PVC Plastic: a Looming Waste Crisis

State-of-the-Art PVC Recycling - a Game of Smoke and Mirrors

Greenpeace has researched some of the recycling schemes in western Europe and the USA and the results indicate that the recyclability of PVC is even worse than expected. Both the public and decision-makers are being misled by industry claims about PVC recycling. The situation in Japan and Australia is not different.

This review of the ‘state-of-the-art’ in PVC recycling does not claim to be complete. However, the part relating to Germany is an in-depth analysis of PVC recycling in the world’s leading exponent of PVC recycling. For the North American research (the USA and Canada) Greenpeace has called a number of companies listed as PVC recyclers by the vinyl industry, and asked for their involvement in PVC recycling. This research did not aim to produce a full overview of the PVC recycling business in North America, but to check the information provided by the vinyl industry. This chapter contains further information about PVC recycling in the European countries with the most advanced policies on PVC: Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria, as well as information from Japan and Australia.

GERMANY

The PVC recycling scam: contrary to publicity claims, investigation reveals no significant post-consumer PVC recycled window. Greenpeace investigated PVC windows which are promoted as being recycled, and found most had no recycled post-consumer content at all. A test commissioned by Greenpeace Germany (Lahl 1997) on seven "recycled" window frames showed that they contained no post consumer recycled PVC window frames. Its interior, assumed to be made of post consumer recycled PVC, merely contained colorants to give it that appearance. Further tests revealed that the window frames, contained only virgin material from off cuts (Lahl 1997). Only two may have contained a small and insignificant fraction of recycled PVC window frames.

The ‘global recycling’ initiative of the German PVC industry has achieved a recycling rate of 0.25% of the total German PVC consumption. Germany is internationally regarded as the most advanced country for PVC recycling. Germany has the highest number of recyclers in Europe and is one of the highest users of PVC, with a per capita consumption of nearly 20 kg per annum. In 1995, German PVC consumption amounted to 1,230,000 tonnes. Germany’s annual production of PVC waste is recently estimated to amount 550,000-581,000 tonnes (Pohle 1997).

At the end of the 1980s, the "Working Group for PVC and the Environment (AgPU, Arbeitsgemeinschaft PVC und Umwelt), a PVC industry lobby group founded by Solvay, BASF and others, entered the public debate in Germany with a "Global Recycling" campaign (AgPU undated).

A comprehensive study of recycling in Germany, commissioned by Greenpeace Germany, revealed that in 1996 the Global Recycling initiative recycled less than 4,000 tonnes of used PVC. This represents 0.25% of German PVC consumption. Only about 10% of the total of 35,000 tonnes of PVC recycling capacity for floor coverings, windows, pipes and roofing strip was actually used because, according to the industry, there was no waste available (Lahl 1997). But according to a recent estimate, there was as much as 97,000 tonnes of post-consumer PVC from floorings, pipes and window-frames available for recycling (Pohle 1997). This figure includes waste from PVC manufacturing that cannot be reprocessed as well as post-consumer waste.

The total investment in these "recycling" facilities amounts about DM 50 million. The specific costs of PVC recycling, assuming regranulate is sold at market prices, is estimated at DM 1.7 per kg PVC (Lahl 1997).

Other studies reveal low potential for PVC recycling - there is no solution for over 70% of the PVC already in existence or to be produced. According to one study, recycling, including chemical recycling, in Germany could account for at most 15-30% of PVC consumption in the medium to long term (10 years). There is no solution for over 70% of the PVC already in existence, or to be produced (Moller and Jeske 1995). So even if the maximum possible recycling is achieved, at very high costs, it will not come close to solving the PVC waste crisis.

Despite the poor PVC recycling results and the faked recycled windows, the AgPU is intensively using the Global Recycling concept to promote PVC. Politicians, journalists and "experts" are invited to visit the recycling plants and witness "how well" PVC can be recycled (Preusker 1997).

