the newsletter of the western plastics...

1

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

W W W. W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S . O R G D E C E M B E R 2015

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

P R E S I D E N T ’ S R E P O R T :

REFLECTIONS ON 2015We have had a productive year

once again at the Western Plas-

tics Association thanks to your

support at well-attended monthly

meetings as well as our annual

conference. Additionally we have

increased our visibility nationally

thanks to the willingness of our

members to present at national

conferences on topics ranging

from digital printing to marine

debris. We have added new

members to our board to empha-

size our commitment to the

Northwest and Canada, and we

will be focusing our attention

on legislative opportunities here

in California.

To that end, one of our board

members, Kevin Kelly, has agreed

to represent the WPA at the Man-

ufacturers Challenge workshop

on January 5, 2016. CalRecycle

has challenged product manufac-

turers and brand owners to vol-

untarily achieve a 50 percent

reduction in packaging disposed

in landfills in California by 2020.

Industry and trade associations

like the WPA have been invited

to share their ideas to meet this

goal, and we will be well repre-

sented by Kevin. The Manufac -

turers Challenge supports

California’s broader statewide

goal of 75 percent source reduc-

tion, recycling, and composting

of solid waste by 2020. Packag-

ing is one of many CalRecycle

focus areas to help achieve the

75 percent goal, along with

expanding recycling and com-

posting infrastructure, moving

organics out of landfills, and

achieving additional greenhouse

gas emission reductions.

I expect a very interesting year

ahead thanks to the renewed

interest in post-consumer recy-

cling, additional polyethylene

resin supply and extended pro-

ducer responsibility proposals.

We will start the year off strong

with our annual Resin Outlook

meeting on January 12th, and I’m

eager to announce who predicted

the current CDI drop of 13 cpp at

last January’s meeting. Thanks

again for your continued support

of our industry and have a great

holiday season. •

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

President’s Report 1

SoCal Meeting: January 12 2

Executive Director’s Report 3

Manufacturer’s Challenge 4Workshop

In Memoriam: Sol Schor 7

Bag Bans 11

Recycling 18

Sustainability 29

Marine Debris 34

EPS 39

Legislation 43

Member News 50

John Picciuto, President of the Western Plastics Association

Don’ t m i ss our annua l RESIN meet ing :

January 12, 2016 S P E A K E R : R O B I N WAT E R S , I H SS E E p a g e 2 f o r c o m p l e t e d e t a i l s — R S V P n o w !

http://www.westernplastics.org/

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

JANUARY 12, 2016VIRGIN RESIN FORECAST 2016 PRESENTED BY IHS:• Forecast of resin prices and demand with a focus on the North American plastic manufacturing market

• Review of supply/demand and cost trends

• Discussion of how these issues will impact resin pricing

Guest Speaker: Robin Waters, IHS – Director, Plastics Planning and Analysis

Waters has been with IHS since September 2012 as Director, Polyolefins North America. Robin’s responsibilities at IHS coverboth polyethylene and polypropylene and include support for market advisory services as well as single client projects. Robinbegan his career at DuPont initially as a business analyst supporting the global elastomers business before moving on to a seriesof positions in technical service and sales for a variety of films and resins sold primarily into packaging markets. Following histechnical and sales assignments, Robin held a series of product and marketing management positions covering EVA resins, low-

density polyethylene specialty resins and polyester films.

Robin also worked with Montell Polyolefins (later Basell Polyolefins and currently LyondellBasell) as product manager for polyethylene and,later, polypropylene – roles which included commercial management of new business startups and third-party marketing agreements. Subse-quent assignments at Basell/LyondellBasell included regional sales management, strategic planning and commercial management forpolypropylene.

THANK YOU TO MEETING SPONSOR: M. HOLLANDFor more than 60 years, M. Holland has been the leading family-owned distributor of the highest quality application-specific plastic resins,with strategically placed warehouses, packaging and bulk terminal locations across North America. The company serves about 4,000 customers supplying well over a billion pounds of resin annually, sourced from the premier resin producers in the world.

WHEN:Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:30 PM Registration & Networking 6:30 PM Program & Dinner

WHERE:Doubletree Hotel13111 Sycamore Drive, Norwalk, CA

* To reserve a hotel room, contact Joseline Nucum at Doubletree Hotel: 562.483.2709

COST:RSVP by January 8, 2016WPA Member: $80 First-time Attendee: $95Non-WPA Member: $145

RSVP after January 8, 2016WPA Member: $105First-time Attendee: $115Non-WPA Member: $160

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

RSVP today: [email protected] or 916.930.1938

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

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

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

916.930.1938 or [email protected]

Resin Forecast 2016

3


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

2016 WILL GET OFF TO A FAST START BY L AUR I E HANSEN , WPA E X ECUT I V E D I R ECTOR

Plastic manufacturers in the West

will be facing a good number of

challenges when the state Legis-

latures come back into session in

January. Among the many topics

that Legislators will consider—

plastic marine debris, Extended

Producer Responsibility (EPR),

recycling mandates, less packag-

ing going into landfills, organics

and composting, energy, water—

the list can go on and on. WPA

will be monitoring all the states

in the West and alert you to any

proposals that could negatively

affect our industry.

California 75% Recycling

Requirement and the

Manufacturers Challenge

The State of California passed

legislation in 2014 that calls for

a 75 percent recycling rate by

2020. CalRecycle, the depart-

ment in charge of solid waste

management and recycling, is

under intense pressure to meet

this goal. The Governor has made

the reduction of greenhouse

gasses (GHG) his number one

priority—along with the Senate

President and many other Legis-

lators. They have set as a goal

for GHG reductions—a 40%

reduction from 1990 levels to be

achieved by 2030. The California

Air Resources Board (CARB)

issued a new report this summer

that indicates that methane (a

huge greenhouse gas contribu-

tor) from landfills is a big part of

the GHG emissions. CARB is now

calling for a ban on landfilling all

organic waste by 2025—an ambi-

tious goal.

Recently CalRecycle held work-

shops in Southern California and

Sacramento where they estimated

it will take $3–5 BILLION in new

revenue to fund the infrastruc-

ture necessary to meet the 75%

recycling goal and organic landfill

ban—through more compost,

anaerobic digestion, and recy-

cling facilities. They propose

funding the $3–5 billion through

increased tipping fees and “gen-

erator fees.” The state tipping

fees in California are currently

$1.40 per ton. This is the amount

that CalRecycle and the Inte-

grated Waste Management Fund

(IWMF) receive from locals when

trash is dumped in a landfill. It

does not include what the local

landfill charges in addition to the

statewide fee. The $1.40 per ton

has not been raised since 2000.

The “generator fee” that would

go toward infrastructure develop-

ment could be as low as $1.50

annually on every household in

the state that generates trash.

Manufacturers Challenge: In

order to move toward the 75%

recycling rate, CalRecycle issued

a challenge to manufacturers last

year to reduce the amount of

packaging going into landfills

by 50% by 2020. CalRecycle has

invited product manufacturers

and brand owners “on a collec-

tive basis, not on an individual

company level—to voluntarily

achieve” this reduction and take

the “California Manufacturers

Challenge.”

To that end, they are holding a

workshop on January 5 in Sacra-

mento where associations will be

presenting what their members

are doing to reduce and recycle

packaging, and talk about what

steps they may take to achieve

the 50% reduction goal.

The following pages fully explain

the CalRecycle Challenge—a

Frequently Asked Questions

sheet [see page 5], and the

agenda for the January 5 work-

shop [see page 4]. WPA will be

participating in this workshop.

Kevin Kelly will be presenting on

behalf of WPA and talking about

what individual members are

doing and what WPA can do to

help members do more recycling

and use more recycled content.

If you have any questions about

what is happening in the legisla-

tive or regulatory arenas, please

do not hesitate to contact me at

[email protected]. •

WPA W I L L B EMON I TOR INGPEND ING L EG I S LAT ION ANDA L E RT YOU TOANY P ROPOSA LSTHAT COU LDNEGAT I V E LY A F F ECT OUR INDUST RY.

Laurie Hansen, Executive and Legislative Director forWestern Plastics Association

4

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS CHALLENGE WORKSHOP JANUARY 5, 2016

9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Byron Sher Auditorium | 1001 I Street, 2nd floor | Sacramento, CA

AGENDA:

9:00 – 9:25 am Opening Remarks

Scott Smithline, Director, CalRecycle

Jared Blumenfeld, Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9

9:25 – 9:45 am Staff Presentation of Activities To-Date & Manufacturers Challenge

Cynthia Dunn, Senior Environmental Scientist

9:45 – 11:30 am Panel 1 Presentations and Q&A

The Carton Council, American Chemistry Council, Foodservice Packaging Institute, The Glass Packaging Institute

11:30 am – 12:30 pm Panel 2 Presentations and Q&A

The Closed Loop Fund, The Recycling Partnership

12:30 – 1:45 pm Lunch on your own

1:45 – 3:00 pm Panel 3 Presentations and Q&A

Western Plastics Assn., SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Assn., AMERIPEN

3:00 – 4:15 pm Panel 4 Presentations and Q&A

Grocery Manufacturers Assn., American Beverage Assn., American Forest & Paper Assn.

4:15 – 5:00 pm Facilitated Discussion

Background: What are product manufacturers and brand owners willing to do, on an industry-wide level, to recover their product

packaging to help California reach the statewide goal of 75% source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020? Come and hear

industry share its commitments and contribute to this important discussion.

CalRecycle’s Manufacturers Challenge represents an opportunity for product manufacturers and brand owners to collectively come

together and demonstrate their commitment to increasing the recovery of their product packaging in California by committing to

achieve a goal of 50% reduction in packaging disposed in landfills by the year 2020 and proposing a voluntary plan to meet that goal.

The Manufacturers Challenge builds upon more than two years of public workshops and discussions focused on better understanding

the complexities, different stakeholder perspectives, and potential policy approaches associated with increasing packaging recovery

in California as one of many important strategies to help meet California’s statewide goal of 75% source reduction, recycling, and

composting by 2020.

Questions regarding this workshop can be directed to: [email protected]

Workshop Details:• There is no need to register if you are attending in person.

• To participate via Webinar, please register at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5024522219006839554

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

• You may also view the workshop via webcast: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Broadcast/

5

(Continued, see FAQ, page 6)

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/PublicNoticeDetail.aspx?id=1466&aiid=1335

6

MANUFACTURE R ’ S CHA L L ENGE FAQ [CONT ’D ]

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/Documents/77/20142014/1203/CalRecycle%20Packaging%20Background%20Paper%202014.pdf

7


I N M E M O R I A M :

SOL SCHOR, A CFECA FOUNDINGFATHER, PASSES AWAYBY M I TCH GRE I F

Sol Schor, a founding father of

the WPA predecessor organiza-

tion, CFECA, passed away this

Fall. Attendees at the November

WPA meeting conducted a

memorial to his leadership and

vision. Mitch Greif, Coast Con-

verters, paid tribute and read the

following celebration of Sol’s life.

Below me is a picture of Sol

Schor with his big sideburns,

addressing this very organization

sometime before Elvis left the

building. I thought it would be

appropriate to have Sol join us

this evening since so many

of you have no idea what he

looked like.

It is great to see all of you this

evening, many new faces and

many familiar ones. Some of our

first members are here tonight,

some were not able to make it

tonight. And even those that

have passed on are always here

in spirit.

Many of us tend to use the term

“here in spirit,” I think because

we all hope it’s true. I don’t know

if CFECA’s founding fathers can

hear us as we celebrate the life

of one of our finest member, but

I know that CFECA’s spirit is alive

and well when I look out at all

of you.

It is that very spirit of coopera-

tion of competitors that was and

will always be the foundation of

this organization.

Long before computers, fax

machines, emails, cell phones,

and text messaging, Leo Shluker

felt that our industry had major

issues so he picked up his phone

and made a few calls. One of the

calls he made was to 213 269

0661. That was Sol’s number at

Coast Converters.

The great oil embargo of the

mid-1970s brought a few men

together with the sole purpose

of banding a group of California

plastic industry competitors.

Think about that for a minute.

The big oil companies had their

cartels. We had Leo and his

friends. The California plastic

bag mafia was called to order.

I can almost see it … a dark,

smoke-filled restaurant called

the Duck Press; a meeting of

the four families and Leo as

Don Corleone, the head of the

families. Leo made these guys

an offer they couldn’t refuse.

I always wished I was there …

I imagine they decided to have

a truce for the good of our indus-

try. During the day it was com-

petitor vs competitor. Some

initially passive aggressive, all of

them aggressive entrepreneurs

and some true friends, some-

times even uncles vs. nephews,

fathers vs. sons, brothers vs.

brothers and cousins vs. cousins.

It could have been a gang war.

Seriously, these guys were

ruthless.

They attempted to put each other

out of business every day.

But one Tuesday night a month

they put down their micrometers

and became friends and partners

for a greater cause.

All of us in this room and reading

this at a later date would NOT

have this organization, if not for

these men.

They were the founding fathers

of CFECA and Sol Schor was one

of them.

There are a small handful of

these men and women that not

only held it all together, at times

they had to perform CPR on this

association.

If we had a Mount Rushmore,

these few spectacular individuals

would be carved into the stone.

So l would NOT, however, be one

of those men even though his

jaw looked like it was chiseled

out of stone.

Sol never liked the spot light,

never served as CFECA’s presi-

dent, and still managed to be

awarded our organization’s

highest award named after our

founding father Leo Shluker.

No way Sol would have allowed

us to engrave his face up there

on CFECA’s Mount Rushmore. My

contention is that all of those

faces would sit on Sol’s shoulders

(Continued, see Sol, page 8)

SOL WAS THE EMBOD IMENT OFTHE P R INC I P L E SOF CF ECA .

8


T R I BU T E TO SO L SCHOR [CONT ’D ]

because Sol was a pillar of

strength and support for so

many of us in the industry. More

impressive than that…?

I can assure you, they would all

agree with me.

Let me tell you how much Sol

didn’t like to be in the spotlight.

Sol was so influential, you ask

how influential was he. Well, Sol

was so influential that even after

his passing he was able to influ-

ence Roger Renstrom of Plastic

News to alter his own obituary.

Roger had interviewed me and

Jim Kelly, Sr., one of Sol’s oldest

and dearest friends, for some

background to include in Sol

Schor’s obituary. Miraculously,

Sol’s picture stayed out of

the paper.

The picture they ended up using

was one of Sol, Leonard Greif and

me. But rather than zooming in

on Sol’s face, they zoomed in

on Lenny’s.

I bet Sol is laughing from up

above. Now that is some influ-

ence.

Sol was the vice president of a

company called Coast Converters,

which was formed in 1964 in Los

Angeles. Coast was the first fully

integrated extruder, converter

and printer in the western United

States. It was the first printer of

water-based inks in California

and the first company to obtain a

permit from the Department of

Water and Power to dispose of

its print wastewater wash-up to

go into the sewer.

I met Sol in 1980 when I was just

21 years old and while I was

employed at Poly Pak America

working for my first Poly mentor

Richard Gurewitz (who by the

way is Leo Shluker’s nephew).

Sol used to print jobs for Poly

Pak back then. Near the end of

1985, I had the opportunity to

leave Poly Pak and to go work for

Sol. I really didn’t know what to

do. I was working for and learn-

ing from a legend in Richard

Gurewitz.

One day, someone I respected

in our industry who had no ties

to either company said to me,

they “would take no pay at all

just to have the opportunity

to learn from Sol Schor.” That

was it, my decision was made.

I have been blessed to have

had the opportunity to be men-

tored by two of the best in this

business.

By 1986 I was working with Sol,

next to Sol and almost in his

shoes to soak up as much knowl-

edge as I could from him. In 1994

Sol allowed and assisted me in

purchasing Coast Converters

from him and his partners Irv

Abeson and Jack Silverman.

Abeson was actually a past

president of CFECA.

We continued to work together,

side by side until 2004. We

stayed in touch throughout

the years that followed.

I last spoke with Sol about 7

weeks ago. Needless to say I

spent a great deal of time with

this man throughout my life.

Sol was a self-made man and

a genius when it came to

converting and printing.

We enjoyed each other’s

company and always roomed

together on business trips and

trade shows. So when I tell you

that this man NEVER turned

down a technical question from

a competitor you better believe

that I would know. Sol was the

embodiment of the principles

of CFECA.

He put in his time for this organi-

zation, and this organization has

Sol’s finger prints all over it.

As I mentioned, Sol did not like

the spotlight, the stage or the

microphone very much; however,

I am sure that most of you have

read the DIE-LINE magazine.

Well, Sol was the first editor of

the DIE-LINE and performed this

task for the first few decades of

CFECA’s existence.

Sol hung up his micrometer a

number of years ago and finally

took his last breath last week.

Sol lived until the age of 85,

traveled the world, was married

to the same woman Leona for

66 years, had children, grand -

children and great grandchildren,

many friends and me who

adored him.

Sol and I discussed just about

everything in each other’s lives

including our deaths. I always

said that if I knew I was dying

and had a choice I would have a

huge party with all of my friends

and loved ones so we could all

tell stories, laugh, cry and eat

Deli. You see, I figured that since

I would be paying for all of the

food after my funeral anyway, I

would have the Deli before I

died, so I could enjoy it too.

Sol on the other hand (remember

he didn’t like the spotlight) said

he didn’t want to have a funeral.

I would say, “Sol, you have

touched so many with your

knowledge and generosity. How

could you possibly not want all

of us that know and love you, to

celebrate your life?”

Sol’s response was simply, “I

won’t be able to hear it anyway."

That was Sol’s sense of humor.

Sol was also a man of his word;

he was not kidding with me as I

thought until last week when his

wife Leona told me of his passing

and that he really didn’t want and

wasn’t going to have a funeral.

I think, on the count of three, we

as an organization should all

shout out THANK YOU SOL!

Perhaps he will hear us.

1--2--3 THANK YOU SOL!

Thank you, WPA. I wish you

continued success and deeply

appreciate your asking me to

attend this evening to honor my

mentor and friend, Sol Schor.

May his memory be a blessing

and may he rest in peace. •

9


I N M E M O R I A M :

SOL SCHOR, A ‘BAG MAN’THROUGHOUTBY SK I P NEVE L L

The passing of Sol Schor is

deeply saddening.

None of us is eternal. We are all

well aware of our personal mor-

tality, yet we mourn a passing

nonetheless and especially we

mourn the passing of one who

was a presence in our own lives,

a presence that was welcomed,

loved, esteemed and respected.

Sol was such a presence. He

seemingly knew everyone, he

welcomed everyone, and he

shared with everyone. If there

was a problem, he was the “go

to” guy. He gladly answered tech-

nical questions, no secrets, noth-

ing held back, to the best of his

knowledge.

He was great fun to be with. His

humor, exuberance, joyfulness,

they were on display at all times.

