Cleaning the rPET Stream - Closed Loop Partners · 2017-11-17 · Cleaning the rPET Stream...

Cleaning the rPET StreamOpportunities to strengthen the capital landscape for circular supply chains

November 2017

CLOSED LOOP PARTNERS | PAGE 2

Closed Loop Partners is investing in circular supply chains

$35 million deployed as of September 2017

Collection20%

Sortation17%

Processing9%

End-markets33%

Integrated21%

Impact to date:

• $90M+ co-investment

• 1.5 million households represented

• 250,000 tons diverted

• 20,000 tons of PET to end-markets

• 600,000 MTs of CO2E reduced

• $4.3 million in direct economic benefit to municipalities

$$


Capital Landscape Study | Investment trends, needs, and opportunities in circular supply chains

130+ Municipal, state, and other local government representatives and agencies

440+ Private companies and industry associations across the value chain

260+ Investors representing the full spectrum of asset classes

+ CLF Advisory Board, Investment Committee, and Portfolio Partners

CLOSED LOOP FUND | PAGE 4

Deep-dive into PET recycling

How do we improve competitiveness of rPET? How much capital is needed?


• Research led by RRS focuses on bottle-to-bottle supply chain

• Although rPET pricing is closely tied to that of virgin PET, the cost structures for producing each are very different

• If interventions are implemented together, then we can lower costs by 10%, improve yield by 21%, and create other system benefits

• If implemented at scale, national recycling rate of PET could increase by 7%

• rPET findings can be instructive for considering solutions for PP and PE

Executive Summary


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND ON PET MATERIAL FLOWS AND PRICING

2. COST STRUCTURE AND DRIVERS

3. INTERVENTIONS

4. IMPACT

5. APPENDIX


PET material flows in US: 2015 (in mm lbs)

THE LARGEST RPET MARKET IS FIBER

Sources: RRS analysis of industry data; NAPCOR

THE LARGEST VIRGIN PET MARKET IS NEW BOTTLES, BUT SHEET AND FIBER ARE GROWING

Tota

l PET

pro

duct

ion

and

avai

labi

lity

in

US

(201

5)

DAK

Indorama

Nan Ya

M & G

PET Processors

Invista(Fiber only)

PET and Fiber Import (Staple + Filament +

Resin)

Canadian rPET

Food

& n

on-fo

od

bottl

es a

nd ja

rs

rPET

Fiber

Sheet

Export

Inventory

Other

Post-consumer bottle imports

Total US bottles

recycled

Non-bottle PET

Export

US reclaimer

purchases

Other imported rPET

Clean flake

Clean flake equi. export

rPET use in domestic markets

Fiber

Sheet & Film Strapping

Food and beverage bottles Non-food bottles

Other

Dis

posa

l


US Virgin PET Supply: 2010 vs. 2015

Virgin PET consumption is growing, though production is increasingly consolidated among a few market players

DAK

EASTMAN

INDORAMA

NAN YA

WELLMAN

INVISTA

M&GPET

IMPORT

2010: ~7100 MM lbs

DAK

INDORAMA

NAN YA

M&G

PET

IMPORT

2015: ~8400 MM lbs

Source: RRS; volumes include only solid stated virgin PET; excludes some fiber applications


Major PET assets today: Virgin & rPET production and end use

Source: RRS; http://rrsinc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0ea03d056934f94949700c63e0302a5

Majority of virgin and rPETinfrastructure is in SE and MW US

US PET MFRS

http://rrsinc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0ea03d056934f94949700c63e0302a5


Recent investments in rPET are coming online

• CarbonLite

• Unifi

• Florida Plastic Recycling

• rPlanet Earth

Note: The industry has also recently seen closure of multiple facilities; net impact on capacity is positive


Recent investments are adding 350mm lbs/yr of capacity

Description Date of Operation

Annual Nameplate Capacity*

Investment

Unifi (NC) Added reclamation capacity to vertically integrate production 2016 130mm lbs $28mm

CarbonLite (TX) New reclamation capacity Late 2017 / Early 2018 100mm lbs $62mm

Florida Plastic Recycling (FL)

New reclamation capacity to rely on imported bales TBD 25mm lbs

(estimated) $7mm

rPlanet Earth (CA)

New reclamation capacity integrated with production of bottles and thermoforms using flake to preform technology

