PVC Plastic: a Looming Waste Crisis

Executive Summary

The world is facing a waste crisis from the most problematic plastic produced today: polyvinylchloride or PVC, commonly called vinyl. PVC is used for packaging and other short-life consumer products, furnishings and long-life goods, mostly construction material such as window frames and pipes. Short-life products, disposed of within a few years, have caused serious PVC waste problems, especially when incinerated. The average life span of the long life products -which make up more than half of PVC consumption- is around 34 years. Long-life vinyl goods produced and sold since the 1960s - when the plastic boom began - are now just starting to enter the waste stream. We are now only seeing the first stages of an impending PVC waste mountain.

There are currently over 150 million tonnes of long-life PVC materials in existence globally, used mostly in the construction sector, which will constitute this waste mountain in coming decades. Taking into account the ongoing growth in production, by the year 2005 this amount will double and the world will have to deal with approximately 300 million tonnes of PVC starting to enter the waste stream. The amount of PVC waste arising in industrialised countries is already expected to grow faster than PVC production.

Of even more concern is the fact that the PVC industry is rapidly expanding in Latin America and Asia, so that eventually a growing waste mountain will be generated in these parts of the world.

So what do we do with this waste? Is there a solution? Since PVC, like most plastics, does not biodegrade, three primary options exist: bury it, incinerate it or recycle it. This report explains why none of these is a viable option and, in particular, examines the claims made for PVC recycling.

In the late 1980s, PVC recycling was promoted by the vinyl industry in order to make PVC more acceptable to the public and to prevent government action to limit PVC production and use. As a result, the general public and decision-makers are now accepting recycling as a technical solution to the environmental problems associated with PVC. This is especially the case in countries with advanced recycling policies, like Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the USA.

In reality, Greenpeace has found that PVC recycling in the main PVC consuming regions of the world amounts to less then one per cent of consumption. Greenpeace’s research also shows that, in an attempt to convince the public and decision-makers that PVC can be, and is being, recycled, the PVC industry is supplying false information. For example, in Germany, so-called ‘recycled’ window frames, promoted by industry as proof that old PVC windows are being recycled into new window frames, were tested by Greenpeace. None of the seven tested samples were really recycled window frames. Subsequent testing showed they only contained pre-consumer PVC waste from off cuts and they had been coloured to resemble a recycled window frame. Only two contained traces of recycled PVC from used window frames and even these were insignificant.

Further research in other European countries and in North America reveals that the industry’s claims - both about the amount of PVC waste arising, and the amount of recycling taking place - are often false. Moreover, independent research shows that by the year 2005, it will only be possible to mechanically recycle 15-30% of PVC consumed, and at a very high cost. It is virtually impossible to separate, collect and recycle the remaining 70-85%. Thus for 70-85% of PVC waste, recycling is not even an option for the mid- to long-term.

Why is PVC plastic waste so difficult and expensive to manage? A major problem in the recycling of PVC is its high chlorine content of raw PVC - 56% of the polymer’s weight - and the high levels of hazardous additives added to the polymer to achieve the desired material quality. Additives may comprise up to 60% of a PVC product’s weight. Of all plastics, PVC uses the highest proportion of additives.

As a result, PVC requires separation from other plastics and sorting before mechanical recycling. PVC recycling is particularly problematic because of high separation and collection costs, loss of material quality after recycling, the low market price of PVC recyclate compared to virgin PVC and, therefore, the limited potential of recyclate in the existing PVC market. Feedstock recycling of PVC is hardly feasible at present, from an economic or an environmental perspective, and it is doubtful whether it will ever play a significant role in PVC waste management. The PVC industry seems to acknowledge that PVC recycling is no solution for PVC waste and it therefore is not surprising that industry is now lobbying for PVC incineration as a recovery option (for energy, hydrochloric acid and/or salt) in Western Europe and Japan and for landfilling in the USA and Australia. This forces local authorities to shoulder the burden of pollution and costs from PVC consumption.

