Purchasing Recycled Plastic ProductsIntroduction Introduction Background In 1990, the plastics industry created a unique pilot program designed to encourage government procurement

\

=lJ"r8"- z, Gk 323- ?AZ Pwchsinig Recycled Prepared by: Plastic Products Headley Pratt Consulting

mer ican astics wncil

I

Industry, Tnc. \

For the American Plastics Council A Joint Initiative with The Society of the Plastics

April 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1

Process ................................................................................................................ 1

FOIIOW.UP ............................................................................................................ 2

The Report ........................................................................................................... 2

I1 . GENERAL BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS TO PROCURING RECYCLED PLASTIC PRODUCTS .................................................................................................... 4

General Perceptual Barriers and Solutions ........................................................... 4 General Technical Barriers and Solutions ............................................................. 9

I11 . BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS TO PROCURING SPECIFIC RECYCLED PLASTIC PRODUCTS .................................................................................................. 10

Barricades .......................................................................................................... 11

Benches and Picnic Tables .................................................................................. 11 Drainage Pipe .................................................................................................... 1 3

Lumber ............................................................................................................... 14 Partitions for Showers and Toilets ..................................................................... 15

Posts ................................................................................................................. 17

Rebar Supports .................................................................................................. 18

Sign Substrates ................................................................................................... 20 Snow and Limited Access Fencing ....................................................................... 20 Traffic Cones ..................................................................................................... 21

Trash Can Liners ................................................................................................ 2 3 Trash Cans, Waste Baskets, Pails. and Recycling and Bulk Containers ................. 24

IV . ADDITIONAL WAYS IN WHICH GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY CAN ENCOURAGE THE PROCUREMENT OF ISECYCLED PLASTIC GOODS ............ 27

Recommendations for Industry ............................................................................ 27

Recommendations for Government ...................................................................... 28

Recommendations for Industry Trade Associations .............................................. 29 Additional Issues Raised ..................................................................................... 29

V . NEXT STEPS FOR INCREASING THE PROCUREMENT OF SPECIFIC RECYCLED PLASTIC PRODUCTS .................................................................................................. 31

Bulkheads ........................................................................................................... 32

Partitions for Showers and Toilets ..................................................................... 36

Picnic Tables ..................................................................................................... 39 Traffic Cones ..................................................................................................... 43 Traffic Barrels ................................................................................................... 4 8

Trash Can Liners ................................................................................................ 50

~~~~~

VI . CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 56

VI1 . APPENDICES (A through H) ........................................................................................ 57

Introduction

Introduction

Background

In 1990, the plastics industry created a unique pilot program designed to encourage government procurement of recycled plastic products. The program was conducted in the Midwest and consisted of a series of roundtable discussions in which government purchasers, government recycling coordinators, and plastics industry representatives discussed openly the barriers to the procurement of recycled plastic products and developed practical solutions to overcome them.

The pilot program was very successful; thus, in 1991 the plastics industry sponsored a second series of roundtable discussions, this time in the Northeast. Despite budget difficulties, purchasing officials and recycling coordinators from thirteen New England and Middle Atlantic states and cities were able to attend (see Appendix B). Representatives from these localities met with resin experts and plastic product manufacturers to learn about their efforts to encourage plastics recycling and include recycled plastic material in their products. Participants also learned about innovative ways to redesign procurement processes to promote the purchase of recycled goods and discussed methods for bridging communication and information gaps between government and industry.

Process

Before each roundtable discussion (two sessions were held), project staff surveyed government participants to determine what kinds of products they were purchasing, in what quantities, if those products contained or were allowed to contain recycled content, and which recycled plastic products they were most interested in. The baseline data gathered in the survey was then used to develop the agenda for the roundtable discussions.

M e r learning what information participants wanted and needed, it was decided that the first part of each two-day session would be dedicated to reviewing the results of the survey and other resource materials; hearing presentations by industry experts, plastics recycling consultants, and purchasers; and discussing general issues surrounding plastics recycling. Participants and experts then would break into smaller task groups to discuss, in detail, several of the following twelve products: barricades, benches and picnic tables, drainage pipe, plastic lumber, partitions for showers and toilets, posts, rebar

Purchasing Recycled Plastic Products 1

Introduction

supports, sign substrates, snow and limited access fencing, traffic cones, trash can liners, and trash cans/wastebaskets/pails/recycling and bulk containers.

During their discussion, task groups would be asked to

identify perceptual and technical barriers to purchasing and using products with recycled content,

develop methods for overcoming perceptual and technical barriers,

identify necessary product performance requirements,

identify opportunities for interagency and intergovernmental purchasing, and

determine whether joint testing programs would be helpful.

The format proved to be very effective. During the informational sessions and task group discussions, participants learned a great deal about plastics recycling and became much more conversant with recycled plastic products. They also forged important relationships (which are critical to future cooperative initiatives) with government employees from different localities and industry experts. Most important, the small group discussions sparked participants’ enthusiasm and creativity which allowed them to develop practical yet innovative solutions to difficult procurement problems. Several attendees, upon their return home, put some of the solutions to work, revising specifications and purchasing procedures to allow for or to favor recycled plastic products.

FOIIOW-UP

To sustain the momentum generated at the first meeting, the plastics industry invited all participants of the first meeting to attend a follow-up session at which they could discuss progress made, problems encountered, and address appropriate next steps. Seven state governments accepted the invitation - Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont - as did the governments of New York City and Cranston, Rhode Island.

The participants requested that the follow-up meeting be dedicated specifically to establishing testing procedures and/or common specifications for six of the twelve recycled plastic products discussed at the first meeting: bulkheads, partitions, picnic tables, traffic cones, traffic barrels, and trash can liners. To ensure that each participant had an opportunity to express his/her views, the larger group was again broken down into five smaller task groups, each of which dealt with one or two specific product( s).

Both participants and staff agree that the follow-up session was a success. Each task group met its objectives, several went on to develop procedures for purchasing recycled plastic products, and two designed explicit testing programs to be implemented by group members and others who wished to participate.

The Report

What follows is a detailed report of what was learned in both the initial and follow-up sessions held in the Northeast. For ease of understanding, the report has been broken down into four discrete sections. The first section addresses general perceptual and technical barriers to the procurement of all recycled

2 Purchasing Recycled Plastic Products

Introduction

plastic products. The second section focuses on product-specific barriers to procurement and methods to overcome them. The third section outlines additional ways in which government and industry can eliminate barriers so that recycled plastic products can be purchased. The fourth and final section reflects what was learned during the follow-up meeting; it includes information on appropriate testing procedures and common specifications for the six recycled plastic products.

It is the hope of the plastics industry that the full report will serve as a comprehensive reference document for those who participated in the Northeast roundtables as well as a rich source of information for others in government and industry who are trying to promote the procurement of recycled goods in their own organizations.


General Barriers and Solutions to Procuring Recycled Plastic Products


As mentioned earlier, participants at each roundtable session broke into smaller task groups to discuss barriers to the procurement of specific recycled plastic products. Generally, administrative purchasing officials met in one task group, transportation officials met in another, and parks officials met in a third group; recycling officials were assigned to those task groups that included representatives from their own governments. (See Appendix C for task group participants and products discussed.) Each task group also was composed of a facilitator who lead the discussion and reported results; industry experts who provided technical expertise; and representatives from the plastics industry, the Northeast Recycling Council, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, all of whom helped answer questions about similar activities in other parts of the country.

During their discussions, task group members learned quickly that most barriers to the procurement of recycled goods are not product-specific; that is, many of the impediments to buying recycled plastic picnic tables, barricades, and sign posts, also impede the purchase of recycled plastic trash can liners, recycling bins, and traffic cones. Therefore, the first section of this report focuses on those general perceptual and technical barriers that cause procurement problems for most or all recycled plastic goods.

General Percept.tca2 Barriers and Solutions

Some barriers to the procurement of recycled plastic products are perceptual; that means that what people think or perceive about a recycled plastic product prevents them from buying it, not the product’s ability to perform or meet specifications. Following are the most common perceptual barriers as identified by two or more task groups and methods recommended by participants for overcoming them.

Barrier One: Price. One of the most common perceptual barriers is that recycled plastic products cost more than those made with virgin materials. Because purchasing agents are required to buy the lowest-cost product when all other factors are equal, they cannot purchase recycled plastic goods if they are more expensive.



solution: There are many ways to deal with perceived cost barriers. First, purchasers should compare prices on bids for recycled and virgin plastic products to determine if, in fact, the perception is accurate. In some instances, recycled plastic products do not cost more than those made with virgin materials.

In those instances in which the perception is accurate, purchasers can use price preferences and/or set-aside programs to encourage the use of recycled goods. A price preference means that if a recycled product meets all other specifications and falls within a certain percent of the price of a virgin product, then the recycled product should be given purchasing preference. Set- asides refer to programs in which state government decides that a certain percent of all products purchased by the state must contain recycled content, regardless of cost. Such programs should be used primarily to help stimulate markets for recycled goods; once markets are established, the prices for recycled plastic products should become competitive and price preferences and set-aside programs can be phased out of existence.

If price preferences and set-asides cannot be implemented-as is often the case during tight financial times-purchasers can consider two other options. The first option is life-cycle costing. That is, instead of basing purchasing decisions on the initial purchase price of a product, decisions can be based on the total cost of a product over its life, including the cost of purchasing, installing, maintaining, replacing, and disposing of the product. Life-cycle costing would help recycled plastic products become more competitive because in many instances they last longer and require far less maintenance than products made of more conventional materials.

The other option purchasers can consider is using price as only one of many fictors in making purchasing decisions (instead of using it as the determining factor). For example, a certain number of points could be awarded to a product based on its cost, a certain number could be awarded based on its containing recycled content, and a certain number could be awarded based on other important variables. The product with the most points would win the bid. Under such a system, purchasers could encourage the procurement of recycled products without having to give them special treatment or paying a great deal more for them. (For more information on this concept, see the explanation of the “Lallatin Principle” in the section on trash can liners in chapter five of this report.)

[Cost barriers were mentioned in discussions on recycled plastic benches, picnic tables, trash can liners, partitions for showers and toilets, posts, trafic cones, and trash cans. J

‘2 Barrier Two: Performance. Many purchasers believe that products made with recycled materials will not perform as well as those made with virgin materials. Since procurement officials are responsible for the quality and performance of the products they buy, they are unlikely to purchase those made with recycled plastic unless they have proof that they can meet their intended end-uses.

Solution: Tests on recycled plastic products run by independent or government laboratories are the best way to convince purchasers that the products are reliable and meet performance specifications. Once test results are available, they should be distributed widely among purchasers in all sectors so that procurement officials will have the accurate information they need to make informed purchasing decisions with regard to recycled plastic products. Purchasers should keep in mind, however, that testing is not a one-time endeavor; they should continue to test recycled plastic products over time to ensure that they continue to meet changing needs.

Manufacturer demonstrations (in which companies provide their products fiee of charge) also can be useful promotional tools because they allow procurement officials and end-users to see



first-hand how recycled plastic products perform in different applications and geographic regions. Similarly, pilot programs using recycled plastic products can provide purchasers and users an opportunity to run their own tests (to determine if products react differently in the field than they do in the laboratory), determine performance capabilities, and obtain hands-on experience with recycled plastic products. Pilot programs are particularly important when trying to educate and inform purchasers who have had negative experiences with other recycled products.

Finally, manufacturers, government purchasers, and end-users can work together to develop computerized testing formulas so that all agencies-not just those directly involved in a testing project-can use them to test recycled plastic products in general applications.

If purchasers remain leery of recycled plastic products or cannot obtain information on testing results, they should consider requiring manufacturers to provide certifications stating that the products they produce meet specifications and will perform their intended end-uses. This adds one more guarantee that purchasers are procuring a sound product.

An innovative way for purchasers to alleviate employee concerns about the performance of recycled plastic products, is to get them involved up front in developing performance specifications. This will serve two purposes: First, it will help ensure that a good specification is written (because end-users are more aware of how the product should perform), and second, it will help guarantee that employees will evaluate performance fairly once the recycled plastic products are in use.

Educating end-users and purchasers about the different properties of recycled plastic resins also will help them better understand which types of recycled plastics are most appropriate for certain applications. Once they know the capabilities of different resins, purchasers will be less likely to purchase recycled plastic products for inappropriate applications. The responsibility for such education should fill to manufacturers and/or suppliers.

[Performance barriers were mentioned in discussions about recycled plastic benches and picnic tables, drainage pipe, crash can liners, posts, tragic cones, and crash cans.]

~~~

y3 Barrier Three: Prohibitive Standards. At present, many state government purchasers rely on other standards when developing bid specifications. For example, users of drainage pipe rely on ASTM and/or AASHTO standards. Unfortunately, ASTM, AASHTO, and many other standards prohibit the use of recycled content in certain products.

Solzttion: Perhaps the best way to address this barrier is to encourage all end-users (federal, state, local, and individual departments and agencies) to write performance specifications (which stipulate that a product must be able to meet certain needs) instead of material specifications (which stipulate that a product must be made out of certain materials). Revising specifications in this fashion will allow for the use of recycled plastic in all products.

If AASHTO, ASTM, and other specification-writing organizations cannot be persuaded to write performance specifications, they should be encouraged to remove restrictions to recycled centem from their material specifisations so that those who continue to rely on standard specs can participate in the effort to purchase recycled products. This kind of a change is particularly important in some applications-such as with drainage pipe-because many purchasers prefer to procure products bearing a stamp stating that the product meets “standard specification codes;’’ if the standard specification code prohibits the use of recycled content, purchasers will not procure recycled plastic products.



To hrther encourage the purchase of recycled plastic goods, government purchasers should begin to work together to develop common regional specifications. At present, requirements for products vary from state to state and make it difficult for manufacturers to produce large enough quantities of a recycled product to achieve economies of scale. By developing regional performance- based specifications for recycled plastic products, states can help manufacturers realize economies of scale, which should also help reduce the purchase price of recycled products. In addition, regional specifications will help governments move toward joint purchasing and testing programs.

[Specification barriers were mentioned in discussions about barricades, drainage pipe, and traff ic cones. J

I 3- Barrier Four: Independent Contractors. Many products-such as barricades, drainage pipe, partitions, rebar supports, and traffic cones-are purchased by independent contractors who win bids for a particular government project. Thus, procurement officials have little or no ability to ensure that the products used on these projects contain recycled content.

Solution: Even in this instance, state governments have some control. They can specify in the request for bid that in order to win the award, a contractor must use recycled plastic products in appropriate applications.

In addition, if manuhcturers provide information to government purchasers about recycled plastic products, purchasers can pass that information along to contractors, associations, and other organizations that procure products directly, thereby encouraging them to explore the use of recycled plastic products. Purchasing officials also can work with civil engineers to educate them about the value of using recycled plastic products, so that they will build those products into the specifications they develop.

[Contractor barriers were mentioned in discussions about recycled plastic barricades, drainage pipe, partitions for showers and toilets, rebar supports, and traffic cones.]

5‘ Barrier Five: Lack of Information on Recycled Content. If government procurement officials are going to run effective buy-recycled programs, there is certain information they need to support their efforts. For example, they need to know (1) if products claiming to be “made with recycled content” actually contain recycled material, (2) how much recycled content those products contain, and (3) how “recycled content” is defined. Absent such information, they may not be able to obtain ongoing support for a buy-recycled program.

Solution: To determine if a product contains recycled content, purchasers can require receipts or feedstock records from suppliers to prove that they purchased post-consumer plastic to make the product. For further proof, manufacturers can be required to provide written certifications stating that the products they produce contain recycled material.

To determine the amount of recycled material that is contained in a product, purchasers can request and/or require such information in bid documents or obtain it directly from manufacturers.

With regard to the definition of recycled content, it is recommended that governments encourage the Northeast Recycling Council and ASTM to make their definitions available to all state and city agencies. That will help ensure that governments within a certain region use the same definitions, which could have financial benefits in the long run.


General Barriers and Solutions to Procurine Recvcled Plastic Products

[Recycled content information barriers were mentioned in discussions about recycled plastic trash can liners and posts.]

