New Waste Plastic to Hydrogen Facility planned in the UK

, ,

Peel Environmental – part of Peel L&P – recently announced it was working in partnership with Waste2Tricity to build a waste plastic to hydrogen facility at its 54-hectare Protos site near Ellesmere Port, England.

The $12 million (Cdn.) plant will use ‘UK first’ advanced thermal treatment technology developed by PowerHouse Energy Group (AIM:PHE) at Thornton Science Park, next door to Protos. The pioneering DMG® (Distributed Modular Generation) technology could transform the way plastics are dealt with in the region. The plant will take up to 35 tonnes of unrecyclable plastics a day and create a local source of hydrogen which could be used to power road vehicles.

This local source of hydrogen could be used as a clean and low-cost fuel for buses, Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and cars, helping to reduce air pollution and improve air quality on local roads. The facility would also generate electricity which could be provided to commercial users via a microgrid at Protos, helping to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Peel Environmental is looking at developing a closed loop solution at Protos where plastics are recycled on-site with the leftover material used to create hydrogen.

The development would see a further 14 full time permanent jobs created at the Protos site with over 100 jobs created in the North West during fabrication and construction.

Myles Kitcher from Peel Environmental – part of Peel L&P – said, “This is a great step forward towards delivering the first of many waste plastic to hydrogen facilities across the UK. There is huge potential for hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in our transport system. We already have hydrogen buses in Liverpool and trains being converted to hydrogen in Widnes. Using waste plastic to generate a local source of hydrogen could not only help to reduce our reliance on landfill but improve local air quality with a clean and low-cost fuel for buses, HGVs and cars.”

David Ryan, CEO of PowerHouse Energy Group (AIM:PHE), said, “The submission of the planning application is an important step forward in delivering the first commercial application of the DMG technology, creating hydrogen from waste plastics. The team have worked hard to develop a robust application and we’re hopeful of securing consent and subsequent financial close in the coming months.”

The Protos strategic energy hub sits within the Energy Innovation District (EID), which is spearheaded by the Cheshire Energy Hub and brings together energy users, network owners, innovators and partners working alongside Cheshire & Warrington LEP, Cheshire West and Chester Council and the University of Chester. The EID is looking to develop a local, smart energy microgrid which a recent report demonstrated could lead to energy cost savings of up to 25% and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 34%.

The project is also one of many under the North West’s bid to become the UKs first low carbon cluster by 2030. The North West Energy and Hydrogen Cluster is being led by the North West Business Leadership Team, with support from Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region Mayors and the Cheshire & Warrington LEP.

Unintended consequences: How Environmentalism is becoming a luxury that poor and marginalized communities cannot afford

, , , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

The title of this article may seem like a bit of “click bait”, but the topic itself is one near and dear to my heart, but is often neglected in conversations surrounding waste. How socio-economic inequality manifests itself in the form of impeded access, or participation in waste management initiatives is a poorly understood topic. Much of the existing academic research on environmental justice has been on the unequal distribution of environmental hazards and benefits along racialized lines, where there are consistent indications that waste facilities and waste related hazards are disproportionally located in lower income areas (or those predominated by minorities). Perhaps more alarmingly is the epidemiological link between waste exposure-related health effects and low income areas.

But that isn’t what this article is about – My hope is to begin an uncomfortable conversation about a two tiered waste management system in Ontario (one for affluent “woke” Ontarians, and one for lower income groups making the daily grind), that by all indications is going to get worse, before it gets better.

I want to preface by saying I don’t think this is necessarily the result of deliberate, malicious design (or least I wouldn’t like to think so). Equitable access to a clean and sustainable environment is an issue that has garnered enormous attention, and I would expect this issue to grow in importance moving forward.

I just ask that from the perspective of waste management (diversion, recycling etc.), that we take the time to consider how changes in our industry affect, or are going to affect, the most vulnerable or marginalized groups of our society.

In all fairness, the connection between waste management and socio-economic inequality is not something that is top of mind for most policy makers. Generally speaking, there is an idea that a municipality will provide waste management services to a particular area, support that initiative through a combination of promotion and education efforts, and hope for sustained public participation.

The help provide some boundaries on this wide ranging discussion, I am going to break my comments down into three key areas: Economic Access and 2) Knowledge Access, and 3) Infrastructural Access

Economic Access

I was recently interviewed by the CBC, and almost inevitably, the conversation shifted to the perils of plastic packaging.

Given that I am actually an advocate of some single use plastics, I was trying explain how a cucumber wrapped in plastic isn’t the world’s worst idea, considering that it can help mitigate against spoilage.

That’s when the interviewer said something that surprised me a bit “Don’t you think consumers should be paying a little more to ensure that less waste is being generated?”

I actually didn’t know how to answer that question, largely because it depends on so many different factors. Do I think all consumers should be willing to pay a little bit more to avoid waste? No – absolutely not. I do however I think that consumers who have the discretionary purchasing power to make more sustainable choices should try and do when possible, but I ascribe no right or wrong in doing so.

What people can and choose to purchase is largely a function of economics –those of us that have the luxury of being conscientious consumers that can shop locally and participate in programs such as Terracycle’s Loop should be applauded.

However, it is important to recognize that the ability to do so is a luxury – in a focus group conducted of more than 1800 consumers in the Greater Toronto earlier this year, more than 80% of respondents indicated that price was the primary determinant for making a purchase. If possible, respondents indicated that they would like to make more sustainable purchases, but budgetary restraints largely impeded them from doing so.

More than 70% of respondents also indicated that they did not have the ability to travel outside of a 5km range to make daily purchases, and often shopped at specific retailers because of a mix of multiple factors such as: convenience, price, familiarity and purchasing agglomeration (one stop shopping).

