Disposal of Polymer solid wastes
by Primary Polymer Producers
and Plastics Fabricators
This report (SW-34c) was prepared for
the Federal solid waste management program
by Chester W. Marynowski
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
under Contract No. PH-86-68-160
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
-------
Disposal of Polymer Solid wastes
by Primary Polymer Producers
and Plastics Fabricators
This report (SW-34c) was prepared for
the Federal solid waste management program
by Chester W. Marynowski
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
under Contract No. PH-86-68-160
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-34c)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.00
-------
FOREWORD
Because of the tremendous growth (historical and forecast) in the
use of polymers, the disposal of polymer wastes has assumed an increas-
ingly important role in our total waste management effort.
To most of us, the term "polymer wastes" connotes primarily the mass
of consumer goods containing polymers, after each of those goods has served
its primary function, has become worn out or unfashionable, or has some-
how outlived its economic usefulness. This aspect of polymer wastes has
an important and well publicized bearing on the litter problem and on the
optimum design and operation of community waste disposal systems. Since
its inception (with the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965)
the Federal solid waste management program has been aware of the importance
of this "post-consumer" polymer wastes problem, and has sponsored a con-
tinuing program of research projects and demonstration grants devoted to
the alleviation of specific facets of the problem.
A less familiar but nonetheless decidedly important aspect of the
subject of polymer wastes is that of "pre-consumer" wastes-—those gener-
ated by the primary producers and processors of polymers, and by the
fabricators of polymer products. Such wastes have numerous causes, such
as failure to meet product specifications, product spills, and carryover
of product into effluent process streams. Some industries generate mainly
a clean polymer scrap that can be and often is largely recovered and re-
processed or sold; this material does not enter the waste picture until
iii
-------
it becomes "post-consumer" waste. Other industries generate predominately
contaminated polymer wastes that not only yield no return, but represent
a significant disposal expense. Still others generate mostly clean wastes,
potentially suitable for reprocessing to noncritical specification products •
but actually not reprocessed or sold to others, because specific economic
c
factors pertinent to each case are unfavorable.
This report deals exclusively with the industrial, or "pre-consumer"
part of the polymer solid waste problem. It explores the nature and ex-
tent of the problem in the United States for that segment of the plastics
industry representing the largest product tonnage; namely, the segment
dealing in the production and fabrication of the principal thermoplastics.
It presents technical and economic information on polymer waste disposal
methods in actual use, and evaluates alternative approaches to polymer
solid waste disposal. This information should represent a significant
step toward the effective future management of polymer wastes and solid
wastes in general.
—SAMUEL HALE, JR.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report on the present practices of the plastics industry in
the disposal of its own polymer solid wastes was prepared by Stanford
Research Institute. The statements, findings, and conclusions are
those of the Institute and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Staff support to Mr. Marynowski was provided by Edward M. Listen,
Konrad T. Semrau, Carroll F. Clark, Robert G. Murray, and Shirley B.
Radding. Russell C. Phillips, Manager, Chemical Engineering, provided
general supervision of the project.
The Institute wishes to express its appreciation to the Government's
project officer, Rodney L. Cummins, Chief, Industrial and Agricultural
Data Section, Basic Data Branch, Division of Technical Operations, Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, and to the assistant project officer,
William T. Dehn, for their valuable guidance and encouragement.
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT S
Stanford Research Institute is pleased to acknowledge the generous
participation and assistance of the following companies in this study:
The Air Preheater Company, Inc.
Wellsville, New York 14895
Allied Chemical Corporation
61 Broadway
New York, New York 10006
The American Schack Company, Inc.
9800 McKnight Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15237
Anaheim Plastics, Inc.
522 South Rose Street
Anaheim, California 92805
The Babcock and Wilcox Company
161 E. 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Bart lett-Snow Division
Bangor-Punta Operations, Inc.
405 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Brule Incinerators
13920 South Western Avenue
Blue Island, Illinois 60406
B.S.P. Corporation
Box 8158
San Francisco, California 94128
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
277 Park Avenue
Xew York, New York 10017
Container Corporation of America
38 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Continental Can Company, Inc.
633 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Consolidated Oxidation Process
Enterprises, Inc. (COPE)
Box 6707
Houston, Texas
Detroit Stoker Company
1510 E. First Street
Monroe, Michigan 48161
Dow Chemical Company
2020 Abbott Road Center
Midland, Michigan 48640
Dravo Corporation
One Oliver Plaza
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company
Du Pont Building
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
vi
-------
Ethyl Corporation
100 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Foster Wheeler Corporation
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Joseph Coder Incinerators, Inc.
2483 Greenleaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Howell Engineering Corporation
1203 Roy Street
Houston, Texas 77007
George Koch Sons, Inc.
10 S. llth Avenue
Evansville, Indiana 47704
La Marr Industries, Inc.
3665 Haven Avenue
Menlo Park, California 94025
Mattell Inc.
5150 Rosecrans Avenue
Hawthorne, California 90250
Alidland-Ross Corporation
Ross Engineering Division
55 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Mobil Oil Corporation
150 East 42nd Street
Ne\\ York, New York 10017
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Nichols Engineering and Research
Corporation
150 William Street
New York, New York 10038
Ovitron Corporation
IBW-Martin Incinerator Division
44 Johnes Street
Newburgh, New York 12550
Phelps Dodge Copper Products
Corporation
300 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Phillips Petroleum Company
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74003
Pickands Mather & Company
Prenco Division
Union Commerce Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Plibrico Company
1800 North Kingsbury Street
Chicago, Illinois 60614
Raychem Corporation
300 Constitution Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025
Riley Stoker Corporation
99 Neponset Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
Silent Glow Corporation
850 Windsor Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Thermal Research and Engineering
Corporation
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428
Torrax Systems, Inc.
641 Erie Avenue
North Tonawanda, New York 14120
Union Carbide Corporation
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
VII
-------
U.S.I. Chemicals Company
99 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Vistron Corporation
Midland Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
John Zink Company
Box 7388
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Zurn Industries, Inc.
Sargent NCV Division
1801 Pittsburgh Avenue
Erie, Pennsylvania 16502
Vlll
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY 11
A. General Structure 11
B. Products and Processes of Resin Producers 14
1. Polyethylene 14
a. Low-density Polyethylene 15
b. High-density Polyethylene 18
2. Polypropylene 22
3. Polyvinyl Chloride 24
4. Polystyrene 28
C. Fabrication Processes for Thermoplastic Resins 30
PLASTICS INDUSTRY SURVEY 35
A. Survey Procedure 35
B. Survey Data on Polymer Solid Wastes 39
1. Polymer Types Produced or Processed 39
2. Industry Sources of Polymer Solid Wastes 40
3. Amounts of Polymer Solid Waste Generated by
Industry 40
4. Prospects for Change in Waste Amounts 43
IX
-------
CONTENTS
PLASTICS INDUSTRY SURVEY (Continued)
5. Physical Form of Wastes 44
6. Present Disposal Practice 44
7. Special Disposal Problems 46
8. Reported Waste Management Costs 48
9. Industry Comments and Recommendations 49
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES ... 51
A. Methods Based Primarily on Removal from View 51
1. Open Dumping on Land 52
2. Ocean Dumping 52
3. Sanitary Landfill 53
B. Methods Based Primarily on Destruction 55
1. Biodegradation and Weathering (including
Composting) 56
2. Chemical Oxidation 57
3. Incineration 58
a. Special Design Characteristics for Plastics
Incineration 59
b. Applicable Incinerator Designs Offered by
Manufacturers 60
c. Novel Incinerator Designs 62
d. Published Incineration Costs 63
-------
CONTENTS
C. Methods Based Primarily on Utilization . . G4
1. Centralized Treatment and Disposal, with
Options of Power and Steam Generation i54
2. Pyrolysis 66
REFERENCES 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY 70
APPENDIX A: Industry Survey Questionnaire 81
Part 1: Polymer Producers 83
Part II: Plastics Processors and Fabricators ... 87
Part III: Manufacturers of Waste Disposal
Equipment 91
XI
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1 Structure of Plastics Induscry 13
Figure 2 High-Pressure Process for LDPE Production 17
Figure 3 Ziegler Process for HOPE Production 20
Figure 4 Phillips Process for HOPE Production 21
Figure 5 Continuous Process for PP Production 25
Figure 6 Suspension Process for PVC Production 27
Figure 7 Bulk-Plus-Suspension Process for PS Production 31
-------
TABLES
Table 1 Production Statistics for Major Resin Types 4
Table 2 Distribution of Production Capacity for Large
Volume Thermoplastic Resins 5
Table 3 Polymer Solid Waste Generation by U.S. Thermo-
plastics Industry 6
Table 4 Processing and Fabrication Waste as a Function
of Product Type 7
Table 5 Estimated LDPE Capacities at End of 1969 16
Table 6 Estimated HDPE Capacities at End of 1969 19
Table 7 Estimated PP Capacities at End of 1969 23
Table 8 Estimated PVC Capacities at End of 1969 26
Table 9 Estimated PS Capacities at End of 1969 29
Table 10 1968 Markets for Large Volume Thermoplastics 33
Table 11 Distribution of Surveyed Processors and Fabricators
by Principal Operation 37
Table 12 Distribution of Surveyed Processors and Fabricators
by Principal Application 38
Table 13 Reported Sources of Polymer Wastes 41
Table 14 Reported Physical Forms of Polymer Wastes 45
Table 15 Reported Present Polymer Disposal Practices 47
Table 16 Summary of Sanitary Landfill Considerations 54
xiii
-------
XIV
-------
INTRODUCTION
This study had the following specific objectives:
1. To determine the nature and p^tp.nt of the polymer solid waste
problem experienced by major, primary producers of large volume
thermoplastic resins in the United States and by a cross section
of plastics processors and fabricators.
2. To gather technical and economic information on polymer disposal
methods.
3. To make a preliminary technical evaluation of all reasonable ap-
proaches to polymer solid waste disposal.
To accomplish these objectives, an extensive data collection program
\\as conducted involving a survey of major producers of polymers and fabri-
cators of plastics (including personal visits to selected plants), and of
manufacturers of waste disposal equipment.
The field work was supplemented with a selective search and evalua-
tion of the recent technical literature, including pertinent reports of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of the
Interior, and other agencies involved in solid waste management. An ex-
tensive bibliography, organized according to principal subject matter,
is provided at the end of this report.
The plastics industry ajlready reclaims and recycles much of its re-
usable polymer scrap, either into the same product line that generates
the scrap, or into a less critical product line. (In fact, the industry-
recognizes various grades of resin, such as "first quality," "technical
grade, off-grade, scrap, and waste.' ) However, as resin prices
have fallen in recent years, the scrap market has become much more
-------
selective—most of what used to be salable scrap is now waste that repre-
sents a disposal expense.
To avoid possible ambiguity, the definition of polymer solid waste
adopted in this study has excluded all scrap that is recycled or sold for
use essentially as a polymer. In other words, such reuse is considered
to constitute an avoidance of waste rather than a disposal method. It
is in the same category as the avoidance of waste by the adoption of new
process technology that generates less waste initially. There is no doubt
that waste avoidance techniques are extremely important to the overall
problem of polymer waste management; however, because of the proprietary
nature of the pertinent technological innovations, most companies are not
willing to reveal details about them.
It should be noted that this study was concerned with the generation
and disposal of waste, not with its in-plant management. Also, the study
did not include nonpolymer solid wastes such as general plant trash. The
information reported herein is primarily that provided by survey respond-
ents, and is limited to the degree of detail that was furnished to the
survey team.
-------
SUMMARY
Production of all thermoplastic and thermosetting resins (SIC Code
28210) in the United States was 16 billion pounds in 1968, of which 12.3
billion pounds (over three-fourths of the total) represented thermoplas-
tics. The statistics for all major resin types are shown in Table 1,
The aggregate growth rate of all thermoplastic resins is expected to
level out at about 11 percent per year over the next decade, compared
to an expected rate of about 5 percent per year for thermosets. Thus,
thermoplastics will represent an even greater share of total resin pro-
duction in the future.
Three types of thermoplast ics--polyolef ins (PO) , poly-vinyl chloride
(PVC), and polystyrene (PS)--have dominated their recent phenomenal growth,
and should continue to do so. Polyolefins include both high- and low-
density polyethylene (HDPE and LDPE, often lumped together as PE) and
polypropylene (PP). The top position in thermoplastics is unquestionably
held by polyethylene resins, whose 1968 production of 4.5 billion pounds
was nearly twice that of PVC, about two and a half times that of straight
and rubber-modified PS, and about five times that of PP. Table 2 shows
the estimated distribution of major U.S. thermoplastics production capac-
ity at the end of 1969.
Based on the present survey, thermoplastic polymer solid wastes are
estimated to be generated by the U.S. plastics industry at an average
rate of 3.3 percent of resin production, equivalent to an estimated 1969
waste generation of 460 million pounds (Table 3). One-third of the total
waste (1.1 percent of production) is contributed by primary resin produc-
ers, and two-thirds (2.2 percent of production) by plastics processors
and fabricators.
3
-------
Table 1
PRODUCTION STATISTICS FOR MAJOR RESIN TYPES
Polyethylene (low density)
Polyethylene (high density)
Polypropylene
Polystyrene (straight and rubber-modified)
Polyvinyl chloride
Cellulosics
Other thermoplastic resins
(Total thermoplastic resins)
Alkyd
Coumarone-indene
Epoxy
Phenolic
Polyester
Urea and melamine
Othei" thermo set ting resins
(Total thermosetting resins)
Total resins
1968 Production
Billions
of Pounds
3.3
1.2
0.9
1.8
2.4
0.2
2.5
(12.3)
0.6
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.6
0.7
0.2
(3.7)
16.0
Percent of
Total Resins
21
7
6
11
15
1
16
(77)
4
2
1
7
4
4
1
(23)
100
Source: U.S. Tariff Commission,
-------
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY
FOR LARGE VOLUME THERMOPLASTIC RESINS
Polymer
PO
JLDPE
HOPE
PP
PVC
PS
U.S.