.& 2~ ’

recycled plastic products, such as posts. For other products, such as traffic cones, the performance standards are much too general. Absent relatively specific standards, end-users have no guarantee that these products, when made with recycled content, will perform.

Solution: State and local government purchasers should work with industry representatives to determine what needs products such as posts and traffic cones, must meet and develop realistic performance specifications for them. As mentioned earlier in this report, those specifications should be developed regionally and allow for the most extreme conditions under which the products will be used.

[Standard barriers were mentioned in discussions about recycled plastic posts and traffic cones.]

Barrier Six: Lack of Standards. At present, no industry standards exist for some

7’ Barrier Seven: Lack of Information on Recycled Products. In many instances, purchasers lack the information they need to make intelligent decisions about purchasing recycled plastic products. For example, they often do not have information about (1) whether products they currently procure contain recycled material, (2) whether the recycled products will perform in use, and (3) who, if anyone, makes products with recycled content.

Solation: Purchasers who want to encourage the use of recycled plastic products can seek the above-mentioned information from a variety of sources. For example, in requests for bids, purchasers can require that manufacturers specify whether a product contains recycled content. (Usually if bidders hear that the state is committed to purchasing recycled products, they will be more willing to reveal whether their product contains recycled material.) Purchasers also can ask trade associations for information about performance characteristics; they generally have excellent technical studies that can provide purchasers with a wealth of information about product performance. In addition, manufacturers of recycled plastic products should be educated about who in state and local government is responsible for procuring their product (government purchasers, engineers, contractors, and so forth) so they can inform the correct people about the product’s performance capabilities. Manufacturers also should be encouraged to promote their products at vendor shows. Finally, government purchasers should network with other agencies and associations to ensure that product information is circulated and getting to the people who can make decisions about using recycled plastic products.

[Purchasing information barriers were mentioned by members in almost every task g r o ~ p but only formally reported in discussions about drainage pipe and trash cans.]

8 ’ Barrier Eight: Resistance to Change. In many instances, asking governments to procure recycled products is asking them to change their behavior. Purchasing officials- because of their position within the system-cannot bring about that change alone. If governments are serious about increasing the amount of recycled products they buy, institutional change is needed and the directive to change must come from the top.

solution: Governors in every state should be encouraged to mandate the use of recycled products in appropriate applications; that is the best way to ensure that recycled goods will be purchased and used by all members of state government. In addition, such mandates will provide



purchasers with the support they need to make the changes in the procurement system necessary to allow for or favor recycled goods.

[Barriers to change were mentioned in discussions about recycled plastic barricades and traflic cones.]

General Technical Barriers and Solutions

While many barriers to the procurement of recycled plastic products are perceptual in nature, there also are some technical performance-related barriers that prevent purchasing officials from buying recycled plastic goods. Following are the most common technical barriers as identified by two or more task groups and participants’ recommended methods for overcoming them. (Because there are far fewer common technical barriers than there are perceptual barriers, the second section of the report, which deals with barriers to the procurement of specific recycled plastic products, will be more informative about performance-related concerns.)

Barrier: Burning and Degradation. Many purchasers have heard that recycled plastic products can burn and, therefore, are reluctant to use them in certain applications. In addition, purchasers have heard that recycled plastics will degrade when exposed to sunlight and, hence, will not be able to meet their intended end uses. These performance issues must be addressed before purchasers can seriously consider procuring certain recycled plastic products.

Solution: Both fire retardants and ultra-violet inhibitors can be added to recycled plastic products during manufacturing so that they will not burn or degrade when exposed to sunlight. In addition, manufacturers can use colors, such as carbon black, to provide additional protection from deterioration.

[These barriers were mentioned in discussions about recycled plastic benches and picnic tables, drainage pipe, posts, s&n substrates, and trash cans.]


Barriers and Solutions to Procuring Specific Recycled Plastic Products

lIt should be noted that two joint initiatives already are underway in the Northeast. A framework for cooperative purchasing was completed by the National Association of State Purchasing Officials while this project was underway. Cooperative testing programs for a number of highway products also have been put in place by the Northeast Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.


While many of the barriers to the procurement of recycled plastic products are general in nature and cut across all product types, other barriers are unique to specific products. As explained earlier, one of the assignments given to roundtable participants was to identify distinctive barriers for twelve recycled plastic products: barricades, benches and picnic tables, drainage pipe, trash can liners, lumber, partitions for showers and toilets, posts, rebar supports, sign substrates, snow and limited access fencing, traffic cones, and trash cans/wastebaskets/pails/ recycling and bulk containers.

The particular products discussed by the task groups were selected because: (1) a significant number of participants were interested in learning about them, ( 2 ) governments were purchasing significant quantities of them, (3) they were currently or imminently available with recycled content, (4) representatives from industry had experience with them, and ( 5 ) major government initiatives were underway elsewhere to eliminate barriers to their containing recycled content.

Following are summaries of each task group discussion about specific recycled plastic products. The summaries include

0 a definition of the product and performance requirements i t must meet,

product-specific perceptual and technical barriers, and

recommended methods for overcoming the barriers.

0

0

The summaries also include task group members’ opinions about a product’s suitability for joint testing and purchasing programs.’ This is important because if governments can work together to test recycled plastic products and use their collective clout to purchase them, they can (1) help gather the information necessary for purchasers to promote buy-recycled programs, ( 2 ) reduce unit prices of



recycled products by purchasing them in larger quantities, and (3) create important end markets for recycled plastic goods.

The following summaries represent the best and most innovative thinking of task group members about the information and action needed to promote the procurement of specific recycled plastic products.

PRODUCT 1: BARRICADES

Task group participants defined barricades as any barrier-except highway dividers-used to direct and/or prevent the flow of traffic in construction and repair areas. When used in such applications, barricades often are thrown from trucks, exposed to all types of inclement weather, and struck by all kinds and sizes of vehicles. Thus, to meet performance standards, barricades made with recycled plastic material must be able to withstand such abuse without being damaged or damaging the vehicles with which they come into contact.

Perceptual and Technical Barriers and Solutions

When asked to cite perceptual and technical barriers to the procurement of recycled plastic barricades, task group members did not mention any that were unique to this particular product; they did, however, mention several of the general barriers discussed in the first section of this report.

Suitability for Joint Testing and Purchasing

Task group members believe that recycled plastic barricades are p o d candidates for joint purchasing because all governments use them. Unfortunately, specifications for barricades vary from state to state. For joint purchasing to be feasible, those specifications must be standardized.

Task group members also believe that recycled plastic barricades are flood candidates for joint testing programs (that is, after manufacturers’ developmental testing is completed). Such programs would help identifjr common performance requirements and testing procedures could then be standardized.

PRODUCT 2: BENCHES AND PICNIC TABLES Task group participants defined picnic tables as tables with affixed benches used primarily in outdoor applications, such as parks and rest areas. Benches were defined as seats used in outdoor applications such as parks, rest areas, and bus stops. Both products are bought primarily by parks and transportation departments and, in many states, are made in correctional institutions or by the governmental agencies that use them.

Picnic tables and benches generally are made of materials that are readily available, such as wood, concrete, or a combination of wood and steel. Both products have similar performance requirements: they must be rigid, bear substantial weight, resist warping, perform in hot and cold weather, resist damage from animals, and be able to be fastened with proper hardware. Independent or government



laboratory tests or pilot programs are needed to establish that picnic tables and benches made with recycled plastic can meet such standards.

Perceptual Barriers and Solutions

Barrier: Some purchasers believe that recycled plastic picnic tables and benches are not

products.

Solution: Several steps can be taken to deal with aesthetic barriers. First, both plastic and wood tables can be placed in rustic settings to determine if it is true that people prefer wood products. Second, people can be informed about the role recycled plastic tables and benches play in reducing solid waste; understanding the importance of such products may persuade people that aesthetics are not the most important consideration. Third, if aesthetics remain a concern, recycled plastic tables and benches can be used in applications where other considerations-such as the danger of splinters-outweigh aesthetic considerations. Fourth, manufacturers can be encouraged to improve the aesthetics of the recycled plastic tables and benches they produce.

aesthetically pleasing and will look out of place in rustic settings where people expect wood ~ ~~ ~

Technical Barriers and Solutions

Barrier One: Purchasers have many concerns about the performance capabilities of recycled plastic picnic tables and benches. For example, many believe they will sag in the free span design of picnic tables, warp or flex under heat and in load bearing conditions, and/or get too hot when exposed to sunlight.

Solution: Several solutions can address these performance concerns. First, if warping, flexing, or sagging is a concern, stiffer resin mixtures or core materials can be used to add strength and durability to the products. In addition, steel supports can be used under benches and table tops to reinforce the plastic and/or the products can be redesigned with a smaller freespan. Furthermore, putting tables and benches in the shade, instead of directly in the sun, will help prevent them from getting too hot in sunlight.

Barrier Two: Because recycled plastic lumber (fiom which picnic tables and benches are made) is a relatively new product, people lack experience cutting and routing it. In addition, unlike more conventional materials, i t is unclear if recycled plastic lumber can hold regular fastening hardware over time and under normal use.

Solution: As part of the testing procedure, proper applications for recycled plastic lumber can be developed and engineering use specifications created. Both steps should help people working with plastic lumber anticipate how it will perform when cut or routed. Also, if current fastening hardware is not effective, new hardware can be created or new techniques developed so that conventional hardware can be used.

Suitability for Joint Purchasing and Testing

Administrative purchasers believe recycled plastic picnic tables and benches are not satitable candidates for joint purchasing because states procure them in different ways. In addition, some governments make their own tables and benches using materials and labor that are readily



available and relatively inexpensive. If a prototype were made available, industry standards developed, and appropriate tests conducted, then, a joint purchasing effort could be pursued.

Parks personnel were divided on the issue of joint purchasing. Some believe testing is a higher priority than joint purchasing; they need to know if and how recycled plastic picnic tables and benches perform before they can consider buying them. Other parks personnel, however, believe these products would be flood candidates for joint purchasing-that is, if governments can forgo their desire to purchase products in different styles and colors.

With regard to joint testing, all groups discussing these products agree that they are flood candidates for joint testing. Such a program would (1) increase knowledge about the performance capabilities of recycled plastic picnic tables and benches, ( 2 ) help agencies identify ideal applications for plastic lumber products, and (3) allow for testing of the products in real-life situations. The latter is important because laboratories do not test for general public acceptance or any unexpected problems that might occur in the field. For example, only in a real-life situation could parks personnel discover whether recycled plastic products with dark colored surfaces become uncomfortably hot when placed in the summer sun. In order for a joint testing program to be feasible, however, prototypes and sufficient samples must be made available by manufacturers free of charge.

PRODUCT 3: DRAINAGE PIPE

Task group participants defined drainage pipe as pipe used to drain water away from areas where it tends to collect. The pipe can be corrugated, smoothwalled, perforated, or non-perforated. I t is available in many diameters. Pipe that is 18 inches in diameter or larger typically is referred to as culvert; anything smaller is referred to as drainage pipe. For this discussion, drainage pipe refers to all sizes.

Drainage pipe is most commonly used along highways, in agricultural applications, and in parks for fiench drains, leach beds, and sewer systems. All agencies (at the roundtable) that purchase drainage pipe rely on Department of Transportation (DOT) or public works specifications, both of which use ASTM or AASHTO standards.

Because ASTM and AASHTO standards do not allow recycled content in drainage pipe, considerable testing must be performed either by an independent or government laboratory to enable its use in the above-mentioned applications. The tests much check for brittleness in cold settings, stiffness, flexibility, ability to resist impact, and strength to prevent crushing.


Barrier One: The majority of state DOT projects are funded by the federal government; hence, states must comply with federal standards. Unfortunately, federal specifications prohibit the use of recycled plastic in drainage pipe.

Solution: As mentioned earlier in this report, changes in ASTM and AASHTO standards must be pursued, particularly if states hope to use recycled plastic drainage pipe in transportation applications. There are, however, other applications in which recycled pipe can be used. For example, recycled content pipe can be used in park applications because most parks programs are not federally funded. Recycled pipe also can be used in agricultural applications because the U.S. Department of Agriculture specification for HDPE corrugated pipe allows for the use of recycled material.



Barrier TWO: Purchasers, who lack information about recycled plastic pipe fear that toxins might leach out of recycled pipe and cause contamination problems.

Solution: Purchasers need to seek information from manufacturers, suppliers, associations, scientists, universities, and/or end-users of recycled plastic pipe to determine whether this is a legitimate concern. It appears that very small amounts of material (parts per billion or trillion) may leach when certain types of pipe are first installed, but toxicity is unlikely.


Task group members did not identify any technical barriers unique to drainage pipe.


Points of view varied about the suitability of recycled plastic drainage pipe for joint purchasing. Administrative purchasers maintain that pipe made with recycled material is an excellent candidate for joint purchasing because it is used by all DOTS in similar applications; in addition, DOTS already use the same standards or specifications for procurement, so lack of a standard specification would not be a problem.

DOTS, however, think plastic pipe is a poor candidate for joint purchasing because of logistical problems with storage, purchasing, and management. Parks representatives agree with DOT personnel but for different reasons; they assert that ASTM and AASHTO specifications should be changed before joint purchases are pursued.

With regard to joint testing, administrative and DOT purchasers believe drainage pipe is a 500d candidate because so little has been published about its performance capabilities. If purchasing agents had test results to prove that pipe containing recycled content performed as well as virgin pipe, they would find it easier to persuade end-users to allow for recycled content in their specifications.

Parks purchasers, though, believe drainage pipe is a poor candidate for joint testing. They argue that unless specifications are changed, joint testing is premature. Nearly every parks official, however, expressed a willingness to test recycled content pipe in field applications.

One potential benefit of joint testing is that it would help increase understanding about how recycled drainage pipe performs and the applications for which it is best suited. Field and laboratory tests also can provide valuable performance data to support petitions for changing ASTM and AASHTO specifications.

PRODUCT 4: LUMBER

Task group members defined recycled plastic lumber as material used in place of wood for landscaping, curbing, docking in marinas, noise barriers, picnic tables, and parking stops.

Most recycled plastic lumber products are procured directly through parks and transportation departments. If central purchasing agents do procure these products, they usually rely on end-users to develop bid specifications. As a result, administrative purchasing agents, although interested in recycled plastic lumber, are not familiar with its performance standards, prices, or availability. For that reason, much less information was gleaned about barriers to the procurement of plastic lumber;



the information provided earlier on picnic tables and benches, however, should be helpful to those who want to learn more about barriers to plastic lumber use.


Barrier: Some purchasers have had negative experiences with recycled plastic lumber and are unwilling to purchase it again.

Solzttion: There are a number of reasons why negative experiences occur that are not necessarily related to the quality of a product. For example, recycled plastic lumber may have been used in an inappropriate application. If purchasers have had a negative experience with one product, they should continue to explore products made by other manufacturers and look for other uses for plastic lumber. As with all new products, the quality of recycled plastic lumber will improve as technology advances and more is learned about proper applications. If purchasers are skeptical but want to encourage the procurement of recycled goods, they should conduct pilot projects with recycled plastic lumber products to better understand its performance characteristics.


Because of their lack of experience with the product, the task groups looking at recycled plastic lumber did not identify any technical barriers. As mentioned above, those who want to learn more about the product can explore barriers identified for recycled plastic picnic tables and benches. Not all of the barriers will apply to plastic lumber in different applications, but the information may help in the development of further questions.


Because so little is known about recycled plastic lumber, task group members feel it is not a sztitable candidate for joint purchasing. They do, however, believe it is a Jood candidate for joint testing. If states can join together to support testing programs, they will gain the experience and knowledge necessary to make more informed purchasing decisions, which, ultimately, will reduce the risk purchasers take when buying new, relatively unknown products.

PRODUCT 5: PARTITIONS FOR SHOWERS AND TOILETS

Partitions were defined by task group members as the objects used to divide toilet and shower stalls in state parks, highway comfort stations, and other public rest rooms. Solid-core recycled plastic partitions could potentially replace partitions currently made of particle board, which are less expensive but also less serviceable.