These recycling schemes, especially the window recycling scheme, have been used intensively in Germany by the PVC industry to lobby against the PVC phase-out initiatives of municipalities in both Germany and other countries. What is more, both the Netherlands and Austria send their post-consumer PVC window frames to Germany, perpetuating the assumption that recycling is both feasible and happening.

NETHERLANDS

German PVC recycling scam results in Dutch government accepting PVC windows as a ‘sustainable construction material’. The Dutch PVC industry is promoting recycling very intensively in its effort to "green" PVC - with some success. In general, PVC recycling is not economically viable (Heerings 1997). Most is incinerated or landfilled as part of domestic waste (VROM 1997).

However, PVC windows with a "re-use guarantee" are now accepted as a construction material in the Dutch Government-sponsored "Sustainable Construction Programme". This situation is made possible because of a contract with VEKA, the German PVC window frame recycler, which is receiving almost all of the Dutch waste from old PVC windows, for recycling. The "recycling" scheme is financed by PVC window frame producers and firms involved in the demolition and transportation of PVC construction waste. However, PVC windows are regarded as the least favourable material for windows under the sustainable construction material programme. In fact, this is the same for all other PVC construction materials.

The estimated number of post-consumer PVC windows recycled at VEKA is less than the estimated amount of waste sent from the Netherlands. The Dutch plastics industry estimates the amount of waste generated from windows and profiles during the dismantling of buildings at 200 tonnes (NFK 1995). But according to the Recycling Foundation of the Association of Plastic Window Frame Manufacturers (Stichting Recyclen-VKG), responsible for the PVC window frame take back and recycling, 1,300 tonnes of PVC windows - 75% (975 tonnes) of which were PVC - were generated in the Netherlands in 1995. This is predicted to rise to 5,300 tonnes (3,975 tonnes of PVC) by 2010, and to continue to rise thereafter (VKG 1996a). There is a contract with the German PVC window recycler VEKA to reprocess this PVC waste into new window frames. But VEKA recycled only 500 tonnes of old PVC windows in 1996 (Lahl 1997), less than the estimated waste amount in the Netherlands (975 tonnes). VEKA's main activity is to centralise the recycling of pre-consumer waste like off-cuts (8,000 tonnes in 1996), that would have been reprocessed anyway (Lahl 1997). Pohle (1997) estimated that Germany produced 16,700 tonnes of post-consumer PVC window waste in 1993.

The discrepancy between the estimated amount of post consumer PVC waste from windows in Germany and the Netherlands and the amount recycled by VEKA and FREI (total less than 1,000 tonnes in 1996) has not yet been accounted for. According to VKG, there are three Dutch companies involved in collecting and regranulating PVC window frames (VKG 1997).

However, calling these companies revealed that only one of them had regranulated approx. 30 old windows (< 1 ton) by September 1997. The effectiveness of this window recycling scheme is therefore highly questionable and does not constitute any significant post-consumer recycling into new windows at all. Even making allowances for the fact that the PVC window recycling scheme for the Netherlands was probably not operational until July 1996 (VKG 1996b), or using lower waste production figures than provided by the Dutch plastics industry, the German window recycling scheme still does not justify the assumption that any significant proportion of post-consumer PVC windows will be recycled into new windows.

Dutch PVC industry lobbies for continued PVC incineration while the government increases pressure for recycling. According to Dutch industry figures, 2,300 tonnes of PVC waste (mostly PVC pipes), or 1.5% of PVC consumption (155,000 tonnes in 1996 (VROM 1997), is being recycled in the Netherlands. The remaining amount of PVC waste (the total amount is estimated to be 46,000-86,000 tonnes a year*) is incinerated, landfilled or exported. Landfilling of plastic waste will be banned from 2000 onwards and it can be expected that implementing this ban will lead to an increasing amount of PVC waste that will be incinerated (VROM 1997).

