analysis of the plastic packaging value chain - … of the plastic... · · 2016-09-07title :...

NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D 2.4_ Report summarising the analysis of the plastic packaging value chain | of 30

Analysis of the plastic

packaging value chain

HORIZON 2020 | CSA| WASTE-4a-2014I Grant Agreement No. 642231

Start date of project: 2015/02/01 Duration: 30 Months

Identifier: D2.4 Report summarising the analysis of the plastic packaging value

chain

Date: 2016/03/04

Class: Deliverable

Responsible Partner: EuPC

Annexes: -

Distribution: Public

Title: Analysis of the plastic packaging value chain

The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research

and innovation programme under grant agreement no 642231

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM.

NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR

COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR

OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT

WP2 Analysis of the plastic packaging

value chain

NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D 2.4_Report summarising the analysis of the plastic packaging value chain | of 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 2

1. Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Overview of the report ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Objective ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

3 Background information ............................................................................................................................ 6

4 Methodology for bottleneck analysis .........................................................................................................10

5 Definition and analysis of the best practice value chain............................................................................... 12 5.1 Description of the value chain .................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Analysis of the value chain.......................................................................................................................................... 14

5.2.1 Actors .................................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.2.2 Operations .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Products .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

6 Definition of bottlenecks ......................................................................................................................... 19

7 Analysis of bottlenecks ............................................................................................................................. 23


value chain


1. SUMMARY

An analysis is made of the plastic packaging waste value chain to identify bottlenecks that hamper the

minimization of waste production within the value chain and to analyse the potential when these bottlenecks

could be overcome. The purpose is to provide an analysis of the plastic packaging waste value chain (as one of

the three cases to be analysed in the NEW_InnoNet project), in order to enable a prioritization of the

bottlenecks according a multiple criteria decision analysis. The overall objective of the analyses of the value

chain bottlenecks is to create, in a next step of the project, the basis for roadmaps and a strategic research

and innovation agenda by evaluating where and how the change towards near zero-waste value chains and

circular economy can be made by overcoming the major bottlenecks.

Based on a flow diagram and an analysis of the plastic packaging waste value chain, and its relation to the

plastics packaging production value chain, the bottlenecks with the most potential for minimizing waste

production within the value chain are identified.

These bottlenecks relate to:

• Limited source separation;

• Bad product design;

• Export of plastic packaging waste outside the EU;

• Performance of separation/sorting technology;

• Performance of recycling technology.

The criteria chosen to describe the potential related to these bottlenecks are material efficiency (losses of

plastics due to the bottleneck), total costs and revenues, GHG emissions and feasibility of removing the

bottleneck during the next 5-10 years.

The main results of the impacts related to solving the bottlenecks are summarized in the following table:

Losses of

plastics Total EU cost

Total EU

revenues

GHG emissions

inside the EU Feasibility

% €/ton recycled €/ton recycled

kg CO2 eq/ton

waste generated high (5), low (1)

Situation 2012 69% 1.474 676 1.143 -

Limited source

separation 52% 1.212 678 955 3

‘Bad’ product design 68% 1.425 676 1.126 1

Export outside EU 69% 1.604 748 1.206 1

Performance of sorting

technology 68% 1.430 676 1.127 4

Performance of recycling

technology 67% 1.408 679 1.121 5


value chain


2. OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

WP: WP2

Task : Task 2.3 Value chain analysis for plastic packaging waste

Title : Analysis of the plastic packaging value chain

Version: Final (2016/03/04)

2.1 OBJECTIVE

Within the context of WP2 of the H2020 project NEW_InnoNet, an EU near zero-waste stakeholder platform,

an analysis is made of three selected waste value chains (WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging waste) to identify

bottlenecks that hamper the minimization of waste production within the respective value chain and to

analyse the potential when these bottlenecks could be overcome.

The approach and methodology for this analysis is explained in more detail in a dedicated methodology

report for bottleneck analysis., which is summarized in chapter 4 Methodology for bottleneck analysis.

The purpose of the present report is to provide an analysis of the plastic packaging waste value chain (as one

of the three cases to be analysed) , in order to enable a prioritization of the bottlenecks according a multiple

criteria decision analysis.

This final report includes:

The definition of the scope

A summary of the methodology for bottleneck analysis

Background information

A description of the value chain

Identification of bottlenecks

Analysis of bottlenecks

2.2 SCOPE

Post-consumer plastic waste (including industrial, commercial and municipal waste) can be found in six

distinctive waste streams:

Packaging waste,

Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE),

End of Life Vehicles (ELV),

Building and Construction Waste (B&C),

Agricultural waste,

and Other plastic waste, which is a broad and non-specific category including all other types of plastic

waste that might occur outside of the five aforementioned waste streams.


value chain


Within the context of the NEW_InnoNet project and the corresponding value chain analysis, the scope of the

plastic waste value chain is defined as plastic packaging waste.

A description and an analysis of this value chain are provided in the next chapters.

Packaging is defined as any material which is used to contain, protect, handle, deliver and present goods.

