J: egE C )0 CAP -C-k--2-7 d,gL- O.1 01. OF IN

By: Steven Kaelin Michael Pacyna Shrub Pai RECYCLING OF TETRA PAK CONTAINERS IN COSTA RICA

Report Submitted to:

Professor Bland Addison Professor Creighton Peet

Costa Rica, Project Center

By:

Steven Kaelin

Michael Pacm

Shruti Pai

In Cooperation With

Professor Ronald Arrieta Calvo, Researcher for the

Centro de Investigaciones en Contaminacion Ambiental

July 3, 2002

This project report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of Centro de Investigaciones en Contaminacion Ambiental or Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

This report is the product of an education program and is intended to serve as partial documentation for the evaluation of academic achievement. The report should not be construed as a working document by the reader. Abstract

The Centro de Investigaciones en Contaminacion Ambiental (CICA) is a Costa Rican environmental organization. CICA wished to research the possibilities for the collection and recycling of Tetra Pak containers, including investigation of possible technological and economic factors involved in establishing a recycling company. The project team has gathered information on current Tetra Pak recycling systems around the world including their processes, impacts, benefits and government policies. We used interviews and surveys to learn more about Costa Rican opinion on and knowledge of recycling and current recycling systems and available technology. After analyzing the data we made recommendations for a Tetra Pak recycling system that best suits Costa Rica.

11 Authorship Page

This report entitled, Recycling of Tetra Pak Containers in Costa Rica, was completed on July 3, 2002 with equal contributions from Steven Kaelin, Michael Pacyna, and Shruti Pai. Although some sections were written individually, they were collectively edited and revised. The following is a list of who wrote the first draft of each section, although the final draft of each section was edited and revised by all group members.

Executive Summary: MP Introduction: SK, MP, SP Literature Review: 2.1-2.3: MP 2.4: SK 2.5: SK, SP 2.6: SK 2.7: SK, MP, SP 2.8: MP 2.9: SK 2.10-2.12: SP Methodology: 3.1: MP 3.2: SP 3.3: MP 3.4: SK 3.5: SK, SP Results and Analysis: 4.1: MP 4.2: SP 4.3: MP 4.4: SK Conclusions and Recommendations: SK, SP References: SK, MP, SP Appendices: SK, MP, SP

iii Acknowledgements

In completing this project, there are several people who have been extremely helpful to us, and we would like to thank them. First, we would like to thank our liaison, Prof. Ronald Arrieta as well as our advisors, Prof. Bland Addison and Prof Creighton Peet for all their help and guidance throughout the project. We would also like to thank Bernardo Escobar, Carlos Andres, Anthony Araya, Bernardo Monge, Fernando VonZuben, Sergio Musmanni, and Liliana Umaria for all the information and assistance they provided. Also, we would like to thank Marcela Gamboa de Music, Maria Addison, Annie Pacyna, and Carolina Arrieta for all their help in translating our presentation into Spanish.

iv Table of Contents

Title Page i Abstract .. ii Authorship Page iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Executive Summary x Resumen Ejecutivo xiii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW & BACKGROUND 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Tetra Pak Containers 5 2.3 Tetra Pak Containers: Good or Bad for the Environment 8 2.4 Problems for the Recycling Process 10 2.5 Solid 12 2.5.1 Composting 13 2.5.2 Landfills 14 2.5.3 Recycling 15 2.5.3a Benefits 16 A. Overview 17 B. Employment 17 C. Economy ..18 2.5.3b Social Factors of Recycling 19 2.5.3c Recycling Programs 21 2.6 Collection Programs ...21 2.6.1 United States 21 2.6.2 Canada 25 2.6.2a Nova Scotia 25 2.6.2b Yukon Territory 26 2.6.3 Germany 26 2.6.4 Brazil .28 2.6.5 Costa Rica 29 2.7 Recycling Methods 30 2.7.1 Hydrapulping 30 2.7.2 Result Technology 33 2.7.3 Closed Water Loop System 34 2.7.4 Chiptec 35 2.7.5 Incineration for Cement 35 2.8 Markets 37 2.9 Resource Recovery Plant 38 2.10 Recycling Policies - Implementation 38 2.11 Considerations for Recycling in Costa Rica 39

v

2.11.1 Economic Planning 39 2.11.2 Community Involvement 40 2.11.3 The Role of Education 41 2.11.4 The Role of Companies 43 2.11.5 The Role of the Government 43 2.11.6 Hypothetical Company Options: Local or Foreign? 44 2.12 Conclusion 45 Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY 47 3.1 Current Waste Conditions in Costa Rica 47 3.2 Existing Recycling Methods 48 3.2.1 Existing Recycling Methods Outside of Costa Rica 48 3.3.2 Existing Recycling Methods In Costa Rica 49 3.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis 49 3.4 Local Interest in Recycling 51 3.5 Making the Decision 53 Chapter 4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 54 4.1 Current Waste Conditions in Costa Rica 54 4.2 Recycling Programs 56 4.2.1 Collection Methods 56 4.2.1a Curbside Collection 57 4.2.1b Deposit-Refund 58 4.2.1c Drop-Off Centers 58 4.2.1d Summary of Collection Methods 59 4.2.2 Recycling Processes 61 4.2.2a Hydrapulping 63 4.2.2b Chiptec 64 4.2.2c Closed Water Loop System 64 4.2.2d Incineration for Use in Cement 65 4.2.3 Markets 66 4.2.3a , Aluminum, and Plastic (LDPE) 67 4.2.3b Furniture 67 4.2.3c Cement 68 4.2.3d Plastic-Aluminum Agglutinate 68 4.2.4 Summary of Programs 68 4.3 Cost Analysis 70 4.3.1 Investing or Saving 70 4.4 Local Recycling 72 4.4.1 Local Knowledge and Attitudes about Recycling 72 4.4.1a Current Waste Disposal Practices 74 4.4.1b Current Public Interest in Recycling 75 4.4.1c Current Public Knowledge of Recycling 77 4.4.2 Current Corporate Interest in Recycling 80 4.4.3 Current Recycling Education 80 4.4.4 Future Recycling Education 81 4.5 Summary of Results 82

vi Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83 5.1 Establish a National Recycling Program 83 5.2 Establish a Source of Funding 84 5.3 Develop a Collection System 85 5.4 Implement Education Programs 86 5.5 Establishing Collection and Recycling Centers 87 5.6 Establish a Recycling Process 88 5.7 Integrate Rural Communities 89 5.8 A Complete Overview 90 Chapter 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES 92 APPENDICES A. Information on Sponsor 97 B. Work Plan 100 C. Why is this Project an IQP 101 D. Interview with Carlos Andres 103 E. Interview with Anthony Araya 109 F. Interview with Bernardo Monge 113 G. Interview with Sergio Musmanni 118 H. Interview with Liliana Umalia 121 I. Interview with Michele Wagner 124 J. Detailed Summary of Interview with Bernardo Escobar 127 K. San Jose Questionnaire (Spanish) 133 L. San Jose Questionnaire (English) 135 M. Recycling Pamphlet from the Canton of 138 N. Contact Information 141 0. Calculation of the Minimal Necessary Collection Rate for Tetra Pak Containers 143

vii List of Tables

4.1 Methods of Collection ..60 4.2 Breakdown of Costs for Collection Methods ...60 4.3 Cost Comparison for Chiptec and Closed Water Loop System 62 4.4 Comparison of Operation Factors for Chiptec and Closed Water Loop System 62 4.5 Survey Demographic Information 73

viii List of Figures

2.1 Gable Top 6 2.2 Aseptic 7 4.1 Startup Costs for Tetra Pak Recycling Methods 63 4.2 Flow Chart of Recycling Program Options 69 4.3 Respondents' Interest in Tetra Brik Recycling (Metropolitan Region of San Jose) 76 4.4 Respondents' Interest in Tetra Brik Recycling (Canton of Santa Ana) 76 4.5 People's Perception of the Best Way to Handle Tetra Brik Waste 78 4.6 Households with Children Who Had Homework Relating to Solid Waste Management or Recycling 79 4.7 Respondents' Views on the Problems that Tetra Paks Create for the Environment .79 5.1 Recycling Program Summary 91

ix Executive Summary

The amount of waste being produced in Costa Rica is continually rising. With this increase, landfills are filling up at an accelerated rate, and as this happens, more land must be used to replace the filled landfills. This process, of course, creates a problem for

Costa Rica, since it is trying to preserve the land and its natural beauty. One obvious solution to the waste problem is recycling. Our project deals with the recycling of a packaging material commonly used to preserve foods, Tetra Pak containers. By recycling these containers, one can: a) recover the layers of valuable resources b) decrease the amount of waste entering a landfill, thereby prolonging its lifespan, and c) reduce the consumption of virgin materials.

Currently, there is no recycling system in place for Tetra Pak containers in Costa

Rica. All of these containers are being sent to landfills, where they take up precious space. In researching recycling programs for these containers, we discovered several problems. First, the containers are very lightweight, which means, economically, you need a rather large quantity of them in order to run a recycling program. Second, many times people do not clean the containers before recycling them, so the food remnants in the containers cause spoilage. The third problem we discovered was a general misconception that these containers were impossible to recycle because of their different layers (paper, plastic and aluminum). However, we have learned that with the correct technology, recycling these containers is actually rather simple.

Working with Professor Ronald Arrieta of the University of Costa Rica, our goal was to recommend a recycling system for Tetra Pak containers for use in Costa Rica. In order to accomplish this, we performed interviews and did archival research to investigate the different recycling systems for Tetra Pak containers throughout the world, both for collection and processing. We identified the following Tetra Pak recycling companies and process. We successfully made contact with some but not all of these companies to obtain details on the recycling system each was using. We used a combination of archival research and interviews to obtain information on the systems we identified.

In our analysis, we compared the costs for each collection and recycling process along with the advantages and disadvantages, including environmental effects and public interest. We also investigated whether or not it was financially viable to invest in the various systems. Finally, we analyzed the results of a survey carried out in the region of

San Jose to gauge the interest and willingness of local people to participate in a recycling program for Tetra Pak containers and to determine their knowledge and attitudes regarding recycling. This survey, along with a similar survey performed several months earlier by another group of students, helped to provide us with an idea of how successful a recycling program might be in Costa Rica.

From our analysis, we have concluded that there is enough Tetra Pak waste being generated in Costa Rica to make a Tetra Pak recycling plant economically viable for all three recycling processes: Hydrapulping, the Closed Water Loop System, and Chiptec.

In analyzing the collection and recycling methods available, we recommend curbside collection with a drop-off system implemented at landfills in areas where there is no curbside collection for local residents' solid waste.

The recycling process that we recommend is a closed water loop system, which was developed by ZERI (Zero Emissions Research Initiative). This process produces

xi absolutely no air or water pollution, has promise of profit and ZERI has expressed an interest in assisting with the setup of this process in Costa Rica.

We hope the results we have produced from this project will be useful to CICA as they continue to work toward a recycling program for Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica.

This report will also be of use to the Ministry of Health in Costa Rica and the Centro

Nacional de Producion Mas Limpia, as both groups have done some research into recycling of Tetra Pak containers, and both are still pursuing this topic. We are confident of the eventual adoption of a recycling program for such containers in Costa Rica in combination with a comprehensive recycling program for a wide variety of other materials.

xii RESUMEN EJECUTIVO

La cantidad de deshechos producidos en Costa Rica esta continuamente creciendo. Con este aumento, los rellenos sanitarios se estan llenando en una forma acelerada, y conforme esto sucede, mas terrenos necesitaran ser usados para reemplazar los rellenos sanitarios que estan al tope. Este proceso, por supuesto, impone un problema para Costa Rica, debido a que esta tratando de preservar la tierra y su belleza natural.

Una solucion obvia para el problema de la basura es el reciclaje. Nuestro proyecto trata sobre el reciclaje de un material para empaque comunmente usado para preservar comida, estos son los empaques Tetra Pak. Al reciclar estos empaques, uno puede: a) recuperar las capas de recursos de valor, b) disminuir la cantidad de basura que entra a un relleno sanitario, y asi prolongando su vida -Call, y c) reducir el consumo de materiales virgenes.

Actualmente, en Costa Rica no existe un sistema de reciclaje para los empaques

Tetra Pak. Todos estos empaques estan siendo enviados a rellenos sanitarios, donde estan ocupando espacio valioso. Investigando los programas de reciclaje para estos empaques se descubrieron varios problemas. Primero, los empaques son de peso muy liviano, lo cual significa, economicamente, que se necesita una cantidad bastante grande de ellos para poner en marcha un programa de reciclaje. Segundo, muchas veces las personas no limpian los empaques antes de reciclarlos, entonces los restos de comida dentro de los empaques causan putrefacci6n. El tercer problema que se descubrio fue un concepto erroneo que estos empaques eran imposibles de reciclar debido a sus diferentes capas o laminas (papel, plastico y aluminio). Sin embargo, se descubrio que con la tecnologia adecuada reciclar estos empaques es mas bien simple. Trabajando con el profesor Ronald Arrieta de la Universidad de Costa Rica, nuestra meta fue recomendar un sistema de reciclaje para los empaques Tetra Pak usados en Costa Rica. Para poder lograr esto, se desarrollaron entrevistas y se hizo una investigacion bibliografica para identificar los diferentes sistemas de reciclaje de los empaques Tetra Pak alrededor del mundo, ambos, para recoleccion y procesado. Se identificaron las siguientes comparilas para obtener detalles del sistema de reciclaje que cada uno de ellos estaba usando. Se utilizo una combinaci6n de investigacion bibliografica y entrevistas para obtener informaci6n sobre los sistemas que se identificaron.

En este analisis, se compararon los costos de cada coleccion y proceso de reciclaje junto con las ventaj as y desventaj as, incluyendo los efectos ambientales y el interes publico. Tambien se investigo si era o no financieramente viable invertir en los sistemas varios. Finalmente, se analizaron los resultados de la encuesta que se Hew') a cabo en la region de San Jose para medir el interes y la voluntad de las personas locales para participar en un programa de reciclaje de los envases Tetra Pak y determinar su conocimiento y actitudes en lo que respecta al reciclaje. Esta encuesta, junto con otra similar que fue llevada a cabo algunos meses atras por otro grupo de estudiantes, ayud6 a proveernos con una idea de cuan exitoso puede ser un programa de reciclaje en Costa

Rica.

Para nuestro analisis, hemos concluido que hay suficiente basura de Tetra Pak que se genera en Costa Rica como para hacer una planta de reciclaje de Tetra Pak economicamente viable para los tres procesos de reciclaje: Hydrapulping, el sistema

Closed Water Loop y Chiptec. Al analizar la recoleccion y los metodos de reciclaje

xiv disponibles, recomendamos un sistema de deposit° selectivo de materiales por medio de grandes contenedores colocados en las aceras de los barrios, el cual sea implementado en las areas de rellenos sanitarios donde no existe la recoleccion de desechos solidos para los residentes locales.

El proceso de reciclaje que se recomienda es un sistema de Closed Water Loop, el cual fue desarrollado por ZERI (Zero Emissions Research Initiative). Este proceso no produce contaminacion del aire ni del agua en absoluto, promete ganancias y ZERI ha expresado un interes en ayudar con el establecimiento de este proyecto en Costa Rica.

Se espera que los resultados que se han obtenido de este proyecto sean utiles para

CICA mientras contimien trabajando para un programa de reciclaje de empaques de Tetra

Pak en Costa Rica. Este reporte tambien sera para use del Ministerio de Salud en Costa

Rica y el Centro Nacional de Produccion Mas Limpia, ya que ambos han hecho investigaciones sobre el reciclaje de los envases de Tetra Pak en Costa Rica y ambos estan todavia tras este tema. Se sabe que eventualmente habra una adopci6n de un programa de reciclaje para estos empaques en Costa Rica en combinacion con un programa comprehensivo de reciclaje para una gran variedad de materiales distintos.

xv Chapter 1: Introduction

Every human action has a consequence. In the 21 st century, people are slowly beginning to realize that the consequences of our actions can have severe detrimental effects on the environment and so we need to take responsibility for them. As nations grow and become more industrialized, there is a need for more resources, and along with the consumption of resources comes more waste. As the amount of waste produced increases, it becomes imperative for nations to have some sort of system in place to deal with it. Various waste management methods have been developed over the years, including landfills, incineration, and many different recycling methods. Each of these solutions plays an important part in dealing with the waste we produce, though some of these methods are preferred to others.

In Costa Rica, solid waste has become a major concern. The amount of waste produced in the of San Jose itself has more than tripled over a 20 year period, from approximately 125,000 tons in 1978 to 385,000 tons in 1999. Another important factor in Costa Rica's increasing solid waste problem is the increase in industry. More technology is being used, and this technology is producing new types of waste. For example, about 30 years ago Tetra Pak containers were introduced in Costa

Rica. While they carried the advantages of being lightweight, durable, inexpensive, and their contents less prone to spoilage, they also introduced a new type of waste into Costa

Rica. Today, Tetra Pak containers represent approximately 1.6% of the waste found in the Rio Azul landfill where half of the country's waste is dumped (Adolfo Cordoba, personal communication, June 11, 2002).

1 At this point in time, Costa Rica's main method of dealing with Tetra Pak's and other waste is to use landfills (Wolkoff, 2000). A landfill is a plot of land where trash is collected and dumped. One problem with this method is space. Landfills require a large area of empty land in order to hold the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste produced annually in Costa Rica. This large concentration of waste disrupts the lives of area residents by inevitably emitting foul odors as it decomposes. Also, by not recycling these containers, Earth's natural resources are further depleted, whereas they could be conserved through recycling.

In pursuit of an alternative solution, we have been asked by Professor Ronald

Arrieta and the Centro de Investigaciones en Contaminacion Ambiental (CICA) to research a recycling method for Tetra Pak containers that could be implemented in Costa

Rica. These containers are primarily and juice and are made of , plastic, and in some cases, aluminum.

The problem is that Costa Rica does not currently have a recycling system that can handle these containers, forcing the country to resort to dumping them in landfills, where the paper, plastic, and aluminum resources that make up the container are being wasted. Our primary goal in this project is to recommend a Tetra Pak recycling program that can be used by Costa Rica to recycle these containers. A Tetra Pak recycling program will obviously save resources, by utilizing the paper, plastic, and aluminum layers, and will also reduce the amount of waste being brought to landfills, thereby increasing the lifespan of the landfills, reducing the amount of pollution, and improving the quality of the environment.

2 In order to effectively complete this project, a few goals and objectives were formed. The main goal of the project is to recommend a recycling program, which could be implemented by a local company or organization, for the collection and reuse of Tetra

Pak containers. The main objectives are, first, to determine the amount of Tetra Pak containers consumed and disposed of in Costa Rica. Second, we need to discover ways to collect and efficiently process the containers in a way suitable to the needs and capabilities of Costa Rica. Third, we need to identify markets for the material(s) produced by the recycling method chosen, and, finally, we need to determine local interest and willingness to participate in the recycling program. This project will serve

CICA as an investigative report into the options for recycling these containers.

The various collection programs for Tetra Pak containers available today needed to be examined from different angles. A proper collection program must promote active participation from local people, produce a sufficient number of Tetra Pak containers to make recycling them worthwhile, and be economically viable. A processing method for

Tetra Pak containers must be environmentally friendly and provide some economic benefit to Costa Rica in terms of profitability and/or reducing the costs of waste disposal, the creation of jobs, and a supply of usable materials. Our goal has been to thoroughly analyze the pros and cons of current recycling systems for Tetra Pak containers throughout the world, and apply this knowledge to develop a waste collection and processing method that combines the best features of the different systems.

From a methodological standpoint, it was necessary to begin our project by obtaining as much background information as possible on available recycling systems available for Tetra Pak containers. In Costa Rica, surveys were given out to obtain Costa

3 Rican opinions of and knowledge about recycling. We also investigated the current recycling situation in Costa Rica by visiting and looking at documents on landfills, by speaking with a government official from the Ministry of Health, and by speaking with companies that produce and/or use Tetra Pak containers. We contacted people at companies currently engaging in Tetra Pak recycling, asked relevant questions, and analyzed the results. Having performed this research, we were able to draw conclusions and make recommendations about the most suitable collection and recycling system for

Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica.

Costa Rica cannot escape the reality of the modern world, where waste disposal poses large environmental problems. Methods of recycling need to be formed and implemented in the near future. Industry must move from a process, with a rich beginning and a wasteful end, to a cycle, where everything is continually reused and there is no end. This is a delicate world of consequence, and humans must take responsibility for the consequences that their actions have on the environment.

4 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Before we can attempt to tackle the problem of recycling Tetra Pak containers, we first need to understand a little more about them. In this section we will provide information on what these containers actually are, the problems that are posed by their disposal and reuse, ways to collect and process Tetra Pak's, and some of the considerations for recycling in Costa Rica. Part of this section examines factual information necessary to understand the technological aspects of the project. This section also reviews contrasting opinions about the benefits of recycling and serves to provide us with different perspectives that we may not have otherwise considered on certain issues.

2.2 TETRA PAK CONTAINERS

In this section we will be explaining what Tetra Pak containers are. Though there are other companies who make containers in a similar packaging, such as International

Paper Inc., we will be discussing the primary producer of these types of containers, Tetra

Pak Inc.

According to M. Wagner, an Environmental Manager at Tetra Pak Inc. (personal communication, April 17, 2002), Tetra Pak is a company that makes two main types of packaging: non-aseptic containers and the company's unique Tetra Brik Aseptic containers. Common examples of these containers are milk cartons and drink boxes

(MCDB). The non-aseptic containers are gable top cartons and Tetra Brik non-aseptic containers. These containers consist of a layer of thick paperboard between two thin layers of plastic, low-density (LDPE) as shown in Figure 2.1 on the following page (Eco Recycle Victoria, 1999).

5 Figure 2.1 — Gable Top Carton (Eco Recycle Victoria, 1999)

According to Abreu (2002), the inside layer of LDPE is a protector for the food and prevents its contact with the paperboard. The outer layer of LDPE provides protection for the paperboard from the humidity within a refrigerator. The layers of the packaging are combined using high temperatures as opposed to glue products. The main difference between the non-aseptic packaging and Tetra Brik Aseptic packaging is that the liquid foods in the non-aseptic packaging do not have an extended like the products in Tetra Brik Aseptic containers (M. Wagner, personal communication, April

17, 2002). This is because of the added layer of aluminum that the Tetra Brik Aseptic containers have.

