THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS ASSOCIATIONwesternplastics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WPAtoday_march201… · MARCH 2016 THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS ASSOCIATION

1

T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T

W W W. W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S . O R G M A R C H 2016

T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S A S S O C I AT I O NWPA TODAY

P R E S I D E N T ’ S R E P O R T :

REFLECTIONS ON 2015Over the last four years issues

have come up which I felt com-

pelled to comment in this space

since they were being fiercely

contested, like the bag ban, or

had major long term ramifica-

tions to impact our environment,

consider the President’s Message

on marine debris. I have recently

realized the magnitude of another

issue looming on the horizon

that will directly impact the Plas-

tics, and more specifically, the

Packaging Industry. I believe the

growing use of stand-up pouches

by brand owners and retailers is

a topic that will be hotly debated

over the next five years. With its

rapid market expansion, the

pouch has now caught regulatory

attention based on the recent

day-long workshop hosted by

CalRecycle. The goal of the recent

meeting in Sacramento was for

groups like the WPA, SPI and ACC

to define programs and plans to

meet the voluntary goal of 50

percent reduction in packaging

disposal by 2020. Topics dis-

cussed ranged from allowing

waste-to-energy projects to

count towards meeting this goal,

to the value of secondary MIRF’s

to achieve higher levels of recy-

cling. However, questions from

the audience seemed to continue

to focus on multilayer pouches.

The issue as it relates to SUPs

is clearly outlined by Anne Marie

Mohan, Senior Editor, Packaging

World: “Multilayer, mixed-mater-

ial flexible film packaging is a

sustainability conundrum.

Lighter in weight, using less

material, and resulting in fewer

greenhouse gas emissions than

alternative packaging formats

such as glass, aluminum, and

rigid plastic, flexibles seem like

the most eco-friendly packaging

choice. But unlike glass, alu-

minum, and rigid plastic, mixed-

material flexible film cannot be

recovered at end of life.” Accord-

ing to a 2015 report from the

Association for Packaging and

Processing Technologies, “the

unique benefits of flexible pack-

aging have made it the second

largest packaging segment in

the U.S., representing 19% of

the total $164 billion packaging

market. The format has grown

considerably in popularity over

the last decade and has contin-

ued to take market share in the

packaging industry.” The growth

in this area is expected to be

from 3-5% and many processors

are already making plans to add

additional coex lines to meet

this demand.

We will keep our membership

posted as strategies are devel-

oped to deal with the end of life

concerns for this growing market

segment and I encourage each of

you to attend our annual confer-

ence in Newport Beach this June

to hear presentations on this

and other issues of interest. •

I N T H I S I S S U E :

President’s Report 1

SoCal Meeting: April 5 2

In Memoriam: Papa Lou 3

Bag Bans 5

Recycling 11

Sustainability 22

Marine Debris 29

EPS 30

Legislation 32

Member News 43

John Picciuto, President of the Western Plastics Association

WPA SoCa l Mee t ing :APRIL 5, 2016

S E E p a g e 2 f o r c o m p l e t e d e t a i l s — > R S V P n o w !

http://www.westernplastics.org

U P C O M I N G W PA P R O G R A M : S O C A L M E E T I N G

APRIL 5, 2016HEAR FROM THE EXPERTS ON WHY YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT:• Employment Practice Insurance – why it’s needed, what it covers and how the industry is adopting it

• New Employment Laws – do you know what you CANNOT ask a prospective employee?

Guest Speakers: Linda A. Artiano, Co-head of Artiano & Associates Practices

Adrian Atilano, HUB California Executive Liability Practice Leader

Linda Artiano, co-head of the firm Artiano & Associates, practices in the area of employment law compliance and litigation. Repre-senting company owners, Ms. Artiano’s clients range from small to medium size (5–200 employees) manufacturing, telecommunica-tions, retail, professional services and emergency services companies to non-profit companies, on-line retail and individual food-service clients located in Southern California. Her firm is one of the Los Angeles South Bay’s premier law firms which practices mainlyin the area of business law, civil litigation, including business litigation, employment law and litigation, as well as estate andsuccession planning.

Adrian Atilano leads the HUB CA Executive Liability Practice. He is well-versed in the complex issues facing public, private and non-profit organizations in the realm of executive risk, strategically advising clients on a broad spectrum of management liability coverages, including directors and officers liability, employment practices liability, data security, and errors & omissions programs.Adrian understands the stakes are higher now more than ever for his clients. He and his team take a forward-looking view of eachclient’s unique risk profile ensuring that not only the right coverages are put in place, but that corporate governance issues are also incorporated.

THANK YOU TO MEETING SPONSOR: NATIONAL PLASTICS COLORIn operation since 1989, National Plastics Color’s corporate location is centrally located in Wichita, Kansas, with two plants in the U.S., twoin China, a warehouse in California, and a distribution center in Costa Rica. With a highly trained workforce, and using the latest technologyand equipment, NPC specializes in custom color. NPC employs the latest spectrophotometric computer technology combined with highlytrained and experienced staff to read your color target, define its profile, and complete a match which provides the best colorant for yourneeds.

WHEN:Tuesday, April 5, 2016 5:30 PM Registration & Networking 6:30 PM Program & Dinner

WHERE:Doubletree Hotel13111 Sycamore Drive, Norwalk, CA

* To reserve a hotel room, contact Joseline Nucum at Doubletree Hotel: 562.483.2709

COST:RSVP by March 31, 2016WPA Member: $70 First-time Attendee: $70Non-WPA Member: $100

RSVP after March 31, 2016WPA Member: $90First-time Attendee: $90Non-WPA Member: $120

Walk-ins at the event: Add $10.Cancellation Policy: Cancellations must be made 48 hoursprior to the event. Registration is non-transferable to anotherevent; send a substitute if you are unable to attend. No-showswill be billed.

RSVP today: [email protected] or 916.930.1938

EVENT SPONSORSHIP:Sponsoring an upcoming WPA program is a great way to increaseyour firm’s visibility to hundreds of decision-makers within our industry.

WPA would like to add your com-pany's name to our prestigious list of supporters! There’s a sponsorshipoption for every need and everybudget.

Contact Laurie Hansen for details onhow your company can market its services and products to key industryprofessionals.

916.930.1938 or [email protected]

Are You Prepared?

3


I N M E M O R I A M :

PAPA LOU, A CFECA FOUNDINGFATHER, PASSES AWAYBY ROGER R ENST ROM, P LAS T ICS NEWS

Louis Kestenbaum, who began

Elkay Plastics Co. in 1968 and

was a founder of what is now the

Western Plastics Association,

died Feb. 14 at the age of 93.

A service for Kestenbaum, known

as “Papa Lou,” took place Feb. 15

at Beth Jacob Congregation in

Beverly Hills, Calif.

His family said, “He lived a good

long life and made an enduring

contribution to the flexible pack-

aging industry.”

Kestenbaum founded Elkay

Plastics Co. Inc. in 1968 and sold

the business in 1990.

He was a founder and former

president of the California Film

Extruders and Converters Associ-

ation, now operating as the

Western Plastics Association.

Kestenbaum, with a small group

of other plastics company own-

ers, formed CFECA in 1973 in an

effort to deal with government

regulations.

Commerce, Calif.-based Elkay

Plastics manufactures and

supplies plastic bags and has

distribution sites in Austell,

Ga.; Bensenville, Ill.; Carrollton,

Texas; Aurora, Colo.;

Phoenixville, Pa.; Hayward,

Calif.; and Kent, Wash.

An online extension of the busi-

ness, Elkay University, offers

modules for training individuals

in the uses of multiple types of

plastic bags for food service and

health care applications.

Louis Kestenbaum was a residen-

tial home builder and, during an

economic slump in 1965, looked

for a way to supplement his in-

come. While at a grocery store

with his wife, Trudy, he noticed

that many items were packaged

in disposable single-use plastic

bags.

He visited facilities of Central

Bag Co. and International Poly,

then among the biggest flexible

packaging firms. Eventually,

Elkay Plastics acquired both

companies.

At the time, most polyethylene

bag suppliers did not maintain

stocks of their most popular

sized bags. Kestenbaum’s niche

was in having many sizes in

stock, and he advertised Elkay

as a “customer’s warehouse.”

Whatever a customer needed

was immediately available.

During his tenure, Elkay Plastics

built an inventory termed the

largest in the country, had

branches in Washington,

Colorado and Texas and became

the largest importer of plastic

bags from Taiwan. Elkay began

converting to augment inventory

levels as needed and started

manufacturing custom sizes and

custom printing.

Elkay Plastics continues under

the guidance of Louis Chertkow

and has grown into a national

organization.

Kestenbaum’s survivors include

two daughters, Rene Peters and

Lynda Kurtzer; two grandchildren;

six great-grandchildren; and a

sister, Rita Adler. Trudy, Rene and

Lynda worked in the business at

various times.

The Orthodox synagogue in

Beverly Hills, Calif., dedicated

its family youth department in

the name of Kestenbaum’s wife,

Trudy, who died in 2010.

The Harkham Hillel Hebrew

Academy in Beverly Hills lists

Kestenbaum as a “longtime

friend and supporter” of the

provider of Jewish education. •Reprinted with permission from

Plastics News, February 16, 2016.

PAPA LOU MADEAN ENDUR INGCONTR I BU T IONTO THE F L E X I B L EPACKAG ING INDUST RY.

Louis Kestenbaum, founder of Elkay Plastics Co, Inc.

4


EXTRUSION | PRINTING | CONVERTING

Windmoeller & Hoelscher

23 New England Way · Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865-4252 Phone 800-854-8702 · [email protected] · www.whcorp.com

What do you get when teams of brilliant

minds scrutinize each component of

the proven VAREX range to make it

even better? Higher output, superb

ergonomics, improved safety and a

new world of energy effi ciency.

More than just a pretty face: VAREX II.

VAREX II’s modular design provides fl exibility

for producing blown fi lms from diverse resins.

With the new ENERGY MONITORING module,

you get real-time data, making it easier than ever

to identify potential savings. And that’s just the

beginning ...

http://www.whcorp.com/

5


B A G B A N S :

CITY LEADERS CONSIDERINGSINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAG BANBY SARAH MCKENZ I E , SOUTHWEST JOURNA L

City Council Members Cam

Gordon (Ward 2) and Abdi

Warsame (Ward 6) have pro-

posed the “Bring Your Own Bag”

ordinance—a measure designed

to reduce waste and ease the

burden on one-sort recycling

facilities. Plastic bags wrap

around recycling sorting ma-

chines, prompting them to shut

down.

A public hearing has been set

for March 21 at City Hall before

the City Council’s Health, Envi-

ronment & Community Engage-

ment Committee.

The ordinance includes several

exemptions and allows plastic

bags for newspapers, pet waste,

dry cleaning, produce bags with-

out handles and reusable plastic

bags of a certain thickness.

The ordinance would also place

a 5-cent fee on single-use paper

bags at grocery stores and other

retailers.

“We are trying to address some

concerns about litter and waste

in the city, but there is also some

bigger impacts about greenhouse

gas emissions and pollution,”

Gordon said.

The St. Louis Park City Council

also considered a plastic bag ban

last year, but ultimately shelved

the idea in favor of a Zero Waste

Packaging Ordinance. Beginning

Jan. 1, 2017, food establishments

will be required to use packaging

that is reusable, returnable,

recyclable or compostable for

takeout food.

The Minneapolis City Council

passed a ban on polystyrene

take-out containers that went

into effect April 22, 2015.

As currently drafted, Gordon and

Warsame’s “Bring Your Own Bag”

ordinance would have a phased-

in implementation in 2017 if

approved by the City Council.

More than 160 U.S. cities have

passed a single-use plastic bag

ban and or fee for disposable

carryout bags, including Seattle,

Portland and Washington, D.C.

California’s legislature was the

first in the nation to impose a

statewide ban on single-use

plastic bags at larger retailers in

August 2015. The ban went into

effect in July 2015.

Minnesotans throw away 87,000

tons of plastic bags each year,

according to a fact sheet on

Gordon and Warsame’s proposed

ordinance. In Minneapolis, most

of those plastic bags wind up at

the downtown garbage burner.

Bruce Nustad, president of the

Minnesota Retailers Association,

said the organization hasn’t

taken a formal position on the

proposed plastic bag ban in

Minneapolis.

Nustad said he hopes city lead-

ers are as open to conversation

about a potential plastic bag ban

as leaders were in St. Louis Park.

He noted that many local retail-

ers are leading efforts to recycle

plastic bags. Lunds & Bylerys,

for instance, has plastic bag

recycling drop-off boxes at many

store locations. •Reprinted from www.southwest-

journal.com, February, 16, 2016.

MINNEAPOL I SCOU LD B ECOMETHE F I R S T C I T Y IN THE S TAT E TOBAN S INGLE - USEP LAS T IC BAGS ATTHE CHECKOUTL INE .

http://www.southwestjournal.com/

6


B A G B A N S :

NEW PLASTIC BAG BALLOTMEASURE TARGETS GREEDYGROCERSBY JON F L E I SCHMAN, B R E I T BART CA L I FORN IA

For many years, the most extreme

elements of the environmental

movement pursued a statewide

ban on plastic grocery bags in

California. Every time they would

do this, despite the overwhelm-

ing liberal majorities in the state

legislature, their efforts would

fail.

Over and over the arguments on

the junk-science behind defam-

ing the bags, the negative eco-

nomic impacts of a ban, and the

impressive political coalition

opposing the ban combined to

kill the effort.

Until last year, that is, when

something happened.

The California Grocers Associa-

tion (CGA), which had been a key

member of the coalition stopping

the ban from passing for many

years, threw its full weight behind

SB 270, which added to the

statewide ban on standard

plastic grocery bags a ten-cent

“fee” (read: TAX) on each paper

bag and thicker plastic bag

provided to customers. The

profits from those fees will go

to–you guessed it–the grocers.

To put it bluntly, the greed of the

grocers could not resist the idea

of a windfall that would see them

gaining brand new tax-free profits

that could approach a half-billion

dollars annually.

The legislation, backed by the

CGA, passed out of the legisla-

ture and was signed by Governor

Jerry Brown. However, the Ameri-

can Progressive Bag Alliance

immediately set about the task

of collecting over 800,000 signa-

tures to refer SB 270 to the

voters. The State Constitution

provides that if enough voters

sign petitions they can halt a

newly enacted law, and then that

law has to appear before voters

on the next general election bal-

lot. If voters approve it, the law

goes into effect. If they reject it,

the law is repealed. SB 270,

the statewide plastic bag ban

combined with the ten-cent per

paper/thicker plastic bag tax,

will be up before voters next

November.

No doubt grocers have been

salivating over the opportunity

to reap hundreds of millions

of dollars of profits from their

unholy alliance with extreme

environmentalists.

Except that there is now a very

real possibility that they will

never see the anticipated 30

pieces of silver which they covet–

in fact it’s very possible their

greed might cost them big

bucks instead.

This is where things get a little

more complicated, but I’m count-

ing on you to stick with me as I

talk about a brand new develop-

ment that the greedy grocers

could not have seen coming.

A couple of weeks ago the Ameri-

can Progressive Bag Alliance, the

same group that spent several

million dollars gathering signa-

tures for the referendum on SB

270, filed a petition to place yet

another ballot measure before

voters, entitled the Environmen-

tal Tax Protection Act. If passed

by the voters, it would require

that the ten-cent paper/thicker

plastic bag tax collected under

SB 270 be redirected to an

environmental purpose.

Specifically, this new measure

would require that those hun-

dreds of millions of taxes be

deposited into a state Environ-

mental and Enhancement Fund

that is administered by the State

Wildlife Conservation Board.

These funds would then be avail-

able for legitimate environmental

grants (e.g., drought mitigation

projects, recycling).

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist,

or a sophisticated political ana-

lyst, to figure that the public, if

forced to pay a tax at grocery

stores, would far more prefer

(Continued, see Grocers, page 7)

THE GREED OFTHE GROCERSCOULD NOT R ES I S T A W INDFA L L .

7


that the money go to a public

benefit than simply to profit

major grocery chains. Especially

when they learn during next fall’s

campaign the self-dealing role

that the California Grocers Asso-

ciation actually played in the

process.

Based on the timeline involved

with the qualification of a ballot

measure, the American Progres-

sive Bag Alliance will be able to

start gathering signatures for this

new measure in early December,

which will afford them more than

enough time to gather the neces-

sary signatures to place this

measure on the November ballot.

That leaves the members of the

California Grocers Association in

quite the conundrum. Before this

new twist their path was clear:

shell out tens of millions of dol-

lars to help pass SB 270 at the

ballot. A great investment given

the huge, permanent financial

windfall for their members.

But now you have to wonder if

the play for the grocers might

actually be to spend big bucks to

defeat SB 270 at the ballot box.

Not only would the new ballot

measure divert their windfall to

a public environmental purpose,

but it is actually the case that

paper and thicker plastic bags

cost the store more than tradi-

tional plastic bags, so grocers

would be forced either to jack up

the overall price of goods just to

cover that cost, or take a signifi-

cant financial loss. A loss that

could even further impact the

already troubled Safeway-

Albertson’s IPO delayed earlier

this week.

For those of us who watched the

California Grocers Association

“turn” on the customers of all of

their stores, and who enjoy the

convenience of plastic bags,

there is a delicious irony in this

turn of events. •Reprinted from www.breitbart.

com, October 7, 2015.

