FINAL PROJECT REPORT

-

ASSESSMENT OF THE RECYCLING INDUSTRY AND RECYCLING MATERIALS IN NORTH CAROLINA

-

1995UPDATE

Prepared for:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Office of Waste Reduction

November 1995

FINAL REPORT AN ASSESSMENT OF RECYCLED MATERIAL MARKETS FOR NORTH CAROLINA 1995 UPDATE

Prepared For: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF WASTE REDUCTION 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569

Prepared By: SCS ENGINEERS 1260 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, Virginia 22090 (703) 471-6150

in association with: KIRKWORKS P.O. Box 15062 Durham, North Carolina 27704 (919) 220-8065

November 1995

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SPONSOR The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Gary Hunt, Director, Office of Waste Reduction (OWR) Mary Beth Powell, Chief, CommerciellGovernmental Waste Reduction Section Bobbi Tousey, Manager, Recycling Business Assistance Center (RBAC) OWR expresses its appreciation to the following individuals who participated in the proposals evaluation and/or document review aspects of this Project: Ron Alexander, E&A Environmental Consultants Craig Barry, North Carolina Recycling Association John Burke, OWR Paul Crissman, Solid Waste Section, NCDEHNR Dene Dawson, Businessllndustry Division, NCDOC AI Ebron, Energy Division, NC Department of Commerce (NCDOC) Beth Graves, OWR Butch Gunnells, NC Soft Drink Association Sig Huitt, Carolinas Glass Recycling Program Judy Kincaid, Triangle J Council of Governments Brad Jones, American Petroleum Institute Delos Knight, American Forestry and Paper Association Mark Mintz, Solid Waste Section, NCDEHNR Janelle Mosely, North Carolina and South Carolina Petroleum Council Don Moss, Businesdlndustry Division, NCDOC Scott Mouw, OWR John Nelms. OWR (RBAC) Chuck Nettleship, Steel Can Recycling Institute Mary Beth Powell, OWR Ron Pridgeon, OWR Dr. Brent Smith, North Carolina State University Hugh Stevens, North Carolina Press Association Gerry Sutton, OWR Jay Tilley, OWR (RBAC) Bobbi Tousey, OWR (RBAC) Wayne Turner, City of Greensboro David Williams, OWR Andrea Wood. American Plastics Council

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1

.............................................

INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.2 DEFINITIONS .......................................... 1.2.1 Commodity ..................................... 1.2.2 Market Supply 1.2.3 Market Demand 1.2.4 Geographic Regions

1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2

....................................

................................... .................................. ...............................

2

1-3

...... 2-1

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MARKET DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION 2.1 PUBLISHED INFORMATION SOURCES ......................... 2.1.1 Florida Minimum Recycled Content Technical Study . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Construction and Demolition Debris Reduction and Recycling: A Regional Approach ................................ 2.1.3 North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report. July 1. 1992.June30. 1993 2.1.4 Mixed PaperlSludge Composting Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Recycling Market Development in the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6 Market Development Reports From Other State Agencies . . . . . 2.1.7 1994 Lockwood Post’s Directory of the Pulp. Paper. and Allied Trades 2.1.8 Market Structure Policy Options Briefing Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES 2.3 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................

2-1 2-1 2-2

.............................

2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2

........................................ ............................

2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3

......................................

3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2

3

EVALUATED MATERIALS 3.1 TARGET MATERIALS .................................... 3.2 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ..........................

4

SUPPLY AND DEMAND ESTIMATES BY COMMODITY 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................ 4-1 4.2 SUPPLY AND DEMAND ESTIMATES BY COMMODITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4-1 4.2.1 Glass 4.2.2 Plastic ........................................ 4-15 4-45 4.2.3 Metal 4-60 4.2.4 Paper 4-99 4.2.5 Wood ........................................ 4.2.6 Textiles ...................................... 4-1 18 4-121 4.2.7 Special Wastes ................................. 4.2.8 Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-149 4-161 4.2.9 Compost 4-1 69 4.2.10 Summary of Results for All Commodities

..................

......................................... ........................................ .........................................

..................................... ..............

i

. i

...................................

5 .

SUPPLYIDEMAND ANALYSIS 5.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................. 5.1.1 Market Factors ................................... 5.1.2 Qualitative Indexing ............................... 5.1.3 Assessment Classification/Ranking ..................... 5.2 MATERIALS WITH STABLElMATURE MARKETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 PROBLEMATIC MATERIALS ................................ 5.4 MATERIALS-WITH PROMISING MARKET TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 MARKET DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ............................. 6.1.1 Materials With Mature Markets ....................... 6.1.2 Problematic Materials .............................. 6.1.3 Materials To Target For Assistance ..................... 6.2 AGENDA FOR ACTION ................................... 6.2.1 Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Plastic ......................................... 6.2.3 Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Paper ......................................... 6.2.5 Wood ......................................... 6.2.6 Special Wastes ................................... 6.2.7 C&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.8 Organics ....................................... 6.2.9 Textile Byproducts ................................

6-1 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-2 6-2 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-4 6-5 6-5 6-5

7

STRATEGYFOR FUTURE ASSESSMENTS 7.1 DEVELOPING SUPPLY ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 DEMAND ESTIMATES .................................... 7.3 DATAANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...........................

7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2

.........................

5-1 5-1 5-1 5-3 5-6 5-8 5-9 5-9

LIST OF EXHIBITS

mle

Exhibit 3-1 4-1

4-2 4-3 4-4

4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8

ANALYSIS LEVEL AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE BY COMMODITY . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES GLASS CONTAINER 4-2 MANUFACTURERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REPORTED GENERATION OF GLASS CONTAINERS IN U.S. MSW; 1990-1993. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 REPORTED RECOVERY OF GLASS CONTAINERS IN U.S. MSW; 1990-1993 . 4-4 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF GLASS CONTAINERS FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES; 1994. 1997. 2001 . . . . . . . 4-5 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF GLASS CONTAINERS FROM NORTH CAROLINA ONLY FY (90.91) FY (91.92) FY (92.93) 1994. 1997. 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 UTILIZATION RATES OF CULLET IN GLASS CONTAINER BATCHES. 1990 . . . 4-9 DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR GLASS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER 4-10 STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSUMPTION OF GLASS CONTAINERS IN THE U.S. 1991-1993 . . . . . . . 4-11

.

ii

.

__

.

~

4-9 4-10 4-1 1 4-12

4-13 4-1 4 4-1 5 4-1 6 4-1 7 4-1 8 4-1 9 4-20 4-2 1 4-22 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 4-27 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 4-34 4-35 4-36 4-37 4-38 4-39 4-40 4-4 1

.

ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF MIXED GLASS FROM THE SOUTHEAST U.S.; 1994 1997. 2001 4-12 4-14 FIBER GLASS INSULATION PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEAST ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF PETE CONTAINERS: 1994. 4-18 1997. 2001 ............................................. ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF HDPE CONTAINERS: I994 1997. 2001 ............................................. 4-19 DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR PETE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER 4-23 STATES POLYMERS OF ETHYLENE EXPORTS FROM SELECTED CUSTOMS 4-24 DISTRICTS .............................................. DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR HDPE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES 4-27 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF TYPES 3 THROUGH 6 RESIN 4-30 FROM NORTH CAROLINA; 1994.1997. 2001 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF TYPES 3 THROUGH 6 RESIN FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES; 1994.1997. 2001 . . 4-31 U.S. RECOVERY OF PVC PACKAGING AND VIRGIN PVC RESIN SALES: 4-32 1993 4-32 U.S. MARKETS FOR RECOVERED PVC: 1993. 1994 4-33 U.S. MARKETS FOR PVC RESIN: 1993. 1994 ...................... 4-34 NC MANUFACTURERS UTILIZING RECOVERED PVC POST-CONSUMER PVC DEMAND ESTIMATE ...................... 4-34 U.S. RECOVERY OF LDPElLLDPE PACKAGING AND VIRGIN RESIN SALES: 4-35 1993 .................................................. U.S. MARKETS FOR RECOVERED LDPE: 1993. 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35 U.S. MARKETS FOR LDPE/LLDPE RESIN: 1993. 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36 MAJOR MARKETS FOR LDPE/LLDPE RECOVERED FROM NORTH CAROLINA 4-37 ESTIMATE OF DEMAND FOR POSTCONSUMER LDPE MATERIAL: 1994.1997, 2001 .................................................. 4-38 U.S. RECOVERY OF PP PACKAGING AND VIRGIN PP RESINS SALES: 1993 4-39 U.S. MARKETS FOR PP RESIN: 1993. 1994 4-39 ESTIMATE OF DEMAND FOR POST CONSUMER PP MATERIAL: 1994.1997. 4-40 2001 U.S. RECOVERY OF PS PACKAGING AND VIRGIN RESIN SALES: 1993 . . . . 4-41 U.S. MARKETS FOR POST CONSUMER PS RESIN: 1993-1994 . . . . . . . . . . 4-41 4-42 U.S. MARKETS FOR PS RESIN: 1993. 1994 ....................... MAJOR MARKETS FOR PS RECOVERED FROM NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43 ESTIMATE OF DEMAND FOR POST CONSUMER PS MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . 4-44 EXPORTS OF STYRENE SCRAP FROM SELECTED U.S. CUSTOMS DISTRICTS: 1991-AUGUST1994 4-44 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMAND FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIALS (RESINS #3 THROUGH #6) FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES: 1994. 1997, 2001 .................................. 4-45 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF ALUMINUM CANS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47 ALUMINUM CAN RECLAMATION IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48 U.S. APPARENT ALUMINUM SUPPLY AND CONSUMPTION (RECOVERY) . . 4-51 U.S. PURCHASES OF OLD ALUMINUM SCRAP; 1992-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51

............................................. .............

.

................................................

................................................ .....................

.................................................. ................. .................

....................... ..................................................

.......................................

iii

-

-

4-42 4-43

4-44

4-45 4-46 4-47

4-48 4-49 4-50 4-5 1 4-52 4-53 4-54 4-55 4-56 4-57 4-58 4-59 4-60 4-61 4-62 4-63 4-64 4-65 4-66 4-67 4-68

ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF OTHER ALUMINUM FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES ........................ USE OF SECONDARY ALUMINUM AND UBCs. DOMESTIC AND EXPORT MARKETS 1993ANDJAN-JUN 1994 ........................... DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR POST-CONSUMER ALUMINUM IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES ........................... CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF STEEL CANS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES ...................... STEEL CAN END-USERS SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND MAXIMUM DEMAND NUMBER 2 BUNDLE STEEL SCRAP EXPORTS FROM THE U.S. AND SELECTED CUSTOMS DISTRICTS GENERATION OF ONP IN THE U.S.: 1990.1993. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF ONP FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES: 1990.1993. 2000 .................................. ESTIMATED ONP DEMAND IN NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES . . U.S. ONP CONSUMPTION IN PAPER AND PAPERBOARD. 1972.96. BY REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OLD NEWSPAPER EXPORTS FROM SELECTED CUSTOMS DISTRICTS . . . . ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF OMG FROM NORTH CAROLINA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF OMG FROM THE SOUTHEAST U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECOVERY OF MIXED PAPER ................................. U.S. GENERATION OF COMMON COMPONENTS IN MIXED PAPER; 19901993. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERATION OF COMMON COMPONENTS IN MIXED PAPER ............................... DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR MIXED PAPER IN NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES: SUMMARY BASED ON CURRENT AND PROJECTED MIXED PAPER UTILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR MIXED PAPER IN NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES: SUMMARY BASED ON NATIONAL ESTIMATES FOR MIXED PAPER UTILIZATION BY 2000 ........................... MIXED PAPER EXPORTS FROM SELECTED CUSTOMS DISTRICTS . . . . . . . REPORTED NATIONAL GENERATION OF OFFICE PAPER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF OFFICE PAPER FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND THE SOUTHEAST U.S.: 1994. 1997. 2001 . . . . . . DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR OFFICE WASTE PAPER IN THE SOUTHEAST U.S.: SUMMARY BASED ON CURRENT AND PROJECTED OFFICE WASTE PAPER UTILIZATION ....................................... HIGH GRADE DElNKlNG PAPER EXPORTS FROM SELECTED CUSTOMS DISTRICTS .............................................. GENERATION OF OCC IN THE U.S.: 1990-1993. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REPORTED RECOVERY OF OCC THROUGH NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COLLECTION PROGRAMS ........................ ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OFOCC FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND THE SOUTHEAST U.S.: 1994.1997. 2001 .................... DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR OCC IN THE SOUTHEAST U.S.: SUMMARY BASED ON CURRENT AND PROJECTED MIXED PAPER UTILIZATION . . . . .

