PB239674
`III 1111 "1111111111111111111
`
`GU\SS RECYCL I NG AND REU S-E
`
`Harold R. Samtur
`
`IES REPORT 17
`
`Quantitative Ecosystem Modeling Group
`Institute for Environmental Studies
`University of Wisconsin--Madison
`
`March 1974
`
`This project was made possible by an Environmental Protection Agency Solid
`Waste Traineeship grant and by a grant
`to the Institute for Environmental
`Studies by the National Science Foundation. Research Applied to National
`Needs (RANN), Grant #GI-2973l.
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 001
`
`

`

`CONTENTS
`
`Tables and Figures
`
`iv
`
`SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`11
`
`I.
`
`PROPERTIES OF GLASS
`
`14
`
`14
`Defini tion
`The Constituents of Glass
`Physical Properties
`15
`Types and ~ompositions of Glass
`
`14
`
`17
`
`II. RAW MATERIALS
`
`19
`
`Sand and Gravel
`23
`Soda Ash
`
`19
`
`III. GLASS MANUFACTURE
`
`26
`
`26
`Overview of the Industry
`28
`The Glass Manufacturing Process
`Environmental Impacts of Glass ~~nufacture
`
`IV. USE OF WASTE PRODUCTS IN GLASS MANUFACTURE
`
`29
`
`34
`
`34
`34
`37
`
`(Crushed Glass)
`Cullet
`Purity requirements
`Cullet consumption
`Cullet dealers
`39
`40
`Public collection of container cullet
`A case study of cullet purchase from the public
`Blast Furnace Slag
`43
`
`41
`
`V.
`
`SEPARATION OF GLASS FROM MUNICIPAL REFUSE--TIiE TECHNOLOGY
`
`46
`
`Beneficiation of Incinerator Residue
`Heavy Media Sepa~ation
`48
`Froth Flotation
`50
`Color Sorting
`
`51
`
`46
`
`VI. UTILIZATION OF WASTE GLASS IN SECONDARY PRODUCTS
`
`54
`
`54
`"Glasphalt"
`"Vibra tory-Cast" Wall Panels
`59
`Foamed Glass
`"Slurry-Seal"
`60
`Glass Wool
`6'6
`Terrazzo
`Building Bricks
`Other Products
`
`67
`69
`
`62
`
`56
`
`i i
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 002
`
`

`

`VII.
`
`GLASS CONTAINER MODIFICATION
`
`71
`
`VIII.
`
`RETURNABLES VERSUS NONRETURNABLES
`
`74
`
`74
`Overview
`Litter and Solid
`Economic Aspects
`Legislation
`80
`
`Waste
`78
`
`77
`
`IX.
`
`ENERGY A.~D THE GLASS CYCLE
`
`83
`
`Consumption of Energy in the Mining of the Raw Materials
`84
`Consumption of Energy in Glass Manufacture
`An Energy Comparison for Returnables and Nonreturnables
`Energy Consumption in Cullet Collections from the Public
`Energy Consumption in Separation of Glass from
`Municipal Solid Waste
`89
`Conclusions
`90
`
`·83
`
`87
`88
`
`NOTES
`
`92
`
`BIBLIOGRAPHY
`
`93
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
`
`The author wishes to thank Professors Martin H. David, Economics and
`Environmental Studies; Robert K. Ham, Civ~l and Environmental Engineering;
`and James P. Scherz, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Environmental
`Studies,
`for
`their guidance and assistance in the preparation of this
`report.
`
`Mr. Samtur completed this report while he was associated with the Institute
`for Environmental Studies Recycling Project during his Solid Waste Trainee(cid:173)
`ship, 1972-73. He is now on the staff of the Resource Recovery Division of
`the Office of Solid Waste Programs in the Environmental Protection Agency.
`
`iii
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 003
`
`