BA L LOT MEASURE TARGETS GROCERS [CONT ’D ]

Contact Us:[email protected] Phone: 316-755-1273Corporate Toll-Free: 800-657-5715www.nationalplasticscolor.com

For all your color & additive needs

·Additives·Liquid Color·PVC Color

·Dry Color·Masterbatch·Same-Day Delivery*

*same-day delivery on stock items only

http://www.nationalplasticscolor.com/

8


B A G B A N S :

WALMART CANADA WILL STARTCHARGING FOR PLASTIC BAGSBY C LA I R E Z I L LMAN, FORTUNE

In an effort to promote the use of

reusable bags and reduce waste,

Walmart Canada announced on

Monday that it will start charging

customers who request plastic

bags at checkout. The new initia-

tive is part of its ongoing efforts

to ultimately achieve zero waste.

The elimination of free single-use

plastic bags will be rolled out

across Canada starting February

9. Customers who request plastic

bags at checkout will be charged

five cents per bag.

Walmart recognizes that it’s ask-

ing customers to change their

shopping behavior, Lee Tappen-

den, chief operations officer of

Walmart Canada said in a state-

ment. “[B]ut we strongly believe

that removing plastic film from

our waste stream is imperative to

reaching our goal of zero waste

and will encourage our customers

to broaden their already existing

waste-reduction efforts.” He said

that in other international markets,

fees encouraging customers to

use reusable bags has reduced

single-use plastic bags by more

than 50%. “Similar programs

here in Canada have reported

comparable successes,” he said.

In October, customers in England

faced a plastic bag fee for the

first time. It was the last country

in the United Kingdom to adopt a

plastic bag ban. At the time of

the ban, consumers in England

used 12 plastic bags per month.

In Wales, where a bag tax has

been in place since 2011, shop-

pers used two bags per month.

Tesco, Britain’s largest retailer,

said in early December that the

use of plastic bags have dropped

80% since England’s ban went

into place.

In the U.S. some states have

adopted similar bans. In July,

grocery stores in Hawaii were

banned from distributing plastic

bags and about 150 cities and

counties in California have insti-

tuted similar rules. A city-wide

ban on plastic bags also went

into effect in Chicago this

summer.

In announcing its plastic bag ban

in Canada, Walmart cited a study

introduced at the 2016 World

Economic Forum in Davos,

Switzerland, last week that

says that by 2050, the ocean is

expected to contain more plastic

than fish by weight if there are

no efforts taken to reduce plastic

pollution. •Reprinted from www.fortune.

com, January 25, 2016.YOUR NEX T P L AS T IC WALMARTBAG W I L L COSTYOU—I F YOU ' R EIN CANADA .

http://www.fortune.com/

9


B A G B A N S :

BAG REDUCTION POLICY GOESINTO EFFECT MARCH 1BY JOHN MACG I L L I V RAY, PUB L IC WORKS DE P T.

The Kirkland City Council joined

several other cities in Western

Washington in adopting a plastic

bag reduction policy ordinance in

February 2015. After a year of

preparation and outreach, the

plastic bag reduction policy will

go into effect March 1, 2016.

Retailers in Kirkland will no

longer provide single-use, dis-

posable plastic carryout bags to

customers. Kirkland’s ordinance

requires large retailers to charge

customers a minimum five-cent

fee for each large recyclable

paper bag to encourage con-

sumers to use reusable bags.

The ordinance allows for several

exemptions, including bags used

to contain bulk food and bulk

hardware items, produce and

meat, take-out food, newspapers

and dry cleaning.

Retailers were notified of the

policy when it passed and had

one year to prepare for the

ordinance. During the one-year

period, the City implemented a

comprehensive education and

outreach plan that included the

creation and distribution of out-

reach materials to businesses

and residents, distribution of

thousands high-quality reusable

bags, visits to retailers and ap-

pearances at public events.

To ease the transition for resi-

dents, the City is providing a free

reusable bag, per household,

that can be picked up at City Hall.

Full information on the plastic

bag reduction policy, as well as

educational resources and links

to staff memoranda, are available

at kirklandwa.gov/bringyourbag.

Residents and businesses with

questions can call the Recycling

Hotline at 425.587.3812 or email

[email protected]. •Press release reprinted from City

of Kirkland, www.kirklandwa.gov,

February 22, 2016.

THE C I T Y I S P ROV ID ING A F R E E R EUSAB L EBAG , P E R HOUSEHOLD .

SAV E T H E DAT E : WPA Annual Conference

JUNE 21 — 23, 2016N E W P O RT B E A C H H YAT T R E G E N CY

Te c h n i c a l I s s u e s | Po l i c y I s s u e s

10


http://www.erema.net/

11


R E C Y C L I N G :

PACKAGING, CONSUMER GROUPSFAIL CHALLENGEBY CONRAD MACKER RON, S EN IOR V P, AS YOU SOW

The consumer goods and pack-

aging sector missed a golden

opportunity earlier this month

to avoid being regulated as Cali-

fornia decides how to meet the

state’s ambitious goal of divert-

ing 75 percent of solid waste

through source reduction, recy-

cling and composting by 2020.

CalRecycle, the state’s recycling

agency, has sponsored work-

shops over the past two years to

gather stakeholder views on how

the state can meet its goal. Pack-

aging has merited special atten-

tion as it comprises one quarter

of all solid waste disposed of in

the state.

The agency has said it hopes a

strong emphasis on materials

management programs can re-

sult in a shift to highest and best

use of post-consumer packaging,

and that meeting the goals will

require motivation and action at

multiple levels from both private

and public sectors. It has also

stated a preference to pursue a

mandatory approach to meet the

goal. Not surprisingly, this was

opposed by consumer goods and

packaging trade associations and

in response, CalRecycle agreed

to step back and allow these

groups to make their case for

how to meet the goals with a

voluntary plan.

It issued a Manufacturers’ Chal-

lenge, inviting 14 associations

and groups to present plans for

specific, comprehensive actions

to collectively meet a voluntary

goal of 50 percent reduction in

packaging disposal by 2020.

As an attendee of the recent

day-long workshop hosted by

CalRecycle on Jan. 5, I didn’t hear

anything that represented a new

commitment specifically tailored

to help the state meet its goal,

or anything even approaching a

comprehensive plan to cut pack-

aging disposal in half.

Presentations can be found here.

Most groups rehashed existing

programs. The Carton Council

has already invested in financing

sorting facility upgrades in the

state and taken actions to pro-

vide markets for its used packag-

ing, resulting in more access to

carton recycling for residents.

But its recommendations on how

to achieve further reductions

were vague. “Support public/

private partnerships, support

innovation and provide technical

assistance, increase disposal

fees,” was how the group

summed it all up in one slide.

Several presentations made no

attempt to relate ongoing actions

to the state. The American Chem-

istry Council, for instance, said

it’s spending $2.4 million nation-

ally to double plastic film recy-

cling from 1 billion pounds to

2 billion pounds by 2020, but

didn’t provide information on

specific actions to boost recy-

cling within California. The Soci-

ety for the Plastics Industry

discussed projects on healthcare

plastics and garment bag recy-

cling, but neither seemed con-

nected to the state. The Western

Plastics Association said one of

its members built a plastic recy-

cling facility prototype in the

state, but there was no apparent

link to a specific strategy to

increase collection and recycling

of plastics.

The Grocery Manufacturers Asso-

ciation and Ameripen gave even

more toothless presentations

befitting their roles as groups

more interested in blocking gov-

ernment mandates than motivat-

ing members to support projects

that could dramatically increase

packaging recycling. Another dis-

appointing sign was the sugges-

tion by several industry groups

that the law be changed to allow

waste-to-energy projects to

count towards meeting the goal,

an idea that dropped like a lead

balloon as staff indicated they

weren’t planning on going there.

(Continued, see Challenge, page 12)

CA L R ECYC L E HAS S PONSOREDWORKSHOPSOVER THE PAS TTWO YEARS TO GATHERS TAKEHOLDERS .

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ReduceWaste/Packaging/Events/WkshpJan2016.htm

12


Part of the problem is the nature

of these groups. Trade associa-

tions are typically not empow-

ered to show dramatic leadership

on new policies. They are only as

strong as their most timid mem-

ber, meaning obtaining consen-

sus for bold commitments can be

next to impossible. CalRecycle

might have fared better by invit-

ing global brand leaders, such

as Unilever and P&G, that have

made public commitments to in-

crease recycling and recyclability

of packaging. Unilever is commit-

ted to increasing recycling of

packaging 15 percent by 2020

in its top 14 markets; P&G has

promised to increase packaging

recyclability to 90 percent by

2020. Still, some kind of common

platform is needed for industry

groups to work together if there

is serious interest in jointly meet-

ing the challenge.

The rollout of North America’s

first fully industry-funded pack-

aging recycling program in British

Columbia is being closely watched

and its success could convince

some brands to support a Califor-

nia version if it’s designed to

ensure that industry funds would

be used solely to improve recy-

cling infrastructure and yield.

The burgeoning ocean plastics

problem seems likely to amp up

the pressure on brands as well,

with a recent report estimating

that if no action is taken, plastic

will exceed fish in the ocean by

weight by 2050. Improving recy-

cling systems will reduce ocean

loadings.

The embarrassing failure by the

industry to present a credible

plan to regulators suggests

CalRecycle may have little choice

but to move forward with a

mandated approach to meet

its goal. •Reprinted from Resource

Recycling, www.resource-recy-

cling.com, February 10, 2016.

OP IN ION: MANUFACTURE RS FA I L ED CHA L L ENGE [CONT ’D ]

http://www.resource-recycling.com/

13


R E C Y C L I N G :

PUSH AND PULL OVER PACKAGINGPLAN IN CALIFORNIABY BOBBY E L L IO T T, P L AS T ICS R ECYC L ING UPDATE

Packaging stakeholders met

earlier this month in California to

present on how they’re helping

the state recover more plastics

as it aims to drastically cut pack-

aging disposal and drive recy-

cling activities.

Organized by the California De-

partment of Resources Recycling

and Recovery (CalRecycle) as

part of the state’s Manufacturers

Challenge, the Jan. 5 meeting

drew strong attendance from

industry groups, Cynthia Dunn,

the meeting’s organizer, told

Plastics Recycling Update.

“Almost all of the organizations

we invited participated, and

that’s something we had hoped

would happen regardless of what

happens afterwards,” said Dunn,

a staffer in CalRecycle’s Materials

Management and Local Assis-

tance Division.

California is working toward two

primary recycling goals for 2020

—cutting packaging disposal in

half and recycling 75 percent of

the overall waste stream—and

state officials have made it clear

they want packaging stakehold-

ers to be part of the solution.

According to Dunn, the purpose

of the meeting earlier this month

was to hear what producers can

do to help the state reach those

goals on a voluntary basis. While

CalRecycle has in the past recom-

mended a mandatory approach

for packaging, Dunn said “we've

decided to step back and explore

this voluntary approach.”

She reiterated, however, that Cal-

Recycle believes a “comprehen-

sive” strategy from packaging

stakeholders must be laid out in

order for a voluntary approach to

succeed. She said the state has

not yet concluded whether that

strategy was delivered during the

January meeting.

“The reason why we’re looking

for something that’s comprehen-

sive is because that’s what it’s

going to take,” Dunn said.

“That’s how the meeting was

framed and whether or not it was

comprehensive is something

we’re kind of taking a step back

and assessing at this time.”

Kyla Fisher, an industry consult-

ant who presented for industry

group American Institute for

Packaging and the Environment

during the day-long event, said

the overall atmosphere was “very

positive” and that it was clear

producers were taking part in

“incredibly innovative” projects

both in California and throughout

the country.

“I think everybody at that table

was really there to say, ‘These

are the projects that we’re work-

ing on in terms of addressing the

challenges in the recovery sys-

tem.’ And I think it was well-

received by CalRecycle,”

Fisher said.

She added she thinks it’s also

important to look at recovery

“from a holistic standpoint,”

including energy recovery, when

it comes to meeting the state’s

2020 targets. The state’s 75 per-

cent recycling rate goal does not

consider energy recovery as recy-

cling.

“You can’t look at recovery in iso-

lation,” Fisher said. “One of our

recommendations as an industry

was that we would encourage

them to look at an energy recov-

ery strategy that complements,

but does not replace, recycling.”

Fisher said the state, however,

“has made it clear, up until this

point, they’re not interested in

exploring energy recovery.”

According to CalRecycle spokes-

person Mark Oldfield, the state’s

goals for 2020 are reachable

without energy recovery.

“There is a firm belief it’s reach-

able, but that doesn’t mean it’s

going to be easy,” Oldfield said.

“We recognize there are some

significant challenges—we need

more organics processing infra-

structure just like we need more

infrastructure to process and

re-manufacture using plastics

and various other materials. But

at the same time, it’s ultimately

going to be a partnership between

the state, between the industry,

between the manufacturers,

between local governments, to

make all of this work.” •Reprinted from Resource


cling.com, January 27, 2016.

THE J AN . 5 MEE T ING DREW S T RONG AT T ENDANCEF ROM INDUST RYGROUPS .


14


R E C Y C L I N G :

ECONOMY TOOK STEAM OUT OFGAS PRODUCTION, SO AGILYXRETOOLSBY A L L AN B R E T TMAN, THE OREGON IAN/OREGON L I V E

Four years after Agilyx Corp.

was founded with the goal of

recycling waste plastic into

petroleum, gas at Portland-area

pumps was sitting at $4.30 a

gallon. That was mid-2008, and

the Tigard company had every

reason to believe it was onto

something big.

But gas prices have plunged in

the years since, taking Agilyx’s

business plan with them.

The low price of petroleum has

cut deeply into energy-depen-

dent industries, from oil explo-

ration and drilling to the

companies that make large-

diameter pipe. Agilyx has not

been immune.

As of Sunday, the company will

begin the process of shutting

down its plastic-to-petroleum

process. Before the shutdown,

the company produced and sold

more than 800,000 gallons of oil.

But by this summer, Agilyx plans

to have retooled its machinery

to begin creating something

else entirely.

“We’re not giving up on plastic to

oil,” said chief executive Ross

Patten. “But right now the eco-

nomic conditions of the oil indus-

try don’t allow us to go forward.”

While he won’t venture a guess

as to when petroleum prices will

return to a level that will make

Agilyx’ conversion process prof-

itable, he did say the company is

confident enough that gas prices

will eventually rise again that it

has long-term plans to open a

second plant for plastics-to-

petroleum conversion in the

Philadelphia area. However,

having just recently obtained

regulatory permits for the plant,

company officials haven’t

decided when construction on

that plant would begin—citing

the precarious state of the oil

industry.

What the company isn’t doing is

closing up shop. Instead, it will

retool its machinery to turn

plastics into the styrene, which

can be sold to companies that

produce polystyrene—often used

as a packing material.

To do this, the company will be

starting with recyclable plastics

that contain polystyrene. In the

early going, it anticipates collect-

ing a sufficient volume from com-

panies in the area that previously

had been disposing the material

into landfill, Patten said.

In time, Agilyx expects to collect

plastics through trash haulers.

But the company is interested in

getting the type of plastics that

typically go in the trash can now,

instead of recycling bins: Styro-

foam packaging, packaging

trays for meat products and

some other food packaging,

for example.

The Tigard plant has 25 workers,

down from at least double that

toward the end of 2011. At that

time the company envisioned

more rapid expansion, including

the addition of three more con-

version plants—not just the one

slated for the Philadelphia area.

Patten, a one-time executive

with Browning Ferris Industries

in Texas, arrived the following

year. He replaced former chief

executive Chris Ulum.

The privately held Agilyx last

reported a round of venture capi-

tal toward the end of 2011—$25

million from a group of current

investors and a new one, Keating

Capital Inc., a Colorado company

that takes stakes in businesses

expected to go public.

(Continued, see Agilyx, page 15)

AG I LY X SH I F T SF ROM P E T RO L EUMTO S TY R ENE .

15


AG I LY X R E TOOLS [CONT ’D ]

Patten, who recently led a tour of

the Agilyx’ plant for government

leaders, said Agilyx for now has

shelved any thought of going

public.

But that does remain a longer-

term goal. “That is something the

board has discussed in the past,”

he said. “The board is working

toward that.”

However, he said the company

has raised additional money

since 2011 through individual

investors, including Sir Richard

Branson, the celebrity owner of

Virgin Airways. Patten said

Branson is an environmentalist

who became interested in Agilyx

through the advice of someone in

the airline industry because of

the prospect of transforming

trash into jet fuel.

Patten said Agilyx has lined up

customers to purchase the

styrene the company will be

producing this year, though he

declined to name any, saying

contracts had not been finalized.

“We know our technology has

other applications and that’s why

we’re converting to styrene,”

Patten said, “Because that’s a

product we can convert into a

product that can be more

profitable.” •Reprinted from www.oregonlive.

com, February 21, 2016.

www.hudsonsharp.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/

16


R E C Y C L I N G :

FOAM RECYCLING COALITIONOPENS 2016 CALL FOR GRANTAPPLICATIONS BY LYNN DYER , FOODSERV ICE PACKAG ING INST I TU T E

The Foam Recycling Coalition

has started the 2016 application

period for its annual grant pro-

gram to support increased recy-

cling of packaging made from

foam polystyrene. The FRC, part

of the Foodservice Packaging In-

stitute, seeks applicants looking

to start or strengthen a post-

consumer foam polystyrene

recycling program.

