Consumer products companies tell financial firm recyclability is surpassing lightweighting as top eco priority.
Producers of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and the packaging firms that serve them are moving beyond policies that focus on smaller or lighter weight packages and are taking “a more holistic approach that could lead to a step-change toward a circular economy for packaging.”
That was one of the findings of an October ESG and Impact Summit held by Baltimore-based investment analysis and research firm Stifel Equity Research.
A postevent brief of the summit prepared by Stifel’s Michael E. Hoffman indicates “there is a willingness to set goals with timelines to convert consumer packaging [within] the confines of the current infrastructure to recover, separate and reuse the materials in place of virgin materials.”
Contributors to the sessions that comprised the Impact Summit included representatives from FMCG companies Campbell Soup and Procter & Gamble (P&G) as well as Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Phoenix-based waste hauler and material recovery facility (MRF) operator Republic Services Inc.
Panelists did not portray an easy path to full packaging circularity. Challenges listed by Hoffman in his recap include “supply, safety, quality (breakage/damage) and shipping/distribution” hurdles. Participants nonetheless indicated that “curbside collection and MRF processing can meet the demands of the changes in packaging.”
Hoffman also writes, “MRF investments are being made to modernize and therefore successfully pull out quality reusable materials.”
Regulations can either help or hurt, panelists indicated. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) “does not improve circularity [but] it may improve assurance of the financial viability of a residential recycling program,” according to the Stifel recap.
Panelists were uncertain about the impact of California’s AB-793 law, which seems focused on ensuring that “virtually 100 percent of the addressable reusable plastics would go to California to meet the criteria of the legislation.”
With or without such legislation, both Campbell and P&G have set goals and targets with deadlines. Campbell says by 2030 it intends to transition 100 percent of packaging to recycling or industrial compostable design and increase the use of recycled content wherever possible.
P&G’s goals and deadlines for 2030 include incorporating 25 percent recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) into bottles made of that material; reducing its use of virgin petroleum-derived plastic by 50 percent and ensuring that 100 percent of its packaging globally will be recyclable or reusable.
P&G has been a backer of Florida-based PureCycle Technologies, a company that is using technology partially developed by P&G to boost the recycling of polypropylene packaging, which is commonly used by P&G and other FMCG companies.
The Paper & Plastics Recycling Conference Webinar Series will feature a session Oct. 26 from noon to 1:30 eastern time, Circularity & Packaging: What Does It Mean For Recycling?, that will include Hoffman and Bell as well as David Feber of McKinsey & Co. and Kelly McNamara of Numera Analytics. The event is free to attend. Register at http://paperplasticsna.recyclingtodayevents.com/page/webinarpricing.
Front-end loader carries a 7.2-cubic-yard bucket.
Equipment maker Komatsu says its 299 horsepower (223 kilowatt) Komatsu WA480-8 loader can be adapted for use in multiple applications, including the handling of aggregates and other construction and demolition materials.
“Loading and moving materials in as few passes and cycles as possible can help increase productivity and reduce costly wear and tear on machines,” states the company. Komatsu says the WA480 has been designed “to be a three-pass match for loading aggregate and other processed materials onto highway trucks.”
The curved side edges of the Komatsu-designed, 7.2-cubic-yard bucket are built to minimize spillage, and the internal space and shape provide smooth material flow, according to the company. An integrated load meter system in the cab also allows operators see how much material is in the bucket.
Additional productivity features on the WA480-8 loader include “excellent visibility to the pile and surroundings, an easy-to-operate advanced joystick steering system (AJSS) and a comfortable air-suspension seat,” Komatsu states.
Further load stability is provided by low-profile tires with increased ground contact that are mounted to new heavy-duty front and rear axles. “Collectively, the features on the WA480-8 loader enhance its versatility, making it suitable for truck loading, carrying, stockpiling and hopper charging applications,” the company adds.
Multinational PET producer Indorama is investing in shredding to help it reach its sustainability and circular materials goals.
