22 RR | March 2015

MAKING SENSE of the MIXUtilizing data from MRFs, brand owners, local governments and other stakeholders, we explain which materials are showing up in rollcarts and describe how they are processed. We also offer predictions on how recovery efforts will evolve in the coming years.

BY AMY ROTH AND DYLAN DE THOMAS

F rom the first curbside collection programs in the late 1960s, to the thousands of curbside recycling programs today, the material going into curbside collection bins

or rollcarts has changed a great deal. Today’s waste and recyc-ling streams are more diverse, with numerous grades of paper, plastics and various metals added to programs over the years as collection and processing technologies advanced to where mas-sive amounts of mixed materials can effectively be sorted.

Paper (newsprint, in particular) had dominated recycling col-lection volumes, but the turn of the century brought greater num-bers of people consuming media on devices rather than in print. From 2000 to 2013, newsprint shipments, to take just one grade, declined by 50 percent. This precipitous drop left many materials recovery facilities (MRFs) with excess operational capacity and staff time. That phenomenon, coupled with strong overseas demand for plastics, led many MRFs to begin acceptance of bulky-rigid non-bottle plastics, expanding again the list of materials to be col-lected in residential curbside recycling.

So what is the story of the “evolving ton,” as the changing na-ture of the recyclables collected curbside is increasingly known? In a nutshell: less printed paper; more corrugated cardboard as online shopping grows rapidly; and more plastics of all types, as companies

rush to reap the environmental, logistical and economic benefits from switching to lighter and more flexible forms of packaging. But, first, let’s back up.

The evolution of packagingPaper, glass and metal dominated as the materials of choice for packaging in the first half of the 20th century. In the last 40 years, there has been a large shift away from these packaging formats to plastic (see Figure 1 on page 18). Plastics became a significant play-er in packaging in the 1980s and the material category has grown steadily ever since.

According to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastic packaging accounted for 5 percent of total con-tainer and packaging generation in the 1970s. By 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, that number had grown to 18 percent. Glass packaging accounted for 27 percent in the 1970s, but it has steadily declined, accounting for only 3 percent of container and packaging generation in 2012. Aluminum pack-aging has hovered between 1 and 3 percent between the 1970s and 2012, while steel has declined from 7 to 3 percent in the same time period. Paper and paperboard packaging has made up the

Reprinted from

RR | March 2015 23

Figure 1 | How the waste stream shifted over 50 years

Source: Developed from 2012 U.S. EPA municipal solid waste data. Percentages indicate percent of total waste generation.

largest segment of containers and pack-aging generated since the 1960s, ranging anywhere between 49 percent (its lowest point in the 1970s) to its highest of 53 percent in 2000. In 2012, it was at 51 percent.

While recyclability has long been a contributing factor in selecting packaging materials, life cycle analysis is influenc-ing design choices further upstream as product and packaging manufacturers recognize packaging solutions that carry a complex array of environmental ben-efits. A recent Franklin Associates life cycle assessment study for the American Chemistry Council and the Canadian Plastics Industry Association found that for the baseline year 2010, replacing all U.S. plastic packaging with non-plastic alternatives would require 4.5 times as much packaging material by weight and increase the amount of packaging used in the U.S. by nearly 55 million tons (110 billion pounds), among a multitude of other impacts.

Design and the development of new plastic resins and multi-layer plastics that have enhanced barrier, thermal and mechanical properties have fueled not only the transition to plastic packaging, but also the transition to new types of plastic resins in packaging, all of which have demonstrated benefits for the brand owner, consumer and environment.

Flexible packagingFlexible packages are used for consumer and institutional products and in industrial ap-plications, to protect, market and distribute a vast array of products. The largest catego-ry of flexible packaging is polyethylene film. There are a bevy of recovery options for clean PE film. A growing network of retail-er take-back programs – more than 18,000 locations exist nationally – recovered more than 1 billion pounds of post-consumer film in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available.

What is this material exactly? Multi-layered flexible film packaging is typically made of multiple layers (lami-nates); contains multiple resins; may contain non-plastic materials such as foil; incorpo-rates barrier layers to ensure certain gases do not permeate in/out/or between layers to preserve product freshness; and utilizes “tie-layers” between barrier layers, which molecularly bond with and fuse the different layers together.

