Blog

Hello my packaging and sustainability friends! This is officially my 50 ^th blog post! Hurray for dedication to all things sustainable packaging!

Greetings and Happy Friday!

Sorry I didn’t post yesterday; Thursdays’ post was just so super big I thought I would give it two days to resonate. Anywhoooooooooo, while I have been working on the PET thermoform recycling initiative, the subject of today’s post is life cycle analysis. I will bring you all up to speed with what I have learned about recycling PET thermoforms on Monday; get excited!

Most industry folk are knowledgeable of LCA—it is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects associated with a product over its life cycle. A relatively young technique, LCA became popular in the early nineties. In recent years, LCA thinking has become a key focus of policy making; it has also aided the private sphere in communicating the sustainability aspects of their operations.

Dordan engineers subscribe to COMPASS, which is the SPC’s life-cycle based environmental packaging modeling software. This software allows Dordan to compare the environmental ramifications of different packaging materials and concepts in the design-phase. Check out our COMPASS case studies at: http://www.dordan.com/sustainability_compass_case_studies.shtml

The Walmart Scorecard is similar, but different. It can be interpreted as a LCA based tool, but more appropriately, attempts to quantify and convey the metrics associated with a “sustainable package.” Therefore it focuses primarily on package weight, as this informs the environmental performance of the package throughout the supply chain, cube utilization, distance traveled, etc.

I know there is some overlay between these different tools in regard to quantifying the environmental burden a specific packaging type has on the environment; however, I believe that they have different approaches and employ different methodologies as Walmart is looking to reduce packaging overall, while COMPASS is looking to facilitate material and design changes in the early phases of package engineering.

And enter Earthster.

Yesterday I sat in on a conference call with a representative from Earthster and SPC member companies. Here’s what I learned:

Earthster is AWSOME—super futuristic! It is, from what I understand, an open web tool that synergizes data with software in the calculation of sustainability impacts of a given product or process. By understanding the environmental impacts of the products a company buys and sells, companies can help locate “hot spots” throughout their supply chain, thereby facilitating action to alleviate said hot spots. It is important for companies to measure their “footprint” in order to establish a baseline against which to measure sustainable progress.

I know that sounds complicated; let me attempt to break it down.

I manufacture bags of potato chips (too bad Jay’s potato chips are no longer; they were my favorite!). In order to perform an LCIA (life cycle inventory analysis) of manufacturing a bag of potato chips, I must determine my inputs and outputs. My inputs would be things like: electricity, water, potatoes, etc. Using Earthster, I would select the amount of electricity consumed in the production of a bag of potato chips. I could opt for industry averages or use my own company’s energy expenditures per month and divide out the quantity of bags of potato chips produced per month. I would do the same for the water, potatoes, and any other good or service I buy for the manufacturing of a bag of potato chips. I would then enter my outputs or emissions. These can include things like air or water pollution, landfilled materials, etc. I would then use the softare to do some fancy calculations and voila, I have the basis of my LCIA for the production of a bag of potato chips.

Not so simply, but you get the idea.

Most tools currently available, COMPASS being one of them, uses industry averages. Therefore, if I am a thermoformer, when I select the material conversion process, I would be using industry average data for thermoformers. If, for whatever reason, I am a more “green” thermoformer than the industry average (use wind power, zero-waste facility, etc.), than it is in my interest to use to software to publish my own facility’s’ LCIAs. I believe that Earthster is unique in that it allows users to contribute their own LCIAs to the open database, thereby helping to “connect the dots” between data sets, which is often sited as the main problem associated?with ?LCAs ?(lack of primary data).

I am still totally confused about this tool: we were shown a demo and all I know is that you can see where your materials come from geographically (he pulled up a profile of a laptop computer and showed where each component came from, minerals and all); you can see your product surrounded in concentric circles with the first circle representing your primary suppliers, the second circle representing secondary suppliers (perhaps packaging), and so on. Connecting the concentric circles are different lines which, depending on how thick, represent the “hot spots” i.e. methane emissions during pulp production, of your products’ supply chain. And basically anything you want, it appears to be able to show. Earthster also focuses on different environmental metrics i.e. human health (carcinogens, toxicity), ecological systems (eutrophication), global warming (GHG emissions), and others. Depending on what metric you focus on, the hot spots of your supply chain shift.

It is super cool; I don’t think I can say enough. Check out the website: http://www.earthster.org/details.php.

So this is all good and fine, but what does it mean for us as packaging providers?

I don’t know. I sent the representative from Earthster the following email, looking for some insight in regard to how we would utilize this tool:

Hello,

My name is Chandler Slavin and I am the Sustainability Coordinator at Dordan Manufacturing, which makes plastic packaging for the consumer electronics industry i.e. clamshells, blisters, trays and components.

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your demo of Earthster for SPC member companies. I found it very interesting and super duper cool! I love the graphics and the open knowledge exchange format.

