assessment of the environmental advantages and drawbacks of … · 2012-04-17 · environmental...

EUR 22939 EN - 2007

Assessment of the EnvironmentalAdvantages and Drawbacks of Existing and

Emerging Polymers Recovery Processes

Authors: Clara Delgado, Leire Barruetabeña, Oscar Salas Editor: Oliver Wolf

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. Main applications of polymers in agriculture............................................... 117 6.7.2. Most common polymers in Agriculture........................................................ 119 6.7.3. Future trends in agricultural plastics ............................................................ 121 6.7.4. Current and future polymer scenarios in Agriculture waste stream ............. 122

6.8. PLASTIC WASTE SCENARIOS. SUMMARY ......................................... 126 6.9. ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF POLYMERS.................................... 128

6.9.1. Introduction and methodology ..................................................................... 128 6.9.2. 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. COUNTRY CODES..................................................................................... 263 11. 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

1

JRC

Scientific and Technical R

eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm

ental Advanta ges and D

rawbacks of E

xisting and Emerging P

olymers R

ecovery 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. 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).

Oliver Wolf JRC/IPTS

2

JRC


eports

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

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.

3

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

4

JRC


eports

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

5

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

6

JRC


eports

• 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))

7

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

− 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

—mostly inert— residues.

• 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

Warming Potential GWP. In particular, gasification to syngas is the technology with

the highest GWP estimate and the lowest energy efficiency. The above mentioned

8

JRC


eports

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

9

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 co-

incineration 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

the waste to be fed into their processes.

• 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

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

10

JRC


eports

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

11

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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:

12

JRC


eports

− 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.

13

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

14

JRC


eports

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).

15

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

do not modify the base situation.

− 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

be up to 15%, with an additional 10% over base line subtracted from feedstock

recovery waste flow. Energy recovery remains on base line levels.

16

JRC


eports

− 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

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.

17

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

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

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

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

18

JRC


eports

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

impact associated to those scenarios is evaluated, with a view to envisage the expected

scenario and the framework conditions that could make it happen.

19

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

Evolution of polymer consumption in EU-25

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

PP LDPE HDPE PS PET PVC Others

poly

mer

cons

umpt

ion,

th. t

onne

s

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

Evolution of polymer consumption in EU-25

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

PP LDPE HDPE PS PET PVC Others

poly

mer

cons

umpt

ion,

th. t

onne

s

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

2001

2002

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

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.

20

JRC


eports

Electric & Electronic

9%

Large Industry6%

Domestic & Household

20%

Packaging36%

Agriculture2%

Automotive8%

Building & Construction

19%

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 Waste66%Electrical &

Electronic4%

Automotive5%

Building & Construction

3%

Agriculture2%

Distribution & Industry

20%

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

21

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

(× 1000 t)

% of recovered plastics related to the volume of plastic waste

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%),

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

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.

22

JRC


eports

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.

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.

23

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

RECOVERY OPTIONS

Material RecoveryPlastic waste reprocessing into the

original application or anotherdifferent through a series of

manufacturing processs

Energy recovery

MechanicalRecycling

FeedstockRecovery

AlternativeFuel

Substituion ofconventional fuels

in industryprocesses (e.g. Cement kilns)

Energygeneration

Plastic wastereprocessing intonew products by physical means.

Ultra-clean processincl.

Basic chemicalsrecovery (monomers

or syncrude) through chemical

processes: depolymerisation, gasification, blast

furnace, pyrolisis...

Power (Heat orelectricity)

generation (e.g. incineration)

Energy recovery or generationfrom plastic waste, with other

(by)productsor not

RECOVERY OPTIONS

Material RecoveryPlastic waste reprocessing into the

original application or anotherdifferent through a series of

manufacturing processs

Energy recovery

MechanicalRecycling

FeedstockRecovery

AlternativeFuel

Substituion ofconventional fuels

in industryprocesses (e.g. Cement kilns)

Energygeneration

Plastic wastereprocessing intonew products by physical means.

Ultra-clean processincl.

Basic chemicalsrecovery (monomers

or syncrude) through chemical

processes: depolymerisation, gasification, blast

furnace, pyrolisis...

Power (Heat orelectricity)

generation (e.g. incineration)

Energy recovery or generationfrom plastic waste, with other

(by)productsor not

Figure 4: Recovery routes for plastic waste

24

JRC


eports

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

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.

25

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

figure below.

2

3

4

15

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2021

22

23

24

25

Austria2 Belgium3 Denmark4 Finland5 France6 Germany7 Greece8 Ireland9 Italy

10 Luxembourg11 Netherlands

Portugal 13 Spain14 Sweden15 United Kingdom

16 Czech Republic17 Cyprus18 Estonia19 Hungary20 Latvia21 Lithuania22 Malta23 Poland24 Slovakia25 Slovenia

1

12

2

3

4

15

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2021

22

23

24

25

Austria2 Belgium3 Denmark4 Finland5 France6 Germany7 Greece8 Ireland9 Italy

10 Luxembourg11 Netherlands

Portugal 13 Spain14 Sweden15 United Kingdom



1

12

Figure 5: State members of the EU-25 area

26

JRC


eports

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.

PUPAABSPSPPLDPEPVCHDPEPET

0

20

40

60

80

100

WEE

E

ELV

Agric

ultu

re

C&D

Pack

agin

g

MSW

2005 SCENARIO

0

20

40

60

80

100

WEE

E

ELV

Agric

ultu

re

C&D

Pack

agin

g

MSW

2015 SCENARIO

PC/ABS blend

Shar

ein

pla

stic

was

test

ream

, wt.%

Shar

ein

pla

stic

was

test

ream

, wt.%PUPAABSPSPPLDPEPVCHDPEPET

PUPAABSPSPPLDPEPVCHDPEPET

0

20

40

60

80

100

WEE

E

ELV

Agric

ultu

re

C&D

Pack

agin

g

MSW

2005 SCENARIO

0

20

40

60

80

100

WEE

E

ELV

Agric

ultu

re

C&D

Pack

agin

g

MSW

2005 SCENARIO

0

20

40

60

80

100

WEE

E

ELV

Agric

ultu

re

C&D

Pack

agin

g

MSW

2015 SCENARIO

PC/ABS blend

0

20

40

60

80

100

WEE

E

ELV

Agric

ultu

re

C&D

Pack

agin

g

MSW

2015 SCENARIO

PC/ABS blend

Shar

ein

pla

stic

was

test

ream

, wt.%

Shar

ein

pla

stic

was

test

ream

, wt.%

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

27

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

“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

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

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.

28

JRC


eports

Packaging

Computers

Wall coverings

Telecommunications

Large Domestic Appliances

Profiles (e.g. window frames)

Insulation

Pipes/ducts

Percentage of products

0 20 40 60 80 100

< 2 2 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 > 40Life span (years)

Packaging

Computers

Wall coverings

Telecommunications

Large Domestic Appliances

Profiles (e.g. window frames)

Insulation

Pipes/ducts

Percentage of products

0 20 40 60 80 100

< 2 2 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 > 40Life span (years) < 2< 2 2 to 52 to 5 5 to 105 to 10 10 to 2010 to 20 20 to 4020 to 40 > 40> 40Life span (years)

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:

• 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…

29

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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

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

30

JRC


eports

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

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.

31

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK

Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

tege

nera

ted,

th. t

onne

s1997199819992000200120022003

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK

Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

tege

nera

ted,

th. t

onne

s1997199819992000200120022003

19971997199819981999199920002000200120012002200220032003

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

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Plastic packaging waste generated

Plastic packaging waste recovered

Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

te, t

h. to

nnes

AT BE CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT SK SI ES SE GB0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500





Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

te, t

h. to

nnes

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

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

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

32

JRC


eports

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;

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.

33

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

1997

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

te, k

t

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

1997

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

te, k

t

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

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

34

JRC


eports

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.

Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

te, t

h. to

nnes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500




Plas

ticpa

ckag

ing

was

te, t

h. to

nnes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500






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

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.

35

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

HDPE28%

PP3%

PET 66%

LDPE0,4%PVC3%

HDPE28%

PP3%

PET 66%

LDPE0,4%PVC3%

Bottles20%

Other containers5%

Closures4%

Bags and sacks

25%

Films

28%

Miscelaneous

13%

Protection5%

LDPE

61%

HDPE

31%

PP8%

LDPE

61%

HDPE

31%

PP8%

LDPE5%

HDPE

20%

PP73%

PVC 2% LDPE5%

HDPE

20%

PP73%

PVC 2%

LDPE 76%

PET3%PVC1% PP 20%

LDPE 76%

PET3%PVC1% PP 20%

Figure 12: Approximation to the resin market share in the packaging sector (Spain, 2003[13]).

36

JRC


eports

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 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

Bottles

Medical products PET

Closures Caps and closures of bottles, jars, pots, cartons... PP, LDPE, HDPE, PVC

Carrier bags LDPE, HDPE

Garbage bags HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE Bags and sacks

Other bags and sacks LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE, PP, woven PP

37

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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


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

Films

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

Trays

Soup PP, A-PET

Blisters PET, PVC

Pots, cups and tubs PP, PS

Service packaging (e.g. vending cups) PS Others

Protective packaging (“clam” containers, fish crates, loose

filling...) EPS

38

JRC


eports

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.

PET15%

HDPE19%

LDPE32%

PP19%

PS9%

PVC3%

Others3%

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

39

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Poly

mer

con

sum

ptio

n in

pac

kagi

ng

appl

icat

ions

, th.

tonn

es

bottles closures bags &sacks

films trays other

Other LDPE packagingOther filmsShrink wrapStretch WrapLDPE/LLDPE Sacks and bagsClosuresBottles

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

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

detergents, cosmetics, lubricants, dairy products (where it is right behind PET in the

market share)[15] and sauces.

40

JRC


eports

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.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Poly

mer

con

sum

ptio

n in

pac

kagi

ng

appl

icat

ions

, th.

tonn

es


films trays other

Tanks / IBC containersContainersBoxesBags and sacksClosuresColoured bottlesClear bottles

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

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;

41

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Poly

mer

con

sum

ptio

n in

pac

kagi

ng

appl

icat

ions

, th.

tonn

es


films trays other

Other PP packagingFilm Bags and sacksClosuresBottles

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

market[18].

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

non-polymeric materials. Moreover, it is hard to fast identify and separate

polypropylene from other plastics in packaging, and studies have shown that used

42

JRC


eports

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.

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spa

inBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Ger

man

yG

reec

eR

est0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spa

inBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Ger

man

yG

reec

eR

est

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spai

nB

elgi

umP

olan

dG

erm

any

Gre

ece

Res

tIta

lyFr

ance UK

Spai

nBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Ger

man

yG

reec

eR

est

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spai

nBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Ger

man

yG

reec

eR

est

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spai

nBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Ger

man

yG

reec

eR

est

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spai

nBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Ger

man

yG

reec

eR

est

Italy

Fran

ce UK

Spai

nB

elgi

umP

olan

dG

erm

any

Gre

ece

Res

t

Kton

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

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.

43

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000Po

lymer

con

sum

ptio

n in

pac

kagi

ng

appl

icatio

ns, t

h.to

nnes


films trays other

Other PET packagingCPET + APET traysFilm + barrier filmOther barrier bottlesBarrier brown bottlesColoured bottlesClear bottles

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.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000 2005 2010 2015

Oil & vinegarBeerWaterSoft drinks & juices

PET

cons

umpt

ion,

kt

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000 2005 2010 2015

Oil & vinegarBeerWaterSoft drinks & juices

PET

cons

umpt

ion,

kt

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

44

JRC


eports

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

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

differences.

45

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Dairy

Service packaging

Other (OPS, thin film, XPS

trays)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cons

umpt

ion

shar

e in

pa

ckag

ing,

%

EPS PS

Figure 20: PS consumption in packaging applications (Source: RECOUP [24] , Basf[25] , Sofres 2000[4])

EPS constitutes about 25% of total PS packaging [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

disposable “plastic glasses” for beverages.

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

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

46

JRC


eports

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

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).

47

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 3,468,774Bags and sacks 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 55,038,156Shrink wrap 25.03 1,094,813 48,609,724 2,200,575 87,913,532Films

Other films 16.23 709,901 31,519,609 1,426,901 57,005,059Other 0.99 43,198 4,556,764 308,848 8,239,367

LDPE total 100.00 4,448,952 197,533,455 9,045,000 357,250,820Boxes 10.83 272,562 11,502,136 493,338 21,723,228

Clear bottles 15.12 380,530 16,058,383 688,760 30,328,274 Bottles

Coloured bottles

11.29 284,139 11,990,684 514,292 22,645,913

Closures 4.08 102,607 4,330,028 288,327 8,280,410

19.95 502,089 21,188,145 908,781 40,016,472 Container

Tanks / IBC containers

2.25 56,627 2,389,640 102,494 4,513,136

Bags and sacks 36.48 918,181 38,747,222 1,661,907 73,178,995

HDPE total 100.00 2,516,736 106,206,239 4,657,899 200,686,428

Bottles 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

PP total 100.00 2,530,194 103,737,954 4,857,972 194,824,938

Clear bottles 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

Barrier brown bottles

4.10 82,218 3,765,577 360,936 6,363,661Bottles

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

PET total 100.00 2,005,313 91,483,350 8,838,675 155,904,649

48

JRC


eports

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

Waste polymer % tonnes Total

calorific value, GJ


tonne


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 15.0

171,596 8,579,780 791,056 14,671,424

PS Other (OPS, thin film, XPS trays) 22.5 257,393 12,869,670 1,443,977 22,264,530

PS total 100.00 1,143,971 57,198,535 4,530,124 97,065,913

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.

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.

49

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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

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

50

JRC


eports

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

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.

51

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 (EU-

15) 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

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

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.

52

JRC


eports

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

Biodegradable Polymer Manufacturer (trade name) Packaging applications

Mineral oil base

Polyesters (certain types), co-polyesters

BASF (Ecoflex)

Treofan

Carrier grabbag

flow pack for fruits and vegetables and for potatoes

cling film

Plant base Starch

Novamont (MaterBi)

Rodenburg Biopolymers (Solanyl)

Plantic Technologies (Plantic)

trays for fruits and vegetables

tray of confectionary boxes

Polyhydroxyalkanoates Procter & Gamble (Nodax) injection molding and extrusion of sheet or film with O2 barrier properties

Polylactic acid (PLA)

NatureWorks (NatureWorks)

Mitsui (Lacea)

Hycail

bottles for different applications

cup for cool beverages, e.g. beer

Plant base

Cellulose (acetates) IFA (Fasal)

Innovia Films (Natureflex) film packaging (cellulose), e.g. for sweets

Starch based materials Starch blends

Novamont (MaterBi)

Eastman (Eastar Bio)

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

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.

53

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Polymer Applications tonnes

Bottles 15,878

Closures 61,992

SACKS LDPE/LLDPE Sacks and bags 2,588,016

Stretch Wrap 983,609

Shrink wrap 1,571,138 Films

Other films 1,018,761

LDPE Other 61,992

LDPE TOTAL 6,301,386

Boxes 391,147

Clear bottles 546,089 Bottles

Coloured bottles 407,761

Closures Closures 147,249

Containers 720,534 Containers

Tanks / IBC containers 81,263

HDPE Bags and sacks 1,317,657

HDPE TOTAL 3,611,700

Botellas PP 95,496

Film 929,177

Closures 449,998

Bags and sacks 358,744

PP 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)

Polymer Applications tonnes

Clear bottles 1,755,000

Coloured bottles 945,000

Barrier brown bottles 120,000 Bottles

Other barrier bottles 180,000

CPET + APET trays 201,444

Film + barrier film 32,519

PET Other packaging 471,091

PET TOTAL 3,705,054

PS EPS 410,421

54

JRC


eports

Dairy 615,631

Service packaging 246,252 PS Other (OPS, thin film, XPS trays)

369,379

PS TOTAL 1,641,683

PVC films 137,708

PVC bottles 79,270

Closures 17,962

PVC Other 329,302

PVC TOTAL 564,242

TOTAL 19,375,314

6.2.4. 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

55

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

56

JRC


eports

Table 6. Separate collection ratios estimated for different applications

Packaging application Current collection ratio

Future collection 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

57

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

58

JRC


eports

Table 7: Plastic packaging waste collected separately and their environmental implications

Waste polymer % ktonnes Total calorific value, GJ

Total CO2 , equivalent tonne


LDPE 12 355 15,762,000 713,550 28,506,500

HDPE 24 695 29,329,000 1,257,950 55,391,500

PP 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

2005

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

2015

TOTAL 99 5,181 223,899,000 13,201,910 406,114,500

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.

59

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Waste polymer % ktonnes Total calorific value, GJ

Total CO2 , equivalent tonne


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

2005

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

2015

TOTAL 99 14,130 622,015,000 35,901,050 1,116,684,500

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.

60

JRC


eports

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS

Packaging waste stream 2005

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS

Packaging in residual MSW stream 2005

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


tonn

es

tonn

es

tonn

es

tonn

es

PSEPS

CPET + APET traysOther packaging

ContainersCrates

FilmsBags and sacks

ClosuresBottles

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


tonn

es

tonn

es

tonn

es

tonn

es

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000


1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000


1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

LDPE HDPE PP PET PS


tonn

es

tonn

es

tonn

es

tonn

es

PSEPS


ContainersCrates

FilmsBags and sacks

ClosuresBottles

PSEPS


ContainersCrates

FilmsBags and sacks

ClosuresBottles

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

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:

61

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• 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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


MSW

per

pop

ulat

ion,

kg/

cap

EU-1

5

2003

AC

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

disposal systems [37].

62

JRC


eports

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

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

kg p

er c

apita

WE

CEE

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

63

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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).

64

JRC


eports

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.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year

MSW

, Mio

.tonn

es

EU-152003 AC

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

65

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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

66

JRC


eports

Table 9: Estimation of current and future plastic waste in residual MSW stream in the EU-25

Region Assumptions Estimated Mtonnes

Plastic in BW 16.464 EU-15, Year 2005

HHW = 85% MSW BW = 75% HHW Plastic in BW= 11% Packaging in BW plastic = 73% Of which packaging 12.019

Plastic in BW 2.582 2003AC, Year 2005



Of which packaging 13.568



Plastic in BW 2.855 2003AC, Year 2015



Of which packaging 15.621

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.

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].

67

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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

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

68

JRC


eports

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 (10-

5%)

• Future: LDPE (43-38%), HDPE (20-15%), PS (17-12%), PET (17-12%), PP (10-

5%)

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

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

69

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

70

JRC


eports

Plastic content in E&E categories (Year 2000)

E&E toolsAutomatic dispensers

ToysMedical equipmentLighting equipment

Monitoring & controlinstruments

Large household appliances

Small household appliances

Consumer equipment

ICT equipment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% weight

Estimate composition of WEEE (Year 2000)

47.9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Iron & steelNFR plastic: 15.3Copper: 7

Glass: 5.4FR plastic: 5.3Aluminium: 4.7Other: 4.6PWB: 3.1

Wood & plywood: 2.6Concrete & ceramics: 2Other metals (non ferrous): 1Rubber: 0.9

% weight

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

Others3%

ICT equipment40%

Large household appliances32%

Consumer electronics15%

Small householdappliances

10%

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

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.

71

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Plastics evolution in E&E (WE): consumption & waste

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Year

kton

nes

wasteconsumption

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

Plastics WEEE per cap. evolution in EU-25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Year

WEE

E pl

astic

was

te, k

g/in

hab.

EU-152003 AC (assumed)

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

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

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].

72

JRC


eports

Composition of collected WEEE by categories

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ES (04) SE (04) NO (03) CH (04) UK (03) BE (04) WesternEurope (00)

colle

cted

am

ount

, wt%

OthersCE (TV, Video, Audio)ICT equipmentLarge household appliancesSmall household appliances

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.

73

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

74

JRC


eports

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

PS (HIPS) Components inside refrigerators (liner, shelving).

Housings of small household appliances, data processing and consumer electronics

ABS 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 Housings of ICT equipment and household appliances.

Lightning.

PC/ABS Housings of ICT equipment and certain small household appliances (e.g. kettles, shavers).

PET (PBT)

Electrical motor components, circuits, sensors, transformers, lighting.

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)

PA Lighting equipment, small household appliances

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

UP resins

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

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

Capacitor casings.

