IN THE
PLASTICS MARKET CATEGORIES
Market Category/
Product Area
Product
as Percentage
of Category
Category
as Percentage
of U.S. Sales
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC
Home and industrial appliances
Electric equip, combined
with electronic components
Wire and cable
Storage batteries
Communications equip.
Electrical and Electronic, Total
FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS
Carpet and components
Textiles and furnishings, nee
Rigid furniture
Flexible furniture
Furniture and Furnishings, Total
TRANSPORTATION
Motor vehicles and parts
Ships, boats and recr. vehicles
All other trans, equip.
Transportation, Total
ADHESIVES, INKS AND COATINGS
Inks and coatings, nee
Adhesives and sealants
Adhesives, Inks and Coatings, Total
ALL OTHER
TOTAL
30.8
26.4
nd
nd
3.4
100.0
nd
28.3
10.6
nd
100.0
77.7
19.0
3.3
100.0
67.1
32.9
100.0
100.0
6.1
4.9
4.5
4.0
11.0
100.0
Note: Market shares are calculated based on product sales and captive use by weight.
nd - Not disclosed by source, nee - Not elsewhere classified.
(a) The market share estimates do not include a small residual of product sales. The unallocated
residual sales, however, represent only 0.1 % of the packaging market and have been ignored.
Source: The Society of the Plastics Industry, 1988. The source utilized 1987 data.
2-30
-------
to
Figure 2-1
PLASTIC RESINS IN PACKAGING USES
HOPE 25.4%
LDPE 44.5%
All Thermosets 1.1%
/ PVC 4.3%
PET 6.4%
Other Thermoplastics 8.5%
PS 9.8%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
• Decreasing time devoted to food and beverage preparation in the home, resulting in a
demand for products in convenient, single-service packages such as microwavable
prepared-entree trays and single-serving juice boxes
• Efforts by fast food outlets to convert paper wraps and boxes to disposable plastic
containers; increased bulk food distribution for the increasing restaurant and institutional
demand is also contributing to development of new products (e.g., sauce canisters)
• Increasing substitution of plastic shopping bags for paper; plastic bags are forecast to
capture 75% of the market by 2000
• Increasing use of composites (several resins combined in one product) as well as
development of high-barrier polymers and the technology to combine dissimilar polymers;
these changes in the rigid packaging market are creating the opportunity for plastics to
replace other materials in products that require oxygen, carbon dioxide, flavor, odor, and
solvent permeation protection
• Increasing combination of traditional packaging materials with plastics to meet product-
specific package-performance requirements (i.e., aseptic box packages combining
paperboard, metal foil, and various resins)
The last two of these growth factors, the use of composites and the combination of plastics with
traditional packaging materials, are of particular interest for environmental analysis. Both of
these types of packaging tend to limit recycling options available (a topic discussed extensively
in Section 5) because they make it difficult to separate different plastic resins or to separate
resins from other materials (as needed for reprocessing).
Plastic composites are used for "high-barrier" packaging, that is, packaging that provides
sufficient barriers against gas or moisture permeation to allow it to compete with traditional
materials. Table 2-15 presents a 1985 forecast of the expected growth of high-barrier plastics as
a share of the food and beverage packaging market. This market share is forecast to grow
from negligible in 1983 to 7.8% (representing 14.5 billion containers) in 1993 (Agoos, 1985).
Another forecast, published in 1986, estimated a 15.1% market share for high-barrier plastics in
1995 (Prepared Foods, 1986). This market share would represent 29 billion containers.
2.4.2 Building and Construction
Most end products used in building and construction can be made from commodity resins,
though specialty resins are needed for small, functional parts such as casters, pulleys, and
latches. The largest demand for thermoplastics in this market sector is for pipes and conduits;
PVC, HDPE, LDPE, and polypropylene are used, for example, in potable water pipe and gas
pipe. Polystyrene is also used for various building and construction needs, such as light fixtures
and ornamental profiles. Thermoset resins, on the other hand, are used for the bonding and
laminating of plywood, wood products, and protective coatings. For the volumes of each plastic
used in this market (by percentage of the total market), see Figure 2-2.
2-32
-------
Table 2-15
PROJECTED GROWTH OF
PLASTICS USE IN FOOD AND
BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
(Billions of Containers)
1983
Material
Aluminum
Steel
Glass
Plastic -
Commodity
High-barrier
Paper/foil combinations
Total
No.
58.08
34.32
42.12
20.63
0.01
7.27
162.43
As'% of
Total
35.8
21.1
25.9
12,7
0.0
4.5
100.0
1988
No.
68.87
26.42
39.91
28.02
2.00
8.99
174.21
As % of
Total
39.5
15.2
22.9
16.1
1.1
5.2
100.0
1993
No.
74.30
18.56
35.64
32.68
14.50
9.10
184.78
As % of
Total
40.2
10.0
19.3
17.7
7.8
4.9
100.0
Source: Agoos, 1985.
-------
Figure 2-2
PLASTIC RESINS IN BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION USES
PVC 42.9%
Phenolic 18.8%
Urea/Melamine 9.8%
Other Thermosets 1.2%
Polyurethane 4.2%
PS 4.3%
Unsat. Polyesters 4.7%
HOPE 5.3%
Other Thermoplastics 8.8%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
The following trends support the increased use of plastics in this market sector:
• Increasing numbers of smaller, multi-family dwellings, in which many types of plastics will
be used to give design functionality at reduced cost
• Increasing refurbishments of older homes rather than new construction; plastics will be
used in advanced wiring systems, expanded attics, and finished basements
• Increasing replacement by plastics of wood, metal, and glass in windows
• Development of new polymers that offer product design "economies for insulation,
decorative moldings, wall coverings, roofing materials, and weight-supporting structural
applications (e.g., beams of glass and resin rather than metal hi buildings containing
sensitive electronics equipment)
2.4.3 Consumer and Institutional Products
This market segment is defined as including such products as disposable food serviceware
(including disposable cups), dinner and kitchenware, toys, sporting goods, health and medical
care products, hobby and graphic arts supplies, and luggage. In this segment, polystyrene (PS) is
used in the greatest volume (see Figure 2-3). Performance improvements and parts
consolidation have been the driving forces behind the increased use of PS and other plastics in
this market segment. Key areas for growth include:
• The medical market, where medical gowns, operating table covers, and other fabrics can
be replaced by single-use plastic films
• The toy market, where electronic toys and action figures are becoming more popular
• The household market, where dual-ovenable, disposable, and reusable food trays are an
increasingly important application for plastics
• The office supply market, where plastics can replace metals in such products as tape
dispensers, stapler bodies, and desk organizers
2.4.4 Electrical and Electronics
This market includes home and industrial appliances, electrical and industrial equipment, _
components, computers and peripherals, records and batteries. In electrical and electronic
applications, no one resin has cornered more than a quarter of the market (see Figure 2-4) —
in contrast to the packaging sector, for example, where LDPE represents 44.5% by volume of
resins used. The fastest growing applications for plastics lie in the appliance and
computer/peripheral areas; these trends include:
2-35
-------
Figure 2-3
PLASTIC RESINS IN CONSUMER
PRODUCT USES
10
PP 16.7%
HOPE 13.6%
LDPE 12.7%
PS 29.3%
Other Thermoplastics 6.7%
All Thermosets 6.9%
PVC 7.0%
PET 7.1%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
FiourG 2"4
PLASTIC RESINS IN ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONIC USES
PVC 17.1%
K)
U)
Engineering Polymers 14.3%
LDPE 13.8%
PS 10.6%
Phenolic 4.4%
Polyurethane 4.6%
Other Thermoplastics 4.8%
HDPE 5.3%
Other Thermosets 7.5%
ABS/SAN 8.2%
PP 9.4%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
i Increasing use of specialty plastics in small appliances (e.g., lawn mowers and power tools)
traditionally made of metal
i Increasing use of plastics in large appliances, especially for housings, due to increased
efficiency and design flexibility
i Increasing factory automation, resulting in a demand for plastics in such components as
control panels, sensors, and printed wiring boards
i Increasing residential automation, in which microcomputers are used to control lighting,
security, and appliances
i Increasing acceptance of high-reliability batteries containing inherently conductive
polymers for medical and other fault-intolerant equipment
2.4.5 Furniture and Furnishings
This market (Figure 2-5) is dominated by polyurethane foams and polypropylene, which are
used largely in upholstery and carpets. The following trends will influence the use of plastics in
this segment:
• Increasing plastics substitution for glass because of economic factors and breakage
resistance
• Continuing demand for ease of installation, decorating and color options, and ease of
care, which supports the use of plastics in such applications as carpeting, flooring, and
cabinets
• Increasing demand for relatively inexpensive plastic materials (e.g., polyethylene and
polypropylene) at the expense of natural products such as jute
2.4.6 Transportation
The transportation industry's components are automotive, other land-based vehicles (including
trailers), mass transit, airplanes/aerospace, marine, and military. Polyurethane is the most
important resin in this market by volume used (see Figure 2-6). The following trends are
creating significant opportunities for plastics use in this market segment:
• Manufacture in United States of automobiles by Japanese companies, a change that favors
domestic consumption of plastics
• Increasing use of polymer systems in cars at the expense of metal, glass, and rubber (e.g.,
for weight reduction)
2-38
-------
Figure 2-5
PLASTIC RESINS IN FURNITURE
AND FURNISHINGS USE
Polypropylene (PP) 42.5%
to
«i»
VO
Polyurethane 30.0%
Other Thermosets 4.0%
Other Thermoplastics 5.1%
Other Styrenics 5.9%
PVC 12.5%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
Figure 2-6
PLASTIC RESINS IN TRANSPORTATION USES
Unsat. Polyesters 17.3%
Engineering Polymers 13.5%
ABS/SAN 11.4%
Polyurethane 22.8%
Other Thermosets 1.9%
/ Other Thermoplastics 4.2%
Phenolic 5.3%
PP 9.7%
PVC 5.9%
HOPE 7.8%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
i Reduction of the 5 mph bumper impact standard to 2.5 mph; a number of plastics can
now meet Federal regulations (by 2000, plastics are forecast to capture 70% of the
market)
i Development of polymeric alloys and blends (e.g., nylon, polyester) specifically tailored for
automotive exterior parts such as body panels and bumpers; advantages include lighter
weight, resistance to salt corrosion, and economics of production
i Increasing military spending on advanced systems such as stealth aircraft
2.4.7 Adhesives, Inks, and Coatings
This market is dominated by thermosets (e.g., urea and melamine), styrenics (e.g., styrene-
butadiene), and vinyls (e.g., polyvinyl acetate) (see Figure 2-7). The following trends will
influence the growth of this segment:
• Increasing use of adhesives to replace mechanical fasteners in automotive, aerospace, and
other structural applications
• Increasing use of multilayer constructions of noncompatible materials for packaging, which
will require adhesives to bond dissimilar materials
2.4.8 Other
This segment consists primarily of sales to resellers, compounders, and distributors. Often, this
material does not meet the primary suppliers' intended product specifications and is thus
relegated to less demanding applications.
2.5 DISPOSITION OF PLASTICS INTO THE SOLID WASTE STREAM
Plastic end products and materials eventually contribute to the solid waste stream. This section
characterizes the plastics share of general waste volumes and, to the extent possible, the types
of plastics included in these waste materials. The solid waste management methods used to
handle these wastes are described in Sections 3 and 4 of this study.
As plastics are discarded or lost, they contribute to various waste streams. The stream on
which this report focuses is MSW, i.e., the waste generated by households, institutions, and
commercial establishments and managed by community services. In addition, some plastic wastes
are:
• Discarded, discharged, or lost to inland water bodies or the ocean
• Improperly disposed of as litter; these wastes may be eventually added to MSW or remain
uncollected indefinitely
2-41
-------
to
.K
N>
Figure 2-7
PLASTIC RESINS IN ADHESIVES, INKS,
AND COATINGS USES
Other Vinyls 34.3%
Other Styrenics 22.8%
Acrylics 4.2%
Other Thermoplastics 4.4%
* „ .
LDPE 4.4%
Melamine 5.3%
Epoxy 7.3%
Other Thermosets 17.4%
Source: Chem Systems, 1987; based on 1985 data.
-------
• Disposed of as building and construction wastes, which are often sent to different landfills
than MSW
• "Disposed of in automobile salvage yards and then discarded or recycled (e.g., plastic
used on the dashboard of an automobile)
Industrial waste streams are not considered a component of MSW (as defined by EPA); thus,
these streams, with one exception, do not fall within the scope of this analysis of post-consumer
waste. That exception - the stream of plastic resin pellets apparently released to the marine
environment in the chain from plastics manufacture to transportation to processing --is
considered here because the impact of these pellets on the marine environment is an issue of
increasing concern. Available information on building/construction wastes and plastic
automobile .waste is also included. In addition, litter and materials discarded in the marine
environment are also post-consumer waste and thus are discussed in this report.
The following sections describe the contribution of plastics to the solid waste streams addressed
here. The more comprehensive information covers the components of MSW. Separate
analyses of plastics in building and construction wastes were not located.
2.5.1 Plastics in Municipal Solid Waste
Information on the composition of the plastic waste stream is extremely important for analyzing
waste management options. The studies described below offer limited information regarding the
amounts and types of plastics in the municipal solid waste stream.
The best data available for characterizing discarded plastics are those developed in studies of
MSW. Because the primary focus of this study is post-consumer waste, the discussion here
appropriately concentrates on household, institutional, and commercial wastes — the primary
constituents of MSW.
Table 2-16 presents a characterization of MSW as developed for EPA (Franklin Associates,
1988). The data show the contribution of plastic wastes, by weight, to the municipal solid waste
stream for 1986 (the most recent year for which data have been prepared) and for the years
1970 and 2000. The data were generated using a "materials-flow" methodology, which relies on
published data series on production or consumption of materials and products that enter the
municipal solid waste stream. The researchers also made adjustments to the data to reflect
materials or energy recovery.
Franklin Associates estimated that plastics represented 7.3% of MSW by weight in 1986. Paper
and paperboard (35.6%) and yard waste (20.1%) combine for over one-half of the total.
Metals (8.9%) and glass (8.4%), two materials that compete with plastics in many product
applications, contribute slightly more weight to the MSW total than do the plastic wastes.
(Analyses of relative volumes for waste materials are made in Section 4, where landfill issues
are discussed.) The aggregate quantity of the plastic waste in MSW was estimated at 20.6
billion pounds, or 10.3 million tons. Plastics are predicted to increase to 31.2 billion pounds in
Table 2-16 the year 2000 as both glass and metals decrease in their contribution to the waste
stream. The Franklin Associates research does not include certain wastes that are not
2-43
-------
Table 2-16
TYPES OF MATERIALS DISCARDED INTO THE MUNICIPAL
WASTE STREAM (a) AND THEIR SHARE OF THE TOTAL WASTE STREAM
1970
1986
2000
Material
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Other
Food waste
Yard waste
Miscellaneous organics
TOTAL
lb(b)
73.0
25.0
27.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
8.0
0.2
25.6
46.2
3.8
225.0
%
32.4
11.1
12.0
2.7
2.7
1.8
3.6
-
11.4
20.5
1.7
100.0
lb(b)
100.2
23.6
25.2
20.6'
7.8
5.6
11.6
0.2
25.0
56.6
5.2
281.6
o/o
35.6
8.4
8.9
7.3
2.8
2.0
4.1
_
8.9
20.1
1.8
100.0
lb(b)
132.0
24.0
28.8
31.2.
7.6
6.6
12.2
0.2
24.6
64.0
6.4
337.6
%
39.1
7.1
8.5
9.2
2.3
2.0
3.6
_
7.3
19.0
1.9
100.0
Source: Franklin Associates, 1988a.
- Negligible.
Notes: (a) Wastes discarded after materials recovery and before energy recovery.
Details may not add due to rounding.
(b) Expressed in billions of pounds.
2-44
-------
considered municipal solid waste, such as building and construction wastes and automobile
bodies and scrap. Further, this study considers the net import balance in product flows, but it
does not include the packaging materials for imported products.
r i i . ,. . '
The same research group estimated the aggregate quantity of MSW in 1986 at 281.6 billion
pounds, or 140.8 million tons. This estimate corresponds to a rate of MSW generation of
approximately 3 pounds per capita per day.
Evidence from direct excavations of municipal landfills also provides information on the
constituents of MSW. Researchers from the University of Arizona have measured the
constituents of a number of landfills (Rathje et al, 1988). They reported that plastic wastes
represented 7.4% by weight of MSW materials excavated from three landfills in geographically
dispersed parts of the United States (see Table 2-17). The wastes exhumed in this study were
first landfilled between 1977 and 1985. The researchers did not include in their total any
contribution of plastics to "mixed wastes" in the landfills, including textiles, fast food packaging,
and diapers (all products that could include plastics). Thus, foamed polystyrene ("clam-shell"
type) fast-food containers are not included in the plastics total.
These excavation results are not directly comparable to the Franklin Associates studies. For
instance, the excavation studies attempt to characterize the historical content of MSW as it is
represented by wastes in a landfill, which would contain both recently discarded and older
wastes. The Franklin Associates data only attempts to characterize the current flow of wastes.
Limited research has been performed on the types of plastics identifiable in MSW, making it
difficult to complete the understanding of the flow of plastic materials through the economy
and into the waste stream. A few elements of this work can be summarized here.
Franklin Associates research provides the best indications of «the types of plastic materials
entering the municipal solid waste stream. Table 2-18 presents a breakdown of MSW into
product categories. In the container and packaging category, for example, Franklin Associates
estimated 2.8 million tons of plastic containers and 2.8 million tons of "other [plastic]
packaging." The remaining plastic wastes (out of the 10.3 million ton total) are included in the
totals for durable and nondurable goods. The specific breakdown between these product
categories is not given. It has been noted, however, that plastic products have been growing as
a share of wastes in the nondurable goods category. This category captures most consumer
goods. The durability of a plastic product (as well as numerous other characteristics) is of
interest because of its potential impact on the selection of management options for the eventual
plastic waste (e.g., is recycling as useful a management option for durable plastic goods).
Further, plastics found in some durable goods, such as appliances or as parts of building and
construction materials, may not be disposed with MSW but processed by scrap metal recyclers
or disposed in separate landfills for demolition wastes.
To extend the analysis of plastics in the waste stream, it is useful to introduce estimates of the
lifetime of plastic products. Table 2-19 presents the lifetimes for various plastic products that
were used in the Franklin Associates data or extrapolated from that study (extrapolations were
developed for certain product categories not covered in the source). Packaging materials are
estimated to stay in use for less then one year. The product lifetimes estimates represent a
connection between the production statistics for plastic products and waste statistics. Thus,
2-45
-------
Table 2-17
WEIGHT OF LANDFILL CONSTITUENTS
Landfill Constituent
BIODEGRADABLE
Organic
Yard
Food
Wood
Paper
Newsprint
Packaging
Non-packaging
Corrugated
Magazines
Ferrous metal
BIODEGRADABLE - TOTAL
NONBIODEGRADABLE
Plastics
Rubber
Aluminum
Glass
NONBIODEGRADABLE - TOTAL
MIXED MATERIALS
Unidentified
Textiles
Diapers
Fast food packaging
MIXED MATERIALS - TOTAL
TOTAL MSW
MATRIX MATERIAL
Fines
Other (mostly clay)
Rock
MATRIX MATERIAL - TOTAL
TOTAL SAMPLE
Source: Rathje, 1988.
Weight
(Ib)
255.9
59.7
266.5
790.8
699.1
486.4
251.3
112.2
399.3
3,311.2
367.2
30.3
60.3
187.0
644.8
999.1
744.9
171.0
66.3
16.9
999.1
4,955.1
2,987.1
670.3
293.0
3,950.4
8,905.5
As°/o
of Total MSW
5.2
1.2
5.4
16.0
14.1
9.8
5.1
2.3
8.1
66.8
7.4
0.6
1.2
3.8
13.0
20.2
15.0
3.5
1.3
0.3
20.2
100.0
—
—
—
—
—
As %
of Excavated Material
2.9
0.7
3.0
8.9
7.9
5.5
2.8
1.3
4.5
37.2
4.1
0.3
0.7
2.1
7.2
11.2
8.4
1.9
0.7
0.2
11.2
55.6
33.5
7.5
3.3
44.4
100.0
2-46
-------
Table 2-18
(5 t-
NATURE AND DURABILITY OF PRODUCTS
DISCARDED INTO THE
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM
1970
Product
Classification
Durable goods
Nondurable goods (a)
Containers and
Packaging
Other Wastes (b)
TOTAL
Tons
13.9
21.4
39.3
37.8
112.4
%
12.4
19.0
34.9
33.6
100.0
1986
Tons
19.2
35.4
42.7
43.4
140.7
%
13.6
25.1
30.3
30.8
100.0
2000
Tons
23.0
47.5
50.7
47.5
168.7
%
13.6
28.1
30.0
28.1
100.0
Totals may not add due to rounding.
(a) Includes paper products such as newspapers, office papers, and paper towels; also apparel,
footware, and miscellaneous nondurables (especially many small plastic products).
(b) Includes yard and food wastes and miscellaneous inorganic wastes.
Source: Franklin Associates, 1988a.
2-47
-------
Table 2-19
ESTIMATED LIFETIMES} FOR
PLASTIC PRODUCTS
Market Category/
Product Area
Product
Lifetimes
Market Category/
Product Area
Product
Lifetimes
PACKAGING
Flexible packaging
except household &
inst. refuse bags & film <1 yr
All other packaging <1 yr
Bottles, jars and vials <1 yr
Food containers
(Excl. disp. cups) <1 yr
Household & inst. refuse
bags and film <1 yr
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
Pipe, conduit and fittings NA
Siding (incl. accessories and
structural panels) NA
Insulation materials NA
Flooring NA
CONSUMER AND INST. PRODUCTS
All categories, exc. others NE
Disposable food serviceware
(incl. disp. cups) <1 yr
Health care and medical products <1 yr (a)
Toys and sporting goods 5 yr
Hobby and graphic arts supplies <1 yr (a)
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC
Home and industrial appliances 10'
Electric equip, combined
with electronic components 10 yl
Wire and cable > 10 yr (al
Storage batteries > 10 yr (a|
Communications equip. > 10 yr (aj
FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS
Carpet and components 10 yij
Textiles and furnishings, nee 10 yij
Rigid furniture 10 yn
Flexible furniture 10yi|
TRANSPORTATION
Motor vehicles and parts N/
Ships, boats and recr. vehicles N/
All other trans, equip. N/
ADHESIVES, INKS AND COATINGS
Inks and coatings, nee <1 yr (ai
Adhesives and sealants <1 yr (al
NA - Not applicable; Category of waste is not normally included in MSW.
NE - Not estimated
nee - Not elsewhere classifiable.
(a) Estimated by ERG.
Source: Franklin Associates, 1988b.
2-48
-------
packaging waste represents the current year's production of these materials, whereas consumer
durable discards represent production from a decade ago.
With the product lifetimes data, it is possible to return to the estimates of packaging and
containers in the solid waste stream to delineate the waste characteristics more clearly. Table
2-20 presents: 1) a distribution of packaging and container wastes by material; 2) distribution
according to type of packaging; and 3) distribution by resin. The second and third parts of the
table are based entirely on production data for packaging and for resins (as shown earlier in
Figure 2-1 and Table 2-12); thus, the production data can be used to indicate the characteristics
of the waste. The data indicate that most packaging waste consists of flexible packaging, most
made from polyethylene (low- and high-density) plastics.
Other researchers have estimated explicitly the distribution of resins in plastic waste. One study
combined assumptions about the approximate life of plastic articles and resin production and
end use statistics to calculate the distribution of resins hi plastic solid waste. That study
generated results for four major resins, as follows: polyethylene (65.3% of the waste),
polystyrene (17.1%, includes ABS and other copolymers), polypropylene (8.5%), and polyvinyl
chloride (9.1%) (Alter, 1986). These estimates should be considered approximations. Some of
the underlying assumptions were developed in the 1970's and were not updated for this report.
Further, the estimates do not consider the full range of produced resins, thereby excluding some
production.
The University of Arizona researchers have not performed a study on the constituents of plastic
waste found in their excavations. Their recent publications, however, refer to methodological
issues for measurement of PET soda bottles and of plastic film bags such as cleaner bags,
grocery bags, and garbage bags. No quantitative evidence is available, however, about plastics
found in the excavation studies.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the Franklin Associates methodology is valuable for
clarifying the flow of plastic materials through the economy. In lieu of data about the
composition of the aggregate solid waste stream, Franklin Associates developed estimates from
the production statistics themselves. Most of the plastic materials produced eventually reach
the municipal solid waste stream. One major difference between production and disposal
statistics is the lag in disposal for certain plastic products. (Several other adjustments are also
needed in order to consider production losses and to adjust for imports and exports.)
The implication of the certainty of eventual disposal is that production statistics are, with
certain caveats, the best first-order approximation of the composition of discarded plastic
materials. Their estimates do not address comprehensively the research interests of this study
because they do not provide specific estimates for all plastic waste sectors (e.g., durable plastic
products) and because their estimates cannot describe the composition of construction wastes.
They also do not separately address the wastes disposed to inland waters or the ocean.
Nevertheless, the "materials flow" methodology correctly focuses on the aggregate flow of
materials through the economy and into the waste stream.
2-49
-------
Table 2-20
to
tin
o
Part I-All MSW, by Type
of Material
Material
Million Percent
tons of Total
Glass 10.7
Steel 2.7
Aluminum 1.0
Paper and paper- 20.4
board
Plastics 5.6
Wood 2.1
Other Misc. 0.2
TOTAL
42.7
25.1
6.3
2.3
47.8
13.1
4.9
0.5
100.0
COMPONENTS OF PACKAGING
AND CONTAINER WASTE STREAM
Part II - Plastic Packaging and
Containers, by Type of Item
Item
Million Percent
tons of Total
Flexible packaging 3.1
- Household & institutional
refuse bags & films 1.2
- All other flexible
packaging 1.8
Bottles, jars, & vials 1.4
Food containers (excl.
disposable cups) 1.3
All other packaging 1.8
40.3
16.2
24.2
TOTAL
7.6
18.8
17.0
23.9
100.0
Part III - Plastic Packaging and
Containers, by Type of Resin
LD polyethylene
HD polyethylene
Polystyrene
Other thermo-
plastics
PET
PVC
All thermosets
TOTAL
Million
tons
2.5
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
5.6
Percent
of Total
44.6
25.0
8.9
8.9
7.1
3.6
1.8
100.0
Note: Assumes annual production for packaging is entirely discarded within one year, thus the production breakdown also
represents the breakdown of the waste stream.
Source: Part I - Franklin Associates (1988a); Part II - SPI (1988); Part III - Chem Systems (1987). The Franklin data
estimates 1986 waste disposal, the SPI data covers 1987 production and the Chem Systems data covers 1985
production. Consistency in reporting years could not be achieved.
-------
Such information on waste quantities and characteristics as that given above is necessary to
draw connections between plastic resins, plastic products, and specific components of the
municipal solid waste streams. See Section 4 for an analysis of the effects of plastic wastes on
management of municipal solid wastes, including landfilling and incineration.
2.5.2 Plastics in Building and Construction Wastes
The major components of building and construction wastes are mixed lumber, roofing and
sheeting scraps, broken concrete asphalt, brick, stone, plaster, wallboard, glass, and piping.
Plastics are used in piping, siding, insulation, and flooring as well as in other items. The exact
characteristics of building and construction waste vary by location depending on the type of
construction and the age of the housing and building infrastructure. No studies were identified
that describe a quantitative description of the components of building and construction wastes.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have produced the most recent
estimates of building and construction waste quantities. A 1979 publication estimated the
national quantity of building and construction wastes at 33.5 million tons. This estimate was
based on observations of demolition waste quantities in selected cities during 1974 to 1976, with
results then extrapolated to the national level. Sixty-six percent of the demolition debris
generated, by weight, consists of Concrete, with 20% wood, 15% brick and clay, under 2% steel
and iron, and less than 1% each for aluminum, copper, lead, glass and plastics. Plastic wastes
were estimated to total only 1,000 tons per year from this data (Wilson et al., 1979). As
previously shown in the sales data, an increasing volume of plastics is being used in the building
and construction markets; this trend suggests that the plastic share of building wastes is more
than that found by Wilson.
2.5.3 Plastics in Automobile Salvage Residue
Automobiles represent one of the major end markets for plastic products; The transportation
sector consumes approximately 4.5% of U.S. sales of plastics. This section examines the final
disposition of plastics that are part of automobile scrap.
An estimated 10.8 million vehicles were retired from use in 1986 (the estimate was based on
the number of automobiles deregistered that year). Most of these automobiles (92%) were sent
to automobile dismantling yards and then to salvage dealers. The remainder of the waste
automobiles were abandoned or were driven illegally without registration (U.S. EPA, 1988).
Automobile dismantling yards remove usable parts from automobiles. The auto body hulk is
then shipped to a salvage processor. Scrap automobiles consist of ferrous and nonferrous
metals, glass, plastic, and other materials. The salvage processor generates revenues by
removing the scrap metals that can be resold in international metal markets. This is done by
sending the cars through heavy-duty shredding equipment that smashes the auto bodies into
small pieces. Magnetic separation equipment then divides the pieces into several types of
saleable metals and residues.
2-51
-------
Automobile scrap residue (ASR) consists primarily of waste glass, plastic, and dirt. The exact
percentage of plastics is not known. ASR is also referred to as "fluff." An estimated 500 to
850 pounds of fluff is generated for each car that is shredded (U.S. EPA, 1988). If 10 million
cars are sent to automobile dismantling yards per year, the total quantity of residue created
could be estimated at 2.5 to 4.25 million tons per year. These estimates of scrap quantities are
not necessarily accurate, however, partly due to uncertainties about data on car deregistrations
and abandonments. A representative for the industry trade association estimated that their
membership processes 6 to 8 million cars per year (Siler, 1989).
Automobile fluff may contain hazardous materials. Numerous automobile parts — e.g., batteries,
used oil, solvents, mufflers and catalytic converters, paints and coatings, and brake drums — can
contain hazardous chemicals or substances. An industry group, the Institute of the Scrap
Recycling Industries (ISRI), has developed guidelines for shredders to help them comply with
the environmental requirements that govern the eventual disposal of the fluff. Shredders are
urged to require their car suppliers to remove those items from the car body that contain the
main hazardous constituents or to refuse the shipment.
ASR is virtually always landfilled for final disposal. The shredder normally must pay for this
waste disposal. In selected instances, however, the shredder may obtain a disposal cost discount
because the fluff is useful for the landfill operator as daily COver material (slier,
2.5.4 Plastics in Litter
Many recent studies of litter have attempted to analyze beach litter as a means of assessing the
marine debris problem. The studies of wastes on beaches, however, cannot differentiate
between litter left by public beachgoers and that which washes up on the shore. With that
caveat in mind, some information about the share of plastics in beach waste and the
composition of that litter can be presented.
Table 2-21 reproduces compilations of wastes found in Texas beach cleanup efforts. For 158
miles of Texas beaches, researchers tallied the type and number of items found by cleanup
workers. As the table indicates, the cleanup workers collected nearly 400,000 individual items
of trash. Plastic wastes represented nearly two-thirds of the items collected (66%). Metal
(13%) and glass (11%) were much less prevalent. As noted, several of the items (e.g., fishing
nets) originate in the marine environment rather than from land-based littering. Many other
items, however, including numerous sorts of plastic packaging and containers, could originate
from either marine or land sources. This information is thus insufficient to differentiate
between the two categories.
The Texas beach results reflect the unique combinations of industrial activity and ocean current
found in that area. Other beach debris studies, however, have also found large proportions of
plastic materials (Vauk and Schrey, 1987; Dixon and Dixon, 1983).
Section 3 addresses plastic wastes in the marine environment. Section 4 addresses the issue of
plastic wastes in litter and includes information to characterize these wastes.
2-52
-------
Table 2-21
COMPOSITION OF MATERIALS FOUND IN TEXAS COASTAL CLEAN-UP
(1987)
Material
PLASTICS
Bags
Caps/lids
Misc. pieces
Rope
Bottles - other
Beer rings (6-pack yokes)
Cups/utensils
Milk jugs
Bottles - green
Bottles - soda
Strapping bands
Large sheeting
Fish lines
Light sticks
Gloves
Egg cartons
TOTAL - PLASTICS
METAL
Beverage cans
Pull tabs
Bottle caps
Other cans
Misc. pieces
Wire
Large containers
Drums - rusted
Drums - new
TOTAL - MEETAL
WOOD
Misc. pieces
Pallets
Crates
TOTAL - WOOD
TOTAL - ALL MATERIALS
Number of
Items
31 ,773
28,540
21,619
18,878
16,784
15,631
12,486
7,460
7,170
6,341
4,933
4,817
4,225
4,179
4,127
3,417
20,580
8,925
8,273
4,469
3,658
2,807
1,105
268
225
50,310
9,386
605
292
10,203
Number of
Material Items
PLASTICS (Cont.)
Toys
Straws
Lighters
Computer read/write rings
Vegetable sacks
Diapers
Shoes/sandals
Fish nets
Buckets
Tampon applicators
Syringes
Hardhats
Misc. foamed polystyrene pieces
Foamed polystrene cups
Foamed polystyrene buoys
PAPER
Misc. pieces
Cups
Bags
Cartons
Newspaper
TOTAL -PAPER
TIRES
GLASS
Misc. pieces
Bottles
Light bulbs
Fluorescent tubes
TOTAL - GLASS
2,820
2,639
2,429
2,337
2,023
1,914
1,750
1,719
1.703
1,040
930
225
22,609
14,998
1,048
252,569
12,292
4,511
4,428
4,073
1,415
26,719
546
21,214
17,902
2,327
1,088
42,531
382,878
Source: Interacjency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris (1988).
2-53
-------
2.5.5 Plastics in Marine Debris
Marine wastes include wastes generated from vessels or offshore platforms and wastes deposited
from land sources. The major vessel categories include merchant marine vessels (including
commercial ocean liners and smaller passenger vessels), fishing vessels, recreational boats,
offshore oil and gas platforms, and miscellaneous research, educational, and industrial work
vessels. Wastes from vessels may be further classified as:
• Wastes from the galley and crew or "hotel" areas of a vessel
• Wastes generated from vessel operations, such as containers from engine room supplies
• Wastes generated as part of the commercial operations, such as fishing gear wastes
Wastes from land sources include:
• Wind-blown or lost debris from municipal solid waste management facilities, including
solid waste transfer stations
• Wastes released from sewage treatment facilities or due to combined sewer overflows
• Stormwater runoff and other nonpoint sources
• Beach use and resuspension of beach litter
• Plastic pellets (to the extent they are from plastic manufacturing and processing facilities)
In general, vessel wastes share many of"the components of municipal solid wastes. Substantial
portions of vessel wastes include food wastes and paper and plastic products. Only the
additional commercial wastes are unique to this sector. Wastes from land sources bear some
similarity to litter because such wastes would be litter if they remained on land.
See Section 3 for a full characterization of marine wastes. The quantity and characteristics of
plastic wastes generated must be addressed separately from each of these sources.
2-54
-------
REFERENCES
Agoos, A. 1985. Serving up a better package for foods. Chemical Week. Oct 16, 1985. p.
100.
Alter, H. 1986. Disposal and Reuse of Plastics. In: Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and
Engineering. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY.
Chemical and Engineering News. 1988. Plastics additives: Less performing better. 66:35-57.
Jun 13, 1988.
Chem Systems. 1987. Plastics: AD. 2000 - Production and Use Through the Turn of the
Century. Prepared for The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Washington, DC.
Curlee, T.R. 1986. The Economic Feasibility of Recycling: A Case Study of Plastic Wastes.
Praeger. New York, NY.
Dixon, TJ. and T.R. Dixon. 1983. Marine litter distribution and composition in the North Sea.
Marine Pollution Research. 14:145-148.
Franklin Associates. 1988a. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1960 to 2000 (update 1988). Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. 68-01-7310. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS. Mar 30, 1988.
Franklin Associates. 1988b. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS.
Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris. 1988. Report. Chair: Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. May 1988.
Kresta, I.E. (ed). 1982. International Symposium on Polymer Additives (Las Vegas, NV).
Plenum Press. New York, NY.
Modern Plastics Encyclopedia. 1988. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.
Modern Plastics. 1989. Resin Report. Jan 1989. McGraw-Hill.
Prepared Foods. 1986. High-barrier Coex: 100-fold increase by 1995. Prepared Foods (155:98).
Radian Corp. 1987. Chemical Additives for the Plastics Industry: Properties, Applications,
Toxicologies. Noyes Data Corp. Park Ridge, NJ.
2-55
-------
Rathje, W.L., W.W. Hughes, G. Archer, and D.C. Archer. 1988. Source Reduction and
Landfill Myths. Le Projet du Garbage. Dept. of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Paper
presented at Forum of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials on Integrated Municipal Waste Management, July 17-20, 1988.
Rauch Associates, Inc. 1987. The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Plastics Industry.
Seymour, R.B. (ed). 1978. Additives for Plastics - Volume 1 - State of the Art. Academic
Press.
Siler, D. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Duane
Siler, Counsel, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., Washington, DC. March 17.
SPL 1988. Society of the Plastics Industry. Facts and Figures of the U.S. Plastics Industry.
Washington, DC.
Stepek, J. and H. Daoust. 1983. Additives for Plastics. Springer-Verlag.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1985. 1982 Census of Manufacturers. U.S. Department of
Commerce. As cited in Wirka, 1988.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1988. County Business Patterns. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An
Agenda for Action. Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of Solid Waste. Draft Report.
Sep 1988. EPA/530-SW-88-052. Washington, DC.
Vauk, J.M.G. and E. Schrey. 1987. Litter pollution from ships in the German Bight. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 18:316-319.
Wilson, D., T. Davidson, and H.T.S. Ng. 1979. Demolition Wastes: Data Collection and
Separation Studies. Prepared under National Science Foundation Grant Number 76-22048
AER. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wirka, J. 1988a. Wrapped in Plastics: The Environmental Case for Reducing Plastics
Packaging. Environmental Action Foundation. Washington, DC.
2-56
-------
SECTION THREE
IMPACTS OF PLASTIC DEBRIS ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Persistent marine debris encompasses a wide assortment of natural and synthetic wastes,
particularly plastic materials, that float or are suspended in the water and may eventually be
deposited on shorelines and beaches. Either afloat, submerged, or stranded on shores, plastic
debris may endanger marine life, pose risks to public safety, impact the economics of coastal
communities and generally degrade the quality of the environment.
This chapter provides a review of the types, sources, and quantities of plastic entering the
marine environment, the physical and chemical fate of such debris, and the impacts of plastic
debris on marine wildlife, beach aesthetics, vessels, and human health and safety.
3.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Following are the key findings of this section:
• EPA identified several plastic items that are of concern due to the risks they pose to
marine life or human safety, or due to the aesthetic or economic damages they
produce. The "Articles of Concern" are beverage ring carrier devices, tampon
applicators, condoms, syringes (either whole or in pieces), plastic pellets and spherules,
foamed polystyrene spheres, plastic bags and sheeting, uncut strapping bands, fishing
nets and traps, and monofilament lines and rope.
• Persistent marine debris encompasses a wide assortment of plastic wastes that float or
are suspended in the water and may cause harm to marine wildlife, pose risks to public
safety or eventually be deposited on shorelines and beaches.
• Marine plastic debris has a number of sources, both land- and marine-based. Land-
based sources include solid waste disposal activities, sewage treatment overflows,
stormwater runoff, beach litter, and plastics manufacturers or transporters (for pellets).
Marine sources include overboard disposal, from commercial, military, and recreational
vessels operating in marine waters, as well as from offshore oil and gas structures.
• An EPA sampling study of debris in harbors found that most floatable debris consisted
of plastic items, that plastic pellets and spherules were ubiquitous and sewage-related
items were more prominent in East Coast harbors.
• Improper disposal of plastic materials creates environmental problems including
entanglement of marine animals, particularly by derelict fishing gear, ingestion of plastic
wastes by wildlife and the aesthetic losses caused by litter deposited on public beaches.
3-1
-------
Among marine wildlife, greatest concern has focused on entanglement effects on the
northern fur seal, and ingestion of plastic wastes by several endangered or threatened
species of turtles.
Various economic losses occur due to marine debris including loss of tourist revenues
in beach communities, depletion of fishing resources, and entanglement and loss of
fishing gear and fouling of vessel propellers.
3.2 TYPES AND SOURCES OF PLASTIC DEBRIS
For descriptive purposes, plastic debris may be classified as either raw materials or
manufactured products. Plastic raw materials or pellets, in the form of small spherules, disks,
and cylindrical nibs, are the least conspicuous and, therefore, most-often-overlooked components
of plastic debris. In the marine environment, the most common types of plastic raw materials
are polyethylene or polypropylene pellets, from which larger, molded plastic items are made,
and polystyrene spherules or beads, the basic structural units of polystyrene products.
Polyethylene and polypropylene pellets, 1-5 mm in diameter, are most often colorless, white, or
amber, although black, green, red, blue, and other colors are also produced. Unfoamed
polystyrene spherules are generally smaller, 0.1-3 mm in diameter, and are usually white,
opaque, or colorless.
The more visible and familiar plastic debris consists of products of sundry sizes, shapes, and
composition manufactured from the raw pellets and spherules. Manufactured items that often
contribute to plastic debris include containers and packaging materials, fishing gear, disposable
dishware, toys, and sanitary sewage-related products. These items are found in the marine
environment either intact or as variously sized pieces and fragments.
Plastic debris enters our oceans and estuaries from a number of both land-based sources and
marine activities, and for a wide variety of reasons. A large amount of the material drifting at
sea or stranded on shores is not easily traced back to its source. Some items, such as derelict
fishing equipment, are easily associated with a single source (i.e., the fishing industry), but other
items, plastic bags for example, may originate from any number of land-based or marine sources.
The types and amounts of plastic debris that end up in the marine environment are greatly
influenced by local or regional factors such as climate, physical oceanographic characteristics,
uses of the marine environment, and uses of the adjacent land.
EPA and others have characterized the plastic materials littering the marine environment
through systematic beach cleanups (CEE, 1989; GEE, 1987a) and surface water observations or
net tows (Battelle, 1989; Dahlberg and Day, 1985). Efforts to characterize beach debris have,
in recent years, been coordinated by CEE (now called the Center for Marine Conservation, or
CMC). In 1988, CEE organized a national beach cleanup and data collection effort that was
sponsored by EPA Results of these studies are presented in Section 3.2.1.5.
3-2
-------
EPA has also recently made surface collections of floatable debris, including floating plastic
materials, in the harbors of nine coastal U.S. cities: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Miami, Tacoma, Seattle, Oakland, and San Francisco. These surveys were designed to
qualitatively assess debris in the harbors of these cities. Because a unique sampling design was
implemented for each specific location and because this design varied among the harbors
sampled, the absolute numbers of items collected at each location are not directly comparable.
However, comparisons of debris types can be made on the basis of percent of total items
collected at each location.
Sampling for the harbor studies was conducted over two or three consecutive days during ebb
tide conditions. Samples of debris were collected with a 0.3-mm neuston net towed through
surface slicks, areas in .which floating debris accumulates. Debris from the tows was then
identified, sorted, counted, recorded, and entered into a database. Results of the harbor
surveys indicated that 1) 70-90% of the total number of floatable debris items collected was
composed of plastic items; 2) plastic pellets/spherules were ubiquitous; and 3) sewage-related
items were more prominent in East coast cities. Table 3-1 lists the number of debris items
collected and the percentage of items in each debris categories for the harbors surveyed.
Medical-type debris included syringes, needle covers, blood vials, pill vials, and similar material.
Sewage-related debris referred to condoms, tampons, tampon applicators, grease balls, crack
vials, cotton swabs, and similar material that enters the sewage waste stream. Plastic pellets and
spheres or styrofoam pieces were the most common debris items encountered in all but one
case. The relative abundance of plastic pellets and spheres (percentage of the total items
collected at a given harbor) was particularly variable among the different harbors. Plastic
pellets and spheres were most prominent in debris collected in Tacoma Harbor, located at the
southern end of Puget Sound. The majority of the pellets collected in Tacoma Harbor,
however, came from two discrete samples only.
In the following discussion, sources or potential sources for plastic debris have been grouped
into three categories: land-based sources, marine sources, and illegal disposal activities.
3.2.1
Land-Based Sources
Plastic debris from land-based sources includes materials that are used and/or disposed of on
land but subsequently are washed out, blown out, or discharged into rivers, estuaries, or oceans.
Plastic manufacturing and fabricating plants and related transportation activities, facilities for
handling solid waste, combined wastewater/stormwater sewer systems, nonpoint-sources runoff,
and recreational beach use are all potential land-based sources of plastic debris found in the
marine environment.
3-3
-------
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF FLOATABLE DEBRIS COLLECTED DURING EPA'S HARBOR STUDIES PROGRAM
As % of Total Items Collected
Harbor
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Miami
Seattle
Tacoma
Oakland
San Francisco
Total
Items
Collected
13,955
9,315
2,835
4,363
2,965
709
4,935
1,432
3,388
Medical-
Type
Debris"
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
Sewage-
Related
Debrisb
17.0
3.6
7.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
1.4
0.3
0.4
Plastic
Pellets &
Spherule
19
30
34
19
24
16
82
32
16
Misc.
Plastic
Pieces
21
16
5
5
7
6
3
10
11
Styrofoam
Pieces
10
18
24
25
37
44
11
36
46
Plastic
Sheeting
4
1
5
13
14
6
2
6
5
All
Other
Items
.29-
314»
24**
36f
16s
25'
<1
15"
21s
'Syringes, needle covers, blood vials, pill vials, etc.
bCondoms, tampons and applicators, grease balls, crack
vials, cotton swabs, etc.
'Includes tar balls, fishing line.
Includes slag.
'Includes cigarette butts.
Includes plastic food ware/wraps.
Includes wood.
"Includes polyurethane foam.
-------
3.2.1.1 Plastic Manufacturing and Fabricating Facilities and Related Transportation
Activities
Plastic manufacturing, processing, and associated transportation activities represent important
potential sources of plastic pellets and spherules found in the marine environment. These raw
materials are synthesized at petrochemical plants and are transported in bulk quantities to
manufacturing and processing facilities, where they are melted down and fabricated into
products. The raw material plastic pellets do not, however, include bits of foamed polystyrene
(e.g., Styrofoam) that may result from the physical breakup of food containers, floats, buoys,
and various other products.
At both the manufacturing and the fabricating facilities, raw plastic materials can enter the
wastewater stream either accidentally or intentionally. Once in the wastewater stream, these
materials can be transported to the ocean via inland waterways, directly from industrial outfalls,
or indirectly through municipal sewage systems. Plastic pellets may also be released during
transport at sea or on land, and accidental spills that occur during loading and unloading at port
facilities, (e.g., spillage from bulk containers or rips in smaller paper containers). Any losses of
.these types could then be washed through storm drains and discharged.
Although plastic pellets are the least noticeable form of plastic pollution, they remain
ubiquitous in the oceans and on beaches (Interagency Task Force, 1988; CEE, 1987b; Wilber,
1987). Their overall distribution in the sea tends to parallel the distribution of plastic debris in
general (Battelle, 1989; Wilber, 1987). Plastic pellets have been collected in neuston or
ichthyoplankton nets in both the Atlantic Ocean (Wilber, 1987; Morris, 1980; Colton, 1974;
Carpenter and Smith, 1972) and in the Pacific (Day and Shaw, 1987; Dahlberg and Day, 1985;
Wong et al., 1974). Little is known about the sources and distribution of raw plastic materials
in the Gulf of Mexico -region.
Net tpws conducted by Wilber (1987) indicated that polyethylene pellets were present
throughout the western North Atlantic; the highest concentrations occurred in the Sargasso Sea
where up to 4900 resin pellets per square kilometer of ocean surface were collected. In the
same study, it was found that unfoamed polystyrene spherules, up to 8000 per square kilometer,
were commonly collected in North Atlantic shelf waters but were rare in the open ocean.
Since Carpenter and Smith (1972) first collected plastic pellets in neuston nets towed through
the Sargasso Sea 15 years ago, these materials have increased in number nearly two-fold
(Wilber, 1987).
During surveys conducted in the Atlantic by Colton et al. (1974), polystyrene spherules were
collected in neuston nets only in waters north of Florida, with the highest concentrations
occurring in coastal waters south of Rhode Island and south of eastern Long Island. Although
these surveys extended to waters off central Florida, only off southern New England and Long
Island (Figures 3-la through Figure 3-lc) were these particles collected at most inshore stations.
3-5
-------
84 '00'
«'00
79 '00'
'4 'OC
69 'Of
43'00' -
38'00'
33'00
?6'00'
4 8'00
- 43'OC
- 38-00'
- 33'00
- 28'00
84 '00
?9 '00
n soo
69 '00
FIGURE 3-la.
DISTRIBUTION OF OPAQUE POLYSTYRENE SPHERULES IN THE ATLANTIC
OCEAN (adapted from Colton et al., 1974)
3-6
-------
48' DC
38'IH -
33-00'
28-00'
84 -00'
74 «OC
69 "00
FIGURE 3-lb.
DISTRIBUTION OF CLEAR POLYSTYRENE SPHERULES IN THE ATLANTIC
OCEAN (adapted from Colton et al., 1974)
3-7
-------
84 '00'
48*00'
79 '08'
74 *00'
69 '00'
43*00' -
38*00'
1-10
• 11-25
D 26-50
•51-100
O101-250
-&251-500
48*00'
- 43*00'
- 38*00'
- 33*00
- 28'OC'
84 '00
'9 *OC
74 "00
69 *00
FIGURE 3-lc.
DISTRIBUTION OF POLYETHYLENE CYLINDERS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
(adapted from Colton et al., 1974)
3-8
-------
Plastic pellets have also been collected in neuston net tows in the Pacific Ocean (Wong et al.,
1974) from California to Japan and northward to the Canadian border, and in the North Pacific
and Bering Sea (Day and Shaw, 1987). Wong et al. (1974) reported up, to 34,000 plastic pellets
per square kilometer in certain locations of the North Pacific Ocean.
During harbor surveys, conducted in New York and Boston (Battelle, 1989), plastic pellets
comprised 30 and 40%, respectively, of the plastic items collected, and 20 and 30%,
respectively, of all debris items collected. In Tacoma Harbor, located in the southern portion
of Puget Sound, plastic pellets comprised 84% of the total debris items collected. The majority
of these pellets, however, were found in only two of the samples taken. In Seattle, located
further north in the Sound, plastic pellets comprised only 16% of all debris items collected
(Battelle, 1989).
Most plastic pellets found in marine waters have been identified as polyethylene, polypropylene,
or polystyrene (CEE, 1987b; Hays and Cormons, 1974). Because all these raw materials are
shipped worldwide, the specific origin of pellets found in the oceans is difficult to assess. Resin
pellets have been collected in coastal areas, near major shipping lanes, and in the vicinity of
coastal industrial sources (Morris, 1980). Based on the incidence of pellet ingestion by seabirds
in California (Baltz and Morejohn, 1976) compared to the same bird species in Alaska (Day,
1980), Day et al. (1985) suggested that resin pellets are more abundant in waters adjacent to
major industrial centers than in areas of the ocean remote from such facilities.
Colton et al. (1974) proposed that the widespread distribution of these materials in rivers,
estuaries, and coastal waters of the United States indicated that improper wastewater disposal
was a common practice in the plastics industry at the time. Polyethylene cylinders and
polystyrene spherules have been found at outfalls from plastics manufacturing plants in New
Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and downstream of plants in New York and New Jersey
(Colton, 1974; Hays and Cormons, 1974). In Massachusetts alone, there are nearly 600 plastics
manufacturing and processing companies. Since these studies, National Permit Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits have placed stricter requirements on these releases.
Nevertheless, Coleman and Wehle (1984) also stated that plastic pellets and particles enter
coastal waterways and the ocean from point-source outfalls at plastic manufacturing plants.
From studies conducted in the Mediterranean, Shiber (1979) reported that many plastics
industries release their wastes directly into the sea. Studies on the West Coast have suggested
similar relationships between industrial regions and.the distribution of resin pellets in parts of
the Pacific (Day et al., 1985).
The widespread occurrence of relatively unweathered resin pellets in oceanic waters south of
Cape Hatteras and in the Caribbean Sea indicated to Colton (1974) that, in addition to plastic
manufacturing and fabricating plants, resin pellets must also originate from other sources.
Although there are no specific data implicating additional sources, foreign and domestic
transportation of raw plastic materials by commercial vessels and the loading and unloading
operations at port facilities are probably responsible for a certain amount of cargo spillage into
both coastal and open-ocean waters. Similarly, transportation on land can result in spillage of
pellets that may subsequently be carried to water bodies via stormwater runoff. Pruter (1987)
and Day et al. (1985) also reported that resin pellets and spherules may be used on the decks
3-9
-------
of commercial ships to facilitate moving of cargo containers or other large heavy objects. Such
commercial uses increase the potential for plastic pellets to enter the marine environment.
In EPA's recent harbor studies of floatable debris, including plastic pellets, regional differences
were found in the composition of debris slicks (Battelle, 1989). Figure 3-2 indicates the
percentages of the total items collected that were plastic items and the percentages of total
items that were plastic pellets and spheres. Unlike the wastes in other harbors, the majority of
those pellets collected in Tacorna Harbor were all of the same size and shape.
3.2.1.2
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Activities
In coastal .regions, municipal solid waste disposal practices can serve as sources of marine debris
(Interagency Task Force, 1988; Swanson et al., 1978). Solid waste handling facilities include
landfills, incinerators, and transfer stations. Debris from these facilities consists of a diverse
assortment of domestic and commercial wastes, some of which is plastic. According to Franklin
Associates (1988), the United States annually produces 141 million tons of municipal solid
waste. The same researchers have estimated that 7.3% of this solid waste is represented by
plastic materials (see Section 2.5; Franklin Associates, 1 pgg) Because of their relatively low
density, plastics represent a larger proportion, approximately 15-25%, of the volume of
municipal solid waste (see Section 2.5).
In regions of the country where sanitary landfills, marine transfer facilities, and municipal waste
incinerators are located in coastal environments, light-weight debris from these facilities may be
blown into adjacent waterways and transported out to sea. Persistent materials can
inadvertently be released to waterways during solid waste transfer operations, particularly
overwater transport of refuse by barges. In the metropolitan New York/New Jersey area, much
of the municipal solid waste is transported by barges along coastal waterways to landfill sites.
This kind of disposal operation involves a number of marine transfer stations (dock facilities
where the barges are loaded and unloaded). Figure 3-3 shows the locations of solid waste
handling facilities in the greater New York area.
A recent qualitative survey of waterfront waste-handling facilities within the New York Harbor
Complex indicated that such facilities contribute various quantities of debris to the waterways
and shores of the harbor complex (U.S. EPA, 1988): The study indicated that winds blow light-
weight litter from the open barges and from landfill sites. The EPA report noted that the
Fresh Kills Landfill, located on the waterfront on Staten Island (Figure 3-3), may be a
significant source of persistent debris within the harbor and in the New York Bight. This large
facility receives approximately 28,000 tons of trash per day, of which approximately 50% is
transported by barge. Shorelines in the vicinity of the Fresh Kills Landfill have been reported
to be heavily littered with municipal waste typically disposed of at the site (U.S. EPA 1988).
In the State of New York, municipalities have initiated steps to reduce the amount of debris
escaping into waterways (U.S. EPA, 1988; Swanson et al., 1978). The City of New York and
the State of New Jersey have recently entered into a judicial consent decree which directs waste
handling activities. The consent decree, aimed at reducing the amount of debris entering the
3-10
-------
Total Items Collected and Percent Plastic Items
CD
CD 14 -
0^-12-
w w
E 1 10 -
* «
~" 3 8 —
o o
_ £ 6-
O C
E ^ 4 —
Z 2 -
CO
•*-*
o n
69%
_
82%
pi~««
>_», 97%
IH 94% p^ BUB
88% 84% 8g0/ ^_ 90%
r-i Is!
NY BOS PHIL BALT MIA SEA TAG OAK SF
Total Items Collected and Plastic Items as
a Percent of Total Items
Plastic Pellets/Spheres
Total Number of Plastic Pellets/Spheres Collected and
Pellets/Spheres as a Percent of Total Items Collected
Figure 3-2. Total Items Collected and Percent Plastic Items (top);
Plastic Pellets/Spheres (bottom) (Battelle, 1989)
3-11
-------
1.. Hunts
. Point
3. 135th Street^
2.
M co»u «.• ^'Colege
_4._59th Street*., .y^" Point-
5. Ganesvoort
treet
B. Kearny Landfill •
7. Green Point
•,: ' Brooklyn
Hamilton Avenue
9. Southwest
rooklyn-
Raritan Bay
ASandy Hook
Marine
Transfer Stations
FIGURE 3-3 LOCATIONS OF MARINE TRANSFER STATIONS AND LANDFILLS IN THE
GREATER NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1989a)
3-12
-------
marine environment, includes strict waste handling protocols, use of containment booms around
loading and unloading facilities, use of barge covers, and frequent removal of floating debris
within the containment booms.
The potential contribution of municipal solid waste handling facilities to marine debris has not
been quantified on a national level.
3.2.13
Sewage Treatment Plants and Combined Sewer Overflows
A significant amount of plastic debris in the marine environment is attributed to inadequate
treatment of sanitary sewage and combined wastewater/stormwater sewer systems. The outfall
pipes from these systems provide point sources of plastic debris to the environment. Of the
more than 15,000 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) in the United States, approximately
2,000 are located in coastal communities (Interagency Task Force, 1988). Most of these
facilities discharge treated effluent into streams and rivers. Nearly 600 of these POTWs,
however, discharge effluent directly into estuaries and coastal waters (OTA, 1987).
If properly operated, POTWs should not discharge plastic debris into the marine environment.
However, under some circumstances, plastic materials associated with POTWs can enter the
marine waters. Plastic debris can be discharged from POTWs to receiving waters for three
major reasons (Interagency Task Force, 1988):
• At POTWs that cannot treat the capacity of normal "dry-weather flow,"
untreated sewage may bypass the system and be released directly into the
environment.
• During periods of "down time," when a POTW is not operating because
of malfunctions or breakdowns, influent may bypass the treatment system •
and be released into receiving waters.
• In a community where both sewage and stormwater runoff are combined
into one system and the volume of stormwater exceeds a treatment
plant's capacity (e.g., during heavy rain), both untreated sewage and
stormwater are discharged directly into receiving waters.
Most POTWs are designed to handle the volumes of domestic and industrial wastes generated
by municipalities. Even with minimal primary treatment, variously sized screen courses and
skimming operations remove most floatable materials from incoming wastewater. These
materials are generally disposed of in landfills or at municipal incinerators and the treated
effluent is released into local receiving waters. Settled solids are disposed of on land or at sea.
Disposal of these settled solids at sea may be through an outfall (such as in Boston) or by
direct disposal. Currently, the only example of direct disposal is the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site used by New York and New Jersey municipalities.
3-13
-------
When the volumes of incoming waste are larger than the treatment capacity of the POTW
facility or portions of its collection system, untreated sewage bypasses the plant and is released
directly into the environment. Similar releases of untreated wastes can occur when a facility is
malfunctioning or undergoing maintenance. Under both of these conditions, the untreated
waste that is discharged may contain various amounts of plastic debris that generally would be
removed by skimmers, screens, and separators during treatment.
Many coastal communities do not have separate sewer systems for domestic/ industrial
wastewater and for stormwater. Some older sewer netwprks transport both sanitary wastes and
stormwater to sewage treatment facilities where floatable materials are subsequently removed.
Under normal dry-weather conditions, untreated wastewater is carried to the treatment facility
by the sewer system. However, during periods of heavy rain, flow of domestic and industrial
wastewater and stormwater through the combined sewers may exceed the capacity of the system.
When this occurs, portions of the wastewater/stormwater flow are diverted and discharged
directly into the receiving water body. These discharges, or combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
can occur at various locations throughout the collection system. Of the more than 2,000
POTWs in U.S. coastal communities, 135 have one or more CSOs (Interagency Task Force,
1988). In addition to the impacts of untreated sewage on water quality, CSOs also contain
various kinds of sewage-associated plastic debris (e.g., disposable diapers, tampon applicators,
condoms, and other disposable sanitary items) as well as street litter collected by stormwater
runoff. Additionally, CSOs can contribute syringes to marine wastes. In one study, New York
City officials captured an average pf 30 syringes per day (with needle intact) from the materials
captured in screens and skimmers from 14 wastewater treatment plants (New York DEP, 1989).
Of particular concern are cities with outdated systems, such as in the greater metropolitan areas
of New York and Boston. Of the country's 100 largest (on a volume basis) sewage treatment
facilities, 36 have collection systems with CSOs. Thirty of these systems are on the U.S. east
coast, with twelve located in New York City (NOAA, 1987). Approximately 70% of New York
City's sewer systems have CSOs. The locations and numbers of CSOs in the greater New York
metropolitan area are shown in Figure 3-4. A more recent study has identified 680 CSOs in
the Interstate Sanitation District which encompasses areas in New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut that affect the New York Bight and Long Island Sound (Interstate Sanitation
Commission, 1988).
EPA currently is conducting a CSO/storm sewer sampling program in Boston and Philadelphia.
These studies will provide data to supplement available information on CSOs and storm sewers
as potential sources of plastic debris to the marine environment. EPA is also sampling floatable
wastes throughout the POTW systems in these cities in order to determine the potential waste
releases such as could occur during heavy rains or in periods when the wastewater system is not
operating.
3.2.1.4 Stormwater Runofi/Nonpoint Sources
In addition to the land-based point sources discussed above, many other sources that are
nonspecific in nature also contribute to plastic debris in the marine environment. During heavy
rains, stormwater runoff, which carries various kinds and amounts of debris that has
accumulated during dry periods, enters storm sewers, streams, rivers, bays, and ultimately the
ocean. The state of New Jersey, for example, has nearly 5,000 stormwater pipes that discharge
3-14
-------
36° —
30
25° —
50s
FIGURE 3-4. LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW SYSTEMS IN
THE GREATER NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA (SAIC/Battelle, 1987)
3-15
-------
directly into coastal waters. The majority of floating litter that washes up on New Jersey's
beaches originates from stormwater runoff and flushing of stormwater pipes after heavy rainfalls
(New Jersey DEP, 1988).
Plastic debris originating from stormwater runoff is not found only in coastal environments,
however. Floatable wastes including plastic debris can be carried in runoff from inland areas
via streams and rivers that empty into the sea. Because of the varied nature of the sources,
debris carried by stormwater runoff is difficult to characterize. It can include any and all types
of domestic wastes that litter urban and suburban streets, parking lots, and recreational areas.
Industrially generated wastes, resulting from spills at storage or transfer facilities and during
transportation, can also be collected in stormwater that ultimately is transported to the ocean.
Debris suspended and carried by stormwater flow is ubiquitous throughout the United States.
The methods for collecting and transporting stormwater flow may vary from one municipality to
another, but along coastal states, the majority of this debris is transported to estuaries and
coastal waters. As previously discussed, in many older metropolitan areas that have combined
stormwater/wastewater sewer systems, debris is released into coastal waters through CSOs. In
other areas, stormwater flow and debris are discharged directly into the marine environment.
3.2.1.5 Beach Use and Resuspension of Beach Litter
The amount of litter observed along our shorelines is one reasonable indicator of the severity
of the persistent marine debris problem. Waste materials found on beaches and along
shorelines include not only plastic debris left by beach users but also debris that washes ashore
from vessels and sea-based commercial activities and from other improper disposal of land-based
waste. Because it is impossible to trace the source of many floatable wastes, the relative
contributions to the beach litter from beach users and from materials washed ashore are
difficult to distinguish. The majority of waste left on beaches by recreational users is floatable
debris, consisting primarily of food and beverage containers, six-pack connectors, and other
plastic packaging materials. Debris that is washed ashore encompasses a much greater diversity
of plastic materials from any number of domestic, commercial, and recreational uses (CEE,
1987a; 1987c).
Using federal and private funds, efforts to characterize beach debris have been coordinated by
the Center for Environmental Education in recent years (now called the Center for Marine
Conservation, or CMC). Data cards (Figure 3-5) for recording various types of debris were
developed by CEE for distribution to beach cleanup volunteers. Analysis of the data from
these beach surveys will provide information on the types of debris important in different
regions of the United States. The data cards were designed for ease of data collection; in
reporting the beach cleanup survey results below, the Styrofoam® (and other foamed plastics)
are included in the plastic totals and are not separately reported.
One of the first organized beach debris data collection efforts was carried out in Texas. In this
state-wide cleanup campaign conducted in September 1986, an estimated 124 tons of debris
were collected from approximately 122 miles of coastline. Of the 171,000 individual pieces of
debris recorded on the data cards, 67% were plastic (including foamed plastics such as
Styrofoam) (CEE, 1987a). In contrast, paper and wood debris constituted only 8% of all litter
3-16
-------
easy waytokeeptrackofmeitemjyoufindabymakingtidtmartttTheDOKb for total items; see sample below Trunk ycwforcornpleurgtrwoataard Answertrwquestioraandretumtoyourareacc^^
, of this card. TUB Information will Be usM in the Center for Environmental Education) National Marine OeMs Data Base aoc
total tut Repontor^dewk^solutionitostoppinjmarlrKcMrls.
KjrjroToni Itfl IHf ffl 1 \ llf 1 nipt Jtf ff Kl IHi ( \ iZ. \ Njmc Jtnn ,
PIASTIC
rrnh
«IT
Dottles.
MuairMw
„,,„,
"»*f „
capi Bdi
nip* tp/vwtt fnrtrt tnauK
IhnbvjBnr
flshlngnet:
^fMnrimmr
lurdhan
W ' P*"1
& SmOfOAM.,0,0^^^,
fSi> City f==l location of beaeticteantd U-«mcity
.,.•,.,::„....
I 1 olece:
1 law-frtunihiwtun
SAFETY nrs
1 I DonotoonMranvlanMiinjrM.
1 RUBBER
1 haHnnm
S. WMtftoutfOTBUkM.
{ t: Don'tmtmytMngmohMky
1 giMM If WE WWT YOU TO •£ SAFE
Counoy hwn Found
a ^
T plpethreadpratector 1 1 n^,
^1 rape - „«,
2fBMnrthfvtef 1 1 uiHtir*
SfteetinQ- uutiv
2fe«orshorter : _L_J ^^ •
synnoes
tampon appUratftn
CLASS
txxties;
n
"i ""^
| 1 cups :
1 pieces
WOOD {leave dntMood an the Deach)
R r-
omerfspeof/l , 1 1 Mr,,^eaty]
BuoreKcnrHoWluties . , .1 1 „_.,,
^^ 1 1 ootfnng/pi«-M _„
1 ' '
1 . '
HZ)
1 - ' 1
. STRArJD€DANO/MENHNGl£OANIfcWlS|nei«*ici*«tvpeof annul and type of entangung debns. Be ai tpecTK as you Ci(v|
Wt«i*«JtfieinQitpea*irmiTiyoucoll«ttd7
F1EASE RETURN THO OWO TO
==, nunkunu! rOUHMttACOOtOINtm*
irunxyoui otHUUtrfTO:
Center for ErMronmtnul Education
| 1 AtHMnnnlpOrgMutton
— 1 §p> j /iifiSj
1 1 Em*rw«nmttl i=; ^••B^ ^fKSf
prrn \ 1 ™»»l"l ••-• •^ii«t>' ^^^ft^m
"•""If"**! 1 __ 1
|OVER|
FIGURE 3-5. BEACH SURVEY DATA CARD DEVELOPED BY THE CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOR RECORDING AND QUANTIFYING MARINE
DEBRIS
-------
items collected. The two most abundant items recorded during the single day of Texas beach
cleanup activities were plastic bottles and plastic bags. A similar survey was conducted in Texas
in September, 1987 (CEE, 1988). The composition of the debris collected in this survey was
almost identical to that collected in 1986; 66% of the items was plastic. In 1987, in Mississippi,
Louisiana, and North Carolina, plastics represented 52, 64, and 59% of inventoried items,
respectively.
The 1987 CEE study also reported the results of a one-day data collection and cleanup event
conducted in 19 of 23 marine coastal states. For this effort, approximately 25,000 volunteers
collected and inventoried more than 700 tons of debris from 1,800 miles of U.S. coastline.
Nationwide, approximately 50% of the number of litter items collected from beaches was
persistent synthetic material (CEE, 1987c).
In 1988, volunteers conducted beach cleanups in 24 states, Puerto Rico, and Costa Rica as part
of COASTWEEKS '88., The data provided to CEE's National Marine Debris Data Base
represent the most comprehensive compilation to date of information regarding beach litter
(CMC, 1989). The National Marine Debris Data Base "includesdata" "for "ffie"following debris
types: plastic/Styrofoam® (or other foamed polystyrene), glass, rubber, metal, paper, wood, cloth,
fishing gear, sewage-related material, medical items (syringes), balloons,, domestic items, beverage
six-pack rings, cargo and offshore operations items, strapping bands, and plastic bags/sheeting.
Each debris type includes many individual items, which were listed on the data cards used by
cleanup participants. Preliminary data, presented in Table 3-2, summarize the quantities and
percentages of various types of debris collected by region. The quantity data are not
normalized according to either the number of volunteers or the size of the beach area covered
so quantities cannot be meaningfully compared among regions. Plastic (including Styrofoam®)
was, by far, the most common debris category encountered (Figure 3-6). Paper, metal, and
glass were the next most common debris types. Based on the data collected, medical-type
debris was among the least common.
Beach litter can also serve as a secondary source of marine debris. Varying oceanographic and
meteorological conditions, such as tidal fluctuations, influence the amounts of beach litter that
are resuspended from shores and redeposited at other locations.
Data collected by U.S. EPA (1988), as part of the floatable debris investigation in the New
York Harbor Complex, indicate that the resuspension of floatable refuse, resulting from above-
average tides and/or heavy precipitation, may be a major source of debris slicks in the New
York Bight. In August 1987, these two phenomena occurred simultaneously and a 50-mile-long
garbage slick formed, leaving debris on beaches between Belmar and Beach Haven, New Jersey.
The influence of tides and meteorology on the distribution of floatable wastes on shorelines of
15 New Jersey beaches was recently examined (SAIC/Battelle, 1987). At many locations, total
numbers of floatable materials on the beaches were higher during periods of high tides and
rain.
The types of debris littering beaches and shorelines of the United States vary geographically.
Based on data reviewed to date, derelict synthetic fishing gear appears to be the predominant
component of beach debris in the northern region of the North Pacific Ocean (Alaska Sea
Grant College Program, 1988). Data from beach cleanup surveys in the Gulf of Mexico (CEE,
1988; CEE, 1987a) suggest that most of the debris on Texas and Louisiana beaches is from
3-18
-------
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF TOTAL ITEMS IN VARIOUS DEBRIS CATEGORIES
COLLECTED DURING COASTWEEKS '88 NATIONAL BEACH CLEANUP
(PERCENT OF TOTAL ITEMS INDICATED IN PARENTHESES)
Debris Type
Plastic/
Styrofoam
Glass
Rubber
Metal
Paper
Wood
Cloth
Fishing Gear
Medical Debris
Balloons
Northeast
Region
174,290
(60)
20,865
(7)
7,940
(3)
35,451
(12)
36,570
(13)
9,871
(3)
4,092
(1)
18,059
(6)
149 •
3,469
(1)
Southeast
Region
351,504
(58)
52,879
(9)
9,,406
(2)
79,544
(13)
85,496
(14)
20,292
(3)
7,470
(1)
27,382
(5)
461
3,471
(1)
Gulf Coast
Region
448,042
(68)
63,566
(10)
9,584
(1)
65,500
(10)
48,582
(7)
13,510
(2)
7,613
(1)
34,430
(5)
785
1,549
(
-------
Table 3-2 (continued)
Debris Type
Domestic Debris
Cargo/Offshore
Operations
Six-Pack Rings
Strapping Bands
Plastic Bags/
Total Items
Northeast
Region
5,674
(2)
5,427
(2)
2,781
(1)
1,989
(1)
26,420
(9)
289,079
Southeast
Region
11,224
(2)
10,650
(2)
6,657
(1)
3,037
(1)
44,975
(7)
606,591
Gulf Coast
Region
25,117
(4)
18,393
(3)
15,657
(2)
4,198
(<1)
85,435
(13)
656,397
Southwest
Region
4,834
(2)
2,636
W
3,507
(1)
1,277
(1)
17,381
(7)
254,752
Northwest
Region
3,197
(3)
2,720
(3)
1,018
.. W
1,084
(1)
10,213
(11)
93,233
Source: CMC, 1989.
3-20
-------
Total Items Collected and Percent Plastic Items
700
CO
600-
0-0 SOD-
'S 5 400 -
I | 300
3 :§. 200 -
Z
100 -
0
60%
58%
68%
Northeast Southeast Gulf Coast Southwest Northwest
FIGURE 3-6 TOTAL DEBRIS ITEMS BY REGION AND PERCENT PLASTIC ITEMS
(Collected during COASTWEEKS '88 National Beach Cleanup. Adapted
from CMC's National Marine Debris Data Base (Battelle, 1989b)).