“Launched last year, the Foam

Recycling Coalition’s grant pro-

gram has already given away

almost $100,000,” said Lynn

Dyer, president of the Foodser-

vice Packaging Institute. “With

greater end-market demand for

foam polystyrene equipment and

handling, our funding program

helps recycling facilities include

foam polystyrene in their accepted

recycling materials.”

Last year’s grantees, Denver’s

Alpine Waste & Recycling and

Colchester County, Nova Scotia,

were awarded grants to purchase

equipment that provides foam

polystyrene recycling services to

their communities. A third grantee

announcement is imminent.

Organizations involved in manag-

ing residential curbside recycling

programs or material recovery

facilities are eligible to apply for

funding. Available to both public

and private organizations, each

grant will range from about

$15,000 to $50,000.

This initiative helps fund infra-

structure for the collection,

processing and marketing of

products made from foam poly-

styrene. It targets post-consumer

foam polystyrene products, such

as foodservice packaging (i.e.,

cups, plates, bowls, clamshells,

cafeteria trays); and other types

of packaging, like egg cartons;

meat trays; and protective pack-

aging (used when shipping elec-

tronics and other fragile items).

Grant amounts will be determined

on a case-by-case basis depend-

ent upon equipment needs. No

cash match is required, but addi-

tional costs may be incurred by

the grantee for related items

such as site preparation, provi-

sion of conveying system, electri-

cal infrastructure, freight and

other installation costs.

Grantees are required to commu-

nicate the addition of foam

polystyrene to their recycling

program, both directly to house-

holds and in their regular com-

munication materials. Grantees

also must commit to collecting,

processing and marketing foam

polystyrene for a minimum of

three years, which includes

reporting on the volumes to FRC.

The Foam Recycling Coalition

was formed in 2014 to focus

exclusively on recycling food -

service packaging made from

foam. Its members include Amer-

icas Styrenics; Cascades Canada

ULC; CKF Inc.; Chick-fil-A; Com-

modore; Convermex; Dart Con-

tainer Corp.; Dolco Packaging,

A Tekni-Plex Company; Dyne-A-

Pak; Genpak; Hawaii Foam

Products; NOVA Chemicals Corp.;

Pactiv Foodservice/Food Packag-

ing; Shell Chemical LP; Styrolu-

tion America; and TOTAL Petro -

chemicals & Refining USA.

Additional financial support of

the coalition comes from the EPS

Industry Alliance.

Application deadline is April 10,

2016. The first 2016 grant recipi-

ent will be announced in late

spring.

Further information and grant

application are available at

www.fpi.org/recyclefoam. •Press release reprinted from

Foodservice Packaging Institute,

February 25, 2016.

GRANT P ROGRAMHE L P S FUNDFOAM PO LY-S T Y R ENE R ECYC L INGEQU I PMENT.

www.fpi.org/recyclefoam

17


R E C Y C L I N G :

RIGID PLASTICS RECYCLINGSURGES 27%; FILM RECYCLINGGROWS 3%BY J ENN I F E R K I L L INGER , AMER ICAN CHEM I S T RY COUNC I L

The recycling of post-consumer

rigid plastics surged 276 million

pounds, or 27 percent, in 2014

to reach a new high of over 1.28

billion pounds for the year, ac-

cording to a report released

today at the 2016 Plastics Recy-

cling Conference. The 2014 Na-

tional Postconsumer Non-Bottle

Rigid Plastic Recycling Report

[click here] also indicated that

the reported volume of recycled

rigid plastics—tracked sepa-

rately from bottles or film—is

now four times greater than the

volume reported in just 2007.

“This is really exciting news,”

said Steve Russell, vice president

of plastics for the American

Chemistry Council. “The combi-

nation of more advanced sorting

technologies coupled with ex-

panded consumer access is mak-

ing a positive difference.”

Moore Recycling Associates Inc.,

which authored the report, attrib-

utes much of the strong gain to a

rebound from the 2013 Green

Fence effort in China, improved

bale quality, and growing stan-

dardization of plastics bales—

the unit by which post-use

plastics are sold after collection.

The source of non-bottle rigid

plastics collected with the

biggest increase in 2014 was

the Pre-Picked Bale, which is

generated from municipal pro-

grams and contains a mixture of

products with bottles removed.

The rigid plastics category con-

tains food containers, caps, lids,

tubs, clamshells, cups and bulky

items, such as buckets, carts and

lawn furniture, along with used

commercial scrap, such as crates,

battery casings and drums. Typi-

cal end markets for these materi-

als include automotive parts,

crates, buckets, pipe, lawn and

garden products, and thick-walled

injection molded products.

As in prior years, polypropylene

and high-density polyethylene

comprised the two largest resins

in this category, representing

38.3 percent and 34.1 percent,

respectively.

Approximately 64 percent of the

1.28 billion pounds of rigid plas-

tics collected for recycling was

processed in the U.S. or Canada,

down slightly from 2013. The re-

mainder was exported overseas.

A separate report also released

today found a minimum of 1.17

billion pounds of postconsumer

plastic film was recycled in 2014,

an increase of over 29 million

pounds, or 3 percent, from the

prior year. The 2014 National

Postconsumer Plastic Bag and

Film Recycling Report, [click here]

also authored by Moore Recy-

cling, marks the tenth consecu-

tive year of the report, and a 79

percent increase in plastic film

recycling since 2005. Based on

data from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the recycling

rate for film has grown from 6.6

percent to 17 percent of produc-

tion during the same period.

The plastic film category includes

commercial film packaging, a

variety of consumer wraps and

bags—all made primarily from

thin, flexible sheets of polyethyl-

ene. Of the film collected for

recycling in 2014, approximately

45 percent was processed in the

U.S. or Canada with the remain-

der going primarily to China.

Primary uses for recycled plastic

film include composite lumber,

new film and sheet, agricultural

products, crates, buckets, and

pallets.

“We’re pleased to see growth in

these important areas of plastics

recycling,” said Patty Moore,

president of Moore Recycling.

“Continued expansion of a

healthy sorting and processing

infrastructure, and further devel-

opment of end markets for recy-

cled materials are essential for

building on recent gains.”

Information on tracking the recy-

cling of plastic bottles is docu-

mented annually in a third series

of reports. The 25th Annual

National Post-Consumer Plastics

Bottle Recycling Report with

results from 2014 [click here] was

released in November 2015. •Press release reprinted from

American Chemistry Council,

February 2, 2016.

THE R E PORT EDVOLUME OF R ECYC L ED R IG IDP LAS T ICS I S N O W F O U RT IMES GREATE RTHAN THE VO LUME R E PORT ED IN J US T 2007 .

https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications/2014-National-Report-on-Post-Consumer-Non-Bottle-Rigid-Plastic-Recycling.pdf

https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications/2014-National-Postconsumer-Plastic-Bag-Film-Recycling-Report.pdf

https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications/2014-National-Post-Consumer-Plastics-Bottle-Recycling-Report.pdf

18


R E C Y C L I N G :

HOW TO IMPROVE THE RESINIDENTIFICATION CODEBY S T EVE A L E XANDER ( A P R ) AND N INA GOODR ICH ( S PC )

The SPI Resin Identification Code

(RIC), now the property of ASTM,

an international standards organ-

ization, was created in 1988 to

help recycling stakeholders know

which plastic was being used for

containers. Required on certain

containers in 39 states in the

U.S., the RIC names six resins

without defining them and

provides a seventh number for

all others.

Over the years the self-policing

policy has worked well, but as

the industry has grown, impor-

tant questions have been raised

about the system.

The Association of Plastic Recy-

clers has proposed a ballot

(D7611M-13) for ASTM considera-

tion that will help answer some

of those questions. It defines

items with the same code num-

ber as those made of materials

that have similar chemistry and

manufacturing processing char-

acteristics, as well as perform-

ance properties, but colors are

not included.

Along with this definition, APR

recommends a mechanism to

add numbers and some exam-

ples of proper use. Through this

proposal, plastics with the same

number have more value than a

mix of unrelated plastics. This

added value will lend continued

support to plastics recycling as a

thriving industry.

Recyclers find the RIC an

extremely effective tool in iden -

tifying the resin used to make

the primary part of an item, such

as a bottle. Although automation

helps in sorting, recyclers rely on

the code for training and final

decision-making. It is particularly

useful for developing markets

and determining the composition

of new product innovations.

Difficult for brand owners

Consumer brand companies

often find the RIC challenging.

Many brands strive for a specific

number and create material

blends that might be predomi-

nantly one material.

However, the blend may have an

impact on the recyclability of the

product. Some have pushed the

limits of the system by using a

code for the predominant mate-

rial, but at the same time they

will add additional materials

that can significantly change

the behavior of the container in

reclamation and reuse. These

hybrids can cause contamination

of the recycling stream. “The APR

Design Guide for Plastics Recy-

clability” provides excellent

guidance to help companies

determine if their package con-

tributes to contamination in the

recycle stream.

The RIC has led to some con-

sumer confusion as well. Many

consumers do not understand

what the numbers mean and

mistakenly associate them with

recycled content and recyclabil-

ity. There are better tools to

educate consumers, including

the SPC’s How2Recycle label.

Municipalities have made recent

moves to add language and

graphics to further explain the

types of containers their recy-

cling programs accept, but they

often also use the RIC to help

consumers understand what

they can recycle.

The RIC is not intended to

declare recyclability or the

presence of recycled content. It

is not a “recycling code,” but it

is relied on by recyclers to under-

stand what the material is and

how it will behave in reclamation.

It is an education tool on

many levels.

The 28-year-old code is being

considered for updating by

ASTM. APR’s suggestions for this

update are detailed below:

(Continued, see Resin, page 19)

THE R IC I S ANEDUCAT ION TOOL ON MANY L E V E L S .

19


• PET (No. 1), the resin used for

carbonated soft drinks and single

use water bottles, comes from a

family of polyester plastics. Not

all polyester plastics are compat-

ible with PET in terms of process-

ing and performance. The

proposed revision better defines

PET on the basis of chemistry

and melting characteristics.

• The polyolefin plastics, HDPE,

LDPE and polypropylene (PP) as

defined by ASTM, are often used

in blends. The proposed revision

recognizes the common use of

blends, and allows small percent-

ages of other polyolefins to be

present with HDPE for No. 2,

LDPE for No. 4 and PP for No. 5.

• The No. 7 category is a catch-all

used for all Nos. 1-6 plastics that

contain a layer of other materials,

plastics that do not fall into the

No. 1 through No. 6 range, blends,

or structures with integral metal

parts, such as metal reinforce-

ment. The No. 7-coded items

do need to be modified to help

create a better understanding

of what the materials are.

The plastics recycling industry

must be actively engaged in the

development of these standards.

The RIC is an important tool for

reclaimers, municipalities, con-

sumer brand companies and

others involved in the industry.

Continuous improvement must

be ensured so that it continues

to be a valuable and reliable

resource. It is also imperative

to recognize that the RIC does

not stand alone. It should be

supplemented with other tools

when used as an educational

resource. •Reprinted from Resource


cling.com, February 24, 2016

R ES IN I D ENT I F ICAT ION CODE [CONT ’D ]

APR PROPOSES BALLOT (D7611M-13)FOR ASTM CONSIDERATIONBY A P R AND AS TM

This revision of D7611M-13, authorized as WK52452, provides more specific definitions for the resin identification code categories based on

common criteria, examples of code assignment, and a process for adding additional code numbers. The work represents input from many

sources including ASTM D20.95 members, postconsumer plastics recyclers, sorting plant operators, brand companies, testing laboratories,

resin producers, sheet and molding converters, and two trade associations, the Association of Plastics Recyclers (APR) and the National

Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). In addition, these recommendations have been shared with the American Chemistry

Council, the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC).

A key intention is for codes on manufactured plastic items to convey basic information about the plastic resin or resins used to make the

item. This information is useful for the subsequent processing of the items but does not imply recycling is being done or that the item is

recyclable. Similarly, the code does not imply an item is not recyclable solely by the code assigned.

The revision here presented contains the following changes to the existing ASTM D7611 standard, which is a mild revision of the original

resin identification code created by the Society of the Plastics Industry, SPI, in 1988. •Reprinted from www.plasticsrecycling.org, February 2016.

Click here to read the full document.

http://www.plasticsrecycling.org/images/pdf/news_media/ASTM_D-7611-Revision_Final_Draft_02-2016.pdf


20


R E C Y C L I N G :

RESIN PRICING WEATHERSSTORMY MONOMER MARKETS IN EARLY 2016BY KATHY HA L L , P E T ROCHEM WI R E

It's only March but the monomer

markets have already had a

tumultuous year.

Spot ethylene sellers ended 2015

on edge as prices ducked below

the 20 cents per pound level for

the first time since 2009. With

plant operating rates at nearly

100% and no signs of a demand

surge from polyethylene, ethyl-

ene prices continued to lose

ground in the first few weeks

of 2016, reaching 15.5 cpp by

Jan 20. Crude oil also reached

a multi-year low on that day,

at $26.55/bbl.

Polyethylene prices also saw

some effect from the ethylene

slide as some suppliers dropped

their monthly pricing by 3 cpp

and spot market sellers fled the

market. This kept HDPE prices

in the low 40s cpp range in the

Houston area and in the low 50s

cpp on a delivered basis, while

generic prime LDPE liner was in

the upper 50s cpp on a delivered

basis and LDPE frac melt grades

were above 60 cpp.

By the end of January, ethylene

prices had recovered to 18-19

cpp and crude climbed back to

$33/bbl. Monthly PE contracts

were down 3 cpp from most

suppliers and a February notice

to increase prices by 5 cpp was

rescinded. Spot PE prices remained

intact but the fallout was really

felt in the wide-spec and offgrade

markets, where offers dropped

into the 40s cpp range for nearly

all grades of PE.

Around mid-February, ethylene

started to see heavy trading

volumes in the spot market,

perhaps inspired by inventory

building ahead of turnarounds

scheduled to begin in March.

Prices moved above 20 cpp and

as March began, the bullish run

continued with prices reaching

nearly 25 cpp. A 10 cpp increase

in six weeks is the epitome of

volatility—on a crude oil

equivalent, this would be a

$20/bbl move.

The return of Asian demand in

the international market also lent

to more upward momentum for

spot PE prices and domestic

suppliers issued fresh price

increases for March contracts.

Generic prime HDPE blow mold

pricing rose to upper 40s cpp

range in Houston and stayed

above the 50 cpp for most HDPE

grades. Even offgrade prices

moved higher and general avail-

ability was described as tighter

after several weeks of aggressive

export selling.

What has remained fairly con-

stant for the makers of ethylene

and PE is the cost of production.

Ethane has largely stayed in the

14-16 cents per gallon range,

which on a cents per pound

equivalent was 5.5-6.5 cpp. So

even at its historic low price of

15.5 cpp in January, ethylene was

still enjoying a 9-10 cpp margin

on these remarkably stable (and

low) costs.

Propylene was not quite as

volatile as ethylene but this

market had its moments during

the first quarter as well.

Monomer suppliers, who have

become accustomed to prices

generally running more than 10

cpp above ethylene, waited for

the startup of Dow’s new on-pur-

pose propylene plant at the end

of 2015 and braced for a drop in

prices as its new supply hit the

market. A series of process is-

sues kept the plant at Freeport,

Texas from successfully starting

up until the end of January, and

polymer grade propylene prices

stayed in the 28-29.5 cpp range.

Polypropylene producers stood

by their efforts to raise January

pricing by 6 cpp. Spot HoPP was

in the mid-50s cpp range in the

Houston area and well above 60

cpp on a delivered basis to most

domestic zones.

The Dow plant, the nation’s

second on-purpose propylene

plant, began February operating

well and prices began to soften,

dropping to 27 cpp by Feb 11 and

(Continued, see Pricing, page 21)

P ROPY L ENE WASNOT QU I T E ASVOLAT I L E AS E THY L ENE BUTTH I S MARKE T HAD I T S MOMENTS .

21


R ES IN P R IC ING WEATHERS MARKE TS [CONT ’D ]

staying at that level for a solid

week with few spot trades even

seen as most players stayed on

the sidelines and watched for

directional clues. While the rest

of the propylene-producing units

operated well, the other on-pur-

pose propylene plant, a PDH unit

in Houston operated by Flint Hills

Resources shut on Feb 20 for

some planned maintenance.

Propylene prices immediately

reacted and steadily rose to

29 cpp by early March.

After successfully implementing

their 6 cpp increase in January,

however, increasing local PP

inventories inspired some more

aggressive spot market selling.

Spot HoPP inj and raffia prices

dropped to the low 50s cpp

range in the Houston area and

slightly below 60 cpp delivered

to other domestic areas. As a

relatively high-cost producer, the

US has not had meaningful

export opportunities in some

time. Import offers for HoPP

coming into the US at 42-48 cpp

CIF US port created even more

availability for the resin. Domes-

tic resin suppliers opted to post-

pone a February price increase

until March or April, and specula-

tive concerns about flagging

automotive demand for PP

began emerging.

