Recovery Series - Topic 2: Universal PET Recyclability Myth
sean sabre
Hello All
I have found it rather distressing over the past couple years to find a good number of people within the sustainability movement that are perpetuating a myth.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) while commonly used to manufacture liquid containers (water bottles, etc) is also commonly used as an alternate to PVC for manufacturing thermoformed clamshells, blisters, structural packaging and trays, is extruded in sheet to manufacture folding cartons and rigid packaging and is injection molded for media cases, etc.
The myth is that this material is highly recycled in MRF's across the country in ALL its form factors. It is not.
According to the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR), PET derivative plastic microwave trays, dishes, bakery trays, covers, deli containers, drink cups and clamshell containers are CONTAMINANTS in PET bales from MRF's.
Why?
1>>Partly due to the lack of compliance with the APR and NAPCOR (National Association for PET Container Resources) jointly developed Design for Recyclability Guidelines. These guidelines and technical testing specifications outline the types of inks (non bleed), labels (non paper), adhesives (water soluble) and other characteristics that are contaminants in the regrind/remelt process. There is too much risk of one or more of these contaminants in clamshells, trays, folding cartons, etc due to lack of compliance by the trade
2>>Partly due to the lack of sorting technology in today’s MRF's. Can you imagine plastic clamshells or folding cartons coming at you at 50feet/minute with paper, aluminum, glass, etc and you have to pick up and search for a resin ID code in order to identify if it is PET or not? There is technology out there using light refraction, etc but it is not prevalent.
3>>Partly due to people backyard burning clamshells with war paint on their faces as some sort of combat ritual once they have cleaned their wounds from a full assault when opening them on Christmas morning. OK, that's a joke.
In summary, universal PET recyclability is a myth. If you are using PET for some of the contaminant form factors mentioned above, please don't throw a Mobius loop on your package and ... tell a friend.
Anyone disagree?
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Recovery Series - Topic 2: Universal PET Recyclability Myth
Thomas Oris
Sean, let me take a stab at this. First, I don't necessarily disagree with you. As a country, we do not do a good job of recycling. In fact, I read in another publication recently that recycling dropped from the previous year. So with that, you are right.
I believe that the consumer goods manufacturers need to play a role here, in that this industry needs to push the demand for post consumer resins. Perhaps I am naive, but with more demand for PCR, could it generate more collection of PET and other resins? Now, we are seeing some major companies pushing to add more PCR into packaging. A major beverage company is spending tens of millions of dollars to move into levels of PCR in their packaging.
The economics of post consumer materials can be dramatically different than the more traditional lines of supply. The challenge, as you know, is the reclaiming of materials, the sorting and the reintroduction of these materials back into the supply stream.
Is the demand for post consumer materials consistent?
Are the economics present to ensure consistent ROI?
I think government needs to play a larger role. I read about governments that want to reduce dependency on fossil fuel, but nobody talks about the role packaging plays in that dependence. Do we need mandatory recycling? Not just for residential, but for all restaurants, in public places, etc... Is the mindset of the consumer focused on recycling? No, it isn't.
I don't disagree with you at all, in fact I agree with your viewpoint of the current situation. My question; where do we go from here? Some of the components are already in place. PET and HDPE are resins that can be reclaimed and re-used (at varying perecentages) in packaging, which are two of the most widely used resins. You have molders ready to use these materials and I believe a small but growing number of consumers who seek packaging with post consumer materials.
recycling
Anonymous...Tom,
You and other contributors are right. The industry is hiding from the issues of PVC and PET and the more general term "plastics". These chemicals to products are not being recycled in any substantial manner in comparision to their level of new production.
The simplest way to realize this is look at plastic carton sealing tape. Estimates are made that as much as 90 million pounds are added to landfills every year just in USA. Recycling of plastic tape is expensive with little value to the end product so recyclers take the film and ship it to landfills. Not speaking to the fossil fuel and chemicals these tapes take to manufacture, just the recycling damage to our environment.
Switching to a paper tape is a great solution for recycling and usually a better sealing method. Even a 50% reduction in plastic tape would be a substantial benefit to our landfills.
Recovery Series - Topic 2: Universal PET Recyclability Myth
Sean Slavin Account Executive Dordan Mfg. Co. Inc...Gentleman first I want to say that both of you offer a realistic and factual account of the situation/ hurdles we face currently with PET packaging. One of the major issues as I see it, aside from infrastructure, ROI, etc. is that with so many variations of PET materials available, i.e. RPET, RPETG, GAG, PETG, APET even if the recycling centers have the means to sort and segregate containers with the number "1" recycling symbol (PETE), how do they then take the next step and keep cross contamination between the different types of PET's? if there is only a one type of recycling symbol to identify all of these different materials shouldn't we be thinking of some method for identifying the various PET films and co-extrusions? I'm curious to see if this has been addressed as I haven't heard of anything personally. Thanks.
