2023 MRFF Final Project Report

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

FEBRUARY 23, 2023

SUSAN GRAFF

[email protected]

PREPARED BY:

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5

INTRODUCTION 5

VISION 5

BACKGROUND 6

THE MRF EQUIPMENT UPGRADE TO SORT FPP 7

RESULTS

RFID Test Results 9

MRF Assessment 9

End Markets 10

Roof Cover Board 11

Film Trials 12

Environmental and Economic Feasibility 13

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits 14

Curbside Feasability 15

Lack of Carts Remain a Key Barrier 16

CONCLUSION – THE FUTURE OF FLEXIBLE PLASTIC PACKAGING

COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND END MARKETS 16

RRS RECOMMENDATIONS 17

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PRIJECT REPORT

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

TABLE OF FIGURES

TABLE OF TABLES

FIGURE 1. TotalRecycle MRF 7

FIGURE 2. FPP Sortation Steps at the TotalRecycle MRF 7

FIGURE 3. rFlex Bale Composition 2019-Present 10

FIGURE 4. Kraft Heinz Company Warehouse Roof with PCR Content 11

FIGURE 5. Kelly Green Products Finished PCR Roof Cover Board Product 11

FIGURE 6. Kelly Production Line and Team, November 2022 12

FIGURE 7. rFlex PCR Resin – 10 Minutes (photo courtesy of CNG) 12

FIGURE 8. rFlex PCR Resin with Additive (photo courtesy of CNG) 12

FIGURE 9. GHG Emissions – rFlex Roof Coverboard vs. Gypsum Drywall. 14

FIGURE 10. GHG Emissions – rFlex Pallets vs. Virgin Plastic Pallets (kg CO2e per pallet) 14

FIGURE 11. GHG Emissions – rFlex Pellets vs. Virgin Plastic Pellets (kg CO2e per tonne) 14

FIGURE 12. GHG Emissions – rFlex Film vs. Virgin Film 14

FIGURE 13. J.P. Mascaro & Sons Curbside Recycling Cart 16

FIGURE 14. Best Practices for Building Circularity 18

TABLE 1. PCR End Market Product Opportunities for rFlex – 2022 Update 14

TABLE 2. Communities Participating in the TotalRecycle Flexible Packaging Program 13

ADVANCE COPY – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

The learnings in this report are published as a

follow on to the TotalRecycle MRF Pilot project,

which served as proof of concept for material

recovery facility-curbside recycling of flexible

plastic packaging (FPP). The report is intended to

aid further scaling of results and increase recycling

of this material which is predominantly landfilled

today. It is the third and final report of the Materials

Recovery for the Future Project and covers the

period between August 2020 and the end of 2022.

As of December 2022, the TotalRecycle MRF,

operated by J.P. Mascaro & Sons, had successfully

diverted over 2,728,250 pounds of flexible plastic

packaging from the landfill as a result of their new

curbside recycling program. While numerous

markets have tested the bale, the primary market for

the mixed FPP bale, known as rFlex, has been roof

coverboard. Notable results were also obtained in

trials to reprocess rFlex back into blown film.

In Summer 2020, J.P. Mascaro & Sons installed

additional equipment at TotalRecycle to further

improve FPP capture. Outcomes were difficult

to measure during the COVID-19 pandemic, as

unprecedented labor shortages disrupted MRF

operations. These labor shortages also slowed the

pace of development in manufacturing end markets

interested in using rFlex as feedstock.

The MRFF project received additional funding via a

U.S. Department of Energy REMADE Manufacturing

Institute grant, enabling Idaho National Laboratory

and RRS to study the economic and environmental

feasibility of sorting and producing rFlex in

commercial MRFs. Researchers compared the use

of recycled FPP to traditionally used materials in

four different product pathways – roof coverboard,

plastic pallets, plastic pellets to be used in injection

molding, etc., and film. The analysis demonstrates

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from use

of rFlex are often greater than 25% compared to

products made with virgin materials. Detailed results

of this study have been published in the scientific

journal

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

This report provides recommendations from the

RRS Research Team considering current conditions

in both recycling infrastructure and domestic

manufacturing. More carts for residential collection,

an increased degree of automated MRF sorting,

supply chain partnerships, and financial investment

in MRF upgrades as well as major end markets

sourcing PCR film and flexible packaging are

recommended.