That being said, I am a little unsure what our role as packaging converters is in regard to utilizing this tool. Would it be of value for us to conduct a life cycle inventory analysis of our own factory’s inputs and outputs and publish the results (i.e. LCI of thermoformer X)? It seems as though this tool will mostly be used by CPGs and retailers as it looks to gauge the “footprint” of a given selling unit, which is obviously the product and package. How does the packaging component fit into the overall metrics of the software? How shall I utilize Earthster and/or how can utilizing Earthster set us apart from our competition?

Thanks for your time.

Chandler

ANDDDDD a friend of mine is letting me read through his tutorial of SimaPro, which I guess is the most popular LCA tool available for companies to measure their own footprint. It’s a meaty piece; I will let you know if I find anything pertinent.

That’s all for now. HAPPY FRIDAY ONLY AN HOUR AND A HALF UNTIL I WILL BE OUTSIDE ENJOYING THE SUNSHINE!!!!

Good afternoon world! Thought I would catch you all before the late-afternoon slump, which is when I am accustomed to blogging. Second cup of Joe, here I come!

Today’s post takes a slight detour from the world of recycling: I wish to briefly discuss how one quantifies the environmental benefits of sourcing packaging material from recycled resin versus virgin; and, the associated environmental burdens of using inks, laminates and adhesives on fiber-based packaging.

First, the environmental benefits associated with making packaging out of recycled resin versus virgin is kinda a no brainer…one would assume that sourcing post-consumer material yields environmental benefits when compared with sourcing virgin. Luckily, the Franklin Associated recently determined that recycling plastic significantly reduces energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. According to their work, the generation of cleaned recycled resin required 71 trillion Btu less than the amount of energy that would be required to produce the equivalent tonnage of virgin PET and HDPE resin (Killinger, ACC). In other words, the amount of energy saved by recycling PET and HDPE containers including bottles in 2008 was the equivalent to the annual energy use of 750,000 U.S. homes. The corresponding savings in greenhouse gas emissions was 2.1 million tons of C02 equivalents, an amount comparable to taking 360,000 cars off the road (Killinger, ACC). You can download the full report here: Final Recycled Resin HDPE PET Life Cycle Inventory Report.

So this is great because it finally provides justification for moving into PET and RPET packaging as that is the most readily recycled and recyclable. However, how do we show how this data actually impacts the LCA of a package? In other words, if I wanted to measure the environmental benefits associated with sourcing my packaging from RPET as opposed to PET, how would I?

And enter COMPASS, which is the SPC’s packaging environmental life cycle modeling software, which allows you to compare the “footprint” of different packaging materials and types in the design phase. Now that Franklin has provided LCI data about RPET used in packaging, COMPASS should be able to integrate the data into its software, thereby allowing users to compare packaging made from recycled PET versus virgin.

Here’s the email I sent to the creator of COMPASS:

Hey,

I hope this email finds you well.

I had sent you an email asking when COMPASS was going to be updated with the LCI RPET data released by the ACC/APR/NAPCOR, etc. This email is to follow up on that inquiry. As thermoformers of RPET, it is very important for us to be able to quantify the environmental benefits of sourcing an RPET clamshell versus a PET clamshell.

In addition, is COMPASS intending on including metrics for inks, laminates, and adhesives i.e. clay coated SBS board? A lot of research I am finding is that these chemicals greatly impact the environmental profile of a package; when will COMPASS be able to quantify these components?

Thanks for your time.

Chandler

And his response:

Hi,

See below.

Hey,

I hope this email finds you well. Thanks doing well indeed. And you?

I had sent you an email asking when COMPASS was going to be updated with the LCI RPET data released by the ACC/APR/NAPCOR, etc. This email is to follow up on that inquiry. As thermoformers of RPET, it is very important for us to be able to quantify the environmental benefits of sourcing an RPET clamshell versus a PET clamshell. As you may know, we do not add data until they are third party verified. There has been a lot of activity on the data front of late and the data verification is coordinated by the EPA, and rPET and rHDPE are among them. Once we get the go ahead, we will begin work to model the data for COMPASS. This is anticipated to start towards the end of Q3 2010.

In addition, is COMPASS intending on including metrics for inks, laminates, and adhesives i.e. clay coated SBS board? A lot of research I am finding is that these chemicals greatly impact the environmental profile of a package; when will COMPASS be able to quantify these components? The secondary materials you mention may indeed be of concern and they are on our radar, however, since GreenBlue does not collect primary LCI data, we cannot add information until they become available and are verified. There is a lot of talk in the industries about the need for such data, and the best way to convey the information. We may have spoken on this before, but coatings, inks, glues etc are generally used in a very small quantity relative to the primary materials, and the existing display mechanism may need to change to record the results for the secondary materials. Also, since LCA is not a very good mechanism for conveying toxicity, the entire secondary materials module may require some detailed thought prior to implementation. I do not have a timeline for these materials as yet since much of the work in preliminary talk stage only.

Groovy…

I then sent a similar inquiry to another contact who knows a thing or two about sustainable packaging metrics and modeling software:

Hello,

This is Chandler Slavin with Dordan Manufacturing. I hope this email finds you well.