I met Sol when he and Irv Abeson

were in the earliest stages of

establishing Coast Converters.

My father and I had only recently

begun our own extrusion enter-

prise. That would have been in

the 1960s, more than 50 years

ago.

Sol was a steadying presence

through all those years. He

served CFECA ably and well; he

was an early recipient of the Leo

Shluker Award.

The honor, respect and love we

hold and have for him were well

earned.

He was a “bag man” throughout

and one of the best. •

SOL WAS SUCH A P R ES ENCE .

Don’ t m i ss our annua l RESIN meet ing :

January 12, 2016 S P E A K E R : R O B I N WAT E R S , I H SS E E p a g e 2 f o r c o m p l e t e d e t a i l s — R S V P n o w !

10


http://www.erema.net/

11


B A G B A N S :

PLASTIC BAG MANUFACTURERSFILE SECOND CALIFORNIAMEASUREBY J UDY L IN , ASSOC IAT ED P R ESS

Plastic bag manufacturers filed a

second ballot measure on Friday

in California’s fight over a

statewide plastic bag ban.

The American Progressive Bag

Alliance, which represents bag

manufacturers, proposed an

initiative that would require bag

fees go into an environmental

fund rather than be kept by

grocers.

California’s first-in-the-nation

state ban on plastic shopping

bags was put on hold this year

when the trade group placed

the issue before voters on the

November 2016 ballot.

If voters uphold the ban, grocers

will be allowed to charge a fee

of at least 10 cents for using

paper bags.

Under the new initiative, voters

will be asked to direct those fees

from grocers and retailers into an

environmental protection fund.

Plastic bag makers estimated the

fees would generate more than

$400 million a year for grocers,

but opponents dispute that

figure as highly exaggerated.

“While we are confident

California voters will reject the

statewide bag ban scam at the

ballot in 2016, we know that 84

percent of people believe that

bag fees in general should go

to a public purpose, instead of

increasing profit margins for

grocers,” said Lee Califf, execu-

tive director of the plastic bag

alliance.

Supporters of the ban have criti-

cized manufacturers for spending

millions on the referendum cam-

paign to continue selling single-

use plastic bags.

“This is either an admission of

defeat—a recognition that Cali-

fornia voters support the plastic

bag ban and their referendum

will fail. Or this is a cynical politi-

cal ploy concocted by their politi-

cal consultants to try to confuse

voters,” said Mark Murray,

Executive Director of Californians

Against Waste, which sponsored

the statewide ban.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the

bag ban after one of the fiercest

legislative battles of 2014, pitting

bag makers against environmen-

talists. It was scheduled to be

phased in starting in July at large

grocery stores and supermarkets

as a way to cut down on litter

and protect marine life.

The bag alliance said the ban will

cost manufacturing jobs and

boost profits for grocers, who

can charge customers a premium

for bags now given away for free.

Environmental activists have

successfully pushed plastic bag

bans in cities across the U.S.,

including Chicago, Seattle and

Austin, Texas. Hawaii also is

on track to have a de facto

statewide ban, with all counties

approving prohibitions.

More than 100 cities and counties

in California, including Los Ange-

les and San Francisco, already

have such bans. Several other

California local governments

plan to move forward with their

own bans as a result of the

referendum, including San Diego,

Santa Barbara County, Sacra-

mento, Oceanside and American

Canyon. •Reprinted from Sacramento

Bee, www.sacbee.com.

THE A L L I ANCESA ID THE BANWI L L COST MANUFACTUR INGJOBS AND BOOSTP ROF I T S FOR GROCERS .

12


B A G B A N S :

PLASTIC BAGS ARE GOOD FOR YOUBY KATHER INE MANGU -WARD

Here is a list of things that are

thicker than a typical plastic

grocery bag: A strand of hair. A

coat of paint. A human cornea.

High-density polyethylene is a

miracle of materials science. De-

spite weighing less than 5 grams,

one bag can hold 17 pounds, well

over 1,000 times its own weight.

At about a penny apiece, the

bags are cheap enough for stores

to give away and sturdy enough

to carry home two gallons of milk

in the evening and still be up to

the task of scooping Cujo’s poop

the next morning.

Yet almost as soon as grocers

started offering their customers

the choice of “paper or plastic?”

these modern marvels became a

whipping boy for environmental-

ists, politicians, and other well-

intentioned, ill-informed busy-

bodies. Plastic bags for retail

purchases are banned or taxed

in more than 200 municipalities

and a dozen countries, from

San Francisco to South Africa,

Bellingham to Bangladesh. Each

region serves up its own custom

blend of alarmist rhetoric;

coastal areas blame the wispy

totes for everything from asphyx-

iated sea turtles to melting

glaciers, while inland banners

decry the bags’ role in urban

landscape pollution and thought-

less consumerism.

But a closer look at the facts and

figures reveals shaky science and

the uncritical repetition of

improbable statistics tossed

about to shore up the case for

a mostly aesthetic, symbolic act

of conservation.

How did one of the most efficient,

resource-saving inventions of the

20th century become an environ-

mentalist bugaboo?

Research

Before 1800, if you bought or

traded for an object, you were

pretty much on your own to get it

home. People carried baskets for

the little stuff and wheeled carts

for the bigger items, often toting

scraps of canvas or other durable

fabric to wrap messier or more

fragile goods, such as meat or

pastries. This was back when the

germ theory of disease was yet

to be broadly accepted, and

there were not yet Laundromats

on every street corner.

In the early 19th century, paper

became cheap enough that

merchants started using it to

package their wares, tying off the

bundles with string—a huge leap

for both convenience and sanita-

tion. The paper bag was invented

in the 1850s, but it wasn’t until

the 1870s that a factory girl

named Margaret Knight cobbled

together a machine that cut,

folded, and glued flat-bottomed

paper receptacles. While the

brown paper bag seems like the

height of humdrum to modern

eyes, Knight’s machine was kind

of a big deal: She won a bitter

intellectual property fight to

receive one of the first patents

ever awarded to a woman and

was eventually decorated by

Queen Victoria for her efforts.

Over time, the paper bag got

cheaper and stronger and

sprouted handles, but it re-

mained essentially unchanged,

comfortably dominating the

stuff-schlepping market for the

next 100 years.

Meanwhile, German chemist

Hans von Pechmann was mess-

ing around with methane and

ether in a lab in 1898 when he

happened to notice a waxy pre-

cipitate called polymethylene.

Unfortunately, no one could

puzzle out what to do with the

goo, so another 30 years would

pass before DuPont chemists

stumbled upon a similar com-

pound, polyethylene. This time,

the British figured out they could

use it to insulate radar cables,

which is where the substance

served its war duty. In 1953, Karl

Ziegler of the Kaiser Wilhelm

Institute (later re-christened the

Max Planck Institute, for obvious

reasons) and Erhard Holzkamp

invented high-density polyethyl-

ene (HDPE) and soon after

figured out how to use it to make

pipes. Ziegler even snagged a

Nobel Prize for the invention

in 1963.

(Continued, see Good, page 13)

THESE MODERNMARVE L S B ECAMEA WH I P P ING BOYFOR ENV I RON -MENTA L I S T S .

13


But Gustaf Thulin Sten is the real

hero (or villain, depending on

your point of view) of our tale.

An employee of the Swedish

company Celloplast, Sten was

the person who had the inspira-

tion to punch holes into the side

of super-thin tubes of HDPE, thus

creating the ubiquitous, filmy “T-

shirt bags” we know and love (to

ban) today.

In a 1993 book that claims to

reveal the “hidden life of gro-

ceries and other secrets of the

supermarket,” journalist Vince

Staten pinpoints the moment

that the global takeover of the

plastic bag became inevitable: a

1985 gathering of the New Mate-

rials and Profits in Grocery Sacks

and Coextrusions Conference at

a Holiday Inn in Somerset, New

Jersey, at which a representative

from Chem Systems announced

that plastic bags were 11.5 per-

cent cheaper than paper. Just like

that, the world changed. Plastic

bags were stocked in 10 percent

of grocery stores in 1983, accord-

ing to Plastics World magazine.

By 1985 it was 75 percent.

“Paper or plastic?” immediately

became an everyday question, a

punchline, and a source of angst.

Almost from the beginning, plas-

tic bags were controversial. After

several high-profile suffocation

deaths of children, manufacturers

worked together to create a

public safety campaign, staving

off regulation and reducing

accidents. As grocers substituted

plastic for paper to bolster their

bottom lines, suburban shop-

pers, who preferred to line up

flat-bottomed paper bags in the

backs of their cars, complained,

even as urban shoppers rejoiced

at the ability to comfortably and

reliably carry more than two bags

at a time.

The booming environmental

movement was initially flummoxed.

Forest conservation was a big

deal in the ’80s, a point in favor

of plastic. But fossil fuels were

a no-no, so maybe paper was

better? Both types of bags at

the time were tough to recycle.

The debate raged on, leaving

eco-conscious shoppers unclear

about the best course of action.

Reduce

In 2010, Guinness World Records

named plastic bags the most

ubiquitous consumer item in the

world. But peak bag may already

be upon us.

In 2007, San Francisco became

the first U.S. city to prohibit plas-

tic bags, citing concerns about

water pollution and waste dis-

posal. Chicago, Austin, Portland,

and nearly all of Hawaii soon

followed suit, chiming in with

complaints about wastefulness,

climate change, and more.

Chinese officials banned plastic

bags two months before hosting

the 2008 Olympics, for the same

reason they banned high-emis-

sions vehicles and daytime

pajama-wearing—such unsightly

displays didn’t match up with the

image the People’s Republic

wanted to present to the world.

In China, they call the floating

sacks “white pollution.” South

Africans refer to bags snagged in

bushes as their “national flower.”

In Washington, D.C., concern

about used plastic bags finding

their way down storm drains,

through the Anacostia River, and

into the Chesapeake Bay was the

primary justification for the capi-

tal city’s 5-cent bag tax in 2010,

under the slogan “Skip the Bag,

Save the River.” In 2006, the

California Coastal Commission

claimed that plastic bags make

up 3.8 percent of beach litter,

and a few years later the Califor-

nia Ocean Protection Council

upped the ante to 8 percent of all

coastal trash. Last year the Dallas

City Council pinned 5 percent of

the area’s refuse on bags.

But the definitive American litter

study—yep, such a thing exists—

reports much lower figures. The

2009 Keep America Beautiful

Survey, run by Steven Stein of

Environmental Resources Plan-

ning, shows that all plastic bags,

of which plastic retail bags are

only a subset, are just 0.6 per-

cent of visible litter nationwide.

And those California data? They

come from the International

Coastal Commission (ICC), which

the California Coastal Commis-

sion notes relies on information

“collected by volunteers on one

day each year, and is not a scien-

tific assessment.” (This insight,

and many others in this story, is

derived from a study produced

last year by Julian Morris and

Brian Seasholes for Reason

Foundation, the nonprofit that

publishes reason.) In D.C., a

2008 analysis prepared for the

city’s Department of the Environ-

ment by the Anacostia Water-

shed Society found that plastic

bags were only the third-largest

contributor to litter in the river,

after food wrappers and bottles

and cans.

Stein’s study did find plastic bags

in storm drains, but again, they

made up only about 1 percent of

the total litter.

Some plastic bags do find their

way into the sea, of course. And

one of the other concerns cited

for the banning and regulation of

plastic grocery bags is the safety

of marine wildlife. The Blue

Ocean Society for Marine Conser-

vation is just one organization

among many that claim that

more than 1 million birds and

100,000 marine mammals and

sea turtles die each year from

eating or getting entangled in

plastic.

Morris and Seasholes recon-

structed an elaborate game of

statistical telephone to source

this figure back to a study funded

by the Canadian government that

tracked loss of marine animals

in Newfoundland as a result of

incidental catch and entangle-

ment in fishing gear from 1981

to 1984. Importantly, this three-

decade-old study had nothing

to do with plastic bags at all.

Porpoises and sea turtles are un-

deniably charismatic megafauna

—the pandas of the deep—and

it’s understandable that environ-

mental groups would want to

parade them around in a bid to

drum up sympathy, almost cer-

tainly driven by the sincere belief

that plastics put the beloved ani-

mals at grave risk. But in the end,

there’s little evidence that that’s

true. As David Santillo, a senior

biologist with Greenpeace,

told The Times of London, “It’s

very unlikely that many animals


P LAS T IC BAGS ARE GOOD [CONT ’D ]

14


are killed by plastic bags. The

evidence shows just the oppo-

site. We are not going to solve

the problem of waste by focusing

on plastic bags. With larger mam-

mals it’s fishing gear that’s the

big problem. On a global basis

plastic bags aren’t an issue.”

Reuse

But what about larger-scale

impacts, such as climate change?

Where do grocery bags stack up

there? A 2011 study from the

U.K.’s Environmental Agency

attempted to quantify the emis-

sions footprint both of plastic

bags and of their substitutes.

Holding the typical HDPE grocery

bag up as the standard, research-

ers found that the common

reusable non-woven polypropy-

lene bag—the ubiquitous crinkly

plastic tote, typically made with

oil—had to be used at least 11

times to hold its own against an

HDPE grocery bag. Cotton bags

had to be used an amazing 131

times to do the same.

In 2007, for a brief moment, the

“It bag” wasn't a $30,000 Her-

mes Birkin, it was a cotton tote

designed by Anya Hindmarch

that read: “I’m NOT A Plastic

bag.” Celebrities from Ivanka

Trump to Keira Knightly were

snapped toting the sold-out

satchels for glossies like Life&

Style and Grazia. While we can

never know for sure, it seems

wildly unlikely that Ivanka Trump

has carried 131 loads of groceries

in her life, much less in that par-

ticular bag.

What’s more, those U.K. Environ-

mental Agency figures assume

the HDPE bag is not being

reused. Nor do they account for

the energy and materials needed

to regularly wash the reusable

bags in hot soapy water. Other

alternatives did perform some-

what better in the global-warm-

ing matchup, including paper

bags (which would have to be

reused three times to match the

single-use HDPE bag’s footprint)

and another type of reusable bag

made of low-density polyethyl-

ene (four times).

About 65 percent of Americans

report that they repurpose their

grocery bags for garbage. By con-

trast, a survey by the marketing

research firm Edelman Berland

found that consumers reported

forgetting their reusable bags on

40 percent of grocery trips and

opted for plastic or paper instead.

Prior to the movement to ban

plastic bags, many American

homes had a nook, cranny, or

drawer that functioned as a kind

of grocery-sack clown car. It

seemed that whatever the size of

the container, an infinite number

of bags could be stuffed inside.

My family called it the bag o’

bags. As in: “Katherine! This

mold experiment has gone on

long enough! Go get me a bag

from the bag o’ bags so that I can

throw it away,” or “Karina, you

better remember to get a bag

from the bag o’ bags for that wet

swimsuit, unless you want the

books in your backpack to get

wet.” If we wound up with an

unmanageable surplus, we could

just drop the bags at the recy-

cling centers that used to sit in

the parking lots of most subur-

ban grocery stores.

Then there are the frequently

unmeasured consumption conse-

quences of the bans themselves.

For example, in San Francisco,

after the grocery/retail plastic

bag ban went into effect in 2007,

depriving customers of a source

of free bags, sales of still legal,

low-density polyethylene plastic

bags shot up 400 percent.

Recycle

“It takes 12 million barrels of oil

to produce the 100 billion plastic

bags that are thrown away in the

U.S. every year.” Versions of this

claim show up everywhere from

New York Times editorials to

Save the Bay pamphlets. But the

origins of the figures are murky

and the dramatic tone is mislead-

ing. Even if the number is accu-

rate, it is almost a literal drop in

the bucket: Americans consume

a total of about 19 million barrels

of oil a day. But as Morris and

Seasholes point out, all that fret-

ting about oil use “is surprising,

not least because nearly all HDPE

bags are produced from natural

gas, not oil. Indeed, between

1981 and 2012, on average only

3.2% of polyethylene bags were

made from oil. The reason is

simple: it is far less expensive to

produce ethylene, the feedstock

for polyethylene, from natural

gas (methane) than from oil.”

While the price of oil has recently

declined, the assumption that

plastic bags are made primarily

from oil remains false.

In 2010, according to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Americans threw away 690,000

tons of HDPE bags. Of those,

approximately 30,000 tons were

recycled. That means a total of

660,000 tons were discarded,

mostly into landfills (approxi-

mately 82 percent of non-recov-

ered municipal solid waste goes

to landfill; 18 percent is inciner-

ated). That same year, Americans

also chucked almost exactly the

same amount of “reusable”

polypropylene bags (680,000

tons), of which zero were recov-

ered. In other words, those

polypropylene reusable bags

actually constituted a slightly

higher proportion of all bags

going to landfills.

In April, NPR’s Planet Money

reported on the economics of

plastic recycling, and noted that

while recycled plastic from bags

and sacks was once a profitable

industry, times have changed.

The prices of oil and gas have

fallen, which means it is cheaper

to just make new bags rather

than undertake the laborious

process of recycling the old ones.

As Tom Outerbridge, who runs a

Brooklyn recycling center called

Sims, explained, “We can’t afford

to put a lot of time and money

into trying to recycle it” if no

one’s buying the final product.

Reject

In March, The Washington Post

reported on the surprising

strength of the plastic bag indus-

try in the face of regulatory

onslaught.

In 2008, officials in the deep blue

city of Seattle voted to impose a

20-cent fee on both plastic and

paper single- use bags. “There’s

a competitive side to seeing who

can come up with the most pro-

gressive legislation,” city council-

man and former local Sierra Club

leader Mike O’Brien told The New

York Times. But industry rallied



15


before the implementation date,

spending $1.4 million on a city-

wide ballot measure to repeal

the fee. The referendum cam-

paign was a success; Seattle

voters rejected the surcharge,

which would have been the most

punitive in the nation, in 2009.

Still, three years later, Seattle

became the fourth city in

Washington State to approve an

outright plastic-bag ban, along

with a 5-cent fee on paper bags.

In Dallas, a coalition of plastic

bag manufacturers are challeng-

ing a 5-cent markup that the city

has imposed on single-use bags.

Hilex Poly (now Novolex), Super-

bag Operating, the Inteplast

Group, and Advance Polybag

argue that the fee is illegal under

an obscure Dallas law that

states: “A local government or

other political subdivision may

not adopt an ordinance, rule or

regulation to: prohibit or restrict,

for solid waste management

purposes, the sale or use of a

container or package in a manner

not authorized by state law; [or]

assess a fee or deposit on the

sale or use of a container or

package.”

In Georgia, the state Senate got a

little meta, passing a ban on bag

bans last session, which would

have pre-emptively prevented

restrictions. While the bill failed

in the House, it may prove to be

a model for other state pre-emp-

tions around the country.