Packaging waste can arise from a wide range of sources including supermarkets, retail outlets, manufacturing

industries, households, hotels, hospitals, restaurants and transport companies. Items like glass bottles, plastic

containers, aluminium cans, food wrappers, timber pallets and drums are all classified as packaging.

The classification of packaging waste and ordinary waste is defined according to the three criteria in Article 3

of the Packaging Waste Directive. In contrast to other waste statistics, the term 'packaging waste generated'

means not the amount of 'packaging collected', but rather all 'packaging placed on the market'. 1.

The main packaging materials are glass, paper and board, plastics, metals (aluminium and steel) and wood.

Composite materials are made of paper, plastic and metal which cannot be separated by hand. Composites

are reported under their predominant material by weight. Other packaging materials are counted as 'others'.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics


value chain


3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In Europe, packaging applications are the largest application sector for the plastics industry and represent

39.6% of the total plastics demand.2

Building and construction is the second largest application sector with 20.3% of the total European demand.

Automotive is the third sector with a share of 8.5% of the total demand.

Electrical and electronic applications represent 5.6% of the plastics demand and are closely followed by

agricultural applications which have a share of 4.3%.

Other application sectors such as appliances, household and consumer products, furniture and medical

products comprise a total of 21.7% of the European plastics demand.

Figure 1: Overview of European plastic demand by segment 2013 Source: PlasticsEurope (PEMRG)/Consultic/ECEBO

2 Plastics, the facts 2014-2015, http://www.plasticseurope.org/Document/plastics---the-facts-2015.aspx


value chain


Many different types of polymers are grouped under the common term of ‘plastics’. The specific polymer

properties determine the possible applications of both virgin and recycled grades.

Figure 2: Overview of main applications per plastic type Source: http://www.sita.com.au/media/general/Plastics_identification_code.pdf


value chain


The shares of particular polymers within the total plastics demand of an application sector however differs

greatly between sectors. For instance, while PVC is dominating the polymer demand from the building &

construction sector, its share in automotive applications is rather limited.

Figure 3: Overview of main markets for plastics Source: PlasticsEurope (PEMRG)/Consultic/ECEBO


value chain


The sector in which a certain polymer type is applied will determine to a large degree the duration of its useful

life. Typically, the life cycle of polymers applied in the building sector will reach out over several decades, but

packaging applications might turn into waste in just a few days. Due to these differences, the share of a

particular polymer fraction in post-consumer waste will also differ from its share in the demand for plastics.

In 2012, 25.2 million tonnes of post-consumer plastics waste ended up in the waste upstream.

Packaging plastic waste makes up 63% of this post-consumer waste3, although the packaging sector only

represents 39,6% of the total demand for plastics.

Table 1: Overview of plastic waste per application Source: Bio by Deloitte 2015

With respect to the treatment of EU plastic waste, 26% of the post-consumer plastics waste was recycled,

while 36% was sent to energy recovery and 38% still went to landfill.

Figure 4: Overview of EU plastic waste treatment Source: PlasticsEurope (PEMRG)/Consultic/ECEBO

3 Hestin, M., Faninger, T., Milios, L., Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social

Impact Assessment, Final Report. Bio by Deloitte. 2015


value chain


4 METHODOLOGY FOR BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS

A common methodology was used in the analysis of the three value chains within the scope of the

NEW_InnoNet project: End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and

Plastics Packaging.

The overall objective of the analysis is to evaluate where and how the change towards near zero-waste value

chains can be made by overcoming the major bottlenecks of technical and non-technical nature. Secondly,

the analysis should create a basis for subsequent project activities, including innovation roadmaps and

strategic research and innovation agenda.

A schematic overview of the key stages in the analysis is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Description of the stages of analysis of the value chains to identify best practices and bottlenecks

The current best practice value chains were defined in order to enable identification of bottlenecks

limiting the performance in the chain and to enable collection of data for analysis and prioritisation of the

bottlenecks. The value chain covers whole the material cycle. Main focus is in the waste handling

operations from waste discarding and collection to processing stages which prepare reusable parts or raw

materials fulfilling the specifications of the prevalent manufacturing processes. Other parts of the cycle

cannot be excluded because they are linked and have influence on the perfomance of the waste value

chain.

The bottlenecks, their causes and impacts were identified and described as explicitly as possible. The

bottlenecks were defined based on the project goal and scope as factors that limit transformation

towards zero waste value chains.

The significance of the bottlenecks was analysed based on the economic value and improved material

and environmental efficiency that could be attained by removal or reduction of the limiting factors. First

the criteria which describe the impact of removal of the bottlenecks were selected. The following types of

criteria were chosen and further adapted depending on the characteristics of each value chain:


value chain


a. Economic: Lost value and additional costs due to the bottleneck;

b. Material efficiency: Losses of materials due to the bottleneck;

c. Environmental: GHG emissions due to the bottleneck;

d. Other: Technical and economic feasibility of removing the bottleneck.

The criteria performance was evaluated using either quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative

information describing the consequences of each bottleneck. The bottlenecks were prioritized using this

information. Either panel or questionnaire based multiple criteria decision making method was used in

order to arrive at a list of prioritized bottlenecks.