In a 2019 analysis of consumer purchasing preferences in the Greater Toronto Area, households characterized as “low income” (household income less than $40,000 per year) consumed 18.4% more pre-packaged goods (namely grains, produce and frozen meats), when compared to families whose household income exceeded $100,000 a year. There is an inverse, statistically significant correlation between household income and % of prepackaged foodstuff of overall weekly purchases.

The expectation that households have the ability to readily switch between products based on packaging type doesn’t appear to be a realistic one. People might like the idea of Loop, or want to participate in more sustainability initiatives, but at present, they are priced out of “taking part”.

A particularly interesting phenomenon is that more than 30% of respondents indicated that they are increasingly feeling a “shame” factor from friends or family, who were questioning why they continue to make “unsustainable” choices in light of increasing awareness surrounding single use plastics (i.e. using plastic bags, seran wrap etc.). An anecdote provided during one of the focus group sessions included “A co-worker admonished me for purchasing frozen meat products for my children, alluding to the fact that fresh is better… obviously it is, but I can’t afford that every time and I was left feeling guilty”

While the results of these focus groups/surveys are merely a subset of the diverse range of experiences faced by Ontarians, the sample was designed to be statistically significant and stratified to reflect different demographic contributions.

What was not considered in this study is the potential impact on packaged good prices once a 100% producer responsibility model is implemented in Ontario. Given that lower income groups are the greatest consumers of packaged goods (both in absolute terms, and as a relative % of the overall purchasing basket), any upwards pressure in the cost of food stuff could have potentially adverse impacts.

Knowledge Access

Did you know that I could now schedule my used clothing bin pickup with Diabetes Canada? Or that the TOwaste App allows users the ability properly sort more than 2000 materials?

Even the University’s own Waste Wiki site offers users the ability to download thousands of resources related to waste.

While advents in technology that allow us to engage and communicate in new ways with city residents, we have to remember to ask ourselves: Who is my intended audience? And who is my tool designed for? We often erroneously presume that the majority of people are social media savvy and have the ability to navigate and use a smartphone, but research conducted by York University suggest that smartphone ownership among first generation immigrants is as follows:

Figure 1: Smart Phone Ownership

No alt text provided for this image

Amongst the more than 1200 survey respondents, only adults between the ages of 17-44 reported owning and regularly using a smart phone. The average across all age groups was actually less than 50%. A perhaps more salient finding is that the majority of first generation immigrants using smartphones DO NOT have English as their primary system language (in fact, for ages 45 and older, smartphone users almost exclusively navigate using their native language)

Figure 2: Primary System Language

No alt text provided for this image

Now, you may be asking yourself why does this matter? And what does this have to do with socio-economic inequality?

Simply put, these applications have largely been designed and tested with a demographic that assumes a person is: fluent in English, knows where to download and remove applications from the Play Store, possesses the technical proficiency to consent to location tracking, cookies etc. and lastly, cares enough to see out these types of resources.

In a 2016 study conducted by York University examining “Effectiveness of Recycling Promotion and Education Initiatives among First-Generation Ethnic Minorities in Ontario, Canada” (Lakhan, Social Sciences, 2016), focus group participants struggled to navigate online promotion and education materials and resources (such as the Waste Wizard). The following is an excerpt from this study:

48 of 77 focus group participants expressed difficulty in navigating to and within municipal waste websites (commonly coded phrases included “It’s hard to find the information I’m looking for”). Of particular note, The second most frequently coded response for this question was that the municipality’s web pages were often translated incorrectly (coded 33 times), making it difficult to locate the appropriate waste related resource. While the Google translate feature was available on each of the municipal web sites, the translation was often inaccurate (mistranslated words and phrases, grammar, etc.). 24 study participants indicated that this was actually insulting to them—anecdotes recorded during the sessions include “If you’re not going to do it properly, don’t bother doing it at all” and “It shows how much they (the municipality) care about us”. The notion of “us” and “them” was a recurring theme during the focus group sessions. There was a sentiment that municipalities catered to “white” households and ignored (or placed less emphasis on) the needs of ethnic minorities.

Returning to the conversation of equitable access, how do we ensure that all participants within the system are aware of the tools that are available to them, and by extension, how do we ensure those tools are usable and meaningful to communities?

As an anecdote, I am going to pick on my late father again. As I have noted before, he was a brilliant man who was a professor in Environmental Science, (but he wasn’t exactly the best environmentalist). In spring of last year, as he was cleaning his house post retirement, I told him he could now schedule a pick up on his phone for someone to come get all of his clothes for a donation – no need to leave the house. He just scoffed at me as he loaded bag after bag of used clothing in to my car, ordering me to drive to the Salvation Army. The tool that gets a person like my father to participate, someone who wouldn’t have previously participated if not for this app, is what’s going to be the game changer. Tech savvy recyclers are already taking advantage of these services, and it is unlikely that future increases in diversion are going to come from them. 

Infrastructural Access

Infrastructural Access to waste management services is something that is more difficult to readily quantify, but perhaps, is most insidious in that it highlights that services (not just those pertaining to waste management) are two tiered: One for the rich, and one for everyone else.

Having done extensive work in multi residential buildings throughout the Greater Toronto Area, I have been privy to see the unique challenges that building managers face when attempting to promote diversion. While these are not an exhaustive list of observations (ultimately, every building is unique), but based on data collected over a three year period (which included gauging self-reported recycling behavior among building residents), the following was observed.

1)     Very few buildings are equipped with floor level recycling chutes, with most older buildings having a “recycling room” that required residents to drop off their recyclables at a designated location (normally in a room in the basement). Only recently constructed condominiums have floor level tri sorters.

