Blog

Hello!

It has been raining in Chicago for almost a week and it is forecast to rain throughout the weekend, too. UGGGG. I hope you are all reading this from much more attractive climates.

I am about a third of the way through “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things,” and boy is it a downer, though an extremely thought-provoking one at that! I know the book is a bit dated (published in 2002), but I find it extremely relevant to today’s “sustainability” discussions. That which I enjoy so much about authors McDonough’s and Braungart’s treatment of how humans interact with their natural environment is the way they contextualize everything—from the way we design cities to packaging—in regards to the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, and the prevailing social systems of the times in which these concepts took root in the social imagination of the masses. They not only intertwine history (the replacement of guilds and craftsmen with the mass migration into cities due to the demand for increased production resulting from a variety of technology innovations), but philosophy, politics, art, religion, etc. into their discussion of how humans have come to understand our natural environmental and our place therein. They basically argue that we need to dramatically redefine the way we design things to replicate those designs found in nature: instead of using the earth’s resources to fuel economies, designs should engage in mutually beneficial relationships with the resources inherent in the specific system in which they exist to create systems of sustainment. Think of the way the sun is a “free” feedstock that is responsible for the sustainment of all life on this planet. Plants consume this resource, which is infinite and results in no negative environmental emissions to the environment, and the circle of life begins…whenever I say the circle of life I instantly think of the Lion King.

Wow, that was quite the tangent! Anyway, I encourage everyone to read this book as it illuminates how a lot of the dialogue today around “packaging and sustainability” sort of misses the boats insofar as everything we have created—the systems of our sustainment—are themselves inherently unsustainable do to the way capitalism informs our understanding of our natural environment. What I am implying is that while baby steps towards sustainability are always encouraged (like switching from one packaging material to another due to lower GHG emissions per selling unit), they are but a drop in the gigantic bucket that is the inefficiencies of our current approach to production, distribution, and consumption. Bummer, right? But again, this is an argument, and as with all arguments, please take with a grain of salt.

I feel like I am in Environment and Society 101.

Today we will discuss the happenings of the Walmart SVN, which I attended in Rogers, Arkansas, on April 11th.

The Packaging SVN is comprised of one representative from each company that is involved directly, or indirectly, with the packaging sold at Walmart/Sam’s Club stores or the systems used to move packaging through the supply chain to distribution. Other attendees include members of trade organizations/academics/and packaging service providers. The SVN convenes twice a year so the Walmart/Sam’s Club packaging professionals can discuss with their Network progress/changes to packaging goals and other areas of interest to the Walmart packaging community. Issued covered previously, as narrated in my post describing the events of the December SVN, include, but are not limited to: Walmart Scorecard, Global Packaging Project, US EPA environmental packaging working group, developments in sustainable packaging, packaging success case studies, etc.

The SVN leadership team began by discussing metrics. For those of you immersed in the sustainable packaging scene, you are probably all too familiar with the “metrics dilemma,” which I understand as follows: Metrics can be understood as a description of a component of a package’s sustainability i.e. GHG emissions per selling unit. For each metric considered, LCI data is needed to quantify the specific environmental packaging attribute in question with hard data, from a life cycle based approach per system of investigation. While the SPC, GPP, Walmart and others have done a fantastic job creating “metrics” describing how to gauge and understand the sustainability of a package, the reality is that regardless of the tool used to quantify said metrics (COMPASS, Scorecard, etc.), not enough LCI/LCA information is available to allow for accurate results. As a revered LCA practitioner said at the SPC meeting in San Diego, “LCA is a COMPASS, not a GPS.” What this means is that because there is not enough data history, existing data, and relevant LCI data per packaging material and/or specific system of production, distribution and end of life, all metrics/LCA tools can do is help point you in the direction of where you should be heading; they are not representative of where you actually are. The Walmart Scorecard, SPC COMPASS, and other LCA-based packaging modeling softwares all use the same publically available data provided via the ACC, US EPA, Eco-Invent, etc.; consequently, these tools don’t have access to all the information needed to holistically represent the “sustainability” of a package/system from an LCA-based approach.