............................................... ..............................

iv

4-52 4-56 4-57 4-58 4-59 4-60 4-61

4-63 4-67 4-69 4-69 4-70 4-71 4-72 4-74 4-74 4-79 4-79 4-80 4-82 4-82 4-86 4-87 4-88 4-88 4-90

4-93

4-69 4-70 4-71 4-72 4-73 4-74 4-75 4-76 4-77 4-78 4-79 4-80 4-81 4-82 4-83 4-84 4-85 4-86 4-87 4-88 4-89 4-90 4-91 4-92 4-93 4-94 4-95 4-96 4-97 4-98

EXPORT OF RECOVERED CORRUGATED IN THE SOUTHEAST U.S.: 19884-96 1993 .................................................. REPORTED NATIONAL GENERATION OF MILK CARTONS; 1990-1993. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-97 ESTIMATED GENERATION OF MILK CARTONS FROM NORTH CAROLINA; 4-97 1994.1997. 2001 ......................................... REPORTED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF INDUSTRIAL WOOD WASTE FROM SELECTED NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 01 GENERATION AND DISCARD OF INDUSTRIAL WOOD WASTE FROM THE 125COUNTY TENNESSEE VALLEY WATERSHED. BY TYPE OF INDUSTRY; 1984 4-103 MARKETS FOR WOOD SCRAP FROM PRIMARY WOOD-USING PLANTS IN NC 4-105 FOR 1992 4-106 WOOD FUEL MARKETS IN NORTH CAROLINA HARDBOARD PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEAST- 1993 PRODUCTION 4-109 CAPACITIES ............................................ PARTICLEBOARD PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 10 MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEAST 4-1 11 POTENTIAL SUPPLY OF PALLETS FROM NORTH CAROLINA: 1994. 1997 AND2001 4-113 ESTIMATED DISCARD OF PALLETS AND CRATES FROM NORTH CAROLINA 4-113 AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS; 1993 ......................... NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECOVERY OF PALLETS; FY(9394) ................................................... 4-114 NC PALLET REUSE AND RECYCLING COMPANIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 1 6 NC PALLET RECYCLER CAPACITY SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 17 PALLETS RECEIVED FOR RECYCLING IN THE SOUTH IN 1992 . . . . . . . . . 4-117 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF SELECTED TEXTILE WASTES FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDERS STATES; 1992 . . . . . . . . . 4-119 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF TEXTILE WASTE FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES; 1994. 1997. 2001 . . . . . 4-120 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF WHITE GOODS IN NORTH 4-122 CAROLINA AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS ..................... CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF PAINT IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS FOUR STUDYREGIONS ................................. 4-125 U.S. PAINT MARKET; 1993 ................................. 4-126 ESTIMATED CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF TIRES (SUPPLY) IN NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES ....................... 4-1 29 ESTIMATED NORTH CAROLINA SCRAP TIRE RECOVERY AND END USE. 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-133 NORTH CAROLINA SCRAP TIRE END USERS SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CURRENT AND MAXIMUM DEMAND ........................... 4-133 SCRAP TIRE EXPORTS FROM SELECTED CUSTOMS DISTRICTS . . . . . . . 4-135 CURRENT AND PROJECTEDRECOVERY OF LEAD-ACID BATTERIESIN NORTH 4-136 CAROLINA AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS ..................... CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF OTHER BATTERIES IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS ..................... 4-138 REPORTED U.S. USED OIL GENERATION. 1983-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-141 PROJECTED GENERATION OF USED OIL IN NORTH CAROLINA: 1991 . . . 4-143 PROJECTED GENERATlON OF USED OIL IN NORTH CAROLINA AND REGIONS 4-143 OFSTUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............................................. ....................

........ . .............................................

V

4-99 ESTIMATED RECOVERY RATE FOR USED OIL IN NORTH CAROLINA AND 4-145 REGIONSOFSTUDY ...................................... 4-100 ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF USED OIL IN NORTH CAROLINA AND REGIONS OF 4-145 STUDY ................................................ 4-101 REPORTED DEMAND FOR USED OIL IN THE U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-148 4-102 BREAKDOWN OF WASTE DISPOSED IN NORTH CAROLINA BY SOURCE 4-149 SECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-103 ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN NORTH CAROLINA JANUARY .DECEMBER 1993 ........................ 4-1 50 4-104 CURRENT AND PROJECTED DISPOSAL OFC&D WASTE IN NORTH CAROLINA 4-1 51 AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS .............................. 4-105 ESTIMATE OF C&D WASTE COMPOSITION IN NORTH CAROLINA . . . . . . 4-153 4-106 NC PRODUCTION OF AGGREGATE: 1991-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-157 4-160 4-107 PRICES OF SELECTED SALVAGED BUILDING MATERIALS 4-1 61 4-108 EXAMPLES OF END USES FOR SELECTED C&D MATERIALS 4-109 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF YARD WASTE IN NORTH 4-163 CAROLINA AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS ..................... 4-110 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECOVERY OF FOOD WASTE IN NORTH 4-1 65 CAROLINA AND ITS FOUR STUDY REGIONS ..................... 4-111 DISTRIBUTION OF COMPOST FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT YARD WASTE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN NORTH CAROLINA. FY 1992-93 . . . . . . . . . 4-167 4-1 12 1994 PRODUCTION OF COMPOST AND MULCH IN NORTH CAROLINA . . 4-167 4-113 POTENTIAL FUTURE DEMAND FOR COMPOST BY APPLICATION . . . . . . . 4-169 4-114 SUMMARY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-170 5-1 NC-DEHNR MARKET ASSESSMENT .1994 5-7

............ ..........

........................

vi

~

~

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.I PROJECT OVERVIEW In 1991, the North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development (now the Department of Commerce) conducted a project entitled "Development of A Strategic Plan For the Marketing of Recyclables in North Carolina". The project provided assessments andlor analyses of the recyclable materials and composting market systems within the State. The execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) between the North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDOC) and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) along with North Carolina General Statutes 130A-309.06, 130A-309.14, and 130A-309.12 directed DEHNR's Office of Waste Reduction (OWR) t o prepare by March 1, 1994, and every other year thereafter, a detailed report assessing the recycling industry and recycling materials in the State. In order t o meet these requirements and t o provide a foundation for OWR's expanded market development program, DEHNR retained SCS Engineers in October 1994 t o prepare an updated market assessment report. This new project, entitled "Assessment of The Recycling Industry and Recycling Materials in North Carolina 1995 Update," follows the general framework established by the original project. However, the 1995 Update includes a number of enhancements over the original study, including:

-

a

Coverage of the time period from 1994 t o 2001;

a

An expanded list of materials present in the municipal solid waste stream potentially available as post-consumer waste;

e

A greater geographic scope for supply- and demand-side estimates; and

0

The provision of a methodology and model for ongoing assessment of North Carolina's markets in the future.

This document is the project's Final Report for the 1995 Update project. The remainder of the report is organized as follows: a

Section 2 presents an assessment of existing market development information available to the State, including published and unpublished information sources throughout the Eastern United States.

a

Section 3 presents a succinct list of the recyclable materials (commodities) subject t o analysis.

1-1

0

Section 4 presents market supply and demand estimates by commodity, including projections through the year 2001.

0

Section 5 presents a detailed analysis of the potential for successful recycling of each commodity under investigation. An objective analytical approach is presented which identifies materials with stable or mature markets, problematic materials which may require stimulation through development initiatives at the State andlor local level, and materials with promising demand trends for the future.

0

Section 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations developed from the project's research, and presents an "Agenda For Action" for use by the State.

0

Section 7 provides a discussion of potential strategies for North Carolina t o conduct similar assessments in the future, using exclusively in-house resources.

1.2 DEFINITIONS

Several definitions and terms are used within this report that should be summarized here for clarity's purposes. Each term is introduced and defined below. 1.2.1 Commoditv

This general term is used t o describe the recyclable materials being subject t o market assessment under this project. A list of commodities is given in the introduction t o Section 2. 1.2.2 Market SUDDly

In general, market supply was defined for this project as the estimated quantity of a commodity currently being recovered from post-consumer sources. Post-consumer material is defined as a material or finished product that has served its intended use and has been discarded for disposal or recovery, having completed its life as a consumer item. "Posttonsumer material" is part of the broader category of "recovered material". "Recovered materials" means waste materials and by-products which have been recovered or diverted from solid waste, but does not include those materials and by-products generated, and commonly used within an original manufacturing process. These definitions match those suggested in 42 U.S.C. 6903(19) (The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - RCRA). ' 1.2.3 Market Demand

In general, market demand was defined for this project as the estimated industrial capacity of end-user markets (predominantly manufacturers) t o absorb and thus utilize the commodities under study. However, it should be noted that there is no way t o determine 1-2

how much capacity is used in any given year without detailed manufacturing records (industrial capacity rarely functions at 100 percent; downtime is needed for routine maintenance, problems that occur, and inventory reduction. etcl.

1.2.4 Geoaraohic Reaiong Regions Within North CarolinaWhere appropriate, the market assessment was conducted within the State at a regional level. These regions were defined as follows: Northeastern Region: Southeastern Region: Central Region: 0

Western Region:

Project nomenclature for this level of detail was "Area 1".

Border StatesThe next broadest category of geographic region encompassed North Carolina and its border states. This region was defined as North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Tennessee. Project nomenclature for this level of detail was "Area 2". Southeastern United StatesThe broadest category of geographic region encompassed essentially every southern State east of the Mississippi. Specifically, this region was defined as North Carolina and its border states, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia. Project nomenclature for this level of detail was "Area 3".

1-3

SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MARKET DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION 2.1 PUBLISHED INFORMATION SOURCES

Several sources for recent market development information were reviewed, including: Florida Department of Management Services, Florida Minimum Recvcled Content Technical Study, 1994 (which by reference contains hundreds of current citations on recycling market supply and demand). Triangle J Council of Governments, Construction and Demolition Debris Reduction and Recvch a : A Reaional ADDroach, 1993. North Carolina DEHNR, North Carolina Solid Was@ -me nt Annual R e ~ o rJulv t 1. 1992 -June 30. 1993, 1994. Sunshares, Mixed Paoer/Sludae Comoostina Proiect, 1993. Southern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments, Recvclina Market Develooment in the South, 1993. Market development study reports published by other state agencies.

