THE VOICE OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY IN THE WEST WPA …westernplastics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WPAtoday_Dec201… · recycling opportunities, Nature-Works with their bioplastic

1

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

W W W. W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S . O R G D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 2

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

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

WPA President’s Article 1

WPA Report 3

Politics 11

Bag Ban 14

Recycling 19

Sustainability 27

N E X T W PA M E E T I N G :J A N U A RY 1 5

Resin Forecast 2013

NOTE: NEW MEETINGLOCATION

SEE DETAILS, PAGE 4

F E AT U R E :

HOW DO WE MAKE PROGRESSON THE CRIT ICAL ISSUES?BY JOHN P ICC IU TO , WPA P R ES I D ENT

My position as President of the

Western Plastic Association and

more specifically my close work-

ing relationship with Laurie

Hansen, our Government Affairs

Representative, has given me

the opportunity to better under-

stand the issues facing our

industry. Much of what I have

learned over the last 18 months

many readers already know—

that the success of the bans on

the single-use grocery bag is

based on the environmental

community’s genuine concern for

its impact on litter and marine

debris. Although bags represent

a small fraction of the actual

litter in the waste stream and in

our oceans, detractors have been

able to take the emotional higher

ground with consumers. Environ-

mentalist seized this issue in

2006 and convinced the city of

San Francisco to ban the plastic

bag based on cost savings for

litter cleanup, and they haven’t

looked back since. Unfortunately,

the plastic industry was slow to

react to this challenge, grocers

never fully supported recycling

programs, and curbside pickup

was never effectively imple-

mented. A few Orange County

cities promoted the “Bag in Bag”

curbside recycling concept and

local bag makers tried to address

the issue, but without an inte-

grated national campaign they

were doomed to failure. Unlike

with PET water bottles, waste

haulers saw little to gain from

collecting plastic bags which

“gummed up their works” and

redemption centers were unwill-

ing to take the aerodynamic,

litter prone bags at take back

recycling centers.

In the middle of the last decade,

grocers who initially were against

plastic bag bans based on cost

benefit analysis and a desire to

have a competitive product to

paper, suggested to industry

leaders that they should promote

a fee on plastic bags rather than

bans. They were not able to

garner support from industry,

and instead we prolonged the

inevitable success of bans with

severe push back. Now our

options are somewhat limited.

In the very near future I suspect

that PP reusable bags or heavy

gauge PE plastic bags may be

the only viable plastic option

for consumers at our checkout

counters in California. Addition-

ally, sometime in the near future

there is a strong potential that

Extended Producer Responsibility

fees will be mandated and paid

directly to the state to defer

some of the costs associated

with litter/marine debris clean

up, collection and recycling of

plastic film. Hopefully, legislation

will be introduced allowing

processors using verifiable, post

consumer resins to mitigate the

cost of future fees, but the future

is uncertain and will depend on

our industries willingness to work

together toward a common goal.

As President of the WPA, I suggest

that the plastics industry finally

get together and face head on

not just plastic bans but the

(Continued, see President, page 2)

John Picciuto, President of the Western Plastics Association

2


inevitable onset of fees on our

products. We should figure out

ways to take responsibility for

our products, and STAY IN BUSI-

NESS. The only way to make sure

we CAN stay in business is to

design programs that benefit

plastics while taking responsibil-

ity for the products we produce.

The members of CFECA tried this

almost 10 years ago and had

many discussions about what

should and could be done. And

during these discussions the

idea at the top of the list was,

“how can we be ahead of this

curve so WE can still be in busi-

ness twenty years from now.”

What’s most striking about this

effort is its clear understanding

of what needed to be done in

2003, and the realization that

so little progress has been made

on many of these issues. Since

the old proposal was never

implemented, we find ourselves

responding with the same inef-

fective responses to attacks from

environmentalist and consumers

today. Perhaps it is again time to

start facing the challenges head

on and help coordinate an indus-

try wide approach. With the

“super majority” of Democrats

controlling Sacramento beginning

this January, I believe we should

all be trying to find ways to work

together and approach issues in

a manner which will ensure we

are all here in 2023. •

P R ES I D ENT [CONT ’D ]

WE P RO LONGEDTHE INEV I TAB L ESUCCESS OF BANS W I TH S EVE R E PUSHBACK .

3


Laurie Hansen, Executive and Legislative Director forWestern Plastics Association

TH I S T E L L S METHAT MEMBERSWANT TO TAKECHARGE OFTHE I R D ES T INYAND ACT I V E LYENGAGE ON I S SUES .

E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R ’ S R E P O R T :

LOOKING FORWARD TO THECHALLENGESBY L AUR I E HANSEN , WPA E X ECUT I V E D I R ECTOR

December 2012 officially marks

the completion of the first full

year for the Western Plastics

Association. We have had some

notable accomplishments—

membership has grown substan-

tially; finances are on the

upswing; turnout at meetings

has risen back to historic levels;

members are actively participat-

ing in functions; and interest is

growing in learning more about

what is happening to our indus-

try. We have received many

comments from members compli-

menting the choices the board

has made for speakers and topics.

Our last meeting in November

drew so much discussion after

the speakers were done we

finally had to stop because of

the late hour. And this was a

topic that is pretty difficult for

our industry to talk openly about

—taking responsibility for our

products and packaging. This

tells me that WPA members want

to take charge of their destiny

and actively engage on issues

that we will be facing in the

coming year.

Next year could bring more

significant challenges for our

industry in all the Western States

and Canada. Focus continues to

be placed on plastics—and the

negative attitudes have not

changed much. The public is del-

uged with negative stories about

plastic. We need to start getting

behind our members who have

worked diligently to make

change. Companies like Dart who

have put together polystyrene

recycling opportunities, Nature-

Works with their bioplastic mate-

rials, Roplast and Command with

plastic reusable plastic bags. As

the Western Plastics Association,

we have the opportunity to in-

form the public about the good

environmental activities of our

member companies and the

industry in the West. I recall in

the old Council for Solid Waste

Solutions and American Plastics

Council days, having the associa-

tion host education summits to

provide information to employ-

ees so that THEY could be the

messengers to their neighbors,

families and friends about the

environmental opportunities

that plastics provide. There ARE

things happening out there, and

this could be the time for WPA to

step up and act as the collector

of all the great stories happening

out there about recycling, com-

posting, reusability and the like.

There are very good topics

planned for our meetings in

2013, beginning with the January

15 resin forecast. Remember—

we have a new meeting location—

the Downey Embassy Suites.

And not only will we hear about

“regular” resin at the January

meeting, we will also learn what

is happening with recycled

resins, including post consumer.

March will be on the Federal

Health Care program and what

you should be prepared for; a

legislative day in Sacramento

in May; Vancouver in June and

another meeting in Southern

California will bring the results

of a massive and scientific study

on marine debris; September

mergers and acquisitions and

what is happening globally on

packaging. Please make sure

that you are receiving the meet-

ing notices and participating.

We hope that your company be-

comes a member of the organiza-

tion if you are not already. There

are also opportunities to high-

light what your company does—

whether it is through sponsoring

a meeting, placing an ad in the

WPA Today, or sponsoring a link

on the website.

As Executive Director and Leg-

islative Representative, I am

personally looking forward to the

new year and the challenges that

it will bring for our industry. Your

participation in WPA is critical to

keeping our industry going in the

Western States, and I hope that

when the time comes and you

are asked to step up to help us

out—that you will be willing to

do so. Have a great Holiday and

see you in the New Year. •

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

JANUARY 15, 2013Please Note: New Meeting Location

Embassy Suites Hotel Los Angeles/Downey

8425 Firestone Blvd., Downey, CA

RESIN FORECAST 2013• Forecast of resin prices and demand with a focus on the North American plastic manufacturing market

• Review of supply/demand and cost trends

• Discussion of how these issues will impact resin pricing

THANK YOU TO MEETING SPONSOR: NGR RECYCLING MACHINESNGR, simply one step ahead - Next Generation Recyclingmaschinen GmbH (NGR) of Austria produces machinery for the reprocessing ofthermoplastic waste back into high value raw material. With NGR’s ONE-STEP technology, a patented cutter-feeder-extruder combination,there is no additional pre-cutting system necessary, not even for difficult to cut materials. As a result reprocessing costs are low and man-power requirements are reduced to a minimum. Due to the gentle extrusion process, which ensures minimum degradation of the material,NGR recycling machines guarantee production of high quality pellets. The wide range of machines provide various solutions for the plasticsindustry as well as for post-consumer waste applications.

WHEN:Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:30 PM Registration & Networking 6:30 PM Program & Dinner

WHERE:Embassy Suites Hotel Los Angeles/Downey8425 Firestone Boulevard, Downey, CATel: 562.861.1900

* If you require a hotel room for this meeting, contact Embassy’s Sales Manager directly—562.299.1621

COST:RSVP by January 11, 2013WPA Member: $70 / Guest: $70First-time Attendee: $70Non-WPA Member: $150

RSVP after January 11, 2013WPA Member: $90 / Guest: $90First-time Attendee: $90Non-WPA Member: $180

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

RSVP today: [email protected]

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

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

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

916.930.1938 or [email protected]

2013

5


N O V E M B E R M E E T I N G R E - C A P :

WPA MEETING REPORT: EPRAND THE PLASTICS INDUSTRYBY CHANDL E R HADRABA , B RAD L EY PACKAG ING SYS T EMS

Extended Producer Responsibil-

ity(EPR) “Making Brand Owners

and Suppliers Pay,” was the topic

of the WPA evening program,

sponsored by EREMA Plastic

Recycling Systems, and featuring

presentations by Californians

Against Waste (CAW), Dart Con-

tainer Corp. and Titus Services.

EREMA, headquartered in Ans-

felden, Austria, is a global power-

house in the development and

production of plastic recycling

systems and components, with

almost 4,000 systems around the

world, producing over 12 million

tons of plastic resin pellets per

year and growing. The North

American market consists of

approximately 400 systems, but

with hundreds of technical trials

each year, EREMA expects con-

tinued growth. WPA members

Ranier Plastics and PPP both uti-

lize EREMA equipment. EREMA’s

specialty is developing options

and equipment to process post

consumer and post industrial,

plastic products, including film

and bag.

“If you think that your material is

too contaminated to be recycled,

give us a call because we love a

challenge,” says Tim Hanrahan

of Erema. Typically, material is

required to have a maximum of

10% contamination in order to be

processed effectively; however,

there are always new develop-

ments, which continue to expand

what materials can be reclaimed

and processed. EREMA systems

capture contaminates via filtra-

tion, only allowing melted poly-

mers to flow through, reducing

the risk of contamination to the

end pellet.

A common concern for domestic

companies is the risk in purchas-

ing equipment from a foreign-

based manufacturer. What about

spare parts? What about access

to service engineers in the

advent of equipment issues?

What about cultural and language

barriers? EREMA addresses

these concerns through main-

taining offices in Ipswich, MA,

dedicated to the North American

market. Service requests, techni-

cal trials, as well as other sales

and support issues, are handled

on-site by a staff of 16. The ability

to ship 74% of spare parts orders

on the same day from the Ipswich

location is a great indicator of

the value EREMA places on North

American customers.