We began the SVN meeting discussing the state of “metrics” as they are available for use in LCA-based packaging modeling tools. LCI data for nine virgin resins and two recycled resins (I believe RHDPE and RPET) have been submitted and approved; LCI data for recycled paper and paperboard has been submitted and I believe may have been approved and/or is pending approval; LCI data for virgin paper and paperboard was submitted but not approved by the US EPA’s WARM model— updated LCI data is expected end of 2012; LCI data for corrugate was submitted but not approved by the US EPA’s WARM model—updated LCI data is expected end of 2012; LCI data for glass has not been submitted; I am blanking on aluminum…

What all this means, that is, the state of the available LCI data as it applies to metrics used to quantify the sustainability of a package/system from an LCA-based approach, is that we are attempting to put science to something that doesn’t really have ALL the science available…yet. By using COMPASS to quantify the environmental profile of different packaging concepts in the design phase, engineers attempt to understand how to design packages that have less of a burden on the environment throughout their life cycle than the existing package; however, if the LCI data for, lets say, virgin paperboard is from 1980 (I may be wrong but I believe that is the most recent LCI data set used), then changes to manufacturing processes implemented thereafter or holes in data resulting from uniformed LCA practice from when the study was performed may provide a hazy picture of the actual “sustainability” of a package. We are on the right track, but until we have accurate, up-to-date and verifiable LCI data for all dimensions of the packaging chain, it is difficult to use the existing packaging modeling softwares to perform accurate LCA case studies of different packages/concepts.

So yeah, the Walmart Packaging leadership team discussed how they are working to incorporate more accurate LCI data into the Scorecard, once that data is available.

Wow, today’s post has been a bit involved. I am going to stop here and let you all digest. And please note that I in no way shape or form pretend to be an expert on LCI/LCA; this discussion is the result of what I have taken away from recent conferences and the Walmart SVN.

Hello and happy Friday!

Want a sneak peek of Dordan's feature in the May issue Plastics Technology?!?

Plastics Technology May Dordan feature

Next week's post will provide feedback from the Walmart Expo and SVN meeting. I apologize for the delay; I have been swamped playing catch up!

Have a great weekend!

CRAZY!

Check out this article posted today on PlasticsNews.com.

For those of you who read my blog regularly, you will remember that in preparation of speaking on progress being made in recycling PET thermoforms in Orlando for Pira International’s/Packaging World’s Sustainability in Packaging conference, I reached out to Coca Cola’s joint recycling venture, NURRC, to see if they minded providing information on their experiences with recycling PET thermoforms. And if I could back up even further—it was because a rep for NURRC approached me after I presented at Plastics News’ Sustainable Plastics Packaging conference in Atlanta on recycling thermoforms, explaining that his facility recycles curb-side collected PET thermoforms—that I wanted to use NURCC as a case study of progress being made in recycling PET thermoforms. In March 2nd’s post titled “New Insight into Recycling PET Thermoforms,” I discuss my dialogue with NURRC and how up until right before my presentation in Orlando, they were comfortable with me discussing their experience with recycling PET thermoforms, which included sensitive information like sorting technology used, end markets, etc. Perhaps the discussion reported in the PlasticsNews article above is part of the reason they became uncomfortable with me highlighting them as a case study into the progress of recycling thermoforms post consumer. YIKES! Hopefully these realities are just growing pains for this new closed-loop infrastructure that’s discovering how to navigate the world of recycling in the context of using post-consumer PET material for remanufacturing into second generation high-value PET products, like bottles and clamshells…

This week I will discuss feedback from the Walmart SVN/Expo. After which, we will pick up on summarizing Dr. Narayan’s presentation on the science of bio-based/biodegradable resins and conclude with the happenings of the SPC meeting in San Diego that I attended.

Happy Monday funday!

Helllooooo my packaging and sustainability friends!

Today I am going to begin discussing the insights of the SPC meeting I attended in San Diego last week. As alluded to in yesterday’s post, these meetings are conducted under the “chatham house rule,” which means that “participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

