Foodservice Packaging Recovery: The Journey Continues FPI & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• DRAFT -

PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

Foodservice Packaging Recovery: The Journey Continues

FPI & Pack2Go Europe Joint Meeting June 5, 2015

Recovery Background

The Challenges

3

• The Challenges:
• Acknowledged that most foodservice packaging was not

being recovered after use for a variety of reasons…

• Limited infrastructure and end markets
• Real and perceived barriers
• Cost of recovery versus value of recovered material
• Consumer perceptions of, engagement with and access to

foodservice packaging recovery

• Recognized that no one company had enough volume or

influence to effect broad change alone

The Opportunities

4

• The Opportunities:
• Work collaboratively to create solutions for the

recovery and processing of used foodservice packaging

• Show that voluntary, industry-based recovery initiatives

work…and that new government-mandated solutions are not needed

The PRA & PRG

5

• Paper Recovery Alliance (PRA)
• Formed in 2011
• Plastics Recovery Group (PRG)
• Formed in 2012
• Both are self-funded special interest groups within FPI
• Bring together a broad group of stakeholders across

the entire value chain to work on the recovery of foodservice packaging

• Includes work on all recovery – recycling, composting,

energy recovery, with the desire to achieve the highest and best use possible for recovered materials.

Current PRA and/or PRG Members

6

Foam Recycling Coalition

7

• Foam Recycling Coalition
• Formed in 2014
• Goal: To support the recycling of post-consumer

expanded polystyrene (EPS) foodservice and protective packaging.

Foam Recycling Coalition

8

• Project Work
• General education about foam recycling
• Understanding end markets
• End market study
• Grant program
• FRC offers grants to public and private businesses in the U.S.

and/or Canada to recycle foam FSP and protective packaging

• Recipients will receive funding for equipment, technical

assistance

 First grant announced May 2015: Alpine Waste & Recycling in

Denver, Colorado

Foam Recycling Coalition

9

• Current members include:

Americas Styrenics Cascades Canada ULC Chick-fil-A CKF Inc. Commodore Convermex D&W Fine Pack Dart Container Corporation Dolco Packaging, A Tekni-Plex Company Dyne-A-Pak Genpak Hawaii Foam Products NOVA Chemicals, Inc. Pactiv Foodservice/Food Packaging Shell Chemical Styrolution America TOTAL Petrochemicals

with additional funding provided by the EPS Industry Alliance

Where have we been and where are we headed?

10

• Intended to be a market-based approach with practical, scalable

initiatives that allow circumstances to determine solutions

Research, explore different approaches Launch MRF-to- Market approach, Identify barriers, firm up PRA/PRG identity Solidify MRF-to- Market approach Promote & publicize PRA/PRG work to MRFs, communities.

2012 2013 2014 2015

What are the barriers to FSP recovery we were hearing about?

11

Recover More FSP

What is FSP? And how much is there? Oh, that’s too dirty. It won’t flow through a MRF properly. There are no end markets. Not interested in adding new materials. It’s not recyclable.

How are we addressing the barriers?

12

• Barrier: Understanding FSP
• Generation Data
• Barrier: Food Contamination
• Food Residue Studies
• Boston – 2013
• Delaware – 2014
• Barrier: Behavior & Fate in a MRF
• MRF Study
• Barrier: End Markets
• Paper
• Plastics
• Barrier: It’s “not recyclable”
• Benchmarking Study

FSP Generation – U.S. (by weight)

13

Clay Coated Paper Poly Coated Paper Other Coated Paper Napkins Paper Bags OCC Molded Pulp PS/PP/PET/PLA EPS Plastic Bags

Total: ~5.5 million tons in U.S.

Barrier: Food Contamination

14

• “Does foodservice packaging (cups, containers, boxes & paper

bags) collected at curbside have higher, lower, or the same amount of food residue to other food contact packaging (spaghetti jar, yogurt containers, etc.)?”