Early 2018 100mm lbs $74mm

Source: RRS. * Indicates published capacity for incoming raw materials (e.g., baled PET bottles)


PET bottle supply is inelastic

$-

$0.050

$0.100

$0.150

$0.200

$0.250

$0.300

$0.350

$0.400

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1/20

05

5/20

05

9/20

05

1/20

06

5/20

06

9/20

06

1/20

07

5/20

07

9/20

07

1/20

08

5/20

08

9/20

08

1/20

09

5/20

09

9/20

09

1/20

10

5/20

10

9/20

10

1/20

11

5/20

11

9/20

11

1/20

12

5/20

12

9/20

12

1/20

13

5/20

13

9/20

13

1/20

14

5/20

14

9/20

14

1/20

15

5/20

15

9/20

15

1/20

16

5/20

16

9/20

16

1/20

17

Cen

ts p

er lb

. of P

ET

Milli

ons

of lb

s. o

f PET

per

Mon

th

East coast Postconsumer PET bale prices & recycling rates

PET Recycled (in millions of lbs) PET bales average

Higher bale prices do not yield greater material recovery

Source: RRS


Price/lb of virgin PET and rPET pellet are typically at parity

LNO pellet is most heavily impacted by virgin PET; flake prices are heavily impacted by bale pricing and competition with imports

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

3/1/

2005

6/1/

2005

9/1/

2005

12/1

/200

53/

1/20

066/

1/20

069/

1/20

0612

/1/2

006

3/1/

2007

6/1/

2007

9/1/

2007

12/1

/200

73/

1/20

086/

1/20

089/

1/20

0812

/1/2

008

3/1/

2009

6/1/

2009

9/1/

2009

12/1

/200

93/

1/20

106/

1/20

109/

1/20

1012

/1/2

010

3/1/

2011

6/1/

2011

9/1/

2011

12/1

/201

13/

1/20

126/

1/20

129/

1/20

1212

/1/2

012

3/1/

2013

6/1/

2013

9/1/

2013

12/1

/201

33/

1/20

146/

1/20

149/

1/20

1412

/1/2

014

3/1/

2015

6/1/

2015

9/1/

2015

12/1

/201

53/

1/20

166/

1/20

169/

1/20

1612

/1/2

016

3/1/

2017

East Coast rPET Flake to Key End Markets vs. Virgin Resin

LNO Bottle Grade Pellet LNO Flake

Non-LNO Flake (Sheet, High grade fiber) Non-LNO Flake (low grade fiber)

Virgin PET (RRS Reference)


TABLE OF CONTENTS



3. INTERVENTIONS

4. IMPACT

5. APPENDIX


Virgin and rPET production processes are very different

PTA

MEG

Polymerization Reactor

Solid state polymerization

End Users

Reaction by-product

Used bottles Bales Flake Pelletization

Virgin PET Production

rPET Production (bottles)

17% (est. avg.) of PET bottles in MRFs do not make it to PET bales Source: RRSYield loss


The cost of producing rPET may be as much as $0.13/lb higher than producing virgin PET

VIRGIN PET PRODUCERSMarket

reference cost (1)

Non-integrated net price

Vertically integ. To PTA net cost

PTA $0.45 $0.40 $0.36MEG $0.49 $0.43 $0.43Combined Raws (CR) (2) $0.56 $0.49 $0.45Variable Costs: Other (Catalysts/Chemicals) $0.01 $0.01Variable Costs: Energy & Utilities (3) $0.03 $0.03Fixed Cost: Labor $0.01 $0.01

Fixed Costs: Other (Maintenance & Plant overhead) $0.02 $0.02

Total (EXW cost) $0.56 $0.52(1) References prior to M&G bankruptcy announcement, Sept 2017(2) Formula: CR= 0.85*PTA + 0.35*MEG(3) Includes variable costs (electricity, NG, etc.)(4) Based on average bale price since 2005(5) Includes fixed costs (labor, maintenance and overhead cost)