Ground Zero of the plastic wars,

unsurprisingly, is California. Last

year, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown

signed a statewide ban against

plastic grocery bags that was

scheduled to take effect this July

1. But the implementation has

been stalled, thanks to 800,000

signatories to a petition circu-

lated by the American Progres-

sive Bag Alliance, a new group

funded by plastics manufacturers.

Voters will now have to ratify the

ban on their 2016 ballots for it to

go into effect. “This is a cynical

ploy by out-of-state interests

desperate to delay a ban already

adopted in more than 100 com-

munities across California,” a

spokesperson for Brown told the

Associated Press.

Of course, if there’s some ban-

ning going on, you can always

rely on Congress to muscle in on

the action. Rep. James P. Moran

(D–Va.) has repeatedly intro-

duced a bill to create a national

5-cent tax on all disposable

plastic or paper bags supplied

by stores to customers. The bill

typically dies quietly in commit-

tee, but perhaps Moran was

hoping that, as Gandhi famously

didn’t say: “First they ignore you,

then they laugh at you, then they

attack you, then you win.”

Regurgitate

As I write this, a load of reusable

grocery bags is tumbling around

in my dryer. In the course of

researching this article, I got so

thoroughly grossed out by the

malevolent horror lurking in my

pantry that I had to stop writing

and start washing.

I may love plastic bags, but I’m

not immune to cultural and

economic pressure, so when I

remember to, I tote my reusable

bags to the store like a good little

yuppie. But this ostensibly mod-

ern act brings me back to condi-

tions a little too reminiscent of

the sub-hygienic reality faced by

my great-great-grandmother,

with her blood-and-crumb-cov-

ered reusable canvas wrapper.

If you’re like most people, here’s

what you have probably done at

least once: Put a leaky package

of chicken in your cloth or plastic

tote. Then go home, empty the

bag, crumple it up, and toss it in

the trunk of your car to fester. A

week later, you go shopping

again and throw some veggies

you’re planning to eat raw into

the same bag. Cue diarrhea.

A 2011 survey published in the

journal Food Protection Trends

found coliform bacteria in fully

half of the reusable shopping

bags tested in a random survey

of shoppers in Arizona and Cali-

fornia. The same 2014 Edelman

Berland study that found con-

sumers frequently forgot their

bags also unearthed the fact that

only 18 percent of shoppers

reported cleaning their bags

“once a week or more.” An article

in the Journal of Infectious

Diseases traced a 2010 outbreak

of norovirus to nine members of

an Oregon soccer team who had

touched or eaten food stored in

a contaminated reusable bag.

Your cute reusable tote deco-

rated with whimsical watercolors

of eggplants may actually be

causing those stomach cramps.

Reconsider

Set your mind back to 1999,

before our current wave of bag

crackdowns, but well after the

“plastic” answer to “paper or

plastic?” began giving environ-

mentalists the tremors. In that

year’s Oscar-winning American

Beauty, an ambitious young film-

maker within the dull confines of

suburbia captures an iconic

image of a plastic sack—that

product of banal late-capitalist

excess—twirling artistically in

the wind. “And this bag was

just dancing with me,” he says

dreamily. “Like a little kid

begging me to play with it. For 15

minutes. That’s the day I realized

that there was this entire life

behind things, and this incredibly

benevolent force that wanted me

to know there was no reason to

be afraid, ever.”

Though it was meant as irony,

there was an essential (if acci-

dental) truth behind the speech.

The technology behind plastic

grocery bags is so useful it won

a Nobel Prize. Employing an

unimaginably small amount of

base material, manufacturers

can create tools of surprising

strength and durability. Far from

being the environmental threat

activists make them out to be,

plastic bags are not particularly

to blame for clogged sewers,

choked rivers, asphyxiated sea

animals, or global warming.

Instead, they are likely our best

bet for carrying all of our junk in

a responsible manner.

Don’t believe the haters. Plastic

bags are good for you. •Reprinted from www.reason.com,

September, 1, 2015.


16


B A G B A N S :

ST. LOUIS PARK BACKS AWAYFROM PLASTIC BAG BANBY JOHN R E INAN, S TAR T R I BUNE

Earlier this year, St. Louis Park

took aim at being the first city in

Minnesota to ban plastic bags.

Now city leaders are backing

away from that goal—it would be

more symbolic than substantive,

they say—but moving ahead on

a companion proposal requiring

all takeout food packaging to

be reusable, recyclable or

compostable.

A public hearing on the proposal

is set for next week.

“We’ve tabled the bag thing alto-

gether,” said Jake Spano, a City

Council member who will be

sworn in as mayor next month.

“If we’re really serious about

making a difference in our waste

stream, [bags are] such a tiny

portion of it.”

A handful of major U.S. cities

have banned plastic bags in

recent years, but the trend may

be slowing.

Chicago passed a bag ban that

took effect in August, but the

ordinance provided a wide range

of exceptions. Earlier this year,

Dallas repealed a five-cent fee

on plastic bags and rejected an

attempt to ban them entirely.

Arizona passed a state law this

year prohibiting any local bans,

taxes or fees on plastic bags,

while Californians will vote next

year on a statewide bag ban

that’s vigorously opposed by

business groups.

Plastic bags make up only about

half of 1 percent of St. Louis

Park’s waste stream, city officials

said. Meanwhile, materials that

could be recycled or composted,

such as packaging, account for

more than half the city’s solid

waste.

Minneapolis banned several

types of polystyrene and plastic

food containers earlier this year,

and the city is also considering

a plastic bag ban.

Potential marketing benefits

St. Louis Park’s proposed “zero

waste packaging” ordinance

would not specifically ban foam

cups, plates and clamshell con-

tainers. But in practice, “it’s

likely that most foam containers

would not be eligible” anyway,

said Kala Fisher, the city’s solid

waste coordinator.

That’s because metro-area recy-

cling facilities don’t want to

process polystyrene foam con-

tainers and don’t have a market

for them, Fisher said, even

though it’s possible to recycle

those materials and more than

100 cities nationwide do it.

The takeout container proposal

is opposed by a roster of heavy-

hitting business groups, includ-

ing the Minnesota Retailers

Association, the Minnesota

Restaurant Association and the

Minnesota Grocers Association.

But Spano said businesses

should look at the proposal as

a potential marketing tool.

“There are people who have

made this a part of their brand

and a part of their message,”

Spano said. “They market them-

selves based on their environ-

mental practices.”

The plastics industry supports

increased recycling, which is

why foam takeout containers

should be allowed, an industry

spokesman said.

“We do support the concept of

the ordinance,” said Mike Levy,

director of the Plastics Foodser-

vice Packaging Group of the

American Chemistry Council.

“We feel that St. Louis Park, in

moving toward more recycling,

should include all materials.”

For example, Los Angeles allows

all plastic—including foam—in

its single-stream curbside recy-

cling program, Levy said. The

best way to encourage recycling

facilities to take foam products

is to start providing them with

a supply, he said.

The ordinance could pass as

soon as Dec. 21, but wouldn’t

take effect until Jan. 1, 2017. That

would give businesses a year to

adjust, and the city time enough

to make decisions on exactly

how the program would take

shape, Fisher said. •Reprinted from Star Tribune,

www.startribune.com, December

1, 2015.

BUT THE C I T Y I SMOV ING AHEADON REQU I R INGRECYC LAB L E ORCOMPOSTAB L EPACKAG ING.

17


http://www.hubinternational.com/

18


R E C Y C L I N G :

CALRECYCLE’S AB 341 REPORT TO THE LEGISLATUREBY CA L R ECYC L E

Executive Summary

With the passage of AB 341

(Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes

of 2011), the Governor and the

Legislature established a policy

goal for the state that not less

than 75 percent of solid waste

generated be source reduced,

recycled, or composted by the

year 2020. This report, as directed

by the Legislature, provides

strategies to achieve that 75

percent goal.

California has come a long way

since passage of the Beverage

Container Recycling and Litter

Reduction Act (AB 2020, Sher,

Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986)

and the Integrated Waste Man-

agement Act (AB 939, Sher,

Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989).

Before these landmark bills, we

were vexed by single-digit recy-

cling rates, sparse infrastructure,

and few end markets for recy-

clables. Today we enjoy a diver-

sion rate equivalent of 65 percent,

a statewide recycling rate of

50 percent, and a beverage con-

tainer recycling rate of 80 percent.

In moving away from its histori-

cally disposal-dominated ap-

proach to waste management,

California developed an infra-

structure for collection, sorting,

and preliminary processing of

recyclable materials in order to

meet the state’s statutory recy-

cling and diversion directives.

This was accomplished with the

hard work and dedication of all

of our partners including local

jurisdictions, the waste and

recycling industry, and an

enlightened public that em-

braced the new programs and

changed its behavior.

With this foundation in place, 75

percent is the next evolution in

California’s permanent campaign

of sustainability. It affords us

the far-reaching opportunity to

strengthen our capacity to pre-

vent the generation of waste, and

to sensibly manage our discards

to support a growing economy,

conserve resources, lessen our

climate impact, and further

reduce our unhealthy reliance

on landfills.

In 2020, we project there will be

about 80 million tons of solid

waste generated by Californians.

To meet the 75 percent goal

established in AB 341, 60 million

tons of waste will need to be

source reduced, composted, or

recycled by 2020. We assume

more than half of that, or about

37 million tons, will be met by

continuing the source reduction,

composting, and recycling pro-

grams we have today.

This means about 23 million more

tons will need to be reduced,

composted, or recycled in 2020

to meet the statewide goal.

Developing a comprehensive and

sustainable waste management

system for California that maxi-

mizes source reduction, recy-

cling, and composting demands

sufficient infrastructure to

encourage waste reduction,

recover materials and create mar-

kets for those materials. Through

achievement of 75 percent, we

can forge a future in which both

the environment and the econ-

omy grow stronger by the recy-

cling of materials in California-

based markets that create new

jobs and products. The strategies

offered in this report, which will

further reduce waste generation

and landfill disposal, have al-

ready proven to conserve natural

resources and lower greenhouse

gas emissions.

To many of those who have fol-

lowed California’s recycling and

waste management efforts

through the years, a number of

(Continued, see AB 341, page 19)

IN 2020 THEREW I L L B E ABOUT80 M I L L IONTONS OF SO L I D WASTEGENERATED BYCA L I FORN IANS .

To view/download the full 68-

page .pdf report by CalRecycle,

click here.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1538/20151538.pdf

19


these strategies, and the reason-

ing behind them, will be familiar.

Measures designed to leverage

the next generation of opportuni-

ties made possible by AB 939

have been topics of conversation

and study, in some cases for

years. These ideas are comple-

mented by a number of new ones

in this report.

Five priority strategies frame

CalRecycle’s recommendations

in this report:

1. Moving Organics Out of the

Landfill

2. Expanding the Recycling/

Manufacturing Infrastructure

3. Exploring New Approaches

for State and Local Funding of

Sustainable Waste Management

Programs

4. Promoting State Procurement

of Post-Consumer Recycled

Content Products

5. Promoting Extended Producer

Responsibility

In addressing these strategies,

we will also be faced with the

challenge of breaking down

barriers, some of which we have

dealt with for some time. The low

cost of landfilling has long under-

cut markets for some secondary

materials, and has proven to be

a disincentive to higher levels of

recycling. There is limited domes-

tic manufacturer demand for

recyclable feedstock such as

plastic and paper, and commer-

cial markets for recycled-content

products are underdeveloped.

Local opposition can limit oppor-

tunities for a much-needed

expansion of the state’s recycling

infrastructure. And conflicting

mandates and goals among vari-

ous state and local regulatory

agencies can be challenging.

However, these barriers can be

overcome through cooperation,

as demonstrated in efforts by

CalRecycle and the State Water

Resources Control Board result-

ing in the 2015 issuance of the

SWRCB General Order for Com-

posting Operations.

Pursuing 75 percent also

demands that CalRecycle look

inward, at the management of

its programs, its priorities, and

where programmatic reforms can

be most effective and responsive

to the challenge. This mindset is

reflected in ongoing measures to

improve the Beverage Container

Recycling Program in order to

safeguard the recycling fund,

combat fraud and put resources

to best use. It is important to

move beyond the status quo in

order to ensure the long-term vi-

ability of the program and main-

tain historically high recycling

rates for beverage containers.

Likewise, CalRecycle’s organiza-

tional focus toward 75 percent

will demand new measures,

as well as implementation of

reforms contemplated in the

past, suited to an ambitious goal

to increase recycling across a

wide range of materials.

What’s in the Report

AB 341, pursuant to Public

Resources Code (PRC) Section

41780.02 (a), required CalRecycle

to submit a report to the Legisla-

ture that provides

• Strategies to achieve the

state’s policy goal that not less

than 75 percent of solid waste

generated be source reduced, re-

cycled, or composted by the year

2020.

This is addressed in the section

titled “Strategies to Achieve 75

Percent Goal.”

In addition, the report was to

include other specific compo-

nents pursuant to PRC Section

41780.02(b)(5-6). These are

found in the section titled

“Legislative and Regulatory

Recommendations” and is

summarized in Appendix C:

• Recommendations for legisla-

tive changes, if any, that are

necessary to achieve 75 percent.

• Report on regulatory changes,

if any, that are necessary to

achieve 75 percent.

The four other required compo-

nents PRC Section 41780.02(b)(1-

4) are found in the section titled

“Program Reviews, Updates and

Recommendations”:

• A review and update of market

development strategies under-

taken by CalRecycle and recom-

mendations for further actions

(information required annually

pursuant to subparagraph (A) of

paragraph (4) of subdivision (c)

of PRC Section 40507), with em-

phasis on new and emerging

trends in resource management.

• Identification of problematic

waste streams and sources, and

recommendations on handling

those waste streams.

• Evaluation of current programs

and their effectiveness, and rec-

ommendations for changes to

those programs.

• Recommendations for repriori-

tizing existing resources to best

achieve 75 percent. •

AB 341 R E PORT [CONT ’D ]

To view/download the full 68-

page .pdf report by CalRecycle,

click here.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1538/20151538.pdf

20


R E C Y C L I N G :

PLASTIC CONTAINER RECYCLINGUP IN 2014BY ED I TOR IA L S TA F F, R E SOURCE R ECYC L ING

U.S. plastic bottle recycling rose

in 2014, continuing a long-term

trend dating back to the 1990s.

According to the 25th annual

container recycling report from

the American Chemistry Council

and the Association of Plastic

Recyclers, more than 3 million

pounds of plastic containers

were recycled in 2014. That

number is the highest on record.

With roughly 9.4 million pounds

of containers put on the market

in 2014, the U.S. recovery rate for

plastic containers was 31.8 per-

cent, a percentage point above

2013’s mark of 30.8 percent.

While PET container recovery fell

slightly, to 31.0 percent, despite

overall collection being higher,

both recovery rates and totals for

HDPE and PP were on the rise.

In 2014, 33.6 percent of HDPE

containers were recycled, with

overall collection surpassing the

1.1 million pound mark. Nearly

45 percent of PP containers were

recycled, with overall collection

totaling 79.5 million pounds.

While the report focuses on PET,

HDPE and PP bottles, it also

points to increases in PVC, LDPE

and PS recycling.

On the post-collection end, 21.9

percent of collected bottles were

exported, a slight drop from

2013’s rate of 22.1 percent and

a far cry from 2012’s rate of more

than 28 percent.

The report, which is prepared

annually with the help of Moore

Recycling Associates and PET

experts NAPCOR, also notes a

handful of barriers to increased

collection.

According to the study, despite

advances in single-stream collec-

tion, more needs to be done to

increase recycling at the curb.

“Too many consumers continue

to be unaware of the significant

usefulness, demand and value

of recycled plastic including

HDPE and PET and PP,” ACC and

APR write.

The duo also says away-from-

home consumption of containers

requires more receptacles to be

strategically placed in public

spaces. A 2009 report from Keep

America Beautiful calculated just

9 percent of public spaces have

recycling bins. •Reprinted from Resource

Recycling, www.resource-recy-

cling.com, November 10, 2015.

IN 2014 THE U . S .R ECOVERY RAT EFOR P LAS T ICCONTA INERS WAS31 .8 P E RCENT.

http://www.resource-recycling.com/

21


R E C Y C L I N G :

WILL ENDLESSLY RECYCLABLEPLASTICS SOON BE A REALITY?BY J E SS ICA LYONS HARDCAST L E

As the COP21 climate talks are

underway in Paris, and govern-

ment leaders work to hammer

out a deal to limit global warm-

ing, French company Carbios has

announced a technology that

may pave the way to infinite

plastic recycling—eliminating

plastic waste and its impact

on climate change.

Yesterday Carbios announced

that it has taken a major step

forward in the development of

its enzymatic depolimerization

process of polyesters making it

applicable to PET (polyethylene

terephthalate), one of the most

commonly used polymers.

Carbios’ recycling process

enabled for the first time the

depolymerization of 100 percent

amorphous PET-based commer-

cial products into its original

monomers, TPA (terephthalic

acid) and EG (ethylene glycol).

The company says the process

allows the monomers to maintain

the same quality and physico-

chemical properties as their

petroleum-based counterparts.

After separation and purification,

the monomers extracted from the

enzymatic recycling process

could then be used for the syn-

thesis of virgin PET—avoiding

any loss in value of the recycled

material and producing durable,

sustainable plastics.

Carbios CEO Jean-Claude

Lumaret says the company

is working with “major players”

to bring the recycling process to

industrial scale. “These new pro-

gresses will enable us to pursue

our efforts and undertake the

development at the pilot scale

of our PET recycling process and

adapt this technology to the

recycling of other plastic poly-

mers,” Lumaret says.

Developing endlessly recyclable,

durable plastics is the holy grail

of polymers. Innovative chem-

istry companies and scientists

are moving closer to making this

dream a reality.

“Every day polymer scientists

amaze us with new research and

innovations in plastics that con-

tribute to our safety, quality of

life and ability to live more sus-

tainably,” says Steve Russell,

vice president of plastics for

the American Chemistry Council.

Recyclable and Durable

In a recent IBM blog, IBM re-

search scientist Jamie Garcia de-

tails how her “chance discovery

sparked a quest for plastics that

are both strong and recyclable.”

She says she hopes her work in

polymers will result in plastics

that are endlessly recyclable,

longer lasting and more durable.

Her breakthrough makes even

previously un-recyclable plastics

recyclable hundreds of times

over because of a unique

thermoset.

As Garcia explains in the blog:

“The crosslinking chemical motif,

the part that makes this polymer

a strong network, has a special

property that allows it to be

hydrolyzed (the breakdown of a

compound by chemical reaction

with water) only at very low pH

(pH ~ 0). We used computational

chemistry alongside experiments

to help guide us to the best syn-

thetic method to make these ma-

terials, including cure conditions

(this is absolutely critical!) and

choice of monomer (also critical!)

to access materials with the best

properties. Usually you don’t get

both properties in one material:

this thermoset is both strong

and revertible.”