In 1996, at least 4,000 tonnes of pre-consumer PVC waste was exported from the Netherlands to the Philippines for recycling into low quality products (Greenpeace Netherlands 1997). However, the actual amount of PVC waste exported for downcycling in Asia may be higher. The Dutch government announced in 1997 that it will closely monitor PVC waste production and recycling in the near future with a view to replacing non-recyclable uses of PVC with environmentally sound alternatives, but at the same time it agreed that the PVC industry may improve the acceptability of PVC waste incineration by the year 2000 (VROM 1997), leaving incineration open as an escape route for non-recyclable PVC waste .

AUSTRIA

Toxic content in PVC recyclate not allowed for re-use or re-sale in country of origin. The Netherlands is not the only country that uses the German PVC window recycling scheme. Austria also sends collected PVC window frames to Germany. Once processed the recycled granulates are not taken back by Austrian window frame producers because their lead and cadmium content would contaminate new PVC window frame production (GP Austria 1997). This illustrates how recycling fails to close the loop.

Recently a standardised collection system for all window frame materials in Austria, called "ARGE Altfenster", started operating. It was introduced especially for companies installing new windows - i.e. at the point when old window frames are most easily collected. Companies must pay to use this collection system, but the charge is lower than for other kinds of waste management. For this reason, the system has been well received, although there still are acceptance problems because some landfills offer lower prices. The remaining costs of window recycling are paid by the window manufacturer. As the system is new, no figures are yet available (ARGE Altfenster 1997).

In another recycling scheme, PVC window frames are taken back for free, even if the customer buys wooden windows. This is on condition that the window frame company offers PVC as well as wood, which is the case for all the bigger window frame manufacturers. Windows from other manufacturers are also taken back. Through this system, 60 tonnes of PVC are collected each year (OeAKF Dec 1996).

These collected post-consumer PVC window frames are NOT recycled in Austria, but exported to Germany (Firma VEKA, Behringen/Thueringen) (API 1997). The Austrian PVC window frame industry does NOT re-use the post-consumer PVC window granulate because of its heavy metal content. Old PVC window frames contain cadmium or lead stabilisers, while PVC window frames being produced now in Austria use non-heavy metal calcium-zinc based stabilisers. The Austrian PVC window frame industry would contaminate its current production by using PVC from old window frames. Therefore the Austrian recycling system does not lead to a reduction in Austria’s virgin PVC consumption.

Further research into Austrian PVC recycling shows that only 170 tonnes of PVC - or 0.2% of the annual 72,000 tonnes entering the waste stream - are collected for post-consumer recycling (Greenpeace Austria 1997).

Post-consumer recycling in Austria according to the PVC industry.
(API 1997, figures are in tonnes)

Floorings	99
Windows	60
Credit Cards	8
Pharmablisters	3
Total	170

* All PVC pipes collected are pre-consumer waste - cut-offs from installation - totalling 150 tonnes.

DENMARK

Greenpeace challenges recycling quotas and shows PVC waste agreement with industry not being met - almost all discarded waste is incinerated or landfilled. In 1988 the former Environment Minister in Denmark, Lone Dybkjaer, announced that PVC would be phased out. After heavy lobbying from the PVC industry, the Government reversed its position and in 1991 agreed with the Danish Plastics Federation to cut the amount of PVC entering waste incinerators and to increase recycling. According to this agreement, 41% of PVC waste from the building sector was to be recycled in 1995 and 77% by the year 2000. According to a report commissioned by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the actual amount of PVC recycled in 1995 was in the range of 31-64% - or a mean of around 48%. It was concluded that it is thus very likely that the industry achieved its recycling goal for 1995 (Danish EPA 1996).

These figures were challenged by Greenpeace Denmark in May 1997, in a briefing to the Danish Parliament (Greenpeace Denmark 1997). Greenpeace showed that the perception that the PVC recycling agreement with industry had been met was based on misleading information from the industry about PVC waste arising. The actual amount of PVC waste from building materials was an order of magnitude higher. The report showed that the recycling target had been far from fulfilled - whereupon the Danish Environment Minister demanded that the EPA initiate a new investigation of the amount of building wastes which exist and which are being recycled. This new EPA investigation confirmed that only 10-15 % of PVC-waste (pre- and post-consumer) are being recycled in Denmark and that the recycling agreement with industry is far from being met. The Danish Environment Minister Svend Auken has now threatened sanctions against the PVC industry if it does not improve the amount of PVC waste being recycled (ENDS 1997).