After the presentation from

EREMA, the topic of “Extended

Producer Responsibility or EPR”

was first addressed by Nick Lapis

of Californians Against Waste

(CAW). EPR is considered a “dirty

word” around the offices of CAW,

so much so, one proposed action

is to place a penalty “tip jar” to

discourage staff from uttering

these words. Nick prefers to say

“Producer Responsibility,” and

while CAW supports producer

responsibility for products, CAW

is not fighting dogmatically for

the idea.

“EPR is not the only tool, and

to view it as a ‘one size fits all’

approach is not going to work,”

says Nick

When trying to determine who

the producer is to assign respon-

sibility, this system starts to

break down and Nick cited mat-

tresses as a real-world example.

Mattresses are the #1 disposal

problem for local governments,

due to individuals discarding

onto streets and other public

areas. Every mattress produced

has a tag identifying the manu-

facturing company, so the as-

sumption is to place the disposal

costs on this same company;

however, the mattress company

objects to this strategy and asks

about the other companies

involved in the production and

end sale to customers.

What about the company that

made the foam, or the company

making the springs? How about

the plastic bag for the mattress

or other packaging materials?

The distribution company and/or

end stores purchasing the mat-

tresses, considering they are

delivering the product to the

(Continued, see Report, page 6)

WHEN T RY INGTO DE T E RM INEWHO THE P RODUCER I S TO ASS IGN R ES PONS I B I L I T Y,TH I S SYS T EMSTARTS TO B R EAK DOWN.

6


point of sale, would not it make

most sense to assign responsibil-

ity at the time of sale? What if the

“brand owner” is not the actual

company manufacturing the mat-

tress, so should just the “brand

owner” be responsible? All of

these objections demonstrate

how it is difficult to define and

assign responsibility.

Another breakdown in the EPR

proposals is the main direction

will be toward a “tax,” which will

not guarantee funds collected

end up in programs and efforts

to combat waste issues for the

taxed product. Even when a tax

is passed, this does not ensure

implementation and success.

Over 6 years ago a bill was

passed regarding proper dis-

posal of thermostats due to

mercury components. To this day,

industry is still fighting the state

over the requirements, and an

effective disposal system does

not exist. When a program is

receiving funds and these funds

continue to accrue because the

programs needing these dollars

are in limbo or do not exist, this

money will be spent by govern-

ments in other areas.

Creation of a private stewardship

group, to manage and enforce

EPR programs, is the preferred

option for most proponents;

however, this too is a flawed

strategy. Expecting industry to

work together and create an

outside governing body for self-

regulation can create a credibility

risk. Moreover, most industries

subject to an EPR mandate are

not in the business of EPR, so

the expectation for a company

to execute in an area outside of

their core business is not the

best allocation of resources.

This is why an existing governing

authority or agency already

involved with enforcement and

regulation is better adapted for

the task.

CAW considers the extension of

the “California Bottle Bill” (AB

2020) to include plastic beverage

containers as one of the most

successful programs nationwide.

The “fee” collected for each bot-

tle is determined by the cost to

offset collection, sorting, and

processing. There is serious con-

sideration to expand the program

to include additional plastic

bottles; however, there is strong

opposition from companies

about the impact of these fees.

Approximately 1.25 billion dollars

are generated through the bottle

bill each year. Under the bottle

bill, there are funds available to

California-based processors of

these materials for creating addi-

tional products for the California

market. Targeted funding in this

manner is a great way to encour-

age California companies to

produce products and increase

landfill diversion rates. CAW

believes this program could be

replicated for other plastic prod-

ucts and may be the solution

instead of EPR. There are issues

with the existing bottle bill pro-

gram, including an estimated

$40 million dollar leakage from

redemptions from “out of state”


NOVEMBER R E PORT [CONT ’D ]

COMMUNITY RECYCLING TOUR DRAWSLARGE ATTENDANCE Prior to the November 13 WPA

meeting in Downey, members

and guests were invited to tour

a Material Recovery Facility

(MRF) showcasing a one-of-a-

kind plastic recycling facility.

Providing guests with lunch,

Community Recycling and

Resource Recovery gave a

presentation at their plant in

Sun Valley, followed by a guided

tour of the facility. The afternoon

began with a PowerPoint pres-

entation exhibiting how the

company picks up agricultural

plastic waste throughout Califor-

nia, cleans and then processes

the material back into PCR

pellets. The short video clips

showed the company’s own

trucks picking up piles of used

agricultural film and drip tape

alongside various fields in

California.

After the brief presentation and

questions were answered, the

members were taken on a walk-

ing tour of the facility. The tour

leaders stopped at various

stages in the process to give

explanations and to answer any

questions guests may have had

regarding the washing or extru-

sion. Currently, the company

takes in approximately 30

million pounds of material every

year. There are usually two types

of pellets made at the facility.

One is made from mulch film

and the other from drip tape.

The mulch film and drip tape

material remain segregated from

the initial pickup. The material is

thoroughly washed and then

sent through a large extruder.

Producing at a rate of five thou-

sand pounds an hour, the pellets

are then transferred to silos or

shipping containers ready to be

sent to the customer. In addition

to the highly advanced machinery,

the company has its own lab

area that is constantly running

tests to maintain a high stan-

dard for the pellets, and to make

changes when deemed necessary.

Community Recycling is unique

in that they are handling and

processing this material them-

selves, instead of shipping it

oversees like the rest of the

facilities in the area.

Upon returning from the tour, all

members received a sample of

the pellets that were currently

running in the system, as well as

a mulch film sample made from

the PCR pellets to take home

with them. Before departing,

guests were given a last chance

to ask any other questions they

had regarding the tour or the

facility. All in all, a special

experience that all WPA atten-

dees found to be entirely worth

their while.

(Continued, see Tour, page 7)

7


parties, which was addressed by

the California Assembly in the

last session. Due to the success

of the bottle bill in California,

CAW does not believe that EPR

will be attempted in the state.

Expect other states, including

states without an existing bottle

bill for plastic beverage contain-

ers, to attempt EPR programs.

Even though the California Bottle

Bill is considered a success, there

is a pending legal challenge

which may threaten the program.

Several petroleum refining corpo-

rations are suing the state over

the requirement to provide spe-

cial “blended” gasoline in order

to comply with emissions stan-

dards, developed to reduce

smog. The Dormant Commerce

Clause grants Congress the

power to regulate commerce

among states and can be used to

block a state’s authority to dis-

criminate against interstate com-

merce due to an “improper

burden.” Petroleum refiners view

the requirement of producing a

product specific to the California

market discriminatory to other

gasoline products legal in other

states and hurts consumers. If

successful in this legal challenge,

the same logic could be used to

end the California Bottle Bill, and

only legislation at the federal

level would be possible. While

having a nationwide program

would be ideal, and CAW sup-

ports nationwide legislation,

torpedoing individual states’

existing attempts, could be a

setback and handicap many WPA

members already involved with

state and local governmental

agencies on solutions.

Michael Westerfield, Corporate

Director of Recycling Programs

for Dart Container Corp, and new

WPA member, spoke about “Vol-

untary Producer Responsibility,”

created by Dart to address waste

diversion concerns of state and

local governments. This program

is available in 13 different states,

and growing. Dart is building a

nationwide network of collection

and processing options for

Polystyrene (PS) foam products,

including products not manufac-

tured by Dart. The preference is

to include PS foam as part of

existing curb-side programs, and

Dart estimates that for approxi-

mately $4.5 million dollars, curb-

side recycling for PS foam can be

extended to every citizen of Cali-

fornia. Beyond curbside pro-

grams, Dart is involved with

“e-waste protective packaging

foam” collection events, and

works with existing distributors

on take-back programs. While

Dart does prefer to direct PS

foam products to existing recy-

cling companies, Dart does oper-

ate two facilities, one in Michigan

and one in Southern California.

The Southern California facility,

located in Corona, is an exten-

sion of existing manufacturing

operations. The recycling opera-

tions offer 24-hour drop off, and

special arrangements can be

made to receive larger bulk

amounts. Michael offered tours

to WPA members of the Corona

facility. “PS foam products pro-

duced by Dart are one of best

performing and most environ-

mentally friendly options for food

and beverage containers, and

can be effectively recycled,”

says Michael.

Part of the reason why foam is

such a great material is that 95%

of foam is air—how many other

packaging options can you think

of that only use 5% material? Air

is very cheap, and completely a

renewable resource. Dart has

created some great videos on

the subject of PS foam and sus-

tainability available on YouTube

as well as extensive recycling

information on their company

website.

Dart, as well as the PS foam in-

dustry, is one of the early exam-

ples of what can happen when

you produce a product not easy

for local waste haulers to divert

or recycle, and it should serve as

a warning to all WPA members

involved with products incompat-

ible with current trash/recycling

systems. If there is a “hit list” for

products that environmental

activists despise, PS foam is at

the top. Many municipalities are

choosing to ban PS foam food



If you would like to tour the

facility, please contact Tim Stehr,

[email protected].

Information on Community

Community Recycling’s Material

Recovery Facility (MRF) in Sun

Valley offers the opportunity to

process residential, commercial,

and multi-family mixed refuse

prior to transfer and disposal.

The MRF is part of Crown

Disposal solid waste facility,

which began to operate as both

a mixed waste processing facil-

ity and transfer station in 1974.

Over the past 30 years, Commu-

nity has processed an ever-in-

creasing quantity of mixed solid

waste to separate out recyclables

for high grading and consolida-

tion prior to marketing, with the

flexibility to vary diversion rates

depending on disposal econom-

ics, landfill capacity and client

diversion requirements.

In 1974 the resource recovery

operations consisted of hand-

picking cardboard, newspaper

and metal from 300 tons per day

of waste prior to loading the

residual in roll-off containers,

with a resulting 2% recovery

rate.

The state-of-the-art mixed waste

recycling system has extensive

processing equipment including

trommels, conveyors, picking

platforms, magnets, and air

classifier for separation of

heavy and lightweight materials.

Recyclable materials are

extracted through both manual

and automated systems and

the facility tracks total tons

processed, recycled, and

disposed as residue. •

COMMUN I TY R ECYC L ING TOUR [CONT ’D ]

8


containers, even though Dart

Container is creating viable

options to address the original

objections to recyclability and

environmental impacts. Once

popular sediment reaches a level

where a product is banned, it is

incredibly difficult to change

popular opinion enough to re-

verse law.

The breakthrough for PS foam re-

cycling came with the creation of

“densifier” equipment, enabling

8,000 eight-ounce foam cups to

be compressed into a 15¢¢ x 15¢¢

cylinder. Both pre- and post-con-

sumer foam containers can be

placed into the densifier machine;

however, only the Dart recycling

center will accept contaminated

post-consumer foam. Contami-

nated foam is run through a

wash process, where it is

chopped up and cleaned 2–3

times before drying. Material

requiring cleaning has a recovery

rate below 50%; yet, engineers

at Dart are working on improving

this number and expect the per-

centage to continue to climb.

After completing the wash

process, recovered foam is mixed

with clean foam and run through

a condenser to create ingots

weighing approximately 32–35

lbs. These ingots are the final

product and are sold to proces-

sors manufacturing industrial

grade products, including picture

frames and plastic rulers. FDA

regulations do not allow for post-

consumer content foam contact

with food, so markets are limited.