Producers
13
13
8
23
15
U.S.
Plants
21
15
8
35
30
Estimated
Capacity ,
End of 1969
(billion Ib/yr)
4.25
2.11
1.26
3.72
2.54
13.88
-------
CS
OT
Q
l-H
co
H
OT
a,
o
CO
CD
§
M
I
W
a
w
w
s*
Q
M
O
CS
H
CJ CD
•H -P
-P OS
HI (g
oS
rH fi
ft O
O 'H
S -P
SH OS
CD !-t
H C
0)
cn o
CO
O 0)
i-H -P
HI
T3 OS
0) ~=
-P
as -a
e -H
•H i-H
-P O
H) W
W
•o
CD
CD 03 CD
W) Q > +->
oi \ t-i C
SH HI 3 oj
Q) S W rH
> 0 O,
«-^ ^_( J_^
Q)
ft
'H C
0 O
•H
C 0
Q) 3
0 T3
r< 0
(D !H
PH PH
^
J>i
\^
^2
)-H
c
0
•H
rH
• H
fl
•H
HI CD ^N
O> >
01 os \
rH O C .0
•H O M T— 1
•o -p -H ss
CD W -P 'H C
-p cd o H) o
CO
t> 0
rH CM
rH CM
CO O
in o
rH CO
30 CO
• •
CO CO
rH rH
HI
o
oS
o
•H
?H
o
ei
HI
r< -a
CD ri
O 03
3
•o w
O r<
iH O
ft H)
HI
C O
•H O
HI O
CD J-l
SH ft
>. O
S-l 'H
ol -P
S HI
•H 03
S-l rH
1
1
CO
CO
0
CO
•^
X
•
CO
rH
sT
-p
HI
3
•a
a
'
HI
O
•H
-p
cn
as
rH
ft
0
S
£4
CD
X!
•P
rH
aS
-p
O
H
-------
Individual plants deviated considerably from these estimated average
waste generation rates. Polyethylene resin producers reported that poly-
mer wastes ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 percent of resin production, averaging
1.75 percent. Limited data obtained from producers of other resins sug-
gest that they generate proportionately much less polymer waste, probably
between u.4 and 0.8 percent of resin production. For the case of plastics
processors and fabricators, the amount of \\aste is not marked 1\ correlated
with the type of thermoplastic resin, but varies considerably as a function
of the application (Table 4). Such critical applications as wire and cable
insulation have an unreclaimable polymer reject rate generally exceeding
10 percent \\hereas, at the other extreme, such noncritical items as molded
toys, housewares, and decorative articles may have virtually zero nonre-
. ' ,. imaljle scrap.
Table 4
PROCESSING AND FABRICATION WASTE
AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCT TYPE
Molding compounds
Film and sheet
Flexible packaging
Rigid containers (incl . foam)
Wire and cable
Pipe, toys, housewares, etc.
Reported Waste
(Percent of Processed Polymer)
Average
0.7
1.8
1.4
1 .2
10.3
0.2
Maximum
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
25.0
0.3
Minimum
0. 5
1.6
0.5
0.7
10.0
0.0
-------
The companies surveyed had quite varied estimates of the prospects
for change in the amounts of waste generated. A slight majority of each
industry group forecast no significant change; however, the minority that
did forecast change anticipated a reduction of from 20 to 50 percent of
present waste amounts, primarily through improved salvage and reclaim
techniques rather than through process changes leading to lower initial
\\aste generation. All industry sources agreed that fluctuations in the
price of plastic scrap could have a major effect in drawing the line be-
tween scrap and waste.
Polymer waste disposal practices presently employed by the plastics
industry \\ere reportedly limited to three: open dumping, sanitary land-
fill, and incineration. Resin producers (representing relatively concen-
trated sources of polymer wastes, reportedly ranging from 0.85 to 22.5
tons per day per plant) typically handled their own waste disposal on
company land. By contrast, plastics processors and fabricators (repre-
senting a much larger number of individual plants, with correspondingly
less waste per plant) typically depended on public agencies or private
contractors for their waste disposal.
The cost data reported in this survey indicate that the U.S. plastics
industry spent about S5.6 million in 1969 to manage its 460 million pounds
of thermoplastic polymer solid waste, for an average unit cost of about
S24.30 per ton. Resin producers as a group reported an aggregate average
unit cost of S26.00 per ton, whereas the corresponding figure for proc-
essors and fabricators was S23.50 per ton. However, individual plants
reported unit costs deviating widely from the above averages, presumably
reflecting correspondingly wide variations in cost accounting practices.
The survey data provide no breakdown of the reported unit costs into their
components of initial waste collection, in-plant handling, transportation,
direct disposal operating costs, and equipment amortization. Consequently,
these data do not lend themselves to a reliable comparison of the direct
disposal operating costs for the various reported disposal techniques.
-------
For most parts of the United States, sanitary landfill \\ill be the
most economical and practical ot the acceptable disposal methods for
polymer solid wastes, at least for the next 10 years. As available land-
iill sites become more distant from waste sources, the economic advantage
\\ill shift to incineration, even though simultaneously the pressures of
stricter air pollution regulations \\ill force the use of modern, v.ell
supervised, highly automated incineration equipment, provided with ef-
ficient effluent gas cleaning accessories. Looking still further into
the future, the optimum long term solution to industry's polymer solid
v.aste problem (specifically, that portion of the problem not avoidable
through improved in-plant reclaim techniques) will probabl\ be through
use of efficient, economical, centralized disposal facilities, each ca-
pable of processing all types of waste from many plants in a given area.
Such large centralized facilities may find it economic to combine waste
disposal with some degree of salvage, as well as with recovery of the
fuel value of the waste for steam or power generation.
-------
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY
Because of their useful properties, cost advantages, and versatility,
plastics constitute one of the fastest growing sectors of the chemical in-
dustry. U.S. production of all thermoplastic and thermosetting resins
(SIC 28210) was 16 billion pounds in 1968, up from 11.4 billion pounds
in 1965 and 6.3 billion pounds in I960.1 The value of 1968 resin ship-
ments was S3.9 billion, accounting for nearly 15 percent of the basic
Q
chemical industry's sales of $26.4 billion."
The 16-billion pound production in 1968 comprised 12.3 billion pounds
of thermoplastics and 3.7 billion pounds of thermosetting resins. For
the thermoplastics, the growth rate has averaged 14.6 percent per year
for the 1960 to 1968 period, and 12.5 percent per year for the more re-
cent 1965 to 1968 period. These growth rates are more than twice those
of the thermosets for the corresponding periods. Present forecasts" are
for a gradual leveling out of the aggregate growth rates to about 11 per-
cent per year for thermoplastics and about 5 percent per year for thermo-
setting resins. Thus, thermoplastics are expected to represent an even
more dominant share of the total plastics market in the future. Individ-
ual resins may of course deviate substantially from these aggregate growth
rates.
A. General Structure
The plastics industry is composed of three major sectors, with some
overlap:
• The producers of the basic resins
11
-------
• The processors who convert the resin into some convenient standard
shape or form
• The fabricators who fashion the final product from the resin di-
rectly, or from a processed form. (In the latter case, the fabri-
cator is often called a "converter.")
Figure 1 gives a more detailed outline of the organization of the plastics
industry.
The resin producer usually begins with the basic raw material (such
as petroleum or natural gas), manufactures the monomer, and ends up with
the resin. Some producers begin with purchased monomer, while others con-
tinue beyond the resin stage into processing and fabrication. The resin
producer today characteristically has an operation requiring a large in-
vestment, an economic and adequate raw material supply, an advanced tech-
nical ability, an extensive research and development program, and an ag-
gressive sales force.
Plastics processors and fabricators concentrate on custom operations
(made-to-order parts), proprietary operations (using specially designed
or developed toolings), or captive operations (utilizing the fabricated
parts in other company functions to make finished products). In the
United States alone, there are estimated to be 2500 plastics processors
and close to 4000 fabricators. Most of these are relatively small firms
specializing in particular resins, fabricated shapes, or finished prod-
ucts. They generally do not have the research facilities or resources
to develop new fabrication techniques, and are thus often dependent on
the resin producers, who commonly expend considerable effort on applica-
tions research.
12
-------
INDUSTRY SECTORS
INPUTS AND OUTPUTS CHARACTERISTIC OPERATIONS
RESIN
PRODUCERS
PROCESSORS
FABRICATORS
MONOMERS
Ethylene
Propylene
Vinyl Chloride
Styrene
POLYMERS
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polyvinyl Chloride
Polystyrene
FORMULATIONS
Molding Compounds
Emulsions
Solutions
STOCK SHAPES
Rod
Tube
Sheet
Film
Pipe
FINISHED
PRODUCTS
Polymerization
Pelleting
Dicing
Compounding
(addition of fillers, plasticizers,
colorants, stabilizers, hardeners,
catalysts, etc )
Molding Laminating
Extrusion Spread Coating
Casting Dipping
Calendering
Forming
Cutting
Sewing
Embossing
Printing
TA-7419-19s
FIGURE 1 STRUCTURE OF PLASTICS INDUSTRY
13
-------
B. Products and Processes of Resin Producers
Thermoplastic resins have paced the growth of the plastics industry
primarily because of their demonstrated ease of fabrication, decreasing
monomer prices, new technology, and economies of scale. Three types of
thermoplastics—polyolefins (PO), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and poly-
styrene (PS)--have dominated this growth, accounting for 60 percent of
total 1968 plastics and 78 percent of 1968 thermoplastics.
Industry statistics for polyolefins (SIC 28214) include both high-
and low-density polyethylene (HDPE and LDPE, often lumped together as
PE), and polypropylene (PP). Polyvinyl chloride, including copolymers
containing over 50 percent PVC, accounts for over 80 percent of total
vinyl resins (SIC 28212). Polystyrene, including the rubber-modified,
high impact copolymers, but not the more expensive styrene-acrylonitrile
(SAN) or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) resins, accounts for about
two-thirds of total styrene resins (SIC 28213). The leading resin types
are described below in greater detail.
1. Polyethylene (PE). The top position in thermoplastics is un-
questionably held by polyethylene resins. Their 1968 production of 4.5
billion pounds was nearly twice that of PVC, about 2-1/2 times that of
straight and rubber-modified PS, and about 5 times that of PP.
PE resins contain predominantly the repeating unit (—CH — CH —).
They range from wax-like materials of relatively low molecular weight
(10,000 to 25,000) to rigid, tough plastics of ultrahigh molecular weight
(2,000,000 to 4,000,000). Most commercial resins have molecular weights
in the range of 50,000 to 500,000.
PE resins are usually classified according to two main types: low-
density (LDPE), which is usually branched chain, and high-density (HDPE),
which is predominantly linear. The two types have different degrees of
14
-------
crystallinity, and therefore have different values of such physical prop-
erties as softening point, low temperature brittleness, flexural stiff-
ness, and tensile strength. They are made by separate processes that
differ considerably in polymerization conditions.
a. Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE). There are 13 U.S. producers of
LDPE, operating 21 plants in this country, 16 of which are concentrated
in the Gulf Coast area. Table 5 shows the estimated plant capacities at
the end of 1969.
In 1968, there were 3.29 billion pounds of LDPE produced in the
United States and the estimate for 1969 is 3.70 billion pounds. Total
installed capacity at year end is estimated at 4.25 billion pounds, and
average operating capacity during 1969 at 4.0 billion pounds. Thus, the
1969 production represents a 93 percent utilization of capacity.
The growth rate for LDPE has been 15 percent per year for the 1960
to 1968 period, and 14 percent per year for the more recent 1965 to 1968
period; it is estimated to average about 12 percent per year over the
next five years. The present good supply-demand balance is expected to
hold at least into 1972.J
Until recently, virtually all LDPE (specific gravity 0.91 to 0.95)
was made by one of the high-pressure processes that have evolved since
the pioneering research of Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. in the
1930s. High purity ethylene is polymerized at 10,000 to 30,000 psi
in the presence of a catalyst (small amounts of oxygen, oxides of ni-
trogen, organic peroxides, or other sources of free radicals) in either
a stirred autoclave or a tubular reactor (Fig. 2). In general, no sol-
vent is employed. The reactor effluent is flashed and the unreacted
monomer is recycled. Molten polymer is extruded in the form of rods
or strips, usually under water, and is cut into small pellets or cubes,
for marketing.
15
-------
Table 5
ESTIMATED LDPE CAPACITIES AT END OF 1969
Producer and Location
Capacity
(million Ib/yr)
Allied Chemical
Orange, Tex.
Chemplex
Clinton, la.
Cities Service (Columbian Carbon)
Lake Charles, La.
Dow Chemical
Freeport, Tex.
Placquemine, La.
Du Pont
Orange, Tex.
Victoria, Tex.
Eastman Kodak
Longview, Tex.
El Paso Natural Gas-Dart Industries
Odessa, Tex.
Enjay Chemical
Baton Rouge, La.
Gulf Oil
Cedar Bayou, Tex.
Orange, Tex.
Monsanto (Northern Petrochemical)
Texas City, Tex.
National Distillers (USI Chemicals)
Deer Park, Tex.
Tuscola, 111.
Sinclair-Koppers
Port Arthur, Tex.
Union Carbide
Torrance, Calif.
Whiting, Ind.
Seadrift, Tex.
Texas City, Tex.
