Published: November 20, 2024 Updated: by Maiju Helin
Courtesy of Neste
This article appeared in the November 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
With slight differences across regions, some 30-40% of global plastics demand comes from packaging production. Low cost and functional properties make plastics an intriguing packaging solution. Yet it comes at a price from a climate perspective: With 90% of global plastics being made from fossil resources, our appetite for wrapping things in plastics takes a toll on the environment. In theory, plastics are well-suited for recycling, but there are various hurdles to turn this theory into practice at global scale, including the need to collect and sort, the limits of existing recycling technologies when it comes to impure, multi-material or layered materials, and demanding and sensitive plastic applications.
Considering the highly valued properties plastics offer and the limited availability in many cases of alternatives at scale, there is a wish to continue using them. Yet the question will be how can we make plastics production, use and waste management more sustainable. In parallel to recycling, do we have options to move from fossil-based to non-fossil based solutions?
I am convinced that there is reason for hope.
If it can be recycled, it should be recycled
Our priority should be to recycle whatever can be recycled. On the one hand, existing mechanical recycling has to be expanded. Whenever mechanical recycling can be done, it should be done. However, the aforementioned limitations of mechanical recycling lead to the need for new recycling technologies such as chemical recycling. Thus, whenever mechanical recycling is not feasible, for example due to waste streams being too mixed or impure — or the final products being too demanding quality-wise — chemical recycling can close the gap. A lot is happening in this regard.
At Neste, we are ourselves currently investing in chemical recycling capabilities at our refinery in Finland, focusing on turning liquefied waste plastic into high-quality raw material for new plastics, but other companies are also pushing new recycling technologies. Chances are good that this will enable us to increase recycling of plastics including plastic packaging in the future. But a question will remain: Will recycling be enough? Unfortunately not.
Demand for plastics and packaging is increasing at global scale. Aside from that, collection, sorting and recycling aren’t perfect processes. They come with material losses. Thus, even at a recycling rate of 100% (and we are currently only at some 10% globally!), we wouldn’t be able to meet the demand for new plastics just through recycling. Meeting the demand will require us to tap into other (renewable) material pools — and one of these is biomass.
Biogenic carbon is available in large quantities as a more sustainable feedstock
Plastics made from bio-based materials aren’t new, and there is a broad range of different approaches and technologies to turn biomass into polymers. They all share one basic concept and a common advantage, though: using biogenic carbon instead of fossil carbon, and as a result reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the lifecycle of plastics.
So let’s focus on the route of using bio-based waste and residues to achieve that goal, as this is also what we at Neste are experts on. Initially, we used these materials — for example, used cooking oil or residues from vegetable oil production — to produce fuels like renewable diesel or sustainable aviation fuel. We still do so, but the renewable hydrocarbon products our refineries produce can also be used to replace fossil naphtha or propane in the production of plastics. In fact, bio-based waste and residue oils and fats can be used to produce a one-to-one replacement for fossil plastics feedstock that can also be used in a blend with fossil feedstock. The plastics and chemicals produced that way are just the same as those made from conventional fossil raw materials, be it common polypropylene or polyethylene, PET or similar.
This is why we call it a drop-in solution: same performance, same characteristics, different raw material, different carbon footprint. The difference in the carbon footprint can be quite significant. Replacing fossil feedstock with bio-based feedstock may see GHG emissions plummet by more than 85% over the plastics’ lifecycle.
The question of scalability and availability
Plastics made with bio-based materials are not a vision but a reality already today. Neste alone — and we are not the only ones active in this field — has a production capacity for renewable products of 6 million tons, set to grow to 7.5 million tons within the next three years. Other providers are increasing their capacities as well, so there are good chances that bio-based materials can contribute to the defossilization of plastics, and thus plastic packaging, at industrial scale.
While production capacities are one thing, the required raw materials are another. The amount of commonly used waste and residue oils and fats is finite. Experts predict that the global availability of such resources could exceed 44 million tons annually from 2030 onwards. Considering the current global plastics production is somewhere around 440 million tons, this limited supply highlights a significant gap. Furthermore, it’s important to acknowledge that these oils and fats are not solely designated for plastics production; they are also utilized in manufacturing fuels and other products, emphasizing the need to explore alternative solutions. This means that further renewable carbon pools will be required. Research and development efforts are looking at various options for that, including algae, lignocellulosics or so-called novel vegetable oils, which are vegetable oils that do not compete with food and animal feed production and feature regenerative agricultural concepts. Aside from these bio-based options, a long-term alternative is Power-to-X, which converts CO2 and green hydrogen into hydrocarbons.
The time is now to pave the way for defossilization
The next years will be decisive to enable a future for fossil-free plastics and plastics packaging. New recycling solutions like chemical recycling are in a commercialization phase, and now is the time to ramp them up. While already available in large volumes, bio-based materials need to be incorporated at a broader scale throughout plastics production. These will be decisive factors to ensure that alternative solutions, on top of mechanical recycling, can play their role in defossilizing the industry in the long-term. I am confident it can be done.
Maiju Helin is head of market development for polymers and chemicals at Neste. Previously, she was head of sustainability and regulatory transformation and of stakeholder management for Neste’s Renewable Polymers and Chemicals business. Prior to Neste, Maiju worked at UPM Biofuels in various roles.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.
Published: November 20, 2024 Updated: by Dan Holtmeyer
24K-Production/Shutterstock
This article appeared in the November 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
Tire recycling, by and large, means chopping up tires and doing one of two things with the pieces: using them as-is, such as in mulch or artificial turf pellets, or burning them for fuel. But these traditional markets haven’t been keeping pace with new tire generation, according to the latest data from the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association, an industry advocacy group. And researchers, public officials and others across the country are working to push tire recycling in new directions, including into the same roads those tires once traveled.
More than 3.8 million tons of used tires were processed into usable products in the U.S. in 2023, a 79% diversion rate, according to the association’s biennial End-of-Life Tire Management Report, the newest version of which was released in October. The figure was an uptick from 71% two years prior but was also the exception topping off a decade of decline from the peak of 96% in 2013, according to the association’s previous data.
John Sheerin, the organization’s senior director of end-of-life tire programs, said the bump was likely from temporary factors. The dip in miles driven at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, meant a dip in used-up tires to manage, and higher natural gas prices resulting from Russia’s war on Ukraine made tire-derived fuel more appealing for furnaces, paper mills and similar facilities.
Barring these blips, U.S. tire consumption rises ever upward, Sheerin said, and the tide is against carbon-emitting fuels like TDF and the coal it often supplements. The problem requires development of end markets like rubber-modified asphalt, an association priority that has been gradually drawing more support at the state and federal level.
“We have a ways to go,” Sheerin said. Still, “a lot of things are going in the right direction, and there’s a lot of energy in the field right now.”
Street-level work
Used tires are of course a universal issue, often the biggest class of material collected by weight for the local programs that accept them. States from Alabama to California devote millions of dollars to grants and other programs for tire management, like the $2 million awarded by West Virginia to 22 businesses and local governments early this year. Connecticut in 2023 passed the country’s first statewide extended producer responsibility law for tires, which state officials expect to go into practice next year.
In Tennessee, state officials have taken deliberate steps to grow the used-tire supply chain, said Chris Pianta, an environmental program manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation’s Office of Sustainable Practices.