EP resins Printed circuit boards (PWB)

75

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Main polymers used in E&E sector (Western Europe, 2000)

PA3%

UP3%

PC4% PVC

4%

PU8%

PP18%

PS19%

ABS-ASA-SAN33% EP

4%

POM2%

PET1%

PE1%

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]

E&E item Most common Polymer type 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%

6.4.2. Most common polymers in WEEE

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

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

76

JRC


eports

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.

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.

77

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

equipments becoming rapidly obsolete.

78

JRC


eports

THEORICAL MODEL USED TO FORECAST THE LIFESPAN OF PRODUCTS USED IN THE E&E SECTOR

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Data Processung

Office equipment

Small domestic appliances

Telecommunications

Medical equipment

Brown products

Large domestic appliances

Electrical equipment materials

Cables

2-5 YEARS 5-10 YEARS 10-20 YEARS 20-40 YEARS > 40 YEARS

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

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

79

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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.

80

JRC


eports

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.

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).

81

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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.

82

JRC


eports

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 2010- * EOL kept stored in households for years before disposal

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

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.

83

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• 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

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

(PMMA, PET) of any LCD may be hindered by the presence of the liquid crystals

and the mercury containing lamp.

84

JRC


eports

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

Polymer Applications tonnes Total

calorific value, GJ


tonne


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

ABS CE (TV sets): housings 17,973 1,065,746 72,837 2,118,086

ABS TOTAL 280,474 19,561,015 1,336,874 38,875,980

LHA: inner shelving, liner... 103,120 13,669,717 713,559 22,828,428

SHA: housings & casings 4,148 381,926 19,937 637,817

ICT (computer & phones): housings 22,343 4,458,686 232,743 7,446,005

PS CE (TV sets): housings 143,784 4,840,612 252,680 8,083,822

PS TOTAL 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

PP SHA: housings & casings 89,174 6,420,179 300,652 12,057,410

PP TOTAL 96,812 10,389,481 486,532 19,511,952


PC/ABS CE (TV sets): housings 8,986 483,923 34,445 906,378

PC/ABS TOTAL 63,220 2,995,531 242,322 6,376,371

PU LHA: insulation 156,590 4,963,895 601,305 15,377,112

PU TOTAL 156,590 4,963,895 601,305 15,377,112

ICT (computer & phones): PWBs 16,652 374,670 13,863 2,947,401

Epoxy CE (TV sets): PWBs 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

85

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Polymer Applications tonnes Total calorific value, GJ


tonne


LHA: inner shelving, liner... 172,800 22,253,351 1,520,879 44,226,785


ICT (computer & phones): housings 165,927 561,993 38,409 1,116,916

ABS CE (TV sets): housings 27,655 2,009,124 137,311 3,992,976

ABS TOTAL 466,527 34,440,788 2,353,815 68,448,358

LHA: inner shelving, liner... 201,600 24,528,273 1,280,376 40,962,215



PS CE (TV sets): housings 235,064 20,945,455 1,093,353 34,978,909

PS TOTAL 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

PP SHA: housings & casings 253,309 7,380,000 345,600 13,860,000

PP TOTAL 418,909 19,402,691 908,614 36,439,200


PC/ABS CE (TV sets): housings 13,827 744,599 53,000 1,394,619

PC/ABS TOTAL 164,864 8,536,308 607,608 15,988,338

PU LHA: insulation 180,000 5,706,000 691,200 17,676,000

PU TOTAL 180,000 5,706,000 691,200 17,676,000

ICT (computer & phones): PWBs 37,100 834,742 30,885 6,566,636

Epoxy 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

86

JRC


eports

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

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

Western Europe

Disc

arde

dve

hicl

es, u

nits

UKSwitzerlandSwedenSpainPortugalNorwayNetherlandsItalyGermanyDenmarkBelgiumAustriaFrance

Central-Eastern Europe

SlovakiaPolandLithuaniaLatviaHungaryCzech RepublicBulgary

ELV in Europe, 2003

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

Western EuropeWestern Europe

Disc

arde

dve

hicl

es, u

nits



Central-Eastern EuropeCentral-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)

87

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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].

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

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].

88

JRC


eports

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 plastic content in European car 1990

PE5% PVC

10%

PP31%

ABS14%

PC4%

PA6%

PU19%

Acrylic2%

Other9%

Average vehicle plastic content 2001

PE5%

PVC7%

PP40%

ABS7%

PC4%

PA8%

PU11%

Other17%

Epoxy1%


PE5% PVC

10%

PP31%

ABS14%

PC4%

PA6%

PU19%

Acrylic2%

Other9%


PE5% PVC

10%

PP31%

ABS14%

PC4%

PA6%

PU19%

Acrylic2%

Other9%


PE5%

PVC7%

PP40%

ABS7%

PC4%

PA8%

PU11%

Other17%

Epoxy1%


PE5%

PVC7%

PP40%

ABS7%

PC4%

PA8%

PU11%

Other17%

Epoxy1%

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.

89

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Interior trim PP, ABS, PET, POM, PVC 20.0

Electrical components PP, PE, PBT, PA, PVC 7.0

Exterior trim ABS, PA, PBT, POM, ASA, PP 4.0

Lighting PC, PBT, ABS, PMMA, UP 5.0

Upholstery PVC, PU, PP, PE 8.0

Liquid containers PP, PE, PA 1.0

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.

6.5.1.1. 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).

90

JRC


eports

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

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

to recycling aspects.

91

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Polypropylene, Polyethylene PREFER

Polyoxymethilene, Polyamide, Thermoplastic Urethane

ABS, PMMA, SMA, ASA SAN

PC, PET, PBT

Thermoplastic Elastomer

PU

SMC, PF

Elastomer

PVC

Incr

easi

ng p

riorit

y

Mixture of incompatible materials 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

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

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 glass-

based 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

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

92

JRC


eports

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

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:

93

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• 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[89]

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

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

94

JRC


eports

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

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

Cars

in u

se, M

io. u

nits EU-25: 213 million cars

EU-15: 190 million cars2003 AC: 23 million cars

European car park, 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

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

Cars

in u

se, M

io. u

nits EU-25: 213 million cars

EU-15: 190 million cars2003 AC: 23 million cars

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

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

95

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

GM Corsa 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

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.

96

JRC


eports

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00m

arke

t sha

re, %

Utility / citycars

Small Lowermedium

Lowermedium

(premium)

Uppermedium

Uppermedium

(premium)

Executive Luxury Mini MPV MPV SUV Sports

Segment

European Passenger Car sales 2005

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

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.

97

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

EU-25 Car stock age (2002)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Be

lgiu

m

Czec

hRe

publ

ic

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y(in

cl. e

x-G

DR

from

1991

)

Esto

nia

Gre

ece

Spai

n

Fran

ce

Irela

nd Italy

Cypr

us

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

(Gra

nd-D

uché

)

Hun

gary

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Aust

ria

Pola

nd

Portu

gal

Slove

nia

Slova

kia

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom

> 10 years5 to 10 years2 to 5 years< 2 years

EU-25 car age - 2002

22%

29%

34%15%

EU-25 Car stock age (2002)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Be

lgiu

m

Czec

hRe

publ

ic

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y(in

cl. e

x-G

DR

from

1991

)

Esto

nia

Gre

ece

Spai

n

Fran

ce

Irela

nd Italy

Cypr

us

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

(Gra

nd-D

uché

)

Hun

gary

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Aust

ria

Pola

nd

Portu

gal

Slove

nia

Slova

kia

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom



EU-25 car age - 2002

22%

29%

34%15%

22%

29%

34%15%

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 (<4 years old) and a quota of abandoned natural ELV older

than 11 years. In the CEE countries the average age of de-registered vehicles is above

13 years, in some cases even over 20 years[96, 68].

Statistics of annual de-registrations and official destruction of vehicles in the EU

countries are provided also by ACEA [89]. According to this organisation, about 12

million vehicles (including exports) were de-registered in EU-25 in 2004. Next figure

illustrate an overview of ELV treatment status by country (availability of data in the

2003 Accession Countries is scarce).

98

JRC


eports

De-Registrations / ELV Treated (000) - Year 2004

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Num

ber o

f ELV

s x1

000

De-Registrations 3068 2200 1830 1800 850 473 258 247 130 130 105 73 92 30 10

ELV Treated 1200 2110 915 1300 1000 272 237 124 52 130 89 73 92 20 9

DE UK IT FR ES NL SE AT PT IE FI DK BE GR LU

De-Registrations / ELV Treated (000) – 2003 AC (10) Year 2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

Num

ber o

f ELV

s

De-registrations 220 15

ELV Treated - estimation 15 20 50 80

EE LV LT PL CZ SK SI HU MT CY

De-Registrations / ELV Treated (000) – 2003 AC (10) Year 2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

Num

ber o

f ELV

s

De-registrations 220 15

ELV Treated - estimation 15 20 50 80

EE LV LT PL CZ SK SI HU MT CY

Figure 38. De-registrations and ELV treated per country in the EU in 2004 (Source: ACEA[89])

As concluded from the analysis of the graphs data, the average ratio of ELV treated /

de-registered vehicles (ELVTr/DEREG) in the EU-15 is about 70% with national ratios

ranging from 40% to almost 100%.

The difference between Germany and the rest of EU-15 countries on the

ELVTr/DEREG ratio (in Germany the quantity of de-registrations almost doubles the

volume of ELV treated) can be explained by the larger number of second-hand vehicles

sold to foreign countries. An increasing number of car dealers resell the old cars to

export them to Eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa.

The few data available from 2003 Accession Countries avoid calculating their actual

ELV treatment ratio.

99

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

6.5.3.2. ELV PLASTICS ARISINGS

Considering the previous information about passenger car design and market

development and the data by ACEA about the volume of cars getting their

de-registration and the number of ELV treated in the EU-25, the amount of collectable

ELV plastic waste can be estimated.

As discussed earlier, the average life span of a vehicle is estimated at about 10 years.

Therefore, the composition of a car presented in the 90’s would be recycled nowadays.

Equally, the available data for the current composition of car components and the

polymers consumption in the sector may be a good estimation of the plastic composition

of ELVs in year 2015. Assuming that the average life of EU cars is 10 years, the

number of ELV in 2015 can be calculated from the number of new registrations in

2005.

For calculation purposes, the following assumptions have been made:

• Year of manufacture 1995: average weight 1120 kg; plastic content 9%

• Year of manufacture 2005: average weight 1300 kg; plastic content 12%

• Average car: 1200 kg with 10% plastic content

The current geographical distribution of the ELV plastic waste arisings can be drawn up

from the ELV treatment data per country provided by ACEA. For the future scenario

calculation, a ratio ELVTr/DEREG of <90% has been assumed for all EU-15 countries

and 75% for 2003 Accession Countries. An alternative scenario considering the effect

of old cars exports in some countries (e.g. Germany, The Netherlands) is also presented

(Figure 39). In the assignation of those treatment/deregistration (ELVTr/DEREG) ratios

the pressures by ELV Directive have also been considered, as for the obligation to

Member States of collecting and treating properly 100% of ELV and ensuring that no

later than 1 January 2015, for all end-of life vehicles, the reuse and recovery is

increased to a minimum of 95% and the re-use and recycling to a minimum of 85%, by

an average weight per vehicle and year. It has also been taken into account the

difficulties of most 2003 Accession Countries to reach the targets, provided their old car

100

JRC


eports

parks and the lack of adequate economic operators for collection and treatment of the

ELV.

The assumptions made lead to the following results:

• total 785,000 tonnes of plastic waste recovered from ELV treated in 2004 (950,000 t

if average car data considered). APME estimates 959,000 tonnes in 2002.

• Plastic tonnes recoverable in 2015 between 2 and 1.8 million, depending on the

scenario (with/without exports). The recoverable plastic fall to 1.6-1.4 million

tonnes, if the average car data are assumed.

Those figures are initial estimates that should be treated cautiously, as there are no

reliable historic data on car stock and vehicles officially destructed in the ten new

members; old car exports can distort the country forecast for ELV arising from

de-registered cars; and, finally, passenger cars made up just the 87.2% of total vehicles

in Europe in 2004, which leaves out of the estimations the share of potential waste from

the rest of vehicle categories.

101

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Reco

vera

ble

plas

tic, t

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

EU-25 current scenario ELV plastic waste arisings

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Reco

vera

ble

plas

tic, t


EU-25 future (2015) scenario ELV plastic waste arisings (ELVTr/DEREG ratio= 0.90 (EU-15) & 0,75 (2003 AC))

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Reco

vera

ble

plas

tic, t


EU-25 future (2015) scenario ELV plastic waste arisings (ELVTr/DEREG ratio= 0.90 (EU-15) & 0,75 (2003 AC))

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Reco

vera

ble

plas

tic, t


EU-25 future (2015) scenario ELV plastic waste arisings (ELVTr/DEREG ratio< 0.90 & exports)

Figure 39. Estimate current and future ELV plastic waste arisings in EU-25

102

JRC


eports

6.5.3.3. POLYMER SCENARIOS AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Regarding the weight percentages of most common polymers in the current and future

plastic waste in ELV, they have been estimated as follows:

• Current: PP (33-28%), PU (22-17%), ABS (17-12%), PVC (13-8%), PA (9-4%),

HDPE (8-3%).

• Future: PP (43-38%), PU (13-8%), HDPE (12-7%), PA (11-6%), ABS (10-5%),

PVC (10-5%).

Those estimates are based on the detected changes in composition of vehicles in the last

years, as resulting from the analysis carried out in sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2.

Considering the estimate volumes of plastic waste arisings calculated in the previous

section, a tentative distribution of waste plastic tonnes by polymer could be made for

the present and 2015 scenarios. It should be borne in mind that those amounts are

polymers contained in ELV treated, i.e. maximum recoverable amounts from collected

ELV, and that the actual recovery potential of the different polymers must be checked

depending on the specific applications (part accessibility, contamination, etc.).

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2000000

Tonn

es

2005 (95'car) 2005 (av.car) 2015 (05'car) 2015 (av.car)

Current&Future ELV plastic waste arisings scenario

PVCPEOTHERPUPAPCABSPP

Figure 40. Estimate volumes of main polymers recoverable from ELV

103

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

As a conclusion to the prior analysis, the following estimated recoverable amounts of

main polymers in the ELV waste can be summarised (assuming average car data) for

current and future scenarios. The tables show also the environmental implications of the

estimated plastic wastes.

Table 20. Most common polymers in ELV waste and environmental impacts associated (2005 estimate)


calorific value, GJ


tonne


Fuel tank 38,360 1,532,866 69,393 2,772,277

Liquid tank 4,795 212,898 9,638 385,039

HDPE Other 4,795 191,608 8,674 346,535

HDPE TOTAL 47,950 1,937,372 87,705 3,503,850

Wires and coatings 35,483 1,206,422 64,934 2,207,043

Plastisols & putties 41,237 1,402,058 75,464 2,564,941

PVC Other 19,180 652,120 35,099 1,192,996

HDPE TOTAL 95,900 3,206,600 175,497 5,964,980

Bumper 89,187 2,742,500 128,429 5,150,549

Battery cases 14,865 609,445 28,540 1,144,567

PP Other 193,239 6,338,223 296,814 11,903,492

PP TOTAL 297,290 9690168 453,784 18,198,607

Dashboard 89,187 1,793,177 122,553 3,563,797

Light cases 14,865 960,630 65,653 1,909,177

ABS Other 193,239 3,202,101 218,844 6,363,924

ABS TOTAL 67,130 5,955,908 407,050 11,836,899

Hubcaps 28,770 1,187,482 137,075 2,636,771

Liquid tank 11,508 730,758 84,354 1,622,628

PA Other 17,262 1,096,137 126,531 2,433,942

PA TOTAL 57,540 3,014,377 347,959 6,693,341

Moulding seats 136,658 4,332,043 558,929 13,665,750

PU Others 45,553 1,444,014 186,310 4,555,250

PU TOTAL 182,210 5,776,057 745,239 18,221,000

TOTAL 815,150 29,634,481 2,217,233 64,418,677

104

JRC


eports

Table 21. Most common polymers in ELV waste and environmental impacts associated (2015 estimate)


calorific value, GJ


tonne


Fuel tank 123,077 4,918,153 222,646 8,894,768

Liquid tank 15,385 683,077 30,923 1,235,385

HDPE Other 15,385 614,769 27,831 1,111,846

HDPE TOTAL 153,846 6,215,999 281,400 11,241,999

Wires and coatings 39,846 1,354,769 72,919 2,478,431

Plastisols & putties 46,308 1,574,461 84,743 2,880,338

PVC Other 21,539 732,308 39,415 1,339,692

HDPE TOTAL 107,692 3,661,538 197,077 6,698,461

Bumper 184,615 5,676,923 265,846 10,661,538

Battery cases 30,769 1,261,538 59,077 2,369,231

PP Other 400,000 13,119,999 614,400 24,639,998

PP TOTAL 615,385 20,058,460 939,323 37,670,766

Dashboard 37,692 1,438,338 98,302 2,858,584

Light cases 16,154 770,538 52,662 1,531,385

ABS Other 53,846 2,568,461 175,538 5,104,615

ABS TOTAL 107,692 4,777,338 326,502 9,494,584

Hubcaps 61,539 2,540,000 293,200 5,640,000

Liquid tank 24,615 1,563,077 180,431 3,470,769

PA Other 36,923 2,344,615 270,646 5,206,154

PA TOTAL 123,077 6,447,692 744,277 14,316,923

Moulding seats 126,923 4,023,460 519,115 12,692,303

PU Others 42,308 1,341,153 173,038 4,230,768

PU TOTAL 169,231 5,364,613 692,154 16,923,070

TOTAL 1,276,923 46,525,641 3,180,732 96,345,803

6.6. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC WASTE STREAM AND FUTURE TRENDS

The building and construction sector (B&C) is a growing market for plastics (the second

largest plastic user after packaging), and their consumption has clearly risen since 1959.

However, the plastic amount used is small (around 1%) compared with other material.

105

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

In the year 2000 around 8.3[97]million tonnes of plastics were used in the construction

and renovation of buildings in Western Europe, while in the year 2002 they were

6.71[98] million tonnes. This decrease could be due to the negative effects of a broader

economic downturn. Nevertheless, data from 2003 reflects a positive recovery in this

sector, with 7.3[99] million tonnes of plastic consumed.

In Western Europe the largest plastic consumers in the sector are Germany, France, UK,

and Italy as it is shown in the next table:

Table 22. Detail of plastic consumption by country in building and construction sector, WE 1995 (Source: APME100)

Country 1000 tonnes/year %

Germany 1299 27

France 891 18

UK 710 15

Italy 552 11

Spain 225 5

The Netherlands 267 5

Total Western Europe 4890 100

The handicap during the data collection is basically the lack of information and the

differences between the countries. In the EU the B&C waste generation is very different

from one country to another. In Sweden (where a lot of buildings are made of wood)

there is an average of 189kg/inh/year while in Germany it is 720kg/inh/year.

The data collected in the 1999 report [101] prepared by the European Commission

showed that:

− In the Netherlands plastic waste are 13 kg/inh/year (1.9 % from the C&D waste)

− In Belgium plastic waste are 1 kg/inh/year (0.5 % from the C&D waste)

− In Denmark plastic waste are 1.9 kg/inh/year (0.4 % from the C&D waste)

However, despite of the huge demand for plastic the ratio of plastic consumption versus

waste generated in the same year is clearly low (e.g. 8% for year 2003).

106

JRC


eports

02468

10121416

ratio

(%)

1997 1998 2002

Plastic consumption / Plastic waste generated

02468

10121416

ratio

(%)

1997 1998 2002

Plastic consumption / Plastic waste generated

Figure 41. Plastic consumption-waste ratio (Source: aggregated data from APME)

This is mainly because this sector uses many plastics in long-life applications. It means

that the benefits in waste reduction are only evident many years later, when the building

is demolished and the parts recycled or re-used[102]. The average lifespan of all plastic

applications in construction is 35 years, but it varies depending on the application:

between 5 years (i.e.: wallpaper) and 80 years (i.e.: pipes). These are only cautious

assumptions given by EuPC[97], since there is still limited practical long-term

experience. However, the oldest plastic products, manufactured on a large scale and

used in the building industry (such as pipes and flooring, mainly made of PVC), have

been in use for 55 years.