2)     Not all building managers have the same level of commitment in promoting and maintaining waste management services in their building. City Staff are routinely engaged with building managers to provide materials to residents instructing them about various elements of the City’s waste management programs. 

3)     Recycling/Waste rooms located in building basements or parking garages were seen as an inconvenience, and potentially unsafe

4)     Many “waste/recycling” rooms were seen as dirty, poorly lit and heavily contaminated, which significantly deterred participation among residents. As an extension of this, a household’s willingness to use the waste room was directly related to the building manager’s commitment to maintaining the waste room.

5)     Residents wanted to recycle, but found the inconvenience of both storing and transporting waste to the designated room acted as a deterrent

6)     Residents had much lower rates of recycling awareness compared to single family households, as it was a situation of “out of sight, out of mind”. In the absence of weekly/bi-weekly collection, people forgot about it.

The common thread across each of these observations is that the more affluent the building (ownership was a significant predictor of diversion behavior), the more building/site staff were committed to promoting and maintain a safe and accessible recycling room. It should be noted that this was not universally the case, and overall, building residents expressed strong positive attitudes towards recycling, but low levels of perceived behavioral control that ultimately deterred recycling behavior. Generally speaking, these behavioral obstacles were most prevalent in buildings characterized by lower income and/or immigrant families.

Figure 3 below is taken from as an excerpt from a study I had conducted examining the link between public space recycling and neighborhood income levels (2017)

Figure 3: Density of Bin Per Sample Area

1 – # of Recycling Bins Per Transit Stop

2 – # of Recycling Bins Per 1km sampled roadway/sidewalk

3 – # of Recycling Bins per sampled area

No alt text provided for this image

While the scale makes it a bit difficult to follow, what the figure above shows is that the frequency of recycling bins in three public spaces (Transit Stops, Sidewalks and Parkettes/Playgrounds) is in direct correlation with neighborhood income level (greater income = greater density of bins).

It is important to note that incidents of illegal dumping or littering were not necessarily shown to be higher in these areas, but the purpose of this exercise was to merely determine whether “access to recycling” was equitable across all income groups. The answer, at least based on the time this data was collected, was no. Higher income areas have greater opportunities to recycle, at least with respect to the density of public space Blue Bins.

With respect to infrastructural access, it is very much a tail of two cities (although it would be difficult to say that was the result of deliberate design). Higher income households have greater opportunities to participate in diversion programs, experience more regular/predictable service and have access to supplementary tools and resources that are tailored more specifically to an English speaking audience. These experience further reinforce positive attitude attachments towards the environment, and may subsequently lead to recycling habituation. While this is a desired outcome, high income English speaking households already participate in household recycling at rates that exceed 90% – the next diverted tonne is unlikely going to come from these groups.

Stop and Think

I would strongly caution the reader from jumping to any conclusions based on this information – questions surrounding environmental equality is complex and multi-faceted, and I certainly don’t do any justice to them in this short article.

However, what I do want people to think about what our waste management system is going to look like moving forward. Will we all be using reusable ice cream cans and storing our mouth wash in artisanal metal bottles? I say that tongue in cheek, but conversations surrounding sustainability cannot be had without considering equitability and inclusiveness.

Both brand owners and policy makers cannot stop at saying “We found a divertable solution” and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Instead, we need to be thinking about how can we deliver this solutions at scale, across all income groups, so that everyone can participate in creating a circular economy?


About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior.

Raining on the parade: A critique of packaging “take back”​ programs (Terracycle,Loop, Nespresso etc.)

, , , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University 

I want to preface this post by saying that I wan’t to be proven wrong – while it may be a peculiar stance to take as a researcher, I want to believe in the environmental benefits of packaging take back programs offered by Terracycle, Recycle Bank etc.

The idea that we are now finding innovative ways to recycle problematic materials and transition towards reusable packaging is a breath of fresh air in an industry that finds itself in a waste crisis.

With that being said, it is important to fully understand what it is we are trying to achieve as we work towards a circular economy. A circular system is our end point, but the path that we ultimately take to get there is where we should focus our attention.

The following is an excerpt from the study (I have attached the full white paper for people to download). Please note that I welcome any and all questions, criticisms and comments – my goal is not to pick on any particular organization, but shed light on the challenges of using a decentralized network for waste collection.

Study Excerpt

In Spring of 2019, York University’s Waste Wiki team was asked to investigate the environmental and economic impact of take back programs involving coffee pods, and other reusable/recyclable items that have de-centralized collection networks (i.e. Terra Cycle programs for shampoo bottles, cigarette butts etc.)

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that consumer packaging goods companies are exploring end of life waste management solutions that exist outside of conventional curbside collection. Increasingly, CPG companies are announcing partnerships with “niche” recyclers (where niche is characterized as a company that specializes in the recovery of problematic/difficult to recover materials), enabling consumers to directly return used packaging to re-processors and have it be diverted from landfill.

However, scant attention has been paid as to whether these types of programs offer legitimate environmental benefits when taking a life cycle approach. While it may seem intuitive that keeping material of a landfill is a good idea, what constitutes recyclability is a much more nuanced question that requires a careful consideration of environmental benefits, costs, accessibility, availability and infrastructural capacity.

In the case of most take back programs offered by companies such as Terracycle, problematic materials are down-cycled into “one off” products. As an example, Terracycle presently has take back programs offered for a range of commonly used household products, including razors and other personal hygiene items, chip bags, multi laminate pouches, sharpies/markers and cigarette waste.

While this initially seems like a good thing, each of the aforementioned items are down-cycled, wherein the end of life secondary product cannot be subsequently recovered, and ultimately is disposed of (i.e. a shampoo bottle is converted into a running shoe, but that running shoe cannot be recycled at its end of life, and will either be landfilled or incinerated).