Tetra Brik Aseptic containers, which get their name from their brick shape, are

Tetra Pak's trademark brand of aseptic packaging (M. Wagner, 2002). The Aseptic

Packaging Council [APC] (2000) states that aseptic containers consist of layers of LDPE on paperboard and aluminum. The inclusion of aluminum provides a barrier against light and oxygen, which eliminates the need for refrigeration and preserves the food without the need for additives and preservatives. These containers are considered aseptic, since they prevent the growth of pathogenic microorganisms as defined by the Encarta World

Dictionary (2002). As Figure 2.2 on the following page shows, the containers are made with six layers (Aseptic Packaging Council, 2002).

6 41.c.Pystilyttilo 2 papttrtgxere 3 prOystoylono 4 ahirtist ton yorly1 Ono ,co)ya 01;i1

Figure 2.2 — Aseptic Container (Aseptic Packaging Council, 2002)

While the paperboard only has a single layer, it makes up 75% of the container.

The low-density polyethylene makes up 20%, and the aluminum makes up the remaining

5% of the container. The paperboard is used to give the package its strength and shape.

The LDPE serves several purposes. The inner layers provide a liquid-tight seal and envelop the aluminum layer, preventing any contamination. The outer layer keeps the package dry and provides a surface for graphics or other information on the container. This is particularly important when attempting to recycle these products, because this keeps the paperboard clean, eliminating the need for a de-inking process.

The process of filling these containers is very fast and energy efficient. The product is sterilized outside the package using a high temperature sterilization process that quickly heats and then cools the product prior to filling (APC, 2000). This process is completed within 3 to 15 seconds with a temperature between 195°F and 285°F.

Compare this to the traditional process in which the contents are heated in the can for 20 to 50 minutes. The large reduction in time causes the aseptic process to be much more energy efficient, and therefore more profitable and desirable.

7 2.3 TETRA PAK CONTAINERS: GOOD OR BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?

There are many different opinions about whether or not Tetra Pak containers are good for the environment. There has also been controversy about the feasibility of recycling the containers. The following sections cite contrasting opinions about Tetra

Pak containers and their role in the environment.

Tetra Pak takes pride in the fact that its packaging is made with a very small

amount of material, because this means that there will be less waste after the product is disposed of (APC, 2000). Each aseptic carton from Tetra Pak consists of 96% beverage to only 4% packaging by weight. Tetra Pak also takes pride in the fact that the aseptic package and aseptic packaging industry won the Presidential Award for Sustainable

Development in 1996.

Despite their light weight and small size, Tetra Pak containers have posed problems for the recycling industry. Raymond (1992, p.82) discusses how many

companies and legislators from the United States in 1989 considered MCDB to be

unrecyclable because of their multiple layers of material. Recycling companies at the

time could not handle the combination of LDPE, paper, and aluminum. One of the more

extreme responses to this problem was pursued in Maine in 1989. The legislatures

decided to ban all aseptic containers in the state, hoping this would solve the problem of

not being able to recycle them. Twelve other states followed Maine's example in

banning the containers.

In response to Maine's ban on aseptic containers, the Aseptic Packaging Council

was instantly formed to initiate recycling programs and to promote the benefits of aseptic

packaging to lawmakers (Raymond, 1992, p. 80). Steuteville (1994a, p.71) states that the

8 recycling industry has advanced a good deal in the past 13 years. It is now possible to recycle multilayered materials such as MCDB. Many recycling companies in the United

States, including Resource Recovery Systems and Waste Management Inc., have developed programs to recycle these products. Throughout the country, curbside programs that pick up MCDB serve approximately 2.5 million residencies. 1,800 schools and businesses also have programs for MCDB recycling. The APC began programs at schools particularly because a large amount of MCDB is disposed of at schools

(Raymond, 1992, p.81). Considering some states had banned these containers due to recycling problems only 13 years earlier, Steuteville's findings are very optimistic and show promise for the future of MCDB recycling.

Some places have commended Tetra Pak for their recycling initiatives. Atlantic

Packaging Products Ltd. (2002), of Canada, for example, praised Tetra Pak Inc. in

September of 2000 for its financial assistance in a recycling project to recycle Tetra Pak's through at Atlantic Packaging's Scarborough mill. Atlantic Packaging commended Tetra

Pak for its commitment to collect waste containers at its plants in Ontario and Quebec, and its financial assistance and commitment to help local curbside recycling programs and school programs.

However, other places have had problems starting recycling programs in conjunction with Tetra Pak. Jessen (Toenail Environmental Services, 1998) claims that in April 1997, British Columbia planned to set up a beverage container deposit system for different recyclable products that would include aseptic and gable top containers, specifically the ones produced by Tetra Pak. In September of 1998, it was announced that these containers would be exempt from the plan, and companies who produce and

9 use aseptic and gable top containers would have one year to implement a recycling program. It was believed that 110 million Tetra Pak drink boxes could end up in a landfill as a result of the exemption. Many people did not understand why a program was not started in British Columbia, because a deposit-refund system for Tetra Pak containers had been created in Alberta, Canada, where the containers were recycled at a facility in

Wisconsin, USA.

Tetra Pak claimed that the problem in British Columbia was a lack of a recycling facility. Jessen argued that the main problem was the complexity of recycling the aseptic containers with their multiple layers of different materials (Toenail Environmental

Services, 1998). However, others like M. Wagner (personal communication, April 17,

2002) of Tetra Pak argue that the multiple layers pose no problem for recycling the containers. Jessen also argued that they are produced and designed to be disposed of. He cited Helen Spiegelman, who is vice-president of the environmental group SPEC (Society

Promoting Environmental Conservation). She claimed that aseptic boxes have been designed for developing countries lacking refrigeration, and they are unsuitable for

British Columbia, because BC could use a recyclable container instead.

2.4 PROBLEMS FOR THE RECYCLING PROCESS

The two main problems for the Tetra Pak recycling process are the quantity of weight of the containers, and the spoiling of the containers. The sections below explain how these two aspects are problems for recycling the containers. There are two specific problems with recycling Tetra Pak containers that still need to be addressed and worked through in the eyes of Steuteville (1994a, p.72). The first problem is quantity and weight.

Recycling companies do not, of course, recycle one container at a time. They must have

10 a large quantity in order to run the recycling machines. The containers are stored in bales

until they can be recycled. These bales come in various sizes and can hold anywhere

from 100 pounds to over 1500 pounds of material. Once a bale is full, the actual recycling process begins. However, filling an entire bale can be quite difficult with such

small and lightweight containers, and herein lies the problem. For example, a recycling program in the United States involving 10,000 houses creates approximately 18 tons of

MCDB in a given year. Steuteville (1994a, p.73) says that this is a very small amount in

the recycling industry, which generally sets prices by the ton. This means that recycling

MCDB produces very little profit for a company, if any. Another effect of the low

quantity of MCDB is storage space. Without a large supply of MCDB, factories must

provide additional storage space until the company can fill an entire bale.

While these cartons sit in the factory, says Steuteville (1994b, p.75), they can lead

to the second main problem with recycling MCDB, contamination. Many times,

especially in schools, some liquid or solid is left in the containers. For example, many

times children do not finish their drinks and leave some liquid in the container. While

this does not seem important to the child, it is extremely important to the recycling

companies. As these containers are left out in the open, the liquid begins to spoil,

causing bacteria to grow and attracting insects and other pests. This is particularly

common with milk containers, as milk tends to spoil quickly when left exposed to the air.

This problem can cost a company a great deal of money depending on the severity. If the

factory becomes infested with insects, the company will have to hire an exterminator,

which may result in the shutting down of the plant while the insects are exterminated.

11 Shutting the plant down will, of course, result in a loss of production, and hence lower profits.

Steuteville (1994b, p.75) outlines several solutions to these problems. First, educational programs in schools and in the community will help inform people of the importance of recycling and of cleaning the containers. This may increase the participation rate and thus the quantity of MCDB that are recycled; cutting down the amount of time these cartons must sit in a before they are recycled. Von Zuben

(2000) reiterates the need for education, especially concerning the success of a collection scheme. He believes that education will teach more people to rinse these cartons before turning them in to be recycled, thereby lowering the possibility of contamination.

Another solution is for the company to increase the area from which it collects materials

(Steuteville, 1994b, p.75). An increase in the collection area will undoubtedly increase the amount of MCDB the recycling company collects. This too will cut down the time between collection and recycling.

In regards to contamination, Steuteville (1994b, p.75) explains that there is also a mechanical solution available. Companies can purchase washers in which MCDB can be cleaned. These washers will eliminate any contaminants left in the cartons, preventing spoilage and possible infestation of insects. The downside to this solution is that the machine will cost a lot of money to purchase, so a company must carefully decide whether the extra cost is justified by the volume of MCDB being collected.

2.5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

As Tetra Pak containers are part of the solid waste stream, the options for solid waste management need to be considered. Costa Rica's current solution is to dump solid

12 waste in landfills. Although landfills are a way of managing solid waste and are discussed further, it is important to discuss some alternatives to landfills such as composting and recycling.

2.5.1 COMPOSTING

A study of Dartmouth College's institutional waste stream was conducted by the

American Forest and Paper Association to examine the compostability of laminated paper products, including milk cartons, cups, plates, and bowls (Milk Carton Composting

Research Results, 2000, p. 23). The college sends these waste paper products along with food waste to be processed at the Hanover/ Dartmouth Composting Facility. This combined organic waste is mixed with shredded office paper and sawdust and is then mechanically mixed in an agitated bay system. Most of the laminated products degrade almost as quickly as the rest of the material, but the milk cartons take longer. However, with a little time, the final compost is found to have "the look and quality of high end yard trimmings compost" (Milk Carton Composting Research Results, 2000, p. 23).

These results imply that laminated paper products like Tetra Pak containers, aside from the aluminum in the aseptic packages, are biodegradable and can be used to produce high quality compost.

Tierny (1996) argues against the use of biodegradable packaging, because he believes it is more wasteful than . His claim is that researchers have found that, in actuality, no packaging degrades in the airless confines of a landfill and so plastic wrap would be better as it at least occupies far less space. He also claims plastic wrap is cheaper to manufacture, and does not use natural resources whereas paper uses wood.

13 2.5.2 LANDFILLS

Tierny (1996, p. 24) believes that while there is the danger of landfills leaking, they are a more practical solution than recycling, as they are cheaper. However,

Ackerman (1997, p.21) claims that most people in the United States are against the idea of having landfills built in their communities. Recent public opposition to landfills according to Ackerman (1997, p.22) has been due to worries of water near landfills being contaminated and air pollution. Landfills not containing liners or leachate collection systems have been prone to leaks, and even the most modern landfills can develop leaks.

Ackerman (1997, p.21) says that people would much rather see a recycling plant in their town than a landfill.

Landfills, says Ackerman (1997, p.22), also pose a problem due to methane emissions. Landfills may contain paper and other similar organic materials. When these materials decompose, methane is emitted into the atmosphere, thereby polluting the air and adding to the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse emissions have been known to cause changes in the climate. Currently, U.S. landfills contribute 4% of greenhouse emissions in the United States.

Currently the government's solution to solid waste in Costa Rica is to build landfills, but there is a great deal of controversy about this (Wolkoff, 2000). Many of the municipal dumps are overflowing and have few pollution controls. Some are also on the banks of rivers or along the coastline resulting in a lot of water pollution, especially in the rainy season (Biesanz et a1,1999, p.129). A recent landfill that was constructed was in the poverty-stricken district of La Carpio in San Jose (Wolkoff, 2000). Having hired a

Canadian company to complete the job, the project was delayed by nearly half a year due

14 to public controversy. Opponents included the residents of the area, environmental groups, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). IATA was concerned that the site's close proximity to the airport would draw birds of prey and other such scavengers that might obstruct air traffic. The residents were concerned that this landfill would become a "foul-smelling open air dump" like the previously constructed landfill in the district of Rio Azul in San Jose.

The government eventually went forward with the venture, even though protestors claimed it was unethical, as officials felt it was in the best interest of the people (Wolkoff,

2000). Having hired an experienced foreign company to do the job, they felt there was no danger of this landfill turning into the condition of the Rio Azul site, and that the residents would eventually realize that it was for their own benefit (Wolkoff, 2000).

According to Professor Ronald Arrieta (personal communication, May 13, 2002), recycling in Costa Rica began when the nations dump sites were not being capped and locals complained of the odor coming from them. The government responded to this problem by doing studies relating to waste disposal. Unfortunately, these studies resulted in little being done about the trash problem. It has been rumored that corrupt government officials didn't want to help, because they had ties with companies who were dumping trash in landfills. In the past decade people have begun to realize how important recycling actually is, in part, because of problems with landfills.

2.5.3 RECYCLING

Selke (1990, p. 85) states "recycling involves using materials which are at the ends of their useful lives as the feedstocks for the manufacture of new products." There are different subsets of recycling. Primary recycling is when recycled items are used for

15 the production of identical or closely related products, such as recycling aluminum cans to make more aluminum cans. Secondary recycling is the use of recycled materials to make different products with less stringent specifications than the original. For Tetra Pak containers, secondary recycling is typically used, since the containers are recycled into tissue products, lumber products, and waste energy (M. Wagner, personal communication, April 17, 2002). Primary recycling would not be possible for Tetra Pak containers because they are only composed of virgin materials (i.e., no recycled fibers).

The reason for this is because of the high requirements on stiffness and the possibility of recycled paper being contaminated and coming in contact with the food product inside the container (Abreu, 2002).

According to Williams (1991, p.68), in 1988 paper products made up the most significant amount of solid waste in the United States. Paper products made up 40% of the waste by weight, or 71.8 million tons, up from 30 million tons in 1960. Certain packaging materials like juice boxes and milk cartons represented 46% of the paper product waste in 1988, or about 33 million tons. These numbers show that there is a sufficient amount of packaging for recycling in the United States. In Costa Rica however, the amount of is drastically decreased because the population is significantly smaller. There are approximately 3.94 million people in Costa Rica (2001 est.) versus 287.38 million people in the U.S.A (2002 est.).

2.5.3a BENEFITS

There are some who believe that recycling is a waste of time. Tierny (1996, pp.

24-29) argues that recycling is worse for the environment and all concerned than just disposing of the waste. However, recycling has proven to be beneficial for the

16 environment, society, and the economy when used as an alternative to waste disposal.

This section will present the benefits of recycling to refute such opposing viewpoints.

A. OVERVIEW

From an economic standpoint, Ackerman (1997, p. 21) states that recycling tends not to be a profitable venture in the short term, but it does curb long-term environmental problems. Also, reasons to recycle should not simply be reduced to economics and profitability. By using recycled materials, there is less need for industry to gather and purchase new raw materials, thereby saving the Earth's natural resources.

The process of recycling can have many benefits. Ackerman (1997, p. 21) breaks up the reasons to recycle into benefits that come about in the practice of waste management and benefits that exist for manufacturing industries using recycled products.

Positives from recycling that are beneficial to waste management are the following: "(1) reduction in the need for disposal capacity, (2) lowered emissions from landfills and incinerators, and (3) reduction in and improper disposal" (p.21). There are also positives from using recycled materials for industrial purposes. These benefits are: "(4) reductions in energy use and related emissions, (5) reduction in extraction and manufacturing process impacts and emissions, and the long-term value of conservation of raw materials" (p.21).

B. EMPLOYMENT

The recycling industry has been shown to produce jobs and be a very good source of employment in the opinion of Ackerman (1997, p.80). For example, in the Northeast section of the U.S., which consists of 10 states, 100,000 jobs exist in the recycling industry, accounting for 3% of all manufacturing employment in the region. In the New

17 York City area, 3,000 locations exist connected to the industry of managing, recycling, and reusing materials. The 34,000 employees in this region split a total salary of over

$1,000,000,000.

Spending money on recycling, states Ackerman (1997, p.81), would yield more jobs than spending money on trash disposal. This is because recycling involves more human labor. The sorting and processing of the materials being recycled is an example of the labor-intensive activities involved in the recycling process. In sorting the materials, many companies use people to separate trash by hand. Trash disposal tends to rely more upon the use of large machinery as opposed to labor in order to process material at landfills.

C. ECONOMY

Ackerman (1997, p.63) explains that waste management expenses will reduce as a result of recycling because the amount of garbage that is collected decreases. As a result, the costs of garbage collection and disposal will most likely decline. These benefits can be termed as avoided costs, since they are costs that can be avoided through recycling methods. This may be true, but Ackerman does not take into account the costs for collecting recyclables which may offset the lowered cost of garbage collection and disposal.

Tierny (1996, pp. 24-29) claims that U.S. that invested heavily in recycling programs expected them to be cheaper than landfills, but instead incurred a greater loss, and ended up with an accumulation of paper, , and plastic. However,

Selke (1990, p.90) explains that local U.S. communities have actually reaped financial benefits due to their recycling programs. For example, in California in 1988 many

18 communities had curbside recycling costs that were approximately $40 U.S.a ton. This is

$20 U.S. cheaper than the $60 U.S. a ton price tag for waste disposal. Other curbside programs have had costs as low as $20 to $30 U.S. per ton. On the contrary, landfilling systems in the United States cost in the range of $40-$60 U.S. per ton of waste, and incineration can cost up to $90-$110 U.S. per ton. In Costa Rica, for example, the Dos

Pinos Company finds it is much cheaper to dispose of their Tetra Pak waste in a landfill at a cost of $32 U.S. per ton, rather than incinerate the products which would cost $50

U.S. per ton. The contrast in prices in this , however, is due to high cost of transporting the waste to be incinerated (C. Andres, personal communication, May 30,

2002).

2.5.3b SOCIAL FACTORS OF RECYCLING

There are different factors that make people choose to recycle. Although some researchers say that social groups are not important in determining who recycles, others find that it is more common in high income and educated households (Ackerman, 1997, p. 9). In Boston, for example, it has been shown that recycling rates are higher among college graduates. This demographic and socioeconomic research is useful for determining how well suited and successful recycling programs will be in a region and what can be done to improve ratings. C. Andres from Dos Pinos (personal

communication, May 13, 2002) comments that people need to be educated in order for a recycling initiative to be successful.

Another factor affecting recycling is that some people treat recycling with the

same fervor as a religion. As strong as family values are in decision-making, so is the prospect that ecological values will take on the same importance someday. There are

19 those who believe in recycling, and the measures they will take to do so seem almost

fanatical (Ackerman, 1997, p. 8).

There is also a proportion of the population that needs encouragement to participate in recycling programs. Kulshreshtha and Savangi (2001, pp. 379-394) looked into what makes people choose to recycle and the effects of using incentives to encourage recycling. Selke (1990, p. 88) claims that two ways to increase recycling participation

are to increase the reward for recycling and make recycling simpler. Some reward methods are to use deposit-refund systems whereby consumers gain by recycling

(Kulshreshtha & Savangi, 2001, pp. 379-394). Such systems are currently employed in

developed countries. Another critical factor to consider is the ease with which

individuals can participate.

Selke (1990, p.88) says that in the United States curbside programs tend to have

more participation and thus higher recycling rates than drop-off programs. This is

because curbside programs are more convenient for participants. Participation has also

been prone to increase when the curbside pick-up is done weekly rather than monthly,

and when it is done on the same day as garbage collection.

There are some who believe that required programs can cause participants to feel

discontent and lead to poor participation. Others say recycling programs that require

participation of all members of the community get more results than voluntary programs

(Selke, 1990, p.89). Selke cites a study of 39 curbside programs in the U.S. and Canada

where programs requiring more separation of materials have more participation and

better recycling rates.

20 2.5.3c RECYCLING PROGRAMS

There are many different ways to recycle waste according to Lund (1993, p.5.1).

The method each company uses depends on the exact situation. The company must take into account what type of products it will collect, how it will collect them, the amount it will collect and process every day, what types of materials it will produce, legislative laws, financial situation, and much more.

Selke (1990, p.85) lists three main parts that enable a recycling operation to function. These three main parts are a steady supply of recyclable materials, a system set up for their recovery and reuse, and available local markets that will purchase the recycled materials. In deciding the actual recycling process, the first thing to consider is the method of collection and separation (Lund, 1993, p.5.1).

2.6 COLLECTION PROGRAMS

There are a number of different collection programs used throughout the world.

The following sections cite the different types of programs used in different regions of the world. The logistics, success, and difficulties of the different programs are described below.

2.6.1 UNITED STATES

Lund (1993, p.5.3) and Selke (1990, p.86) both agree on two main methods for the collection of materials within the United States. According to Selke (1990, p.86), the success of the programs depends on community involvement and education. The first method, says Lund (1993, p.5.3) is curbside pickup. In this case, the company sends trucks around to pick up the material at the consumers' residence. Selke (1990, p.87) notes that this collection can be done as little as once a month or more frequently. It may

21 also happen during the same time period as when the garbage pick-up is done. Lund

(1993, p.5.3) also states that this method is rather easy for the consumer and therefore has been found to yield more material.

According to Ackerman (1997, p.8), in the U.S., curbside waste collection is quickly becoming the norm within cities and surrounding suburbs. As a result, there were 7200 curbside collection programs in the U.S. by 1994, providing service to more than 40% of the population. However, this method also tends to cost much more for a recycling company (Lund, 1993, p. 5.3).

The main costs of a collection program include the wages to be paid to employees and the costs of buying recycling collection trucks. These two main costs can be thought of as fixed costs. Ackerman (1997, p.64) uses the example of a $100,000 truck that could be put to work for 10,000 hours. This cost can be thought of as a fixed $10 per hour plus the cost of fuel. After a set number of trucks are purchased and a set number of workers are assigned to each truck, a total number of workers can be del termined. When the wage of each of the workers is determined, the cost of paying the workers is set on an hourly basis. The cost for operating the trucks and paying the workers per hour is therefore fixed. So, the real determining factor in the cost of a curbside program becomes the number of hours it takes for collection. The only problem with this analysis is the maintenance costs for the collection truck, which may not be fixed. In fact, Liliana

Umaiia (personal communication, Thursday, June 6, 2002), who is the administrator for a pilot recycling program in Santa Ana, Costa Rica, says that the recycling collection truck they use has frequent mechanical problems.

22 Setting up a curbside recycling program to collect only one type of recyclable can be very costly according to Ackerman (1997, pp.61 - 63). Ackerman cites an example of a Midwest town, where a program was set up to collect aluminum cans every two weeks via curbside pickup with a recycling truck. The town ended up spending about $1800 on the program per ton of cans collected. The majority of curbside programs cost 10 times less than this. Also, a ton of aluminum cans isn't even worth $1800. Therefore, the town lost a significant amount of money recycling only aluminum cans. In order for this program to work, more than just aluminum cans should be collected at the curbside in order to lower the cost per ton for collection. This implies that it could be very costly to operate a recycling program that would only collect Tetra Pak containers.