3-21
-------
offshore sources, primarily commercial shipping and the offshore petroleum industry (GEE,
1988). According to GEE, the debris found on the beaches in Mississippi contained fewer
items related to galley wastes and commercial fishing operations than beached debris found in
Texas and Louisiana. Data collected in North Carolina appear to identify beach-goers as the
major source of debris in that state.
3.2.2 Marine Sources
Marine waste is generated by vessels and by other commercial maritime activities such as
offshore oil and gas platforms. The sectors of maritime activity include merchant shipping
(including cargo vessels, ocean liners, tug boats, and other vessels), commercial fishing,
recreational boaters, military vessels and other government vessels, offshore oil and gas
platforms, and miscellaneous (educational, research and industrial vessels). This section looks at
the quantities and types of wastes generated from maritime activities.
The disposal of wastes from vessels or other maritime activities has been subject to only limited
regulation. Under the Refuse Act of 1899, vessels operating within three miles of shore are
prohibited from disposing of wastes that could create hazards to navigation. In actual practice
the Refuse Act carries only criminal penalties, making it cumbersome for the Coast Guard to
enforce. Waste disposal from offshore oil and gas platforms is regulated separately, as
explained further below.
Regulatory coverage for vessels is undergoing significant change, however, with the
promulgation of new Coast Guard regulations. These regulations were developed under
authority of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act. This law directs the Coast
Guard to develop regulations implementing the provisions of Annex V of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) for U.S. vessels and in U.S.
waters. The United States ratified this Annex under which each signatory nation prohibits the
deliberate disposal of plastic wastes from its vessels and in its waters. Interim final regulations
were published by the Coast Guard on April 28, 1989. The Coast Guard regulations prohibit
the disposal of plastic wastes from U.S. vessels (regardless of where they operate) and from any
vessel operating within 200 miles of the U.S. shoreline. Additionally, the Coast Guard
regulations place restrictions on marine disposal of some non-plastic wastes for vessels and
platforms operating in near-shore waters. It is important to note that the regulations do not
penalize vessel operators for accidental disposal of wastes, such as fishing nets lost during
trawling or other normal practices. Nevertheless, the new Coast Guard regulations should
substantially reduce the contribution of plastic wastes from vessels and other maritime
operations.
The sections below describe some of the wastes generated by the maritime sectors under
current operations. For the discussion of vessel waste quantities, wastes are categorized as
either domestic or activity-related wastes. The former category captures all of the generic types
of wastes generated including galley wastes, wastes from the crew quarters and from any "hotel"
areas of the vessels, and normal vessel operating (including engine room) wastes. The latter
include any wastes specific to the particular type of commercial vessel activity such as fishing
gear wastes, cargo-related wastes, research activity wastes, and so on.
3-22
-------
In Section 3.2.2.7 estimates are presented of the pre- and post-MARPOL Annex V marine
waste quantities. These estimates were prepared in support of Coast Guard rulemakings under
the US law implementing MARPOL Annex V (ERG, 1988, 1989, also Cantin, et. al, 1989).
Thus, the estimates of waste quantities cover those sectors that come under Coast Guard
responsibility, that is, waste disposal by U.S.-flagged vessels, and by foreign vessels operating in
U.S. territorial waters.
3.2.2.1 Merchant Marine Vessels
The merchant marine sector is defined to include ocean-going and domestic cargo vessels, ocean
and domestic tugs and barges, ocean liners, and ferries and small charter boat operators. The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1975) developed the only near-comprehensive examination
of waste disposal from this sector. NAS estimated that domestic waste generation by vessel
crew members exceeded 100,000 metric tons annually. Table 3-3 presents the NAS estimates of
marine litter. Of this amount, one percent by weight was estimated to be plastic. Since the
NAS estimate, crew sizes have declined, but the relative share of plastic waste to shipboard
waste has increased. These factors are taken into account in estimates for all sectors that are
described below.
Horsman (1982) analyzed merchant markie waste generation by counting the plastic containers
that were brought onboard vessels. He estimated that 600,000 plastic containers are discarded
at sea by the world merchant fleet.
NAS estimated that 28,000 metric tons of debris are generated each year by cruise ships serving
U.S. ports (NAS, 1975). It was estimated at the time that under 2 percent of this material was
plastic.
NAS also estimated that cargo-related wastes contributed large amounts to marine debris.
Cargo-associated wastes include dunnage (such as wood shoring for cargo compartments), and
crates, pallets, wires, plastic sheeting, and strapping bands. NAS calculated, based on a variety
of previous international studies, that 5.6 million metric tons per year of cargo-related wastes
are discarded.
The NAS estimate is now, however, seriously out-dated. Since the NAS study, world shipping
practices have shifted greatly towards containerized cargo. In 1976, U.S. Maritime
Administration (MARAD) statistics showed that there were 508 full containerships and 597
partial containerships in the world fleet, and these accounted for 4.7% of the vessel total
(including freighters, tankers, bulk carriers, and passenger liners) (MARAD, 1977). By 1988,
the world fleet had fallen from 23,586 to 23,307 vessels, but the number of full and partial
containerships had risen to 1,097 and 1,720 respectively, and now represent 12.1% of the fleet
(MARAD, 1989). With the much greater carrying capacity of the containerized ships, the
percentage increase in the cargo carried via containership would be higher still.
3-23
-------
1 " :" ' fable 3=3 '"
NAS ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL MARINE LITTER
Garbage Types and Sources
Regulated Sources under Annex V
Crew-related wastes
Merchant marine
Passenger vessels
Commercial fishing
Recreational boats
Military
Oil drilling and platforms
Commercial wastes
Merchant cargo wastes or dunnage
Regulated sources- subtotal
Unregulated Sources
Fishing gear lost
Loss due to catastrophe(a)
Unregulated sources- subtotal
TOTAL
Metric
Tons/Year
1 1 ,000
2,800
34,000
10,300
7,400
400
560.000
625,900
100
10.000
10,100
636,000
Percent
1 .8%
0.4%
5.4%
1.6%
1.2%
0.1%
89.5%
100.0%
1 .0%
99.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Note: (a) Debris originating from shipwrecks or due to marine storm damage.
Source: National Academy of Sciences, 1975.
3-24
-------
Containerized methods of shipping generate almost no cargo dunnage or other cargo-related
debris. As a result, the quantity of cargo-generated waste is much lower than at the time of
the NAS research. Estimates of cargo dunnage generation rates for vessels calling at U.S. ports
are discussed below (see Section 3.2.2.7).
3.2.2.2 Fishing Vessels
World fishing fleets represent an extremely large number of vessels. The National Marine
Fisheries Service estimated that 129,800 U.S.-owned vessels were in operation in 1986. In the
past, significant numbers of foreign vessels have also been granted access to U.S. fishing stocks.
In recent years, however, the amount of "direct" foreign fishing has declined, as joint ventures
between U.S. catcher boats and foreign processing vessels have increased. In 1985, foreign
vessels accounted for 41% of the total catch in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); by
1987 this had fallen to only 5% of the total (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1988).
The fishing industry, like other sectors, generates domestic wastes and activity-related wastes.
Domestic wastes are generated by the substantial population of fishermen onboard these vessels.
Using NAS estimates and 1984 data on the number of fishing vessels^ registered in the U.S.,
researchers have calculated that more than 92,000 metric tons of galley wastes per year is
generated onboard U.S. Fishing vessels (CEE, 1987b).
Activity-related wastes consist of fishing nets, floats, lines, traps, and pieces or fragments
thereof. Because of its strength, durability, and lower cost, plastic fishing gear materials are
employed by virtually all of the world's fleet (Pruter, 1987).
Plastic fishing gear which is lost or discarded at sea becomes a persistent marine pollutant.
Normal wear or damage to gear may result in the loss of lines, nets, traps, or buoys. Nets and
other gear may be damaged by encounters with marine mammals or predator species, such as
sharks. Fishermen may be unable to retrieve submerged nets and traps if marker buoys become
lost, severed, or relocated during storms. Operational errors, such as setting traps too deeply,
fouling of gear on underwater obstructions, or improper deployment, may result in gear loss.
Further, net scraps generated during repair operations have historically been discarded
overboard if they cannot be reused; under the new MARPOL Annex V regulations this disposal
practice will not be allowed.
Several estimates of the amount of fishing gear lost annually are available. NAS estimated that
13 tons per vessel per year was lost. Data collected in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska
indicate that 35 to 65 entire nets or significant pieces were lost annually among approximately
300 trawlers active in the area, between 1980 and 1983 (Low et al, 1985). Merrell (1985)
found that commercial fishing operations were a source of 92 percent (by weight) and 75
percent (by number) of plastic debris items categorized on an Aleutian Island beach. Merrell
also estimated that more than 1,600 metric tons of plastic debris may be lost or discarded
annually from fishing vessels in Alaskan waters.
3-25
-------
According to CEE (1987b), accidental or deliberate gear conflicts (i.e., use of two or more
types of gear in a fishing area) may also increase the loss of gear. Gear conflicts are common
in areas where both fixed gear (e.g., traps, anchored nets) and towed or dragged gear (e.g.,
trawl nets) are deployed in the same fishing grounds. Commercial fishing conflicts have been
especially prevalent off New England and in the Gulf of Mexico (Stevens, 1985; Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, 1984). Fish harvesting policies can also influence the loss of
fishing equipment through gear conflicts. In Puget Sound, for example, one type of gill net
fishery is active during the same time that Dungeness crabs are harvested, resulting in increased
loss of crab pots through entanglement with gill nets (Alaska Sea Grant College Program,
1988).
Two types of fishing nets, drift gill nets and trawl nets, are commonly damaged and lost or
discarded at sea (Uchida, 1985). Based on the amount of netting deployed in the North
Pacific, the drift gill net is most likely to become derelict. Drift gill nets, some of which are up
to 15 miles in length, are generally made of nylon and used to harvest large schools of fish or
squid (Interagency Task Force, 1988). Nylon is more dense than seawater and will sink if not
buoyed by floats. The nets generally sink if lost or discarded. These nets can last only a few
weeks and each vessel can use up to 400 nets in a 4-month season (Parker et al., 1987).
Trawl nets are made in differing mesh sizes depending on the target species. They are
generally constructed of nylon or polyethylene in bag-shaped forms that can then be towed at
different water depths or along the bottom to harvest a variety of finfish or shellfish species.
Bottom trawling can easily damage or entirely detach nets. In the North Pacific, where the
trawl net fishery is extensive, trawl net webbing frequently washes ashore on Alaskan beaches
(Johnson and Merrell, 1988; Fowler, 1987; Merrell and Johnson, 1987; Merrell, 1985). Derelict
gill nets and trawl nets can continue to "ghost fish" for undetermined periods of time.
Several other gear items are also lost at sea. In some U.S. regions, loss of crab and lobster
traps can be significant. CEE reports that in New England, lobster traps are lost at a rate of
20 percent annually (CEE, 1987b). Other lost or discarded items include polystyrene buoys and
floats, monofilament line and synthetic ropes, and plastic commercial bait, salt, and ice
containers.
3.2.23 Recreational Boats
Recreational boaters are another source of marine wastes although data on their waste
generation rates and disposal habits are extremely limited. This section summarizes the
available evidence in this area.
An estimated 16 million recreational boaters use the coastal waters of the U.S. (Interagency
Task Force, 1988). The spatial distribution of recreational boats is presented in Figure 3-7.
The greatest concentration of boaters is found on the Atlantic Coast. Price and Thomas note
that an estimated 160,000 boaters use the waterways of the New York Bight (Price and
Thomas, 1987).
3-26
-------
mm 4-10
ZiM 2.5-4
E553 0.5-2.5
F I <0.5
Arra Sourca: Statistical Abstract of th* United Stat** 1985
FIGURE 3-7 . DENSITY OF RECREATIONAL VESSELS IN THE UNITED STATES FOR 1984
(number of boats/square mile of land; adapted from CEE,
1987b)
3-27
-------
Recreational boaters contribute domestic waste to the marine environment, including food and
beverage containers, as well as fishing gear such as nylon monofilament fishing line. GEE and
others have estimated the amount of domestic waste generated by recreational boaters. CEE
utilized a waste generation rate developed in the NAS study of 0.45 kg per person per day for
recreational boaters (CEE, 1987b). This assumption produced an estimate of 51,000 metric tons
of trash from U.S. boaters. Researchers working in support of the Coast Guard MARPOL
Annex V regulations have estimated recreational waste generation based on the same per capita
rate as was applied to the other sectors, which varied between 1.0 and 1.5 kg per person, and
assumed that virtually all recreational vessels owned in coastal and Great Lakes states would be
used in navigable waters, including marine and inland waterways (ERG, 1988). These estimates
produced an aggregate estimate of 636,055 metric tons. Data are inadequate to determine the
better estimate of recreational waste generation rates. No recent field studies have been
performed, and data have not been developed on the relative amounts of waste disposed of at
sea versus that brought back to shore for disposal. In the Coast Guard research it was also
estimated that two-thirds of recreational boaters bring wastes ashore, based on conversations
with marina operators who noted the frequent tendency of boaters to seek out marina and
dockside dumpster facilities.
3.2.2.4 Military and Otiher Government Vessels te
U.S. Navy vessels carry extremely large crew complements, with over 285,000 personnel
deployed onboard approximately 600 vessels. Aircraft carriers, the largest vessels in the Navy
fleet, carry as many as 5,000 crew at one time (Parker et al., 1987).
The U.S. Navy has performed some of the only quantitative studies of waste disposal at sea. In
1971, a study estimated that Navy ships generated 3.05 pounds of solid waste per person per
day, of which only 0.3 percent by weight consisted of plastics. A more recent study, completed
in 1987, found that plastics accounted for 7 percent by weight (Figure 3-8) (Schultz and Upton,
1988). Historically, Navy ships have disposed of most garbage overboard. The aggregate rate
of plastic waste disposal for the Navy has been estimated at nearly 4 tons per day (Interagency
Task Force, 1988).
The U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) together operate approximately 225 vessels for
marine safety, research and other purposes (Interagency Task Force, 1988). These vessels carry
approximately 9,000 personnel. Existing Coast Guard policies require ships to dispose of waste
onshore (if reasonably possible). No field estimates have been developed of the quantity or
manner of waste disposal from the other vessels.
The U.S. Navy and the other government agencies are required to meet the requirements of
the MARPOL Annex V within five years of regulatory implementation (1992). An ad-hoc
advisory committee has recommended various methods for waste reduction aboard military ships,
3-28
-------
Food Waste (1.28)
Glass (0.13)
Metal (0.41)
Rubber (0.01)
Plastic (0.21)
Paper, Other (1.11)
FIGURE 3-8. QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED ON U.S. NAVY VESSELS
(pounds/man/day; adapted from Schultz and Upton, 1988)
3-29
-------
including source reduction, compaction, thermal destruction, and a technology for melting,
compacting, and sterilizing plastic debris (Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Plastics, 1988). In
addition, the Coast Guard, EPA and NOAA have prepared internal operating orders that
prohibit disposal of plastic materials from vessels.
3.2.2.5 Miscellaneous Vessels (Educational, Private Research, and Industrial Vessels)
Vessels in the miscellaneous category may generate both domestic and activity-related garbage
that may be disposed at sea. This category includes educational vessels (merchant marine
training ships), private research vessels (oceanographic research vessels), and industrial vessels
(vessels involved in cable-laying operations, work barges, dredges or other vessels engaged in
marine construction). Domestic garbage generation is related to the population carried onboard
the vessels. Educational vessels (e.g., merchant marine training vessels) can carry large
passenger complements on their training cruises. Research and industrial vessels typically have
larger crews than cargo vessels, but smaller passenger complements than training ships (ERG,
1988).
Certain vessels within this category can also generate important quantities of activity-related
wastes. Research vessels generate substantial plastic wastes from the packaging of research
instrumentation and equipment. Wastes from industrial vessels vary with the specific task being
performed, and have not been fully characterized in the available literature.
3.2.2.6 Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms
The offshore oil and gas sector includes mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) used in
exploratory drilling, stationary production platforms, which are installed once exploitable reserves
of oil and/or gas are located, and a large fleet of support vessels used to transport crew,
supplies, and equipment. A recent tally (ERG, 1989) found that there are approximately 200
MODUs, 3,500 production platforms, and over 500 offshore service vessels active in the U.S.
offshore petroleum industry. Of the 3,500 platforms, only 779 are manned on a continuous
basis. The highest concentrations of platforms are found off the Texas and Louisiana coasts.
Regulations enforced by the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS)
prohibit waste disposal from U.S. offshore oil and gas platforms. Nevertheless, some wastes
found in beach cleanups in the Gulf of Mexico have included a number of items that may have
originated from offshore oilfield operations. Researchers or industry sources have not
differentiated between any deliberate or accidental waste disposal.
Offshore oil and gas operations generate domestic waste and a variety of debris from industry
activities. CEE used an assumption of 10,000 oilfield personnel working offshore and prepared
an estimate of domestic waste quantities. They described their resulting estimate of 1.6 metric
tons annually as a conservative estimate of domestic wastes (CEE, 1987b).
3-30
-------
Researchers have attributed some of the debris items found in beach cleanups to oilfield
operations. Wastes identified in Table 3-4, for example, appear to originate from offshore
oilfield operations. For example, computer write-protection rings, which come from magnetic
data-recording tapes used in seismic research, and drill pipe protectors are likely oilfield wastes.
CEE estimated that 10 percent of the items collected in Texas beach cleanups in 1986
represented oilfield wastes (1987a). They also reported that numerous 30- and 55-gallon drums
wash ashore each year. Further, they attribute the large number of milk jugs washing ashore to
industry activities as well.
3.2.2.7 Recent Estimates of Plastic Wastes Disposed in U.S. Waters By All Maritime
Sectors
Several studies were prepared in the analysis of the impact of the recently-promulgated Coast
Guard regulations (ERG, 1988, 1989; Cantin et. al, 1989). These studies provide estimates of
the quantity and manner of waste disposal from vessels or offshore structures in all of the
sectors for operations within the U.S. EEZ. These estimates cover operations of U.S.-flagged
as well as foreign-flagged vessels (including cargo and cruise ships) calling at U.S. ports.
The Coast Guard research utilized estimates of per capita waste generation developed by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO). These rates vary depending upon whether the
vessel operates over open ocean, coastal, or inland waters. The rates are based on studies of
merchant ships, but were assumed to apply also to fishing, recreational and other vessels.
Estimates were prepared of the annual-person days of activity for each type of vessel taking
into account voyage lengths, crew sizes, passenger-carrying capacities, and vessel utilization rates.
The contribution of plastic waste to the total solid waste stream generated was estimated based
on the 1987 Navy study (Schultz and Upton, 1988), which found that plastics contribute *
approximately 7 percent by weight to solid waste. The Navy study is the only direct and recent
measurement of this variable for maritime operations.
Table 3-5 presents an example (using the merchant marine sector) of the calculations and
forecasts developed for each maritime sector. It should be noted that these estimates may be
based in some cases on slightly different underlying data (concerning the number of vessels)
than have been reviewed thus far in this section.
For this research, estimates were also developed of the waste disposal practices currently used
among the various maritime sectors. The estimates, shown in Table 3-6, were based primarily
upon discussions with industry representatives in each of the sectors and indicate that, while
much garbage is disposed overboard, vessels operating close to shore bring substantial quantities
ashore for disposal. The sectors that bring most of their wastes ashore include commercial
passenger vessels, recreational boaters and offshore oil platform operators. Aggregate waste
generation was estimated at over 1.2 million metric tons or over 8.3 million cubic meters.
3-31
-------
Table 3-4 ,
MARINE DEBRIS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
Plastic sheeting
Computer write-protect rings
Seismic marker buoys
Drilling pipe thread protectors
Diesel oil and air filters
Hardhats
Chemical pails
Plastic and metal drums
Polypropylene hawsers
Source: Interagency Task Force (1988); CEE (1987a); King (1985).
3-32
-------
CO
Table 3-5
QUANTITIES OF DOMESTIC GARBAGE GENERATED PER VOYAGE
MERCHANT SHIPPING SECTOR
Voyage
Length
VESSEL CATEGORY (days)
Foreign Trade
U.S. Vessels
. Atlantic/Gulf/Pacific
Non-contiguous - foreign
Foreign Vessels
Atlantic/Gulf/Pacific
Non-contiguous/Great Lakes
Non-Contiguous Trade (U.S. - domestic)
Great Lakes (domestic & foreign trade)
1 ,000 gross tons & over
Under 1 ,000 gross tons
MSC Charter (U.S.)
Temp. Inactive Vessels (U.S.)
Coastal Shipping
Ships
1 ,000 gross tons & Over
Under 1 ,000 gross tons
Towmigboats
Large (inspected)
Small
7
2
7
2
7
2
2
7
7
5
4
4
2
Crew
Size
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
' 10
6
Person-
Days
Per
Voyage
165
53
173
60
175
53
53
175
175
125
100
40
12
Per
Capita
Generation
Rate
(kg/day)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Domestic Garbage Generation Per Voyage
Total Dry Plastic Total Dry Plastic
Garbage Garbage. Garbage Garbage Garbage Garbage
(kg) (kg) (kg) (cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m)
330.0
105.0
345.0
120.0
350.0
78.8
78.8
350.0 .
350.0
187.5
150.0
60.0
18.0
196.0
62.4
204.9
71.3
207.9
46.8
46.8
207.9
207.9
111.4
89.1
35.6
10.7
22.1
7.0
23.1
8.0
23.5
5.3
5.3
23.5 '
23.5
12.6
10.1
4.0
1.2
2.2
0.7
2.3
0.8
2.3
0.5
0.5
2.3
2.3
1.3
1.0
0.4
0.1
2.0
0.6
2.1
0.7
2.1
0.5
0.5
2.1
2.1
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.1
1.4
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.3
1.5
1.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.1
MSC = Merchant Sealift Command (private ships chartered by the armed services)
Source: Cantin et al., 1989.
-------
Table 3-6
FINAL DISPOSITION OF VESSEL-GENERATED DOMESTIC GARBAGE
AGGREGATED SECTOR TOTALS
(PRE-MARPOL ANNEX V; ANNUAL QUANTITIES)
SECTOR
Merchant Shipping
Commercial Passenger Vessels
Commercial Fishing
Recreational Boats
Offshore Oil & Gas
Miscellaneous Sectors
U.S. Navy Vessels
U.S. Coast Guard Vessels
U.S. Army Vessels
NOAA Research Vessels :
TOTALS
Total
Generated
Annually
(metric tons)
30,949
258,074
233,177
636,055
16,710
1,637
57,596
4,317
490
317
1 ,239,322
Pre-Annex V
Off-Loaded
(metric tons)
2,097
232,121
0
424,036
10,733
5
0
. 2,445
0
99
671,536
in Port
(cu.m)
18.494
1,553,589
0
2,838,081
102,263
295
0
16,366
0
42
4,529,130
Incinerated
(metric tons)
1,148
638
0
0
0
• 0
0
0
0
88
1,874
at Sea
(cu.m)
7,684
4,272
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
588
12,544
Dumped
(metric tons)
27,704
25,315
233,177
212,018
5,977
1,633
57,596
1,872
490
130
565,911
Overboard
(cu.m)
179,290
169,430
1 ,560,655
1,419,041
9,575
10,677
385,493
12,527
3,279
872
3,750,840
Source: Cantin et al., 1989.
-------
The change in waste disposal patterns that would occur under MARPOL Annex V regulations .
was also forecast. These forecasts are based on the assumption of full compliance with the new
regulations, and include estimates of the likely choices of compliance method among the
primary options of 1) bringing wastes ashore (with or without onboard compaction of garbage),
2) incinerating wastes at sea, and 3) continuing overboard disposal (for non-plastic wastes and
in authorized areas only). Table 3-7 presents estimates of the final disposition of plastic and
non-plastic wastes before and after implementation of MARPOL Annex V. The amount of
plastic waste brought ashore by the maritime sectors operating in U.S. waters was estimated to
increase from approximately 40,000 tons to almost 90,000 tons. A relatively small number of
vessels, consisting primarily of merchant vessels operating over international trade routes and
larger research and fishing vessels, were forecast to choose incineration as their disposal option.
Such vessels are most likely to find onboard storage of even compacted waste to be disruptive
and/or to pose a health risk.
The totals presented here do not include estimates of the quantities of activity-related wastes
generated in cargo shipping, commercial fishing, and research sectors (see ERG, 1988). The
estimates of activity-related wastes are more speculative, and require considerable additional
data and methodological development. In the paragraphs below, an outline of estimates of the
main activity-related wastes disposed in U.S. waters is presented (Cantin, et al, 1989).
Dunnage was judged to be generated by general cargo ships only, as cargo carried in
containerships does not require the shoring or the construction of separate cargo compartments.
Dunnage characteristics and quantities were estimated from discussions with vessel and terminal
operators. Most dunnage consists of cardboard and lumber, with only very small amounts of
plastics used for special liner requirements. Approximately one-half of the vessels generating
such wastes were estimated to dump their dunnage in U.S. waters. The annual quantity of
plastic from dunnage disposed in U.S. waters from U.S. and foreign vessels amounts to only 7
cubic meters per year.
Data from observers onboard certain fishing vessels was used to estimate the quantities of
fishing gear discarded deliberately at sea. Most of the deliberate discarding is due to the repair
of nets that occurs at sea. This occurs relatively infrequently, as much netting is retained for its
scrap value. Certain fishing operations, however, generate more substantial waste quantities.
Examples include: longline bait fisheries, which generate quantities of packing and strapping
materials, and herring fishery vessels, which produce waste salt bags from the salt needed to
preserve the catch. The researchers estimated the deliberate at sea disposal of net fragments
and other gear at approximately 2,200 metric tons per year.
Finally, this research estimated wastes generated by oceanographic research. These wastes
include packing materials from research instruments brought onboard, as well as single-use
instruments such as bathometers, which may be cut loose from the vessel once they have
transmitted their data to the ship. Research vessels generate 0.1 cubic meters per voyage, for
an aggregate total of 70 cubic meters of plastic per year (ERG, 1988).
3-35
-------
Table 3-7
DISPOSITION OF GARBAGE GENERATED BY
MARITIME SECTORS -
PRE- AND POST-ANNEX V ESTIMATES
Pre-Annex V
Post-Annex V
Tons (000)
Cu. Meters (000) Tons (000)
Cu. Meters (000)
Disposition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Brought Ashore
Plastics 40
Other
Sub-Total
Incinerated
Dumped
631
672
3.3% 2,583 31.1%
50.9% 1,946 23.5%
54.2% 4,529 54.6%
0.2%
89 7.2% 4,747 61.5%
833 67.2% 2,136 27.7%
922 74.4% 6,884 89.2%
13 0.2%
10 0.8%
65 0.8%
566 45.7% 3,751 45.2% 307 24.8% 770 10.0%
TOTAL
1,239 100.0% 8,293 100.0% 1,239 100.0% 7,718 100.0%
Source: Cantin et al., 1989.
3-36
-------
3.2.3 Illegal Disposal of Wastes into the Marine Environment
Although there is a lack of documented information on this topic, it is generally believed that
illegal disposal contributes unknown quantities of plastic debris to the marine environment.
Illegal disposal of municipal solid wastes, sewage, and medical wastes may represent additional
sources of plastic debris to the marine environment. In areas such as New York City, where
solid waste disposal involves over-water transport of wastes on barges, there as a potential for
accidental spillage of this material into the marine environment. Although the City of New
York and the State of New Jersey have, through a U.S. District Court consent decree,
established guidelines and protocols governing solid waste handling, light-weight debris from
transfer facilities and from loaded barges may illegally enter waterways and be transported out
to sea. Noncompliance with the decree requirements, which require adherence to established
protocols, use of barge covers and containment booms, and removal of floating debris contained
within the barrier booms, may result in illegal disposal of solid waste.
Although assumed to be relatively uncommon, there is potential in all coastal states for garbage
trucks to dump their loads from piers or directly into marshes and estuaries. The public may
also contribute to illegal disposal of household debris in marshes, estuaries, along shorelines,
and on beaches. Evidence of such practices comes from beach survey records reporting debris
such as tires, appliances, mattresses, furniture, and other predominantly domestic items.
Sewage sludge from New York and New Jersey municipalities is currently disposed of at the
designated 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site located outside of the New York Bight,
beyond the continental shelf. The federal ocean dumping regulations strictly prohibit the
disposal of "persistent, synthetic or natural materials which may float or remain in suspension."
Although the regulations and permits issued for ocean disposal of sludge clearly prohibit
disposal of sewage-related plastic and other floatable materials at the site, such materials may
potentially enter the ocean illegally if they are not effectively removed at treatment facilities
prior to ocean disposal of the sludge (Price and Thomas, 1987). Plastic debris items that may
be associated with sewage sludge include tampon applicators, condoms, and disposable diapers.
The recent incidents of medical debris appearing on east coast beaches have caused
considerable concern about disposal practices for medical wastes. Because there is no legal
pathway for significant quantities of such wastes to enter the marine environment, the
occurrence of medical debris on beaches has often been attributed to illegal disposal activities.
Rising disposal costs and localized shortages of landfill and incinerator capacity may create an
incentive to dump medical wastes illegally. These problems are most severe in the northeast
United States. Over the last five years, the cost of disposing of medical wastes has escalated
from 17 cents per pound to 50 cents per pound (Boston Globe, 1988). In the New York area,
the costs can be as high as 80 cents per pound (Swanson, 1988).
The kinds of medical wastes that have been identified in the marine environment include a
wide assortment of syringes, pill vials, surgical gloves, tubing, blood vials, bandages, blood bags,
respirators, and specimen cups. Because many medical supplies, originally made of glass and
intended for reuse, have been replaced with disposable plastic items, most of these materials
can become floatable debris in the marine environment.
3-37
-------
In recent years, medical wastes have caused particular alarm in east coast states. New York
and New Jersey have each experienced major incidents in 1987 and 1988. Other states,
including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and North Carolina, have
reported at least one case of beached medical debris. However, the medical waste found on
New York and New Jersey beaches represented only 1-10% by volume of the floatable debris
that washed ashore on these beaches in the summer of 1988 (New York State DEC, 1988).
The additional health risk posed by the medical debris that washed ashore in the Northeast was
most likely small, but media attention may have resulted in a large perceived risk. A recent
report by U.S. EPA chronologically documented medical waste wash-ups that occurred along the
East Coast during the 1988 beach season (U.S. EPA, 1989b). A total of 477 wash-up incidents,
in which 3,487 medical waste items were recorded, occurred over a five month period in six
East Coast states. Figure 3-9 summarizes these data.
The occurrence of medical wastes in other coastal areas of the country has not been
documented as well as along the east coast. However, data collected from beach cleanups held
in 1987 indicate that medical debris incidents are not limited to the northeast coast. During the
one-day cleanup event in ten coastal states, syringes were collected from Gulf coast beaches in
Texas and Mississippi. More than 900 syringes were recorded on Texas shores alone (CEE,
1987c).
Despite the attention given to medical waste found on northeast coast beaches in the summer
of 1988, a national beach cleanup effort indicated that the wash-up of medical waste was not
unique to the region. The CEE National Marine Debris Data Base includes data from 1988
beach cleanups conducted in 24 states. More than 1100 syringes were reported found during
the beach cleanups (CMC, 1989). The region reporting the largest number of syringes was the
southeast coast (461), extending from Virginia to Florida and including Puerto Rico. The Gulf
coast states reported 303 syringes, followed by the southwest (California and Hawaii), for which
155 syringes were reported. The lowest numbers of syringes, 149 and 66 respectively, were
associated with beaches in the Northeast, extending form Maine to Maryland, and in the
Northwest (Oregon, Washington and Alaska). The quantity figures, however, have not been
normalized to consider the number of volunteers involved in the beach surveys or the miles of
beaches covered. Thus, comparisons among regional findings should be made with caution.
In a preliminary study of the 1988 medical waste incidents in the northeast, the New York
Bight was identified as the source of much of the medical debris in southern New England and
Long Island (Spaulding et al., 1988). The prevailing winds from mid-June to mid-July were
identified as the major factor in transporting waste from the New York Bight to southern New
England. Swanson (1988) suggests that the winds during this period were from a different
direction than the normal summer wind path observed in this region. The Fresh Kills landfill,
sewer discharges, CSOs, and marine transfer stations were identified as the major sources of the
medical debris that washed ashore on New York beaches this summer (New York State DEC,
1988). Further, during investigations of the medical debris problem, it was found that a
laboratory in Brooklyn had illegally disposed of blood vials on the banks of the Hudson River.
It is believed that this activity may be responsible for one instance of large
3-38
-------
NUMBER OF MEDICAL WASTE WASH-UP INCIDENTS
E-
C/Q
O
K
.W
swan aisvM ivomaw ao
3-39
-------
numbers of blood vials on the New Jersey shoreline (New York State DEC, 1988). Finally, the
medical waste incidents in North Carolina have been traced to Navy vessels discharging debris
offshore. New Jersey and New York have developed state regulations requiring a cradle-to-
grave tracking system for certain medical wastes. Other states are also developing manifest
systems or have them in place for these materials, while some states have not developed
tracking programs at the state level.
Under the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988. EPA has promulgated interim final regulations
under which generators of more than 50 pounds per month of regulated medical wastes will be
required to segregate, package, and label medical waste shipments according to the
requirements of Code of Federal Regulations Part 259 (54 Federal Register 12326, March 24,
1989). A standardized tracking form will also be attached, which will be signed by both the
transporters) of the wastes and an individual at the final disposal facility. A copy of the form
will then be sent from the disposal facility to the generator to complete the process.
Generators of smaller quantities must also segregate, package, and label their wastes, but in
some cases they need not complete a tracking form. The regulations currently apply to medical
wastes generated in New York., New Jersey, Connecticut, and states bordering the Great Lakes.
33 FATE OF PERSISTENT MARINE DEBRIS
The fate of floatable debris may be described in terms of physical transport mechanisms or
biological and chemical degradative processes. Several studies have examined transport
mechanisms, and the influence of oceanographic and meteorological conditions on the
distribution and fate of floatable material (Swanson, 1988; SAIC/Battelle, 1987; Wilber, 1987;
Swanson et al., 1978; NOAA/MESA, 1977). Much less information, however, is available on
rates and processes of degradation of floating debris.
* 3.3.1 Physical Fate and Transport Processes
Physical transport mechanisms include high river runoff, winds, and surface currents. In coastal
regions impacted by significant discharges from rivers, such as the Hudson River discharge to
the New York Bight, transport of marine debris is strongly influenced by the river plumes. The
transport and fate of floatable materials in marine waters is also largely influenced by short-term
patterns of surface currents (SAIC/Battelle, 1987). Although long-distance transport is
influenced by large-scale current systems (Mio and Takehama, 1988), patterns of wind direction
and velocity, offshore oceanic circulation, and short-term meteorological and oceanographic
events are primarily responsible for strandings of debris on.beaches (SAIC/Battelle, 1987).
The initial fate of plastic debris relates to the density of the material, the location of dumping
or release, and meteorological and oceanographic conditions. Ultimately, it is a complex
interaction of the physical properties of the waste materials and oceanographic and
meteorologic conditions that will determine the fate of plastic debris. In general, lightweight
floatable debris, such as plastic materials, is confined to surface waters and is transported by the
dominant currents. Transport by currents may be modified by wind-driven transport.
3-40
-------
In the northern North Pacific Ocean, marine debris is primarily transported by the North Pacific
Current that flows east and by seasonal winds (Mio and Takehama, 1988). If material is
transported far enough east to reach northern U.S. coastal waters, the California Current
continues to transport it south and west, along with debris from U.S. waters, to waters
northwest of the Hawaiian Islands where debris converges (Mio and Takehama, 1988). In the
northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Henderson (1988) found that trawl web and gill net fragments
accumulated on northeast-facing beaches that are exposed to the predominant northeasterly
trade winds, but certain promontories on the leeward side of some islands also accumulated
debris as a result of inshore currents.
Field sampling conducted by Wilber (1987) in the North Atlantic showed that the distribution
of plastic materials in this region is influenced by three major forces (Figure 3-10). The large,
clockwise circulating Central Gyre exerts the major initial effect on debris transport. Within the
gyre, which is centered north of Bermuda, the fate of plastic debris is controlled by smaller
scale rotating features known as eddies or rings that continually traverse the Central Gyre.
Lastly, the effect of winds over the ocean surface creates Langmuir cells, which concentrate
debris in long linear features known as windrows or more commonly, "slicks." The specific,
pathway of a plastic item in the North Atlantic is specifically related to where, in relation to
the Central Gyre, it enters the marine environment. Debris items may be intra-gyral,
originating solely from vessels operating within the gyre, or they may be extra-gyral, originating
from terrestrial sources or vessels in near-coastal waters. Extra-gyral debris may be removed
before entering the gyre or may become entrained in the gyre with intra-gyral debris. The
islands of Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Florida Keys act as sieves, continuously
removing debris entrained in the gyre. This scenario seems to explain the abundance of plastic
litter on many remote beaches of these islands.
In regions of the country subject to severe weather (e.g., portions of Alaska), storms may have
a major influence on the fate of marine debris. During storms, plastic debris that is buried may
be uncovered and debris stranded on shore may either be transported inland or buried
(Johnson, 1988).
From several tag-and-recovery studies on Alaskan beaches, Johnson found that 10% of stranded
trawl net fragments can move 1 km or more laterally along the beach and that 10% of tagged
recoveries were buried and reexposed again within one year. He concluded that in severe
climates such as in Alaska, once debris is stranded on shore, most remains there and is not
resuspended. The amount of debris visible on beaches in any given year may be dictated
largely by storms.
3-41
-------
Extra-Gyral
Source
SHORE
Extra-Gyral
Source
SHIP
Intra-Gyral
Source
SHIP
EXTRA-GYRAL RESERVOIR
SHELF & SLOPE WATER
CENTRAL GYRE RESERVOIR
SARGASSO SEA >
Extra-Gyral
Source
SHORE
EXTRA-GYRAL RESERVOIR
GULF OF MEXICO
Extra-Gyral
Source
SHIP
Greater
Antilles
CARIBBEAN RESERVOIR U
Mosquito
Coast
s
Extra-Gyral
Source
SHIP
Extra-Gyral
Source
SHORE
FIGURE 3-10
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR FATE OF PLASTIC DEBRIS IN THE WESTERN NORTH
ATLANTIC OCEAN (adapted from Wilber, 1987)
3-42
-------
Floatable debris may alternately become stranded on shores, resuspended from shores, and
redeposited elsewhere. Other studies have shown that in nearshore environments, above-
average water levels, resulting either from heavy rains, extreme tides, or a combination of these
events, resuspend a higher percentage of stranded debris (Swanson, 1988; U.S. EPA, 1988;
Swanson et al., 1978). Slicks may form if these phenomena occur simultaneously (U.S. EPA,
1988). The slicks may disperse floatable debris onto shorelines, drift out of harbor areas into
the open ocean, or both. In the open ocean, debris slicks may disperse, and plastic items
eventually sink or accumulate along windrows, areas where currents converge.
" 33.2 Degradative Processes
Plastic debris is subjected to various physical and chemical processes that combine to weaken
the integrity of the material and initiate some degree of physical or biological degradation
(Figure 3-11). Most plastic materials are highly persistent in the environment. Their molecular
structure and configuration, which generally consist of very densely compressed long-chain
molecules (polymers), render these materials recalcitrant to natural processes of decay. If the
polymer is fragmented or reduced in size, the plastic material eventually loses strength, becomes
brittle, and may fragment.
Because most plastic debris has some degree of buoyancy, it is continually exposed to ultraviolet
(UV) radiation from sunlight while floating. UV energy initiates a chemical reaction that leads
to the fragmentation of the polymers (photodegradation). This reaction is slow and, for some
types of plastic material, it can be many years before the fragmentation begins. Thin plastic
sheets and bags are most susceptible to this breakdown process; thicker, denser plastic items are
less susceptible. Subsequent physical stress from wind or wave action eventually destroys the
integrity of the plastic material and results in fragmentation. The buoyancy of fragmented
plastic may change when it is colonized by epifaunal organisms, such as hydroids, barnacles, and
bryozoans. These organisms may also shield the plastic from the effects of UV radiation.
Increase in density may result in sinking of the fragments. Photodegradation of some types of
plastic fragments may continue until the fragments are reduced to such a small size that, under
optimal environmental conditions (e.g., nutrients, temperature), microbial degradative processes
will become efficient in breaking down the plastic fragments.
While the significance of these processes in the marine environment remains largely unassessed,
degradation of plastic materials probably does not reduce the impact of plastics on the marine
environment, because the process is too slow. In a study investigating six commercially available
plastic materials, Andrady (1988) found that most of the materials degraded much more slowly
in seawater than in air. Two types of trawl netting investigated did not degrade significantly in
air or water over one year and expanded polystyrene foam degraded more rapidly in seawater
than in air. Plastics that are manufactured to enhance degradation are discussed in Chapter 5.
3-43
-------
FIGURE 3-11 DEGRADATIVE PROCESSES FOR PLASTIC MATERIALS (adapted from
Interagency Task Force, 1988)
-------
3.4 EFFECTS OF PLASTIC DEBRIS
Despite the fact that marine debris has only recently emerged as a serious environmental issue
and that the effects of plastic debris in the ocean are far from being completely assessed,
numerous studies document the negative effects of this material on the marine environment,
and on recreational and commercial uses of marine waters.
Because of their buoyancy, long-term persistence, and ubiquity in the marine environment
plastic wastes pose a variety of hazards to marine wildlife. Studies of the impacts of plastic
debris on marine animals have been compiled by Shomura and Yoshida (1985). Although
additional research is required to completely understand all the biological impacts of plastic
debris on marine organisms, the physical effects of entanglement, suffocation, and starvation are
often very apparent. In addition to the impacts on marine animals, plastic debris also
aesthetically degrades the environment, arid has impacts on our economy and on human health
and safety.
3.4.1 Impacts on Marine Wildlife
Plastic materials in the marine environment, either as buoyant debris or deposited on the sea
bottom, pose a variety of hazards to marine mammals, fish, turtles, crustaceans, and seabirds.
The two major mechanisms by which plastic debris is known to impact marine species are
entanglement and ingestion.
Entanglement typically refers to the encircling of body parts by various types of plastic debris
that ensnare the animal. Plastic litter most often responsible for entanglement of marine life
includes fragments of synthetic fish nets (commonly trawl and gill net webbing), monofilament
fishing line, ropes, beverage container rings, rings and gaskets, and uncut polyethylene cargo
strapping bands. The results of entanglement can be debilitation and death by drowning, loss of
limbs through strangulation and infection, starvation, and increased susceptibility to predation.
Historically, most of the studies of entanglement of marine organisms have been conducted on
northern fur seals. However, an increasing volume of literature describes entanglement of other
marine species as well. Entanglement has been reported for marine mammals, sea turtles,
seabirds, fish, and crustaceans.
Ingestion refers to the consumption of plastic debris by marine organisms. Common plastic
wastes known to be ingested by animals include small polyethylene pellets and polystyrene
beads, and larger debris such as bags, balloons, and packaging materials. Ingestion of plastic
debris may result in intestinal blockage, nutritional deficiencies due to a false feeling of
satiation, suffocation, intestinal ulceration, and intestinal injury. Numerous reports in the
literature indicate that a variety of seabirds, marine mammals, turtles, and fish ingest plastic
materials.
It is not possible to estimate the threat posed by entanglement and ingestion to the populations
of many species because not enough studies have been conducted to date. The problems
associated with plastic debris in the marine environment have been recognized only recently and
3-45
-------
require further study. However, the existing data indicate that plastic debris in the marine
environment harms numerous species and that some of the species affected are threatened or
endangered. The persistence of plastic debris in the environment guarantees that populations
will continue to be affected for a long time. Existing data can be used to identify the species
whose populations are most likely to be affected adversely by plastics in the environment.
3.4.1.1 Entanglement
Entanglement of marine animals can result from accidental contact with debris or as a result of
normal activities. Marine animals may be attracted to debris because prey species have already
been attracted to or entangled in the debris. The animals may then become entangled in
attempting to catch prey entrapped in or near debris, by attempting to rest on debris, or by
playful contact with debris (of particular concern for juvenile animals) (Laist, 1987). The
consequences of entanglement include drowning, reduced ability to catch food, reduced ability
to esc'ape predators, wounds and associated infections, or altered behavior patterns. Fishing-
related gear poses the greatest threat and, therefore, entanglement may be of particular concern
in the North Pacific Ocean where drift-net and trawl fishing is extensively employed (Laist,
1987).
MARINE MAMMALS - The greatest scientific attention to effects of persistent marine debris
has historically been directed toward entanglement of marine mammals. Species of seals sea
Irons, and cetaceans are widely reported entangled in debris. The most common entangling
debris items are, in decreasing order of importance, fishing nets and net fragments, uncut plastic
strapping bands, ropes, and plastic sheeting (Laist, 1987). The fact that most reports of
entanglements are from areas where fishing and marine transportation are common activities is
consistent with, findings that fishing gear and packing straps are the most common entangling
materials (Interagency Task Force, 1988). The incidence of entanglement of northern fur seals
m the Pacific Ocean has increased since it was first reported in the 1930s, with a noticeable
increase in percent entanglement in the late 1960s, when commercial fishing efforts increased
and when synthetic materials were commonly employed in the construction of fishing nets
(Fowler, 1987). B
Entanglement of an individual animal can restrict its normal activities such as feeding and
swimming, and require the animal to expend more energy on these activities (GEE, 1987b).
Other impacts include starvation if the animal is unable to capture prey, strangulation or
severed carotid arteries if an entrapped animal grows into constricting debris, infection of
wounds caused by entangling materials, drowning if swimming ability is impaired, increased
vulnerability to predation, or a combination of these impacts (Fowler, 1987). Entangled seals
spend more time at sea than seals that are not entangled (Fowler, 1987), swim at reduced
speeds, and dive for shorter periods of time than nonentangled seals (Yoshida and Baba, 1988)
Henderson (1988) reported that 49% of entangled Hawaiian monk seals were able to free
themselves of debris; that number might have been higher if some seals that were assisted had
been left to free themselves. Entangled northern fur seals were marked and, one year later,
were resighted at the same rate (25%) as seals that were not entangled, indicating that
entanglement does not increase mortality over a one-year period (Scordino, 1985). Eighteen
3-46
-------
percent of the entangled seals resighted in that study had freed themselves of the debris during
the year.
It is more difficult to determine the effects of entanglement on a whole population of animals.
Determining precisely how many animals in a population are or have been entangled is difficult
because entangled animals can succumb to predators or drown and sink, making an accurate
count impossible (Laist, 1987). In addition, the geographic range of the animals contributes to *
the difficulty in conducting such a study.
Scars and bruises which are believed to result from entanglement are often observed on marine
mammals. These scars, found around the animals' necks and shoulders, are characteristic of
encounters with entangling debris (Scordino, 1985). The scarred or bruised animals can be
included in population counts as animals that are or have been entangled. Scordino (1985) has
shown that scars and bruises often are not visibly apparent on northern fur seals, but become
apparent when harvested seal skins are processed, indicating that counts of scarred animals may
actually underestimate the number of seals that have been entangled. Even with these
limitations, researchers have been able to estimate entanglement rates for some populations.
Table 3-8 shows the entanglement rates, the number of animals entangled and the total sample
sizes in three study locations and for four pinniped species. However, it is still difficult to
determine the significance of entanglement rates on the local population of animals.
The northern fur seal population of the Alaskan Pribilof Islands has been studied relatively
extensively, and entanglement has been related to declining numbers of these seals (Fowler,
1987; 1985). The Pribilof Island population has been declining at a rate of approximately 4-8%
per year since the 1970s (Fowler, 1985). On St. Paul Island in the Pribilofs, the current
incidence of entanglement for subadult male northern fur seals is about 0.4% (as shown in
Table 3-8, 101 seals out of a total sample of approximately 25,000), which is two orders of
magnitude greater than the rate determined in the 1940s (Fowler, 1987). Trawl webbing made
up 62-72% of the entangling debris on St. Paul Island (Scordino, 1985). Fowler (1987; 1985)
has related the decline in the seal population, the decline in the number of seal pups, and an
unexpected increase in juvenile mortality to entanglement, particularly the entanglement of
young seals, although further study is necessary to provide accurate estimates of mortality
caused by entanglement.
Entanglement is believed to have an adverse impact on the endangered Hawaiian monk seal in
the northwest Hawaiian Islands. The population of these seals has declined from an estimated
1000-1200 seals in the late 1950s to 500-625 in the mid to late 1970s (Kenyon, as cited in Laist,
1987). At least part of this decline is believed to be due to entanglement (Laist, 1987).
Henderson (1988) found that Hawaiian monk seal pups became entangled at a higher rate than
adult seals, with 41% of observed entanglements involving weaned pups. Because of their small
size, young seals can become entrapped in net of smaller mesh sizes than entrap adult seals,
making young seals more vulnerable to entrapment in a wider range of net mesh sizes (Merrell
and Johnson, 1987). The pup seals' tendency toward exploration and their proximity to shore
where debris concentrates may also contribute to elevated rates of entrapment (Henderson,
1988). The evidence that young seals become entangled at higher rates than adults is of
3-47
-------
Table 3-8
OBSERVED PERCENT ENTANGLEMENTS FOR VARIOUS PINNIPED SPECIES
00
Pinniped Species
California Sea Lions*
California Sea Lions*
Northern Elephant Seals*
Northern Elephant Seals*
Harbor Seals*
Harbor Seals*
Northern Fur Seals*
Northern Fur Seals**
Sources: *Stewart and Yochem
**Fowler (1985).
Location
San Nicolas Island, CA
San Miguel Island, CA
San Nicolas Island, CA
San Miguel Island, CA
San Nicolas Island, CA
San Miguel Island, CA
San Miguel Island, CA
Pribilof Islands, AK
(1987).
Percent
Entanglement
0.14
0.22
0.17
0.15
0.11
0.07
0
0.4
Number
Entangled
41
15
18
10
2
1
0
101
Total
Sampled
28,919
6,905
10,870
6,468
1,900
1,494
826
24,932
-------
particular concern in terms of impacts on populations (Fowler, 1987; Henderson, 1988) because
increasing rates of entanglement and the tendency for juveniles to become entangled could
result in a decline in future birth rates (Stewart and.Yochem, 1987).
Entanglement in marine debris has been observed for a number of other pinniped species in a
variety of geographic locations. Fowler (1988) summarized available information on entangled
species, and identified ten species of otariid seals (fur seals and sea lions) and six species of
phocid seals (true seals and elephant seals) that have been reported as entangled (Table 3-9).
For some of these species, relatively large numbers of individuals have become entangled.
Fewer numbers of species and individuals within a species have been reported for phocids, and
these entanglements are not considered to be of great significance. Fowler (1988) also
summarizes explanations that have been offered for the different rates of entanglement for the
otariid and phocid species; these include differences in body shape, behavior, and location of
habitat. Phocids tend to live in high-latitude environments with less developed fisheries and
presumably less fishing-related debris.. And, because they have more rounded body shapes and
larger necks in proportion to the head, entanglement may be minimized. Otariids are generally
more playful and curious than phocids and, therefore, may tend to investigate and become
entangled in debris at a higher rate.
A variety of explanations have been offered for entanglement of seals with plastic debris. It is
possible that debris, which has entangled or attracted fish or other prey organisms, also attracts
the seals and they themselves become entangled when attempting to feed on the prey (Laist,
1987). Objects present in the water attract fur seals; they commonly respond by inserting their
heads through holes in debris (Fowler, 1987). In a study of captive seals, Yoshida and Baba ,
(1988) found that adult seals often become entangled when they inadvertently swim into debris,
but that young seals become entangled as a result of play activities.
Cetaceans primarily become entrapped in gill nets and buoy lines used to mark traps
(Interagency Task Force, 1988). Entanglement of cetaceans in nets and trap lines usually
involves active fishing gear (CEE, 1987b). Off the coast of New England, scars, presumed to
be from entanglement, have been identified on 56% of photographed right whales and on 40%
of humpback whales (Weirich, as cited in Interagency Task Force, 1988). Off the coast of the
northeastern United States, 20 humpback, 15 minke, and 10 right whales were observed
entangled in gill net or lobster pot lines between 1975 and 1986 (Laist, 1987). Along the
Oregon coast, gray whales, about 16,000 of which migrate along the coast twice each year, have
become entangled with fishing gear (Mate, 1985). In particular, these whales become entangled
with crab pot lines; an average of two gray whales is reported entangled this way each year off
the Oregon coast, and others have been reported entangled in their winter calving area off
Baja, Mexico (Mate, 1985). Although much of this entanglement results from contact with
active fishing gear, it is reasonable to conclude that lost and abandoned gear also entangles
cetaceans.
3-49
-------
Table 3-9
OTARIID AND PHOCID PINNIPED SPECIES OBSERVED ENTANGLED IN
PLASTIC MARINE DEBRIS
OTARIID SPECIES
Arctocephalis australis
Arctocephalis forsteri
Arctocephalis gazella
Arctocephalis phillippi
Arctocephalis pusillis
Callorhinus ursinus
Eumetopias jubatus
Otaria flavescens
Phocarctos hookeri
Zalophus califorianus
South American fur seal
New Zealand fur seal
Antarctic fur seal
Juan Fernandez fur seal
Cape or South African fur seal
Northern fur seal
Northern sea lion
South American sea lion
Hooker's sea lion
California sea lion
PHOCID SPECIES
Halichoerus grypus
Mirounga angustirostris
Mirounga leonina
Monachus schauinslandi
Phoca groenlandica
Phoca vitulina
Grey seal
Northern elephant seal
Southern elephant seal
Hawaiian monk seal
Harp seal
Harbor seal
Source: Fowler (1988).
3-50
-------
Entanglements have additionally been reported for other marine mammals. Crab-pot lines
entangle the West Indian manatee, an endangered species (Wallace, 1985). Approximately
5,000 Dall's porpoises are entangled and die each year in drift nets of the Japanese salmon
fleet (Eisenbud, 1985). Eisenbud (1985) estimates that 0.06% or 639 miles of drift net are lost
each year by the Japanese driftnet fishery, and it is likely that porpoises and other marine
mammals become entangled in the debris.
TURTLES -- Marine turtles can become entangled in various types of plastic debris.
Entanglement has been reported for each of the five species of sea turtles that inhabit U.S.
waters. All of these species are listed as either threatened or endangered (Interagency Task
Force, 1988). In Balazs's (1985) review of reported cases of turtle entanglement throughout
the world, monofilament fishing line was the most common entangling debris item. Rope, trawl
webbing, and monofilament net were other types of entangling debris (Table 3-10). A total of
68% of reported entanglements involved materials associated with the fishing industry. Turtles
may be attracted to floating masses of net for shelter and concentrated food, as they are
attracted to sargassum mats, increasing the probability of entanglement as the turtles swim near
the netting (Balazs, 1985). Most entangled turtles are not able to function normally and suffer
a variety of effects including drowning, reduced swimming efficiency, reduced ability to escape
from predators, lacerated appendages, and limb necrosis (Interagency Task Force, 1988; Balazs,
1985).
Balazs's review identified 60 reports of turtle entanglements worldwide, 95% of which occurred
after 1970. This statistic may correspond to the introduction of synthetically constructed fishing
nets, which were in common use by the early 1970s (Fowler, 1987; Pruter, 1987). The green
turtle was involved in 42% of the entanglements reported in Balazs' review, and the general
trend was for immature turtles to be more frequently involved than adults (Table 3-11). Most
of the reported turtle entanglement cases in the United States have been on the eastern,
southeastern, and Gulf coasts and in Hawaii. During the 1986 and 1987 beach surveys, 25
entangled turtles were observed (CEE, 1988). Figure 3-12 shows the locations of reported
incidents of entanglement in the United States. (The pattern observed is partly due to the
limited available data. A more accurate picture of turtle entanglement will emerge as more
studies are conducted.)
Recent evidence has indicated that juvenile turtles may spend from three to five years in a
pelagic stage, during which they drift in surface waters (Carr, 1987). The young turtles prefer
to concentrate along areas of current convergence or gyres, in which high concentrations of
plastic debris, including floating nets and lines, accumulate (Interagency Task Force, 1988). The
evidence that young turtles may drift along areas of current convergences for extended periods
of time, thus increasing their likelihood of contacting debris, heightens concerns about the
potential impacts of debris on turtle populations (Carr, 1987).
BIRDS — There are three types of plastic debris in which seabirds become entangled. Trash
and net fragments have openings that can trap the bird's head, feet, and wings; lengths of
monofilament line and string can wrap around the wings, beak, and feet; and large pieces of
netting can entangle the bird, causing immediate drowning (Wallace, 1985). Entanglement in
3-51
-------
Table 3-10
PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF TYPES OF DEBRIS FOUND
ENTANGLED ON MARINE TURTLES
Type of Debris
Percent Entanglement*
Monofllament fishing line
Rope
Trawl net
Monofilament net
Plastic sheets or bags
Plastic objects
Line with hook
Cloth
Parachute anchor
33.3
23.3
20.0
13.3
3.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Source: Balazs (1985).
* Sample size = 60
3-52
-------
Table 3-11
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF MARINE TURTLES BECOMING
ENTANGLED IN MARINE DEBRIS
Species
Green turtle
Loggerhead
Hawksbill
Olive ridley
Leatherback
All species
Adult
42
0
11
50
100
42
Percent of Cases
Immature
58
100
89
50
: 0.
58
Sample
Size
24
4
9
4
7
48
Source: Balazs (1985).
3-53
-------
FIGURE 3-12 LOCATIONS OF REPORTED MARINE TURTLE ENTANGLEMENTS (adapted from
Balazs, 1985)
-------
derelict fishing nets is a major concern for seabirds. Studies have shown that large numbers of
seabirds are caught and killed in active fish nets, and derelict nets continue to entrap seabirds
as they drift (Eisenbud, 1985). Nets can be lost, abandoned, or discarded in the marine
environment, where they continue to catch fish, the phenomenon called "ghost-fishing." Birds
are attracted to the entrapped fish as prey, and the birds themselves can then also become
entangled in the nets. Seabirds are also entrapped in monofilament fishing line, beverage
container rings, and pieces of net. Entangled bird carcasses washed up on beaches are
frequently noted by researchers and during beach cleanup efforts (CEE, 1987a; Piatt and
Nettleship, 1987).
It is difficult to assess the impacts of bird deaths by entanglement on the population of a
particular species. Populations of certain seabirds, including gannets, razorbills, and common
guillemots,, have been shown to be significantly impacted by entanglement in active fishing nets,
whereas other populations, such as cormorants and puffins, are not significantly impacted (Piatt
and Nettleship, 1987). A study of gannets in Germany estimated that at least 2.6% of the
population was entangled but still able to fly, and that approximately 13-29% of observed
gannet mortality was due to entanglement, although it is not believed that the population is
being significantly affected by entanglement (Schrey and Vauk, 1987). The brown pelican, an
endangered species, is significantly impacted by entanglement in monofilament fishing line
(Wallace, 1985). Further information and studies on the impacts of entanglement on seabirds
must be assessed in order to determine the effects of entanglement on seabird populations.
FISH AND CRUSTACEANS - The phenomenon known as "ghost fishing" is responsible for the
entrapment and death of large numbers of finfish and shellfish. Ghost fishing occurs when lost
or discarded fishing gear continues to fish until the gear deteriorates or is rendered ineffective.
If lost or abandoned, surface and bottom-set gill nets and traps can all continue to ghost fish.
The gear can entrap fish or crustaceans, which in turn attract and entangle other wildlife.
Other forms of entanglement of fish and crustaceans can occur, such as the entanglement of
manta rays in monofilament line (Wallace, 1985), but these impacts are considered minor
relative to the impacts of ghost fishing.
It is difficult to quantify the impacts of ghost fishing, but large quantities of fishing gear are
known to be lost each year (Uchida, 1985; CEE, 1987b). High (1985) reports that Alaskan
fisherman lose approximately 10% of their crab pots each year and estimates that 30,000
derelict pots may continue to be operating in Alaskan fishing grounds. Experiments show that
about 20% of legal-size king crabs and 8% of sublegal-size crabs can eventually escape from the
traps (High, 1985). However, given the numbers of pots estimated to be lost, a significant
number of crabs may still be taken. There is evidence that crabs confined in pots, for periods
of at least ten days before escape, experience increased mortality (High, 1985). In 1978, more
than 500,000 lobster traps were reported lost in New England. These traps have the capacity
to trap over one million pounds of lobster in a single year (CEE, 1987b).
Fragments of derelict gill nets have been reported to contain dead fish, sometimes in large
numbers, and other marine organisms (CEE, 1987b; High, 1985; Wallace, 1985). As an
estimate of the potential magnitude of the lost gill net problem, Eisenbud (1985) reported that
the Japanese pelagic drift-net salmon fishery loses an average of 12 miles of net per night.
3-55
-------
Examination of a portion of net 1500 m long showed more than 200 entangled salmon
(Wallace, 1985). Abandoned nets and traps can continue to ghost fish for many years. In a
study of derelict salmon nets in Puget Sound, High (1985) found that fish continued to be
caught for more than 3 years and that crabs were still being entangled after six years.
The quantities and types of debris, in relation to the geographic distribution of various species,
determine which species are affected in various regions of the United States. Marine mammals
become entangled in areas where fishing and marine transportation are common. A high rate
of entanglement is reported for seals in Alaska, where trawl-net fishing is widespread. Whales
become entangled in gill nets and lobster-pot lines in the northeastern United States, and in
crab-pot lines and fishing gear in the Pacific northwest. Most reports of turtle entanglements
come from the southeast Atlantic and the Gulf coasts as well as from Hawaii. Ghost fishing
affects crustaceans, fish, and birds, which become entrapped in derelict fishing nets. Concern
over entrapment of crabs, fish, and lobsters in these nets has focused on the northeastern and
northwestern United States, including Alaska, regions of intense fishing activity. As more and
more studies are conducted and as data are compiled, a clearer picture of the regional
importance of entanglement and the respective susceptible species will emerge.
In summary, entanglement of wildlife in persistent marine debris has been reported on all three
coasts of the contiguous United States, and in Alaska and Hawaii. The greatest threat for most
species is posed by fishing-related debris, including nets, lines, and traps. As a result, areas of
concentrated fishing activity are of particular concern for wildlife entanglement.
3.4.1.2 Ingestion
It is likely that ingestion of persistent marine debris is closely related to feeding behavior of
animals. Debris may resemble natural prey, or may be covered with organisms that result in the
animal misidentifying the debris as natural material. Some animals may inadvertently ingest
debris while feeding on other materials, as may occur with a filter-feeding whale, for example.
Plastic pellets and beads, small fragments of plastic bags and sheeting, and other forms of debris
are ingested by marine wildlife. The consequences of debris ingestion can be quite severe, and
include inadequate nutrition, internal injury or blockage, and suffocation. Because these
materials are ubiquitous in distribution, ingestion of plastic debris is of concern throughout the
marine environment.
MARINE MAMMALS — Ingestion of plastic debris by marine mammals has been documented in
only a relatively small number of cases. The deaths of one elephant seal and one Steller sea
lion due to choking on foamed polystyrene have been reported off the coast of Oregon (Mate,
1985). In an examination of the stomachs of 38 sperm whales stranded on the Oregon coast,
one was found to contain about 1 liter of trawl net (Harvey, as cited in Mate, 1985). The
stomachs of 1500 pelagic cetaceans, including porpoises, dolphins, and whales, were examined
and none were found to contain plastic (Walker, as cited in Interagency Task Force, 1988).
There are reports from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts of the United States, of individuals
of a variety of cetacean species that had ingested plastic debris (CEE, 1987b). In 1985, the
3-56
-------
death of a sperm whale in New Jersey was attributed to a mylar balloon blocking its intestinal
tract (Audubon, 1988). The death of a Minke whale off the coast of Texas may have been
caused by plastic sheeting found in its digestive tract (Sport Fishing Institute, 1988). The
autopsy of an infant pygmy sperm whale, found orphaned off the coast of Texas, showed that
the number of plastic bags filling its stomach resulted in starvation (CEE, 1987a). Laist (1987)
describes a report of two endangered West Indian manatees that had died from ingestion of
debris.
TURTLES - Marine turtles ingest a variety of plastic materials. Balazs (1985) reported 79
cases worldwide of persistent marine debris in the digestive tracts of turtles. Plastic bags or
sheets of plastic represented 32%, tar balls represented 21%, and plastic particles accounted for
19% of the reported cases of plastic ingestion. During the 1986 and 1987 Texas beach surveys,
35 turtles were found with persistent marine debris in either their mouths, throats, stomachs, or
intestines (CEE, 1988). Plastic bags were the most common type of debris ingested.
Turtles are believed to ingest plastic materials as part of their feeding behavior. The debris
may resemble food in size, shape, and movement, and is often covered with natural growth that
may attract the turtles while disguising the nature of the plastic (Balazs, 1985). Various types
of debris covered with fish eggs and mussels have been reported in the stomach of turtles
(Balazs, 1985). Leatherback turtles ingest sheets of plastic film and plastic bags that are
mistaken for jellyfish, a primary source of food for turtles (Carr, 1987). That the turtles
mistake plastic materials for jellyfish is supported by a study in which the alimentary canal and
feces of loggerhead turtles captured in the Mediterranean Sea were examined and found to
contain only translucent white plastic pieces, the color of jellyfish, even though various colors of
plastic materials are available to turtles in the environment (Gramentz, 1988). Of the cases of
ingestion of debris documented by Balazs (1985), the green turtle was most commonly involved,
followed by, in decreasing order, loggerhead, leatherback, hawksbill, and a few Kemp's ridley
turtles. As is the case for entanglement, there is a higher frequency of involvement for
immature turtles for most species, with the exception of the leatherback turtle (Table 3-12).
There have been many reports of ingestion of persistent marine debris by turtles along the
coasts of the continental United States (Balazs, 1985). Figure 3-13 maps the locations of such
reports. As with entanglement, the observed pattern is partly due to the limited available data.
Young sea turtles may spend from three to five years in an epipelagic period, during which they
drift with currents and feed at the surface (Carr, 1987). The young turtles migrate to areas
where currents and marine debris converge. Drifting plastic debris, particularly small plastic
pellets, resembles the sargassum floats that are a food source for young turtles. The stomachs
of young loggerhead turtles washed ashore in Florida contained plastic beads similar in size and
shape to sargassum floats (Carr, 1987). Because young turtles are attracted to areas with high
concentrations of plastic pellets and debris, there are concerns about the impacts of ingestion of
this debris on declining turtle populations.
3-57
-------
Table 3-12
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF MARINE TURTLES INGESTING
ENTANGLED IN MARINE DEBRIS
Species
Green turtle
Loggerhead
Hawksbill
Olive ridley
Leatherback
All species
Adult
19
19
9
100
0
31
Percent of Cases
Immature
81
81
91
0
100
69
•
Sample
Size
21
15
11 ;
11
3
62
Source: Balazs (1985).
3-58
-------
(/1
FIGURE 3-13 LOCATIONS OF REPORTED INGESTION OF PLASTIC MATERIALS BY
MARINE TURTLES (adapted from Balazs, 1985)
-------
The extent of occurrence and impacts of ingestion of plastic debris by young and adult turtles is
not clear. The National Marine Fisheries Service reported that one-third to one-half of
necropsied turtles contained plastic products (Interagency Task Force, 1988). It is not known if
the ingested plastic was the cause of death. There is some evidence that ingested plastic
materials do not always completely obstruct the digestive tract, but may be. voided naturally by
the ^urtles. Balazs (1985) reported two cases of living turtles with plastic sheeting protruding
from their cloacas. However, the presence of plastic debris in the digestive system can result in
lost nutrition, reduced ability to absorb nutrients, the possibility of absorption of toxic
compounds present in plastic materials, and reduced ability to dive due to the buoyancy of
plastic materials (Balazs, 1985; Bauer, 1986). To date, there has been one reported turtle death
resulting directly from the ingestion of plastic material (Interagency Task Force, 1988).
The issue of ingestion of balloons by marine turtles has become one of great concern recently.
Releases of large quantities of helium-filled balloons have long been an attractive, crowd-
pleasing spectacle whose consequences have been considered only recently. The released
balloons can be transported great distances and eventually fall to the earth as litter; those
released near the coast can land in the ocean. Most balloons are made of latex rubber; some
balloons, however, are made of plastic (such as Mylar). In the marine environment, plastic and
rubber balloons pose many of the same threats to turtles that other plastic debris does. The
death of a leatherback turtle in 1988 in New Jersey was linked to a balloon and 3 feet of
ribbon found blocking the animal's digestive system (Smith, 1988). The neck of a latex balloon
was part of the 1 Ib of plastic debris found in the intestinal tract of an 11-lb hawksbill turtle in
Hawaii (Bauer, 1986). Some of the turtles found during the Texas beach surveys had pieces of
balloons in their digestive tracts (CEE, 1988).
The public is becoming aware of the dangers that balloons present to marine animals. Due to
pressure from environmental groups, citing the potential harm to marine organisms, some
organizations, such as the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education and the
Arthritis Foundation of Hawaii have cancelled scheduled balloon releases. Some states are
considering legislation that would prohibit the release of large quantities of balloons; New
Jersey has a bill pending and Connecticut and Massachusetts are considering submitting bills.
However, releases of large quantities of balloons continue to be a part of many outdoor
activities such as football games, business openings, and amusement park entertainments.
BIRDS - A great deal of attention has been focused on the ingestion of plastic materials by
seabirds. This phenomenon has been reported in 50 species of seabirds worldwide (Table 3-13;
Day et al., 1985). For some bird populations, a large percentage of examined birds had
ingested plastic debris. For example, 87% of fulmars examined on the Dutch coast in 1983 and
60% of shearwaters examined in Hawaii in 1982 and 1983 contained plastic materials (Fry et al.,
1987; Van Franeker, 1985).
The ingestion of plastic debris by seabirds is related to their feeding behavior. The most
commonly ingested types of debris are small, floating plastic pellets. Birds that feed by seizing
food on the water surface or by pursuit-diving have the highest rates of plastic ingestion, and
are believed to mistake plastic pellets for food sources such as pelagic eggs, the eyes of squid
3-60
-------
Table 3-13
MARINE BIRD SPECIES RECORDED AS HAVING INGESTED PLASTIC
Wandering albatross
Royal albatross
Black-footed albatross
Laysan albatross
Gray-headed albatross
Northern fulmar
Great-winged petrel
Kerguelen petrel
.Bonin petrel
Cook's petrel
Blue petrel
Broad-billed prion
Salvin's prion
Antarctic prion
Fairy prion
Bulwer's petrel
White-chinned petrel
Parkinson's petrel
Pink-footed shearwater
Greater shearwater
Sooty shearwater
Short-tailed shearwater
Manx shearwater
White-faced storm petrel
British storm petrel
Leach's storm petrel
Sooty storm petrel
Fork-tailed storm petrel
Blue-footed booby
Red-necked phalarope
Red phalarope
Laughing gull
Heerman's gull
Mew gull
Herring gul
Western gull
Glaucous-winged gull
Glaucous gull
Great black-backed gull
Black-legged kittiwake
Red-legged kittiwake
Terns"
Dovekie
Thick-billed murre
Cassin's auklet
Parakeet auklet
Least auklet
Rhinoceros auklet
Tufted puffin
Horned puffin
Source: Day et al. (1985).
3-61
-------
and fish, or the bodies of larval fish (Day et al., 1985). Twenty-six percent of Alaskan birds
that feed by pursuit-diving, 16% that feed by surface-seizing, 9% that feed by dipping, and none
that feed by plunging or piracy contained plastic debris (Day et al., 1985). Day et al. also
found that birds that feed primarily on crustaceans or cephalopods ingest more plastic debris
than birds that feed primarily on fish. In addition, certain shapes and colors of plastic materials,
presumably those that resemble food items, are ingested at higher rates by certain species of
birds.
Some species of birds, such as gulls and terns that regurgitate food, are able to clear themselves
of debris (Wallace, 1985). The problems are more significant for those species not able to rid
themselves of the plastic materials they have ingested. Also, reports indicate that three species
of birds that prey on seabirds, the bald eagle, the Antarctic skua, and the short-eared owl, have
ingested plastic materials by feeding on prey containing plastic debris (Day et al., 1985).
There are both direct and indirect effects of ingestion of plastic waste materials (Day et al.,
1985). Direct effects include starvation resulting from decreased feeding activity associated with
stomach distension, intestinal blockage, and ulceration or internal injury to the digestive tract.
Indirect effects include decreased reproductive or physical health of the bird due to the
presence of plastic materials or pollutants associated with the debris. A controlled study of the
effects of plastic ingestion on chickens showed that birds fed plastic materials ate less than
those not fed plastic, probably because of reduced gizzard volume (Ryan, 1988). The reduced
consumption of food may limit the ability of the bird to store fat and, thereby, reduce its ability
to survive and reproduce.
