growth trends and new drivers for recycling of …...growth trends and new drivers for recycling of...

Growth Trends and New Drivers for

Recycling of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid

Plastics

March 2013

Resource Recycling, Inc. • PO Box 42270 Portland, OR 97242 • 503.233.1305 •

www.resource-recycling.com

1

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2

II. Study Objectives and Methodology ............................................................................. 4

III. Background ................................................................................................................ 4

IV. Research Findings ..................................................................................................... 7

V. Challenges and Barriers ........................................................................................... 13

VII. Moving Forward ...................................................................................................... 15

VIII. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 16

Appendix

A. Buyers Of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics

B. Full List of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs

C. Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs Only Accept Tubs and Lids

D. Case Studies

a. Napa, California

b. Fulton County, New York

c. Milwaukee, Wisconsin

d. Chapel Hill, North Carolina

E. Outreach and Education Materials

2

I. Executive Summary

Materials recovery in the United States is changing dynamically as recycling collection

services continue to expand to more households. Communities are increasingly offering

“single stream” recycling, which makes it easier for residents to recycle by eliminating

the need to pre-sort recyclables and allowing fiber, metal, glass and plastic recyclables

to be placed in one “single stream” container. In recent years, hundreds of communities

have expanded their existing plastics recycling programs beyond bottles and caps to

include non-bottle mixed rigid plastics1. This report examines the key factors driving

program expansion, evaluates barriers to future growth, and offers information to help

local decision makers address those barriers as they consider whether to include non-

bottle mixed rigid plastics in their community recycling programs.

Key factors driving program expansion are:

Underutilized capacity at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) due to

changes in recovery patterns. Even though household participation continues

to increase, MRFs are receiving lower total volumes of targeted materials than in

the recent past. As an example, MRFs are seeing about one-third less fiber

volume than six years ago, largely because of the decline in newspaper volume.2

The effect of this decline is that many MRFs are operating below capacity and

thus have available equipment and staffing capacity to handle more material.

Greater collection of rigid plastics via “tag-along” effect. In a phenomenon

described by many recycling program mangers as the “tag along effect,” more

rigid plastics are making their way into the collection process. This is due to a

number of factors including: migration from smaller bins to covered carts; greatly

increased capacity of larger bins; and consumers contributing more rigid plastics

due to confusion about which plastics are accepted by the communities’ recycling

program.

Expanded availability of rigid recycling programs. More programs are

specifically collecting mixed rigid plastics. As more communities add rigid plastics

to their lists of recyclables accepted curbside, this creates a “bandwagon effect”

with neighboring communities also seeking to expand their programs. Increased

supply also attracts more buyers into the market, thus strengthening the market

1 In this document, the terms "non-bottle mixed rigid plastics" and "mixed rigid plastics" are used

interchangeably. 2 Powell, Jerry. Resource Recycling: Independent Research. 2012

3

overall. This study showed that in at least twelve states, local recycling programs

added mixed rigid plastics in the past two years.

Better reach and understandability of recycling education is increasing

resident participation in programs. Findings show that local programs are

increasingly promoting recycling based on the packaging type (e.g., tub or

bucket) and on the product contained in the package (e.g. yogurt or margarine),

rather than on the resin type (e.g., high-density polyethylene or polypropylene).

Only 11 percent of the programs surveyed for this study rely solely on the resin

codes. Recycling based on packaging or product eliminates the need for

residents to check the resin code and simplifies recycling. This study concluded

that simplified recycling instructions and education is a contributing factor to

increasing rigid plastic recycling participation and recovery.

Greater demand for recycled resin derived from mixed rigid plastics. A

robust and growing market for mixed rigid plastics has emerged in the past five

years. Sixty percent of the recycling managers who were interviewed said that

large and consistent market demand for this material was the main reason that

they decided to include these materials in their programs.

Greater program simplicity and ease of recycling for residents. Quite simply,

more programs are accepting rigid plastics in single-stream recycling programs.

Continued success of local collection programs, recycling education, and

voluntary decisions to participate in recycling. All the successful program

expansions for rigid plastics recycling in this study were found to be a result of

private market dynamics, education, and organic growth. The researchers were

unable to correlate any program expansion with mandated recycling or recycled

content requirements.

While the trend lines are favoring continued expansion of rigids recycling. The study

also highlighted some concerns that could slow this expansion. These included

concerns over increased contamination, end markets remaining consistent and stable,

the lack of bale quality and consistency, issues with MRF’s ability to handle larger bulky

rigids, as well as the persistent concerns over the lack of funding for educational

initiatives. Lastly, in order to help guide communities interested in starting their own

mixed rigids recycling program, this report contains some recommendations for starting

a program, compiled a list of buyers of mixed rigids plastics, contains unique case

studies of four different communities, and some examples of their education and

outreach materials.

4

II. Study Objectives and Methodology

Objectives

Resource Recycling conducted a study between October 2011 and March 2012 to

provide an overview of the current landscape for recycling mixed rigid plastics (other

than bottles) in the United States, identify barriers to future growth, and identify key

trends likely to influence future growth. The research focused on examining local

recycling programs handling mixed rigid plastics.

This study was conducted with funding from the American Chemistry Council. The study

results may be useful to augment other data and programs of the American Chemistry

Council (ACC), the Association of Post-Consumer Plastic Recyclers (APR), and Moore

Recycling Associates.

Methodology

The data collection methodology involved first identifying active rigid recycling programs

from two key industry publications: Resource Recycling and Plastics Recycling Update.

Just fewer than 300 town, city, county and regional programs in 39 states were

identified as the core of the study (see Appendix B). The researchers then initiated a

series of information requests, surveys, and interviews to collect detailed information on

the identified programs.

Researchers conducted a survey of more than 5,000 recycling program managers in the

U.S., more than 500 domestic and foreign buyers of recovered plastics, and more than

600 Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) managers. Interviews were conducted with 42

managers of recycling programs in 19 states representing a wide range of scale and

scope of programs. Additionally, the researchers interviewed more than a dozen MRF

managers and ten buyers of mixed rigid plastics.

The resulting information was then analyzed and summarized in this report.

III. Background

Consumer use of plastics, including non-bottle mixed rigid plastic containers, continues

to grow3, and so does plastics recycling. Non-bottle mixed rigid plastics is one of the

3 For additional information on growth trends in consumer use of plastics, please visit the Reports and

Publications section of the American Chemistry Council's website: http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications

5

fastest growing areas of plastics recycling. The 2010 National Postconsumer Non-Bottle

Rigid Plastic Recycling Report, prepared by Moore Recycling Associates for the

American Chemistry Council (ACC), demonstrated that over the course of the past few

years, and particularly since 2008, the recovery of non-bottle mixed rigid plastics has

increased significantly. Additionally, in a 2011 survey of recycling programs in America’s

100 most populous cities, Moore Recycling Associates found that between 2008 and

2011 thirty percent of the largest U.S. communities expanded their recycling programs

to include recycling of more mixed rigid plastics (see Figure 1).

This data is consistent with the findings of our research (see Figure 2). We were able to

locate 288 programs in 39 states. Compiling a list of every program in the country was

beyond the scope of this study.

Figure 1. Chart from Moore Recycling Associates' 2011 report on plastics recycling patterns in the United States' 100 most populous cities.

6

States with Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs

Recovery System Changes an Important Factor in Material Inclusion

The findings of this research, especially those generated from the interviews with

program managers and MRF managers, shows that several current recovery system

trends help explain recent growth in collection volume and program participation. Two

aspects of the collection system are changing because the adoption of single stream

recycling has resulted in more collection capacity with fewer inspections. A 2010 study

by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)4 showed that the percentage of

the U.S. population that has access to single-stream recycling has exploded in recent

years, from just 29 percent in 2005 to 64 percent in 2010. “Single Stream” collection

enables residents to co-mingle all of their recyclable plastics, paper, metal and glass

together in a single bin, rather than placing these recyclables in separate bins by

material. Many residents no longer set out recyclables in multiple 12-to-14-gallon bins,

and as a result, these programs no longer require collectors to visually monitor or

inspect what is in each recycling container to avoid co-mingling. Residents increasingly

have larger 32-to-96-gallon carts containing fully co-mingled recyclables, which are then

directly emptied into recycling trucks with the material later separated at the MRF. The

4 American Forest & Paper Association: 2010 Community Survey. http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/exec_summ_2010.html

Figure 2. States that have recycling programs for non-bottle mixed rigid plastics are represented in light blue. New programs within the last two years are in dark blue.