The second method used for collection that Lund (1993, p.5.3) mentions is to have the consumer drop the material off at a recycling plant. This method is rather easy and inexpensive for the recycling company, but much more work for the consumer, causing a noticeable decrease in the amount of material collected. Ackerman (1997, p.8) also lists recycling programs in the workplace as a predominant way of collecting recyclables.

In the view of Ackerman (1997, p.8), the increased number of recycling programs has dramatically increased the amount of solid waste that is recycled. The amount of municipal solid waste that was either composted or recycled more than doubled from

10% in 1985 to 21% in 1992.

Intertwined with the question of collection is separation. There are several different methods for separating materials in the eyes of Lund (1993, pp. 5.4-5.5). The method chosen by the company will mainly depend on the desired amount of customer

23 involvement, the type of collection system in use and the types of materials being recycled. If the company chooses a curbside collection system, then there are generally 3 methods of separation. The first is the no source-separation method. Here, the consumer does not separate any of the recycling material. This is easy for the consumer, but more work for the company, because it must separate everything it collects using people and/or machines. This option can become quite expensive, especially if the company recycles many different products.

The second option for separating materials, according to Lund (1993, pp. 5.8-

5.14), would be through single separation. Here, the consumer would separate the materials into two categories, such as glass and metal, and paper and plastic. This increases the consumer's work slightly but will decrease the work the company must do.

The third option is multiple separations. This option is the same as single separation, but uses three or more categories. This will require a little more work by the consumer but will greatly reduce the work for the company.

However, if the company chooses to collect the material through the drop-off method, then the no source-separation method will most likely not be an option, says

Lund (1993, p 5.4). Here, the most likely option would be multiple separations, although single separation is possible. This will require a great deal of effort at the customers' end, which will adversely affect the amount of material the company collects.

All participating recycling programs in the United States collect gable top and

Tetrabrik containers together, according to M. Wagner (personal communication, April

17, 2002). In Maine and along the West Coast of the United States, Tetra Pak containers and paper products are separated from the rest of the recycled goods. Steuteville (1994b,

24 p.75) says that in Santa Anna, California, for example, there are three separate bins for collection of recyclables. The first bin contains glass, the second has cans, plastic , and MCDB, and the third contains newsprint and mixed paper. All other programs collect Tetra Paks at the curb along with recyclables of all types (Michelle Wagner, April

17, 2002). They are then separated at the recycling facility from the rest of the other recyclables.

2.6.2 CANADA

Canada has been very instrumental in developing recycling programs for Tetra

Pak containers. The following sub-sections highlight the different Canadian recycling programs and some of the problems that have arisen in starting them.

2.6.2a NOVA SCOTIA

An article titled "Milk Carton Recycling Initiative" (March 2000, p.25) reports that in Nova Scotia, Canada, there has been a plan set up to recycle milk cartons. In

February 2000, the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment (NSDOE), the industry, and municipalities signed a contract aimed at recycling milk cartons. The terms are that the municipalities are provided funds depending on how many milk cartons are collected through the municipal blue recycling program. The funds given out by the

Atlantic Dairy Council go to the local regions handling solid waste.

The article "Milk Carton Recycling Initiative" (March 2000, p.25) says that the current rate of cartons recycled in Nova Scotia is approximately 25%, but goals are to reach 50 to 60% of all cartons, according to Barry Friesden of the NSDOE. Since no markets exist for recycled milk cartons in Nova Scotia, they are sent to outside locations to be made into white paper. Another aspect of the program is promotions for "recycling,

25 composting, and anti-littering." These promotions can be found on the milk cartons themselves.

The concept of transporting the cartons to another country may not be feasible in

Costa Rica as it would be impractical and expensive to have to transport the recycled cartons, especially when the cost of using a landfill would be far more favorable.

2.6.2b YUKON TERRITORY

The of Yukon, Canada has set up a deposit-refund system by which consumers pay a deposit upon purchasing certain products and receive a refund upon returning that product to a registered recycling facility within the region (Government of

Yukon Department of Environment, 2002). Among goods recycled in the region are

Tetra Pak containers. A consumer pays a $0.35 Canadian deposit on a 1001 mL or more

Tetra Pak container and receives a $0.25 Canadian refund upon the return of that product.

For Tetra Pak containers 1000 mL or less, the rates are $0.10 Canadian for deposit and

$0.05 Canadian for refunds. In 1998 and 1999, the return rate for all containers in the

Yukon Territory's deposit-refund program, including Tetra Pak containers, was 82.7%.

This high recycling rate shows how successful a deposit-refund program can be in getting

people to recycle.

2.6.3 GERMANY

In 1991, the German government came up with the Packaging Ordinance

(Ackerman, 1997, p.105). The policy required the packaging industry to set up the

collection of its packaging materials for recycling and reuse. The ordinance came about

because Germany had shrinking space available for landfills, strict regulations for

incineration, and public opposition to incinerators (Ackerman, 1997, p.106). One of the

26 components of the ordinance was that retailers must accept the return of primary packaging (Ackerman, 1997, p. 107). Primary packaging can best be described when compared to secondary packaging. Juice boxes are primary packaging, whereas secondary packaging is the box containing a case of juice boxes. Quotas have been established in Germany for the recovery of different types of primary packaging. For example, the quota for paper and cardboard was set at 64% in 1995.

The ordinance also resulted in the founding of Duales System Deutschland

(DSD), and its responsibility has been to collect packaging from the general waste and ensure that it is recycled (Ackerman, 1997, p. 105). The process starts when DSD licenses its green dot trademark to manufacturers and distributors (Ackerman, 1997, p.

106, 108). For each company, the cost of a license is based upon the types and amounts of packaging that the manufacturers use. Fees collected go toward the collection of packaging bearing the green dot symbol, since companies displaying this green dot on their packages are not required to collect and recycle it. Instead, DSD contracts waste management companies to collect and separate packaging containers from the regular waste stream (Ackerman, 1997, p. 108). DSD also signs contracts with organizations in industry to ensure the packaging is to be recycled.

The program that Germany has set up has been quite successful in its efforts to increase recycling rates (Ackerman, 1997, p.108). Approximately 80% of households were participating in the program soon after it started. In 1993, DSD collected over 1/2 of the country's primary packaging and that rate jumped to 2/3 by 1994, a number few

U.S. communities have been able to attain according to Ackerman (1997, pp. 108,110).

The quotas set up for primary packaging collection were met in 1993 and 1994 but not

27 for aluminum in 1993. The results came to 4.6 million tons of material being recycled in

1994 (Ackerman, 1997, p.109).

The costs of the green dot system and DSD are relatively high when compared to standards in the United States (Ackerman, 1997, p.110). The DSD spent $2.4 U.S. billion to recycle 4.6 million tons using their system, equal to a cost of $522 U.S. per ton

(Ackerman, 1997, p.109). This is $151 U.S. more per ton than it would cost for a recycling system to dispose of the materials in a landfill. On a per person basis, it costs

$20 U.S. more to recycle the material as opposed to disposing of it in a landfill. In the eyes of Ackerman, this is a relatively modest amount from a per capita standpoint.

The program did face some difficulty in its infant years, because DSD charged licensing fees that were too low to support the cost of collecting and recycling the packaging. Manufacturers were also slow in paying these fees. As a result, DSD almost went bankrupt in 1993 (Ackerman, 1997, p.110). Despite these early troubles, a poll in

1995 discovered that 75% of German consumers were content with the services provided by the DSD (Ackerman, 1997, p.112).

2.6.4 BRAZIL

In the municipality of Porto Alegre, the capital of the southernmost state of Rio

Grande do Sul, the participation in the curbside collection has grown from just a small fraction of the people in 1990 to 95% of the people by 1997, and in 1999, 100 tons (10%) of the municipality' s solid waste was being collected (Von Zuben, 2000).

After collecting the material from the curbsides, the municipality trucks deliver the recyclables, free of charge, to one of ten material recovery facilities (MRFs). These

facilities are simple brick buildings located in the poorer districts and are operated by

28 community associations of about 20 to 30 women. The truck unloads the recyclables, by hand, into one side of a giant wire mesh and on the other side, a group of about 15 women pick out the recyclables from a long horizontal opening. These workers separate out the recyclables into about eight plastic drums for aluminum, tinplate, PET, other rigid plastics, Tetra Pak cartons and various types of paper and glass. When the drums are full, they are emptied into one of 8 (according to the material type) by a male worker, and stored until they can fill one of several balers. The balers are the only electrical equipment in these MRFs. The association then sells the materials to scrap brokers and divides the proceeds among the members. 10% of the sales are usually set aside to cover maintenance costs.

2.6.5 COSTA RICA

In Costa Rica, there are a few recycling programs in existence. Professor Arrieta of the University of Costa Rica (personal communication, May 13, 2002) says that a few years ago a pilot recycling program began in Santa Ana, a suburb of San Jose. In this program the recyclable materials are collected together through a public curbside collection that is run and funded by the municipality (Professor Arrieta, personal communication, May 21, 2002). The materials currently collected include paper, glass, aluminum cans, plastic (PET), and telephone books. The materials are then separated at the collection center in Santa Ana, and then sold to recycling facilities for processing.

According to Professor Arrieta (personal communication, May 27, 2002), curbside collection has proven to be the most effective way for collecting materials in Costa Rica.

There are various other informal recycling activities going on in Costa Rica according to Professor Arrieta (personal communication, May 27, 2002). We learned

29 that bottles and cans, such as Coca-Cola products, are collected and processed at some recycling "centers." Most of the collected items for this system come from trash workers on curbside pick-up routes. During their respective routes they remove bottles and cans from trash and get money for returning the containers to one of the recycling facilities. He also said that there is a small recycling project on the campus of UCR, and there are also containers to collect recyclables in some of Costa Rica's national parks.

2.7 RECYCLING METHODS

Once a collection system has been established, one must next consider the method by which the materials will be recycled. There are several different methods currently in use around the world for dealing with Tetra Pak containers, including hydrapulping,

Result technology, a closed water loop system, Chiptec, and incineration for use in cement.

2.7.1 HYDRAPULPING

With hydrapulping, The MCDB, combined with other paper products during collection, is sent to a recycling plant, where it enters a large tank called a hydrapulper

(Lund, 1993, p. B.16). A hydrapulper's function is to mix dry paper scrap with water in order to create a pulp slurry (Lund, 1993, pp. 6.12 — 6.13). This is done by turning a rotor and blades in a tank causing the water to rip apart most of the bonds in the paper and containers. When MCDB enter this machine, centrifugal force separates the LDPE and aluminum layers from the layer of paper. Since the layers of aseptic containers adhere to each other because of a heat treatment process and not by wet strength chemicals, pulping this material is relatively simple, according to Abreu (2002).

However, in the case of non-aseptic containers, wet strength chemicals are used, making

30 these containers slightly more difficult to pulp. As the materials begin to break down, the aluminum and LDPE are filtered out by specially designed screens in the tank and are delivered to another area to be further recycled, incinerated, or thrown away.

Interestingly, it was only recently through experiments held at the Universidade de Campinas in Brazil that a process to recycle the LDPE and aluminum was formulated

(Abreu 2002). The two materials are washed to remove any paper fibers, and then they are agglutinated and extruded to form pellets. These pellets may be injected into a mould injection machine to be formed into different products. In Brazil this composite is being

used to produce products such as hangers, pens, brooms, notepads, clip holders, and

flower pots. Some of these are made from 100% composite while others contain some virgin LDPE.

As for the paper, after hydrapulping the new pulp slurry will be delivered to a

deinking machine, where any ink present on the paper will be removed. This process is

not necessary for MCDB, since all the ink is on the removed LDPE, not the paperboard

(Lund, 1993, pp 6.12 — 6.13), but when these containers are mixed with other types of

paper that do contain ink, deinking becomes necessary. While it may seem easier to

simply not mix MCDB with other paper types and thereby avoid unnecessary deinking,

the containers are mixed because there is usually not enough material to recycle without

the addition of other paper products.

Thompson (1992, pp. 49 — 53) claims the deinking process can involve several

parts, depending on how advanced it is. Every deinking process will require the material

to be washed using detergents, wetting agents, and other chemicals to cause the ink to

become hydrophilic. These chemicals begin to break down the ink particles. The pulp is

31 then rinsed repeatedly to get rid of this ink. After this, the pulp undergoes a process of flotation, in which more chemicals are added to make the ink become hydrophobic. Air bubbles are then introduced, which attract more of the ink away from the pulp. The pulp can then be further cleaned using bleach in order to brighten the pulp and eliminate residual ink. Also, a technique referred to as dispersion may be used, where any ink particles still present are broken down into a size small enough to be invisible to the naked eye. However, this process is not always used, as it requires a great deal of energy to complete and can cause the pulp to lose some of its brightness.

After the deinking process, the pulp is moved through several screening machines

in order to remove any left over contaminants such as metals and plastics (Thompson,

1992, p.53). Once the pulp is pure, the material is finally packaged and ready to be sold.

M. Wagner (personal communication, April 17, 2002) says that in the United States,

Tetra Pak containers are processed and sold to companies that make tissue products.

Ackerman (1997, p.94) says that hydrapulping plants should not be designed if

aseptic packaging is the only type of material that will be recycled at the plant, because

these containers make up less than 10% of materials received at current hydrapulping

plants. The majority of containers recycled at hydrapulping plants in the United States

are plastic coated containers such as gable top milk and juice cartons. Plants are typically

set up to primarily handle these types of containers. Also, as Abreu (2002) notes, one of

the problems with using a conventional hydrapulper for these cartons is that the screens

that filter out the aluminum and LDPE need to be cleaned constantly due to the high

residual content (the aluminum and LDPE remnants) of the cartons. However, the

quality of the fibers from Tetra Pak cartons is of higher quality than average waste paper

32 and so if the paper is cleaned properly, the end product is fine quality paper. The quality of the paper is dependent on the type of the cleaning equipment and the pmm (parts per million), which is a measure of the number of dirt particles in a sample sheet of paper according to TAPPI (Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, Inc.)

Standards.

2.7.2 RESULT TECHNOLOGY

According to Muther (1999), there is a process for delaminating and separating complex materials from things such as beverage packaging. This system is environmentally friendly and does not require a lot of energy. Result technology is a process to treat and/or separate organic materials such as paper from inorganic materials such as plastic and aluminum.

To start the process, the composite materials are shredded to form small particles

(Muther, 1999). This pre-shredded composite material is then sent into the processing zone inside of an accelerator by means of an air current. Here, there is a rotor with distribution arms with special tooling. When the accelerator is turned on, the rotor turns at high speeds, and the special tooling tears the composite materials separating them at the phase boundaries. In other words, in a beverage package the paper, LDPE, and aluminum layers would be completely separated from each other. The separation of the particles (paper, LDPE, aluminum) is then done by sieving stations and fluidbed separators. The resulting materials are raw materials that can be returned to market and sold at market value.

33 2.7.3 CLOSED WATER LOOP SYSTEM

According to Pauli (1999), a team of six young Colombian researchers from

Bogota have recently come up with a closed water loop system to undo the of the Tetra Pak containers in a way that recovers the 6 or 7 layers in such good condition that they may be sold for reuse. This invention has resolved the issue of dumping the non-renewable energy mix of aluminum and low-density polyethylene in landfills or incinerating the mix, which generates toxic aluminum oxides. The closed water loop system uses a biological process and the wasted leftovers in the containers as a catalyst for this process. The process itself produces no air or water pollution of any kind.

According to Francisco Sanchez (1999), the environmental and economic benefits exceed the environmental and economic costs. Also, people who have physical and mental disabilities can work at the facility. Carlos Bernai (1999) says that the system has been analyzed by Professor Dr. Carl-Goran Heden, the Executive Director of the Biofocus

Foundation and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and he has determined that the plant can be operated at a low cost.

The separation plant in Bogota currently processes 7 tons of Tetra Pak packaging per day, but it can handle up to 21 tons per day if that amount could be collected (Pauli,

1999). It earns most of its revenues from the sale of the aluminum that is separated from the Tetra Pak packaging during recycling. Approximately 33,000 one-liter packs are needed to generate one ton of aluminum. In accordance with this model, Brazil wishes to start its own separation plant in Curitiba, near the new Tetra Pak plant in Parana as a way of creating jobs and to secure sustainable development of this city, famous for its environmental initiatives.

34 2.7.4 CHIPTEC

According to Shi (2000), another recycling technology for Tetra Pak containers is a process called Chiptec — Recycling of Used Packaging Waste. This process is currently used in China. In this process, aseptic containers are put through a process of cleaning, pulverization, thermal pressing, edge trimming, and surface finishing. During the thermal pressing, the materials are pressed together and heat is applied. The heat melts the plastic and aluminum present turning it into a sort of glue. This glue-like substance is what holds the paper material together, forming a wood product. This wood product that

is produced is water and worm proof, humidity, impact, and inflammation resistant, and

free of any formaldehyde substances. This is a big improvement over other artificial boards such as MDF board and wood chipboard. The process is technically glue free,

which is why there is no formaldehyde present in the wood. Formaldehyde is a toxic

substance that is banned from interior use by many countries. This gives the Chiptec

process an advantage in that the wood is not restricted to outdoor use.

The wood product produced can be used to create furniture such as tables and

chairs, sport appliances such as baseball bats, and even boards used in

construction. One big advantage to this product is that any wood material wasted in the

production of these items can simply be recycled into new wood, leaving no actual waste

(Shi, 2000).

2.7.5 INCINERATION FOR CEMENT

During a talk with Carlos Andres from Dos Pinos, a major user of Tetra Pak

containers in Costa Rica (personal communication, May 13), we learned of a process for

recycling Tetra Pak containers supposedly being used in Europe, in which the containers

35 are thrown into an incinerator. The resulting ash is then taken and added to a cement mixture. Other materials such as tires are also recycled in this manner. However, we were told by Anthony Araya, a commercial manager at the Corporacion Industrial

Nacional de Cemento (INCSA) (personal communication, June 7, 2002), that this incineration method is not currently being used for Tetra Pak containers, although the process can handle them.

The incineration process begins by first shredding whatever is to be burned (A.

Araya, personal communication, June 7, 2002). The material is then added to a kiln to be burned. A kiln is a large cylinder about 100 feet long, where the material is burned. The temperature ranges from 2200°C at the front to 1500°C at the end. Once the material is burned, the ash, rich in silica, is collected and added to the cement mixture.

This process provides the cement company with some of the necessary ingredients for making cement (A. Araya, personal communication, June 7, 2002). Also, during the incineration process, a great deal of energy is released from the materials.

This energy is usually collected in the form of heat and converted into a more useful form. In the case of Tetra Pak containers, there is a rather large amount of usable energy released during their incineration, making this process even more economically worthwhile.

However, according to C. Andres (personal communication, May 13, 2002), there are still several problems with this method. One is the possibility of air pollution through the incineration process. Another problem is that the amount of aseptic containers that can be recycled is limited, due to the aluminum contained in them. If too much aluminum is added to a cement mixture, it will be ruined. This may be a problem

36 depending on the number of Tetra Pak containers that are collected. This was the case in

Costa Rica where the local cement factory was incapable of dealing with the 2 tons of waste being produced each day by the Dos Pinos factory (C. Andres, personal communication, May 30, 2002).

In talking with Anthony Araya (personal communication, June 7, 2002), we were told that there are no problems for INCSA with using this process for Tetra Pak containers. While harmful gases are produced during the incineration process, Araya claims they are not causing air pollution. The reason is there are a variety of machines that absorb the harmful gases being produced. To ensure that the emissions are within legal limits, readings are taken everyday. Also, twice a year, an outside company comes in and performs a detailed analysis of the emissions to ensure they are safe.

As for the problem of excess aluminum contaminating the cement, this too is not a problem for INCSA (A. Araya, personal communication, June 7, 2002). INCSA produces approximately 2,000 tons of cement everyday, so the ash from the Tetra Pak containers could be easily distributed out so as to avoid an excess amount of aluminum in any particular batch of cement.

2.8 MARKETS

Ackerman (1997, p. 63) says that there are continuous fluctuations in the markets

for recycled materials. The economics of the markets can be difficult to predict, and

make the costs of recycling uncertain. Rita Smith, who is a worker at Waste

Management Inc. (WMI) in Seattle and whose company recycles MCDB, states the

importance of a steady market (Raymond, 1992, p. 81). She says that success of the

37 program depends on whether her company can find a steady market in the paper mill business that will earn WMI a profit.

2.9 RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT

There are many steps in developing a center for recovering recyclable materials according to Alter (1980, pp.155-156). The first step is to look at the quantity and types of waste being processed. Secondly, the markets that will buy the purchased products must be determined along with specifications for recovering the recycled product. The third step is for an engineer to establish the technology for plant design that will be used to satisfy the specifications in step 2. Step 4 would then be to predict the income and expenses of such a plant. Steps 5 and 6 are to assess the financing and types of management methods. Both can be done through private companies or organizations, via the public sector, or by a combination of both. Privately managed or owned plants tend to create more costs but are more efficient than government-run plants. The seventh step is to choose a location for the plant. After all of this is done, a proposal to implement the system can then be made.

2.10 RECYCLING POLICIES — IMPLEMENTATION

Costanza, Martinez — Alier, and Segura, (1996) believe that over the last decade or so, professionals in the fields of economics, ecology, and other disciplines have looked at the relationship between economics and the environment. This concept of combining the efforts of ecologists and economists is similar to the approach that the ZERI group used in its closed water loop system (Pauli, 1999). Many of these professionals have looked at economic policies and new technologies that would be the best option environmentally and socially (Costanza, Martinez — Alier, and Segura, 1996).

38 Unfortunately such findings have focused too much on theory and not enough on the design and execution of the system. In order to create policies that can actually be utilized, one must understand how environmental policy is made and implemented. The following, according to Costanza, Martinez — Alier, and Segura, are a few factors that can determine whether an environmental policy will be implemented.

• The pressure interest groups apply to support or oppose the policy • The policy's potential impact on the profitability of economic activities • The institutional capacity to implement the policy (p. 440).

2.11 CONSIDERATIONS FOR RECYCLING IN COSTA RICA

Since we were working in Costa Rica, we had to consider all the variables that would affect implementing a recycling program there. This section examines current solid waste management in Costa Rica and introduces some ideas about the political, economic and social variables that could play a role in or be affected by recycling.

2.11.1 ECONOMIC PLANNING

The United Nations has recently gone about creating the first of its kind: an environmental report on Latin America and the Caribbean (Dulude, 2000). The completion of this report will make it possible for countries to compare and contrast their annual successes and failures. In terms of recycling projects, this information could prove useful in predicting success for Costa Rica and avoiding failures. However, there has been public criticism of the report, saying that "it details the obvious problems without making any effort at analyzing or solving them" (Dulude, 2000). The report also fails to credit the efforts of the government thus far, as it only criticizes past methods.