SWEDEN

Dispute over PVC waste incineration or PVC phase-out as solution to PVC waste problem. Calculations show incineration cannot handle impending waste volumes.

The Swedish Government is currently assessing recommendations to restrict and phase out the use of PVC. Unlike the Danish EPA, the Swedish EPA estimated the amount of PVC waste arising from the construction sector to be relatively high. At the same time, unlike Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Denmark, Sweden does not promote the recycling of post-consumer PVC. According to the Swedish EPA, there is no post-consumer PVC recycling in Sweden, only production waste recycling amounting to 7,500 tonnes (Swedish EPA 1996).

Nevertheless, the Swedish industry claims that it can recycle post-consumer PVC, but that it is not available. In the EPA report it is stated that "Swedish companies that recycle PVC believe it is one of the best plastic materials for recycling. PVC is considered easy to separate and recover, and demand for recycled PVC is increasing constantly. Today, recycling is limited almost exclusively to production spill, but only because it is difficult to find other sources." This does not sound convincing, given the fact that in the same report the EPA estimates the current amount of PVC arising from the building sector to amount to 10,800 tonnes and the total PVC waste production to 40,000 tonnes (Swedish EPA 1996).

From the EPA figures, it also seems that PVC involves much higher waste production in the construction sector than the other plastics. From the figures presented by the Swedish EPA, it appears that 95% of plastic waste arising annually from the construction sector is PVC, although PVC makes up only approximately 60% of the plastics use.

Plastics in the Swedish construction sector (in tonnes)

	PVC	all plastics
Existing	770,000	1300,000
Annual addition	16,100	27,000
Waste deducted annually	6,300	6,600

Furthermore, a total of 1.7 million tonnes of PVC was used in the construction sector in Sweden between 1960 and 1991 and the accumulated amount of PVC in existing buildings exceeded one million tonnes in 1992 (Swedish EPA 1996). These products, with an estimated mean half-life of 34 years, are starting to enter the waste stream, which may double or triple the amount of PVC waste in the coming years, as is predicted for Germany (Lahl 1997).

So even if Sweden were to ban PVC within the next few years, it will still have to deal with a huge amount of PVC waste arising in the next decades. According to the Swedish EPA, the current PVC waste production amounts to 40,000 tonnes, of which 27,700 tonnes is landfilled and 12,300 tonnes incinerated. The EPA does not predict any increase in future amounts of PVC waste going to landfills. Furthermore, the Swedish EPA expects regulatory measures to halve the amount of building sector waste disposed of in landfills by the year 2000. Because there is no recycling taking place now or foreseen in the near future, it is likely that the amount of waste entering Swedish incinerators will therefore increase in the future. Indeed, the Swedish EPA believes that the current amount of PVC waste can still be safely incinerated: "The chlorine load which the incineration plants have today means that other conditions are undoubtedly more important with respect to the formation of dioxins". It continues: "Only if all the PVC waste that is produced is incinerated, that is around 40,000 tonnes per year, will the level be reached where the chlorine load may lead to increased dioxin formation."

But bearing in mind that the current PVC waste production of 40,000 tonnes is likely to double or triple in the coming decades, the 40,000 tonnes per year ‘cut-off’ point for incineration is likely to be exceeded in the future and this may still be the case if Sweden phases out PVC. Thus, even according to the Swedish EPA’s own criteria, incineration cannot be a solution for future amounts of PVC waste and the EPA has not yet offered a solution.

