slca on w2plastics - dtu research database slca... · web viewenergy assumed to come from...

$: SLCA on W2Plastics - DTU Research Database SLCA... · Web viewEnergy assumed to come from electricity 1,04 ton of clean PP and PE fractions 0,21 Assumed to be 2/5 of working time$
European Commission – Research General DirectorateGrant Agreement No: 212782

Report onWP3

Life Cycle AssessmentsDeliverable 3.5

Social Life Cycle Assessment - Results March 2010

Magnetic Sorting and Ultrasound Sensor Technologies forProduction of High Purity Secondary Polyolefins from Waste

Table of Contents

1 Identification of system alternatives.............................................................................................41.1 System 1: Household and commercial packaging waste.......................................................51.2 System 2: Building and construction waste and off-size post-consumer municipal waste.. .71.3 System 3: Automotive shredder residue..............................................................................10

2 Inventory.....................................................................................................................................122.1 Physical flows and working time.........................................................................................132.2 Physical working environment............................................................................................222.3 Job creation: Education profile............................................................................................222.4 Local community acceptance..............................................................................................23

3 Results.........................................................................................................................................243.1 Physical working environment............................................................................................243.2 Job creation..........................................................................................................................273.3 Local community acceptance..............................................................................................28

4 Uncertainties...............................................................................................................................315 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................326 References...................................................................................................................................337 Appendix 1: Physical working environment calculations...........................................................348 Appendix 2: Job creation calculations........................................................................................389 Appendix 3: Local community acceptance calculations.............................................................4110 List of contributors......................................................................................................................46

SummaryThis report presents the results of a social life cycle assessment (SLCA) methodology developed for assessing of the social consequences of choosing to incorporate the magnetic density separator technology (MDS) in three different polyolefin (PO) recycling systems in comparison to existing technologies. The systems include PO from household and commercial packaging waste; building and construction waste and off-size post-consumer municipal waste; and automotive shredder residue. The assessment compares the treatment of the amount of waste which results in the separation of 1 tonne of PE and PP in total though the MDS.In the assessment, it is assumed that the inclusion of the MDS allows for a separating a stream of mixed PO into streams of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), which cannot be separated with existing technologies. The PE and PP separated in the MDS is assumed always to substitute virgin PE and PP whereas the mixed PO stream resulting from existing waste handling technologies is assumed to substitute virgin PE and PP, wood or coal. The social consequences considered in the assessment comprise the physical working environment for the workers, the creation of jobs and the educational profile of these, and the local community assessment of each system.For a further outline of the methodological considerations, please refer to W2Plastics (2010), addressing the development of the assessment methodology. It is found that the assumption about whether mixed PO from existing waste treatment facilities substitutes virgin PE and PP or whether it due to its lower quality only can substitute wood or coal in coal fired power plants has some large implications for the results. The reason is that in these wood or coal substituting alternatives, virgin PE and PP has to be produced to account for the PE and PP which would have been produced, had the MDS been included in the system. With regards to the physical working environment, this production of virgin PE and PP results in significantly higher number of total expected incidences of working accidents and diseases, giving significantly more accidents and diseases in the alternatives where this production occurs in comparison to the alternatives where the MDS is included, hereby avoiding this production. Being more labour intensive this production of virgin PE and PP also results in the creation of more jobs than the alternative including the MDS, most notably when it comes to the high educational jobs. If, on the other hand, it is assumed that the mixed PO streams can substitute virgin PE and PP very limited differences between the alternatives can be identified. The inclusion of the MDS will in these alternatives tend to be slightly more labour intensive, and thereby create more jobs, and as a direct effect of this also result in slightly more accidents and diseases.Somewhat differently is it when it comes to the local community acceptance. Here the production of virgin PE and PP seems to be of minor importance. Rather what is important is whether the inclusion of the MDS results in additional waste handling facilities being made and the nuisance level of these to the local community, and whether the wood or coal, which the mixed PO stream was assumed to substitute in some alternatives, in the MDS including alternatives is produced close to dwellings to whom it most likely would create significant nuisances. It is, however, estimated that in most cases, these nuisances will probably not realise. If the actual situation turns out as estimated, very limited differences can be found in relation to the local community acceptance of the assessed alternatives.

As a word of caution, it must be emphasized that all results are subject to significant uncertainties, which are not quantified. Small differences in assessment results between alternatives should therefore be interpreted with caution.

1 Identification of system alternativesAs mentioned in the methodology report, when performing a comparison, only the differences between the compared systems need to be included. Also, as noted in the methodology report, this assessment will consider different kinds of PO waste, i.e. household and commercial packaging waste; building and construction waste and off-size post-consumer municipal waste; and automotive shredder residue. The compositions of these systems have been constructed in collaboration with partners within the W2plastics project and are seen as the most likely scenarios.In the systems illustrated in figure 1, 2 and 3 a box indicates a treatment process. Waste stream are written in italics and not written in a box, as is the different waste handling options (typically the inclusion or exclusion of the MDS technology) but these are written in normal style. Finally, products produced in the systems that displace other production steams (e.g. the production of PE and PP granulates) are written in circles.

1.1 System 1: Household and commercial packaging waste

PO fraction with impurities

Mixed plastics

Air classific.

Sifting: 200 mm

Fraction below 200 mm

Fraction above 200 mm

Plastic foils and paper

Cutting

With MDS Without MDS

MDS

Washing/ Sink-float

Non PO fraction + PO loss

NIR

Centri-fuging

Extrusion

Substituting virgin PE and PP

Clean PE and PP fractions

NIR Substituting coal in power production

Substituting coal in power production

Fig. 1: Overview of the waste handling system for household and commercial packaging waste.

In system 1, the idea is that household and commercial packaging waste is sent through a NIR (near-infrared) sorter where the very clean PP and PE is positively separated from the remaining plastic waste. The remaining plastic waste still contains a large portion of the initial PO which is too contaminated and/or black disabling a direct reuse after NIR sorting. This remaining PO would in a system not containing the MDS technology typically be reused in cement, steel or power production (the latter is assumed here). If the MDS technology is included in the system, an extra NIR can be installed to positively separate PO with higher levels of impurities and/or black PO which can be fed into the MDS technology (after pre-treatment). This may increase the separation rate of PO in comparison to existing technologies. The PE and PP recycled through the MDS is assumed to substitute virgin PE and PP. The remaining parts of the PO including the other types of plastic are assumed to be used for power production. The dotted lines indicate the part of the waste management system included in the assessment. The other parts of the system are not included as they are constant in both alternatives.

Performing a system expansion (see methodology report), the comparison of the two systems with and without the MDS thus comprises:

System 1: Pre-sorted plastics from household wasteIncluding the MDS Excluding the MDS

Processes included

The recycling of PE and PP by using the MDS

The production of coal, which would have been substituted had it not been for the MDS

Auxiliary inputs (e.g. power)

The production of PE and PP through traditional processes

The recycling of mixed PO for use power plants substituting coal

Auxiliary inputs (e.g. power)

1.2 System 2: Building and construction waste and off-size post-consumer municipal waste

Fig. 2: Overview of the waste handling system for building and construction waste and off-size post-consumer municipal waste.

Construction and demolition waste, off-size consumer waste


MDS

Mixed plastic fraction

Shredding

Centri-fuging

Extrusion

Substituting virgin PE and PP

Shredding HandsortingOther waste fractions(incl. PVC)

NIR Other waste fractions (incl. PVC)

Washing/ Sink-floatNon PO fraction

Substituting virgin PE and PP or wood

Centri-fuging

Extrusion

loss

loss

The idea in system 2 is that PVC and other waste fractions are primarily sorted out from the mixed plastic fraction. This mixed plastic fraction is then shredded and density separated producing a stream of mixed PO. If the system includes the MDS, this stream can then be separated into PE and PP whereas if this is not the case, only a stream of mixed PO granulate can be produced. As in system 1, it is assumed that the recycling process including the MDS technology will produce clean PE and PP streams replacing virgin PE and PP. With regards to the mixed PO two scenarios are considered: Either it substitutes virgin PE or PP or it substitutes wood (on a 1:1 by volume basis)1. When the mixed PO substitutes virgin PE and PP, the comparison with the alternative including the MDS is very simple, as both alternatives substitute the same amount of virgin PO and PP. No additional products therefore have to be added to any of the alternatives. However, when it is assumed that the mixed PO stream substitutes wood, the production, use and disposal of the corresponding amount of wood is avoided. However, it is here assumed that the impacts of use will be the same and that both the wood and mixed PO products will be disposed with similar impacts (e.g. through landfilling), implying that the mixed PO products only avoid the impacts related to the production of wood. The dotted lines in figure 2 indicate the part of the waste management system included in the assessment. The other parts of the system are not included as they are constant in both alternatives.

