Paper Recycling Coalition

PRC Welcomes New Member Fusion Paperboard

PRC — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:29:42 +0000

PRC Hails Passage of Senate Resolution on Recycling

PRC — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:04:56 +0000

November 17, 2011

Last night, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 251 (S. Res. 251).

This Sense of the Senate Resolution expresses support for improvement in the collection, processing and use of recyclable materials throughout the United States.

“The Senate has recognized the importance of recycling to the American economy and the environment. Increasing paper recycling is critical for the expansion of these benefits. We are grateful to Senators Carper & Snowe for their leadership in this area.”

–Fran McPoland, Paper Recycling Coalition

Senate Resolution Press Release

Senate Resolution 251

Senate Resolution to Support Recycling Introduced

PRC — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:43:34 +0000

Senate Resolution 251 (S. Res. 251) was introduced in the United States Senate on Tuesday, August 2, 2011 by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Senators Carper and Snowe were joined in the introduction of this bill by 12 Bipartisan Cosponsors; Senator Murray, (D-WA), Senator Lieberman (I-CT), Senator Blumenthal (D-CT), Senator Baucus (D-MT), Senator Stabenow (D-MI), Senator Casey (D-PA), Senator Grassley (R-IA), Senator Tester (D-MT), Senator Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Coons (D-DE), Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) and Senator Merkley (D-OR).

This Sense of the Senate Resolution expresses support for improvement in the collection, processing and use of recyclable materials throughout the United States.

The Resolution was supported by the following Recycling Roundtable members:

Paper Recycling Coalition
Solid Waste Association of North America
Steel Recycling Institute
National Solid Wastes Management Association
The Aluminum Association
American Forest & Paper Association
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

Other organizations supporting the resolution include:

National Recycling Coalition
Recycling Organizations of North America
Environmental Paper Network
Container Recycling Institute

State Recycling Organizations supporting the Resolution include:

Illinois Recycling Association
Virginia Recycling Association
Iowa Recycling Association
The Kansas Organization of Recyclers
Colorado Association for Recycling
Professional Recyclers of Pennsylvania
State of Texas Alliance for Recycling
Indiana Recycling Coalition
Michigan Recycling Coalition
Oklahoma Recycling Association
Association of Ohio Recyclers
Association of New Jersey Recyclers
Tennessee Recycling Coalition
Association of Oregon Recyclers
Associated Recyclers of Wisconsin
Carolina Recycling Association

“The Paper Recycling Coalition is pleased to support Senate Resolution 251. The recycling industry in the United States has been one of the oldest and strongest proponents of protecting the country’s environment and economy. Congressional recognition of the value of this industry is an excellent way to educate its citizens about the importance of their role in recycling.”

—Fran McPoland, Paper Recycling Coalition

S. Res. 251

CEO of Pratt Industries Speaks at Congressional Briefing

PRC — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:22:20 +0000

Paper Recycling Coalition member Brian McPheely, CEO of Pratt Industries, spoke on behalf of his company at a Congressional briefing on July 28^th, 2011. The briefing, “Sustaining the U.S. Recycling Economy: How Recycling Benefits Our Economy and Our Environment”, began with opening remarks from the organizer, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) who is widely recognized as a leader on recycling issues. Following Senator Carper, speakers from various sectors of the recycling industry provided insight on economic and regulatory issues that are affecting job growth.

Mr. McPheely discussed the need for more raw materials, the recovery rate, and environmental and economic benefits of recycling. The following are excerpts from his speech:

“City, state and federal governments along with private industry have worked to provide the collection infrastructure to drive the successes we’ve achieve so far. But too many recyclables still find their way into landfill and are therefore lost to be recycled forever. This is a huge lost opportunity for jobs and commerce.”

“Thankfully, due to the combined efforts of government, environmental groups, individuals and the recycling industry as a whole, we’ve come a long way but there is a lot more to do. In 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, the recycling rate in this country was just over 6.5% and has risen to 33.8% today.”

Comments on the EPA’s Role in Sustainable Products

PRC — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:04:09 +0000

On September 16, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice in the Federal Register requesting input on the Agency’s role in the “green” or sustainable products movement. Under Section 13103(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 the Administrator of EPA is required to “facilitate the adoption of source reduction techniques by businesses and to identify opportunities to use Federal procurement to encourage source reduction.” It is in this context the EPA requested assistance in defining its role.