Agree and Disagree
Adam Pawlick
All -
I agree and disagree with some of the points everyone has made. Sean Sabre, I agree completely with you that all forms of PET are not created equal when it comes to recyclers. I would like to qualify the reason a little differently though. The different variations are more than just minor additives, CPET is a very different plastic than APET (the intrinsic visocosities are different, the heat deflection temps are different, etc) and for good reason. Nobody expects a soda bottle to able to cook in the oven for an hour, but a frozen meal tray has to. PETG adds an entirely new chemical to the structure (glycol), again for good reasons of its own. Unfortunately for anything that is rigid, not including the mobius loop isn't an option, something like 28 of the states in the U.S. require the SPI code to be followed by law. Then you get into the issues of colorants, black trays just don't recycle well from a color standpoint, they can only be used in black end products. Plus in some of the automated sorting technology (infrared for example) the black trays actually absorb that light frequency so they appear as just a hole on the line rather than a black tray.
Thomas, I agree wholeheartedly that one of the best ways to encourage recycling is through brand owners and retailers to begin using it in much higher quantities. One of the major issues with the recycling system that exists today is that it really isn't economically feasible because the end product isn't highly valued. There are lots of incredible sortation automation that exists (Unisensor has a wonderful flake sorting technology through laser spectroscopy), but they are new and relatively expensive. Until demand increases, the economic model will continue to struggle.
The easiest way to recycle is like into like. APET bottles to APET bottles is easy, it is what they were intended to do. APET bottles into CPET trays (which my company launched this last June) is slightly more difficult, but possible. CPET into a clear APET bottle is impossible. PETG into a CPET tray is impossible. What needs to be done is infrastructure improvements so we can look at these materials, not as an SPI code of "1" but looking at the actual chemical structure and separating out by polymer type (APET, CPET, PETG, etc into their own streams). The technology exists, it just needs to be utilized, and in order to justify that, we have to build a stream for those new recycled end products.
Recycling PET
John Murray...Thanks Shaun,
It is nice to know that someone else also cares about the truth.
Regards
John Murray
Plastic Suppliers
SPC Member
recycling PET
Norm Kates...packaging must be planned with the idea of not only having the best package for guarding the product, BUT for recycling
producers MUST be obligated to use RPET
Post Consumer Recycled PET
Marc Goldenberg...It is good to see this subject is getting more attention and interest. As the manufacturer of ECO-THERMtm, high quality 100% post consumer recycled PET sheeting, we are trying to let companies know this material is available. As a replacement of PVC, OPS, APET, post industrial RPET and HIPS, clamshells, blisters, trays and inserts can be made 100% from returned and recycled PET bottles which typically are destined for the landfill. To further promote what we (as well as you, many large retailers, and companies who have the environment in mind when designing packaging) feel is the most practical and beneficial alternative are utilizing whatever supply of raw material we can get. This increased availabiluty is enhanced by closed loop programs we offer where we are taking back pet bottles from companies, retailers or institutions and remanufacturing them back into our ECO-THERMtm film and then thermo formed into packaging for who we received the bottles from. With 8 out of 10 PET bottles ending up in landfills and the average person discarding 166 bottles per year the amount of material we can keep from landfills is tremendous. With companies like us slowly but surely getting the exposure concerning our practical alternative, companies looking to improve the sustainability of their packaging are seeing there is a material that has no downside like most of the other alternatives.
PET recycling
Alexis Stassinopoulos...1. I think that we all agree that is not feasible to recycle everything (both in economic and environmental terms).
2. Especially for plastics, the upper limit is not more than 20%
3. I believe that the identification principle (recyclable: yes/no) in the collection sites should not be based on the raw material (PET, PP, etc).
4. The identification principle should be based on the materials’ end-use.
5. We should not select for recycling “PET” , but “PET bottles from water and soft drink beverages”.
6. In this way, PET clamshells etc. are out.
7. In a similar way we should not separately collect “PE”, or even “PE bottles” as one group, but “PE milk bottles”
MANDATORY Recycling
Thomas Oris
I am opening myself up here, but I do believe we should recycle as much as possible, everything if we can. Why not? However, the only way this will ever happen will be if the federal government steps in and establishes laws that mandate recycling. With this, it would create the industry, create the supply and spark more use of recycled materials.
Yes, this is a vision, and I am sure many will take turns punching holes in this vision, but it is not unrealistic. Sure, their will be challeges related to the various resins, but again, could the demand be created? What about paper (fiber) which is highly recyclable and re-useable as post consumer material.
This nation specifically needs to step up and accept a level of responsibility for its environmental position, which is not a position of leadership. We contribute more waste per person than any nation on Earth (my opinion, not substantiated, but I believe accurate).
Why not recycle all materials, or at least most. Why not mandate recycling; at homes, businesses, fast food restaurants, on the streets, etc...? Why not mandate the move to percentages of post consumer materials in packaging?