PCR PET

Curbside Deposit Average

Bale Price (picked up) (4) $0.17 $0.22 $0.19

Transportation $0.02 $0.02 $0.02

Yield cost $0.12 $0.07 $0.09Bale price adjusted for yield $0.31 $0.31 $0.31

Conversion to flake (5) $0.20 $0.17 $0.19

Subtotal: Flake (average) $0.51 $0.48 $0.49

Conversion to pellets & SSP(4) $0.10 $0.10 $0.10

Total (EXW Cost) $0.61 $0.58 $0.59

Reasonable Floor Price = $0.60-0.65Source: RRS


Challenges and bottlenecks drive costs throughout the rPET production process

Supply

• Quality• Quantity

Yield Loss

• Low value PET

• Non-PET

Conversion

• Cleaning / sorting

• Pelletization

Demand

• Inconsistency• Price volatility

End Users



Source: RRS


Quantity: There are many ways to increase PET recovery -even before we put a single new cart on the street

Collect more PET bottles!Capture more of PET bottles collected

Improve sorting technologies in MRFsImprove quality controlImplement MRF best management practices

Incr

ease

Qua

ntity

Reduce C

ontamination

Source: RRS


Quality and Yield: 80% of PET bottle should be recoverable, but actual recovery is much lower

20 g PET

2 g other saleable resin

2 g label

1 g moisture---------------------------------------------------------------------80% recoverable PET

But average curbside bottle bale yield is 62% (assuming thermoforms are not accepted)

Source: APR


Yield: 38% of curbside PET bales is considered contamination

Clear Flake, 57%

Green Flake, 5%

Caps/Labels, 16%

Moisture, 4%

Fines, 6%

Non-PET, 12%

Yield Loss

Source: RRS


Yield: Contamination contributes ~ $0.12/lb in additional costs to the system, or an additional 55% of the price paid to a MRF

Composition of Curbside Bale Yield Loss Potential Actions to Impact Cost

Caps / Labels 42% $0.051 Design for recyclability; new market development

Moisture 11% $0.013 Perforation

Fines 16% $0.019 Improve markets & technology

Non-PET 31% $0.038 Improve MRF operations & sorting

Total 100% $0.12

Bale Price (including transportation) $0.19

Bale Price Adjusted for Yield $0.31

Source: RRS


Price Volatility: Spot markets make it difficult to invest

(1) Price of VPET increased in Q3; source: RRS

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

3/1/

2005

7/1/

2005

11/1

/200

53/

1/20

067/

1/20

0611

/1/2

006

3/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

11/1

/200

73/

1/20

087/

1/20

0811

/1/2

008

3/1/

2009

7/1/

2009

11/1

/200

93/

1/20

107/

1/20

1011

/1/2

010

3/1/

2011

7/1/

2011

11/1

/201

13/

1/20

127/

1/20

1211

/1/2

012

3/1/

2013

7/1/

2013

11/1

/201

33/

1/20

147/

1/20

1411

/1/2

014

3/1/

2015

7/1/

2015

11/1

/201

53/

1/20

167/

1/20

1611

/1/2

016

3/1/

2017

Bottle grade RPET Vs. Virgin PET

LNO Bottle Grade Pellet Virgin PET (RRS Reference)LNO Bttl Avg. Price 05-17 LNO Bttl Avg. Price 05-10LNO Bttl Avg. Price 10-17 Fixed Price at Q3 2010 VPET/RPET Parity

$0.73$0.69

$0.66Q3 2010 price = $0.62

Savings of $0.10 / lb over spot

Historically, locking in a price could have generated savings for buyers and guaranteed revenues for suppliers


TABLE OF CONTENTS



3. INTERVENTIONS

4. IMPACT

5. APPENDIX


• Apply interventions in MRF operations to improve the quality of bale supply, reduce reclaimer processing costs and improve yield rates

• Ensure that PET containers are compatible with APR Design Guide® to improve rPET quality and yield

• Implement rPET procurement strategies that help to stabilize the marketplace

Recommendations


Applying a suite of interventions to the value chain would considerably improve the cost of rPET production

PTA

MEG


Solid State polymerization

End Users

Reaction by-product

Yield loss


BRAND ADOPTION OF APR DESIGN GUIDELINES

reduces yield loss • improves flake quality

FLAKE TO RESIN OR PREFORM

eliminates need for pelletization • benefits from additional quality flake

BRAND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIESstabilizes markets

MRF BMPs, SORTING, AND QCMaximizes capture of PET • reduces yield

loss

BYPRODUCT MARKET DEVELOPMENT

reduces yield loss • improves revenue

Source: RRS

Virgin PET Production



Interventions Overview

INTERVENTION TYPE OF INTERVENTION IMPACT TYPE OF CAPITAL

NEEDEDCAPITAL EXPENDITURE

PER INSTALLATION PROOF OF CONCEPT TIMELINE

MRF Sorting and Quality Control

Technology / Capital /

Operational

10+% capture rate increase at MRF;