7

key result is that residents are being provided with increased cubic volume for their

recyclables with no inspection step before the commingled material arrives at the MRF.

According to the recycling program managers and MRF executives interviewed, the

extra cubic volume from the larger lidded carts has invariably resulted in residents

placing materials into the cart that are not on the program’s list of officially accepted

items. Many of these managers believe that residents want to recycle more, and that

more materials resembling accepted items inevitably end up in the bin in single-stream

systems. Many program managers described this as a “tag along effect” because these

non-targeted items “tag along” with the targeted materials to the MRF.

Simultaneously, in just the last few years, larger societal trends with changing tastes,

preferences, and ways that Americans consume products and information has

fundamentally changed the flow of targeted materials to these MRFs. Fiber continues to

be the largest volume of material coming into a MRF, yet MRF operators are greatly

concerned about the decline in fiber volumes. One of the key drivers of the decline in

fiber consumption is newsprint. Americans are increasingly foregoing their daily

newspaper – which has also shrunk - and consuming information online. For example,

North American shipments of newsprint to publishers declined by 30 percent from 2008

through 2011.5 Therefore, a MRF designed just three years ago to serve a specific

community has typically seen its throughput decrease by 20 percent or more overall.

As a result, most MRF operators have excess equipment capacity as well as staff time

available to do sorting and baling. According to the recycling managers interviewed for

this study, a MRF that was at capacity in the recent past would have sent “tag along”

mixed rigid plastics to a landfill. However, now the MRF operator needs to optimize its

capacity and offset fixed costs by generating revenue from other materials coming into

his/her facility as long as those materials have decent market value. These two

important factors will likely continue to influence the macro environment for mixed rigid

plastics recycling for years to come.

IV. Research Findings

Growth in market demand for recycled resin underlies program expansion.

The increase in communities implementing programs to recover non-bottle mixed rigid

plastics can be attributed to a variety of factors, but one of the most important factors is

5 Forest Products Annual Market Review 2010-2011, prepared for the United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

8

the strength and stability of domestic demand. In fact, 43 percent of survey respondents

explicitly mentioned the consistency and strength of market demand for this material as

a primary factor in their decision to officially include these materials (see Figure 3) in

their collection programs. The essential importance of predictable demand is consistent

with findings by other researchers, such as Moore Recycling Associates6.

In a finding that may surprise many recycling program managers, Resource Recycling

located more than 50 domestic and export buyers of recovered non-bottle mixed rigid

plastics (see Appendix A). In addition to including the reclaimers that process recycled

plastics for re-sale, the list includes a number of end-users that convert the scrap

plastics into new packaging, garden and yard products, railroad ties, and other

applications. Several of these end users are among the largest plastics recyclers in the

U.S., indicating that mixed rigid plastics have moved into the mainstream of plastics

recycling. Interviews with these buyers indicate that demand for these plastics is also

rising due to improved sorting and washing technology and increased interest by brand-

owners in using post-consumer recycled (PCR) resin.

Voluntary adoption and community demand have driven new programs.

In the absence of an official program, the tag along effect has enabled many

communities to quietly experiment with the processing and marketing of mixed rigid

plastics. Of the communities surveyed that yielded tag-along materials, 55 percent were

utilizing or had switched to single-stream collection. The presence of mixed rigid plastics

at facilities with surplus capacity allows communities to experiment with the sorting,

baling, and marketing of these materials before launching an official program

expansion. Upon lining up markets and fine-tuning their operations, it became easy to

officially add mixed rigid plastics to their collection programs.

A number of recurring themes were seen in response to the researchers’ question,

"Why did your program start accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for recycling?"

The word cloud shown in Figure 3 was generated to provide a visual representation of

frequently occurring responses from this survey question. The larger the size of the

word, the more frequently that word appeared in the responses. Note that “markets”

appears to be the most frequently occurring word, suggesting a key driver in the

establishment of mixed rigid plastics recycling programs has been the growth of

markets for recycled resin.

6 Moore, Patty. "Staying Flexible on Rigid Plastics." In Plastics Recycling Update, August 2009.

9

"Why did your program start accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for recycling?"

Not only has the growth of end markets for mixed rigid plastics material enabled

communities to officially launch programs, communities already collecting mixed rigid

plastics have increasingly decided to expand their programs. For example, the recycling

program in San Jose, California, has been accepting mixed rigid plastics since 1993. In

2009 market demand emerged for bulky rigids, and items such as laundry baskets and

plastic toys were added to the program the following year.

Of course, there have been additional factors playing a role in the expansion of these

programs including the desire to increase landfill diversion rates, avoidance of landfill

tipping fees, customer demand (residential and/or commercial), and a general sense

that recycling more materials is a positive contribution that communities can make for a

healthier environment. This differs from the historical experience when state recycling

laws drove collection decisions at the local level. Finally, and most interestingly,

Resource Recycling researchers could not identify a single instance where a community

added non-bottle mixed rigid plastics as a result of direct pressure from state agencies

or environmental interest groups.

Tubs and Lids

Figure 3 This word cloud, based on responses from 42 managers of recycling programs, demonstrates that markets played a prominent role in starting a non-bottle mixed rigid plastic recycling program.

10

The research showed that plastic tubs and lids used for products such as yogurt, sour

cream, and margarine are the most common form of non-bottle plastic packaging that

residents mistakenly put in their carts in communities not officially targeting mixed rigid

plastics. Our researchers located approximately three-dozen communities that limited

their collections of non-bottle mixed rigid plastics to just tubs and lids upon the official

expansion of their programs (see Appendix C). However, as mentioned in previous

sections of this report, since many of these program expansions have occurred in

communities with single-stream collection via carts with lids and no visual monitoring of

what is in the bin, these MRFs are naturally receiving mixed rigid plastics beyond just

the tubs and lids.

Outreach and education have increased participation.

Communities are using a broad variety of strategies to communicate with their residents

regarding which non-bottle mixed rigid plastic packages are accepted for recycling. A

program can describe these packages by their:

package type ("tubs"),

product type ("yogurt container"),

resin type ("polypropylene"), or

resin identification code ("#5").

As you can see in Figure 4, almost half the programs surveyed (46 percent) utilize a

combination of package or product type, alongside resin identification codes (RIC). Only

11 percent of communities surveyed rely exclusively on resin types and resin

identification codes.

11

How program managers inform customers about acceptable mixed rigid plastics

Furthermore, 14% percent of respondents noted that their education materials make

simple, comprehensive statements such as “we accept all plastics" or "all rigid plastics".

Unwanted materials in low volumes with no market value are still sorted out at the MRF

and landfilled with other residues.

As collection expands beyond bottles, many recycling program managers stressed the

need for strong visual guides and the use of flyers, posters and other imagery that

offered clarifying examples. Anecdotally, the recycling program managers surveyed

believed these types of communications have been the most successful within their

communities. Figure 5 below used in Orange County, North Carolina, displays a diverse

range of images and products collected in their program. Plastic lawn chairs, beach

toys, coat hangers, and plastic toys are among the pictures of items collected. Appendix

D contains more examples of how various recycling programs are conveying

information to residents. Additionally, several industry groups with a keen understanding

of how education drives recycling performance are experimenting with various initiatives

to better understand how different channels and means of communicating improve

recycling.

Figure 4. The survey asked (#) managers of recycling programs that collect non-bottle

mixed rigid plastics what language they use to communicate with their customers

12

Lastly, more than 90 percent of survey respondents said they have created a website

where they direct customers. Mailers, press releases, emails, e-newsletters and

signage (for drop-off centers) were also commonly used forms of communication.