39 2.11.2 COMMUNITY-BASED INVOLVEMENT

Less developed countries like Costa Rica need to examine how the local people are affected by state policy (Itzigsohn, 2000, p. 25). In particular, Itzigsohn (2000, pp.

162-165) examines labor markets and the way Costa Rica has attempted to solve the problem of poverty. One of the government's ideas has been to use a state agency to promote the involvement and collaboration of informal producers. Itzigsohn explains there are two obstacles with this endeavor. Firstly, there is the issue of creating trust among the workers and in the state agency. Secondly there is the problem of getting people to manage the business and keep it going.

Strum, Western, and Wright (1994, pp.217-229) mention one way of getting around the first issue is to use an agency that is not affiliated with the government.

BOSCOSA, a nongovernmental initiative, was created to bring in new resources to support conservation and to find alternative incomes for the campesinos who depend on logging and mining in the region of Costa Rica. BOSCOSA aimed to get a sense of local ownership in the project and in so doing developed a huge interactive project for the whole region. It recognized that without the support of the local community, conservation would be difficult. The way in which they supported the campesinos and adopted their views on the situation in Osa, allowed them to gain their trust and allowed the campesinos to develop some pride in managing that part of Osa themselves (Strum et al., 1994, pp. 217-229).

Biesanz et al. (1999, p. 270) address both of the issues brought up by Itzigsohn.

Relative to other Central Americans, Costa Ricans see themselves as independent

individualists who do not feel the need to live in tight-knit communities. This concept of

40 collaboration is something Ticos have yet to warm up to. They also comment that Costa

Ricans have not been committed to joining or maintaining voluntary associations in the past due to their independent and individualistic nature. However, it has also been noticed that during the past decade there has been an increase in such associations. These include business and professional clubs, such as Rotary and Lions Clubs, which sponsor civic projects and ecological activist groups. The latter groups are particularly exemplary as they include middle and upper class adults, high school and university students

(Biesanz et al., 1999, p. 270).

2.11.3 THE ROLE OF EDUCATION

There is an increasing effort in Costa Rica to educate people about conservation.

Costa Rica has implemented a strong educational program in the hope of learning from past mistakes. Newspapers, such as the Tico Times, books, and posters are some of the means that have been used to get the public's attention. Public and private campaigns have been used to encourage recycling such as, "yo reciclo, y usted?"("I recycle, do

you?") (Evans, 1999, p189). While the Tico Times is an English language newspaper that may have a limited circulation in Costa Rica, a popular Spanish daily newspaper that

encourages education about the as well as its environment is La

Nacion. A recent article published by La Nacion entitled I, Que hacer con la basura?

(What to do with the trash?)( Solano, 2002, June 25), discusses the problems that trash

creates and how nobody wants to take responsibility for it. Solano comments that each

municipality is obligated to collect the trash that collects in the streets.

Environmental groups in Costa Rica hold workshops and take part in many

international conferences on conservation. There has been some dispute as to whether

41 the conferences help, as people feel not enough ideas are actually implemented.

However, as Evans (1999, p.189) points out, attending these conferences allows Costa

Rica to have some say as to where efforts and funding should be directed.

While Evans remains fairly optimistic about the efforts at educating the public,

Bassin, G.Daily, G. Daily, Ehrlich, and Boll (1999, pp. 66-74) have suggested that for conservation to be successful, people must understand more about human population growth, consumption patterns, and their effects on the environment. These researchers conducted a study on American and Costa Rican college students in different disciplinary

areas, using a questionnaire about these very principles. The results showed that Costa

Rican students knew less about the relation between population size and environment

quality and seemed more pessimistic about these issues. Bassin et al. (1999, pp.66-74)

believe that the students' level of knowledge will improve if these issues are taught more

in school. Also, it would help to educate citizens about the effects of individuals on the

environment by focusing instruction on the local situation (Bassin et al., 1999, pp.66-74).

Conservation is not limited to Ticos but is being extended

to foreigners. Kyriss (2000) talks about the opportunities that the School for Field

Studies Center in provides for foreign students as well as Ticos. The center

promotes reforestation, forest protection, and agro-forestry systems. While the students

who participate in the semester long, full-credit program gain valuable experience, Costa

Rica benefits too. Educating these students means that they may "become immediate and

future contributors to the sustainable management of Costa Rica's natural resources"

(Kyriss, 2000).

42 2.11.4 THE ROLE OF COMPANIES

Evans (1999) discussed how in the case of banana plantations, after heavy pressure from Costa Rican and international environmental organizations, a group of banana growers agreed to start a recycling plant for banana packaging. Previously, the protective blue plastic bags used to wrap the bananas had been tossed away recklessly and had ended up polluting the ocean and being a hazard to giant turtles and other marine life. It was the threat of being boycotted worldwide that brought the banana industry to implement a recovery and processing system for these bags.

Pauli (1999) comments that "It is regretted that Tetra Pak is not actively involved in the recovery of its own waste...it is hoped that the leadership of this company will

soon change its attitude and become an engine in the development in a sustainable society where recovery of its own waste should be an integral part of its business." However, M.

Wagner (personal communication, April 17, 2002), an Environmental Manager working

for Tetra Pak, claims that Tetra Pak helps facilitate recycling programs for their packaging in the U.S. as well as other countries. Although there are no such programs

offered in Costa Rica, she recommended investigating Brazil's recycling system. The

system in Brazil was started by a group of companies, including Tetra Pak, and uses

"scavengers" to go out and collect materials from dumps to determine the composition

and hence recycling potential of the waste stream.

2.11.5 THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT

Government policy in Costa Rica has always theoretically been in support of

conservation and recycling, but implementing such systems has not been a priority in the

past (Itzigsohn, 2000, p. 25). Part of article 87 under the municipal code says that

43 municipalities are responsible for charging fees for city services including waste collection, taking into account the cost effectiveness of the service and a percentage of income for further development. Also, services related to the community, such as trash collection, will be subsidized by the municipality from taxes to help reduce the fees for

collection (Arrieta, 1995, p.39).

2.11.6 HYPOTHETICAL COMPANY OPTIONS: LOCAL OR FOREIGN?

A problem that arises is which company would be suitable for taking over recycling Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica. Biesanz et al. (1999, p. 45) present the

argument that foreign companies are generally abusive of Costa Rica and do not truly benefit the country. The economy has been dependent on foreigners and foreign investment for the past century and continues to today. Costa Rica's main export products have been coffee and bananas for many decades. Biesanz et al. comment on how

companies like United Fruit Company have in the past monopolized the banana industry

and "pushed governments around, kicked out competition and suppressed union

organization" (p. 45). Although the situation has improved lately, foreign companies still

dominate these industries and so reap the majority of the profits. These companies

exploit Costa Rica for its resources and seek the cheapest source of labor, which usually means they employ workers from Nicaragua and Jamaica. This has resulted in fewer jobs

for Costa Ricans and has resulted in some well-justified resentment (Biesanz et al., 1999,

p. 46).

As Edelman (1999, p. 93) points out, this resentment over loss of jobs and even

loss of profits from competition with these foreign companies is a very serious matter. In

44 some cases, this resentment can lead to protests and even violence. Therefore, the decision to bring in a foreign company must be looked at very carefully.

In general, the usual problem with foreign companies is that they do not have strong ties with Costa Rica and its culture. These companies are there to make money, even if they damage the culture and environment in Costa Rica. Stephanie Nolen (1999, pp.28 — 31) discusses a problem involving foreign hotel companies and sea turtles. She says that the lights from newly built hotels near beaches are disrupting the nesting habits of the sea turtles, which lay their eggs only at night. While the hotels make a huge profit from all the visitors, the presence of the hotel lights and the tourists themselves disrupt the habits of the sea turtles. There used to be about 200 sea turtles that nested in Costa

Rica in the early 1990's, but now there are only about 5. This is a clear example of how a foreign company can adversely affect Costa Rica's natural ecosystem.

Biesanz et al. (1999, p. 45) note that even with the country's newest source of income, tourism, foreigners have been the ones to invest and reap most of the profits.

Perhaps this is a fault of the government as it openly invites foreigners to invest by offering them incentives. Sabbath (2000, p. 99) lists one of the top ten reasons to invest in Costa Rica as, "Foreigners may possess full ownership of both business and real estate in Costa Rica without being citizens" (p. 99).

2.12 CONCLUSION

Summarizing all the data we have collected, it is clear that recycling is a complex issue with many technical and social aspects to consider. While we have studied what many critics from different parts of the world have to say about the various recycling controversies, it is important that we find out what the specific issues are to Costa Rica.

45 We did our own research to gain locally relevant information and to determine if and how a Tetra Pak recycling system can be implemented in Costa Rica. The following chapter will explain our methods for doing this research.

46 Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 CURRENT WASTE CONDITIONS IN COSTA RICA

In order to establish whether or not a recycling program for Tetra Pak containers would be beneficial in Costa Rica and worth the expense of setting up, we first had to estimate the quantity of Tetra Pak containers thrown away in Costa Rica per annum. This helped us in deciding if it was feasible to recycle Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica, since in order to recycle a material, you must have a minimum amount to run the machines and produce a profit.

Adolfo Cordoba, an administrator from the Rio Azul landfill, provided us with information through our colleagues to determine the percent of the total waste in the landfill that is made up by Tetra Pak containers. We also determined the total amount of waste in Costa Rica through Estado de la Nacion, and assuming that Rio Azul's Tetra Pak percentage was representative of the rest of the country, we were able to estimate the total amount of Tetra Pak containers in the Costa Rican waste stream.

In addition to archival research and interviews, we also visited a local landfill in

Costa Rica in order to gain a better understanding of the amount of waste produced, the percentage of this waste that is made up by Tetra Pak containers, and the environmental conditions of the landfill.

We also interviewed a manager in the Ministry of Health to obtain information regarding how the government deals with different parts of the solid waste stream, in particular, what happens to Tetra Pak containers once they have left the consumers' hands. We also discussed the conditions of the landfills, and the benefits of recycling.

47 3.2 EXISTING RECYCLING PROGRAMS

It is important to research the different recycling methods that exist in Costa Rica and other parts of the world. Developed countries like the United States will most likely have different methods than less developed countries due to differences in their economies, education levels, and available technology. Also, by researching as many programs around the world as we could find, we increased the selection we could choose from and did not limit the possibilities.

3.2.1 OUTSIDE OF COSTA RICA

The first thing that we did was we learned about similar recycling systems in the

U.S. and other countries, and existing methods for reclaiming this waste through our background research. We have collected information on current recycling systems in the

United States, Canada, Brazil, Thailand, Europe, and particularly Germany, through archival research, supplemented by interviews with key personnel in the programs in some cases. One important source of information has been the New York branch of the

Tetra Pak Company. Through them, we were able to clarify some important background information about Tetra Pak containers, as well as make them aware that Tetra Pak containers are a problem in Costa Rica. This was important because we hope that the

Tetra Pak Company will help initiate the program and take some responsibility for their containers.

We were able to compose a written report of the methods and processes used to collect and either recycle or dispose of the waste in the U.S. and other countries, as presented in Chapter 2. Using this written report, we constructed a list of all the advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods and processes of disposal/recycling.

48 We then used this list to compare all the different methods, which helped us in making our final decision as to which method would be best for Costa Rica.

3.2.2 IN COSTA RICA

Having researched what methods of collection and recycling are available outside of Costa Rica, the next task was to find out if there were currently similar recycling projects in operation in Costa Rica, and how well they were succeeding. After talking with our liaison, Ronald Arrieta, we learned that the only public recycling program in

Costa Rica is a pilot program in Santa Ana. Santa Ana is a small city of approximately

25,000 people, and is a suburb of San Jose. This pilot program was an important discovery because it meant that there is a local interest in recycling and there are means of doing so.

We contacted and interviewed people who were affiliated with and/or involved in

the Santa Ana program to find out how they went about their recycling process. We

focused on the collection methods being used, the finances of the program (costs, profits,

etc.), and public opinion about the program. Some of the information we gathered, such

as specific advantages, costs, and public opinion needed to be researched more

thoroughly through archival study and surveys.

3.3 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Having researched various available methods of recycling Tetra Pak containers,

we had to determine whether it was financially worthwhile to invest in such a process.

We did this by determining the net present value (NPV) for each recycling system. Once

we determined that the investment was worthwhile financially, we performed a cost-

benefit analysis. We determined the costs, profits, advantages, and disadvantages of

49 specific recycling systems, including environmental impacts, markets available for the products produced from the recycled Tetra Pak containers, and other economic factors.

The statistics about the costs and benefits of existing collection and recycling methods for Tetra Pak containers are presented in the Results and Analysis section of this report. We analyzed three collection methods: curbside collection programs, drop-off centers, and deposit-refund programs. We also analyzed incineration as well as three different recycling methods: hydrapulping, a closed water loop system, and chiptec.

Curbside collection programs in the United States were analyzed prior to arrival in Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, we visited Santa Ana, where a curbside collection program for recyclables already existed. There we interviewed the administrator of the collection program. Some archival research was done on recycling drop-off centers prior to arrival

in Costa Rica, as well as in Costa Rica. The information we gathered pertaining to deposit-refund programs was done through archival research prior to arrival in Costa

Rica, since this type of program does not exist here.

For all of the recycling methods we analyzed, information for a cost-benefit analysis was gained through interviews with representatives of companies using the different systems, as well as through archival research.

Another main part of the cost-benefit analysis was to determine whether public or private funding could be provided for a recycling program in terms of both collection and processing of the material. We interviewed a manager of the Ministry of Health in San

Jose, an environmental manager at Dos Pinos, and a representative of ZERI (Zero

Emissions Research Initiative) to determine whether or not each of them would be willing/able to provide financial assistance in starting a recycling program for Tetra Pak

50 containers. We chose the Ministry of Health because of the possibility of some governmental funding. We talked with Dos Pinos because they are the major producer of

Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica, because they could potentially provide funding for a

Tetra Pak recycling program. We learned of ZERI through talking with our liaison,

Ronald Arrieta. ZERI is an international organization that researches and funds projects such as this.

3.4 LOCAL INTEREST IN RECYCLING

We felt that it was important to determine whether or not there is any interest among local people and the beverage industry to recycle Tetra Pak packaging. This was done to determine the likelihood of success of a Tetra Pak recycling project, because this project will fail without the population's participation.

We analyzed the results from three written surveys to help us determine current waste disposal practices, current public interest and knowledge of recycling, and ways to educate people about recycling in the future. The first survey that we analyzed was carried out earlier this year by two students, Araya and Blancaneaux, of the University of

Costa Rica and distributed to sixty people in the San Pedro area of San Jose. This survey interested us because it focused on people's views of waste disposal. The other two surveys that were analyzed were ones that we conducted ourselves. We modeled these surveys after that of Araya and Blancaneaux. However, the questions were more specific to Tetra Pak containers. One survey was distributed to 115 people in the metropolitan

San Jose area by students of the University of Costa Rica. The other survey was distributed to 59 people in the municipality of Santa Ana.

51 Our initial plan had been to obtain sample sizes of about one hundred people for each of the surveys because a size larger than this would contain too much data to process in the short time we had here in Costa Rica. However, we ultimately arrived at the sample sizes of 115 and 59, out of convenience and with the advice of Professor Arrieta, who assigned his students to hand out and collect the surveys. We had the students hand out the surveys because we felt that we would have trouble explaining the surveys to people in Spanish if that were necessary. The students chose whom to survey, so the samples are not random. We chose the metropolitan region of San Jose, where over fifty percent of Costa Rica's population resides, because a future public recycling program would certainly be installed there first. Santa Ana was chosen, because a pilot recycling program currently exists there, and we wanted to see how these people felt about integrating Tetra Pak containers into their current recycling initiative.

We also wanted to determine the interest that companies producing Tetra Pak containers had in a recycling project. An interview with Carlos Andres Rincon, who is the Environmental Manager at Dos Pinos, was conducted to determine the interest that his company has in a Tetra Pak recycling project and to determine what efforts Dos Pinos has already made to curb the problem of Tetra Pak waste. We also tried to contact Coca-

Cola, the makers of Hi-C drinks, because they are the one other company that makes a significant amount of products with aseptic packaging in Costa Rica.

We also interviewed Liliana Umaria, who is the administrator for the pilot recycling program in Santa Ana. Part of this interview was done to determine recycling participation rates in Santa Ana, to determine how people were educated about the

52 program, and to determine if the program would collect Tetra Pak containers, provided facilities existed to process this type of packaging.

3.5 MAKING THE DECISION

After we completed and collected all the information we felt was necessary, we examined the information and decided which option for dealing with Tetra Pak waste best suits Costa Rica.

Although we initially planned to use a series of focus groups with those people concerned with setting up a recycling system in Costa Rica to help make the decision, this was not possible due to time constraints. Instead, we were able to get a general idea of what people wanted from the interviews we conducted with government officials and companies that use Tetra Pak. We then set up a system of criteria that we used as the basis for our final decision. For collection methods, we examined them to see if locals would participate and to see if they are economically viable. In terms of the recycling process, we looked at the systems to see if they are profitable, whether or not there are stable markets for the final product, and whether or not the system is environmentally friendly.

Once we gathered all the cost-benefit, technological, sociological, and organizational data, we were able to make a complete analysis of the combined data, which formed the basis for our final recommendations.

53 Chapter 4: Results and Analysis

4.1 CURRENT WASTE CONDITIONS IN COSTA RICA

The first task in developing any recycling program is to determine the amount of waste being produced that can be recycled, which in our case, is the amount of Tetra Pak used in Costa Rica. Using two different sources, we determined an amount that we believe to be accurate. Aldolfo Cordoba, an administrator at the Rio Azul landfill

(personal communication, June 11, 2002), estimates that Tetra Pak containers make up approximately 1.6% of the municipal trash in this landfill. From the research completed by Araya and Blancaneaux (March, 2002, p. 36) we know that approximately 385,000 tons of waste was brought to the Rio Azul landfill in 1999. The original source for this data is from the Municipality of San Jose (1999). According to Estado de la Nacion en

Desarrollo Humano Sostenible (2000, p. 226), our second source, Rio Azul received approximately 52% of the total waste in Costa Rica in 1999. From these figures, we calculated that about 12,100 tons of Tetra Pak containers are being thrown away in Costa

Rica annually. The province of San Jose produces about 46% of this total waste. We believe that this is an average amount for the amount of Tetra Pak waste being produced in Costa Rica. However, given the trend of increasing waste every year, we feel that this estimate may be slightly lower than the current amount of Tetra Pak containers in the waste stream.

In addition to establishing approximately how much Tetra Pak material is in the waste stream in Costa Rica, we determined how it is being disposed of In talking with our liaison, Prof Ronald Arrieta of UCR (personal communication, May 13, 2002), we learned that currently these containers are being sent to landfills. We also learned that

54 there is only one formal public recycling program in operation in Costa Rica, a test program in Santa Ana, which we will discuss later in the chapter, but which in any case does not yet collect Tetra Pak containers. It should be noted that there are some private recycling ventures, like one sponsored by the Coca Cola Company, which collects its own glass and plastic containers, but these programs are designed for single products, and are not supported by any official collection system in the municipalities. In visiting the

San Pablo landfill, we found it to have the problems typical of landfills, despite efforts at sanitary management. Trash was falling into nearby ponds, and animals, such as birds and dogs, were seen picking through the trash. There was also a rather foul odor being emitted by the landfill. Due to these obvious problems of landfills, as well as the great amount of space they require, it is important ultimately to try and control the amount of material being disposed of in this manner.

Of course, one effective way of reducing waste is by recycling it. For example, according to the numbers we received from Adolfo Cordoba (personal communication,

June 11, 2002), if the Tetra Pak containers could be recycled, and if they were all collected, that would reduce the amount of waste in Rio Azul by as much as 6,200 tons per year. While this may be a small amount compared to the 385,000 tons received overall, if other materials such as glass, paper, plastics, and aluminum were also recycled, along with the Tetra Pak containers, there would be a significant reduction in the amount of waste going to the landfill. This would increase its lifespan, thereby saving money and land that would otherwise be needed for new landfills.

55 4.2 RECYCLING PROGRAMS

As discussed in the Chapter 2, a recycling program consists of three steps: the collection of the material, the actual recycling process, and marketing the end product.

For each of these steps we found more than one solution, so it was necessary to examine the advantages and disadvantages of each option in deciding which combination best suits Costa Rica.

It should be noted that a recycling program is only as good as its collection system. A well-run and effective collection system could reach a collection rate as high as 87.5%, as attained by the Tetra Pak deposit-refund system in the Yukon Territory,

Canada (Government of Yukon, Department of Environment, 2002). However, when

starting a collection program such high rates may not be immediately possible, so instead, we need to focus on obtaining a collection rate that will provide enough containers to make a recycling program profitable. This is dependent on the recycling process being

used, as each one has different requirements for minimal tonnage of Tetra Pak containers processed to make it viable.

4.2.1 COLLECTION METHODS

Unfortunately there is no national collection program set up for recyclable materials in Costa Rica, so it was necessary for us to research methods used in other

countries in order to recommend a collection program. Based on our findings that are presented in Chapter 2, there are three main methods: curbside collection, deposit-refund,

and drop-off centers. All of these methods would require a separation plant because in

Costa Rica consumers are not accustomed to separating recyclable materials before

disposing of them. However, this should not be a problem as labor, the principle element

56 in this operation, is cheap, and thus, a separation plant would provide low income jobs for local workers.

Currently, there is a small curbside collection program running in the municipality of Santa Ana, near the city of San Jose. In this municipality, 40% of the community participates in the collection program. Although we do not want to imply that this system would be the best solution for the entire country, the success of the Santa Ana program is encouraging news as it illustrates that recycling can work in Costa Rica.

4.2.1a Curbside Collection

The biggest advantage of Curbside Collection is that it is convenient for the consumer. All the consumer is required to do is separate the recyclable materials from the rest of the household waste and leave those materials at the curbside for collection.

Also, this system does not have any additional costs for the consumer, and the only effort needed by the consumer is to clean certain recyclables, such as Tetra Pak containers, to prevent contamination before putting them out for collection. Curbside collection is highly advantageous for the consumer as it makes it relatively easy to recycle, and as a result, this collection method is reported to have the highest participation rate (Von

Zuben, 2000). When collecting recyclables, supervisors and collectors can inspect the materials to insure that the correct materials are being sent to the separation plant to avoid the accumulation of non-recyclable waste.

However, this method is costly for the collectors, especially when collecting heavier materials like glass and paper that cannot be compacted. Also, a large initial

investment is needed to pay for collection trucks ($12,700 each), compactors, and to pay

the wages of the employees. In Costa Rica, the costs for repair and maintenance of the

57 collection trucks may be higher than many other countries due to poor road conditions.