Mike Centers, president of Titus

Services and new WPA member,

was the final speaker. Titus Serv-

ices provides commercial Mate-

rial Recovery Facility (MRF)

equipment as well as service and

training programs. Mike provided

a fascinating perspective of the

realities for companies attempt-

ing to recover and divert materi-

als. Recycling was originally

conducted curbside, with hand

sorting occurring before recy-

clables were dumped and com-

pressed in the truck. At this time

most garbage men were Team-

sters, but the employees at the

MRF were non-union, making ap-

proximately $12 an hour. Rather

than pay union scale wages and

conduct sorting curbside, a deci-

sion was made to shift the sort-

ing to the MRF and created the

system of today. The American

Chemistry Council is pushing for

better sorting at home by con-

sumers, but he believes this will

not work. Mike suggested that

we view plastics as either “clean”

or “dirty,” and regardless of ma-

terial type, clean dry plastics will

end up in the recycling bin.

Under this reality, getting your

product collected by the con-

sumer at the curbside level

enables companies a shot at

working with or developing

recycling options. If a product

is not entering the recycling bin,

the cost for companies to create

the systems and either divert

or recycle are enormous, as the

example of Dart Container

demonstrates.

Regarding the plastic bag, while

in theory this material can be

recycled, the true cost per ton to

recycle can be as high as $3,350.

Why, because plastic bags get

caught up in most MRF equip-

ment and will eventually cause

machine jams, halting the pro-

duction line, and $3,350 is the

average cost for Titus to service

this call. This is easy money, and

so Titus loves plastic bags, but

how do you think the MRF feels

every time they place a service

call for this issue? To help miti-

gate this issue, Recology in San

Francisco contracted Titus to

develop air suction tubes placed

above the waste stream to cap-

ture plastic bags at the start of

the production line. This solution

is run by four 200 hp, motors.

What do you think this is costing

Recology to operate? Titus does

have optical sorting options for

MRFs; yet contamination and

debris, such as plastic film and

bags, prevents the equipment

from seeing materials, so recov-

ery rates are lower than could be

achieved if these items were not

in the waste stream to sort.

While so many materials are

able to be recycled, 400 million

pounds is the critical mass

before MRFs will considering

capturing, so the challenge is

reaching this mark. Mike believes

that targeted laws can work, and

told how the City of Portland

determined compostable food

waste was the single largest

percentage of household waste.

In order to encourage participa-

tion and maximize diversion,

compostable bins are picked up

every week, while other trash is

only picked up every other week.

The California bottle bill is based

upon recycling rates, so consider

this form of EPR as a tax at the

start, not the end.

Do you have a recycling rate for

your products today? This is the

single most important question

plastic products manufacturing

companies need to be asking.

“View the answer as a ‘firewall’;

without it you are toast,” says

Mike. In Canada, there is a move

toward allowing individual store

managers to select the plastic

packaging material for products

on the store shelves. While the

option to select any material will

remain, the recycling rates for

PET are high and store owners

are confronted with covering the

higher additional costs for choos-

ing all other plastic packaging

options. Expect to see the most

pressure regarding EPR from

brand owners, such as Frito-Lay,

because their logo is on the ma-

terials MRFs are struggling with.

To further understand opera-

tional difficulties of MRFs, know

that typical MRFs are designed to

capture paper products, which

historically represents 60% of

the recycled materials processed.

With the advent of “identity

theft,” suddenly everyone

bought a paper shredder and

now paper was mixed and MRFs

could not handle this material.

In response to this change, Titus

Services invented a patented

process to reclaim mixed paper.

This enabled MRFs to maximize

paper collection; however, two

additional events occurred. First,

improvements in technology have

eliminated many of the demands



9



for paper, so the amount of ma-

terial going into collection bins

has drastically fallen. Second,

improve ments in flexible packag-

ing technology are cannibalizing

many paperboard packaging for-

mats, further reducing volumes.

Now the 60% paper products the

MRFs are receiving is actually re-

placed by 60% plastic products.

MRFs have the wrong equipment

to capture the materials they are

receiving, state and local govern-

ments are also broke; as a result

capital is not available either

through standard or government

backed options, so new equip-

ment is not an option. Also, in-

creasing the number of recycling

bins, say adding one just for

plastics only, adds additional

costs and logistical challenges.

Due to the contamination of

materials from the elimination of

curbside sorting, what is recover-

able at the MRFs is low to begin

with, and even adding additional

sorting stations to expand mate-

rials to recover is not possible.

Hauling waste and recyclables is

very dependent upon minimal

distances, so existing locations

do not have space available and

relocation will only increase tran-

sit costs. The way out of this real-

ity is not clear.

After Mike completed his presen-

tation, the floor was opened up

for audience questions. Darrell

Costello of Roplast Industries

asked how it is as an industry we

are failing to create laws to assist

with capturing flexible packaging

materials, which we know are

recyclable, in a way to benefit

California. Nick Lapis of CAW,

responded that California bill AB

2449 established the most ex-

tensive collection system for re-

cycling plastic bags, and it was a

failure. As a result, CAW does not

view recycling as a solution for

recycling “single use” plastic

bags and doubts similar pro-

grams for other plastic products

will work unless they are an ex-

tension of what works in the Cali-

fornia Bottle Bill. Laurie Hansen

went on to stress that additional

pressure from brand owners will

only be increasing upon industry

to craft solutions or expect to see

continued product bans and the

move towards EPR.

The various packaging “score

cards” will not mean the end of

selecting the best materials

available, however; the practice

of “de-listing” or “de-selecting”

may occur. Think of de-selecting

as another form of the “eco hit

list” that exists for various plastic

products. Styrofoam, plastic

bags, and plastic caps are all on

this list—what will be next?

Once an item is banned or “de-

listed,” is the material used to

produce the product next? •

http://www.flintgrp.com/

10


http://www.whcorp.com/

11


P O L I T I C S :

ELECTION 2012 RECAP BY B RUCE MAGNAN I , THE HOUSTON GROUP

For the first time since the 1930s,

the California State Legislature

will be controlled by a super ma-

jority, meaning Democrats can

pass taxes or fees without a sin-

gle Republican vote. What does

this mean for the Western Plas-

tics Association? Issues of inter-

est for WPA such as bag fees or

fees associated with EPR could

be considered and passed by the

Legislature without any meaning-

ful debate. It will be critical for

WPA to maintain a political

presence in Sacramento and to

engage on business and environ-

mental issues through engage-

ment with your elected represen-

tatives. WPA is planning a Leg-

islative Day in Sacramento in

May, and by that time we will

have a good handle on how the

issues critical to staying in busi-

ness in the state may play out.

Democratic Super Majority—how

did this happen? In a surprising

turn of events Assembly Republi-

cans failed to defend an incum-

bent seat, in conservative Orange

County. Going into election day,

there were several key races

identified by both parties.

Assembly District 8 between

Democrat Ken Cooley versus

Republican Peter Tateishi and

Assembly District 32 between

Democrat Rudy Salas versus

Republican Pedro Rios. It was

clear these two seats were up for

grabs. Cooley, with a huge infu-

sion of cash from the Democratic

Party and Independent groups on

his behalf won the District 8 seat,

spending over $5 million. The

shocking upset that ultimately

gave the Democrats a super

majority in the Assembly was

incumbent Assemblymember

Chris Norby, an Orange County

Republican, losing to Democrat

challenger Sharon Quirk-Silva in

a very tight race.

The Democrats did fail to protect

two of their Assembly incumbents,

but those two losses were to

other Democrats, which is possi-

ble with California’s new “top

two” rule. Typically failure to pro-

tect incumbents would be a prel-

ude to a change in leadership,

but due to Speaker Perez’s ability

to gain a super majority, it is

nearly assured he stays in power

in the Assembly. In spite of the

failure of Assembly Republicans

to retain incumbent seats or win

targeted races, Assembly Repub-

lican Leader Connie Conway has

been re-elected to her leadership

post. Typically, losing important

seats and failing to protect an in-

cumbent would all but guarantee

her ouster, but members of the

Republican caucus believe she

successfully raised money and

the failure was due to extraordi-

nary resources being injected

into the election by unions to de-

feat Proposition 32, which would

have severely curbed union

power.

Unlike the Assembly, most politi-

cal observers conceded prior to

election day that a Democratic

super majority was likely to be

achieved in the state Senate.

Four Senate races were identified

as possibly going to either party.

As the election neared, Senate

District 39 was clearly going to

the Democrats, which left three

battleground districts: Senate

District 5 pitting Republican Bill

Berryhill against Democrat Cath-

leen Galgiani, District 27 pitting

Republican Todd Zink against

Democrat Fran Pavley and finally

District 31 pitting Republican Jeff

Miller against Democrat Richard

Roth. Democrats Pavley and Roth

easily won election while the

Senate District 5 was too close to

call. After counting provisional

ballots and absentee ballots,

Galgiani moved in front. With

this result holding, it gives the

Democrats a clean sweep in tar-

geted races. None of these races

is close enough to entice a re-

count except for the Galgiani

race, with the only real complica-

tion being sitting Democrat

Senators Juan Vargas and Gloria

Negrete-McLeod being elected to

Congress. Meaning, the Democ-

rats will have to wait for Special

Elections to fill the vacancies of

these traditionally Democrat held

seats before officially declaring

victory and a super majority in

the state Senate.

(Continued, see Elections, page 12)

DEMOCRAT ICSUPE R MA JOR I T Y— H O W D ID TH I S HAP P EN?

12


E L ECT IONS [CONT ’D ]

California State Assembly

Democrats: 54

Republicans: 26

California State Senate

Democrats: 29

Republicans: 11

STATE PROPOSITION

OUTCOMES

Prop 30, Governor Jerry Brown’s

initiative to temporarily raise

income taxes and the state sales

tax passed by a margin of 54

percent to 46 percent. While the

initiative was split 50-50 entering

the final week of the election

cycle and trending down, the

Governor unleashed his state -

wide blitz. Focusing on Los Ange-

les and the San Francisco Bay

Area, the Governor successfully

turned the tide on Prop 30. How

did it happen?

Jerry Brown kept a low profile

leading up to the final week of

the election, avoiding the press

and not speaking openly about

Prop 30. Behind the scenes the

Governor was on an aggressive

fund-raising push, all while con-

tinuing his lobbying of big busi-

ness to stay out of the Prop 30

fight. The Governor was success-

ful on both fronts. In the final

week of the election the Gover-

nor’s blitz targeted young voters,

holding numerous rallies at

major college campuses across

the state and energizing his

liberal base, teacher’s unions,

which invested money for ads,

and people for phone banking

and walking door to door. What

appeared to be a disjointed Yes

on Prop 30 campaign leading up

to election day turned out to be

an effective strategy that likely

had coattails in legislative races

as well as impacts on other state-

wide initiatives.

Prop 32, an attempt to eliminate

direct campaign contributions

from corporations and unions to

candidates failed passage, 46

percent to 54 percent. The failure

of this proposition is much more

direct and simple. Organized

labor spent $71 million dollars on

the No campaign. With Governor

Brown energizing his base to get

out and vote yes on Prop 30, it

should be no surprise this meas-

ure failed as the No campaign

closely coordinated their efforts

with the Yes on Prop 30 team.

Prop 39, which removes the ability

for out-of-state companies to

choose between two apportion-

ment formulas for tax treatment

in California and requires the use

of a single sales factor formula.