I flew into San Diego on Monday to catch part of the pre-conference workshops—specifically—the “SPC Labeling for Recovery Update” as I spend a lot of time researching end of life management of packaging materials. One of the arguments I make in my Recycling Report is that the SPI ID code on the bottom of plastic packaging is an inefficient means of segregating plastic by resin type for its end of life reprocessing in manual sortation systems. Do note, however, that sortation by resin type post-consumer was never the SPI’s intention with these codes—it was more constructed as a form of intra-industry communication. ANYWAY, the SPC’s Labeling for Recovery Pilot looks to model itself a bit off the UK’s Labeling for Recovery scheme insofar as it is intended to communicate to CONSUMERS what packaging materials are recycled, what may be recycled, and what currently are not recycled. For those of you unfamiliar with the UK’s labeling scheme, it began as a project by WRAP, which was subsequently re-identified as OPRL Ltd. (On Pack Recovery Label). OPRL is now used on more than 90% of grocery packaging in the UK and has reportedly resulted in increased understanding by consumers of what is recyclable and what is not, thereby elevating recovery rates of packaging waste post consumer. The catch, for lack of better words, is that companies wishing to use this labeling scheme on their packaging must pay the “distributors” of this scheme an agreed upon annual fee. Like most “certifications,” I believe, –be it SFI, USDA Organic, Green Dot, etc.—money must be generated by those wishing to use said label/certification in order to ensure the proper distribution and implementation there of. I just read this article, which explains how SFI is in some hot water as many Fortune 500 companies that previously used said certification are removing it from new product packaging due to the unethical implications of this entire certification system. Therefore, it is very, very important when using/issuing a labeling scheme/certification that due diligence is taken throughout the supply chain to ensure that the label conveys to consumers what it is intended to convey, without falling into the deep, dark waters of GREENWASHING, dun dun dunn. Sorry I am getting way off track.

So, the SPC’s Labeling for Recovery Project attempts to present a legitimate, uniform labeling scheme that educates consumers on what types of packaging can and cannot be recycled currently in America. The workshop got in somewhat of a debate, however, over what percentage of recovery/REACH data per packaging material is considered “recyclable,” vs. “check locally,” vs. “not currently recycled.” Obviously, most participants in the workshop represented some type of packaging material, and no one wants to have a “not currently recycled” label on their packaging, regardless of if that is the reality of the situation. At first it was articulated that the FTC’s recently revised Green Guides would be used to determine what is considered “recyclable” (60% or more American communities have access to facilities that can recycle packaging X post-consumer) vs. “check locally” (20%-60% “…”) vs. “not currently recycled” (less than 20% “…”). This type of data collection, that is, what percentage of Americans/American communities have access to recycling facilities that can reprocess packaging material X, is called “REACH” data, though I myself am a little confused about the difference between having access to recycling facilities vs. actually recycling packaging…

ANYWAY, the workshop spent a considerable amount of time discussing:

Holes in existing data sets, be it REACH data or recycling/recovery data (American data sets don’t consider incineration with energy recovery as a form of “recovery,” which is part of the reason that the “recovery” rates of packaging waste in the EU far exceeds that of America);

How incineration with energy-recovery would be incorporated into the labeling scheme, though little post-consumer waste is incinerated in America due to its sour reputation from the early 1990s;

AND how private/closed loop recycling schemes, like those implemented by RecycleBank and TerraCycle, would be included into the construction of this labeling scheme as these non-national facts and figures are not currently incorporated into the US EPA/ACC data sets on packaging waste recycling/recovery.

As you can see, something so simple as trying to educate consumers about what is recycled and what is not recycled is not NEARLY as easy as it seems—you have to deal with lack of uniform/accurate data sets, conceptual discrepancies between using data set A (REACH data) vs. data set B (recycling data), plus how to incorporate compostability data, incineration with energy recovery data, private/closed loop recovery scheme data, and much much more! Fun stuff, eh!??!

After the slighty around the bush workshop, I had some time to kill before the “networking reception” that night, so I took a walk along the coast, and spotted a mini gondola, see!

Hello and happy Friday!

I leave on Sunday for Walmart’s Sustainable Value Network meeting and Expo. I will be sure to take tons O notes for you, my packaging and sustainability friends, though we still have like a million of Dr. Narayan’s slides to get through PLUS all the feedback from the SPC’s meeting in San Diego last week. JEEZ I have my work cut out for me. I will be blogging, however, all next week to catch up on all the interesting content.

Have a splendid weekend.

Hey guys!

I'm back! The Walmart SVN/Expo was great! I will give you the skinny ASAP. In the meantime, however, I wanted to revise/clarify some of the claims made in my April 7th post, titled "Feedback from SPC's Labeling for Recovery Project." The lovely Anne Bedarf, project manager of the SPC, who works extensively on this Project, sent me the following email:

Hi there Chandler—great to see you in Arkansas, hope you make it home fine.

