Recycling Post-Consumer Nylon Carpet: A Case Study of the Economics and Engineering Issues Associated with Recycling Post-Consumer

Goods.
[Running (short) title: Recycling Post-Consumer Nylon Carpet]

Lester Lave, Noellette Conway-Schempf, James Harvey, Deanna Hart, Timothy Bee, and Christopher MacCracken

Graduate School of Industrial Administration Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA

address correspondence to: Lester Lave Graduate School of Industrial Administration Carnegie Mellon University Schenley Park Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ll01+@andrew.cmu.edu
http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/
Comment [RJL1]: We dropped the separate listings of the affiliations of each of the authors that you added in the latest version. If you want to include them we need to put them in at the top (as part of the author listing rather than using footnotes). However, if possible, wed prefer not to with a long author list, it will be hard to get everything on a single page. Please let me know. That's fine!

Keywords: carpet recycling, landfill cover, materials properties, nylon recycling, recycled carpet plastic (RCP), recycling economics

<heading level 1>Summary

Each year, 3-4 billion pounds of nylon carpet are discarded into landfills in the US. As a case study, we examine the technical and economic feasibility of recycling a portion of this source of discarded plastic. The carpet could be: (1) shredded for use as daily cover at landfills or as a strengthening component of concrete, (2) sheared or chemically processed for reuse as recycled nylon or as pure nylon feedstock, or (3) made into a new type of plastic. We estimate the costs of a recycling facility to handle 450500,000 pounds of discarded nylon carpet each month in

Comment [RJL2]: Minor edit

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (USA). We found that with current technology, regulations and markets, only the recycling of carpet from commercial settings using shearing or chemical processing is economical and only under very narrow circumstances. We learned four lessons from this study: (1) Collection costs are high and can dominate the economics of recycling. (2) Given time and incentives, collection costs can be reduced. (3) Trying to recycle products not designed to be recycled leads to many problems. Carpet could be redesigned to make recycling easier by making the carpet out of a single material and using an adhesive that can be removed easily (4) Recycling processes should be designed produce an existing material if at all possible, since new materials present marketing problems.

Comment [RJL3]: Minor edit Comment [RJL4]: Minor edit Comment [RJL5]: How about a simple statement here to the effect that: We found that with current technology, regulations and markets, only the recycling of carpet from commercial settings using shearing or chemical processing is economical and only under very narrow circumstances. Otherwise there is no place in the article where you state this directly. Great suggestion.

<heading level 1>Introduction

The high levels of waste generation in the United States have prompted consumers and industry to reconsider the fate of products when consumers no longer desire them. Concerns over the availability of easily accessible landfill space, the threat of stricter regulations regarding disposal of material, and the potential for profitable reuse of discarded products and materials have prompted a closer look at the potential for recycling materials currently considered useless. Changes in European regulations, such as the EcoCycle product takeback law in Germany which requires manufacturers of diverse durable products to take back their products once the end -oflife is reached (Bremer-Davis 1996), have prompted manufacturers to consider the effect of product takeback regulation on their operations. In our judgment, states such as California, Massachusetts, and New York will enact product takeback regulations for some goods in the next decade.

Post-consumer carpet is potentially attractive for recycling: it is available in large quantities, is easily separated from other post-consumer wastes, and has potentially high value. Americans discard about 3-4 billion pounds of carpet each year (Gardner 1995). At present, almost all of this carpet is hauled away and disposed in landfills, at a cost of roughly $100 million/year. Used carpeting accounts for about 1% by weight (2% by volume) of municipal solid waste in the US (Minnesota OER 1995). Rather than thinking of used carpet as waste that requires disposal, the carpet and plastics industries are searching for ways to transform it into a valuable raw material. In this paper we focus on recycling post-consumer carpet with nylon face fiber; carpet is referred to by the type of face fiber. We discuss the costs and barriers to establishing and operating a nylon carpet recycling facility under the prevailing economic and marketing conditions in a large US city (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). We investigate the costs of collecting nylon carpet and then reusing it in three forms:. (1) shredded for use as daily cover at landfills or as a strengthening component of concrete, (2) sheared or chemically processed for reuse as recycled nylon or as pure nylon feedstock, or (3) made into a new type of plastic. A number of lessons emerge from the study, not only about recycling post-consumer carpet, but about recycling post-consumer goods more generally.
Comment [RJL6]: You deleted disposal from disposal cost Is the $100 M landfilling or landfilling and hauling? Comment [RJL7]: Minor edit

<heading level 1> Background <heading level 2> Characteristics of Post-Consumer Carpet in the USA: Typical carpeting is constructed of multiple layers. The face fiber of residential carpet makes up about 45%-50% of the weight of carpet (35% for commercial carpet). The other components, by weight, are: primary and secondary backing (10%), adhesive, (6-10%), and calcium carbonate or other fillers (30-40%) (Schut 1993, Williams 1994, Leaversuch 1993, Minnesota OER 1995). 1 Each of these layers is composed of different materials. Generally, the backing is polypropylene; and the adhesive is latex. The only material with much recycle potential at the moment is the face fiber. The quantity of carpet that is discarded will reflect the sales of new carpet 3-20 years ago. Table 1 summarizes two estimates for 1994 face fiber market share (Allied SignalCostello 1995, Williams 1994). We assume nylon 6,6 is 4533% and nylon 6 is 3029% of discarded carpet.

