recycling market profile: glass containers · glass container industry uses about 3.1 million...

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter

Introduction

Glass Container Manufacture

Glass Container Industry Profile

Glass Container Recycling System

Cullet Pricing

Secondary Markets

Trends and Issues

Information Sources

Directory of Container Manufacturers and Cullet Processors

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Page

1

1

5

9

15

17

21

25

29

35

r I

LIST OF TABLES Table

1-1

1-2

1-3

2- 1

2-2

2-3

3- 1

3-2

3-3

3-4

3-5

3-6

6- 1

Average weight of bottles

Glass container material mix

Operating costs

Glass container shipments

Plant closures in the 1980s

Selected plant closures in recent years

Container deposit laws

Cullet generation or recycling rate

Domestic cullet consumption by glass container producers

Cullet use by Owens-Illinois in selected years

Recycled content rate by company, 1992

California glass redemption rate

European recovery rates, 199 1

Page

1

1

3

5

6

6

9

9

1 1

1 1

12

12

23

r, 7

!-

t I

INTRODUCTION

In 1968, a glass container plant in Bridgeton, New Jersey sponsored a “Glass Day,” and, for the first time, bought back scrap glass bottles and jars from the public. The response at the Owens-Illinois site was so great, the plant accepted containers the following Saturday. In all, 34 tons of recyclable bottles were recovered, with the public being paid $781. This tonnage was equal to about two hours of the plant’s raw material needs.

This was probably the first step in what is now a recycling industry that recovers three million tons per year of old bottles and jars in the U.S., at a value exceeding $150 million. Many container plants rely on post-consumer scrap bottles for one-third to one- half of their production needs, and numerous firms and governments are able to employ scrap glass in a variety of non-container applications.

This is a silent industry. Only a few trade journals and newsletters regularly report on glass recycling, and only a few comprehensive documents are available. There’s no national glass recycling conference.

in nontechnical terms, the critical aspects of glass container recycling. In the first chapter, the glass container is described in terms of its raw materials, properties and manufacturing processes, including the use of post-consumer scrap containers.

American container manufacturing industry, including production levels. The third chapter describes the recycling collection and processing system.

A history of scrap glass pricing is offered as Chapter 4. This is followed by an overview of the principal noncontainer uses of scrap bottles.

The glass container recycling industry is evolving. The critical issues and trends that will affect glass recycling in t he mid- 1990s are articulated in Chapter 6 .

The document includes three resource chapters. A bibliography of key journals, documents and information sources is followed by a directory of scrap glass processors and container plants. The document closes with a glossary of terms.

This document attempts to fill this information void. This market profile addresses,

This discussion is complemented by the second chapter, which portrays the North

This market profile focuses solely on scrap container reutilization. Trends and issues involving refillable glass containers are not addressed, nor is the recycling of other forms of glass, such as plate glass.

The mention and description of companies and technologies does not constitute a real or implied endorsement by Resource Recycling.

This document is revised semi-annually. Should you have comments, corrections or advice to offer, please feel free to call Jerry Powell at (503) 227- 13 19; fax (503) 227-6 135.

Those desiring detailed glass recycling information can subscribe to BottlelCan Recycling Update, the trade newsletter. For ordering details, call (503) 227- 13 19.

i

T ' 1

CHAPTER 1 GLASS CONTAINER MANUFACTURE

lass is a traditional form of packaging. And it is very pop- ar, as it is the second most common form of packaging 1 a weight basis, behind only paper. A poll by Nation- Family Opinion Research published in Pachaging found

lat Americans prefer glass packaging for food and bev- *age packaging over any form of packaging. Glass was ie first choice for wine, beer, soft drinks, juice, mayon- aise, barbecue sauce, peanut butter and pasta sauce ackaging.

Glass has several inherent packaging advantages. The mtainer allows hot filling on the packaging line. The abil- q to see the product through a clear bottle is a market- g advantage, particularly for products such as pickles. : the same time, the ability to produce bottles in a vari- y of colors is also a key advantage, as is the ability to )seal bottles and jars. Glass is chemically inert and thus as excellent barrier-shield characteristics, preserving Id assuring product quality for goods such as acidic foods. iowever, glass is not resistant to hydrofluoric acid and kali.) Glass is impermeable to oxygen and other gases, I advantage in packaging beer and carbonated bever- ;es.

But glass does have several inherent packaging dis- Ivantages. In comparison to other forms of packaging, ass is heavy. According to the U.S. Department of Com- erce, the average glass bottle weighs 0.54 pounds, al- iough average weights range widely (see Table 1-1).

The container industry continues to strive toward re- ucing the weight of each bottle, while not affecting other roperties. A number of lightweighting projects have

icinal and health Che mica1 Beverage hon-beer) Beer Narrow-neck food

been undertaken. More than 20 intemational glass container manufacturers recently sponsored a project by Ad- vanced Glass Treatment Systems (Simsbury, Connecti- cut) that assessed the use of a solventless organic polymer coating that would allow greater lightweighting. The system was tested at the Milford, Connecticut plant operated by Foster-Forbes.

A second disadvantage of glass is that the container can break and shatter. A third problem is that the packing rate for some products is slower for glass than for cans.

Glass is formed by melting minerals and scrap, forming containers, and then cooling and packing them. De- tails on glass manufacture are provided in this chapter.

Raw Materials Glass is a product of the minerals industry. Virgin glass is produced from naturally occumng minerals that are in relatively abundant supply and require little intermediate processing. These include silica, sodium carbonate and calcium oxide (in other words, sand, soda ash and limestone) and feldspar, none of which constitutes significant environmental problems in their handling, because all are inert solids which are not flammable and are largely nontoxic.

The typical raw material mix is shown in Table 1-2. mica1 beach sand isn't used to make bottles. Glass

sand (silica dioxide) is nearly white in color and is highly pure (over 99 percent quartz sandstone). Glass sand is typically mined from open pits, with the purest sources being former shallow marine environments.

Soda ash is the most costly raw ingredient, with com-

mon prices of $90 to $1 40 ton at the mine. The domestic glass container industry uses about 3.1 million metric tons annually of soda ash, although consumption has declined about 6 percent thus far in the 1990s, due to increased recycling and the continued lightweighting of bottles.

The soda ash acts as a fluxing agent in glass production. The silica has a high melting point (about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit), and the soda ash lowers the melt point by decreasing the viscosity when it converts to sodium oxide in the heated fumace.

Trona rock (or natural soda ash) is extracted from deep mines. The material is then processed, including the cal- cinating of bicarbonate to produce the carbonate.

Limestone is quarried primarily from open pits. This often involves blasting, crushing and screening activities. The limestone acts similar to the soda ash in glassmaking and makes the glass more inert and adds other de- sirable properties.

Feldspar is an aluminum silicate mineral that converts to aluminum oxide in glass manufacture. This oxide acts as a stabilizer in the melt and improves the chemical dura- bility and stability of the glass microstructure.

Raw Material Supply The raw material supply for glass container production is highly concentrated. There are only two major firms s u p plying bottlemaking sand. Illinois is the leading state in production; other locations in the U.S. include Oklahoma and the Appalachian region. (Many of the original glass container plants were built in these regions, close to the silica supply.)

About 90 percent of the soda ash used in the U.S. is produced from a handful of mines in the region of Green River, Wyoming. The U S . produces about half the soda ash used worldwide.

Nearly two-thirds of feldspar production occurs at open-pit quarries in two states - California and North Carolina.

For suppliers of these raw materials, the domestic glass industry is a significant market. For instance, glass container producers buy about half of the soda ash consumed in the U.S. And the principal domestic suppliers are foreign-owned; the two major sand suppliers and most of the domestic soda ash industry are owned by non-U.S. companies.

Bottle Manufacture In comparison to other relatively new materials such as aluminum and plastics, glass has a long history. In the 1 st century A.D. the Roman historian Pliny the Elder reported that several Phoenician sailors accidentally produced the first man-made glass when they used clumps of natron (an alkali used to embalm the dead) upon which to set pots beside a fire on the beach. When the natron was heated by the hot pots and mingled with the sand, a new liquid - glass - flowed in streams.

Researchers now believe, however, that glass was invented about 3,000 years before Christ in what is now Iraq and Syria.

The same attributes bf glass 'that fascinated glassmakers so long ago in Mesopotamia are important today. The glass bottle was one of the world's first manufactured products and is a result of the high level of formability of glass. Although glass is a rigid, the silicon and oxygen atoms are arranged in a three-dimensional, random fash- ion (a characteristic of a liquid). During melting, the atoms in the raw materials are disturbed from their normal po- sition in the molecular structure. Before they can retum to crystalline arrangements, the glassmaker cools the material. Thus glass can be formed into many things: mirrors, windows, fibers, bottles, etc.

Another attribute is the ability to color glass. Because some products packaged in glass, such as beer and wine, degrade if exposed to sunlight, these products are packaged in colored bottles, typically brown or green. The coloring agents are primarily oxides. For amber bottles, about 0.3 percent by weight is ferrous oxide. For green glass, the primary coloring agent is ferrous sulfate or chromic oxide (0.2 percent). Because these agents chemically react to glass, they cannot be removed before or during the recycling process.

About two-thirds of the glass containers produced in this country are clear (called flint), approximately one- quarter are brown (amber) and the remainder are green and other colors.

The manufacture of a new glass bottle is very similar to the way glass has been produced since the early days of the Roman Empire. But now a glass bottle is made in a sophisticated plant, passing through about one dozen pieces of machinery.

What is relatively new is the development of high- speed, precise forming systems. For instance, a good glass blower (with three assistants) in the 1800s could produce one bottle per minute. The first fully automatic fotm- ing unit, invented by Michael Owens and placed into operation in 1903 in Toledo, Ohio, produced 20 to 70 bottles per minute. Currentiy, a i 0-secnon quadrupie iorm- ing machine can put out 500 bottles per minute.

-

,

Bottlemaking Process At the modern glass bottle plant, the raw materials are carefully mixed in a batch mixer. As much as 700 tons or more are used to make two million bottles per day at a glass plant.

The materials are constantly conveyed from batch storage into one end of the regenerative fumace. 'The furnace is like a huge pot or tank. In the first stage of the furnace (called the melter), melting and mixing occur at temperatures up to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The glass is kept at elevated temperatures in a molten state to allow for the necessary chemical reactions to occur. When the glass is thoroughly melted, it sinks to the bottom of the tank 'The glass flows through an opening (called a "throat") to a refining chamber where a lower temperature elimi- nates waste gases and small bubbles in the glass.

The glass enters a long chamber (the fore hearth) where it is cooled further. The molten glass is then gravity-fed to a forming machine. Every bottle begins as a preformed mass of molten glass of a precise weight,

'-

'

1

illed a gob. The gob g8es d o h a chute into a mold, ?ere it is pressed or blown into the final shape and ioled (the bottle leaves the mold at about 800 degrees ihrenheit).

From the bottle former, the container is reheated and rters an annealing lehr (oven) where it is slowly cooled remove stresses, which occur when one portion of a Ittle cools faster than another portion.

Much of the labor in a glass plant is involved in con- iner inspection, packaging and warehousing. Due to e high cost of shutting down a forming and inspection le to convert to another customer’s container, glass plants oduce a significant inventory of each customer’s pack- :es, often storing the containers in a large warehouse 1-site until shipment to the customer.

The domestic glass industry entails large-scale facil- es serving regional markets. Glass containers are pro- iced around the clock. However, furnaces are occa- Inally shut down for maintenance or to change from one lor to another. Production typically declines in Dee mber, when container plants traditionally shut down naces for annual maintenance and for drawdown of the ant’s inventory.

of Production ittlemaking costs vary somewhat between plants, par- ularly in terms of the plant’s distance from raw materi- supplies and the cost of energy. In Table 1-3, Ball-lnCon timates its operating costs.

roblems from Manufacture e manufacture of glass containers is not a benign xess. Nitrogen oxide emissions occur, which contribute photochemical smog formation and act as a respirato- imtant. Also emitted are sulfur oxides, which are a cause acid rain.

Worker safety is also affected by glass production xesses. Fine particles of silica are toxic and are a cause silicosis, or the scarring of lung tissue. This is a partic- ir problem in the batch forming area of the plant.

illet Use scessed scrap glass containers, called cullet, can be ed in glass container manufacture. With 5 percent or

more of the glass bottles produced at a plant too poor in quality to ship, glass producers have always recycled this in-plant scrap (called domestic or factory cullet). In the last 25 years, however, container producers have found that post-consumer cullet is also a technically and eco- nomically functional feedstock.

