Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Growth Trends and New Drivers for
Recycling of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid
Plastics
March 2013
Resource Recycling, Inc. • PO Box 42270 Portland, OR 97242 • 503.233.1305 •
www.resource-recycling.com
1
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2
II. Study Objectives and Methodology ............................................................................. 4
III. Background ................................................................................................................ 4
IV. Research Findings ..................................................................................................... 7
V. Challenges and Barriers ........................................................................................... 13
VII. Moving Forward ...................................................................................................... 15
VIII. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 16
Appendix
A. Buyers Of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics
B. Full List of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs
C. Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs Only Accept Tubs and Lids
D. Case Studies
a. Napa, California
b. Fulton County, New York
c. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
d. Chapel Hill, North Carolina
E. Outreach and Education Materials
2
I. Executive Summary
Materials recovery in the United States is changing dynamically as recycling collection
services continue to expand to more households. Communities are increasingly offering
“single stream” recycling, which makes it easier for residents to recycle by eliminating
the need to pre-sort recyclables and allowing fiber, metal, glass and plastic recyclables
to be placed in one “single stream” container. In recent years, hundreds of communities
have expanded their existing plastics recycling programs beyond bottles and caps to
include non-bottle mixed rigid plastics1. This report examines the key factors driving
program expansion, evaluates barriers to future growth, and offers information to help
local decision makers address those barriers as they consider whether to include non-
bottle mixed rigid plastics in their community recycling programs.
Key factors driving program expansion are:
Underutilized capacity at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) due to
changes in recovery patterns. Even though household participation continues
to increase, MRFs are receiving lower total volumes of targeted materials than in
the recent past. As an example, MRFs are seeing about one-third less fiber
volume than six years ago, largely because of the decline in newspaper volume.2
The effect of this decline is that many MRFs are operating below capacity and
thus have available equipment and staffing capacity to handle more material.
Greater collection of rigid plastics via “tag-along” effect. In a phenomenon
described by many recycling program mangers as the “tag along effect,” more
rigid plastics are making their way into the collection process. This is due to a
number of factors including: migration from smaller bins to covered carts; greatly
increased capacity of larger bins; and consumers contributing more rigid plastics
due to confusion about which plastics are accepted by the communities’ recycling
program.
Expanded availability of rigid recycling programs. More programs are
specifically collecting mixed rigid plastics. As more communities add rigid plastics
to their lists of recyclables accepted curbside, this creates a “bandwagon effect”
with neighboring communities also seeking to expand their programs. Increased
supply also attracts more buyers into the market, thus strengthening the market
1 In this document, the terms "non-bottle mixed rigid plastics" and "mixed rigid plastics" are used
interchangeably. 2 Powell, Jerry. Resource Recycling: Independent Research. 2012
3
overall. This study showed that in at least twelve states, local recycling programs
added mixed rigid plastics in the past two years.
Better reach and understandability of recycling education is increasing
resident participation in programs. Findings show that local programs are
increasingly promoting recycling based on the packaging type (e.g., tub or
bucket) and on the product contained in the package (e.g. yogurt or margarine),
rather than on the resin type (e.g., high-density polyethylene or polypropylene).
Only 11 percent of the programs surveyed for this study rely solely on the resin
codes. Recycling based on packaging or product eliminates the need for
residents to check the resin code and simplifies recycling. This study concluded
that simplified recycling instructions and education is a contributing factor to
increasing rigid plastic recycling participation and recovery.
Greater demand for recycled resin derived from mixed rigid plastics. A
robust and growing market for mixed rigid plastics has emerged in the past five
years. Sixty percent of the recycling managers who were interviewed said that
large and consistent market demand for this material was the main reason that
they decided to include these materials in their programs.
Greater program simplicity and ease of recycling for residents. Quite simply,
more programs are accepting rigid plastics in single-stream recycling programs.
Continued success of local collection programs, recycling education, and
voluntary decisions to participate in recycling. All the successful program
expansions for rigid plastics recycling in this study were found to be a result of
private market dynamics, education, and organic growth. The researchers were
unable to correlate any program expansion with mandated recycling or recycled
content requirements.
While the trend lines are favoring continued expansion of rigids recycling. The study
also highlighted some concerns that could slow this expansion. These included
concerns over increased contamination, end markets remaining consistent and stable,
the lack of bale quality and consistency, issues with MRF’s ability to handle larger bulky
rigids, as well as the persistent concerns over the lack of funding for educational
initiatives. Lastly, in order to help guide communities interested in starting their own
mixed rigids recycling program, this report contains some recommendations for starting
a program, compiled a list of buyers of mixed rigids plastics, contains unique case
studies of four different communities, and some examples of their education and
outreach materials.
4
II. Study Objectives and Methodology
Objectives
Resource Recycling conducted a study between October 2011 and March 2012 to
provide an overview of the current landscape for recycling mixed rigid plastics (other
than bottles) in the United States, identify barriers to future growth, and identify key
trends likely to influence future growth. The research focused on examining local
recycling programs handling mixed rigid plastics.
This study was conducted with funding from the American Chemistry Council. The study
results may be useful to augment other data and programs of the American Chemistry
Council (ACC), the Association of Post-Consumer Plastic Recyclers (APR), and Moore
Recycling Associates.
Methodology
The data collection methodology involved first identifying active rigid recycling programs
from two key industry publications: Resource Recycling and Plastics Recycling Update.
Just fewer than 300 town, city, county and regional programs in 39 states were
identified as the core of the study (see Appendix B). The researchers then initiated a
series of information requests, surveys, and interviews to collect detailed information on
the identified programs.
Researchers conducted a survey of more than 5,000 recycling program managers in the
U.S., more than 500 domestic and foreign buyers of recovered plastics, and more than
600 Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) managers. Interviews were conducted with 42
managers of recycling programs in 19 states representing a wide range of scale and
scope of programs. Additionally, the researchers interviewed more than a dozen MRF
managers and ten buyers of mixed rigid plastics.
The resulting information was then analyzed and summarized in this report.
III. Background
Consumer use of plastics, including non-bottle mixed rigid plastic containers, continues
to grow3, and so does plastics recycling. Non-bottle mixed rigid plastics is one of the
3 For additional information on growth trends in consumer use of plastics, please visit the Reports and
Publications section of the American Chemistry Council's website: http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications
5
fastest growing areas of plastics recycling. The 2010 National Postconsumer Non-Bottle
Rigid Plastic Recycling Report, prepared by Moore Recycling Associates for the
American Chemistry Council (ACC), demonstrated that over the course of the past few
years, and particularly since 2008, the recovery of non-bottle mixed rigid plastics has
increased significantly. Additionally, in a 2011 survey of recycling programs in America’s
100 most populous cities, Moore Recycling Associates found that between 2008 and
2011 thirty percent of the largest U.S. communities expanded their recycling programs
to include recycling of more mixed rigid plastics (see Figure 1).
This data is consistent with the findings of our research (see Figure 2). We were able to
locate 288 programs in 39 states. Compiling a list of every program in the country was
beyond the scope of this study.
Figure 1. Chart from Moore Recycling Associates' 2011 report on plastics recycling patterns in the United States' 100 most populous cities.