THEORICAL MODEL USED TO FORECAST THE LIFESPAN OF PRODUCTS USED

IN THE BUILDING AND CONTRUCTION SECTOR

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pipes and ducts

Windows

Insulation

Lining

Profiles

Fitted forniture

Fixed floor coverings

Wall coverings

< 2 YEARS 2-5 YEARS 5-10 YEARS 10-20 YEARS 20-40 YEARS > 40 YEARS

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

107

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

YEAR 1995 YEAR 2000 YEAR 2010

Floor and wall coverings Pipes and ducts Insulation Profiles Lining Windows Fitted forniture

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

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.

108

JRC


eports

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

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Total recovery as a proportion of end- use waste

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

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.

109

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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


Pipes & Ducts PVC, PP, HDPE, LDPE, ABS

Insulation PU, EPS, XPS

Windows profiles PVC Profiles

Other profiles PVC

Floor & wall coverings 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.

110

JRC


eports

Plastic consumption by application

pipes and ducts40%

insulation21%

windiows12%

floor and wallcoverings

7%

profiles6%

lining5%

fitted furniture9%

Plastic waste generation by application 2005

Pipes & ducts20%


24%windows1%

profiles9%

Linning7%

insulation11%

fitted furniture28%


pipes and ducts40%

insulation21%

windiows12%


7%

profiles6%

lining5%

fitted furniture9%


pipes and ducts40%

insulation21%

windiows12%


7%

profiles6%

lining5%

fitted furniture9%


Pipes & ducts20%


24%windows1%

profiles9%

Linning7%

insulation11%

fitted furniture28%


Pipes & ducts20%


24%windows1%

profiles9%

Linning7%

insulation11%

fitted furniture28%

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

future polymer scenarios for C&D waste.

111

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0%10%20%30%40%50%

60%70%80%90%

100%

1995 2000 2010

FORECAST OF PLASTIC WASTE FROM B&C

PVC PE EPS PU 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.


Pipes & ducts20%


24%windows1%

profiles9%

Linning7%

insulation11%

fitted furniture28%


Pipes & ducts19%


19%windows3%

profiles8%

Linning8%

insulation19%

fitted furniture24%


Pipes & ducts20%


24%windows1%

profiles9%

Linning7%

insulation11%

fitted furniture28%


Pipes & ducts20%


24%windows1%

profiles9%

Linning7%

insulation11%

fitted furniture28%


Pipes & ducts19%


19%windows3%

profiles8%

Linning8%

insulation19%

fitted furniture24%


Pipes & ducts19%


19%windows3%

profiles8%

Linning8%

insulation19%

fitted furniture24%

Figure 47. Plastic waste generation by application 2005 & 2015

112

JRC


eports

Fitted furniture

PS36%

PMMA16%

PC18%

POM1%

UP20%

PA 4%

Amino5%

Lining

PVC 41%

PE59%

Floor and wall coverings / windows/profiles

PVC 100%

Pipes & ducts

PVC 70%

PP6%

HDPE18%

LDPE5%

ABS1%

Insulation

EPS42%

XPS13%

PU45%

Fitted furniture

PS36%

PMMA16%

PC18%

POM1%

UP20%

PA 4%

Amino5%

Fitted furniture

PS36%

PMMA16%

PC18%

POM1%

UP20%

PA 4%

Amino5%

Lining

PVC 41%

PE59%

Lining

PVC 41%

PE59%


PVC 100%


PVC 100%

Pipes & ducts

PVC 70%

PP6%

HDPE18%

LDPE5%

ABS1%

Pipes & ducts

PVC 70%

PP6%

HDPE18%

LDPE5%

ABS1%

Insulation

EPS42%

XPS13%

PU45%

Insulation

EPS42%

XPS13%

PU45%

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].

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.

113

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Year 2000

Other profiles15%

profiles and hoses11%

window profiles4%pipes

5%other flexible

construction product42%

profiles cable trays1%

cables 3%

other construction rigidproducts

1%

flooring18%

Year 2020

Other profiles23%


11%

other flexible construction product

28%


flooring14%


1%cables 4%


Year 2000

Other profiles15%



5%other flexible



cables 3%


1%

flooring18%

Year 2000

Other profiles15%



5%other flexible



cables 3%


1%

flooring18%

Year 2020

Other profiles23%


11%


28%


flooring14%


1%cables 4%


Year 2020

Other profiles23%


11%


28%


flooring14%


1%cables 4%


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

114

JRC


eports

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.

115

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Polymer applications

tonnes

Total calorific

value, GJ


tonnes


Pipes & ducts 117,257 3,907,015 210,289 7,147,540

Floor & wall coverings 196,746 6,689,364 360,045 12,237,601

Windows 8,130 209,222 11,261 382,754

Profiles 73,170 2,487,780 133,901 4,551,174

PVC

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 PE

PE lining 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

PS fitted furniture 80,859 4,042,927 211,041 6,751,688

PU

Insulation 40,429 1,281,595 155,246 3,970,115

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

Calo

rific

valu

e, G

J

2005 2015

Total Calorific Value

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

CO2

equi

vale

ntto

nnes

2005 2015

Total CO2 equivalent

0100000002000000030000000400000005000000060000000700000008000000090000000

100000000

ener

gyco

nten

t, G

J

2005 2015

Primary Energy Content

PVC PE PS PU Others

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

Calo

rific

valu

e, G

J

2005 2015


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

CO2

equi

vale

ntto

nnes

2005 2015


0100000002000000030000000400000005000000060000000700000008000000090000000

100000000

ener

gyco

nten

t, G

J

2005 2015


0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

Calo

rific

valu

e, G

J

2005 2015


0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

Calo

rific

valu

e, G

J

2005 2015


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

CO2

equi

vale

ntto

nnes

2005 2015


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

CO2

equi

vale

ntto

nnes

2005 2015


0100000002000000030000000400000005000000060000000700000008000000090000000

100000000

ener

gyco

nten

t, G

J

2005 2015


0100000002000000030000000400000005000000060000000700000008000000090000000

100000000

ener

gyco

nten

t, G

J

2005 2015


PVC PE PS PU OthersPVC PE PS PU Others

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

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.

116

JRC


eports

• 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)

Polymer applications tonnes Total

calorific value, GJ


tonnes


Pipes & ducts 184,883 6,160,312 331,570 11,269,748

Floor & wall coverings 254,694 8,659,596 466,090 15,841,967

Windows 37,918 1,121,617 60,369 2,051,899

Profiles 108,960 3,704,640 199,397 6,777,312

PVC

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

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

PS fitted furniture 114,966 5,748,321 300,062 9,599,696

PU

Insulation 116,108 3,680,616 445,854 11,401,784

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.

117

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

PP

ABS

PS PU PA PVC

HD/LDPEPPABS

PS

PU PA PVC

UP

HD/LDPE

PVC

PPABS

PS

PU PA

HD/LDPE

UP

Calorific Value

profilesLinninginsulation

CO2 equivalentPipes & ductsfloor and wall coveringswindowsprofilesLinninginsulationfitted furniture

Energy content

PP

ABS

PS PU PA PVC

HD/LDPEPPABS

PS

PU PA PVC

UP

HD/LDPE

PVC

PPABS

PS

PU PA

HD/LDPE

UP

Pipes & ductsfloor and wallcoverings

windowsprofiles

Linninginsulation

fitted furniturePipes & ductsfloor and wallcoverings

windowsprofiles

Linninginsulation

fitted furniture

PP

ABS

PS PU PA PVC

HD/LDPEPPABS

PS

PU PA PVC

UP

HD/LDPE

PVC

PPABS

PS

PU PA

HD/LDPE

UP

Calorific Value


PP

ABS

PS PU PA PVC

HD/LDPEPPABS

PS

PU PA PVC

UP

HD/LDPE

PVC

PPABS

PS

PU PA

HD/LDPE

UP

Calorific Value


CO2 equivalentPipes & ductsfloor and wall coveringswindowsprofilesLinninginsulationfitted furniture

Energy content

PP

ABS

PS PU PA PVC

HD/LDPEPPABS

PS

PU PA PVC

UP

HD/LDPE

PVC

PPABS

PS

PU PA

HD/LDPE

UP

Pipes & ductsfloor and wallcoverings

windowsprofiles

Linninginsulation

fitted furniturePipes & ductsfloor and wallcoverings

windowsprofiles

Linninginsulation

fitted furniture

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.

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

Belg

ium

Czec

hD

enm

ark

Ger

man

yEs

toni

aG

reec

eSp

ain

Fran

ceIre

land Italy

Cypr

usLa

tvia

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gary

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sAu

stria

Pola

ndPo

rtuga

lSlo

veni

aSlo

vakia

Finla

ndSw

eden

Uni

ted

Repu

blic

(ex-

GD

R in

cl.)

King

dom

Utili

sed

agric

ultu

rala

rea,

Ha.

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

Belg

ium

Czec

hD

enm

ark

Ger

man

yEs

toni

aG

reec

eSp

ain

Fran

ceIre

land Italy

Cypr

usLa

tvia

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gary

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sAu

stria

Pola

ndPo

rtuga

lSlo

veni

aSlo

vakia

Finla

ndSw

eden

Uni

ted

Repu

blic

(ex-

GD

R in

cl.)

King

dom

Utili

sed

agric

ultu

rala

rea,

Ha.

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

118

JRC


eports

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

figures.

Unde

rgla

sscu

ltiva

ted

area

, Ha

Unde

rgla

sscu

ltiva

ted

area

, Ha

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.

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:

119

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Lifespan of plastic applications in agriculture

long campaigns 3 years

Greenhouse short campaigns 1 year

Mulching

Tunnel 1 crop (3-6 months)

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.

0

Und

ergl

assH

a/in

habi

tant

(EU

25)

Und

ergl

assH

a/in

habi

tant

(EU

25)

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000

0

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Und

ergl

assH

a (E

U25

)

2015

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

160,000

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

Und

ergl

assH

a/in

habi

tant

(EU

25)

Und

ergl

assH

a/in

habi

tant

(EU

25)

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000

0

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Und

ergl

assH

a (E

U25

)

2015

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

160,000

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

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

120

JRC


eports

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

tonn

es

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:

Tota

l ava

ilabl

epl

astic

was

teco

llect

able

, th.

tonn

es

050

100150200250300350400450500

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tota

l ava

ilabl

epl

astic

was

teco

llect

able

, th.

tonn

es

050

100150200250300350400450500

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

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).

121

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 ethylene-

vinylacetate 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:

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

plas

tic c

onsu

mpt

ion,

tonn

es

France Italy Spain UK

Low tunnelMulchingGreenhouse

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

EPRO [110].

122

JRC


eports

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…);

• 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

123

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Fertiliser bags – liners 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

Pots and trays HDPE 8,481

PVC 157,371

Pipes and fittings LDPE 43,477

LDPE 13,327

Nets and mesh HDPE 12,643

Rope, strings PP 36,301

TOTAL 404,000

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

countries, describing contamination and degradation problems associated is available in

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:

124

JRC


eports

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

LDPE HDPE PP PVC

Pipes and fittines PVC

Rope, strings PP

Seed bags PP

Fertiliser bags – liners PP

Nets and mesh HDPE

Pots and trays HDPE

Agrochemical containers HDPE

Nets and mesh LDPE

Pipes and fittines LDPE

Pots and trays LDPE

Feed bags LDPE

Fertiliser bags – liners LDPE

Silage LDPE/LLDPE

Tunnel LDPE/LLDPE

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

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]

125

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

6.7.3. 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.

126

JRC


eports

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:

• 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.

127

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Polymer

LDPE & LLDPE Total waste*,

tonnes

Total calorific

value, GJ


tonnes


Greenhouse 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

Fertiliser bags – liners 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

Greenhouse and tunnel

Possible UV degraded and contaminated by: - moisture - rust from greenhouse structure - metal staples - pesticides residues and sand and soil.

Contamination is estimated to be up to 50% of the waste in weight

Mulching

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 a proportion (25%) too high for efficient reclaiming. Even using water soluble glue (that could be washed) could increase prohibitively the film’s recycling.

Silage

Contamination consisting of solid and liquid organics (silage is fermented fodder) as well as sand and soil. The unpleasant odour of cooked silage in 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.

Fertiliser bags – liners

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, which is the maximum allowed by many European countries for their management as non-hazardous wastes[111].

Nets and mesh Pots and trays

Contamination with soil and organic material (not considered)

128

JRC


eports

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 Total waste*,

tonnes Total calorific

value, GJ


tonnes Total Energy content, GJ

Agrochemical containers 10,684 446,413 19,147 843,107Pots and trays 9,841 415,278 17,812 784,304

Nets and mesh 14,670 619,088 26,553 1,169,225


Table 31. Contaminants in different HDPE applications

HDPE Contamination

Agrochemical containers 0.01% concentration of contaminants in the waste is estimated

Pots and trays

Nets and mesh

Contamination with soil and organic material (not considered)

Can suffer UV degradation

Table 32. PP waste generated (estimate 2005) and their environmental implications.

Polymer

PP Total waste*,


value, GJ Total CO2 ,

equivalent tonnes

Total Energy

content, GJ

Fertiliser bags – liners 27,138 1,111,557 52,053 2,087,558

Seed bags 5,286 216,724 10,149 407,018

Rope, strings 42,121 1,726,966 80,873 3,243,327


Table 33. Contaminants in different PP applications

PP Contaminants

Fertiliser bags – liners Contamination up to 0.01% has been estimated (27 tonnes)

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

Polymer

PVC Total waste,


value, GJ Total CO2 ,

equivalent tonnes

Total Energy

content, GJ

Pipes and fittings 182,550 6,206,697 334,066 11,354,605

129

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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)


calorific value, GJ


tonne

Total Energy

content, GJ

Greenhouse 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

LDPE

Nets and mesh 18,878 18,878 838,177 37,945 1,515,893

Agrochemical containers 12,914 12,927 544,965 23,374 1,029,235

Pots and trays 12,013 12,013 506,957 21,744 957,451

HD

PE

Nets and mesh 17,909 17,909 755,760 32,415 1,427,348

Fertiliser bags – liners 33,096 33,129 1,356,950 63,545 2,548,418

Seed bags 6,453 6,453 264,569 12,390 496,873

PP Rope, strings 51,420 51,420 2,108,220 98,726 3,959,339

PVC

Pipes and fittings 222,851 222.851 7,576,919 407,817 13,861,304

Contribution to total plastic waste calorific value

LDPEHDPEPPPVC

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.

130

JRC


eports

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)Waste stream PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS ABS PA PUWEEE (960 kt) 12-7 31-26 33-27 18-13ELV (960 kt) 8-3 13-8 33-28 17-12 9-4 22-17Agriculture (900 kt) 23-18 65-60C&D (810 kt) 9-4 55-50 19-14 8-3Packaging (2500 kt) 17-12 25-20 18-13 40-35Residual MSW (17500 kt) 12-7 20-15 43-38 10-5 17-12 2015 scenario collectable waste arisings (wt.% in plastic waste streams)Waste stream PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS ABS PA PUWEEE (2160 kt) 22-17 25-20 23-18 11-6ELV (1500 kt) 12-7 10-5 43-38 10-5 11-6 13-8Agriculture (1100 kt) 23-18 65-60C&D (1350 kt) 9-4 50-45 23-18 12-7Packaging (5700 kt) 25-20 27-22 15-10 35-30 7Residual MSW (23000 kt) 17-12 20-15 43-38 10-5 17-12

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

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).

131

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

plas

ticin

col

lect

edw

aste

, th.

tonn

es

LDPE HDPE PP PET PVC PS ABS PA PUMost common polymers

2005 global plastic waste scenario

Packaging MSW WEEE ELV C&DW Agriculture

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

plas

ticin

col

lect

edw

aste

, th.

tonn

es



0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

plas

ticin

col

lect

edw

aste

, th.

tonn

es




0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

plas

ticin

col

lect

edw

aste

, th.

tonn

es




0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

plas

ticin

col

lect

edw

aste

, th.

tonn

es



0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

plas

ticin

col

lect

edw

aste

, th.

tonn

es



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

132

JRC


eports

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

MSW plastic).

• Degradation or loss of properties during life and waste phases (UV degradation of

agricultural plastics, deterioration of mechanical properties and aesthetics of post-

consumer 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.

133

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• 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,

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

− 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...)

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

134

JRC


eports

• 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

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

recycling)

135

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Marking,Standardisation

Product Design

Standardisation

Product Design

Product Design,Legal constraints

Product Design

Collection schemes,

(cost-efficient)Disassembly

Identification techn.Separation techn.

Identification techn.Separation techn.

Identification techn.Separation techn.Cleaning techn.

Upgradingtechnology

Collection ratioF 1

Size ratioF 2

Accesibility ratioF 3

Stream homogeneityF 4

Composite ratio

F 5

ContaminationF 6

DegradationF 7

ASSESSINGISSUES

DOWNSTREAM SOLUTIONS(Waste management)

UPSTREAM SOLUTIONS(Waste prevention)

Collection schemes,Separation technology

WASTEPOLYMER

AVAILABILITY

WASTEPOLYMERQUALITY

Transport, CleanTechnologies

CleanTechnologies

Product design

Product Design,Legal constraints

Standardisation,Legal constraints

Product Design,Standardisation

Energy recoverytechnology

Removal Treatmentstechnology

Acceptance ofrecycled materials

Upgradingtechnology

Embodied energyF 8

Production GH gassesF 9

Stored energyF 10

Hazardous substances

F 11

End markets availabilityF 12

Recycling rankF 13

AVOIDABLEPRODUCTION

IMPACTS

RECOVERYPOTENTIAL

Figure 62. Assessed aspects - environmental impacts correspondence array

6.9.2. 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

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

136

JRC


eports

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.

137

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 36. Environmental ranking of polymers in waste streams

Waste stream: PackagingPolymer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13HDPE H H H H H H M L M H H M LLDPE H H H M M M M L L H H M MPP M M M L M M M M M M H L LPET H H H M H H M L L H H H M

Waste stream: MSWPolymer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13LDPE L M H H H L M L L M H L MHDPE L M H H M L M L L M H L LPET L M H M H L M L L M H M LPP L M H M M L M L L M M L LPS L M M M M L M L L M M L L

Waste stream: WEEEPolymer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13ABS H M H L M L M L L L L L MPS H M H L M L M L L L L L MPP M H M M M L M L L L M L MPU H H M H H L L M M L L L L

Waste stream: ELVPolymer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13HDPE H H H H H M M M M L H L LPP M H H M H L M L L L M L LPVC L H L L L L L M H L M L LABS M H H M H M M M M L H L LPU H H H H M L L L L L H L LPA H H H M H M M L L L H L L

Waste stream: C&DPolymer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13PVC M H M H M L M L L M M M HHDPE L H L M H L M M M L H M MPS L H L M H L M L L L L L LPU L H L M H L M M M L L L L

Waste stream: AgriculturePolymer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13LDPE H H H H H L L L M M M L LPVC M H H H H M M M M L M L H

138

JRC


eports

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.

139

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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 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

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

140

JRC


eports

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).

141

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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:

142

JRC


eports

• 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.

Remelting and pelletisation/remoulding

MECHANICAL RECYCLINGMECHANICAL RECYCLING

Flakes Flakes & & pellets for openpellets for open- & - & closedclosed--looplooprecycling into plastic applicationsrecycling into plastic applications““DowncyclingDowncycling” ” into woodinto wood/concrete/concretesubstitution products and substitution products and WPCWPC““DowncyclingDowncycling” ” of regrindof regrind as as fillers fillers

PolymersPolymers

Selective dissolution(Vinyloop®, Wietek®…)

individual individual polymerspolymersmixed polymersmixed polymers

PET Bottle-to-bottle

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

143

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

SyngasSyngas

Thermal degradation(Pyrolysis, thermal cracking...)

•• gasesgases•• oilsoils•• solid waxessolid waxes•• solid residuesolid residue

Catalytic cracking,Hydrogenation & Liquefaction

StartingStartingmonomersmonomers

•• olefinicolefinic gases gases•• gasoline fractionsgasoline fractions•• middle distillatesmiddle distillates•• liquid fuelsliquid fuels

FEEDSTOCK RECYCLINGFEEDSTOCK RECYCLING

Chemicaldepolymerisation

Blast furnace & coke ovens

ReducingReducingagentagent

Coke oven

Coal

Wasteplastic

Hydrocarbon oil(chemical feedstock)

Coke

Coke oven gas(power generation)

BlastFurnace

TreatmentTreatment

•• cokecoke•• light oil light oil & & tartar•• COGCOG

Figure 64. Feedstock recovery processes for waste plastic

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.