Cullet is not only a material competitive with virgin resources, it is a complementary part of the manufacturing process and has some important advantages over virgin raw materials in glass production. Cullet has a lower viscosity than other glassmaking materials and also liq- uefies at a lower temperature. This speeds up the mixing and reaction of materials, and the fumace temperature can be as much as 200 degrees lower. (However, glass has to be made at an exact temperature, and this requires that the ingredients be in the correct proportion. To main- tain the desired stable temperature to produce glass of a uniform color and density, many fumace supervisors do not vary the ratio of cullet to virgin by more than 1 percent per day.)

This lower temperature has three significant advantages over virgin material use: H For every I O percent increase in cullet consumption in a single fumace, energy consumption is reduced about 24.5 million cubic feet of natural gas per year.

Lower fumace temperatures result in less wear on the refractory bricks. A fumace using 30 percent cullet will last 15 percent longer than an all-virgin-material fumace. W The overall melt time is reduced, thus improvingpro- ductivity.

In addition to a lower temperature in the fumace, the use of cullet results in fewer air emissions. Also, because cullet tends to have a higher alkali content than virgin glass, some glass producers report that less soda ash is needed in the virgin material mixture when cullet is used.

The glass industry’s statements, summarized above, regarding the energy and environmental savings from CUI-

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, Cob orado) and the Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, Illinois). The researchers conclude that glass recycling produces little energy savings (about 13 percent of a plant‘s needs), saves no valuable raw material and does not significantly reduce air or water pollution.

___

-

!et Gse have beer? chE!!enged ir! a !??4 jdnt study Gf the

Cullet Processing The empty scrap bottle or jar from the homeowner isn’t recyclable at a container plant without the removal of contaminants. These containers are typically processed in a beneficiation plant before being introduced to the glass fumace.

Cullet processing removes paper, metal, plastic and other contaminants, which represent 1 to 2 percent by weight of the glass containers generated in a typical recycling collection program. (Cullet production is described more fully in Chapter 3.)

These contaminants, unless removed, create serious problems in glass production. Several of the metals commonly found in cullet - primarily from caps, rings and metallized labels - sink to the bottom of the glass fur-

nace, where they collect and form pools that can corrode the ceramic brick of the furnace’s bottom, making a hole. More than one container producer has encountered a furnace shutdown due to a hole appearing in the furnace, with molten glass flowing out. For example, Ball-InCon lost 350 tons of molten glass and had to spend $3.5 million to repair damages from one incident in l 99 l .

Though aluminum represents only 1.5 to 8.0 ounces per ton of cullet, it is a serious contaminant to glassmaking. Aluminum melts at just 1,220 degrees Fahrenheit, where it floats on the surface and oxidizes into alumina. It forms into small balls - called “stones” - or bubbles - called “seeds” - that can appear in the bottles being made. They appear as small, dark or opaque spots in the glass and form a weak spot, which can lead to breakage on the packager’s filling line. If the bottle doesn’t break there and makes it to the store, the consumer may think the dark spot is an impurity in the food or beverage.

Finally, steel lids from glhss containers do not melt at furnace operating temperatures. As a result, they can block feed lines going from the fumace and cause production to shut down. Iron contaminants from the steel can also cause brown streaks in glass containers.

A second serious contaminant to glass containers are ceramic products and other types of glass, such as cook- ing ware. Because these materials melt at higher temperatures than found in a glass container fumace, the resulting bottles contain “stones” and, as with aluminum, the bottles’ structural makeup can be affected.

A third contaminant to cullet is bottles of the wrong color. Melting old bottles does not remove the coloring agents.

Thus, considerable research and development efforts have gone into removing contaminants from cullet. Most

of this research has focusedon the removal of ceramics and has included many prestigious research organizations, including the Center for Materials Production at Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh). The center is funded by the Electric Power Research Institute.

In addition to independent research, cullet suppli- I

ers and users have focused attention on contamination removal and control. Bassichis Co., the big cullet supplier that is now part of Allwaste Recycling, has researched methods to grind ceramic-contaminated cullet into a fine powder before it is introduced to a container-producing fumace. At least three other firms have tested pulver- ization systems. Owens-Brockway has used finely ground, - ceramic-contaminated cullet in experiments at its Toano, Virginia beer bottle production facility, as have Gallo Glass at its Modesto, California wine bottle production plant and Anchor Glass at its Hayward, Califomia plant.

Equipment developers and manufacturers have also stepped forth. For example: W S+S Electronics of America (Allentown, Pennsylvania) has developed a ceramic detection system. The cost of the device - about $250,000 in 1990 -is one reason the product hasn’t been widely employed. H Alpine Technology (Eugene, Oregon) received a state grant to develop a ceramic detection and sortation system, which was subsequently installed in a Califomia recycling plant. H 1. Busek Co. (Needham, Massachusetts) has investi- gated six available technologies for automatically removing ceramics. This research was funded by the glass container industry and the State of New York. The firm then installed a system designed by Magnetic Separation Systems (Nashville, Tennessee) and Siemens (Frankfurt, Germany) for testing in a cullet plant in Syracuse, New York. i

\

CHAPTER 2 GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY PROFILE

ie domestic glass industry consists of fewer than 20 pro- icers, although the four largest container producers con- )I 80 percent of the market. This $5 billion industry em- oys more than 40,000 workers in the production of ap- oximately I 1 million tons per year of bottles and jars.

Glass production capacity isn’t distributed evenly ross the country. The majority of production facilities e Iodated in just five states - Califomia, Illinois, Indi- la, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In recent years, the xth American glass container industry has undergone pificant consolidation.

Because nearly 90 percent of the cullet used in the S. is consumed by container producers, we provide a scription of the major players (refer to the end of this apter) and a history of the glass container industry over e last I5 years.

uduction any in the glass container industry would rather not talk lout the early 1980s. From 1979 through 1983, some ,000 employees were let go as the industry shuttered ants due to declining sales. From I980 through 1983, lntainer shipments fell 12.5 percent. As a symbol of ese problems, the Glass Packaging Institute (Washing- n, D.C.) dropped its recycling technical assistance and omotion efforts for about a year when staffing was cut )m more than one dozen to three.

The industry responded to these tough market con- tions in several ways, including the closing of 10 re- indant plants in 1984, with a resulting improvement in ficiency. In 1983, plant workers were asked to join the lickel Solution,” where employees voluntarily donated portion of their hourly wage to a fund that was then atched by industry. The resulting monies (between $4 illion and $7 million annually) go to promotion, adver- iing and education campaigns geared at improving the iage of the glass bottle.

Some producers bit the bullet and cleaned up their >erations. Owens-Illinois invested more than $600 mil- in between 1980 and I985 to upgrade its plants. And ant workers made their contribution, with 3 I-cent-per- bur pay cuts being common in the mid- 1980s.

However, for some producers, this was still not enough to stay alive. One producer filed bankruptcy and other bottlemakers, such as Container General with I2 plants, were bought by competitors in fire-sale condition.

The glass industry hit its nadir in 1985. For a variety of reasons, glass production rebounded in 1986, spurred in part by new trends - the wine cooler and microwave- able foods - and growth in use by soft drink bottlers. At the same time, losses in the beer market leveled off. For some producers, this was a bellwether year. For instance, Owens-Illinois had record eamings of $1 79 million in 1986.

Domestic glass container output has been up and down in recent years, although the industry rebounded modestly in 1 992 and 1 993 (see Table 2- 1 ). For comparison purposes, shipments in I980 were 324 million gross units.

On a weight basis, domestic glass container output in 1992 reached 10.673 million tons, rising to 10.779 million tons in 1993.

The glass industry has rebounded modestly since hit- ting a recent low point in 1991. The domestic glass container industry was aided in I992 and I993 by growth in single-service fruit and vegetable juice; isotonic and bot- tled water; and spaghetti, apple and specialty sauce packaging. On the other hand, some packagers have moved

I I

away from glass, including those producing peanut butter, salad oil and dressings, ketchup, mustard, vinegar, syrups, ice tea and barbecue sauce.

At present, food containers represent about one-third of glass container shipments, with beer bottles having a 30 to 32 percent share. Other beverage containers represent nearly one-quarter of shipments, and wine and liquor bottles are about 10 percent of shipments.

Industry analysts predict 1994 sales will parallel the results of the previous year. However, increased energy, raw material and labor costs will put pressure on producers to raise container prices.

Some plants are benefiting from improved production efficiencies in 1994, because substantial investments have been made in recent years. For instance, three In- diana bottlemakers - Anchor Glass (Winchester), Ball- lnCon (Dunkirk) and Foster-Forbes (Marion) - have spent $3 1.5 million to upgrade melting and bottle production systems. Similarly, Ball Corp. added a new fumace and several new forming machines at its Ruston, Louisiana plant in 1992-1993.

Beyond 1994, The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland, Ohio research firm, projects that the domestic glass container shipments will grow less than 1 percent annually through 1997.

Thus, with marketshare stability, closure of antiquat- ed plants and investments in plant upgrading, Wall Street is no longer speaking negatively about glass producers. For example, Owens-Illinois’ stock rose 24 percent in value in 1993. (Ball Corp.’~ stock fell 2 percent.)

Plant Closures Fifty-five domestic glass container plants closed over the past I5 years; only 73 facilities now operate. The worst year for plant closures was 1984.

A handful of closures have occurred since 1990, when more than 80 glass plants operated in the U.S.

Even with glass container shipments leveling off or slowly increasing in recent years, producers have still been

forced to shut several plants in 1993 and 1994. For example, Owens-Brockway closed its 67-year-old , 200,000- ton-per-year Huntington, West Virginia plant at the end of 1993. The facility, which primarily made liquor, phar- maceutical and food containers, employed 476. In addition, Ball Corp., after shuttering its Santa Ana, Califomia and Sand Springs, Oklahoma plants in 1992, closed its Asheville, North Carolina glass container plant in April 1994, cutting 300 jobs.

4-8 ’

million from ongoing operations in the 1987-1 990 pen- od, although it retumed to profitability in 1991, when it had sales from its glass container division of $2.4 billion and profits of$3 15 million. In 1992, net sales me to $2.45 billion and profits increased 9.3 percent. The following year, sales rose to $3.54 billion.

In 1992, Owens-Illinois finally received Federal l ade Commission approval of its acquisition of Brockway Inc. The commission rejected the findings of its administra- tfve law judge and its own staff, both of which had con- tended the acquisition violated federal law by estab- lishing a highly concentrated market.

As with all domestic glass container producers, 0-1 has undergone significant restructuring in recent years. Owens-Illinois slashed 10 percent of its hourly wok force (2,000 employees at its glass container plants) in early 1994, taking a $250 million pre-tax charge for the costs of severance and early retirement.

With the purchase of a plant in 1994,O-B currently operates 22 plants in 14 states. The firm purchased the Miller Brewing Co. glass container manufacturing plant in Sennett, New York in Februaly 1994.

Anchor Class Container Second in size i s h c h o r Glass Container (Tampa, Flori- da), a subsidiary of Vitro S.A. (Monterrey, Mexico), Mex- ico’s largest glass container producer, which purchased Anchor in August I989 for $265 million, plus the assumption of $460 million of Anchor’s debt obligations. Also that year, Vitro bought Latchford Glass for $48 million plus the assumption of debt; Latchford was then melded into Anchor’s operations, thus ending up with 20 plants in 1989.

Anchor’s sales are presently about $1.2 billion annually; Vitro has sales of $4 billion per year and is con+ sidered the second !argest glass cmtainer producer in the world and Mexico’s second largest privatesector corporation.

Six years before Vitro bought Anchor Class, the domestic glass producer was split off from Anchor Hock- ing, the packaging firm, and sold in a management buy- out to Wesray Corp. for $68 million. Wesray was a private investment firm headed by former U.S. Treasury Secretary William E. Simon. The seven-plant container dMslon posted sales of $31 0 million in 1982. Wesray then bought Midland Glass, thus ending up with 10 plants.

In 1385, Anchor sold stock and was publicly held for four years.

In mid-1987, Anchor Glass bought Diamond-Bathurst (Royexsbd, Pennsylvania) for $ i 91 million, doubling its size and ending up with a 25 percent market share at the time. It also madehchora national company, with the firm entering the West Coast market for the first time.