To consider purchasing recycled plastic partitions, task group members said the product must (1) come with quality fasteners that can be used on various surfaces, such as cinder block, concrete, and wood; ( 2 ) last a long time given their initial cost; (3) be cleaned easily; and (4) require little maintenance.




Task group members did not cite any perceptual barriers that were unique to recycled plastic partitions. They did, however, mention several of the general perceptual barriers addressed in the first section of this report.


Barrier One: At this time, lighter-color partitions are not available with recycled content. For those governments that prefer such colors, recycled partitions are not an option.

Solution: Manufacturers should be encouraged to experiment with recycled resins that allow for the use of light colors. For example, mixtures of post-consumer and post-industrial resins could help achieve the desired outcome. When prices for natural and white post-consumer HDPE become competitive, those resins can be used liberally in applications that require lighter colors.

Barrier TWO: Some purchasers have found that recycled plastic partitions cannot be sealed to the floor; this creates installation problems that are not created with partitions made from more conventional materials.

Solution: Encourage manufacturers to test fastenings and glues that can help seal recycled plastic partitions to the floor. Once manufacturers have found viable solutions, they should provide engineering assistance to end-users so that they can use the partitions in the field.

Barrier Three: There is a great deal of moisture in situations that require the use of partitions; because of this moisture, mold is a serious problem.

Solution: Mold is a serious problem with partitions made of all materials, not just plastic. Better ventilation should help preserve recycled plastic partitions and reduce the occurrence of mold.


Task group members consider recycled plastic partitions to be excellent candidates for joint purchasing programs. Such programs would enable governments to develop a standard specification for a high-quality product, and, because of the leverage joint purchasing agreements create, governments could help foster competition, which eventually would bring down the cost of recycled plastic partitions. There are, however, some possible obstacles to joint purchasing. For example, more than one qualified bidder is needed for a competitive bid process; currently, only one company makes quality recycled plastic partitions in the quantity necessary- to fulfill a joint purchase. In addition, problems with logistics-such as delivery time, storage space, and quantity ordered-would have to be resolved.

With regard to joint testing, task group members agree that recycled plastic partitions are brood candidates. Some states are using the product already and are willing to share the results of their field tests with others. A joint testing program would help government purchasers gather the data they need to prove the value of life-cycle costing; enable parks personnel to see first-hand how the product performs; and allow for the education of others once the test results

~



were published in National Park Service trade magazines. The only obstacles mentioned by task members were the lack of products provided by manufacturers for testing and the feeling that enough tests have already been conducted.

PRODUCT 6: POSTS

To keep their conversation focused, task group members did not talk about posts with critical safety concerns, such as guardrail posts. Instead, members discussed non-structural posts, such as sign posts, which are used mostly along highways and in parks to support directional and informational signs; delineator posts, which are used to support reflectors or mileage signs along roadways; and fence posts, which are used to restrict access along roads, in parks, and around construction zones. At present, most posts are bought centrally and are made of steel, wood, or aluminum.

State transportation agencies, in particular, require extensive testing for posts. In technical terms, they test for flexural modulus, warping or high torsional modulus, engineering properties, and high wind stress effects. In simpler terms, posts must be of sufficient strength to perform their intended end use; be resistant to freeze-thaw cycles, insect or animal damage, and degradation when exposed to sunlight; and be compatible with proper fastening hardware. Without proof of such performance standards, purchasers could not procure recycled plastic posts.


Barrier: Many states currently procure aluminum or steel posts that are made with recycled materials. If these states switch to recycled plastic posts, they will simply be replacing one recycled product with another and not advancing the state’s overall recycling goals.

solution: Task group members did not determine a solution for this barrier.

Technical Barriers and Sulutions

Barrier One: Life-cycle costing is an effective way to overcome cost barriers i fa product is allowed to “live out” its natural life. Posts, however, (particularly camp site markers and sign posts) are frequently replaced early because of vandalism and breakage. While products made of all materials must be replaced, the cost of replacing recycled plastic posts likely would be much higher.

Solution: Perhaps the best solution is to use recycled plastic posts in applications where replacement is seldom necessary.

Barrier TWO: There are several performance concerns purchasers have about recycled plastic posts. For example, they contend that posts cannot be driven into the ground, fastening signs and fence cross bars is more difficult, and end-users lack experience cutting and routing them These performance concerns can discourage purchasers from procuring recycled plastic posts.

Solution: There are many possible solutions to the obstacles mentioned above. For example, when driving recycled plastic posts, a protective sleeve can be placed over the post, which will prevent it from fracturing when struck. Also, special drivers that grip and apply pressure to the lower portion of the post can be used for installation. With regard to fastening signs and fence cross bars, manufacturers should be encouraged to develop new hardware or fastening techniques


Barriers and Solutions to Procuring SDecific Recvcled Plastic Products

that can be used with recycled plastic. In addition, slot holes for nails and bolts can be inserted during the manufacturing process to ease fastening. All of these are design questions that manufacturers should help solve. To learn more about routing and cutting plastic posts, end- users should request fabrication techniques, instructions, and information about special tools fiom manufacturers.

Barrier Three: Delineator posts must be the correct color to maintain highway aesthetics and be properly reflective. If these two criteria cannot be met with recycled plastic posts, they cannot be purchased.

Sohution: Manufacturers should be encouraged to make products that maintain the reflective characteristics required in highway applications. Perhaps reflective beads can be imbedded in recycled plastic posts during manufacturing. In addition, manufacturers should experiment with making posts with colors that are both aesthetically pleasing and adaptable to recycled content.

- ~ ~


There were many differing opinions about the suitability of recycled plastic posts for joint purchasing. Some believe they are not suitable candidates because too little is known at this time about their ability to perform. Others feel they are flood candidate5 for joint purchasing because they can be made of almost any material, are used in large quantities, and are replaced frequently. Obstacles to joint purchasing that should be taken into consideration include handling different preferences for specific styles and colors and clarifying whether current fiscal limitations will restrict the purchase of more expensive recycled plastic products.

With regard to joint testing, all task group members agree that recycled plastic posts are excellent candidates. All states are at an equal loss for information about the performance capabilities and prices of these products. In addition, most states lack the expertise, finances, and fhcilities necessary to implement testing programs on their own. The benefits of a joint testing program are many: Testing costs could be reduced by pooling resources, reliable test results in all kinds of applications and settings could be compiled, common performance standards could be developed, and parks already have agreed to operate as testing sites2 The only potential obstacle to joint testing is finding manufacturers willing to donate their products for a joint testing project.

PRODUCT 7: REBAR SUPPORTS

Task group members defined rebar supports as items used to separate reinforcing bars in concrete construction. (Rebar supports are also referred to as chairs.) The supports must hold the rebar in place until concrete is poured and allow the concrete to flow freely around the support without displacing the rebar.

One of the current problems with metal rebar supports is that salt and moisture attack the metal, which expands when it oxidizes and causes the concrete to chip. These chips allow moisture to enter the concrete and expand under extreme cold temperatures, causing further deterioration. Plastic does

2Recycled plastic post testing programs currently are being conducted by transportation departments in both Florida and Vermont.



not react with salt or moisture and, thus, would prevent such major maintenance problems from occurring.

At present, there are no federal or other national specifications or standards for concrete accessories, including rebar chairs. Florida specifications cite the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute Manual of Standards, which states what must be accomplished by rebar chairs but not what material should be used to make them. If the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) were to approve recycled plastic rebar supports, it would ensure that state DOTS across the country also would approve their use.

PerceptNal Barriers and Solutions

Barrier One: Some purchasers, lacking experience with recycled plastic rebar supports, are concerned that those made with recycled plastic may inhibit the flow of concrete around the supports. If this is true, they could not purchase recycled chairs because they would not meet performance requirements.

Solution: While this may have been a problem at one time, manufacturers now have overcome this difficulty. Recycled plastic chairs produced today allow concrete to flow freely around them.

Barrier TWO: Concrete trade associations may discourage a change in products unless they are certain that the new product can meet its intended end use.

Solution: In addition to marketing to contractors, manufacturers of recycled plastic rebar supports should market to trade associations. The marketing process can be very educational and, if demonstrations are performed, associations will become more comfortable with the recycled products and, thus, less likely to interfere with their use.


Barrier: At present, recycled plastic rebar supports are not on “approved product” lists in several states. If a product does not appear on that list, it cannot be purchased.

Solution: To put a product on the “approved product’’ list, it must be tested and certified. Thus, purchasers should take the steps necessary to test and certify recycled plastic rebar supports. State and county DOTS have testing departments or funds for testing programs. (Joint testing programs currently are underway among DOTS in the southeast region of the country and in the northeast.) These resources should be tapped so that recycled rebar supports no longer will be considered an “experimental” product. In addition, purchasers can encourage the FHA to do their own testing so that they can approve the product for use.


Task group members agree that recycled plastic rebar supports are poor candidates for a joint purchasing program, primarily because so few governments purchase the products directly.

With regard to joint testing, members again found recycled plastic rebar supports to be poor candidates. Their reasoning is that extensive testing of rebar supports is not needed; already one manufacturer’s product is being tested in Florida on bridge supports and airport runways and another product has been accepted by several southern states.



PRODUCT 8: SIGN SUBSTRATES

Task group members defined sign substrates as backing for reflective signs such as informational signs used in parks and along highways.

To determine whether to buy sign substrates made with recycled plastic material, procurement officials

applications and geographic regions, and proof from laboratory tests that they can maintain their rigidity, resist UV degradation, and remain bonded to signs.

would like proof from field tests that they can perform for a minimum of one full year in different ~~ ~


Task groups members did not identify any perceptual barriers to the procurement of recycled plastic sign substrates.


Barrier: Sign substrates must be rigid and maintain their rigidity over time to meet their intended end use. In addition, they must remain bonded over time to signs. Both of these performance requirements must be met if purchasers are going to consider procuring recycled plastic sign substrates.

Solution: The performance requirements mentioned above can be met in several different ways. For example, if rigid recycled plastic resins are used, sign substrates will be able to maintain the rigidity necessary to function over time. In addition, purchasers, manufacturers of recycled sign substrates, and manufacturers of adhesives can work together to resolve difficulties with bonding. (Bonding issues are of concern with virgin products as well as with those made of recycled plastic.)


Task group members, most of whom represent parks agencies, believe that recycled plastic sign substrates are poor candidates for joint purchasing because parks generally make their own signs out of wood. The DOT representatives discussing this product were not able to determine if the product was suitable for joint purchasing for highway applications.

Task group members did, however, believe recycled plastic sign substrates would be excellent candidates for joint testing. Pennsylvania’s DOT currently is testing recycled plastic state route signs and believes that one year of testing will be sufficient to prove their value. Florida’s DOT also is testing recycled plastic sign substrates.

PRODUCT 9: SNOW AND LIMITED ACCESS FENCING ~~

Task group members defined snow and limited access fencing as plastic webbing sold with plastic and metal support posts. I t commonly is used to control crowds at special events; control sand and snow drifts; and restrict access at construction sites, in ski areas, on golf courses, and around newly seeded areas. Collapsible fencing also is used in ball fields or other areas where spring-back properties are required.



While task group members did not identify specific performance requirements, they did indicate that to purchase recycled plastic fencing, they must have assurances that it can meet its intended end-use.


Task group members did not cite any perceptual barriers unique to recycled plastic fencing. They did, however, mention some of the general perceptual barriers discussed in the first section of the report.


Barrier One: At present, fencing comes in two standard colors-green and orange. The colors, however, are not equally acceptable or desirable for all applications. This is true whether the product is made of recycled or virgin material. Purchasers are concerned that recycled fencing in both colors may not be available from one supplier.

Solution: When developing specifications, purchasers should indicate which color is most acceptable for which application. Purchases should be made only from those outlets that can supply the fencing in both colors.

Barrier TWO: According to some purchasers, plastic fence posts are unacceptable in applications where impact strength (which enables a post to be driven into the ground or into rocky surfaces) and side load strength (which is necessary in crowd control situations) is required.

Solution: If tests prove that recycled plastic posts cannot be used in such applications, purchasers should specify that only metal posts be purchased.


Task members agree that recycled plastic fencing is a poor candidate for joint purchasing, although no reasons were mentioned to support that opinion. Likewise task group members believe it is a poor candidate for joint testing, primarily because they believe state agencies will purchase recycled plastic fencing without testing it.

PRODUCT 10: TRAFFIC CONES

Task group members defined traffic cones as standard plastic cones with heavy bases, usually orange, and used to control the flow of traffic. They commonly are made of PVC or rubber and are used in large quantities by government agencies for similar applications.

To purchase traffic cones made with recycled plastic, purchasers must have assurances that the cones can (1) resume their shape after impact, ( 2 ) withstand rough treatment in all temperatures, (3 ) resist becoming projectiles when struck, (4) resist damage when run over by vehicles, ( 5 ) resist UV degradation, and ( 6 ) bond with reflective materials.




Task group members did not cite any perceptual barriers that were unique to recycled plastic traffic cones. They did, however, mention several of the general perceptual barriers addressed in the first section of this report.


Barrier One: Traffic cones, because of the application in which they are used, must be a bright color and be reflective. In addition, the color must be consistent throughout the cone. Some purchasers are concerned that cones made with recycled plastic will not be able to meet these requirements: They fear that orange or other bright colors will not be able to mask the recycled content and that the color will not be consistent throughout the product.

solution: To achieve the color necessary for plastic cones, manufacturers can add fluorescent pigment to the recycled material; they may have to adjust the mix, however, to ensure that any color from the recycled content is masked. With regard to the consistency of color, this is a problem with virgin cones as well. Manufacturers should be encouraged to use the same techniques or explore others to ensure color consistency when using recycled material.

Barrier Two: Because of the application in which traffic cones are used, they must remain flexible, particularly in cold temperatures. Some purchasers are unclear as to whether recycled plastic traffic cones can meet this requirement.

Solution: This is a manufacturing concern; if manufacturers use additives and appropriate recycled resins, the needed flexibility can be obtained.


Administrative purchasers think recycled traffic cones are excellent candidates for joint purchasing because there are relatively few performance standards that recycled plastic traffic cones must meet. Because there are so few, governments ought to be able to work together to develop a common performance specification that can be used throughout the region. In fact, a pilot purchasing program currently is under study in the Northeast region. Parks and DOT personnel, while a little less enthusiastic than administrative purchasers, believe recycled traffic cones are jood candidates for joint purchasing because every government uses them. One benefit of a joint purchasing program for traffic cones is that unit prices would be reduced due to the substantial size of the order.

With regard to joint testing, there were many differing opinions. Administrative purchasers say recycled plastic traffic cones are not mitable candidates for joint testing, primarily because every government likes to rely on its own tests. DOT purchasers, however, believe recycled plastic traffic cones are flood candidates for joint testing. They assert that such a program would facilitate the development of standard performance requirements, help to standardize testing procedures, and help end-users learn more about the performance capabilities of recycled cones.



PRODUCT 11: TRASH CAN LINERS

Task group participants defined trash can liners as film bags used to collect waste indoors in such applications as cleaners’ carts and office and bathroom waste baskets, and outdoors in such applications as trash containers and recycling bins.

Trash can liners are made from a variety of materials, including HDPE, HMWHDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE. These materials have different properties which allow them to be used in different applications. For example, HDPE becomes very brittle in cold temperatures and can be punctured easily; therefore it is not often used in bags designed for heavy-duty outdoor applications. LLDPE, on the other hand, is very tough in all temperatures and, thus, lends itself to liners used in heavy-duty outdoor applications.

If purchasers were to buy trash can liners made with recycled plastic, they would need proof from an independent laboratory or pilot program that they were sturdy enough to meet their intended end-uses.


Barrier One: Purchasers often want to buy brand name trash can liners; unfortunately, many brand name liners do not contain recycled plastic.

Solution: This will not be an issue if governments help support technology developments that will allow post-consumer material to be used in all kinds of trash can liners. In addition, if governments can help work to make larger quantities of clean, well-sorted recycled feedstock available, its use in all end products (even brand names) likely will increase.