Twenty-three percent of respondents reported using bill inserts, paid advertisements

and social media, most of which contained visuals.

Acceptance of Bulky Rigids

The term, "bulky rigids”, refers to larger items such as children’s swimming pools,

laundry baskets, and lawn furniture. Due to the challenges inherent with their size and

diverse resin types, bulky rigids are not always a component of programs that collect

mixed rigid plastics. However, 83 percent of program managers in our survey indicated

they are currently accepting bulky rigid plastic or are planning to expand their program

to collect them in the upcoming year. The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) is

Figure 5. Informational Brochure for Orange County Solid Waste Management, North

Carolina. Mixed rigids are collected only at drop-off centers which serve a predominantly

rural clientele.

13

focusing on better understanding bulky rigid plastic collection, and its research should

be available sometime in 2013.

V. Challenges and Barriers

Generally the mood of survey respondents regarding their recycling of mixed rigid

plastics was positive and upbeat. And while respondents generally expected their

programs to continue to grow, they pointed out several important lessons and issues

that remain challenges to more robust recycling.

1) Contamination. A commonly cited barrier to developing a more robust program

was contamination – not just of mixed rigid plastics – but of all materials. Some

programs have experienced problems in terms of material quality when residents

are allowed to drop-off mixed rigid plastics at unstaffed centers (for an in-depth

examination of this type of program, see Appendix E: Four Case Studies).

Although program managers report that consumers generally seem to want to do

the right thing, contamination remains an issue when non-accepted materials are

included in the recyclables stream by overzealous or careless customers. Metals

and electronics can be difficult to remove, and a few program managers reported

difficulty with buyers rejecting the material when it had high levels of metal

contamination. Interviewees offered advice and suggested ideas for addressing

contamination. Solutions included adding a pre-sort to the MRF line, separating

residential materials from commercial materials, segregating dirtier construction

and demolition (C&D) rigid plastics away from cleaner curbside material, and

running a slower MRF line.

2) Markets. Awareness of market conditions was a common theme among survey

respondents in regard to what the future might hold, both for expansion of their

own programs and for the expansion of mixed rigid plastics recycling nationwide.

Fifty percent of survey respondents highlighted the importance of markets in

establishing a strong mixed rigid plastics recycling program, and two program

managers specifically noted that future decisions will require a clear

demonstration of ongoing market demand. As discussed earlier in this report,

recycling program managers view the key to ongoing success with mixed rigid

plastics recycling to be consistent and strong domestic market demand. This

sentiment is echoed in research findings by Moore Recycling Associates, the

Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers and other experts on mixed rigid

plastics. And while market demand for mixed rigid plastics is considered steady

now, many program managers have years of experience dealing with commodity

markets, and thus are inherently nervous about future market development.

14

3) Bale Quality/Consistency. Some of the program managers, MRF operators,

and plastics buyers consulted for this research discussed the difficulty in

marketing baled material because of the lack of uniform terminology and bale

specifications. What might be allowed in a bale for one buyer may not be allowed

in the bale for another buyer. Nevertheless, programs generally attempt to

prepare bales that meet a specific buyer’s needs. In response to concerns about

contamination and meeting bale specifications, 58 percent of the programs

surveyed indicated that they provide special instructions to their residents

regarding how to prepare their materials for recycling, such as emptying and

rinsing any containers, removing caps and removing metal parts (especially

handles) in order to improve the program’s ability to comply with buyer

specifications. Industry-wide attention is being focused on the bale specification

issue. The Rigid Plastics Recycling Program of the Association of Postconsumer

Plastics Recyclers (APR) has worked for several years now to develop bale

specifications and terminology with the ultimate goal of creating more uniform

and consistent non-bottle rigids bales being marketed in North America. The

program's multi-stakeholder bale definitions subcommittee has developed model

bale specifications, and the specifications are available online at no cost. The

plastics recycling industry is working to promote broad adoption of these

specifications to help facilitate stronger domestic markets. Because of their

newness to the industry, the bale specifications have yet to be widely employed

but the industry is optimistic that wide scale adoption of these specifications will

bring greater transparency and opportunities for these bales.

4) MRF Issues. Another difficulty that survey respondents highlighted was the

sorting and handling of bulky rigids and the need for sufficient MRF space -- both

in terms of sortation and storage. Breaking down large materials like pools or

playground equipment can be troublesome and requires specialized handling

and equipment. Yet, if these items are not broken down, they may be too large to

make their way up the feed conveyor and into the baler. On the other end of the

size spectrum, small plastic bits and pieces were cited as problematic during

sortation.

5) Education and Funding. Lastly, some recycling managers expressed concern

about being able to adequately educate their residents about mixed rigid plastics

recycling, some citing lack of funds as the source of this concern.

15

VI. Recommendations to Communities.

The primary objective of this research was to understand the environment for recycling

mixed rigid plastics in the United States. A secondary objective was to provide guidance

to communities either testing the waters or contemplating expanding their programs to

include non-bottle mixed rigid plastic packaging. As a result, the interviews yielded

these best practices:

Start small and build the program in stages by first processing and selling the

“tag along” mixed rigid plastics packaging. See Appendix E: Four Case Studies

for multiple examples of this rollout strategy.

Add pre-sort stations to a MRF line. This will enable the targeting and removal of

higher value materials before they hit the screens.

Have a good understanding of the end markets and likely buyers. “Crunch the

numbers” by anticipating your supply, demand and the net value of the material

before expanding your program.

Forming partnerships with waste haulers and others in the recycling community

is critical.

When it comes to communicating a program expansion, keep the messaging as

simple as possible and use visuals.

Do not try to collect bulky rigids through curbside collection; instead direct these

materials to a drop-off center.

VII. Moving Forward

This research identified some key trends behind the increases in non-bottle mixed rigid

plastic recycling in the United States, and also explored what specific communities are

doing to successfully expand their programs. As mentioned in the outset of this work, of

the 19 states represented in this survey, 12 had a new mixed rigid plastics program

expansion, which started within the past two years.

As the environment for recycling continues to evolve and change, future research could

be conducted to develop a more robust understanding of the landscape. For example, a

more detailed look at the return on investment for establishing a mixed rigid plastics

recycling program would be extremely useful for many communities. Anecdotal

evidence from many of the program managers surveyed suggests these programs are

breaking even or turning a small profit. Yet, a detailed financial examination of the

profitability of these programs was beyond the scope of this project. Additionally,

16

tracking how new programs have progressed, how many new programs are created,

and whether the growth in domestic markets continues for post-consumer mixed rigid

plastics would also be helpful data. Conversely, it would also be interesting for

researchers to talk to recycling managers in communities that appear to have all or

most of the attributes needed to sustain an expansion to include non-bottle mixed rigid

plastics but have not done so. Finding out why they have not expanded their programs

would be instructive.

VIII. Acknowledgements

This research would not be possible without the financial support of the American

Chemistry Council and the advice and assistance of Patty Moore of Moore Recycling

Associates and Elizabeth Bedard of the Association for Postconsumer Plastic

Recyclers.

