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

Foodservice Packaging Recovery: The Journey Continues FPI & Pack2Go Europe Joint Meeting June 5, 2015 - DRAFT - PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

Recovery Background

The Challenges 3  The Challenges: • Acknowledged that most foodservice packaging was not being recovered after use for a variety of reasons…  Limited infrastructure and end markets  Real and perceived barriers  Cost of recovery versus value of recovered material  Consumer perceptions of, engagement with and access to foodservice packaging recovery • Recognized that no one company had enough volume or influence to effect broad change alone

The Opportunities 4  The Opportunities: • Work collaboratively to create solutions for the recovery and processing of used foodservice packaging • Show that voluntary, industry-based recovery initiatives work…and that new government -mandated solutions are not needed

The PRA & PRG 5  Paper Recovery Alliance (PRA) • Formed in 2011  Plastics Recovery Group (PRG) • Formed in 2012  Both are self-funded special interest groups within FPI  Bring together a broad group of stakeholders across the entire value chain to work on the recovery of foodservice packaging  Includes work on all recovery – recycling, composting, energy recovery, with the desire to achieve the highest and best use possible for recovered materials.

Current PRA and/or PRG Members 6

Foam Recycling Coalition 7  Foam Recycling Coalition • Formed in 2014  Goal: To support the recycling of post-consumer expanded polystyrene (EPS) foodservice and protective packaging.

Foam Recycling Coalition 8  Project Work • General education about foam recycling • Understanding end markets  End market study • Grant program  FRC offers grants to public and private businesses in the U.S. and/or Canada to recycle foam FSP and protective packaging  Recipients will receive funding for equipment, technical assistance  First grant announced May 2015: Alpine Waste & Recycling in Denver, Colorado

Foam Recycling Coalition 9  Current members include: Americas Styrenics Hawaii Foam Products Cascades Canada ULC NOVA Chemicals, Inc. Chick-fil-A Pactiv Foodservice/Food Packaging CKF Inc. Shell Chemical Commodore Styrolution America Convermex TOTAL Petrochemicals D&W Fine Pack with additional funding provided by the EPS Dart Container Corporation Industry Alliance Dolco Packaging, A Tekni-Plex Company Dyne-A-Pak Genpak

Where have we been and where are we headed? 10  Intended to be a market-based approach with practical, scalable initiatives that allow circumstances to determine solutions Research, explore Solidify MRF-to- different approaches Market approach 2012 2013 2014 2015 Launch MRF-to- Promote & publicize Market approach, PRA/PRG work to Identify barriers, firm MRFs, communities. up PRA/PRG identity

What are the barriers to FSP recovery we were hearing about? 11 It won’t flow There are through a no end MRF markets. properly. Not Oh, that’s interested in too dirty. adding new materials. Recover What is FSP? And It’s not More how much is recyclable. FSP there?

How are we addressing the barriers? 12  Barrier: Understanding FSP • Generation Data  Barrier: Food Contamination • Food Residue Studies  Boston – 2013  Delaware – 2014  Barrier: Behavior & Fate in a MRF • MRF Study  Barrier: End Markets • Paper • Plastics  Barrier: It’s “not recyclable” • Benchmarking Study

FSP Generation – U.S. (by weight) 13 Clay Coated Paper Poly Coated Paper Other Coated Paper Napkins Paper Bags OCC Molded Pulp PS/PP/PET/PLA EPS Plastic Bags Total: ~5.5 million tons in U.S.

Barrier: Food Contamination 14  “ Does foodservice packaging (cups, containers, boxes & paper bags) collected at curbside have higher, lower, or the same amount of food residue to other food contact packaging (spaghetti jar, yogurt containers, etc .)?”  Food residue studies: • Boston – fall 2013 Delaware – summer 2014

Barrier: Food Contamination 15  Boston 2013 • Good study results, but samples were exceptionally clean • Found no appreciable difference in the amount of residue on FSP and non-foodservice food contact packaging  Delaware 2014 • Same rating system and methodology as Boston • All of the materials were dirtier • FSP had only marginally more residue than other food contact packaging