Barrier Two: Some purchasers fear that recycled plastics may not be safe for the environment. They also are concerned that promoting the use of plastic trash bags will encourage the production of new plastic.

Solution: Government can play a key role in addressing these kinds of concerns. By educating themselves about recycled plastic, they can help the public understand that recycling plastics is environmentally safe, that using recycled plastics will help reduce our reliance on new plastics, and that plastic trash can liners are used for good reasons, such as labor savings and convenience.


Barrier One: Recycled material, procurement officials say, may not be appropriate for manufacturing the clear bags needed in certain applications, such as in correctional facilities, hospitals, and some recycling programs.

Solution: When launching a buy-recycled program, purchasers should focus first on buying recycled bags for applications in which color does not matter. When they are ready to expand their efforts, however, they can do the following: First, purchasers can help people understand that if recyclable materials are sorted better-so that pigmented materials are in one stream and nonpigmented materials are in another-the nonpigmented stream can, in fact, be used to create specialty bags. Purchasers also can change specifications for specialty bags to allow for translucent (or hazy) bags instead of those that are perfectly clear. In addition, governments



can help support the development of technology that allows for the removal of ink or other contaminants from waste material.

Barrier TWO: At present, gauge or mil thickness generally is used to specify trash can liners. In an effort to meet performance requirements, bags made with recycled content often exceed the maximum gauge standard or mil thickness and, therefore, do not qualify for purchase.

Solzttion: As mentioned earlier in this report, specifications should be based on performance requirements not design requirements. If specs are rewritten in this manner, recycled content will be allowed.

- ~~ ~


There were several different opinions about the suitability of recycled plastic trash can liners for joint purchasing. One group of administrative purchasers believes they are excellent candidates because government agencies purchase them in large quantities for similar applications. In addition, suitable specifications already exist. Another group of administrative procurement officials posit that they are poor candidates because of potential distribution problems, widely varying use requirements, and other diverse variables, such as size, style, and color preferences.

Parks officials consider liners a flood candidate for joint purchasing. Prior to a final agreement, however, they recommend that (1) use categories be developed to determine what each state uses trash can liners for, and (2) industry and government meet to assure that new specifications will result in bags that will successfully perform their intended end uses.

While purchasing recycled plastic trash can liners in a joint program could reduce costs through larger quantity orders, there are some obstacles that must be addressed. For example, some states have different price preference programs and minimum recycled content standards to which they must adhere. Those might have to be changed in order for a joint purchasing program to work. In addition, joint purchasing may favor larger corporations, thereby stifling the innovative efforts of smaller manufacturers, or worse, driving them out of business. Another potential obstacle is that some manufacturers may have trouble producing large enough quantities of liners with recycled content to fill joint purchase orders.

With regard to joint testing, one group is ready to pursue joint purchasing and, thus, deems a joint testing program unnecessary; another group thinks joint testing would be unproductive; and a third group, composed mostly of parks personnel, believes recycled trash can liners are beyond the testing phase because they already are in use. Certification tests or data, they allow, may be needed to assure users that the liners meet specifications.

PRODUCT 12: TRASH CANS, WASTEBASKETS, PAILS, AND RECYCLING AND BULK CONTAINERS

The products mentioned in the title above are defined in a variety of ways. Some task group members define them as receptacles designed to hold office waste, wet and dry trash, and recyclables. Others used a more expansive definition that includes buckets to hold mops, detergent, and paint. Perhaps the common thread in both definitions is that all products discussed are receptacles used inside and outside that must be able to hold both wet and dry contents.

~



To purchase recycled plastic receptacles, purchasers would like to have certification from an independent or government laboratory that the products are sturdy enough to serve their intended end uses and capable of withstanding wide temperature variations.


Barrier One: Trash cans generally are used in highly visible applications, and purchasers are concerned that those made with recycled content will not be aesthetically pleasing.

Solution: Manufacturers can use a co-extrusion process to hide recycled content in the middle layer of a container; thus, color will be of little or no concern and the visible layer will look identical to other plastic trash cans. In situations where co-extrusion is not taken advantage of, manufacturers can use dark color concentrates to help mask recycled content and provide color consistency throughout the product.

Barrier TWO: At present, there are some situations in which purchasers are required to procure white or yellow trash cans; thus, only a limited amount of recycled content can be used to produce these cans.

Solution: Purchasers and end-users should discuss whether there is a good reason for specieing that trash cans used in these applications be yellow or white. If the color does not affect the product’s performance in any significant way, purchasers should revise the specification to allow for the use of darker colors.

Barrier Three: From past experience, end-users have informed purchasers that shrews and rodents are able to chew through plastic trash containers. Thus, they are not desirable in applications where such vermin are present.

solution: The first course of action is to encourage end-users to control vermin: If the vermin are not there, they cannot chew through recycled plastic or any other kind of container. If the vermin cannot be controlled, end-users should monitor plastic and other containers to determine whether those made with recycled plastic are more susceptible to vermin. If recycled plastic containers are more susceptible, then they should be used only in applications where vermin are not present.

Barrier Four: Any attractive container is subject to being stolen, particularly in urban areas, such as New York City; thus, purchasers are reluctant to invest in nice, recycled plastic containers.

Solution: In areas where theft is a problem, end-users should consider chaining recycled plastic containers to immovable objects or using them only in applications-such as in policed areas-where theft can be minimized.

Barrier Five: There are several unique problems that parks encounter when considering the use of recycled plastic trash containers. First, they often do not use plastic containers along beaches because they are lightweight and tend to blow into the water. Second, very few parks have recycling programs, so they would not purchase enough recycled plastic recycling bins to make a significant difference. Third, most parks currently use metal drums which are much less



expensive than those made with recycled plastic. All of these barriers present problems for parks purchasers trying to implement buy-recycled programs.

Solution: Many of the problems facing parks officials can be addressed easily. For example, recycled plastic trash cans can be anchored so that they do not blow away. Also, even if large quantities cannot be purchased-such as with parks personnel and recycling bins-using even limited numbers of recycled plastic containers will help stimulate the market and acquaint

officials can target the use of recycled containers to those facilities with carry-in/carry-out control programs because the number of containers needed can be minimized; this, in turn, will minimize the cost of using recycled containers in place of metal cans.

people with the performance capabilities of such products. Finally, parks procurement -~ ~


Task group members did not cite any technical barriers that were unique to this product; they did, however, mention the general technical barriers discussed in the first section of the report.


Most task group members agree that recycled plastic trash cans and other containers are flood candidates for joint purchasing efforts because most agencies buy them, use them in similar applications, and have similar specifications. Mop buckets, in particular, are good candidates for joint purchasing, they contend, because size and color are not as important as in other ap pli ca ti ons .

Parks officials had somewhat differing opinions. One faction agrees that recycling containers are Bood candidates for joint purchasing programs but feels much less enthusiastic about trash containers; no reasons were cited to support this opinion. Other parks officials are reluctant to pursue joint purchasing because they are concerned that not enough recycled resin will be available for large purchases.

All task group members acknowledge that there are benefits to joint purchasing. For example, the unit price of the containers will decrease as the size of the order increases. The only limiting factor is that trash container requirements vary between agencies and often are bought in very small orders.

With regard to joint testing, task groups members believe such a program is not necessary. Administrative purchasers are prepared to pursue a joint purchasing program and do not feel additional testing is needed; parks officials agree that testing is not necessary.


Additional Ways in Which Government and Industry Can Encourage the Procurement of Recycled Plastic Goods

Additional Ways in which Government and Industry Can Encoura e the Procurement of Recycled P P astic Goods

During the roundtable discussions, many task group participants recommended ways in which particular organizations could help eliminate major barriers to the purchase of recycled plastic products. What follows is a summary of those recommendations and additional issues that need to be addressed if government and industry are going to effectively expand end-markets for recycled plastic goods.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY

Recommendation One: Disseminate Information. Before purchasers can buy recycled plastic products, they need information from industry on ( 1) what recycled products currently exist, (2) what quantities are available for purchase, (3) the applications in which they can be used, (4) the resins they contain, ( 5 ) the performance characteristics they have, and ( 6 ) the advantages and disadvantages of recycled products over virgin products. Answers to these questions, which should be provided by manufacturers and suppliers, will help purchasers seek recycled products with confidence.

Recommendation Two: Overcome Communication Gaps. There are many ways in which industry can help overcome communication and information gaps between itself and government. For example, it can provide government purchasing officials with detailed performance reports on products that have been, or are currently being, tested or are being used successfully in the field. Industry can also publish a dictionary of industry terms and acronyms and provide it to government purchasers; unless buyers understand industry terminology, they cannot develop practical specifications and make sound purchasing decisions. In addition, industry can develop a list of all organizations, states, and/or universities that have performed tests on recycled plastic products and provide the list to purchasing agencies; absent proof that recycled products can meet their intended end uses, purchasers are not likely to buy them.

Recommendation Three: Market Wisely. When marketing recycled plastic products to government agencies, industry should consider the following suggestions. First, focus efforts on products that fall outside ASTM or AASHTO standards; this will allow governments to buy some recycled products now while waiting for national standards to be changed. Second, identifjr actual buyers and decision makers. Many products are purchased by contractors who bid on particular jobs as well as by government purchasers and both audiences need to be informed about new industry developments. Third, learn which agencies use which products before trying



to sell them. Start by contacting agency personnel to determine which products they buy and how the products will be used; then work with the individuals who are responsible for making procurement decisions and for developing specifications. Do not send brochures blindly to administrative purchasing agents; this is not an effective marketing strategy.

Recommendation Four: Increase Product Exposure. One reason procurement officials have not purchased more recycled plastic products is that they do not know what

For example, industry should provide samples of products at vendor shows. End-users are much more likely to specify items for purchase if they have seen and examined them first-hand. Industry also should introduce specific recycled plastic products to potential buyers through specific agency vendor shows such as those held annually by public works and parks departments.

Recommendation Five: Develop Specifications. There are two ways in which industry can help government purchasers procure more recycled plastic products. First, industry can develop model performance specifications for government purchasing agents to use in developing their own. Performance specifications are difficult for most purchasers to write because they procure so many products and generally have little experience using them. Second, industry can help establish industry/government task forces charged with developing reasonable performance specifications; government representatives can advise task force members on how products are used in the field while industry representatives can advise them about which materials will work and how specifications should be written.

Recommendation Six: Promote Testin, Profirams. Absent proof that recycled plastic products are capable of meeting their intended end uses, government purchasers are not likely to buy them. Therefore, industry must help promote responsible testing programs for the recycled products it produces. I t can help by (1) providing funds for independent third-party testing, ( 2 ) providing samples for field testing, (3) helping one state or agency test similar products and disseminate the results to other states (which reduces testing costs by avoiding duplicated efforts), and (4) developing a program in which developmental testing initiated by manufacturers could be verified through tests run by independent third parties. (Industry should consider involving parks agencies in field testing programs; they are willing and able to run the performance tests necessary to persuade purchasing officials about the capabilities of recycled plastic products.)

Recommendation Seven: Respond to Unique Needs. Many government purchasers must buy specialty products for certain applications. Industry can help government purchasers meet their charge by investing in technology that allows manufacturers to respond better to special government needs. For example, manufactures need to find ways to address end-users’ requirements for products in a variety of colors, particularly those that must be made with light pigments.

products are available. Thus, industry should take steps necessary to increase product visibility. -~

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT

Recommendation One: Identih Appropriate Purchasers. Often, industry’s efforts to promote their products fail because they do not contact the appropriate purchasers. Government can help industry by identifling the correct end-users and purchasers of products made with recycled plastic. Doing so will ( 1 ) help maximize the procurement of recycled products, ( 2 ) help industry identify which products industry should promote first, and (3) provide a stimulus for joint pilot programs so that products can be tested.

Recommendation Two: Test Performance. Once industry completes developmental and laboratory testing on recycled plastic products, government purchasers should initiate performance testing. If the performance test results show that a recycled product works well in



a particular application, government purchasers should then share the findings with their counterparts in other states.

Recommendation Three: Standardize Legislation. It is critical that governments standardize legislation because it is very difficult for industry to meet specifications that differ in percent of recycled content required and type of recycled content (post-consumer or post-industrial) needed. If governments can work together to develop common legislation, it will be much easier for industry to produce large quantities of recycled products at more reasonable prices.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATIONS Recommendation One: ChanJe Existin8 Specifications. Industry trade associations should approach ASTM and AASHTO and request that they revise their specifications to allow for recycled content. At present, they do not allow for recycled content in many products; because state governments and other agencies rely on these standards, they must be changed if government buy-recycled programs are going to succeed.

Recommendation Two: Support Testin,. Industry trade associations should provide funds to universities that are working in cooperation with state transportation departments to test new recycled plastic products. Another way to approach this issue is to identify the recycled plastic products with the highest priority to DOTS and work to include them in existing research programs, such as those run by the New England Consortium (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the New England State Universities program) and the Region 1 Testing Program (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Federal Highway Administration).

Recommendation Three: Increase Product Exposure. There are two ways in which industry trade associations can help increase the exposure of recycled plastic products. First, it can develop and send samples of recycled plastic products to conferences that reach purchasers in appropriate government agencies. Second, it can initiate a study to help states identify potential recycled plastic products that are used in large quantities. Joint purchasing and testing projects take a great deal of time and will not be started unless they can have a significant impact on expanding recycled plastic markets. A review of annual quantities according to commodity codes is one approach industry trade associations could take to determine which products are likely candidates for joint programs.

In addition to making broad recommendations, task group participants raised some interesting issues that must be considered when trying to promote the procurement of recycled plastic products. Those issues-which arise frequently in the purchasing community-are outlined below. (It is important to note that several of the issues were voiced by individuals; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all participants.)

ADDITIONAL ISSUES RAISED

Joint Purchasin,g: It might be premature to initiate joint purchasing projects at this time. Recycled plastic products are relatively new and government purchasing agents still are learning about them. Perhaps governments should work together to develop common standards for recycled products and common definitions for recycled content, while industry gears up to produce high-quality recycled products in sufficient quantities.

Joint Testin, It is unlikely that state governments will rely on test data generated from testing programs in other states. Thus, joint testing programs must be cooperative efforts in



which the involved parties agree ahead of time on the performance standards that the products must meet, the tests that will be conducted, and the laboratories that will be used.

Legislative Initiatives: State legislatures should set general recycling goals (such as 30 percent of all products procured by the state must contain recycled content) and let purchasing agents determine which recycled products at what cost should be procured to meet the goal.

Procurin. Recycled Products: Government purchasing agents must remain open-minded about recycled products, even if they have had previous negative experience. As technology improves and industry better understands the characteristics of recycled plastic material, the quality of recycled plastic products will improve. Also, as in any market, quality varies greatly from manuficturer to manufacturer. This is one reason government purchasers should encourage testing programs prior to buying large quantities of recycled products.

Minimm-Content Standards: A dilemma exists. If state governments are to implement price preference programs or consider life-cycle costing, they must establish minimum-content standards for post-consumer plastic so they can guarantee that the extra dollars spent are helping the state achieve some measurable waste reduction or recycling goal. Industry, however, has requested repeatedly that states not set minimum-content standards because ( 1) states lack the expertise necessary to determine how much recycled material can be used in particular applications, and ( 2 ) manufacturers cannot produce a low-cost product if they must tailor it to meet a variety of minimum-content standards. This dilemma must be resolved if meaningful buy- recycled programs are going to be put in place.

Follow- Up Meetin.s: Meetings that address solutions to purchasing barriers should include individuals responsible for changing specifications and those with technical expertise. All states should be invited to work together so that agency personnel can work with their counterparts throughout the region.

~~ ~ ~


Next Steps for Increasing the Procurement of Specific Recycled Plastic Products

Next Ste s for Increasing the Procurement of Speci E c Recycled Plastic Products

During the initial roundtable discussions, it became increasingly clear that testing recycled plastic products to determine their performance capabilities was the logical “next step” in the effort to increase the procurement of recycled plastic products: All government purchasers who participated in the roundtable discussions said they needed proof that products made with recycled materials could perform as well as those made with virgin materials. Therefore, in November 1991, the plastics industry invited participants from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic roundtables to return for a one-day follow-up session at which they could begin to develop common testing procedures and specifications for the recycled plastic products of their choice.