Since 2015, a small fee on new vehicles has gone into the Tire Environmental Act Program, which awards yearly grants for a mixture of private and public organizations. To build options and lower transportation costs, the first several years’ grants focused on increasing the number of local tire processors, Pianta said. The state has since gone from just one processor to half a dozen.
“I think we’re definitely in a better spot than we were nine years ago,” he said, noting that the grants over their history have contributed more than $10 million to 30-plus projects that diverted 7.6 million tires. “Hopefully we’re starting to make a dent.”
One such processor was Memphis Tire Recyclers, which started in late 2021 after its founders saw an opportunity in addressing hoarded and illegally dumped tires around the city, said Corteney Mack, its chief business officer and co-owner.
Memphis Tire received more than $460,000 from the state grant program in 2022 to buy equipment and facility upgrades, in some cases years earlier than the owners originally planned. The business now has three locations and customers buying all of the crumb rubber, tire-derived aggregate and tire-derived fuel it can make.
“It definitely helped take our business to new heights quicker than we anticipated,” Mack said.
Now Tennessee’s grant program has diversified into more, smaller recipients with projects that directly use scrap tire products, Pianta said. The bulk of this year’s $1.6 million in grants went to tire-rubber trails at state parks and other public areas, for example. Another $147,000 went to a Memphis nonprofit called the Binghampton Development Corporation to install bicycle lane barriers along 6 miles of city streets.
The BDC works to build job skills and work experience for communities in need, such as those with histories of substance abuse or with the criminal justice system, said Andy Kizzee, director of the BDC business hub. The organization has been around for two decades, but over just the past few years it has partnered with the city of Memphis, local professionals and others to recycle a variety of challenging materials. The push all began about three years ago with the confluence of two community problems.
“Memphis has the second-most pedestrian and bicycle deaths in the country, and we’ve got a huge illegal dumping problem,” Kizzee said. So a local urban planner, Laura Murray, partnered with a local industrial artist, Tad Pierson, and with the BDC to try to help both problems at once by converting dumped tires into barriers shaped like camelbacks, upright panels or three-leafed clovers. The barriers are bolted directly to the pavement and alert drivers if they start crossing the line.
Courtesy of Binghampton Development Corporation
Grants from the state tire program, the nonprofit People for Bikes and elsewhere funded a 1-mile pilot in 2022, and now the project is ready for another leap that’ll start in January, Kizzee said. And it will reach beyond dumped tires to make a bigger dent in the tire issue.
“We’ll be sourcing those from tire shops — small mom-and-pop tire shops that wouldn’t necessarily have a contract with a hauler or tire processor,” he said.
Into the asphalt recipe
Tennessee’s approach has also touched on a relatively small but growing trend toward rubber-modified asphalt, a type of pavement that incorporates finely ground tire rubber as an ingredient. The resulting mixture can extend road lifespans, reduce repair costs over time and bring other benefits, according to a state-of-knowledge report released in 2021 by the tire manufacturers association, the University of Missouri and The Ray, a nonprofit pushing for more sustainable transportation.
The technology has been the subject of testing in multiple states, including on several hundred miles of roads in Alabama, Georgia and Michigan. The University of Tennessee-Knoxville received a state grant of about $350,000 in 2023 for similar research.
A small sliver of old tires, about 3%, was used for asphalt applications in 2023, according to the manufacturers association report released in October. But the nation’s highways and roads represent a massive possible end market for the hundreds of millions of used tires generated every year, said Baoshan Huang, a professor in UTK’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering who’s overseeing the tire research project.
“The biggest potential application is to put it into asphalt pavement,” he said. “Our society, our community, does have a need to utilize this waste tire rubber, and also there are technologies that can use it more effectively.”
UTK is partnering with the state Department of Transportation to test the asphalt on sections of roads, developing mixtures and experimenting with such details as how much to de-vulcanize, or essentially cook, the rubber to get the best results.
It’s a common topic of research across the country, since every state sets its own pavement specifications and has its own climates and other concerns, said Sheerin with the manufacturers association.
“You can’t just throw some rubber in there and say it’s good,” he said. “They want to see work on the ground in their state that has lasted for some time.”
Sheerin reiterated the many potential benefits to rubber-modified asphalt, including its durability and its ability to be recycled multiple times as roads are resurfaced. The Tire Recycling Foundation, which works in concert with the association, received $3.8 million from the U.S. EPA in July as part of a round of grants supporting low-carbon manufacturing. The money is meant to help develop robust environmental product declarations that show environmental impacts across the life of a product, which could help spur more widespread adoption of the technology.
“At present it’s a relatively small market,” Sheerin said, “and it needs to grow substantially.”
Published: November 20, 2024 Updated: by Keith Loria
Courtesy of Park La Brea
This article appeared in the November 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
With higher population densities, space constraints and the constant arrival of new tenants, multifamily housing often presents one of the biggest chasms for residential recycling and composting programs to cross. Park La Brea, a 4,255-unit community in the Miracle Mile District of Los Angeles, has bridged the gap for 12,000 residents spread across 49 buildings thanks to continual outreach and collaboration, several officials said.
“We’re an 80-year-old property, but that doesn’t mean we have to operate like we’re 80 years old, and for me, this is very much a big environmental push,” said Aryn Thomez, vice president of property management for Prime Residential, which owns the complex. “We wanted to do right by the environment and also stay ahead of the legislative curve.”
Thomez noted the key to a successful composting program in a multifamily property — especially one as large as this — is a collaborative approach between management, the on-site team, the hauler, composter and others. In Park La Brea’s case, Valet Living collects the compost at residents’ doors six days a week, EcoSafe provides 2.5-gallon liners to residents, and final organics collection is done by Athens Services, which also collects recyclables and trash.
“Maintaining cohesive relationships between multiple departments and consistently engaging residents is crucial for an effective organics recycling program,” said Jennifer Duet, sales strategy manager for Athens. “If any one entity tries to do it on their own, it’s more likely to fail, so it’s better to have everyone on board.”
Bringing in the residents
Recycling had been available at the complex for more than a decade. But when the program began in 2022, residents unsurprisingly met it with something of a mixed response.
“Before we even launched it, we had a very comprehensive communication plan to put it out there to our residents and discuss the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ and not make it seem like we were forcing it down their throats,” Thomez said. “We spent a lot of time to show them how this benefits them and the value it creates.”
It took time for people to adapt, but with two years behind it, Park La Brea is seeing a much better adoption and engagement to the composting program. About half of residents are signed up for composting through the valet service; there’s also a green bin in the basement for those who don’t want to wait for pickup or aren’t signed up.
“Especially as new residents come in, you’re starting to see a demographic where this is very important to them,” Thomez said. “We are continuing to see good increases in adoption quarter over quarter.”
As of January 2022, all residents in California, including those living in apartment complexes, have been required to compost organic waste properly. Exactly a decade earlier, recycling was made mandatory. It’s up to the property owners to supply and allow access to an adequate number and size of containers with the correct labels or container colors for each. Park La Brea goes a step further with its services and also stands out for being the largest complex in California to compost.
In the beginning, Athens developed educational materials, including videos, signage and startup kits, to help both property managers and tenants understand what’s accepted in the composting bins and how best to succeed in the program.
“Along with our signage and residential handouts, the Athens Multifamily Manual is designed for property managers as an easy-to-use guide, which includes a step-by-step checklist, communication templates, lease language and participation surveys, making it a comprehensive resource to support an effective program,” said Jessica Aldridge, director of sustainability and zero waste for Athens.