180
70
300
200'
400
160
250
300
180
220
200
130
300
160
175
1,000
(100)
(225)
(300)
(250)
South Charleston, W. Va. (125)
TOTAL
4,250
16
-------
Vent
i
FILTER
T
Oils
Waxes
(Wastes)
Ethylene Feed Stock
LOW PRESSURE
PUMP
Catalyst
HIGH PRESSURE
PUMP
TUBULAR REACTOR
OR STIRRED AUTOCLAVE
SEPARATOR
DEODORIZER
CHILLER
CHOPPER
Emergency
Dump Waste
Off-Grade
Product (Waste)
Spills, Contaminated
Product (Waste)
Polyethylene
TA-7419-4
FIGURE 2 HIGH-PRESSURE PROCESS FOR LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTION
17
-------
In April 1969 Phillips Petroleum Company announced development of
a low pressure process (500 to 600 psi) for manufacture of LDPE. It is
reported to use a catalyst of the same type as that used in the Phillips
process for HDPE. The process will go into production at the company's
Houston plant. However, nothing lias been revealed to date about the
potential impact of this process on waste polymer generation.
b. High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). As in the case of LDPE, the
production of HDPE is concentrated in Texas and Louisiana. Table 6 lists
the 13 U.S. producers and the estimated capacities of their 15 plants at
the end of 1969.
Production of HDPE reached 1.25 billion pounds in 1968, and 1.39
billion pounds is forecast for 1969. This represents an 89 percent
utilization of the estimated average 1969 operating capacity of 1.56
billion pounds. Year-end installed capacity is expected to reach 2.11
billion pounds.
The growth rate for HDPE has averaged 24 percent per year from 1960
to 1968, and 17 percent per year for the more recent 1965 to 1968 period;
it is expected to average 15 percent per year for the next five years.
Even with additional capacity from Amoco, Du Pont, and .Monsanto coming
onstream in 1970, it is expected that at least 85 percent of HDPE capac-
ity will be used next year.0
All HDPE (specific gravity over 0.940) is manufactured in so-called
low-pressure processes (operating in some cases as low as 300 psi). Vari-
ous types of stereospecific catalyst are used, e.g., aluminum alkyls and
titanium tetrachloride (Ziegler process, Fig. 3), chromium oxide on silica
or silica-alumina (Phillips process, Fig. 4), and molybdena on alumina
with various promoters (Standard Oil Co. of Indiana process). The highly
oriented (crystalline) polymer is formed either as a solution or in the
18
-------
Table 6
ESTIMATED HDPE CAPACITIES AT END OF 1969
Producer and Location
Capacity
(million Ib/yr)
Allied Chemical
Baton Rouge, La.
Orange, Tex.
Celanese Corp.
Deer Park, Tex.
Chemplex
Clinton, la.
Dow Chemical
Freeport, Tex.
Placquemine, La.
Du Pont
Orange, Tex.
Gulf Oil
Orange, Tex.
Hercules
Parlin, N.J.
Monsanto
Texas City, Tex.
National Petrochemicals
LaPorte, Tex.
Phillips Petroleum
Houston, Tex.
Sinclai r-Koppers
Port Arthur, Tex.
Union Carbide
Seadrift, Tex.
US I Chemicals
Deer Park, Tex.
TOTAL
200
25
195
125
75
75
150
100
100
180
170
220
80
250
170
19
-------
Dry Hydrocarbon Solvent
Transition Metal Halide
Aluminum Alkyl
Catalyst Modifier
(optional)
CATALYST
MIXING TANK
Sequestering
Agent
Water or
Alcohol
Waste
V \ '
REACTOR
FLASH
SEPARATOR
STAGED
WASHER
CENTRIFUGE
DRYER
Polyethylene
Dry Hydrocarbon Solvent
Ethylene Feed Stock
Solvent
TA-7419-5
FIGURE 3 ZIEGLER PROCESS FOR HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTION
20
-------
Ethylene
Feed Stock
Spent
Catalyst
and
Wastes
Catalyst
\ ' 1
REACTOR
SEPARATOR
FILTER
1 ' V
PRECIPITATOR
CENTRIFUGE
DRYER
T
Solvent
Alcohol
i
SOLVENT
SEPARATION
AND
PURIFICATION
Waste
Polyethylene
TA-7419-6 '
FIGURE 4 PHILLIPS PROCESS FOR HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTION
I
J,
21
-------
form of a slurry in a hydrocarbon diluent. In general, unreacted monomer
and solvent are removed by flashing, and the catalyst is removed by filtra-
tion and extraction. The resulting polymer fluff or crumb is dried and
pelleted by extrusion, much like LDPE. About 80 percent of present pro-
duction is by large plants using the Phillips process.
2. Polypropylene (PP). This member of the polyolefins family is
also manufactured mainly in the Gulf Coast area. Table 7 lists the eight
U.S. producers and the estimated capacities of their eight plants at the
end of 1969.
Production of PP totaled 0.9 billion pounds in 1968, and is expected
to reach 1.1 billion pounds in 1969, representing approximately a 92 per-
cent utilization of the average 1969 capacity of 1.2 billion pounds. The
growth rate for PP has averaged a phenomenal 46 percent per year from
1960 to 1968, and a still impressive 33 percent per year for the more
recent 1965 to 1968 period; it is expected to average 16 percent per
year for the next five years. Scheduled additions to plant are expected
to result in a temporary oversupply by 1971, when it is estimated that
an average of 1.9 billion pounds of capacity will produce only 1.5 bil-
4
lion pounds of resin.
Polypropylene consists predominantly of the following repeating
structure:
— CH — CH —
2 I
CH
3
It is made from high-purity propylene under almost the same conditions
as those used for HDPE, except that the stereospecific catalyst system
is different. The polymerization step may be either batch or continuous,
22
-------
Table 7
ESTIMATED PP CAPACITIES AT END OF 1969
Producer and Location
Capacity
(million Ib/yr)
Alamo Industries
(Diamond Shamrock)
Houston, Tex.
Avisun (Amoco)
New Castle, Del.
Enjay Chemical
Baytown, Tex.
Hercules
Lake Charles, La.
Novamont
Kenova, W. Va.
Dart/El Paso Natural Gas
Odessa, Tex.
Shell Chemical
Woodbury, N.J.
Texas Eastman
Longview, Tex.
TOTAL
70
250
225
370
80
50
120
90
1,255
23
-------
and both versions are in use. Figure 5 shows the principal steps in a
typical continuous process.
3. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). There are presently 23 U.S. producers
of PVC resins, and 26 of their 35 plants (Table 8) are located in the
northeastern part of the country.
The 1968 PVC production of 2.40 billion pounds is expected to grow
to 2.66 billion pounds in 1969, representing 89 percent of the estimated
average 1969 operating capacity of 3.0 billion pounds. It is likely that
the "nameplate" installed capacity figures of Table 8 have been slightly-
overstated by producers to discourage competition; nevertheless, utiliza-
tion of capacity is expected to remain at about 90 percent for at least
the next two years, because of good demand and an improving monomer supply
situat ion.
The growth rate for PVC averaged 12.4 percent per year from 1960 to
1968, falling off to 9.4 percent per year for the 1965 to 1968 period;
it is expected to rebound to an average of 11.5 percent per year for the
c.
next five years."
Polyvinyl chloride consists predominantly of the repeating structure
[_—CH — CHC1—]. Production is exclusively batchwise. Of the four major
£
polymerization processes available (i.e., suspension, emulsion, solution,
or bulk), the suspension process accounts for 85 to 90 percent of total
production. It is shown schematically in Fig. 6.
In the suspension method, vinyl chloride monomer is dispersed as
small droplets into a stabilized suspending medium consisting of water
containing small amounts of proprietary suspending agents. The suspen-
sion is then heated in the presence of catalysts (such as organic per-
oxides). After the desired degree of polymerization, the suspension is
stripped free of monomer, is blended with other batches, and is washed,
24
-------
Propylene
Diluent
Catalyst
WASH
T
Wastes
CONTINUOUS
POLYMERIZER
FLASH TANK
SURGE DRUM
CENTRIFUGE
DRYER
EXTRUDER
DICER
T
Polypropylene
DILUENT
CLEANUP
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
TA-7419-7
FIGURE 5 CONTINUOUS PROCESS FOR POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTION
25
-------
Table 8
ESTIMATED PVC OPACITIES AT END OF 1969
Producer
I ocation
Capacity
(million Ib/yr)
Airco
Allied Chemical
American Chemical
Atlantic Tubing
Borden
Continental Oil
Diamond Shamrock
Escambia Chemical
Ethyl Corp.
Firestone Tire is. Rubber
General Tire tc Rubber
B. F. Goodrich
Goodyear Tire 8c Rubber
Great American Plastics
Hooker
Keysor Chemical
Monsanto
Olin
Pantasote
Stauffer
Tenneco
Union Carbide
Uniroyal
Calvert City, Ky.
Puinesville, Ohio
Long Beach, Calif.
Cranston, R.I.
illiopolis, 111.
Leominster, Mass.
Aberdeen, Miss.
Deer Park, Tex.
Delaware City, Del.
Pensacola, Fla.
Baton Rouge, La.
Perryville, Md.
Pottstown, Pa.
Ashtabula, Ohio
Avon Lake, Ohio
Henry, 111.
Long Beach, Calif.
Louisville, Ky.
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Pedricktown, N.J.
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Plaquemine, La.
Fitchburg, Mass.
Bu r11ng t on, N.J.
Saugus, Calif.
Springfield, Mass.
Assonet, Mass.
Passaic, N.J.
Pt. Pleasant, \V. Va.
Delaware City, Del.
Burlington, N.J.
Fleinington, N.J.
Texas City, Tex.
South Charleston, W.
Painesville, Ohio
Va.
TOTAL
120
200
70
100
250
155
240
50
150
115
125
75
630
80
40
40
70
60
150
125
120
26
-------
VINYL CHLORIDE
RECOVERY STILL
Vinyl Chloride Monomer
I
DISPERSING
TANK
REACTOR
STRIPPER
BLEND TANK
CENTRIFUGE
DRYER
T
Polyvinyl
Chloride
Aqueous
Suspending Medium
Wastes
Wastes
TA-7419-8
FIGURE 6 SUSPENSION PROCESS FOR POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
27
-------
,i centrifuged, and dried. The effluent stream from the centrifugation step
contains the majority of the plant wastes, including significant amounts
of very fine polymer.
" •
4. Polystyrene (PS). PS resins are presently made by 15 producers
in the United States, with 24 of the total 30 plants (Table 9) located
< in the northeastern part of the country.
United States production of straight and rubber-modified PS reached
' 1.79 billion pounds in 1968 and is expected to total 2.1 billion pounds
i
i>n 1969. This represents a 91 percent utilization of the estimated aver-
age 1969 operating capacity of 2.3 billion pounds. Additions to capacity
are expected to parallel the production growth rate over the next few
,* years, and consequently operation should remain at about 90 percent of
capacity.
The growth rate for PS averaged 13 percent per year from 1960 to
i'9,68, but this included a growth of only 10 percent per year for the
1965 to 1968 period. The near-term outlook is good, and the growth
rate should rebound to about 11 percent per year over the next five
i 6
years.
Polystyrene consists predominantly of the following repeating
structure:
— CH CH
2 i
where 0 represents the aromatic phenyl group, C H . The bulk polymeriza-
6 5
tion process is believed to account for most commercial production, al-
j
though the suspension and emulsion polymerization processes are also
widely used. One may also use a combination process (such as that of
28
-------
Table 9
ESTIMATED PS CAPACITIES AT END OF 1969
Producer
IxDcat ion
Capacity
(million Ib/yr)
Amoco Chemicals
BASF
Cosden Oil & Chemical
Dart Industries
Dow Chemical
Foster Grant
Hammond Plastics
Howard Industries
Monsanto
Richardson Company
Shell Chemical
Sinclair-Koppers
Solar Chemical
Southern Petrochemicals
Union Carbide
Leominster, Mass.
Medina, Ohio
Joliet, 111.
Willow Springs, 111.
Torrance, Calif.
Jamesburg, N.J.
Big Spring, Tex.
Holyoke, Mass.
Ludlow, Mass.
Joliet, 111.
Santa Ana, Calif.
Midland, Mich.
Allyn's Point, Conn.
Hanging Rock, Ohio
Torrance, Calif.
Leominster, Mass.
Peru, 111.
Oxford, Mass.
Hicksville, N.Y.
Springfield, Mass.
Addyston, Ohio
Long Beach, Calif.
West Haven, Conn.
Wallingford, Conn.
Marietta, Ohio
Kobuta, Pa.
Leominster, Mass.
Houston, Tex.
Bound Brook, N.J.
Marietta, Ohio
TOTAL
170
80
145
140
700
190
25
15
375
50
80
300
60
40
170
2,540
29
-------
Fig. 7) in which bulk polymerization is carried only to a syrupy stage,
following which the reaction is taken to completion by suspension poly-
merization. The finishing operations are generally similar to those
used for PVC resins. Most new PS plants are large and are designed for
continuous operation.
C. Fabrication Processes for Thermoplastic Resins
Thermoplastic resins are transformed into finished products by the
characteristic primary operations shown in Fig. 1 (Summary), and described
below. In some cases, two or more separate steps may be involved.
Injection Molding. Heat-softened resin is forced under high pressure
into a mold of desired shape; upon cooling, the article is removed. Arti-
cles of complex shape, such as toys, furniture, and closures are formed
in this manner.
Blow Molding. Heat-softened resin in the form of a tube or blob is
placed within a suitable mold and forced by air pressure to take the shape
of the mold; the article is removed upon cooling. Bottles, carboys, and
other hollow articles are produced this way.
Powder Molding. Finely divided resin is poured into a suitable heated
mold, where the resin fuses to the mold surface and builds up a wall that
may, upon cooling, be stripped from the mold. Large items such as boats,
barrels, and milk cans are conveniently made by this process.