More information on this project can be found at

https://www.materialsrecoveryforthefuture.com/

ExEcutivE Summary

ADVANCE COPY – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

The RRS Research Team wishes to acknowledge the

following project members who were instrumental

to the results published herein. These collaborations

were key to our collective success.

TotalRecycle MRF and J.P. Mascaro & Sons –

Jeff Furmanchin and Greg Fox

Idaho National Laboratory Research Team –

Ruby Nguyen

RFlex End Market Network – Scott Hammer, Charter

Next Generation; Thomas J. Kelly, Kelly Green Products

American Chemistry Council – Shari Jackson

Research Sponsors – please visit https://www.

materialsrecoveryforthefuture.com/ for a

complete list of brand owners and trade associations

that sponsored this research.

Our Sincere Thanks,

The RRS Research Team

Susan Graff, Beth Coddington, Christopher King,

Kerry Sandford, Anne Johnson, Rachel Perlman

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Materials Recovery for the Future was a collaborative

project among resin producers, brand owners,

packaging manufacturers, and recyclers to study the

feasibility of adapting large recycling facilities to sort

flexible plastic packaging (FPP).

This report serves as the third and final report of

the MRFF project, covering the two-year period

from August 2020 to the end of 2022. Previous

reports prepared by RRS in 2016 and 2020

provided

comprehensive results of automated MRF sorting

technologies, the pilot stage of the project, and end

market testing.

In 2019, the American Chemistry Council and

MRFF industry sponsors received funding from the

U.S. Department of Energy in partnership with the

REMADE Institute to study the material efficiency

and greenhouse gas emission impacts of flexible

packaging recycling. This study included a life cycle

inventory and compared the use of recycled flexible

packaging to traditionally used materials as feedstock

in several types of products. Federal funding also

facilitated a study to optimize MRF sorting under

different operating conditions and additional end

market testing. A detailed scientific paper co-authored

by Idaho National Laboratory and RRS researchers

was published in the scientific journal

Resources,

Conservation & Recycling

in 2023. This peer-reviewed

paper discusses the findings of the material efficiency

study in greater detail.

IntroductIon

VISION

The shared vision of the sponsors involved in this collective action

project is that flexible packaging be recycled curbside, and that the

recovery community captures value from it. The sponsors further

articulated that recycling this material via this pathway achieve:

• Highest and best value for recycled materials

• Positive environmental impacts based on life cycle assessment

• Net financial benefits for recyclers

• Healthy workplace for recyclers

• Widespread consumer access

These goals are discussed in the Results section of the report

as they relate to collection, MRF sorting, and end market steps

for recycling FPP curbside. The project aim was to ensure that

if FPP was accepted in curbside programs, it would successfully

find its way to the rFlex bale, rather than ending up as residue or

contaminating other MRF products.

ADVANCE COPY – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Yingqian Lin, et al.,

Economic and environmental feasibility of recycling flexible plastic packaging from single stream collection

(Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 192, 2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106908

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

BACKGROUND

FPP is a high-volume stream of consumer packaging.

RRS estimated at the onset of the project that over

12 billion pounds of FPP is consumed annually in

the U.S., twice the size of the PET bottle market,

and the volume has steadily increased since then.

The qualities of flexible packaging that make it

environmentally preferable – its light weight,

the small quantity of raw material needed in its

production, and its superior performance in reducing

food spoilage – have motivated its use. But this

lightweight quality comes with a price to recyclers:

equipment upgrades are required to sort this

packaging stream.

Flexible plastic packaging comes in a wide array of

shapes, sizes, and forms – from four-ounce baby

food pouches to chip bags to 35-pound dog food

sacks. This project aimed to capture this entire

assortment, except for extremely small packages

(smaller than 2.5x4 inches) or anything made

of PVC.

Many MRFs do not invite this modern packaging

material into single stream systems, particularly

since in most cases sorting systems are eight to ten

years old. Even though FPP is not typically accepted,

this material is present in MRF infeed at levels of

1-4.5% by weight based on composition studies by

Van Dyk Recycling Solutions conducted in 2018.