Thanks for blogging on the Labeling for Recovery Project! There were, however, a number of errors/clarifications needed that I’d like to bring to your attention. I’ve put them in below in bold. Feel free to quote me on them. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks.

Kind regards--AnneB

As per her request, check out the revised post below!

Helllooooo my packaging and sustainability friends!

Today I am going to begin discussing the insights of the SPC meeting I attended in San Diego last week. As alluded to in yesterday’s post, these meetings are conducted under the “chatham house rule,” which means that “participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

I flew into San Diego on Monday to catch part of the pre-conference workshops—specifically—the “SPC Labeling for Recovery Update” as I spend a lot of time researching end of life management of packaging materials. One of the arguments I make in my Recycling Report is that the SPI ID code on the bottom of plastic packaging is an inefficient means of segregating plastic by resin type for its end of life reprocessing in manual sortation systems. Do note, however, that sortation by resin type post-consumer was never the SPI’s intention with these codes—it was more constructed as a form of intra-industry communication. ANYWAY, the SPC’s Labeling for Recovery Pilot looks to model itself a bit off the UK’s Labeling for Recovery scheme insofar as it is intended to communicate to CONSUMERS what packaging materials are recycled, what may be recycled, and what currently are not recycled. For those of you unfamiliar with the UK’s labeling scheme, it began as a project by WRAP, which was subsequently re-identified as OPRL Ltd. (On Pack Recovery Label). It actually became a subsidiary company created by WRAP and the British Retail Consortium. WRAP is still WRAP. OPRL is now used on more than 90% of grocery packaging in the UK and has reportedly resulted in increased understanding by consumers of what is recyclable and what is not, thereby elevating recovery rates of packaging waste post consumer. The catch, for lack of better words, is that companies wishing to use this labeling scheme on their packaging must pay the “distributors” of this scheme an agreed upon annual fee. Like most “certifications,” I believe, --be it SFI, USDA Organic, Green Dot, etc.-- money must be generated by those wishing to use said label/certification in order to ensure the proper distribution and implementation there of. I just read this article, which explains how SFI is in some hot water as many Fortune 500 companies that previously used said certification are removing it from new product packaging due to the unethical implications of this entire certification system. Therefore, it is very, very important when using/issuing a labeling scheme/certification that due diligence is taken throughout the supply chain to ensure that the label conveys to consumers what it is intended to convey, without falling into the deep, dark waters of GREENWASHING, dun dun dunn. Sorry I am getting way off track. Totally agree—BUT—this label is NOT a certification. It’s more like the nutrition label for recyclability. Also there will be no fees charged during the pilot—we are looking at fees for long-term implementation mainly to ensure that it is properly used and that we have proper data collection.

So, the SPC’s Labeling for Recovery Project attempts to present a legitimate, uniform labeling scheme that educates consumers on what types of packaging can and cannot be recycled currently in America. The workshop got in somewhat of a debate, however, over what percentage of recovery/REACH data per packaging material is considered “recyclable,” vs. “check locally,” vs. “not currently recycled.” Obviously, most participants in the workshop represented some type of packaging material, and no one wants to have a “not currently recycled” label on their packaging, regardless of if that is the reality of the situation. At first it was articulated that the FTC’s recently revised Green Guides would be used to determine what is considered “recyclable” (60% or more American communities have access to facilities that can recycle packaging X post-consumer) vs. “check locally” (20%-60% “…”) vs. “not currently recycled” (less than 20% “…”). This type of data collection, that is, what percentage of Americans/American communities have access to recycling facilities that can reprocess packaging material X, is called “REACH” data, though I myself am a little confused about the difference between having access to recycling facilities vs. actually recycling packaging…This is a legitimate concern. Our first filter is Reach data—per FTC, related to collection. Our secondary filter is actual recyclability and a number of “prohibitives” will be on an “exceptions” list. For example, PET bottles are widely recycled; however, with a PVC shrink under our system they will not be labeled as such but as not yet recycled.

ANYWAY, the workshop spent a considerable amount of time discussing:

Holes in existing data sets, be it REACH data or recycling/recovery data (American data sets don’t consider incineration with energy recovery as a form of “recovery,” which is part of the reason that the “recovery” rates of packaging waste in the EU far exceeds that of America);

How incineration with energy-recovery would be incorporated into the labeling scheme, though little post-consumer waste is incinerated in America due to its sour reputation from the early 1990s; There is actually no way this could be included because we can’t determine final end use from reach data, MRF info, or prohibitives in recycling.