Extrusion. Heat-softened resin is forced continuously under pressure
through a die to form a film, sheet, tube, rod, filament, or other article
having a uniform cross section throughout its length. Simultaneous infla-
tion of extruded tubing, called "blow extrusion," is a popular method for
30
-------
Styrene Monomer
I
Catalyst
BULK POLYMERIZATION
TO SYRUP STAGE
SUSPENSION POLYMERIZATION
TO COMPLETION
,J
STRIPPING OF UNREACTED
MONOMER
CENTRIFUGING
FILTERING AND WASHING
DRYING
T
Polystyrene
Suspending and
Dispersing Agents
1
Waste
Waste
Waste
TA-7419-9
FIGURE 7 BULK-PLUS-SUSPENSION PROCESS FOR POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTION
31
-------
production of oriented thin film. Wire and cable are plastic coated
simply by being moved through the die within the plastic being extruded.
Calendering. Heat-softened resin is passed between revolving rollers
to form a continuous length of sheeting or film. If desired, the film
may almost simultaneously be laminated with a substrate of paper, fabric,
or other material by passing the two layers between rollers.
Coating. Permanent coatings may be applied to a surface by a variety
of methods in addition to those covered above. Heat-softened resin may
be spread uniformly on flat surfaces by a blade; irregular surfaces may
be coated by either dipping or spraying the heated object with finely
divided resin.
Secondary operations of fabrication are frequently carried out upon
some intermediate product forms, such as film, sheet, or rod, to convert
them into end products.
Thermoforming is probably the most important secondary operation.
Heat-softened sheet, film or foamed sheet, is forced against a mold, to
form items such as boxes, cups, and trays. Other secondary operations
include machining, cutting, sewing, sealing, embossing, and printing.
Because each of the major thermoplastic resins has a unique spectrum
of properties, each of them also has a similarly unique spectrum of mar-
kets, as shown in Table 10. Nearly half of all LDPE is used for film and
sheet, whereas this use accounts for only a small part of the market for
the other resins. HDPE is the dominant blow molding resin. Injection
molding is the largest market for PS and PP; PP also finds a major market
in fibers and filaments. The markets for PVC are more diverse than those
32
-------
Table 10
1968 MARKETS FOR LARGE VOLUME THERMOPLASTICS
(Percent of total consumption of each resin)
Molding
Injection
Blow
Powder and other
Extrusion
Film and sheet
Wire and cable
Other extruded coating
Fibers and filaments
Pipe and conduit
Other
Calendering
Flooring
Other
Coating
Paper and textile
Flooring
Plastisols
Other (incl. adhesives)
Other domestic uses (incl. foam)
Export
TOTAL
LDPE
13
2
—
44
9
11
—
--
—
—
—
9
12
100
HDPE
21
42
—
4
3
2
2
—
--
—
—
—
17
9
100
PP
41
—
7
—
35
--
--
—
—
—
7
10
100
PVC
/-
H
5
6
12
14
10
18
5
2
5
4
11
5
100
PS
M
—
, V
14
—
11
—
—
2
20
3
100
33
-------
for any other resin; in addition to its major uses in extrusions (partic-
ularly wire and cable), PVC dominates the phonograph record molding market
and the calendered products market, and shares (with PS) the substantial
markets in coatings and adhesives.
34
-------
PLASTICS INDUSTRY SURVEY
Most of the required data on waste amounts and dispositions were
previously unpublished, and were available only through extensive per-
sonal contacts with appropriate industry sources.
A. Survey Procedure
The procedure ultimately employed for conducting the industry survey
was to a large extent governed by a directive of the U.S. Bureau of the
Budget, issued shortly after this study was initiated. That directive
(in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Reports Act) required
that each Federal Contractor obtain formal Bureau clearance before under-
taking any extensive program of visits to industrial firms to collect
data. The survey clearance procedure required the prior submission to
BOB of a detailed sample questionnaire, covering the information that
was intended to be solicited from industry.
The questionnaire for this study was submitted in three parts:
Part I was directed to major polymer producers, Part II to plastics
processors and fabricators, and Part III to manufacturers of waste
disposal equipment. It solicited the following general types of in-
1ormat ion:
• The sources, amounts, and forms of polymer waste generated
• Disposal methods in use, investigated, or planned
• Satisfactory and unsatisfactory aspects of current disposal
methods
• Disposal equipment capabilities and costs.
35
-------
The Bureau of the Budget, in turn, permitted selected industry repre-
sentatives to preview the original draft of the questionnaire, with the
request that they comment on its format and content, for the dual purpose
of enhancing the ultimate value of the study and of minimizing the burden
on respondents. This phase of the clearance procedure took approximately
seven months, during which time the project was placed on standby status
except for routine literature review.
The final approved version of the survey questionnaire (reproduced
in Appendix A) was virtually identical with the original draft, except
for relatively minor changes to incorporate the comments of the industry
reviewers. Even this version was employed primarily as a guide, every
effort being made to provide respondents with maximum flexibility in re-
porting useful information about polymer waste, without requiring any un-
necessary disclosures of proprietary company data.
The plan originally called for a survey of approximately 30 indus-
trial organizations, roughly equally divided among the three broad in-
dustry categories represented by the three-part questionnaire. For each
selected company, permission was also requested to supplement the ques-
tionnaire with a brief personal visit, to facilitate the clarification of
details relating to the surveyed data.
In general, most industry contacts were very cooperative, once a
management decision had been reached regarding participation in the sur-
vey. Only one of the eight polymer producers originally approached de-
clined to participate in any way. The other seven each permitted a visit
either to a typical plant or to its central engineering headquarters, and
all but one of those visited ultimately furnished the data requested in
the questionnaire. However, several companies, each producing more than
one resin type, did choose to restrict their data responses to one type
36
-------
only, and this had the undesirable effect of changing the originally
planned balance of resin types covered in the survey. (The terms of
our clearance from the Bureau of the Budget specified that our contacts
with resin producers be limited to the originally selected eight.)
In the case of processors and fabricators, about half of those con-
tacted cited a firm policy against any plant visits, but even most of
these agreed to respond to the questionnaire. Many companies volunteered
to provide separate detailed responses for each of several plants or divi-
sions. Table 11 shows the distribution of the 47 plants for which responses
were ultimately received, according to principal operation, and Table 12
the distribution according to principal application. Comparison of Ta-
bles 11 and 12 with the market data of Table 10 indicates that the survey
of processors and fabricators represents a broad cross section of the
thermoplastics industry, with the exception of that part devoted to fibers
and filaments, calendered products, and most coating applications.
Table 11
DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEYED PROCESSORS
AND FABRICATORS BY PRINCIPAL OPERATION
Compounding
Rotation molding
Blow molding
Injection molding
Extrusion
Thermo forming
Total
Reporting
Plants
2
2
15
4
16
8
47
37
-------
Table 12
DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEYED PROCESSORS
AND FABRICATORS BY PRINCIPAL APPLICATION
Report ing
Plants
Molding compounds
Film and sheet
Foamed articles
Flexible packaging
Rigid containers
Pipe, conduit, wire and cable
Molded toys, houseuares, etc,
Total
13
3
5
17
3
4
47
For the third part of the survey (dealing with manufacturers of waste
disposal equipment), the formal survey questionnaire proved to be gener-
ally impractical to use. On the basis of our literature review and our
discussions with resin producers and plastics fabricators, we judged that
incinerator manufacturers comprised the principal group of interest in
relation to plastics disposal capability. A selected group of 18 of these
were contacted by letter and telephone, and those who professed to offer
the required capability to handle plastic wastes were invited to submit
all available technical and cost data. Personal visits \\ere made to only
four incinerator manufacturers.
38
-------
B. Survey Data on Polymer Solid Wastes
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Reports Act, pro-
duction and processing data provided by individual companies cannot be
identified by company. Furthermore, such data must be treated in strict
confidence, and must be used only for the express purposes of this study.
Therefore, the numerical results of the industry survey are reported here
only in the form of industry-wide aggregates, averages, and ranges.
1. Polymer Types Produced or Processed. From the seven primary
resin producers that were surveyed, responses were obtained for four
plants producing both high-density and low-density PE, two plants pro-
ducing only high-density PE, and one plant producing PVC. (Data for ad-
ditional plants, making PS and PVC, were solicited but not received.)
The reported data are thus highly weighted toward the PE segment of the
thermoplastic resin producers.
Although all major thermoplastics were included in the survey of
processors and fabricators, the resulting data are likewise heavily
weighted toward the PO segment of the industry. In large part, this
results from the emphasis given to the various molding and extrusion
processes (the main users of PO resins), rather than to calendering
and coating applications (which favor use of PVC and PS resins). For
the 47 plants for which responses were obtained, the total waste tonnage
had approximately the following distribution by polymer type:
Polyethylene 59%
Polypropylene 19
Polystyrene 4
Polyvinyl chloride 18
Total 100%
39
-------
2. Industry Sources of Polymer Solid Wastes. Table 13 shows the
reported average distribution of polymer solid wastes among various plant
sources. This tabulation (and all others from the survey) represents only
true waste and excludes any sold scrap or reclaimed polymer. Waste frac-
tions contaminated with large amounts of inorganics (such as filter aid)
have been adjusted to a polymer-only basis. The data obtained did not
permit any breakdown by individual resin type.
3. Amounts of Polymer Solid Waste Generated by Industry. The seven
primary resin plants for which data were provided ranged in estimated pro-
duction capacity from 125 to 550 million pounds per year, and their re-
ported range of polymer solid waste generation rates was from 0.85 to
22.5 tons per day per plant. Relative to total polymer production, the
reported waste generation rates ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 percent. (Where
not reported directly, total polymer production was estimated at 90 per-
cent of capacity, in accordance with trade forecasts for 1969.)
The aggregate polymer waste generation rate for all seven reporting
resin production plants was 35.5 million pounds per year, corresponding
to 1.75 percent of their estimated aggregate polymer production rate of
2.04 billion pounds per year. On this basis, the average resin producer
generated 7.7 tons of polymer waste per day per plant in 1969. (See
Table 3, Summary.)
As explained previously, the above data are strongly weighted toward
the PE segment of the industry. However, the 1.75 percent figure may be
applied with reasonable confidence to all PO resins (6.2 billion pounds
total U.S. production forecast in 1969), to give an estimate of 108 mil-
lion pounds per year of PO waste generated by resin producers.
40
-------
Table 13
REPORTED SOURCES OF POLYMER WASTES
Average Percent
from Each Source
Primary
Resin
Producers
Processors
and
Fabricators
Off-grade product
Emergency dumps of reactor
Normal spillage, contaminated
Cleanout and maintenance
Removal from effluent gas or
liquid
Other (low melting wax, etc.)
26
8
22
16
20
8
100
65
19
16
100
41
-------
The very limited portion of the survey data representing producers
of other thermoplastic resins suggests that their polymer solid waste
generation represents a considerably smaller percentage of production,
probably between 0.4 and 0.8 percent. If a value of 0.6 percent waste
is applied to the rest of the thermoplastic resin production (estimated
to be 7.6 billion pounds per year in 1969), the estimated current waste
generation rate is 45 million pounds per year from producers of thermo-
plastic resins other than PO.
On the basis of these separate estimates for PO and other resin types,
the total estimated 1969 generation of all thermoplastic polymer solid
wastes by U.S. resin producers is 153 million pounds per year, equivalent
to 1.1 percent of total estimated 1969 thermoplastics production of 13.8
billion pounds per year. (See Table 3, Summary.)
Our survey of plastics processors and fabricators resulted in data
representing 47 plants (16 operating divisions of 11 companies), corre-
sponding to a total estimated polymer processing rate of 781 million
pounds per year (roughly 6 percent of the 13.8 billion pounds per year
forecast as the 1969 national production rate of all thermoplastics).
These 47 plants reported an aggregate polymer solid waste generation
rate of 17 million pounds per year, equivalent to 2.2 percent of their
total polymer processing rate, and also equivalent to an average of about
0.6 tons of polymer solid waste per day per plant. (See Table 3, Summary.)
In contrast to the case of resin producers, the available data on
processors and fabricators do not support a conclusion that the amount
of waste is markedly correlated with the type of thermoplastic resin in
any given application. Hence, the 2.2 percent figure may be considered
applicable to all resins. On the other hand, the amount of reported
waste varies considerably as a function of the application (as shown
in Table 4, Summary). Such critical applications as electrical wire
42
-------
and cable insulation have a very high reject rate (whose plastic content
is not reclaimable) whereas, at the other extreme, such noncritical items
as molded toys, housewares, and decorative articles may have virtually
zero nonreclaimable scrap.
4. Prospects for Change in Waste Amounts. All resin producers agreed
that fluctuations in the price of plastic scrap could have a major effect
on drawing the line between scrap and waste. What was considered "scrap"
three or four years ago is "waste" now, because of the much higher selec-
tivity of the scrap market. Aside from the above factor of salability,
the seven reporting companies had quite varied estimates of future pros-
pects for change. Only one predicted a substantial increase in waste
generation; this was attributed to the currently planned improvement in
the removal of polymer solids from the aqueous plant effluent. Respond-
ents from four plants predicted no significant change in either the gen-
eration or the reclaiming of waste polymer; on the other hand, each of
these four readily conceded that from 30 to 40 percent of present waste
might be reclaimed, but not economically at present. A 50 percent re-
duction in waste was anticipated at one plant within a year, primarily
by a current program of improvements in reclaiming, rather than by reduc-
tion in generation. At the final plant, contemplated process changes
were expected to lead to 25 to 30 percent less waste generation in 1 to
2 years.
Of the 47 reporting plants of fabricators and processors, 25 pre-
dicted no significant changes in either the generation or the reclaiming
of present wastes; 20 predicted minor reductions of up to 30 percent;
2 predicted major reductions of from 75 to 80 percent. All of those
22 respondents anticipating reductions expected them to be attributable
to improved salvage and reclamation techniques, rather than to lower
waste generation rates.
43
-------
5. Physical Form of Wastes. Table 14 shows the reported physical
forms of the polymer solid wastes generated by the industry prior to any
processing to facilitate disposal. The "other" category in Table 14 was
not always well defined by respondents, but generally included (in the
case of resin producers) such forms as fluff, crumb, waxes, and thin
skins, and (in the case of processors and fabricators) such forms as
large reject bottles, clothesline, cable insulation, and tubing.