The results of the analysis per value chain were cross-linked to define commonalities between the chains

and bottlenecks, so that uniform solutions applicable to several waste streams could be identified.

Creation of a database of potential technological solutions of the bottlenecks to be used and further

developed during subsequent project activities.


value chain


5 DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS OF THE BEST PRACTICE VALUE CHAIN

The aim of this stage is to define the current best practice value chain in order to enable identification of

bottlenecks limiting the performance in the chain and to enable collection of data that is needed for analysis

and prioritisation of the bottlenecks. The definition of the chain defines the borders of the analysis and the

focus area of the database on current and future best practice technologies and solutions.

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE VALUE CHAIN

Figure 6gives an overview of the plastic packaging waste value chain, and its relation to the plastics

packaging production value chain.

In this figure operations are indicated in blue, actors in black and products in green.

The dotted line in the figure delineates the scope of our work, being plastic packaging recycling.

Plastic packaging waste is generated by both households and commercial sources (EU split: 62%/38%).

Part of this waste ends up in municipal solid waste and gets incinerated or disposed. The other part of the

waste is separately collected and transported to sorting facilities, where the waste is pre-treated and sorted

into different plastic resins. These sorted plastic resins are transported to specific recycling facilities and

processed into new products that can be put on the market by brand owners and product manufacturers. In

Section 3.2, the plastic packaging waste value chain is described in detail.


value chain


Figure 6: Overview of the plastic packaging waste value chain


value chain


5.2 ANALYSIS OF THE VALUE CHAIN

5.2.1 Actors

Waste suppliers

Plastic packaging in general has a very limited useful lifetime between packaging a product for distribution

and unpacking it at the point of consumption. Plastic packaging becomes packaging waste from the moment

the holder of the packaging wants to dispose of it. This happens at several stages in the packaged product

distribution and consumption chain: at the end consumer when the primary packaging is removed from the

product; or at the distribution stage when individual products are removed from secondary transport

packaging. The holder of the waste can thus be different actors: households, industrial and commercial users

of packaged products, and retailers.

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC) obliges the Member States to introduce systems

for the return and/or collection of used packaging to attain a general packaging recycling rate of 55% to 80%4.

The specific target for plastic packaging waste currently is 22.5 %, but might be increased during review of

the Directive as part of the expected Communication on a Circular Economy. The Directive covers all

packaging placed on the European market and all packaging waste, whether it is used or released at

industrial, commercial, office, shop, service, household or any other level, regardless of the material used.

Stakeholders at the level of waste generation include:

• Households: Private consumers have different possibilities to discard their plastic packaging waste,

depending on the local collection systems available (see 3.2.2 for more details):

o Discard with municipal collection of residual waste

o Discard with some form of separate collection system, organised by a producer responsibility

organisation in cooperation with public and private actors

o Discard at a municipal collection centre

• Small businesses, e.g. catering: As food and drink packaging is one of the main applications of plastic

packaging, restaurants and catering businesses are important producers of plastic packaging waste.

In principle, they have to make use of private waste collection companies to discard their plastic

packaging waste, although small businesses often also make use of municipal collection systems.

• Retailers: during the distribution of goods, secondary plastic packaging waste arises. This waste is

collected by private waste management companies. In this context, reusable packaging solutions are

common as well, as regular transportation between the same partners in a business-to-business

setting provides the right conditions to set up reuse systems. This significantly increases the useful

lifetime of packaging, but eventually also this packaging (crates, pallets) becomes waste that is

handed over to private waste management companies.

4 The target is actually a collection target, as the rate is measured at the input of the recycling system, and not at the

output.


value chain


Producer Responsibility Organisations

Producer Responsibility Organisation, i.e. a collective entity set up by producers or through legislation, which

becomes responsible for meeting the recovery and recycling obligations of the individual producers.

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) concept is an environmental policy approach in which a

producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. EPR,

as a principle of product policy, was introduced in legislative acts in the early 1990s to address the life-cycle

issues of products, using a target-oriented approach, instead of traditional command-and-control type

regulation5.

At EU level, for 3 product categories, ELVs, WEEE and batteries, EPR is introduced as a policy approach,

respectively in the ELV Directive 2000/53/EC, the (new) WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU and the Batteries

Directive 2006/66/EC. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC) does not impose EPR

explicitly, although it is widely used in the context of the implementation of this Directive. Also the Waste

Framework Directive (2008/98, Article 8) includes a clause related to the implementation of EPR by the

European Member States.

The EPR policy is characterised by the provision of incentives to producers to take into account

environmental considerations when designing their products. As the OECD6 puts it, “while other policy

instruments tend to target a single point in the chain, EPR seeks to integrate signals related to the

environmental characteristics of products and production processes throughout the product chain”.

Plastics Recyclers

Mechanical recycling refers to the processing of waste plastics by physical preparation and conversion means

(grinding, shredding, melting) back to shredded or micronised plastics, new granulates, compounds, or plastic

articles. In order to mechanically recycle plastics waste, it has first to be collected, sorted, separated, washed,

ground, densified and reprocessed, before it can be admixed with virgin plastics of the same type for

producing new articles, or used on its own for alternative (usually lower value) articles. As a rule admixing to

virgin resin is necessary, in order to ensure some minimum adherence to the expected specifications, by

ensuring a reasonably predictable and constant quality.