But to produce and recycle these

polymers on an industrial scale,

Garcia needs a chemical com-

pany and its equipment to scale

up the process, plus an industrial-

scale plant dedicated to chemical

recycling for polymers. She says

most plastics are recycled with

an inexpensive melt-and-remold

approach and the infrastructure

isn’t in place for chemical recy-

cling methods.

(Continued, see Endlessly, page 22)

SC I ENT I S T S A R EMOV ING C LOSERTO MAK ING TH I SDREAM A R EA L I T Y.

22


END L ESS LY R ECYC L ED P LAS T ICS [CONT ’D ]

“That said, I still think that in the

long run it would be worth it—we

could recover more of our materi-

als, and implementing chemical

recycling for polymers would

ultimately save on energy,

resources, and landfill space,”

Garcia says in the blog.

Plastics Recycling Increases

Meanwhile plastics recycling in

the U.S. continues to increase.

Americans have increased the

pounds of plastic bottles recy-

cled every year since 1990,

according to joint report by the

Association of Plastic Recyclers

and the American Chemistry

Council.

Waste Management World says

the report found plastic bottle

recycling in the U.S. grew by 3.3

percent or 97 million pounds

(44,000 metric tons) in 2014,

with the new total surpassing 3

billion pounds (1.36 million met-

ric tons). Additionally, high-den-

sity polyethylene (HDPE, #2)

bottle collection grew to nearly

1.1 billion pounds (500,000 met-

ric tons), an increase of more

than 62 million pounds (28,100

metric tons) from 2013.

“Plastics recycling has grown sig-

nificantly in recent years thanks

to the collaborative efforts of

materials suppliers, researchers,

retailers, brand owners, and the

recyclers themselves,” Russell

told Environmental Leader.

“Together, we’ve built a founda-

tion that will allow us to recover

and use more of these valuable

materials.”

Waste and Emissions

Reductions

Carbios estimates demand for

PET-based virgin plastics in

Europe hit 3.2 million tons in

2013, of which 1.8 million tons

(57 percent) are recycled. Apply-

ing the company’s biorecycling

process to PET would allow for

treatment of 100 percent of PET

waste, equal to an addition vol-

ume of 1.4 million tons in Europe

that is landfilled or burned for

energy, instead of being recycled,

the company says.

Carbios says by creating a circu-

lar economy model, its biorecy-

cling processes would prevent

the emission of 4.6 million tons

of CO2e in Europe alone.

Says Russell: “Plastics’ light

weight, strength and durability

make possible environmental

benefits ranging from waste

reduction to energy savings and

lower emissions—and those

benefits can be enhanced when

we recycle plastics.” •Reprinted from www.environ-

mentalleader.com, December 3,

2015.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/

http://www.ngr.at/

23


R E C Y C L I N G :

TIM HORTONS, STARBUCKS RECYCLING CLAIMS MAY BEGARBAGE BY MEGAN GR I F F I TH -GREENE , CBC MARKE T P LACE

Canada’s largest coffee chains

are misleading customers about

what happens to cups collected

in their in-store recycling bins.

A CBC Marketplace investigation

reveals that many paper cups

collected by some Toronto

Starbucks and Tim Hortons for

recycling are sent to landfill,

not to a recycling plant as many

may believe.

“It’s pretty shocking,” Conrad

MacKerron, senior vice-president

of As You Sow, which works to

promote corporate environmen-

tal and social responsibility,

told Marketplace’s Erica Johnson.

“It’s an enormous waste of

materials and the value of those

materials.”

In 2010, Canadians used an

estimated 1.5 billion disposable

coffee cups, equivalent to more

than half a million trees.

Both Starbucks and Tim Hortons

have faced criticism for the

amount of waste created by

disposable cups. As a way to

address these concerns, both

companies have publicly made

commitments to environmental

responsibility, including in-store

recycling bins for paper cups,

and offering ceramic mugs to

people who don’t need a take-

out cup.

“Starbucks is committed to sig-

nificantly reducing the waste our

stores generate—especially

when it comes to recycling,” the

company’s website says.

“Tim Hortons understands that

changes in the environment need

to be managed and embraces our

responsibility to do our part,” the

company’s Sustainability and

Responsibility Report says. “As

we strive to reduce the waste

created in every part of our

business, one of the most impor-

tant areas of action is tackling

the waste generated at our

restaurants.”

Follow the cups

To test what really happens to

recycling materials collected by

stores, Marketplace dropped

cups with tracking devices into

store recycling bins at 14 Tim

Hortons stores and 14 Starbucks

locations in Toronto. Producers

from the program returned at

night to look for them.

Marketplace staff recovered

seven cups from each chain, all

of which were in bins for garbage

pickup, alongside many other

recyclable materials. The other

cups could not be located.

“It certainly casts some doubt

on the integrity of the whole

process,” says MacKerron.

“To find out that in some areas

at least the bins are out there

but they (the cups) are going

right into the garbage, that’s

outrageous.”

Marketplace staff also went in to

10 locations of each chain to see

if employees offered a ceramic

mug instead of a takeout cup.


say they offer the mugs as part

of their commitment to reduce

waste.

None of the stores made any

effort to offer a non-disposable

mug.

Cups difficult to recycle

Coffee is the most popular drink

in Canada. According to Agricul-

ture and Agri-Food Canada,

Canadians drink 14 billion cups

of coffee every year, and the

country is second only to Italy in

the percentage of cups we buy

outside the home.

While many people think that

paper coffee cups are recyclable,

most facilities do not accept

them because of their inner

plastic lining.

“There is extra cost in processing

most types of hot drink coffee

cups, teacups, because they’re

a combination of paper and plas-

tic,” says Mark Badger, an execu-

tive at Canada Fibers, which

(Continued, see Cups, page 24)

COFFEE CHA INSHAVE FACED CR I T IC I SM FORTHE AMOUNT OFWASTE CREATEDBY D I S POSAB L ECUPS .

24


specializes in waste manage-

ment and recycling. Badger says

that part of the additional cost is

due to the fact that plastic-lined

cups have to be separated from

regular paper.

Starbucks and Tim Hortons say

they have recycling contracts

with private facilities to handle

the cups.

While some municipalities, such

as Vancouver, accept the cups

in their residential blue bin pro-

grams, most do not. In Toronto,

for example, 40 per cent of the

paper cups we use get tossed

into blue bins for recycling,

but they're simply diverted

to landfill.

“Unfortunately today, in most

places, hot beverage cups,

coffee, tea, hot chocolate cups,

do end up going to landfills,”

says Badger.

Not all Starbucks and Tim Hor-

tons stores offer in-store recy-

cling, but an increasing number

have implemented programs.

Starbucks has recycling bins

at 47 percent of company-

operated stores in the U.S. and

Canada, according to its 2014

Global Responsibility Report. Tim

Hortons offers recycling at 25

percent of locations, according

to the company’s 2014 Sustain-

ability and Responsibility Report.

Companies respond


declined to speak with Market-

place on camera about the

investigation, but Starbucks

said it would review its in-store

recycling programs across the

country.

In an email statement, Starbucks

wrote: “We commit to recycling

all materials identified on our

recycling bins and we committed

to review recycling actions in

stores that offer front-of-store

recycling to ensure this is

the case.”

Tim Hortons did not address the

results of the Marketplace inves-

tigation, but wrote: “We remain

committed to offering tools to

assist restaurant owners in con-

sistently implementing the vari-

ous commercial recycling and

waste diversion programs avail-

able.”

(This story is based on a Market-

place investigation by Tiffany

Foxcroft, Tyana Grundig, Philippe

de Montigny and Jaclyn McRae.)•Reprinted from CBC News,

www.cbc.ca, October 30, 2015.

FO L LOW THE CUPS [CONT ’D ]

SAV E T H E DAT E : WPA Annual Conference

JUNE 21 — 23, 2016N E W P O RT B E A C H H YAT T R E G E N CY

Te c h n i c a l I s s u e s | Po l i c y I s s u e s

25


R E C Y C L I N G :

PLASTICS RECYCLING WORKS:HERE'S WHYBY S T EVE A L E XANDER , S T EVE RUSSE L L , S T EVE S I K RA

As a nation, the United States

is making strong and steady

progress in recycling our most

common plastics—Americans

have recycled more plastics each

year than the prior year for the

last two and a half decades.

Take plastic bottles: In 2014, U.S.

consumers recycled a record high

of more than 3 billion pounds of

plastic bottles—generating an

estimated $730 million in rev-

enue from selling bales of plastic

material —and the recycling rate

climbed to an all-time high of 32

percent. And unlike the early

days, consumers today are

advised to twist caps on before

tossing their empty bottles in the

bin, because recyclers want the

caps too.

That’s all good news, but some of

the most dramatic gains are hap-

pening in flexible polyethylene

packaging and with other plastic

containers. Between 2005 and

2013, the recycling of flexible

plastic film (bags and wraps)

jumped nearly 75 percent to

reach more than 1 billion pounds,

and the recycling rate grew to

17 percent. To achieve these

increases, groups like ours

came together to come up with

innovative solutions.

Boosting recycling

Today, more than 18,000 stores

across the country collect used

plastic wraps and bags to be

recycled near each store’s main

entrance, but not everyone is

aware of this opportunity to recy-

cle. Working in concert with the

Sustainable Packaging Coalition,

industry has introduced a “store

drop-off” label that appears right

on a package to let consumers

know it can be recycled at partici-

pating stores.

Recycled bags and wraps are

used to make durable composite

decks, home building products,

and new packaging.

Another way industry is working

to promote recycling of flexible

packaging is by partnering with

states and communities to edu-

cate residents. Through the Wrap

Recycling Action Program—or

WRAP—retailers, businesses and

communities are cooperating to

boost the recycling of everyday

wraps from paper towels, bever-

age cases, bread, produce and

even dry cleaning bags—all at

local stores.

Another rapidly growing area is

the category of “rigid plastics,”

which includes things like yogurt

cups, deli containers, commer-

cial-size tubs, and caps and lids.

In the United States, the recy-

cling of rigid plastics tripled be-

tween 2007 and 2013, topping

one billion pounds.

Side benefits

Achieving a steady and growing

stream of recycled plastics helps

feed demand by brand owners,

retailers and manufacturers,

which helps to reduce more

waste and benefit the environ-

ment in multiple ways. For exam-

ple, recycling plastics also helps

to conserve energy and cut

greenhouse gas emissions.

A 2010 study found that recycling

two common types of plastics

can save enough energy each

year to power 750,000 homes.

And recycling high-density poly-

ethylene (used for milk jugs)

can reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by 66 percent com-

pared to producing new material.

[Urbanization Can Actually Re-

duce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(Op-Ed)]

Increasing plastics recycling

helps brand owners and other

industry leaders to set stretch

goals that a few years ago would

have seemed unreachable. For

example, Procter & Gamble has

committed to doubling the use of

recycled plastics in its packaging

by 2020. Many other brand own-

ers are working more closely with

recyclers to design certain pack-

aging and containers to make

them more compatible with recy-

cling infrastructure and technol-

ogy. Designing packaging with its

next use in mind is a long-term

industry goal.

P&G also is a partner in a new

fund established to jumpstart

recycling. The $100 million

Closed Loop fund, founded by

ten of the largest consumer

goods companies, provides zero-

and low-interest loans to cities

and companies that want to build

(Continued, see Works, page 26)

INCREASED ACCESS TO S INGLE - S T R EAMCOL L ECT IONPROGRAMS HE L P SADDRESS O LDER R ECYC L ING I S SUES .

26


P LAS T ICS R ECYC L ING WORKS [CONT ’D ]

new recycling facilities and

projects. By 2025, the fund aims

to eliminate more than 50 million

tons of greenhouse gases, divert

more than 20 million tons of

waste from landfills, and create

more than 20,000 jobs. [Califor-

nia’s Recycling Target Could Cre-

ate 110,000 New Jobs (Op-Ed)]

The first project: a high-tech

recycling plant in Baltimore that

will sort 54,000 tons of plastic

materials for recycling each year,

including many that often are not

recycled today. One of the largest

facilities of its kind, it will collect

plastics within a 500-mile radius

across the East Coast.

And another joint effort—The

Recycling Partnership—dramati-

cally improved recycling in more

than 70 U.S. communities this

year alone. Currently reaching 1.2

million U.S. households, this or-

ganization has supplied more

than 165,000 of them with new,

larger recycling carts.

Overcoming the obstacles

To be sure, plastics recycling still

faces some hurdles, many of

which hinge on outdated or

incomplete information. Case in

point: a lot of people don’t real-

ize that polyethylene wraps and

bags are widely recycled, yet

more than 90 percent of Ameri-

cans have access to a store drop-

off program that recycles these

materials. As another example,

some have alleged that recycled

plastics aren’t valuable, but mar-

ket demand for many recycled

plastics (e.g., rigid HDPE, clean

PE film, PP and PET) is often sig-

nificantly stronger than it is for

recycled fiber (i.e., paper) based

on prices per pound of material.

And while it’s true that there are

many different types of plastics,

which can complicate sorting and

processing, these issues are

being addressed by increased

access to “single stream” collec-

tion programs, whereby residents

can put all of their recyclables

into a single large bin, making it

easier for them to do their part.

And on the processing end, ad-

vanced optical sorting technolo-

gies now being deployed at many

materials recovery facilities are

improving how recyclers sort and

package used plastics for sale.

What about claims that collected

material is just sent overseas?

While some plastics are, indeed,

processed oversees, in 2014

exports fell to their lowest level

in six years, and U.S. reclamation

capacity for many plastics contin-

ued to increase. What’s more, the

U.S. also imports used plastic

from other countries for recy-

cling. The degree of exports and

imports in any given year, of

course, depends on variable

market conditions.

And plastics recycling advocates

are working to overcome other

issues. For example, our industry

has created a series of no-cost

tools to help communities help

their residents learn which plas-

tics go in the recycling bin. We’ve

placed recycling bins at more

away-from-home venues, such as

stadiums, parks, and beaches.

And since not all plastics can be

economically recycled, new tech-

nologies are emerging that can

recover the energy from those

non-recycled plastics instead

of burying them.

very day strong, lightweight plas-

tics help us to do more with less.

After these efficient products and

packages are used and reused to

the extent possible, plastics are

increasingly valued as recycled

materials. Plastic makers, recy-

clers, brand owners and others

are working hard to increase

plastics recycling, and we’re con-

fident that our success will con-

tinue. As long as we keep

working together. •Steve Alexander is executive

director of the Association of

Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers,

Steve Russell is vice president of

the American Chemistry Council’s

Plastics Division, and Steve Sikra

is section head for corporate

R&D at The Procter & Gamble

Company.

The authors contributed this

article to Live Science’s Expert

Voices: Op-Ed & Insights,

www.livescience.com, November

25, 2015.

www.hudsonsharp.com

27


R E C Y C L I N G :

TURN TRASH INTO CASH WITHNATURA ZERO PROGRAMBY JON S T E PHENS , AVANGARD INNOVAT I V E

The new year is around the

corner. As you put together your

budget for 2016, you have sweat

over every line item. But one of

the biggest opportunities compa-

nies lose out on is not utilizing

resources they already have.

Think about the things you throw

away or even pay to get rid of.

Cut your costs by reducing the

amount of trash the waste com-

pany hauls away.

Most mid-to-large sized compa-

nies and warehouses have one

overlooked unnecessary expense

in common. Your trash. Plastic

cups from the employee break

room, unused boxes of paper,

styrofoam and cardboard pack-

aging, uneaten food, old comput-

ers, and other pieces of outdated

technology are all materials

you’re likely paying a decent sum

of money to have hauled away.

Paying someone to haul away

your trash isn’t just an unneces-

sary expense, it’s essentially pay-

ing someone to take away a

profitable commodity. We recom-

mend looking at the commodities

you are throwing away in large

quantities, and start recycling

them into new profitable products.

You’ll save on trash expenses,

and create a new revenue stream

for your company.

Sounds great, right? Sell your

trash! It almost sounds too good

to be true. Especially, since

you’ve been paying to have the

stuff hauled away. Is there really

a market for recycled trash? And

why haven’t you heard of this

alternate utopian realm where

people are anxiously waiting to

buy your trash?

Turn trash into cash

Selling your recycled waste is a

real opportunity to save money

and increase profits. Producing

less waste results in alleviates

pressure on your warehouse and

operations teams. Products are

reused until they can be recycled

into a new product. This cyclical

process reduces the need for

landfills that are already over-

filled, and helps companies

increase their longevity by pro-

viding a more efficient manufac-

turing process and sustainable

production practices.

As an alternative to risky and

expensive business operations,

we recommend giving your com-

pany the opportunity to imple-

ment a new waste plan. If you

want to get serious about making

money by recycling your waste,

then you’ll likely need assistance

from recycling experts. As the

largest sustainable solutions

provider in North and South

America, we offer our clients

the Natura Zero™ program. Our

streamlined process builds a cus-

tomized plan for your individual

company, making the transition

from trash to cash easier and

more effective.

Assess your opportunities

After assessing your waste, we’ll

help implement new systems and

processes to make recycling your

new products as simple and

profitable as possible. Since

every company is different, it’s

important to create a personal-

ized process designed to work

for your company.

Recyclables, such as plastics,

are graded on their purity. The

purer your product, the higher

the price tag. If you want a pure

product, proper sorting is critical

to the process. Depending on

your company’s unique needs,

we can introduce separate bins

for paper, plastic, cardboard,

glass or styrofoam. For your

employees, recycling will still

be as easy as tossing their waste

in a bin.

Track your progress

Once your company’s recycling

system is implemented, we’ll

help you set procedures in place

to optimize the value of your new

product. Our program offers

(Continued, see Cash, page 28)

CUT COSTS BY R EDUC INGTHE AMOUNT OF T RASH THEWASTE COMPANYHAU LS AWAY.

28


state-of-the-art technology to

actively track your waste output,

helping you avoid lost opportuni-

ties by ensuring efficient recy-

cling techniques. Monitoring

your recycling also shows you

the progress and improvements

your company makes every year,

allowing you to clearly see the

ever-increasing value in working

towards producing zero waste.

Reward your sustainability

efforts

Once your recyclables are ready,

our company will gladly buy

them from you. We are always in

the market for recyclables. With

our Natura Zero™ Program, your

company won’t need to worry

about how you’ll find a buyer or if

you’ll make a profit. Our current

clients have increased their recy-

cling revenue by an average of

26%, while also cutting their

average waste costs by 23%.

Depending on the amount of

recycled materials, our environ-

mental partners continue to

increase their yearly revenue by

thousands to millions of dollars.

If you’re interested in our Natura

Zero™ program, or would simply

like more information on how

sustainability can be profitable,

please contact us at 281.582.

0700 or [email protected]. •Reprinted from Avangard Innova-

tive press release, December 10,

2015.