6
States with Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs
Recovery System Changes an Important Factor in Material Inclusion
The findings of this research, especially those generated from the interviews with
program managers and MRF managers, shows that several current recovery system
trends help explain recent growth in collection volume and program participation. Two
aspects of the collection system are changing because the adoption of single stream
recycling has resulted in more collection capacity with fewer inspections. A 2010 study
by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)4 showed that the percentage of
the U.S. population that has access to single-stream recycling has exploded in recent
years, from just 29 percent in 2005 to 64 percent in 2010. “Single Stream” collection
enables residents to co-mingle all of their recyclable plastics, paper, metal and glass
together in a single bin, rather than placing these recyclables in separate bins by
material. Many residents no longer set out recyclables in multiple 12-to-14-gallon bins,
and as a result, these programs no longer require collectors to visually monitor or
inspect what is in each recycling container to avoid co-mingling. Residents increasingly
have larger 32-to-96-gallon carts containing fully co-mingled recyclables, which are then
directly emptied into recycling trucks with the material later separated at the MRF. The
4 American Forest & Paper Association: 2010 Community Survey. http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/exec_summ_2010.html
Figure 2. States that have recycling programs for non-bottle mixed rigid plastics are represented in light blue. New programs within the last two years are in dark blue.
7
key result is that residents are being provided with increased cubic volume for their
recyclables with no inspection step before the commingled material arrives at the MRF.
According to the recycling program managers and MRF executives interviewed, the
extra cubic volume from the larger lidded carts has invariably resulted in residents
placing materials into the cart that are not on the program’s list of officially accepted
items. Many of these managers believe that residents want to recycle more, and that
more materials resembling accepted items inevitably end up in the bin in single-stream
systems. Many program managers described this as a “tag along effect” because these
non-targeted items “tag along” with the targeted materials to the MRF.
Simultaneously, in just the last few years, larger societal trends with changing tastes,
preferences, and ways that Americans consume products and information has
fundamentally changed the flow of targeted materials to these MRFs. Fiber continues to
be the largest volume of material coming into a MRF, yet MRF operators are greatly
concerned about the decline in fiber volumes. One of the key drivers of the decline in
fiber consumption is newsprint. Americans are increasingly foregoing their daily
newspaper – which has also shrunk - and consuming information online. For example,
North American shipments of newsprint to publishers declined by 30 percent from 2008
through 2011.5 Therefore, a MRF designed just three years ago to serve a specific
community has typically seen its throughput decrease by 20 percent or more overall.
As a result, most MRF operators have excess equipment capacity as well as staff time
available to do sorting and baling. According to the recycling managers interviewed for
this study, a MRF that was at capacity in the recent past would have sent “tag along”
mixed rigid plastics to a landfill. However, now the MRF operator needs to optimize its
capacity and offset fixed costs by generating revenue from other materials coming into
his/her facility as long as those materials have decent market value. These two
important factors will likely continue to influence the macro environment for mixed rigid
plastics recycling for years to come.
IV. Research Findings
Growth in market demand for recycled resin underlies program expansion.
The increase in communities implementing programs to recover non-bottle mixed rigid
plastics can be attributed to a variety of factors, but one of the most important factors is
5 Forest Products Annual Market Review 2010-2011, prepared for the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
8
the strength and stability of domestic demand. In fact, 43 percent of survey respondents
explicitly mentioned the consistency and strength of market demand for this material as
a primary factor in their decision to officially include these materials (see Figure 3) in
their collection programs. The essential importance of predictable demand is consistent
with findings by other researchers, such as Moore Recycling Associates6.
In a finding that may surprise many recycling program managers, Resource Recycling
located more than 50 domestic and export buyers of recovered non-bottle mixed rigid
plastics (see Appendix A). In addition to including the reclaimers that process recycled
plastics for re-sale, the list includes a number of end-users that convert the scrap
plastics into new packaging, garden and yard products, railroad ties, and other
applications. Several of these end users are among the largest plastics recyclers in the
U.S., indicating that mixed rigid plastics have moved into the mainstream of plastics
recycling. Interviews with these buyers indicate that demand for these plastics is also
rising due to improved sorting and washing technology and increased interest by brand-
owners in using post-consumer recycled (PCR) resin.
Voluntary adoption and community demand have driven new programs.
In the absence of an official program, the tag along effect has enabled many
communities to quietly experiment with the processing and marketing of mixed rigid
plastics. Of the communities surveyed that yielded tag-along materials, 55 percent were
utilizing or had switched to single-stream collection. The presence of mixed rigid plastics
at facilities with surplus capacity allows communities to experiment with the sorting,
baling, and marketing of these materials before launching an official program
expansion. Upon lining up markets and fine-tuning their operations, it became easy to
officially add mixed rigid plastics to their collection programs.
A number of recurring themes were seen in response to the researchers’ question,
"Why did your program start accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for recycling?"
The word cloud shown in Figure 3 was generated to provide a visual representation of
frequently occurring responses from this survey question. The larger the size of the
word, the more frequently that word appeared in the responses. Note that “markets”
appears to be the most frequently occurring word, suggesting a key driver in the
establishment of mixed rigid plastics recycling programs has been the growth of
markets for recycled resin.
6 Moore, Patty. "Staying Flexible on Rigid Plastics." In Plastics Recycling Update, August 2009.
9
"Why did your program start accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for recycling?"
Not only has the growth of end markets for mixed rigid plastics material enabled
communities to officially launch programs, communities already collecting mixed rigid
plastics have increasingly decided to expand their programs. For example, the recycling
program in San Jose, California, has been accepting mixed rigid plastics since 1993. In
2009 market demand emerged for bulky rigids, and items such as laundry baskets and
plastic toys were added to the program the following year.
Of course, there have been additional factors playing a role in the expansion of these
programs including the desire to increase landfill diversion rates, avoidance of landfill
tipping fees, customer demand (residential and/or commercial), and a general sense
that recycling more materials is a positive contribution that communities can make for a
healthier environment. This differs from the historical experience when state recycling
laws drove collection decisions at the local level. Finally, and most interestingly,
Resource Recycling researchers could not identify a single instance where a community
added non-bottle mixed rigid plastics as a result of direct pressure from state agencies
or environmental interest groups.
Tubs and Lids
Figure 3 This word cloud, based on responses from 42 managers of recycling programs, demonstrates that markets played a prominent role in starting a non-bottle mixed rigid plastic recycling program.
10
The research showed that plastic tubs and lids used for products such as yogurt, sour
cream, and margarine are the most common form of non-bottle plastic packaging that
residents mistakenly put in their carts in communities not officially targeting mixed rigid
plastics. Our researchers located approximately three-dozen communities that limited
their collections of non-bottle mixed rigid plastics to just tubs and lids upon the official
expansion of their programs (see Appendix C). However, as mentioned in previous
sections of this report, since many of these program expansions have occurred in
communities with single-stream collection via carts with lids and no visual monitoring of
what is in the bin, these MRFs are naturally receiving mixed rigid plastics beyond just
the tubs and lids.
Outreach and education have increased participation.
Communities are using a broad variety of strategies to communicate with their residents
regarding which non-bottle mixed rigid plastic packages are accepted for recycling. A
program can describe these packages by their:
package type ("tubs"),
product type ("yogurt container"),
resin type ("polypropylene"), or
resin identification code ("#5").