Performing a system expansion (see methodology report), the comparison of the systems with and without the MDS thus comprises:

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the mixed PO stream substitutes virgin PE and PP

Including the MDS Excluding the MDSProcesses included


Auxiliary inputs

The recycling of mixed PO Auxiliary inputs

or:

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial waste Assuming that the mixed PO stream substitutes wood



Production of wood, which would have been substituted, had it not been for the MDS

Auxiliary inputs

The recycling of mixed PO Production of PE and PP through

traditional processes which would have been produced if a MDS were used

Auxiliary inputs1 The mixed PO stream can only be used for purposes requiring lower qualities of plastics. One very common example is plastic pallets (Nagelvoort 2009). The plastic pallets produced from mixed PO will in relation to quality and price have the same properties as pallets made from recycled PE and PP. For buyers of pallets, there is therefore no difference between the pallets made from recycled PE, PP and PO mix. In general pallet users will only choose plastic pallets when required. This implies that the PO mix pallet will not substitute wooden pallets, but nearly always another plastic pallet, which would be made of PE or PP if no mixed PO was recycled (Danpal 2009, Ruwi 2009). This implies that even though the mixed PO produces plastic of a lower quality it is reasonable to expect that it will often substitute PE and PP. In other cases, mixed PO may also be used for ‘artificial wood’, such as planks for benches or fence posts and thereby substitute wood.

1.3 System 3: Automotive shredder residueDismantled cars Large electric scrap

Fluff, light shredder waste (25 %)

non-PO,PO, wood and foam

Iron and steel

Non-ferrous metals

MetalFiber

Metal


Car shredding

Magnetic seperation

Landfilling Cutting

Wind-sifting

Magnetic seperation

EC separator

Sink-float heavy med.

Sink-float in water

Airtable

MDS

EC separator

Cutting

Non-ferrous metals

Heavy density fractions

Light density fractions

Centri-fuging

Extrusion

Inputs to production using recycled PE/PP

Extrusion

Inputs to production using recycled PO mix

loss

loss

Fig. 3: Overview of the waste handling system for automotive shredder residue.

In system 3 automotive shredder residue is though a series of steps among others sorted into a stream of shredded mixed PO. If no MDS technology is included in the system, no further separation is made, whereas if the MDS is included, it is assumed that the mixed stream of PO is assumed separated into PE and PP. As in system 2, it is assumed that the mixed PO will either displace virgin PE and PP or wood in a 1:1 by volume basis. The substitution of wood follows the same assumptions as made in the discussion of system 2 above. The dotted lines indicate the part of the waste management system included in the assessment. The other parts of the system are not included as they are constant in both alternatives. This also goes for the loss from the extrusion processes in both alternatives which are therefore omitted from the comparison.

Performing a system expansion (see methodology report), the comparison of the systems with and without the MDS thus comprises:

System 3: Car and large electronic scrap recyclingAssuming that the mixed PO stream substitutes virgin PE and PP



Auxiliary inputs

The recycling of mixed PO Auxiliary inputs

or:

System 3: Car and large electronic scrap recyclingAssuming that the mixed PO stream substitutes wood



Production of wood, which would have been substituted, had it not been for the MDS

Auxiliary inputs

The recycling of mixed PO Production of PE and PP through

traditional processes which would have been produced if a MDS were used on the mixed PO

Auxiliary inputs

2 InventoryAs outlined in the methodology report, several different kinds of data are needed to assess the expected social impacts relating to each of the various alternatives outlined above. As outlined in W2Plastics (2010), this assessment will include three impact categories, being the ‘physical working environment’, relating to work related accidents and diseases; ‘job creation’ relating to both an alternative’s demand for labour force, and thereby influence on unemployment, as well as the educational profile of this labour force; and finally the ‘local community acceptance’ relating to a quantified summary of the nuisances which may be expected to arise from the various alternatives.Several different types of data are needed to perform this assessment. Both the ‘physical working environment’ and the ‘job creation’ impact categories relate to the working time needed to perform each of the included processes (W2Plastics 2010). However, to get an overview of the processes included in the alternatives, an overview of the physical flows to and from each of the included processes is needed. An overview of the physical flows and the related working time for each of the assessed alternatives are included in the tables 1 to 10 below.In relation to the ‘local community acceptance’ impact category, the physical flows in each alternative will be used, as the process’ share of the total production will be used as a basis for allocating the nuisance created by a single process from the ‘total nuisance’ from the facility.

Furthermore, to assess ‘physical working environment’ and the educational profile from the working time, data on work related accidents and diseases and the educational profile for each of the sectors included in the alternatives is needed. This is presented in table 11 and 12, respectively. The ‘nuisance created by the included facilities on the local community is found in various economic literature and presented in table 13.

2.1 Physical flows and working time

Below, an overview of the physical flows and the related working time for each of the assessed alternatives are presented.

Production of PE and PP from plastic waste

Input (type of waste from previous process)

Input of auxiliary products and energy

Unit Sources and assumptions for calculating auxiliary inputs

Output Unit Sources and assumptions for calculating outputs

Working time (hours)

Sources and assumptions for calculating working time

Wind sifting 3,26 tonnes of plastic waste, containing 36,5 % mixed foils, 60,4 % rigid plastics, including 34,3 % rigid PE and PP, and a few % wood and fibres. [1]

32,60 kWh Energy consumption for wind sifting varies greatly [2]. 10 kWh/tonne is assumed as an average

2,07 tonnes of mixed plastics

1,19 tonnes of foils is sorted out and assumed to go to power production.

0,75 0,5 h/tonne output for process for wind sifting, shredding, washing/sink-float, MDS and centrifuging [3]. An overhead of 50 % is added

Shredding 2,072 tonnes mixed plastics

118,85 kWh 0,2065 GJ electricity/tonne = 57,36 kWh/tonne [4]

1,97 tonnes of mixed plastic

5 % loss, which is assumed to go to power production

Washing/ sink-float

1,973 tonnes of plastic waste without foils

328,82 kWh Heat 1,454 GJ/tonne (washing) (assumed to come from electricity) 0,6 GJ/tonne electricity (washing) = 166,66 kWh/tonne [4]. The water is assumed to be recycled within the plant [5].

1,07 tonnes of PO 3 % PO is lost, which is assumed to go to power production. Other plastics than PO and impurities (0,907 tonnes) are assumed to go to power production.

MDS 1,066 tonnes of PO waste including impurities

31,74 kWh Heat: 100MJ/tonne plastic. Pumping: 2kWh/tonne [6]. Energy assumed to come from electricity

1,04 Tonnes of clean PP and PE fractions

3 % of impurities are separated from PE and PP. Assumed to go to power production

Centrifuging 14,49 kWh 14 kWh/tonne [6] Transport 1,035 tonnes of clean

PP and PE fractions The production of diesel is assumed to

be negligible1,04 tonnes of clean

PP and PE fractions

0,37 Assumed distance: 100 km. Load 8,5 tonnes. Average speed 50 km/hour. An overhead of 50 % is added. No return transport is allocated.

Extrusion 1,035 tonnes of clean PP and PE fractions

246,33 kWh 238 kWh electricity/tonne (assuming all power comes from electricity) [7]

1,00 tonnes of clean PP and PE granulate

from 3,5 % is lost (2-5 % [4,8]), which is assumed to go to power production

0,75 0,5 h/tonne [3]. An overhead of 50 % is added

Production of electricity for process above

164,13 kg natural gas

Marginal electricity is assumed to come from gas. The production of 1 kWh from natural gas demands 0,19806 kg of gas (Power from natural gas, Germany) [4]

0,83 MWh of elec. It is assumed that all energy comes from electricity. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]

0,14 Data from the German power producer RWE Power and a French EDF owned power plant was used. RWE Power produced in 2008 180,3 billion KWh and had 17505 employees [10]. The EDF power plant produced 3,6 million MWh in 2004 and had 336 employees.[11]. 1720 working hours per FTE. An average of 0,1650 hours/MWh was used.

Production of gas for the production of electricity

Inputs to the production of natural gas is assumed to be negligible

164,13 kg of natural gas

0,03 Data from Royal Dutch Shell, was used. It produced in 2006 1948000 bbl oil/day and 8368 million ft3/year natural gas [12]. Its oil and gas exploration and producing department employed 19000. Performing an economic allocation of the labour force based on 59,15 $/bbl and 6,83 $/1000 ft3 [13,14], 6300 employees produced gas and 12700 produced oil. 1720 working hours per FTE. The weight of natural gas is taken to be 0,8 kg /m^3

Production of the amount of coal which would be needed if the 1 tonne of PO was used for power production

Inputs are assumed to be negligible

Co-firing of plastic waste with coal has an efficiency of around 38 % (depending on the moisture content) [15]. The heat value of PO is taken to be 39,49 MJ/kg, which is an average of PE and PP [16]. The efficiency of converting coal to electricity is taken to be 44 % [15]. Coal is taken to have a heat value of 33 MJ/kg. The transport of the coal is assumed negligible.

1033,48 kg of coal 0,36 Data from one of the largest UK coal producers, ATH Ressource Ltd. was used. In 2008 it produced 2 million t and had around 400 employees [17].