Originally, for recycling and composting for those living in the complex’s 18 13-story towers, things needed to be brought down to the basement. That’s why Valet Living and EcoSafe were brought in, to make it easier for residents to adhere to the composting plan.
“A lot of properties will make it an optional service if residents want it, but the way Athens did it was to give everyone the opportunity to do it just by stopping by to get a bin, or by going door to door to make sure people knew how it worked,” said Gary Bilbro, director of U.S. sales for EcoSafe. “They worked hard to ensure the highest level of participation possible.”
To make it as easy as possible for residents, Valet Living picks up six days a week, instructing people to leave their compost bags outside their doors each evening. The valet service also ensures the appropriate bags get to the bins and picks out obvious contaminants.
New bags are kept in the laundry room, so residents can simply restock whenever they need. There’s also a green bin in the basement for those who don’t want to wait for pickup.
“Park La Brea’s success stems from management’s proactive approach in equipping tenants with the necessary tools to fully engage in the program,” Duet said. “By providing kitchen-pail bag dispensers, valet service for the towers and routine organics barrel cleaning for the garden apartments, the company has made recycling and composting more convenient and accessible, creating a smoother and more enjoyable experience for everyone involved.”
Richard Risemberg, a Park La Brea resident for the past two years, moved in right after the Valet Living service began and said the composting program has been working well.
“They provide this service, it’s $35 a month, and pick up the general garbage and separate the recyclables, and then provide us a separate little can for the compost, and provide the compostable bags to line it with,” he said, adding he trusts the system. “I think the city keeps watch on things and so do think things are getting composted correctly when they take things down to the master bins.”
Risemberg is a part-time landscaping gardener and has used city-supplied compost and mulch on numerous products, so he knows stuff is getting back out the way it’s supposed to be.
“Once in a while, they do run out of the bags, but that’s the only issue I have encountered,” he said. “Overall, I believe this is working and it’s a very good thing for all.”
Other residents have not been as impressed and have complained to management, and even some of their local politicians, about the problems they see.
For instance, seven-year resident Michele Palermo, a writer and executive producer who wrote the composting episode for Martha Stewart Living about eight years ago, opted out of Park La Brea’s compost program because she believed it wasn’t working.
“I don’t feel like it was vetted properly, and it amounts to people leaving really stinky food outside their door in the evening when people are coming home from work, and I think it’s an invitation for vermin,” she said. “Plus, if you go around the complex in the morning, all of the trash seems to be piled together — trash, recycling and composting. It’s kind of a mockery, and it’s bothersome because it’s not doing anything for the environment.”
Others complain that when they go to empty their compost into the larger collection container themselves, often they are full of items that don’t belong. Resident Stephen Manning has been recycling for more than half his life, and though he was originally excited about the composting program, he’s abandoned it because he heard from a driver making the pickups that many times they end up putting the items removed in the regular landfill anyway because of this problem.
Both Prime Residential and Athens Services disputed this account, and other residents talked favorably about the program on the Park La Brea Facebook page. In a complex this large, there will always be people who aren’t following proper protocol.
“Residents are holding us accountable now, which is great; we want people to get involved and help us if they see something that doesn’t belong in the compost bin,” Thomez said. “Some people make this much more complicated than it needs to be. We just all need to hold each other accountable and we will get there.”
Law of the Land
With California’s SB 1383 now in effect with an aim to reduce organic waste disposal by 75% by next year, properties are required to provide tenants with clear, annual communication and easily accessible, clearly marked containers that show what’s acceptable for recycling and composting.
“Continuous education and outreach from both property management and Athens are critical to driving behavior change, increasing participation and reducing contamination, while also reducing confusion about what belongs in the organics container,” Aldridge said. “Regular reminders keep tenants informed and on track with proper recycling and composting practices.”
Park La Brea goes above and beyond the law, such as by holding an annual Earth Day event where they go over the particulars of the program and provide further tips for composting correctly.
Overall, the complex’s experience demonstrates it’s not just about a given property being “good” or “bad” at recycling and composting, those in the industry say — it often comes down to access to services, getting property managers on board and providing ongoing outreach and communication with tenants.
“Implementing food scraps collection at a multifamily complex may seem challenging, but with the right tools and strong partnerships, we can successfully divert household food waste from landfills and channel it toward more environmentally beneficial uses,” Aldridge said.
For those looking to install a similar program in a multifamily complex, Thomez noted it starts by just “cutting the cord” and going all-in.
“Your residents will follow suit; if they see it’s important to you, it will be important to them,” she said. “And if you share with your residents the ‘why,’ it makes it a much more palatable and easy conversation, and you will see adoption become easier.”
This article appeared in the November 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
Orlando, Florida, was e-scrap central in late September and early October as around 950 industry leaders attended the 21st annual E-Scrap Conference, one of Resource Recycling’s three annual conferences. Dozens of sessions and an expo hall brought the e-scrap, ITAD and ITAM industries together to discuss how coming laws might affect them and the best ways to build public trust, industry resilience, compliance and circularity.
Untapped potential in plastics
With domestic demand building slowly, U.S. recyclers must look to other industries to absorb their e-plastics volumes, several executives said during a session focused on electronics’ non-metal side on Oct. 2.
Since North America offers little in the way of electronics manufacturers who might buy recycled e-plastics, the automotive sector in Asia and Mexico is a key area of growth, especially for ABS and polypropylene, said panelist Zhan “Bo” Zhang, director of BoMet Polymer Solutions. Japan and South Korea are among the top five countries for automobile production, for example, and they sell to Europe, which has upcoming mandates that new vehicles contain 25% recycled plastics.
Extending U.S. mandates beyond beverage bottles and into other industries could enable processors and recyclers to expand, added Hong Yoon, CEO of Hanil Eco Solutions, based in Southern California.
South Korea has a relatively small and stagnant population and thus a small supply of old vehicles, Yoon said. In addition, Korea does not shred used vehicles, opting instead to sell them to Russia and other countries. As such, Korea has a limited supply of post-consumer resin.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has a vast supply of used vehicles destined for shredding, Yoon said: “I want recyclers to understand that the material you’re shipping to Malaysia and other parts of Asia will be a strategic resource in the future that you have control of.”
As for current recovery streams, the recyclers on the panel agreed that they would like to see cleaner, more segregated e-scrap streams to help improve profit margins as well as yields. Yoon said Hanil also tries to find ways to recover more e-scrap so the onus isn’t only on feedstock suppliers.
In the EU, extended producer responsibility laws have definitely helped clean up recycling streams, said Pablo León, CEO of Spain-based recycler Sostenplas. This has made feedstock volumes more homogenous, though countries vary in collection practices, he added.
Nevertheless, upstream processors may not know what U.S. recyclers are looking for in regards to quality, said Clive Hess, president of ITAD processor CompuCycle.
“What we consider clean material is not clean material,” he said, using the example of printers shipped with paper and ink cartridges still inside. Hess described CompuCycle as a relative newcomer to the industry. It upgraded its six-year-old Houston plant with a float-sink system in November 2023 and in July 2024 added an electrostatic system to separate out ABS, polystyrene, polyethylene and PP.
A major roadblock for recycling of any plastic in the U.S. is the lack of mandates. European EPR schemes have contributed to material getting recycled, Leon said, but in the U.S. demand may lag because end users think there is no supply. But if no one recycles ABS, for example, there will be no demand for it, either.
In addition, in Europe recycled plastics have been available for decades, so the manufacturing industry is accustomed to using PCR, he said. Demand “is not something you build in one or two years.”