17

Appendix A

Buyers of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics

COMPANY CONTACT PHONE EMAIL APC Recycling Steve Anderson 860-663-1112 stevea@apcrecycling.com

Avangard Innovative Jon Stephens 281-582-0700 jstephens@avaicg.com

Baycrest International Jim Fei 408-922-7288 jfei@baycrest.com Berg Mill Supply Glen Martens 503-277-3691 glenm@bergmill.com

Blue Ridge Plastics Alan Logan 330-699-2313 alogan@blueridgeplastics.com

Bosgen Inc. Jeff Wang 617-928-0888 jwang@bosgen.com

Carolina Fibre Keith Ayscue 336-275-4047 kayscue@carolinafibre.com

Concord Plastics, Inc, Marissa Kresge 570-453-0803 marissa@concordplasticsinc.com

Consolidated Scrap Resources Marty Fogle 717-843-0931 mfogle@consolidatedscrap.com

Corridor Recycling Kenneth Kim 310-835-9109 ken@corridorrecycling.com

CSI Plastics Steve Silver 508-829-7353 csiplastics@gmailcom

CRV Recovery Sammy Chan 562-229-1700 sammy@crvrecovery.com Denton Plastics Dennis Denton 503-257-9955 ddenton@denplas.com

Ecoplast Jose Perez 909-590-5730 jperez@ecoplastcorp.com

Ekman Recycling Ron Benge 314-918-7744 ronbenge@ekmanrecycling.com

Entropex Paul Trainor 519-332-0430 ptrainor@entropex.com

Envision Plastics Tamsin Ettefagh 336-342-4749 tamsin@envisionplastics.com Excel Development Ed Fodale 973-876-5000 ed@excelrecycling.net

First Star Recycling Lee Cornell 402-894-0003 lcornell@firststarrecycling.com

Haycore Canada Michel Jacobs 613-445-3610 michel@haycore.ca

IntegriCo Composites Chris Brough 254-743-6423 chris.brough@integrico.com International Alloys Michael Schipper 973-543-0095 michael.schipper@scraptrader.com

Kal Trading Lin Shen 905-272-7400 lin@kaltrading.com

KMET International Richard Kistner 623-478-5493 kmet1@aol.com

KW Plastics Clint Pugh 334-566-1563x406 cpugh@kwplastics.com

Laudadio Polymers Jose Boza 713-771-1142 jose@laudadiopolymers.com

Lynx Recyclers Eugene Imperato 408-988-2999 egi@lynxrecyclers.com

M & L Plastics May Lam 626-287-8899 megan@mlplastics.net

Magic Bright Ltd. Tony Wong 852 23144468 tony@magic-bright.com Merlin Plastics Tony Moucachan 604-522-6799 tony@merlinplastics.com

Ming's Recycling Kenny Luong 916-421-5054 mingsinfo@mingsrecycling.com

Multi-Link International Denis Chan 908-464-9091 michael@multilinkintl.com

Nextlife Enterprises Robert Dishman 561-245-2592 robert.dishman@nextlife.com

New Wave Plastics Frank Soska 954-562-9402

Omni Resource Recovery Joe Castro 909-327-2900 jcastro@omnirecovery.com

Pacific West Recycling Services Ron Kemalyan 310-545-4972 rsk113@aol.com PARC Corp, Kathy Xuan 815-372-3500 kathy@parcucsa.com

Plastic Revolutions Emily Kelly 410-215-2780 ekellymeme@aol.com Polimeros Nacionales Jorge Inigo jorgei@polnac.com

Polymer Network Rich Moody 336-623-6868 rich@polymernetwork.net

Putian Interntional Jim Lin 602-410-0825 putianinternationalco@gmail.com

PWR International Marco Kwan 916-930-9288 marcokwan@pwrintl.com

Recycling Revolution Brian Seskin 561-866-8866 brian@recyclingrevolution.net

18

Recyc RPM Luc Metivier 418-789-2450 lucmetivier@recycrpm.com

Premier Group Recycling Steve Grossomanides 877-488-7773 premiergp@bellsouth.net

Smart International Jim Treadway 713-856-0000 jptreadway@att.net St. Joseph Plastics Rob Starr 816-279-1415 rob@stjosephplastics.com

Suncrest Recycling Frank Bentivegna 561-939-8888 frank@suncrestrecycling.com

T & T Group Suren Marwaha 282-788-3012 suren@ttgp.com

Talco Plastics Bill O’Grady 951-531-2000 billo@talcoplastics.com United Fibers Lucy Xu 908-354-9600 lucyxu@united-fibers.com

Universal Commodity Services William Carabano 347-587-5987 wcarabano@ucsincny.com

Vista Paper Recycling Kori McKinney 480-966-3304 vfiber@aol.com

Waste Management Ralph Taylor 770-409-7411 rtaylor7@wm.com

Zmax USA Jay Wong 626-594-6226 jay@zmaxusa.com

*Note that a wide variety of bale specifications are employed by these firms. For example, some buyers

target bulky rigids, such as crates, pails and buckets, while others may specialize in handling food

containers, such as tubs and trays.

19

Appendix B

Full List of Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics

Recycling Programs

Program City State First

Name Last Name Email

Valley Citizens For Recycling Solutions, Matsu Borough Palmer AK Terry Koch

terry@valleyrecycling.org

Kodiak Island Borough, Threshold Recycling Kodiak AK Ken Reike

ken.threshold@gci.net

City Of Rogers Rogers AR Jerrold Haley jhaley@rogersark.org

City Of Siloam Springs Siloam Springs AR Kristy Dee kdee@siloamsprings.com

Boston Mountain SWMD Springdale AR Maylon Rice

mrice@bmswd.com

City Of Conway Conway AR Angie Howard angela.howard@conwaycorp.net

Fayetteville Solid Waste And Recycling Fayetteville AR Brian Pugh

bpugh@ci.fayetteville.ar.us

City Of Phoenix Phoenix AZ Terry Gellenbeck terry.gellenbeck@phoenix.gov

City Of Sedona Sedona AZ Jill Mccutcheon srecycles@esedona.net

City Of Tucson Tucson AZ Fran Lasala fran.lasala@tucsonaz.gov

City Of San Diego San Diego CA Ken Prue kprue@sandiego.gov

City Of Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA Eric Lohela elohela@santabarbaraca.gov

Sonoma County Santa Rosa CA Karin Chilcot kchilcot@sonoma-county.org

City Of San Francisco San Francisco CA Alex Dmitriew alex.dmitriew@sfgov.org

City Of Atherton Atherton CA

City Of Belmont Belmont CA

City Of Burlingame Burlingame CA

City Of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto CA

City Of Foster City Foster City CA

City Of Fremont Fremont CA Kathy Cote kcote@fremont.gov

City Of Hillsborough Hillsborough CA

City Of La Mesa La Mesa CA Scott Munzenmaier smunzenmaier@ci.la-mesa.ca.us

City Of Menlo Park Menlo Park CA Rebecca Fotu rlfotu@menlopark.org

W Bay Sanitary District Menlo Park CA

recycle@menlopark.org

City Of Napa Napa CA Kevin Miller kmiller@cityofnapa.org

Napa County Napa CA David Briggs dbriggs@co.napa.ca.us

City Of Paradise Paradise CA

City Of Patterson Patterson CA David Gonsalves dgonsalves@ci.patterson.ca.us

City Of San Carlos San Carlos CA

City Of San Jose San Jose CA Skip Lacaze skip.lacaze@sanjoseca.gov

City Of San Jose San Jose CA Robert Harvie robert.harvie@sanjoseca.gov

20

City Of San Mateo San Mateo CA Rozanne Murray rmurray@cityofsanmateo.org

San Mateo County San Mateo CA Monica Divencenzi mdivencinzi@rethinkwaste.org

Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz CA Jeffrey Smedberg recycle@co.santa-cruz.ca.us