Because propylene monomer

in the US is produced by two dis-

tinct processes that use different

raw materials, margins are no

longer uniform. Polymer grade

propylene that is produced using

the more widespread and tradi-

tional method of “splitting” up-

grades a raw form of propylene

called refinery grade propylene,

increasing its purity from 65-70%

pure propylene to 99.4% for use

at polypropylene plants. The

other method, used by the Dow

and Flint Hills plants, uses

propane and processes it to

become the same high-purity

polymer grade propylene. Refin-

ery grade propylene prices are

currently 18.5 cpp. Propane

prices are currently 10 cpp. Either

way, costs have been relatively

stable (and cheap) for polymer

grade propylene monomer pro-

ducers, regardless of the volatil-

ity they have seen this year in the

propylene and polypropylene

markets. •Reprinted from Market Price

Review, PetroChem Wire, March

2016.

#1 Extrusion Drive Pawcatuck, CT 06379 | +860.599.1010 | www.davis-standard.com | [email protected]

The Global Advantage™ in Blown Film

when tWy cindustr

obust equipmenRand pr

Unma

ilm Own FBloalue with a GV

wn film houses in the bloerwo global poours:e ytages aranogether the advome ty c

ess efficiencoces prvot imprt thaobust equipmen.yofitabilitand pr

t maximizt thaket supportfched AtUnma

aximumy Mering Defined bffilm Ooachpprlobal Aalue with a G

y ess efficienc

T 06379 | +860.599.1010 | w, Ctuckcawae Pivtrusion Dr#1 Ex

Unmathe per

estmenvin

A highly eono ct

equipmenand pr

hether yWadesrupg

dtandarSfilm objec

vis-standaro@daom | inffo.cdvis-standar.dawwT 06379 | +860.599.1010 | w

es t maximizt thaket suppormarertfched AtUnmat our equipmenalue of ye and vmancorfthe per

bishmenefurades and rrough upgt threstmen

essionals ofeam of R&D pred tiencxperA highly eechnology and ess toce prtavtinually innoon

, uptime yor the highest film qualitt fequipmen.estaessing rocand pr

e tivecost effour need is a new line or chether yvis-w Dan hoo leary todat us ttacon, cades

our blot ytage™ can supporandvs Global A’’s.estivfilm objec

om.cdvis-standar

es

.tsbishmen

essionals echnology and

wn our blo

http://www.davis-standard.com/

22


S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y :

SUSTAINABIL ITY BENEFITS OFPERSONAL CARE PACKAGINGBY BOB L I L I ENFE LD , AMER I P EN

Shampoo & conditioner. Cosmet-

ics. Toothpaste, soap & body

wash. Americans spend $50

billion annually for beauty and

personal care products. People

invest a lot in them because they

expect a lot from them.

AMERIPEN’s new brochure, enti-

tled “Personal Care Packaging:

Safety, Convenience & Sustain-

ability,” explores the benefits

of the packaging used to protect

personal care and beauty prod-

ucts, and materials used in the

production of these containers.

According to Jeff Wooster, Presi-

dent of AMERIPEN, “Personal

care packaging keeps products

fresh and safe, makes them easy

to use, and educates consumers

about how to get the most satis-

faction from their purchases.

Packaging thus plays an impor-

tant role in guaranteeing that

consumers get full value for their

personal care investments.”

Not only does the brochure

explain these benefits in easy-to-

understand detail, it also helps

consumers make sustainable

decisions about packaging once

it has fulfilled its product delivery

functions. The recommendations

include guidance about recycling,

buying the right size for the right

occasion, and purchasing refill-

able systems for items like liquid

soap, shampoo, and conditioner.

The brochure is available from

Ameripen—click here.

ABOUT AMERIPENAMERIPEN advocates for packag-

ing policy advancement in North

America and focuses on measures

that are environmentally and

economically sound, as well as

socially responsible. The organi-

zation, with a science-based,

material-neutral approach,

encourages informed decision-

making on packaging and the

environment by policy makers

and thought leaders. AMERIPEN

welcomes companies that

support the philosophy of a

collaborative trade and industry

organization, active and coopera-

tive issue resolution, and mate-

rial and packaging system

neutrality.

More information is available at

www.AMERIPEN.org. •Press release reprinted from

Ameripen, January 13, 2016.

THE B ROCHURE E X P LA INS THEBENEF I T S OFSUS TA INAB L EPACKAG ING.

http://www.ameripen.org/files/Personal_Care_Brochure.pdf

23



APPLYING CIRCULAR ECONOMYPRINCIPLES TO GLOBAL PLASTICPACKAGING FLOWSBY SUS TA INAB L E B RANDS

“The New Plastics Economy:

Rethinking the Future of

Plastics” outlines how applying

circular economy principles to

global plastic packaging flows

could unlock more economic

value from plastic packaging

materials and reduce negative

externalities. The report provides

a fact-base to inform the choices

that need to be made, and chal-

lenges decision-makers to

rethink the future of plastics,

in hopes of overcoming “the

limitations of today’s incremental

improvements and fragmented

initiatives, to create a shared

sense of direction, to spark a

wave of innovation and to move

the plastics value chain into a

positive spiral of value capture,

stronger economics, and better

environmental outcomes.”

The report was produced by

the World Economic Forum

(WEF) and Ellen MacArthur

Foundation (EMF), with analytical

support from McKinsey & Company,

as part of Project MainStream.

The organizations claim that they

conducted the first comprehen-

sive assessment of global plastic

packaging flows for the report, to

accurately outline the changes

that need to be made. They

found some staggering numbers,

such as that 32 percent of plastic

packaging escapes collection

systems. The United Nations

Environment Program(UNEP)

has conservatively estimated the

cost of such after-use externali-

ties for plastic packaging, plus

the cost associated with green-

house gas emissions from its

production, at $40 billion annu-

ally—a cost great than the plas-

tic packaging industry’s profits.

The vision captured in the report

involves creating after-use path-

ways for plastics, drastically

reducing leakage of plastics into

natural systems, and decoupling

plastics from fossil feedstocks.

It calls for major collaboration

efforts between stakeholders,

perhaps through an independent

coordinating vehicle that can

set direction, establish common

standards and systems, and

foster innovation opportunities

at scale. •To view the full paper, click here.

Reprinted from www.sustainable-

brands.com, January 19, 2016.

THE R E PORTCHA L L ENGES DEC I S ION - MAKERS TO R E TH INK THE FU TURE OF P LAS T ICS .

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/digital_learning/research_report/next_economy/new_plastics_economy_rethinking_future_plastics

24



THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY:RETHINKING THE FUTURE OFPLASTICSBY WOR LD ECONOMIC FORUM

The circular economy is gaining

growing attention as a potential

way for our society to increase

prosperity, while reducing de-

mands on finite raw materials

and minimizing negative exter-

nalities. Such a transition re-

quires a systemic approach,

which entails moving beyond in-

cremental improvements to the

existing model as well as devel-

oping new collaboration mecha-

nisms.

The report explores the intersec-

tion of these two themes, for

plastics and plastic packaging in

particular: how can collaboration

along the extended global plastic

packaging production and after-

use value chain, as well as with

governments and NGOs, achieve

systemic change to overcome

stalemates in today’s plastics

economy in order to move to a

more circular model?

The New Plastics Economy aims

to set an initial direction and

contribute to the evidence base

by synthesizing information from

across many dispersed sources.

It assesses the benefits and

drawbacks of plastic packaging

today, and makes the case for

rethinking the current plastics

economy. It lays out the ambi-

tions and benefits of the New

Plastics Economy—a system

aiming to achieve drastically

better economic and environ-

mental outcomes. It proposes a

new approach and action plan to

get there.

The report’s objective is not to

provide final answers or recom-

mendations. Rather, it aims to

bring together for the first time a

comprehensive global perspec-

tive of the broader plastic pack-

aging economy, present a vision

and propose a roadmap as well

as a vehicle for progressing this

roadmap, and providing a much-

needed global focal point to

carry this agenda forward. This

report also identifies a number of

significant knowledge gaps and

open questions that need to be

further explored.

This report is the product of

Project MainStream, an initiative

that leverages the convening

power of the World Economic

Forum, the circular economy

innovation capabilities of the

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and

the analytical capabilities of

McKinsey & Company. We are

grateful to our numerous part-

ners and advisors for their in-

sights and support throughout

this project, and the Project

MainStream Steering Board for

their continued collaboration on

the transition towards a circular

economy.

For the three institutions that

have launched the MainStream

initiative, this report is an

encouragement to continue to

foster cross-industry collabora-

tion as a major avenue to accel-

erate the transition to the much-

needed circular economy. We

hope you find this report inform-

ative and useful. We invite you

to engage with us on this timely

opportunity. •Preface reprinted from Resource


cling. com, November 10, 2015.

THE R E PORTA IMS TO B R INGTOGETHER ACOMPREHENS I V EG LOBA L P E RS P ECT I V E OFTHE B ROADERP LAS T IC PACKAG INGE C O N O M Y.

An extended version of this

report, with additional chapters

and appendices, can be found

on the website of the Ellen

MacArthur Foundation: click

here.

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications


25



CAN WE SOLVE THE FLEXIBLEFILM RECOVERY PUZZLE?BY ANNA MAR I E MOHAN, PACKAG ING WOR LD

Industry groups have begun

looking at strategies to develop

multilayer flexible film recovery

systems. But can they overcome

the challenges that exist in every

step of the process?

Multilayer, mixed-material flexi-

ble film packaging is a sustain-

ability conundrum. Lighter in

weight, using less material, and

resulting in fewer greenhouse

gas emissions than alternative

packaging formats such as glass,

aluminum, and rigid plastic,

flexibles seem like the most eco-

friendly packaging choice. But,

unlike glass, aluminum, and rigid

plastic, mixed-material flexible

film* cannot be recovered at end

of life.

*Note: For the purposes of this

article, “flexible film” or “flexible

packaging” will be used to de-

scribe multilayer, mixed-material

film—used for packaging such

as stand-up pouches for snacks,

petfood, beverages, frozen meals,

and other products—versus

single-layer PE film.

For some sustainability diehards,

the fact that the only place for

multilayer flexibles at the end of

their use is the landfill is a deal-

breaker—despite all of their

sustainability advantages. For

the those companies that supply

and use this material, however,

understanding the challenges

associated with flexible film

recovery and moving toward fea-

sible solutions have become a

priority, especially as the use of

flexible packaging grows.

According to a 2015 report

from PMMI, The Association for

Packaging and Processing Tech-

nologies, “The unique benefits of

flexible packaging have made it

the second largest packaging

segment in the U.S. [representing

19% of the total $164 billion

packaging market]. The format

has grown considerably in popu-

larity over the last decade and

has continued to take market

share in the packaging industry.”

It adds that while this growth

may be starting to plateau, the

market is expected to continue to

expand at a healthy rate into the

future. (Source: PMMI 2015 Flexi-

ble Packaging Market Assess-

ment Report.)

Consulting firm Freedonia esti-

mates in its 2015 study, “Con-

verted Flexible Packaging,” that

demand for mixed-material film

packaging will rise 3.3% annually

through 2019, to $20.7 billion,

due to the cost and performance

advantages of lightweight bags

and pouches. In addition, it says

that “converted flexible packag-

ing’s source reduction, space

savings, and lower production

and transportation costs…will

drive further conversions from

rigid to flexible formats.”

Currently there are no systems

in the U.S. to collect and recover

multilayer flexible films. To put

such systems in place will involve

solving technical and commercial

challenges at every stage of the

process—collection, sorting, and

end markets—with the develop-

ment of each depending on the

success of the others.

Drivers of change

While it is true flexible films

represent a large chunk of the

packaging materials market,

their percentage of landfill waste

does not: multi-material laminates

accounted for just 1.6% of the

total municipal waste stream in

2012, according to the Flexible

Packaging Assn. Even though

this number has increased since

then and will continue to grow as

the market expands, there are

other pressing reasons why the

packaging industry is taking

on the challenge of flexible

film recovery.

Alan Blake, Executive Director

of PAC Next, a part of Canadian

association PAC, Packaging

Consortium, that was founded to

create a vision of “A World With-

out Packaging Waste,” says the

group initially became interested

in finding ways to recover flexible

films due to Canada’s Extended

Producer Responsibility laws.

Under EPR requirements, all

(Continued, see Puzzle, page 26)

THE MARKE T I SE X P ECTED TOCONT INUE TOEX PAND AT AHEA LTHY RAT EINTO THE FU TURE .

26


stakeholders pay a fee based on

the quantity of packaging materi-

als they put into the market. PAC

NEXT’s Multi-Layer Laminated

Films & Bags project is focused

on initiating and completing a

pilot to recycle post-consumer

recycled multilayer laminated

film from a Municipal Recycling

Facility (MRF).

“Given EPR, there’s this pressure

to see what can be done to avoid

materials going to landfill and

what can be done to find solu-

tions,” Blake says. “People

become a bit emotional when

they start seeing increasing

levels of materials going into the

waste stream that are non-recy-

clable, such as multilayer, mixed-

plastic laminates.”

Jeff Wooster, Global Sustainabil-

ity Director of Dow Packaging

and Specialty Plastics, which is

involved in many initiatives

around flexible film recovery,

explains the growth in interest

in flexible film recovery this way:

“The development of the recy-

cling infrastructure for any mate-

rial follows the introduction of

that material and its growth to

a scale where it makes sense

to invest in a recycling infra -

structure.”

For example, he says, when

aluminum cans and PET bottles

were first introduced, they were

not recycled. But as the markets

for these materials grew, recy-

cling followed. “With flexible

packaging, because it’s more

difficult to mechanically recycle

and because the weight of each

individual package is much lower

than it is for other materials,

there are some additional chal-

lenges that other materials don’t

have to the same extent.”

Consumer pressure is definitely

also a driver, he adds: “Con-

sumers don’t like to see packag-

ing going into the landfill, and

neither do we.”

One of the projects Dow is

involved with is Materials Recov-

ery for the Future, an initiative

of the Research Foundation

for Health and Environmental

Effects, established by the Ameri-

can Chemistry Council. The proj-

ect has brought together brand

owners, manufacturers, and

packaging industry organizations

interested in creating recovery

solutions for flexible packaging.

Its first goal is to study the move-

ment of films and flexible plastic

packaging at U.S. MRFs.

“Our motivation for this is to

close the resource loop and

make sure that our materials

continue to deliver value for as

long as they can,” Wooster says.

“We know it’s of great interest to

companies, NGOs, and well-in-

formed consumers to try to

recover the value of their materi-

als instead of putting them into

a landfill.”

Collection: curbside or store

drop-off?

The first step in any packaging

materials recovery system is its

collection from consumers. Sin-

gle-stream curbside collection is

available in many municipalities

for a range of materials, includ-

ing PET, glass, aluminum, paper,

and cartons. Single-layer poly-

ethylene bags, such as grocery,

newspaper, and dry cleaning

bags, are also collected for recy-

cling through store drop-off

programs. Currently, there are

18,000 locations across the U.S.

that collect PE films. In 2013, 1.14

billion lb of PE film were recov-

ered for recycling, according to

the “2013 National Postconsumer

Plastic Bag & Film Recycling

Report,” from ACC.

Blake says adding multilayer

flexible films to the materials

collected through store drop-off

systems is one option. “If you

could get those materials to-

gether, then they are relatively

easy to sort because of weight

and density,” he says. “The

plastic bags will just sort of float

away. You could skim them off.”

However, he believes retail

stores are somewhat reluctant

to expand these programs due

to fears about contamination and

dirt. “Retailers are concerned

about people bringing all this

stuff to their front-of-store; they

don’t want it to turn into a

garbage dump,” he says. “You’d

have to make a bigger effort in

terms of defining areas where

the material could be brought,

making it clear to consumers,

and keeping it clean.”

With current single-stream curb-

side collection in the U.S., con-

sumers often mistakenly throw

flexible films into the bin, believ-

ing that they are—or should be—

recyclable. Once in a MRF sorting

system, the two-dimensional

flexible films play havoc with the

MRF’s mechanical systems. “The

material wraps around screens

and other rotating equipment, it

gets caught in places it’s not sup-

posed to be, and it contaminates

the paper stream,” explains

Wooster.

Ultimately, the collection system

adopted for flexible packaging

will depend on the development

of MRF sorting systems. “If MRFs

had technology to adequately

separate bags and not have pro-

cessing problems, then the mate-

rial wouldn’t be a contaminate,

it would be a raw material,”

Wooster says. “If we can imple-

ment technology that makes

more of the things already in the

bin into raw materials, we can

ask for even more materials to

be put into the bin. Then we can

have a system with higher recov-

ery rates.”

Sorting: technology available,

but costly

Sorting technology for flexible

films does exist—at a significant

cost. The challenge is finding the

most efficient systems and mak-

ing them financially viable for

MRFs. In order for MRFs to make

the investment, there needs to

be enough material collected,

and viable end markets must

be developed for the recovered

material.

According to Blake, even if the

challenges of collection are over-

come, it will still take a lot of

material to make sorting it

worthwhile. “The recycling

industry works on weight,” he

explains. “To make a bale of flex-

ible laminates, you need a ton of

material. Just fathom this: To cre-

ate a bale of rigids—and these

are just approximate numbers—

you need 10,000 containers.

Since laminates weigh 80-per-

cent to 90-percent less than rigid

containers, you would need ap-

proximately 100,000 multilayer

flexible laminates to make up


F L E X I B L E F I LM PUZZ L E [CONT ’D ]

27


that same bale, to achieve that

same weight.”