The tale of Diamond-Bathurst‘s growth is emblem- atic of the level of industry consolidation in the eady and mid-1980s. It starts with Chattanooga Class’s pur- h s e of C€aas Container Cow. for $75 million in Sep- t$mbet 1983, thus forming Container General Carp.

(Chattanooga, Tennessee). Then, in just four months in 1985, Diamond went from a two-plant, 750-employee company to one with 1 7 plants and 6,300 workers. It first bought Container General for only $ I 5.2 million. At that time, Container General operated 12 plants and had a 15 percent share of the market. The next to be acquired were the six plants of Thatcher Glass (Greenwich, Con- necticut), which had earlier filed bankruptcy, owing cred- itors $1 66 million. Three of the plants were then sold to Diamond-Bathurst for $5 1 million.

But Diamond-Bathurst ended up with obsolete or redundant operations and declining sales, and lost $6.2 million in 1986. A merger or a sale was the only option, and Anchor won in a bidding war.

Bd-hCon Glass In third place domestically with a I5 percent share is I 14-year-old Ball Corp. (Muncie, Indiana), the multi- material packaging concem. Ball’s glass container division (Ball-InCon) was originally formed in May 1987 as a joint venture between publicly held Ball Corp. and lnCon Packaging, which was owned by privately held Holland-America lnvestment Corp. When formed, Ball-InCon had 12 manufacturing plants in eight states and held a 12 percent market share. it was a sensible maniage, because Ball primarily made food containers and lnCon was primarily in the beverage bottle business.

In late 1990, Ball paid H-AIC $65 million for its half of the business. Ball-InCon had sales of $562 million in its 1990 fiscaI year, rising to $583 million the following year. Glass container sales rose to $716 million in the I992 fiscal year (mostly due to acquisitions).

Ball has also been a player in the acquisition game. In 1992, it purchased four Kerr Glass plants for $70 million Included were facilities in Santa Ana. Califomia: Plainfield, Illinois; Dunkirk, Indiana; and Sand Springs, Oklahoma. Kerr had sales of about $1 60 million per year at the time of the acquisition. Ball-InCon currently operates 13 plants.

Foste~Forbes Class American National Can Co., the world’s largest produc- e r of bevemge cans, owns Foster-Forbes Glass, the fourth largest domestic glass container producer. American National was formed in I987 through the merger of the American Can Co. and National Can Co. It was sold the following year for $ I .2 billion to Pechiney S.A. of Paris, France, the state-owned metals company.

The glass container division includes the four former Kem Glass plants that National Can bought for $95 million in 1983.

Coons Glass Manufacturing A number of single-plant operators exist. An example is Coors Glass Manufacturing, which produces 800 million beer bottles per year in Wheat Ridge, Colorado b

filling at the nearby Coos brewery. About 200,000 tons per year of bottles are produced. Coors puts about 20 percent of its beer volume in glass.

Liberty Glass Liberty Glass can produce about 330,000 tons per year of new bottles from its plant in Sapulpa, Oklahoma.

Gallo Glass fiirty-six-year-old Gallo Glass (Modesto, Califomia) produces about 1,500 tons per day, making it one of the largest singledsite manufacturers. It is the sole supplier for E&] Gallo Winery, which packages more than 65 million cases of wine annually in Gallo’s green bottles.

Consumers Packaging American firms were not the only ones to experience increased industry consolidation. A s noted, Mexico’s largest container producer bought the second largest

U.S. manufacturer. And by 1993, Canada was left with only one container producer - Consumers Packaging.

The principal parent of Consumers has a long history. Consumers Glass was launched in 191 7 with a federal grant designed to provide soldiers retuming from World War 1 with jobs. Its troubles occurred in the late 1980s and early 1 Ws, when the 1 0-plant firm lost money after it purchased its main Canadian competi- tor, Domglass, from Consolidated-Bathurst in 1989, and thus became Consumers Packaging. The company ended up owing $220 million ($CN) to the Bank of Nova Scotia. Consumers Packaging lost $I 40 million ($CN) in the period 1989- 1992, closing three plants and re- leasing 3,000 employees.

In the fall of 1993, Consolidated Enfield (Toronto, Ontario), owner of Consumers Packaging, sold a 57.7 percent share in the glass company for only $9.7 million, plus the assumption of some debt, to privately held G & C lnvestments (Pittsburgh). The latter firm also owns Glenshaw Glass, a U.S. container producer. Consumers Class currently operates seven plants, em- ploying 2,900.

CHAPTER 3 GLASS CONTAINER RECYCLING SYSTEM

ienty years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Included that “glass is not easily removed from munici- 11 waste . . . [and] the best opportunity for removal of glass through mechanical separation.” This conclusion has :en proved dead wrong in the intervening period, and IW glass containers are an important part of nearly all unicipal waste recycling systems in North America.

These programs reduce the volume of wastes destined landfill or incineration. According to the U.S. EPA, in 1990 rap bottles and jars represented 5.7 percent of munici- 11 solid waste, or 9.3 million tons of waste and 6.6 million ibic yards of landfill space. Currently, the average nerican uses 180 glass containers annually.

ollection \e vast majority of bottle cullet consumed in North nerica is collected in two ways.

A sizable volume of cullet, particularly scrap beer bot- s, is generated in states that require deposits on bev- age containers. These states are listed in Table 3-1.

In addition, Califomia has established a unique bev- age container redemption program that generates sig ficant volumes of cullet (see the end of this chapter for a ore detailed discussion of the Califomia system).

It is the implementation of curbside recycling collec- n programs, however, that has spurred much of the recent

growth in glass recycling. Table 3-2 provides data from selected states where curbside recycling collection has been implemented statewide.

This is also the experience in Canada. Consumers Glass, that country’s primary cullet user, saw its 1992 collections of cullet nearly double the year-earlier level. Cullet use at Consumers’ seven plants rose 7.8 percent in 1993, to 238,560 tons. In Ontario, all 3.08 million households provided frequent recycling setvice in 1993 can set out glass containers for collection.

The focus in collections is now on rural areas and low population regions. In several regions, recycling collectors are grouping together and cooperatively selling scrap glass containers. For example, the Southwest Public Recycling Association (Tucson, Arizona), a cooperative venture of a number of local and state govemments and Native Indian tribes, has agreements with New England CRlnc. ___ (Chelmsford, Massachusetts) and CoOrs Glass Manufacturing (Wheat Ridge, Colorado) to supply colorseparated cullet. The agreements have floor prices and provide a transportation option for participating pqqams.

Other independent cullet processors are developing similar arrangements. Allwaste Recycling (Houston) has linked up with the State of Tennessee to expand the glass recycling infrastructure in that state. Glass collection containers have been placed throughout Tennessee.

.

Thus, cullet volumes are being sought by some container producers from distant suppliers. Coos Glass Manufacturing has installed a facility at its Wheat Ridge, Colorado plant to unload open-top railcars of cullet, each containing up to 100 tons.

The collection and shipping of used glass containers comes at some cost to local communities. The National Solid Wastes Management Association (Washington, D.C.) has issued the results of two surveys. One project deter- mined that the 1993 cost of collecting glass bottles in a commingled curbside program was $60 per ton. A second survey of 10 commingled recyclables sorting plants in I992 found that the cost of sorting and processing collected glass containers was generally between $73 and $1 1 1 per ton, although costs ranged as high as $ I49 per ton.

A significant portion of these costs is created by the requirement to sort containers by color. A considerable body of research has focused on this problem and ways to lower the cost of sorting, starting in I98 I - 1982 with an optical sorting unit developed and tested by the Glass Pack- aging Institute, using a $1 60,000 grant from the State of Califomia. The sorting device developed by Geosource Inc. (Houston) involved a modified tomato harvester that was originally designed to distinguish between green and red tomatoes.

Additional work in optical sorting has occurred in the intervening period. For example, Resource Recycling Systems (Ann Arbor, Michigan) has used a state grant to develop an optical process for sorting glass container frag- ments by color.

Cullet Beneficiation For much of the recycled glass, the first step in processing occurs at the local recycling collector's site, where crushing may take place.

Substantially more processing occurs at a beneficia- tim kci!ity. A typk21 benefidatim p!afit emp!Gys SederEi!

unit processes, including material feeding and conveying, impact crushing, air classification, screening, metal separation, vacuum extraction, hand picking and dust control. A typical plant:

occupies a 10,000- to 20,000-square-foot building. produces 50,000 tons per year on a one-shift basis. requires as much as $800,000 in equipment. requires as much as another $1 million for the land, building, bunkers, truck scales and loaders. Some forms of equipment are more costly than others.

Owens-Brockway spent $120,000 in 1992 to add a single device to one cullet plant to remove lead and residual aluminum. The cost of such plants has certainly increased over time. Owens-Illinois spent just $360,000 to install a 250-ton-per-day beneficiation system at its Oakland, Califomia plant in the early 1980s.

The direct cost to process bottle scrap (exclusive of transportation costs, taxes, interest, general and adminis- trative costs, and profit) is about $7 to $1 5 per ton.

In the I980s, the glass container industly invested sizable sums to establish cullet beneficiation plants in order to clean as-received containers to furnace-ready quality. In addition to the removal of contaminants, beneficiation

improves fumace efficiency 'by pfoducing cullet of uniform density. Between 1973 and 1986, Owens-Illinois spent $1 7 million to add cullet equipment to 18 plants. Processing capacities ranged between 10 and 25 tons per hour.

Third-party Suppliers Until the 1990s, most cullet processors handled only industrial glass. In the last few years, the number of independent cullet processors handling post-consumer containers expanded dramatically. In 1993, the four largest cullet processors (Allwaste Recycling, Pure Tech Intemational, CRInc. and Container Recycling Alliance) processed about 1.4 million tons of bottle cullet.

Numerous container plants have signed supply agreements with selected third-party processors and then shut down their on-site cullet processing operations. For example, Owens-Brockway now operates only five beneficiation plants. This supply strategy commonly leads to a cullet price reduction for recyclables collectors, although one advantage to collectors is that cullet processors are typically located in urban areas (as are most collectors), not in the rural areas where many glass container plants operate. Descriptions of the major independent cullet processors are highlighted at the end of this chapter.

__ -

-

Processing by Container Producers This isn't to suggest that all of the container producers are relying on third-party processors for cullet. A number of bottlemakers still operate on-site cullet cleaning systems.

For example, Coos Brewing (Golden, Colorado) spent $4.5 million in I993 to upgrade the cullet system at its Wheat , Ridge, Colorado glass plant. Included were the installation of mechanical, electronic and manual sorting units. Cullet processing capacity rose to 100,000 tons per year. The beer bottles made at the neighboring glass plant con-

ing to increase the level to 50 percent in 1994. &&.. '31 .....""-..*--.- - 1 - 1 ^^^L^-L .--.LL m - - -cC-?-l- L - - Laill x ~ G I L C I I L ICL~WCU LUIILCIIL, WIUI LUUE UlllLldlb nup-

Specifications Specifications for unprocessed and processed (or fumace- ready) cullet have been developed and revised by various parties.

One set of specifications is available from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (see Chapter 7 for information). 'Ihe requirements for unprocessed cullet prohibit metals, bricks, clay, rocks, ceramic closures and noncontainer glass, such as light bulbs, windows, mirrors and drinking glasses. The cullet must be free of excess moisture and should be broken but not pulverized. 'Ihe specifications allow for bargaining between the buyer and seller.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (Philadelphia) has also issued cullet specifications.

1

~

i ____

Processing Equipment The equipment used to process glass at local sites and at regional beneficiation plants is listed in the annual equip-

nent issue prepared by &sow@ &cycling (also see Chapter ' for additional information).

ndustry Efforts 'he glass industry's interest in recycling has a long histow. 'ar instance, the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, he predecessor to the Glass Packaging Institute Washington, D.C.) , launched an Environmental Pollution :ontrol Program in 1967 to address solid waste concems.

In recent years, this industry activity has been wide- pread, with the dmaticgrowlh of cullet utilization s p m d 'I part by industrywide efforts, primarily those undertak- n by GPI.

In an important and highly successful project, GPI has llaced recycling staff members in a number of regions (for stings, see Chapter 7). The first regional programs - in ennsylvania and Califomia in 1985 -were in populous tates with numerous glass plants. These programs now mvide technical and promotional assistance to collectors nd processors in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

GPI has also undertaken numerous media promotions, iduding advertising glass container recycling in USA Today nd other national media. Special 30-day statewide pro- lotions have taken place in several states, with cash prizes iven to award-winning bottle collectors. In the summer of 389, GPI spent $1.5 million to promote glass recycling irough national television networks.

nd Use ullet use by glass bottlemakers has grown handsomely ver time, as shown below. In 1971, about 2,000 tons of CUI- It were recycled at the typical plant. By 1983, the indus- y used 93 I ,000 tons (nearly 10,000 tons per typical plant).

