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

-------