Tetra Pak containers would have to be collected with other materials such as paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum to ensure that no losses would be taken. Otherwise, the collection process will cost more than the selling of the collected materials.

4.2.1b Deposit-Refund

The concept behind deposit-refund programs is that by making the consumers pay a deposit on recyclable materials, they will return these materials for recycling in order to get their deposit back, thereby increasing the recycling rate. Even if some consumers decide not to recycle or get refunds, they would have already paid the deposit, so the recycling companies and producers would not suffer any financial losses.

Although this method does encourage the consumer to participate, the price of the products is increased due to the added price of the deposit, which may in some cases discourage consumers from buying such products. As a result, deposit-refund programs are not altogether popular. However, this method has gained satisfactory results in countries such as the United States where it is used by the beverage industry for soda cans and plastic PET containers. Deposit-refund is slightly costly as it would require

either the purchase of collection machines, or payment to businesses to collect the materials and give refunds to the consumers. If the machines are purchased, this would introduce maintenance costs as well.

4.2.1 c Drop-Off Centers

Drop-off centers are similar to the deposit-refund system in the sense that the

consumer is required to clean and separate out the recyclable materials and take them to a

drop-off center where they can be recycled. The main problem with this method is that it

58 requires the consumer to be extremely environmentally conscious because, unlike the deposit-refund system, there are no obvious monetary incentives to encourage participation. The increase in work for the consumer can cause a noticeable decrease in the amount of material collected (Lund, 1993, p. 5.3). However, one incentive to encourage participation is that by recycling there would be less garbage to be disposed of and so the costs of garbage collection might be lowered.

Another disadvantage is that cleaning, separating and delivering the recyclables to a drop-off center can be tedious and expensive for the consumer and as a result is more likely to have a very low participation rate (Lund, 1993, p. 5.3). Generally, for a system like this there is no human interface, and consumers just drop off the materials in the allocated receptacles. It would be advantageous to employ a supervisor to inspect the materials to prevent contamination or misallocation. This method is less expensive for the collection company, especially for heavy materials, as no transportation costs are

incurred. The only investment needed by the collection company is to cover the costs of

setting up the different collection sites (Von Zuben, 2000).

4.2.1d Summary of Collection Methods

The tables on the following page summarize the different methods of collection so

that they can be easily compared. Table 4.1 summarizes the different factors for

consideration for each method and Table 4.2 compares their costs. One suggestion would

be to combine different aspects of the different collection methods to form a hybrid

model that would have increased collection rates. Using some form of incentive has

worked well for the deposit-refund method so something of this nature might have

improved results.

59 Table 4.1: Methods of Collection

Factors for CURBSIDE DEPOSIT-REFUND DROP-OFF CENTERS Consideration COLLECTION

Convenience • Convenient for consumer • Inconvenient for • Inconvenient for

consumer consumer

Cost(consumer) • No extra cost for • Cost of products • Consumer pays for

consumer increase transport

Participation • Highest participation rate • Increased participation • Low participation

Education • Requires little consumer • Requires little consumer • Requires consumer's Requirement education education environmental awareness

Cost for • Costly for heavy materials • Small initial investment • Cheaper for heavy Producers • Large initial investment and no loss for producers materials

• Small initial investment

Responsibility • Municipality responsible • Marketers responsible • Consumers responsible for running and setting up for running, Producers/

Municipalities responsible

for setting up

Table 4.2: Breakdown of Costs for Collection Methods

Curbside Deposit/Refund Drop-off $12,700 or more for Purchase machines OR Small amount of money each truck pay businesses to for bins in front of Startup collect and refund collection center(s) Costs materials; increase in price of products Repair of trucks; fuel; Repair machines; Repair/replace bins; Maintenance salary for people collecting materials sanitation of area Costs working on the truck

60 4.2.2 RECYCLING PROCESSES

There are five different recycling processes for Tetra Pak material discussed in

Chapter 2, namely Hydrapulping, Result Technology, Chiptec, Closed Water Loop

System, and Incineration for use in Cement. Due to lack of information available about

Result Technology, this method was dismissed for the purposes of this project. However, this dismissal is only for practical reasons, and this process should, of course, be researched further in the future.

While profit is not the only reason why Costa Rica should recycle Tetra Pak waste, investors will undoubtedly want some financial evidence that profits will exceed costs. In analyzing the recycling methods for Tetra Pak containers, we gathered and compared information on the startup costs for each process (equipment, building space, number of employees, etc.), rate of return on the initial investment, and market prices for the recycled materials.

Table 4.3 shows a breakdown of the costs for the different recycling methods under consideration. Incineration for use in cement has been omitted because the only cost associated with this process is the cost of paying the cement company to recycle the

Tetra Pak waste, as discussed further on in this chapter. Figure 4.1 shows a bar graph comparing the initial startup costs, and Table 4.4 is a table comparing the operation factors for Chiptec and the Closed Water Loop System.

61 Table 4.3: Cost Comparison for Chiptec and Closed Water Loop System

Cost Category (per year) RECYCLING PROCESSES Chiptec Closed Water Loop Start up cost: building $54,430.00 Start up cost: machine $96,770.00 $295,000.00 Start up cost: other $12,100.00 Cost: raw materials (per ton) $73.00 $43.00 Cost: end product $5.25 /board $117.95/ton Annual sales $355,730.00 $699,400.00 Annual profit $35,200.00 $123,200.00

Table 4.4: Comparison of Operation Factors for Chiptec and Closed Water Loop

System

RECYCLING PROCESS Operation Factors ( per year) Chiptec Closed Water Loop Depreciation of equipment (years) 10 10-12 No. employees 18 24 Energy consumption (kwh) 400,000 153,900 Water consumption (m3) 750 220 Annual production capacity 34,000boards 2,220 tons Profit margin (%) 9.89 17.6 Cost recovery period (years) 2.47 2.33

62 4.2.2a HYDRAPULPING countries includingBrazil,Canada,Austria,Japan,France,Spain,Sweden,andtheU.S.A that byusingahydrapulper established papermill,whichdecreasesstart-upcostsconsiderably.Ithasbeenfound (Abreu, 2002).Ineachofthesecountriesthe Figure 4.1:StartupCostsforTetraPakRecyclingMethods recycling millbyagglutinatingthe produced. Thealuminum/LDPEresiduecollected canalsoberecycledataplastic- washer (SelectPurge notepads, andclipholders(Abreu,2002). injection machinetomakemiscellaneousplastic products likehangers,pens,brooms, and itrequirestheinterest ofalocalpapermilltomaketheinvestment.If anentirely

In itial Investment (U.S. $) 250000 300000 350000 200000 150000 100000 The The disadvantage 50000 advantage ofthissystemisthatithasbeenimplementedsuccessfullyinmany 0 Hydrapulping 5000) solelyforasepticpackaging, of thissystemisthat (Kadant BlackClawsonHi-ConHydrapulper)

composite intopelletsthatcanbeusedbyamould Chiptec Recycling Method 63 machines have

it isquitecostlyto a highquality CWLS been installedinanalready

purchase themachines paper pulpcanbe Incineration and new recycling facility were to be established, there would be building costs as well as the normal operational costs of labor, water, and energy consumption.

4.2.2b CHIPTEC

The advantage of the Chiptec recycling process is that it does not waste any material, and the resultant product is at its final stage of production and ready to be marketed, i.e., the boards are ready to be marketed to furniture companies without any further processing. Although this process would require an initial investment of approximately $ 163, 300, the recovery period is reasonably short (approximately 2.5 years), and the profit margin of 9.89% implies that in the long run, this would be a worthwhile investment with decent profits to be gained (Shi, 2000). These figures, however, are those reported for a system in China; they may not be the same in Costa

Rica although we have reason to believe they might be similar. The disadvantage of pursuing this recycling process is that a private company would have to be solicited to run it, and since the system would be starting from scratch, this could take several years.

It would also require a large amount of initial capital from investors.

4.2.2c CLOSED WATER LOOP SYSTEM

This method is highly attractive because it has successfully been introduced in

Colombia and Brazil. Both are fellow Latin American countries with a proximity to

Costa Rica that would make sharing technology easier than adopting systems from further away. The well known environmentally responsible city of Curritiba (Brazil) is the model that the Costa Rican government plans to use for its future recycling program

(B. Monge, personal communication, June 11, 2002), and so using a closed water loop system would just mean following one more aspect of the Curritiba recycling proposal.

64 Also, there is no pollution produced with this system, and every layer of the Tetra Pak

container is retrieved in pristine condition and can thus be sold in the separate aluminum, plastic, and paper markets (Pauli, 2002). The advantage of these markets is that they are

stable and already established.

The disadvantage of this system is that it requires an extremely large initial

investment of approximately $295,000 (B. Escobar, personal communication, June 10,

2002), and a recycling plant would need to be built from scratch by the investing

company. The recovery period of the investment is approximately 2.3 years, which is

relatively short for such a large investment. Although this system would need to be

started from scratch, the building time for such a plant is only 0.41 years (150 days), and

the environmental organization responsible for the discovery of the closed water loop

system, ZERI (Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives), has shown interest in setting up

this system in Costa Rica.

4.2.2d INCINERATION FOR USE IN CEMENT

This method of recycling Tetra Pak involves the incineration of the entire carton

to produce ash that is used to make cement. The advantage of this method is that a local

cement plant, INCSA, has taken interest in using recyclables, such as Tetra Pak

containers and things like tires and chemical residues, for ash. The only thing a system

built around incineration would require is for Tetra Pak containers to be collected and

taken to the cement factory.

However, INCSA is not currently prepared to buy the waste, as is the case in

other recycling methods (A. Araya, personal communication, June 7, 2002). The cement

plant has just recently opened, and so in order to recover costs, they charge companies for

65 transporting the material to the incinerator at a rate of $50/ton. However, we have been told that this price may be negotiable and could possibly be negotiated down to about $32 per ton, which equals the cost for transportation to a landfill. While this method may be practical for a company like Dos Pinos, which already pays to dispose of the containers, it would not be profitable for a Tetra Pak/ recycling collection and separation plant; instead of selling the collected materials to cover their costs, they would have to pay to get them incinerated. Also, although the cement factory's emissions comply with current

Costa Rican laws, the process does produce some air pollution.

4.2.3 MARKETS

According to Rita Smith (Raymond, 1992, p. 81), the success of a recycling program depends on whether there is a steady market for the end-products. If the money being made from selling recycled materials does not cover the expenses of the recycling process, then the business will fail, and the containers will return to the landfill as waste.

Also, investors will not, of course, simply want to break even. They will want to maximize their profits, in which case market prices will play a key role, since they are the source of income for a recycling plant. If the markets do not provide enough profit, a company may decide not to invest. Another factor in making a profit will be the amount of materials collected. Obviously, the more material that can be collected, the more money will be returned through the markets. Because of this, interest and participation of the community becomes an important issue to consider as discussed further in section

4.4.

66 The different recycling processes discussed above have a variety of marketable end-products. Examining the stability of these markets and the profitability of each was a key factor in deciding which process to recommend.

4.2.3a PAPER, ALUMINUM, AND PLASTIC (LDPE)

Markets for paper, aluminum and plastic are already established in Costa Rica and are relatively stable. Hydrapulping produces paper pulp for the paper industry, and if this recycling process were established in a paper mill, then as the cartons are recycled, the paper pulp produced could be turned into paper products in the same factory, eliminating further transportation costs. In the case of the Closed Water Loop System, the paper, aluminum and LDPE sheets collected would need to be transported to paper, aluminum, and mills, respectively. In Costa Rica, the approximate average price for aluminum is $562 per ton, paper is $90 per ton, and the price for LDPE ranges from

$102 to $115 per ton.

4.2.3b FURNITURE

The Chiptec recycling process produces a wood composite in the form of boards.

These boards need no further processing and can be sold directly from the recycling plant to furniture manufacturers. In China, these boards sell for about $5.25 for a lm x lm x

16mm board. This material is not currently used in Costa Rica, so the potential market

for this type of wood product is unknown. The plywood material that is used by Costa

Rican furniture manufacturers can be bought for $4.50 for the same size board. Although

the Chiptec wood composite is a little more expensive, it seems to have some high quality

properties that would make it a better material than plywood. This needs to be researched

further.

67 4.2.3c CEMENT

The cement factory recycles the Tetra Pak cartons into cement in the incineration process after which the factory takes care of marketing its own product. The cement costs $65 per metric ton.

4.2.3d PLASTIC-ALUMINUM AGGLUTINATE

The residue collected from hydrapulping can be recycled at a plastic recycling mill by heating the residue, compacting it into pellets and then using these pellets in a mould injection machine to form plastic products such as hangers, brooms, and other miscellaneous plastic objects. Although this is a relatively stable market, this market does not provide as much profit as the aluminum market, which could be used if the residue is separated and sold for its individual components.

4.2.4 SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS

In summary, the flow chart on the following page illustrates the different options for recycling programs that are available. Each stage of the process has information on the costs for that program, namely the initial investment needed, the cost recovery period

(time it will take to recover the initial investment) and the annual profit.

68 Flowchart Comparing Recycling Options

CURBSIDE DEPOSIT- REFUND DROP- OFF COLLECTION

SEPARATION & COLLECTION CENTER

Initial Investment: $ 40, 000

CLOSED WATER CHIPTEC HYDRAPULPING LOOP SYSTEM

Initial Investment: $ 1350,000 Initial Investment: S unknown Initial Investment: $ 295, 000 Cost Recovery Period: 2.47 yrs Cost Recovery Period: unknown Cost Recovery Period: 2.33 yrs Annual Profit: $ 35, 200 Annual Profit: S unknown Annual Profit: $ 123, 200

•

ALUMINUM: S 562/ton WOOD COMPOSITE: PAPER: S 90/ton PLASTIC: 5102-115/ton $ 5.25/board ALUMINUM-PLASTIC (11mxi mxl 6mm) RESIDUE: S unknown PAPER: S 90/ton • Figure 4.2: Flow Chart of Recycling Program Options

69 4.3 COST ANALYSIS

In deciding which collection and recycling methods would be best for Costa Rica, the first thing we had to establish was whether it was more beneficial (financially and environmentally) to invest in a recycling program as opposed to saving this money and continuing to send the Tetra Pak containers to a landfill. In other words, using a standard economic evaluation of investment proposals calculation, we had to determine whether cash now (cash to earn interest) was worth more than cash later (the amount earned after the investment), keeping in mind that some of the benefits of recycling are not easily quantified, such as less pollution, conservation of resources, beautifying the countryside, etc.

4.3.1 INVESTING OR SAVING

Before taking into account the environmental benefits of recycling, we performed a cost analysis to determine if investing in recycling was financially viable. According to

Woods (2001, pp 1, 5) this is a necessary step for any project that deals with corporate investments. While it may appear that a business that continues to operate over a period of time is a viable investment, there may be unknown factors that disguise its real

economic state, such as government subsidy. Government or even private subsidies

could disguise the fact a company is not profitable.

In order to determine if the investment is worthwhile, we calculated the net present value (NPV) for some of the companies currently recycling Tetra Pak containers

elsewhere in the world. The NPV is "the total net benefit yielded by the investment over

its life, expressed in terms of money in hand right now" (Woods, 2002). In order to

determine the NPV, we used the formula: NPV = PV — I, where "I" is the initial

70 investment, and "PV" is the total present value. PV is found using the following formula:

PV = (F) [1 — (1 + k) -"] / k, where "k" is the risk percentage in the investment, "n" is the number of years before another investment is needed, such as replacing old machinery, and "F" is the future net cash flow. It should be noted that the formula used to find PV is a simplified version of the actual formula because this formula assumes that the future net cash flow (F) for a company will remain the same every year. In the real world, this does not happen; however, this formula does provide an estimate, which is all we are looking for at this time.

In analyzing the Chiptec and Closed Water Loop System we determined that n =

10 years approximately before new machinery must be bought. By talking with

Jonathan, a graduate student at the University of Costa Rica, we learned that k = 13% approximately (personal communication, June 21, 2002). With these numbers set, for the

Chiptec process F = $35,187 and I = $163,240, according to the information we received from Shanghai Caile Environment Products Co. Ltd., which uses this process. From this we obtained a NPV of about $27,700. Since this value is greater than 0 (the total present value is greater than the initial investment), this process would seem to be economically beneficial to invest in. For the Closed Water Loop System, F = $286,166 and I =

$295,000, according to a company in Colombia using this process. For this, the NPV is about $1,257,800, meaning it too is a good investment. Unfortunately, we could not perform this calculation for the hydrapulping process, as we were unable to obtain the financial information needed.

Since the NPVs for Chiptec and the Closed Water Loop System are both greater than 0, the processes are obviously worthwhile to invest in financially. This is because,

71 as the formula shows, the total present value of the income is greater than the initial investment. This means that in the time n (10 years in this case), the company has managed to make a profit greater than the initial investment. Of course, this does not include the environmental benefits, which makes investing in recycling even better, nor does it respond to the reality that profits might be maximized by pursuing other types of investment.

4.4 LOCAL RECYCLING

The main goal of our project has been researching and developing a complete recycling system for Tetra Brik containers that involves both a collection program and a recycling method for the containers. We also felt it was necessary to obtain information about current waste disposal practices in local communities as well as attitudes and knowledge about recycling. The data we have gathered on these subjects came from different sources, including interviews and surveys. This information has helped us design a recycling system that will elicit the participation of local people.

4.4.1 LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES ABOUT RECYCLING

We used two surveys to help determine current waste disposal practices, people's attitudes and knowledge about recycling, and future possibilities for recycling. One survey that we analyzed was done by two students, Araya and Blancaneaux (March,

2002, pp. 12, 19-20), of the Universidad de Costa Rica; the other two were of our own design.

72 Table 4.5 Survey Demographic Information

Survey Creators Location of Survey Participants ► Female % Male Araya and Blancaneaux l San Pedro, San Jose 60 61% 39% CICA IQP Team Metropolitan Region of San Jose 115 60% 40% CICA IQP Team Canton of Santa Ana 59 59% 41%

(Araya and Blancaneaux, March, 2002, pp. 12, 19)

The survey done by Araya and Blancaneaux (March, 2002, p. 13) had an equal

distribution of people aged 40 or over and people under that age responding to the

questionnaire. Araya and Blancaneaux also tallied how many people they surveyed from

each Barrio (neighborhood), which also represents the different social classes in San

Pedro. A breakdown of the data shows that 33% of those surveyed were from Barrio

Dent (upper income), 36% were from Sabanilla Carmiol (middle income), and 31% were

from Barrio Pinto (lower income). Therefore, this survey equally represents the different

social classes and most likely different levels of education as well.

The survey that we carried out in the Metropolitan Region of San Jose stretched

from in the northwest of San Jose to in the Southeast. 63% of the

respondents were under the age of 40, and 37% of the people were 40 or over. The

survey that we carried out in the canton of Santa Ana had 39% of the respondents under

the age of 40, and 61% of the people were 40 or over. We did not determine the social

classes or education levels of the respondents in either of these surveys. However,

students from the University of Costa Rica gave out the surveys, and they most likely

handed out the surveys to their friends and people in their own neighborhoods. This

73 suggests that the respondents from these two surveys represent a wealthier class of people with a higher education level than the average citizen of Costa Rica. The two

questionnaires that we carried out do not represent as wide a range of incomes or

education levels as the one done by Araya and Blancaneaux.

Since none of these surveys is large and none is based on a statistically random

sample, the results cannot be taken as representative of all of Costa Rica. However, they

have helped us determine the knowledge and opinions of some Ticos about recycling and

about Tetra Brik containers. They have also helped us determine the feasibility of setting

up a collection program for Tetra Brik containers, especially for more urban areas.

4.4.1a CURRENT WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES

The survey by Araya and Blancaneaux (March, 2002, pp. 12, 19-20) found that

35% of the people surveyed separate their trash. Our survey found that 33% of the

people surveyed separate their trash. This suggests that approximately one-third of the

people in both surveys separate their trash. However, in our survey we also asked if

people recycle. Approximately 22.6% of the people in our survey claim to be recycling,

but only 69.2 % of these people claim to be separating trash. This does not seem logical,

because anyone who recycles must separate the recyclable materials from the rest of their

trash. This suggests that there may be some confusion between separating trash and

recycling. One person might use an empty Tetra Pak as a pot for flowers and see that as

separating trash, because he or she is physically taking the Tetra Pak from the trash and

using it for something useful. Another person might see this very same thing as

recycling. If we were to construct this survey again, we would reword this question to

make it clearer and pre-test it to insure correct understanding. A solution might be to

74 replace both questions with a question asking whether or not people separate recyclable materials from their trash.

From our survey, we also estimated the number of Tetra Pak containers that people throw away on a weekly basis. The individuals that we surveyed throw away an average of 3.9 Tetra Pak milk containers per week and 2.8 Tetra Pak containers of other products. The numbers given here cannot, unfortunately, be used to determine the tonnage of Tetra Pak containers thrown away each year. To do this, one would first need a sample size representative of Costa Rica. One would also need to determine the exact sizes of the containers that people throw away and to word the question precisely to be sure that the number each person writes down represents his or herself and not his or her family. Also, these numbers are what people estimate to be throwing away and may not be the actual amount. The numbers from our survey do suggest, however, that the people surveyed use approximately 7 Tetra Paks of different sizes per week.

4.4.1b CURRENT PUBLIC INTEREST IN RECYLING

In the surveys carried out in the Metropolitan Region of San Jose and in the canton of Santa Ana, we were able to determine local interest in recycling by asking questions about whether people want to learn more about how to recycle Tetra Brik containers, whether or not they would be willing to rinse Tetra Briks, and whether or not they would separate them from their trash for the purposes of collection. Figure 4.3 and

Figure 4.4 display the respondents' interest in recycling Tetra Briks.

75 100 87.8% 92.2%

d 90 e 80 rvey 68.7% 64.9%

Su 70 E Learn le 60 E Rinse

Peop 50 q Separate f

o 40 q Rinse and Separate e

tag 30 n 20

Perce 10 0 n=101 n=79 n=106 n=74

Figure 4.3 Respondents' Interest in Tetra Brik Recycling (Metropolitan Region of San Jose)

100 93.2%

d 90 88.1% e 80 74.6% rvey 72.9%

Su 70

le 60 El Learn op E Rinse 50

f Pe q Separate

o 40 e q Rinse and Separate

tag 30 n 20 rce

Pe 10 0 n=52 n=44 n=55 n=43

Figure 4.4 Respondents' Interest in Tetra Brik Recycling (Canton of Santa Ana)

In both surveys, the results are very similar, except that Santa Ana had a slightly higher percentage of people who would rinse or rinse and separate. Approximately 88% of the people said that they wished to learn more about recycling Tetra Pak containers.