In terms of end markets, because

flexible films comprise a mix of

polymers, there are currently no

commercial uses for the recov-

ered material. Said Nadine Kerr,

Acting Manager of Processing

Operations for the city of Toronto

in a webinar sponsored by PAC

Next, “Even when flexible film

packaging is sent to a processor,

it is difficult to recycle. Recycling

is complicated, and it can yield a

plastic with poor physical proper-

ties because it contains a variety

of materials and is often contam-

inated with food.”

Before tackling the development

of end markets, however, the

Materials Recovery for the Future

project is first trying to determine

how flexible materials can be

sorted. Dow initiated the project

by commissioning Resource

Recovery Systems to conduct a

study to understand what it

would take technically and finan-

cially to sort flexible films at a

MRF. Upon completion of the

study, Dow invited brand owners

and packaging producers to join

the project and drive it forward.

The first phase involves studying

the movement of films and flexi-

ble plastic packaging through the

MRF. So far, project members

have gathered a representative

assortment of flexible packaging

present in the marketplace.

These will be mixed with paper

and other materials commonly

found in a MRF and run through

the sorting systems typically

used for paper.

As Wooster explains, MRFs use

modern optical sorters based

on infrared technology that can

identify the composition of the

polymer types to sort 3D HDPE

and PET bottles. “It’s not in use

for plastic films or flexible pack-

aging, however, but there are a

few facilities that use this type

of equipment to sort paper,”

he says.

The hope is that the technology

used to sort paper can be em-

ployed to separate out flexible

films. “Paper is a two-dimen-

sional object when it goes

through the MRF, whereas a bot-

tle is a three-dimensional object,

so there’s quite a bit of handling

and processing differences

between the two,” Wooster says.

“Flexible packaging and films

though are two-dimensional like

paper, so our hypothesis is that

we’ll be able to use the sorting

equipment that’s currently used

for paper to sort the flexible film

from the paper. What the project

really entails is a series of experi-

ments with equipment manufac-

turers and MRF operators to

figure out how to use this

equipment to properly sort

the materials.”

Meanwhile, PAC Next has identi-

fied a company in Canada,

TeTechS, that is using terahertz

wave technology to sort different

polymer types based on spectral

signals. TeTechS has proved out

its Rigel™ technology on a lab

scale, but is looking for a venture

capital partner to invest in the

technology for commercial scale

use. “This is an interesting sort-

ing technology that might be the

sort of thing that could help iden-

tify flexible films,” says Blake.

“Then, using a sort of optical

sorting air-blowing collection

system, the materials could be

shot into a recovery system.”

End-use markets: a range of

opportunities

The development of end-use

markets for recovered flexible

films is really the linchpin upon

which the rest of the recovery

system depends.

One possible end market is

energy recovery. This includes

technologies such as:

• Gasification, which converts

feedstock into clean, synthetic

fuel gas that can be used to

generate electricity.

• Engineered solid fuels, in

which plastics and other waste

is turned into fuel pellets to

generate power.

• Pyrolysis, a technology that

transforms plastics into energy

feedstock, such as industrial

wax, lube stock, and synthetic

crude oil.

Says Wooster, recycling options

include a mechanical-type tech-

nology that allows the material

to be turned into another article

without changing the nature of

the plastic, and chemical feed-

stock recycling, where the plastic

is broken down into its chemical

components so that the feed-

stock can be used to make other

materials.

PAC Next is working to bring

together industry partners to

help advance technologies

from Zzyzx Polymers and Green-

able Technology. As Blake

explains, the extrusion-like tech-

nologies allow PCR laminates to

be reprocessed as is or as blends

with virgin materials.

Zzyzx uses solid-state sheer

pulverization technology to com-

patibilize resins and reduce and

disperse contaminants. The end

product is pellets that can be

used in injection molding and

compression molding to create

new films.

Equipment supplier Greenable

has developed a range of com-

pounding extruder machines

engineered to reprocess PCR

laminated film, which can be

used to manufacture products

such as dimensional lumber.

PAC Next has done pilot work

with both companies, but the

biggest challenge has been

collecting enough materials to

run larger-scale trials.

Single-material laminates:

a work-around

To circumvent the challenges of

recovering mixed-material flexi-

ble packaging, some companies

and projects are focused on

designing multilayer films that

use a single material, PE, or

combinations of materials that

can be collected through store

drop-off programs.

In the U.K., the REFLEX project,

led by Axion Consulting and

co-funded by the U.K.’s innovation

agency Innovate UK is working

on designing new film construc-

tions—in addition to helping

develop a recovery infrastructure.



28


“The aim of the REFLEX project

is to create a circular economy

for post-consumer flexible pack-

aging,” explains Liz Morrish,

Principal Consultant for Axion.

“There are a number of key ele-

ments to the project, including

the redesign of current packag-

ing so that it is recyclable and

investigating and optimizing

technologies for sorting recycla-

ble packaging from the waste

stream.

“A key output of the project will

be a set of design for recycling

guidelines, to help brand owners,

packaging designers, and conver-

tors design flexible packaging

that can be recycled.”

According to Morrish, over the

last year, the REFLEX project has

made significant progress in re-

designing flexible packaging for

food and household products to

make them potentially recycla-

ble, while ensuring the packag-

ing structures and designs still

achieve their required barrier and

mechanical properties, and ease

of handling on packaging lines.

Closer to home, Dow and film

converter Accredo Packaging,

Inc. recently collaborated to help

launch a multilayer stand-up PE

pouch for Seventh Generation’s

dishwash detergent pods.

Another reverse-printed multi-

layer PE SUP—which also sports

a unique cube-shape—was

designed by ConservaCube,

LLC for Mountain View Seeds.

At least a decade away

Despite a multitude of challenges,

there is a way forward for multi-

layer flexible film recovery, but it

will not happen overnight. “It

takes an awful lot of time to get

the momentum and the critical

mass to drive change through

the packaging industry,” says

Blake. “People forget how many

decades it took to get decent

systems in place for the recovery

and recycling of PET. We would

say that PET is a big success

story. Yet if you look at the over-

all recycling rates even for PET,

you’d argue that there’s signifi-

cant room for improvement, but

it’s taken decades to get where

we are today with PET.

“Multilayer flexible films, despite

their growth and despite the fact

that they’ve been out in other

regions of the world for some

time, are still a relatively young

packaging format in North Amer-

ica, so it’s going to take time to

find solutions for these materials

and find end markets, which by

the way, unfortunately is still a

challenge globally.

“I think it will probably be at

least a decade before you’ll start

to see the kind of investments

needed to recover these films. I

don’t think it will be any sooner

than that.”

Says Wooster, “It’s really going

to take a lot of people working

together to solve this challenge.

It’s not an easy challenge to

solve, or it would already have

been fixed, but we recognize that

it’s important, so we’re commit-

ted to doing it.” •Reprinted from www.packworld.

com, January 17, 2016.


http://www.packworld.com/

http://www.reifenhauserinc.com/

29


M A R I N E D E B R I S :

BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION TOREMOVE MICROBEADS FROMPERSONAL CARE PRODUCTSSIGNED INTO LAWBY SCOTT LUSK , AMER ICAN CHEM I S T RY COUNC I L

President Barack Obama signed

into law the “Microbead-Free

Waters Act of 2015” (H.R. 1321),

which phases out solid plastic

microbeads used in rinse-off

personal care products. The

American Chemistry Council

(ACC) issued the following

statement in support:

“ACC and its members applaud

President Obama and the U.S.

Congress for taking this impor-

tant step to ensure there is one

sensible, national standard to

phase out solid-plastic micro -

beads from rinse-off personal

care products across America.

“We commend leaders in Con-

gress and the president for work-

ing together on the ‘Microbead-

Free Waters Act of 2015.’ This

new law reflects national product

stewardship efforts by the per-

sonal care industry to phase out

the use of solid plastic micro -

beads used in personal care

exfoliating products.

“ACC and our global partners

have launched more than 185

projects under our Declaration of

the Global Plastics Associations

for Solutions on Marine Litter

since 2011. Support for micro -

bead legislation is one such

project.” •Press release reprinted from

American Chemistry Council,

December 28, 2015.

TH I S NEW LAWREF L ECTS NAT IONA L P RODUCT S T EWARDSH I P E F FORTS .

OCEANS WILL HAVE MORE PLASTIC THAN FISH BY 2050,STUDY SAYSBY ME L I SA CHAN, T IME

Up to $120 billion in plastic

packaging material is lost

each year.

The world’s oceans will

be filled with more plastic

mass than fish mass by 2050,

the World Economic Forum

said Tuesday.

The use of plastics has in-

creased by 20 times in the past

50 years and is expected to

double again in the next 20

years, the international organi-

zation said in a new study. The

research finds that 32% of all

plastic packaging escapes col-

lection systems, imposing eco-

nomic costs by hurting natural

systems like the ocean or clog-

ging urban infrastructure.

Most plastic packaging is used

only once, according to the

report, which is based on inter-

views with more than 180

experts. “After a short first-use

cycle, 95% of plastic packag-

ing material value, or $80

billion to $120 billion annually,

is lost to the economy,” the

WEF said.

Experts predict that by 2050,

the amount of plastics pro-

duced globally will increase

three times to 1,124 million tons,

according to CNN Money. •Reprinted from www.time.com,

January 19, 2016.

30


E P R :

BC REJECTS PROPOSAL FORSECOND PRODUCT STEWARD-SHIP OPTIONBY A L L AN GER I AT, WASTE 360

British Columbia has rejected a

proposal for a second packaging

and paper product stewardship

option in the province, which its

advocate said would give busi-

nesses and residents more

recycling options.

StewardChoice Enterprises Inc., a

relatively new producer responsi-

bility firm, submitted a packaging

and printer paper (PPP) steward-

ship plan in addition to British

Columbia’s existing Multi Mate-

rial British Columbia (MMBC)

producer responsibility program

for the province.

The BC Ministry of Environment

rejected the plan, which had

been through several revisions,

according to a news release from

the Burnaby, British Columbia-

based StewardChoice.

Mark Zacharias, assistant deputy

minister for the Ministry’s Envi-

ronmental Protection Division,

made four points in rejecting the

alternative recycling proposal.

He said in a letter that Steward-

Choice didn’t provided sufficient

information on the potential

resulting service reductions to

the existing program by drawing

producer funding away.

The plan also does not adequately

ensure that producers will pay

the full cost of collecting and

managing 75 percent of their

produced packaging and printed

paper volumes, as required.

That could leave consumers/

taxpayers to fund the remaining

costs, and could reduce reason-

able and free consumer access

to collection facilities.

And lastly, Zacharias said the

StewardChoice plan appears to

rely on recycling companies or

building owners with little coor-

dination to raise the consumer

awareness that is required by

the provincial law.

“I have concluded that there

would be significant implications

for existing packaging and

printed paper collection services

in British Columbia and for the

Ministry of Environment’s role in

overseeing these services if the

plan, in its current form, were to

be approved and implemented,”

Zacharias said.

“Needless to say, StewardChoice

is extremely disappointed with

the ministry’s decision,” said Neil

Hastie, development director for

StewardChoice. “We do not

agree with the ministry’s objec-

tions, which seem to be insuffi-

cient on their own to be the basis

for the rejection of our plan in

any event. We were determined

to provide producers with choice

and expand access for residents

who are not receiving a producer-

funded PPP service, thereby of-

fering benefits for both producer

and residents.”

StewardChoice said it will appeal

the decision. It said the ruling

came after two years of discus-

sions and 18 months of plan

revisions with ministry officials.

The company said the BC Recy-

cling Regulation allows for more

than one approved plan within a

product category. The ministry

said it would undertake the

work required to make policy

changes before a second pro-

ducer responsibility option

was approved.

StewardChoice is a subsidiary of

Reclay StewardEdge, an interna-

tional stewardship organization.

In May 2011, British Columbia

updated its Recycling Regulation

to include packaging and printed

paper. The regulation shifts the

responsibility for managing the

residential recycling of packaging

and printed paper from regional

and municipal governments and

their taxpayers to business.

(Continued, see Rejects, page 31)

THE RU L INGCAME A F T E R 18 MONTHS OF P LAN R EV I S IONS W I TH M IN I S T RYOF F IC I A L S .

31


British Columbia began rolling

out its producer responsibility

program in May 2014.

The province has set a recycling

goal of 75 percent. MMBC repre-

sents more than 900 member

businesses.

In September of last year a study

by the Container Recycling Insti-

tute (CRI) said the British Colum-

bia beverage container and

recycling system, which was the

first in the world in 1970, main-

tains a strong overall recovery

rate of 84.2 percent. But the

Culver City, Calif.-based CRI

expressed concerns in the report

about high container recycling

fees, a lack of transparency in

financial reporting and a bloated

reserve fund. •Reprinted from www.waste360.

com, January 29, 2016.

BR I T I SH COLUMB IA R E J ECTS P ROPOSA L [CONT ’D ]

http://www.waste360.com/

32


L E G I S L AT I O N :

US EPA APPROVES CALIFORNIA’SNEW TRASH CONTROL POLICYBY NAHA L MOGHARAB I , U . S . E PA

The U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency approved the State

Water Resources Control Board’s

new water quality standards for

trash in California’s waters. The

standards are part of the state’s

new Trash Control Policy, designed

to keep trash out of streams,

lakes, bays, estuaries, coastal

and ocean waters in California

to protect people and the

environment.

Trash seriously degrades habi-

tats for many aquatic species,

and can lead to fatal ingestion or

entanglements. The presence of

trash in waters also jeopardizes

human health and safety, and im-

pedes recreational, navigational,

and commercial activities. As

much as 80 percent of the trash

that ends up as marine debris is

generated on land. With these

new requirements, California is

not only protecting its own water-

ways, it will be shrinking the

Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the

massive vortex of marine debris

in the Pacific Ocean.

“The State of California has

taken a bold step towards keep-

ing millions of pounds of trash

each year out of our inland,

coastal and ocean waters," said

Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional

Administrator for the Pacific

Southwest. “EPA is pleased to

approve the state’s new water

quality standards, which will help

prevent harmful trash from mak-

ing it from land to water and

adding to our serious marine

debris problem.”

“Trash in our lakes, streams, and

the ocean pose a serious threat

to fish and wildlife as well as

harming the public’s ability to

enjoy our beaches and water-

ways. The good news is that this

problem is entirely preventable—

many communities have already

stepped up to meet the chal-

lenge and serve as an example to

the rest of the state,” said State

Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus.

“This statewide policy relies on

those tried-and-true, common

sense approaches to ensure we

get trash removed early before it

enters our storm water system—

resulting in cleaner beaches and

healthier marine life.”

The Trash Policy provides a

phased approach to eliminate

trash in California’s waters by

2026. Much of the trash gener-

ated on land is transported to

waterways via storm drains. The

policy calls for the use of trash

capture devices in areas that

generate large amounts of

garbage. California’s munici -

palities and other storm water

permit holders must comply by

either installing full trash capture

systems, or by using equivalent

devices coupled with programs

such as increased street sweep-

ing and educational outreach.

This trash capture approach has

already proven successful in the

Los Angeles and San Francisco

Bay Regions. The Los Angeles

Region has waterbodies, including

the L.A. River that will approach

the zero trash standard in 2016.

The recently updated San Fran-

cisco Bay stormwater permit has

a target date of 2022 for zero

trash, having already passed its

40 percent reduction milestone.

The new Trash Policy amends the

Water Quality Control Plans for

ocean waters, inland waters,

enclosed bays and estuaries of

California, and prohibits the dis-

charge of trash to state waters

through storm drain systems, as

well as transportation and indus-

trial facilities and construction

sites that are regulated under

National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) per-

mits, making them enforceable

and reportable. EPA approved

these water quality standards

under its federal Clean Water

Act authority.

The EPA’s Pacific Southwest

Region administers and enforces

federal environmental laws in

Arizona, California, Hawaii,

Nevada, the Pacific Islands and

148 tribal nations—home to

more than 48 million people. •Press release reprinted from

www.epa.gov, January 13, 2016.

INNOVAT I V E S TANDARDS W I L L P ROTECTS TAT E ' S WATERWAYS .

33



CALCHAMBER SENDS ‘JOB KILLER’ BILLS TO ITS PERSONALGRAVEYARDBY TARYN LUNA , SACRAMENTO BEE

At the Esquire Building, a block

away from the budding magno-

lias on the state Capitol grounds,

policy analysts and executives

of the state’s most powerful busi-

ness coalition are busy screening

bills as quickly as legislators can

introduce them.

Under the dome, Democratic law-

makers like Sen. Hannah-Beth

Jackson are firming up their

plans, mindful that their bills

could be branded in a way that

dooms them or is used against

them in the next election.

Every spring the California Cham-

ber of Commerce introduces its

so-called “job killer” list, a hand-

picked collection of bills the

group says will reduce jobs and

deter companies from doing

business in the state. Critics of

the long-standing lobbying prac-

tice call the list little more than a

marketing campaign carried out

on behalf of big business.

One thing is certain: You don’t

want your bill to be on it.

“They can be very effective,” said

Jackson, a Santa Barbara Democ-

rat. “If a bill is on the job killer

list, you have to take it seriously

that there will be a strong effort

to undermine its passage.”

Only 47 of 650 bills labeled job

killers have become law since the

list debuted in 1997, according to

the chamber’s tally. The history is

archived in a section labeled

“The Graveyard” on a website

devoted to the issue, CAJob

Killers.com. Many of the bills

never reach a formal vote and

instead die off at the author’s

discretion, lacking support.

CalChamber President and

Chief Executive Allan Zaremberg

said his interest group isn’t

responsible for failed legislation.