Flexible packaging is the second largest packaging segment (behind paper), repre-senting 18 percent of the total U.S. pack-aging industry. By volume, that equates to 8 million tons, around half of which is multi-material laminates. The research for this article focused on lay-flat, pillow, stand-up and retort pouches predominantly used in packaging food and consumer home and personal care products.

Industry and research groups forecast increasing demand for flexible packaging over the next several years with the project-ed growth rate to be anywhere from 3.4 to 5.1 percent from 2013 to 2018. The factors driving growth and innovation in the flexible packaging marketplace are similar to those driving the increase in rigid plastics packaging and include the following: the need for product protection and safety of food supply; lengthened product shelf life; resource preservation and waste prevention; ease of transportation; shelf impact and con-sumer appeal; and the increasing demand for consumer convenience.

Many of the technological advances associated with flexible packaging are related to improving food safety and extending product shelf life. As concerns over food se-curity rise, more of these types of packaging are expected to enter the marketplace.

There are also numerous sustainability factors associated with flexible packaging. The carbon footprint of flexible packaging is much less than that of other packaging for-mats because it consumes less energy during transport, and requires fewer resources to create. Given flexible packaging’s ability to preserve food longer, the benefits that come from reducing food waste also add to its sustainable attributes. From a life-cycle perspective, flexible packaging demonstrates clear benefits through every phase, with the exception of end-of-life management. The

24 RR | March 2015

infographic in Figure 2 from the Flexible Packaging Asso-ciation (FPA) highlights some of the environmental benefits associated with flexible pack-aging.

Many of the same factors influencing the growth of rigid plastic packaging – price, convenience, ability to keep the product fresh and shelf appeal – are driving the growth of flexible packaging and are even fueling the transition from rig-id plastic to flexible packaging. Ultimately, consumer prefer-ence and behavior will drive additional packaging transi-tion. And though recyclability of packaging is important to consumers, it does not seem to be the most important factor driving their buying decisions.

Flexible packaging continues to grow rapidly, but there are a number of inher-ent issues with recycling flexible packages, particularly the multi-laminates. The issues stem primarily from the sheer number of resin compositions, adhesives, coatings, and inks used in flexible packages.

Flexible packages are extremely difficult to classify, separate and recycle because there are so many layers and components used in the package. In order to truly recycle flexible packaging, every single flexible packaging layer would have to be analyzed and categorized, separated and recycled individually.

Another challenge for recycling flexible packaging is that the material can often end up in the wrong part of a MRF. Typically, single-stream recycling at a MRF entails sorting items by weight, size, dimension (2-D versus 3-D) and metal type (with the use of magnets and eddy currents). Flexible pack-aging is typically two-dimensional and often flows with the paper stream. To be recovered, it would need to flow with the three-dimen-sional containers for proper sortation.

But the biggest dilemma involves sorting equipment and where it should be placed to capture flexible packaging. This needs to be configured based on current best practices with existing MRFs. To divert flexible packaging, it seems most logical to place optical equipment after fiber separa-tion. The optical equipment would get a clear view of the material prior to separa-tion. MRFs would see flexible packaging diverted to both the glass and fiber separa-tion, given flexible packaging’s two-dimen-

sional properties and size. If the material is not removed, it can create contamination with other commodities.

While challenging, there are some technological solutions for MRFs that could potentially sort flexible packaging. How-ever, low tonnage and value of the material is currently an economic constraint. Very few end markets for multi-layered flexible packaging currently exist, though conver-sion technologies and energy recovery are complementary end-of-life management options that could help develop economical-ly viable recovery solutions in both the short and long term.

BioplasticsBioplastics are plastics that have bio-based content, are biodegradable, or both. “Bio-based,” “biodegradable” and “compostable” are individual attributes of bioplastics, and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Though biopolymers are considered by some to be a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-derived plastics, the materials can create challenges for the existing plastics recycling system, MRFs and reclaimers. Plastics such as PET or HDPE with bio-based content – such as Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle – are molecularly identical to traditional petro-leum-based plastics and are fully recyclable. However, the different biodegradable and compostable plastics entering the market can create problems for recycling since they introduce organic elements to the process, and these materials can act as contaminants to a traditional plastics stream. The confu-

sion over these products will likely continue.