TURN T RASH INTO CASH [CONT ’D ]




29


S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y :

NSAC FORMS TO PROMOTE ACIRCULAR ECONOMY THROUGHPRODUCER RESPONSIBIL ITYBY NAT IONA L S T EWARDSH I P ACT ION COUNC I L

While countries around the world

discuss and transition to a “circu-

lar economy,” the concept is rela-

tively new to the United States.

The National Stewardship Action

Council (NSAC) was created to

push the U.S. in the direction of

a circular economy, which is a

generic term for an industrial

economy that is, by design or in-

tention, restorative and in which

material flows are of two types,

biological nutrients, designed to

reenter the biosphere safely, and

technical nutrients, which are de-

signed to circulate at high quality

without entering the biosphere.

In short, a closed loop system

where materials are all reused

and recycled indefinitely.

Doug Kobold, Vice Chair of the

California Product Stewardship

Council, explains why a new

organization was formed: “With

Extender Producer Responsibility

(EPR) beginning to take hold on a

national level, expertise in the

drafting of laws governing EPR

is greatly needed. NSAC, being

born out of CPSC, in a state with

the most EPR laws on the books

today, stands poised to help

stakeholders nationwide develop

quality state and local laws that

will be affordable, sensible, fair,

effective, and enforceable. As

President of NSAC, I am proud to

be a part of this newly formed

asset to the world of EPR and

Product Stewardship.”

The National Stewardship Action

Council is a powerful network of

governments, non- government

organizations, businesses, and

individuals advocating for poli-

cies and projects where produc-

ers share in the responsibility for

funding and managing problem

products at end of life.

NSAC supports Extended Pro-

ducer Responsibility (EPR) to

conserve resources, reduce costs

to local governments, create jobs

in remanufacturing, and provide

a circular economy. NSAC’s goal

is to align public and private

sectors through information

and partnerships to implement

and ensure sustainable recovery

systems where producers have

an appropriate level of sharing

in the responsibility for those

systems.

One CPSC Board member re-

signed from the organization to

become Secretary/Treasurer of

NSAC: “We need the ability to

advocate for producers sharing

responsibility and I am proud to

be playing a part in the start of

the organization that will do just

that,” said Patty Garbarino of

Marin Sanitary Service. “I have

been active for years trying to

achieve zero waste, but we all

know that until the products on

the market are recyclable, there

is only so much the waste man-

agement community can do to

recycle and compost products

designed for disposal.”

“I am very excited after eight

years of leading CPSC to take

that experience and move beyond

primarily education about what

producer responsibility means,

to advocating nationally for this

policy approach,” said Heidi San-

born, Executive Director of NSAC.

For more information, contact

Heidi Sanborn at 916.402.3911 or

visit our website at www.NSAc-

tion.us.

ABOUT NSACNSAC was founded in 2015 as an

affiliate of the California Product

Stewardship Council (CPSC).

CPSC, which is a 501(c)(3) envi-

ronmental education and protec-

tion organization under IRS

rules, may only conduct limited

legislative lobbying activities.

CPSC’s recent legislative suc-

cesses in California have come

with increasing demands from

across the country for CPSC’s

assistance, creating the need for

an entity that can carry CPSC’s

work forward without lobbying

limits, and on a national scale. In

contrast to CPSC, NSAC is a

501(c)(4) nonprofit organization

that will engage primarily in lob-

bying and advocacy work for EPR

and Product Stewardship, any-

where in the U.S. and at any level

of government interested in EPR

legislation. •

NSAC I S A COL LABORAT IONOF PARTNERSACROSS THEUN I T ED S TAT ESADVOCAT INGFOR S ENS I B L EAND E F F ECT I V EP RODUCT S T EWARDSH I PPO L IC I E S .

http://www.nsaction.us/

30



SPC TAKES FORMAL STANCEAGAINST BIODEGRADABIL ITYADDITIVES FOR PETROLEUM-BASED PLASTICSBY SUS TA INAB L E PACKAG ING COA L I T ION

The Sustainable Packaging Coali-

tion (SPC) has released a formal

position paper against biode-

grad ability additives for petro-

leum-based plastics, which are

marketed as enhancing the sus-

tainability of plastic by rendering

the material biodegradable. The

SPC has evaluated the use of

biodegradability additives for

conventional petroleum-based

plastics, and has found that

these additives do not offer any

sustainability advantage and

they may actually result in more

environmental harm.

The position paper lists the fol-

lowing reasons for the stance

against these additives:

• They don’t enable compost-

ability, which is the meaningful

indicator of a material’s ability to

beneficially return nutrients to

the environment.

• They are designed to compro-

mise the durability of plastic and

the additive manufacturers have

not yet demonstrated an absence

of adverse effects on recycling.

• The creation of a “litter

friendly” material is a step in the

wrong direction, particularly

when the material may undergo

extensive fragmentation and

generation of micro-pollution

before any biodegradation occurs.

• The biodegradation of petro-

leum-based plastics releases

fossil carbon into the atmos-

phere, creating harmful green-

house gas emissions.

“We strongly urge companies

and government agencies to

separate facts from misleading

marketing language and help us

generate the understanding that

plastics are more sustainable

without biodegradability addi-

tives,” said Adam Gendell, Senior

Manager of the Sustainable

Packaging Coalition. “We’ve been

disappointed by the uptake from

brands and manufacturers, as

well as governments mandating

their usage in other countries,

and we’re hopeful that our

position will help inform better

decisions.”

This formal position coincides

with the recent Federal Trade

Commission’s ongoing crack-

down on false and misleading

environmental claims, including

five enforcement actions that

specifically address biodegrad-

able plastic claims. While the FTC

action centers on the efficacy of

the additives and their ability to

work as advertised, the SPC’s

stance is centered on the idea

that the additives do not provide

environmental benefits even if

they do work as advertised.

“We feel strongly that the most

ideal end-of-life scenario for pe-

troleum-based plastics is recy-

cling,” Gendell said. “There are

ample opportunities for the sus-

tainable usage of petroleum-

based plastics, and we need

solutions that help realize those

opportunities. Unfortunately,

biodegradability additives are

not one of them.” •To view/download the SPC’s full

position paper, click here.

B IODEGRADAB I L -I T Y ADD I T I V E SMAY ACTUA L LYR ESU LT IN MOREENV I RONMENTA LHARM.

https://assets.brandfolder.com/c1qcnae0/original/The%20SPC%20Position%20against%20Biodegradability%20Additives%20for%20Petroleum%20Based%20Plastics%20.pdf

31



EPA LOOKS FORWARD ON SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENTBY ED I TOR IA L S TA F F, R E SOURCE R ECYC L ING

The U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency last week released a

strategic plan outlining its areas

of focus for recycling, source

reduction and environmentally

minded materials usage over the

next seven years.

The document, which has been

posted on the website of the

National Recycling Coalition,

covers the federal agency’s aspi-

rations for sustainable materials

management for fiscal years

2017 through 2022.

The concept of sustainable

materials management (SMM),

described by the EPA as “a

systemic approach to using

and reusing materials more

productively over their entire life

cycles,” has in recent years taken

a more central role in the EPA’s

research and reporting on

national waste management

issues. This year, for instance,

the agency changed the name

of its annual report on recycling

and disposal data to “Advancing

Materials Management.”

The five-year strategic plan

lays out four SMM objectives:

decrease the overall amount of

materials disposed, reduce mate-

rials’ environmental impacts

(such as greenhouse gas emis-

sions) throughout the material

life cycles, increase socio-eco-

nomic benefits, and increase

SMM program capabilities at the

state and local level.

The last of those four objectives

“involves increasing the per

capita quantity and/or quality

of recyclables recovered for man-

ufacturing and increasing the

number of households with

access to organic[s] collection

and recycling,” the report states.

The report also identifies three

focus areas in which the agency

sees possibility for moving for-

ward on the four environmental

objectives noted above.

The first focus area is character-

ized as the “built environment”

and includes construction and

demolition (C&D) materials as

well as disaster debris and archi-

tectural planning. The second

focus area is sustainable food

management, a realm in which

the agency has been particularly

active of late. The third area out-

lined is sustainable packaging—

in discussing this point, the

report notes a number of antici-

pated outcomes by 2022, includ-

ing increased per capita quantity

of recyclables collected and

increased quality in recyclables

moving into the secondary

market. •Reprinted from Resource Recy-

cling, www.resource-recycling.

com, November 10, 2015.

E PA R E L EASES A NEW S T RAT EG ICP LAN .

To view/download the full

Strategic Plan [8-page .pdf ] by

the U.S. EPA, click here.

http://www.resource-recycling.com/

http://nrcrecycles.org/mobius/nrcwp-content/uploads/2015/02/SMM-Strategic-Plan_October-2015.pdf

32



EPA SUSTAINABLE MATERIALSMANAGEMENT PROGRAMSTRATEGIC PLANBY U . S . ENV I RONMENTA L P ROTECT ION AGENCY

Sustainable Materials Manage-

ment (SMM) is an approach to

serving human needs by using/

reusing resources productively

and sustainably throughout their

life cycles, generally minimizing

the amount of materials involved

and all associated environmental

impacts.1 This SMM Strategic

Plan covers a 5-year period from

Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2022.

According to the UN Environment

Programme (UNEP), “Humans

are consuming resources and

producing waste at a greater

scale than ever before and per

capita consumption levels are

projected to increase with contin-

ued development.” For every 1%

increase in GDP, resource use has

risen 0.4%.2 Further, “one half to

three quarters of annual resource

inputs to industrial economies is

returned to the environment as

wastes within just one year.”3

The Resource Conservation &

Recovery Act (RCRA) provides the

legislative basis for EPA’s Sus-

tainable Materials Management

(SMM) Program, setting a strong

preference for resource conser-

vation over disposal. EPA’s report,

Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materi-

als Management in 2020 (2002)

made the argument for focusing

efforts on materials manage-

ment, and EPA’s report, SMM:

The Road Ahead (2009) provided

recommendations and an analyti-

cal framework for moving toward

sustainable materials manage-

ment. The Road Ahead serves

as the foundation for the SMM

Program. In addition, EPA’s waste

hierarchy continues to provide

guidance, highlighting source

reduction/waste prevention &

reuse over recycling and com-

posting, energy recovery, and

treatment & disposal.

Responsibility for managing

materials and waste is largely

at the state and local levels, yet

capacity and approaches vary

widely. EPA helps to provide

national consistency and co-im-

plements RCRA with states by

providing states, businesses

and others stakeholders with

national standards, guidelines,

and technical support to more

effectively conserve and manage

materials and waste. In addition,

through its convening role, EPA

facilitates the dialogue and col-

laboration needed to address the

complex challenges we face to

sustainably manage our natural

resources while experiencing

healthy economic growth. Indeed,

access to and increased utiliza-

tion of U.S. collection, processing

and recycling infrastructure is

imperative if SMM is to succeed.

Material recovery and waste

reduction are essential compo-

nents to the productive and sus-

tainable use of materials across

their entire life cycle to conserve

resources, reduce waste, slow

climate change, and minimize

the environmental impacts of the

materials we use. Yet every day,

the lack of such infrastructure

contributes to the problem of

Americans wasting valuable

commodities and resources by

discarding reusable or recyclable

materials. National system

approaches and methods are

needed to reduce waste and

disposal and increase recycling

rates by capturing high quantity

wastes (packaging and contain-

ers, organic residuals, etc.) more

effectively and efficiently through

developing capacity to convert

these materials into marketable,

useable commodities and prod-

ucts that yield substantial eco-

nomic and environmental

benefits.

EPA’s SMM Program activities

are specifically reflected in EPA’s

FY2014-FY2018 Strategic Plan

Goal 3, as well as the Cross-Cut-

ting Strategy Working Toward a

Sustainable Future. Specific

SMM Program commitments

and targets were articulated (and

met) in EPA’s FY2014 Action Plan

under the Agency’s Cross-Cutting

Sustainability Strategy, and SMM

is highlighted again in the

FY2016 Action Plan. SMM was

listed along with Green Products

and Procurement, Green Infra-

structure, and Energy Efficiency

as the first areas of emphasis

(Continued, see Plan, page 33)

NEW U . S . E PAS T RAT EG IC P LANCOVERS I T SHOPES FOR SUS TA INAB L EMATE R I A L S MANAGEMENT.

To view/download the full

Strategic Plan [8-page .pdf ] by

the U.S. EPA, click here.

http://nrcrecycles.org/mobius/nrcwp-content/uploads/2015/02/SMM-Strategic-Plan_October-2015.pdf

33


when the Agency responded to

the National Academy of Sci-

ences recommendations to EPA

for implementing sustainability

across the Agency. Sustainable

Food Management continues to

be recognized by the Administra-

tor, across the Agency and with

outside stakeholders as an area

of significant importance. The

White House Council on Environ-

mental Quality recognized and

supported SMM Program efforts

around the Federal Green Chal-

lenge and continues to recognize

EPA’s leadership role across

federal agencies in the National

Strategy for Electronics Steward-

ship.

SMM Program efforts also are

aligned with international priori-

ties and efforts aimed at manag-

ing our global resources. SMM is

recognized internationally and

EPA is collaborating with part-

ners and stakeholders in a vari-

ety of initiatives such as: the

UNEP 10 Year Framework of

Programme Consumption and

Production, efforts led by the

Organization for Economic Coop-

eration and Development, and

the development of the United

Nation’s Sustainable Develop-

ment Goal for the U.S. that

addresses food loss and food

waste, among others. Most

recently, EPA represented the

U.S. Government in the G7

Resource Efficiency area and saw

its recommendations on materi-

als management and life cycle-

based decision making reflected

in the G7 Declaration and Annex

that resulted from the G7 Summit

of world leaders in June 2015.

Significant follow-up efforts are

underway related to the G7

Alliance formed that will continue

to progress SMM approaches

and concepts at home and

abroad.

The SMM Program Strategic Plan

specifically builds on efforts initi-

ated in 2010 when the Office of

Resource Conservation and

Recovery (ORCR) and the EPA

Regions shifted program empha-

sis from a broad array of re-

source recovery initiatives to

sustainable materials manage-

ment. The current SMM Program

has demonstrated measureable

results in its efforts in sustain-

able food management, sustain-

able electronics management

and the federal government lead-

ing by example (which include

the Food Recovery, Electronics

and Federal Green Challenges);

measurement, state capacity,

and local government zero waste

efforts; and efforts to support

evaluating the beneficial uses

of industrial materials. Much has

been learned from the current

SMM Program and EPA has

received and will continue to

seek input on its SMM initiatives

both informally and formally

(e.g., Packaging Dialogue (2012),

Electronics Forum (2014), Sus-

tainable Food Management Sum-

mit (planned for November 2015),

and various discussions at the

EPA regional level.

In FY 2017-FY 2022, EPA will

continue to invest in improving

measurement systems that can

be used to track and evaluate

trends associated with preven-

tion, reuse, recycling, disposal,

processing capacity, feedstocks

for markets, and public access

to recycling or reuse options.

In addition, EPA will maintain and

improve the analytical tools and

methods for quantifying the envi-

ronmental and economic impacts

of SMM efforts. Work will build

on the current three SMM Chal-

lenges to better support the

strategic priorities. The beneficial

use evaluations for industrial

materials and C&D materials will

be completed and shared and

will serve as the foundation for

future efforts. Finally, collabora-

tion with stakeholders at the

national and international levels

will continue and be strengthened.

SMM Program Objectives &

Strategic Priorities

The three strategic priorities

chosen as the focus of the SMM

Program from FY2017 to FY2022

present significant opportunities

for environmental, economic,

social (and program performance)

results. The Strategic Priority

Areas are: 1) The Built Environ-

ment; 2) Sustainable Food

Management; and 3) Sustainable

Packaging. Work under each of

these areas will support the

four primary SMM Program

objectives to:

1. Decrease the disposal rate,

which includes source reduction,

reuse, recycling and prevention;

2. Reduce the environmental

impacts of materials across their

life cycle;

3. Increase socio-economic

benefits; and

4. Increase the capacity of state

and local governments, commu-

nities and key stakeholders to

adopt and implement SMM poli-

cies, practices and incentives.

The specific activities provided

as examples under each Strate-

gic Priority Area in this Strategic

Plan are only a sampling of po-

tential efforts and might evolve

based on program transition ef-

forts in FY2016 and early FY2017.

These example activities also

represent a continuum; different

parts of the country have differ-

ent needs relative to materials

management. It also is important

to leverage existing stakeholder

relationships, and EPA expertise

and capacity that varies from

Region to Region and in Head-

quarters. Thus, not every EPA

Region will engage in every activ-

ity being proposed under this

Strategic Plan; there is a flexible

yet focused package of recom-

mended core elements and

action areas that are measurable,

scalable, and when combined,

enable us to implement a cohe-

sive national SMM Program

focused on management of

materials throughout their life

cycle. EPA will continue to com-

mit to achieving specific goals

within the recommended national

program priority areas. Greater

emphasis will be placed on tar-

geting, measuring and reporting

environmental outcomes to aug-

ment the current targeting of

specific numbers of SMM Chal-

lenge participant recruitment

and retention. •

E PA S T RAT EG IC P LAN [CONT ’D ]

34


M A R I N E D E B R I S :

PLASTIC POLLUTION: BILLIONS OFPIECES OF TINY PLASTIC LITTERFOUND IN SAN FRANCISCO BAYBY PAU L ROGERS , SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS

San Francisco Bay is contami-

nated with widespread pollution

from billions of tiny pieces of

plastic in greater concentrations

than the Great Lakes, Chesa-

peake Bay and other major U.S.

bodies of water, according to a

groundbreaking new study.

At least 3.9 million pieces of

plastic pour into the bay every

day from eight large sewage

treatment plants—a relentless

torrent of litter that ranges from

tiny “microbeads” found in cos-

metics, facial scrubs and tooth-

pastes, to bits of synthetic fabric

from fleece jackets, pants and

other clothes, which break down

as they are washed.

“We’re concerned about these

high levels. This was unex-

pected,” said Rebecca Sutton,

a senior scientist at the San

Francisco Estuary Institute, a

nonprofit research center based

in Richmond.

Not only does the plastic contam-

inate the bay and wildlife, experts

say, it is also working its way up

the food chain, binding to chemi-

cals in the water and posing a

potential health risk to people

eating fish caught in the bay.

In the study, the first of its kind

to broadly document pollution

from “microplastic” in the bay,

researchers dragged tight-

meshed nets along the surface

of the water in nine areas of the

bay, from Oakland and Treasure

Island to locations near San Jose.

They found on average 1 million

pieces of tiny plastic per square

kilometer—an area of about 250

acres—at the water’s surface or a

few inches below it in the South

Bay, a concentration nine times

higher than levels of similar

plastics found in Lake Erie.

