Blog

Good afternoon world!

I am SoOoOoOoOoOoOoOooooooOoOO EXCITED!

Why, you ask?

Because…I have a new Sustainability Initiative to oversea at Dordan. And you, my diligent blog followers, are the first to know!

Dordan Manufacturing Company Incorporated is proud to announce its goal of becoming a zero waste facility!

We will begin to approach this goal by purchasing a composter for the food and yard waste generated by Dordan’s employees and facility…

We will then use this compost to nourish our “Victory Garden,” which will produce organics for local charities, community events, and ME (maybe I will share with other employees if I’m feeling generous…)! Just joshing; I’m happy to spread the joy!

Because Dordan sits on a nice piece of earth and because everyone likes gardens and fresh veggies, we thought that this would be a great place to do well by our community and our environment. I don’t know why but I am positively tickled pink that I got the green light to pursue this initiative.

And how funny... picture us, at Dordan’s booth at Pack Expo, giving out fresh produce to passer buyers (no pun intended)...

A Dordan rep says, “You want a green package? How about some organics grown from our garden fertilized by our own organic waste! BOO YA greenwashers!”

A little spicy, yes, but still, it tells a nice story. And I think the value in all of this is being able to develop a brand and tell a story that will resonate with consumers looking to do well by themselves and the environment. Cool beans!

Granted a goal of zero-waste is an almost impossible goal to attain, it does give us something to work towards… AND, I have spent most of my time at Dordan creating a pro-plastics argument in the context of sustainability and packaging, which is all fine and good and someone needs to do it, but it doesn’t really set us apart from our competition, that is, other Midwestern thin-gauge custom thermoformers.

SO that is when we thought the idea of zero waste was a good one. I don’t know why I get so surprised when sometimes, good works=good business; I guess they aren’t mutually exclusive…who da thunk?

I’ll be honest—I was feeling a little without direction as my work with the Canadian retailer is moving along slowly…very slowly. I think I was just so super excited to be managing a Committee that wanted to recycle thermoforms like me that I kind of lost site of the reality of the situation, which is, that this is business. Granted people do care about the environment and recycling, but often times, said sympathy is catalyzed by business interest. In the case of recycling thermoforms, everyone wants to do it, but no one is ready to step up and take responsibility or the risk. I do know that a lot of people want the post-consumer material and that the demand will continue to rise, especially if retailers start “suggesting” a percentage of post consumer content in packaging sold; what I don’t know, however, is if the economics will support the recycling of thermoforms in the States…ever.

I’ll keep you posted on my work with my clamshell recycling initiatives. Right now, as directed by my co-lead for the Committee, I am shelving my work until the communication of the Committee is better managed for easy correspondence.

BUT, what that does mean, is now I will be blogging about my work on recycling clamshells and our day-by-day attempts to become a zero-waste facility. Oh boy!

Have a splendid afternoon!

Greetings and Happy Friday!

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

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

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

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

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

And enter Earthster.

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

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

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

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

Not so simply, but you get the idea.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

Thanks for your time.

Chandler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey,

I hope this email finds you well.

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

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

Thanks for your time.

Chandler

And his response:

Hi,

See below.

Hey,

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

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

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

Groovy…

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time.

Chandler Slavin

And her response:

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

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

Hmmmmmm…

I replied the following:

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

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

And her response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote,

Hello there!

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

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

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

Thanks buddy!

And his response:

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

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

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

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

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

How’d I do?? Make any sense???

You did wonderful, Robert, thanks!

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

Tootles!

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

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



I’m so proud!

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

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

Greetings my friend!

Hello!

How goes it?

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

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

Thanks my lady!

Best,

Chandler

And several hours later, I received the following response:

Chandler ,

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

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

Have a good weekend!!

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

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

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

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

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

To: cslavin@dordan.com

Subject: CA Product Stewardship Bills: Legislative Update

CalRecycle Extended Producer Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

-The CalRecycle EPR Team

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

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

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

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

Hello world!