1994 Lockwood Post’s Directorv of the PuID. PaDer. and Allied Trades. Recycling Advisory Council Market Development Committee, Market Structure Policv ODtions Briefina Book, 1993. A brief assessment for each of these documents, or groups of documents, is given below.

2.1.1 Florida Minimum Recvcled Content Technical Study

This study (completed in October 1994) established procurement goals for the purchase of recycled products by Florida state agencies. The study identified commodities purchased by the State of Florida which should be required t o contain specific recycled contents. Commodities studied included plastic, glass, paper, newsprint, steel and aluminum cans, and oil. The study recommends procurement goals for these identified commodities so they are consistent with orderly market development. Working with Department of Management Services procurement specialists, minimum content standards were developed on a commodity-by-commodity basis. In addition, price preferences were evaluated.

2-1

Much of the supply side data gathered for this report is recent, applicable, and organized according t o regions of the U.S. Some of these data are used in subsequent sections of this report as the basis for supply estimates for North Carolina and the surrounding region. 2.1.2 Construction and Demolition Debris Reduction and Recvclina: A Reaional ADDfOaCh

The Triangle J Council of Governments initiated a study t o analyze the current C&D waste stream and management practices, and t o identify alternatives for waste reduction, reuse, and recovery of materials from this stream. The study region included Chatham, Durham, Lee, and Orange counties. This regional analysis was helpful for supply estimates and the market assessment.

2.1.3 North Carolina Solid Waste Manaaement Annual ReDort. Julv 1. 1992 - June 30,

BS North Carolina is required to prepare an annual report on the status of solid waste management in the state by May 1 of each year. All local governments are required t o submit annual forms t o the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources on their solid waste management practices. The reports are then compiled by the Solid Waste Section and OWA and the data is summarized in the annual report prepared by the t w o agencies. The report outlines the waste disposal, source reduction, and recycling programs in the state and summarizes the data for waste disposal and materials recovery. Although the source reduction and recycling data reported by local governments include disposal and materials recovery figures, North Carolina recovery rates and supply figures were not taken directly from the annual report. These figures were used in conjunction with data from other sources t o estimate the materials supply from North Carolina. 2.1.4 SunSharedMixed PaDerlSludae ComDostino Proiect

This composting project conducted under a grant from the Office of Waste Reduction t o Sunshares, a non-profit agency based in Durham, North Carolina, investigated the production and potential markets for a sludgdmixed waste paper compost. Some information from the composting project was used for this market assessment; however, sludge was outside the scope of materials to be investigated and composting provides a relatively small market for mixed paper. 2.1.5 Recvclina Market DeveloDment in the South

This report outlines recycling market development legislation and policy in stetes in the Southeast U.S. Overviews of waste management programs, legislation, and incentives in each state were helpful t o assess the recycling and market development climate for different materials in each state. 2.1.6 Market DeveloDment ReDorts From Other State Aaencies

Individual state reports on recycling market development were obtained from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. These reports provided qualitative information that was useful t o project future demand in the Southeast U.S. for some materials.

2-2

-

, .

2.1.7 1994 Lockwood Post s Diractorv of the Pulo. Paoer. and Allied T r a d a

This directory lists by state all pulp and paper mills in the U.S. and Canada, their products, and current daily output (if not confidential). One section of the document identifies waste paper grades currently used and lists mills which currently purchase those grades on a regular basis. This information was useful t o estimate demand for different grades of waste paper. 2.1 .B Market Structure Policv ODtions Briefing Book

This document identifies current obstacles within the recycling process or related t o market maturity that inhibit the use of recycled materials. Public policy and private sector initiatives are proposed which address these obstacles. This information was useful for developing practical steps which should be taken in North Carolina t o improve markets for some materials. 2.2 OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES Industry journals including BiocvclQ, Modern Plastics, Paoer Recvcler, and Resource Recvclinq provided current information on recycling rates and end users for different materials.

2.3 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY A bibliography of the project research materials listed above, including some brief annotation t o describe the contents of referenced materials, is included as Appendix A.

2-3

.

SECTION 3

EVALUATED MATERIALS 3.1 TARGET MATERIALS

The program design for the 1994 update focuses on those materials that can be segregated or extracted from the MSW stream on a practical basis. The municipal solid waste stream was defined as the waste materials generated from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. To this end, nine major waste categories were selected for further analysis. These categories were: 0

w:clear, green, brown, and mixed; -: PETE #1, HDPE #2, PVC #3, LDPE #4, polypropylene #5, and polystyrene #6;

0

0

w: aluminum cans and other aluminum products, and steel cans;

m: newsprint, glossy magazines and catalogues, office paper (white office, blend paper, and computer paper). mixed paper, cardboard polycoated paper products &e., milk cartons and aseptic packaging);

0

u: pallets and other wood wastes including industrial by-pass products (consideration also was given t o reuse, mulching, composting, and use as a boiler fuel of wood waste); Textiles: (consideration also was given t o reuse of textiles); i

0

Soecial Wastes: scrap fires, white goods, batteries (lead-acid. cadmium and lithium, button, and alkaline), used oil and used paint;

0

Construct ion and demolition debrig: wood material; drywall and asphalt shingles; asphalt, concrete and brick; and

ComDost: yard waste and food waste. Based on these major categories, a total of 36 commodity types were developed for further study, based on level of detail or analysis t o be undertaken, and geographic area.

3.2 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS The demand investigation for a given commodity was undertaken at one of following three levels of analysis: 0

w -End users of recyclable materials were identified by type; no quantitative capacities &ere estimated.

3-1

- Level 1 investigation plus estimates of present and future end use

e

capacities were made based on information from trade associations. literature searches, and other relevant sources. 0

level 9 - Level 2 investigation plus telephone survey of end users listed in the North Carolina Directory of Recyclable Materials and other appropriate recycling markets publications. In addition, Level 3 investigations included recycling market information from the ports of Wilmington, NC, Morehead City, NC, Norfolk, VA, and Charleston, SC.

The Level 3 survey gathered information such as: e

Facility level of capacity per commodity.

0

Facility current utilization level per commodity.

0

Amount of facility’s current (and future) utilization level that is, and is projected t o be, from North Carolina recyclables.

0

Expansion activity (if any).

3.3 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Both supply and demand investigations for a given commodity were undertaken in one of three areas of geographic investigation. Areas were defined as follows: 0

Area 1 - t h e State of North Carolina; supply investigations included North Carolina by the northeastern, southeastern, central and western regions;

0

Area 2 North Carolina and its border states (SC, GA, VA, and TN); and

e

Area 3 - t h e southeastern United States (NC, SC, GA, VA, TN, AL, FL, LA, KY, MD, MS, and WV).

-

If an end user was not found within the geographic area specified, the next larger area was investigated. The 36 commodity types are listed in Exhibit 3-1, along with the research requirements for level of analysis and geographic area, as designated in the project’s program design.

3-2

EXHIBIT 3-1 ANALYSIS LEVEL AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE BY COMMODITY

Material Clear Glass Green Glass Brown Glass Mixed Glass PETE HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS Aluminum Cans Other Aluminum Steel Cans ONP OMG & Catalogs Office Paper Mixed Paper

Analysis Level (Demand) 2 2 2 2

3 3 2 2 2

3 2 2 3

3 3 3 3 3

occ Poly-coated CC Pallets Ind. Wood Waste Textiles (byproducts) Tires White Goods Batteries (lead-acid) Batteries (other) Used Oil Used Paint C&D Wood C&D Drywall C&D Asp. Shingles C&D Asphalt C&D Concrete C&D Brick Yard Waste Food Waste

2

3 1

3 3 1 1

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

.

3-3

Geographic Area 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2

1

SECTION 4 SUPPLY AND DEMAND ESTIMATES BY COMMODITY 4.1

INTRODUCTION

Market supply and demand quantities were estimated for each commodity under assessment. As described in Section 3,estimates ware developed according t o three basic levels of investigation and three areas of geographic scope. Furthermore, these estimates ware projected t o provide supply and demand estimates for 1997 and 2001. 4.2

SUPPLY AND DEMAND ESTIMATES BY COMMODITY

Currant and future estimated market supply and demand by commodity are summarized below according t o material type. 4.2.1 Glass 4.2.1.1 Supply Estimated for ColorSeparatad Containers-

This section presents an assessment of color-separated container glass (hereafter referred to as glass containers recovery. including: An overview of the glass manufacturing industry (the principle consumer of post-consumer glass). Current supply and demand of glass in North Carolina and its border statas. Projected supply and demand for recovered glass in North Carolina and its border states. An evaluation of the relationship between estimated supply and demand for recovered glass in North Carolina. Industry 0verviey-As of mid-1994, there were 71 glass container plants in 27 states. A t present, 8 glass container manufacturers operate in North Carolina and its border states (a Ball-InCon plant in Ashevilla. North Carolina, shut down in April 1994). The plants and their locations are listed in Exhibit 4-1. Plants in the U.S. produce almost 41 billion glass containers each year. Approximately 6 4 percent of U S . container production is flint (clear), approximately 23 percent is amber, and the remainder (roughly 13 percent) is green.'

1

Glass Packaging Institute. Glass Recvclinp. Summer 1 S04.

4-1

EXHIBIT 4-1 NORTH CAROLINA AND BORDER STATES GLASS CONTAINER MANUFACTURERS

Company

Plant Locationk)

Cullet in batch (%I (1)

Anchor Glass Container-

Warner-Robbins, GA

F-30. G-51, A-33

Ball-InCon Glass Packaging

Henderson, NC Laurens, SC

F-25 t o 35 G-60 t o 8 0

Foster Forbes Glass

Wilson, NC

F, A-Under 30

Owens-Brockway Glass Container

Atlanta, GA Winston-Salem, NC Danville, VA Toano, VA

Avg-36, F-28, G-47. A-51

F

- Flint A

bmbar

G = Green

Avo. = Avwwa for all furnaca

NOTES:

Tmd wlla u.od includa inhouse OOntribYtim. Fmtsr Forb- atimats in pmt-eonsumer wllat only. P e r c a t w a u o averw- *arms all p l m nationwide for a particular oompmy. Source: Apmhakw. 1991.

(1I

Glass Container SUDDIv from North Carotina and its Border States--Estimates of the generation, recovery, and recovery rates for glass containers were developed for North Carolina and its border states for 1994, 1997, 2001. Estimates have been developed for flint, green, and amber containers. Generation estimates were developed by using published national glass generation estimates and pro-rating them t o the region by the population of the region. The U.S. EPA has estimated the amount of beer and soft drink bottles, wine and liquor bottles, and food and other bottles and jars that are present in U.S. MSW from 1990 to 1993 and 2000.* This information is presented in Exhibit 4-2. As shown, the generation of glass containers is projected t o increase only slightly. Per capita glass container generation is actually projected t o decline. Glass container generation by color was estimated by applying a published ratio of flint, green, and amber containers in the waste stream' t o the total glass packaging generation estimate. The ratio was developed using glass container production information and adjustments for imported containers. The f1int:green:amber ratio for glass containers in MSW is estimated to be 53:27:20.