Table 2: System 1: Separation from household waste, excluding the MDSProduction of PE and PP from plastic waste







Cutting of plastic waste

57,36 KWh Cutting of plastic waste is necessary before blending with coal in power plant [18]. 0,2065 GJ electricity/tonne = 57,36 kWh/tonne [4].

1,00 tonne cutted PO waste

0,15 Assumed to be 1/5 of working time for waste handling processes used in ‘system 1: Including the MDS’, which is 0,1 hour/ton. (in system 1, 0,5 hours/tonne is assumed for 5 waste handling processes). An overhead of 50 % is added.

Production of electricity for cutting of plastic waste



61,49 KWh. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]

0,01 Calculated as in ‘system 1: Including the MDS’

Production of gas for electricity production

inputs to gas production assumed to be negligible

12,18 kg natural gas 0,00 Calculated as in ‘system 1: Including the MDS’

Cracking of nafta to ethylene and propylene

1,07 tonne naphtha

1,03 kg of naphtha is needed to produce 1 kg of propylene or ethylene [4].

1,04 tonne of ethylene or propylene

2,17 No summarised data for EU regarding the average working time used for cracking nafta to ethylene or propylene could be found. Instead data from Borealis, a large European polyolefin producer was used. Borealis Sweden produces 620000 tonnes ethylene from naphtha and polymerises 228000 tonnes PP and 575000 tonnes PE. It has 1100 employees. It is assumed that the production of propylene and ethylene is equally labour intensive and the polymerisation of PP and PP is also equally labour intensive. The below calculated working time to produce PP and PE is used to isolate the working time to produce ethylene and propylene from naphtha [19].

Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP

1,04 tonne ethylene or propylene

1,05 kg of ethylene or propylene is needed to produce 1 kg of LDPE or PP and 1,02 kg of ethylene is needed to produce 1 kg of HDPE [4]. Transport is assumed negligible

1,00 tonne PE or PP 0,75 No summarised data for EU regarding the average working time used for polymerising ethylene or propylene could be found. Instead data from Borealis was used. Borealis Germany polymerise 570000 tonnes of PP and 175000 tonnes of PE. It is assumed that the working time to polymerise ethylene and propylene is the same. Borealis Germany has 190 employees. Borealis Austria produces 435000 tonnes PP and 500000 tonnes PE. It has 540 employees. An average of the working time/produced unit is assumed [19].

Crude oil production

Transport is assumed negligible 1,36 tonne of crude oil to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4].


Table 3: System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PE, including the MDS








MDS 1,035 tonne of PO waste

30,88 kWh Heat: 100MJ/tonne plastic Pumping: 2kWh/tonne [6]. Energy assumed to come from electricity

1,04 tonne of clean PP and PE fractions


Centrifuging 14,49 kWh 14 kWh/tonne [6]

Transport 1,035 tonne of clean PP and PE fractions

The production of diesel is assumed to be negligible



Extrusion 1,035 tonne of clean PP and PE fractions

246,33 kWh 238 kWh electricity/tonne (assuming all power comes from electricity) [7].

1,00 tonne of clean PP and PE granulates






0,31 MWh of electricity for the above processes.

It is assumed that all energy comes from electricity. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]






Table 4: System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PE, Excluding the MDS








Centrifuging 1,035 tonne of mixed PO (and water)

14,49 kWh 14 kWh/tonne [6] 1,04 tonne of mixed PO


Transport 1,035 tonne of mixed PO


1,04 tonne of mixed PO


Extrusion 1,035 tonne of mixed PO


1,00 tonne of mixed PO granulates





Marginal electricity is assumed to come from gas. The production of 1 kWh from natural gas demands

0,28 MWh of electricity for the above

It is assumed that all energy comes from electricity.


0,19806 kg of gas (Power from natural gas, Germany) [4]

processes. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]





Table 5: System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes wood, including the MDS








MDS 1,035 tonne of PO waste

30,88 kWh Heat: 100MJ/tonne plastic Pumping: 2kWh/tonne [6]. Energy assumed to come from electricity



Centrifuging 14,49 kWh 14 kWh/tonne [6] Transport 1,035 tonne of clean

PP and PE fractions The production of diesel is assumed to

be negligible1,04 tonne of clean

PP and PE fractions

0,37 Assumed distance: 100 km. Load 8,5 tons. Average speed 50 km/hour. An overhead of 50 % is added. No return transport is allocated.

Extrusion 1,035 tonne of clean PP and PE fractions


1,00 tonne of clean PP and PE granulates













Production of wood

Inputs to wood production assumed to be negligible

1,06 m3 of wood It is assumed that the PO mix will displace wood. It is difficult to qualify the substitution level, however, in this assessment a 1:1 (volume based) substitution is assumed. The density of the PO mix is set to 0,94 ton/m^3.

1,49 In Poland 23107000 m3 of timber was produced in 1998, employing 60000 people (2000). In Latvian 19000 people are employed (2000) and 10030000 m3 wood is produced in 1998. Forestry in Sweden employs 17000 and produces 60600000 m3 and forestry in Finland employs 24000 and produces 56660000 m3

[20]. Weighted average working time/m3 is 1,4 hours.

Table 6: System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes wood, excluding the MDS








Centrifuging 1,035 ton of mixed PO (and water)

14,49 kWh 14 kWh/ton [6] 1,04 ton of mixed PO


Transport 1,035 ton of mixed PO


1,04 ton of mixed PO


Extrusion 1,035 ton of mixed PO

246,33 kWh 238 kWh electricity/ton (assuming all power comes from electricity) [7]

1,00 ton of mixed PO granulates


0,75 0,5 h/ton [3]. An overhead of 50 % is added











Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene

1,07 ton naphtha 1,03 kg of naphtha is needed to produce 1 kg of propylene or ethylene [4].

1,04 tonne of ethylene or propylene

2,17 Calculated as in ‘system 1: Excluding the MDS’


1,04 ton ethylene or propylene

1,05 kg of ethylene or propylene is needed to produce 1 kg of LDPE or PP and 1,02 kg of ethylene is needed to produce 1 kg of HDPE. Transport is assumed negligible

1,00 tonne PE or PP 0,75 Calculated as in ‘system 1: Excluding the MDS’


Transport is assumed negligible 1,36 tonne of crude oil to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4].


Natural gas production

Transport is assumed negligible 0,25 tonne of natural gas to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4]


Electricity production



1168,48 KWh of electricity to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4]. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]


Production of natural gas for electricity production

231,43 kg of natural gas to produce electricity


Table 7: System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PE, including the MDS








MDS 1,035 ton of PO waste 30,88 kWh Heat: 100MJ/ton plastic Pumping: 2kWh/ton [6]. Energy assumed to come from electricity

1,04 ton of clean PP and PE fractions


Centrifuging 14,49 kWh 14 kWh/ton [6] Transport 1,035 ton of clean PP

and PE fractions The production of diesel is assumed to

be negligible1,04 ton of clean PP

and PE fractions


Extrusion 1,035 ton of clean PP and PE fractions


1,00 ton of clean PP and PE granulates













Table 8: System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PE, excluding the MDS



























Table 9: System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes wood, including the MDS








MDS 1,035 ton of PO waste 30,88 kWh Heat: 100MJ/ton plastic Pumping: 2kWh/ton [6]. Energy assumed to come from electricity

1,04 ton of clean PP and PE fractions


Centrifuging 14,49 kWh 14 kWh/ton [6] Transport 1,035 ton of clean PP

and PE fractions The production of diesel is assumed to

be negligible1,04 ton of clean PP

and PE fractions


Extrusion 1,035 ton of clean PP and PE fractions


1,00 ton of clean PP and PE granulates













Production of wood

Inputs to wood production assumed to be negligible

1,06 m3 of wood It is assumed that the PO mix will displace wood. It is difficult to qualify the substitution level, however, in this assessment a 1:1 (volume based) substitution is assumed. The density of the PO mix is set to 0,94 ton/m^3.