Incineration is not a sustainable option for dealing with waste. Less energy is generated from burning the plastic than was used to make it, and incineration also means that the carbon contained within it is emitted as CO2 - a greenhouse gas. Toxic substances are also emitted, and large amounts of solid wastes are produced as slag, ash, filter residues and neutralisation salt residues. Part of this needs to be disposed of as hazardous waste. In many countries, PVC is the single largest chlorine source in municipal waste and a significant amount of research has shown an association between chlorine input and dioxin output in hospital and municipal garbage incinerators. The incineration of 1kg PVC creates approximately 1-3kg of contaminated salt residues from the neutralisation of the hydrochloric acid when dry and semi dry neutralisation processes are applied. This salt needs to be disposed of as hazardous waste.

Landfilling does not represent a viable option for PVC disposal because additives, such as phthalates and heavy metals in PVC, can migrate into the environment from landfills, and in the case of landfill fires, PVC can contribute to the formation of dioxin.

Despite these concerns, PVC production is still increasing, especially in developing economies where PVC consumption is being encouraged. PVC waste is exported from the USA, Europe and Australia to developing countries, often for recycling into lower quality products such as shoes and low quality pipes, or ‘downcycling’. According to the Indonesian Environment Minister, up to 40% of the plastic waste imported into Indonesia is not recycled but directly disposed of, partly as hazardous waste. Downcycled products will eventually be dumped or burned since downcycling simply delays the inevitable need to dispose of PVC plastic waste. In light of the large volume of long-life PVC products due to become waste in the coming decades, and the projected increase in PVC production, it becomes apparent that an international PVC phase-out is urgently required. Only this will put a halt to a growing, dangerous and intractable waste problem.

For virtually all PVC applications, safer alternatives exist, using more sustainable, traditional materials - such as paper, wood or local materials. PVC can also be replaced by a variety of other, less environmentally damaging plastics, although most plastics pose some risk to the environment. In the plastics ‘pyramid’ (with substances which pose the least damage to the environment and health at its base and those which pose the most at its top) PVC can be placed at the top. At its base are bio-based plastics, which - when produced in a sustainable way - are the most environmentally-sound plastics. Others, like polyolefins, come in between.

Safer alternatives exist and must be used. This is already occurring, for example,in the car industry and with packaging and building materials, because of growing concerns about the environmental impacts of PVC and - in the case of cables and building materials - safety. There are various examples of markets and consumers reacting to PVC problems: PVC-free communities in Europe, physicians in the USA opposing PVC in medical applications; retailers in Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands withdrawing baby teething rings and toys; or banning PVC entirely, as the home furnishings store IKEA has done. PVC use has been banned from the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games facilities.

Political frameworks for PVC phase-outs already exist. The North Sea Ministers Conference agreed in 1995 to stop environmental emissions of hazardous substances within one generation. According to the Swedish Chemical Committee, PVC has no place in a sustainable society and should be phased out for all uses by the year 2007. Denmark has proposed restrictions on the use of softeners, lead and other additives used in PVC plastic and is questioning the recycling potential claimed by the PVC industry. The Czech Republic agreed to phase-out production, imports and use of PVC packaging from 2001 onwards and Switzerland has banned PVC drinking bottles in 1991.

The upcoming global convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has targeted dioxin as one of twelve priority pollutants for further reduction and/or elimination, making PVC a focus of concern.

Other governments should now follow suit and implement their own commitments to eliminate hazardous substances and phase out PVC, instead of trying to control the hazards from PVC production, use and disposal. Given the findings of Greenpeace’s investigation in various countries, that less than 1% of PVC consumption is currently being recycled, and bearing in mind the technical and economic barriers to PVC recycling, we conclude that PVC recycling is not viable. Moreover, there are no alternative environmentally sound disposal options for PVC waste. Not to act now by opting for the cleaner, safer materials which are available, is to deliberately impose on future generations the burden of our own mistakes.