The feeding of regurgitated plastic materials to young seabirds by adult birds can result in
adverse impacts on the young. Ninety percent of Laysan albatross chicks examined in Hawaii in
1982 and 1983 had plastic pellets in their upper digestive tracts; these pellets caused obstruction
of the gut, ulceration, and starvation (Table 3-14; Fry et al., 1987). Higher rates of plastic
debris consumption by young birds has been noted for several species (Day et al., 1985).
Concern has been raised about ingestion of plastic debris and the potential toxicity of chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other organochlorine compounds that are either
used in the manufacture of plastic polymers or adsorb to plastic materials (Ryan et al., 1988;
Van Franeker 1985). Hydrocarbons are suspected of adversely affecting reproduction in birds,
and ingestion of hydrocarbons associated with plastic materials may, therefore, have an impact
on reproductive success (Day et al., 1985). Fry et al. (1987) suggested that obstruction and
impaction of the bird's gut is of much greater concern than the toxicity of plastic materials, but
additional research is needed to better define potential adverse impacts.
Ingestion of plastic debris may be higher in regions of plastic production. Day et al. (1985)
compared data for bird species from Alaska, an area of low plastic production, with the same
bird species in California, an area of high plastic production (Table 3-15). His study indicated
that fewer of the Alaskan species contained ingested plastic debris and at lower concentrations
than found in the California birds. However, because plastic debris can be transported by
various mechanisms once it enters the marine environment, ingestion is not only of concern in
areas where plastic is produced (Day et al., 1985).
3-62
-------
Table 3-14
INCIDENCE OF PLASTIC INGESHON BY LAYSAN ALBATROSS
CHICKS, NORTH WESTERN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Date
Chicks with Ingested Plastic
Number
Percent
Sample
Size
August, 1982
April, 1983
May, 1983
July, 1983
Average
75
94
100
87
90
3
16
5
21
45
- 4
17
5
24
50
Source: Fry et al. (1987).
3-63
-------
Table 3-15
COMPARISON OF PLASTIC INGESTION IN SEABIRD
SPECIES EXAMINED IN CALIFORNIA AND ALASKA
Alaska
Species
Northern fulmar
Sooty shearwater
Short-tailed shearwater
Mew gull
Glaucous-winged gull
Black-legged kittiwake
Rhinoceros auklet
% with
Ingested
Plastics
38
76
200
10
63
188
20
Sample
Size
58
43
84
0
0
5
0
California
% with
Ingested
Plastics
3
21
6
4
8
8
26
Sample
Size
100
43-67
100
25
13
13-25
4
Source: Day et al. (1985).
3-64
-------
FISH — Plastic materials have been reported in the digestive tracts of a variety of fish (CEE,
1987b; Wallace, 1985), although the reports tend to be anecdotal. However, there are no data
to indicate that significant harm or mortality occurs as a result of ingestion of plastic debris by
fish.
In summary, ingestion of plastic materials has been reported on all coasts of the U.S. and
Alaska and Hawaii. Marine turtles ingest plastic bags or sheets of plastic, plastic pellets and
balloons. Birds ingest plastic pellets or pieces most frequently. Ingestion is a threat when
plastic materials are present where marine animals eat and particularly when the debris has a
similar appearance to the animals' food.
3.4.2 Aesthetic and Economic Effects
The most noticeable impacts of plastic debris on the environment are degraded aesthetics of the
coastal waterways and shorelines. Floating debris, either in massive slicks or as dispersed items,
is visually unappealing and poses marine safety threats. Similarly, debris stranded on beaches
and shorelines seriously degrades the coastal environment, resulting in economic losses due to
the decline in tourism. Littered beaches along the Atlantic coast have, in the past, been closed
solely because of objectionable aesthetics.
Plastic litter in the water and on shorelines can cause serious negative impacts on both
commercial and recreational activities, including fishing and fishing resources, vessel operation,
and beach use. The magnitude of these impacts is often difficult to quantify. The
consequences of aesthetic deterioration of one area are borne by the entire regional population.
The loss of fishing gear has economic impacts on the fishing industry. It is difficult to estimate
the value of lost gear because accurate records of gear losses are not available. In the Gulf of
Maine, where conflicts between recreational and commercial fishing interests are intense, an
estimated $50,000 worth of equipment and $1,000,000 in operating expenses are lost each year
by party-boat operators because gear becomes entangled in monofilament gill nets and lost
(CEE, 1987b).
Lost fishing gear also impacts fishery resources by continuing to ghost fish for many years after
it is lost. Both nets and traps can continue to indiscriminately ghost fish, and commercially
important species are removed from the total stock available for commercial catches. The
economic impact of lost lobster traps in New England was estimated in 1978 to be almost
$250 million, representing 1.5 million pounds of lobster in lost or abandoned traps (Smolowitz,
as cited in CEE, 1987b).
Wallace (1985) suggested that plastic debris can also have impacts on activities involving birds.
The debris can impact recreational activities such as birdwatching. Birdwatching in the Alaskan
Aleut communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands generates hundreds of thousands of
3-65
-------
dollars in revenue (Wallace, 1985). The effects of plastic debris on the bird populations and on
the aesthetics of birdwatching could have an adverse impact on this tourist industry.
Plastic debris can interfere with normal operations of military, commercial, and recreational
vessels. A variety of plastic materials, including gill nets, garbage bags, plastic sheeting, and
monofilament line, can foul propellers and clog cooling water intake systems (CEE, 1987b).
Costs associated with these types of problems include both the cost of repairing the damage to
the vessel and the costs associated with loss of operating time. Although there are no records
to document the frequency of vessel damage by floating debris, the fact that some boat builders
are now installing devices on propellers to alleviate the problem may suggest that such incidents
occur often enough to be a source of concern (CEE, 1987b).
Plastic debris on beaches is aesthetically unpleasing and can result in significant economic
impacts on local businesses, communities, and governmental budgets. (While the tourist dollars
not spent at seaside resorts are spent elsewhere, in this report the economic effects on the
coastal communities alone are considered.) Many communities spend money to routinely clean
debris from their beaches. These efforts are not without substantial cost. Padre Island, Texas
spends over $10,000 per year on beach cleanup efforts (CEE, 1987b); 64% of the litter items
collected during a beach clean-up were plastic (CEE, 1987b). New Jersey currently collects an
estimated 26,000 cubic yards of trash per season from state beaches at a total cost of
approximately $2 million to the coastal communities. In some areas, officers have been hired to
patrol beaches in an effort to reduce disposal of plastic debris on the beach (CEE, 1987b).
Discretionary beach closings are sometimes necessary due to the presence of floating or
stranded litter. In 1976, most of Long Island's public beaches were closed for varying periods
because of floatable trash (NOAA/MESA, 1977). More recently, well-publicized incidents of
floating and beached hospital waste along the east coast have increased public awareness of the
severity of the debris problem and have prompted governmental efforts at all levels to mitigate
the floating waste problems.
Preliminary studies have estimated economic losses due to the debris incidents of 1987 and 1988
along the Atlantic coast. One study reports that an estimated $1 billion were lost over the last
two summers because of decreased tourism along the Jersey shore (R.L. Associates, 1988). In
Ocean Grove, New Jersey, summer beach attendance declined from 1200 people per day in
1987 to 120 people per day in 1988 (Swanson, 1988). Overall, in a comparison of the 1987 and
1988 tourist seasons, it was found that 22% fewer persons travelled to the New Jersey shore
and spent 24% fewer days there in 1988 (R.L. Associates, 1988). Also, total expenditures were
down 9% in the 1988 tourist season. In Seaside Heights, New Jersey, property taxes were
increased 15% to make up for anticipated revenues not generated because of decreased beach
use in 1987 (Swanson, 1988). At the two most popular beaches on Long Island attendance
between July 7-17 was down 50% in 1988 from that in 1987 (Swanson, 1988). Inns and
restaurants in this area were experiencing losses of 50% of their business.
Data quantifying economic impacts of floatable debris pollution were also collected during the
1976 Long Island incident. Debris deposited from the floating slick during one month alone
3-66
-------
was removed at a cost of $100,000. Long Island businesses affected by decreased tourism
suffered major losses; restaurants, bait and tackle shops, and the pier fishing business reported
20-30% declines. Public beach attendance decreased 30-50% during and after the incident.
The total economic loss to business was estimated at $30 million (Squires, 1982).
3.43 Effects on Human Health and Safety
Floatable waste not only results in loss of aesthetic qualities, decreased recreational
opportunities, and adverse economic impacts, but may also pose threats to human safety in the
marine environment. An obvious hazard of marine debris to both commercial and recreational,
activities is the potential of collision with large floating objects. Because such incidents are
largely unreported, frequencies are impossible to assess. Vessel disablement by floating debris,
for example, may endanger human safety if power or steering control is lost. It is believed that
some loss of human lives during storms in the Bering Sea resulted from loss of ship engine
power or maneuvering ability due to fouling of propellers, shafts, or intakes of vessels (Wallace,
1985). Submarines are susceptible to entanglement in marine debris, particularly in gill nets,
endangering the lives of the crew (CEE, 1987b). Encounters of gill nets with research and
military vessels have also been reported (Evans, 1971).
Entanglement of divers in marine debris may also result in injuries or fatalities. Monofilament
line and nets can entrap recreational and professional divers. Recreational divers are often not
adequately equipped to free themselves and entanglement poses a danger even to divers trained
in escape procedures (High, 1985).
3.5 SUMMARY
This chapter has identified the major sources of plastic debris in the marine environment and
described the effects of the debris. Based on the types of debris found in the environment,
important land-based sources appear to include operations associated with the (1) disposal of
solid waste and sewage generated on land (e.g., from CSOs) and (2) plastic manufacturing,
fabricating and related transportation activities. Important marine sources include fishing gear
from commercial fishing operations and domestic waste generated by all vessels. The presence
of certain types of marine waste in the marine environment, such as medical wastes, indicates
that illegal disposal of waste is also occurring.
From the various types of plastic waste found in the marine environment, EPA identified
several Articles of Concern. These articles are those plastic wastes that pose the greatest threat
to human safety, marine wildlife, or aesthetics or economics. The articles selected include
beverage ring carrier devices, tampon applicators, condoms, syringes (either whole or pieces),
plastic pellets and spherules, foamed polystyrene spheres, plastic bags and sheeting, uncut
strapping bands, fishing nets and traps, and monofilament lines and rope. While these articles
are among the most evident plastic wastes that contribute to marine pollution, the findings of
this chapter suggest that the entire range of plastic wastes found in marine waters are of
concern.
3-67
-------
The fate of plastic debris in the marine environment is primarily dependent on oceanographic
and meteorologic conditions. Degradation does not have a significant effect on the quantity of
plastic wastes in the marine environment.
The most important effects of plastic debris are the hazards presented to marine wildlife and
the economic losses incurred due to debris on public beaches. Entanglement of marine animals
in discarded fishing gear is another important problem. The potential threat to northern fur
seals has been well-studied. The actual loss of fish and crustacean resources to derelict fishing
gear must be studied. Other species whose populations may be affected by entanglement are
cetaceans and various species of seabirds. Ingestion of plastic material appears to present the
biggest threat to turtles and seabirds. The harm suffered by turtles due to ingestion of plastics,
coupled with the threats from entanglement, are troublesome because all species of turtles in
North America are threatened or endangered.
There are two major economic effects of plastic debris in the marine environment: (1) the loss
of fish and crustacean resources to ghost fishing, and (2) the losses resulting from aesthetic
degradation of public beaches due to the presence of plastic debris. Losses from ghost fishing
have not yet been quantified. Losses of tourist revenues due to the aesthetic degradation of
beaches have been estimated and found to be significant to the coastal communities.
3-68
-------
REFERENCES
Alaska Sea Grant College Program. 1988. Oceans of Plastic~A Workshop on Fisheries
Generated Marine Debris and Derelict Fishing Gear, Portland, OR, February 9-11, 1988. 615
P-
Andrady, AL. 1988. Experimental demonstration of controlled photodegradation of relevant
plastic compositions under marine environmental conditions. Report prepared for the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest and
Alaskan Fisheries Center. Seattle, WA. 88-19. 68 p.
Audubon. 1988. Halftime balloons: A pretty problem. September 1988. p. 18.
Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: Entanglement and ingestion.
In: R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact
of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 387-429
Baltz, D.M. and G.V. Morejohn. 1976. Evidence from seabirds of plastic particle pollution off
central California. Western Birds 7:111-112.
Battelle. 1989. Study of floatable debris in U.S. harbors. In preparation.
Bauer, D. 1986. Plastic pollution: A persistent problem. Makai 8. Newsletter of University of
Hawaii Sea Grant College Program.
Boston Globe. 1988. Medical wastes: Following the trail (Part 1). Volume 234, Number 65.
September 4, 1988.
Cantin, J., J. Eyraud, and C. Fenton. 1989. Quantitative Estimates of Garbage Generation and
Disposal in the U.S. Maritime Sectors Before and After MARPOL Annex V. Second
International Conference on Marine Debris. Honolulu, Hawaii. April, 1989.
Carpenter, EJ. and K.L. Smith, Jr. 1972. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science
175:1240-1241.
Carr, A. 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of
sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):352-356.
CEE. 1987a. Center for Environmental Education. 1986 Texas Coastal Cleanup Report.
52 pages.
3-69
-------
CEE. 1987b. Center for Environmental Education. Plastics in the Ocean: More than a Litter
Problem. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-02-4228. 128 p.
CEE. 1987c. Center for Environmental Education. A Review of Data Collected during 1987
Beach Cleanups. Draft Report, lip. with appendices.
CEE. 1988. Center for Environmental Education. Texas Coastal Cleanup Report. 105 p.
CMC. 1989. Center for Marine Conservation. Personal communication between Margarete
Steinhauer of Battelle Ocean Sciences and Kathryn O'Hara, CMC, regarding preliminary data
from CEE's National Marine Data Base. 1989.
Coleman, F.C. and D.H.S. Wehle. 1984. Plastic pollution: A worldwide oceanic problem.
Parks 9:9-12.
Colton, J.B. 1974. Plastics in the ocean. Oceanus 18(l):61-64.
Colton, J.B., F.D. Rnapp, and B.R. Burns. 1974. Plastic particles in surface water of the
northwestern Atlantic. Science 185:491-497.
Dahlberg, M.L. and R.H. Day. 1985. Observations of man-made objects on the surface of the
north Pacific Ocean. In: R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop
on Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 198-212
Day, R.H. 1980. The Occurrence and Characteristics of Plastic Pollution in Alaska's Marine
Birds. M.S. Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 111 p.
Day, R.H., D.H.S. Wehle, and F.C. Coleman. 1985. Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine
birds. In: R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 344-386
Day, R.H. and D.G. Shaw. 1987. Patterns in the abundance of pelagic plastic and tar in the
north Pacific Ocean, 1976-1985. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):311-316.
ERG. 1988. Eastern Research Group, Inc. An Economic Evaluation and Environmental
Assessment of Regulations Implementing Annex V to MARPOL 73/78. Under contract to the
U.S. Coast Guard. Dec 1988.
ERG. 1989. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Development of Estimates of Garbage Disposal in
the Maritime Sectors. Prepared for the Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special
Programs Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. March 3, 1989.
Eisenbud, R. 1985. Problems and prospects for the pelagic driftnet. Environmental Affairs
12:473-490.
3-70
-------
Evans, W.E. 1971. Potential hazards of non-degradable materials as an environmental
pollutant. In: Proceedings of the Naval Underwater Center Symposium on Environmental
Preservation. San Diego, CA. May 20-21, 1970. pp. 125-130.
Fowler, C.W. 1985. An evaluation of the role of entanglement in the population dynamics of
northern fur seals on, the Pribilof Islands. In: R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds).
Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-
29, 1984. pp. 291-307.
Fowler, C.W. 1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: A case study. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 18(6B):326-335.
Fowler, C.W. 1988. A review of seal and sea lion entanglement in marine fishing debris.
Pages 16-63 In: D.L. Alverson and J.A. June (eds). Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim
Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris. Kailua-Kona, HI. Oct 13-16, 1987. pp. 16-63.
Franklin Associates. 1988. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1960 to 2000 (update 1988). Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. 68-01-7310. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS. Mar 30, 1988.
Fry, D.M., S.I. Fefer, and L. Sileo. 1987. Ingestiori of plastic debris by laysan albatrosses and
wedge-tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):339-343.
Gramentz, D. 1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal, and hydrocarbon
pollution in the central Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(1):11-13.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1984. Amendment Number 2 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and Amendment Number 3
to the Fishery Management Plan for the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. Tampa, FL.
Mar 1984.
Hays, H. and G. Germans. 1974. Plastic particles found in tern pellets, on coastal beaches, and
at factory sites. Marine Pollution Bulletin 5:44-46.
Henderson, J.R. 1988. Marine debris in Hawaii. In: Alverson and June (eds). Proceedings of
the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris. Kailua-Kona, HI. Oct 13-
16, 1987. pp. 189-206.
High, W.L. 1985. Some consequences of lost fishing gear. In: R.S. Shomura and H.O.
Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. Honolulu,
HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 430-437.
Horsman, P.V. 1982. The amount of garbage pollution from merchant ships. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 13:167-169.
3-71
-------
Ihteragency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris. 1988. Report Chair, Dept. of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. May, 1988. 170 p.
Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1988. Combined Sewer Outfalls in the Interstate Sanitation
District: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut. 199 p.
*
Johnson, S.W. 1988. Deposition of entanglement debris on Alaskan beaches. In: Alverson
and June (eds). Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine
Debris. Kailua-Kona, HL Oct 13-16, 1987. pp. 208-223.
•
Johnson, S.W. and T.R. MerrelL 1988. Entanglement Debris on Alaskan Beaches, 1986. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS. F/NWC-126. 26 p.
Laist, D.W. 1987. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the
marine environment Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):319-326.
Low, L.L., R.E. Nelson, Jr., and R.E. Narita. 1985. Net loss from trawl fisheries off Alaska.
In: R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact
of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HL Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 130-153.
i, '
MARAD. 1977. U.S. Maritime Administration. Merchant Fleets of the World, 1976.
MARAD. 1989. U.S. Maritime Administration. Merchant Fleets of the World, 1988. Apr
1989.
Mate, B.R. 1985. Incidents of marine mammal encounters with debris and active fishing gear.
In: R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact
of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HL Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 453-458.
Merrell, T.R., Jr. 1985. Fish nets and other plastic litter on Alaska beaches. In: R.S. Shomura
and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact of Marine Debris.
Honolulu, HL Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 160-182.
Merrell, T.R. and S.W. Johnson. 1987. Survey of Plastic Litter on Alaskan Beaches, 1985.
Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Northwest and Alaskan Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Auke Bay, AK. 21 pp.
Mio, S. and S. Takehama. 1988. Estimation of distribution of marine debris based on the 1986
sighting survey. In: Alverson and June (eds). Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim
Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris. Kailua-Kona, HI. Oct 13-16, 1987. pp. 64-94.
Morris, RJ. 1980. Plastic debris in the surface waters of the south Atlantic. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 11:164-166.
3-72
-------
NAS. 1975. National Academy of Sciences. Marine litter. In: Assessing Potential Ocean
Pollutants. A report to the Study Panel on Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants, Ocean Affairs
Board, Commission on Natural Resources, National Research Council, National Academy of
Sciences. Washington, DC pp. 405-438.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1988. Fisheries of the U.S., 1987. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. May 1988.
New Jersey DEP. 1988. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Department of
Environmental Protection. New Jersey's Coastal Ocean, Pollution, and People: A Guide to
Understanding the Problems, the Issues, and the Long Term Solutions. Report prepared by the
Planning Group, Office of the Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Trenton, NJ. 29 p.
New York DEP. 1989. New York Department of Environmental Protection. The Medical
Waste Study. April. 62 p.
New York State DEC. 1988. New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
Investigation: Sources of beach washups in 1988. Report prepared by New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. December 1988. 58 p.
1988.
NOAA 1987. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Coastal Pollutant
Discharge Inventory. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Survey, Ocean Assessments Division. Rockville, MD.
NOAA/MESA 1977. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Long Island Beach
Pollution: June 1976. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Marine Ecosystems Analysis; U.S. Envkonmental Protection Agency, Region II;
and U.S. Coast Guard, 3rd District, Marine Environmental Protection Branch. NOAA/MESA
Special Report. Boulder, CO. 75 p.
OTA 1987. Office of Technology Assessment. Wastes in the Marine Environment. United
States Congress. OTA-0-334. Washington, DC
Parker, N.R., S.C Hunter, and RJ. Yang.. 1987. Development of Methodology
to Reduce the Disposal of Non-degradable Refuse into the Marine Environment. Final Report
for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
under Contract No. 85-ABC-00203. Seattle, WA Jan 1987. 85 p. with appendix
Piatt, J,F. and D.N. Nettleship. 1987. Incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing
nets off Newfoundland, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):334-349.
Price, RJ. and W. Thomas. 1987. Maritime-Originated Solid Waste in New Jersey Coastal
Waters: A Study of the Problem. Report prepared for the State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. 84 p. with appendices.
3-73
-------
Pruter, A.T. 1987. Sources, quantities and distribution of persistent plastics in the marine
environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):305-310.
R.L. Associates. 1988. The economic impact of visitors to the New Jersey shore the summer
of 1988. Report prepared for the New Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism. R.L.
Associates. Princeton, NJ. Nov 1988. 16 p.
Ryan, P.G. 1988. Effects of ingested plastic on seabird feeding: Evidence from chickens.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(3):125-128.
Ryan, P.O., AD. Connell, and B.D. Gardner. 1988. Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is
there a relationship? Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(4):174-176.
SAIC/Battelle. 1987. Science Applications International Corporation/Battelle Ocean Sciences.
1987. New Jersey Floatables Study: Possible Sources, Transport, and Beach Survey Results.
Final Report prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Monitoring and Data Management under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No.
68-03-3319, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region U. New York, NY. 49 p.
Schrey, E. and G.J.M. Vauk. 1987. Records of entangled gannets (Sula bassanal at Helgoland,
German Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B): 350-352.
Schultz, J.P. and W.K Upton, HJ. 1988. Solid Waste Generation Survey Aboard USS
Q'Bannon (DD 987). U.S. Navy, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development
Center, DTRC/SME-87/92. Bethesda, MD. 17 p.
Scordino, J. 1985. Studies on fur seal entanglement 1981-1984, St. Paul Island, Alaska. In:
R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 278-290.
Shiber, J.G. 1979. Plastic pellets on the coast of Lebanon. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10:28-
30.
Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida (eds). 1985. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. 580 p.
.' , , ,i , .
Smith, G. 1988. Balloons: A surprising new eco-hazard. Earth Island Journal. Greenpeace.
Winter 1988.
Spauldingj M., K. Jayko, and W. Knauss. 1988. Hindcast of medical waste trajectories on
southern New England waters. Report prepared for Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management by Applied Science Associates, Inc. 27 p.
' f,'i' ' • " -. ',
Sport Fishing Institute. 1988. Plastic may have caused beached whales death. Sport Fishing
Institute Bulletin No. 395:7-8.
3-74
-------
Squires, D.F. 1982. The Ocean Dumping Quanda^: Waste Disposal in the New York Bight.
State University of New York Press. Albany, NY.
Stevens, L. 1985. Will tougher licensing ease gear conflicts? Commercial Fishing News
Stewart, B.S. and P.K. Yochem. 1987. Entanglement of pinnipeds in synthetic debris and
fishing net and line fragments at San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands, California, 1978-1986.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):336-339.
Swanson, R.L. 1988. Washups of floatable material and their impact on New York Bight
beaches. Report submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sep
1988.
Swanson, R.L. et al. 1978. June 1976 pollution of Long Island ocean beaches. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE 104(EE6):1067-1085.
Uchida, R.N. 1985. The types and amounts of fish net deployed in the north Pacific. In: R.S.
Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris. " Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 37-108.
U.S. EPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Floatables Investigation. Report
prepared by the U.S. EPA, Region II. New York, NY. 11 p. with appendices.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on the New
York Bight Plastics Study. Section 2302, Subtitle C of Marine Plastic Pollution Research Act.
Title II of United States- Japan Fishery Agreement Approval Act, PL 100-220. EPA Document
No.: EPA - 503/9-89/002. March.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Medical Waste Beach
Washups - June - October, 1988. Prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
by ICF, Inc. March 13.
Van Franeker, J.A. 1985. Plastic ingestion in the north Atlantic fulmar. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 16(9):367-369.
Walker, W. 1988. Personal communication. Seattle, WA. As cited in Interagency Task Force,
1988.
Wallace, N. 1985. Debris entanglement in the marine environment: A review. In: R.S.
Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris. Honolulu, HI. Nov 27-29, 1984. pp. 259-277.
Weirich, M.T. 1987. Managing human impacts on whales in Massachusetts Bay: Countering
information limitations through the use of field data. Bull, of the Coastal Soc. 10(3):11-13. As
cited in Interagency Task Force, 1988.
3-75
-------
Wilber, R J. 1987. Plastic in the north Atlantic. Oceanus 30(3):61-68.
Wong, CS., D.R. Green, and W.J. Cretney. 1974. Quantitative tar and plastic waste
distributions in the Pacific Ocean. Nature 246:30-32.
Yoshida, K. and N. Baba. 1988. Results of research on the effects of marine debris on fur
seal stocks and future research programs. In: D.L. Alverson and J.A. June (eds). Proceedings
of the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris. Kailua-Kona, HI. Oct
13-16, 1987. pp. 95-129.
3-76
-------
SECTION FOUR
IMPACTS OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS WASTE
ON THE MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
In 1986, the principal management method for municipal solid waste was landfilling (80%); the
rest of the MSW was handled by incineration (10%) and recycling (10%) (U.S. EPA, 1989).
This section discusses the impacts of plastics on the management of MSW by landfilling and •:
incineration.
EPA's "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action," encourages the use of waste
management options other than landfilling, as is suggested by that document's hierarchy of
waste management/minimization options:
1. Source reduction
2. Recycling
3. Incineration with energy recovery and landfilling
Although source reduction and recycling are the preferred options, landfilling and incineration
are essential components of an integrated waste management system. Of the latter two disposal
options, EPA does not have a preference, Each community should consider all the options and
select a system that can best handle its waste stream. Section 5 analyzes source reduction and
recycling options, particularly as they relate to plastic wastes.
For both landfilling and incineration, the impacts of plastics discussed here include those 1) on
the operation, or function, of the MSW management system; and 2) on the release of
pollutants from those management systems. Impacts of the released pollutants on the
environment or on human health are not discussed here, though some comparisons to EPA
regulatory or health advisory limits are included. This section also includes a discussion of the
impact of discarded plastic materials on litter problems.
4.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
v
Following are the key findings of this section:
4.1.1 Landfilling
4.1.1.1 Management Issues
• Available capacity for landfilling of MSW is declining. The growth of MSW generation
has contributed to this shortfall. Plastic waste, which represents a growing share of total
waste volume, contributes to the rate of capacity use.
• Buried plastic wastes compress in landfills to a greater extent than had been understood,
reducing the share of landfill capacity relative to that which would be needed were
plastics to retain their shape.
4-1
-------
Plastic wastes are very slow to degrade in landfills; but recent data indicate that other
wastes, even those considered to be "degradable," such as paper, are also quite slow to
degrade. Thus, degradability appears to have little effect on landfill capacity.
Plastic wastes have not been shown to undermine the structural integrity of landfills or to
create substantial difficulties for landfill operation.
4.1.1.2 Environmental Releases
• Plastic polymers do not represent a hazard of toxic leachate formation when disposed in
landfills.
• Data are too limited to determine whether additives in plastics add significantly to the
toxicity of MSW landfill leachate.
- One laboratory study indicates that plastic wastes containing cadmium-based pigments do
not release toxic metals in sufficient quantities to pose an environmental hazard.
- Analysis of leachate from monitoring of MSW landfills has detected organic chemicals
such as are used as plasticizers; one widely used plasticizer, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, has
been detected in a number of leachate analyses at a range of concentrations. This
additive could have originated in discarded plastic products in MSW.
4.1.2 Incineration
• Plastics contribute significantly to the heating value of MSW during incineration.
Although they contribute only about 7% by weight to MSW, they may contribute 15% or
more to the total Btu content of MSW.
4.1.2.1 Management Issues
• Hydrogen chloride (HC1) gas is emitted during combustion of polyvinyl chloride (or other
chlorinated polymers), and may result in corrosion of municipal waste combustor internal
surfaces. Ongoing research by both EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
is addressing the extent of potential impacts on incinerator operation and the potential
options to address identified impacts.
4.1.2.2 Environmental Releases
• HALOGENS. HC1 emissions from MSW combustion are correlated with the polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) content of MSW. PVC and related chlorinated polymers contribute not
more than about 1% by weight to the MSW stream, but may nonetheless be one of the
major sources, along with paper and food wastes, of HC1 in MSW incinerator emissions.
Data, however, are quite limited regarding the relative contribution to HC1 emissions of
4-2
-------
plastic and other wastes. EPA and FDA are both conducting further review of the
contribution of plastics to HC1 emissions from MSW combustion.
• DIOXINS. Although polyvinyl chloride in MSW has been postulated to be a principal
chlorine donor in the formation of dioxins and furans in municipal waste combustors,
experimental evidence is inconsistent. It remains unclear whether reducing PVC levels in
MSW would have any impact on dioxin formation. Both EPA and FDA are conducting
further analyses of the potential link between PVC and dioxin formation.
• PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION. Under sub-optimal operating
conditions, all organic constituents of MSW (including plastics, wood, paper, food wastes,
yard wastes, and others) may release toxic products of incomplete combustion. Proper
incinerator operation is far more important to controlling emissions of these compounds
than the quantity of plastics or any other MSW constituent.
• VOLUME OF INCINERATOR ASH. Plastics ash contributes proportionately less to
the volume of incinerator ash requiring disposal than plastics contribute to the ,
uncombusted MSW waste stream.
\
• INCINERATOR ASH TOXICITY. Lead- and cadmium-based plastic additives
contribute to the heavy metal content of MWC ash. Because they are distributed in a
combustible medium, plastics additives tend to contribute proportionately more to fly ash
than to bottom ash. Additional investigation is warranted to determine with greater
accuracy the impact of plastics additives on MSW fly ash toxicity (i.e., the contribution of
plastic additives to leachable lead and cadmium in ash).
4.13 Litter
• Some beach areas receive unusually large quantities of marine debris, much of which is
plastic. These areas must be cleaned of debris or suffer aesthetic losses and economic
damages.
4.2 LANDFILLING
Net MSW discards in the United States currently amount to approximately 140.8 million tons
per year, of which plastics are estimated to account for 7.3% by weight. Landfilling has been
the predominant disposal method for MSW. The impacts of plastics on the successful
management of these landfills is a subject of increasing concern. The United States faces
dwindling landfill capacity and an increasing flow of MSW. Plastics represent an increasing
share of the total weight of the solid waste stream (see Table 4-1). The areas considered in
this section include both landfill management issues and environmental releases.
4-3
-------
Table 4-1
GROWTH IN THE CONTRIBUTION OF PLASTIC WASTES
TO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM
(1960-2000)
Year
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1990
1995
2000
Weight
(million tons)
0.4
1.4
3.0
4.4
7.6
7.8
8.4
9.1
9.6
9.7
10.3
11.8
13.7
15.6
As percentage
of MSW by weight
0.5
1.5
2.7
3.8
5.9
5.9
6.5
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.9
8.6
. 9.2
Source: Franklin Associates, 1988a.
4-4
-------
4.2.1 Management Issues
The management issues raised by plastics in MSW include impacts on landfill capacity, structural
integrity, and daily operations.
4.2.1.1 Landfill Capacity
Plastic wastes add to the volume of MSW generated. This section reviews recent literature
findings on each topic and develops conclusions about the impact of plastic waste disposal. >
The available capacity of MSW landfills in the United States is decreasing as a result of two
related factors:
• Remaining capacity of existing landfills is dwindling rapidly. In the next five to seven
years, EPA predicts that 45% of the MSW landfills in the United States will reach
capacity (U.S. EPA, 1988a; see Table 4-2). Similarly, a survey by the American Public
Works Association indicated that 40% of the responding landfill operators claimed that
their community landfill capacity will be depleted within five years (EPA Journal, 1988).
Figure 4-1 shows that landfill capacity is most tightly constrained in heavily populated
areas, especially the Northeast and Great Lakes region.
• As landfills reach capacity, few are being replaced by new sites. By 1994, for example,
the number of operating landfills is predicted to decrease by 83% from 1976 levels
(Figure 4-2) (U.S. EPA, 1989). Reasons include increasingly stringent regulations and
more public concern regarding potential landfill problems. Tougher environmental
regulations may force older landfills to close regardless of their capacity.
As plastics increase in use (see market projections in Section 2), they will require a greater
share of remaining landfill capacity. Estimating the size of that share, however, remains
difficult for several reasons. First, future recycling rates for plastic are unknown. Second, the
amount of plastic that will be incinerated cannot be estimated at this time. Finally, there are
unresolved issues in the research on the relationship of the weight of plastics waste to its
volume after the waste has been placed in the landfill.
Several studies have considered the volume:weight ratio of plastics. In one study, Jack Schlegel
of International Plastics Consulting Corporation calculated the volume of plastic wastes using
estimates of the density of various types of plastic wastes (see Table 4-3). These density'
estimates were derived from industry and literature sources. Overall, this research estimated
that plastics volume (as a percentage of MSW volume) is three to five times that of plastics
weight. Using Franklin Associates' estimates of the percentage by weight of plastic wastes,
Schlegel calculated that in 1984 plastics accounted for 25.4% by volume and 6.8% by weight of
MSW (Schlegel, 1989; SchlegePs calculations represent estimates of plastic volumes in MSW at
the point of disposal and are not intended as empirical estimates of plastic volumes when
compressed in landfills). In addition, estimates have been made that by the year 2000, as plastic
packaging continues to increase, the volume of municipal plastic waste could be as high as 40%
(Modern Plastics, 1988). If such high volume figures are accurate, plastics waste disposal will
consume much of the remaining landfill capacity.
4-5
-------
Table 4-2
REMAINING YEARS OF OPERATION OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
(AS OF 1986)
Remaining Years
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
>20
Number of
Landfills
535
2,167
612
1,126
360
1,234
% Of
Landfills
8.9
35.9
10.1
18.7
6.0
20.5
All Years
6,034
100.0
Source: U.S. EPA, 1988a.
4-6
-------
< 5 Yrs.
5-10Yrs.
D > 10 Yrs.
Figure 4-1. Remaining U.S. Landfill Capacityc
Source: National Solid Waste Management Association, 1988.
-------
35-i
Figure 4-2
OPERATING MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS, 1976-1994
Thousands of Landfills
1976
1984
1987
1994*
Source: Forester, 1988; and EPA, 1989b.
* Projected
-------
Table 4-3
ESTIMATES OF PLASTIC WASTE
Information Source
Year Plastic Component of MSW
Weight(%) Volume(%)
Volume: Weight Methodology
Ratio
International Plastics
Consultants Corporation 1984 6.8" 25.4
Franklin Associates Ltd. 1984 6.8 NE
Franklin Associates Ltd. 1986 7.3 NE
W,L Rathje el.al.
University of Arizona
Share of MSW only 1989 7.4" 17.9C
Share of entire quantity
of excavated material 1989 4.1b 15.9C
3.7
NE
NE
Calculated from Franklin Associates
weight estimates; estimated for current
year's waste
Materials-flow based on
consumption; estimates for
current year's waste
2.4
3.9
Measured from landfill
excavations; Average of
more than 20 years of waste
"IPCC volume estimates are based oil 1984 Franklin Associates weight figures.
"Plastics represent 4.1 percent of landfilled wastes by weight when matrix materials (i.e. soil, fines) are included and 7.4 percent by weight
of MSW alone. The former figure is used here because it is most relevant to the volume discussions.
cDr. Rathje explains that because plastic films expand after being uncovered, this volume estimate is higher than the actual volume of
buried plastics.
NE=Not estimated.
Sources; Franklin Associates, Ltd, 1988a.
Schlegel, 1989.
Rathje et al, 1988.
-------
Recent field research by W.L. Rathje and others at the University of Arizona, however,
suggests that such volume:weight ratios do not accurately reflect plastics compression in a
landfill and that plastic wastes do not consume such large percentages of available landfill space.
Rathje's study examined wastes excavated from three municipal waste landfills serving major
metropolitan areas from 1960 to the present. He noted that virtually all plastic containers were
flattened or crushed in the landfill and did not recover their shapes after excavation.
Uncovered plastics were found to have a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio (% volume to %' weight). Plastic
wastes were measured at 17.9% of the volume of all MSW, and 15.9% of all excavated
materials including fill, fines, and other materials.
Further, Rathje estimated that even his measured volume:weight ratios overstated true volumes
of plastic waste. This measurement discrepancy occurred because Rathje was not able to
correct for the tendency of excavated plastic film (e.g., refuse bags) to billow and fill with air.
Currently, his group is developing new methods to measure volumes for these plastic wastes
that reflect actual volumes under compression in the landfills.
The Rathje et al. data and other estimates must be compared with some care. Rathje's
estimate represents an historical average of the share of landfill volume used by plastic waste;
the derived estimates of plastics volumes will underestimate the plastics share for the current
stream of garbage, as that share increases over time. Nevertheless, these estimates suggest that
the landfill volume consumed by plastic wastes is less than had been estimated by Schlegel.
In summary, plastic wastes consume a substantial portion of landfill capacity, but do not
represent as large a share as has been estimated in some theoretical studies of waste volumes.
Further, plastic wastes are compressed in the landfill and do not consume exceptional capacity
because of their resiliency.
4.2.1.2 Landfill Integrity
Some authors have suggested that the low bulk density of plastic can undermine the integrity of
landfill design. This characteristic may lead to the upward migration of plastic waste through
landfills (Center for Plastics Recycling Research, 1986). Migrating pieces of plastic may create
voids or air pockets in their wake, thus weakening the landfill's structural integrity.
Research fails to confirm that upward migration does occur or that landfills suffer a loss of
integrity due to the presence of plastics. Again in Rathje's work, in which municipal solid waste
was excavated from landfills, no general concentration of plastics could be observed within the
excavated cores, such as might be expected if plastics were shifting upward in the landfill
(Rathje, 1989). No upward migration of plastics was observable even within the distinct landfill
"lifts" (i.e., separate layers of waste) within the landfill.
Further, The National Solid Waste Management Association conducted an informal telephone
survey of its membership (i.e., of MSW landfill operators) several years ago to determine
whether plastic wastes were affecting landfill integrity. The consensus of membership opinion
4-10
-------
was that plastic wastes were not a significant threat to landfill integrity (Repa, 1989). Because
no organized survey was performed, however, no rigorous findings on this subject were
developed.
4.2.13 Other Management Issues
Plastic wastes, as well as paper wastes, contribute to the wind-blown debris in MSW landfills.
Proper waste management techniques (i.e., covering wastes immediately after deposition) should
limit the amount of this blowing debris. Some additional blowing wastes are likely, however,
due to the presence of plastics in the waste. Landfill operators can use windbreaks to capture
such debris.
Plastic wastes may also slow the rate of degradation of the wastes with which they are disposed.
Several researchers have examined the rate of waste degradation in landfills in order to better
understand methane gas generation, as well as the potential for uneven settling of wastes from
uneven degradation. The degradation rate for wastes determines the rate of methane gas
generation in landfills, another concern for landfill management.
One study indicates a potential for plastics to slow decomposition of wastes substantially. EPA-
funded research by Kinman et al. (1985) involved the construction and analysis of 19 simulated
landfills for a period of nine to ten years. The study was designed to analyze the physical,
chemical, and microbial conditions of MSW landfills and to examine the effect of co-disposal of
industrial waste with MSW to evaluate effects on the decomposition process.
Kinman et al. discovered well-preserved organic materials within plastic bags or underneath and
encompassed by plastic materials throughout the landfills. Many readily biodegradable items,
including food waste and fecal matter, were found to be well protected by household garbage
bags and by other wrappings after up to a decade in the landfill. Paper bags also substantially
protected food wastes from decomposition.
Kinman et al. concluded that plastic and paper bags should be torn open as much as possible to
allow readily biodegradable materials to decompose. The group's findings of intact garbage bags
and plastic-wrapped materials, however, appear to be exceptional and are due to the nature of
the simulated landfill, in which garbage was relatively undisturbed. In normal landfill
operations, the .bulldozing operation will rip open garbage bags and expose wastes to the landfill
element.
Rathje's study provides further information about biodegradation patterns in landfills. He rioted
that the plastic bags and wrapping in the excavated garbage were torn or shredded, and the
materials inside were exposed to landfill elements. Thus, plastic wastes did not appear to
inhibit the rate of degradation for nonplastic wastes. Rathje also noted, as did Kinman, that
other materials such as paper were quite slow to degrade and could be found largely intact
after decades in the landfill.
4-11
-------
4.2.2 Environmental Releases
Leaching of any potentially harmful chemical is the primary pathway of concern for
environmental releases of plastics or plastics additives from landfills. The other potential
environmental release from landfills is methane gas, which forms as the result of bacterial
decomposition of organic matter. Because plastic products contribute negligibly to bacterial
activity in landfills, gas* formation is not attributable to this component of the waste stream.
4.2.2.1 Leaching of Plastic Polymers
Plastic polymers do not contribute to negative environmental releases from landfills. Polymers
are largely, impervious to various forms of attack, including biodegradation. Nor can plastics be
attacked or dissolved by the weak acidity found in landfills. The slow rate of biodegradation is
due to the high molecular weight of most plastic polymers. The stability of the carbon-carbon
bond in the polymer chain also contributes to the slow rate of degradation. Such molecules
cannot be broken down into smaller portions that microorganisms can consume. This high
molecular weight is a characteristic of nearly all the major commodity plastic resins. Only
cellulosic resins, and a specialty resin, PHBV (poly [3 hydroxybutrate-3 hydroxyvalerate]), are
readily biodegradable. Cellulosic resins, however, generally lose the characteristic of
biodegradability when they are processed into useful plastic products.
Most studies on contributions to leachate from plastic materials have focused primarily on issues
concerning the use of plastics in groundwater monitoring systems. Several studies have raised
concerns about the use of plastics in leachate collection systems, because of their tendency to
contribute organic chemicals primarily from plasticizer additives to leachate (Barcelona et aL,
1985). Nevertheless, these studies focus on the potential for releases of organic materials from
plastic additives and not from deterioration of plastic polymers. Curran and Tomson (1983)
analyzed groundwater quality monitoring techniques by measuring leaching from different types
of plastic pipes. The group found that using rigid PVC pipe (a plastic product with few
additives) resulted in insignificant leaching -- i.e., the pipe could be used without measurably
altering groundwater test results.
Not only do plastic polymers not generate toxic leachate in landfills, but low leaching and
corrosion resistance make some plastics the material of choice in applications in which leachates
must be controlled. For example, plastics are used as liners for hazardous waste landfills (Lu et
aL, 1985) and as' casings in groundwater monitoring wells (Sykes et al., 1986).
4.2.2.2 Leaching of Plastics Additives
Numerous chemical additives can be employed in manufacturing to modify the properties of the
resins in processing and design. Section 2 outlined over a dozen categories of additives that
serve a variety of purposes and encompass a range of chemical properties. This section
analyzes the available evidence on indicated or potential leaching of these, chemicals in landfills.
Because of the wide variety of chemicals that are used as additives, it is necessary to develop
screening methods to select those with ,the greatest potential for generating environmental
4-12
-------
concerns. After this screening, several categories of information will also be needed in order to
analyze their contribution to potential or actual leachates from landfills. The principal
screening of additives is based on 1) the toxicity of some of the major classes of chemicals used
in each class of plastics additives, and 2) the levels of production for the additives.
Table 4-4 summarizes the potential toxicity concerns associated with the various additive
categories. The discussion is not exhaustive because a wide variety of chemicals are included in
some of the additive categories. Nevertheless, the discussion identifies the potentially toxic
compounds among the chemicals consumed in substantial quantities. In terms of toxicity,
several specific compounds warrant further attention. These compounds include phthalates
from plasticizers, metal constituents of colorants, flame retardants and heat stabilizers, metallic
stearates from lubricants, and antimicrobial additives.
The toxic additives are examined here in the context of 1) the overall level of production of
the additive, and 2) the concentration level of the additive in plastic products. For the
purposes of this report, EPA is focusing on those additives that could be present in some
quantity in products disposed as MSW. EPA recognizes that other compounds, present in small
quantities, may be toxic. Based on a consideration of research priorities, however, this study
will not examine these minor additives further.
Several additives are used in significantly larger quantities than others and, therefore, pose a
greater possibility of leaching. Antimicrobials and lubricants are used in small amounts and
would not be present in a landfill in notable quantities. For additives present in large or
moderate volumes, further analysis was performed to assess whether the additive can be leached
from the plastic. See Table 4-5 for information concerning the quantity of additives that may
be found in landfilled wastes. The phthalate plasticizer is an example of an additive that, while
it mixes thoroughly with a polymer, is only weakly bonded to it. Some leaching of the
phthalate is therefore possible. Reinforcements and plasticizers are used in the greatest bulk.
The tendency of other additives, such as metal-based colorants, to be released from polymers is
unknown, although it is probably limited. Metal-based colorants do not react with polymers and
are merely embedded in the plastic products; nevertheless, the colorants are not readily released
from the polymers (Radian, 1987).
Finally, Table 4-5 presents conclusions regarding the relative concern about leachate that is
presented by the various additives disposed in plastic wastes found in landfills. These findings
are based on the volume data and additional considerations that affect the likelihood that they
would pose a problem in landfills. This analysis was not extended to define an absolute
measure of the significance of the potential leaching of the additives; only relative judgments
were developed. It should also be noted that plastics represent only a portion of the wastes in
a landfill, and that plastics with any specific additive represent a portion of the plastic wastes.
Section 2 presents the statistics necessary to place the plastic waste issue in the perspective of
total MSW quantities.
Based on this analysis, plasticizers, fillers and reinforcing agents are present in the largest
quantities. The latter two additives, however, do not pose a hazard for leaching due to lack of
toxicity in leachate, so they are not considered further. Several other additives may be present
(marked as uncertain in the table) in sufficient quantities to present a leaching concern. These
include colorants, flame retardants, and heat stabilizers. One other additive, impact-modifiers, is
4-13
-------
Table 4-4
TOXICITY AND POTENTIAL FOR LEACHING OF PLASTICS ADDITIVES
ANTIMICROBIALS - Although the amounts used in plastics are small, antimicrobials are
bioactive compounds designed to be toxic to microorganisms and thus could be potentially toxic
to larger organisms. Several types used in plastics contain tin or mercury (Radian, 1987). No
information is available concerning their leaching properties.
ANTIOXIDANTS - FDA has regulations governing the use of antioxidants in plastics having
food-contact applications. These additives are mainly high-molecular weight phenols. These
materials do not degrade appreciably and do not represent a notable source for leachates.
Antioxidants are the most widely used additives; but because they are used in such small
quantities, aggregate production is quite low and concentrations in plastic products are
extremely small.
ANTISTATIC AGENTS - The antistatic agents used in largest volume are quaternary
ammonium derivatives and these chemicals have some potential toxicity. The FDA regulates
the use of antistatic agents in food and medical applications, and has regulated several organic
amines under 21 CFR 178-3130.
Antistatic agents by their nature must be at the surface of the polymer and to have only partial
compatibility with the polymer. As a result, the antistatic agent can leach from the surface of
the plastic.
CATALYSTS - These additives facilitate reactions among other compounds and are not
themselves joined into the plastic product. As such, they are present in only residual amounts
or to the extent they are not removed from the resulting product. While certain types of
catalysts contain toxic metals, these should be present in final products in extremely small
amounts.
CHEMICAL BLOWING AGENTS (CBAs) - CBAs are introduced as solids, which decompose
to form volatile gases and solid residues. Consequently, both the agents themselves, as well as
their decomposition products, must be considered, but the quantities in plastic waste would be
extremely small. Among the agents and components, several including benzene, 1,2-
dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and barium are considered priority pollutants or hazardous
wastes. Others, such as diazoaminobenzene and tetramethyl-succinonitrile are not listed but are
known to be toxic. Residues may be washed from the product following processing, however,
and may not be present in the final product (Radian, 1987).
COLORANTS - The colorant in widest use (as measured by production), titanium dioxide, does
not present any environmental hazard. Numerous other colorants, however, include heavy
metals and thus could pose some concern for disposal. Many of the colorants or their
constituents are listed as priority pollutants or as hazardous under the RCRA program by EPA
In particular, lead and cadmium compounds are often singled out because they are widely
recognized as toxic (e.g., 40 CFR 261).
The leachabllity of colorant constituents from plastics is unclear and may be quite limited. The
colorants are embedded in inert plastic; they are also chosen for their resistance to migration in
the product. This suggests that colorants do not readily release from the plastic.
(cont.)
4-14
-------
Table 4-4 (cont.)
FILLERS - Most fillers (e.g., calcium carbonate, clay) are unreactive and insoluble and thus do
not present a leachate concern. Asbestos continues to be used as a filler in some applications,
and theoretically could present a particulates issue. Asbestos is embedded in the polymer,
however, and it is not likely to be released in any quantity from plastic wastes.
FLAME RETARDANTS - A wide variety of organic and inorganic compounds are used in flame
retardants. Among the inorganic chemicals, antimony oxide is toxic; it is known to leach from
some plastics (SPI, 1985), and it is on the EPA list of hazardous constituents found in waste
(40 CFR 261). Some organic compounds were found to be toxic, but were banned from use
and are no longer produced. Certain chloride compounds still in use are toxic, but the most
widely used chlorine compounds, chlorinated paraffins, are non-toxic. Flame retardants can also
be categorized as reactant and nonreactant (or additive). Reactant compounds, as the name
suggests, react with the plastic polymer and, because they are bound to the polymer, will not
degrade any faster in a landfill than the polymer itself. Most flame retardants, however, are
nonreactant: they are encapsulated as small, relatively insoluble particles by the plastic or
dissolved in the plastic and also function as plasticizers. These are the flame retardants that are
most prone to volatilize and to leach from plastics during use or disposal.
FREE RADICAL INITIATORS - These additives are largely consumed by the polymers in the
reactions that they initiate. For this reason they are of relatively little environmental concern.
Only residues of the additives are likely to remain in the plastic product, and their potential for
leaching is likely to be small.
HEAT STABILIZERS - Many heat stabilizers are organometallic chemicals and are considered
toxic. Several of the most effective stabilizers are among the most toxic; less toxic stabilizers
such as calcium and zinc are less effective. All PVC plastic requires heat stabilizing additives
during processing.
The likelihood of heat stabilizers released from PVC is as yet unknown. Many heat stabilizers
are highly compatible with plastic polymers and would not readily be released. Other
applications may not call for such compatibility, however, and present some potential for
release.
Note that heat stabilizers are a more significant source of lead and cadmium in MSW than are >
colorants. In discarded plastics they have been shown to contain more than twice the amount
of lead and cadmium found in colorants (Franklin Associates, 1988b).
IMPACT MODIFIERS - Impact modifiers are polymers themselves and are generally inert in
the environment. No release of these additives is likely.
(cont.)
4-15
-------
Table 4-4 (cont.)
LUBRICANTS - Lubricants are used primarily to improve the processing characteristics of the
plastic or to improve the characteristics of the plastic in use. In either case, a residue of the
lubricant or more substantial quantities of the material could remain with the plastic product
until disposal, although quantities of lubricant would be quite small.
Most lubricants are chemically inert, and others are derived from natural sources. This class of
additives is not believed to pose an environmental threat. Exceptions include certain "metallic-
soap" lubricants used to improve processing (i.e., the metal constituents of these additives can
be toxic).
PLASTICIZERS - Numerous phthalate plasticizers are listed as hazardous wastes or as priority
pollutants by EPA. Included among these is di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, which is used in large
quantities in plastic products (Life Systems, 1987). Overall, the toxicity of the plasticizers varies
considerably with the specific additive used and its concentration in the plastic.
Plasticizers are somewhat extractable from the polymers into which they are incorporated;
therefore, they tend to exude during use or after disposal. After disposal, they may also be
extracted by water or by solvents. Water, however, can extract only small amounts of
plasticizer.
REINFORCING AGENTS - These agents are similar to fillers except they consist of fibers
rather than particle-type additives. Glass fibers, the predominant reinforcing agent, are
nontoxic. They do not present a hazard in the landfill. Another reinforcing agent, asbestos,
can also be used and could present a particulate hazard if fibers are released in quantity. Since
these fibers should be well embedded in the polymer, however, notable releases are unlikely.
UV STABILIZERS - Some benzophenones and benzotriazoles are approved by the FDA for
food packaging uses (Radian, 1987). Nickel organic stabilizers, which account for a significant
percentage of total consumption, are toxic. Cyanide and zinc may also be used.
U.V. stabilizers are chosen for their nonmigratory properties, since leaching would leave the
polymer vulnerable to UV degradation. Thus, leaching of additives is not expected to be a
significant problem.
Source: Radian (1987) and data compiled by Eastern Research Group, Inc.
4-16
-------
Table 4-5
Category of Additive/
Primary Toxic Concerns
POTENTIAL FOR PRESENCE OF TOXIC, PLASTICS-DERIVED
ADDITIVES IN LANDFILLS AND IN LANDFILL LEACHATE
Additive's Presence in Landfills
Volume Use Additive to Resin
in Plastics Ratio (a)
in 1986 (Ibs additive/
(million Ibs) 100 Ibs resin)
Is Additive Present in
Landfill-Discarded
Plastics in Relatively
Large Quantities?
Additional Considerations
Affecting Leaching Concern
Antimicrobial Agents
Various
Antioxidants
None identified
Antistatic Agents
Quaternary ammonium
derivatives
Catalysts
None identified
Chemical Blowing Agents
None identified
11.0
35.0
6.5
40.0 (b)
12.6
<1
<1
<1
<1
1-5
No
No
No
No
No
Generally most of
agent evaporates
Colorants
Cadmiums
Chromium yellow
Lead compounds
Fillers
None identified
Flame Retardants
Antimony oxide
423.0 <1
6.0 < 1
6.0 <1
<1.0 <1
2,288.0 10-50
483.0 10-20
36.0 <5
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Yes
Uncertain
colorants usea in low
concentrations but used ~"
in most plastics
Low toxicity so
little leaching concern
Some toxicity, but used mostly in
building products that aren't
disposed of with MSW
(cont.)
-------
00
Table 4-5 (cont.)
POTENTIAL FOR PRESENCE OF TOXIC, PLASTICS-DERIVED
ADDITIVES IN LANDFILLS AND IN LANDFILL LEACHATE
Additive's Presence in Landfills
Category of Additive/
Primary Toxic Concerns
Free Radical Initiators
Heat Stabilizers
Barium-cadmium
Lead
Impact Modifiers
None identified
Lubricants
Metallic stearates
Plasticizers
Phthalates
Reinforcements
Asbestos
UV Stabilizers
None identified
KIA = Mnt Auailahla
Volume Use
in Plastics
(million Ibs)
NA
83.0
35.0
23.0
135.0
95.0
37.0
1,809.0
1,184.0
961.0 •
90.0
5.5
Additive to Resin
Ratio (a)
(Ibs additive/
100 Ibs resin)
0.2-5
0.2-5
0.2-5
10-20
<1
<1
20-60
20-60
10-40
10-40
<-,
Is Additive Present in
Landfill-Discarded
Plastics in Relatively
Large Quantities?
No
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
No
Yes
Yes
No
Additional Considerations
Affecting Leaching Concern
Some toxicity, but used mostly in
building products that aren't
disposed with MSW
Polymer itself;
Not leachable
—
Liquid; most
readily released
Paniculate, not
leaching concern
Notes: (a) Ratios shown are for the additive category as a whole; ratios for individual chemicals not separately estimated.
(b) Volume estimate covers only organic peroxide.
Source: Volume data from Rauch, 1987. Other estimates by Eastern Research Group.
-------
sometimes used in relatively high concentrations but this is a polymer itself and would not be
released into leachate.
In the rest of this section, the available laboratory and field data are reviewed to highlight
which chemicals have been shown to leach from plastic products. Based on the previous
discussion, the following chemicals merit further analysis:
• Phthalate esters, the most widely used class of plasticizers
• Toxic flame retardants, particularly antimony oxide
• Heavy-metal colorants, particularly lead- or cadmium-based (although used in small
quantities, their high toxicity could warrant attention)
• Metal-based heat stabilizers, particularly lead- or cadmium-based
The toxicity of metals, particularly lead and cadmium, used in certain of the plastic additives,
has received attention in previous research. EPA commissioned a study by Franklin Associates
to estimate the aggregate quantity of lead and cadmium that may be present in MSW (Franklin
Associates, 1988b). Franklin Associates used a "material flows" methodology (see Section 2) to
derive these estimates. Their study was not designed to estimate the potential for leaching of
these wastes.
Table 4-6 presents the principal findings of the Franklin Associates study. Plastic additives were
found to contribute 3,576 tons of lead and 564 tons of cadmium to MSW. These quantities
represent 1.7% of the total lead and 31.5% of the total cadmium present in MSW. The great
bulk of the lead and cadmium in MSW is from automobile and household batteries,
respectively.
Available research on heavy metals as well as on other additives of concern falls into two
categories: 1) laboratory studies of leaching potential, and
2) evidence from monitoring studies of municipal solid waste landfills. The intended scope of
both types of studies is to determine if leachate contains the various chemicals that could
originate from plastic wastes and, if so, in what quantity.
LABORATORY STUDIES OF LEACHING POTENTIAL - Limited data were identified on
the topics of potential or actual leaching of additive components from plastic materials. The
two available laboratory studies examined the leachability of toxic heavy metals used in plastic
additives.
In the first of these studies, Wilson et al. (1982) examined leaching of cadmium from pigmented
plastics in simulated landfill conditions/ That group performed several different leachate tests
with plastics (e.g., ABS, polystyrene, high-density polyethylene, PVC) containing cadmium-based
pigments. The plastics contained 1% yellow cadmium pigment by weight. This concentration of
pigment, as Wilson et al. noted, is the maximum used in commercial practice.
Wilson performed tests using a series of large glass columns filled with mixed pelletized plastic
(which increased the possible surface area for leaching) and wet-pulverized refuse. The ratio of
4-19
-------
Table 4-6
CONTRIBUTIONS OF LEAD AND
CADMIUM FROM DISCARDED PLASTIC
PRODUCTS IN LANDFILLS
(tons)
Source
Heat stabilizers
Colorants
TOTAL PLASTICS
All sources
Plastic contribution
as % of all sources
Lead
2,586
990
3,576
213,652
1.7
Cadmium
309
255
564
1,788
31.5
Source: Franklin Associates, 1988b.
4-20
-------
plastics to general refuse was 1:5, a ratio that overestimates the concentration of plastics in a
landfill. The columns were irrigated and leachate collected for periods of six months to a year.
In one set of tests, wastes were extracted using a solution of 5,000 ppm acetic acid, buffered to
pH 5 with sodium hydroxide. Wilson et al. employed distilled water in a second set of tests.
Some data interpretations were complicated by possible surface contamination of laboratory
equipment; even pristine elements indicated the presence of cadmium.
Wilson et al. found that the cadmium levels in the leachate were not higher for columns with
pigmented plastic than for control columns with uncolored plastic. The group also concluded
that such leaching as did occur was so minimal that it must have occurred only from the surface
of the plastic and not from the bulk. Furthermore, the overall contribution of cadmium
leachate from a normal mixture of plastic in a landfill was estimated not to exceed that from
trace contaminants of cadmium in paper and food.
A second study performed by the Society of the Plastics Industry used extraction test
procedures of EPA and California hazardous waste programs to estimate prospective leachates
from wastes. The California Waste Extraction Test (WET), similar in theory to the extraction
program employed in the EPA RCRA program, is designed to indicate the nature of leachate
that is produced from wastes co-disposed with MSW. The California test, however, requires
waste to be milled before the leachate test is performed. ,
The SPI results from the California test are summarized in Table 4-7. SPI ran tests on four
samples of ABS plastic, three samples of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and three samples of nylon.
Metal-based additives, including lead, chromium, zinc, antimony, and molybdenum, were
contained in the plastics. The results show leaching of very small percentages of the metals
content of the various plastics.
i
These results are compared in the table with limits defined for the Extraction Procedure toxicity
test in the EPA RCRA program. None of the samples exceeded the defined limit for pollutant
concentrations. SPI concluded that the California test, while more stringent than the EPA test,
did not indicate that plastic wastes would be classified as hazardous wastes. The California
requirement to mill the waste was particularly stringent because much more surface area was
made available for potential leaching than may be the case in normal landfill disposal of plastic
products. When the effect of the milling was measured by re-applying the test in one case
(sample 4, ABS) with recombined granules, the amount of metals in the leachate declined by an
order of magnitude.
These data suggest that the leaching potential of cadmium from plastic products is low and that
environmental risk is low. Leaching of organic constituents of additives, however, such as from
plasticizers, was not addressed by any of this research.
LEACHATE OR GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES - Leachate and ground-water monitoring results provide additional information
about the apparent leachate formation from plastic wastes deposited in municipal landfills.
These data represent direct field evidence of leaching of general municipal solid waste. It must
be presumed that discarded plastic materials were included in the waste. The exact contribution
of plastic wastes to leachate, however, cannot be isolated from these data.
4-21
-------
Table 4-7
RESULTS OF THE CALIFORNIA WASTE EXTRACTION TEST APPLIED TO PLASTICS
Plastic
Sample
Sample Additives
(mg/kg)
Metals in
WET Test
results (mg/L)a
Maximum
Concentration-
Extraction
Toxicity
(mg/L)
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
(granules)11
Sample 4
(in plaque form)
Polyvinyl Chloride
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Pb
Cr(VI)
Pb
Cr(VI)
Cd
Pb
Sb
Cd
Zn
Cr
Mo
Pb
Sb
Cd
Zn
Cr
Mo
Pb
Cr
Pb
Cr
Cd
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
4,300
21,400
5,200
500
800
250
4,300
21,400
5,200
500
800
250
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
3.1
0.6
1.6
0.2
0.3
2.3
36.0
0.02
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.3
1.1
<0.1
0.02
0.03
<0.1
2.6
0.6
1.5
0.4
0.07
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
n/a
1.0
n/a
5.0
n/a
5.0
n/a
1.0
n/a
5.0
n/a
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
(cont.)
4-22
-------
Table 4-7 (cont.)
Plastic
Sample
Nylon
Sample lc
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample Additives
(mg/kg)
Cd 25,000
Cd 7,000
Cd 4,000
Metals in
Test (WET)
results (mg/L)a
10.00
0.5
0.05
Maximum
Concentration-
Extraction
Toxicity
(mg/L)
''
1.0
*
1.0
1.0
The WET test procedure is as follows:
1. Sample is milled to pass through a 2-millimeter sieve.
2. Fifty grams of sample is extracted with 500 milliliters of the deaerated (anaerobic)
extractant solution in the range of 20 to 40 degrees Celcius for 48 hours. The extracting
solution contains 0.2 molar sodium citrate at pH 5.0, which simulates the MSW landfill
environment.
3. The mixture is filtered and analyzed using U.S. EPA methods.
"This sample was not prepared with strict controls as to particle size.
This sample was derived from a "masterbatch", which is heavily loaded with cadmium-based
pigment. The masterbatch is used to color a large amount of plastic.
Source: SPI, 1985.
4-23
-------
The first of the available studies, performed by Dunlap et al. (1976), involved collection and
analysis of groundwater from wells near a municipal landfill. This site included an old landfill
site that had been used as a dump for 38 years as well as a new landfill site in which disposal
operations had begun in 1960. Monitoring wells were placed near both the old and new
landfills. The new landfill, as the authors explained, never received appreciable quantities of
industrial solid waste; thus, they categorized the groundwater contamination there as originating
from consumer products and other MSW. The waste in the new landfill had been placed in
unlined cells of 20 feet in thickness.
Chemical analysis of the groundwater from near the landfill indicates the presence of a number
of organic compounds that are used as plasticizers. See Table 4-8 for the levels of constituents
found, and for information on the commercial uses of the chemicals. (Much of the production
data on specific chemicals could be developed only from 1979 data.) The commercial use data
are needed to determine whether the chemicals found in the groundwater could have originated
from other products. For example, one of the chemicals found, dioctyl phthalate, is used almost
solefy as a plasticizer (97% of use). That chemical, therefore, most likely originates from plastic
products.
The Dunlap study only analyzed organic contaminants; no information about metals in the
groundwater are presented. This study also predates the development of the EPA Subtitle D
RCRA program for municipal solid waste. More recent studies have developed substantial
quantities of leachate monitoring data. Thus the Dunlap study should be considered only one
of many on leachate from MSW.
EPA prepared a summary of these landfill leachate data as part of its 1988 Report to Congress
on Solid Waste Disposal in the United States (U.S. EPA, 1988a). In that summary, EPA
compiled the number of instances in which various chemicals were detected in the monitoring
studies and then compared these results with available standards indicating health risk, including
priority pollutant limits.
Table 4-9 presents some of these data on a selected set of organic and inorganic chemicals that
were identified in some leachates from MSW landfills. Table 4-9 also presents information on
specific uses of the chemicals as plastics additives and in other products. The data indicate that
several organic chemicals often used in plasticizers were found in MSW leachate. Most notably,
concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (also called di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) were found in
a number of investigations. A wide range of concentration levels were found.
Certain caveats must be considered for interpreting the phthalate levels in the leachate data.
As was noted in Section 4.2.2.1, research by EPA and others indicates that there is some
potential for bias in leachate results from plastic and other materials used in monitoring
systems. Plastic materials could increase pollutant levels because additives (particularly
plasticizers) are released from piping or other materials used in constructing the leachate
collection system. Conversely, plastic materials in some cases could absorb organic chemicals
from the leachate, biasing pollutant level measurements downward (Barcelona, 1989).
For the studies compiled by the EPA Report to Congress, it is presumed that careful and
appropriate monitoring systems were employed. Nevertheless, some errors in measurements due
to plastic materials could have occurred. It is estimated that up to 50 to 60 ppb of phthalate
4-24
-------
Table 4-8
ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF GROUND WATER IDENTIFIED IN A
STUDY OF AN MSW LANDFILL
Compound found
in ground water
under landfill3
Ground water
concentration
Product and
commercial uses'5
Diethyl phthalate
Diisobutyl phlhalate
and
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4.1
0.1
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1.0 x 107 kg produced in 1978, used as plasticizer and
solvent for cellulose esters, solid rocket propellant and
insecticide spray. Cellulose esters are used in acetate
fibers, lacquers, protective coatings, photographies film,
transparent sheeting, thermoplastic molding composition,
cigarette filters, and magnetic tapes.
7.7 x 10* kg produced in 1979, 35% used as plasticizer for
plastisols, which are dispersions of plastic in a plasticizer
used to mold thermoplastics, chiefly polyvinyl chloride; also
used in lacquers, elastomers, explosives, nail polish,
perfumes, textile lubricants, printing inks, paper coatings,
and adhesives.
6.8 x 107 kg produced in 1979, plasticizer for polyvinyl
chloride and cellulosic plastics; carrier and dispersing media
for pesticides, cosmetics, and colorants. .
(cont.)
-------
Table 4-8 (Cont.)
Compound found
in ground water
under landfill"
Ground water
concentration
'(ppb)
Product and
commercial usesb
K)
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dioctyl phthalate
(di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate)
N-Ethyl-p-toluene-sulfonamide
and
N-Ethyl-o-toluene-sulfbnamide
Tri-n-butyl phosphate
Triethyl phosphate
0.2
2.4
0.1
1.7
0.3
Plasticizer for nitrocellulose, ethyl cellulose, chlorinated
rubber, polyvinyl acetate, and polyvinyl chloride.
1.4 x 107 kg produced in 1979, plasticizer for polyvinyl
chloride (86%), cellulose esters (4%), synthetic elastomers
(3%), other vinyl resins (3%), other polymers (1%);
nonplasticizer uses (3%).
Plasticizer in polyurethanes, nylons, polyesters, alkyds,
phenolics, epoxides, and amine resins.
2.3 x 106 kg produced in 1979, solvent for nitrocellulose,
cellulose acetate; and plasticizer.
4.1 x 106 kg produced in 1979; solvent; plasticizer for
resins, plastics, and gums; lacquer remover; and flame
retardant for polyesters.
"Source: Dunlap et al., 1976. ppb is parts per billion; ug/L.
bSource: Radian, 1987; Sax and Lewis, 1987.
•Detected but not quantitated by Dunlap et al. (1976).
-------
Table 4-9
CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICALS USED AS PLASTICS ADDITIVES
FOUND IN LEACHATE FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
No. of Sites
at Which Concentration Median
Constituent Range Concentration Use in Plastics Other Major Uses/
Compound Was Detected (a) (ppb) (ppb) Manufacturing Comments
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 8
Diethyl phthalate 12
Vinyl chloride (c)
Xylene (c)
16-750
3-330
8-61
32-310
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Antimony 9 0.0015-47
80
83
40
71
0.066
Plasticizer
Plasticizers
Intermediate
product in PVC
manufacturing
Polyester
resins
Limited other uses;
Some use as
synthetic elastomer (b)
See Table 4-8;
Limited other uses;
Some use as a solid
rocket propellant
Limited other uses;
some exporting
Protective coatings,
solvents, aviation gas (b)
Flame retardant Limited other uses (b)
in PVC and as a
colorant
Cadmium
Lead
31 0.007-0.15 0.0135 Colorants,
Stabilizers
45 0.005-1.6 0.063 Colorants,
Stabilizers
See Table 4-6; Use in
plastics is 31. 5% of
all cadmium in MSW
See Table 4-6; Use in
plastics is 1 .7% of
all lead in MSW
(a) Leachate from a total of 51 sites was analyzed for organic constituents and from 62 sites
for inorganic constituents.
(b) From Radian,'1.987. ~;
(c) Vinyl chloride and xylene are not additives but are used in plastics manufacturing.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1988.
4-27
-------
could have originated from PVC pipe in monitoring systems in which such pipe is used
(Barcelona, 1989). If this is the case, then the number of landfills at which phthalates have
been detected may overstate the frequency at which these chemicals leach from wastes. If
Teflon piping was used for most of the studies, however, virtually no release of phthalates from
piping would be expected. No estimate was obtained of the reverse effects of absorption of
phthalates from wastes.
Three metals, antimony, lead and cadmium, are included in the table as well. For lead and
cadmium, the numerous potential contributors in landfilled wastes make it difficult to interpret
the monitoring results. As noted previously, the plastic additives containing lead and cadmium
contribute approximately 1.7% and 31.5% of the quantities of these two metals in the landfill.
Antimony may have originated in plastic wastes, but it has not received as much attention as
lead and cadmium as a potential landfill problem. Other inorganic chemicals besides antimony,
lead and cadmium could also be present due to plastic additives.
The table also reports the presence of vinyl chloride monomer in some of the leachate samples,
the source of which is uncertain. Some researchers have theorized that biological activity in the
landfill can produce vinyl chloride (Murthy et al., 1989). Specifically, biochemical anaerobic
reactions involving wastes such as lignin from paper can generate vinyl chlorides. Also, PVC
manufactured before 1975 could contribute some vinyl chloride monomer to leachate because
the less-complete PVC processing techniques employed until that time left some monomer in
the materials (Webster, 1989). Researchers have also noted that vinyl chloride appears in
leachate from numerous landfills with no apparent correlation with the types of waste disposed
(Webster, 1989).
Two weaknesses of the landfill leachate data are concerns about the range of possible
monitoring conditions and the possibility of industrial wastes being included in the landfill. It is
also worthwhile, therefore, to consider recent research in which such factors were well
controlled. EPA published a study of controlled landfill experiments involving municipal
wastewater treatment sludge and municipal solid waste (SCS Engineers, 1989). The study was
designed to evaluate sludge landfilling as a disposal option for that, waste. As part of their
research effort, however, the researchers also evaluated the environmental releases from co-
disposed sludge and MSW and from MSW alone. The MSW-alone cells were used as control
cells in the experiment.
The SCS research team designed 28 lysimeters which were loaded with various combinations of
sludge, sludge and MSW, or MSW alone. The wastes were loaded into lysimeters designed to
simulate the leachate and gas generation of landfilling. The codisposal and MSW-only cells
were 6 feet in diameter and 9 feet in height. The City of Cincinnati provided approximately 50
tons of MSW to the project; the research team mixed the waste by tearing open plastic garbage
bags before they were placed into the lysimeters. The staff also removed certain large and
unrepresentative items (including a piano and some tires) before the waste was placed into the
lysimeters. A sample of the MSW used in the tests revealed plastics as 8.1% of the MSW, with
paper (except telephone books) accounting for 45.4%; textiles, 11.9%; yard waste, 10.5%;
ferrous metals, 6.3%; telephone books, 4.6%; and a variety of other materials, 13.2%.
The vessels were loaded with waste in July 1982 and quarterly monitoring of leachate was
performed for a period of four years. Thirty-four parameters were measured to determine
4-28
-------
leachate and gas quality and quantity. SCS included nine priority pollutants, including three
phthalates, in the leachate studies. (Testing for the phthalates was discontinued after three
years, however, in order to conserve project funds.) The researchers also added water in
differing quantities to the lysimeters.