City Of Sonoma Sonoma CA

City Of Palmdale Dpw Palmdale CA Benjamin Lucha blucha@cityofpalmdale.org

City Of Elk Grove Waste Management Elk Grove CA Cedar Kehoe

ckehoe@elkgrovecity.org

City Of Redding Redding CA Christina Piles cpiles@ci.redding.ca.us

Huntington Beach DPW

Huntington Beach CA Debra Jubinsky

djubinsky@surfcity-hb.org

City Of San Francisco San Francisco CA Hilary Near hilary.near@sfgov.org

Santa Monica Public Works Santa Monica CA Wes Thompson

wes.thompson@smgov.net

Aurora Single-Stream Drop-Off Aurora CO Don Roche

droche@auroragov.org

Ecocycle Boulder CO Eric Lombardi eric@ecocycle.org

City Of Denver Denver CO Charlotte Pitt charlotte.pitt@denvergov.org

Larimer County Fort Collins CO Rose Watson rwatson@larimer.org

Alpine Waste & Recycling

Commercial City CO John Griffith

City Of Denver Denver CO Charlotte Pitt charlotte.pitt@denvergov.org

Boulder County Recycling Center Boulder CO Jeff Callahan

jcallahan@bouldercounty.org

Ct Resource Recovery Hartford CT Paul Nonnenmacher pnonnenmacher@crra.org

City Of New Haven New Haven CT Lisa Dinicola

Town Of Granby Granby CT Sally Crapster scrapser@granby-ct.gov

District Of Columbia Washington DC Bill Easley william.easley@dc.gov

Dswa (State Of De) Dover DE Rich Von Stetten rvs@dswa.com

Escambia County Cantonment FL Dee Dee Green ddgreen@co.escambia.fl.us

Okaloosa County Crestview FL Jim Reece jreece@co.okaloosa.fl.us

City Of Deerfield Beach

Deerfield Beach FL Cheryl Miller

cmiller@deerfield-beach.com

Volusia County Deland FL Regina Montgomery rmontgomery@co.volusia.fl.us

City Of Jacksonville Jacksonville FL Loretta Major lmajor@coj.net

Monroe County Key West FL Colleen Murphy murphy-colleen@monroecounty-fl.gov

Citrus County Lecanto FL Owen Carney owen.carney@bocc.citrus.fl.us

Leon County Tallahassee FL Cynthia Brantley brantlyc@leoncountyfl.gov

Indian River County Vero Beach FL Himanshu Mehta hmehta@ircgov.com

Polk County Winter Haven FL Betty Cannons bettycannons@polk-county.net

Broward County Broward FL Phillip Bresee pbresee@broward.org

Marion County Ocala FL Dennis Slifer dennis.slifer@marioncountyfl.org

Palm Beach County West Palm Beach FL Patti Hammond

phammond@swa.org

Lee County Fort Meyers FL Emory Smith smithel@leegov.com

City Of Smyrna Smyrna GA Kathy Chapman kchapman@smyrnaga.gov

Barrow County Winder GA Shannon Navarre snavarre@barrowga.org

21

Roswell Recycling Center Roswell GA

Recycling Revolution Unadilla GA Brian Seskin brian@recyclingrevolution.net

City Of Roswell Roswell GA

Dmc Regional Waste Comm Burlington IA Darven Kendall

feedback@dmcwaste.org

Winneshiek County Decorah IA Terry Buenzow recycling@co.winneshiek.ia.us

N Central Iowa Rswa Fort Dodge IA Deb Watson recycle@wmtel.net

Great River Reg Waste Auth Fort Madison IA Wade Hamm

whamm@grrwa.com

Nw Iowa Area Swa Sheldon IA Larry Oldencamp nwlflarry@netllc.net

Ada County Boise ID Ken Wall kwall@adaweb.net

City Of Boise Boise ID Pamela Williams pwilliams@cityofboise.org

City Of Pocatello Pocatello ID Debby Brady dbrady@pocatello.us

Town Of Aledo Aledo IL

Town Of Annawan Annawan IL

Town Of Atkinson Atkinson IL

Town Of Bradford Bradford IL

Town Of Cambridge Cambridge IL

Town Of Canton Canton IL

Town Of Cuba Cuba IL

Town Of Fyre Lake Fyre Lake IL

Town Of Galva Galva IL

Lake County Gurnee IL Peter Adrian padrian@swalco.org

Will County Joliet IL Marta Keane mkeane@willcountygreen.com

Town Of Lewiston Lewiston IL

Town Of Mineral Mineral IL

Town Of Neponset Neponset IL

Town Of Orion Orion IL

Town Of Peoria Heights Peoria Heights IL

Town Of Princeville Princeville IL

Town Of Reynolds Reynolds IL

Town Of Toulon Toulon IL

City Of Urbana Urbana IL Courtney Rushforth crrushforth@urbanaillinois.us

Town Of Williamsfield Williamsfield IL

Town Of Wyoming Wyoming IL

City Of Springfield Springfield IL Wynne Coplea wynne.coplea@cwlp.com

Posey County Swd Mount Vernon IN Patricia Colbert poseyswd65@yahoo.com

Starke County Env Mgmt Knox IN Carrie Trent

scsw46534@hotmail.com

City Of Andover Andover KS

City Of Bel-Aire Bel-Aire KS

Coffey County Burlington KS Todd Bemis tbemis@coffeycountyks.org

City Of Mission Hills Mission Hills KS

City Of Mission Mission KS

22

Woods Woods

City Of Olathe Olthe KS Kent Seyfried kseyfried@olatheks.org

City Of Overland Park Overland Park KS Jim Twigg jatwigg@opkansas.org

City Of Shawnee Shawnee KS

City Of Louisville Louisville KY Pete Flood pete.flood@louisvilleky.gov

Town Of Bedford Bedford MA Carolyn Dann cdann@bedfordma.gov

City Of Boston Boston MA Susan Cascino susan.cascino@cityofboston.gov

City Of Cambridge Cambridge MA Randi Mail rmail@cambridgema.gov

Town Of Hamilton Hamilton MA Gretel Clark

City Of Lowell Lowell MA Gunther Wellenstein recycle@lowellma.gov

Town Of Wellesley Wellesley MA Gordon Martin gmartin@wellesleyma.gov

City Of Northhampton Northampton MA Karen Bouquillon kbouquillon@nohodpw.org

Baltimore County Baltimore MD Charles Reighart creighart@baltimorecountymd.gov

Prince Georges County

Upper Marlboro MD Marilyn Rybak

merybak@co.pg.md.us

City Of College Park College Park MD Stacey King sking@collegeparkmd.gov

Howard County Ellicott City MD Alan Wilcom awilcom@howardcountymd.gov

City Of Rockville Rockville MD

Montgomery County Rockville MD Tom Kusterer tom.kusterer@montgomerycountymd.gov

Calvert County MD Bill Teter teterwj@co.cal.md.us

Prince George's County MD Carol Bracaglia

cabracaglia@co.pg.md.us

Montgomery County Rockville MD Gabriela Monzon-Reynolds gabriela.monzon-reynolds@montgomerycountymd.gov

Pleasant River Solid Waste Columbia Falls ME Bob Grant

bobgrant1@hotmail.com

Dover-Foxcroft Recycling Dover ME Joe Sands

recycling.center@myfairpoint.net

City Of Ellsworth Ellsworth ME Leann Beal lbeal@cityofellsworthme.org

Boothbay Regional Disp. Dst. Fairpoint ME Steve Lewis

brrdd@myfairpoint.net

Sandy River Recycling Assn Farmington ME Ron Slater

srra@myfairpoint.net

City Of Oakland Oakland ME John Thomas

Ecomaine Portland ME Shelley Dunn dunn@ecomaine.org

City Of Rockland Rockland ME Dave St Laurent dstlaurent@ci.rockland.me.us

City Of Saint George Saint George ME Ray Emerson xfersta@kona.midcoast.com

Tomra/Returnable Serv. Inc. ME Beth Milligan

beth.milligan@tomrana.com

Mid Coast Solid Waste Corp ME Jim Guerra

mcswc@roadrunner.com

City Of Ann Arbor Ann Arbor MI Nancy Stone nstone@a2gov.org

Kent County Grand Rapids MI Dennis Kmiecik dennis.kmiecik@kentcountymi.gov

City Of Holland Holland MI Mary Ann Hensley m.hensley@cityofholland.com

Delhi Township Holt MI

Emmet County Petoskey MI Elisa Seltzer eseltzer@emmetcounty.org

23

Kandiyohi County Kandiyohi Station MN Nathan Reinbold

nathan_r@co.kandiyohi.mn.us

Redwood County Redwood Falls MN Brian Sams redcorec@redred.com

City Of Shorewood Shorewood MN Julie Moore jmoore@ci.shorewood.mn.us

City Of Willmar Willmar MN

Saint Louis County Clayton MO John Haasis jhaasis@stlouisco.com

Gallatin Bozeman MT Martin Bey martin.bey@gallatin.mt.gov

Haywood County Clyde NC Stephen King sking@haywoodnc.net

Macon County Franklin NC Joel Ostroff jostroff@maconnc.org

Town Of Fuqua Virina Fuqua Virina NC Gabriel Briley gbriley@fuquay-varina.org

Orange County Hillsborough NC Blair Pollock bpollock@co.orange.nc.us

Wake County Raleigh NC Meghan Oconnor meghan.oconnor@co.wake.nc.us

City Of Fayetteville Fayetteville NC Gerald Dietzen gdietzen@ci.fay.nc.us

City Of Greensboro Greensboro NC Nancy Jimerson nancy.jimerson@greensboro-nc.gov

City Of High Point High Point NC Rebecca Coplin rebecca.coplin@highpointnc.gov

First Star Recycling (Firstar Fiber) Omaha NE Lee Cornell

City Of Omaha Omaha NE Paul Dunn pdunn@ci.omaha.ne.us

Town Of Canterbury Canterbury NH Adrienne Hutchison canterburyswts@myfairpoint.net

