Media Contact: Mike Verespej
Email: mverespej@crain.com

The National Association for PET Container Resources has joined a growing list of PET recyclers and plastic recycling officials who are concerned over the potential contamination of the PET recycling stream by water bottles made from polylactic acid.

“The entire premise that you can simply add PLA containers into the PET recycling stream, successfully sort them out, and eventually find markets for the material is like advocating that mixed ceramic materials be thrown right in with the recyclable glass stream to be sorted out, and that eventually there will be enough of this mixed material that someone will want to buy it,” said Mike Schedler, technical director of NAPCOR, in a statement issued July 24 by the Sonoma, Calif., association. “It just isn't a viable solution from anyone's point of view.”

The issue of whether PLA could damage the PET recycling stream moved to the forefront three weeks ago. That's when bioplastics manufacturer NatureWorks LLC released test results conducted for them which concluded that near infrared technology (NIR) can separate out 93 of every 100 PLA bottles out of a PET recycling stream, and that the remaining level of contamination would not create an appreciable haze or color difference.

Those test results were immediately challenged by the Association of Post Consumer Plastic Recyclers in Washington.

“APR has been consistent in its position on PLA,” said APR Executive Director Steve Alexander in a phone interview. “PLA needs to be separated from PET before the reclamation process starts. Period. PLA at levels of more than one-tenth of one percent in a PET recycling stream is not acceptable. Anything beyond that amount has been shown to contaminate the PET recycling stream.”

“We agree that there should not be levels [of contamination] above one tenth of one percent and we were well below this threshold in the recent field study,” said Steve Davies, director of communications and public affairs, at NatureWorks. “Unfortunately, there was some confusion over the 7 percent number. For every 100 PLA bottles added to the PET stream during the recent field trial, 93 were removed. This did not equate to a contamination level of 7 percent PLA in the PET stream. It actually corresponded to 453 parts per million of PLA in PET, which is well under one tenth of one percent" contamination.

In addition to their apprehension over possible contamination issues, recyclers are concerned with both a potential yield loss and increased costs they might have to incur to separate out PLA bottles, which have been in the market since April 2008 when Primo Water Corp. began using PLA bottles.

If PLA bottles enter the PET recycling stream, it would “transfer significant system costs and logistics burdens to the PET recyclers, impacting the viability and continued sustainability of their businesses,” said NAPCOR chairman Tom Busard, who is also president of recycler Clean Tech Inc. in Dundee, Mich.

NAPCOR Executive Director Dennis Sabourin agreed. “The reality is that the PLA container becomes a contributor to PET bale yield loss, which is already a big concern for PET reclaimers. So not only is there an increased cost for sorting and a higher yield loss, but without any practical way to aggregate the sorted [PLA] material, or markets for it, it is destined for landfill.”

NAPCOR and APR also question part of the test methodology and some of the assumptions made for the tests and about the results — specifically that all recyclers could easily add and use the near-infrared sorting technology used in the tests, that 7 percent contamination is acceptable and why PLA bottles without labels or caps were used for the test, as that doesn't mirror reality.

“The tests assume every reclaimer uses the same sortation technology that was used in the test,” Alexander said. “That is like saying that we all drive the same model of car. It is simply not the case. In addition, from what we have seen, we cannot figure out how they reached their 93 percent success diversion rate. Again, even if we grant them that number, it far exceeds the one-tenth of one percent level beyond which the stream is contaminated,” he said.

NAPCOR agreed. “NIR systems are not currently used by all recyclers and require significant investment, typically $200,000 or more,” said the association. “Those who invest in these systems expect them to be able to sort at 95 percent or better. Other sorting systems were not part of the recent tests, nor were ways to address quality issues such as PLA getting stuck in the dryers during the PET reclamation process.”

When the test results were released, Tim Ronan, senior vice president of marketing for Primo Water, said he did not have information about contamination levels in the dryers.

The tests were conducted at a commercial recycling facility for NatureWorks and Primo Water and verified by independent consulting firm Plastics Forming Enterprises LLC. They used a NIR machine from TiTech VisionSort GmbH, based in Oslo, Norway. The complete test results and a FAQ online can be viewed at http://www.natureworksllc.com/our-values-and-views/end-of-life/recycling...,

Similarly, Ronan said NatureWorks and Primo were assured by PFE that there was no need to include caps or labels on the PLA bottles.

“I'm not sure that [these tests] answer all the questions recyclers have about PLA and its potential to contaminate the PET recycling process,” Alexander said.

“NatureWorks believes firmly in extended producer responsibility " said Davies. "Is this the only test we will perform? No. Is it the only sorting technology available? No. It is a technology that many of the largest and highest volume recycler centers use. Not all recyclers today have this technology, and we’re working in parallel to address their concerns. We look forward to collaborating with our fellow members of APR and with NAPCOR in the future to address questions."

About 75 pounds, or 1,500 Primo Water bottles, without caps or labels, were flattened and added to a load of PET deposit bottles weighing approximately 35,000 pounds. That volume was selected to mimic conditions if Primo had the fourth highest market share in water bottles.

“NAPCOR has no wish to impede the recycling of additional resins, including PLA,” Sabourin said. “But we can't sanction putting successful programs in jeopardy through the premature inclusion of other resins into the PET system.”