The Proposition does allow ex-

emptions for banking, agriculture

and extractive industries. Addi-

tionally, the Prop 39 provides

special treatment for cable com-

panies. The state’s Legislative

Analyst’s Office has estimated

the change in tax law will gener-

ate approximately $1 billion in

additional revenues, of which

$550 million will be dedicated to

clean energy projects. •

LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY

OUTLOOK 2013

Plastics and Packaging Bans:

The California State Water Re-

sources Control Board (SWRCB)

will consider the inclusion of

bans on “single-use packaging”

as a “tool” for controlling trash

reaching California waterways.

Specifically the proposal would

provide support for and encour-

age local governments to imple-

ment bans on products such as

single-use plastic bags and poly-

styrene foodservice ware. In

return for implementing a ban,

local jurisdictions would be

granted “credits” by the SWRCB

necessary to comply with yet-to-

be-developed regulations

related to trash Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL).

Under the Federal Clean Water

Act, when rivers and streams are

impacted by trash, the local

water quality district is required

to implement Trash TMDLs.

These TMDLs are used to regu-

late local governments and may

require that a city and or county

implement costly storm water

pollution prevention programs

such as installation of storm

drain covers, etc.

The first trash TMDL was passed

in the Los Angeles area. Heal the

Bay, a Santa Monica activist

group, sued the Los Angeles

Water Quality Control District,

alleging that the district was

violating the Federal Clean Water

Act by allowing trash to flow into

two rivers and ultimately into

the Santa Monica Bay. Heal the

Bay won that lawsuit, and in

1998 the L.A. Water Board was

required to develop a plan and

regulations to prevent trash from

flowing into L.A. waterways.

These regulations require Los

Angeles cities to implement

physical upgrades to the storm

water system to keep trash out.

Estimated costs for the up-

grades are between $350–400

million. All Los Angeles cities are

required to eliminate trash going

into waterways and out to

the bays.

Under the draft statewide policy

for trash control to protect Cali-

fornia’s waterways, the SWRCB

would allow local governments

to partially achieve Trash TMDL

compliance by banning plastic

products and packaging. The

policy is being drafted by water

board staff, with significant

input from a “public advisory

group” comprised of environ-

mental organizations, local

governments, and a single repre-

sentative of the plastics industry

who is affiliated with the Ameri-

can Chemistry Council.

(Continued, see Issues, page 13)

WPA ISSUES

13


WPA I S SUES [CONT ’D ]

The SWRCB will be releasing a

draft trash policy and updates

for public review and comment.

It is critical that WPA actively

participates in this process to

support member companies and

others in the plastics industry in

California and the nation to elim-

inate any state-endorsed plas-

tics ban.

Resin Pellet Containment

Regulations:

The SWRCB is in the process of

re-writing the state’s storm

water regulations. These regula-

tions have been in place since

1997 and are required under the

Federal National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) program.

In developing the updated regu-

lations, SWRCB staff has added

a new section pertaining to

plastic resin pellet containment,

which will impact plastics re-

claimers in California. In 2007,

AB 258 was passed and was

signed into law. The statute

provides the SWRCB detailed

guidance for use in developing

required regulations related to

how plastic resin pellets used in

manufacturing should be man-

aged and contained. The new

draft storm water regulations in-

clude those pellet containment

provisions. You can find the draft

regulations pertaining to pellet

containment on pages 62-64 of

the Draft NPDES Regulations

[click here].

It is likely the SWRCB will be

looking to identify funding

sources to cover the costs of im-

plementing and enforcing these

new regulations. With a super

majority, it will be much easier

for the board to ask for legisla-

tive authority to implement a

fee or tax to cover those costs.

Active involvement by WPA will

be necessary to ensure any such

action will avoid negative im-

pacts to plastic manufacturers.

Extended Producer

Responsibility Fees:

EPR programs and associated

fees have been a hot topic in

Sacramento for the past eight

years. An EPR fee on packaging,

in the new look Legislature,

could easily be passed. While

the Governor was successful in

passing his tax increase (Prop

30), cities are still hurting finan-

cially and local fees or taxes will

be wanted to back fill budgets

for programs like solid waste

management.

Potential product taxes could be

placed on products like bottles,

bags, food service items, and

use of the money may be used

for litter and marine debris

abatement at the local govern-

ment level.

Because California has not seen

a super majority in decades and

the political landscape is so dif-

ferent, it is difficult to guess how

the Democrat majority will act.

Historically, the Legislature has

avoided difficult policy decisions

but with this new look in Sacra-

mento, WPA must be vigilant in

watching what is happening and

reacting in a timely manner.

Your Sacramento representa-

tives will need your assistance

when the time is right—the

plastic industry must be ready

to act accordingly. •

WITH THE NEWLOOK IN SACRAMENTO,WPA MUST BEV IG I LANT INWATCHING WHATIS HAPPEN INGAND REACT INGIN A T IME LY MANNER .

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/industrial/2012npdesgenprmt/permit_igp_72012.pdf

14


B A G B A N :

PORTLAND EXPANDS PLASTICBAG BAN TO 5,000 BUSINESSESBY B E TH S LOV IC , THE OREGON IAN

Portland shoppers, bid farewell

to plastic bags.

Soon, disposable bags for carry-

ing your take-out pad Thai, your

7-Eleven sundries and your

farmers market flowers will go

the way of polystyrene.

The Portland City Council on

Thursday greatly expanded the

city’s 1-year-old ban on plastic

bags at big-box stores and super-

markets, voting 5–0 to phase

out plastic checkout bags at an

estimated 5,000 restaurants

and retailers, including food

carts, farmers markets and

corner stores.

Portland’s 2011 rule affected

fewer than 200 businesses. The

new rules, which take effect

next year, will be a lot harder for

residents and visitors to avoid.

The regulations kick in for big

retailers March 1 and will cover

all other Portland businesses

as of Oct. 1.

Business owners will still be able

to provide plastic bags for bulk

items, produce, meats, dry clean-

ing and prescription drugs. Other

so-called “goopy items” could

get exceptions later, city officials

said. Durable plastic bags—at

least 4 mil (4 thousandths of an

inch) thick with handles—also

will still be allowed.

Otherwise, customers will have

to switch to paper, bring their

own bags or go without to carry

items out of stores.

“I believe Portlanders will rise

to the challenge,” Commissioner

Dan Saltzman said in front of a

small audience of supporters

wearing blue “ban the bag”

T-shirts and a few others

dressed in “bag monster”

costumes made from hundreds

of discarded plastic bags.

Portland last year became the

first city in Oregon—but not the

first in the United States—to

limit plastic checkout bags, after

an effort to pass a statewide ban

fell short in the Legislature.

Plastic shopping bags have been

under attack for years as a men-

ace to wildlife and the environ-

ment, with a growing number

of cities and even entire nations

such as Italy banning or limiting

them.

Portland’s measure drew little

opposition Thursday. The North-

west Grocery Association and

some environmental groups had

encouraged the City Council to

(Continued, see Portland, page 16)

CUSTOMERSWI L L HAVE TOSWI TCH TOPAPE R , B R INGTHE I R OWNBAGS OR GOWI THOUT TOCARRY I T EMSOUT OF S TORES .

P O R T L A N D B A G B A NCurrent: Since October 2011, single-use plastic bags at checkout have been banned at supermarkets

with $2 million or more in gross annual sales and at stores (such as Fred Meyer) with pharmacies and

at least 10,000 square feet.

Starting March 1: Stores and food providers with at least 10,000 square feet will be limited to paper or

reusable bags at checkout.

Starting Oct. 1: All stores and food providers, including farmers markets and food carts, will be limited

to paper or reusable bags at checkout.

Exceptions: Plastic bags can be used for prescriptions, bulk items, produce, meats and dry cleaning;

and to keep one item from “damaging or contaminating” another.

Places with similar laws: A growing list includes dozens of California cities and counties; Seattle;

Aspen, Colo.; Maui and Kauai, Hawaii; and entire countries such as Italy and Rwanda. Bans are on

track in Eugene and Corvallis, Ore.

15


B A G B A N :

2012 APBA OVERVIEWBY DAV ID ASSE L IN , E X ECUT I V E D I R ECTOR A PBA

The American Progressive Bag

Alliance (APBA) was founded in

2005 to represent a thriving and

growing industry employing tens

of thousands of American workers.

APBA’s current advocacy initia-

tives serve as the front-line

defense against plastic bag bans

and taxes while proactively

promoting the benefits of plastic

bags. Key initiatives include:

• Increasing recycling opportuni-

ties

• Litter prevention

• Increasing bag reuse

• Correcting misperceptions

concerning litter and waste

• Opposing city proposals that

could impact consumer use of

plastic bags

APBA works closely with a net-

work of state and local retail,

manufacturing and business

organizations as well as our

member companies and other

interested parties to help

achieve our goals.

2012 Successes

In 2012, APBA has been success-

ful in turning back proposals to

ban or tax plastic bags in a num-

ber of states and communities,

including state-wide proposals in

California, Maryland, Vermont,

Virginia and Washington as well

as several city proposals such as

Tucson, AZ, Darien, CT, New Or-

leans, LA, Warren, RI, Windham,

ME, and Corpus Christi & Hous-

ton, TX.

In Tucson, New Orleans and

Corpus Christi, APBA was suc-

cessful in working with local

elected officials and other key

stakeholders to implement new

or enhanced plastic bag recycling

programs that include public

education, including recycling

events at schools, and recycling

opportunities for consumers

throughout those cities. In these

localities, what started as a pro-

posal to ban plastic bags turned

into an opportunity for the indus-

try to showcase the positive

aspects of plastic bag recycling.

In addition, APBA has commis-

sioned or supported studies from

third-party entities to assess the

true impacts of plastic bag bans

and taxes. In 2012 a study was

performed by the National Center

for Policy Analysis that looked

at the economic impact and

displacement of commerce that

stemmed from the 2011 Ban

on plastic bags in Los Angeles

County. Also, a study by the

Beacon Hill Institute this year up-

dated the negative economic im-

pact in terms of jobs and revenue

losses stemming from the 2010

Washington, DC plastic bag tax.

To achieve our successes, APBA

counters the myths and junk

science spread by plastic bag

opponents while also presenting

its recycling solutions as the best

environmental policy to address

the litter issue. Through such

targeted outreach campaigns

like A Bag’s Life and Bag the Ban,

APBA’s public educational initia-

tives successfully unite nonprof-

its, business, community and

government organizations

around the common goal of

promoting the three R’s—reduce,

reuse and recycle. As a result of

our initiatives to date, less than

one half of one percent of all U.S.

cities currently ban or tax plastic

retail carry out bags.

2013 Threats and Opportunities

While APBA has seen success in

2012, the proponents of plastic

bag bans and taxes continue to

organize and promote efforts to

regulate plastic bags via direct

lobbying of state and local

elected officials as well as

through traditional and new

media outlets.

In 2012, the city of Los Angeles

passed legislation to write a

plastic bag ban. That process is

currently being undertaken with

the city beginning its Environ-

mental Impact overview. We

expect that in early 2013 the city

will come back with final recom-

mendations.

In 2013 we know we will continue

to face threats in state legisla-

tures and at a local level. We are

already aware of 2013 state-wide

proposals in Delaware, Maryland,

Massachusetts and New Jersey.

In addition, we expect further

state action in California, Maine,

Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia

and Washington.