Plastics recycling
Alexis
1. I am afraid that you are not familiar with polymeric material properties and processing. So, what you say is just wishful thinking. Trying to recycle everything is not only technologically, and economically unrealistic; it is also unsupported by environmental standards. I refer to many LCA in this area.
2. I don't belong to "this nation" you refer (I guess it is USA). I am a European citizen. You might know that the EU legislation on packaging material waste has set quite high standards regarding material recycling (including plastics) Ref. Regulation 62/94EC and others. However, it was soon realized that targets in plastics recovery and recycling could not be reached, unless you consider "recycling" the incineration with energy recovery, gasification, pyrolysis etc.
3. For almost 40 years, I am involved in plastics processing and plastics packaging, which I consider an exciting innovation area. I think that our major effort should be to innovate, so that we use less packaging material per product unit (providing of course the same product and customer protection). See for example the milk packaging in pouches, with a fraction of energy and material requirements as compared to aseptic cartons or plastic bottles. Not very convenient? Yes, but the consumers must lern that there is a role for them to play in the universal environmental efforts. Not just "green rhetoric".
Plastics recycling
Thomas Oris
Alexis, I do understand my statements as wishful thinking, but as was done in the EU, you set the target high and strive for that goal. To set a low goal, and then meet that goal, is not leadership. Additionally, technology continues to evolve and therefore I believe recycling goals and standards need near continous monitoring. If we can put a man on the moon, we can make technological advancements in recycling of materials.
I also completely agree with you in regards to innovation and new packaging methods, and I do think the milk in a pouch is an excellent example of innovation. I further agree that every consumer needs to understand and play a role in environmental efforts. However, this is also wishful thinking. Today's consumer seeks ease of use. A company in the United States that put milk in a pouch would fail miserably! Call me Mr. Big Government, but I do believe government needs to play a more prominent role in moving the needle on sustainable packaging, be it recycling or innovation. Perhaps, similar to the auto industry, the government should set standards that companies must meet?
Actionable Vision -- from Myth to Reality
Thomas G Malone
Sean, I applaud you for laying out the current state of recycling as it level-sets this discussion. It's a great thing, Thomas, to envision what might be possible one day, though useful to consider what paths toward the vision are available now. I'd like to throw out a challenge to the CPG/packaging source/recycling system at large.
1. CPGs need to specify products made from RPET where their applications allow. This drives demand, helps value the stream. When CPGs keep Reduce-Reuse-Recycle at front of mind, their leadership trickles down.
2. Packaging suppliers need to respond with respect for the waste stream by ensuring that their products do not contaminate the recycled polymer stream by following the APR and NAPCOR jointly developed Design for Recyclability Guidelines. When CPGs ask for a spec that cannot be met within the guidelines, they need to be informed by their suppliers.
3. The recyling industry must then meet this challenge by investing in infrastructure to scan and sort these containers made from compliant RPET in all its form factors. In the US, is there Stimulus Package money to help this industry invest in its infrastructure? Perhaps there is a government role here.
4. All of us must work together to support an updated system for identifying qualifying "good" and contaminated polymer (Adam, that Unisensor looks pretty interesting).
Question: if the final product does not meet the guidelines, could it be marked for end-of-life sort (i.e. disposal)? Should it be the obligation of CPGs and/or their vendors to insert an end-of-life sort mark? This might provide incentive to avoid this sort mark especially if it is put on a package that otherwise contains a "green" marketing/product message.
Unabashed commercial plug: We have a very cool method of expanding PET that results in less material being used in an application (Reduce), and it does not change its chemistry. We do most of our work with RPET. We have tested IV after expansion and found it to be unaffected. We have seen the expanded RPET scanned successfully so it seems that it can be again recycled. We are ready to support the promise of a RPET cradle to cradle system. Go to www.microgreeninc.com for more detail.
Use of Waste
Sherri
Seems to the core issues are having enough raw material to produce packaging that consumers are prepared to buy; and responsible disposition of the packaging when we're through with it.
Is there a real danger that we will run out of packaging paper? Virgin material is made from a byproduct of lumber production. North American forest lands are growing in size. I'm not suggesting we stop recyling, but why not send our used packaging paper to Asia, where they have newer recycling machinery that's kinder to the enviroment than the older machinery here in the U.S? If Asia can't use all of it, why not clean-incinerate the rest (including food-contaminated packaging like pizza boxes) and harvest the energy as power?
Plastics are also made from a waste product. (We drill oil to make fuel, and some of the waste product is used to product plastics.) The variety of plastics materials is ever-growing - just sorting all that could be too expensive. Why not recycle the packaging that has the best ROI, and clean-incinerate the rest as a source of energy? (Plastics are still petroleum, so they have a lot of latent energy potential.)
Post new comment