The chamber simply calls out

“bad bills.”

“It isn’t publicity, and it isn’t our

lobbying that kills a job killer,”

he said. “It’s the consequences

of the bill.”

The chamber represents more

than 13,000 companies that

employ one-fourth of the private

sector workforce in the state,

according to the group. Members

range from small-business owners

to massive corporations. Cal

Chamber spent $4.3 million on

lobbying last year, the fourth

highest amount by any group

in the state.

Its job killer list is determined

through a long process that

begins with committees made up

of members, who volunteer their

expertise on subjects such as

tax, or labor and employment,

Zaremberg said.

He said the committees help

guide the chamber’s policy, or

stance on particular issues

affecting California, and make

recommendations to the board

of directors, which includes high-

ranking executives at The Walt

Disney Co., Microsoft, Fox Enter-

tainment Group and AT&T. The

board votes on policy once

a year.

The chamber reviews every bill

and takes a stance on 200 to 400

in a year, said Zaremberg, who

took over the group in 1998.

He said the vast majority of the

issues are covered by existing

policy, which guides in-house

lobbyists as they determine the

chamber’s position on a bill. The

staff flags bills they know will

hurt jobs and also reaches out

to people who are affected by

the legislation, he said.

The chamber opposes most of

the bills it reviews, but Zarem-

berg said only the “worst of the

worst” are deemed job killers

through the internal review

process. A bill can earn the title

if it imposes barriers to economic

development, creates expensive

(Continued, see Job, page 34)

ONLY 47 OF 650 B I L L S ONTHE L I S T HAVEBECOME LAWS INCE 1997 .

34


regulations, inflates liability

costs or increases fees for busi-

nesses, among other factors, the

chamber said.

“We may be opposed to (a bill),”

he said. “It may be an aggrava-

tion. It may be a burden. But it

may not translate into what’s

going to cost jobs. That’s where

our credibility comes in. Does

it cost jobs?”

Once the list is finalized and be-

fore it goes public, the chamber

gives authors a heads up and op-

portunity to address the issues.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonza-

lez, a San Diego Democrat who

boasts a rare 2-0 winning record

against the chamber, considers it

a badge of honor when business

interests attack her bills. A self-

described supporter of workers’

rights, Gonzalez said it proves

that she’s doing her job.

Gonzalez introduced a bill in

2014 to provide workers with

three days of paid sick leave

a year. AB 1522 made the job

killers list because it increased

the employer mandate, accord-

ing to the chamber.

The bill was one of three labeled

job killers that passed in 2014,

but was removed from the list 12

days before it was signed into

law.

The chamber said amendments

changed the effects of the bills,

but the group continued to

oppose it. Gonzalez said the

chamber took the bill off the

list to keep its bill-killing record

intact.

“The governor made it clear he

was going to sign it and they

removed it,” she said.

Edward Walker, a political sociol-

ogy professor at UCLA, said it’s

common for interest groups to

develop scorecards for legisla-

tors and threaten to give law-

makers a low grade or damaging

title if they don’t vote in their

favor. Walker said it also isn’t

unusual for associations to pad

their record. One way to do that,

he said, is by selecting bills likely

to be a tough sell.

“When I see a list like this, I don’t

know how cherry-picked it is,”

Walker said. “This could very

well be the low-hanging fruit:

The issues that were potentially

easier victories or might have

been winnable anyway even if

they weren’t involved.”

Gonzalez has her own ideas

about the chamber’s methods.

AB 359, which passed last year,

requires a company that buys an

existing grocery business to

retain the employees for up to

90 days. The chamber labeled

the bill an “economic develop-

ment barrier.” It was the only bill

on the job killer list signed into

law in 2015.

“My bill was explicitly to help

people retain their jobs,” Gonza-

lez said. “It seems like a silly

title, quite frankly. From what I

understand about how a bill gets

on the job killer list, it has to do

with whoever donates the most

money gets to choose what’s on

the list.”

It’s not unusual that trade organi-

zations are supported financially

by their members. Chevron,

among the business organiza-

tion’s most generous donors,

funneled $2.2 million to the

chamber’s political action com-

mittees between 2009 and 2014.

The oil and gas company lobbied

against 11 bills that made the

chamber’s job killer lists during

that same period, according to

regulatory filings.

The “job-killer” phrase traces

back to the Council on California

Competitiveness, according to

Fred Main, a partner at Clear

Advocacy and former chamber

executive from 1981 to 2003.

Main served as the chamber’s

general counsel and senior vice

president, overseeing policy

development and the legislative

operation.

Republican Gov. Pete Wilson

formed the council of business

and union leaders in 1991 to find

ways to increase jobs and state

revenue. Led by former Major

League Baseball commissioner

and Los Angeles investor Peter

Ueberroth, the council’s first

report warned that California had

a reputation as a bad place to do

business. At the time, Ueberroth

called the state a “well-honed,

job-killing machine.”

By 1997, political tides were

changing. Wilson was on his way

out, and Republicans had lost a

brief majority in the Assembly.

Majorities were thin in both

houses, and the moderate

caucus was forming, Main said.

With fewer Republicans to lean

on, the chamber was looking

for ways to appeal to moderate

Democrats. Jobs were already

a major policy concern for the

business coalition, Main said.

“That morphed into the idea that

if we have this big issue, there

are individual bills that will make

it worse,” Main said. “We’re sit-

ting around saying what can we

do and ‘job killers’ became a way

of capturing that feeling.”

Main said the list distilled busi-

ness issues for lawmakers, even

if Democrats mocked it.

“While they were scoffing at the

list, it became a very powerful

tool,” Main said. “It hit a nerve.”

Today many liberal lawmakers

credit the chamber for develop-

ing an effective tactic to draw

attention to its opposition, but

question whether the list has

any real impact on jobs.

“When you call something a job

killer, my goodness, in one second

you’ve got someone’s attention,”

said Sen. Jackson. “You’ve hit on

a chord. People don’t want their

jobs being killed. They don’t

want public policy to be destruc-

tive of jobs. It’s a very simple, but

frankly not a very accurate, char-

acterization.”

A year ago Jackson introduced

a bill to give workers up to 12

weeks of unpaid family sick

(Continued, see Job, page 35)

CA LCHAMBER JOB K I L L E R B I L L S [CONT ’D ]

35


leave. SB 406 would allow

employees to retain their jobs

and take unpaid time off to care

for their newborn, or themselves

or a close relative with a serious

health issue.

Jackson’s bill made the job killer

list because the chamber said it

increased costs, risk of litigation

and created less conformity with

federal law. Gov. Jerry Brown

vetoed SB 406, highlighting

some of the same concerns as

the chamber.

The list can also come into play

in campaigns.

Last year the chamber strongly

backed Steve Glazer, then a polit-

ical consultant and mayor of

Orinda, in an intraparty special

election against Assemblywoman

Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, for the

7th Senate District in the East

Bay. Outside groups spent mil-

lions to support each candidate,

with unions heavily backing

Bonilla and business interests

behind Glazer.

Democratic strategist Steve

Maviglio, who led labor’s anti-

Glazer campaign and served as

its spokesman, said the chamber

labeled Bonilla a job killer to

sway Republicans to vote for

Glazer.

“They went to Republicans with

that pitch,” Maviglio said. “When

they are trying to turn out Repub-

licans to vote for a Democrat, it

becomes effective.”

In recent years the chamber

has supported more moderate

Democrats, an increasingly influ-

ential group of lawmakers.

Moderates often end up with the

swing vote on highly contested

issues and are known to be more

business-friendly than their

liberal counterparts.

For that reason, the special elec-

tion for the 7th Senate District

was particularly important to the

chamber. Bonilla would have

tipped the scales and given Dem-

ocratic senators control over the

fate of controversial business

bills. Glazer, on the other hand,

was expected to vote in concert

with the chamber’s job killer list.

The predictions rang true: In

2015, Bonilla voted to pass all

three job killer bills that reached

the Assembly floor. Meanwhile,

Glazer opposed three out of

four that came to a vote in

the Senate. •Reprinted from www.sacbee.


CA LCHAMBER JOB K I L L E R B I L L S [CONT ’D ]

http://www.sacbee.com/

http://www.heritage-bag.com/

36



BLOCKBUSTER CALIFORNIA BALLOT WILL BE A $452-MILLION BATTLEBY JOHN MYERS , L . A . T IMES

In an election year in which

Californians, by virtue of the

state’s relative insignificance in

the presidential campaign and

a fairly tepid U.S. Senate race,

have been spared the brunt of

nonstop politicking, political

experts say the storm is coming.

“We’re going to have a deluge of

political ads, of all forms,” said

Ned Wigglesworth, a Sacramento-

based campaign strategist

whose firm has done an early

projection of what will be spent

on statewide ballot measure

campaigns this fall.

The bottom line: an initiative

season in the Golden State that

could see total spending of at

least $452 million—and perhaps

even hitting half a billion dollars

—by the time the final votes

are cast.

For months, California’s ballot

initiative industry has been

watching that so-called perfect

political weather system brew-

ing, courtesy of what’s expected

to be the biggest crop of state -

wide measures on a single ballot

in more than a decade. To date,

eight measures have qualified for

the Nov. 8 ballot. Interviews over

the past week with campaign

consultants who specialize in

initiatives say an additional 15

viable measures remain in circu-

lation to gather the voter signa-

tures needed to qualify.

“I would have thought by now

that it would have thinned out,”

said Gale Kaufman, a veteran

Democratic campaign consultant.

Though a 2014 law signed by

Gov. Jerry Brown allows propo-

nents to withdraw their initiative

after negotiations with the Legis-

lature, none of the backers of

this year’s proposed ballot meas-

ures appear ready to lay down

their arms. The first legislative

hearing on a proposed ballot ini-

tiative, one that could threaten

Brown's plans for underground

water tunnels through the Sacra-

mento-San Joaquin River Delta, is

scheduled for early next month.

The list of viable ballot measures

includes an effort to fully legalize

marijuana, new taxes on tobacco

and extended taxes on wealthy

Californians, and issues ranging

from gun control to new rules on

legislative procedures and dis-

closure for government lobbying.

It also includes two potential

measures seeking to do the

same thing: raise California’s

minimum wage. One of those ini-

tiatives, sponsored by hospital

workers affiliated with the Serv-

ice Employees International

Union, has already turned in its

signatures; it would raise the

wage over four years to $15 an

hour with annual inflation adjust-

ments after that.

“One way or another, we support

raising the minimum wage,” said

Steve Trossman, a spokesman for

the hospital workers union.

A rival measure, written by SEIU’s

statewide council, would match

that minimum wage increase

while also boosting the number

of state-mandated paid sick

days. Neither union group

appears ready to back down,

raising the possibility that voters

could be asked to weigh two

different initiatives on the

same subject.

“Our campaign is moving full

steam ahead, with paid and vol-

unteer signature gatherers in the

field as we speak,” said Laphonza

Butler, president of the statewide

union.

The specter of a super-sized

ballot this fall leaves campaign

professionals unsure of exactly

how California voters will make

sense of the complex issues in

front of them.

“When you get stuck in this kind

of cacophony, it becomes much

harder to game out how that's

going to play,” Wigglesworth

said.

(Continued, see Ballot, page 37)

NONE OF THEBACKERS OF TH I S Y EAR ’ S P ROPOSED BA L LOT MEASURES A P P EARS R EADYTO LAY DOWNTHE I R A RMS .

37


B LOCKBUSTE R CA BA L LOT [CONT ’D ]

And those campaigns with the

most money have the best

chance at being heard. State

campaign finance records show

almost $70 million has already

been raised or spent for Novem-

ber ballot initiatives. One of the

largest war chests is held by the

pharmaceutical industry, with

more than $38 million for fight-

ing against an initiative to cap

prescription drug prices paid by

state health agencies, a major

drug purchaser that could influ-

ence overall prices.

One big factor in both how many

propositions appear on Novem-

ber’s ballot (and thus the total

money spent) will be the cost

to gather signatures.

“I’ve never seen it like this,” said

Kaufman, as the independent

contractors who circulate initia-

tive petitions have fought with-

stood rainy weather and store-

front bans on signature gather-

ing. As a result, some consult-

ants believe campaigns will be

paying as much as $6 per voter

signature by the middle of March.

Perhaps the most notable reason

for the long and costly political

season ahead may be that initia-

tive measures no longer appear

on the June statewide primary

ballot. Under a law signed by

Brown in 2011, initiatives are

lumped together in November.

At the time, advocates of the law

said it would ensure that impor-

tant policy choices were weighed

during general elections where

voter turnout is usually higher.

But this year, it also means that

a long and expensive campaign

season—replete with thousands

of television ads, mailers, and

digital messages—is just around

the corner.

“Is this the quiet before the

storm?” said Wigglesworth.

“Oh, yeah.” •Reprinted from www.latimes.


Tier One Resin Distributor for the Americas and Beyond.

Some customers believe it’s a feat of superhuman strength when companies stand by their word for price, delivery and service. We like to think that integrity is injection molded into our DNA.

Whatever your needs. We’ll make it happen.

Osterman-co.com • [email protected] • 800.914.4437

Visit Osterman Market Intelligence (OMI) on our website for cutting edge Intel on the resin industry all in one place - www.osterman-co.com/omi

http://www.latimes.com/

http://www.osterman-co.com/

38



WASHINGTON STATE CONSIDERSFIRST CARBON TAX IN U.S.BY J E SS ICA LYONS HARDCAST L E , ENV I RONMENT L EADER

Washington state is considering

the first carbon tax in the U.S.,

which would require energy -

intensive manufacturing opera-

tions—steel mills and food

processers, natural gas power

plants, refineries that use fossil

fuels, and others—to pay $25

per metric ton of carbon emis-

sions released.

Proponents of the bill say

although it would impose a

new tax on emissions, it would

almost eliminate other business

taxes for manufacturers.

Similar carbon-tax proposals

have been introduced in legisla-

tures in Vermont, Massachusetts

and New York, but Washington’s

proposal, which is modeled after

one in British Columbia, could

become the first to tax carbon

emissions, the Associated

Press reports.

The state’s lawmakers have until

March 10 to enact Initiative 732,

which would impose the carbon

tax, or offer an alternative pro-

posal or allow voters in Novem-

ber to decide the fate of the

carbon-tax measure.

Carbon Washington gathered

more than 350,000 signatures to

quality the initiative. The group

says the proposal is revenue

neutral, so while it would increase

taxes on fossil fuels, the increase

would be offset by decreases in

other tax revenues.

The state’s analysis, on the other

hand, estimates the measure

could cost Washington about

$915 million in lost revenues over

the first four years, the AP reports.

Analysis from the World

Resources Institute released

last month finds a carbon price

—either a carbon tax or cap-and-

trade program—would reduce

emissions even more than the

U.S. Energy Information Admin -

istration has predicted.

In December, EY released a sur-

vey on business attitudes toward

carbon pricing that found con-

sensus is building around the

idea of carbon pricing and com-

panies expect it may actually

improve overall performance. •Reprinted from www.environ-

mentalleader.com, February 29,

2016.

THE GROUP SAYSTHE P ROPOSA L I S R EV ENUE NEUTRA L .

http://www.environmentalleader.com/

39


L E G I S L AT I V E U P D AT E :

CA BILL STATUS UPDATE: WPATRACKED BILLS BY LAUR I E HANSEN , WPA L EG I S LAT I V E D I R ECTOR

February was the bill introduc-

tion deadline in California, and

a significantly lower number of

bills have been introduced by

Legislators in this session than

in the past. The number of plastic

specific bills has also gone down.

BUT that doesn’t mean that bills

will be amended in the coming

session that could affect the

plastics industry. Bills can be

amended right up to the last

minute of the session and emerg-

ing issues could include Exten -

ded Producer Responsibility

(EPR), plastic marine debris,

product bans and others.

The Legislature is in session until

the end of September, and it is

an election year. So the politics

of Sacramento will be hot with

members running against each

other in June and November. The

plastic bag ban referendum is on

the November ballot, in addition

to millions of dollars in spending

proposals and other policy

initiatives.

Below are the bills that we have

identified in this first round of bill

screening. I will be watching for

amendments and new bills that

could affect WPA members. •

THE BAG BANRE F E R ENDUM I S ON THE NOVEMBER BA L LOT. WPA BILL WATCH L IST

AB 1683 (Eggman D) Alternative energy financing.

Introduced: 1/20/2016 Location: 2/8/2016-A. REV. & TAX

Summary : Would prohibit the sales and use tax exclusions from exceeding $200,000,000 for each calen-

dar year. By increasing the limit on the sales and use tax exclusion, this bill would include a change in

state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article

XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the mem-

bership of each house of the Legislature. The bill would specify that if less than $200,000,000 is granted

in a calendar year, the unallocated amount may roll over to the following calendar year.

AB 1826 (Stone, Mark D) Organic food products.

Introduced: 2/8/2016 Location: 2/8/2016-A. PRINT

Summary : Current law requires the Secretary of Food and Agriculture and county agricultural commis-

sioners, under the direction of the secretary, to enforce regulations adopted by the federal National

Organic Program (NOP) and the California Organic Products Act of 2003 applicable to any person selling

products as organic. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in that provision.

AB 2396 (McCarty D) Solid waste: annual reports.


Summary : Current law requires each state agency to submit an annual report to the Department of

Resources Recycling summarizing its progress in reducing solid waste that is due on or before May 1

of each year. This bill would require each state agency to include in that annual report a summary of the

state agency's compliance with specified requirements relating to recycling commercial solid waste and

organic waste.