Very few instances of changes in physical form made specifically to
facilitate disposal of wastes were reported. Melting of waxes prior to
their incineration is practiced by one of the resin producers surveyed.
Rejected large rigid containers are generally reground by fabricators
to reduce their bulk, and some waste film and sheet is compressed and
baled to facilitate handling.
6. Present Disposal Practice. Four of the seven surveyed resin
plants were reported to resort almost exclusively to open dumping on
company lands; two plants were reported to utilize sanitary landfill
on company land; one plant was reported to employ mainly incineration.
(An eighth plant, which was visited but did not submit a completed ques-
tionnaire, is known to incinerate most of its polymer solid wastes.)
Of the 47 processing and fabricating plants surveyed, the vast
majority (32) were reported to use sanitary landfill as the principal
waste disposal technique. Only one respondent admitted to burning in
an open dump, and only three reported open dumping with no burning. The
remaining eleven respondents professed to have no knowledge of or control
over the ultimate disposal technique used by the private contractors that
they employed to haul away their waste. None of the surveyed processors
and fabricators reported incineration as the principal disposal technique,
although six plants were reported to use it occasionally as a backup
method.
44
-------
Table 14
REPORTED PHYSICAL FORMS
OF POLYMER WASTES
Pellets
Chopped or shredded
Dust or powder
Random large (>100 Ib)
Random small (<100 Ib)
Other
Average Percent
of Each Form
Primary
Resin
Producers
18
0
23
10
14
35
100
Processors
and
Fabricators
14
3
3
28
17
35
100
45
-------
In contrast to the resin producers, none of the processors and fabri-
cators specifically claimed the use of company land for dumping or land-
fill. (This information was not explicitly requested on the questionnaire;
all those respondents who volunteered it indicated that they relied on
public agencies or private contractors for their land disposal operations,
and that each of the land disposal sites handled many kinds of municipal
and industrial wastes.
The above data on reported present disposal practices are summarized
in Table 15. The survey team did not have the opportunity to determine
by personal inspection if the reported instances of sanitary landfill
actually adhered to the accepted engineering definition of that term
(particularly in regard to the use of daily earth cover). In fact, it
is quite likely that many of those respondents who claimed the use of
sanitary landfill really meant open dumping of nonputrescible (and hence
"sanitary") material. It is also likely that the eleven instances of
"unknown" disposal practice, shown in Table 15, should properly be as-
signed to "land disposal," without specification as to type.
7. Special Disposal Problems. Resin producers reported few special
problems associated with disposal of specific wastes. Resins that contain
inorganic filler or contaminant sometimes cause ash fusion problems on
incineration and are therefore landfilled instead. Incineration of PVC
wastes is generally avoided because of liberation of corrosive, toxic
gases.
The main special problems reported by processors and fabricators are
those associated with the excessive bulk of fabricated shapes.
46
-------
Table 15
REPORTED PRESENT
POLYMER DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Open dumping
Sanitary landfill
Incineration
Unknown
Number of Reporting Plants
Primary
Resin
Producers
4
2*
1
.
7
Processors
and
Fabricators
4
32*
0
11
Not verified by inspection, (See text.)
47
-------
8. Reported Waste Management Costs. The costs reported by respond-
ents in this survey covered an exceedingly wide range and obviously rep-
resented a wide variation in company cost accounting practices. Moreover,
respondents were generally unwilling to disclose the breakdown of their
total reported costs into components of initial waste collection, in-plant
handling, out-of-plant transportation, direct disposal operating costs,
and equipment amortization. It was thus not possible to arrive at any
meaningful comparison of direct disposal costs for various disposal tech-
niques. The reported costs must generally be regarded as total waste
management costs.
For the responding resin producers, the reported polymer solid waste
management costs ranged from $3 to $60 per ton of waste, with the weighted
mean for all seven plants being $26 per ton. The weighted mean cost rep-
resents the ratio of $470,000 (the total dollars reported to be spent an-
nually by all seven plants) to 18,000 tons (the total reported annual
amount of polymer solid waste from all seven plants).
The weighted mean polymer solid waste management cost for the 47
plants of the responding processors and fabricators was S23.50 per ton,
representing a reported aggregate annual expenditure of $200,000 and an
aggregate annual polymer solid waste generation of 8,500 tons. Only two
respondents reported a cost of less than $7 per ton, and only three re-
ported a cost of more than $30 per ton. (Those five extreme cases ac-
tually exerted a negligible influence on the computed mean cost.)
If these two weighted mean costs ($26.00 per ton, and $23.50 per
ton) are assumed to represent the average experience of all U.S. resin
producers and of all U.S. processors and fabricators, respectively, then
the U.S. plastics industry spent about $5,6 million in 1969 to manage its
460 million pounds of polymer solid waste (see Table 3, Summary), for an
overall average unit cost of about $24.30 per ton.
48
-------
None of the industry respondents reported any financial credits from
power or steam generation or any other activity related to polymer solid
waste disposal. It should again be emphasized, however, that this survey
obtained data only for true waste, excluding any sold, reclaimed, or re-
cycled polymer scrap. (A special situation does exist in the wire and
cable industry because of the high salvage value of the copper in scrap
cable. However, it would be highly misleading to classify the vital
operation of copper reclamation as merely a means for obtaining a credit
from disposal of plastic wastes.)
9. Industry Comments and Recommendations. With respect to the six
resin plants that are presently using land disposal, two respondents ex-
pressed no concern about continued land availability in the foreseeable
future, whereas four recognized this as a problem, ranging from acute
and immediate in the northeast United States, to relatively minor and
deferred at least 5 to 10 years in several Gulf Coast locations. At
two of the plants that are presently open dumping, there will shortly
be a change to sanitary landfill, primarily to improve the appearance
of the grounds. For the one plant that is now incinerating, there is
complete satisfaction with the technique, except for possible cost re-
ductions not yet achieved.
There was a virtually unaminous desire for development of improved
reclamation methods and uses for low grade, contaminated plastics. Next
in priority was the desire for improved incinerators, particularly those
that could accept random mixtures of physical forms without expensive
handling and segregation. Two respondents explicitly recommended the
development of efficient, economical, centralized disposal facilities,
each capable of processing all types of wastes from many plants in a
given area.
49
-------
Plastics processors and fabricators were not as directly involved
with ultimate disposal as were the primary resin producers. Hence, they
were generally less concerned about optimum long-term solutions. Those
reportedly dumping or landfilling were content to continue present prac-
tices until forced to change when land becomes unavailable or too expen-
sive. All were anxious to reduce waste generation and to improve salvage
and reclamation techniques. Fabricators generally expressed a desire for
more advanced size-reduction and bulk-reduction methods for fabricated
shapes.
50
-------
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
The orderly classification of waste disposal methods is necessarily
somewhat arbitrary. One might say that any disposal method must involve
at least one of the following objectives: removal from view, destruction,
or utilization. A useful distinction among methods can thus be made, ex-
cept that some methods may involve more than one objective. (For example,
sanitary landfill of municipal or other biodegradable wastes may involve
all three objectives, if it simultaneously results in land reclamation.)
In the following discussion, such ambiguous cases are arbitrarily cate-
gorized according to their single most obvious short-term objective, in
the specific context of polymer solid wastes.
Such terms as "pipelining" and 'rail haul" (sometimes loosely re-
ferred to in the literature as waste disposal methods) are of course
merely methods of transport, which must be used in conjunction with some
true disposal method. There is no intent here to minimize the importance
that efficient, economical transport bears to the success of any disposal
technique; it is merely pointed out that this report discusses transport
methods, where appropriate, as a subcategory of the associated ultimate
disposal method.
A. Methods Based Primarily on Removal from View
The three methods discussed under this category include open dump-
ing on land, ocean dumping, and sanitary landfill.
51
-------
1. Open Dumping on Land. All too often open dumping provides less
than adequate concealment or removal from view; nevertheless, that is its
ostensible rationale for nondegradable wastes, because dumps are typi-
cally located in out-of-the-way (and hence at least temporarily out-of-
sight) places.
Open dumping of municipal wastes has been roundly condemned (and
justly so) not only for its pollution of air, water, and landscape, but
particularly for its furnishing of a harbor for insects, rodents, and
other disease vectors. On the other hand, polymer wastes that are not
mixed with putrescible wastes are essentially nonpolluting, and hence
it would seem that the main objection to their disposal by open dumping
is one of esthetics.
An important qualification must, however, be attached to the descrip-
tion of dumped polymer wastes as "essentially nonpolluting;" namely, it
is that they are prone to being set afire, in which event they become
exceedingly air polluting. Such fires, once started, are notoriously
difficult to extinguish and are invariably characterized by incomplete
combustion, acrid odors, and thick black smoke.
This fire hazard is perhaps the main reason why open dumping must
be regarded as an unacceptable disposal method for polymer wastes--
unacceptable even as a short-term technique, and even for those com-
panies having adequate land of their own, well concealed from public
view. As a long term proposition, there is no question that open dump-
ing will be ruled out automatically because of the ultimate unavailabil-
ity of suitable sites within economic hauling distances.
2. Ocean Dumping. Disposal at sea usually takes one of two forms:
a. Bulk dumping in comparatively shallow water from hopper barges
b. Deep sea dumping in sealed containers.
52
-------
The second technique is very expensive and has no applicability to polymer
wastes. The first technique is potentially economical and practical for
disposal of relatively dense, inert materials. However, many polymer
solid wastes do not qualify for this method, because they tend to float
to the surface of the water rather than to settle permanently to the
bottom. (The normal ranges of density for unfilled polymers are: 0.91
to 0.965 for PE or PP, 1.04 to 1.10 for PS, and 1.16 to 1.35 for PVC.)
3. Sanitary Landfill. There is a common misconception by many of
the lay public (and even by many technically sophisticated people) that
the term "sanitary landfill" is merely a euphemistic label for an open
dump. According to the most recent authoritative standards, A sanitary
landfill is defined as an engineering method of disposing of solid waste
on land by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting the waste to
the smallest practical volume, and covering the waste with earth each
day in a manner which prevents environmental pollution.
This report will not attempt to go into detail about all the engi-
neering factors--site selection and preparation, area and volume require-
ments, cover material, equipment requirements, operating procedures and
options, maintenance, and safety—entering into a successful sanitary
landfill operation. These factors have already been well covered in
the literature. The principal advantages and disadvantages of sanitary
landfill are summarized in Table 16. It should be evident that several
of the disadvantages listed in Table 16 apply mainly to municipal wastes
containing a relatively high proportion of food waste or putrescible mate-
rial. If a sanitary landfill is devoted exclusively to plastic wastes
(or to these plus other nonbiodegradable materials), then those disad-
vantages relating to pollution of ground water and evolution of gas will
not apply.
53
-------
Table 16
SUMMARY OF SANITARY LANDFILL CONSIDERATIONS
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Where land is available, the
sanitary landfill is usually
the most economical method of
solid waste disposal.
The initial investment is low
compared to that of other dis-
posal methods.
A sanitary landfill is a com-
plete or final disposal method
as compared to incineration and
composting where residue,
quenching water, unusable ma-
terials, etc., remain and re-
quire further disposal.
A sanitary landfill can be put
into operation within a short
period of time.
A sanitary landfill can receive
all types of solid wastes,
eliminating the necessity of
separate collections.
A sanitary landfill is flexible;
increased quantities of solid
wastes can be disposed of with
little additional personnel
and equipment.
Submarginal land may be re-
claimed for use as parking lots,
playgrounds , golf course , air-
ports , etc.
1. In highly populated areas,
suitable land may not be avail-
able within economical hauling
distance.
2. If proper sanitar\ landfill
standards are not adhered to,
the operation may result in an
open dump.
3. Location of sanitary landfills
in residential areas can result
in extreme public opposition.
4. A completed landfill will
settle and require periodic
maintenance.
5. Special design and construction
must be utilized for buildings
constructed on completed land-
fill because of the settlement
factor.
6. Methane, an explosive gas, and
the other gases produced from
the decomposition of the wastes
may become a hazard or nuisance
problem and interfere with the
use of the completed landfill.
Source: "Sanitary Landfill Facts," Public Health Service Publication 1792.
54
-------
Plastics in certain physical forms may introduce special problems
in landfills, because they are difficult to compact efficiently with
ordinary equipment (tractors, draglines, or steel-wheeled compactors).
Plastic films in particular tend to become entangled in the treads,
wheels, and radiators of spreading and compacting equipment. Film
manufacturers generally compress and bale waste film prior to its dis-
posal, to avoid such difficulties.
Initial sanitary landfill investment costs normally include those
for land, planning and design, construction, and equipment. The major
part of initial investment is usually for land and equipment, and most
of these costs can often be recovered through development of the land.
If investment funds are limited, leasing of either the land or the equip-
ment, or both, should be considered.
Operating costs for sanitary landfills (including leasing or amorti-
zation costs, but excluding the costs of initial waste collection and
hauling) are commonly reported to range from §0.50 to $5 per ton of
waste. The upper end of this wide range of costs reflects primarily
the low efficiency of the smaller operations, which are normally run on
a part-time basis. Large, efficient landfills handling 50,000 tons or
more of municipal waste per year may be expected to operate at about $1
p
per ton. Hauling costs can often add from $4 to $6 per ton, or more,
to the total cost. Collection costs, usually the most labor-intensive
item, can also be the dominant cost item, adding as much as $25 per ton
to total costs for extremely bulky wastes, such as some polymer wastes.
B. Methods Based Primarily on Destruction
This category of solid waste treatment methods emphasizes primarily
the reassimilation of the wastes (or their breakdown products) by nature,
rather than their conversion to a useful form. It includes biodegradation
and weathering, chemical oxidation, and incineration.