' 9

U.S. EPA. C Apothekar. Steve. "Glass Containers: June, 1991.

k

. November, 1994.

How Recyclable Will They Be In the lSSO's7". ~n-epci.vcl

4-2

EXHIBIT 4-2 REPORTED GENERATION OF GLASS CONTAINERS IN U.S. MSW: 1990-1993.2000 (thousand tons)

Year

1990

1991

1992

1993

2000

Beer and soft drink bottles

5,700

5,280

5,410

5,440

5,440

Wine and liquor bottIes

2,100

1.840

1.830

1,850

1,950

Food and other bottles and jars

4.1 10

4,190

4,530

4,940

5,010

Total glass packaging

11,910

11,310

11,770

12,230

12,400

Per capita generation boundsherson-war)

96

90

92

95

91

Source: U.S. EPA. $hsrscterhation of MSW in the United States: 1994 Uodatc. November, 1B94.

Estimates of glass container generation were developed for 1994, 1997, and 2000 by interpolating and extrapolating U.S. generation information. Generation estimates for North Carolina and its border states were developed by pro-rating national generation estimates t o the regions based on their populations.

In addition to generation estimates, the U.S. EPA has published estimates of the amount of glass containers recovered from U.S. MSW. These recovery estimates were developed using glass recycling information from the Glass Packaging Institute (GPI) and include glass recovered for secondary uses such as road aggregate and glassphalt. Refillable bottles are not included in this estimate of glass container recovery. Estimates of the amount of glass containers recovered from U.S. MSW ere presented in Exhibit 4-3. In a report prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Franklin Associates presents a recovery scenario t o achieve a 30 percent recovery of U.S. municipal solid waste in 2000. In order t o achieve this goal, around 40 percent of all glass containers will be r e ~ o v e r e d . ~

For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that the U S . will achieve this goal and U.S. will recover around 5 million tons of glass containers in 2000. Estimates of glass container recovery in the U.S. for 1994 and 1997 were developed by interpolating between 1993 and 2000 recovery estimates. Only a marginal increase, if any, was anticipated in the recovery rate for Containers between 2000 and 2001. Consequently, no distinction was made in the recovery rates between the t w o years.

.

Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role 01 Recvclino in Integrated Solid Waste Menaoement to the Year 2000 Aooendices. Prepared lor Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September, 1994. paoe K-10.

4-3

EXHIBIT 4-3 REPORTED RECOVERY OF GLASS CONTAINERS IN U.S. MSW; 1990-1993 (thousand tons) 1991

1990

Year

1992

1993

~~

Glass container recovery Recovery rate Source:

2,620

2,550

2,890

3.010

22.0%

22.5%

24.6%

24.6%

U.S. EPA. Characterization of MSW in the United

States: 1 9 9 4 UDdatQ.

November 1994.

Estimates of the amount of glass containers recovered in North Carolina and its border states were developed by pro-rating U.S. glass container recovery by the region’s share of people with access t o curbside collection programs. An estimated 100 million people were served by curbside collection programs in the U.S. in 1994. Around 6.3 million (6.2 percent) of these individuals are located in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, or Virginia.6 It is recognized that other means of collecting glass containers exist. Access to curbside programs, however, does provide a reasonable indication of glass recovery in the region relative to rest of the country. Information concerning the amount of glass containers recovered in the U.S. by color was not available. However, North Carolina’s Office of Waste Reduction (OWR) has published information on the amount of glass recovered through local government collection programs in the state. OWR has reported local government recovery of flint, green, and amber glass for the past four years. The average f1int:green:amber ratio of glass container recovered from North Carolina was 53:21:25. This ratio was applied t o the estimate of the amount of glass recovered from the region for each year. A recovery rate estimate for each color was calculated by dividing the recovery estimate by the generation estimate for each year. Estimates of flint, green, and amber glass container generation, recovery, and recovery rates from North Carolina and Border States for 1994, 1994, and 2001 are presented in Exhibit 4-4. The OWR information about glass container recovery was used t o represent glass containers recovered from North Carolina’s MSW. It was assumed that private sector recovery of glass containers was negligible. In addition, it was assumed that all of the cutlet identified in local government reports was marketed as color separated cutlet rather than mixed. Exhibit 4-5 presents estimates of flint, green, and amber glass containers generated, and recovered from North Carolina MSW for fiscal year 1990-91 t o fiscal year 1993-94, 1997, and 2001. It was assumed that glass container recovery in North Carolina will approach the current national recovery rate of 25 percent by 2000, as local governments work towards achieving the State’s 40 percent waste reduction goal. Recovery rates for 1997 and 2001 for each of the glass colors reflect this assumption.

’

Steuteville. Robert. “The State of Garbage in America”.

4-4

m.April, 1994.

page 49.

EXHIBIT 4-4 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF GLASS CONTAINERS FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES; 1994,1997,2001 (tons)

FLINT CONTAINERS ~

Year Generation Recovery Rate Recovery

~

~~

~

1994

1997

2001

732,000

745,000

758.000

14%

18%

22%

100,900

132,500

168,600

1997

2001

GREEN CONTAINERS Year

1994

~~

Generation Recovery Rate Recovery

373,000

379.000

386.000

11%

14%

17%

40.000

52,500

66,800

AMBER CONTAINERS ~

Year Generation Recovery Rate Recovery

~~

1994

1997

200 1

276,000

28 1.000

286.000

17%

22%

28%

48,100

63,100

80,300

4-5

EXHIBIT 4-5 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF GLASS CONTAINERS FROM NORTH CAROLINA ONLY FY (90-91). FY (91-92). FY (92-93). 1994, 1997, 2001 (tons)

FLINT CONTAINERS Year Generation Recovery Rate Recovery

FY(90-91)

FY(91-92)

FY(92-93)

FY(93-94)

1997

2001

164,000 5% 8,520

164,000 7% 12,176

171,000 11% 18,580

176,000 12% 21,276

178,000 15% 27.000

181.000 20% 36,000

90,000 10% 8,920

9 1,000 15% 14,000

92,000 20% 18,000

66,000 11% 7.341

67.000 15% 10.000

68,000 20% 14.000

GREEN CONTAINERS Generation

P 0)

Recovery Rate Recoverv

84,000 5% 4,022

83,000 5% 4,280

87.000 7% 6,419

AMBER CONTAINERS Generation Recovery Rate Recoverv

62,000 7% 4.274

62,000 13% 8.261

65,000 12% 7.61 2

4.2.1.2

Demand Estimate for Color-Separated Glass-

Glass container manufacturers represent the largest market for recovered glass containers. Approximately 80 percent of all glass containers recovered in the U.S. were used in the production of new containers.' The glass industry uses cullet as an alternative t o or as a supplement t o raw materials in processing. Glass container manufacturing is theoretically a closed loop process, where used containers can be reprocessed into new containers repeatedly with no degradation in quality and no residual waste. Other markets for recovered glass include glassphalt (cullet and asphalt composite), construction and drainage aggregate, and fiberglass insulation. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has done some preliminary testing with the use of glass in road construction, but no other substantial uses for cullet outside of the glass container industry were identified. Because these non-container markets represent the only potential end-use for mixed glass, it follows that virtually no demand exists for mixed glass in the Southeast U.S. A source

at the sole beneficiation plant in North Carolina confirmed that the facility requires sourceseparated glass from its suppliers, and its markets are the four glass manufacturing facilities in North and South Carolina (any mixed glass residue is landfilled). Demand for mixed glass is discussed in more detail separately in Section 4.2.1.3. Crushed used glass (cullet) provides many benefits for glass manufacturers. Because cullet melts at a lower temperature than raw materials used in glass manufacture, the use of cullet requires less energy t o operate the furnace. The furnace life is also extended by operating at a lower temperature. Use of cullet also decreases pollutant emissions from the facility. Cullet itself may cost less than a comparable amount of raw materials. Critical issues for glass container plants that use cullet center around quality, availability, and price. Because of the different types of glass and the variation in constituents, the use of recycled glass in new glass production requires the same type and color of glass. Glass container manufacturers generally do not process mixed color glass themselves, but instead require color-separated cullet. Many regions in North Carolina collect and color separate glass at the curb t o insure high quality and maximum recovery for the strong local markets. Of the different colors, flint (clear) cullet is most in demand. The market for brown container glass is also strong; however, the market for green glass is weak due t o the large quantity of green glass that is imported as packaging for beverages from other countries, and the relatively low production and use of green glass in the United States. Green glass bottle production represents about 13 percent of dedicated furnace capacity. However, green containers average 23 percent of the glass container waste stream.' Thus. some green glass may be treated as mixed cullet and head towards low-value, secondary end-uses.

e

7

Glass Packaging Institute press release. "Glass Recycling Rate Tops 35 Percent: 1 9 9 3 Data Shows Fifth Straight Year of Growth". April, 1994. Apotheker, Steve. "Glass Containers: How Recyclable Will They Be In The 1 9 9 0 ~ 7 " .Resource Recvclinp. June 1991.

4-7

Glass manufacturers require a consistent supply of feedstocks t o operate economically. Many process variables, including glass furnace temperature control, are set as a function of raw material supply. Adjusting these process variables require considerable time and effort on the part of the glass manufacturer; therefore, manufacturers have little flexibility in utilizing varying amounts of cullet depending on availability and prices. Manufacturers will strive for an appropriate mix of raw materials and cullet and try t o maintain that mix until circumstances require a change. Glass manufacturing facilities have historically been built near sources of raw materials. Virgin materials are readily available and can be provided consistently in the required quantities, virtually on-demand. Availability of post-consumer glass as a raw material is less reliable than virgin material, at present. Quantities available for processing by the glass industry can fluctuate as a function of program participation (i.e., how much glass is collected) and quality. These fluctuations, and the supply inconsistencies they create, can inhibit the use of post-consumer glass by container plants. Because of the concentration of glass manufacturers in the Southeast U.S., the capacity t o use cullet in this region exceeds the local supply. Sources at the Glass Packaging Institute (GPI) state that plants in the Southeast U.S. use as much cullet as they can get, and the difficulty lies in transporting the glass from the recovery locations t o the plants with demand.' GPI estimates that the total percentage of cullet (including in-plant, residential, and commercially generated scrap) in an average batch is about 30 percent for the industry.' Most glass furnaces can use 6 0 t o 80 percent cullet, and the technology exists t o produce 100 percent recycled glass containers. However, transportation costs t o ship glass from regions of oversupply are prohibitive. Exhibit 4-6 provides a breakdown of cullet use by color for the four major regional manufacturers. These numbers represent use at all plants for each respective company, not just plants located in the Southeast. The glass container industry is very competitive, and manufacturers contacted would not provide information on the tons of recycled glass utilized. Information provided by GPI indicated that in 1994, 72,000 tons of recycled glass was utilized by glass container manufacturers in North Carolina. Three glass container plants operate in North Carolina, and 5 plants operate in its border states. The recycled glass utilization for North Carolina plants and other qualitative information concerning glass container manufacturing in North Carolina and its border states was used t o estimate glass demand in the region. This estimate is provided in Exhibit 4-7. Because glass container manufacturers are the only significant market for recycled glass in the Southeast, it can be assumed that the tonnage of recovered glass in this region represents the demand. Assuming that a 40 percent glass recovery rate is achieved by 2000, the tons recovered in the Southeast remains lower than manufacturers' capacity t o use the material; therefore, demand will be able t o absorb the projected expansion in supply.