From a preliminary list of products, participants in the follow-up session (all of whom are identified in the body of the following text and in Appendix D) selected six recycled plastic goods for discussion: bulkheads, partitions for showers and toilets, picnic tables, traffic cones, traffic barrels, and trash can liners. Two of the selected products-bulkheads and traffic barrels-were not covered in the initial roundtable sessions but were chosen for this meeting because (1) there are problems with the traditional materials used to make these products and (2) the potential markets for these recycled products could be substantial.

Similar to the first task groups, the working groups in the follow-up session were staffed by facilitators who kept the discussion focussed and reported the results; the participants, however, were responsible for bringing all pertinent information, providing ideas, and drawing appropriate conclusions. A representative from an independent testing laboratory also was on-hand to assist working groups with technical testing information.

Following is a summary of the results of the working group sessions organized by product. The information in this section of the report is much more technical and detailed than the information uncovered during the initial roundtable discussions; therefore, i t may be more helpful for procurement officials who are in the process of developing testing procedures and specifications for the products discussed than for purchasers who are just beginning to explore buying recycled products.



BULKHEADS

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

Jim Barr, Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks

Gene Comoss, Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks

Brent Edmonds, New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development

Nancy VandenBerg, Facilitator

OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS

Working group members defined bulkheads as products used to stabilize lake, ocean, and river shorelines; they also are used in marinas to support floating docks or serve as fixed or floating docks themselves. Usually, bulkheads are made of pressure treated lumber, steel, and/or concrete; some manufacturers, however, have begun to explore making them with recycled plastic because it appears that the potential market for recycled bulkheads may be vast.

The objective of the working group discussin. bulkheads was to develop common design factors for the product as well as common testing procedures. With regard to the former, working group members learned quickly that common design factors could not be developed because different governments use bulkheads in different applications, and thus require different designs. For example, New Hampshire needs floating bulkheads along its ocean coast line, whereas Pennsylvania needs bulkheads to line lakes and rivers and to support floating docks. The group did agree, however, that in general

floating bulkheads should be 8-10 feet wide, 20-30 feet long, be able to be moored in place, and have an optimum life of 10 years; and

vertical Land-based bdkheads should be 2-5 feet wide, 100 feet long, and have an optimum life of 30 years.

Because common design factors could not be determined, the working group spent the remainder of the session developing the following information about testing recycled plastic bulkheads.

TESTING Working group members agreed that approaches to laboratory and field testing would be similar for both floating and vertical land-based bulkheads. The group focussed its discussion, though, on the latter because stresses on verticai land-based bulkheads would not be as severe as those on bulkheads used to support structures.

Test Data Needed

It was determined by working group members that three types of test data are needed prior to approving recycled plastic lumber for use in bulkheads.



Lakratory Tests: Laboratory test data from the manuficturers is needed on the product’s

0 tensile strength,

0 compressive strength,

0 shear strength,

0 impact strength,

0 hardness,

0 modulus of elasticity,

0 resistance to creep,

0 flammability.

0 resistance to ultraviolet light degradation, and

Base Line Data Tern: Base line data from accelerated freeze-thaw cycle testing is needed to determine

0 the expected lifetime of the bulkhead, and

the ability of the bulkhead over its lifetime to maintain the properties 0

identified in laboratory tests.

Field Tests: Field tests (including visual monitoring and laboratory tests of field samples over time) are needed to analyze

0 deformation, or changes in the designed shape of the bulkhead that indicate

wear or failure of material where hardware is attached,

failure of the material, 0

0 uncomfortable surface temperatures,

0 impact damage,

slippery surfaces due to wear,

corrosion due to salt air or water, and

the bulkhead’s ability to maintain properties identified in laboratory tests

0

0

0

over time.

[NOTE: Field tests should be conducted only after base line test data indicates that recycled plastic material is acceptable in this application.]

Testing Procedures

Two types of tests should be conducted over a 3-5-year period.

Vimal Monitoring: Visual monitoring of recycled plastic bulkheads should be conducted once during each season (four times per year) and should



0 measure any vertical deformation (the same points, spaced approximately

measure any horizontal deformation (a string should be used along the

note any nicks, dents, splinters or other flaws, note whether the surface is more slippery, -~ ~

note the temperature of the surface on hot and cold days to determine if i t

note whether holes for bolts necessary to attach hardware show chips or

10 feet apart, should be measured each time to determine if they remain aligned),

entire horizontal top edge to determine if it remains aligned), 0

0

0

0

is uncomfortable for people to touch, and

other wear. 0

Laboratory Tests: Laboratory testing should be conducted once when the bulkhead is installed and once every year thereafter on test specimens taken from the bulkhead in use. Changes from initial values should be recorded for

0 tensile strength,

0 compressive strength,

0 shear strength,

0 impact strength,

0 hardness,

0 modulus of elasticity,

0 creep,

0 ultraviolet light degradation, and

0 flammability.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Land-Supported Bulkheads: Short duration impacts (that is, from waves, ice, or boats) . will be absorbed by the land behind the bulkhead facing. Pressure from the land against the

bulkhead facing will be more severe and may slowly push lumber out of the original vertical alignment. When the facing material is pushed out of vertical alignment, the engineering design factors will change. Any bowing or slanting will indicate insufficient resistance and potential failure of the structure.

Floating Bulkheads: In floating structures there will be no land to buffer short duration impacts; therefore, the material itself will have to absorb the full impact. Fractures due to brittleness or bowing due to inherent weaknesses in material properties could be a problem.

Size and Profile of the Plastic Lumber: Differe~t plastic lumber manufacturers have different size and shape limitations for their products. Prior to designing a bulkhead, suppliers should be queried about available dimensions. Supply limitations dictated by one design could be eliminated if other designs are used.

Definition of Recycled Plastic Lumber: There are many types of recycled plastic lumber on the market: Some lumber is made entirely from industrial scrap, other types are made with a combination of pre- and post-consumer plastic, and at least one other is made

~~

~~



from a combination of recycled resin and wood particles. The types of recycled plastic lumber selected for testing should take into consideration the types of recycled plastic most in need of market expansion. A requirement for a stated percentage of post-consumer content should be considered as a design factor.

Problems with Conventional Materials: At present, a substitute to conventional materials used to build bulkheads is being sought. Concerns have been raised about the use and disposal of pressure treated lumber, and concrete is expensive and heavy concrete pouring equipment cannot always reach the sites where bulkheads are needed. If recycled plastic is going to be used as a substitute for these materials, however, it must perform at least as well as the new floating concrete bulkheads in Rhode Island which fared very well in the 1991 nor’easter storms that destroyed other coastal facilities.

REMAINING STEPS T O BE TAKEN 1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

Determine optimum ASTM or other test methods; there are many kinds of tests that measure the same properties and it would be prudent for states to use the most cost- effective testing method.

Determine the optimum values or minimum acceptable values for ASTM or other test procedures. As optimum values are a function of variable bulkhead designs, these must be chosen for a range of designs or for a specific field test design. Values should not be based on wood or concrete values, they should be based on the demands of the recycled lumber in the test application.

Survey recycled plastic lumber suppliers to determine the availability of recycled plastic lumber in desired dimensions and the quantities they can make available, free of charge, for testing purposes.

Build bulkheads with recycled plastic lumber so there is something to test.

Monitor the recycled plastic bulkheads built according to the test procedures suggested above.

Publish test results so purchasers have the information they need to procure them.

QUANTITIES PURCHASED BY PARTICIPANTS

To better assess the potential market for bulkheads made with recycled plastic, working group members were asked to provide information on the quantities of bulkheads they procure. Neither government participating in the working group had good estimates of annual bulkhead demand. Pennsylvania, which uses land-based bulkheads, reported that it has 114 parks and estimated that it would use tens of thousands of linear bulkhead feet per year. New Hampshire currently has a critical need for floating bulkheads to protect its ocean coastline and plans to devote scarce resources to purchasing them; inland bulkheads will be considered only after the more critical need is addressed.



PARTITIONS FOR SHOWERS AND TOILETS


Stephen Dyer, New York State Office of Parks

Frank Hrubes, New York City Department of Transportation

Rick Nikitas, Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks

Patricia Enneking, Facilitator


The working group did not define partitions, but generally they are referred to as the panels used to separate shower and toilet stalls. The group determined that the materials most commonly used to build partitions are enameled metal, stainless steel, laminated plastic over phenolic or fiberboard cores, and solid high-density polyethylene. Plywood, porcelain, and marble also have been used to make partitions.

While recycled plastic partitions have been installed successfully in a number of New York State park facilities and in seven New York City transportation facilities, i t was promptly noted that recycled plastic partitions cost more than those made with more traditional materials. Absent a method to prove that recycled plastic partitions cost less over time (due to lower maintenance and replacement costs), the group believed that recycled plastic partitions would not be used to replace those made of more traditional materials.

Therefore, the groap, as its objective, designed a methodology to evaluate the lifetime peflormance of recycled partitions i n the field. Group members agreed that simple visual monitoring and the recording of pertinent information were the two things needed to provide the data upon which proof of life-cycle performance could be based. With performance data in hand, agencies then would have the means to justify higher initial purchase costs for recycled plastic partitions.

Frank Hrubes developed an initial check list (see Appendix E) and offered to monitor the plastic partitions at one of New York City’s transportation facilities. Stephen Dyer offered staff support to monitor facilities in New York State parks. Because more than one type of partition is in use in some parks, Mr. Dryer also offered to compare the performance of recycled plastic partitions with other types of partitions. Jim Barr, with the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks, volunteered to collect and compile monthly reports fiom all parks staff who agreed to monitor the performance of partitions. The plastics industry agreed to prepare a final report showing the test results and to distribute it to all governments participating in the roundtable discussion.

~



TESTING

Test Data Needed

Working group members agreed that to purchase recycled plastic toilet and shower partitions (and the hardware necessary to install and care for them), they must have test data proving that the partitions would

0 meet New York State Class A fire ratings or related building code requirements,

resist impacts, such as kicks and hammer blows,

resist vandalism, such as writing, gouging, and scraping,

resist changes due to high and low temperatures,

resist odor and moisture absorption,

not react to or with standard cleaning products,

resist ultraviolet light degradation,

resist cracking, breaking, and warping, and

accept and hold hardware, such as brackets and hangers, without affecting the stability of the partition sheets.

Testing Concerns

Acceptable recycled plastic shower and toilet partitions had already been installed by all of the jurisdictions represented in the working group, therefore, testing concerns were not of paramount importance. The concerns the purchasers and end-users did have prior to installation related mostly to longevity and maintenance. Specifically, the group had concerns about

0 warping,

0 surface dents, scratches, or gouges,

unremovable graffiti, either scratched or written,

reaction to standard cleaning compounds,

loose hardware due to partition material,

separation where partition material was joined together,

chalking or other evidence of ultraviolet light degradation, and

adverse reaction to freeze/thaw cycles.

e

0

0

0

0

0

Testing Procedures

Two types of testing procedures were discussed: laboratory tests to determine properties such as density, tensile strength, and rate of burn; and visual inspections to determine ease of maintenance, resistance to vandalism, and ability to hold hardware. Since some laboratory tests are already conducted by manufacturers, the group decided unanimously to focus on the less technical but equally important visual inspections. At a minimum, they recommended that monthly visual inspections of partitions already in place be conducted over a six-month



period. The group suggested that the inspections should monitor those characteristics listed under “Testing Concerns.”

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Competition: Governments commonly require at least three bidders for adequate competition. Depending on the government in question, this can mean three separate manufacturers or three separate distributors offering products made by one or more manufacturer.

Maintenance: Alternatives to solid-core recycled plastic partitions require frequent painting to resist rust, conceal scratches, and/or remove graffiti. Repainting is infrequent because both the paint and the labor are expensive.

Common Specification: Specifications should include the performance requirements listed under “testing concerns,” as well as a requirement or allowance for recycled plastic content based on the ASTM definitions of recycled plastic. The specifications should not include criteria that might limit the use of recycled plastic, such as color or thickness standards. For example, New York State was unsuccessful in securing recycled plastic partitions because they specified 1/2-inch-thick partition materials. This eliminated partitions made with recycled plastic because they generally are at least one-inch thick.

REMAINING STEPS TO BE TAKEN

1. Circulate the checklist in Appendix E to working group participants and other interested government personnel.

Determine who will coordinate the visual inspection results.

Determine whether monthly inspections should be continued for a longer period of time.

Determine what the cost-effective maintenance and lifetime costs are with recycled plastic in comparison to alternative partition materials.

Send monthly checklist results to the plastics industry and help to prepare the report when the test period is over.

Distribute the report to all participants and other interested parties.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Many of the regional parks replaced or originally installed shower and toilet partitions in the 1960s, thus, most are now due for replacement. None of the participants, however, had a statewide or citywide count of the replacement demand.



PICNIC TABLES


Marcy Beitel, Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission

John Ciaffone, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

Alicia Connaughton, Cranston, Rhode Island, Purchasing Division

William Huntoon, New York State Ofice of Parks

Albert Kenney, Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks

Todd Lafleur, Massachusetts Division of Forest and Parks


Working group members defined picnic tables as standard tables with affixed benches intended for outdoor use. Usually, they are made with materials, such as concrete, wood, and steel. Picnic tables are purchased by all state and city parks agencies as well as departments of transportation.

The objective of the group discussing picnic tables was to develop common testing procedures to determine actual maintenance requirements, the workability of raw materials, and the effects of average wear and tear on tables under normal park use. Specifications and common design elements were not specifically addressed because (1) specifications for picnic tables are not used by anyone in the group (tables are ordered directly from catalogues or built by parks personnel), and (2) a single table design could not fit all picnic table applications. The group did, however, discuss some general criteria that might be considered when a common specification is written.

Over the course of the day, working group members were successful in developing comprehensive testing criteria and extensive testing procedures for recycled plastic picnic tables. Once the criteria and procedures were identified, group members volunteered to perform tests on products currently in use, on order, or imminently deliverable as well as on any additional products provided by companies desiring to participate in the testing process. Following is an explanation of the tests that working group members agreed to perform.

TESTING

Test Data Needed

Working group members decided that in order to procure recycled plastic picnic tables, they must have proof from tests that the tables can

0 resist fading,

0 resist graffiti,

0 resist insect damage,



resist mold and rot,

be used in climate extremes,

maintain structural integrity,

be recycled or easily disposed of at end of their lives,

be easily maintained,

be movable by park staff and by users in certain areas,

be immovable in certain installations, and

support three 200-pound adults on a single side without flipping.

Testing Concerns

Durability, maintenance, comparative costs, and life-cycle costs all are of concern to purchasers considering the use of recycled plastic picnic tables. Standard characteristics that must be tested for include

e tensile strength,

e warping,

e ease of maintenance,

e reaction in high and low temperatures,

reaction when hot grills are used on table tops,

workability of raw material, and

e

e resistance to fading,

e repairability.

e

Testing Procedures

Working group members recommended three types of testing procedures: one-time tests to be performed by designated agencies, weekly tests to be performed by all participants, and third- party laboratory tests to be performed by independent laboratories. Following is a more detailed explanation of the recommended tests.

One-Time Tests: The following one-time tests will be performed on all types of tables available.

Grill Tests: Testing agencies will place standard charcoal hibachis on the picnic table top and on its benches and operate the grill for a minimum of two hours. The tables will be examined closely before, during, and after the test to determine if structural changes, singing, burning, and/or possible hazards occur.

Construction Tests: Testing agencies will construct a table from raw plastic lumber. They will note tools and fasteners needed for construction, drillability, presence or absence of voids in the raw material, total time taken for assembly, costs associated with construction, and any other factors relative to the efficiency or economics of construction. (New York City, which currently constructs all of its benches and tables, agreed to perform the construction test on raw plastic lumber from any manufacturer willing to supply the material.)