Past RRS research for MRFF sponsors confirmed

that FPP generally flows with paper in large single

stream MRFs due to its two-dimensional shape.

Thus, removing FPP on paper lines is the most

efficient, scalable way to capture this material in

large MRFs (see Figure 2). During this project,

removal was accomplished via upgrades to optical

sorters, air flow controls, collection hoods, and other

peripherals on fiber lines in a large, modern MRF with

anti-wrap screens.

Currently many modern MRFs negatively sort FPP

and combine it with other residuals for shipping

to landfill due to the relatively low quantities of

uninvited material received. Given the potentially

large size of the FPP stream available for recycling,

the positive sort equipment upgrade installed was

expected to provide multiple economic benefits for

the industry:

• Improve paper bale quality for optimal quality and

revenues from MRF ONP and Mixed Paper sales

• Decrease manual quality control (QC) staff

required on MRF paper lines during sortation

• Decrease landfill costs

• Provide operator flexibility to make an additional

plastic commodity bale as market demand for

PCR plastic has risen

The MRFF research agenda did not include detailed

design and testing of the reprocessing steps

necessary to recycle the FPP bale for sale to plastic-

only markets that make durable products, pellets,

and film. Wash steps will be required, just as they

are required to reclaim other resins such as PET,

HDPE and PP. More detailed supply and economic

analysis is needed to commercialize the necessary

mechanical and chemical recycling steps. Supply

would also increase if there were appropriate policy

interventions to require more widespread collection

and sorting instead of landfilling (see Figure 14).

1. Available online at Research Results - Materials Recovery for the Future https://www.materialsrecoveryforthefuture.com/research-results/

J.P. Mascaro & Sons, owners of the TotalRecycle

MRF, was selected to partner on this research

project. TotalRecycle is located in the town of

Birdsboro in Berks County, Pennsylvania. During

the pilot stage of the project in 2019, MRFF

project sponsors collectively funded purchase and

installation of the equipment specification provided

by RRS. The solution proposed by Van Dyk Recycling

Solutions, who had also built the original MRF

system, was selected for the project.

The VDRS team installed optical sorters on each of

the MRF’s three fiber lines to eject FPP from fiber.

These high-end optical sorters had a wide build that

allowed them to eject material across an entire fiber

belt and work at high speeds with material spread out

as far as possible. A fourth optical sorter cleaned up

the resulting FPP stream by ejecting the remaining

fiber after the three lines converged. Finally, a flex/

rigid separator was installed to separate rigid items,

such as containers, from the FPP stream.

THE MRF EQUIPMENT UPGRADE

TO SORT FPP

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

FIGURE 1. TotalRecycle MRF

ADVANCE COPY – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

This equipment configuration operating as designed

has the capacity to auto sort 3,100 tons (6.2 million

pounds) per year of FPP into a commodity bale

known as rFlex. As of December 2022, TotalRecycle

has sorted 1,559 rFlex bales, diverting slightly more

than 1364 tons (2,728,250 pounds) of FPP from the

landfill since the program began. The main reason

TotalRecycle is not producing greater tonnage is

a shortage of curbside carts in the communities

served. (See page 19 for further discussion)

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

FIGURE 2. FPP Sortation Steps at the TotalRecycle MRF

ADVANCE COPY – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

After equipment installation was completed, the

TotalRecycle and RRS team began a six-month test

phase before accepting material from communities.

FPP was added to single stream recyclables during

this test phase that was representative of the

expected concentration when residents add the

material to their carts. This was done to ensure the

performance of the equipment and to ensure the

quality of all the MRF commodities being produced.

After that period was successfully completed, ten

communities served by TotalRecycle consisting of

56,915 households were invited to recycle FPP along

with other accepted materials in their curbside cart.

In 2020, J.P. Mascaro & Sons made another

improvement, adding a manual quality control

station as a human checkpoint after the automated

sorting to pick any missed FPP for the rFlex bale.