The findings of most interest for this research are the levels of phthalates in the leachate from
the MSW-only lysimeters. The study authors did not comment on these results directly,
however, since the MSW-only cells were used as study controls. Table 4-10 summarizes the
results for each of the three phthalates averaged over four lysimeters. The four lysimeters
received two different levels of moisture during the year. The table shows that the highest
annual means of the leachate levels of phthalates were 138 ppb for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
(also called di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), 49 ppb for dibutyl phthalate, and 162 ppb for dimethyl
phthalate. The highest individual leachate tests were 424 ppb for dimethyl phthalate. (The
sludge samples are also included in the table as an indication of the presence of these chemicals
in the other material tested.) This test, it should be noted, does not replicate landfill conditions
in that only one load of the wastes was placed in the cell. In an operating landfill, wastes
would be added continuously. It does provide, however, an indication of the presence of
phthalates in MSW leachate. The levels of Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are also consistent with
the range reported in the collected landfill monitoring studies performed above.
In conclusion, the municipal landfill data indicate some generation of leachate from phthalates;
these chemicals are commonly used in plasticizer additives. Among inorganics, the potential
contribution of plastic additives cannot be determined.
43 INCINERATION
Municipal waste incineration is currently the subject of significant analytical efforts and an
active EPA regulatory program. At least two current Federal initiatives are addressing MSW
incineration:
EPA Regulation of Municipal Waste Combiistor (MWC) Emissions. On November 30,
1989, EPA proposed regulations under sections lll(a), lll(b), and lll(d) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to control emissions from new and existing municipal waste combustors
(MWCs). These regulations address three classes of MWC emissions: (1) MWC organics
(including dioxins/furans); (2) MWC particulates (including metals such as lead and
cadmium); and (3) MWC acid gases (including hydrogen chloride [HC1] and sulfur dioxide
[SO2]). The regulations also address nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from certain new
MWCs. For existing MWCs, the regulations provide guidelines for the development of state
plans, to control MWC emissions. For new MWCs, the regulations are proposed as New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to limit dioxin/furan, particulate, HC1, SO2, and NOX
emissions; the proposed NSPS also impose operating standards to provide further assurance
of control of dioxin/furan emissions. For both new and existing facilities, the proposed
regulations also require that 25% by weight of the waste stream be separated for recovery
prior to combustion. EPA is accepting public comments on these proposed regulations until
March 1, 1990, and will promulgate final regulations on MWC emissions later this year. (54
FR 52209 and 52251, December 20, 1989).
,4-29
-------
Table 4-10
PHTHALATE LEVELS IN LEACHATE FROM SIMULATED LANDFILL STUDY (ppb)
MSW-Only
Highest
Year Mean Value
MSW-Sludge (a)
Highest
Mean Value
Sludge-Only
Highest
Mean Value
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) Phthalate
First 96.5 235.5
Second 58.4 182.2
Third 138.3 238.0
Three-yr. avg. 97.7
First 10.0 19.0
Second 11.9 22.9
Third 49.3 94.8
Three-yr. avg. 23.7
First 142.7 340.0
Second 162.6 424.3
Third 0.0 0.0
Three-yr. avg. 1 01 .8
11.2 22.9
13.7 22.7
84.9 206.1
36.6
Dibutyl Phthalate
11.1 16.5
10.3 12.2
53.3 102.7
24.9
Dimethyl Phthalate
14.6 54.0 . i
100.8 156.5
0.4 1.6
38.6
4.4 7.5
4.9 6.9
130.7 191.0
46.7
7.1 9.6
5.3 7.0
59.3 101.7
23.9
513.1 1,800.0
198.0 420.0
1.0 3.8
237.4
(a): Wastes tested were 70% MSW and 30% municipal wastewater treatment sludge.
Source: SCS Engineers, Inc., 1988
4-30
-------
The regulations specify plastics as one of the MSW constituents that may be targeted for
materials spearation, but do not specifically address the contribution of plastics to MWC
emissions. The three major classes of emissions addressed (dioxins/furans, metals, and acid
gases) are, however, those which have been most often associated with concerns about
plastics combustion.
FDA Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Polyvinyl Chloride. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has filed a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the impacts of increased consumer use and disposal of polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) (53 FR 47264, November 22, 1988). The EIS will consider the impacts of PVC
combustion, including impacts on MWC operations as well as direct and indirect impacts on
human health and the environment.
These initiatives follow upon EPA's "Municipal Waste Combustion Study," a Report to Congress
published in June 1987 (U.S. EPA 1987a). The Report and its companion technical volumes
provide a comprehensive overview of issues and concerns related to MSW combustion.
Although not focused specifically on plastics, the Report discusses at length the primary health
and environmental concerns related to plastics incineration, including polychlorinated dioxins
(PCDD) and furans (PCDF) emissions, HC1 emissions, and the generation and toxicity of MWC
ash. The Report also discusses the efficiency, availability, and cost of control technologies to
reduce MWC emissions.
Although they constitute only some 7.3% of MSW (see Table 2-16), plastics have figured
heavily in the controversy surrounding MSW incineration. In particular, polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) has been subject to significant attention because of its potential contribution to the
formation of PCDDs and PCDFs during MSW combustion, and its potentially deleterious
impact on incinerator operation (through formation of HC1 gas). Plastics have also received
attention because of their contribution to heavy metals in MSW and the consequent potential
impacts on MWC ash toxicity.
The following discussion focuses on these concerns. It does not, however, present firm
conclusions regarding the human health and environmental impacts of plastics incineration.
Development of EPA's conclusions awaits completion of EPA's MWC rulemaking and FDA's
EIS on PVC incineration. EPA will share the results of these analytical efforts with Congress
when they are complete. As noted above, EPA's proposed regulations are scheduled for
release by the end of 1989. FDA's draft EIS is expected to be released in 1990.
43.1 Introduction
The following paragraphs provide an introduction to the existing and projected population of
municipal waste combustors (MWCs) in the United States. They also describe the combustion
properties of plastics relevant to their use as an MWC fuel and their impact on MWC
operation, emissions, and ash. A brief description of the combustion process and of available
pollution control technologies for MWC is also provided.
4-31
-------
43.1.1 Number, Capacity, and Types of Incinerators
In 1986, 6% of municipal solid waste was incinerated (Franklin Associates, 1988a). Primarily
because it reduces MSW disposal requirements by 70 to 90% (by volume), incineration has
become an increasingly attractive disposal option for many communities, especially those facing
dwindling landfill capacity and rapidly increasing tipping fees. Table 4-11 traces the
development of MSW incineration in the U.S. since 1955. There are currently approximately
160 incineration facilities (320 units) online, representing nearly 68,000 tons per day (tpd) of
capacity. Of this total, nearly 48,000 tpd (78%) has come online since 1980 (Radian, 1989).
EPA projects continued rapid growth for this disposal option; based on facilities under
construction, under contract or contract negotiation, or formally proposed, the Agency projects
nearly 200 additional facilities, representing approximately 175,000 tpd of capacity, to come
online in the next few years (U.S. EPA, 1987b).
Three types of incinerators comprise virtually all of current U.S. MWC capacity (Radian 1989):
• Mass burn (57% of current U.S. MWC capacity). Mass burn combustors accept all
MSW except items too large to go through the feed system. Unsegregated refuse is
placed on a grate that moves through the combustor. Air in excess of that required for
combustion is forced into the system below and above the grate.
• Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) (29%). RDF combustors require that waste be processed
before combustion; processing typically consists of shredding and removal of most
noncombustibles (e.g., glass, aluminum, and other metals). RDF may be co-fired with
coal.
• Modular combustors (10%). These combustors are typically smaller than mass burn
facilities and also accept waste without processing. One type of modular combustor is
similar to the mass burn units in that excess air enters the primary combustion chamber.
A second type of modular system uses starved-air primary combustion; excess air is added
to the partially combusted gases in a secondary chamber to achieve complete combustion.
The lower air velocities in the starved air system suspend less ash and reduce the
problem of fly ash control.
Over 81% of MWC capacity represents waste-to-energy facilities equipped with heat recovery
boilers. Most facilities that do not recover heat to generate steam or electricity are older
incinerators — over 95% of capacity brought online since 1980 has included heat recovery
boilers (Radian, 1989).
4-32
-------
Table 4-11
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS OPERATIONAL
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1988
Year of
Plant
Startup
Not Available
pre-1 955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
1971-1975
1976-1980
1981-1985
1986-1989
Total
Facilities
19
1
2
4
8
23
21
43
38
159
»
Units
23
2
8
6
21
41
34
102
83
320
Capacity
(tons/day)
1,309
200
1,960
1 ,005
5,008
7,610
2,897
27,227
20,614
67,830
Source: Radian, 1989.
4-33
-------
43.1.2 Combustion Properties of Plastics
The various types of plastics have quite different combustion properties. Categorized by
combustion properties, plastics can be described as follows (see Table 4-12) (Leidner, 1981):
Polyolefins (e.g., polyethylenes, polypropylenes, polystyrene). All of these have high heats
of combustion (generally over 17,000 Btu/lb) and combust primarily to carbon dioxide and
water (under good incinerator operating conditions). They may contain additives (e.g.,
pigments or flame retardants), but generally yield relatively small amounts of ash, or
corrosive or toxic gases.
Oxygen-containing plastics (e.g., polycarbonates, polyacetals, polyethers, polyesters,
polyacrylates, and polymethacrylates). These typically have lower heats of combustion
(11,000 - 17,000 Btu/lb) but also combust primarily to carbon dioxide and water. Possible
additives (e.g., flame retardants or pigments) can produce ash, or corrosive or toxic gases.
Nitrogen-containing plastics (e.g., polyacrylonitriles, polyamides, and polyurethanes).
are similar in heating value to the oxygen-:containing plastics.
These
Halogen-containing plastics (e.g., polyvinyl chloride and other polyvinyl halides). These
plastics have low to moderate heats of combustion (e.g., less than 11,000 Btu/lb) and may
not be flammable under ambient conditions. The potentially large quantities of additives
(e.g., plasticizers) in these plastics, however, enhance flammability. Upon combustion, the
polymers yield hydrogen chloride (HC1) or hydrogen fluoride (HF), which dissolve in water
to produce corresponding hydrohalic acids that are corrosive to metal and other materials.
Moreover, without sufficient flammable material and air (oxygen) to ensure a high flame
temperature, these materials tend to produce soot when they burn (Tsuchiya and Williams-
Leir, 1976).
Despite their relatively small contribution by weight to post-consumer waste, plastics contribute
disproportionately to the Btu content of incinerated MSW. Assuming an average heat of
combustion for mixed plastics of 14,000 Btu/lb, plastics contribute over half again as much to
the fuel value of MSW as a comparable mass of paper or wood, and have a fuel value three
times that of typical MSW (see Table 4-12). Magee (1989) has estimated that the 7.3% by
weight of plastics in MSW may contribute nearly 25% to the total Btu content of the waste.
43.13 Plastics Combustion and Pollution Control
COMBUSTION — Plastics burn in two phases: pyrolysis and combustion (see Figure 4-3).
During pyrolysis, the complex plastic solids are chemically decomposed by heat into gases, the
composition of which is strongly dependent on the plastic involved (Boettner et al., 1973) and
on the conditions (temperature, pressure, etc.) under which pyrolysis occurs. The mixture of
pyrolysis gases then enters the flame, where combustion takes place. Because one plastic can
produce dozens of different pyrolysis products, a variety of volatile compounds enter the flame.
(In this, plastics are no different from other organic materials — wood, paper, and food wastes
all produce a wide variety of pyrolysis products.) In contrast, a limited number of combustion
products leave the flame (under good combustion conditions; see below). Regardless of the
4-34
-------
Table 4-12
HEATING VALUES FOR PLASTICS AND OTHER MSW COMPONENTS
Material
Examples
Heating Value
(Btu/lb)
Polyolefins
Halogen-containing
plastics
Oxygen-containing
plastics
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polyisobutylene
Polystyrene
Polyvinyl chloride
Polyvinylidine chloride
Polycarbonates
Polyacetals
Polyethers
Polyesters
Polyacrylates
Polyrnethacrylates
17,870-20,150
7,720
4,315
11,470-13,410
MSW (typical)
Nitrogen-containing
plastics
Paper
Wood flour
N/A
Polyacrylonitrile
N/A
N/A
4,500-5,500
13,860
7,590
8,520
Note: Heating values represent the amount of energy released during combustion of a
substance, and can be used to compare the relative efficiencies of different substances
as fuels during incineration. For comparison, the heating value of fuel oil is
approximately 17,700 Btu/lb.
N/A - not applicable.
Source: Leidner 1981
4-35
-------
-p.
o\
Direction
of
Flame
Smoke
Heat
:„ !n *". '£•' •: >',.'!'" h •
.'• -if',. •>" ,i i 4 IP il, I
fc; fM-^%
H %!:it ^ •!>>!'•"
^Spl!3
l&- :'^
A-p-ir.,, .
•E. ^5'
Pyrolysis
Gases
H20. C02, etc.
Oxygen
Heat
Combustible Material
Pyrolysis Zone
Char Zone
Figure 4-3. Flame Dynamics Showing Separation of Pyrolysis and Oxidation
-------
material being burned, combustion gases are typically small, chemically stable (two- or three-
atom) molecules (Dynamac, 1983b). Typical combustion gases include water (H2O), carbon
dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NO).
The composition of the dominant combustion gases is determined by the ratios of elements
(C/H/O/N) entering the flame and the temperature and pressure of the flame. Other elements
present as plastics constituents (e.g., chlorine) or additives (e.g., lead, cadmium, tin) experience
a variety of fates. Some are released primarily as gaseous emissions (e.g., chlorine and
mercury), while others are entrained either in fly ash or bottom ash.
Incomplete combustion (caused by either insufficient oxygen or low flame temperature) may
lead to the emission of more complex products — typically mixtures of pyrolysis products that
are not completely oxidized. The organic emissions of most concern in MSW incineration
(chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, PCDDs, PCDFs, and others) are the products of incomplete
combustion. Incomplete combustion may also lead to the emission of large volumes of
particulates (soot), which may disrupt the operation of particulate collection devices.
POLLUTION CONTROL - Proven pollution control technologies are available to effect greater
than 99% capture of MWC particulate emissions and greater than 90% capture of acid gas
emissions (HC1, HF, and SO2). The most effective identified combination of particulate/acid gas
controls consists of a dry alkaline scrubber coupled with a fabric filter or electrostatic
precipitator (U.S. EPA, 1987b). As part of its current regulatory development process for
MWCs, EPA is considering a requirement that these or other technologies be installed at new
MWCs; emissions controls may be imposed on existing MWCs through state guidelines
developed pursuant to Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act (U.S. EPA, 1987b).
Among the current population of MSW incinerators, particulate control devices are widespread,
but very few facilities include acid gas control technologies. Table 4-13 describes the
distribution of pollution control technologies among operational MSW incinerators. Over 97%
of MWC capacity is equipped with particulate controls; electrostatic precipitators are the
dominant technology (installed on nearly 75% of MWC capacity), followed by fabric filters
(12%) and a variety of other technologies (Radian, 1989). Information available to EPA does
not allow a precise estimate of the online MWC capacity equipped with acid gas controls; it
appears, however, that not more than about 15% of current MWC capacity is fitted with
technologies capable of effective acid gas emission control (Radian, 1989). Virtually all of the
2,157 tpd of MWC capacity with no installed pollution control technologies consists of small
modular units.
4-37
-------
Table 4-13
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED
ON OPERATIONAL U.S. MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
OJ
00
Capacity (tons/day) Employing Specified Pollution Control Equipment,
Listed by Year of Plant Startup
Pollution Control Equipment
None
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
Spray dryer/ESP
Cyclone/ESP
Fabric filter
Spray dryer/Fabric filter
Wet scrubber/Fabric filter
Duct sorbent injection
Wet scrubber
Venturi wet scrubber
Cyclone/Venturi wet scrubber
Cyclone
Electrified gravel bed
Wetted baffles
Not Available
TOTAL
1955
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
1956-
1960
0
960
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,960
1961-
1965
90
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
240
0
1,005
1966-
1970
100
4,360
0
0
0
500
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,008
1971-
1975
284
6,141
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,175
0
0
0
0
10
7,610
1976-
1980
457
1,824
0
400
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
156
0
0
0
2,897
1981-
1985
773
25,486
0
0
508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
360
0
100
27,227
1986-
1989
100
9,643
1,500
0
506
6,721
80
200.
0
94
400
0
400
0
970
20,614
Not
Available
353
50
0
0
56
0
0
0
450
0
0
0
0
0
400
1,309
TOTAL
2,157
48,739
1,500
400
1,070
7,221
80
200
1,158
2,269
400
156
760
240
1,480
67,830
Source: Radian, 1989.
-------
4.3.2 Incinerator Management Issues
A number of issues related to incinerator management and operations have been associated
with the combustion of plastics as a component of MSW. These include:
• Excessive flame temperature
• Formation of incomplete combustion products
• Formation of slag
• Formation of corrosive gases
Of these issues, the formation of corrosive gases is of greatest concern. PCDDs, PCDFs, and
other potentially harmful emissions constituents or their precursors are typically products of
incomplete combustion. Because they are of concern as a potential environmental release
rather than as an incinerator management/operation issue, they are addressed in Section 4.3.3,
below.
43.2.1 Excessive Flame Temperature
Excessive flame temperature can damage incinerator construction materials and lead to
increased emissions of some pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide). Excessive flame temperature
may result from the combustion of high-Btu fuel in the presence of sufficient oxygen. Limited
anecdotal evidence has suggested that plastics occasionally contribute to excessive MWC flame
temperature (Wirka, 1989), but EPA's literature review and solicitation of industry opinion for
this report have not suggested that this problem is serious or widespread. On balance, the
positive contribution of plastics to MSW fuel value outweighs concerns related to the possible
occurrence of excessive flame temperature. However, as the percentage of plastics in the waste
stream increases, this concern may need to be re-examined.
43.2.2 Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs)
Low flame temperature and/or insufficient oxygen can lead to emission of carbon monoxide,
pyrolysis gases, and/or soot. Incineration of plastics raises this management issue for two
reasons: 1) combustion of some plastics (e.g., halogen-containing plastics .or plastics containing
flame retardants) may reduce flame temperature; or 2) large concentrations of some high-Btu
plastics^may overwhelm the local air supply in the combustion chamber, resulting in the
formation of pockets of volatile PICs that may be emitted from the incinerator if insufficient
secondary air is available to complete combustion. Such occasional incidences of PIC emissions
have been termed "transient puffs."
There is little reason for concern that plastics in MSW may cause operating conditions leading
to the formation of incomplete combustion products. The mixtures of plastics introduced into
MSW incinerators are unlikely to have the effect of reducing flame temperature. Concerns
regarding transient puffs of PICs related specifically to plastics appear to be largely
unsupported. Given existing and projected concentrations of plastics in MSW, it is unlikely that
plastics combustion could exhaust local air supplies and result in significant PIC emissions.
Proper incinerator operation (e.g., mixing the incinerator feed, maintaining adequate primary
4-39
-------
and secondary air) is far more important to controlling PIC emissions than is the presence of
plastics or any other single MSW constituent. If conditions conducive to incomplete MSW
combustion do arise for any reason, combustion products associated with plastics feed pose
management and operation problems no different than products associated with other MSW
constituents (wood, paper, food wastes, etc.)
43.23 Formation of Slag
Slags form when substances melt under incinerator operating conditions and travel as liquids to
relatively cool zones of the incinerator, where they resolidify. These substances become an
operational concern if (for example) they clog air inlets or interfere with the operation of
grates or stoking devices. Incinerator feed material can contribute to slag formation 1) if the
material itself is prone to form a slag, or 2) if the material contributes to the development of
operating conditions conducive to slag formation (low temperature, low oxygen concentration)
from other feed constituents.
EPA has not seen any evidence to suggest that plastics contribute to slag formation by either of
these pathways. The fact that plastics are a high-Btu incinerator fuel implies both that they are
extremely unlikely themselves to form a slag under almost any incinerator operating conditions,
and that they are unlikely to contribute to the development of the low-temperature conditions
conducive to slag formation from other constituents of MSW.
43.2.4 Formation of Corrosive Gases
I
The introduction of rising quantities of plastics into MSW incinerators has led to concern
regarding the generation of corrosive gases such as hydrogen chloride, and organic acids (e.g.,
acetic acid). As an incinerator management and operational issue, hydrogen chloride gas
generated upon introduction of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and related halogenated plastics into
incinerator feed provokes the greatest concern (FDA, 1988a; Seelinger, 1984); this concern is
related primarily to corrosion of incinerator and boiler internal surfaces and to its impact on
incinerator reliability and lifespan. PVC and related chlorinated polymers are plastics especially
implicated in this concern.
i •. M
EPA and FDA are both currently investigating the impact of chlorinated plastics on MWC
operation; pending the outcome of these initiatives, it would be premature for EPA to present
definitive conclusions at this time. The following paragraphs describe some of the preliminary
results of these and other analyses, highlighting the major sources of debate and the most
significant questions awaiting resolution.
I • • '
•
The controversy surrounding the impact of hydrogen chloride gas on incinerator operations is
defined by two opposing lines of analysis. On the one hand, PVC is a minor constituent of
MSW. PVC accounts for approximately 15% of U.S. plastics production (Table 2-2). But
because many applications of PVC are in long-lived construction applications (many of which do
not enter the MSW stream), it has been estimated that PVC contributes only approximately 9-
11% to total MSW plastics discards in the U.S. (Alter, 1986). These estimates place bounds of
approximately 0.6-1.1% on the contribution of PVC to MSW. Because PVC is only one of
4-40
-------
many potential sources of chlorine in MSW (other significant sources include paper, food
wastes, lawn and garden wastes), these estimates lead some investigators to conclude that PVC
cannot be a significant contributor to total HC1 in MWC emissions (e.g., Magee, 1989).
On the other hand, PVC may be one of the major sources of chlorine in MSW. Alter et al.
(1974) reported that all plastics accounted for approximately 36% - and were the largest single
source - of total chlorine in MSW samples in Wilmington, Delaware. Other significant
chlorine sources in these samples were paper (23% of total chlorine), food waste (17%), and
rubber and leather (14%) (Table 4-14). Churney et al. (1985) analyzed MSW in Baltimore
County, Maryland, and Brooklyn, New York. In Baltimore County, all plastics contributed
approximately 30% to total chlorine content; the major chlorine source in these MSW samples
was paper (Table 4-14). In Brooklyn all plastics contributed 51% to total MSW chlorine; paper
was also the other major chlorine source in these samples, contributing 25% to total MSW
chlorine (Table 4-14). Total chlorine in the Brooklyn samples was also nearly double that in
the Baltimore County samples. Because PVC is by far the major chlorine-containing plastic,
some investigators have concluded from 'these statistics that PVC is potentially the largest single
source of HC1 emissions from incinerators, and contributes significantly to the potential for
corrosion under at least some operating conditions.
It is clear that there is a correlation between the PVC content of incinerator feed and
uncontrolled HC1 emissions. Kaiser and Carotti (1971) added varying amounts of PVC to
incinerator feed and identified an apparently linear relationship between the mass of PVC
added and HC1 emissions (Table 4-15). Their work has been corroborated in a series of test
runs at a Pittsfield, Massachusetts, incinerator (MRI, 1987).
The presence of hydrogen chloride gas does not cause significant corrosion under all operating
conditions. At low operating temperatures, HC1 may condense and form hydrochloric acid,
which will attack metal surfaces. Under some conditions at higher temperatures, a series of
reactions may occur between chlorine, steel, and oxygen to result in the formation of iron oxide
(rust). Many modern incinerators are constructed with corrosion-resistant materials
(refractories, ceramic-coated metals, reinforced plastics); and most include operating controls
sufficient to ensure that conditions conducive to HC1 corrosion occur infrequently, if ever.
Nonetheless, because a significant proportion of U.S. incinerator capacity has neither of these
safeguards against corrosion, the contribution of PVC to incinerator HC1 formation is a
potentially significant concern.
4.3.3 Environmental Releases
Plastics combustion products and residues may be released either to gaseous emissions or to ash
(including fly ash and bottom ash). Historically, three environmental releases from incinerated
plastics have caused the greatest concern:
• Hydrogen chloride (HC1) emissions
• Dioxin (i.e., polychlorinated dibenzodioxin (PCDD) and dibenzofuran (PCDF)) emissions
• Heavy metals in ash
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-14
CONTRIBUTION OF MSW CONSTITUENTS TO TOTAL MSW CHLORINE
MSW Constituent
Paper
Plastics
Organics, Total
Wood
Garden Waste
Food Waste
Textiles
"Fines"
Rubber and Leather
TOTAL
Total Chlorine
in MSW (% by Weight)
Contribution
Baltimore County
Maryland (1)
55%
30%
1%
4%
9%
ND
100%
0.46%
to Total MSW Chlorine
Brooklyn
New York (1)
25%
51%
6%
2%
15%
ND
100%
0.89%
New Castle County
Delaware (2)
23%
36%
1%
4%
17%
6%
14%
100%
ND
Sources:
(1) Churneyetal., 1985
(2) Alter et al., 1974. Note: Alter et al. analyzed only the organic fraction of MSW.
Therefore, these percentages overstate the contribution of each listed constituent to
total MSW chlorine, since some chlorine is found in inorganic MSW constituents.
-------
Table 4-15
EFFECT OF INCREASING THE PVC CONTENT
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
ON MEASURED CHLORINE LEVELS
Percentage of
Polyvinyl Chloride
Added
Chlorine
Content of
Flue Gas(a)
None
2 percent
4 percent
455
1,990
3,030
(a) ppm by volume of dry gas corrected to 12% carbon dioxide.
Source: Kaiser and Carotti, 1971.
4-43
-------
MWC emissions have caused particular concern because MWC facilities are frequently located
in or near heavily populated areas with potentially poor dispersion characteristics for emitted
pollutants. Concerns relate both to health impacts (e.g., from HC1 and dioxins) and to the
potential for corrosion of exposed surfaces (e.g., from HC1).
Concerns over hydrogen chloride (HC1) and dioxin emissions relate exclusively to the
combustion of PVC (and related chlorinated polymers), and not to other plastics present in
MSW; the source of concern is the chlorine content of these polymers and its potential
contribution to HC1 and dioxin formation. As stated above, both EPA and FDA are in the
process of completing analyses of the contribution of PVCs to MWC emissions and of their
impacts on human health and the environment. This section outlines the most significant areas
of uncertainty regarding the impacts of PVCs on MWC emissions, and summarizes evidence
tending to .reinforce or to rebut concerns about these impacts. But pending the completion of
the EPA and FDA analyses, this discussion does not present Agency conclusions about health
or environmental impacts related to the presence of PVCs in MSW incinerator feed.
Heavy metals are present in some plastics as additives — generally colorants or heat stabilizers.
The metals of greatest concern are lead and cadmium. Again, significant controversy surrounds
not just the contribution of plastics to the heavy metal content of MWC ash, but also the
more-encompassing questions related to the impacts of toxic MWC ash constituents from all
sources. This section focuses on the contribution of plastics to the total concentrations of lead
and cadmium in MWC ash, but does not address the larger issues related to the overall toxicity
of MWC ash.
Additional issues occasionally related to plastics combustion are emissions of phosphorous and
sulfur compounds, other products of incomplete combustion, and aerosols generated by flame
retardants and other plastics additives. These issues are addressed briefly in this section, but in
general they are considered to be much less significant than concerns related to PVC
combustion and to the contribution of plastics to heavy metals in MWC ash.
433.1 Emissions from MSW Incinerators
Five classes of emissions are addressed in the following paragraphs: hydrogen chloride, dioxins
and furans, sulfur and phosphorus compounds, products of incomplete combustion, and aerosols.
Of these, hydrogen chloride and dioxin emissions related to the combustion of PVC are
considered the most consequential.
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE - Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other chlorine-containing plastics
yield hydrogen chloride (HC1) gas when combusted. Chlorine emissions from MSW incinerators
have been correlated with the amount of PVC in MSW feed (see Table 4-15). Section 4.3.2.4
(above) focused on the impacts of HC1 on MWC management and operation, but HC1
emissions to MWC exhaust gases are also a significant issue. EPA has estimated current MWC
HC1 emissions to be approximately 24,000 metric tons per year, and emissions from projected
MWC facilities to be an additional 97,000 metric tons per year (assuming no acid gas controls
are installed) (U.S. EPA, 1987b). Potential concerns relate both to the impact of emitted HC1
4-44
-------
on exposed materials (e.g., corrosion of metals and other exposed surfaces) and to health
impacts on human and animal populations.
Section 4.3.2.4 reviewed a variety of evidence relating the generation of HC1 to the
concentration of PVCs in MSW, and cited apparently contradictory conclusions reached by a
number of researchers regarding the contribution of PVCs to HC1 emissions. Ongoing analyses
by both EPA and FDA will formalize these Agencies' conclusions regarding the significance of
this contribution and potential means to address any identified problems.
DIOXINS AND FURANS - Because of their toxicity, dioxins (PCDDs) and furans (PCDFs), in
either emissions or ash, have been among the greatest causes for public concern regarding
MSW combustion. PVCs and other chlorinated polymers are the plastics implicated in MWC
dioxin and furan generation. [Note: Most of the commodity plastics (e.g., PS, PET, PP,'
HDPE, and LDPE) do not contain chlorine and are not implicated in dioxin or furan
emissions.]
A voluminous technical literature exists examining the possible mechanisms of dioxin/furan
formation during combustion and the possible role of PVCs in dioxin/furan formation. The
following discussion summarizes the evidence (frequently contradictory) developed in this
literature and the disparate conclusions reached by a number of researchers. Pending
completion of ongoing EPA and FDA analyses of this issue, however, the Agency cannot
present definitive conclusions regarding the contribution of PVCs to MWC dioxin/furan
emissions.
The chemistry of dioxin/furan formation during MSW incineration is unclear. Four theories
have been developed to explain the presence of dioxins *and furans in incinerator emissions:
• Dioxins may be present in MSW constituents and may not be destroyed in the
incinerator. At least one study has cited evidence that dioxins may be present in MSW
incinerator feed in concentrations equal to or greater than those observed in stack
emissions, although the feed could not account for stack emissions of furans (Magee,
1989).
• Dioxins and furans may be formed from chlorinated organic precursors in the incinerator.
A variety of potential precursors may be present in MSW, including PCBs, PCPs, and
chlorinated benzenes.
• Dioxins and furans may be formed from organic compounds and a chlorine donor in the
incinerator. A wide variety of materials in MSW may yield the postulated organic
substrate (including petroleum products, wood and paper, and food wastes), while the
chlorine could be derived either from an organic donor (e.g., PVC) or an inorganic
chloride salt.
• Dioxins and furans may be formed from organic compounds and a chlorine donor as a
result of catalyzed reactions on fly ash in incinerator exhaust. Again, a wide variety of
materials in MSW may provide either the organic substrate or the chlorine donor.
4-45
-------
As a chlorine donor, chlorinated plastics may contribute to the third and/or fourth of these
mechanisms. Virtually any organic material (e.g., paper, wood, food waste) may provide the
postulated organic precursors. There is no indication that PVCs or any other plastics contribute
disproportionately to postulated organic substrates.
All but the first of these mechanisms relate the formation of dioxins and furans to incomplete
combustion of organic compounds. Dioxin/furan formation by these mechanisms demands the
presence of complex aromatic organic substrates — compounds that may be released during
pyrolysis of plastics, wood, paper, food wastes, leather, or of almost any other organic MSW
constituent. But these compounds are amenable to complete oxidation. With proper operating
conditions, therefore, including the presence of sufficient oxygen and a high flame temperature,
the potential for dioxin and furan formation can be very much reduced by destruction of the
required precursors. One of the primary goals in the design of current MSW incinerators is to
ensure that both combustor design and operational control are such that complete combustion
is facilitated and complex organic compounds are completely destroyed during incineration.
Evidence Refuting a Relationship between PVC and Dioxin/Furan Formation — Experiments
conducted at a modular, excess air incinerator in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, addressed the
relationship between PVC feed concentration and PCDD/PCDF emissions. Under varying
operating temperatures and feed compositions, the study failed to establish a statistically
significant correlation between the amount of PVC in the incinerator feed and the levels of
PCDDs or PCDFs at any of a number of measurement locations (incinerator exhaust up- and
downstream of the boiler and in the stack). The study did identify a negative correlation
between PCDD/PCDF concentration and incinerator temperatures, and a positive correlation
between PCDD/PCDF concentration and carbon monoxide levels; these results tend to confirm
the influence of operating conditions on dioxin and furan formation (MRI, 1987).
* ;
Magee (1989) reviewed a number of studies on the impact of PVC on incinerator emissions and
concluded that the weight of evidence refutes any hypothesized correlation between PVC and
dioxin/furan emissions. For example, Benfenati and Gizzi (1983, cited in Magee, 1989)
attempted to correlate PCDD/PCDF emissions with HC1, SO2, NO,,, and CO emissions from a
refuse incinerator using multiple regression techniques on data gathered over a nine-month
period. No significant correlation was found. Ballschmiter (1983, cited in Magee, 1989) studied
PCDD/PCDF emissions from six incinerators in Germany over one year of operation. His
conclusions were as follows: "We have tried to correlate this wide range of dioxin content in
fly ash with other measurable parameters... our particular concern was focused on HC1
emissions, but there is no simple correlation with PCDD formation. The results even suggest
no correlation at all."
A similar conclusion was reached by Visalli (1987, cited in Magee, 1989), who reviewed three
incinerator test programs (including the Pittsfield study mentioned above). Visalli commented
that because chlorine availability from all MSW sources is thousands of times greater than that
required to account for measured PCDD/PCDF concentrations, it is extremely unlikely that
dioxin and furan formation can be correlated with any single chlorine source. This conclusion
was corroborated by Karasek et al. (1983, cited in Magee, 1989), who added sufficient PVC to
triple the concentration found in unamended MSW but identified no increase in dioxin or furan
emissions.
4-46
-------
Rankin (Rutgers, 1986) has also summarized a number of studies and reviews that examined the
relationship between chlorinated plastics and PCDD/PCDF emissions; and he found no evidence
that such a relationship exists. Rankin also pointed out that even if all chlorinated plastics
were removed from mixed MSW, the concentration of chlorine available from other sources is
many times greater than that required to account for all the dioxins and furans present in
municipal waste combustor emissions. *
Evidence Supporting a Relationship between PVC and Dioxin/Furan Formation — Contradicting
this evidence, a number of studies suggest that PVCs do play a role in the formation of dioxins
and furans during MSW incineration ~ and that this role is potentially significant enough to
warrant regulatory concern. A number of bench scale and laboratory studies (e.g., Markland et
al., 1986; Liberti and Brocco, 1982) have reported the formation of PCDDs/PCDFs both when
chlorinated plastics are pyrolized alone and when PVC is added as a chlorine donor to
combustion mixtures consisting of pure vegetable extracts.
In an analysis conducted in 1988, FDA (1988b) made the following statement regarding the
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, incineration study cited above:
Although no statistically significant effect was found between the amount of PVC in waste
and emissions of PCDD, [and] PCDF ..'.,' the Pittsfield data suggest the possibility that a
relationship exists. When the data are normalized for waste feed and airflow rates, mean
concentrations of PCDD and PCDF usually increased when PVC was added to the feed.
The minimal replication as well as substantial variability suggest that the statistical power of
the tests to determine the effect of PVC spiking of feed was low.
FDA (1988) was also uncertain of the extent to which the Pittsfield study results could be
extrapolated to the variety of existing incinerator conditions. EPA agrees with FDA's analysis
of the Pittsfield study results. At least one reviewer of the Pittsfield study (Clarke, 1988) has
suggested that the apparent relationship between PVC concentration and furan emissions was
more pronounced than the apparent relationship with dioxins.
Summary — Given these conflicting experimental results and the very different interpretations
sometimes imposed on a single set of experimental data, it is hardly surprising that the
contribution of PVCs to dioxin/furan formation remains a very controversial issue. A number of
judgments can be made on the basis of existing evidence, however:
• Incinerator operating conditions are more important to PCDD/PCDF formation than the
presence or absence of any single MSW constituent. However, it appears unlikely that
operating conditions can be controlled adequately to ensure that dioxins are never formed
during normal incinerator operations (Linak et al., 1987).
• PVCs can serve as a chlorine donor for PCDD/PCDF formation.
• There are multiple sources of chlorine in MSW, which in sum provide chlorine
concentrations many times those sufficient to account for observed PCDD/PCDF
emissions.
• PVC may be one of the major sources of chlorine in MSW.
4-47
-------
The analytical efforts currently underway at both EPA and FDA should result in a compilation
of the best evidence available to address the importance of PVCs to MWC dioxin and furan
emissions, the further development of these Agencies' positions regarding the contribution of
PVCs to dioxin and furan emissions, and appropriate strategies to address any identified
problems.
SULFUR AND PHOSPHORUS EMISSIONS - No major commercial plastic polymers contain
high percentages of sulfur or phosphorus, and EPA has not identified any significant concerns
related to the contribution of plastics to MWC sulfur or phosphorus emissions. Phosphorus
may be present in organophosphate flame retardant additives used in polyurethanes in furniture
and bedding applications, and in organophosphate plasticizers employed in a variety of plastics
(Radian, 1987; Dynamac, 1983a). In the experiments of Kaiser and Carotti (1971), the
presence of 4% plastics in the MSW stream had no significant effect on sulfur (SO2) emissions;
only polyurethane plastic had any effect on the phosphate (PO/") emissions. These results
suggest combustion of a chloro-organic phosphate flame retardant, which may have been
present in the polyurethane (Dynamac, 1983a).
PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION - Products of incomplete combustion may be
emitted if MWC combustion conditions are inadequate to allow the complete oxidation of
MSW pyrolysis products. The most common causes of incomplete combustion are inadequate
oxygen and low flame temperature. Products of incomplete combustion from all sources in
MSW include soot, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, organonitriles, olefins, and chlorinated
aliphatics and aromatics (Dynamac, 1983b). Many of these compounds are toxic, and even the
nontoxic compounds can contribute to smog formation.
Any discussion of the contribution of plastics to incomplete combustion products must be placed
in the context of the entire MSW stream. Pyrolysis of virtually any organic material results in
the formation of a wide variety of compounds, toxic and nontoxic. EPA's research has not
generated any evidence to suggest that plastics pyrolysis products are any more (or less) toxic
than the pyrolysis products of other MSW constituents.
i ' '
Virtually all pyrolysis products can be oxidized under proper incinerator operating conditions
(adequate oxygen combined with a flame temperature in the incinerator's designed operating
range). Given this fact, MSW constituents that tend to promote the maintenance of proper
operating conditions are unlikely to contribute to the formation of incomplete combustion
products; conversely, MSW constituents that tend to quench the incinerator flame may tend to
be responsible for the formation of such products. Against this standard, virtually all plastics in
MSW appear to promote the maintenance of conditions conducive to complete combustion, and
so to reduce the possibility that pyrolysis products will be emitted. The possible exceptions to
this conclusion pertain to plastics containing significant concentrations of flame retardant
additives, but EPA has seen no evidence suggesting that these are a significant concern.
AEROSOLS FROM PLASTICS ADDITIVES - Noncombustible plastics additives may be a
source of a variety of aerosol pollutants from MSW combustion, including species of bromine,
phosphorus, antimony (all used for flame retardants), and others.
4-48
-------
No direct evidence links plastics to observed ambient concentrations of these aerosols, and
indirect evidence is inconclusive. Gordon (1980) examined the elemental composition of urban
aerosols and suggested that contributions come from various source materials (e.g., soil, coal,
limestone, oil, motor vehicle exhaust, sea salt, and MSW). Gordon's findings suggest that much
of the airborne particulate content of antimony, cadmium, and zinc can be attributed to MSW.
Plastics, in turn, may be the source of a significant proportion of antimony and cadmium in
MSW.
EPA has estimated current MWC cadmium emissions to be approximately 10.4 metric tons per
year (U.S. EPA, 1987b). Data developed by Franklin Associates (1988b) suggest that plastics
may contribute over 30% of all cadmium in MSW and as much as 88% of all cadmium in the
combustible fraction of MSW. Although to EPA's knowledge no concerns have been raised
regarding MWC cadmium air emissions nor of the contribution of plastics to such air emissions,
the contribution of MSW plastics to ambient cadmium concentrations may merit further
research.
U.S. EPA (1987b) has estimated that 341 metric tons per year of lead are emitted from
municipal waste combustors. However, plastics contribute only some 1.7% to all lead in MSW
(Franklin Associates, 1988b), and EPA is not aware of any empirical or theoretical evidence
linking MSW plastics combustion to potential concerns regarding MWC lead air emissions.
Therefore, EPA does not consider MWC lead air emissions associated with plastics combustion
to be of concern.
433.2 Plastics Contribution to Incinerator Ash
MWC ash is the subject of significant controversy. Public and Congressional concern has
focused on the toxicity of MWC ash, primarily on fly ash. Ash, by definition, includes the
noncombustible, or refractory, fraction of MSW that is not susceptible to pyrolysis and
combustion during incinerator operations. Incinerator ash consists of two fractions:
• Bottom ash consists of relatively large particles removed from the grate or bed of the
incinerator.
• Fly ash includes very fine particles entrained in incinerator exhaust gases — the
"particulates" captured by air pollution control devices. Because of its high surface
area:volume ratio, fly ash typically holds more leachable compounds on particle surfaces
than bottom ash and is more susceptible to leaching. Fly ash may also provide sites for
the catalysis of reactions in flue gases; for example, one proposed mechanism for dioxin
formation postulates a catalyzed reaction between hydrocarbons and a chlorine donor on
the surface of fly ash particles.
Plastics may have two impacts on MWC ash generation: 1) they may affect the volume of ash
generated, and 2) they may affect the toxicity of either fly or bottom ash.
4-49
-------
VOLUME OF ASH GENERATED - EPA has estimated that between 3.2 and 8.1, million tons
of MWC ash were generated in 1988, representing between 20 and 50% of the mass of
incinerated MSW. Bottom ash constitutes 90 to 95% of total MSW ash; fly ash constitutes 5 to
10% of all ash generated (U.S. EPA, 1988b).
Virtually all of the carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and halogens in plastics combust to gaseous
compounds and are emitted with stack gases during MSW combustion. Nqncombustible plastics
additives may produce refractory residues that contribute to fly and bottom ash generation.
Based on the concentration of additives in plastics (see Section 2), EPA has no evidence that
plastics contribute disproportionately to the volume of MSW ash generated. The concentration
of refractory materials is somewhat less in plastics than in MSW as a whole, suggesting that
their relative volumetric contribution to incinerator ash generation is less than their contribution
to the raw MSW waste stream.
INCINERATOR ASH TOXICITY - Toxic metals are the constituents of concern in plastics ash.
These metals, used as additives in a variety of plastics products, include antimony, lead,
cadmium, zinc, chromium, tin, and molybdenum. Of these substances, lead and cadmium have
generated the most debate in relation to their contribution to MWC ash toxicity and are the
focus of the following discussion.
As plastics additives, lead and cadmium are dispersed in a combustible medium. As such, they
tend to be driven from the solid plastic during pyrolysis and to become entrained in the
combustion gases and exhaust stream; ultimately, a substantial proportion presumably contribute
to incinerator fly ash. Because most other lead and cadmium in MSW is contained in
noncombustible items (see discussion below), the relative contribution of plastics to lead and
cadmium in fly ash is probably greater than their contribution to lead and cadmium
concentrations in unprocessed MSW.
Franklin Associates (1988b) has generated estimates of the contribution of plastics to total
MSW discards of lead and cadmium (see Table 4-6). Franklin Associates estimates that 98% of
lead discards are in noncombustible items. Of the 2.4% of lead contained in combustibles,
plastics contribute an estimated 71%; therefore, plastics contribute about 1.7% of total lead
discards. For cadmium, the situation is markedly different. Franklin Associates estimates that
36% of discarded cadmium is dispersed in combustible items and that 88% of this subtotal is
represented by plastics. Thus, plastics account for nearly 32% of all cadmium discards, and for
the bulk of discards in combustible items.
Using a different methodology, Considine (1989) has generated similar estimates of the
contribution of plastics items to total discards of cadmium. For lead, Considine's estimates
suggest a somewhat greater proportion of lead in the combustible fraction (15%), and a greater
(5%) contribution of plastics to lead in MSW.
4-50
-------
4.4 LITTER
Improper disposal practices are a subject of concern. This section examines the characteristics
of general and plastic litter and compares types of litter for their impact on the solid waste
stream.
4.4.1 Background
The content of litter is described in data collected from agencies with responsibilities for public
roads or lands and from beach cleanup activities. For example, the Michigan Department of
Transportation has conducted collection surveys of litter along state roads and highways
(Michigan DOT, 1986), Table 4-16 indicates the types of litter generated in a variety of places,
e.g., near roads and in parks. Plastic articles range from 13.4 to 21.1% of the total in the
various areas. (These statistics on the relative share of plastic waste are not comparable to
other analyses of solid waste, such as municipal garbage, because they are generated by a count
of articles rather than by weight or volume measurements.)
For marine and beach wastes, information .was presented in Sections 2 and 3 on the results of
large beach and harbor cleanup and survey efforts. For one of the beach cleanup efforts,
plastic wastes (again measured by a count of items) represented nearly two-thirds of the debris
collected. This quantity is consistent with the expectation that plastic materials are most likely
to be transported to the beach and thus will be highly represented in beach cleanup.
The Michigan research also can be used, although with some caution, to indicate the change in
the composition of litter over time. Table 4-17 presents summaries of the litter collection
results during 30-day tallying periods conducted for several years between 1968 and 1986. The
share of plastics in the items collected grew from 10.0% in 1968 to 21.2% in 1986. Bottles and
cans have both declined as a percentage of total waste. It should be noted, however, that
Michigan passed a "bottle bill" in 1978, a change that would influence the relative shares of
plastic wastes and other materials in Jitter. Thus, the change in the relative share of plastic
items is indicative in unknown proportions to their increased share of numerous end use
markets and the effect of the bottle bill legislation.
The growth in plastic litter may be particularly influenced by developments in lifestyle that
increase the use of plastics in certain activities or situations which are prone to generation of
litter. An indication of the relationship of plastic litter to the activities in which it is generated
can be provided by the Michigan data on the plastic items accumulated in a 30-day collection
period in 1986. Table 4-18 shows the distribution of plastic articles. It is interesting to note
that fast-food containers and drink cups represented nearly 40% of the items. A common
perception that fast-food packaging is responsible for much of the glut of solid wastes — a
perception noted by Rathje (et al., 1988) — could originate partly from the observations of
littered fast-food wastes. The largest category of plastic wastes, however, could be grouped only
as miscellaneous items.
Litter is generated, however, from sources other than the casual fast-food patron. Keep
America Beautiful (KAB), a national nonprofit public education organization that endeavors to
improve community waste handling practices, has examined* litter and other solid waste
4-51
-------
Table 4-16
COMPOSITION OF LITTER AT
VARIOUS MICHIGAN STUDY SITES
(1986)
Percent of Items
-p*.
K)
Litter Type
Cans
Glass
Plastic
Paper
Miscellaneous
Highway
4.3
2.8
21.1
51.4
20.4
County
Roads
6.5
2.6
13.4
73.1
4.4
City
5.7
6.6
14.9
66.6
6.2
State
Parks
8.7
9.9
23.0
53.5
4.9
Roadside
Parks
2.6
3.6
15.6
78.2
0.0
Rest
Area
1.4
0.4
15.3
81.5
1.4
TOTAL
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: Michigan DOT, 1986.
-------
Table 4-17
NUMBERS AND TYPES OF ITEMS ACCUMULATED PER MILE(a)
ALONG MICHIGAN STATE HIGHWAYS IN A 30-DAY PERIOD
(1968-1986)
w
1968 1977 1978
Type of Item No. % No. % No. %
CANS - beer, soft 74 9.9 162 15.1 180 13.8
drink & food
BOTTLES - beer, soft 49 6.5 47 4.4 48 3.7
drink, food & liquor
PLASTIC - packages 75 10.0 159 14.8 156 12.0
& containers
PAPER - newspaper, 392 52.3 506 47.1 795 61.1
packages & containers
MISCELLANEOUS- 159 21.2 201 18.7 123 9.4
incl. auto parts
TOTAL 749 100.0 1,075 100.0 1,302 100.0
1979 1980 1986
No. % No. % No. %
34 4.4 21 3.0 35 4.3
11 1.4 8 1.1 23 2.8
122 15.9 130 18.6 172 21.2
519 67.8 412 59.0 418 51.4
80 10.4 127 18.2 165 20.3
766 100.0 698 100.0 813 100.0
(a) Extrapolations based upon monitoring of 36 permanent study sites.
Source: Michigan DOT, 1986.
-------
Table 4-18
NUMBERS AND TYPES OF PLASTIC ITEMS ACCUMULATED PER MILE(a)
ALONG MICHIGAN ROADSIDES IN A 30-DAY PERIOD
(1986)
Type of Item
Fast food containers
Fast food drink
Other ready-to-consume drinks(b)
Non-returnable soft drink
Returnable soft drink
Returnable beer
Non-returnable beer
Ready-to-consume liquor drink
Wine cooler
Other plastic items
Number
34.7
30.5
6.3
1.9
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
96.2
Percentage
of Total
20.2
17.8
3.7
1.1
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
56.0
TOTAL
171.7
100.0
(a) Extrapolations based upon monitoring of 36 permanent study sites.
(b) e.g. juice containers.
Source: Michigan DOT, 1986.
4-54
-------
problems. KAB officials have stated that substantial litter is generated by wastes falling or
blowing from uncovered truck beds. In many communities, KAB supports local ordinances
requiring that truck beds be covered (Tobin, 1989).
4.4.2 Analysis of Relative Impacts of Plastic and Other Litter
As a step in analyzing the litter problem, these wastes can be usefully categorized as follows:
• Litter discarded in areas, such as urban areas, where there is likely to be litter collection
• Litter discarded in areas where there is little or no policing for solid waste collection
• Litter that accumulates in beach and other shore areas
These categories allow generalizations about issues that determine the impact and significance
of litter. This discussion differentiates among impacts generated by plastic litter and by other
types of litter.
For the first category of waste, the litter is assumed to be routinely collected and thus to add to
the general municipal solid wastes. The impact of such plastic litter is therefore considered in
the context of regular collection efforts. For litter classified in the first category:
• The discarded objects represent an aesthetic loss to the community; the loss may be
marginally greater for plastic wastes due to qualities of this waste (such as bright,
unnatural coloring and tendency to be blown around by wind). Glass litter, however, may
represent a greater nuisance value due to breakage.
• Collection places a burden on community services for waste pickup. No incremental
impact, however, from plastics waste (as opposed to paper or glass) could be defined.
• The persistence of plastic waste is not significant because waste collection is assumed to
occur well before degradation occurs for any waste except food wastes.
For the second category of litter, the lack of waste collection efforts influences the impacts of
the plastic litter. For litter classified in the second category:
• The discarded wastes also represent an aesthetic loss to the community; this loss could be
marginally greater for plastic wastes due to qualities of this waste (such as bright,
unnatural coloring and a tendency to be blown by wind). Glass litter, however, may
represent a greater nuisance due to breakage.
• The slow degradation of the plastic waste increases the aesthetic loss because the litter is
assumed to remain uncollected for long periods. The incremental loss due to plastics
litter remains modest, however, relative to other materials, which also require some time
to degrade.
4-55
-------
JBeach and marine litter represents a separate category because it is the result of both land
activities and wastes from commercial and recreational use of the seas. Plastic wastes from the
Jatter selectively survive ocean currents and wash up on beaches. In this category:
• Plastics generate a disproportionate share of the litter problem due to the likelihood that
plastics litter from marine activities will be washed up on the beach.
i
• The beach cleanup efforts of some communities can be taxed by the constant volume of
plastic wastes reaching the beach. Because of the uneven patterns of waste deposition on
beaches, some communities face unusually large beach clean-up requirements. The Texas
Gulf Coast areas, for example, receive large amounts of ocean debris.
• Plastic litter on beaches represents an aesthetic loss to the community, particularly
because of the high value placed on the beach resource, as is evident in high property
values and in the popularity of beaches as resort areas.
The high value of beach resources, and of clean beaches in particular, has been investigated a
number of times. Researchers have utilized several techniques to develop measures of the
value of clean beaches to area residents and to tourists. (For more information on the
valuation of beach areas, see Silberman and Klock, 1988; Boyle and Bishop, 1984; Bell and
Leeworthy, 1986.)
4-56
-------
REFERENCES
Alter, H. 1986. Disposal and Reuse of Plastics. In: Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and
Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Alter, H., G. Ingle, and E.R. Kaiser. 1974. Chemical analyses of the- organic portions of
household refuse; the effect of certain elements on incineration and resource recovery. Solid
Wastes Management 64(12):706-712. Dec 1974.
Ballschmiter, K. et. al. 1983. Occurrence and absence of polychlordibenzofurans and
polychlordibenzodioxins in fly ash from municipal incinerators. Chemosphere 12(4/5):585-594. As
cited in Magee, 1989. .
Barcelona, MJ. 1989. Telephone communication between M.J. Barcelona of Illinois State Water
Survey and Eastern Research Group. Mar 17.
Barcelona, MJ. et al. 1985. Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bell, F.W. and V.R. Leeworthy. 1986. An Economic Analysis of the Importance of Saltwater
Beaches in Florida. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 82. Feb 1986.
Benfenati, E. et. al. 1983. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
in emissions from an urban incinerator. Correlation between concentration of micropollutants and
combustion conditions. Chemosphere 12(9/10):1151-1157. As cited in Magee, 1989.
Boettner, E.A, G.L. Ball, and B. Weiss. 1973. Combustion Products from the Incineration of
Plastics. National Technical Information Services. Springfield, VA. EPA 670/2-73-049. NTIS PB
222-001.
Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1984. A Comparison of Contingent Valuation Techniques.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Agricultural Economics Working Paper No. 22. Jul 1984.
Center for Plastics Recycling Research. 1986. Environmental Impacts of Plastics Disposal in
Municipal Solid Wastes. Technical Report #12. Rutgers University. Piscataway, NJ.
Churney, K.L. et al. 1985. The Chlorine Content of Municipal Solid Waste from Baltimore
County, MD, and Brooklyn, NY. National Bureau of Standards. Gaithersburg, MD. NBSIR 85-
3213.
Clarke, MJ. 1988. Improving Environmental Performance of MSW Incinerators. Paper presented
at Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute Forum (Washington DC, Nov 1988).
Considine, WJ. 1989. The Contribution of the Plastic Copmponent of Municipal Solid Waste to
the Heavy Metal Content of Municipal Solid Waste and Municipal Waste Combustor Ash. Report
prepared for the Society of the Plastics Industry, Washington, DC. Apr 1989.
4-57
-------
Curran C.M. and M.B. Tomson. 1983. Leaching of trace organics into water from five common
plastics. Ground Water Monitoring Review. Summer 1983. pp. 68-71.
Dunlap, WJ. et al. 1976. Organic Pollutants Contributed to Groundwater by a Landfill. Gas and
Leachate from Landfills. U.S. EPA Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division. Cincinnati,
OH.
Dynamac. 1983a. An Overview of the Exposure Potential of Commercial Flame Retardants. EPA
Contract 68-01-6239. Dynamac Corporation. Rockville, MD.
Dynamac. 1983b. An Overview of Synthetic Materials Producing Toxic Fumes During Fires. EPA
Contract 68-01-6239. Dynamac Corporation, Rockville, MD.
FDA. 1988a. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vinyl Chloride and Other Chlorinated
Polymers; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. 53 FR 47264. Federal Register.
Nov 22, 1988.
/
FDA. 1988b. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Documentation supplied in support of a letter
from Richard J. Ronk, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, to Richard Sanderson, U.S. EPA Office of Federal Activities, requesting EPA assistance
in the environmental review of a proposed rule on vinyl chloride polymers. Feb 2, 1988.
Forester, W. 1988. Solid waste: There's a lot more coming. EPA Journal 14(4):11-12. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
Franklin Associates. 1988a. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960
to 2000 (update 1988). Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-
01-7310. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS.
Franklin Associates. 1988b. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS.
Gordon, G.E. 1980. Receptor Models. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14(7):792-800.
i
Kaiser, F.R. and A.A. Carotti. 1971. Municipal Incineration of Refuse with 2% and 4% Additions
of Four Plastics: Polyethylene, Polystyrene, Polyurethane, Polyvinyl Chloride. Society of the
Plastics Industries. New York, NY.
Karasek, F.W. et al. 1983. Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric study on the formation of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polyvinyl chloride in a municipal incinerator. J. Chrom.
270:227. As cited in Magee, 1989.
Kinman, R. et al. 1985. Evaluation and Disposal of Waste Within 19 Test Lysimeters at Center
Hill. U.S. EPA Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Facility. Cincinnati, OH.
4-58
-------
Leidner, J. 1981. Plastics Waste, Recovery of Economic Value. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
NY. 317 p.
Liberti, A. and Brbcco. 1982. Formation of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-dioxins and Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans in Urban Incineration Emissions. In: Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds:
Impact on the Environment. Pergamon Press. New York, NY.
Lu, J.C.S., B. Eichenberger, and R.J. Stearns. 1985. Leachate From Municipal Landfills,
Production and Management. Noyes Publications. Park Ridge, NJ.
Magee, R.S. 1989. Plastics in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: A Literature Study. Prepared
by the Hazardous Substance Management Research Center of the New Jersey Institute of
Technology for the Society of the Plastics Industry. Washington; DC. 54 p.
Markland, S. et al. 1986. Determination of PCDDs and PCDFs in Incineration Samples and
Pyrolytic Products. In: C. Rappe, G. Choudhary, and L.H. Keith, (eds). Chlorinated Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans in Perspective. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI.
Michigan DOT. 1986. Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Michigan Litter Composition Study.
Maintenance Division.
Modern Plastics. 1988. Solid waste becomes "crisis." Modern Plastics 65:25-26. Jan 1988.
MRI. 1987. Midwest Research Institute. Results of the Combustion and Emissions Research
Project at the Vicon Incinerator Facility in Pittsfield, MA. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas
City, MO. pp S-l to S-4.
Murthy, A. et al. 1989. Biochemical Transformations Within Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
Proceedings of the Sixth National RCRA/Superfund Conference. April 12-14, 1989. New Orleans,
LA. Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute.
NSWMA. 1988. National Solid Wastes Management Association. Landfill Capacity in the U.S.:
How Much Do We Really Have? Washington, DC.
Radian Corporation. 1987. Chemical Additives for the Plastics Industry: Properties, Applications,
Toxicologies. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
Radian Corporation. 1989. Database of Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Studies. Database
maintained for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplied by Ruth Mead, Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Rauch Associates, Inc. 1987. The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Plastics Industry.
Rathje, W.L. et al. 1988. Source Reduction and Landfill Myths. Le Project du Garbage. Dept
of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Paper presented at Forum of the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials on Integrated Municipal Waste
Management, July 17-20, 1988.
4-59
-------
Rathje, W.L. 1989. Telephone conversation between Eastern Research Group and Dr. W.L.
Rathje of the University of Arizona. Mar 6.
Repa, E. 1989. Telephone conversation between Eastern Research Group and Edward Repa of
the National Solid Wqstes Management Association. Mar 3.
Sax, IN. and R.J. Lewis, Sr. 1987. Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, llth Ed. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York, NY.
Schlegel, J. 1989. Telephone conversation between Eastern Research Group and Jack Schlegel
of International Plastics Consultants Corporation. May 3.
SCS Engineers. 1988. Pilot Scale Evaluation of Sludge Landfilling: Four Years of Operation.
NTIS PB88-208434. May.
i . .• . • h
Seelinger, R.W. 1984. Comments submitted by Richard Seelinger, Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.,
to Dr. Buzz Hoffman, U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration, Environmental Impact Section, in
response to proposed expansion of the use of polyvinyl chloride in consumer product applications.
July 2, 1984.
Silberman, J. and M. Klock. 1988. The recreation benefits of beach renourishment. Ocean and
Shoreline Management 11:73-90.
SPL 1985. Society of the Plastics Industry. Position Paper for Exempting Compounded Plastics
from the California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Washington, DC.
Sykes, AX. et al. 1986. Sorption of organics by monitoring well construction materials. Ground
Water Monitoring Reports. Fall:44-47.
Tobin, K. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Kit Tobin,
Manager of Network Services, Keep America Beautiful, Stamford, CT. Apr 5.
Tsuchiya, Y. and G. Williams-Leir. 1976. Equilibrium composition of fire atmospheres in smoke
and products of combustion. In: Hilado C.J. (ed). Fire and Flammability Series Vol. 15, part II.
Technomic Publishing Co. Westport, CT. pp. 381-392.
U.S. EPA- 1987a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Waste Combustion Study,
Report to Congress. EPA/530-SW-87-021a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1987b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment of Municipal Waste
Combustor Emissions Under the Clean Air Act. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 52 FR
25399. July 7, 1987.
U.S. EPA 1988a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: Solid Waste
Disposal in the United States. EPA/530-SW-88-011B. Washington, DC.
4-60
-------
U.S. EPA. 1988b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet:
Combustion Ash. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Municipal Waste
U.S. EPA 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda
for Action. EPA/530-SW-89-019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
Visalli, J.R. 1987. A Comparison of Some Results from the Combustion-Emission Test Programs
at the Pittsfield, Prince Edward Island and Peekskill Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association (New York, June 1987). As cited in Magee,
1989.
Webster, I. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Dr. Ian
Webster, Unocal, Inc., Environmental Affairs Division. Los Angeles, CA. May 3.
Wilson, D.C. et al. 1982. Leaching of cadmium from pigmented plastics in a landfill site. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 16(9): 560-566.
Wirka, J. 1989. Comments submitted by Jeanne Wirka, Environmental Action Foundation, in
response to a draft version of EPA's Report to Congress, Methods to Manage and Control Plastics
Waste. April 20, 1989.
4-61
-------
-------
SECTION FIVE
OPTIONS TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS WASTES
This section explores the options available for improving the management of plastic wastes.
The principal topics covered include source reduction, plastics recycling, and use of degradable
plastics. The section examines the potential role for and the major environmental and other
implications of each of the options. An additional discussion covers the potential methods to
improve controls over the releases of plastics to the marine environment.
5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
5.1.1 Source Reduction
• Source reduction, which includes activities that reduce the amount or toxicity of waste
generated, may be achieved in many ways, including:
- modifying the design of a product or package to decrease the amount of materials
used,
— substituting away from toxic constituents, and
- using economies of scale with product concentrates or larger size containers.
• Some source reduction efforts, particularly those involving material substitution, generate
changes in resource costs, manufacturing processes, product use and utility, and waste
disposal. Such source reduction opportunities should be systematically evaluated to
assess potential impacts.
• Opportunities for volume reduction should be sought in all components of MSW.
Plastics are thought to be a potential candidate for consideration.
• Toxicity reduction through the decreased use of lead- and cadmium-based additives in
plastics is possible, but substitution away from these additives must be done carefully,
with consideration of a wide range of factors. &
• EPA identified four studies of the energy and environmental effects of source reduction
possibilities involving material substitution. While none of the studies covered the entire
range of factors of interest, the studies are indicative of the type of research needed.
The studies indicated that plastics did not generate exceptional environmental releases
relative to possible alternative materials, such as paper and glass.
• Source reduction efforts aimed at plastic wastes (e.g., bans on polystyrene foam) have
been initiated by Federal, State and local governments and by industry. EPA is not
aware of a full systematic analysis of the potential benefits or impacts of these efforts.
5-1
-------
5.1.2 Recycling
• Current estimates indicate that approximately 1% of the post-consumer plastic waste
stream is recycled.
• Some recycling technologies employ inputs of relatively homogeneous recycled resins to
yield products that compete with those produced from virgin plastics resins. They offer
the greatest potential to reduce long-term requirements for plastics disposal. There are
no foreseeable limitations on markets for products of these technologies; their
deployment is currently constrained by limited supplies of clean, homogeneous recycled
resins.
• Other recycling technologies use inputs of mixed, potentially contaminated plastics to yield
products that compete not with virgin resin products, but with commodities like lumber
and concrete. Unless the products of this recycling are recycled themselves, this process
will not ultimately reduce requirements for plastics disposal. Markets exist for the
products of these technologies, but continued growth of the mixed resin recycling industry
may depend on the identification of additional markets, technological developments to
increase product quality, and reduction of costs to increase cost-competitiveness in
identified markets.
• Recycling processes that are often termed "tertiary" employ a wide variety of inputs,
ranging from mixed plastics and nonplastics to very pure resins, to yield products
consisting of hydrocarbon fuels and possible chemical feedstocks. Only the latter outputs
result in effective plastics recycling, but their production demands the use of nearly pure
resins, which are in limited supply, as inputs to the tertiary process.
! " I I ' I ' "I, , !|' '
• Curbside collection of plastics (and other recyclable components of MSW) provides the
vehicle for capturing the greatest variety and amount of plastic waste. But this strategy is
not universally applicable, imposes relatively high costs for collection, and may result in
collection of a mixed plastics waste stream that may not be amenable to the processing
alternatives that produce the highest quality products.
1 ••' •'' • • • '
• Container deposit legislation, originally adopted as litter control legislation, will not divert
a significant amount of plastic waste. Soft drink containers, the usual target of deposit
legislation, represent only 3 percent of all plastics in the municipal solid waste stream.
Deposit legislation, however, typically captures a large percentage of targeted items and
yields well-characterized plastics.
• No significant deleterious environmental impacts are known to be associated with plastics
recycling.
• Because recycling of post-consumer plastic wastes is fairly new, its long-term viability and
its ability to reduce plastic disposal requirements are, at this time, unknown.
5-2
-------
5.13 Degradable Plastics
• Various mechanisms are technically viable for manufacturing degradable plastics, but
photodegradation and biodegradation are the principal mechanisms that have been
explored.
• A variety of technologies have been developed to enhance photodegradation or
biodegradation of certain plastic materials although thus far, very little data are available
regarding degradation byproducts and residues and their effect on the environment.
• Degradable plastics will generally sell at a price premium to nondegradable plastics and
may generate additional costs in processing and distribution.
• According to current limited data, photodegradation (i.e., loss of structure and strength)
of small plastic items takes less than a year, but biodegradation (i.e., degradation of the
filler material such as cornstarch) of plastic products requires several years.
• The limited data available suggest that photodegradation rates are somewhat reduced in
marine environments.
• Uncertainty surrounds the effect different degradable technologies, when applied
commercially, will have on the post-consumer recycling process.
• Most commercial application of enhanced degradable technologies for plastics' has been
encouraged by the legislative initiatives in this area; inherent product cost or product
quality considerations are generally unfavorable to the use of degradable plastics.
5.1.4 Additional Efforts to Mitigate Impacts of Plastic Waste
B Among the options available to EPA for controlling sewer, stormwater, and nonpoint
source discharges of plastic wastes to the marine environment are increased enforcement
and/or regulatory development under the Clean Water Act.
• Implementation of the MARPOL Annex V prohibitions on deliberate disposal of plastic
wastes from all vessels should help reduce volumes of plastic waste disposed of from
vessels, although the absence of controls on fishing gear losses and uncertain regulatory
compliance levels among U.S. and foreign vessels make the degree of improvement
uncertain.
• A variety of measures are needed to reduce losses of fishing nets, traps, and other gear
to the marine environment, because these losses are not regulated under MARPOL
Annex V. Several methods are being considered by NOAA
B Incineration and landfilling, which will still be needed for disposal of plastic and other
wastes, are coming under increased regulatory control under their respective programs.
5-3
-------
5.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE EXAMINATION OF PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
\
This section examines several strategies for reducing or mitigating impacts of plastic waste
disposal. The strategies are geared to resolving the specific issues identified in Sections 3
and 4.
Table 5-1 summarizes the principal waste management issues identified in the earlier sections.
One important marine problem, entanglement, is mainly associated with various fishing-related
wastes. Other implicated products are uncut strapping bands, plastic sheeting, and beverage
container ring carrier devices. Ingestion is also a concern; plastic pellets (unprocessed resins),
plastic bags and sheeting, and polystyrene spherules (crumbled polystyrene foam) are the items
most commonly consumed by marine life. A broad spectrum of plastic wastes contribute to
solid waste management issues on land.
Table 5-2 lists the strategies that are analyzed in this section and describes their potential
influences on the various plastic waste management issues. Source reduction and recycling
methods, by reducing the amount of gross or net discards of waste, can help mitigate the
downstream effects of plastic waste disposal (assuming that the methods are applied to those
resins or products that are posing problems in the environment or discouraging alternative waste
management strategies). In some applications, the use of proven degradable plastics could
reduce litter and entanglement problems. However, the indiscriminate use of degradable
plastics may impede other waste management strategies or pose additional environmental
concerns.
Options for reducing the plastic wastes introduced into the marine environment from urban
runoff, combined stormwater overflows, separate sewer systems, and vessels are also described in
this section. Section 5.6.4 outlines potential steps for reducing the release of plastic pellets into
the marine environment.
Finally, the waste management strategies of incineration and landfilling are also discussed.
These strategies are included here because proper incineration and landfilling must play a role
in integrated solid waste management
These waste management strategies are closely related to those presented in the recent
publication of the EPA Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, entitled The Solid Waste
Dilemma - An Agenda for Action" (U.S. EPA, 1988). As discussed in Section 4, this document
outlines an integrated waste management system to better manage municipal solid waste. The
document describes the major waste management techniques in order of overall desirability, as
follows:
• Source reduction
• Recycling
• Incineration with energy recovery, and landfilling
5-4
-------
Table 5-1
PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Media
Potential or Actual Solid
Waste Management Issue
Plastic Products
Implicated
Marine
Marine
Marine
(and beach)
Entanglement of marine
life
Ingestion by marine life
Aesthetic losses due to litter
Land
Leacnate generated from
plastic in MSW landfills
and from MWC ash
Fishing nets & lines
Crab & lobster traps
Uncut strapping
Beverage container ring
carrier devices
Plastic pellets
Polystyrene beads
Plastic bags and sheeting
Wastes in combined sewer and
stormwater runoff
Plastic wastes in
combined sewer and
street runoff;
plastic waste
dumped from vessels
and by beach-goers
Polyvinyl chloride (with
additives)
Plastic products with
colorants or other
metal-based additives
Land
Land
Air
Consumption of landfill
capacity
Aesthetic losses due to litter
Incremental emissions
from incineration of
plastic waste
All plastics in MSW
Disposable plastic
products, especially fast
food packaging
Halogenated polymers
and some plastic additives
Note: Nonplastic wastes also contribute to some of the issues cited.
5-5
-------
Table 5-2
REUTIONSHIP OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES TO RUSTIC WASTE
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Potential Strategies
Intended Effect on
Plastic Pollution
Specific Plastic Waste
Issue Addressed
Ui
o\
Source reduction
Recycling
Degradable plastics
Control of urban runoff
and sewers
Reduces gross discards and
toxicity of certain additives
in plastic wastes
Reduces net discards of
plastics
Reduces long-term
impacts of improperly
discarded plastics
Reduces release of plastic
floatable wastes generated
from land sources
All problems related to proper and
improper disposal
All problems except possible
releases of pellets in manuf.
and transportation of raw pellets
Marine, beach, and other litter
Marine and beach litter;
Ingestion
Implementation of
MARPOL Annex V
regulations
Control of emissions from
incineration with
energy recovery
Control of leachate
from landfills
Prohibits overboard
disposal of plastic wastes
by vessels
Reduces emissions
Prevents contamination
of groundwater
Entanglement;
Ingestion;
Marine and beach litter
Incremental emissions from
plastic wastes
Leachate from additives
Source: Eastern Research Group estimates.
-------
As noted, this section examines each of these strategies.
Public education programs can support all of the methods discussed in this chapter. Programs
that provide information on the proper disposal for wastes and highlight concerns that arise
from improper disposal (e.g., littering) may be extremely effective.
53 SOURCE REDUCTION
5.3.1 Definitions and Scope of the Analysis
Source reduction refers to actions that decrease the amount or toxicity of materials entering the
municipal solid waste stream. By reducing waste quantity, source reduction efforts influence the
rate of generation of gross discards of waste. (As will be shown, recycling affects the rate of
generation of net discards of waste.) To the extent that a smaller volume of materials is used
in the manufacturing of products, the technique reduces the downstream disposal issues or
difficulties. By reducing waste toxicity, source reduction efforts directly reduce or eliminate
disposal concerns.
Source reduction encompasses certain activities by manufacturers that are designed to reduce
the amount or toxicity of solid waste generated. This report is oriented toward post-consumer
solid waste; thus, the study examines changes in the manufacturing processes (including the
design and production of packaging) that result in reductions in the amount or toxicity of solid
waste generated after the useful life of products. For post-consumer wastes, source reduction
also encompasses activities at the consumer level. For example, reuse of a product by a
consumer reduces the amount of waste generated and, therefore, is considered source reduction.
Using this definition, source reduction activities are considered separate from recycling activities.