1,49 Calculated as in ‘system 2: Including the MDS, assuming that the PO mix substitutes wood’

Table 10: System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes wood, excluding the MDS

















Production of electricity for


Marginal electricity is assumed to come from gas. The production of 1

0,26 MWh of electricity for

It is assumed that all energy comes from


process above kWh from natural gas demands 0,19806 kg of gas (Power from natural gas, Germany) [4]

the above processes.

electricity. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]





Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene

1,07 ton naphtha 1,03 kg of naphtha is needed to produce 1 kg of propylene or ethylene [4]

1,04 ton of ethylene or propylene

2,17 Calculated as in ‘system 1: Excluding the MDS’


1,04 ton ethylene or propylene

1,05 kg of ethylene or propylene is needed to produce 1 kg of LDPE or PP and 1,02 kg of ethylene is needed to produce 1 kg of HDPE. Transport is assumed negligible

1,00 ton PE or PP 0,75 Calculated as in ‘system 1: Excluding the MDS’


Transport is assumed negligible 1,36 ton of crude oil to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4]


Natural gas production

Transport is assumed negligible 0,25 ton of natural gas to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4]


Electricity production



1168,48 KWh of electricity to produce naphtha, ethylene, propylene, PP and PE [4]. Transmission loss is assumed to be 7,2 % [9]


Production of natural gas for electricity production

231,43 kg of natural gas to produce electricity


Sources for table 1 to 10: [1]: Magnetic Sorting and Ultrasound Sensor Technologies for Production of High Purity Secondary Polyolefins from Waste. Deliverable 1.1: Characterisation of major polyolefin-containing post-consumer waste streams (2010). European Commission – Research General Directorate. [2]: Savage GM, Diaz LF, Trezek GJ, Hopkins V, Simister B, Fiscus D, James SC, Brunner D (1981): Comparative study of air classifiers. USEPA. EPA-600/s2-81-221. [3]: Personal communications with Gerrit Klein Nagelvoort, AKG, The Netherlands 2009. [4]: ecoinvent database v2.1, http://www.ecoinvent.ch/. [5]: Personal communication with Norbert Frauenholcz, Recycling Avenue, The Netherlands, 2010. [6]: Personal communication with Peter Rem, Technical University of Delft, The Netherlands, 2009. [7]: http://www.changwoen.com.tw/machine2.html. [8]: Magnetic Sorting and Ultrasound Sensor Technologies for Production of High Purity Secondary Polyolefins from Waste Deliverable 3.1: Environmental decision criteria for process development (2010).

http://www.ecoinvent.ch/

European Commission – Research General Directorate [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses. [10]: http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/110822/investor-relations/financial-reports/. [11]: Nazarkina L, Le Bocq A (2006): Social aspects of Sustainability assessment: Feasibility of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). EDF R&D, France. [12]:http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor/financial_information/annual_reports/2007/2007_annual_reports_13032007.html. [13]: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/surveys/mps.pdf. [14]: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm. [15]: Campbell PE, McCahey S, Williams BC, Beekes ML (2000): Coal and plastic waste in a PF boiler. Energy Policy 28 223-229. [16]: LCA of management options for mixed plastic waste. Written by Dr. Peter Schonfield commissioned by WRAP (2008). ISBN: 1-84405-397-0. [17]: http://www.ath.co.uk/archive/reports/2008ar.pdf. [18]: Joule III Programme – Clean Coal Technology R&D. Volume 1. European Commision. ISBN 3-00-004658-5. [19]: http://www.borealisgroup.com/. [20]: www.fao.org.

http://www.borealisgroup.com/

http://www.ath.co.uk/archive/reports/2008ar.pdf

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/surveys/mps.pdf

http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor/financial_information/annual_reports/2007/2007_annual_reports_13032007.html

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/110822/investor-relations/financial-reports/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

2.2 Physical working environment Having established the working time related to each of the processes included in the alternatives, the data in the below table on the incidences of work related accidents and diseases for each included sector makes it possible to assess the total number of accidents and diseases which can be expected from each alternative.

Sector Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents

Cancers Neuro-logic diseases

Diseases sensory organs

Resp. Diseases

Skin diseases

Musculo-skeletal diseases

A Agriculture, hunting and forestry 2,56E-08 6,69E-06 9,30E-08 5,47E-07 5,70E-07 1,58E-06 9,77E-07 4,05E-06C Mining and quarrying 9,24E-08 1,63E-05 1,69E-07 2,20E-06 1,42E-06 7,16E-06 3,20E-07 6,17E-06D Manufacturing 2,44E-08 1,60E-05 7,47E-06 3,60E-05 2,74E-05 1,68E-05 1,17E-05 8,08E-05D Basic plastics 1,87E-08 1,22E-05 5,71E-06 2,75E-05 2,09E-05 1,29E-05 8,91E-06 6,17E-05D Refinery 2,04E-09 1,34E-06 6,25E-07 3,01E-06 2,29E-06 1,41E-06 9,75E-07 6,75E-06E Electricity, gas and water supply 3,20E-08 6,10E-06 6,57E-07 2,27E-07 4,42E-07 6,69E-07 4,07E-08 2,97E-07I Transport, storage and communication 6,10E-08 1,30E-05 1,03E-06 1,56E-06 1,86E-06 1,17E-06 4,13E-07 4,16E-06O Other community, social, personal service activities 1,57E-08 9,56E-06 1,40E-07 2,51E-06 6,16E-07 5,41E-07 2,92E-06 4,67E-06O Waste handling 3,01E-08 1,83E-05 2,68E-07 4,81E-06 1,18E-06 1,04E-06 5,61E-06 8,96E-06Average (all sectors) (weighed average for accidents, simple average for diseases) 2,15E-08 1,16E-05 9,03E-07 4,59E-06 3,15E-06 2,21E-06 1,93E-06 1,02E-05

Table 11: Accidents and diseases per working hour (1720 working hours per working year), average EU. Eurostat (2009b).

2.3 Job creation: Education profileThe data presented in the table below makes it possible to relate the working time found in table 1 to 10 to an educational profile.

Sector Education level Percentage2 Forestry and logging Low 33,910 Mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat Low 10,411 Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities Low 10,423 Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel Low 13,724 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Low 17,337 Recycling Low 35,640 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply Low 10,760 Land transport; transport via pipelines Low 30,290 Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities Low 41,62 Forestry and logging Medium 51,710 Mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat Medium 78,711 Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities Medium 55,423 Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel Medium 52,724 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Medium 48,337 Recycling Medium 51,340 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply Medium 61,660 Land transport; transport via pipelines Medium 60,290 Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities Medium 47,72 Forestry and logging High 14,410 Mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat High 10,911 Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities High 34,223 Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel High 33,624 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products High 34,437 Recycling High 13,140 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply High 27,760 Land transport; transport via pipelines High 9,6

90 Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities High 10,7

Table 12: Education level of workforce for included sectors. Education level divided on low (completed lower secondary), medium (completed upper secondary), and high (completed third level). Eurostat (2009a).

2.4 Local community acceptanceThe data presented in the table below enable the quantified assessment of the nuisances to the local community from the included alternatives.

Facility Nuisance, low (%*sq miles/tonne, MWh or m3)

Nuisance, high (%*sq miles/tonne, MWh or m3)

Sources and assumptions

Power plant 5,51E-05 5,51E-05 Blomquist (1974), Davis (2008)Chemical plant 9,11E-06 9,11E-06 Farber (1998)Refinery 6,26E-06 6,26E-06 Flower and Ragas (1994)Additional waste handling facilities added in the systems

0 (part of existing waste handling facilities)

8,13E-04 (Nuisance of waste handling plant assumed as a landfill)

Hirshfelt et al. (1992), Nelson et al. (1992), Baker (1982)

Coal mine 0 (no local community) 1,10E-04 (Nuisance of coal mine assumed twice as a landfill)

Hirshfelt et al. (1992), Nelson et al. (1992), Baker (1982)

Forest 0 (no local community) 6,12E-03 Crompton (2005)

Table 13: Calculations performed by finding the summarised decrease in house prices in percent as a result of a facility. This is then either divided by the number of tonne/MWh/m3 produced by the facility per year, or multiplied by the life time of the facility and divided by the total number of tonne/MWh/m3 produced over the entire life time of the facility.

3 Results

On the basis of the data presented above, the following sections will present the results for each of the three impact categories.

3.1 Physical working environment

System 1: Physical work environment

0,0E+00

5,0E-05

1,0E-04

1,5E-04

2,0E-04

Fatal

Non-fatal

Cance

rs

Neurolog

ic dis.

Dis. se

nsory

organs

Resp. d

is.

Skin

dis.

Musculoske

letal dis.

Working accidents and diseases

Inci

denc

es /t

on o

f PO

Including the MDS Excluding the MDS

Fig. 4: Working accidents and diseases per tonne of treated PO waste in the two alternatives in system 1.

System 2: Physical work environmentAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP

and PE

0,0E+00

5,0E-06

1,0E-05

1,5E-05

Fatal

Non-fatal

Cance

rs

Neurolog

ic dis.

Dis. se

nsory

organs

Resp. d

is.

Skin

dis.

Musculoske

letal dis.


Inci

denc

es /t

on o

f PO


System 2: Physical work environmentAssuming that the PO mix substitutes wood

0,0E+00

5,0E-05

1,0E-04

1,5E-04

2,0E-04

Fatal

Non-fatal

Cance

rs

Neurolog

ic dis.

Dis. se

nsory

organs

Resp. d

is.

Skin

dis.

Musculoske

letal dis.


Inci

denc

es /t

on o

f PO


Fig. 5a and 5b: Working accidents and diseases per tonne of treated PO waste in the four alternatives in system 2.

System 3: Physical work environmentAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP

and PE

0,0E+00

5,0E-06

1,0E-05

1,5E-05

Fatal

Non-fatal

Cance

rs

Neurolog

ic dis.

Dis. se

nsory

organs

Resp. d

is.

Skin

dis.

Musculoske

letal dis.


Inci

denc

es /t

on o

f PO


System 3: Physical work environmentAssuming that the PO mix substitutes wood

0,0E+00

5,0E-05

1,0E-04

1,5E-04

2,0E-04

Fatal

Non-fatal

Cance

rs

Neurolog

ic dis.