~



Weekly Tests: These tests, which are to be conducted according to the check list in Appendix F, will be run weekly for one full year, beginning in January 1992 and running through January 1993. Recycled plastic picnic tables will be placed alongside conventional wooden tables, which will serve as controls and be monitored identically. Weekly monitoring will include keeping records on

0 the type of table being tested,

the location of the table,

temperatures and general weather conditions,

the frequency with which the tables are used, and

any defects noted during visual inspections.

0

0

0

0

The following specific tests will be conducted weekly.

Roll Tests: Testing agencies will roll a table from its legs onto its top and then back to the standard upright position. They will check leg bottoms and under-surfaces for rot, mold, and mildew as well as any insect or other damage. They also will check for stiffness and structural stability (the product should not twist out of shape or rock because its legs have become uneven) and record the results.

Impact Tests: Testing agencies will drop an 8" x 16" cinder block from a height of two feet onto the end of the table top and onto the center of the bench. They will record any resulting scratches, breaks, cracks, dents, and so forth. (A cinder block, which weighs about 25 pounds, is equal to the average weight of a case of canned picnic beverages.)

Color Fade Tests: Testing agencies will compare the color of a control piece of recycled plastic lumber to'the lumber used in the field and record any differences.

Edge Tests: Testing agencies will place a straight edge on the table top and bench top immediately after construction and once per week thereafter. They will record any incidence of warpage or unevenness.

Usage Tests: Testing agencies will monitor the usage of the different table types in different weather conditions. For example, do people sit as frequently on plastic tables and benches as they do on wooden counterparts when both are placed in the hot sun?

Third Pam Laboratory Testing: Working group members agreed that manufacturers or an industry group should provide a third party with plastic lumber materials so that the third party can perform laboratory tests that cannot be performed in the field.

Laboratory tests should include some measure of a recycled plastic picnic tables'

0 structural integrity over its extended life and in repeated climate changes,

tensile strength (of the raw material as well as the finished product) under

recyclability limits (to determine whether recycled plastic can be recycled

0

load, and

0

indefinitely).



ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Financial Assistance from Industry: Participants each had or would soon have sample picnic tables. In all cases, the recycled plastic tables were more expensive than wooden counterparts. Free or subsidized samples of recycled plastic picnic tables are needed for testing purposes.

Life-Cycle Cost Comparisons: Users need data to assure that the higher initial cost of plastic tables will be outweighed by lower maintenance and replacement costs.

Management of the Test Data: Participants were concerned about assembling, combining, and disseminating the test results. As has been mentioned throughout the report, all purchasers need testing information not just those directly involved in the testing process.

Replacement: With conventional wooden tables, worn or damaged boards are simply replaced. Will dimensional recycled plastic lumber of the right size and shape be available for replacements or use on existing tables with conventional frame supports? Will the right dimensions be available for park bench slats that are built on concrete or other supports?

Reaction to Chlorine: Does lumber made with recycled plastic lumber react in any way to the highly chlorinated water used in pools? Plastic tables are conceptually attractive for use around pools because the dampness, which causes wood to rot and paint to peel, increases maintenance costs for conventional picnic tables and benches.

Developing a Common Specification: Although working group members did not develop a common specification, they did identifl some criteria that should be considered, including (1) stability (a table should not flip over when one side is supporting three 200- pound adults), (2) availability of the product in a variety of lengths and shapes, (3) table top designs that will accommodate wheelchairs, (4) service support and warranties in case replacement parts are needed, (5) ease of disposal once a table is no longer useable, ( 6 ) delivery terms that are acceptable given differences in governments, (7) complete instruction kits and all parts and necessary hardware for those who assemble their own tables, and (8) the availability of raw materials in appropriate dimensions for products specially designed and built by end-users.

REMAINING STEPS To BE TAKEN

1. Circulate the checklist in Appendix F for use in testing procedures and distribute it to those outside the testing process who might be interested in conducting their own tests.

2. Encourage other jurisdictions currently using benches and tables made from recycled plastic to join the testing program.

Contact all known manufacturers of plastic lumber picnic tables and benches to determine whether they will provide tables to be used in the testing procedures.

Perform the tests described above and send results to the plastics industry for evaluation.

Help the plastics industry prepare the report on the test results.

Distribute the test results to agencies and manufacturers who participated in the testing program.

Develop a common specification for picnic tables made with recycled plastic lumber.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.




To better assess the potential market for recycled plastic picnic tables, working group members were asked to provide information on the quantities of tables they procure. Only one jurisdiction, New York City, provided such data for conventional picnic tables and benches: In fiscal year 1991, they purchased 400 tables at a cost of $249.50 each and 25,015 bench slats at a total cost of $270,658.25.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Following is information on where the recycled plastic picnic tables that are being tested are located.

Massachusetts: Four Rivenite tables and one Plastic Lumber Company table were donated to the state’s parks department and currently are in use. The Rivenite tables are placed in the Berkshires, Harbor Island, and in suburban areas. The Plastic Lumber Company table is on Cape Cod.

New Tor& City: The Department of Parks and Recreation is awaiting delivery of two Plastic Lumber Company tables. One will be placed in an area that receives heavy day use; the other will be placed in an outer borough park.

New Tor& State: The Office of Parks purchased and recently received eight Plastic Lumber Company tables. One table will be used in a marine area where fish are cleaned, another will be placed at Niagara Falls. Several other tables will be used in areas that receive heavy day use, and the remaining tables likely will be used in the sun at Jones Beach.

Rhode Island: The city of Cranston recently requested a Rivenite table. Upon delivery it will be placed at Cranston City Hall.

TRAFFIC CONES


Charles Dougan, Connecticut Department of Transportation

David Geanakakis, Massachusetts Department of Procurement

Francis Manning, Rhode Island Department of Transportation

Stephen Rixford, Vermont Division of Purchasing

Mara Cherkasky, Facilitator


The objective of the group discussing wafic comes was to develop commom testing procedures and common specifications for cones made with recycled plastic. The group accomplished both objectives: It developed critical test procedures and then included them in a common specification, which is based on the existing Connecticut specification. Language on



reflectorization also was adopted from the FHA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and from the traffic cone specification used in Maine.

TESTING

Test Data Needed

Before purchasers can procure recycled plastic traffic cones, they must have test data proving that they can

0

0

0

0

e

0

0

delineate,

reflect light (so that they are visible night and day),

remain in place,

not sag or break in hot or cold temperatures,

be resilient,

not become a hazardous projectile when struck, and

separate easily when stacked.

Testing Concerns

The principal characteristics about which purchasers are concerned are 0 tensile strength,

0 bending in cold temperatures.

0 performance in high and low temperatures, and

Testing Procedures

The working group included necessary testing procedures in the specification below; please refer to that section for information on specific tests that should be conducted to determine the performance capabilities of recycled plastic traffic cones. The group did state, however, that, when available, standard test procedures, such as those developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), should be used if governments want to have their specifications enforced.

COMMON SPECIFICATION

The following specification for recycled plastic traffic cones, which was developed by the working group, was adapted ifom the Connecticut Bureau of Purchases specification j#OOO7- 050-C-352c) and covers fluorescent plastic traffic cones designed for daytime and/or nighttime delineation.

~~



Applicable Specifications

The following existing specifications, of the issue in effect on the date of invitation for bids, form one part of the working group’s specification:

MUTCD, Section 6C-3, Cone Design3

ASTM D412 Standard Test Methods for Rubber Properties in Tension4

ASTM D746 Standard Test Method for Brittleness Temperature of Plastics 0

and Elastomers by Impact Federal LS-300b

Requirements

Material: The cone may be constructed with up to 100% recycled PVC or other recycled plastic provided the finished product meets all other characteristics of this specification. The supplier shall provide a certification of recycled content if required in the bid proposal.

Fabrication: The conical section shall be fabricated of either a single homogenous or an inner layer and an outer layer fused into one piece. If an inner and an outer layer is used, both 2ayer-J shall be pigment impregnated (not painted).

Physical Characteristics

Height, Weight, and Base: The height of the cone shall be between 18 and 28 inches; the weight shall be 3, 7, or 14 pounds; and the base shall be between 11 and 14 square inches as specified in the bid proposal.

Color: The color of the cone shall be fluorescent orange with adequate stabilization to prevent color degradation when exposed for at least 6 months to outdoor weathering.

Reflectorization: Proper reflectorization shall be provided by a minimum of a 6-inch- wide white band placed a minimum of 3 inches, but no more than 4 inches, from the top of the traffic cone. When 28-inch or larger cones are used, an additional 4-inch white band shall be spaced a minimum of 2 inches below the 6-inch band. Reflectorization materials shall meet Federal Specification LS-300b, Type I1 Durability M or ultraviolet stabilized vinyl plastic.

Workmanship: Traffic cones shall exhibit good workmanship and shall be free of burns, discoloration, streaks, runs, air bubbles, and other defects which will affect appearance and serviceability.

3Copies of this specification can be obtained from the FHA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, American Traffk Safety Services Association, ATSSA Building, 5440 Jefferson Davis Highway, Fredericksburg, VA, 22407. 4Copies of ASTM standards can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.



Sampling

Bid Samples: On or prior to bid opening, all bidders shall submit non-returnable cones for testing. Complete specifications shall accompany the samples.

Delivery Samples: Random samples of cones may be selected from deliveries by the [government inspecting agency]. These samples shall be carefully examined and tested to determine compliance with the specification. If independent laboratories are used for testing, the contractor shall be responsible for reasonable testing fees.

Test Procedures

Tensile Strength Te&: The cones shall exhibit a minimum tensile strength of 1,200 pounds per square inch when tested to ASTM D412.

Tests for Temperatwe Stability in Heat: The cone shall retain its shape, be self- supporting, and show no appreciable slump or sag when held at a temperature of 150°F for four hours.

Tests fur Temperatwe Stability in Cold: The cone material shall not exhibit failure at 0°F when tested to ASTM D746.

Bend Tests: The cone shall be placed in a cold cabinet at 15°F. M e r one hour, the cone shall be removed from the cabinet and placed in an upright position on a level surface. The cone shall be immediately folded near the middle of its vertical height so that the upper portion touches the surface on which the base is resting. When released, the cone shall return to its original vertical position; there shall be no evidence of cracking, splitting, or breaking.

Preparation for Delivery

Packing: Cones shall be packed in accordance with prevailing commercial practices in such a manner that will insure delivery in good condition.

Stacking: Cones produced by the same manufacturer and with the same model number shall, when stacked, nest neatly and uniformly down to the base of the cone below. Individual cones shall separate easily from a stack.

Marking: The manuficturer’s name shall appear on the underside of the base of each cone. Marks to identify the user shall appear on each cone as described in the bid proposal.

~

This specification shall, until revised or rescinded, apply to each future purchase and contract for the commodity described herein.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Certification and Standard Laboratory Tests: Common purchasing practices rely on certifications that the product meets the specification. Certifications, in turn, must be verifiable by standard tests or replicable test practices. Tests that cannot be verified do not stand up in court challenges. However, when several states agree to use a common test procedure, it is more apt to be accepted even if no standard test exists.



Some simple and practical checks on performance criteria are difficult to put in standard specifications because standard tests do not exist. They are useful, however, to determine whether more expensive tests are warranted.

Recovery Angle: Cones must be constantly reset if they fill over in the wind or in slipstreams behind heavy vehicles. Some detailed specifications measure the recovery angle or the ability of a cone to return to vertical after it has been tipped. Standard recovery angles are 50 degrees for a 7-pound cone and 70 degrees for a 10-pound cone. The heavier the cone, the better it resists tipping over, but higher weights also increase costs. There is no standard ASTM or AASHTO test for traffic cones.

Resilience: Stiff or brittle cones are likely to fly further when hit. Softer, more flexible cones bounce and are less apt to become projectiles. The ASTM D412 tensile strength test standard addresses stiffness and resilience.

Impact Resistance: The behavior of cones when hit is difficult to predict because the types of vehicle impacts are so varied. It cannot be tested.

Identification: Theft of cones is commonplace. Many jurisdictions require that a mark identifying the owner appear on each cone.

Reflective Material: Cones are expected to reflect light at night. Reflective sheeting is glued or otherwise applied to the cones. The Federal Specification LS-300b defines required properties. The MUTCD requirements state where reflective material should be placed but not how it should perform.

Color: Standard color chips are frequently used by some jurisdictions. ‘Safety orange’ and ‘highway orange’ as specified by the FHA were mentioned. Language is needed to assure that color does not degrade when exposed to outdoor weathering.

REMAINING STEPS T O BE TAREN

1. Select a diagram of a traffic cone from an existing specification. The State of New Jersey has a simple diagram that shows the MUTCD requirements for reflectorization.

Introduce the specification to the NASHTO test program.

Disseminate the specification throughout the region and encourage its use.

Determine the costs of the tests and whether they can be conducted inexpensively in- house or must be conducted by third-party laboratories at the buyer’s or seller’s expense.

2.

3. 4.


To better‘ assess the potential market for traffic cones made with recycled plastic, working group members were asked to provide information on the quantities of traffic cones they procure. Only two participants provided such estimates: The Massachusetts Department of Procurement buys up to 1,000 cones every three months, and the Vermont Division of Purchasing buys approximately 800 cones each year.



TRAFFIC BARRELS

WORKlrNG GROUP MEMBERS

The group that discussed traffic cones (Charles Dougan, David Geanakakis, Francis Manning, Stephen Rixford, and Mara Cherkasky) also addressed traffic barrels.

OBmCTIVES AND RESULTS

The working group defined traffic barrels or drums as temporary visual and physical barriers designed to divert traffic. Traditionally, traffic barrels have been made of metal; however, metal now is being replaced by various polyethylene resins. To date, recycled resin is rarely, if ever, used.

The objective of the workinggroup disctmirtg tvaf ic barrels was to tvy to develop common test procedzwes and specifications for barrels made with recycled plastic. While trying to complete its objective, the group agreed that requirements for traffic barrels were very similar to those for traffic cones; thus, similar test criteria was developed.

The group decided that a common specification for traffic barrels could be adapted from the Connecticut specification for traffic cones but, due to time limitations, an actual specification was not written.

TESTING

While traffic cones commonly are made with polyvinyl chloride or rubber, traffic barrels generally are blow-molded in a variety of shapes from a variety of different polyethylene resins. The following testing procedures should be evaluated with polyethylene characteristics in mind.

Test Data Needed

To purchase traffic barrels made with recycled resins, purchasers must have test data showing that the barrels

0 delineate,

0 reflect light (so that they are visible night and day),

do not sag or break in hot or cold temperatures,

do not become a hazardous projectile when struck,

separate easily when stacked, and do not damage reflectorized material when stacked.

0

0 are resilient,

0

0

0



Testing Concerns

The principal performance characteristics of concern to purchasers are 0 tensile strength,

0 impact resistance,

0 performance in high and low temperatures,

resistance to color fading, and

resistance to ultraviolet light degradation.

0

0

Testing Procedures

Tensile Stren.b Tests: Traffic barrels shall exhibit a minimum tensile strength of 1,200 pounds per square inch when tested to ASTM D412.

Tests for Temperatwe Stability in Heat: Traffic barrels shall retain their shape, be self-supporting, and show no appreciable slump or sag when held at a temperature of 150°F for four hours.

Tests for Temperatwe Stability in Cold: Traffic barrel material shall not exhibit failure at 0°F when tested to ASTM D746.

Impact Resistance Tests: Not determined.

Tests for Resistance to Color Pading: Not determined.

Test for Resistance to Ultraviolet Light Degradation: Not determined.


1. Initially, include language to encourage the use of recycled plastic in existing bid documents.

Develop a common specification for traffic barrels and disseminate it throughout the region.

Take steps necessary to ensure that the specification is used in the region.

Determine the costs of the recommended tests and decide whether they can be conducted inexpensively in-house or must be conducted by third-party laboratories at the buyer’s or seller’s expense.

2.

3. 4.


As with cones, the predominant amount of traffic barrels are purchased by contractors, not government procurement officers. Thus, only one participant had an estimate of demand: The Vermont Division of Purchasing buys about 465 barrels each year.



