[Report file] There is no problem with making 'recyclable' mask packaging materials

'One Pack, One Pack' Mask

Recently, mask packaging materials are a hot topic in the environmental field.

Masks are often 'one piece per package' since Corona 19.

As a result, there is a lot of packaging waste that is emitted in our daily life.

Most of the mask packaging materials are plastic.

There is also a separate discharge mark on the back of the packaging.

OTHER is marked to mean that it is made of a single material such as PP or made of a composite material.

I've been to a few places where

I looked at the plastic waste bin.

It is easy to find a mixture of mask packaging materials.

As such, citizens think that it is natural to separate and collect the packaging material as it is plastic.

And these plastic packaging materials go through sorting and recycling procedures.

This is a desirable phenomenon.

Most mask manufacturers also make plastic packaging materials.

Discarded plastic packaging is used as renewable energy through various processes such as pyrolysis.

Some companies even go a step further and develop and use paper packaging that is more recyclable.

In this case, the cost of producing packaging materials is higher, but it can be seen that the company has considered environmental factors.

and the citizens who consume them did their jobs in their respective locations.

But recently there has been a change.

The point is that the KF94, KF80, and KF-AD masks we consume are classified as quasi-drugs.

Once they are grouped into categories other than products.

Because of this, they receive special (?) treatment in the packaging material production process.

of the Recycling and Recycling Act Let's take a look at the Enforcement Decree of the Resource Saving and Recycling Promotion Act.

Article 18 sets out what products and packaging can be recycled.

In other words, when making products or packaging materials, make them from recyclable materials.

Medicines are no exception.

Article 18 (1) (e) states that pharmaceuticals and quasi-drugs under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act are also subject to recycling obligations.

However, there are exceptions.

Among them, 'products that are not bottled and weighing less than 30 milliliters or less than 30 grams, excluding pesticides and disinfectants,' are exempted from the recycling obligation.

Most quasi-drug masks fall under this exception.

We purchased 30 quasi-drugs masks sold in the market for

I weighed it.

The 29-product mask weighs no more than 30g when the contents and packaging are combined.

The remaining 1 mask also contains 10 masks in one packaging, so it is a case of over 30g.

29 masks are exempt from recycling obligations when making packaging under this decree.

Mask producers are not subject to any restrictions on what material their packaging is made of.

Existing producers already make recyclable vinyl packaging, so there doesn't seem to be a problem right now.

mask producers said they were belatedly aware that such a decree existed recently.

At this time, the producer responsible recycling system, that is, the EPR system, becomes entangled.

EPR is a policy that requires companies that make recyclable products such as glass bottles, cans and plastics to share the cost of recycling.

When a producer makes packaging for a product subject to recycling obligations, he or she must pay a small fee.

The company pays a levy to the Korea Environment Corporation or a contribution to the Korea Packaging Material Recycling Business Mutual Aid Association.

Most follow the latter case.

The Mutual Aid Association transfers this contribution back to the Korea Resources Circulation and Distribution Center.

The distribution center uses this money to support recycling companies.

Contributions are settled quarterly by the company.

The annual contribution unit price is set in kg.

As of last year, a contribution of 348 won per 1 kg was set for composite materials including vinyl.

The EPR contribution is only applicable to companies that manufacture products and packaging materials subject to recycling obligations.

There is no reason to pay a share if the product is not subject to obligation.

Some mask producers have noticed this and have asked the Packaging Materials Association to refund their contribution.

The Packaging Material Workers' Association inquired about the management agency, the Korea Environment Corporation.

The Environment Corporation also reviewed the enforcement ordinance and concluded that the contribution should be refunded.

An official from the department in charge of the Environment Corporation is in the position that no action can be taken against the contents of the enforcement ordinance.

The Packaging Materials Mutual Aid Association has recently started calculating the refund amount according to the authoritative interpretation of the Korea Environment Corporation.

About 20 companies are expected to be included in the refund target.

The amount of refund is not much, less than 100 million won.

Mask makers now know it's okay to make non-recyclable packaging.

So, how will the packaging materials that are made in the future change?

I inquired about a company that specializes in recycling packaging materials.

It is expected that there will not be a packaging material that is cheaper than the existing one.

Rather, it is predicted that packaging materials that focus on appearance, such as design, will be inundated.

The company says it will overpack as much as it relieves the recycling burden.

I am concerned about the production of colorful and cumbersome packaging materials to attract consumer attention.

The contents are one mask under 30g, but the packaging material may become unnecessarily large.

Enforcement Decree That Can't Follow Citizenship This happening is a case in which the relevant laws do

In the field, efforts are being made to recycle mask packaging materials, but the Enforcement Decree of the Resources Recycling Act has actually caught the eye.

Experts say that the enforcement ordinance needs to be supplemented.

Hong Soo-yeol, director of the Resource Circulation Socio-Economic Research Institute, says that the enforcement ordinance needs to be revised so that mask packaging materials can be incorporated into the EPR system.

He points out that if left as it is, there will be a gap between the system and the field.

This is because, no matter how many recycling companies recycle the mask packaging materials that have been segregated, they will not receive the subsidy derived from the EPR contribution.

The response of related organizations such as the Ministry of Environment is also disappointing.

After Corona was introduced into Korea in 2020, masks have been at the center of the issue.

There was even a mask scandal at one time.

Masks have become a necessity for three years.

It was predictable that the consumption of masks would increase explosively.

At the very least, it appears that wearing a mask indoors will continue for the time being.

However, it seems that concerns about the increasing waste of mask packaging materials have not been enough.