Further north, off Oakland and

San Francisco, they found

310,000 pieces per square kilo-

meter, still double the highest

levels in Chesapeake Bay and

triple the levels in Lake Erie, the

most polluted of the Great Lakes.

Sutton, a lead author of the

study who has a doctorate in

environmental chemistry from UC

Berkeley, said that researchers

also accidentally captured nine

small fish while taking their

water samples. Inside each fish

they found an average of six

pieces of plastic.

Other scientific studies have

found that tiny pieces of plastic

in the world’s oceans and water

bodies, sometimes so dense that

they outnumber plankton, can

absorb contaminants such as

pesticides and PCBs, which accu-

mulate in fish when they mistake

the plastic for food. The small

fish are then eaten by larger fish.

And people who eat the affected

fish can be exposed to the

chemicals when they consume

the plastic.

Sutton said Monday that more

research is needed to measure

the health effects and to pinpoint

exactly how much plastic is get-

ting into the bay and from what

sources. As part of the study,

which began last fall, researchers

also sampled the treated waste-

water coming from some of the

bay’s largest sewage treatment

plants, including San Jose, the

East Bay Municipal Utility Dis-

trict, the Central Contra Costa

Sanitary District and Palo Alto.

They found tiny plastic pieces

flowing through all the plants—

regardless of how advanced the

technology—because the facili-

ties were designed to treat

sewage, not filter tiny plastic

debris.

(Continued, see Tiny, page 35)

MORE R ES EARCHI S NEEDED TOP INPO INT THESOURCES .

35


Sewage treatment plants in San

Jose and in Oakland released the

most plastic, in large part be-

cause of the dense populations

they serve. The study sampled

eight of the 42 sewage treatment

plants that discharge into the

bay. And that is only part of the

problem: Plastic also flows in

from storm drains, creeks, rivers

and illegal dumping.

Retrofitting all the sewage treat-

ment plants with fine membranes

to catch the particles, many of

which are like confetti, would

cost hundreds of millions of

dollars, said David Williams,

executive director of Bay Area

Clean Water Agencies, an

association of the sewage

treatment plants.

“The micro-particles are of con-

cern to us,” he said. “We’ve

known for some time that there

are things that our plants just

don’t remove.”

Williams said in the short term,

the solution is for people to

avoid putting any type of trash,

particularly plastic, into toilets.

He said consumers also should

not buy cosmetics, facial scrubs

or toothpastes containing plastic

“microbeads.”

Meanwhile, state lawmakers

passed a bill earlier this month

that would ban plastic micro-

beads in cosmetics and other

personal care products sold in

California. The bill, AB 888, by

Assemblyman Richard Bloom,

D-Santa Monica, would impose

the ban starting Jan. 1, 2020.

Gov. Jerry Brown has not indi-

cated if he will sign or veto the

bill, the toughest such ban in

the nation.

Supporters note there are already

products for sale with natural

alternatives, apricot shells and

cocoa beans. Industry groups

tried to get an exemption in the

bill for biodegradeable plastics

but failed.

Jennifer Killinger, a spokes-

woman for the American Chem-

istry Council, said in an email

Monday that plastics companies

have supported recycling and

beach clean-up programs and

that “America’s plastics makers

are on record supporting legisla-

tion to phase out synthetic

microbeads in personal care

products that can be washed

off and end up in marine environ-

ments."

Environmentalists, however, said

the companies knowingly pol-

luted the oceans, San Francisco

Bay and other bodies of water

and should not only have the

plastic additives banned but also

should be required to pay to

retrofit sewage treatment plants

with better filters.

“I’m not sure this is a problem

that taxpayers should have to

take responsibility for,” said

Mark Murray, executive director

of Californians Against Waste, a

Sacramento group. “It’s a prob-

lem that companies should take

responsibility for.” •Reprinted from San Jose Mercury

News, www.mercurynews.com,

September 22, 2015.

T INY P LAS T IC L I T T E R FOUND IN SAN F RANC I SCO BAY [CONT ’D ]

36



OCEAN CONSERVANCY RELEASESGLOBAL REPORT OUTLINING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEM OFPLASTIC WASTE IN OCEANSBY J U L I A ROBERSON, OCEAN CONSERVANCY

Ocean Conservancy announced

the global launch of Stemming

the Tide: Land-based strategies

for a plastic-free ocean – a first-

of-its-kind, solutions-oriented

report in partnership with the

McKinsey Center for Business

and Environment that outlines

specific land-based solutions for

plastic waste in the ocean, start-

ing with the elimination of plastic

waste leakage in five priority

countries (China, Indonesia,

Philippines, Vietnam and

Thailand).

“Today’s report, for the first time,

outlines a specific path forward

for the reduction, and ultimate

elimination, of plastic waste in

the oceans,” said Andreas Merkl,

CEO of Ocean Conservancy. “The

report’s findings confirm what

many have long thought—that

ocean plastic solutions actually

begin on land. It will take a coor-

dinated effort of industry, NGOs

and government to solve this

growing economic and environ-

mental problem.”

Eight million metric tonnes of

plastic leak into the world’s

ocean every year and the

amounts continue to grow.

Without concerted global action,

there could be one ton of plastic

for every 3 tons of fish by 2025,

leading to massive environmen-

tal, economic and health issues.

With at least 80 percent of ocean

plastic originating from land-

based sources, the report’s find-

ings propose a four-point solution

to cutting leakage by 45 percent

in the next 10 years, dramatically

reducing ocean plastic waste by

2025 with the ultimate goal of

eradicating the issue by 2035.

The report estimates that total

costs for implementing these

solutions could be contained at

$5 billion a year, with significant

returns to the global economy.

“Considering this is a global

environmental challenge impact-

ing sanitation and health, land

values, important sources of

global protein, and the growth of

the consumer goods and packag-

ing industries, an estimated $5

billion scale of intervention

makes this one of the most solv-

able of the environmental chal-

lenges we collectively face,” said

Dr. Martin Stuchtey, director of

the McKinsey Center for Business

and Environment.

Stemming the Tide specifically

underscores the important role

of industry in driving the solu-

tions and catalyzing public and

private investment to solve the

problem of ocean plastic leakage

“We’re committed to working to-

ward a future of a plastic-free

ocean,” said Jeff Wooster, global

sustainability director, Dow Pack-

aging and Specialty Plastics, a

partner on the report. “Compa-

nies don’t make plastic with the

intent of it ending up in the

ocean, and we acknowledge the

strong role industry must play in

order to help eliminate ocean

plastic waste by 2035.”

In the short and medium term,

the report calls for accelerated

development of waste collection

and plugging of post-collection

leakage, followed by the devel-

opment and rollout of commer-

cially viable treatment options.

In the long term, the report

identifies the critical need for

innovations in recovery and treat-

ment technologies, development

of new materials and product

designs that better facilitate

reuse or recycling.

The report further emphasizes

the need for all approaches and

solutions to be tailored at the

regional level, specifically in the

five priority countries identified,

which account for half of all plas-

tic leakage globally. While coun-

tries have made major improve-

ments in curbing plastic leakage,

greater global support is needed

to scale impact swiftly in these

priority regions.

(Continued, see Global, page 37)

NEW RE PORT OUT L INES A PATHFORWARD TO R EDUC INGOCEAN P LAS T ICWASTE BY 45% BY 2025 .

37


“The issue of plastic waste in our

oceans is having drastic conse-

quences on the livelihoods and

health of the people of Dagu-

pan,” said Belen Fernandez,

Mayor of the city of Dagupan, a

coastal community in the Philip-

pines. “Our town has had a dump

site on our beach for over 50

years. We’re working hard to

close the dump, and increase the

capacity of waste management in

Dagupan. Addressing the prob-

lem of ocean plastic will have

real benefits for not just the envi-

ronment, but for our citizens—

by improving their quality of life.

I hope our city and our work will

become a model for what’s possi-

ble around the world.” The report

underscores that the next 10

years will be critical to

effectively solve the problem of

ocean plastic—a problem that

is not just local, but global in

nature. To achieve success, the

report calls for a concerted

global response driven by an

international coalition of compa-

nies, governments and NGOs

that will catalyze commitments

from political leadership, provide

local “proofs of concept,” pro-

vide waste management technol-

ogy support and prioritize the

ocean plastic waste issue as part

of the global policy agenda on

the ocean and the environment.

The report is a signature initia-

tive of the Trash Free Seas

Alliance, an effort of Ocean Con-

servancy to unite industry, sci-

ence and conservation leaders

who share a common goal for

a healthy ocean free of trash.

The report was made possible

through the support of numerous

partners, including The Dow

Chemical Company, The Coca-

Cola Company, the American

Chemistry Council, REDISA and

World Wildlife Fund, as well as

the following funders: Adessium

Foundation, 11th Hour Racing,

Hollomon Price Foundation,

Forrest C. & Frances H. Lattner

Foundation and Mariposa

Foundation. •To download the full version of

the report as well as additional

assets for the launch, click here

to visit the report’s landing page

at www.oceanconservancy.org.

ABOUT THE OCEAN CONSERVANCYOcean Conservancy is working

with you to protect the ocean

from today’s greatest global

challenges. Together, we create

science-based solutions for a

healthy ocean and the wildlife

and communities that depend

on it.

ABOUT THE MCKINSEY CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENT The McKinsey Center for Busi-

ness and Environment works

with businesses, governments,

and nonprofits to tackle some

the world's most pressing and

important natural resource is-

sues in ways that improve both

economic growth and resource

use.

Reprinted from www.oceancon-

servancy.org, September 30,

2015.

OCEAN CONSERVANCY ’ S G LOBA L R E PORT [CONT ’D ]

http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/marine-debris/stop-plastic-trash-2015.html

http://www.oceanconservancy.org/

http://www.heritage-bag.com/

38



CHINESE PLASTICS ASSOCIATIONSJOIN EFFORT TO REDUCE MARINEDEBRISBY ANNE MAR I E MOHAN, PACKAG ING WOR LD

Three associations representing

China’s plastics industry have

become the latest signatories to

the industry’s Global Declaration

for Solutions on Marine Litter, a

commitment to help find and

implement solutions for keeping

plastics out of the ocean.

The China Petroleum and Chemi-

cal Industry Federation (CPCIF),

the China Synthetic Resin Mar-

keting Association, and the China

Plastics Processing Industry As-

sociation (CPPIA) have officially

signed on to the global declara-

tion under which plastic industry

leaders commit to contribute to

scientific research, knowledge

sharing, and partnerships to

develop post-use solutions that

treat plastics as resources and

keep them out of the marine

environment.

“Plastics are essential to achiev-

ing a sustainable society, because

they reduce waste, energy use,

and greenhouse gas emissions,

all while improving the quality of

modern life,” says CPCIF Chair-

man Li Shousheng. “We must

continue working together to

find post-use solutions that take

advantage of these valuable

materials so they don’t become

litter or create ‘white pollution.’”

“We welcome and commend

China’s plastics industry for

joining global efforts to address

marine debris,” says Steve Rus-

sell, Vice President of Plastics for

the American Chemistry Council.

“Marine debris is a complex,

global problem, and China’s

participation is a strong signal

that this industry is committed

to doing our part in providing

solutions.”

To date more than 60 associa-

tions in 34 countries have signed

the plastics industry’s global

declaration, through which 185

projects have been planned,

initiated, or completed since its

launch in March 2011. These

associations report on their

progress annually.

Earlier this year, CPPIA became

a partner in the plastics indus-

try’s Operation Clean Sweep®

program, an effort designed to

help companies that handle plas-

tics raw materials properly con-

tain these resources and prevent

them from entering the marine

environment. •Reprinted from Packaging World,

www.packworld.com, November

10, 2015.

MORE THAN 60ASSOC IAT IONSIN 34 COUNTR IESHAVE S IGNEDTHE P LAS T ICS INDUST RY ’ SG LOBA L DEC LARAT ION.

http://www.reifenhauserinc.com/

39


E P S :

JUDGE OVERTURNS MAYOR DE BLASIO’S BAN ON PLASTICFOAM IN NEW YORK CITYBY BARBARA ROSS , NY DA I LY NEWS

Packing peanuts just got a

reprieve.

A Manhattan judge Tuesday over-

turned Mayor de Blasio’s ban on

plastic foam—commonly known

as Styrofoam—trashing the

administration’s environmental

initiative to reduce waste in the

city’s landfills.

In July, the city banned all busi-

nesses in the five boroughs from

using plastic foam containers

after Sanitation Commissioner

Kathryn Garcia determined that

the squeaky packaging couldn’t

be recycled if it was soiled

with food.

Small businesses want de Blasio

to ax styrofoam reform

But experts hired by the Restau-

rant Action Alliance said that

assessment was garbage, and

dished up enough conflicting

evidence to make a judge lift

the ban.

“The commissioner’s concern is

not justified given abundant

evidence showing a viable and

growing market for not just clean

EPS (expanded polystyrene

foam) but postconsumer EPS

material,” Manhattan Supreme

Court Justice Margaret Chan

ruled.

She noted that plastic foam

recycling is “beyond the pilot

program stages or still paddling

in untested waters.”

The city may appeal the decision.

“We disagree with the ruling,”

said Ishanee Parikh, a de Blasio

spokeswoman.

“These products cause real envi-

ronmental harm and we need to

be able to prevent nearly 30,000

tons of expanded polystyrene

waste from entering our landfills,

streets, and waterways. We are

reviewing our options to keep

the ban in effect.”

City schools alone were throwing

away 800,000 foam lunch trays a

day, officials said. New York had

been the largest city in America

to outlaw polystyrene foam.

Restaurant groups were happy

with the ruling.

“We’re very gratified by the

judge’s decision and we now look

forward to working with the city

to implement a comprehensive

recycling program,” said Randy

Mastro, the attorney who

represented the alliance.

But some vendors said they

won’t go back. “Styrofoam cups

are cheaper and they also keep

the coffee warmer,” said Alex

Hwang, 39, manager at Mid-

town’s Dali Market. “But they are

bad for the landfills. People have

gotten used to paper cups.”

Tyson Crosbie, 37, a barista at

Midtown’s Culture Expresso, said

plastic foam won’t be making a

return to his coffee shop. “Our

customers won’t like it,” Crosbie

said. “They are also not good for

the environment. They are not

good to have around.” •Reprinted from New York Daily

News, www.nydailynews.com,

September 22, 2015.

NEW YORK HAD B E EN THELARGES T C I T Y IN AMER ICA TO OUT LAWPOLYS TY R ENEFOAM.

40


E P S :

CABRERA PROPOSES FOAMRECYCLING BILLBY DAV ID G IAMBUSSO , PO L I T ICO

In the wake of Mayor Bill de

Blasio’s legal defeat over a pro-

posed polystyrene foam ban, City

Councilman Fernando Cabrera,

flanked by plastic industry repre-

sentatives, proposed a bill

Tuesday that would require the

recycling of all foam products

produced by the city.

“One hundred percent of this

material can be recycled with a

comprehensive foam recycling

plan,” Cabrera said during a

press conference on the steps of

City Hall. “Why landfill when you

can recycle?”

The proposed legislation, which

is still in the drafting stage, is the

latest push in a years-long fight

over polystyrene foam products.

In January, de Blasio and sanita-

tion commissioner Kathryn

Garcia announced the ban, predi-

cated on the assertion that there

was no long-term, economically

viable method of recycling food

and beverage containers made

of polystyrene foam.

Dart Container Corp., one of the

country’s biggest polystyrene

manufacturers, and a coalition of

local restaurant groups mounted

a legal challenge and won. State

Supreme Court Justice Margaret

Chan ruled that de Blasio’s ban

was inconsistent with Local Law

142, which required the city to

examine the economic viability

of recycling.

Dart, teaming up with Indiana-

based Plastic Recycling Incorpo-

rated, offered the city a five-year

contract guaranteeing they

would recycle not only food and

beverage containers but foam

packing products and other foam

products as well. Industry repre-

sentatives said they would guar-

antee the city as much as $9.3

million a year while saving

roughly $5 million a year in

tipping fees.

“My company wants to purchase

100 percent of the expanded

polystyrene in the New York City

recycling stream,” said Fred

Read, general manager of Plastic

Recycling Incorporated. “It’s a

nice economic and environmental

win for the city.”

City officials did not immediately

respond to a request for comment,

but have long argued that the

five-year plan proposed by the

plastics industry did not repre-

sent a long-term solution. Justice

Chan disagreed and when the

city tried to appeal her ruling,

the Appellate Division denied

the city’s motion.

As of last week, the city was still

weighing its options. •Reprinted from Politico New York,

www.capitalnewyork.com,

December 8, 2015.

DART OF F E R EDTHE C I T Y A F I V E -Y EAR CONTRACTGUARANTEE INGEPS R ECYC L ING .

41


E P S :

ALLIANCE APPLAUDS DECISIONTO OVERTURN FOAM BANBY SARAH GOULD , R E S TAURANT ACT ION A L L I ANCE

The New York State Supreme

Court’s Appellate Division denied

New York City’s motion to appeal

an earlier decision overturning

the City’s ban on foam foodser-

vice products. Members of the

recycling industry, restaurant

owners, and others immediately

applauded the decision, which

will open the door for foam

recycling in New York City.

“In September, New York

Supreme Court Justice Margaret

Chan overturned the City’s ban

on foam foodservice products,”

said Randy Mastro, an attorney

with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

LLP. “Today, we are gratified that

the appellate court has denied

the City’s request to immediately

appeal that decision. We remain

steadfast in our commitment to

helping the City recycle 100% of

its foam products and hope that

the Mayor and Sanitation Com-

missioner decide to implement

the industry-funded comprehen-

sive recycling proposal currently

sitting on their desks, which

would be a ‘win-win’ for every-

one.”

The initial lawsuit, which was

filed by the Restaurant Action

Alliance NYC, a coalition of New

York City restaurant owners from

all five boroughs, Dart Container

Corporation, recycling compa-

nies, and foam manufacturers,

sought to overturn a ban on foam

products used in small restau-

rants all over the city. Instead of

embracing a proposal that would

have recycled 100% of the city’s

used foam products, the city

chose to ban a little more than

20% of foam, while sending the

remaining 80% into landfills. A

New York State Supreme Court

overturned the ban, deeming it

“arbitrary and capricious” and

cleared the way for further

opportunities to embrace a

recycling proposal.

“The Appellate Division’s deci-

sion to deny the City’s request

further proves what we have

been saying all along: foam prod-

ucts can and should be recycled

in New York City,” said Michael

Westerfield, Corporate Director

of Recycling Programs at Dart

Container Corporation. “The

evidence proves it— expanded

polystyrene foam is 100 percent

recyclable and can be recycled

safely at no cost to taxpayers. By

allowing foam recycling to move

forward, the City will save hun-

dreds of jobs and bring in mil-

lions of dollars in savings, while

doing what’s best for the envi-

ronment.” •Reprinted from Restaurant Action

Alliance press release, December

3, 2015.

