Assessment of the Environmental Advantages and ...

Assessment of the Environmental Advantages and Drawbacks of Existing and Emerging Polymers Recovery Processes Authors: Clara Delgado, Leire Barruetabeña, Oscar Salas Editor: Oliver Wolf

EUR 22939 EN - 2007

The mission of the IPTS is to provide customer-driven support to the EU policy-making process by researching science-based responses to policy challenges that have both a socio-economic and a scientific or technological dimension.

European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Contact information Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, s/n. E-41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488318 Fax: +34 954488300 http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/

JRC37456

EUR 22939 EN ISBN 978-92-79-07366-3 ISSN 1018-5593 DOI 10.2791/46661

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

© European Communities, 2007 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in Spain

ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES AND DRAWBACKS OF EXISTING AND EMERGING POLYMERS RECOVERY PROCESSES

Authors: Clara Delgado (GAIKER Technology Centre, Spain) Leire Barruetabeña (GAIKER Technology Centre, Spain) Oscar Salas (GAIKER Technology Centre, Spain) Editor: Oliver Wolf (DG JRC/IPTS)

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

2007

EUR 22939 EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

PREFACE ........................................................................................... 1

2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ 2

3.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 17

4.

BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 19

5.

OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 24

6. INVENTORY OF PLASTIC WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF POLYMERS. DIMENSIONING CURRENT AND FUTURE PROBLEM ................................................................................. 26 6.1. INVENTORY OF MOST COMMON POLYMERS IN CURRENT AND FUTURE PLASTIC WASTE. METHODOLOGY.................................................... 26 6.2. PACKAGING: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS ......................................................................... 29 6.2.1. Main applications of polymers in packaging.................................................. 35 6.2.2. Most common polymers in Packaging Waste ................................................ 38 6.2.3. New trends in polymer composition in Packaging......................................... 49 6.2.4. Current and future plastic scenarios in Packaging Waste............................... 54 6.3. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS .......................................................... 59 6.3.1. Most common polymers in MSW .................................................................. 64 6.3.2. Future trends in MSW polymer composition ................................................. 65 6.3.3. Current and future residual MSW plastic stream scenarios ........................... 65 6.4. ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS....... 66 6.4.1. Main applications of polymers in E&E sector ............................................... 70 6.4.2. Most common polymers in WEEE................................................................. 72 6.4.3. Future trends in polymer composition of WEEE ........................................... 75 6.4.4. Current and future plastic scenarios in the WEEE separate stream ............... 77 6.5. VEHICLES: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS .......................................................................................... 83 6.5.1. Main applications of polymers in automotive sector and most common polymers in ELV ............................................................................................................ 84 6.5.2. New trends in automotive polymer composition............................................ 87 6.5.3. Current and future plastic scenarios in ELV waste stream............................. 89 6.6. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS ....................................... 101 6.6.1. Main applications of polymers in B&C sector ............................................. 105 6.6.2. Most common polymers in C&D waste and future trends in B&C.............. 107 6.6.3. Current and future plastic scenarios in C&D waste stream.......................... 110 6.7. AGRICULTURE: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS ....................................................................... 113

6.7.1. 6.7.2. 6.7.3. 6.7.4. 6.8. 6.9. 6.9.1. 6.9.2.

Main applications of polymers in agriculture............................................... 117 Most common polymers in Agriculture........................................................ 119 Future trends in agricultural plastics ............................................................ 121 Current and future polymer scenarios in Agriculture waste stream ............. 122 PLASTIC WASTE SCENARIOS. SUMMARY ......................................... 126 ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF POLYMERS.................................... 128 Introduction and methodology ..................................................................... 128 Results of the qualitative environmental assessment of polymers ............... 131

7. INVENTORY OF RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIROTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.................... 137 7.1. POTENTIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES .......................................... 137 7.1.1. Overview of polymer recovery technologies................................................ 141 7.2. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES.................................................................................................... 146 7.2.1. Overview of technology charts..................................................................... 150 7.2.2. Methodology for the environmental evaluation ........................................... 157 7.2.3. Review of main environmental aspects of polymer recovery technologies . 161 7.2.4. Results of the comparative environmental evaluation.................................. 196

8. BARRIERS AND DRIVERS FOR FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF PLASTIC WASTE RECOVERY OPTIONS 206 8.1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .............................................. 206 8.2. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF BARRIERS AND DRIVERS CHECKLIST. AGGREGATED SWOT ANALYSIS.............................................. 211 8.3. ANALYSIS OF NON-TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF POLYMER RECOVERY OPTIONS. BARRIERS AND DRIVERS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................... 216 8.3.1. Industrialisation aspects................................................................................ 217 8.3.2. Existing collection and logistics ................................................................... 220 8.3.3. Plastic waste quality (input material) ........................................................... 221 8.3.4. Product quality (output material).................................................................. 222 8.3.5. Markets and prices........................................................................................ 224 8.3.6. Legislation: legal framework and environmental policies ........................... 226 8.3.7. Sustainability (economic-environmental-social aspects) ............................. 237

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN SCENARIOS BASED ON DIFFERENT MARKET PENETRATION OF RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................... 239 9.1. CONSTRUCTION OF SCENARIOS .......................................................... 239 9.2. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF POLYMER RECOVERY SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................ 252 9.2.1. Global Warming Potential in Recovery Scenarios ....................................... 252 9.2.2. Cumulative Energy Demand in Recovery Scenarios ................................... 254 9.2.3. Conclusions and further considerations........................................................ 256

10.

GLOSSARY ................................................................................... 259

10.1.

11.

COUNTRY CODES..................................................................................... 263

REFERENCES ............................................................................... 264

ANNEX 1 -

POLYMER INVENTORY. ANALYSIS PER WASTE STREAM

ANNEX 2 -

POLYMER

RECOVERY

TECNOLOGIES.

TECHNOLOGICAL

SHEETS ANNEX 3 -

ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION.

COMPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION ANNEX 4 -

POLYMER RECOVERY TECNOLOGIES. MARKET SHEETS & SWOT

Assessment of the Environmental Advantages and Drawbacks of Existing and Emerging Polymers Recovery Processes

1. PREFACE Plastics' strength and flexibility, combined with affordability and durability, make them suitable for a range of applications from packaging to construction, telecommunications and electronic equipment. Consequently, the use of plastics has risen to around 40 million tonnes in Europe in 2003. As a result, the share of plastics in different waste streams is increasing, and the efficient recovery and recycling of plastic waste has become an important element on the way to achieve environmental sustainability in Europe. The study investigates the technical and environmental potential of various plastic recovery schemes to address these changes and assesses the possibilities for environmentally favourable existing and emerging processes to enter the market. The volume of different waste streams as well as the share of different kinds of plastics within them is going to change over the next decade. This report provides different scenarios for future waste streams in 2015 and identifies favourable combinations of recovery technologies being able to respond to these changes from the perspective of their environmental and technological performance. This report, which is based on a study conducted by the GAIKER Centro Tecnológico in Spain, on behalf of the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, is a contribution to the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste and Integrated Product Policy of the European Commission (COM(2005)666). It provides information concerning the treatment of polymers for the ongoing work on different waste streams as set out in the directives 94/62/EC on packaging waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles and 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Information is furthermore provided for waste streams generated in agriculture, in construction, demolition and for municipal solid waste. The objectives of the study have been defined by JRC/IPTS. The development of the methodology has been done by GAIKER in close co-operation with JRC/IPTS. The management and supervision of the research activities, as well as the editing of the final report, were carried out by JRC/IPTS.

Oliver Wolf JRC/IPTS

JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

The JRC/IPTS would like to thank the external experts that contributed with valuable information: Marek Kozlowski (Wrocla University of Technology, Poland), Josu Epelde (IDOM, Spain), Adrian Selinger (EBARA, Switzerland), Jürgen Riegel (THERMOSELECT, Switzerland), Peter Müller (BÜHLER AG, Switzerland), Jean Christophe Lepers (SOLVAY, Belgium), Gary Tsuchida, (KOBE STEEL, Japan).

1

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The production and consumption of plastics is increasing rapidly; there are materials outpacing GDP growth and taking over new markets. Nevertheless, only 39% of total collectable waste plastics are being recovered at present. In May 2003, the Commission adopted a Communication towards a Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, which investigates ways to promote recycling where potential exists for additional environmental benefits and analyses options to achieve recycling objectives in the most cost-effective way possible. It should be seen as part of a wider strategy which considers also recovery and sound disposal of waste. This is particularly relevant for polymers as they can be recovered in a number of ways leading to varying the degree of environmental benefits. This report provides an evaluation of the environmental potential of the various plastic recovery processes, and assesses the possibilities for environmentally favourable existing and emerging processes to enter the European market within the coming ten years.

The report contains an inventory of current post-consumer plastic waste by sectors in the EU-25 and offers a prospect of the composition of the plastic waste to be found in a ten year time frame. The environmental impact of the most common polymers identified has been qualitatively assessed on the basis of the intrinsic nature of the respective polymer, the utilisation of the polymer in certain applications and its occurrence in specific waste flows. This analysis has allowed for the qualitative ranking of polymers in relation to their needs for improved waste management. Based on that, a thorough screening of the state of the art of practices and research on polymer recovery JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

2

technologies has been carried out, identifying those with high potential for improving plastic waste recovery and analysing their technical and environmental performance, together with the barriers and drivers that exist for their commercialisation or wider adoption. The report finalises with an evaluation of the overall environmental impact in several scenarios, which are defined assuming high/low market penetration of the different recovery technologies and allocating waste plastic flows to technologies on the basis of its technical suitability for the treatment of each waste stream — given its composition and the type and degree of contamination.


The main findings presented in this report are summarised in the following.

INVENTORY OF PLASTIC WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF POLYMERS.

The plastic composition of the six post-consumer waste streams under study (Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Packaging, Construction and Demolition (C&D), Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), End of Life Vehicles (ELV) and Agriculture) has been worked out using the most recent available data about waste arisings at EU-25 level1, supplemented with statistics and market trends for product consumption and composition with historic data and projection models for waste volume and composition.

The analysis of the gathered data has allowed estimation of the most common polymers in the different waste streams: Low Density Polyethylene

LDPE

•

High Density Polyethylene

HDPE

•

Polypropylene

PP

•

Polyethylene Terephthalate

PET

•

Polyvinyl Chloride

PVC

•

Polystyrene

PS

•

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

ABS

•

Polyamide

PA

•

Polyurethane

PU

These estimates are made for the year 2005 and extrapolated to 2015 waste collection scenarios. In both cases, LDPE appears as the most abundant polymer in waste, due to its predominance in packaging applications, which account for nearly half the total plastic waste, collected either separately or as part of municipal solid waste. The most outstanding evolutions come from the expected growth in PP and PET volumes in waste, clearly originated by their increasing use in packaging (PET, PP), but also in


•

3

other sectors such as automotive and electric & electronics (PP). The total volumes of collected plastic waste under the six waste streams considered have been estimated at 23.6 Mt and 34.8 Mt respectively for 2005 estimations and 2015 scenarios.


Figure 0.1. Estimated 2005 & 2015 collected waste scenarios, per polymer and waste stream

1

4

The study was carried out prior to the accession of Bulgaria and Rumania in January 2007.


A qualitative evaluation of the potential environmental impact of the identified prevalent polymers in waste streams, associated to the characteristics of the specific waste stream in which they arise, results in the following conclusions: •

As a rule there is little demand for recyclates in any of the six waste streams assessed (PET from packaging waste is the most remarkable exception) and whenever end markets exist they generally mean “down cycling” of polymers into cheaper and less demanding applications, usually in packaging and building sectors. That is the case of most polyethylene (LDPE, HDPE) recycled from packaging applications.

•

The analysis per waste stream shows that, in spite of being one of the most increasingly consumed polymers in packaging, electric & electronic and automotive sectors, PP shows still many unresolved issues for their effective recovery in all waste streams. In many cases this is due to the fact that it shares applications with other polymers, making it difficult to quickly identify and separate PP, and to the fact that PP is used in various grades and combined with other materials in laminates or metallised film structures.

•

In the case of waste electric and electronic equipment waste polymer collection and separation are comparatively better solved than actual recycling/recovery of the reclaimed resins (reprocessing into new products). In that waste stream PU is one of the polymers more easily recoverable from collected waste in enough and consistent volumes. Analogous volumes are difficult to get with other polymers as a result of the high variability in resin grades used in the electric & electronics applications, the

presence of hazardous additives. •

Collection and reclamation of end-of-life vehicles plastics relies on the success of collection and treatment of discarded vehicles at authorised centres. The legal reuse/recovery target of 85% of weight of materials present in vehicles forces the recycling or energy recovery of plastic parts of vehicles. Large parts of HDPE from tanks, PU from seats and glass fibre reinforced PA and PP from hubcaps, bumpers and car body can be mechanically recycled if efficiently decontaminated.


complexity of mixtures with other polymeric and non polymeric materials and the

5

•

PVC, the majority polymer by far in C&D waste, has the biggest collection and recycling ratios in that waste stream, resulting from campaigns targeted to specific building applications (flooring, window frames, pipes, roofing...).

•

Despite the availability of big volumes of waste plastic flows of steady composition in the agriculture sector (LDPE films and PVC pipes), the high degree of contamination and degradation, especially of LDPE films, restricts their recycling options at the moment. Energy recovery is a sound alternative to disposal options with no recovery at all (burning, dumping, burying into soil and landfill) which are still common practice nowadays.

INVENTORY OF RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL/ TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.

An extensive bibliographic search has served to identify a non-exhaustive list of processes and technologies at different stages of development within the three main routes for plastic recovery (mechanical recycling, feedstock recovery and energy recovery). For technical and environmental comparison purposes, those recovery technologies with capacity of treating any/various of the most common polymers identified in each waste stream, proven at industrial scale, have been selected from the list, to undergo more detailed evaluation. Thus, the following technologies have been assessed: •

Mechanical recycling


− Conventional (e.g. mechanical recycling of commodity thermoplastics from packaging waste) − Advanced (e.g. bottle-to-bottle PET recycling) •

Feedstock Recycling/Incineration with energy recovery

− Gasification to methanol (treatment of plastic mixtures from Municipal Solid Waste, packaging, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, End of Life Vehicle, Construction & Demolition and/or agriculture waste) − Gasification to syngas (treatment of plastic mixtures from Municipal Solid Waste, packaging and End of Life Vehicle (Automotive Shredder Residue))

6


− Raw materials substitution. Waste plastic (Municipal Solid Waste, packaging and End of Life Vehicle (Automotive Shredder Residue)) as a reduction agent in blast furnaces − Gasification + Combustion (Municipal Solid Waste and shreddered residues from End of Life Vehicle and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment treatment) − Incineration with energy recovery. (co-incineration of plastic mixtures from packaging, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, End of Life Vehicle, and/or agriculture with other wastes (Municipal Solid Waste)) −

(Catalytic) Pyrolysis to diesel fuel (treatment of PE, PP & PS from packaging and agriculture waste)

•

Energy Recovery

− Use as secondary fuel. Fuel substitution at cement kilns: co-combustion with coal of plastic mixtures from MSW, packaging, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, End of Life Vehicle, Construction & Demolition and/or agriculture waste

The environmental performance of the above mentioned polymer recovery processes has been assessed in terms of hazardous on-site emissions, waste reduction, recovered materials, cumulative energy demand (CED) and contribution to global warming potential (GWP). It can be concluded that: •

Mechanical recycling: Mechanical recycling processes lead to the relatively lowest energy demand and highest CO2 savings, they generate negligible hazardous emissions and low levels of

•

Feedstock recovery/Incineration with energy recovery The processes leading to electricity production (gasification to methanol, gasification to syngas, gasification combined with combustion, incineration with energy recovery) score worse in the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) parameter than the rest of technologies assessed. The processes show positive CO2 equivalent emissions per recovered unit of polymers, i.e. they do not help to reduce Global


—mostly inert— residues.

Warming Potential GWP. In particular, gasification to syngas is the technology with the highest GWP estimate and the lowest energy efficiency. The above mentioned 7

gasification technologies minimize hazardousness of residues and emissions in respect to conventional incineration. Gasification to syngas and gasification combined with combustion also allow for the recovery of non-polymeric materials (e.g. metals) present in waste. Catalytic pyrolysis to diesel fuel shows slightly higher levels of inert residue generation than mechanical recycling options, far from volumes generated by other thermal and oxidative processes (incineration, gasification to methanol, gasification to syngas, gasification combined with combustion). Unlike the gasification processes, it produces a char, not a vitrified slag, which explains the somehow higher hazardousness of its process waste. Nevertheless, it is superior to the other thermal feedstock recovery processes in the CED balance (it appears almost as energy efficient as conventional mechanical recycling processes and the blast furnace and cement kilns options) and ranks intermediate in the range of GWP results, with similar CO2 emission savings to the ones achieved by treatment in blast furnaces and cement kilns. •

Energy recovery: Use of plastic waste as secondary fuel/raw materials in cement kiln and blast furnaces leads to highly efficient energy use. CO2 emissions are lower than in conventional operation with coal/oil (i.e. those recovery options lead to CO2 emission savings) and no additional formation of dioxins or solid residues can be demonstrated. They contribute to minimisation of waste and recovery of metals.


BARRIERS AND DRIVERS FOR FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF PLASTIC WASTE RECOVERY OPTIONS

The analysis of the barriers and drivers for further implementation of each of the polymer recovery technologies investigated has been carried out in the context of the factors more relevant for their further dissemination: industrialisation, collection and logistics, waste and product qualities, market and prices, and legislation. •

Industrialisation aspects: Demand exists for those recovery technologies developed to obtain a valuable product from a low-scale specific plant (advanced mechanical recycling) or versatile large-scale feedstock recovery plants (capable of treating

8


mixtures of plastics and other waste), which can compete with large-scale and unspecific energy recovery options. The direct use or adaptation of already existing facilities like municipal solid waste incinerators, power plants, cement kilns or blast furnaces has a comparative advantage over the construction of dedicated installations for plastic waste recycling on medium-large scale. •

Existing collection and logistics: the absence of separate waste collection schemes favour processes more flexible in their inlet requirements that accept unsorted mixtures of plastic (even blended with other types of waste). The technologies that require large volumes of polymer waste in order to run profitable and/or are dedicated exclusively to plastic waste are negatively affected by long distances between the place of waste generation and waste treatment. The mechanical recycling of plastic waste (due to its small-scale application) and the use of plastic waste as secondary raw material or fuel in blast furnaces and coincineration processes are the most favoured alternatives. Particular situations, like the location of complementary/interacting industrial activities in the same area (e.g. a car shredder facility — that is a large source of mixed plastic waste — close to a cement production plant — that is a big energy consumer) may give preference to recovery through existing processes.

•

Plastic waste quality (input material): consistent volume and quality of the supply is generally a weak point in many of the post-consumer plastic waste recycling and recovery processes. Even the energy and feedstock recovery technologies, that can handle mixed plastics, require keeping the concentration of some polymers and other materials under some acceptance limits, as well as a minimum conditioning of

•

Product quality (output material): mechanical recycling aims at recovering a polymer of quality as similar to virgin as possible, in the form of clean flakes and pellets or end applications. The feedstock recycling involves the transformation of polymers into their precursors, the monomers, or other completely different substances like synthesis gas and hydrocarbon mixtures, that can be used in-situ as secondary raw materials, transformed to some petrochemical “base bricks” like


the waste to be fed into their processes.

methanol or olefins, or used as fuels for producing electricity and heat. The purity 9

and quality of the polymer decomposition products achieved determines their applicability and potential end markets and can be decisive for the commercial success or failure of a technology. •

Markets and prices: The output product depends on the technology, and polymers have a higher value than other products resulting from recovery processes (monomers, synthesis gas, hydrocarbon mixtures, fuel or its energy equivalent). Although markets are broadening for recycled polymers, there is still mistrust from the consumer side concerning the properties of the recyclates. That means that outlets in high-end markets for recycled plastics are limited. The saturation of low added-value markets and the lack of niche markets in the EU-25 absorbing recycled plastic material can jeopardize the large capacities installed for mechanical recycling in some countries and divert waste flows to other recovery options or reclaimed materials flows outside the UE. In this context, feedstock recovery processes would be a reasonable alternative to combustion for opening new markets to materials recovered from plastic waste. Given current oil prices, market prospects may be quite favourable for medium scale plants yielding fuel final products of diesel or petrol grade instead of intermediates for the chemical synthesis industry. Market prices can be severely influenced by local economic incentives and instruments which can constitute either barriers difficult to overcome for establishing new recovery options in a given area or incentives for promoting preferred disposal options.


•

Legal framework and environmental policies: The policies in the area of pollution prevention, waste and energy constitute a complex legal framework. The transposition of the current EC directives into national laws, together with the specific national postponements and targets and the distinct national/local bans and limitations on certain activities, make the area even more intricate. The existing Directives on Packaging, WEEE and ELV waste streams may have a direct effect on the development of polymer recovery technologies and the promotion of certain treatment routes that make it possible to reach the recovery and recycling targets set. The actions towards increasing the recovery of other plastic

10


waste streams not specifically regulated by EU Directives (e.g. C&D and agricultural plastic waste) are supported by economic private initiatives, local regulations and the European strategies on prevention and recycling of waste and on sustainable use of natural resources. National polymer waste (and waste in general) treatment systems in Europe differ to a large extent. Several Member States have been applying during the last year's landfill diversion policies and have a well developed infrastructure of waste to energy (WTE) plants. Also, some Member States host pilot and commercial installations of novel processes for feedstock recovery of polymers. Regulations on emission control for industrial processes (incineration, emission trading scheme ETS and IPPC directive) and transboundary waste shipment regulations can also influence the setting-up locally of some polymer recovery processes in opposition to others. Regarding the recyclates and products derived from plastic waste recovery treatment, further regulations and standards setting specifications on fuels and newly manufactured products can play a role in their marketability and therefore enhance or hinder recovery routes.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN SCENARIOS BASED ON DIFFERENT MARKET PENETRATION OF RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

A great number of factors and interactions affect the choice of one waste polymer

pathway for plastic waste. A combination of recovery solutions guarantees the most efficient achievement of environmental objectives. By means of the environmental evaluation of different potential scenarios of waste polymer recovery, where the various recovery technologies considered penetrate the market in different shares, it has been possible to assess the associated impacts to the most likely situation of plastic waste recovery in the EU-25 in 2015 and to compare it with other hypothetical situations. Four scenarios have been assessed in the present study:


recovery route which demonstrates that there is no absolute superiority for one recovery

11

− Base line scenario (extrapolation of current recovery situation to the estimated waste plastic amounts in 2015 and the future requirements of minimum recycling and recovery set by the relevant EU legislation) − Scenario A (maximum penetration of mechanical recycling options over base line) − Scenario B (maximum penetration of feedstock recycling options over base line) − Scenario C (maximum penetration of energy recovery options over base line)

Figure 2 shows the treatment of the estimated 33800 kt polymer waste in 2015 through different combinations of recovery technologies. Due to the differing capability of the recovery technologies to access polymers in the different waste streams, the amount of plastics treated in the scenarios varies. In scenario A, 46% of polymer waste are treated with recovery technologies, which is close to the baseline scenario. Much more polymers are accessible to recovery technologies in scenario B (61%) and scenario C (64%). This leads to the result that in the overall scenarios the energy efficiency is higher for scenarios B and C, also mechanical recycling is more energy efficient per unit of treated polymers.


12



Figure 0.2. Polymer waste distribution per recovery technologies in the four assessed scenarios

13

The comparison of the environmental performance of the four scenarios of distribution of waste streams per technologies has been carried out considering two main impacts: − Emissions that contribute to the Global Warming Potential, expressed in CO2 equivalents per weight unit of plastic waste recovered. − Cumulative Energy Demand or the total need of energy consumed within the combination of recovery processes applied (per weight unit of plastic waste recovered).

A comparison of the respective environmental impacts of the different recovery technologies indicates that global warming impact is most pronounced in Scenario C and least in Scenario A, due to the relative balance between GWP effects of mechanical recycling and energy recovery technologies within the different scenarios (see fig 3). As for the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) parameter, all assumed scenarios reflect the positive effect of applying an optimized mix of recovery options as opposed to disposal without recovery. However, although being superior to the baseline scenario, there are differences between the scenarios. The ratio of Total CED/Total Plastic waste recovered scores the best value at Scenario A (-30 GJ/kt), whilst the highest and therefore least favourable value is reached in Scenario C (-25 GJ/kt).


14


Figure 0.3. Compared GWP and CED results in the four assessed recovery scenarios

The lowest overall environmental impact corresponds to a maximum penetration of mechanical recycling, scenario A, which is defined as follows: − Packaging: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling (40%), whilst conventional operations can give way to some extent to more advanced methods, i.e. PET bottle-to-bottle technology (5%). The waste flows to the rest of recovery routes

− Municipal Solid Waste MSW: No market penetration of mechanical recycling higher than the base line scenario is assumed. − Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment WEEE: The maximum penetration of mechanical recycling will correspond to recycling ratio required for legal targets compliance (25%), while the rest of recovery operations remain on base line levels. − End of Life Vehicles ELV: The maximum penetration of mechanical recycling will


do not modify the base situation.

be up to 15%, with an additional 10% over base line subtracted from feedstock recovery waste flow. Energy recovery remains on base line levels. 15

− Construction and Demolition C&D: The maximum penetration of mechanical recycling will be up to 15%, with an additional 6.5% over base line subtracted from landfill flow. 3% out of 15% of the material recycling will be treated via advanced mechanical recycling. −

Agriculture: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling will be up to 60%, with the additional percentage over base line subtracted from landfill waste flows.

However, it should be noted that, under the assumptions made in the definition of the scenarios, this most environmentally favourable Scenario A allows for lower overall capacity treatment than Scenarios B and C: just 46% of plastic waste is recovered in Scenario A, while Scenarios B and C provide recovery rates over 60%. Therefore, two aspects should be regarded for the full appraisal of recovery scenarios and the calculated environmental impacts associated: •

in Scenario A the percentage of sorted polymers is by 4.5 points higher than in the other scenarios due to mechanical recycling;

•

enlargement of Scenario A to higher overall recovery rates, by sustaining (or increasing) the recycling to recovery ratio (in order to keep GWP and CED balances in the best values), may be difficult due to unavailability of sufficient sorted waste polymers suitable for mechanical recycling.

Other general considerations like the potential higher production of hazardous waste in energy recovery technologies should be considered in a further analysis. The hazardous JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

16

wastes are regulated and possible trends or future reduction objectives towards waste reduction in the end of life process could interact with the defined scenarios.

Another relevant aspect which could affect the scenarios is the market development; e.g. scenarios where mechanical recycling is increased are driven by higher market prices for recycled plastics or increasing CO2 abatement cost. Also the influence of energy prices, mainly in energy recovery oriented technologies, should be considered for the sustainability of the recovery process.


3. INTRODUCTION In the current plastics’ end-of-life scenario, where scarcely 39% of plastics are recovered in Western Europe —and notably less in the new EU members—, the improvement of the present recovery ratios and the reduction of landfilling are needed. But there are several problems related to the management and recovery of the post-consumer plastic waste. On the one hand, the consumption of plastic in a broad (and growing) range of applications in different manufacture sectors results in a widespread dispersion of plastic waste. The plastic waste management involves, therefore, collection cost (logistics) and the recovery of plastics entails also offer/demand of enough volume of recycled materials meeting requirements of reprocessors. On the other hand, post-consumer plastic residues are highly heterogeneous and appear frequently commingled with other materials. The associated problems in this case are related to difficulties in waste streams sorting and separation, increases in (re-) processing costs and losses in quality of the recycled materials, among others.

The present study aims at evaluating the environmental benefits and drawbacks of the several plastics recovery processes and at assessing the possibilities for the environmentally favourable existing and emerging ones to enter the market. In order to achieve this global objective, the survey has started by identifying the most prevalent polymers in waste streams, their associated recovery problems and the existing technologies for plastic recovery at different levels of development.

up, in order to identify the most common polymers in the different post-consumer waste streams (amounting up to 80 wt.% of total plastics in WEEE, ELV, packaging, building & construction, agriculture and MSW). The inventory shows the current waste composition and offers a prospect of the composition of the plastic waste to be found in ten years time frame.

The needs for improved recovery of the most common polymers identified has been


At a first stage (Task 1), a map of plastic waste by sectors in the EU-25 has been drawn

assessed, taking into account the environmental impact due to the intrinsic nature of 17

polymer and, especially, the impacts stemming from the utilisation of the polymer in certain applications of specific sectors, considering the problematic issues associated to management and treatment of each plastic waste stream. That qualitative assessment has been carried out through the factorial methodology proposed in Task 1.

Task 2 identifies the different existing recovery technologies, making a clear distinction between conventional, in development and emerging ones, in order to achieve as much as possible a vision of the potential future scenarios. In parallel, a LCA based environmental evaluation of these technologies has been carried out to appraise their environmental advantages and disadvantages.

However, the recovery technologies are not only influenced or validated by means of their environmental impacts associated, but also by market rules, legal aspects and others. The barriers and drivers for further implementation of plastic waste recovery options is analysed (Task 3) for the most environmentally promising technologies identified. The approach for that analysis is based on the assessment of several non-technical aspects compiled in a checklist and on a SWOT analysis. In this way, the analysis of each technology will provide a view of its future implementation potential, information linked with the definition of the scenarios in Task 4.

Results and conclusions from Task 1, Task 2 and Task 3 has been cross-linked for the definition in Task 4 of future scenarios based on different market penetration of environmentally favourable plastic waste recovery options. The total environmental JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

18

impact associated to those scenarios is evaluated, with a view to envisage the expected scenario and the framework conditions that could make it happen.


4. BACKGROUND Plastics’ strength and flexibility, combined with affordability and durability, make them suitable for a wide range of applications from packaging to construction, telecommunications to electronics equipment. The polymer production and hence, the consumption for plastic applications in Europe has risen steadily over the years according to the last data reported by Plastics Europe (former APME)[1]. On average 90 kg of plastics were consumed per capita in the EU-25 in 2002, although big differences exist between member states: Belgium with 200 kg/cap. in year 2002 was in the lead, whereas Latvia had a consumption of just 21 kg/cap. that same year. In fact, the ten 2003 Accession Countries averaged 36 kg of plastics consumed per capita in opposition to the 100 kg/cap. consumed in the average EU-15 country.

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000

PP

LDPE

HDPE

PS

PET

PVC

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

0

2002

2000 2001

polymer consumption, th. tonnes

Evolution of polymer consumption in EU-25

Others

In 2003 plastic consumption in Western Europe reached 39,706,000 tonnes (of which 84% thermoplastics and 16% thermo sets), with the distribution by industry sector as shown in Figure 2.


Figure 1: Polymer consumption development 2001-2002 in EU-25 (plain pattern: EU-15, striped pattern: ten 2003 Accession Countries)

19

Building & Construction 19%

Agriculture 2% Automotive 8%

Domestic & Household 20% Large Industry Electric & 6% Electronic 9%

Packaging 36%

Figure 2: Consumption of plastics by sector in Western Europe 2003 (Source: APME, Plastics in Europe 2002 & 2003[1])

According to APME data, total collectable available post-user plastic waste in Western Europe in 2002 was estimated at 20,608,000 tonnes. The recovery of plastics has kept pace with the increasing consumption, amounting to overall 37.9% in 2002 and 39.0% in 2003 from all collectable plastic waste (15% mechanical recycling, 1.5% feedstock recycling and 22.5% energy recovery).

Municipal Solid Waste 66%

Electrical & Electronic 4% JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

20

Distribution & Industry 20% Building & Construction 3%

Agriculture 2%

Automotive 5%

Figure 3: Total post-user collectable plastics waste by sector, Western Europe 2002 (Source: APME, Plastics in Europe 2002 & 2003 [1])


Mainly as a result of improving packaging collection systems and municipal incineration facilities, the highest quantities of plastics waste are recovered from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), although Distribution (Industrial & Commercial Packaging) and Agriculture sectors have proportionally the highest recovery rates. Table 1: Distribution of the recovered plastic waste by sectors in Western Europe, 2002. (Source: APME, Plastics in Europe 2002 & 2003 [1])

Industrial sector

Volume of collectable plastic waste available in Western Europe, 2002

% of recovered plastics related to the volume of plastic waste

(× 1000 t) Agriculture

311

53.4%

Automotive

959

6.7%

Construction

628

8.6%

Distribution

4190

48.2%

Electric & Electronic

848

4.1%

Municipal Solid Waste

13671

39.7%

Industrial and commercial packaging (distribution category) has well-established recovery routes for reuse and recycling of plastics. Post-consumer household packaging makes up the largest share of plastics in MSW, where a variety of plastic items (household articles, packaging, small WEEE, etc.) are found commingled with other types of waste (organic mass, paper and cardboard, metals…). Implementation of EU Packaging Directive has increased up to an average 23.8% the share of post-user packaging waste that was mechanically and feedstock recycled across Western Europe in 2002[1]. Agricultural plastic registers one of the major recovery rates (above 50%),

voluntary. The success of those initiatives stems from the homogeneous nature of agroplastics and their easy accessibility. On the contrary, the automotive, construction and electric & electronic equipment sectors still exhibit low values for plastic recovery, due to the fact that these residues are generally heterogeneous and show great inconveniences for their separation. Options for recovery of WEEE and ELV plastics are being assessed pressured by the targets set at the corresponding EU Directives.


despite the fact that no EU legislation covers this waste and most schemes are

21

There are three main alternatives for the management of plastic wastes in addition to reusing and landfilling: •

Mechanical recycling by melting (or dissolution) and re-granulation of the used plastics

•

Feedstock recovery by conversion of the waste plastics into basic chemicals, monomers for plastics or hydrocarbon feedstock.

•

Energy recovery from plastic waste with or without other by-products

Mechanical recycling is limited both by the low purity of the polymeric wastes and the limited market for the recycled products. Recycled polymers only have commercial applications when the plastic wastes have been subjected to a previous separation by resin; recycled mixed plastics can only be used in undemanding applications

[2]

. The

purer and less adulterated a plastic remains after use, the more cost-effective its reuse and recycling

[3]

. For complex mixtures of plastics or very contaminated plastics,

feedstock recycling and energy recovery are the options of choice.

Feedstock recovery comprises a variety of processes yielding the individual components (chemicals) of polymers that can be fed back as raw material to produce the original products or others. On the whole, feedstock recycling has greater flexibility over composition and is more tolerant to impurities than mechanical recycling, although in most of the feedstock recycling methods some pre-treatments and separation operations must be carried out previously. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

22

Energy recovery processes constitute the most common recovery route for post-consumer plastic waste for complex and contaminated streams, due to their less demanding specifications for the inlet material.


RECOVERY OPTIONS

Material Recovery

Energy recovery

Plastic waste reprocessing into the original application or another different through a series of manufacturing processs

Energy recovery or generation from plastic waste, with other (by)products or not

Mechanical Recycling Plastic waste reprocessing into new products by physical means. Ultra-clean process incl.

Feedstock Recovery

Alternative Fuel

Energy generation

Basic chemicals recovery (monomers or syncrude) through chemical processes: depolymerisation, gasification, blast furnace, pyrolisis...

Substituion of conventional fuels in industry processes (e.g. Cement kilns)

Power (Heat or electricity) generation (e.g. incineration)

Figure 4: Recovery routes for plastic waste


23

5. OBJECTIVES The main goal of the project is to evaluate the environmental potential of the various plastic recovery schemes, as well as assessing the possibilities for environmentally favourable existing and emerging processes to enter the market. The study focuses on post-consumer plastic waste since industrial and commercial (distribution) packaging has well-established recovery routes for reuse and recycling of plastics. In this way, several streams of waste plastics may be identified as classified by the European Waste Catalogue in order to establish the different categories of action in the study: a) Plastic Packaging (COD: 15 01 02) b) Plastics in Municipal Solid Waste, MSW (COD: 20 01 39) c) Plastics in Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment, WEEE (COD: 16 02 16) d) Plastics in End-of-Life Vehicles, ELV (COD: 16 01 19) e) Plastics in Construction-Demolition Waste, C&D (COD: 17 02 03 & 17 02 04) f) Plastics in Agriculture (COD: 02 01 04)

The achievement of the global aim of the project has been obtained through the following partial objectives: •

To summarise the total environmental impact associated to the different polymers and plastic waste streams, ranking the polymers according to their needs for improvement in waste management.

•

To identify existing and emerging technologies with high potential to be implemented in plastics recovery, processes and describe their degree of


24

development and technical performance. •

To assess and compare the environmental advantages and drawbacks of these technologies and the recovery processes in which they would be a part.

•

To identify barriers to spreading the identified technologies and analyse the supportive framework that might help to overcome those barriers.

•

To assess the impact of identified technologies on total environmental impact for various scenarios ranging from low to high penetration markets.


The study covers the EU-25 economic and geographical area, as appears detailed in the figure below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom

16 Czech Republic 17 Cyprus 18 Estonia 19 Hungary 20 Latvia 21 Lithuania 22 Malta 23 Poland 24 Slovakia 25 Slovenia

4

14

18 20

3

8

21

15 11 2 10

16

5

12

13

23

6 1 25

24 19

9

7 22


Figure 5: State members of the EU-25 area

17

25

6. INVENTORY OF PLASTIC WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF POLYMERS. DIMENSIONING CURRENT AND FUTURE PROBLEM The main goal of Task 1 is to catalogue the polymers most commonly found in the different waste streams at present in EU-25 and to make a prospect of the composition of the plastic waste to be found in ten years time frame. Additionally, the total environmental impact associated to the different polymers and plastic waste streams is summarised, ranking the polymers according to their needs for improvement in waste management.