Moreover the current position of the Swedish EPA, that incineration will not be a problem unless all 40,000 tonnes of PVC waste produced is incinerated, does not hold. This position is based on the Swedish EPA’s assumption that there is only a relationship between chlorine input and dioxin generation in incinerators when the chlorine content of the waste exceeds one percent. This is partly based on a recent report from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which concluded that there is no relationship between chlorine input and dioxin output in incinerators (Rigo et al. 1995). Greenpeace has analysed the ASME report and finds that this conclusion is statistically flawed. The data supported no such conclusions (Costner 1997a). Furthermore, a significant amount of studies carried out on the relationship between the chlorine content in waste and the dioxin output finds a positive correlation (Costner 1997b).

The Swedish PVC waste policy seems to illustrate that the PVC industry is lobbying governments to shift their agendas away from PVC waste recycling and towards PVC waste incineration.

SPAIN

According to the Spanish PVC industry, PVC can easily be recycled and there are already plants which recycle several PVC products. During the debate in the Spanish Parliament on the implementation of the Packaging Directive, this argument was successfully used to oppose a PVC packaging phase-out which was being called for by Spanish environmental and consumer groups, together with trade unions.

According to the industry, "Some environmentalists take issue with questions as basic as whether PVC is recyclable, even though several PVC recycling plants exist in Spain, which recycle water bottles into cables. Radical environmentalists, however, systematically hide this from public opinion. In Spain several pilot PVC recycling programs already exist in Pamplona, Bilbao, Madrid, Barcelona, etc. The recycled material is used to make several products; for instance pipes, floor tiles used in construction, and other articles like shoe soles, pens and pullovers" (Alonso 1996).

The PVC industry recommends recycling over incineration for the elimination of PVC waste. It justifies this on the basis that PVC waste has a clear value and is easy to recycle. It also claims that PVC is the second most recycled plastic in Spain, "with a significant proportion being recycled, and with a wide market for recycled PVC products, such as pipes, floor tiles, shoe soles and pullovers" (Sala and Alvarez Arija 1997).

The claim that PVC waste can easily be recycled is also used as an argument by the chlorine industry to try to stop water-bottling companies and municipal and regional authorities from substituting PVC with safer materials. However, the industry's claims seem to be far from reality, as a study carried out by a consultant for Greenpeace has shown (IDEA 1997). No official data or research on the current or future situation of PVC waste recycling exists in Spain. The data on plastics recycling (Table) from ANARPLA, the Spanish Association of Plastic Recyclers, show that at most 2.900 tonnes of PVC post-consumer waste is recycled in Spain, all of it packaging waste.

There is no recycling of any other post-consumer PVC waste. This represents only 3% of the virgin PVC consumed to produce PVC packaging and 0.8% of the total consumption of PVC in the country (ANARPLA 1996). This is far below the minimum of 10% which must be recycled under the Spanish packaging law and the European packaging Directive.

PVC consumption and recycling in Spain in 1994. (ANARPLA 1996)

	consumption	post-consumer recycling	%
Packaging	6,150	2,900	3
Construction	160,500	0	0
Automobile	13,300	0	0
Electricity electronics	41,100	0	0
Agriculture	35,700	0	0
Others	26,650	0	0
Total	363,400	2,900	0.8

ANARPLA also estimates that the potential for PVC waste recycling (post-consumer and industrial scraps) is at most 14%. This means that even in the best case scenario, more than 85% of waste will end up in landfills and incinerators.

In their publicity hand-outs, PVC producers list 5 companies which in theory recycle all types of post-consumer PVC waste. In fact, only one of these companies actually recycles PVC post-consumer waste, together with other plastics (IDEA 1997; GIROAZ 1997). The company, called Plasticos Ferre, produces hoses and has a total capacity to recycle 1,800 tonnes of PVC and polypropylene waste per year. The research also found another company that recycles PVC and other post-consumer plastic waste into buckets and flowerpots, with a capacity of 900 tonnes/year.

If both companies worked only with PVC they would have a capacity of 2,700 tonnes/ year. The discrepancy between this and the estimates of the recyclers’ association cannot be accounted for in this research. Moreover, the association claims that its products have a limited market, which is not surprising given their low quality and the fact that their prices are similar to those of virgin PVC products (ANARPLA 1996).