However, the two options may sometimes overlap and sometimes be at odds. For example,
reducing the toxicity of an item in the waste stream may improve its recyclability. On the other
hand, attempts to improve the recyclability of a product may increase the amount of waste
generated. Because of this interaction, some policy makers define source reduction to include
designing for recyclability. Although EPA has not adopted this broader definition for source
reduction, EPA recommends that the impact on recyclability be evaluated when a source
reduction activity is considered.
Some source reduction efforts, particularly those involving material substitution, require a
careful, systematic analysis. Changes may be generated in areas such as energy and natural
resource use, process-waste management, and consumer safety or utility by such source
reduction activities. To ensure that environmental impacts are not merely shifted or actually
increased by a source reduction activity, an analysis of these and other affected areas must be
completed. This type of analysis is described in Section 5.3.4.
The sections below present various aspects of MSW source reduction. First, the discussion
covers opportunities for reducing the amount of waste produced (Section 5.3.2) and for
reducing waste toxicity (Section 5.3.3). Both of these sections focus on plastic waste source
reduction efforts. The following section presents the factors that need to be evaluated when
5-7
-------
r' * ''
analyzing some source reduction efforts (Section 5.3.4). The methodology is not specific to
plastic waste but is appropriate for any MSW source reduction efforts that involve material
substitution. Finally, the last section addresses current plastic-specific source reduction
initiatives (Section 5.3.5).
5.3.2 Opportunities for Volume Reduction of Gross Discards of Waste
In order to determine where source reduction efforts should be focused, the make-up of the
waste stream must be examined. Section 2 presents estimates of the distribution of various
materials in the MSW stream (see Table 2-16). Paper and paperboard (35.6% by weight)
represents a large portion of MSW and is therefore considered an excellent candidate for a
source reduction effort. By product category, packaging (all materials) accounts for 30% by
weight of the waste stream. Thus, packaging is a target for source reduction. All components
of the waste stream need to be evaluated for possible source reduction opportunities.
As shown in Section 2, plastics account for 7.3% by weight of the MSW stream. By volume,
however, plastics are a more significant component of the waste stream (see Section 4.2.1.1 for
a discussion of attempts to measure plastic waste volumes). In addition, the plastic waste
component is expected to increase to 9.2% by weight by the year 2000, with a corresponding
increase in volume. Thus, plastic waste presents potential waste reduction opportunities. As
plastics increase in the waste stream, other components of the waste stream (e.g., metals) may
•decrease. The impact of plastic source reduction efforts on other waste stream components
must be evaluated.
The first step in this investigation of opportunities for source reduction of plastic wastes is to
select those categories of plastic products that appear most amenable to volume reduction. Not
all categories of plastic materials are included in municipal solid waste. Further, some
categories of plastic are so highly engineered for special purposes that modification of the
product characteristics or production techniques may sharply reduce the product value. Table
5-3 rates the major categories of plastic products as candidates for volume reduction efforts.
The criteria used (see column heads) provide a means of distinguishing among product
categories and a method of focusing the subsequent analysis. The criteria and the rationale for
their use are:
• The share of the product market - While volume reduction can be justified in any
product category for which it is effective, the larger the volume of the product category,
the greater the potential benefits of volume reduction efforts. Growth trends, such as
the strong growth in the packaging category, are also considered.
• The predominance of disposable products in the product category - Disposable products
(e.g., those items with lifetimes of less than one year) are added most directly into the
solid waste stream, and thus they may be considered good candidates for volume
reduction.
i • •
• The significance of consumer preference attributes relative to technical performance
attributes - Products engineered to high technical performance criteria may be less
5-8
-------
Table 5-3
POTENTIAL ROLE OF
VOLUME REDUCTION IN PLASTIC MARKETS
Market Category
PACKAGING
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
CONSUMER AND INST. PRODUCTS
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC
FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS
TRANSPORTATION
ADHESIVES, INKS, AND COATINGS
ALL OTHER
TOTAL
% of U.S.
Plastics
Market
33.5
24.8
11.1
6.1
4.9
4.5
4.8
11.0
100.0
Share of
Disposable
Items
High
Low
Moderate
to high
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Ratio of
Consumer/
Performance
Elements
Varied, but
often high
Low
Varied, but
often high
Low
Low
Low
Varied
Low
Potential
for Volume
Reduction
High
Low
Fairly high
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Source: Market shares from The Society of the Plastics Industry, 1988a. Other data estimated by
Eastern Research Group.
5-9
-------
adaptable to modification for the purposes of volume reduction. In contrast, products designed
primarily for consumer preferences may allow some latitude for modification of product design
or substitution of materials without a fundamental loss in product performance.
These criteria are applied here only at an aggregate level; specific candidates for volume
reduction can emerge only from a comprehensive, product-specific assessment, in which each of
these criteria receives careful analysis. For example, tradeoffs between consumer preference
and technical performance attributes (the third criterion) may be extremely complex; color —
not usually considered a "functional" aspect of a product — may be related to its safe use and
therefore may not be a trivial attribute. Additional criteria not specified here may also apply.
For example, available waste management methods may be important to a source reduction
decision; volume reduction may be less important for products that are recycled than for those
that cannot be recycled. The analysis presented here also does not examine the possibility that
source reduction among other materials could lead to increases in some uses of plastics; for this
reason, increased use of plastic may sometimes be a practical component of more broadly
focused source reduction activities. Such a situation may develop where plastics are lighter,
smaller, and/or less toxic than other materials. With these caveats, the three criteria are
adequate to differentiate the best potential product areas for volume reduction, which are
packaging and consumer products.
i
Source reduction of waste volumes can be accomplished by a variety of methods (see Table
5-4). The options include substitution away from plastics in manufacturing, reduction in the
quantity of plastic used for given applications, use of economies of scale in packaging, and
consumer reuse of plastic products. Attempts to apply any of the options to unsuitable
applications (e.g., increasing the useful lifetime of rapidly obsolescent products) are likely to be
ineffective and potentially harmful. Thus, careful consideration is needed.
One source reduction option, the substitution of other materials for plastics, has received
widespread attention recently. A number of observers have suggested that substitution is
beneficial and appropriate for a wide variety of plastic products because many such products,
particularly plastics packaging, were composed of "traditional" (nonplastic) materials in years
past. However, substitution of other materials must be carefully analyzed. Some information
comparing plastic and nonplastic materials is presented in Section 5.3.4. This type of
information can be used to support a complete, comprehensive analysis of material substitution
efforts.
5.3.3 Opportunities for Toxicity Reduction
As a complement to efforts to reduce waste volumes, EPA also seeks to reduce the toxicity of
wastes requiring disposal. This source reduction option is intended to decrease the risks posed
by disposal of toxic constituents. An analysis of toxicity reduction options must include
consideration of the toxicity of any proposed substitutes.
EPA's initial efforts in MSW toxicity reduction has been focused on lead and cadmium. The
toxicity of these constituents, which have been found in MSW landfill leachate samples and
incinerator ash samples, is well known; thus, they pose disposal concerns. In Section 4 the
5-10
-------
Table 5-4
METHODS OF REDUCING THE VOLUMES OF
PLASTIC MATERIALS CONSUMED
Method
Possible Product
Application
Substitute away from
plastics packaging
Some plastic packaging
Modify designs to increase
useful lifetime
Products of some inherent
durability
Modify designs to
decrease quantity of
resin used
Some plastic packaging
Modify designs by
using fewer environmentally
damaging resins
Utilize economies of scale
w/larger packages
Some plastic packaging
or consumer items
Products with substantial
shelf life
Utilize economies of scale
w/product concentrates
Combine products into a
single container
Consumer reuse of
plastic items
Water-based solutions
Products used in combination
Containers of nontoxic
materials
Note: Application of any method to a specific product would require a systematic
analysis as described in Section 5.3.4.
Source: Categorization developed by Eastern Research Group.
5-11
-------
sources of lead and cadmium in the waste stream were discussed. Plastics account for
approximately 2% of total lead discards and 36% of discarded cadmium (see Table 4-6). Most
of the lead and cadmium found in plastics is in heat stabilizers (used in polyvinyl chloride) and
colorants.
EPA is currently investigating substitutes for lead- and cadmium-based plastic additives;
Appendix C presents some preliminary findings of this study. EPA's study Is examining the
factors that determine the potential for successful substitution of less toxic additives and the
most prominent substitution candidates for the lead and cadmium additives used in plastics.
The practicality of substitutes depends on the nature of the demand for the additive, the
relative cost of alternative, less toxic additives, and the performance characteristics of the
alternatives. Several additional factors may also be relevant in particular manufacturing
situations, such as whether a substitute additive would require changes in manufacturing
techniques. In some markets, manufacturers have successfully moved away from use of heavy
metal additives in favor of other competitively priced materials. In other areas, however, such
as the use of cadmium additives as colorants, the available alternatives have poorer performance
characteristics. One should note that none of the potential substitutes identified in Appendix C
has been fully analyzed. In particular, the toxicity of these potential substitutes has not yet
been evaluated. EPA will address this and other outstanding issues as the Agency continues its
analysis of substitutes for lead- and cadmium-based plastic additives.
Other constituents of concern may also be candidates for toxicity reduction efforts. For
example, Section 4 noted a number of other additives that could pose some environmental
concerns, including phthalates used as plasticizers in PVC and flame retardants composed of
antimony oxide. The potential for reducing the use of these additives in plastics is a complex
issue that will require thorough investigation.
53.4 Systematic Analysis of Source Reduction Efforts
As mentioned above, an analysis of source reduction efforts is extremely important. Critical
trade-offs may be overlooked without a comprehensive analysis. For example, some source
reduction efforts could generate increases in use of other scarce resources, increases in
production costs, or declines in the safety or utility of the product to consumers. These
changes, which can be caused by material substitution, could be easily overlooked without a
careful examination of several factors.
Source reduction efforts must always be considered in the context of the entire MSW stream.
The goal of source reduction is to reduce the amount or toxicity of the entire waste stream, not
just of one component. It is relatively easy to reduce the amount of one component in the
waste stream by substituting other materials. Such actions, however, may not reduce the size of
the total waste stream; in fact, they may increase it. Conversely, while the substitution of
lighter materials may result in a decrease in the total mass of MSW, it may also reduce the
recyclability of the waste stream.
i "
i , , .
The factors that must be considered in any analysis are listed in Table 5-5. This table
enumerates the range and variety of effects generated by source reduction actions. These
5-12
-------
Table 5-5
TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANALYSIS OF
SOURCE REDUCTION EFFORTS
Stage of Product Lifecycle
Topics for Consideration
Production of resins and
manufacture of products
Distribution
Use
Disposal
Natural resource extraction
Raw material use
Energy use
Production process waste
streams (quantity and toxicity)
Management of process
waste streams
Labor costs (including social costs
of worker displacement)
Requirements for importing of
production inputs
Energy use in transport
Labor costs
Consumer utility
Consumer safety
Cost to consumer
Volume and weight in
landfilling
Toxicity in incineration or
landfilling
Compatibility with
recycling practices or
other waste management
strategies
5-13
-------
include changes in manufacturing processes, changes in the utility of a product to consumers,
and changes or effects from product reuse or disposal. A comprehensive assessment must
consider the range of environmental releases generated by raw materials exploitation,
manufacturing, and transport. Air, water, and solid waste profiles of the processes involved, as
well as the solid waste management requirements for the discarded products must be
considered. Consideration of these factors generates a "lifecycle analysis" for different products
and materials. '
EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION STUDIES - EPA identified four studies that examine
effects of source reduction options directed primarily at the reduction of the volume of plastic
materials. None of the studies provides a comprehensive study of all variables, or a complete
lifecycle analysis. For example, none of the studies examined consumer-related issues (e.g.,
effects on consumer product safety or utility). All the studies focus on only one category of
source reduction technique, i.e., direct substitution of other materials for plastics. The first
study was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI, 1974) for the Society of the Plastics
Industry. Initiated in 1972 and published in 1974, this work is now somewhat dated. The
second study was sponsored by the National Association for Plastic Container Recovery
(NAPCOR) and focuses on soft drink containers (Franklin Associates, 1989). The third and
fourth studies analyze packaging practices in West Germany, with one prepared by an industry
association and the other by a government environmental agency.
! , „
In the first study, MRI compared environmental information related to the production of 1)
seven varieties of plastic products, and 2) seven products made of alternative materials,
including glass, paper, aluminum, and steel (see Table 5-6). The study compared results for the
categories of raw materials used, energy consumed, process water used, process solid waste
generated, atmospheric emissions produced, waterborne wastes, and post-consumer wastes.
There are several important limitations to this study. First, the MRI study did not consider any
raw materials, such as additives, which aggregated to less than 5% of weight of the finished
product. Second, the relative toxicity of any of the wastes produced was not considered. Thus,
the cost and risks of disposing of the various waste streams was not compared. No details were
available on any assumptions concerning the compression of post-consumer solid wastes. In
addition, the authors noted that no credit was given to post-consumer wastes for energy
recovery for that portion of the solid waste stream (9%) that is incinerated.
,
The study concluded that using plastic products was more favorable for conservation of raw
materials and reduction in the amount of environmental emissions produced than using the
competing nonplastic products in six of the seven categories. In the remaining category
(production of a nine-ounce vending cup from either high-impact polystyrene or paper), the
competing products were roughly equal in resource utilization and quantity of environmental
releases. The MRI study appears to reflect the underlying economies of manufacture that have
led to the steady growth of plastic materials in consumer and industrial product areas. MRI's
estimates for each category are summarized in Table 5-6. The authors of the MRI study note
that their results were affected by the relative weight of the products compared. The plastic
products were lighter than the competing products in every case but one, where both containers
were of equal weight. The glass container (for a half-gallon bottle) weighed almost nine times
5-14
-------
Table 5-6
SUMMARY OF TOTAL RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS FOR PLASTICS AND ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS
Container
Half-gallon bottle
Gallon milk
container
V" Gallon produce
^ bag
8-Ounce dairy tub
9-Ounce vending
cup
Gallon oblong
container
Meat trays
Material
PVC
Glass
HOPE
Paper
LDPE
Paper
ABS
Aluminum
HIPS
Paper
HOPE
Steel
PS Foam
Pulp
Raw
Materials (a)
(pounds)
200,426
3,919,809
8.712
190,375
384
22,542
1,631
32,183
577
8,315
25,925
1,140,789
303
35,559
Energy
(Million
Btu)
12,177
25,739
7,515
7.204
540
612
1,928
5,813
550
324
16,093
20,328
879
847
Water
(Thousand
gallons)
2.007
6,981
726
6,755
44
532
491
1,032
215
304
1,824
21,126
118
339
Solid
Wastes
(cubic feet)
965
17,279
306
918
21
81
75
2,026
13
38
918
40,066
37
130
Atmospheric
Emissions
(pounds)
57,363
126,755
27,385
34,054
1,983
3,506
6,892
24,764
1,689
1,515
60,437
80,596
3,691
3,509
Waterborne
Wastes
(pounds)
8,914
14,337
4.081
16,527
248
1,371
1.135
18,095
418
740
7,973
196,923
327
1,759
Post-Consumer
Solid Wastes
(cubic feet)
5,317
15,452
3,175
4,762
194
536
706
239
226
226
5,952
1,570
266
806
Note: (a) Crude oil and natural gas raw materials are included in energy category.
Source: Midwest Research Institute, 1974. Estimates based on production of 1 million containers of each type.
-------
as much as the plastic container. Table 5-7 presents the relative weights of the plastic and
nonplastic containers.
In summary, the MRI study presents an investigation of the major effects of source reduction
via substitution of materials. Its older publication date and incomplete treatment of waste
toxicity and product additives limit its usefulness as a guide to the environmental effects of
material substitution. The study represents, however, a good example of the kind of research
needed to analyze some source reduction strategies.
The second study, funded by NAPCOR, followed a similar methodology, although it only
examined soft drink beverage containers. This effort was designed to assess the energy
consumption and the environmental releases associated with producing nine different types of
these containers. Table 5-8 shows the containers selected for study — four sizes of plastic
containers of polyethylene terephthalate, a 12-ounce aluminum can, and four types of refillable
(one type) and non-refillable (three types) glass containers. One refinement in this study was
the factoring of the rate of recycling or reuse into the estimates produced. This research
examined energy and environmental impacts from raw material extraction through processing,
manufacturing, use, and final disposal. Like the previous study, however, it did not consider the
relative toxicity of the environmental releases.
Table 5-8 summarizes the comparisons of energy consumption and environmental releases for
the nine containers using three assumptions about recycling rates (no recycling, recycling at
current rates, and 100% recycling or reuse). Overall estimates are also given for plastic,
aluminum and glass that represent averages weighted by the market share of each type of
container made from that material (the market shares are given in Table 5-9). In general, the
polyethylene terephthalate containers generated lower energy and environmental impacts. The
refillable glass container, however, produced lower impacts in several of the measurements; but
the savings in energy and environmental impacts (per gallon of beverage delivered) were partly
offset by the greater weight of the container. In terms of the solid waste volumes generated,
the polyethylene terephthalate containers generated lower volumes of solid waste when virgin
raw materials were used, but slightly larger waste volumes than aluminum cans if 100% recycling
was assumed.
!
The NAPCOR study represents another interesting example of the type of analysis needed to
determine the value of source reduction possibilities. An even more complete analysis,
however, is still needed to address all the possible aspects of such an analysis.
The third effort to investigate the consequences of replacing plastics with alternate materials
was conducted by a West German trade association, the Society for Research Into the
Packaging Market (1987). This group examined the gross implications of the complete
replacement of plastic packaging with alternative materials. The study is based on reviews of
aggregate data and industry averages on the amount of energy use per unit of production, the
value (cost) of materials, and the weight of averages for broad container categories. The
authors concluded that replacement of plastics with other materials (glass, paper, steel,
aluminum, and others) would generate the following changes: 1) packaging waste would increase
by 256% by volume and 413% by weight, 2) energy consumption for packaging production
would increase by 201%, and 3) the cost of packaging would increase by 211%. The authors
5-16
-------
Table 5-7
RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF
PLASTIC AND NONPLASTIC
PRODUCTS IN MRI STUDY
Type of Container
Half-gallon
bottle
Gallon milk
container
Gallon
produce bag
8-Ounce
dairy tub
9-Ounce
vending cup
Gallon oblong
container
Meat
trays
Material
PVC
Glass
HOPE
Paper
LDPE
Paper
ABS
Aluminum
Polystyrene
Paper
HOPE
Steel
PS Foam
Pulp
Container
Weight
(grams) '
134.0
1188.0
80.0
120.0
4.9
13.5
17.8
18.4
5.7
5.7
450.0
356.0
6.7
20.3
Ratio of Nonplastic
to Plastic Items
8.86
1.50
2.78
1.03
1.00
2.37
3.03
Source: Midwest Research Institute, 1974.
5-17
-------
Table 5-8
SUMMARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR CONTAINERS
AND FOR MATERIAL CATEGORIES IN NAPCOR RESEARCH
Container/ Assumption About
Level of Recycling
Total Energy
Consumed
(million Btu)
Atmospheric
Emissions
(pounds)
Waterborne
Wastes
(pounds)
Solid
Wastes
(pounds)
Solid
Wastes
(cu. ft.)
Containers Manufactured
From Virgin Raw Materials
Polyethylene Terephthalate
16-ozPET
1-liter PET
2-liter PET
3-liter PET
Aluminum
12-oz aluminum
Glass
10-oz nonref illable
16-oz nonrefillable
16-oz refiliable
1 -liter nonrefillable
Containers Manufactured at
Current Recycling Rates
Polyethylene Terephthalate
16-oz PET
1-liter PET
2-liter PET
3-liter PET
Aluminum
12-oz aluminum
Glass
10-oz nonrefillable
16-oz nonrefillable
16-oz refillable
1 -liter nonrefillable
21.2
33.9
27.3
20.1
19.7
50.0
50.0
49.1
42.0
35.1
61.7
37.0
62.0
98.7
78.9
59.0
57.4
137.0
137.0
217.4
189.6
157.0
271.5
172.1
10.8
16.6
13.6
10.3
10.4
44.1
44.1
21.1
20.7
16.9
24.8
17.5
513.1
939.7
687.9
478.9
463.8
1,938.0
1,938.0
7,000.0
5,725.7
4,721 .2
9,066.3
5,354.6
' 31.1
56.2
42.9
29.0
28,1
40.4
40.4
142.8
117.4
96.9
184.4
110.1
NA
31.6
25.5
18.9
18.6
32.9
32.9
NA
41.7
34.8
15.4
36.7
NA
92.3
74.1
55.8
54.2
91.7
91.7
NA
183.8
152.0
53.8
165.2
NA
15.9
13.1
10.0
10.1
26.9
26.9
NA
20.4
16.6
8.2
17.2
NA
814.6
592.1
415.1
403.3
1,068.1
1,068.1
NA
5,273.2
4,347.6
1 ,505.5
4,915.7
NA
46.1
35.1
23.9
23.0
21.5
21.5
NA
109.2
90.2
29,7
100.9
(cont.)
5-18
-------
Table 5-8 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR CONTAINERS
AND FOR MATERIAL CATEGORIES IN NAPCOR RESEARCH
Total Energy Atmospheric Waterborne
Container/ Assumption About Consumed Emissions Wastes
Level of Recycling (million Btu) (pounds) (pounds)
Containers Manufactured from
100 Percent Recycled or Reused
Materials
Polyethylene Terephthalate
16-ozPET
1 -liter PET
2-liter PET
3-liter PET
Aluminum
12-oz aluminum
Glass
1 0-oz nonrefillable
16-oz nonrefillable
16-ozrefillable
1 -liter nonrefillable
14.6
22.3
18.1
14.0
13.9
15.9
15.9
20.9
38.7
32.4
11.6
33.8
44.8
66.9
54.6
43.0
42.5
46.3
46.3
73.5
130.0
107.7
37.9
102.3
9.2
13.4
11.3
8.8
9.1
9.7
9.7
10.6
17.0
13.8
6.4
14.0
Solid
Wastes
(pounds)
189.5
363.6
232.5
176.6
173.3
198.2
198.2
762.3
1,198.4
985.2
521.3
965.6
Solid
Wastes
(cu. ft.)
4.0
8.5
4.9
3.7
3.6
3.2
3.2
12.6
19.4
16.2
8.8
13.9
Source: Franklin Associates, 1989.
NA = Not available.
5-19
-------
Table 5-9
1
SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS COMPARED
IN NAPCOR RESEARCH
Material/
Container
No. of Containers Required
to Deliver 1,000 Market Shares, Estimated Current
Gallons of Beverage By Material (%) Recycling Rate (%)
Polyethylene Terephthalate
16-oz bottle
1 -liter bottle
2-liter bottle
3-liter bottle
8
3
1
1
,000
,785
,893
,262
100.0
5.7
4.3
83.2
6.8
20
_
_
_
_
Aluminum
12-oz aluminum can
Glass
10-oz nonrefillable bottle
16-oz nonrefillable bottle
16-oz refillable bottle
1-liter nonrefillable bottle
10,667
12,800
8,000
8,000
3,785
100.0
100.0
6.1
41.5
50.8
1.8
50
10
8 trips
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1989
5-20
-------
did not explore the differences in manufacturing processes between plastic and alternative
materials in detail equivalent to that of the MRI study.
The fourth study was prepared by the West German Federal Office of the Environment and
focuses only on alternatives for the manufacture of shopping bags (1988). The authors
developed energy and'environmental impact comparisons for low-density polyethylene shopping
bags, unbleached kraft paper bags, and bags made from either polyamide fibers or from jute
fibers. The first two categories were assumed to be single-use bags, while the bags of
polyamide or jute fibers were assumed to be reusable 100 or 50 times, respectively.
Table 5-10 presents the estimates of energy use and of environmental releases from production
of an equivalent number of each bag. The polyethylene bag required less energy consumption
for production and also produced lower amounts of most of the air and water pollutants than
either of the other categories shown. The authors also qualitatively assessed the solid waste
disposal requirements and found no significant difference in disposal requirements between the
single-use bags. The authors concluded that there was no ecological basis for requiring a switch
from single-use polyethylene to paper bags. They also concluded that switching toward the
plastic bags would not produce a "significantly lower burden" to the environment because of the
significance of the solid waste burden created by either single-use bag. They suggested instead
that reusable bags were the preferred alternative and would result in net energy and
environmental benefits. If the values shown in Table 5-10 are converted to a per-use basis, the
lowest values would be for reusable bags. These bags would also produce substantially less solid
waste.
53.5 Current Initiatives for Source Reduction
Some momentum toward source reduction has been generated by various regulatory
requirements at the state, local, Federal, and international levels. These restrictions have
included complete bans on certain plastics and selective bans on nondegradable plastics.
Industry also has considerable incentives to reduce packaging costs and this objective often
coincides with that of source reduction.
53.5.1 State and Local Initiatives
A variety of laws have been directed at plastics packaging that limit or prohibit the use of
plastics in packaging or other consumer goods. Most of these laws have apparently not been
based on a lifecycle analysis of the plastic and substitute materials. The laws are also .not
focused specifically on articles found in the investigation of the marine or other effects from
plastic disposal noted in Sections 3 and 4. They are instead the result of more general
concerns about plastic wastes.
Minneapolis and St. Paul recently passed local ordinances that prohibit food establishments from
using food packaging that is not "environmentally acceptable." Environmentally acceptable
packaging is defined to include that which is degradable (not including degradable plastics),
5-21
-------
Table 5-10
: :' 'I'1!
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FROM PRODUCTION OF 50,000 BAGS OF
COMPETING MATERIALS
Bag Material
Energy/Pollution Parameter
Poly-
ethylene (a)
Unbleached Kraft
Paper
Paper
Combinations(c,d)
Energy. GJ
Production Processes 29
Contained in Material 38
Total Energy Consumption 67
Air Polluting Emissions, kg
Sulfur dioxide 9.9
Nitrogen oxides 6.8
Organic materials 3.8
Carbon monoxide 1
Dust 0.5
Waste Water Burdens, kg
Chemical oxygen demand 0.5
Biological oxygen demand (e) 0.02
Organic materials,
except phenols 0.003
Phenols 0.0001
Chloro-organic compounds NA
67
29
96
19.4
10.2
1.2
3
3.2
16.4
9.2
NA
NA
NA
69
29
98
28.1
10.8
1.5
6.4
3.8
107.8
43.1
NA
NA
5
GJ= Gigajoules
Notes:
(a) 0.4 square meters of PE film and thickness of 50 microns (18g)
(b) 0.4 square meters of paper with surface weight of 90 grams per square meter (36 grams)
(c) This material consisted of 60% white kraft paper, 25% brown kraft paper, 15% white
sulphite paper.
(d) The energy consumption for the process includes 29 GJ that is obtained from burning
residual materials (waste liquor, etc.); this and the materials portion derive from the wood
raw material.
(e) BOD within 5 days
Source: West German Federal Office of the Environment, Berlin, 1988.
5-22
-------
returnable, or recyclable. A package is considered recyclable only if it is part of a municipally
sponsored program within the Twin Cities (City of Minneapolis, 1989).
A Suffolk County, NY, ordinance prohibits the use or sale of polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride
food containers at retail food establishments. Non-biodegradable food packaging is also
prohibited at retail food establishments (EAF, 1988). The consequences of these changes on
overall source reduction are uncertain. The New York State Supreme Court recently required
the county to conduct a thorough environmental impact study before implementing this ban
(Plastics Recyc. Update, June 1989).
State actions have included bans on plastic cans (Minnesota and Connecticut; Wirka, 1988) and
certain packaging made of foamed polystyrene (Florida, Maine; EAF, 1988). Many states have
considered.some form of source reduction legislation. Connecticut recently (June 1989) passed
an extensive source reduction bill.
Federal legislation has not directly called for source reduction, though some measures
encourage this approach. Congress passed the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act (1987), which amends the existing Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The amendments
implement Annex V of the international Marine Pollution treaty (MARPOL), which prohibits
all deliberate disposal of plastics from vessels and offshore oil and gas platforms. The Coast
Guard issued interim final regulations for this program on April 28, 1989. While the Coast
Guard regulations are restrictions on disposal practices, one method of compliance is source
reduction ~ i.e., restricting or eliminating the presence and use of plastics onboard vessels. In
anticipation of regulatory promulgation, at least one major U.S. shipping line, Lykes Bros., has
experimented with the elimination of plastic containers for all food stores on its vessels (Castro,
1988). Several bills have recently been proposed at the Federal level that would provide
incentives (e.g., packaging taxes) for source reduction.
EPA in its "Agenda for Action" has strongly encouraged source reduction activities. Current
EPA efforts in the source reduction area are described in Section 6 of this report.
Regulatory measures that encourage or directly force substitution away from plastics have been
more widely employed in Europe. Italy has banned the use of nonbiodegradable packaging
(Claus, 1987). Several European countries have adopted packaging control laws that authorize
direct restrictions on packaging that creates problems for recycling, reuse, or eventual disposal.
Denmark, Netherlands, and West Germany all have fairly broad authority to restrict packaging
methods (Wirka, 1988).
5.3.5.2 Industry Initiatives
Industry has made many efforts to reduce the amount of plastics and to modify the types of
plastic used in products and packaging. The principal thrust of these efforts has been to reduce
production costs. Industry also is pursuing source reduction efforts as the result of regulation-
forced changes in markets and presumably enlightened self-interest. The items below provide a
sampling of efforts taken by manufacturers to reduce the volumes of waste materials:
5-23
-------
• Procter & Gamble has marketed a fabric softener in Europe that is sold in a reusable
container. Consumers buy replacement concentrate pouches and mix the concentrates
with water in the original container. P&G plans to test market a variety of products
using similar packaging approaches in the U.S. market (Rattray, 1989).
• General Electric has developed a refillable polycarbonate plastic bottle that can be used
for dairy products, juice, and water (Wirka, 1989).
• Polaroid has reduced the amount of disposable materials in their film packs (Popkin,
1989).
• Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) has eliminated the use of styrofoam "free flow"
packing materials at its two "DEC Direct" operations, which supply computer accessories
to Digital customers. Previously all orders were shipped in the same size box with
foamed polystyrene used as filler. This procedure resulted in the use of 200,000 cubic
feet of free flow per year. The company now ships products in appropriately sized boxes
using mechanically crumpled paper as filler (O'Sullivan, 1989).
• DEC has also succeeded in substituting die-cut fiber board inserts for styrofoam in the
packaging of its computer "mouse" (O'Sullivan, 1989).
It is not known to what extent these or other firms conducted analyses of the effects of their
source reduction efforts.
5.4 RECYCLING
i 'i,
This section examines the impact of recycling methods as a possible strategy for amelioration of
plastic waste issues. Recycling is a method of reducing the quantity of net discards of municipal
solid waste by recapturing selected items for additional productive uses. Although these
benefits have not been quantified, plastics recycling also offers the potential to generate
demonstrable savings in fossil fuel consumption, both because recycled plastics can displace
virgin resins produced from refined fossil fuels, and because the energy required to yield
recycled plastics resins may be less than that consumed in the production of resins from virgin
feedstocks. Recycling is one of EPA's preferred solid waste management strategies, as
described in the publication "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action" published by
the Agency's Office of Solid Waste.
The Congressional mandate for this Report to Congress specifies that the potential for recycling
to reduce plastic pollution is to be addressed. Included in the sections below are analyses of
the current types of recycling systems, the array of technical and operational difficulties evident
in the wider use of recycling for plastic products, and means to enhance the growth of recycling
methods.
The analysis also distinguishes recycling of plastics from recycling technologies as they are
applied to other solid waste streams, such as glass or aluminum. As will be shown, recycled
plastics represent a mixed batch for recycling due to the variety of resins in the waste stream.
5-24
-------
This contrasts with the relatively homogeneous recycled materials that can be derived in glass or
aluminum recycling. The mixed nature of most post-consumer plastics has significant influence
on the methods adopted in plastics recycling programs.
5.4.1 Scope of the Analysis
This section focuses on the recycling of post-consumer plastic solid waste. It does not address
the recycling of plastic materials by industry during manufacturing and processing operations.
Such industry recycling of unprocessed resins is extensive and considerably reduces the
manufacturing losses of plastic resins. Nevertheless, the focus of this study is plastics generated
from post-consumer solid waste.
Not all plastics in MSW are amenable to recycling. For example, trash bags by definition are
intended to facilitate MSW disposal, and so are unavailable for recycling. Many or most plastics
films used in food contact applications may be inappropriate for recycling because currently
practicable collection alternatives require consumers to store plastics before collections, yet valid
concerns regarding odors and potential health risks from food-contaminated wastes may make
storage of such items impractical.
5.4.2 Status and Outlook of Plastics Recycling Alternatives
Recycling plastics from MSW encompasses four phases of activity:
• Collection. As with all other recyclable materials, plastics must be segregated from other
MSW constituents and collected for transfer to processors.
• Separation. Plastics segregated from MSW include a variety of resins. It is not necessary
to separate plastics by resin type to allow their recycling, but separation by resin allows
the production of the highest-quality recycled products.
• Processing/Manufacturing. A number of processes are used to manufacture recycled
plastic products. They are generally grouped into three categories:
Primary processes are defined as industrial recycling of manufacturing and processing
scrap. Typically, such scrap is blended with virgin resins and re-introduced into
plastics production processes. Primary plastics recycling is not addressed in this
Report to Congress.
Secondary processes encompass a continuum of processing alternatives. One end of
this continuum is defined by processes that consume clean, homogeneous resins that
can be used to manufacture products interchangeable with those produced from virgin
plastic resins. At the other end of this continuum are processes that consume mixed
recycled plastics in the manufacture of products that do not replace or compete with
virgin plastic products, but replace structural materials such as wood and concrete in
product applications.
5-25
-------
Tertiary processes involve the chemical or thermal degradation of recycled plastics
into chemical constituents that serve as fuels or chemical feedstocks. Tertiary
processes may use either homogeneous or mixed plastics as inputs.
• Marketing. Homogeneous recycled resins may be processed into products that compete
in markets with virgin plastics. With currently available technologies, most mixed recycled
plastics are processed into generally lower value products that compete in markets with
materials such as lumber and concrete.
These four phases of recycling activity are closely related. For example, the extent of
separation among plastic resins achieved during collection largely determines the types of
processing available and the products that can be manufactured from the recycled resins.
Marketing considerations, in turn, determine the marketability and value of these products, and
drive the economic calculations by which the viability of the entire recycling chain is evaluated.
I
The following paragraphs provide an introduction and background to the detailed discussion of
the four recycling phases that follows. A number of characteristics affect all phases of plastics
recycling and tend to differentiate the technical, economic, and policy considerations relevant to
plastics from those that affect the recycling of other MSW constituents:
QUALITY OF THE RECYCLED RESINS - Only homogeneous resin streams can be recycled
into products that compete with virgin resins. All plastics recycling processes result in some
degradation of the physical and chemical characteristics of the plastic resin(s). For this reason,
recycled plastics may not be suitable to replace virgin resins in many applications with exacting
product specifications (particularly in food-contact applications). However, with good separation
into clean, homogeneous resins, recycled plastics may be used to make a broad range of
products that would otherwise be fabricated from virgin resins, or may be incorporated into
mixes with virgin resins in a variety of product applications. With current recycling technologies
for mixed plastics, however, recycled resins are incorporated into products with less demanding
physical characteristics, for which market competition comes not from virgin plastics but from
other commodities like lumber or cement. This fact has implications on estimates of the long-
term benefits of mixed plastics recycling, which are addressed below.
•
LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF PLASTICS RECYCLING -Some concern surrounds the long-
term impacts of mixed plastics recycling processes. Whereas processes using homogeneous
resins displace consumption (and disposal) of virgin plastics, mixed plastics recycled products do
not displace the use, nor ultimately the disposal, of virgin plastics. Instead, they compete with,
and displace consumption, use, and disposal of other commodities like lumber or cement.
Ultimately, the mixed plastic recycled products must themselves be disposed of. The benefits of
mixed plastics recyling may therefore be most appropriately measured in terms of the long-term
deferment, rather than the elimination, of plastics disposal requirements (Curlee, 1986; lEc,
1988).
A number of technical and policy considerations frame the potential role and impact of mixed
plastics recycling:
5-26
-------
• Mixed plastics recycling does not reduce demand for virgin plastics. Because its products
do not compete with products manufactured from virgin plastics, mixed plastics recycling
does not reduce the demand for or the consumption of virgin plastics.
• Recyclability of mixed plastics recycled products. It is difficult to determine if the products
of mixed plastics recycling will themselves be recyclable. For the following reasons, it
appears that they may not be recyclable:
— The unknown composition and the physical characteristics of mixed plastics recycled
products may prevent their recycling. Mixed plastics recycling processes generally result
in the marked degradation of the physical characteristics of their constituent resins. As a
result, it appears that mixed plastics recycled products may not be acceptable as inputs to
further recycling efforts.
— A collection infrastructure for mixed plastics recycled products has not been established.
Many or most of the current products of mixed plastics recycling are not targeted for
consumer applications, but for commercial or industrial use. In these applications, it is
unlikely that the recycled products will be captured for further recycling.
If the products are not recyclable, mixed plastics recycling will not reduce the ultimate
requirement for plastics disposal, but will delay that requirement for the lifetime of the
recycled product. When that product is disposed of, all of the plastic content of the
product enters the waste stream.
• Mixed plastics recycling reduces total waste disposal requirements. Even if it has no long-
term impact on plastics disposal requirements, mixed plastics recycling does reduce total
long-term waste disposal. For example, if one cubic yard of recycled post-consumer plastics
displaces consumption of one cubic yard of lumber in a product application (e.g., for
fencing), the total disposal requirement at the end of the plastics lifecycle is one cubic yard;
if plastics recycling is not implemented, however, total disposal requirements are two cubic
yards (one cubic yard of post-consumer plastics plus one cubic yard of lumber from the
fencing application). (A related topic potentially deserving further investigation is the
relative environmental impact of mixed recycled plastics disposal compared to disposal of
displaced nonplastic products; for example, the potential environmental impacts of plastic
"lumber" disposal appear to be qualitatively different from those that may be associated with
disposal of pressure-treated wood.)
For these reasons, measuring the benefits of mixed plastics recycling is complex. If mixed
plastic recycled products cannot themselves be recycled, then the benefits of mixed plastics
recycling must be measured in terms of deferring, rather than eliminating, long-term plastics
disposal requirements. However, this delay in itself may be a substantial benefit; for example, it
puts recycled plastics to productive use for a number of years, during which recycling
technologies may be expected to improve, and so to allow the further recycling of the initial
recycled product. And even if mixed recycled plastics products cannot ultimately themselves be
recycled, and so have no long-term impact on plastics disposal, their use does reduce total
disposal requirements for all wastes.
5-27
-------
This situation is in marked contrast, to recycling scenarios for glass and metals from MSW. For
these MSW constituents, the recycled raw material is indistinguishable from the virgin raw
material, and the benefits of recycling can be measured directly in terms both of reducing the
demand for the raw materials used in the recycled product and of reducing short- and long-term
disposal requirements.
VARIETY OF PLASTICS WASTES - Plastics in MSW are a very heterogeneous collection of
materials. "Plastics" encompasses an extremely broad range of materials. Plastic products in
MSW include not only items made from a single resin, but an increasing number of items that
include a blend of resins. The blending of resins in individual items may involve the simple
physical joining of two or more resins (e.g., PET drink containers with HDPE base cups) or the
chemical bonding of different resins in a single plastic film. Further, the nature of the additives
incorporated to yield specific plastic product qualities is diverse.
Mixed resin products and the presence of a variety of additives may significantly affect recycling
options. For example, many mixed resin products are amenable only to mixed plastics
processing technologies, while the presence of some additives may complicate the use of some
or all recycling technologies for some plastic items.
j
DIFFICULTY OF SORTING PLASTICS RESINS - It is technically difficult to separate
relatively pure resins from mixed plastics collected for recycling, dommercially demonstrated
separation technologies are almost exclusively limited to processes that separate PET and
HDPE. A number of promising technologies to effect separation of mixed plastics are under
active development, including infrared analysis, laser scanning, gravity separation, and
incorporation of chemical markers into different resins. Successful development and
implementation of one or more of these technologies may allow reliable separation of mixed
plastics into homogeneous resins.
LOW DENSITY OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS WASTES - Plastics have a high ratio of
volume/weight compared to other recyclable constituents of MSW. This fact adversely affects
the practicality of plastics collection in municipal MSW recycling programs and the economics of
transporting recycled plastics to processors. The problem may be addressed by shredding or
crushing at the point of collection, but these alternatives can reduce the practicality of
separation into homogeneous resins.
LIMITED HISTORY OF PLASTICS RECYCLING - Nearly all of the collection, separation,
and processing alternatives outlined below have been successfully implemented in at least a few
locations across the country. For many of these alternatives, however, only limited1 data exist
from which to extrapolate costs, participation rates, technological or institutional barriers, and
other factors that will determine their long-term viability. For this reason, much of the
following discussion of the outlook for each alternative is qualitative, and is based on the
experience and opinion of participants in ongoing recycling efforts.
This analysis also makes no assumptions about the imposition of any of these alternatives as
Federal policy. The outlook for each alternative is discussed presuming the absence of any
Federal law or regulation concerning plastics recycling.
5-28
-------
5.4.2.1 Collecting Plastics for Recycling
Plastics may be segregated from MSW either before or after MSW collection. That is,
consumers may be required to segregate plastics from MSW, or collection agencies may attempt
to segregate plastics (and other recyclables) after MSW has been collected from consumers.
Technologies exist to segregate metals and glass from MSW after collection, but currently
available technologies are much less effective at capturing plastics. For this reason, nearly all
discussions of plastics collection alternatives have focused on possibilities of capturing plastic
recyclables before they enter the municipal solid waste stream. The following discussion reflects
this focus.
Five alternative strategies have been implemented to segregate plastics, as well as all other
commodities, from MSW for recycling. These are:
• Curbside pickup
• Drop-off recycling centers *
• Voluntary container buy-back systems
• Reverse vending machines
• Container deposit legislation
These strategies are explained and compared in the following discussion.
This discussion does not directly address shipboard collection of plastic wastes. Vessels,
however, may become a reliable source of mixed plastics for recycling as MARPOL Annex V
regulations are implemented by U.S. and international fleets. Under MARPOL Annex V, ships
are prohibited from disposing of plastics overboard. Because one of the most cost-effective
means of compliance with these regulations is to store plastics for onshore disposal, and because
ports are being required to provide collection facilities for these plastics, there should be a
steady supply of plastics from port collection facilities.
Table 5-11 summarizes the major advantages and disadvantages of each of the five major
collection strategies for recyclable plastics in MSW. Please note that all of these strategies and
many of the advantages and disadvantages apply to other components of the waste stream as
well as to plastics. No significant technical barriers exist to implementation of any of the
collection alternatives discussed below. The principal obstacles are economic or institutional.
As policy alternatives, some also capture only a small percentage of recyclable plastics, and so
tend to have only a minor impact on plastics waste disposal requirements. Arrayed against
these hurdles are the benefits each strategy offers in reductions in plastics disposal requirements
and production of high-value recycled products.
5-29
-------
Table 5-11
FEATURES, ADVANTAGES,
AND DISADVANTAGES OF
ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION
STRATEGIES
Features
Advantages
Disadvantages
Curbslde collection - Ptckup of
recyclables as part of MSW
collection
Drop-off recycling center -
Recyclables collected at
centralized, municipal, or
privately operated facility
Voluntary container buy-back
program - Consumers
voluntarily return designated
recyclables to recycling centers
operated by private parties or
government agencies, receive
payment for recycled articles
Consumer convenience; no travel to
recycling center required
High participation rates in many
implementation scenarios
Facilitates collection of a variety of
recyclables other than plastics
Facilitates collection of a wide
variety of plastic products
Documented record of
successful Implementation
Potentially greatest reduction
in MSW disposal requirements
Low cost to implementing
municipalities
Small manpower requirements
Facilitates collection of a wide
variety of plastic products
Facilitates collection of a variety of
recyclables other than plastics
May allow separation of recyclable
plastic by resin, allowing processing
into high-quality recycled products
Little cost to government agencies if
implemented by private parties
Payment provides incentive to
consumers
Possible net cost to municipalities
Not feasible in localities with
no centralized MSW collection
Requires in-home storage of
recyclables by consumers
Inconvenient for consumers if requires
separation of plastics from other
recyclables
May result in collection of mixed plastics
wastes not amenable to high-value
recycling applications
Implementation difficult in areas with many
multi-family dwellings
Inconvenient for consumers who must both
store and transport recyclables
Relatively low participation rates
Not amenable to implementation as
mandatory programs (difficult to enforce)
Relatively low participation rates
Generally focused on only a small
percentage of recyclable plastic articles
(high-value, single resin items)
(cont.)
5-30
-------
Table 5-11 (cont.)
FEATURES, ADVANTAGES.
AND DISADVANTAGES OF
ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION
STRATEGIES
Features
Advantages
Disadvantages
Voluntary container
buy-back (cont.)
Reverse vending machines -
Consumers deposit recyclables
in machine, receive case or
other payment; machine
typically grinds and stores
plastics for pickup
Container deposit legislation -
Consumers pay deposit at time
of purchase; deposit is
redeemed when recyclable
article is returned to collection
center (retail outlet or other
designated facility)
Allows collection of relatively pure
resins amenable to processing into
high-quality recycled products
Potentially no cost to government
agencies
Payment provides incentive to
consumers
Allows collection of relatively pure
resins amenable to processing into
high-quality recycled products
Available as implementation option
for other recycling strategies (e.g.,
drop-off centers, container deposit
legislation)
Machine shredding reduces space
requirements for recyclables
Very high rates of return may be
obtained for designated articles
Allows collection of relatively pure
resins amenable to processing into
high-quality recycled products
Typically includes collection of
additional high-value recyclable
containers (glass, aluminum)
Documented record of successful
implementation
Inconvenient for consumer who must both
store and transport recyclables
Cost to implementing agency; payment
sufficient to induce consumer participation
may exceed value of recycled plastics
Inconvenient for consumer who must both
store and transport recyclables
Captures only a small percentage of
recyclable plastic articles
Payment sufficient to induce consumer
participation may exceed value of recycled
plastics
Potentially significant costs on collection
•middleman" (e.g., distributors, retailers)
Captures only a small percentage of
recyclable plastic articles
Inconvenient for consumer who must both
store and transport recyclables
May have negative impact on curbside or
drop-off recycling programs
Source: Compiled by Eastern Research Group.
5-31
-------
CURBSIDE PICKUP — Curbside pickup involves the separation of recyclables from other
MSW by consumers and the pickup of recyclables as .part of a municipality's solid waste
collection activities. Use of this recycling option has been growing rapidly in recent years, and
approximately 600 communities (ranging from small rural towns to cities like Seattle,
Washington, and San Jose, California) have implemented curbside recycling programs to date.
At this time, most of these programs do not include plastics, however. Implementation of a
curbside collection program involves choices regarding the following factors:
• i
• Mandatory or voluntary participation
i •
• Frequency of collection (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.)
• Timing of collection (same or different day as MSW collection)
• Degree of recyclable separation required; alternatives include:
All recyclables placed in one container
- Paper separated from all other recyclables
Paper, metals, glass, and plastics separated into individual containers
Only limited analyses have been completed of factors that tend to promote the success of
curbside collection programs; in general, participation rates in curbside collection programs are
greatest when programs are mandatory and when the programs are designed to maximize
convenience to consumers in sorting and storing recyclables. Success factors related to
consumer convenience include:
• High frequency of collection (removes the need for long-term storage of recyclables)
• Collection on the same day as collection of other MSW
• , ,| „' „ • '•! j , ,,, ,
• Minimal requirement for separation of recyclables — three or four categories appears to
be a practicable maximum, from the standpoint both of consumers and of municipal
collection teams
• Provision to consumers by the municipality of containers for recyclable storage and
curbside set-out
I
Appendix B summarizes program characteristics of 22 successful curbside recycling programs
across the country. Of the available collection alternatives, this strategy tends to divert the
largest proportion of MSW from disposal (including glass, metal, and newspapers in addition to
plastics). Thus, use of curbside pickup may be expected to increase among states and individual
municipalities, especially those in densely populated areas of the country where landfilling costs
are currently greatest and landfill capacity is most rapidly dwindling.
5-32
-------
Curbside pickup programs face a number of institutional and economic barriers. It is probably
not feasible in communities that do not currently provide municipal waste collection (or
curbside pickup by private haulers) and/or have low population densities. Private parties may
implement curbside pickup, but there are apparently not enough profits in recycling operations
to support such "middlemen" unless a means is found to allow them to participate in the savings
realized from reduced landfilling costs (Brewer, 1988a).
Collection programs may also face significant challenges in urban environments. Most of the
curbside collection programs currently operating are in suburban or rural settings with few
multi-family dwellings. Unique difficulties are imposed by the presence of a large number of
multi-family dwellings and by the congestion of the urban environment. These must be
addressed and overcome by program planners if curbside collection is to capture a significant
proportion of urban MSW. Among the difficulties faced by urban collection programs are:
• Lack of storage space — Many urban residences are small, and very few have garages or
other unused space for recyclables storage.
• Use of dumpsters — Many multi-family residences use one or more large containers for
MSW collection. Implementation of a recycling program implies using additional
containers for recyclables collection, for which little space may be available in urban
settings.
• Difficulty of access — Narrow streets and alleyways may impede vehicle access to collected
recyclables, and may make collection a very slow process, adding significantly to program
costs.
Program cost may also slow the growth of curbside collection programs in some areas. lEc
(1988) reported data from a number of communities in which the net cost of recycling programs
(after recyclable sales and savings in disposal fees) ranged from $40 to over $100 per ton of
material collected. On the other hand, six out of eight programs reviewed during preparation
of this Report were either breaking even or showing an economic benefit associated with their
recycling programs; revenue-to-cost ratios ranged as high as 1.8, or $81 per ton of material
collected. Section 5.4.3 presents a detailed review of available information on the costs
associated with curbside recycling.
In most practicable implementation scenarios, curbside programs collect a mixture of plastics
wastes. In many current programs, mixed plastics are also commingled with recyclable
nonplastics. For this reason, implementation of curbside programs either demands that efficient
plastics separation strategies be implemented to allow the capture of homogeneous resin
streams, or implies that only mixed plastics technologies will be available as processing options
for the collected mixed plastics.
DROP-OFF RECYCLING CENTERS - Drop-off centers require the consumer to transport
recyclables to a central location. Their primary advantage over curbside recycling is their
relatively low cost to the implementing community. They may also be the only practicable
collection alternative in communities that do not provide for MSW collection but that require
5-33
-------
consumers to bring their wastes to a central collection facility. Drop-off centers face the
disadvantage that participation rates are generally much lower than for curbside programs.
The primary variables defining implementation strategies for drop-off centers include:
I • . i1 ! '
• Degree of recyclables separation required
• Number and location of recycling centers in the community
• Hours of operation
As with curbside programs, participation rates tend to increase when implementation strategies
are designed to minimize any inconvenience associated with recycling.
Drop-off recycling centers are likely to continue to be implemented among states and
municipalities that are hesitant to face the costs and institutional requirements of curbside
recycling or in which curbside recycling is infeasible. Past experience with drop-off centers
suggests, however, that after initially high participation rates, consumer use diminishes
significantly unless the sponsoring agency implements continuing public relations efforts. And
with low voluntary participation, drop-off centers may not divert a large proportion of MSW
from disposal.
VOLUNTARY CONTAINER BUY-BACK PROGRAMS - In a voluntary buy-back system,
consumers bring designated recyclable items to a central facility where they receive a cash
payment on a per item basis. These systems differ from container deposit systems in that the
designated items are purchased without a deposit. Buy-back programs may be implemented by
private organizations (e.g., beverage industry groups) or by government authorities.
These programs are not likely to divert significant quantities of MSW plastics to recycling
programs, although they can be successful at the local level. Like drop-off centers, these
systems face the disadvantage that they require consumers to store recyclables and bring them
to a central recycling location. Buy-back systems also may be impeded by the need to balance
payments made to consumers with the economic value of the recycled products. Payments to
consumers sufficient to induce high participation rates are likely to impose serious financial
burdens on the sponsor of the program. The economics of these programs remain poor,
however, because the sponsor does not participate in savings attributable to reduced landfill
requirements.
REVERSE VENDING MACHINES - Reverse vending machines are not an independent policy
option for plastics recycling, but an implementation option available to support drop-off
recycling centers, voluntary buy-back programs, or container deposit legislation. A single
machine accepts a specific class (or a few classes) of container and returns cash, a reduced-price
coupon for a subsequent consumer purchase, or a receipt redeemable for cash or merchandise.
Most machines incorporate a compactor or shredder to minimize internal storage requirements
for the recycled material. The primary advantage of reverse vending machines is that they
require no human involvement at the point of recycling; they can therefore be widely
5-34
-------
distributed (e.g., at supermarkets and other retail outlets) and so can greatly increase the
convenience of consumer participation in non-curbside recycling programs.
These machines are particularly attractive as a collection option in support of container deposit
legislation because they reduce the cost, space, and manpower requirements associated with
collection of recyclables by retailers or other collection centers. Reverse vending machines are
currently being deployed in at least three "bottle bill" states (Connecticut, New York, and
Massachusetts) and have been legally recognized as recycling centers under California's recycling
program (Brewer, 1988a).
Reverse vending machines also allow discrimination between resin types. Feasible technologies
exist that can allow machines to differentiate among resins, either to limit the plastics accepted
or to sort plastics for processing. Current use of reverse vending machines has been largely
limited to PET soft drink containers, but the technology may be applied to other plastic
containers (e.g., milk and laundry detergent bottles).
CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION - Deposit legislation is now viewed as an option to
divert plastic and other recyclable containers from the MSW stream, although it was originally
implemented as a means to reduce roadside litter. Container deposit legislation (the "bottle
bill") has been enacted in nine states (see Table 5-12). Deposits apply to soft drink, beer, and
some bottled water containers, and several states also include deposits on a few other beverage
containers. None of the current state laws recovers milk jugs, juice or most other beverage
containers, or containers for non-beverage liquids (e.g., bleach, cleansers). Nor do any state
laws apply to plastic/cardboard containers (e.g., milk cartons). It has been estimated that the
PET containers targeted by most deposit legislation represent only 3% of the plastic waste :
stream, or only 0.2% of the entire municipal solid waste stream (EEc, 1989). •••-.-'•
California also has legislation that provides an incentive for consumers to recycle beverage
bottles, although not a deposit system. In California, consumers are given a refund (equal to
the redemption value) for every container they return. The beverage industry pays the
redemption value.
Container deposit legislation has proven to be very effective at capturing targeted items. Table
5-12 presents data on compliance rates in several "bottle bill" states and California; state
authorities estimate compliance rates ranging from 50 to over 90%. Not all containers captured
by deposit legislation are recycled, however. For example, New York estimates that only 57%
of collected PET containers are recycled; the balance are disposed of as part of the MSW
stream. Iowa and Massachusetts report that even smaller percentages of collected plastic
containers are recycled. In contrast, virtually all glass and aluminum containers collected in
these states are apparently recycled (lEc, 1989).
Deposits are typically 5 cents per container (except in Michigan, where the deposit is 10 cents).
State programs may differ in the number of classes of containers covered, the organizational
structure enacted to facilitate the return pf containers to processors, and the flow of payments
to distributors and retailers. There has been significant retail and beverage industry resistance
to deposit legislation, however, because of the allegedly high costs to "middlemen" for providing
the required collection, storage, and (sometimes) transportation facilities for collected recyclable
5-35
-------
Table 5-12
ESTIMATED CONSUMER RETURN RATES OF PET
BEVERAGE CONTAINERS RESULTING FROM BOTTLE
BILL LEGISLATION
(Connecticut and Delaware not Included)
State
California
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
New York
Oregon
Vermont
Year
Passed
1986
1979
1978
1983
1978
1983
1971
1973
Primary
Collection
Method
Redemption
Centers
Retailers
Redemption
Centers
Retailers
Retailers
Retailers
Retailers
Redemption
Centers
Recovery
of All
Containers
>53
91-95
56
87-99
92-93
74
95
80-90
Recovery Deposit
Targeted Minimum
Plastics (cents)
5 1(b)
5
50 5
60-90 5
90 10
70 5
80-90 5
65-70 5
Program Features
More than 2000 "convenience zone" collection
centers. Wine coolers will be added in 1990.
Includes wine coolers and other alcoholic
beverage containers.
Includes wine coolers.
Includes wine coolers. Proposed legislation
will expand the variety of recycled materials.
Very high public acceptance of recycling for this
well-established program
Experienced a much lower return rate
on larger containers. Proposed bill to expand
to include alcoholic beverage containers.
(a) These figures are estimates. Many states with bottle bills have no established reporting system or requirements.
(b) The California return incentive increases proportionately depending upon the total amount of scrap.
collected in the state. Also added is an amount equalling the current scrap value of the container.
Sources: Bree, 1989; Calif., 1988; Maine DECD, 1988; Mass DEQE, 1988; Gehr, 1989; Koser, 1989; MacDonald, 1989;
Phillips, 1989; Schmitz, 1989; Wineholt, 1989.
-------
containers. The costs of container deposit legislation are discussed in more detail in Section
5.4.3.4 (below).
Although deposit legislation captures a high percentage of targeted containers, these containers
represent only a small fraction of all plastics in MSW. A few states (e.g., Michigan) are
considering extension of deposit legislation to a broader spectrum of plastic products (i.e., not
only beverage containers), but nationally little momentum is apparent toward such policies.
Deposit legislation allows collection of homogeneous resin streams because it targets specific
categories of containers. "Bottle bill" states are currently the primary suppliers for plastic
recycling processors.
Some potential exists for conflict between deposit legislation and curbside collection programs
(and drop-off recycling centers). Deposit legislation is generally targeted at easily characterized
containers that economically are among the most valuable plastic items in MSW. To the extent
that it succeeds in capturing a large proportion of these items, deposit legislation may tend to
reduce both the quantity and the economic value of plastics available for curbside collection.
This, in turn, may have a negative impact on the costs and benefits of curbside plastics
recycling, and may influence some communities to exclude plastics from their recycling
programs.
SUMMARY: COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES - Curbside collection offers to divert the most
significant quantities of MSW from disposal. Thus, use of this collection alternative is likely to
expand, especially in states and/or municipalities facing high landfill costs and capacity
constraints. One disadvantage of curbside collection is that it can yield mixed plastics (if many
are collected) that are difficult to sort by resin type with currently available technologies.
Curbside collection programs also face significant hurdles to implementation, both in urban
areas with large numbers of multi-family residences, and in rural areas with no centralized MSW
collection services. Container deposit legislation is very successful at capturing a large
proportion of targeted plastic beverage containers, yielding homogeneous recycled resins
amenable to high-value processing applications. But deposit legislation typically affects only a
very small proportion of MSW plastics. Especially if broadened to include additional categories
of recyclable plastic items, deposit legislation may tend to adversely impact the viability or
success of curbside recycling programs. Drop-off recycling centers and voluntary buy-back
programs are likely to remain minor contributors nationally to plastics recycling. Drop-off
centers, however, may be a successful recycling option in rural areas. Reverse vending
machines are likely to become much more prevalent as an implementation option in support of
drop-off centers, buy-back programs, and/or container deposit legislation.
5.4.2.2 Separation of Plastics by Resin Types
Recycled plastics may be processed either as homogeneous resins or as mixtures of resins.
Mixed resin processes currently yield products that only rarely displace virgin resins. The
following discussion presents a number of alternatives currently or potentially available to
facilitate the separation of collected recycled plastics into homogeneous resin types. The
greatest long-term diversion of plastics from the waste stream promises to be realized if
separation techniques are available that make homogeneous resins available to recycled plastics
5-37
-------
processors. The following discussion reflects both widespread interest and active efforts to
refine such techniques.
* | '1
The primary alternatives available to allow separation of homogeneous resins from collected
recyclable plastics include:
• Separation after compaction or shredding
• Container labeling and automated separation
i •
• Manual segregation by resin at the point of collection
• Collection focused on specific resin or container types
• Standardization of resin contents of recyclable products
The advantages and disadvantages of these alternative separation strategies (see Table 5-13) are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
SEPARATION AFTER COMPACTION OR SHREDDING - The most cost-effective means to
collect a large volume of plastics for recycling and delivery to processors is simply to segregate
mixed plastics from MSW and shred or compact them at the point of collection.
Separation of mixed shredded resins into homogeneous streams is technically difficult, however.
For well-characterized mixtures of two known resins (e.g., PET and HOPE from beverage
bottles) density separation may be possible; this technology is currently employed to segregate
shredded PET/HDPE bottles into their constituent resins for recycling. But the wide variety of
resins present in commingled plastics wastes, and the very similar densities of many of these
resins, effectively preclude the use of density separation techniques for assorted mixed plastics,
and no other technologies currently available or under development appear capable of achieving
reliable separation for shredded plastic wastes.
Separation of crushed containers may be feasible, however. The following section, describing
technologies available and under development to automatically separate intact or crushed plastic
containers, describes a number of existing or promising technologies that may facilitate the
segregation of homogeneous resin streams from mixed, crushed MSW plastics.
CONTAINER LABELING AND AUTOMATED SEPARATION - The Society of the Plastics
Industry (SPI) has instituted a voluntary labeling system for recyclable plastic containers (Figure
5-1); the molded label contains a code specifying the primary resin incorporated into the
product. These codes have been voluntarily adopted by much of the plastics processing industry
and are currently beginning to appear on containers distributed in consumer markets (lEc,
1988). Fifteen states have made use of the SPI codes mandatory on rigid plastic containers
distributed in the state (SPI, 1989). Several other states are considering such actions.
No insurmountable technical barriers apparently stand in the way of the development of
automated scanning and sorting systems that read an encoded label and divert products to
5-38
-------
TABLE 5-13
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO ALLOW
SEPARATION OF RESIN TYPES FROM MIXED RECYCLABLE PLASTICS,
Strategy
Advantages
Disadvantages
Separation after
compaction or
shredding
Container labeling
and automated
separation
Manual separation by
consumer or collection
agency
Collection focused on
specific resin or
container types
Convenience to consumers; does not
require consumers to separate wastes
Minimizes sorting, storage, and
transportation requirements for
collecting agencies
Allows collection strategies capturing
large volume and variety of MSW plastics
Convenience to consumers; does not
require consumers to separate wastes
Promises to allow separation into
homogeneous streams
Promises to allow collection strategies
capturing large volume and variety of MSW
plastics
Minimizes manpower requirements required
for sorting
Simple technology
Convenience to consumers if collecting
agency performs separation
Allows collection strategies capturing
large volume and variety of MSW plastics
Facilitates collection of homogeneous
resin streams
Allows recycling efforts to focus on high-
value, high-volume recyclable products
Currently not possible to effect
separation into homogeneous resins
after shredding
Shredding yields mixed plastics not
amenable to processing into products
displacing virgin resins
Technology not currently in place
May imply requirement for centralized
storage and separation facility, with
associated costs
Possible requirement to transport
collected recyclables to centralized
storage and separation facility
Potentially prohibitive manpower
requirements
May imply large storage and
transportation requirement for collecting
agency
Inconvenience to consumers if they are
required to perform separation
Inconvenience to consumers if they are
required to store and transport
recyclables to central collection point
(cont.)
5-39
-------
TABLE 5-13 (cont.)
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO ALLOW
SEPARATION OF RESIN TYPES FROM MIXED RECYCLABLE PLASTlds
Strategy
Advantages
Disadvantages
Collection focused on
specific resin or
container types
(cont.)
Standardization of
resin use for
certain product
applications
Convenience to consumers, who are
required to collect only a subset of
plastics wastes
Relatively low cost to recycling agencies
Consistent with collection strategies
offering financial incentives to recycle
Facilitates collection of homogeneous
resin streams
Captures only a small portion of
potentially recyclable plastics
May imply significant governmental
intervention in private markets
May be difficult to enlist voluntary
industry cooperation
May be applicable to only a small
percentage of recyclable products
Source: Compiled by Eastern Research Group.
5-40
-------
Figure 5-1
PROPOSED CODING SYSTEM FOR PLASTICS RESIN
/x
PETE
HDPE
vx
LPDE
/x
pp
PS
OTHER
1. Polyethylene terephthalate
2. High-density polyethylene
3. Vinyl
4. Low-density polyethylene
5. Polypropylene
6. Polystyrene
7. Other, including multilayer
Source: SPI, 1988.
5-41
-------
separate shredding and storage lines, although this technology has not yet been implemented
(Medeiros, 1989).
Other technologies potentially available to effect separation of mixed plastics need not rely on
an encoded label. The Center for Plastics Recycling Research is investigating an infrared
sorting system that may be applicable to crushed containers (Dittmann, 1989). Density
separation techniques are currently employed to separate some resins (e.g., PET and HDPE
recovered from beverage containers). These techniques might find wider application, but their
ability to effectively sort the wide variety of resins and resin/additive combinations found in
mixed MSW plastics is questionable. For example, PET and PVC are of similar density and
thus difficult to separate. By industry agreement or regulatory requirement, chemical markers
might also be incorporated in commodity resins in consumer applications; these markers could
facilitate separation by spectrographic or other means.
There is significant industry interest in these technologies, and a number of implementation
alternatives are under active development. These technologies face foreseeable barriers,
however, primarily economic and institutional.
Economic barriers include: 1) the potential cost of such systems; and 2) costs imposed on
municipalities or other recycling agencies to transport uncrushed (with some technologies),
unshredded containers to the sorting facility. An institutional barrier is also associated with
these economic considerations, in that the expense of the systems may make them feasible only
if implemented in regional (e.g., county-wide) processing centers, which in turn may require a
coordinated infrastructure among governments in a region.
This option is most compatible with curbside collection programs (and drop-off recycling
centers) because these programs promise to provide large volumes of mixed plastics wastes.
Automated separation is also compatible with container deposit legislation; this is especially true
if deposit legislation is extended to a broad range of recyclable containers.
Development of this alternative may also be determined, to some extent, by the growth of
markets for the products of homogeneous plastics recycling processes. If these markets
continue to develop, processors may demand greater quantities of homogeneous recycled resins.
Such demand may drive the development and implementation of automated plastics separation.
!
SEGREGATION BY RESIN AT THE POINT OF COLLECTION - If a uniform labeling
convention is in place, plastics may be segregated manually by resin as they are collected for
recycling. In a curbside collection program, separation may be performed by consumers before
setting materials out for recycling, or by the MSW collection agency either at curbside or at a
central processing facility. In a centralized collection scheme, separation may also be required
of the consumer, or may be performed during or after the transfer of recyclables from
consumer to the collection center.
While this technique is technologically simple, it is labor intensive. The inconvenience to
consumers of scanning and separating products by resins suggests that participation in this
separation scheme wpuld be low. If collecting agencies also must sort the wastes, significant
labor costs will be imposed; costs will also be imposed at the point of collection for the storage
5-42
-------
of recyclables, and potentially for the transport of sorted recyclables to processing facilities
(although shredding or compaction at the point of collection may allow this expense to be
avoided).
Nevertheless, a number of communities perform manual sorting of recyclables. Typically, their
collection and separation efforts have focused on only one or a few classes of plastic articles
(e.g., HDPE milk jugs, PET/HDPE beverage containers). Some of these communities have
worked in conjunction with human services agencies to employ handicapped citizens for sorting
tasks. These citizens provide a low-cost work force for the recycling program, and benefits are
also measured by the provision of meaningful work for this segment of the population.
In conclusion, manual sorting is not the most efficient of sorting alternatives, but it offers
benefits that will undoubtedly encourage its use by a number of community recycling programs.
COLLECTION FOCUSED ON SPECIFIC RESIN OR CONTAINER TYPES - A number of
municipal recycling programs, as well as most "bottle bill" plastics recycling efforts, focus on a
limited subset of all recyclable plastic containers. For example, some communities (e.g.,
Naperville, Illinois (Massachusetts DEQE, 1988) have focused on HDPE milk jugs in their
recycling efforts, while most container deposit legislation affects primarily PET/HDPE beverage
containers.
Such focused recycling efforts by definition yield an easily characterized, homogeneous stream of
recyclables. Compared to other separation alternatives, they also offer the advantages of
consumer convenience and relatively low cost to recycling agencies. But they result in the
collection of only a small subset of potential recyclables, and so offer limited benefits in terms
of total reduction of the volume of plastics in MSW requiring disposal.
Nonetheless, based on the purchasing activity of recycled plastic processors, this strategy has
proven very effective in capturing the homogeneous resin streams required for plastics recycling
technologies dependent on homogeneous input streams. By definition, use of this strategy will
continue to expand with any expansion of bottle deposit legislation, use of reverse vending
machines, or voluntary buy-back programs. If states begin to expand the scope of deposit
legislation, however, such legislation may result in the collection of more mixed plastics waste
streams. In this case, deployment of alternative separation strategies may be required if these
states are to continue to be sources of homogeneous resin streams.
STANDARDIZATION OF RESIN CONTENTS OF RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS - One of the
most intractable problems in mixed plastics recycling is the great variety of resins in MSW. In
the face of this diversity, it may be desirable to apply uniform standards for resin content across
at least some classes of plastic containers to facilitate their separation into a homogeneous
stream of recyclable plastic. This option is not really a separation strategy in itself, but
facilitates the coding and separation of a potentially wide selection of plastics products. This
strategy has been used in West Germany and the Netherlands, where the Coca Cola company
has worked with a bottle producer and government agencies to develop a single-resin beverage
container to support recycling programs (NOAA, 1988).
5-43
-------
Barriers to growth are significant for this option. It affects the business decisions of potentially
thousands of producers and marketers. Resin and additive contents are often dictated by
specific product needs (e.g., for vapor impermeability, transparency or translucence, chemical
resistance to specific compounds), and so may be impractical for government authorities to
review or assess. Nonetheless, for a limited range of items with common characteristics (e.g.,
beverage containers, milk jugs, detergent bottles), standardization may spread through voluntary
industry agreements (based on the perceived public relations value of marketing in recyclable
containers), which might be encouraged by government involvement.
i
SUMMARY: OUTLOOK FOR SEPARATION OF PLASTICS INTO RESIN TYPES - No"
technologies are currently widely employed to effect the separation of resins from mixed plastics
wastes. The most effective means currently employed to yield homogeneous recycled resin
streams is to focus collection efforts on one or a few products containing a correspondingly
small number of resins. Two additional strategies may facilitate the collection of homogeneous
resin streams: 1) development of standard container labeling and automated sorting equipment,
and 2) voluntary use of standardized resin contents in some classes of plastic products.
Significant industry efforts are underway to develop automated sorting technologies. Within a
few years these may allow mixed recycled plastics to be sorted efficiently and cost effectively.
5.4.23 Processing and Manufacturing of Recycled Plastics
Depending on the nature and homogeneity of resins available from collected (and possibly
sorted) recycled plastics, a number of processes are available to produce recycled plastic
products. Discussions of many of these processes are available in a number of sources (e.g.,
Plastics Recycling Foundation, 1988; Mass. DEQE, 1988; ffic, 1988; Brewer, 1988a; Curlee,
1986); the following discussion provides an overview of the principal distinguishing
characteristics of these processes, including their inputs and the nature and quality of products
they yield.
Processing technologies available for post-consumer plastic wastes may be grouped into two
categories:
• Secondary Processes — include a variety of technologies distinguished by the nature of
required inputs and by the characteristics of their products. They are commonly
differentiated by the nature of resins input to the process:
— Secondary Processes/Homogeneous Resins — yield products that compete with the
products of virgin resins.
— Secondary Processes/Mixed Resins — yield massive or thick-walled products that may
replace lumber, cpncrete, or ceramics.
• Tertiary Processes — use either pure or mixed resins to yield monomers or oligomers used
as fuels (mixed plastics inputs) or as chemical feedstocks (pure resin inputs).
5-44
-------
As noted in Section 5.4.2, "Primary" recycling processes refer to industrial reprocessing of
manufacturing and processing scrap; these processes do not affect post-consumer wastes and are
not addressed in this Report. Some analysts also define a fourth (or "quaternary") category of
recycling processing technology (e.g., Curlee, 1986). Quaternary processes are defined as the
pyrolysis and combustion of plastics in an energy-recovery incinerator; as such, they are not
recycling processes as defined in this Report.
Processing technologies are defined primarily by the purity of their required input streams and
the quality of their products. As has been noted, homogeneous inputs are required for
technologies that can use recycled plastics in blends with virgin resins or that can produce
products competitive with products manufactured from virgin resins. As input quality falls,
output products tend not to displace consumption of virgin plastics, but to compete in markets
with lower-value commodities such as lumber and concrete. The products of tertiary recycling
processes (monomers and oligomers resulting from the nearly complete breakdown of plastics
resins) do not compete with plastics strictly defined, but with the raw input materials to plastics
(and other chemical) production processes.
SECONDARY PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES/HOMOGENEOUS RESIN INPUTS - These
processing technologies are generally the same as or similar to those used to process virgin
plastic resins, and demand inputs of high resin quality and homogeneity.
Secondary recycling processes for homogeneous resins typically heat recycled plastics (or a blend
of recycled and virgin resins) into their melt range and use any of a number of production
processes (e.g., injection molding, extrusion) to yield a final product. To date, such processes
have been employed primarily with homogeneous resin streams from recycled PET/HDPE
beverage containers and HDPE milk jugs. Table 5-14 presents a number of the products
currently produced from recycled PET and HDPE, with estimates of the size of current and
projected markets for these products.