'

Personal communication. David Baker. Executive Director. Southeast Glass Recycling Program. January,

1984. s

Apotheker, Steve. "Glass Containers: How iiecyclable Will They Be In The 1990~7".Resource Recvciin& June, 1901.

4-8

-

EXHIBIT 4-6 U.S. UTILIZATION RATES OF CULLET IN GLASS CONTAINER BATCHES, 1990 ~~

Postconsumer Cullet Purchased (tons/yearl

Total

Flint

Green

Total cullet as percent of batch

Amber

Total

Flint

Green

Amber ~~

Anchor Ball-InCon Foster Forbes Owens-Brockway

405,000 N.A. N.A.

1,097,875

130,000 N.A. N.A.

434,091

78.000 N.A. N.A.

253,324

197,000 N.A. N.A.

410,458

N.A. N.A. Under 30(2l

36

30 25-35 Under 30 28

80 60-80(11 Under 30 47

33 N.A. N.A.

N.A. = Not available

(1)

(2)

Has used threecolor mixed cullet in batch up to level of 50 percent, This is a postconsumer cullet percentage. Adding an in-house cullet contribution would increase the total by at least 10 percentage points.

(D

Source: Apotheker, 1991.

51

EXHIBIT 4-7 DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR GLASS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES ~

1993

U.S. Glass Generation (TonsJ Reported Recovery Rate U.S. Demand

12,230,000 24.6%

1997 12,327,000 33.4%

2001 12,400.000 40%

3,009,000

4,117,000

4,960,000

North Carolina and Border States Demand

256,000

352,000

438,000

Demand by color: Flint (64%)

163,840

225,280

280.320

Amber (23%)

58,880

80.960

100,740

Green (13%)

33.280

45,760

56,940

GPI is working t o increase the quality and quantity of cullet available. They have developed education materials which emphasize the importance of color separation and quality (i.e. lack of contaminants in the cullet). Increased quality, increased recovery from commercial and other local sources, and more efficient methods for transporting glass from other regions, all may influence the supply of cullet. If more cullet is available at a competitive price, demand and utilization of cullet will increase at a corresponding rate. 4.2.1.3

Supply Estimate for Mixed Glass-

Mixed glass is essentially a mixture of glass containers which have not been color separated. Supply estimates developed for glass by grade therefore include material that may ultimately be marketed as mixed glass. However, it is possible t o estimate the amount of recovered glass containers marketed as mixed glass from the region. Mixed glass cullet is generally associated with commingled collection programs, where all containers are combined together in the collection vehicle and sorted by color at a materials processing facility (MRF). In this case, the glass material that remains after whole containers have been removed and color separated is a mixture of unsorted broken glass and contaminants. This material often remains part of the residue generated from the MRF and is landfilled, or is removed from the process stream and marketed separately as mixed glass cullet. It has been estimated that anywhere between 80,000 and 160,000 tons of glass containers collected through recycling programs nationally are sent t o landfills as MRF residue.'O Commingled collection programs are most common in urban areas that benefit from the increased collection efficiency. In contrast, collection programs that color separate glass

10

Apotheker. Steve. "Two, Four, Six, Eight: Time to Beneficiete". Resource Recvclinq. October, 1994. page

19.

4-10

-

containers at the curb before they are placed in the collection program have very little mixed glass as a result of their process. The amount of glass recovered and marketed as mixed glass depends on:

a

Prevailing markets for color separated glass containers; Type of collection program; Operating characteristics of the materials recovery facility (i.e. glass breakage and sorting efficiency); and Available opportunities t o sal1 mixed glass for secondary uses.

GPI has estimated the amount of glass containers consumed by secondary uses in the U.S. from 1991 t o 1993." Thasa figures are presented in Exhibit 4-8. As shown, consumption for secondary uses has more than doubled during that time, while purchases of color separated cullet has remained stable. It is assumed that consumption of glass containers for secondary uses represents the amount of mixed glass consumed in the U.S. It is recognized that a few glass container manufacturing facilities around the U.S. accept mixed glass. However, this number is insignificant. Indications are that most glass container plants in the U.S. will continue to accept only color separated cullet.'*

EXHlBlT 4-8 CONSUMPTION OF GLASS CONTAINERS IN THE US. 1991-1993 (tons) 1992

1991 Cullet Purchases

2,356,303

2,439.7a2

Secondarv Uses

200.000

450.000

Source:

1993

2,432,483 675.000

Glass Packaging Institute. "Glass Recycling Rete Tops 36 Percent". April, 1994.

It is likely that consumption of glass containers for secondary end uses will continue t o grow rapidly (although it is not projected to double each year); projected growth in supply for the U.S. is estimated at approximately 125,000 tons per year. This projected growth in secondary end-uses is based solely on observed growth over the past few years. It should be recognized, however, that continued growth of secondary end uses will depend on substantial commitment by end-users t o accept the material.

11

'I

Glass Packaging Institute. "Glass Recycling Rate Tops 36 Percent: 1983 Data Shows Fifth Straight Year of Growth". April, 1994. McCreery, Patrick. "Coors Sorted-Only Policy Affecting Glass Collections in the West". Recvclina Times. January 24, 1 Q96. page 16.

4-1 1

The quantity of mixed cullet marketed from the southeast U.S. is not known. Similarly. the number and format of glass programs in the region (sorted glass containers at the curb or sorted commingled) is not known. For estimating purposes, it was assumed that the mix of curbside collection programs in the southeast US. is no different than the rest of the U.S. (Commingled collection of glass containers undoubtedly occurs in the southeast). The amount of mixed glass marketed in the Southeast U.S. was estimated by pro-rating national secondary market estimates t o the region by its share of population with access t o curbside collection programs. Around 20 percent of communities with access to curbside programs are located in the Southeast U.S.13 It is therefore estimated that approximately 150,000 tons of mixed cullet from the south were consumed by secondary end users in 1993. This estimate is projected t o increase around 25,000 tons per year for the region. Exhibit 4-9 presents an estimate of mixed cullet supply from the southeast U.S. for 1994, 1997. and 2001. EXHIBIT 4-9 ESTIMATED SUPPLY OF MIXED GLASS FROM THE SOUTHEAST U.S.; 1994,1997,2001 (tons) 1894

lSS7

2001

176,000

250.000

350,000

V".

Mixed glass supply

It is acknowledged that this supply does not reflect anecdotal information retained by

OWR. As the State continues t o investigate mixed glass supply, this estimate may be reduced based on new North Carolina-specific information. 4.2.1.4

Demand Estimate for Mixed Glass-

Mixed colors of container glass are rarely marketed in North Carolina. With a healthy glass container manufacturing capacity in the state, most recycling programs are designed for the generator t o color sort discarded glass or for color sorting t o occur at a processing facility. Typically, mixed glass is generated only as residue from a sorting line due t o breakage in the collection or processing system. Most recyclers seek t o minimize this residue and then dispose of it with other fines and contaminants. Some of the potential markets for this mixed color glass are described below. Glass Container Manufacturers--Currently, all glass container manufacturers in the state require that cullet supply be color sorted, with the requirement being the most stringent for clear or flint glass. However, some color mixing is allowed at plants in other regions of the country. For example, soma mixed glass is allowed in the production of "Gallo flint", a slightly brown or green tinted bottle used for bottling wines in California. Vitro, the Mexican glass manufacturer that owns Anchor Glass, is experimenting with an "Ecobottle" made from mixed colors, as well as with a technology t o color coat glass bottles t o customer ~pecifications.'~

&&&.

$3

Steuteville, Robert. "State of Garbage in America".

1.

Cubbison, Don, New England CRlnc., Recycle '94: Southwest Recycling Market Development Conference presentation, December 5, 1994.

4-12

April, 1994. page 4 9 .

Aaareaate Uses--Mixed glass, as a high density commodity, is well suited for local uses that minimize transportation costs. Crushed glass can be used as a replacement for construction aggregates in road building and other construction applications. Glass can either be bound into a material, as in glassphalt, or be used in an unbound aggregate form. The City of New York is a leader in the use of crushed glass in the production of asphalt. Currently, 43 percent of the city's recovered glass is used t o produce glassphalt at the city operated asphalt plant, totaling 20,000 tons of glass in 1992. Mixed and more contaminated glass was processed for use in roads, with the color separated glass being marketed t o glass container manufacturers.16 King County, Washington has conducted a demonstration project for glassphalt using 5 percent and 10 percent glass content. The road met all structural standards and performed comparably on skid resistance t o the control road sections." The only testing that the NC Department of Transportation has done incorporating crushed glass into asphalt has been with glass scrap from a Christmas tree ornament factory in the state. The asphalt mix using this material did not meet performance standards for skid resistance. However, the glass scrap used resulted in primarily flat pieces when crushed, rather than the cubicle shapes representative of crushed container glass and thus the trial was not directly applicable t o mixed container glass." Ninety-five cubic yards of crushed glass as unbound aggregate was used in a demonstration project by the NC DOT in a section of the Highway Loop around Charlotte. Crushed glass was used instead of sand in the drainage envelope around drainage pipe along the side of the highway. No performance data on the road and the crushed glass material are available at present.'* The New Hampshire DOT has issued a specification which allows Processed Glass Aggregate (PGA) t o replace gravel, crushed gravel, or crushed stone in aggregate base course materials. The specifications call for glass which is crushed and screened through a 112 inch screen, including mixed glass as well as other ceramic and plate glass. The PGAlcourse blends are allowed t o be 5 percent glass with a plus or minus 5 percent tolerance." The Northeast Resource Recovery Association has worked with small New England towns t o use low cost crushing and screening machinery t o process PGA for use in local public works projects, providing a local outlet for mixed glass or other glass not marketable t o glass container manufacturers."

Coburn, Randal. "Cullet Utilization: Lessons From One State". Resource Recvclinu. June, 1994. page 3641. Clean Washington Center. 'King County Glassphalt Demonstration Project'. Report WEZF1. June, 1S93. Personal communication. Mr. Carson Clinard, Bituminous Leb, NC DOT. December 20, 1 SS4. Personal communication. Mr. Cabell Garbee, NC DOT. December 20. lSS4. 'Amendment to Section 3 0 4 --Aggregate Base Courses". NH DOT Special Provision. revised October 28, 19S2. Boyles, Peg. 'Processed Glass Aggregate -- An Alternative Reuse for Municipal Post-Consumer Glass'. Recycle ' 9 4 Southwest Recycling Market Development Conference presentation. December 6, 1994.

4-13

A study conducted by a consortium of state market development agencies by the engineering firm Dames & Moore concluded that glass cullet could be used in a variety of unbound construction aggregate applications. The study concluded that "cullet appears to be an excellent supplement or replacement for gravel in many construction applications." The study recommended maximum cullet content ranging from 15 percent for roadway base course t o 30 percent for roadway subbase and embankments t o 100 percent for nonstructural fill and drainage applications. Estimated processing costs for conversion of mixed glass bottles into on-spec construction aggregate ranged from $5 t o $10 per ton.2' Given that the average price for construction sand and gravel, a competing virgin material, in North Carolina in 1992 was $4.17 per ton, glass processing for unbound aggregate uses is not likely t o be cost effective based on sales revenue alone. However, aggregate markets would be preferable to landfilling mixed glass cullet residuals from glass processing systems also producing color separated cullet.22 Total aggregate demand in the state is documented in the section on markets for recovered concrete from C&D debris 14.2.8).