At the meeting, a participant asked if you intended on including any metrics for the inks, laminates and adhesives used in many fiber-based packaging materials. You replied that unless you had scientific evidence that illustrated that such a metric had an impact on the overall environmental profile of a given package, you did not intend on including said metrics in the Scorecard.

I found the following statement in the U.S. E.P.A.’s TRI (Toxics Release Inventory) report, 1996:

…Coated and laminated paper products are also associated with significant reporting of releases and other waste management of TRI chemicals…Pollutants associated with various coating materials and processes have included emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and discharges of wastewater containing solvents, colorants, and other contaminants.

Download the report at: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri96/pdr/chapt5_ry96.pdf

That being said, what are your thoughts on the inclusion of some type of metric that would attempt to quantify the environmental burdens associated with the utilization of inks, laminates, and adhesives on packaging?

Thank you for your time.

Chandler Slavin

And her response:

We aren't opposed to including but we need to have details on what to include and how much they impact the total Life Cycle of the package.? In studies that I have seen on packaging the impact by these materials to the total package LCA are small in comparison than other parts like production of raw materials and transportation.? Prior to us adding to the scorecard we would need the data proving they are a big portion of the LCA and publicly available LCI to add to the scorecard.

Thanks for reaching out sharing some of your questions and concerns.

Hmmmmmm…

I replied the following:

During the meeting, you and your team discussed the ambiguities surrounding the “sustainable material” metric and participants articulated the desire for a “material health/toxicity” metric, in addition to, or as a component of, the “sustainable material” metric. Have you and your team given any thought to the inclusion of such a metric that does not rely on an LCA-based approach, but another “mechanism for conveying toxicity?”

I look forward to your response; thanks again for your time!

And her response:

Yes, we are analyzing the GPP metrics?through the Pilot process as discussed at the meeting.?

She then provided me with a link to their website and other pertinent information; what a doll!

The GPP is the Global Packaging Project and it is super awesome! It looks to provide global metrics for quantifying the environmental profile of a material, packaging type, conversion process, etc. Tons and tons of CPGs and retailers and manufactures and packaging converters are members of this organization. I believe they are currently in a pilot phase, which is attempting to collect LCI data from primary processes.

I reached out to a representative from the GPP and she was really nice. She told me about their work and provided me with access to said work—I feel like I hit a gold mine! Unlike the Scorecard, the GPP will cover a multitude of different metrics, toxicity being among them. SOOOO I guess I am definitely not the only one interested in this and eventually, we will have much more thorough tools to measure the environmental repercussions of our packaging purchasing decisions.

Consequently, it’s only a matter of time until the greenwashers get phased out. I feel like we are in the Wild Wild West of packaging and sustainability and that eventually, some governance will come to maintain order—hopefully the GPP.

AND GUESS WHAT: The GPP is having a conference in October in PARIS. That’s right, Paris, the most romantic city in the whole wide world. I would kill to be able to go; hopefully I can make a good enough case for my Superior to consider it…

The last email that I sent along this theme was to the wonderful Robert Carlson of CalRecycle.

I wrote,

Hello there!

Question: why is an LCA-based approach not appropriate for trying to quantify the environmental ramifications of secondary materials i.e. inks, laminates and adhesives? In addition, what “other mechanisms” exist for quantifying these ramifications? How do you foresee the inclusion of this information in environmental modeling tools going forward?

Do chemical manufactures have to report their releases to the US EPA? If so, where/how can I access this information?

AND, I was reading the back of one of our competitors’ packages and the following verbiage was displayed: “This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm.” WHAT THE WHAT? What is this, where can I find out more?

Thanks buddy!

And his response:

Ok…let me try to take this piece by piece and see what I can help you with:

As far as the competitors’ package goes, there are LOTS of chemicals that require that warning, it’s all part of prop 65 (see the attached PDF for the complete list and their website http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html ).? There is very likely a Material Safety Data Sheet available for that product…you might check on their website.

As far as manufacturers reporting their emissions to US EPA…I’m not really sure but I don’t think they do generally.? There are very likely specific situations that are regulated and are required to report emissions to EPA…but I’m not familiar enough with them to tell you which ones are required to be reported on.

Now…on to the meat of your question…the inks, laminates and adhesives…? I’m not sure what you meant with the comment that LCA is not a good mechanism for conveying toxicity…? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that usually LCA don’t get into exposure…? If a product emits 1.2 grams of a toxic substance, that’s all that is reported…it doesn’t really get into whether it’s emitted close to people, if people have long contact time with it or short, if sensitive sub-populations are exposed or not, if the toxin is persistent or not, if workers are exposed or consumers, etc…? That may be what was meant… ?It could be that a combination of an LCA (to determine the releases at various points in the process) and a toxicological assessment of some kind (to determine exposure and risk assessment) would be a better way to approach LCA for these kinds of materials.

?There are always data gaps…there always will be.? To some extent, you can’t measure what you don’t know...? BUT somebody has to collect that data!? Eventually!? So somebody is going to have to step up and foot the bill…the problem of course comes in the sense that nobody trusts industry and government is broke…

How’d I do?? Make any sense???