55
-------
1. Biodegradation and Weathering (including Composting). It is
well known, based on considerable past research, that most unplasticized
synthetic polymers are very resistant to attack by bacteria, fungi, or
marine organisms. For this reason, plastics have gained a generally
justifiable reputation as being nonbiodegradable. Similarly, although
plastics are not completely immune to the ultraviolet component of sun-
light, this form of attack is extremely slow and is restricted to a thin
surface layer. Thus, plastics are too resistant to weathering to permit
the efficient disposal of plastic wastes by this method.
In regard to macrobiological resistance, rodents and various boring
insects have been known to chew their way through many kinds of plastics
blocking their way to food. Rats have even been alleged to chew through
plastic pipe or electrical insulation merely to keep their teeth in con-
dition. However, all of these types of attack are quite obviously un-
suitable for plastic waste disposal. Termites may represent a unique
type of macrobiological attack on plastics. Published information is
scanty, but it appears that termite attack is quite widespread and that
a number of different termite genera are capable of attacking many kinds
of plastics, including PE and PVC. Termites cannot utilize synthetic
plastics as food, but there is evidence that the}- do use small bits of
plastics to build their covered runways. It is thus likely that termites
can play a role in the ultimate disintegration of plastics in sanitary
landfills, but it is doubtful that the rate of destruction by termites
could be high enough to increase landfill capacity significantly over
the short term.
Composting (defined as the aerobic, thermophilic bioconversion of
organic wastes to a relatively inert, sterile residue) has found limited
economic success in Europe as a means of producing a salable soil condi-
tioner for flower growing and other luxury agriculture. In this country,
56
-------
commercial compost plants have had a dismal economic history, because of
their inability to dispose of the large quantities of compost at a favora-
ble price, within reasonable hauling distance.
Because of the nonbiodegradability of synthetic plastics, composting
has little or no effect on them. Composting cannot therefore be considered
to represent a disposal method for plastics. However, for the case of
plastics mixed with municipal refuse, composting does offer the option
of a significant total volume reduction prior to burial, as a means of
prolonging the life of a given sanitary landfill site.
In spite of these potential technical advantages, however, such a
combination of composting-plus-landfilling has thus far not gained accept-
ance in this country, presumably because the added cost of the composting
step is still considered unjustifiable. In the future, as landfill sites
become less available, the importance of preliminary volume reduction
techniques will increase.
2. Chemical Oxidation. All polymers, natural or synthetic, will
eventually degrade in an oxygen atmosphere at elevated temperatures.
Many of the commercially important thermoplastics undergo autocatalytic
oxidation at temperatures below 200 C. Most of the past research on
this subject has been devoted to the inhibition of oxidative degradation
of polymers, rather than to its utilization for polymer waste disposal.
Chemical processing is generally more expensive than other solid
waste treatment methods. Its consideration is usually justified in the
hope of converting the waste to a valuable product. However, in the
case of plastic wastes, a mild chemical treatment might prove to be
economically justifiable even if it served only to accelerate the sub-
sequent weathering or biodegradability of the wastes in normal landfill
operation.
57
-------
Recently, I IT Research Institute has been engaged in a laboratory
study (Contract No. PH-86-67-274, sponsored by the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management) of the feasibility of the disposal of PE plastic waste by
chemical means, including oxidation of air, oxygen, ozone, chlorine,
nitrogen tetroxide, nitric acid, sodium hypochlorite, organic peroxides,
and metallic nitrates, chlorates, and peroxides. That study has shown
that chemical treatment of plastic can modify the mechanical, thermal,
and biochemical properties of the material so that ultimate disposal
would be facilitated. The most attractive approach appeared to be one
involving thermal oxidative degradation and concomitant nitration.
It is known that paraffin wax can be catalytically oxidized w:th air,
at moderate temperature and atmospheric pressure, to a mixture of monobasic
acids. Presumably, a similar technique should also be applicable to PE.
Moreover, it is likely that continued oxidation of the initially produced
monobasic acids could convert them to dibasic acids in high yield. The
main uncertainty about such a process is probably the technical and eco-
nomic feasibility of the separation of the relatively complex product
mixture.
3. Incineration. To a sizable fraction of the public, the burning
of solid wastes represents a pollution source rather than a pollution con-
trol method. This attitude is conditioned by their memory of smoky, odor-
ous, burning dumps or municipal incinerators. Most solid waste disposal
experts today would agree that modern incineration technology, incorporat-
ing effective pollution control techniques, can make incineration one of
the most acceptable disposal methods. The main products of properly con-
ducted incineration--carbon dioxide, water vapor, and an inert solid
residue—can be completely assimilated by nature without upsetting any-
ecological balance. (Of course, certain types of wastes may liberate
unusually large amounts of toxic or corrosive combustion products, making
incineration less practical for disposal of such materials.)
58
-------
a. Special Design Characteristics for Plastics Incineration. Plas-
tics (particularly thermoplastics) have gained a certain degree of noto-
riety with regard to the special problems they may introduce during their
incineration. They do not ignite or burn readily in many types of con-
ventional incinerators; they melt and clog grates; they deposit as smol-
dering molten puddles which may burn erratically or even explosively;
they have very high heating values (15,000 to 20,000 Btu per pound) and
the resulting high flame temperatures require special furnace designs;
and chlorinated plastics such as PVC liberate toxic and corrosive HC1
as a combustion product.
The consensus of polymer producers and of incinerator manufacturers
is that all the above problems can be overcome by proper design and oper-
ation. The most critical design features pertinent to plastics incinera-
tion appear to be the following:
1. To avoid clogging of grates, thermoplastic wastes are best burned
in a furnace having a smooth, solid hearth. (Various fixed hearth,
rotary hearth, and rotary kiln designs satisfy this criterion and
have proven successful.)
2. The combustion chamber should be preheated to the ignition point
before any polymer wastes are charged, and the supply of overfire
air must be controlled to avoid building up high concentrations
of flammable vapors.
3. For smokeless operation, the combustion temperature must be at
least 1800 F (preferably at least 2000 F) and the flammable
vapors evolved from the polymer wastes must be retained for a
sufficient time at this high temperature (often accomplished
in a second-stage chamber), to permit combustion to go to com-
pletion. The requisite high temperature generally demands use
of special furnace refractories.
4. If large quantities of polymer waste are involved, it is almost
mandatory (for technical and economic reasons) that the inciner-
ator be operated 24 hours per day and 6 or 7 days per week.
59
-------
5. For best results, polymer wastes should not be combined with
other plant trash for incineration. If they can be burned
alone, control of combustion can be made good enough to elimi-
nate the need for any abatement of odors, fly ash, or smoke.
(Exception: if PVC or other chlorinated wastes are burned in
large quantities, a gas scrubber must be installed to remove
the HC1.)
6. To avoid high operating and maintenance costs and eliminate
costly supervision, polymer wastes should be shredded to a
reasonably uniform size and fed at a constant rate to the
incinerator.
7. Waste heat boilers can be incorporated into the incinerator
system. However, a full-scale incinerator must be provided
ahead of the boiler, so that all volatile matter has completed
its combustion before the gases enter the boiler section. If
the combustion products include corrosive gases, the boiler
tubes must be operated at a temperature above the dew point of
the gas, but below about 550 F, to minimize corrosion of the
tubes. So-called water-walled furnaces, popular in Europe
for incineration of municipal refuse, are not recommended by
U.S. incinerator manufacturers for combustion of predominantly
plastic wastes, because the presence of a cool wall tends to
quench the flame and lead to excessive smoke.
b. Applicable Incinerator Designs Offered by Manufacturers. Over
half of the more then twenty incinerator manufacturers contacted in this
study conceded frankly that they did not offer any equipment suitable
for incineration of high-Btu solid wastes (15,000 to 20,000 Btu/lb).
Several of the others indicated that they were actively developing
designs capable of handling 100 percent plastics, but their present models
were limited to wastes having heating values in the range of 6500 to
8500 Btu per pound.
Large, grate-type municipal or industrial incinerators, said to be
capable of handling solid waste containing at least 10 percent plastics,
are reportedly offered by several companies. These incinerators are often
combined with steam or power generation equipment.
60
-------
Only six of the incinerator manufacturers we surveyed specifically
claimed a present capability to incinerate 100 percent plastic wastes.
Those six offered essentially only three basic types of incinerator de-
sign: the rotary kiln, the multichambered retort, and the open pit with
overfire air jets. Quoted operating costs (including amortization of
equipment, but excluding collection and hauling costs) ranged from $3
to $8 per ton of waste. Investment costs (including building and foun-
dations, but excluding land) were quoted at from $6,000 to 813,000 per
ton per day for the multichambered retort, the most commonly offered
type; estimated investment costs for the rotary kiln were about $15,000
to $30,000 per ton per day, and those for the open pit incinerator were
only about $1,000 to $2,000 per ton per day.
There was an unusually wide divergence of opinion among those sur-
veyed who had either used the open pit incinerator or had observed it in
use by others as to whether it could dependably achieve smoke-free com-
bustion of polymer wastes. The consensus seemed to be that it could, but
only under very carefully controlled uniform feeding conditions, not likely
to be enforced in practice. A coarse wire screen over the pit provides
the only protection against fly ash or burning particles, and this was
almost unanimously judged to be inadequate.
A rotary kiln incinerator is used successfully on a mixture of plas-
tic waste and plant trash by one of the major polymer producers whose
facilities were visited but from which a completed questionnaire was
not received. No instances were discovered of any rotary kiln incinera-
tor being used for plastic wastes exclusively.
An incinerator of the multichamber retort type,rated at 30 tons of
plastic waste per day, is in service by one of the PE producers surveyed
in this study; it was originally used on a mixture of polymer waste and
general plant trash, but is now used on PE waste only, to avoid problems
of ash removal.
61
-------
c. Novel Incinerator Designs. Current experimental work on in-
cineration of solid wastes includes suspension burning, iluidized bed
combustion, and pressurized burning.
Suspension burning, the process widely used in power boilers, con-
sists in blowing the finely divided fuel tangentially into a cyclonic
furnace chamber, so that it burns while suspended in the turbulent air
stream. It is efficient in terms of attainable heat release rate per
unit burner volume and requires no grate or supported fuel bed. It does,
however, require that any solid waste used as fuel be finely subdivided.
Fluidized bed combustion takes place in a bed of inert granular mate-
rial (sand) suspended over a perforated plate in a refractory vessel. The
fluidized sand bed is initially preheated by the combustion products from
a gas or oil burner. Subsequently, air is blown up through the bed to
maintain its fluidized state. Solid waste introduced into the bed burns
while circulating in the hot sand. Theoretically, excellent control and
complete combustion result. Separation of any unburned residue from the
bed material and maintenance of uniform air distribution can present
serious problems.
Pressurized burning, by either of the above methods, makes possible
a further reduction in burner volume by virtue of the high pressure em-
ployed. The main potential advantage of pressurized burning is that the
hot pressurized flue gases can theoretically drive a gas turbine engine
to generate power in excess of that required for compression.
Although each of the above techniques is potentially applicable to
either 100 percent polymer solid wastes or to mixed wastes containing
polymers, it is generally conceded that they are still in the develop-
ment stage.
62
-------
d. Published Incineration Costs. Based on the data in the Interim
Report of the U.S. Public Health Service 1968 National Survey of Community
Solid Waste Practices, the average capital cost of 170 municipal incinera-
tors (including buildings, facilities, and engineering, but not land) is
about $6,000 per ton per 24-hour day of design capacity. Fifteen plants
reported capital costs above $11,000 per daily ton, and the highest re-
ported cost was $30,000 per daily ton. It is probably safe to assume
that the majority of the 170 plants included in that survey are old and
obsolete, and do not do an adequate job of air pollution abatement. Effi-
cient modern plants may be expected to require an initial investment on
the order of $10,000 to $15,000 per daily ton of design capacity, based
on municipal refuse as the incinerated material. Capital cost components
and their relative importance may bo grouped as follows: furnaces and
appurtenances (60% to 65%); building (20% to 30%); pollution control
equipment (8% to 10%); miscellaneous (7% to 13%).
The 1968 National Survey also provided data on operating costs of
municipal incinerators. For those 78 of the surveyed facilities that
actually weighed their incoming waste, the average operating cost was
about $5 per ton, with four of the facilities reporting operating costs
above $10 per ton. These costs include amortization, which normally
amounts to from 20 to 30 percent of the total. As in the case of re-
ported capital costs, it is probably safe to assume that the reported
average operating cost of $5 per ton represents mainly old plants of a
sophistication inadequate to comply with modern air pollution regulations.
Well run, modern plants may be expected to require an operating cost on
the order of $7 to $10 per ton.
It should of course be recognized that the total cost of waste dis-
posal by incineration must include the costs of initial collection, haul-
ing, and disposal of residue, if any. (Polymers alone produce no residue.)
63
-------
These costs are very labor-intensive and may easily exceed the actual
incinerator operating costs shown above. As an incinerator can usually
be located closer to the source of waste than can a sanitary landfill,
the hauling cost for the former is usually less.
C. Methods Based Primarily on Utilization
Virtually everyone would applaud any scheme whereby wastes could be
recycled or otherwise reused. Such recycling or utilization, of course,
implies economic feasibility. To qualify as an acceptable raw material,
wastes must prove competitive cost-wise with "natural materials.
Because reclamation methods involving use as a polymer are excluded
from our discussion of polymer solid waste utilization methods (see In-
troduction, page 1), this disposal category consists primarily of those
methods depending on the conversion of the wastes to nonpolymer forms or
functions. The most prominent among these functions are the use of the
wastes for their fuel value (to generate steam or power) and their use
as chemical raw materials (e.g., for a pyrolysis process),
1. Centralized Treatment and Disposal, with Options of Power and
Steam Generation. About a dozen large plants in Germany, most of them
built since 1964, are burning municipal refuse and generating power. Two
older plants are operating in Switzerland, one in Holland, and a new plant
in England. A plant to make steam is being built in Canada and two are
being built in Japan.