Zhang said that in the next three to four years, interest will grow but uncertainty will remain, including upcoming implementation of amendments to the Basel Convention, whose regulatory effects on supply are yet unclear.
Hess said processing e-plastics has to become more economical, with domestic
costs far higher than international. “There’s a very large supply of our product,” he said. “We just need to be able to process it economically.”
– by Antoinette Smith
Celebrating Billy Johnson’s life
Industry leaders opened the conference on Sept. 30 with a tribute to the Recycled Materials Association’s chief lobbyist, Billy Johnson, who passed away suddenly the Saturday before. Johnson, who had worked for ReMA for two decades, was “a tireless advocate for the recycled materials industry, and for the well-being of all of our members,” a ReMA statement said. “He was incredibly effective at raising our voice on Capitol Hill and within five Presidential Administrations, ensuring that our industry was known throughout Washington and the interests of all members were protected.”
Others spoke fondly of Johnson during the conference’s opening plenary session. Colleague Cheryl Coleman, ReMA senior vice president of advocacy, safety and sustainability, recalled his kindness, while Craig Boswell of HOBI International emphasized how much Johnson did for the industry and how his presence was a staple at conferences.
Over his years of work, Johnson secured a special accelerated depreciation allowance for qualified recycling equipment through the Recycled Investment Saves Energy Act, challenged the market dominance of railroads on demurrage and accessorial charges, and achieved an essential business designation for the recycled materials industry from the Department of Homeland Security during the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
– by Marissa Heffernan
Reuse and recycling not at odds
During the opening plenary session highlighting current key trends in e-scrap and ITAD, industry experts discussed device repair, design regulations and battery fire dangers.
Walter Alcorn, vice president of environmental affairs and industry sustainability at the Consumer Technology Association, which represents OEMs, said manufacturers are seeing a continued focus on device repairability. He projected that will translate less into a mass movement of consumers repairing their own devices and more into more independent repair shops. Manufacturers have begun to open up to this idea much more than in years past, he added.
“That is a Rubicon we’ve crossed,” he said, referring to treating independent repair shops the same as authorized refurbishers. “We’re pretty much there.”
That’s a positive for e-scrap processors, who are dealing with lightweighting in devices contributing to lower volumes of precious metals recovered.
“There’s more value in reusable parts components,” Alcorn said. “The resale markets continue to be an important source of revenue.”
ReMA’s Coleman added that despite how it’s sometimes framed, recycling isn’t really at odds with reuse. Even with far greater adoption of refurbishment and reuse, those devices will still ultimately make their way to the recycling stream, she explained. So it doesn’t take away from commodities recovery in the end.
“Eventually it’s coming our way,” she said. “Maximize its use.”
And it’s an environmental win, said Jim Levine, senior vice president of North American operations for major ITAD firm Iron Mountain.
“We all know that repurposing and reuse is a lot more stress-free on the environment than recycling is,” Levine said.
That said, Levine highlighted room for improvement in device design for repair. He advocated for manufacturers to take an approach that embraces modular design allowing for easily removable and replaceable batteries rather than producing products with a glued-in battery. Alcorn strongly objected.
“The last thing I would want to see is consumers trying to figure out what battery to put in their smartphone,” Alcorn said. “If you put the wrong battery into the wrong phone, sometimes you get a thermal event, sometimes it doesn’t work.”
– by Colin Staub
Certification workshops
A pair of sessions dug into the finer points of e-Stewards and R2, two frequently competing, though sometimes collaborating, certification programs that recognize the safe, responsible reuse and recycling of electronic devices. Earning these certifications brings benefits to the recipient both directly and indirectly, their respective representatives said.
E-scrap and ITAD firms’ customers, for example, more and more insist on such a certification in order to comply with data protection laws where violations can cost tens of millions of dollars. Such missteps by Morgan Stanley in the late 2010s cost that company more than $160 million in settlements and fines, for example.
“It just makes life easier for multinational companies to work with R2,” said Patty McKenzie, education and outreach director at SERI, the owner and administrator of R2 certification.
Certification can also help companies stand out in answering RFPs and going about their business, said Daniel Puckett, business director for e-Stewards — if the recipients show off their certification on websites, in pamphlets and in bids for contracts.
“They shout to the whole market, ‘Hey, we know what we’re doing,’” he said of the e-Steward badges.
The two certifications scrutinize similar business aspects, such as material destinations and Basel Convention compliance, but also differ in important ways, the officials said. R2 certifies individual facilities, for example, while e-Stewards applies to companies.
Published: October 15, 2024 Updated: by Dan Holtmeyer
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.
This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
If you missed the chance to grab a slice of the $198 million federal recycling grant pie last year, your second chance has arrived.
More than $100 million is available to local governments, Native tribes and other organizations for either recycling infrastructure on one hand or public education around the topics of food waste and composting on the other, the U.S. EPA announced in September. The announcement came as recipients of the first round in 2023 began hiring staff, collecting data, buying equipment and launching local outreach campaigns.
All of those millions came courtesy of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to transportation, energy and other sectors.
“Thanks to President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, EPA is deploying unprecedented resources to improve recycling services and increase educational outreach to communities,” EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a written statement. “When we work together to prevent waste that contributes to climate change, we support local economies, create jobs that pay well, and better protect the health of everyone in the community.”
As in the first round, the new grant program prioritizes proposals that would benefit “communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution” while bolstering a more circular economy nationwide, according to the announcement. It’s available in three buckets:
Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grants for federally recognized tribes and intertribal consortia: $20 million total for individual grants ranging from $100,000 to $1.5 million, to establish, grow or otherwise improve recycling collection and management systems. As of this writing, applications are due March 14, 2025.
SWIFR grants for political subdivisions of states and territories, such as cities and counties: $58 million total for individual grants from $500,000 to $5 million, for the same purposes as the tribal grants. Applications are due Dec. 20.
Recycling education and outreach: a single $39 million grant for a coalition project that would implement a national consumer food waste reduction campaign, increase the market for compost and boost education and outreach about composting. Applications are due Dec. 20.
Applying for federal grants can be an intimidating process, requiring meticulous documentation and detailed planning. But it’s also an arena where even small organizations that have never received a federal grant before can succeed, said Jill Buck, founder and board member of the Go Green Initiative. The California-based nonprofit received $1.1 million last year, its first EPA grant ever, to work with school district staff and high school students in Camden, New Jersey, to spread understanding and participation in recycling programs.
“It’s not for the weak of heart, I will tell you that,” Buck said of the application process, adding that applicants should start early and take advantage of EPA’s informational sessions and other technical assistance. “This is the ultimate reading comprehension exercise; you really have to be fastidious and have tremendous attention to detail when it comes to the instructions.”
Fitting all of the needed information within the page limit can feel “like squeezing a watermelon into a Coke bottle,” she said. “Then you need to demonstrate that you can handle the money.”
A clear and compelling purpose also helps, said Susan Caswell, sustainability director for Florida’s Osceola County. The county received about $750,000 for an education and demonstration effort with a particular focus on glass, which the county had to give up in its bids for county-wide recycling and trash pickup service in 2019 — “every single potential vendor asked us to remove glass,” Caswell said. Yet why the county doesn’t recycle glass is still one of the most frequent questions she hears, and some residents pay a private service to collect it.