Mechanical recycling of various plastic materials is a well-established and growing business. The mechanical

recycling sector, however, is far from being easy to define, for simple, both practical and commercial reasons.

The different main operations in the mechanical recycling chain - collection, sorting, reprocessing and the

end-use of the recycled material – are often treated holistically. In reality, the chain is composed of more or

less specialised individual operators (see Figure 7).

In general, once collected, the plastics intended for mechanical recycling are delivered to either a material

recovery facility (MRF) for sorting into single resin streams, or in order to constitute unit transport and

handling loads (often a full, single container) and thus increase product value. The sorted plastics are often

baled or else wise densified and typically shipped to reprocessors where the plastics are chopped into flakes

5 Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), European Commission – DG Environment, 2014;

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/target_review/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

6 OECD (2001) Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments, OECD, March, Paris, 164p;

http://www.oecd.org/env/waste/factsheetextendedproducerresponsibility.htm


value chain


and contaminants such as paper labels, dust, or metal are removed and/or the flakes are washed. Flakes may

also be further (re-)extruded into granules/pellets at the reprocessor, or they can be sold as flakes to the end-

users for the manufacture of new articles, depending on their customer’s requirements. Some reprocessors

may already re-compound the recycled material with additives and/or add production waste or more virgin

raw material at the re-extruding phase.

Figure 7: Plastics’ mechanical recycling

Chemical recycling (feedstock recycling) refers to operations that aim to chemically degrade the collected

plastics waste into its monomers or other basic chemicals. The output may be reused for polymerisation into

new plastics, for production of other chemicals or as an alternative fuel.

Examples of mechanical recycling of post-consumer plastics waste7:

• Collection and grinding of sorted, clean PP crates and blending of the regrind with virgin polymer to

mould new crates;

• Collection of PE-LD films used in agriculture and industrial packaging, pre-washing, grinding,

washing, separating, drying and melt-filtration/re-granulation and processing into refuse bags;

• Collection and sorting of PET bottles used for drinks packaging, grinding, washing, separating, drying

and processing into polyester fibres, sheets or containers

Plastics Converters

Plastics converters (sometimes called "Processors") manufacture plastics semi-finished and finished products

for an extremely wide range of industrial and consumer markets. Raw materials for the plastic converting

industry include both virgin plastics, provided by large chemical companies which are transforming a carbon

based material into a polymer by a polymerisation process, as well as recycled plastics from plastic recyclers.

Plastics converters buy in raw material in granular or powder form, subject it to a process involving pressure,

heat and/or chemistry and apply design expertise to manufacture their products. They often undertake

additional finishing operations such as printing and assembly work to add further value to their activities.

7 http://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/plastic-recycling-industry-europe

Collection

- consumer

Sorting

(MRF / handler)

Reprocessing

(reprocessor)End-user

Collection

- distribution

-industrial


value chain


5.2.2 Operations8

Waste generation

In 2012 in total about 25.2 Mton of plastic waste was generated, 63 % or 15.9 Mton of this being plastic

packaging waste. For future years, the amount of generated plastic packaging waste is expected to grow

annually about 1.0 %, resulting in projected plastic packaging waste amounts of 17.2 Mton and 18.1 Mton for

2020 and 2025 respectively.

Currently the recyclable share9 of plastic packaging is about 76 %. For future scenarios, higher recyclability

rates (80-85 %) can be assumed taking into account potential ongoing eco-design improvements.

Collection

There are different collection systems in EU Member States (MS) for collecting packaging waste, including

kerbside collection, bring site collection, deposit/refund systems, recycling centres, civic amenity sites and

privately organised on-site collection for the industrial and commercial sector.

The collection systems are generally influenced by different local legislative and economic parameters and

even within one single MS there could be different collection schemes in the different regions or cities, while

sometimes parallel collection systems co-exist in a same place.

Recyclable plastics are collected in different ways that may include:

- separate collection as a single stream,

- mixed collection with other similar recyclables (e.g. light packaging),

- mixed collection with all dry recyclables (e.g. paper, glass, etc.), and

- mixed collection with residual waste.

A screening of all collection systems in EU MS in order to identify the most prominent collection schemes

which are used most often in the EU for the collection of plastic recyclables concluded that in the EU

(especially among the 7 MS with the higher plastic waste generation) plastic packaging waste is mostly

collected either with other light packaging materials and separately from paper and glass, or together with all

packaging including paper and cardboard, but still without glass.

In 2012 the separate collection rate of plastic packaging waste in the EU was 41%, or 6.5 Mton. The remaining

9.4 Mton of plastic packaging waste was landfilled or incinerated with energy recovery.

Pre-treatment/Sorting

The goal of pre-treatment and sorting is to separate the different plastic resin types and to remove

impurities. Process efficiencies are generally high (on average 82%, from 75% for household packaging waste

to 95% for commercial/industrial packaging waste).