(Continued, see Overview, page 16)

IN 2012, APBAWAS SUCCESSFULIN TURNINGBACK PROPOSALSTO BAN OR TAXP LAST IC BAGS INA NUMBER OFSTATES AND COMMUNIT I ES .

David Asselin, APBA Executive Director

16


We also anticipate an increase in

activity at the local level since

that is where the environmental

groups have concentrated more

and more of their efforts.

In 2013 APBA will also continue

its efforts of public education on

the benefits of plastic bags

through both traditional media

and our on-

line presence.

We also expect

to capitalize

on the suc-

cesses of recycling programs and

education in those localities

where it is being implemented

and use that information to

continue to advocate for

increased plastic bag recycling

as the preferable alternative to

product bans and taxes. •APBA is a unit of the Society of

the Plastics Industry. Contact

David Asselin, Executive Director,

American Progressive Bag

Alliance, at 202.974.5257 or

[email protected].

APBA OVERV I EW [CONT ’D ] PORT LAND [CONT ’D ]

adopt a mandatory 5-cent fee on

paper bags to encourage shop-

pers to choose reusable bags.

But Mayor Sam Adams said he

dropped that idea when he real-

ized it wouldn’t get unanimous

City Council support.

Still, some kept up the plea. Joe

Gilliam, president of the grocery

association, said Thursday that

his organization would prefer

a fee, arguing that the cost of

providing paper bags is high.

His group supported the ban

anyway, and he said he was

pleased that all retailers will

be affected.

“It should apply to all businesses

equally or not at all,” he said.

Elsewhere in Oregon, Corvallis

and Eugene have approved

bag bans this year, though

both mandated a 5-cent fee on

paper bags.

Newport, Adams’ hometown,

could adopt a similar measure

by popular vote in May.

“Newport better do it,” Adams

joked Thursday. “It’s where I

grew up.” •Reprinted from Nov 16, 2012,

www.oregonlive.com.

http://www.ngr.at

17


B A G B A N :

DIRECTIONLESS AND MINDLESSTORONTO CITY COUNCIL RESCINDS PROPOSED PLASTICBAG BANBY L LOYD A LT E R , T R E EHUGGER MED IA

In July I wrote that Toronto is First

Large Canadian City To Ban The

Plastic Bag, And Rob Ford Is The

Greenest Toronto Mayor Ever

when Mayorish Rob Ford wanted

to get rid of the 5 cent bag tax,

and Council ended up almost

accidentally banning plastic bags

entirely.

Then the Plastic People got angry

and the Ontario Convenience

Stores Association filed a law-

suit, and City Council folded.

After hearing “confidential evi-

dence from the City Solicitor,”

council folded, 38 to 7.

So now we have no bag tax, no

bag ban, and Rob Ford can notch

up another victory when he is

barely even mayor. After all, as

his brother, Doug the Thug, Mr.

Free Market, notes about a 5 cent

charge, “We can’t let the retailers

make a profit off the taxpayers”

by selling bags instead of giving

them away.

Even without Rob Ford, we are so

screwed here in Toronto. I don’t

usually do infographics but this

one says it all. •Article originally appeared at

www.treehugger.com, Nov. 28,

2012.

THE P LAST IC PEOPLE GOTANGRY AND THEC I TY COUNCI LFOLDED.

18


B A G B A N :

TORONTO TRASHES ITS PLASTICBAG BANBY ENV I RONMENT NEWS SE RV ICE

Toronto City Council has thrown

out its controversial plastic

bag ban.

City Council voted 38-7 to ap-

prove a motion by Councillor

Denzil Minnan-Wong that kills

the ban they adopted in July.

The ban would have taken effect

on January 1, 2013.

“We’ve made a decision. There is

no ban on bags,” said Minnan-

Wong, who chairs the Public

Works Committee. “There is no

five-cent charge [for bags.] We

have spent enough time at coun-

cil dealing with this. We need to

move forward.”

So at this point, the Toronto City

Council has endorsed a policy

that calls for a ban on plastic

bags, but today defeated the

by-law implementing that policy.

Toronto’s political struggle over

plastic bags began on June 1,

2009, when a five-cent plastic-

bag fee approved by City Council

under then Mayor David Miller,

took effect. Retailers kept the

five cents they collected for each

single-use plastic carry bag

they sold.

On May 14, 2012, Councillor

Michelle Berardinetti asked the

Executive Committee to consider

a proposal asking retailers to

donate the proceeds of the

plastic bag fee to the city’s

efforts to maintain the tree

canopy, reopening the issue of

the plastic bag fee.

Mayor Rob Ford, an opponent

of the plastic bag fee, saw an

opportunity to propose doing

away with it.

On June 6, Council agreed to

eliminate the bag fee, but, in a

blow to Mayor Ford, Councillor

David Shiner proposed banning

plastic bags altogether based on

environmental concerns.

With little public debate or

consultation, this new policy

was approved by City Council.

On November 14, the Public

Works and Infrastructure

Committee drafted language for

a plastic bag ban by-law, sending

it to the next full meeting of city

council for a vote.

The next day the Ontario Conven-

ience Stores Association mounted

a legal challenge to the by-law in

Ontario Superior Court. The ban

is being implemented without

proper consultation, the group

argued in its court documents.

On November 28, City Council

rejected the draft by-law.

The Ontario Convenience Stores

Association expressed relief that

City Council withdrew the plastic

bag ban by-law.

“This is a good day for small

businesses in Toronto and we

commend Toronto City Council

for their thoughtful reconsidera-

tion of this by-law and the impact

it would have had on conven-

ience stores” said Dave Bryans,

CEO of the Ontario Convenience

Stores Association.

“By selectively prohibiting

merchants from providing certain

types of plastic bags, shoppers

would have been less likely to

make purchases and that would

have hit Toronto’s small, family

run convenience stores the

hardest,” Bryans said.

Under the council’s rules, it will

now take a two-thirds majority

vote to reopen the bag ban issue

within the next year.

City Council also asked its staff

to prepare a report on “the

benefits and implications of a

range of measures to reduce the

use and disposal of plastic bags

in Toronto.”

That report is due in June 2013.

Meanwhile, Mayor Ford is vowing

to appeal a court ruling that has

ordered him out of office on a

matter unrelated to plastic bags.

In his November 26 ruling, Justice

Charles Hackland concluded that

Ford’s decision to speak about

and vote on an item that freed

him from repaying $3,150 in

improper donations to his foot-

ball charity amounted to “willful

blindness.”

The judge suspended his deci-

sion for 14 days so that the city

can sort out an administrative

path forward. •Article originally appeared at

www.ens-newswire.com, Nov.

29, 2012. ©Environment News

Service. All rights reserved.

TORONTO C I T YCOUNC I L HASTHROWN OUTI T S P LAS T IC BAG BAN .

19


R E C Y C L I N G :

HOW2RECYCLE LABEL GAINS MORE TRACTION IN NATIONALMARKETPLACEBY ASH L EY HOLMES , GREENB LUE COMMUN ICAT IONS

The Sustainable Packaging Coali-

tion (SPC), a project of sustain-

ability nonprofit GreenBlue, is

pleased to announce additional

participants in the soft launch

of its pioneering How2Recycle

on-package recycling labeling

system. Major brand names,

including Best Buy, Clorox, and

Minute Maid, will be joining 10

other leading companies already

participating in the soft launch,

including Costco Wholesale,

General Mills, Seventh Genera-

tion, and REI, in implementing

the label on select packaging

available nationwide in early

2013. Additionally, the SPC has

announced its five-year plan for

the labeling system.

How2Recycle was developed to

reduce consumer confusion

around recycling in the United

States with a clear and consis-

tent recycling label and corre-

sponding informational website,

how2recycle.info. It provides

companies with an easy way to

conform to the Federal Trade

Commission’s (FTC) “Green

Guides” while using nationwide

recyclability data. While several

other recycling labels and sym-

bols exist, the How2Recycle

Label is the only one that com-

municates recyclability across all

material types and gives explicit

directions to consumers to influ-

ence their recycling behavior. It

also specifies when a package

component is not recyclable.

The How2Recycle label will be

appearing on a new juice product

from Minute Maid, Clorox’s

Scoop Away products, and select

Exclusive Brands products from

Best Buy.

“Reducing our environmental

footprint is important to Clorox.

One way we can do this is to

encourage consumers to recycle

our packages. Consumers under-

stand the concept of recycling

but are frequently confused on

what packages can or can’t be

recycled. They want the process

to be easier and we think the

recovery label does just that,”

said Gwen Lorio of Clorox. “As

we enable consumers to recycle

(Continued, see Label, page 20)

THE S PC A IMSFOR THE L ABE LTO AP P EAR ONTHE MA JOR I T Y OF CONSUMERP RODUCT PACKAG ING BY 2016 .

G R E E N B L U E N A M E S N I N A G O O D R I C H E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R

The Board of Directors of Green-

Blue today announced the

appointment of Nina Goodrich

as Executive Director of the

organization. Goodrich will also

continue in her current role as

Program Director for GreenBlue’s

flagship project, the Sustainable

Packaging Coalition (SPC).

“We are thrilled that Nina is tak-

ing on the role of Executive Direc-

tor for GreenBlue, and we look

forward to the benefits that her

innovative thinking will bring to

all of our programs,” said Green-

Blue Board Chair Guy Gleysteen,

a Senior Vice President at

Time Inc.

Goodrich is an internationally

recognized leader with expertise

in sustainability, innovation, and

organizational development. She

was previously Program Director

for PAC NEXT in Toronto, an initia-

tive of The Packaging Association

that strives toward a “world with-

out packaging waste.” Goodrich

also founded consultancy Sus-

tainnovation Solutions to inspire

industry to understand the busi-

ness opportunity that sustain-

ability offers and the role it can

play in re-inventing competitive

corporate strategy.

GreenBlue is working to build a

world where businesses are lead-

ers for environmental steward-

ship and products are designed

from the start with sustainability

in mind. Since its founding over

10 years ago, the organization

has grown from a small start-up

with a pioneering strategy of

working directly with business

on product design to a well -

respected thought leader in sus-

tainability. Through successful

(Continued, see Goodrich, page 20)

20


HOW2RECYC L E L ABE L [CONT ’D ]

correctly, we ensure more quality

recycled material is available for

us to use, our consumers send

less waste to landfill, and we can

reduce the energy needed to

create new packages. Overall,

this can be a win for us all.”

The How2Recycle label can al-

ready be found on numerous

products available (or soon to be

available) in the marketplace,

including Esteé Lauder’s Aveda

Outer Peace Acne Pads; a variety

of Kirkland products from Costco

Wholesale; General Mills’ Yoplait

yogurt brand; Microsoft com-

puter accessories; REI’s Novara

bicycle accessories, multi-towels,

and hang tags; most Seventh

Generation products; and Sealed

Air’s Fill-Air inflatable packaging.

A photo gallery of the packages

carrying the label that are cur-

rently in the market is available

at www.how2recycle.info/gallery/.

The soft launch of the label will

run through the first quarter of

2013. Full implementation of the

label will begin thereafter and

will incorporate feedback gath-

ered during the soft launch

period from consumers, retailers,

participating companies, local

governments, trade associations,

and recyclers. The SPC plans to

add up to 20 additional partici-

pants after the soft launch phase

and aims for the label to appear

on the majority of consumer

product packaging by 2016.

