Peter Ward opened proceedings for the day and emphasised that Thomas Hardy was an independent brand service company. The expectation is that PET production should be approximately 4 million cases per annum and that sizes produced will be 275ml, 330ml and 500ml. The bottles would have 8% barrier material and initially it is suggested that brand owners should use the same bottle in order that the price can be made to be more competitive. PET is safer than glass and the police endorse its use.

Philippe Blonda, from Sodripack then gave a presentation in which he described the process for producing the PET bottles which will be used at Thomas Hardy. Multi-layer barrier technology was selected as it was felt that this offers the best protection for the product, and the Kortec injection moulding system was selected to introduce the barrier to the PET preform. The barrier material selected is an active barrier, which means that it will not only prevent the egress of CO2 and ingress of oxygen, but it will also scavenge oxygen from the product and PET layers as well. The material is produced by Honeywell and is called Aegis Ox. Philippe also pointed out that the bottles are recyclable and showed the process for carrying this out. The resulting recyclate can be blended back up to 25%. Presently the cost of recyclate is greater than the cost of virgin material but this can change.

Thomas Thistlethwayte from CBI then described the installation. The line is now a combi-line capable of handling glass or PET. Output for 330ml glass being 600bpm and PET 500bpm. For PET, only the 330ml size can be handled at present and successful beer filling trials took place mid October. The commissioning of 275 and 500ml sizes will take place next year.

The preforms are received from Sodripack, and the PET bottles are stretch-blown on a Sidel SB020 machine. This runs at the same speed as the filler viz 500bpm. Bottles are conveyed with sterile air directly to the rinser with an accumulation time of 2 minutes. The bottles are rinsed on a rotary rinser, and purged with CO2 before filling. CO2 usage is only 2.5g/bottle and the oxygen pick up 50-65ppb with a head space of less than 0.2ml after jetting with water at 90oC. On the trial run <100ppb was achieved with a fill level of +/-2mm. The filler is completely enclosed in a clean enclosure, which is kept clean using foam and sterilant. The crowns are rinsed with PAA before being applied to the bottle.

Julian Leek also from CBI described the process, which allows beer to be flash or tunnel pasteurised. Beer being packaged in PET is flash pasteurised via a plate pasteuriser built by CBI. The plate exchanger was purchased from APV. Julian described the CIP/SIP system, which allows the pasteuriser, SBT (Sterile Buffer Tank) and the filler to be cleaned in a single loop. The detergent can also be given additional heating or cooling as it passes through the plate pasteuriser. The cleaning cycle is set up to give pre-rinse/Hot Caustic at 85oC/Intermediate Rinse/Acid Cold Sterilant /Flush at 90oC/Cool. The SBT set up allows for complete cleaning of vessel, valves and gas supply lines.

The flash pasteuriser accurately controls PU’s and allows for variable flow and is fully automated. Heat recovery is 90%. The control and recorder are independent to allow constant crosschecking of the process.

Peter Ward then gave a presentation on the commercial implications of PET. He accepted that the cost and filling of PET was not competitive with Glass or Can but pointed out that with reasonable volumes this could change! Shelf life was shorter than glass or can but improvements to this are also being rapidly made. However, it is pointed out that beer should be consumed before it is 6 months old anyway. In other areas such as safety, flexibility of design, weight and openings in the European markets PET has a lot going for it. On analysis against all attributes, PET and Glass came out equally competitive followed by Can.

After a most interesting tour of the plant, we had an excellent buffet lunch. The day was rounded off by John Yates who described the forthcoming events for the BBI, and a vote of thanks was given by Jeremy Browne who wished Peter Ward and his company every success with this new project, which we were privileged to witness at it’s inception.

Jeremy Browne, Northern Section Chairman