Dis. se

nsory

organs

Resp. d

is.

Skin

dis.

Musculoske

letal dis.


Inci

denc

es /t

on o

f PO


Fig. 6a and 6b: Working accidents and diseases per tonne of treated PO waste in the four alternatives in system 3.

The graphs show that if it is assumed that the mixed PO substitutes virgin PE and PP (figure 5a, 6a), very limited differences between the inclusion and exclusion of the MDS can be seen. On the other hand, if it is assumed that the mixed PO substitutes wood or coal (figure 4, 5b, 6b), large differences can be noted in favour of including the MDS. This stems mainly from the production of virgin PE and PP produced to compensate for the recycled PE and PP which the MDS would have produced if included2. The expected high incidence rate of accidents and diseases from the production of virgin PE and PP stems from both a relatively high number of working hours in the production of virgin PE and PP and a high incidence rate of accidents and diseases in this sector. The relatively high incidence of non-fatal accidents in the alternatives including the MDS, where it is assumed that the mixed PO substitute wood (5a, 6a) stems from a relative high rate of non-fatal accidents in the forestry sector. The higher incidence of working accidents and diseases when including the MDS in system 1 (fig. 4) in comparison to the inclusion of the MDS in fig. 5b and 6b stems from the higher number of working hours in waste handling in system in system 1.

The figures 4-6 above are based on the expected number incidences of accidents and diseases arising in each alternative. It should, however, be mentioned that the number of working hours in each alternative are different, and that the difference in the expected incidence of accidents and diseases could merely be a reflection of this fact. Assuming that it is a benefit for a worker to have a job, the higher expected incidence rate can only be seen as something negative if it is caused by an incidence rate being higher than average rather than by the number of working hours being higher in one alternative than in the other.2 It should be noted that the inclusion of the more nuanced statistics from the Danish Working Environment Service (see W2Plastics 2010) has made this difference smaller. Had the assessment used only statistics from the EU, the difference had been even greater.

The following figure takes this into account by dividing the incidence rate in each alternative with the total number of working hours in the alternative and normalised by dividing with the average incidence rate in EU for all sectors.

Fig. 7: Working accidents and diseases for all systems included in this assessment. The scores in each alternative are divided by the total number of working hours in the alternative and divided again by the average in EU for all sectors. ‘Sys’, ‘inc’, ‘exc’, ‘vi’, and ‘wo’ is short for ‘system’, ‘including the MDS’, ‘excluding the MDS’, ‘PO mix assumed to substitute virgin PE and PP’, and ‘PO mix assumed to substitute wood’, respectively. Comparisons between system 1, 2 and 3 should be made with care, since they are based on different waste streams and different system boundaries.

Figure 7 in general shows the same picture as figure 4-6 above, indicating that it is not merely a larger number of working hours that is responsible for the higher incidence of working accidents and diseases in the alternatives where the mixed PO is assumed to substitute wood or to be used in power plants. It is rather the higher incidence rate per working hour, well above the EU average, which causes the results seen in figure 4, 5b and 6b. The higher number of working accidents and diseases in these alternatives is therefore not in themselves justified by the higher number of working hours.

Calculations can be found in appendix 1.

3.2 Job creation

Fig. 8: Working hours divided on educational level per tonne of treated PO waste for each of the two alternatives in system 1.

Fig. 9a and 9b: Working hours divided on educational level per tonne of treated PO waste for each of the four alternatives in system 2.

Fig. 10a and 10b: Working hours divided on educational level per tonne of treated PO waste for each of the four alternatives in system 2.

The results show that where the mixed PO waste is assumed to substitute virgin PE and PP, very limited differences can be found, whereas if it is assumed that the mixed PO substitute wood (fig. 9b and 10b) or when the mixed PO is co-fired in power plants (fig. 8), the alternatives excluding the MDS are more labour demanding and are thereby creating more jobs than when the MDS is included. Especially the creation of high and to some extent medium educational jobs is enhanced when not including the MDS. This is mainly caused by the relatively high percentage of high and medium educational jobs in the PE and PP producing sector. The low educational jobs are on the other hand very similar in all alternatives.

Calculations can be found in appendix 2.

3.3 Local community acceptance

Fig. 11: Nuisance to local community per tonne of treated PO as expressed by drops in house prices around facilities included in each of the two alternatives in system 1. Due to the high uncertainties of these calculations, high and low estimates are made (see table 13).

Fig. 12a and 12b: Nuisance to local community per tonne of treated PO as expressed by drops in house prices around facilities included in each of the four alternatives in system 2. Due to the high uncertainties of these calculations, high and low estimates are made (see table 13).

Fig. 13a and 13b: Nuisance to local community per tonne of treated PO as expressed by drops in house prices around facilities included in each of the four alternatives in system 2. Due to the high uncertainties of these calculations, high and low estimates are made (see table 13).

The results show that in all cases the inclusion of the MDS varies from being relatively similar to the scores when the MDS is not included in the ‘low’ scenario (slightly favouring the inclusion of the MDS), to being vastly larger (a factor of 23-82) in the high scenario. This mainly stems from three assumptions made in the calculations: First of all that the MDS is located in a separate facility, which is assumed to create nuisances for its surroundings at the same level as a landfill. This creates the differences which can be seen in figure 12a and 13 a (‘high’ scenario). Second assumption is that the wood which the mixed PO substitutes stems from forest lying next to dwellings. This, together with the first assumption stated above, creates the differences which can be seen in figure 12b and 13b (‘high’ scenario). Finally, the third assumption is that the coal mine also lies next to dwellings, which adds to the large difference in figure 11 (‘high’ scenario).It seems probable that none of these three assumptions will be true in most cases. In relation to the first assumption, it seems probable that the MDS will become an ‘add-on’ to existing waste treatment facilities and/or that the MDS may be indoor and thereby create significantly less noise, dust, smell, etc. than a landfill. With regards to both the other assumptions, it seems reasonable to expect that none of them will be next to significant dwellings.The results thus point to that in many cases the inclusion of the MDS will most likely not create extra nuisances for the local community, but that this depends heavily on the actual settings of the system. If any of the three assumptions made above turn out to be true, the inclusion of the MDS will be highly unfavourable for the local community.

4 Uncertainties

This assessment is based on only 3 of 16 impact categories suggested in SLCA literature (Jørgensen et al. 2008). Even though it may be debated to what extent all of these impact categories are suitable in this case, it seems fair to state that only a small part of the present understanding of the total of social impacts, which the assessed alternatives may create, are included in the assessment. Had it been possible to include these impact categories in this assessment, the conclusions reached could therefore have been very different. However, as it was outlined in the methodology report, the generic nature of this assessment made the inclusion of more impact categories problematic.

This being said, the assessment based on these three impact categories could, however, be improved in several ways, which due to the scope of this report could not be pursued in this assessment. Below the most significant issues will be outlined:

Firstly, more alternative setups of the systems assessed could have been considered. It for example have been considered, if the mixed PO could substitute other products than virgin PE and PP and wood, as well as the assumed 1:1 substitution rate of wood could be investigated further, since these issues had a quite significant impact on the results. Apart from the setup of the systems, a further qualification of the working time for performing the various processes, seems relevant. The working time was used for calculating both the physical working environment and the job creation and was in some cases based on the working time in a single company. Data from other companies could therefore increase knowledge about the potential variability of the results. This qualification would probably be most important for the working time needed to produce virgin PE and PP, but also the working time to handle the PO waste in the MDS and the traditional waste handling could also be considered.Furthermore, the sector data on which especially the physical working environment was based was very broad. This problem was to some extent mitigated by including more nuanced data from the Danish Working Environment Service as a basis for further dividing the most significant sectors in the assessment, as outlined in the methodology report, but still in relation to the calculations on the physical working environment this is believed to create significant uncertainty about the results.Also the data on the nuisances caused by the facilities included in the assessment on the local communities could be significantly improved. In some cases the nuisance level from facilities comparable to those included in the alternatives had to be used, and it had to be assumed that all facilities were surrounded by the same density of inhabitants.Apart from these probably most significant uncertainties several many other could be mentioned, such as the many cut-offs which had to be made to delimit the systems, due to the rather limited availability of data for performing SLCAs at the present moment.

In all cases, a quantification of the uncertainties which these issues may create is difficult to make, since the variation in each case is unknown, however, to qualify this uncertainty it is estimated that the results on the local community acceptance should be considered as being very high, the results on physical working environment should be considered as being high whereas the results on job creation is considered moderate. Small differences in assessment results between alternatives should therefore be interpreted with caution.