TRASH CAN LINERS


Ted Feraci, Connecticut Bureau of Purchases

Francis Gardner, New Hampshire Bureau of Purchase & Property

Ken Johnson, New York City Division of Municipal Supplies

Carla Lallatin, New York City Procurement Policy Board

Peter Schalk, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

Linda Headley, Facilitator


Working group members discussed three types of trash can liners: (1) general all-purpose utility liners used in office, kitchen, and laboratory waste baskets; ( 2 ) larger indoor general use liners used to hold trash in cleaners’ carts and in other janitorial applications; and (3) outdoor heavy-duty liners used by parks, sanitation, and transportation departments to hold litter, sticks, glass, and other kinds of waste.

Throztghout the working session, task groztp members fztlfiled their objective by identifying common pellfomance standards for trash can Liners, selecting common test procedures, and agreeing to the~eneral content of a common specification. Working group members also developed wording to encourage the use of recycled plastic; the wording includes several stipulations to help guarantee that recycled content is, in fact, used to produce the product. The group also agreed in general terms to a common specification for the packaging and delivery of trash can liners. Well beyond expectations, the group provided evaluation criteria to ensure that recycled plastic trash can liners (or any other recycled plastic product) are made with the most recycled content possible for a reasonable price.

TESTING

Test Data Needed

Members agreed that to purchase a trash can liner made with recycled content it must 0 be leak-proof,

0 stand up in use,

0 be capable of containing a stated load,

e be relatively resistant to puncture, and 0 not zipper (propagate tears) when punctured.



Testing Concerns

According to working group participants, the principal characteristics to test for include 0 strength while suspended,

0 resistance to puncturing, and

0 resistance to zippering.

0 performance with wet and dry loads,

Testing Procedures

The following tests were recommended for recycled plastic trash can liners but specific values for tests were not assigned. Field tests should be conducted first to determine how a liner will be used and the punishment it must withstand in a given application; then correct values can be set. The general tests that should be conducted are as follows.

Seam Strength Tests: While suspended, a bag must hold a specified volume of water at a specified temperature for a specified length of time without leaking at the seams. (It is estimated that the cost for a seam test is $26.)

Dry Load Strength Tests: A bag, while suspended, must hold a specified amount of dry material (designated by weight) for a specified length of time without tearing. (It is estimated that this test would cost about $26.)

Dart Impact Tests: A bag full of refuse should not puncture when tested to ASTM’s D1709 “Impact Resistance of Polyethylene Film by the Free Falling Dart Method.” (It is estimated that this test would cost about $36.)

Resistance to Zippering Testx A bag should not zipper when punctured horizontally or vertically with a one-inch blade or when tested to ASTM’s D1922 “Propagation Tear Resistance of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting by Pendulum Method.”

C O W O N SPECIFICATIONS

In addition to developing common test procedures for recycled plastic trash can liners, working group members agreed that a common specification should include the following factors:

0 how the liner is to be used,

the performance criteria to be proven by specified tests,

the values for the tests as determined by field tests,

the size(s) of the liners, and

a statement about how the purchasing agent intends to measure the size of the

0

0

0

0

liner.

A common specification should not include: 0 references to the thickness of the liner,

the resin(s) to be used, or 0



0 any preference for flat or gusseted bags.

A clause, similar to the following, should be included to encourage the use of recycled plastic:

‘The use of recycled material, ;.e., post-consumer and/or recovered material (post-industrial scrap), to the maximum extent possible without jeopardizing the performance or intended use of the product, is encouraged. In accordance with [Section, Law], a price preference of up to [X%] may be given to vendors quoting on products made with recycled material.

- ~ ~ ~

Following is additional information purchasers might want to consider when developing a common specification for recycled plastic trash can liners.

Material: The liner may contain recycled plastic material if the finished product meets all other characteristics of the specification. In addition, the manufacturer must be identified in the bid, the vendor must provide a manufacturer’s certification of content, and a letter must be provided from the supplier of the recycled content indicating the transference of recycled content to the manufacturer. Such a clause will help purchasers ensure that the products they are procuring contain recycled content as defined by the purchaser.

Bid Samples: M e r a bid is made but before a contract is awarded, the manufacturer must provide certification from a third-party independent testing laboratory that the product meets the specification. In addition, the manufacturer must provide nonreturnable samples for testing by the purchasing agency.

Delivery Samples: The purchasing agency may select random samples of trash can liners from deliveries. These samples will be examined and tested to determine compliance with the specification.

Preparation for Delivery: A common specification for packaging and delivery must use generally accepted commercial packaging standards and establish a uniform unit price, such as one price per one hundred bags.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Purchasers, though required by law to purchase the lowest-cost product, often are asked to give price preferences for recycled products. Unfortunately, during difficult financial times, many governments cannot justify purchasing more expensive products, regardless of policy concerns. Recognizing the need to expand markets for recycled products and the need to control costs, the working group developed a formula, called the “Lallatin Principle,” to help purchasing agents encourage the use of recycled products without de-emphasizing price.

~

The Lallatin Principle

The Lallatin Principle is based on a point system: The product that receives the most points- up to 100-should receive the contract award. In the point formula, price is worth up to 70 points, the use of post-consumer material is worth up to 20 points, and the use of recovered material is worth up to 10 points. The following system was developed for assigning points.

~~



EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE LALLATIN PRINCIPLE

Percent of Conten t

1-10 2 4

11-25 4 8

26-50 6 12

51-75 8 16

76- 100 10 20

Points A warded/Reco vered Pos t-Cons umer:

To demonstrate how the principle works, the task group created two hypothetical products.

Proclztct A: This product costs $10 and contains 20 percent recovered material and 5 percent post-consumer material.

Pvurtztct B: This product costs $11 and contains 50 percent recovered material and 10 percent post-consumer material.

The evaluation criteria is used to determine which product would receive the award. (In the example, a product lost one point for price for every $0.10 i t was above the lowest-cost product.)

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE PRODUCTS

Total Points = 100

Product A Product B

Offer Points Offer Points

Price @ 70 $10.00 70 $11.00 60

Rec. @ 10 20% 4 50% 6

PC @ 20 5 % 4 10% 4

TOTAL 78 70

According to the criteria, product A would be awarded the contract. While it does not contain as much recycled content as product B, the purchaser is allowed to purchase the lowest-cost product with 25 percent recycled material. Please note that if Product B contained 100


Next Stem for Increasing the Procurement of SDecific Recvcled Plastic Products

percent post-consumer material, it would have received the award even though it is not the lowest-cost product.

The value of the Lallatin Principle is that purchasers can encourage the use of recycled material without de-emphasizing the importance of price. It also sends a message to those who do not use recycled material that offering the lowest price product will not be sufficient to win a contract unless the price is substantially lower.

There are five caveats to be used with this principle: - ~~ ~

0 The ASTM definition of recycled plastic must be used.

The scale must be weighted according to a state’s or city’s policy priorities.

The scale must be provided along with the specification so that bidders can

The manufacturer must be identified in the bid, the vendor must provide a

0

0

raise any concerns prior to the contract award.

manufacturer’s certification of content, and a letter must be provided from the supplier of the recycled feedstock to help guarantee that the buyer gets the promised recycled content.

combination with the point system.

0

0 If a state or city prefers, it can use price preferences instead of or in


1. Conduct field tests to determine common values for different types of trash can liners. Peter Schalk, from the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, volunteered to run field tests.

2.

3.

Develop a common specification, including test values.

Share successes (and failures) with other agencies to eliminate costly and time- consuming duplication of effort.


To better assess the potential market for trash can liners made with recycled plastic, working group members were asked to provide information on the quantities of trash can liners they procure. Following are the annual quantities purchased by working group participants, regardless of size.

Connecticut 31,100,000

New Hampshire 1,000,000

New York City 17.000.000

TOTAL 49,100,000

During the past year, the following variations in sizes, colors, and other characteristics existed.



Connecticut:

New Hampshire:

New York City:

5 different sizes, one of which comes in black and clear

4 different sizes

8 different sizes, many of which come in both clear and opaque; different resins are specified for different uses


Conclusion

Conclusion

The plastics industry believes that the government/indusuy roundtable program was a tremendous success. Representatives from both sectors sat at the table together and developed practical yet innovative ways to resolve many of the problems associated with procuring recycled plastic products. The solutions, because they were created jointly, do not place sole responsibility on any one sector; instead, they outline realistic steps that both government and industry can take to help stimulate and expand markets for recycled goods.

It is the hope of the plastics industry that the steps taken in and the momentum generated by this project eventually will result in all consumers-not just governments-buying recycled plastic products without prejudice, barriers, or special considerations. It also is the hope of the industry that the willingness of Northeast governments to work together and with industry to solve difficult problems- which was so evident during the roundtable discussions-will continue well beyond the scope of this project. If both of these things happen, we all will have moved one step closer to an important common goal: expanding plastics recycling, not only in the Northeast, but across the entire United States.


Appendices

APPENDIX A

LIST OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ALL PARTICIPANTS

Participants at each Government/Industry Roundtable received a binder containing the following information. The binder was designed to be used as a reference document for future planning.

0 A list of recycled plastic products and their suppliers

Source lists for all EPA procurement guideline items

Subscription forms for recycled product publications

A bibliography of useful reports

A table of the regional state and local procurement laws

Information about commingled plastic testing programs

The ASTM and other definitions of recycled plastic

A report of participant’s survey responses

0

0

0

0

0

0 Examples of specifications

0

0

0 A roster of attendees

Binders for the follow-up meeting included the following. 0 Examples of the work products expected

Sample clauses to favor recycled plastic in specifications

Technical information about the resins under study

Specifications, test results, and other information about each product addressed by a

0

0

0

working group

Sales literature on some existing recycled plastic products also was distributed at the roundtables to illustrate the wide range of products available for purchase.


Appendices

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANTS AT THE GOVERNMENT/~NDUSTRY ROUNDTABLES

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

JULY 29 - AUGJJST 1, 1991

PLASTICS EXPERTS

Charles Beatty, Ph.D. Professor University of Florida 101 Rhines Hall Gainesville, FL 3261 1-2066 904/392-1574

Ann Darrow Senior Recycling Development Engineer Mobil Chemical - Plastic Packaging 729 Pittsford-Palmyra Road Macedon, NY 14502 315/986-5313

Piyush K. Dutta Materials Research Engineer U.S. Army Cold Regions Laboratory Corps of Engineers 72 Lyme Road Hanover, N H 03755 603/646-4100

Morgan Gibbs Senior Research Engineer Quantum Chemical Corporation 11 500 Northlake Drive Cincinnati, OH 45249 513/530-6500

Terence G. Mohoruk Manager, Vinyl Recycling BF Goodrich Company 6100 Oak Tree Boulevard Cleveland, O H 44131 2 16/447-63 14

Richard F. Tate Technical Engineer Occidental Chemical Company Alathon Polymers Division P.O. Box 2917 Alvin, TX 77512 71 3/393-5361

Dave Vadney Supervisor Development Engineering Mobil Chemical - Plastic Packaging 729 Pittsford-Palmyra Road Macedon, NY 14502 3 15/9 86 - 5 306

Robert F. Weis Manager, Plastic Waste Solutions Dupont Company - Polymers 1007 Market Street, Bldg. N7410 Wilmington, DE 19898 302/774-6432

CONNECTICUT

Lisa Dondy Recycling Market Developer Connecticut Dept. of Economic Dev. 865 Brook Street Rocky Hill, CT 06413 203/25 8 -439 8

Ted A. Feraci Chief of Standards & Tests Connecticut DAS/Bureau of Purchases 460 Silver Street Middletown, CT 06457 203/638-3236


Appendices

DELAWARE

Janet Manchester Environmental Scientist Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Pollution Prevention Program 89 Kings Highway P. 0. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 302/739-3822

MAINE

Jackie Dingfelder Planner Maine Waste Management Agency Office of Planning 154 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 207/289-5300

Theodore Karasopoulos Engineer Maine Dept. of Transportation State House Station 16 Child Street Augusta, ME 04333 207/289-2151

Richard Thompson Acting State Purchasing Agent Maine Dept. of Administration Bureau of Purchases State House Station 9, Room 119 Augusta, ME 04333 207/289 - 3 52 1

mSSACHUSETTS

Marcy V. Beitel Acting Deputy Director Metropolitan District Commission Reservations & Historic Sites 20 Sommerset Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02108 617/727-2744

Joseph T. Doyle Associate Civil Engineer Boston Parks & Recreation Dept. Planning & Development 1010 Massachusetts Avenue Boston, MA 02118 617/725-4505

Jonathon C. Goldfield Director Commonwealth of Massachusetts Dept. of Procurement & General Svcs. Bureau of Service Contracting One Ashburton Place, Rm. 1017 Boston, MA 02108 61 7/727-7500

Todd Lafleur Asst. to the Director of Forests & Parks Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Management Division of Forests & Parks 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 6 17/727- 3 1 8 0

Jeffery B. Lissack Director, Recycling Market Dev. Massachusetts Dept. of Env. Protection Solid Waste Management 1 Winter Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02108 61 7/292-5583

James Sheehan Supervisor Boston Parks Department City Hall Plaza, Rm. 816 Boston, MA 02201 61 7/524-0610

Leo Stevens Research & Materials Engineer Massachusetts Dept. of Public Works 99 Worcester Street Wellesley, MA 02181 6 1 7/2 3 5 - 61 00


Appendices

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brent Edmonds Department Engineer State of New Hampshire Design, Development, & Maintenance P.O. Box 856 Concord, N H 03302-0856 603/271-2606

Francis X. Gardner Purchasing Agent Bureau of Purchase & Property State of New Hampshire Administrative Services State House Annex, Room 102 Concord, N H 03301 603/27 1 -25 50

David Marshall Recycling Planner New Hampshire Office of State Planning 2 1/2 Beacon Street Concord, N H 03301 603/271- 1098

NEW JERSEY

Marybeth P. Brenner Recycling Specialist New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection Office of Recycling 850 Bear Tavern Road, CN 414 Trenton, NJ 08625-0414 609/530-4001

NEW YORK

John F. Ciaffone Assistant Commissioner/Mgmt. Svcs. New York City Parks & Recreation 830 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10021 212/360-1312

Rocco Crescenzi Park Manager N.Y. State Ofc. of Parks, Rec., & Hisotric Preservation Thousand Islands Region P.O. Box 247 Alexandria Bay, NY 13607 3 15/482-2593

Stephen L. Dyer General Park Manager N.Y. State Parks Saratoga Capital Region, Box W Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 51 8/584-2000

Robin Fitzpatrick Marketing Specialist New York State Dept. of Econ. Dev. Office of Recycling Market Dev. 45 Executive Drive Plainview, NY 11803 5 16/349 - 1266

Charlotte Frank Assistant Commissioner for Procurement NYC Dept. of General Services Municipal Building, Municipal Supplies 1 Center Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10007 2 12/669-8 5 30

Carla S . Lallatin Member, NYC Procurement Policy Board c/o Lallatin & Associates 61-15 97th Street, Suite 7A Rego Park, NY 11374 71 8/271-7323

Tom Polk Recycling Programs & Planning Div. New York City Dept. of Sanitation 44 Beaver Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10004 212/837-8183

Peter Syrdahl Agency Chief Contracting Officer New York City Dept. of Transportation 40 Worth Street, Room 1015 New York, NY 10013 212/566-2179


Appendices

PENNSYLVANIA

James P. Barr Park Super., Preventive Maintenance Sec. Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Resources Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks P.O. Box 8551 Harrisburg, PA 17103-8551 7 17/772 -2778

Gregory K. Confer Recycling Coordinator Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of General Service Commonwealth Agency Recycling Office 2221 Forster Street, P.O. Box 1365 Harrisburg, PA 17125 717/772-2300

Anthony J. Lupino Regional Park Superintendent Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources State Parks Region I

Emporium, PA 15834 RD #1, BOX 1-A

8 14/486- 3 365

Vince Tarentino Market Development Coordinator Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources Waste Minimization & Planning P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 717/787-7382