Table 1: Two estimates of 1994 face fiber market share Material Nylon 6,6 Nylon 6 Polypropylene Polyester Wool and acrylic Allied SignalAlliedSignal 36% 26% 26% 11% 1% 44.2% 29% 14.5% 10.5% 1.1% Monsanto

Source: Allied SignalCostello (1995), Williams (1994.)

Of carpet sold in the US, approximately 70% is for replacement of old carpet. About 1/3 of carpet sold in the United Sates is used in commercial applications such as offices, retail stores, or other commercial places; the other 2/3 is used in residences (Allied SignalCostello 1995). In

general, commercial installations (such as hotels or office buildings) contain more carpet than a single residential installation.

The principal tasks required to recycle post-consumer carpet are

y y y

Collection, sorting, handling, and storage of the carpet. Transformation of the carpet materials into a valuable material, and then, Marketing the recycled material.

<heading level 2>Collecting Post-Consumer Carpet

The first task in recycling is collecting the post-consumer carpet. Buildings with large quantities of discarded carpet, such as large commercial offices, are preferable targets for several reasons. First, the larger quantities of carpet available reduce the per unit hauling costs. Second, either the owner knows the type of face fiber or the large quantity justifies testing prior to removal. Knowing the type of face fiber means that the recycler, that is, the business collecting the carpet and doing the first level of processing, can arrange to acquire only the desired carpet types. Third, the carpet owner must pay about $50 per ton for hauling and disposal of the carpet. The current tipping fee in Pittsburgh is about $30 per ton or $0.015/lb. Thus, the owner should be willing to pay the recycler up to $0.025/lb to collect the carpet or would deliver it to the recycler and pay $0.015 /lb in lieu of a tipping fee. Because it has more face fiber than commercial carpet, residential carpet is attractive to recyclers. Recycling it, however, presents major problems. Compared to commercial installations, the quantity is lower and the face fiber is not known. Distinguishing different face fiber types, particularly nylon 6 versus nylon 6,6, is difficult by visual inspection. Thus, the recycler is likely to get all types of face fibers, not just the desired nylon. Equipment is available that can distinguish fiber types, but the equipment is expensive -- about $600 for an infrared unit (Costello 1996) -- and because there is no current need to identify the fa ce fiber, this equipment is not likely to be in the hands of carpet installers. This means that a recycler accepting all
Comment [RJL8]: Minor edit

discarded residential carpet, but recycling only nylon-faced carpet, would have to pay to dispose of the 25% of the recovered carpet that does not have nylon face fiber.

In many cities, such as Pittsburgh, the municipal solid waste (MSW) service will collect small quantities of discarded carpet free of charge from residences. The recycler would have to pick up the carpet from the landfill, residence, or carpet store. In cities where residential carpet is collected with trash, most of the residential discard carpet would be sent to landfills. Recovering the carpet at the landfill is dirty, difficult and dangerous (and usuallyprobably requires a permitclearance from the organization operating the landfill). If the recycler wanted to collect carpet directly from the residence, the carpet installers could notify the recycler about the place and time when the discard carpet would be removed during the installation of new carpet. This individual pickup would be the most expensive collection option. We estimated that a truck would make a round trip of 10-50 miles (16- 80 kilometers) taking one to two hours to pickup and unload 50 square yards (200 pounds) of carpet. At $0.50 per mile for the truck and $10 per hour for the driver, the cost is $15 to $45 or $0.075 - $0.225 per pound. We assume collection costs of $0.10 per pound for individual residential pickup.
Comment [RJL9]: Minor edit

Often, installers take the discarded carpet to a large waste receptacle, known in the US as a dumpster, at a carpet store or warehouse. At present, recovery from the dumpster is unpleasant since the carpet is mixed with other trash and is often wet, since large dumpsters are not covered. While recovery by such a strategy is possible, it is unpleasant for the workers, and not highly desirable. We estimate the cost of removing discarded carpet from the dumpster and then hauling it to the recycler to be about $0.10/lb. The collection costs can be reduced by scheduling pick-ups at adjacent locations, using special containers at carpet stores, or by charging residences. The recycler might arrange for the store to place the discarded carpet in a dry location separated from trash; this solution would be ideal, but space was scarce at the stores we inspected. The stores we inspected did not view pickup of discarded carpet by a recycler to be very attractive. A typical trash collection contract has a fee that rises much less than proportionally with the size of the dumpster. Thus, stores would not save much by switching to a smaller size dumpster.2
Comment [RJL11]: little used 3 times in last two sentences.Minor edit in endnote. Comment [RJL12]: Minor edit in wording to make clear that aggregate cost of larger dumpsters increases while the unit cost (per c.y) decreases. Use, amend or discard edit as you see fit. Comment [RJL10]: You dropped the point about reducing collection costs by (1) scheduling pick-ups at adjacent locations, (2) using special containers at carpet stores (3) by charging residences. Why?

Recycling regulations or prodding from manufacturers should get most stores to find a place to store the carpet for pickup. . .l
Comment [RJL13]: What does this .numeral indicate? Is it an artifact of editing?

