the voice of the plastics industry in the west wpa...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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”
(Continued, see Report, page 7)
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
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
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
(Continued, see Report, page 8)
NOVEMBER R E PORT [CONT ’D ]
If you would like to tour the
facility, please contact Tim Stehr,
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
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
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
(Continued, see Report, page 9)
NOVEMBER R E PORT [CONT ’D ]
9
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
NOVEMBER R E PORT [CONT ’D ]
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? •
10
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
11
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
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
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
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
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
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 .
14
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
17
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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.
23
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
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
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
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
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
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 .
27
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
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.
Extended Producer Responsibil-
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
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
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
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
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
Extended Producer Responsibil-
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
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
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
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
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
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
33
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
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 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