Paper and paperboard packaging Paper and paperboard still dominate pack-aging, and strong growth is anticipated, particularly with recycled content. Paper and paperboard packaging – including printing and writing paper, Kraft paper, containerboard and paperboard used in recycled packaging – is projected to grow at a rate of 5 percent to reach $139 billion in 2018. Recovery of paper and paperboard has increased by 81 percent since 1990, and the material category has reached a recy-cling rate of 70 percent in the U.S. About 30 percent of the paper and paperboard recovered in the U.S. is used to produce containerboard, which is the material used for corrugated packaging. It is estimated that the demand for recycled paper will ex-ceed supply by 1.5 million tons of recycled pulp per year by 2018. The paper industry is investing in paper packaging plants in the developing world to satisfy growing demand in those regions.

Other recent industry reports identify aseptic containers and cartons as a growing packaging segment globally and in the U.S. Aseptic containers and cartons are made primarily from fiberboard and are increasing in popularity as a packaging option for a wide variety of foods and beverages. In the last five years, the U.S. has seen growing interest in this packaging format, largely due to consumer interest in single-serve and convenience packaging as well as a desire to

Figure 2 | The environmental benefits of flexible packaging

Source: The Flexible Packaging Association, 2014

RR | March 2015 25

minimize food waste. Additionally, because of increasing pressure from environmental groups and government bans, many key players in the packaging industry are switch-ing or experimenting with paper products.

There are several barriers that hinder recycling paper and paperboard packaging, including consumer behaviors, collection processes and design attributes of the pack-aging itself. Nearly 90 percent of Americans have access to curbside or drop-off recycling for paper and paper products. However, the EPA’s 2012 municipal solid waste character-ization study found that of the 8.5 million tons of paper and paperboard packaging (excluding corrugated boxes) generated, less than 25 percent – just over 2 million tons – was recovered.

One reason recovery of paper and paperboard packaging is low compared with corrugated (which has a roughly 91 percent recycling rate) is that consumers don’t realize that these types of products are recyclable and accepted in community collection pro-grams. Stronger efforts to increase consum-er education could increase the amount of these materials collected for recycling.

Contamination and material quality is also a factor affecting supply. Commingled and single-stream collections have drastically reduced the quality of paper coming into paper mills.

In addition, many innovative design features are now incorporated into paper and paperboard packaging in order to make products more appealing to consumers as well as allow packaging to withstand various elemental conditions and protect contents. Unfortunately, these efforts make recycling paper and paperboard packaging challenging. Wet-strength resins and polymers are surface coatings used to create packaging that will not disintegrate if it becomes wet; adhesives used to bond different material layers togeth-er can create defects in the paper and gum up equipment if not properly removed; and inks and coatings, which allow packaging de-signers and brand owners to create appealing packaging for marketing, are all problematic for recycling at end-of-life.

Future concernsThis section examines the implications of some of the trends that will have an impact on the waste stream in the next five to 10 years.

Clearly, the composition of the waste stream will continue to evolve, in ways both predicted and unforeseen. As a result, changes to collection, processing

and the economics of recycling will evolve as well.

Flexible Film PackagingCollectionOur research highlighted several key challenges to recycling more flexible film packaging. We asked various stakehold-ers, including trade associations, MRFs and industry experts to predict what will go into the recycling cart in the future. We also asked if flexible packag-ing belongs in that curbside container. Responses varied, but most suggested that flexible packaging should not be collected curbside until technology exists to suc-cessfully separate it from other materials and end-market demand warrants invest-ment in technology.

All of the experts spoken to differenti-ated between the multi-layer film packag-ing and standard flexible film packaging, such as PE film. As noted above, clean, dry PE film is accepted at thousands of retail-based take-back locations and, increasingly, PE film manufacturers are participating in the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s How2Recycle label program. The How2Recycle label notes that film packaging is a recyclable material desig-nated as “Store Drop-off,” with a website printed for further information.

ProcessingCollection of multi-material laminates needs to be convenient for consumers in order to capture the largest volume. Curbside collection currently presents a myriad of challenges for MRFs, and industry experts suggest that the best method to capture this material is not via curbside collection, but return-to-retail options similar to collection of PE bags, film and wraps. The FPA agrees that until a cost-effective way to sort these materials in a single-stream environment is developed, the interim solution for collec-tion curbside may be a “laminate-in-bag” method.