6.1. INVENTORY OF MOST COMMON POLYMERS IN CURRENT AND FUTURE PLASTIC WASTE. METHODOLOGY As a result of the inventory analysis, the percentage by weight of main polymers in the different waste streams in EU-25 has been estimated, at the present moment and in 10 years time. For the study purposes, the threshold of 80% by weight of total plastic in waste stream is fixed, i.e. the analysis has identified majority polymers that add together around 80 wt.% of total plastic amount in each of the aforementioned six waste streams, leaving polymers with minor shares out of the scope of the project.

LDPE

40

PVC HDPE

20

MSW

Packaging

C&D

Agriculture

0

ELV

PET

60 40 20 0

MSW

PP

Packaging

PS

60

80

C&D

ABS

PC/ABS blend

Agriculture

80

100

ELV

PA

WEEE

PU

Share in plastic waste stream, wt.%

2015 SCENARIO

100

WEEE


Share in plastic waste stream, wt.%

2005 SCENARIO

Figure 6: Identification of prevalent polymers (80 wt. % of total plastic content) in each waste stream

On some occasions the 80% threshold may not be reached by considering only polymers with significant weight shares in the plastic waste streams, as there is a

26


“miscellaneous” fraction that makes up a considerable proportion of the total plastic content (approx. 25 wt.%). In those cases, the associated environmental impact to the presence of a myriad of minority polymers is not individually assessed in the present work but it is analysed from the perspective of Mixed Plastic Waste (MPW) treatment needs.

Data from plastic manufacturers and recyclers, European and national trade associations of product manufacturers by sector (packaging, electronic goods, automotive…), as well as data from waste management authorities and collective systems and national and international environmental agencies, have been the basis for inventorying the polymers most widely consumed in the different sectors and the plastic composition of the several waste streams available for recovery (collectable and actually collected) in the countries of the EU-25.

Prospective studies and market outlooks provided by specialised market researchers, together with an analysis of manufacturing, consumer and legal trends and the product life span by sector will serve to carry out a 10 years extrapolation of plastic consumption and waste composition, with the aim of elucidating the prevalent plastics in the several waste streams and the most demanded polymers for consumption - which could constitute either a material stock influencing future waste or market outlets for potential recyclates.

The point of product life span, trends of consumption and disposal habits by EU-25

appear in the different waste streams separately collected and when. Since plastics are used in many different applications with diverse durability (see Figure 7), lifespan and stock models are to be considered to translate annual consumption figures from several years into waste data of the years under study.


consumers is crucial to understand which polymers and in which applications can

27

Life span (years)

40

Packaging Computers Wall coverings Telecommunications Large Domestic Appliances Profiles (e.g. window frames) Insulation Pipes/ducts 0

60

80

100

Percentage of products

Figure 7: Life spans of plastic products (Source: SOFRES Conseil in European Commission, 1996[4])

The current plastic composition of the six waste streams under study (MSW, Packaging, C&D, WEEE, ELV and Agriculture) has been worked out as far as possible from the most recent available data about waste arisings at EU-25 level. When such data are not readily available the following information has been considered:


28

•

Evolution of historic data on plastic waste composition by waste stream

•

Evolution of historic data on plastic consumption by sector and applications

•

Evolution of historic data on consumption by polymer

•

Evolution of historic data on ratio of volume of collectable plastic waste vs volume of plastic consumption (by sector).

•

Average life span of plastic products by sector

•

Existing expert projection models for waste composition

•

National statistics in product consumption and penetration (annual sales, availability per household or inhabitant), statistics in end-of-life products discarded…


Innovations in the different manufacturing sectors, trends in consumption and evolution of other national markets (US, Japan), as well as potential influence of legislation have been also evaluated in the forecast of composition of future plastic waste streams.

Local and national evolution of historic data are being also analysed in order to establish local differences or to extrapolate national consumption and waste trends to European level if they are proved to be representative.

The output of this task has been the drawing up of two summary charts (one for the current situation and another for the 10-years future situation, Figure 60) identifying the most common polymers in each waste stream, and providing as much as possible reliable estimations of their share of the total plastic content of the waste stream.

6.2. PACKAGING: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS The packaging sector continues to be the major consumer of plastics, with a stable share in total plastic consumption at just over 37% in 2002 and 2003. In terms of product areas, food packaging is the largest single product area in the whole packaging industry, accounting for more than 50% of total production, and is bound to be the major growth market for plastics packaging [1].

Packaging is relatively short-lived and therefore packaging waste can be assumed to correspond roughly to the amount of packaging put on the market annually. Plastic sources to amount for 65-75% by weight of total plastic packaging [5,6,7]. The remaining percentage is used as distribution packaging (crates, drums, pallets, wrapping) in industry and goes into the industrial and commercial waste flow.

Consumption of plastics into packaging applications is quite documented in the EU and many records are available about waste generated in the EU-15 from the 90’s. However, there is high disparity on the data about generated and collected plastic packaging waste


packaging flowing into the household waste stream has been estimated by several

in the EU obtained from different sources. In spite of the existence of the Directive

29

94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste (amended by 2004/12/EC and 2005/20/EC), which stipulates the establishment of information systems at Member State level about packaging waste generated and recovered/recycled, there are still no sufficiently comprehensive official statistics. According to APME [1] there were around 9,820 kt of plastic packaging waste arising in EU-15 in 2002-2003. The same sources record 14,764 kt of plastic consumed in the Western European packaging sector. The data reported by ten EU members to the European Commission, fulfilling the requirements established by the Directive on Packaging waste, give a figure of 10,665 kt of plastic packaging waste generated in 2003, with an overall recovery rate of 54.2% (including a recycling rate of 26.6%). Those general numbers pertain to Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom.

In order to estimate the amount of packaging waste in the EU-25 and its evolution, the information reported by the European Commission has been completed with data published by the Packaging Recovery Organisation Europe, Pro-Europe[8], (organisation of national packaging waste collective systems under the Green Dot in Europe) and those compiled in the waste database of the European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management[9].

The following figures show the results of this inventory for the current generation of plastic packaging waste. The Figure 8 refers to EU-15, while Figure 9 infers the JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

30

situation in EU-25. Since only data about Czech Republic and Slovakia were available for the ten 2003 Accession Countries in 2003, their values have been extrapolated to other Eastern European countries, based on their number of inhabitants and a ratio packaging waste generated/recovered as calculated for the reporting countries.


Plastic packaging waste generated, th. tonnes

2,500 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 AT

BE

DK

FI

FR

DE

GR

IE

IT

LU

NL

PT

ES

SE

UK

Figure 8: Evolution of total plastic packaging waste generated in EU-15

Plastic packaging waste, th. tonnes

2,500 Plastic packaging waste generated

2,000

Plastic packaging waste recovered

1,500

1,000

500

0 AT BE CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT SK SI ES SE GB

In total it can be estimated that 13,458,479 tonnes of plastic packaging waste arise in the EU-25, and around 7,029,846 may be recovered as reported by countries to EC. According to the EC reporting guidelines, plastic packaging waste “generated” in a Member State may be deemed to be equal to the amount of plastic packaging placed on the market in the same year within that Member State. Plastic packaging waste


Figure 9: Estimated total plastic packaging waste generated in the EU-25 countries

“recovered” includes waste recycled, recovered or incinerated with energy recovery.

31

The reliability of the data is expected to improve once all the Member States, as provided for in the Packaging Directive, take the necessary measures to ensure that databases on packaging and packaging waste are established on a harmonized basis, supplying the Commission with their available information on the magnitude, characteristics and evolution of the packaging and packaging waste national flows by means of the formats adopted by the Commission (Decision 2005/270/EC).

This will contribute to monitoring the implementation of the objectives set out in this Directive, that in the case of plastics contained in packaging waste fixes a minimum recycling target of 22.5% by weight (counting exclusively material that is recycled back into plastics) to be attained no later than 31 December 2008. This target is included in a set of overall objectives: a) no later than 30 June 2001 between 50% as a minimum and 65% as a maximum by weight of packaging waste will be recovered or incinerated at waste incineration plants with energy recovery; b) no later than 31 December 2008 60% as a minimum by weight of packaging waste will be recovered or incinerated at waste incineration plants with energy recovery; c) no later than 30 June 2001 between 25% as a minimum and 45% as a maximum by weight of the totality of packaging materials contained in packaging waste will be recycled with a minimum of 15% by weight for each packaging material; d) no later than 31 December 2008 between 55% as a minimum and 80% as a maximum by weight of packaging waste will be recycled; JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

32

Greece, Ireland and Portugal may, because of their specific situations postpone the attainment of the targets in paragraphs (a) and (c) to a later deadline which shall not, however, be later than 31 December 2005. Those countries can also postpone the attainment of plastic packaging recycling target and the overall targets referred to in paragraphs (b) and (d) until a date of their own choice which shall not be later than 31 December 2011.


It has been agreed the need for temporary derogations for the acceding States with respect to the targets of this Directive. Thus, according to Directive 2005/20/EC, the ten 2003 Accession Countries may postpone the attainment of the overall targets referred to in paragraphs (b) and (d), as well as the specific target to plastic packaging recycled waste until a date of their own choice which shall not be later than 31 December 2012 for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia; 31 December 2013 for Malta; 31 December 2014 for Poland; and 31 December 2015 for Latvia.

2003 Accession Countries shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 9 September 2006. Therefore, it is evident that, as discussed before, currently the availability of historic national data on generation and recovery of packaging waste in those countries is low, and when existing they are partial, incomplete and of little comparability. For that reason, in order to estimate the generation of plastic packaging waste in the EU-25 in year 2015, several assumptions have been made that allow us to extrapolate the existing information.

The evolution of the plastic packaging waste generated in the last years has been recorded in most EU-15 countries [9]. The following figure shows this evolution between years 1997 and 2003 and the estimated future prospective following the observed trend.

16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000

Figure 10: Evolution of total plastic packaging waste generated in EU-15

2015

2013

2014

2011

2012

2010

2008

2009

2007

2005

2006

2003

2004

2002

2000

2001

1999

0

1997 1998

2,000


Plastic packaging waste, kt

18,000

33

Assuming that the plastic packaging consumed per inhabitant will be the same in all the EU-25 countries in 2015, the estimated EU-15 data on plastic waste generation can be extrapolated to the EU-25. Considering that the marketed/recovered plastic packaging ratio per country will be equal or higher in 2015 than the one reported in 2003, as national postponements are expired and the minimum Packaging Directive targets are reached, the prospective for total plastic packaging waste generated is expected to amount for 19,314 kt, and the plastic packaging waste recovered to 13,859 kt. 3500

Plastic packaging waste, th. tonnes

Plastic packaging waste generated

3000

Plastic packaging waste recovered

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

AT BE CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE

IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT SK SI ES SE GB

Figure 11: Prospective plastic packaging production and recovery in EU-25 (2015)

The estimated waste figures are just a mere approximation to the expectable plastic waste scenarios in the EU-25 due to plastic packaging discarded as officially reported JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

by Member States and Green Dot Organisations. Difficulties in the calculation of the volume of post-consumer Packaging waste (and hence plastic packaging waste) as a separate waste stream arise from two main factors: •

Firstly, it is not clear by all means whether commercial and industrial packaging waste is counted on (totally or partially) in the reported data by Member States and Green Dot Organisations or if only household post-user packaging waste is reckoned.

•

Secondly, there is no indication either about the amount of plastic packaging waste selectively collected.

34


Due to limitations on data, the subsequent analysis will assume that the reported amounts of packaging waste refer to household packaging waste, either collected selectively as a separate stream or present in the residual mixed domestic garbage, in both cases within the MSW flow. So, total collectable household packaging waste is firstly examined and then, assuming potential collection ratios, the total flow is split into the separate Packaging Waste Stream and packaging waste in the residual MSW.

6.2.1.

Main applications of polymers in packaging

Plastic packaging materials are used in a wide variety of applications. According to the latest figures by APME, the main polymers used in packaging are PE (HDPE and LDPE), PP, PET, (E)PS and PVC. Used extensively for both domestic and industrial purposes, PE and PP films account for the largest proportion of all plastics packaging types (28% for films, 46% if bags and sacks are included), closely followed by blow-moulded products (27%) —mostly bottles made of PET and HDPE[10,

11]

. PET

bottles are a market in expansion nowadays, aiming at glass substitution in many applications

[12]

. Figure 12 portrays the market share by application and polymer in

Spain, which resembles the European market as described by APME.

PET 1% PVC 3%

PVC3%

PP 20%

LDPE0,4% HDPE 28%

LDPE 76%

PET 66% PP3%

Miscelaneous

Bottles Other containers5%

28%

PVC 2%

Closures4%

25%

Protection5%

LDPE 5%


20%

13%

Films

HDPE 20%

PP73%

Bags and sacks

HDPE 31%

PP 8%

LDPE 61%

Figure 12: Approximation to the resin market share in the packaging sector (Spain, 2003[

13]

).

35

Polymers are specifically used in the different packaging applications according to their particular properties and features, so that packaged products benefit from their chemical resistance and thermal stability, enhanced gas barrier or “breathable” properties, transparency and crystal clear appearance or opacity, rip and abrasion resistance, film dead-twist properties, etc. as required by product characteristics and storage or use conditions. Table 2 exposes that high polymer-specificity in packaging applications. A detailed analysis of historic trends and prospects of polymers used in packaging applications, reflecting national differences within the EU-25 can be found in ANNEX 1.1.

The fact that the diverse polymers employed in packaging can be used either as monomaterial package or combined with other polymers —or even with other materials (metal, paper)— in complex packaging determines to a great extent the potential for their recovery an recycling. While recovery and recycling of transit & storage packaging (pallets, crates and drums) and of bottles from household source are well established processes in many countries, the same does not apply to plastic trays or films. Table 2: Polymers in main household packaging applications (I) Application

Bottles JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

36

Closures

Bags and sacks

Most common polymers used

Dairy products

HDPE

Juices, Sauces

HDPE, barrier PET, PP

Water, Soft drinks

PET, barrier PET

Beer & alcoholic beverages

barrier PET

Oil, vinegar

PET, PVC

Non-food products (cleaning products, toiletries, lubricants...)

HDPE, PET, PVC

Medical products

PET

Caps and closures of bottles, jars, pots, cartons...

PP, LDPE, HDPE, PVC

Carrier bags

LDPE, HDPE

Garbage bags

HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE

Other bags and sacks

LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE, PP, woven PP


Table 2: Polymers in main household packaging applications (II) Application

Films

Trays

Pouches (sauces, dried soups, cooked meals)

PP, PET

Overwrapping (Food trays and cartons: fruit, vegetables, pastries, bakery products...)

OPP, bi-OPS

Wrapping, packets, sachets, etc. (Confectionery, snacks, pasta, rice, bakery...)

PP, OPP

Wrapping (meat, cheese)

PVDC

Cling stretch wrap film (food)

LLDPE, LDPE, PVC, PVDC

Collation shrink film (grouping package for beverage bottles, cans, cartons...)

LLDPE, LDPE

Lidding (heat sealing)

PET, OPA, OPP

Lidding (MAP & CAP foods)

Barrier PET, barrier layered PET/PE and OPP/PE

Lidding (dairy)

PET

Microwaveable ready meals

PP, C-PET

(Dual) Ovenable ready meals

C-PET

Salads

A-PET, PVC

Vegetables

PP, EPS

Desserts

A-PET, PVC

Puddings

PP, C-PET

Dairy products

PP, PS

Confectionery

PVC, PS

Fish

PP, PVC, A-PET, EPS

Meat, poultry

A-PET, PVC, EPS

Soup

PP, A-PET

Blisters

PET, PVC

Pots, cups and tubs

PP, PS

Service packaging (e.g. vending cups)

PS

Protective packaging (“clam” containers, fish crates, loose filling...)

EPS


Others


37

6.2.2.

Most common polymers in Packaging Waste

As discussed previously, it is commonly accepted to equalise the annual packaging production to the packaging waste generated in the same year, given the short life of the packaging products. Consequently, an analysis of the data about the polymers most consumed in the different packaging applications in the EU-25 can serve to draw the theoretical composition by polymer of the packaging waste, broken down by application. That information is essential to figure out the present selective collection ratios of post-consumer household plastic packaging items and how they might evolve. The volume and composition of packaging waste selectively collected into a stream of its own (Packaging Waste Stream in a strict sense) can be estimated that way. The remaining plastic packaging items are disposed of through the residual domestic bagged waste, being the main responsible for the composition of plastic waste arising in the residual MSW flow.

As the Figure 13 shows, just four polymers (LDPE, HDPE, PP and PET) accounted for more than 80% of the packaging market in the WE countries in 2002.

PS 9%

PVC Others 3% 3%

PET 15% HDPE 19%

PP 19%


LDPE 32%

Figure 13: Most consumed polymers in Packaging in Western Europe 2002 (Source: APME)

The following sections summarise the results of the estimations of generated waste packaging products manufactured in the most common polymers that will be later considered for split into Packaging and residual MSW flows. The analysis per

38


application is necessary to determine the particular impacts associated (collection ratio, reciclability and recovery problems linked to additives and contamination, etc.). Detailed description by polymer can be found in ANNEX 1.1.

6.2.2.1.

POLYOLEFINS: LDPE, HDPE, PP

LDPE is the main polymer used in packaging applications. As shown in the figure, the use of LDPE in bottles is limited. The main application of this material is focused on plastic bags (including retail carrier bags, where it is the dominant polymer) and shrink/stretch wrap. Although not highly relevant in mass (only around 2% of total LDPE in packaging), the lidding market poses an important problem for recycling due to multilayer configurations.

Polymer consumption in packaging applications, th.tonnes

2500

2000 Other LDPE packaging Other films

1500

Shrink wrap Stretch Wrap

1000

LDPE/LLDPE Sacks and bags Closures Bottles

500

0 bottles

closures

bags & sacks

films

trays

other

The main market for virgin HDPE is in blow moulded products, typically used for consumer packaging. For example in the UK this application represents about half of the total HDPE consumed

[14]

. In bottling HDPE represents the second most applied

polymer. HDPE bottles have been traditionally used for packaging liquids such as


Figure 14: Estimated consumption of LDPE in EU-25 by Packaging application

detergents, cosmetics, lubricants, dairy products (where it is right behind PET in the market share)[15] and sauces.

39

Colour is a key factor in the recycling of HDPE bottles and other rigid containers, since it has a clear influence on the value of the secondary material obtained. As a rule, juices, milk and dairy products are packaged in cloudy-white bottles and most cleaning and toiletry products use coloured bottles. Several studies carried out over household HDPE post-user bottles produce an average ratio of 57:42 of natural to pigmented containers, which has been the ratio used in the calculations of the present study.


1000 900 800 700

Tanks / IBC containers

600

Containers Boxes

500

Bags and sacks

400

Closures

300

Coloured bottles

200

Clear bottles

100 0 bottles

closures

bags & sacks

films

trays

other

Figure 15: Estimated consumption of HDPE in EU-25 by Packaging application

The second largest market is for extruded HDPE film. HDPE film is used when higher JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

40

rigidity is necessary, either in film shape or in bags and sacks, from commercial to industrial use.

Polypropylene is the most widely used plastics material for rigid-type food packaging, with the exception of beverage bottles, where PET is the leader, and milk bottles, where the plastic type is usually HDPE[16]. The major forms of polypropylene packaging are pots, tubs and other rigid containers; films for lidding and sealing (either cast or biaxially oriented OPP films); OPP film bags, wraps and overwraps and as bottle labels;


paperboard/polypropylene, metallised PP or aluminium/PP laminates in the form of bags or pouches; bottles with barrier resins (e.g. for sauces); and caps and closures.


1200 1000 800 Other PPpackaging Film

600

Bags and sacks Closures

400

Bottles

200 0 bottles

closures

bags & sacks

films

trays

other

Figure 16: Estimated consumption of PP in EU-25 by Packaging application (trays have been included in the “other” share, together with tubs, pots and diverse containers)

Polypropylene pots and containers are either produced by injection moulding or by thermoforming processes. PP pots are widely used in dairy industry (for example for yoghurt), where the market share PP/PS may be estimated at 16/84[17]. However, due to its good resistance to oils and fats, is now the principal plastic type used for margarine tubs. PP tubs and trays are also applied in many other food packaging applications, amounting for the 28% of the market share for trays for chilled and frozen food

The relatively high melting point of polypropylene means that the plastic, either in the form of containers or as coated board, can be used for microwave heating/cooking of foods such as ready meals, where it finds a growing application.

Recycling PP poses certain difficulties, mainly due to the high diversity of types and grades of polypropylene and their frequent lamination with other polymeric and


market[18].

non-polymeric materials. Moreover, it is hard to fast identify and separate polypropylene from other plastics in packaging, and studies have shown that used

41

polypropylene parts that are gathered and sorted centrally by trained personnel can still contain up to 10% foreign material[19].

6.2.2.2.

PET

PET is the fourth most common polymer in packaging applications, with a clear growing evolution, due to its consolidation in conventional applications and the opening of new markets.

Bottles, wide mouth jars and tubs, trays, films and metallised foils and PET products with added oxygen barrier are the main applications of this polymer in packaging. Kton 800 700 600 500 400 300 200

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

Italy France UK Spain Belgium Poland Germany Greece Rest

Italy France UK Spain Belgium Poland Germany Greece Rest Italy France UK Spain Belgium Poland Germany Greece Rest

Italy France UK Spain Belgium Poland Germany Greece Rest


0


100

2015

Figure 17: Evolution of consumption of PET in packaging in EU countries (Source: Sturges et al. [20])

The quantitative evaluation of the PET packaging shown in Figure 18 reflects the clear JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

42

dominance of its use in bottles (where substitutes glass, being lighter and much less breakable), while films amount for the lowest ratio. The use of PET for bottling water is a consolidated market. The largest application however is in soft-drink and juice market, which is also growing due to the incorporation of new barrier materials (mono- and multi-layer) that enable longer “shelf-life”, limiting the gas exchange. Beer is also becoming a growing market, where PET barrier is finding a clear application, with a market growing trend, as shown in the Figure 18.



1600000 1400000 1200000

Other PET packaging

1000000

CPET + APET trays

800000

Film + barrier film Other barrier bottles

600000

Barrier brown bottles

400000

Coloured bottles Clear bottles

200000 0 bottles

closures

bags & sacks

films

trays

other

Figure 18: Estimated consumption of PET in EU-25 by Packaging application

The largest application however is in soft-drink and juice market (according to AMCOR[21], ANEP and ANAIP estimates), which may reach 42% of total PET use in packaging and whose growing trend is due to the incorporation of new barrier materials (mono- and multi-layer) that enable longer “shelf-life”, limiting the gas exchange. Beer is also becoming a growing market, where PET barrier is finding a clear application, with a market growing trend, as shown in the following figure.

3500

2500

Oil & vinegar

2000

Beer Water Soft drinks & juices

1500 1000 500 0

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 19: Markets for PET bottles (Source: ANEP[22])


PET consumption, kt

3000

43

In general, it can be stated that approximately 5% of Europe’s PET consumption is now multilayer bottles which are expected to increase as the level of hot-fill applications rise (e.g.: beer and juices). Around 62% of PET barrier bottles worldwide are multilayer, while 25% are monolayer and 13% use coatings, according to a 2005 research[23].

On the other hand, as mentioned in the case of HDPE, bottle colour is another key factor that affects the value of the recycled fraction. The information on the ratio clear/coloured PET bottles collected varies among countries and end of life schemes. In general, it is estimated that PET bottles are about 70 percent clear and 30 percent coloured. However, it must also be stated that the growing use of PET barrier in beer packaging will also affect this balance, since usually they are brown/grey coloured bottles.

Although bottle manufacturing is the main application of PET in packaging, its use in food trays for vegetable, salads, and chilled/frozen food is also relevant. Depending on the purpose, different PET types are currently used, A-PET and C-PET. Particularly the market of pre-cooked food shows the widest development, following the evolution of food consumption habits in Europe. The stability of Crystalline PET (C-PET) at high temperatures is consolidating this resin in the pre-cooked frozen and chilled food, ahead of PP.

6.2.2.3.

OTHER POLYMERS: PS, PVC

As for Polystyrene, a clear division among Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) and other PS JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

44

should be made, since EPS presents an specific end-of-life scenario with marked differences.

Consumption share in packaging, %


Other (OPS, thin film, XPS trays)

100 80

Service packaging

60 40

Dairy 20 0 EPS

PS

Figure 20: PS consumption in packaging applications (Source: RECOUP [

EPS constitutes about 25% of total PS packaging

24]

, Basf[

25]

, Sofres 2000[4])

[4,25]

. It is used for protection

packaging for food contact (meat, poultry, fish, fruit and vegetables; “clam” containers for eggs, and fast-foods). Some foamed polystyrene trays, cups and containers have surface layers of crystal polystyrene which provide a “barrier” layer between the plastic and the foodstuff. EPS contaminated with organic materials (such as waste fish crates) poses a larger problem in the recycling process, although still technically feasible.

Crystal polystyrene is used as a packaging material where the “crystal clear” properties can be utilised as an advantage. These are containers for a variety of foods and

Biaxially oriented polystyrene films in thin gauges are used for food packaging carton windows and as “breathable” films for over-wrapping fresh products. Thicker gauges are used to manufacture clear vending cups, and tubs for desserts and preservatives, using the thermoforming process.

HIPS (high impact polystyrene) is used in the form of pots for dairy products, such as


disposable “plastic glasses” for beverages.

yoghurts, as vending cups for beverages such as coffee, tea, chocolate and also soup, and in the form of “clams” for eggs. Some pots and containers have multilayer

45

structures, which often consist of a layer of HIPS sandwiched between layers of crystal polystyrene. The crystal polystyrene layers provide “barrier” properties between the HIPS and the food or beverage, and an attractive “glossy” external appearance. Other multilayer composites contain layers with barrier resins such as ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and polyesters (PET/PETG).

PVC has very low representation in packaging applications, and it continues decreasing. Main applications in the packaging sector are films, bottles and sheet. PVC sheet has seen its use decline in this sector but is still widely used in blister packaging for medical, pharmaceutical and non-food applications26. In general a decrease of PVC packaging has been clear in all applications: PVC bottles showed a descent of 65% between 1995 and 2001[27]. The drop in PVC use in packaging has been strongly associated to the potential effects of chlorine in the end-of-life of the products and mainly to the presence of additives and their possible migration in food-contact applications.

6.2.2.4.

IMPACTS ASSOCIATED TO TOTAL GENERATED PACKAGING WASTE

Assuming the distribution per application and polymer described in the previous sections, the current scenario of most common polymers in total packaging waste can be draft.

The environmental impacts (regarding energy and GHG emissions) have been evaluated JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

46

for such a scenario. Presence of additives or contaminants that can cause any hazardousness concern in the disposal or recovery routes is also assessed (see ANNEX 1.1 for detailed discussion).


Table 3: Impacts associated to generated packaging waste (estimate 2005) (I) Waste polymer

%

tonnes

Total calorific value, GJ

Total CO2 , equivalent tonne

Total Energy content, GJ

LDPE bottle

0.22

9,622

427,253

19,342

772,712

Closures

4.08

102,607

1,917,977

86,827

3,468,774

41.23

1,803,402

80,071,071

3,624,839

144,813,221

Stretch Wrap

15.67

685,406

30,432,056

1,377,667

55,038,156

Shrink wrap

25.03

1,094,813

48,609,724

2,200,575

87,913,532

Other films

16.23

709,901

31,519,609

1,426,901

57,005,059

0.99

43,198

4,556,764

308,848

8,239,367

100.00

4,448,952

197,533,455

9,045,000

357,250,820

10.83

272,562

11,502,136

493,338

21,723,228

Bags and sacks Films Other LDPE total Boxes Bottles

Clear bottles

15.12

380,530

16,058,383

688,760

30,328,274

Coloured bottles

11.29

284,139

11,990,684

514,292

22,645,913

4.08

102,607

4,330,028

288,327

8,280,410

19.95

502,089

21,188,145

908,781

40,016,472

2.25

56,627

2,389,640

102,494

4,513,136

36.48

918,181

38,747,222

1,661,907

73,178,995

2,516,736

106,206,239

4,657,899

200,686,428

2.63

66,544

2,728,308

127,765

5,123,896

Closures

14.59

369,155

15,135,367

708,778

28,424,958

Film

25.59

647,477

26,546,542

1,243,155

49,855,702

Bags and sacks

9.88

249,983

10,249,310

479,968

19,248,704

Other packaging

47.31

1,197,035

49,078,426

2,298,307

92,171,678

2,530,194

103,737,954

4,857,972

194,824,938

Closures Container Tanks / IBC containers Bags and sacks HDPE total Bottles

PP total

100.00

100.00 49.35

989,622

45,324,693

4,344,441

76,596,753

Coloured bottles

21.15

424,124

19,424,869

1,861,903

32,827,180


4.10

82,218

3,765,577

360,936

6,363,661

Other barrier bottles

0.90

18,048

826,590

79,230

1,396,901

CPET + APET trays

7.00

140,372

6.429.035

616,233

10,864,788

Film + barrier film

1.13

22,660

1.037.830

134,827

2,447,284

Other packaging

16.37

328,270

15.034.756

1,441,104

25,408,082

100.00

2,005,313

91,483,350

8,838,675

155,904,649

Bottles

PET total


Clear bottles

47

Table 3: Impacts associated to generated packaging waste (estimate 2005) (II)

PS



%

EPS

25.0

285,993

14,299,634

746,441

23,880,388

Dairy

37.5

428,989

21,449,450

1,548,650

36,249,571

Service packaging

171,596

8,579,780

791,056

14,671,424

15.0 257,393

12,869,670

1,443,977

22,264,530

1,143,971

57,198,535

4,530,124

97,065,913


22.5

tonnes


Waste polymer

PS total

100.00

PVC films

23

95,959

3,262,604

175,605

5,968,647

PVC bottles

19

79,270

2,695,195

145,065

4,930,621

Closures

3

12,516

425,557

22,905

778,519

Other

55

229,467

7,801,880

419,925

14,272,851

PVC total

100.00

417,213

14,185,237

763,499

25,950,639

TOTAL

-

13,062,378

570,704,769

32,693,170

1,031,683,387

No toxic additives or additional materials posing relevant recyclables or hazardous problems in the end of life phase have been reported for polyolefins. Colorants in low concentrations (usually less than 500 ppm) are used for some PET commercial grades and, like catalysts, become encapsulated or incorporated as part of the polymer chain and do not pose special hazard or recycling problems. Although PS plastics and HIPS are manufactured with various “additives” which include antioxidants, colorants, mould release agents and processing aids, no relevant recyclable problems or hazardousness in the end of life phase have been reported. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

48

However, the growing use of multilayer PET and to a lesser extent of multilayer and multi-material complex structures (involving PE, PET, PP and PS films) is an issue that should be considered, especially because of its end of life implications.

All PVC formulations contain at least one stabiliser and one lubricant. Depending on the application aimed at, different other additives are included in the formulation. Such additives could be plasticisers, fillers, pigments, flame and smoke retardants.


6.2.3.

New trends in polymer composition in Packaging

Packaging is a rapidly evolving sector and this, together with the short life span of the manufactured products, makes it difficult to forecast precisely the situation in 10 years time, as for polymer composition. In general, outlooks of the sector do not go as far as 5 years beyond.

The most outstanding changes in plastic packaging waste composition can come from the continuing rise in PET consumption as it replaces other conventional packaging materials, the increasing use of barrier packaging, the development of active packaging and the entrance of bio plastics and biodegradable polymers (BDP products) in the market.

LLDPE is replacing conventional low density polyethylene (LDPE), or is used in blends with LDPE, due to its lower prices, improved properties and technological advances. Growth is occurring from the transition of items presently packaged in rigid containers to high quality flexible packages[28], but main growth areas are high clarity packaging, high barrier thin films and “active” packaging that increases shelf life and enhances flavours. In the dairy industry, for example, LDPE is gaining market in multi-layer applications, where aluminium foil and multi-pack PET and paper-based alternatives dominate. Higher tech so-called metallocene-based LLDPE resins are penetrating the film and packaging markets due to their enhanced physical properties. A clear increase is expected in Western European consumption (from 350,000 tonnes in 2002 to 483,000 tonnes), destined mainly to stretch wrap film for food packaging applications. At the

All in all, a compound annual growth of 6.6% is estimated for LLDPE consumption in the European market for the period 2000-2005, with a -1.3% rate for LDPE for the same period[30].

HDPE bottles have positively benefited from the expansion of the drinking yoghurt category, while rising sales in sauces is thanks to their “squeezable” attribute. Overall, rigid plastic packaging rose by 28.7% in food over 1998-2002[15]. Developments in the


same time, West European LDPE consumption has slightly fallen[29].

design of HDPE bottles include multi-layer structures with oxygen barrier resins, such

49

as ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH), which allows foodstuffs to have an extended shelf life.

The growth in the production of PET bottles for beer, carbonated soft drinks and juices and the opening of new markets entails the increasing use of several barrier technologies and involves a growing concentration of additional foreign materials in the PET bottle flow (SiOx coatings, EvOH and PA layers, blending with PEN…) as well as visible increase of brown coloured bottles. However, coated bottles are not expected to reach more than 12.5% market penetration [31].

Barrier materials are not only used in bottles, but also in other applications, for example as lidding films. Although not so significant in quantitative terms, this is a growing market where PET film and film-based materials are the dominant feature, making aluminium foil lose its historically dominant position in this market. The market for multipack lidding materials is forecast to grow in Europe by 5% a year to 2006. Some 70% of the market is accounted for by paper/metallised PET.

Applications like packaging trays for chilled and frozen meals are of rising importance, due to changing European social behaviour patterns. The continuous evolution of the sector is leading the industry towards the development of enhanced materials for keeping food properties and providing easy use (e.g. oven materials that make it possible for ready meals to be heated or cooked in the package in which they have been stored chilled or frozen). Those applications constitute a niche market for C-PET and JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

PP.

In recent years polypropylene has replaced other plastics in a number of applications. A typical replacement is for regenerated cellulose films (cellophane) for wrapping confectionery. Both the “crinkle” and dead-twist properties of cellophane can now be reproduced with polypropylene films [32].Polypropylene (PP) plastics have also replaced HIPS plastics in some of the uses, such as dairy pots and containers and multilayer structures, but for some types of food packaging, the reverse has occurred due to the advantages of easy processing and low shrinkage provided by polystyrene.

50


PP consumption in caps and closures is forecast to grow at a lower rate (2.9% per year) than that for unit growth, reflecting the fact that unit growth will be higher for beverage closures which use smaller, lighter closures. As polyethylene finds greater use in beverage closures, this will result in stronger growth for this material compared with PP. Demand for polyethylene is forecast to grow by over 4% per year to 2009, while PP use will increase by 2% per year to 2009 driven mainly by developments in carton openings[33]. As reported by IBAW[34], consumption of BDP products in the European Union (EU15) in 2001 was estimated at 20,000 tonnes and in 2003 at 40,000 tonnes. BDP products are already in widespread use throughout the EU. It is expected that the BDP market will by 2010 have grown to 0.5-1.0 million tonnes, depending on framework conditions. The overall application potential for BDPs is likely to be about 10% of the market. The packaging market is the largest segment in the plastics industry and given the large number of single-use items with the most diverse application profiles, it is extremely attractive to BDP producers.

Apart from "service packaging", such as carrier bags, the BDP packaging making its way into supermarkets is mainly for fruit, vegetables and other fresh food products. Different types of film are used. In addition to carrier bags, technically sophisticated packaging such as Raschel bags (knitted), blister packs and flow-pack are available. BDP packaging offers specific technical advantages in this application as well. For example, the high water vapour permeability of starch blend film keeps fruit and

expired, the food and the packaging can be composted efficiently together —unlike mechanical polymer recycling— sticky food residues do not interfere with composting.

Packaging for dairy products is another obvious application. Tubs for yoghurt, sour cream and margarine, along with coated paper for butter and lard, benefit from the very high grease resistance of certain bio plastics.


vegetables fresh for longer and so less is thrown away. And, once the shelf life has

51

Table 4: Some commercialised biodegradable polymers on the market (Source: IBAW [34], Plastics Technology [35]) Biodegradable Polymer

Manufacturer (trade name)

Packaging applications Carrier grabbag

Mineral oil base

Polyesters (certain types), co-polyesters

BASF (Ecoflex) Treofan

flow pack for fruits and vegetables and for potatoes cling film

Novamont (MaterBi) Plant base Starch

Rodenburg Biopolymers (Solanyl) Plantic Technologies (Plantic)

Polyhydroxyalkanoates

injection molding and extrusion of sheet or film with O2 barrier properties

NatureWorks (NatureWorks)

bottles for different applications

Mitsui (Lacea) Hycail

Cellulose (acetates)

Starch based materials

Starch blends

tray of confectionary boxes

Procter & Gamble (Nodax)

Plant base

Polylactic acid (PLA)

trays for fruits and vegetables

IFA (Fasal) Innovia Films (Natureflex)

Novamont (MaterBi) Eastman (Eastar Bio)

cup for cool beverages, e.g. beer film packaging (cellulose), e.g. for sweets trays for fruits and vegetables paper coating for moisture barrier in cold and hot cups

In spite of the big application potential of BDP products for packaging, the total market share of bio-based polymers is expected to remain very small, in the order of 1-2% by 2010 and 1-4% by 2020. This means that bio-based polymers will not provide a major JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

52

challenge, nor present a major threat, to conventional petrochemical polymers [36].

The aggregation of the available consumption outlooks for the different packaging applications and polymers allows us to sketch a potential generation scenario for post-user household packaging waste in year 2015.