The education campaign will work with local schools and feature a mobile glass pulverizer, not only to process the material right in front of residents’ own eyes but also to harness the latent interest in glass to inspire recycling initiatives in the area, Caswell said. The area is full of hotels and restaurants, for example, which generate “just a tremendous amount of glass.”
“We went for the education and outreach kind of as the first step in rethinking glass recycling for the county,” Caswell said. “It allowed us to tell that story in an effective way.”
Projects such as these also highlight how the EPA grants can have ripple effects, both in their targeted communities and in others that might follow their example. Buck said the New Jersey plan — particularly environmental clubs, internships and leadership development for high school students — already proved itself in Pleasanton, California. Since the Go Green Initiative launched a similar project almost a decade ago, the city has seen recycling rates and collections rise while contamination fell by 27%, according to a letter from the city to the EPA.
“They were getting out to businesses and church groups and civic organizations,” Buck said of the Pleasanton students. And as Caswell put it, when it comes to the youth, “if you get them engaged in it, then they start getting on their parents’ case to do better.”
Published: October 15, 2024 Updated: by Heidi Schmidt
Putida Supakarn/Shutterstock.
This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
Recycling facilities are the unsung heroes of our waste management system. These complex operations process vast quantities of materials, facing immense pressure to optimize efficiency while maintaining environmental and safety standards. Video monitoring technology has emerged as a powerful tool to address these challenges.
The Power of Sight
At the heart of successful recycling lies visibility. Video surveillance provides a comprehensive view of operations, from incoming materials to the final sorted products. By strategically placing cameras throughout the facility, managers gain real-time insights into every stage of the process.
Identifying Bottlenecks: Video analysis helps pinpoint areas where materials accumulate or processes slow down. This knowledge empowers facility managers to make data-driven decisions to streamline operations.
Enhancing Quality Control: Cameras enable real-time monitoring of material quality, ensuring only pure materials proceed to the next stage. This reduces contamination and improves overall product quality.
Prioritizing Worker Safety: Recycling facilities are inherently hazardous. Video surveillance acts as a vigilant eye, detecting unsafe practices and enabling prompt intervention. Additionally, footage can be used for safety training, fostering a culture of prevention.
Compliance and Cost Savings
Regulatory compliance is a top priority for recycling facilities. Video evidence can be invaluable in demonstrating adherence to environmental and safety standards. Beyond compliance, surveillance systems contribute to cost-reduction.
Preventing Downtime: By monitoring equipment performance, potential issues can be identified early, minimizing downtime and associated costs.
Optimizing Resource Allocation: Video analysis can reveal inefficiencies in labor and energy usage, leading to optimized resource allocation.
Choosing the Right Equipment
The harsh conditions of a recycling facility demand specialized equipment. Ruggedized cameras designed for industrial environments are essential for reliable performance. While the initial investment in robust cameras might be higher, the long-term benefits in terms of durability and reduced maintenance costs often outweigh the upfront expense.
Investing in video surveillance is not just about security; it’s about transforming recycling operations. By harnessing the power of visual data, facilities can enhance efficiency, improve safety, and contribute to a more sustainable future.
Heidi Schmidt has worked in the video technology space for almost 20 years, building expertise in CCTV, industrial video applications, new product development, video network solutions, and more. As global sales manager at Opticom Tech, she helps customers implement robust video monitoring solutions for unique and harsh industrial environments and can be reached at [email protected] or 269-719-5889.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.
This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
With negative mainstream media coverage eroding public trust in recycling, now is the time to make changes. An important piece of those improvements is accurate, standardized data collection.
The State of Recycling
In recent years, recycling has been hit with a wave of negative press, casting a shadow over the industry’s future. The most troubling aspect is that some critics advocate for dismantling the system rather than offering solutions to overcome known challenges and create a system that works for everyone. No matter how you cut it, recycling is an important service that plays a key role in reducing waste, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and protecting virgin resources. It also creates thousands of jobs and generates billions in revenue each year, thereby contributing to a strong economy.
Fortunately, the majority of Americans still believe in recycling. According to The Recycling Partnership’s Recycling Confidence Index, nearly 80% of people believe that recycling has a positive impact on waste reduction and is worth the effort. Despite that, less than half of those surveyed were confident their recyclables are being transformed into new products.
The data appears to validate this attitude, too. According to The Recycling Partnership’s State of Recycling report, only 21% of residential recyclables are being recycled and 76% of recyclables are lost at the household level.
This presents an opportunity to rebuild public trust in recycling through investment, policy and education. To transition to a circular economy, we must invest in the future by modernizing recycling systems and rigorously measuring efficiency at every stage.
The good news is that recycling is finally undergoing a much-needed revitalization. The U.S. EPA has committed $275 million in Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grants and $75 million in Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach grants. The funding is already helping states and communities invest in infrastructure, research and data collection.
Another great sign of recycling revitalization is the emergence of extended producer responsibility programs for packaging. California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Oregon have all adopted printed paper and packaging EPR legislation. Although these programs are at different stages of implementation, The Recycling Partnership estimates that EPR in these states will lead to a 35% increase in materials recycled and a 24% boost in the national recycling rate.
Why Accurate Data is Essential
The importance of reliable, high-quality data cannot be overstated. It gives policymakers, investors and program managers the information they need to make informed decisions about where investments will have the greatest impact and direct resources to where they are needed most. What’s more, robust data systems promote accountability and transparency, ensuring that all stakeholders — from producers to consumers — are contributing to waste-reduction efforts and sharing the responsibility of managing waste.
Eunomia’s groundbreaking report, The 50 States of Recycling, demonstrates the power of large-scale data analysis in its state-by-state assessment of recycling rates for containers and packaging. It emphasizes the importance of quality data, writing that “reliable and verifiable data is critical to making effective policy and programming
decisions,” and observes that “states that have more comprehensive and current data, along with a state managed reporting system, achieve higher recycling rates.”
Beyond its practical applications, data also plays a crucial role in restoring public trust in the recycling system. When the public sees evidence that recycling programs are effective and that their efforts are making a difference, they are more likely to participate actively.
National Data Reporting as the North Star
As one would expect, in states that require regular reporting, local governments and waste management districts tend to collect data that aligns with the state reporting obligations. It’s the most efficient way to measure local program performance while streamlining state-mandated reporting requirements. If a national data reporting standard were to be introduced today, it stands to reason that states would also be motivated to adapt their reporting programs to align with the national standard, thereby simplifying their reporting responsibilities.
The lack of uniformity in how states and local governments measure waste diversion reflects the country’s unique tapestry of political boundaries, jurisdictions and authorities, state regulations, local ordinances, service models, funding mechanisms, population density, wealth distribution, access to recycling and more. What’s more, there seems to be an exception to every rule. Consequently, the dream of having an end-to-end reporting system that neatly rolls up data by jurisdiction, sector or industry can sometimes feel out of reach. But the dream lives on! Imagine a national data tracking system that collects standardized data from key players across all sectors and aggregates the results into insightful summaries that can be shared with all relevant stakeholders.
Many attempts at data standardization have been made over the years, and we’re no strangers to the game, either. Working in concert with The Recycling Partnership and BioCycle, we deliver the Municipal Measurement Program, a program designed to standardize municipal residential collection program data. It was created to facilitate peer-to-peer and national benchmark comparisons.
Another example worthy of mention is the EPA’s State Measurement Program, which was designed to encourage collaboration among state agencies and facilitate data-sharing. The program is no longer in operation, but it was on the right track.