In May 2014, Dow Chemical, in conjunction with the FPA, the City of Citrus Heights, California, and Republic Services, sponsored a pilot program called the “Energy Bag,” testing curbside collection of flexibles in bright purple bags that were collected in residents’ single-stream recycling bins. The bags were separated at a MRF and sent to plastics-to-oil firm Agilyx for processing. Preliminary reports about the ongoing program were positive and the FPA will produce a best practices report at the conclusion of the pilot.

EconomicsEnd markets for this material are small, but markets do exist. Several companies are exploring strategies to utilize this material as a cheap (no- or low-cost) feedstock. These companies are utilizing it in their products and exploring energy recovery for residuals.

LightweightingCollectionAcross all commodities, significant progress has been made in using less material for packaging to achieve the same product protection. Although lightweighting has significant positive upstream benefits, downstream benefits are sometimes less clear. The effects are especially noticeable in community recycling programs, because recycling rates have seemingly experienced little growth. Recycling is measured in weight, not in number of actual items collected. Simply put, lightweighting has had the effect of stalling diversion rates and perhaps falsely suggesting that programs have become ineffective. The national recycling rate almost doubled from 16 percent to 30 percent from 1990 to 2001, but the rate of growth has stalled in the last 10 years. The U.S. recycling rate was 34 percent in 2012.

The result is communities seeking other strategies to boost diversion rates. These include investing in broader community education campaigns or expanding the list of materials collected. It is the expansion of collected materials that has had the most significant impact on processors.

ProcessingCommunities have sought to boost their re-cycling rates by expanding the size of collec-tion bins and the list of accepted materials in their curbside programs. The unintended consequence has been increasing contamina-tion and decreasing bale yield. As more ma-terials are added to the list, more unwanted material is collected. Bale quality became such an issue of concern that China im-plemented the customs enforcement effort known as Operation Green Fence in 2013 to reject excessively contaminated bales. As China recovers more materials domestically, there will be less overseas demand, particu-larly for unwashed material. High-graded, high-quality bales will continue to attract buyers.

The “Sort for Value” matrix, developed by the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recy-clers and Moore Recycling Associates, can help recycling companies and reclaimers assess how

26 RR | March 2015

additional sortation and high-grading of plas-tic bales can yield a higher profit and strength-en the domestic market place for plastics. Though more sortation may require additional expense and investment for some facilities, the matrix tool demonstrates the extra effort can result in boosted profits. Many high-quality baled materials are selling at far higher prices today than mixed plastic bales were selling at during their peak market several years ago.

Higher-quality bales require improved sortation, additional capital investment in technology or decreased contamination at the source. One solution increasingly cited by industry experts is the growth of the plas-tics recovery facility (PRF). One company, QRS, has been investing heavily into such facilities, building four in the last four years. By the end of this year, the company will have facilities in Atlanta, Baltimore, St. Lou-is and New Albany, Indiana. These facilities are expected to have an annual capacity to process over 325 million pounds of plastics Nos. 3-7.

These and other PRFs would supple-ment the existing MRF infrastructure, pur-chasing plastics from MRFs that are unable to profitably sell their Nos. 3-7 bales.

EconomicsLightweighting generates significant cost savings upstream. Fewer materials and resources are consumed to manufacture the package, which translates to lower costs.

Downstream, lightweighting has the opposite effect – collection and processing costs increase. End markets base pricing on tons and, today, there is less weight to pick up. Fuel and vehicle maintenance costs have increased, making each load more expensive to collect. Labor and capital costs have also increased, making it more expensive to process those loads. And with each load yielding less material by weight, revenues per load have decreased, widening the expense/revenue gap.

Many communities have shifted from source-separated or dual-stream collection methods to single-stream recycling to reduce collection costs and capture more materials for recycling. Commingling all recyclables in one cart degrades the quality, particularly when it comes to glass and paper. Single-stream recycling often accompanies a pay-as-you-throw system for garbage. This strategy puts an econom-ic incentive behind recycling, but it can also result in residents practicing “wishful recycling” in which they maximize their recycling bins to reduce their garbage bill.

Additionally, once certain types of ma-

terials, particularly plastics, are accepted in a curbside program, many other materials end up “tagging along.” This tag-along effect has had both positive and negative impacts on recycling economics. The development of end markets for non-bottle rigid plastics generates positive revenue for MRFs and has been a boon for many plastics reclaimers. The increased contamination and process-ing costs along with decreasing yields and revenues are the downside.

Single-stream collection often lowers

collection costs at the expense of MRFs, which face higher processing costs from a slower sorting line, additional staff and capital expenditures on equipment as they attempt to improve the quality of the material.