Table 5: Plastic packaging waste generation (due to most common polymers) expected in 2015 (I) Polymer

Applications Bottles

15,878

Closures

61,992

SACKS

LDPE/LLDPE Sacks and bags

Films

LDPE

983,609

Shrink wrap

1,571,138

Other films

1,018,761

Other

61,992

Boxes

6,301,386 391,147

Bottles Closures Containers

Clear bottles

546,089

Coloured bottles

407,761

Closures

147,249

Containers

720,534

Tanks / IBC containers

81,263

Bags and sacks

1,317,657

HDPE TOTAL

PP

2,588,016

Stretch Wrap

LDPE TOTAL

HDPE

tonnes

3,611,700

Botellas PP

95,496

Film

929,177

Closures

449,998

Bags and sacks

358,744

Other packaging

1,717,833

PP TOTAL

3,551,248

Table 5: Plastic packaging waste generation (due to most common polymers) expected in 2015 (II) Applications Clear bottles Bottles

PET

1,755,000

Coloured bottles

945,000


120,000

Other barrier bottles

180,000

CPET + APET trays

201,444

Film + barrier film

32,519

Other packaging

471,091

PET TOTAL PS

tonnes

EPS


Polymer

3,705,054 410,421

53

PS

Dairy

615,631

Service packaging

246,252


369,379

PS TOTAL

PVC

6.2.4.

1,641,683

PVC films

137,708

PVC bottles

79,270

Closures

17,962

Other

329,302 PVC TOTAL

564,242

TOTAL

19,375,314

Current and future plastic scenarios in Packaging Waste

Not all plastic packaging waste generated can be collected and treated accordingly, since there is a large amount of products that are not being separated from the municipal solid waste stream, and in the cases that no energy recovery is associated to final disposal of this fraction, they get no recovery at all.

As data about separate collected packaging items are not readily available, neither actual source of packaging waste (household or commercial/industrial) generated and claimed recovered by national collection systems, several assumptions have been made about the collection ratios for the different plastic packaging applications as shown in


54


Table 67. In those assumptions have been considered the possibility that parts of the reckoned packaging items are actually commercially sourced and, thus, prone to higher separate collection ratios (this is the case of HDPE IBC, boxes and tanks and of most PP containers in “Other” fraction). The existence of profitable recycling initiatives for certain post-consumer packaging applications (HDPE and PET bottles) indicates a more efficient management of those types of packaging, including probably a better selective collection. The selective collection is expected to improve in the future as a result of the stricter implementation of measures by Member States stemming from the obligations set by the Packaging Directive. All those points have been taking into account in the assignation of the collection ratios to the different packaging applications.


55

Table 6. Separate collection ratios estimated for different applications Packaging application

Current collection Future collection ratio ratio

Bottles, containers & closures

25%

37.5%

EPS

10%

15%

HDPE boxes

100%

100%

Shrink wrap

10%

15%

Stretch Wrap

10%

15%

LLDPE Shrink Wrap

10%

15%

film

10%

15%

sacks

5%

7.5%

bags

5%

7.5%

Trays

10%

15%

Other small packaging

3%

4.5%

The statistics from MSW analysis which shows that waste from separate household plastic collection accounts only for 1% of total MSW in countries with collection systems established for some years, let us assume that the average separate collection ratio in the EU-25 of household plastic packaging waste is roughly over 15%. This ratio is reached by combination of the different ratios per application in the different EU countries.

According to these values, it can be estimated that the plastic Packaging Waste separately collected nowadays has the polymer composition shown in


56


Table 7, which has associated the environmental implications compiled in that table. Assuming this approximation, it can be concluded that only about 2,800 kt out of the ca. 13,500 kt of plastic packaging waste generated nowadays arise as a selectively collected waste stream. The predominant polymers are LDPE, HDPE, PP and PET, which amount for 90 wt. % of that separate waste stream. This plastic waste has over 6,500 kt of CO2 and 220,000,000 GJ associated to their production and contains almost 120,000,000 GJ of recoverable energy. According to the forecast these figures might double in year 2015.


57

Table 7: Plastic packaging waste collected separately and their environmental implications Total CO2 , equivalent tonne


15,762,000

713,550

28,506,500

695

29,329,000

1,257,950

55,391,500

40

1,155

47,355,000

2,217,600

88,935,000

PET

14

417

19,098,600

1,830,630

32,275,800

PS

4

115

5,750,000

415,150

9,717,500

PVC

1

40

1,360,000

73,200

2,488,000

TOTAL

96

2,777

118,654,600

6,508,080

217,314,300

LDPE

15

760

33,744,000

1,527,600

61,028,000

HDPE

24

1,255

52,961,000

2,271,550

100,023,500

PP

32

1,670

68,470,000

3,206,400

128,590,000

PET

23

1,180

54,044,000

5,180,200

91,332,000

PS

5

246

12,300,000

888,060

20,787,000

PVC

1

70

2,380,000

128,100

4,354,000

TOTAL

99

5,181

223,899,000

13,201,910

406,114,500

2015

2005

Waste polymer

%

ktonnes

LDPE

12

355

HDPE

24

PP


As Table 8 illustrates, the bigger portion of plastic packaging waste is discarded into the residual MSW flow (more than 10,000 kt nowadays and expected 14,000 kt in 2015). Those volumes of waste have calorific values around 450,000,000 and 620,000,000 GJ/t, respectively, and have associated 25,500 and 36,000 kt of CO2 and 800,000,000 and 1,100,000,000 GJ of energy, correspondingly in their production.


58


Table 8: Plastic packaging waste collected into residual MSW and their environmental implications %

ktonnes




LDPE

38

4,000

177,600,000

8,040,000

321,200,000

HDPE

17

1,825

77,015,000

3,303,250

145,452,500

PP

13

1,375

56,375,000

2,640,000

105,875,000

PET

15

1,590

72,822,000

6,980,100

123,066,000

PS

10

1,030

51,500,000

3,718,300

87,035,000

PVC

4

378

12,852,000

691,740

23,511,600

TOTAL

96

10,198

448,164,000

25,373,390

806,140,100

LDPE

38

5,480

243,312,000

11,014,800

440,044,000

HDPE

17

2,360

99,592,000

4,271,600

188,092,000

PP

13

1,885

77,285,000

3,619,200

145,145,000

PET

18

2,520

115,416,000

11,062,800

195,048,000

PS

10

1,395

69,750,000

5,035,950

117,877,500

PVC

3

490

16,660,000

896,700

30,478,000

TOTAL

99

14,130

622,015,000

35,901,050

1,116,684,500

2015

2005

Waste polymer

The large amount of films and bags not segregated from the general waste stream (mainly LDPE) is associated to a large energy content material that should be recovered. This is a larger problem in the case of other packaging, especially polypropylene (which due its high variety of applications in small packages in combination with other materials has very small possibilities of being recovered) and polystyrene trays and containers.


59

Packaging in residual MSW stream 2005

6000000

6000000

5000000

5000000

4000000

4000000

tonnes

tonnes

Packaging waste stream 2005

3000000

3000000

2000000

2000000

1000000

1000000

0 LDPE

HDPE

PP

PET

0

PS

LDPE

6000000

6000000

5000000

5000000

4000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

1000000 0 LDPE

HDPE

PP

PET

PET

PS

3000000

2000000

0

PP

Packaging in residual MSW stream 2015

tonnes

tonnes

Packaging waste stream 2015

HDPE

PS

LDPE

HDPE

PP

PET

PS

CPET + APET trays

Containers

Films

Closures

EPS

Other packaging

Crates

Bags and sacks

Bottles

PS

Figure 21: Predicted 2005 and 2015 scenarios for plastic packaging waste separately collected and remaining in the residual MSW waste stream. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

60

To sum up, the most common polymers in total packaging waste generated are PE, PP and PET which, in all, add up to 85% by weight of the total plastic packaging waste, both in 2005 and 2015. LDPE is the majority polymer and the major change in individual polymer shares will probably be due to a rise in PET volumes. Those amounts are distributed unevenly between Packaging selectively collected stream and the residual MSW, resulting in different predominant polymers in each stream: LDPE (mostly film) in MSW and PP and HDPE (rigid containers) in the Packaging stream:


•

Current: LDPE (30-35%), HDPE (22-17%), PP (22-17%), PET (17-12%).

− In separated Packaging stream: PP (40-35%), HDPE (25-20%), PET (17-12%), LDPE (15-10%). •

Future: LDPE (30-35%), HDPE (22-17%), PP (20-15%), PET (22-17%).

− In separated Packaging stream: PP (35-30%), HDPE (27-22%), PET (25-20%), LDPE (18-13%)

6.3. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) arisings in Europe are large, and continue to increase. More than 306 million tonnes are estimated to be collected each year, an average of 415 kg/capita. Latest data provided by the European Environment Agency (EEA) report 242.8 million tonnes of MSW generated in the EU-25 in 2003, of which 219.6 Mt in the EU-15 countries and 23.2 Mt in the ten 2003 Accession Countries[37].

MSW collected in Europe, Year 2003 EU-15

700 600

2003 AC

MSW per population, kg/cap

800

500 400 300 200 100

AT BE CY CZ DK EE

FI

FR DE GR HU

IE

IT

LV

LT

LU MT NL PL

PT

SK

SI

ES SE GB

Figure 22: MSW collected in EU-25 countries in Year 2003 (Source: EEA)

The collection of MSW varies considerably between countries. Municipal waste accounts for approximately 14% of total waste arisings in WE and 5% in CEE countries. In CEE MSW collection rates are lower than in WE as a result of different levels of economic resources and different consumption patterns and municipal waste


0

disposal systems [37].

61

When analysing current data at the country level in the ten 2003 Accession Countries group, significant differences can be recognised in the two Mediterranean island nations, Cyprus and Malta: the higher per capita amounts in Cyprus and Malta (679 and 494 kg, respectively) are due to the extremely important tourist industry — a factor that contributes substantially to rises in both GDP and waste [38].

An

study

carried

out

as

part

of

the

European

Commission

project

EVK4-CT-2002-00087[39] has proven that there are remarkable differences in the MSW generation rates as well as in the growth rates in European cities: a comparison of economic areas in the year 2000 showed that major EU-15 cities were characterised by far higher MSW generation rates (510 kg/cap/yr) than the CEE cities (354 kg/cap/yr), while from 1995 to 2001 annual growth in CEE cities was more than twice as high (4.3%) as in cities of EU-15 countries (1.8%).

Evolution of MSW generation (collection) in Europe 600,0

kg per capita

500,0 400,0 300,0 WE

200,0

CEE 100,0


0,0 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year

Figure 23: MSW generation in Western and Eastern Europe (Source:EEA)

Nevertheless, it is not at all clear that these apparent differences among published MSW statistics in countries are real differences in waste generation or simply results of the different ways in which waste is defined and information collected in different

62


countries. The joint definitions used by OECD/Eurostat for household and municipal waste are the following: Household waste is waste from domestic households; Municipal waste is household-type waste collected by or on the behalf of the municipalities and household-type waste collected by the private sector. But individual Member States also have their own definitions that are not necessarily in harmony with internationally applied definitions.

Comparability of data from MSW analyses is a long discussed question. In recent years, several investigations have considered the question of comparability of statistics on household and municipal waste between the European states and a number of EU projects have worked in the development of comparison aids and standardisation of tools for waste analysis[40, 41].

Those difficulties must be considered when trying to estimate MSW amounts, since in some cases statistics can include bulk items collected by municipalities; in others separately collected waste streams (WEEE, Packaging, etc.) collected by municipalities or outside the municipal collection schemes (private sector, charities); often waste from city gardens/parks and street sweeping are part of reported MSW... In terms of amount of MSW generated, OECD environmental outlook [42] has calculated 43% as the baseline growth in MSW generation in OECD countries from 1995 to 2020, reaching 640 kg of MSW per capita. A similar rate has been estimated by TNO-STB and VDI-TZ in the ESTO 2003 survey

[43]

for the household waste (HHW). These

in the 2020. The definition of the HHW in the ESTO 2003 survey is based on the adjusted data of the European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows (ETC/WMF)[40], which are called “daily household and commercial waste” and consist of wastes produced from the daily or routine activity of households and businesses and do not include items like bulky waste that are generated on an intermittent basis, but do include bagged waste (BW) and some waste fractions separately collected (mainly packaging materials).


assumptions lead to a total HHW generation estimate of 243,500,000 t.p.a. in the EU-15

63

Other sources

[38]

suggest that in the 12 Enlargement Countries (ten 2003 Accession

Countries plus Romania and Bulgaria) the MSW generation rate will increase as follows: by 2010, the volume of per capita MSW will have grown to 460 kg, resulting from increasing per capita GDP and a reduction due to some waste prevention. With an expected population of 102.5 million, the total generation of MSW will equal 47 million tonnes. By 2020, the amount of per capita MSW is expected to have increased to 508 kg. With population falling to 99 million, this will result in a total MSW generation of approximately 50.5 million tonnes. Since Romania and Bulgaria account for 30% of generated waste in this group, the MSW generation by 2020 for the ten 2003 Accession Countries can be estimated at 35.3 million tonnes. In these MSW generation outlooks several driving forces that determine future waste volumes have been considered: per capita GDP, population (growth and distribution), behaviour, technology, and waste prevention. The definition of MSW in this case covers municipal wastes (household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional wastes) including separately collected fractions.

300

MSW, Mio.tonnes

250 200 EU-15

150

2003 AC 100 50 0 1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020


Year

Figure 24: Prospective of MSW arisings in the EU-15 and the ten 2003AC to year 2020 (Source: JRC-IPTS & ESTO 2003 reports [38,43] )

For the purposes of this study, plastics in MSW stream refers to plastics found in the traditionally bagged waste stream non-separately collected from households and similar waste from other sources (mixed household-type waste from commercial activities, offices, etc.). Bulky items (household appliances, big pieces of furniture) that rarely find

64


there way into the traditional collection stream, due to their size, weight and occasionally are excluded. Published data[44,

45]

reveal that the bagged residual

household waste accounts for 60-70% of total Municipal Waste collected in Western European countries, if selectively collected household streams and city works, garden/park and street cleaning wastes are excluded. Plastics make up about 11% by weight of bagged domestic waste and the amount of plastic separately collected is relatively low (around 1% of total MSW).

In the 2003 Accession Countries where separate packaging collection schemes have been running for some years, such as the Czech Republic, the plastic packaging separately collected from municipal waste can be estimated also ca.1% of total MSW and the plastic share in domestic bag equals their EU-15 counterparts[38, 46, 47]. However, other countries such us the Baltic States are just starting to suffer from a packaging waste increase and have introduced just recently the packaging recovery schemes; they are still facing uncontrolled and illegal dumping of waste and lack of municipal solid waste inventory —therefore precise information on the composition of waste is not available. The few available data

[38]

indicate that the plastic content in MSW in those

countries may be around 7%. The available data from MSW analyses throughout the EU[38, 44, 45, 49] also shows that the greater the economic growth the greater the share of plastics in the MSW stream (rising from 8% to 12%), due to bigger amounts of plastic packaging in the waste (60% of total MSW plastic to 80%). A rough estimation of the plastic waste arisings in the

aforementioned assumptions, as shown in the following table.

Due to the disparity in MSW figures and the lack of consensus on MSW definition among the different sources (sometimes national databases report twice as much as EEA), the estimated MSW plastic amounts in Table 9 must be dealt with extreme caution. Not only are the current MSW figures disparate but it is also a fact that outlooks of MSW generation tend to become soon underestimated, which poses a new


residual MSW in year 2005 and 2015 has been carried out following all the

problem to forecasting the volume of plastic waste in the MSW.

65

Table 9: Estimation of current and future plastic waste in residual MSW stream in the EU-25 Region EU-15, Year 2005

2003AC, Year 2005

Assumptions HHW = 85% MSW BW = 75% HHW Plastic in BW= 11% Packaging in BW plastic = 73% HHW = 85% MSW BW = 95% HHW Plastic in BW= 9% Packaging in BW plastic = 60%

Estimated Mtonnes Plastic in BW

16.464

Of which packaging

12.019

Plastic in BW

2.582

Of which packaging

1.549

Plastic in BW

19.046

Of which packaging

13.568

Plastic in BW

20.826

Of which packaging

13.537

EU-25, Year 2005

EU-15, Year 2015

2003AC, Year 2015

HHW = 85% MSW BW = 70% HHW Plastic in BW= 13% Packaging in BW plastic = 65% HHW = 85% MSW BW = 75% HHW Plastic in BW= 11% Packaging in BW plastic = 73%

Plastic in BW

2.855

Of which packaging

2.084

Plastic in BW

23.680

Of which packaging

15.621

EU-25, Year 2015

Obviously the collected quantity of residual domestic waste (refuse collection vehicles) in each member state will be affected by the degree to which separate collection is encouraged and practised —the more waste that is separately collected, the less that there should be in the traditional bagged collection.


66

6.3.1.

Most common polymers in MSW

Data available from local MSW analyses throughout Europe and the ESTO 2003 reports show that plastics comprise around 11% by weight of domestic waste (residual bagged waste) and that packaging plastics make up more than 70% of them. The remaining amount comes from plastics found in small appliances, furniture, small durables and houseware. Within the packaging plastic fraction, polyolefins are the most common polymers and film prevails over other packaging applications, amounting to 50 wt% of plastic packaging fraction[45, 48, 49].


According to published data from years 1994 to 2000 in Western Europe, HDPE, LDPE and PP are the majority polymers, accounting for 60% of plastic in MSW. Other prevalent polymers are PET and PS[50,

51]

. Around 10% by weight of plastics in the

bagged residual MSW is constituted by miscellaneous polymers. No reliable and sufficient breakdown of data on the composition of the plastic content in MSW in the New Accession Countries is available, although the lower rates of separate collection of other streams let us assume that plastic from other waste streams, especially Packaging and small WEEE, may be more commonly found in the domestic residual refuse bag than in WE countries.

6.3.2.

Future trends in MSW polymer composition

Regarding the future trends, it has been noted that organic waste components make up less of the total MSW when country GDP is higher, while the paper and cardboard, plastics and glass fractions are slightly higher. Therefore, using the higher-GDP countries as a reference, a decreasing trend in organic waste is assumed for the ten 2003 Accession Countries, accompanied by an increase in paper/cardboard, plastics and glass fractions.

On the other hand, if the implementation of the WEEE Directive is successful to assure results approaching the targeted separate collection and recovery ratios, the WEEE content in MSW is expected to decrease to some extent, as the share of some typical polymers (PP, ABS, PC) of those E&E discarded items in the overall plastic fraction. However the impact of WEEE items on the volume of plastic waste in the residual

domestic refuse bag. More efficient domestic Packaging waste separate collection schemes will lead to reductions in the share of packaging plastics (mainly PE and PET) arising in the residual collected MSW.

6.3.3.

Current and future residual MSW plastic stream scenarios

The composition of the plastics fraction in the residual MSW has been extrapolated


MSW stream is rather small if we compared it to plastic packaging share in the

from the few empirical data available and the observed high packaging content (60-

67

80%). As it will be explained in the next chapter there is also a flow of small consumer electronics, household appliances and toys into the domestic waste bag. Following those assumptions the most common polymers would be those used for packaging, especially films, trays and small packaging (blisters, pots, tubs...), for diverse houseware and disposable items and cases of electronics. : •

Current: LDPE (43-38%), HDPE (20-15%), PS (17-12%), PET (12-7%), PP (105%)

•

Future: LDPE (43-38%), HDPE (20-15%), PS (17-12%), PET (17-12%), PP (105%)

Given the unknown exact nature of the plastic fraction in the domestic refuse bag, it is highly complicated to estimate the parameters selected for measuring their environmental impacts, as no data about additives, fillers and contaminants that affect energy content and hazardousness exist. However, since the most predominant polymers are the packaging polymers, a rough approximation might lead to evaluate the biggest share of those impacts. These have been extensively discussed in section 6.2.4., where impact and composition by polymer of packaging waste no collected separately on MSW stream is described.

6.4. ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS In year 2000 6,713,000 tonnes of electrical and electronics (E&E) goods, were produced JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

68

in Western Europe, an annual increase of 4.3% since 1995. This included 1,483,000 tonnes of plastics (apart from 1,187,000 tonnes in cables and electrical equipment), which means an increment of over 25% since 1995[52]. Those figures indicate that plastic consumption in the E&E sector is growing at a faster pace than the rest of materials, as they increasingly replace traditional materials in many applications.

WEEE comprises a wide variety of equipment, from watches to dishwashers, from a vending machine to a hair dryer or a TV set. The Directive 2002/96/EC provides the


rules for preventing and managing the waste from electric and electronic equipment that fall under the following categories: (1) Large household appliances (2) Small household appliances (3) IT and telecommunications equipment (4) Consumer equipment (5) Lighting equipment (6) Electrical and electronic tools (large-scale stationary industrial tools excl.) (7) Toys, leisure and sports equipment (8) Medical devices (all implanted and infected products excl.) (9) Monitoring and control instruments (10) Automatic dispensers

Plastics in E&E sector are used for insulation, noise reduction, sealing, housings, interior structural parts, functional parts, internal electronic components. The plastic content of E&E goods, as Figure 25 shows, varies enormously with the type of item, as well as the polymers used.


69

Estimate composition of WEEE (Year 2000) Rubber: 0.9 Other metals (non ferrous): 1 Concrete & ceramics: 2 Wood & plywood: 2.6 PWB: 3.1 Other: 4.6 Aluminium: 4.7 FR plastic: 5.3 Glass: 5.4 Copper: 7 NFR plastic: 15.3 0%

10%

20%

30% 40% % weight

Plastic content in E&E categories (Year 2000) Small household appliances Consumer equipment Large household appliances ICT equipment Lighting equipment

Monitoring & control instruments

Medical equipment Toys Automatic dispensers

Iron & steel 47.9 50%

60%

E&E tools 0%

20%

40% 60% % weight

80%

100%

Plastics consumption in E&E sector by category (Year 2000)

Consumer electronics 15%

Small household appliances 10%

Others 3%

Large household appliances 32%

ICT equipment 40%

Total consumption in E&E sector (ten categories) = 1,483,000 tonnes

Figure 25: Average plastic content in overall WEEE (up, left) and in each of the E&E categories (up, right). Plastic consumption by main categories in E&E sector in Europe, Year 2000 (down). (Source: ETC/ WRM[53] and APME[52])

On average, plastics make up only 20% by weight of end-of-life electronic products. Rising from the 578,000 tonnes of WEEE plastic collected in Western Europe (WE) in 1995, 777,000 tonnes were collected in year 2000. If that trend sustains, over JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

70

1,000 ktonnes of collectable WEEE plastic are expected in EU-15 countries in 2005 and twice as much in 2015. Assuming that the plastic WEEE generated per capita is still lower in the Eastern European countries, but that the WEEE plastic generation rate will grow faster in the 2003 Accession Countries to level with the WE countries (Figure 27), the total collectable plastic WEEE can be roughly estimated at 1,200 kt in 2005 and 2,400 kt in 2015 for the whole EU-25 region.


Plastics evolution in E&E (WE): consumption & waste 5000 4500 4000

waste consumption

ktonnes

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

0

Year

Figure 26. Trends in consumption and waste generation of plastics in E&E sector in Western Europe (Source: APME)

EU-15

5

2003 AC (assumed)

4 3 2 1

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

0 1980

WEEE plastic waste, kg/inhab.

Plastics WEEE per cap. evolution in EU-25 6

Year

Figure 27. Estimated trends in WEEE plastic generation per capita in EU-25 countries

equipment, large household appliances and consumer electronics) out of the ten WEEE categories covered by the Directive 2002/96/EC account for around 85% of plastic consumption in the sector and 90% of generated WEEE plastic waste[52].


An outstanding point is the fact that, as Figure 25 and Figure 28 show, just three (ICT

71

Composition of collected WEEE by categories 100% 90%

collected amount, wt%

80% Others

70%

CE (TV, Video, Audio)

60%

ICT equipment Large household appliances

50%

Small household appliances

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ES(04)

SE (04)

NO (03)

CH (04)

UK (03)

BE (04)

Western Europe (00)

Figure 28. Arisings of domestic WEEE by category of equipment in Western Europe in recent years (Source: ECOLEC[54], El-Kretsen[55], El-retur[56], SENS[57], Recupel[58], ICER[59], APME[52])

6.4.1.

Main applications of polymers in E&E sector

A broad range of polymers is present in WEEE, as the sector uses many different polymers in small quantities for specific roles.


72


Table 10 gives a non-exhaustive list of typical applications of polymers in the E&E sector. Consumption data taken from the years 1992, 1995 and 2000 in Western Europe, show that predominant polymers are PP, PS and ABS, have a growing consumption of ABS.


73

Table 10. Typical applications of polymers in E&E sector (Source: aggregated data from manufacturers’ literature) Polymer

Application

PP

Components inside washing machines and dishwashers, casings of small household appliances (coffee makers, irons…). Internal electronic components Components inside refrigerators (liner, shelving).

PS (HIPS)

ABS

Housings of small household appliances, data processing and consumer electronics Housing and casing of phones, small household appliances, microwave ovens, flat screens and certain monitors. Enclosures and internal parts of ICT equipment.

PPO (blend HIPS/PPE)

Housings of consumer electronics (TVs) and computer monitors and some small household appliances (e.g. hairdryers). Components of TV, computers, printers and copiers.

PC PC/ABS

Housings of ICT equipment and household appliances. Lightning. Housings of ICT equipment and certain small household appliances (e.g. kettles, shavers). Electrical motor components, circuits, sensors, transformers, lighting.

PET (PBT)

Casing and components of certain small household appliances (e.g., toasters, irons). Handle, grips, frames for ovens and grills Panel component of LCD displays.

PU (foam)

Insulation of refrigerators and dishwashers

PMMA

Lamps, lighting, small displays (e.g. mobile phones) Lighting equipment, small household appliances


74

PA

Switches, relays, transformer parts, connectors, gear, motor basis…

POM

Gears, pinions

PVC

Cable coating, cable ducts, plugs, refrigerator door seals, casings.

PE

Cable insulation and sheathing Housing, handles and soles of domestic irons, handles and buttons of grills and pressure cookers

UP resins

Structural elements, bodies, roofs and doors for display units, refrigerated window displays. Capacitor casings.

EP resins

Printed circuit boards (PWB)


Main polymers used in E&E sector (Western Europe, 2000) PET 1% PE 1%

POM 2%

ABS-ASA-SAN 33%

PA UP PC 3% 3% 4% PVC 4% EP 4% PU 8% PP 18%

PS 19%

Figure 29. Plastic consumption in E&E equipment by polymer type in Western Europe in year 2000 (Source: APME[52])

Polymers used in E&E sector are likely to contain flame retardants and other fillers, including cadmium-based stabilisers. Occasionally housings and parts may be painted or sprayed with metallic coatings for aesthetic or functional reasons. Insulation polymers contain refrigerants and foaming agents. Table 11. Polymers commonly used for casing in E&E[60]

Other polymers

Flame Retardant wt% (Bromine)

TV casings

PS

HIPS

1.10%

VDU casings

ABS

PVC, PS, PPE

3.90%

Telephone casings

ABS

PS, POM, PC/ABS

0.00%

Mixed IT

PC/ABS

PS, PC

1.40%

Photocopier parts

PC/ABS

PC/ABS, PS

0.80%

Washing machine parts

PP

ABS, POM, PA66

0.02%

Vacuum cleaners

ABS

PC, PS

0.00%

Small Kitchen appliances

PP

ABS, PS, PC

0.00%

Most common polymers in WEEE

However, extrapolation of consumption figures to composition of waste data should be


6.4.2.

E&E item

Most common Polymer type

made cautiously, given the worldwide character of the production of E&E components

75

and goods, with most manufacturers moving their production plants to Eastern Europe and Asia. Industry sales data may be helpful to get a sense of the types and quantities of the plastics found in E&E goods, but do not necessarily represent exactly what one can expect to recover in each country, being data from real world collection schemes more reliable. In fact, as concluded from the national WEEE collection results shown in Figure 28, the most common recoverable plastic are those used for insulation and housing of large household appliances (especially from refrigeration equipment), TVs and computers, mobile phones and a portion of miscellaneous small household appliances and consumer electronics which go through well established separate collection programmes. Many small domestic appliances and consumer electronic items escape the WEEE separated collection routes and appear in the residual MSW flow.


76

Figure 30. Main polymers used in the manufacture of most common WEEE items collected (Source: ANAIP [13], WRAP [61], VHK [62])

Little information exists about the actual amount and composition of collected WEEE plastics in Europe, although the situation is to improve with the further implementation of the WEEE Directive and the obligation of Member States to report to the Commission on the quantities and categories of electrical and electronic equipment put on their market, collected through all routes, reused, recycled and recovered.


Therefore, main polymers in current collected WEEE plastic will be PS and ABS from inner shelving and liner of cold appliances; ABS, PC/ABS and HIPS from CE and ICT equipment, such as TV sets and computers (especially monitors) and mobile phones; and PU from large household appliances insulation. Epoxy resins used as substrate in PWB are also another polymer recurrently found in most collected WEEE. The PP, highly consumed for small household appliances casings, is regularly lost in the MSW stream and only the PP share due to parts in large household appliances (e.g. washing machines and dishwashers) is currently effectively collected in the WEEE separate stream.

It is proposed, for future scenario calculation purposes, to estimate the evolution in quantities and composition of the electronic plastic waste from the changes in volume and composition of the main items discarded (EOL items responsible for the biggest shares of WEEE plastic on a weight basis), using replacement sales as an indicator of the amount of equipment ready to be disposed of.

In the case of E&E equipment, disposal is likely to be affected by a number of factors, some relating to the equipment itself (e.g. length of working life) and some to consumer behaviour. The average life span for E&E equipment is 8-10 years according to APME data, although it should be taken into account that the multitude of equipments within the different electronic categories have different life span and that some categories, as IT and telecommunication equipment, are undergoing a higher increment in consumption and replacement rate in last years due to fast improving technology and JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

equipments becoming rapidly obsolete.

77

THEORICAL MODEL USED TO FORECAST THE LIFESPAN OF PRODUCTS USED IN THE E&E SECTOR 2-5 YEARS

5-10 YEARS

10-20 YEARS

20-40 YEARS

> 40 YEARS

Cables Electrical equipment materials Large domestic appliances Brown products Medical equipment Telecommunications Small domestic appliances Office equipment Data Processung 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 31. Theoretical model for forecasting E&E products life span as in year 1995 (Source: APME, 199563)

Thus, there are no reliable data on the age of equipment being thrown away. Large household appliances like refrigerators and washing machines can run smoothly for up to 15 years and longer. TV sets and radios for anything between 5 and 15 years. Life span of small household appliances is 5 to 10 years, as fixed network phones and fax machines. IT and communication equipment, like computers or mobile phones, are as a rule obsolete after one to four years[64]. But does exist also consumer’s reluctance to dispose of immediately phased out equipment and, thus, old mobile phones, audio equipment, watches and toys are treasured up in the households for years, even if they JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

are no longer working. Having this in mind, the current WEEE plastic scenario might be roughly estimated from the available 1990, 1995 and 2000 polymer consumption data.

6.4.3.

Future trends in polymer composition of WEEE

In the forecast of 2015 WEEE plastic composition should be firstly contemplated that electronics are a growing part of the total waste. Increasing technological change and decreasing chip costs are spurring the development of new products and driving the obsolescence rates of older electronics. This is especially true for ICT and consumer

78


electronic categories. US data[65] evidence that the average life span of PCs is falling from 4.5 years in 1992 to an estimated 2 years in 2005. The following trends may play a role in the future composition of ICT and consumer electronic waste: •

Widespread use of flat screens (in lieu of CRT); bigger screen sizes

•

Extended use of temporary and portable data storage devices, laptop computers, PDAs…

•

Transition from analogue to digital (cameras, TV, audio)

•

Miniaturisation of equipment and merging of functions of various devices (“digital convergence”) as in the camera phones.

Overall, the growth in ownership and the rapid turnover of ICT equipment is expected to outweigh the effects of smaller equipment. The development and obsolescence rate of other electronic categories constituting major consumers of plastic, such as large household appliances, is not foreseen to boost at the same pace, since they are a saturated market. On the other hand, there is a general observed trend of decreasing durability, reparability and upgradeability of E&E goods, which may explain shorter life spans in the future.

At large, a growth in the amount of plastics consumed is expected —in parallel to the growth in electronics sales, but, up to a point, also as a result of the progressive substitution of other materials—, though not major changes in polymer choices are likely to happen. Housings, made of ABS, SAN; HIPS, PP and to a lesser extent of

casing styrenics have the lion's share thanks to their easy colouring, lustre and possibilities of transparency, although they are seriously competed by PP for cheapest applications and PC for top-of-the-range goods. HIPS is increasingly the material of choice for TV and monitor housings and the blend PC/ABS for mobile phones. Biopolymers (polylactic acid (PLA) reinforced by kenaf fibres in a new NEC mobile model and in PC housings [66]) and polyurethane (housings of PU integral skin foam for HDTV rear projection monitors [67]) are making their way into housings.


other engineering resins, will remain as major WEEE plastic source: for housing and

79

Higher plastic content in certain large household plastics is expected, as is the case of dishwashers, whose high increase in the use of PP as substitute of non-plastic materials will contribute to produce lighter equipments. As a result, bigger share of PP in the WEEE plastic may be expected (over 2005 scenario).

A shift to IT plastics as prevalent plastic fraction in the total WEEE stream could be expected from the aforementioned consumption trends of electronic products (increasing number of CE and IT discarded units), however the effect of miniaturisation of most CE goods (except for TVs) and IT equipment can counterbalance the potential rise in waste plastic weight. In the case of IT equipment, the fast penetration of LCD monitors will entail peaks in the number of discarded units of CRT monitors in the years to come and the progressive arising of LCD discarded units in the WEEE. LCD monitors, lighter than CRT, will introduce different share of polymers (PMMA, PC, PET) in the waste stream. Innovative trends in electronic plastics, such as introduction of conductive polymers (e.g. as layers in OLED) are to have still a lower impact in the next 10 years waste stream.

On the other hand, an influence from recycling legislation can be foreseen, mainly in the substitution of hazardous substances (e.g. BFR in plastics and foaming agents in PU insulation), reduction in the number of different polymer grades used and in an increasing reuse, disassembly and recovery of plastic parts. Increased reciclability can also benefits from industry DfR (Design for Recycling) and DfD (Design for Disassembly) policies compelled by EU regulatory framework. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

6.4.4.

Current and future plastic scenarios in the WEEE separate stream

The total collectable plastic waste amounts due to WEEE have been calculated at the beginning of the chapter as ca. 1,200 kt in 2005 and 2,400 kt in 2015. Assumed WEEE collection ratios are used to provide for the flow of E&E items into the residual MSW stream and correct the total collectable plastic waste amounts: 0.80 in 2005 and 0.90 in 2015 (growing efficiency of WEEE separate collection as WEEE Directive implementation is reinforced).

80


The calculation of the current and future plastic scenarios has been carried out by the analysis of the evolution in composition and volume of the majority E&E categories actually collected in the WEEE stream. Table 12. Assumed category shares in selectively collected WEEE and their plastic content WEEE category

% in 2005 collected WEEE (wt.%)

% in 2015 collected WEEE (wt.%)

plastic content in category (wt.%)

most common polymers

LHH

52

40

17 (2005) to 22 (2015)

PU, PS, ABS, PP

SHH

10

15

48

PP, ABS, PC

ICT

17

20

26

ABS, PC/ABS, PS

CE

16

20

26

PS, ABS

total plastic WEEE generated: 1,200 kt (separately collected: 960 kt) total plastic WEEE generated: 2,400 kt (separately collected: 2,160 kt)

To this end, selected E&E equipments typical of each majority category, with established specific collection routes and accounting for most of the plastic present in the corresponding waste have been studied. The case studies evaluated have been •

Cold appliances and washing machines (Large household appliances)

•

TVs (Consumer electronics)

•

Computers and mobile phones (ICT equipment)

•

Mixed Small household appliances

•

Printed circuit boards (PWBs) present in most E&E discarded equipment

probable manufacture year of each of them has been established. This information is also used for determining most common additives, fillers, coatings, paintings and other contaminants in each case.


In order to obtain an approximated composition of the waste E&E equipments, the

81

Table 13. Estimated year of manufacture of E&E becoming waste in the current and future scenarios WEEE item

2005 Waste

2015 Waste

LHH appliance (15 years)

1990

2000

SHH appliance (5-7 years)

1998-2000

2008

CE - TV (10 years)

1995

2005

ICT – mobile*

2000-2004

2010-

ICT – PCs* 1998-2000 * EOL kept stored in households for years before disposal

2010-

The full analysis can be found in ANNEX 1.2. Its results indicate that the following composition by most common polymers of collectable WEEE plastics may be roughly estimated for the current and future scenarios: •

Current: ABS (33-27%), PS (31-26%), PU (18-13%), PP (12-7%).

•

Future: PS (25-20%), ABS (23-18%), PP (22-17%), PU (11-6%), PC/ABS (11-6%)

It reflects how PP and PC/ABS are gaining shares in the collected WEEE against ABS as a result of the increasing use of PP in large household appliances (replacing steel) and of HIPS, PC/ABS blend and PP in cases, eroding a significant portion of ABS’ share.

The following tables show the estimate amounts of main polymers that can be found in the collected WEEE representative items and the associated impacts due to their nature and volume. The implications of the presence of fillers, additives and any other typical JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

82

contaminants in the different categories of E&E that can affect the recovery of polymers in that waste stream are extensively described in the analysis in ANNEX 1.2. Main points to be regarded are: •

Fibre glass reinforcement of polymers in some applications (e.g. epoxy resins in PWBs, PC/ABS in notebook computer enclosures, PP in dishwasher tubs) hampers the mechanical recycling of such plastic parts and reduces the energy content available for recovery in them.