The Paper Recycling Coalition has submitted the attached comments.

EPA Sustainable Products Comments

Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims

PRC — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:30:08 +0000

Green Guides

The Environmental Marketing Guides indicate how the FTC will apply Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), which prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising claims, in the area of environmental marketing claims. The guides apply to all forms of marketing of products to the public, whether through advertisements, labels, package inserts, or promotional materials.

These guides apply to environmental claims included in labeling, advertising, promotional materials and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, emblems, logos, depictions, product brand names, or through any other means. The guides apply to any claim about the environmental attributes of a product or package in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or marketing of such product or package for personal, family or household use, or for commercial, institutional or industrial use.

The Paper Recycling Coalition works to ensure that the integrity of the 100% recycled paper product is maintained in the marketplace. The PRC partners with the 100% Recycling Paperboard Alliance (RPA100%), which maintains the FTC approved “100% Recycled Paperboard” symbol.

What follows is an excerpt from the Green Guides as it relates to recyclability and recycled content claims. The Green Guides in their entirety can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm

(d) Recyclable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse, or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an established recycling program. Unqualified claims of recyclability for a product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable. For products or packages that are made of both recyclable and non-recyclable components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about which portions or components of the product or package are recyclable. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs and collection sites. If an incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle a product or package, a claim of recyclability would be deceptive. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but, because of its shape, size or some other attribute, is not accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed as recyclable.

In an attempt to clarify this statement, the FTC has provided the following examples:

Example 1: A packaged product is labeled with an unqualified claim, “recyclable.” It is unclear from the type of product and other context whether the claim refers to the product or its package. The unqualified claim is likely to convey to reasonable consumers that all of both the product and its packaging that remain after normal use of the product, except for minor, incidental components, can be recycled. Unless each such message can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified to indicate what portions are recyclable.

Example 4: A nationally marketed bottle bears the unqualified statement that it is “recyclable.” Collection sites for recycling the material in question are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities, although collection sites are established in a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population. The unqualified claim is deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by programs may conclude that recycling programs for the material are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of programs, for example, by stating “This bottle may not be recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for this bottle may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate qualifications of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population to whom programs are available.

Example 5: A paperboard package is marketed nationally and labeled, “Recyclable where facilities exist.” Recycling programs for this package are available in a significant percentage of communities or to a significant percentage of the population, but are not available to a substantial majority of consumers. The claim is deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by programs that recycle paperboard packaging may understand this phrase to mean that such programs are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be further qualified to indicate the limited availability of programs, for example, by using any of the approaches set forth in Example 4 above.

Example 6: A foam polystyrene cup is marketed as follows: “Recyclable in the few communities with facilities for foam polystyrene cups.” Collection sites for recycling the cup have been established in a half-dozen major metropolitan areas. This disclosure illustrates one approach to qualifying a claim adequately to prevent deception about the limited availability of recycling programs where collection facilities are not established in a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population. Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to which programs are available.

Example 7: A label claims that the package “includes some recyclable material.” The package is composed of four layers of different materials, bonded together. One of the layers is made from the recyclable material, but the others are not. While programs for recycling this type of material are available to a substantial majority of consumers, only a few of those programs have the capability to separate the recyclable layer from the non-recyclable layers. Even though it is technologically possible to separate the layers, the claim is not adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception. An appropriately qualified claim would be, “includes material recyclable in the few communities that collect multi-layer products.” Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to which programs are available.

Example 8: A product is marketed as having a “recyclable” container. The product is distributed and advertised only in Missouri. Collection sites for recycling the container are available to a substantial majority of Missouri residents, but are not yet available nationally. Because programs are generally available where the product is marketed, the unqualified claim does not deceive consumers about the limited availability of recycling programs.

Example 9: A manufacturer of one-time use photographic cameras, with dealers in a substantial majority of communities, collects those cameras through all of its dealers. After the exposed film is removed for processing, the manufacturer reconditions the cameras for resale and labels them as follows: “Recyclable through our dealership network.” This claim is not deceptive, even though the cameras are not recyclable through conventional curbside or drop off recycling programs.