At the same time these improvements were

complete, the pandemic began to cause severe

shortages in MRF labor across the country, and

TotalRecycle was not an exception. Even though

the automation upgrades reduced the number

of manual sorters required in the MRF, the

pandemic resulted in shortages as low as 20-25%

of the already reduced manual labor required for

the overall MRF system. This disparity makes

evaluating system performance challenging. RRS

performed two site visits – a final RFID Test in

August 2020 and a visual MRF Assessment in

February 2022 to monitor the upgrade, interview

the management team, and identify additional

automated equipment solutions to deal with labor

shortages that now appeared to be persistent.

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

RESULTS

RFID Test Results

In August 2020, an RRS MRF Team performed RFID

testing to trace sample packages through the MRF

and calculate how many were ending up in the rFlex

bale. This RFID test was the last in a series using the

same protocol at the beginning, middle, and end

of the project to track progress. Each test involved

tagging thousands of packages, seeding them into

the MRF system over several days of testing, and

analyzing which tags were read by each of 10 RFID

readers at specific locations in the MRF.

The RFID test process revealed areas of progress

and areas where improvements were needed. First,

the test showed successful capture of the majority

of packages, and improvement over time – with

average capture rates over 70% in the two later

tests. Second, some packages in the mix were very

efficiently captured, with a capture rate of 90% for

the best performing package, retail carry bags, by

the end of the pilot. However, smaller packages were

much harder for the system to capture, and they

were more affected by maintenance issues, weather,

and other unknowns. This was especially visible

in the final test. For example, as small baby food

pouches were fed into the system, many fell through

a spot where the disc screen was heavily worn, and

thus never even had a chance to get captured into

the rFlex bale. Larger packages were not affected in

the same way.

MRF Assessment

In 2022 RRS conducted a TotalRecycle MRF

Assessment in collaboration with The Recycling

Partnership. The RRS team observed that labor

shortages had impacted overall equipment

maintenance. Due to the pandemic, the MRF was

not able to staff or maintain equipment as well as

had been previously observed by the team. The

General Manager reported that during the pandemic

maintenance needs had increased as damage due

to lack of QC staff increased, plus maintenance staff

turnover had occurred.

The FPP recovery equipment appeared to be working

relatively well. Optical Sorters 1 through 3 were firing

on FPP and Optical Sorter 4 was ejecting collateral

fiber back to Mixed Paper. The flex/rigid separator

also appeared to be working well. The MRF Manager

noted that the flex/rigid separator was recently

serviced, and suction levels were improved as a

result. None of the FPP manual QC sort stations were

staffed during this visit.

According to TotalRecycle General Manager Jeff

Furmanchin, while the extreme labor shortage was

not anticipated in the design of the FPP recovery

system, it was providing the MRF with a way to

maintain the production of paper bales in the face of

low staffing levels.

In 2021 and 2022, the MRF produced about

one million pounds per year of rFlex. This is

approximately 16% of the system’s capabilities. In

2021, the MRF operated with significantly reduced

staffing levels, 25-30% of normal staffing.

The bale composition was impacted by QC labor

shortages as seen in the chart below depicting

composition over the entire period of study. When

labor was present, they were shifted to the pre-sort

line to mitigate major equipment damage. Fiber lines

where the FPP was separated were left unstaffed.

A key insight regarding bale composition was

the need for MRF operator flexibility to meet the

needs of spot and developing end markets. This

was particularly important as operational (labor

workforce) and regional (rainfall intensity) variables

outside of the MRF’s control impacted bale

composition over time.

Furthermore, with regards to bale quantity or

tonnage, a new MRF commodity requires realistic

expectations among supply chain partners during

periods where bale production is significantly below

system capacity. J.P. Mascaro & Sons was able to

weather this period of market instability and store

bales until sales are made. This practice had an

additional benefit; as bales dry further, they improve

their marketability.

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

FIGURE 3. rFlex Bale Composition 2019-Present

MRF commodities typically don’t have this level of

detailed data on bale composition. RRS has received

market feedback that this comprehensive data set

has been a valuable asset to a diverse array of end

markets investing in film recycling.

End Markets

RRS had identified over a dozen priority product

opportunities for this bale in collaboration with

the rFlex End Market Network. Additional trials

were delayed due to COVID lockdowns and labor

shortages, but results continued to trickle in during

the period from July 2020 through 2022.