While Terracycle and their peers should be celebrated for their innovation and commitment to finding new uses for problematic materials, their approach to recycling and reuse creates a dangerous perception among the public about what items can (and should be) recycled/reused.

At present, the processing technology involved in any of the aforementioned take back programs is economically prohibitive, and is really only available in jurisdictions in which the collection program is being offered. Simply put – municipal waste management infrastructure is not designed to either collect or recycle problematic materials.

As an example, the only cost analog that can readily be found in a municipal waste system is for multi-laminate plastic packaging (chip bags, yogurt squeeze containers etc.). In 2018, for the limited number of municipal programs that accepted multi laminate materials as part of their Blue Bin, the cost of recycling exceeded $2000 a tonne.

While comparing Terracycle’s costs (which are not shared) with a public municipal waste management system isn’t a particularly useful comparison, it is done to highlight just how costly it is to achieve, even with established collection, consolidation and sorting systems in place.

Take back programs offered by packaging companies and their partners must find ways to economically consolidate and transport their material to specific facilities, and ensure that those facilities are readily equipped to process that material at scale. The economic and environmental impact of a decentralized logistics network is questionable – take back programs that ask consumers to ship things like coffee pods, chip bags, razors etc. hundreds of kilometers can be both inefficient and costly.

At this time, neither Terracycle nor their partners were willing to share their cost and diversion data with the university, limiting the ability to model our own costing scenarios.

However, as an intellectual exercise, let’s look at a take back program that we have a better understanding of – The “Nespresso” Aluminum Coffee Pod (also managed by Terracycle). 

Results  (See link below)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rfERnYLOIhPsHcPA7JHf-BxPvErSiezB/view

Closing Comments

For those of you who may not be inclined to read through the entire white paper (although it is a relatively light read at a little under 8 pages – with lots of graphs), the closing comments are as follows:

Nespresso should be applauded for finding a recyclable alternative and innovating in a way that moves us away from single use plastic pods. However, the danger of programs such as Nespresso’s mailer program is that it creates the illusion of being a good environmental citizen (from both the perspective of the packaging producer and the consumer). However, as both consumers and decision makers, we have to perform our due diligence when evaluating whether our actions (in this case, recycling) are achieving our intended objectives (preferable environmental outcomes).

What is perhaps most damning is that Nespresso Aluminum pods is one of the only environmentally friendly packaging types managed by Terracycle that can readily be recycled at a low cost. Table 1 below summarizes the known emissions credits and recycling costs for commonly found Blue Box Materials (managed via curbside).

Table 1: Comparison of Emissions Credits and Recycling Costs

No alt text provided for this image

Please note that the costs per tonne DO NOT include collection costs – these are just the costs of sorting and processing materials at a material recycling facility, net of any revenue received from marketed materials. Curbside collection costs for Blue Box materials typically range from $150-$300 a tonne (as different municipalities have different collection infrastructure, housing densities, labor rates etc.).

While Terracycle did not provide a breakdown of their collection costs for any of their take back programs, the purpose of this study is to highlight that voluntary take back programs, particularly involving those using a mailer system, can only work when there is a critical mass of consolidated material, and that material is being collected at designated intervals. A take back program that leaves it to consumer discretion for how and when they will return end of life materials is in all likelihood significantly more costly from a transportation perspective due to the number of unique trips required. The only way for material to be efficiently transported is when there is a critical mass of material to transport.

As a secondary concern, important questions surrounding the accessibility and affordability of take back groups needs to be considered. Many of the programs offered by Terracycle and their partners exist largely in urban areas – the reason for this is fairly obvious, as it is simply not economically feasible to offer recycling programs to everyone, everywhere. As a tangent to this statement, the introduction of reusable packaging such as Loop has placed upwards pressures on the price of packaged goods – once again, a novel and unique design, but one that is not readily affordable or accessible to a significant percentage of Canadians.

A recent study from York University estimated that lower income marginalized households are those most likely affected by increases in packaging prices, as a greater proportion of their purchases are made up of pre-packaged items.

The findings from this study should be interpreted with a degree of caution – in the absence of having Terracycle’s data, we can only make best guess estimates based on the existing cost of managing a municipal waste system in Ontario. We welcome critics of these findings to share their data, such that we can all have a better understanding of what it is we would like to achieve from our waste management systems moving forward.  

Simply “recycling” is not enough, and we need to be both ready and willing to explore packaging alternatives that “think outside the Blue Box”.

Canadian company claims it can 100% recycle Lithium Batteries

,

Li-Cycle, a three-year old company headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario recently announced that had developed a method that allows it to achieve a recycling rate of 80% to 100% of materials in lithium-ion batteries.

​It is estimated that 5% of lithium-ion batteries are collected for recycling (i.e. not reuse) globally, with some jurisdictions (e.g. some member states of the European Union) having much more efficient portable battery collection rates of >20%. Once lithium-ion batteries reach recycling facilities today, the existing best available recycling technology uses high-temperature processing (i.e. >1,000°C, also known as smelting, a pyrometallurgical method) to recycle lithium-ion batteries.

Smelting typically recovers 30-40% of the constituent materials in lithium-ion batteries. The residual 60-70% is either volatilized, cleaned and emitted to the atmosphere, or ends up in solid waste (i.e. slag). Smelting specifically targets the recovery of the base metals in lithium-ion batteries – cobalt, nickel and copper – with only proportions recovered thereof. Critical materials such as lithium are not economically recoverable via smelting. Low recoveries result in an impartially closed lithium-ion battery supply chain loop.