`

`TABLES
`
`1.
`
`Physical Properties of Various Glasses
`
`16
`
`2. Average Compositions for Soda Lime Glasses
`
`17
`
`3. Price Distribution of Silica Sand
`
`22
`
`4. Distribution of Glass Container Shipments by End Use
`
`25
`
`5. Particulate Composition--Glass Plant Emissions
`
`31
`
`6. Gaseous Emissions
`
`31
`
`7. Recommended Guidelines Soda-Lime Container Glass
`
`35
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Trends in Purchased Cullet Consumption
`
`Trends in Purchase of Container Cullet
`
`38
`
`40
`
`10.
`
`Size Distribution of Recovered Glass
`
`51
`
`11. Comparison of Quantities of Waste Glass Potentially Available
`and Aggregate Used in Road Construction in Eight Cities
`
`56
`
`12.
`
`Economic Evaluation--Glass Rubble Building Panels
`
`58
`
`13.
`
`Economic Evaluation--"Slurry Seal"
`
`62
`
`\
`
`14. Returnables vs. Nonreturnables--Production Trends
`
`74
`
`15. Estimated Employment Impacts with a Ten Cent Mandatory Deposit
`
`79
`
`16. Cost and Quantity of Purchased Fuels for 1967
`
`85
`
`17. Total Energy Consumption--Soft Drink Containers
`
`87
`
`FIGURES
`
`1. Approximate Glass Industry Materials Flow, 1967
`
`25
`
`2. Charlotte Consumer Cullet System
`
`42
`
`3.' Physical Beneficiation Flowsheet for Concentrating Valuable Materials
`Contained in Incinerator Residues
`47
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`"Sortex" Color Sorter
`
`52
`
`Flowsheet for Application of Bituminous Slurry Surfaces
`
`61
`
`iv
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 004
`
`

`

`SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
`
`Glass recycling can only ameliorate our environmental and resource problems,
`not solve them.
`From a raw materials perspective, glass manufacture is in
`a fortunate position,
`in that reserves can meet demand for centuries.
`These
`reserves are worthless, however, if energy resources are not a~ailable to
`process them and prepare them for market. Glass manufacture accounts for
`only a small fraction of total national energy use, but manufacture is also
`dependent on available energy. Natural gas is the major fuel now used in
`glass production. Conversion to more plentiful but
`lower grade fuels such
`as coal can only be accomplished at the expense of environmental quality.
`The upward trend in resource and energy consumption must be halted,
`in con(cid:173)
`junction with development of the alternatives outlined. This will be
`partly accomplished by economic incentives, for'prices will rise as supplies
`dwindle, but development of a resource conservation ethic must also be
`encouraged.
`'
`
`The two major raw materials used in glass manufacture are sand and soda ash.
`Glass production accounts for only about 1 percent of sand mined in the
`United States, or about 10 million tons, but only the nearly pure form of
`silicon dioxide, silica sand, can be used for making glass. Reserves of
`silica sand are sufficient
`to meet anticipated national demand for centuries.
`In certain areas, however,
`these reserves are limited and localized, and
`available resources of high quality are being threatened by urban sprawl
`and consequent restrictive zoning. Preparation of sand for market requires
`huge quantities of water.iJ This consumption of water limits mining where
`sufficient water supplies are not available, and lowers water tables,
`occasionally interfering with residential supplies.
`
`the 6.6 million tons of soda ash pro(cid:173)
`Glass production accounted for 2.6 of
`duced in 1968.
`Soda ash is found in abundance in natural deposits; more
`than 200 million tons of soda ash remains to be mined from trona rock 1~
`Wyoming.
`Soda ash may also be manufactured from salt by the "Solvay'·
`process (see page 23), and this has been the major method of production.
`Reserves of salt are also plentiful. Despite the abundance of raw materials,
`serious shortages of marketable soda ash are expected for at least
`the next
`few years because of environmental restrictions and the lack of sufficient
`fuel for processing, as well as unanticipated surges in demand from other
`industrial users. Glass enjoys an advantage over competitive materials such
`as steel and plastics,
`for ,which long-term reserves are questionable.
`The
`problems arise in protecting conveniently located reserves and in preparing
`and delivering these reserves to market.
`
`impact of glass raw
`Water pollution is the mo~t serious environmental
`materials procurement.
`For sand and soda ash mining the problem is primarily
`runoff;
`for the "Solvay" process the problem is waste calcium chloride efflu(cid:173)
`ent. This latter problem is the most serious.
`Several soda ash manufacturers
`have closed their plants, partly because they could not meet/new water pollu(cid:173)
`tion regulations.
`
`l'
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 005
`
`