In 1992, the estimated level of bottle recovery and :use was 32.8 percent, or 3.64 million tons, with two-thirds sed by bottle producers (or about 33,000 tons of cullet ;ctd by a typical p!ant). Bnthe rpncp 2ccoLlfited fer 5.7 per- :ntage points and secondary (noncontainer) cullet uses )taled 4.1 percentage points.

Glass container recovery and reuse rose again in 1993, 34.5 percent of container use. Some 3.87 million tons

ere recycled in 1993. Cullet use by domestic container roducers actually fell 0.3 percent and now represents a !.6 percent cullet utilization rate at these plants (see Table -3). After accounting for net imports of glass containers, illet use by bottlemakers in I993 represented 2 I .7 per- :nt of bottle use. The purchase of refillables rose 15.0 ercent in I993 and now represents 7.7 percent of bottle

use. Consumption of cullet in non-container applications climbed 27.8 percent, to 575,000 tons in 1993 (or 5. I percent of scrap bottle use).

Much of the cullet used by bottlemakers was purchased by Owens-Illinois, the undisputed cullet champion. In 1970 for the first time, all 0-1 plants bought scrap containers, with 7,000 tons handled, and by 1980, a recycling coordinator worked for each plant. In the 1980s, glass container =cy- ding grew 16 percent annually at Owens-Illinois, with much of the growth occurring at the end of the decade. Owens- Illinois recycled 3. I billion glass bottles and jars in 1988, a 3 1 percent increase over the year-earlier level. The public was paid $46 million for this scrap material. Recycling levels grew to 3.8 billion bottles in 1989, with 0-1 paying out $65 million to the public. 0-1 paid out $250 million in the '80s to buy some 18 billion glass containers.

_ _

-

As shown in ?'able 3-4, in 1990 the firm recycled 1 . 1 million tons of bottle cullet (4.5 billion bottles), a five-fold increase over the level of a decade before. In the period of 1991 through 1993, the company recycled between I .O and 1 . I million tons annually.

Per-~.~pii,i, ciillei ~ ~ i i s i i m p t i ~ i i iii aiiada i s on par with that in the U.S. Approximately 34 percent of the raw material used at Consumers Glass in 1993 was cullet (versus 32 percent the previous year). This volume is 70 percent greater than the nationwide recycling level a decade earlier.

In terms of cullet use at specific plants in the industry, high rates of cullet use have been obtained. The Anchor Glass plant in Gurnee, Illinois and the Owens-Brockway plant in Portland, Oregon have consistently produced colored bottles containing 70 percent or more &aimed material. Similar utilization rates have been reported at other domestic manufacturing plants.

But the recycling record is held by the Royersford, Pennsylvania Anchor plant. In 1988, poor weather forced soda ash suppliers to put glassmakers on allocation, and Anchor decided to make 100 percent recycled bottles at Royersford until the problem was resolved. For more than seven weeks, all-recycled green bottles were successfully produced.

The above levels are substantially higher than the average 1992 corporate-wide post-consumer recycled content levels of selected companies (see Table 3-5).

proponents of beverage container deposit laws, such

I I

as the Container Recycling Institute (Washington, D.C.), contend that the high levels of glass beverage container recovery in the 10 deposit and redemption states explain much of the current national recovery level. CRI estimates that only 16 percent of glass beverage containers in nondeposit states were recycled in 1992. The organization estimates that 85 percent of glass beer and soft drink bottles are collected for recycling in deposit law states and that 72 percent of these containers in Califomia are recovered (a redemption state) in 1992. About one-quarter of Americans live in these states.

The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland, Ohio research firm, predicts that domestic glass container recycling efforts will increase 5.3 percent annually through 1997, when the glass container recycling rate will exceed 37 percent.

Legislation GPI’s solid waste policy stresses the industry’s support for mandatory recycling collection efforts and its opposition to beverage container deposit systems and across-the- board mandates for recycled content.

the legislative approach taken in 1987 in Califomia, where Ofpa!%cu!ar ceficem to Lle g!!ass container indst!37 is

the glass, metal and plastic beverage container industries are assessed fees. These state monies - in the form of artificially high scrap values - are then paid to local recycling operators for their collection efforts. Thus, the buy- back price in Califomia is the highest known, with citizens being paid 2.5 cents per bottle at thousands of buy-back centers in the state. Local recycling firms now receive $4 I per ton for cullet deliveries, plus a “processing fee” of $40 per ton.

To the extent that the state’s goal was to increase the recovery of beverage packaging, the program has suc- ceeded. The glass container redemption rate has grown over time, as shown in Table 3-6.

Glass container manufacturers say this level of recovery has come at a sevete cost, because the Califomia law has hurt their business, with packagers moving to other materials, and some of the remaining users of glass look- ing to out-of-state suppliers, such as Mexican plants. Lawsuits have been filed and legislative altematives have been proposed, but the redemption law has changed little since it was implemented in the late 1980s. For instance, the Califomia Glass Recycling Corp., the industry‘s in-state group, sued the state in 1990 to try to stop the imposition of a $22-million-per-year “processing fee.” The industry group lost when a Superior Court found that the state could impose such a fee.

, a * \

a 10,Wsquare-fOot processingplant in Houston in 1991. The $500,000 facility supplies about 50,000 tons per year of cullet to a nearby Anchor Glass container plant. It expanded into bottle cullet at its Sapulpa, Oklahoma plate cullet plant in 1993 with a 50-ton-per-hour system. The facility has an exclusive supply agreement with Liberty Glass in that city, which shut down i ts on-site ben- efidation system and stopped buying from 154 suppli- ea. The company recently opened a three-acre plant in indianapolis. And Allwaste is spending $1 million to expand its Ashland, Tennessee plant and plans to build a culfet plant in San Antonio.

Much of Allwaste’s growth in the bottle cullet market has been a result of contractual agreements with container plants. For example, in early 1992 Allwaste agreed to supply 0-B wfth more than 300,000 tons per year of cullet. An Alhvaste subsidiary - Golden State Recycling L.P. - was established, with Golden State then con- structing beneficiation plants in Northem and Southem Catifomia and buying processing equipment then used by 0-B at three Califomia plants.

Allwaste Recycling‘s growth has not been without problems. In early 1993, the company filed a lawsuit alleg- fng that several former recycling executives defrauded the company. The Federal Bureau of Investigation then joined the criminal investigation of nine individuals and three firms. The company alleged that the executives R a v e d ld&&, illicit gratuities and commissions hom scrap glass suppliers. The company’s lawsuit was dis- missed by the court due to a technicality.

For avariety of reasons, including the decline in environmental cleanup projects (Allwaste’s principal business), the firm saw its stock value in I993 drop 3 I percent.

AnheusePBusch Recycling Anheuser-Busch Recycling (formerly Container Recovey Corp.), the recycling subsidiary of the giant St. Louis, Missouri-based brewer, operates five used beverage container processing plants in a number of states, employ- ing 280. in the 199Os, it branched out by opening cullet- only processing facilities. The first was in Marion, Ohio, followed by a 50,000-ton-per-year, seven-employee, 15,oopSquare-foot fadlity in Bdgeport, New Jersey which opened in April 1993. A 50,000-ton-per-year plant in Plant City, Florida will open in 1995.

Automated Recycling Technologies Another example of the recent mave from cullet processing operations at container plants to the establish- ment of independent mycling fadlitles is the opening of a 70,000.ton-peFyear plant in Elizabeth, New Jersey in 1992 by Automated Recycling Technologies. ARTSproC- essingequipment was previously owned and upemted by Owens-Illinois at its now-shuttered manufacturing plant in Freehold, New Jersey. As part of the arrange- ment, 0-1 agreed to buy as much as 6O,OOO tons per year af cull& from ART.

Container Recycling Alliance Container Recycling Alliance is a joint venture between Waste Management, the world’s largest private waste management company, and American National Can (owner of Foster-Fo&s Glass). CMs first cullet operation, a 15,600-square-foot, 100,000-ton-per-year facility, was established in Chicago in I992 to supply the Foster- Forbes plant in Bristol, Wisconsin. This was followed by a $2.5 million, 100,000-ton-per-year plant near Boston. In 1992, the firm marketed 23,000 tons of cullet.

In early 1993, CRA opened a 30,000-square-foot, 50,000-ton-per-year plant in Raleigh, North Carolina, primarily to supply the Foster-Forbes plant in Wilson, North Carolina. In 1994, CRA purchased United Glass, a Califomia processor.

Cycle Systems Cycle Systems opened acullet plant in Chester, Virginia in February 1993. The company has a supply agreement with Owens-B&afs Virginia and North Carolina container plants.

Fibres International Fibres international (Belleme, Washington) is one of Seattle’s major paper stock dealers. In 1990, it opened a $2 million, 30,000-ton-per-year cullet plant in Seattle to supply the nearby Ball-1nCon container plant.

GDS, Inc. GDS, Inc. (Hickory, No& Carolina) opened a five-acre, 1 00,000-ton-per-year cullet processing plant in College park, Georgia in July 1993 to supply the nearby Owens- Brockway plant,

New England CRInc. New England CRlnc. (Chelmsford, Massachusetts) was founded in 1982 by members of the beverage distribu- tion industry to process glass, metal and plastic beverage containers redeemed in deposit law states in New England. The firm now operates 25 facilities, including commingled residential recyclables processing plants and cullet processing facilities.

In 1990, publicly traded Wellman, inc. (Shrewsbuty, New Jersey) purchased New England CRlnc cRInc.’s proc- w i n g operationsfor redeemed containers weren’t indud- ed in the transaction, although the agreement &led for the PETbottles from these Wities to be sold to Wellman, which is the world’s largest PET recycler. CRlnc.’s owners received 325,000 shares ofwellman stock (worth $6.1 million at the end of 1993), plus $5.5 million paid out from 1990 to I994 in the form of noncompetition agreements.

In 1993, CRlnc. expanded its cullet operations. The firm entered into an agreement with Vitro Envases Norteherica (Monterrey, Mexico) to be the preferred supplier of U.S. cullet to Vitro’s Mexico container manu- factoring plants. As part of the deal, CBtnc. and Vitro may establish additional cuflet processing facilities in the U.S. CRlnc owns and operates two cunet plants in California

I ” , - in Commerce City and San Leandro. These facilities produced 325,000 tons of cullet in 1993. Also in 1993, CRlnc. was selected by the State of Illinois to receive a $1 50,OOO grant to establish a 2OI000-ton-per-year, $600,000 cullet plant in Madison County, Illinois.

Mid-Way Cullet Mid-Way Cullet operates a cullet processing plant in Detroit that has handled bottle cullet since 1983, and a smaller, newer facility in Benton Harbor, Michigan. The firm is under contract to Owens-Brockway to supply as much as 65,000 tons per year of bottle cullet to 0-B plants in Charlotte, Michigan and Brackway, Pennsylvania.

Pace Glass Pace Glass operates a 40,000-ton-per-yearcullet benefi- elation plant in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Pennsylvania Cullet Processing Center The Pennsyhania Cullet Processing Center opened in Corsica, Pennsylvania in mid-I 992 and supplies cullet to three Owens-Brockway facilities. The 100,000-ton-per- year facility was established by MI Recycling using a $750,000 grant from the State of Pennsylvania.

Pure Tech International Purr Tech lntemational (Somerset, New lersey) operates a number of glass container beneficlation facilities, with output of 125,000 to 150,000 tons p e r year. For example, in 1993 the publicly traded firm opened a 300-ton-per- day plant in Bakersfield, Califomia, with powdered glass cullet being supplied to Schuller lntemational, an insu+ lation producer. PTI is the exclusive cullet supplier to Schuller. In early 1994, the finn purchased Coast Recyding North (Marina, California).

The heart of the PTI glass operation was originally !?a mct.ri!?ntna, 2 pdmte!y he!d fim. !n a cnmp!ic;rteC! move in 1990, the latter firm allowed a small ($3-million- peryear), publicly traded plastics recycler - Pure Tech - to acquire the much larger REI (with $ I 0 million in annual revenues), with REI’S shareholders then gaining control of the new Pure Tech. In this quick step, REI went public.