Companies interested in using

the label on their products after

the soft launch period can con-

tact GreenBlue Senior Manager

Anne Bedarf for more informa-

tion at 434.817.1424 ext. 314 or

[email protected].

“We look forward to taking this

long-term SPC project to the next

level,” said Bedarf, who along

with GreenBlue Project Associate

Danielle Peacock has shepherded

the process. “With the revision of

the FTC’s Green Guides now out,

attention again has turned to

accurate and transparent recycla-

bility messaging, and the SPC’s

How2Recycle label is quickly

becoming the industry standard.

We designed the business model

with a tiered structure to encour-

age participation by businesses

of all sizes, and we look forward

to working with a diverse group

of forward-thinking companies

as we enter the next phase.”

About GreenBlue and the Sus-

tainable Packaging Coalition

GreenBlue® is a nonprofit that

equips business with the science

and resources to make products

more sustainable. GreenBlue

currently works in three program

areas: chemicals, packaging, and

forest products, as well as work-

ing one-on-one with companies

through GreenBlue Advisory

Services. The Sustainable Pack-

aging Coalition®, a project of

GreenBlue, is an industry work-

ing group of approximately 200

companies from across the pack-

aging supply chain. Through

strong member support, a

science-based approach, and

supply chain collaborations, the

SPC endeavors to build packag-

ing systems that encourage

economic prosperity and a sus-

tainable flow of materials. •Reprinted from Nov 28, 2012,

www.greenblue.org. Contact

[email protected].

projects such as the SPC, Clean-

Gredients, the Forest Products

Working Group, and Advisory

Services, GreenBlue has earned

a reputation for its scientific

credibility and technical expert-

ise in helping businesses imple-

ment concrete sustainability

solutions and innovations.

“Nina’s passion and energy

make her the perfect leader for

both GreenBlue and the SPC,”

said Jeff Wooster of The Dow

Chemical Company, who is a

member of both the GreenBlue

Board of Directors and the SPC

Executive Committee. “We are

excited about the benefits this

alignment will bring to the

organization.”

This appointment of Goodrich

as Executive Director recognizes

the importance of SPC within

the GreenBlue family while con-

tinuing to support the broader

GreenBlue mandate.

“I see this as a great opportu-

nity to work toward the Green-

Blue vision of making products

more sustainable,” said

Goodrich. “GreenBlue and

the SPC have a shared vision

to develop the sustainability

strategies and tools that can

mobilize industry to embed

sustainable thinking into their

product development

processes.” •

GOODR ICH [CONT ’D ]

21


R E C Y C L I N G :

LANE RESIDENTS STATE’S TOP RECYCLERSBY GREG BO LT, THE R EG I S T E R -GUARDIf you want to look at it this way,

one could say that every man,

woman and child in Lane County

is equal to 1,500 pounds of recy-

cled materials annually.

That’s not exactly the way recy-

cling and waste reduction advo-

cates would phrase it. But it’s

accurate to say that the amount

of waste being kept out of land-

fills in Lane County each year and

recycled in some manner is equal

to three-quarters of a ton for

each and every county resident.

And that’s why Lane County led

the state in recycling last year,

with 61.5 percent of waste being

kept out of the landfill through

an array of recycling options.

That was enough to beat the

60.8 percent recovery rate in

Marion County and blow aside

the 59.3 percent rate in the Port-

land area.

“We are very pleased,” said

Sarah Grimm, waste reduction

specialist for Lane County. “It’s a

wonderful state of affairs.”

It’s the first time since 2000 that

Lane County has had the state’s

highest recycling rate, which is

called a recovery rate in the offi-

cial reports. That’s because it re-

flects all the material recovered

from the waste stream and

diverted to a useful purpose,

whether it’s composting food

waste from restaurants, recycling

scrap metal or dropping paper

and plastic into a curbside bin.

And at the same time re cycling

has been going up, garbage vol-

umes have been going down. The

drop in material going to the

landfill is largely attributed to the

Great Recession and its lingering

aftermath, because people with

less money tend to buy less stuff.

And when they buy less stuff,

they have less stuff left over to

throw away.

But even with the economy

slowly mending, disposal rates

don’t seem to be increasing, at

least not in Lane County, Grimm

said. But recycling rates have

started to rise again after flatten-

ing during the worst of the

recession.

Grimm said it’s possible that

people learned through economic

hardship that it’s cheaper to

replace throw-away products

with reusables and are carrying

that forward as times get a little

better. And more businesses are

seeing how waste reduction and

recycling can help their bottom

lines as well as the environment.

“People have intangibly realized

that, ‘Oh my gosh, I didn’t even

need all that crap I was buying,’ ”

she said. “They get used to that

habit, and it’s a good habit. So

why buy all those disposable

products?”

That phenomenon also is seen

statewide. For the first time since

figures were first gathered in

1992, the amount of garbage

being thrown away by state

residents is almost equal to the

amount being recycled.

According to a 2011 survey by the

Department of Environmental

Quality, the statewide disposal

rate peaked in 2007 at 4.8

pounds per person per day but

since then has dropped to 3.5

pounds. The recycling rate

peaked in 2005 at 3.8 pounds

per person per day, fell to 3

pounds in 2009 but has since

recovered to 3.3 pounds, just shy

of the disposal rate.

But in Lane County, people divert

substantially more waste than

they send to the landfill. Last

year, county residents threw

away 215,728 tons of waste but

recycled or other wise recovered

269,316 tons.

Grimm cited several areas where

Lane County is making inroads

in waste diversion. One is the

city of Eugene’s food composting

program, Love Food Not Waste,

which helps restaurants, food

service companies and other

commercial establishments

recycle leftover food into com-

post. The program has diverted

845 tons of food scraps in its

first year.

Another is metal recycling. Driven

by higher prices for scrap metals,

the amount of metal being recy-

cled leaped in the past year,

reaching more than 575,000 tons

statewide. In Lane County, the

amount of scrap metal brought

(Continued, see Oregon, page 22)

FOR THE F I R S TT IME S INCE F IGURES WEREGATHERED , THEAMOUNT OFGARBAGE B E INGTHROWN AWAYBY R ES I D ENTS I S A LMOSTEQUA L TO THEAMOUNT B E INGRECYC L ED .

22


OREGON RECYC L E RAT ES [CONT ’D ]

to recyclers almost doubled in

2011, topping 73,000 tons.

Schnitzer Steel has a metals

recycling yard in Eugene, where

tons of scrap metals are

processed each year. Manager

Dave Sanders said business has

been strong.

“We’ve had some favorable mar-

kets, so the price of metals has

been good,” Sanders said. “And

that’s caused more people to

bring it in.”

Grimm said the latest numbers

are evidence that years of com-

munity outreach and education

on the value of recycling are

paying off. Education programs

have been used for more than

30 years, and the county has had

a contract to provide re cycling

education in local schools since

the early 1990s, she said.

A survey released last year, the

National Citizen Survey, showed

that 98 percent of Lane County

residents said they re cycled

cans, paper or bottles from

home, a rate far above the na-

tional benchmark.

“That’s amazing,” Grimm said.

Best Recyclers

Lane County: 61.5 percent

recovery rate

Marion County: 60.8 percent

Portland metro area:

59.3 percent

Polk County: 49.7 percent

Linn County: 55.2 percent

Josephine County: 55 percent

Douglas County: 48.9 percent

Worst Recyclers

Wheeler County: 12.9 percent

Gilliam County: 18 percent

Sherman County: 19.9 percent

Malheur County: 20.9 percent

Baker County: 24.4 percent

Note: Recovery rate is tons

of waste recovered or recycled

divided by total amount of waste

both recovered/recycled and

disposed of in landfills. •Reprinted with permission from

www.registerguard.com, Nov 12,

2012. ©The Register-Guard,

Eugene, Oregon, USA.

http://www.flintgrp.com/

23


R E C Y C L I N G :

PLASTICS IN ASPHALT MIX PARTOF VANCOUVER’S ‘GREENEST C ITY’ PUSHBY K EV IN GR I F F IN , THE VANCOUVER SUN

Plastic waste such as bags and

water bottles that are difficult to

recycle have found a new life in

the asphalt mix used to pave

streets in Vancouver.

The city has worked with Green-

Mantra of Toronto to develop the

granular, waxlike material that’s

added to asphalt. The material

allows the asphalt to flow

smoothly at a much lower tem-

perature, which saves on the cost

of fuel to heat the asphalt and

reduces the amount of vapours

released into the atmosphere,

according to Peter Judd, the city’s

general manager of engineering

services.

That’s good for both the workers

laying the asphalt and the envi-

ronment, he said.

Traditional hot-mix asphalt needs

to be heated to about 140 to 160

degrees C to flow onto the road

surface. By adding the recycled

plastic, the temperature can be

reduced by up to 40 C, Judd said.

“What that means is that you use

about 20 per cent less fuel to

heat the asphalt up,” Judd said in

an interview. “It’s an enormous

saving in greenhouse gases.”

He said using the recycled plastic

adds about one to three percent

to the cost of building roads. But,

he said, with fuel prices rising

and air quality and emission

standards becoming tougher, the

city expects the cost to drop as

supply increases.

The city demonstrated the new

warm-mix asphalt—which looks

exactly the same as regular hot-

mix asphalt—on a section of

Kingsway at Slocan. The plastic

additive replaces vegetable-

based waxes to increase the

asphalt’s viscosity.

For comparison, Judd arranged

for a traditional hot-mix asphalt

to be laid on Kingsway next to

the warm-mix. Once workers

started laying the hotter asphalt,

it was easy to see that the

amount of vapours being

released was considerably more

than the vapours released by

warm-mix asphalt.

Judd estimated that with all the

paving the city does every year,

greenhouse gas emissions could

be reduced by 300 tonnes.

Vancouver has set a target of

being the “greenest city in the

world” by 2020.

The wax for the demonstration

was produced in Ontario, but

Judd said the city is hoping

that the wax can eventually

be produced locally.

Judd said warm-mix asphalt

paving is a method being used

around North America. The city

has been conducting trials since

2008 and started seriously look-

ing at recycling the hydrocarbons

in plastic into asphalt—which is

also made from hydrocarbons—

about a year ago.

Using a lower-temperature

asphalt allows the city to

increase the amount of recycled

asphalt in the mix.

GreenMantra specializes in

producing what it calls higher-

value synthetic hydrocarbons

from recycled plastics. •Reprinted with permission from

www.vancouversun.com, Nov 15,

2012. ©The Vancouver Sun.

VANCOUVER HASSE T A TA RGET OF B E ING THEGREENES T C I T YIN THE WOR LDBY 2020 .

24


R E C Y C L I N G :

AGILYX CORPORATION WINS2012 WORLD TECHNOLOGYAWARD BY J AM I L KAR IN , MAGNOL IA COMMUN ICAT IONS

Agilyx Corporation was named a

winner in the energy category of

the prestigious World Technology

Awards. Often referred to as “the

Oscars®” of the technology

world, in part because of their

peer-review selection process,

the World Technology Awards

honors companies and individu-

als in 20 different categories for

their unique vision and impactful

contribution to science and

technology.

