South Korea’s Hanjin Shipping Co., the seventh largest shipping lines in the world, has filed for bankruptcy protection, creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty with shippers, including many exporters of recyclables. The company filed after its creditors rejected a restructuring plan put forth by Hanjin.

Over the past several years the container industry has struggled with a combination of overcapacity on vessels, low freight rates and a sluggish global economy.

The combination of these challenges has resulted in reported losses for Hanjin for the past several years, with one report noting the accumulated loss was $5 billion.

With losses mounting and little sign of a plan to turn around the financial situation with the ship line several large creditors have decided not to extend the much-needed credit to the company.

According to a number of news sources, Hanjin stopped taking in new cargo and a number of ports -- in North America, Asia and Europe -- have begun turning away its vessels because the company failed to pay the fees that come with using their ports.

Adding to the concern for some shippers have been reports of some Hanjin vessels being seized at a number of Chinese ports. Bloomberg reports that 10 Hanjin vessels were impounded at Chinese ports.

The uncertainty over the containers on the vessels has created a significant concern for companies that presently have containers on Hanjin vessels already enroute to final destinations.

Meanwhile, the South Korean government is working to put together a financial package that could assist Hanjin to continue operating, though several reports are speculating that the end result will be the company having its assets liquidated.

In the meantime, the question is what to do with more than 500,000 containers already loaded on Hanjin vessels. With many terminals, railroads and trucking companies reticent to work with the company out of fear of getting paid, it may be a few weeks before the parties can work out solution to address the containers stuck on the vessels.

While Hanjin’s vessels are being frozen out of many ports, several other ship lines, including Hyundai Merchant Marine, are looking to step in and offer assistance. A Reuters article notes that Hyundai is looking to take over some of Hanjin’s routes.

The Korean government said it wants Hanjin’s domestic rival, Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., to buy healthy assets from the troubled company. It rejected the idea of a merger.

For many shippers, the situation at the present time is less certain. One exporter says the situation is “blurry.”

“No one is quite sure what is going to happen,” he notes. Meanwhile, freight rates are increasing, which is creating some challenges for shippers.”

What is most concerning for some of these shippers in regard to Hanjin’s filing is that the container line had a sharing agreement with Evergreen Shipping, Cosco, K Line and Yang Ming. An exporter says that while he may have booked space with Evergreen, the container could be on a Hanjin vessel. “It is just so murky right now,” he notes. Having to sort out the space sharing arrangement will be another issue that needs to be resolved and adds to the uncertainty over how the containers eventually will be released.

With Hanjin not taking bookings, freight rates are expected to climb as shippers who typically booked with Hanjin look to place containers on other vessels. 

Much skepticism surrounds mixed waste processing as a way method of recycling municipal solid waste. During Wastecon 2016, Aug. 22-24 at the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis, results of a mixed waste processing study conducted by Kansas City, Missouri-based Burns & McDonnell for the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), Washington, were shared.

Brian Hawkinson, AF&PA executive director, explained the methodology behind the study. The “Mixed Waste Processing Economic and Policy Study,” published in September 2015, laid out four different recycling scenarios based on 250,000 household and 325,000 tons of material generated.

The scenarios, he said, included:

• Scenario 1 - A community with only a single - stream recycling program. The refuse container is collected by a second collection vehicle and hauled to a disposal location.
  
• Scenario  2 – A community with a single - stream program that adds a mixed waste processing facility to increase diversion. There are two collection vehicles that pass by each home: one for single - stream recyclables and one for mixed waste.
  Scenario 3 – A community that goes with a “one bin” system where are materials collected at the curb are taken to a mixed waste facility. There is no single - stream collection or processing for Scenario 3.
  
• Scenario 4 – Similar to Scenario 3 except that the mixed waste facility produces a refuse - derived fuel (RDF) from non - recyclable paper and plastics.
  

While Hawkinson noted, “Every situation is unique,” he said, “Single stream recovers more recyclables.”