Thailand-based Indorama Ventures Public Co. Ltd. (IVL), a producer of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and other materials tied to the PET supply chain, has pursued a strategy of global growth that has included considerable investments in recycled-content PET (rPET) production.
The company’s global presence in rPET production may be unmatched, with the building of an rPET production and supply chain a high priority of IVL Chief Sustainability Officer Yashovardhan (Yash) Lohia. Yash is the son of IVL Group CEO Aloke Lohia.
The company’s investments in PET bottle recycling have spanned several continents, with this year marked in part by an increased presence in North America. This June, IVL announced and then completed the acquisition of a former CarbonLite PET bottle recycling plant in Texas.
In Europe, the company operates plants in France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland, while it also has rPET capacity in Latin America in Brazil and Mexico.
Asia also remains a target of IVL rPET investments, with the company announcing or completing new PET bottle recycling capacity in India and Indonesia this year alone. (A plant also is under construction in the Philippines.) The investments tie into an overall global goal of being able to recycle 50 billion PET bottles annually.
Although IVL is exploring chemical recycling technologies, much of its current commitment relies heavily on the mechanical recycling of discarded PET bottles. That means shredding and other size-reduction methods are a crucial component of its large-scale recycling process.
The company chooses to keep much of its processing technology discretionary, but the IVL corporate communications department was willing to share some overall observations pertaining to its PET bottle shredding experience gained around the world.
IVL says it acquires and shreds PET bottles of all sizes, with its systems able to accept different sizes of PET bottles as part of the same production process.
Global standards and certification systems help ensure its recycling plants—including shredding and all steps before and after—produce desirable rPET. IVL cites “the Global Recycle Standard (GRS) developed by Control Union certifications” as “the most common one,” but also lists REACH [handling of chemicals I the EU]; OEKO-TEX and Standard 100 [pertaining to textiles and polymer fabrics]; SGS [pertaining to footwear materials]; and Ecomark [an Indian standard] as applicable at some facilities.
For the shredding process, baled PET bottles are the most common feedstock. The bales are weighed and “strictly inspected to meet quality criteria by our experienced staff as soon as they arrive at the factory,” says IVL.
The mechanical process “starts from opening the bales, sorting out other contaminants, including labels, with heat and washing with water to clean bottles before sorting other polymers from PET.”
The sorting process can be the most investment-intensive. “After sorting out compressed bottles from the bale, there are more than 20 steps to be taken. Key methods/technologies are deployed such as magnets and all-metal detectors, electromagnetic induction, label removing machinery, spinning sieves, near-infrared radiation sensors, spectrum cameras, sink and float water systems and centrifugal dryers.”
The sorted PET bottles are then fed for size reduction to make flakes. IVL states, “All caps and other lighter contaminants are removed by a floatation method. They are then hot washed with chemicals and dried before being melted into pellets and used as recycled material.”
Indorama does not disclose details of its shredding process, but a two-stage system most commonly relies on sturdy, slow-speed, high-torque shredders in an initial stage and higher speed granulators in the second stage.
A 2019 custom publishing piece prepared for United States-based SSI Shredding Systems provides a glimpse of how first pass high-torque machines have been a mainstay for United States-based high-density polyethylene (HDPE) recycler KW Plastics.
KW credits shredders supplied by SSI with being able to “handle contamination that other shredders aren’t able to handle.” While bales of plastic bottles are supposed to consist of just that, the KW plant manager notes that contaminants can include “metal or big pieces of wood and other things in the bale that aren’t supposed to be there.”
After primary shredding and sorting, a two-pass system then often turns to high-speed granulators or grinders. A 2019 Recycling Today feature article portrays the role of such grinders at U.S.-based Mega Recycling & Compounding Services LLC.
That firm recycles clean polypropylene (PP), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), polyethylene (PE), polycarbonate and nylon, among other plastics. In 2019, its fleet of seven grinders was creating recycled-content output that was compounded into resins to be molded into plastic parts by its sister companies Mega Compounding, Mega Molding and Mega Polymers.
