Plastics Task Force


"Report of the Berkeley Plastics Task Force"

April 8, 1996

Download as PDF (282KB)

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. WHAT PLASTICS ARE MADE OF AND HOW THEY ARE MADE

  • Plastic resin production
  • Energy use compared – PET plastic vs. virgin and recycled glass
  • Size of the virgin resin market

2. THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY

  • Resin production and concentration of industry
  • Recycled content
  • Chasing arrows and the resin code

3. OVERALL IMPACT OF PLASTICS ON THE ENVIRONMENT,
WITH AN EMPHASIS ON CONTAINERS

  • Pollution and hazards from manufacturing
  • Negative health effects – toxic additives, migration into food
  • Diverting solid waste

4. REUSING PLASTIC CONTAINERS

5. REPROCESSING PLASTICS

  • Recycled plastic products – a hierarchy of uses
  • Primary reprocessing
  • Secondary reprocessing
  • Tertiary reprocessing
  • Marketing recovered plastics
  • Domestic and international destinations of recovered materials

6. PLASTICS IN THE DISCARD STREAM

  • National discard stream composition estimates
  • Berkeley, CA discard composition estimates

7. COMPARATIVE COLLECTION COSTS AND BENEFITS

  • Estimated amounts available for collection in Berkeley
  • How we projected the costs of adding plastic containers to the curbside program
  • Incremental and allocated costs of adding plastic bottles to Berkeley recycling programs
  • Projected Revenues
  • Summary of incremental costs for adding plastic bottles to Berkeley recycling programs
  • Links between plastic reprocessing and landfilling

8. HOW SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE HANDLED PLASTICS

  • St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • El Cerrito, California
  • Sonoma County, California
  • Germany
  • Taiwan
  • Some common elements

9. SEVEN COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PLASTICS

  • Plastics that go into a curbside recycling bin get recycled.
  • Curbside collection will reduce the amount of plastic landfilled.
  • A chasing arrows symbol means a plastic container is recyclable.
  • Packaging resins are made from petroleum refineries’ waste.
  • Plastics recyclers pay to promote plastics’ recyclability.
  • Using plastic containers conserves energy.
  • Our choice is limited to recycling or wasting.

10. ALTERNATIVES

  • Reduce the use – source reduction.
  • Reuse containers.
  • Require producers to take back resins.
  • Legislatively require recycled content.
  • Standardize labeling and inform the public.

11. CONCLUSIONS

 

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Plastic Packaging; Resin Market Share; Uses
Table 2: Composition of the US Municipal Discard Stream, 1993
Table 3: Composition of Berkeley’s Municipal Waste Stream, 1991
Table 4: First Estimate of Plastic Bottles Capturable in Berkeley
Table 5: Plastic Bottle Generation Rates
Table 6: Second Estimate of Plastic Bottles Capturable in Berkeley
Table 7: Average Daily Volume Capturable in Berkeley Using APC Assumptions
Table 8: Annual Revenue Expected from Sale of PET
Table 9: Summary of Incremental Costs for Adding Plastic Bottles to Commercial and Curbside Collection in Berkeley

Figure 1: Comparison of Material Flows with Alternative Disposal Schemes
Figure 2: Plastic Produced and Recycled, 1990-1993
Figure 3: Waste Composition After Diversion, Berkeley, CA, 1991

INTRODUCTION

The Ecology Center convened the Berkeley Plastics Task Force in February of 1995. This report summarizes the findings of the Task Force as of April 8, 1996. While our task was to provide an in-depth look at the issues surrounding consideration of plastics recycling, there is more work to be done. The issue remains complex, and this report suggests the degree of analysis necessary to inform a sound decision about plastics recycling in the long term. We welcome questions and comments as we continue our research.

The increasing substitution of plastics for other types of packaging, such as glass and paper, has brought plastics disposal to the fore for the public, for recycling programs, and for elected officials concerned with solid waste management. The Berkeley Plastics Task Force conducted an investigation of the waste issue in the larger context of the full life-cycle of plastic – from production to use and through a number of disposal options. Our research included plastic manufacturing, the recyclability of various types of plastic packaging, the feasibility of picking up plastics in a curbside recycling program, and issues surrounding plastics in the waste stream.

Our goal was to produce a comprehensive report for decision-makers and the public. The Task Force will make the report available to all interested parties in Berkeley and elsewhere. We hope this report will:

Ecology Center staff and Board members were joined on the Task Force by representatives of Berkeley's recycling programs, the academic community, and other experts on environmental issues. The Task Force has consulted with environmental organizations, plastics industry experts, recycling program operators, solid waste management companies, and public agencies for information and comments on its findings.

To address your comments to the Task Force, please contact us at Attn: Plastics Task Force, Ecology Center, 2530 San Pablo Ave., Berkeley, CA 94702; 510-548-2220 x233.
__________________________________________________

Authors
Richard Lindsay Stover, chemical engineer
Kathy Evans, recycling consultant
Karen Pickett, Ecology Center

Contributors
Charles Gary, Ecology Center
Mark Gorrell, architect

Copy editors
Daniel Knapp, Urban Ore
Mary Lou Van Deventer, Urban Ore

Task force members
Pam Belchamber, Community Conservation Centers
Leona Benten, Ecology Center
Kathy Evans, recycling consultant
Charles Gary, Ecology Center
Emma Gilbride, Ecology Center
Mark Gorrell, architect
Judy Johnson, environmental educator
Daniel Knapp, Urban Ore
Nick Morgan, environmental engineer
Karen Pickett, Ecology Center
Coy Smith, Materials for the Future Foundation
Richard Stover, University of California, Berkeley
Michael Warburton, Public Trust Legal Fund
David Williamson, Urban Ore