As you can see in Figure 4, almost half the programs surveyed (46 percent) utilize a
combination of package or product type, alongside resin identification codes (RIC). Only
11 percent of communities surveyed rely exclusively on resin types and resin
identification codes.
11
How program managers inform customers about acceptable mixed rigid plastics
Furthermore, 14% percent of respondents noted that their education materials make
simple, comprehensive statements such as “we accept all plastics" or "all rigid plastics".
Unwanted materials in low volumes with no market value are still sorted out at the MRF
and landfilled with other residues.
As collection expands beyond bottles, many recycling program managers stressed the
need for strong visual guides and the use of flyers, posters and other imagery that
offered clarifying examples. Anecdotally, the recycling program managers surveyed
believed these types of communications have been the most successful within their
communities. Figure 5 below used in Orange County, North Carolina, displays a diverse
range of images and products collected in their program. Plastic lawn chairs, beach
toys, coat hangers, and plastic toys are among the pictures of items collected. Appendix
D contains more examples of how various recycling programs are conveying
information to residents. Additionally, several industry groups with a keen understanding
of how education drives recycling performance are experimenting with various initiatives
to better understand how different channels and means of communicating improve
recycling.
Figure 4. The survey asked (#) managers of recycling programs that collect non-bottle
mixed rigid plastics what language they use to communicate with their customers
12
Lastly, more than 90 percent of survey respondents said they have created a website
where they direct customers. Mailers, press releases, emails, e-newsletters and
signage (for drop-off centers) were also commonly used forms of communication.
Twenty-three percent of respondents reported using bill inserts, paid advertisements
and social media, most of which contained visuals.
Acceptance of Bulky Rigids
The term, "bulky rigids”, refers to larger items such as children’s swimming pools,
laundry baskets, and lawn furniture. Due to the challenges inherent with their size and
diverse resin types, bulky rigids are not always a component of programs that collect
mixed rigid plastics. However, 83 percent of program managers in our survey indicated
they are currently accepting bulky rigid plastic or are planning to expand their program
to collect them in the upcoming year. The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) is
Figure 5. Informational Brochure for Orange County Solid Waste Management, North
Carolina. Mixed rigids are collected only at drop-off centers which serve a predominantly
rural clientele.
13
focusing on better understanding bulky rigid plastic collection, and its research should
be available sometime in 2013.
V. Challenges and Barriers
Generally the mood of survey respondents regarding their recycling of mixed rigid
plastics was positive and upbeat. And while respondents generally expected their
programs to continue to grow, they pointed out several important lessons and issues
that remain challenges to more robust recycling.
1) Contamination. A commonly cited barrier to developing a more robust program
was contamination – not just of mixed rigid plastics – but of all materials. Some
programs have experienced problems in terms of material quality when residents
are allowed to drop-off mixed rigid plastics at unstaffed centers (for an in-depth
examination of this type of program, see Appendix E: Four Case Studies).
Although program managers report that consumers generally seem to want to do
the right thing, contamination remains an issue when non-accepted materials are
included in the recyclables stream by overzealous or careless customers. Metals
and electronics can be difficult to remove, and a few program managers reported
difficulty with buyers rejecting the material when it had high levels of metal
contamination. Interviewees offered advice and suggested ideas for addressing
contamination. Solutions included adding a pre-sort to the MRF line, separating
residential materials from commercial materials, segregating dirtier construction
and demolition (C&D) rigid plastics away from cleaner curbside material, and
running a slower MRF line.
2) Markets. Awareness of market conditions was a common theme among survey
respondents in regard to what the future might hold, both for expansion of their
own programs and for the expansion of mixed rigid plastics recycling nationwide.
Fifty percent of survey respondents highlighted the importance of markets in
establishing a strong mixed rigid plastics recycling program, and two program
managers specifically noted that future decisions will require a clear
demonstration of ongoing market demand. As discussed earlier in this report,
recycling program managers view the key to ongoing success with mixed rigid
plastics recycling to be consistent and strong domestic market demand. This
sentiment is echoed in research findings by Moore Recycling Associates, the
Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers and other experts on mixed rigid
plastics. And while market demand for mixed rigid plastics is considered steady
now, many program managers have years of experience dealing with commodity
markets, and thus are inherently nervous about future market development.
14
3) Bale Quality/Consistency. Some of the program managers, MRF operators,
and plastics buyers consulted for this research discussed the difficulty in
marketing baled material because of the lack of uniform terminology and bale
specifications. What might be allowed in a bale for one buyer may not be allowed
in the bale for another buyer. Nevertheless, programs generally attempt to
prepare bales that meet a specific buyer’s needs. In response to concerns about
contamination and meeting bale specifications, 58 percent of the programs
surveyed indicated that they provide special instructions to their residents
regarding how to prepare their materials for recycling, such as emptying and
rinsing any containers, removing caps and removing metal parts (especially
handles) in order to improve the program’s ability to comply with buyer
specifications. Industry-wide attention is being focused on the bale specification
issue. The Rigid Plastics Recycling Program of the Association of Postconsumer
Plastics Recyclers (APR) has worked for several years now to develop bale
specifications and terminology with the ultimate goal of creating more uniform
and consistent non-bottle rigids bales being marketed in North America. The
program's multi-stakeholder bale definitions subcommittee has developed model
bale specifications, and the specifications are available online at no cost. The
plastics recycling industry is working to promote broad adoption of these
specifications to help facilitate stronger domestic markets. Because of their
newness to the industry, the bale specifications have yet to be widely employed
but the industry is optimistic that wide scale adoption of these specifications will
bring greater transparency and opportunities for these bales.
4) MRF Issues. Another difficulty that survey respondents highlighted was the
sorting and handling of bulky rigids and the need for sufficient MRF space -- both
in terms of sortation and storage. Breaking down large materials like pools or
playground equipment can be troublesome and requires specialized handling
and equipment. Yet, if these items are not broken down, they may be too large to
make their way up the feed conveyor and into the baler. On the other end of the
size spectrum, small plastic bits and pieces were cited as problematic during
sortation.
5) Education and Funding. Lastly, some recycling managers expressed concern
about being able to adequately educate their residents about mixed rigid plastics
recycling, some citing lack of funds as the source of this concern.
15
VI. Recommendations to Communities.
The primary objective of this research was to understand the environment for recycling
mixed rigid plastics in the United States. A secondary objective was to provide guidance
to communities either testing the waters or contemplating expanding their programs to
include non-bottle mixed rigid plastic packaging. As a result, the interviews yielded
these best practices:
Start small and build the program in stages by first processing and selling the
“tag along” mixed rigid plastics packaging. See Appendix E: Four Case Studies
for multiple examples of this rollout strategy.
Add pre-sort stations to a MRF line. This will enable the targeting and removal of
higher value materials before they hit the screens.
Have a good understanding of the end markets and likely buyers. “Crunch the
numbers” by anticipating your supply, demand and the net value of the material
before expanding your program.
Forming partnerships with waste haulers and others in the recycling community
is critical.
When it comes to communicating a program expansion, keep the messaging as
simple as possible and use visuals.
Do not try to collect bulky rigids through curbside collection; instead direct these
materials to a drop-off center.