So Canada is awesome. Toronto has the most amazing waste management system EVER. Check it:

You have to pay depending on the size of your garbage can; the bigger the can, the more you pay.

The result: tiny garbage cans and huge recycling bins.

Monetary incentive facilitating public action? I think so!

AND they have a bin for organic waste.

AND they provide bags for “electronic waste.”

So, unlike me, who, upon discovering a facility in the far South side of Chicago accepted electronic waste, drove around and around trying to locate said facility, local Torontonians simply place their e-waste in the wonderfully provided designated bag. What a life!

So yeah, it was really cool to see how waste is managed in Canada, which has some EPR legislation in place. I don’t know who is making money, if any, off the system (usually costs municipalities money to recycle), but something is definitely working right…

Here is what I learned; get excited!

It is in fact very possible to recycle PET thermoforms and bottles TOGETHER!!!!! So, all those who articulated reasons why the two packaging types were incompatible for remanufacturing together (i.e. different IVs, melting temps, molecular length, etc.) were misinformed! Hurray! And the clamshell recycling initiative rises from its grave!

This is positively wonderful news. If we can recycle PET thermoforms with PET bottles, than the value of the recyclate will remain higher than if PET thermoforms were recycled with other plastic materials, thereby constituting a low-grade plastic mix. From what I understand, bottle-grade PET is the highest grade, or enjoys the most inherent value. If PET thermoforms are made out of bottle-grade PET like ours are (supplier-certified 100% PCR PET), then they TOTALLY can be baled with PET bottles and sold together for remanufacturing into any of the following: new RPET bottles (more expensive reprocessing, need to clean resin for FDA-certified food compliance), new RPET thermoforms, any polyester-based fiber application, plastic strapping, and a TON of other products.

AND I spoke with a gentleman that runs a MRF and he concluded that they do collect and bale PET bottles and PET thermoforms together for market. AWSOME.

I wonder how much of these mixed PET bales are generated…

I wonder what the specs of the mixed bales are…

However, a working industry group recently conducted a pilot to test the integrity of these mixed bottle and thermoform bales and concluded that the adhesives used on labels on PET thermoforms compromised the recycled material. While I am a little hazy on the details, it was reported that the recycled material was unacceptable for market because of the adhesives, which are considered a “contaminant” to the overall integrity of the recyclate. Soooooooo I guess what this means is that:

1. PET bottles and clamshells can be recycled together; yippee!
2. Packaging suppliers need to begin to design thermoform PET packaging “for recycling.” While the APR has guidelines for designing bottles for recycling, no guidelines exist for designing thermoforms for recycling. Such guidelines could suggest things like:

• The adhesive used for binding labels and other marketing information to PET thermoforms needs to be X or can’t be Y or something to that effect.

I am looking forward to learning more about the results of this pilot; it is just so cool that people are interested in this, too. And here I thought I was all alone…

After speaking with another gentleman who knew a thing or two about a thing or two, I understand the current climate of recycling in North America to be as follows:

There is a HUGE demand for PET recyclate from bottlers, brand owners, and CPGs; however, there is not enough SUPPLY due to limited collection. This supply and demand disproportion can be solved, perhaps, by implementing the following actions:

• Implement bottle deposit programs/legislation—this would provide consumers with an economic incentive to recycle their PET bottles.
• Incorporate PET thermoform packages into the PET bottle recycling infrastructure. I like this one.
• Limit the amount of PET bales that are exported each year.

The ACC estimates that 400 million pounds of a particular plastic needs to be generated in order for the recycling of it to be profitable. According to Plasticstoday.com, 1.4 billion lbs of PET thermoforms were generated in North America in 2008. This implies that PET thermoform bales could constitute a recycling steam all on their own, without piggy-backing on PET bottles. However, perhaps it’s easier to integrate them into the existing PET bottle recycling infrastructure than create a new stream of PCR PET, thermoform grade? Now I just don’t know…

Tomorrow is my birthday and this Saturday is my sister’s wedding! Therefore, I will be unbloggable until early next week. But stay tuned, there is a ton of interesting stuff I need to report to you!