RRS analyses of the current landscape for plastic

recycling shows there is much more demand than

there is supply of outlets. CRDC Global, a successful

enterprise currently scaling in the U.S. and other

regions of the world, makes concrete products out

of recycled plastic. Chief Operating Officer Ross

Gibby reported that business customers are eager

to recycle plastic and willing to pay for the service in

order to meet sustainability (e.g., landfill diversion,

zero waste) goals. The charge for plastic waste

recycled by CRDC Global is less than landfill tip

fees, and it is also sensitive to transportation. A key

to CRDC Global’s success is their ability to adapt a

facility to the waste streams generated locally. For

example, waste generated in York, Pennsylvania is

very different than Samoa.

Total Rflex Bales in Inventory as of: April 1, 2022 222 bales

Rflex Bale Shipments for Month of: April 2022 64 bales

Rflex Bale Production for Month of: April 2022 25 bales

Total Rflex Bales in Inventory as of: May 1, 2022 183 bales

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

ROOF COVER BOARD

The primary buyer for the rFlex bale has been

roof cover board manufacturers. To incorporate

products made from recycled flexible packaging

(i.e., films, wraps, bags, and pouches), The Kraft

Heinz Company, a MRFF research sponsor and

an inaugural member of the Association of Plastic

Recyclers Residential Film Demand Champion

program, launched a pilot project to demonstrate

the use of roof board made from rFlex at 3 of their

manufacturing plants. At end of life, the roof board is

again recyclable.

The most consistent buyer of the rFlex bale for

roof cover board has been Kelly Green Products

in Waterbury, Connecticut. The company is

a subsidiary of 2001 Company, a 42-year-old

commercial roofing company with customers and

projects across the U.S. Kelly Green Products

manufacturers high-performing board for use and

installation in commercial roofing. Between 50

and 60 clients of 2001 Company are the primary

customers for the board.

FIGURE 4. The Kraft Heinz Company Manufacturing Plant Roof with PCR Content

Photo courtesy of KHC

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

RRS visited the Kelly plant in November 2022 to

verify the suitability of rFlex bales as feedstock and

assess the current roof cover board operation. The

production line was not operational as a result of

fires that occurred late spring and early summer.

Most of the repairs had been completed and the

photos included in this report were obtained.

Procedures have been put in place to prevent a

re-occurrence, and board production is expected

to be resumed imminently. RRS was also briefed on

the company’s growth plan to assist in identifying

potential investors for expansion from one to three

production lines.

The current production line at the plant was designed

and installed in collaboration with Jan Rayman of

Upcycling Technologies. Rayman was founder and

formerly President of The ReWall Company, the first

manufacturer in the U.S. to make PCR roof cover

board. With one line operating, the Kelly plant has

capacity to produce 300 PCR roof cover boards per

20-hour day or four million square feet of product

per line annually. This level of production requires

eight million pounds of post-consumer feedstock

such as cartons and flexible plastic packaging per

year. The ratio of post-consumer material is 30%

post-consumer plastic film or rFlex and 70% post-

consumer or post-industrial cartons for desired

FIGURE 5. Kelly Green Products Finished PCR Roof Cover Board Product

Photo courtesy of http://www.kellygreenproducts.com

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

feedstock mix. Testing is planned to increase

plastic content to 35%. The product also contains

a fiberglass facer and thin layers of paper and film

plastic that serve as outer layers. Kelly has the

capability to blend in other PCR feedstock in small

quantities to meet the PCR specifications of its

customers.

Kelly finds the rFlex bale to be a low cost,

environmentally preferable feedstock compared

to traditional materials like gypsum that are used

to manufacture this type of board. The plastic in

rFlex provides superior performance, particularly

in regions with frequent rainfall and/or hurricane

intensity.

FIGURE 6. Kelly Production Line and Team, February 2023

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

FILM TRIALS

The most notable results using rFlex as feedstock

were obtained through a collaboration orchestrated

by RRS where Charter Next Generation (CNG)

performed trials to produce blown films. CNG is a

leading producer of specialty films with 12 facilities

in the U.S. CNG capabilities include state-of-the-art

blown film technology to process a variety of PCR

(HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE) into blown or cast film.