Mega Recycling President Bret Garrison told Recycling Today in 2019 that the firm’s integrated recycling, compounding and molding operation “all starts with grinding. If we didn’t have the grinders, then the other three companies could not exist competitively in the marketplace.”
Aluminum and plastic packaging have the potential to be more economical and more sustainable if companies choose to devote time and resources to making that happen.
Awareness of the devastating effects of plastic pollution has grown in the past few years. Companies and consumers have responded by promoting recycling programs, offering incentives to reduce and reuse waste and supporting recycling-centric legislation.
But plastic usage and pollution are set to nearly triple in the next 20 years, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics; therefore, the shift toward sustainable materials is more important than ever for individuals and industry alike. Amid a public outcry for more eco-friendly and green options, brand owners are moving away from plastic packaging and have shifted toward alternatives, most notably, aluminum.
Aluminum has long been touted as the beverage package of choice because of its infinitely recyclable nature. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are of selling water in aluminum cans as a part of their efforts to cut down on plastic waste. And at the Super Bowl in 2020, 50,000 plastic beer cups were replaced with aluminum alternatives.
But plastic containers also have the potential to be a “green” alternative as companies are finding ways to incorporate recycled content into their packaging and create the infrastructure to achieve this.
Will the future of recycling belong to polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage containers, or will aluminum continue to have a strong foothold in the market, replacing more and more plastics and other beverage containers, such as glass and steel?
The recycling rates for PET and plastics are extremely low in comparison with aluminum. According to the latest data published by the National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), Charlotte, North Carolina, the U.S. PET recycling rate in 2019 was 27.9 percent, down 1 percentage point from 2018, mostly because the U.S. is processing more plastic domestically, following widespread plastic scrap import bans across the world.
Compare that with aluminum beverage can recycling figures from 2019 that show the industry recycling rate for beverage cans is 55.9 percent, while the consumer recycling rate for used beverage cans (UBCs) is 46.1 percent. Although these industry and consumer figures also were down from the previous year, largely because of production shifts, this packaging represents nearly half of the economic value of recyclables generated by a typical single-family home, according to the Aluminum Association, Arlington, Virginia.
UBCs generally are more valuable than plastic and help to subsidize the recycling of other lower value materials. In addition, UBCs are easier to recycle and are much cheaper and less labor-intensive than plastic to sort because of their uniformity.
UBCs also are infinitely recyclable in a closed-loop process, which leads to greater recycled content in a beverage can than its plastic counterpart.
However, half of all cans produced still head to landfills. In 2019, 50 billion cans ended up in waste streams, which equates to more than $810 million worth of aluminum, a major loss to the economy and the environment.
When looking at plastic recycling, it is often seen as complex and confusing. Each municipality has its own rules about recycling plastic and which materials are acceptable as well as confusing rules for consumers, such as whether caps remain on the bottle or not. Contamination levels associated with plastic packaging also tend to be higher, and there is a lack of uniformity in terms of packaging design and production. All these variations lead to more work and greater costs. And for some plastic containers, the levels of contamination, or the use of multiple types of polymers, labels and dyes, don’t allow them to be mechanically recycled at all.
Plastic and aluminum have value in the marketplace that depends on supply and demand trends. In June, the average price of UBCs in the Midwest was $1,692 per metric ton, while curbside PET bottle bales in the Midwest averaged $485 per metric ton, according to Platts data.
Aluminum can supply also is fairly stable compared with PET bottles, with less extreme fluctuation in market value and greater profit margins along the supply chain.
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in spring 2020, the price of PET bottle bales has fluctuated greatly because of supply disruptions in the virgin market and strong export demand in late 2020/early 2021. In July 2021, postconsumer PET bottle bales in California averaged $735 per metric ton compared with an average price of $198 per metric ton in July 2020, representing a nearly 271 percent increase year on year.
Part of the reason for carrying a higher value is because the raw material cost for a UBC is nearly 25 to 30 percent more than a PET bottle of similar volume. While margins for aluminum processors might be higher than for plastic recyclers, brand owners see better profit margins for PET than for aluminum. It essentially costs more per ounce to make a 12-ounce canned soda than it does to make a 20-ounce bottled soda; however, these costs don’t always get passed along to the consumer as companies tend to charge more for the higher volume bottled soda.