5% yield increase at reprocessor; 10%

cost savings

Equipment loan $0.5MM (avg) Widely deployed 1-5 years

Flake to Resin Technology / Capital

15% cost savings vs. PCR pellet Equipment loan $2-3MM

(per 25MM lbs)In production at both DAK & Indorama 1-5 years

Flake to Preform Technology / Capital

15% cost savingsVs. PCR pellet Equipment loan $1.3MM 8 locations worldwide; 1 in

development in CA 1-3 years

Brand Strategies:Commitment to APR Design Guidelines

Operational 5% yield increase at reprocessor None NA Already in the market 1-3 years

Brand Strategies:Procurement

Financial/ Contractual

Increased stability for reprocessor

None (Financial Structure)

NAAlready exists in the market for virgin and other materials; less so for rPET

1-3 years

NOT MODELEDChemical depolymerization

Technology / Capital TBD Venture capital /

Equipment loan TBD Loop industries pilot scale facility 2-5 years

NOT MODELEDByproduct Market Development

Market-based

Reduces yield loss; improves and

diversifies MRF revenues

Could include contracts, venture capital, equipment

loans

TBD Recent example: APR Demand Champions initiative 1-5 years

Source: RRS


Interventions Ranked By Criteria

Source: RRS


Recommended interventions support and enhance overall impact on PET throughout the system

Reducing contaminants in the RPET production process, through MRF process improvements and greater conformance with APR Design ® Guides, will facilitate the production of higher quality clean flake, increasing the supply available for Flake to Resin and Flake to Preform systems

Improving markets for low quality PET and byproducts (e.g., fines, colored PET, thermoforms), through development of chemical recycling technologies or developing new byproduct markets, will reduce disposal costs and diversify revenue streams to improve the economic sustainability of the PET reclamation industry

Financial models for RPET purchasing designed to reduce price volatility can help meet buyer and seller needs for greater price stability and provide an enticement for longer-term purchasing agreements. This stability can promote an atmosphere for investment for both buyer and seller.

Long-term purchasing agreements benefit both buyer and seller to create continuity of supply for the buyer and greater certainty of sales for the seller, and can be structured as a tool for to the seller to access financing for investment to continually improve their operations and bottom line

Source: RRS


Baseline materials flow

~23% of total domestically collected PET bottles are made into bottles again, the rest are consumed by other end markets.

Yield loss

PTA

MEG



End Users

Reaction by-product

Used bottles

Bales Flake Pelletization

Virgin PET Production Process

rPET Production Process

Source: RRS


Potential Intervention #1MRF Sorting & Quality Control

• A series of actions to improve the quality and quantity of PET generated by MRFs

• Impacts proven through good MRF operators

• Could be enhanced by the implementation of robotics

• Challenge is large number of MRFs operated by disparate entities


MRF Sorting & Quality Control: Materials flow

PTAPolymerization

ReactorSolid state

polymerization

End Users

Reaction by-product


MEG

Yield loss

MRF Sorting & QC

Source: RRS


MRF Sorting & Quality Control: Key details

Costs Impact on rPET price

(per lb)

Potential Capacity Increase(mm lbs)Capital Operating

(per year)

Optical Sorting $50,000-360,000 $2,500

-$0.02 to 0.04 ~80Robotic Quality

Control $200,000 $5,000

BMP Implementation

$15,000-25,000

$30,000-35,000

Note: Impacts on price and capacity assume MRF interventions are implemented as a package

Source: RRS


MRF Sorting & Quality Control: The ROI for a MRF

A Hypothetical Scenario:

• MRF processes 1,000 baled tons of PET/year

“BEFORE”:• Bale yield: 62%• Sell price: $0.15 - 0.17 cents

per pound• Transportation cost: $0.02 cpp• Landfill tip fee: $30/ton

“AFTER” SCENARIO with Investment TOTAL

Total new baled PET tons (%) 110 (11%)MRF annual operating cost increase $42,067MRF annual operating cost decrease -$70,000MRF PET revenue increase -$37,400MRF Residue disposal cost savings