VII. Moving Forward
This research identified some key trends behind the increases in non-bottle mixed rigid
plastic recycling in the United States, and also explored what specific communities are
doing to successfully expand their programs. As mentioned in the outset of this work, of
the 19 states represented in this survey, 12 had a new mixed rigid plastics program
expansion, which started within the past two years.
As the environment for recycling continues to evolve and change, future research could
be conducted to develop a more robust understanding of the landscape. For example, a
more detailed look at the return on investment for establishing a mixed rigid plastics
recycling program would be extremely useful for many communities. Anecdotal
evidence from many of the program managers surveyed suggests these programs are
breaking even or turning a small profit. Yet, a detailed financial examination of the
profitability of these programs was beyond the scope of this project. Additionally,
16
tracking how new programs have progressed, how many new programs are created,
and whether the growth in domestic markets continues for post-consumer mixed rigid
plastics would also be helpful data. Conversely, it would also be interesting for
researchers to talk to recycling managers in communities that appear to have all or
most of the attributes needed to sustain an expansion to include non-bottle mixed rigid
plastics but have not done so. Finding out why they have not expanded their programs
would be instructive.
VIII. Acknowledgements
This research would not be possible without the financial support of the American
Chemistry Council and the advice and assistance of Patty Moore of Moore Recycling
Associates and Elizabeth Bedard of the Association for Postconsumer Plastic
Recyclers.
17
Appendix A
Buyers of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics
COMPANY CONTACT PHONE EMAIL APC Recycling Steve Anderson 860-663-1112 [email protected]
Avangard Innovative Jon Stephens 281-582-0700 [email protected]
Baycrest International Jim Fei 408-922-7288 [email protected] Berg Mill Supply Glen Martens 503-277-3691 [email protected]
Blue Ridge Plastics Alan Logan 330-699-2313 [email protected]
Bosgen Inc. Jeff Wang 617-928-0888 [email protected]
Carolina Fibre Keith Ayscue 336-275-4047 [email protected]
Concord Plastics, Inc, Marissa Kresge 570-453-0803 [email protected]
Consolidated Scrap Resources Marty Fogle 717-843-0931 [email protected]
Corridor Recycling Kenneth Kim 310-835-9109 [email protected]
CSI Plastics Steve Silver 508-829-7353 csiplastics@gmailcom
CRV Recovery Sammy Chan 562-229-1700 [email protected] Denton Plastics Dennis Denton 503-257-9955 [email protected]
Ecoplast Jose Perez 909-590-5730 [email protected]
Ekman Recycling Ron Benge 314-918-7744 [email protected]
Entropex Paul Trainor 519-332-0430 [email protected]
Envision Plastics Tamsin Ettefagh 336-342-4749 [email protected] Excel Development Ed Fodale 973-876-5000 [email protected]
First Star Recycling Lee Cornell 402-894-0003 [email protected]
Haycore Canada Michel Jacobs 613-445-3610 [email protected]
IntegriCo Composites Chris Brough 254-743-6423 [email protected] International Alloys Michael Schipper 973-543-0095 [email protected]
Kal Trading Lin Shen 905-272-7400 [email protected]
KMET International Richard Kistner 623-478-5493 [email protected]
KW Plastics Clint Pugh 334-566-1563x406 [email protected]
Laudadio Polymers Jose Boza 713-771-1142 [email protected]
Lynx Recyclers Eugene Imperato 408-988-2999 [email protected]
M & L Plastics May Lam 626-287-8899 [email protected]
Magic Bright Ltd. Tony Wong 852 23144468 [email protected] Merlin Plastics Tony Moucachan 604-522-6799 [email protected]
Ming's Recycling Kenny Luong 916-421-5054 [email protected]
Multi-Link International Denis Chan 908-464-9091 [email protected]
Nextlife Enterprises Robert Dishman 561-245-2592 [email protected]
New Wave Plastics Frank Soska 954-562-9402
Omni Resource Recovery Joe Castro 909-327-2900 [email protected]
Pacific West Recycling Services Ron Kemalyan 310-545-4972 [email protected] PARC Corp, Kathy Xuan 815-372-3500 [email protected]
Plastic Revolutions Emily Kelly 410-215-2780 [email protected] Polimeros Nacionales Jorge Inigo [email protected]
Polymer Network Rich Moody 336-623-6868 [email protected]
Putian Interntional Jim Lin 602-410-0825 [email protected]
PWR International Marco Kwan 916-930-9288 [email protected]
Recycling Revolution Brian Seskin 561-866-8866 [email protected]
18
Recyc RPM Luc Metivier 418-789-2450 [email protected]
Premier Group Recycling Steve Grossomanides 877-488-7773 [email protected]
Smart International Jim Treadway 713-856-0000 [email protected] St. Joseph Plastics Rob Starr 816-279-1415 [email protected]
Suncrest Recycling Frank Bentivegna 561-939-8888 [email protected]
T & T Group Suren Marwaha 282-788-3012 [email protected]
Talco Plastics Bill O’Grady 951-531-2000 [email protected] United Fibers Lucy Xu 908-354-9600 [email protected]
Universal Commodity Services William Carabano 347-587-5987 [email protected]
Vista Paper Recycling Kori McKinney 480-966-3304 [email protected]
Waste Management Ralph Taylor 770-409-7411 [email protected]
Zmax USA Jay Wong 626-594-6226 [email protected]
*Note that a wide variety of bale specifications are employed by these firms. For example, some buyers
target bulky rigids, such as crates, pails and buckets, while others may specialize in handling food
containers, such as tubs and trays.