•

Cold appliances manufactured before the early 90’s can contain ozone depleting gases as blowing agents and refrigerants that must be removed from the selectively collected WEEE and disposed of or recovered in compliance with Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC. Specifically, R11 content in refrigerators PU foam ranged from 120 g/kg (1991) to 60 g/kg (1993) in Western Europe before its substitution by alternative blowing agents.

•

Flame retardants (FR) are present in housings and parts of E&E items exposed to high internal heat (e.g. TVs, laser printers), connection cables and PWBs. WEEE Directive compels to separate plastic containing brominated flame retardants (BFR) and the RoHS Directive restricts the use of polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) —except Deca-BDE— in E&E items manufactured after July 2006. BFRs are likely to be added (ca. 10 wt.%) to styrenic plastics (PS, HIPS, ABS): in this group Deca-BDE dominates housing applications. PC/ABS

uses

phosphorus-based

flame

retardants.

Tetrabromobisphenol–A

(TBBPA) is used as reactive flame retardant in laminates, such as epoxy resins of PWBs, where the BFR content is 5-1.5 wt.%. TBBPA is also used as reactive FR in ABS plastics used in TVs, computers, mobiles, fax machines, etc. Sb2O3 is added as synergist for BFR at concentrations in the range 3-5%. •

Cd, Pb, Ni, Cr, Sb, Sn, Ba as part of pigments and stabilisers in trace amounts. Some old casings can contain hexavalent chromium plating for decoration and chromate treatment.

•

Display screens using LCD technology greater than 100 cm2 require separate

(PMMA, PET) of any LCD may be hindered by the presence of the liquid crystals and the mercury containing lamp.


treatment as stipulated in the WEEE Directive. The recovery of the polymeric layers

83

Table 14. Most common polymers in collected WEEE waste and environmental impacts associated (2005 estimate) Applications

tonnes




LHA: inner shelving, liner...

114,578

13,378,601

914,345

26,588,917

SHA: housings & casings

35,255

4,918,827

336,171

9,775,783

ICT (computer & phones): housings

112,668

197,841

13,521

393,194

CE (TV sets): housings

17,973

1,065,746

72,837

2,118,086

280,474

19,561,015

1,336,874

38,875,980

103,120

13,669,717

713,559

22,828,428


4,148

381,926

19,937

637,817


22,343

4,458,686

232,743

7,446,005


143,784

4,840,612

252,680

8,083,822

273,394

23,350,941

1,218,919

38,996,072

LHA: wet appliances parts (tubs, baskets...)

7,639

3,969,302

185,880

7,454,543


89,174

6,420,179

300,652

12,057,410

96,812

10,389,481

486,532

19,511,952


54,234

2,511,609

207,877

5,469,993


8,986

483,923

34,445

906,378

63,220

2,995,531

242,322

6,376,371

156,590

4,963,895

601,305

15,377,112

156,590

4,963,895

601,305

15,377,112

16,652

374,670

13,863

2,947,401

4,044

97,054

3,591

763,493

Epoxy TOTAL

20,696

471,724

17,454

3,710,894

TOTAL

891,186

61,732,588

7,170,600

222,897,864

Polymer

ABS

ABS TOTAL LHA: inner shelving, liner...

PS

PS TOTAL

PP

PP TOTAL


84

PC/ABS

PC/ABS TOTAL PU

LHA: insulation PU TOTAL ICT (computer & phones): PWBs

Epoxy

CE (TV sets): PWBs


Table 15. Most common polymers in collected WEEE waste and environmental impacts associated (2015 estimate) tonnes





172,800

22,253,351

1,520,879

44,226,785


100,145

9,616,320

657,216

19,111,680


165,927

561,993

38,409

1,116,916


27,655

2,009,124

137,311

3,992,976

466,527

34,440,788

2,353,815

68,448,358


201,600

24,528,273

1,280,376

40,962,215


11,782

8,280,000

432,216

13,827,600


42,120

12,665,455

661,137

21,151,309


235,064

20,945,455

1,093,353

34,978,909

490,565

66,419,182

3,467,081

110,920,034

LHA: wet appliances parts (tubs, baskets...)

165,600

12,022,691

563,014

22,579,200


253,309

7,380,000

345,600

13,860,000

418,909

19,402,691

908,614

36,439,200


151,036

7,791,709

554,608

14,593,719


13,827

744,599

53,000

1,394,619

164,864

8,536,308

607,608

15,988,338

180,000

5,706,000

691,200

17,676,000

180,000

5,706,000

691,200

17,676,000

ICT (computer & phones): PWBs

37,100

834,742

30,885

6,566,636

CE (TV sets): PWBs

10,636

255,273

9,445

2,008,145

Epoxy TOTAL

47,736

1,090,015

40,331

8,574,781

TOTAL

1,768,601

263,303,936

15,365,435

481,267,859

ABS

ABS TOTAL

PS

PS TOTAL

PP

PP TOTAL

PC/ABS

PC/ABS TOTAL PU

LHA: insulation PU TOTAL

Epoxy


Applications

Polymer

85

6.5. VEHICLES: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS Approximately 9 million of ELV are discarded each year in Europe. In 2001 around the 25% went to landfill. However, nowadays with the implementation of the ELV EU Directive (2000/53/EC) the 100% of discarded vehicles are supposed to be correctly managed from year 2002 on and a minimum of 85% (by an average weight per vehicle and year) of materials present in all end-of life vehicles should be reused or recovered no later than 1 January 2006 (being the reuse and recovery as a minimum 80% by an average weight per vehicle and year). Only for vehicles produced before 1 January 1980, Member States may lay down lower targets, but not lower than 75% for reuse and recovery and not lower than 70% for reuse and recycling.

ELV in Europe, 2003 12000000 UK Switzerland

Discarded vehicles, units

10000000

Sweden Spain

8000000

Portugal Norway

6000000

Netherlands Italy

4000000

Germany Denmark

2000000

Slovakia Poland Lithuania Latvia Hungary Czech Republic Bulgary

Belgium Austria

0

France Western Europe


86

Central-Eastern Europe

Figure 32. ELV vehicles treated in European countries in 2003 (Source: MINEFI68)

Various factors exist that have an impact on the actual plastic waste stream from the automotive sector. Obviously the key factor is the material content of the vehicles and the volume of vehicles reaching their end-of-life, but there are others such as: •

Manufacturing year and vehicle life-span

•

Market and consumer trends (country sales by vehicle model)


The average life span of automobiles in the EU-25 is estimated at 13-10 years and is decreasing progressively. Therefore, the available data for the current consumption in the sector may be a good estimation of the plastic composition of ELV in year 2015. The current ELV waste, on their part, will be constituted mainly by vehicles with manufacture year of the early 90’s.

6.5.1. Main applications of polymers in automotive sector and most common polymers in ELV The European vehicle shows an upward trend in plastic content; which has increased fourfold over the last 20 years and is expected to continue increasing. The proportion of plastic components in vehicles has risen from 5% by weight in the 70’s to above 10% nowadays. The trend towards the increased use of plastics in vehicle manufacture will continue to grow. Several sources report contents of 10-15% of plastic for 2003/5 vintage cars[69,

70, 71, 72]

. From 1998 to 2004, the average weight of vehicles in Europe

rose from 1178 to 1292 kg, as the car dimensions grew. The average car consists of 2,730 parts, of which approximately 28% are made of plastics[73]. Car manufacturers have replaced many metal components with plastic ones to ensure lighter weight and more economical vehicles. This includes bumpers, fuel tanks, body panels and housings, dashboard, interior components, splash guards, hoses and others. Recently a number of vehicles have been developed with thermoplastic body panels, primarily for the European and Japanese markets. The most notable are the Smart Car, Chrysler's City Cabrio and Landrover Freelander[74].

between 6-10%. No official statistics of current waste composition is available at the moment, although consumption data of plastics in automotive sector is available for year 2002 in EU-15. Those data can serve as a guidance for determining most common polymers to be found in the future waste, although it should be taken into consideration that production is slowing down in Western Europe as some automakers add capacity to Eastern Europe. Production in Eastern Europe, for example, jumped 12% from 2,894,985 units in 1999 to 3,244,636 in 2000[75].


In vehicles currently reaching the end of their life the plastic proportion is something in

87

The shares by polymer in the plastic content in the average 1990s and 2000s cars, as reported by some sources, are represented in the next figure. Average vehicle plastic content 2001

Average plastic content in European car 1990 Acrylic Other 9% 2%

PE 5%

Epoxy 1%

PVC 10%

PU 19%

PA 6% PC 4%

PE 5%

Other 17%

PVC 7%

PU 11% PP 31% ABS 14%

PA 8%

PC 4%

ABS 7%

PP 40%

Figure 33. Average composition of plastic content in 1990 and 2000 European Cars (Source: ACORD[71], CEP[76])

As shown in the table below, it is highly complicated to allocate a single polymer for each car component. Thermoplastics account for roughly 90% of plastic used in vehicles. Specific thermoplastics that are most widely used in vehicles are: polypropylene, polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride. •

PP is the most abundantly used, accounting for up to 40% of all car thermoplastics and there is a trend towards an increase in its use[77]. Applications include bumpers, wheel arch liners and dashboards.

•

PVC makes up about 6%-12% of the thermoplastic content of an average 1990’s European car (Source: Waste watch Information sheet: car recycling). However the tendency goes towards a decrease in its use.


88


Table 16. Polymers used in a typical car (Source: EuPC[78]) Component

Main types of plastics

Weight in av. car (kg)

Bumper

PP, ABS, PC/PBT

10.0

Seating

PU, PP, PVC, ABS, PA

13.0

Dash board

PP, ABS, SMA, PPE, PC

7.0

Fuel system

HDPE, POM, PA, PP, PBT

6.0

Body (incl. Panels)

PP, PPE, UP

6.0

Under-bonnet components

PA, PP, PBT

9.0

PP, ABS, PET, POM, PVC

20.0

PP, PE, PBT, PA, PVC

7.0

ABS, PA, PBT, POM, ASA, PP

4.0

PC, PBT, ABS, PMMA, UP

5.0

PVC, PU, PP, PE

8.0

PP, PE, PA

1.0

Interior trim Electrical components Exterior trim Lighting Upholstery Liquid containers

Total Plastics

105.0

Research into vehicles plastic content by application has been carried out with the aim of establishing more clearly the polymer share in some typical applications, such as bumpers, fuel and liquid tanks, battery cases, hubcaps and seat cushions. The additives and fillers of polymers in the different applications have also been identified, as well as possible contaminants (painting and metallised coatings, fuel remains...). Together with technical reports and research results, the IDIS (International Dismantling Information System) Database v.3.11, covering up to 427 car models and 875 variants, has been used as information source. ANNEX 1.3 includes the full description of the analysis.

THERMOPLASTICS: PP, HDPE AND PA

Battery cases are mostly made of PP, which represents only 5% of total car battery weight (around 30 lb)[79]. PP is also the majority material for manufacturing bumpers. Other polymers used are the blends PE/ABS and PC/PBT. PP in bumpers is regularly glass fibre reinforced

[80]

. PP is the material of choice for air ducts too. In this

application PP contains talc as filler (20% by weight).


6.5.1.1.

89

92% of fuel tanks in Europe are made of HDPE, with an average weight of 8 kg. In general tanks are multi-layer structures which consist mainly of HDPE accompanied by EVOH barrier and adhesive layers. Handicaps found for recycling this plastic part are the presence of metallic inserts and contamination due to fuel remains and surface dirtiness [80,81].

Main applications of PA in vehicles are in hubcaps. Normally hubcaps appears like a blend of materials, the polymer plus fillers and glass fibre (GF). There is on average 15% of filler and 20% of GF. Some of the contaminants that can hinder hubcap recycling are metallic inserts and surface dirtiness. Almost all the hubcaps are painted.

6.5.1.2.

THERMOSETS: POLYURETHANE (PU)

The PU is one of the key plastics used in the automobiles accounting for the 12% more or less of the total car weight (6.5 kg per car [70]). Almost all the PU consumed in a vehicle is used in seat cushions, around the 75%.

6.5.2.

New trends in automotive polymer composition

Plastics are replacing many metal components in automotive industry to the end of ensuring lighter weight and more economical vehicles. Consequently, plastics are gaining share in the average car weight and, in order to achieve the targets of the ELV Directive, it is necessary to increase the plastic recycling rates. As a result, today there is a growing use of thermoplastic polyolefins as replacements of PVC and other JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

90

thermoplastic elastomers [82]. Next chart shows Opel priority list for plastics with regard to recycling aspects.

Thermoplastic Elastomer PU SMC, PF Elastomer PVC Mixture of incompatible materials

Increasing priority

ABS, PMMA, SMA, ASA SAN

¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾

PREFER

Polyoxymethilene, Polyamide, Thermoplastic Urethane

PC, PET, PBT


Polypropylene, Polyethylene

AVOID

Figure 34. Plastic material priority list by OPEL

Because of their excellent price-performance ratio, polypropylene (PP) composites are growing rapidly in the automotive industry. Among the advantages of polypropylene is its recyclables, especially considering that recycling is an increasingly important requirement for automotive materials within the framework of the current and developing EU legislation. The foreign materials, whether glass, talc or mica, used to reinforce most PP composites today hamper recycling, as fillers are hard to separate during the recycling process and there is a loss in critical mechanical properties each time these composite materials are recycled. As a result, there is great interest nowadays in all-polypropylene composites, which consist of PP polymers filled with PP fibres. Several manufacturers have developed technologies for preparing all-PP composites and some of these products have already been commercially introduced: According to

under body shields and air dams. Because such composites are relatively new, they have not had a chance to make a big impact on the market. They cost more than older glassbased composites, which could be an initial barrier for them. Because all-PP composites are easier to recycle than resin composites containing foreign materials, new environmental regulations may hasten their growth over the next 10 years [83].

Another polymer in growth, although in the ranking is not one of the most used, is


manufacturers, all-PP composites are suitable for automotive parts such as load floors,

HDPE for fuel tanks. For more than a decade, all plastics fuel tanks have been

91

produced, by blow-moulding in ultra-high molecular weight high density polyethylene. It is estimated that some 90% of all new cars in Europe have plastics tanks, and the technology has been exported to North America, where about 70% of cars now use this system. In Japan, the market share is considerably lower, at about 7%, but considerable growth is expected there also, to meet tighter fuel emission standards [84]. Originally, tanks were treated internally to reduce the permeability of polyethylene. But, to meet tightening emission standards, particularly in the USA, multi-layer tanks are blow moulded, incorporating a layer of a high barrier polymer, and tie-layers to bond it to the structural inner and outer layers.

Car manufacturers’ priorities also include restricted use of hazardous substances, the use of recyclable and biodegradable material (biopolymers and natural fibres for reinforcement) and progressive incorporation of recycled polymers in car parts[82,

85]

.

“Design for disassembly” is another big trend in the automotive industry. This trend has automakers looking ahead to the time when a car has finished its useful life to reduce the total number of auto parts and materials. This will make disassembly of cars easier, enabling recycling.

In order to elucidate the trends and innovations in car design that can influence the future composition of ELV plastic waste and their potential for recovery, an in-depth analysis of polymers used per application has been carried out. Taking into account the market trends and the top ten vehicles sales by model and segment, it has been possible to estimate the changes in composition of this plastic waste stream. For each scenario JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

92

the plastic components of 16 vehicles have been analysed: 16 vehicles manufactured in the early 90’s for current waste and 16 today vehicles for the future waste (see ANNEX 1.3).

6.5.3.

Current and future plastic scenarios in ELV waste stream

The steps followed to work out the potential composition and volume of plastic waste present in ELV stream currently and in 10 years have been:


•

Determine characteristics of national EU car parks (regarding size, age and type of vehicles) that can influence the amount and nature of polymers found in ELV

•

Extrapolate typical car plastic compositions to ELV plastic waste in 2005 and 2015

6.5.3.1.

EUROPEAN CAR PARK

More than 14.5 million passenger cars have been manufactured in Europe since 1998, with a total automobile production in 2004 around 18 million and almost 15 million in Western Europe (WE)[86]. Most of the car production is concentrated in Germany, Spain, France, Italy and UK[87], although manufacturers are gradually establishing their assembly lines in the EU 2003 Accession Countries.

By analysing the European vehicle park is possible to depict that the main European markets are Germany, Italy, France, UK and Spain. About 160 million car were in use in EU in 1995 and in 2003 the number was well above 200 million. Although Passenger Car Registrations decreased in 2002 and 2003 in Western Europe, registrations increased again in 2004, according to ACEA, and the European vehicle park reached 214,489,100 units in 2002[88], an increase of 1.7% compared to the year before. Passenger cars accounted for the biggest share of the vehicle park with 187.4 million vehicles (87.4%).

Table 17. New Registrations in five main markets of Western Europe by country[ 1997

2005

France

1,713,030

2,068,055

Germany

3,528,179

3,320,152

Italy

2,403,744

2,230,689

Spain

1,016,383

1,528,793

UK

2,170,725

2,439,717

Western Europe

13,415,727

14,102,137


Country

89]

Overall passenger car registration among new EU Member States grew 3.5% in 2003 and the main markets, Poland and Hungary posted an increased of 5% while Czech

93

Republic saw a decrease of 9.8%[90].In 2004 the Central/Eastern European (CEE) Market for new cars rose 0.33% from 2003. New car sales in Poland fell down 6.61%, but it might be as a result of the imports of WE used cars which, following EU accession, are no longer subject to prohibitive taxation. Also Slovakia and Czech Republic saw falls of 6.74% and 6.61%. However, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania saw an expansion of the market over the full year[91].

European car park, 2003 50

Cars in use, Mio. units

45 40

EU-25: 213 million cars EU-15: 190 million cars 2003 AC: 23 million cars

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI

FR GR HU IE

IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

Figure 35. European car park (Source: ACEA [86], Eurostat)

There are also significant differences in the best selling passenger car models (or segments) over the years and by region. In the 1997 automotive market the highest share was for the “small” and “lower medium” segment and the top ten vehicles sales in WE by model were those shown in the left columns of Table 18. The same table reveals JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

94

the difference in current car models among WE and CEE countries, which may result in slightly differentiated regional ELV composition. Table 18. Best selling models in Europe, 1997-2005 (Source: JATO) WE (Year 1997)

WE (as of Nov’05)

CEE (as of Sep’05)

Model

Sales

Model

Sales

Model

Sales

VolksWagen Golf

500,848

VolksWagen Golf

435,827

Dacia Logan

71,549

Renault Megane

481,753

Opel/Vauxhall Astra

423,264

Skoda Fabia

65,916

Fiat Punto

581,07

Ford Focus

384,234

Skoda Octavia

39,585

GM Astra

498,753

Peugeot 206/206SW

374,708

Opel Astra

18,465

503,623

Peugeot 307/307SW

341,289

Renault Megane

17,476

VW Polo

456,363

Renault Megane

311,608

Ford Focus

17,410

Renault Clio

345,903

Ford Fiesta

298,130

Peugeot 206

16,722

Ford Fiesta

423,936

Renault Clio

294,877

Suzuki Ignis

15,444

Ford Escort

419,374

Renault Scenic / Grand

278,789

Toyota Corolla

14,993

GM Vectra

384,885

Opel/Vauxhall Astra

257,567

Renault Clio

14,006


GM Corsa

As the Figure 36 shows, in 2005 the market share of small to upper medium segments are higher in the CEE countries —where only those 4 segments account for 85% of total car sales— than in Western Europe, where sales of lower and upper-medium segments continue their falling trend down to 65% of total car sales. It is worth noticing the rise in Mini-MPVs (Multi Purpose Vehicle) and SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicle) demand in the WE countries. Those types of vehicles, heavier than the other best selling segments contribute potentially to plastic in ELV to a greater extent.


95

European Passenger Car sales 2005 50,00

market share, %

40,00 Western Europe (YTD - Nov'05) Central Eastern Europe (YTD - Sep'05)

30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 Utility / city Small cars

Lower Lower Upper Upper Executive Luxury Mini MPV MPV medium medium medium medium (premium) (premium)

SUV

Sports

Segment

Figure 36. Passenger car sales by segment (Source: JATO[92, 93])

The growth in car dimensions and weight over the last twenty years is continuing at a remarkable rate, according to the automotive market intelligence provider JATO Dynamics. From 1998 to 2004 the average passenger car weight increased by 9.67%.

Table 19. Weight evolution of average new EU car* (Source: JATO). Year

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Weight, kg

1178

1197

1205

1232

1251

1270

1292

*average for the big 5 European markets

As for the average age of the European car park, it is set ca. 8 years by ACEA [86]. Other sources estimate the average life span of automobiles in the EU at 13 years [94,95]. For the purposes of the study it will be set at 10 years. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

96


EU-25 Car stock age (2002) 100% 80% 60% 40%

> 10 years 5 to 10 years 2 to 5 years < 2 years

Sweden

United Kingdom

15%

Finland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Portugal

Poland

Austria

Malta

Netherlands

Hungary

Lithuania

Luxembourg (Grand-Duché)

Latvia

Cyprus

Italy

Ireland

France

Spain

Greece

Estonia

Denmark

Germany (incl. ex-GDR from 1991)

Czech Republic

0%

Belgium

20%

34% 22% 29% EU-25 car age - 2002

Figure 37. EU-25 car park age, Year 2002 (Source: Eurostat)

Relevant national disparities are observed among EU-25 countries. Baltic countries show the older stock, while Hungary, Slovenia and Ireland have the biggest share of cars less than two years old. As a rule the EU-15 countries have 40% or less of their car park under 5 years old and the average age of de-registered cars is 8 years, with a small premature ELV percentage ( 40 YEARS

Wall coverings Fixed floor coverings


Fitted forniture Profiles Lining Insulation Windows Pipes and ducts 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Figure 42. Life spans of Building and Construction products[100]

106

100%


This theoretical model of plastic applications lifespan plus current information about plastic Construction and Demolition waste (C&D) allows estimating the current and future plastic waste stream from B&C.

In the same way the plastic content in B&C sector is expected to increase in the next ten years, largely supported by the substitution of traditional building materials, which affects the type and the quantity of plastic used in this sector. This fact will also affect the future plastic waste composition and volume, as it is shown in the next figure developed by APME:

FORECAST OF PLASTICS WASTE FROM BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION, WESTERN EUROPE 1995 Floor and wall coverings

Pipes and ducts

Insulation

Profiles

Lining

Windows

Fitted forniture

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% YEAR 1995

YEAR 2000

YEAR 2010

Regarding the total volume of plastic waste expected in C&D waste, early forecasts showed an increase from 0.84 (1995) to 1,17 million tonnes (2000). However, recent data reflect that plastic waste from this sector was around 0.610 million tonnes already in 2002. The references reviewed (APME, Waste Watch, EuPC, expert reports on PVC …) enable to estimate a growth rate of around 4% per year in plastic waste generation.


Figure 43. Forecast of plastics waste from building and construction, WE 1995 (Source: APME [100])

107

Despite the lot of products containing recycled plastics suitable for this sector such as HDPE pipes, window profiles, insulation materials the majority of plastic waste from B&C sector is currently landfilled and very little is recycled. Next figure shows the recovery ratios recorded and the tendency for the next ten years. Total recovery as a proportion of end- use waste 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

0%

Figure 44. Recovery percentage (Source: aggregated data from APME)

In general, almost the 100% of the recovered plastic from this sector is mechanically recycled being focused on voluminous monomaterial stream like pipes, windows and frames. In fact, it can be assumed that the actual C&D recovery ratio (around 10%) relies mainly on recycling initiatives for PVC items. In order to forecast the future scenario a recovery ratio of 13% has been considered.

6.6.1.

Main applications of polymers in B&C sector


Another key factor to understand and calculate current and future waste composition is to identify which are the main applications of each type of polymer. This is a complicate task since they are applied in a wide variety of applications from insulation to piping, window frames to interior design, although high polymer specificity is observed in most applications. A review of the polymers, additives and fillers used in B&C applications is included in ANNEX 1.4.

In terms of plastic consumption, pipes and ducts is the biggest product group within the building sector accounting with the 40% and the third one in waste generation.

108


Normally, pipes are made of monoplastic material which facilitates its identification and separation in the recycling process.

Insulation panels are one of the major plastics applications in B&C sector, the second one after piping. The most common polymers used for insulation are Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) and PU. Polyurethane is a relatively new product, roughly around 35 years, but has become the most used insulation plastic. The majority of polystyrene insulation panels are manufactured with EPS, although XPS boards can also be found.

Window profiles are mostly made of PVC in Europe, accounting for more than 10% of Western European PVC production. In the same way, PVC is also the main plastic used for sheet and tile flooring. In the case of lining, PE makes up more than half of plastic consumed in the application, being PVC the polymer used in the rest of the cases.

The highest variety in polymers is found in the manufacture of fitted furniture, where the market is shared by PS, PMMA, PC, POM, PA and UP and amino resins. Table 23. Polymers in main B&C applications Application


Pipes & Ducts

PVC, PP, HDPE, LDPE, ABS

Insulation

PU, EPS, XPS

Profiles

Windows profiles

PVC

Other profiles

PVC PVC

Lining

PE, PVC

Fitted furniture

PS, PMMA, PC, POM, PA, UP, amino

Based on the consumption data and the APME forecast, it is possible to draft the plastic market share by application and the estimated waste composition by application.


Floor & wall coverings

109

Plastic consumption by application fitted furniture 9%

lining 5%

pipes and ducts 40%

profiles 6% windiows 12% floor and wall coverings 7%

insulation 21%

Plastic waste generation by application 2005 Pipes & ducts 20%

fitted furniture 28%

insulation 11% Linning 7%

profiles 9%

windows 1%

floor and wall coverings 24%

Figure 45. Plastic consumption & waste composition by application

The key ideas that figures illustrate is the difference between the contribution of each application to either the consumption and the waste. For example, insulation plastic consumption is 21% while the waste is about 11%, similarly happens with pipes, 40% and 20% respectively. Windows represent the biggest variation with consumption of 12% and 1% of waste. This difference is related to the lifespan of the different applications.

6.6.2.

Most common polymers in C&D waste and future trends in B&C

The polymers used in B&C are clearly associated to specific applications. PVC is the predominant polymer, accounting for more than 50% plastic in this waste stream. Other polymers that might be found in significant volumes are PE, PS, PU and other thermoset resins. Polystyrene is another important polymer in the sector, being insulation its key application. Next figure shows a general overview of the current and JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

110

future polymer scenarios for C&D waste.


FORECAST OF PLASTIC WASTE FROM B&C

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1995

2000 PVC

PE

EPS

PU

2010 PS

Others

Figure 46. Forecast of plastics waste from B&C (Source: APME[100])

If plastic applications in this sector are analysed now and in the near future no major change can be foreseen in plastic waste composition. The reason for these minor differences expected lies on the fact that the average lifespan of building applications is 35 years and the analysed period is only 10 years ahead. On the other hand, it is expected an increase in the total waste with a growth ratio of 4 or 5 %, which is the key variable to forecast the total plastic waste. Plastic waste generation by application 2015

Plastic waste generation by application 2005 Pipes & ducts

fitted furniture

20%

28%

Pipes & ducts

fitted furniture 24%

19%

11%

Linning 7%

floor and wall coverings profiles 9%

windows 1%

24%

insulation 19%

coverings Linning 8%

Figure 47. Plastic waste generation by application 2005 & 2015

profiles windows 3% 8%

19%


floor and wall insulation

111

Fitted furniture Lining PA Amino 4% 5% UP 20%

POM 1%

PS 36%

PVC 41%

Floor and wall coverings / windows/profiles PC 18%

PE 59%

PMMA 16%

Pipes & ducts Insulation PVC 100% PU 45%

HDPE 18%

EPS 42%

LDPE 5%

ABS 1%

PP 6% XPS 13%

PVC 70%

Figure 48. Plastic waste generation by polymer and application

It is necessary to remark the importance of PVC in this sector. In fact, B&C sector is one of the major contributors to the PVC post-consumer waste. Since an increase in rigid construction products (windows and other profiles, pipes…) is expected, in particular due to the long lifespan products, this dominance will continue in the next years.

However, in the year 2000 there was a growth of 3.4 % for plastic in construction applications while PVC increased its share by about 2.5 %. Other plastics will show an above-average growth rate of about 7.5% [99]. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

112

Therefore, although the total amount of PVC is forecast to increase, it is possible to realise that the proportion of PVC in the waste stream is likely to decrease. This is due to the increase in the total quantity of B&C waste, and because of an important rise in the plastic waste from insulation and fitted furniture in which the main plastics are the PS and PU among others.


Year 2000 other construction rigid products 1%

cables 3%

flooring 18%

profiles cable trays 1% other flexible construction product 42%

Other profiles 15% profiles and hoses 11% window profiles pipes 4% 5%

Year 2020 other construction rigid products 1%

cables 4%

flooring 14%

Other profiles 23%

profiles cable trays 2% other flexible construction product 28%

profiles and hoses 5% pipes 11%

window profiles 12%

Figure 49. Evolution of PVC market in B&C applications

As for innovative materials to be used in the B&C sector in the future, all-PP composites can make their way into this sector, in architectural panels and composite panels, floors, outdoor furniture, playground equipment, pipes and tubes.

6.6.3.

Current and future plastic scenarios in C&D waste stream

The most common polymers in the total plastic waste fraction from construction and demolition sources are, according to the previous discussion in the chapter, the following: Current: PVC (55-50%), PS (19-14%), PE (12-7%), PU (8-3%)

•

Future: PVC (50-45%), PS (23-18%), PE (12-7%), PU (12-7%)

The estimated volumes of those polymers in the C&D waste stream and their associated impacts are compiled in


•

113

Table 24 and Table 25. Next figures show the environmental impacts associated to total generated plastic waste in C&D stream in 2005 and 2015.


114


Table 24. Impacts associated to main polymers in generated plastic waste in C&D stream (2005 estimate)

PE

PVC

Polymer applications


117,257

3,907,015

210,289

7,147,540


196,746

6,689,364

360,045

12,237,601

8,130

209,222

11,261

382,754

Profiles

73,170

2,487,780

133,901

4,551,174

Lining

23,532

800,098

43,064

1,463,708

HDPE Pipes & ducts

29,356

1,238,815

53,134

2,339,658

LDPE Pipes & ducts

7,463

331,372

15,001

599,306

33,372

1,481,718

67,078

2,679,774

EPS insulation

38,335

1,916,729

100,053

3,200,937

XPS insulation

12,211

610,531

31,870

1,019,586

PS fitted furniture

80,859

4,042,927

211,041

6,751,688

40,429

1,281,595

155,246

3,970,115

Windows

PS

Insulation

Total CO2 equivalent

Total Calorific Value

CO2 equivalent tonnes

50000000 40000000 30000000 20000000 10000000

3500000

100000000

3000000

90000000 80000000

2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000

0 2005

2015

Primary Energy Content

energy content, GJ

60000000

Calorific value, GJ

Total CO2 , equivalent tonnes

Pipes & ducts

PE lining

PU


tonnes

70000000 60000000 50000000 40000000 30000000 20000000 10000000 0

0 2005

PVC

2005

2015

PE

PS

PU

2015

Others

Regarding additives and contaminants posing hazardousness problems, the following are to be noted: •

Blowing agents for EPS (pentane), XPS (HCFC, pentane) and PU (HCFC, CFC) foams. In the past CFC blowing agents were in use until replacement by HCFC and pentane, successively.


Figure 50. Impacts associated to generated plastic waste from B&C sector, 2005 & 2015

115

•

Fire retardants (FR) in insulation panels: hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in EPS and XPS. This fire retardant keeps enclosed in the EPS cells and is used in such minute quantities that poses negligible risks. Brominated fire retardants in PU, recently being replaced by phosphor based FR’s.

•

Brominated fire retardants in PS and PE used in lining and roofing and flooring membranes.

•

Leaded additives of PVC. Table 25. Impacts associated to main polymers in generated plastic waste in C&D stream (2015 estimate) tonnes




Pipes & ducts

184,883

6,160,312

331,570

11,269,748


254,694

8,659,596

466,090

15,841,967

37,918

1,121,617

60,369

2,051,899

Profiles

108,960

3,704,640

199,397

6,777,312

Lining

42,802

1,455,275

78,328

2,662,298

HDPE Pipes & ducts

46,286

1,953,278

83,778

3,689,011

LDPE Pipes & ducts

11,768

522,485

23,653

944,945

PE lining

60,699

2,695,055

122,006

4,874,165

EPS insulation

110,093

5,504,659

287,343

9,192,781

XPS insulation

35,068

1,753,384

91,527

2,928,152

PS fitted furniture

114,966

5,748,321

300,062

9,599,696

116,108

3,680,616

445,854

11,401,784

PU

PS

PE

PVC

Polymer applications


116

Windows

Insulation

The following figures portray the distribution of the assessed environmental aspects by applications and polymers. It reveals that some applications which are not currently being properly recovered have high energetic content. That is the case, for instance, of insulation and fitted furniture that are associated to large energy content material (PS) that should be recovered.

CO2 equivalent

Energy content Pipes & ducts floor and wall coverings windows profiles Linning insulation fitted furniture

profiles Linning insulation

Pipes & ducts floor and wall coverings

PU

PS

PA

windows profiles

PVC

PU

UP


Calorific Value

Linning insulation

PA

fitted furniture

PU

PVC

UP PA

PS PS

ABS HD/LDPE

ABS

PP

PVC

ABS

PP

PP

HD/LDPE

HD/LDPE

Figure 51. Impact associated to generated waste from B&C sector, Year 2005

6.7. AGRICULTURE: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS This sector represented only about 2% of all plastics annually consumed in Western Europe in 2003, i.e. 744.000 tonnes [103]. Although there is no reliable data regarding the plastic consumption and waste generation in all EU-25 countries, the existence of large geographical differences is clear, related to the production in the sector. The following figure shows the variation on cultivated areas in EU-25 countries.

25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000

Sweden

United Kingdom

Finland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Poland

Portugal

Austria

Malta

Netherlands

Hungary

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Italy

Cyprus

Ireland

Spain

France

Greece

Estonia

Denmark

Belgium

Czech Republic

0

Germany (ex-GDR incl.)

5000000


Utilised agricultural area, Ha.

30000000

Figure 52. Utilised agricultural area (Ha). (Source: Eurostat[104).

117

Agricultural plastics involve different applications, where silage film, greenhouse-film and mulching-film are the most representative. The application that contributes most heavily to the total plastic waste generation in the sector is the greenhouse film. In fact, under-cover cultivated crops can be considered a clear indicator of the plastic consumption in the sector. In this sense, the differences across Europe are still heavier, since Mediterranean countries lead the greenhouse cultivation as shown in the following

Underglass cultivated area, Ha

figures.

Figure 53. Underglass cultivated area (Ha) (Source: Eurostat).

According to this data, and based on the relation among plastic consumption and greenhouse area in WE and CE European countries, it can be estimated that the actual plastic consumption in the agricultural sector in EU-25 is around 900,000 tonnes. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

118

Agroplastics average life depends on the specific applications. In the case of greenhouse films, two-season campaigns are the standard, although there is a trend towards the use of long-lasting films (3-4 crop campaigns). For the purpose of this study, it can be considered that the plastic waste generated equals the amount annually consumed, since the lifespan of these applications is relatively short:


Table 26. Lifespan of plastic applications in agriculture (Source: Cicloagro105) Lifespan of plastic applications in agriculture

Greenhouse

long campaigns

3 years

short campaigns

1 year

Mulching 1 crop (3-6 months)

Tunnel

The reported evolution in European agriculture shows a steady increase of both cultivated area and under-cover crops. According to Eurostat data, Eastern European countries show the highest increment of under-cover area, probably associated to the increment of non-traditional crops with larger plastic demands.

The following figures depict the reported and expected trend in under-cover agriculture areas, as well as the expected evolution in plastic waste generation, based on this tendency.

According to this prognosis, the plastic waste generation in 2015 is expected to amount for more than 1,000 kt in EU-25. Under glass Ha (EU25)

160,000

Western Europe

140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000

Eastern Europe

20,000 Under glass Ha/inhabitant (EU25)

12000

Western Europe

10000 8000 6000

Eastern Europe

4000 2000 2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

0


0

Figure 54. Reported and expected evolution of under-cover crops in Europe (total and per capita)

119

1200000 1000000 tonnes

800000 600000 400000 200000 2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

Figure 55. Prognosis for total plastic consumption in agriculture sector.

According to APME, from the plastic waste generated in agriculture only 311,000 tonnes were available for adequate management. The following figure shows the reported (only until 2002) and expected evolution of this sector:

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100


120

2015

2014

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

0

2013

50 2012

Total available plastic waste collectable, th. tonnes

500

Figure 56. Reported and expected (in red) available plastic waste collectable in agriculture. (NOTE: Available collectable waste: total quantity of end of life product, resting the quantity of product not available (pipe in the ground), and the quantity not collectable for economical technical reasons)

Extrapolating this trend to the total plastic waste generation considered, it is estimated that in 2015 there will be 1,050,000 tonnes of this waste. This value is consistent with the estimations carried out based on the evolution of under-cover crops in Europe (see Figure 55).


6.7.1.

Main applications of polymers in agriculture

A further detailed analysis of the applications of plastics in agriculture enables a clearer picture of the resins used and their specific end-of –life problems. Around 60% of the plastic consumption in the sector is focused on two applications: covers (greenhouse, mulching and tunnel) and silage. The countries with higher consumption on plastic covers are Italy, Spain, France and Belgium, while in countries like the Netherlands and Finland silage consumption is the most important agriculture plastic waste source.