`

`2
`
`to consider the present and anticipated future costs of raw
`It is important
`materials to the glass manufacturer to evaluate the competitive position of
`waste glass as a substitute for these materials.
`The average cost per ton
`for a batch of raw materials needed to make glass is $16.00 to $20.00.
`The
`real price of sand (taking inflation into account) has generally declined
`over the past
`twenty years due primarily to improved technology of mining
`and processing. However, a substantial increase in the real price has been
`projected as the costs of environmental control and transportation grow.
`For soda ash, mining is rapidly overtaking manufacture by the "Solvay"
`process because it is the cheaper method. Prices will rise, however. be(cid:173)
`cause of the short supply and the soaring cost of fuel. Waste glass will
`increase in value along with rising prices for the raw materials.
`
`The energy required to mine and transport raw materials for manufacture of
`container glass is about 650 kilowatt hours per ton of glass produced.
`Sub(cid:173)
`stantially less energy is required to process and transport waste glass or
`to prepare glass products for reuse.
`
`flat glass,
`The glass manufacturing industry consists of three subgroups:
`pressed and blown glass, and container glass.
`The container subgroup is
`of most concern because it accounts for nearly three-quarters of total glass
`industry raw materials consumption, and more than 90 percent of glass found
`in municipal solid waste.
`The rate of growth of container production was
`5.2 percent per year fro~ 1959 through 1969. This relatively rapid growth
`is primarily attributable to the expansion of the disposable beverage con(cid:173)
`tainer market.
`Production of glass containers f~r other markets expanded
`at a much slower rate or decreased as the competitive position of glass
`containers has declined in comparison to metal and plastic containers.
`
`The major pollutants in glass manufacture are liquid and gaseous effluents.
`Liquid pollutants include runoff from piles of waste glass and chemicals
`used for surface finishing of
`the glass.
`The major airborne pollutants
`include dust from raw materials handling, sulfur and nitrogen oxides from
`fuel combustion, and alkali oxides and sulfuric anhydride particulates from
`glass melting.
`The total particulate load for container glass manufacture
`is generally about
`two pounds per ton of glass produced.
`
`the
`Air pollution c~ntrols have not yet been developed which will filter out
`very fine particulates produced in the glass melting operation. A shortage
`of low sulfur fuels may result
`in use of lower grade fuels which would pro(cid:173)
`duce higher quantities of pollutants.
`It will be primarily up to the govern(cid:173)
`ment
`to determine if use of high sulfur fuels will be permitted in order to
`maintain production at levels high enough to meet demand.
`
`Melting and homogenizing one ton of soda-lime container glass requires about
`2000 kilowatt hours of energy.
`Energy consumption per ton for the con(cid:173)
`tainer glass manufacturing process is calculated to be 3,740 kilowatt hours.
`On a per gallon' of beverage basis~ the most commonly used glass container
`requires 9.9 kilowatt hours for manufacture, compared to 12.9 kilowatt hours
`for bimetallic cans.
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 006
`
`