8 Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment, PRE, 2015;

http://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/sites/default/files/BIO_Deloitte_PRE_Plastics%20Recycling%20Impact_Assesment_Fin

al%20Report.pdf

9 This refers to the share of theoretically possible recyclable pastic waste in the plastic packaging waste stream. The

recyclability of plastics depends on several parameters, primarily on the type of plastic resin or the mix of resins in

composite products, and on the technologies available for recycling.


value chain


Ultimately, 34% of collected plastic packaging waste arrives at recycling facilities (5.4 Mton), meaning that

7% (1.1 Mton) of the collected waste is lost during pre-treatment and sorting. This waste is diverted into

landfilling or incineration with energy recovery.

Processing

The actual recycling of plastic packaging waste consists of a combination of sorting, cleaning, grinding and

melting steps, depending on the type of plastic resin. The recycling yield for plastic packaging waste is on

average 73% (plus by-products), leading to 3.9 Mton of plastic packaging waste being recycled in 2012. This is

an average over all plastic resins contained in plastic packaging waste. Recycling efficiencies for different

resin types are shown in the table below. The residual waste is diverted to landfilling or incineration with

energy recovery.

Table 2: Recycling yield by plastic resin

5.2.3 Products

The output of the recycling process consists of pellets, agglomerates, regrind, flakes and other recyclates

depending on the type of resin. These plastics secondary raw materials can be converted by plastics

converters into products, in the same way primary plastic raw materials are converted into products.

In some cases, the recycled resin can be used in the original packaging application (e.g. PET in beverage

containers), but technical or legislative requirements can limit this closed loop recycling. In the case of food

packaging, food safety regulations do not always allow the use of recycled plastics. Therefore, recycled

plastics from packaging waste are commonly used for other product types. In many cases, this means

downcycling compared to the original application, although examples of recycling exist as well.


value chain


6 DEFINITION OF BOTTLENECKS

The overall objective of the analyses of the value chain bottlenecks in the NEW_InnoNET project (work

package 2) is to create the basis for roadmaps and a strategic research and innovation agenda by evaluating

where and how the change towards near zero-waste value chains and circular economy can be made by

overcoming the major bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are defined as factors that limit the performance and

efficiency of the value chain and thus prevent or limit the move towards a near zero-waste value chain and

circular economy. The bottlenecks can be either technical or non-technical (financial, organizational,

legislative or societal) in nature.

Bottlenecks are described comprehensively and explicitly in such manner that their effect on the whole

performance of the value chain can be detected. Therefore, in the bottleneck description a deeper definition

of which things causes the bottleneck (cause and effect) are requisite. The description includes:

- The name of the bottleneck;

- The reason why is it a bottleneck;

- A description of what an affect it has on the value chain (with respect to the objectives of the

project).

The bottleneck analysis and corresponding (to be developed) roadmaps should provide regional, national and

European policy makers with relevant prove of how recycling could be improved by actors in the value chain

in order to be able to provide an evidence base to develop a near-zero waste roadmap and strategic research

and innovation agenda.

The bottlenecks identified for the plastics packaging waste value chain are listed in

Table 3.

These bottlenecks have been identified through an iteration of brainstorm sessions with representatives of

PRE, EuPC and VITO involved in the NEW_InnoNET project.

Increasing targets for recycling or bans for landfilling of recyclable materials (and other policy measures) are

not included in the bottleneck identification as they are rather drivers or measures to support more recycling

than bottlenecks themselves. Such policy measures can be drivers for industry to invest in more appropriate

infrastructure and can initiate additional recycling, but they cannot be considered a bottleneck for recycling

as they do not hamper industry in recycling more.

Besides the name, the reason and the effects also a possible solution to overcome the bottleneck and an

approach to analyse the potential of overcoming the bottleneck are included.


value chain


Table 3: Identified bottlenecks for the plastic value chain

No. Name of the bottleneck Reasons for the

bottleneck

Effects of the bottleneck on

the value chain

Possible

solution

Approach Potential

Analysis

1 Limited source separation

of plastic packaging waste

No or inappropriate

systems for source

separation of plastic

packaging are in place

Recyclable plastics end up in

residual waste stream and are

diverted to the corresponding

treatments

(disposal/incineration)

Implement source

separation for all

plastic packaging

waste

All recyclable (80%)

plastic packaging waste

in recycling value chain

2 ‘Bad’ product design Product design not

adapted to current

technologies for

sorting/separating

materials; use of

composite materials

Plastics technically or

economically not fit for

recycling, leading to loss of

material value

Improve product

design for recycling

Increased pre-

treatment yield from

82 to 86%

3 Export of plastic

packaging waste for

recycling outside EU

Lower costs for recycling

(because of lower human

and environmental

standards)

Added value of recycling of

plastic packaging leaving EU

Limit export outside

EU

Export to zero


value chain


No. Name of the bottleneck Reasons for the

bottleneck

Effects of the bottleneck on

the value chain

Possible

solution

Approach Potential

Analysis

4 Performance of

separation/sorting

technology:

- High cost

- Technology not able

to sort new packaging

product designs

- Presence of unwanted

substances in the

plastic waste streams

(flame retardants,

additives (Cd, Pb,…)

Product development goes

faster than sorting

technology development

Part of the plastic packaging

waste ending up in disposal or

incineration

Better separation

technologies

The automatic

sorting technology

has been developing

enormously in the

past years. But it

should further

improve in order to

be more precise and

reduce the

investment costs.