You did wonderful, Robert, thanks!

That’s all for now. Tune in tomorrow to learn more about packaging and sustainability and the feasibility of recycling PET thermoforms in North America.

Tootles!

Hello my packaging and sustainability friends! It is great to be back. The wedding was a wonderful affair; everyone had a gay ole time!

Look how pretty the Bride is, who coincidently, is this sister of the author of this blog!



I’m so proud!

Anyway, enough emotional embellishments, let’s get down to business.

Prior to leaving for the wedding, I sent out a boat load of emails, inquiring into this and that. The first I sent was to my contact in the government who works on waste management policy: I inquired into the amount of plastic bales exported out of the country each year. Because the supply and demand balance is a bit disproportionate in North America (HUGE demand; limited supply due to limited collection and quality), a colleague suggested limiting the amount of PET recyclate that leaves the country. Here’s what I wrote:

Greetings my friend!

Hello!

How goes it?

Do you know how much plastic scrap is exported in Canada each year? Do you know of any legislation or initiatives that look to restrict the amount of plastic bales leaving the country? Or, better yet, do you know anyone that would know this information that you could refer me to?

In addition, your MetroWaste calendar said it no longer collects thermoforms via Blue Box program. Is this true? If so, do you know why? Do you have any contacts at MetroWaste that would be able to explain why certain materials are collected and others are not?

Thanks my lady!

Best,

Chandler

And several hours later, I received the following response:

Chandler ,

To answer your questions – we would have no clue how much plastic is exported from Canada every year. To be honest, we have a hard time tracking how much waste is exported, and that’s better tracked than recyclables. The closest we have is a 2007 report from Waste Diversion Ontario , which attempted to track the fate of residential blue box materials. You’ll see that they had many gaps in information, and were only looking at residential materials, not IC&I. But you might be able to find something in here http://www.wdo.ca/files/domain4116/Review%20of%20Blue%20Box%20Material%20Destinations%20Report%20Dec%2014,%202007.pdf???

As for my waste calendar (and to clarify, it’s for the City of Toronto . Metro Waste is a private company), yes it’s true that they aren’t accepting thermoform plastics, and when I called the general city hotline they told me they haven’t accepted them for awhile. I’m not sure of the exact reason, but I’d guess that it’s because they take up lots of space, are difficult to sort, don’t have great end markets, etc. You know the usual. I got a name of someone at the City you could call though…

Have a good weekend!!

The Metro Waste calendar my contact was referring to is literally a calendar, which is distributed to residence of Toronto and explains what materials/packaging types are collected for recycling and what are not. While staying at my friend’s house in Canada, I had the luxury of pursuing said calendar and was surprised to learn that the Blue Box program does not collect thermoforms. I found this surprising because several food-packaging thermoformers have recently released press pieces that explain how they will now be buying, cleaning, and extruding thermoforms into second generation thermoforms. How is this true if Canada, which has a much much better packaging diversion rate, doesn’t even collect and bale these materials for post-consumer market?

And, for your viewing pleasure, I thought I would include some of OUR EPR legislation. This stuff comes from California and helps put into context the way some of this legislation works. You can subscribe to this organization so you receive updates of all EPR legislation in California; oh boy!

-----Original Message-----

From: EPR@calrecycle.ca.gov [ mailto:EPR@calrecycle.ca.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:00 PM

To: cslavin@dordan.com

Subject: CA Product Stewardship Bills: Legislative Update

CalRecycle Extended Producer Responsibility

This is an update on the product stewardship bills in the California Legislature.? This information is constantly changing.? Bills may be tracked at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.

- SB 1100 (Corbett) Product stewardship: household batteries. Introduced Feb. 17, 2010 .? Last amended June 15, 2010 .? This bill would require producers of household batteries to, among other things, submit, individually or through a stewardship organization, a product stewardship plan to CalRecycle.? This bill is active and currently in the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials.

- AB 1343 (Huffman) Solid waste: architectural paint recovery program.? Introduced Feb. 27, 2009 .? Last amended in the Senate on July 13, 2009. This bill would create the Architectural Paint Recovery Program and require paint manufacturers to, among other things, develop and implement a program to collect, transport, and process postconsumer paint to reduce the costs and environmental impacts of the disposal of postconsumer paint in California.? This bill is currently held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

- AB 2139 (Chesbro) Solid waste: product stewardship. Introduced Feb. 18, 2010 .? Last amended June 1, 2010 . This bill would create the California Product Stewardship Act and would require, among other things, CalRecycle to submit a report to the Legislature with recommendations on products to include in a product stewardship program.? This bill failed passage from the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is no longer active.

- AB 2176 (Blumenfield) Hazardous waste: lighting products. Introduced Feb. 18, 2010 .? Last amended April 22, 2010 .? This bill would create the California Lighting Toxics Reduction and Jobs in Recycling Act and require producers of certain lamps to, among other things, submit a stewardship plan to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. This bill is currently held under submission in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

- AB 2398 (Perez) Product stewardship: carpet. Introduced Feb. 19, 2010 .? Last amended on May 28, 2010.? This bill would require, among other things, carpet manufacturers to submit, individually or through a stewardship organization, a product stewardship plan to CalRecycle.? This bill is active and currently scheduled to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 28, 2010.