Bcep Solid Waste Pittsfield NH Earl Weir eweir@bcepsolidwaste.com

Town Of Derry Derry NH Joanie Cornetta joaniecornetta@ci.derry.nh.us

Cape May County Cape May Crthse NJ Bridget O'connor

oconnorb@cmcmua.com

Sussex County Lafaytette NJ Reenee Casapulla rcasapulla@scmua.org

Burlington County Mount Holly NJ Isaac Manning imanning@otcbc.org

City Of Hoboken Hoboken NJ John Pope jpope@hobokennj.org

Borough Of Neptune City Neptune City NJ Gerrit Devos

gerritdevos@neptunecitynj.com

Borough Of Sea Girt Sea Girt NJ Jared Mckittrick jmckittrick@seagirtboro.com

Borough Of S Plainfield

South Plainfield NJ Alice Tempel

atempel@southplainfieldnj.com

Galloway Township Galloway NJ Barbara Fiedler bfiedler@gallowaytwp-nj.gov

City Of Las Cruces Las Cruces NM Bonnie Tafoya bonnie.tafoya@las-cruces.org

City Of Truth Or Consequences

Truth Or Consquences NM Leonard Carrillo

lcarrillo@torcnm.org

City Of Beacon Beacon NY

Fulton County Johnstown NY Dianne Woske recycle@co.fulton.ny.us

Westchester County White Plains NY Marianne Petronella msg3@westchestergov.com

Van Wert Swmd Van Wert OH George Brake recyclevw@bright.net

City Of Oklahoma City Oklahoma City OK Jim Lin jim.lin@okc.gov

Klamath County Klamath Falls OR Dan Coen dcoen@co.klamath.or.us

City Of Albany Albany OR

City Of Bandon Bandon OR

City Of Banks Banks OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of Beaverton Beaverton OR Scott Keller skeller@ci.beaverton.or.us

City Of Bend Bend OR Brad Bailey bgr@bendcable.com

24

City Of Brookings Brookings OR

City Of Canby Canby OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

City Of Central Point Central Point OR

City Of Cornelius Cornelius OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of Corvallis Corvallis OR

City Of Cottage Grove Cottage Grove OR

City Of Durham Durham OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

Lane County Eugene OR Sarah Grimm sarah.grimm@co.lane.or.us

City Of Fairview Fairview OR gallj@ci.fairview.or.us

City Of Florence Florence OR

City Of Forest Grove Forest Grove OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of Gladstone Gladstone OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

Curry County Gold Beach OR

City Of Gresham Gresham OR Dan Blue dan.blue@greshamoregon.gov

City Of Happy Valley Happy Valley OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

City Of Hillsboro Hillsboro OR paule@ci.hillsboro.or.us

Washington County Hillsboro OR Heather Robinson heather_robinson@co.washington.or.us

City Of Independence Independence OR

City Of Junction City Junction City OR Elaine Payne epayne@ci.junction-city.or.us

City Of Keizer Keizer OR

City Of King City King City OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego OR Susan Millhauser smillhauser@ci.oswego.or.us

City Of Lebanon Lebanon OR

City Of Lincoln City Lincoln City OR

City Milwaukie Milwaukie OR communitysrvcs@ci.milwaukie.or.us

City Of Molalla Molalla OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

City Of Monmouth Monmouth OR

City Of Newberg Newberg OR

City Of North Bend North Bend OR

City Of North Plains North Plains OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of Oregon City Oregon City OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

Clackamas County Oregon City OR Rick Winterhalter rwinterhalter@co.clackamas.or.us

City Of Philomath Philomath OR

City Of Portland Portland OR Bruce Walker bwalker@portlandoregon.gov

City Of Redmond Redmond OR Brad Bailey bgr@bendcable.com

City Of Reedsport Reedsport OR

City Of Roseburg Roseburg OR

Douglas County Roseburg OR Chris Mccullough cmccull@co.douglas.or.us

City Of Salem Salem OR

City Of Sandy Sandy OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

City Of Sherwood Sherwood OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of Silverton Silverton OR

City Of Stayton Stayton OR

City Of Sweet Home Sweet Home OR

City Of Tigard Tigard OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

25

City Of Troutdale Troutdale OR amy.pepper@troutdaleoregon.gov

City Of Tualatin Tualatin OR recycle@co.washington.or.us

City Of West Linn West Linn OR wasteinfo@co.clackamas.or.us

City Of Wilsonville Wilsonville OR Dan Knoll knoll@ci.wilsonville.or.us

City Of Woodburn Woodburn OR

Lane County Eugene OR Kelly Bell kelly.bell@co.lane.or.us

City Of Beaverton Beaverton OR Thomas Ebert tebert@beavertonoregon.gov

Centre County Bellefonte PA Joanne Shafer jshafer1@uplink.net

Chester County Navron PA Nancy Fromnick nfromnick@chestercswa.org

City Of Philadelphia Philadelphia PA David Biddle david.biddle@phila.gov

Elk County Community Recycling Center St. Mary's PA Bekki Titchner

btitchner@countyofelkpa.com

Cranberry Township Cranberry PA Lorin Meeder lorin.meeder@cranberrytownship.org

City Of Sioux Falls Sioux Falls SD Aimee Ladonski alodonski@siouxfalls.org

City Of Nashville Nashville TN David Himes david.himes@nashville.gov

Knox County Knoxville TN Drew Thurman drew.thurman@knoxcounty.org

City Of Denton Denton TX Shirlene Sitton shirlene.sitton@cityofdenton.com

City Of Fort Worth Fort Worth TX Debbie Branch debbie.branch@fortworthgov.org

City Of Galveston Galveston TX Gene Williamson williamsongen@cityofgalveston.org

City Of Mcallen Mcallen TX Chris Lash clash@mcallen.net

City Of San Antonio San Antonio TX Stephen Haney stephen.haney@sanantonio.gov

City Of Austin Austin TX Bob Gedart bob.gedert@austintexas.gov

Ecology Action Austin TX Susannah susannah@ecology-action.org

City Of Houston Houston TX Sarah Mason sarah.mason@houstontx.gov

City Of Allen Allen TX Kathy Keller-Mielke kmielke@cityofallen.org

City Of Lewisville Lewisville TX Lisa Weaver lweaver@cityoflewisville.com

City Of Dallas Dallas TX Sheila Overton sheila.overton@dallascityhall.com

City Of Denton Denton TX Victoria Hodge victoria.hodge@cityofdenton.com

City Of Arlington Arlington VA

Town Of Blacksburg Blacksburg VA Karen Day kday@blacksburg.gov

Shenandoah County Edinburg VA Brad Dellinger bdellinger@shenandoahcountyva.us

City Of Fairfax Fairfax VA David Ray dray@fairfaxva.gov

Newsport News Newsport News VA Mayi Henriquez

mhenriquez@nngov.com

Fauquier County VA Trish Ethier trish.ethier@fauquiercounty.gov

S Windsor/Windham Co Swd Ascutney VT Mary Ann O'brien

mobrien@swcrpc.org

Ne Kingdom Waste Mgmt Dist Lyndonville VT Paul Tomasi

director@nekwmd.org

Addison County Middlebury VT Teri Kuczynski acswmd@acswmd.org

Rutland Co Solid Waste Dist Rutland VT Deane Wilson

deanew@rcswd.com

Chittenden Solid Waste Dist Williston VT Brian Wright

bwright@cswd.net

Chittenden Solid Williston VT Nancy Plunkett nplunkett@cswd.net

26

Waste District

City Of Bellevue Bellevue WA Jennifer Kaufman jkaufman@bellevuewa.gov

City Of Seattle Seattle WA Tim Croll timothy.croll@seattle.gov

City Of Vancouver Vancouver WA Rich Mcconaghy rich.mcconaghy@cityofvancouver.us

Clark County Vancouver WA Rob Guttride rob.guttridge@clark.wa.gov

King County Seattle WA Bill Reed bill.reed@kingcounty.gov

City Of Vancouver Vancouver WA Elsie Deatherage elsie.deatherage@cityofvancouver.us