Greenpeace also researched the amount of PVC post-consumer waste collected through household waste separation schemes and composting plants, and found that at most 600 tonnes of PVC waste are collected. Waste managers in the cities involved in these schemes confirmed that the PVC is buried or incinerated, because there is no market for it. The few plants which do sell PVC waste did not know of its final destination.

The company which manages waste from the metropolitan area of Barcelona confirmed that the company Revinil bought waste PVC water bottles once a year. Revinil is a company owned by Spanish PVC producers, who claim that through it, they are recycling PVC bottles into pullovers. Revinil has no recycling facilities in Spain. The destination of the PVC bottles is not known (IDEA 1997).

The discrepancy between the 2,900 tonnes which ANARPLA claims is recycled and the 600 tonnes actually recycled could be explained by an overestimate by ANARPLA, by imports from other countries or by commercial waste from big supermarkets, though no data on such recycling exist. This company also confirms that even if municipal waste separation is promoted, plastic recycling will not increase unless a market is established for recycled products.

In conclusion, the "significant proportion being recycled" and the "wide market for recycled PVC products" claimed by PVC producers simply does not exist in Spain. PVC waste is and will be dumped in landfills or incinerated in Spain.

THE UNITED STATES & CANADA

Little PVC recycling at home and exporting the problem away. Although the vinyl industry claims recycling is increasing, according to the most recent figures less than 1% of post-consumer PVC is being recycled in the USA and PVC has a lower recycling rate than any of the other commodity plastics (RW Beck 1996).

According to RW Beck (1996), recycling of post-consumer vinyl (PVC) packaging, consisting primarily of water, food, pharmaceutical and cosmetic bottles, along with film packaging, increased by 2 million pounds (907 tonnes) over 1994 recycling levels, with 5.3 million pounds (2,404 tonnes) recycled in 1995. But according to Environmental Defense Fund the growth in production exceeded the average growth in PVC recycling in the period 1990-1996 with a factor of forty-four (Denison 1997).

PVC recycling in the USA in million pounds (1 million pounds = 453.6 tonnes)
(RW Beck 1996)

	1994		1995
Post-consumer PVC bottles recycled	1.3		2.6
Resin sales (bottles)	179		148
Percentage of sales recycled	0.7	%	1.8	%
Other PVC packaging (post-consumer) recycled	2.0		2.7
Resin sales (packaging)	636		710
Percentage of sales recycled	0.3	%	0.4	%
Resin sales (packaging incl. bottles)	815		858
Total PVC packaging (post-consumer)* recycled	3.3		5.3
Percentage of sales recycled	0.4	%	0.6	%
Other applications (unspecified) recycled	3.2		4.2

*Calculated by adding bottles to other PVC packaging

Initial investigation of the vinyl recyclers’ list reveals few actually recycle post-consumer PVC plastics. The Vinyl Institute has published two lists of companies involved in PVC recycling. One list is a "Directory of US and Canadian Companies Involved in the Recycling of Vinyl (PVC) Plastics." (Updated July 1996 (Vinyl Institute 1996a)) The other list is a "Directory of US and Canadian Companies manufacturing Products From Recycled Vinyl." (Updated November 1996 (Vinyl Institute 1996b)) Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Canada called a number of companies on both lists. Less than half of the companies contacted are doing what the Vinyl Institute claims they are doing. In particular, according to the people contacted, very few of the companies are actually recycling post-consumer PVC plastics. It appears that post-consumer recycling of PVC waste - especially bottles - is hardly taking place at all in the USA and Canada. The companies which do recycle post-consumer PVC usually do so only in very small quantities. However, it is not possible to assess the amount of post-consumer PVC recycling on the basis of these interviews.

In most instances, post-consumer PVC is recycled only because it is a specific type of PVC (for instance bottles), rather than mixed waste, which usually requires additional processing.