AND how private/closed loop recycling schemes, like those implemented by RecycleBank and TerraCycle, would be included into the construction of this labeling scheme as these non-national facts and figures are not currently incorporated into the US EPA/ACC data sets on packaging waste recycling/recovery. This isn’t totally true. You’d have to ask EPA, but remember EPA only looks at Rates, not Reach. Recycle bank helps get curbside recycling started, and those communities that have curbside are included in reach data analysis. I think that part of the discussion was more about drop-offs that weren’t part of a municipal program. TerraCycle isn’t included because we don’t really think mail-back is currently an effective recovery strategy—and after all—how would one measure “reach” for mail-in?

As you can see, something so simple as trying to educate consumers about what is recycled and what is not recycled is not NEARLY as easy as it seems—you have to deal with lack of uniform/accurate data sets, conceptual discrepancies between using data set A (REACH data) vs. data set B (recycling data), plus how to incorporate compostability data, incineration with energy recovery data, private/closed loop recovery scheme data, and much much more! Fun stuff, eh!??!

Thanks Anne!!!

Hello and happy Friday!

I just wanted to wish you all a happy weekend-- I leave for San Diego super early Monday morning for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition's spring meeting-- so I will resume blogging upon my return late next week. Check out the agenda, it looks great!

I will be sure to take tons o notes to share with you, my packaging and sustainability friends!

And Dordan's website redesign is coming along swimingly! I can't wait for you all to check it out!

AND, check out Dordan's ad in Shelf Impact that came out today!

Hey yall!

Sorry for my absence!

The Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s meeting in San Diego was GREAT! Seriously, I learned A TON. My favorite was the panel discussion of trash in the ocean (33% of all marine debris is cigarette butts!) and the science of biodegradation in landfills. Also really interesting was the presentation on the recently revised FTC Green Guides by the Senior Attorney of the FTC. Due to the legalities of these meetings, however, I am unable to refer to presenter by company/brand; therefore, note that I ALSO had a very interesting exchange with a sustainable cleaning products company in regard to their recently unveiled molded pulp/PP bag (bag N a box) packaging for household cleaning products.

I will cue you in on this exchange, along with updates on the applicability of LCA/LCI and much much more tomorrow afternoon!

Thanks for your patience!

Hello and happy almost Friday day!

Today we are going to talk about the process of deriving carbon from annually-renewable resources for synthesis into bio-based polymers. As per yesterday’s discussion, substituting bio-based carbon for petro-based carbon provides a value proposition in the context of material carbon footprint for plastic packaging.

Slide 7: Carbon Footprint Basics—Value Proposition

Consider the following chemical process for manufacturing traditional, fossil-based plastics:

Fossil feedstock (oil, coal, natural gas)-->Naptha-->ethylene/propylene-->polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP)

Now, consider the process of manufacturing bio-based plastics from a renewable feedstock:

Bio/renewable feedstock (crops and residues i.e. corn, sugarcane, tree plantations i.e. lignocellulosics, algal biomass i.e. algae)-->BIO monomers, sugars, oils (continue)

These BIO monomers, sugars and oils can then be synthesized into EtoH, which is then used to make ethylene/propylene, the building blocks of PE and PP;

OR, these BIO monomers, sugars and oils can be synthesized to make PLA and PHA.

The difference between something like PLA and the PlantBottle, therefore, is that the PlantBottle derives its carbon from biomass, as explained in the process above, yet has the same chemical composition as tradition, petro-based PET. Therefore, it is not designed to “biodegrade” in an industrial composting facility or others, whereas PLA, which is of a different chemical composition though it derives its carbon from, like the PlantBottle, an annually renewable source, is designed to “biodegrade” in the intended disposal environment as stipulated by the manufacturers of PLA. Check out the molecular structures of PLA vs. PP on the 7th slide of Narayan’s presentation; as you will see, the carbon, highlighted in red, can come from petro-based or bio-based feedstocks. Cool, huh!?!

Slide 8: Understanding the value proposition for bio carbon vs. petro/fossil carbon

Narayan then went on explaining the difference between old carbon (fossil fuel) and new carbon (crop residue/biomass). Consult the 8th slide of the PPT for an explanation of how old carbon is synthesized from new carbon.