`

`3
`
`Total energy consumption for all glass manufacturing was 69 billion kilowatt
`hdurs in 1967. This represented about 0.6 percent of ' total U.S. energy use.
`Most of this energy is supplied in the form of natural gas and is used for
`furnace operation. Glass manufacturing contributes to the depletion of scarce
`natural gas resources.
`Federal gas allocations and soaring gas prices will
`spur conversion to use of other fuels, spur use of fuel-saving waste glass,
`and/or restrict glass production.
`
`Reuse of glas~ products and recycling of waste glass are part of the :'glass
`cycle." When glass flows through reuse and/or recycle channels,
`the cycle
`is lengthened, and the useful life of
`the glass is thereby also lengthened.
`In the present system of glass manufacture, rejected products and trimmings
`from the assembly line are ordinarily recycled as crushed glass or cullet.
`The cullet serves to increase the rate of heat gain by the batch ~nd lower
`the effective melting temperature,
`thus increasing thermal efficiency and
`lowering fuel use. Manufacturers often purchase waste cullet when their own
`supplies are deemed inadequate. Until
`the recent ecology movement spurred
`purchase of waste glass directly from the public, most purchases were made
`,from cullet dealers who in turn obtained containers rejected at the bottler,
`window glass salvaged from demolition debris, etc. Manufacturers' present
`policy is to use between 5 and 20 percent cullet by weight
`in the batch of
`'!raw" materials.
`'
`
`This report explores the potential for expanding recycle of waste glass in
`, the glass manufacturing process, particularly in the glass container industry.
`Of prime concern is whether increased amounts of cullet available in the
`marketplace can be utilized without reducing the value of the product. Over
`the last thirty years, purchase of commercial cullet by manufacturers has
`steadily declined, and the decline has been sharpest
`in the container
`industry. Manufacturers have instead depended on their own rejects and
`triuunings, occasionally crushing glass just to make cullet. A major ob(cid:173)
`jective of
`this ,policy has been to maintain high standards of puritY,in the
`"raw" materials. Cullet purchased from cullet dealers is often contaminated,
`as separation techniques are crude.
`
`inertness and light transmission for low quality glasses, such as
`Stability,
`container glass, are not noticeably affected by the use of less pure cullet
`than that commonly used. As much as 50 percent cullet has been used in
`commercial operations with no major difficulties.
`Impurities may build up
`on the furnace bottom, -interfering with operation and increasing mainten(cid:173)
`ance costs, but this is a major problem only when grossly impure cullet is
`used.
`Impurities do cause an increase in the number of seeds (tiny bubbles)
`in the glass.
`The author suggests that container manufacturers have been
`too quick to reject "seedy" bottles, and that the consumer will accept ,them
`so- long as container strength and inertness are unaffected.
`
`A new source of cullet is glass separated from municipal solid waste in
`comprehensive recycling facilities.
`Several such facilities are already in
`the planning stages or under construction~ One system, based on research
`done by the Bureau of Mines,
`is incinerator residue beneficiation (purifi~
`cation); a process which involves a series of screenings, washings and
`size reductions.
`Separation depends primarily on a shredder that will
`differentially reduce the size of different materials.
`The second part of
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 007
`
`