Agilyx was one of 30 companies

and individuals selected from

a pool of over 600 nominees

across the globe and was part of

an impressive list of award win-

ners, including the Wyss Institute

for Biologically Inspired Engi-

neering at Harvard University

and Pinterest. Awards were pre-

sented at a gala ceremony in

New York at the close of the

World Technology Summit, a

two-day thought leadership

conference attended by dele-

gates and leaders from business,

technology and industry.

The World Technology Award is

the fourth prestigious interna-

tional award for Agilyx and its

management team over the last

13 months. The lineup of awards

received to date are: winner of

the GoingGreen Global 200; win-

ner of the Global Cleantech 100;

listed on the highly coveted 2012

Red Herring’s Top 100 America’s

List; and named as Ernst & Young

Entrepreneur of the Year.

“We are honored to be recog-

nized for our contribution to the

field of alternative energy,” said

Ross M. Patten, chairman and

CEO of Agilyx. “We are proud of

our entire team for their hard

work, and we are also proud to

stand beside our fellow award

winners as part of our global

community, working together to

assist in a truly positive way to

determine our collective future

and change our world.”

About Agilyx Corporation

Agilyx is an alternative energy

company that converts difficult-

to-recycle waste plastics into

crude oil through a patented

system that is scalable, versatile,

and environmentally beneficial.

Applying proprietary technology,

Agilyx reduces plastic waste

normally destined for landfills,

produces refinery-ready crude

oil, and creates local green jobs

with its small-scale, distributed

waste management and energy

production approach. The com-

pany’s affordable, modular sys-

tems are deployed with industrial

and municipal waste plastic

generators and aggregators look-

ing to reduce carbon impact,

stimulate higher and better use

of resources and create a new

revenue stream—all while meet-

ing challenging environmental

standards and extracting the

often-unused and untapped

energy contained within waste

plastic. For more information,

please visit www.agilyx.com. •Copyright ©2012 Market Wire.

Reprinted from www.reuters.com,

Oct 30, 2012. *Reuters is not

responsible for the content in

this press release.

AG I LY X I S AN A LT E RNAT I V E EN -E RGY COMPANYTHAT CONVERTSD I F F ICU LT- TO -R ECYC L E P LAS T ICWASTE INTOCRUDE O I L .

25


R E C Y C L I N G :

EREMA INTRODUCES RECYCLINGWITH IN-L INE COMPOUNDINGBY T IM HANRAHAN, E R EMAEREMA GmbH, the world’s

largest manufacturer of plastics

recycling systems, officially

opened its new Customer Center

on June 22, 2012, at the Ans-

felden, Austria headquarters

with the gala “EREMA Discovery

DAYS 2012” event. The 13,000 sq.

ft. Customer Center, a five million

euro ($6.25 million) EREMA

investment, opened with seven

operating systems available for

technology and material tests,

demonstrations and customer

trials of their own materials. The

event included the launch of the

new COREMA® recycling system

with in-line compounding.

In addition to EREMA recycling

equipment, the center offers

blown and cast film equipment

and an injection molding system

for instant application testing.

COREMA® In-line Compounding

The COREMA® system combines

EREMA recycling technology in-

line with a Coperion co-rotating,

twin-screw extruder. In the

process reclaimed plastic mate-

rial enters an EREMA system

where it is transformed into high

quality melt that passes directly

into the Coperion extruder where

desired additives can be intro-

duced and mixed. The processing

result is a custom configured

plastic compound for any of a

variety of desired high-quality

applications.

The “Discovery Days 2012”

COREMA® demonstration

included an injection molding

machine using the compounded

material to produce sample

products.

Customer Center

By any measure, the EREMA

Customer Center opening was

an extraordinary event. Approxi-

mately 400 invited guests from

five continents attended, includ-

ing distinguished local and

regional government officials,

education and industry leaders,

and EREMA customers and

agents.

Manfred Hackl, EREMA CEO,

delivered a welcoming address

summarizing the history of

EREMA and introduced a new

company focus on application

engineered technology. Ton

Emans, President of EuPR, a

prestigious, Europe-based

plastics recycling promotional

organization, delivered the

keynote address, emphasizing

the importance of quality

recycling and anticipating the

increasing volume of plastic

waste.

While at the new center, cus-

tomers can examine equipment

and processes either on the pres-

entation area floor or from an

integrated, comfortable lounge

with a panoramic view of

the center.

According to Manfred Hackl,

EREMA performs 400 customer

trials a year. Formerly, these

trials were carried out in the

R&D Center.

Hackl said: “With the new center

we gain a double benefit. We

improve customer service while

freeing needed space for the very

important processes of develop-

ing new recycling technology for

new applications.” •For more information and up to

date EREMA news visit

www.erema.at. Contact Tim

Hanrahan, CEO, EREMA North

America, [email protected]

or www.EREMA.net.

THE CUSTOMERCENTER OPENEDWI TH S EVEN OPERAT ING SYS T EMS AVA I L AB L E FORT ECHNOLOGYAND MATE R I A LT E S TS .

26


http://www.erema.net/

27


S U S TA I N A B L E PA C K A G I N G :

INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLEPACKAGING EXECUTIVE TO LEADPAC NEXTBY J AMES DOWNHAM, PACKAG ING ASSOC. OF CANADA

The Packaging Association is

privileged to announce the

appointment of Alan Blake as

PAC NEXT Executive Director.

PAC NEXT, a North American ini-

tiative, with a vision of A World

without Packaging Waste, was

launched on August 3, 2011, with

31 founding members, and is co-

chaired by food manufacturing

and retail leaders: Kim Rapagna

of Kraft Foods and Guy McGuffin

of Walmart.

Economics, the environment and

wasted valuable raw materials

are the driving issues for PAC

NEXT. The estimated cost to

manage the North American

collection, recovery and/or

disposal of discarded packaging

is over $12 billion annually. The

estimated raw material value of

packaging materials going into

landfill is similar at $12 billion

annually for a combined total

of over $24 billion.


ity—EPR is a government regu-

lated process which has existed

in Europe since the ’90s and in

Canada since early 2000s. The

legislations regulates that the

cost of the management of

discarded packaging is the

responsibility of those that make

it and/or sell it, namely retailers

and product manufacturers.

Currently it is a hotly debated

issue in the U.S. with thoughts

that packaging could follow elec-

tronics and hazardous waste in

EPR schemes. PAC NEXT is an

industry-led solution to mitigate

costs while increasing recovery

of valuable raw materials.

“Historically, the packaging

industry supply chain has been

getting products to consumers.

To achieve the PAC NEXT goal,

we needed to partner with the

end-of-life community including

waste management, process re-

covery, governments and NGOs.”

states James D Downham, Presi-

dent & CEO PAC. “This complex

issue requires transparent

collaboration between all stake-

holders. Today we have 105

members but we need a much

greater involvement and Alan,

based in Cincinnati, has the skill

set to lead us.”

Mr. Blake has recently retired

from Procter & Gamble, Cincin-

nati and brings to PAC NEXT

30 years’ experience in the con-

sumer goods industry, including

20 yrs. of global packaging

design and development expert-

ise. For the past three years he

has led P&G’s global packaging

sustainability program with a

focus on the 2020 goals and long

term packaging sustainability

vision. He is a chemical engineer

by training and has previous

experience in the petrochemical

industry. Mr. Blake has served on

the Sustainable Packaging Coali-

tion Executive Committee and is

currently a member of the board

of GreenBlue and a sought after

expert speaker at packaging

sustainability conferences.

“I’m very excited by the opportu-

nity to work with North American

companies across the entire

packaging supply chain to help

the industry set the direction for

practical end-of-life packaging

solutions that bring the PAC

NEXT vision of A World Without

Packaging Waste to life," Mr.

Blake declares.

About PAC

Founded in 1950, PAC is a not-for-

profit, packaging trade associa-

tion. It is product neutral and

does not endorse one material or

package container over another.

PAC is uniquely positioned as the

common link in the entire pack-

aging life-cycle of supply chain

connecting retailers and quick

service restaurants, consumer

packaged goods, packaging con-

verters and raw material suppli-

ers, pre-press and graphics,

packaging machinery, waste

management, process recovery,

governments, NGOs, profes-

sional services, associations,

academic institutions and stu-

dents. There are over 375 corpo-

rate and 1900 associate

members.

(Continued, see Pac Next, page 28)

THE EMERG INGB IOBASEDECONOMY EVEN HAS I T SOWN LABE L .

28


PAC has been a leader in packag-

ing education since the 1950s

and co-developed SPC’s The

Essentials of Sustainable Pack-

aging with SPC and Packaging

Technology Integrated Solutions

in 2007. In addition, PAC is a

partner in IFS PACsecure a

HACCP-based packaging food

safety standard designed specifi-

cally for packaging converters

around the world. It is currently

being benchmarked by Global

Food Safety Initiative and we

expect to have it as a recognized

scheme before the end of 2012.

PAC manages many technical,

social and special interest pack-

aging seminars and conferences

and has produced, managed and

co-sponsored six Walmart

Canada Sustainable Packaging

Conferences since 2007 with

over 4500 attendees. •©Copyright 2012 PAC. Contact

Alan Blake, PAC Next Executive

Director: [email protected].

PAC NEXT [CONT’D]

This second monthly newsletter

is all about the power of work-

ing together! After all, the suc-

cess of PAC NEXT over the past

16 months has been due in large

part to our members coming

together and working on finding

solutions.

This collaboration was evident

throughout the November 6th

2012 PAC board and PAC NEXT

leadership council meetings and

project workshops held in

Toronto. They were excellent

meetings as they yet again

reminded me about all of the

good reasons for joining PAC

NEXT and accepting the role as

Executive Director. And they

provided an inclusive forum to

talk about PAC NEXT deliver-

ables for 2012, plans for 2013

and to bring focus to our goals:

Short term: focus on 2012 deliv-

erables and 2013 plans—bring

all of our member led project

work together to create the plat-

form for The PAC NEXT Way. This

will be reviewed in our next co-

chair call early December 2012

Mid term: drive membership—

PAC NEXT IS THE NEXT PAC

ORGANIZATION—we must build

upon our current membership

(110 today) and demonstrate

persuasively to all potential new

members the value and impact

of our vision of A World without

Packaging Waste.

Longer term: create the global

sustainable packaging center

of excellence—a real time, self

sustaining and relevant resource

to industry, governments, NGOs.

Clearly, these goals can only be

achieved through proactive and

constructive collaboration

across our membership that

embraces the entire packaging

value chain from raw material

suppliers through to municipali-

ties, recyclers and waste man-

agement companies.

I would like to welcome our

newest members this month to

PAC NEXT: Target Canada, Over-

waitea Foods, Mondelez, The

International Group, Transcon-

tinental PLM, and Institut de

developpement de produits.

I also wanted to briefly comment

on the three excellent work-

shops where we had over 30

members and several non-mem-

bers working together:

Sustainable Innovation Work-

shop — this project takes a fact-

based approach to providing

industry with a line of sight to

emerging packaging trends and

an early warning system that

helps to avoid system inefficien-

cies that can result in higher

costs and more discarded mate-

rial going to landfill. The work-

shop focused on demonstrating

the Decision Tree evaluation tool

for PET packaging. Attendees

were given four examples to run

through the tool providing

“hands-on” experience as well

as invaluable critique on the

content, ease of use and our

ability to make informed pack-

aging design decisions.