These water-wall incinerator plants cost more than the refractory-
chamber incinerators with inefficient air pollution control devices, and
American municipalities have avoided them simply because of this addi-
tional cost. The steam generating plants also require a higher caliber
64
-------
of operating personnel, normally one or more graduate engineers for super-
vision. However, now that the U.S. public is reassessing the value of
clean air relative to fuel economy, the incentive for power-generating
refuse plants should be much greater.
The concept of centralized treatment and disposal of all kinds of
industrial wastes is already beginning to catch on in the United States.
Prior to 1968, no such plants were operating on this continent. Three
facilities are planned to be onstream in 1970, and at least 20 others
are in various stages of design.
The pioneer plant of this kind is the one at Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
(owned by Goodfellow Enterprises, Ltd.), which has been running since mid-
1968. It handles 37 different liquid and solid wastes (produced by nine
different chemical and refining plants) via five different disposal methods,
while complying with all local air, ground, and water pollution regulations.
The company expects to have its second facility, near Toronto, completed
by the end of 1970, and is contemplating others in Canada and the United
States.9
Rollins-Purle, Inc. has scheduled an early 1970 startup of central-
ized, all purpose, industrial liquid and sludge waste treatment and dis-
posal units at Logan Township, New Jersey, and at Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
and has reportedly ordered equipment for 18 additional facilities of this
type. Chemtrol Pollution Services is planning a similar facility to serv-
ice the Buffalo, New York area."
Thus far, there are no reports that any of the above existing or
planned centralized treatment and disposal plants include steam or power-
generating facilities. On the other hand, steam generation is definitely
an integral part of the centralized facility planned to be built in the
Houston, Texas area by Consolidated Oxidation Process Enterprises, Inc.
(COPE). The proposed $5 million plant, designed to handle a quarter
65
-------
'.iiiion pounds of all types of solid and liquid wastes per year,
• -cii'oijlu for sale 100,000 pounds of low pressure steam per hour.
j t. port ecily has plans for putting up similar plants in at least three
. S locations. However, it is still waiting for a sufficient amount
u 'I'^nieed volume before beginning construction on even the first plant.
. nsjsteiieo on long-term, high-volume contracts has recently been
1,1 t lie Lopes of lining up more clients.
" vo are many advantages in centralized treatment and disposal as
•• 'i^nge solution to industrial solid waste management. An integrated
:,-• can employ an optimum combination of several disposal systems,
./signed for certain types of wastes. It is ideally suited ro con-
•- '.prration, to the handling of peak loads from individual customers,
'. the optimum blending of various wastes to facilitate disposal.
.'i"I on a sufficiently large scale, it should provide opportunities
. -.,>.;;..,3 c'il steam and power generation too attractive 10 ignore.
I. Py ro 1> si_s_. Pyrolysis is defined as the chemical change brought
o. ihe action of heat in the absence of air or oxygen. This proc-
•-:\ •.'.<--1=f.: for several hundred years Lo convert wood i:o charcoal,
-c, :t • ilc gas, and various organic by-products (notably methanol, acetic
o;i«J turpentine). As chemical technology has improved over t lie years,
. •: jiaciually has become imcompetitive with alternative synihesis
> : \ ,jr;sed on use of petroleum or natural gas) to most of these by-
'. i •: Recently, however, interest in pyrolysis has been revived as
•_:..!, lal means of upgrading municipal and industrial solid wastes,
ioing polj'mer wastes.
'y -;iyt:is of a comparatively homogeneous material (scrap auto tires)
-.; !-• in* a high pei'centage of organic polymer was recently investigated
,,S. Bureau of Mines. That study demonstrated the technical feasi-
-. ,k destructive distillation as a means for obtaining potentially
66
-------
-------
-------
REFERENCES
1. United States Tariff Commission. Preliminary report on U.S.
production and sales of plastics and resin materials. Revised
preliminary and December 1968 and January 1969. S.O.C. Series
P-69-1. Washington, Apr. 15, 1969. 4 p.
2. Parker, G. R. Strong demand brings bright earnings outlook.
Chemical & Engineering News, 47(36):64A-68A, Sept. 1, 1969.
3. Outlook for polyethylene is healthy. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(30):14-15, July 21, 1969.
4. Polypropylene: excess supply by 1971. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(6):15, Apr. 14, 1969.
5. PVC producers see good business ahead. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(32):18-19, Aug. 4, 1969.
6. Styrene forecast: rosy for the near term. Chemical & Engineering
News, 46(40):22-25, Sept. 22, 1969.
7. National Solid Wastes Management Association, and the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management. Sanitary landfill operation agreement
and recommended standards for sanitary landfill design and con-
struction. [Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1969. 44 p.
8. Sorg, T. J., and H. L. Hickman, Jr. Sanitary landfill facts. 2d ed.
Public Health Service Publication No. 1792. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970. 30 p.
9. Contract disposal catches on. Chemical Engineering, 76(25):138, 140,
Nov. 17, 1969.
69
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biodegradation
Meller, F. H. Conversion of organic solid wastes into yeast; an economic
evaluation. Public Health Service Publication No. 1909. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 173 p.
Canadian multiplant waste disposal unit starts up. Environmental Science
& Technology_,_ 3(1) : 13, Jan. 1969.
Wessel, C. J. Biodeterioration of plastics. SPE [Society of Plastics
Engineers] Transactions, 4(3);193-207, July 1964.
Centralized Disposal
Industrial waste: centralized disposal. Chemical & Engineering News,
46(52):18, Dec. 9, 1968.
Contract disposal catches on. Chemical Engineering, 76(25):138, 140,
Nov. 17, 1969.
Private contracting group sets solid waste disposal plans. Environmental
Science__& Technology, 1(11):873, Nov. 1967.
Faatz, A. C. A centralized facility for industrial waste disposal.
Presented at National Pollution Control Conference and Exposition,
Houston Junior Chamber of Commerce, Houston, Apr. 22-24, 1969.
Meanwhile, private ventures to dispose of industrial wastes are flourish-
ing. Chemical Engineering, 76(24):27, Nov. 3, 1969.
Multi-wastes disposal. Chemical Engineering, 75(10):93, May 6, 1968.
Compaction
American Public Works Association Research Foundation. The Tezuka
refuse compression system; a preliminary report. Cincinnati,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. 47 p.
70
-------
The city of Cleveland may solve some waste-disposal and public-works
problems at once. Chemical Engineering, 76(2):74, Jan. 27, 1970.
For solid wastes: squeeze and package. Chemical Week, 102(14):55,
Apr. 6, 1968.
[Hesse, G. Japan answers garbage crisis. San Francisco Sunday Examiner
& Chronicle, p.30, July 28, 1968.]
Rogus, C. A. High compression baling of solid wastes. Public Works,
100(6):85-90, June 1969.
Composting
Hart, S. A. Solid waste management/composting; European activity and
American potential. Public Health Service Publication No. 1826.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 40 p.
Irvine, R. L., Jr., A. D. Elbein, and A. W. Busch. Biological utilization
of polymers. Presented at Symposium on Treatment of Water from
Polymer Manufacture, American Institute of Chemical Engineers Sixty-
fifth National Meeting, Cleveland, May 4-7, 1969. Preprint 19a.
47 p.
Wiley, J. S., F. E. Gartrell, and H. G. Smith. Concept and design of
the joint U.S. Public Health Service-Tennessee Valley Authority
Composting Project, Johnson City, Tennessee. Compost Science,
7(2):11-14, Autumn 1966.
Wiley, J. S., and 0. W. Kochtitzky. Composting developments in the
United States. Compost Science, 6(2):5-9, Summer 1965.
The world isn't covered with feathers. Popular Science, 192(6):14,
June 1968.
Flammability of Polymers
Clarke, A. E., T. G. Hunter, and F. H. Garner. The tendency to smoke
of organic substances on burning. Part I. Journal of the Institute
of Petroleum, 32:627-642, 1946.
Coleman, E. H. Gaseous combustion products from plastics. Plastics,
24(264):416-418, Oct. 1959.
Essenhigh, R. H. Combustion behavior of thermoplastic polymer spheres
burning in air. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Project
Squid, Rice University, Houston, Feb. 2 and Mar. 1-2, 1966. 254 p.
71
-------
Fenimore, C. P., and F. J. Martin. Flammability of polymers. Combustion
and Flame, 10(2): 135-139, June 1966.
Gromov, B. A., V. V. Edemskaya, E. S. Torsueva, and Yu. A. Shlyapnikov.
Apparatus for studying the high-temperature oxidation of polymers.
International Chemical Engineering, 8(3):419-420, July 1968.
Incineration
Bulletin examines solids disposal/heat recovery. Hydrocarbon Processing,
48 (8): 200, Aug. 1969.
Cass, R. A. Smoke control design. Journal of Cellular Plastics,
3(1):41-43, Jan. 1967.
Connell, J. M. Our throw-away economy... a new source of fuel. Heat
Engineering, 41 (6) : 184- 1 89 , Nov. -Dec. 1966.
Corey, R. C. Bibliography on incineration of refuse and waste. Pitts-
burgh, Air Pollution Control Association, 1967. 300 p.
Corey, R. C., ed_^ Principles and practices of incineration. New York,
Wiley- Inters cience, 1969. 297 p.
DeMarco, J., D. J. Keller, J. Leckman, and J. L. Newton. Incinerator
guidelines-- 1969. Public Health Service Publication No. 2012.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 98 p.
Eberhardt, H. European practice in refuse and sewage sludge disposal by
incineration-- 1 . Combustion, 38(3):8-15, Sept. 1966.
Eberhardt, H. European practice in refuse and sewage sludge disposal by
incineration-- II. Combustion, 38(4):23-29, Oct. 1966.
Engdahl, R. B. , and J. D. Hummell. Power from refuse. American City^
83(9):119, 121-122, 124, Sept. 1968.
Incineration--a practical and scientific approach. Environmental Science
& Technology, 2(7) :524-534, July 1968.
Essenhigh, R. H. , and G. Gelernter. Systematic appraisal of incinerator
research requirements. Presented at Symposium on Air Pollution
Control Through Applied Combustion Science, Sixtieth Annual Meeting,
New York, Nov. 26-30, 1967. Preprint 37C. 31 p.
Fabian, V. H. , and H.-O. Weber. Die neue rueckstandverbrennungsanlage
der Farbenf abriken Bayer AG, Leverkusen. [The new residue combustion
plant of Farbenfabriken Bayer AG, Leverkusen.] Brennstof f-Waerme-
Kraft, 19(10) :484-486, Oct. 1967.
72
-------
Faessler, V. K., H. Leib, and H. Spaehn. Korrosionen an muellver-
brennungskesseln. [Corrosion in refuse incineration plants.]
Mitteilungen der Vereinigung der Grosskessbesitzer, 48(2):126-139,
Apr. 1968.
Fleming, R. R. Frank answers to some hot incinerator questions.
American City, 83(5):97-98, May 1968.
Fluid bed incinerators studied for solid waste disposal. Environmental
Science & Technology, 2(7);495-497, July 1968.
Frank, B. Removal of industrial wastes by incineration. Paper presented
at Symposium on Disposal of Process Wastes: Liquids, Solids, Gases.
ACHEMA Meeting, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Nov. 1964. Chemical
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1968. p.187-200.
Frankel, J. I. Incineration of process wastes. Chemical Engineering,
73(18):91-96, Aug. 29, 1966.
Garbage for health and power. Business Week, p.82, July 1, 1967.
Heat recovery makes garbage less a burden. Chemical Engineering,
74(18):72, 74, Aug. 28, 1967.
High-temperature combustion destroys pollutants. Chemical Engineering,
73(15):112, 114, July 18, 1966.
Hotti, G., and R. Tanner. How European engineers design incinerators.
American City, 84(6):107-108, 110-112, 147, June 1969.
Incineration may be the best way to get rid of discarded plastic items.
Chemical Engineering, 76(21):100, Oct. 6, 1969.
[Incinerator boiler makes money. Chemical Processing, 31(4):61, 1968.]
Incinerator spews superclean exhausts. Chemical Engineering, 75(12):60,
62, June 3, 1968.
Jet engines may someday help convert municipal waste to electrical
power. Chemical & Engineering News^ 45(52):59, Dec. 11, 1967.
Kaiser, E. R. Evaluation of the Melt-Zit high-temperature incinerator;
operation test report. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969. [116 p.]
Kaiser, E. R. Incineration of packaging wastes with minimal air
pollution. In Proceedings; First National Conference on Packaging
Wastes, [San Francisco], Sept. 22-24, 1969. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971. p.181-190.
73
-------
-------
Incineration of Chlorinated Organics
Solving waste problem profitably. Chemical Week, 104(24):38-
1969.
Ope^Jjump (Burning)_
Open fires: a necessity? Environmental bci.en
Aug. 1969.
Plastics Industries Statistics
Building products will take more than 710 million pounds ci ".:-•
chloride. Chemical & Engineering Ne_ws, 47(35):13? Aup, ',?f
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Shipments of selected plastics p'-o
1966. Current industrial reports. CIR Series KA-SODf-V,}
Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, Feb. 6, 1968,, 7
FDA approves clear, propylene-modified PVC compound. Plastic:-
25(1):22-25, Jan. 1967.
U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The cost
vver. v, 3, Industrial waste profiles. Mo. 10, PJ—' '•
als and resins. FWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-10. Washh-,-
Department of the Interior, 1967. 90 p,
Giant step up for plastics bottles. Chemical Week, 104(14) :47-
Apr. 5, 1969. ~~~
Goodyear tire paid more than $4 million cash, Chemical Week
May 10, 1969.
HI) polyethylene hurdles the billion-pound mark. Chjanmial Weec-:
10 2(14) : 40-42, Apr. 6, 1968.