BY A L LOWINGFOAM R ECY-C L ING TO MOVEFORWARD , THEC I T Y W I L L SAVEHUNDREDS OFJOBS ANDBR ING IN M I L L IONS OFDOL LARS IN SAV INGS .

42


E P S :

RECYCLING UPDATE: HOME FOR FOAMDart’s Community Action Team

provided 9 recycling tours,

participated in 5 foam recycling/

clean-up events, and gave 9

off-site educational presentations

last quarter. Please let us know if

you would like to participate in

future events.

Curbside Recycling: For a de-

tailed list of U.S. cities that offer

curbside and drop-off recycling

for clean post-consumer foam

foodservice containers, go to

www.HomeForFoam.com and

click on the Foam 101 tab.

Drop-off Locations: More loca-

tions have been added through-

out the U.S. For a list of drop-off

locations for clean foam food -

service containers, please go

to www.dart.biz/recycle.

School Lunch Tray Recycling:

The following schools are now

recycling their foam lunch trays

or other foam materials with

Dart: Addams Elementary (Royal

Oak, MI), Ann Arbor Public (Ann

Arbor, MI), Arlington Heights USD

#25 (Chicago, IL), Central Michi-

gan U (Mt. Pleasant, MI), Chula

Vista USD (Chula Vista, CA),

Forest View Elementary (Lansing,

MI), Hanford USD (Hanford, CA),

Harvest Elementary (Saline, MI),

Hemet USD (Hemet, CA), Heritage

Elementary (Saline, MI), Hope D.

Wall School (Aurora, IL), Irvine

USD (Irvine, CA), Lodi USD (Lodi,

CA), Long Beach USD (Long Beach,

CA), Lawndale USD (Lawndale,

CA), Essexville Hampton (Essex-

ville, MI), Highlands Middle

School (Grand Rapids, MI), John

Paul II Catholic School (Lincoln

Park, MI), Kalamazoo College

(Kalamazoo, MI), Liberty (Saline,

MI), Marble Elementary (East

Lansing, MI), Marie Elementary

(Grosse Pointe, MI), Michigan

State University (East Lansing,

MI), Ontario USD (Ontario, CA),

Paint Creek Elementary (Lake

Orion, MI), Pleasant Ridge

(Saline, MI), Post Oak Elementary

(Lansing, MI), Quitman Upper

Elementary School (Quitman,

MS), Ramona USD (Ramona, CA),

Robinson Elementary School

(Grand Haven, MI), Santee USD

(Santee, CA), Silver Springs

Elementary (Northville, MI),

Smith Elementary School (Ply-

mouth, MI), South Bay USD

(Imperial Beach, CA), Torrance

USD (Torrance, CA), U of Michi-

gan (Ann Arbor, MI), Valley View

School District (Romeoville, IL),

Western Michigan U (Kalamazoo,

MI), Winchester Elementary

(Northville, MI), Woodland Mead-

ows (Saline, MI). For more infor-

mation on school recycling, go to

www.dart.biz/schools.

Recycla-Pak Placements: This

is a U.S. mail-back program in

which customers purchase a cor-

rugated container from Dart that

serves as a foam cup collection

device as well as a shipping con-

tainer. We now have sold more

than 5,787 kits. Each kit holds

two collection devices. For

more information, please go

to www.recycla-pak.com.

CARE Placements: The Cups Are

REcyclable program helps large

end-users of Dart foam foodser-

vice products collect and com-

pact their post-consumer foam

so it can be recycled. This pro-

gram has spread to fifteen states

and we now have thirty-nine

participants. For more details,

please go to www.dart.biz/care.

Recycling Partners: Go to

www.dart.biz/partners to learn

more about the businesses Dart

partners with to recycle foam. In

addition, this page serves as a

database for recyclers that want

to buy post-industrial and post-

consumer foam.

News Bits: See the latest infor-

mation about Dart’s recycling,

education, and litter abatement

efforts as reported by media

throughout the U.S. at

www.dart.biz/enewsbits.

The Dart Channel on YouTube

now has a section dedicated to

recycling videos. Videos include

residential MRF recycling for

foam, picture frame manufactur-

ing with post-consumer foam,

school lunch tray recycling, and

footage of Dart’s Corona wash

and dry facility. See

http://www.youtube.com/user/

DartContainerCorp. •Reprinted from Dart Container

Corp. press release, 3rd Quarter,

2015.

THE DART CHANNE L ONYOUTUBE HAS A S ECT ION DED ICATED TORECYC L INGV IDEOS .

http://www.youtube.com/user/DartContainerCorp

43


L E G I S L AT I O N :

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY ONCALIFORNIA’S WASTE AGENDABY ROGER R ENST ROM, P LAS T ICS NEWS

A California agency’s effort to

reduce reliance on landfills

includes a strategy promoting

extended producer responsibility.

That provision makes Sacra-

mento lobbyist Bruce Magnani

“nervous,” he said in remarks

at the Western Plastics Associa-

tion’s Nov. 10 dinner meeting

in Norwalk.

The state’s Department of

Resources Recycling and Recov-

ery—operating as CalRecycle—

aims by 2020 to reach a goal of

75 percent recycling, composting

or source reduction of solid

waste.

Magnani envisions CalRecycle

mandating recycled content

rules, the California Air Resources

Board banning organics from

landfills and the state creating

regulations for recovering food-

service waste.

Among its efforts, CalRecycle will

hold a packaging workshop,

dubbed the Manufacturers’ Chal-

lenge, on Jan. 5 in Sacramento.

Up to seven hours are allocated

for product manufacturers and

brand owners to explain what

they are “willing to do, on an

industry-wide level, to recover

their product packaging to help

California” reach the 75-percent

goal by 2020, Magnani said.

CalRecycle “wants companies to

be smarter about how they pack-

age goods” and seeks to draw

inputs from major players such

as Coca-Cola, Magnani said.

Magnani is a principal with the

Sacramento firm Houston Mag-

nani & Associates, whose clients

include WPA.

Other issues

Magnani also gave a portion

of the back story about the fate

of SB-350, the pending Clean

Energy and Pollution Reduction

Act of 2015.

He quoted Democratic Gov. Jerry

Brown: “Oil has won the skirmish,

but they’ve lost the bigger bat-

tle,” referring to public opinion.

The bill proposes to increase

the state’s renewable portfolio

standard to 50 percent by 2030.

Brown signed legislation in 2011

to increase the standard to 33

percent by 2020.

In early September, moderate

Democrats in the Assembly stood

firm in opposition to certain SB-

350 provisions, in part reflecting

views of their backers in the pe-

troleum and trucking industries.

“The battle is not over,” Magnani

noted.

Magnani did not discuss Califor-

nia’s 2016 referendum on a pro-

posed statewide ban on single-

use plastic bags.

Magnani has 22 years of govern-

ment affairs counseling experi-

ence in the state capital and says

that Sacramento has “a culture

onto itself.”

Under revised legislative term

limits, “90 percent of the mem-

bers are capable to staying [in

office] until 2024,” he said.

The advent of citizen-led legisla-

tive redistricting rules and open

primaries are “all leading to more

moderate members” and fewer

of those with extreme conserva-

tive or liberal orientations,

he noted. •© 1995-2015 Crain Communica-

tions Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Reprinted from Plastics News,

www.plasticsnews.com, Novem-

ber 11, 2015.

CA L R ECYC L E W I L L HO LD APACKAG INGWORKSHOP ON J AN .5 INSACRAMENTO.

http://www.plasticsnews.com/

44



HOW THE GOP GAINED CONTROLOF AIR QUALITY BOARDBY MART IN W ISCKOLM , O .C . R EG I S T E R S TA F F COLUMN IS T

A concerted, back-channels

effort by Republican leaders has

succeeded in gaining a board

majority at the South Coast Air

Quality Management District,

which oversee the regulation and

compliance of everything from

power plants to gas stations.

The shift occurred Thursday

evening, when the Orange County

City Selection Committee

narrowly selected Republican

Dwight Robinson over the Demo-

cratic incumbent, Santa Ana

Mayor Miguel Pulido, as Orange

County cities’ representative on

the air quality board.

Robinson, a Lake Forest council-

man, will take his seat on the

13-member board in January.

Provided no Republicans are

replaced by Democrats before

then, Robinson will give the GOP

a 7-6 edge that could result in

less stringent air quality policies.

“This is definitely reason to cele-

brate,” said Orange County GOP

Chairman Fred Whitaker. He said

that gas stations have been over-

regulated and expressed concern

about future regulations govern-

ing trucks carrying goods from

the ports of Los Angeles and

Long Beach.

Robinson is vice president and

general manager of Los Angeles

Harbor Grain Terminal, a busi-

ness at the L.A. port that loads

exporters’ agricultural goods into

cargo containers.

Additionally, Whitaker said,

“There’s been an overemphasis

in my opinion on alternative

fuels before the market is ready

for them.”

But some lamented the possibil-

ity that air quality would deterio-

rate, pointing out that surrounding

mountains were often obscured

by smog 30 years ago.

“It’s an injustice to the region

that’s the direction the Republi-

cans want to go in,” said Garden

Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen, a

Democrat who voted for Pulido.

Back channels

While the air quality board and

city councils are non-partisan,

Whitaker and state GOP Chair-

man Jim Brulte are working to

build Republican influence at the

local level as part of a long-range

plan to build muscle at the state-

wide level. Democrats hold every

statewide seat and a strong

majority of the state’s Legislature

and congressional delegation.

“It’s part of our strategy in a

state where it will take a long

time to win statewide offices,”

Whitaker said. The immediate

focus includes both city councils

and regional boards like the air

quality panel.

The Republican drive to gain a

majority on the board included

letters from Whitaker to every

GOP mayor in the county, phone

calls from Whitaker and—accord-

ing to Irvine City Councilman

Jeff Lalloway—phone calls from

Brulte and GOP consultant

Mike Madrid.

It also included the replacement

of at least one member of the City

Selection Committee to ensure

Robinson had enough votes to

prevail over Pulido. That commit-

tee includes the mayor or the

mayor’s representative from

each city in the county. To win

approval, a candidate needed to

win a majority of the cities and

those cities must represent a

majority of the county population.

Robinson ended up winning the

cities in attendance, 21-12, and

the population, 54 percent,

according to OCPolitical.com,

which live blogged the event

(Continued, see GOP, page 45)

BU I L D ING GOPINF LUENCE ATTHE LOCA L L E V E LI S PA RT OF ALONG - RANGEP LAN TO GA INMUSC L E AT THES TAT EW IDE L E V E L .

45


online. Winning Irvine, the

county’s third largest city, was

crucial for Robinson to win the

majority of the population.

Lalloway, a Republican who had

been Irvine’s representative until

this meeting, said he received a

call from Madrid Oct. 29 encour-

aging him to vote for Robinson.

Lalloway says he explained to

Madrid that the panel had never

been politicized—and didn’t

commit his vote for or against

Robinson.

Four hours later, he received an

email from Republican Irvine

Mayor Steven Choi stating he’d

been replaced as Irvine’s repre-

sentative, deepening a rift

between the two. Lalloway

responded with an email rescind-

ing his endorsement of Choi’s

campaign for Assembly.

Madrid and Choi did not immedi-

ately return calls for comment.

Choi replaced Lalloway with

Republican Christina Shea, who

voted for Robinson. I asked

Whitaker if he thinks his efforts

made a difference.

“Absolutely,” he said. •

Reprinted from Orange County

Register, www.ocregister.com,

November 6, 2015.

GOP CONTROLS SCAQMD [CONT ’D ]

46



HOW INDUSTRY FUELS THEANTI-PLASTICS MOVEMENT—OR AVOIDS ITBY DANNA P FAH L , FU TURE 500

Recycling and packaging cam-

paigns come in a recurring cycle

of waves that approach and

recede, but rarely quite reach

the shore. It’s time to change

the cycle.

Plastic waste is usually the

trigger that sets loose each new

wave. Everyone sees plastic

bags, juice packs and bottles

strewn over the environment—

spanning both land and sea.

Moms worry intensely about

chemicals in plastic packaging

leaching into to their family’s

food. Thus, almost every two to

four years, public attention and

controversy surrounding plastic

packaging bubbles up and ulti-

mately boils over, resulting in

a new wave of legislative and

voluntary initiatives targeting

resource recovery and reuse.

Each wave of legislation, typi-

cally proposed by NGOs and

government stakeholders, gener-

ates a counter-wave of industry-

led voluntary initiatives.

The plastics industry almost

takes it for granted that it will

face a virtually unending stream

of legislative challenges at the

local and state level, approach-

ing and receding every year or

two. Bans, restrictions, mandates

and fees will be aimed at an array

of resins and products. Each

time, industry sectors turn back

the onslaught with a new volun-

tary initiative to undercut the

wave, plus compromises on the

scattered new laws that land

on shore.

The net result: one or two new

voluntary initiatives—short-lived

pilot projects to educate a new

generation of advocates and

lobbyists in the lessons learned

in the last cycle—plus a scattering

of minor new rules and regulations.

In the latest go-around, industry

has been leading voluntary

efforts like the Closed Loop

Fund and AMERIPEN. Meanwhile,

NGOs like Upstream and Califor-

nians Against Waste have tried to

advance policy at the state level

around producer responsibility

and product bans. Recycling

rates remain stagnant, and

stakeholders across communi-

ties remain frustrated.

But a new stakeholder coalition

has emerged that will potentially

break up this cycle: new cam-

paigners. Not just the long-time

recycling campaigners, but

oceans, toxics and climate advo-

cates. They are charting the

impacts of post-consumer waste

and are looking for solutions,

both nationally and globally.

Right now, stakeholders tell me

they face two clear messages

from industry—the same mes-

sages that recycling advocates

have heard for decades:

First: NO to Policy. No bans, no

extended producer responsibility,

no bottle bills, no landfill bans.

And we will fight you at the state

level, and undermine your fund-

ing, if you seek to propose them.

Second: YES to Voluntary. But

don’t ask us about free riders

and issues of scale.

As the above message is perpet-

uated across industry, market

demand for plastic packaging is

on the rise. As this demand is

met, with little means to collect

it after consumption, it isn’t

surprising that millions of tons

of plastic are entering our oceans

each year. NGOs are understand-

ably skeptical that voluntary

approaches will substantially

move the needle to stop this

tsunami of trash. This leaves an

easy opening for them, as well

as other stakeholders who

have faced difficulties engaging

industry, to advance an anti-

plastics narrative.

But it doesn’t have to be that

way. The plastics industry can

(Continued, see Fuel, page 47)

THE P LAS T ICS INDUST RY TAKESI T FOR GRANTEDTHAT I T W I L LFACE AN UNEND -ING S T R EAM OFL EG I S LAT I V ECHA L L ENGES .

47


FUE L FOR ANT I - P L AS T ICS MOVEMENT [CONT ’D ]

avoid most of the product-by-

product campaigns by moving

just one step further ahead and

taking ownership of the issue.

While they may be skeptical,

industry would be well served to

understand the stakeholders

more fully. For the most part,

these activists aren’t intrinsically

anti-plastic or anti-packaging.

They are interested in protecting

ecosystems, both ecological and

economic. Approach them with

systemic solutions, and 80 per-

cent of the activists can work

with you, not against you.

If companies are wary of new,

command-and-control costs

stemming from government poli-

cies or campaigns attaching their

packaging to ocean pollution,

then the status quo message is

a good one. Short-term heel

dragging will lead to a politically

entrenched stakeholder dynamic

in the long-term, deepening

stakeholder silos and mistrust.

We have found that this strategy

only leads to drawn out and

often costly fights, distracting

all communities from the

real problem.

The opportunity to work collabo-

ratively with NGOs and govern-

ment is still on the table, should

industry decide to pivot their

current approach. It is in indus-

try’s best interest to seize the

moment to build across the aisle

and help solve the problem, not

just identify it. We need industry

leaders that will have the intel-

lectual honesty to be proactive.

We also need NGOs to be open

to working with industry, if they

show a real serious commitment

to engage.

Industry would do best to come

back with simple, market-based

approaches to these problems.

Work with NGOs to set the tar-

gets, and let industry leverage its

technology, expertise and supply

chains to create solutions that

can develop closed loop systems.

This must start with the acknowl-

edgement that producers bear

some financial burden, which

consumers too will bear, and that

we must move beyond ineffective

voluntary solutions. We may or

may not need laws, but to avoid

onerous mandates, a system

that rewards problem-solvers

is essential. Although this may

seem difficult to swallow now,

it is reality, and a much more

prudent strategy long-term.

It’s also the right thing to do for

both people and planet, and

when all else fails, that’s worth

trying. •Reprinted from environmental-

leader.com, September 8, 2015.

Tier One Resin Distributor for the Americas and Beyond.

Some customers believe it’s a feat of superhuman strength when companies stand by their word for price, delivery and service. We like to think that integrity is injection molded into our DNA.

Whatever your needs. We’ll make it happen.

Osterman-co.com • [email protected] • 800.914.4437

Visit Osterman Market Intelligence (OMI) on our website for cutting edge Intel on the resin industry all in one place - www.osterman-co.com/omi

http://www.environmentalleader.com/

http://www.osterman-co.com/

48



JIM COOPER, RUDY SALAS CHOSEN TO LEAD CA ASSEMBLYMODERATE DEMOCRATSBY J E R EMY B . WH I T E , SACRAMENTO BEE

Moderate Democrats in the

California Assembly on Tuesday

chose Assemblymen Jim Cooper,

D-Elk Grove, and Rudy Salas, D-

Bakersfield, to lead their caucus,

multiple sources confirmed.

The decision, which took place

during a policy retreat at Torrey

Pines in San Diego, followed

Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-

Fresno, the current leader of

the business-friendly group,

announcing last week that he

would renounce his Assembly

seat. It was not yet clear how

Cooper or Salas would share

leadership duties.

A leadership change coincides

with the caucus’ rising clout in

Sacramento. While Democrats

firmly control Sacramento, the

moderate caucus has made its

mark by diluting or blocking

legislation opposed by business

groups.

Unlike more formal legislative

blocs, like the California Legisla-

tive Women’s Caucus or the in-

creasingly influential California

Latino Legislative Caucus, the

moderate group does not have

an official website or hold press

conferences to highlight its prior-

ity bills. But its members gener-

ally align with business interests

who oppose regulations they say

will slow growth or cost jobs.

The most notable example this

year was the decision by Demo-

cratic leadership to amend an

agenda-leading climate bill so

it would not mandate a sharp

reduction in petroleum use. With

oil companies fiercely contesting

the measure, moderate Democ-

rats proved unwilling to lend

their support.

Changes in the political process

have aided the bloc’s rise. Busi-

ness interests have recognized

an opening in California’s top-

two primary system, showering

money on more centrist candi-

dates in the Democrat-on-Demo-

crat races that have proliferated

under the new system. •Reprinted from Sacramento Bee,

www.sacbee.com, December 8,

2015.