Not only the total area of under-cover cultivation varies across countries, but also the technology chosen. In the last years the use of plastic films for agricultural soils mulching and for low tunnels —in particular based on polyethylene (PE) and ethylenevinylacetate copolymers (EVA)— has shown an increasing diffusion. Data on plastic consumption for crop covering in European countries is very disperse and shows high variation among sources. The following figure summarises some of the consumption reported for main agriculture plastic consumers:

Low tunnel

plastic consumption, tonnes

70000

Mulching

60000

Greenhouse

50000 40000 30000 20000 10000

France

Italy

Spain

UK

Figure 57. Plastic consumption for under-cover crops in 4 European countries. Data sources: Ademe[106] (France), Picuno & Sica[107] (Italy), Cicloagro[108] (Spain), Wrap[109] (UK).

Considering that these countries amount for 70% of the European under-cover crop area, it can be estimated that the total plastic use for greenhouse, mulching and tunnels rises up to 208,000 tonnes. This estimation is consistent with the data published by


0

EPRO [110].

121

Another issue to consider is the high content on contamination of plastic covers in agriculture applications, which interferes significantly with the generated waste amount. In fact, the contamination level in mulching rises up to 70%, and 50% in other covers [106]

.

The agriculture plastic consumption in silage is another important waste source. There is no specific data on European consumption, but only on determined countries. However, according to the data compiled it can be estimated that silage represents around 32% of plastic consumption in the agriculture sector. As stated before, contamination in agriculture plastic waste is a key factor that influences strongly the amount generated. Contamination in silage film consists of solid and liquid organics (silage is fermented fodder) as well as sand and soil, and can consist on 50[109]-70%[106] of the generated waste. Four types of polymers can be found in silages (LLDPE, LDPE, EVA/EBA and PVC), although LDPE and LLDPE dominates the markets, as shown in Spanish and English [111] data, for example.

There is limited and disperse data on other applications of plastics in agriculture. Other relevant applications in the sector are mentioned below: •

sheets and plates of clear PVC, PMMA, glass reinforced polyester and PC used for lightweight glazing;

•

heavy duty sacks for all kinds of agricultural and horticultural supplies (fertilisers, compost, food…);


122

•

Moulded products (horticultural growing pots, boxes, cases and crates, tanks, packaging containers, components for irrigation systems…)

•

Non-woven polyolefin fabrics (mainly PP) for flat films;

•

extruded pipe and tubing, both flexible and rigid, in PE and PVC;

•

extruded PE netting;

•

rope and twine


Non-packaging applications amount for 55-59% of the plastic in agricultural waste. In this category pipes and fittings for structural and watering purposes are also considered, but not sacks or agrochemical packages, which represent an important use.

For the purpose of this study, and considering the average contribution of different applications in some countries, the following percentages have been calculated: Table 27. Estimated amount other applications to total plastic waste generation in the agriculture sector. Application

Tonnes PP

27,111

LDPE

26,337

Seed bags

PP

5,286

Feed bags

LDPE

9,838

Agrochemical containers

HDPE

10,579

Nets and mesh

LDPE

44,884

LDPE

8,365

HDPE

8,481

Fertiliser bags – liners

Pots and trays

Pipes and fittings

Nets and mesh Rope, strings TOTAL

PVC

157,371

LDPE

43,477

LDPE

13,327

HDPE

12,643

PP

36,301 404,000

The full analysis of consumption of plastic in agricultural applications in several EU

ANNEX 1.5.

6.7.2.

Most common polymers in Agriculture

Based on the material consumption reported for each application and the calculated total plastic consumption in current EU-25 countries, the following market distribution by polymer and application has been estimated:


countries, describing contamination and degradation problems associated is available in

123

Pipes and fittines PVC Rope, strings PP

800000

Seed bags PP 700000

Fertiliser bags – liners PP Nets and mesh HDPE

600000

Pots and trays HDPE Agrochemical containers HDPE

500000

Nets and mesh LDPE

400000

Pipes and fittines LDPE Pots and trays LDPE

300000

Feed bags LDPE 200000

Fertiliser bags – liners LDPE Silage LDPE/LLDPE

100000

Tunnel LDPE/LLDPE 0 LDPE

HDPE

PP

PVC

Mulching LDPE/LLDPE Greenh. LDPE/LLDPE

Figure 58. Polymer used in agriculture

LDPE (including LLDPE) accounts for more than half the plastic consumed in agricultural applications, followed by PVC. HDPE, PP and EVA sum up to ca. 15% of total consumption of plastics in agriculture. The use of polymers in agriculture is closely linked to the application.

6.7.2.1.

LDPE

LDPE and LLDPE are main materials used in covers (mulching, tunnel and greenhouse. As packaging it is used for the inner liners of fertiliser bags and feed bags. Silage clamp plastic is also made of LDPE. LLDPE is used for silage bale wrap and packaging JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

124

shrink-wrap.

Regarding the recycling possibilities of these films it must be considered that UV light damage and contamination (dirt, sand, grease, grime, vegetation, moisture, pesticide residues or labels, glue, tapes…) limit the reciclability of plastic films. The degree of contamination of agrofilms depends on the type of film application [112, 113]


6.7.2.2.

HDPE

HDPE is an important polymer in the agricultural industry. It is mainly found in the form of plastic containers. These are used to store pesticides, disinfectants and other clearing chemicals. These plastics are usually unattractive to the recycling industry as they are seen as containing hazardous waste. However, the level of contamination on a triple-rinsed container is unlikely to render the plastic hazardous in most situations (several European countries have established that containers are only considered as hazardous wastes if they contain more than 0.1% of their original contents).

HDPE is also used in other applications as pots, trays, nets, etc.

6.7.2.3.

OTHER POLYMERS: PP, PVC, EVA

PP is mainly used to make the outer load-bearing cover of bags and string and net wrap. However, the grades of PP used for these waste streams are quite different in terms of process settings. PP string and netting (a higher grade), and horticultural plastic would need to be carefully segregated from PP bulk bags.

Although there are other applications as hoses, or sheets, the main use of PVC is in pipes and fittings. Since their function is structural, their lifespan differs from other applications. However, for the purpose of this study, waste generation has been assimilated to material consumption.

EVA is gradually being more used in greenhouse and mulching films.

Future trends in agricultural plastics

The future trend in plastic resins used for each application is strongly marked by the developments of new materials. The development of co-extrusion plastics has enabled a wide range of possibilities, since the features of two or more plastics can be combined (multilayer). Nowadays there are already multilayer materials for greenhouse, tunnels, mulching and silage.


6.7.3.

125

The new applications seek for solutions that enable plastic covers with longer lifespan, overtaking the traditional single-double campaign uses. The tree-campaign plastics are quickly gaining market.

It must also be stated that EVA is expected to progressively replace other polymers traditionally used, due to its good mechanical and spectroradiometrical characteristics.

Finally, the introduction of biodegradable plastics is also expected to develop in the following years, although it is still in research phase for the sector.

Nevertheless, it is very difficult to quantify the evolution of polymers consumption, and on the other hand there is no reliable data to foresee the market development of biopolymers or biodegradable polymers, which are still mainly underdevelopment for this application.

6.7.4.

Current and future polymer scenarios in Agriculture waste stream

Following the previous discussion, it may be concluded that by far the most common polymers in agricultural plastic waste stream are LDPE and PVC, whose expected shares for 2005 and 2015 are to remain practically unchanged:


126

•

Current: LDPE (65-60%), PVC (23-18%)

•

Future: LDPE (65-60%), PVC (23-18%)

The estimated volumes of agricultural plastic waste per polymer and application and their associated impacts are compiled in the subsequent tables. 2005 estimates are followed by supplementary information on the types and shares of contaminants commonly present in each polymer application when it becomes waste.


Table 28. LDPE/LLDPE Waste generated (2005 estimate) and their environmental implications. Polymer LDPE & LLDPE Greenhouse

Total waste*, tonnes




131,205

3,883,664

175,814

7,023,833

Mulching

78,696

1,603,950

72,611

2,900,838

Tunnel

63,326

1,874,461

84,857

3,390,073

Silage

406,759

12,900,065

583,989

23,330,523

26,363

1,169,368

52,938

2,114,870

Feed bags

9,838

436,787

19,773

789,955

Pots and trays

9,706

430,941

19,509

779,383

Pipes and fittings

50,433

2,239,237

101,371

4,049,792

Nets and mesh

15,464

686,600

31,083

1,241,756


*The waste amounts reported include contaminants from soil, moisture, chemicals, etc, detailed in next table

Table 29. Contaminants in different LDPE/LLDPE applications LDPE & LLDPE


Contamination Possible UV degraded and contaminated by: - moisture Greenhouse and - rust from greenhouse structure tunnel - metal staples - pesticides residues and sand and soil. Contamination is estimated to be up to 50% of the waste in weight Can have contamination of up to 50[109]-70[106]% by weight, which makes mulching films difficult to recover. In this also fumigation films are included, which exhibit glue contamination in Mulching a proportion (25%) too high for efficient reclaiming. Even using water soluble glue (that could be washed) could increase prohibitively the film’s recycling. Contamination consisting of solid and liquid organics (silage is fermented fodder) as well as sand and soil. The unpleasant odour of cooked silage in Silage reclaimed plastic pellets may be a barrier for recycling. However, the heavy film gauge range (4-9.5 mils) may add enough value to the material to warrant profitable recycling. The inner liners (LDPE) of fertiliser bags often still have fertiliser residues and are thus not attractive to recyclers. 0.1% of contamination has been estimated, Fertiliser bags – liners which is the maximum allowed by many European countries for their management as non-hazardous wastes[111]. Nets and mesh Contamination with soil and organic material (not considered) Pots and trays

127

Table 30. HDPE waste generated and their environmental implications (2005 estimate). The waste amounts reported include contaminants from soil, moisture, chemicals, etc, detailed in next table Polymer


HDPE





10,684

Pots and trays

9,841

446,413 415,278

19,147 17,812

843,107 784,304

Nets and mesh

14,670

619,088

26,553

1,169,225


Table 31. Contaminants in different HDPE applications HDPE

Contamination


0.01% concentration of contaminants in the waste is estimated

Pots and trays

Contamination with soil and organic material (not considered)

Nets and mesh

Can suffer UV degradation

Table 32. PP waste generated (estimate 2005) and their environmental implications. Polymer PP Fertiliser bags – liners Seed bags Rope, strings





27,138

1,111,557

52,053

2,087,558

5,286

216,724

10,149

407,018

42,121

1,726,966

80,873

3,243,327



128

Table 33. Contaminants in different PP applications PP Fertiliser bags – liners

Contaminants Contamination up to 0.01% has been estimated (27 tonnes)

Table 34. PVC waste generated (estimate 2005) and their environmental implications. Polymer PVC Pipes and fittings

Total waste, tonnes 182,550

Total calorific value, GJ 6,206,697



334,066

11,354,605


Considering steady polymer composition evolution and that all agriculture waste is collectable, the scenario shown in Table 35 may be expected in 2015. The aforesaid facts about contamination have been extrapolated to 2015 waste data.

Table 35. Agricultural Plastic waste generated by most common polymers and their environmental implications (2015 estimate) Polymer

Applications

HDPE

LDPE

Greenhouse

tonnes




106,780

160,170

4,741,040

214,628

8,574,449

Mulching

44,100

96,069

1,958,045

88,641

3,541,241

Tunnel

51,538

77,307

2,288,277

103,591

4,138,483

Silage

354,683

496,557

15,747,947

712,914

28,481,084

Fertiliser bags/liners

32,151

32,184

1,427,523

64,624

2,581,759

Feed bags

12,009

12,009

533,214

24,139

964,350

Pots and trays

11,849

11,849

526,078

23,816

951,443

Pipes and fittings

61,567

61,567

2,733,583

123,750

4,943,844

Nets and mesh

18,878

18,878

838,177

37,945

1,515,893


12,914

12,927

544,965

23,374

1,029,235

Pots and trays

12,013

12,013

506,957

21,744

957,451

Nets and mesh

17,909

17,909

755,760

32,415

1,427,348


33,096

33,129

1,356,950

63,545

2,548,418

6,453

6,453

264,569

12,390

496,873

51,420

51,420

2,108,220

98,726

3,959,339

222,851

222.851

7,576,919

407,817

13,861,304

PP

Rope, strings

PVC

Seed bags

Pipes and fittings

LDPE HDPE PP PVC


Contribution to total plastic waste calorific value

Figure 59. Contribution of different plastics to the total calorific value of plastic agriculture waste. This trend is constant for the CO2 equivalent tonnes and Primary Energy Content indicators.

129

6.8. PLASTIC WASTE SCENARIOS. SUMMARY The analysis of the gathered data allow us to envisage the most common polymers in the different waste streams (current and future scenarios) that should be later considered in the study. The charts below summarise the results obtained for each of the waste streams analysed. Figure 60. Summary charts of most common polymers in waste streams

Current scenario collectable waste arisings (wt.% in plastic waste streams) PS ABS Waste stream PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP WEEE (960 kt) 12-7 31-26 33-27 ELV (960 kt) 8-3 13-8 33-28 17-12 Agriculture (900 kt) 23-18 65-60 C&D (810 kt) 9-4 55-50 19-14 Packaging (2500 kt) 17-12 25-20 18-13 40-35 Residual MSW (17500 kt) 12-7 20-15 43-38 10-5 17-12

PA 9-4

2015 scenario collectable waste arisings (wt.% in plastic waste streams) Waste stream PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS ABS PA WEEE (2160 kt) 22-17 25-20 23-18 ELV (1500 kt) 12-7 10-5 43-38 10-5 11-6 Agriculture (1100 kt) 23-18 65-60 C&D (1350 kt) 9-4 50-45 23-18 Packaging (5700 kt) 25-20 27-22 15-10 35-30 7 Residual MSW (23000 kt) 17-12 20-15 43-38 10-5 17-12

PU 18-13 22-17 8-3

PU 11-6 13-8 12-7

Given the amounts of plastic waste in every target stream and the individual shares of most common polymers in each of them, the total volume of the polymers arising in collected waste can be estimated. It is important to stress the gap in the dimension range between volumes of packaging waste (arising both in Packaging separate stream and — especially— in residual MSW) and the rest: roughly half the plastic waste is packaging JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

130

waste.

The Figure 61 depicts the 2005 and 2015 global scenarios. In both cases, the LDPE appears as the most abundant polymer in waste, due to its predominance in packaging applications. The most outstanding evolutions come from the expected growth in PP and PET volumes in waste, clearly originated by their increasing use in packaging (PET, PP), but also in other sectors such as automotive and E&E (PP).


plastic in collected waste, th. tonnes

2005 global plastic waste scenario

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 LDPE

HDPE

PP

PET

PVC

PS

ABS

PA

PU

Most common polymers Packaging

MSW

WEEE

ELV

C&DW

Agriculture

plastic in collected waste, th. tonnes

2015 global plastic waste scenario

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000

LDPE

HDPE

PP

PET

PVC

PS

ABS

PA

Most common polymers

Figure 61. Volumes of most common polymers in total waste arisings

PU


0

131

6.9. ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF POLYMERS 6.9.1.

Introduction and methodology

Additionally to the environmental aspects (linked to energy and greenhouse gases) of polymer wastes quantified in the previous chapters, a qualitative evaluation of the potential environmental impact of waste polymers associated to the characteristics of specific waste streams has been carried out, by assessing the following issues, which can ease/difficult the successful recovery of post-consumer waste plastic: •

Availability for collection: polymers used in big quantities in manufacturing products and big volumes of waste efficiently collected.

•

Size and accessibility of plastic parts in the product (separation potential)

•

Heterogeneity of the plastic stream:

− Different polymers for the same application/part − Different resin grades for the same application/part − Different polymers and resin grades in one product •

Complexity of the plastic parts: multimaterial and composite parts, made of several polymers or by aggregation with other non plastic materials (metallic inserts, foam, rubbers, labels, inner layers…).

•

Contamination of pure clean polymers in product manufacturing (additives, fillers, coatings, paints and lacquers, adhesives…) or by contact with external pollutants during life time (e.g., pesticides) or end-of-life (e.g. organic waste contamination in


132

MSW plastic). •

Degradation or loss of properties during life and waste phases (UV degradation of agricultural plastics, deterioration of mechanical properties and aesthetics of postconsumer plastic items, etc.)

•

Balance between collectable plastic waste and recycled plastic demand, depending on willingness to accept recyclates and incorporate them in new products and on ability of recycled material to meet specifications of final applications.


•

Rank of recycling: close-loop recycling, open-loop recycling in plastic applications, open-loop recycling in non-plastic applications.

All the mentioned issues qualitatively assessed can be linked to improvement needs, either “downstream” (waste management and treatment solutions) or “upstream” (waste prevention measures) solutions (see correspondence array in Figure 62). Each issue, represented by a factor, is rated LOW (L) / MEDIUM (M / HIGH (H), based on expert judgement. Those factors not scoring HIGH indicate a hurdle to overcome and a waste management solution needing for improvement.

The factors to be evaluated by expert knowledge can be grouped as follows: •

Waste polymer availability factors:

− Collection ratio (F 1) or ratio of post consumer waste polymer being actually collected (future= feasible collectable) in the assessed stream. − Size ratio (F 2), indicating share of polymer items/parts of a sufficient size for recovery (e.g. greater than 25 g or 10 cm3). − Accessibility ratio (F 3), expressing percentage of polymer parts than can be easily disassembled. •

Waste polymer quality factors, comprising:

− Stream homogeneity (F 4). This factor indicates the variability in polymer types and grades used for manufacturing one product. "L" indicates polymers that share their main applications with others (e.g. E&E housings can be made of PS, ABS,

− Composite ratio (F 5), shows the times that the polymer appears as monomaterial part in the typical products of a sector versus its occurrences as multimaterial parts. − Contamination (F 6), expressing ratio of waste polymer free of pollutants (low contaminated). "H" indicates polymers that mostly appear "pure", not additivated or mixed with other materials (e.g., mix shredded with other plastics or metals as in ASR; FR or FG reinforced plastics as in WEEE and ELV; remaining contents of packaging or tanks; soil in agroplastics; organics in MSW...)


PC/ABS, PP..., even for the same product)

− Degradation (F 7), indicating ratio of polymer not suffering loss in properties.

133

•

Avoidable production impacts factors:

− Embodied energy (F 8), represents saves in overall energy consumption for polymer production. "L" indicates low savings of energy for manufacturing polymer applications in the sector if the arising waste is not recovered at all. − Production GH gasses (F 9), corresponds to reductions in greenhouse gasses emitted during manufacturing of polymer. "L" indicates low avoidance of GH emissions associated to manufacture of polymer applications in the sector if the arising waste is not recovered at all. •

Recovery potential factors, considering reciclability, energy content and potential toxic & hazardous emissions:

− Stored energy (F 10), indicates use of energy content in polymer available for recovery. "H" indicates that energy content in the waste polymer is not being lost (is recovered/used or kept stored)., that is, the polymer goes through EOL routes different from landfill or burning (incineration with no E recovery). − Hazardous substances (F 11), stands for ratio of polymer in waste stream free of hazardous substances that can pose emission problems. Hazardous substances can be either certain additives/fillers in plastic matrix or certain contamination mingled with plastic waste that can pose emission problems. − End markets availability (F 12), represents positive balance between collected waste polymer and demand for recycled polymer. − Recycling rank (F 13), symbolises ratio of “close-loop” recycling to “downcycling” of the polymer. “L” symbolises that recycled plastic is mostly "downcycled" and JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

134

“H” that it is often used for manufacturing the same application (close-loop recycling)

ASSESSING ISSUES F1 Collection ratio

Marking, Standardisation

Product Design

Standardisation

Product Design

F2 Size ratio

F3 Accesibility ratio

F4 Stream homogeneity

F5 Composite ratio

Product Design, Legal constraints

Product Design

F6 Contamination

F7 Degradation

Embodied energy

Clean Technologies

Production GH gasses

Product Design, Legal constraints

DOWNSTREAM SOLUTIONS (Waste management)

Collection schemes,

Collection schemes, Separation technology

WASTE POLYMER AVAILABILITY

(cost-efficient) Disassembly

Identification techn. Separation techn.

Identification techn. Separation techn.

Identification techn. Separation techn. Cleaning techn.

WASTE POLYMER QUALITY

Upgrading technology

F8

Transport, Clean Technologies

Product design

AVOIDABLE PRODUCTION IMPACTS

F9

F 10 Stored energy

F 11 Hazardous substances

F 12 End markets availability

Product Design, Standardisation

Recycling rank

F 13

Removal Treatments technology

RECOVERY POTENTIAL Acceptance of recycled materials

Upgrading technology

Results of the qualitative environmental assessment of polymers

The qualitative assessment has been completed for each of the most common polymers identified in the six waste streams. The assessment averages the actual situation of EOL


Standardisation, Legal constraints

Energy recovery technology

Figure 62. Assessed aspects - environmental impacts correspondence array

6.9.2.


UPSTREAM SOLUTIONS (Waste prevention)

plastic and the expected future one. The score of one polymer in one specific waste

135

stream for some factors (e.g. F8 and F9) may be influenced by the total volume of the waste stream and by its relative weight in it.

The results of the factorial analysis appear in Table 36.

Deducing from the chart, efforts are needed to promote successful collection schemes in order to enhance separate collection of polymers and/or their recovery from bulk collection in the specific waste streams. Most of the waste streams oriented EC Directives have become effective quite recently and results are still barely perceptible, especially in the 2003 Accession Countries, that have particular postponements. There is room for improvement in the waste management systems that can lead to efficient collection of higher volumes of plastic available for recycling or recovery. MSW and C&D waste streams appear as specially improvable, as the domestic bagged waste is the final destination of the highest volumes of plastic waste (in the way of heterogeneous and —frequently— small items) that remain still mostly non-recovered; whilst plastic parts in the —traditionally landfilled— C&D waste are quite homogeneous and voluminous and, hence, potentially interesting for recovery if separated from the rest of the debris materials. But the question of accessibility to plastic parts in C&D waste is often a setback. No EU Directive regulates Agriculture plastic waste at present, but local initiatives are promoting collection and logistics, proving the efficiency of setting up waste management systems in the sector.


136


Table 36. Environmental ranking of polymers in waste streams Waste stream: Packaging Polymer HDPE LDPE PP PET

F1 H H M H

F2 H H M H

F3 H H M H

F4 H M L M

F5 H M M H

F6 H M M H

F7 M M M M

F8 L L M L

F9 M L M L

F10 F11 F12 F13 H H M L H H M M M H L L H H H M

F2 M M M M M

F3 H H H H M

F4 H H M M M

F5 H M H M M

F6 L L L L L

F7 M M M M M

F8 L L L L L

F9 L L L L L

F10 F11 F12 F13 M H L M M H L L M H M L M M L L M M L L

F2 M M H H

F3 H H M M

F4 L L M H

F5 M M M H

F6 L L L L

F7 M M M L

F8 L L L M

F9 L L L M

F10 F11 F12 F13 L L L M L L L M L M L M L L L L

F2 H H H H H H

F3 H H L H H H

F4 H M L M H M

F5 H H L H M H

F6 M L L M L M

F7 M M L M L M

F8 M L M M L L

F9 M L H M L L

F10 F11 F12 F13 L H L L L M L L L M L L L H L L L H L L L H L L

F2 H H H H

F3 M L L L

F4 H M M M

F5 M H H H

F6 L L L L

F7 M M M M

F8 L M L M

F9 L M L M

F10 F11 F12 F13 M M M H L H M M L L L L L L L L

F3 H H

F4 H H

F5 H H

F6 L M

F7 L M

F8 L M

F9 M M

F10 F11 F12 F13 M M L L L M L H

Waste stream: MSW Polymer LDPE HDPE PET PP PS

F1 L L L L L

Waste stream: WEEE Polymer ABS PS PP PU

F1 H H M H

Waste stream: ELV Polymer HDPE PP PVC ABS PU PA

F1 H M L M H H

Waste stream: C&D F1 M L L L

Waste stream: Agriculture Polymer LDPE PVC

F1 H M

F2 H H


Polymer PVC HDPE PS PU

137

Agriculture shows the greatest homogeneity in plastic waste stream with two majority polymers (LDPE and PVC) used in clearly differentiated (monomaterial) applications, whereas polymer specificity occurs to a much lesser extent in the WEEE stream. Fillers and additive contents in polymers (usual in WEEE, ELV and C&D plastics) as well as contamination with other materials, food remains, soil or chemicals can hinder the recovery of waste polymers by making necessary non-cost-effective sorting and cleaning stages and affecting the final quality of the recovered material. WEEE and C&D plastics have higher shares of polymers containing hazardous substances (e.g. flame retardants) that can pose emission problems in the disposal operations and that hamper further recovery. Likewise degradation of polymers throughout the product life (e.g. UV degradation of agricultural film) can limit the EOL options.

The low scores in the factor F 10, that indicates whether the energy content in the waste polymer is being lost, recovered/used or kept stored, reflect the actual situation of nearly no recovery of WEEE, ELV, C&D and Agriculture plastics.

The analysis per waste stream let us conclude that, in spite of being one of the most increasingly consumed polymers in Packaging, E&E and automotive sectors, PP shows still many unresolved issues for their effective recovery in all of them. In many cases it is due to the fact that it shares applications with other polymers that PP is difficult to fast identify and separate from and in others to the fact that PP is used in various grades and combined with other materials in laminates or metallised film structures.


WEEE and CD are the two waste streams in which polymer recovery influencing factors need more improvement. Difficulties arise because of the complexity of mixtures with other polymeric and non-polymeric materials and the presence of hazardous additives. In the case of WEEE the questions dealing with waste polymer availability (collection and separation) are better solved than those of actual recycling/recovery of the reclaimed resins (reprocessing into new products). In that waste stream PU is one of the polymers more easily recoverable currently from collected waste in enough and consistent volumes that has few recycling options and end markets yet. Analogous volumes are difficult to get with other polymers as a result of the high variability in resin grades used in the E&E applications.

138


PVC, the majority polymer by far in C&D waste is the one which holds bigger collection and recycling ratios in that waste stream, resulting from campaigns targeted to specific building applications (flooring, window frames, pipes, roofing...).

Despite the availability of big volumes of waste plastic flows of steady composition in agriculture sector (LDPE films and PVC pipes), the high degree of contamination and degradation of films restricts their recycling options at the moment. Energy recovery (with or without associated feedstock recovery) is an EOL route that appears as a sound alternative to disposal options with no recovery at all (burning, dumping, burying into soil and landfill) —favoured by the dispersion of the (uncontrolled) generation points.

Collection and reclamation of ELV plastics lies on the success of collection and treatment of discarded vehicles at authorised centres. The legal reuse/recovery target of 85% of weight of materials present in vehicles forces the implementation of recycling or energy recovery solutions for dismantled plastic parts or the plastic content in ASR. Large parts of HDPE from tanks, PU from seats and GF reinforced PA and PP from hubcaps, bumpers and car body may be eligible for mechanical recycling if efficiently decontaminated.

Apart from costs, specifications in product design (aesthetics, technical requirements) and legal restrictions set the market outlets for recyclates on the basis of acceptance of high/low percentage of recovered materials in the manufacture of new products and the nature of them (low or high value-added). As a rule there is little demand for recyclates

remarkable exception) and whenever end markets exist they generally mean “down cycling” of polymers into cheaper less demanding applications, usually in packaging and building sectors. Due to PVC industry’s commitment a number of initiatives for the closed-loop recycling of construction and agriculture PVC items (pipes, films, membranes and coverings) are running.

Product design phase is a key aspect in the latter availability of homogeneous and easily


in any of the six waste streams assessed (PET from packaging waste is the most

separable polymers in waste by avoiding as much as possible composite parts of incompatible materials or mixtures of polymers hard to sort. The growing use of

139

thermoplastic polyolefins and avoidance of PVC and the substitution of GF reinforced resins by all-PP composites in the automotive industry exemplify how product design can positively contribute to increasing plastic recycling ratios in the near future. The choice of additives of lower associated environmental impacts and hazardousness also facilitates that polymers are fed in recovery processes (energy or material).


140


7. INVENTORY OF RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIROTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Within this task the existing and emerging plastic recovery technologies have been catalogued, through the completion of technological sheets in which the status, technical performance, potential for development and experiences of usage of each technology are described. Once the most technically promising technologies have been identified, their environmental drawbacks and advantages are assessed following a LCA based approach, which serves to elucidate the technologies with a higher potential for improving environmental impact of plastic waste management.

7.1. POTENTIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

The main alternatives for the management of plastic products at the end of their useful life are reusing (including refurbishment, spare parts for old products/equipments…), mechanical recycling of polymers, feedstock recovery, energy recovery and landfilling. This task focuses on the recycling and recovery options, making a thorough screening of the existing practices and the research and development carried out in those areas.

Patents, relevant scientific literature, conference proceedings, industrial and commercial brochures and databases, as well as information collected from trade exhibitions and contacts with OEMs are being the references used for identifying the plastic recovery technologies (conventional, in development and emerging) —being the definition of technology in this case the application of a systematic technique, method or approach to solve an industrial problem. This broad definition includes not only the processes and

feedstock recovery and energy recovery), but also the pre-treatments and auxiliary technologies (e.g., conditioning, cleaning, identification, sorting and separation) required to efficiently implement those recovery processes.

Therefore, the list of technologies has been arranged according to the following categories:


technologies within the three main routes for plastic recovery (mechanical recycling,

141

•

Mechanical (or physical) recycling. Methods for plastic recycling by reprocessing the material by physical means into plastic end products or into flakes or pellets of consistent quality acceptable to manufacturers. Included within this category are all those methods to recover the inlet polymeric material as such (the process outputs are resins —either one polymer or a mixture of polymers—, but not basic polymer constituents) by re-melting, but also by other advanced technologies that incorporate purification or upgrading steps at extreme pressure and temperature conditions (e.g. PET bottle-to-bottle ultra-clean processes) or using solvents, that remove contaminants and impurities and extract the regenerated resins (e.g. Vinyloop® process) keeping the chemical structure of the polymer unchanged.

Selective dissolution (Vinyloop®, Wietek®…) PET Bottle-to-bottle

MECHANICAL MECHANICALRECYCLING RECYCLING

Polymers

Remelting and pelletisation/remoulding y individual polymers y mixed polymers


Î Flakes & pellets for openopen- & closedclosed-loop recycling into plastic applications Î “Downcycling” Downcycling” into wood/concrete wood/concrete substitution products and WPC Î “Downcycling” Downcycling” of regrind as fillers

Figure 63. Mechanical recycling processes for waste plastic

•

Feedstock (or chemical) recycling. Chemical recycling or feedstock recovery means processes in which a polymeric product is broken down by means of heat, chemical agents and catalysts into its individual components (monomers for plastics or

142


hydrocarbon feedstock —synthesis gas) and that these components could then be fed back as raw material to reproduce the original product or others. Feedstock recovery processes yield a variety of products ranging from the starting monomers to mixtures of compounds, mainly hydrocarbons, with possible applications as a source of chemicals or fuels (the products derived from the plastic decomposition shows properties and quality similar to those of the counterparts prepared by conventional methods).

Gasification Chemical depolymerisation

Starting monomers

Syngas FEEDSTOCK FEEDSTOCKRECYCLING RECYCLING Blast furnace & coke ovens Thermal degradation (Pyrolysis, thermal cracking...)

• • • •

gases oils solid waxes solid residue

• • • •

Catalytic cracking, Hydrogenation & Liquefaction Hydrocarbon oil (chemical feedstock)

Coal

Coke Treatment Treatment Waste plastic

Coke oven

olefinic gases gasoline fractions middle distillates liquid fuels

Blast Furnace

Coke oven gas (power generation)

Reducing agent

• coke • light oil & tar • COG

Feedstock recovery includes chemical depolymerisation (glycolysis, methanolysis, hydrolysis, ammonolysis…); bacterial degradation; gasification and other oxidative methods; thermal degradation (thermal cracking, pyrolysis, steam cracking, thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens, etc.); catalytic cracking and reforming and hydrogenation; use of plastic waste as reducing agent in blast furnaces and others.


Figure 64. Feedstock recovery processes for waste plastic

143

On some occasions several processes are combined (e.g. two-stage processes consisting of pyrolysis followed by gasification).

•

Energy recovery. Plastic waste can be used to generate energy by incineration (generally together with other wastes) or by combustion in RDF dedicated boilers (alone or with coal and fuel), or be used as alternative fuel (e.g. to coal) in several industry processes (cement kilns). The energy content of plastic waste can also be recovered in other thermal and chemical processes (e.g. pyrolysis and gasification).

Power generation by RDF burning

Power generation by Incineration Î Electricity (steam (steam turbines) turbines) Î Electricity (gas turbines) turbines) Î ... ENERGY ENERGYRECOVERY RECOVERY

Alternative fuel in Cement kilns Î Coal substitution

Thermal feedstock recycling processes with Energy Recovery (pyrolisis, gasification, hydrogenation, coke oven…)


144

Î Î Î Î

Pyrolitic flue gas Coke oven gas Syngas ...

Power Generation (Steam turbines, turbines, gas turbines, turbines, gas engines, engines, fuel cells…) cells…)

Figure 65. Energy recovery processes for waste plastics

•

Sorting technologies. This section covers the processes and automated techniques available for identification, sorting and separation of plastic waste by type of polymers, additives, colour or shape, based on different physical-chemical properties. As with mechanical recycling, previous separation and classification of the plastics is required in many feedstock recycling processes. The sorting stage is


therefore crucial in plastic recycling and, for that reason, state-of-the-art of available sorting technologies is also analysed. •

Auxiliary technologies. Pre-treatments other than sorting required to make the inlet waste streams meet the specifications for the recycling or recovery processes, such as size reduction, washing and cleaning, agglomeration, etc.

7.1.1.

Overview of polymer recovery technologies

In order to arrange the extensive data available about technologies and processes related to plastic waste recovery a datasheet template has been developed which offers five different sections (Technological Datasheets) to be completed, one for each main group of technologies: Mechanical Recycling, Feedstock Recovery, Energy Recovery, Sorting Technologies and Auxiliary Technologies.

Through


145

Table 37 to Table 39 the generic technologies per category that have been screened to identify available processes for recovering most common plastic waste are listed.

It is important to remark that the study is focused on the technical advantage of each type of technology, identifying non-conclusive lists of different versions or brands available in the market for each one. The current market situation has been checked, offering in each case several variations of each available technology if differentiated features offer a big advantage for polymer recovery.


146


Table 37. Summary of categories of recovery processes to be assessed in the Technological Datasheets (sections Mechanical Recycling, Feedstock Recycling and Energy Recovery). RECOVERY OPTION

Mechanical recycling

TECHNOLOGY Conventional process Advanced process

Chemical depolymerisation methods

Feedstock recycling

Gasification and other oxidative methods

Thermal decomposition methods

Catalytic methods

Others Use as alternative/secondary fuel Energy production (Mono-combustion) Energy recovery Energy production (Co-combustion) Others

PROCESS Remelting and Pelletisation Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET) Vinyloop Other solvent based physical techniques (i.e: Wietek) Others Hydrolysis Methanolysis Glycolysis Ammonolysis Aminolysis Acidic depolymerisation Alkaline depolymerisation Other chemolysis Combined chemolysis Gasification Partial oxidation Other oxidative methods Pyrolysis Thermal cracking Thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens Catalytic cracking Catalytic hydrogenation Hidrocracking Reducing agent in blast furnace Bacterial degradation Others Cement kilns (coal substitution) Incineration RDF burning dedicated boiler Co-Incineration with other wastes RDF burning multi-fuel boiler (with oil or coal) Others

Table 38. Summary of categories of other auxiliary operations and processes to be assessed in the Technological Datasheets (section Auxiliary Technologies). OPERATION Management operations

TECHNOLOGY Waste logistics

Size reduction

Auxiliary & Conditioning Operations

Washing Cleaning ( mechanical friction and abrasion for cleaning) Aspiration and de-dusting Drying Filtration and melt-filtration Agglomeration and bricketting Others


Material transport and conveying Material feeding

TYPE Collection schemes Storage Distribution Shredding Granulating Grinding (micronization) -

147

Table 39. Summary of categories of identification, sorting and separation processes to be assessed in the Technological Datasheets (section Sorting Technologies). OPERATION

TECHNOLOGY

Density based (dry)

Density based (wet) Size and shaped based technologies Surface properties based technologies Separation and sorting

Chemical behaviour based technologies

Electromagnetic properties based technologies Softening temperature based technologies Automatic sorting based technologies

Others

Automatic identification based technologies: Polymeric matrix recognition

Identification and sorting

Automatic identification based technologies: Element recognition

Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors

TYPE Air classifying Vibrating table Ballistic classification Centrifuging (ie: Result) Fluidised bed classification Sink/float separation (Wilfley concentrating) Shacking table Centrifuging and hydrocycloning Jigging Screening (Froth) Flotation Selective dissolution Plastic swelling Chemical stripping Magnetic separation Eddy current separation Electrostatic separation Temperature fractionation Artificial vision Colour recognition Shape recognition Plasmaoxidation De-lamination Near-critical and super-critical fluids Others MIR Spectroscopy NIRSpectroscopy Raman Spectroscopy Others Laser-Induced Plasma Spectroscopy X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy Sliding Spark Spectroscopy Others NIR& SS Colour recognition & NIR Others

In each section the Technological Datasheets gather in a similar layout qualitative information about the technologies under investigation, covering the aspects shown in


148


Table 40 for the following topics: •

waste stream and polymer for which the technology may be applied,

•

current status of the technology,

•

technical performance data (admissible impurities and other inlet requirements),

•

experiences of use,

•

suitability for solving technical problems,

•

and need for further development.

