PETpla.net Insider 04 / 2018

MATERIALS / RECYCLING PET planet Insider Vol. 19 No. 04/18 www.petpla.net 16 RRS maintains that the stark underperformance of PET recycling can be addressed and improved, through investment in solutions that will provide long-term benefits to the overall system. Initiatives and interventions An analysis conducted by Closed Loop Partners with RRS identified a suite of interventions that would greatly improve the cost structure of rPET and benefit MRFs, reproces- sors, and end-users. RRS claims that, if these measures were imple- mented nationally, the rate of PET recycling could be increased by 600 basis points (six per cent, from 30 to 36%) and close the loop on nearly 80 million pounds of PET bottles each year – all without putting a single new collection cart on the street. The focus of the strategy on bottle- to-bottle processes identified several measures that effectively improve yield from residential kerbside col- lection by more than, 20% and lower costs of rPET processing by 10%. By targeting action and investment, MRFs, reclaimers, reprocessors, and end-users could realise value for themselves and across the system, RSS asserts. The cost structures for producing rPET and virgin PET are very differ- ent; rPET is a highlight distributed, mechanical process, involving policy- driven supply and market-based demand. Consumer access to, and participation in, convenient recycling schemes and systems determines the supply of PET. Supply is not influenced by price or demand, as demonstrated by the excess of mate- rial collected over that used; rather, supply is a function of municipal and state policies that determine material recovery, and consumer behaviour. Quality and quantity Collections infrastructure and poli- cies influence how much material is available for reprocessing. “Bottle bill states” – those that have legislated to charge consumers a deposit on pack- ages – typically see higher value in collected bales than are found in pure kerbside collections. The premium ranges from $0.05 - $0.15/lb ($0.11- $0.33/kg) over the typical kerbside price of $0.17/lb ($0.374/kg). The estimated average yield of PET in a kerbside bale is 62%; there is potential to recover more PET than is collected today. It is estimated that another 17% of PET that trav- els through a MRF is not captured in the PET bale. For the reclaimer, the adjusted yield price is $0.31/lb ($0.68/ kg). Contaminants contribute to this yield loss, such as caps, labels, non- PET material, ‘fines’, and moisture. Mechanical processing of the PET bale and subsequent conversion to flake drives costs by an estimated average of $0.19/lb ($0.42/kg). Con- tamination issues arise partly because of MRF inefficiencies in sorting and partly as a result of brand owners’ design decisions that are incompatible with or inconvenient to – and therefore costly for – the recycling process. Whether kerbside or ‘bottle bill’ collected, the quality of rPET can vary with little warning. This can make it difficult for end users to maintain a consistent quality specification. Com- modity prices can vary, suddenly and significantly; rPET is typically pur- chased on the spot market. Longer- term contracts would enable buyers STAND S10196 – ONE for ALL Capacity of U.S. PET infrastructure (Closed Loop Partners)