-The CalRecycle EPR Team

To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the Extended Producer Responsibility listserv or other listservs, please go to http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/listservs.

While this legislation obviously does not concern packaging, it does help—at least for me—convey how these concepts may be applied to packaging waste in the future.

Tune in tomorrow to learn about, or attempt to learn about, how to quantify the environmental burdens associated with using inks, laminates and adhesives on fiber-based packaging applications. Its certainly is confusing!

Thanks for listening! My blog has had over 1,300 views! I feel like Julia from Julia and Julia! SOOOO exciting!

Happy Monday Funday!!!

I have returned from my travels. GO BLACK HAWKSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!

While I will fill you in on what I learned in tomorrow’s post (busy day!), I thought I would include a response to my greenerpackage.com post. Check it out (notice the “anonymous”…)

June 9, 2010, Anonymous (not verified) wrote:

Chandler - One point that can't be argued. Packaging from trees is a sustainable option. Packaging from oil (like plastic films) is not - once its pumped out and converted into film products, there will be no more. It would be ideal to compare apples to apples and determine which causes less harm to the planet, however, the opportunity to replant trees and convert paper back into usable pulp is an obvious advantage. And the article makes a solid point that regardless of what might be possible for recycling films, consumers or municipalities rarely have the facilities for taking advantages of the possiblities of recycled film products.

June 11, 2010, Chandler Slavin wrote:

Thank you for your comments and I understand your perspective; however, I am a little confused by this statement: “Packaging from oil (like plastic films) is not [sustainable] - once it’s pumped out and converted into film products, there will be no more.” Are you simply making the argument that paper is sustainable because it comes from a renewable resource while plastic is not because it comes from fossil fuel, which is ever depleting, as dramatically illustrated by the tragic Gluf Coast Spill? If so, that argument is acceptable, but very one dimensional, in my opinion. The reason I feel that this argument is sub par is because it only highlights the different feedstocks used in the production of fiber-based packaging materials or fossil-fuel ones; what about the energy required to convert this feestock into its end-product, that is, paper or plastic? What about the resources consumed in this converstion process; the GHG equivalents emitted therefrom, the inks, laminates, or chemicals added, etc.? I guess the whole point of my post was that to view “sustainability” from one metric, be it renewable versus unrenewable feedstock, is unacceptable in trying to quantify the overall burden a specific packaging material has on the environment.

As an aside, the point about the complexities of recycling plastic packaging is appropriate; with the exception of PET bottles, the rates of recycling plastic packaging in the States is very low. However, Japan, the UK, Belguim, Germany, and many others have very high diversion rates for plastic packaging post-consumer, usually with the aid of waste-to-energy technologies. Because we live in a global market, I am sure that the products of a large CPG company, like Kodak, end up on many international shelves; therefore, the probability that the packaging will or will not end up in a landfill is constituent on the region in which it is distributed. Consequentially, it is difficult to speculate on how much packaging material a company diverts from the landfill by switching from one material to another without specifying what geographical region said packaging material resides in.

In addition, there is a lot of interest in diverting PET thermoforms from the waste stream, as there is an every growing demand for this recyclate. Many companies are now investing in the sorting and cleaning technologies necessary to reprocess these packages with PET bottles to remanufacture into new packages or products. Hence, it is only a matter of time until plastic packaging begings to be recovered post-consumer because of the inherent value of the recyclate.

Thank you for your comments; it is always good to move the dialogue forward!

Mahahahahahahhahaha. See you tomorrow!

Greetings my packaging and sustainability friends!

Guess what: I have a meeting with our City Official on Monday to determine what the economics are governing waste management in our region (Woodstock, IL). After all, municipalities are the bodies that dictate to haulers like Waste Management what materials should be recovered post-consumer. If we want to figure out why non-bottle rigids (clamshells) are not recycled in our region, perhaps we should talk with those who determine what materials should be collected in the first place!

Before I get ahead of myself (I still have to summarize all my recent findings about non-bottle rigid recycling and PET recycling via the American Chemistry Council’s research), shall I recap my experiences from the SPC meeting in Boston last week?

Well, Boston itself is a BEAUTIFUL city; it is the most “European-like” city I have been to in the States. Like Chicago, Boston has lots of classic architecture juxtaposed with modern, glass and steel structures, which makes for a very aesthetically interesting skyline.







While there, I went to my first professional hockey game: The Bruins in the first game of the playoffs! It was totally radical! Very barbaric and hedonistic, with all the fighting, cheering, eating and drinking; I now know why it is one of America’s favorite past-times!