Pure Tech now has capacity to handle 560,000 tons of cullet annually. fiberglass production.

The Recycling Depot The Recycling Depot (North canton, Ohio) opened a glass container processing plant in Zanesville, Ohio in Sep-

tember 1993. The facility produces about I 10,000 tons per year, about half of which is sold to Owens-Brockway for use at its Zanesville plant. The Recycling Depot plans a second facility.

Rex Alton Co. Rex Alton Co. is a privately held cullet processor located in Vincennes, Indiana.

Resource Recycllng Technologies Similar to CRfnc. and other multi-material processors, publiclytraded Resource Recycling Technologies (Vestal, New York) operates numerous recycling plants, including cullet production operations. Its premier plant is a $1 million, twwyeamld, 10,000square-footI 100,000-ton- per-year facility in Syracuse, New York The company has a multi-year agreement to supply at least 76,000 tons per year to the Owens-Brockway plant in Volney, New York.

Todd Heller Inc. Todd Heller Inc. opened an 85,000-ton-per-year, $ I million plant in Northampton, Pennsylvania in 1993. An $894,000 grant was provided to help start the project.

Rosen Continental In addition to these domestic processors, the entry of larger players into the cullet processing field in Canada is exemplified by Continental Recycling, Inc. (Calgaty, Alberta). In January 1994, Continental bought Rosen Cullet (Kitchener, Ontario), Canada’s largest bottle and plate cullet producer at 150,000 tons per year. Now called Rosen Continental, the company sells cullet to bottlemakers, fiberglass producers and the reflective marking industry.

Vitreous Environmental Group Also, in Canada, two-year-old Vitreous Environmental GEnp p!ms tc! nce cnntainer g!zss tG prduce a v?l!!et)r dcullet productsat a 25,000-ton-per-yearplant in Aircbie, Alberta near Calgary. The fadlity is expected to open in September 1994. The firm’s “GlassSand” products are used to make fiberglass insulation, reflective glass beads, blast media and golf course maintenance products. VEG has signed a five-year agreement with Schuller lntemational to supply 18,000 tons per year of cullet for

A second plant is planned for Honolulu in a joint venture with 17-year-old Island Recycling; the partnership operates as GlasSand. VEG trades on the Alberta Stock Exchange.

\

CHAPTER 4 CULLET PRICING

le pricing of cullet has evolved in four stages.

ase Pricing ie price paid to most suppliers of post-consumer bottle illet in the 1970s varied little - about $20 per ton, f.0.b. e consumer (i.e., the supplier paid to ship the cullet to e plant).

Industry obsewers suggest this price (which was some- iat below the cost of competitive virgin materials) was st because of the reluctance of many plant managers and mace operators to use cullet. Then as now, glassmaking is considered to be more an art than a science. The fur- ice operators were uncomfortable with using this new aterial - post-consumer scrap - and the price paid flected this apprehension.

In addition to this relatively soft price, cullet redama- )n was inhibited by operational barriers. Most glass con- iner plants purchased cullet from the public only during ii'lied kGiurs, and :e* had truck scaks on-site, thus foro g suppliers to make extra trips to get trucks weighed.

nhanced Pricing le politics of garbage came to bear heavily on glass con- iner producers in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The loption of beverage container deposit measures during is period, particularly in populous states, created havoc long glassmakers, because beverage companies in these 3tes quickly moved from glass to lighter weight plastic id aluminum. Further, glass container producers lacked lnfidence that they could always forestall additional tposit laws through traditional political methods. And, le to consumer pressure, some bottle buyers were push- g glassmakers to increase the level of recycling. In addi- m, the public and legislators wanted less litter and solid ffite. A new strategy was required.

At the same time, more and more glassmakers were :coming comfortable with cullet use. It was obvious: More ass recycling was the technical and political solution.

But a sizable increase in cullet genemtion couldn't occur uckly under the existing pricing structure. The glass con-

tainer industry realized in I981 - 1 982 that financial support was needed to build the glass recycling collection infrastructure.

Most industry members stepped forth. In one example, Owens-Illinois' support came in three forms:

Artificially higher cullet prices. 0-1 paid $70 per ton to buy-back center operators that agreed to pay the public $40 per ton for scrap bottles.

Attractive freight allowances as a means of attracting suppliers located some distance from container plants. 0-1 provided a $5 per ton bonus for shipments of 50 to 300 miles. Cullet shipments over 300 miles received a $1 0-per- ton bonus. H Business support funding, often as local paid advertising or machinery acquisition assistance in the form of interest-free loans.

In 1990, Owens-Brockway paid a premium of $35 million for these enhancement efforts.

The pricing system was designed openly with a polit- iLa i ctgenoa in mina. For instance, some Gwens-iiiinois plants, wishing to forestall additional deposit laws, paid 50 percent higher for cullet generated in nondeposit states than it did for cullet from similar collectors in neighboring container deposit states. If high cullet prices boosted container recovery, the anti-deposit-law lobbying forces had a far easier job.

. - -1 - _ _ _ _ I - .- - - a - -1

Commodity Pricing These artificial pricing programs worked by generating substantial increases in volume (see 'bble 3-3). However, the industry set aside such pricing mechanisms in mid-1 990, much to the constemation of bottle collectors and processors. Consuming mills began paying collectors and processors what the material was worth, and no more (at that time, about $40 to $50 per ton for flint, $25 per ton for amber, and $15 to $25 per ton for green). In one giant step, cullet became a full-blown commodity and was no longer a political tool.

A clear example of the use of commodity pricing was the posting of different prices for the various colors of cullet. As discussed in Chapter 6, cullet consumers often pay

less for green and mixed-color cullet due to excess supply in several regions.

The move to reality-based pricing had negative con- sequences. Many suppliers distant from consuming mills stopped collecting glass containers due to prohibitive trans. portation costs. Such curtailments were more prevalent in the Midwest and the West. In addition to the loss of some suppliers, glass producers also encountered a loss of image, with cullet suppliers being concemed about the overall viability of this recycling market.

Commodity pricing is also in place in Canada. Beginning in 1992, Consumers Glass cut the price paid for color-separated containers delivered by Ontario suppliers from $60 ($CN) per ton to $43 ($CN) per ton for flint containers and $38 ($CN) per ton for colored bottles.

Sole-source Purchasing The recent move by many glass container plants to sign sole-source cullet supply contracts with third-party proces. sors has also had a negative price effect on bottle collec-

tors. In numerous regions,toPI&tors had been selling recy- dable glass to container plants and receiving the going rate. Now they are forced to sell to cullet processors, which typically pay less. This has led to some complaints from collectors.

the plant for fumace-ready cullet supplied by third-party processors stayed fairly consistent, at about $50 per ton. The processors paid collectors between $10 and $20 per ton, f.0.b. the processing site. Significant price differences occur among regions, with cullet prices generally more favor- able to Midwest collectors.

In the coming years, more pricing information will be available. By the end of 1994, the Chicago Board of Trade will provide a computerized market listing for cullet, where- by users can track recent price quotes from cullet sellers and users. CBOT feels an improved marketplace will occur by providing “public discovery” of market prices, as well as the use of standardized cullet specifications and the pro- vision of a dispute resolution process to facilitate trading ’

of cullet between buyers and sellers.

In 1992 and 1993, the price paid by consuming mills at ,

~-

-

CHAPTER 5 SECONDARY MARKETS

I addition to bottlemaking, container cullet is used in a imber of other applications. And while for many of these >plications, cullet competes against low-value materials, le market size is immense. For instance, the construction ind and gravel market, where cullet can be used as an temative, is a 900-million-ton-per-year market.

Nonetheless, these markets are still developing. In 91, less than two percentage points of the nationwide 3 1 2rcent bottle recycling rate were accounted for from sec- idary or alternative uses. This grew to 4. I percent of imestic bottle shipments in 1992 (or 450,000 tons), accord- g to the Glass Packaging Institute.

More than 70 noncontainer applications exist for cul- t, although many of these are still in the experimental age (see the sidebar for a list from the Clean Washington ?nter).

Short descriptions of the principal secondary applica- ms are provided in this chapter. Chapter 7 provides a bliography for those interested in obtaining additional ?tails about these and other uses for cullet.

sving Applications illet as a supplement in paving materials is an historic arket.

Asphalt. The use of cullet in asphalt (often termed 3ssphalt) is also a sizable market, given that asphalt is 90 95 percent stone and sand bound together with a rela- rely small amount of petroleum-based binding and that ass can replace a large portion of this stone and sand. )me glassphalt projects use 60 tons of cullet per lane-mile.

Glassphalt has a lengthy history, with the first patent Great Britain being issued in 1958 and much of the orig- 31 US. research being done at the University of Missouri 1966. The City of Baltimore has used glass in asphalt ice 1971.

Now, glassphalt projects abound throughout the coun- : Three highway construction assodations in Pennsylvania 2 working with state transportation officials to use 100,000 ns per year of cullet as aggregate. Jones Quany (Olympia, ashington) has installed a 300-ton-per-hour glass proc- sing unit to produce crushed glass in size from fine dust

to pebbles for use in asphalt. The City of Regina, Saskatchewan uses crushed glass as IO percent of its road asphalt and as a road sub-base. About 5,000 tons p e r year of scrap glass are consumed. King Road Materials (Albany, New York) uses up to 1,000 tons per month of glass in asphalt and the City of New York, which first tested glassphalt in 1988, now consumes about 23,000 tons per year of cullet.

However, the production of cullet for use in asphalt can also be a small-scale option. The Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority (Utica, New York) has installed a chain-flail crusher at its recycling facility to produce pulverized glass for incorporation in asphalt.

A number of experiments have been undertaken. For example, Saginaw, Michigan has used glassphalt with up to 40 percent bottle content. Sacramento, Califomia has tested the use of uncleaned cullet (crushed glass containing paper and metals) in asphalt. Important studies have been issued, including those by the states of Connecticut and Virginia.

Numerous other state and local govemment agencies in the 1990s experimented with and tested glassphalt, among them Maryland; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Oregon; the City of Los Angeles; King County, Washington; Sibley County, Minnesota; Palm Beach County, Florida; Douglas County, Oregon; City of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Atlantic County, New Jersey; Teton County, Wyoming; Town of Colonie, New York; and the City of Syracuse, New York;

A major bamer to increased use of glass in asphalt is the low price paid for the cullet - about $2 to $6 per ton.

Cement. Glass has been used to replace gravel in cement. For example, University of Wisconsin engineering researchers, using federal and state recycling market development grants, have developed a method to bond glass to cement. Sidewalks surrounding a Dane County (Madison) , Wisconsin parking garage incorporate the cullet-cement.

Cullet trails. Glass has also been used to build gravel-like sidewalks and trails. A 3,600-foot recreational trail made from crushed green glass -The Emerald Path -was constructed in 1993 in Portland, Oregon.

Road base. Processed cullet has also been used in

road bases. Cal’Ttans, the Califomia transportation agency, has approved cullet as a Class I1 aggregate, and the Minnesota Office of Waste Management has tested cullet use as an aggregate additive in roadbeds.

Construction Aggregate Cullet can be used in a variety of drainage, erosion control and fill applications.

For example, Glass Aggregate Corp. (Grand Rapids, Michigan) produces underdrain and erosion units. Also, in its National Standard Plumbing Code, the National Plumbers Association (Falls Church, Virginia) in 199 I approved cullet for use as a subsoil storm drainage material around basements and footings of buildings.

BC Hydro, the electrical power utility in British Co- lumbia, uses cullet as a medium surrounding buried cables.

The principal research into construction aggregate markets was done in 1993 by the Clean Washington Center (Seattle) as part of a multi-state public-private research partnership. CWCs consultant found that: H cullet compacts well, even in wet weather

is an excellent additive to natural aggregate in static loading situations H does not degrade under repeated loading (although cullet is riot as mechanically sound as aggregate) H is highly permeable and thus is an excellent material for drainage applications H has no adverse environmental effects.

Producing cullet for aggregate feedstock costs about $7 to $1 2 p e r ton. This relatively low cost is due primarily to the elimination of the need to color-sort the glass. And because aggregate markets are primarily local, it is expected that cullet shipping costs will be lower for most communities in comparison to shipping cullet to container manufacturing plants.

Insulation Products The use of bottle cullet to produce fiberglass insulation is an important secondary market.