This preliminary analysis has been the basis for the identification of the most relevant technologies which will then undergo a second thorough analysis necessary for their environmental evaluation (Chapter 7.2.).


149

Table 40. Assessed qualitative aspects in the Technological Sheet (I) Polymer to be treated

Individual or grouped polymers to be selected from the dropdown list options

Waste stream to be treated

One, various or their mixtures to be selected from the following: MSW, Packaging, WEEE, ELV, Agriculture, Construction & demolition Select from:

Status

Emerging (scientific basic research) In development (applied research) Conventional (adopted and/or diffused in industry). Admissible impurities: data about maximum admissible content of non-reclaimed materials (plastics and non-plastics).

Technical performance Inlet requirements: data about pretreatment requirements (inlet needs to be separated, pre-dried, agglomerated, size reduced…) Experiences of usage

Information about existing initiatives and status (Laboratory / Bench scale and demonstration plants / Pilot plant / Industrial practice) The most relevant aspect to be selected from the dropdown list options:

Suitability for solving previously identified technical problems


150

Plastic decontamination (Removal of paints, oils and/or pesticides residues) Fast recognition and identification of plastics […] Delamination of other sandwhich structures (ie: ELV skinned parts) Improved grinding of rubbers and elastomers and/or films Separation of single materials Separation of material families […] Specific treatments for emerging residues: Active packaging, Liquid cristal and plasma displays, data storage media waste, etc Specific treatment for biodegradable polymers Mechanical recycling of complex plastic mixtures Production of upgraded recyclates (close-loop recycling) Feedstock recycling of complex plastics mixtures Energy recovery/Recycling of thermosets Energy recovery/Recycling of reinforced plastics Energy recovery/Recycling of plastics with halogenated flame retardants Energy recovery/Recycling of halogenated plastic waste (ie: PVC) Others None


Table 40. Assessed qualitative aspects in the Technological Sheet (II)

Need for further development of the technology

Low: Existing technology already reached its peak Low: Still no economically feasible way to implement the new technology Low: Long time perspective for further development Low: Technical risks are too high Medium: Further development promises added value for recycling Medium: Technology potentials are not clear by all means Medium: Adoption and diffusions most likely, but maybe difficult High: Further development promises a maximum of added value for recycling High: Technology potentials are not utilised yet High: Adoption or diffusion is most likely High: Time perspective is short High: Little technical risk

In that way, after a comprehensive bibliographic search, the different sections of the Technological Sheet have been filled in. The complete datasheets with the full list of recovery technologies identified is enclosed in ANNEX 2.

Feedstock and mechanical recycling sections have been filled out in a polymer detailed way due to the fact that most of the processes are specific for each type of polymer. According to this, the first parameter to fill in is the polymer to recycle and the waste stream. For example, the chemical depolymerisation is one of the technologies employed only with addition polymers as PET, PU or PA, whereas the thermal decomposition methods or catalytic methods are focused on condensation polymers as

experiences of their usage and their status in order to show the current market impact of those processes.

Advanced mechanical processes (such as Vinyloop®, PET bottle-to-bottle processes, solvent based techniques) have also been identified and transferred to the Technological Datasheet, describing their process requirements and their degree of development.


polyolefins, styrenics and mixtures of them. Other aspects well documented are the

151

In parallel, data about status and technical performance of auxiliary technologies have also been compiled, differentiating the conventional methods widely used and those emerging and aimed at solving technical problems specific to certain plastic products in certain waste streams.

In the case of feedstock recovery, several processes are available in the market that constitute combination of various techniques, such as gasification + combustion, pyrolysis (+ gasification) + combustion, hydrolysis + pyrolysis. In most cases those technologies use on-site (totally or partially) the basic chemicals obtained as fuel gas for their conversion into energy (electricity or district heating), making unclear the limit between feedstock recovery and purely energy recovery processes. For that reason, several flexible processes, that can either export their product oils and syngas for further chemical processing or

Incineration (with energy recovery) of plastic fractions present in MSW or of mixtures of MSW with other plastic rich streams (mainly Packaging, but also C&D waste, Agriculture plastic waste, ASR fluff…) are common practice across the EU. In some cases processes are equipped with halogenated rectifiers to allow for the treatment of higher contents of bromine and chlorine than in standard MSW. Some experiences of use of plastic rich waste streams as secondary fuels (cement kilns, power stations) are also listed in the energy recovery section of the Technological Datasheet in ANNEX 2. As mentioned above, gasification and pyrolysis processes followed by combustion of cracking products towards energy production are included in this section. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

7.2. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

Recycling is an attractive solution for plastic waste management but it is not necessarily always the most favourable way. In some cases waste plastics can be melted and reprocessed for their original use (e.g. as pipes, bottles, etc.) and this has significant benefits. But in other cases, the plastics collected are mixed or contaminated and if reprocessed can only be used in non-technical applications. They then replace other less polluting materials such as wood or concrete. As the production of virgin plastics is not

152


avoided in these cases, the environmental advantages of such recycling are limited. Other alternative recovery options, such as the depolymerisation of plastics to their precursors or the conversion to synthesis gas, are intensive processes that require consumption of resources and energy and should be carefully assessed to elucidate if the potential benefits resulting from waste minimisation and recovery are such. This can be investigated by carrying out a LCA-based evaluation of various polymer recovery options.

The LCA based description of the environmental drawbacks and advantages of the recovery technologies requires collection of detailed quantitative data for each of the processes to be analysed. Given the large number of recovery processes identify in ANNEX 2 and in order to save project resources, the list of processes to be analysed have been narrowed down somehow. The criteria followed for short listing recovery methods have been: •

To try to identify processes capable of treating any of the most common polymers in each waste stream (as determined in chapter 6), either specifically or within complex mixtures in a way that, as far as possible, each polymer of each waste stream is given more than one recovery alternatives.

•

To try to have selected, if possible, at least one representative process of each generic technology.

•

When variations of a generic technology have been determined, they will be clustered and treated in an aggregated way for environmental assessment purposes. Attention has been put to recognise processes within each category with unique potential for recovering problematic polymer applications (as identified in chapter 6.9).

•

Priority has been given to proven recovery technologies (technical and economic feasibility) running at industrial scale plants over abandoned processes and occasional pilot trials, and to the latter over processes at laboratory stage.

For instance, in the case of chemical depolymerisation methods the most relevant for


•

the most common polymers identified in the collectable waste streams arisings will be

153

selected. That is the case of the glycolysis of PET. In the case of pyrolysis, for example, two processes (Takuma and Thermalysis) are to be included in the analysis, as they represent variations in the technology and offer recovery options to different waste streams.

To sum up, a first approach allows reducing the list in ANNEX 2 to the representative processes of the following generic families of recovery technologies: •

Conventional mechanical recycling of polymers

•

Advanced mechanical recycling of polymers (including PET bottle-to-bottle, Vinyloop and other selective dissolution processes)

•

Feedstock recycling to monomers and polymer precursors (chemolysis)

•

Feedstock recycling to basic chemicals with energy recovery (novel thermal methods such as pyrolysis and gasification and use in blast furnaces), combined or not with catalytic cracking

•

Energy recovery by co-incineration (plastic waste as fuel —e.g. in cement kilns)

•

Disposal/Treatment with energy recovery (incineration —dedicated or shared with other wastes— with energy recovery)

Attention has been given to processes designed to treat PVC-rich waste streams, and representative technologies have been included in the proposed list.


154


Table 41. List of Technologies (emerging, in development, industrial practice) preliminary considered for further analysis ID Number Technology

2

Advanced process.

3

Advanced process

6

Conventional process

3

Chemical depolymerisation

29 14 15

Process

Waste stream

Ultra-clean regranulation Bottleto-bottle (PET): Pack. Erema, Bühler AG, Cleanaway PET Pack., ELV, WEEE, Vinyloop C&D Remelting & Pelletization

Pack., C&D, Agric.

Glycolysis: Eastman Packaging Other chemolysis: Nikkiso twoChemical depolymer. stage PVC supercritical conversion MSW, Pack., Agric., Gasification and other Gasification: SVZ WEEE, ELV,C&D oxidative MSW, Pack. & ELV Gasification & other oxidative Gasification: Thermoselect (ASR)

17

Thermal decomp.

Pyrolysis: Thermalysis

18

Thermal decomp.

Pyrolysis: Takuma

19

Thermal decomposition

20

Thermal decomposition

30

Thermal decomp.

21

Catalytic methods

23

Others

25

Others

1

Alternative/secondary fuel

6

Energy production (Cocombustion)

Thermal cracking: Innovene (former BP) pilot plant Thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens - under development: Nippon Steel Other oxidative methods: Ebara-TwinRec Catalytic cracking: Kurata Process

PET

PVC

MECHANICAL RECYCLING

PE, PP, PET, PVC PET PVC Mix Mix

Pack. and agricultural PE, PP, PS WEEE, ELV, C&D, Pack. WEEE, ELV, C&D, Pack.

Mix Mix

WEEE, ELV, C&D, Pack

Mix

ELV (ASR)

Mix

WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging

Mix

Reducing agent in blast furnace: KOBELCO, JFE Steel Combined hydrolisis-pyrolisis RGS-90 process Cement kilns (coal substitution): Retznei cement plant (AT) Co-Incineration with other wastes: Incineration plants (with HCl rectification), e.g. MVR Hamburg

Polymer

FEEDSTOCK RECOVERY (*)

Mix

all types of PVC (C&D) PVC Agric., Pack., ELV, WEEE MSW,MSW+C&D, MSW + ELV (fluff ASR),MSW+Pack

Mix ENERGY RECOVERY Mix

(*) Feedstock recovery #22 (Catalytic hydrogenation (Hydrocracking) for MPW represented by Veba Combi Cracking process at KAB (Germany)) will no longer be included in the analysis as the industrial practice closed down

technologies, a series of charts of status vs development needs have been drawn, with the aim of better establishing the relative status of each technology over the others in the same type of recovery process branch. In the charts the pre-selected individual technologies to be LCA-based assessed appear highlighted. A table above each chart lists the technologies considered in each case (as described in every section of ANNEX 2).


As a preliminary step to assess the environmental performance of the identified

155

7.2.1.

Overview of technology charts

7.2.1.1.

MECHANICAL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES – CHART

Nº

TECHNOLOGY

PROCESS

1

Advanced process

2

Advanced process

3

Advanced process

Vinyloop

4 5

Advanced process Advanced process

Vinyloop Others

6


Remelting and Pelletisation

7 8

Conventional process Conventional process

9

Advanced process

Remelting and Pelletisation Remelting and Pelletisation Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET)

10

Advanced process

11

Advanced process

12 13 14 15

Conventional process Conventional process Conventional process Conventional process

Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET) Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET)

Other solvent based physical techniques (i.e: Wietek) Other solvent based physical techniques (i.e: Wietek) Remelting and Pelletisation Remelting and Pelletisation Remelting and Pelletisation Remelting and Pelletisation

WASTE STREAM

POLYMER

Packaging

PET

Packaging

PET

Packaging, ELV, WEEE, C&D C&D, MSW ELV Packaging, C&D, Agriculture C&D (roofs) C&D (flooring)


DEVELOPMENT STAGE

PVC HDPE PE, PP, PET, PVC PVC PVC

Packaging

PET

Packaging, WEEE, C&D, ELV

PS (EPS, XPS), ABS/PC and PVB

ELV

PVC, ABS

C&D, MSW C&D (flooring) C&D (frames) MSW

PVC PVC PVC Mixtures

5

Emerging

In development

Conventional

PVC

4

12 15 6 7 8

Low

13

10

11

1 9 2

14 3

Medium

High

NEED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

Figure 66. Chart of status vs development needs for mechanical technologies.

156

Nº 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

15 16 17


7.2.1.2.

FEEDSTOCK RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES- CHART TECHNOLOGY Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Others Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Chemical depolymerisation methods


Gasification and other oxidative methods Gasification and other oxidative methods Thermal decomposition methods

PROCESS

WASTE STREAM

POLYMER

Others

Packaging

PET

Methanolysis

Packaging

PET

Glycolysis

Packaging

PET

Hydrolysis

ELV

PA 6

ELV

PA 6

ELV

PA 6

Aminolysis

ELV

PA 6

Bacterial degradation Acidic depolymerisation Alkaline depolymerisation

ELV

PA 6

ELV

PA 6,6

ELV

PA 6,6

ELV

PA 6,6

Acidic depolymerisation Alkaline depolymerisation

Aminolysis

(Pyrolysis +) Gasification

ELV, C&D, WEEE ELV, C&D, WEEE MSW, Packaging, Agriculture, WEEE ELV (ASR), C&D MSW, Packaging & ELV (ASR)

Gasification

MSW, Packaging

Hydrolysis Glycolysis

Gasification

Pyrolysis


Pyrolysis

19


Thermal cracking

20


Thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens

21

Catalytic methods

Catalytic cracking

22

Catalytic methods

23

Others

Catalytic hydrogenation (Hydrocracking) Reducing agent in blast furnace

-

PU

Mixtures (MPW)

Mixtures (MPW) HDPE, LDPE PE, PP and PS Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW)


18

Packaging and agricultural WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging

PU

Mixtures (MPW)

157

Nº

TECHNOLOGY

PROCESS

WASTE STREAM

POLYMER

24

Others

Reducing agent in blast furnace

MSW

Mixtures (MPW)

25

Others

Others

all types of PVC waste (C&D)

PVC

Gasification

-

PVC

Pyrolysis

WEEE, C&D.

PVC

Gasification

C&D, WEEE, Packaging and their mixture

PVC

Other chemolysis

-

PVC

Gasification

ELV (ASR)

Mixtures (MPW)

26 27 28 29 30

Gasification and other oxidative methods Thermal decomposition methods Gasification and other oxidative methods Chemical depolymerisation methods Gasification and other oxidative methods (TwinRec) - Thermal decomposition methods (UBE)

31

Catalytic methods

Catalytic coliquefaction

-

32


Pyrolysis

MSW, ELV (ASR)

DEVELOPMENT STAGE

Emerging


158

In development

7 4 8 11 21

1 12 26 13

32 27 28

31

29

25 17 6 20

2

19

Low

30

23 24

10 22 5 15 16 9 14

3

18 Conventional

Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW)

Medium

High


Figure 67. Chart of status vs development needs for feedstock recycling technologies.

ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES- CHART TECHNOLOGY Use as alternative/secondary fuel Energy production (Monocombustion) Energy production (Monocombustion) Energy production (Monocombustion)

PROCESS Cement kilns (coal substitution)

WASTE STREAM Agriculture, Packaging, ELV, WEEE

Incineration

MSW

5


Co-Incineration with other wastes

6



7


8

Others

9

Others

RDF burning multifuel boiler Others: gasification + combustion Others: pyrolysis + combustion

1 2 3 4

RDF burning dedicated boiler Mono Incineration

MSW MSW MSW+C&D (flooring, roofing, cables…)+ Agriculture MSW, MSW+C&D, MSW + ELV (fluff ASR),MSW+Packaging

POLYMER Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW), PVC incl. Mixtures (MPW)

MSW, Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

MSW, Packaging, ELV

Mixtures (MPW)

MSW, Packaging,ELV

Mixtures (MPW)

Emerging

DEVELOPMENT STAGE

Nº


7.2.1.3.

7

5

Conventional

4

6

2

3

1 9

Low

Medium

8

High


Figure 68. Chart of status vs development needs for energy recovery technologies.


In development

159

7.2.1.4.

TECHNOLOGY

PROCESS

WASTE STREAM

POLYMER

1

IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Polymeric matrix recognition

MIR Spectroscopy

MSW, Packaging, Agriculture

Any (all types of plastics)

2


MIR Spectroscopy

WEEE,ELV,C&D (Streams that contain black plastics)


3


NIR Spectroscopy



4


NIR Spectroscopy

WEEE,ELV,C&D (Streams that contain black plastics)


5


Raman Spectroscopy



6


Raman Spectroscopy

Nº

7

8

9 10


160

IDENTIFICATION & SORTING TECHNOLOGIES- CHART

IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Element recognition IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Element recognition IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Element recognition IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors

Laser Induced Plasma Spectroscopy X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy Sliding Spark Spectroscopy NIR & SS

WEEE,ELV,C&D (Streams that contain black plastics) MSW, Packaging, Agriculture, WEEE, ELV, C&D MSW, Packaging, Agriculture, WEEE, ELV, C&D MSW, Packaging, Agriculture, WEEE, ELV, C&D MSW, Packaging, Agriculture WEEE, ELV, C&D (Streams that contain black plastics)

Any (all types of plastics) Any (all types of plastics) Any (all types of plastics) Any (all types of plastics) Any (all types of plastics)

11

IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors

NIR & SS


12


Colour recognition & NIR



13


Colour recognition & NIR

WEEE, ELV, C&D (Streams that contain black plastics)


DEVELOPMENT STAGE

In development

Conventional


6 13

Emerging

2 11

4

12 8 3 7

1

9

5

10

Low

Medium

High


Figure 69. Chart of status vs development needs for sorting technologies.

7.2.1.5.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES – CHARTS

The analysis is completed with the drawing of an overall chart for the representation of all the selected technologies. Only recycling and recovery technologies are represented in the overall chart. Auxiliary and sorting technologies have been left out of the comparison as they may be part of the previous stages of processes in any of the three main types of recovery routes. TECHNOLOGY

PROCESS

WASTE STREAM

POLYME R

2

Advanced process

Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle

Packaging

PET

3

Advanced process

Vinyloop

6


Remelting and Pelletisation

Packaging, ELV, WEEE, C&D Packaging, C&D, Agriculture

3

Chemical depolymerisation methods

Glycolysis

Packaging

14


Gasification

15


Pyrolysis + Gasification

MSW, Packaging, Agriculture, WEEE ELV (ASR), C&D MSW, Packaging & ELV (ASR)

PVC PE, PP, PET, PVC PET Mixtures (MPW)


Nº

Mixtures (MPW)

161

17

Packaging and agricultural WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

PE, PP and PS Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW) Mixtures (MPW)

Thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens

WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

Catalytic cracking


Mixtures (MPW)


Mixtures (MPW)

-

Mixtures (MPW)

Others

all types of PVC waste (C&D)

PVC

Other chemolysis

-

PVC

Gasification

ELV (ASR)

Mixtures (MPW)


Pyrolysis


Pyrolysis

18


Pyrolysis

19


Thermal cracking

20


21

Catalytic methods

22

Catalytic methods

23

Others

25

Others

18

29 30

Catalytic hydrogenation (Hydrocracking) Reducing agent in blast furnace

Chemical depolymerisation methods Gasification and other oxidative methods

1

Use as alternative/secondary fuel

Cement kilns (coal substitution)

6



Agriculture, Packaging, ELV, WEEE MSW,MSW+C&D; MSW + ELV (fluff ASR);MSW+Packagi ng

FEEDSTOCK RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

29

21


DEVELOPMENT STAGE

Mixtures (MPW)

MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGIES

Emerging

23

20

3 2

6

18 6

Low

30

17

25

In development

Conventional

Mixtures (MPW)

3 22 15 14 1

Medium

High


Figure 70. Chart of status vs development needs for all the technologies to be assessed.

162


The chart depicts the current higher degree of industrial development of mechanical recycling processes in comparison to feedstock and energy recovery routes for plastic waste. Conventional mechanical recycling comprises a set of solutions commercially available for certain polymers and mixtures of polymers from low contaminated homogeneous waste streams. Advanced mechanical processes, although also available on industrial scale, have still room for further development, either for widening the range of polymer applicability or for growing commercial expansion.

Suitability of most feedstock and energy recovery processes as recovery routes for waste polymers, builds on pilot and industrial trials that have proved their technical feasibility but showed economic difficulties in the scaling-up. Emerging feedstock recovery technologies offer promising solutions to, e.g., halogenated and reinforced plastic waste or added-value recycling options to specific polymers. Some of those feedstock and energy recovery technologies appear as potential recovery solutions for complex waste streams otherwise disposed of, provided that non-technical barriers are overcome.

7.2.2.

Methodology for the environmental evaluation

Aiming at the completion of the LCA-based environmental evaluation of the preliminary selected technologies, general material and energy balances must be performed for all the analysed processes.

The evaluation considers only plastic waste streams previously separated from other

those previous separation processes remaining contaminants (trace metals, soil, and pesticides) are still left, which have been accounted for.

It must also be taken into account that most processes are designed specifically for waste treatment, but others are not. The use of plastics as reducing agents in Blast Furnaces or as alternative fuels in Cement Kilns poses an additional problem for a


materials (e.g. plastic materials leaving the EOL treatment installations). However, after

comparative evaluation. Those processes are usually being carried out driven by a demand of pig iron/cement, using other materials like fuel or coal. For that reason,

163

many of the consumptions and emissions can not be assigned to the treatment of plastic waste, but are associated to the process itself (e.g. combustion of conventional fuel, calcinations of raw material for the production of cement…). In this case only the impact differences derived from the use of plastic waste in that process will be considered. For example, since the amount of slag in the blast furnace is not proven to be affected by the use of plastic as reducing agent, the amount of waste generated by the introduction of plastics in blast furnaces is considered to be 0 (zero).

In order to maximise the comparability among the different processes, the numerical indicators have been calculated for the treatment of a common waste flow: 1 tonne of non halogenated average commodity thermoplastic, with around 10% of other inert material and without presence of metals.

The environmental evaluation has been focused on analysis of the following aspects:

(1) LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS: Two main impacts have been considered: − Emissions that contribute to the Global Warming Potential, expressed in CO2

equivalents. − Cumulative Energy Demand, or the total need of energy consumed within the

process studied.


164

In both cases the analysis considers the impact from a life cycle point of view, and therefore includes both, the impacts associated to the production of all materials and fuels used within the project, and the impacts avoided when energy/materials are generated by the waste management process evaluated, since the production of those energy/materials by conventional means is being avoided. The impacts that are being avoided have negative sign in the evaluation results.


(2) OTHER SPECIFIC IMPACTS: − Final waste reduction: an approximation to the wastes generated in the processes

assessed has been performed, in order to measure the total waste reduction. However, since the data available is often related to the treatment of different waste streams, the reliability of these results can only be considered as an approach. − Other materials recovered: the potential that the methodologies offers for

recovering other valuable materials have also been evaluated, due to their potential presence in certain waste streams (e.g. metals in WEEE and ELV). − On-site air emissions: although CO2 emissions have also been assessed in the

contribution to Global Warming Potential from a life cycle point of view, other relevant emission have also been considered in an approximated way, due to the limited information available.

7.2.2.1.

DATA GATHERING

The LCA-based environmental evaluation of polymer recovery technologies requires collection of detailed quantitative data for each of the processes to be analysed (material and energy inputs and outputs). To this end, inventory forms have been completed as fully as possible for each technology assessed.

For the purposes of gathering reliable data for the environmental evaluation, different contacts have been made with OEM and technology suppliers within the project, as JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

summarised in the following table:

165

Table 42. Contacts for data gathering on polymer recovery technologies OEM & supplier contacted

Recovery Technology

Solvay

Vinyloop

Erema

Vacurema (PET bottle to bottle)

Bühler AG

PET bottle to bottle

Cleanaway PET International GmbH

URRC PET bottle to bottle

RGS 90 (Råstof og Genanvendelses Selskabet af 1990 A/S)

PVC hydrolysis + pyrolysis

Takuma Technology

ASR Pyrolysis

SVZ

Gasification

Thermoselect

Gasification

Ebara

UBE & TwinRec processes

KOBELCO (Kakogawa plant)– Kobe Steel

Blast furnaces

JFE Steel

Blast furnaces

Nippon Steel

Coke oven

Eastman Chemical

Glycolysis

POLSCO project & BP Chemicals

Polymer Cracking process

NEDO Japan

Coke oven

IDOM

Thermalysis

Only Bühler AG and IDOM have provided specific information for their processes (full inventory form), while other companies like EBARA have made generic publications available. Own aggregated process data about conventional mechanical recycling, incineration and cement kilns are available from field expertise. Whenever possible, bibliographic information has been used to cover data gaps.


166

Considering the relevance of the study of the processes for the purpose of the project and the data availability (the lack of information provided by technological developers has limited the LCA application to some technologies), the following technologies have been ultimately assessed in the present report: •

Conventional mechanical recycling

•

Bottle to bottle mechanical recycling

•

Thermoselect

•

Twinrec

SVZ

•

Thermalysis

•

Blast furnace

•

Cement kiln

•

Waste incineration with energy recovery


•

The following sections summarise the most relevant aspects assessed and the results of that evaluation. More complete information has been included in ANNEX 3. Some data have been kept confidential on suppliers’ demand.

7.2.3.

Review of main environmental aspects of polymer recovery technologies

7.2.3.1.

MECHANICAL RECYCLING

7.2.3.1.1 CONVENTIONAL MECHANICAL RECYCLING Nº 6

TECHNOLOGY

PROCESS

WASTE STREAM

POLYME R

Conventional mechanical

Remelting and

Packaging, C&D,

PE, PP,

recycling process

Pelletisation

Agriculture

PET, PVC

The process may present large variations depending on aspects like waste streams treated or separation needs. For the purpose of this study, an average process for recycling commodity thermoplastics has been considered (e.g. packaging wastes),

•

Grinding and Washing: material is grinded to flakes. Paper labels are reduced to fibres and are removed with other contaminants with the washing water.

•

Sink-float separation: Subsequently material enters a Float-Sink tank, where other materials (e.g. labels, taps…) are removed.

•

Post-cleaning and Drying: The flakes at the bottom of the tank washed and dried in a centrifuge. From the centrifuge the flakes, by means of a pneumatic transport


consisting on the following main steps:

system, are transported to the mixing silo.

167

•

The flakes obtained are sent to the extruder.

Figure 71. Main steps in the conventional mechanical recycling plant for plastic packaging

A. Recovered material:

The material recovered depends on the purity of the waste treated. For the purpose of this comparative assessment a waste stream with 10% external material has been considered, assuming a recovery rate of 90%.

As stated previously, the Life Cycle based evaluation methodology proposed requires the quantification of the material substituted by the output of the recycling process, since obtaining the recycled material is expected to avoid its production by conventional JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

168

means. However, conventional recycling processes do not usually allow recovering materials with equal characteristics to the original ones, and therefore, a 1:1 substitution is not possible.

The substitution factor has been estimated establishing and equivalence between quality of the material recovered and its economic value. Materials recovered in the existing conventional mechanical recycling of average commodity thermoplastics (e.g. from container wastes) varies among 0.5-0.75.


Since most processes are oriented to recovery of specific polymers, starting in from presorted bales, remaining materials (e.g. minority polymers like caps and tabs, metal or paper rests) are usually landfilled or, in best cases, energetically valorised.

B. Energy balance:

The process usually has low energy consumption, and in rather pure fractions (like the proposed for this evaluation), high percentage of the energy in the waste is recovered for new applications.

50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000 Energy in waste

Procees energy

Energy in recovered material

Figure 72. Energy balance of conventional mechanical recycling (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values

C. Wastewater and air emissions:

emissions. However, in certain waste streams like WEEE, the emission of halogenated flame retardants should be regarded.

The cleaning processes and the sink-float separation produce wastewater emissions with soda and other contaminants withdrawn from the waste. However, most recycling plants have water recirculation systems.


Air emissions are very low. Dust and a limited amount of VOCs are the most usual

169

D. Waste reduction in the end of life process:

As stated before, the final recovered material and waste fraction depends on the quality of the material treated. For the plastic stream considered in the assessment, a 85% waste reduction can be established.

7.2.3.1.2 ADVANCED MECHANICAL RECYCLING: BUHLER BOTTLE TO BOTTLE (PET)

Nº 2

TECHNOLOGY Advanced process

PROCESS Bottle-to-bottle

WASTE STREAM Packaging

POLYME R PET

Bühler AG has developed a technology for up-grading post-consumer PET bottle flakes into new pellets suitable for direct food contact. The main process steps are the decontamination and the solid-state polycondensation.


Figure 73. Main steps in the Buhler PET bottle-to-bottle process

In the Ring Extruder the material is initially degassed in the solid-state without predrying, followed by melting and a second degassing in the melt-phase. Thereby organic

170


components such as soft-drink aromas or migrated / diffused solvents, which may result from misuse of PET bottles, are removed. A continuous melt filter removes undesirable solid particles without destabilizing the process in operation.

In comparison with twin-screw extruders, the Bühler RingExtruder distinguishes itself through a substantially higher specific surface area building rate and a better surface area-to-volume ratio. This in turn brings a higher degassing efficiency, a significantly higher throughput capacities and shorter residence times. While the higher throughput capacity translates into reduced production costs, the degradation reactions can be minimized due to shorter residence time, which in turn improves the product quality and brings down costs of the downstream polycondensation.

Directly after the granulation the material undergoes a continuous crystallization and through the solid-state polycondensation it is upgraded in a matter of hours to the viscosity level of the standard bottle pellets. In the process, any residual contaminants and by-products are removed.

The final viscosity is set specifically for the particular targeted market. The continuous polycondensation technology is based on the state-of-the-art, which is used by Bühler also for the production of virgin feedstock, and is optimized for the variable viscosity increase and the lower capacity range.


[114]

. For the mix proposed in this evaluation 900 kg/t of waste PET has been estimated.

In this case, since the material obtained guarantees the highest quality, being able to substitute the original product, a substitution factor of 1 has been considered.

No other material recovery is considered, since the process is oriented towards very clean and specific waste stream.


In average conditions, the company reports around 964 kg/tonne of waste PET flakes

171

B. Energy balance:

The evaluation has considered the pre-treatment necessary for obtaining the clean and washed PET flakes that are fed to the process. In general the energy consumption is rather low.

50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000 Process energy

Energy in waste

PET bottle grade

Figure 74. Energy balance in the Bottle-to-bottle recycling process (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values

C. Wastewater and air emissions:

The process has associated very limited air emissions, mainly consisting on nitrogen and vapour, with small amounts of dust and VOC.

Important wastewater emissions with organic material are also generated. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

172

D. Waste reduction in the end of life process:

There is a waste reduction around 90 %, being most of the remaining waste inert.


7.2.3.2.

FEEDSTOCK RECOVERY AND ENERGY RECOVERY

7.2.3.2.1 THERMOSELECT

Nº

TECHNOLOGY

PROCESS

WASTE STREAM

POLYME R

15


Other oxidative methods: Pyrolysis + Gasification

MSW, Packaging & ELV (ASR)

Mixtures (MPW)

The Thermoselect process is a new integrated high-temperature technology, which combines pyrolysis and gasification with oxygen. Compressed waste enters a gasification reactor (reductive zone, 600 ºC). In a subsequent step, pure oxygen is added so that organic compounds are oxidized to CO and CO2 (temperatures reach up to 2000ºC in the gas phase). The inorganic compounds melt and flow into a homogenization reactor, where pure oxygen is added and which a gas-oxygen burner heats. The internally produced synthetic gas can be used for the heating of the pyrolysis canal and for electricity production. Some of the advantages of this technology are the production of recyclable products and the vitrification of slag (reusable “mineral output”) with a high quality. Unlike other thermal processes, there are no ashes, slag or filter dusts [115].

The process is being used for processing MSW, although different trials with ASR have been carried out with very positive results.

electricity production (Fondotoce and Karlsruhe). However, produced synthetic gas could be used for different applications theoretically.


European installations for the Thermoselect process have been oriented towards

173

Figure 75. Flow chart of Thermoselect process (Source: Thermoselect[116] and Ademe[117])


174



Main output of the process: Electricity to grid, between 12368-8920 MJ / tonne of waste commodity plastic

This process enables the recovery of other materials for further applications, but not all of them are derived from the treatment of the polymers considered, since the presence of metals or sulphur in this waste flow is negligible. These materials are detailed in the following table: Table 43. By-products recovered in Thermoselect process Output

Application

Mineral granulate

Concrete additive, sandblasting, road construction...

Salt

Chemical industry

Sulphur

Chemical industry

Metal concentrate 96% (FeCu)

Copper mills

Zinc concentrate

Zinc recovery

B. Energy balance:

The following graph represents the energy balance.

35000 30000 25000 20000 10000 5000 0 -5000 -10000 Energy in waste

Energy in the process

Energy recovered

Figure 76. Energy balance in the Thermoselect (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values


15000

175

C. Wastewater and air emissions: Table 44. Air emissions reported for the Thermoselect process Atmospheric Emissions Substances NOx

mg/m3

SO2

3

mg/m

Dust

mg/m3 3

14

3.5

1.305

0.2

0.31

0.403

2.1

3.040

0.0072

Total C

mg/m3

0.82

3

mg/m

HCl

mg/m3

Karlsruhe MSW[115] 44.960

mg/m

CO

Karlsruhe ASR test[119] 52.3

Dioxins/Furans

50 wt% by 31.12.2006 (d)

-

-

GR, IE, CY, MT, PL, CZ, HU, EE, LT, LV, SK: 31.12.2008

Gas discharge lamps:

>80 wt% by 31.12.2006 (d) -

Targets to be met by producers in each Member State (a) (b) (c)

Recovered or incinerated with energy recovery. Recovery includes recycling counting exclusively material that is recycled back into plastics

“Recovery’ means any of the applicable operations provided for in Annex IIB to WFD (2006/12/EC) (d) component, material and substance reuse and recycling. “Recycling” means the reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials for the original purpose or for other purposes, but excluding energy recovery which means the use of combustible waste as a means of generating energy through direct incineration with or without other waste but with recovery of the heat;


Plastic

SI: 31.12.2007

233


234


Table 66. Recovery and recycling targets set by EU Directives (II) Recovery target

Recycling target

Postponements

average vehicle 75 wt% by 01.01.2006(e)

>70 wt% by 01.01.2006(e)

-

average vehicle

>85 wt% by 01.01.2006(e)

>80 wt% by 01.01.2006(e)

-

>95 wt% by 01.01.2015(e)

>85 wt% by 01.01.2015(e)

-

-

-

-

ELV

Waste stream

plastic

Targets to be met by economic operators in each Member State (e)

recovery target includes reuse and recovery; recycling target includes reuse and recycling. Definitions of recycling and recovery as in WEEE Directive.

In the case of Packaging, the recycling target of 22.5% by weight of plastics recycled into plastic products seems attainable by mechanical recycling of HDPE and PET bottles and PE film, although market questions can make more advanced methods capable of rendering higher added value recyclates preferable. The expected growing use of PP, PS and higher complexity of PET stream (PET barrier) can also make necessary in the future the search for more advanced mechanical recycling methods or leave an open door to recycling by chemolysis.

In the case of complex streams like WEEE and ELV, where the recovery and recycling targets cover the whole equipment weight, the recovery of other materials such as metals and glass may need to be supplemented by plastic recovery to fulfill de objectives, especially considering that plastic content in those waste streams is on the

those types of plastic streams and more flexible recovery methods (feedstock and energy recovery) may be better solutions to divert plastic waste from landfill. For example, meeting the 2015 reuse and recycling target of 85% set in the ELV Directive would require as much as 50% of the non metallic rest fraction to find profitable new markets as recycled products or to be reused as spare parts (assuming 75% by weight of ELV are metals and accepting that 5 wt% of ELV can be disposed of in landfills, then 20% of the ELV is the non metallic rest waste fraction —around the half of it are


increase. Mechanical recycling is an option economically and technically limited for

plastics). The negative costs associated to mechanical recycling of ELV plastic parts coupled with pre-shredding disassembly and sorting stages and the lack of markets for

235

the recyclates may explain a shifting trend to post-shredding recovery technologies (whether of materials or of energy) in helping to achieve the ELV Directive’s targets.

The actions towards increasing the recovery of other plastic waste streams not specifically regulated by EU Directives (e.g. C&D and agricultural plastic waste) are supported by economic private initiatives and the European strategies on prevention and recycling of waste and on sustainable use of resources.

As stated in the Directive 2006/12/EC on Waste (WFD), it is important for the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal and desirable for Member States individually to aim at such self-sufficiency, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste. Movements of waste should be reduced and Member States may take the necessary measures to that end in their management plans. Recovery needs arise from the Directive 1999/31/EC on landfill of waste and from the inclusion of certain plastic waste streams in landfill prohibited lists by more stringent national regulations.

Putting aside market drivers, the selection of the polymer recovery routes for complying with the Community pressure on increasing recovery rates is clearly determined by local industrial regulations and environmental policies, as well as the local waste management plans approved and the existing disposal and treatment structure.

There are huge differences among national polymer waste (and waste in general) JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

treatment systems within the EU-25. Several Member States (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria) have been applying during last years landfill diversion policies (landfill ban in Denmark runs from 1997), instrumented by restrictions on landfill and taxations to equalise landfill and incineration and divert waste to WTE processes (incineration and co-incineration)[158]. Those countries have a highly developed infrastructure of WTE plants (especially MSWIs with energy recovery as electricity and district heating) and host most of the pilot and commercial installations of novel processes for feedstock and energy recovery of polymers. There is a second group of countries (Italy, France, Spain and Portugal) where combustion is starting but there is still a lot of waste landfilling. The ten 2003 Accession Countries are

236


taking measures to keep up with the Community regulations, but they still suffer the consequences of deficient past waste management plans, dominated by landfilling (or dumping) and lacking recovery targets for materials: e.g., by 1999, within the CEE countries, there were only 7 large municipal incinerators (capacity over 3 tonnes/hour) in operation in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovak Republic and 3 smaller ones in Poland, whereas ca. 5000 landfills existed for municipal waste and 200 for hazardous waste in that region[159].Efforts focus now on reversing the ratio between landfilling and incineration, establishing collection schemes and promoting recycling initiatives.