Hello world!

I leave tomorrow for Canada to work with a retailer in hopes of facilitating their goal of zero waste for PET packaging post-consumer. And guess what: We are meeting at a company that supposedly buys PET bottles and thermos post-consumer and converts them into new packaging!!! Cool beans!

Therefore, all the questions I had about “Company X” (May 24^th post), I can now ask this company!!!

Wish me luck!

Happy Monday Funday!!!

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

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

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

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

June 11, 2010, Chandler Slavin wrote:

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

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

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

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

Mahahahahahahhahaha. See you tomorrow!

Happy Friday! This Saturday is my sister’s bachelorette party at Cuvee in Chicago, which is a super posh champagne lounge. I will let you know if I see any celebrities!

So I FINALLY finished my work on PET recycling for a Canadian retailer, which is good, as I leave on Tuesday!

Check it out! It’s sort of a lot, and it’s really detailed, so sorry if I bore you! Oh, and it’s broken into a couple different sections:

1. Summary of a super huge document titled, “Best Practices and Industry Standards in PET Recycling.”
2. Supply and demand of PET bottles post consumer, North American context.
3. Supply and demand of PET thermoforms post consumer, North American context.
4. Interview with StewardEdge and Stewardship Ontario’s Plastics Market Developer.
5. Case studies of PET recycling, bottle to bottle, bottle to thermo, and thermo to bottle.

Seriously, this is the post of all posts! And when I copied and pasted my report into the Blog software, it messed up my outline--sorry!

Greetings world!

So today I got a little sidetracked. I stumbled on the following article on greenerpackage.com:

Paper media packaging for Kodak licensee removes 98% of plastic

KMG Digital, the exclusive worldwide distributor of licensed KODAK Media Products, including CDs, DVDs, VHS, and more, has introduced Eco-Friendly optical media packaging that is said to remove more than 98% of all plastic packaging components from the consumer waste stream. KMG Digital is launching 10 new Kodak-branded Eco-Friendly packs. The packaging is made of paper and includes 100%-recyclable storage containers that do not include PP or PS plastics. To further expand on this green initiative, KMG Digital has also reduced the environmental footprint of its optical media packaging for Kodak-branded recordable CDs and DVDs by using soy-based inks for package printing.

According to Mike Golacinski, KMG Digital President and CEO, "Many competitive products are boasting about reduction of plastics while not addressing the fundamental issue, which is to eliminate plastic packaging that produces greenhouse gases and clogs our landfills. We've found a way to bring environmentally sustainable packaging to the category in a cost-efficient manner."

Says Brad Yeager, director of marketing, "Paper and cardboard are the most efficient materials to recycle. Plastics are one of the least efficient due to sorting, overseas transportation, and re-melting. Many municipalities do not have the ability to recycle all the different types of plastic. Approximately 1,400 tons of polystyrene are deposited into landfills every day. KMG Digital wants to do our part to decrease waste."

Wait a second…

“Many competitive products are boasting about reduction of plastics while not addressing the fundamental issue, which is to ELIMINATE PLASTIC PACKAGING THAT PRODUCES GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLOGS OUR LANDFILLS.”

What the douce?

Granted I am a little defensive of plastic packaging because it’s my life-blood and granted there are some problems with our industry’s current approaches to disposing of plastic packaging, this statement makes me sad; it is totally misinformed!

Because I got into a bit of trouble months ago when I ruffled some industry-folks’ tail feathers due to my aggressive response to a similarily constructed anti-plastics article (see http://www.greenerpackage.com/source_reduction/kodak_opts_paperboard_package_over_clamshell_digital_camera),? I chose to send the CEO of KMG Digital a letter, instead of calling him out in a public forum, which apparently, is no bueno.