5 Conclusions

The assessment shows that the assumption about whether mixed PO from existing waste treatment facilities can be assumed to substitute virgin PE and PP or whether it due to its lower quality only can substitute wood or coal has large implications for the results. The reason is that in these wood or coal substituting alternatives, virgin PE and PP has to be produced to account for the PE and PP which would have been produced, had the MDS been included in the system. With regards to the physical working environment, this production of virgin PE and PP resulted in significantly higher incidences of working accidents and diseases (figure 4, 5b and 6b). Being more labour intensive this production of virgin PE and PP also resulted in creation of more jobs than the alternative including the MDS, most notably when it came to the high educational jobs (figure 8, 9b and 10b). If, on the other hand, it was assumed that the mixed PO streams could substitute virgin PE and PP very limited differences between the alternatives could be identified. The inclusion of the MDS would in these alternatives tend to be slightly more labour intensive, and as a direct effect of this also result in slightly more accidents and diseases.Somewhat different was it when it came to the expected local community acceptance. Here the production of virgin PE and PP seemed to be of minor importance. Rather what was important was whether the inclusion of the MDS resulted in additional waste handling facilities being made and the nuisance level of these to the local community, and whether the wood or coal, which the mixed PO stream was assumed to substitute in some alternatives, were produced close to dwellings to whom it most likely would create significant nuisances. It was, however, estimated that in most cases, these nuisances will probably not realise. If this is the case, very limited differences could be found in relation to the local community acceptance of the assessed alternatives. The results are summarised in the table below:

Assuming mixed PO substitute virgin PE and PP

Assuming mixed PO substitute wood/coal

Household and commercial packaging waste WE: Inclusion of MDS favouredJC: Exclusion of MDS slightly favouredLCA (L): No significant differenceLCA (H): Exclusion of MDS highly favoured

Building and construction waste and off-size post-consumer municipal waste

WE, JC, LCA (L): No significant differencesLCA (H): Exclusion of MDS highly favoured.

WE: Inclusion of MDS highly favouredJC: Exclusion of MDS slightly favouredLCA (L): No significant differenceLCA (H): Exclusion of MDS highly favoured

Automotive shredder residue WE, JC, LCA (L): No significant differencesLCA (H): Exclusion of MDS highly favoured.

WE: Inclusion of MDS highly favouredJC: Exclusion of MDS slightly favouredLCA (L): No significant differenceLCA (H): Exclusion of MDS highly favoured

Table 14: Summary of assessment results for each source of PO waste. WE, JC, LCA (L,H) are short for physical working environment, job creation, and local community acceptance (low, high), respectively.

As a word of caution, it must be emphasized that all results are subject to significant uncertainties, which could not be quantified. Small differences in assessment results between alternatives should therefore be interpreted with caution.

6 References

Baker BP (1982): Land Values Surrounding Waste Disposal Facilities. Department ofAgricultural Economics, New York College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, US

Blomquist, Glenn (1974): The Effect of Electric Utility Power Plant Location on Area Property Value. Land Economics. 50 (1) 97-100

Crompton JL (2005): The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from the past twodecades in the United States: Managing Leisure 10 (4) 203-218

Danpal (2009): Personal communication with Danpal, which is a Danish seller of pallets, in May 2009. http://www.dan-pal.dk/

Davis LW (2008): The Effect of Power Plants on Local Housing Values and Rents: Evidence from Restricted Census Microdata. Inpublished material. University of Michigan, US

Eurostat (2009a): Statistics requested from Eurostat for this project (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/)

Eurostat (2009b): Statistics from the Eurostat database (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/)

Farber S (1998): Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics 24 (1) 1-14

Flower PC, Ragas WR (1994): The Effects of Refineries on Neighborhood Property Values. Journal of Real Estate Research. 9 (3) 319–38

Hirshfeld S, Vesilind PA, Pas E (1992): Assessing the true costs of landfills. Waste Management and Research, 10 (6) 471–484

Jørgensen A, Le-Boqc A, Nazakina L, Hauschild M (2008): Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment. International Journal of LCA 13 (2) 96-103

Nagelvoort (2009): Personal communication with Gerrit Klein Nagelvoort from AKG Polymers BV in The Netherlands, in May 2009

Nelson AC, Genereux J, Genereux M (1992): Price effects of landfills on house values. Land Economics 68(4) 354–365

Ruwi (2009): Personal communication with Ruwi, which is a Danish seller of pallets, in May 2009. http://www.ruwi.dk/

W2Plastics (2010): Magnetic Sorting and Ultrasound Sensor Technologies for Production of High Purity Secondary Polyolefins from Waste. Deliverable 3.4: Social Life Cycle Assessment – methodology. European Commission – Research General Directorate

7 Appendix 1: Physical working environment calculations

Working time is in hours.

System 1: Separation from household wasteIncluding the MDS

Process Working time

Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases

Skin diseases Musculo-skeletal diseases

Wind sifting 7,50E-01 2,26E-08 1,38E-05 2,01E-07 3,61E-06 8,87E-07 7,78E-07 4,21E-06 6,72E-06Shredding 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Washing/ sink-float 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00MDS 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,40E-08 9,15E-06 4,28E-06 2,06E-05 1,57E-05 9,64E-06 6,68E-06 4,63E-05Production of electricity for process above 1,37E-01 4,37E-09 8,33E-07 8,98E-08 3,10E-08 6,04E-08 9,14E-08 5,56E-09 4,05E-08Production of gas for the production of electricity 2,57E-02 2,38E-09 4,19E-07 4,33E-09 5,65E-08 3,65E-08 1,84E-07 8,22E-09 1,59E-07Production of the amount of coal which would be needed if the 1 ton of PO was used for power production

3,56E-01 3,29E-08 5,80E-06 5,99E-08 7,81E-07 5,04E-07 2,55E-06 1,14E-07 2,19E-06

Total 2,39E+00 9,88E-08 3,48E-05 5,02E-06 2,57E-05 1,78E-05 1,37E-05 1,12E-05 5,69E-05

System 1: Separation from household wasteExcluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


Cutting of plastic waste 1,50E-01 4,52E-09 2,75E-06 4,02E-08 7,21E-07 1,77E-07 1,56E-07 8,42E-07 1,34E-06Production of electricity for cutting of plastic waste 1,01E-02 3,24E-10 6,19E-08 6,67E-09 2,30E-09 4,48E-09 6,78E-09 4,13E-10 3,01E-09Production of gas for electricity production 1,91E-03 1,76E-10 3,11E-08 3,22E-10 4,19E-09 2,71E-09 1,37E-08 6,10E-10 1,18E-08Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 2,17E+00 4,05E-08 2,65E-05 1,24E-05 5,97E-05 4,54E-05 2,79E-05 1,93E-05 1,34E-04Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 7,47E-01 1,39E-08 9,12E-06 4,26E-06 2,05E-05 1,56E-05 9,61E-06 6,66E-06 4,61E-05Crude oil production 2,63E-01 2,43E-08 4,29E-06 4,43E-08 5,78E-07 3,73E-07 1,88E-06 8,40E-08 1,62E-06Natural gas production 3,84E-02 3,55E-09 6,26E-07 6,47E-09 8,43E-08 5,44E-08 2,75E-07 1,23E-08 2,37E-07Electricity production 1,93E-01 6,17E-09 1,18E-06 1,27E-07 4,37E-08 8,52E-08 1,29E-07 7,85E-09 5,72E-08Production of natural gas for electricity production 3,62E-02 3,35E-09 5,91E-07 6,11E-09 7,97E-08 5,14E-08 2,60E-07 1,16E-08 2,24E-07Total 3,61E+00 9,68E-08 4,52E-05 1,69E-05 8,17E-05 6,17E-05 4,03E-05 2,70E-05 1,84E-04

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEIncluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


MDS 2,07E-01 6,23E-09 3,80E-06 5,54E-08 9,95E-07 2,45E-07 2,15E-07 1,16E-06 1,85E-06Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 4,77E-09 8,42E-07 8,70E-09 1,13E-07 7,32E-08 3,70E-07 1,65E-08 3,18E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 8,97E-10 1,58E-07 1,64E-09 2,13E-08 1,38E-08 6,95E-08 3,10E-09 5,98E-08 Total 1,39E+00 5,85E-08 1,42E-05 9,40E-07 1,88E-06 1,35E-06 1,59E-06 1,36E-06 4,00E-06

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEExcluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


Centrifuging 3,12E-09 1,90E-06 2,77E-08 4,98E-07 1,22E-07 1,07E-07 5,81E-07 9,27E-07 3,12E-09Transport 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06 2,26E-08Extrusion 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07 2,40E-08Production of electricity for process above 4,26E-09 7,53E-07 7,78E-09 1,01E-07 6,54E-08 3,30E-07 1,48E-08 2,85E-07 4,26E-09Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,02E-10 1,42E-07 1,46E-09 1,91E-08 1,23E-08 6,21E-08 2,77E-09 5,35E-08 8,02E-10Total 5,48E-08 1,22E-05 9,11E-07 1,37E-06 1,22E-06 1,43E-06 7,82E-07 3,03E-06 5,48E-08

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodIncluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


MDS 2,07E-01 6,23E-09 3,80E-06 5,54E-08 9,95E-07 2,45E-07 2,15E-07 1,16E-06 1,85E-06Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 4,77E-09 8,42E-07 8,70E-09 1,13E-07 7,32E-08 3,70E-07 1,65E-08 3,18E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 8,97E-10 1,58E-07 1,64E-09 2,13E-08 1,38E-08 6,95E-08 3,10E-09 5,98E-08Production of wood 1,49E+00 3,81E-08 9,96E-06 1,39E-07 8,14E-07 8,49E-07 2,35E-06 1,45E-06 6,04E-06 Total 2,88E+00 9,66E-08 2,42E-05 1,08E-06 2,69E-06 2,20E-06 3,93E-06 2,82E-06 1,00E-05