144

JRC


eports

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 Incineration

Alternative fuel in Cement kilns

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

Power generationby RDF burning

Pyrolitic flue Pyrolitic flue gasgasCokeCoke oven gas oven gasSyngasSyngas......

ElectricityElectricity ( (steamsteam turbinesturbines))Electricity Electricity (gas (gas turbinesturbines))......

ENERGY RECOVERYENERGY RECOVERYCoal substitutionCoal substitution

Power GenerationPower Generation((Steam turbinesSteam turbines, gas , gas turbinesturbines,,gas gas enginesengines, , fuel cellsfuel 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

145

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

146

JRC


eports

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.

147

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 TECHNOLOGY PROCESSConventional process Remelting and Pelletisation

Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET)VinyloopOther solvent based physical techniques (i.e: Wietek)OthersHydrolysisMethanolysisGlycolysisAmmonolysisAminolysisAcidic depolymerisationAlkaline depolymerisationOther chemolysisCombined chemolysisGasificationPartial oxidationOther oxidative methodsPyrolysisThermal crackingThermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovensCatalytic crackingCatalytic hydrogenationHidrocrackingReducing agent in blast furnaceBacterial degradationOthers

Use as alternative/secondary fuel Cement kilns (coal substitution)IncinerationRDF burning dedicated boilerCo-Incineration with other wastesRDF burning multi-fuel boiler (with oil or coal)

Others Others

Energy recoveryEnergy production (Mono-combustion)

Energy production (Co-combustion)

Others

Feedstock recycling

Mechanical recyclingAdvanced process

Catalytic methods

Thermal decomposition methods

Gasification and other oxidative methods

Chemical depolymerisation methods

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

OPERATION TECHNOLOGY TYPECollection schemesStorageDistribution

Material transport and conveying -Material feeding -

ShreddingGranulatingGrinding (micronization)

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

Management operations

Auxiliary & Conditioning Operations

Waste logistics

Size reduction

148

JRC


eports

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

OPERATION TECHNOLOGY TYPEAir classifying Vibrating tableBallistic classificationCentrifuging (ie: Result)Fluidised bed classificationSink/float separation(Wilfley concentrating) Shacking tableCentrifuging and hydrocycloningJigging

Size and shaped based technologies ScreeningSurface properties based technologies (Froth) Flotation

Selective dissolutionPlastic swellingChemical strippingMagnetic separationEddy current separationElectrostatic separation

Softening temperature based technologies Temperature fractionationArtificial visionColour recognitionShape recognitionPlasma oxidationDe-laminationNear-critical and super-critical fluidsOthersMIR SpectroscopyNIR SpectroscopyRaman SpectroscopyOthersLaser-Induced Plasma SpectroscopyX-ray Fluorescence SpectroscopySliding Spark SpectroscopyOthersNIR & SSColour recognition & NIROthers

Chemical behaviour based technologies

Electromagnetic properties based technologies

Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors

Identification and sorting

Separation and sorting

Others

Automatic identification based technologies: Polymeric matrix recognition

Automatic identification based technologies: Element recognition

Automatic sorting based technologies

Density based (dry)

Density based (wet)

In each section the Technological Datasheets gather in a similar layout qualitative

information about the technologies under investigation, covering the aspects shown in

149

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.).

150

JRC


eports

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

Status

Select from:

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)

Suitability for solving previously identified technical problems

The most relevant aspect to be selected from the dropdown list options:

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

151

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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.

152

JRC


eports

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.

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

153

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

154

JRC


eports

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.

155

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

ID Number Technology Process Waste stream Polymer

2 Advanced process.

Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET):Erema, Bühler AG, Cleanaway PET

Pack. PET

3 Advanced process Vinyloop Pack., ELV, WEEE, C&D PVC

6 Conventional process Remelting & Pelletization Pack., C&D, Agric. PE, PP, PET, PVC

3 Chemical depolymerisation Glycolysis: Eastman Packaging PET

29 Chemical depolymer.Other chemolysis: Nikkiso two-stage PVC supercritical conversion

PVC

14 Gasification and other oxidative Gasification: SVZ MSW, Pack., Agric.,

WEEE, ELV,C&D Mix

15 Gasification & other oxidative Gasification: Thermoselect MSW, Pack. & ELV (ASR) Mix

17 Thermal decomp. Pyrolysis: Thermalysis Pack. and agricultural PE, PP, PS

18 Thermal decomp. Pyrolysis: Takuma WEEE, ELV, C&D, Pack. Mix

19 Thermal decomposition Thermal cracking: Innovene (former BP) pilot plant

WEEE, ELV, C&D, Pack. Mix

20 Thermal decompositionThermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens - under development: Nippon Steel

WEEE, ELV, C&D, Pack Mix

30 Thermal decomp. Other oxidative methods: Ebara-TwinRec ELV (ASR) Mix

21 Catalytic methods Catalytic cracking: Kurata Process

WEEE, ELV, C&DPackaging Mix

23 Others Reducing agent in blast furnace: KOBELCO, JFE Steel - Mix

25 Others Combined hydrolisis-pyrolisis RGS-90 process all types of PVC (C&D) PVC

1 Alternative/secondary fuelCement kilns (coal substitution): Retznei cement plant (AT)

Agric., Pack., ELV, WEEE Mix

6 Energy production (Co-combustion)

Co-Incineration with other wastes: Incineration plants (with HCl rectification), e.g. MVR Hamburg

MSW,MSW+C&D, MSW + ELV (fluff ASR),MSW+Pack

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

MECHANICAL RECYCLING

FEEDSTOCK RECOVERY (*)

ENERGY RECOVERY

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

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).

156

JRC


eports

7.2.1. Overview of technology charts

7.2.1.1. MECHANICAL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES – CHART

Nº TECHNOLOGY PROCESS WASTE STREAM POLYMER

1 Advanced process Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle (PET) Packaging PET


3 Advanced process Vinyloop Packaging, ELV, WEEE, C&D PVC

4 Advanced process Vinyloop C&D, MSW PVC 5 Advanced process Others ELV HDPE

6 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation Packaging, C&D, Agriculture

PE, PP, PET, PVC

7 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation C&D (roofs) PVC 8 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation C&D (flooring) PVC


10 Advanced process Other solvent based physical techniques (i.e: Wietek)

Packaging, WEEE, C&D, ELV

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

11 Advanced process Other solvent based physical techniques (i.e: Wietek) ELV PVC, ABS

12 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation C&D, MSW PVC 13 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation C&D (flooring) PVC 14 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation C&D (frames) PVC 15 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation MSW Mixtures

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High

NEED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

5

14

78

6

1215 1 9

2 3

41311

10

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


5

14

78

6

1215 1 9

2 3

41311

10

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

157

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

7.2.1.2. FEEDSTOCK RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES- CHART


1 Chemical depolymerisation methods Others Packaging PET

2 Chemical depolymerisation methods Methanolysis Packaging PET

3 Chemical depolymerisation methods Glycolysis Packaging PET

4 Chemical depolymerisation methods Hydrolysis ELV PA 6

5 Chemical depolymerisation methods

Acidic depolymerisation ELV PA 6


Alkaline depolymerisation ELV PA 6

7 Chemical depolymerisation methods Aminolysis ELV PA 6

8 Others Bacterial degradation ELV PA 6


Acidic depolymerisation ELV PA 6,6


Alkaline depolymerisation ELV PA 6,6

11 Chemical depolymerisation methods Aminolysis ELV PA 6,6

12 Chemical depolymerisation methods Hydrolysis ELV, C&D,

WEEE PU

13 Chemical depolymerisation methods Glycolysis ELV, C&D,

WEEE PU

14 Gasification and other oxidative methods Gasification

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

Mixtures (MPW)

15 Gasification and other oxidative methods

(Pyrolysis +) Gasification

MSW, Packaging & ELV (ASR)

Mixtures (MPW)

16 Gasification and other oxidative methods Gasification MSW, Packaging HDPE,

LDPE

17 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis Packaging and

agricultural PE, PP and PS

18 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis

WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

19 Thermal decomposition methods Thermal cracking


Mixtures (MPW)

20 Thermal decomposition methods

Thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens


Mixtures (MPW)

21 Catalytic methods Catalytic cracking WEEE, ELV, C&D Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

22 Catalytic methods Catalytic hydrogenation (Hydrocracking)


Mixtures (MPW)

23 Others Reducing agent in blast furnace - Mixtures

(MPW)

158

JRC


eports

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

26 Gasification and other oxidative methods Gasification - PVC

27 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis WEEE, C&D. PVC


C&D, WEEE, Packaging and their mixture

PVC

29 Chemical depolymerisation methods Other chemolysis - PVC

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

Gasification ELV (ASR) Mixtures (MPW)

31 Catalytic methods Catalytic coliquefaction - Mixtures

(MPW)

32 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis MSW, ELV

(ASR) Mixtures (MPW)

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


19

27

126

1213

18

617

302931

4 78

11 21

28

25

2023

224

105

9

316

2215

14

32

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


19

27

126

1213

18

617

302931

4 78

11 21

28

25

2023

224

105

9

316

2215

14

32

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

159

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

7.2.1.3. ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES- CHART Nº TECHNOLOGY PROCESS WASTE STREAM POLYMER

1 Use as alternative/secondary fuel

Cement kilns (coal substitution)

Agriculture, Packaging, ELV, WEEE

Mixtures (MPW)

2 Energy production (Mono-combustion) Incineration MSW Mixtures

(MPW)

3 Energy production (Mono-combustion)

RDF burning dedicated boiler MSW Mixtures

(MPW)

4 Energy production (Mono-combustion)

Mono - Incineration MSW Mixtures

(MPW)


Co-Incineration with other wastes

MSW+C&D (flooring, roofing, cables…)+ Agriculture

Mixtures (MPW), PVC incl.



MSW, MSW+C&D, MSW + ELV (fluff ASR),MSW+Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)


RDF burning multifuel boiler MSW, Packaging Mixtures

(MPW)

8 Others Others: gasification + combustion

MSW, Packaging, ELV Mixtures (MPW)

9 Others Others: pyrolysis + combustion MSW, Packaging,ELV Mixtures

(MPW)

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


5

3

2

64

7

891

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


5

3

2

64

7

891

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

160

JRC


eports

7.2.1.4. IDENTIFICATION & SORTING TECHNOLOGIES- CHART


1 IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Polymeric matrix recognition

MIR Spectroscopy

MSW, Packaging, Agriculture

Any (all types of plastics)


MIR Spectroscopy

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



NIR Spectroscopy MSW, Packaging, Agriculture



NIR Spectroscopy




Raman Spectroscopy




Raman Spectroscopy



7 IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Element recognition

Laser Induced Plasma Spectroscopy

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



X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy




Sliding Spark Spectroscopy



10 IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors NIR & SS MSW, Packaging,

Agriculture Any (all types of plastics)

11 IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors NIR & SS

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


12 IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors

Colour recognition & NIR



13 IDSORT - Automatic identification based technologies: Hybrid sensors

Colour recognition & NIR

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


161

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


4

53812

7 1091

2 11

6 13D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

STAG

E

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


4

53812

7 1091

2 11

6 13

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.

Nº TECHNOLOGY PROCESS WASTE STREAM POLYME

R

2 Advanced process Ultra-clean regranulation Bottle-to-bottle

Packaging PET

3 Advanced process Vinyloop Packaging, ELV, WEEE, C&D PVC

6 Conventional process Remelting and Pelletisation

Packaging, C&D, Agriculture

PE, PP, PET, PVC

3 Chemical depolymerisation methods Glycolysis Packaging PET


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

Mixtures (MPW)


Pyrolysis + Gasification


Mixtures (MPW)

162

JRC


eports

17 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis Packaging and agricultural

PE, PP and PS

18 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

18 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

19 Thermal decomposition methods Thermal cracking WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

20 Thermal decomposition methods Thermal coprocessing with coal in coke ovens

WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

21 Catalytic methods Catalytic cracking WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

22 Catalytic methods Catalytic hydrogenation (Hydrocracking)

WEEE, ELV, C&D; Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)


(MPW)

25 Others Others all types of PVC waste (C&D) PVC

29 Chemical depolymerisation methods Other chemolysis - PVC

30 Gasification and other oxidative methods Gasification ELV (ASR) Mixtures

(MPW)

1 Use as alternative/secondary fuel Cement kilns (coal substitution)

Agriculture, Packaging, ELV, WEEE

Mixtures (MPW)



MSW,MSW+C&D; MSW + ELV (fluff ASR);MSW+Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


63

18

17

302921

2520 23

3 221514

216

MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGIESFEEDSTOCK RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIESENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T ST

AGE

Emerging

In development

Conventional

Low Medium High


63

18

17

302921

2520 23

3 221514

216

MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGIESFEEDSTOCK RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIESENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES

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

163

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

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

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

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,

164

JRC


eports

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.

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.

165

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

(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

summarised in the following table:

166

JRC


eports

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.

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

167

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• 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


6 Conventional mechanical

recycling process

Remelting and

Pelletisation

Packaging, C&D,

Agriculture

PE, PP,

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),

consisting on the following main steps:

• 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

system, are transported to the mixing silo.

168

JRC


eports

• 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

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.

169

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Since most processes are oriented to recovery of specific polymers, starting in from pre-

sorted 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.

-40000-30000-20000-10000

01000020000300004000050000

Energy in waste Procees energy Energy in recoveredmaterial

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

C. Wastewater and air emissions:

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

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.

170

JRC


eports

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)


2 Advanced process Bottle-to-bottle Packaging 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 pre-

drying, followed by melting and a second degassing in the melt-phase. Thereby organic

171

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.


In average conditions, the company reports around 964 kg/tonne of waste PET flakes

[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.

172

JRC


eports

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.

-40000-30000-20000-10000

01000020000300004000050000

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


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.


There is a waste reduction around 90 %, being most of the remaining waste inert.

173

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

7.2.3.2. FEEDSTOCK RECOVERY AND ENERGY RECOVERY

7.2.3.2.1 THERMOSELECT



Other oxidative methods: Pyrolysis

+ Gasification


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.

European installations for the Thermoselect process have been oriented towards

electricity production (Fondotoce and Karlsruhe). However, produced synthetic gas

could be used for different applications theoretically.

174

JRC


eports

Figu

re 7

5. F

low

cha

rt of

The

rmos

elec

t pro

cess

(Sou

rce:

The

rmos

elec

t[116

] and

Ade

me[1

17] )

175

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes


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.

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Energy in waste Energy in the process Energy recovered

Figure 76. Energy balance in the Thermoselect (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values

176

JRC


eports


Table 44. Air emissions reported for the Thermoselect process

Atmospheric Emissions

Substances Chiba MSW[118] Karlsruhe ASR test[119] Karlsruhe MSW[115]

NOx mg/m3 14 52.3 44.960

SO2 mg/m3 3.5 1.305

Dust mg/m3 0.2 0.31 0.403

Dioxins/Furans mg/m3 0.0072 2.1 3.040

Total C mg/m3 0.82 0.704

CO mg/m3 3.24 4.845

HCl mg/m3 <5 0.05 0.432

Heavy metals mg/m3 0.0087 0.015

Hg mg/m3 0.0023 0.008

Cd/Tl mg/m3 0.000014 <0.001

• SOx: since plastics and fuels used in the process will not input sulphur in the

reactor, no SOx emissions are expected from the treatment of this wasteflow.

• NOx: since the process does not use air, the NOx emissions will be associated to the

N content of the waste, neglectable in the plastics.

• Dioxins and organic compounds: The process involves the degasification of organic

components in the refuse in an oxygen-free environment, transforming them

converted into carbon as the temperature increases. The carbon-like product are then

continuously fed into a high-temperature reactor, where oxygen is added in

measured quantities and the material is treated at temperatures up to 2,000°C and

above, gasifying the carbon. Chlorinated hydrocarbons such as dioxins and furans

are reliably destroyed along with other organic compounds, and all material

conversion equilibrium are assured. Shock-cooling of the untreated synthesis gas

prevents “de-novo” synthesis of dioxins, furans and other organic compounds.

Pollutant emission is at or around the detection limits and is markedly lower than in

conventional thermal systems [120].

• Chlorine: According to the trials performed with ASR, the presence of higher

amount of chlorine lead to no large changes, due to the buffer effect in the

177

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

wastewater cleaning process, affecting only to the amount of salt and its quality[121].

In fact, 96% of the Cl is expected to be recovered through in the salt[122].

• Metals: most part of the metals are recovered in the metal concentrates and mineral

aggregates. According to some authors small amounts of mercury can be found in

the syngas (1.4% of the mercury entering the reactor)[122]. However, the commodity

thermoplastics evaluated in the stage of the report do not contribute to the emission

of metals, although this aspect may be relevant for the evaluation of other plastic

waste sources (electric and electronic, automotive, etc.)


In general operation conditions, with a mixed waste entering the process, it can be

considered that 230 kg of inert waste are produced (mineral granulate), although if sent

to recycling processes (e.g. using it for sandblasting) nearly a 100% reduction can be

achieved.

In the treatment of the considered plastic mix, consisting mainly of C and H, only

reduced amounts of granulate will be generated.

7.2.3.2.2 TWINREC


30 Gasification and other oxidative methods Gasification ELV (ASR) Mixtures

(MPW)

EBARA TwinRec process is based on fluidised bed gasification in combination with

ash melting. A variety of wastes is treated by the Twinrec process in Japan, from waste

plastics, SR, sludges, industrial waste, WEEE and slags to MSW[123]. Shredder residues

are fed to the gasifier without any additional preparation, just as delivered from the

shredder plant.

The gasifier is a proprietary internally circulating fluidised bed of compact dimensions,

operated at temperatures between 500 - 600°C. The low gasification temperature in the

178

JRC


eports

fluidised bed leads to easily controllable process conditions. The gasifier main function

is separation of the combustible portion and the dust from the inert and metallic

particles of the SR. Metals like aluminium, copper and iron can be recycled as valuable

products from the bottom off-stream of the gasifier as they are neither oxidised nor

sintered with other ash components. Together with these metals, larger inert particles

are removed, which after separation is ground and fed back to the ash melting

furnace[123]. Smaller inerts are returned to the gasifier where they serve as bed material.

The fine inerts are blown out of the gasifier to enter the next stage.

Flue gas and carbonaceous particles, both produced in the gasifier, are burnt together in

the cyclonic combustion chamber at temperatures between 1350-1450°C by addition of

secondary air. Here, the fine particles are collected on the walls, where they are vitrified

and proceed slowly through the furnace.

The molten slag is quenched in a water bath to form a granulate with excellent leaching

resistance, meeting safely all common regulations for recycling in construction.

Gasifier and ash melting furnace operate at atmospheric conditions, without

consumption of fossil fuels (except for start-up) and oxygen. Due to the low excess air

ratio, only a compact sized steam generator and an air pollution control unit are required

[124].

The energy content of the waste is converted into electricity and/or district heat with

high net efficiency [125].

179

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Figure 77. Flow chart of a TwinRec installation (Aomori plant)


Although the process leads to very high energy recovery, it is very focused on the

vitrification of wastes and its reduction, recovering important materials fractions,

especially metals, no oxidised nor sintered with other materials. The following table

summarises average materials recovered.

Table 45. Materials recovered in the Twinrec process during the treatment of mixed wastes

Recoverable products kg/tonne waste

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals 80 - 113.6

Glass granulate 200 - 285

Boiler ash for metal recovery 30 - 350

B. Energy balance:

In the following graph it is represented the energy balance.

180

JRC


eports

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Energy in waste Process energy Energy recovered

Figure 78. Energy balance in the TwinRec process (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values


The following table summarises the emissions reported by the Kawaguchi plant:

Table 46. Air Emissions from the TwinRec (Kawaguchi plant)[124, 125]

Substance Line A Line B Line C

Dust: mg/Nm3 <1 <1 <1

HCl mg/ Nm3 16.1 16.1 16.1

NOx mg/ Nm3 43.05 65.6 73.8

SOx mg/ Nm3 3.57 3.57 3.57

CO mg/ Nm3 2.5 3.75 2.5

Dioxins ng I-TEQ/Nm3 <0.000005 <0.000005 <0.000005

Total Hg mg/Nm3 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

The gas flow is 1.26 Nm3 by kg of waste entering the process (reported by Kawaguchi

for processing high quality plastic waste[125]).