Increased pre-

treatment yield from

82 to 86%

5 Performance of recycling

technology

The recycling technology

did not evolve drastically

over the past decades.

Important developments

are needed in order to

improve the washing

efficiency and the related

costs.

Part of the plastic packaging

waste ending up in disposal or

incineration

Better recycling

technologies

Increased recycling

yield from 73 to 78%


value chain


Additional to the bottlenecks listed in the table above, other obstacles are inventoried:

- Lack of common calculation methodology to calculate EU recycling targets, including more

measuring points (collection, sorting & recycling) to efficiently measure the material flow;

- Supply of highly heterogeneous and/or contaminated plastics from collection leading to downcycling

and high rejection rates;

- Lack of market trust in (products containing) recycled plastics; absence of quality requirement (end of

waste criteria) for recycled plastic waste, both on supply and demand side;

- Product standards limiting the use of recycled material;

- Uneven level playing field for environmentally sound recycling plants because of not harmonized EU

legislation in Member States and regions.

For these bottleneck we were not able to quantify their potential when overcoming them.


value chain


7 ANALYSIS OF BOTTLENECKS

To calculate the potentials of taking away the bottlenecks, we start with the analysis of the actual situation,

being anno 2012. This situation is mainly based on numbers from the report ‘Increased EU plastics recycling

targets’, complemented with data from the Eurostat database on waste for the year 2012.

To compare the potentials of each bottleneck, a scenario calculation is done calculating how the current

situation would change when each of the bottlenecks are being taken away separately. To have an idea of the

potentials, one has to compare the numbers of the actual situation (on emissions, costs, etc.) with those of the

chosen scenario. Table 5 gives an overview of the assumptions we took into account to make a scenario

analysis of the different bottlenecks.

A preselection is made of criteria for bottleneck analysis representing relevant aspects of the potential.

The criteria, their measures and interpretations are given in Table 4. To best describe the bottlenecks, the

criteria were selected to cover both the economic, environmental and material efficiency effects of the

bottlenecks as follows:

Material efficiency: Losses of plastics due to the bottleneck;

Economic: Total costs and revenues of the scenario;

Employment;

Environmental: GHG emissions due to the bottleneck;

Other: Feasibility of removing the bottleneck during the next 5-10 years.


value chain


Table 4: The proposed criteria for the multiple criteria decision analysis

Criteria Measure Interpretation

Losses of plastics in the

recycling system

% The fraction of losses plastics packaging waste in the scenario

comparing to the total mass of plastic packaging waste.

The losses of plastics packaging waste in the scenario is the quantity

of plastic packaging waste that ends up in disposal sites or

incinerations plants.

Losses of plastics:

- direct disposal after collection;

- direct energy recovery, after collection;

- losses of sorting and recycling, inside and outside the EU

(pre-treatment installations and recycling installations).

The total mass plastic packaging waste is 15 876 ktonnes.

Total EU cost of the

recycling scenario per ton

recycled plastic packaging

waste

Euro/ton recycled

plastic packaging

waste

This is the ratio of the total EU cost of the recycling scenario and the

total quantity of recycled material.

The total EU cost of the recycling scenario includes the following:

• cost of collection of generated plastic packaging waste

• + cost of landfilling in the EU

• + cost of energy recovery in the EU

• + cost of pre-treatment

• + cost of recycling

• + cost of transport

These costs do not explicitly include investment costs in new or extra

pre-treatment or recycling facilities

The total quantity of recycled material is the sum of the quantity of

recycled plastics raw material from plastic packaging waste produced

inside the EU and outside the EU.

Total EU revenues of the


recycled plastic packaging

waste

Euro/ton recycled

plastic packaging

waste

This is the ratio of the total EU revenues of the recycling scenario

and the total quantity of recycled material.

The total EU revenues of the recycling scenario includes the

following:

• price recycled plastics EU

• + price exported materials outside the EU.

These costs do not explicitly include investment costs in new or extra

pre-treatment or recycling facilities

The total quantity of recycled material is the sum of the quantity of

recycled plastics raw material from plastic packaging waste produced

inside the EU and outside the EU.


value chain


Criteria Measure Interpretation

Total of GHG emissions

inside the EU due to the


waste generated

tonnes CO2

eq/ton waste

generated

This is the division of the total GHG emissions inside the EU due to

the recycling scenario and the total quantity of plastic packaging

waste generated.

Total GHG emissions inside the EU due to the recycling scenario are

the GHG emissions of:

• collection;

• + landfill in the EU;

• + energy recovery in the EU;

• + pre-treatment operations;

• + recycling inside the EU;

• + transport to landfill, energy recovery, recyclers and 50% of

transport outside the EU.