In summary, commercial nylon carpet might be delivered to the recycler with a payment to the recycler of $0.015/lb compared to residential nylon carpet which that would have to be picked up at a cost of at least $0.10/lb. We assume that only nylon carpet would be accepted from commerical installations while, for residential carpet, the recycler would incur the cost of disposing of undesirable (nonnylon) carpet. <heading level 2>Transforming and Processing Discarded Nylon Carpet

We have investigated three different ways to reuse discarded carpet: 1) Shredding carpet into small pieces, 2) Recycling the face fiber into a high-value plastic, 3) Recycling the entire carpet into a low-value plastic. A carpet recycler would choose among these three alternatives on the basis of the net profit expected from each. We now estimate the cost and revenue from each approach. <heading level 3>1) Shredded carpet uses

Shredded carpet fiber can be used as filler in concrete applications or landfill cover applications (Herlihy 1994). For both uses, the value of carpet fiber is low, hardly greater than zero. In a modern landfill, the compacted trash must be covered by dirt or some other material every day to minimize odor, litter and pests. Since carpet fiber saves landfill space, it is preferred to dirt as a daily cover (US EPA 1992). The demand for carpet fiber in this application is virtually unlimited. Thus, the price of disposing of undesired carpet or carpet backing should be no greater than the cost of shredding the carpet and transporting it to a landfill.
Comment [RJL14]: Minor edit

<heading level 3> The Costs of Shredding Carpet Once carpet has been collected, the cost of shredding for an operation of this size is estimated to be no more than $0.045/lb, including unloading, handling, and shredding (Costello 1996). Alternatively, the cost of hauling and disposal in a landfill is about $0.025/lb.Thus, with a hauling cost of $0.01/lb, the landfill operator would have to pay at least $0.03/lb for the recycler to find shredding superior to landfilling. We could find no indication that landfill operators would be willing to pay this much for this material.
Comment [RJL15]: Do you happen to know the cost of the likely alternative, i.e., dirt used for cover? ** Dirt is free - save for handling costs - the opportunity cost of dirt is the reduced landfill capacity. OK (but this is not true in all markets).** Don't feel a need to further clarify.

<heading level 3> 2) Recycling as Nylon or Conversion to a Nylon Feedstock Pure nylon is a valuable material selling for $1 to $3 per pound. Currently there are two viable technologies for high-value recycling of nylon recovered from carpets. Allied-Signal and BASF have developed processes for transforming nylon 6 in carpet back into caprolactam, the feedstock for nylon 6 (Herlihy 1994). At an Allied-Signal demonstration plant, the resulting feedstock is so pure that it can be made back into carpet, rather than processed for less demanding, lower value uses. Some of the materials, such as the calcium carbonate and adhesive, must be disposed of at a standard landfill cost of about $0.025/lb. Nylon 6,6 carpet, which has the largest market share, is difficult to transform back to original feedstocks because of the combined nature of the component substances (monomers). The most attractive use for nylon 6,6 is as mechanically reground nylon feedstock, which is less pure than virgin nylon 6,6. Pellets of pure reground used nylon, using scrap fiber from the manufacture of new carpet, currently sell for about $0.40/lb (Costello, 1996). Pellets made from used carpet are contaminated with dirt and other plastics and sell for much less. Since the recycled pellets sell for less than virgin pellets, we presume there are some contaminants in the recycled pellets that compromise their properties. <heading level 3>The Costs of Separating the Face Fiber from the Carpet:
Comment [RJL16]: Minor edit

Given the current technology and economics, only the face fiber of carpet is attractive for high value recycling. Thus, the face fiber must be separated from the backing and other material. The undesired part of the carpet would need to be landfilled at a cost of $0.025/lb.

Comment [RJL17]: Minor edit

Allied-Signal buys bundled nylon 6 carpet for a pilot recycling plant that uses a chemical process to separate the face fibers from the backing. They have purchased bundled nylon 6 carpet for $0.05-0.10/lb FOB from the recycler. Allied-Signal currently pays less than $0.10/lb, but we will assume they offer this amount for the rest of the analysis. Collecting nylon 6 carpet to sell to Allied-SignalAlliedSignal is marginally attractive at best. It costs the recycler almost $0.10/lb for the warehouse, equipment, and labor to bundle the carpet. Thus, a lower price from AlliedSignalAlliedSignal, having to pay collection costs, or having to dispose of nonnylon 6 carpet would drive the recycler into bankruptcy. This business would be attractive now for commercial carpet where only nylon 6 carpet was delivered to the recycler with a payment of $0.015/lb or regulations were changed so that the recycler received a payment when residential carpet was delivered.
3 Comment [RJL18]: You dropped the point about the economies of scale for the Allied Signal plant. Any particular reason? ** I believe Lester has since received updated information on costs (thus the change to (0.05-0.10/lb) and wanted to likewise update the text to this new info. Comment [RJL19]: Please either define FOB or explain it. Ive drafted an explanation of FOB in the endnote. Use, amend or discard as you see fit. **Looks good. Comment [RJL20]: Minor edit Comment [RJL21]: Minor edit Comment [RJL22]: Minor edit

Rather than selling bundled carpet to Allied-SignalAlliedSignal, the recycler could separate the face fiber and then sell the pelletized nylon. The simplest way to separate the face fiber is by shearing it from the backing. We estimate thisThis would cost about $0.03/lb (Costello 1996). However, shearing recovers only 30%-70% of the face fiber, depending on the type of carpet, whereas Allied-SignalAlliedSignal recovers most of the nylon 6 through its chemical process (the exact amount is proprietary information) (Costello 1996). The sheared material would then be pelletized at a cost of $0.09/lb (Costello 1996)..