(Continued, see Watch List, page 40)

Laurie Hansen, Executive and Legislative Director forWestern Plastics Association

40


AB 2409 (Wagner R) Water quality standards: trash: single-use carryout bags.


Summary : Would suspend the operation of certain amendments to water quality control plans relating to the total maximum daily load

for trash unless the provisions inoperative due to a pending referendum election become effective. This bill would require the state board

to revisit and revise water quality control plans to address impaired water quality due to trash if the law pending referendum is defeated

at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election. This bill contains other existing laws.

AB 2530 (Gordon D) Recycling: beverage containers.


Summary : Would, beginning January 1, 2018, require a manufacturer of a beverage sold in a plastic beverage container to clearly indicate

through labeling the average percentage of postconsumer recycled content in the beverage container, subject to certification by a 3rd party

certification entity, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 2576 (Gray D) Recycling: glass container manufacturers: market development payments.


Summary : Would appropriate $20,000,000 annually from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the Department of Resources Recycling

and Recovery for market development payments to glass container manufacturers in an unspecified amount per ton of state-generated cullet,

as defined, utilized for manufacturing in the state.

AB 2579 (Low D) California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.


Summary : Under current law, the Division of Recycling within the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery administers the

California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the Legislature’s findings

and declarations relating to the act.

AB 2812 (Gordon D) Solid waste: recycling: state agencies and large state facilities.


Summary : Would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, on or before July 1, 2017, to adopt requirements for adequate

receptacles and staffing for collecting and storing recyclable materials in state buildings and large state facilities. The bill would require a

state agency and large state facility, on or before July 1, 2018, consistent with those requirements, to provide receptacles for recyclable mate-

rials, provide staff, and establish a collection schedule for collecting recyclable materials.

SB 970 (Leyva D) Organic food waste diversion.

Introduced: 2/8/2016 Location: 2/18/2016-S. E.Q.

Summary : Current law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to cooperate with local jurisdictions and industry to

provide assistance for increasing the feasibility of organic waste recycling and to identify certain state financing mechanisms and state fund-

ing incentives and post this information on its Internet Web site. This bill would require, by June 1, 2017, the department, in consultation with

the State Air Resources Board and the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, to develop a pilot program that

encourages cost-effective and efficient integrated organic food waste diversion projects

(Continued, see Watch List, page 41)

WPA B I L L WATCH L I S T [CONT ’D ]

41


SB 1043 (Allen D) Renewable gas: biogas and biomethane.

Introduced: 2/12/2016 Location: 2/25/2016-S. E. U., & C.

Summary : Would require the State Air Resources Board to consider and adopt policies to significantly increase the sustainable production

and use of renewable gas, as defined, and, in so doing, would require the state board, among other things, to ensure the production and

use of renewable gas provides direct environmental benefits and identify barriers to the rapid development and use of renewable gas and

potential sources of funding.

SB 1167 (Leyva D) Employment safety: indoor workers: heat regulations.

Introduced: 2/18/2016 Location: 3/3/2016-S. L. & I.R.

Summary : The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health investigates complaints that

a workplace is not safe and may issue orders necessary to ensure employee safety. Under existing law, the division has adopted regulations

establishing a heat illness prevention standard for outdoor workers. This bill would require the division, by July 1, 2017, to propose to the

standards board for its adoption, a heat illness and injury prevention standard applicable to indoor workers that provides equal or greater

protection.

SB 1294 (Pavley D) The California Community Climate, Drought, and Jobs Resiliency Act.

Introduced: 2/19/2016 Location: 3/3/2016-S. N.R. & W.

Summary : Would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to award grants to local conservation corps certified by

the California Conservation Corps for projects that improve the climate and drought resiliency of urban canopies, community landscaping,

and urban greening efforts through the use of various water conservation methods, including the application of compost and mulch.

SB 1459 (Morrell R) Beverage container recycling: enforcement.

Introduced: 2/19/2016 Location: 2/19/2016-S. PRINT

Summary: Current law prohibits any person from paying, claiming, or receiving any refund value, processing payment, handling fee, or

administrative fee for imported beverage container material, previously redeemed containers, rejected containers, line breakage, or other

ineligible material. Current law also prohibits any person, with intent to defraud, from redeeming or attempting to redeem those containers

or materials, returning previously redeemed containers to the marketplace for redemption, or bringing those containers or materials to the

marketplace for redemption, as specified. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

WPA B I L L WATCH L I S T [CONT ’D ]

42


http://www.hubinternational.com/

43


M E M B E R N E W S :

SHIP & SHORE OFFERS ENERGYRECOVERY ASSESSMENTS Ship & Shore Environmental,

Inc., one of the world’s leading

pollution abatement service

providers, announced today that

will offer manufacturers Energy

Recovery Assessments with

recommended engineering

solutions to help sharpen their

competitive edge and save

money simultaneously.

The assessments involve gather-

ing data to measure each com-

pany’s current energy consump-

tion, process flow and utility

demands. Ship & Shore then

offers solutions and recommen-

dations for effective methods

to reduce energy consumption,

lower operating costs and assist

manufacturers with taking

advantage of any rebates or

incentive programs available.

“To date, we have addressed and

assisted clients in the plastics,

packaging, pharmaceutical, aero-

space, fiberglass and metal coat-

ing industries by giving them the

ability to take advantage of util-

ity rebate programs that you do

not typically find others offering

in our industry. These cash incen-

tives can offer serious ROI [up

to 50% of the project] to pay for

these energy-efficiency meas-

ures,” said Anoosheh Oskouian,

CEO of Ship & Shore Environ-

mental, Inc. “Further, we can

assist manufacturers who have

an urgent need to meet the new,

more stringent EPA guidelines,”

she added.

Ship & Shore’s (S&SE) profes-

sional staff custom designs

waste heat and energy recovery

systems capable of capturing hot

exhaust produced during various

manufacturing processes and

redirects it to other areas of

production to save and re-use

energy. Captured heat may be

used to preheat the incoming

volatile organic compound

(VOC)-laden air stream before

entering the combustion cham-

ber of oxidizer systems. Hot

exhaust can also be passed

through a waste heat boiler to

produce steam, hot water or a

hot oil economizer for other

process heating requirements,

saving wasted energy and opti-

mizing efficiency.

S&SE’s expertise offers a com-

plete source for environmental

and energy solutions, featuring

both quick ROI and the afore-

mentioned cash incentives—

adding to a company’s perform-

ance and profitability.

“Our offer of energy recovery as-

sessments can go a long way in

helping any company that has

fugitive VOC emissions waste

heat lost to the atmosphere,”

Oskouian says. “Without this

type of analysis, companies may

be allowing cost savings to slip

through their fingers, not to

mention fail to meet regulatory

emissions standards, etc.

To download the Proving Energy

Efficiency in Manufacturing

Whitepaper, click here.

ABOUT SHIP & SHORE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.Ship & Shore Environmental, Inc.

is a Long Beach, Calif.-based

woman-owned, certified busi-

ness specializing in air pollution

capture and control systems for

industrial applications. Ship &

Shore helps major manufacturers

meet Volatile Organic Com-

pounds (VOC) abatement chal-

lenges by providing customized

energy-efficient air pollution

abatement systems for various

industries, resulting in improved

operational efficiency and tai-

lored “green” solutions. Since

2000, Ship & Shore has been

prepared to handle and advise

on the full spectrum of environ-

mental needs with its complete

array of engineering and manu-

facturing capabilities and multi-

ple offices around the U.S.,

Canada, Europe and most re-

cently, China. With over 100

specialized professionals spread

throughout the world, the com-

pany is dedicated to designing

tailored solutions for its energy

clients. For more information,

visit www.shipandshore.com. •Reprinted from Ship & Shore

press release, February 16, 2016.

THESE CASH INCENT I V ESCAN OF F E R S E R IOUS RO I , U P TO 50% OFTHE P RO J ECT.

http://www.shipandshore.com/wp-content/uploads/Proving-Energy-Efficiency-In-Manufacturing-ROI.pdf

44



EREMA INTRODUCES PLASTICREGRINDPRO® MACHINERYIn order to secure the plastic

loop streams also for future gen-

erations, the amount of recycled

material in products has to be

increased significantly. The

importance of plastics as a sec-

ondary raw material is thus con-

tinuing to increase rapidly. To

enable recyclates to be used 1:1

as a substitute for virgin material

there are two crucial factors. On

the one hand, sufficient raw recy-

cling material has to be available

and, on the other hand, it has to

be possible to process this mate-

rial economically to make recy-

cled pellets with customised

property profiles. Thick-walled

regrind has enormous potential

in this respect as the input mate-

rial for recycling—sufficient

quantities are available and,

above all, they are clean sorted.

Reprocessing the recycled pellets

from regrind without any prob-

lems and ensuring the functional

properties of the end products

which are made from them, how-

ever, requires a specific recycling

process—one which conventional

systems on the market have so

far not been able to accomplish

with due thoroughness. EREMA

now has the solution for pre-

cisely this purpose: the new

INTAREMA® RegrindPro® plant

system is geared exactly to all

types of thick-walled regrind

material and, thanks to the

extremely gentle process and

highly efficient filtration, can

make application-optimised

recycled pellets from regrind.

Recycled pellets based on

regrind material are an excellent

alternative to virgin material for

plastics processors. Most of all

because of the fact that regrind

is easy to sort and separate and

is thus available as a clean sorted

input stream for the upstream

recycling process. Raw material

sources include thick-walled

packaging such as HDPE blow-

moulded bottles from the hygiene

and cosmetic sectors and also

thermoformed and injection-

moulded articles made of

polypropylene and polystyrene

such as closure caps, cups, fruit

containers and butter tubs.

Plastics from waste electrical

and electronic equipment (WEEE)

and products from the automo-

tive sector such as bumpers,

battery packs, engine piping, etc.

also have great potential in terms

of reutilisation. EU Directive

2012/19/EU on WEEE foresees

85% reutilisation as of 2019. This

corresponds to approx. 12 million

tonnes of WEEE per year includ-

ing approx. 2 million tonnes of

plastic (largely ABS, PS). Further-

more, the Directive ELV (2000/

53/EC) has stipulated since Janu-

ary 2015 that the recycling quota

for end-of-life vehicles shall be

at least 85% of the weight, and

these currently consist of 12 to

15% plastic.

Clemens Kitzberger, EREMA Busi-

ness Development Manager Post

Consumer, underlines the poten-

tial of polyolefin regrind with an

example from the USA: “In the

USA the post-consumer recycling

rate for the various bottle types

is only in the region of 30%. The

bottles are, however, easy to sort

—both for the consumers and for

machines—and compared to

film, regrind has a higher bulk

density of 200-600 kg/m and is

free-flowing. Both properties

contribute to the washing and

sorting processes working better

and the material thus being avail-

able in a more clean-sorted form.

This has huge potential in terms

of the recycled pellets produced

coming very close to virgin

material—similar to PET bottle

recycling.”

(Continued, see Erema, page 45)

THE MACH INE I S GEARED E XACT LY TO A L LT Y P ES OF TH ICK -WA L L ED R EGR IND MATE R I A L .

Fig 1. The new Regrind Pro®

45


The material streams are, there-

fore, available in sufficient quan-

tities for the use of recycled

regrind as a substitute for virgin

material and, compared to film,

they are also available in a more

clean-sorted form. Processors

are, however, also interested in

the rheological properties of

these recyclates allowing trou-

ble-free subsequent processing

and the assurance of the func-

tional characteristics of their end

products. Besides the mechani-

cal aspects, above all surface

quality, dyeability and smell are

decisive quality factors. This

places particularly high require-

ments on the recycling process

which commercially available

systems have not always been

able to meet so far.

Challenge: regrind recycling

Due to its high bulk density (200-

600 kg/m) and the fact that it is

free-flowing, regrind is, as a rule,

easy to dose in an extrusion sys-

tem and requires no additional

compacting and size reduction.

The challenge, however, lies

particularly in melting the thick-

walled regrind particles in a

gentle way, as they require more

time to heat through and melt

compared to thin films. With con-

ventional treatment systems the

regrind is dosed into the single

or twin screw extruder via a hop-

per system. A longer processing

unit is thus required to melt

the cold regrind particles. This

increases the residence time in

the extruder and the melting

process takes place under high

shear stress. The polymer struc-

ture is destroyed in parts because

of this, which has a negative

impact on the mechanical proper-

ties of the end products. Addi-

tionally, the impurities appearing

in the regrind material are also

reduced in size through the

impacting shear forces and filtra-

tion efficiency is decreased dras-

tically as a result. Compared to

the single screw systems, this

effect is increased with the

co-rotating twin-screw extruder

through up to three times poorer

filtration fineness due to the low

pressure build-up. The cold-fed

single screw systems lack the

flexibility to handle the various

regrind types such as HDPE and

PP with the same quality require-

ments economically on one

system. Additionally, moisture

contents of up to 8% mean that

energy-consuming pre-drying is

necessary on both systems.

The specific treatment process

in the recycling of thick-walled

input material thus has to be

designed to be able to work with

different types of regrind (PP, PE,

PS, ABS, etc.), with a wide variety

of bulk densities and moisture

contents, plus strongly varying

contaminants such as impurities

like rubber, silicone and soft con-

taminants like wood and paper,

plus foreign polymers like PET

and PA. These contaminants

have to be removed effectively

because more and more material

is being saved in wall thicknesses

also in the production of e.g. bot-

tles and pipes, and the end prod-

ucts are thus more sensitive to

defects through contaminants.

The statistics from the USA in Fig.

4 show the end products which

are made from HDPE bottle re-

grind. Non-food bottles account

for the largest part with 38%,

followed by 28% in the piping

sector and 5-7% in automotive

applications and films. In these

end applications it is not only the

mechanical properties, smell and

dyeability but also and in particu-

lar the surface quality which is an

essential criterion. This, however,

can be achieved only if the recy-

cled pellets used for this purpose

have been filtered extremely effi-

ciently in the upstream recycling

process. The value added increases

additionally, as the recycled pellet

amount in the finished product


E R EMA INT RODUCES R EGR INDPRO® [CONT ’D ]

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

46



can also be raised up to 100%

as a result.

Clemens Kitzberger sums up:

“Processors who use recycled

pellets from regrind have to be

able to rely on their end products

having premium surface quality

and that their mechanical proper-

ties likewise stay top class. In

order to be able to recycle in line

with these criteria the recycling

extruder has to be filled with

thoroughly warmed regrind parti-

cles to ensure first of all excep-

tionally gentle processing and,

secondly, high-performance fil-

tration. And these are precisely

the two key functions of our

innovative RegrindPro® tech-

nology.”

RegrindPro® technology

What makes RegrindPro® so

special is that unlike other

systems the regrind material is

heated through already prior to

extrusion which increases both

flexibility in material selection

and filtration efficiency as a

result. This is handled by the

preconditioning unit which is

optimised for the regrind and in

which the material is processed

in an extremely gentle way by

means of a rotor disc with a

special tool setup (see Fig. 5).

Thanks to the slow turning of this

rotor disc the thick-walled, moist

particles are efficiently dried and

degassed with a high filling level

and thus longer residence time.

Long residence times in the pre-

conditioning unit are important

so the regrind is not only dried

but also so it has enough time

to be warmed thoroughly and

homogeneously. An additional

benefit of the longer residence

time is that powder additives

such as CaCO3 can be admixed

in amounts up to 20% and,

above all, be distributed well.

After the preconditioning unit the

dried, degassed and thoroughly

warmed material is dosed into

the directly connected extruder

and melted in the short universal

screw with minimum shear

stress. EREMA’s Counter Current

technology offers a further bene-

fit here, which is crucial espe-

cially in terms of free-flowing

materials such as regrind. This

is made possible by the screw

being filled virtually pressure-

free and the fact that it only

takes as much as is required at

any one time. Furthermore, the

melting process with minimum

shear stress increases the clean-

ing efficiency of the melt filter

as the size of organic or mineral

solid matter is not reduced. This

means that even contaminants

such as wood and paper can be

optimally filtered because, thanks

to the gentle process, the fibres

do not separate and they remain

large enough to be discharged

at the filter.

Through the combination of the

optimised preconditioning unit

with a new, particularly gentle

universal screw, RegrindPro®

additionally offers you a remark-

ably high degree of flexibility in

the choice of materials, which

enables multipurpose regrind

processing. This allows you,

for example, to process regrind

despite varying melting points

and energy contents, as in the

case of HDPE and PP, using the

same system with full output and

in a gentle way.

Once the material has been

melted the melt passes through

the recently enhanced EREMA

Laserfilter. Thanks to the redesign

of the scraper geometry and

discharge system, contaminants

are removed even more quickly

which reduces fine particles and

results in even better filtration

performance. Clemens Kitzberger

recommends the RegrindPro®

package with EREMA Laserfilter

especially in the post-consumer

sector: “Thanks to the optimised

scraper geometry in the Laserfil-

ter, rubber-like, non-melting con-

taminants such as silicones and

linked polymers are removed

quickly and continuously from

the screen and thus filtered

even more effectively.” Clemens

Kitzberger explains further:

“Additionally, the principle of

EREMA’s patented TVEplus®

technology also comes into

effect: melt filtration prior to

homogenising and degassing.

This removes any impurities from


Fig. 5

47



the system before they can out-

gas and prevents the formation

of undesired smells.”