Another hot button topic is the environmental impacts of plastic and aluminum production. Whether it’s mining bauxite for aluminum or fracking for oil or natural gas needed in plastic production, both processes are detrimental to the environment. And considering that more cans are being recycled than bottles and, therefore, less virgin production is necessary, the production of one single aluminum can emits about twice as much carbon into the atmosphere as each plastic bottle.
Aluminum is very energy-intensive to produce and has a higher carbon footprint, responsible for 11.09 tons of CO2 emissions per ton of cans, while plastic bottles account for only 2.2 tons of greenhouse gases, according to a 2016 study by the EPA.
Cans have a higher recycled content, averaging 73 percent, compared with 6.2 percent in PET bottles, so it is hard to quantify and compare the total amount of carbon emissions for the two recycled products. Making beverage containers out of recycled products is clearly the most cost-efficient and environmentally sustainable solution for aluminum and plastic.
Producing cans out of recycled content saves 90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, while each unit of recycled PET that replaces virgin results in 75 percent lower total energy demand and a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, according to NAPCOR.
Aluminum and plastic packaging have the potential to be more economical and more sustainable if companies choose to devote time and resources to making that happen. By replacing packaging composed of less widely recycled plastics, such as Nos. 3-7s, with highly recyclable aluminum, as well as incorporating a higher percentage of recycled content in PET plastic products, companies can further progress toward a greener world.
Sarah Baltic is managing editor, Americas Aluminum markets, S&P Global Platts, and Sarah Schneider is editor, Americas Petrochemical markets, S&P Global Platts.
The Michigan State University Surplus Store and Recycling Center has installed a new robotic sorter to improve safety.
The Michigan State University (MSU) Surplus Store and Recycling Center located on the campus of MSU in East Lansing, Michigan, recently installed a robotic sorter to improve safety for its workers.
“Our main goal when purchasing this sorter was to reduce the risk of illness or injury at our material recovery facility (MRF),” says David Smith, the recycling director for the facility. “We’re not like a larger facility; we sort everything by hand, and this will reduce injuries that could pop up because of it.”
The recycling center primarily serves the campus of MSU. The 18,758-square-foot facility employs three full-time workers and 20 part-time students. The MRF processes up to 9 million pounds of materials annually, including plastic, metal, fiber and glass for the campus, Smith says.
The sorter was purchased from Amp Robotics and can make 80 picks per minute. Smith says the sorter can learn about regional items not common in other recycling streams as well. This includes things such as the campus’ square orange juice refill containers, which are prevalent at MSU but not everywhere else. That information is then sent to a global database for the robotics to learn from and adapt to for future use.
Smith says the facility bought the $250,000 sorter through a grant from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).
Smith began researching robotic sorters two years ago when his manual sorters came across a bottle filled with a controlled substance. The bottle was removed safely, but if it broke, it could have had serious ramifications for the facility, Smith says.
“We run objects down the line, and we hand sort it. Although we have a clean stream, we still get sharp objects or medical waste sometimes. We wear gloves that protect us, but we’re still vulnerable to cuts and other safety issues,” Smith says. “We don’t have many accidents.”
Other reasons the MRF purchased the robotic sorter include increasing productivity, expanding the facility’s collection capabilities and improving recycling education for students and professors on campus.
“We wanted to make this facility a living, learning laboratory for our faculty and students. We have some professors that are anxious to look at it and see how to incorporate it into their classrooms,” Smith says. “This sorter will also help us generate new streams for this facility.”
The robotic sorter also helps ease some issues caused by the hiring crisis impacting the waste and recycling industry. Currently, the sorter serves as the MRF’s primary sorter on its plastic and metal line.
“The sorters can replace up to four people working at the MRF,” Smith says. “Right now, we’re only replacing two of our workers, but that could change in the future.”