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodExcluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


Centrifuging 1,04E-01 3,12E-09 1,90E-06 2,77E-08 4,98E-07 1,22E-07 1,07E-07 5,81E-07 9,27E-07Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 4,61E-02 4,26E-09 7,53E-07 7,78E-09 1,01E-07 6,54E-08 3,30E-07 1,48E-08 2,85E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,67E-03 8,02E-10 1,42E-07 1,46E-09 1,91E-08 1,23E-08 6,21E-08 2,77E-09 5,35E-08Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 2,17E+00 4,05E-08 2,65E-05 1,24E-05 5,97E-05 4,54E-05 2,79E-05 1,93E-05 1,34E-04Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 7,47E-01 1,39E-08 9,12E-06 4,26E-06 2,05E-05 1,56E-05 9,61E-06 6,66E-06 4,61E-05Crude oil production 2,63E-01 2,43E-08 4,29E-06 4,43E-08 5,78E-07 3,73E-07 1,88E-06 8,40E-08 1,62E-06Natural gas production 3,84E-02 3,55E-09 6,26E-07 6,47E-09 8,43E-08 5,44E-08 2,75E-07 1,23E-08 2,37E-07

Electricity production 1,93E-01 6,17E-09 1,18E-06 1,27E-07 4,37E-08 8,52E-08 1,29E-07 7,85E-09 5,72E-08Production of natural gas for electricity production 3,62E-02 3,35E-09 5,91E-07 6,11E-09 7,97E-08 5,14E-08 2,60E-07 1,16E-08 2,24E-07Total 4,73E+00 1,47E-07 5,45E-05 1,78E-05 8,24E-05 6,28E-05 4,15E-05 2,69E-05 1,85E-04

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEIncluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


MDS 2,07E-01 6,23E-09 3,80E-06 5,54E-08 9,95E-07 2,45E-07 2,15E-07 1,16E-06 1,85E-06Centrifuging 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 4,77E-09 8,42E-07 8,70E-09 1,13E-07 7,32E-08 3,70E-07 1,65E-08 3,18E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 8,97E-10 1,58E-07 1,64E-09 2,13E-08 1,38E-08 6,95E-08 3,10E-09 5,98E-08 Total 1,39E+00 5,85E-08 1,42E-05 9,40E-07 1,88E-06 1,35E-06 1,59E-06 1,36E-06 4,00E-06

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEExcluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 4,36E-02 4,03E-09 7,11E-07 7,35E-09 9,58E-08 6,18E-08 3,12E-07 1,39E-08 2,69E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,19E-03 7,57E-10 1,34E-07 1,38E-09 1,80E-08 1,16E-08 5,87E-08 2,62E-09 5,05E-08Total 1,17E+00 5,14E-08 1,02E-05 8,83E-07 8,63E-07 1,09E-06 1,31E-06 2,00E-07 2,08E-06

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodIncluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


MDS 2,07E-01 6,23E-09 3,80E-06 5,54E-08 9,95E-07 2,45E-07 2,15E-07 1,16E-06 1,85E-06Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 4,77E-09 8,42E-07 8,70E-09 1,13E-07 7,32E-08 3,70E-07 1,65E-08 3,18E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 8,97E-10 1,58E-07 1,64E-09 2,13E-08 1,38E-08 6,95E-08 3,10E-09 5,98E-08Production of wood 1,49E+00 3,81E-08 9,96E-06 1,39E-07 8,14E-07 8,49E-07 2,35E-06 1,45E-06 6,04E-06 Total 2,88E+00 9,66E-08 2,42E-05 1,08E-06 2,69E-06 2,20E-06 3,93E-06 2,82E-06 1,00E-05

System 3: Automotive shredder residue

Assuming that the PO mix substitutes woodExcluding the MDS


Fatal accidents

Non-fatal accidents



Resp. diseases


Transport 3,71E-01 2,26E-08 4,83E-06 3,81E-07 5,80E-07 6,89E-07 4,33E-07 1,53E-07 1,54E-06Extrusion 7,50E-01 2,40E-08 4,57E-06 4,93E-07 1,70E-07 3,31E-07 5,01E-07 3,05E-08 2,22E-07Production of electricity for process above 4,36E-02 4,03E-09 7,11E-07 7,35E-09 9,58E-08 6,18E-08 3,12E-07 1,39E-08 2,69E-07Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,19E-03 7,57E-10 1,34E-07 1,38E-09 1,80E-08 1,16E-08 5,87E-08 2,62E-09 5,05E-08Cracking of nafta to ethylene and propylene 2,17E+00 4,05E-08 2,65E-05 1,24E-05 5,97E-05 4,54E-05 2,79E-05 1,93E-05 1,34E-04Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 7,47E-01 1,39E-08 9,12E-06 4,26E-06 2,05E-05 1,56E-05 9,61E-06 6,66E-06 4,61E-05Crude oil production 2,63E-01 2,43E-08 4,29E-06 4,43E-08 5,78E-07 3,73E-07 1,88E-06 8,40E-08 1,62E-06Natural gas production 3,84E-02 3,55E-09 6,26E-07 6,47E-09 8,43E-08 5,44E-08 2,75E-07 1,23E-08 2,37E-07Electricity production 1,93E-01 6,17E-09 1,18E-06 1,27E-07 4,37E-08 8,52E-08 1,29E-07 7,85E-09 5,72E-08Production of natural gas for electricity production 3,62E-02 3,35E-09 5,91E-07 6,11E-09 7,97E-08 5,14E-08 2,60E-07 1,16E-08 2,24E-07Total 4,62E+00 1,43E-07 5,26E-05 1,77E-05 8,18E-05 6,27E-05 4,14E-05 2,63E-05 1,84E-04

8 Appendix 2: Job creation calculations

Low, medium and high refers to the input of working time from employees having completed a low secondary, an upper secondary or a third level education.

System 1: Separation from household wasteIncluding the MDS


Low Medium High

Wind sifting 7,50E-01 2,67E-01 3,85E-01 9,80E-02Shredding 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Washing/ sink-float 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00MDS 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 1,37E-01 1,47E-02 8,42E-02 3,79E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 2,57E-02 2,68E-03 1,42E-02 8,78E-03Production of the amount of coal which would be needed if the 1 ton of PO was used for power production

3,56E-01 3,70E-02 2,80E-01 3,86E-02

Total 2,39E+00 5,64E-01 1,35E+00 4,77E-01

System 1: Separation from household wasteExcluding the MDS


Low Medium High

Cutting of plastic waste 1,50E-01 5,35E-02 1,06E-03 1,96E-02Production of electricity for cutting of plastic waste 1,01E-02 1,09E-03 1,06E-03 2,81E-03Production of gas for electricity production 1,91E-03 1,99E-04 1,06E-03 6,52E-04Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 2,17E+00 3,76E-01 1,05E+00 7,47E-01Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 7,47E-01 1,30E-01 3,61E-01 2,57E-01Crude oil production 2,63E-01 2,74E-02 1,46E-01 8,98E-02Natural gas production 3,84E-02 4,00E-03 2,13E-02 1,31E-02Electricity production 1,93E-01 2,07E-02 1,19E-01 5,34E-02Production of natural gas for electricity production 3,62E-02 3,77E-03 2,01E-02 1,24E-02Total 3,61E+00 6,17E-01 1,80E+00 1,20E+00

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEIncluding the MDS


Low Medium High

MDS 2,07E-01 7,38E-02 1,06E-01 2,71E-02Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 5,53E-03 3,18E-02 1,43E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 1,01E-03 5,38E-03 3,32E-03 Total 1,39E+00 3,22E-01 7,29E-01 3,38E-01

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEExcluding the MDS


Low Medium High

Centrifuging 1,04E-01 3,69E-02 5,31E-02 1,35E-02Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 4,61E-02 4,94E-03 2,84E-02 1,28E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,67E-03 9,03E-04 4,81E-03 2,96E-03Total 1,28E+00 2,85E-01 6,72E-01 3,22E-01

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial waste

Assuming that the PO mix substitutes woodIncluding the MDS


Low Medium High

MDS 2,07E-01 7,38E-02 1,06E-01 2,71E-02Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 5,53E-03 3,18E-02 1,43E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 1,01E-03 5,38E-03 3,32E-03Production of wood 1,49E+00 5,04E-01 7,70E-01 2,15E-01 Total 2,88E+00 8,27E-01 1,50E+00 5,53E-01