These processing technologies are the same as or very similar to those employed with virgin
resins; as such, they are "mature," cost-effective, and well characterized. They are capable of
processing inputs of recycled resins into high-value products and are currently supply-limited.
SECONDARY PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES/MIXED RESIN INPUTS - Secondary
processing technologies using mixed resin inputs yield products with relatively non-demanding
physical and chemical characteristics. Typically, mixed resins are heated (generally by pressure
and friction) above the melt points of the dominant resins in the blend and extruded or molded
into desired product shapes. Plastics that do not melt in the blend (and other contaminants)
are encapsulated and serve as filler in the final product; other materials (fillers, colorants,
stabilizers, flame retardants, etc.) may be added during the blending process to yield desired
product qualities.
Some of the products of mixed resin secondary processes include (Brewer 1987):
• Plastic "lumber" (suitable for boat docks, fence posts, animal pens, landscaping
applications, etc.)
5-45
-------
Table 5-14
ESTIMATED MARKETS FOR RECYCLED PLASTIC RESINS
(Millions of pounds)
Polyethylene Terephthalate
Product Applications
Fiber
Injection molding
Extrusion
Non-food grade containers
Structural foam molding
Paints, polyols, other
chemical uses
Stampable sheet
Other
Total - polyethylene
terephthalate
Market
1987
90
25
25
—
—
10
—
—
150
Size
1992
180
160
130
30
30
20
30
10
590
High-Density Polyethylene
Product Applications
Bottles
(nonfood)
Drums
Pails
Toys
Pipe
Sheet
Crates, cases,
pallets
All other
Total - high-density
polyethylene
Market
1987
—
—
20
—
30
—
—
4
54
Size
1992
115
25
65
15
80
25
105
130
560
Source: Center for Plastics Recycling Research, 1987.
-------
• Car stops and railroad ties
• Pallets
• Gratings and man-hole covers
• Cable reels
Mixed resin secondary processes are currently available and have been deployed by a number of
firms in the United States. European countries (especially Germany) and Japan have been
leaders in developing and implementing these technologies. They continue to face a number of
technical and economic barriers, however. Technically, these technologies face the challenge of
producing higher-quality, higher-value products from mixed plastics inputs. Their current range
of products competes with low-value commodities in relatively limited markets; both market
diversity and product value must increase if these technologies are to fulfill their promise to
absorb a large proportion of recyclable mixed plastics. Economically, the costs of these
processing technologies must be reduced to allow their products to compete effectively in
established markets; the long lifespans and maintenance-free qualities of their products may not
be sufficient to overcome consumer resistance to high initial purchase prices.
TERTIARY PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES - Tertiary processes recover basic chemicals and
fuels from waste plastics. By far the most common tertiary process is pyrolysis, in which wastes
are heated in the absence of oxygen, driving off volatile components of the inputs (plastics
monomers and oligomers and other products) and leaving a "char" consisting mainly of carbon
and ash. The mix of products and their potential uses are determined both by the nature of
the input stream and by pyrolysis conditions; they can include combustible gases useful as
chemical feedstocks and gases and liquids that can be used as fuels (Curlee, 1986).
Tertiary processes can be employed with a wide variety of inputs, including mixed organic
wastes (e.g., all combustible fractions of MSW), mixed plastics wastes, or homogeneous plastic
resin streams. Control over outputs is greatest when inputs are well characterized and consist
of only one or a few known constituents. Only if these conditions are met do tertiary processes
yield products of sufficient quality and purity to be used as chemical feedstocks; as input quality
declines, tertiary products are generally useful only as fuels (and the distinction between tertiary
"recycling" and simple incineration tends to be obliterated).The primary advantage of tertiary
processes is their ability to be used with mixed plastics or with mixed plastic/nonplastic wastes.
If used with such wastes, however, tertiary processes tend to become a disposal rather than a
recycling alternative. Because tertiary processing technologies can also be employed with
homogeneous plastics waste streams to yield high-value chemical products, they may also
compete with homogeneous resin secondary processing technologies as an option to recycle
sorted and well-categorized plastics resins separated from MSW.
SUMMARY: PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURING OF RECYCLED PLASTICS -
Secondary processing technologies using homogeneous resins as inputs generally yield products
that displace virgin plastic resins in product applications. They therefore result in the most
significant reduction of plastics use and the long-term reduction of disposal requirements. But
. 5-47
-------
their required inputs of homogeneous, well-characterized resins may be difficult or impossible to
obtain with curbside collection or drop-off recycling centers (unless these collection options are
focused on a limited set of plastics wastes, e.g., PET/HDPE containers or plastic milk jugs).
Mixed resin secondary technologies, on the other hand, can operate with mixed plastics wastes.
But they produce relatively low value products that do not compete with virgin plastics but with
lumber, concrete, ceramics, and metals. Because they do not reduce virgin plastics use, and
because they must themselves eventually be disposed of, the products of mixed resin secondary
processes delay, but may not ultimately reduce, plastics disposal requirements (see Section
5.4.2). Tertiary recycling processes may use either mixed or pure resin streams as inputs. If
mixed plastics are inputs, tertiary processes generally yield hydrocarbon fuels (and can best be
classed as a disposal option); if homogeneous resins are inputs, however, tertiary processes may
yield well-characterized products that can be used as feedstocks in the production of plastics or
other chemical products.
5.4.2.4 Marketing of Recycled Plastics Products
The presence of adequate markets for recycled plastics products will be a critical determinant of
the potential for recycling to divert a significant proportion of plastics from MSW disposal.
Available information indicates that substantial markets exist for the products of secondary
processes employing homogeneous resin inputs and for some tertiary processing technologies,
and that market opportunities should not limit the growth of these technologies in the
foreseeable future. The products of mixed resin secondary processes, however, may face
significant marketing challenges; these processes may need to overcome cost and product quality
hurdles to be assured of adequate long-term markets.
A number of other changes may help to improve current and potential markets for recycled
plastics. These include changes in consumer preferences (e.g., through marketing efforts
stressing the environmental benefits of recycled plastics), the development of cooperative
marketing associations, increased government procurement of recycled products, and increased
industrial and government research and development in all phases of plastics recycling.
!
The following paragraphs summarize published estimates of current and potential markets for
recycled plastic products. Published quantitative estimates have focused on markets for recycled
PET and HDPE products, because these resins have been those most widely targeted under
currently implemented collection strategies, and on the products of mixed resin secondary
recycling processes.
MARKETS FOR UNPROCESSED RECYCLED PLASTICS - In addition to U.S. and foreign
markets for the finished products of recycling processes, foreign markets may exist for
unprocessed or partially processed recycled plastics. In a Massachusetts study, less developed
countries were singled out as a large potential market for recycled resins (Mass. DEQE, 1988),
and some recycling programs have specifically targeted foreign processors to accept recycled
resins. No quantitative estimates of these markets exist, however, and some evidence suggests
that these markets may be very volatile, and so may not be reliable as a market for large
volumes of recycled resins (Smith, 1989).
5-48
-------
MARKETS FOR PRODUCTS OF SECONDARY TECHNOLOGIES USING HOMOGENEOUS
RESINS - Table 5-14 provides estimates of the 1987 and 1992 markets for recycled PET
products. The 1987 market of 150 million pound/year is predicted to grow by 400%, .to 600
million pounds/year, by 1992 (Center for Plastics Recycling Research, 1987). The latter
estimate represents slightly more than 30% of U.S. 1988 production of PET (SPI, 1988a) and
would represent approximately 50% of all PET soft drink bottles.
Table 5-14 also provides estimates for products of recycled HDPE. Markets for these products
are projected to grow ten-fold between 1987 and 1992, to a total of 560 million pounds/year
(Center for Plastics Recycling Research, 1987). This figure represents approximately 7% of
1988 U.S. production (SPI, 1988a).
Current and potential market areas are also forecast for recycled polyvinyl chloride resins. The
specific applications for this material include various building and construction applications
(drainage, sewer, and irrigation pipe, pipe fittings, vinyl floor tile, fencing) and industrial uses
(truck bed liners, cushioned laboratory mats). Because PVC recycling is not currently as well
developed as that for PET and HDPE, reliable quantitative estimates of market size for
recycled PVC products have not been generated to date.
Polystyrene is another single resin that has been the focus of recent recycling efforts. Specific
applications include insulation, toys, and desk supplies. Since post-consumer PS recycling is
currently very limited, reliable quantitative estimates of market size have not yet been
developed.
MARKETS FOR PRODUCTS OF SECONDARY TECHNOLOGIES USING MIXED RESINS -
Table 5-15 provides qualitative estimates of the potential markets for a number of products of
mixed resin processing technologies. This table reflects the fact that the greatest potential
markets for these products are currently dominated by lumber, concrete, and other similar
commodities. Although plastic "lumber" produced from mixed recycled plastics may be sawed,
shaped, an,d painted, its overall potential to replace wood (or metal) in many applications, is
limited by its relatively poor structural properties and its relatively high price (2-3 times that of
pressure heated lumber) (Bennett, 1988; lEc, 1988; Mass. DEQE, 1988).
Economic barriers currently impede further market penetration for many mixed resin recycled
products. For example, plastic "lumber" may have an initial sales price 50 to 300% higher than
comparable wood items (Maczko, 1989); although lifecycle savings attributable to the
nonbiodegradability of the plastic item may reduce or reverse this cost differential over the
product lifetime, long-term savings may be insufficient to overcome resistance to the high
purchase price for many consumers.
These barriers may be reduced as mixed resin processing technologies mature. A number of
American research institutions (including the Plastics Recycling Foundation and the Center for
Plastics Recycling Research), as well as a number of foreign firms and government agencies, are
conducting active R&D programs to increase the applicability, reduce costs, and increase
product quality for mixed resin recycled plastics products. This high level of interest and
commitment to additional research promises to significantly expand the market opportunities for
these products in coming years.
5-49
-------
TABLE 5-15
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL MARKETS
FOR MIXED RESIN RECYCLED PRODUCTS
Market
Key Consideration
Market Outlook
Boat docks
Auto curb stops
Breakwaters
Park benches
Mushroom trays
Horse stalls
Picnic tables
Playground
equipment
Railroad ties
Continuous exposure to harsh, wet environment
Plastic products currently used, accepted
Plastic currently used, cost effective
Coloring throughout saves maintenance costs
compared to concrete alternatives
Lighter weight than concrete alternatives
Wet environment ideal for plastic
Continued exposure to inclement weather
Moist conditions require plastic
Top and bottom rails subject to deterioration;
Ideal for plastic
Continued exposure to inclement weather
Outdoor environment ideal for plastic
Outdoor environment ideal for plastic
Harsh outdoor environment suitable for
plastics
Strong regional
potential
Limited data
available
Tight construction
regulations
Regional markets
only
Strong potential
I
Limited market data
Potential food
I I V '
contact concerns
• • • -i . . . •
Strong regional
potential
Small market
Limited market data
Tight construction
specifications
Potentially large
market
Tight construction
specifications
Depends on results of
ongoing long-term
strength tests
Source: lEc, 1988; adapted from Mass. DEQE, 1988.
5-50
-------
MARKETS FOR PRODUCTS OF TERTIARY PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES - Markets for
tertiary recycled plastics products vary with the process inputs. Products of tertiary processing
of mixed plastics wastes represent a generally complex mixture of hydrocarbons; it is infeasible
to refine such mixtures into pure product streams economically competitive with those obtained
from processing petroleum or natural gas, and so these products are generally useful only as
fuels. If recycling outputs are put to no other use, "tertiary processing" is no more than a
synonym for incineration.
The products of tertiary processing of homogeneous, well-characterized input streams, on the
other hand, can be controlled and may be economically competitive with the products of
refining processes. For example, tertiary processing of PET may produce chemical feedstocks of
equal quality to and at lower prices than those obtained from raw refining processes (Stroika,
1988).To date, tertiary processes that convert homogeneous resin streams into high- quality
chemical feedstocks have been deployed in only a small number of installations in the United
States. Although limited evidence indicates that these plants have been economically viable,
little research has been conducted into the potential long-term market for these tertiary
recycled products (Stroika, 1988).
SUMMARY: MARKETS FOR RECYCLED PLASTICS PRODUCTS - Substantial markets
appear to exist for the products of secondary recycling processes employing homogeneous resin
inputs. In the opinion of many industry participants, the primary limitation on the development
of these technologies is not current or potential market size, but assurance of a steady supply of
inputs (Brewer, 1988c). Developments in homogeneous resin processing technologies suggest
that they will continue to be refined to yield products that are directly competitive with those
produced from virgin resins. These recycled products should be cost-competitive in appropriate
markets.
Current mixed resin secondary processing technologies yield products that are competitive with
relatively low cost commodities. Their long-term marketing outlook may depend on production
costs as the technologies mature, and on technological developments that allow the production
of higher-quality, higher-value products.
For tertiary processes operating with homogeneous inputs (which yield chemical feedstocks as
products), the primary marketing consideration is the cost of the recycled outputs vis a vis the
cost of feedstocks refined from fossil fuels — these latter costs are determined jointly by fossil
fuel prices, the capacity of feedstock refineries, and national and international demand for
plastics. Economic scenarios combining increasing energy prices and increasing demand for
plastics promise the greatest long-term markets for feedstock-producing tertiary technologies.
5.4.2.5 Summary: Integration of Plastics Recycling Alternatives
One of the most notable characteristics of plastics recycling is the variety of alternatives
available to implement each of the four phases of the recycling process. But none of these
phases exists in isolation; the phases, and the choices among available alternatives for each
phase, are intricately interrelated. For example, implementation of mixed plastics collection
strategies implies that only mixed resin secondary recycling processes will be available for the
5-51
-------
recycled resins; however, the potentially larger markets and higher value for homogeneous resin
products may simultaneously spur the development of effective resin separation technologies,
ultimately allowing high-volume collection (i.e., collection of mixed plastics) to be coupled with
homogeneous resin recycling processes.
Table 5-16 matches the primary collection options for recyclable plastics against options to
separate plastics by resin and points out the major relationships between them. The most
important consideration reflected in Table 5-16 is volume of plastics collected with each
collection/separation combination and the homogeneity of the resulting resin stream.
Combinations of collection/separation alternatives that tend to link capture of high volumes of
plastics with output of homogeneous resin streams are the most valuable in terms of opening
the largest markets for recycled plastics products and providing the greatest long-term diversion
of plastics from MSW disposal requirements.
Among collection options, curbside collection promises to divert the greatest proportion of
MSW plastics from disposal. But unless efficient separation alternatives are employed, curbside
collection may yield mixed plastics amenable only to mixed resin secondary processing. A
number of promising separation alternatives are the focus of active research and development.
Although no insurmountable technical barriers to implementation of one or more of these
separation options are apparent, none is currently available.
Drop-off recycling centers have similar sorting requirements. But because of historically low
participation rates, drop-off centers do not promise to divert a significant proportion of plastics
from disposal (unless implementation is accompanied by effective, long-term public education
and outreach programs).
Curbside collection (or drop-off centers) might be targeted at only a limited subset of MSW
plastics, but such targeting reduces the volume of plastics collected.
Container deposit legislation as currently enacted (i.e., targeted at only a few classes of plastic
containers) has the advantage that it generally yields resins pure enough to feed recycling
processes demanding homogeneous resin inputs. But deposit legislation captures only a small
proportion of MSW plastics.
There has been much discussion and some state action (e.g., in Michigan) to expand the range
of items collected under container deposit legislation. To do so would obviously increase the
proportion of MSW plastics collected under deposit programs, but this option has drawbacks.
First, it will probably tend to reduce the volume of resins available to secondary processors
requiring homogeneous inputs (unless effective separation technologies are implemented).
Second, it may interfere with the success of curbside collection programs, primarily because of
its negative impact on costs and benefits of curbside collection. Nonetheless, this collection
option may be appropriate in states where demographics militate against the widespread use of
curbside collection.
Combinations of deposit legislation and other collection alternatives may prove to be effective
recycling policy options. For example, deposit legislation expanded to selected additional
containers (of known, standardized resin content) might effectively capture a large proportion of
5-52
-------
Table 5-16
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG RECYCLING. COLLECTION, AND SEPARATION ALTERNATIVES
Separation Alternative
Collection
Alternative
Separation after
Compaction or Shredding No Separation
Separation at Point
Automated Separation of Collection
Collection Focused on
One or a Few Resin*
Olher Considerations
Curbside collection;
Drop-off center*;
Voluntary buy-back
Thl* separation option
require* technological
development to Improve
application* for thl*
collection alternative;
separation after shredding
may not be feasible
with comlngled plastic*
May divert the greatest volume
of recyclable* from MSW
disposal, but result* In
plastic* stream amenable only
to mixed plastic* processing
May yield resin* pure enough
to use homogeneous plastic
processing technologies;
separation technology
currently unproven
This separation option
probably not widely feasible
for these collection alternatives;
some communities employ
handicapped citizens to
separate recyclable*
Signifio jnt reduction in
potential to collect and recycle
large proportion of MSW
plastics
Curbslde recycling offers best
potential to reduce net discard*.
Enactment of container deposit
legislation may lower participation
In these collection alternatives.
Unless efficient separation Is
Implemented, collected plastic*
amenable only to mixed
plastic* processing
Container deposit
legislation targeted
at only * lew itomt
(I.e.. mot) current
deposit lawe)
Container deposit
legislation targeted
at a wider variety of
Items
This separation option
depend* on technology
development to apply to
this collection
alternative
This separation option
probably Infeatlble with
this collection alternative
Collected plastic*
may be amenable only to
mixed plastics processing;
however, If only one
resin Is targeted (e.g..
PET drink containers),
materials may be used for
homogeneous plastic
recycling processes
Collected plastics maybe
amenable only to
mixed plastics processing
Should yield resins pure
enough to use homogeneous
plastic processing
technologies;
separation technology
currently unproven
May be appropriate lor
this collection option,
especially If collection focuses
on containers of a relatively
few resin types; technology
currently unpToven
May be feasible with this
collection option, because only
a lew resin and/or container
type* will be collected
This separation option
probably not feasible with
this collection alternative
Part of the definition of this
collection alternative; yields
resins amenable to homo-
geneous plastics processing
May be part of the definition
of this collection
alternative; may be most
effective with Industry
agreement to standardize
resin contents of targeted
items; ihould yield resins
amenable to homogeneous
plastics processing
Results In relatively small diversion
of plastics from MSW disposal; may
be effectively combined with curbslde
collection, drop-off centers; should
yield relatively pure resins amenable
to homogenous plastics processing
Deposit legislation targeted at many
Items may tend to have a negative
Impact on the success of curbslde
collection, drop-off, and voluntary
buy-back collection alternatives;
unless efficient separation is
Implemented, plastics collected
probably amenable only to mixed
plastics processing
Source: Compiled by Eastern Research Group.
-------
MSW plastics amenable to homogeneous resin processing technologies. Although curbside
collection would then capture only the remaining mixed plastics, there would be no requirement
to sort these wastes, and they could be fed directly into mixed plastic processing technologies.
The net result might be the optimization of both the total diversion of plastics from disposal
and the yield of resins amenable to homogeneous resin processing technologies.Another
potentially attractive oollection/sorting/processing alternative couples curbside (or other)
collection alternatives that yield a mixed stream of recycled plastics with limited separation by
resin types. Such limited separation might effectively skim the highest-volume or highest-value
resins from mixed recycled plastics, making these resins available to processors relying on
homogeneous inputs. The remaining plastics would be fed to processors employing mixed
plastics processing technologies. This strategy would capture high volumes of MSW plastics and
simultaneously facilitate the market expansion of homogeneous and mixed plastic recycling
processes:
This discussion (and the information presented in Table 5-16) represents only a very preliminary
analysis of the interaction between recycling collection, separation, and processing options.
What it makes clear is that plastics recycling must be viewed and analyzed as a system of
integrated components, in which decisions affecting each phase of recycling have implications on
all other phases — and on the success of a proposed recycling program as a whole. Recycling
of other components is also affected by the choices made for plastics recycling. An integrated
system is required.
5.4.2.6 Current Government and Industry Plastics Recycling Initiatives
Plastics recycling is a dynamic field. All four phases of recycling ~ collection, sorting,
processing, and marketing - are the subject of active interest, regulatory intervention, and
research and development efforts, sponsored by national governments (especially in Western
Europe), state and local governments, and private industry. New developments in all phases of
plastics recycling are reported almost monthly. The very rapid recent progress both in
technological innovation and in governmental support for plastics recycling augurs well for the
continuing success of this waste management alternative.
The following paragraphs highlight a number of recent developments hi plastics recycling,
compiled by Brewer (1989) and the Council for Solid Waste Solutions (1989):
RESIN SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES -
u An industrial scale polyolefin separation plant is on-line in Coburg, West Germany. The
firm responsible has announced a joint venture to site ten such separation plants in the
United States.
• Sorema, an Italian firm, has sold approximately a dozen polyolefin separation plants
worldwide that handle post-consumer plastics.
"'- ' i I
• Research underway at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is focused on a sorting system
capable of isolating distinct resins from mixed plastics.
5-54
-------
Dupont and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), recently announced a joint venture to
collect, separate, and process recycled plastics. The joint program will be implemented in
communities across the country serviced by'WMTs waste collection operations.
Wellman, Inc., America's largest processor of recycled PET, recently inaugurated a major
research program to develop sorting technologies for mixed resins.
MIXED PLASTIC SECONDARY RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES -
m Sixteen plants using the mked plastic "ET/1" technology (producing plastic "lumber" and
similar structural products) are on-line worldwide; three of these are in the United States.
An additional sixteen plants have been ordered.
• Recycled Plastics, Inc., operates a mixed plastics processing plant in Iowa Falls, Iowa, and
recently announced plans to site a second plant in Chicago.
• The first American plant using the mixed plastic "Recycloplast" technology went on-line in
Georgia earlier this year. Siting for two additional plants, in Pennsysvania and New
Jersey, is underway.
MARKETS FOR RECYCLED PLASTICS -
m Procter & Gamble is test marketing Spic & Span Pine cleaner in bottles made from
recycled PET. Procter & Gamble has also announced plans to used recycled HDPE in
the middle layer of bottles for its Tide, Cheer, and Downey laundry products.
• Colgate-Palmolive uses recycled PET for Palmolive Liquid dish detergent bottles.
• A New Jersey manufacturer uses recycled PET for egg cartons marketed in New York
and New Jersey.
• Johnson Controls, a large PET resin producer, has guaranteed markets for a stateVide
network of PET buybacks in the state of Washington.
• The city of Chicago has awarded a purchase contract for recycled plastic landscape
timbers and playground equipment for city-maintained playgrounds.
• The State of Illinois has entered into an agreement with DuPont to test a variety of
highway construction products (e.g., roadway dividers, traffic re-routers) made from
recycled PET and HDPE.
5-55
-------
5.43 Costs of Plastics Recycling
Plastics are a very recent addition to recycling programs. As a result, recycling agencies and
processors have little operating experience on which to base estimates of costs for any of the
phases of the recycling process — collection, separation, processing, and marketing.
This analysis covers the costs associated with collection and separation of plastics for recycling.
The primary focus is on the costs of curbside collection; less detailed discussions address the
costs of drop-off recycling centers and of container deposit legislation. The economics of
curbside collection are emphasized because:
1 . ,, • •
1. Collection costs (and revenues) will accrue primarily to local government agencies. The
costs (and revenues) of processing and marketing, on the other hand, will accrue to the
private sector. Policy concern, therefore, appears most appropriately directed at the
collection phase of the recycling process.
Of available collection strategies, curbside collection promises to divert the greatest
proportion of plastics (and other recyclables) from MSW disposal requirements; this is a
critical consideration especially in the densely populated regions of the country that face
the highest costs for landfill or other MSW disposal alternatives.
The more widespread implementation of curbside collection promises to provide a
reliable source of resins that will foster the continued expansion of the recycled plastics
processing industry. Processing industry participants have identified the lack of such
supplies as the greatest current barrier to expansion of their industry (see Section
5.4.2.4).
Most of the information presented here reflects the costs and revenues generated by the
collection of mixed recyclables — newspaper, glass, and metals in addition to plastics. Very few
data exist on the cost of independent plastics collection programs, nor on the incremental costs
associated with adding plastics to existing recycling efforts for other materials. A few
hypothetical calculations of the incremental costs of adding plastics to curbside collection
programs have been completed; they are presented below.
2.
3.
5.43.1 Costs of Curbside Collection Programs
< . • | •
Approximately 600 curbside collection programs have been established in the United States
(Glass Packaging Institute, 1988). Few of these, however, include plastics among targeted
recyclables, although the number of communities that collect plastics appears to be increasing
steadily. For this reason, historical or current cost data on the inclusion of plastics in recycling
programs are unavailable. Two recent analyses (lEc, 1988 and. Center for Plastics Recycling
Research, 1988) have estimated the incremental costs and revenues associated with adding
plastics to curbside collection programs; results of these analyses are presented below (see
Section 5.4.3.2).
5-56
-------
A number of studies have provided templates to assist municipal officials in estimating program
costs and benefits (e.g., Stevens, 1988, 1989a, 1989b; Glenn, 1988b; Glass'Packaging Institute,
1988; Center for Plastics Recycling Research, 1988). Some of these studies have provided
information on specific cost components (e.g., equipment costs), or have provided ranges of
costs for major recycling program elements (e.g., labor, vehicle operation and maintenance), but
none has provided comprehensive information on the costs and revenues of specific municipal
programs. Nevertheless, a number of insights into the economics of curbside collection are
emerging from the body of experience gathered by municipal and county recycling programs.
Overall program costs and revenues are determined by the interaction of a large number of cost
elements; some of these are influenced by the design of the recycling program, while others are
more or less independent of the program setup. Table 5-17 reviews the effect of program
design elements on the costs and revenues of curbside recycling. Because these program design
elements often interact, and because changes in more than one element are often implemented
simultaneously, it is difficult to isolate the impact of specific design elements on program costs
and revenues. With this caveat, however, a number of general observations can be made:
Collection Strategy and Crew Size. Some studies have suggested that it is most cost-
effective to collect MSW and recyclables simultaneously, using trailers on MSW collection
vehicles (ffic, 1988). In practice, however, most communities have apparently chosen to
operate independent recyclables collection crews. Few data are available to suggest which
option, in practice, imposes the smaller cost for recyclables collection. If separate collection
is implemented, both theoretical and practical evidence suggests that a one-man crew is most
cost-effective.
Collection frequency — Although increasing collection frequency (e.g., from bi-weekly to
weekly collection) increases both capital and operating costs, it also tends to result in high
participation rates and increased yields of recyclables. In a Plymouth, Minnesota, recycling
program, tonnage collected rose from 40 tons/month to 240 tons/month when the town
moved from monthly to weekly collection (Glenn, 1988a). In general, increasing collection
frequency appears to generate a net economic benefit to the recycling program.
Providing containers for recyclables - This option generates a capital cost. But the
universal experience of program operators is that providing containers to residents is very
important to generating high participation rates, and that incremental benefits far outweigh
the costs of the containers.
Recvclables sorting - Sorting of recyclables, if performed at all, may be carried out by
residents or by the collection crew. If recyclables are not sorted, they will require additional
processing before their sale. Requiring some sorting to be completed by residents reduces
program costs (both for collection and for additional processing) and increases per-ton
revenue from recyclable sales; on the other hand, this sorting option may increase collection
costs (because more sophisticated collection vehicles are required), and may tend to reduce
participation if sorting and storing a number of classes of recyclables becomes a burden on
participants. In general, requiring residents to complete at least partial sorting (into two to
(at most) four categories of recyclables) appears to be most cost-effective. In some cases,
however, noneconomic goals may influence the selection of a sorting option; for example,
5-57
-------
Table 5-17
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM DESIGN INFLUENCES
ON COSTS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Impacts on Capital Impacts on Operating
Program Parameter Option Costs Costs
High collection — Increase costs for Increase costs for
frequency collection equipment labor, vehicle
operation and
maintenance, etc.
V Provide containers ~ Cost of containers Small decrease
oo for recyclables In per-stop
time for
collection
Recyclables sorting No sorting Least cost for Smallest per-siop
collection equipment time for collection
crews
Requires fewest
round trips for
collodion crews
Impact on Quantity
and Quality of
Recyclables Collected
Increases quantity
through increased
participation rate
Increases quantity
through Increased
participation rate
and increased
collection per
household
Decreases quality
(market value)
Quantity collected
may be greater than
if sorting required
of households
Impact on Revenues
from Sale
of Recyclables
Increase in sales
revenue
Increase In sales
revenue
Decreased revenue
unless extensive
sorting done during
processing
Impact on Savings
In Tipping Fees
Increases savings
Increases savings
increases savings
if results In
increase in
quantity collected
Other Considerations
Increases
participation
,
Increases
participation
May allow highest
participation
Implies requirement
for further
processing
(corn.)
-------
Table 5-17
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM DESIGN INFLUENCES
ON COSTS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
V"
t!/i
VO
Impacts on Capital
Program Parameter Option Costs
Recyclables sorting By household Collection vehicle
must be
compartmentalized
(increases cost)
*
Recyclables sorting By Collection vehicle
collection must be
crew compartmentalized
(increases cost)
Impacts on Operating
Costs
Increases per-stop
time for collection
crews
Increases number of
round trips for
collection crews
Greatest per-stop
time for collection
crews
Increases number of
round trips for
collection crews
Impact on Quantity
and Quality of
Recyclables Collected
Increases quality
Tends to decrease
quantity; decrease
probably not
significant If
other steps taken
to maintain
participation
Increases quality
Quantity collected
may be greater than
if sorting required
of households
Impact on Revenues
from Sale
of Recyclables
Appears generally
to result in net
increase In sales
revenues
Increase in sales
revenue
Impact on Savings
in Tipping Fees
Reduces savings if
quantity recycled
is reduced; little
or no impact if
other steps taken
to minimize
reduction In
quantity collected
Increases savings
if results in
increase in
quantity collected
Other Considerations
May reduce
participation
Reduces requirement
for processing
May increase
participation
Reduces requirement
for processing
(cont.)
-------
Table 5-17
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM DESIGN INFLUENCES
ON COSTS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Program Parameter Option
Promote program
through mailings,
articles,
advertizing.
y> personal contact
o
Processing of None —
recycled wastes recyclables
sold as
sorted by
household or
collection
:: crew
None —
unsorted
recyclables
sold to
outside
processor
Impacts on Capital
Costs
None
No cost for
processing
facilities and
equipment
No cost for
processing
facilities and
equipment
Impacts on Operating
Costs
Cost of promotional
programs
No cost for
processing labor or
equipment
maintenance
Nocostfor
processing labor or
equipment
maintenance
Impact on Quantity
and Quality of
Recyclables Collected
Increases both
quantity and quality
No Impact on
quantity; little
impact on quality
if sorting required
of household or
collection crews
No impact on
quantity; little
impact on quality
if sorting required
of household or
collection crews
Impact on Revenues
from Sale Impact on Savings
of Recyclables In Tipping Fees
Increase In sales Increases savings
revenue
Revenue less than None
If recyclables are
processed
Least revenue of Nona
all sorting/
processing *
combinations
Other Considerations
Increases
participation
(com.)
-------
Table 5-17
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM DESIGN INFLUENCES
ON COSTS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
1
Program Parameter
Processing of
recycled wastes
(Cont.)
Impacts on Capital
Option •> Costs
Partial . Cost for processing
sorting and facilities and
baling equipment
Complete Highest cost for
processing
facilities and
equipment
Impacts on Operating
Costs
Cost for labor,
equipment.
maintenance, etc.
Compared to
no-process options,
reduces cost for
transport to markets
Highest cost for
labor, equipment
maintenance, etc.
Impact on Quantity
and Quality of
Recyclables Collected
May Increase
quantity If reduced
requirement for
sorting by
households
increases
participation
May increase
quantity if reduced
requirement for
sorting by
households
Increases
participation
Impact on Revenues
from Sale
of Recyclables
Revenue greater
than for no-processing
options, less than for
complete processing
option
Greatest revenue of
all processing
options
Impact on Savings
in Tipping Fees Other Considerations
Increases savings
If results in
increase in
quantity collected
Increases savings
If results in
increase In
quantity collected
(com.)
-------
Table 5-17 (Com.)
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM DESIGN INRUENCES
ON COSTS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
\
to
Program Parameter
Processing of
recycled wastes
(Cent.)
Impacts on Capital Impacts on Operating
Option Costs Costs
Regional or Spreads cost over a Spreads cost over a
county number of number of "
processing communities communities
center
Increases labor and
equipment costs
because of need to
transport to
non-local center
impact on Quantity
and Quality of
Recyclables Collected
May Increase both
If regional center can
afford better processing
Impact on Revenues
from Sale Impact on Savings
of Recyclables In Tipping Fees
Increases revenues
If regional center
provides
sophisticated
processing
Should Increase
revenues because
allows coordinated
marketing of large
volumes of
recyclables
Other Considerations
Requires
coordination and
cooperation among
communities
Size of collection -- None
crew "*
One-man crew NA
apparently most
cost-effective
NA NA
Source: Developed by Eastern Research Group.
-------
Somerset County, New Jersey requires little sorting by participants, and employs
handicapped citizens to collect and then sort mixed recyclables (Dittman, 1989).
Processing — Processing includes a variety of activities, including final sorting (e.g., by color
of glass), grinding or shredding, and baling of recyclables for sale. Processing imposes both
capital and operating costs on a recycling program. Its primary economic benefit lies in the
increased sales value of the recycled materials; another benefit may accrue if a minimal
sorting requirement acts to increase participation rates and/or the volume recycled per
participant.
Because of their high capital costs, processing facilities may be most economical if
implemented as county or regional centers serving a number of municipalities; additional
economies (expressed as increased sales revenues) may accrue because of the cooperative
marketing and larger sales volumes allowed by a regional processing center. These
economies will be reduced by increased operating expenses associated with the time and
labor required to transport recyclables to a remote processing facility.
Promotion and Publicity for Recycling Programs — Effective promotion can be critical to
achieving and maintaining high participation rates in curbside recycling programs. Because
many very effective promotional tactics can be implemented at low cost (e.g., bulk mailings,
"doorknob" literature, articles in local papers), the net benefits of promotional campaigns
appear almost universally to outweigh their costs.
Common to many of these program design parameters is their impact on participation rates in
recycling programs. And participation rate appears to be the single variable most critical to
determining the overall net economic cost or benefit of curbside collection. While the absolute
value of operating costs (and potentially of capital costs as well) rises with increasing
participation, the marginal capital and operating costs per ton collected fall. The marginal cost
of processing also falls as participation (and tonnage collected) increase. On the revenues side,
dollar-per-ton sales prices for recyclables are unaffected by increasing participation, and may
actually increase if the additional tonnage allows a municipality to negotiate higher prices for its
recycled materials.
The program parameters described above, and their associated cost and revenue impacts, are
subject to control by recycling program operators. A number of additional cost and revenue
elements are beyond such control, and may have a large impact on the economics of curbside
collection. The most important of these are:
Tipping fees - Avoided tipping fees represent a direct economic benefit of recycling. They
vary from virtually nothing to as much as $200 per ton (Cook 1988).
Labor costs — Labor costs are generally the largest single operating expense in curbside
recycling programs, contributing as much as 85% to total annual program costs. They
exhibit regional variation.
Prices obtained for recycled materials — These prices are subject to wide variation, both
over time and across geographic regions. Prices vary by resin type, resin mix, color, and
5-63
-------
degree of processing. For example, August 1988 prices for recycled polyethylenes were 15
to 29 cents per pound; a year before, cleaned and processed polyethylene resins sold for
only 6 cents per pound (Brewer, 1988c). Across the country, there is significant variation in
the value of recycled materials — prices for the same grade of recycled HDPE or PET may
vary by as much as a factor of two or more between regions (Recycling Times, 1989).
Given these many sources of variability in recycling program costs and revenues, it is not
surprising that cost structures, per-ton costs and revenues, and net economic costs/benefits of
curbside collection programs vary widely. Table 5-18 provides information on the costs and
revenues generated by curbside recycling programs in eight municipalities across the country.
This information has been gathered from a variety of sources, including published reports,
internal reports generated by the municipalities, and contacts with local officials. Many of these
reports appear to be incomplete (e.g., some lack any information on significant cost or revenue
elements),' and reporting format, accounting methods, and definitions of cost/revenue elements
vary significantly. Much or most of the data are also self-reported, and as such have not been
subjected to independent verification. For these reasons, the information presented in Table
5-18 cannot be used as a basis to make generalizations about the costs of curbside recycling.
But the table does provide information on the range of costs and revenues associated with
curbside programs, and the net economic impacts of these programs.
The reported revenue/cost ratio of these programs ranges from 0 34 (for a voluntary program in
Austin, Texas) to 1.81 (for a mandatory, bi-weekly program in Montclair, New Jersey). Four of
seven reporting programs calculate that the net revenues of curbside collection exceed program
costs, while two other programs reported revenues nearly equal to program costs. The revenues
reported from recyclable sales vary widely, from $12 per ton to a reported $47 per ton - the
highest per-ton revenue was generated by the one program that processes recyclables completely
prior to their sale (Ann Arbor, Michigan).
Total annual costs per ton collected also varied widely, from approximately $40 per ton to
nearly $170 per ton; the highest per-ton costs were again generated by the one program that
processes recyclables. Operating costs contributed approximately 70% to 100% of the total
costs associated with the recycling programs; the highest operating cost ($128 per ton) is
reported by the Austin program, with a 25% participation rate. (Real costs for this program
may actually be even higher, bacause the facilities and equipment were donated by the city at
no explicit cost to the recycling program.) Avoided tipping fees are the primary contributor to
program revenues in a number of these programs ~ 65% of revenues in San Jose, California,
68% of revenues in Haddonfield, New Jersey, 72% of revenues in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 79%
of revenues in Montclair, New Jersey, and 100% of revenues in East Lyme, Connecticut. (For
programs that hire a contractor to implement recycling, it has been assumed that contract
payments are approximately equal to the avoided cost of disposal of the recycled materials).
The Center for Plastics Recycling Research (1988) recently completed an extensive computer
modeling study of the costs and benefits of curbside collection and multi-material recycling.
Validated against the experience of five New Jersey recycling programs, this study confirms that
curbside programs offer a net economic benefit under most plausible operating scenarios. The
CPRR study also confirms that participation rate is the single most important variable affecting
collection program economics, and demonstrates the importance of avoided tipping fees in
determining the net economic impact of curbside recycling.
5-64
-------
Table 5-18
COST INFORMATION AND PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS FROM
EIGHT COMMUNITY RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Community Ann Arbor, Ml
Program Characteristics
Type of program
Pick-up frequency
Year program started
Materials recycled
Required separation categories
Recycle and rubbish collect, crew
Recycle and rubbish collect, day
Participation rate (%)
Number of households
Tons collected at curbside
Collector (public or private)
Processing method
Program costs
Total capital expenditure
Processing facility
Processing equipment
Collection equipment
Annualized capital costs
(oveMOyrat 10%)
Total annual operating costs
Labor
Vehicle maintenance
Adminstratlon and overhead
Total annual costs
per household
per ton collected
Total revenue
Tipping fee savings
Recycled material sales
Collection contract fees
State grants/collection fees
Program cost summary
Total revenue/total cost
Average sale price (per ton)
Total profits (costs)
Net profits (costs)/ton
voluntary
monthly
1978
a,b,c,d,e,g
4
separate
same
33
20,000
2,500
private
complete
842,000
303.120
143,140
395.740
138,677
146.323
—
~
•
285,000
14
114
417.500
—
117,500
300,000
—
1.46
47
. 132,500
53
Montclalr, NJ
mandatory
bi-weekly
1971
a.b.c.d
2
separate
separate
>85 .
14,500
4,980
public
partial
241,000
28.920
19,280
175,930-
39,693
442,500
261,000
14,500
167,000
482,193
33
97
691,960
507,960
184,000
T-
—
1.44
37
209.767
42
Austin, TX
voluntary
weekly
1982
a,b,c,d
3
separate
same
25
90,000
7,200
public
none
362,000
NA
NA
362,000
59,621
924,000
615,000
234.000
75,000
983,621
11
137
363,400
72,000
246,400
—
45.000
0.37
34
(620,221)
(86)
San Jose, CA
voluntary
weekly
1985
a,b,c.d (a)
3
separate
same
>41
20,000
6,500
private
none
0
NA
NA
NA
0
222,124
—
—
27.418
254,820
13
39
278.524
52,000
86,924
139,600
—
1.09
13
23,704
4
(cont.)
5-65
-------
Table 5-1 8 (cent.)
COST INFORMATION AND PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS FROM
EIGHT COMMUNITY RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Community
Program Characteristics
Type of program
Pick-up frequency
Year program started
Materials recycled
Required separation categories
Recycle and rubbish collect, crew
Recycle and rubbish collect, day
Participation rate (%)
Number of households
Tons collected at curbslde
Collector (public or private)
Processing method
East Lyme, CT
mandatory
weekly
1974
a,b,c,d,e
4
separate
same
' >80
5,000
2,100
public
none
Haddonfield, NJ
mandatory
weekly
1983
a,b,c,d,g
3
separate
same
95
3,000
1,703
public
none
Seattle, WA
i
voluntary
weekly
1988
a,b,c,d,e (a)
1 or3
separate
variable
64
94,000
23,985
private
partial
Charlotte, NC
voluntary
weekly
1987
a,b,c,f,g
1
separate
same
>74
9,100
1,329
public
partial
Program costs
Total capital expenditure 27,000
Processing facility NA
Processing equipment NA
Collection equipment 27,000
Annualized capital costs 4,447
(over10yrat10%)
Total annual operating costs 120,325
Labor 85.335
Vehicle maintenance 6,150
Administration and overhead 28,840
Total annual costs 124,772
per household 25
per ton collected 59
Total revenue 168,000
Tipping fee savings 168,000
Recycled material sales minimal
Collection contract fees
State grants/collection fees
19.000
NA
NA
19,000
3,129
67.500
60,000
7,000
500
70,629
24
41
100,900
69,000
20,250
11,650
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,151.280
NA
NA
NA
1.151,280
12
48
1.319,175
591,108
NA
NA
591.108
NA
203,100
147,100
18,000
38,000
203,100
22
153
113,449
46.290
67,159
Program cost summary
Total revenue/total cost
Average sale price (per ton)
Total profits (costs)
Net profits (cosls)/lon
1.35
~
43,228
21
1.43
12
30,271
18
1.15
p
167,895
7
0.56
51
(89,651)
(67)
Note: a: newspaper, b: aluminum, c: glass, d: metal, e: cardboard, f: plastic, g: misc.
(a): Figures do not reflect recently started plastics collection programs.
Sources: Seaman, 1989; Barger, 1989; San Jose, 1988; Battles, 1989; Clark, 1989; Watts, 1989;
Schaub, 1989; lEc. 1988; EPA Journal. March, 1989.
5-66
-------
One important gap in both actual and hypothetical cost estimates concerns recycling programs
in urban areas containing a large proportion multi-family dwellings. Most of the curbside
collection programs implemented in the United States to date have been in suburban or rural
settings with very few multi-family units, and most estimates of curbside collection costs have
focused on such settings. As pointed out in Section 5.4.2.1, there are a number of concerns
specific to urban areas which may have a significant impact on the net cost of recyclables
collection programs (e.g., lack of storage space in many apartments/condominiums, widespread
use of dumpsters in urban settings, difficulty of access for collection vehicles). Given the large
population residing in urban areas, and the critical shortage of MSW disposal capacity facing
many of these areas, additional research into the costs of urban recycling programs is needed.
5.4.3.2 Costs of Adding Plastics to Curbside Collection Programs
Few curbside collection programs currently accept plastics for recycling. For example, of the
eight programs described in Table 5-18, only three accept plastics. For this reason, few data
have been collected on the costs of including plastics in curbside programs.
One study (lEc, 1988) has addressed a number of issues related to the addition of plastics to
curbside programs. This study points out that the most significant cost impact of adding plastics
to an established collection program is related to the fact that plastics have a very low density
compared to other commonly collected materials — the density of collected plastics is less than
30 pounds per cubic yard for uncrushed containers (40-50 pounds per cubic yard for hand-
crushed PET containers), compared to 50-75 pounds per cubic yard for uncrushed aluminum
cans (250 pounds per cubic yard for crushed aluminum cans), 145 pounds for mixed recycled
metals, 500 pounds for newspaper, and 600-700 pounds for whole glass bottles (ffic, 1988;
Center for Plastics Recycling Research, 1988). For a number of communities in Rhode Island,
lEc has presented estimates of the increases in hauling time and cost associated with adding
plastics to established collection programs (Table 5-19); the average increase among these
communities was 67%. .
Increased program costs are also associated with processing plastics and transporting them to a
buyer. Baling plastics may require 10 to 12 times more baler strokes than baling a similar
volume of newspaper. And when bales are transported, a 40 cubic yard trailer can hold only
about $135 worth of PET plastics, compared to $240 worth of baled newspapers (lEc 1988,
based on 1988 prices).
When these and other costs are totaled, lEc reports that the net cost of adding plastics to an
established collection system is approximately 8 cents per pound recovered,, or $160 per ton.
Against these costs must be balanced the sales revenues generated by the recycled plastics, and
the avoided cost of tipping fees. Table 5-20 presents a sensitivity analysis of the net cost or
benefit of adding plastics to a curbside collection program as both per-ton sales revenue and
tipping fee are allowed to vary. Under the assumptions governing the lEc analysis, adding
plastics yields a net economic benefit if sales price is greater than approximately 8 cents per
pound, or if tipping fees are greater than approximately $155 per ton. At lower sales prices or
tipping fees, inclusion of plastics in collection programs may yield either a net cost or a net
benefit; the realized net impact will depend on the combination of market prices and disposal
5-67
-------
Table 5-19
COST IMPACTS OF ADDING PLASTIC TO
RHODE ISLAND CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
Annual Round Trip Time Per Truck (Mrs.)
City/Town
Cranston
E. Greenwich
E. Providence
Johnston
Newport
N. Kingston
Warwick
W. Warwick
Woonsocket
MEAN
No
Plastic
291
229
416
153
607
302
286
302
425
335
With
Plastic
485
343
624
267
970
603
515
503
667
553
Increase
194
114
208
114
363
301
229
201
242
218
Percent
Increase
67%
50%
50%
750/o
60%
100%
80%
67%
57%
67%
No
Plastic
8,046
6,919
11,132
4,114
16,617
8,508
7,876
7,305
10.498
9,002
Annual Cost Per Truck ($)
With
Plastic
13,410
10,378
16,698
7,199
26,587
17,016
14,178
12,175
16.496
14,904
Increase
5,364
3,459
5,566
3,085
9,970
8,508
6,302
4,870
5.998
5,902
Percent
Increase
67%
50%
50%
75%
60%
100%
80%
67%
57%
67%
Source: lEc, 1988.
-------
TABLE 5-20
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ADDING PLASTICS TO A CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM
AT DIFFERENT TIPPING FEES AND PLASTICS PRICES
Sales Revenue from
Recycled Plastics
Avoided Tipping Fee ($/Ton)
$/Ton $/Pound
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
$175
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
$175
$200
$0.00
$0.01
$0.03
$0.04
$0.05
$0.06
$0.08
$0.09
$0.10
(3,952)
(3,328)
(2,704)
(2,080)
(1,456)
(832)
(208)
416
1,040
(3,328)
(2,704)
(2,080)
(1,456)
(832)
(208)
416
1 ,040
1,664
(2,704)
(2,080)
(1,456)
(832)
(208)
416
1,040
1,664
2,288
(2,080)
(1,456)
(832)
(208)
416
1,040
1,664
2,288
2,912
(1,456)
(832)
(208)
416
1,040
1,664
2,288
2,912
3,536
(832)
(208)
416
1,040
1,664
2,288
2,912
3,536
4,160
(208)
416
1,040
1,664
2,288
2,912
3,536
4,160
4,784
416
1,040
1,664,
2,288
2,912
3,536
4,160
4,784
5,408
Note: Each table entry represents the net annual (cost) or revenue associated with the addition of plastics to an
established curbside recycling program at a given combination of sales price and tipping fee. For example,
at a sales price of $100 per ton (5 cents per pound) of recycled plastics and a tipping fee of $75 per ton, the
annual impact of adding plastics to a recycling program is estimated to be a net revenue gain of $416.
Source: IEc1988
-------
costs effective in a specific region. For example, if recycled plastics are sold for $125 per ton
($0.06 per pound), a community recycling program will realize a net revenue from plastics
collection if tipping fees are greater than approximately $33 per ton.
, The Center for Plastics Recycling Research (1988) has also calculated the cost of adding
plastics to a curbside collection/multi-material recycling program. CPRR calculated that, under
a plausible base case recycling scenario, the inclusion of plastics in a recycling program would
increase the net economic benefit of the program by approximately 5%.
5.433 Costs of Rural Recycling Programs
"Rural recycling" here refers to recycling programs in communities that do not provide curbside
MSW collection services. In such communities, MSW collection is typically carried out by one
of two methods:
1. Residents may contract with a private hauler to collect and dispose of wastes.
. . , . ',
2. Residents may bring their wastes to a central point (the community landfill or a transfer
station), where it is accepted for disposal or for repacking and transport to a remote
disposal site.
••; '
Until recently, rural localities have typically faced much lower MSW disposal costs than urban
or suburban areas, and there has been little economic incentive to recycle wastes. Voluntary
programs have been implemented in some areas, typically organized by environmentally
conscious individuals or groups, but overall there has been very little recycling activity in rural
settings. With the implementation of EPA's upcoming regulations for sanitary landfills under
RCRA Subtitle D (expected in early 1990), and with increased concern nationwide regarding
resource conservation and the environmental impacts of solid waste disposal, rural localities may
experience increasing economic and citizen pressure to explore recycling alternatives. "
I
With very few programs in place and little incentive for most rural communities to implement
recycling efforts, very few data exist on the costs of recycling programs in rural areas. A recent
study sponsored by the Ford Foundation (The Minnesota Project, 1987) has examined recycling
programs in seven rural localities; the following discussion draws heavily upon this analysis.
In communities relying on private waste haulers, recycling might be implemented by a voluntary
or mandatory requirement that residents separate recyclables from other wastes and that haulers
collect the two classes independently. This option would require either that haulers make
additional trips to each residential site, or that hauling vehicles include trailers for recyclables
collection. The increased cost of recyclables collection would presumably be passed directly to
residents in the form of higher waste collection contract costs. EPA knows of no communities
that have attempted to implement such a recyclables collection program, nor of any studies that
have attempted to determine the cost and/or feasibility of this recycling alternative. Very
limited information suggests that a few communities have attempted to require private haulers
to participate in such recycling schemes, but that resistance from haulers and residents has
impeded their implementation (The Minnesota Project, 1987).
5-70
-------
Where residents bring MSW to a landfill or transfer station, rural recycling programs may be
implemented by requiring residents to separate recyclable articles from other wastes and to
deposit them in segregated containers at the disposal/transfer site. Such programs could be
made mandatory by instructing disposal/transfer site operators to refuse to accept wastes
containing visible recyclable articles, although such an enforcement strategy might encourage
illegal dumping of refused wastes. The Minnesota Project studied two municipalities that have
implemented such programs (Table 5-21); one of these towns (Peterborough, NH) includes
plastics in its recycling program. The mandatory program in Peterborough captured
approximately 18% of total MSW tonnage at a collection center at the town landfill. Revenues
included $12,000. ($22 per ton) from recyclable sales and avoided tipping fees of approximately
$20,500, while expenses associated with the recycling program were approximately $29,500. The
program had a net economic benefit of $3,500, or nearly 12% of program costs. The town
reported only minimal problems associated with illegal "gate throwing" of waste by citizens who
refused to separate recyclables. A voluntary recycling program in South Berwick, Maine,
operating at the town transfer station, captures approximately 3% of the town's waste stream.
Implemented as a centralized, unattended drop-off site, the program has virtually no expenses;
therefore all of the $4,800 in revenues realized by the collection program ($1,500 in sales
revenue plus $3,300 in avoided tipping fees) represents a net economic benefit to the town
(The Minnesota Project, 1987).
Similar to the South Berwick program are a number of voluntary rural recycling programs using
centralized or decentralized drop-off sites for recyclables. The Minnesota Project analyzed
three such programs (Table 5-21), which diverted from 1.2% to 7.8% of MSW from disposal in
affected localities. Two of these programs reported a ratio of revenues to costs of
approximately 0.33; the third program reported a revenue/cost ratio of 1.1. As pointed but
earlier, noneconomic considerations may influence program design and the outcome of any
benefit-cost analysis of a recycling program. For instance, one of the three drop-off programs
studied is operated by a county human services agency serving handicapped citizens, which
considers net recycling program costs to be a reasonable expense as part of its commitment to
its clients.
5.43.4 Costs of Container Deposit Legislation
As discussed in Section 5.4.2.1, container deposit legislation has been enacted in nine states and
has successfully diverted millions of pounds of plastic soft drink bottles (and other bottles) from
MSW disposal. Enactment and implementation of deposit legislation have frequently aroused
controversy because of its purportedly significant economic impact on beverage distributors and
retailers. In spite of often acrimonious economic debate, however, very little rigorous analysis
of the economic impacts of deposit legislation has been completed - most "bottle bill" analyses
have borne unmistakable traces of their sponsors' political preferences.
As part of a review of proposed Federal container deposit legislation, EPA has initiated an
analysis of the costs and benefits associated with such legislation (lEc, 1989). Preliminary
results of this analysis are reported here; the most critical initial finding is that any costs
5-71
-------
Table 5-21
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF SEVEN RURAL RECYCUNG PROGRAMS
Case Study Site/
Population Target Materials
Pierce Co, Wl a,b,c,g.n,o,t,0ther
32,126
Morrison Co, MN a,b,c,g,n
29,311
Prairie du Sac, Wl a,b,c,g,n,o,p,t,other
2,145
Ithaca, Ml a,b,c,g,n,p,s,t
2,950
Arcata, CA a,c,g,n,o,s, other
12.340
Peterborough. NH a,c,g,n,o,p,s,t,other
4,893
_Souih Berwick, ME a.g
5,600
Type of
Population
Served
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Minor Commercial
.. Residential
Minor Commercial
Collection
Method
5 unattended drops
Attended center
18 unattended drops
Attended center
Commercial pickup
Curbside
Curbslde
Attended center
Unattended newspaper drops
Attended center
Commercial/Industrial pickup
Town dump drop off
Transfer station drop off
Approximate
1986
Tonnage
180
722
288
53 (a)
856
546
83
Recycling
Program
Expenses
33,000
150,000
25,000
Not Avail.
78,364
29,440
minimal
Material
Sales
Revenues
9,000
36,500
11,000
Not Avail.
74,822
12,000
1,500
Avoided
Tip Fees/
Year
2,250
11,900
4,320
864 (a)
11,556
20,475
3,320
Avoided
Tip Fees/
Year/Ton
13
16
15
16
14
38
40
Nat
Recycling
Revenue
(Cost)
(21.750)
(101.600)
(9,680)
—
8.014
3,035
4,820
Net
Profit
(Costy
Ton
(121)
(141)
(34)
--
9
6
~
Note: (a) Estimated from 4.38/month of May, 1987.
Source: Minnesota Project, 1987.
-------
imposed on distributors and retailers are ultimately passed on to consumers (as increases in
beverage prices), and that any such price increases have not had a significant impact on
beverage markets or consumer purchasing patterns.
The costs of deposit legislation fall on three sectors: consumers, retailers, and distributors.
Consumers bear a number of costs. Although deposits are redeemed when containers are
returned to a collection center, consumers incur economic costs related to the time required to
return containers and collect deposits. An economic cost may also be attributed to the time
and inconvenience associated with container rinsing and storage prior to return. Consumers
also ultimately reimburse retailers and distributors for the costs of their contribution to the
collection program (see further discussion below).
Retailers also incur a number of costs, primarily in the labor required to provide deposit return
services to consumers, the space required to store collected containers, and the administrative
overhead associated with the collection/redemption program. Although retailers are typically
compensated for their services by a per-container payment in excess of the consumer deposit,
many retailers and their trade associations in "bottle bill" states claim that these payments do
not cover their costs of participation in the deposit redemption program.
Beverage distributors are typically required, in effect, to run the container redemption system ~
collecting containers from retailers, paying retailers a handling fee, and arranging to market (or
dispose of) collected containers. If distributors cannot or choose not to sell collected containers
to recycling processors (as they apparently sometimes have not, especially with plastic
containers), they may also have to bear disposal costs. In some states unredeemed container
deposits (which may amount to millions of dollars) are disbursed to distributors to compensate
them for the costs of their contribution to collection/redemption programs. Even in these
states, however, distributors frequently believe that they are not fully compensated for the costs
of managing the deposit redemption system.
If retailers and/or distributors believe that they incur a net cost related to their participation in
bottle deposit programs, they pass this cost back to consumers in the form of higher beverage
prices. It has proven difficult to derive accurate estimates of the impact on consumer prices of
container deposit legislation. A New York study calculated that consumer prices have increased
an average of 2.4 cents per container for beer and approximately 1 cent per container for soft
drinks as the result of deposit legislation. A similar study in Iowa suggested that retail prices of
deposit beverages have increased approximately 2 to 3 cents per container (lEc, 1989).
5-73
-------
5.4.4 Environmental, Human Health, Consumer, and Other Social Costs and Benefits
Generated by Recycling Plastics
i ' , i 'i,
5.4.4.1 Environmental Issues
No known major environmental considerations impact the potential of plastics recycling as an
alternative to reduce plastics disposal requirements. Collection and separation alternatives
impose a variety of minor environmental costs, consisting primarily of energy use requirements
related to recyclable collection, storage, and transportation (e.g., energy consumed by vehicles
involved in a curbside recycling program).
i • •
Secondary processing alternatives employing homogeneous resin inputs generate environmental
releases that are similar to those related to virgin plastics processing. Environmental impacts
should be no greater than those associated with production of equal volumes of virgin plastics
products and, because they employ existing resins as inputs, should be less than for virgin resin
manufacturing.
Mixed resin secondary processing alternatives employ very mild conditions and produce minimal
air and water pollution. Acid gas emissions are produced by some mixed resin processes, but
these can be controlled with proven scrubbing technologies. One relevant long-term
environmental consideration is that because they do not displace consumption of virgin resins
and because they may not themselves be amenable to recycling, use of mixed resin secondary
products may not eliminate the ultimate disposal requirement for their plastic constituents.
Rather, use of mixed resin secondary processes delays that disposal requirement for the lifetime
of the recycled product. For this reason, the environmental benefits of mixed resin processing
should be measured in terms of deferring, rather than eliminating, plastics disposal and its
associated environmental consequences (Curlee, 1986). Section 5.4.2 presented an analysis of
these issues.
Mixed waste tertiary recycling processes produce a residual solid char (consisting primarily of
carbon and ash) that must be disposed of; no toxicity testing has been performed on this
substance. Tertiary processes employing homogeneous plastics with few additives produce little
or no solid residue, however. Tertiary recycling products used as fuels produce emissions that
should be compared to those of competing fossil fuels; no available evidence suggests that these
emissions produce environmental impacts that are different from those associated with fossil fuel
consumption.
5.4.4.2 Health and Consumer Issues
Increased recycling shows little potential of creating human health impacts. No serious
concerns have been raised regarding potential health impacts of recycled plastics products. The
act of recycling itself also has little potential for harming human health. Recycling does involve
the storage of waste articles, some of which require washing to avoid odors or sanitation
problems. Sanitation is therefore a potential concern both in households and institutions where
5-74
-------
initial recycling efforts are made, and in collection centers. This concern affects all MSW
recycling, however, and is neither different nor more serious for plastics than for other
recyclable MSW constituents. Data have not been developed on the significance of this
concern.
5.4.43 Other Social Costs and Benefits
A number of policy considerations are related to plastics recycling alternatives. Many of these
are implicit in the definition of these alternatives, and have been addressed in sections related
to the four primary stages of plastics recycling.
A policy consideration related to mixed resin secondary recycling processes is that they may not
eliminate the need to dispose of the recycled plastic, but defer that need for the lifetime of the
recycled product (see Section 5.4.2). The benefits of mixed resin processing should not be
understated — because these technologies operate on mixed plastics wastes, they may promise
the greatest diversion of plastics from MSW disposal. But balanced against these benefits are
not only the longer-term requirement that mixed plastic recycled products be ultimately disposed
of, but also the fact that markets for these products may remain problematical. This area of
policy concern demands additional analysis as choices are defined between mixed plastic and
other recycling options.
»
A possible policy conflict exists between recycling programs and the use of degradable plastics.
Given the existing concerns about the purity of recycled resins, further contamination with
degradable materials is problematic; identification and separation of these degradable plastics,
however, may weaken the economic basis of recycling methods. Thus, policy makers may have
to choose whether to emphasize recycling or use of degradable plastics, and they will also need
to identify which strategies will be employed for which products. The chemistry of mixing
degradable plastics with other plastics is discussed in Section 5.5.
Among the most important recycling alternatives, the major potential interaction appears to
concern curbside collection and bottle deposit legislation, i.e., the potential of deposit legislation
to remove the highest-value recyclables from the recycling stream and thus adversely affect the
economics of curbside collection programs (see Section 5.4.2.1).
5.5 DEGRADABLE PLASTICS
Some of the environmental concerns regarding plastic wastes relate to the apparent
indestructibility of these wastes when discarded to the ocean, or as litter. There is concern that
plastics will accumulate in the environment indefinitely, leading to long-term environmental,
aesthetic, and waste management problems. These environmental problems can potentially be
ameliorated by the development and use of plastics that will degrade in the environment. This
section outlines the types of degradable plastics that are being developed, their potential role in
plastic product areas, and the present market status of degradable plastics.
5-75
-------
Degradable products are not included in the integrated waste management system EPA
prepared for its policy proposals in its "Agenda for Action," and thus do not have a defined
role in current EPA policies. Further, degradable plastic products introduce a new range of
environmental issues and their influence on current waste management concerns remains largely
undefined. These uncertainties are described in the sections below.
5.5.1 Scope of the Analysis
This section summarizes available information about the current and potential development of
degradable plastics and examines possible approaches to increasing the use of such materials.
All types of degradable plastics intended for use in plastic product markets are considered here.
Issues covered include types of degradation processes and the environmental implications of this
waste management technique.
5.5.2 Types of Degradable Plastics and Degradation Processes
i "': ,; . „'' , "
Six methods of enhancing or achieving degradation of plastic have been defined in the literature
and are described below. The most important technologies, based on available data and
apparent market potential, are photodegradation, biodegradation, and biodeterioration.
Photodegradation - Degradation caused through the action of sunlight on the polymer
Biodegradation - Degradation that occurs through the action of microorganisms such as
bacteria, yeast, fungi, and algae
Biodeterioration - Degradation that occurs through the action of macroorganisms such as
beetles, slugs, etc.
Autooxidation - Degradation caused by chemical reactions with oxygen
Hydrolysis - Degradation that occurs when water cleaves the backbone of a polymer,
resulting in a decrease in molecular weight and a loss of physical properties
Solubilization - Dissolution of polymers that occurs when a water-soluble link is included in
the polymer [Note: soluble polymers remain in polymeric form and do not actually
"degrade." They are included here because they are sometimes mentioned in the literature
on degradable plastics.]
Debate continues regarding the most appropriate definitions for these degradation processes as
well as regarding the operational or performance standards for such processes. The absence of
accepted definitions has been cited as a factor impeding the development of degradable plastics
(U.S. GAO, 1988). The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has organized a
committee to define terms for plastics degradation and to develop standards for testing and
measuring "degradability."
5-76
-------
The absence of accepted definitions for degradation also complicates the ensuing discussion.
Plastics engineers have measured degradation according to changes in the tensile strength or the
embrittlement of the material. Generally, degradation is considered to have occurred by the
time the materials readily collapse or crumble (which is before they have completely
disappeared). Field'testing necessary to establish the final degradation products, however, has
not been performed.
Photo- and biodegradation are discussed in detail below, but a general comment about the
processes can be made here. First, the rate of degradation of plastic materials in the
environment is a function of both the characteristics of the plastic product and the
environmental conditions in which it is placed. The addition of characteristics that increase
photodegradability, for example, is an effective waste management step only if the product is
exposed to sunlight. Thus, degradable plastics must be matched with an eventual disposal
practice (or with disposal problems that are to be mitigated) in order for intended effects to be
produced.
In the subsections below, more information is provided about the mechanisms involved for the
two primary degradation processes and the commercial activities that are being pursued. A
summary of the degradation processes that have been introduced by manufacturers (although
not necessarily commercially exploited) for plastic polymers is shown in Table 5-22.
5.5.2.1 Photodegradation
Photodegradation processes are based on the reactions of photosensitive substances that have
absorbed energy from a specific spectrum of ultraviolet radiation, such as' from sunlight. The
reactions may cause a break in the linkages within the long polymer molecules. This shortening
of the chains leads to a loss of certain physical properties.
Sunlight is the dominant source of the ultraviolet radiation that will produce photodegradation.
Indoor lighting generally will not produce photodegradation both because window glass screens
out most ultraviolet radiation from sunlight and because other indoor light sources do not
produce much ultraviolet radiation. Because photodegradation is primarily an outdoor process,
photodegradable plastic products used primarily indoors can therefore be given "controlled
lifetimes." When the products are discarded outdoors - as litter for example - they will
degrade more rapidly.
To enhance the photodegradation properties of a plastic, manufacturers have modified or
developed new polymers that contain photosensitive substances in the polymer chain.
Alternatively, they have used resin additives that are photosensitive and cause degradation of
the plastic material. The principal technologies that have been developed for photodegradable
plastics are described below.
MODIFICATION OF THE PLASTIC POLYMER - Photodegradation may be accomplished by
incorporating a photosensitive link in the polymer chain. The principal method used thus far
has been the incorporation of carbon monoxide molecules, also referred to as carbonyl groups,
5-77
-------
Table 5-22
DEGRADABLE PLASTICS TECHNOLOGIES
Degradation
Mechanism
Photodegradatlon
Photodegradation
Photodegradatlon
Photodegradation
Photodegradation
Photodegradation
Photodegradation
Biodegradation
Biodegradation (a)
Developer
Ecoplastics.
Willowdale, Ont.
Dow Chemical
Midland. Ml
DuPont Co.
Wilmington, DE
Union Carbide
Danbury.CT
Ampacet
Mt. Vernon. NY
Princeton Polymer
Labs.Princeton, NJ
Ideamasters
Miami, FL/lsrael
ICI Americas
Wilmington, DE
U.S. Dept. of Agric.
Washington, DC
Product Sold
Ketone carbonyl
copolymers
•
Ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolyimer
Ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
Ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
1
Additive system
Additive system
Additive system
Aliphatic polyester
copolymer
Starch additive
Current/
Potential Uses
Mulch film and
trash bags
6-pack yokes
6-pack yokes
6-pack yokes
Trash bags
Not available
Mulch film
Bottles prod.
planned
Blown film
uses
Biodegradation/
Autooxidation
Biodegradation (a)
St. Lawrence Starch
Mississauga, Ont.
Epron Indus. Prod.
United Kingdom
Starch additive Trash bags and
and metal compound bottles
Starch additive
Not available
Solubility
Belland
Switzerland
Soluble polymer
Not available
(a) For these products, only the additives undergo biodegradation;
the polymer does not have exceptional degradation rates.
Source: Leaversuch, 1987 and Helmus, 1988.
5-78
-------
into the polymers. If carbonyl groups absorb sufficient ultraviolet radiation, they undergo a
reaction and break the linkage of the polymer chain. Copolymerization with carbon monoxide
is the most common method of incorporating carbonyl groups into plastic.
The rate of photodegradation depends on the number of carbonyl groups added or
incorporated, although most applications have used a 1% mixture. It has been postulated that
if sufficient photodegradation occurs so as to substantially reduce the molecular weight of the
plastic molecules, that biodegradation of the residual would be possible. Even if this postulate
is true in some circumstances, photodegradation has not been accomplished to, the degree
necessary to allow subsequent biodegradation of lower-weight chemical molecules. For instance,
polyethylene molecules may have molecular weights of 20,000 or higher. Photodegradation
reduces this weight, but for biodegradation of the polymer to occur at significant rates the
molecular weight must be reduced to approximately 500 (Potts, 1974 as referenced in Johnson,
1987). Such a reduction is not possible without more complete photodegradation than has been
yet been achieved by polymer modification.
USE OF PLASTIC ADDITIVES - Several types of additives have been commercially developed
for enhancing photodegradability of plastics. One method uses a photosensitizing additive
combined with a metallic compound to encourage degradation (Princeton Polymer Laboratory,
as referenced in Johnson, 1987). Another method uses antioxidant additives (see Section 2 for
a description of antioxidant additives). At low concentrations, antioxidant additives speed the
rate of photodegradation.
5.5.2.2 Biodegradation
Manufacturers have developed potentially biodegradable products either by modifying the
polymer or by incorporating selected additives. In the latter case, the plastic polymer left
behind after degradation of the additive remains intact although it may no longer hold its
original shape.
MODIFICATION OF THE PLASTIC POLYMER - Most plastic resins, and all the commodity
resins, are nonbiodegradable. More accurately, they are degradable at such a slow rate that
they can be thought of as nonbiodegradable.
Some biodegradable resins exist, however, including selected polyesters and polyurethanes.
These biodegradable resins were developed for low-volume specialty uses for which
biodegradability is desirable, such as some agricultural applications (e.g., seedling pots for
automatic reforestation machines). Some of these end products for biodegradable plastics are
not materials that reach the MSW stream, so their uses have not represented decreases in the
aggregate waste volumes.
As of a 1987 symposium on degradable plastics sponsored by SPI, biodegradable resins
appropriate for use in packaging had not been developed (Johnson, 1987). One type of
aliphatic polyester, polyester poly(3 hydroxybutyrate-3 hydroxyvalerate), or PHBV, has been
developed by ICI Americas in England. It is biodegradable and reputed to have characteristics
5-79
-------
similar to polypropylene. It is not, however, currently price-competitive with nonbiodegradable
plastics. Other techniques for enhancing biodegradation employ additives, as discussed below.
11
USE OF PLASTIC ADDITIVES - Most development work on biodegradable additives has
centered on the use of starch additives. Starch is highly biodegradable, and upon discard or
burial it is consumed by microorganisms in the soil, if an active population of these organisms
exists. The degradation of the plastic polymer that remains has not been enhanced by the
addition of the starch. Starch may be employed in moderate amounts as a filler, i.e., at 5 to
10% relative to the resin. In some experimental work, it has been incorporated in amounts up
to 60% of product volume. Autooxidants are also added to some products. One polymer
manufacturer, St. Lawrence Starch, has claimed that on burial, the starch additive is consumed
by microorganisms and the autooxidant reacts with metal salts in the soil to form peroxides.
These help degrade the polymer itself until it is also biodegradable (Maddever and Chapman,
1987). The field research regarding this phenomenon, however, is extremely limited.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has experimented with very high starch concentrations.
these volumes, the starch is gelatinized before incorporation into the polymer. Again, the
starch in the product is biodegradable, and the remaining lattice of plastic polymer may be
sufficiently porous (of low enough molecular weight) to be biodegraded as well (Budiansky,
1986).
In
5.5.23 Other Degradation Processes
i . . ' '
Three other degradation mechanisms exist. As noted above, autooxidation operates by
producing peroxide chemicals from plastic polymers that then degrade the polymers.
Autooxidation additives are incorporated into the polymers and react with trace metals, such as
those available in the soil after burial. Manufacturers of these systems assert that this process
has been used, along with biodegradable processes, to provide a more complete degradation of
polymers.
Hydrolysis occurs when water destroys links in the polymer chains, resulting in a decrease in the
molecular weight of the polymers. Chemical groups that are susceptible to this type of attack
must be present in the molecule for this to occur. Ester groups, which are present in a number
of polymers, are an example of such a group.
,
Polymers have been developed that are water soluble under certain environmental conditions.
Belland Co. has marketed a specialty resin that is soluble within specified pH ranges. This
polymer actually washes away, but nevertheless the smaller pieces remain in polymeric form and
are not chemically degraded. As a result, soluble polymers may not be considered
biodegradable in the same sense as the other degradation mechanisms that are discussed.
Outside the specified pH ranges, the material retains its physical properties.
5-80
-------
5.53 Environmental, Health, and Consumer Issues and Other Costs and Benefits
Generated by Use of Degradable Plastics
5.53.1 Environmental Issues
The production of new plastic materials with enhanced degradation characteristics raises several
environmental questions about the disposal of the materials. In general, operating or field
evidence about such issues is quite limited. The uncertainties about disposal of degradable
plastics are noted in several sources (U.S. GAO, 1988; Leaversuch, 1987).
An important source of information about the behavior of degradable plastics in the
environment could be the data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by
manufacturers seeking approval for use of a polymer in food packaging or other food-contact
uses. FDA requests data covering both consumer safety issues and environmental safety issues.