• SOx: since plastics and fuels used in the process will not input sulphur in the

reactor, no SOx emissions are expected from the treatment of this waste flow.

• NOx: derived from the air used within the process, since plastics contain negligible

amounts of N. However, the formation of these substances is limited due to the

reducing conditions of the process[126].

181

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• Dioxins and organic compounds: The high combustion temperature ensures that the

most stringent dioxin regulations down to 0.1 ng/Nm3 are met with minimal

additional measures.

• Metals: mostly, the highest percentage of Al, stainless steel, Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn and Fe

entering the process is recovered in the metal fraction separated in the gasifier.

Heavy metals can vaporize and become entrained in the syngas[126]. According to

the bibliography[127], Hg, Cd, Se, As and Sb are the metals that contribute the most

to air emission, although only a fraction smaller than 0,1% leaves the process

through flue gas. Measures like the addition of chelat According to the

bibliography128, Hg, Cd, Se, As and Sb are the metals that contribute the most to air

emission, although only a fraction smaller than 0,1% leaves the process through flue

gas. Measures like the addition of chelates or use of active carbon has managed to

reduce highly this risk.

However, the commodity thermoplastics evaluated in the stage of the report do not

contribute to the emission of metals, although this aspect may be relevant for the

evaluation of other plastic waste sources (electric and electronic, automotive, etc.)


The amount of waste for disposal is negligible, since all outputs are applied in other

production /construction processes. Only waste from flue gas cleaning process is sent to

landfill and in case of metal recovery from that flow, this fraction is also very low.

Table 47. Wastes generated in the Twinrec process during the treatment of mixed wastes

Other material outputs kg/tonne waste

Glass granulate 200 - 285

APC residues for landfill 20

Also in this case, glass granulate can be applied in recycling operations, leading to

higher waste reduction.

182

JRC


eports

7.2.3.2.3 SVZ – THE SEKUNDÄRROHSTOFF VERWERTUNGS ZENTRUM “SCHWARZE PUMPE” GASIFICATION PROCESS



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

Mixtures (MPW)

The SVZ plant is a first-of-a-kind integrated gasification, methanol and combined-cycle

electricity production plant that converts contaminated and difficult to handle waste

materials to clean, value-added products. The vitrified slag, the only gasifier waste

product, safely encloses any residual pollutants and can be used as construction material

[129].

The plant gasifies a wide variety of waste materials along with low-rank coals. The

waste materials include demolition wood, used plastics, sewage sludge, auto-fluff,

MSW, contaminated waste oil, paint and varnish sludge, mixed solvents, tars, and on-

site process waste streams [129]. Oxygen and steam are used as gasification media, and

are supplied in counter flow with the input materials [130].

SVZ has 10 gasifiers for 3 different gasification technologies [131]: 7 Pressurised solid-

bed gasifier (solid waste), 2 Entrained flow gasifiers (for liquid waste) and one BGL

type.

183

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Solid bed gasification Entrained flow gasification BGL gasification

Figure 79. Gasification types in SVZ plant (Karlsruhe)

Figure 80. Flow chart of the SVZ process

184

JRC


eports


The main product of the process is the methanol (evaluated energetically under the

following heading). The methanol production has been estimated for the waste mix

considered in the evaluation.

Table 48. Methanol recovery in SVZ according to bibliography

MATERIAL RECOVERED

Material Best case Worst case unit

Methanol 787[132] 608.163[133] kg/tonne

In ordinary conditions, with mixed material processing, other materials are also

recovered:

Table 49. Other materials recovered in SVZ according to bibliography

MATERIAL RECOVERED


Slag 228[134] 350[135] kg/tonne

NaCl 11.4[136] kg/tonne

Gypsum 98 kg/tonne

• Slag: This slag is usually applied in construction works. For the purpose of this

study, no modification in the slag generated has been considered.

• NaCl: It will depend on the Cl amount entering the process, and therefore, it will

only be generated when plastics like PVC are being processed.

• Gypsum: There is no information available on the material amount generated in the

desulphuration plant for the gas purification system. However, since this is

proportional to the sulphur in the input[126], being this element rather limited in the

plastic waste, it will only be related to the sulphur content in the coal, and therefore,

the gypsum generated should be lower than in usual conditions.

B. Energy balance:

Energy efficiency reported in plastic waste treatment is around 48%[132].

185

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Energy in waste Process energy Electricityrecovered

Methanol

Figure 81. Energy balance of the SVZ process (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values


Wastewater emissions are around 676 kg/tonne of waste treated. There is no

information regarding the wastewater composition. Heyde (1999) states, however, that

this impact is negligible in comparison with the rest of the installation.

The information regarding atmospheric emissions is also limited. Since the gasification

is done with oxygen and no nitrogen is significantly expected in the plastic waste, the

emissions of NOx are likely to be negligible.

SOx emissions will also decrease, since this element has very little presence in the

waste plastic, and only the coal fed to the gasifier (20:80 ratio coal/plastic) will

contribute to this contaminant.


The remaining waste produced is the slag (inert) and the waste from atmospheric

emission treatments.

186

JRC


eports

Figure 82. Waste generated in SVZ

WASTE PRODUCED


Slag 228 350 kg/tonne

7.2.3.2.4 THERMALYSIS (THERMOFUEL)


17 Thermal decomposition methods Pyrolysis Packaging,

Agriculture, PE, PP, PS

The process is based on the liquefaction of plastics for the production of a distillate

which consists in a fuel that can be used as fuel for diesel burners, trucks and

generators, as well as co-generators.

The system uses liquefaction, pyrolysis and the catalytic breakdown of plastics, a

process whereby scrap and waste plastic are converted into liquid hydrocarbons that can

be used as fuels.

Plastic waste is continuously treated in a cylindrical chamber and the pyrolytic gases

condensed in a specially-designed condenser system to yield a hydrocarbon distillate

comprising straight and branched chain aliphatics, cyclic aliphatics and aromatic

hydrocarbons. The resulting mixture is essentially equivalent to petroleum distillate.

The density of the distilled fuels obtained in the process (called Green Fuel or Ecodiesel

by the technology providers) is close to that of regular diesel, as well as its other

characteristics. The “Green Fuel” has the same energy content as conventional diesels,

but with significantly reduced emissions levels for environmentally sound operation.

Existing diesel engines can run fully effectively on these fuels with no engine

modification. In fact, a comparison of the distillate produced from a plastic mix

compared with regular diesel has been conducted by gas chromatography, and shows

good similarity between fuels, however, the distillate shows cleaner burning

187

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

characteristics and contains no chemical elements other than those which can be found

in the plastic waste.

During the pyrolysis process, non-plastic materials fall to the bottom of the chamber

and will be eliminated later. The char residue produced is about 5% of the output for

relatively clean polyolefin feedstocks and up to 8–10% for PET-rich feedstocks. Since

the char passes acid leaching tests it can simply be landfilled.

Figure 83. Main steps in the Thermalysis process.


The resulting fuel depends on the material fed. The following table summarises the fuel

obtained from different plastic wastes:

188

JRC


eports

Table 50. Fuel recovered from different polymers.

Types of plastic Recovered fuel (l/kg)

PE 0.94

PP 1.15

PS 0.95

PE (70), PP(15), PS (15) mix 1.02

Flexible Container Bags (PP,PE) 0.96

The process also recovers a solvent (white spirit) from the remaining fraction. In usual

working conditions, with a mixed plastic, the following recovery ratios are reported:

Table 51. Materials recovered from average plastic treatment.

Output by plastic waste tonne treated

Ecodiesel kg 600

Solvent "white spirit" kg 200

B. Energy balance:

-30000

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Energy in plasticwaste

Energy in process Ecodiesel Solvent "white spirit"

Figure 84. Energy balance in the Thermalysis process (MJ), based on minimum and maximum values


There are very limited emissions associated to the process, with comparatively small

amounts of CO2. Reported CO and NOx emissions are also low.

189

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes


Wastes generated to the process consist on the following fractions. In usual working

conditions, the total waste generated amounts for 80 kg for each tonne treated.

Slag

Ashes

Ammoniawaters

Salted wasteSlag

Ashes

Ammoniawaters

Salted waste

Figure 85. Average waste flow from the Thermalysis process

Slag comprises about 5% of the output for relatively clean polyolefin feedstocks and up

to 8–10% for PET-rich feedstocks. Since the char passes acid leaching tests it can

simply be landfilled. The char residue produced is very high carbon content. The rest of

the wastes are considered to be landfilled.

These outputs are applicable to the plastic mix considered for the purpose of this

environmental evaluation.

7.2.3.2.5 REDUCING AGENT IN BLAST FURNACE



(MPW)

Iron ore processed nowadays contains a large content of hematite (Fe2O3) and

sometimes small amounts of magnetite (Fe3O4). In the blast furnace, these components

become increasingly reduced, producing iron oxide (FeO) then a partially reduced and

carburised form of solid iron.

Most blast furnace installations inject reducing agents into the furnace at the tuyère

level. This partially replaces coke in the top charge, optimising on the use of reducing

190

JRC


eports

agents, and reducing the energy consumed. Various reducing agents are available.

Carbon/hydrocarbons in the form of coke, coal, oil, natural gas, are used

Another option is the use of plastic waste as a reducing agent instead of coal (or fuel

oil). This practice is getting extended in different countries, mainly Japan and Germany

in Europe [136, 130]. In this case, both the C and H in the plastic help reducing the oxygen

from the ore, resulting in CO2 and H2O emissions. The material itself is not

incorporated in the metallic product coming out of the process; and only 3% of the total

C used as reducing agent is estimated to remain non oxidised[137].

As shown in the figure, PVC is separated from the waste entering the blast furnace,

although developments are being carried out in order to solve these limitations. Nikon

Steel in Japan has started operating a pilot-scale dechlorination system (annual

treatment capacity: 5000 tonne scale) for use of vinyl chloride as a blast furnace feed

raw material [138].

Figure 86. Overview of the chemical reactions in the Blast Furnace.

191

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Figure 87. Overview of the pre-treatment and application of plastic waste in blast furnace, according to data from Japan [138]


In this case the main output of the process is the pig iron coming out of the blast

furnace. However, the assessment of both co-combustion in cement kilns and the use as

reducing agent in blast furnace, present special conditions. In both cases the process is

carried out in any case, consuming other materials (coal or fuel-oil).

Therefore, according to the methodology described in ANNEX 3, the direct substitution

of coal/heavy oil (assuming a scenario where its market share as reducing agent is

50/50) by plastic waste has been considered, in a 1:1 ratio (bibliography reports a heavy

oil substitution factor of 1:1 to 1:1.1[130]). Thus, the analysis considers that the

introduction of 1 tonne of plastic waste in the blast furnace avoids the production of 1

tonne of coal for the same purpose. The maximum substitution factor of coke by

pulverised reducing agent is around 30%.

Regarding other materials in the plastic waste stream that may be recovered, the process

enables making Fe available for metal applications. The recovery of other metals is not

considered.

192

JRC


eports

B. Energy balance:

-40000

-30000

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Energy in plastic Coal/Fuel substituted

Figure 88. Energy balance in blast furnace (MJ).

The energy balance is focused in the substitution of the reduction agent. The plastic

waste pre-treatment operations have not been considered.


The assessment focuses only on the emissions differences derived from the use of

plastic waste as reducing agent, substituting coal or fuel oil. However, there is no

specific information on the changes of emissions with the use of plastic or coal/heavy

oil.

Table 52. Emissions in blast furnace by tonne of pig iron produced

Substance Best case Worst Case unit

CO2 280,000,000 500,000,000 mg/t

CO 770,000 1,750,000 mg/t

dust 10,000 50,000 mg/t

Mn 10 130 mg/t

Ni 10 20 mg/t

Pb 10 120 mg/t

SOx 20,000 30,000 mg/t

NOx 30,000 120,000 mg/t

H2S 200 20,000 mg/t

PCDD/F 1.00000 4.00000 ng/t

193

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Regarding CO2 emissions, as detailed in the ANNEX 3, CO2 emissions are expected to

be reduced, since the H content of the waste will also act as reducing agent in the

process, leading to higher H2O emissions and lower CO2. Although some authors

expect a reduction of 30% in the amount of CO2 emitted [139], there is no detailed and

quantified information on this sense. For the purpose of this study, CO2 emission

factors from the reduction have been used, which are dependent on the carbon content

of the reducing agent [137].

Based on this estimation, it can be assumed that the use of an average non chlorinated

commodity thermoplastic (average 800 g C/kg) leads to a reduction of 113 kg/CO2 by

tonne used.

Other emissions can be expected to stay similar to the conventional process (without

using plastic waste), although no date is available for establishing these as final values.

There are other emissions that could be relevant but have not been assessed due to the

lack of data, such as: organic volatile compounds (halogenated and non halogenated),

etc.

0.1-3.5 m3 of wastewater are expected to be produced by pig iron tonne, and no relevant

variations in this flow from use of waste plastic in blast furnace are expected.


At this stage it is not possible to determine the final waste that can be assigned to the

use of plastics in this process, and no significant differences are expected, unless high

content of non combustibles (e.g. glass fibre) is added.

194

JRC


eports

7.2.3.2.6 CO-COMBUSTION IN CEMENT KILN


1 Use as alternative/secondary fuel

Cement kilns (coal substitution)

Agriculture, Packaging, ELV,

WEEE

Mixtures (MPW)

Waste plastics from residual recycling or commercial/industrial activities are used in

cement kilns as alternative fuels in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the

Netherlands and Sweden. Plastics have been trialled in the UK as part of Profuel by

Castle Cement. It is shredded and mixed with other wastes before injection and co-

firing. Plastics from end of life vehicles (ASR-automotive shredder residues) are

reported to be co-incinerated as secondary fuels in cement kilns in Belgium [140].

The European average energy substitution rate for secondary fuels in the cement

industry is reported to range between 1 and 40%. It was reported that in 1995, that fuel

usage in the cement industry in Europe was about 10% for waste derived fuels,

compared with 39% of pet coke and 36% of coal, 7% of fuel oil, 6% of lignite and 2%

of gas [140].


As in the evaluation of the use of plastic wastes in blast furnace, the direct substitution

of coal/heavy oil (assuming a scenario where its market share as reducing agent is

50/50) by plastic waste has been considered. The substitution factor has been based on

the energy content of the waste fraction.

The goal of the application is the use of the energy of the plastic fraction, however the

recovery of certain materials can be considered. The inorganic part substitutes natural

siliceous, aluminium and calcium compounds. However, although most metals are

immobilized in the clinker, no recovery is considered [140].

195

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

B. Energy balance:

The high calorific value of plastic wastes is what makes them suitable substitutes for

conventional fuels used in cement kilns. Therefore, the need of additional combustibles

is avoided.

-50000-40000-30000-20000-10000

01000020000300004000050000

Energy in plastic Coal/Fuel substituted

Figure 89. Energy balance in cement kiln (MJ)


There is still not enough information regarding which of the contaminants emitted in

cement kiln can be assigned to the production process and which ones specifically the

plastic wastes co-incinerated.

Table 53. Emissions in cement kiln by tonne of clinker produced

mg/tonne of clinker Substance

min max

NOx (as NO2) 400,000 6,000,000

SO2 20,000 7,000,000

Dust 10,000 400,000

CO 500,000,000 3,000,000,000

CO2 800,000,000 1,040,000,000

TOC 10 1,000

HF <800 10,000

HCl <2,000 50,000

PCDD/F <0.0002 0.001

196

JRC


eports

Hg, Cd, Tl 20 600

As, Co, Ni, Se, Te 2 200

Sb, Pb, Cr, Cu, Mn,V, Sn, Zn 10 600

• CO2: around 67% of the CO2 emissions in the clinker production are related to the

raw materials used, and only 33% to the fuels used[141]. In this case, the direct CO2

emissions in the cement kiln will depend on the C content on the fuel, and therefore

varies highly with the use of low range coal, for example.

• Volatil Organic Compounds (VOCs): Because of the high temperatures and the

chemically basic environment, cement kilns are suited for combustion of waste

materials[142], although differences are reported depending on the process step where

the waste is fed[143,144] (more details in ANNEX 3). Different trials carried out report

high Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) of organic substances fed to the

fuel kiln. For example, The test burn result of pesticides showed a DRE of

>99.9999%, and a test burn with two expired chlorinated insecticide compounds

introduced at a rate of 2 tonnes per hour through the main burner (carried out in

Vietnam in 2003) showed a DRE for the introduced insecticides of >99.99999%[143].

• SO2 emissions from cement plants are primarily determined by the content of the

volatile sulphur in the raw materials[141], and therefore, no important SOx reductions

due to the use of alternative fuels with low S content has been considered.

• Metals: They are mainly retained in the clinker. For example, studies on Sb, As, Ba,

Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Se, V, and Zn have established that near 100% of those

metals are retained in the solids (clinker). Extremely volatile metals such as mercury

and thallium are not incorporated into the clinker to the same degree as other

metals[140].

• Dioxins and furans: The average PCDD/F flue gas concentration in European kilns

is approximately 0.02 ng TEQ/m3, representing hundreds of measurements. In

general terms, emissions from the cement industry can be classified as low today,

even when wastes and hazardous wastes are used as a co-fuel[143]. Many recent

studies have concluded that the use of alternative fuels and raw materials does not

influence or affect the emissions of PCDD/Fs. In general, it seems that the ranges of

197

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

PCDD/Fs emission concentration resulting from the use of conventional fuels such

as coal and petcoke overlap with the ranges obtained with the use of secondary fuel,

regardless of the type of secondary fuel [143].

Waste water discharge is usually limited to surface run off and cooling water only and

causes no substantial contribution to water pollution [141]. No modification in waste

water emission is expected from the use of plastic as alternative fuel.


Regarding to the waste generated directly from the plastic combustion, since most

organic mater is evaporated and inorganic is captive in the clinker, only residues from

flue gas depuration can be considered, which is often re-circulated.

Final waste produced from waste plastic combustion can be neglected.

7.2.3.2.7 INCINERATION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY


6 Energy production Incineration with other wastes

MSW,MSW+C&D; MSW + ELV (fluff

ASR);

MSW+Packaging

Mixtures (MPW)

Incineration of plastic waste in installations suitable for Municipal Solid Waste (MSWI)

has been considered. The thermal treatment applied in these installations may be based

on different technologies, being the most relevant ones: grate incinerator, rotary kiln and

fluidised beds (pyrolysis and gasification have already been considered in other chapters

of this study). Fluidised bed technology requires some degree of pre-treatment and/or

selective collection of waste [145].

198

JRC


eports


The main goal of the process is the waste management and energy recovery, but other

materials are also recovered:

Table 54. Materials recoverable in the waste incineration.

Materials recoverable Amount

Ferrous metals 80% of Fe in the waste

Gypsum 2.125 kg of gypsum are estimated to be generated by each kg of SOx treated

During the incineration of the average commodity thermoplastics considered in this

evaluation none of this material flows are expected to be generated.

B. Energy balance:

According to the bibliography, efficiencies in electricity production are among 12-22%

(further details in ANNEX 3).

-10000-5000

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

Waste Energy Process energy Electricity produced

Figure 90. Energy balance in waste incinerator (MJ)


Average atmospheric emissions in MSWI in the combustion of usual mixed waste is

summarised in the following table:

199

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 55. Emissions in waste incineration

Substance min max unit

CO2 495.45 mg/m3

CO 5 30 mg/m3

NO2 0.38 1.81 mg/m3

NO 12.42 28.60 mg/m3

Dust 0.05 15 mg/m3

VOC 1 10 mg/m3

Dioxins 0.0002 0.08 ng/m3

Emission factors for specific contaminants, although not present in the waste stream

studied in this approximation (non halogenated commodity thermoplastics):

• Carbon compounds: Carbon compounds are inorganic or organic combustion

products of the carbon content of the product. Their distribution in the different

media in an example incinerator can be summarised as follows:

Cleaned flue gas: 98%

EPS dust <1

Wastew

ater<1

Filter cake<1

Bottomash1,5

Cleaned flue gas: 98%

EPS dust <1

Wastew

ater<1

Filter cake<1

Bottomash1,5

Figure 91. Waste generated in waste incineration [145]

Calculation of net CO2 emissions from waste incineration is based on the fossil

carbon content of the waste (kg fossil carbon/kg waste), multiplied by the amount of

CO2 generated per amount of carbon (kg CO2/kg fossil carbon). Bibliography

considers the emissions of 3.67 kg CO2/kg fossil carbon (equivalent to 100%

conversion) of CO2 generated.