-

-

Fiberalass Products--Mixed glass cullet can be used in the production of fiberglass products and insulation. However, the quality standards for the cullet feedstock, especially for insulation production, is more stringent than for container manufacturers. Given that mixed glass generated in North Carolina is likely a residue stream with other contaminants, the fiberglass market is not promising. In particular, fiberglass insulation manufacturers require a 12 mesh product (glass particles which pass through a mesh with 12 holes per square inch) which is almost entirely free of metal or ceramic contamination. The lead foil from wine bottles and other metal and ceramic contaminants, if present in the cullet, can cause problems in the furnaces and spinners of the fiberglass production facilities. Six fiberglass insulation plants operate in the Southeast, as presented in Exhibit 4-10.

EXHIBIT 4-10 FIBERGLASS INSULATION PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEAST"

11

"

Company

Plant looation

Certain Teed Corporation

Athens, GA

Guardian Fiberglass, Inc.

Mineral Wells,

Knauf Fiber Glass

Lanen, AL

Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

Fairburn, GA

Schuller International, Inc.

Winder, GA

Schuller International. Inc.

Vienna. WV

MS

Clean Washington Center, and Dames 5 Moore. Inc. Evaluation of Cullet es a Construction Aaareaatq. Report #Be. June, 1993. US. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1146.

p 1992. . page

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association. July, 1993.

4-14

"North American Plant Locations' Pub. # N000.

The National American Insulation Manufacturers Association reports that fiber glass insulation manufacturers utilized 359,130 tons of recovered glass in 1993 and project utilization of 435,200 tons in 1994. On average, association estimates that fiber glass insulation nationwide contains 10 percent recycled glass content." Other MarketsIn additional to containers, aggregates, and fiberglass, mixed glass can potentially also be used in the production of abrasives, tiles, water filtration systems and reflective beads. For example, Potters Industries located in Apex, NC utilizes plate and window glass in the production of beads for reflective markers for roadways and other applications. Also, sources at OWR suggest that Cherokee Sanford, a North Carolina brick manufacturer in Lee County, uses mixed cullet t o manufacture bricks. Summary of Demand Conditions-Pilot programs and small scale secondary uses notwithstanding, no practical and stable demand for mixed glass could be enumerated from project research. Furthermore, with continued growth in color-separated recycling and the significant technical limitations imposed by the fiberglass and other industries, future demand for mixed glass in the region is likely t o remain negligible t o very low. Demand for aggregate in which mixed glass will be used is documented later in this section. No other numeric estimates of demand for mixed glass have been provided in this report. For analysis purposes (later in Section 5). demand for mixed glass is assumed t o be zero. 4.2.2 Plastic; 4.2.2.1 Estimated Supply of PETE and HDPE Containers-

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE) is used t o manufacture several different products including: Durable goods, such as carpeting; Non-durable goods, such as film; and Packaging, such as soft drink bottles, water bottles, and strapping. Because most of the PETE generated and recovered from MSW is made from rigid packaging, study efforts focused on the generation and recovery of PETE containers. These include soft drink, water, and juice bottles, and other PETE containers. It should be noted that other PETE products, such as carpeting, and x-ray film have been recovered for recycling. Reliable estimates of generation and recovery of these materials, however, are not readily available.

24

North American insulation Manufacturers Association. 'Fiber Glass end Slag Wool insulation Lead the Industry in the Use of Recycled Materials" Pub. UN010. October 1994.

4-1 5

Water and juice bottles are manufactured from a custom blow molding grade of PETE that is formulated differently than resin used t o produce soft drink bottles. These products are thus often referred t o as "custom" containers or bottles. Once collected, recovered PETE containers are processed and marketed t o end-users. Several grades of recovered PETE containers are marketed.26 Grades of PETE are distinguished by the: Color of the PETE bottle (green or clear); Type of resin (custom or soft drink resin); Type of container (blow molded bottles or jars, tubs, trays, etc.); and Whether the material is mixed or one type of PETE. Soft drink bottles are the most commonly recovered PETE products. Custom PETE container are recovered t o a lessor extent but remain a significant part of PETE container recovery. Several program are responding t o demand for recovered PETE and including custom containers in collection programs. It is estimated that adding custom PETE containers t o programs increases the amount of recovered PETE by around 25 percent." High density polyethylene (HDPE) is one of the most common plastic resins and is used t o manufacture a wide variety of products. In its' annual resin review, Modern Plastics reports that around 5.1 million tons of HDPE resins was used t o produce goods in the U.S. in 1994." Around half of the resin used in 1993 was used such as blow molded milk and water bottles, injection molded crates and tubs, and extruded films for bags and wraps, t o produce packaging.2s Other products commonly made from HDPE include extruded plastic pipe, and insulation on wire and cables. Although some recovery of durable HDPE products, and HDPE film is occurring, most HDPE recovery is a result of container collection. This study will only estimate the generation and recovery of rigid HDPE containers. The most common HDPE product recovered from MSW are milk and water jugs manufactured from natural blow molding grade resin. Pigmented HDPE bottles are also recovered, although t o a lesser extent. One component of HDPE rigid containers that are not recovered in significant amounts are injection molded rigid containers such as HDPE margarine tubs.lS This material is sometimes recycled through mixed plastic recovery programs. However, these programs are limited in number.

"

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Scrao Soecificetions Circular 1994. 1994. page 66. Apothaker, Stave. "PET Recycling Polishes Its Imab'.

Resource Recvclinp. January, 1996. page 42.

'I

"Resins 1996". Modern Plastics. January, 1996. page 83.

10

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., Committee on Resin Statistics. 1994.

28

Apotheker, Stave. "High Hopes for HDPE Recovery". Resource Recvclinn. May, 1994. page 61.

4-1 6

"Annual Major Markets Survey".

Estimates of supply of PETE and HDPE containers were developed by: 0

Estimating the amount of containers generated in the MSW of North Carolina and border states;

0

Estimating a recovery rate for these materials; and thus

0

Estimating the amount of containers recovered from MSW for recycling.

Container Generatiotpln a report prepared for Keep America Beautiful (KAB), Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimated the amount of PETE and HDPE bottles generated in U.S. MSW in 1992, and 2000.30 It was estimated that PETE bottle generation would increasa from 760 thousand tons in 1992, t o around 1,200 thousand tons by 2000. Around 1.21 5 thousand tons of HDPE bottles were generated in 1992, increasing t o 1,500 thousand tons by 2000. U.S. bottle generation estimates for 1994, 1997, and 2001 were developed by interpolation and extrapolation based on the KAB figures. Generation estimates for North Carolina and it's border states were developed by pro-rating U.S. estimates by population. Generation estimates of PETE containers for the U.S. and the t w o study regions are presented in Exhibit 4-11 for 1994, 1997, and 2001, respectively. Exhibit 4-12 present similar information for HDPE containers. ynited States PETE end HDPE Container Recovery-Recovery rate estimates for PETE and HDPE containers were derived from t w o sources. In a report prepared for the American Plastics Council (APC), R.W. Beck estimated the amount of PETE and HDPE packaging recovered from the U S . waste stream between 1991 and 1993. Estimates of soft drink bottle (including any HDPE base cups) and custom bottle recovery were combined t o estimate recovery of PETE container^.^' National HDPE container recovery estimates were developed by subtracting soft drink bottle base cup recovery from total HDPE packaging recovery. This recovery estimate may slightly overestimate the recovery of HDPE rigid containers because HDPE film recovery can not be subtracted from the estimate. The KAB report estimates a PETE bottle and HDPE bottle recovery rates of 38 percent and 23 percent, respectively, will be necessary by 2000 t o achieve the moderate goal of a 30 percent total MSW recovery rata3' For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that the U.S. will achieve this goal.

'O

Franklin Associateo, Ltd. The Role of Recvclino in lnteorated Solid Waste Manaoement: ADDendices. prepared for Keep America Beautiful. September, 1994. page K-2.

31

R.W. Beck. 1993 National Post-Consumer Plastics Recvclina Rate Study. June, 1994.

32

Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recvclino in lnteorated Solid Waste Menaoement: ADDendices. prepared for Keep America Beautiful. September, 1994. page K-10.

4-17

EXHIBIT 4-1 1 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF PETE CONTAINERS: 1994,1997,2001 UNITED STATES Year

1994

1997

2001

Generation

870.000

1.035.000

1,200,000

Recovery

270,000

357.000

477.000

31 %

35%

38%

Recoverv Rate

NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES

Year

1994

Generation Recovery Recovery Rate

1997

2001

97,400

1 15,900

140.600

16,700

22,100

29,500

17%

19%

21 %

NORTH CAROLINA ONLY Year

1994

1997

200 1

Generation

23,500

27,900

33,900

5,308

7,400

10,200

23%

27%

30%

Recovery Recoverv Rate

4-18

EXHIBIT 4-12 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF HDPE CONTAINERS: 1994,1997,2001 (tons)

UNITED STATES Year

1994

1997 1,393,000

1.2a6,ooo

Generation

224,000

Recovery Recovery Rate

2001 1,536,000

353,000

281,000

23%

20%

17%

NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES Year Generation Recovery Recovery Rate

.

1994

1997

2001

144,060

156,030

171,990

13,800

17.400

21,900 13%

11%

10% NORTH CAROLINA ONLY

Year

1994

Generation Recovery Recovery Rate

1997_

~

_

2001

_ ~

34.700

37,600

41,500

4,118

5,100

6,600

12%

14%

16%

Recovery rates for 1994 and 1997 were estimated by interpolation between the calculated 1993 recovery rate and the projected recovery rate in 2000. Only a marginal increase, if .any, was anticipated in the recovery rate for containers between 2000 end 2001. Consequently, no distinction was made in the recovery rates between the t w o years. North Carolina and Border States Recovery--The amount of PETE and HDPE containers recovered from North Carolina and it's border states was estimated by pro-rating U.S. recovery estimates by the region's share of people with access t o curbside collection recycling programs. In 1994,approximately 101 million people in the U.S. had access t o programs. Around 6 percent of these individuals were served by programs in the North Carolina and it's border states.33 It is recognized that curbside recycling is not the only way PETE containers are recovered in the US. Access t o curbside programs, however,

33

Steuteville. Robert. "The State of Garbage in America". &g&. April, 1894. page 49.

4-19

does provide an indication of plastic collection infrastructure in the region relative t o rest of the country.