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodExcluding the MDS


Low Medium High

Centrifuging 1,04E-01 3,69E-02 5,31E-02 1,35E-02Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 4,61E-02 4,94E-03 2,84E-02 1,28E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,67E-03 9,03E-04 4,81E-03 2,96E-03Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 2,17E+00 3,76E-01 1,05E+00 7,47E-01Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 7,47E-01 1,30E-01 3,61E-01 2,57E-01Crude oil production 2,63E-01 2,74E-02 1,46E-01 8,98E-02Natural gas production 3,84E-02 4,00E-03 2,13E-02 1,31E-02Electricity production 1,93E-01 2,07E-02 1,19E-01 5,34E-02Production of natural gas for electricity production 3,62E-02 3,77E-03 2,01E-02 1,24E-02Total 4,73E+00 8,47E-01 2,39E+00 1,49E+00

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEIncluding the MDS


Low Medium High

MDS 2,07E-01 7,38E-02 1,06E-01 2,71E-02Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 5,53E-03 3,18E-02 1,43E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 1,01E-03 5,38E-03 3,32E-03 Total 1,39E+00 3,22E-01 7,29E-01 3,38E-01

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEExcluding the MDS


Low Medium High

Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 4,36E-02 4,67E-03 2,68E-02 1,21E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,19E-03 8,53E-04 4,54E-03 2,80E-03Total 1,17E+00 2,48E-01 6,17E-01 3,08E-01

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodIncluding the MDS


Low Medium High

MDS 2,07E-01 7,38E-02 1,06E-01 2,71E-02Centrifuging 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 5,16E-02 5,53E-03 3,18E-02 1,43E-02

Production of gas for the production of electricity 9,70E-03 1,01E-03 5,38E-03 3,32E-03Production of wood 1,49E+00 5,04E-01 7,70E-01 2,15E-01 Total 2,88E+00 8,27E-01 1,50E+00 5,53E-01

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodExcluding the MDS


Low Medium High

Transport 3,71E-01 1,12E-01 2,23E-01 3,54E-02Extrusion 7,50E-01 1,30E-01 3,62E-01 2,58E-01Production of electricity for process above 4,36E-02 4,67E-03 2,68E-02 1,21E-02Production of gas for the production of electricity 8,19E-03 8,53E-04 4,54E-03 2,80E-03Cracking of nafta to ethylene and propylene 2,17E+00 3,76E-01 1,05E+00 7,47E-01Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 7,47E-01 1,30E-01 3,61E-01 2,57E-01Crude oil production 2,63E-01 2,74E-02 1,46E-01 8,98E-02Natural gas production 3,84E-02 4,00E-03 2,13E-02 1,31E-02Electricity production 1,93E-01 2,07E-02 1,19E-01 5,34E-02Production of natural gas for electricity production 3,62E-02 3,77E-03 2,01E-02 1,24E-02Total 4,62E+00 8,09E-01 2,33E+00 1,48E+00

9 Appendix 3: Local community acceptance calculations

Low and high scores are calculated as: (Nuisance score, high or low)/(production/year)*amount. The score for forests are divided by two due to the assumption that trees grow up again, gradually removing the nuisance from the cutting down of the forest. The decreasing nuisance is assumed to be linear over time, implying that on average the nuisance level of cutting down a forest will only be half as big as the difference between having and not having a forrest.All amounts and production/year scores are in tonnes except for power plants and forests. There the unit is in MWh and m3, respectively. In some cases, the literature used for deducing the nuisance scores did not reveal the production/year. In these cases reasonable amounts were found from similar types of facilities.

System 1: Separation from household wasteIncluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-

tion/yearNuisance score for facility, low

Assumptions Nuisance score for facility, high

Assumptions Low score High score

Wind sifting 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility

1,32E+02 Separate waste handling facility, nuisance as landfill

0,00E+00 1,68E-03

Shredding 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility

0,00E+00 Part of above waste handling facility

0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Washing/ sink-float 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility


0,00E+00 0,00E+00

MDS 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility


0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Centrifuging 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility


0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Transport 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility


0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Extrusion 1,00E+00 7,45E+05 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility

6,79E+00 As chemical plant 0,00E+00 9,11E-06

Production of electricity for process above 8,28E-01 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 4,56E-05 4,56E-05Production of gas for the production of electricity 1,64E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Production of coal 1,03E+00 2,41E+06 0,00E+00 2,65E+02 Twice the nuisance of landfill 0,00E+00 1,14E-04Total 4,56E-05 1,85E-03

System 1: Separation from household wasteExcluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-




Cutting of plastic waste 1,00E+00 - 0,00E+00 Included in power plant 0,00E+00 Included in power plant 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Production of electricity for cutting of plastic waste 6,15E-02 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 3,39E-06 3,39E-06Production of gas for electricity production 1,22E-02 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 1,04E+00 6,38E+06 4,00E+01 4,00E+01 6,52E-06 6,52E-06Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 1,00E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Included in the cracking plant 4,00E+01 Independent plant 0,00E+00 6,26E-06

Crude oil production 1,36E+00 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Natural gas production 2,45E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Electricity production 1,17E+00 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 6,43E-05 6,43E-05Production of natural gas for electricity production 2,31E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Total 7,43E-05 8,05E-05

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEIncluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-





1,32E+02 Separate waste handling facility, nuisance as landfill 0,00E+00 1,68E-03



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



Production of electricity for process above 3,13E-01 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 1,72E-05 1,72E-05Production of gas for the production of electricity 6,19E-02 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Total 1,72E-05 1,71E-03

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEExcluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-





0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling facility

0,00E+00 0,00E+00



0,00E+00 0,00E+00




System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodIncluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-






0,00E+00 1,68E-03

Centrifuging 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling 0,00E+00 Part of above waste handling 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

facility facilityTransport 1,04E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Part of existing waste handling

facility0,00E+00 Part of above waste handling

facility0,00E+00 0,00E+00



Production of electricity for process above 3,13E-01 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 1,72E-05 1,72E-05Production of gas for the production of electricity 6,19E-02 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Production of wood 1,06E+00 7,25E+02 0,00E+00 No local community 1,00E+01 0,00E+00 6,51E-03Total 1,72E-05 8,22E-03

System 2: Construction and demolition waste, off-size waste and commercial wasteAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodExcluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-






0,00E+00 0,00E+00



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



Production of electricity for process above 2,80E-01 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 1,54E-05 1,54E-05Production of gas for electricity production 5,54E-02 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 1,04E+00 6,38E+06 4,00E+01 4,00E+01 6,52E-06 6,52E-06Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 1,00E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Included in the cracking plant 4,00E+01 Independent plant 0,00E+00 6,26E-06Crude oil production 1,36E+00 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Natural gas production 2,45E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Electricity production 1,17E+00 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 6,43E-05 6,43E-05Production of natural gas for electricity production 2,31E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Total 8,63E-05 1,02E-04

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEIncluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-





1,32E+02 Separate waste handling facility, nuisance as landfill 0,00E+00 1,68E-03



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



0,00E+00 0,00E+00




System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes virgin PP and PEExcluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-






0,00E+00 0,00E+00




System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodIncluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-






0,00E+00 1,68E-03



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



Production of electricity for process above 3,13E-01 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 1,72E-05 1,72E-05Production of gas for the production of electricity 6,19E-02 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Production of wood 1,06E+00 7,25E+02 0,00E+00 No local community 1,00E+01 0,00E+00 6,51E-03Total 1,72E-05 8,22E-03

System 3: Automotive shredder residueAssuming that the PO mix substitutes woodExcluding the MDSProcess Amount Produc-






0,00E+00 0,00E+00



0,00E+00 0,00E+00



Production of electricity for process above 2,64E-01 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 1,45E-05 1,45E-05Production of gas for electricity production 5,23E-02 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Cracking of naphtha to ethylene and propylene 1,04E+00 6,38E+06 4,00E+01 4,00E+01 6,52E-06 6,52E-06Polymerisation of ethylene and propylene to PE and PP 1,00E+00 8,14E+04 0,00E+00 Included in the cracking plant 4,00E+01 Independent plant 0,00E+00 6,26E-06Crude oil production 1,36E+00 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Natural gas production 2,45E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Electricity production 1,17E+00 1,20E+06 6,63E+01 6,63E+01 6,43E-05 6,43E-05Production of natural gas for electricity production 2,31E-01 - 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 Offshore - no local community 0,00E+00 0,00E+00Total 8,54E-05 1,01E-04

10 List of contributors

Stig Irving Olsen / Technical University of DenmarkGerrit Klein Nagelvoort / AKG Polymers BVPeter Rem / TU DelftPal Lukacs/ Alufer KftGabriela Predoiu / URBAN SANorbert Fraunholcz / Recycling Avenue BVAndrea Toldy / Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsErwin Bakker / Bakker Magnetics

Task 3.4 Leader Andreas JørgensenTechnical university of DenmarkDepartment of Management EngineeringProduktionstorvet 424DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngbye-mail: [email protected]

WP 3 Leader Stig Irving OlsenTechnical university of DenmarkManagement Engineering Department of Management EngineeringProduktionstorvet 424DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngbye-mail: [email protected]

Project Coordinator Francesco DiMaio, TU delft

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

slca on w2plastics - dtu research database slca... · web viewenergy assumed to come from...

Documents