In order to assess the potential for carpet shearing and recycling, we first do the analysis for residential carpet, assuming that all carpet is delivered to the recycler at a price of $0.10/lb (see Table 2). If 1,333 lbs of discarded carpet arrived at the recycler, the collection cost would be $133 and handling costs would amount to $26.66 (at a cost of $0.02/lb). Of the 1,333 lbs of carpet, 1,000 lbs would be nylon carpet. Thus, the shearing cost would be $30. The 1,000 lbs of nylon carpet would contain 450 lbs of face fiber, but, assuming a generic shearing efficiency of 50%, only half of the nylon, 225 lbs, would result from the shearing. This 225 lbs of sheared
Comment [RJL23]: Cost to the waste generator? Or the recycler? ** Changed "cost" to "price", Table 2 seems to appropriately define who pays the cost.

nylon would be pelletized at $0.09/lb or $20.25 (Costello 1996). In addition, the cost of disposing of the 333 pounds of carpet without nylon face fiber and the 775 pounds of carpet left after the nylon face fiber was sheered would cost $0.025/lb for a total of $27.70. The 225 pounds of nylon pellets would sell for $90. Thus, the total cost of collection, handling, processing and disposal would exceed the value of the pellets; this is true even if collection costs were zero. In fact, just to break even, the recycler would need to charge at least $0.011/lb as carpet was delivered to the warehouse.
Table 2 Estimated costs and revenues associated with recycling residential carpet into nylon pellets

Description Discarded carpet: collection handling Carpet without nylon face fibers: dispose Carpet with nylon face fibers: shear Backing, residual face fiber: dispose Nylon face fiber: pelletize Total Operating Costs

Unit Cost

Material Quantity 1333 lbs

Total Cost

$0.10/lb $0.02/lb 333 lbs $0.025/lb 1000 lbs $0.03/lb 775 lbs $0.025/lb 225 lbs $0.09/lb

$133.30 $26.66

$8.32

$30.00

$19.38

$20.25 $237.91

Nylon pellets: sell Total Revenue $0.40/lb

225lbs $90.00 $90.00

Gross Margin (revenue minus variable cost) Margin excluding collection costs

- $147.91 (- $0.11/lb) -$14.61 (- $0.011/lb)

Assumptions: 75% of carpet is nylon carpet, 45% of residential carpet by weight is face fiber, shearing efficiency is 50%. [Note to typesetter: this is tab-separated version of the table. A more readable version is appended to the end of the document.]

10

For comparison, in Table 3 for both a residential and commercial scenario, we consider a combination of shipping nylon 6 carpet to Allied SignalAlliedSignal and shearing nylon 6,6 carpet. In the residential case, 1,333 lbs of carpet collected by the recycler would contain 333 pounds of carpet without nylon face fiber (to be disposed of). Of the 1,000 pounds of nylon carpet, 400 lbs would be nylon 6 carpet. At $0.10/lb, the recycling company would receiveAllied-Signal would pay $40.00. The other 600 lbs of nylon 6,6 carpet (containing 270 lbs of nylon 6,6) could be sheered to obtain 135 lbs of pure nylon 6,6. The remaining 465 pounds of sheered carpet must be disposed of. As shown in Table 3, unless collection costs drop below $0.013 per pound, the costs again exceed the revenues.
Comment [RJL25]: Minor edit. Comment [RJL24]: Minor edit.

Table 3 Estimated costs and revenues associated with recycling residential and commercial carpet into nylon 6 feedstock and nylon 6,6 pellets

Residential Description Discarded carpet: collect residential carpet Collected carpet: handling Carpet without nylon face fibers: dispose Carpet with nylon 6,6 face fibers: shear Backing, residual face fiber: dispose Nylon face fiber: pelletize Total Operating Costs $0.09/lb $0.025/lb 135 $12.15 $210.05 $0.03/lb 465 $11.62 $0.025/lb 600 $18.00 $0.02/lb 333 $8.32 $0.10/lb 1333 $26.66 Unit Cost Material Quantity Total Cost 1333 $133.30

Commercial Material Quantity Total Cost 0 $0 1000 $20.00 0 $0 600 $18.00 495 $12.38 105 $9.45 $59.83

Discarded carpet: drop-off commercial carpet Nylon pellets: sell Nylon 6 carpet: sell to Allied SignalAlliedSignal $0.10 $0.40/lb $0.015/lb

0 $0 135 $54.00 400 $40.00

1000 $15.00 105 $42.00 400 $40.00

11

Total Revenue

$94.00

$97.00

Gross Margin ($0.037)/lb Margin excluding collection costs ($0.022)/lb

- $116.05 (- $0.087/lb)

$37.17

$17.25 ($0.013/lb)

$22.17

Assumptions: 75% of carpet is nylon carpet, Nylon 6,6 accounts for 45% of the carpet market or 60% of the nylon carpet market; Nylon 6 accounts for 30% of the carpet market or 40% of the nylon carpet market; 45% of residential carpet is face fiber, 30% of commercial carpet is face fiber, shearing efficiency is 50%. [Note to typesetter: this is tab-separated version of the table. A more readable version is appended to the end of the document.]