The total mass plastic packaging waste generated is 15 876 ktonnes

Employment Jobs/ton recycled Number of jobs (in the EU) per ton plastic recycled

Total jobs Number of jobs (in the EU)

Feasibility A probability estimate,

0 (not possible) – 1

(certain)

How likely the bottleneck could be realistically removed within

the next 5-10 years?

The feasibility attribute is included in order to avoid assigning

most value on alternatives that would have a high impact but

would in reality be very difficult to attain technically,

economically or even socially.

For the quantification of the criteria per bottleneck, an analysis was made of the effect/potential when the

bottleneck would be solved, including all downstream changes/consequences.

In Table 5 an overview is given of a description and the assumptions for both the reference situation (Situation

2012) and the scenario’s with one bottleneck solved.


value chain


Table 5: Overview of the different scenarios

Situation 2012 We start with the actual waste generated volume of 15 876 ktonnes. We made a flow diagram on how

the waste is treated in the value chain. Therefore we combined the numbers of the Bio-Deloitte report

on landfill, energy recovery and pre-treatment with those of Eurostat on export of sorted packaging

waste and on recycling in EU Member States.

We took into account that:

100% of the waste is collected, 20% is non-recyclable waste and goes directly to energy recovery or landfill.

After collection of waste:

• 23% of the generated waste goes direct to landfill;

• 26% of the generated waste goes direct to energy recovery;

• 52% of the generated waste is collected separated and goes to a pre-treatment installation.

Pre-treatment has a yield of 82%. From the pre-treatment output

• 20% is exported outside the EU;

• 80% is sent to a recycling plant.

• The losses go to landfill (47% of the losses) or energy recovery (53% of the losses).

Recycling has a yield of 73%.

• The recycling output is sold as recycled plastics.

• The losses go to landfill (47% of the losses) or energy recovery (53% of the losses).

For the cost of the current situation we took into account the cost prices of the Bio-Deloitte report:

• collection cost: 151 €/t;

• landfill cost: 73 €/t;

• energy recovery cost: 74 €/t;

• transport to landfill or energy recovery: 2 €/t. We count this on the total volume sent to landfill

or energy recovery (also volumes of recyclers);

• pre-treatment cost: 185 €/t;

• revenues of export of sorted materials: 288 €/t. This is the average price for sorted materials,

taking into account the composition of packaging waste. (The minimum price is 238 €/t, the

maximum price is 339 €/t).

• recycling cost: 446 €/t;

• transport to recycler: 15 €/t . We only count this one on the total input volume of the pre-

treatment installations;

• revenues recycled plastics: 748 €/t. This is the minimum price of recycled plastics, taking into

account the composition of packaging waste.

To calculate the emissions, we took into account the emissions of the BIO-Deloitte report:

• collection: 17 kg CO2 eq/t;

• landfill: 10 kg CO2 eq/t;

• energy recovery: 2 697 kg CO2 eq/t;

• transport to disposal or energy recovery: 2 kg CO2 eq/t;

• pre-treatment: 26,5 kg CO2 eq/t;

• transport outside EU: 118 kg CO2 eq/t, own estimation, based on the direct emissions of a

seaship (0.00785 kg CO2 eq /tonkm – source: Pré sustainability LCA software SimaPro), and a

distance of 15 000 km oversea. Depending on the place of the harbour, the distance can vary;

• recycling: 403 kg CO2 eq/t;

• transport to recycler: 22 kg CO2 eq/t.

We don’t have a view on the oversea’s recycling rate, therefore, we assume the recycling yield is the

same as inside the EU: 73%. We also assume a comparable fraction of the losses of recyclers is sent to

landfill (47%) and to energy recovery (53%).

As we don’t have knowledge on the recycling yields outside Europe, there is quit some uncertainty on

those numbers.


value chain


Limited source

separation of

plastic packaging

waste

When the bottleneck is solved, 100 % of the collected waste must be source separated. The non-

recyclable part (20%) will go directly to landfill (10%) or energy recovery (10%). The recyclable waste

(80% of the collected waste) will be pre-treated.

We assume that the source separation will be done by the producers of waste (households, companies,

etc.). Therefore, we assume this measure will be cost neutral.

We assume that the cost for the collection of source separated waste is the same as for non-separated

waste, as the mass of transported material will be the same. In practice this could be an underestimation

of the real cost.

Furthermore, we assume all (additional) infrastructures for collection, sorting and recycling being

available.

‘Bad’ product

design

When products are designed in a better way (design for recycling), this will increase the pre-treatment

yield. The sector assumes that better design combined with better pre-treatment operations will lead to

an increase of the pre-treatment yield with 8%. We therefore assume half of this could be allocated to

better design.

Export of plastic

packaging waste for

recycling outside

EU

The export of sorted plastic packaging waste outside the EU is stopped. The value of sorted plastic

waste is kept inside the EU, and all plastic packaging waste is recycled in EU.

The costs and benefits for recycling inside or outside the EU are the same (as we do not have any more

accurate information).

We assume all (additional) infrastructures for collection, sorting and recycling being available.

As we all recycling operations take place inside the EU, there will be a better view on the recycling

volumes and rates. Therefore the uncertainty on the numbers in the scenario will be lower.