• SOx: The generation of this compound depends on the S content in the waste, which

is negligible in plastics.

200

JRC


eports

• Dioxins and furans: According to literature (BREF), dioxins and furans entering the

process with the waste are destroyed very efficiently, if sufficiently high

incineration temperatures and appropriate process conditions are used. The dioxins

and furans found in the crude flue-gas of waste incineration plants are the result of a

recombination reaction of carbon, oxygen and chlorine.

It is not possible to establish a direct correlation among substances in the waste and

the concentration of dioxins generated, since too many factors affect this aspect. For

this reason, a standard emissions has been considered, as shown in Table 55.

• Metal emissions and other halogenated compounds: Average HCl emissions have an

average of 0.1- 10 mg/m3. According to the literature, the following percentages of

metals in wastes are emitted to the atmosphere.

0123456789

10

Cl Br Fe Cu Pb Zn Cd As Cr Ni Hg

Serie2Serie1MaxMin

Figure 92. Air emission factors (min and max) of metals and other halogenated compounds in waste incineration (%)

Regarding wastewater emissions, wet flue gas cleaning consumes 0.6-1.1 m3

water/tonne of waste. Emission factors from substances to wastewater are summarised

in the following figure.

201

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0102030405060708090

100

C Cl Fe Cu Pb Zn Cd Hg As Cr Ni

Figure 93. Wastewater emission factors (min and max) in waste incinerator (%)


Ferrous metal and gypsum recovery is possible, but since no iron and S are introduced

in the waste, these products are not generated in the incineration of ordinary commodity

thermoplastics.

The remaining average waste amounts generated are the following ones:

Table 56. Average waste generated in incineration process

Material min max unit

Slag 200 350 kg/tonne

Flue gas cleaning process, Reaction products and filter dust 58 105 kg/tonne

These amounts are calculated for general incineration of MSW. The incineration of pure

thermoplastics will lead to smaller amounts of wastes, since metals and other substances

that contribute to their generation are not present in those polymers.

202

JRC


eports

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

C Cl Fe Cu Pb Zn Cd Hg As Cr Ni

Figure 94. Percentage (min and max) of the materials in the waste that are emitted in the sludges from the wastewater treatment

0102030405060708090

100

Cl Fe Cu Pb Zn Cd Hg Ni As Cr N Br

Figure 95. Percentage (min and max) of materials in the waste that are emitted in slags from the wastewater treatment

7.2.4. Results of the comparative environmental evaluation

7.2.4.1. HAZARDOUS ON-SITE EMISSIONS

The information on specific emissions from the analyzed waste management techniques

is limited.

203

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• Dioxins: these are some of the substances that create the greatest concern in the

waste treatment processes. As shown in the following figure, there are no specific

data on emissions from the Thermalysis and SVZ processes. In general terms, all

gasification processes analysed have shown very low dioxin emissions, and the

same trend is expected in the SVZ process. The Thermalysis process, with no

combustion stages, is also expected to show relative low emissions of dioxins, if

any.

The following figure shows the concentration of dioxins in flue gas reported by

different experiences.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Thermoselect Twinrec SVZ Thernalysis Wasteincineration

Max.

Min.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Thermoselect Twinrec SVZ Thernalysis Wasteincineration

Max.

Min.

Max.

Min.

Figure 96. Approximation to dioxin emission (min and max) reported by different waste treatment processes (ng/Nm3)

It must also be noted that flue gas from gasification processes is lower than in waste

incineration. Twinrec process reports 1.2 Nm3/kg of plastic waste gasified, while

waste incineration produced between 2 and 6 Nm3/kg waste gasified. SVZ has even

lower flue gas emissions, since most of the syngas produced is destined for

methanol production, and therefore are not combusted. Thus, the global emission of

dioxins in the waste incineration process will be still higher per tonne of waste

treated.

204

JRC


eports

Blast furnace and cement kiln have not been included in the former graphic. Since

these production processes occur independently of their use for treating wastes, only

the differential formation of dioxins should be considered. As stated in former

chapters, no additional formation of dioxins with the use of alternative fuels (plastic

waste) can be demonstrated.

Dioxin emissions in mechanical recycling processes are negligible.

• Metals: although in this study previously separated plastics have been considered,

certain waste flows may still contain metallic contamination (WEEE and ELV).

Gasification processes retain most metals in slag or metal concentrates before the

combustion.

Cement kiln immobilise metals in the clinker, and only extremely volatile metals

such as mercury and thallium are not incorporated into the clinker to the same

degree as other metals.

7.2.4.2. MATERIALS RECOVERED

The processes assessed are focused to the recovery of the following energy and

materials:

• Chemical precursors like methanol (in this study only SVZ has been considered to

recover methanol, since although other gasification processes could also be oriented

with this purpose, the European experiences have been focused in energy recovery).

• Electricity recovery (Thermoselect, Twinrec, waste incineration). Also in this case

other forms of energy are recoverable, but electricity production is the main

purpose, as detailed in previous chapters.

• Fuel production (Thermofuel)

• Substitution of conventional fuels by plastic waste (cement kiln)

• Substitution of reduction agents by plastic wastes (blast furnace).

The overall impact of the materials and energy recovered will be assessed in the

following chapters. However, the processes assessed also allow recovery of other

205

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

materials that often form part of the plastic waste stream, like metals. The following

figure summarises the fate of ferrous metals in the processes assessed.

M

echa

nica

l rec

yclin

g

Bühl

ler

Ther

mos

elect

Twin

rec

SVZ

Ther

maly

sis

Blas

t fur

nace

Cem

ent K

iln

Incin

erat

ion

Ferrous metals recoveredFerrous metals inmovilezed/landfilled

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 97. Fate of ferrous metals in the processes assessed (%)

This figure considers the fate of ferrous metals remaining in the plastic waste after

previous separation processes from the product they integrate (e.g. WEEE and ELV

disassembly, shredding and metal separation). It must be considered that TwinRec and

Thermoselect, because of their capacity to treat and recover metals, enable skipping

these separation processes.

As shown in the figure, mechanical recycling, SVZ and Thermalysis (Thermofuel) do

not allow reincorporating metals for secondary life cycle.

Regarding non ferrous metals, Thermoselect and TwinRec enable the highest recovery,

as shown in the following figure:

206

JRC


eports

Mec

hani

cal r

ecyc

ling

Bühl

ler

Ther

mos

elec

t

Twin

rec

SVZ

Ther

mal

ysis

Blas

t fur

nace

Cem

ent K

iln

Incin

erat

ion

Cu Pb

Zn0

102030405060708090

100

Figure 98. Main recoverable non ferrous metals in the processes assessed (%)

7.2.4.3. WASTE REDUCTION

Since most data on waste production refers to very variable combination of wastes, it is

difficult to establish the direct impact of the treatment of wastes generated into waste

formation.

The following figure summarises an estimation of waste generated in different

processes in usual conditions (treating different waste mixes). The hazardous waste

generated in gasification processes has been assimilated to the data reported by

TwinRec.

207

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Conv

entio

nal

mec

hani

cal

Bottl

e to

bot

tle

Ther

mos

elec

t

Twin

rec

SVZ

Ther

nalys

us

Blas

t fur

nace

Cem

ent k

iln

Was

tein

ciner

atio

n

InertHazardous

Figure 99. Approximation to the wastes generated in the processes assessed (kg)

Waste generated in blast furnace and cement kiln are reported as zero, since no

difference is expected respect to the waste generated in their operation with

conventional fuels.

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), 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.

7.2.4.4. CUMULATIVE ENERGY DEMAND

The analysis of the energy efficiency of the processes assessed includes the energy

requirements from a life cycle perspective, considering also the consumptions for the

production of the fuels used/avoided.

208

JRC


eports

Negative impacts reflect the energy consumption that is being avoided due to the

production of energy sources than otherwise would have to be obtained by conventional

ways (e.g. the production of fuel avoids the petrol exploitation and processing).

AVERAGE

-80000

-60000

-40000

-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

Com

mod

ityth

erm

opla

stic

Mec

hani

cal

recy

cling

Bottl

eto

bottl

e

Ther

mos

elec

t

Twin

Rec

SVZ

Ther

mal

ysis

Incin

erat

ion

Blas

tfur

nace

Cem

entk

iln

Cum

ulat

ive

Ener

gyD

eman

d, M

J

AVERAGE

-80000

-60000

-40000

-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

Com

mod

ityth

erm

opla

stic

Mec

hani

cal

recy

cling

Bottl

eto

bottl

e

Ther

mos

elec

t

Twin

Rec

SVZ

Ther

mal

ysis

Incin

erat

ion

Blas

tfur

nace

Cem

entk

iln

Cum

ulat

ive

Ener

gyD

eman

d, M

J

Figure 100. Average CED balance in the processes assessed (MJ)

As shown in the figure above, mechanical recycling processes lead to the highest energy

recovery. However, according to the evaluation methodology used, the quality of the

material recovered, highly dependent on the waste stream, is a determinant factor.

Bottle-to-bottle recycling leads to the highest guaranteed quality from post-consumer

plastics, and a direct substitution of virgin PET can be assumed. However, this process

is only valid for a very limited waste flow.

For the purpose of this study, the quality of the polymers recovered by conventional

mechanical recycling has been estimated to range between 50-75% of the virgin

material. In the case of lower quality, resulting in the treatment of many waste flows,

the overall cumulative energy assessment will lead to much worse results.

The use of plastic in cement kilns and as reducing agent in blast furnace have been

considered as direct fuel substitution (oil and coal), leading to highly efficient energy

use.

209

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

The production of alternative fuels in the Thermalysis process, as shown in the figure

leads also to an efficient energy recovery.

The processes leading to electricity production have larger energy losses, as can be

expected. TwinRec and SVZ (where also methanol is obtained) show the best energy

conservation, while Thermoselect has low efficiency (due to the high energy used in the

vitrification of wastes).

7.2.4.5. CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

The evaluation of the contribution to Global Warming Potential has been performed

from a life cycle perspective.

Also in this case mechanical recycling leads to highest CO2 savings, although the

quality of the obtained fraction is again a key factor in conventional process.

Thermalysis leads to high CO2 savings, similarly to blast furnace and cement kiln.

AVERAGE

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

Com

mod

ityth

erm

opla

stic

Mec

hani

cal

recy

cling

Bottl

eto

bottl

e

Ther

mos

elec

t

Twin

rec

SVZ

Ther

mal

ysis

Incin

erat

ion

Blas

tfur

nace

Cem

entk

iln

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l, kg

CO2

equi

v. AVERAGE

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

Com

mod

ityth

erm

opla

stic

Mec

hani

cal

recy

cling

Bottl

eto

bottl

e

Ther

mos

elec

t

Twin

rec

SVZ

Ther

mal

ysis

Incin

erat

ion

Blas

tfur

nace

Cem

entk

iln

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l, kg

CO2

equi

v.

Figure 101. Contribution to Global Warming Potential by the processes assessed (kg CO2 equivalent)

210

JRC


eports

7.2.4.6. CONCLUSIONS

In order to summarise the comparative results of the environmental performance of the

several polymer recovery processes evaluated the following remarks can be made:

• Mechanical recycling processes are oriented to recovery of specific polymers and

the rest of materials in the pre-sorted waste stream (minority polymers, metals,

paper…) are usually land filled or energetically valorised. In general mechanical

recycling generates negligible hazardous emissions and low levels of —mostly

inert— residues. Those processes lead to the relatively lowest energy demand and

highest CO2 savings, although the quality of the obtained recyclates (virgin

substitution rate) is a key factor in the measurement of their performance with

regard to CED and GWP parameters (better performance for advanced mechanical

recycling methods ensuring close-loop recycling).

• Use of plastic waste as secondary fuel/raw materials in cement kiln and blast

furnaces leads to highly efficient energy consumption, whilst CO2 emissions are

expected to be lower than in conventional operation with coal/oil and no additional

formation of dioxins can be demonstrated. Similarly, no difference is expected in

the waste generated with respect to operation with conventional fuels.

• Use of plastic waste as secondary fuel/raw material in blast furnace enables the

additional recovery of ferrous metals present in the plastic-rich waste streams. In the

case of cement kilns, metals are immobilised into the crystalline structure of clinker.

• The thermal processes leading to electricity production score worse in the CED

parameter (gasification to methanol, gasification to syngas, gasification combined

with combustion, incineration with energy recovery) than the rest of technologies

assessed. In the case of gasification to syngas, the energy efficiency is the lowest;

due to its high energy consumption for verification of process wastes (it has an extra

requirement for oxygen and natural gas for the gasification/ash melting reactor).

• The highest contribution to Global Warming Potential is expected from processes

with combustion of waste fractions or their decomposition products (syngas,

pyrolytic oils), i.e. conventional incineration, gasification to syngas, gasification

211

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

combined with combustion. In particular, gasification to syngas is the technology

with the highest GWP estimate.

• The feedstock thermal processes have lower requirements for flue gas cleaning and

less amount and hazardousness of residues than conventional incineration. Emission

of dioxins in oxidative and thermal waste treatment processes (gasification and

pyrolysis/gasification combined with combustion) is reported to be lower than in

waste incineration processes and the solid residues generated are stable fused ash

and molten slags. In fact, those processes can argue to contribute to waste

minimisation and recovery of non-polymeric materials present in waste, especially

in the case of gasification to syngas and gasification combined with combustion.

• Thermalysis process 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 gasification processes, it produces

a char, not a vitrified slag, which explains the somehow higher hazardousness of its

process wastes. 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.

212

JRC


eports

8. BARRIERS AND DRIVERS FOR FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF PLASTIC WASTE RECOVERY OPTIONS

8.1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Throughout chapter 7, the different technologies for the recovery of waste plastics,

commercially available or at early stages of development, were inventoried and assessed

according to their technical and environmental performances. The numerous

technologies were classified into three main categories —energy recovery, feedstock

recovery and mechanical recycling— depending on the final product derived from the

waste plastic treatment (i.e. energy, basic chemicals and monomers or polymer

fractions), although multifunctional processes recovering simultaneously or optionally

energy and material make the frontier between categories diffuse. Within each category

a discrimination of individual technologies was done by selecting the more

representative, industrially available and best documented ones. The aim of the present

chapter is to identify and discuss the barriers and drivers for further implementation of

those plastic waste recovery options.

The methodological approach for a systematic analysis of the barriers and drivers for

each of the most promising technologies investigated in chapter 7 has been

accomplished through the development of a checklist that inventories the different

issues to be checked (Table 57). Fields at Table 57 are associated to non-technical

parameters influencing the expansion of recovery technologies and are classified under

several categories: industrialisation, collection and logistics, waste and product

qualities, market and prices, legislation and sustainability.

All the information for each technology has been compiled in the corresponding

“Market Sheet”; selecting among the options the appropriated standard answers for

every parameter. The complete set of “Market Sheets” filled out appears in ANNEX 4.

Forms based on the aforementioned checklist have been circulated to the suppliers of

polymer recovery technologies with the aim of gathering their views about which

factors may slow down or enhance the development of their processes in the EU. The

answers obtained are also included in ANNEX 4.

213

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

According to the previously described approach, the analysis of the barriers and drivers

for further implementation has focused on the following technologies distributed into

the three categories:

• Energy Recovery (ER)

− ID-#01-ER. Fuel substitution at cement kiln (co-incineration)

− ID-#06-ER. Incineration with other wastes (incineration)

• Feedstock recovery (FSR)

− ID-#14-FSR. Gasification to methanol (SVZ)

− ID-#15-FSR. Gasification to syngas (THERMOSELECT)

− ID-#17-FSR. Thermalysis

− ID-#23-FSR. Waste plastic as a reduction agent in the blast furnaces

− ID-#30-FSR. Gasification + Combustion (EBARA TwinRec)

• Mechanical recycling (MR)

− ID-#02-MR. RPET Recycling / Bottle to bottle process

− ID-#03-MR. PVC Recycling (VINYLOOP®)

− ID-#06-MR. Mechanical recycling of HDPE bottles from packaging waste

The examination of the barriers and drivers concludes with SWOT analyses of the

technologies by answering the questions raised in, on the basis of the relevant

information previously collected. Each individual SWOT analysis is appended to the

corresponding market sheet of a technology as shown in Table 57.

214

JRC


eports

Table 57. Barriers and drivers for plastic waste recovery options. Checklist (I)

CATEGORY PARAMETERS

Industrialisation

Technology status: research, pilot, bench scale, industrial

Technology implementation and maturity: emerging, conventional

Technical performance: established, in development

Capacity for scale economy in kg/h: < 100, 100-1000, >1000

Investment in Euro: < 50.000, 50.000-200.000, > 200.000

Application: general, specific

Technology nature: mechanical/chemical, dry/wet

Running requirements: energy, other utilities, chemicals

Environmental effects: waste water, air emissions, solid waste

Collection and logistics

Location of waste generation points: concentrated/dispersed

Nature of waste generation points: industrial/domestic

Collection system: absent/present, bulk/selective, dedicated/shared

Distance to consolidation points in km: < 50, 50-200, >200

Distance to treatment points in km: < 50, 50-200, >200

Waste quality

Consistency of supply: steady/transient, increasing/decreasing

Quality of supply: clean/contaminated, fixed/variable

Nature of contamination: other plastics materials/non-plastic materials like metals, paper, food waste…

Required sorting technology for material classification: yes/no

Required cleaning technology for contaminant removal: yes/no

Product quality

Product added value: low like regrinds, intermediate like flakes or pellets, high like finished goods

Product purity: assured/risk of contamination

Standards for recycled product: yes/no, proposed

Markets and prices

Existence of markets: yes/no, established/in development

Price of virgin plastic (Euro/t):

Relative price of inlet waste/scrapped plastic (% to virgin plastic):

Relative price of outlet recycled plastic (% to virgin plastic):

Associated cost for collection and transport of waste/scrapped plastic (% to virgin plastic):

Associated cost for recycling of waste/scrapped plastic (% to virgin plastic):

Associated cost for generated waste management (% to virgin plastic) (% to virgin plastic):

Gate fee (Euro/t):

215

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 57. Barriers and drivers for plastic waste recovery options. Checklist (II)

CATEGORY PARAMETERS

Legislation

Existence of waste management legislation: yes/no

Existence of recycling and recovery legislation: yes/no

Existence of recycling and recovery targets per material: yes/no

Expected changes in next years: yes/no

Existence of other related legislation: yes/no

Sustainability (economic-

environmental-social)

Economic drivers: profit opportunity, new markets, technological risks

Environmental drivers: energy efficiency, resource efficiency

Social drivers: administration policies, social demand, stakeholders interest or resistance, innovation barriers

Table 58. SWOT analysis

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

INTERNAL

Strengths

What advantages does it have?

What does it do well?

What relevant waste streams are accessible for recycling?

What can it do that other technologies cannot?

Weaknesses

What could it improve?

What does it do badly?

What should it avoid?

EXTERNAL

Opportunities

Where are the good opportunities facing it?

What are the interesting trends it is aware of?

Changes in technology and markets on both a broad and narrow scale

Changes in government policy related to this field

Changes in social patterns, population profiles, lifestyle

changes, etc.

Local events

Threats

What obstacles does it face?

What is the competitor technology doing?

Are the required specifications for its product or service changing?

Is a changing technology threatening its position?

Are there bad debt or cash flow problems?

Could any of the weaknesses seriously threaten the technology?

216

JRC


eports

Table 59. Market sheet (SWOT incl. for conventional mechanical recycling process (sample application. HDPE bottles from packaging

217

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

8.2. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF BARRIERS AND DRIVERS CHECKLIST. AGGREGATED SWOT ANALYSIS

The example of application of barriers and drivers checklist for the conventional

mechanical recycling process applied to post-user HDPE bottles recycling (as typical

case of mechanical recycling of sorted polymers) is given at the previous Table 60. It

illustrates the filled market sheet and the final SWOT analysis for this technology that

can be found, among others, in the ANNEX 4.

When detected, local peculiarities within any of the categories checked have been

highlighted (e.g. lower or higher —than average— development status of a technology

in a region, local legislation stricter than EU Directives, sustainable local policies…).

The characteristic barriers and drivers of the ten 2003 Accession Countries have also

been carefully assessed.

