The Düsseldorf, Germany-based Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Stahlrecycling und Entsorgungsunternehmen (BDSV) scrap recycling association has reported an amendment to Germany’s Technical Instructions on Air (TA Luft) that could affect auto shredder operators was not finalized in the last legislative period of the current German Bundestag (legislature).

The progress of the amendment to the TA Luft is being watched by the BDSV “with a critical eye,” says the group. “As before, some important points, which are now reflected in the new draft, are rejected by the BDSV,” writes the group in a Sept. 3 email. The association says it “does not consider the regulation of complete enclosure and exhaust air cleaning in flame cutting processes provided for in the new TA Luft to be sustainable.”

As a result of such tightening, writes BDSV, “Companies would be faced with considerable cost burdens without significant environmental benefits becoming apparent.”

Regarding auto shredder emissions, BDSV says TA Luft is going beyond the target limit values ??for Europe required in the BREF (Best Available Technique Reference Document) regarding dust levels, carbon emissions and limits for dioxins, furans and PCBs. “The BDSV sees the danger of a strong disadvantage of the German steel recycling industry in the European comparison,” writes the organization.

The new draft also requires that in the event of a malfunction of the emission control system, an automatic shutdown of the entire shredder should take place. However, since the sudden braking of a shredder motor can lead to damage to the system, the BDSV “reiterates that the interruption of the feeding of the feed material achieves the same effect.”

“It is important that the TA Luft remains feasible for recycling companies,” says BDSV Chief Executive Rainer Cosson. “The German steel recycling industry must not be neglected in the European and international context.”

Organizers of the Plasticity Forum events have announced several upcoming dates and venues, including a Plasticity Forum to be held the Ritz Carlton in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 25, 2018.

Doug Woodring, a co-founder of the Plasticity Forum organization, says the not-for-profit organization also intends to hold a forum in Fiji at the end of February 2019 and is lining up details for another Plasticity Forum in Paris in April 2019.

A blog post for the upcoming Malaysia event indicates plastic labels on packaging will be one of several points of discussion at the October forum.

A presenter from United States-based Avery Dennison will be on hand to discuss how labels lend color, branding, bar code tracking and legally required information to packaging. However, even in packaging recycling processes, “much of the time, the label is removed, and discarded as waste.”

Avery Dennison indicates it has earmarked label waste as a top strategic challenge in its 2025 sustainability goals, and at the Labelexpo 2018 event in suburban Chicago, the company’s corporate display used panels made from 50 percent consumer label scrap.

In its blog post, the Plasticity organization says label a beverage bottle’s “logistics possible with all the information needed to make a safe and happy customer.” When it comes to recycling labels at the end of a product’s life, the potential to recycle “means thinking carefully about the purpose, its composition and the ability to remove it so that both the label and the plastic it serves can be recovered.”

Adds the blog post, “It is early [in] the adventure to make label waste sustainable, but thankfully industry players like Avery Dennison are looking at this issue now.”

More information on speakers and presenters at the Plasticity Forum in Malaysia can be found on this web page. 

The California Legislature spent part of the final week of its 2017-2018 session passing several pieces of legislation it says are designed to reduce plastic pollution.

The package of five bills, which will be sent to Gov. Jerry Brown to either sign or veto by Sept. 30, “includes [a] prohibition on unsustainable takeout food packaging, testing for microplastics, straws upon request and funding for recycling centers,” according to a news release from Sacramento, California-based not-for-profit organization Californians Against Waste (CAW).

Of the five senate and assembly bills passed, SB 452, which CAW says “increases funding for recycling centers, increasing opportunities for consumers to redeem their bottles and cans,” appears to have the most direct impact on recycling.

Several of the other bills, however, could affect how much plastic scrap is generated or whether some types of plastic packaging are replaced by other materials. The other four bills, as described by CAW, include:

• SB 1335, which prohibits non-recyclable and non-compostable takeout food packaging at state facilities, including parks, beaches, colleges, and fairgrounds.
• AB 1884, which requires restaurants to offer straws only upon request;
• SB 1263, which directs the Ocean Protection Council to develop a plan for stemming the growth of microplastics; and
• SB 1422, which requires all drinking water to be tested for “plastic contamination.”

“The California legislature is continuing to fill the vacuum of federal leadership by tackling our plastic pollution crisis and the throw-away culture that causes it,” says Mark Murray, CAW executive director. “Single-use plastic products that we use for mere moments pollute our planet at every stage: beginning with air and water contamination from oil and gas extraction, continuing through the production process, and ending with disposal, where an estimated 8 million tons enter the oceans every year and millions of tons end up in landfills and incinerators.”

Regarding SB 452, the recycling related bill, CAW writes, “In a year that saw China saying ‘no’ to imported plastic from around the globe, SB 452 protects recycling centers from closing their doors by temporarily increasing incentives to allow the marketplace to stabilize, stemming the tide of the nearly 1,000 recycling centers that have closed since peak program recycling.”

The bill’s author, State Sen. Steven Glazer, comments, “Beverage container recycling centers were hit hard a few years ago when global oil prices dropped, causing centers to close, and restricting recycling access for many Californians. SB 452 puts California on a path to returning this 30-year program to its historically high recycling rates.”

The text of the bill, which can be found on this web page, places stricter requirements on large retailers to establish recycling redemption centers to serve residents. The bill also “continuously appropriates from the [California Beverage Container Recycling Fund] $15 million annually for payments for curbside programs and neighborhood drop-off programs and $10.5 million annually for payments to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities.”

SB 1335 has been designed to “phase out takeout food packaging that is not widely recycled or composted [from] being used at state facilities, including state parks, beaches, colleges, office buildings, and fairgrounds,” according to CAW. That bill’s author, State Sen. Ben Allen, comments, “The state can lead by example and show that we don’t have to harm our environment every time we get food in a container. Sustainable food packaging is available and affordable – we just need to make the conscious choice to switch to a better alternative.”

Osceola, Arkansas-based Big River Steel (BRS), one of the newest electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking firms in the United States, is reportedly accepting bids to be sold in early September.

Metals information service provider American Metal Market (AMM) reported in late August that one or more stakeholders in the firm could be interested in selling its stake. The same article also speculates the bids may be received only so BRS can help establish a price for its own initial public offering (IPO).

BRS has several double-digit stakeholders in its current ownership form, according to AMM, including a subsidiary of Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries; the estate of BRS co-founder John Correnti; Global Principal Partners LLC, a Miami-based investment firm where BRS CEO David Stickler serves as managing director; San Francisco-based private equity firm TPG Capital LP; and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System pension plan.

An early September online article by the Little Rock, Arkansas-based Arkansas Times indicates the newspaper reached a manager of the Arkansas teacher pension fund, who responded that the group “has not attempted to sell its minority ownership position,” and that it considers BRS “a strong and safe investment.”

In terms of serious bidders that may wish to genuinely acquire the entire BRS complex in Osceola, AMM speculates Charlotte, North Carolina-based Nucor Corp. is one likely candidate, as that firm is protective of its dominant EAF market position in the Southeast.

Another candidate AMM points to is United Kingdom-based Liberty House Group, which has recently invested in restarting an EAF mill in Georgetown, South Carolina. Liberty House and its parent company, the GFG Alliance, have stated they seek to have some 5 million tons per year of steelmaking capacity in the U.S.

While the Liberty House Georgetown mill has just 700,000 tons per year of capacity, BRS is on track to have more than 6 million tons of capacity by early next decade, combining planned capacity in Osceola and a proposed second BRS mill in Brownsville, Texas.