Village Of Brooklyn Brooklyn WI

City Of Fitchburg Fitchburg WI Rick Eilertson rick.eilertson@ci.fitchburg.wi.us

Village Of Germantown Germantown WI

City Of Madison Madison WI George Dreckmann gdreckmann@cityofmadison.com

Village Of Shorewood Hills Madison WI Denny Lybeck

dlybeck@shorewood-hills.org

Manitowoc County Manitowoc WI Jon Reisenbuechler jonreisenbuechler@co.manitowoc.wi.us

City Of Milwaukee Milwaukee WI Rick Meyers rick.meyers@milwaukee.gov

Village Of Oregon Oregon WI

Town Of Pleasant Springs Stoughton WI

Town Of Verona Verona WI

Village Of Waunakee Waunakee WI

Valley Citizens For Recycling Solutions, Matsu Borough Palmer AK Terry Koch

terry@valleyrecycling.org

terry@valleyrecycling.org

27

Appendix C

Non-Bottle Mixed Rigid Plastics Recycling Programs

Which Only Accept Tubs and Lids

Ashland, Oregon

Austin, Texas

Boulder, Colorado

Brattleboro, Vermont

Burien, Washington

Cary, North Carolina

Cave Junction, Oregon

Central Point, Oregon

Coos Bay, Oregon

Creswell, Oregon

Denver, Colorado

El Dorado County, California

El Paso, Texas

Eugene, Oregon

Gainesville, Florida

Grants Pass, Oregon

Houston, Texas

Independence Township, Michigan

Josephine County, Oregon

Kirkland, Washington

Klickitat County, Washington

Lane County, Oregon

Leon County, Florida

Louisville, Kentucky

Medford, Oregon

Mountain View, California

Olympia, Washington

Ottuma/Wapelo County, Iowa

Pittsfield, Massachusetts

Plymouth Township, Michigan

Springfield, Oregon

Tacoma, Washington

Tallahassee, Florida

Thurston County, Washington

White City, Oregon

28

Appendix D

Four Case Studies

The following four case studies were developed to illustrate key concepts

described earlier in this report. Each case study examines a specific program but does

not attempt to explore similarities and differences across them. The case studies

describe four programs that are collecting and recycling non-bottle mixed rigid plastics

and explores how they got started, lessons learned, and advice for other program

managers considering expanding into non-bottle rigid plastics collection and processing.

29

Case Study: Napa Recycling and Waste Services Napa, California

www.naparecycling.com Kevin Miller, Solid Waste/Recycling Manager

(707)257-9200 x7291 kmiller@cityofnapa.org

Tim Dewey-Mattia, Public Education Manager (707)255-5200 x1204

tim@naparecycling.com

Program Description

The City of Napa has been accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for recycling for five

years. Though Napa is often associated with the rural/agricultural wine country, this

program predominantly services the suburban county population. The program is based

on a cost-revenue and cost-share agreement between the City of Napa and Napa

Recycling and Waste Services. Both parties became interested in collecting non-bottle

mixed rigid plastics when they identified opportunities for a net increase in revenue and

additional diversion from landfill, particularly because their customers were already

putting some of these materials in their single-stream curbside collection. In addition to

curbside service, materials in Napa are collected at drop-off centers and from

commercial customers, including some materials from a construction and demolition

waste sorting operation adjacent to the MRF.

Acceptable Materials

With the exception of polystyrene, the program accepts all non-bottle mixed rigid

plastics, including packaging and bulky rigids. Customers

are asked to rinse out tubs and containers, and to break

down items longer than 36 inches.

Outreach and Education

Napa Recycling's outreach materials highlight package

and product type (e.g. "yogurt tubs") as well as using the

resin identification codes (e.g. "#5") (see Figures 6 and 7).

For the sake of simplicity, Napa generally promotes that

they accept all plastics except plastic bags and

polystyrene. The program connects with its customers

through mailers, press releases, emails and e-

newsletters, a website, signage at the recycling facility,

Figure 6. Napa Recycling outreach graphic from their website:

www.naparecycling.com

30

bill inserts and a recycling guide which is available online and in local phone books.

Collection & Processing

Curbside collection is overseen by a private operator under contract to the city to bring

materials to a publicly-owned facility. At the MRF, materials are sorted off the tip floor,

during pre-sort (prior to disc screens) and off the container sort line for the smaller

mixed rigid plastics. Bulky rigids are pulled off during the pre-sort. Mixed plastics (#2-#7)

are baled together, and the material is sold to plastic brokers who deal in the export

market. The only requirement imposed by buyers is to keep out non-accepted materials

such as polystyrene. There is no need to remove metal handles.

Lessons Learned

In 2007, without publicizing it, Napa Recycling and Waste

Services started sorting out non-bottle mixed rigid plastics

and were able to recover roughly 217 tons annually of

what were at the time considered "contaminants." They

officially announced the acceptance of non-bottle mixed

rigid plastics in 2008, and by 2010 they were collecting 340

tons and in 2011 collection had increased to 576 tons of

mixed rigid plastics. Napa Recycling's experience is a solid

example of how expanding a program can be a relatively

low-risk endeavor. In this case residents were already

placing enough “tag along” materials into their recycling

bins to demonstrate the economic viability of an official

expansion. For others considering an expansion, Napa’s program managers encourage

the addition pre-sort stations to any MRF line, as this enables the targeting and removal

of higher value materials before they hit the screens.

Figure 7. Napa Recycling outreach

graphic from their website: www.naparecycling.com

31

Case Study: Fulton County Solid Waste Department Johnstown, New York

www.fultoncountyny.gov/dsw/Recycle/index.htm Dianne Woske, Recycling Coordinator

(518)736-5501 recycle@co.fulton.ny.us

Program Description

Dianne Woske, recycling coordinator at the Fulton County Solid Waste Department in

rural New York (population: 55,531), noted

that about 12 years ago the County was

sorting out as residual a fair amount of

mixed rigid plastics in its dual-stream

curbside collection program (residents

separate fiber from glass, plastic and metal

containers) and six drop-off centers.

However, in 2003, when a buyer from

Haycore Canada touring their MRF noted

that the materials were valuable on their

own, Fulton County decided to assess the

opportunity to expand its program to

include these materials. Targeting all the plastics that "incorrectly" made their way into

the collection stream, Fulton County ran an in-house pilot to get a sense of how formally

accepting these mixed rigid plastics would potentially develop. In 2006 Fulton County

unveiled a public campaign and officially welcomed rigid plastics into its collection

streams. Woske reports that after two years of monitoring, Fulton County found it easy

to make the transition. See Figure 8.

Acceptable Materials

Fulton County residents can recycle a "tub-lid mix" (including flexible, stackable tubs,

cups and pails), as well as "cloudy" plastics such as ketchup or iced tea bottles. Bulky

rigids are not accepted, nor do they plan to incorporate these materials in the near

future.