More than 68% in each said that they would rinse the containers. Over 92% of those surveyed said that they would be willing to separate the containers from their trash if there was a method for collecting them. From these data we can see that most people

76 surveyed are willing to learn about Tetra Brik recycling, and they are also willing to

separate the packaging for collection. However, there are fewer people who would rinse the containers. This may be because certain people feel that rinsing requires more effort

than either learning about recycling or separating the packages for recycling. It is also

possible that these people do not understand the importance of rinsing out the containers

for the recycling process. Approximately 66% of the people in both surveys said that

they would both rinse and separate the containers, which suggests that a substantial

majority of surveyed participants would do what is needed for the collection process to be

successful.

While we found that approximately 88% of all the people we surveyed were

interested in learning more about recycling Tetra Brik containers, Araya and Blancneaux

(March, 2002, p.22) found that 73% of the people they surveyed were somewhat or

greatly interested in participating in a program to learn about separation of trash in the

home. This suggests at least a 75% interest, combining both surveys, of people to learn

more about recycling Tetra Brik or trash separation in general. It also suggests that

educational recycling programs could have high participation rates.

4.4.1c CURRENT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF RECYCLING

72% of the people that Araya and Blancaneaux (March, 2002, p. 19) surveyed

"somewhat" or "strongly" agreed with the statement that household trash could be

reusable. This suggests that the people surveyed understand that household products may

be made of reusable materials.

In our survey, we investigated what people thought was the best treatment of

Tetra Brik solid waste. The results are shown in Figure 4.5 on the following page.

77 Figure 4.5 Respondents' Perception of the Best Way to Handle Tetra Brik Waste (n=112)

We found that 68% of respondents to this question saw recycling to be the best method to handle Tetra Brik waste. Araya and Blancaneaux (March, 2002, p. 17) found

that 73% of the people they surveyed considered recycling to be the best treatment of

solid waste in general. These two findings suggest that a majority of people in both

surveys see recycling as the top method for solid waste disposal, and specifically for

Tetra Brik in the case of our survey.

93% of the surveyed participants "somewhat" or "strongly agreed" that each

person is responsible for the waste that he or she produces (Araya and Blancaneaux,

March, 2002, p.21) suggesting that almost all of those surveyed are conscientious about

how they dispose of their waste.

In our survey we determined that 66 households, or 57.4% of those surveyed have

children in primary or secondary school. 42.4% of these households said that their

children have had homework relating to solid waste management or recycling as shown

in Figure 4.6 on the following page.

78 Figure 4.6 Households with Children Who Had Homework Relating to Solid Waste Management or Recycling

(n=66) This suggests that there is some education in schools pertaining to solid waste management and recycling. However, our survey suggests that less than half of the

children are receiving this type of education.

We also asked people in our survey if they thought that Tetra Brik containers

caused problems for the environment, and 84% indicated that they agreed. Figure 4.6 on

the following page displays their responses as to the reasons why Tetra Brik can cause

problems for the environment.

Figure 4.7 Respondents' Views on the Problems that Tetra Paks Create for the Environment (n=96)

79 The primary problems people mentioned were the difficulty and time it takes for decomposing, environmental pollution, and the lack of facilities to recycle such materials.

100, or 87% of the people we surveyed responded that they saw such advantages in recycling Tetra Brik, primarily because it would cause less pollution or benefit the environment. Others mentioned economic benefits and the fact that the materials from the containers can be reused. These data suggest that people do understand that Tetra

Brik containers can cause problems for the environment and that there are several advantages to recycling them.

4.4.2 CURRENT CORPORATE INTEREST IN RECYCLING

In terms of corporate interest in recycling, Carlos Andres Rincon, Environmental

Manager from Dos Pinos (personal communication, May 30, 2002) told us that his company is working towards recovering its waste cartons and would be willing to collect the containers if a viable way of recycling them was presented. However, he said that the current environmental department that he works in does not have any money to invest in a recycling project at this point. We also spoke with Liliana Umaria, administrator for the

Santa Ana pilot recycling program (personal communication, June 6, 2002), who said that the curbside collection program that exists in Santa Ana is willing to collect the Tetra

Brik containers as long as there is a Tetra Brik processing plant willing to buy the containers.

4.4.3 CURRENT RECYCLING EDUCATION

From Liliana Umaria (personal communication, June 6, 2002), we learned that the

Santa Ana recycling program recently has achieved forty percent participation from the community. Initially it was difficult to get people to participate, but educational

80 programs in churches and schools helped teach local residents about the importance of separating their trash, and this resulted in increased rates of participation. We can therefore see the importance of educational programs about recycling and that these programs can be successful for increasing interest and participation in recycling. She also told us that there is an education program at the University of Costa Rica to teach students about recycling, which shows that some students are currently gaining knowledge about the process.

4.4.4 FUTURE RECYCLING EDUCATION

We learned from our many interviews about the need for more education about recycling in Costa Rica. Bernardo Escobar (personal communication, June 10, 2002), the environmental representative in Costa Rica for the group ZERI (Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives), told us that governments need to teach people about the cycle of products

, that is, every output can be used as another input. In the case of Tetra Brik containers

(the output), people need to be taught that materials (the input) from Tetra Briks can be used to make new products. Escobar also said that people need to perceive a value in recycling before they can and will act on it. Carlos Andres (personal communication,

May 13, 2002) of Dos Pinos also mentioned the great importance of educating local people on recycling in order for a recycling program to be successful.

Bernardo Escobar (personal communication, June 10, 2002) also told us that community involvement would insure the success of a recycling program. This involvement could be achieved by having regional recycling plants and/or collection centers where local citizens would work for pay. Citizens would be more apt to recycle,

81 because they would not only be able to see the recycling process in action but would also be supporting community members who work at the local recycling facilities.

Bernardo Monge of the Ministry of Health (personal communication, June 11,

2002), told us that he is working on installing educational software in schools that describes a current recycling project in Curritiba, Brazil, where they do recycle Tetra

Brik. This software could reach 500,000 students if fully implemented, or approximately

62% of the children in the country, with the goal of educating them about recycling.

4.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

From the analysis of the data on current recycling collection methods, recycling processes, and surveys on local knowledge and interest in recycling, we can now draw conclusions and make recommendations for implementing a Tetra Pak recycling system in Costa Rica. In brief, data gathered from our survey would indicate that a majority of the people would participate in a Tetra Brik recycling program and would be willing to learn more about recycling. Establishing this is important as without the interest and support of the public, a recycling initiative would fail. The following chapter describes our conclusions and recommendations.

82 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

The goal of our project has been to find a system for recycling Tetra Pak waste in

Costa Rica. Over the past three months we have researched the extent of landfill disposal of Tetra Pak in Costa Rica, and we have studied the best options for recycling this waste.

Although at first glance recycling Tetra Pak waste might not seem to be a pressing issue, as it is not a hazardous waste, we have nonetheless concluded that the value of recycling should not be underestimated. Instead of using up landfills and causing unsightly pollution, the recycling of this packaging could save natural resources and provide secure jobs in local communities. It could even be a profitable venture for a company interested in investing in this worthwhile endeavor.

5.1 ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RECYCLING PROGRAM

One important thing that we have realized is that for economic reasons, Tetra Pak

containers and similar packaging need to be collected together with other recyclable materials such as glass, plastics, cans, and paper. Through our research, we have

determined that facilities already exist that will buy and recycle these materials. The

extra income from the sale of the recyclables will reduce the costs of collecting the

materials and distributing them to recycling plants, thus making the process cheaper. In

addition, a national program to collect Tetra Pak containers is necessary in order to obtain

enough of these containers for a recycling plant to operate at a profitable capacity.

Collection of the containers should extend to all the urban areas in Costa Rica as these

areas have a denser population and so will produce enough waste to make collection

worthwhile. In order for this to happen, there needs to be a system for collecting the

waste from consumers' homes, separating the waste, and then distributing it to recyclers

83 where it can finally be converted into marketable products. Thus, we recommend the development of a national recycling program that includes Tetra Pak and other materials.

5.2 ESTABLISH A SOURCE OF FUNDING

The first thing that needs to be done is for the beverage industry to take responsibility for their waste. The best way to do this is to use public pressure to make the beverage industry and the government commit to helping fund a recycling program.

This funding is one of the key factors needed to start a Tetra Pak recycling program and ensure its success.

Currently the beverage industry, as well as the Tetra Pak Company, are not obligated to take responsibility for their products' waste in Costa Rica. We recommend that the government create laws that require these companies to be responsible for their own waste, following the idea that Duales System Deutschland has created in Germany.

These companies should help fund the start-up costs for the curbside collection, collection and processing centers, and in setting up the Tetra Pak recycling facility. They should also be responsible for funding a portion of the educational programs in schools.

The municipalities should also have part of the responsibility to fund curbside collection, collection and processing centers, and educational programs in schools.

Municipalities should not charge fees for the collection of recyclables but instead increase the fees for regular waste collection to help cover the costs of collecting the recyclables. This will encourage people to reduce their regular waste and recycle as much of their waste that they can. Also, some tax money from the government that would go to fund waste collection and landfills should be allocated to fund the collection of recyclables and construction of collection and separation facilities. In the long run, the

84 government will save money because less waste will go to landfills, prolonging the lives of landfills, and thus postponing the creation of new landfills. Of, course, beyond saving money, the effects on the environment are even more rewarding.

5.3 DEVELOP A COLLECTION SYSTEM

In order to successfully introduce a national recycling system in Costa Rica, recycling needs to be made easy for the consumer. The reason for this is that the feasibility of a recycling plant depends on the amount of materials collected, and so to ensure that enough containers are being collected, the method with the highest collection rate would need to be implemented. Analysis of the collection methods discussed in

Chapter 4 show that curbside collection, which is easy for consumers to use, would be the best option for a recycling system because it yields the best collection rates. The 40% participation rate of the curbside recycling program in Santa Ana also demonstrates that this type of program can work.

The collection should be done once a week and at the same time as garbage collection because this has been shown to improve participation rates. An incentive to recycle, as mentioned in section 5.3, should be introduced by charging higher rates for collecting garbage that can not be recycled, thus encouraging people to recycle as much of their waste as possible. Municipalities should also provide special reusable collection bins per household that people can use to place their recyclables in. This will make it easier for collectors to differentiate between trash bags and recyclables on collection days and allow for some inspection. Also, since the bins are reusable unlike plastic bags, the creation of more waste is prevented. Drop-off centers will be necessary in places where curbside collection is not feasible. These drop-off centers should be located at a landfill,

85 so that people only have to make one trip to the landfill to drop off both their trash and their Tetra Paks and other recyclables. Again, people should be charged less to drop off their recyclables than to dispose of their waste in a landfill.

5.4 IMPLEMENT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

We have concluded that educational programs need to be implemented to ensure the success of a national recycling program. If people do not understand the need to recycle and the important role they play in the recycling process, the system will fail.

The survey that we conducted suggests that a majority of people would like to learn more about Tetra Pak recycling, at least in the San Jose Metropolitan region, which gives us reason to believe that educational programs would be successful.

We recommend that municipalities make flyers that focus on telling people how to recycle, the benefits of recycling, and the dates of local collection days. The flyers should specifically explain to people the necessity of rinsing the containers before putting them out at the curb to be recycled. This recommendation is partially based on the survey we conducted, suggesting that fewer people were willing to rinse the containers than separate them to be recycled. The flyers should be posted in schools, churches, and other public places as well as distributed to homes that participate in curbside collection.

Another way to reach the public is by having beverage companies who produce products packaged in Tetra Pak and similar containers, promote Tetra Pak recycling on the sides of their packaging. There should also be public service announcements on television funded by the government and the beverage industry to promote recycling.

Educational programs should also be initiated in schools to teach children about recycling and classes discussing the recycling of Tetra Paks and other recyclable

86 materials should be incorporated into the school curriculum. Also, students could put their knowledge into practice if their schools were to participate in a juice box collection program. In this way, schools could be included in the Tetra Pak recycling program.

Also, a good way to teach people to do something is by giving them an example to follow. Government offices and other large businesses and institutions should be the ones to set this example by recycling their waste. Not only will this be a way of educating people and encouraging the public to recycle, but it will also help boost the collection rate, as a large proportion of the country's waste comes from such large organizations.

5.5 ESTABLISH COLLECTION AND SEPARATION CENTERS

In order for the collection program to work, there need to be collection centers where the collected materials can be taken to be separated and sorted before being packed off to the various recycling companies. Thus, collection and separation centers need to be built. Each of the urban areas in the seven of Costa Rica should develop one collection and separation center and then build more if and when the volume of recyclable materials increases in these regions.

The best model to follow for creating separation centers would be that of the

Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, as it is economical and creates jobs. There appears to be minimal funding in Costa Rica for a recycling, program, so expensive machinery is out of the question. The Porto Alegre model requires only one type of machine, a baler that compacts the Tetra Paks and other recyclable materials. The recyclable materials at the plant will be separated by workers and then baled for shipment. The balers will compact the Tetra Paks and other materials so that all of the space in the trucks will be fully

87 utilized, thus minimizing the costs of shipping the materials to the respective facilities for recycling. This model helps the local communities by creating stable jobs; after all, such solid waste is created every day. Also, by employing local people to run the collection and separation centers, the government benefits because the rural workers are a cheaper source of labor than city workers (Von Zuben, 2000). The communities create income by selling the separated materials to the various recycling companies.

5.6 ESTABLISH A RECYCLING PROCESS

In addition to a general collection and separation scheme for recycling, a Tetra

Pak recycling facility must be established. Facilities already exist to handle the other recyclable materials. Although incineration for cement would be a simple solution to recycling Tetra Paks, as it does not have any start-up costs, it would, however, cause the collection and separation plant to take a loss. This is because the cement factory does not buy the waste but instead sells its disposal/ recycling service. Instead of selling the separated Tetra Pak waste to be recycled, as they would with other recyclables, the collection and separation center would have to pay to transport it to the cement factory.

The recycling method that we suggest be implemented is the Closed Water Loop

System. Currently we do not have enough information about the costs of setting up hydrapulping or about the recycling of the LDPE/aluminum residue to recommend this system. We are unsure about the possibility of success of the Chiptec process because we estimate the Chiptec wood board costs $0.75 more than the same sized plywood board in

Costa Rica. We believe that the Closed Water Loop System is a worthwhile financial investment despite its high start up costs of $295, 000 because the end products, aluminum, LDPE, and paper, already have established markets. In Costa Rica, the

88 approximate average price for aluminum is $562 per ton, paper is $90 per ton, and the price for LDPE ranges from $102 to $115 per ton.

The Closed Water Loop System will need to be set up with an operational goal of

189 tons per month. The beverage industry should begin to transport its Tetra Pak waste here once the facility is set up, thus supplying a portion of the necessary tonnage per month. We have determined that the minimal collection rate from households will be somewhere between 14.4% and 34.6% depending on the areas from which the collection is made, as shown in Appendix 0. This Closed Water Loop System does not produce any pollution and the organization that discovered it, ZERI, has expressed an interest in helping to start the system in Costa Rica.

5.7 INTEGRATE RURAL COMMUNITIES

While we have considered how to establish a recycling program in the urban areas of Costa Rica, no initiative currently includes rural communities. Although more than half the country's population is in the Central Valley, the San Jose metropolitan area, the waste created in the rural communities is still a problem and, if collected, could boost recycling rates considerably. It would be too expensive to set up enough small separation plants to cover Costa Rica's scattered rural communities, but an approach that has proven to be successful has been recognized by Curritiba, Brazil. By following a barter system, the government could trade vegetables and food bought wholesale at a cheap price from markets for bags of collected recyclable waste. If the rural communities do not need food, then other commodities could be used for bartering. In this way the rural communities would be provided with a needed commodity, and the area would be cleaned of polluting solid waste.

89 5.8 A COMPLETE OVERVIEW

Figure 5.1 on the following page provides a complete overview of the recycling program that we recommend for Tetra Pak containers. It shows the lifecycle of Tetra Pak

containers in Costa Rica. The process starts with the beverage industry where the

containers enter the (educated) consumers' homes as liquid food products, and after they

become waste, they are collected and recycled into new products. These new products

enter consumer homes once more, after which they are collected and recycled into more

products, thus continuing the cycle.

Costa Ricans have only recently become conscious about the importance of

preserving their precious natural resources and the incredible ecological diversity of their

country's rainforests. If they were to succeed in establishing a national recycling

program, including Tetra Paks, not only would they be taking responsibility for the

consequences of their waste, but they would be one step closer to being a true "green

republic."

90 Tetra Pak Education Containers Beverage Industry

I • • 4 I 'I Curbside Collection Natural Resources Preserved Consumers' Homes Collection & Separation Center • Drop Off Centers ui Landfills life prolonged Recycling Plant

More Consumer Aluminum Plastic Products Mill Mill

Figure 5.1 Recycling Program Summary Bibliography and References

Abreu, M. (2002). Recycling of Tetra Pak Aseptic cartons. Tetra Pak Canada Inc.

Ackerman, F. (1997). Why do We Recycle?. Washington D.C: Island Press.

Alter, H., & Dunn, J.J. Jr. (1980). Solid Waste Conversion to Energy. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

Aseptic Packaging Council. (2000). An Award-Winning Process. Retrieved March 30, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aseptic.org/

Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. (2002) Table of Interest Rates. Retrieved June 21, 2002 from the World Wide Web: vvww.bncr.fi.cr/BN/esp/indicadores/frametasas.html

Bassin, S., Daily, G.C., Daily, S.C., Ehrlich, P.R., & Holl, K.D. (1999). Knowledge of and attitudes toward population growth and the environment: University students in Costa Rica and the United States. Environmental Conservation, 26 (1), 66-74.

Bendersky, D., Keys, D. R., Luttrell, M., Simister, B. W., Simister, M., Viseck, D., Savage, G. M., Shiflett, G. R., Midwest Research Institute, & Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. (1982). Resource Recovery Processing Equipment. New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation.

Bernai, Carlos. (1999). Technologies for the World from Columbia: Separation Technologies for Tetra Pak and Detergents. ZERI Newsletter. Retrieved June 5, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zeri.org/news/1999/may/may_tech.htm

Biesanz, K.Z., Biesanz, M.H., & Biesanz, R. (1999). The Ticos: Cultural and Social Change In Costa Rica. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Costanza, R. (Ed.), Martinez-Alier J. (Ed.), Segura 0. (Ed.). (1996). Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Denison, R.A., & Ruston, J. (1990). Recycling and Incineration: Evaluating the Choices. Washington D.C.: Environmental Defense Fund.

Dulude, J. (2000, June 16). UN Environment Report marks start of new era. The Tico Times. Retrieved March 25, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://wvvw.ticotimes.net/

92 Eco Recycle Victoria. (2000). Information Sheets 10: Milk and Juice Carton Recycling. Retrieved March 19, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecorecycle.vic.gov.au/aboutus/infosheet_milk.asp

Edelman, M. (1999). Peasants Against Globalization. California: Stanford University Press.

Eliassen, R., Tchobanoglous, G., & Thiesen H. (1977). Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. San Francisco: McGraw Hill.

Estado de la Nacion en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible. (2000). Pavas, Costa Rica: Proyecto Estado de la Nacion. Funded by Consejo Nacional de Rectores, La Defensoria de los Habitantes, & PNUD.

Evans, S. (1999). The Green Republic: A Conservation History of Costa Rica. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Goldstein, J. (1979). Recycling: How to Reuse Waste in Home, Industry, and Society. New York: Schocken Books.

Guttentag, R. M. (1997). Recycling and Waste Management Guide to the Internet. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, Inc.

Itzigsohn, J. (2000). Developing Poverty. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Jessen, M. (1998, September 25). The Fourth a'. Toenail Environmental Services. Retrieved April 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.toenail.org/articles/column42.html

Kimball, Debi. (1992). Recycling in America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC — CLIO.

Kulshreshtha, P., & Sarangi, S. (2001). No Return, No Refund: An Analysis of Deposit Refund Systems. Journal of Economic Behaviour, 46 (4), 379-394.

Kyriss, G. (2000, December 1). "Green" program teaches sensitivity. The Tico Times. Retrieved March 25, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ticotimes.net/

Locke, S. (2002). The Public Understanding of Science- A Rhetorical Invention. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 27 (1), 87-111.

93 Lund, H. F. (Ed.). (1993). The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill,Inc.

Milk Carton Composting Research Results. (2000, March). Biocycle, 41 (3), 23.

Milk Carton Recycling Initiative. (2000, March). Biocycle, 41 (3), 25.

Muther, C. (1999). Delamination and separation of complex, multi-material, waste streams using Result technology. In A. Barrage, X. Edelmann (Eds.), R'99 Recovery, Recycling, Re-integration Congress Proceedings (Vol. 3). Gallen, Switzerland: EMPA

Nolen, S. (1999, May 11). Ecotourism: Too much of a good thing. The Tico Times. Retrieved April 27, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ticotimes.net/

Pauli, G. (1999). ZERI Foundation's Portfolio for Urban Development. Jobs from Waste Packaging. Retrieved June 4, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.zeri.org/news/1999/jj/jj_urb.htm

Pouliot, J., Trovato, J., & Yim, K. (2000). Lead-Acid Battery Recycling in Costa Rica. (Interactive Qualifying Project Report). Worcester, MA: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Raymond, M. (1992, January). Aseptic Recycling on Trial. BioCycle, 33, 80-83.

Robinson, W. D. (Ed.). (1986). The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Sabath, A.M. (2000). International Business Etiquette: Latin America. New Jersey:The Career Press.

Sanchez, Francisco. (1999). PEREIRA, Melia Hotel, Wednesday October 13 1, Plenary Session 2: Technology Strategies for Regional Development, High Science withSimple Technologies. Retrieved June 5, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zeri.org/news/1999/congr/3season.htm

SCS Engineers. (2000). Sonoma County Solid Waste Management Alternatives Analysis Project Final Report. Retrieved March 20, 2002 from the World WideWeb: http://www.recyclenow.org/sonomacountysolidwaste.pdf

Selke, S.E.M. (1990). Packaging and the Environment: Alternatives, Trends, and Solutions. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.

94 Shi, H. (2000). Chiptec — Recycling of Used Packing Waste. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from Electronic database on the World Wide Web: http://www.unep.or.ip/webm

Sistema Informacion de la Investigacion. (2000). Untitled. Retrieved April 10, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://sii.utt.ucr.ac.cr/centro.php3?centro=802

Solano, F.M. (2002, June 25). i,Que hacer con la basura? La Nacion, p. 18A.