Convenience PackagingCollectionOne of the largest challenges for conve-nience packaging is that recycling these items isn’t always convenient. Convenience packaging can generally be characterized as easy-opening, re-closable and portable, and it is typically designed for one-handed use. It’s a packaging strategy employed by makers of a range of processed foods, including en-trees, snacks and food service products. The packaging trips up recycling efforts because its components are generally small in size and are made from a complex combination of resins.

Some communities have piloted

collection of non-program materials with mixed results. Modifications to collection systems can be very costly with significant capital investment required. While much of the convenience packaging is small (in size and weight), volume collected for recycling is also minimal. This type of packaging is often not included in programs, but it ends up in collections streams due to the tag-along effect. Because end markets are limited, and the ma-terials are often contaminated, the inclusion of these products degrades the value of accepted materials. One obvious benefit of collecting convenience packaging separately in a bag is MRFs can segregate these materials from the stream by diverting them early in the sortation process. Removing these materials from the stream also makes them more desirable for energy recovery or conversion.

Processing Convenience packaging is not targeted currently by MRFs or by manufacturers of MRF systems. Recycling and sortation equipment manufacturers did not cite plans for looking at this particular product stream. However, most equipment manufacturers were hesitant to reveal their R&D strategies.

EconomicsConvenience packaging is often made of multiple resins adhered together using tie layers that make it “difficult, if not impossi-ble, to chemically or mechanically sort the material,” according to one resin producer. Some resin compounders were found to be using the material as various low-value end products, such as angle boards for protect-ing pallets of boxes or other fragile materials or as other composite resins with a tolerance for flexibility.

The possibility was raised by many we interviewed that if sorted out as residue or a non-commodity by a MRF, convenience packaging could be a beneficial feedstock for a plastics-to-fuel or plastics-to-oil facility or other energy recovery option.

This article is based on a report prepared for the American Chemistry Council by Green Spectrum Consulting and Re-source Recycling, Inc. To down-load the full report, go to: plastics.americanchemistry.com/ Making-Sense-of-the-Mix

So what is the story of the “evolving ton?” In a nutshell: less paper as the print industry continues to struggle; more corrugated cardboard as online shopping grows rapidly; and more plastics of all types, as companies rush to reap the environmental, logistical and economic benefits from switching to lighter and more flexible forms of packaging.

RR | March 2015 27

Moving forward Because of economic, consumer and technical drivers, the future of the curbside mix will include more plastic. Recovering that material in manifold ways will become increasingly important for all stakeholders, not just the recycling industry.

PET, HDPE and PP markets are already seeing surges in demand and pro-cessing capacity. Mixed plastics, including lighter packaging materials such as flexible convenience packaging, are likely to gain traction as a desired, low-cost feedstock in the coming years. This will happen as flex-ible packaging replaces additional volumes of materials such as glass and metal. There is tremendous opportunity for additional recovery of materials and the development of new markets. Millions of tons of valuable plastic materials are being generated each year, but only a small fraction is recovered for recycling or conversion to energy, fuels or chemical feedstocks.

Through increasingly coordinated efforts, initiatives such as the Curbside Value Partnership’s Recycling Partnership and the $100 million Closed Loop Fund aim to increase access to curbside recycling – and expand existing curbside recycling programs. Such efforts should help increase the tonnages of recyclable plastics and other

materials collected and ultimately recycled. This will be boosted by efforts from trade groups and associations.

Increased investment in MRFs and ex-pansion of the current generation of PRFs will add to the increased overall efficiency of material-specific or general materials recovery facilities. Further investment into technologies, such as plastics-to-oil innovations, to garner value from non-re-cyclable materials will stimulate the value recaptured from materials diverted from landfills. These facilities will increasingly be seen as part of the sustainable materials management hierarchy and will be used in conjunction with the existing recycling infrastructure.

Amy Roth is principal of Green Spectrum Consulting and resource director of the Association of Oregon Recyclers. She can be reached at amy@green-spectrum.net. Dylan de Thomas is editorial director for Resource Recycling, Inc. and can be reached at dylan@resource-recycling.com.

Reprinted with permission from Resource Recycling, P.O. Box 42270, Portland, OR 97242-0270; (503) 233-1305, (503) 233-1356 (fax); www.resource-recycling.com.