Example 10: A manufacturer of toner cartridges for laser printers has established a recycling program to recover its cartridges exclusively through its nationwide dealership network. The company advertises its cartridges nationally as “Recyclable. Contact your local dealer for details.” The company’s dealers participating in the recovery program are located in a significant number — but not a substantial majority — of communities. The “recyclable” claim is deceptive unless it contains one of the qualifiers set forth in Example 4. If participating dealers are located in only a few communities, the claim should be qualified as indicated in Example 6.

Example 11: An aluminum beverage can bears the statement “Please Recycle.” This statement is likely to convey to consumers that the package is recyclable. Because collection sites for recycling aluminum beverage cans are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities, the claim does not need to be qualified to indicate the limited availability of recycling programs.

(e) Recycled Content: A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (post-consumer). To the extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer material, the manufacturer or advertiser must have substantiation for concluding that the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste stream. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made between pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.

It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is made of recycled material. Unqualified claims of recycled content may be made only if the entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental components, is made from recycled material. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material, a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or package.

Example 1: A manufacturer routinely collects spilled raw material and scraps left over from the original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the manufacturer combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive since the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally reused by industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not normally have entered the waste stream.

Example 2: A manufacturer purchases material from a firm that collects discarded material from other manufacturers and resells it. All of the material was diverted from the solid waste stream and is not normally reused by industry within the original manufacturing process. The manufacturer includes the weight of this material in its calculations of the recycled content of its products. A claim of recycled content based on this calculation is not deceptive because, absent the purchase and reuse of this material, it would have entered the waste stream.

Example 3: A greeting card is composed 30% by fiber weight of paper collected from consumers after use of a paper product, and 20% by fiber weight of paper that was generated after completion of the paper-making process, diverted from the solid waste stream, and otherwise would not normally have been reused in the original manufacturing process. The marketer of the card may claim either that the product “contains 50% recycled fiber,” or may identify the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by stating, for example, that the product “contains 50% total recycled fiber, including 30% post-consumer.”

Example 4: A paperboard package with 20% recycled fiber by weight is labeled as containing “20% recycled fiber.” Some of the recycled content was composed of material collected from consumers after use of the original product. The rest was composed of overrun newspaper stock never sold to customers. The claim is not deceptive.

Example 5: A product in a multi-component package, such as a paperboard box in a shrink-wrapped plastic cover, indicates that it has recycled packaging. The paperboard box is made entirely of recycled material, but the plastic cover is not. The claim is deceptive since, without qualification, it suggests that both components are recycled. A claim limited to the paperboard box would not be deceptive.

Example 6: A package is made from layers of foil, plastic, and paper laminated together, although the layers are indistinguishable to consumers. The label claims that “one of the three layers of this package is made of recycled plastic.” The plastic layer is made entirely of recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the recycled plastic layer constitutes a significant component of the entire package.

Example 7: A paper product is labeled as containing “100% recycled fiber.” The claim is not deceptive if the advertiser can substantiate the conclusion that 100% by weight of the fiber in the finished product is recycled.

Example 8: A frozen dinner is marketed in a package composed of a cardboard box over a plastic tray. The package bears the legend, “package made from 30% recycled material.” Each packaging component amounts to one-half the weight of the total package. The box is 20% recycled content by weight, while the plastic tray is 40% recycled content by weight. The claim is not deceptive, since the average amount of recycled material is 30%.

Example 9: A paper greeting card is labeled as containing 50% recycled fiber. The seller purchases paper stock from several sources and the amount of recycled fiber in the stock provided by each source varies. Because the 50% figure is based on the annual weighted average of recycled material purchased from the sources after accounting for fiber loss during the production process, the claim is permissible.

Example 10: A packaged food product is labeled with a three chasing arrows symbol without any further explanatory text as to its meaning. By itself, the symbol is likely to convey that the packaging is both “recyclable” and is made entirely from recycled material. Unless both messages can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified as to whether it refers to the package’s recyclability and/or its recycled content. If a “recyclable claim” is being made, the label may need to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the package. If a recycled content claim is being made and the packaging is not made entirely from recycled material, the label should disclose the percentage of recycled content.