Performance of

separation/sorting

technology

The sector assumes that better design combined with better pre-treatment operations will lead to an

increase of the pre-treatment yield with 8%. We therefore assume half of this could be allocated to

better design and half to more efficient pre-treatment. This results in a pre-treatment yield of 86%

instead of 82% in the current situation.

Based on expert judgement we assume that

• the cost of the pre-treatment would increase with 2% due to extra infrastructure: pre-

treatment cost: 188.7 €/t;

• the GHG emissions increase with 1%: GHG emission of pre-treatment: 26.8 kg CO2 eq/t.

Motivation for the assumptions:

- in case of free market, the increase in cost price of the recycling yield must be lower than the

increase in amount of pre-treated materials, otherwise it is not economical feasible.

- in case good technology, the impact of better pre-treatment on the GHG emissions must be as

low as possible.

Performance of

recycling

technology

Sector experts assume an increase in recycling efficiency of maximum 5% (from 73% to 78%). We

assume the recycling yield outside Europe will stay the same (73%).

Based on expert judgement we assume that

• the cost of the recycling would increase with 3% due to extra infrastructure: recycling cost:

459,4 €/t;

• the GHG emissions increase with 2%: GHG emission recycling: 411.1 kg CO2 eq/t.

Motivation for the assumptions:

- in case of free market, the increase in cost price of the recycling yield must be lower than the

increase in amount of pre-treated materials, otherwise it is not economical feasible;

- in case good technology, the impact of better recycling on the GHG emissions must be as low

as possible.

Combination 1 Increased pre-treatment yield from 82 to 90% (due to a combination of a better design and a better pre-

treatment yield) + Increased recycling yield of the recycling yield inside Europe to 78%.

(= ‘Performance of separation/sorting technology’ + ‘Performance of recycling technology’)


value chain


Combination 2 When different bottlenecks are solved:

• source separation of plastic packaging waste;

• increased pre-treatment yield with 4% due to better design;

• increased pre-treatment yield with 4% due to better pre-treatment;

increased recycling yield



• increased pre-treatment yield with 4% due to better design;

• increased pre-treatment yield with 4% due to better pre-treatment;

• increased recycling yield;

• export stop.



• export stop.

For each of these scenario’s the potential related to the described criteria is quantified in Table 6, Table 7 and

Table 8, respectively providing a summary of the impact of the scenarios on the criteria, quantification of the

impacts of the scenarios for solving an individual bottleneck and quantification of the impacts of the

scenarios for solving a combination of bottlenecks (called combined scenarios).

Table 6: Summary of the differences between the current situation (2012) and the scenarios

impact on the quantity of

recycled materials

impact on the costs impact on the GHG emissions

Limited source separation of

plastic packaging waste

100% of the generated waste

will be pre-treated • no impact on the working

cost

• abstraction is made of

the investment costs

no difference

‘Bad’ product design increase of the pre-treatment

yield with 4%

no impact no impact

Export of plastic packaging

waste for recycling outside EU

100% of the pre-treatment

output stays in the EU • no impact on the working

cost

• abstraction is made of

the investment costs

no difference

Performance of

separation/sorting technology

increase of the pre-treatment

yield with 4%

increase of the pre-treatment

costs with 2%

increase of the GHG emissions

of pre-treatment with 1%


technology

increase of the recycling yield

with 5% inside the EU

increase of the recycling costs

inside the EU with 3%

increase of the GHG emissions

of recycling in the EU with 2%

NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D 2.4_ Report summarising the analysis of the plastic packaging value chain | of 30

Analysis of the plastic

packaging value chain

HORIZON 2020 | CSA| WASTE-4a-2014I Grant Agreement No. 642231

Table 7: Criteria analysis of the bottlenecks

Losses of plastics

in the recycling

system

Total EU cost of

the recycling

scenario

Total EU

revenues

GHG emissions

inside the EU Employment

Feasibility for

solving the

bottleneck10


kg CO2 eq/ton

waste generated

Jobs/ton

recycled Total jobs high (5), low (1)

Situation 2012 69% 1.474 676 1.143 79,5 30.979 -

Limited source

separation of plastic

packaging waste

52% 1.212 678 955 78,0 47.244 3

‘Bad’ product design 68% 1.425 676 1.126 77,6 31.735 1

Export of plastic

packaging waste for

recycling outside EU

69% 1.604 748 1.206 71,7 35.111 1

Performance of

separation/sorting

technology

68% 1.430 676 1.127 77,6 31.735 4


technology 67% 1.408 679 1.121 74,3 30.952 5


value chain


Table 8: Combined scenarios

Losses of plastics

in the recycling

system

Total EU cost of

the recycling

scenario

Total EU

revenues

GHG emissions

inside the EU Employment


kg CO2 eq/ton

waste generated

Jobs/ton

recycled Total jobs

Combination 1 64% 1.321 679 1.087 71,0 32.461

Combination 2 64% 1.428 748 1.150 64,4 36.989

Combination 3 45% 1.094 679 868 69,8 49.547

Combination 4 44% 1.204 748 966 63,5 56 580

analysis of the plastic packaging value chain - … of the plastic... · · 2016-09-07title :...

Documents