19
Appendix B
Full List of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics
Recycling Programs
Program City State First
Name Last Name Email
Valley Citizens For Recycling Solutions, Matsu Borough Palmer AK Terry Koch
Kodiak Island Borough, Threshold Recycling Kodiak AK Ken Reike
City Of Rogers Rogers AR Jerrold Haley [email protected]
City Of Siloam Springs Siloam Springs AR Kristy Dee [email protected]
Boston Mountain SWMD Springdale AR Maylon Rice
City Of Conway Conway AR Angie Howard [email protected]
Fayetteville Solid Waste And Recycling Fayetteville AR Brian Pugh
City Of Phoenix Phoenix AZ Terry Gellenbeck [email protected]
City Of Sedona Sedona AZ Jill Mccutcheon [email protected]
City Of Tucson Tucson AZ Fran Lasala [email protected]
City Of San Diego San Diego CA Ken Prue [email protected]
City Of Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA Eric Lohela [email protected]
Sonoma County Santa Rosa CA Karin Chilcot [email protected]
City Of San Francisco San Francisco CA Alex Dmitriew [email protected]
City Of Atherton Atherton CA
City Of Belmont Belmont CA
City Of Burlingame Burlingame CA
City Of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto CA
City Of Foster City Foster City CA
City Of Fremont Fremont CA Kathy Cote [email protected]
City Of Hillsborough Hillsborough CA
City Of La Mesa La Mesa CA Scott Munzenmaier [email protected]
City Of Menlo Park Menlo Park CA Rebecca Fotu [email protected]
W Bay Sanitary District Menlo Park CA
City Of Napa Napa CA Kevin Miller [email protected]
Napa County Napa CA David Briggs [email protected]
City Of Paradise Paradise CA
City Of Patterson Patterson CA David Gonsalves [email protected]
City Of San Carlos San Carlos CA
City Of San Jose San Jose CA Skip Lacaze [email protected]
City Of San Jose San Jose CA Robert Harvie [email protected]
20
City Of San Mateo San Mateo CA Rozanne Murray [email protected]
San Mateo County San Mateo CA Monica Divencenzi [email protected]
Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz CA Jeffrey Smedberg [email protected]
City Of Sonoma Sonoma CA
City Of Palmdale Dpw Palmdale CA Benjamin Lucha [email protected]
City Of Elk Grove Waste Management Elk Grove CA Cedar Kehoe
City Of Redding Redding CA Christina Piles [email protected]
Huntington Beach DPW
Huntington Beach CA Debra Jubinsky
City Of San Francisco San Francisco CA Hilary Near [email protected]
Santa Monica Public Works Santa Monica CA Wes Thompson
Aurora Single-Stream Drop-Off Aurora CO Don Roche
Ecocycle Boulder CO Eric Lombardi [email protected]
City Of Denver Denver CO Charlotte Pitt [email protected]
Larimer County Fort Collins CO Rose Watson [email protected]
Alpine Waste & Recycling
Commercial City CO John Griffith
City Of Denver Denver CO Charlotte Pitt [email protected]
Boulder County Recycling Center Boulder CO Jeff Callahan
Ct Resource Recovery Hartford CT Paul Nonnenmacher [email protected]
City Of New Haven New Haven CT Lisa Dinicola
Town Of Granby Granby CT Sally Crapster [email protected]
District Of Columbia Washington DC Bill Easley [email protected]
Dswa (State Of De) Dover DE Rich Von Stetten [email protected]
Escambia County Cantonment FL Dee Dee Green [email protected]
Okaloosa County Crestview FL Jim Reece [email protected]
City Of Deerfield Beach
Deerfield Beach FL Cheryl Miller
Volusia County Deland FL Regina Montgomery [email protected]
City Of Jacksonville Jacksonville FL Loretta Major [email protected]
Monroe County Key West FL Colleen Murphy [email protected]
Citrus County Lecanto FL Owen Carney [email protected]
Leon County Tallahassee FL Cynthia Brantley [email protected]
Indian River County Vero Beach FL Himanshu Mehta [email protected]
Polk County Winter Haven FL Betty Cannons [email protected]
Broward County Broward FL Phillip Bresee [email protected]
Marion County Ocala FL Dennis Slifer [email protected]
Palm Beach County West Palm Beach FL Patti Hammond
Lee County Fort Meyers FL Emory Smith [email protected]
City Of Smyrna Smyrna GA Kathy Chapman [email protected]
Barrow County Winder GA Shannon Navarre [email protected]
21
Roswell Recycling Center Roswell GA
Recycling Revolution Unadilla GA Brian Seskin [email protected]
City Of Roswell Roswell GA
Dmc Regional Waste Comm Burlington IA Darven Kendall
Winneshiek County Decorah IA Terry Buenzow [email protected]
N Central Iowa Rswa Fort Dodge IA Deb Watson [email protected]
Great River Reg Waste Auth Fort Madison IA Wade Hamm
Nw Iowa Area Swa Sheldon IA Larry Oldencamp [email protected]
Ada County Boise ID Ken Wall [email protected]
City Of Boise Boise ID Pamela Williams [email protected]
City Of Pocatello Pocatello ID Debby Brady [email protected]
Town Of Aledo Aledo IL
Town Of Annawan Annawan IL
Town Of Atkinson Atkinson IL
Town Of Bradford Bradford IL
Town Of Cambridge Cambridge IL
Town Of Canton Canton IL
Town Of Cuba Cuba IL
Town Of Fyre Lake Fyre Lake IL
Town Of Galva Galva IL
Lake County Gurnee IL Peter Adrian [email protected]
Will County Joliet IL Marta Keane [email protected]
Town Of Lewiston Lewiston IL
Town Of Mineral Mineral IL
Town Of Neponset Neponset IL
Town Of Orion Orion IL
Town Of Peoria Heights Peoria Heights IL
Town Of Princeville Princeville IL
Town Of Reynolds Reynolds IL
Town Of Toulon Toulon IL
City Of Urbana Urbana IL Courtney Rushforth [email protected]
Town Of Williamsfield Williamsfield IL
Town Of Wyoming Wyoming IL
City Of Springfield Springfield IL Wynne Coplea [email protected]
Posey County Swd Mount Vernon IN Patricia Colbert [email protected]
Starke County Env Mgmt Knox IN Carrie Trent
City Of Andover Andover KS
City Of Bel-Aire Bel-Aire KS
Coffey County Burlington KS Todd Bemis [email protected]
City Of Mission Hills Mission Hills KS
City Of Mission Mission KS
22
Woods Woods
City Of Olathe Olthe KS Kent Seyfried [email protected]
City Of Overland Park Overland Park KS Jim Twigg [email protected]
City Of Shawnee Shawnee KS
City Of Louisville Louisville KY Pete Flood [email protected]
Town Of Bedford Bedford MA Carolyn Dann [email protected]
City Of Boston Boston MA Susan Cascino [email protected]
City Of Cambridge Cambridge MA Randi Mail [email protected]
Town Of Hamilton Hamilton MA Gretel Clark
City Of Lowell Lowell MA Gunther Wellenstein [email protected]
Town Of Wellesley Wellesley MA Gordon Martin [email protected]
City Of Northhampton Northampton MA Karen Bouquillon [email protected]
Baltimore County Baltimore MD Charles Reighart [email protected]
Prince Georges County
Upper Marlboro MD Marilyn Rybak
City Of College Park College Park MD Stacey King [email protected]
Howard County Ellicott City MD Alan Wilcom [email protected]
City Of Rockville Rockville MD
Montgomery County Rockville MD Tom Kusterer [email protected]
Calvert County MD Bill Teter [email protected]
Prince George's County MD Carol Bracaglia
Montgomery County Rockville MD Gabriela Monzon-Reynolds [email protected]
Pleasant River Solid Waste Columbia Falls ME Bob Grant
Dover-Foxcroft Recycling Dover ME Joe Sands
City Of Ellsworth Ellsworth ME Leann Beal [email protected]
Boothbay Regional Disp. Dst. Fairpoint ME Steve Lewis
Sandy River Recycling Assn Farmington ME Ron Slater
City Of Oakland Oakland ME John Thomas
Ecomaine Portland ME Shelley Dunn [email protected]
City Of Rockland Rockland ME Dave St Laurent [email protected]
City Of Saint George Saint George ME Ray Emerson [email protected]
Tomra/Returnable Serv. Inc. ME Beth Milligan
Mid Coast Solid Waste Corp ME Jim Guerra
City Of Ann Arbor Ann Arbor MI Nancy Stone [email protected]
Kent County Grand Rapids MI Dennis Kmiecik [email protected]
City Of Holland Holland MI Mary Ann Hensley [email protected]
Delhi Township Holt MI
Emmet County Petoskey MI Elisa Seltzer [email protected]
23
Kandiyohi County Kandiyohi Station MN Nathan Reinbold
Redwood County Redwood Falls MN Brian Sams [email protected]
City Of Shorewood Shorewood MN Julie Moore [email protected]
City Of Willmar Willmar MN
Saint Louis County Clayton MO John Haasis [email protected]
Gallatin Bozeman MT Martin Bey [email protected]
Haywood County Clyde NC Stephen King [email protected]
Macon County Franklin NC Joel Ostroff [email protected]
Town Of Fuqua Virina Fuqua Virina NC Gabriel Briley [email protected]
Orange County Hillsborough NC Blair Pollock [email protected]