This analysis shows that, for residential carpet, shearing is less attractive than shipping bundled carpet to Allied-SignalAlliedSignal at $0.10/lb. Only if collection costs drop below $0.013/lb does the gross profit margin reach zero. Since we estimate the collection costs for residential carpet to be $0.10/lb, recycling residential carpet is not an attractive business. In the case of commercial carpet, the recycler need take only the carpet desired - however, face fiber accounts for only about 35% of commercial carpeting. If only nylon carpet were recycled, using the same scenario as in table 3, accepting only commercial nylon carpet and charging a drop-off fee of $0.015/lb would result in a gross margin of $37.17 or about $0.037/lb. Note, however, that if installers insisted on being paid to drop off the carpet, a payment of as little as $0.022/lb would push the recycler into the red. It appears that the most profitable arrangement would be to accept only nylon 6 carpet. In the best case scenario, if the installers paid $0.015/lb when dropping off the carpet and handling was $0.02/lb as assumed previously, the gross margin would be $0.095/lb when the carpet was sent to Allied-SignalAlliedSignal. However, as a solution to carpet landfilling this is not particularly effective: recycling only the face fiber of nylon 6 carpet would reduce the amount of carpet ending up in landfill by less about 14% (30% of carpet is nylon 6; face fiber is about 45% of the carpet).
Comment [RJL26]: Minor edit.

12

<heading level 3> 3) Converting whole carpet to a new plastic Monsanto (1994) has patented a process for transforming entire nylon 6,6 carpeting into a recycled carpet plastic (RCP). The entire carpet is shredded and processed to remove most of the dirt. The remaining material is melted and mixed in two stages. During the second stage, a chemical compatabilizer helps to meld the face fiber, backing, adhesive, and calcium carbonate into a new material, RCP.

<heading level 1> Transforming Nylon 6,6 Carpet to RCP We examined the size of a facility, equipment, and personnel needs for a carpet recycling facility based in Pittsburgh that would use the Monsanto process to convert entire pieces of nylon 6/6 carpet into RCP. The facility is assumed to process 450,000 lbs of discarded carpet per month, of which 200,000 lbs would be nylon 6,6 carpet. We assumed a single collection facility in the same building as the processor. The process of producing RCP has the nylon 6,6 carpet being shredded, cleaned, and fed into a series of machines that remove most of the dirt and inorganic filler (and some of the face fiber). The carpet is then transferred to an extruder where it is melted and mixed with the compatabilizer and converted into pellets. We assume carpet without nylon face fiber is sent to the landfill and that nylon 6 carpet is sold to Allied-SignalAlliedSignal. As shown in table 4, assuming zero collection costs and an income from selling nylon 6 carpet to Allied SignalAlliedSignal, the cost of producing RCP pellets was found to be $0.53 per pound of pellets. With collection costs of $0.10/lb, the monthly costs would increase by $45,000 or $0.78/lb. Based on the price of virgin nylon at $1-$2/lb, this recycling offers the most potential. However, since the pellets contain some impurities with the nylon 6,6, a premium price, as explained below, is not expected for the material.
Table 4. Best case scenario for recycling of nylon 6,6 to RCP in Pittsburgh (monthly costs)
Comment [RJL28]: Minor edit. Comment [RJL27]: Do you mean costs would increase by $45,000 or to $45,000? **BY. Table 4 seems to imply this result.

Disposal Costs Rental Carpet Collection Labor Depreciation Compatabilizer

$8,053 $5,000 $0 $46,987 $13,784 $21,440

13

Total

$106,264

Revenue from the sale of Nylon 6 $13,500

Cost per pound of pellets produced $0.53

<heading level 2> Marketing the Material Uses for Post-Consumer Carpet Plastic The market outlook for plastics in general is excellent, with increased usage of plastic materials in many areas. Recycled plastics are more difficult to market, however, unless their quality and characteristics are equal to virgin equivalents. In general, virgin plastics appear to sell at about twice the price of recycled equivalents (Hart 1995), with virgin nylon materials selling for about $1-2.30/lb and recycled material, shredded plastic from product scraps, currently selling for about $0.40/lb (Costello 1996).
Comment [RJL29]: Minor edit

To discover uses for RCP, we first need to know its characteristics and price. Perhaps the two most relevant properties of the material are its Youngs Modulus, E, and density, rho, since they indicate stiffness and low weight. Figure 1 shows RCP in comparison with other materials. The properties of the RCP overlap those of its main constituent compounds, namely nylon and polypropelene. But due to the amount of fill material and dirt mixed into the plastic, the strength and density are slightly higher. Table 5 shows the physical properties of RCP in terms of tensile strength, tensile modulus, elongation, and impact strength. For comparison, we have calculated the properties of six other plastics, including nylon 6,6. The table shows that RCP does not have any unique characteristics that would make it desirable, other than the fact that it is a recycled material.

[insert figure 1 about here] [Adapted from Ashby 1992] A simpler characterization of RCP is revealing. Even with the addition of the compatabilizer, RCP is not a uniform material. Parts of the various materials still can be identified. Since the
Comment [RJL30]: When you originally sent Figure 1, it included a caption that read something like Adapted from: Materials Selection in .. Did you plan to drop the attribution? If not, the full citation is needed for the reference list.

14

components of the RCP will vary from batch to batch depending on the exact composition of the carpet processed, the range of values for each property is much wider than that of pure plastics. This greater variability and uncertainty of the RCP properties makes it a less desirable choice for products with specific and exacting physical requirements. In addition, since RCP is a mix of face fibers of different color and of other materials, its color is typically olive green. It could be dyed black but other colors would be difficult to achieve.
Comment [RJL31]: Minor edit.