Steuteville, R. (1994a, March). Recycling polycoated packaging. BioCycle, 35, 71-74.

. (1994b, March). Ups and downs of aseptic. BioCycle, 35, 74-76.

Strum, S.C., Western, D., & Wright, M.R. (1994). Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Tetra Pak. (2002). Recycling. Retrieved March 28, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tetrapak.com/

Thompson, C. G. (1992). Recycled . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Thorpe, S. G. (2001). Integrating Solid Waste Management: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Enviromental Systems, 28, 91-105.

Tierney, J. (1996, June). Recycling is Garbage. The New York Times Magazine, 24- 30.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Facing America's Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste? (OTA — 0 — 424). Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Von Zuben, F. (2000). Recycling Implementation of Liquid Food Cartons in Europe and Brazilian Model in Collection and Recycling. Brazil: La Papel.

William, S. (1991). Trash to Cash: New Business Opportunities in the Post Waste Stream. Washington D.C: Investor Responsibility Research Center.

Wolkoff, L. (2000, August 11). Controversial landfill rolls ahead. The Tico Times. Retrieved March 25, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ticotimes.net/

Woods, D. G. (2001). Handbook for IQP Advisors and Students. Retrieved April 22, 2002 from the World Wide Web:

95 https://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/IGSD/IQPHbook/

Yen, T.F. (1975). Recycling and Disposal of Solid Wastes. Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.

Yukon's Deposit-Refund System for Beverage Containers. (2002, April 03). Government of Yukon Department of Environment. Retrieved April 13, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.renres.gov.yk.ca/environ/deprefhtml

96 Appendix A: Mission and Background of CICA

The Centro de Investigaciones en Contaminacion Ambiental (CICA) is a research center, affiliated with the University of Costa Rica, for studying problems of environmental contamination. Its main objective is to gather scientific information that will help in preventing the destruction of the environment (Sistema Informacion de la Investigacion [SII], 2000). The organization focuses on air and water quality, pesticides, and solid waste management. The organization was founded in 1982 and since then has been using a variety of methods to gather and analyze information regarding environmental pollution. Currently, CICA has some of the most advanced instruments in the country with which to do this.

CICA has a small staff of about 40 to 50 researchers (Pouliot, Trovato, & Yim,

2000, pp 4-5). These people are divided up into different laboratories, where they research specific topics pertaining to each laboratory. Some of the laboratories in

CICA are Water Quality, Pesticide Analysis, Air Quality, Metabolism and

Degradation of Pesticides, Unity of Quality Assurance, and Solid Waste Management.

Our liaison, Professor Ronald Arrieta is the head of the Solid Waste Management

Laboratory at CICA.

CICA receives funding from three main sources (Pouliot et al, 2000, pp 1-2).

The University of Costa Rica provides a small portion of the funds to support some of the projects that CICA undertakes. Some consulting services in Costa Rica also provide CICA with funds. The third source of funding comes from the national and international organizations that benefit from the research and projects conducted by

CICA. These organizations include the National Organization of Atomic Energy, the

97 Pan American Health Organization, the United Nations Development Program, the

National Service of Underground and Irrigation Waters, and many others.

Our liaison, Professor Arrieta, has been working with CICA for the past eight years. He is currently in charge of three main projects, which are composting, solid waste fermentation, and wastewater treatment. A large portion of Professor Arrieta's work is also in conjunction with the Chemistry Department at the University of Costa

Rica. His research projects at the University include community work on solid waste.

These projects extend to communities both inside and outside the central valley.

Professor Arrieta does not differentiate the research he does at the university from the research he does for CICA.

98 Original Project Description from CICA

CICA is an organization that worries about recycling and develops information that eventually can be used by commercial firms. This year's project is intended to result in a design for the collection and reuse of materials from Tetra Pak and Tetrabrik containers (juice boxes, some milk cartons, etc.). Students will describe the systems already available in the United States and their commercial value, estimate the quantity thrown away annually in Costa Rica, describe the ideal situation that might be achieved in CR for this type of waste, figure out what the options might be for reclaiming the materials in CR and processing them, and estimate the costs and benefits of a theoretical company that might engage in those activities.

99 APPENDIX B: CICA Appendix C: Why our Project is an Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP)

The IQP is a project that prepares students for professional work by helping them gain a more mature understanding of themselves as professionals whose decisions have human and social consequences. It was incorporated into the WPI curriculum to provide a broader and more integrative education for engineers. It is important for engineers to be knowledgeable about the interactions between society and technology, as well as scientific concepts and technological skills. In years previous to the implementation of the IQP, graduates were limited to technical and scientific knowledge and were not aware of the social implications of technology. The IQP teaches students to be sensitive to societal problems, to be aware of societal-humanistic-technological interactions, and enables students to analyze these interactions. It also serves to teach students how to work together as part of a team, to accomplish a common goal, just as one would do in the work place.

Our project, Recycling Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica, meets the criteria of an

IQP. There is a strong technological aspect of the project as well as a strong relation between science and technology and human and societal values. The technological part deals with the actual processes of recycling and the physical damage done to the environment by simply disposing of these containers. As recycling is an extremely controversial issue, the project is related to society because there are political and ethical issues to be considered when dealing with this waste. The needs of local people must always be considered. While building a modern landfill may be the easiest way of dealing with the waste, it may affect the people living in the area by emitting a foul odor and could become a threat to the environment if leakage occurs. On the other hand, all

101 the implications of recycling on society need to be considered too. Creating a recycling program that is not welcomed by the people has little chance of succeeding. The knowledge and education that people have about the importance of recycling will influence their participation in such programs. In order to run a recycling center, factors such as profitability and feasibility come into play. Also, we must take into account governmental policies regarding recycling in Costa Rica.

102 Appendix D: Interview with Carlos Andres

This interview was conducted with Carlos Andres Rincon, the Environmental Manager at the Dos Pinos plant in Alajuela, at 11:30 a.m. on the 30 th of May, 2002. Dos Pinos is a company that produces about 80% of the country's products that use Tetra Pak packaging and thus is the largest source of this packaging in the country. Carlos explains that the environmental department is a new concept for Costa Rican companies and his job puts him in charge of solid waste, emissions and regulating this plant with other Dos Pinos plants.

Question: How many Tetra Pak containers does your company use per year? Are all of those products sold here in Costa Rica?

Response: About 1000 tons of Tetra Pak is produced each year in the Dos Pinos plant, which constitutes about 65% of the over-all annual waste at the plant. Not all the products are sold in Costa Rica. A large quantity of the products are exported to Guatemala,

Nicaragua, Panama, the Dominican Republic and possibly some of the products are exported to the U.S.A (not sure of what % is exported).

Question: Does Dos Pinos produce those containers at their own plant or does Tetra Pak produce them?

Response: There is a Tetra Pak company that produces the packaging in Mexico. The

Dos Pinos Company imports them from there in rolls of already printed boxes. They have Tetra Pak machinery that assembles the boxes and fills them with the various products.

103 Question: Is there more than one Dos Pinos plant in Costa Rica? Where is it located?

Response: There is another plant located in but this plant only produces different and milk powder and does not use Tetra Pak packaging. The plant in

Alajuela is the only one that uses Tetra Pak and the plant is known as "Coyole".

Question: Is there a law that says companies are responsible for the waste that they produce?

Response: Not really, however Dos Pinos is becoming conscious that it needs to take responsibility for the waste it produces and that is why the environmental department has recently been introduced. The problem is the culture; people are not interested in recycling. There needs to be programs to educate people and the government does not do that. Municipalities claim they don't have the money and don't make any decisions to implement a program. The Coca Cola Company has tried to start its own project with scavengers known as Missione Planeta but this is not a professional method and nobody involved is educated about recycling. There is a new government party that wants to pass a law whereby producers take responsibility for their packaging/waste.

Question: Does Dos Pinos have a stake in starting a recycling project for Tetra Pak containers? What is it?

Response: Not really. There is just a large quantity of waste produced at the plant that needs to be disposed of daily. This is because the machines are wasteful and need to be run for 12 minutes each day before they function properly. This calibration is done with

104 water instead of the food products so as to minimize wastage but those Tetra Paks need to be disposed of. However, using Tetra Pak is still far more advantageous than using bottles (what was used previously) as it requires a lot less energy.

Question: What has Dos Pinos done so far in analyzing recycling possibilities for Tetra

Pak containers? How long has Dos Pinos been trying to start a recycling program?

Response: They have been investigating the cement program as that is the most feasible at the moment but even that is not completely practical. Due to high transport costs it works out to be more expensive (about $50/tonne waste) to incinerate the Tetra Pak rather than dump it in landfills (about $ 32/tonne waste) and so using this method would force the price of the products to go up. Also, there is a limitation to how much Tetra

Pak can be incinerated before it affects the quality of the cement.

Question: Has Dos Pinos made efforts to contact Tetra Pak about recycling? How has

Tetra Pak responded?

Response: Efforts to contact the Tetra Pak Company have been made for the last 2 months but it seems that the company is not interested as the attempts have been futile and Dos Pinos is still waiting to hear back from them. A meeting was held with a Sales

Manager from Tetra Pak but he left for Africa ten years ago and nothing has been done.

Apparently Green Peace has Tetra Pak in a corner at the moment so hopefully they will respond soon. They are considering trying to contact some representatives in North

America who might be more helpful than the people in Central America.

105 Question: Is Dos Pinos involved in recycling practices for its products other than Tetra

Pak containers (Santa Ana)? Do you provide any financial support for that program?

Response: They do recover all the expired products from the businesses they sell them to and then sell the food product to the local pig farmers. The packaging, however, simply is disposed of. Attempts are being made in the plant to deal with other environmental concerns though. The main step has been the installation of the water treatment plant of all the wastewater from the Dos Pinos factory.

Question: Is your company willing to provide financial support or sponsor a project to recycle Tetra Pak containers?

Response: Dos Pinos is only just developing its Environmental Department. At the moment this department is part of the Engineering Department but this is progress from where it was a few months ago when it was part of the Maintenance Department. They are hoping to make a budget for themselves by collecting the money from the recovery of products such as old trucks, tires and furniture that the company sells to recycling companies. Also, they have started making educational posters that advertise how many trees are used to make the cartons in hope that this will get a reaction and have an effect on the public.

Question: You told us in our first meeting that your company produces 2 tons of waste per year. Would you be willing to collect that material at your plant for recycling?

Response: Dos Pinos is working towards recovering its waste cartons. If there was a way to recycle the packaging, they would be willing to collect the containers.

106 Question: Do you have any written information on the cement recycling process that we could analyze? Are there any contacts that you have within this recycling business?

Could you get us in touch with any of this information or these contacts?

Response: Unfortunately not. There is a person called Anthony who works there and may be helpful in providing some information. There has been a break down of communication with the cement recycling company recently as they have temporarily shutdown the process due to some fault.

Question: Do you know the other companies that sell products in Tetra Pak containers here in Costa Rica? Do you know how many products they sell in Costa Rica per year?

Do you have any contact information for them?

Response: Dos Pinos is the only local company that uses Tetra Pak packaging. There are some products found in the supermarkets that use Tetra Pak but they are all imported.

However, the Coca Cola Company does use a similar packaging made by "international paper" for some of its products, including the beverage Hi-C.

Question: Do you know any companies that import Tetra Pak products into Costa Rica?

Do you know how many products they sell in Costa Rica per year? Do you have any contact information for them?

Response: No, this information could possibly be gained from the supermarkets themselves or the products distributors.

107 Appendix E: Interview with Anthony Araya

This interview was conducted in person with Anthony Araya, a commercial manager at the Corporacion Industrial Nacional de Cemento (INCSA) at 2:30 p.m. on the 7 th of June,

2002. He was able to provide us with information regarding incinerating Tetra Pak containers for use in cement, including the process and feasibility in Costa Rica. The following are the questions we asked, and a summary of the responses to these questions.

Question: Can you give us some background on your company?

Response: INCSA is a cement company based in Switzerland, and is the biggest cement company in the world, having offices in 80 countries. 80% of the company's business is from cement. The other 20% is includes fabrics, energy, asphalt, and several other small operations. In Costa Rica, they employ about 150 people, and they produce 800,000 tons of cement a year, paying $1.1 million dollars per month for energy use. INCSA also has a sort of recycling program here in Costa Rica. They collect tires, certain plastics, paper, chemical residues, and several other materials.

Question: What is cement made up of?

Response: Cement is usually made from a combination of limestone, clay, and drops of iron and aluminum. The main ingredient from limestone is calcium, and the main ingredient in clay is silica. The calcium and silica are combined at a temperature of about

1500° C, forming the main portion of the cement.

Question: How does the incineration of products help in creating cement?

108 Response: All ash is mainly made of silica. So, when the products are burned, their ash provides one of the main ingredients for creating cement.

Question: How much material is incinerated for making cement?

Response: Currently, 2,000 tons of material is incinerated every year. It is hoped that by

2006, the amount of material being incinerated at INCSA will reach 18,000 tons per year.

This will reduce the cost for raw materials as well as energy. Incineration provides silica in the ash, and during the process releases the energy stored in the materials being incinerated.

Question: What is the average selling price for cement?

Response: The average selling price for cement is $65 per ton.

Question: Do you know of any current processes for the incineration of Tetra Pak containers?

Response: As to my knowledge, no company in the world has yet to incinerate Tetra Pak containers for the purpose of making cement and gaining energy.

Question: Would there be any problem with adding Tetra Pak containers to the current incineration process?

Response: There is only one problem with adding these materials to the process. That is contamination from the leftover liquid in the containers. However, the materials themselves do not pose a problem. While too much aluminum in a batch of cement can

109 ruin it, because INCSA produces about 2,000 tons of cement every day, the aluminum from the Tetra Pak containers can easily be spread out so as not to cause a problem.

Question: Do companies pay for INCSA to incinerate their waste material, and if so how much?

Response: Companies do pay INCSA for this disposal method. The cost is about $50 per ton, but this amount can fluctuate depending on the type of material and the amount.

Tires for example are more difficult to shred than most other materials, and tend to wear out the shredder quicker. So, the price per ton for tires is slightly higher to make up for this problem. The price is mainly to cover transportation to the site, and the price of the initial investment, $3.3 million dollars. While this is not designed to be a large source of income for INCSA, it does need to be profitable to some degree. It is hoped that INCSA will earn back the initial investment for this process in about 7 years.

Question: Are there any problems with air pollution through incineration?

Response: Burning certain materials does release some harmful gases, but the plant at

INCSA is well prepared to handle these pollutants. There are filters in place throughout the process which collect and deal with these gases in a safe manner. There is also a computer network setup that monitors every incinerator in use by INCSA throughout the world. This allows anyone in the company to look in on a specific location to see if there are any problems, and to give recommendations. Also, there are required tests of the exhaust released every day, in which different pollutants are checked to make sure they are within safety parameters.

110 Question: Are there any other people you think we should contact regarding the recycling of Tetra Pak containers?

Response: Try and talk to Carlos Hernandez at the Earth school. Also, try and contact

Ronald Elizondo (384-6400). In IT in Costa Rica, try and talk to Catia Rodrigez (362-

8028) and Juan Carlos (365-4282).

111 Appendix F: Interview with Bernardo Monge

This interview was conducted in person with Bernardo Monge, Manager of the

Environmental Issues Department at the Minesterio de Salud (Ministery of Health), San

Jose at 3:00p.m.on the 11 th of June, 2002. He shared with us the hopes that the government has for recycling in Costa Rica and what the situation is currently.

Question: Could you give us a description of the work your Department does at the

Minesterio de Salud?

Response: This division of the environmental department only deals with human waste and not nature as such. MINAE is responsible for the ecological part of the department that deals with preserving the forests and their inhabitants. Instead, they are mostly concerned with the San Jose are and the populated areas in the central valley. The waste they are responsible for in particular is waste water, solid waste, air contamination and preserving air quality and organic waste. There are currently 80 employees in this department, 20 of whom are engineers. It is their job to ensure that the policies on these different types of waste are implemented.

Question: What are some of the current recycling initiatives in Costa Rica for household solid waste?

Response: There are none really started as yet but there is one model project that Costa

Rica is looking to follow and that is the system of dealing with solid waste in the

Brazilian city of Curritaba. This city set the goal of increasing their green area by four

112 times and has encouraged public support by advertising the number of trees saved due to the number of paper products that are recycled.

Question: How exactly has this initiative worked?

Response: They collect waste from all the different areas, especially the poor areas. In the city they ask people to separate their organic waste from the other materials that can be recycled and then collect these materials regularly. In the poorer districts and rural areas where there have been problems with large amounts of solid waste collecting and polluting the landscape, incentives have been used to solve the waste problem. The government buys vegetables in bulk at a cheap price from the market and goes to these poorer areas and swaps the vegetables for bags of collected trash. This barter system has worked both ways as it has provided citizens with food and has resulted in cleaning up what was a large pollution problem. Once the waste has been collected, it is then taken to a processing station where people separate the trash. This has created permanent jobs in an industry that is far more stable than coffee; waste is created every day after all. The people working at the station separate the trash as it passes along a conveyor belt and there are two shifts; one from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the next from 1:00 p.m. to

9:00p.m. This makes the station very efficient. The kinds of materials that are separated are different colored glass, aluminum, and paper products. There are also things like old computers and bicycles that people throw out that could be potentially useful. The computers are disassembled so that the gold chips in them can be retrieved and sold to jewelers and the bicycles are repaired so they can be given to children in poorer districts.

There has been special training at the local schools to publicize and educate people about

113 this recycling initiative and the city hall has founded an educational museum full of some old artifacts that have been salvaged from the waste.

Question: This system sounds very successful. What steps has Costa Rica taken towards starting this initiative?

Response: At the moment there is going to be a local museum display from the 15 th —

22 hd July about the waste in Costa Rica and the hope is to inaugurate the start of this program with the opening of a special program for children on June 30th. Presently, the department is working on getting educational software that will explain the recycling project in Curritiba and installing it in the local schools. The goal is that 500, 000 children will have access to the software, which is approximately 62.5% of the children in Costa Rica. If this succeeds it will be the best educational program of its kind in Latin

America.

Question: Are there any materials that are being recycled in Costa Rica?

Response: In , people recycle paper to form hand made paper that is sold to tourists as arts and crafts. There is no real large-scale program installed though.

Question: Are there any markets that will buy the collected recyclables? Is there any income for this?

Response: At the moment, for the few products that are collected, there is only one person buying the materials so there is no choice for those selling it to these markets.

The people have to accept very low incomes as a result of this market monopoly.

114 Question: What is the biggest drawback at the moment that is preventing you from starting a recycling initiative?

Response: There is not enough money to start such a large program and there is also not enough tonnage of waste being produced. Brazil has a much larger population than Costa

Rica so the system was more feasible in their case. Approximately 250 000 tons of waste is produced annually in Costa Rica.

Question: Do you know anything about recycling Tetra Pak containers?

Response: There is not enough information about recycling these containers available.

There is a large amount of these containers in Costa Rica so it would be useful to recycle them.

Question: What do you think about obligating companies like Dos Pinos and Coca Cola to process their own waste?

Response: At the moment they are in the process of making some stricter laws that will force companies to take some responsibility for their own waste. Costa Rica has been looking at the laws set out by countries like Japan and Switzerland for companies to recycle their own waste. PAHO (a Panama treaty) has also got some information that could be useful. The saying " what is born in the factory must die in the factory" is something Costa Rica wants to apply here.

Question: In your opinion, what do you think the solution is for the waste?

115 Response: The best solution would be to make a new company to recycle the waste as it would provide jobs as well as make use of the waste. The goal for Costa Rica is to recycle 80% of its waste by the year 2010.

116 Appendix G: Interview with Sergio Musmanni

This interview was conducted in person with Sergio Musmanni, who is the director at the

Centro Nacional de Produccion Mas Limpia (CNP+L), San Jose at 2:00 p.m. on the 28 th of May, 2002. He was able to provide us with information on the recycling of Tetra Pak containers into wood products including a website containing financial information on this process, as well as a process being used in Switzerland. The following are the questions we asked, and a summary of the responses to these questions.

Question: What have you done so far in regards to recycling Tetra Pak containers?

Response: 2 years ago, CNP+L tried to find a way to dispose of Tetra Pak containers in a safe way. The plan was to research a viable method, then educate the people and get them involved in the program.

Question: What technologies did you research 2 years ago?

Response: There were 2 main technologies researched:

1) Canadian: recycling process was used to form boards Unfortunately, there

was not a lot of information available at the time about this process.

2) Chinese: the Tetra Pak containers were pressed together, and then heat was

applied. This heat melted the plastic layers in the containers, creating a strong

. The best part about this process was that more plastic or paper

could be added to the process depending on the desired result in the wood

(thickness, resistance, strength, etc.). The cost for this process can be found

117 online in IETC in the Maestro database. This information comes from UNEP

in Japan.

Question: Did Tetra Pak offer any assistance or recommendations for recycling the containers?

Response: Tetra Pak Company advertised in a journal the "perfect process" for recycling their containers. Their recommendation was hydrapulping. The problem with this process is that it requires a great deal of water, which by the end of the process is contaminated. So, this process, while solving the Tetra Pak problem, creates a water problem that would need to be dealt with.

Question: Are there any other recycling processes for Tetra Pak containers that you are aware of?

Response: There is a process used in Switzerland with a slightly different material. They recycled blister packs, which contained aluminum and 2 different types of plastic. It is believed that this process could be adapted to work with Tetra Pak containers. We were given a book which contains a report on this process. There is also a process used in

Europe where the Tetra Paks are incinerated, and then the resulting ash is used in cement.

The limiting factor in this process will be aluminum. There is only so much aluminum that can be added to cement without adversely affecting the quality. This puts a limit to the amount of Tetra Pak containers that can be recycled in this way. Since Costa Rica produces a great deal of Tetra Pak waste, this may be a serious problem.

118 Question: Why are Tetra Pak containers so widely used here in Costa Rica?

Response: About 30 years ago, glass bottles were the most common container for liquid in Costa Rica. As time went on, the people wanted things that would give them an

"easier life." With Tetra Pak containers, they could go to the store and buy things like milk in these containers to last them a whole week. Whereas before, a milkman went to each house everyday and replaced empty milk bottles with full ones. Another big reason for the switch to Tetra Pak containers was refrigeration. These containers could last much longer than a glass .

Question: Do you know of any attempts at recycling in Costa Rica that we should look into?

Response: There was a recycling initiative: Ciudad Limpias. This was run by the

Ministry of Health. 10 different counties are involved in a pilot program. In each county, they identified the stakeholders in the program and setup a place to recycle the materials. The government funded them for the first 6 months. Then the idea is that they should be self-sufficient. We should contact Bernardo Monge in the Ministry of

Health in San Jose. He works in the department of Human Environment. He can give us more information on the recycling initiative.