The RegrindPro® configuration

can also be combined with

EREMA’s recycling and com-

pounding technology COREMA®.

A way of producing customised

compounds directly in a single

step on the basis of regrind.

Comparison test confirms

efficiency lead of RegrindPro®

Fig. 6 compares the filtration effi-

ciency of conventional single and

twin screw systems with the new

RegrindPro® system. Natural PP

regrind from the same batch was

used as input material on all sys-

tems and the respective recycled

pellets were then processed to

make sample films on an OCS

film plant in the analysis labora-

tory at EREMA. The defects in the

films are detected automatically

in the process and then cate-

gorised according to size and the

area of nonconformity is shown

in cumulative form. With this

sensitive testing method any

impurities remaining in the recy-

cled pellets are made visible and

can thus be evaluated in terms of

both quality and quantity. A large

number of nonconformities

caused by impurities in the test

film also has a negative impact

on the subsequent processing

of these recycled pellets and

leads to mechanical and optical

defects in the end products. The

comparison in Fig. 6 documents

the respective defect analysis for

the test films produced from the

different recycled pellets and

shows the cumulative defect area

share as a function of the defect

size. In contrast to the other

technologies the curve for

RegrindPro® already begins to

flatten at nonconforming sizes of

400-450 μm and stays at a con-

stant nonconforming area share

of approx. 300 ppm. With the

cold-input single and twin screw

systems tested, however, the

curve rises and with it the non-

conforming area of the film

increases throughout the entire

area measured significantly to

over 1000 ppm. The comparison

shows that the recycled pellets

produced with RegrindPro® are

filtered much better and contain

significantly fewer and, above all,

fewer large impurities. This dif-

ference in quality is already visi-

ble to the naked eye when you

see the film sample. And it is pre-

cisely this difference in quality

which has an effect on surface

quality in subsequent processing

of the recycled pellets to make

e.g. piping.

Concrete cus-

tomer applica-

tion: optimum

pipe surface

despite silicone

impurities

The efficiency of

RegrindPro® has

been confirmed

by EREMA in col-

laboration with

a pipe producer.

This customer

has its own recy-

cling department

where it uses

post-consumer

bale material consisting of HDPE

shampoo bottles to make

washed regrind which it then

processes to produce recycled

pellets for use in the pipe pro-

duction process. EREMA has now

been able to set completely new

standards for this application

with RegrindPro® in combination

with the Laserfilter:

The silicones and linked poly-

mers of the seals of the screw

tops and spray nozzles of the

bottles are a key issue in the pro-

cessing of this regrind. These

cannot be removed completely

when washing, do not melt and

thus have to be filtered out dur-

ing extrusion otherwise they

cause holes in the pipe surface

when the pellets are reprocessed.

Silicones, for example, are diffi-

cult to filtrate as they behave like

rubber, become long and thin at

the filter and pass through the fil-

ter holes. This is the reason why

it is necessary to keep these

impurities as large as possible

up to filtration so they can be fil-

tered. This is ensured by Regrind-

Pro® through the gentle melting

of the regrind which has already

been preheated. Thanks to the

minimum of shear forces the sili-

cone particles stay large enough

inside the extruder and can thus

be removed even more efficiently

by the EREMA Laserfilter. Any

particles which may be left in

the melt are homogenised inten-

sively downstream of the Laser-

filter in accordance with the TVE

plus® principle. This is because

the smaller the remaining sili-

cone is and the finer it is distrib-

uted, the lower the impact on

the reprocessing of the recycled

pellets.

In order to be able to compare

the material quality of the

recycled pellets which are pro-

duced with the customer's exist-

ing twin screw extrusion system

and with Regrind Pro®, EREMA

carried out a control test. Both

recycled pellet batches were

processed on the OCS film unit

into 60 μm test films in the

EREMA analysis laboratory which

were then analysed with regard

to their respective particle size.

Fig. 7 shows that the test films


Fig. 7

Fig. 6

48



made from the recycled pellets

produced with RegrindPro® have

significantly fewer and above all

considerably smaller residual

impurities. Analogous to the film

control test the surface qualities

of the pipes produced using the

respective recycled pellets were

also compared. Here too it can

be seen as on Fig. 7 that the

surface quality of the pipes made

from recycled pellets produced

with RegrindPro® is considerably

better.

The second key issue is the flexi-

bility in the choice of material.

Previously the customer had

been able to process only very

thick-walled regrind with up to

max. 1% moisture with the twin

screw extruder used. As, there-

fore, the twin screw extrusion

system used in the past was only

able to handle input material

with a high bulk density from 200

kg/m the light fractions present

in the bales—such as the thin-

walled plastic residues from the

bottle labels—had to be sepa-

rated in the washing plant. With

the RegrindPro® system you can

now process materials with a

bulk density range from 30 to

800 kg/m. With this remarkably

high degree of flexibility in the

choice of material the customer

can also process these thin film

scraps—i.e. the entire bale mate-

rial now—in-house with the new

RegrindPro®.

Summary

To take full advantage of the

potential of recycled regrind as

an alternative to virgin material

a specific treatment process is

required. With the new product

INTAREMA® RegrindPro®

EREMA has succeeded in devel-

oping a plant system which is

designed exactly for these thick-

walled materials. In short,

RegrindPro® offers a number

of benefits which enable you to

process regrind to make applica-

tion-optimised recycled pellets

and make end products with a

recycling rate of up to 100%.

• The thick-walled regrind parti-

cles are heated through homoge-

neously in the EREMA precon -

ditioning unit and prepared for

extrusion.

• The melting procedure for the

thoroughly warmed regrind parti-

cles in the extruder is gentle and

takes place with minimum shear

impact. This prevents any size re-

duction of the contaminants prior

to filtration and enhances filtra-

tion efficiency.

• The thorough warming of the

regrind also enables the process-

ing of polymers with different

melting points and energy con-

tents—without screw change

but with high throughput at the

same time.

• The EREMA preconditioning

unit enables the processing of

materials with a broad bulk den-

sity spectrum of 30 to 800 g/l

and an input moisture of up to

8%. Furthermore it is possible to

admix additives in pellet form

and up to 20% in powder form.

• The RegrindPro® package

can be used on all INTAREMA®

systems (T, TE, TVEplus®) and

COREMA®. •Reprinted from EREMA press

release.

SAV E T H E DAT E : WPA Annual Conference

JUNE 21 — 23, 2016N E W P O RT B E A C H H YAT T R E G E N CY

Te c h n i c a l I s s u e s | Po l i c y I s s u e s

49



INNOVATION TAKES ROOT—INGEO USERS’ FORUMNatureWorks announced today

the fifth biennial Innovation

Takes Root Ingeo™ biopolymer

users’ forum will be held March

30 to April 1, 2016, at the Orlando

World Center Marriott, in

Orlando, Fla.

Innovation Takes Root—The

Second Decade emphasizes the

Ingeo journey since world scale

production was achieved in 2005

and provides a unique perspec-

tive on what is in store for 2016

and beyond through the eyes of

the Ingeo “user group”— Ingeo

channel partners and the market.

The forum will illustrate the lat-

est developments in the market

based on new product introduc-

tions and developments in

applications, processing, and

converting, amidst a broader

context on what is happening

around the world from a policy,

legislative, and societal

perspective.

A key feature of the forum will be

presentations on complementary

technology in fibers, packaging,

and durable products that have

led to the development of inno-

vative, high performance prod-

ucts and systems that do not

compromise the environmental

benefits of Ingeo. Parallel tracks

highlighting the use of Ingeo in

graphics and printing systems,

personal care, sustainable pack-

aging, and compostable food

serviceware are planned for the

main program session. The daily

program in 2016 will feature

breakout sessions, networking

events, and an exhibition of

products and services from

supply chain partners.

The 2014 forum featured speak-

ers from such organizations as

Danone, IBM, Kimberly-Clark,

Kodak, PepsiCo, Stratasys,

Unilever, and the Green Sports

Alliance. In all there were more

than 50 speakers and panelists.

That year’s forum drew more

than 300 attendees from 25

countries, and more than 200

companies were represented.

Discounted early bird registration

will begin this fall with online

registration available. The Inno-

vation Takes Rootwebsite is

updated on a continuing basis.

NatureWorks welcomes inter-

ested parties to submit speaking

topics for consideration to the

Program Committee. Please sub-

mit these ideas to Jim Nangeroni,

Program Co-Chair ITR 2016. Past

programs, news stories on Inno-

vation Takes Root and video from

past conferences are also avail-

able on the site. Follow Nature-

Works on Twitter (@natureworks)

for the latest updates #ITR2016.

For more information about

NatureWorks and Ingeo, visit

www.natureworksllc.com.

ABOUT NATUREWORKSNatureWorks LLC is a company

dedicated to meeting the world’s

needs today without compromis-

ing the earth’s ability to meet the

needs of tomorrow. Today,

NatureWorks is a world leading

biopolymers supplier and innova-

tor with its Ingeo portfolio of nat-

urally advanced materials made

from renewable, abundant feed-

stocks with performance and

economics that compete with

oil-based intermediates, plastics,

and fibers, and provide brand

owners new cradle-to-cradle

options after the use of their

products. NatureWorks is jointly

owned by Thailand’s largest

chemical producer, PTT Global

Chemical, and Cargill, which pro-

vides food, agriculture, financial

and industrial products and serv-

ices to the world. For general

information on NatureWorks

and Ingeo, visitwww.naturework-

sllc.com. •Reprinted from NatureWorks

press release.

IN T E RNAT IONA LINGEO USE RS ’FORUM: MARCH30 – A P R I L 1 IN OR LANDO.

http://www.natureworksllc.com/

50



SAFETY CAN SAVE A L IFE ANDPREVENT AGAINST SERIOUS VIOLATIONSBY J E F F R EY C . T E R RY, HUB INTE RNAT IONA L

Sadly, 4,679 workers died on

the job in 2014 according to the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA).

“No one should have to sacrifice

their life for their livelihood,

because a nation built on the

dignity of work must provide

safe working conditions for

its people.”

~Sec. of Labor Thomas E. Perez

If you have ever visited the OSHA

web site (www.osha.gov) it is a

tragic and humbling sight to view

the front page ticker scroll across

and show the names of U.S.

workers who have been killed

while on the job. How many of

those lives could have been

saved if safety practices at the

companies where these employ-

ees worked or where employees

worked that contributed to the

loss of life were functioning at

the highest possible level?

The plastics industry is not

absolved from hazards in the

workplace, nor is the industry

free of unsafe acts by workers

and others. Effective safety lead-

ership and comprehensive safety

practices will mitigate against

loss - loss of human life and

limb, and loss of assets and

operations.

In support of governing work-

place safety, OSHA was enacted

in 1970 to assist in the reduction

of workplace fatalities and dis-

abling injuries. OSHA staffs thou-

sands of inspectors in the U.S.

to ensure that safe and healthy

working conditions are met for

the U.S. workforce.

OSHA diligently enforces such

standards through inspections

of workplace environments and

through investigation of work-

place accidents. As a conse-

quence of OSHA's enforcement,

Plastics companies are often

subject to fines and penalties for

improper care and duty in provid-

ing and documenting a safe and

healthy working environment.

Are plastics companies at risk?

In 2014, OSHA conducted 36,163

total inspections from its en-

forcement division. OSHA issued

67,941 total violations, of which

49,616 (73%) were classified as

Serious Violations.

Are penalties and citations

meaningful?

Citations and penalties that

OSHA issues can be crippling to

an organization. There have been

numerous penalties that have

reached into the millions of dol-

lars for an individual company. A

penalty for $100,000 and above

is very common.

Not only is a company responsi-

ble for payment or settlement of

the penalties, there are other

potential consequences to an

OSHA citation. Companies may

be evaluated unfavorably by a

current customer and be unable

to continue a business partner-

ship. Companies may not be

selected by a potential new

customer by the discovery of the

plastics company OSHA violation

in the due diligence process of

that potential new customer.

Further, OSHA is implementing

several changes to its adminis-

trative penalty calculation sys-

tem as the agency determined

that many of its current penalty

factors are often too low to have

an adequate deterrent effect on

unsafe businesses. Factors

include: history reduction, his-

tory increase, repeat violations,

severe violator, gravity-based

penalty, size reduction, good

faith, minimum penalties,

additional administrative mod-

ifications to the penalty calcula-

tion policy.

Safeguarding for an inspection

IDENTIFY YOUR RISKS

• Plastics companies have com-

mon safety exposures that exist

in most general industries, yet

there is also uniqueness in their

operations. Make sure you have

a clear understanding of your

exposures. Utilize safety check-

lists and inspection reports to

assist in identifying exposures.

Ask front-line employees and

supervisors to identify risks.

(Continued, see OSHA, page 51)

THE P LAS T ICS INDUST RY I SNOT ABSOLVEDF ROM HAZARDSIN THE WORK -P LACE .

51


Evaluate the controls you have in

place for these risks. Take correc-

tive action to address any defi-

ciencies that you may have.

REVIEW THE TOP 10 OSHA CITED

VIOLATIONS

• Evaluate your company’s expo-

sures and control over exposures

in the OSHA Top 10 list.

INSTITUTE PROPER RECORD-

KEEPING

• Ensure you have documented

and consistent record keeping of

safety training, accident investi-

gation, machinery/equipment/

automobile inspections, hazard

communication, material data

safety, job safety analysis.

• Be consistent in your record-

keeping process. Standardize the

process across departments and

locations within the organization

for continuity, keeping in mind

there may be nuances to opera-

tions and exposures, but the

recordkeeping should be consis-

tent, organized, and well docu-

mented.

BUILD A “LEARNING ORGANIZA-

TION” SAFETY CULTURE

• Building a "learning organiza-

tion" safety culture requires a

commitment from all levels of

the organization. By having every

employee immersed in the safety

and health of all individuals

throughout the organization,

your company not only reduces

its exposure to loss, it reduces its

exposure to penalties from an

OSHA inspection. Companies

that have a strong safety culture

typically fare much better if an

OSHA inspection occurs. A

“learning organization” safety

culture always endeavors to

learn from past history, looks to

share and embrace operational

excellence, and carries humility

and a thirst of knowledge in its

pursuit to always perform better.

• Consistent and thorough safety

training is the key. Responsibili-

ties should reside at all levels—

front line employees to supervi-

sors to management and execu-

tives. Everyone needs to partici-

pate and contribute for success

and sustainability. Pay close

attention to safety behavior as

well as the physical and opera-

tional exposures.

The impact of a catastrophic

workplace injury or fatality can

destroy a company as well as a

worker's family. By implementing

key safeguards and by engaging

safety and risk management pro-

fessionals, your Plastics organi-

zation can reduce its exposure to

loss and to compliance related

issues. Should an OSHA inspec-

tion occur, it is recommended to

consult with your safety profes-

sional and risk management con-

sultant as soon as practicable. •Reprinted from HUB International

press release.

TOP 10 MOST FREQUENTLYCITED OSHA STANDARDS

FISCAL 2015*

The following is a list of the top 10 most frequently cited standards* following inspections of worksites

by federal OSHA. OSHA publishes this list to alert employers about these commonly cited standards so

they can take steps to find and fix recognized hazards addressed in these and other standards before

OSHA shows up. Far too many preventable injuries and illnesses occur in the workplace.

1. Fall Protection

2. Hazard Communication

3. Scaffolding

4. Respiratory Protection

5. Lockout/Tagout

6. Powered Industrial Trucks

7. Ladders

8. Electrical, Wiring Methods

9. Machine Guarding

10. Electrical, General Requirements

*For Oct 1, 2014, to Sep 30, 2015. As of 01/05/16.

OSHA SAF E TY V IO LAT IONS [CONT ’D ]


W PA L E A D E R S H I P F O R 2 0 1 5 :

OFFICERS JOHN P ICC IU TO , P R ES I D ENTH Mueh l s t e i n & Co .

K EV IN K E L LY, V ICE P R ES I D ENTEme r a l d P a c k ag i n g

M ICHAE L HA I L F INGER , T R EASURE RINX I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n k Co .

CHANDL E R HADRABA , S ECRE TARYB r ad l e y P a c k ag i n g S y s t em s

BOARD OF DIRECTORS BRUCE CART E R G r ea t Ame r i c a n P a c k ag i n gS T EVE DES PA IN R e i f e n ha u s e rHARA LD GOEP P E RT Hud s o n - S ha r p Mach i n e Compan yROGER HEWSON Windmoe l l e r & Hoe l s c h e rRANDY HOLMES He r i t a g e BagRAY HUFNAGE L P l a s t i c E x p r e s sDAV ID MCK INNEY I SO P o l y F i l m sANNET T E SAUDER/ JA R ED SAUDER L a y f i e l d G r o upROXANNE VAUGHAN Rop l a s t I n d u s t r i e s

WPA TODAY published by:

Western Plastics Association1107 9th Street, Suite 930Sacramento, CA 95814

916.930.1938 [email protected]

Editor: Laurie Hansen

Disclaimer: Western Plastics Association (WPA) does not endorse or recommend other than those officially endorsed byWPA, any individual or companythat we mention in this newsletter.Any business conducted is between the member and the individual or company. Any state-ments made in this newsletter arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views ofWPA or its Board of Directors.

©2016 Western Plastics Association

Documents

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS ASSOCIATIONwesternplastics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WPAtoday_march201… · MARCH 2016 THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS ASSOCIATION