Biomass Definition

PRC — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:49:13 +0000

Biomass, according to the Congressional Research Service is defined as: “…organic matter that can be converted into energy. Common examples of biomass include food crops, crops for energy (e.g. switchgrass or prairie perennials), crop residues, wood waste and byproducts, and animal manure. Over the past few years, the concept of biomass has grown to include such diverse sources as algae, construction debris, municipal solid waste, yard waste, and food waste.”[1]

Congress and state legislatures have and will continue to create incentives for the use of biomass as an energy source.

The problem for paper recycling arises when municipal solid waste (MSW) is defined as a biomass because recyclable materials are included in the definition of MSW in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Burning recyclable paper for energy goes against every environmental principal currently in American law and practice.

The attached letter explains to Members of the United States Senate the economic, environmental, and resource conservation benefits of paper recycling and why it should be excluded from any definition of biomass that includes municipal solid waste in the definition.

PRC Letter to Senator Lincoln

[1] Congressional Research Service .Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation. May 18, 2010 R40529, p 1

Keeping Recycled Paper Clean

PRC — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:52:33 +0000

Because we are making high-quality packaging out of the paper you recycle, we need that paper to be clean. Recycled paper is not trash – it is the raw material that runs our industry. When the paper we receive at our mills is heavily contaminated, we cannot use it.

Our state-of-the-art mills can remove small amounts of contaminants like plastic coatings and laminates, inks, adhesives, food, and some broken glass — but only in very small amounts. That’s why we prefer recycling programs that collect paper separately from other recyclables like glass bottles.

The Problem with Single-Stream Recycling Collection Programs

Single-stream collection programs, which commingle recyclable materials in one bin, increase the contamination we find in the paper we use in our mills. The level of contamination in single-stream programs can exceed 25%, turning perfectly good recyclables back into garbage. Our mills cannot use this material. If collected materials are not clean and free of contaminants, they can damage costly papermaking equipment and degrade our final product.

A Better Solution: Keeping Materials Separated

Keeping paper free of all other recyclable materials is the best way to ensure that the paper will be recycled properly. To ensure that the paper you recycle stays as clean as possible, please support source-separated recycling collection programs in your community, where paper is collected in a separate bin from other recyclables like glass.

Increasing Paper Collection for Recycling

PRC — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:05:40 +0000

The 100% recycled paperboard industry needs all of the clean, recycled paper it can get and that means we need Americans to recycle more paper at home and at work. This supply issue is at the heart of our industry’s survival.

U.S. manufacturers are competing in global markets for recycled paper supplies, with much of the paper collected in the U.S. for recycling being exported to Asia. Although some 50 million tons of paper is recovered in the U.S. for recycling each year, over 30% of it is exported to other countries. Global demand for recovered paper is growing at the rate of six million tons per year. We simply cannot meet both domestic and global demand for recovered paper, unless we increase the amount of paper we are collecting for recycling.

Increasing paper recycling also helps fight global warming. We have a substantial opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. simply by increasing paper recycling and the demand for products made from 100% recycled paperboard.

We need the cooperation of all levels of government, private sector recycling companies, and the American public to ensure that we have enough usable recovered paper for our mills to operate efficiently and cost-effectively.

How Recycling Paper Fights Global Warming

PRC — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:30:05 +0000

Global climate change may have significant environmental and economic consequences for the U.S. and other nations.

For every ton of recovered paper that is converted into new recycled paperboard for packaging and other end uses, 3.6 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions are eliminated.

Recycling paper reduces emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming in three important ways.

1. Paper recycling prevents methane emissions from landfills.

First, when paper is not recycled, 80% of it ends up in landfills. Decomposition of the paper in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 21 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide (CO₂). U.S. EPA has identified landfills as the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S., and the decomposition of paper is the largest contributor to the methane being generated.

If paper is recycled, it doesn’t end up in the waste stream, headed for a landfill where it will degrade and generate methane. Simply put, the less paper landfilled, the less methane emitted.

2. Paper recycling leaves more trees standing so they can absorb more CO_2.

100% recycled paper requires no trees to produce. Trees left standing pull carbon out of the air, a process called carbon sequestration, which is one way to reduce the impact of industrial CO₂emissions.

3. Paper recycling requires less energy.

Manufacturing new paper out of recycled paper requires less energy than making paper out of wood. Production of 100% recycled paperboard uses 50 percent less energy compared to virgin grades of paperboard, thus significantly reducing the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.