Outreach and Education

Non-bottle mixed rigid plastics are described in terms of their package and product type

(e.g. "margarine tubs"), as evidenced by the downloadable poster on the Fulton County

Figure 8. Mixed Rigids Tonnage in

Fulton County, NY

32

website (see Figure 9). Outreach materials include press releases, public service

announcements, a website (which includes a recycling calendar), signage at the

recycling facility, brochures and posters at municipal offices.

Collection & Processing

Non-bottle mixed rigid plastics are collected through their agency-run, dual-stream

curbside collection program and at six drop-off centers. Staff remove any metal handles

and afterward processing consists of a hand sort from a conveyor line. Material is baled

and Fulton County seeks competitive bids

from about 15 regular plastics buyers.

Buyers generally require that the bales

exclude PET, chemical or motor oil bottles,

and black microwavable trays.

Lessons Learned

The strategy of setting up the program in

stages serves as an excellent model for

other communities interested in establishing

their own program. Starting with the goal of

reducing total MRF residue, rural Fulton

County has now been operating

successfully and profitably since 2006 - and

has experienced approximately a 12 percent

reduction in overall MRF residue. Woske

speculates that communities with similar

programs (dual-stream curbside collection,

hand-sort MRF) that are already separating

plastics into several different streams (PET,

HDPE-natural, HDPE-color) could easily

incorporate mixed rigid plastics, as they

would only need one more bunker and the

room to store another product. She notes

that "this was a very easy inclusion from (a)

collection and MRF (perspective)," and that

the program has made a very positive

impression at the state level from the recycling community.

Figure 9. Customer flier available on Fulton County's

website: www.solidwaste.fultoncountyny.gov/Recycle/index.htm

33

Case Study: Milwaukee Recycles Milwaukee, Wisconsin

www.milwaukeerecycles.com Rick Meyers, Recycling Specialist

(414)286-2334 rick.meyers@milwaukee.gov

Program Description

The Milwaukee Recycles program has been accepting non-bottle mixed rigid plastics for

about a year through a single-stream collection system. Based on the strength and

stability of markets for these materials, the City set up a small-scale pilot project for a

trial run. The initial success with this half-year test for sorting out tubs and lids from a

single-stream collection system led to official acceptance and program expansion to a

wider variety of non-bottle mixed rigid plastics. The program serves an urban population

and the estimated collection of this material is roughly 500 tons per year.

Acceptable Materials

Milwaukee Recycles accepts # 1, 2, 4 and 5 plastics, including bulky rigids such as five

gallon buckets. They ask customers to empty and rinse food and beverage containers,

and they prohibit buckets with paint or product residue.

Outreach and Education

As can be seen in Figure 10,

Milwaukee Recycles emphasizes

package type (e.g. "tubs") and

resin identification codes (e.g.

"#5") in its outreach materials, and

includes visuals in its

communications. The program

reaches out to customers using

mailers, press releases, emails, e-

newsletters and a website, as well

as advertising via radio, online,

print and image boards on

collection trucks. In the near future, the program plans to increase its radio advertising

to alert customers to new materials being accepted.

Figure 10. Milwaukee Recycles customer flier, downloadable from their website:

www.milwaukeerecycles.com

34

Collection & Processing

A public agency oversees the single-stream collection program and the materials are

then sent to a private MRF. In terms of processing, bulky rigid plastics are taken off the

in feed line manually before entering the processing equipment. Optical sorters handle

most of the rest of the targeted plastics and some hand sorting is performed to catch

missed items and to improve quality. The processed material is sold to a buyer, which

requires the MRF to adhere to the bale specifications created by the Association of

Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR)7.

Lessons Learned

Recycling specialist Rick Meyers advises other communities thinking about establishing

a non-bottle mixed rigid plastics recycling program: "You are probably getting a lot of

these marketable plastics in your stream anyway, so start pulling and marketing them. If

it works out well then you may want to officially welcome the materials and accept

them." Additionally, in its pilot stage the MRF staff manually sorted tubs and lids at the

same time as HDPE natural, HDPE colored and PET, but without optical sorting it can

be challenging - though not impossible - to perform additional plastic sorts.

7 For more information about APR's bale specifications, please visit their website: http://plasticsrecycling.org/rigid-plastics/public-access-rigid-plastics-information/model-bale-specifications

35

Case Study: Orange County Solid Waste Management Chapel Hill, North Carolina

www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling/community.asp Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner

(919) 968-2788 bpollock@co.orange.nc.us

Program Description

Orange County Solid Waste Management has been accepting non-bottle mixed rigid

plastics for three years. The program initially started by accepting the material at

unstaffed, 24-hour drop-off sites but has discontinued accepting the material at the

unstaffed sites due to excessive contamination. Instead, customers can bring non-bottle

mixed rigid plastics to five staffed drop-off sites. The County serves a mix of urban and

rural communities, but since the drop-off sites are mostly in the rural areas, their

customer base is predominantly rural. The program was created to meet residential

demand and because they identified a local buyer for the material. The non-bottle mixed

rigid plastics are currently only collected at drop-off centers because there were too

many limitations to incorporating the material into their dual-stream, curbside collection

system. Program officials are considering adding smaller non-bottle mixed rigid plastics

to the curbside collection system when they eventually switch to single-stream service.

Acceptable Materials

Acceptable plastics include HDPE (#2), LDPE (#4) and PP (#5), including bulky rigids,

but they prohibit toys with batteries or metal parts like axles (small screws generally are

not a problem). Buckets with metal

handles are accepted, and staff working at

the drop-off center staff will remove the

handles. Customers are asked to empty

and rinse containers, and to remove dirt

and food residue.

Outreach and Education

Their outreach materials refer to the non-

bottle mixed rigid plastics by their package

type (e.g. "tubs"), product type (e.g.

"yogurt container"), resin type (e.g.

"polypropylene") and resin identification Figure 11. Informational Brochure for Orange County Solid

Waste Management, North Carolina. Mixed rigids are collected only at drop-off centers which serve a

predominantly rural clientele.

36

code (e.g. "#5"). See Figures 11 and 12. The program utilizes a diverse set of tools for

getting the word out, including mailers, brochures, press releases, public service

announcements, emails and e-newsletters, a website, facility signage, paid

advertisements and on-site staff assistance.

Collection & Processing

Customers can bring their non-bottle mixed rigid plastics to any of the five drop-off sites,

and staff removes contaminants before baling. They sell these bales to a MRF, directly

to an end user or to an interim processor. Depending on the final destination, they

perform a minimum of a hand sort to remove non-accepted materials in order to meet

specifications for contamination. Buyers typically request as little metal contamination

as possible, and when they remove metal bucket handles they receive a higher price for

the baled material.

Lessons Learned

The biggest lesson that they learned was that

unstaffed drop-off sites result in massive

contamination problems. Despite aggressive

public education and robust signage, at times

they were experiencing contamination of over

50 percent, including non-plastic materials

being "dumped.” Well-trained staff at the

drop-off centers are an important asset for

reducing contamination. In the 2010-2011

fiscal year, their first year of operation, the

program collected 155 tons of non-bottle

mixed rigid plastics from the drop-off sites but

much of this was highly contaminated.

Figure 12. Informational Brochure for Orange County

Solid Waste Management, North Carolina.

37

Appendix E

Outreach and Education Materials

The following are selected examples of outreach and educational materials used by

non-bottle mixed rigid plastics recycling programs. The materials display a wide

diversity in aesthetic styles, use of language to describe the accepted materials

(package type, product type, resin type, resin identification code) and incorporation of

visuals as clarifying examples.

38

Orange County Solid Waste Management

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

39

Denver Recycles

Denver, Colorado

40

Omaha Recycles

Omaha, Nebraska

41

Solid Waste Agency of Lake County

Illinois

42

Milwaukee Recycles

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

43

Fulton County Solid Waste Department

Johnstown, New York

44

Sedona Recycles

Sedona, Arizona

45

Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority

Lafayette, New Jersey

46

Chester County Solid Waste Authority

Pennsylvania

47

Northampton Recycles

Northampton, Massachusetts