The spring conference for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition was okay. Granted the volcanic eruption made it difficult for several international speakers to attend—thereby making SPC staff scramble to find new speakers last minute—the content of the presentations was still a little “fluffy,” in my opinion. Perhaps my disappointment with the content can also be attributed to the fact that the only other SPC conference I attended marks the beginning of my career at Dordan. Consequentially, all the information presented at that conference was super new and exciting and I acted as a sponge, sucking it all up. Because I have been doing nothing but researching since the fall SPC conference, maybe my understanding of “sustainability” has reached an elevation that requires increasingly technical presentations in order to satiate my appetite. That being said, I did learn several things from the presenters.

The first presentation I sat in on titled “Using the SPC’s Indicators and Metrics Framework” discussed how to use the SPC’s metrics for sustainable packaging in the procurement of LCA and LCI data. It appears as though these metrics can be used to determine life cycle inventory data for certain processes, thereby helping to establish a base line for companies such as ours to measure sustainability improvements upon. This is what I learned:

• “Gate-to-gate” means the environmental inputs (energy, water, etc.) and outputs (greenhouse gas equivalent emissions) required/emitted during the production of extruded roll stock through the conversion phase for the manufacture of thermoformed packages. In other words, data that pertains to Dordan’s operations of ownership i.e. the roll stock we buy to convert to thermoformed packages. You dig?

• “Cradle-to-gate” means the inputs and outputs required/emitted during the raw material extraction. This term can also extend further throughout the supply chain i.e. to the converter or CPG company. Basically, it is a designated point along the supply chain that aids those in the procurement of LCI data.

• “LCI” means life cycle inventory data and it takes into consideration the inputs and outputs required/emitted throughout the entire life cycle of a product/material/etc. This is organizational-specific data and is concerned primarily with the environmental profiles of PROCESSES i.e. extrusion, conversion, fulfillment, etc.

• Eco-invent is a free LCA database; however, many LCA databases are proprietary and costly to gain subscription tool.

• At least three different LCI data entries are required to validate the industry average data (LCA)…this is confusing to me, too.

Because of the “rules” governing the conference, I am unable to provide the name of the presenter/speaker or the company/organization that he/she represents.

That being said, the key note speaker for the conference was speaking on behalf of a very prominent NGO dedicated to the environment. This speaker gave a very insightful but somber presentation on how our world’s current approaches to production and consumption are NOT sustainable; not even close. According to this presentation, “the current demand for the Earth’s resources is 1.25 times what scientists believe our plant can sustain. And by the way, that’s with 6 billion people—not the 9 billion world population predicted by mid-century.” The main argument of this presentation was that we need to increase the production on our already-producing land (land for agriculture) while not further depleting our natural resource reserves (water, top soil, biotic resources, etc.). Basically, we need to be much smarter and innovate in order to continue utilizing our land for the production of food. This argument curtailed on another, which was further explicated in a latter seminar titled “Bio-material Procurement;” in a nut shell, we should not use our already strained agricultural land to grow materials like corn for the feedstock of the next generation of bio-based polymers because this land is already required for the production of FOOD for our ever-growing and consuming population.

WOW, I have already rattled a lot. How about I stop for today and continue to expand on the conference in tomorrow’s post.

Thanks for listening!

Oh, and just for fun, here are some pcitures of a Bostonian street performer and our Sales Manager, so eager to assist!

I felt as though I had hit a road block; while Robert’s kind words were encouraging, I felt like there was nothing I could do as an individual to create an end market for clamshells post-consumer, either as non-beverage PET flake or mixed rigid plastic flake. Perhaps on the vehicle of collaboration, we would be able to come up with the quantity necessary to create an end market for this homeless material…

I then started the following discussion on greenerpackage.com:

Where does the plastics industry go from here?

As Sean Sabre pointed out in a recent post, there is no recycling market for non-beverage PET flake i.e. the PET used in thermoformed packages (to veiw this discussion, visit http://www.greenerpackage.com/discuss/recycling/recovery_series_-_topic_2_universal_pet_recyclability_myth).

According to various contacts at Waste Management, this is because those who buy the balled PET beverage containers to recycle into other products do not want PET clams, blisters or components as it compromises the feedstock of the PET bottle flake. In other words, because PET beverage bottles have the same IV, additives and chemical properties, the quantity of that type of material is there, which allows for there to be an end market for it. Contrarily, the PET used in thermoformed packages has different properties depending on the additives used for the specific packaging application i.e. food, medical, consumer goods. Therefore, the quantity of the same type of PET is not available for the creation of an end market for this material. At the same time, however, there is a market for this type of material on the East and West coasts (“non-traditional rigid containers”) because China and other international markets undergoing industrialization buy this material for its stored energy value. In a nut shell: we can’t recycle it if the quantity is not there, which inherently means there is no market for the end life of these types of PET.

Where do we go from here? Do we, as an industry, decide on using one type of material per application i.e. one PET type for food, medical, and consumer goods in order to ensure the quantity of material necessary for the development of an end market for said material? Do we “down-cycle,” via Pyrolysis? Do we switch to PLA or other bio-resins, which require more energy to produce than traditional, fossil-based plastics and require the existence of commercial composting facilities, which are far and few a dozen? As an industry, we must collaborate if we want to reach our shared goals of sustainability.