`

`4
`
`the process is basically a series of magnetic separations of ferrous mate(cid:173)
`rials, each succeeding step utilizing a stronger magnet.
`The final,
`strongest magnet separates most of
`the magnetic, colored glass from the
`clear, flint glass.
`
`Another technique used to extract cullet from solid waste is heavy media
`separation.
`The glass and aluminum, of approximately equal density, are
`separated from materials-of different density by a system of sink-float
`separations in liquids of various specific gravities.
`The glass may then be
`separated from the aluminum by a technique which takes advantage of the
`different electrostatic properties of the two materials.
`
`Neither the incinerator' residue beneficiation nor the heavy media separation
`techniques produce cullet which is considered useable by purity-conscious
`manufacturers. Only a third technique, froth flotation, produces virtually
`pure glass.
`This system employs proprietary chemicals to create a surface
`froth to which crushed glass particles selectively adhere.
`The particles
`produced are smaller than those customarily used in glass manufacture and
`certain problems must still be overcome for large scale implementation.
`
`innovation is the color sorter, a device which uti(cid:173)
`technological
`A final
`lizes photo cells to detect differences in reflectivity between the colorless,
`amber and green glasses.
`To produce flint glass, 95 percent of cullet used
`must be colorless according to industry guidelines.
`The author believes, as
`in the case of " seeds," that for many glass products, slight variations in
`color will be acceptable to the consumer, and the additional machinery, costs
`and energy use may be avoided.
`
`From an energy standpoint, separation of glass from municipal solid waste
`is favorable in comparison to mining of the raw materials.
`The recycling
`facility of the National Center for Resource Recovery, supported by the
`secondary materials industry, utilizes dense media separation.
`This facility
`is expected to use 112 kilowatt hours per ton of recovered glass, assuming
`that each of the materials recovered requires an equal amount of eriergy for
`separation.
`Raw materials mining requires 580 kilowatt hours per ton of
`glass produced.
`If the recycled glass is used locally,
`transportation
`energy costs will also be less.
`
`From a solid waste standpoint, recycling centers will obviously reduce the
`amount of glass which must be disposed of, provided markets are-found for
`the cullet.
`There will still be a significant amount of glass to be land(cid:173)
`filled, however, as some smaller particles are lost or incorporated into
`slags during processing.
`The National Center plant designers anticipate
`64 percent recovery of ~lass, and the incinerator Qeneficiation process is
`expected to recover 56 percent of the glass.
`
`technology, most recycling processes will produce a consider(cid:173)
`Using present
`able amount of glass material not considered pure enough for use in glass
`manufacturing.
`The incinerator residue beneficiation system, for example,
`will produce 289 pounds of relatively pure glass and 207 pounds of impure,
`mixed-color glass per ton of residue processed. Manufacture of secondary
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 008
`
`

`

`/
`
`5
`
`products using w~ste glass is a glass cycle alternative that will provide
`markets for the various grades of cullet produced,
`including relatively pure
`cul!et which is produced too far from~glass manufacturing plants to be
`shipped economically.
`
`"Glasphalt" is asphalt in which rock aggregate or sand is partly replaced
`with waste glass. Hydrated lime must be added to prevent separation of the
`components.
`"Glasphalt" takes a longer time to cool down and harden, so it
`might be particularly useful in cold climates, where asphalt hardens before
`it can be spread and rolled. Using pure cullet,
`in most cases, 33 test
`strips have been laid acros~ the country, "and they have stood up well in
`comparison to conventional pavement.
`If cullet from a recycling facility is
`used, adjustments of sand and asphalt content and selective removal of
`certain particle sizes may be necessary to produce a dense mixture and a
`stable product. Waste glass would have to be available at no more than
`$2.50 per ton to compete with aggregate, but cooperation between municipally(cid:173)
`owned asphalt plants and municipal recycling facilities may prove mutually
`advantageous, particularly if no other markets for the waste glass ~re
`found.
`
`Vibratory cast wall panels are produced by mixing wast.e glass with clay,
`water and other wastes (bulk filler).
`The glass acts as a bonding material.
`The mix flows when vibrated, sets when left still, and is then fired.
`The
`product, according to one economic evaluation, can be competitive with
`similar products now on the market, if materials such as demolition wastes
`are avail~ble to serve as a bulk filler.
`Purity requirements for the waste
`glass are not restrictive, as a variety of different panels may .be manu(cid:173)
`factured, depending on the type of cuIlet available. Overall,
`the amount of
`waste glass which may potentially be used each year is only a few percent
`of the amount produced.
`On a municipal level,
`though, a wall panel plant
`could utilize most of the glass produced by a recycling facility.
`
`- Foamed glas~, used for its thermal and acoustical
`insulating properties, has
`been made from waste glass.. Commerical cullet may be used, but it has not
`yet been determined whether impure recycling facility cullet is satisfactory.
`It has been claimed that
`the product can be produced more cheaply than
`comparable tiles.
`Though waste glass utilization is small,
`the demand for
`thermal insulation should grow as a result of the energy shortage.
`
`ten years.
`that has been on the market for about
`"Slurry Seal" is a product
`It is a suspension of crushed aggregate in water and emulsified asphalt,
`which is used to protect pavements from moisture penetration, provide skid
`resistance and retard abrasion. Use of waste glass in place of aggregate
`has been promoted, but
`the present market is limited.
`The author takes
`issue with a Glass Container Hanufacturers Institute study which anticipates
`eventual use of 400,000 tons of waste glass per year in this process (1).
`
`Glass wool, used for wall insulation, may be manufactured from waste glass
`rather than from the raw materials.
`Presently, most glass wool is manu(cid:173)
`factured by large corporations which enjoy economic advantages that preclude
`competition from small firms.
`Raw materials and energy cost savings from
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 009
`
`