Wake County Raleigh NC Meghan Oconnor [email protected]
City Of Fayetteville Fayetteville NC Gerald Dietzen [email protected]
City Of Greensboro Greensboro NC Nancy Jimerson [email protected]
City Of High Point High Point NC Rebecca Coplin [email protected]
First Star Recycling (Firstar Fiber) Omaha NE Lee Cornell
City Of Omaha Omaha NE Paul Dunn [email protected]
Town Of Canterbury Canterbury NH Adrienne Hutchison [email protected]
Bcep Solid Waste Pittsfield NH Earl Weir [email protected]
Town Of Derry Derry NH Joanie Cornetta [email protected]
Cape May County Cape May Crthse NJ Bridget O'connor
Sussex County Lafaytette NJ Reenee Casapulla [email protected]
Burlington County Mount Holly NJ Isaac Manning [email protected]
City Of Hoboken Hoboken NJ John Pope [email protected]
Borough Of Neptune City Neptune City NJ Gerrit Devos
Borough Of Sea Girt Sea Girt NJ Jared Mckittrick [email protected]
Borough Of S Plainfield
South Plainfield NJ Alice Tempel
Galloway Township Galloway NJ Barbara Fiedler [email protected]
City Of Las Cruces Las Cruces NM Bonnie Tafoya [email protected]
City Of Truth Or Consequences
Truth Or Consquences NM Leonard Carrillo
City Of Beacon Beacon NY
Fulton County Johnstown NY Dianne Woske [email protected]
Westchester County White Plains NY Marianne Petronella [email protected]
Van Wert Swmd Van Wert OH George Brake [email protected]
City Of Oklahoma City Oklahoma City OK Jim Lin [email protected]
Klamath County Klamath Falls OR Dan Coen [email protected]
City Of Albany Albany OR
City Of Bandon Bandon OR
City Of Banks Banks OR [email protected]
City Of Beaverton Beaverton OR Scott Keller [email protected]
City Of Bend Bend OR Brad Bailey [email protected]
24
City Of Brookings Brookings OR
City Of Canby Canby OR [email protected]
City Of Central Point Central Point OR
City Of Cornelius Cornelius OR [email protected]
City Of Corvallis Corvallis OR
City Of Cottage Grove Cottage Grove OR
City Of Durham Durham OR [email protected]
Lane County Eugene OR Sarah Grimm [email protected]
City Of Fairview Fairview OR [email protected]
City Of Florence Florence OR
City Of Forest Grove Forest Grove OR [email protected]
City Of Gladstone Gladstone OR [email protected]
Curry County Gold Beach OR
City Of Gresham Gresham OR Dan Blue [email protected]
City Of Happy Valley Happy Valley OR [email protected]
City Of Hillsboro Hillsboro OR [email protected]
Washington County Hillsboro OR Heather Robinson [email protected]
City Of Independence Independence OR
City Of Junction City Junction City OR Elaine Payne [email protected]
City Of Keizer Keizer OR
City Of King City King City OR [email protected]
City Of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego OR Susan Millhauser [email protected]
City Of Lebanon Lebanon OR
City Of Lincoln City Lincoln City OR
City Milwaukie Milwaukie OR [email protected]
City Of Molalla Molalla OR [email protected]
City Of Monmouth Monmouth OR
City Of Newberg Newberg OR
City Of North Bend North Bend OR
City Of North Plains North Plains OR [email protected]
City Of Oregon City Oregon City OR [email protected]
Clackamas County Oregon City OR Rick Winterhalter [email protected]
City Of Philomath Philomath OR
City Of Portland Portland OR Bruce Walker [email protected]
City Of Redmond Redmond OR Brad Bailey [email protected]
City Of Reedsport Reedsport OR
City Of Roseburg Roseburg OR
Douglas County Roseburg OR Chris Mccullough [email protected]
City Of Salem Salem OR
City Of Sandy Sandy OR [email protected]
City Of Sherwood Sherwood OR [email protected]
City Of Silverton Silverton OR
City Of Stayton Stayton OR
City Of Sweet Home Sweet Home OR
City Of Tigard Tigard OR [email protected]
25
City Of Troutdale Troutdale OR [email protected]
City Of Tualatin Tualatin OR [email protected]
City Of West Linn West Linn OR [email protected]
City Of Wilsonville Wilsonville OR Dan Knoll [email protected]
City Of Woodburn Woodburn OR
Lane County Eugene OR Kelly Bell [email protected]
City Of Beaverton Beaverton OR Thomas Ebert [email protected]
Centre County Bellefonte PA Joanne Shafer [email protected]
Chester County Navron PA Nancy Fromnick [email protected]
City Of Philadelphia Philadelphia PA David Biddle [email protected]
Elk County Community Recycling Center St. Mary's PA Bekki Titchner
Cranberry Township Cranberry PA Lorin Meeder [email protected]
City Of Sioux Falls Sioux Falls SD Aimee Ladonski [email protected]
City Of Nashville Nashville TN David Himes [email protected]
Knox County Knoxville TN Drew Thurman [email protected]
City Of Denton Denton TX Shirlene Sitton [email protected]
City Of Fort Worth Fort Worth TX Debbie Branch [email protected]
City Of Galveston Galveston TX Gene Williamson [email protected]
City Of Mcallen Mcallen TX Chris Lash [email protected]
City Of San Antonio San Antonio TX Stephen Haney [email protected]
City Of Austin Austin TX Bob Gedart [email protected]
Ecology Action Austin TX Susannah [email protected]
City Of Houston Houston TX Sarah Mason [email protected]
City Of Allen Allen TX Kathy Keller-Mielke [email protected]
City Of Lewisville Lewisville TX Lisa Weaver [email protected]
City Of Dallas Dallas TX Sheila Overton [email protected]
City Of Denton Denton TX Victoria Hodge [email protected]
City Of Arlington Arlington VA
Town Of Blacksburg Blacksburg VA Karen Day [email protected]
Shenandoah County Edinburg VA Brad Dellinger [email protected]
City Of Fairfax Fairfax VA David Ray [email protected]
Newsport News Newsport News VA Mayi Henriquez
Fauquier County VA Trish Ethier [email protected]
S Windsor/Windham Co Swd Ascutney VT Mary Ann O'brien
Ne Kingdom Waste Mgmt Dist Lyndonville VT Paul Tomasi
Addison County Middlebury VT Teri Kuczynski [email protected]
Rutland Co Solid Waste Dist Rutland VT Deane Wilson
Chittenden Solid Waste Dist Williston VT Brian Wright
Chittenden Solid Williston VT Nancy Plunkett [email protected]
26
Waste District
City Of Bellevue Bellevue WA Jennifer Kaufman [email protected]
City Of Seattle Seattle WA Tim Croll [email protected]
City Of Vancouver Vancouver WA Rich Mcconaghy [email protected]
Clark County Vancouver WA Rob Guttride [email protected]
King County Seattle WA Bill Reed [email protected]
City Of Vancouver Vancouver WA Elsie Deatherage [email protected]
Village Of Brooklyn Brooklyn WI
City Of Fitchburg Fitchburg WI Rick Eilertson [email protected]
Village Of Germantown Germantown WI
City Of Madison Madison WI George Dreckmann [email protected]
Village Of Shorewood Hills Madison WI Denny Lybeck
Manitowoc County Manitowoc WI Jon Reisenbuechler [email protected]
City Of Milwaukee Milwaukee WI Rick Meyers [email protected]
Village Of Oregon Oregon WI
Town Of Pleasant Springs Stoughton WI
Town Of Verona Verona WI
Village Of Waunakee Waunakee WI
Valley Citizens For Recycling Solutions, Matsu Borough Palmer AK Terry Koch
27
Appendix C
Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs
Which Only Accept Tubs and Lids
Ashland, Oregon
Austin, Texas
Boulder, Colorado
Brattleboro, Vermont
Burien, Washington
Cary, North Carolina
Cave Junction, Oregon
Central Point, Oregon
Coos Bay, Oregon
Creswell, Oregon
Denver, Colorado
El Dorado County, California
El Paso, Texas
Eugene, Oregon
Gainesville, Florida
Grants Pass, Oregon
Houston, Texas
Independence Township, Michigan
Josephine County, Oregon
Kirkland, Washington
Klickitat County, Washington
Lane County, Oregon
Leon County, Florida
Louisville, Kentucky
Medford, Oregon
Mountain View, California
Olympia, Washington
Ottuma/Wapelo County, Iowa
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Plymouth Township, Michigan
Springfield, Oregon
Tacoma, Washington
Tallahassee, Florida
Thurston County, Washington
White City, Oregon
28
Appendix D
Four Case Studies
The following four case studies were developed to illustrate key concepts
described earlier in this report. Each case study examines a specific program but does
not attempt to explore similarities and differences across them. The case studies
describe four programs that are collecting and recycling non-bottle mixed rigid plastics
and explores how they got started, lessons learned, and advice for other program
managers considering expanding into non-bottle rigid plastics collection and processing.