One bale of rFlex was wet washed and pelletized for

the CNG blown film trials. rFlex was wet washed by

Herbold at a European facility and next pelletized

using EREMA equipment. Herbold is a specialist

in manufacture of size reduction, densification

equipment and wash line systems for plastics.

EREMA is globally recognized for the development

and manufacture of plastics recycling machines and

system components. Upon receiving the pellets,

CNG worked with two of their suppliers to evaluate

whether additives would be required to produce

the film after observing the moisture content was

relatively high. The detectable ingredients were PE

(~75-80%), PP (~12%), EVA (~3%), PVC (~3%), and

PA (~3%).

CNG then processed the rFlex PCR resin with a non-PCR

control and other PCR resins. As observed in the first

trial photo below without additive, the film produced

had numerous gels, carbon, etc. CNG was able to

successfully produce film with a moisture management

additive as seen in the second trial photo.

FIGURE 7. rFlex PCR Resin – 10 Minutes

Photo courtesy of CNG

FIGURE 8. rFlex PCR Resin with Additive

Photo courtesy of CNG

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

The resin also had an odor which remained in

the finished film. CNG identified the potential to

include a compatibilizer to address the color and

appearance issues, and an odor management

absorber in further development efforts.

Several film-to-film recycling end markets have

reviewed rFlex bale composition data, visited

the TotalRecycle MRF, and/or tested the bale.

RRS believes that once threshold quantities of

production in the range of three to five million

pounds annually are reached at the MRF, a wash

line to reprocess rFlex for film production will

become economically justified.

The following table summarizes the products

rFlex is currently used for or has been tested as a

secondary feedstock, along with the product’s

key characteristics.

TABLE 1. PCR End Market Product Opportunities for rFlex – 2022 Update

Environmental and Economic Feasibility

There is often healthy skepticism as to whether it is

efficient to recycle certain products, whether there

are truly environmental and economic benefits

to doing so, particularly for light weight products

like flexible films. Idaho National Laboratory and

RRS researchers constructed a life cycle inventory

and analyzed environmental and cost data to

compare the use of recycled FPP to traditionally

used materials in four different product pathways

– roof coverboard, plastic pallets, plastic pellets

to be used in injection molding, etc. and film. The

high-level results of the environmental analysis are

presented in the following section.

PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY MATERIAL

SUBSTITUTE

PERCENT

RFLEX

RELATIVE SCALE

OF MARKET

TIME TO

MARKET

STATUS/

LIMITATIONS

Roof coverboard

and subflooring

Compression

molding

Wood Up to

100%

rFlex

Very large Available

now

Financing

required to

expand sites

Wall board Gypsum Very large 1-2 years Testing

incomplete

Resin aggregate

for concrete e.g.,

CRDC Global

Mechanical

and Chemical

Cohesion

Sand Up to

100%

rFlex

Very large Available

now

Business

model involves

fee to MRF for

processing

feedstock

Films Blown Virgin Plastic 70% rFlex Very large 1-2 years Successful

trial blown film

Charter Next

Generation.

Further testing

in order to

eliminate gels/

odor

Chemical

feedstock for

PCR plastic

production

Pyrolysis Virgin Plastic Enval. Some

segregation

needed

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION BENEFITS

Roof Cover Board

Manufacturing one piece of roof cover board using 100% of the rFlex bale produces about 3.54 kg of CO2e

emissions. Compared to its market comparator, gypsum drywall, rFlex roof coverboard can reduce carbon

footprints by 53% per board.

FIGURE 9. GHG Emissions – rFlex Roof Coverboard vs. Gypsum Drywall.

FIGURE 10. GHG Emissions – rFlex Pallets vs. Virgin Plastic Pallets (kg CO2e per pallet)

rFlex-content Pallets

Using 10-30% of dry-washed rFlex pellets in plastic pallet production produces approximately 57.08-51.07 kg

of CO2e per pallet, respectively. Compared to pallets made with 100% virgin plastic, this content can reduce

carbon footprints by 5 to 15%.