Li-Cycle Technology™ uses a combination of mechanical size reduction and hydrometallurgical resource recovery specifically designed for lithium-ion battery recycling. The technology can do so with an unparalleled recovery rate of 80 – 100% of all materials. The recycling process consists of two key stages: (1) Safe-size reduction of all lithium batteries from a charged state to an inert product and (2) recovery of the electrode materials to produce battery-grade end products.

In 2018, Li-Cycle received $2.7 million in funding from Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to develop its novel process for the recovery and recycling of valuable materials from all types of lithium-ion batteries.

Earlier this year,  Li-Cycle was named as one of the top 100 international start-ups contributing to the energy transition through the 2019 Start-up Energy Transition (SET) Awards competition. This competition is run by the German Energy Agency (dena) and supported by the World Energy Council.

Li-Cycle has completed three research and development programs/physical validation work streams to date. The company is currently operating an integrated demonstration plant and is in the progressed stages of commercial plant development.  Li-Cycle’s physical validation work streams have been premised on a ‘scale-down’ focus, i.e. scaled down relative to commercial scale.  Each scale-down stage has been focused on the validation of specific key performance indicators.

Canadian Government funding for innovative plastic recycling technologies

,

The government of Canada is partnering with Canadian businesses to develop innovative solutions to keep plastics in the economy and out of landfills and the environment.

The government recently announced six winners of the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge, a part of the Innovative Solutions Canada program. Dealing with issues related to food packaging, construction waste, and the separation of plastics for recycling, these Challenges are an opportunity to invest in innovative ideas and technologies that could play a role in addressing plastic pollution and moving Canada toward a zero-plastic waste future.

Copol International Ltd., one of the funding recipients located in Sydney, Nova Scotia, is a local small business developing a food packaging solution that would incorporate biodegradable components extracted from marine waste into a cast polypropylene film.

The $150,000 in funding will be used on a research project, in partnership with Cape Breton University’s Verschuren Centre, to develop and test biopolymer formulations extracted from marine plants and marine waste products and replace the unrecyclable product that is currently being used to make polypropylene film. For example, shrimp shells could be utilized in the manufacture of polypropylene film.

The research project will last approximately six months. If it is successful, then a prototype film will be produced for commercial testing.

Polypropylene (CPP) film products from the Copoal International Ltd. facility (Source: Copol International Ltd. website)

Copol International Ltd. has 54 employees, operates 24/7 in a 90,000-square-foot building. The company began operations approximately 20 years ago. IT currently provides customized mono- and multi-layer films for food and textile packaging, industrial applications, and heath care products for customers across North America 

Copol International Ltd. joins other small businesses from across the country who will each receive up to $150,000 to develop their idea.

Phase 1 recipients, such as the six winners of the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge, who successfully develop a proof of concept will be invited to compete for a grant of up to $1 million in Phase 2 to develop a prototype. The Government of Canada then has the option to be the first buyer of any successful innovation.

Innovative Solutions Canada consists of over $100 million in dedicated funding to support the scale-up and growth of Canada’s innovators and entrepreneurs by having the federal government act as a first customer for innovation. Twenty participating federal departments and agencies have set aside a portion of funding to support the creation of innovative solutions by Canadian small businesses.

A total of seven Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenges were put forward as part of the Innovative Solutions Canada program, each encouraging innovative solutions to a different problem area in addressing plastic waste.

The seven plastics challenges are sponsored by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Natural Resources Canada; who each oversee the selection of the winning projects for their respective Challenges.

Myths vs. Facts on Recycling in Canada

, ,

With major headline in newspapers and newscasts on recycling in Canada, the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) deemed it necessary to publish a fact sheet that dispels the myths and state the facts on recycling in Canada.

The Fact Sheet addresses one of the most persistent myths surrounding recycling, which is that no one knows how to address the challenges that the industry is currently facing. SWANA wanted it to be known that solutions are being implemented. Recycling facilities are embracing new technologies such as robotics to keep up with changing market requirements and material streams. New facilities are opening and existing ones are expanding, providing more demand for recyclables. Organizations are considering redesign, reuse and repair to address hard-to recycle items.

SWNA Fact Sheet of Recycling Myths and Facts

“Although the recycling industry is currently having some difficulties marketing some of their materials, the industry isn’t broken,” says Art Mercer, SWANA’s Incoming International Secretary. “Materials are recycled into new products and this has many benefits, such as energy and resource conservation. Just because it is temporarily difficult to market some of the items, this is no reason to stop recycling and throw these items away, often filling up landfills. Also, we need to remember that we all have a responsibility to reduce the items we buy and throw away. Recycling is not the only solution.”

SWANA is an organization of more than 10,000 public and private sector professionals committed to advancing from solid waste management to resource management through their shared emphasis on education, advocacy and research. For more than 50 years, SWANA has been one of the leading associations in the solid waste management field. SWANA serves industry professionals through technical conferences, certifications, publications and a large offering of technical training courses. 

Ontario looking to revamp recycling and plastic waste programs

,

The Ontario government recently appointed a special advisor to assist in revamping the Province’s recycling programs.

The Ontario government has engaged David Lindsay, currently the President and CEO of the Council of Ontario Universities, as a Special Advisor on Recycling and Plastic Waste prepare a report by the end of the summer on how to tackle plastic waste and litter, improve recycling, increase products that can go into the blue box, and ensure producers are responsible for managing plastic and other packaging at end-of-life.

Ontario Environment Ministry, Rod Phillips, stated in the news release that he was engaging Mr. Lindsay in an effort to find solutions to the Province’s languid recycling rates. The current Blue Box Program has been in place since the 1980s and had world-renowned success in recovering residential printed paper and packaging for recycling. However, Ontario’s waste diversion rates have stalled at just over 60 per cent for the past 15 years.