29
Case Study: Napa Recycling and Waste Services Napa, California
www.naparecycling.com Kevin Miller, Solid Waste/Recycling Manager
(707)257-9200 x7291 [email protected]
Tim Dewey-Mattia, Public Education Manager (707)255-5200 x1204
Program Description
The City of Napa has been accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for recycling for five
years. Though Napa is often associated with the rural/agricultural wine country, this
program predominantly services the suburban county population. The program is based
on a cost-revenue and cost-share agreement between the City of Napa and Napa
Recycling and Waste Services. Both parties became interested in collecting non-bottle
mixed rigid plastics when they identified opportunities for a net increase in revenue and
additional diversion from landfill, particularly because their customers were already
putting some of these materials in their single-stream curbside collection. In addition to
curbside service, materials in Napa are collected at drop-off centers and from
commercial customers, including some materials from a construction and demolition
waste sorting operation adjacent to the MRF.
Acceptable Materials
With the exception of polystyrene, the program accepts all non-bottle mixed rigid
plastics, including packaging and bulky rigids. Customers
are asked to rinse out tubs and containers, and to break
down items longer than 36 inches.
Outreach and Education
Napa Recycling's outreach materials highlight package
and product type (e.g. "yogurt tubs") as well as using the
resin identification codes (e.g. "#5") (see Figures 6 and 7).
For the sake of simplicity, Napa generally promotes that
they accept all plastics except plastic bags and
polystyrene. The program connects with its customers
through mailers, press releases, emails and e-
newsletters, a website, signage at the recycling facility,
Figure 6. Napa Recycling outreach graphic from their website:
www.naparecycling.com
30
bill inserts and a recycling guide which is available online and in local phone books.
Collection & Processing
Curbside collection is overseen by a private operator under contract to the city to bring
materials to a publicly-owned facility. At the MRF, materials are sorted off the tip floor,
during pre-sort (prior to disc screens) and off the container sort line for the smaller
mixed rigid plastics. Bulky rigids are pulled off during the pre-sort. Mixed plastics (#2-#7)
are baled together, and the material is sold to plastic brokers who deal in the export
market. The only requirement imposed by buyers is to keep out non-accepted materials
such as polystyrene. There is no need to remove metal handles.
Lessons Learned
In 2007, without publicizing it, Napa Recycling and Waste
Services started sorting out non-bottle mixed rigid plastics
and were able to recover roughly 217 tons annually of
what were at the time considered "contaminants." They
officially announced the acceptance of non-bottle mixed
rigid plastics in 2008, and by 2010 they were collecting 340
tons and in 2011 collection had increased to 576 tons of
mixed rigid plastics. Napa Recycling's experience is a solid
example of how expanding a program can be a relatively
low-risk endeavor. In this case residents were already
placing enough “tag along” materials into their recycling
bins to demonstrate the economic viability of an official
expansion. For others considering an expansion, Napa’s program managers encourage
the addition pre-sort stations to any MRF line, as this enables the targeting and removal
of higher value materials before they hit the screens.
Figure 7. Napa Recycling outreach
graphic from their website: www.naparecycling.com
31
Case Study: Fulton County Solid Waste Department Johnstown, New York
www.fultoncountyny.gov/dsw/Recycle/index.htm Dianne Woske, Recycling Coordinator
(518)736-5501 [email protected]
Program Description
Dianne Woske, recycling coordinator at the Fulton County Solid Waste Department in
rural New York (population: 55,531), noted
that about 12 years ago the County was
sorting out as residual a fair amount of
mixed rigid plastics in its dual-stream
curbside collection program (residents
separate fiber from glass, plastic and metal
containers) and six drop-off centers.
However, in 2003, when a buyer from
Haycore Canada touring their MRF noted
that the materials were valuable on their
own, Fulton County decided to assess the
opportunity to expand its program to
include these materials. Targeting all the plastics that "incorrectly" made their way into
the collection stream, Fulton County ran an in-house pilot to get a sense of how formally
accepting these mixed rigid plastics would potentially develop. In 2006 Fulton County
unveiled a public campaign and officially welcomed rigid plastics into its collection
streams. Woske reports that after two years of monitoring, Fulton County found it easy
to make the transition. See Figure 8.
Acceptable Materials
Fulton County residents can recycle a "tub-lid mix" (including flexible, stackable tubs,
cups and pails), as well as "cloudy" plastics such as ketchup or iced tea bottles. Bulky
rigids are not accepted, nor do they plan to incorporate these materials in the near
future.
Outreach and Education
Non-bottle mixed rigid plastics are described in terms of their package and product type
(e.g. "margarine tubs"), as evidenced by the downloadable poster on the Fulton County
Figure 8. Mixed Rigids Tonnage in
Fulton County, NY
32
website (see Figure 9). Outreach materials include press releases, public service
announcements, a website (which includes a recycling calendar), signage at the
recycling facility, brochures and posters at municipal offices.
Collection & Processing
Non-bottle mixed rigid plastics are collected through their agency-run, dual-stream
curbside collection program and at six drop-off centers. Staff remove any metal handles
and afterward processing consists of a hand sort from a conveyor line. Material is baled
and Fulton County seeks competitive bids
from about 15 regular plastics buyers.