`

`6
`
`waste glass use might make a small firm competitive. but use of cullet by
`the large companies should also be encouraged. Glass wool manufacture is
`a clear case in which low grade cullet can be satisfactorily substituted for
`virgin raw materials. Yet
`the only use of cullet
`thus far was in a plant
`in Wisconsin that serves as a prime example of how not
`to use waste materials.
`This plant used cullet
`to attract favorable publicity. but blast furnace
`slags and lead refining ores were added w~th virtually no air pollution(cid:173)
`control.
`
`a flooring made from portland cement and is installed in many
`Terrazzo is
`large office buildings. Terrazzo usually contains marble, but substitution
`of waste glass has been proposed. Marble costs about $70 per ton, about four
`times the cost of clean, color sorted cullet. Overall cost for the product
`and installation, however,
`is only nine percent less for the glass terrazzo,
`as the, largest expense is labor. Considering the nearly comparable costs,
`the author has concluded that most customers would rather purchase marble
`terrazzo.
`
`The Bureau of Mines has examined the feasibility of making building bricks
`from waste glass recovered from incinerator residue.
`The most
`important
`advantage of incorporation of glass is that it reduces firing temperature
`and time of firing.
`thus reducing fuel consumption.
`To compete with con(cid:173)
`ventional clay brickmaking. however, a comparatively large plant would have
`to be built.
`The author concluded that brickrnaking with waste glass would
`be most suitable where a large, constant supply of cullet is guaranteed.
`where good supplies of cheap clay are not present, where higher-value markets
`for waste glass are not present, where other wastes suitable for brickrnaking
`are not present. and where an expanding ,demand for bricks requires increased
`capacity.
`
`Other potential secondary uses for cuI let includ~ using glass as a substi(cid:173)
`tute for sand in concrete mixes and for ceramic tiles containing waste glass
`and sewage sludge.
`For
`the former,
`sand is superior for theptirpose. and
`inexpensive.
`For the latter, preliminary pilot plant operation indicates
`that
`the product can undersell any comparable tile.
`The author noted, how(cid:173)
`ever.
`that plans for commercial expansion include possible use of virgin
`raw materials to make glass.
`It would indeed be a travesty to use sewage
`sludge recycling as a lead-in to promote a new product
`that will ,not use
`recycled glass.
`
`All of the proposed secondary products will remain in use for decades before
`disposal. Glasphalt and building brick can potentially utilize most waste
`glass produced;
`the other products can provide local markets for glass from
`individual municipal recycling facilities.
`If these products simply sub(cid:173)
`stitute for virgin products now being sold, a reduction in solid waste will
`eventually be realized.
`If secondary glass products add to our national
`consumption, however.
`the solid waste problem is handed to future genera(cid:173)
`tions.
`
`in foamed glass and in building bricks is
`Using waste glass in glass wool,
`clearly advantageous from the perspective
`of energy consumption. assuming
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 010
`
`