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

FIGURE 11. GHG Emissions – rFlex Pellets vs. Virgin Plastic Pellets (kg CO2e per tonne)

rFlex Pellets Used in Film

The production of one tonne of PCR film with 10% to 30% rFlex pellets generates approximately 2,983.46 to

2,696.59 kg CO2e, respectively. Compared to plastic film that uses 100% virgin material, the rFlex-content film

has 5% to 14% lower total GHG emissions corresponding to 10% and 30% rFlex content.

FIGURE 12. GHG Emissions – rFlex Film vs. Virgin Film

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

In summary, these material efficiency analyses

demonstrate reductions in greenhouse gas

emissions from use of rFlex that are often greater

than 25% compared to products made with virgin

materials. This study will be published and discussed

in greater detail in the peer-reviewed scientific journal

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

later in 2023.

CURBSIDE FEASIBILITY

As the technical feasibility of sorting FPP was

established, another vital question for MRF

operators and communities was whether it is

economically feasible to recycle FPP curbside in

carts along with other recyclables.

In 2018, RRS developed a financial model for

analyzing the potential benefits of collecting

and sorting FPP in single stream for large MRFs.

The benefits were three-fold: 1) moving FPP

from residue destined for landfill to a potentially

profitable bale; 2) reducing labor needed to clean

the fiber lines; and 3) improving the quality of the

fiber bales, even with increased levels of FPP in

the stream. The economics were most favorable

in areas with higher landfill tip fees due to the

avoidance of residue disposal costs.

As the project progressed, these potential benefits

were borne out. Starting in September 2019,

residents in local communities were gradually

instructed to start including FPP in their curbside

recycling. Today almost 60,000 households in 10

municipalities conveniently recycle FPP in their

curbside carts with other recyclables.

All these communities have their recyclables

collected by J.P. Mascaro & Sons

and processed at

TotalRecycle. They range in location from 10 to 40

miles from the facility.

Under normal operating conditions, prior to the

pandemic, as the volume of FPP increased the amount

of labor needed to run the system was reduced by

38%. Audits of fiber products showed a significant

reduction in contamination as well – from 1.4% to

0.3% in old newsprint (ONP), and from 1.6% to 0.5%

in Mixed Paper. When these efficiency benefits were

taken into account, the RRS pro forma model showed

that FPP recovery equipment can be a reasonably

priced addition to residential collection contracts, on

par with the addition of automated sorting of other

materials. And as additional markets develop for rFlex

bales, FPP recycling has the potential to grow into a

profitable commodity on its own.

2. The program is described on the company website: https://www.jpmascaro.com/green-initiatives/flexible-plastic-packaging.aspx

TABLE 2. Communities Participating in the TotalRecycle Flexible Packaging Program

MUNICIPALITY HOUSEHOLDS IN MUNICIPALITY COUNTY ROLLOUT DATE

Pottstown Borough 9,321 Montgomery County Sep-19

Lower Providence Township 8,769 Montgomery County Nov-19

South Heidelberg Township 2,590 Berks County Dec-19

Alburtis Borough 881 Lehigh County Jan-20

Ambler Borough 2,604 Montgomery County Jan-20

Newtown Township 4,871 Delaware County Jan-20

Quakertown Borough 3,649 Bucks County Jan-20

Warminster Township 12,874 Bucks County Jan-20

Whitemarsh Township 6,744 Montgomery County Jan-20

Wyomissing Borough 4,612 Berks County Jan-20

Souderton Borough 2,641 Montgomery County Jan-22

Total Households in

Pilot Communities

59,556

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

Lack of Carts Remain a Key Barrier

There is one requirement for communities wishing

to recycle flexible packaging - they must have lidded

carts for curbside collection, which is considered

recycling best practice in the U.S.

While J.P. Mascaro & Sons processes recyclables

from a service area of roughly 300,000 households,

the 59,556 households recycling flexible packaging

represent only those communities directly collected

by the company that also utilize lidded carts.

The lack of lidded collection carts, both in this area

and in recycling programs nationwide, remains the

most significant infrastructure gap to collect flexible

packaging while increasing the use of collection best

practices for all curbside recyclables.