Table 5. Physical Properties of RCP in comparison with those of several typical polymers

Polymer

Tensile Strength Tensile Modulus Elongation 10^3 psi 10^5 psi 3.6-4.3 4-6 1.8-4.2 2-3.5 1.6-2.3 0.6-1.8 4.6 % 3 1-1.5 60-300 5-60 200-700 2-1000 50-300

Impact Strength (notched) ft-lb/in 0.48-0.60 0.25-0.40 1-2 3-8 0.5-2 0.5-2 0.25-0.35

RCP PS N66 ABS PP HDPE PET

5.6-5.9 5-12 9-12 3.5-6.2 4.3-5.5 3.1-5.5 8.5-10.5

Notes: RCP = Recycled Carpet Plastic; PS = Polystyrene; N6,6 =Nylon 6,6; ABS = Acrylonitrile-ButadieneStyrene Co-polymer; PP = polypropylene; HDPE = High Density Polyethylene. Data adapted from Williams 1994, McCrum et al. 1992. [Sources: Williams 1994, McCrum 1992]
Comment [RJL32]: Could you please state the source of the data in this table, i.e., the properties of the materials other than RCP?

[Note to typesetter: this is tab-separated version of the table. A more readable version is appended to the end of the document.]

In addition to color limitations, RCP has other undesirable characteristics. Since it contains a high percentage of inorganic material, its melt and flow rates are likely to be slow, increasing processing (mold) time. In addition, as a high melt, crystalizable polymer, the nylon 6,6 in the composite would require higher processing temperatures, further decreasing the melt flow rate and increasing cool down time in the mold. Thus, RCP will probably have higher energy costs and take longer for molding than an easily processed material such as polystyrene. Perhaps the most important shortcoming is that RCP is brittle, because of the high proportion of inorganic
15
Comment [RJL33]: Minor edit.

material in the plastic. Thus, RCP is not a desirable material for applications where the plastic would have to stand up to impacts.

Comment [RJL34]: Minor edit.

RCP appears to be roughly comparable to polystyrene, although it would have higher melting temperature and would take longer to mold and use more energy. Since it is not a known, tested material, RCP is less desirable than polystyrene. We conclude that RCP would have to be considerably less expensive than polystyrene unless there are regulations or strong preferences for recycled materials. Virgin polystyrene currently sells for about $0.30/lb. At the estimated cost of $0.53/lb for RCP pellets when collection costs are zero, this option is not acceptable. Because it was the recovery option with the most potential for profitabilityle outcome for the recycler, we gave considerable effort to evaluating the market for the RCP. Finding a use for a new material requires considerable work and ingenuity. The users must be convinced that the new material is attractive and will stand up to the proposed use. Because RCP is not a currently marketed plastic, we sought to discover markets where it might compete, such as serving as a replacement for wood in outdoor applications. This market is already occupied by low quality mixed recycled plastics. Plastic wood has the advantage of not being attractive to termites or fungus. To protect natural wood in outdoor applications, it is filled with or coated with a variety of pesticides that are toxic to people. For example, telephone poles face disposal problems because of the impregnated pesticides (Lebow 1993). The plastic would also have the advantage of being an engineered product, allowing for new designs. A plastic telephone pole could be a hollow cylinder that was much lighter than, but just as strong as, a wooden pole, making installation easier (Southern California Edison 1997). The pole could be designed to absorb much of the energy of a vehicle collision and thus lower highway deaths. However, preventing deaths would come at a price: these poles would be put out of service by vehicle collisions, leading to more disruptions in electricity and telephone service and greater replacement costs.4
Comment [RJL38]: Minor edit. Comment [RJL35]: In the prior draft, you state that RCP has the same performance characteristics as PS, except for heat distortion under load. Any reason why this detail was dropped? ** that was basically the only material difference, the others were economic. Since we made no other material distinctions, we felt it was unnecessary.

Comment [RJL36]: Is there a word other than reuse that can be used here since in the context of recycling, reuse has a specific meaning? How about reclamation or recovery? Unfortunately, resource recovery is a term that the waste-toenergy adopted for itself in the 1980s and is thus confusing here. Comment [RJL37]: Is this right profitable for the recycler?

16

A telephone pole made of a new material would have to be tested in a wide range of conditions to demonstrate that the pole could continue to perform for decades in a wide range of temperatures and weather conditions. Producing a known material saves the recycler from having to prove the properties of the new material.

<heading level 2> Factors That Could Increase the Attractiveness of Recycling Nylon Carpet A variety of actions would change the attractiveness of recycling nylon carpet. Market actions would include increases in the price of petroleum, increases in landfill prices, and consumer desires for recycled material. Government actions would include banning discarded carpets from landfills, forcing manufacturers to take back and recycle their carpets, refusing to collect discarded carpet with MSW, or forcing stores selling replacement carpet to deliver the discarded carpet to a recycler. Petroleum prices would have to rise sharply before it would induce recycling on the basis of raw materials costs. The same is true for landfill prices for avoided disposal costs. DuPont currently offers customers the option to pay $1 per square yard ($0.25/lb) to recycle their nylon carpet. In 1996 three million square yards were recycled in this program. (DuPont 1997). Government laws and regulations can force recycling. At present, none of these factors appears likely to make carpet recycling much more attractive. <heading level 1> Lessons Learned Our project allowed us to discover a few painful truths about recycling (see also Carpet and Rug Institute 1995). The first is that collection costs are important. In each scenario investigated, collection costs led to a net profit loss. Only by being paid to take the discarded carpet, or at least getting it delivered free is recycling currently economically attractive. The second insight is that, given time and incentives for adjustment, collection costs could be reduced. Installers who currently take loads of carpet to landfills could take them to strategically placed carpet collection points. If the carpet is labeled, the recycler could accept only the desirable carpet. Since the landfill has a tipping fee, the recycler could charge up to the tipping

17

fee. Thus, with adjustment, collection costs would become negative and most of the expense of disposing of unwanted materials would disappear.