Low-density polyethylene prices appear to be strengthening oc-:.
upward. Ch emi cal & Engineer ing News , 47(35):13, ,A ug - '-' '•
M&T makes some bets. Chemical Week, 103(5) :25, Aug. 3, 1968,
Outlook for polyethylene is healthy. Chemical & Engineer ing N-
47(30):14-15, July 21, 1969.
Packaging: big market for plastics. Chemical & Engineering \r-
47(6) :I69 Apr. 14, 1969. '
75
-------
Parker, G. R. Strong demand brings bright earnings outlook. Chemical
& Engineering News, 47(36);64A-68A, Sept. 1, 1969.
Plastic garbage bags get key test. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(21):7, May 19, 1969.
Plastics aplenty in '69 cars. Chemical Week, 103(13):22-23, Sept. 28,
1968.
Plastics industry profit guide. SPE [Society of Plastics Engineers]
Journal, 24(12);33-50, Dec. 1968.
Polypropylene: demand high, prices up. Chemical & Engineering News,
46(33):19-20, Aug. 5, 1968.
Polypropylene: excess supply by 1971. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(6):15, Apr. 14, 1969.
Polypropylene fiber outlook uncertain in light of poor showing so far
this year. Chemical & Engineering News, 47(33):21, Aug. 11, 1969.
Polypropylene resin is growing. Hydrocarbon Processing, 48(6):9,
June 1969.
Polystyrene: business looking good. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(33):15, Aug. 11, 1969.
PVC beer bottles gaining market in Europe. Chemical & Engineering News,
46(30):35-36, July 15, 1968.
PVC producers see good business ahead. Chemical & Engineering News,
47(32):18-19, Aug. 4, 1969.
Rapidly expanding production and falling prices. Chemical Week,
104(19):40, May 10, 1969.
Plastics Properties
Billmeyer, F. W. Jr., and R. Ford. The anatomy of plastics. Science &
Technology. No. 73:22-37, Jan. 1968.
[Organics plant duct choice: polyethylene that won't burn. Chemical
Processing, 32(5);53, 1969.]
Seymour, R. B. Plastics chemistry and engineering. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry, 61(8):28-41, Aug. 1969.
76
-------
Polymer Degradation
Bailey, W. J. Thermal decomposition of unsaturated materials. SPE
[Society of Plastics Engineers] Journal. 5(1):59-64, Jan. 1965.
Thermal and oxidative degradation of polymers. SPE [Society of Plastics
Engineers] Journal, 4(3):187-192, July 1964.
Neiman, M. B., ed. Aging and stabilization of polymers. New York,
Consultants Bureau, 1965. 365 p.
Polymer degradation mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Bureau of
Standards Semicentennial Symposium of Polymer Degradation Mechanisms,
Washington, Sept. 24-26, 1951. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Nov. 16, 1953. 280 p. (National Bureau of Standards Circular 525.)
Pyrolysis
Boettner, E. A., and B. Weiss. An analytical system for identifying the
volatile pyrolysis products of plastics. American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, 28(6):535-540, Nov.-Dec. 1967.
[Essenhigh, R. H. Combustion and pyrolysis of solids. Presented at
Annual Meeting, Project Squid, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
1967.]
Hoffman, D. A., and R. A. Fitz. Batch retort pyrolysis of solid municipal
wastes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2(11);1023-1026 ,
Nov. 1968.
Kaiser, E. R., and S. B. Friedman. The pyrolysis of refuse components.
Combustion, 39 (11):31-36, May 1968.
Madorsky, S. L., and S. Straus. Thermal degradation of polymers at high
temperatures. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of
Standards — A. Physics and Chemistry, 63A(3) ;261 -268, Dec. 1959.
McAlevy, R. F., III, and J. G. Hansel. Linear pyrolysis of thermo-
plastics in chemically reactive environments. AIAA [American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics] Journal, 3(2):244-249,
Feb. 1965.
Pyrolytic decomposition of solid wastes. Public Works, 99(8):82-83,
160, Aug. 1968.
Scrap tires: materials and energy source. Environmental Science &
Technology, 3(2):119, Feb. 1969.
77
-------
Wolf son, D. E., J. A. Beckman, J. G. Walters, and D. J,, Bennett.
Destructive distillation of scrap tires. U.S. Bureau of Mines
Report of Investigations 7302. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Sept. 1969. 19 p.
Rail Haul
Transfer stations assist refuse disposal. Public Works, 100(1): 74-76,
Jan. 1969.
Wright, G. Adding to the garbage. San Francisco Sunday Examiner &
Chronicle, Section B, p.3, Aug. 24, 1969.
Salvage, Reuse, Recycle
Bernstein, B. S., and J. Lee. Upgrading of by-product polypropylene.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, Product Research and Develop-
ment, 6(4):211-218, Dec. 1967.
Boyden, J. Automatic scrap recycling. Modern Plastics Encyclopedia
1965, 42(1A):904-906, 908, 910, 913, Sept. 1964.
[U.S. Bureau of Mines. Wealth out of waste; programs in solid waste
utilization. Unpublished data.]
Garbage in, merchandise out. Scientific American, 216(1):58, Jan. 1967.
Garbage: rosy new future as raw material. Chemical Engineering,
75(9):82-84, Apr. 22, 1968.
Glass makers launch solid waste program. Environmental Science &
Technology, 3(1):17, Jan. 1969.
Lipsett, C. H. Industrial wastes and salvage. Conservation and
utilization. New York, Atlas Publishing Co., Inc. 1963. 406 p.
More mileage from old tires? Chemical Engineering, 76(23):58, 60,
Oct. 20, 1969.
Power: make your own. Plastics World, 23(12);42-43, Dec. 1965.
Raus, J. E., and H. J. Fralish. How one major molder handles scrap and
regrind. Plastics Technology, 12(11):51-53, Nov. 1966.
78
-------
Reinhardt, J. J., and G. Rohlich. Solid waste reduction/salvage plant;
an interim report; City of Madison Pilot Plant Demonstration
Project, June 14 to December 31, 1967. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1968. 25 p.
Scheiner, L. L. How to handle scrap and regrind. Plastics Technology,
11(8):37-47, Aug. 1965.
Sheldrick, M. G. Better use of wastes spurs commercial application of
hot briquetting. Chemical Engineering, 74(25):140-142, Dec. 4,
1967.
Uniroyal is beginning a study of how the rubber industry controls and
re-uses its waste products. Chemical & Engineering News, 46(39):37,
Sept. 9, 1968.
Sanitary Landfill
Cartwright, K., and F. B. Sherman. Evaluating sanitary landfill sites
in Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental
Geology Notes, No. 27. Urbana, Aug. 1969.
County of Los Angeles, Department of County Engineers and Engineering-
Science, Inc. Development of construction and use criteria for
sanitary landfills; an interim report. Cincinnati, U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. [267 p.]
Cummins, R. L. Effects of land disposal of solid wastes on water
quality. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, 1968. 29 p.
Klein, S. New building constructed on sanitary landfill. Public Works,
99(10):125-126, Oct. 1968.
Jacobson, A. R. New methods increase landfill efficiency. Public
Works, 100(7):116, July 1969.
Sanitary fill supermechanized. American City, 80(12):20, Dec. 1965.
Steiner, R. L., and R. Kantz. Sanitary landfill; a bibliography. Pub-
lic Health Service Publication No. 1819. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1968. 37 p.
Stone, R., and E. T. Conrad. Landfill compaction equipment efficiency.
Public Works, 100(5) : 111 - 113, May 1969.
79
-------
Stone, R., E. T. Conrad, and C. Melville. Land conservation by aerobic
landfill stabilization. Public Works, 99(12) ;95-97, 138, 140,
Dec. 1968.
Stone, R., and H. Friedland. A national survey of sanitary landfill
practices. Public Works, 100(8):88-89, Aug. 1969.
80
-------
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Part I : Polymer Producers
Part II : Plastics Processors and Fabricators
Part III : Manufacturers of Waste Disposal Equipment
-------
-------
-------
4. What are company (or plant) prospects for significant changes in
either the generation or the salvage of polymer wastes?
What is the average physical form distribution of the total
polymer waste (prior to any processing to change form in order
to facilitate disposal)?
% as pellets
% as chopped or shredded
% as dust or fine powder
ro as random large pieces ( — 100 Ibs)
% as random small pieces ( < 100 Ibs)
% as other (specify:
How are total polymer wastes currently disposed oi?
% by incineration
% by sanitary land fill
% by open dump burning
% by open dump (no burning)
% by giving away (no control over end use)
c'o by other means (specify:
7. What changes in physical form of waste are currently required
specifically to facilitate disposal?
8. What are estimated total costs (including amortized equipment costs)
of polymer waste disposal? (Even a rough estimate would be helpful.)
$ per ton of polymer waste
Form PRU-7419-I
84
-------
What credits, if any, are realized from polymer waste disposal
(e.g. , power or steam generation)?
10. What special problems, if any, are associated with disposal of
specific polymer types?
11. What is management judgment of both the present and the long-term
acceptability of current disposal methods (i.e., in regard to cost,
continuing availability of land, safety, air or water pollution,
maintenance and downtime of disposal facilities, plant housekeeping,
public relations, etc.)?
12. What aspect of polymer waste disposal do you regard as most urgently
in need oi improved or alternative techniques?
What is the availability of other plant wastes (e.g., still bottoms)
that might be combined with polymer wastes to make some disposal
methods more feasible?
14. What other disposal methods have been, are being, or are planned to
be investigated (e.g., biodegradation, pyrolysis, low-temperature
oxidation, ultraviolet or gamma radiation, etc.)?
Form PRU-7419-I
85
-------
What are your recommendations for future development work on
disposal methods?
Form PRU-7419-I
86
-------
*
Budget Bureau No. 85-S68019
Approval Expires June 30, 1969
POLYMER SOLID WASTE SURVEY
PART II: PLASTICS PROCESSORS AND FABRICATORS
1. How much total polymer waste does company generate? (li disclosure
of total processing rate must be avoided, please report waste on
either a tonnage or a percentage basis, but not both.)
tons of waste per day
percent of virgin polymer processed becomes waste
2. What is the average composition of the total polymer waste, by
polymer type?
% polyethylene
% polypropylene
% polystyrene
% polyvinyl chloride
% other (specify: )
3. On the average, what are the principal contributory sources of the
total waste, and their relative magnitudes? (Please modify suggested
categories if necessary or appropriate.)
% normal spillage, contaminated
% off-spec product, not reclaimed
% equipment cleanout or maintenance
% solids removed from liquid or gaseous waste
effluent
% other (specify
This survey (under Contract No. PH 86-68-160, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service) has been approved by
the Bureau of the Budget, in compliance with the provisions of the
Federal Reports Act. Production and processing data provided by
individual companies will be treated in strict confidence, will be
used only for the express purposes of this study, and will be
reported only in the form of industry-wide aggregates or averages.
Form PRU-7419-II
87
-------
4. What are company (or plant) prospects for significant changes in
either the generation or the salvage of polymer waste?
What is the average physical form distribution of the total polymer
waste (prior to any processing to change form in order to facilitate
disposal)?
""c as pellets
% as chopped or shredded
% as dust or fine powder
% as sheet or film
% as fiber, cloth, or felt
% as random shaped pieces
% as other (specify:
How are total polymer wastes currently disposed of?
% by incineration
% by sanitary land fill
% by open dump burning
% by open dump (no burning)
% by giving away (no control over end use)
% by other means (specify:
7. What changes in physical form of waste are currently required
specifically to facilitate disposal?
8. What are estimated total costs (including amortized equipment costs)
of polymer waste disposal? (Even a rough estimate would be helpful.)
$ per ton of polymer waste
Form PRU-7419-II
88
-------
9. What credits, if any, are realized from polymer waste disposal (e.g.,
power or steam generation)?
10. What special problems, if any, are associated with disposal of speci-
fic polymer types?
11. What, is management judgment of both the present and the long-term
acceptability of current disposal methods (i.e., in regard to cost,
continuing availability of land, safety, air or water pollution.
maintenance and downtime of disposal facilities, plant housekeeping,
public relations, etc.)
What aspect of polymer waste disposal do you regard as most urgently
in need of improved or alternative techniques?
13. What other disposal methods have been, are being, or are planned to
be investigated by company?
14. What are your recommendations for future development work on disposal
methods?
Form PRU-7419-1I
89
-------
-------
Budget Bureau No, 85-868019*
Approval Expires June 30, 1969
POLYMER SOLID WASTE SURVEY
PART III: MANUFACTURERS OF WASTE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT
What types of disposal equipment does company make (e.g., incinerators
-•ize reduction equipment, compaction equipment, waste segregation
equipment, blending equipment, chemical reaction equipment, etc.)?
What special measures or precautions (il any) are required to enable
this equipment to handle polymer waste?
3. What unique or unusual capabilities does the equipment have?
Where is it presently used tor polymer waste disposal?
This survey (under Contract No, FH »b~6a-IbU3 Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service) has been approved by
the Dureau of the Budget, in compliance with the provisions of the
Federal Reports Act, Production and processing data provided by
individual companies will be treated in strict confidence, will be
used only for the express purposes of this study, and will be
reported only in the form of industry-wide aggregates or averages.
Form PRU-7419-II1
91
-------
5. What is the estimated waste handling capacity?
tons polymer waste per day
6. What is the total estimated cost (including amortized equipment
cost) of polymer waste disposal with this equipment?
$ per ton of polymer waste
7. What provisions (if any) does the equipment contain for eliminating
or controlling air or water pollution?
8. What (if any) claims are made regarding the quantitative adherence
of the equipment to pollution regulations?
9. What special provisions (if any) are included for disposal of par-
ticular wastes?
10o What special safety provisions (if any) are made?
11« What credits (if any) are realized from use of the equipment (e.g.,
power or steam generation)?
12. What future equipment improvements (if any) are anticipated?
yo372
Form PRU-7419-III
92
4U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1972 486-483/54 1-j
------- |