“Ontario families take pride in doing their part for the environment. In fact, our own city of Kitchener was the birthplace of the world’s first Blue Box program,” said Minister Phillips. “Knowing this, I was disappointed to learn that, while Ontario families work to sort and recycle properly, government and industry are failing them. Ontario’s recycling rates have been stalled for 15 years and up to 30 per cent of what is put into blue boxes is sent to landfill. Not to mention, recent stories highlight how some of Ontario’s plastic waste is being unsustainably shipped across the ocean to the Philippines and Malaysia.”

In the open-facing letter to the Special Advisor, the Environment Minister has requested that work be guided by the following public policy objectives:

  • Standardization across the province of what can be recycled in offices, parks, public spaces and homes;
  • Improve diversion rates and increase what materials can be recycled;
  • Reduce litter and waste in communities and parks;
  • Improve Ontario’s Blue Box Program by requiring producers to pay for the recycling of the products they produce, through achieving producer responsibility;
  • Maintain or improve frequency of Blue Box collection; and
  • When increasing diversion in the residential sector, consider how these policies can also enable diversion in the institutional, commercial and industrial sector.

As Special Advisor, Mr. Lindsay has limited direct experience with waste issues. Prior to his current role as the President and CEO of the Council of Ontario Universities, he was President and CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada and of Colleges Ontario, an advocacy organization for the province’s 24 colleges of applied arts and technology. Mr. Lindsay has experience in the Ontario Public Service previously holding the position of Deputy Minister for the Energy and Infrastructure, Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Natural Resources, and Tourism and Culture portfolios.

David Lindsay

“I’m looking forward to helping Ontario’s municipalities and producers work together to address plastic litter and improve recycling in our province,” said David Lindsay. “Having stakeholders come together to identify concerns and find solutions will be integral to reinvigorating the province’s Blue Box Program and solving the problem of plastic litter and waste.”

In the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, Ontario committed to transitioning the costs of the Blue Box Program away from municipal taxpayers to make the producers of products and packaging fully responsible. Shifting to producer responsibility will obligate producers across the province to pay for and manage their materials. Based on 2017 costs, municipalities would save about $125 – $175 million annually once full producer responsibility for the Blue Box Program is put in place.

Reducing plastic waste and litter and making producers responsible for the end-of-life management of their products is a key part of Ontario’s Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan.

Who’s Making the Rules on Global Plastics?

, ,

Written by Jonathan D. Cocker, Baker McKenzie

There is no question that dramatic changes are coming for the supply and reverse supply chain for plastics that will impact packaging, containers, and plastic products. From resins and polymer mixes to ocean plastic clean up and waste export bans and everything in between, it is difficult to not foresee a fundamental regime shift coming for the regulation of plastics globally. But just who decides on these new rules and how will disparate initiatives and goals lead to convergence on legal standards?

EU Plastics Strategy

The first place to start is, of course, the European Union. The broad-reaching 2018 strategy encompasses the landmark 2019 Single Use Plastics Directive, targeting certain commonly disposed products and includes:

  • Bans for a number of single use plastics (cutlery, straws, etc.) where non-plastic alternatives are readily available and affordable;
  • Reduction targets for food containers and cups;
  • Ambitious collection targets of up to 90%;
  • Producer payment obligations to help fund waste management and legacy clean-up costs;
  • Labelling of some plastics, indicating how to waste dispose and alerts as to the negative environmental impacts of plastics; and
  • Consumer awareness campaigns about negative impacts of plastic litter and re-use and waste management options. 

In short, it is a policy mix impacting various parts of the life-cycle. The Plastics Strategy goes further, however, and requires of all plastics:

  • Design of recyclability;
  • Creation of markets for recycled and renewable plastics;
  • Expanding and modernizing EU’s plastics sorting and recycling capacity;
  • Mandating producer-paid initiatives to curb plastic wastes;
  • A regulatory framework for plastics with biodegradable properties; and
  • Coming regulation on microplastics across a number of industries.

This relatively comprehensive set of product and supply chain requirements would apply to both inbound and outbound products, leaving little room for global plastics industry stakeholders to remain untouched by these coming standards.

Ellen MacArthur’s “New Plastics Economy”

What the Ellen MacArthur Foundation lacks in regulatory authority, it more than makes up for in ambition. The seminal publications on a “New Plastics Economy” involves macro-level systems to remake supply/reverse supply chains. Overall, it’s mission is described as follows:

  • Elimination of problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging through redesign, innovation, and new delivery models is a priority;
  • Reuse models are applied where relevant, reducing the need for single-use packaging;
  • All plastic packaging is 100% reusable, recyclable, or compostable;
  • All plastic packaging is reused, recycled, or composted in practice;
  • The use of plastic is fully decoupled from the consumption of finite resources; and
  • All plastic packaging is free of hazardous chemicals, and the health, safety, and rights of all people involved are respected.

The genius of the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment is its multi-stakeholders industry approach, enlisting some of the largest industrials and other stakeholders from across the plastics supply and reverse supply chain to make concrete, shared undertakings, thereby establishing common terms of reference and objective standards by which supply chain parties can systematize their efforts.

They’ve gone further and fostered the growth of “Plastic Pacts” in which countries are to enlist domestic industry to make commitments which exceed EU standards. The reference terms are not, however, entirely consistent, potentially creating future challenges for international industry to adopt a single compliance legal regime where long-term investment under the MacArthur Foundation model isn’t entirely exported into law.