Demand for cullet by insulation producers grew in the early 1990s. Some of this interest was spurred by a concem that they were losing sales to cellulose and foam insulation producers after the federal govemment issued pro- curement guidelines for building products with recycled content. In addition, the nation’s most populous state - Califomia - requires fiberglass insulation to be manufactured with minimum levels of recycled glass, starting at 10 percent use in 1992 and rising to 30 percent use by 1995. In 1992, Califomia fiberglass producers used 6,000 tons of bottle and plate cullet.

Big and small fiberglass producers use cullet. Schuller Intemational, producer of Manville Brand Insulation, uses about 50,000 tons of scrap glass to make fiberglass insulation. Recycled content vanes between 20 and 40 percent, depending on the location of the company’s plant. Owens- Coming Fiberglass has successfully produced fiberglass with up to 30 percent recycled content. On a smaller scale, Vortec Corp. (Collegeville, Pennsylvania) manufactures fiberglass using cullet as a portion of its feedstock.

The use of cullet in fiberglass isn’t limited to the US. Fibreglas Canada plans to use 90,000 tons per year of container cullet to manufacture insulation with 50 percent recycled content.

Some 300,000 tons of bottle cullet were used in the production of thermal and acoustical insulation products 1

in 1992, reports the North American Insulation Manufackuers Association. All told, the domestic industry produces about I .O to I .2 million tons per year of fiberglass.

A barrier inhibiting greater use is the relatively tight cullet specifications used by fiberglass producers, which were developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (Philadelphia). ~

Construction Products A variety of products containing cullet are used in resi- 1 dential and commercial construction projects.

Tile. Cullet can be fused in a kiln to make tile. For instance, Glass Phoenix Pty Ltd in Australia produces a ~

range of recycled glass products, such as tiles, wall panels and table tops, that substitute for marble and granite in the building and decorating industries.

Stoneware Tile Co. (Richmond, Indiana) uses cullet as a replacement for clay in the production of its high- endurance tiles (for use in hallways, car showrooms, etc.). Flint cullet composes about 70 percent of the tile’s content. Major users have been McDonalds, Burger King, DisneyWorld and the U.S. Army.

Wall panels. Thermolock Products (North Tonawanda, New York) manufactures wall panels from post-consumer foam glass.

Bricks. The Clean Washington Center has assessed the characteristics of glass paving bricks, such as those made by Hot Stuff Glass (Bellingham, Washington).

Synthetic marble. A marble imitation composite can be made from a mix of resins and glass granules. A similar - - - reqdec! g!ass product is marblite; an a ~ f i c i a l mck

Glass Bead Cullet refined into glass beads is used in a number of manufacturing and industrial applications, such as tile manufacture. Numerous firms, such as Potters Industries with plants nationwide, produce beads. Cullet is also used in Canada to make beads. Canasphere Industries (Moose Jaw, Alberta) uses about 3,000 tons of cullet annually. The recycled beads are used primarily in two applications.

Paint manufacture. Using finely processed flint bottle and plate glass cullet as a reflective agent in paint is a traditional secondary market.

The use of mixed-color cullet in paint is now gaining attention. Among those that have undertaken research is the Missouri Enterprise, a public-private research center based at the Rolla campus of the University of Missouri. Using a grant from the state Department of Natural Re- sources, researchers tested the capability of a low- technology pulverizer to produce mixed-color, submicron- size cullet for use as a reflective agent in paint for highway applications.

The pulverizer is a pebble-ball mill, which employs

lloyed steel balls rolling indide i3 tank to pulverize the :rap bottles to 50-mesh size (about the consistency of dc). The cullet is mixed with titanium to make the paint lore reflective.

Blasting material. Processed cullet can replace sand nd other minerals as a blasting material. This is a sizable larket, estimated by Allwaste Recycling to be more than 30,000 tons annually.

Other uses. Abrasives are also used as water filtration iedia in which suspended particles and solids are removed ) purify water.

Nher Products dditional uses are reported, too.

Road Traction Abrasive. Cullet can be used as a sand- ke abrasive for application to icy roads. For instance, the luebec transportation agency used 1 , 100 tons of cullet in 293- 1994 as a traction aid.

Sewer Pipe. Researchers at Teledyne National and le University of Califomia at Los Angeles have developed glass polymer composite pipe.

Silica substitute in steelmaking. The Oregon Steel iill in Portland, Oregon is using about three tons per day F green cullet as a silica substitute in waste vitrification. I a glassification process, the glass is mixed with electric- ‘c fumace (EAF) dust to form a glass chip (or frit). This item in be sold as an industrial abrasive or used in making tile. AF dust is hazardous, and Oregon Steel used to spend as iuch as $3 million annually to dispose of the dust gener- ted at its steel mill.

Waste Management Facility Applications Cullet has been successfully employed in the development of waste management facilities.

The City of Seattle used nearly 4,000 tons of mixed- color cullet as a mineral aggregate substitute in landfill construction applications in 1993. The material was used to build the landfill’s final cover and as a drainage medium.

Similarly, the regional govemment in Vancouver, British Columbia used green cullet as a filter medium in the leachate collection system at the regional landfill.

Plans in Miami County, Ohio call for the use of up to 50,000 tons of cullet as a fill material at its waste transfer station.

--

-

Local Applications Some communities have found that excess quantities of mixed-color or green cullet can be successfully diverted to secondary applications.

A backlog of 20,000 tons of cullet in Seattle was substantially reduced in 1993. Some 12,000 tons were used as fill material, and additional quantities were used in aland- fill project (see above) and as backfill and drainage aggregate in electrical cable installation projects.

Altemative uses for cullet are not limited to those of similar large-volume applications. Numerous small firms and local govemments have developed low-technology, small-volume altematives. As an example, the small town of New London, New Hampshire has used cullet since 1990 in a number of municipal projects, including for bedding conduits and sewer connections, and as a base material in building town roads, walkways and parking lots.

i L

I t

f

CHAPTER 6 TRENDS AND ISSUES

;everal trends are significantly affecting the glass contain- ‘r recycling industry. And several critical issues require oncerted attention.

:ontamination :onsiderable effort has been expended - and will con- nue to be expended - to reduce the effect of cullet con- amination on container production.

Some of the technologies listed in the first and third hapters are now being used in the U.S. Several third-party lrocessors are adding optical color sorting systems to 2duce the incidence of mixed-color cullet, and ceramic letection and removal units are being installed.

This isn’t to suggest that all the problems have been olved. For instance, researchers have concluded that eramic detectors have a high separation efficiency for eramic pieces in cullet that are about 0.375 inches or larg- r. Smaller pieces are extremely hard to detect and the iroughput from ceramic detectors is relatively low.

Ile of locating most ceramics, but that glass cookware pieces rere not detected.

Optical color sorting units have the same limitations nability to capture small pieces of bottles and low through- ut).

Less common is the fine grinding of ceramic-contami- ated cullet. For instance, Allwaste Recycling operates fine rinding systems at just four of its 18 beneficiation plants jshland, Tennessee; Cleveland and Newark, Ohio, and Ililwaukee, Wisconsin). The principal barrier is the cost, stimated to be $20 to $40 per ton (depending on the fine- ess of the final product), because the equipment need- d to fine grind cullet before introduction into a container imace costs $350,000 to $500,000 per plant. In addition, ie powder must be stored under cover, because moisture JITIS the material into a paste that clogs screens.

Research shows, however, that powdered ceramic and ietal contaminants cause no problem in glass manufac- ure. Unfortunately, the research into the fine grinding of lass such as Vision Ware cookware shows that this pow- ler is still insoluble in glass bottlemaking.

Should fine grinding work out, it may lead to significant

Another study found that ceramic so&erS were c a p -

change in beneficiation plants, because all the sorting, separation and extraction steps may not be needed if the contaminants can be ground up into a powder and then introduced to the fumace.

Oversupply From the late 1980s until today, regional cullet market dis- location has occurred, particularly due to the oversupply of mixed-color and green cullet in some regions. The State of Pennsylvania estimated that 93,000 tons of cullet collected in I99 I could not be marketed to container producers.

The mixed-color oversupply is a result of collection practices, in particular in those communities where commingled recyclables are collected. For instance, in 1992, 63 percent (or about 88,000 tons) of the glass generated by municipal recycling programs in New York State was mixed- color cullet. Most of this material cannot be sold to container manufacturers.

primarily due to market dispersal. Few glass plants make green bottles but nearly all municipal recycling collection programs generate green containers.

Rising green cullet volumes aren’t the only problem. A glassmaking technology used at some container plants has exacerbated the oversupply problem.

In frit feeding systems, flint bottles are produced and then the green coloring is added. In this system, molten flint glass enters an independent chamber where raw coloring materials are added. The materials are then homog- enized, and the resultant hot glass is channeled to a forming operation.

In the typical frit feeding system, no green cullet is used to make new green bottles; even in-house cullet green has to be sold to another plant that uses green fumaces. One industry analyst estimates that I5 to 20 percent of domestic green glass container production occurs by frit feeding.

However, industry experts are monitoring a frit feeding project at the Sapulpa, Oklahoma plant of Liberty Glass, where cold green cullet will be added to the chamber along with the coloring batch.

G m n cullet oversupply led to a drop in price at numer-

On the other h2d, the nversnpp!y nf gee!? CL!!lPt is

ous plants in the early 1990s. The Portland, Oregon Owens- Brockway plant dropped the price paid for green bottles to $1 0 per ton in April 1990 (the lowest price paid by the plant in its 20 years of cullet use), due to an excess inventory of 7,800 tons on site. f i e annual green cullet supply at this plant now exceeds demand by about 8,000 tons.

Similar problems were reported elsewhere. The Streator, Illinois Owens-Brockway plant dropped the green cullet price to only $5 per ton in May 1992. No green bottles are made at the facility. At that time in the Pacific Northwest, the principal processor in Washington - Fibres intemational of Seattle - dropped the price paid to collectors to zero.

Such problems affected numerous local recycling operations. A 1992 survey of recycling operations in British Columbia found that 88 percent of the programs were forced to stockpile green cullet.

This problem has received considerable govemmen- tal and industry focus. Concem over the growing piles of mixed-color and green cullet, along with low prices paid to collectors, led to market development and legislative actions in several states. Much of the secondary market research that was portrayed in the previous chapter was spurred by the glut of green and mixed-color cullet.

Also in response, the Glass Packaging Institute assessed the magnitude of the green cullet problem in mid-1993. GPI’s research showed that green glass production in the U.S. in 1992 was I .29 million tons, or 12 percent of the total glass container output. Sixteen of the nation’s 70-plus plants account for nearly all this tonnage, and these facilities are -with one exception -located on the East and West coasts. Owens-Brockway, Anchor Glass and Ball-InCon account for a combined 75 percent of these plants.

GPI estimates that some 603,500 tons of green bottles were imported into the U.S. in 1992, primarily in the form of beer and wine bottles. This represents 47 percent of the green bottles available to American consumers.

Container producers have tried to iower the piles of green cullet. For instance, many plants use green cullet in amber fumaces. Industry researchers say that use of about 5 percent green cullet in amber cullet doesn’t create any problems, and some plants have used as much as I7 percent. When a higher percentage is employed, it is necessary to blend the green cullet into the batch thoroughly so the fumace’s chemistry is not upset. This blending step, which entails a mixing bin, adds a new cost to production (about $100,000 per bin).

To unclog the backlog, container producers have also shipped green and mixed-color cullet from one plant to another. Owens-Brockway has shipped green cullet from Streator, Illinois to Atlanta and from Portland, Oregon to Califomia. Also, in early 1992 0 - B shipped 5,200 tons of w e n cullet kom New Jersey to the company’s plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This was followed by a second shipment of green cullet to Puerto Rico from Florida in the fall of 1992. In the Northeast, local processors shipped 23,000 tons of green cullet in 1993 to the Moncton, New Brunswick glass plant operated by Consumers Glass.

Another solution to the green cullet oversupply problem that has received considerable attention is the use of color coating. Under this system, bottle color would not

be part of the bottle as nod, but wbuld be added as an acrylic coating (all the bottles would be flint). The coating would then bum off when the bottle was recycled.

A leading developer of this technology is Brandt Manufacturing (Windsor, New York) , which used state grants and loans in the early 1990s to build and test prototype coloring systems. Anchor Glass Container is the first major producer to experiment with this bottle decoration process. The system - called Color Guard - was tested in 1993.

A side benefit of such a coloring system is that bottles can be produced in a new range of dazzling colors. Cadbury Beverage was the first to by out the container, with a lemon- ade-flavored drink in a frost-colored bottle introduced to the Baltimore, Maryland market in the fall of 1993. Strohs Brewing has tested a red beer bottle.