• Food residue studies:
• Boston – fall 2013 Delaware – summer 2014

Barrier: Food Contamination

15

• Boston 2013
• Good study results, but samples were exceptionally clean
• Found no appreciable difference in the amount of residue
• n FSP and non-foodservice food contact packaging
• Delaware 2014
• Same rating system and methodology as Boston
• All of the materials were dirtier
• FSP had only marginally more residue than other food

contact packaging

Barrier: Behavior/Fate in a MRF

16

• Co-sponsored MRF flow analysis study
• Conducted at 5 MRFs with range of sizes, geography,

input and sorting technologies

• Added materials where needed
• Allowed materials to flow “naturally” for 3 hours
• Took samples from bales

Barrier: Behavior/Fate in a MRF

17

• Preliminary results of the study include:
• Level of mechanization has significant effects
• Optical sorter can detect resin type whereas manual sorters have more

difficulty

• Manual sorters can better detect form/shape
• Single stream facilities
• Size/shape highly dictates where the material ends up
• Plastic items that can break apart or be flattened have a higher likelihood of

moving with paper

• Dual stream systems
• Separate paper and container streams can be confusing for consumers with

poly coated cups, containers and other packaging

Barrier: End Markets

18

• Working on end market

development for all FSP materials

• Each have different

characteristics in terms

• f processing and

markets

• No FSP only bales –

working with existing bales

• Interactive map in the

toolkit at www.fpi.org/Recovery to view end markets that may be interested in bales containing FSP.

Barrier: End Markets

19 Adding FSP to Mixed Paper Bale*

Other Coated Claycoated Molded Pulp OCC Polycoated Total Current

Adding FSP to Mixed Plastics Bale*

Beverage Cups - PS (Rigid) Beverage Cups - PP Food Containers - PP Food Containers - PET Food Containers - PS (Rigid) Beverage Cups - PET Current

*at a 10 percent recovery rate

Barrier: It’s “not recyclable”

20

• Fall 2013: Conducted study of nearly 70 MRFs in

U.S. and Canada to…

• Determine current prevalence of FSP acceptance
• Identify trends/factors impacting FSP acceptance
• Provide basis for measuring progress
• Identify FSP packaging types that are approaching

key acceptance thresholds and may warrant a large- scale survey to substantiate claims of recyclability

Barrier: It’s “not recyclable”

21

• Contrary to popular belief, FSP is recycled and/or composted in numerous

communities across North America

• Many cities collect some FSP materials, even if they do not promote this to

their residents

• On average, the MRFs included in the study accepted 7 out of the 19 types
• f FSP

, and a majority accepted at least 9 of the 19 types

• Cup sleeves, pizza boxes and paper carryout bags were most widely

accepted FSP items, followed by rigid plastic FSP items

In-Store Recovery

In-Store Recovery of FSP

23

• Most FSP leaves the store, but it’s a critical part of a

brand’s sustainability story

• First step: expand recovery infrastructure
• Second step: develop a recycling and composting

tool kit for foodservice operators

• Use and build on company-specific learnings
• Partner with National Restaurant Association

In-Store Recovery of FSP

24

• Toolkit to include:
• Definitions
• Business Case
• Waste Audit Guidance
• In‐House Logistics Help
• Hauler/Service Provider

Language

• Staff and Customer

Education Tips

• Suggested Local

Resources

• Best Practices
• Case Studies
• Frequently Asked

Questions

Communications

• Establish relationships with wide variety of

stakeholders in the packaging and recovery industries

• Seek input
• Educate
• Gain support
• Identify possible joint projects

26

Stakeholder Communications

Targeted Communications

27

• Outreach to MRFs, end markets and communities
• Understand concerns
• Share results of studies and key learnings
• Encourage future acceptance of FSP
• Connect the dots / Play matchmaker

General Communications

28

• Educate internal and external audiences through
• Online “FSP Recovery Toolkit” geared to municipalities,

MRFs and end markets

• Data, reports, map, case studies
• Press releases
• Blog posts
• Webinars
• Speaking engagements

Recovery In Action

2015 Recovery Projects

30

• Assist a municipality in adding FSP to their recycling

program

• Assist a municipality in adding FSP to their

composting program

• Document “before” and “after” assessments
• Publicize the results to encourage additional cities to

recycle/compost FSP

Tracking FSP Recovery

31

• Gather national data related to access to recycling
• f FSP
• Develop a database to track acceptance of FSP for

recycling/composting by municipalities

• DRAFT -

PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

More information: www.fpi.org/stewardship Natha Dempsey ndempsey@fpi.org

• DRAFT -

PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

More information: www.fpi.org/stewardship Natha Dempsey ndempsey@fpi.org

• DRAFT -

PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

More information: www.fpi.org/stewardship Natha Dempsey ndempsey@fpi.org