Establishing a national data standard and reporting framework would act as a rallying call for all stakeholders to harmonize language and align methodologies to establish consistent measurement across the entire system.
The Path Forward
In addition to maintaining funding for infrastructure upgrades, program support and research, the EPA needs to continue collaborating with industry stakeholders to make sustained progress toward achieving all five strategic objectives outlined in its National Recycling Strategy.
One of the five strategic objectives, standardize measurement and increase data collection, will create a more resilient and cost-effective national recycling system. The strategy correctly explains that “different definitions and measurement practices create challenges to setting goals and tracking progress. Stakeholders across the recycling system agree that more consistent measurement methodologies are needed to measure recycling system performance.”
Achieving this objective will depend on the effective execution of these key activities:
Develop and implement national recycling system definitions, measures, targets and performance indicators.
Create a tracking and reporting plan.
Create recycled content measures.
Coordinate domestic and international measurement efforts.
Increase data availability and transparency about recyclable materials generated and the materials manufacturers need by:
Gathering data.
Improving data availability and transparency.
Improving the accessibility of data for product design and procurement.
In addition, the emergence of EPR in states across the country offers hope and good reason to be optimistic about recycling’s future. These policies are likely to bring significant changes to the recycling landscape including:
Producers now share the responsibility of material collection and recovery.
Reduction of the financial burden placed on local governments in the collection and processing of materials.
Incentivization of producers to improve the recyclability of their products and packaging.
Motivation of the private sector to promote recycling in support of a circular economy.
Encouragement of industry collaboration to reduce costs and increase recycling.
As EPR programs are developed, it’ll be important for producer responsibility organizations to explore opportunities to connect to existing local government programs to streamline data reporting and facilitate data-sharing.
The implementation of national data reporting policies is not just a bureaucratic exercise, it is a necessary step toward creating a more efficient, transparent and effective recycling system in the U.S. With reliable data, policymakers can make better decisions, the public can regain trust in the recycling process and the nation can move closer to its national recycling goals.
Josh Reid is the CEO of Re-TRAC and parent company Emerge Knowledge Design Inc. This article first appeared in Policy Now.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.
Published: September 26, 2024 Updated: by Bodo Albrecht
Joaquin Corbalan P/Shutterstock.
This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
Global growth in uptake of electric vehicles, semiconductors, fuel cells, battery panels, medical devices and other products and components is fueling heightened demand for precious metals. Manufacturers of a diverse range of products favor these metals for their superior electrical conductivity, corrosion resistance, hardness and a range of other valuable qualities.
At the same time, precious metals are a limited natural resource. It is not uncommon for mines in South Africa, for example, to plunge 2 or 3 kilometers into the ground to reach their deposits. Many major mining operations around the world are advanced in their life cycles. While exploration for new sources is ongoing, the price of such efforts is very high.
Of course, the approaching shortage of precious metals is problematic not only from the perspective of simple industrial supply and demand; there also is the devastating impact on our environment and human well-being to be taken into account. According to a February 2022 research briefing to the U.K. Parliament, “Mining and mineral processing consume large volumes of water, including in arid regions. The discharge of water from mine sites can result in serious contamination of waterways. The industry uses over 8% of the world’s total energy each year to produce metals, and contributes to 10% of the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Improper storage of mine waste has resulted in humanitarian and ecological disasters.”
The mining of precious metals in particular involves long-established and well-understood methods and high safety standards, making it a much smaller contributor to environmental issues than some base metal or rare-earth mining operations. However, according to a study published by the International Platinum Association in 2023, the carbon footprint of recycled precious metals is still more than 90% less than primary mining.
Recovering Vs. Mining Precious Metals
There are so many recoverable precious metals — gold, iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium and silver — that are being wasted today.
The World Health Organization has referred to e-scrap — computers, household appliances, medical devices, mobile phones, etc. — as “the fastest growing solid waste stream in the world,” of which only 17.4% was documented as formally collected and recycled. E-scrap typically contains precious metals such as gold and silver as well as platinum group metals, depending on the kind of material.
By contrast, the majority of waste and spent catalysts from industrial production worldwide is a ready source of recoverable metals that is already being recycled.
Even slightly improving the ratio of the precious metals that are recovered in various ways relative to those that are mined would offer tremendous, varied and widely shared benefits. To date, the relative complexities associated with recovering precious metals have made the process only a limited player in industry’s plans for attaining the resources that it needs. Market-driven trends, however, are changing the equation.
Changing Business Models
Primary among those trends is that the math of recovering versus mining precious metals is evolving.
As we see the various in-demand precious metals grow more scarce, we also are seeing those metals grow more expensive. Ironically, the trend toward scarcity will improve the business models for processes such as refurbishing and repurposing of components that utilize precious metals, and for more efficiently and effectively recycling recoverable metals from production scrap.
Many smartphones, for example, currently end up in landfills and/or incineration plants around the world; however, as the metals that mobile phones require grow more expensive to mine and procure, it will fuel a greater economic incentive to spur reuse of the devices. The potential impact on sustainability of a large-scale and global shift from discarding to reusing phones would be profound.
Furthermore, mining is inefficient and expensive relative to recycling. There are variables to be factored around the vein of the ore, but, in most cases, 1 ton of mined gold ore can be expected to yield about 5 grams of gold, while 1 ton of cell phones, about 10,000 units, could offer up to 280 grams of gold.
Changing Customer Demands
In many cases, manufacturers of products that rely on precious metals have new demands that are forcing change in the ways that they are sourced. Buyers in multiple industries are becoming more demanding of “conflict-free” resources via mineral sourcing programs that take into account human rights, environmental impact and ethics — as well as supplies that are sourced by less environmentally damaging means.
Plus, supply-chain disruptions in recent years have crystallized manufacturers’ attention on sourcing precious metals and other supplies geographically from nearer to where they will be processed. In this way, operations are rendered less vulnerable to geopolitical issues, and manufacturers potentially gain greater control over and visibility into their supply.
Consequently, recycling is moving closer to recovering and refining bases, enabling, for example, precious metals to be reclaimed from metal fragments and other waste generated during a manufacturing process. Integrating recovery and refining of precious metals with the manufacture of industrial precious metals products in this way can greatly contribute to sustainability and help ensure a steady supply of pure resources.
Indeed, decentralization in the recycling industry is key to reducing global reliance on mining. Increasingly, the precious metals industry is moving away from the traditional, CapEx-intensive solutions such as electric and plasma arc furnaces, which depend on very high utilization to turn a profit, and toward more environmentally friendly technologies. Relying on, for example, hydrometallurgical solutions that utilize chemical or microbial techniques facilitates the deployment of recycling operations next to where scrap is being generated and where the recovered precious metals are going to be used.
Ultimately, it’s likely to be these sorts of market-driven reforms that will drive real, lasting solutions to the world’s precious metals supply issues.
If properly recycled, there are significant amounts of valuable and finite resources to be reaped from e-scrap. Precious metal raw materials that are 100% recycled today are challenging to achieve without substantially more recovery, so it is crucial to grow understanding of precious metal recovery across manufacturers and general consumers alike.
Bodo Albrecht is president of Tanaka Precious Metals (Americas), responsible for all operations in North, Central, and South America, including sales, distribution and support for all Tanaka products in close cooperation with manufacturing, marketing, technical, research and development and related operations in Asia. He is a precious metals executive with deep roots in the industry, as well as in rare earth elements and strategic metals, with 20 years of international management positions with Degussa AG and 15 years running a consulting firm, BASIQ Corporation, before joining Tanaka.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.