Of course, one problem with this solution is the need for it to be universally employed. Because it would require additional sorting steps, recycling costs would rise, not fall, if only some bottles were color-coated. Also, coloring systems, which cost about $3 million per line, add a premium of about three cents per bottle. Work is underway to reduce these costs.

Pressure is still being exerted to reduce the volumes of nonrecycled cullet. The New Jersey Legislature demand- ed that a market feasibility study be done. This followed on the footsteps of a legislative proposal to require sellers of products in green bottles in the state to assure that a market exists for the empty containers. If not, the products in green glass would be banned. This generated the ire of the National Association of Beverage Importers (Washington, D.C.), the Distilled Spirits Council of the US. (also of Washington), and other industry associations. Yet, other states may introduce similar, attention-generating measures.

As a measure of the respect industry is showing to these potential measures, Heineken, the foreign beer producer, in I994 agreed to backhaul between 5,000 and 8,000 tons o f green cullei io iiolland in aii attempt io ease the gieen glass glut in the Northeast.

f

- -

~

I

Third-party Processors As mentioned in the fourth chapter, the move by container producers to get out of the beneficiation business by signing cullet supply agreements with independent processors has produced positive and negative effects.

Certainly for the container producer, this is a good move. And for the overall cullet market, this new system is ben- eficial, because the third-party processor often has many markets available. Unfortunately for the collector, the result has generally been lower prices for scrap containers. ~

Container Industry Consolidation As shown in the second chapter, in the last I5 years, the domestic glass container industry has changed dramatically. In I980 some 12 companies held a combined 70 percent market share. Now just four producers - Owens- Illinois, Anchor Glass, Ball-InCon and Foster-Fdes - have more than 80 percent of the market.

The North American glass container industry is cur-

’

pently a near-oligopoly. Sudh’a rharket has the chance to Decome noncompetitive and complacent.

Court cases arguing this point have occurred. In 1992, 1 federal jury found that Owens-Illinois, Brockway and Dart ndustries had colluded to keep glass container prices about $ percent higher than they should have been. 0.1 and Srockway conspired from 1970 to 1987, while Dart was nvolved only through I981 , at which point the company ;old i t s glass container manufacturing business.

Also, in late 1989, Judge James Xmony, the U.S. Court i f Appeals judge who heard the appeal by Owens-Illinois egarding the supposed antitrust violations of its Brockway mrchase, concluded that the glass container industry has ‘a history of market allocation and antitrust violations.”

’ackaging Competition 3n a number of occasions, “packaging wars” have been ought in the public arena, with users of one material pro- noting its advantage over others. What was once a gen- eel competitive marketplace is now a tense battleground, md glass container producers have used the recyclability )f glass as ammunition in their war to retain packaging mar- ret share.

In 1990, the battle was started by plastic resin pro- lucers, such as A” and Huntsman Chemical, who adver- ised that glass was a failed package. Showing a broken )ottle in the shower stall, they asked “Do You Want to letum to the O OS?" The ads went on to brag about plas- ics’ recyclability.

The Glass Packaging Institute then took its shots, say- ng that the assertion about plastics’ recyclability “doesn’t ,$and up to scrutiny.” GPI ran ads in USA Today in opposi- ion to the “disinformation campaign” offered by the plas- ics industry regarding recycling. The ads pointed out that plastics recycling is in the dumps,” with only 2 percent of )lastics recycled in 1989, a dismal record in comparison to $ass pac’kigiiig’s 30 pereiit ate.

Not everyone was pleased with the open warfare. The Jew Jersey Food Council, a group active in recycling issues n the Garden State, told GPI the glass industty had brought harm to the cooperative spirit” enjoyed among packaging nterests.

Nonetheless, similar public battles have occurred since. n the fall of 1993, the GPI released Advantage Glass, a study ,ponsored by the organization which presents information ,bowing the “environmental threats posed by the growing i s e of plastics.” The researchers conclude that “the pub- ic concem about plastics is warranted and that the mas- ,ive switch from glass to plastics is an environmental mis- ake.”

In tenns of recycling, the study noted that the recycling ate for glass containers is double that for comparable plas- ic bottles and that plastic is far more costly to recycle. Turther, glass is recycled in a closed-loop system, while nany competitive plastics are recycled into products such IS carpeting that are not themselves recycled.

As expected, the plastics industty complained about his attack, and as before, some packagers sharply criti- $zed GPl for having launched the latest salvo in the pack- ging wars.

The second firestorm in the fall of 1993 was in the Minneapolis region, where the Aluminum Association (Washington, D.C.) took out ads criticizing the poor recycling performance of plastics and glass in comparison to aluminum. GPI counterattacked by pointing out that the Anchor Glass plant in Shakopee, Minnesota makes bottles with an average 44 percent post-consumer recycled content. After beverage producers complained sharply to the Aluminum Association, the ads were pulled after only one week. I

Environmental and Legislative Pressures All parties in packaging, including the glass industty, remain under intense public and legislative scrutiny regarding their recycling efforts. For some members of the public, it is “recycle or die.”

The pressure is for container producers to do even more recycling. Glass collections in European countries show some of the future for North American efforts. With a recycling rate of 2 1 percent in 1991 , Great Britain is at the bottom. However, as shown in Table 6-1, the top glass recy-

_ _

-

cling countries far exceed the rate in North America. And in Europe, these high levels of recovery have held

for nearly a decade. Europeans recovered 25 percent of their glass containers in 1985, with the Netherlands t o p ping the iist with a 53 percent recyciing rate iexciusive oi refillables).

These high levels of recovery have been reported elsewhere. The national recovery rate for glass containers in Australia tops 40 percent.

In the US., little restrictive legislation is on the hori- zon. Rather, the trend is toward efforts to boost glass recycling markets. This takes four forms.

Legislatures are considering recycled content standards, similar to those now in place in California and Oregon. In Califomia, beginning in I992 firms that make or sell glass containers must certib that the containers have 15 percent post-consumer content. This level rises in increments to 65 percent by 2005. A 25 percent recycled content standard is also in place in Oregon, due to a 1991 measure. As noted earlier, in addition, a 1991 act in Califomia calls for fiberglass producers to use I O percent post-consumer cullet, increasing to 30 percent by 1995.

Recycled content legislation has supporters and detrac- tors in the glass container industry. Owens-Brockway has openly supported such measures in several states, particularly those measures that also apply content standards to plastic container producers. Some of 0-B’s competitors dislike such legislation.

As well, numerous states have approved recycling market development acts with an aim to boost demand for scrap glass containers (and other recyclable materials) through grants, loans and tax incentives provided to cullet producers and users.

Government-sponsored “buy recycled” campaigns are also prevalent. Recycled glass products are promoted to the public and to corporate and institutional purchasing officials.

Extensive efforts are underway to revise govemment purchasing specifications to allow or promote the use of

cullet in construction and QthGT prpducts purchased by agencies. For example, in Hawaii, which has no container plant, a number of special efforts are underway. Due to a state law (Act 231 -92), since June 1992 recycled glass must be used in nonstrudural construction projects, such as drainage backfill behind retaining walls and the covering of underground utilities. And an ordinance adopted by the City and County of Honolulu (Ordinance 92-39) requires all bid specifications for city mad construction and paving projects to include the use of cullet. The city’s efforts in glass recycling are funded by a 1.5-cent-per-container fee.

1

~

CHAPTER 7 INFORMATION SOURCES

seriodlcals

hnerlcan Glass Review is a monthly magazine focusing on he production of containers and other forms of glass. Lmerican Glass Review, PO. Box 2147, Clifton, NJ 0701 5; 20 1 ) 779- I 600.

b t t ldcan Recycling Update is a monthly trade newslet- er that includes detailed information about glass recycling. lesource Recycling, PO. Box 10540, Portland, OR 97210; 503) 227- I3 19.

3ottlemaking Technology and Marketing News is pub- ished six times per year and provides information about dastic and glass bottle markets, technology and recycling. kchnology Forecast, 9 Drumlin Rd., Westport, CT 06880.

;Lass Industry is a monthly magazine focusing on the pro- luction of container and other forms of glass. Glass lndustq ?O. Box 7636, Riverton, NJ 08077-7636; (800) 360- 1926.

>ocuments

!hmed, I., Use of Waste Materials in Highway Construction, Qoyes Data Cow. (Park Ridge, New Jersey), 1 14 pages, 1993.

bhlee Publications (New York, New York), 1993 Glass ndustry Directory, 236 pages, 1993.

:lean Washington Center (Seattle, Washington), Glass Harkets Information System: Application Records, 350 >ages, December 1992.

.......... , Glass Markets Information System: Application Summary Reports, 79 pages, December 1992.

Zobum, R., Supply and Demand of Glass Recovemi for Zecycling In New York State, New York State Depaement )f Economic Development (Albany, New York), 1994.

Cole, H. S. and Brown, K. A., Advantage Glass!: Switching to Plastic is an Environmental Mistake, Glass Packaging Institute (Washington, D.C.), 207 pages, 1993.

De Saro, R., Automatic Cemmlc Separation from Recycled Glass, Busek Co. (Needham, Massachusetts), 80 pages, January 1992.

........... , Automatic Ceramic Separation from Recycled Glass, Energy Research Co. (Annandale, New jersey), 106 pages, July 1993.

Davidson, D., Design and Development of a Prototype Sensor System for the Automated Separation of Com- mingled Containers, University of Illinois (Champaign, Illinois), 1991.

Doctorow Communications (Clifton, New Jersey), 1993 Gbss Factory Directory, I44 pages, 1993.

The Freedonia Group (Cleveland, Ohio), Glass Recycling G. Markets, June 1993.

Gaines, L.L. and Mintz, M.M., Energy Implications of G b Container Recycling, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, Illinois), March 1994.

Hughes, C., Feasibility of Using Recycled Glass in Asphalt, Virginia Transport Research Council (Charlottesville, Virginia), 21 pages, 1990.

&en A,, Feasibility of UtWng Waste Gkss in Pavements, Connecticut Department of Transportation (Wethersfield, Connecticut), 17 pages, 1989.

Lewis, R.L., Research and Development of an Automated Clear/Color Glass Container Sortlng System for the Recycling F~KMXSS, University of Illinois (Champaign, Illinois), I85 pages, August I 9 9 1.

Low, N., Development of High Thermal Insulation Building

Products From Recycled Waste Glass, Concordia University (Montreal, Quebec), 1986.

Trombly, J., “Developing Non-traditjonal Glass Markets,” Resource Recycling, October I99 1.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, Colo- rado) ,Energy Implicatlons of Glass-Container Recycling, 1994.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Albany, New York), Automatic Ceramic Separation from Recycled Glass - Results from the Engineering Study Tasks, 80 pages, January 1992.

Resource Management Associates, Glass Container Markets in the New York Region, New York State Department of Economic Development (Albany, New York), 1992.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (Providence, Rhode Island), Reducing Breakage of Container Glass in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs, 30 pages, October 1991.

..........., The Nitty-Gritty of Glass Recycling: Glass Residue Market Study, 32 pages, August 1991.

Tooley, E, The Handbook of Glass Manufacture, Third Edition, Ashlee Publishing (New York, New York), 1,243 pages, 1984.

University of New Mexico (Albuquerque, New Mexico), Symposium on Utilization of Waste Glass in Secondaly Products, 36 I pages, 1973.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.) , Markets for Recovered Glass, 31 pages, 1993.

Selected Articles

Apotheker, Steve, “Glass Containers: How Recyclable Will They Be in the OS?," Resource Recycling, lune 1991.

............, “Fiberglass Manufacturers Revisit Cullet,” Resource Recycling, June 1990.

Weiser, S. e t al., “How Aluminum Contamination Affects Container Production,” Glass Industry, June 1986.

Databases ~

“Reuse/Recyding of Glass Cullet for Non-container Uses” is a database providing details about 60 secondary applications. For ordering details, contact John Reindl, Dane County Department of Public Works, 2 17 S. Hamilton St., Suite 400, Madison, WI 53703.

~

Organizations

Container Recycling Institute 1400 16th St., N.W., Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20036-2266 (202) 797-6839

European Container Glass Federation Avenue Louise 89 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium 32 (2) 539-3434

Glass Packaging Institute 1627 K. St., N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887-4850

Regional Glass Recycling Programs of GPI

Glass Packaging Institute -Midwestern Office 770 E. 73rd St. Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 251-0131

Glass Packaging Institute - Southwestem Office 4825 S. Peoria, Suite 4 Tulsa, OK 74 105 (918) 742-8343

............ , “Glass Processing: The Link Between Collection and Manufacture,” Resource Recycling July 1989.