In most European countries, there are currently plans to build new plants and increase incineration capacity. There is a risk that high installed capacities deterred regions from recycling and recovery waste and even worse that waste from distanced areas is transported to the large MSWI. However, due to the EU Directive 2000/76/EC on waste incineration, a number of old small plants are to close down, as they cannot meet the emission limit values at a reasonable cost[160]. In CEE countries there are incinerators running recently but with outdated technology, that emit large amounts of dioxins and that would need high investments to be upgraded to the Directive requirements.

Those circumstances can give a chance to the development of alternative large capacity feedstock recovery technologies or the consolidation of a polymer recycling network. But there are additional Community legislation and industrial regulations that affect the potential polymer recovery processes to be installed in a region, as explained in the

8.3.6.2.

REGULATIONS ON INCINERATION OF WASTE AND GHG EMISSIONS

The so-called novel thermal processes for waste plastic recovery fall under the definitions of incineration and co-incineration plants according to the 2000/76/EC Directive on Incineration of Waste: ‘incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or


following section.

without recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by

237

oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes in so far as the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated. [...] ‘Co-incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile plant whose main purpose is the generation of energy or production of material products and: − which uses wastes as a regular or additional fuel; or − in which waste is thermally treated for the purpose of disposal. If co-incineration takes place in such a way that the main purpose of the plant is not the generation of energy or production of material products but rather the thermal treatment of waste, the plant shall be regarded as an incineration plant [...].

There are some possible exceptions among the polymer recovery thermal options analysed in the present document: •

those processes that generate a clean syngas that it is not subsequently incinerated but it is used for the synthesis of chemicals (e.g. SVZ);

•

the Thermalysis process (liquefaction/pyrolysis + catalitic cracking) that renders a diesel engine grade fuel;

•

plastic waste as reducing agent in blast furnaces, if the plastic waste is used as a raw material replacing pulverised coal or coke as ingredient in the steel making, while a very small portion is used as fuel in the blast furnace.

The rest of the investigated commercial processes are clearly affected by the JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

238

Incineration Directive permit requirements and emission value limits. This is the case of the combined pyrolysis-combustion processes aimed basically at MSW (Pyropleq, Mitsui R21, Compact Power), the use of plastic waste as secondary fuel in cement kilns, RDF burning in multifuel boilers (co-combustion with coal or oil at power stations) and the combustion of MPW from different sources in controlled proportions in MSWIs. As for the gasification alternatives, the SVZ process seems to be the only example of synthesis of methanol from gasification of waste; TwinRec gasification process is designed for the direct generation of electricity and steam and the two commercial size


Thermoselect plants (Chiba and Karlsruhe) produce a clean syngas that is used actually as fuel for onsite power generation.

It is envisaged that all of the conventional and novel thermal processes will be able to comply with the limit values for the emissions to air set by the Incineration Directive (applied to all new and existing plants by 28 December 2005), if fitted with the necessary flue gas cleaning equipment. Almost every country has its own legislation concerning emissions from MSW incineration. However, all member countries of the European Union have to comply with the same EU Directives as a minimum.

As specified in Annex II of the Incineration Directive, the emission limit values for co-incineration are calculated using the mixing rules except for cement and combustion plants which have specific standards to bring these facilities in line with modern waste incinerators, although these facilities have been granted later deadlines of 2007 and 2008 depending on the pollutant. This fact could mean a slight competitive advantage over waste incinerator operators, but just on a short time-scale. However, there are countries (Austria, Germany, Sweden) which impose more stringent emission limits for co-incineration of waste in cement industry

[141,158]

than those set in the Incineration

Directive.

Following with the air emissions issue, other relevant environmental policies for thermal recovery options are those derived from GHG emissions reduction policy and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) based on Directive 2003/87/EC, which

installations for hazardous or municipal waste”) are not under the scope of the EU-ETS (except some plants in Italy)[161], but it does apply to CO2 equivalent emissions of installations for the production of steel and cement clinker and coke ovens, which require a GHG emission permit and must be considered in the national allowances allocation plans (that shall be consistent with the Kyoto Protocol). Emission limit values are not set for direct emissions of GHG from an installation subject to this directive and included, therefore, in a scheme for GHG allowance trading —unless it is necessary to


entered into force on 25 October 2003. At present WTE plants (“combustion

ensure that no significant local pollution is caused.

239

The conditions for issuing the GHG permit to installations subject to Directive 2003/87/EC will be coordinated with those for the permit provided for in Directive 96/61/EC, concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), that lays down measures designed to prevent or reduce emissions to the air, water and land, and will include emission limit values for pollutants (other than GHG direct emissions) and waste management measures. This Directive requires that installations are operated in such a way that all the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through application of the best available techniques, and energy is used efficiently. The IPPC Directive covers steel and cement works and also installations for recovery and disposal of waste, including MSWIs and landfills for non-hazardous and hazardous waste. IPPC Directive sets more stringent emissions limit values for the pollutants already envisaged by Incineration Directive, emission limit values for other substances and other media, and other appropriate conditions.

Subsequently, those polymer recovery options involving a reduction of GHG or other pollutants with regard to conventional operations may benefit from local environmental policies based on ETS and IPPC Directives.

Mechanical recycling process results comparatively in the highest energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, it is restricted basically to unmixed plastic waste streams. Gasification and pyrolysis processes are generally promoted as “greener” alternatives to incineration, as they generate cleaner fuel gas requiring less costly and complex flue gas clean-up systems and are more energy efficient processes. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

The use of waste plastic as partial replacement of coal/coke as reducing agent in blast furnaces can lead to a lower formation of CO and CO2. when reducing ferrous oxides — as the H present also acts as reducing agent that reacts with oxygen to form water— and also contribute to reduce SOx emissions (as plastics are sulphur free, unlike other reducing agents such as coal and oil) and, hence, consumption of fluxes and additives added to lower the melting point of the gangue and improve sulphur uptake by slag. It can be argued that waste plastic as auxiliary fuel in cement kilns may help as well to reduce CO2 emissions more —in comparison with other processes where low carbon fuels and feedstocks are already used— and SOx emissions partially. Of course those

240


benefits should be compatible with no significant increase of mercury, HCl, HF, metals, VOCs or PCDD/F releases over limit values derived from the utilisation of waste fuels. The cement industry claims that emissions are mainly determined by the raw materials and are not influenced by the type of fuel [158].

As for the topic of solid residues generated in polymer recovery processes, Article 9 of the Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC is concerned with the solid residues resulting from the incineration of wastes, and contains the following statements: Residues resulting from the operation of the incineration or co-incineration plant shall be minimised in their amount and harmfulness. Residues shall be recycled, where appropriate, directly in the plant or outside in accordance with relevant Community legislation. [...] Prior to determining the routes for the disposal or recycling of the residues from incineration and co-incineration plants, appropriate tests shall be carried out to establish the physical and chemical characteristics and the polluting potential of the different incineration residues.

The major differences between the thermal processes are in the quality of the solid residues and in the utilisation/disposal requirements for these residues. Those processes, such as gasification (SVZ, TwinRec, Thermoselect) and the Mitsui R21, which generate a fused ash product (stable molten slag) have particular environmental advantages. This vitrified slag may even be regarded as a recyclable material of use in construction sector and might be arguable whether it should be counted on towards the attainment of recycling targets.

environmental issues, with regard to requirements for further processing of the ashes and other residues, prior to utilisation or disposal in conformity with national and Community legislation. For instance, gypsum from flue gas cleaning systems can replace natural gypsum in building industry and ashes may be recovered and used as a secondary aggregate to cement for road construction. But only if the toxic load of the ashes is in an accepted range it is possible to use them further on, otherwise they must


For those processes which do not produce a fused ash there may be significant

be accordingly land filled.

241

One key aspect that delineates the final destination and treatment of bottom ashes or filter dust is the POP concentration limit regarding dioxins/furans. But not only a change in the toxic load (content of contaminants such as chloride and metals like chromium, lead, cadmium, copper and zinc) of the residues) may be expected depending on the type of RDF (ASR, WEEE, MSW...) used, but also of all products and by-products obtained in the (co-)incineration processes (e.g. clinker from cement plants, gypsum, char, ashes and slag). As those materials are typically used or re-used in the construction industry, an increase in toxic loading is of concern for the environment and health (considering binding conditions, bioavailability or leaching of these contaminants). General assumption in the cement industry is that the clinker quality is not affected by using waste plastic as fuel since the waste composition is monitored and adjusted to comply with cement requirement.

8.3.6.3.

REGULATIONS ON RECYCLATES AND RECOVERY PRODUCTS

Regarding the recyclates and products derived from plastic waste recovery treatment, further regulations can play a part in their marketability and therefore enhance or hinder recovery routes, for example: •

Regulations on food contact materials, construction materials and automotive safety standards, RoHS Directive and any other setting specifications and composition limit values for the manufacture of plastic products.

•

REACH Directive. It does not apply to waste but it does to secondary raw materials.

•

Regulations and specifications on fuels, e.g. Directive 2003/17/EC and European


standard CEN EN 590 •

Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, which supports renewable energy sources, including waste if consistent with the waste treatment hierarchy. In the light of the definition of waste for renewables given, plastic waste seems not to be under its scope, but biomass, including just the biodegradable part of municipal waste, but not the fossil part (plastics). Therefore, the incineration of non-separated municipal waste should not be promoted under a future support system for renewable energy sources as it will undermine the waste treatment hierarchy.

242


8.3.6.4.

TRANSBOUNDARY WASTE SHIPMENT REGULATIONS

The interaction between local waste legislation and the local peculiarities in regulations on industrial activities, process operation and potential products, create space to distinct development of preferred polymer recovery technologies by regions.

Although the WEEE and Packaging waste Directives set recovery and recycling targets to be achieved on a national scale, they also provide for the possibility of imports and exports of waste for its treatment outside the Member States and the Community, as long as the shipments are in compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93. The exported waste will count for the fulfilment of targets if the exporter can prove that the recovery, reuse and/or recycling operation takes place under conditions that are equivalent to the requirements of these Directives.

Because of the waste shipment regulation (EEC)259/93, the characterisation of waste treatment operations as recovery or disposal has relevance for the transboundary movements of waste. Lack of harmonisation in the national definitions of waste treatment operations within the EU can give rise to diversion of waste flows to some regions for treatment in a type of installations not favoured in other areas and affect the development of alternative recovery activities in the region of origin. (NB: According to the WFD the main criterion for the identification of recovery operations is the substitution of primary raw materials. “Disposal” is defined within the WFD by a nonconclusive list of operations that remove waste permanently from material cycles)

The ELV Directive do not mention explicitly the shipment of waste but it should be

within the EU, in the main to the new Member States. Those CEE countries currently importing high volumes of second hand cars from Northern Europe, in order to satisfy rising domestic demand, will be faced with substantial increases in the size of the ELV stock requiring treatment by 2015 and beyond. Investment will be required for setting-up appropriate recovery options for this type of complex plastic waste in order to achieve the recovery goals.


taken into account that many cars are being sold and legally exported second hand

243

8.3.7.

Sustainability (economic-environmental-social aspects)

Eco-efficiency can be defined as a route to maximise environmental and economic benefits, while simultaneously minimising both environmental and economic costs. The concept promotes the integration of environmental considerations directly into business functions such as a manufacturing or a recycling activity. Eco-efficiency was developed, and is now used, as the means by which organisations can contribute to the sustainability objectives of society. Therefore, it is useful to situate eco-efficiency within the greater context of sustainable development in which it relates to the area of synergy between the economic and environmental dimensions.

Economic development

Environmental protection

Poverty • Job creation • Wealth creation

Climate change • Renewables • Energy efficiency

Recycling industry

Plastic Recycling

Recycled materials Recovered feed-stocks Secondary fuels

Plastic recycling activities

Landfill reduction

Cleaner life conditions

Social Progress Quality of life • Education • Healthcare


244

Figure 107. Sustainable aspects of polymer recovery activities

Environmentally speaking plastic waste recycling and recovery is one of the bases of the sustainability since it is largely associated to the protection of resources and energy in terms of maximisation of their use, to the diminution of environmental impacts in air, water and soils and to the protection of human being health by the reduction of toxic dispersion or the use of fossil fuel carbon fraction in waste.


Socially, an increase in the recycling of all materials, including plastics, is demanded and the European Directives related with waste (packaging waste, end-of-life vehicles, waste from electronic and electrical equipment…) and its treatments (landfill, incineration and co-incineration…) support it. On the other hand the pressure from NGO and individuals for the preservation of the environment is strong and the society is supporting those claims.

In a pure economic aspect, high crude oil prices give advantage for alternative feedstock if having a similar cost and being able to reduce the dependence on non-renewable resources coming from third countries or mitigating the exports of waste to Asian markets. Another relevant aspect is that some countries can identify opportunity on business development and job creation related to the recycling industry. That is specially true in the ten 2003 Accession Countries, which are developing regional disposal and recycling structures and are experiencing a rapid industrialisation, undertaking the (de-) centralisation and privatisation of some waste management activities. Waste management strategies should be integrated with other sectors’ policies. Most countries lack a domestic industry capable of producing affordable equipment for waste management and depend on expensive imported equipment, which are difficult to maintain and often unsuitable for local conditions. In other cases, recycling plastic waste is not feasible, as there is no local industry capable of receiving and recycling the collected material into their production process. There is a large potential for the recycling industry, not only on the national but also on the regional scale. Small economies like the majority of the CEE countries’, cannot improve their JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

waste management independently.

245

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN SCENARIOS BASED ON DIFFERENT MARKET PENETRATION OF RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

As indicated in the previous chapter, a great number of factors and interactions that can affect the choice of waste polymer recovery routes demonstrate that there is no absolute superiority of one recovery pathway for plastic waste. Apparently a combination of recovery solutions guarantees the most efficient achievement of environmental objectives.

By means of the environmental evaluation of different potential scenarios of waste polymer recovery, where the various recovery technologies considered penetrate the market in different shares, it has been possible to assess the associated impacts to the most likely situation of plastic waste recovery in the EU-25 in 2015 and to compare it with other hypothetical situations. Next sections describe the construction of the recovery scenarios and comment the results obtained in their environmental evaluation.

9.1. CONSTRUCTION OF SCENARIOS

The scenarios have been constructed from the calculation of the most likely sectoral material flows to different technologies, considering hypothetical changes in strategic factors. Therefore, each global scenario is the sum of all sectoral scenarios and reflects the amount and type of materials (including contaminants in polymers) entering the recovery technologies identified, as well as those for which no specific treatment could JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

be expected.

A base line scenario has been drawn by extrapolation of the current recovery situation to the estimated waste plastic arisings in 2015, with corrections when necessary to ensure the achievement of the minimum recovery and recycling targets set by the relevant EU legislation. That base scenario has been modified accordingly to represent the situations stemming from the maximum potential penetration in the market of the different technologies which constitute the alternative scenarios to be included in the study. In conclusion, the following scenarios will be considered:

246


•

Base line scenario (extrapolation of current situation to future requirements of minimum recycling and recovery)

•

Scenario A (maximum penetration of mechanical recycling options)

•

Scenario B (maximum penetration of feedstock recycling options)

•

Scenario C (maximum penetration of energy recovery options)

The central idea is that the current recovery structure will sustain and that the capacities already installed for polymer recycling and recovery will be the basic ones in use in 2015 and that the changes, if any, will result from the setting up of additional capacities of the same forms of recycling and recovery or from undertaking new recovery routes.

The diversion of a certain waste polymer stream to a selected technology within each scenario is determined on the basis of its suitability for the treatment of each waste flow, depending on the polymer composition and the type and degree of contamination. The amount of waste to be treated is estimated considering the throughput of the different technologies and the capacities already installed, as well as the restrictions for future availability of new infrastructures derived from market and policy issues, as discussed in the previous chapter.

The technologies considered preliminarily as potential EOL solutions for the majority polymers in the six waste streams under study are those grouped into the generic families non-technically assessed previously: Conventional mechanical recycling of polymers

•

Advanced mechanical recycling of polymers (including PET bottle-to-bottle, Vinyloop and other selective dissolution processes)

•

Feedstock recycling to monomers and polymer precursors (chemolysis)

•

Feedstock recycling to basic chemicals with energy recovery (novel thermal methods such as pyrolysis and gasification and use in blast furnaces)

•


•

Energy recovery by co-incineration (plastic waste as fuel —e.g. in cement kilns)

247

•

Disposal/Treatment with energy recovery (incineration —dedicated or shared with other wastes— with energy recovery)

The remaining polymer waste flows not entering any of those routes are assumed to be land filled or incinerated without energy recovery.

The following chart (Figure 108) displays the matrix of polymers per waste stream and potential treatment technologies. Some of the technologies are specific for one polymer at a time (they are marked as “x”); others are capable of treating mixtures of polymers (marked as “o”). In some cases (marked as red “o”) the processes can accept the whole waste stream (MSW) or post-shredder plastic-rich mixtures from electronic scrap (ESR) and ELV (ASR). Except for PVC-rich waste specific technologies (most of them on hold, as described in ANNEX 2), feedstock and energy recovery processes have limitations on PVC content in the input waste stream, with acceptance levels ranging from 0.5% to 5%. This question is reflected in the chart by marking in grey (“o”) limited PVC inputs to recovery options.

The chart shows all the possible recovery routes for each polymer in each waste stream among the options considered. In some waste streams, apart from the majority polymers amounting to 80% by weight of the total plastic volume, additional minor polymers are included (in italics in the chart) as they are relevant for some recovery options (e.g., PS and PVC in Packaging waste).


248

The scenarios have been designed assigning volumes of waste polymers to each technology on the assumptions made in each case. In order to do so, data about amount and nature (additives, fillers, contamination…) of polymers per application in each waste stream as estimated and evaluated in chapter 4 (Task 1) have been used.

Packaging MSW WEEE (ESR) ELV (ASR) C&DW Agriculture

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS PVC LDPE HDPE PP PET PS PVC PP PS ABS PU PC/ABS HDPE PP PVC ABS PA PU HDPE PVC PS PU LDPE PVC HDPE PP

Mechanical recycling advanced

Chemolysis

xo xo x

o o o x x

x o

x x x x

Pyrolysis (Thermalysis)

o o o x x

x o

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

Blast furnace o o o o o o o o o o o o

x o o o o o o

x x x x

Gasification SVZ

Gasification Thermoselect

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o

Gasification TwinRec

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Alternative fuel (Cement kiln)

Incineration with energy recovery

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o

o o o

o o o

o o

o o

o o

x x

o o o o


Mechanical recycling conventional

Landfill/ incineration w/o energy recovery o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Figure 108. Recovery matrix for polymers in the six waste streams investigated

The following assumptions are made per waste stream:

PACKAGING

As the current situation in the EU-15 proves (reported 23.70% on average of material recycling in 2003, apart from 2.90% recycled by other ways —assumed feedstock recycling), just mechanical recycling of majority polymers selectively collected can secure the recycling targets. The extra portion of plastic packaging recovery (to supplement other materials’ recycling up to 55-80% of total packaging) is basically achieved via incineration with energy recovery (23.90%). The amount to landfill can be

The harmonisation of the whole EU-25 in similar figures, following the meeting by all Member States of the legal targets, will constitute the base scenario for 2015. Those countries that have already reached higher mechanical recycling ratios are assumed to achieve these in the future as well.


calculated by subtraction.

249

Potential alternative scenarios will consider: •

Scenario A: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling (40%), whilst conventional operations can give way to some extent to more advanced methods, i.e. PET bottle-to-bottle technology (5%). The waste flows to the rest of recovery routes do not modify the base situation.

•

Scenario B: As for feedstock recovery, the only place where it is actually happening is in Germany (SVZ gasification and blast furnace, Thermoselect operation in Karlsruhe). Some increasing flow (10%) to this route may be foreseen by the setting-up of Thermalysis (/Thermofuel) plants that can absorb part of the waste flow otherwise mechanically recycled (PE) or incinerated/landfilled (PS). Increasing feedstock recycling can be achieved also by spreading the use of packaging plastic waste in blast furnace technology to other steel works throughout the EU. Such practices will subtract waste flow partly from energy recovery alternatives and landfill.

•

Scenario C: Energy recovery options can grow thanks to the diversion as fuel of exceeding plastic waste (after achieving the minimum recycling targets) to existing installations of cement kilns and MSWI. The maximum penetration of energy recovery would mean 40% market share, with the assumed breakdown of 32% MSWI and 8% cement kiln.

MSW

From the ESTO [38] and APME[1] reports some breakdown of polymer recovery rates in JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

the residual MSW can be estimated. The non-packaging, non-WEEE fraction of plastics in MSW have no direct legal incentive for recycling and therefore it will be likely treated in the most cost-effective option (landfill and incineration, with and without energy recovery). In fact, about 60% of MSW plastic is landfilled or incinerated without energy recovery. The packaging fraction present in residual MSW can be the objective for some mechanical recycling (3%) or feedstock recovery through flexible technologies able to accept MPW (3%). The rest undergo processes for energy recovery, especially in MSWI, that do not require separation and sorting of polymers from the other materials.

250


Little increase in the recycling of plastics in residual MSW can be expected. Actually if the selective collection of items keeps improving, mechanical or chemical recycling of individual polymers separated from the remaining heterogeneous mixture might drop. •

Scenario A: No market penetration of mechanical recycling higher than the base line scenario is assumed.

•

Scenario B: resulting from the Landfill Directive and national landfill bans and the desire of avoiding incineration, a shift from landfill and partly from competing incineration to thermal feedstock recovery processes can be foreseen (45% MSWI and 15% feedstock recovery, equally distributed between the 5 technologies considered)

•

Scenario C: maximum penetration of energy recovery (60%) will occur if landfill diversion policies favour the incineration of MSW with energy recovery with the aim of inverting ratios.

WEEE

The current recovery of polymers from electronic waste is scarce, but the enforcement of the legislation will bring about an increase of polymer recovery operations to help reach the recycling and recovery targets. By analysing the plastic content of the different WEEE categories and the specific targets set in the WEEE Directive, it can be estimated that on average a recovery of 10% of total equipment weight should be achieved through the recovery of polymers. The figure includes the recycling ratio, estimated at 5.5%, due to plastic fraction in WEEE. As the average plastic content in

half the WEEE plastic and recycling 25%. This is the situation that in principle should shape the base line scenario for the calculations. However it seems rather optimistic, given the fact that for a more consolidated sector like packaging plastic the 22.5% recycling target is hardly met. For that reason it has been changed to a more modest scenario with 40% of recovery (both feedstock and energy), of which 15% is recycling.


electronic waste is 20%, the fulfilment of the recovery targets may involve recovering

251

•

Scenario A: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling will correspond to recycling ratio required for legal targets compliance (25%), while the rest of recovery operations remain on base line levels.

•

Scenario B: Maximum penetration of feedstock recovery (SVZ and TwinRec gasifications) will correspond to recovery ratio required for legal targets compliance (35% additional to recycling), if no use as alternative fuel is considered and mechanical recycling remain on base line levels.

•

Scenario C: Maximum penetration of energy recovery (25%) will occur if use of ESR as alternative fuel in cement kilns is favoured over feedstock recovery processes to achieve the legal recovery target on the base line assumptions.

ELV

The base line scenario is indirectly determined by the reuse, recovery and recycling targets of total vehicle weight laid down in the ELV Directive. Given the average composition of vehicles, it has been reckoned that at least half of the non metallic waste fraction (20% of the ELV; half of it are plastics) must contribute to meeting the 2015 reuse and recycling target of 85% within the general recovery target of 95% recovery o reuse. A polymer recovery of 50% of total plastic waste in ELV (5% of the vehicle weight), of which 5% is due to material recycling, fixes the conditions for the base line scenario. The rest of the alternatives are the following: •

Scenario A: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling up to 15%, with the additional 10% over base line subtracted from feedstock recovery waste flow.


252

Energy recovery remains on base line levels. •

Scenario B: Maximum penetration of feedstock recovery (blast furnace and gasifications) up to 35% with the additional 5% over base line subtracted from energy recovery waste flow. Mechanical recycling remains on base line levels.

•

Scenario C: Maximum penetration of energy recovery (in cement kiln) up to 20% with the additional 5% over base line subtracted from feedstock recovery waste flow. Mechanical recycling remains on base line levels.


C&D

Since no pressure from legal recycling targets exists upon the polymers in this waste streams and landfill is common practice, in spite of some mechanical recycling initiatives, the 2015 base line scenario has been constructed on the basis of the few data reported by APME[1] on disposal routes for this waste stream in the WE region. Such a base scenario consists of 8.5% mechanical recycling and no feedstock or energy recovery. •

Scenario A: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling up to 15%, with the additional 6.5% over base line subtracted from landfill flow. 3% out of 15% of the material recycling via advanced mechanical recycling.

•

Scenario B: Maximum penetration of feedstock recovery can occur if 3% of plastic waste is sent to SVZ gasification. The rest of the recovery options remain on base line levels.

•

Scenario C: Maximum penetration of energy recovery can occur if 3% of plastic waste is sent to cement kiln. The rest of the recovery options remain on base line levels.

AGRICULTURE

This sector lacks Community recovery and recycling targets for polymer waste, but has a significant ratio of mechanical recycling (53%) in the WE countries, supplemented by low energy recovery ratio (0.3%). Base line scenario assumes that the situation spreads within the whole EU-25 region. The alternative scenarios considered are Scenario A: Maximum penetration of mechanical recycling up to 60%, with the additional percentage over base line subtracted from landfill flow. •

Scenario B: Maximum penetration of feedstock recovery can occur if some 10% of plastic waste is sent to Thermalysis and SVZ gasification. The rest of the recovery options remain on base line levels.

•

Scenario C: Maximum penetration of energy recovery can occur if some 10% of plastic waste is sent to cement kiln. The rest of the recovery options remain on base


•

line levels.

253

The environmental impacts associated to the scenarios depend of the plastic waste distribution; therefore the analysis that follows must be considered as a result of the specific waste distribution assumed and analysed as a global reference for the entire scenarios. A deeper view at the level of different plastics will show a degree of accuracy lower than the overall view of the environmental impacts for the entire scenario.

The studied environmental impacts associated to the scenarios could be optimised by selecting the plastic composition of waste streams processed by each technology. According with LCA criteria each plastic has their own environmental impacts through different technologies, therefore the proposed scenarios could be studied to minimise the environmental impacts.

According with the plastic waste distribution scenarios for 2015 constructed from suitability of technologies for each waste stream and plastic type as described above, the several plastic waste streams simulated show the following data: Table 67. Polymer material distribution (Baseline SCENARIO) expressed in ktonnes. Material vs. Technology

Packaging

MSW


254

WEEE (ESR)

ELV (ASR)

C&DW

Agriculture



Advanced mechanical recycling

Chemolysis

247 550 549

Pyrolysis Gasification Blast furnace (Thermalysis) SVZ 0 0 0

5

0 0

221 87 193

0 0 0 169 20

140 108 28 48 22 38

11 4 7 98 9 393 157

2.911

0 0

17 27 36 26 5 1 188 84 38 70 70 5

0 19 78 2 14 16 21

0 0 0 0

7 11 15 10 2 1 77 35 15 29 29 8 34 40 39 14 13 14 58 10 10 12 16 0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 500

0

Gasification Thermoselect 1 2 2 2 0 0 11 5 2 4 4 1


11 43 8 8 9 12

6 3 1 2 2 1 31 37 36 11 12 11 43 8 8 9 12

124

238

33

227

0

718

Landfill/ Alternative Incineration incineration fuel with energy w/o energy (Cement kiln) recovery recovery 33 172 378 53 275 450 71 367 1.333 51 263 404 10 50 181 3 14 53 0 3.128 5.570 0 1.408 2.519 0 626 1.158 0 1.173 1.809 0 1.173 2.151 0 313 593 33 33 286 39 39 202 37 37 218 13 13 89 13 13 65 29 0 48 116 0 240 5 0 76 20 0 49 23 0 45 32 0 73 0 69 532 0 260 0 107 1 1 298 0 32 0 0 43 0 0 91 588 9.102 19.418


Table 68. Polymer material distribution (SCENARIO A) expressed in ktonnes. Conventiona Advanced Material vs. Technology l mechanical mechanical recycling recycling

Packaging

MSW

WEEE (ESR)

ELV (ASR)

C&DW

Agriculture


Chemolysis

417 928 927

9

0

169 20

0

221 87 193

233 181 46 80 66 115

33 11 10 139

0

0 0 33 8

13 448 179

0 33

4.326

271

0

Landfill/ Gasification Alternative Incineration Gasification Gasification incineration Pyrolysis Thermoselec fuel with energy Blast furnace SVZ TwinRec w/o energy (Thermalysis) t (Cement kiln) recovery recovery 0 17 7 1 33 172 208 0 27 11 2 53 275 72 0 36 15 2 71 367 1.333 26 10 2 51 263 23 0 5 2 0 10 50 181 1 1 0 3 14 53 0 188 77 11 6 0 3.128 5.570 0 84 35 5 3 0 1.408 2.519 0 38 15 2 1 0 626 1.158 70 29 4 2 0 1.173 1.809 0 70 29 4 2 0 1.173 2.151 5 8 1 1 0 313 593 34 31 33 33 286 40 37 39 39 108 39 36 37 37 146 14 13 14 14 73 13 12 13 13 33 16 7 7 7 29 0 22 62 29 29 29 116 0 236 2 5 5 5 5 0 86 11 5 5 5 20 0 62 13 6 6 6 23 0 38 17 8 8 8 32 0 85 0 0 66 458 0 0 252 0 0 103 0 0 1 1 243 0 10 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 91 0 688 439 94 204 583 9.098 18.111

Table 69. Polymer material distribution (SCENARIO B) expressed in ktonnes. Conventiona Advanced Material vs. Technology l mechanical mechanical recycling recycling

Packaging

MSW

ELV (ASR)

C&DW

Agriculture

247 550 549

5

0

169 20

0

221 87 193

140 108 28 48 22 38

11 4 7 98

0

0 0 0 0

9 393 157

0 33

2.911

227

0

Landfill/ Gasification Alternative Incineration Pyrolysis Gasification Gasification incineration Blast furnace Thermoselec with energy fuel (Thermalysis) SVZ TwinRec w/o energy t (Cement kiln) recovery recovery 57 47 19 3 33 172 278 91 75 30 4 53 275 290 121 100 40 6 71 367 1.120 72 29 4 51 263 338 16 14 5 1 10 50 152 2 2 0 3 14 51 351 285 276 276 276 0 4.140 3.376 158 128 124 124 124 0 1.863 1.532 70 57 55 55 55 0 828 719 107 104 104 104 0 1.553 1.118 112 107 104 104 104 0 1.553 1.349 7 28 28 28 0 414 416 95 87 0 0 234 113 104 0 0 139 108 100 0 0 158 39 36 0 0 70 38 35 0 0 45 21 14 14 14 19 0 48 86 58 58 58 77 0 241 2 10 10 10 3 0 72 15 10 10 10 14 0 49 17 12 12 12 16 0 45 23 16 16 16 21 0 73 7 0 62 532 23 0 237 10 0 97 46 46 1 1 206 0 32 3 3 0 0 37 6 6 0 0 79 1.030 1.163 1.423 828 1.173 373 11.493 13.194


WEEE (ESR)


Chemolysis

255

Table 70. Polymer material distribution (SCENARIO C) expressed in ktonnes. Material vs. Technology

Packaging

MSW

WEEE (ESR)

ELV (ASR)

C&DW

Agriculture



Advanced mechanical recycling

Chemolysis

247 550 549

Pyrolysis Gasification Blast furnace (Thermalysis) SVZ 0 0 0

5

0 0

221 87 193

0 0 0 169 20

140 108 28 48 22 38

11 4 7 98 9 393 157

2.911

0 0

17 27 36 26 5 1 188 84 38 70 70 5

0 19 78 2 14 16 21

0 0 0 0

7 11 15 10 2 1 77 35 15 29 29 8 34 40 39 14 13 9 36 6 6 7 10 0

Gasification Thermoselect


1 2 2 2 0 0 11 5 2 4 4 1

Alternative Incineration fuel with energy (Cement kiln) recovery

6 3 1 2 2 1 31 37 36 13 12 9 36 6 6 7 10

9 36 6 6 7 10

69 110 147 105 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 78 74 27 26 39 154 7 27 31 42 7

0

0 0 0

23 10 41

0 0 0

0 0 454

3 5 1.115

0 33

227

0

718

109

219

275 440 586 421 79 23 5.520 2.484 1.104 2.070 2.070 552 65 78 74 27 26 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 13 3 5 15.956

Landfill/ incineration w/o energy recovery 240 229 1.038 192 141 42 3.178 1.442 680 912 1.254 354 221 124 144 64 40 47 237 80 48 44 72 62 532 237 97 219 20 38 80 12.106

As additional information, the requirements of the scenarios for collection systems (e.g. quality vs. technology) from the tables might be deduced, which could be summarised and compared with the Member States’ data about the collection systems. The result of such an analysis for each scenario will be an indication of the real possibilities to achieve the proposed scenarios.

Besides, the previous tables compiling waste plastic material arranged in column diagrams by technologies would allow to draw conclusions and show theoretical trends, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

256

among others, about: •

The demand of specific plastic material by each technology.

•

The total demand of materials to cover the scenario requirements.

•

The needs of implementing some technologies to cover the scenario requirements.

•

The amount of plastics recovered by mechanical recycling technologies.

•

The required technological development differences between scenarios.

•

etc.


The graphical representation of data on polymer composition and contaminants (metals, fillers and additives, soil, chemicals...) of the different waste flows diverted to the generic families of waste plastic treatment technologies in the four scenarios considered is shown in the following figures.

Baseline Scenario

16000 LDPE PS PC/ABS Chemicals

amount of waste, ktonnes

14000 12000 10000

HDPE PVC PA Soil

PP ABS Fillers

PET PU Metals

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 MR

Gasification

Thermalysis

Blast Furn.

Cement Kiln

MSWI

Figure 109. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (Base Line SCENARIO).

Scenario A

16000 amount of waste, ktonnes

12000 10000

HDPE PVC PA Soil

PP ABS Fillers

PET PU Metals

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 MR

Gasification

Thermalysis

Blast Furn.

Cement Kiln

MSWI


LDPE PS PC/ABS Chemicals

14000

Figure 110. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (SCENARIO A).

257

Scenario B



14000 12000 10000

HDPE PVC PA Soil

PP ABS Fillers

PET PU Metals

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 MR

Gasification

Thermalysis

Blast Furn.

Cement Kiln

MSWI

Figure 111. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (SCENARIO B).

Scenario C



14000


258

12000 10000

HDPE PVC PA Soil

PP ABS Fillers

PET PU Metals

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 MR

Gasification

Thermalysis

Blast Furn.

Cement Kiln

MSWI

Figure 112. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (SCENARIO C).


9.2. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF POLYMER RECOVERY SCENARIOS

The aim of the construction of the scenarios is to estimate the most relevant environmental impacts associated to each of them and to carry out a comparative analysis. The comparison hypothesis for the environmental performance of the four scenarios of distribution of waste streams per technologies has been applied considering two main impacts: (1) Emissions that contribute to the Global Warming Potential, expressed in CO2 equivalents (2) Cumulative Energy Demand or the total need of energy consumed within the process studied.

9.2.1.

Global Warming Potential in Recovery Scenarios

Figure 113 shows that Global Warming Potential is larger in Scenario C and smallest in Scenario A, mainly due to the balance between mechanical recycling and energy recovery technologies. Figure 114 shows the total CO2 emission estimate in each scenario. Only the mechanical recycling technologies contribute to avoiding CO2 emission in any materials and technology distribution scenarios.

It should be considered that there are other individual technologies which avoid CO2 emissions, but the clustering of the technologies per generic families results in a positive emission balance. That is the case of energy recovery technologies: use of

treatment by means of incineration, which is responsible for the final net positive balance in all scenarios.


plastic waste as alternative fuel in cement kilns avoids CO2 emissions, but not its

259

20.000

Mechanical Recycling Feedstock Recovery

GWP, CO2 equiv. ktonnes

15.000

Energy Recovery

10.000 5.000 0 -5.000 -10.000 Base

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Figure 113. Contribution of three main polymer recovery routes to Global Warming Potential in the different scenarios

Net GWP in recovery scenarios


260

GWP, CO2 equiv. ktonnes

14.000 12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0 Base

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Figure 114. Total Global Warming Potential associated to the different scenarios


Due to different hypothesis on material distribution and technologies in each scenario, the final amounts of plastic waste recovered are different (see Table 70 to Table 73 in section 8.1). In order to normalise the results of all scenarios, the ratio Total CO2 emission/Total Plastic waste recovered (i.e. excluding plastic waste landfilled —or

incinerated without energy recovery) has been calculated. The values of that ratio range from 0.30 ktonne CO2/ktonne of plastic waste in Scenario A to 0.57 for Scenario C. Baseline Scenario scores 0.38 and Scenario B 0.44. That confirms that Scenario A (with maximum penetration of mechanical recycling) optimises the CO2 emissions for polymer recovery activities.

9.2.2.

Cumulative Energy Demand in Recovery Scenarios

In all scenarios Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) reflects the beneficial effect of applying a wide range of recovery options as opposed to disposal without recovery: the mechanical recycling, feedstock or energy recovery will contribute to reduce environmental impacts by using the energy contained in the plastics or the plastic themselves, as all of them result in negative net CED values (see Figure 118). That means that the energy recovered from waste is higher than the energy consumed in the combination of recovery processes considered in each scenario.