119 Appendix H: Interview with Liliana Umafia

This interview was conducted in person with Liliana Umaria, the administrator for the

Santa Ana pilot program in recycling, at 1:30 p.m. on the 6 th of June, 2002. During the interview, we learned a great deal about the pilot program operating in Santa Ana. The following are the questions we asked, and a summary of the responses to these questions.

Question: When did the pilot program start?

Response: The program started in November 1998.

Question: What percentage of the community participates in this program?

Response: Approximately 40% of the people living in Santa Ana participate in the program.

Question: Did you have any problems with getting people to participate?

Response: At first it was difficult, because people did not understand the importance of separating their trash. However, some education programs were implemented in schools and churches. After this, more people were willing to participate.

Question: Are their any other education programs in effect in Costa Rica?

Response: In the University of Costa Rica, there is an education program to teach students about the importance of recycling. There are also similar programs at many local schools and churches in Costa Rica.

120 Question: How many trucks does the pilot program have?

Response: There is 1 truck, which was bought in May of 2002. Two people work the truck. One drives while the other collects the material. However, there have been many mechanical problems with the truck, so it is not very reliable.

Question: How many people work in the pilot program?

Response: There are a total of 18 people who work in the pilot program.

Question: What materials are collected, and where are they sent once collected?

Response: The program collects newspapers, magazines, phonebooks, computer paper, notebooks, cardboard, glass bottles, window glass, aluminum cans, nails, screws, metal pipes, and plastic bottles. Most paper products go to Kimberley Clark, and the cardboard goes to Emparques S.A. The glass is sent to Vicesa, and the plastic is split between Coca

Cola, Pananco Tica, and Globalojiste.

Question: How much money is recovered for each product?

Response: Cardboard — 13 colones/kg, Glass — 11 colones/kg, Aluminum Cans — 220 colones/kg, White Paper — 35 colones/kg, Color Paper — 10 colones/kg, Newspaper — 7 colones/kg, Phonebooks — 3 colones/kg, Plastic(PET) — 100 colones/kg.

Question: Do people pay taxes to send their trash to a landfill?

121 Response: Yes, and the price varies depending on the amount. The average price for a family house is 1200 colones per year. In industries, the price can range from 1300 to

32,000 colones per year depending on the amount. However, no taxes are paid to recycle, so the more people recycle, the less they pay for the landfill.

Question: Are the recyclables picked up at the same time as the trash?

Response: They are both collected on the same day, but not at the same time. Both are collected once a week. The day and time depends on the area of the town.

Question: If there is a recycling facility set up for Tetra Pak containers, would you be willing to incorporate this into your program?

Response: Yes, it would be great to incorporate Tetra Pak containers into the program.

The only thing preventing this right now is there is no place to sell the containers to for recycling.

122 Appendix I: Interview with Michele Wagner

This interview was conducted by phone with Michele Wagner, who is an Environmental

Manager at Tetra Pak Inc on April 17, 2002. She was able to give us some good information about the company Tetra Pak, the containers they make, and programs for recycling Tetra Pak containers. The following are the questions we asked, and a summary of the responses to these questions.

Question: What is the difference between Tetra Pak and Tetrabrik containers?

Response: One of the types of containers that Tetra Pak makes is the Tetrabrik container.

So there is no actual Tetra Pak container. Tetrabrik gets its name, because the container has a brick shape to it. This type of container is an aseptic container, meaning it has a fine aluminum liner inside the packaging. This liner allows for extended shelf life of the product it contains. Tetra Pak also makes gable top cartons. An example would be a carton of Tropicana Orange Juice. These containers are not aseptic.

Question: Does Tetra Pak actually make the containers or do other companies make the containers using the Tetra Pak technology?

Response: Tetra Pak makes the packaging and sells it to companies who make liquid foods. A company like Minute Maid, for example, would use Tetra Pak containers to package their products.

123 Question: Would Tetra Pak be able to help facilitate a recycling program for Tetra Pak containers in Costa Rica?

Response: Tetra Pak helps facilitate recycling programs in the U.S. and other places. She said that her knowledge is mainly of programs in the U.S. rather than other countries.

She said that we would need to speak with representatives of Tetra Pak in Costa Rica to find out more information about facilitating a recycling program in Costa Rica. To this end, she told us she could get us a contact in Costa Rica.

She then went on to say that when Tetra Pak looks to begin a recycling system in a country, it looks within the established infrastructure. For example, in Brazil, Tetra Pak and other companies have used "scavengers" to go out and collect materials from dumps.

In this way, they can determine the quantity and types of materials in the waste stream to better assess local recycling options.

Question: What are the current collection methods for Tetra Pak containers in the United

States?

Response: All participating recycling programs in the United States collect gable top and

Tetrabrik containers together. In Maine and along the West Coast of the United States,

Tetra Pak containers and paper products are separated from the rest of the recycled goods. All other programs collect Tetra Paks at the curb along with recyclables of all types. They are then separated at the recycling facility from the rest of the other recyclables. The Tetra Paks are then processed and sold to companies who make tissue products.

124 Question: We have heard that it is difficult to recycle aseptic containers, because of the aluminum lining within the container?

Response: It's actually easier to pulp (recycle) an aseptic package than a gable top container. Gable top containers have what is called wet strength in the material. Because of this it is harder to break down, requires higher temperatures, and takes a longer pulping time for recycling than aseptic containers do. She then went on to explain hydrapulping, which is the process for recycling Tetra Pak containers. This process has been used since the 40's. The hydrapulper is like a blender and has rotary blades. The packages are added to the "blender" with water. During the process, the paper fibers are separated from the plastic and aluminum layers. As she said earlier, the paper is made into tissue products. The plastic and aluminum are sometimes converted to waste energy or landfilled. In other places such as Brazil, plastic lumber type products are made from the aluminum and plastic.

She then gave us contact information for Fernando Vonzuben

([email protected] ) who works in Brazil recycling Tetra Pak containers.

After we were satisfied with the information we received, we thanked Michele for her time and input. She again told us that she would send us contact information for someone working for Tetra Pak in Costa Rica.

125 Appendix J: Detailed Summary of Interview with Bernardo Escobar

ZERI: This interview was initially intended to be a structured interview with specific

questions. However, it ended up being an unstructured interview. The following

is the information that Bernardo gave us about various topics relating to the

environment, social issues, and the recycling of Tetra Pak containers.

Bernardo began by telling us that he is the environmental representative in Costa Rica for the group ZERI (Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives). He told us that ZERI's idea is creating solutions to cycle the economy. He then went on to say that governments, such as the one here in Costa Rica, need to change the perception about nature. Governments need to instill in people the idea about the cycle of products, where every output can be used for another input for another product (e.g. materials from recycling Tetra Pak's can be used to make new products). The example he gave us was how in beer production, 97 percent of the raw materials become waste as biowaste. This biowaste can then be converted into new products such as bread.

He went on to say that Tetra Pak is well designed, because it prevents spoilage, however the container has not been designed with recycling in mind. In much of Europe, there is a

law that says that products need to be designed to facilitate recycling. There have been

two ways that this has been done. One way is to design things with second functionality

in mind. For example, product packaging made out of building blocks. The package not

only contains the product but also serves as a toy for children. The other way is to design

126 products with the idea of dematerialization, which is to make products smaller in order to reduce the amount of materials in a product (like in cell phones or computers).

He told us that there are two great movements for Tetra Pak recycling. The first is processing Tetra Pak containers to make building materials like beams for a house.

However the mechanical properties in this wood product need to be carefully analyzed in order to be suitable for use in a house. The other process is the ZERI approach. The materials are placed in water and separated by tools while enzymes deteriorate the glues between the materials. The particles from each of the materials are then compacted and sold on the market as individual materials (paper, plastic, aluminum).

We then discussed how there are two kinds of products: anonymous products and non-

anonymous products. An anonymous product is one in which after it leaves the producer,

the producer takes no responsibility for that product. An example of an anonymous

product is Coca-Cola. A non-anonymous product is one in which some responsibility for

that product lies in the hands of the producer after it leaves their hands. Examples are

Caterpillar machinery products that contain a chip that communicates with a satellite to

tell when there is a problem with the machine. This is a type of secondary service. (This

could be applied to Tetra Pak containers by making a company like Dos Pinos

responsible for the products that it produces and therefore its own Tetra Pak containers.

We also talked about how humans have to perceive a value in order to act on it, such as

recycling. Companies such as Coca-Cola have worked at developing this perception

127 through projects like Planet Mission, whereby Coca-Cola works with different places like

school to teach schools to recycle and to set up recycling programs.

Recycling programs need to be a win-win situation for the consumer and the company. It

is important to teach the value of perception, in terms of seeing products as being

recycled. A movement needs to be created about teaching about Tetra Pak containers.

People need to understand that the recycling of Tetra Pak containers will create jobs.

He told us that there are two great movements for Tetra Pak recycling. The first is

processing Tetra Pak containers to make building materials like beams for a house.

However the mechanical properties in this wood product need to be carefully analyzed in

order to be suitable for use in a house. The other process is the ZERI approach. The

materials are placed in water and separated by tools while enzymes deteriorate the glues

between the materials. The particles from each of the materials are then compacted and

sold on the market as individual materials (paper, plastic, aluminum).

The following is the information that he gave us about the plant in Colombia that recycles

Tetra Pak containers:

Colombian Plant

Cost to build: $295,000

Production capacity: 185 tons per month

128 Building time for the plant: 150 days

IRR (Internal Rate of Return): 50%

PRI (Period of return of investment): 28 months

Building size: 300 square meters

Labor: 24 workers (2 administrators)

US$ per ton in Colombia: carton $0.43, paper $0.77, plastic $1.94, aluminum $4.28,

others $0.33

We need to determine the above prices in Costa Rica.

2 of these plants exist in Colombia. The 2 plants support the country's 40 million people

(Costa Rica's population is approximately 4 million people). 70% of Costa Rica lives in the Central Valley. Bernardo's recommendation is to replicate the Colombian plant. He also mentioned the importance of finding information on the number of Tetra Pak containers consumed in Costa Rica, so that we have an idea of how many tons a plant would have to process. We talked a little bit about Dos Pinos, and how it is an international company and how that might make potential for collecting materials in other countries to be processed here. The main problem with the project would come in shipping the containers. He said to create smaller plants and projects as well as jobs for the local people where the consumption is taking place. If the plant is involved with local communities, they will buy products using the materials recycled from the Tetra Brik containers and be more apt to recycle. Both the consumers and large corporations need to be balanced together. Balance the centralized and decentralized information (have small

129 plants local enough that people will be willing to recycle, but not so small as to affect profit and the benefits of a centralized system).

He went on to mention that one of the most important recycling systems is a Canadian company installing the landfill systems. He also told us that biodigestor's might be a good option to help resolve the environmental situation. He also mentioned a process called cogeneration, which is where towns or cities use the energy from landfill emissions to power the town or city.

He also told us that there are 6 recycling companies for aluminum cans that crush it and send it to the United States. (These companies could be good to contact when looking into markets for aluminum)

Bernardo then gave us a series of other contact information:

Look for the book Estado de La Nacion at UCR, www.estadonacion.or.cr , for waste information in Costa Rica. Miguel Gutierrez Saxe is the contact at the website: [email protected] .

The following are things that discuss reverse — logistics as a way of analyzing different recycling systems:

130 Look up Reno University and search for reverse-logistics.

James R. Stock at the University of Southern Florida also has information about

reverse — logistics at the following site: www.fbk.eur.nl/OZ/REVLOG/.

Recycling Information: La Quinta Disciplina by Peter Senge

131 Appendix K: San Jose Questionnaire Cuestionario

1) Sexo Femenino Masculino

2) Edad en acios cumplidos

3) Nacionalidad Costarricense Colombiano Nicaragiiense Otro

4) Distrito de residencia:

5) Estado Civil Casado(a) Soltero(a) Divorciado(a) Union libre

6) Nivel escolar del entrevistado

Primaria Completa Secundaria Incompleta Primaria Incompleta Universitaria Completa Otros Secundaria Completa Universitaria Incompleta

7) Ocupacion del encuestado

8) i,Cuantas personas trabajan en el hogar?

9) Ocupacion del Jefe o la Jefe de hogar

10) Milner° miembros que viven en el hogar.

11) Ntimero de hijos o hijas en la escuela o el colegio Escolar Secundaria

12) Sus hijos o hijas traido a la casa tareas relacionadas con el manejo de los desechos solidos. Si No

13) I,De que se trataba la tarea?

132 14) Recicla en su casa la basura? Si No

15) i,Separa en su casa la basura? Si No (Si la respuesta es no pase a la pregunta #18)

16) i,Que separa? Botellas Periodicos Latas Material biodegradable (cascaras, restos de comida, etc.) Tetrabrik Todas las anteriores

17) I,Cada cuantos dias bota usted un envase tetrabrik de leche?

18) i,Cada cuantos dias bota usted un envase tetrabrik de otro tipo?

19) 1,Considera Usted que los envases tetrabrik son un problema para el medio ambiente? Si No

i,Por que?

20) i,Cual es para Usted la mejor forma de tratar los envases tetrabrik?

Relleno sanitario Incineracion Reciclaje Otros

21) zDesea conocer mas sobre el reciclaje de envases tetrabrik? Si No_

22) i,Esta usted dispuesto (a) a enjuagar los envases tetrabrik? Si No

23) 1,Esta usted dispuesta (o) a clasificar los envases tetrabrik en caso que fueran a ser colectados? Si No

24) Cuales ventajas tendria el reciclar tetrabrik?

133 Appendix L: Questionnaire San Jose (English)

Date:

Questionnaire

1) Sex Female Male

2) Age

3) Nationality Costa Rican Colombian Nicaraguan Other

4) District of Residence:

5) Marital Status Married Single Divorced Free Union

6) Education Completed

Grade School Complete High School Incomplete Grade Incomplete College Complete Other High School Complete College Incomplete

7) Your Occupation

8) ,How many people work in your house?

9) Occupation of head of the household

10) Number of people who live in your house.

11) Number of kids in school College Grade/High School

12) Do your kids do homework related to waste management? Yes No

13) I,What homework do they do? 14) Do you recycle trash in your house? Yes No

15) i,Do you separate trash in your house? Yes No (If the answere is no go to question #17)

16) ,What do you separate? Bottles Newspapers Glass Material biodegradable (egg shells, leftover food, etc.) Tetrabrik All the above

17) 1,How many times a day do you throw away tetrabrik milk containers?

18) i,How many times a day do you throw away other types of tetrabrik containers?

19)i,Do you think tetrabrik causes a problem for the environment? Yes No

,Why?

20) iXhat is the best method for dealing with tetrabrik containers?

Landfill Incineration Recycling Other

21) I,Would you be willing to learn more about how to recycle tetrabrik containers? Yes No

22) ,Would you be willing to clean the tetrabrik containers before recycling them? Yes No

23) ,Would you be willing to separate tetrabrik containers in your house if they would be collected? Yes No_

24) What are the advantages of recycling tetrabrik?

135 Appendix M: Recycling Pamphlet from the Canton of Santa Ana

This appendix is a handout that the Canton of Santa Ana uses to inform local residents about the recycling program. It describes why people should recycle, what materials can and cannot be recycled, how to recycle, and collection days for the different districts of Santa Ana. This is an example of a good way to educate and inform people about recycling.

Reference: Manejo Discriminado de Desechos Solidos. (2002). La Muncipalidad de Santa Ana y La Universidad de Costa Rica.

136 MANEJO DISCRIMINADO DE DESECHOS SOLIDOS Plan cantonal de la Municipalidad de Santa Aria y is Universidad de Coda Rica

1,Por quo reciclar? Un noventa por ciento de los desechos que producimos en nuestros hogares son aprovechables. Tan solo una decima parts es basura. El aprovechamiento de desechos bane las siguientes ventajas:

1. Genera nuevas fuentes de trabajo.

2. Se conservan los recursos naturales:

- Por cada 60 kg de papel que se recide, se evita comer un arbol.

- En el reciclaje del papal, vidrio y metales se ahorra Ia mitad del agua y de energia, que cuando se utilizan materias virgenes.

- Los espacios para depositar basura se reduce on 10 veces.

- El riesgo de contaminacion de agues subterraneas se reduce enormemente puss Ia cantidad de desechos es manor y la presencia de caldos contaminantes as muy baja.

3. Se generaran recursos econdmicos qua saran destinados para educacion.

,Qua redder y que no reciclar?

RECICLABLE NO RECICLABLE Periodicos Papel de fax __, Revistas Servilletas Li, Guias telefonicas Papel carbon Papel de computadora Papel higienico ' Cuademos Papel o carton sucio o mojado Carton Tetra Brik, Tetra Pak

0 Frescos Termometros a' FBraotelIcisas Espejos a 5 Vidrio de ventana vaoasBombillos, de ica

Latas de aluminio Latas sucias de alimentos (enjuagadas) m O Clavos, tomillos, arandelas Tubos de metal

8 Botellas de bebidas EnvoRums de plastic° (enjuagadas) Plastic° sucio

Los dlas de recoleccidn de reciclables aqui en son los de cada mes.

13 7 4Oue cosas NO se reciclan? Pahales desechables Plastic°, papal y otras envolturas sucias Ulla sanitarias LY los desechos blodegradables? Las cascaras y restos de alimentos no saran procesados aim por Ia Municipalidad. Estos desechos se pueden entregar junto con la basura o usted mismo los puede aprovechar para elaborar abono organico. 4Como reciclar? Tanga en su casa dos bolsas diferentes, una para reciclables, y una para basura y biodegradables:

BASURA RECICLABLES BIODEGRADABLES

Entregarla los dias tradicion3bes de recoleccien. Entregarlas calla 15 dfas, et dia correspondiente.

1 1.1 Dias de Brasil y Piedades 2° y 4° Lunes recoleccion de Pozos 1° y Martes reciclables Uruca 2° y 4° Miercoles Salitral, y Santa Ana Centro 1° y 3°' Miercoies

gastan mas bolsas con este sistema?

\...i NO. Las bolsas se deben entregar cuando esten Ilenas. Como todo va por separado, las e ) cosas se acomodan major y et espacio rinde mas. Si usted aprovecha los desechos biodegradables haciendo abono organic°, Ia economfa en bolsas as min mucho mayor. Ce... ,Qua sucedera si no reciclamos? Continuaremos sin poderie dar solucion al problema de Ia basura y Ilegara el momento que no sabremos que hacer con ella.

Se agotaran mas rapid° los recursos naturales para nuestros hijos.

Desaprovecharemos generar recursos econarnicos.

El costo por manejo de la basura aumentart enorrrtemenba.

URA CONSULTAS 0 RECOMERDACIOMES, COMUNICARSE CON LA MUNICIPAUDAD DE SANTA ANA, A LOS TELEFONOS: 2$24242.282-7436. 0 CON LA UNIVERSIOAD DE COSTA RICA AL TELtFONO 207-5038.

138 Appendix N: Contact Information

Carlos Andres Environmental Manager at Dos Pinos Tel: (506) 437-3058 Fax: (506) 437-3110 Email: [email protected]

Anthony Araya Commercial Manager Tel: (506) 552-8922 Fax: (506) 591-8834 Email: [email protected]

Carlos Areda Employee of Empaque Santa Ana () Tel: (506) 282-9354

Professor Ronald Arrieta Project Liaison & Profesor de Quimica, UCR Tel: (506) 255-3711 (506) 355-8133 Email: rarrieta@.ucr.ac.cr

Bernardo Escobar Representative of ZERI in Costa Rica Tel: (506) 479-9363 Email: [email protected]

El Guadalupano S.A. Construction Hardware (wood recycling) Tel: (506) 224-2244

Jonathan Molena Employee of Gente Reciclando (plastic recycling) Tel: (506) 285-2035 (506) 236-2625

Bernardo Monge Manager of Environmental Issues Dept. at Ministry of Health in San Jose Tel: (506) 256-4245 Sergio Musmanni Director of CNP + L Tel: (506) 281-0006 (506) 391-2527 Email: [email protected]

Liliana Umafia Administrator of Santa Ma Collection Program Tel: (506) 282-4439

Fernando VonZuben Director, Corporate and Environmental Affairs Tel: +55 19 3879 8313 Email: [email protected]

Michele Wagner Environmental Manager for the U.S. at Tetra Pak Co. Tel: (845) 679-5399 Fax: (845) 679-5408

Email: Michele.Wagnerr&tetrapak.com

140 Appendix 0: Calculation of the Minimal Necessary Collection Rate for Tetra Pak Containers

The following is a description of our calculation of the minimal collection rate that would be necessary for a Tetra Pak recycling program. In the Results and Analysis section, we

estimated that the country produces about 12,100 tons of Tetra Pak waste per year. Dos

Pinos produces approximately 2 tons per day, and assuming that they are open 5 days a week, they produce about 520 tons of waste per year.

Let's assume that we only collect the containers from the province of San Jose, where

46% of the country's waste is produced (Estado de la Nacion en Desarollo Humano

Sostenible, 2000, p. 226). 46% of the Tetra Pak waste in the country is 5566 tons per

year. If we assume that the 520 tons per year from Dos Pinos is included in the 46%

waste from the province of San Jose, then there is 5566 tons minus 520 tons, or 5046 tons

of Tetra Pak waste in the province of San Jose that could potentially be collected from the

public. The Closed Water Loop System that we proposed runs at an operational rate of

189 tons per month. This means that it needs 2268 tons per year to operate. 2268 tons

minus the 520 tons that Dos Pinos would bring to the facility every month means that

1748 tons from the rest of the public need to be collected. 1748 tons out of the 5046 tons

that could be potentially collected from the public is 34.6%. This means that if you

collect 34.6% of the Tetra Pak waste from the public in the province of San Jose, there

will be enough tonnage for the Closed Water Loop System Plant to operate at 189 tons

per month. This also assumes that all of the Tetra Pak waste from Dos Pinos would be

collected.

141 If the collection of Tetra Pak containers is done throughout the entire country, including rural and urban areas, then the collection rate would drop. Again, if we assume that all of the 520 tons from Dos Pinos is recycled at the Closed Water Loop Recycling Plant, then we only need 1748 tons from the rest of the population. 1748 tons out of the 12,100 tons of Tetra Pak containers nationwide is 14.4%.

So, if the collection of the containers is done only in the province of San Jose, then 34.6% of the containers in the province of San Jose would need to be collected. If the collection were done nationwide, then 14.4% of all of the Tetra Pak containers nationwide would need to be collected. The collection rate nationwide would therefore be somewhere between 14.4% and 34.6% depending upon where the collection is done.

142