Barrier: Behavior/Fate in a MRF 16  Co-sponsored MRF flow analysis study • Conducted at 5 MRFs with range of sizes, geography, input and sorting technologies • Added materials where needed • Allowed materials to flow “naturally” for 3 hours • Took samples from bales

Barrier: Behavior/Fate in a MRF 17  Preliminary results of the study include: • Level of mechanization has significant effects • Optical sorter can detect resin type whereas manual sorters have more difficulty • Manual sorters can better detect form/shape • Single stream facilities • Size/shape highly dictates where the material ends up • Plastic items that can break apart or be flattened have a higher likelihood of moving with paper • Dual stream systems • Separate paper and container streams can be confusing for consumers with poly coated cups, containers and other packaging

Barrier: End Markets 18  Working on end market development for all FSP materials  Each have different characteristics in terms of processing and markets  No FSP only bales – working with existing bales  Interactive map in the toolkit at www.fpi.org/Recovery to view end markets that may be interested in bales containing FSP.

Barrier: End Markets 19 Adding FSP to Mixed Paper Bale* Adding FSP to Mixed Plastics Bale* Beverage Cups - PS (Rigid) Beverage Cups - PP Food Containers - PP Other Coated Food Containers - PET Claycoated Food Containers - PS (Rigid) Molded Pulp Beverage Cups - PET OCC Current Polycoated Total Current * at a 10 percent recovery rate

Barrier: It’s “not recyclable” 20  Fall 2013: Conducted study of nearly 70 MRFs in U.S. and Canada to… • Determine current prevalence of FSP acceptance • Identify trends/factors impacting FSP acceptance • Provide basis for measuring progress • Identify FSP packaging types that are approaching key acceptance thresholds and may warrant a large- scale survey to substantiate claims of recyclability

Barrier: It’s “not recyclable” 21  Contrary to popular belief, FSP is recycled and/or composted in numerous communities across North America  Many cities collect some FSP materials, even if they do not promote this to their residents  On average, the MRFs included in the study accepted 7 out of the 19 types of FSP , and a majority accepted at least 9 of the 19 types • Cup sleeves, pizza boxes and paper carryout bags were most widely accepted FSP items, followed by rigid plastic FSP items

In-Store Recovery

In-Store Recovery of FSP 23  Most FSP leaves the store, but it’s a critical part of a brand’s sustainability story  First step: expand recovery infrastructure  Second step: develop a recycling and composting tool kit for foodservice operators • Use and build on company-specific learnings • Partner with National Restaurant Association

In-Store Recovery of FSP 24  Toolkit to include: • Staff and Customer Education Tips • Definitions • Suggested Local • Business Case Resources • Waste Audit Guidance • Best Practices • In ‐ House Logistics Help • Case Studies • Hauler/Service Provider • Frequently Asked Language Questions

Communications

Stakeholder Communications 26  Establish relationships with wide variety of stakeholders in the packaging and recovery industries • Seek input • Educate • Gain support • Identify possible joint projects

Targeted Communications 27  Outreach to MRFs, end markets and communities • Understand concerns • Share results of studies and key learnings • Encourage future acceptance of FSP • Connect the dots / Play matchmaker

General Communications 28  Educate internal and external audiences through • Online “FSP Recovery Toolkit” geared to municipalities, MRFs and end markets  Data, reports, map, case studies • Press releases • Blog posts • Webinars • Speaking engagements

Recovery In Action

2015 Recovery Projects 30  Assist a municipality in adding FSP to their recycling program  Assist a municipality in adding FSP to their composting program • Document “before” and “after” assessments • Publicize the results to encourage additional cities to recycle/compost FSP

Tracking FSP Recovery 31  Gather national data related to access to recycling of FSP  Develop a database to track acceptance of FSP for recycling/composting by municipalities

More information: www.fpi.org/stewardship Natha Dempsey ndempsey@fpi.org - DRAFT - PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

More information: www.fpi.org/stewardship Natha Dempsey ndempsey@fpi.org - DRAFT - PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12

More information: www.fpi.org/stewardship Natha Dempsey ndempsey@fpi.org - DRAFT - PRG MEMBER PRESENTATION 12/12/12