`

`7
`
`For the other products, energy considera(cid:173)
`a source of waste glass is nearby.
`tions are more complex, and detailed analyses would have to be performed for
`each product.
`
`Glass container modification represents a different approach to amerliorat(cid:173)
`ing the problems associated with glass production and disposal. 1 This
`approach is two-pronged. Manufacturers have engaged in research to present
`a more convenient package to the consumer by reducing bottle weight while
`maintaining strength.
`They have developed various coatings to reduce suscep(cid:173)
`tibility to surface scratches which reduce strength.
`They have also developed
`containers with foamed plastic labels which absorb shocks,
`thus protecting
`the glass.
`The coatings .and the plastic labels have permitted a reduction
`in container weight, so that less raw materials have to be consumed and less
`energy is needed to melt glass than would otherwise be the case.
`
`The
`The second approach is research to develop a degradable container.
`"ideal" container would be inert and stable when it is used, and it would
`break down or dissolve after it is discarded, so that litter would be reduced
`and the hazards of broken glass could be avoided. Research has centered on
`developing inert coatings for water-soluble glasses. Hhen the coating is
`broken and water is added,
`the container would decompose to sodium hydroxide
`and a silica gel. A safe, useable container has not yet been made, and the
`problems caused by the products of decomposition have not even been addressed.
`
`Up to this point, it has been assumed that after a glass product .is used by
`the consumer, it is either discarded or crushed and recycled as cullet.
`In
`many cases, glass products can be kept
`intact in the same form and reused,
`by someone else or for some. other purpose.
`From ~menergy p.erspective,
`reuse is an. efficient method of extending the life of. a product.
`Processing
`energy is minimal,
`though transport and handling costs sometimes make reuse
`uneconomical.
`The.most cormnon example of reuse, and the one which has the
`most potential impact on glass utilization,
`is the returnable beverage
`container.
`\
`
`Until 20 years ago, almost all beverages were sold in containers designed
`for reuse.
`The consumer paid a deposit, which was returned to him when he
`returned the empty bottle.
`Today,
`ten times as many disposable as returnable
`beverage containers are produced. Because an average returnable is filled
`12 to 19 times, however,
`the small number of returnables still account for
`over half of the total fillings~
`
`The effect of nonreturnables on raw materials consumption and solid waste
`is obvious. Glass beverage container production has increased ninefold in
`the last twenty years.
`The primary reason for this rapid rate of growth
`is that 12 to 19 nonreturnables must be made to replace each returnable.
`Glass raw materials consumption has increased at a slower rate because a
`nonreturnable requires about 65 percent as much glass per bottle, as it does
`not have to be designed for durability. At
`the same time, however, metal
`can beverage containers have taken over a larger part of the market, and
`metal can production has increased sixfold over the past
`twenty years.
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 011
`
`