This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Resource Recycling.Subscribe today for access to all print content.
Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part series exploring the concept of circularity. Part 1 was published in the August issue.
“It’s circular. It’s like a carousel. You pay the quarter, you get on the horse, it goes up and down and around.” –Kevin Nealon as Gary Potter in “Happy Gilmore.”
In part 1 of this article, we explored the appeal of circularity and the circular economy as powerful principles of materials management, envisioning the endless cycling of package materials to reach the goal of conservation/containment of energy and material inputs — a materials management system that emulates natural stable systems, such as a mature forest, where carbon levels are balanced, and the amount of carbon naturally released in the form of gas is equal to the amount stored by the reservoir of tree and plant biomass. Everything falling to the forest floor becomes usable carbon food, which is cycled up into living trees, plants, bacteria and fungi in a closed, homeostatic system requiring the lowest productivity and inputs needed for forest resiliency and diversity.
The deep metaphorical power of circularity and the circular economy mimicking healthy natural systems led it to replace the old, more linear waste management hierarchy in the public sphere, providing a more inspiring path toward mitigating the unsustainable environmental impacts of resource consumption.
Recycling is a strategy often connected to circularity. They comparatively present an opportunity for further exploration. Recycling functions as a last resort that seems to accept the fact of mass consumption but works to mitigate it by capturing remaining value — whether monetary, energy, lower emissions or reduced carbon before disposal. Recycling and circularity can be seen as two related but separate goods, one a tactical method of salvage that aims for convenience, the other a framework for sustaining resources and lowering energy use. However, at the nexus of recycling and circularity are troubling real-world paradoxes.
However related, residential package recycling today meanders around but does not approach lofty circular tenets. Its approach to managing end-of-life materials stretches far back into human history to hunters and gatherers, when usefulness of an object diminished, lesser uses were found, or the material was consumed as fuel. In the present day, recycling of materials like paper and packaging is more of an open, linear system and business process, not a cycle of something valuable. It may be improved by using underlying principles of circularity, but circularity cannot be sustained for physical reasons through recycling — it can only get closer to that ideal. Implemented by free market actors, public programs, policymakers and other recycling supply chain players, recycling captures whatever it can for remanufacturing into beneficial products, with the uncollected or misprocessed materials being disposed of or lost.
RESIDENTIAL PACKAGE RECYCLING’S ROLE
For package recycling, the gold standard of circularity is arguably when materials are turned back into the same product. This is much less common than recognized and is found most often in materials with high captured energy and durability, like metals and paper fibers. Further, material consumption is not stopped by recycling, it is only slowed, and the residential recycling supply chain rarely closes the circle for any type of commonly recycled package. The powerful implication is that use of extracted virgin materials will continue on a massive scale for most packaging.
Yet we come not to bury recycling but to raise its absolute necessity, and with it, the need to finance and improve it for more material capture. We do, however, question the facile use of “circularity,” especially when recycling is pushed as a defining answer to a package’s circularity. Kristian Syberg, an environmental risk researcher at Roskilde University in Denmark, critiqued this tendency from across the globe, writing in Scientific American in 2023 that “attention has been primarily focused on recycling,” but the reality of recycling and the circular ideal is subject to scrutiny and misses the mark of reducing waste. This shows up graphically in some of the conditions recycling finds itself up against:
Household recycling rates have not materially improved for over 20 years despite more investment and the popularity of residential single stream recycling. As such, the base of any new potential cycle of materials is continually diminishing, a dwindling spiral that necessitates more virgin extraction.
Even with the high-value, energy-trapping aluminum can, 40% were still thrown away despite their value in 2020, according to The Aluminum Association, an industry group.
Persistent gaps in access and behavior, due to a fundamentally flawed system of properly financing material collection, result in almost 4 of every 5 generated tons being lost to disposal.
Extended producer responsibility laws are designed to address the system financing issue, but so far only five U.S. states have passed EPR for packaging.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, less than 20% of plastics enters the recycling stream and only 9% actually is recycled.
In addition to these overall system challenges, recycling circularity faces unavoidable physical limitations. Let’s examine one of the best cases of recycling circularity in the package recycling stream: aluminum cans. Other materials like glass and steel compare favorably with cans in the limited inherent loss of material in each remanufacturing cycle, but aluminum cans are much more likely to cycle back to their original form. Cardboard cycles well back to original form but material damage in each cycle limits the total cycles to around seven times, whereas can cyclability can be as high as 12-20 times.
The refining of pure aluminum requires distilling from bauxite ore, converting highly variable inputs into purified molecules of alumina, which are refined by chemical electrolysis requiring huge amounts of electricity. Newly formed pig aluminum then goes through a series of alloying and/or coatings through furnaces or chemical baths. Specific can sheet or top alloys are then painted and/or labeled to be used in the packaging process. When captured for recycling, the high energy concentration in the original product production is saved. However, if can material recyclability is limited to 20 times at best; by the end of the 20th cycle, the input of high energy concentrated virgin materials will have reached 100%. Thus, even in this best case, continued virgin material extraction is an unavoidable outcome.
The force that prevents true circularity is the same one that works against all structured systems in nature: entropy. The groundwork of entropic effects on circularity is laid even before collection in the design of packaging. From that point forward, through the entire recycling supply chain, including collection, processing and remanufacturing, entropy weighs heavily on package recyclability and its circularity. Let’s unpackage that further.
Today’s newer packaging formats have a complexity that inherently makes them less recyclable, while design trends seem to be working against recovery through recycling:
Downgauging. This umbrella concept encompasses using thinner gauge materials but also adjusting package size while maintaining functionality and quality until discard. Both trends have affected highly recyclable packaging. Steel cans and PET bottles have become at least 30% lighter, thinner or smaller over the last 20 years, and aluminum cans in the last 50 years have become lighter by half.
Downgauging is a very circular-economy practice, reducing material consumption and increasing efficiency through net savings on materials and energy. But it makes the return of materials to use harder and more expensive. Like reduce and reuse, recycling benefits from higher durability, which runs counter to common upstream sustainability and efficiency efforts. As McKinsey & Company wrote in 2020, brands and packagers “will have to face complicated trade-offs such as recyclability versus carbon footprint.” Some brands with lofty circularity goals seem to understand the dilemma and are now publicly announcing alternative carbon metrics over recyclability.
Multi-material packaging. Package system choices trend toward customization to increase benefits such as barrier and taste protection, structural efficiency and shopping aisle appeal. It is not surprising that for the most malleable material, up to 20% of plastic packaging is multi-material or multi-layered. The benefits of custom packaging are real and include safety, food preservation and longer shelf life — all these connecting to circular principles around efficient use of resources. However, multiple layers complicate recycling by adding variables to the primary targeted material to be captured through cross-contamination.
Packages utilizing materials with new chemistries and formats. Many new packages may be worth recycling (i.e., carbon capture or energy saving positive), but each new input into mixed recyclables for processing is marginal, and can result in increased contamination cost, scale inefficiency, and lack of local markets. Examples include complex forms of flexible packaging, the ever-changing cosmetic and home health package segment, ultra-convenient one-step delivery systems, and an array of food service packaging items, some having very good recycling characteristics, some of which do not.