(50% of increased tons) -$1,650

Net MRF cost (+) savings (-) before depreciation -$66,983

Net cost (+) savings (-) / new ton -$609MRF capital investment $518,283MRF amortized cost (over 10 yrs) $51.828Net cost (+) savings (-) / new ton with depreciation -$138

First year ROI (before depreciation) 12.92%Source: RRS


Potential Intervention #2Flake to Resin Technology

• Proven technology, by Thyssen-Krupp, that allows for clean flake to be mixed directly with virgin resin, eliminating need for solid stating and pelletization

• Key success factor is sufficient supply of high quality, low cost flake

• Key risk is competition with low virgin raw material prices


Flake to Resin: Materials flow

10% flake content to reactor will increase rPETto bottle markets from ~23% to 30%

Cost impact to PET producers varies based on degree of backward integration

Yield loss

PTA

MEG



End Users

Reaction by-product

Used bottles


Reactor feedstock replaced with clean flake

Source: RRS


Flake to Resin: Key details

Costs Impact on RPET Price(per lb) (2)

Potential Capacity Increase(mm lbs)Recycled

Content Capital (1) Operating (per lb)

10% $10-15 million $0.02-0.05 -$0.10 125

20% $20-30 million $0.02-0.05 - $0.10 250

50% $50-60 million $0.02-0.05 - $0.10 500

1) $2-3 mm / 25 mm lbs2) Eliminates cost to pelletize

Source: RRS


Potential Intervention #3Flake to Preform Technology

• Proven technology, by Husky, that allows for clean flake to be mixed directly, with or without virgin resin, into the PET bottle preform

• Key success factor is sufficient supply of high quality, low cost flake and investment by bottle converters in equipment

• Key risk is competition with low virgin raw material prices and conventional converter systems


Flake to Preform: Materials flow

Yield loss

PTA

MEG



End Users

Reaction by-product

Used bottles


Bottle feedstock replaced with clean flake

Eliminates need for bottle maker to blend pelletized PCR

Allows high % of food grade recycled flake (up to 100%)

No compromise in quality and performance of container

Source: RRS


Flake to Preform: Key details

Costs Impact on rPET Price (per lb) (1)

Potential Capacity Increase(mm lbs)Recycled

Content Capital Operating(per year)

10% $1.3 million $50-75,000 -$0.10 8

50% $1.3 million $50-75,000 -$0.10 40

100% $1.3 million $50-75,000 -$0.10 80

1) Eliminates cost to pelletize

Source: RRS


Potential Intervention #4Brand Strategies

• Reduce costs in RPET production by designing packages for recyclability

• Utilize brand purchasing power to stabilize RPET markets

• Demonstrated, replicable models and examples exist in the marketplace


Brand Strategies: Key details

CostsImpact on rPET price

Potential Capacity Increase(mm lbs)

Capital Operating

Conform with APR Design Guidelines

N/A N/A

Caps/labels contribute ~

$0.05/lb to cost from yield loss,

some of this cost could be mitigated by design choices

40-50

Pricing model to reduce volatility N/A N/A Depends 125-500

Long-term RPET purchase agreements

N/A N/A Depends 100-150

Source: RRS


Brand Strategies: Conforming to APR Design Guide

Source: APR

Design Guide Topic APR Guidance Explanation

Metal closures and lidding

Avoid using metal with PET packaging. Metals can be detrimental, and in some cases, can render a package non-recyclable. Metals can cause a package to be lost to waste at a metal detector. Metals can degrade process equipment. Metals are a source of contamination and yield loss.

Pressure sensitive film labels

Employ labels that meet APR Critical Guidance Test Criteria, including use of conforming substrates, adhesives, and inks.

Testing confirms that labels cleanly separate from PET and that label inks do not impact wash water.

Shrink sleeve labels Employ labels that meet APR Critical Guidance Test Criteria, or which have been evaluated within APR’s Responsible Innovation Program.

Evaluations confirm that the label will have least impact on PET recycling.

Paper labels Avoid use of paper labels. If used, conduct lab testing to select paper labels that have negligible impact on color and haze of recycled PET.

Paper labels create “pulp” during the PET flake wash step releasing inks and paper fibers into the wash water. Adhesives on pressure sensitive labels can interfere with recycling.