The third lesson is that trying to recycle products that were not designed for recycling poses many problems. For carpet, identification of the face fiber and separation of the different components are obstacles. An obvious, low cost change would be to note the face fiber on the underside of the carpet to facilitate sorting. Other changes that become progressively more expensive would be to (a) make the backing of carpet from the same material as the face fiber, (b) choose the adhesive so that it could be easily removed during recycling, and (c) eliminate the calcium carbonate, leaving a single material that could be much more easily recycled. If all of these changes were made, the recycler could get only the desired carpets and almost the entire carpet could be pelletized for recycling. Recycling would be an attractive business under these conditions, even at a collection cost of $0.10/lb. The final insight is that the recycling process should produce an existing material, if at all possible, since new materials face major marketing problems. In the case of RCP, the material has value as a commercial material, but the inconsistency in properties makes it less desirable. <heading level 2>Acknowledgments This study was funded by a grant from Monsanto Corporation and the Green Design Consortium at Carnegie Mellon University. Deanna Hart contributed engineering analysis from her M.S. thesis in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering under the supervision of Professors Francis McMichael and Chris Hendrickson. Business analyses were carried out in an MBA project course by Timothy Bee, James Harvey, and Christopher MacCracken. The course was supervised by Professors Lester Lave and Noellette Conway-Schempf. <heading level 1>References List Allied Signal. 1995. Post-consumer recycling, n6 carpet fiber recycling Overhead presentation at ??. Ashby, M.F. 1992. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Comment [RJL40]: Need to indicate who the presenter was (if not known, keep Allied Signal as author). Need where and when of presentation.

Comment [RJL39]: References must be provided in the author date format specified in the Guidelines to Authors.

18

Bremer-Davis, J. 1996.

Product stewardship and the coming age of takeback . Arlington,

Massachusetts: Cutter Information Corporation.

Carpet and Rug Institute 1995 . Covering the Future: Environmental Stewardship of the Carpet
and Rug Industry . Dalton, Georgia: Carpet and Rug Institute.
Comment [RJL41]: Is the correct place of publication the Institutes main office? As far as we can tell, yes. Comment [RJL42]: Need to indicate who the presenter was (if not known, keep Allied Signal as author). Need where and when of presentation.

Costello, M. 1995. Post-consumer recycling, n6 carpet fiber recycling. AlliedSignal Inc. Carpet Fibers Division. Overhead presentation at Carnegie Mellon University.

Costello, M. 1996. , Allied Signal AlliedSignal Inc. Carpet Fibers Division Carpet, Recycling Operation. 1996. Ppersonal communication. DuPont Automotive . 1997. DuPont flooring systems dealers say no to used carpets in landfills. "Press Release". , January 29.
Comment [RJL44]: If you have the title of the press release, please add to this reference. Comment [RJL43]: Is Allied Signal Carpet, Recycling Operation the affiliation for Costello?

Gardner, G. 1996. , Plant Manager, Monsanto. 1996. Personal communication. Gardner, H.C. 1995. Carpet recycling technology. International Fibers Journal ,. 10(4): 3649August. Hart, D. 1995 Identification and Specification of Recycled Materials for Use in New Products: A Case Study of Post-Consumer Carpets. Masters Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University. Herlihy, J. 1994. Carpet recycle update. Dalton, Georgia: Carpet and Rug Institute. Leaversuch, R.D. 1994. Legislation is having a mixed impact on worldwide recycling. Modern
Plastics 71(12):16-17.
Comment [RJL45]: What is IFJ? A journal? Is so, need vol, number & pages.

19

Leaversuch, R.D. 1993. Process reclaims polymer content of fibers in discarded carpets. ,
Modern Plastics, 70(4): 41-42.

Lebow, S. 1993. Leaching of wood preservative components and their mobility in the
environment . General technical report FPL-GTR-93 Madison, Wisconsin: US Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Product Laboratory.

McCrum, N.G., C.P. Buckley, and C.B. Bucknall. 1992. Science Publications, Oxford., 1992.

McCrum,

N.G., C.P. Buckley, and C.B. Bucknall, Principles of Polymer Engineering, Oxford: Oxford

Minnesota Office of Environmental Resources (OER). 1995. Barriers to Recycling Corrugated

Paper Products and Carpeting. Draft Report.

Monsanto Company. 1994. Thermoplastic Composition and Method for Producing Thermoplastic Composition by Melt Blending Carpet. US Patent #5,294,384. 15 Mar.

Phillips, A. 1997. Anthony Phillips Hauling Company. Personal communication. Schut, J.H. 1993. A recycling first: cCarpets! Plastics Technology, April 1993, 22-24. Southern California Edison. 1997 . Technology report: composite transmission poles: a key to
enhancing system reliability. June.

Comment [RJL46]: Please put the citation for Phillips 1997 in the reference list - it is cited in endnote # Comment [RJL47]: A search of the document does not reveal where this reference is cited in the text. Please verify its use, then put it in the proper position in the alphabetized list. **this was the source of the information about economies of scale in dumpsters. We no long use it and so it should be dropped. SEE EARLIER NOTE WHERE WE ASK WHY THIS WAS DROPPED. Sti l references in l paper - right before Table 1! Comment [RJL48]: Need volume and number. **doesnt appear to have v/n format in publication Comment [RJL49]: Do you have a place of publication?