The upshot is that conscious brand packaging design choices add entropy to the package recycling system. Although cardinal materials for packaging may still predominate in today’s packaging systems, the trends outlined above multiply against each other with deleterious effect. A key corollary of these trends is that the pace of packaging innovation has constantly outpaced the ability of residential recycling’s business and technological model to keep up. This may be the reason growing numbers of brands are now actively postponing or adjusting their recyclability and content goals downward.
AN IMPERFECT RECYCLING PROCESS
A natural part of the package recycling process from collection to remanufacturing is loss in material yield and purity from the inevitable entropy from each refinement process to reach the same package function. This system of collection and processing, through the complexity and impacts of sortation and separation to pure commodities, can be illustrated through some of the following examples:
After packaging serves its useful function, some of it is placed in ultra-convenient household recycling carts. But data indicates that homeowners don’t always recycle all their recyclables, perhaps in part due to the challenge of making them clean and dry.
Misleading labels and recycling messages cause “wish-cycling” of non-recyclable items. These contaminating materials erode the system’s ability to move material-sorted recyclables to remanufacturing due to chemistry, complexity or lack the scale for removal in the system.
Recycling collection’s efficiencies optimize material deliveries at low cost but also add entropy by mixing and densification. Compaction of materials en route flattens, crushes, deforms and pushes disparate materials into each other, degrading, decaying and cross-contaminating target materials.
Mixed-material recycling processes introduce more entropy as unloading and sortation misdirect or similarly degrade some materials.
Reclamation and manufacturing steps for reusing the material contribute further to the loss in packaging yield per cycle, i.e., everything from re-sorting to furnace losses, fines loss and the need to improve chemical properties through dilution and so on.
The final non-circular reality is that too many materials do not ever return to the same product due to things like costs, material color, chemical composition, contamination, lost durability or specialization. Most of what we consider to be recycling is actually downcycling. The reason that packages tend to downcycle is materials used lose their purity or other characteristics in each run through the cycle, and repairing to their original condition can be prohibitive. Examples abound, such as post-consumer food-contact PET made into carpet fiber; glass recycled into fiberglass or used as alternative landfill cover (especially where there is no glass bottle manufacturing), colored HDPE containers made into piping, and mixed aluminum container bales going into lower-quality ingots.
It’s not that downcycling is a bad thing — it still reduces virgin materials, saves energy, lowers emissions and captures carbon, but it begs questions around circularity, especially when the downcycled products are not typically recycled at scale. Carpet and textile recycling happen at a small scale nationally, and few programs exist to recycle fiberglass insulation or drainage pipe.
So recycling is not a closed loop, and the benefits of recycling material are not endless but only finite inputs that diminish with each cycle through the system so that total loss is achieved in a determinate number of cycles. Though the battle for better yield from the residential package recycling process is continually waged throughout the recycling supply chain, there is simply not yet enough energy or financial capability in the system to close the losses. Ironically, as capture and recycling of material increases, getting to a pure cycling of materials with little to no loss may have infinite costs and not be desirable due to the effort required.
This is clearly a pessimistic characterization, but every step in the recycling process — reaching all the way back to design — is improvable, and clear steps can be taken that will lead us closer to the circular chimera. Many of the tactics for circular strengthening are well-known but we still need new, broader and more robust approaches. Remembering that the battle against entropy in material circularity is a product of conscious business and political decision-making choices, to provide the proper motivation and sense of urgency, we remind readers that if we keep consuming increasingly complex materials at the same rate, the powerful forces of entropy will guarantee ongoing high-impact, high-energy of virgin material extraction and use, all of which will make it extremely difficult to sustain nature or help cool the planet.
There are some essential steps forward we can take.
First, bring back “reduce and reuse.” As observed by the World Economic Forum, “in a properly built circular economy, one should rather focus on avoiding the recycling stage at all costs. It may sound straightforward, but preventing waste from being created in the first place is the only realistic strategy.” Here we come full circle back to the old waste management hierarchy that prioritized reduce, reuse and recycle, with the first two being the only true circular methods for reducing waste that bring the highest benefits to the environment. It is high time to push these strategies to funded policy and into brand business models. The recent move to EPR is beginning to create a long-needed bridge to do just that. Along with deposit recycling systems, enforcement components and supply chains to reduce and reuse are taking hold, a highly welcome development. Finally, brands still have, and are constantly working on, the many opportunities to pursue waste reduction upstream by addressing the size of formats for product delivery and product/package ratios. Efforts downstream to make reusable or more durable package formats and minimization of materials that simply become waste traveling through the recycling process need similar attention.
Second, accountable circularity metrics throughout the package supply chain could help even the playing field where circularity features are more highly favored:
Create enforceable design metrics that measure and reward brands for packaging reductions, reuse potential and recyclability in a cumulative, hierarchical scoring format. This would drive them to do things like maximize material strength and durability for reuse and recycling while consistently moving toward less material complexity and more material uniformity.
Insist upon accountable recycled content metrics and clear labeling to both enhance market pull for clean recyclable materials and ensure cleanliness through consumer understanding.
Provide easy-to-understand, full greenhouse gas accounting and public incentives as requirements for residential, EPR and deposit recycling programs.
Third, properly finance recycling collection through a combination of EPR, DRS and mandatory recycling ordinances, providing the resourcing and legal motivations needed for universal recycling access and for the educational efforts required to expand clean recycled material stream yields. Meanwhile, properly cost disposal options for all of the externalities in their disposal fees, i.e., long-term emissions and impacts on downstream life systems, so that clear choices can be made.
Lastly, while eco-modulating packaging for recycling-oriented attributes is a tenet in EPR, virgin material eco-modulation could also be used to internalize upstream externalities, minimize material loss and mitigate the impacts of virgin material use. For instance, packaging fees and incentives could help identify and monetize the necessary capital to drive up regenerative conservation, use renewable energy in virgin material production and better control pollutants such as methane from oil and natural gas production.
This two-part article has sought to explicitly recognize the limitations of recycling to meet full circularity, and to challenge recycling professionals to think about the strategies that improve the ability of recycling to contribute to circularity as the final resort before household packaging is disposed of. Our hope is that it also helps build discretion in the current uses of the word circularity to make it become less superficial, i.e., tossing around the goal line of circularity through the method of recycling, which can only partially get us there.
In addition, package recycling supply chain stakeholders must consider making more fervent strides towards reduction in overall waste potential and more complete cycling of materials. They must bring forward real solutions to address the impacts of single-use packaging waste as soon as practicably possible, including mitigating the impacts of continued virgin material use. This will take the resources and further regulatory underpinnings that a circular economy will be based upon. It won’t happen by itself. We need to pay our quarter now for the speed of results to be meaningful.
Michael Timpane has been a partner and vice president with RRS since 2015 and specializes in the recycling supply chain. He has worked for each of the largest post-consumer recycling companies in their time – Reynolds Aluminum, BFI, and WM – for over a decade each in his half-century career.
Scott Mouw is senior advisor for strategy and research with The Recycling Partnership. He comes from a background of public recycling, including directing the state of North Carolina’s recycling program.
Published: September 10, 2024 Updated: by Dan Holtmeyer
The 2024 U.S. elections are the subject of a four-session webinar series held by the Recycled Materials Association. | Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
The next occupants of Congress and the White House likely will bring changes to corporate taxes, project permits, worker protections and other industry concerns no matter who wins this year’s elections, legal experts said last week during the first of four webinars hosted by the Recycled Materials Association about the 2024 races. But uncertainty still reigns when it comes to who will win, what they’ll be able to accomplish and how states and courts will respond.Continue Reading