Scenario B with maximum penetration of feedstock recovery options shows the highest value of total energy savings from plastic wastes (i.e. the lowest total net CED, around 560 TJ), closely followed by Scenario C (Figure 116). However, if the results are normalised excluding the landfilled waste and calculating the energy savings per unit of

best value in Scenario A (-30 GJ/kt), and the highest (and consquently less favourable) value is reached in Scenario C (-25 GJ/kt). Baseline Scenario and Scenario B show ratios of -29 GJ/kt and -27 GJ/kt respectively.


plastic waste recovered, the ratio of Total CED/Total Plastic waste recovered has the

261

0 -50.000

CED, GJ

-100.000 -150.000 -200.000 -250.000

Mechanical Recycling Feedstock Recovery Energy Recovery

-300.000 -350.000 Base

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Figure 115. Contribution of three main polymer recovery routes to Cumulative Energy Demand in the different scenarios

0 -100.000

CED, GJ

-200.000


262

-300.000 -400.000 -500.000

Net CED in recovery scenarios

-600.000 Base

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Figure 116. Total Cumulative Energy Demand associated to the different scenarios


9.2.3.

Conclusions and further considerations

As it has been described in the present study, energy and feedstock polymer recovery technologies have a Global Warming Potential impact leading to increased emissions of GHG. Mechanical recycling has a relatively positive effect in terms of Cumulative Energy Demand, and allows the production of new goods from recycled materials. Mechanical recycling also contributes to the reduction of CO2 emissions. The different combinations of the various recovery technologies lead to different overall environmental impacts due to partial balance of individual impacts.

A comparison of the respective environmental impacts of the different recovery scenarios analysed indicates that Global Warming Potential is most pronounced in Scenario C and least in Scenario A, due to the relative balance between GWP effects of mechanical recycling and energy recovery technologies within the different scenarios. As for the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) parameter, all assumed scenarios reflect the positive effect of applying an optimized mix of recovery options as opposed to disposal without recovery.

The following table summarises the estimated results of recovery performance and environmental impact associated to the recovery scenarios defined in section 8.1.

Table 71. Environmental performance parameters in assessed recovery scenarios Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

14.5

16

21

22

Recycling rate, %

9

13.5

9

9

Recovery rate, %

42.5

46

61

64

GWP, CO2 equiv. Mt

5.0

4.8

9.3

12.5

CED, TJ

-421

-480

-559

-558

Unit GWP, CO2 equiv. kt/kt recovered

0.34

0.30

0.44

0.57

Unit CED, GJ/kt recovered

-29

-30

-27

-25

Plastic waste recovered, Mt

Scenario A, which represents a combination of recycling and recovery technologies


Baseline

with maximum market penetration of mechanical recycling, shows the lowest

263

environmental impacts in terms of GWP and CED per tonne of plastic waste recovered, as Figure 117 illustrates.

Figure 117. GWP and CED values per unit weight of plastic waste recovered in the different scenarios

However, it should be noted that, under the assumptions made in the definition of the scenarios, this most environmentally favourable Scenario A allows for lower overall capacity treatment than Scenarios B and C: just 46% of plastic waste is recovered in Scenario A, while Scenarios B and C provide recovery rates over 60%. Therefore, two aspects should be regarded for full appraisal of recovery scenarios and the calculated environmental impacts associated: JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

•

within a lower overall recovery rate, percentage due to mechanical recycling of sorted polymers is higher by 4.5 points in Scenario A (than in the other scenarios);

•

enlargement of Scenario A to higher overall recovery rates, by sustaining (or increasing) the recycling to recovery ratio (in order to keep GWP and CED balances in the best values), may be difficult due to unavailability of sufficient sorted waste polymers suitable for mechanical recycling.

Other general considerations like the potential higher production of hazardous waste in energy recovery technologies should be considered in a further analysis. The hazardous

264


wastes are regulated and possible trends or future reduction objectives towards waste reduction in the end of life process could interact with the defined scenarios.

Another relevant aspect which could affect the scenarios is the market development; e.g. scenarios where mechanical recycling is increased are driven by higher market prices for recycled plastics or increasing CO2 abatement cost. Also the influence of energy prices, mainly in energy recovery oriented technologies, should be considered for the sustainability of the recovery process.


265

10. GLOSSARY ABS: Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene ACEA: European Automobile Manufacturers Association ACORD: Automotive Consortium on Recycling and Dismantling ADEME: Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie ANAIP: Asociación Nacional de Industrias del Plástico ANEP: Asociación Nacional del envase del PET A-PET: Amorphous Polyethylene Therephthalate APME: Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe —now PlasticsEurope ASA: Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate ASR: Auto(motive) Shredder Residue B&C: Building and Construction BDP: (Bioplastics and) Biodegradable Polymers BFR: Brominated Flame Retardant BOM: Bill of Materials BW: Bagged Waste C&D: Construction and Demolition CE: Consumer Electronics CED: Cumulative Energy Demand CEP: Centro Español de Plásticos CFC: Chlorofluorocarbons COG: Coke Oven Gas C-PET: Crystalline Polyethylene Therephthalate JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

CPU: (Computer) Central Processing Unit CRT: Cathode Ray Tube DEREG: Deregistered Vehicles DfD: Design for Disassembly DfR: Design for Recycling DRE: Destruction and Removal Efficiency E&E: Electric and Electronics EBA: Ethylene Butyl Acrylate EEA: European Environment Agency

266


ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles EOL: End-of-Life EP: Epoxy (resin) EPRO: European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations EPS: Expanded Polystyrene ER: Energy Recovery ESR: Electronic Shredder Residue ESTO: European Science and Technology Observatory ETC/WMF: European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows ETS: Emission Trading Scheme EuPC: European Plastic Converters EVA: Ethylene Vinyl Acetate EVOH: Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol FDP: Flat Display Panel FR: Feedstock Recovery FR: Flame Retardant GDP: Gross Domestic Product GF: Glass Fibre GH: Greenhouse GHG: Greenhouse Gas GWP: Global Warming Potential HCFC: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons HDPE: High Density Polyethylene

HHW: Household Waste HIPS: High Impact Polystyrene IBC: Intermediate Bulk Containers ICT: Information and Communication Technologies IDIS: International Dismantling Information System IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPPC: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control


HDTV: High Definition Television

IT: Information Technologies LCA: Life Cycle Assessment

267

LCD: Liquid Crystal Display LDPE: Low Density Polyethylene LHH: Large Household (appliances) LLDPE: Linear Low Density Polyethylene Mio. tonnes: Millions of tonnes MPV: Multi Purpose Vehicle MR: Mechanical Recycling MRF: Material Recovery Facility MSW: Municipal Solid Waste MSWI: Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer OLED: Organic Light Emitting Diode OPP: Oriented Polypropylene OPS: Oriented Polystyrene PA: Polyamide PBB: Polybrominated Biphenyls PBDE: Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers PBT: Polybutylene Terephtalate PC: Personal Computer / Passenger Car PC: Polycarbonate PCDD/F: dibenzodioxin and dibenzofurans (dioxins and furans) PDA: Personal Digital Assistant JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

PDP: Plasma Display Panel PE: Polyethylene PEN: Polyethylene Naphthalate PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate PETG: Glycol modified Polyethylene Teraphthalate PF: Phenolic (resin) PLA: Polylactic Acid PMMA: Polymethyl Methacrylate POM: Polyacetal (polyoxymethylene) POP: Persistent Organic Pollutants

268


PP: Polypropylene PPE: Polyphenylene Ether PPO: Polyphenylene Oxide PS: Polystyrene PU: Polyurethane PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride PWB: Printed Wire (/Wiring) Board (also called Printed Circuit Board, PCB) RDF: Refuse-derived Fuel RoHS: Restriction of Hazardous Substances (in electrical and electronic equipment) SAN: Styrene Acrylonitrile Copolymer SHH: Small Household (appliances) SMA: Styrene Maleic Anhydride SMC: Sheet Moulding Compound SUV: Sport Utility Vehicle SWOT: Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats t.p.a.: tonnes per annum TBBPA: Tetrabromobisphenol–A th. tonnes: thousand tonnes TNO-STB: TNO-Strategie, Technologie en Beleid (TNO: Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research)

UN: United Nations UP: Unsaturated Polyester UV: Ultraviolet

VDU: Visual Display Unit VOC: Volatile Organic Compound WEEE: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WRAP: Waste & Resources Action Programme WTE: Waste to Energy XPS: Extruded Polystyrene


VDI-TZ: VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH (VDI: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure)

269

10.1. COUNTRY CODES

EU: European Union EC: European Commission 2003 AC: 2003 Accession Countries CEE: Central Eastern Europe WE: Western Europe

Country codes as in ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 code elements Code

Country Cyprus

CY

Belgium

BE

Czech Republic

CZ

Denmark

DK

Estonia

EE

Finland

FI

Hungary

HU

France

FR

Latvia

LV

Germany

DE

Lithuania

LT

Greece

GR (EL)*

Malta

MT

Ireland

IE

Poland

PL

Italy

IT

Slovenia

SI

Luxembourg

LU

Slovakia

SK

Netherlands

NL

Portugal

PT

Iceland

IS

Spain

ES

Liechtenstein

LI

Sweden

SE

Norway

NO

United Kingdom

GB (UK)*

Switzerland

CH

10 NAC

AT

* country codes recommended in EU texts JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

270

Code

Austria

Other non-EU WE countries

EU-15

Country


11. REFERENCES 1

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Plastics in Europe - An analysis of plastics consumption and recovery in Europe 2002&2003 [on line]. Summer 2004 Available from http://www.plasticseurope.org/ [cited: 20/03/2005] 2

Aguado, J. and Serrano, D. Feedstock Recycling of Plastic Wastes. RSC Clean Technology Monographs, Ed. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge (1999). 3

Environment and Plastics Industry Council (EPIC). Plastics Recycling Overview [on line]. Summary Report by Environment and Plastics Industry Council - A Council of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association. Available from www.plastics.ca/epic 4

SOFRES Conseil (based on data provided by Plastics and Products Manufacturers, National Associations) in European Commisssion, 1996. 5

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Producer Responsibility Regulations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997: A Forward Look for Planning Purposes [on line]. DEFRA, UK. Last updated 28 July 1999. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/topics/packaging/pwreg97/07.htm

6

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Plastics - A material of choice for packaging . Insight into consumption and recovery in Western Europe. Spring 1999. 7

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Assessing the eco-efficiency of plastics packaging waste recovery - New insights into European waste management choices. Summary Report. June 2002. 8

Proeurope. http://www.pro-e.org/

9

Wastebase. 2005. European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management Topic Centre of European Environment Agency. http://waste.eionet.eu.int/wastebase 10

European Plastic Converters (EuPC): http://www.eupc.org/

11

Association of Plastics Manufacturers (PlasticEurope): http://www.plasticseurope.org (former Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME): http://www.apme.org/) 12

PET COntainers Recycling Europe (Petcore): http://www.petcore.org/

13

ANAIP. Annual Report 2003: Los plásticos en España. Hechos y cifras 2003. Madrid (Spain), 2004.

14

Enviros. Potential markets for recovered plastics. Funded by the Environmental Agency, 2002. Available from http://www.londonremade.com/download_files/Potential_Markets_rec_plastics.doc

15

Euromonitor. 2004. Packaging in Spain. http://www.euromonitor.com/Packaging_in_Spain

16

17

Hekkert M., Joosten L. and Worrell E. Material efficiency improvement for European packaging in the period 2000 – 2020. in Proceedings of Factor 2 / Factor 10. Utrecht (NL), 1998 (No. 98018). Available from http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/98080.pdf

18

Packaging Automation Ltd. Heat Sealing. Available from http://www.pal.co.uk/pdfs/help.pdf

19

Tse L. 2002. Polypropylene Recycling. http://www.visionengineer.com/env/pp_recycling.php

Visionengineer,

2002.

Available

from

20

Sturges M., Meyhoff Brink J. and Bench, M.L. Packaging’s Place in Society. Resource efficiency of packaging in the supply chain for fast moving consumer goods. Technical Annex.

21

Amcor 2005. Global Flexible http://www.amcor.com/Default.aspx?id=1029

Packaging

Trends.

Available

from


Tice P. Packaging materials: 3. Polypropylene as a packaging material for foods and beverages. Report prepared under the responsibility of the ILSI Europe packaging material task force. ILSI Press, 2002. Available from http://europe.test.ilsi.org/publications/Report+Series/

271

22

ANEP. PET un producto tecnológico. Usos y propiedades. Available from http://www.aneppet.com/codigo/fmenu3.htm 23

Grande, J.A. Barrier Bottle Technologies Square Off. Plastics Technology, 2005 On-line Article. Available from http://www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200508fa1.html

24

Recoup. 2003.Expanded polystyrene [on line]. Available from http://www.recoup.org/shop/asp/product.asp?product=82&cat=62&ph=&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor =&PT_ID= 25

BASF. A plastic at its birthplace. Available from. http://www.corporate.basf.com/en/innovationen/felder/ernaehrung/reden/charts1.htm?getasset=file9&name=P_360_Michniuk.pdf&MTITEL=Charts+Michniuk&suffix=.pdf 26

AMI. European thermoplastic sheet market to hit 4 million tonnes. Applied Market Information Ltd. May 2005. Available from http://www.amiplastics.com/ami/Assets/press_releases/newsitem.aspx?item=71 27

Omnexus. Packaging likes polymers III – Bottles and other blow-moulded containers and items. News & Innovation Trend reports. Apr 19, 2004. http://www.omnexus.com/resources/articles/article.aspx?id=3793

28

Davis N. Main factors driving the growing markets in PP and LLDPE. Plastics 2005. The Ringsider London Metal Exchange, 2005

29

Platt D. LLDPE will outpace LDPE. European Plastics News , 2005. Available from http://www.prw.com/main/newsdetails.asp?id=4174

30

Borealis. Fact & Figures 2006/2007 [on line]. 31 March http://www.borealisgroup.com/public/pdf/factsfigures/factsfigures_2006.pdf

2006.

Available

from

31

Petcore. 2005. Petcore announces that Sidel’s Actis Lite™ coating technology and ColorMatirix’ acetaldehyde “Triple A” scavenger technology will have no negative effect on current European PET recycling. Available from http://www.petcore.org/news_press_01.html

32

Tice P. Packaging materials: 3. Polypropylene as a packaging material for foods and beverages. Report prepared under the responsibility of the ILSI Europe packaging material task force. ILSI Press., 2002. Available from http://europe.test.ilsi.org/publications/Report+Series/

33

AMI. Plastic closures to overtake metal by 2009. Applied Market Information Ltd. July 2005. Available from http://www.amiplastics.com/ami/Assets/press_releases/newsitem.aspx?item=73

34

Biodegradable Polymers / Bioplastics IBAW e.V.: http://www.ibaw.org/ [cited: 18/11/2005]

35

Leaversuch, R. Biodegradable Polyesters: Packaging Goes Green [on line]. Plastics Technology, Technical Article 09/05/02. Available from http://www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200209fa3.html [cited: 18/11/2005]


36

Crank, M.; Patel, M. et al. Techno-economic Feasibility of Large-scale Production of Bio-based Polymers in Europe. 2005. Draft Final Report. Joint EC-DG-JRC IPTS-ESTO Study. Oliver Wolf (Ed.)

37

EEA (European Environment Agency). Europe’s environment: the third assessment. EEA, Copenhagen (Denmark), April 2003.

38

Bodo, P.; Nemeskeri, R. et al. Techno-Economic Outlook on Waste Indicators in Enlargement Countries (TEO-WASTE). Final Report. EUR 21205 EN joint JRC/IPTS-ESTO Study – Technical Report Series. October 2003.

39

EU Project EVK4 CT 2002 00087 within the EC's Fifth Framework Programme: “The Use of Life Cycle Assessment Tools for the Development of Integrated Waste Management Strategies for Cities and Regions with Rapidly Growing Economies”.

40

Fischer, C. and Crowe, M. Household and municipal waste: Comparability of data in EEA member countries. Topic report No 3/2000 .EEA, Copenhagen (Denmark), April 2000.

41

272

www.wastesolutions.org


42

OECD (2001a), OECD environmental outlook, Paris, France.

43

Tukker, A.; Schindel,K. Scenarios of household waste generation in 2020. Final Report. EUR 20771 EN joint JRC/IPTS-ESTO Study – Technical Report Series. June 2003.

44

Ayuntamiento de Bilbao. Limpieza y Recogida de R.S.U. – Balance 2002

45

Parfitt, J. Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste increases. WRAP, UK, Dec 2002

46

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. Waste Management Plan of the Czech Republic, 2003 [on line]. Available from http://www.env.cz/www/zamest.nsf/0/9948146215721cf0c1256e54004b698b/

47

Zbyněk, K. Czech Republic. PWW Directive Solution 1999-2008 - Decision making process [on line]. Eko-Kom. Available from http://www.recyclingistanbul.com/sunumlar/ABCozumler-CekOrnegiZbynekKozel.ppt 48

GAIKER SWA results (MSW analyses 2002-2005). Unpublished

49

EU Project Nº EVK4-CT-2000-00030 (2001-2004), under 5th FWP, Key Action “City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage“: “Development of a Methodological Tool to Enhance the Precision & Comparability of Solid Waste Analysis Data (S.W.A.-Tool)”. http://www.swa-tool.net/ 50

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Energy recovery - analysis of plastics in municipal solid waste. Feb.1995 51

APME. Waste plastic recycling a good practices guide by and for local & regional authorities

52

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Plastics - A material of innovation for the electrical and electronic industry. Insight into consumption and recovery in Western Europe 2000 [on line]. Summer 2001. Available from: http://www.plasticseurope.org/ [cited: 20/03/2005]

53

European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management (ETC/RWM). Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) [on line]. Topic Centre of European Environment Agency (EEA). Available from http://waste.eionet.eu.int/waste/6 [cited: 20/03/2005]

54

López de Velasco, J. (Spanish Ministry of Environment). El Plan Nacional de Gestión de Residuos Eléctricos y Electrónicos 2006 – 2010. Proceedings of RELEC’05 - Jornadas Técnicas sobre el Reciclado de aparatos eléctrico-electrónicos, Cádiz (Spain), 15-16 September 2005.

55

El-Kretsen AB. Annual Report 2004-2005. Collecting and recycling of WEEE in Sweden [on line]. Stockholm (Sweden), 2005. Available from www.elkretsen.se [cited: 10/11/2005]

56

El-retur. Environmental Report 2003 [on line]. Oslo (Norway), 2004. Available from www.elretur.no [cited: 11/01/2005]

57

58

Recupel asbl. Annual Report 2004 – Recupel at Cruising Speed [on line]. Brussels (Belgium), 2005. Available from www.recupel.be [cited: 18/01/2006]

59

Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER). Status Report on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the UK, 2005. Interim report: January 2005.

60

Freegard, K.; Morton, R.; Coggins, C.; et al. Develop a process to separate brominated flame retardants from WEEE polymers. Interim Report 2 [on line]. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Oxon (UK), January 2005. Available from http://www.wrap.org.uk/ [cited: 16/01/2006]

61

Freegard, K.; Morton, R.; Coggins, C.; et al. Develop a process to separate brominated flame retardants from WEEE polymers. Interim Report 1 [on line]. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Oxon (UK), January 2005. Available from http://www.wrap.org.uk/ [cited: 16/01/2006]


Swiss Foundation for Waste Management (S.EN.S). Annual Report 2004 - System exactly on track [on line]. Ed. Hediger, R.; Siegfried, K.; Poldervaart, P. Zurich (Switzerland) Available from www.sens.ch [cited: 18/01/2006]

273

62

Kemna, R.; Elburg, M.; Li, W.; Holsteijn, R. Methodology Study Eco-design of Energy-using Products. Final Report. MEEUP. Product Cases Report [on line]. Van Holsteijn en Kemna BV (VHK). Delft (The Netherlands), November 2005. Available from

63

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Plastics consumption and recovery in Western Europe 1995. A material of choice for the Electrical and Electronic Industry .

64

Verband Kunststofferzeugende Industrie (VKE). Plastic in Electrical and Electronic Equipment. VKE Ed. Frankfurt am Main (Germany), October 2003

65

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). E-Cycling - Market trends. Trends in electronics waste generation [on line]. Last updated on July 27th, 2005 Available from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ecycling/trends.htm [cited: 09/11/2005]

66

Vink, D. NEC pushes bioplastics into electronics [on line]. Plastics & Rubber Weekly - News. Frankfurt (Germany), 07/12/2005. Available from http://www.prw.com/main/newsdetails.asp?id=4909 [cited 08/02/06]

67

OMNEXUS News & Innovation – News. Rear Projection Monitors have Housings made with Flameretardant Polyurethane from Bayer MaterialScience [on line]. Feb 7, 2006. Available from http://omnexus.com/news/news.aspx?id=10727&lr=dom06038&li=1039007 [cited 08/02/06]

68

CESANA, J. ; LEPAPE,Y. (Missions Economiques, MINEFI, France). AU T OMOB I L E – N ° 4 2 – Nov -Dec 2004 © MINEFI – DGTPE

69

L'Industrie automobile : Les matériaux légers à l'assaut de l'acier. Extrait de la revue ECOMINE, par C. Hocquard. BRGM, septembre 2005. Available from http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/matieres/textes/ecomine_note_sept05.htm

70

Jenseit, W.; Stahl, H. et al. Recovery Options for Plastic Parts from End-of-Life Vehicles: an EcoEfficiency Assessment. Final Report. Öko-Institut e. V. for APME. Darmstadt (DE), 12th May 2003.

71

Abrose, C.A. Post-consumer automotive waste arisings, disposal and legislation. Waste and Energy Research Group, School of the Environment, University of Brighton. IWM Article, November 2000

72

Read, C.; Gick, M. New lease of life for old car plastics. PROVE Press Release, March 2003

73

Canadian Plastics Industry Association (EPIC). More plastics for future cars. [on line]. Available from http://www.cpia.ca/teachers/news/details.php?ID=924 [cited: 10/11/2005]

74

DHE Home – Publications. Environmental Impact of End-of-Life Vehicles: An Information Paper ELV Waste - Shredder Flock [on line]. Last updated in June 2005. Department of the Environment and Heritage of Australia. Available from http://www.deh.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/elv/impact2002/chapter8.html

75


Sorge, M. Asia And Eastern Europe Rebound - automobile industry sales statistics - Brief Article Statistical Data Included [on line]. FindArticles. September, 1999. Available from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_9_179/ai_55983739 [cited: 19/10/2005]

76

Centro Español de Plásticos, 2004

77

WasteWatch. Plastics in UK economy, a guide to polymer use and the opportunities for recycling [on line]. Available from http://www.wastewatch.org.uk/ 78

European Plastic Converters (EuPC): http://www.eupc.org/

79

http://www.leadacidbatteryinfo.org/newsdetail.php?id=10 (visited 11/01/2006)

80

GAIKER Database

81

Life Cycle Design of a Fuel Tank System, EPA December 1997

82

Rossi, M.; Griffith, C.; Gearhart, J. and Juska, C. Moving Towards Sustainable Plastics, A Report Card on the Six Leading Automakers. The Ecology Center (US), February 2005.

83

Graff, G. Easy Recyclability Spurs Interest in All-PP Composites [on line], Sep 7, 2005. OMNEXUS News & Innovation Trend reports. Available from

274


http://omnexus.com/resources/articles/article.aspx?id=9207&or=p102_9607_101_9207 07/10/2005]

[cited:

84

European Plastics Converters (EuPC). The European Markets for Plastics Automotive Components [on line]. Available from http://www.eupc.org/markets/auto.htm [cited: 20/03/2005]

85

Marsh, G. Next step for automotive materials. Materials Today, April 2003 p. 36-43.

86

ACEA. European Automobile Industry Report 05. European. Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). Brussels. 2006 87

Kanari, N.; Pineau, J.L. and S. Shallary. End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling in the European Union [on line]. JOM: August 2003, Vol. 55, No. 8. Available from http://doc.tms.org/servlet/ProductCatalog?container=JOM+2003+August [cited 20/10/05]

88

ANFAC

89

ACEA Data Services (consulted 20/01/2006)

90

ACEA EU-15 Economic Report, ACEA Feb. 2004

91

JATO. Central/Eastern Europe Market grows in 2004 but falls away badly in Q4 [on line]. Jato Dynamics Press Releases. Feb 2005. Available from www.jato.com [cited 16/01/05]

92

JATO. Central/Eastern European new car market down 0.8% to date vs. 2004 [on line]. Jato Dynamics Press Releases. Nov 8 2005. Available from http://www.jato.com/ [cited 16/01/05]

93

JATO. W European new car market falls again in November [on line]. Jato Dynamics Press Releases. Dec 21 2005. Available from http://www.jato.com/ [cited 16/01/05]

94

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Plastics - A material of innovation for the automotive industry. Insight into consumption and recovery in Western Europe 1999 [on line]. Summer 2001. Available from http://www.plasticseurope.org/ [cited: 19/10/2005]

95

A.S.B.L. FEBELAUTO. Rapport annuel febelauto 2004. Ed.: Lenaerts, C. Brussels

96

Viridis. Northern Ireland End of Life Vehicle Survey 2000. Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland (EHS NI). Available from http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/publications/ELVSurvey_ExecutiveSummaryReport.pdf

97

European Plastics Converters "THE EUROPEAN MARKETS FOR PLASTICS BUILDING PRODUCTS" available from http://www.eupc.org/markets/build.htm [cited: 20/03/2005]

98

An Analysis of plastics consumption and recovery in Europe (2001&2002), APME

99

An Analysis of plastics consumption and recovery in Europe (2002&2003), APME

100

101

Construction and demolition waste management practices and their economic impacts, Symonds in association with ARGUS, COWI and PRC Bouwcetrum, February 1999

102

Ecofys – IPTS. Assesing the environmental potencial of clean material technologies. October 2002

103

Plastics Europe. Consumption by end-use sector. Available http://www.plasticseurope.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=265. Visited on 10/01/06. 104

Eurostat

105

Cicloagro. Personal communication

106

at

ADEME. Films plastiques agricoles usagés (FPAU) [on line]. Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie. France. Available from http://www.ademe.fr/entreprises/Dechets/dechets/imprime.asp?ID=11


Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME). Plastics - A material choice in Building and Construction. Plastics recovery and consumption in Western Europe 1995.. Available from http://www.plasticseurope.org

275

107

Picuno, P. and Sica, C. Mechanical and Spectroradiometrical Characteristics of Agricultural Recycled Plastic Films. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Manuscript BC 04 001. April, 2004 108

Cicloagro.

109

Pira International. Development of Options for Enhancing Commercial and Industrial Film Collection. The Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Oxon (UK), April 2004. Available from www.wrap.org.uk

110

Sundt P. & Martinez T. Recycling schemes for Agriculture .Available at www.plastretur.no

111

Sanders B., Lloyd T., Crosby K., Lyons H., Wilkinson M. & Weston S. Recycling Agricultural Waste Plastic. Environment Agency. 2005 112

Amidon Recycling. Use and Disposal of Plastics in Agriculture. American Plastic Council (APC). April 1994. 113

Agricultural Plastics Recycling website: http://environmentalrisk.cornell.edu/AgPlastics/

114

Bühler AG 2006. Personal communication.

115

Thermoselect homepage: www.thermoselect.com

116

http://www.thermoselect.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=VerfahrensbeschreibungST&m=0

117

ADEME 2002. Thermolyse - pyrolyse : point sur les applications au traitement des déchets ménagers [on line]. Available from http://www.ademe.fr/collectivites/Dechets-new/Documents/Thermolyse.pdf 118

Yamada, Sumio; Shimizu, Masuto; Miyoshi, Fumihiro. Thermoselect Waste Gasification and Reforming Process. JFE TECHNICAL REPORT No. 3. 2004. Available from http://www.jfesteel.co.jp/en/research/report/003/pdf/003-05.pdf 119

Thermoselect 2003. THERMOSELECT – An Advanced Field Proven High Temperature Recycling Process. Gasification Technologies Council. Available from http://www.thermoselect.com/news/200310-12,%20Gasification%20Technologies%20Council%20%20-%20USA.pdf 120

UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. 1999. DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES - Projects and Programmes incorporating Cooperative Approaches to the Transfer of Technologies and Responses on How the Issues and Questions Listed in the Annex to Decision 4/CP.4 Should Be Addressed, as well as Suggestions for Additional Issues and Questions. Tenth session, 28 April 1999. Available from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/1999/sbsta/misc05a01.pdf 121

Drost, U.; Eisenlohr, F. et al. Report on the operating trial with automotive shredder residue (ASR). Proceedings of 4th International Automobile Recycling Congress, Geneva (Switzerland), March 10 -12, 2004. 122


Hellweg S. Time- and Site-Dependent Life-Cycle Assessment of Thermal Waste Treatment Processes. A dissertation submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology for the degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences. Switzerland, 2000. 123

Selinger, A.; Steiner, C.; Shin, K.. TwinRec – Bringing the gap of car recyling in Europe. Proceedings of 3rd International Automobile Recycling Congress, Geneva (Switzerland), 2003. 124

Selinger, A. and Steiner, C. Waste Gasification in Practice: TwinRec Fluidized Bed Gasification And Ash Melting - Review of Four Years of Commercial Plant Operation. Presentation at IT3’04 Conference, Phoenix, Arizona (USA), 2004.

125

Selinger, A. and Steiner, C. Introducing Ebara´s ICF Technology. Identiplast 2005

126

McViro. Technologies Review Reference Manual. New & Emerging Technologies Applications for Residual Wastes Processing. GTA Working Group. December 2003

127

Afval Overleg Orgaan. 2002. Achtergronddocument A22, MILIEUEFFECTRAPPORT LANDELIJK AFVALBEHEERPLAN

276

Uitwerking

"shredderafval".

Afval Overleg Orgaan. 2002. Achtergronddocument A22, MILIEUEFFECTRAPPORT LANDELIJK AFVALBEHEERPLAN

Uitwerking


128

"shredderafval".

129

Babu, S.P. Biomass Gasification for Hydrogen Production –Process Description and Research Needs. IEA Technical Report, 2004. Available from http://www.ieahia.org/pdfs/gasification_report_sureshbabu.pdf 130

Tukker, de Groot, H.; Simona, L.; Wiegersma, S. Chemical recycling of plastic waste (PVC and other resins). TNO Report STB-99-55, 1999. 131

SVZ homepage. http://www.svz-gmbh.de

132

Picard L.; Kamka, F. and Jochmann, A.. Development Status of BGL-Gasification. International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL Technologies, June 16-18 2005.

133

Schulz, H. W. A Bright Future for Renewable Energy Based on Waste. International Directory of Solid Waste Management 2000—2001. Available from http://jxj.base10.ws/yearbook/iswa/2000/bright_future_schultz.html 134

Buttker, B.; Giering, R. et al. Full Scale Industrial Recovery Trials of Shredder Residue in a High Temperature Slagging-Bed-Gasifier in Germany.

135

J. Theunis, A. Van der Linden, R. Torfs, A. Vercalsteren, C. Spirinckx, A. Jacobs, K. Vrancken. 2003. Energetische valorisatie van hoogcalorische afvalstromen in Vlaanderen Deel 2: Afvalaanbod, procesbeschrijvingen en toepassingsmogelijkheden Eindrapport. Studie uitgevoerd in het kader van de BBT/EMIS referentieopdracht 2003/IMS/R/051 136

VITO 2001. Procesbeschrijving afvalvenwerkingstechnieken. Integrale http://www.emis.vito.be/EMIS/Media/afval_verwerkingsscenario_hoofdstuk2.pdf

milieusudies2001.

137

Lehtilä A. & Tuhkanen S. 1999. Integrated cost-effectiveness analysis of green house gas emission abatement – The case of Finland. VTT publications 374.

138

http://www.nedo3r.com/TechSheet/JP-0028E.htm

139

Ogaki Y., Tomioka K., Watanabe A., Arita K., Kuriyama I. & Sugayoshi T. Recycling of Waste Plastic Packaging in a Blast Furnace System 140

Sander, K.; Jepsen, D. et al. Definition of Waste Recovery and Disposal Operations. Part A: Recovery and Disposal operations. Final Report. Ökopol GmbH for the European Commission – Directorate General Environment. Hamburg (Germany), March 2004 141

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement and Lime Manufacturing Industries. European Commission, December 2001

142

Swithenbank A., Nasserzadeeh V. Co-incineration, New Developments and Trends. Proceedings of the Workshop on Co-incineration, 1997. Edited by Heinrich Langenkamp.

143

144

World Business Council for Sustainable development. Formation and Release of POPs in the Cement Industry. Second edition. 23 January 2006. Available from http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/formation_release_pops_second_edition.pdf 145

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration. European Commission, July 2005.

146

Schwager, J. and Whiting, K. European Waste Gasification: Technical & Public Policy Trends and Developments. Paper given at Gasification Technologies 2002 Conference, San Francisco, CA (USA), 28th October 2002. Available from http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2002_Papers/GTC02020.pdf [cited 16/06/06]


Lohse, J., Wulf-Schnabel, J. Expertise on the Environmental Risks Associated with the CoIncineration of Wastes in the Cement Kiln "Four E" of CBR Usine de Lixhe, Belgium. Ökopol GmbH. Hamburg (Germany), 1996: Available from http://www.oekopol.de/Archiv/Anlagen/CBRBelgien.htm

147

Schwager, J. and Whiting, K. Progress Towards Commercialising Waste Gasification Waste Gasification: A Worldwide Status Report. Presentation to the Gasification Technologies 2003 Conference,

277

San Francisco, CA (USA), 14th October 2003. http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2003_Papers/22SCHW.pdf [cited 16/06/06]

Available

from

148

Mayne, N. Recovery and recycling of waste. Presentation by APME at Public Hearing before the European Parliament, 7 January 2004. Available from http://www.plasticseurope.org/ 149

Mayne, N. Current status and outlook of Technologies to Recover End-of-Life Plastics in Europe. Presentation by APME at Belgian Polymer Group Meeting, Ghent (Belgium), 12 March 2004. Available from http://www.plasticseurope.org/

150

Kistenmacher, A. Current Plastics Recycling –State of the Art. Presentation by APME at RECCON’03, Bilbao (Spain), Nov 10-12, 2003. Available from http://www.plasticseurope.org/

151

Wollny, V.; Dehoust, G. et al. Comparison of Plastic Packaging Waste Management Options. Feedstock Recycling versus Energy Recovery in Germany. Journal of Industry Ecology, 2002, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 49-63.

Yoo. “가스화 기술의 환경분야 적용 사례 (Environment application of gasification techniques)”. [on line]. Chemical Engineering Research Information Center (CHERIC), Korea. Available from http://infosys.korea.ac.kr/ippage/g/ipdata/2001/01/file/269,2,Thermal%20treatment%20option%20for%2 0MSW 152

153

Theunis, J. and Franck, S. Greenhouse gas emissions and material flows. PART III: Materials used for packaging and building: plastics, paper and cardboard, and aluminium. VITO for the Federal Office of Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs “Global Change and Sustainable Development – Sub-Program 2” - 2001/IMS/R/132. June 2001 154

Livingston, W.R. Technical and Economic Assessment of Energy Conversion Technologies for MSW. Report No. B/WM/00553/REP, DTI PUB URN NO: 02/1347. Mitsui Babcock for DTI Sustainable Energy Programmes (UK)

155

Feasibility Study of Thermal Waste Treatment/Recovery Options in the Limerick/Clare/Kerry Region. [on line]. Ireland Waste Management Plan, August 2005. Available from http://www.managewaste.ie/docs/WMPNov2005/FeasabilityStudy/LCK%20Thermal%20Feasibility%20 Report-Ful%20(web).pdf 156

Hackett, C. et al. Technology Evaluation and Economic Analysis of Waste Tire Pyrolysis, Gasification, and Liquefaction. University of California Riverside for the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Sacramento, CA (USA), March 2006. Available from www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/ 157

URS Corp. Conversion Technology Evaluation Report. Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee of the Los Angles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force. Los Angeles, CA (USA), August 2005

158


278

Gendebien, A. et al. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives (B43040/2000/306517/Mar/E3) - Final Report. WRc plc for the European Commission – Directorate General Environment. Swindon (UK), July 2003. 159

DHV CR Ltd. Waste Management Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries: Current Policies and Trends. Prague (Czech Republic) July 2001. Available from http://www.eurowaste.org/ 160

Rylander, H. and Haukohl, J. Status of WTE in Europe [on line]. Article from Waste Management World, International Solid Wastes Association, May-June 2002. Available from www.iswa.dk

161

Stengler, E. Thermal Solutions for Residual Waste. Current Situation, Requirements and Trends in Europe [on line]. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP). In proceedings of Conference “The Future of Residual Waste Management in Europe”. Luxembourg, 17-18 November 2005. Available from http://www.orbit-online.net/orbit2005/vortraege/stengler-ppt.pdf [cited 16/06/06]

European Commission EUR 22939 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Title: Assessment of the Environmental Advantages and Drawbacks of Existing and Emerging Polymers Recovery Processes Authors: Clara Delgado, Leire Barruetabeña, Oscar Salas. Editor: Oliver Wolf Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2007 EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593 ISBN 978-92-79-07366-3

Abstract The report analyses the technical and environmental potential of various plastic recovery schemes, as well as assessing the possibilities for environmentally favourable existing and emerging processes to enter the market. Quality and quantity of plastic waste streams are estimated for 2015. For this purpose the six waste categories packaging, vehicles, electronic equipment, agriculture, municipal waste, and construction are analysed in detail. Existing plastic recovery technologies are analysed with regards to their environmental performance. As a result, the recovery technology mix for different scenarios is calculated which best achieves the objective of environmental sustainability.

LF-NA-22939-EN-C

The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national.