In the latter category, FDA will require data concerning the following (U.S. GAO, 1988):
• If the plastic polymer is itself degradable, under what conditions and over what
timeframe
• The potential for increased environmental introduction of degradation products and
additives from a degrading polymer
• The potential effects of small pieces of the degrading polymer on terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems
• The effect of degradable polymers on recycling programs
To date, no food packaging manufacturer interested in utilizing degradable plastic technologies
has submitted this information to FDA (Les Borodinsky, FDA, by telephone interview, March
31, 1989). Some companies, however, have initiated the FDA food additive petition process.
Photodegradable polymers — Incorporating carbonyl groups into polymer chains does not appear
to create a toxic compound in the polymer or a toxic degradation product. Among the tests
performed to date are aquatic toxicity tests performed using the degradation products of the
Ecoplastics polymer. All tests showed minimal toxicity (Dan, 1989). One manufacturer of a
commercially available plastic secondary package, ITW HiCone, has submitted their six-pack
rings and the product of its degradation to laboratory investigation. LD50 tests showed the
ingestion of the carbonyl material to be nontoxic (Rosner-Hixson Laboratories, 1972) and an
EP Toxicity Test showed an absence of hazardous materials in the degraded product (Allied
Lab, 1988).
There are four general areas of concern regarding the potential environmental hazard of
degradable plastics:
1) Is the polymer itself more toxic due to its enhanced degradability?
2) Are the byproducts of the degradation process toxic?
5-81
-------
3) Does the degradation process increase the leachability of additives from the polymers?
4) Do the physical byproducts (i.e., the small pieces of undegraded plastic) pose a threat
to wildlife?
I
The limited information for photodegradable and biodegradable polymers is described below.
Manufacturers of both types of systems have agreed that their products do not create
undesirable impacts. A summary of these assertions is presented in Table 5-23. Most of these
descriptions were derived from the 1987 SPI Symposium on degradable plastics.
Photodegradable additives may cause some environmental concern. Autooxidizing metal salts
are among the compounds being sold or developed for use. Essentially no field evidence about
the use of these additives has been identified (E.A Blair, Princeton Polymer Laboratories, by
telephone interview, March 31, 1989). However, for the photodegradable plastic sold by
Ideamasters, Gilead and Scott reported tests conducted at the University of Bologna, Italy, on
the toxicity of decomposition products to plant life. These tests found no discernible uptake of
metals by plant life (Gilead and Scott, 1987). Application of either the photodegradable resins
or additives to a broad array of products that require pigments, plasticizers, or other additives,
must be carefullly considered due to the increased potential for leaching of such additives as
the material degrades. Leaching rate is related to the extent of surface exposure of the plastic.
No investigations of this concern were identified. Further, EPA has found no investigations of
whether the partially degraded materials present a greater concern for ingestion by wildlife than
do normal plastics. A description of the severe injuries ingestion of plastic can cause is
described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.1.2).
Biodegradable polymers - Information on products of biodegradable plastics is similarly limited.
As noted earlier, degradation is accomplished by modifying the polymer or by use of
biodegradable additives. The biodegradable polymers (e.g., PHBV), by definition, can be
entirely consumed by microorganisms and do not pose evident threats. The biodegradable
additives are also environmentally benign; the plastic polymer they leave behind is not
necessarily biodegradable itself, but it should not be inherently more toxic than normal
polymers. As with the photodegradable resins, EPA has found no investigation of whether the
physical byproducts of degradation (i.e., the small undegraded pieces of plastic material that
remain) pose an ingestion threat to wildlife. In addition, no information on the leachability of
additives (e.g., pigments) from these resins was identified.
I ,. ' i i •
Degradable plastics have been offered by some as a method for improving plastic waste
management. However, current data do not indicate that any of the waste management options
for plastics discussed in this report (i.e., source reduction, recycling, landfilling, and incineration)
are benefitted by degradable plastics. Each waste management method is discussed below.
l
SOURCE REDUCTION. Currently available degradable plastics do not reduce the amount or
the toxicity of the plastic waste that is generated. Thus, development of these materials is not
considered a source reduction activity.
5-82
-------
Table 5-23
SUMMARY OF REPORTED ENVIRONMENTAL
RESIDUALS FOR DEGRADABLE TECHNOLOGIES (a)
Developer
Product Sold
Apparent Environmental
Impacts
Lit. Source
Ecoplastics,
Willowdale, Ont.
Dow Chemical
Midland, Ml
DuPontCo.
Wilmington, DE
Union Carbide
Danbury, CT
Ampacet
Mt. Vernon, NY
Princeton Polymer
Labs.Princeton, NJ
Ideamasters
Miami, FL/lsrael
ICI Americas
Wilmington, DE
U.S. Dept. of Agric.
Washington, DC
St. Lawrence Starch
Mississauga, Ont.
Epron Indus. Prod.
United Kingdom
Belland
Switzerland
Photodegradable
ketone carbonyl
copolymers
Photodegradable
ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
Photodegradable
ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
Photodegradable
ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
Photodegradable
additive system
Photodegradable
additive system
Photodegradable
additive system
Biodegradable
aliphatic poly-
ester copolymer
Biodegradable
starch additive
Biodegrad./ auto-
oxidant & starch
additive
Biodegradable
starch additive
Water-soluble
polymer
Accepted for food contact uses, Guillet, 1 987
Canada; no envir. impact
Not available —
Polymer approved for indirect Statz and Dorris, 1 987
food contact uses (adhesives only); •.;:.=
no environmental impact
Degrad. products have much lower Harlan and Nicholas, 1 987
mol. wt.; no environ, impact
Not available
Additives used are recognized Blair, 1989
as safe; no field test results
Complete biodegradation to CO Gilead and Ennis, 1987
and water
Entirely biodegradable polymer; Lloyd, 1987
no negative environ, impact
Not available
Entirely biodegradable materials; Maddever and Chapman,
no negative environ, impact 1987
Not available —
Not available
(a) Results given are based on reports of authors, some of whom are employed by the manufacturers of the products.
Additional test data were not identified. Not all of these technologies are currently available commercially.
Source: Compiled by Eastern Research Group from sources given.
5-83
-------
RECYCLING. Recyclers have argued that use of degradable plastics will complicate recycling
schemes by degrading the quality of recycled resins. They argue that a mix of degradable and
nondegradable feedstock among recycled materials may invalidate some intended uses for
reprocessed products.
Manufacturers of degradable plastics have argued that the addition of small amounts of
degradable plastics will not have a significant effect on the quality of recycled products
(Leaversuch, 1987). Further, manufacturers of photodegradable plastics argue that additives can
be employed during the reprocessing stage so that the new products will not degrade (Dan,
personal communication, February 22, 1989). Available data are not sufficient to indicate the
resolution or possible magnitude of any problems of accommodating degradable plastics into
recycling streams. There are no data indicating degradables could benefit plastic recycling
systems. [
The use of degradable plastics may benefit the recycling of yard waste (i.e., composting).
Unlike regular plastic bags, degradable plastic bags that contain yard waste would not need to
be removed before composting could begin. More information in the four areas described
above is needed before this use should be promoted.
LANDFILLING. It has been claimed that degradable plastics will ease the capacity crisis facing
some landfills in the United States. However, W.T. Rathje's work (see Section 4.2.1.3)
indicates that degradation in a landfill occurs extremely slowly. In addition, more than half of
the current MSW stream is composed of materials that are considered to be "degradable" (e.g.,
paper, yard wastes, food wastes), yet landfill capacity is still a concern. Therefore, development
of degradable plastics is expected to have very little impact on current capacity concerns.
The increase in surface area produced by the loss of the starch additive or the breakdown of
the plastic material by the photodegradation process also makes leaching of any additives more
likely. Thus, some additives - for example, colorants - could be leached from waste in
increased quantities after structural breakdown of the plastic.
I
INCINERATION. EPA is not aware of any information indicating that currently available
degradable plastics will have any impact on incineration of MSW. Incineration will occur for
the most part before any degradation can take place.
With regard to litter, the use of degradable plastics could encourage the careless discarding of
wastes and aggravate the existing litter problem. No data were identified that could adequately
address this question. It is noteworthy that public opinion polls have shown most people
favoring efforts to substitute degradable products for nondegradable plastic products in order to
reduce the durability of littered waste (Dan, 1989). The data may suggest that use of
degradable plastics will not increase littering if the products are introduced simultaneously with
programs that increase public concern and awareness of littering problems. Nevertheless, these
data are not sufficient to forecast how littering rates may be affected by the more widespread
use of degradable plastics.
5-84
-------
The effectiveness of degradable plastics as a countermeasure to littering is also inherently
uncertain. If degradable plastic is to reduce the unsightly nature of litter, it must degrade quite
quickly after discard. Available information indicates that the most rapid photodegradation rates
occur several weeks after disposal (see Table 5-24). Because much litter is discarded in urban
areas where Utter collection systems are in place, however, these wastes will probably not
photodegrade quickly enough to disintegrate before they are collected by even a relatively
infrequent cleanup cycle. Also, potentially biodegradable plastics, which require years to
degrade, are not relevant to efforts to reduce litter.
Where no litter collection system is in place, photodegradable plastics may provide some
benefit. Observations of littering tendencies, however, show that the presence of litter in an
area tends to generate additional littering (Tobin, 1989). If this is the case, fresher discards will
be repeatedly added to degrading plastics, and litter volume will never be observably reduced or
eliminated (even if all litter were degradable).
5.53.2 Efficiency of Degradation Processes in the Marine Environment
The durability of plastic waste in the marine environment was identified in Section 3 as a
particular environmental concern. Marine plastic wastes can be degraded by the same processes
that affect wastes disposed of on land, but the rate of degradation usually differs between
terrestrial and marine environments. The influences that change the relative rate of degradation
in the marine environment are as follows (Andrady, 1988):
• Fouling of plastic reduces the rate of photodegradation. Materials exposed in the sea
are initially covered, or fouled, by a biofilm and then by algal buildup and
macrofoulants. These organisms reduce the solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the
plastic. / i
/ r
• Seawater mitigates the heat buildup on the plastic, reducing the rate of degradation.
Heat buildup from sunlight is transferred from the plastic to the surrounding
environment more efficiently by water than by air. Thus, plastics floating in the sea are
likely to show slower rates of oxidation and photodegradation. The significance of this
' differential, however, has not been well established.
• Coastal seawater is rich in microbial flora, increasing the rate of biodegradation. Plastics
floating in coastal waters will be exposed to a greater variety of microbial actions.
• Moisture may increase the rate of degradation. High humidity is known to increase the
rate of degradation of some types of plastics, possibly because small quantities of water
increase the accessibility of the plastic molecule to atmospheric oxygen. Seawater may
have the same effect on plastics, though any net change in degradation rate is probably
small.
To test the relative rates of degradation on land and sea, Andrady exposed six types of plastic
to terrestrial and marine environments (see Table 5-25). He defined degradation as a loss of
tensile strength and extension for the materials. The degradation is not complete, i.e., a
5-85
-------
Table 5-24
SUMMARY OF DEGRADATION RATES
FOR AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
Developer
Product Sold
Manuf.-Reported Time to
Degradation (a)
Characteristics of
Product Degraded
Ecoplaslics,
Willowdale, Ont.
DuPont Co.
Wilmington, DE
Union Carbide
Danbury, CT
Ampacet
Mt. Vernon, NY
Ideamasters
Miami, FL/lsrael
ICI Americas
Wilmington, DE
St. Lawrence Starch
Mississauga, Ont.
Photodegradable
ketone carbonyl
copolymers
Photodegradable
ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
Photodegradable
ethylene/carbon
monoxide copolymer
Photodegradable
additive system
Photodegradable
additive system
Biodegradable
aliphatic poly-
ester copolymer
Biodegradable
starch additive
Not available
4-5 days, Calif, in summer
60 days in Alaska in fall
60 days in New Jersey in
winter
8 - 28 wk at varied U.S.
locations and seasons
!\
3 wks - Israel test;
48 wks - European test
Case 1 - In a matter of
days in sewage treatment
plant, Case 2 - 1 yr. (est.)
LDPE polymer with
1% CO copolymer
LDPE polymer with
2.7% CO copolymer
LDPE film with
"Polygrade"
masterbatch
Case 1 - Thin film;
Case 2 - Bottle
3-6 yr in sanitary landfill (est.) Resin with 6% starch
Note: Not all of these technologies are currently available commercially.
(a) The meaning of "degradation" in the reports cited is varied.
Source: Compiled by Eastern Research Group from Society of the Plastics Industry, 1987.
5-86
-------
Table 5-25
COMPARISONS OF DEGRADATION RATES
OF PLASTIC MATERIALS ON LAND AND
IN SEAWATER
Percentage Decrease in the Mean Value of Tensile Property
Sample
Polyethylene film
Polypropylene tape
Latex balloons
Expanded (foam)
polystyrene
Netting
Duration of
Exposure
(months)
6
12
6
10
12
Land
Strength(a)
6.6
85
98.6
32.9
no change
Extension
95.1
90.2
93.6
18
no change
Sea Water
Strength(a)
no change
11
83.5
82.3
no change
Extension
no change
31.5
38
65.2
no change
Rapidly degradable
polyethylene
1.2
46.2
98.6
27.1
88.9
(a) The strength measurements reported are b'ased on the maximum load in the case of
netting and polypropylene tape materials.
Source: Andrady, 1988.
5-87
-------
breakdown into elements does not occur. The loss of tensile strength may be adequate to
prevent the degraded plastics from posing an entanglement threat to wildlife, although testing
on this issue has not occurred. Andrady tested the terrestrial degradation rates by exposing
samples on racks exposed to sunlight. He tested seawater conditions by tying samples to a pier
and allowing the materials to float in the water.
Tensile strength is one indicator of the fragility of plastics. Andrady notes that measurements
which replicate the stresses that plastic articles endure in the environment are difficult to
generate and may not be accurately reflected by tensile strength measurements. As a result,
more observation and experimentation with degradable plastics in the marine environment are
needed.
Andrady's results indicate that for three out of five normal plastic samples, the materials
degrade substantially more quickly on land than the equivalent sample in seawater. One of the
samples did not degrade measurably in either environment. A final sample, expanded (foam)
polystyrene plastic, degraded more quickly in sea water than on land.
Andrady also examined the performance of a degradable plastic, which was found to degrade
more rapidly on land than in water. His data suggest, however, that the difference in rates is
not as substantial as for the other plastics. Thus, Andrady's study indicates that degradable
plastics may disintegrate sufficiently in the marine environment to achieve the desired aim of
reducing the threat of entanglement.
The manufacturers of Ecolyte plastic have also tested their product's degradation rate under
terrestrial and seawater conditions. They found that degradation in sea and fresh water is
somewhat reduced relative to land, but is "still substantial" (Dan, 1989).
5.533 Human Health Issues > <
i
Degradable plastics raise a number of potential concerns for human health and the related issue
of consumer product safety. Human health issues include 1) whether degradable plastics have a
predictable lifespan, and 2) if not, whether they are toxic. Manufacturers of prototype
degradable plastics have tried to achieve predictability for the shelf and useful life of their
products. Premature degradation raises potential problems for human health — e.g., the mixing
of plastics materials with food •— and can result in a loss of consumer utility for the products.
•
According to the available literature, engineers have achieved substantial predictability in the
durability of degradable polymers. By varying polymer mixes, particularly the amount of the
degradable components in the product, engineers can predict the approximate rate of
degradation given presumed conditions of environmental exposure. For example, a
photodegradable material exposed to sunlight in a given region during a given season can be
reasonably expected to retain its tensile strength for a specified length of time. Biodegradable
plastics require an active microbial environment, such as might exist in soil, to achieve
substantial degradation.
5-88
-------
Degradation rates can only be engineered accurately, however (i.e., by the appropriate
adjustments of polymer characteristics), if the relevant environmental exposure conditions for
the products are known first. This prerequisite is particularly important for photodegradable
plastics (Johnson, 1987; Harlan and Nicholas, 1987). Given the reduced ultraviolet light
reaching products used and stored indoors, however, plastic engineers should be able to prevent
most premature degradation. For biodegradable plastics, for which degradation rates are much
slower, effective engineering of products should also be possible.
The data described above suggest that predictability of product lifespan is not a serious health
concern with degradable plastics - though thus far, consumer use of degradable plastics is so
limited that only tentative conclusions can be developed. In the worst case, in which premature
or unexpected product degradation occurs, the toxicity of the plastics could become an issue.
Also, growth of surface microflora on biodegradable products in use (for example, growth on a
biodegradable plastic razor) could raise health concerns.
i
The available data on prospects for use of degradable plastics in food-contact applications are
limited. Currently, no direct food-contact use has been approved in the United States. One
degradable plastic has been accepted for direct food-contact applications in Canada (Guillet
1987). V
5.53.4 Consumer Issues
Consumer utility is another factor that influences the feasibility of degradable plastics in wider
commerce. Apart from considerations of environmental activism or concern, consumer
willingness to purchase and use degradable plastics depends on their cost relative to
conventional products, their convenience, and their quality for achieving the intended purpose.
Present data radicate that the relative performance of degradable plastics is uncertain or
unfavorable in each of these characteristics:
• Prices for degradable plastics are likely to be higher than for commodity resins because
of the additional processing required, loss of important economies of scale in production
(relative to those enjoyed by commodity resins), and the additional care needed during
transport, delivery, and marketing to avoid premature exposure to degrading
environmental elements.
• The convenience and quality of degradable products for consumers depends on
manufacturers' ability to tailor product lifetimes to a length suitable for specific product
uses as well as to ensure safe product storage in household use. At best, degradable
plastics could equal the convenience and quality of nondegradable plastics. Some
consumer markets may exist in which, as in medical applications, degradability is a
distinct marketing advantage. The nature and size of such markets is probably
modestThese factors suggest that market forces alone will not generate consumer
support for degradable products, except for a few unusual market niches in which
degradability itself is a valuable product attribute.
5-89
-------
5.5.4 Cost of Degradable Plastics
The feasibility of increased use of degradable plastics is influenced by the cost of these
polymers and the facility with which they can be processed. In general, degradable plastics will
be sold at a premium to commodity resins, although the range of cost premiums cannot be
exactly established with available information. At the SPI Symposium on degradable plastics,
several presenters described their degradable resins as selling at only modest premiums to
commodity resins. They also expressed confidence that premiums would decline as production
levels increase. It must be presumed, however, that the addition of the degradability
characteristic will require some additional processing and will thus generate some premium. A
larger premium was described for sale of one resin, the biodegradable plastic polymer PHBV
(Lloyd, 1987).
The ease of processing for degradable resins will also be a concern for product manufacturers,
and could generate additional cost differentials that are not reflected in the market, price of the
resins. Resins are carefully engineered to optimize a variety of desirable characteristics,
including ease of processing. The addition of the degradability characteristic to the resin is
likely to be achieved only with some tradeoff of other resin features. Manufacturers are also
concerned that waste or trim materials from processing cannot be reused with photodegradable
resins, a limitation that increases raw material costs.
Further, storage and transportation of produced degradable products also require some
additional controls. In general, manufacturers or shippers may need to institute controls on
light exposure (for photodegradables) or moisture absorption and biological activity (for
biodegradables).
5.5.5 Current Status of Efforts to Foster Manufacture and Use of Degradable Plastics
Future growth in the use of degradable plastics will depend on several factors, including market
demand for and acceptance of degradable plastics and industry improvements in the technology
for supplying degradable plastics. This section discusses the forces that have generated interest
in as well as some existing uses for degradable plastics. These forces include various regulations
and industrial research and development.
5.5.5.1 Regulations Requiring Use of Degradable Plastics
i-
Government (at various levels) has passed legislation requiring the use of degradable plastics in
selected applications. Table 5-26 shows a sample of the legislation that has been passed or
proposed by states and localities. In general, the various bans have been fostered by concerns
about the environmental impacts of nondegradable plastics. No investigations were noted of
possible environmental concerns regarding degradable plastics.
Two communities, Berkeley, CA, and Suffolk County, NY, have passed resolutions restricting
the use of nondegradable plastics in a number of applications. Suffolk County, for example,
bans certain nonbiodegradable food packaging and nonbiodegradable plastic food utensils in
take-out restaurants.
5-90
-------
Table 5-26
SAMPLE OF RESTRICTIONS ON
NONBIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS
State or Locality Year
Description of Ratified Legislation
Alaska
1981
Bans nonbiodegradable six-pack carriers
Florida
1988 Bans nondegradable polystyrene foam and plastic-coated paper
packaging for foods for human consumption. Requires all
retail carry-out bags to be degradable
Maine
1988 Bans the use or sale of any polystyrene food or drink serving
containers, whether or not manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons
Rhode Island 1988 Prohibits retailers from using plastic bags without offering
consumers the choice of paper bags; exempts all biodegradable
bags, boxes, and wrapping materials and all returnable containers
from state sales taxes
Suffolk County,
New York
1988 Bans the sale of certain nonbiodegradable food packaging, plastic
grocery bags, certain PVC and PS packaging and utensils
West Virginia 1987 Taxes restaurants 5% of the wholesale value of nonbiodegradable
and nonrecyclable plastics used
Sources: Wirka, 1988; EAF, 1988.
5-91
-------
Wider mandates for use of degradable plastics have come from state and federal regulations.
More than twenty states have passed laws mandating the use of degradable plastic holding
devices (e.g., six-pack rings, contour-pak, film, etc.) for either beverages or beverages and other
containers. Federal legislation in the form of the Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers law (Public
Law 100-556) requkes EPA to issue regulations by October 1990 specifying that regulated items
are to be degradable (if feasible and as long as the degradable items do not pose a greater
environmental threat than nondegradable items).
i ;i '
! '•
A product-oriented view of state and local regulations outlines the potential influence on plastic
markets. Table 5-27 itemizes the major categories of plastic products that have come under
regulation (either in the U.S. or internationally) and describes the national market size of each
segment. The national sizes of the markets that have been regulated are also indicated. The
largest market is for retail carryout bags, estimated at 760 million pounds in 1976 when these
data were compiled. The aggregate size of the affected markets came to 1.8 billion pounds
(using the 1986 data from the source material).
As also shown in the table, the total market for all product areas exceeded 50 billion pounds.
Numerous plastic market areas are not currently being analyzed for use of biodegradables,
including building and construction, furniture, transportation, and industrial uses of packaging.
5.5.5.2 Industry Initiatives on Degradable Plastics
Industry interest in degradable plastics has focused on only a few product types. The two
primary markets for degradable plastics are regulation-induced markets of the type described
above and special market niches in which degradable plastics outperform conventional products.
Markets in the first category (see Section 5.5.5.1 above) are generated by public pressures and
not from indigenous industry activities. These opportunities are likely to be the more important
and more general area of interest for industry. For example, one executive of a large resin
producer stated that the regulation-induced market for degradable plastics was the source of his
company's interest in these plastics (Leaversuch, 1987). This section examines only the latter
category of markets, the special market niches that industry will pursue without external
encouragement.
These special market areas exist only among products in which these plastics outperform other
materials and thus can capture a market share. Degradable agricultural mulch films are an
example of a product that, when manufactured from degradable plastic, may outperform and
thus be more valuable than nondegradable versions. Degradable films are spread on fields to
provide mulch and then abandoned, while the nondegradable products must be eventually
removed. By avoiding the removal step, farmers will accrue a cost savings that may exceed any
cost differential between the conventional and degradable films. Similarly, degradable bags
designed to hold materials (e.g., yard waste) destined for composting are also being produced.
Unlike nondegradable bags, degradable bags can become part of the compost material. Several
pilot programs using degradable bags are underway across the country. Industry has also
pursued the development of biodegradables for medical applications, especially biodegradable or
hydrolytically degradable surgical sutures. These products outperform conventional products by
eliminating the need for the medical removal of the sutures.
5-92
-------
Table 5-27
SIZE OF MARKETS
IN DEGRADABLE PRODUCT
AREAS
Market
Resin
Sample of
Regulatory Coverage
U.S. Sales
(million Ib)
Beverage rings
Diaper backing
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Numerous state laws
prohibit nondegradable devices
Oregon bans
nondegradable diapers
125
150
Retail carryout
bags (a)
Disposable food
service items(b)
Egg cartons
Industrial
containers(c)
Tampon applicators
Total
Total U.S. resin sales
Total U.S. resin sales
Polyethylene
Polystyrene
Expandable poly-
styrene
Polystyrene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
- packaging (d)
- all market categories (d)
Italy banned nondegradable
bags in 1984
Suffolk, NY, banned
nondegradable items
New Jersey proposed bans on
these items
Considered for ban in
Oregon
New Jersey proposed bans on
these items
760
500
85
200
5
1 ,825
13,200
50,800
(a) Includes low- and high-density T-shirt, merchandise, trash, garment, and self-service bags.
(b) Includes thermoformed polystyrene and molded expanded polystyrene cups, plates and
hinged containers and molded solid polystyrene cutlery, plates, cups, and bowls.
(c) Includes blow-molded high-density polyethylene drums, hand-held fuel tanks, and
tight-head pails.
(d) Total resin sales for packaging are derived from Chem Systems and are
based on 1985 data. Total sales data for resins are from Society of the Plastics Industry, 1988.
Source: Leaversuch, 1987 and additional materials as cited.
5-93
-------
Other markets of this type may arise if a degradable product allows a task related to removal or
disposal of a conventional product to be eliminated. Still, the overall significance of these
markets is uncertain.
5.6 ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF PLASTIC WASTE
In addition to the waste management techniques discussed thus far, EPA and other Federal
agencies can pursue several methods to mitigate the impacts of plastic wastes on the
environment. These methods include 1) incremental controls on discharges of sewage into
oceans and other navigable waters, 2) implementation of the MARP6L Annex V standards
promulgated by the Coast Guard, and 3) programs to reduce litter. EPA can also undertake
steps to mitigate problematical effects of plastic waste on the waste disposal methods currently
used, namely incineration and landfilling.
5.6.1 Efforts to Control Discharges of Land-Generated Wastes from Sanitary Sewers,
Stormwater Sewers, and Nonpoint Urban Runoff
Section 3 discusses the principal contributors of land-generated plastic wastes to the marine
environment. These include:
• POTWs that cannot treat the capacity of normal "dry-weather flow" or POTWs that
suffer downtime or breakdowns; at these facilities, untreated sewage may bypass the
system and be released directly into receiving waters.
i
• Communities with combined sanitary and storm sewer overflows (CSOs); in these places,
the volume of stormwater exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant during heavy
rains, causing some of the effluent (consisting of both untreated sewage and stormwater
with street litter) to be released directly to receiving waters.
• In communities with separate sewer and stormwater discharges, stormwater drains carry a
variety of urban runoff including street litter.
i i
i • .
Methods to correct these problems are discussed below.
EPA currently holds authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate discharges from
municipalities, including discharges from municipal waste water treatment facilities. EPA has
made increasing use of its CWA authority by bringing legal action against cities that had failed
to comply with regulatory requirements. Communities unable to treat all of the normal dry-
weather flow due to treatment plant maintenance can construct backup holding tanks to retain
excess flow for later treatment.
EPA is authorized to control CSOs under the Clean Water Act. EPA has developed a national
control strategy to bring CSO discharges into compliance with the Act. The strategy presents
three main objectives:
5-94
-------
• To ensure that all CSO discharges occur only as a result of wet weather
• To bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into compliance with the technology-
based requirements of the CWA and applicable state water quality standards
• To minimize water quality, aquatic biota, and human health impacts from wet weather
overflows that do occur
EPA will achieve these performance goals through a nationally consistent approach for
developing and issuing NPDES permits for CSOs. The permits will require technology-based
and water-quality based limitations for discharges; the control technology includes methods for
controlling solid and floatable materials from CSOs, including plastic waste.
EPA is also studying the pollution contributions from stormwater discharges from communities
with separate storm sewer systems. EPA is preparing a Report to Congress on this subject, and
a portion of the report will assess the problems of floatable waste discharges. EPA has also
proposed regulations controlling discharges associated with industrial activity from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a population greater than 100,000 people.
5.6.2 Efforts to Implement the MARPOL Annex V Regulations
A substantial portion of plastic waste in the marine environment and on beaches is generated
from vessels. Section 3 describes the quantities and types of materials discarded and their
impacts on the marine environment.
The plastic waste generated from U.S.-flagged vessels, and from foreign-flagged vessels
operating in U.S. waters should be substantially reduced as the result of the implementation of
MARPOL (Marine Pollution) Annex V, an international treaty agreement for the protection of
ocean resources. The U.S. legislation implementing this treaty is contained in the Marine
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, which amends the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships. The U.S. Coast Guard published interim final regulations on April 28, 1989. The
regulations:
• Prohibit the deliberate discard of plastic materials from vessels
• Require ports to have "adequate reception facilities" to accept garbage that will be
offloaded from ships
• Restrict disposal of other garbage within various distances of shore
The only plastic wastes that are exempted from these regulations will be those materials that
are lost in the course of normal commercial activities, such as nets or fishing line lost in fishing
operations. Unfortunately, substantial amounts of netting can be lost during these operations;
problems of "ghost fishing" by derelict nets, therefore, will not disappear even with perfect
compliance with the regulations. Further, the reduction in waste disposal from vessels may also
be less dramatic than desired because not all nations are signatories of the MARPOL treaty,
5-95
-------
and among those nations that are, compliance levels with their respective national regulations
remain uncertain.
The authorizing legislation for MARPOL Annex V also requires EPA to examine the wider
problems of plastic waste. Included among the EPA efforts is the preparation of this report on
plastic waste problems. EPA is also directed to coordinate with the Department of Commerce
and the Coast Guard to institute a program for encouraging the formation of citizens' groups to
assist in the monitoring, reporting, cleanup, and prevention of ocean and shoreline pollution.
'i '• ii ! i i' ' ,.' ' -1'. '" ,i' " ,»i
I , ' ; • "
5.6.3 Efforts to Reduce Plastics Generated from Fishing Operations
Section 3 identified a number of problems caused by loss of fishing gear or other associated
wastes to the marine environment. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is currently evaluating methods to reduce the frequency of gear loss
and the environmental impacts associated with such losses. Due to NOAA's ongoing effort, no
attempt has been made to outline or analyze possible control methods for this report. The
EPA will support NOAA in developing and implementing methods to control the loss and
impacts of fishing nets, traps, and other gear.
|
5.6.4 Efforts to Control Discharges of Plastic Pellets
The only industrial waste stream of concern for this study is the plastic pellets that are found in
the marine environment. These are frequently ingested by marine life and are also found in
substantial quantities on beaches. The EPA initiatives and available options for control of this
industrial waste stream are described here.
,, i .1
Section 3 describes the findings from the literature review and from original harbor sampling
programs undertaken by the EPA Office of Water. Unfortunately, existing information is not
adequate to characterize the point or nonpoint sources of plastic pellet wastes or to pinpoint
the most effective control mechanism.
Any assessment of possible sources of plastic pellet waste requires a consideration of the flow
of the pellets through the economy. Pellets are handled at several stages:
Plastic resin manufacturers - The manufacturers could lose some pellet materials during
manufacturing, either to plant effluents or with plant solid waste, which then might be lost
to the environment.
1 • • • I
Plastic pellet transporters - Pellets are transported domestically primarily by rail or by truck
in either large-quantity containers (e.g., tank cars) or small-quantity containers (e.g., fiber
drums, paper bags). Some international shipments are transported by vessel. Transporters
may lose some materials to the environment if their containers leak or are punctured.
Cleaning of tank cars could also generate an effluent containing waste pellets.
5-96
-------
Plastic product manufacturers - Plastic product manufacturers use pellets for a variety of
molding and processing techniques. These firms have economic incentives to capture any
waste pellets and reincorporate them into input streams. Nevertheless, some loss of pellets
could occur because of spillage of pellet containers in the facilities or receipt of off-
specification products. The lost pellets could be washed into sewer drains or discarded with
facility solid waste.
Data on the relative contribution of these sources is almost entirely anecdotal and quite limited.
According to some industry representatives, for example, resin manufacturers do not generate
any significant pellet wastes. The volume of waste pellet material lost in product processing is,
unknown. Evidence is also not available concerning the loss of pellets in operations such as
tank car cleaning.
The following are approaches for closing these possible points of release:
Reviewing terms of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits -
Effluents generated by either resin manufacturers or plastic processors could contain pellets.
Such discharges may not be effectively controlled under the existing NPDES permits issued by
EPA, partly because plastic pellets have not been recognized as an environmental problem until
very recently. NPDES permits may also be held by plastic processing facilities that discharge to
municipal sewer systems. In these cases also, EPA can review the permit terms to require more
efficient control of pellet discharges. Note, however, that numerous plastic processing plants
are quite small and may not have NPDES permits for either direct or indirect discharges.
Improving capture of plastic pellets in sewer or stormwater discharges - Issues associated with
the capture of plastic materials from these discharge locations were described in Section 5.6.1
above. The same technologies can be used for pellets as for other plastic materials — namely,
skimming as well as screening of the wastewater effluents. Capturing plastic pellets, however,
will be still more technically challenging because of their small size.
Improving the durability of pellet packaging - Pellets may be frequently released into the
environment because of spills from damaged packaging. More durable packaging could reduce
the rate of spillage or loss; currently, paper bags that can easily tear are used to ship large
quantities of pellets.
Increasing educational initiatives - Efforts to educate the members of the plastics industry
concerning the apparent damage caused by releases of plastic pellets could be broadly directed
so as to help address all of the potential sources of this waste stream.
Pursuing further research on the sources of plastic pellet wastes - Sources of pellets are not
well defined. Further field investigations would be helpful.
5-97
-------
5.6.5 EPA Programs to Control Environmental Emissions from Incineration
EPA considers incineration as one of the waste management options in an integrated waste
management system. Incineration and landfilling follow source reduction and recycling in the
solid waste management hierarchy described in EPA's "Agenda for Action." EPA considers that
properly operated and controlled incineration is a safe waste management option.
Section 4 noted a number of actual or potential emissions resulting from incineration of plastics
found in municipal solid waste. EPA and the states regulate air pollution sources such as
municipal solid waste incinerators under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The emission restrictions
are directed at the total emissions from the combustors, not specifically emissions due to any
component of the waste stream.
EPA regulates emissions directly and indirectly through several approaches under the CAA
Under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA promulgated a limitation on the
emission of particulate matter from municipal solid waste combustors. Additionally, EPA has
promulgated general limitations on the pollutant levels under the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) Program. These are enforced through state level regulation and within the
context of State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The latter describe the approach to be used by
each state to achieve the national ambient limitations for each pollutant set by EPA The
pollutants covered by NAAQS, and thus by SIPS, include sulfur dioxide and particulates.
I ' " ' ,
I
EPA is also planning to revise the NSPS regulations for new municipal solid waste incinerators
and to provide guidance for controls for existing incinerators. The proposed regulations are
expected to specify controls for acid gas emissions.
i' i ' . |» ' ,,i !' , ,.,«,", '" HI
5.6.6 EPA Programs to Control Environmental Hazards Arising from the Landfilling of
Plastic Wastes with Municipal Solid Waste
The final option for management of plastics in municipal solid waste is landfilling. Most plastic
wastes in the MSW stream are landfilled. EPA programs for controlling the environmental
effects of landfilled MSW, including any plastic waste, are summarized here.
Municipal solid waste landfills are regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This legislation establishes a framework for improvement of solid waste
management systems, including:
• EPA's promulgation of general guidelines and minimum criteria for state solid waste
management plans.
i '
• EPA's promulgation of criteria for defining which facilities shall be considered "sanitary
landfills" in the RCRA program. All other facilities are to be classified as open dumps.
RCRA prohibits open dumping, and citizens or states can bring suit to enjoin such
dumping.
5-98
-------
These authorities allow EPA to establish the minimum criteria for operation of state solid waste
management programs. If enforced, such criteria should provide for the protection of human
health and the environment from the potential hazards of MSW disposal in landfills.
Implementation and enforcement of an EPA-approved program, however, is the responsibility of
individual state governments.
Further, EPA will be finalizing new MSW landfill criteria in the near future. The new rules,
which were proposed in the Federal Register on August 30, 1988, will provide additional
safeguards for protecting human health and the environment.
5-99
-------
REFERENCES
Andrady, A.L. 1988. Experimental demonstration of controlled photodegradation of relevant
plastic compositions under marine environmental conditions. Report prepared for the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest and
Alaskan Fisheries Center. Seattle, WA. 88-19. 68 p.
Barger, B. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Brenda
Barger, Resource Recovery Specialist, Mecklenburg County Engineering, Charlotte, NC. May 1.
i ...
Battles, P. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Peter
Battles, Director of Planning, East Lyme, CT. May 3.
• ' . ' I ' ' ' ':
i .
Bennett, R.A. 1988. New Applications and Markets for Recycled Plastics. From the
Recyclingplas IH Conference: Plastics Recycling as a Future Business Opportunity (May 25-26).
Plastics Institute of America, Inc. Technomic Publishing. Company. Lancaster, PA
i
Blair, E.A. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Dr. E.A
Blair, Princeton Polymer Laboratory. March 17.
i
Borodinsky, L. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Les
Borodinsky, Division of Food Chemistry and Technology, Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, DC. March 3.
i
Bree, W. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and William
Bree, Recycling Department, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. April 5.
Brewer, G.D. 1987. Mixed plastics recycling: Not a pipe dream. Waste Age. Nov 1987. pp.
153-160.
I
Brewer, G.D. 1988a. Recyclers: Cultivating New Growth for Packaging. Plastics Packaging.
May/June.
Brewer, G.D. 1988b. Recycling Resources: A Plastics Industry Update. Plastic Packaging.
Jan/Feb. pp. 40-46.
Brewer, G.D. 1988c. Pair Plan to Prevail Over Plastics. Waste Age. Aug 1988. p. 147.
Brewer, G.D. 1989. Comments submitted to the U.S. Environmental! Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, on a draft Chapter 5 of OSW's Report to Congress, Methods to Manage and
Control Plastic Wastes. Jun 13, 1989.
i
Budiansky, S. 1986. The world of crumbling plastics. U.S. News and World Report, Nov 24,
1986. p. 76.
5-100
-------
California, State of. 1988. Annual Report of the Department of Conservation, Division of
Recycling. Sacramento, CA.
Castro, L. 1988. Personal communication between Eastern Research Group and Lou Castro,
Lykes Bros. Shipping Co. July 15.
Center for Plastics Recycling Research. 1988. Plastics Collection and Sorting: Including
Plastics in a Multi-Material Recycling Program for Non-rural Single Family Homes. Rutgers
University. Piscataway, NJ.
Clark, J. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Jean Clark,
Department of Public Works, Montclair, NJ. Apr 28.
Glaus, P. 1987. Degradable Plastics in Europe. Proceedings of the Symposium on Degradable
Plastics (Washington, June 1987). Society of the Plastics Industry. Washington, DC. p. 4.
Cook, J. 1988. Not in anybody's backyard, Forbes 142:172. Nov 28, 1988.
Council for Solid Waste Solutions. 1989. Fact sheets on plastics recycling initiatives: (1)
Illinois and DuPont Create Recycling Partnership; (2) Recycling soda Bottles for Spic & Span
Pine; (3) Nation's Largest Recycling Venture Launched. Washington, DC. May, 1989.
Curlee, T.R. 1986. The Economic Feasibility of Recycling: A Case Study of Plastic Wastes.
Praeger. New York,' NY.
Dan, E. 1989. Letter of Feb. 22, 1989 to Susan Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Program, from Erving Dan, Managing Director, Enviromer
Enterprises, Leominster, MA.
Dipietro, R. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Rich
Dipietro, Manager of Packaging Management, Stanley Tools Corporation. New Britain, CT.
May 12.
Dittman, F.W. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Frank
W. Dittman, Center for Plastics Recycling Research. May 1.
EAF. 1988. Environmental Action Foundation. Legislative Summary: Significant Packaging ,
Initiatives Passed or Considered in 1988. Washington, DC. December.
EPA Journal. 1989. Five situation pieces. 15(2):35-40. March/April. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
Franklin Associates. 1989. Comparative Energy and Environmental Impacts for Soft Drink
Delivery Systems. Prepared for the National Association for Plastic Container Recovery
(NAPCOR). Charlotte, NC. March.
5-101
-------
Gelir, W. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and William
Gehr, State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. April 3.
l '. '
Gilead, D. 1987. A New, Time-Controlled, Photodegradable Plastic. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Degradable Plastics (Washington, June 1987). Society of the Plastics Industry.
Washington, DC. p. 37.
i
Glass Packaging Institute. 1988. Comprehensive Curbside Recycling. Glass Packaging
Institute. Washington, DC
Glenn, J. 1988a. Junior, take out the recyclables. BioCycle. May/Jun:26.
i, i
Glenn, J. • 1988b. Recycling Economics Benefit-Cost Analysis. BioCycle. Oct:44.
Guillet, J.E. 1987. Vinyl Ketone Photodegradable Plastics. Proceedings of Symposium on
Degradable Plastics (Washington, June 1987). The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Washington, DC. p. 33.
11
Harlan, G.M. and A. Nicholas. 1987. Degradable Ethylene Carbon Monoxide Copolymers.
Proceeding of the Symposium on Degradable Plastics (Washington, June 1987). The Society of
the Plastics Industry, Inc. Washington, DC. p. 14.
:'•"'! . ' '
Helmus, M.N. 1988. The Outlook for Degradable Plastics. Spectrum. Arthur D. Little
Decision Resources: Feb 1988.
; .',. • v; ,sj,"
EEc. 1988. Industrial Economics Inc. Plastics Recycling: Incentives, Barriers and
Government Roles. Prepared for Water Economics Branch, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S.
EPA. Industrial Economics Incorporated. Cambridge, MA. 152 pp.
lEc. 1989. Industrial Economics Inc. Potential Impacts of a National Bottle Bill on Plastics
Recycling. Draft Report prepared for Water Economics Branch, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S.
EPA May 1989.
Johnson, R. 1987. An SPI Overview of Degradable Plastics. Proceedings of the Symposium
on Degradable Plastics (Washington, June 1987), Society of the Plastics Industry. Washington,
DC p. 6.
Koser, W. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Wayne
Koser, Environmental Quality Specialist, Resource Recovery Section of the Waste Management
Division of Michigan. Lansing, MI. April 3.
i ' ' • ,
",.,' • • I '• i
Leaversuch, R. 1987. Industry weighs need to make polymer degradable. Modern Plastics.
Aug 1987. p. 52.
Lloyd, D.R. 1987. Poly(hydroxybutyrate.valerate) Biodegradable Plastic. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Degradable Plastics (Washington, June 1987). Society of the Plastics Industry.
Washington, DC p. 19.
5-102
-------
MacDonald, G. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and
George MacDonald of the State of Maine Department of Economic and Community
Development. Augusta, ME. April 7.
Maddever, W.J. and G.M. Chapman. 1987. Making Plastics Biodegradable Using Modified
Starch Additions. Proceedings of the Symposium on Degradable Plastics (Washington, June
1987). The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.. Washington, DC. p. 41.
Maine DECD. 1988. Maine Department of Economic and Community Development. State of
Maine Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. Augusta, ME.
Massachusetts DEQE. 1988. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering. Plastics Recycling Action Plan for Massachusetts. Boston, MA.
Maczko, J. 1988. Personal communication between Dynamac Corporation and J. Maczko,
Mid-Atlantic Plastic Systems. August.
Medeiros, S. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Stephen
Medeiros, Laser Fare LTD, Inc. Smithfield, RI. April 28.
Minnesota Project. 1987. Case Studies in Rural Solid Waste Recycling. Prepared for the Ford
Foundation by the Minnesota Project.
MRI. 1974. Midwest Research Institute. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of
Plastics and Non-plastic Containers. Prepared for the Society of the Plastics Industry.
NAPCOR. 1989. NAPCOR NEWSflash. National Association for Plastic Container Recovery.
Mar 1989.
NOAA. 1988. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NWAFC Processed Report
88-16. Evaluation of Plastics Recycling Systems. Prepared by Cal Recovery Systems, Richmond,
CA. '
O'Sullivan, D. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Denis
O'Sullivan, Principal Packaging Engineer, Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, MA. May
12.
Phillips, J. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Joseph
Phillips, New York State Department of Environment and Solid Waste. April 2.
Plastics Recycling Foundation. 1988. Plastics Recycling: A Strategic Vision. Washington, DC.
Popkin, R. 1989. Source reduction: Its meaning and potential. EPA Journal. Mar/Apr.
Potts, J.E., R.A. Clendinning, W.B. Ackert and W.D. Niegisch. 1974. The Biodegradability of
Synthetic Polymers. In: J. Guillet (ed). Polymers and Ecological Problems. Plenum Press.
New York, NY. pp. 61-80.
5-103
-------
Rattray, T. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Tom
Rattray, Associate Director of Corporate Packaging Development, Proctor and Gamble, May 12.
Recycling Times. 1989. March 28. p. 3.
San Jose. 1989. San Jose's Recycling Program Overview. San Jose, CA.
Schaub, R. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Richard
Schaub, Public Works Department, Haddonfield, NJ. April 28.
Schmitz, S. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Stuart
Schmitz of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Des Moines, IA. April 4.
Seaman, M. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Martin
Seaman.
Smith, N. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Nora Smith,
Senior Planner with the City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility. Seattle, WA. April 27.
Society for Research into the Packaging Market. 1987 Packaging Without Plastic - Ecological
and Economic Consequences of a Packaging Market Free from Plastic. Research performed on
behalf of The Association of the Plastics Producing Industry. Frankfurt am Main, W. Germany.
SPI. 1987. Society of the Plastics Industry. Plastic Bottle Recycling: Case Histories. The
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Washington, DC.
SPI. 1988a. Society of the Plastics Industry. Facts and Figures of the U.S. Plastics. Industry.
Washington, DC.
SPI. 1988b. Society of the Plastics Industry. Questions and Answers About Plastics Packaging
and Degradability. Washington, DC.
SPI. 1989. Society of the Plastics Industry. States Requiring Plastic Container Coding.
Council for Solid Waste Solutions. Washington, DC.
Statz, RJ. and M.C. Dorris. 1987. Photodegradable Polytheylene. Proceedings of the
Symposium on De'gradable Plastics (Washington, June 1987). The Society of the Plastics
Industry, Inc. Washington, DC. p. 51.
Stevens, B.J. 1988. Cost analysis of curbside programs. BioCycle. May/June:37.
Stevens, B.J. 1989a. How to finance curbside recycling. BioCycle. Feb:31.
Stevens, B.J. 1989b. How to figure curbside's costs. Waste Age. Feb:52.
Stroika, M. 1988. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Max
Stroika, Manager of Purchasing, Freeman Chemical, Port Washington, WL July 20.
5-104
-------
Tobin, K. 1989. Telephone communication between Kit Tobin, Manager Network Services,
Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Stamford, CT. and Eastern Research Group, Inc. April 5.
U.S. EPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An
Agenda for Action. Municipal Solid Waste Task Force. U.S. EPA/OSW. EPA-530-SW-88-
052. Washington, DC.
U.S. GAO. 1988. U.S. General Accounting Office. Degradable Plastics - Standards, Research,
and Development. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
GAO/RCED-88-208.
Washington State. 1988. Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste: 1987 Recycling
and Waste Stream Survey, Vol. 1. Prepared by Matrix Management Group for the Washington
State Department of Ecology Office of Waste Reduction and Recycling. Olympia, WA.
Watts, A. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Allan Watts,
City of Austin, Department of Public Works. April 27.
West German Federal Office of the Environment, Berlin. 1988. Comparison of the
Environmental Consequences of Polyethylene and Paper Carrier Bags. Translation by G. W.
House. Environmental Plastics Group, Polysar International SA. Mar 1989.
Wienholt, L. 1989. Telephone communication between Eastern Research Group and Lissa
Wienholt, Recycling Department of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
April 10.
Wirka, J. 1988. Wrapped in Plastics: The Environmental Case for Reducing Plastics
Packaging. Environmental Action Foundation. Washington, DC.
Wirka, J. 1989. Design for a National Source Reduction Policy. Environmental Action
Foundation. Washington, DC.
5-105
-------
-------
SECTION SIX *
OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS
The previous five sections of this report described the production, use, and disposal 'of plastics
(Section 2); concerns regarding plastic material and products in the marine environment
(Section 3); impacts of plastics waste on the management of municipal solid waste (MSW)
(Section 4); and available options for reducing the impacts of plastic waste (Section 5). This
section presents the actions to be taken by EPA as well as recommended actions for industry
and other groups to address the concerns identified in these earlier sections.
The objectives presented here are divided into two categories: those for improving the
management of the MSW stream and those for addressing problems outside the MSW
management system (e.g., improvements to the wastewater treatment and drainage systems).
For each objective, action items are listed that represent what EPA believes are effective means
of achieving that objective. In general, improvement in MSW management can play a
substantial role in reducing the concerns presented by the plastic waste component of the MSW
stream. Most of the objectives and action items given here, therefore, are aimed at promoting
or improving management methods, such as source reduction, recycling, landfilling, and
incineration. Improvements in landfilling and incineration will better the management of all
MSW, not just plastics.
Section 3 identified several articles of concern in the marine environment based on their effects
on marine life or public safety, or the aesthetic damage they cause. However, Section 3
highlighted the impacts that result from all types of marine debris, not just these articles of
concern. Other debris, such as beverage bottles and food wrappers, is unsightly and offensive
when found on beaches or in harbors. The objectives and actions provided here focus on the
sources of all marine debris, not on the identified articles of concern.
Many studies and reports other than this document have assessed marine debris issues. These
studies have been conducted by numerous organizations, including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Center for Marine Conservation, and the Marine
Debris Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris, which was create'd by President
Reagan in 1987. The specific recommendations of these reports are not reproduced here,
although EPA supports the general intent of these efforts.
6-1
-------
6.1 OBJECTIVES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
6.1.1 Source Reduction
1. ISSUE: Material substitution efforts aimed at reducing plastic waste
generation must not increase other environmental problems.
-- *"*•• , *• - ; .- >
, itv,' „ \, •. * "
OBJECTIVE; Develop a method for systematically analyzing source
reduction efforts (for either volume or toxicity reduction) that involve
substitution. ,.
-------
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA has issued a grant to the Conservation Foundation (CF) to evaluate strategies
for MSW source reduction. CF has convened a steering committee of municipal solid
waste source reduction experts representing a wide range of interests in government,
industry, and public interest groups. The steering committee will examine policy and
technical issues involved in conducting a lifecycle analysis. Determining when such an
analysis will be needed will also be discussed. The steering committee will provide
recommendations by the Fall of 1990.
• Building on the work conducted by CF (described above), EPA will develop a model
for conducting a lifecycle analysis. The model will be evaluated by applying it to
selected components of the waste stream. Work on model development will begin in
late 1990. A preliminary model is expected by the end of 1991. Once testing of the
model is complete, EPA will make it available to interested organizations.
2.
ISSUE: Lead- and cadmium-based plastic additives contribute to the
heavy metal content of incinerator ash.
OBJECTIVE: Identify and evaluate substitutes for, and nonessential uses
of, lead-and cadmium-based plastic additives.
Section 4 indicated that lead- and cadmium-based additives may contribute to ash toxicity.
Because they are distributed in a combustible medium, these additives tend to contribute
proportionately more to fly ash than to bottom ash.
ACTION ITEMS:
• EPA is continuing to evaluate the potential substitutes for lead- and cadmium-based
plastic additives identified in Appendix C. Substitutes for lead and cadmium in other
components of the waste stream are also being identified and evaluated. Findings of
the study will be shared and discussed with manufacturers and users of identified
products and additives, as well as wfth members of the public and Congress. The final
report is expected by April 1990.
• EPA will evaluate options for regulating additive use in situations in which safe and
effective substitutes are available or in products in which lead- and cadmium-based
additives are not considered to be essential.
6-3
-------
3.
ISSUE: Plastics represent a substantial -- and increasing —proportion of
the volume of the MSW stream. t
""• 'VJ^' \Kl f, rfi
OBJECTIVE 1; Evaluate the potential for minimizing packaging as a
means of source reduction.
' ' ' , £&r'
i s-y y* -f
OBJECTIVE 2: Encourage education and outreach programs on methods
for and effectiveness of implementing source reduction at the consumer
level.
OBJECTIVE 1: EVALUATE POTENTIAL FOR MINIMIZING PACKAGING
As shown in Section 2, plastic packaging waste represents a significant percentage of the total
plastic waste stream. Therefore, source reduction considerations are appropriate in this area.
Other components of the plastic waste stream may also be targeted for source reduction
consideration in the future. Although some packaging appears to be excessive, it may serve
such purposes as preventing pilferage, tampering, breakage, or food decay; or providing an area
for labels. Thus, care must be taken in determining how to reduce packaging materials.
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA issued a grant to the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) in partial
support of their Source Reduction Task Force. Under this grant, the CONEG Task
Force worked with industry and the environmental community to develop specific
regionally agreed-upon definitions for preferred packaging practices. A report was
issued by the CONEG Task Force in September 1989 that provided preferred
packaging guidelines and recommended that a Northeastern Source Reduction Council
be formed. The Council will include representatives from the CONEG states
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island), industry, and the environmental community. The
Council, which began meeting in October 1989, will develop long-range policy targeted
at reducing packaging at the source and implementing the packaging guidelines. The
Council will also develop educational materials for the general public. EPA is actively
working with CONEG and the Council on these efforts.
1 •
• The steering committee convened by the Conservation Foundation to examine MSW
source reduction issues (see p. 6-3) will develop recommendations for selection criteria
and a framework for a corporate awards program. In such a program, corporations or
. other organizations would be recognized for their work in promoting and carrying out
source reduction activities. Packaging may be one focus of this program.
6-4
-------
EPA is partially funding a research effort to analyze the production and disposal of six
different packaging materials (glass, aluminum, steel, paper, plastic, and "composite"
packaging) and the impact of public policies aimed at reducing or altering the mix of
packaging materials. EPA is supporting part of this research effort on the economic
policy issues raised in this packaging study. The economic basis for disposal fees,
bans, or other policy options will be analyzed and the impacts of these measures will
be evaluated. Results of this study are expected by early 1991.
EPA has initiated a study of economic incentives and disincentives for source
reduction efforts (not limited to plastic-related efforts) termed "Market Analysis of the
Major Components of the Solid Waste Stream and Examples of Strategies for
Promoting Source Reduction and Recycling." Incentives and disincentives that will be
evaluated include:
- volume-based waste charges
user charges
- depletion allowances and freight rates
The findings of the study, which will be available in early 1990, will be reviewed for
applicability to plastics packaging reduction. Recommendations for providing
incentives or removing disincentives to plastics source reduction will be made at that
time.
OBJECTIVE 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ON SOURCE REDUCTION
Consumer preferences and habits are in part responsible for driving changes in packaging and
material use. By encouraging consumers to change their habits, therefore, outreach programs
could ultimately affect the types of plastic products on the market. These programs could show
shoppers the importance of reusing household items as well as what items can be reused, and
the advantages of buying bulk foods and durable items.
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA has completed a study of interplay between consumers and industry in the
purchase of products and packaging promoting source reduction and recyclability.
This study, which was issued in September 1989, is entitled Promoting Source
Reduction and Readability in the Marketplace. The study pulls together much of
what has been written about the household consumer demand side of source reduction
and recyclability. Areas covered include previous case studies, findings of recent
surveys and opinion pools, research reports, current events, and consumer education
materials. The study also addresses a relatively new area, but nonetheless of great
importance to the future success of source reduction and recycling ~ the interplay
between consumers, manufacturers, and government in the marketplace.
6-5
-------
• EPA will develop a series of brochures or fact sheets on source reduction. The first
two will focus on how to achieve source reduction in the workplace and how
consumers can buy source-reduced products. These will be available by mid-1990.
• • .. I. * •
• Manufacturers and retailers should sponsor educational efforts. These efforts could
include advertising packaging or products that incorporate source reduction efforts
(e.g., were designed to produce less waste).
6.1.2 Recycling
ISSUE: Only 1% of post-consumer plastic waste is currently being recycled.
*• -i -i f jn
OBJECTIVE: Promote plastics recycling:
- Improve the recyclability of the waste stream
- Improve collection and separation of plastics
- Investigate processing technologies
- Enhance markets for recycled plastics
- Educate the public on plastics recycling
As explained in Section 2, approximately 10.3 million tons of plastics were discarded into the
MSW stream in 1986, and that amount is expected to increase by more than 50% by the year
2000. Of the 10.3 million tons, only 1% is currently recycled. This percentage is growing
because of the dedicated efforts of many organizations to implement plastic recycling programs.
Many of the action items described below call for continuance of these efforts. In order to
recycle a much greater percentage of plastic wastes, problems concerning collection/separation,
processing, marketing, and public information must be resolved.
i
Efforts to promote the development of recyclable packaging have been proposed partly because
of the trend in packaging to use multi-layer, composite plastics (e.g., squeezable bottles) and
multi-material packaging (e.g., plastic cans with aluminum lids). These types of packaging pose
recycling difficulties. Composite plastic packaging can only be recycled in a mixed plastic system
(either by secondary or tertiary processing), and the collection infrastructure is currently limited
(as are the markets for the products of mixed plastics recycling) and may continue to be limited.
At this time, therefore, composite and multi-material packaging is usually disposed of, not
recycled.
6-6
-------
ACTION ITEMS:
Improving Recyclabilitv of the Waste Stream
• EPA recommends that the steering committee convened for the Conservation
Foundation's efforts (see p. 6-3) become a self-supporting and long-standing Waste
Reduction Council. One role for this council could be to review packaging and
products for their impacts on current waste management. Efforts to improve the
recyclability of products and packages could be promoted.
Collection/Separation
• EPA is providing technical assistance to local communities and States for setting up ,
recycling programs, including programs for plastics. This assistance takes various
forms, including peer match programs and a clearinghouse for MSW management
information.
• Industry should continue to support research on improving collection equipment and
efficiency for plastics recycling.
• Industry should continue to provide assistance for community collection programs,
including:
-financial assistance for the purchase of equipment for collecting all recyclables
-technical assistance for collection/separation methods
-technical assistance for creating an educational/outreach program for communities
to increase volumes collected
• Industry, states, and local governments should work together to evaluate the efficacy
of various labeling systems that:
-promote public awareness of recyclable plastics
-assist consumers with identification and separation of resins
-allow for mechanical separation of resins
More than one system may be required to achieve these goals.
Processing
• The Department of Energy, industry, and universities should support further analysis
of the efficacy of tertiary recycling (converting plastic resins back into monomers).
• Industry should continue to sponsor research on secondary recycling technologies (i.e.,
for the conversion of postTConsumer plastic items into new plastic products),
particularly on improvements in product properties.
6-7
-------
• Industry should continue to provide technical and financial assistance to communities
for purchasing and operating appropriate processing equipment (e.g., balers,
shredders).
i
Marketing
• The Department of Commerce should evaluate the current and potential future
impacts of increased plastics recycling on virgin plastic production, markets, and on
imports/exports of virgin and scrap plastic.
):
• EPA has initiated a study of incentives and disincentives to recycling: "Market Analysis
of Major Components of the Solid Waste Stream and Examination of Strategies for
Promoting Source Reduction and Recycling" (see p. 6-7). When the study is finalized,
EPA will review the findings for their specific applicability to plastics.
Recommendations for removing disincentives or instituting incentives will be made at
that time.
I
• Given the uncertainties in the markets and supply levels for most recycled plastics,
States and communities that have been involved with cooperative marketing strategies
should share information regarding these strategies with other states and communities.
This could be accomplished through EPA's MSW clearinghouse.
• Industry should continue its efforts to identify, establish, and expand markets for
products of plastics recycling (e.g., plastic lumber).
Public Education
EPA is making information on plastics recycling available to the public through the
national information clearinghouse that provides information on all waste management
options.
6,8
-------
6.13 Landfilling and Incineration
ISSUE: Disposing of plastics through incineration or in landfills raises several
environmental concerns,
OBJECTIVE It Further evaluate the toxicity and potential teachability of additives
in plastic products.
OBJECTIVE 2t Carefully monitor the use of halogenated polymers (e.g., PVC) in
consumer products.
OBJECTIVE 3: Improve the design and operation of both disposal options.
OBJECTIVE 1: FURTHER EVALUATE ADDITIVES
Current data (see Section 4) are extremely limited and do not allow a complete assessment of
the contribution of plastic additives to landfill leachate or emissions from other waste
management options (e.g., incinerators). . - •• ,
ACTION ITEM;
• Industry should evaluate the toxicity of additives in plastic products when they are
placed in a landfill environment or when incinerated.
OBJECTIVE 2: MONITOR PVC USE
Concern about the incineration and landfilling of plastics primarily involves the incineration of
halogenated polymers and the use of certain additives. Some plastics, such as PVC, present
both types of problems, i.e., incineration of PVC produces hydrogen chloride, an acid gas, and
some PVC products require the use of additives that may leach from the product in a landfill.
ffi
Although the current level of PVC in the MSW stream is very small (approximately 0.6 -
0.11%), it may contribute a major portion of the chlorine present in MSW (see Section 4.3.2.4
for a discussion of PVC's contribution of chlorine to MSW). As the use of PVC increases, the
cost of controlling acid gas emissions from combustion or leachate from landfills may increase.
In addition, concern has been expressed about the role of incineration of halogenated polymers
in the formation of specific toxic compqunds like dioxins and furans (see Section 4).
FDA is considering several regulatory actions that, if approved, would increase the use of
halogenated polymers in food packaging. For example, FDA has published a proposed
6-9
-------
regulation to provide for the safe use of certain vinyl chloride polymers in manufacturing
bottles. FDA's proposed rule, if finalized, would allow for increased use of vinyl chloride
polymers in consumer products and, therefore, increase the volume of these polymers in MSW.
Commenters on the FDA proposal questioned the impact of the vinyl chloride polymers on the
disposal and management of MSW. In response, FDA has announced that it will prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) on the effects of its proposed rule on vinyl chloride
polymers and four food additive petitions involving chlorinated polymers. The EIS will indicate
how carefully vinyl chloride polymer use should be monitored - and thus whether the FDA
should approve additional uses of PVC and other halogenated polymers.
ACTION ITEM;
• EPA will work with FDA during the development of its EIS.
I
•!• • • |
" n j , I
OBJECTIVE 3: IMPROVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
i
As explained in "An Agenda for Action - The Solid Waste Dilemma," EPA prefers source
reduction and recycling as means of reducing the problems associated with disposal of MSW.
Implementation of the source reduction and recycling action items discussed above may increase
the viability of these management options, but there will always be plastics that cannot be
reduced in usage or recycled. These plastics must be disposed of in landfills or incinerated.
Information in Section 3 of this report indicates that stormwater discharges from landfills may
provide a pathway to waterways for lightweight debris. Controls for landfills and incinerators
must be adequate to protect human health and the environment.
ACTION ITEMS;
" ' . . • ;
• EPA will finalize new MSW landfill criteria (proposed on August 30, 1988) by the
Spring of 1990. These criteria will outline the controls necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Control of stormwater discharges at these facilities was
included in the proposed criteria.
• Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA proposed regulations for new MSW
incinerators and guidelines for existing incinerators in November 1989. The proposal
identifies controls needed to reduce acid gas and dioxin emissions.
6-10
-------
6.2 OBJECTIVES FOR HANDLING PROBLEMS OUTSIDE THE MSW
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems/Combined Sewer Overflows/Stormwater Drainage
Systems
ISSUE: Wastewater treatment systems, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater
drainage systems contribute substantial volumes of plastics to the marine
environment.
OBJECTIVE? Improve regulation of these discharges and enforcement of
regulations, pursue research into control methods, and educate consumers about
proper disposal practices.
Plastic marine debris flows from many different sources (see Sections 3 and 5). Of these,
wastewater treatment systems, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and stormwater discharges
have been identified as significant sources for many of the articles of concern identified in this
report as well as other marine pollution. Some articles originating from these sources may
include plastic pellets, tampon applicators, condoms, syringes, bags, and six-pack rings.
6.2.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems
When wastewater treatment systems experience failures and are completely or partially shut
down, untreated wastewater may be released to the environment. This wastewater may contain
floatable debris such as tampon applicators, condoms, syringes, and plastic pellets.
Inappropriate disposal of some of these items by consumers of plastic articles contributes to the
problem of plastic waste polluting the marine environment.
ACTION ITEM;
• Every community should assess its needs for improving wastewater treatment systems.
Some options include use of back-up holding tanks during shut-down periods and
better pre-treatment of wastewater by pellet manufacturers and plastic processors.
• Industry should implement labeling/educational programs that describe appropriate
disposal methods for products and the impacts of inappropriate disposal. Currently, at
least one manufacturer of plastic tampon applicators has initiated such a program, and
has labeled its products with directions concerning appropriate disposal.
6-11
-------
6.2.1.2 Combined Sewer Overflows
Most major municipal areas in the United States are served by a combination of sanitary
sewers, separate storm sewers, and combined sanitary and storm sewers. CSOs are flows from
combined sewers that occur when rain overfills the wastewater treatment system. EPA
estimates that 15,000-20,000 CSO discharge points are capable of releasing floatable debris into
the environment
EPA developed "A National Control Strategy for CSOs" in January 1989. This document
makes it clear that CSOs are point source discharges that require NPDES permits. Three
objectives included in that document are:
• To ensure that all CSO discharges occur only as a result of wet weather
• i ' ,:
• To bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into compliance with the technology-
based requirements of the Clean Water Act and applicable State water quality
standards
• To minimize impacts from CSOs on water quality, aquatic biota, and human health
i i'
ACTION ITEMS;
• As stated in the National Strategy, all permits for CSO discharges must include
technology-based limitations for the, control of pollutants, including solid and floatable
discharges. These permits will be issued by EPA or approved States. Enforcement
actions will be taken for violations of these limitations.
I
„ • , '"• '•, i. I •,'',"'
• EPA is developing guidance for States and local communities on effective operation
and control of a combined sewer system. Low-cost control mechanisms will be
included.
EPA will conduct a limited number of CSO sampling studies to pinpoint which articles
are frequently released from CSO discharges. Results should be available by early
1990. J *
6-12
-------
6.2.13 Stormwater Discharges
In many urban areas, runoff is discharged to the environment through separate storm sewers.
Street litter can be transported to the marine environment through the storm water system.
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA is developing a report to Congress on stormwater discharges, as required under
Section 402(p)(5) of the Clean Water Act. The major objectives of the report are 1)
to identify all stormwater discharges not covered by EPA's proposed regulations or by
existing permits, and 2) to determine the nature and extent of pollutants in the
discharges (floatables are only one type of discharged pollutant). This report will be
completed by mid-1990.
• EPA will also prepare a second report to Congress by the end of 1991 on control
mechanisms necessary to mitigate the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges
that were identified in the first report.
• EPA will sample and study a limited number of stormwater discharges to pinpoint
which articles are released from these sources. Samples will be taken by early 1990.
• As required by Section 402(p)(4) of the Clean Water Act, EPA has proposed
regulations specifying permit application requirements for two categories of stormwater
discharges: 1) stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, and 2)
discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a population greater
than 100,000 people (see 53 FR 49416). Permit applications for these sources will be
required one or two years after EPA completes its final regulations.
6-13
-------
6.2.2 Other Sources of Marine Debris
6.2.2.1 Vessels
-g ^
„
ISSUE: Plastics that are discarded or lost from vessels contribute to, observed
problems of entanglement and ingestion of plastics by marine wildlife.
OBJECTIVE I? Implement Annex V of MARPOL, which prohibits the discharge of
plastic waste at sea. , , '
I >>
OBJECTIVE 2: Reduce the impact of fishing nets, traps, and lines in the marine
environment. „ .-..._
OBJECTIVE 1: IMPLEMENT ANNEX V OF MARPOL
ACTION ITEMS;
• The Coast Guard has developed regulations that implement the requirements of
Annex V of MARPOL.
i
• EPA supports NOAA's recent recommendation (Report on the Effects of Plastic
Debris on the Marine Environment) that Federal and State agencies should enter
agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard to enforce MARPOL Annex V.
1 :''.
• Port facilities, local communities, industry, and interested Federal Agencies (e.g., Navy,
Coast Guard) should coordinate efforts to develop recycling programs for plastic waste
that is brought to shore in compliance with MARPOL Annex V.
OBJECTIVE 2: REDUCE IMPACT OF FISHING GEAR
NOAA is currently conducting four feasibility studies on how to reduce the problems inherent
in "ghost" fishing by lost nets or traps. These studies examine the following options:
• Use of degradable materials for nets or panels on traps
l
• Use of a bounty system to encourage retrieval of nets and traps
,
• Use of a marking system to assist in finding lost gear
• Negotiation with foreign-flagged vessels regarding proper disposal of nets and traps
6-14
-------
ACTION ITEM;
• EPA will support NOAA in its efforts by sharing relevant information (e.g., research
results on degradable plastics).
6.2.2.2 Plastic Manufacturers, Processors, and Transporters
ISSUE: Plastic pellets, which are identified as an article of concern in this report,
may be released to the marine environment from plastic manufacturing plants, plastic
processing facilities, or during transportation of plastic pellets.
OBJECTIVE: Determine specific sources of plastic pellets and evaluate control
options. '
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA is assessing the sources of pellets through studies of CSO and stormwater
discharges. Results are expected by early 1990.
• Industry should ensure that plastic pellets are transported in durable containers.
6.2.23 Garbage Barges
ISSUE: Garbage barges have been identified as sources of marine debris.
OBJECTIVE: Improve control of these sources.
ACTION ITEM;
• EPA will provide information to the Coast Guard on methods that owners or
operators of garbage barges or other vessels that transport solid waste can use to
reduce the loss of waste to the marine environment. The Coast Guard can
incorporate these methods into the permits that these vessels must receive in order to
operate.
6-15
-------
6.2.2.4 Land- and Sea-Originated Litter
ISSUE: Land- and sea-originated litter produce aesthetic, economic, and
environmental impacts, ,
OBJECTIVE li Support current efforts to retrieve, monitor, and characterize beach
marine litter. , ,
OBJECTIVE 2t Support current litter prevention campaigns.
OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT LITTER RETRIEVAL AND CHARACTERIZATION
j, , ,
Litter prevention is the preferred option for reducing the aesthetic, economic, and
environmental impacts of litter. Littering, however, is inevitable, and thus retrieval^ programs
must be planned and implemented.
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA will continue to sponsor a limited number of harbor surveys. These surveys help
to remove unsightly floatable debris from the marine environment and provide data on
the types of items in the marine environment.
!
• EPA will continue to work with NOAA in sponsoring beach clean-up activities. In
addition to retrieving unsightly litter, these programs provide data regarding amounts,
types of, and damage caused by plastic debris. These programs also educate
participants on the marine debris issue.
OBJECTIVE 2: SUPPORT LITTER PREVENTION
•, , i' , i ,
i
Waste management methods such as source reduction and recycling will help reduce the volume
of waste that is improperly disposed of as litter. The effectiveness of these methods for
reducing litter on land or in the marine environment can be greatly enhanced by education and
other litter prevention campaigns.
All levels of government, as well as environmental groups and industry, have supported and
developed educational campaigns aimed at reducing littering behavior and encouraging clean-up
campaigns. For example, the Department of the Interior has initiated an advertising campaign
for litter reduction. EPA is working with NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other agencies to
develop a public education program on marine debris. To date, this effort has included funding
for the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, funding for the 1988 and 1989
beach cleanups conducted during COASTWEEKS '88 and '89 by the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC, formerly the Center for Environmental Education, or CEE), and
6-16
-------
sponsorship of an informal roundtable meeting to plan future national-level public education
activities. Industry groups have also supported the efforts of CMC through magazine
advertisements.
Some industries and commercial establishments that manufacture or use products which are
often littered (e.g., fast food distributors) have printed reminders on the products to discourage
littering. In addition, many State and local governments sponsor litter prevention programs and
have instituted fines for littering. Keep America Beautiful (KAB) has been involved in the
fight against litter since its inception in 1953.
ACTION ITEMS;
• EPA will continue to provide resources to distribute currently available educational
materials on marine debris and its sources and effects.
• EPA is developing an educational program for consumers that describes the proper
method for disposing of household medical wastes.
• Industry and public interest groups should continue their efforts to promote anti-litter
behavior.
• Federal agencies should promote anti-litter behavior among their employees by
displaying posters or other available materials throughout their buildings and grounds
and by providing recycling opportunities.
6.23 Degradable Plastics
ISSUE: Degradable plastics have been proposed as a method to alleviate some
litter or other environmental problems.
OBJECTIVE: Answer current questions regarding the performance and potential
impacts of degradable plastics before promoting further applications.
Because of the many unanswered questions regarding the performance and potential impacts of
degradable plastics in different environmental settings, EPA cannot at this time support or
oppose the use of degradable plastics. EPA does not include degradables as part of its waste
management strategy; however, there may be some useful applications of degradable plastics,
such as for composting or agricultural mulch films. Additional data are needed in each of the
following areas before an appropriate role for degradable plastics can be identified:
6-17
-------
Degradable plastics in a landfill - Degradation in a landfill environment is primarily
anaerobic and does not occur evenly throughout the landfill. While degradation does
occur, it occurs very slowly. For example, even food wastes have been found in
recognizable form after many years in a landfill. Use of degradable plastics in items
disposed of in landfills, therefore, is very unlikely to reduce requirements for landfill
capacity.