North Carolina Recoverp-North Carolina's Office of Waste Reduction reports the amount of PETE and HDPE containers recovered annually by North Carolina local governments. Fiscal year 1993-94 figures were used t o represent recovery in 1994. The State had an estimated recovery rate of around 23 percent of PETE containers and 17 percent for HDPE containers. Recovery rates for 1997 and 2001 were estimated by assuming that North Carolina will approach current national recovery rates by 2001 and interpolating. 4.2.2.2

Demand Estimate for PETE & HDPE-

PETE recycling has proven very successful due t o established end markets for the material and higher prices for virgin PETE. The National Association for Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR) estimates that demand for post-consumer PETE is three t o four times the available supply.34 Synthetic fiber manufacturers currently use the largest share of recovered PETE. According t o plastic industry figures, approximately 240 million pounds of post-consumer PETE were used in fiber production; other major end use markets each consumed in the range of 20 t o 40 million pounds, with a total of roughly 285 million pounds consumed by non-fiber markets.36 Four of the largest manufacturers of fiber and fiber products using recovered PETE are located in the Southeast U.S. Several other smaller markets for recovered PETE exist in the Southeast U.S. Plastic bottle manufacturers can use recycled PETE as an inner layer in food-quality containers. Plastic lumber manufacturers use PETE in the mix with other resin types. Recycled PETE is also used t o produce plastic strapping. Recycled fiber has been used in the production of fleece, pile, and other knit garments, heavier woven fabrics for shoes, luggage, and similar items, and carpet. Most fibers have some post-industrial content, but some manufacturers are producing 100 percent postconsumer content fibers3' According t o industry sources, the majority of PETE currently being recycled is being recycled into fiber applications. A number of PETE recyclers have obtained letters of nonobjection from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use of recycled PETE in food contact applications. Johnson Controls, Inc. in Nicholasville, Kentucky, has developed a method for processing recycled plastic to meet FDA food grade plastic standards. Other companies, including Continental PETE Technologies, Inc. in Florence, Kentucky, have manufactured multi-layer PETE bottles with an inner layer made from postconsumer PETE. These new processes have received a letter of no objection from FDA. Recycled resin for food packaging can also be produced through methanolysis, whereby PETE or other plastics can be broken down t o their original monomers and re-polymerized. However, methanolysis is currently cost-prohibitive for most applications. Both Eastman

~~

. 3

Milgrom. Jack. "Trends in Plastics Recycling". Resource Recvclinq. May, 1994.

35

Modern Plastics. January, 1995.

38

"100% Postconsumer Racycled PET Bottle Fabric Introduced". Recvclina Times. February 22, 1994.

4-20

Chemical Co. in Kingsport, Tennessee and Hoechst Celanese Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina have developed methanolysis processes. Although recycled HDPE and LDPE are the preferred resins for producing plastic lumber, recycled PETE and some other resins may be used in small quantities without affecting the quality of the product, depending on the technology used t o manufacture the end products. Straooing-Plastic strapping used t o secure materials for shipping can be manufactured using scrap PETE. Signode Corporation located in Florence, Kentucky, advertises a product line containing 95 percent post-consumer and 5 percent post-industrial material. lnterlake Packaging Corporation in South Carolina also produces strapping with recycled content. The following recycled PETE end-users in North Carolina and its border states were listed in either the North Carolina Directory of Markets for Recyclable Materials or the American Plastic Council's Recycled Plastic Products Source Book: 0

Earth Care Products of Ame rica. Inc.: use some PETE commingled with HDPE and other resin types in producing plastic lumber, car stops, and related products at its facility in Sharon, Tennessee. The facility in Statesville, North Carolina recently shut down operations, and the Tennessee facility is expected t o expand production.

0

&,g&st

0

lmaae Industries. Inc.: is the second largest reclaimer of post-consumer PETE containers. Headquartered in Armuchee, Georgia, this company began as a carpet manufacturer in 1976. In the late 1980s, the company began t o integrate its operation by producing its own recycled fiber. It has since become a fully integrated facility with its own washing, sorting, grinding, and pelletizing operations. The majority of the recovered materials are used in carpet and fiberfill production, but some pellets and flakes are sold t o other end users.

0

lnterlake Packaaina Coro; manufactures strapping material with postconsumer and post-industrial PETE. The recycled content is limited t o insure that the product meets industry standards for breakage resistance. The facility is located in Fountain Inn, South Carolina.

0

Martin Color-Fi.. Inc.: produces engineered resins and recycled-content fiber at its facilities in Edgefield, Sumter, and Trenton, South Carolina.

0

Wellman. Inc.: is the largest consumer of recovered PETE in the U.S. A t their facility in Johnsonville, South Carolina, the company produces polyester fiber used in the manufacture of carpets, fiberfill, and other products.

Celan e w CoIo,: has a facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina, which breaks down plastic bottles into its constituent elements, and re-polymerizes the elements into purified resin. Other Hoechst Celanese facilities in North and South Carolina use varying degrees of post-consumer and post-industrial PETE t o manufacture polyester fiber, geotextiles, and engineering plastics.

4-21

Estimated Market Demand for PETE--Over the past few years, the capacity for Processing and using recycled PETE has expanded significantly. As a result, prices for recovered PETE have remained stable, but at a high enough level t o stimulate increased recovery. Other factors which contribute t o favorable markets for recovered PETE include the high price of virgin resin, the increased export demand, and regulations in some states for postconsumer resin content in packaging. The markets for scrap PETE in North Carolina and its border states are strong and stable. The t w o largest end users, Image Industries and Wellman, both are in the process of increasing capacity t o process end utilize scrap PETE. With recovery and processing capacity increasing, PETE consumption in the region is expected t o increase through 2001. Demand for post-consumer PETE is expected t o increase through the 1990s. but industry estimates for U.S. demand by the year 2000 vary, ranging from 635 million pounds t o 1,400 million pound^.^' For this study, figures for annual increasesin PETE consumption between 1992 and 1994 were extrapolated to project future PETE demand. Excluding exports, PETE consumption increased by 18 percent from 1992 to 1993, and by 12 percent from 1993 t o 1994.38 By end use, the post-consumer PETE consumption increased by the following percentages: 0 0 0

0

fibers: 1992-93: 10 percent, 1993-94: 14 percent non-food bottles: 1992-93: 50 percent, 1993-94: 14 percent strapping: 1992-93: 25 percent, 1993-94: 40 percent lumber: negligible increase.

Conservative annual increases for fibers, bottles, and strapping of 10 percent, 14 percent, and 25 percent respectively were applied t o the figures for current PETE consumption in the region t o estimate demand for 1997 and 2001. These estimates are presented in Exhibit 4-13. Although the economics of plastic recycling have become more favorable, many collectors are still concerned about the stability of the market. Some industry analysts have promoted vertical integration (incorporating processing capabilities for recycled feedstock at the manufacturing site) as a way t o absorb some of variation in the market. A vertically integrated operation also enjoys economic advantages such as decreased transportation costs and elimination of extraneous processing steps (e.g. pelletizing). Another technical advantage is the ability to customize the recycled feedstocks t o suit the company's manufacturing needs.3g Examples of companies which have successfully integrated their operations include Wellman, Inc. and Image Industries, Inc. Because local processing capacity exceeds the local supply, and major markets for recovered PETE are located in the Southeast U.S., local governments in North Carolina

37

Milprom, Jack. "Trends in Plastics Recycling". Resource Recvclina. May, 1884.

SB

Modern Plastics. January, 1885.

30

Milgrom, Jack. "Trends in Plastics Recycling". Resource Recvclina. May, 1884.

4-22

EXHIBIT 4-13 DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR PETE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES

Demand (TPYI ~

~~

~~

~

~~

1994 (postcorisumerl

1994 (postindustrial)

146,000

140,000

380.700

557.300

Bottles

300

0

400

600

Strapping

500

1,300

3,400

8.300

0

200

200

200

146.800

141,500

384.700

566.400

End Use Fiber

Lumber Total

1997 (total PETE)

200 1 (total PETE)

Source: Manufacturer Surveys.

should investigate opportunities for recovering more PETE from the waste stream. One option is t o begin collecting custom PETE containers in addition t o PETE bottles. PETE exports amounted t o 50 million According to figures published in Modern PI-, pounds in 1994, doubling the 1993 export value." Because PETE can be used t o produce fibers, export demand is often related to fiber markets in other countries. Poor yield from the Chinese cotton crop in 1994 has been associated with the strong demand for PETE exports t o provide replacement fiber^.^' The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports scrap PETE exports as a lump sum including all polymers of ethylene. However, since only small amounts of HDPE and LDPE are exported, the figures presented in Exhibit 4-14 give a good approximation of actual tons of PETE exported from ports in the Southeast U.S. Estimated Market Demand for HDPE-Almost half of the plastic containers generated in the U.S. are made of HDPE resin, yet consumption of post-consumer HDPE was only slightly greater than recycled PETE consumption in 1994. Economic and technological factors have limited the growth in HDPE demand as compared t o PETE demand. High processing costs for recycled HDPE make it difficult to compete with the abundant and often lowercost virgin HDPE. Different properties associated with HDPE used in different types of containers also pose technological difficulties in using recycled HDPE. For example, almost one third of all HDPE containers are manufactured using injection molding processes, and very few applications can use these materials as feedstock.42

IO

Modern Plastics. January, 1996.

41

Steuteville, Robert. "Markets Improve For Recycled Plastics".

.Z

Apotheker, Steve. "High Hopes for HDPE Containers". Resource RecvclinQ. May, 1994.

4-23

-.

January, 1996.

EXHIBIT 4-14 POLYMERS OF ETHYLENE EXPORTS FROM SELECTED CUSTOMS DISTRICTS Tons of Scrao Plastic fPolvmers of Ethvlene) Customs District

-

1991

1992

1993

Jan. Aug. 1994

722

936

85

81

Norfolk, VA

73

78

515

222

Savannah, GA

77

1,082

0

111

0

0

0

0

16.930

18.500

Charleston, SC

Wilmington, NC Total U.S. Exoorts

12,931

18.172

Source: US. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division

Many diverse markets for recycled HDPE exist, including bottles, containers, drainage pipe and tile, film, lumber, and pallets. According t o industry data for 1994, over half of the recycled HDPE used as a manufacturing feedstock, was natural-colored bottles. The amount of pigmented bottles consumed by manufacturers increased dramatically (38 percent) between 1993 and 1994.43 In the Southeast U.S., markets were identified for natural HDPE in recycled-content lumber and trash bags. Manufacturers in this region also use post-consumer pigmented HDPE in trash bags and nursery containers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that other products may be manufactured by end-users in the region as well. Many manufacturers surveyed indicated that they used post-industrial HDPE almost exclusively because it was more readily available, cleanar, and lower cost. Nationally, bottles are the largest market for post-consumer HDPE containers. Both monoand multi-layer bottles with recycled content are being used for household and industrial chemicals, personal care products, motor oil, and the automotive products. No bottle manufacturers in the Southeast U.S. which use recycled HDPE were identified.

On a national average, HDPE pipes have roughly 15 percent post-consumer content. A study completed by the University of Toledo in Ohio demonstrated that HDPE pipe made with 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent post-consumer HDPE met or exceeded the performance standards for virgin pipe. As a result of the study, the American Society for Testing and Materials has revised standards which prohibited post-consumer content in pipes. Resin Costs will determine whether post-consumer content increases significantly in HDPE pipe.44' One North Carolina facility was identified which manufacturers post-consumer content pipe. A variety of resin types including HDPE can be used t o produce plastic lumber, pallets, and other plastic wood products. Natural HDPE is the preferred post-consumer resin, but lack ~

~

Modern Plastics. January, 1996. 44

Apotheker, Steve. "High Hopes for HDPE Containers". Resource Recvcling. Mev, 1994.