Kirby, B., “Cullet It What You Will,” Resource Recycling, December 1993.

..........., “Secondary Markets for Post-Consumer Glass,” Resource Recycling, lune 1993.

Papke, C., ‘“hnds in Glass Container Recycling,” Resource Recycling, June 1992.

Stewart, G., “How Foreign Cullet Usage Affects Container Production,” class Industry, December 1985.

Glass Packaging Institute - Northeastem Office PO. Box 1088 Carlisle, PA I 70 I 3 (717) 243-1738

- Glass Packagmg Institute - Southeastem Office P.0. Box 595 1 Cleawater, FL 346 18 (813) 799-4917 __

Glass Packaging Institute - Westem States Office 3550 Watt Ave., Suite I40 Sacramento, CA 9582 I (916) 484-7465

k l 3

Cullet Specificationb

American Society for Testing and Materials 1916 Race St. Philadelphia, PA I91 03 (2 15) 299-5400

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 1325 G St., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005-3 104. [202) 466-4050

Information on Processine Eauinment

Resource Recycling annually publishes a comprehensive guide :o recycling equipment and manufacturers, including glass xocessing equipment. To order, send $5 to Resource qecycling, PO. Box 10540, Portland, OR 972 10-0540.

Consultants Specializing in Glass Recycling

Carl Parlette Glass Recycling Consultants 32 I5 Haughton Dr. Toledo, OH 43606- 1809 (4 19) 472.649 I

Charles Papke Resource Management Associates PO. Box 3568 Napa, CA 94558 (707) 2574630

CHAPTER 8 DIRECTORY OF CONTAINER MANUFACTURERS

AND CULLET PROCESSORS

Pure Tech Intemational Bakersfield (805) 635-3200

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS CULLET PRODUCERS

California Allwaste Recycling Huntington Park (2 13) 588.8328

'Illwaste Recycling Houston, Texas :713) 623-8777 Pure Tech lntemational

Carson (310) 323-9915 4nchor Glass

bmpa, Florida :813) 884-0000

Allwaste Recycling lrwindale (818) 303.5335

Pure Tech Intemational Marina (408) 384- I 2 I2 hheuser-Busch Recycling Corp.

sunset Hills, Missouri 3 14) 957-9393

Allwaste Recycling Newark (5 10) 79 I ~6985

Recycling & Resource Recovery San Rafael (415) 453-1404 3all-InCon Packaging

vluncie, Indiana 3 I 7) 741 -7000

Allwaste Recycling San Diego (6 19) 689-0807 Connecticut

Connecticut Container Recovery Corp E a t H2rtfQ.d (203) 289-7234

Zonsumers Packaging nohicoke; ontari_o 4 16) 232-3000

.M!w.ste ReCydi!?g Sunol (5 IO) 862-0625

Northeast Recycling North Grosvenordale (203) 935-5391

zontainer Recycling Alliance :hiago, Illinois 3 12) 399-8400

Biola Recycling Biola (209) 843-2810

3" Glass Manufacturing mea t Ridge, Colorado 303) 425-7842

Florida Allwaste Recycling Jacksonville (904) 695-2790

CRGR South Gate (7 14) 826-9040

Xnc. :helmsford, MA 0 1824-4 149 508) 250-4800

Califomia CRlnc. Commerce (2 13) 887-6 150

Allwaste Recycling Sarasota (81 3) 758-7773 hens-Illinois

?oledo, Ohio 419) 247-5000

Califomia CRlnc. San kandro (5 10) 357-053 I Georgia

Allstate Glass Reclaiming P e w (9 I 2) 987-9676

"e Tech Intemational iomerset, New Jersey 908) 302- 1000

Container Recycling Alliance Montebello (213) 887-91 10

Allwaste Recycling At I ant a (404) 349-6952

Missouri Allwaste Recycling St. Louis (3 14) 353-2207

Allwaste Recyding hurinburg (9 IO) 276-8220

Container Recycling Alliance Raleigh (919) 829-131 1

GDS College Park (404) 761-1340 New Jersey

ABCA Glass Keamy

Advanced Recycling Technology

Linden (908) 862-0 10 1

(20 1 ) 997-5600

Systems

_- Ohio Allwaste Recycling Cleveland (216) 241-4450

Illinois Allwaste Recycling Chicago (3 12) 523-2200

Allwaste Recycling Newark (6 14) 349-9523

Container Recycling Alliance Chicago (3 12) 646-3399 Anheuser-Busch

Bridgeport (609) 467-323 1

Anheuser-Bus& Recycling Marion (6 14) 383-4987 Indiana

Allwaste Recycling Indianapolis (3 17) 484-2550

Automated Recycling Technologies Elizabeth (908) 222-7002

Cincinnati Cullet Cincinnati (513) 921-401 I

Rex Alton Cos. Vincennes (8 1 2) 882-85 19

Distributors Recycling Hillside (20 1 ) 824-0404

Ensley Cow. Zanesville (2 16) 868-5038

Distributors Recycling Newark (20 I ) 824-0404

Universal Ground Cullet Gibsonburg (216) 267-8057

Iowa Container Recovery Des Moines (5 15) 265-4275 Menkes Municipal Services

West Orange (201) 731-8563 Oklahoma

Allwaste Recycling C3V.n.lV.3 ~ O p U L p P

(918) 224-2164 Kentucky Allwaste Recycling Frankfort (502) 6%-4008

Pace Glass Jersey City (201) 433-4751

Pennsylvania AGK Recycling Mount Pleasant (4 12) 547-4550

New York EWG Glass Recovery Jamaica (5 16) 623-8605

Massachusetts Container Recycling Alliance Mansfield (508) 339-6067 Dluback Glass

Natronice Heights (4 12) 224-66 I 1 1. Bass and Son

Mt. Vemon (914) 667-1443 Michigan

Allwaste Recycling Detroit (3 1 3) 365-4777

Keystone Cullet Greenburg (4 12) 837-5 100 Resource Recycling Technologies

Syracuse (3 15) 455-7080 Pennsylvania Cullet

Corsica (814) 379-3991

Glass Recyclers Dearbom (313) 584-3399

North Carolina Allstate Glass Reclaiming Eden (919) 635-1595

Todd Heller Recycling Northampton (6 10) 262-6988

Mid-Way Cullet Detroit (2 plants) (3 1 3) 849-2864

Tennessee " l i 1

Ulwaste Recycling Ashland [615) 792-5097

Texas Ulwaste Recycling Houston (713) 676-1500

Ulwaste Recycling Midlothian [214) 299-5081

Virginia Zycle Systems Zhester :800) 944- 1662

Washington Fibres lntemational Seattle 206) 762-8520

Wisconsin Illwaste Recycling Milwaukee 4 14) 464-3003

2anadian Cullet Processors

:!xm Montreal, Quebec 5 14) 539-6080

:entre de Tri Gaudteau 4ictoriaville, Quebec 18 19) 357-8584

Z C M Recycling andiac, Quebec :514) 632-1232

ZTL Environmental Technology Surrey, B.C. :604) 589-4385

Veighborhood Recycling Mondon, New Brunswick :506) 858- I600

Rosen Continental Inc. Kitchener, Ontario :4 16) 777- 1495

Vitreous Environmental Group Colorado Calgary, Alberta Coors Glass (403) 290- I799 Wheat Ridge

(303) 425-771 I

GLASS CONTAINER MANUFACTURING PLANTS

Arkansas Arkansas Glass Jonesboro (501) 932-4564

California Anchor Glass Antioch (5 IO) 757-0500

Anchor Glass Hayward (5 IO) 784-088 I

Anchor-Latchford Glass Huntington Park (213) 587-7221

Ball-lnCon Glass El Monte (8 18) 448-983 i

Ball-InCon Glass Madera (209) 674-886 I

Foster-Forbes Los Angeles (2 13) 562-0580

Gallo Glass Modesto (209) 579-341 1

Owens-Brockway Oakland (5 10) 436-2000

Owens-Brockway Pomona (909) 628-608 1

Owens-Bmckway -cy (209) 835-5701

Owens-Brockway Vemon (2 13) 586-4200

Connecticut Anchor Glass Dayville (203) 774-9636

Florida Anchor Glass Jacksonville (904) 786- I O IO

Owens-Brockway Lakeland (8 I 3) 680-4800

'kopicana Products Bradenton (8 1 3) 747-446 I

Georgia Anchor Glass Wamer-Robins (912) 922-4271

Owens-Brockway Atlanta (404) 765-8600

Illinois

Gumee .I.-.-. Anrhnr Clacc -1-w-

(708) 244-1000

Ball-lnCon Dolton (708) 849- I 500

Ball-lnCon Lincoln (217) 735-151 I

Ball-lnCon Plainfield (81 5) 436-565 I

Hillsboro Glass Hillsbom (217) 532-3976

Owens-Brockway Chicago Heights (708) 757-5555

Owens-Brockway Streator (81 5) 672-3 14 I

Wheaton Glass Flat River (314) 431-5743

Ohio 1

Owens-Brockway hnesville (6 14) 455-4500

Indiana Anchor Glass Lawrenceburg (812) 537-1655

Oklahoma Anchor Glass Henryetta (918) 652-9631

New Jersey Anchor Glass Cliffwood (908) 566-4000

Anchor Glass Winchester (317) 584-6101

Anchor Glass Salem (609) 935-4000

Ball-InCon Okmulgee (918) 756-5990

Ball-lnCon Dunkirk (317) 768-7891

Liberty Glass Sapulpa (918) 224-1440

Ball-InCon Carteret (908) 969- 1 400

Foster-Forbes Marion (317) 668-1200

Owens-Brockway Muskogee (918) 684-4534

Foster+Forbes Millville (609) 825-5000

Owens-Brockway Lapel (317) 534-3121

Leone Industries Bridgeton (609) 455-2000

Oregon Owens-Brockway Portland (503) 251-9481 Louisiana

Ball-InCon Ruston (3 18) 247-804 I

Wheaton Industries Millville (609) 825- I400

Pennsylvania Anchor Glass S. Connellsville (4 12) 628-4000 Maryland

Carr Lowery Glass Baltimore (4 10) 347-8800

New York Anchor Glass Elmira (607) 737-353 I

Ball-InCon Port Allegany (814) 642-2521

Owens-Brockway Auburn (315) 255-5201

Massachusetts Foster-Forbes Milford (508) 478-2500

Glenshaw Glass Glenshaw (412) 486-9100

Owens-Brockway Fulton (3 1 5) 598-093 I

Owens-Brockway Brockway (81 4) 26 1-6250 Michigan

Owens-Brwkway Charlotte (5 17) 543- 1400 Owens-Brockway

Clarion (814) 226-7600

North Carolina Ball-InCon Henderson (919) 492-1 131

Minnesota Anchor Glass Shakopee (6 12) 445-5000

Owens-Brockway . Crenshaw (8 14) 26 1-5389 Foste r-Forbes

Wilson (919) 291-1500

South Carolina Ball-lnCon Laurens (803) 984-254 1

Missouri Foste r-Forbes Pevel y (314) 479-4421

Owens-Brockway Winston-Salem (919) 764-2900

rexas lnchor Glass -louston 71 3) 672-0591

Foster-Forbes Waxahachie :2 14) 937-3430

hens-Brockway k7aco 181 7) 754-9502

Virginia 3wens-Brockway tinggold 804) 799-5880

hens-Brockway roano 804) 566-1 200

Washington Ball-lnCon Seattle

, * I 1

(206) 762-0660

West Virginia Anchor Glass Keyser (304) 788-4055

Wisconsin Foster-Forbes Burlington (414) 763-9161

Canadian Container Production Plants Consumers Packaging Lavindon, British Columbia (604) 545-2301

Consumers Packaging Soudouc, New Brunswick (506) 532-7200

Consumers Packaging Bramlea, Ontario (905) 7%-2423

Consumers Packagrng Hamilton, Ontario 9056) 544-3471

Consumers Packag.lng Milton, Ontario (416) 878-0521

Consumers Packaging Toronto, Ontario (4 16) 232-3000

Consumers Packaging Montreal, Quebec (5 14) 939-8500

recycling market profile: glass containers · glass container industry uses about 3.1 million...

Documents