Alliance to End Plastic Waste

January 2019 also saw the creation of the industry-led Alliance to End Plastic Waste, which has committed an astounding $1.5 Billion over the next five years with a mandate to “bring to scale solutions that will minimize and manage plastic waste and promote solutions for used plastics by helping enable a circular economy”.

To date, the Alliance appears to be focused upon funding plastics-relevant waste management projects, principally in Asia, but their heft will, no doubt, be relevant in the overall direction of plastics policy given their petrochemical representation and their planned investments. It remains to be seen when and how they might enter the plastics product design-for-environment field.

Basel Convention

Finally, the newest major entrant in the increasingly crowded field of new plastics standards is the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. In addition to the deeming of most plastic wastes as controlled by the environmental and transfer protections built into the Basel Convention effective January 1st, 2021, the May 2019 resolutions also put the organization into the forefront of plastics regulation with some notable initiatives:

  • An expert working group is to be convened to consider whether to expand the categories of plastic wastes which should be classified as “hazardous” under the Convention (many will be simply classified as “other wastes” under the May 2019 resolutions);
  • A “partnership on plastic wastes” is to be convened which will include the (state) parties to the Convention, as well as certain other stakeholders (as either parties or observers) and will:
    • Engage in pilot projects and scaling exercises;
    • Assess best practices, as well as barriers, for the prevention, minimization, and environmentally-sound management of plastic waste movements; and
    • Consider options for increasing durability, reusability, reparability and recyclability of plastics.
  • A mandate to update the current Technical Guidelines which are to be a point of reference of parties’ national and international waste management and recycling standards, including how they relate to plastics.

With these goals, the Basel Convention has gone from a virtual bystander on most plastic waste issues to an aspirant for a central role, with the backing of almost all national governments (notably absent – USA). Further, the Basel Convention has overtly called for collaboration with the United National Environment Program, giving it a further platform to push through multi-lateral action on plastics. Whether the Basel Convention lacks the industry integration to remain relevant in this dynamic market, however, remains to be seen.

Where’s the Convergence?

In looking at these four major global initiatives, what’s most staggering is that they’ve all arisen in the past year, each arguably filling a vacuum on plastics stewardship to which great public animosity was paid.

While each has a somewhat different mandate and maybe all would benefit from each pursuing their own enterprises for now, there will soon be a need for convergence on the fundamentals of future plastics rules, such as permissible plastics types, hazards eliminations, recycled content minimums, environmental attributes, such as “compostable” or “biodegradable”, design for recyclability, usage bans, and reverse supply chain integration.

Without convergent, plastics industry stakeholders won’t find the market stability necessary to make any of these initiatives successful.


About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads the Firm’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of firm Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining and Infrastructure groups. Mr. Cocker provides advice and representation to multinational companies on a variety of environment, health and safety matters, including product content, dangerous goods transportation, GHS, regulated wastes, consumer product and food safety, extended producer responsibilities and contaminated lands matters. He appears before both EHS tribunals and civil courts across Canada. Mr. Cocker is a frequent speaker and writer on EHS matters, an active participant on EHS issues in a number of national and international industry associations and the recent author of the first edition of The Environment and Climate Change Law Review (Canada chapter) and the upcoming Encyclopedia of Environmental Law (Chemicals chapter).

Making Producers Pay – From Stewardship to Innovative EPR Programs in Canada

, , ,

Written by Mark Youden and Maya Stano, Associate Lawyers at Gowling WLG

Product and packaging waste is increasingly drawing public attention across the globe. This stems, in part, from a growing awareness of massive plastic pollution accumulation zones in our oceans, government bans of single use plastics, China’s recent import ban on scrap plastics, and news of the Philippines wanting to return Canadian “recyclables.”  In this era, governments are increasingly turning to innovative waste management and diversion policies and laws.

To date, Canada has focused on two approaches for managing products and their packaging at end-of-life: (1) extended producer responsibility or “EPR”, and (2) product stewardship programs. For the most part, these programs (which cover various categories) fall under provincial jurisdiction.    

To varying degrees, these programs shift the end-of-life waste responsibility away from governments (and tax payers) and on to producers (e.g., brand owners, manufacturers and first importers).  Depending on the program, this responsibility includes reporting and funding (at least in part) the management of the waste created by their products.  

Stewardship versus EPR

Although often used interchangeably, there are key policy differences between product stewardship and EPR programs (as well as significant corresponding financial implications for companies). Generally speaking, EPR programs place responsibility (and costs) on product producers, whereas product stewardship programs generally rely on consumer-paid environmental fees or public funds. Although the emphasis in Canada has historically been on product stewardship programs, there is a growing shift towards transforming those initiatives to full-fledged EPR programs. Such EPR programs place full responsibility for designing, operating and financing diversion programs, and accountability for the program’s environmental performance, on producers.  The concept is intended to incentivize companies to not only bear responsibility for, but actually reduce, their product waste footprint (e.g., through recyclable product and packaging innovation).

Status of EPR Programs

Provincial Level

In 2014, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement an EPR system making producers fully responsible for funding and managing curbside and drop-off recycling programs for packaging and printed paper. Under the province’s Environmental Management Act and Recycling Regulation, producers must recover 75% of the paper and packaging they produce, and face fines if they don’t achieve this target.

Full EPR programs have not yet been implemented in other provinces – some provinces do require producers to pay for part of their recycling, but none outside of BC require producers to manage the actual system. At the local level, municipalities often bear the burden of dealing with urban waste generation, and towns and cities are increasingly expressing support for full EPR implementation to help cover the costs of expensive recycling programs. For example, the City of Calgary recently passed a motion to push the province into looking into EPR programs. 