Degradable plastics as part of land-based litter and in the marine environment — Very
little is known regarding how degradables perform in different environmental settings.
The most critical unknowns are:
- What is the rate of degradation in different environmental settings (e.g., on
land in Alaska versus in water near Florida)?
- What byproducts are formed and what are their environmental impacts?
- Is leaching of additives greater in degradable plastics than in "nondegradable"
plastics?
- Will the degradation process have any adverse impact on aquatic life?
- Will the use of degradables pose an ingestion threat to wildlife?
- Will the use of degradables solve the problems of entanglement of wildlife?
- Will the use of degradables increase littering?
j
Until these questions are answered, EPA believes that (with the exception of plastic
ring carriers that are discussed below) Federal, state, and local governments should
refrain from promoting the use of degradable plastics.
Degradable plastics: recycling and source reduction -- Many recyclers of plastics are
concerned that degradables may seriously impair operations by disrupting the
processing and/or adversely affecting the properties of the resulting products. The
extent of this problem is difficult to determine at this time.
Though use of degradables is sometimes labeled as a source reduction method, EPA
does not consider degradables a source reduction technique because they are not
expected to reduce the amount or toxicity of the waste generated. Degradable
plastics must still be collected and managed as solid wastes. Degradation, if it occurs,
would take place after the product is landfilled or incinerated; therefore the
generation of waste is not affected.
ACTION ITEMS;
1 ' ' ' " • .
• EPA has initiated two major research efforts on degradable plastics. The first project
is a multi-year effort that will provide information on degradation rates in different
environmental settings, by-products formed during degradation, and ecological impacts
of the degradation process. This project will be completed in late 1991. The second
project will examine the impacts of degradable plastics on recycling. The effects of
degradable plastics on a variety of recycling processes and products will be evaluated.
Interim results should be available by mid-1990.
6-18
-------
Title I of the 1988 Plastic Pollution Control Act directs EPA to require that beverage
container ring carrier devices be made of degradable material unless such production
is not technically feasible or EPA determines that degradable rings are more harmful
to marine life than non-degradable rings. The uncertainties regarding degradable
plastics (discussed above) pose some difficulties for EPA's implementation of this Act;
however, some specific information is known regarding ring carrier devices:
- EPA has not identified any plastic recycling programs that currently accept or
are considering accepting ring carriers. Therefore, degradable rings should not
impair recycling efforts.
- .Ring carriers are usually not colored and therefore do not include metal-based
pigments. Thus, concerns regarding leaching of pigments appear to be minimal
for these devices.
The research on degradable plastics (see above) now underway at EPA will help
resolve remaining issues. EPA will initiate a rulemaking to implement the above
legislation in 1990. A final rule is expected by late 1991.
EPA will support and participate in ASTM's effort to develop standards for
degradable plastics.
Industry should demonstrate to EPA and the general public: 1) any benefits of
degradable plastics, 2) cost-effectiveness of degradable plastics, and 3) whether
degradable plastics pose less of an environmental risk than nondegradable plastics or
disrupt other management practices (e.g., recycling). To do so, industry must generate
and make available data such as the following:
- Rates of degradation of plastic in different environments
- Identification of chemical and physical degradation products and their impacts
(including air emissions)
- Possible impacts on recycling, assuming that use of this management technique
expands
- Leachability of additives from products during the degradation process.
6-19
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AVAILABLE TO EPA
AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
This appendix provides an overview of the legal authorities available to EPA and other Federal
agencies for improving plastics waste management. Control of plastics and plastics waste could
involve: 1) disposal of plastic wastes from vessels into the ocean; 2) disposal of plastic wastes
from land sources to navigable waters (including the ocean); and 3) disposal of plastic waste
from any source onto land.
This discussion covers laws which provide authority to EPA and other Federal agencies for
regulatory action that could affect disposal of plastics. The laws covered are summarized in
Table A-l.
A.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Following are the key findings of this appendix:
• Regarding the disposal of plastic wastes from vessels, the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships, as amended, implements MARPOL Annex V international treaty
prohibiting the disposal of plastic wastes from vessels in any navigable water. This law
does not affect the accidental loss of nets or other gear during fishing operations.
• Regarding the disposal of plastic wastes into the ocean from land-based sources, the
Ocean Dumping Act (formally called the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972) prohibits the transporting of any material not associated with the normal
operation of a vessel (such as plastic wastes from land) for the purpose of disposal in
the ocean, except as permitted by EPA.
• Regarding the disposal of plastic wastes into navigable waters from land-based sources,
the Clean Water Act could theoretically be used to restrict disposal of plastics in
industrial or municipal effluents into navigable waters, but has not been so far; EPA
has not considered plastic wastes an effluent of concern.
• Existing laws for the protection of fish and wildlife have limited effectiveness for
controlling the disposal of plastic waste into navigable waters and thus for preventing
marine entanglement .
• Regulation of non-hazardous solid wastes (such as plastics) on land is the responsibility
of the states under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); the Federal government, however, has developed national performance
standards for land disposal operations.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l
LAWS INFLUENCING METHODS OF PLASTICS DISPOSAL
Laws Affecting Disposal of Plastics by Vessels
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act
Refuse Act
Greater Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Outer Continental Shelf Act
Federal Plant Pest Act
Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control Act
Laws Affecting Disposal of Plastics from Land to Sea
Ocean Dumping Act (Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
amended 1988)
Clean Water Act
Shore Protection Act
Deepwater Port Act
Law Affecting Disposal of Plastics on Land
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Medical Waste Tracking Act (amends the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
Clean Air Act
Laws Affecting Manufacture or Discard of Plastic Materials
Toxic Substances Control Act
Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Endangered Species Act
Marine Mammals Protection Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Plastic Ring Legislation
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Source: Compiled by Eastern Research Group, Inc.
A-2
-------
Regarding the manufacture and disposal of plastics, EPA has the authority under
Sections 5 and 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate chemical substances
that present or will present an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment," but to date this authority has been applied only to substances of much
greater toxicity than plastic products or plastic wastes.
Recently passed laws (i.e., the Shore Protection Act; plastic ring legislation; and the
Medical Waste Tracking Act, which amends RCRA) provide additional but specialized
and limited authority to EPA for prevention of plastic waste management problems.
A variety of other legislation provides some authority to EPA or other Federal
agencies for control of actions that may generate or cause a release of plastic waste,
but such legislation affects very few disposal activities.
A.2 LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTES FROM
VESSELS INTO NAVIGABLE WATERS
This section reviews the available legal authorities for controlling the disposal of plastic wastes
from vessels. The most significant legislation for controlling plastic waste disposal from
vessels -- the implementing legislation for MARPOL Annex V - is discussed, as are a number
of other laws that influence, to some degree, the disposal of wastes into the navigable waters.
The discussion outlines the scope and coverage of these laws as well as, where appropriate, the
actual extent of their influence over disposal practices.
A.2.1 The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, which amends the Act to t
Prevent Pollution from Ships, implements the MARPOL (Marine Pollution) Annex V
international treaty prohibiting the disposal of plastic wastes from vessels into any navigable
water. The United States is one of the signatory nations to the treaty and is bound.by the
treaty to implement regulations that are consistent with MARPOL Annex V. The treaty and
the U.S. legislation implementing the treaty domestically are expressly intended to eliminate
vessels as major sources of plastic waste in the marine environment.
The regulations under MARPOL will be implemented and enforced by the Coast Guard, as
have been previous Annexes covering oil and hazardous chemical wastes from vessels. On April
28, 1989, the Coast Guard issued interim final regulations. These regulations apply to all
vessels of U.S. registration or nationality and any vessels (including foreign-flagged vessels)
operating within the navigable waters of the United States, or within the exclusive economic
zone of the United States (i.e., the 200-mile area affected by U.S. regulations on marine
commercial activity). The maritime sectors that are regulated encompass merchant marine
vessels, including passenger vessels, fishing boats, recreational vessels, offshore oil and gas
platforms, and miscellaneous research, educational, and industrial vessels. Vessels operated by
government agencies will be given five years to come into compliance with the MARPOL
Annex V requirements.
A-3
-------
MARPOL Annex V implementing regulations do not cover accidental loss of plastic materials
(e.g., during commercial operations). Specifically, fishing nets lost accidentally at sea are not
regulated under the MARPOL Annex V implementing regulations. Thus, some plastic
materials will continue to be lost from vessels.
The MARPOL Annex V implementing regulations also require that ports have "adequate
reception facilities" for receiving garbage that is brought ashore from incoming vessels. This
term has not yet been defined by the Coast Guard. MARPOL Annex V provides authority for
civil penalties for violation of disposal regulations.
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 also mandates several research
studies of marine and other topics. The lav/ directs EPA to perform this study of methods to
reduce plastic waste disposal issues. Similarly, the Commerce Department is directed to submit
a Report to Congress on the effect of plastic materials on the marine environment. The EPA
in conjunction with other Federal, state and interstate agencies, is charged with preparing a
restoration plan for the New York Bight. This plan shall identify and address pollutant inputs
and their impact on marine resources of the Bight, and also analyze and recommend
appropriate mitigation technologies.
A.2.2 Additional Legislation
Refuse Act; MARPOL Annex V will make the Refuse Act -- the only remaining vestige of the
1899 Rivers and Harbors Act and the only legislation that had previously affected the disposal
of wastes from vessels - largely irrelevant for controlling the disposal of plastic waste. The
Refuse Act regulates the disposal of wastes into the ocean from vessels operating within the
three-mile limit from land. The Refuse Act prohibits all garbage disposal, including disposal of
plastics, in U.S. coastal waters or inland waterways. The law does allow for specific ocean
discharges if permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Refuse Act was intended to prevent problems with navigation and fouling of rivers by
debris. It could be interpreted broadly to prohibit virtually all waste disposal from vessels.
Nevertheless, the law has been described by the Coast Guard as inadequate for the purposes of
controlling waste disposal to navigable waters (Kime, 1987) because it imposes no civil and only
modest criminal penalties for violations. As a result, the Coast Guard cannot impose
administrative penalties; instead, it can only bring labor-intensive, time-consuming judicial actions
against violators.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement TGLWQA): A regional restriction on disposal of vessel
wastes is in effect for the Great Lakes. The authority for this prohibition comes from Annex V
to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This agreement is a product of
the International Joint Commission, a body concerned with cross-boundary issues between
Canada and the United States. Under Annex V to the agreement, the discharge of garbage,
including "all kinds of victual, domestic, and operational wastes" is prohibited and subject to
appropriate penalties. According to Great Lakes-based Coast Guard officials, most vessels
comply with this treaty. Most Great Lakes vessels have been equipped with compactors to
handle collected wastes (Hall, 1988).
A-4
-------
Outer Continental Shelf Act: This act, which restricts disposal from offshore activities, "is
designed to support the exploration, development, and production of minerals from the Outer
Continental Shelf while protecting the character of waters in this area. Under this authorizing
legislation, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has developed orders prohibiting the
disposal of all solid wastes, including plastics, from operating offshore structures and from
associated support vessels. As a result of the MMS regulations, the new regulations being
implemented under MARPOL Annex V will generate few incremental requirements for ,
offshore oil and gas operations; nearly all waste disposal from these structures is already
restricted.
Federal Plant Pest Act (19571: This law influences ocean dumping because it increases the
obstacles to disposal of shipboard wastes in port. Under the authority of this Act, the »
Department of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS). This service requires that all garbage off-loaded in a U.S. port from vessels coming
from foreign countries be treated to prevent infestations. Off-loading is generally allowed only
after garbage has been steam-sterilized or incinerated. A network of APHIS inspectors is on
call nationwide and routinely boards ships that have entered U.S. ports. Recent data indicate
that close to 50,000 ship inspections are made annually (Caffey, 1987).
Owners of ships coming from foreign ports are charged for use of APHIS-approved facilities,
which provide for incineration of wastes. To avoid this expense, wastes are sometimes dumped
overboard before the vessels reach port; the regulations have thus become an incentive for
illegal ocean disposal. Further, as of January 1989, a number of ports, including some major
ports, did not have local APHIS facilities for receiving shipboard wastes.
Driftnet Impact Monitoring. Assessment, and Control Act of 1987: This law also provides some
protection for ocean resources. This legislation requires the Department of Commerce to :
collect information and analyze the impacts of driftnet fishing by foreign vessels operating
beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation. It also authorizes international agreements
with other nations that have fishermen operating in the North Pacific and affecting U.S. marine
resources. The legislation also requires the study and creation of a driftnet marking, registry,
and identification system to determine the source of abandoned fishnets and fragments.
A.3 LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTES FROM LAND
SOURCES TO NAVIGABLE WATERS
Plastic debris can also enter navigable waters from land-based sources such as industry, sanitary
and stormwater sewer systems, and municipal solid waste handling facilities. This section >
describes the legislation for controlling the disposal of plastic wastes from land sources to
navigable waters.
A-5
-------
A3.1 The Ocean Dumping Act
National concern for the environmental threat from ocean dumping led to passage of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972, now termed the "Ocean Dumping
Act." Under this Act, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for
regulating the transportation and dumping of wastes in the ocean. This legislation prohibits the
transportation of waste from land-based sources (such as plastic wastes from the land) for the
purpose of ocean disposal, except as permitted by EPA.
*• !••,.•'
A3.2 The Clean Water Act
The stated objective of the Clean Water Act of 1972 is to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." To achieve that objective,' the act
establishes two national goals: 1) to reach a level of water quality that provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water; and 2) to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters. The principal means to
achieve these goals is a system that imposes effluent limitations on, or otherwise prevents,
discharges of pollutants into any U.S. waters from any point source.
Under this law, EPA has prepared effluent limitations guidelines and standards for numerous
categories of industrial facilities that discharge pollutants into the nations waters either directly
or through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Regulations include those for process
water discharges from manufacturers and fabricators of plastics. Existing regulations for this
industrial category, however, control total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and
toxic discharges but do not explicitly regulate outflows of raw plastic materials (although permit
writers could do so). Such wastes may be washing into navigable waters. Similarly, for other
industries, the Clean Water Act regulations restrict end-of-pipe discharges of toxic chemicals to
the environment. The Clean Water Act could theoretically be used to restrict disposal of
plastics in industrial effluents into navigable waters, but to date this has not occurred in Federal
regulations; EPA has not considered plastic wastes an effluent of concern.
Untreated sewage from POTWs can also be discharged into surface waters when the volumes of
incoming waste are larger than the treatment capacity of the facility or when a facility is
malfunctioning or undergoing maintenance. These untreated wastes may contain various
amounts of plastic debris that normally would be removed by screens and skimmers during
treatment. EPA has used its authority under the Clean Water Act to bring legal action against
cities that have failed to meet Federal standards for treatment of wastewater.
i • i
In some communities where storm sewers are combined with municipal sewage systems, intense
storms can cause sewer overflows and result in both untreated sewage and stormwater being
discharged directly into receiving waters. These combined sewer overflows (CSOs) may contain
various kinds of sewage-associated plastic debris (e.g., disposable diapers, tampon applicators,
condoms, and other sanitary items) as well as street litter collected by stormwater runoff.
A-6
-------
EPA has identified its authorities under the Clean Water Act as a means of supplementing its
regulations in this area. The Agency is in the process of revising regulations under the
National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to add new permit application
requirements for stormwater discharges from cities with large (over 250,000) and medium-sized
(between 100,000 and 250,000) populations.
The Clean Water Act can also be used to regulate discharges of plastic wastes from stormwater
discharges where separate sanitary and stormwater sewers exist. EPA is currently studying its
options for regulating this source of waste and is preparing a report to Congress on this topic.
A33 Shore Protection Act of 1988
Under the Shore Protection Act, waste handlers must minimize the release of municipal or
commercial waste into coastal waters during the loading or unloading of wastes from vessels or
during the transport of wastes by vessel. In addition, the owner or operator of any waste
source or receiving facility must provide adequate control measures to clean up any municipal
or commercial waste that is deposited into coastal waters.
A.3.4 Deepwater Port Act
This legislation includes provisions to protect marine and coastal environments from any adverse
effects due to the development of deepwater ports. The law authorizes regulations that could
prevent marine pollution by requiring clean up of pollutants generated and by defining proper
land disposal methods for any synthetic materials related to the construction of deepwater ports.
To date only one facility, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, is licensed under this legislation
(Serig, 1989).
A.4 DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTE FROM ANY SOURCE ONTO LAND
Plastic debris is deposited on land mainly in the course of normal land disposal of municipal
solid waste. The most important existing legislation in this area, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), regulates the operation of municipal solid waste landfills. Additionally,
the discussion below describes the role of the Clean Air Act, which regulates solid waste
combustion.
A.4.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Regulation of non-hazardous solid waste (as defined by regulation) is the responsibility of states
pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA. EPA has developed national performance standards for the
land disposal of non-hazardous solid wastes. The Federal regulations do not consider
components of the solid waste separately and thus do not single out plastic wastes for special
consideration. States are responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing their own
regulations, which must be at least as protective as the federal standards. The Federal
A-7
-------
government can influence plastics disposal by providing information on how to recycle these
materials and by helping states to implement waste reduction efforts.
Subtitle C of RCRA regulates the disposal of hazardous wastes. Under RCRA, a waste is
considered hazardous if it is a splid waste that
...because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics...may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of.
EPA has prepared a listing of the materials that are considered to be hazardous based on
evidence of health or environmental dangers they pose. For materials that are not listed, EPA
has defined test procedures to determine whether they are hazardous. Most plastics do not
have the characteristics defined as hazardous (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) and
are not listed as hazardous and, thus, are not regulated as hazardous wastes.
I , ' " '"' ' i
A related question concerning the applicability of RCRA to the plastics disposal problem
concerns the treatment of the ash and residues that result from the inpineration of plastics and
other materials in MSW. As noted in Chapter 4 of this report plastics may contribute to the
heavy metal content of ash. Legislation regarding the proper handling of incinerator ash is
currently pending.
Under the recently passed Subtitle J of RCRA (the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988V EPA
has set up a demonstration program in several states for tracking medical wastes from their
generation to disposal. Based on the results of the program, EPA will evaluate the need for
regulations to ensure that medical wastes are handled and disposed of properly. Medical wastes
may contain plastic tubing and syringes, as well as certain other plastic medical debris from
hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics, and laboratories.
A.4.2 Clean Air Act (CAA)
Under the authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is currently developing
regulations and guidelines governing air emissions from new and existing municipal waste
combustors. These requirements could affect the emissions of various gases into the
atmosphere which come from incineration of plastics. In addition, under CAA authority, EPA
could control whether certain plastics are combusted or whether they must be separated by the
source before incineration. Such source separation requirements could affect the amount of
plastic recycled or the method of disposal. EPA is also considering regulation of air emissions
from municipal solid waste landfills.
A-8
-------
A.5 OTHER LEGISLATION THAT INFLUENCES THE MANUFACTURE OR DISCARD OF
PLASTIC MATERIALS
A number of additional laws govern activities that are relevant to plastic materials and problems
generated by their disposal. These general-coverage laws could be employed to regulate the
manufacture, use, and disposal of waste materials.
A.5.1 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require
testing of new and existing chemical substances entering the environment and to regulate them
where necessary. Under Sections 5 and 6 of TSCA, EPA is given broad authority to take
whatever regulatory measures' are deemed necessary to restrict chemicals suspected of posing
harm to human health or the environment.
One of the most severe impacts ,of plastics disposal in water bodies is the injury to" and death of
fish, marine mammals, and birds that become entangled in plastic or mistake it for food. To
date, however, EPA has applied its authority under Section 5 of TSCA for new chemicals and
Section 6 of TSCA for existing chemicals only to substances of much greater toxicity (such as
polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorofluorocarbons, and asbestos) than plastic products or plastic
wastes. The law has never been employed for general solid waste problems such as
management of plastic wastes. Review of a chemical under these authorities tends to focus on
the toxicity of the chemical itself rather than the products it will be used in (e.g., plastics) or
potential disposal problems associated with those products.
A.5.2 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) authorizes regulations to ensure the safety of food
and medical products. This regulatory authority extends over the products that come in contact
with food or drugs or that are used for medical purposes (e.g., blood bags, artificial joints, or
valves for placement in the body), including plastic materials. By regulating the chemical and
physical nature of plastic materials for certain uses, FDCA influences the nature of a portion of
the plastic materials that are disposed. This influence is significant because substantial amounts
of plastic materials are used in packaging, containers, health supplies, and other products that
fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (although no
quantitative estimates are available.)
FDA's regulations are promulgated to ensure the safe use of food-contact materials and medical
products under the stated conditions of use. For example, as part of the determination of
safety, FDA requires that the sponsor of food additive petitions provide data on the potential
migration of components of the food-packaging material to food. These data are typically
obtained from extraction experiments using food-simulating liquids. Migration data are
considered in conjunction with toxicological data to determine whether the proposed use of the
packaging materials is safe.
A-9
-------
FDA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (see Section A5.5) to consider the
environmental impact of its actions, including actions involving plastics. For example, FDA
recently announced that it will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the effects
of its proposed action on vinyl chloride polymers. The EIS was prompted due to concerns over
the impact of vinyl chloride polymers on MSW management.
FDA has had a substantial influence on the types of plastic products manufactured, particularly
with regard to additives used in these products. As a result of FDA's safety reviews, the
presence of additives in the waste stream and the aggregate toxicity of the plastic materials
discarded have been reduced. In general, the scope and reach of FDA's influence on the
plastic products it has regulated or will regulate is greater than restrictions on plastic products
as envisioned under TSCA or other EPA status.
• However, FDA does not regulate the plastics used in building and construction materials except
for special cases such as pipes used in food processing plants, nor does it regulate plastics used
in automobiles. Some of these products, particularly polyvinyl chloride, may employ toxic
additives that are not approved for use in contact with food and drugs.
A.53 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Laws
Several fish and wildlife conservation laws (the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act) have some potential influence over plastics entering the environment. To date, however,
they have not been used for this purpose.
The Fishery Conservation and Management Act, also called the Magnuson Act, prohibits the
disposal of fishing gear (such as plastic fishing nets) overboard, This rule is enforced against
foreign ships that operate within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone through the foreign
vessel observer program. There are, however, no counterpart regulations for domestic ships.
This statute does not prohibit accidental loss of plastic fishing gear at sea.
i,
The Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammals Protection Act prohibit the "taking" of
animals of protected species by any means. Entanglement of mammals or birds is prohibited
under a strict interpretation of these rules, but in most cases the entanglement of an individual
fish or mammal cannot be linked to a specific act of disposal. Thus, no attempt has been made
to enforce these regulations against maritime industries.
The United States has entered into four separate treaties (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the
U.S.S.R.) to protect migratory bird species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provides
the domestic framework for satisfying the international obligations under this treaty. This
legislation prohibits the unpermitted capture or killing of migratory birds.
A-10
-------
The MBTA has been successfully enforced against killers of migratory birds even when there
was no intent by the individuals involved. Such success implies that the MBTA could be
enforced against fishermen who find entangled migratory birds in their nets (Gosliner, 1985).
Nevertheless, this law has not been widely used to penalize fishermen who capture or kill
migratory birds incidental to their fishing operations.
A.5.4 Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Law
A law recently passed by Congress, termed An Act to Study, Control, and Reduce the Pollution
of Aquatic Environments from Plastic Materials and For Other Purposes (PL 100-556), directs
EPA to develop regulations that require that any plastic ring carriers used for packaging,
transporting, or carrying multipackage cans or bottles be made of degradable materials.
Regulations are not required if EPA determines that the risks posed by degradable ring carriers
are greater that those posed by nondegradable carriers. To reduce litter and to protect fish and
wildlife, many states have already enacted laws requiring that plastic ring carriers be made from
degradable material.
A.5.5 National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs Federal agencies to consider
environmental factors in planning their projects and activities. NEPA directs all agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any major Federal action that will
significantly affect the quality of the environment. An EIS must identify and discuss the
environmental effects of the proposed action and identify, analyze, and compare options.
Further, EPA must review any EIS prepared by other agencies.
The NEPA process ensures that relevant environmental issues are considered in an agency's
decision making process. While this process, including the EPA review, does not provide any
specific regulatory authority it does permit agencies to base their decisions on environmental
considerations, when balanced with other factors. In the course of this review, plastic waste
management issues could be addressed.
A-ll
-------
REFERENCES
Caffey, R.B. 1987. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation and the
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Statement of Dr. Ronald B.
Caffey, Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, Plant Protection and Quarantine Program,
Department of Agriculture. July 23, 1987.
Gosliner, M. 1985. Legal authorities pertinent to entanglement by marine debris. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. November 27-29,
1984. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Hall, G. 1988. Telephone communication between Jeff Cantin of ERG and Gordon Hall of the
Lake Carriers Association. March 2, 1988.
Kime, J.W. 1987. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, on HR 940.
Testimony of Rear Admiral J. William Kime, Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection, U.S. Coast Guard.
Serig, H. 1989. Telephone communication between Jeff Cantin of ERG and Howard Serig,
Office of Secretary, Department of Transportation, May 3, 1989.
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE AND LOCAL RECYCLING EFFORTS
Most recycling programs operate today at the local level as part of either city or county programs.
As landfill space has dwindled and dumping costs have risen, many states have moved to encourage
or mandate municipal solid waste recycling through legislation. State recycling initiatives include
laws that require communities, counties, or regions to develop recycling programs, bottle bill
container laws, and measures that encourage, but do not mandate recycling. The discussion below
and Table B-l summarize a number of state recycling programs.
Currently eleven states have some type of manatory municipal solid waste recycling legislation.
Although these laws vary widely in scope and content, defining state waste reduction or recycling
goals is the initial step in developing a state waste management strategy. Most of these states have
set statewide waste reduction goals which usually require or encourage some type of community
curbside or drop-off recycling. Some states (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
New York, Maryland, and Florida) require communities, counties, or regions to develop curbside
collection programs. Many of these laws contain some unique initiatives. Connecticut law prohibits
the landfilling or incineration of twelve specified materials after 1991. In Oregon and Wisconsin
curbside recycling is not specified, but residents must be provided with some opportunity to recyle.
Illinois has set a goal of twenty-five percent waste reduction (as have a number of other states)
and requires communities to meet this figure locally. Other states, like Washington and Minnesota,
where many successful local recycling programs exist, have passed more general legislation which
set source reduction and recycling as the state waste management priorities.
Container deposit laws are another method for states to encourage recycling. Bottle bills have
existed in nine states since 1987, and have been considered by many others. Oregon, a state with
high return figures, has required a deposit on some beverage containers since 1971. Eight of these
programs set a five-cent deposit on certain beverage containers; one (Michigan) has set a ten-cent
deposit. The specific containers included vary from program to program. All include carbonated
beverage containers. Most recently, Florida passed an alternative bottle bill requiring that an
advanced disposal fee be added to the price of all containers by 1992. This law is unique in that
it not only applies to beverage containers, but also to other containerized products.
In addition to the legislation mentioned above, industry or non-profit recycling collection networks
exist in most states. These operations vary in sponsor, size, and materials collected. In many
states, programs include established drop off centers and promotion campaigns which could act
as foundations for statewide collection programs.
It is estimated that more than 600 curbside collection programs are currently operating in
communities across the country. Pilot programs to discover the most effective means of collecting
the most recyclable material are now common. The participation rate and the amount of waste
set out by each household are indicators frequently cited when evaluating the success of curbside
collection programs. There are many program variables that influence these evalation criteria.
Some potentially significant factors include: collection frequency; whether collection is on the day
of MSW pick-up or on a separate day; whether home storage containers are provided and, if so,
B-l
-------
Table B-l
HIGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Alaska
1983 Alaskans for Litter Prevention and Recycling, statewide litter
prevention program and recycling; 10 recycling centers and 2 mobile
units.
California
Colorado
1972 California Waste Management Board, solid waste management agency,
and other public and private recycling organizations; 3,672 multi-
material recycling centers; special events: "Recycle Week".
1986 California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act
(Recycling Act) targeting 65% redemption of all container types in
1989; requires "convenience zone" redemption centers.
1986 The AB 2020 legislation requires the Department of Conservation
to determine (by region) which materials can be recovered
economically. Manufacturers must pay a "processing fee" to ensure
a reasonable return to recycles.
1983 Recycle Now!, multi-material recycling program; over 400 recycling
centers; collected tonnage to date: beverage containers 100,000,
newsprint 242,000; special events: "Recycle Month" and "Clean-Up
Week".
Connecticut
1980 Bottle bill legislation.
1987 Legislation set a state-wide goal of 25 percent reduction of solid
waste by 1991 (yard waste is included in the goal). The effort is
coordinated through a number of established regions. Municipalities
are required to recycle twelve materials, including PET and HDPE
plastic containers. None of the materials are to be knowingly
accepted at any landfill or waste-to-energy facility.
(Cont.)
B-2
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
fflGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Florida
1984 Florida Business and Industry Recycling Program, multi-material
recycling; 190 recycling centers; collected tonnage 1984 to 1986:
73,900 tons of aluminum, 71,250 tons of glass.
1988 Senate Bill 1192 provides waste minimization incentives, measures to
reduce non-biodegradable material production and increase recycling,
an alternative bottle-bill program.
1988 State Law established the goal to reduce solid waste by 30 percent
by 1994. All counties and cities with populations greater than 50,000
must develop recycling programs by July 1, 1989 and to separate a
. majority of speckled materials, including plastic bottles from the
waste stream.
1988 Requires the Department of Environmental Regulation to include
any conditions in solid waste facility permits that are necessary to
reach the state's goal of 30 percent recycling.
Illinois
Iowa
1981 Illinois Association of Recycling Centers, multi-material recycling,
works with the Department of Energy and Natural resources as well
as the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; 200 recycling centers
(including mobile units).
1986 Office of Illinois Solid Waste and Renewal Resources, technical and
financial assistance provide on recycling efforts; 138 recycling centers.
1988 Requires communities of over 100,000 and the City of Chicago to
develop waste management plans that emphasize recycling and
alternatives to landfills. Also set a twenty-five percent statewide
recycling goal.
1979 Bottle bill legislation passed, retailer redemption centers.
(Cont.)
B-3
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
mGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Kansas
1983 Kansas Beverage Industry Recycling Program, multi-material recycling;
16 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986: 1770; special events:
"Recycle Month".
Kentucky
Louisiana
1980 Kentucky Beverage Industry Recycling Program, multi-material
recycling; 35 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986: 31,846.
1982 Keep Louisiana Beautiful, Litter control/ recycling/beautification; 155
recycling centers.
Maine
Maryland
1975 Bottle bill legislation passed, redemption centers, diverts roughly 5.5%
of the total waste stream.
1987 An amendment to the Solid Waste Law an, established waste recovery
system before issuing permits for incineration or landfill facilities.
1988 The State of Maine Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan sets a
municipal recycling goal of 25% recycling by January 1, 1994. There
are thirty existing public recycling programs in the state of Maine.
Most recycling programs collect separated materials at a drop-off
center. The City of Brunswick offers residents curbside collection
and services centers.
1984 Maryland Beverage Industry Recycling Program, multi-material
recycling and litter control; 130 recycling centers; special events:
"Recycle Week".
1988 Legislation established a statewide mandatory recycling program
aiming to recycle 15-20 percent of the county solid waste stream,
depending upon the population of the county, in five years.
(Cont.)
B-4
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
#
fflGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Massachusetts
Michigan
1983 Bottle bill legislation passed, retailer redemption centers.
1987 The Massachusetts Solid Waste Act established five regional recycling
programs to coordinate construction of facilities, material collection
and sales, and the distribution of financial incentives. Municipalities
must agree to pass mandatory recycling ordinances to receive
assistance for recycling costs (public education, technical or equipment
costs).
1978 Bottle bill legislation passed, retailer redemption centers. ;
1986 The Clean Michigan Fund established to lessen the state's
dependence on landfills by supporting resource recovery programs and
organizations through direct assistance (in the form of grants).
Minnesota
1980 Recycle Minnesota Resources, beverage container and multi-material
recycling; 125 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986: 6,500.
1980 The Minnesota Waste Management Act. A 1984 amendment forbids
any waste disposal facility supported, directly or indirectly, by public
funds to accept "recyclable material11 except for transfer to recycler.
Montana
1971 Associated Recycles of Montana, household and industrial multi-
material recycling; 50 recycling centers; special events: "Recycle
Month".
(Cont.)
B-5
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
HIGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
1979 Nebraska Litter Reduction and Recycling Programs, grants and
technical assistance; 260 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986:
665,866.
1980 Nebraska State Recycling Association, Statewide recycling coalition
for promotion and assistance:; more than 100 recycling centers
including community drop-off centers.
1 ". • i '
1983 New Hampshire Beautiful, litter ;control/litter pickup/public
education/recycling grants to municipalities; 11 private and 77
municipal recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986: 890.
.,.
•
1987 New Jersey Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act
(statewide voluntary began in June, 1982) requires counties to recycle
15 percent of the previous year's total municipal solid waste in the
first full year and 25 percent by the end of two years. Counties have
six months to determine three recyclable materials, besides leaves,
which are economically recoverable. The Act calls for the
establishment of collection (curbside and collection center) and
marketing systems and separation ordinances for residents, businesses,
and industry; 500 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1985:
890,000.
1987 The Recycling Act also requires that the establishment of county
waste management planning goals be part of the waste-to-energy
facility permit process. No "designated recyclables" are permitted on
the tipping floor of such a facility.
North Carolina
1983 Keep North Carolina Clean and Beautiful, Department of
Transportation Branch, focuses on litter prevention/reduction,
recycling and beautitication; 24 local programs throughout the state;
special programs: "Clean-Up Week".
(Cont.)
B-6
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
fflGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
New York
1983 Bottle bill legislation passed, retail redemption centers.
1988 State Solid Waste Management Act, requires each municipality to
implement a source separation plan by Sept 1, 1992, "where
economically feasible." The goal is to reduce/reuse/recycle fifty
percent by weight of the State's solid waste. The law establishes a
number of measures and standards affecting waste producers and
processors.
1988 Applicants for landfill permits must submit analyses of recycling
potential and a plan for implementing a recycling program.
Ohio
Oklahoma
1980 Ohio Litter Prevention and Recycling, litter prevention/recycling of
household items; 28 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986:
13,546, special events include "Ohio Recycling Month".
1982 Oklahoma Beverage Industry Recycling Program, multi-material
recycling; 46 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986: 29,276,
special events: "Recycling Month".
Oregon
1971 Bottle bill legislation passed, retail redemption centers.
1983 The State Recycling Opportunity Act requires local governments to
provide citizens with the opportunity to recycle through curbside
collection or drop-off centers. Cities of more than 4,000 must provide
at least monthly collection. 106 towns and cities practice curbside
separation and five of these collect plastics. Roughly ten depot
collection programs are in place in major cities. The Act defines
recyclable materials as "any material or group of materials which can
be collected and sold for recycling at a net cost equal to or less
than the cost of collection and disposal of the same materials."
(Cont.)
B-7
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
,. , •! ' ||i i'i, . |
HIGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Pennsylvania
1974
1983
1988
Recycling and Energy Recovery Section, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, multi-material recycling/energy recovery; 500 non-profit
community collection centers, 125-150 scrap dealers; 120 curbside
recycling programs; special events: "Recycle Month".
Pennsylvania Recycling Network, multi-material recycling; 440
recycling centers; 105 curbside collection programs (both municipal
and private); collected tonnage in 1986: 110,000.
Passed legislation requiring communities larger than 10,000 to start
recycling programs by September, 1990. Smaller communities have
until 1991. The responsibility for solid waste management is shifted
from municipalities to counties. A statewide landfill surcharge is used
to finance the local recycling collection programs.
Rhode Island
1984
1986
Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling Program, litter control/multi-
material recycling; 35 recycling centers.
; j
A comprehensive recycling law requires each city or town to separate
solid waste into recyclable and non-recyclable material prior to
disposal in a state-owned facility. Municipalities must divert fifteen
percent of their waste stream in within three years. Much of this
effort will be focussed on curbside separation programs for which
residents will be supplied with a plastic recycling bin. The law also
requires all commercial generators and managers of multi-unit housing
to submit a plan for recycling and waste reduction.
South Carolina
1987 South Carolina Governor's Task Force on Litter, litter reduction and
public recycling awareness, funded by the private sector.
(Cont.)
B-8
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
HIGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Texas
1967 Keep Texas Beautiful, Inc., nonprofit educational/coordination
organization serving a growing base of community-litter prevention
programs; 350 recycling centers; collected tonnage in 1986: 13,827;
special events: "Recycle Week".
1983 Texas Recycles Association, multi-material recycling, education,
community relations; at least 300 recycling centers and 4 theme parks.
Vermont
1973 Bottle bill legislation passed, redemption centers, has diverted
approximately 6 percent of the state's solid waste stream.
1987 State Solid Waste Act encourages local recycling collection programs
and regional waste management plans by providing technical and
financial assistance. The plan stresses reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Currently, there are more than 55 collection programs or collection
drives operating in the state.
Washington
1962 Committee for Litter Control and Recycling, industry coalition; more
than 1,000 recycling centers.
1970 Washington State Recycling Association, multi-material recycling;
approximately 100 recycling members.
1971 Anti-litter Law established funding, through a special tax, for public
education, waste recepticals, and litter policing. A 66 percent litter
reduction has resulted. Currently recycles 1,177,400 tons of material
equalling 22.4 of the states total waste stream. This is accomplished
through curbside and drop off center methods. The State
Department of Ecology lists only HDPE bottles as the only plastic
material being recycled in significant quantities. It is estimated that
1,700 tons (12.7 percent of HDPE bottles) were recycled in 1987.
(Cont.)
B-9
-------
Table B-l (cont.)
fflGHLIGHTS OF STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
State
Year Program Description
Washington (Cont.) 1971
1989
Solid Waste Management Act established the following solid waste
priorities: 1) waste reduction, 2) recycling, 3) energy recovery and
incineration, and 4) landfilling. Analysis of the state's waste disposal
practices and to decide how to achieve this agenda have been
renewed annually.
Renewed Solid Waste Management Act establishes a statewide goal
of 50 percent recylcing of municipal waste by the year 1995. The
legislation does not require the use of specific recycling methods in
obtaining this goal.
West Virginia
1982 West Virginia Beverage Industry Recycling Program, multi-material
recycling/liter control/education; 23 recycling centers; collected tonnage
in 1986: 7,335.
Wisconsin
1984 Wisconsin Recycles, recycling awareness program; collected tonnage
in 1986: 25,000.
1984 Bureau of Solid Waste Management, waste reduction and recovery;
approximately 600 community recycling programs and 650 companies;
special events: "Recycle Week".
1984 Recycling Act requires municipalities to provide citizens with recycling
drop-off centers. Owners and operators of solid waste disposal sites
and transfer stations must provide recycling collection centers if none
exists. A number of specified materials must be accepted at these
centers.
Sources: ffic, 1988; EDF, 1987; EAF, 1989; EPA Journal March/April, 1989; National
Softdrink Association, 1988; Vermont, 1989; California, 1988; Maine, 1988;
Minnesota, 1988; Washington State, 1988.
B-10
-------
the type of containers; the number of curbside separation categories; and mandatory vs. voluntary
recycling. Table B-2 provides information on the participation rates, collection quantities, and the
program specifics listed above from twenty-two municipal curbside collection programs.
It is difficult to measure the success of a collection program. The accuracy of participation figures
is often uncertain, ~£s.'not all cities have defined tracking systems. Participation rates vary from
week to week Different seasons, for example, and occasional holidays'create fluctuations in waste
quantities and set-out rates. Most households do not recycle every week. In the communities
represented in Table B-2, weekly participation is roughly half the rate of overall participation. This
indicates' that residents set out recyclable on every other collection period. This holds true
regardless of the collection frequency. The ratio of overall to daily participation rates of programs
with bi-weekly collection, such as Ann Arbor, Minneapolis, and Montclair, is comparable to that
of similar .programs with weekly collection schedules.
In an effort to increase participation rates, most programs are now coordinating rubbish collection
and recycling pick-up on the same day. The aim is to encourage residents to include recyclable
in their existing waste set-out routine. There are, howeverf successful programs that collect
recyclables and rubbish on different days. The six programs in Table B-2 that have different waste
and recyclable pick-up days do not reflect lower success rates. Montclair, NJ, one such program, .
estimates participation at eighty-five percent and collection amounts at 686 pounds per household
per year. Same day waste and recycling collection may be more efficient for collection workers and
residents, but it is not vital to obtaining high collection rates.
Making recycling convenient to participants appears to maximize resident participation. Supplying
households with storage containers for recyclables is one common means of making home storage
and sorting as effortless as possible. Distributing recognizable containers that appear at the
curbside on collection day also helps promote recycling programs. There are many different
container types currently available. While there are some advantages to supplying containers, cities
that do not provide containers appear to have participation rates only slightly lower than those that
do.
Before they can be sold as raw materials, recyclable must be separated from the waste stream by
either residents, collection crews, or processing facilities. It is most efficient to separate waste prior
to set-out, rather than commingling and then separating. It has been argued that requiring this
extra effort of residents may decrease participation rates. The examples in Table B-2 support this
contention, showing higher participation rates for programs accepting commingled waste. Although
it requires more extensive processing methods, many communities are now accepting commingled
waste or waste separated into very few categories.
As mentioned in the previous section, a few states have developed waste management legislation
that mandates curbside recycling programs. While these laws help establish programs, it is unclear
to what degree they raise household participation rates above those of voluntary programs.
Quantities of recycled materials also are not noticeably higher for mandatory programs than for
voluntary programs. Participation rates are on average 10-20 percent higher for mandatory
programs, but a number of very successful voluntary programs do exist (e.g., Montclair, New
Jersey) It should be considered that programs in communities or states mandating curbside
recycling require properly organized, promoted, and implemented programs. These factors may be
responsible for elevated success rates, and not simply the fact that the program is mandatory.
B-ll
-------
Table B-2
A SUMMARY OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS AND PARTICIPATION RATES
Participation
Community
Austin, TX
Cheltenham, PA
Davis, CA
East Lyme, CT
W
^ Evesham Twp., NJ
to
Groton, CT
Haddonfield, NJ
LlnmU...... kt\f
i mmuuiy, 1^ I
Marin Co., CA
"Mississauga, ONT.
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Niagara Falls, ONT.
Plymouth, MN
San Jose, CA
Population
450,000
35,500
47,000
N.Avail.
36,000
10,000
12,500
10,500
N. Avail.
400.000 "~
460,000
70,000
43,000
720,000
Households
Served
90,000
9,500
11,000
5,000
8,500
1,900
4,400
3,350
44,000
90,000
9,100
19,500
12,500
180,000
Tons/
Year
7,200
N.Avail.
3,200
2,100
2,995
• 626
1,703
N.Avail.
12,500
14,000
2,336
2,307
2,800
6,500
Pounds/
House/Year
160.00
N.Avail.
581.82
840.00
704.71
658.95
774.09
N.Avail.
568.18
311.11
513.41
236.62
448.00
72.22
Particl-
pallon(b)
V
V
V
M
M
M
M
M
V
V
V
V
V
V
Overall
%
20-25
40
60
80
85-90
75-85
95
98
60
80
71
75-80
N.Avail.
58
Collection
Day
%
10-12
30-35
50
N.Avail.
50
50
66
N.Avail.
35-40
40
37
45
53-56
25
Collection
Frequency
Weekly
Weekly *
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Materials
Collected(a)
N.G.T.A
N,G,A
N.G.C.A
N.A.G.T
G,T,A,MP
N.C,G,T.A
N.G.T.A
N,C,G,T,MO
N,G,T,A,P
N.G.T.A
N.G.A.P
N.G.TAP
N.C,G,T,A
N.G,T,A,P
Same Day
As Trash
Mosty
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No .
Yes
Provide
Home Storage
Containers
1 —
20,000
Yes
No
N.Avail.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Household
Set-Out
Requirement
Separate
Separate
Separate
Separate
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Separate
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Separate
Separate
(cont.)
-------
td
Table B-2 (cont.)
A SUMMARY OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS AND PARTICIPATION RATES
Participation
Community Population
Seattle, WA
Springfield Twp., PA
Sunnyvale, CA
Upper Moreland Twp., PA
Ann Arbor, Ml
Minneapolis, MN
Montclair, NJ
St. Cloud, MN
500,000
22,000
116,000
28,000
108,000
360,000
38,500
44,000
Households Tons/ Tons/ Partici- Overall
Served Year House/Year pation(b) %
94.000 23,985 510.32 V 48
6,800 1.972 580.00 V 70
28.000 4.078 291.29 V 50-60
6.200 N.Avail. N.Avail. M 62
20,000 1.700 170.00 V 50
120.000 ' 7.600 126.67 V 25-30
14,500 4,980 686.90 M 85
9.770 403 82.50 M N.Avail.
Collection
Day Collection
% Frequency
29 Weekly
60 Weekly
21 Weekly
50 Weekly
25 2/month
15 2/month
50 2/month
30 Monthly
Materials Same Day
Collected(a) As Trash
G.T.A.MP Yes
N.G.A Yes
N,G.T,A,P,MO Yes
N.G • Yes
N,C,G,T,A,MO Yes
G.T.A.MP No
N.G.A No
N.G.A No
Provide Household
Home Storage Set-Out
Containers Requirement
No Commingled
Yes Commingled
Yes Separate
Yes Separate
No Separate
No Separate ° '
No Commingled
No •„ Separate
(a) Materials: A = aluminum, G = glass, P «• plastic. N = newspaper. C = corrugated cardboard, MO = motor oil, MP = mixed paper
(b) V = voluntary. M = mandatory
Sources: Biocycle, May/June, 1989;
-------
REFERENCES
California, State of. 1988. Annual Report of the Department of Conservation, Division of
Recycling. Sacramento, CA.
EAR 1989. Environmental Action Foundation. Mandatory Statewide Recycling Laws. Feb 1989.
Washington, DC.
•
EDF. 1988. Environmental Defense Fund. Coming Full Circle: Successful Recycling Today.
New York, NY.
'
EPA Journal. 1989. Five situation pieces. 15(2):35-40. March/April. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
lEc. 1988. Industrial Economics Inc. Plastics Recycling: Incentives, Barriers and Government
Roles. Prepared for Water Economics Branch, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. EPA. Industrial
Economics Incorporated. Cambridge, MA. 152 pp.
Maine DECD. 1988. Maine Department of Economic and Community Development. State of
Maine Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. Augusta, ME.
Minnesota. 1988. Research Provided to the Members of the Governor's Select Committee on
Recycling and the Environment. State of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. Oct 1988.
National Softdrink Association. 1988. Promoting Recycling to the Public.
Vermont. 1989. Solid JWaste Management Plan. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Waterbury, VT. Feb 1.
, ' • „'' 'i1', '." • '' 1 ." '. ''
Washington State. 1988. Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste: 1987 Recycling
and Waste Stream Survey, Vol. 1. Prepared by Matrix Management Group for the Washington
State Department of Ecology Office of Waste Reduction and Recycling. Olympia, WA.
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEAD AND CADMIUM ADDITIVES FOR PLASTICS
C.I. INTRODUCTION
There is a wide range of cadmium- and lead-based products that are used
in ,a variety of plastic applications. The selection of a particular lead or
cadmium pigment and/or heat stabilizer is dependent on processing
requirements, resiri characteristics, and end-product uses. Identification of
substitutes is, therefore, a complicated and application-specific task. There
are, however, some general classes of substitutes available for each cadmium
and lead-based additive type. This does not indicate, however, that there is
a substitute for every application. The following sections describe the
performance, cost, feasibility, and other considerations that dictate how
substitutes can replace traditional lead and cadmium products. The toxicity
of potential substitutes is not considered in this report. Evaluation of
toxicity is important because it varies by substitute. To fully characterize
substitutes, however, the toxicity of individual substitutes would have to be
considered.
C.2. SUBSTITUTE COLORANTS AND THEIR PROPERTIES
Although there is some agreement on the performance characteristics
(i.e., chemical compatibility, light and heat fastness, hue, and intensity)
which are of concern to most consumers (plastics manufacturers), the selection
of a substitute will depend in large part upon the individual consumer's
ranking of the importance of these attributes. For example, a manufacturer of
beach balls may worry mostly about hue and intensity and not be concerned
about heat fastness. On the other hand, a manufacturer of high-performance
C-l
-------
automotive polymers may find a less vibrant color acceptable if the substitute
.
is heat-resistant and performs suitably in the other aspects.
Particular colorant-polymer combinations may also be ruled out for a
variety of other reasons. The first problem that might be encountered is a
chemical incompatibility between the colorant and the polymer solvent, resin,
or manufacturing by-products. For example, some pigments may not be used in
PVC because of their sensitivity to acid (Kirk Othmer 1983). In addition to a
chemical resistance problem, the colorant may not be able to survive harsh
processing conditions for certain polymer resins. For example, although the
end use of a plastic polymer may not require high temperatures, extensive
i ' '"
1
heating during processing is often required to melt and mold a plastic. In
i • .
addition to these obstacles, a colorant-polymer combination may be ruled out
because of the end use of the plastic product. A combination that is
sufficiently lightfast and suitable for indoor use may be ruled out for
I
exterior applications. Table C-l provides the performance properties both for
lead- and cadmium-based pigments and for their potential substitutes. The
specific processing conditions and color requirements for polymer applications
determine the substitutes that may be appropriate for replacing each cadmium-
or lead-containing pigment.
For purposes of this analysis, substitutes for lead and cadmium pigments
are chosen based only on the characteristic of having a similar hue as
'. . ;
reported in the Plastic Additives Handbook (1987). In specific applications,
II,
many factors influence pigment choice, including lightfastness and heat
1
stability, but these considerations have not been evaluated for this analysis.
v L ' ' !
Although not all substitutes work in all applications, some suitable
substitute usually can be found for individual applications. One exception to
this general availability of substitutes is in the area of pigments for high
C-2
-------
Table C-1. Comparison of Performance Properties: Lead and Cadmium Pigments and Their Potential Substitutes
Heat Stability8
Hues * Chemical Formula • (°C)
lead/Cadaiun Pigment
Lead:
Chromate
Sulfate
Hotybdate
Chromate + Iron Blue
Cadmium:
Sulfide
Sulfide + Zinc
Sulfide + Selenium
Sulfide + Mercury
Orange
Yellow-Orange
Reddish Orange
Greenish Yellow to
Medium Shades of Olive Green
Orange shade of Yellow
Greenish Yellow
Red and Maroon
Reddish Orange to Bluish Red
Pb
PbCrO,
PbSO,
PbHoO^
--
Cd ?•'
CdS
Cd + Zn
CdS + Se
CdS,+ Hg
; 230-250
230-250
220-250
-
300
•
300
"
Remarks on Performance'
Opacity/ (Compatible Polymer/
Lightfastnessb Chemical Resistance Hiding Power Resin)
6-8
6-8
6-8
-
8
-
8
Opaque
Sensitive to acids/bases
Sensitive to acids/bases
Sensitive to acids/bases
-
Opaque
Sensitive to acids
-
Sensitive to acids
PVC, LDPE +; HOPE, PS -
PVC, LDPE +; HOPE, PS -
PVC, LDPE +; HOPE, PS -
General suitability
General suitability
Substitute Colorant
Inorganic
Nickel titanium Yellow
Iron Oxide Red
Fe2°3
300
300
Opaque General suitability,
: but greatly reduced
tinting strength
Opaque General suitability
H-PVC =
Organic
Monoazo Yellow
Monoazo naphthol Red
Quinacridone Red
Perylene Red
260
280
240-280
220-300
7-8
5-7
7-8
7:8
Transparent LDPE, PS +; PVC -
Transparent PVC, PS, LDPE +;
HOPE (+*)
Transparent PS, PVC, LDPE +;
HOPE (+*)
Transparent PS, PVC, LDPE +;
HOPE (+*)
C-3
-------
Table C-1 (Continued)
Hues
Dyes
Pyrazolone derivative Yellow
Azo Dye Red
Heat Stability8 .
Chemical Formula (°C) Lightfastness Chemical Resistance
300d 7-8d Poor
260d 2-5d Poor
Remarks on Performance
Opacity/ (Compatible Polymer/
Hiding Power Resin)
PMMA, H-PVC, PS +
PHMA, H-PVC, PS +
For heat stability, the temperature is stated at which no coloristic changes occurred during normal dwell times (approximately 5 minutes) in processing machines.
b Determination of lightfastness is carried out in accordance with DIN 53 389. 1 is the lowest value; 4 has 8 times the fastness level of 1; the highest value is 8,
testing not normally being carried out beyond this level. See Plastic Additives Handbook (1987) for more information.
c Polymer Codes: PS = polystyrene; LOPE = low density polyethylene; PMHA = polymethyl methacrylate; HOPE = high density polyethylene; PVC = polyvinyl chloride;
H-PVC = Unplasticized PVC.
Polymer Performance: * denotes suitable/recommended; = denotes limited suitability/recommended; - denotes not suitable/recommended; () denotes a qualification of the
statement; * denotes caution is needed in the case of HOPE articles sensitive to distortion.
d For dyes, lightfastness and heat stability depends to an especially high degree on the plastic to be colored.
Source: Plastic Additives Handbook 1987, Brannon 1988.
-------
temperature resins. In these areas, the vibrant colors provided by cadmium
pigments are difficult to replace because even though substitutes may match in
hue, they cannot withstand the high temperature of the processing and use
environments i«i which they would be required.
Because application-specific considerations are often critical for
establishing exact substitution patterns, lead- and cadmium-based pigments are
grouped together (i.e., substitutes are considered for the color yellow; not
chrome yellow (lead) and cadmium yellow). A substitute for each major hue
(red and yellow) was chosen from the chemical families that are comprised of
inorganic and organic pigments and dyes. In addition, two organic
substitutes, quinacridone and perylene pigments, were chosen based on
information from Mobay (1989) that reported they could be used with high
performance polymer systems (e.g., nylon, polyesters). Table C-2 identifies
*
the substitutes that can replace specific lead and cadmium pigments based on
color considerations.
C.2.1. Costs of Lead- and Cadmium-Based Pigments and Their Substitutes
For most of the lead-based and,cadmium-based colorants, many acceptable
potential substitutes are available, although as mentioned before, the costs
of the substitutes may be significantly higher. The price of cadmium has
increased as other markets, such as that for nickel-cadmium batteries,
increase the demand for cadmium. On the other hand* lead pigments have
remained inexpensive. Table C-3 shows recent prices for the most common lead-
and cadmium-based pigments, as well as prices for some pigments (mostly
organic) that could be used as substitutes in various applications.
According to one industry contact, as a rule of thumb, the performance of
organic pigments increases as the price does (Hoechst-Celanese 1989). Certain
pigments may not perform as well as less expensive organics in a few measures
C-5
-------
Table C-2. Substitute Products That Replace Lead- and
Cadmium-Based Products by Color
Substitute Colorant
Hue
Possible Substitute For8
Inorganic
Nickel titanium
Yellow Lead Chromate; Cadmium Sulfide
Cadmium sulfide + zinc
Iron Oxide Red
Organic
Monoazo Yellow
Monoazo naphthol Red
Quinacridone •Red
Perylene Red
Dyes
Pyrazolone derivative Yellow
Azo Dye Red
Lead Molybdate; Cadmium/sulfide
selenide
Lead Chromate; Cadmium Sulfide
Cadmium/sulfide selenide
i
j
Lead Molybdate; Cadmium/sulfide
selenide
i
Lead Molybdate; Cadmium/sulfide
selenide
Lead Molybdate; Cadmium/sulfide
selenide
Lead Chromate; Cadmium Sulfide
Cadmium sulfide + zinc
Lead Molybdate; Cadmium/sulfide
selenide
* Possible substitutes are based primarily on colorants reported in the
Plastic Additives Handbook (1987).
Sources: Plastic Additives Handbook 1987, Brannon 1988.
C-6
-------
Table C-3. Costs: Lead and Cadmium-Based Pigments
and Their Substitutes
Hue
Cost
($/lb.)b
Yellow Lead/Cadmium Pigments
Lead Chromate $ 1.55
Cadmium Sulfide $.14.60
Cadmium Sulfide + Zinc $14.60
Substitute Colorants8 •
Nickel Titanium (Inorganic) $ 3.50
Monoazo (Organic) $17.95
Pyrazolone Derivative (Dye) $20.32
Red
Lead/Cadmium Pigments
Lead Molybdate
Cadmium/Sulfide Selenide
Substitute Colorants8
Iron Oxide (Inorganic)
Monoazo naphthol (Organic)
Quinacridone (Organic)
Perylene (Organic)
Azo Dye (Dye)
$ 2.25
$18.15
$0.79
$24.25
$32.00
$41.20
$10.30
a The substitute colorants listed are based on
having a similar hue (i.e., red or yellow) as
reported in the Plastic Additives Handbook (1987).
In addition to cost, specific selection of a sub-
stitute is dependent on a diverse set of perform-
ance properties. For a comparison of these
properties, see Table C-l.
b Costs were determined by contacting chemical
companies and requesting prices on given pigments
(from Plastic Additives Handbook). The costs are
based on the most commonly used (standard)
packaging sizes (40-60 Ib. containers) reported by
the chemical companies.
Sources: Plastic Additives Handbook 1987,
Bayer-Mobay 1989, BASF 1989.
C-7
-------
of performance, but the quality must be higher in at least one aspect of
i
performance or there would be no demand for the product. For example, prices
generally increase as the acceptable processing temperatures rise. This
consideration, combined with the smaller production scales of specialty and
high-performance plastics help maintain the price differential.
I
In addition, the amount of product used for an application is dependent
mainly on the shade and brilliance required. For example, if a faint yellow
is required, less lead chromate is used than would be required for a darker
I
yellow. In general, for similar hues, 25 percent less organic pigment is
required compared to an inorganic pigment (Hoechst-Celanese 1989). Estimates
are not available as to the amount of dye required for coloring.
! "'
C.2.2. Other Factors Affecting Selection of Substitutes and
Substitute Costs
If lead and cadmium pigments were not available, chemical companies may
be more willing to invest in the research and development of substitutes,
because there would be less low-cost competition for any new substitutes
developed. From Table C-l, it is evident that there are many potential
substitutes available for lead and cadmium pigments; however, it may be
difficult to find adequate replacements for some pigments (such as some of the
very high-performance cadmiums used in nylons) at any cost. In those cases,
I
it may be necessary for the plastic manufacturer to sacrifice one aspect of
performance, such as hue or brilliance, in exchange for another, such as heat
or lightfastness.
Several of the companies contacted (Harshaw 1989, Heubach 1989) are still
' ! *
committed to the manufacturing and/or distribution of lead-based pigments, but
i . •
the majority of the companies contacted have ceased to supply them. The same
I
cannot be said for some of the cadmium-containing colorants; their performance
C-8
-------
characteristics are more difficult to produce using either organic or other
inorganic pigments. Although there are organic pigments that match cadmium ,
pigments in brilliance, hue, and lightfastness, they generally are not
adequate in high-temperature situations. On the other hand, although many of
the inorganic compounds are quite heat resistant, they are tinctorially weak
or colorless (white).
The toxicity of heavy metals is well known, and therefore many
manufacturers have shied away from using compounds containing metals such as
lead and cadmium. For example, General Electric stopped using lead pigments
10-12 years ago and ceased production of cadmium pigments at the beginning of
1989 (General Electric 1989a, General Electric 1989b).
Research by many other manufacturers continues in order to find
substitutes that are compatible with high-performance engineering resins such
as polycarbonate, nylon, and other polyesters (Modern Plastics 1987).
Combinations of substances are sometimes used to complement each other and
improve the overall qualities of products. For example, in an application
requiring some hiding power and resistance to heat, a mix of a high
performance organic colorant and an inorganic compound may work. The
inorganic pigment lends its hiding power while the organic pigment provides
intense color. In some instances the inorganic compound may also provide some
color, thereby reducing the need for large quantities of organic colorant,
which would be required if the inorganic pigment were colorless (white) like
titanium dioxide.
Although dyes can often be used in place of pigments, they currently do
not hold a large share of the market for colorants. Because dyes must be
; *
soluble in the resins they are used in, each variety of dye may be compatible
with only a few types of resins. In addition, the lead- and cadmium-based
C-9
-------
pigments are generally applied in a solid form, either as color concentrates
or dry powders. Although dyes are also found in solid form, they are usually
used as liquids which would require some changes in the plant equipment and
result in additional costs to the plastic manufacturer
C.3. SUBSTITUTE STABILIZERS AND THEIR PROPERTIES
Substitute products that can replace lead- and cadmium-containing heat
stabilizer products have been developed and continue to be investigated for
several reasons. The toxicity of lead and cadmium compounds, availability of
an increasing number of technically superior alternate products, the lower
costs of substitutes, and increasing costs associated with using lead and
especially cadmium products have all been influencing factors. This section
addresses substitute products, compares costs to existing lead and cadmium
products when possible, and discusses important factors that affect
substitution.
•
C.3.1. Substitutes for Lead-Containing Heat Stabilizers
The majority of lead-based heat stabilizers have been replaced in
applications where substitution is possible. For example, organotin
stabilizers (e.g., alkyltin mercaptides, alkyltin carboxylates, and estertin
mercaptides) barium/zinc, and metal-free stabilizers can be used in rigid
applications, pipes and fittings, pigmented profiles,1 foamed profiles, and
records that previously used lead-based products (Argus 1989c). Table C-4
identifies PVC articles and stabilizer systems that can replace lead-based
products in rigid PVC applications (Plastics Engineering Handbook 1976).2
1 Profiles are typified by such products as channels, gaskets, decorative
trim, siding panels, window frames, and other rigid structures used in indoor
and outdoor construction and building.
!
2 It is important to note that the toxicity of these substitutes has not
yet been evaluated.
C-10
-------
Table C-4. Potential Substitutes* for Lead-Based Heat Stabilizers
in Rigid PVC Products
PVC Item
Lead
Stabilizers
Methyl, Butyl
and/or Octyltin
Mercaptides
Butyltin
Esters
Metal-
Free
Stabilizers
Pipes and Fittings
Pigmented Sheets and
Profiles
Foamed Profiles
Phonograph Records
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a Ba/Cd stabilizers are not considered to be substitutes for lead stabilizers
due to toxicity considerations and the requirements of this analysis (i.e.,
lead and cadmium products are both under investigation and therefore., are not
considered to be substitutes for one another), although they may be
technically and economically feasible in some applications.
b Phonograph records may be stabilized with certain metal-free stabilizers
(see discussion on page C-15).
Source: Plastics Additives Handbook 1987.
C-ll
-------
Lead stabilizers also have been used in flexible PVC applications. These
applications can be split into those for which cost-effective and reliable
substitutes have been developed (shoes, sandals, and soles), and those for
which substitution has lagged (electrical insulation and jacketing).
Electrical insulation applications use the majority of lead-based stabilizers
because of the critical non-conducting nature of lead products (Vinyl
Institute 1989b).
•
The use of electrical cable insulation and jacketing can be divided among
three maj or use areas:
• power wiring,
• telephone cable, and
• cords and connectors for appliances and other
consumer items.
The critical properties of weathering, humidity resistance, and thickness of
the jacket in the power wiring and telephone cable applications have made
substitution difficult given that lead imparts these properties. Lead PVC
heat stabilizers for these applications provide outstanding use
characteristics and there are currently no products available on the market
that can replace these lead-based products (BF Goodrich 1989).
i
The power and telephone cable uses account for about 50 percent of lead
stabilizer usage for jacketing and insulation, while the cord/connector
applications account for the remaining 50 percent. It is believed that these
lower performance cord/connector applications can be replaced with alternate
stabilizers (Argus 1989c, BF Goodrich 1989). These reformulated products
were, however, too experimental or could not be identified at this time.
Table C-5 identifies the substitutes for lead-based stabilizers used in
flexible PVC applications.
C-12
-------
Table C-5. Potential Substitutes3 for Lead-Based Heat Stabilizers
in Flexible PVC Products
PVC Item
Lead Ba/Zn Butyltin
Stabilizers Stabilizers Esters Teflonb
Cable Insulation and
Jacketing
Shoes, Sandals,
Soles
X
X
a Ba/Cd stabilizers are not considered to be substitutes for lead
stabilizers due to toxicity considerations and the requirements of
this analysis (i.e., lead and cadmium products are both under
investigation and therefore, are not considered to be substitutes
for one another), although they may be technically and economically
feasible in some applications.
b Teflon is a technically feasible substitute for PVC coatings, but
is not a one-for-one substitute in that heat stabilizers are not
replaced, but rather reformulation is required (i.e., teflon replaces
PVC). The use of teflon has not been examined by the industry as a
viable replacement for cable insulation and is expected to be on the
order of five to ten times more expensive (Bedford Chemical 1989).
Teflon also may not possess sufficient flexibility for many applications
(Vinyl Institute 1989b).
Sources: Plastic Additives Handbook 1987, Bedford Chemical 1989,
Argus 1989c.
C-13
-------
C.3.2. Substitutes for Cadmium-Containing Heat Stabilizers
1 • I
Barium/Cadmium heat stabilizers have a wide range of applicability in
rigid and flexible PVC applications. The products and substitutes are
identified in Tables C-6 and C-7. There is some overlap with lead-based
< !
stabilizers, but these are not considered to be substitutes for cadmium-
containing products and vice-versa. The processing techniques (e.g.,
calendaring, extrusion, injection molding, blow molding, pressing, coating),
the processing conditions (temperature, mixing, alkalinity) and a host of
other reasons including the presence of other additives, the end-use of the
product (indoor/outdoor), the costs of substitutes, and the toxicity of
substitutes influence which products are ultimately considered to be
substitutes. In general, there are potential substitutes for cadmium-
j
containing stabilizers, including barium/zinc, calcium/zinc, and tin-based
stabilizers.
i •• - -I
C.3.3. Costs of Lead- and Cadmium-Based Heat Stabilizers and Their
Substitutes
Lead and cadmium heat stabilizers have seen widespread use because of
their relatively low cost compared to newer substitute products. As concern
has mounted regarding the toxicity of lead and cadmium products and substitute
products have been perfected, costs have declined (Argus 1989b). Table C-8
i
presents the relative costs of lead, cadmium, and substitute products.
''' ' I ' ., ' • ! '
It must be noted that the actual substitution pattern for lead and cadmium
stabilizers is very complicated. The wide range of applications, processing
considerations, and other factors that affect substitute development and entry
into the market make it difficult to distinguish exact substitution patterns.
The costs presented in Table C-8 should be considered, therefore, rough
approximations.
C-14
-------
Table C-6. Potential Substitutes8 for Cadmium-Based Heat Stabilizers
in Rigid PVC Products
PVC Item
Ba/Cd
Powders
Butyltin
Mercaptides
Butyltin
Esters
Barium/
Zinc
Solids
Films for Non-Food Applications X
Pigmented Profiles
-- Indoor X
-- Outdoor X
Foamed Profiles X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a Lead stabilizers are not considered to be substitutes for Ba/Cd stabilizers
due to toxicity considerations and the requirements of this analysis (i.e.,
lead and cadmium products are both under investigation and therefore, are not
considered to be substitutes for one another), although they may be
economically and technically feasible in some applications.
Source: Plastic Additives Handbook 1987.
C-15
-------
Table C-7. Potential Substitutes3 for Cadmium-Based Heat Stabilizers
in Flexible PVC Products
PVC Item
Butyltin
Ba/Cd Ba/Cdb Mercaptides
Powders Liquids or Esters
Ba/Zn Ca/Zn
Stabilizers Stabilizers
Films for Non-Food
Applications
Profiles and Flexible
Tubes for Non-Food
Applications
Shoes, Sandals and
Soles
Artificial Leather
Coatings
Dippings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: Zn - zinc; Ca - Calcium
* Lead stabilizers are not.considered to be substitutes for Ba/Cd stabilizers
due to toxicity considerations and the requirements of this analysis (i.e.,
lead and cadmium products are both under investigation and therefore, are not
considered to be substitutes for one another), although they may be
economically and technically feasible in some applications.
b The relative amount of cadmium in liquid stabilizers can be reduced by the
addition of zinc fatty acid salts that replace the corresponding cadmium salts
(Modern Plastics 1987).
i
Source: Plastic Additives Handbook 1987, Vinyl Institute 1989b.
C-16
-------
Table C-8. Costs of Lead, Cadmium, and Potential Substitute Heat Stabilizers
Stabilizer Class
Lead
Lead Compounds
Organo-tin Stabilizers
Barium/Zinc Stabilizers
Teflon
Cadmium
Barium/Cadmium Liquids
Barium/Cadmium Solids
Barium/Cadmium/Zinc Products
Zinc/Calcium Products
Liquid Organo-tin Stabilizers
Solid Organo-tin Stabilizers
Barium/Zinc Liquids
Barium/Zinc Solids
Approximate
Cost Range
($/lb.)
0.50-1.00
1.00-3.00
2.00-4.00
a
0.95-1.75
1.85-2.75
0.95-1.70
1.00-3.00
3.00-4.50
8.00-10.00
1.25-2.50
2.00-4.00
Amount Used Per
Hundred Parts of Resin
1.0-3.0
1.5-2.5
1.5-3.0
Not Applicable
1.0-4.0
1.5-3.0
1.0-3.0
1.0-3.0
2.0-4.0
1.5-3.0
1.0-4.0
1.5-3.0
a Teflon is a different class of substitute in that it would replace
the end-product, PVC coatings, used for wire and cable insulation.
It is not currently considered a stable substitute for economic
reasons. The cost of PVC coatings is roughly $0.50 to $1.00/lb. and
for teflon >$5/lb.
Sources: Argus 1989a, 1989b, 1989c; Bedford Chemical 1989.
C-17
-------
C.3.4. Other Factors Affecting Selection of Substitutes and Substitute
Costs
There are a number of considerations that must be included in the
selection of stabilizer substitutes and estimation of costs for comparison to
•,
costs for lead and cadmium stabilizers. It has not been possible to
characterize each of these considerations, but they are provided for
completeness:
• Substitute stabilizer packages that can replace
lead or cadmium products may be required in
quantities greater or lesser than the products
they replace. They may be cheaper or more
expensive, at the concentration level required,
or they may be viable only for some applications.
• The addition of co-stabilizing products may
reduce substitute costs, improve performance to
a level above that of the lead or cadmium
product, or increase product service life.
• It may be possible to combine stabilizers so
that a synergistic effect is achieved, thereby
improving performance and/or reducing costs.
• New substitutes are constantly being developed
and made available. Some of these, based on
antimony and metal-free stabilizer systems
(e.g., diphenylthioureas, and &-aminocrotonates)
have not been widely accepted, but may influence
the stabilizer market over the next few years.
C-18
-------
Argus. M. Croce. 1989a (May 10). New York, NY. Transcribed telephone
conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Argus. D. Stimpfl. 1989b (May 11). New York, NY. Transcribed telephone
conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Argus. D. Brilliant. 1989 (May 17). New York, NY. Transcribed telephone
conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
BASF-Basic Organics Group. 1989 (May 16). Transcribed telephone conversation
with Tanya Yudleman, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Bayer-Mobay Corporation. 1989 (May 16). Transcribed telephone conversation
with Tanya Yudleman, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Bedford Chemical. D. Gauw. 1989 (May 4). Bedford Chemical, Division of
Ferro Corporation. Bedford, OH. Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark
Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Brannon, SM. 1988 (February 1-5). 43rd Annual Conference, Composites
Institute, the Society of the Plastics Industry. Colorants for Composites --
A Review.
General Electric Color Lab. D. Bryant. 1989a (May 4). Technician, General
Electric Color Lab, Mt. Vernon, IN. Transcribed telephone conversation with
Peter Weisberg, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
* •
General Electric Color Lab. D. Bryant. 1989b (December 19). Technician,
General Electric Color Lab, Mt. Vernon, IN. Transcribed telephone
conversation with Thomas Hok, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
B.F. Goodrich. G. Lefebvre. 1989 (May 17). Cleveland, OH. Transcribed
telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Harshaw Colors. M. DiLorenzo. 1989 (May 12). Division of Eagelhard Corp.
Transcribed' telephone conversation with Don Yee, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax,
VA.
Heubach, Inc. 1989 (May 12). Transcribed telephone conversation with Don
Yee, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Hoechst-Celanese. D. wave. 1989 (May 9). Transcribed telephone conversation
with Don Yee, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
Kirk-Othmer. 1983. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. John Wiley and Sons
Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. 18, pp. 184-206; Vol. 14, pp. 168-183; Vol. 6.
Mobay. J. Graff. 1989 (May 3). Transcribed telephone conversation with Don
Yee, ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
C-19
-------
Modern Plastics. 1987 (September). Colorants -- pp. 68-71; Heat Stabilizers
--pp. 70-71. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Plastics Engineering Handbook. 1976. 4th Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Publishing Company.
Plastic Additives Handbook. 1987. Hanser Publishers. Munich, Germany.
Vinyl Institute. R. Gottesman. 1989a (May 15). Little Falls, NJ.
Transcribed telephone conversation with Mark Wagner, ICF Incorporated,
Fairfax, VA.
| ' "."i ; ': ; I
Vinyl Institute. R. Gottesman. 1989b (July 11). Little Falls, NJ. Comments
received on the Draft Plastics Section.
C-20
ftU.S. Govarnment Printing Office: 1990-721-169
------- |