For compilation purposes aggregated SWOT analysis have also been carried out in

order to better understand advantages, disadvantages and competition between generic

families of polymer recovery processes:


• Advanced mechanical recycling of polymers


• Feedstock recycling to basic chemicals with energy recovery (thermal methods)

• Energy recovery by co-incineration (plastic waste as fuel)

• Disposal/Treatment with energy recovery (incineration)

218

JRC


eports

Table 60. SWOT analysis. Mechanical recycling (conventional).

POSITIVE NEGATIVE IN

TE

RN

AL

Strengths

Simple and traditional technology and established markets for products

Steady product quality supply

Material from well established separate collection systems (Plastic bottles from

selective packaging waste collection and bulk collection) and arising local initiatives (sheets and films from agriculture and C&D waste) is accessible for recycling, as well as

production rejects

Easy increase of capacity by plain duplication of lines

Weaknesses

Low-end recyclates

Applicable to limited materials and low flexibility regarding input

Resource efficiency could be improved

Overcapacity risks

EX

TE

RN

AL

Opportunities

Increase of recycling demand

Support and positive social perception of recycling activities

Public awareness of domestic waste management and demand of more activity

Recycling targets for materials and products set by EU Directives.

Good environmental performance

Concrete and wood substitution

Easy transferability to new installations

Threats

Substitution ratio and aesthetics limitations

Specifications for product is changing and process control and product quality are

demanded from public bodies, suppliers and customers

Narrow economic margin: treatment cost for recyclate of medium-high quality vs low

price of virgin material

Cash flow problems, especially for new plants (investment/depreciation) and low

capacity plants (running cost)

Table 61. SWOT analysis. Mechanical recycling (advanced).

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

INT

ER

NA

L

Strengths

Simple technology.

Oriented to added-value and established markets: recyclate equivalent to virgin

material


Material from well established separate collection systems (selective packaging

waste collection and bulk collection) and arising local initiatives (sheets from C&D waste, ELV and WEEE separated parts) is

accessible for recycling

It can deal with high degree of contamination in plastic and remove it.

Weaknesses

Operation in sorted batches to ensure homogeneous feed and product quality

Consumption of reagents can render increased amount and hazardousness of

emissions and residues

219

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

EX

TE

RN

AL

Opportunities

Increase of recycling demand and of demand for high-end recyclates (closed

loop recycling)

Economical solution at small-medium capacities for materials not suitable for

conventional mechanical recycling methods or towards added-value product.

Support and positive social perception of recycling activities

Public awareness of domestic waste management and demand of more activity

Recycling targets for materials and products set by EU Directives.

Threats

Highly specific: applicable to very limited materials.

Steady volume of supply not secured

Regulation for products manufacture can distort potential final markets (e.g.

regulations on contact food materials)

Cash flow problems, especially for new plants (investment/depreciation) and low

capacity plants (running cost)

Table 62. SWOT analysis. Feedstock recycling (chemolysis).

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

INT

ER

NA

L

Strengths

Oriented to added-value and established markets of wide spectrum (monomers and

other chemicals)


Possible adaptation of working capacity

Weaknesses

Complex technology (petrochemical industry).

Highly specific: applicable to very limited materials.

High pre-treatment costs to reach the strict input specifications

EX

TE

RN

AL

Opportunities

Increase of recycling demand and of demand for high-end recyclates: recycled

product equals virgin product/raw materials and involves resource efficiency (oil

savings).

It can treat certain polymers hardly recyclable mechanically.

Integration of recycling activities into existing chemical installations.

Threats

The pre-treatment requirements are even stricter than with mechanical recycling:

identification, separation and conditioning techniques are required.

High investment requires high capacities for bankability, but steady volume and

quality of supply is not secured

Impacts and costs associated to recycling process are to be carefully watched for best

balance between recycling and energy recovery.

Ignorance and negative social perception of these type of industrial/recycling activities

220

JRC


eports

Table 63. SWOT analysis. Feedstock recovery (thermal methods).


TE

RN

AL

Strengths

Chemicals and energy recovery (electricity and heating)

Oriented to established markets of wide spectrum (chemicals and energy)

Steady product quality supply. Medium-large capacities.

They can deal with contaminated dirty polymers

Waste minimisation, more recyclable products (syngas, pyrolysis oils of fuel

grade, vitrified slags...)

Pre-treatment of waste feed minimised

Weaknesses

Complex and intensive non fully proven technologies, with demand of energy,

utilities and chemicals (reagents for flue gas cleaning)

Failure of many facilities to function in continuous operation for extended periods

Pre-treatment and sorting (composition control) of waste feed still needed.

Material recycling to chemicals requires syngas cleaning to high level (involving

chemical industry processes and increased costs). Instead, syngas is just destined to

energy recovery in boilers and steam turbines (not the most energy-efficient

power generation solutions of the possible ones, but the less demanding in gas

specifications)

EX

TE

RN

AL

Opportunities

Resource and energy efficiency (oil and coal savings).

They can treat mixtures of polymers hardly recyclable mechanically or by chemolysis

(ASR incl.)

They can help achieving recycling/recovery targets in complex streams (WEEE, ELV)

Landfill diversion and desire to avoid incineration

Contribution to reduction of GHG emissions.

Lower requirements for flue gas cleaning and less amount and hazardousness of

residues than conventional MSWI.

Integration of polymer recycling activities into existing industrial installations (e.g. blast furnaces) or other waste treatment

process.

Less visual impact (smaller chimneys) and economical at smaller scale than MSWI.

Threats

High investment requires high capacities for bankability, but steady volume of

supply is not secured.

Conservative nature of the industry

Economics not clear: relatively few projects converted to orders. Several pilot trials in

the EU, but scale-ups discarded or on hold.

Disposal of waste with energy recovery and not feedstock recycling as long as they

focus merely on energy recovery (regarded as (co-)incineration of waste under the EU

Incineration Directive)

Unlike biomass, plastic waste is not regarded as renewable energy source and therefore their incineration should not be

promoted under a future support system for production of electricity from renewable energy sources (Directive 2001/77/EC).

Incineration capacities installed

Ignorance and negative social perception of these type of recycling activities

221

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 64. SWOT analysis. Energy recovery by use as alternative fuel (co-incineration).


TE

RN

AL

Strengths

Proven technology

Large capacities.

It contributes to resource efficiency (coal and heavy oil substitution)

The co-incineration in cement kiln contribute to waste minimisation

Weaknesses

Waste Heating Value constraints

Composition of plastic waste feed for cement kilns must be carefully controlled so that emission levels and product quality are

not affected under standard operation conditions (e.g. PVC content limited).

Some pre-treatment of plastic waste is required to convert it into RDF

EX

TE

RN

AL

Opportunities

Resource efficiency (oil and coal savings).

They can treat mixtures of polymers hardly recyclable otherwise (residual MPW, fibre

reinforced polymers and ASR incl.).

The use of GF reinforced polymers as source of silica for clinker in cement works might help to categorised it as a feedstock

recovery process.

They can help achieving recovery targets in complex streams (WEEE, ELV)

Landfill diversion and alternative to incineration

Contribution to reduction of GHG emissions.

Integration of polymer waste disposal into existing industrial process.

Threats

Additional investment for conditioning the RDF may discourage industry from

accepting plastic waste as secondary fuel.

High incineration capacities installed



Negative social perception of these type of industrial/recycling activities

Table 65. SWOT analysis. Incineration with energy recovery.

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

INT

ER

NA

L

Strengths

Proven technology

Very large capacities.

MSWI can deal with unsorted contaminated dirty polymers

Pre-treatment of waste feed not required

Weaknesses

Waste heating value constraints

Conventional incinerators are low energy efficient

Problems with halogen content in plastic waste (emissions)

Incineration residues

222

JRC


eports

EX

TE

RN

AL

Opportunities

It can treat mixtures of polymers hardly recyclable otherwise (residual MPW and

ASR incl.)

It can help achieving recovery targets in complex streams (WEEE, ELV)

Landfill diversion policies

Conservative nature of the industry

Network of incinerators installed and planned

New MSWI equipped with halogen recovery/removal systems

Threats

Recent Incineration Directive has forced phased out MSWIs to close down or invest

in upgrading their installations

High investment requires large capacities over long periods for bankability and secure

waste supply

Negative image of incineration

Less flexibility over energy recovery than other novel thermal processes (which allow

the produced syngas to be converted to electricity via gas engines, gas turbines,

IGCC and fuel cells with increased efficiency)

Cost for treatment requirements for final disposal of incineration residues



8.3. ANALYSIS OF NON-TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF POLYMER RECOVERY OPTIONS. BARRIERS AND DRIVERS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

The information collected into the aggregated SWOT and the individual market sheets

are the basis for a thorough discussion of the non-technical aspects influencing

development of polymer recovery routes.

Apart from data from technology suppliers and expert judgement by contacts in

polymer recycling sector, previous comparative studies among waste treatment

alternatives have been taken into account in the present analysis, such as the Juniper

reports [146, 147], APME studies on environmental performance of waste plastic treatment

options[70, 148, 149, 150] and others focused on WTE processes versus feedstock

recycling[140, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157].

223

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

8.3.1. Industrialisation aspects

The analysis is focused on fully commercial technologies on industrial scale and is

accomplished separately on the three different categories (ER, FSR, MR). The

comparative study of industrialisation aspects is carried out by using “spider plots” that

are constructed in such a way that a technology has advantage over the rest if it is closer

to the centre of the plot; the idea is that a technology is better when it is closer to “hit

the target”.

After analysing the industrialisation aspects of energy recovery options, plotted at

Figure 102, it is concluded that the usage of plastic waste as fuel substitute in cement

kilns produces lower environmental effects than its incineration with other wastes since

the solid residues are incorporated to the clinker instead of being discarded as ashes.

The required investment at the cement plant, for handling and feeding those alternative

fuels, is the only handicap of this option since it always means an extra expense that is

relatively low and entails modifications of the standard designs in order to accept

secondary fuels. The differences between the alternatives in other aspects, like capacity

for scale economy, running requirements or application (accepting that the waste plastic

derived fuels have adequate heating value and do not incorporate compounds or

elements that could change either clinker or cement qualities, affect the process stability

or negatively modify emissions) are not detected as significant.

Capacity forscale economy

Investment

ApplicationRunning

requirements

Environmentaleffects

ID-# 01-ER. Fuelsubstitution at cement kiln

ID-# 06-ER. Incinerationwith other wastes

Figure 102. Industrialisation aspects for energy recovery technologies

224

JRC


eports

The analysis of the industrialisation aspects of feedstock recovery options, plotted at

Figure 103, indicates that the three gasification alternatives are similar but differ on

required investment depending on their focus on synthesis gases that need to be purified

to a greater or lesser extent for their use as combustibles or as raw materials for the

production of derived products like methanol. The syngas burning has the advantage of

allowing the use of systems like gas turbines with better energy efficiency than

conventional boilers. According to the received data, Thermalysis offers the possibility

of medium scale operation but its application is restricted to plastic waste suitable for

the production of adequate diesel. Usage of plastics as reduction agent in blast furnaces

differs from the other options because plastic wastes act as substitute of coke in an

existing industrial installation instead of being a purpose-built waste treatment process.

The substitution of coke means some environmental benefits since it reduces industrial

carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions in comparative terms.


Investment

ApplicationRunning

requirements


ID-# 14-FSR. Gasification tomethanol (SVZ)

ID-# 15-FSR. Gasification tosyngas (THERMOSELECT)

ID-# 17-FSR. Thermalysis

ID-# 23-FSR. Waste plasticas a reduction agent in theblast furnaces

ID-# 30-FSR. Gasification +Combustion (EBARATwinRec)

Figure 103. Industrialisation aspects for feedstock recovery technologies

On analysing the industrialisation aspects of mechanical recycling options shown in

Figure 104, one may conclude that the conventional mechanical recycling of plastics,

represented by the HDPE bottles recycling, is really well positioned since it can operate

on low scale and requires relatively low investment. Attending to the application, the

mechanical recycling technology can accept post-consumer bottles but also some other

plastic items as big plastic containers, plastic production scraps or out of specifications

pellets. Its running requirements can be limited to energy and water (or some additives

if clean flakes are compounded and extruded in order to get plastic pellets) and its

225

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

environmental effects are limited to non hazardous solid waste and processing water

that can be treated by simple mechanical means like filtering and decantation. The

bottle-to-bottle for PET and the Vinyloop® for PVC are more specific and sophisticated

alternatives that involve, additionally to the sorting and cleaning operations, the

consumption of chemical reagents with associated emissions and waste and the

subsequent added investment in emission control / waste treatment systems.


Investment

ApplicationRunning

requirements


ID-# 02-MR. RPET Recycling/ Bott le to bott le process

ID-# 03-MR. PVC Recycling(VINYLOOP)

ID-# 06-MR. Mechanicalrecycling of HDPE bott lesfrom packaging waste

Figure 104. Industrialisation aspects for mechanical recycling technologies

To sum up, obtaining cost-effectively a valuable product, as the one provided via

mechanical recycling, can favour the construction of dedicated plants operating on low

scale. Thus, solutions like the Vinyloop® and the ultraclean PET bottle-to-bottle

technologies exemplify high-end specific processes (on polymer and polymer +

application sides, respectively). The development of low scale feedstock recovery

facilities competitive with the mechanical recycling options and the design of flexible

feedstock recovery plants (capable of treating mixtures of plastics and other waste at the

same time: rubbers, biomass …) competitive with large scale and unspecific energy

recovery options are currently two major challenges. The message is then “get a

valuable product from a low scale specific plant or develop a versatile large scale

plant”.

The direct use of the already existing facilities like MSW incinerators, power plants,

cement kilns or blast furnaces, or their adaptation in order to accept plastic wastes to

226

JRC


eports

some extent, shows industrialisation advantages over construction of dedicated

installations for plastic waste recycling on medium-large scale. Similarly, the

implementation of the feedstock recovery alternatives should think of the use of existing

facilities like refineries, reforming or cracking units. The second message is, hence, “use

or adapt the available industrial plants and networks”.

8.3.2. Existing collection and logistics

Location and nature of waste generation points and collection schemes and

consolidation points, if existing, are not important for discrimination as they will be

common to all technologies. However, the inexistence of separate collection can favour

processes more flexible in their inlet requirements that accept unsorted mixtures of

plastic (even blended with other types of waste), such as incineration.

The distance to the treatment point is another significant difference between

technologies. The distance to the treatment point is a function of the capacity for scale

economy since in a stabilised scenario the capacity is adjusted to the existing raw

material amount. In this situation, the technologies that require a large capacity for scale

economy or are plastic waste dedicated are negatively affected. The mechanical

recycling of plastic waste (due to its small scale application) and the use of plastic waste

as reductant in blast furnaces or for energy recovery either on incineration or co-

incineration processes (due to the inclusion of plastic waste as a secondary raw material

or fuel) are the most favoured alternatives.

Particular situations, like integrating polymer recycling activities into industrial

processes generating the waste (e.g. a plant running the Vinyloop® technology coupled

to a large electrical cable recycling facility that generate PVC-rich plastic mixture from

the cable sheaths) can serve to promote the setting-up of new alternatives. On the

contrary, the location of complementary/interacting activities in the same industrial 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 turn to

recovery through existing processes.

227

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

8.3.3. Plastic waste quality (input material)

Consistency and quality of the supply is always a weak point in many of the

post-consumer plastic waste recycling processes since it is dependent on a combination

of factors like seasonality (e.g. agricultural films use linked to crop cycles) or market

trends affecting the end-of-life product composition (e.g. the implementation of new

multilayer packages for the enhancement of barrier properties or material shift from

metal to plastics in new car models for weight reduction).

Evidently all polymer recovery alternatives work better when the input material has a

consistent good quality. Even the energy recovery technologies, that can handle mixed

plastics, also require to keep the concentration of some plastics like PVC, that can

modify emissions, affect the process stability or damage the final product, under some

acceptance limits, as well as a minimal conditioning steps for achieving a suitable

texture of the waste to be fed into their processes.

The mechanical recycling is dependent on the existence of selective collection systems

and sorting facilities (MRFs) that buffer somehow these variability effects and supplies

rather homogeneous material. In fact some organisations, like the national members of

the Green Dot collective system for packaging waste, set some technical specifications

for sorted waste materials at MFRs before delivery to their authorised (economic and

technically audited) recyclers. The bottle-to-bottle for PET and the Vinyloop® for PVC

alternatives also fix restrictive specifications for the input material acceptance.

Finally, some of the feedstock recycling options, mainly the ones based on thermal

processes, can handle mixed plastics, but again the conditioning of waste for achieving

a given texture is still an unsolved issue in many of them. For instance, the SVZ process

is strongly dependent on the particle size for the accomplishment of the gasification

since the reaction is a solid-gas contact that involves a decreasing core mechanism that

implies the fine adjustment of the particle size for a fixed contact time. Other

alternatives like the use of waste plastic as a reduction agent in the blast furnaces

demands a particle texture with enough mechanical properties to support the weight of

materials loaded and to allow the circulation of gases inside the blast furnace. The

228

JRC


eports

composition of the mixture of the plastic waste is also controlled in those processes,

although not so narrowly as it would be in feedstock recycling processes by chemolysis,

which are even stricter than mechanical recycling with contamination and purity

requirements of waste polymer.

8.3.4. Product quality (output material)

Each of the three technology categories (ER, FSR, MR) is oriented to obtain a different

product. The mechanical recycling wants to recover a polymer as much similar to the

initial one as possible in the form of clean flakes or pellets. The feedstock recycling

involves the transformation of polymers into their precursors, the monomers, or other

completely different substances like synthesis gases or hydrocarbon mixtures, that can

be used in-situ as reducing agent in a blast furnace, transformed to some petrochemical

“base bricks” like methanol or olefins (see Figure 105), or used as fuels for producing

energy and heat.

A feature of the mechanical recycling of plastic waste is that the resulting product can

be either an intermediate like a clean flake (mainly in PET recycling and seldom in

HDPE or other polymer recycling) and a pellet that will be subsequently sent to a plastic

processor; or can be the final product itself; like a plastic container (generally processed

by blow moulding and made of a single material like HDPE) and a plastic lumber

product like a pallet (generally processed by compression moulding and made of a

material mixture in which polyolefins predominate).

229

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Gasification

Methanol to…

Methanol synthesis

H2+ CO

CH3OH

Plastic Waste

Olefins

Closing the loop

Figure 105. Products from feedstock recycling using gasification

Analogously, the feedstock recycling of plastic based on thermal methods can be

focused on an intermediate product like the synthesis gas —that depending on its purity

can be either burnt or further processed— or the hydrocarbon fractions —that can be

subsequently transformed into higher value products like methanol, olefins, gasoline or

diesels (see Figure 106).

Compression moulding

Mechanical Recycling

Sorting and size reduction

Mechanical separation

Feedstock Recycling

Conditioning of unsorted mixtures

Gasification Pyrolysis

Melt filtration

Dissolution

Low specifications

High specifications

Injectionmoulding

H2+ CO Oils

Burning / Synthesis, reforming, cracking…

Thermal processes

Final products from mixtures

Final products from flakes or pellets

Energy / Methanol, olefins, gasolines, diesels

Figure 106. Technologies and products from mechanical and feedstock recycling

230

JRC


eports

8.3.5. Markets and prices

It is clear that the output product depends on the technology and that in a simple

approach a polymer is more valuable than a monomer, a synthesis gas or a hydrocarbon

mixture and any of these three products, more valuable than a fuel or its energy

equivalent.

That situation by itself would always favour the act of obtaining recycled plastics and

apparently would never recommend the action of getting energy from plastic waste, but

there are combinations of factors that favour the diversion of many plastic wastes into

the energy recovery options:

• high processing costs associated to extensive cleaning, separation and purification

steps of waste for getting recycled polymers of sufficient quality for meeting

reprocessing and customer narrow specifications;

• limited (high added- value) market outlets;

• competing virgin polymers’ prices subjected to fluctuation;

• availability of incineration or co-incineration plants able to deal with highly mixed

or polluted plastic waste streams, alone or blended with other residues like MSW;

• if the waste collector is paid for the delivery of waste which can be used as fuel, and

if this exceeds the material value which could be derived from material recycling;

• low gate fees for incineration

In spite of the fact that theoretically there are markets for any of the products derived

from any plastic recovery technology, for mechanically recycled polymers that

technically rival virgin plastics, for chemical intermediates derived from feedstock

recycling technologies based on thermal methods (oil refineries are running reforming

or cracking units for manufacturing such products) and for secondary fuels with heating

values similar to those of primary fuels, the fact is that the demand for plastic recyclates

by end market is uneven and a mismatch between the availability of potential plastic

waste material and demand of plastic waste derived products occurs.