RHODE ISLAND

Mara Cherkasky Recycling Program Planner =ode Island Dept. of Enviromental Management Office of Environmental Coordination 83 Park Street Providence, RI 02903-1037 401 /277- 3434

Alicia A. Connaughton Purchasing Agent Cranston City Hall Purchasing Division 869 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 401/461- 1000

Francis Manning Senior Civil Engineer Rhode Island Dept. of Transporation 2 Capitol Hill, Room 018 Providence, €U 02903 401/277-2524

VERMONT

John Moore Business Recruitment Executive Vermont Dept. of Economic Dev. 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 802/828-3221

Stephen Rixford Senior Purchasing Agent State of Vermont - Purchasing 133 State Street Montpelier, VT 05633-7501 802/828-2215

Craig Whipple Coordinator of Maintenance Vermont Dept. of Forests, Parks, & Recreation 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 802/244-8711

REGIONAL RePRESENTATIVES

Shelley Dresser Director Northeast Recycling Council 139 Main Street, Suite 401 Brattleboro, VT 05301 802/254-3636


Appendices

Anni Loughlin Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA Waste Management Division JFK Federal Building, (HER-CAN6) Boston, MA 02203 61 7/223 -5 530

INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES

Patricia Enneking Manger of Recycling American Plastics Council 1275 K Street, N.W. - Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/371-5365

Jery Huntley Director of Recycling American Plastics Council 1275 K Street, N.W. - Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/371-5351

PROJECT STAFF

Nancy VandenBerg Lead Consultant Markets for Recycled Products c/o CENYC 51 Chambers Street, Room 228 New York, NY 10007 212/566-0990

Linda Headley Facilitator Headley Pratt Consulting 2709 Norwich Road Lansing, MI 48911 5 17/394-73 50

Patricia Moore Facilitator Moore Recycling Associations, Inc. P.O. Box 136 Hancock, NH 03449-0136 603/525-49 16

Rebecca Secrest Facilitator Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 136 Hancock, N H 03449-0136 603/525-4916

Kimberly Burnett Coordinator Conference & Publication Services, Ltd. 1715 North Wells, #34 Chicago, IL 60614 3 12/98 8 -7667

Amy Schmitz Coordinator Conference & Publication Services, Ltd. 50 Green Bay Road Lake Bluff, IL 60044 708/234-2353


Appendices

APPENDIX C

ROUNDTABLE ONE: JULY 30,1991

TASK GROUP ASSIGNMENTS AND PRODUCTS DISCUSSED

Task Group One:

Products Discussed: Trash can liners, cans/pails/bulk containers, drainage pipe, posts, lumber

Industry/Expe&: Vadney, Mobil; Gibbs, Quantum; Dutta, U.S. Army

Govemment Representatives: Confer, PA Admin; Feraci, CT Admin; Lallatin, NYC Admin; Frank, NYC Admin; Dondy, CT Recycle

Sta . : Headley, Facilitator; Huntley, the plastics industry

Task Group Two:

Products Discussed: Partitions, drainage pipe, traffic cones, rebar supports, sign substrates

Industvy/Experts: Mohoruk, BF Goodrich; Tate, OxyChem; Beatty, U of Florida

Govemment Representatives: Barr, PA Parks; Crescenzi, NYS Parks; Syrdahl, NYC DOT; Tarentino, PA Recycle; Brenner, NJ Recycle; Loughlin, U.S. EPA

Stafl: Moore, Facilitator; VandenBerg, Lead Consultant

Task Group Three:

Products Discussed: Posts, tables/bences, cans/pails/bulk containers, partitions, snow/limited access fencing

Industry/Experts: Beatty, U of Florida

Government Representatives: Lupino, PA Parks; Ciaffone, NYC Parks; Dyer, NYS Parks; Manchester, DE Recycle; Fitzpatrick, NYS Recycle; Polk, NYC Recycle

Staff: Secrest, Facilitator


Appendices

ROUNDTABLE Two: AUGUST 1,1991

TASK GROUP ASSIGNMENTS AND PRODUCTS DISCUSSED

Task Group One:

Products Discussed: Posts, benches/tables, drainage pipe, traffic cones, trash can liners

Industvy/Experts: Dutta, U.S. Army; Mohoruk, BF Goodrich; Tate, OxyChem; Darrow, Mobil

Government Representatives: Thompson, ME Admin; Gardner, NH Admin; Rixford, VT Admin; Dingfelder, ME Recycle; Moore, VT Recycle

Stafl: Headley, Facilitator; Enneking, the plastics industry

Task Group Two:

Products Discussed: Traffic cones, barricades, drainage pipe, rebar supports, posts

Indastry/Experts: Tate, OxyChem; Gibbs, Quantum; Beatty, U of Florida; Mohoruk, BF Goodrich

Government Representatives: Stevens, MA DOT; Karasopoulos, ME DOT; Manning, RI DOT; Doyle, Boston Parks; Goldfield, MA Admin; Cherkasky, RI Recycled; Lissack, MA Recycle

Staf l Secrest, Facilitator; VandenBerg, Lead Consultant

Task Group Three:

Products Discussed: Trash can liners, benches/tables, posts, cans/pails/bulk containers, drainage pipe

Industry/Experts: Darrow, Mobil; Beatty, U of Florida; Gibbs, Quantum

Government Representatives: Lafluer, MA Parks; Beitel, MA Parks; Sheehan, Boston Parks; Whipple, VT Parks; Edmonds, N H Parks, Connaughton, Cranston RI; Marshall, N H Recycle; Dresser, NERC

Staff: Moore, Facilitator


Appendices

APPENDIX D

PARTICIPANTS AT THE FOLLOW-UP SESSION

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

NOVEMBER 8,1991

CONNECTICUT

Charles E. Dougan Director of Research & Material CT Dept. of Transportation 280 West Street Rocky Hill, CT 06067 203/25 8 -0372

Ted A. Faraci Chief of Standards & Tests 460 Silver Street Middletown, CT 06457 203/638-3236

MASSACHUSETTS

Marcy V. Beitel Acting Deputy Director Metropolitan District Commission Reservations & Historic Sites 20 Sommerset Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02108 61 7/727-5250

Richard Nikitas Region I11 Headquarters MA Dept. of Environmental Mgmt. P.O. Box 155 Clinton, MA 01510 508/368-0126

David Geanakakis Specification Specialist MA Dept. of Procurement & General Services Bureau of Service Contracting 1 Ashburton Place, Room 1017 Boston, MA 02108 617/727-4527

Albert Kenney Supervisor BHISP MA Dept. of Environmental Mgmt. Bldg. 45, #49 Lincoln Street Hingham, MA 02043 61 7/740- 1605

Todd LaFleur Assistanct Director, Forests & Parks MA Dept. of Environmental Mgmt. 100 Cambridge Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02202 6 17/727- 3 1 8 0

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brent Edmonds Department Engineer NH Dept. of Resources & Econ. Dev. Design, Development, & Maintenance P.O. Box 856 Concord, N H 03302-0856 61)3/271-2606


A Paendices

Francis X. Gardner Purchasing Agent N H Dept. of Resources & Econ. Dev. Plant and Property Management State House Annex, Room 102 25 Capitol Street Concord, N H 03301 603/271-2550

NEW YO=

John F. Ciaffone Assistant Commissioner/Mgmt. Services NYC Dept. of Parks & Recreation The Arsenal 830 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10021 212/360-1312

Stephen L. Dyer General Park Manager NYS Office of Parks Saratoga Capital Region Box W Saratoga Springs, NY 12019 518/584-2000

Frank Hrubes Fiscal Officer Bureau of Traffic NYC Dept. of Transportation 58-50 57th Road Maspeth, NY 11378 718/894-5904

William J. Huntoon Park Manager I11 NYS Office of Parks Prospect Street Niagra Falls, NY 14303 716/278 - 1762

Kenneth F. Johnson Director Purchase Research NYC Dept. of General Services 1 Centre Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10007 2 12/669-8 570

Carla S . Lallatin Member, NYC Procurement Policy Board c/o Lallatin & Associates 61-15 97th Street, Suite 7A Rego Park, NY 11374 71 8/271-7323

~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Peter B. Shalk Technical Support Aide NYC Dept. of Parks & Recreation Operations & Management Planning 830 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10021 212/360-8224

PENNSYLVANIA

James P. Barr Park Super., Preventive Maintenance Sec. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Bureau of State Parks Box 8551 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8551 717/772-2778

Eugene Comoss Chief, Park Maintenance Division PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Bureau of State Parks Harrisburg, PA 171 05-8 551 71 7/78 3 - 3 3 3 6

RHODE ISLAND

Mara Cherkasky Recycling Program Planner RI Dept. of Environmental Management Office of Environmental Coordination 83 Park Street Providence, RI 02903-1037 401/277-3434

Alicia A. Connaughton Purchasing Agent Cranston City Hall Finance Division 869 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 401/461-1000


Appendices

Francis Manning Senior Civil Engineer RI Dept. of Transportation 2 Capitol Hill, Room 018 Providence, RI 02903 401/277-2524

TECHNICAL EXPERTS

Gregrey L. Marshall Tech. Dir., Materials Analysis & Eng. Entela Laboratories, Inc. 3033 Madison Avenue, S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49548-1289

VERMONT STAFF

Stephen Rixford Senior Purchasing Agent State of Vermont - Purchasing 133 State Street Montpelier, VT 05633-7501 802/828-2215

INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES

Patricia Enneking Manager of Recycling American Plastics Council 1275 K Street, N.W. - Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005

Jery Huntley Director of Recycling American Plastics Council 1275 K Street, N.W. - Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005

Nancy VandenBerg Lead Consultant Markets for Recycled Products c/o CENYC 51 Chambers Street, Room 228 New York, NY 10007 212/566-0990

Linda Headley Facilitator Headley Pratt Consulting 2709 Norwich Lansing, MI 48911 5 17/394-7350

Rebecca Secrest Facilitator Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 178 Hancock, N H 03449-0178 603/525-4916


Appendices

APPENDIX E

MONTHLY MAINTENANCE IKEPORT FOR TOILET AND SHOWER

STALL PARTITIONS

(complete top section once and copy for future reports)

DATE OF FIRST INSPECTION

AGENCY

LOCATION

PARTITION MATERIAL

DATE OF ORIGINAL INSTALLATION

## OF STALLS

MATERIAL REPLACED

WHAT MAINTENANCE WAS NEEDED FOR THE OLD TYPE OF PARTITIONS?

Paint - Varnish - Sanding - Other How Often?

PAINTING OF STALLS: Monthly - Annually - Last Painted

GRAFFITI REMOVAL:

Old Material: Time Consuming? - Fast? -

New Material: Time Consuming? - Fast? -

WHAT TYPE O F MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED FOR THE NEW MATERIAL?


Appendices

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(complete this section for every inspection)

CONDITION ON DATE OF INSPECTION: DATE:

No / Yes / Recommended Action

warping

dents, scratches, gouges

graffiti

loose hardware

separation of partition joints

chalking from UV degradation

reaction to cleaning compounds,

like fading, cracking, other

LEVEL OF USE: heavy- medium- light- facility closed -

Maintenance or Parts Replaced:

Cost of Repairs/Maintenance:

Comments:

Suggestions:

Send one copy of report to your local agency contact

Send another copy of report to: Jim Barr, PA Bureau of State Parks, Preventive Maintenance Section, PO Box 8551, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8551

Mail copies to: Patricia Enneking, The Society of the Plastics Industry, 1275 K Street NW, Suite 400: Washington DC, 20005


Appendices

APPENDIX F

MASTER FORM FOR TESTING PICNIC TABLES

State:

Name of Facility:

Location of Recycled Plastic Table:

Location of Comparable Wooden Table:

This is the “Master Form” which will be used to generate data to test wooden vs. recycled plastic picnic tables in participating Northeast states. The data taken from the accompanying Form One should be mailed to your individual (state/city) agency coordinator on a monthly basis. The coordinator will send it to CSWS for compliling and comparison. A copy of the “Master Form” need only be sent in on the first month of data collection.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. During assembly of the plastic table, were any structural deficiencies (voids, etc.) noted?

2. What tools were needed to assemble the table? (Please list)

3. How long did assembly take?

4. How many employees were required to assemble the table?


INITIAL BASELINE DATA

Manufacturer of the recycled plastic table:

Size: Shape: Color:

Edge Test: Table Top:

(See Form One for explanation.)

Bench:

General Condition:

Commentsflotes:

Form Completed By: (Name)

Title:

Address:

Phone: Date:

State Agency Coordinator:

Describe location in detail (i.e., full sun, beach, wooded, etc.):


Appendices

Form One: Test Data (starting 1/8/92 through 1/8/93)

Weekly Test Date:

Location (facility and state/city):

Date: Temperature: -OF Weather:

Test: Impact 1 Edpe 2 &&I3 -4

Recycled Table:

Wooden Table:

Visual Observations [amount of graffitti, carving, what was used to remove or repair; general comparison of wooden vs. plastic table; fading; other changes]

Impact Test: Each facility should use an 8" x 16" (standard) cinder block or an equivalent-weight object to drop from no higher than two feet above both the middle end of the tabletop and the middle of the bench. The results of this test are to be noted in the colum above. (Reason for the test: to look for dents, scratches, cracks, and so for in various locations and weather conditions.)

Edge Test: This test should be conducted by taking a straightedge and laying it on both the table top and the bench (lengthwise) to determine sag or reduction in material strength over time. (It is important to conduct this test when the table is first put in the field so that all future data will be comparable.)

' Roll Test: This test involves rolling the table from its legs onto its top and then back again to the standard position. (Information on the structural stability, stiffness, mold/mildew, insect/other damage to leg bottoms, etc. is what people are looking for.)

Use Test: In this column people are looking to see if the table is being used, particularly on hot (temperature) days. Other information also can be provided.


Appendices

APPENDIX G

OTHER PRODUCTS IN WHICH RECYCLED PLASTIC MIGHT BE USED

Participants in nearly every task group suggested additional products that coztld contain recycled plastic. Following is a list of those products categorized according to availability.

Currently Available Products e A-frame barricades

e Laser cartridges

e Geotextiles

e Plastic sheeting

e Light covers

e Pallets

e Product parts, such as drill handles

Products for Which Sources Have Not Yet Been Identified e Toll barriers (weighted with sand or water)

Chairs and tables used in outdoor cafeterias

e Survey stakes

e Highway sound barriers

e

0 Bleacher seats

0 Lids and covers on trash dumpsters

Entry doors and door frames (they are light enough for children and handicapped e

people, are able to take abuse, and are resistant to rust or rot) e Hatchways for well chlorinators

e Semi-permanent walkway platforms for beach access for invalids (should be removed and stored at end of the season)


APPENDIX H

USEFUL ACRONYMS

A number of acronyms are used throughout the text. They, and common plastic acronyms, are defined here as a handy reference.

General Acronyms

AASHTO

ASTM

csws DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NASHTO

NASPO

RCRA

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

American Society of Testing and Materials

The Council for Solid Waste Solutions

Northeast Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

National Association of State Purchasing Officials

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Plastic Acronyms

ABS Acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene

HDPE High density polyethylene

HMWHDPE High-molecular-weight high-density polyethylene

LDPE Low-density polyethylene

LLDPE Linear low-density polyethylene

PC Polycarbonate

PE

PET

PS

P U

PVC

uv

Polyethylene

Polyethylene terephthalate

Polystyrene

Polyurethane

Polyvinyl Chloride

Ultraviolet


I

Printed on Recycled I:

\ \

I

Printed on Recycled I:

\

\ I

i

/ \ [

, I

\

, -

. / , I ,

I I \

I /

I I ,

1 / / \

/

I

** I I

American \ I

Plastics /

Council , -

1275 K Street, NW Suite 400 I I

Washngton, DC 20005 \

1-800-2-HELP-90 \ i ’

\ I I

A J_oint Initiative with The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

i

/ I

Documents

Purchasing Recycled Plastic ProductsIntroduction Introduction Background In 1990, the plastics industry created a unique pilot program designed to encourage government procurement