Here’s my letter; I hope its not pretentious or annoying!

Dear Mr. Michael Golacinski,

My name is Chandler Slavin and I am the Sustainability Coordinator at Dordan Manufacturing, which is a national manufacturer of custom designed plastic packaging. I just read an article on greenerpackage.com that discusses KMG Digital’s 10 new Kodak-branded Eco-friendly packs, which are made primarily from paper. In this article written by Anne Marie Mohan, you are quoted saying, “Many competitive products are boasting about reduction of plastics while not addressing the fundamental issue, which is to eliminate plastic packaging that produces greenhouse gases and clogs our landfills.”

While initially I wanted to post a response to you on the greenerpackage.com website, I chose to contact you directly because I did not want to call you out in a public forum and make you uncomfortable. Additionally, as the CEO of KMG Digital, you are an important mouthpiece of the company and industry and therefore I wanted to educate you about sustainability and packaging so as to keep you from making misinformed comments in the future. That being said, shall we analyze the above statement, highlighted in bold?

First, your assumption that plastic packaging produces greenhouse gases is misplaced: Almost every product and service produces GHG equivalents during production and throughout its life cycle; however, when compared with paper production in the U.S., plastic production releases less GHG equivalents. According to the most recent Toxics Release Inventory data released by the U.S. E.P.A., pulp and paper production in 1996 generated 1,599,797,509 lbs of production-related waste i.e. Air emissions, water discharges, landfilling, etc. Please see the enclosed document titled, The Facts for more information on the GHG equivalents generated in paper production vs. plastic production.

Second, your assumption that plastic packaging “clogs our landfills” is also misinformed: According to the Container and Packaging Municipal Solid Waste data released by the U.S. E.P.A. in 2007, 52% of landfills are comprised of paper products. In addition, in the MSW report released in 2008, “paper packaging/other paper packaging” has no recovery data, which implies that paper packaging does not often get recycled, contrary to popular belief. I have included a print out of this data from the E.P.A., for your information.

Please see the enclosed documents for more information about the sustainability of paper versus plastic in the context of packaging material procurement.

Regardless of my spicy comments, I really appreciate your attempts to do good by the environmet via changing your products’ packaging. I understand that packaging plays a very vocal role in communicating the values of a brand to the consumer and that “being green” is an important value to convey. While there is a lot of confusion surrounding the sustainability of plastic packaging, I am confident that the science will catch up, the dialogues will evolve, and packaging professionals will begin making more informed packaging decisions based on sound science and not marketing claims.

Thank you for this oppurtunity to initiate a dialogue about sustainability and packaging. Please let me know if there is anything I can help you with going forward. Additionally, all of my research is available for free on our website, www.dordan.com. Check it out!

Best Wishes,

Chandler Slavin

While I am waiting for approval from my Superior to mail this letter along with some EPA data and The Facts, which makes an argument for plastic over paper in the context of sustainability (you can download The Facts at: http://www.dordan.com/sustainability_the_facts.shtml), I thought I would share it with you, my packaging and sustainability friends!

This sort of stuff drives me crazy! Being a super nerd, I dislike when anyone makes a claim that is based on assumption, rather than knowledge. Hopefully this gentleman will not be offended by this—the plastic propaganda must end, in my opinion, if we are ever going to engage in a serious and honest discussion about the environment and packaging.

Poo!

Tune in tomorrow for more exciting tid bits. And congratulations: It has been 44 days since the Gulf spill. Do you ever feel like the world is ending? Not to be mellow dramatic but seriously—we are all touting reducing emissions by some percent and here FUEL IS SPILLING INTO THE OCEAN AT AN INSANE FREQUENCY AND NO ONE WANTS TO PAY TO CLEAN IT UP. It sort of makes my job seem silly because everyone is obsessed that plastic comes from fossil fuel when obviously, said fossil fuel isn’t valuable enough to try and save...weird bears.

Tootles!