4-24

of a stable supply and high costs have caused some manufacturers t o use low density polyethylene (LDPE), more commingled plastics, and more post-industrial material. Trash bags and grocery sacks can incorporate varying amounts of recycled HDPE, depending on the bag thickness and quality desired. One manufacturer noted that equipment limitations and bag thickness requirements allow a maximum of 40 percent recycled content at this facility. ~

Recycling bins, trash containers, and nursery containers (e.g. flower pots) have been a steady market for recycled HDPE. Nursery containers currently represent the largest market for recycled HDPE in North Carolina and its border states. The following HDPE end-users in North Carolina and its border states were listed in the North Carolina Directory of Markets for Recyclable Materials andlor the American Plastics Council Recycled Plastic Products Source Book: Carlisle Plastics. Inc, : uses mostly post-industrial and post-consumer natural and pigmented HDPE t o manufacture trash bags at its facility in Battleboro, North Carolina.

Earth Care Products. Inc.: manufacturers plastic lumber at its facility in Sharon, Tennessee, using a mixture of plastic resin types (mostly post-industrial, no virgin content). Harmon-Cook & Associates. Inc.: produce plastic lumber and related products including pallets, trash containers, and playground structures using post-consumer natural HDPE and some polypropylene. The facility is located in Tucker, Georgia.

IEM Plastics: use mixed-color post-consumer HDPE t o produce nursery containers at its Reidsville, North Carolina facility. This vertically-integrated facility accepts mixed-color bales of HDPE containers, grinds, washes, and pelletizes the material, and feeds the processed material into its blow-molding operations. A source at this facility suggested that North Carolina implement more aggressive programs t o collect mixed color HDPE to supply this local market.

innovative Plastic Products, Inc.: produce a variety of products including pallets, molded sheet, tubing, and planters. This Greensboro, Georgia company currently uses mostly post-industrial mixed-color HDPE, but could use mostly post-consumer material if it were available at a competitive price. Suoerwood Of Alabama, Inc,: uses a mixture of post-industrial resins, including HDPE, t o produce plastic lumber at its Selma, Alabama facility. The company has used post-consumer resins, but market fluctuation and lack of local sources prompted the company t o use only post-industrial material.

4-25

0

0

universal Disoersions. Inc.: produces e color concentrate product in which carbon black is mixed with polyethylene resin. This product is used as a coloring additive in making other products. The Charlotte, North Carolina office purchases feedstocks t o supply the manufacturing plant in south Georgia. Currently, the HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE used in the product comes from post-industriel sources. 7arn. Inc.: produces nursery containers using recovered HDPE and small amounts of LDPE at its facility in Atlanta, Georgia. The company has a processing facility in Reidsville, North Carolina, which grinds, washes. and pelletizes the HDPE. Post-consumer HDPE is only used when economical; mostly post-industrial material is used at present.

Estimated Market Demand for HDPE-Surveys of manufacturers which use HDPE for nursery containers, plastic lumber, and pallets indicated that demand for their products is increasing. Demand for post-consumer HDPE is expected t o increase through the 1990s, but industry estimates for U.S. demand by the year 2000 vary, ranging from 967 million pounds t o 3,050 million pounds.45 For this study, figures for annual increases in HDPE consumption between 1992 and 1994 were extrapolated t o project future HDPE demand. Overall post-consumer HDPE consumption increased by 37 percent from 1992 t o 1993, and by 15 percent from 1993 t o 1994.48 By end use, post-consumer HDPE consumption increased (decreases indicated by parentheses) by the following percentages: 0 0 0 0

Pipe: 1992-93: 8 percent, 1993-94: 4 6 percent Film: 1992-93: 80 percent, 1993-94: (10) percent Lumber/pallets: 1992-93: 33 percent, 1993-94: 15 percent Other (containers): 1992-93: 13 percent, 1993-94: 3 percent

Conservative annual increases for pipe, film, lumber/pallets, and containers of 10 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, and 10 percent respectively were applied t o the figures for current HDPE consumption in the region to estimate demand for 1997 and 2001. These estimates are presented in Exhibit 4-1 5. The major difficulties in using post-consumer HDPE are availability and quality. Availability end quality concerns have caused at least one lumber manufacturer end one bin manufacturer t o substitute LDPE and LLDPE for HDPE. In North Carolina end its border states, the market is significantly larger for colored HDPE than for natural HDPE, and insufficient quantities of pigmented material is available in the Southeast region. The export market for HDPE from Southeastern ports is negligible, with most of the materials exported are shipped out of Northwest ports (total HDPE exports are very low in any event). Total U.S. exports of recovered polyethylene in 1993 amounted t o 5.33

''

Milgrom, Jack. "Trends in Plastics Recycling". Resource Recvclinq. May, 1994.

''

Modern Plastics. January, 1995.

4-26

EXHIBIT 4-1 5 DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR HDPE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS BORDER STATES Demand ITPYJ End Use Pipe Film Lumber/pallets Containers 81 other Total

consumer) 500 2,000 600 15,000 18,100

industrial) 500 5,300 4.400

3,500 13.700

(total HDPE) 1,300 9,700 8.700 24,600 44,300

(total HDPEI 1,900 14,100 18,100 36,100 70,200

Source: Manufacturer SUNE~S.

million pounds. The major export market is Canada (two-thirds of polyethylene e~ports).~' 4.2.2.3 Supply Estimate for Other Resins-

This section estimates the amount of plastic packaging generated and recovered from North Carolina and its border states in 1994, 1997, and 2001 for the following materials: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) packaging (SPI resin code #3); Low density polyethylene (LDPEI packaging (SPI resin code #4): Polypropylene (PP) packaging (SPI resin code #5); and 0

Polystyrene (PSI packaging (SPI resin code #61

Although the generation and recovery of these materials is estimated individually, collectively, will be referred to as other packaging. Generally, the recovery of other packaging is not as great as PETE and HDPE packaging recovery. A few recycling programs in the U.S. accept these materials, however recovery is not widespread. Some materials, such as shrink wrap film and polystyrene packaging, are recovered primarily from commercial or institutional generators such as warehouses or schools. Much of the material is recovered through local government collection programs. Supply estimates for other packaging were developed by: Estimating the amount of each material generated from the regions: Estimating a recovery rate and recovered tonnage of each material from the regions.

.,

Apotheker, Stew. "High Hopes for HDPE Containers". Resource Recvclina. May, 1994.

4-27

Generation Estimates for Other Packaging--

In a study performed for the American Plastics Council (APC), R.W. Beck estimated the amount of post-consumer plastic packaging recovered from U.S. MSW." Estimates were provided for 1991, 1992, end 1993 for each of the materials examined in this study. R.W. Back also estimated the amount of virgin resin (by resin type) purchased (or used in house) t o manufacture packaging in the U.S. These figures are assumed t o represent the amount of each type of packaging present in U.S. MSW during these years. Projections of plastic packaging waste generation during 1994, 1997, and 2001 were developed several different ways and are discussed below. However, once U.S. generation estimates were developed for the material, estimates of generation from North Carolina and border states were developed by pro-rating U.S. estimates t o the region based on its share of U.S. population (around 11 percent). PVC Generation ProjectionsThere is some indication that use of PVC for packaging has been decreasing. In its annual resin reports Modern Plastics estimates the amount of PVC resin used for packaging. This amount has declined 5 percent between 1992 and 1994." Much of this decline can be attributed t o decreased consumption of PVC for blow molded containers. Projections of PVC packaging generation in 1994, 1997, and 2001 were developed by assuming that U.S. generation will decline around 6,000 tons per year. LDPE Generation ProjectionsBecause much of LDPE packaging is film, the generation of this material was estimated based on projections of plastic film generation. U.S. EPA has estimated that the generation of plastic bags, sacks, and wraps in U.S. MSW will grow around 9 percent between 1993 and 2000.60 It is anticipated that LDPE packaging will grow at similar rates. Projections for 1994, 1997, and 2001 were developed by assuming that U.S. LDPE packaging generation will grow around 30,000 tons per year. PP Generation ProjectionsPP packaging generation in 1994 was estimated by using resin consumption information in Modern Plastics." PP consumption information developed by R.W. Beck was consistently around 60 percent of Modern Plastics figures. The 1994 Modern Plastics information published was adjusted down t o be consistent with R.W. recovery figures. Projections of PP packaging generation in 1997 and 2001 were developed by assuming that PP resin consumption for packaging will grow around 100,000 tons per year. This

4s

s.

R.W. Beck. 1993 National Post-Consumer Plastics Recvclina Rate Study. June, 1994. "Annual Resin Reports". Modern Plastics. January issues, 1993-1 995.

60

U.S. EPA. Characterization of Municiwl Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 UDdate. November, 1994. page 108.

SI

"Resins 1996". Modern Plastics. January, 1995. page 65.

4-28

growth rate is consistent with past growth. Use of PP in packaging has been growing relative t o other resin types in recent years. PS Generation Projections-. The U.S. EPA projects that plastics packaging in MSW will grow around 18 percent between 1993 and 2000. It is anticipated that polystyrene packaging will exhibit similar growth. Projections of PS packaging generation in 1994, 1997, and 2001 were estimated by interpolation and extrapolation between R.W. Beck estimates for 1993 and U.S. EPA's estimate for 2000. Recovery Estimates for Other Packaging-. R.W. Beck has estimated the recovery of each type of packaging as a percentage of resins consumed in manufacturing. In some cases, such as PVC and PS, recovery rates remained unchanged between 1992 and 1993. LDPE and PP recovery exhibited slight growth (but it should be noted that most growth is projected t o occur outside of residential applications). Regardless of growth between 1992 and 1993, 1993 U.S. recovery rates for the four materials were projected t o remain unchanged through 2001. Recovery in North Carolina and its border states was estimated by pro-rating national recovery estimates for each material t o the region based on its share of individuals with access t o curbside recycling programs. Around 6 percent of individuals in the U.S. with access t o curbside programs are located in North Carolina and its border states. Estimates of generation and recovery of PVC, LDPE, PP, and PS packaging from North Carolina are presented in Exhibits 4-1 6. Exhibit 4-17 presents similar estimates for North Carolina and its border states. 4.2.2.4

Demand Estimate for Other Resin-

In general, demand for all plastics resins expanded in 1994. With the economic recovery, increasing demands from consumer product and construction sectors, and disruptions in some virgin resin production facilities, prices on thermoplastic resins industry wide increased by 30 percent or more. As Modern Plastics noted in January of 1995, "The immediate prognosis is for the price rises t o continue, although they should flatten somewhat by the second half of 1995 with feedstock and resin plant outages coming back and new production capacity coming on-line. Supply is stretched by continued economic growth in North American and Asia, and new growth in Europe and South America.*2 Indeed. the use of resins #3 through #6 increased by about 7 percent in 1994. Recycled plastic resins, when comparable in quality t o virgin resins, have been impacted by in the increased demand and price rises of the plastic resin markets as a whole. The challenges of plastics recycling are predominately the collection and processing of recovered plastics, especially from post consumer sources. If processors can consistently produce recycled resins that can be used by molder or extruders of the resin type, then significant markets are available. However, markets for contaminated or mixed resins are much more problematic and less established, (such as the plastics lumber market), as documented in the HDPE market section previously. "

"Resins 1996 - HiQher Prices Point to Stronger Growth". Modern Plastics. January 1896. peue 37.

4-29

EXHIBIT 4-16 ESTIMATED GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF TYPES 3 THROUGH 6 RESIN FROM NORTH CAROLINA; 1994,1997,2001 (tons)

Year Generation Recovery Recovery Rate

1994

1997

2001

9,400 11.64 0.1 %

8,900 20 0.2%

8,200 20 0.2%

LDPE (#4) Year Generation Recovery Recovery Rate

1994 64.700 19.01