1. Flexible Film Packaging Diversion Options
Joseph Hall
CPIA
June 5, 2013
- Some parts of Canada moved to EPR funding some time ago. (ontario – 50%; Manitoba 80%; BC – 100%) - While these systems (are growing) have become mature, they are under constant need for improvement due to changing packaging – types and quantitities. - So CIF has undertaken a major assessment in Ontario to describe how the processing element may change.

2. Project Scope Examined:
Film and multi-layer packaging composition and trending
Current & future reprocessing markets
Sorting technologies
Collection and processing methodologies
LCA and alternative designs
Energy Recovery

3. The Issue

4. Film Diversion is in its Infancy
Film Type
Ontario Residential
Generation (tonnes)
Recycling (tonnes)
Recycling Rate
Polyethylene carryout bags
14,900
2,400
16%
Polyethylene film
37,400
2,800 7%
Biodegradable film
250
Negligible 0%
Plastic laminates – beverage
440
Laminated/Other plastic film and bags
34,700
1 Includes estimates of film carryout bags that are collected through return-to-retail programs and municipal programs as reported by the Ontario Plastic Bag Reduction Task Group and Stewardship Ontario.
2 Includes bags collected for recycling and homeowner reuse for trash can liners/other reuse applications based on Stewardship Ontario waste audit data.
2 Based on 2010 U.S. and 2011 Canada estimates.
3 Based on 2011 U.S. resin use, increased by ten percent to provide an estimate for combined U.S. and Canadian consumption.
reality some two-thirds of bags are estimated to be either recycled or reused

5. Key Packaging Trends Results tend to be market specific
Stand up pouch growth projections for 2016 ranged from %
Changes such as resin switching and packaging design impacts total consumption
Growth projections for biodegradables have been moderated
Continued growth in multi-laminates
is expected over single resin films
“global industry growth at over 11% per year” for stand-up pouches to 2016
lower 5.1 percent annual growth rate to 2016 for pouches in the United States
Stand-up pouches are believed to represent significantly less than ten percent of the tonnage of flexible packaging in Ontario
substituted a tougher material such as polypropylene for polyethylene, allowing down-gauging
biodegradable materials generally do not have a superior environmental profile compared traditional resins
Brand owners have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in capital for North American package filling lines. Replacing these lines with new lines designed for flexible film packaging will occur slowly over

6. Marketing Capacity

7. Markets Overview Approx 50% reprocessed domestically in 2011
38% of domestic capacity used higher film grades
No need for wash lines
Ontario recovered film used primarily for new film and sheet
US recovered film used for composite lumber
Multi-laminates are considered
contamination
Disposed or used for low value
applications

8. Markets Overview (Cont)
Curbside film recycling costs are greater than market value
Chinese export market is changing
No projected future growth
Demand for lower quality film grades is expected to decline
Energy recovery will remain
a key player in this market
Washing is the most costly phase of recycling, at approximately $440 per tonne.
So the problem is that the cost to clean up curbside film makes it more expensive than commercial film as a raw material source thus even though there was 5000 mt of wash capacity in Canada and the US in 2011 only 3000 mt of curbside film was purchased
There is growing interest from a few U.S. reclaimers in the potential to recover polypropylene, polylactic acid, or nylon film scrap but, at this time the market is PE based and everrything else is viewed as a contaminant

9. Processing Conclusions
No cost effective means of sorting PE and
non-PE films identified
Two stream systems options:
Vac systems or air separators
Single stream:
Pre-sort

10. PE Film Collection Costs
Recovery Scenario
Annual
Tonnes
Collection
Cost
(millions)
Processing
Market
Value
Net Cost
per
Tonne
Depot on-site baling + processing
10,084
$ 2.9
$ 2.1
$ 2.8
$ 2.2
$ 221
Depot loose back-haul (no processing –> direct)
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 75
Curbside low recovery
$ 0.1
$ 3.7
$ 0.3
$ 3.6
$ 357
Curbside high recovery
20,168
$ 10.1
$ 7.5
$ 0.5
$ 17.0
$ 847

11. All Film Collection Costs
Recovery Scenario
Annual
Tonnes
Collection
Cost
(millions)
Processing
Market
Value
Net Cost
per
Tonne
All Film – depot on-site baling
20,168
$ 5.7
$ 4.2
$ 2.4
$ 7.6
$ 378
All film – depot loose back-haul
$ 1.3
$ 4.7
$ 233
All film - curbside – low recovery
$ 0.2
$ 7.5
-$ 0.2
$ 7.8
$ 387
All film - curbside – high recovery
40,335
$ 20.2
$ 15.0
-$ 0.3
$ 35.4
$ 878

12. Conclusions Sufficient market capacity exists to accept more PE
No technology identified to separate film in MRFs efficiently
Further investment required for reprocessing curbside film
Depot collection offered the
best price point

13. Next Steps Final Report is now available www.plastics.ca
Explore findings to determine possible projects
CPIA is considering anchor store project
Pac Next – may consider design for environment discussions
Refine……points on what we plan to do next