PVC bottles are being separated out and landfilled. A recent article in Plastics Recycling (May 1997) reported that most PET recyclers in the USA are landfilling truck loads of PVC bottles each week. These have been separated out from collected PET bottles, because there was no market for post-consumer PVC bottles in the USA in the 9 months previous to May 1997.

The bottle recyclers in the USA have called upon the Vinyl Institute to take their responsibility to boost markets for recycled PVC, but they received a ‘laissez faire’ response, not a serious interest in creating a market, or as APR spokesman Gary Pratt told Plastic News: "Vinyl Institute to Association for Post-Consumer Plastic Recyclers: It’s your problem. Deal with it" (Plastic News August 18 1997). Moreover, the PVC bottles that go into landfills may be recorded as having been recycled, because the American Plastics Council decided in 1997 to change to a method that measures what is collected to be recycled, and not what is actually recycled (Plastic News July 15 1997).

Cheap virgin PVC prices, fear of product contamination and repeal of recycling content laws ensure no demand for recycled PVC. The USA, and apparently also the Canadian, market for post-consumer PVC recycling has declined because of the lack of a market for post-consumer recycled PVC. The PVC industry claims it takes care of PVC recycling, and although this may be true in terms of setting up recycling schemes to demonstrate that it can be done, it is not true in terms of market responsibility. The markets are flooded with virgin PVC. Post-consumer granulate is often more expensive because of the need to sort and clean, as well as to mix in additives to obtain different product qualities.

Another reason why PVC recycling has declined in the USA recently is the repeal of key state laws on post-consumer content recycling, particularly in California. These laws were originally passed to save landfill space. Later, however, lobbyists for the packaging industry argued that voluntary measures to reduce the thickness or weight of their packaging would take an equivalent amount of plastic out of landfills. This argument has apparently helped to justify the repeal of some of the laws on plastics recycling and content requirements.

The decline in PVC is best illustrated by Oxychem, which - according to its own world-wide web page (Oxychem 1998): "has taken a leadership role in packaging recycling, and in guiding industry efforts to recycle durable plastics"- stated in the same web page that: "PVC can be, and is being, recycled" and "demand for recycled vinyl far outstrips supply". But the reality is almost the opposite. Oxychem sold its post-consumer PVC recycling facility in June 1996 for one dollar because it was not profitable. Much of what passes as post-consumer recycling in the USA is actually "downcycling." Post-consumer PVC items are rarely recycled into their original use. Often, low-grade products such as truck fluff, traffic cones, parking or traffic barriers and plastic lumber (a mixture of resins) are the destination for post-consumer "recycled" PVC.

Exporting the problem: the amount of PVC scrap and waste exported in the first half of 1996 is greater than all the post-consumer PVC recycled in the usa in

all of 1995. Recycling of post-consumer and imported plastic waste is a growing income-generating industry in newly industrialising countries. However the dangers of working with mixed plastics contaminated with unknown substances may not be recognised. These include fumes, dust and other emissions from the reprocessing equipment and the need for protective clothing may be ignored (Lardinois et al. 1995).

A good deal of post-consumer PVC is exported, but not all is recycled. According to the Indonesian Environment Minister, only 60% of the plastic imported into Indonesia can be recycled, while 40% are directly disposed of, creating environmental and health problems and costs for the Government (Salim 1992). Indonesia has banned plastic waste imports since 1992 for this reason. But the same applies for other Asian countries that still import plastic wastes. Products made out of recycled PVC include shoe soles and other items that usually have a short life.

Recycling figures for the USA - like the figures given by RW Beck, which are often cited by industry - often include PVC that is being exported for recycling. According to preliminary research by International Trade Information Sevices (ITIS) in the USA, exports described as "PVC scrap or waste" for the first six months of 1996 totalled over 4,000 tonnes (ITIS 1997).