Blow molded PETG containers

Avoid using PETG in packaging. PETG cannot be recycled with PET packaging. When PETG is mixed with PET in a drier, PETG melts to creates “clumps” of PET flake. There are crystallizablePET resins that can be used for extrusion blow molding applications.


Brand Strategies: Price stability model & long-term contracts

Goals: • Reduce price volatility for both buyer and seller.• Minimize price swings, but ensure that all parties are "made whole" over the term of the

contract/relationship by providing that an equivalent dollar value is exchanged • Provide a long‐term, contractual relationship where mutual trust is a core value• Achieve buy‐In at the CEO/CFO level from both organizations to ensure success

How the Model Works:• After the buyer and seller agree to a “market price” as a starting point, price increases and decreases

are adjusted as per an agreed upon rate of fluctuation• There is a defined maximum price difference from one quarter to the next, to contain fluctuation below

market levels. • For illustrative purposes, this model uses a maximum of 60% of the market fluctuation. Contracts can

also incorporate a maximum differential that, when reached, would trigger reconciliation• Dollar variations for the total contract value are maintained comparing LV (low‐variability) dollars and

market pricing• Market pricing is what the price would be if a full price increase or decrease were implemented, as per

traditional agreements• The contract may include a cap to ensure that the amount due or owed does not surpass an agreed

upon amount• At the end of the contract the “amount Due” is either paid off or is rolled into a contract extension.


Potential Intervention #5Chemical Depolymerization

• Unproven technology

• Key success factor is ability to cost effectively achieve production scale

• Strong potential to strengthen RPET industry by providing an outlet for low-value PET and byproducts

• Potential to produce virgin-quality RPET resin


Chemical Depolymerization: Materials flow

PTAPolymerization

ReactorSolid state

polymerization

End Users

Reaction by-product


MEG

Chemical Depolymerization

Yield loss

Process can reportedly use low quality inputs (e.g., colors, thermoforms, fines)

Flake diverted to chemical depolymerization process

Source: RRS


Chemical Depolymerization: Key details

Costs Impact on rPET Price(per lb) (1)

Potential Capacity Increase(mm lbs)

Recycled Content Capital Operating

(per lb)

10% TBD $0.015 -$0.008 125

20% TBD $0.015 -$0.008 250

50% TBD $0.015 -$0.008 500

1) Based on increased revenue to reclaimers for low-value PET and by-products

Source: RRS


TABLE OF CONTENTS



3. INTERVENTIONS

4. IMPACT

5. APPENDIX


Value is created throughout the system

End Users


MRF• Yield improvement: 10+%• Additional capture/yield

improvements for other material types

REPROCESSOR• Yield improvement: 21+%

(incl. yield improvement at MRF)

• Cost savings: 10+%• Reduced exposure to price

volatility

BRAND OWNER• Increased volume of higher

quality of RPET at lower cost• Greater flexibility in end uses

of material• Less volatility in price


If investments were scaled nationally, we could increase the supply of rPET for bottles and other uses by 6%

Baseline Yield for Containers (2016)million lbs

6,172

1,753 (28%)

370 (6%)

Yield with Interventionsmillion lbs

6,172

2,125 (34%)

448 (7%)


Implications for PP and PE

• Market dynamics for PP/PE are challenging –need demand pull

• Cost drivers are similar to rPET; cost structures may not be as challenging, depending on end-use specifications (e.g., not food grade)

• MRF-level interventions can help improve quality of PP/PE bales and bale yields; similar challenges with colored PP/PE

• Supply (PP) may be an issue, but more MRFs are producing “tubs and lids” bales


TABLE OF CONTENTS



3. INTERVENTIONS

4. IMPACT

5. APPENDIX


References

1. NAPCOR, and The Association of Plastics Recyclers. "2005-2015 Reports on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling Activity." Recycling Rate Reports. N.p., n.d. Web. Apr. 2017.

2. "CPI News Releases." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.Web. Apr. 2017.

3. NAPET Conference, 2015

4. OESA Conference, 2016

5. The Packaging Conference, 2015

6. Americas Polyester Industry Conference, 2015

7. Confidential interviews with industry experts, 2017

8. All data from RRS, unless otherwise noted.

Cleaning the rPET Stream - Closed Loop Partners · 2017-11-17 · Cleaning the rPET Stream...

Documents

Transcript of Cleaning the rPET Stream - Closed Loop Partners · 2017-11-17 · Cleaning the rPET Stream...