FIGURE 13. J.P. Mascaro & Sons Curbside

Recycling Cart

CONCLUSION

FPP recycling has been commercialized by

TotalRecycle, and more communities will continue

to add the service.

Many large MRFs are currently investing in optical

sorting to clean up paper and capture smaller

OCC boxes into higher value commodity grades.

In the future, MRFs may also separate white paper

from Mixed Paper. The RRS Project Team believes

flexible packaging manufacturers have a significant

opportunity to work with MRFs and the paper

industry to justify the equipment upgrades that will

increase the quantity and quality of PCR supply for

post-consumer recycled content products.

The market environment for the production of MRF

paper bales, such as Mixed Paper and newspaper,

has been in a great deal of flux since the start of the

pandemic. Factors impacting the recycling industry

include increased demand for fiber bales, as well

as persistent shortages in MRF labor. While none

of this was anticipated as part of the design of the

pilot FPP recovery system in the above diagram,

it has provided the MRF with a way to maintain

the production of paper bales even with staffing

levels at the MRF as low as 20-25% of the designed

system requirements.

According to TotalRecycle MRF General Manager Jeff

Furmanchin, the positive impacts of the FPP system

on MRF fiber production include:

• Automation has allowed the MRF to produce

acceptable paper bales with very low staffing levels,

which has been a major benefit especially during

severe stages of the pandemic.

• Movement of the Mixed Paper commodity has

been steady, with strong demand from domestic

markets and some from export. Supply chain

issues such as getting bookings and containers

have presented challenges to the export market.

At the present time, the MRF is producing only

Mixed Paper bales as the price differential

for newspaper (ONP) bales is minimal, thus

eliminating the financial incentive to produce two

different grades.

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

THE FUTURE OF FLEXIBLE PLASTIC PACKAGING

COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND END MARKETS

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

• Quality of the paper bale has been viewed

positively throughout the period of accepting FPP

from communities. There has not been a negative

impact on the level of contamination in the resulting

fiber bales, and they have not received any negative

feedback from paper buyers regarding any film

present in the paper grade.

Prior RRS MRF testing performed within one year

of the FPP equipment installation showed the most

immediate benefit of the FPP system upgrade for

the MRF was cleaner, higher quality paper bales.

The reduction in contamination for two traditional

commodity bales, ONP and Mixed Paper, was

measured at over 70%.

RRS RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are provided to

achieve the shared vision of success articulated

by Materials Recovery for the Future. They are

consistent with RRS best practices illustrated in

Figure 14.

Supply Chain Partnerships. Long-term feedstock

supply agreements between MRFs and end markets

are the best approach to justify investments in MRF

sorting that supply recycled flexible packaging at

scale. Today’s sustainability imperative demands

that resin producers and PCR manufacturers

cultivate recycling industry relationships to create a

stable supply of feedstock. There’s a valuable lesson

to be learned from the paper industry. Fiber recycling

in the U.S. has improved significantly over the

past 30 years. As a result of industry engagement

with the recycling industry, paper recycling rates

approach 70% today.

Collection. Lack of collection equipment is a

barrier that can be remedied through proper

investment in residential carts, consistent

with recycling best practice. Large MRFs like

TotalRecycle who invest in FPP sorting should

receive priority funding to achieve more diversion

and increase the supply of PCR. RRS estimates

an $11 million investment is required to cart the

remaining communities in the TotalRecycle

service area.

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

MATERIALS RECOVERY FOR THE FUTURE

MRFF FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Technology. This research project shows

that existing automated sorting technologies,

specifically optical sorters, can be used to sort

flexible plastic packaging and improve paper bale

quality at promising levels of efficiency. In the last

few years, robotics have developed with smaller

space requirements that are ideal for retrofits. In

light of new MRF labor market realities, these types

of automation should be employed to improve sorting,

which has direct economic returns for the MRF.

Policy. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

has implications for this category of packaging. For

example, in Canada FPP is included in recycling

programs and is collected at depots. As states

across the U.S. choose to adopt EPR, films and

flexible packaging should be evaluated as a high-

volume addition to community collection programs

given the technical and economic feasibility and

greenhouse gas benefits associated with use of

this feedstock.

FIGURE 14. Best Practices for Building Circularity