The total exports are probably higher, because this figure does not take account of exports by rail, road and plane. Nor does it include other categories of PVC waste shipments, like plastic scrap, construction waste, or partially processed scrap that can be shipped out labelled as PVC resin, PVC polymer or just PVC. By far the largest single category of waste plastics is ‘miscellaneous’; the vagueness of this description helps waste plastic buyers avoid paying the higher tariffs which many countries place on higher value scrap waste (Plastic News 1996). In any case, the amount of PVC scrap and waste exported -for whatever purpose - in the first half of 1996 is greater than all the post-consumer PVC recycled in the USA in the whole of 1995. Exporting seems to be a more important disposal route.

AUSTRALIA

Apparent withdrawal from PVC recycling into landfilling, similar to the USA. In 1992, only 400 tonnes of PVC was recovered - 0.25% of consumption, which was 170,000 tonnes (BIE 1994). As in Europe and the USA, the recycling rate for PVC was lower than for other commonly used plastics (see Table). In July 1991, the Australian New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council (ANZECC) endorsed the establishment of a National Kerbside Recycling Strategy (ANZECC 1992).

The original vinyl recycling plan was submitted by ICI and B.F. Goodrich (later Auseon Australia). But this programme ceased in 1992, leaving Auseon the sole recycler of PVC bottles under the plan. A target for PVC plastic containers was set at 15% by 1995 by ANZECC, but the PVC industry failed to meet this. The actual recycling rate for vinyl containers was 6% in 1994 and 10% in 1995, significantly below the original target of 15% (IC 1996, Maunsell Pty Ltd 1994). There is now only one post-consumer recycler in Australia, Cyrogrind Ltd in Dandenong Victoria, which recycles PVC bottles into stormwater pipes - which are only 20% post-consumer resin - flooring tiles and moulded fittings. In 1994, 400 tonnes of PVC bottles were recycled by Cyrogrind (IC 1996). There is virtually no recycling of other products - such as construction materials - in Australia, despite the fact that the amount of waste from these applications is expected to rise dramatically in years to come.

In Australia there seems to be a strong lobby for PVC landfilling, similar to that noted in the USA. Local PVC producers have successfully run campaigns against anti-landfilling action (DITC 1992).

JAPAN

Recycled PVC can only be reused once (Asahi 1997). In Japan, there is only downcycling of PVC (Look Japan 1997). Japanese PVC production amounted 2,500,000 tonnes in 1996. The average PVC content in Japan’s municipal solid waste is relatively high. It has been reported as 12.2% PVC, with a maximum of 25.3% (Muto et al. 1991). For example, municipal solid waste in Denmark contains only 0.4% PVC, which still contributes 2/3 of the total chlorine content of the waste (Moller et al. 1996). Japanese municipal waste incinerators have been under heavy pressure recently because of their high dioxin emissions. According to the Japanese Ministry for Health and Welfare (1997), large scale incinerators can deal with the dioxin emissions because they can reach higher temperatures, which reduce dioxin formation. But from experience in Germany and other European countries it is well established that dioxins are destroyed in the combustion zone, but regenerated in the low-temperature postcombustion zone and overall dioxins are formed in the incineration process (Huang and Beukens 1995).

As environmental consciousness grows, the Japanese government is drafting laws making the manufacturers responsible for waste disposal. A new container and wrapping materials law, enacted in April 2000, will require that producers recycle waste products. This has prompted several major Japanese makers of household goods and cosmetics to begin switching from PVC to other products for containers and wrapping materials that are less costly to recycle (Asia Pulse 1998).

The Japanese Steelmaker NKK Corporation operates a pilot plant that uses plastic waste as a reducing agent in blast furnaces. However, PVC has to be kept to a minimum because the hydrochloric acid produced corrodes the exhaust pipes. NKK now claims it has developed a technology to remove hydrochloric acid, and it is planning a larger facility with a capacity to handle 1,000 tonnes of PVC waste a year (OCT 1997). It is highly unlikely, however, that such a plant could operate in an environmentally sound way, because of the formation and emissions of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, as well as the disposal of hydrochloric acid.