If interested in the comments to this post, visit http://www.greenerpackage.com/discuss/thermoformed_packaging/where_does_plastic_industry_go_here

Once I reached out to the larger packaging community about my concerns as a packaging professional, I sent the following email to a project manager at the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. As the tone of my above conversation implies, I was hoping that collaboration would begin with member companies of the SPC:

Hey,

Just out of curiosity, do you have any relationship with SPI (Society of the Plastic Industry) or other packaging trade organizations? I have begun a dialogue with said organization in regard to the SPI resin identification numbers and the feasibility of recycling non-beverage PET flake i.e. clamshells, blisters and thermoform components. We are trying to figure out a way to recapture our thermoformed packages, which currently are not recycled. We can’t decide if a closed loop system would be best, as is in the case with electronics and batteries, or if working with the existing recycling infrastructure would be more beneficial.

What is the SPC’s stance on the feasibility of recycling non beverage PET flake? Do you think a project like this would be something of interest for the SPC?

Best,

Chandler

Let’s hope the SPC wants to help! Tune in tomorrow for more exciting happenings in the world of sustainable packaging initiatives!

After being copied on an introductory email to the plastics marketing rep of Waste Management, I called him, hoping he would be able to provide some clarification into why clamshells are not recycled in most American communities.

This is how I summarized my conversation with the plastics marketing rep of WM to Robert:

Hey Robert,

I spoke with the plastics marketing rep from Waste Management about the feasibility of finding a market for non-beverage PET flake (the educational director at WM said that the buyers of PET specify that they don’t want PET clams in the PET beverage bales) and he said that the economics don’t support it. In other words, because of the different properties of the different types of PET (RPET, REPTG, APET, etc.), buyers of balled PET only want bottles as they have the same properties and therefore can be recycled into a new product with the same properties i.e. the green plastic cables that are used to strap components together. Also, the quantity is not there, as in the case with PET bottles, so finding a market for PET clams doesn’t seem possible in this economic environment. However, on the east and west coasts, there is a market for “non-traditional” rigid containers insofar as China will buy them to regrind and make new product.

I feel as though I have been shot! I am cooking up another idea, however, that looks to work with a retailer OR a consumer electronic producer.

The plastic rep from WM said I should look into PLA (he said that it can degrade in a landfill?) or waste-to-energy. I know how you feel about “down recycling” but he told me of a company in Madison, Wisconsin, that takes “non traditional” plastics i.e. films, foams, etc. and blends them with coal to produce steam to create electricity. He said that this is cheaper than landfilling and that the energy is being used to power U of W.

What is a plastic thermoformer to do in order to become more sustainable? Now that I have shelved the recycling idea, I don’t know the next best place to look…

If you have any insight, please let me know!

Again, thanks for all your help; I am very glad I met you!

Oh, the bitter taste of defeat.

The plastics marketing rep of WM is the one who is responsible for finding a supplier and buyer of post-consumer plastic material. Therefore, he is the guy who would be able to explain why there is no buyer of non-beverage PET flake (RPET and PET thermoforms). This is what he told me:

There is no buyer of non-beverage PET flake because no one has every invested the time or money necessary to set up this infrastructure, find a buyer, outline the specs, etc. As WM has become more sophisticated, we have been able to recycle a lot more materials than previously recycled; therefore, non-bottle PET is just another material that we are working towards being able to recycle but have not done so successfully yet.

The reason buyers of PET bottle flake do not want PET/RPET thermoforms is because of the possibility of contamination (one PVC clam could contaminate the whole bale), and the different IV between PET bottle grade and PET thermoform grade, which makes for differences in the way things “fly” and “melt” while being repossessed.

Okay… this seems complicated but not that complicated. I know from previous conversations with Robert that most cities in California accept and recycle plastics 1-7 because of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which requires local governments to reach a 50% diversion rate. This Act, consequentially, has facilitated the creation of new end markets for these materials post-consumer, which unfortunately, is not the case here.

Do we need to have legislation enacted to provide the motivation to find an end market for mixed rigid plastic containers and packages?

I then received the following email from Robert, which was very much needed in this time of defeat:

Chandler,

Try not to be discouraged. These things take a long time to sort through and creating markets for materials is challenging to say the least! There isn’t just an answer out there waiting to be found. These things need to be teased into existence. They need people (like you) to keep stoking the fire, prodding things along, and creating pressure. Keep at it and you’ll come up with something that’ll work. Maybe it’ll be a few things…at first…small scale. Then maybe one will take off.

The thing about recyclers is that they like what they know (even with Starbucks, they’re facing lots of concerns from recyclers accepting their cups with corrugated). They know PET bottles…so they’re nervous about anything else. Even if it were exactly the same they’d be nervous…so it’d be a matter of either proving through massive testing that it will work the same, or going for another grade of plastic. If you created a new grade of plastic material with its own unique specifications, then everybody would know what to expect from the start. Now…you’d have to have somebody lined up who can use that plastic… It’s a bit of a paradox really…you can’t collect/bale the plastic if there’s nobody to buy/use it, but nobody is going to buy/use it unless there’s a good, steady supply of the stuff with consistent specifications…

Also, PLA will not degrade in the landfill; it requires a commercial composting facility.