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992., The use of alternative materials for daily cover
municipal solid waste landfills. NTIS PB92-227197. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government

Printing Office. Williams, S.R. 1994. Carpet Recycle Program. m. Monsanto ReportOverhead presentation,. Gonzales, FL..
Comment [RJL50]: Do you have a place of publication? All references should be ok now.

20

Word Tables for Document (as requested) Table 1: Two estimates of 1994 face fiber market share

Material

Allied SignalAlliedS ignal

Monsanto

Nylon 6,6 Nylon 6 Polypropylene Polyester Wool and acrylic

36% 26% 26% 11% 1%

44.2% 29% 14.5% 10.5% 1.1%

Table 2 Estimated costs and revenues associated with recycling residential carpet into nylon pellets

Description Discarded carpet: collection handling Carpet without nylon face fibers: dispose Carpet with nylon face fibers: shear Backing, residual face fiber: dispose Nylon face fiber: pelletize Total Operating Costs

Unit Cost

Material Quantity 1333 lbs

Total Cost

$0.10/lb $0.02/lb 333 lbs $0.025/lb 1000 lbs $0.03/lb 775 lbs $0.025/lb 225 lbs $0.09/lb

$133.30 $26.66

$8.32

$30.00

$19.38

$20.25 $237.91

Nylon pellets: sell Total Revenue $0.40/lb

225lbs $90.00 $90.00

21

Gross Margin (revenue minus variable cost) Margin excluding collection costs

- $147.91 (- $0.11/lb) - $14.61 (- $0.011/lb)

Assumptions: 75% of carpet is nylon carpet, 45% of residential carpet by weight is face fiber, shearing efficiency is 50%.

Table 3 Estimated costs and revenues associated with recycling residential and commercial carpet into nylon 6 feedstock and nylon 6,6 pellets

Residentia l Description Unit Cost Discarded carpet: collect residential carpet Collected carpet: handling Carpet without nylon face fibers: dispose Carpet with nylon 6,6 face fibers: shear Backing, residual face fiber: dispose Nylon face fiber: pelletize Total Operating Costs $0.09/lb $0.025/lb 135 $12.15 $210.05 $0.03/lb 465 $11.62 $0.025/lb 600 $18.00 $0.02/lb 333 $8.32 $0.10/lb 1333 $26.66 Material Quantity 1333 $133.30 Total Cost

Commercia l Material Quantity 0 $0 1000 $20.00 0 $0 600 $18.00 495 $12.38 105 $9.45 $59.83 Total Cost

Discarded carpet: drop-off commercial carpet Nylon pellets: sell Nylon 6 carpet: sell to Allied SignalAlliedSignal Total Revenue $0.10 $0.40/lb $0.015/lb

0 $0 135 $54.00 400 $40.00 $94.00

1000 $15.00 105 $42.00 400 $40.00 $97.00

Gross Margin

- $116.05

$37.17

22

(-0.087/lb) Margin excluding collection costs $17.25 ($0.013/lb)

($0.037) $22.17 ($0.022)

Assumptions: 75% of carpet is nylon carpet, Nylon 6,6 accounts for 45% of the carpet market or 60% of the nylon carpet market; Nylon 6 accounts for 30% of the carpet market or 40% of the nylon carpet market; 45% of residential carpet is face fiber, 30% of commercial carpet is face fiber, shearing efficiency is 50%.

* Recall that residential carpet is 45% face fiber while commercial carpet is 30% face fiber by weight.

Table 4. Best case scenario for recycling of nylon 6,6 to RCP in Pittsburgh (monthly costs)

Component Disposal Costs Rental Carpet Collection $0 Labor Depreciation Compatabilizer Total

Cost per month $8,053 $5,000

$46,987 $13,784 $21,440 $106,264

Table 5. Physical Properties of RCP in comparison with those of several typical polymers

Polymer

Tensile Strength 10^3 psi

Tensile Modulus 10^5 psi 3.6-4.3 4-6 1.8-4.2 2-3.5 1.6-2.3 0.6-1.8 4.6

Elongation %

Impact Strength (notched)

ft-lb/in 3 1-1.5 60-300 5-60 200-700 2-1000 50-300 0.48-0.60 0.25-0.40 1-2 3-8 0.5-2 0.5-2 0.25-0.35

RCP PS N66 ABS PP HDPE PET

5.6-5.9 5-12 9-12 3.5-6.2 4.3-5.5 3.1-5.5 8.5-10.5

23

RCP = Recycled Carpet Plastic; PS = Polystyrene; N6,6 =Nylon 6,6; ABS = Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Copolymer; PP = polypropylene; HDPE = High Density Polyethylene. Data adapted from Williams 1994, McCrum et al. 1992.

One square yard of carpet weighs approximately 4 pounds; one square meter approximately 2 kilograms. 2 The cost of weekly pickup in Pittsburgh varies with container size: 4 cubic yards: $80/week = $20/cubic yard, 8 cubic yards: $120/week = $15/cubic yard, 20 cubic yards: $280/week = $14/cubic yard (Phillips 1997). 3 Free on board (FOB) is a designation used in shipping to indicate that a quoted price does not include the cost of shipping, i.e., that the purchaser pays the cost of transport. 4 Telephone companies are unlikely to welcome the controversy, and likely law suits, that would ensue from being able to use a pole that prevented some highway deaths at the cost of more frequent disruptions and replacement.

24