Design Guide Workshop — this

project is about better designed

packaging to reduce environ-

mental footprints. The intent

of the Sustainable Packaging

Design Guide is to present

industry’s best practices for

optimizing packaged products

with a launch date of 2Q 2013.

The workshop provided an

overview of the Design Guide

content based upon the work

from the SPC and EEQ. Key feed-

back was that it would be great

to eventually have an inter -

active, on-line tool with a user-

friendly interface, which is

intuitive to use with an output

that is actionable—driving pack-

age designs that have a reduced

environmental impact. We’ll

need clarity on what it will take

to progress from a reference

guide to an interactive guide

with relevant credentialing, and

more importantly, what is the

appropriate business model to

fund and resource the Design

Guide s on-going development,

maintenance, training and

expertise.

(Continued, see Blake, page 29)

WORKING TOGETHER THE PACNEXT WAYBY A LAN B LAKE , PAC NEX T

29


Consumer Engagement Work-

shop — the goal of this project

is to identify the key drivers and

barriers that influence consumer

actions when purchasing and

discarding packaging materials.

The workshop looked for feed-

back on scope and priority of

work for 2013 and it was clear

that there is consensus that we

need more knowledge on habits

and practices and how to posi-

tively influence and communi-

cate with consumers especially

when introducing new materials

into collection schemes.

These workshops were invalu-

able and are a great way to get

our members actively engaged

while reminding us about what

we stand for—The PAC NEXT

Way and A World without Pack-

aging Waste.

So what is The PAC NEXT Way?

The PAC NEXT Way takes a pack-

aging neutral approach that

allows our members to work in

an inclusive and collaborative

manner across the entire pack-

aging value chain to actively

explore, develop and pilot eco-

nomical end-of-life packaging

solutions for ALL materials.

Importantly, PAC NEXT uniquely

brings first hand experience of


ity (EPR) along with invaluable

knowledge on best practices

and pitfalls that will help to

optimize and harmonize in

Canada while supporting an

industry led alternative in the

USA. Our six member-led

projects are identifying solutions

that ensure economical recovery

that will lead to

improved packaging reduction,

recycling, reuse, up-cycling,

composting, energy-from-waste

and other emerging technolo-

gies. This will be the basis for

industry making progress on the

journey to “zero waste” and this

is an excellent basis for commu-

nication with Multi Material

British Columbia who will be

managing the implementation

and administration of the BC

EPR program due to deploy

May 2014.

Vacationing in Peru

Finally, I wanted to share some

thoughts on the challenges of

managing packaging waste in

developing countries, having

just spent two weeks in Peru

experiencing the breathtaking

magnificence of the Inca ruins at

Macho Picchu and the beautiful

yet primitive tropical jungle of

the Amazon. Like many tourists,

my wife and I purchased bottled

water to ensure that we were

drinking “healthy” water and

staying hydrated. About 4 mil-

lion water bottles are purchased

and left behind by tourists every

year. The challenge is that Peru

has little waste management

infrastructure due to limited

funding, expertise and tough

demographics (i.e. mountains,

jungle with limited accessibility,

35% poverty), such that data

from 2009 indicates that only

2% of trash is recycled while

60% ends up in open dumps,

12% is burned and 3% dumped

into rivers, lakes and ocean. This

is a situation crying out for more

collaboration across communities,

industry and government ad-

dressing the social, economical

and environmental aspects of

sustainability in order to start

making a big difference. Not

easy but a necessity in order to

protect and preserve an amazing

geography and cultural heritage.

As always, I welcome your

comments and thoughts. •

B LAKE [CONT ’D ]

THE PAC NEXTWAY TAKES APACKAGING NEUTRAL APPROACH THAT A L LOWS OURMEMBERS TOWORK ACROSSTHE ENT I RE PACKAGINGVALUE CHA IN.

30


S U S TA I N A B L E PA C K A G I N G :

WPA GUEST COLUMNBY S T E PHEN SCHROEDER , R E PUB L IC BAG

I recently had the pleasure of

spending a weekend in Northern

California. We were in the Silicon

Valley area, in the shadows of

Google and other tech giants.

We stayed with friends of friends,

and our host was a bit shocked

when I told her our company

“manufactures trash bags.”.

Stunned, “Really?” was her

immediate reaction.

“Yes,” I replied, “really.”

We went on from there, dis-

cussing the environmental

impact of our product. I was very

quick to point out, that—Yes, we

do make ASTM-D6400 Com-

postable Trash Bags, and she

was instantly relieved. We dined

at a restaurant started by one of

the tech giant’s former chef, and

she was convinced that this

restaurant would certainly be

using the “green” trash bags.

The exchange went something

like this:

Host: What is the price differ-

ence from Compostable to Stan-

dard Trash Bags?

Me: 5 times.

Host: What areas of the country

buy the product?

Me: Mostly San Francisco,

Seattle, and a few other outlying

areas.

Host: Why can’t you exclusively

make only Compostable Bags?

Me: Because our customers

wouldn’t buy them, and we

would be out of business.

Host: Do you think this is the

future?

Me: I am not so sure. First, the

raw material that we use is man-

ufactured and shipped from

Europe, shipped by sea through

the Panama Canal, to the port of

Long Beach, put on a truck, and

delivered to my Southern Califor-

nia facility—that takes a huge

amount of energy and resources!

Next, we purge plastic from our

extruders and produce a large

amount of plastic scrap (but

don’t worry, we recycle all of the

scrap in-house). I am not con-

vinced that this is the most

“green” option. Also, I believe

that the compostable bags, and

many of the other compostable

products being thrown away, are

not being composted at a com-

mercial composter, necessary to

complete the end of use process.

We went on from there, and my

host started to breathe again.

My gracious host composts her

own trash, and does a great job

sorting for recycling. Her “trash”

is limited—which, of course, I

support—and think is GREAT!

She takes the time and energy to

compost in her home. This same

host and her family have done

very well financially. Her family

consists of four kids, two of

whom are in college and have

moved out. She is a party

planner and had just thrown

a $60,000 “tail-gate” party for a

client who has a 10,000 square

foot house, complete with a sep-

arate 2,500 square foot “enter-

taining pavilion.” She had

supplies galore for this “party”—

boxes and boxes of custom

printed water bottles, signs,

decorations, custom napkins,

table clothes—you get the idea

—this was a HUGE party, and cer-

tainly not of the “green” variety.

Her family has four cars for two

drivers living at home. They live

in a huge house, windows were

often wide open and heater was

freely flowing. I could certainly

keep going, and I think you get

the idea—she is an outspoken

“environmentalist” on one hand,

and a massive “consumer” on

the other.

I support reasonable and rational

ideas that can help cut down

waste to the landfill.

Government regulations can

help. I would support standard-

ized and improved recycling

symbols on packaging. I would

support a small “recycling fee”

for single-use disposable prod-

ucts that come from out of the

country. Also, “plastic pellet

containment” initiatives for

manufactures are fine as virtually

all manufacturers in the USA are

in compliance.

(Continued, see Stephen, page 31)

SHE I S AN OUTS POKEN ENV I RONMEN -TA L I S T ON ONEHAND AND AMASS I V E CON -SUMER ON THEOTHER .

31


There are numerous concerns

about regulations, because in

most cases these regulations

disproportionally affect domestic

manufacturing, putting us at a

disadvantage against Asia manu-

facturing. Being “compliant” in

the USA is one thing, but what do

you think about China manufac-

turers? Do they have the same

process and control? If history

is any judge, the answer is prob-

ably not.

The other problem with many

regulations, however, is that

often they appear to help—while

in practicality do not help. In my

opinion, one particular EPA

recommendation that does NOT

help is guideline for Post Con-

sumer Recycled (PCR) in trash

bags. 10% PCR seems logical on

the surface, but in reality, PCR

actually weakens the film, result-

ing in consumers demanding

thicker bags. Being that a trash

bag today is primarily bound for

the landfill, a thicker trash bag

means more plastic going into

the landfill (not less). PCR should

be used in products that do NOT

end up in landfills—plastic lum-

ber perhaps, rigid containers, or

other durable plastic products.

We can all agree that composting

at home is a great idea. And, for

the record, that great restaurant

in Northern California—they

were using “regular” trash bags

—and I think these bags were

also a part of their recycling

efforts. •This article was submitted by

Stephen Schroeder, Republic

Bag. WPA members are invited

to submit guest articles.

STEPHEN [CONT’D]

KARL FUHLROTT CELEBRATES 25 YEARS IN BUSINESS 1987–2012

By Laurie Hansen, WPA Executive Director

One of the Western Plastics Association’s biggest supporters is celebrating 25 years in business, and we would like to take this opportunity

to congratulate him. I personally have known Karl for a number of those years and appreciate his honesty and support. Karl has always told

us what we are doing right, and constructively what could be improved on. I remember having a holiday lunch with Karl and Norma Fox back

in the CFECA days. Karl wanted to take us to a very nice place to say thank you to both of us for all that we were doing for the industry back

in the ’90s during the beginning of the plastic bag battles.

Karl has supported the organization and brought in new members, sponsored meetings, and has been an all around great guy to work with.

Congratulations Karl — we hope that you continue to support the WPA and keep being so successful in business!

To contact Karl:

KARL-H. FUHLROTT

BLOMO-PACK CONCEPTS, INC.

REDONDO BEACH, CA,

TEL: 310.540.9740

CELL: 310.503.3765

Manufacturer’s Representative for:

BEKUM: A complete line of Extrusion Blow Molding Machines — www.bekumamerica.com or www.bekum.de

EREMA: Plastics Recycling and Repelletizing Systems including Backflushing Screen Changers — www.erema.net or www.erema.at

M. C. MOLDS / JBJ Products: Quality Blow Molds and Spin Trimmers for blow-molded products — www.mcmolds.com

REIFENHÄUSER KIEFEL EXTRUSION: Blown Film Extrusion up to 9-layers / Cast Film & Thermoforming Extrusion — www.reifenhauser.com

or www.reifenhauser-kiefel.com

THERMAL CARE: Air and water cooled Portable and Central Chillers plus Cooling Towers — www.thermalcare.com

WCIS: West Coast Industrial Services and Maintenance for Refrigeration Systems — www.wcisinc.com

32


http://www.alsplastics.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.andreini.com/


33




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

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

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

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

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

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADR IAN BACKER S i g na t u r e F l e x i b l e P a c k ag i n gS T EVE DES PA IN R e i f e n ha u s e rMARK DAN I E L S H i l e x P o l y Compan yS T E PHEN SCHROEDER S i gma P l a s t i c s G r o upCOL IN F E RN I E We s t e r n Con co r d M f g .DAVE SHEW MAKER He r i t a g e BagMARK DAN I E L S H i l e x P o l y Compan yPAU L NEMECHECK Ampac F l e x i b l e sPAT R ICK MONTOYA New G r e e n Da yRAY HUFNAGE L P l a s t i c E x p r e s sS T EVEN JONES J a t c o , I n c .

WPA TODAY published by:

Western Plastics Association1029 J St., Suite 300Sacramento, CA 95814

916.761.2829 Cell916.447.9884 [email protected]

Editor: Laurie Hansen

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

@2012 Western Plastics Association

Documents

THE VOICE OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY IN THE WEST WPA …westernplastics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WPAtoday_Dec201… · recycling opportunities, Nature-Works with their bioplastic