`

`8
`
`the re(cid:173)
`From an energy standpoint, assuming only 8 fills for the returnable,
`turnable system is one-third as energy consuming as a nonreturnable system.
`Although the assumption is reasonable in urban areas where "trippage" or
`number of fills is low,
`for the nation as a whole,
`the averap,e numher of fills
`is 12 to 19 and energy consumption for returnables~is yet a smaller fraction
`of nonreturnables energy use.
`
`A third consideration is litter. Glass and metal beverage containers con(cid:173)
`stitute a large part of litter.
`Several hundred million dollars is spent
`each year to collect litter, but much remains as an eyesore. A returnable
`deposit system would reduce litter by virtually eliminating nonreturnables.
`The most recent reports indicate that litter has been drastically reduced in
`Oregon where ~ deposit system is now in effect.
`
`Another consideration is price of the product. Despite a virtual "disposal
`subsidy" for nonreturnables, consumers must pay one to four cents more for
`16 ounces of soft drink in nonreturnables.
`
`Economic
`system.
`but will
`bottling
`
`.
`.
`l
`dislocations will occur as a result of reconverS1on to a returnable
`Employment
`in the container manufacturing industries will decrease,
`be approximately counterbalanced by increased employment
`in the
`and retail industries.
`
`Considering the advantages of a returnable system, numerous efforts have
`been made to encourage or legislate use of returnables.
`"Choice of container"
`legislation, presently in effect in Madison, Wisconsin, provides that
`the
`retailer must offer returnables as an alternative if he sells beverages.
`Enforcement is difficult and effectiveness is questionable.
`The most com(cid:173)
`The Oregon Beverage
`monly proposed legislation. is a mandatory deposit.
`Container Act, passed in 1972, provides for a minimum deposit of five ~ents
`on all containers, except
`those reusable by more than one manufacturer,
`for which a two cent deposit is required.
`The law has virtually eliminated
`nonreturnable beverage containers. A study to assess the economic and en(cid:173)
`vironmental
`impact of the bill is now underway. Oregon is serving as a
`testing ground for the nation, and this bill will serve as a model for other
`states.
`
`A returnable system is not feasible for many Other glass products, so both
`reuse and recycling alternatives may have to be pursued.
`The various methods
`of recycling and/or reusing glass are not
`independent.
`In the State of
`Oregon,
`for example, nonreturnable containers have been virtually banned, and
`the amount of waste glass in municipal refuse has been reduced. A recycling
`facility would produce less cullet. As discussed in the report,
`some alter(cid:173)
`natives are only economically feasible if a large supply of cuI let is avail(cid:173)
`able.
`In particular,
`low-priced materials such as building brick require
`large inputs of waste glass.
`For rigorous purification techniques such as
`the froth flotation system, capital costs would remain the same and operat(cid:173)
`ing costs would be only slightly lower if the same amount of
`treated refuse
`were handled. However, assuming a 30 percent drop in 3lass content,
`the
`operating cost per ton of glass produced would rise from about $5.50 to
`about $7.00.
`For a municipal recycling facility as a whole,
`the economic
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 012
`
`

`

`9
`
`For a proposed
`losses from decreased cullet production would not be great.
`National Center for Resource Recovery facility, cullet contributes 13.3
`percent of total product revenues. Total revenues with a returnable system
`would decrease about 4 percent, assuming glass content is reduced by 30
`percent.
`From an energy standpoint, it would be beneficial to go even further
`and develop standardized bottles for'the convenient reuse of most other
`products sold in Blass containers as well.
`If this were accomplished, it
`might be advisable to eliminate glass reclamation from the design of future
`recycling facilities.
`The,approach to be taken should vary from state to
`state. as such factors as markets for waste glass and average number of
`fillings for returnables differ in different areas.
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 013
`
`

`

`:
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`----
`
`Disposal as
`litter or
`in HSW
`
`i
`
`./
`
`""/
`
`IJI
`
`,.
`
`,.
`
`/'
`
`.... --
`
`...
`
`...
`
`Consumer
`Use
`
`I
`
`Recycle
`of MSH'
`Cullet
`Frac tion ,
`I.
`V
`I'
`I-.........
`I
`
`/
`
`"
`
`I
`\
`\
`
`\
`
`\
`
`\
`
`Culle
`IVb
`
`,
`
`'\
`
`"
`
`.....
`
`..... _----
`
`\
`
`I
`
`I
`, Cullet
`\
`IVa
`
`,
`
`t\. \
`
`10
`
`/
`
`Glass
`Hanufacture
`III
`
`Raw
`Xaterials
`II
`
`THE GLASS CYCLE
`
`HSW-Hunicipal Solid Haste
`
`Solid lines represent primary flow.
`
`Dotted lines represent
`
`flow to and from alternatives.
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 014
`
`

`

`11
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This report explores possible methods for recycling and/or reusing post(cid:173)
`consumer glass products to determine which methods are most favorable.
`Final conclusions as to "favorability" must at
`times be rather subjective,
`but the approach is based on the following generally recognized national
`goals:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`To reduce the volume of solid wastes and costs of
`collection and disposal
`To improve efficiency of fuel utilization and reduce
`fuel consumption
`To conserve mineral resources
`To reduce environmental pollution
`To provide the consumer with the most desirable product
`at
`the lowest price, yet remain consistent with the
`above.
`
`The Glass Cycle begins with the mini