CHANGES INTHE PO L I T ICA LP ROCESS HAVEA IDED THEB LOC ’S R I S E .

49


EXTRUSION | PRINTING | CONVERTING

Windmoeller & Hoelscher

23 New England Way · Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865-4252 Phone 800-854-8702 · [email protected] · www.whcorp.com

What do you get when teams of brilliant

minds scrutinize each component of

the proven VAREX range to make it

even better? Higher output, superb

ergonomics, improved safety and a

new world of energy effi ciency.

More than just a pretty face: VAREX II.

VAREX II’s modular design provides fl exibility

for producing blown fi lms from diverse resins.

With the new ENERGY MONITORING module,

you get real-time data, making it easier than ever

to identify potential savings. And that’s just the

beginning ...

http://www.whcorp.com/

50


M E M B E R N E W S :

NINA BEHNIA-ZERMAN JOINSSHIP & SHORE ENVIRONMENTALTEAM Nina Behnia-Zerman, a crusader

on environmental issues and

solutions for nearly three decades,

has joined Ship & Shore Environ-

mental, Inc., the Long Beach,

Calif.-based woman-owned,

certified business specializing in

air pollution capture and control

systems for industrial applications.

“We are pleased to welcome Nina

to the team,” says Anoosheh M.

Oskouian, President and Chief

Executive Officer at Ship &

Shore. “In her career, Nina has

helped numerous companies by

combining her high level of skills

with the foresight needed to

create energy solutions that go

beyond basic conservation.”

Prior to joining Ship & Shore,

Behnia-Zerman served at Eco

Isometrix, 3M CUNO Division,

Bruile and Kajer, Eagle Monitor-

ing Systems and Kraft Food

Industries, among other compa-

nies. Her business-to-business

experience in several capacities

provides the foundation to under-

stand the challenges faced by

many industries that are search-

ing for sustainability solutions.

Along those lines, Behnia-Zerman

has served as project manager,

director of sales, general man-

ager, operations manager, senior

vice president, and president.

“Her wide, deep background give

Nina the ability to understand

what it takes to successfully

manage complex environmental

programs, from small businesses

to Fortune 500 companies,”

Oskouian says.

Behnia-Zerman expects to be a

perfect fit with Ship & Shore, as

her career has been focused on

developing new, efficient designs

for detecting and destroying

volatile organic compounds

(VOC), and she also has helped

initiate effective processes for

reducing costs and saving energy

to help companies implement

on-site renewable energy

production.

Her additional expertise includes

energy program planning, energy

conservation assessments and

solutions to optimize operations,

and research planning and meas-

urable benefits—a clear demon-

stration of her commitment to

improving the environment and

the community. Now, by working

with Ship & Shore, she is looking

to help clients offer measurable

energy cost comparison and sav-

ings by identifying best-in-class

solutions that meet or exceed

current client standards.

“During my entire career, I’ve had

a true passion for reducing envi-

ronmental pollution,” she says.

“Of course, that means I am

proud to be part of the Ship &

Shore team, because its main

focus is delivering state-of-the-

art solutions to industries in

terms of identification, capture

and destruction of air pollution,

while recovering maximum

energy.”

Behnia-Zerman, who holds a

Bachelor’s Degree in Chemical

Engineering from the University

of Missouri, has been a true

advocate in community service,

serving on the boards or as a

member of many non-profit

organizations, including the

Mother and Child Foundation,

the National Breast Cancer

Coalition, Beneath the Veil (a

woman’s right advocacy group),

the UNICEF Water Conservation

Program and the Los Angeles

Unified School Board. •Reprinted from Ship & Shore

press release, September 15,

2015.

BEHN IA - Z E RMANEXPECTS TO BE A P E R F ECT F I TW I TH SH I P &SHORE .

51



POLLUTION EQUIPMENT F IRMCLEANS UP IN CALIFORNIABY CAROL L AWRENCE , LOS ANGE L ES BUS INESS JOURNA L

If you’re a manufacturer in South-

ern California already complying

with ozone emissions standards,

news that tougher ones are on

their way might send a chill down

your spine—unless you’re Ship &

Shore Environmental Inc.

When environmental regulations

get stricter, or new ones appear,

business picks up for the Signal

Hill designer and builder of sys-

tems that capture ozone-forming

chemicals and other pollutants

from industrial plants. Now,

thanks to rules issued Oct. 1 by

the federal Environmental Protec-

tion Agency that toughened up

standards on allowable ozone

levels, Ship & Shore’s owners

expect business to ramp up as

manufacturers react to the

new rules.

Anoosheh Oskouian, a chemical

engineer who is the firm’s co-

owner and president, said that

since new rules were issued at

the beginning of the month she

has been getting calls from

across the country and has

begun hiring more fabricators

to build the systems, engineers

to design them and sales people

to focus on the market for ozone

reduction.

“As soon as I read this, I started

requesting more engineers,”

Oskouian said. “We’ve had a few

calls from existing clients. A few

have systems already and they

want to add on new ones. As

soon as they read an article like

that, they realize that it’s no

longer talk, but it’s in the

pipeline. Ship & Shore will be

growing as a result.”

Changing focus

National clean air standards and

California’s air quality manage-

ment districts have reduced the

L.A. basin area’s smog by 30 per-

cent since 2000, according to the

EPA, but the region still has the

nation’s highest ozone emissions

levels.

Changing and new environmental

standards are why co-owners

Oskouian and John Von Bargen,

a chemical and mechanical engi-

neer, bought Ship & Shore, then

a metal fabrication shop, in

2000. They saw an opportunity

to expand it to design, engineer

and manufacture pollution reduc-

tion systems. It now employs

about 50 people working on

about 55 projects a year. Though

she did not disclose annual rev-

enue figures, Oskouian said that

revenue has grown 10 percent to

15 percent annually since 2010.

Ship & Shore’s systems handle

different toxic chemical emissions,

such as hydrocarbons and

volatile organic compounds that

can help form ozone once they

react with sunlight. Customers

include makers of plastic packag-

ing, coatings for pharmaceuticals

and automotive parts as well as

food processors, food flavor

manufacturers and refineries.

The systems cost from $150,000

to $1.5 million, Oskouian said.

Regular regulation

The latest set of regulatory

changes are not the first to boost

Ship & Shore’s bottom line.

California’s Global Warming Solu-

tions Act of 2012, which requires

sharp cuts to greenhouse gas

emissions through renewable

energy devices and other con-

sumption reduction practices,

helped feed a 10 percent to 15

percent boost in business over

(Continued, see Cleans, page 52)

PUSH TO CUTEM I SS IONSBUOYS SH I P & SHORE ’ S BUS INESS .

52


the next three years, Oskouian

said. The company saw orders

rise for its energy recovery sys-

tems, which capture waste heat

from manufacturing equipment

as it runs and convert it into ther-

mal energy before feeding it back

to fuel operations or to provide

heat during cool weather.

Ship & Shore has also benefited

from regulatory changes over-

seas. It is seeing more business

in Canada and China, where

enforcement and environmental

rules are increasing, Oskouian

said, so she has recently hired

sales representatives in Canada

and opened an office in Singa-

pore earlier this year.

“Anytime there are more rules,

we definitely have opportunities

to do more projects,” she said.

Many plastic manufactures

installed Ship & Shore’s energy

recovery systems after the state’s

greenhouse gas and energy law

went into effect in 2012, said

Laurie Hansen Sheets, executive

director of Sacramento’s Western

Plastics Association. (Oskouian

serves on the board of the asso-

ciation and as a committee

member for the South Coast

Air Quality District.)

That law was a big deal for plas-

tic manufacturers because their

processes use a lot of energy to

heat and then cool plastic pellets

to form them into the final prod-

uct, Sheets said.

Polystyrene foam manufacturers,

whose processes emit significant

ozone-forming organic com-

pounds, have also been regular

customers for Ship & Shore,

Sheets said, as the industry has

been addressing newer air emis-

sions standards.

“Most companies have to hire

somebody to stay in compli-

ance,” she said. “With Ship &

Shore, they help the company

through that, and (customers)

avoid costs to just do regulation.

They’re known in the industry

as the go-to company to get into

compliance with any new emis-

sions regulations.”

Adrian Backer, president of Com-

merce’s Signature Flexible Pack-

aging Inc., bought his first Ship

& Shore system in 2004, when he

opened a plastics printing plant

in Commerce.

The system, called a regenerative

thermal oxidizer, costs about

$325,000 and eliminates nearly

all the hydrocarbons from the

inks in his printer, Backer said.

It also captures the waste heat

from the process, feeding it back

to the plant as energy when the

printers are operating.

“It keeps us compliant (with

local ozone levels),” Backer said.

“The bulk of our customers are in

California—the food packers in

San Joaquin Valley that pack fruit

and vegetables. I want to stay

local and our customers want to

have a local flexible packaging

manufacturer.”

He’s also a return customer. Last

year, he bought a second Ship &

Shore system for a new printing

press. He was able to get a

rebate from Southern California

Edison of nearly $50,000 toward

the cost of the new system.

A Southern California native,

Backer said he remembers the

smog inversions that made his

eyes and lungs burn when he

played outside as a child.

“There’s a sense of satisfaction

that we’re not adding pollution

to the air,” he said. •Reprinted from Los Angeles Busi-

ness Journal, October 19, 2015.

SH I P & SHORE C L EANS UP [CONT ’D ]




53



KELLY PUSHES EMPLOYEES TOCONTINUE THEIR EDUCATIONBY ROGER R ENST ROM, P LAS T ICS NEWS

As CEO, Kevin Kelly, 54, heads

Emerald Packaging Inc. of Union

City, Calif., acknowledged as the

West Coast’s largest flexible

packaging manufacturer.

He grew up in Alameda, Calif.,

with one brother and one sister.

Both are with the business,

James M. Kelly as executive vice

president for key accounts and

Maura Kelly Koberlein as execu-

tive vice president for job esti-

mating and scheduling.

“Having grown up in the industry,

my first job was helping in the

shipping department when I was

14,” Kevin Kelly recalled. “Back

then there was less worry about

teens in the factory. Admittedly, it

took me time to catch on. Once I

sent a shipment to Alaska that

belonged in Oregon.”

Kelly received a bachelor’s

degree in political science and

government from Santa Clara

University in 1983 and a master’s

degree in economics from the

London School of Economics and

Political Science in 1986.

He joined BusinessWeek maga-

zine in March 1987 as a corres -

pondent covering the economy,

airlines and manufacturing from

bureaus in Los Angeles, Dallas

and Chicago. “I got most stories

right, some wrong,” he said.

On an assignment in 1988, he

had a memorable moment in

Belfast, Northern Ireland’s

capital. “I had a gun pointed at

my head by a British officer while

doing a story on the finances of

the Irish Republican Army. Hard

to forget that moment.”

Journalism was instructive. “Todd

Mason, my bureau chief in Dallas,

taught me to always check my

facts and not rush to judgment.

He also made sure we wrote sto-

ries from the perspective of ordi-

nary people, which still informs

my treatment of employees.”

Kelly left the magazine in 1996 to

join Emerald, but he kept writing

freelance articles about running

a business for BusinessWeek,

the former Fortune Small Business

magazine and the Newsweek

magazine website. He also writes

a hard-hitting blog, “Musings of

a CEO.”

At Emerald, Kelly held a series

of positions and began to put his

imprint on the business.

Kelly became chief executive in

2002 when Emerald had sales of

$18 million.

“We had lost a couple of large

customers the prior year so my

main focus was replacing them.

We fairly quickly landed more

business at a current customer

and then got somewhat lucky

when a customer who had left

came back to us because the

new supplier failed.”

As CEO, he succeeded his mentor

and father James P. Kelly, who

helped found the company in

1963, technically retired in 2002

and sold the business to his

three children in 2008.

“My father taught hard work and

integrity, in other words keeping

your word.”

At age 85, James P. Kelly, how-

ever, remains a presence at

Emerald, coming into the facility

often and, as requested, sharing

his extensive industry knowledge.

“Being chief executive is un-

doubtedly the most interesting

job I’ve ever had,” Kevin Kelly

said. “Every day, something new

is thrown my way plus I have my

hands in so many things includ-

ing investment, finance, market-

ing and, to a lesser degree,

operations. Days move fast, and

very often they are fun.”

Emerald focuses “almost entirely

on flexible packaging for the

food industry, with a particular

emphasis on produce,” Kelly

said. “We do almost the entire

range of converting activities

including printing, bag and

pouch making, laminating, slit-

ting, laser perforating and Inno-

Lok insertion into roll stock.

Emerald is one of the few compa-

nies to encompass such capabili-

ties under one roof, which sets

us apart from most competitors.”

(Continued, see Kevin, page 54)

KE L LY HAS PU TH I S IMPR INT ONTHE BUS INESS .

54


Emerald invests in people and

capital equipment to match its

capabilities with the needs of its

customers.

Emerald says it was the first com-

pany to embrace digital printing

for flexible packaging. In mid-

2014, Emerald began using an

Indigo WS20000 printing press

from Hewlett Packard Co.

Also, Emerald operates seven

color flexographic printing

presses, makes bags on 28 lines

and, on demand, can execute

quick turnarounds.

Emerald’s culture is “highly

multi-ethnic, reflecting to some

degree our location” in the San

Francisco Bay area, he said.

“We have no issue promoting

women into manufacturing

management roles, including our

chief operating officer, Pallavi

Joyappa. We run a highly driven,

fast-paced factory. Admittedly,

that isn’t for everyone.”

Emerald has professionalized its

middle and upper management.

Todd Somers joined Emerald as

director of sales and marketing.

“We still retain elements of a

family business, helping employ-

ees where we can and contribut-

ing significantly to charities fo-

cused on education,” he said.

Kelly encourages new employees

to be inquisitive. “Learn every-

thing you can about the company

and the industry. Take outside

classes, which we will pay for,

to sharpen your business skills.

And don’t shy away from taking

a position and arguing for it.

That’s the only way we will come

to good decisions.”

Emerald employs 250, operates

on a campus with 240,000

square feet and reported sales

f more than $89.7 million for the

fiscal year ended Aug. 31.

In March, the Flexible Packaging

Association competition recog-

nized Emerald with three awards:

a printing and shelf-impact gold

for a series of three PET/polyeth-

ylene Dole Food Co. fruit and

veggie blend pouches; a packag-

ing excellence silver for a PET/PE

Organicgirl Produce LLC three-

heart Romaine stand-up pouch

with a Velcro fastener; and a sus-

tainability silver for a 25-percent-

potato-resin 75-percent-PE film

blend developed with BiologiQ

Inc. of Idaho Falls, Idaho, for

potato bags.

Kelly received the Western Plas-

tics Association’s 2013 Leo

Shluker Award in part for his

advocacy of education and the

industry. His father received

Shluker awards in 1987 and 1996

from the organization then oper-

ating as the California Film

Extruders and Converters Associ-

ation. Kelly served two terms as

CFECA president and multiple

terms as CFECA and WPA vice

president.

Kelly’s interests include writing,

parenting a son and two daugh-

ters with his wife Erin Jaeb,

travel, politics, Civil War re-enact-

ing and helping make Catholic

school education available to

those in need.

Kelly says he would like “to leave

the company and my community

in a better place than when I

arrived. I don’t think I’m unique

in that way. We all hope to leave

the world a better place than we

found it.” •Reprinted from Plastics News,

www.plasticsnews.com, Novem-

ber 24, 2015.

KEV IN K E L LY, EMERA LD PACKAG ING [CONT ’D ]

http://www.gloucesterengineering.com/

55



PROAMPAC NEW NAME FORMERGED COMPANIESProlamina and Ampac, two

recently merged global flexible

packaging firms, announces its

new corporate name, ProAmpac.

The new name reflects the merger

of two leading, progressive and

innovative flexible packaging

companies with enhanced prod-

uct offerings unparalleled in the

industry.

ProAmpac includes four brand

divisions including Prolamina,

Ampac, Tulsack and Business

Deposits Plus. Together, the

brands offer multiple innovative

solutions in flexible packaging

for the food, pet food and med-

ical markets, secure packaging

for cash management, loss

prevention and transportation

of valuables and documents,

and retail paper and plastic

shopping bags.

The ProAmpac name and logo

mark reflects the company’s

mission in providing a steadfast

commitment to creative packag-

ing solutions, industry-leading

customer service and award-

winning innovations to a diverse

global marketplace. The icon

mark shows forward thinking and

progress which supports the

ProAmpac mission.

ProAmpac will operate as the

corporate parent company of the

four brand divisions: Prolamina,

Ampac, Tulsack, and Business

Deposits Plus. In addition, Pro-

lamina’s Terrebonne, Quebec,

Canada site location will transi-

tion to the Ampac division, as its

product offerings align with the

adhesive laminated rollstock and

pouching served by Ampac. Visit

www.proampac.com to find out

more about ProAmpac and its

divisions.

ProAmpac CEO, Greg Tucker,

states, “The ProAmpac name

allows us to clearly reinforce our

commitment to the flexible pack-

aging industry while building on

the momentum that our two

merged companies provide.

Using our core values of Integrity,

Intensity, Innovation and Involve-

ment, we can leverage the

strengths of all our brand divi-

sions, as well as our skilled

teammates, for a greater global

impact.”

ABOUT PROAMPACProAmpac is steadfast in their

unwavering commitment to

provide creative packaging solu-

tions, industry-leading customer

service and award-winning inno-

vation to a diverse global market-

place. It is a diversified global

packaging company with over

2,000 employees and 16 manu-

facturing centers in North America,

Europe and Asia. •Reprinted from ProAmpac press

release, November 3, 2015.

TOGETHER , THEBRANDS OF F E RMU LT I P L E INNOVAT I V E SO LUT IONS IN F L E X I B L EPACKAG ING.


W PA L E A D E R S H I P F O R 2 0 1 5 :

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

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

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

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

BOARD OF DIRECTORS BRUCE CART E R G r ea t Ame r i c a n P a c k ag i n gS T EVE DES PA IN R e i f e n ha u s e rHARA LD GOEP P E RT Hud s o n - S ha r p Mach i n e Compan yROGER HEWSON Windmoe l l e r & Hoe l s c h e rRANDY HOLMES He r i t a g e BagRAY HUFNAGE L P l a s t i c E x p r e s sDAV ID MCK INNEY I SO P o l y F i l m sANNET T E SAUDER/ JA R ED SAUDER L a y f i e l d G r o upROXANNE VAUGHAN Rop l a s t I n d u s t r i e s

WPA TODAY published by:

Western Plastics Association1107 9th Street, Suite 930Sacramento, CA 95814

916.930.1938 [email protected]

Editor: Laurie Hansen

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

©2015 Western Plastics Association