231

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Although markets are broadening for recycled polymers, there is still a mistrust of the

consumers for the properties of the recyclates, dwelling in the probable deterioration of

performance and aesthetics due to degradation during product life and successive

reprocessing cycles and in the (potential) content of hazardous substances. That means

that outlets in high-end markets for recycled plastics are limited. For instance, in the

automotive industry performance standards are too high to permit extensive closed-loop

recycling applications in new vehicles and the situation is that recovered plastics from

vehicles (whatever amounts they may be) are not used in significant amounts in

automotive applications; neither significant flow of secondary plastic materials from

other sectors is accepted into vehicle production. The saturation of low added-value

markets and the lack of niche markets in the EU-25 absorbing recycled plastic material

can risk the large capacities installed of mechanical recycling in some countries and

divert waste flows to other recovery options or reclaimed materials flows outside the

UE, in a search for lower running costs thanks to acceptance in applications with less

strict specifications.

In view of those prospects, feedstock recovery processes would be a reasonable

alternative to combustion for opening new markets to materials and energy recovered

from plastic waste (pyrolytic oils, syngas, methanol, olefins..., marketable non-plastic

by products such as vitrified mineral slag and electricity or district heating), especially

to otherwise untreated waste streams annually in excess in the EU such as plastic

content in shredder residue. Thermal feedstock processes offer large capacity solutions,

but product and stable markets are not fully proven for stand-alone plastic waste

dedicated plants in the EU and the gate fee for these options is still high due to the

required investment for construction of large/medium scale plants and the important

running costs associated to material conditioning (above all, granulation to small

particle sizes), complex operation and exhaustive emission control. Given current oil

price, market prospects may be more favourable for medium scale plants yielding fuel

final products of diesel or petrol grade instead of intermediates for the chemical

synthesis industry, as they can result not so strongly dependent on site conditions (local

demand of over-the-fence chemicals and energy). A number of failed attempts of

running full-scale feedstock recovery processes in the EU casts shadows over the

bankability of these technologies.

232

JRC


eports

Market and prices can be severely influenced by local economic incentives and

instruments (low/high landfill fees and incineration gates, taxation, charges and

non-compliance penalties, government funding) which can constitute either barriers

difficult to overcome for establishing new recovery options in a given area or requisites

for promoting preferred disposal options (recycling vs. incineration vs. landfill).

8.3.6. Legislation: legal framework and environmental policies

Pollution prevention, waste and energy policies interact to make this a complex and

dynamic area. Although steps towards harmonisation may be expected thanks to the

current EC Directives on waste, there is still room for some flexible interpretation of

European Directives in their transposition into national laws, which together with the

specific national postponements and targets and the distinct national/local bans and

limitations on certain activities make the scene even more intricate. Occasionally,

policies being put in place are overlapping. Hence, it is difficult to make predictions as

to what is likely to happen in the future.

8.3.6.1. REGULATIONS ON EOL STREAMS AND WASTE

Obviously, 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 possible to reach the recovery and

recycling targets set.

233

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 66. Recovery and recycling targets set by EU Directives (I)

Waste stream Recovery target Recycling target Postponements

50-65 wt% by 30.06.2001(a)

25-45 wt% by 30.06.2001 GR, IE, PT: 31.12.2005

Total materials >60 wt% by

31.12.2008(a) 55-80 wt% by

31.12.2008

GR, IE, PT: 31.12.2011

CZ, EE, CY, LT, HU, SI, SK: 31.12.2012

MT: 31.12.2013 / PL: 31.12.2014

LV: 31.12.2015

- >15 wt% by 30.06.2001(b) GR, IE, PT: 31.12.2005

Plastic - >22.5 wt% by

31.12.2008 (b)

GR, IE, PT: 31.12.2011

CZ, EE, CY, LT, HU, SI, SK: 31.12.2012

MT: 31.12.2013 / PL: 31.12.2014

LV: 31.12.2015

Pack

agin

g

Targets to be met within each Member State territory

CAT. 1 & 10: >80 wt% by 31.12.2006(c)

CAT. 1 & 10: >75 wt% by

31.12.2006 (d)

CAT. 3 & 4: >75 wt% by 31.12.2006(c)

CAT. 3 & 4: >65 wt% by

31.12.2006 (d)

CAT. 2,5,6,7 & 9 >70 wt% by 31.12.2006(c)

CAT. 2,5,6,7 & 9 >50 wt% by

31.12.2006 (d)

average appliance

-

Gas discharge lamps:

>80 wt% by 31.12.2006 (d)

SI: 31.12.2007

GR, IE, CY, MT, PL, CZ, HU, EE, LT, LV, SK: 31.12.2008

Plastic - -

WE

EE

Targets to be met by producers in each Member State (a) Recovered or incinerated with energy recovery. Recovery includes recycling (b) counting exclusively material that is recycled back into plastics (c) “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;

234

JRC


eports

235

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 66. Recovery and recycling targets set by EU Directives (II)

Waste stream Recovery target Recycling target Postponements

average vehicle <1

Jan’80

>75 wt% by 01.01.2006(e)

>70 wt% by 01.01.2006(e) -

>85 wt% by 01.01.2006(e)

>80 wt% by 01.01.2006(e) - average

vehicle

>95 wt% by 01.01.2015(e)

>85 wt% by 01.01.2015(e) -

plastic - - -

EL

V

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

increase. Mechanical recycling is an option economically and technically limited for

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

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

236

JRC


eports

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)

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

237

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

following section.

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

without recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by

238

JRC


eports

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

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

239

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

entered into force on 25 October 2003. At present WTE plants (“combustion

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

ensure that no significant local pollution is caused.

240

JRC


eports

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.

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

241

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

For those processes which do not produce a fused ash there may be significant

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

be accordingly land filled.

242

JRC


eports

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.

243

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 non-

conclusive 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

taken into account that many cars are being sold and legally exported second hand

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.

244

JRC


eports

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.

Social Progress

Environmental protection

Economicdevelopment

PlasticRecycling

Quality of life• Education• Healthcare

Poverty• Job creation• Wealth creation

Climate change• Renewables• Energy efficiency

Recycling industry

Plastic recycling activities

Secondary fuels

Recycled materials

Recovered feed-stocks

Landfill reduction

Cleaner life conditions

Social Progress

Environmental protection

Economicdevelopment

PlasticRecycling

Quality of life• Education• Healthcare

Poverty• Job creation• Wealth creation

Climate change• Renewables• Energy efficiency

Recycling industry

Plastic recycling activities

Secondary fuels

Recycled materials

Recovered feed-stocks

Landfill reduction

Cleaner life conditions

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.

245

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

waste management independently.

246

JRC


eports

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

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:

247

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

• 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:


• Advanced mechanical recycling of polymers (including PET bottle-to-bottle,

Vinyloop and other selective dissolution processes)


• 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)

248

JRC


eports

• 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).

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.

249

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Mechanical recycling

conventional

Mechanical recycling advanced

Chemolysis Pyrolysis (Thermalysis) Blast furnace Gasification

SVZGasification

ThermoselectGasification

TwinRec

Alternative fuel

(Cement kiln)

Incineration with energy

recovery

Landfill/ incineration w/o energy

recoveryLDPE xo o o o o o o oHDPE xo o o o o o o oPP o o o o o o oPET x x x o o o o o oPS x o o o o o o oPVC x o o o o o oLDPE x o o o o o o o oHDPE x o o o o o o o oPP o o o o o o o oPET x x x o o o o o o oPS x o o o o o o o oPVC x o o o o o o oPP o o o o oPS x o o o o oABS x o o o o oPU x x o o o o oPC/ABS x o o o o oHDPE x o o o o o o oPP x o o o o o o oPVC o o o o o o oABS o o o o o o oPA x x o o o o o o oPU x x o o o o o o oHDPE x o o oPVC x x oPS x o o oPU x x o o oLDPE x o o o o oPVC x x o oHDPE o o o o oPP o o o o o

C&D

WAg

ricul

ture

Pack

agin

gM

SWEL

V (A

SR)

WEE

E (E

SR)

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

calculated by subtraction.

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.

250

JRC


eports

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

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.

251

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

electronic waste is 20%, the fulfilment of the recovery targets may involve recovering

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.

252

JRC


eports

• 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.

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.

253

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.


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


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.

254

JRC


eports

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.

Conventional mechanical

recycling

Advanced mechanical

recycling Chemolysis Pyrolysis

(Thermalysis) Blast furnace Gasification SVZ

Gasification Thermoselect

Gasification TwinRec

Alternative fuel

(Cement kiln)


recovery


recoveryLDPE 247 0 17 7 1 33 172 378HDPE 550 0 27 11 2 53 275 450PP 0 36 15 2 71 367 1.333PET 549 5 0 26 10 2 51 263 404PS 0 5 2 0 10 50 181PVC 1 1 0 3 14 53LDPE 221 0 188 77 11 6 0 3.128 5.570HDPE 87 0 84 35 5 3 0 1.408 2.519PP 0 38 15 2 1 0 626 1.158PET 193 169 0 70 29 4 2 0 1.173 1.809PS 20 0 70 29 4 2 0 1.173 2.151PVC 5 8 1 1 0 313 593PP 34 31 33 33 286PS 140 40 37 39 39 202ABS 108 39 36 37 37 218PU 28 0 14 11 13 13 89PC/ABS 48 13 12 13 13 65HDPE 22 19 14 11 11 29 0 48PP 38 78 58 43 43 116 0 240PVC 2 10 8 8 5 0 76ABS 14 10 8 8 20 0 49PA 11 0 16 12 9 9 23 0 45PU 4 0 21 16 12 12 32 0 73HDPE 7 0 0 69PVC 98 0 532PS 0 0 0 260PU 9 0 0 0 107LDPE 393 0 0 1 1 298PVC 157 33 0 32HDPE 0 0 0 0 43PP 0 0 0 0 91

2.911 227 0 0 718 500 124 238 588 9.102 19.418

Material vs. Technology

C&DW

Agriculture

Packaging

MSW

WEEE(ESR)

ELV(ASR)

255

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

Table 68. Polymer material distribution (SCENARIO A) expressed in ktonnes.


recycling

Advanced mechanical



Gasification Thermoselec

t


Alternative fuel

(Cement kiln)


recovery


recoveryLDPE 417 0 17 7 1 33 172 208HDPE 928 0 27 11 2 53 275 72PP 0 36 15 2 71 367 1.333PET 927 9 0 26 10 2 51 263 23PS 0 5 2 0 10 50 181PVC 1 1 0 3 14 53LDPE 221 0 188 77 11 6 0 3.128 5.570HDPE 87 0 84 35 5 3 0 1.408 2.519PP 0 38 15 2 1 0 626 1.158PET 193 169 0 70 29 4 2 0 1.173 1.809PS 20 0 70 29 4 2 0 1.173 2.151PVC 5 8 1 1 0 313 593PP 34 31 33 33 286PS 233 40 37 39 39 108ABS 181 39 36 37 37 146PU 46 0 14 13 14 14 73PC/ABS 80 13 12 13 13 33HDPE 66 16 7 7 7 29 0 22PP 115 62 29 29 29 116 0 236PVC 2 5 5 5 5 0 86ABS 11 5 5 5 20 0 62PA 33 0 13 6 6 6 23 0 38PU 11 0 17 8 8 8 32 0 85HDPE 10 0 0 66PVC 139 33 458PS 8 0 0 252PU 13 0 0 0 103LDPE 448 0 0 1 1 243PVC 179 33 0 10HDPE 0 0 0 0 43PP 0 0 0 0 91

4.326 271 0 0 688 439 94 204 583 9.098 18.111


C&DW

Agriculture

Packaging

MSW

WEEE(ESR)

ELV(ASR)

Table 69. Polymer material distribution (SCENARIO B) expressed in ktonnes.


recycling

Advanced mechanical



Gasification Thermoselec

t


Alternative fuel

(Cement kiln)


recovery


recoveryLDPE 247 57 47 19 3 33 172 278HDPE 550 91 75 30 4 53 275 290PP 121 100 40 6 71 367 1.120PET 549 5 0 72 29 4 51 263 338PS 16 14 5 1 10 50 152PVC 2 2 0 3 14 51LDPE 221 351 285 276 276 276 0 4.140 3.376HDPE 87 158 128 124 124 124 0 1.863 1.532PP 70 57 55 55 55 0 828 719PET 193 169 0 107 104 104 104 0 1.553 1.118PS 20 112 107 104 104 104 0 1.553 1.349PVC 7 28 28 28 0 414 416PP 95 87 0 0 234PS 140 113 104 0 0 139ABS 108 108 100 0 0 158PU 28 0 39 36 0 0 70PC/ABS 48 38 35 0 0 45HDPE 22 21 14 14 14 19 0 48PP 38 86 58 58 58 77 0 241PVC 2 10 10 10 3 0 72ABS 15 10 10 10 14 0 49PA 11 0 17 12 12 12 16 0 45PU 4 0 23 16 16 16 21 0 73HDPE 7 7 0 62PVC 98 0 532PS 0 23 0 237PU 9 0 10 0 97LDPE 393 46 46 1 1 206PVC 157 33 0 32HDPE 3 3 0 0 37PP 6 6 0 0 79

2.911 227 0 1.030 1.163 1.423 828 1.173 373 11.493 13.194


C&DW

Agriculture

Packaging

MSW

WEEE(ESR)

ELV(ASR)

256

JRC


eports

Table 70. Polymer material distribution (SCENARIO C) expressed in ktonnes.

Conventional mechanical recycling

Advanced mechanical



Gasification Thermoselect


Alternative fuel

(Cement kiln)


recovery


recoveryLDPE 247 0 17 7 1 69 275 240HDPE 550 0 27 11 2 110 440 229PP 0 36 15 2 147 586 1.038PET 549 5 0 26 10 2 105 421 192PS 0 5 2 0 20 79 141PVC 1 1 0 6 23 42LDPE 221 0 188 77 11 6 0 5.520 3.178HDPE 87 0 84 35 5 3 0 2.484 1.442PP 0 38 15 2 1 0 1.104 680PET 193 169 0 70 29 4 2 0 2.070 912PS 20 0 70 29 4 2 0 2.070 1.254PVC 5 8 1 1 0 552 354PP 34 31 65 65 221PS 140 40 37 78 78 124ABS 108 39 36 74 74 144PU 28 0 14 13 27 27 64PC/ABS 48 13 12 26 26 40HDPE 22 19 9 9 9 39 0 47PP 38 78 36 36 36 154 0 237PVC 2 6 6 6 7 0 80ABS 14 6 6 6 27 0 48PA 11 0 16 7 7 7 31 0 44PU 4 0 21 10 10 10 42 0 72HDPE 7 0 7 62PVC 98 0 532PS 0 0 23 237PU 9 0 0 10 97LDPE 393 0 0 41 41 219PVC 157 33 13 20HDPE 0 0 3 3 38PP 0 0 5 5 80

2.911 227 0 0 718 454 109 219 1.115 15.956 12.106


C&DW

Agriculture

Packaging

MSW

WEEE(ESR)

ELV(ASR)

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,

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.

257

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

amou

nt o

f was

te, k

tonn

es

MR Gasification Thermalysis Blast Furn. Cement Kiln MSWI

Baseline Scenario

LDPE HDPE PP PETPS PVC ABS PUPC/ABS PA Fillers MetalsChemicals Soil

Figure 109. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (Base Line SCENARIO).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

amou

nt o

f was

te, k

tonn

es


Scenario A


Figure 110. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (SCENARIO A).

258

JRC


eports

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

amou

nt o

f was

te, k

tonn

es


Scenario B


Figure 111. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (SCENARIO B).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

amou

nt o

f was

te, k

tonn

es


Scenario C


Figure 112. Waste material distribution per main types of technologies (SCENARIO C).

259

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

plastic waste as alternative fuel in cement kilns avoids CO2 emissions, but not its

treatment by means of incineration, which is responsible for the final net positive

balance in all scenarios.

260

JRC


eports

-10.000

-5.000

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

GW

P, C

O2

equi

v. k

tonn

es

Base Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Mechanical RecyclingFeedstock RecoveryEnergy Recovery

Figure 113. Contribution of three main polymer recovery routes to Global Warming Potential in the different scenarios

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

GW

P, C

O2

equi

v. k

tonn

es


Net GWP in recovery scenarios

Figure 114. Total Global Warming Potential associated to the different scenarios

261

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

plastic waste recovered, the ratio of Total CED/Total Plastic waste recovered has the

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.

262

JRC


eports

-350.000

-300.000

-250.000

-200.000

-150.000

-100.000

-50.000

0

CED

, GJ


Mechanical RecyclingFeedstock RecoveryEnergy Recovery

Figure 115. Contribution of three main polymer recovery routes to Cumulative Energy Demand in the different scenarios

-600.000

-500.000

-400.000

-300.000

-200.000

-100.000

0

CED,

GJ


Net CED in recovery scenarios

Figure 116. Total Cumulative Energy Demand associated to the different scenarios

263

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

Baseline Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Plastic waste recovered, Mt 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

Scenario A, which represents a combination of recycling and recovery technologies

with maximum market penetration of mechanical recycling, shows the lowest

264

JRC


eports

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:

• 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

265

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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.

266

JRC


eports

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

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

267

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

HDTV: High Definition Television

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

IT: Information Technologies

LCA: Life Cycle Assessment

268

JRC


eports

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

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

269

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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

VDI-TZ: VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH (VDI: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure)

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

270

JRC


eports

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

Country Code Country Code

Austria AT 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

10 N

AC

Slovakia SK

Netherlands NL

Portugal PT Iceland IS

Spain ES Liechtenstein LI

Sweden SE Norway NO

EU-1

5

United Kingdom GB (UK)* Oth

er n

on-E

U

WE

coun

tries

Switzerland CH

* country codes recommended in EU texts

271

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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 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/ 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. Visionengineer, 2002. Available from http://www.visionengineer.com/env/pp_recycling.php 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 Packaging Trends. Available from http://www.amcor.com/Default.aspx?id=1029

272

JRC


eports

22 ANEP. PET un producto tecnológico. Usos y propiedades. Available from http://www.anep-pet.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 2006. Available from http://www.borealisgroup.com/public/pdf/factsfigures/factsfigures_2006.pdf 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 www.wastesolutions.org

273

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

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-CekOrnegi-ZbynekKozel.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 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] 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]

274

JRC


eports

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 Flame-retardant 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 Eco-Efficiency 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/impact-2002/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

275

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

http://omnexus.com/resources/articles/article.aspx?id=9207&or=p102_9607_101_9207 [cited: 07/10/2005] 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 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 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 at http://www.plasticseurope.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=265. Visited on 10/01/06. 104 Eurostat 105 Cicloagro. Personal communication 106 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

276

JRC


eports

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.jfe-steel.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/2003-10-12,%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, Uitwerking "shredderafval". MILIEUEFFECTRAPPORT LANDELIJK AFVALBEHEERPLAN

277

JRC


eports

Assessm

ent of the Environm


rawbacks of E


olymers R

ecovery Processes

128 Afval Overleg Orgaan. 2002. Achtergronddocument A22, Uitwerking "shredderafval". MILIEUEFFECTRAPPORT LANDELIJK AFVALBEHEERPLAN 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 milieusudies2001. http://www.emis.vito.be/EMIS/Media/afval_verwerkingsscenario_hoofdstuk2.pdf 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 Lohse, J., Wulf-Schnabel, J. Expertise on the Environmental Risks Associated with the Co-Incineration 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 144World 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] 147 Schwager, J. and Whiting, K. Progress Towards Commercialising Waste Gasification Waste Gasification: A Worldwide Status Report. Presentation to the Gasification Technologies 2003 Conference,

278

JRC


eports

San Francisco, CA (USA), 14th October 2003. Available from http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2003_Papers/22SCHW.pdf [cited 16/06/06] 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.

152 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%20MSW 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%20Report-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 Gendebien, A. et al. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives (B4-3040/2000/306517/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.

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.

LF-N

A-22939-E

N-C