Buyers generally require that the bales
exclude PET, chemical or motor oil bottles,
and black microwavable trays.
Lessons Learned
The strategy of setting up the program in
stages serves as an excellent model for
other communities interested in establishing
their own program. Starting with the goal of
reducing total MRF residue, rural Fulton
County has now been operating
successfully and profitably since 2006 - and
has experienced approximately a 12 percent
reduction in overall MRF residue. Woske
speculates that communities with similar
programs (dual-stream curbside collection,
hand-sort MRF) that are already separating
plastics into several different streams (PET,
HDPE-natural, HDPE-color) could easily
incorporate mixed rigid plastics, as they
would only need one more bunker and the
room to store another product. She notes
that "this was a very easy inclusion from (a)
collection and MRF (perspective)," and that
the program has made a very positive
impression at the state level from the recycling community.
Figure 9. Customer flier available on Fulton County's
website: www.solidwaste.fultoncountyny.gov/Recycle/index.htm
33
Case Study: Milwaukee Recycles Milwaukee, Wisconsin
www.milwaukeerecycles.com Rick Meyers, Recycling Specialist
(414)286-2334 [email protected]
Program Description
The Milwaukee Recycles program has been accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for
about a year through a single-stream collection system. Based on the strength and
stability of markets for these materials, the City set up a small-scale pilot project for a
trial run. The initial success with this half-year test for sorting out tubs and lids from a
single-stream collection system led to official acceptance and program expansion to a
wider variety of non-bottle mixed rigid plastics. The program serves an urban population
and the estimated collection of this material is roughly 500 tons per year.
Acceptable Materials
Milwaukee Recycles accepts # 1, 2, 4 and 5 plastics, including bulky rigids such as five
gallon buckets. They ask customers to empty and rinse food and beverage containers,
and they prohibit buckets with paint or product residue.
Outreach and Education
As can be seen in Figure 10,
Milwaukee Recycles emphasizes
package type (e.g. "tubs") and
resin identification codes (e.g.
"#5") in its outreach materials, and
includes visuals in its
communications. The program
reaches out to customers using
mailers, press releases, emails, e-
newsletters and a website, as well
as advertising via radio, online,
print and image boards on
collection trucks. In the near future, the program plans to increase its radio advertising
to alert customers to new materials being accepted.
Figure 10. Milwaukee Recycles customer flier, downloadable from their website:
www.milwaukeerecycles.com
34
Collection & Processing
A public agency oversees the single-stream collection program and the materials are
then sent to a private MRF. In terms of processing, bulky rigid plastics are taken off the
in feed line manually before entering the processing equipment. Optical sorters handle
most of the rest of the targeted plastics and some hand sorting is performed to catch
missed items and to improve quality. The processed material is sold to a buyer, which
requires the MRF to adhere to the bale specifications created by the Association of
Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR)7.
Lessons Learned
Recycling specialist Rick Meyers advises other communities thinking about establishing
a non-bottle mixed rigid plastics recycling program: "You are probably getting a lot of
these marketable plastics in your stream anyway, so start pulling and marketing them. If
it works out well then you may want to officially welcome the materials and accept
them." Additionally, in its pilot stage the MRF staff manually sorted tubs and lids at the
same time as HDPE natural, HDPE colored and PET, but without optical sorting it can
be challenging - though not impossible - to perform additional plastic sorts.
7 For more information about APR's bale specifications, please visit their website: http://plasticsrecycling.org/rigid-plastics/public-access-rigid-plastics-information/model-bale-specifications
35
Case Study: Orange County Solid Waste Management Chapel Hill, North Carolina
www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling/community.asp Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner
(919) 968-2788 [email protected]
Program Description
Orange County Solid Waste Management has been accepting non-bottle mixed rigid
plastics for three years. The program initially started by accepting the material at
unstaffed, 24-hour drop-off sites but has discontinued accepting the material at the
unstaffed sites due to excessive contamination. Instead, customers can bring non-bottle
mixed rigid plastics to five staffed drop-off sites. The County serves a mix of urban and
rural communities, but since the drop-off sites are mostly in the rural areas, their
customer base is predominantly rural. The program was created to meet residential
demand and because they identified a local buyer for the material. The non-bottle mixed
rigid plastics are currently only collected at drop-off centers because there were too
many limitations to incorporating the material into their dual-stream, curbside collection
system. Program officials are considering adding smaller non-bottle mixed rigid plastics
to the curbside collection system when they eventually switch to single-stream service.
Acceptable Materials
Acceptable plastics include HDPE (#2), LDPE (#4) and PP (#5), including bulky rigids,
but they prohibit toys with batteries or metal parts like axles (small screws generally are
not a problem). Buckets with metal
handles are accepted, and staff working at
the drop-off center staff will remove the
handles. Customers are asked to empty
and rinse containers, and to remove dirt
and food residue.
Outreach and Education
Their outreach materials refer to the non-
bottle mixed rigid plastics by their package
type (e.g. "tubs"), product type (e.g.
"yogurt container"), resin type (e.g.
"polypropylene") and resin identification Figure 11. Informational Brochure for Orange County Solid
Waste Management, North Carolina. Mixed rigids are collected only at drop-off centers which serve a
predominantly rural clientele.
36
code (e.g. "#5"). See Figures 11 and 12. The program utilizes a diverse set of tools for
getting the word out, including mailers, brochures, press releases, public service
announcements, emails and e-newsletters, a website, facility signage, paid
advertisements and on-site staff assistance.
Collection & Processing
Customers can bring their non-bottle mixed rigid plastics to any of the five drop-off sites,
and staff removes contaminants before baling. They sell these bales to a MRF, directly
to an end user or to an interim processor. Depending on the final destination, they
perform a minimum of a hand sort to remove non-accepted materials in order to meet
specifications for contamination. Buyers typically request as little metal contamination
as possible, and when they remove metal bucket handles they receive a higher price for
the baled material.
Lessons Learned
The biggest lesson that they learned was that
unstaffed drop-off sites result in massive
contamination problems. Despite aggressive
public education and robust signage, at times
they were experiencing contamination of over
50 percent, including non-plastic materials
being "dumped.” Well-trained staff at the
drop-off centers are an important asset for
reducing contamination. In the 2010-2011
fiscal year, their first year of operation, the
program collected 155 tons of non-bottle
mixed rigid plastics from the drop-off sites but
much of this was highly contaminated.
Figure 12. Informational Brochure for Orange County
Solid Waste Management, North Carolina.
37
Appendix E
Outreach and Education Materials
The following are selected examples of outreach and educational materials used by
non-bottle mixed rigid plastics recycling programs. The materials display a wide
diversity in aesthetic styles, use of language to describe the accepted materials
(package type, product type, resin type, resin identification code) and incorporation of
visuals as clarifying examples.
38
Orange County Solid Waste Management
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
39
Denver Recycles
Denver, Colorado
40
Omaha Recycles
Omaha, Nebraska
41
Solid Waste Agency of Lake County
Illinois
42
Milwaukee Recycles
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
43
Fulton County Solid Waste Department
Johnstown, New York
44
Sedona Recycles
Sedona, Arizona
45
Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority
Lafayette, New Jersey
46
Chester County Solid Waste Authority
Pennsylvania
47
Northampton Recycles
Northampton, Massachusetts