Consider the following processes of synthesizing new vs. old carbon:

CO2 (present in atmosphere) + H20-->photosynthesis (1-10 years)--> (CH20)x +O2-->NEW CARBON (biomass, forestry, crops)

Vs.

C02+H20-->photosynthesis (1-10 years) -->(CH20)x-->-->-->(10,000,000 years)-->OLD CARBON (fossil resources i.e. oil, coal, natural gas)

He then argued that all the criticism about manufacturing plastics out of non-renewable sources is misplaced because it doesn’t really matter where you get the carbon from—be it old or new carbon. The issue, however, is the rate and scale at which we have been taking old carbon (oil) out of the earth: it is inherently unsustainable to continue to derive carbon from fossil fuel for synthesis into disposable plastic packaging because it takes millions of years to create old carbon from the process described above, whereas it takes just 1-10 years to derive new carbon from crop residue/biomass.

Does that make sense?

He concludes: “Rate and time scales of CO2 utilization is in balance using bio/renewable feedstocks (1-10 years) as opposed to using fossil feedstocks.”

Goodness!

Hey guys,

As per March 15th’s post, I was interested in what the newly released bale specs for non bottle rigids means for the progress in recycling PET thermoforms. As such, I sent my contact at APR the following email:

Hey!

This is Chandler with Dordan—we spoke a while ago about the obstacles facing the inclusion of thermoform packaging in the recovery infrastructure. Remember?

I hope this email finds you well!

I wanted to applaud the efforts of APR as described in Mike Verespej’s PlasticsNews article, “Recycling group creating new bale specifications.” After speaking at several industry events about the need for specs for non-bottle rigids, I was delighted to discover this bit of news. So congrats!

Does APR have plans to develop specs for thermoform only (PET OR all mixed resins) bales, too?

I look forward to your feedback!

The next day, I received this response from the Technical Director at APR, David Cornell:

Chandler,

Thank you for your interest in plastics recycling.

APR has always been interested in more good raw material. To that end we have Design for Recyclability Guidelines, Guidance Documents, and Model Bale Specs. APR is a data-driven, science-based organization. We are also reflective of good business practices. To that end, we have provided our Model Bale Specs to help buyers and sellers establish common language for commercial transactions. We do that by reflecting what is happening and what we would see as logical extensions of proper commercial practice. Our Model Bale Specs include those materials to be included in specific bales and those materials not to be included and suggested levels of various extraneous materials along with best practices on bale size, density, and assembly.

The APR Rigids Committee is working on bringing some suggested standardization to the description of bales of various materials. More uniformity means both buyers and sellers benefit. This will be an ongoing activity as has been the description of both PET and HDPE bottle model bales.

To your question, the growing interest in just PET thermoform collection and recycle will very possibly lead to the commercial need for common description afforded by Model Bale Specifications. As the tolerances to various inclusions are fully understood, Model Bale Specs can be usefully written and likely will. Model bale specs for bales of mixed thermoforms will depend on the commercial need for such and establishment of commercial practices such that a document aids commerce. Bales of items made of incompatible resins, such as PET and PVC, are of less value than bales of those separated. Certainly we know of mixed resin bales, but see much more value in model bale specifications for higher valued, generic resin bales.

And I continued…

Hey!

Thanks for the email and detailed explanation! From what I understand, there are several companies that have the capacity to reprocess post consumer PET thermoform containers into new products but can’t find any thermoform bales to purchase for said reprocessing. If demand for PET thermoform bales exists, what would it take to create PET thermoform bale specs? How do I go about moving the recycling of thermoforms forward as a representative of a thermoform manufacturer?

And his response:

Chandler,

The first step is to have a stream of useful material. That means today just PET with no look-alikes. The look-alike PS, PETG, and PLA need their own bales. It also means thermoforms that do not have unfriendly adhesives. The APR protocol on thermoform adhesives is on the website to guide in assessing adhesive and labeling choices.

When streams of such useful material are available, then it will make economic sense for MRF’s to isolate and sell such bales. Until we reach the MRF-provided bales, we will likely be looking for controlled flow PCR such as bakery trays from retail bakeries and food stores.

The issue is always one of critical mass for the collectors, sorters, and reclaimers. Jump starting as is going on in Canada really helps.

David

Round and round we go!

Tune in tomorrow for a description of part one (Bio-based products concepts) of Dr. Narayan’s workshop on the science of “biodegradable polymers.”