Have you considered moving away from single-use thermoformed containers and into more durable containers? Can you make durable containers with the same process? More and more places are feeling the push both from regulators and the public to go green…some are doing it through switching to PLA, some go to cornstarch, and some are going to reusables. Eat-in facilities rather than take-out. Options to fill customer’s dishes with food rather than their own single-use containers. Or even the concept that’s being used with some food manufacturers (deli meats come to mind) where they sell their food product in a container that can be used again and again at home for leftovers…not for refilling its original product…but reused nonetheless.. 

Well, I’ve rambled on long enough! Don’t give up!!! We need people like you in industry!!

Robert

What a guy! Tune in tomorrow for more about recycling in America!

Happy Friday! Spring is just around the corner! I hope everyone has splendid plans for the weekend; if you live in Chicago, you should subscribe to groupon.com, which emails you coupons for the best deals in town everyday! I am cashing in on one of them tonight…

Anyway, let’s resume our clamshell recycling narrative:

Grateful for the educational tour guide’s detailed responses to my inquiries about recycling clamshells, I sent her the following email upon arrival to the office:

Hello,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply; I really appreciate it. I am going to investigate the websites you supplied in the email. In the mean time, please feel free to connect me with your plastic rep.

Thank you again for your feedback!

Best,

Chandler

After sending this into the plasma that is the internet, I began going through my inbox, eager to find anything that would continue to provide direction for this clamshell recycling initiative.

The first was from the Sales Director of the SPI, responding to my phone call follow up email:

Chandler,

Sorry to be late in my response. I am working on putting you in touch with the people who can better answer your questions. Unfortunately, between vacations and a benchmarking conference we are sponsoring this week, I am having difficulty getting in touch with those people.

However, we will be in touch with you shortly.

Thanks again for your interest in SPI.

Okay, sounds good. Next I found a response from the APR (Association of Post-consumer Recyclers) in regard to my inquiry about this organization:

Chandler,

Thank you for your interest in plastics recycling and the APR. I have attached a membership application for your review. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to working with you.

Thanks!

I downloaded and opened the application.

Apparently, depending on your level of engagement with recycling/recycled plastics, different membership categories ensue:

Description of Membership Categories:

• Full Membership—those companies actively engaged – in North America – in performing physical operations of any kind on post-consumer plastics as part of the process of recycling such plastics. (Please see brochure for detailed definition)

• Affiliate Membership—companies that do not qualify for Full Membership and that have a direct business stake in the recycling of post-consumer plastics, except brokers.

Moreover, depending on which kind of membership you apply for, different fees ensure, which is based on your capacity for engaging in the process of recycling post-consumer plastics.

Dordan Mfg. has a closed loop system with its material supplier in which we grind our scrap post-industrial and sell it back to our suppliers to be formed into sheets for future conversion. Therefore, while we do engage in a process of recycling (collecting and grinding our post-industrial scrap), I don’t believe we can qualify for full membership because it specifies post-consumer, as opposed to post-industrial, recycling processes.

Hmmmm…I don’t know if this pertains to us exactly….And, there are annual membership fees…perhaps I can persuade my Superior to consider this?

…ten minutes later…

As in the case with joining NAPCOR, my boss doesn’t see the economic justification for joining the APR at this point in time: the economy is bizarre and he already brought me on as the Sustainability Coordinator; my role, he explained and continues to emphasize, is to understand sustainability from the role of a packaging professional in order to further the success of Dordan and implement logistical, economically viable initiatives: “Don’t let your passions get in the way,” he said to me. Again, another realization that this was not a school project but a profession that only exists as long as it is economically sustainable.

So, now that I have researched the various recycling trade groups but am unable to apply for membership, there has to be more things I can do to further this clamshell recycling initiative…

Luckily, I received an email from the educational tourguide at Recycle America, a division of Waste Management, following through with her offer to put me in touch with some people that may be able to help forward my clamshell recycling initiative:

Chandler,

You should be seeing two emails with you copied on them as an introductory.? One will be to our plastic rep and the other will be to one of our municipality reps.

The educational tourguide copied me on the following emails:

Hello,

Chandler Slavin is inquiring about the market challenges of clamshell containers among other things. As a Sustainable Coordinator for his company and a member of the IoPP (Institute of Packaging Professionals), she wants direction on how to go about researching best practice collections for the packaging his company creates. Could you spare a few minutes to answer some more specific marketing questions?

And:

Hello,

Chandler Slavin is inquiring about the recycling challenges of clamshell containers among other things. As a Sustainable Coordinator for her company and a member of the IoPP (Institute of Packaging Professionals), she wants direction on how to go about researching best practice collections for the packaging his company creates and asked if she should look into questioning the municipalities as a part of this research. Could you spare a few minutes to answer some more specific municipality questions?

Thanks!

Groooooooovy. Tune in on Monday to learn more about the intricacies of recycling and waste management in America.