Similarly, in Ontario producers are required to pay for 50% of the recycling system, but municipalities are actively calling for a full EPR model. In 2016, Ontario passed a groundbreaking bill that instituted an EPR requirement for all product categories. The bill also sought to prevent producers from discharging their liabilities to a third party, thereby making them fully responsible. These efforts culminated in the adoption of several new laws, including the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016 (which includes payments to municipalities to cover their costs associated with the blue box recycling program), and the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 (which led to the development of the Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy).

Federal Level

At the federal level, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment began taking action in the late 1990’s in regard to its waste reduction target of 50% of the product waste that is placed into the market. Since 2004, the CCME has published several reports, analyses, studies, tools and progress reports in regard to the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility, with product packaging recognized as a priority in that plan.

International Level

EPR has a long history in Europe, where it has existed in varying forms since 1990. Sweden and Germany led the way by encouraging industries that made and sold products to be responsible for the waste stage of those products. EPR programs subsequently spread to other EU countries and beyond.

Challenges with recycling recently led to the EU’s approval of a law banning 10 types of single-use plastics by 2021 as part of its shift towards a circular economy (which aims to keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, and recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life). Canadian federal MP Nathan Cullen has recently introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-429, the Zero Waste Packaging Act, which seeks to follow the EU lead.1 Stay tuned on the progress of those efforts as they evolve here in Canada.

The Spotlight on Product and Packaging Waste

A dispute between the Philippines and Canada has recently drawn attention on Canada’s product and packaging waste system.  In April 2019, the Philippines demanded that Canada take back shipping containers full of waste and recyclable plastics. Canada originally argued that it is not responsible for returning the waste that was shipped. This dispute, spanning over 5 years now, is complicated by obligations under international law (including the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1992).  As threats from the Philippines President escalated in late April 2019, Canada offered to accept and pay for the return of close to 70 shipping containers.Those containers are now on their way back to Canada. 

This international dispute has placed the spotlight on the state of recycling in Canada (as many did not realize Canada ships its waste elsewhere).  This, coupled with the public criticism over the effectiveness of Canada’s recycling regime, could spark local governments to expedite implementation of waste reduction policy and full-EPR programs. 

In summary, EPR and product stewardship programs are here to stay and will increasingly impose significant requirements on product producers.  Our Gowling WLG team has extensive experience in the detailed requirements that must be followed to ensure legal compliance. Should you have any concerns or questions regarding your company’s product stewardship and EPR duties, please contact one of our knowledgeable team members.


1 https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-429/first-reading#enH123


NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

About the Authors

Mark Youden is an associate lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Vancouver office, practising in the firm’s Environmental and Indigenous Law groups. Mark is called to the bar in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and advises a wide range of clients on all aspects of environmental, Indigenous and regulatory law issues.

Prior to studying law, Mark obtained a Master of Science focused on biophysical interactions and the fate of contaminants in terrestrial and aquatic systems. He also worked as an environmental consultant for an international engineering firm.

Mark’s scientific expertise and multidisciplinary approach to the law help him provide clients with practical solutions to complex environmental and Indigenous law matters.

Maya Stano is a Vancouver-based Gowling WLG associate lawyer who practises natural resource, environmental and Indigenous law.

Maya has a wide range of legal experience assisting individuals, companies and Indigenous Nations and other levels of governments on natural resource projects, including mining, forestry, large and small scale hydro projects, oil and gas projects, and nuclear projects. Maya provides timely and effective advice at all stages of project life, from early planning and tenure applications, through construction, operations and final closure, decommissioning and reclamation. Maya’s services cover due diligence matters, permitting (including environmental assessments), land rights (including leases and other land access and tenure agreements), regulatory compliance, and engagement and agreement negotiations between First Nations, the Crown and proponents.

Maya also assists Indigenous Nations in various government-related matters, including drafting laws and bylaws, drafting and implementing trust instruments for sustainable long-term financial management, managing land use and rights on reserve, and working with land codes and other governance matters.

Maya studied law at the University of British Columbia, graduating with a specialization in environmental and natural resource Law. After graduation, Maya clerked at the Federal Court of Canada for the Honourable Mr. Justice John A. O’Keefe. Concurrently, she completed an LLM at the University of Ottawa, focusing on the legal implications associated with lifecycle management of metals.

Maya is also a professional geological engineer and previously worked on mining projects both domestically and abroad, as well as on contaminated sites across British Columbia, and on oil and gas projects in northern Alberta.

New global rules curb unrestricted plastic waste exports

, , ,

Governments at the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) of the Basel Convention recently acted to restrict plastic waste exports by requiring countries to obtain prior informed consent before exporting contaminated or mixed plastic waste. A deluge of plastic waste exports from developed countries has polluted developing countries in Southeast Asia after China closed the door to waste imports in 2018.

Fourteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention

“With this amendment, many developing countries will, for the first time, have information about plastic wastes entering their country and be empowered to refuse plastic waste dumping,” said Dr. Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor. “For far too long developed countries like the US and Canada have been exporting their mixed toxic plastic wastes to developing Asian countries claiming it would be recycled in the receiving country. Instead, much of this contaminated mixed waste cannot be recycled and is instead dumped or burned, or finds its way into the ocean.”

The unanimously adopted actions on plastic wastes include:

  • Removing or reducing the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics production and at any subsequent stage of their life cycle.
  • Setting of specific collection targets and obligations for plastics producers to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up.
  • Preventing and minimizing the generation of plastic waste, including through increasing the durability, reusability and recyclability of plastic products.
  • Significant reduction of single-use plastic products.

A group of cured resins and fluorinated polymers was not included in the requirement of prior informed consent, which means they can be freely traded without notification.

The theme of the meetings was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”. The meetings, attended by about 1,400 participants, from 180 countries, adopted 73 decisions.