PET chemical recycling needs clarity on mass balance methodology, EU regulation

LONDON (ICIS)–The International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) definition of a mass balance methodology will be key for the European polyethylene terephthalate (PET) chemical recycling industry to progress, while further clarity on whether chemical recycling will count towards EU recycled content goals is still needed, speakers at a Petcore industry event said.

Speaking at the Petcore Monomer Recycling Webinar, Kristin Olofsson, Director Regulatory Affairs & Strategic Innovation, Chair ISO/TC61/SC14/WG 5 Mechanical & Chemical Recycling, said the ISO needs to publish details on ISO TC 308 Chain of Custody before European regulators can come up with their own set of definitions and methodologies for the mass balance approach to be used in chemical recycling.

The ISO is an independent, non-governmental international organisation made up of 166 national standards bodies, and aims to develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant international standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges.

Set up in 2016, the scope of ISO TC 308 is to create standardisation in the field of chain of custody (CoC) for products and associated processes with specified characteristics, with the aim of ensuring that associated claims are reliable. Its aim is to ensure traceability and transparency across all products, from food and drink to textiles and apparel, and now, chemical recycling.

The ISO project committee was established with a view to making traceability simpler for all supply chain actors by using a uniform ISO language globally.

Conversations about chemical recycling go hand in hand with a discussion on how to measure the amount of recycled content in chemically recycled material, and mass balance is a popular approach for this.

In mass balance, a certified volume of renewable or recycled material is input across a production run, but may not be evenly distributed across each individual product.

For example, a plant may use 30% recycled material overall, but one piece of produced packaging could contain 100% recycled material, and the next 100% virgin material, or any mix between those two extremes.

Via this method, market players are able to state that they use a certain percentage of recycled or renewable material in their products, without having to prove that percentage in each individual product produced.

Currently the mass balance model has not been agreed, which is one part of the problem, and another is a lack of definition on how to calculate the recycled content in the material produced, Olofsson said.

Other areas where definitions are still missing include a verification scheme on the chemical recycling process as well as an environmental footprint methodology.

When looking at the European market for chemical recycling, Olofsson said the ISO needs to come up with a definition for mass balance under ISO TC 308 so that Europe can use this as a guideline.

“If we develop a standard before ISO TC 308 finalise their work, we may come into a contradictory discussion,” Olofsson said.

The industry needs to think about how it can improve its credibility, Olofsson said, adding that if a product says it is based on recycled materials via the chemical recycling process, and therefore comes at a premium price, how would a producer prove that to a customer?

This is where good guidance would come into play, allowing the producer to show how much recycled content was used in that product using a recognised methodology.

Speaking about chemical recycling’s apparently higher CO2 footprint compared to both mechanical recycling and virgin production, Olofsson stressed that the CO2 emissions should not be looked at in isolation, but to also consider the credits given for avoided waste treatment.

Using low density polyethylene (LDPE) as an example, Olofsson said that, if looked at alone, chemical recycling of LDPE gives off 3.1kg of C02eq/kg, compared to virgin LDPE production at just under 2kg, and mechanical recycling of LDPE at 0.6kg.

When the credits are added in, chemical recycling drops to 0.86kg C02eq/kg because of the amount of plastic waste it can process and prevent from being incinerated or treated.

EU REGULATION DELAY
The chemical recycling industry in Europe has been waiting for a decision from the European Commission on whether chemically recycled PET could count towards EU mandated recycled content targets for PET beverage bottles in 2025, and other plastics products from 2030.

Mike Neal from the Committee of PET Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) said the discussion around the Mechanical Recycling Regulation Amendment has been stalled, adding this was not surprising given the complex nature of the subject matter.

DG Sante, the working group responsible for the discussion, may be considering replacing the regulation to cover all recycling processes by the same set of rules, which could include chemical recycling. But, Neal stressed, this was not “100% set in stone”.

In terms of technical readiness, around 25% of the chemical recycling industry is at a Total Readiness Level of 9, Neal said, meaning that a quarter of companies are already producing material on the ground, and showing that chemical recycling is working and the industry is in action. This makes clear legislation around chemical recycling even more important for the PET industry, Neal added.

However, the big question the industry is waiting for is when will the commission decide on the use of chemically recycled content in Europe.

In December 2020, Virginijus Sinkevicius, Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, said during a speech at a European plastics recyclers show that EU approval of chemical recycling practices will be contingent on cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis (LCA).

There is an absence of independent, widespread and comparable LCAs that demonstrate the complete environmental impact of chemical recycling, compared with mechanical recycling, virgin production and alternatives across different usages.

Nevertheless, most studies currently show mechanical recycling to have a lower environmental impact than chemical recycling. This is the reason many industry players advocate for chemical recycling to act as a complement to mechanical recycling, focusing on the volumes that cannot be mechanically recycled, or are only able to be recycled in to low-value applications.

While no official timeframe has been given by the commission, many in the industry expected an announcement some time in 2021. However, with less than three months until the end of the year, hopes for clarity on chemical recycling’s standing in European regulation emerging in 2021 are fading fast.

Focus article by Matt Tudball

Additional reporting by Mark Victory