He shared the following table from the study:

He noted, mixed waste processing recovers more metals and plastics than single stream, but recovers less paper.

He also said, mixed waste processing requires a greater capital investment.

“The economics favor single stream recycling as communities’ recycling rates increase,” said Hawkinson. He added that high performing single stream with a mixed waste system can recover the most recyclables.

“Mixed waste processing added to an already successful single stream system presents an option to achieve higher recyclables,” he said. He also noted that contamination from mixed waste processing is a major issue for the paper industry, particularly in the use of food packaging and other consumer items.

While some attendees questioned the methodology and results of the study, Hawkinson did note that results may vary based on the community and specific program.

Wastecon 2016, an annual conference hosted by the Solid Waste Association of North America was Aug. 22-25 in Indianapolis.

The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC), Brattleboro, Vermont, has announced two new members have joined the NERC board of directors. Todd Moore represents New Hampshire and Mike OConnell represents Rhode Island.

Moore replaces Sharon Yergeau, who recently retired, while OConnell replaces Sarah Reeves, who left the organization to accept the general manager position of the Chittenden Solid Waste District in Vermont.

Moore has worked for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) since 2000. He worked in the Permitting & Environmental Health Bureau of the Air Resources Division from 2000 to February 2016. Moore moved to the Solid Waste Bureau of the Waste Management Division in Rhode Island in February 2016, where he now serves as bureau administrator. Prior to joining DES, Moore worked for a New Hampshire environmental consulting firm for eight years. 

Oconnell has served as the executive director of the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC) since 2007. He previously held the role of chief operating officer at Americold Logistics.

NERC is a multistate nonprofit organization that says it is committed to environmental and economic sustainability through responsible solid waste management. Its programs emphasize source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, environmentally preferable purchasing and decreasing the toxicity of the solid waste stream in the 11-state region comprising Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Brussels-based EUROPEN, the European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment, and 35 other associations representing numerous sectors, including major consumer goods brands, packaging producers, material producers and extended producer responsibility (EPR) organisations, have released joint recommendations for the Circular Economy legislative proposals.

The 36 associations call for a long-term EU policy framework that enables and facilitates sustainable resource use from a full life-cycle perspective, incentivises economies of scale and takes into account value chains at all levels, each with their different functional needs, supply and demand realities.

“Our proposals aim at reinforcing the current EU policy framework, preserving the environment and re-launching European competitiveness, quality jobs and sustainable growth,” says Martin Reynolds, Crown Europe and EUROPEN chairman. “Packaging plays a central role in a Circular Economy by optimising resource use and minimising product waste. We call on the EU to recognise its cross-sectoral function by preserving a full life-cycle approach in legislation, since packaging is intrinsically connected to the product it contains and its value chain.”

The joint industry recommendations call on the European Parliament and the council to ensure that the Circular Economy Package:

• safeguards the free movement of packaging and packaged goods in the EU internal market;
• enshrines a full life-cycle approach;
• strengthens the EU legal framework for extended producer responsibility (EPR) for used packaging;
• avoids legal requirements that mandate additional packaging reuse systems alongside existing EPR systems and avoid related national measures that will distort the internal market; and
• sets realistic and achievable packaging “preparing for reuse”/recycling targets based on known staring points, as well as a harmonised and clarified measurement point and calculation methodology.

“Safeguarding the internal market is essential to give companies in the packaging value chain the confidence to invest and innovate to meet the environmental, growth, and competitiveness objectives of the Circular Economy Package,” Virginia Janssens, EUROPEN managing director, says. “We must avoid measures that could lead to divergent national packaging design requirements, as these would create de facto trade barriers for all packaged goods. Instead, we need a robust, evidence-based European framework that sets ambitious yet realistic targets, is based on a harmonised calculation method and enables operators to build on over two decades of success in growing packaging recycling rates through efficient, transparent and fair extended producer responsibility schemes.”     

The full statement with recommendations can be accessed here.